“If you have livestock…” Experiences in training farmers and farm workers to perform euthanasia

Introduction

The old expression, “If you have livestock, you will have deadstock,” describes the inevitability of death in almost all food animal production systems. The fact that death is inevitable does not mean that it is easy to accept. Some deaths will likely result from euthanasia, in which people are directly involved in facilitating the death. Euthanasia is a complex topic in all fields of veterinary practice, but especially so in food animal systems. Unique to food animals, euthanasia is often performed not by veterinarians but by farmers or farm workers. As a result, discussion of euthanasia must acknowledge that there are technical, ethical, and emotional aspects that are unwise to ignore.

There is need to consider several factors in end-of-life decisions; such factors include the well-being of the animal and the economic health of the enterprise. Even after the end-of-life decision process has concluded with a decision that euthanasia is the best option, achieving euthanasia requires expertise. There should be confidence that the technical aspects of any euthanasia will cause a minimum amount of suffering by the animal or animals.

Research shows that euthanasia is stressful for the people doing it (1–4). In addition to the stress associated with the actual death of the animal, there is stress associated with the fear of “not doing it right.” Care providers may not be comfortable with proper euthanasia methods or techniques (3,5,6). Even though using proper technique is essential to successful euthanasia, veterinarians, farmers, and animal-care providers may be uncomfortable with the subject. The fact that discussion of euthanasia is often avoided increases the importance of addressing this topic.

Because veterinarians cannot possibly be directly involved every time euthanasia is necessary, timely euthanasia demands that care providers are confident and skilled at conducting euthanasia humanely. In this column, Dr. Suzanne Burlatschenko and Dr. Jeff Rau relate their experiences training animal care providers on how to perform euthanasia properly.

Philosophy of swine euthanasia training

Dr. Suzanne Burlatschenko, Goshen Ridge Veterinary Services, Tillsonburg, Ontario

In preparing to write this article, I have reviewed journal articles and swine industry publications regarding the teaching of euthanasia of swine. I have been astounded and saddened by commentaries regarding the absence of training for food animal welfare at veterinary colleges.

The welfare of an animal involves both its physical and mental states; good animal welfare implies both fitness and a sense of well-being. Animals that are housed and raised for purposes of production or for enjoyment must be protected from unnecessary suffering (7). Societal values inform what members of that society expect from euthanasia (8). In fact, how animals are treated has been increasingly falling under a variety of societal ethics and laws.

Euthanasia of an animal must be done with the minimum of pain, distress, and suffering. Compromised animals that require euthanasia may experience any or all of these states; therefore, euthanasia cannot always be conducted without some distress or suffering by the animal being euthanized. Cooney et al note that euthanasia must be carried out with the highest sense of responsibility, respect for life, and compassion (9). Also, those using physical methods of euthanasia (e.g., captive bolt) must be trained, proficient, and confident with the method used.

There has been an assumption in the past that producers inherently are as adept at dispatching their livestock as they are at raising them. In the years I have been practicing, I have been guilty of assuming that all producers have sufficient end-of-life expertise. In the past decade or more, I have become aware that there are knowledge gaps about end-of-life decision-making and euthanasia methods and techniques. As a result, I became involved in promoting awareness of these topics and the importance of having open discussions about them with livestock producers and their employees.

End-of-life decisions for livestock can be difficult for employees who do not have considerable farm experience such as that gained while being raised on a farm that raises livestock. Some farms may have employees who are temporary foreign workers or have recently immigrated to Canada and may not be familiar with local welfare laws, societal expectations, or permitted and acceptable euthanasia practices.

Rollin points out the moral stress that occurs when animals require euthanasia that must be carried out by the very people that care for them and about them (7,8). Veterinarians euthanize many animals as part of their professional activities, but almost always, those animals are not owned by the veterinarians themselves. By contrast, livestock producers and their employees commonly euthanize animals that have been under their care. In these situations, employers need to recognize that not all caretaking staff are able or willing to euthanize livestock (1,2). When delivering swine euthanasia courses, I find it important to work with employers to identify people who have expressed willingness or unwillingness to euthanize livestock. Unwillingness may be either related to the specifically taught techniques or a general aversion.

Although there are resources available to introduce euthanasia methods and techniques, there are gaps in knowledge and application of approved euthanasia techniques in swine. Access to these resources can be difficult for some farm workers because training resources are often available only in English. Video instruction is useful but does not have the same value as hands-on training. Euthanasia of animals should never be initially taught by video instruction.

