FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Assessment of Donkey (Equus asinus) Welfare at Slaughter in ...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2024; 14(24); 3673; doi: 10.3390/ani14243673

Assessment of Donkey (Equus asinus) Welfare at Slaughter in Ghana.

Abstract: Donkey slaughter in West Africa has received limited scientific attention, despite increasing over recent years. This study aimed to explore factors affecting donkey welfare, both ante-mortem and at slaughter, in the Upper East region of Ghana. A total of 134 donkeys at five different slaughter points were assessed using animal-based indicators. Slaughter involved either blunt force trauma (BFT) using a wooden pole (1 location) or a metal hammer (2 locations); or non-stun ventral neck incision (VNI) (2 locations). Time to loss of consciousness (or return) was assessed, with behavioural and brainstem signs of sensibility/consciousness. Negative human-animal interactions occurred ante-mortem, with animals struck multiple times and handled using aversive methods. Donkeys hit on the head with the wooden pole were five times more likely to be ineffectively concussed ( < 0.001, OR: 5.4, CI: 1.9-15.4) compared to the hammer and took significantly longer to lose consciousness ( < 0.001). The mean time to loss of corneal reflex for those hit by wooden pole was 166.9 s (SD 21.1; range: 79-425 s), compared to just one animal displaying corneal reflex for 59 s after being hit by metal hammer. For those animals slaughtered through VNI, corneal reflex was observed for a mean time of 96.5 s (SD 4.3, range 26-164 s). The findings of this study highlight major concerns regarding the methods used for donkey slaughter in the Upper East region in Ghana, particularly regarding aversive ante-mortem handling and prolonged time to loss of consciousness during VNI and ineffective BFT in inducing unconsciousness by concussion.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-12-19 PubMed ID: 39765577PubMed Central: PMC11672695DOI: 10.3390/ani14243673Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research article investigates the conditions of donkey slaughter in the Upper East region of Ghana, focusing on the factors affecting the welfare of animals both prior to and during slaughter. The study’s key findings indicate severe welfare concerns, notably regarding brutal handling practices and the extended duration for loss of consciousness during certain slaughter methods.

Research Context and Approach

  • The study underscored the issue of donkey slaughter, which has not been scientifically scrutinized enough in West Africa despite its growing prevalence. The researchers aimed to shed light on factors impacting donkey welfare in the Upper East region of Ghana.
  • A total of 134 donkeys were observed at five different slaughter points. All observations were recorded using animal-based indicators, ensuring a focus on the animals’ welfare.

Slaughter Procedures

  • The slaughters involved either blunt force trauma (BFT), achieved using a wooden pole or a metal hammer, or non-stun ventral neck incision (VNI). The time taken for the animal to lose consciousness, as well as behavioral and brainstem indications of sensibility/consciousness, was noted and analyzed.

Findings: Ante-mortem Donkey Welfare

  • Negative human-animal interactions were observed prior to the slaughter. Animals were struck multiple times and handled using brutal methods that contributed to them experiencing fear and unnecessary stress.

Findings: Slaughter Conditions

  • Donkeys slaughtered with the wooden pole were discovered to be five times more likely than those hit with a hammer to be ineffectively stunned and took significantly longer to lose consciousness.
  • The average time to loss of corneal reflex for those slaughtered by a wooden pole was approximately 167 seconds. In contrast, just one animal displayed corneal reflex for about 59 seconds when slaughtered with a metal hammer.
  • In cases where VNI was used, the animals displayed corneal reflex for an average of 96.5 seconds, implying a prolonged period of consciousness and probable suffering during the procedure.

Conclusion and Implications

  • The report’s findings emphasize significant concerns about the methods utilized for donkey slaughter in Ghana’s Upper East region, especially in relation to brutal handling prior to slaughter and extended periods before loss of consciousness during the act of slaughtering.
  • The research suggests a necessity for more humane slaughter methods and improved treatment of the donkeys in the periods leading up to their slaughter.

