This journal utilises an Online Peer Review Service (OPRS) for submissions. By clicking "Continue" you will be taken to our partner site
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/animal-welfare.
Please be aware that your Cambridge account is not valid for this OPRS and registration is required. We strongly advise you to read all "Author instructions" in the "Journal information" area prior to submitting.
To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The relationship between animal welfare at slaughter and slaughterhouse profitability is complex, with potential trade-offs between animal welfare costs and benefits. Slaughterhouses currently lack data support for decisions on investments that can improve both animal welfare and profitability. Therefore, this study mapped the economic impacts for slaughterhouse businesses of improved cattle and pig welfare at slaughter. Specific aims were to: (i) highlight the possible economic impact of animal welfare improvements, based on the scientific literature; (ii) develop an economic model demonstrating the theoretical contribution of animal welfare to slaughterhouse profitability; and (iii) validate the economic model through focus group interviews with slaughterhouse personnel in Sweden. The findings indicated that investing in animal welfare improvements could result in accumulation of an intangible asset that can be considered together with other production factors in the economic model. Model validation stressed the importance of selling by-products for the economic outcome and of smooth workflow for productivity. The study thus improves understanding of the economic impacts of animal welfare at slaughter and incentives for slaughterhouse businesses to improve animal welfare. The results are important for public and private policy-makers interested in enhancing animal welfare at slaughter.
The culling of injured and non-viable pigs (Sus scrofa) (neonate to breeding stock) is a routine and necessary procedure on most farms. Usually, pigs are culled using one of the following methods: blunt-force trauma (manual and mechanical), captive-bolt stunners, electrical stunning and electrocution or carbon dioxide. Manual blunt-force trauma is one of the most widely used methods due to its low or absent operational and investment costs. However, as a method, it has serious limitations, which include the risk of incomplete concussion, pain, and distress. Manual blunt-force trauma is also aesthetically unpleasant to operators and wider society. To address these issues there has been significant recent research into the development of alternatives to manual blunt-force trauma, these include: captive-bolt stunners, on-farm, gas-based controlled atmosphere systems, low atmospheric pressure systems and electrical stunning. Some of these are currently in commercial use while others are still in the developmental phase. This review brings together the relevant research in this field, evaluating the methods in terms of mechanism of action (mechanical and physiological), effectiveness and animal welfare.