Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28785400›Full record

ArticleIrish veterinary journal

Challenges facing the veterinary profession in Ireland: 3. emergency and casualty slaughter certification.

Manuel Magalhães-Sant'Ana, Simon J More, David B Morton, Alison J Hanlon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Irish veterinary journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Welfare of cattle during transport.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Fitness of animals for transport to slaughter.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2019
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Manuel Magalhães-Sant'AnaEscola Universitária Vasco da Gama, Av. José R. Sousa Fernandes, Campus Universitário - Bloco B, 3020-210 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-8317-3633
Simon J MoreCentre for Veterinary Epidemiology and Risk Analysis, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
David B MortonSchool of BioSciences, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, Birmingham, UK.
Alison J HanlonCentre for Veterinary Epidemiology and Risk Analysis, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVeterinarians are faced with significant conflicts of interest when issuing certificates for the transport and slaughter of acutely injured and casualty livestock. In a recent Policy Delphi study, emergency and casualty slaughter certification was a key concern identified by veterinary professionals in Ireland. In this case study (the third in a series of three resulting from a research workshop exploring challenges facing the veterinary profession in Ireland; the other two case studies investigate clinical veterinary services and the on-farm use of veterinary antimicrobials), we aim to provide a value-based reflection on the constraints and opportunities for best practice in emergency and casualty slaughter certification in Ireland.

resultsUsing a qualitative focus group approach, this study gathered evidence from relevant stakeholders, namely a representative from the regulatory body, local authority veterinarians with research experience in emergency slaughter, an animal welfare research scientist, official veterinarians from the competent authority, a private veterinary practitioner, and a member of a farming organisation. Results revealed a conflict between the responsibility of private veterinary practitioners (PVPs) to safeguard the welfare of acutely injured bovines on-farm and the client's commercial concerns. As a consequence, some PVPs may feel under pressure to certify, for example, an acutely injured animal for casualty slaughter instead of recommending either on-farm emergency slaughter or disposal by the knackery service. Among Official Veterinarians, there are concerns about the pressure within processing plants to accept acutely injured livestock as casualty animals. Confusion pertaining to legislation and definition of fitness to travel also contribute to these dilemmas.

conclusionsConflicts of interest arise due to the gap between governance and provision to facilitate on-farm emergency slaughter of livestock. Increased availability and acceptance of on-farm emergency slaughter by Food Business Operators (FBOs) would mitigate the need to certify acutely injured animals fit for transport and slaughter and thereby safeguard animal welfare. In the absence of nationwide availability and acceptance of on-farm emergency slaughter by FBOs, consideration should be given to methods to encourage all those involved in the food chain to prioritise animal welfare when in conflict with the commercial value of the animal. Training and guidelines for PVPs on the regulatory landscape and ethical decision-making should become available. The reintroduction of the fallen animal scheme should be considered to support farm animal welfare.

Indexed as

Animal welfareCasualty slaughterCertificationEmergency slaughterFocus groupIrelandVeterinary ethicsVeterinary profession

Identifiers

PMID28785400
PMCPMC5545023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.