Scientific opinion concerning the killing of rabbits for purposes other than slaughter

SCIENTIFIC OPINION ADOPTED: 10 December 2019 doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.5943 Scientific opinion concerning the killing of rabbits for purposes other than slaughter EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin-Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gort azar Schmidt, Virginie Michel, Miguel  Angel Miranda Chueca, Helen Clare Roberts, Liisa Helena Sihvonen, Karl Stahl, Antonio Velarde Calvo, Arvo Viltrop, Christoph Winckler, Denise Candiani, Chiara Fabris, Olaf Mosbach-Schulz, Yves Van der Stede and Hans Spoolder Abstract Rabbits of different ages may have to be killed on-farm for purposes other than slaughter (where slaughter is defined as killing for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale (e.g. for production reasons or for disease control). The purpose of this opinion was to assess the risks associated to the on-farm killing of rabbits. The processes during on-farm killing that were assessed included handling, stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The latter were grouped into four categories: electrical methods, mechanical methods, controlled atmosphere method and lethal injection. In total, 14 hazards were identified and characterised, most of these related to stunning and/or killing. The staff was identified as the origin for all hazards, either due to lack of the appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Possible corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for five hazards and the staff was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Five welfare consequences of the welfare hazards to which rabbits can be exposed to during on-farm killing were identified: not being dead, consciousness, pain, fear and distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed. ©2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority. Keywords: rabbit, on-farm killing, hazards, animal welfare consequences, welfare indicators, preventive/corrective measures Requestor: European Parliament and European Commission Question numbers: EFSA-Q-2019-00518 and EFSA-Q-2019-00519 Correspondence: [email protected] EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal Panel members: Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin-Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gort azar Schmidt, Miguel  Angel Miranda Chueca, Virginie Michel, Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Helen Clare Roberts, Liisa Helena Sihvonen, Hans Spoolder, Karl Stahl, Antonio Velarde Calvo, Arvo Viltrop and Christoph Winckler. Acknowledgements: The AHAW Panel wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: the hearing experts, Marie Bourin, Marien Gerritzen, Mohan Raj; the National expert in professional Training (NEPT programme) Rodrigo Guerrero Bosagna (Ministry of Agriculture –Chile), the trainee Marie Louise Schneider and the trainee Sara Gisella Omodeo (AHAW team, ALPHA unit, EFSA). The AHAW Panel also wishes to acknowledge all external experts that provided information to the survey on slaughter and killing of rabbits. Suggested citation: EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare), Saxmose Nielsen S, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Depner K, Drewe JA, Garin-Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Gort azar Schmidt C, Michel V, Miranda Chueca M A, Roberts HC, Sihvonen LH, Stahl K, Velarde Calvo A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Candiani D, Fabris C, Mosbach-Schulz O, Van der Stede Y and Spoolder H, 2020. Scientific opinion concerning the killing of rabbits for purposes other than slaughter. EFSA Journal 2020;18 (1):5943, 50 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.5943 ISSN: 1831-4732 ©2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and no modifications or adaptations are made. Reproduction of the images listed below is prohibited and permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder: Figures 2, 4 and 5: © European Union 2018; Figure 6: © European Union 2017; Figure 3: © Mohan Raj The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European Food Safety Authority, an agency of the European Union. On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 2 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 Summary In 2009, the European Union (EU) adopted Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, which was prepared on the basis of two Scientific Opinions adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2004 and 2006. Successively (in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2017), the EFSA Animal Health and Welfare Panel (AHAW) produced other Scientific Opinions related to this subject. In parallel, since 2005, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE, 2005) has developed in its Terrestrial Animal Health Code two chapters: (i) Slaughter of animals (Chapter 7.5); and (ii) Killing of animals for disease control purposes (Chapter 7.6). OIE has created an ad hoc Working Group (WG) to revise these two chapters. Against this background, the European Commission requested EFSA to write a Scientific Opinion providing an independent view on the killing of domestic rabbits for purposes other than slaughter, which includes: (i) large-scale killings outside slaughterhouses to control diseases and for other similar situations, like environmental contamination, disaster management, etc.; and (ii) on-farm killing of unproductive animals. The animals that are considered in this assessment are rabbits kept for commercial purposes. With specific reference to handling, restraint, stunning/killing and unacceptable methods, procedures or practices on welfare grounds, EFSA was asked to: identify the animal welfare hazards present during on-farm killing and their possible origins in terms of facilities/equipment and staff (Term of Reference (ToR)-1); define qualitative or measurable criteria to assess performance on animal welfare (animal-based measures (ABMs)) (ToR-2); provide preventive and corrective measures (structural or managerial) to address the hazards identified (ToR-3); and point out specific hazards related to species or types of animals (e.g. young ones, etc.; ToR-4). In