Nonambulatory livestock transport: The need for consensus

Introduction

The disparity in veterinary recommendations on the fitness of nonambulatory livestock for transport and other recent information indicate that the growing concern of the public, the industry, and the veterinary profession about the fate of these animals in Canada is well founded. Incompatible perceptions among provinces and within each sector, including the veterinary profession, are apparent. As a profession, veterinarians need a common understanding of what comprises “fitness for transport” and humane methods for the handling of compromised livestock. The focus of this article is on making a decision whether or not such animals should be loaded onto a transport vehicle, and Canadian veterinarians are invited to provide input to the development of a nationwide consensus.

Animal welfare issues regarding livestock can be contentious, due to their direct conflict with economic and competitive pressures. With regard to nonambulatory livestock, self-regulating bodies are quickly moving ahead of current legislation. Con sumer opinions and expectations regarding animal welfare have proven to be a major driving force — so major that food chains and restaurants have developed animal welfare standards that their suppliers must meet. Such developments require that Canadian producers keep up with societal expectations, so that they are not disadvantaged, and consumer confidence in the Canadian agriculture industry is maintained both at home and abroad. In order to guide the industry's approach to meeting consumer demands and to offer the best advice to producers, veterinarians must be aware of these advancements.

Review of standards and legislation

The Health of Animals Regulations prohibit loading or transport, by air, land, or water, of an animal that “by reason of infirmity, illness, injury, fatigue, or any other cause cannot be transported without undue suffering during the expected journey” (1). This would include a large animal that is unable to stand without assistance or is unable to move without being dragged or carried. Such animals are referred to as “nonambulatory” or, more commonly, “downers.”

Each province has its own animal health legislation, which may or may not encompass the humane transportation of animals. While some provinces have made their positions very clear, most have only broad guidelines in place. The farm veterinarian is left to interpret these guidelines and make a judgment call. This leads to large discrepancies in the assessment of identical or very similar cases. Ontario is the only province requiring veterinary certification of a nonambulatory animal before it is allowed to be loaded (2). Most provinces allow on-farm slaughter as an alternative way of dealing with nonambulatory livestock. However, provincial legislation differs as to whether the carcass is restricted to private consumption. If the carcass can be taken to a processing facility for postmortem inspection and sale, the financial loss for the producer is less severe.

A peek across our borders illustrates how other countries deal with nonambulatory livestock.

The European Union allows the transport of animals as long as it does not entail further suffering of the animals (3). In Britain, animals may not be dragged, pushed, or lifted, and loading of nonambulatory animals may only commence in the presence of a veterinarian (4). Germany has gone one step further by listing conditions that make an animal unfit for transport as part of its Animal Welfare Transportation Order. This order also mandates veterinary certification for transport and on-farm slaughter for those animals not found to be fit for such transportation (5).

A U.S. federal bill, currently under review, makes it unlawful for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer to buy, sell, give, receive, transfer, market, hold, or drag any nonambulatory livestock unless the nonambulatory livestock has been humanely euthanized (6). California has incorporated a “Downed Animal Law” as part of the Penal Code and has prohibited any slaughterhouse not inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, stockyard, or auction from buying, selling, or receiving nonambulatory animals (7). The City of Cincinnati passed an ordinance that bars transportation or delivery of nonambulatory animals, due to the impossibility of transporting them humanely (8).

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) takes the position that animals that are down, but not in extreme distress, should be treated. Animals in extreme distress should be slaughtered on-farm or euthanized (9).

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association's (CVMA) position statement regarding nonambulatory livestock states “If the animal is to be moved to a suitable processing facility, a veterinary inspection of the nonambulatory animal must be performed on the premises of origin. The animal must be accompanied by an antemortem veterinary certificate declaring whether the animal can or cannot be humanely loaded, that the animal is fit for slaughter and that the owner has observed all applicable withdrawal times for drugs used. The loading and transportation of nonambulatory animals must be performed in a manner to avoid pain, suffering and distress to the animal and upon arrival at the processing facility the animal must be humanely stunned or euthanized on the vehicle prior to unloading. Equipment currently being used includes slide boards and mats, forklifts, front-end loaders, hand carts, slings, “cow caddys” and stone boats or sleds. In those situations where the nonambulatory animal is passed for slaughter, but where the veterinarian deems loading and transportation inhumane, the CVMA recommends on-farm slaughter. Nonambulatory animals deemed unfit for slaughter should be humanely euthanized on-farm and the carcass disposed of in accordance with local regulations” (10).

Industry stakeholders have introduced their own policies. For example, Burger King prohibits their U.S. suppliers from using meat from nonambulatory animal sources or from actively procuring such animals (11), and the company is in the process of asking the same standard from its Canadian suppliers. McDonald's Canada prohibits the use of downer cattle in their raw material specifications (12).

The Animal Welfare Audit Program is a U.S. national program cooperatively developed with the National Council of Chain Restaurants, the Food Marketing Institute, and the producer community. The policy regarding nonambulatory livestock under this program is identical to the position statement issued by the AVMA, with the additional prohibition of dragging or pulling a downer animal by its extremities (13).