Certain euthanasia methods may be easier for staff to accept and perform. An example is gas euthanasia employing commercially available carbon dioxide boxes for piglets (< 9 kg). Piglets are first sedated and then placed in the box. After the lid is closed and latched, the unit is turned on, allowing carbon dioxide gas to fill the box. Staff are therefore removed from the actual process itself, which results in less emotional and moral stress (1). Teaching this technique can be done on-farm by the owner or the farm manager. However, it is essential that employees be taught and understand how to determine and confirm that death has occurred.

I convened a group of veterinarians to develop a course curriculum to teach captive bolt euthanasia. Over the period of a year, we developed both a bovine and a porcine version of the course. The course addresses several aspects of euthanasia and methods for teaching farm staff. One of the earliest focal points considered was the recognition of potential effects on the mental health of people who euthanize animals. The need for training to consider the effects on mental health is recognized among farm employees who euthanize cattle and swine (1,2). As mentioned, some caretakers may have an aversion to participating in any form of euthanasia; others may be more willing. Some may be comfortable with only certain methods of euthanasia but not with others. In addition, the course content reminds people that “bad days” exist, meaning that carrying out euthanasia may not be possible on those days. Having appropriately trained backup personnel whenever possible is important on farms with multiple employees. This consideration is essential when training for the purposes of mass euthanasia, as might occur following the confirmation of a reportable animal disease outbreak.

Another important point to include in the courses was a discussion of the process of dying itself. I often hear from attendees that this session surprised them and gave them pause for thought. In Western society, we are, for the most part, removed from death and have even sanitized it to a point. Understanding death as a natural process, whether as a result of euthanasia or natural causes, reduces some fear and uncertainty for those completing the course.

A third point of focus included in the training was a discussion of the physiological bases of the methods of euthanasia covered in the course. This was intended to allow the trainees to better understand what they would see during euthanasia. For example, they would learn that the concussion caused by a gunshot or captive bolt gun induces almost immediate and irreversible unconsciousness in the animal being euthanized.

Hands-on training is essential. For those who are nervous using captive bolt devices, I start the training with non-threatening cantaloupe melons, often fitted with “eyes” and “ears” (Figure 1). I have found that trainee reluctance is markedly reduced when using melons as targets. I also find it beneficial during training to use captive bolt devices with reduced charges (that must be appropriate for the device) when practicing with melons. Rubberized models of the heads of adult beef and dairy cattle, sheep, and swine, as well as rubberized models of calves, lambs, and piglets are available as aids for teaching captive bolt euthanasia (Figure 2) (10). These models are designed with a plate over the target area that can be removed to visualize the accuracy of the shot. This feature has been invaluable for training. Animal heads can also be obtained from abattoirs to be used as training aids.

Figure 1.

Melons used as targets that allow trainees to experience handling a captive bolt pistol.

Figure 2.

Rubberized model of a pig’s head that can be used as an aid for training on the proper use of a captive bolt pistol (10).

We recognize that there are limitations to the training course. Not all methods of euthanasia are demonstrated, so trainee experience will be limited to the options that are discussed. In addition, as with many technical skills, even after they learn the methods, trainees may lose competence and confidence if they do not regularly conduct on-farm euthanasia.

Approaching this type of course must be done with sensitivity and empathy. Interactive discussion, hands-on training with livestock simulator models, and refresher courses create confidence and competence with the techniques.

Hands-on euthanasia training for people working with cattle and small ruminants

Dr. Jeff Rau, Ruminant Field Services, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario

Although there are often numerous “right” ways to approach a problem, there are also many wrong ones. As it is in life, this axiom is generally also true in veterinary medicine. When it comes to end-of-life interventions for animals on farms, there are very few acceptable methods of providing a “good death,” yet there are many inappropriate methods that will achieve death but fail to meet requirements to qualify as acceptable euthanasia.

We had 120 sheep and goat farmers who attended a captive bolt euthanasia training course complete a pre-course survey that revealed good intentions for the provision of euthanasia but also revealed the use of an array of methods of killing (11). Commonly reported methods were blunt force trauma, electrocution, decapitation, drowning, and various applications of chemicals. These methods of ending animals’ lives were applied from a place of good intentions, but with very limited or misguided information, and most often with a sense of desperation. The fact that these farmers paid to participate in this course highlighted the fact that they were highly motivated to be empowered with the knowledge, skills, and equipment required to provide a “good death” for the livestock under their care, to minimize the animals’ suffering, and to mitigate their own despair.