addition, the European Commission asked EFSA to also provide measures to mitigate the welfare consequences that can be caused by the identified hazards. This Scientific Opinion aims to update the above-reported EFSA outputs by reviewing the most recent scientific publications and providing the European Commission with a sound scientific basis for future discussions at international level on the welfare of animals in the context of killing for purposes other than slaughter (in which slaughter is defined as killing animals for human consumption). The mandate also requested a list of unacceptable methods, procedures or practices that need to be analysed in terms of the above welfare aspects. Methods, procedures or practices cannot be subjected to a risk assessment procedure if there is no scientific evidence related to these. In the light of this, Chapters 7.5 and 7.6 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (OIE, 2018) list principles and practices considered to be unacceptable, and the Panel has no scientific arguments to disagree with these statements. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 1 defines ‘killing’as ‘any intentional induced process which causes the death of an animal’; and the ‘related operations’are ‘operations that take place in the context and at the location where the animals are killed’. This Opinion concerns the killing of rabbits for purposes other than slaughter, and not involving slaughterhouses (so-called on-farm killing) and the related operations, which here are called ‘processes’. To address the mandate, two main approaches have been used to develop this Opinion: (i) literature search; followed by (ii) expert opinion through WG discussion. The literature search was carried out to identify peer-reviewed scientific evidence providing information on the aspects requested by the ToRs (i.e. description of the processes, identification of welfare hazards, origin, preventive and corrective measures, welfare consequences and related welfare indicators). From the available literature and their own knowledge, the WG experts identified the processes that should be included in the assessment and produced a list of the possible welfare hazards present during each process related to on-farm killing of rabbits. To address the ToRs, experts identified the origin of each hazard (ToR-1) and related preventive and corrective measures (ToR-3), along with the possible welfare consequences of the hazards and relevant welfare indicators (ToR-2). Measures to mitigate the welfare consequences were also considered. Specific hazards were identified related to particular species or types of animals (ToR-4), for example those long-haired breeds that may require clipping of hair to minimise electrical resistance during electrical stunning. In addition, uncertainty analysis on the hazard identification process was carried out, limited to quantifying the probability of 1 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing. OJ L 303, 18 November 2009, pp. 1–30. On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 3 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 wrongly omitting true hazards (i.e. false-negatives) or wrongly including non-hazards (false-positives) in the assessment. The processes assessed in this Opinion are handling and stunning/killing methods. The description of the restraint, when it is needed, has been included in the assessment of the relevant stunning/ killing method. As this Opinion will be used by the European Commission to address the OIE standards, more stunning/killing methods than those reported in Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 have been considered. However, the following criteria have been applied for the selection of stunning/killing methods to include in this assessment among all methods used worldwide for on-farm killing: (i) all methods with described technical specifications known by the experts and not only the methods described in Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009; (ii) methods currently used for stunning/killing of rabbits, and those which are still under development but are likely to become commercially applicable; and (iii) methods for which the welfare aspects (in terms of welfare hazards, welfare consequences, welfare indicators, and preventive and corrective measures) are described sufficiently in the scientific literature. Due to the application of these criteria, some methods that may be applied worldwide have not been included in the current assessment. The stunning and/or killing methods that have been identified as relevant for rabbits can be grouped into four categories: (1) electrical; (2) mechanical; (3) controlled atmosphere; and (4) lethal injection. Head-only electrical stunning is a simple (reversible) stunning method that does not lead to death; therefore, it needs to be followed by a killing method. Mechanical methods include captive bolt, percussive blow to the head and cervical dislocation. Some of these can be used as stunning and killing methods, whereas cervical dislocation is considered a pure killing method and, therefore, it must be applied on unconscious animals. For controlled atmosphere methods, no scientific evidence was available, therefore neither the feasibility of this process nor the related hazards and welfare consequences could be assessed. Lethal injection is the intravenous or intraperitoneal injection of a lethal dose of anaesthetic drugs that cause rapid loss of consciousness followed by death; it should be administered strictly following the manufacturer’s instructions on dose, route and rate of administration. In this Opinion, for each process related to on-farm killing, a description on how it is technically and practically carried out and how the rabbits are kept (e.g. if still in containers or in a restraint device) is provided. In addition, for each process, a list of the main hazards that can occur and the relevant welfare consequences that the hazards can cause is reported. In some specific cases welfare indicators are also provided as examples. To answer ToR-1, a total of 14 welfare-related hazards have been identified during on-farm killing of rabbits. All the processes described in this Opinion have hazards. Some methods among the