4.7 Editorial Material

Humanely Ending the Life of Animals: Research Priorities to Identify Alternatives to Carbon Dioxide

期刊

ANIMALS
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ani9110911

关键词

animal welfare; carbon dioxide; stunning; killing; euthanasia; rodents; poultry; pigs; aversion; air hunger

资金

  1. Swiss Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO) [714]
  2. University of Zurich Forschungskredit [FK-17-064]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Simple Summary: Carbon dioxide is commonly used for stunning animals prior to killing. It allows several animals to be killed at once, reduces the need for handling, and is a reliable method. However, research in laboratory rodents, poultry, and pigs has indicated that it causes considerable aversion at concentrations above ambient conditions. Currently, there are no available alternatives with desirable characteristics. This manuscript describes a list of research priorities to find and implement the use of alternative methods or agents to improve animal welfare. Abstract: The use of carbon dioxide (CO2) for stunning and killing animals is considered to compromise welfare due to air hunger, anxiety, fear, and pain. Despite decades of research, no alternatives have so far been found that provide a safe and reliable way to induce unconsciousness in groups of animals, and also cause less distress than CO2. Here, we revisit the current and historical literature to identify key research questions that may lead to the identification and implementation of more humane alternatives to induce unconsciousness in mice, rats, poultry, and pigs. In addition to the evaluation of novel methods and agents, we identify the need to standardise the terminology and behavioural assays within the field. We further reason that more accurate measurements of consciousness state are needed and serve as a central component in the assessment of suffering. Therefore, we propose a roadmap toward improving animal welfare during end-of-life procedures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据