ArticleVeterinary research communications2024
Evaluation of ballistics euthanasia applied to stranded cetaceans using ethological and post-mortem computed tomography assessment.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Estimating the welfare impacts of differing projectile types utilised for stranded cetacean euthanasia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Debilitated stranded cetaceans with low survival likelihood, may require euthanasia to avoid further suffering. Euthanasia can involve chemical or physical methods, including ballistics. Ballistics should cause instantaneous, permanent insensibility through brainstem disruption. Despite wide application, there is limited understanding of ballistics-related welfare outcomes. We opportunistically examined behaviour of three maternally-dependent cetaceans following shooting and the related cranial disruption post-mortem using computed tomography (PMCT). Our aim was to understand whether a 'humane death', i.e., euthanasia, was achieved. Each animal was shot using different projectile types: soft non-bonded, solid, and soft bonded. In two animals, insensibility was not immediately assessed following shooting, although both were reported as 'instantaneously insensible'. From our analysis, all animals displayed musculoskeletal responses to shooting, including peduncle stiffening and slack lower jaw, followed by musculature relaxation 24-, 10.3- and 20.8-seconds post-ballistics, respectively. The animal shot with a soft non-bonded projectile also displayed agonal convulsions and tail-lifting for 16-seconds post-shot; these were not observed for solid or soft bonded projectiles. PMCT findings indicated projectile disruption to the brainstem and/or spinal cord likely to cause near-instantaneous insensibility. However, extra-cranial wounding was also evident for the soft non-bonded projectile, highlighting potential for additional welfare compromise. Our results demonstrate that ballistics can achieve a relatively rapid death in young, stranded cetaceans, but careful equipment selection is required. To ensure a humane death, verification of insensibility must be undertaken immediately following shooting. Further studies should be undertaken to improve knowledge of appropriate procedures and equipment for euthanasia, ensuring humane deaths for compromised cetaceans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.