stunning/killing methods present hazards related to the restraint of rabbits (i.e. electrical and mechanical methods, lethal injection). Hazards linked to failure in provoking death are the most represented ones. Some hazards are inherent to the stunning/killing method and cannot be avoided (e.g. manual restraint for captive bolt), and other hazards originate from suboptimal application of the method, mainly due to unskilled staff (e.g. rough handling, use of wrong parameters e.g. for electrical methods). In fact, all of the hazards had staff as origin and could be attributed to lack of the appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. The uncertainty analysis on the set of hazards identified for each process provided in this Opinion revealed that the experts were 90–95% certain that they identified all welfare hazards considered in this assessment according to the three criteria described in the Interpretation of ToRs. However, when considering a global perspective (due to the lack of documented evidence on all possible variations in the processes and methods being practised on a worldwide scale), the experts were 95–99% certain that at least one welfare hazard is missing. On the possible inclusion of false-positive hazards, the experts were 95–99% certain that all listed hazards exist during on-farm killing of rabbits. The mandate also asked to define qualitative or quantitative (measurable) criteria to assess performance (i.e. consequences) on animal welfare (animal based measures; ToR-2); this ToR has been addressed by identifying the negative consequences on the welfare (so-called welfare consequences) occurring to the rabbits due to the identified hazards and the relevant animal based measures –here called ‘welfare indicators’–that can be used to assess qualitatively or quantitatively these welfare consequences. Five welfare consequences have been identified in the context of on-farm killing of rabbits: not dead (after application of killing method), consciousness (after application of killing method), pain, fear and distress. Rabbits experience these welfare consequences only when they are conscious. On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 4 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 Animal welfare consequences can be the result of single or several hazards. The combination of hazards leads to a cumulative effect on the welfare consequences (e.g. pain due to injury caused by rough handling will lead to more severe pain during manual restraint for electrical stunning). List and definitions of welfare indicators to be used for assessing the welfare consequences have been provided in this Opinion. However, under certain circumstances, not all the welfare indicators can be used because of low feasibility. Even if welfare consequences cannot be assessed during on-farm killing of rabbits, it does not imply they do not exist. In fact, if the hazard is present, it should be assumed that the related welfare consequences are also experienced by the rabbits. In response to ToR-3, the preventive and corrective measures for the identified hazards have been identified and described. Some of these are specific for a hazard while others can apply to multiple hazards (e.g. staff training and rotation). For most of the hazards (13), preventive measures can be put in place and management was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Corrective measures were identified for five hazards. When preventive and/or corrective measures are not available or feasible, actions to mitigate the welfare consequences caused by the identified hazards should be put in place. Finally, outcome tables linking all the mentioned aspects requested by the ToRs (identification of welfare hazards, origin, preventive and corrective measures, welfare consequences and related welfare indicators) have been produced for each process of on-farm killing of rabbits to provide an overall outcome, in which all retrieved information is presented concisely. Conclusions and recommendations of this Scientific Opinion are mainly based on the outcome tables. On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 5 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 Table of contents Abstract................................................................................................................................................... 1 Summary................................................................................................................................................. 3 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor................................................. 8 1.1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................... 8 1.1.2. Terms of Reference .................................................................................................................... 8 1.2. Interpretation of the Terms of Reference...................................................................................... 9 2. Data and methodologies ............................................................................................................. 10 2.1. Data.......................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.1. Data from literature.................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2. Data from expert opinion............................................................................................................ 10 2.2. Methodologies............................................................................................................................ 10 2.2.1. Literature searches..................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.2. Expert opinion through working group discussion ......................................................................... 11 2.2.2.1. Development of outcome tables linking the elements of the ToRs .................................................. 11 2.2.2.2. Uncertainty analysis.................................................................................................................... 13 3. Assessment................................................................................................................................14 3.