Cite This Article

APA
Fletcher K, Limon G, Agongo E, Akunzule A, Essel G, Padalino B, Grist A, Gibson TJ. (2024). Assessment of Donkey (Equus asinus) Welfare at Slaughter in Ghana. Animals (Basel), 14(24), 3673. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14243673

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 14
Issue: 24
PII: 3673

Researcher Affiliations

Fletcher, Katharine
  • Animal Welfare Science and Ethics Group, Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield AL9 7TA, UK.
Limon, Georgina
  • Veterinary Epidemiology, Economics and Public Health Group, Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield AL9 7TA, UK.
  • The Pirbright Institute, Woking GU24 0NF, UK.
Agongo, Eric
  • Ghana Poultry Network (GAPNET)/Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Accra P.O. Box CT 5505, Ghana.
Akunzule, Anthony
  • Ghana Poultry Network (GAPNET)/Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Accra P.O. Box CT 5505, Ghana.
Essel, Gloria
  • Ghana Poultry Network (GAPNET)/Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Accra P.O. Box CT 5505, Ghana.
Padalino, Barbara
  • Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale Giuseppe Fanin 46, 40127 Bologna, Italy.
  • Faculty of Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia.
Grist, Andrew
  • Animal Welfare and Behaviour Group, School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford BS40 5DU, UK.
Gibson, Troy John
  • Animal Welfare Science and Ethics Group, Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield AL9 7TA, UK.

