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) / Impact of Social Buffering and Restraint on Welfare Indicato...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2023; 13(14); doi: 10.3390/ani13142276

Impact of Social Buffering and Restraint on Welfare Indicators during UK Commercial Horse Slaughter.

Abstract: Current legislation in the United Kingdom stipulates that horses should not be slaughtered within sight of one another. However, abattoir personnel anecdotally report that, for semi-feral horses unused to restraint, co-slaughtering alongside a conspecific could reduce distress through social buffering and improve safety, but there is a lack of evidence to support this. CCTV footage from an English abattoir was assessed retrospectively with welfare indicators from when horses entered the kill pen until they were killed. Of 256 horses analysed, 12% (32/256) were co-slaughtered (alongside a conspecific) and 88% (224/256) individually. Co-slaughtered horses moved more in the pen, but individually slaughtered horses showed more agitated behaviour, required more encouragement to enter the kill pen, and experienced more slips or falls. Unrestrained horses (40%; 102/256) showed increased agitation, movement, and agonistic behaviour towards the operator and resisted entry to the kill pen compared to restrained horses (60%; 154/256). Positive interactions between conspecifics were seen in 94% (30/32) of co-slaughtered horses, and only 6% (1/16) showed a startled response to the first horse being shot, with a median time of 15 s between shots. This study highlights the impact that both conspecific and human interactions can have on equine welfare at slaughter. Semi-feral or unrestrained horses appear to experience increased distress compared to horses more familiar with human handling, and the presence of a conspecific at slaughter mitigated this.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2023-07-12 PubMed ID: 37508053PubMed Central: PMC10376832DOI: 10.3390/ani13142276Google 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.

In this research study, the authors observe the behavior of horses during slaughter and how the presence of another horse can potentially reduce distress, a concept called “conspecific,” which is especially observed in semi-feral horses. Despite UK legal restrictions on co-slaughter, the findings suggest that it could improve the welfare of the horses at the time of slaughter.

Study Method and Population

  • The study was based on the analysis of CCTV footage from an English abattoir.
  • The period assessed ranged from when the horses entered the kill pen until they were killed.
  • The total number of horses analyzed in this study was 256. Out of these, 12%, or 32 were co-slaughtered alongside a conspecific, while 88%, or 224 of the horses were slaughtered individually.

Behavior of Co-Slaughtered Vs Individually Slaughtered Horses

  • The study found that co-slaughtered horses moved more in the pen compared to those slaughtered individually.
  • However, individually slaughtered horses displayed more signs of agitation, required more encouragement to enter the kill pen, and experienced more slips or falls.

The Impact of Restraint

  • Unrestrained horses, making up 40% of the population, showed increased agitation, movement, and antagonistic behavior towards the operator. They also resisted entry to the kill pen.
  • On the other hand, the horses that were restrained (60% of the total) displayed less distress.

Interaction Between Conspecifics

  • The study noted positive interactions between conspecifics in 94% of co-slaughtered horses, while only 6% showed a startled response to the first horse being killed.
  • The researchers observed a median time of 15 seconds between shots, indicating a possible reduced distress in the animals due to the presence of a conspecific.

Conclusion

The findings of the study emphasize the effects of conspecific and human interactions on the welfare of horses during slaughter. There is potential increased distress in semi-feral or unrestrained horses compared to those more familiar with human handling. The presence of a conspecific at slaughter seems to alleviate this distress.

Cite This Article

APA
Fletcher KA, Limon G, Padalino B, Hall GK, Chancellor N, Grist A, Gibson TJ. (2023). Impact of Social Buffering and Restraint on Welfare Indicators during UK Commercial Horse Slaughter. Animals (Basel), 13(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13142276

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 13
Issue: 14

Researcher Affiliations

Fletcher, Katharine A
  • 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, Ash Road, Pirbright, Woking GU24 0NF, UK.
Padalino, Barbara
  • Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale Giuseppe Fanin 46, 40127 Bologna, Italy.
Hall, Genevieve K
  • Animal Welfare Science and Ethics Group, Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield AL9 7TA, UK.
Chancellor, Natalie
  • Animal Welfare Science and Ethics Group, Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield AL9 7TA, UK.
Grist, Andrew
  • Animal Welfare and Behaviour Group, School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford BS40 5DU, UK.
Gibson, Troy J
  • Animal Welfare Science and Ethics Group, Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield AL9 7TA, UK.