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 14 3.2. Description of on-farm killing practices......................................................................................... 14 3.2.1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.2. Large-scale killing....................................................................................................................... 15 3.2.3. Killing of unproductive or surplus animals..................................................................................... 15 3.2.3.1. Large-scale killing of unproductive animals ................................................................................... 15 3.2.3.2. Individual killing ......................................................................................................................... 15 3.3. Handling of the rabbits ............................................................................................................... 15 3.3.1. General principles....................................................................................................................... 15 3.3.2. Process description..................................................................................................................... 16 3.3.3. Related hazards and welfare consequences .................................................................................. 16 3.4. Stunning/killing methods for rabbits............................................................................................. 16 3.4.1. Introduction on stunning/killing methods and related restraint....................................................... 16 3.4.2. Head-only electrical stunning....................................................................................................... 17 3.4.3. Mechanical methods for adults .................................................................................................... 19 3.4.3.1. Captive bolt ............................................................................................................................... 19 3.4.3.2. Percussive blow to the head........................................................................................................ 21 3.4.3.3. Cervical dislocation ..................................................................................................................... 22 3.4.4. Lethal injections ......................................................................................................................... 22 3.4.5. Exposure to controlled atmospheres (gas mixtures) ...................................................................... 23 3.4.6. Methods for on-farm killing of kits ............................................................................................... 23 3.4.6.1. Blunt force trauma ..................................................................................................................... 24 3.4.6.2. Cervical dislocation ..................................................................................................................... 24 3.4.6.3. Decapitation .............................................................................................................................. 24 3.4.6.4. Chilling/freezing (leading to hypothermia) .................................................................................... 24 3.4.6.5. Suffocation or smothering in a bag .............................................................................................. 24 3.5. Unacceptable methods, procedures or practices on welfare grounds .............................................. 24 3.6. Response to ToR-1: hazard identification, origin and specific preventive and corrective measures..... 25 3.6.1. List of hazards ........................................................................................................................... 25 3.6.1.1. People entering the house .......................................................................................................... 25 3.6.1.2. Rough handling of the rabbits ..................................................................................................... 26 3.6.1.3. Unexpected loud noise................................................................................................................ 26 3.6.1.4. Inversion ................................................................................................................................... 26 3.6.1.5. Manual restraint ......................................................................................................................... 27 3.6.1.6. Poor electrical contact................................................................................................................. 27 3.6.1.7. Too short exposure time ............................................................................................................. 27 3.6.1.8. Inappropriate electrical parameters.............................................................................................. 27 3.6.1.9. Prolonged stun to kill interval ...................................................................................................... 28 3.6.1.10. Incorrect shooting position.......................................................................................................... 28 3.6.1.11. Incorrect bolt parameters ........................................................................................................... 28 3.6.1.12. Incorrect application of blow to the head and cervical dislocation .................................................. 28 3.6.1.13. Inappropriate route of administration of lethal drugs..................................................................... 29 On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 6 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 3.6.1.14. Sub-lethal dose .......................................................................................................................... 29 3.6.2. Overview of hazards in the different processes ............................................................................. 29 3.6.3. Assessment of uncertainty .......................................................................................................... 