Independent report

AWC advice on preslaughter handling of horses

Published 10 May 2024

AWC has been asked to provide advice on recently published research on pre-slaughter handling of horses.

Legal context

The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 (Schedule 1, 32(c)) state that in a slaughterhouse “No person may kill a horse – (c) within sight of any other horse.”. This also applies in a knacker’s yard (Schedule 2, 43(c)) but not in other places. This requirement was carried forward from previous domestic legislation. Similar provisions exist in legislation in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Previous FAWC advice

The 2003 Farm Animal Welfare Council Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing Part 1: Red Meat Animals recorded that “Council believes that research should be carried out to see if the welfare of some horses would benefit from being accompanied by another in order to keep them calm before they are shot and to determine the effect of horses observing the killing of their conspecifics.” and recommended that “Government should fund research into the welfare implications of difficult-to-handle horses being accompanied by another, calmer animal during slaughter.”

Background

In any slaughter premises processing horses, the welfare of each horse will be determined by how their nature and background influences their reaction to the slaughterhouse environment, the quality of the handling and restraining facilities, and the skill and experience of the animal handlers and slaughterers.

AWC is aware that there are very few slaughterhouses in the UK approved for the slaughter of horses, in particular dealing with feral/semi-feral horses, and that research, funded by equine welfare NGO World Horse Welfare, was conducted using CCTV footage obtained from the premises that slaughters the vast majority of horses.

The procedure used in this slaughterhouse of shooting horses individually in a small room, haltered or unrestrained, may not be replicated in other UK premises. Indeed, many slaughterhouses in Europe use cattle stunning boxes and penetrating captive bolt device followed by bleeding. An accompanying horse would not be appropriate or possible in these latter handling systems, and for this reason they may be less well suited to fractious horses that can become difficult to handle if isolated.

Welfare issues

Horses, and especially feral and semi-feral ponies, can become agitated and stressed if isolated. Their normal behaviour as herd animals is to stay together with familiar companions. They can also be stressed and become agitated or aggressive in the unfamiliar environment of the slaughterhouse.

Horses that are used to being handled and halter-led are much easier to handle in a slaughterhouse environment than unbroken horses. Animals that need to be herded into the stun box in an agitated state may also be susceptible to slips or falls.

Staff at the slaughterhouse used in the research and which AWC visited and who had considerable experience in handling unbroken horses confirmed that if separated individually they will tend to panic and become very agitated in many cases.

There is a widely held presumption that an animal observing a conspecific being slaughtered could result in that animal suffering distress, but research in some social species, such as pigs and sheep^{[footnote 1]}, have found this not to be the case, especially in comparison to the impact of social isolation.

Evidence

Fletcher, K.A.; Limon, G.; Padalino, B.; Hall, G.K.; Chancellor, N.; Grist, A.; Gibson, T.J. Impact of Social Buffering and Restraint on Welfare Indicators during UK Commercial Horse Slaughter. Animals 2023, 13, 2276.

Abstract

Current legislation in the United Kingdom stipulates that horses should not be slaughtered within sight of one another. However, abattoir personnel anecdotally report that, for semi-feral horses unused to restraint, co-slaughtering alongside a conspecific could reduce distress through social buffering and improve safety, but there is a lack of evidence to support this. CCTV footage from an English abattoir was assessed retrospectively with welfare indicators from when horses entered the kill pen until they were killed. Of 256 horses analysed, 12% (32/256) were co-slaughtered (alongside a conspecific) and 88% (224/256) individually. Co-slaughtered horses moved more in the pen, but individually slaughtered horses showed more agitated behaviour, required more encouragement to enter the kill pen, and experienced more slips or falls. Unrestrained horses (40%; 102/256) showed increased agitation, movement, and agonistic behaviour towards the operator and resisted entry to the kill pen compared to restrained horses (60%; 154/256). Positive interactions between conspecifics were seen in 94% (30/32) of co-slaughtered horses, and only 6% (1/16) showed a startled response to the first horse being shot, with a median time of 15 s between shots. This study highlights the impact that both conspecific and human interactions can have on equine welfare at slaughter. Semi-feral or unrestrained horses appear to experience increased distress compared to horses more familiar with human handling, and the presence of a conspecific at slaughter mitigated this.

AWC view

The research data suggests a clear welfare advantage to co-slaughter handling, but AWC would be cautious about generalising from one study. This outcome may be particular to horses with certain backgrounds and the paper does not provide demographic information on the horses, only whether they were unrestrained.

The limitations of the research are well covered by the report, most of which are to be expected in work that takes place in commercial premises. The study design is clear that a much smaller number of horses were co-slaughtered, which makes the findings less robust.

The paper is an important step in highlighting this issue, and we commend the authors – it is challenging work. The study on its own does not provide sufficient unambiguous scientific evidence to support a recommendation that legislation be changed to allow fractious horses to be stunned in the presence of conspecifics.

Comparisons using similar methodology, between bigger and more equal samples, with more information available on the background of each individual, ideally at more than one abattoir, would help to elucidate if co-slaughtering has significant and consistent benefits.

We are concerned, however, that given the niche nature of this type of slaughter and low throughput of slaughter horses (only 544 in England and Wales in 2022), this research would not be prioritised, and there is a danger that as a result, no policy decision would be made on this important animal welfare question.

Members of the AWC Welfare at Killing sub-committee have observed horse slaughter many times and have been to the slaughterhouse studied several times to see horses being killed. To add to this a recent visit was made by Welfare at Killing sub-committee members to the slaughterhouse to observe pre-slaughter handling and slaughter of horses.

In the premises studied, it was confirmed that horses that could be handled or were halter broken were always handled individually on a halter. It was only fractious horses that were sometimes taken into the stunning room in pairs, and these animals were unused to being handled and were not halter broken. The importance of the animal handlers’ and slaughterman’s experience and their aptitude and empathy for working with horses must be stressed.

The practice of placing a fractious horse in the stunning room with a companion was effective at calming them and there was little or no reaction from the remaining horse when the first was shot. The remaining horse was then quickly despatched. This practice appeared to provide a less stressful experience, especially for feral ponies, but has been discontinued while this advice is being prepared.

Veterinary experience developed over a long time and during many observations of the horse slaughter process supports the conclusions of the research. AWC members with this experience would be supportive of fractious horses that have been raised together being transported and lairaged together and being permitted to be in pairs in the stunning room. 

One of AWC’s long held beliefs is to consider the precautionary principle where knowledge is inconclusive or incomplete. Until further evidence is available, the animal should be given the benefit of the doubt. In the case of pre-slaughter handling of horses, we recommend that the government prioritise the welfare of fractious horses in these difficult end of life situations by allowing co-slaughter.

Yours sincerely,

Madeleine L.H. Campbell, Chair, Animal Welfare Committee

Jane M. Downes, Chair, Welfare at Killing sub-committee

---

Anil, M.H.; Preston, J.; McKinstry, J.L.; Rodwayl, R.G.; Brown, S.N. An assessment of Stress Caused in Sheep by Watching Slaughter of other sheep. Anim. Welf. 1996, 5, 435–441.

Anil, M.H.; Mckinstry, J.L.; Field, M.; Rodway, R.G. Lack of Evidence for Stress Being Caused to Pigs by Witnessing the Slaughter of Conspecifics. Anim. Welf. 1997, 6, 3–8.

Schaeperkoetter, M.; Weller, Z.; Kness, D.; Okkema, C.; Grandin, T.; Edwards-Callaway, L. Impacts of group stunning on the behavioral and physiological parameters of pigs and sheep in a small abattoir. Meat Sci. 2021, 179, 108538.