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is responsible for enforcing the humane transportation of all animals in accordance with the federal Health of Animals Regulations (1). The CFIA's Compromised Animals Policy provides general guidelines on the evaluation of fitness of compromised animals for transport and options for the handling of nonambulatory livestock on arrival at federally inspected slaughter plants.

Through collaboration with stakeholders, the Canadian Agri-Food Research Council has developed voluntary animal care standards, which are described in the “Recommended code of practice for the care and handling of farm animals” series. Section 6 of the transportation code provides advice on the evaluation and handling of animals that are “at risk” and require special consideration before it is decided whether they should be loaded for transport. This includes nonambulatory animals (14).

Nonambulatory livestock surveys

In order to quantify the frequency of nonambulatory cattle being transported to federally inspected slaughter plants and auction markets, the CFIA conducted a national, nonstatistical survey, focusing on inspection sites at 19 slaughter facilities and 3 auction markets across Canada. These represent only a portion of all such federally inspected facilities. During the year 2001, 7382 nonambulatory cattle were observed to arrive at these sites. Of this total, 89.8% were classified as dairy carcasses, while 10.2% were beef carcasses. The data strongly suggested that the vast majority of nonambulatory animals originate on-farm, with less than 1% becoming nonambulatory in transit or accidentally. Inspection led to carcass condemnation in 37% of nonambulatory dairy animals.

A similar survey concentrating on slaughter hogs and cull sows is in progress.

Discussion

Arguably, the most important step in reducing the numbers of disabled livestock is on-farm prevention through training, proper facilities, and good husbandry. Several national and provincial industry groups have prepared guidelines regarding the prevention of animals from becoming nonambulatory or for helping the producer to assess a downer animal. In 2002, Alberta Pork, the Alberta Farm Animal Care Association, the Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, the Alberta Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Alberta Quality Pork produced a booklet entitled “Humane Handling of Swine — Standards for the Care of Unfit Animals.” Ontario Pork launched a new “Caring for Compromised Pigs” booklet and the decision tree “Should this pig be transported?” in 2003, and the Ontario Humane Transport Working Group developed a decision tree for the transport of compromised cattle, sheep, and goats.

At the same time, due to the wide variety of causes for downers, a certain number of individual animals will continue to become nonambulatory. So the issue of dealing with these cases in a manner that is compatible with federal and provincial legislation, with the economic considerations of both producer and abattoir and with Canadian public expectations, has to be addressed.

At the very core of this discussion stands the finding of the CFIA survey that nearly 4 out of 10 nonambulatory dairy cows could not be passed for human consumption at the meat plant. Considering the extra time and labor involved from initial loading through to processing at the slaughter plant, industry must ask whether it really pays to ship, transport, and accept these animals. The answer is probably “no”, especially when condemnation is a likely out come. It seems that “economic pressure” is a weak argument for subjecting a sizeable portion of downer animals to the additional stress of transportation.

While the CFIA's findings are based upon data collected nationwide, there are limitations to the study; but it is safe to say that the numbers do justify the need to address this issue further. The results have revealed inconsistent standards on all levels — from governments to individual veterinarians — in respect to the humane transportation of downer animals.

The matter of inconsistency should be a concern for the veterinary profession. The need for information is apparent: A report issued by Alberta Milk and Alberta Farm Animal Care in May 2002 showed that producers estimated that their cull dairy cows would be slaughtered within 1.5 to 24 h after shipping (15). In fact, the collecting of full truckloads of cull cows meant that the cows could spend up to 3 wk in transit before they arrived at a plant (15). These facts have to be known in order to make an informed decision on whether a particular animal should be shipped, or better slaughtered or destroyed on the farm.

Slaughter plants have no interest in dealing with animals that should not have entered marketing channels in the first place. Growing numbers of federal and provincial slaughter plants are refusing to handle “downers.” Several federal plants now charge a small fee to put these animals down. The marketing of livestock compromised by disease or injury degrades the welfare of the animal; is an economic burden to the producer, the transporter, and the processor; damages the prestige of the livestock production industry; and potentially endangers public health. The veterinary profession and the agricultural industry nationwide should arrive at the same conclusion regarding the transportation of nonambulatory animals. It is simply impossible to move mature nonambulatory livestock humanely, no matter how close the slaughter plant. Early treatment, on-farm slaughter, or euthanasia should be the course of action to deal with these animals. Alberta proves that this approach is feasible, as over 80 mobile slaughter units are currently licensed and in operation.

Conclusion

Most often, producers ship nonambulatory livestock because they see no alternative — be it due to provincial restrictions, lack of inspectors, or missing infrastructure. Veterinarians have a professional responsibility to educate producers in the prevention, proper care, handling, and humane disposition of the nonambulatory animal. The veterinary profession needs to take the lead in developing uniformity across Canada, in concert with the Canadian livestock industry and other stakeholders.

Ideally, a consenting view of the veterinary profession will lead to a national policy that gives Canada a credible and respected humane transportation and compliance system for dealing with nonambulatory livestock.

Your participation

The CFIA is planning stakeholder consultations for the fall of 2003. Your comments on this article are welcomed and encouraged. They will help to shape the recommendations given during the upcoming consultations. Please direct your comments to Dr. Gordon Doonan at the postal address listed at the beginning of the article, or by e-mail to gdoonan@inspection.gc.ca. Please use “nonambulatory” as your subject line!