30 3.6.4. Origin categories and specifications ............................................................................................. 30 3.7. Response to ToR-2: Criteria to assess performance on animal welfare (including welfare indicators) .31 3.7.1. Welfare consequences ................................................................................................................ 31 3.7.2. Welfare indicators and their definitions......................................................................................... 35 3.8. Response to ToR-3: Identification of preventive and corrective measures........................................ 36 3.8.1. Preventive measures that apply to multiple hazards ...................................................................... 36 3.8.1.1. Staff training.............................................................................................................................. 36 3.8.1.2. Staff rotation ............................................................................................................................. 36 3.8.1.3. Slow down the process............................................................................................................... 37 3.8.1.4. Ensure correct maintenance of the equipment.............................................................................. 37 3.8.1.5. Regular calibration and maintenance of the equipment ................................................................. 37 3.8.1.6. Adjust equipment accordingly...................................................................................................... 37 3.8.1.7. Proper monitoring of equipment .................................................................................................. 37 3.8.1.8. Ensure equipment is fit for the purpose ....................................................................................... 37 3.8.1.9. Written standard operating procedures in place............................................................................ 37 3.9. Response to ToR-4: specific hazards for animal categories............................................................. 37 3.10. Content of outcome tables linking the aspects requested by the ToRs ............................................ 38 4. Conclusions................................................................................................................................43 4.1. General Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 43 4.2. Conclusions specific for the processes.......................................................................................... 44 4.2.1. Handling.................................................................................................................................... 44 4.2.2. Electrical methods ...................................................................................................................... 44 4.2.3. Mechanical methods ................................................................................................................... 44 4.2.4. Lethal injection .......................................................................................................................... 44 4.2.5. Controlled atmosphere methods .................................................................................................. 44 4.2.6. Methods for killing of kits ............................................................................................................ 45 5. Recommendations...................................................................................................................... 45 References............................................................................................................................................... 46 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................... 48 Appendix A –Literature search outcomes................................................................................................... 50 On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 7 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 1. Introduction 1.1. Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor 1.1.1. Background The Union adopted in 2009 Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 2 on the protection of animals at the time of killing. This piece of legislation was prepared on the basis of two EFSA opinions respectively adopted in 2004 3 and 2006 4 (EFSA, 2004, 2006). The EFSA AHAW Panel provided additional opinions related to this subject in 2012, 5 2013 6-11 , 2014 12,13 , 2015 14 and 2017 15,16 . In parallel, since 2005, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) has developed in its Terrestrial Animal Health Code two chapters covering a similar scope: Slaughter of animals (Chapter 7.5); Killing of animals for disease control purposes (Chapter 7.6) The chapter slaughter of animals covers the following species: cattle, buffalo, bison, sheep, goats, camelids, deer, horses, pigs, ratites, rabbits and poultry (domestic birds as defined by the OIE). The OIE has created an ad hoc working group with the view to revise the two chapters. Against this background, the Commission would like to request the EFSA to review the scientific publications provided and possibly other sources to provide a sound scientific basis for the future discussions at international level on the welfare of animals in the context of slaughter (killing animals for human consumption) or other types of killing (killing for other purposes than slaughter). 1.1.2. Terms of Reference The Commission therefore considers it opportune to request EFSA to give an independent view on the killing of animals for other purposes than slaughter: free moving animals (cattle, buffalo, bison, sheep, goats, camelids, deer, horses, pigs, ratites) animals transported in crates or containers (i.e. rabbits and domestic birds). The request focuses on the cases of large scale killings which take place in case of depopulation for disease control purposes and for other similar situations (environmental contamination, disaster management, etc.) outside slaughterhouses. The request also considers in a separate section the killing of unproductive animals that might be practiced on-farm (day-old chicks, piglets, pullets, etc.). The request includes the following issues: handling, restraint, stunning/killing, unacceptable methods, procedures or practices on welfare grounds. For each process or issue in each category (i.e. free moving/in crates or containers), EFSA will: 2 OJ L 303, 18.11.2009, p. 1. 