Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32704316›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2020

Welfare of pigs during killing for purposes other than slaughter.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin-Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar Schmidt and 12 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. The use of high expansion foam for stunning and killing pigs and poultry.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. How two concurrent pandemics put a spoke in the wheel of intensive pig production.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2021
    Article
  20. Welfare of pigs during killing for purposes other than slaughter.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2020
    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

22 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW)
Søren Saxmose Nielsen
Julio Alvarez
Dominique Joseph Bicout
Paolo Calistri
Klaus Depner
Julian Ashley Drewe
Bruno Garin-Bastuji
Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas
Christian Gortázar Schmidt
Virginie Michel
Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca
Helen Clare Roberts
Liisa Helena Sihvonen
Hans Spoolder
Karl Stahl
Arvo Viltrop
Christoph Winckler
Denise Candiani
Chiara Fabris
Yves Van der Stede
Antonio Velarde
Animal Welfare Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pigs at different stages of the production cycle may have to be killed on-farm for purposes other than slaughter (where slaughter is defined as killing for human consumption) either individually (e.g. severely injured pigs) or on a large scale (e.g. unproductive animals or for disease control reasons). This opinion assessed the risks associated with the on-farm killing of pigs and included two phases: 1) handling and moving of pigs and 2) killing methods (including restraint). The killing methods were subdivided into four categories: electrical methods, mechanical methods, gas mixture methods and lethal injection. Four welfare consequences to which pigs can be exposed to during on-farm killing were identified: pain, fear, impeded movement and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures were described. In total, 28 hazards were associated with the welfare consequences; majority of the hazards (24) are related to Phase 2 (killing). The main hazards are associated with lack of staff skills and training, and poor-designed and constructed facilities. Staff was identified as an origin of all hazards, either due to lack of skills needed to perform appropriate killing or due to fatigue. Corrective measures were identified for 25 hazards. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, hazard origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed and mitigation measures proposed.

Indexed as

animal‐based measuresanimal welfare consequenceshazardson‐farm killingpigspreventive/corrective measures

Identifiers

PMID32704316
PMCPMC7372489
OpenAlexW3043089206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.