Grant Funding

  • NA / World Horse Welfare

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

This article includes 64 references
  1. Food and Agricultural Organization Statistical Database: Live Animals. 2024. [(accessed on 25 September 2024)]. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data.
  2. Bennett R, Pfuderer S. Demand for donkey hides and implications for global donkey populations. Proceedings of the 93rd Annual Conference; Coventry, UK. 15–17 April 2019.
    doi: 10.22004/AG.ECON.289683google scholar: lookup
  3. Johnston L.A. China, Africa, and the Market for Donkeys: Sample of Ejiao’s Bitter Aftertaste in Africa. 2024.
  4. Norris S.L, Little H.A, Ryding J, Raw Z. Global donkey and mule populations: Figures and trends. PLoS ONE 2021;16:e0247830.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247830pmc: PMC7906361pubmed: 33630957google scholar: lookup
  5. Donkey Sanctuary. Donkeys in Global Trade. 2024. [(accessed on 2 August 2024)]. Available online: https://www.thedonkeysanctuary.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-06/donkeys-in-global-trade-wildlife-crime-welfare-biosecurity-and-the-impact-on-women-briefing-2024.pdf.
  6. Maggs H.C, Ainslie A, Bennett R.M. The value of donkeys to livelihood provision in northern Ghana. PLoS ONE 2023;18:e0274337.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274337pmc: PMC9946234pubmed: 36812238google scholar: lookup
  7. Mogre J.W.S, Adzitey F, Teye G.A, Birteeb P.T. Cattle transporters’ attitudes, indigenous knowledge, and current practices towards animal welfare, occupational well-being, and operational challenges: A survey of five regions in Ghana. Heliyon 2024;10:e27317.
    doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27317pmc: PMC10945195pubmed: 38500988google scholar: lookup
  8. Njoga E.O, Ilo S.U, Nwobi O.C, Onwumere-Idolor O.S, Ajibo F.E, Okoli C.E, Jaja I.F, Oguttu J.W. Pre-slaughter, slaughter and post-slaughter practices of slaughterhouse workers in Southeast, Nigeria: Animal welfare, meat quality, food safety and public health implications. PLoS ONE 2023;18:e0282418.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282418pmc: PMC9983863pubmed: 36867613google scholar: lookup
  9. Lemma M, Mulema A, Kinati W, Wieland B. Transforming Gender Relations and Reducing Risk of Zoonotic Diseases Among Small Ruminant Farmers in the Highlands of Ethiopia: A Guide for Community Conversation Facilitators. CGIAR; Nairobi, Kenya: 2018.
  10. Ressel L, Hetzel U, Ricci E. Blunt Force Trauma in Veterinary Forensic Pathology. Vet. Pathol. 2016;53:941–961.
    doi: 10.1177/0300985816653988pubmed: 27381403google scholar: lookup
  11. Walsh J.L, Percival A, Turner P.V. Efficacy of blunt force trauma, a novel mechanical cervical dislocation device, and a non-penetrating captive bolt device for on-farm euthanasia of pre-weaned kits, growers, and adult commercial meat rabbits. Animals 2017;7:100.
    doi: 10.3390/ani7120100pmc: PMC5742794pubmed: 29244782google scholar: lookup
  12. Li X, Zito S, Sinclair M, Phillips C.J.C. Perception of animal welfare issues during Chinese transport and slaughter of livestock by a sample of stakeholders in the industry. PLoS ONE 2018;13:e0197028.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197028pmc: PMC6014659pubmed: 29933370google scholar: lookup
  13. Sinclair M, Hötzel M.J, Lee N.Y.P, de Luna M.C.T, Sharma A, Idris M, Islam M.A, Iyasere O.S, Navarro G, Ahmed A.A. Animal welfare at slaughter: Perceptions and knowledge across cultures. Front. Anim. Sci. 2023;4:1141789.
    doi: 10.3389/fanim.2023.1141789google scholar: lookup
  14. Terlouw E.C, Le Neindre P. Consciousness in farm animals and the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of slaughter techniques. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2024;56:101358.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2024.101358google scholar: lookup
  15. Gibson T, Johnson C, Murrell J, Mitchinson S, Stafford K, Mellor D. Electroencephalographic responses to concussive non-penetrative captive-bolt stunning in halothane-anaesthetised calves. N. Z. Vet. J. 2009;57:90–95.
    doi: 10.1080/00480169.2009.36884pubmed: 19471327google scholar: lookup