3 The welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing the main commercial species of animals, The EFSA Journal (2004), 45, 1–29. 4 The welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing applied to commercially farmed deer, goats, rabbits, ostriches, ducks, geese and quail. The EFSA Journal (2006) 326, 1–18. 5 Electrical requirements for waterbath equipment applicable for poultry. EFSA Journal 2012b;10(6):2757. 6 Electrical parameters for the stunning of lambs and kid goats. EFSA Journal 2013a;11(6):3249. 7 Monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for bovines. EFSA Journal 2013b;11(12):3460. 8 Monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for poultry. EFSA Journal 2013c;11(12):3521. 9 Monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for sheep and goats. EFSA Journal 2013d;11(12):3522. 10 Monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for pigs. EFSA Journal 2013e;11(12):3523. 11 The use of carbon dioxide for stunning rabbits. EFSA Journal 2013f;11(6):3250. 12 The use of low atmosphere pressure system (LAPS) for stunning poultry. EFSA Journal 2014a;12(1):3488. 13 Electrical requirements for poultry waterbath stunning equipment. EFSA Journal 2014b;12(7):3745. 14 The scientific assessment of studies on electrical parameters for stunning of small ruminants (ovine and caprine species). EFSA Journal 2015;13(2):4023. 15 The low atmospheric pressure system for stunning broiler chickens. EFSA Journal 2017a;15(12):5056. 16 The animal welfare aspects in respect of the slaughter or killing of pregnant livestock animals (cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, horses). EFSA Journal 2017b;15(5):4782. On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 8 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 Identify the animal welfare hazards and their possible origins (facilities/equipment, staff), Define qualitative or measurable criteria to assess performance on animal welfare (animalbased measures), Provide preventive and corrective measures to address the hazards identified (through structural or managerial measures), Point out specific hazards related to species or types of animals (young, with horns, etc.) 1.2. Interpretation of the Terms of Reference This Scientific opinion concerns the killing of rabbits for purposes other than slaughter. A separate opinion deals with slaughter of rabbits and is referred to in the present document. The European Commission asked EFSA to provide an independent view on killing of rabbits for purposes other than slaughter, which takes place in case of: (a) the large-scale killings (depopulation for disease control purposes and for other similar situations, such as environmental contamination, disaster management, etc.) outside the slaughterhouses, and (b) the on-farm killing of unproductive animals. The latter could be split in two subcategories: (i) large-scale killing of unproductive animals, and (ii) individual killing on-farm including unhealthy and injured rabbits. For each of these scenarios, several welfare aspects need to be analysed (including e.g. welfare hazards, performance criteria and corrective measures). This opinion will use definitions related to the killing of rabbits provided by the Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, which entered into force in January 2013. In this opinion killing refers to any intentionally applied procedure that causes death of the animal (Regulation 1099/2009). The processes involved in this operation are (1) handling and (2) stunning/killing methods. Considering that the restraint of rabbits prior to killing (or stunning if a stunning method is applied before killing the rabbit) varies depending on the killing (stunning) method, the restraint will be included in the assessment of the relevant killing (stunning) method. The main methods relevant for rabbits identified can be grouped into four categories: (1) electrical, (2) mechanical, (3) controlled atmosphere and (4) lethal injection. Due to the diversity of available killing methods, in this opinion, the assessment of hazards, welfare consequences and related welfare indicators, hazard origin and preventive/corrective actions will be dealt with separately for each method. Mitigation measures to minimise animal welfare consequences are also described. The mandate requests EFSA to identify hazards at different stages (processes) of killing for other purposes than slaughter and their relevant origins in terms of equipment/facilities or staff (ToR-1). This opinion will report the hazards that occur during killing of rabbits for purposes other than slaughter, usually referred to as on-farm killing. This can be performed using several stunning/killing methods; some killing methods are specific to the on-farm killing while others are commonly used in slaughterhouses but can also be used for the on-farm killing. In the context of the same method, hazards applicable to slaughtering may occur also in the on-farm killing, whereas some other hazards may not apply due to the different scenario (e.g. hazards related to the facilities in the slaughter plant). The mandate also asks to define qualitative or measurable (quantitative) criteria to assess performance on animal welfare (animal-based measures (ABMs); ToR-2); this ToR has been addressed by identifying the negative consequences on the welfare (so called ‘welfare consequences’) occurring to the rabbits due to the identified hazards and the relevant animal based measures –here called ‘welfare indicators’–that can be used to assess qualitatively and/or quantitatively the welfare consequences. In some circumstances, it might be that no ABMs exist or are not feasible to use in the context of on-farm killing of rabbits; in these cases, emphasis to the relevant measures to prevent the hazards or to mitigate the welfare consequences will be given. In this opinion, in the description of the processes, the relevant negative welfare