Grant Funding

  • 5573 / World Horse Welfare

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict 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 27 references
  1. Food and Agricultural Organization Statistical Database: Live Animals. FAO; Rome, Italy: 2021.
  2. Gibson TJ, Bedford EM, Chancellor NM, Limon G. Pathophysiology of free-bullet slaughter of horses and ponies.. Meat Sci 2015 Oct;108:120-4.
    doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.06.007pubmed: 26093383google scholar: lookup
  3. Anil MH, Preston J, McKinstry JL, Rodwayl RG, Brown SN. An Assessment of Stress Caused in Sheep by Watching Slaughter of other sheep. Anim. Welf. 1996;5:435–441.
    doi: 10.1017/S0962728600019163google scholar: lookup
  4. Anil MH, Mckinstry JL, Field M, Rodway RG. Lack of Evidence for Stress Being Caused to Pigs by Witnessing the Slaughter of Conspecifics. Anim. Welf. 1997;6:3–8.
    doi: 10.1017/S0962728600019345google scholar: lookup
  5. Schaeperkoetter M, Weller Z, Kness D, Okkema C, Grandin T, Edwards-Callaway L. Impacts of group stunning on the behavioral and physiological parameters of pigs and sheep in a small abattoir.. Meat Sci 2021 Sep;179:108538.
    doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108538pubmed: 33975260google scholar: lookup
  6. Avellaneda M, Kamenetzky G. Regulation of the stress response by social buffering: A review across species. Rev. Interam. Psicol./Interam. J. Psychol. 2021;55:e1439.
    doi: 10.30849/ripijp.v55i1.1439google scholar: lookup
  7. Ricci-Bonot C, Romero T, Nicol C, Mills D. Social buffering in horses is influenced by context but not by the familiarity and habituation of a companion.. Sci Rep 2021 Apr 23;11(1):8862.
    doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-266932/v1pmc: PMC8065151pubmed: 33893366google scholar: lookup
  8. . Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (WATOK) Regulations (England). 2015.
  9. . The Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018. .
  10. Carroll CL, Huntington PJ. Body condition scoring and weight estimation of horses.. Equine Vet J 1988 Jan;20(1):41-5.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1988.tb01451.xpubmed: 3366105google scholar: lookup
  11. Regan FH, Hockenhull J, Pritchard JC, Waterman-Pearson AE, Whay HR. Behavioural repertoire of working donkeys and consistency of behaviour over time, as a preliminary step towards identifying pain-related behaviours.. PLoS One 2014;9(7):e101877.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101877pmc: PMC4116118pubmed: 25076209google scholar: lookup
  12. Torcivia C, McDonnell S. Equine Discomfort Ethogram.. Animals (Basel) 2021 Feb 23;11(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11020580pmc: PMC7931104pubmed: 33672338google scholar: lookup
  13. Burn CC, Dennison TL, Whay HR. Relationships between behaviour and health in working horses, don keys, and mules in developing countries. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010;126:109–118.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.06.007google scholar: lookup
  14. McDonnell SM, Haviland JCS. Agonistic ethogram of the equid bachelor band. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1995;43:147–188.
    doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(94)00550-Xgoogle scholar: lookup
  15. 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 (Basel) 2022 Nov 12;12(22).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12223122pmc: PMC9686993pubmed: 36428350google scholar: lookup
  16. Lehner PN. Sampling methods in behavior research.. Poult Sci 1992 Apr;71(4):643-9.
    doi: 10.3382/ps.0710643pubmed: 1594516google scholar: lookup
  17. Bell Y, Gibson TJ, Gregory NG. Procurement of equids for the horsemeat trade in Great Britain.. Vet Rec 2013 Aug 31;173(8):194.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.101636pubmed: 23836592google scholar: lookup