  16. Zulkifli I, Goh Y.M, Norbaiyah B, Sazili A.Q, Lotfi M, Soleimani A.F, Small A.H. Changes in blood parameters and electroencephalogram of cattle as affected by different stunning and slaughter methods in cattle. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2014;54:187–193.
    doi: 10.1071/AN12128google scholar: lookup
  17. Johnson C.B, Mellor D.J, Hemsworth P.H, Fisher A.D. A scientific comment on the welfare of domesticated ruminants slaughtered without stunning. N. Z. Vet. J. 2015;63:58–65.
    doi: 10.1080/00480169.2014.964345pubmed: 25238631google scholar: lookup
  18. Fletcher K.A, Limon G, Whatford L.J, Grist A, Knowles T.G, Gibson T.J. A systematic review of equid welfare at slaughter. Livest. Sci. 2022;263:104988.
    doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2022.104988google scholar: lookup
  19. World Organisation for Animal Health. Terrestrial Animal Health Code. WHO; Geneva, Switzerland: 2021.
  20. Fletcher K.A, Padalino B, Felici M, Bigi D, Limon G, Grist A, Gibson T.J. Assessment of ante-mortem welfare indicators and the pathophysiology of captive bolt trauma in equids at slaughter. Anim. Welf. 2024 under review.
  21. Carroll C.L, Huntington P.J. Body condition scoring and weight estimation of horses. Equine Vet. J. 1988;20:41–45.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1988.tb01451.xpubmed: 3366105google scholar: lookup
  22. Regan F.H, Hockenhull J, Pritchard J.C, Waterman-Pearson A.E, Whay H.R. Behavioural repertoire of working donkeys and consistency of behaviour over time, as a preliminary step towards identifying pain-related behaviours. PLoS ONE 2014;9:e0101877.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101877pmc: PMC4116118pubmed: 25076209google scholar: lookup
  23. Dai F, Mazzola S, Cannas S, Heinzl E.U.L, Padalino B, Minero M, Dalla Costa E. Habituation to transport helps reducing stress-related behavior in donkeys during loading. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020;7:593138.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.593138pmc: PMC7744657pubmed: 33344531google scholar: lookup
  24. Ayala M.D, Carrillo A, Iniesta P, Ferrer P. Pilot study of the influence of equine assisted therapy on physiological and behavioral parameters related to welfare of horses and patients. Animals 2021;11:3527.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11123527pmc: PMC8698107pubmed: 34944303google scholar: lookup
  25. Torcivia C, McDonnell S. Equine Discomfort Ethogram. Animals 2021;11:580.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11020580pmc: PMC7931104pubmed: 33672338google scholar: lookup
  26. Jaeger E.E. Reward Preferences in Domestic Horses (Equus caballus). Master’s Thesis. CUNY Hunter College; New York, NY, USA: 2017.
  27. Pearson G, Waran N, Reardon R.J.M, Keen J, Dwyer C. A Delphi study to determine expert consensus on the behavioural indicators of stress in horses undergoing veterinary care. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021;237:105291.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105291google scholar: lookup
  28. Fenner K, Yoon S, White P, Starling M, McGreevy P. The Effect of Noseband Tightening on Horses’ Behavior, Eye Temperature, and Cardiac Responses. PLoS ONE 2016;11:e0154179.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154179pmc: PMC4854461pubmed: 27140187google scholar: lookup
  29. Felici M, Nanni Costa L, Zappaterra M, Bozzo G, Di Pinto P, Minero M, Padalino B. Journeys, Journey Conditions, and Welfare Assessment of Broken (Handled) Horses on Arrival at Italian Slaughterhouses. Animals 2022;12:3122.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12223122pmc: PMC9686993pubmed: 36428350google scholar: lookup
  30. Burn C.C, Dennison T.L, Whay H.R. Relationships between behaviour and health in working horses, donkeys, and mules in developing countries. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010;126:109–118.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.06.007google scholar: lookup
  31. Hultgren J, Wiberg S, Berg C, Cvek K, Lunner Kolstrup C. Cattle behaviours and stockperson actions related to impaired animal welfare at Swedish slaughter plants. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014;152:23–37.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.12.005google scholar: lookup
  32. Waiblinger S, Menke C, Coleman G. The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002;79:195–219.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00155-7google scholar: lookup