consequences that the rabbits can experience when exposed to hazards will be also reported. The ranking of the identified hazards in terms of severity, magnitude and frequency of the welfare consequences that they can cause would have been useful to prioritise actions and improve the procedure of the on-farm killing; however, this has not been performed due to the limited time for this mandate. This opinion will also propose preventive and corrective measures for the identified hazards; these measures will regard two main categories: (1) structural and (2) managerial (ToR-3). When corrective measures for the hazards are not available or feasible, actions to mitigate the welfare consequences On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 9 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 Housing systems used to rear rabbits vary widely. It is therefore inevitable that the nature of hazards and the magnitude of animal welfare consequences will vary according to these factors during the life of the animals and when handled for any purpose, including killing. In addition, the method employed for killing will also determine the nature of hazards and the number of rabbits exposed to them. 3.3.2. Process description Whatever the housing systems and the method of killing rabbits are always caught manually. In commercial farms, reproducing does are exclusively housed in wire cages together with their offspring until weaning age. In a large majority of specialised farms, cages are predominantly’dual purpose’, i.e. for reproducing does and for fattening after weaning, which permits the all-in, all-out approach, as well as cleaning and disinfection for the following incoming reproduction cycle. These cages are equipped with a feeder, a nipple drinker and a nest area. More recently, an increasing number of new or renovated farms have been using the so-called ‘WRSA cages’, i.e. enriched cages that follow World Rabbit Science Association guidelines and are equipped with elevated platforms and plastic footrests, sometimes providing environmental enrichment (gnawing material). (Szendr} o et al., 2019). Restocking does, but not pregnant does, are usually housed in small cages for a brief period before entering the batch production management system. Standard cages for reproducing does measure 38 cm along the shortest side, have a height of 30 cm and a minimum cage area of about 3,000 cm 2 (EFSA, 2005). In some countries, cages with a width of 46 cm are also used as standard. Enriched cages and pen/park systems have a total available surface ranging from about 4,400 to 6,400 cm 2 /doe (Szendr} o et al., 2019). More recently, semi-group (part-time) housing systems have been proposed (Maertens et al., 2011) and are currently under study in different countries. In these systems, does are housed in small groups, usually from around 18 days of lactation until weaning (i.e. 3 weeks of collective housing), and individually from a few days before the following kindling until around day 18 of lactation (i.e. 3 weeks of individual housing) (Szendr} o et al., 2019). During the weaning-fattening period (28–85 days of age), rabbits are housed in cages. Whenever it is necessary to kill a rabbit, it is necessary to remove it from the cage or park. Handling is then mandatory and can pose a problem for animal welfare if it is not carried out well. 3.3.3. Relatd hazards and welfare consequences Even when rabbits are handled to be killed, good animal welfare should be ensured during this process through prevention of the hazards and mitigation of the welfare consequences. As welfare consequences during this process, rabbits can be exposed to pain, fear and distress due to ‘People entering the house’,‘Rough handling of the rabbits’,‘Inversion’and ‘Unexpected loud noise’. It should be noted that rabbits can experience pain and fear due to the exposure to the hazards related to handling at all stages of the killing on farm. The hazards identified during ‘handling’, the relevant welfare consequences and related welfare indicators, hazard’s origins, preventive and corrective measures are reported in Table 8. 3.4. Stunning/killing methods for rabbits 3.4.1. Introduction on stunning/killing methods and related restraint According to Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009,’stunning’means any intentionally induced process which causes loss of consciousness and sensibility without pain, including any process resulting in instantaneous death. Rabbits subjected to reversible (simple) stunning methods should be killed using another method. The list of methods and the indication whether they pertain to stunning and/or killing are presented in Table 3. This list is based on the knowledge of the WG experts as the most frequently used methods for on-farm killing. However, it may not be exhaustive in a worldwide context. Each method will be described in detail in Section 3.4. On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 16 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 For all methods, it is important to ensure that all rabbits are dead before carcass disposal (e.g. transport to the rendering plant, being buried, etc.). If animals are still alive, a back-up killing method must be applied. It should be emphasised that the key parameters required to achieve good welfare during the application of methods listed in Table 3have been extensively investigated and established, and hence, used globally for killing rabbits on farm. It should also be noted that there are other methods, such as electrocution, which involves headto-body application of a current of sufficient magnitude to induce unconsciousness and cardiac arrest, or exposure to controlled atmospheres containing carbon dioxide and inert gases until animals are dead, that have been developed and used for killing other farm animals (e.g. pigs, poultry and those farmed for fur) and some of these could be potentially modified to suit the killing of rabbits on farms. It is also worth noting that scientific publications concerning large-scale killing of rabbits on farms are scarce and neither the hazards nor the welfare consequences are well documented. However, stunning of rabbits by head-only electrical stunning immediately followed by bleeding, killing using mechanical methods and lethal injection are described and each method has animal welfare advantages and disadvantages (NFACC, 2018). The hazards and animal welfare outcomes vary according to the method. There is no documented scientific information on methods of killing kits on farm. Discussions with field experts revealed that unwanted kits are sometimes killed by placing them in a non-permeable bag, air is expelled as much as possible from the bag and it is tied airtight. The animals are left to die. There is no published data to suggest the time to onset of unconsciousness or death. Another method involves bagging as described above and then placing the bag in a domestic freezer. There is no published data to suggest the time to onset of unconsciousness or death. It is more than likely that kits will be subjected to death by suffocation or acute hypothermia. 