Understanding and compassion should be foremost in any approach to euthanasia training. Gaining a good understanding of a trainee’s background knowledge, skill, and ethos about end-of-life decision-making and about actually performing euthanasia will set a solid foundation to manage expectations and set goals for both student and trainer. The following are some good questions to ask. What are the student’s current knowledge, skill, and comfort level? What biases do they bring with them? How are end-of-life decisions and euthanasia currently completed on farm, and why? Has the student had good or bad experiences with on-farm euthanasia? What do they find challenging about end-of-life scenarios on their farm? Are they motivated to change any of the above? A simple pre-training survey using these questions will go a long way in designing euthanasia training for an individual or group.

Deciding when to euthanize is as important as using proper euthanasia technique. Rollin advised that it is “better a week too soon than a day too late” when making end-of-life decisions (12). Ontario Veterinary College professor Peter Physick-Sheard maintained, “An animal should never die of their illness or injury. They should recover or be euthanized.” The combined sentiment of these statements, though intuitive to some, may require further guidance for others (13).

Many livestock commodity groups have made it mandatory to create standard operating procedures (SOPs) for on-farm euthanasia. Veterinarians usually help develop these and other SOPs. This is an opportunity for veterinarians to not only discuss on-farm euthanasia with farmers but also provide hands-on training and consultation. They can provide guidance on how to determine best treatment options and guidance on when live-stock can be moved off the farm for sale or slaughter and when they should be euthanized on farm. The goal is to ensure that farmers meet animal welfare and food safety standards (14). All SOPs should address commonly encountered health and welfare situations that can be tailored to the farm and livestock commodity. As with any farm protocol, it is a good idea to schedule regular follow-up checks to detect protocol drift, address questions, confirm technical skills, and adjust SOPs as needed.

In my experience, the most important points to cover when training people to perform euthanasia with a captive bolt are the following:

1. Familiarity with the equipment. A hands-on review of the captive bolt gun in which trainees take it apart, learn and handle its component parts, and learn how to safely operate and maintain the equipment helps normalize an often novel experience and also improves comfort and confidence with handling the equipment in a safe and effective manner.

2. Familiarity with the animal’s anatomy and correct landmarks. Explain how insensibility is achieved with the captive bolt. Explain the anatomy and equipment needed to apply a secondary kill step. Pictures are helpful, but a sagittal cross section of a skull from an abattoir is extremely valuable for demonstrating landmarks guiding correct placement of the captive bolt. Using a skull makes it easier to demonstrate the correct landmarks of the lateral canthus and opposite poll. Trainees are often surprised at how high on the skull the captive bolt should be placed. The cadaver head is also an effective tool to demonstrate common mistakes and how they can be avoided. Demonstrations using a sectioned cadaver head offer trainees irrefutable evidence of the importance of proper placement of the captive bolt and show the connection between technique and the results they should expect. This can also help develop trust between the trainee and the coach — a feeling that what you are teaching, though it may be different from what they have heard from others, is their best chance of achieving success. This leads to buy-in, confidence, and empowerment.

3. Proper physical and/or chemical (sedation) restraint of the animal. Effective restraint is essential. Therefore, ensuring trainees have the skills to achieve this is a must. Novices may find euthanasia easier to carry out when using chemical restraint (e.g., xylazine) to induce lateral recumbency and stabilize the head. With this approach, it is easier to properly place the captive bolt and post-stun flailing is reduced. This improves safety, which increases the comfort level of the operator.

4. Applying a secondary kill step (e.g., intravenous or intracardiac KCl, pithing, or exsanguination). Effective application of a captive bolt renders the animal insensible, but a secondary kill step is essential to ensure the animal expires in a timely manner (15).

5. Confirming death. Confirmation of death must be obtained to ensure euthanasia is complete. With this, a farmer can be confident their intervention resulted in unequivocal cessation of suffering. Veterinarians can offer guidance to trainees with respect to methods of confirming their livestock have expired.

At the end of euthanasia training, it is a good idea to give trainees an opportunity to ask questions; this confirms the key training points and allows you to seek feedback for yourself. Post-training quizzes and exit surveys, particularly when training in a group setting, are useful tools for evaluating course content and the effectiveness of your training techniques (16).

Veterinarians are in a unique position to provide effective leadership in on-farm end-of-life decision-making and euthanasia of livestock. As with any other health management intervention, when it comes to the euthanasia of livestock, empower your clients to achieve their goals. They will thank you. After one training course, a farmer told me, “Thank you. After 12 years of shooting my sheep, I finally understand why they weren’t dying.”