AFAC Logo AFAC Logo

 

spacer

header
AFAC Logo AFAC Logo  
HomeContact AFACAbout AFACAFAC Programs & ServicesIndustry LinksSite Map
Spacer
 
research

Livestock Welfare INSIGHTS Issue 5 - Jan 04
OXYMORON OR ACCEPTABLE PRACTICEHUMANE TRANSPORTATION OF 'DOWNERS'
"NON-AMBULATORY ANIMALS ARE CONTROVERSIAL EXAMPLE OF AT RISK ANIMALS. There is no common understanding of whether or not they are fit for transport,” says Dr. Gord Doonan, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Chief, Humane Transportation of Animals. CFIA is conducting a nonambulatory livestock consultation to develop criteria on what constitutes ‘unfit for transport.’ In Alberta, downers are defined as, “an animal that cannot rise, remain standing, or walk without assistance.”
truck

The Federal Health of Animals Act prohibits the loading and transport of animals that “by reason of infirmity, illness, injury, fatigue, or any other cause cannot be transported without undue suffering during the expected journey.”

There is a wide range of opinion on the acceptability of loading an animal whose capacity to withstand the stress of transportation is in some way compromised. Conflicting views among and within the various sectors and organizations have led to inconsistent decisions and practices.

Dr. Duane Landals, Registrar of the Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, says, “The most humane method of handling non-ambulatory animals is to kill them on-farm. Shipping sick animals is never acceptable, but some injured animals can be transported if proper safeguards are followed [e.g., deep bedding, segregated].” The key is loading – can a downed animal be loaded humanely?

“No one can ever load a downer humanely,” says Dr. Terry Whiting, Epidemiologist Manitoba Agriculture. “The act of loading is the HACCP control point of animal welfare. We need to balance our purpose for an animal [food] versus its own interests.” Dr. Whiting suggests that animal welfare and utilitarian principles must be balanced so that we may “survive the public criticism of animal agriculture.”

A recent Canadian Veterinary Journal (CVJ) article on non-ambulatory livestock transport says, “It is simply impossible to move mature non-ambulatory livestock humanely, no matter how close to the slaughter plant. Early treatment, onfarm slaughter, or euthanasia should be the course of action to deal with these animals.”1

Economically it is also difficult to justify transporting most downers. A CFIA survey found that almost four out of 10 non-ambulatory dairy cows could not pass inspection for human consumption. “Considering the extra time and labor involved from initial loading through to processing at the slaughter plant, industry must ask whether it really pays to ship, transport, and accept these animals. It seems that ‘economic pressure’ is a weak argument for subjecting a sizeable portion of downer animals to the additional stress of transportation,” according to the CVJ article.

In Alberta, the Livestock Transportation Regs state, “No shipper or operator shall load or transport livestock that, by reason of infirmity, illness, injury, fatigue or any other cause, would suffer unduly during transport.” However, an exception is made for livestock being transported to a veterinary clinic or directly to slaughter, “as long as the livestock is loaded and transported humanely.”

The Alberta SPCA investigated how the downer cow in Canada’s single case of BSE was transported and found that an effort had been made to ship her humanely. Morris Airey, Director of Enforcement for the Alberta SPCA, says, “Under the current legislation an offense was not committed.” Alberta’s livestock industry is currently addressing this exception in the Regulations seeking to make it illegal to ship downers to slaughter.

Alberta Pork, Alberta Milk and the Alberta Beef Producers are setting the bar higher with humane handling guidelines for each industry. The livestock organizations and others in Alberta have taken the stand that downers should not be loaded or transported. They should be humanely killed on-farm.

Ontario’s Transporting Non-Ambulatory Animals Regulations under the Livestock and Livestock Products Act states that a veterinarian must issue a certificate for direct transport to slaughter for downer animals. Mike Draper, Chief Inspector OSPCA, says, “A veterinarian has to certify that transport can be done humanely.” Otherwise, the animal must be humanely killed on-farm. However, no one oversees transporters to ensure that they have the appropriate equipment and training to handle non-ambulatory livestock. In addition, criticisms have arisen regarding transportation certificates being issued for animals with debilitating conditions.

Constable Airey says that while the Alberta SPCA supports the concept of no downers being transported, “We still need to ensure that these animals are dealt with humanely and in a timely fashion on-farm.”

DOWNER TRANSPORT INTERNATIONALLY

United States

USDA is proposing that all non-ambulatory disabled cattle presented for slaughter be condemned for human consumption.

Non-ambulatory disabled livestock are ‘livestock that cannot rise from a recumbent position or that cannot walk, including, but not limited to those with broken appendages, severed tendons or ligaments, nerve paralysis, fractured vertebral column, or metabolic conditions.’

Note: These changes to the Meat Inspection Regulations do not prohibit the transport of non-ambulatory or downer cattle, but ensure that such animals do not enter the human food chain. www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/news/2004/bseregs.htm

Europe

A proposed Council Regulation on the protection of animals during transport and related operations would define ‘fitness for transport’ and ban the transport of animals deemed unfit. “Animals that are injured or that present physiological weaknesses or pathological processes shall not be considered fit for transport.” This includes animals that are “unable to move independently without pain or to walk unassisted,” and animals with severe open wounds or prolapses.

All member states of the EU would have to comply with the new Council Regulation.

________
1 Can Vet Journal Volume 44, August 2003

top