  33. Huertas S.M, Kempener R.E.A.M, van Eerdenburg F.J.C.M. Relationship between Methods of Loading and Unloading, Carcass Bruising, and Animal Welfare in the Transportation of Extensively Reared Beef Cattle. Animals 2018;8:119.
    doi: 10.3390/ani8070119pmc: PMC6071148pubmed: 30018193google scholar: lookup
  34. HSA. Captive-Bolt Stunning of Livestock. 2013.
  35. Gibson T.J, Bedford E.M, Chancellor N.M, Limon G. Pathophysiology of free-bullet slaughter of horses and ponies. Meat Sci. 2015;108:120–124.
    doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.06.007pubmed: 26093383google scholar: lookup
  36. Agegnehu A, Abebaw G, Nejash A. Health and welfare status of donkeys in and around Hawassa Town, Southern Ethiopia. J. Vet. Med. Anim. Health. 2017;9:300–312.
    doi: 10.5897/JVMAH2017.0617google scholar: lookup
  37. Mshelia P.W, Aji H.M, Akinniyi O.O, Edeh R.E. Welfare Assessment of Pack Donkeys in Amaru, Zaria Ancient City, Kaduna State, Nigeria. Folia Vet. 2023;67:42–50.
    doi: 10.2478/fv-2023-0016google scholar: lookup
  38. Chaburte C, Endabu B, Getahun F, Fanta A, Asefa Z, Aragaw K. Health and welfare problems of pack donkeys and cart horses in and around Holeta town, Walmara district, Central Ethiopia. J. Vet. Med. Anim. Health. 2019;11:17–25.
    doi: 10.5897/jvmah2017.0647google scholar: lookup
  39. McLean A.K, Heleski C.R, Yokoyama M.T, Wang W, Doumbia A, Dembele B. Improving working donkey (Equus asinus) welfare and management in Mali, West Africa. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2012;7:123–134.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.10.004google scholar: lookup
  40. Haines A, Goliszek J. Donkey and mule behaviour for the veterinary team. UK VET Equine 2019;3:27–32.
    doi: 10.12968/ukve.2019.3.1.27google scholar: lookup
  41. Dalla Costa F.A, Gibson T.J, Oliveira S.E.O, Gregory N.G, Faucitano L, Dalla Costa O.A. On-farm culling methods used for pigs. Anim. Welf. 2021;30:507–522.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.30.3.008google scholar: lookup
  42. Hing S, Hampton J.O, Gibson T.J. Animal welfare and the killing of wildlife by captive bolt in Australia. Aust. Zool. 2019;40:170–180.
    doi: 10.7882/AZ.2018.035google scholar: lookup
  43. Flint M, Sagrera K, Wainwright K, Flint J.B. Field Based Assessment of Clinical Signs of Irreversible Loss of Consciousness and Death Confirmed by Brain Destruction in Juvenile American Alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) After Penetrating Captive Bolt Stunning or Electrostunning with Probe Pithing. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2023:1–12.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2023.2236550pubmed: 37534828google scholar: lookup
  44. Caraves M, Gallo C. Characterization and evaluation of the stunning systems used for horses in Chile. Arch. Med. Vet. 2007;39:105–113.
    doi: 10.5555/20073237856google scholar: lookup
  45. Gibson T.J, Whitehead C, Taylor R, Sykes O, Chancellor N.M, Limon G. Pathophysiology of penetrating captive bolt stunning in Alpacas (Vicugna pacos). Meat Sci. 2015;100:227–231.
    doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.10.022pubmed: 25460130google scholar: lookup
  46. Gibson T.J, Mason C.W, Spence J.Y, Barker H, Gregory N.G. Factors Affecting Penetrating Captive Bolt Gun Performance. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2014;18:222–238.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2014.980579pubmed: 25415241google scholar: lookup
  47. Sussman E.S, Pendharkar A.V, Ho A.L, Ghajar J. Mild traumatic brain injury and concussion: Terminology and classification. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2018;158:21–24.
    doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-63954-7.00003-3pubmed: 30482349google scholar: lookup
  48. Oliveira S.E.O, Dalla Costa F.A, Gibson T.J, Costa O.A.D, Coldebella A, Gregory N.G. Evaluation of brain damage resulting from penetrating and non–penetrating stunning in Nelore Cattle using pneumatically powered captive bolt guns. Meat Sci. 2018;145:347–351.
    doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.07.016pubmed: 30029088google scholar: lookup
  49. Velarde A, Dalmau A. Slaughter without stunning. Advances in Agricultural Animal Welfare: Science and Practice Elsevier; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 2017. pp. 221–240.
    doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-101215-4.00012-2google scholar: lookup
  50. Gibson T.J, Johnson C.B, Murrell J.C, Hulls C.M, Mitchinson S.L, Stafford K.J, Johnstone A.C, Mellor D.J. Electroencephalographic responses of halothane-anaesthetised calves to slaughter by ventral-neck incision without prior stunning. N. Z. Vet. J. 2009;57:77–83.
    doi: 10.1080/00480169.2009.36882pubmed: 19471325google scholar: lookup
  51. Mellor D.J, Gibson T.J, Johnson C.B. A re-evaluation of the need to stun calves prior to slaughter by ventral-neck incision: An introductory review. New Zealand Vet. J. 2009;57:74–76.
    doi: 10.1080/00480169.2009.36881pubmed: 19471324google scholar: lookup
  52. Johnson C.B, Gibson T.J, Stafford K.J, Mellor D.J. Pain perception at slaughter. Anim. Welf. 2012;21((Suppl. S2)):113–122.
    doi: 10.7120/096272812X13353700593888google scholar: lookup
  53. Terlouw E.M, Bourguet C, Deiss V, Mallet C. Origins of movements following stunning and during bleeding in cattle. Meat Sci. 2015;110:135–144.
    doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.07.010pubmed: 26225929google scholar: lookup
  54. Bozzo G, Bonerba E, Barrasso R, Roma R, Luposella F, Zizzo N, Tantillo G. Evaluation of the occurrence of false aneurysms during halal slaughtering and consequences on the animal’s state of consciousness. Animals 2020;10:1183.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10071183pmc: PMC7401542pubmed: 32668685google scholar: lookup
  55. Von Holleben K, Von Wenzlawowicz M, Gregory N, Anil H, Velarde A, Rodriguez P, Goga B.C, Catanese B, Lambooij B. Report on Good and Adverse Practices-Animal Welfare Concerns in Relation to Slaughter Practices from the Viewpoint of Veterinary Sciences. Report 2010.
  56. Gibson T.J, Dadios N, Gregory N.G. Effect of neck cut position on time to collapse in halal slaughtered cattle without stunning. Meat Sci. 2015;110:310–314.
    doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.03.026pubmed: 26264496google scholar: lookup
  57. Gregory N.G, Von Wenzlawowicz M, Von Holleben K, Fielding H.R, Gibson T.J, Mirabito L, Kolesar R. Complications during shechita and halal slaughter without stunning in cattle. Anim. Welf. 2012;21((Suppl. S2)):81–86.
    doi: 10.7120/096272812X13353700593680google scholar: lookup
  58. Kumar P, Abubakar A.A, Imlan J.C, Ahmed M.A, Goh Y.M, Kaka U, Idrus Z, Sazili A.Q. Importance of Knife Sharpness during Slaughter: Shariah and Kosher Perspective and Scientific Validation. Animals 2023;13:1751.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13111751pmc: PMC10251950pubmed: 37889669google scholar: lookup
  59. Imlan J.C, Kaka U, Goh Y.M, Idrus Z, Awad E.A, Abubakar A.A, Ahmad T, Quaza Nizamuddin H.N, Sazili A.Q. Effects of slaughter knife sharpness on blood biochemical and electroencephalogram changes in cattle. Animals 2020;10:579.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10040579pmc: PMC7222384pubmed: 32235510google scholar: lookup
  60. Zdunnek G. Child Labour and children’s Economic Activities in Agriculture in Ghana. Seminar für Ländlicke Entwicklung Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Berlin, Germany: 2009.
  61. Kellert S.R. Attitudes toward animals: Age-related development among children. In: Fox M.W., Mickley L.D., editors. Advances in Animal Welfare Science 1984/85. The Humane Society of the United States; Washington, DC, USA: 1984. pp. 43–60.
  62. Sazili A.Q, Kumar P, Hayat M.N. Stunning Compliance in Halal Slaughter: A Review of Current Scientific Knowledge. Animals 2023;13:3061.
    doi: 10.3390/ani13193061pmc: PMC10571904pubmed: 37835667google scholar: lookup
  63. Noah S.D. Prevalence of Body Injuries and Handling Practices for Slaughter Pigs and Their Association with Meat Quality in Kiamu County, Kenya. Master’s Thesis. University of Nairobi (Veterinary Public Health); Nairobi, Kenya: 2021.
  64. Wilhelmsson S, Hemsworth P.H, Andersson M, Yngvesson J, Hemsworth L, Hultgren J. Training of transport drivers improves their handling of pigs during loading for transport to slaughter. Animal 2024;18:101115.
    doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2024.101115pubmed: 38502986google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.