  18. . Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005. 2005.
  19. Hausberger M, Roche H, Henry S, Visser EK. A review of the human–horse relationship. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008;109:1–24.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.015google scholar: lookup
  20. Starling M, McLean A, McGreevy P. The Contribution of Equitation Science to Minimising Horse-Related Risks to Humans.. Animals (Basel) 2016 Feb 23;6(3).
    doi: 10.3390/ani6030015pmc: PMC4810043pubmed: 26907354google scholar: lookup
  21. Riva MG, Sobrero L, Menchetti L, Minero M, Padalino B, Dalla Costa E. Unhandled horses classified with broken/unbroken test (BUT) exhibit longer avoidance, flight reactions, and displacement behaviors when approached by humans.. Front Vet Sci 2022;9:1022255.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.1022255pmc: PMC9548601pubmed: 36225797google scholar: lookup
  22. Bourguet C, Deiss V, Gobert M, Durand D, Boissy A, Terlouw EMC. Characterising the emotional reactivity of cows to understand and predict their stress reactions to the slaughter procedure. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010;125:9–21.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2010.03.008google scholar: lookup
  23. Parrott RF, Misson BH, de la Riva CF. Differential stressor effects on the concentrations of cortisol, prolactin and catecholamines in the blood of sheep.. Res Vet Sci 1994 Mar;56(2):234-9.
    doi: 10.1016/0034-5288(94)90109-0pubmed: 8191014google scholar: lookup
  24. Atkinson S, Velarde A, Algers B. Assessment of stun quality at commercial slaughter in cattle shot with captive bolt. Anim. Welf. 2013;22:473–481.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.22.4.473google scholar: lookup
  25. Lenz TR. The Unwanted Horse in the United States: An Overview of the Issue. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2009;29:253–258.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2009.04.001google scholar: lookup
  26. Roy RC, Cockram MS, Dohoo IR, Ragnarsson S. Transport of horses for slaughter in Iceland. Anim. Welf. 2015;24:485–495.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.24.4.485google scholar: lookup
  27. Tateo A, De Palo P, Ceci E, Centoducati P. Physicochemical properties of meat of Italian Heavy Draft horses slaughtered at the age of eleven months.. J Anim Sci 2008 May;86(5):1205-14.
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2007-0629pubmed: 18245501google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 3 times.
  1. Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Boklund A, Dippel S, Dorea F, Figuerola J, Herskin M, Miranda Chueca MA, Nannoni E, Nonno R, Riber A, Stahl K, Stegeman JA, Thulke HH, Tuyttens F, Winckler C, Raj M, Velarde A, Candiani D, Van der Stede Y, Michel V. Welfare of horses at slaughter. EFSA J 2025 Jan;23(1):e9178.
    doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9178pubmed: 39877304google scholar: lookup
  2. Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Boklund A, Dippel S, Dorea F, Figuerola J, Herskin M, Miranda Chueca MA, Nannoni E, Nonno R, Riber A, Stahl K, Stegeman JA, Thulke HH, Tuyttens F, Winckler C, Raj M, Velarde A, Candiani D, Van der Stede Y, Michel V. Welfare of horses during killing for purposes other than slaughter. EFSA J 2025 Jan;23(1):e9195.
    doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9195pubmed: 39877302google scholar: lookup
  3. Fletcher KA, Padalino B, Felici M, Bigi D, Limon-Vega G, Grist A, Gibson TJ. Assessment of ante mortem welfare indicators and the pathophysiology of captive-bolt trauma in equids at slaughter. Anim Welf 2024;33:e65.
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2024.70pubmed: 39777369google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.