Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39877302›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2025

Welfare of horses during killing for purposes other than slaughter.

EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Anette Boklund, Sabine Dippel, Fernanda Dorea, Jordi Figuerola, Mette Herskin, Miguel Angel Miranda Chueca, Eleonora Nannoni and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Welfare of beef cattle.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Welfare of horses during killing for purposes other than slaughter.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025
    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.

EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare)
Søren Saxmose Nielsen
Julio Alvarez
Anette Boklund
Sabine Dippel
Fernanda Dorea
Jordi Figuerola
Mette Herskin
Miguel Angel Miranda Chueca
Eleonora Nannoni
Romolo Nonno
Anja Riber
Karl Stahl
Jan Arend Stegeman
Hans-Hermann Thulke
Frank Tuyttens
Christoph Winckler
Mohan Raj
Antonio Velarde
Denise Candiani
Yves Van der Stede
Virginie Michel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Horses of different ages may have to be killed on-farm for purposes other than slaughter (where slaughter is defined as killing for human consumption) either individually (i.e. on-farm killing of unproductive, injured or terminally ill animals) or on a large-scale (i.e. depopulation for disease control purposes and other situations, such as environmental contamination, disaster management, etc.). The purpose of this opinion is to assess the hazards and welfare consequences associated with the on-farm killing of horses. The killing procedure is divided into Phase 1 (pre-killing), which includes the processes (i) handling and moving the animals to the killing place and (ii) restraint of the animals before application of the killing method; and Phase 2 (stunning and/or killing), which includes stunning and killing of the animals (for methods that require one step for stunning and another for subsequent killing) or killing only (for methods that simultaneously stun and kill the animals). Three stunning and/or killing methods for Phase 2 for horses were identified: (i) penetrative captive bolt followed by killing, (ii) firearms with free projectiles and (iii) lethal injection. Welfare consequences that horses may experience during each process (e.g. handling stress, restriction of movement and injuries during restraint) were identified and potential hazards are listed for all phases, along with preventive and corrective measures. Animal-based measures (ABMs) to assess all identified welfare consequences were proposed. During the application of the stunning and/or killing methods, horses will experience pain and fear if they are ineffectively stunned/killed or if they recover consciousness. A flowchart including ABMs for the assessment of consciousness and death to monitor stunning and killing effectiveness is provided. Additionally, specific practices deemed unacceptable on welfare grounds are listed.

Indexed as

animal‐based measurecaptive boltfirearmHorsekillinglethal injectionstunning

Identifiers

PMID39877302
PMCPMC11773343

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.