3.4.2. Headonly electrical stunning Head-only electrical stunning is widely used in rabbit slaughterhouses and can be used for on-farm stunning. Process description Head-only electrical stunning is applied using two electrodes on either side of the head, such that they span the brain. The electrical stunning tongs or electrodes are usually mounted on the wall, as shown below (Figure 2) (European Commission, 2018). An operator supports the rabbit’s belly or holds its hind legs with one hand, and guides the head by holding the ears with the other hand. Electrodes are placed between the outer corners of its eyes and the base of its ears, away from the nose. Table 3: Main methods used for on-farm killing of adult rabbits with an indication of whether they are stunning and/or killing methods Method Stunning Killing MECHANICAL captive bolt Yes No* Cervical dislocation No** Yes Percussive blow to the head Yes Yes Blunt force trauma Yes Yes HEAD-ONLY ELECTRICAL Yes No LETHAL INJECTION Yes Yes CONTROLLED ATMOSPHERE Yes Yes *: When applied correctly, if the outcome is immediate death captive bolt can be also a killing method in rabbits. However, Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 consider it a simple (reversible) stunning method. **: Killing methods that do not render the animal unconscious immediately should be preceded by a stunning method. On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 17 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 Alternatively, rabbit can be stunned using electrodes mounted on the ceiling by supporting its body with one hand and the other hand placed on its back to secure it in position for stunning as shown below (Figure 3). Head-only electrical stunning involves application of an electric current of sufficient magnitude to the brain of an animal causing a generalised epileptiform activity, and hence unconsciousness. The exposure time should be long enough to ensure that rabbits show proper signs of unconsciousness. Neither the EU Slaughter Regulation 1099/2009 nor the OIE Guidelines stipulate any minimum current for head-only electrical stunning although both include rabbits. The head of a rabbit is placed in the V-shaped electrode (see Figure 2) so that the electrical current of sufficient magnitude will flow through the brain. The electrodes should be placed between the outer corners of the eyes and the base of the ears. The key parameters are the waveform and frequency of the current and the amount of current delivered to the animal required to inducing a generalised epilepsy in the brain (Anil et al., 1998; and Anil et al., 2000; Maria et al., 2001; Nodari et al., 2009). The amount of current used in the field condition ranges between 100 and 400 mA and the duration of stunning (exposure time) varies between 0.5 and 5 seconds (European Commission, 2018). The fur on the rabbit’s head may impede with the efficacy of electrical stunning due to high electrical resistance. However, wetting of rabbits’ heads with a damp sponge will help to overcome electrical resistance. In addition to this, the electrodes must be cleaned at regular intervals using a wire brush to facilitate good electrical contact. These measures will prevent poor animal welfare outcome due to burning of fur which occurs due to generation of heat at the contact point of the electrode. Effectively stunned animals should be bled out by cutting both the carotid arteries within 10 seconds to prevent recovery of consciousness (European Commission, 2018). Figure 2: Illustration of head-only electrical stunning (Source: European Commission, 2018) Figure 3: Head-only electrical stunning of rabbit (© Mohan Raj) On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 18 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 Related hazards/welfare consequences As welfare consequences during this process, rabbits can be exposed to ‘Pain’,‘Fear’,‘Consciousness’ due to ‘manual restraint’,‘Poor electrical contact’,‘Too short exposure time’,‘Inappropriate electrical parameters’and ‘Prolonged stun to stick/kill interval’. The hazards identified in case of ‘Head-only electrical stunning’, relevant welfare consequences and related welfare indicators, hazard origins, preventive and corrective measures are reported in Table 10. Assessment of animal welfare Head-only electrical stunning is a reversible stunning method and therefore a killing method (e.g. cervical dislocation or bleeding) should be applied. It is important to ensure that all rabbits are unconscious before applying the killing method. Signs of consciousness are: breathing, eye reflexes, spontaneous swallowing and head shacking. Death should be confirmed before carcass disposal (EFSA, AHAW Panel, 2020b). 3.4.3. Mechanical methods for adults Mechanical methods can be used as stunning and killing methods. The main mechanical stunning/ killing methods usable on farm are: (i) penetrating captive bolt, (ii) percussive blow and iii) cervical dislocation. These methods are applied to individual animals for stunning/killing. As a precaution, it is worth mentioning that repeated firing of captive bolts in quick succession will lead to overheating of the barrel which will hinder accurate placement at the least and lead to complete failure at the worst. Therefore, there should be adequate number of captive bolts on site in order to facilitate resting/rotation of the guns. 3.4.3.1. Captive bolt Process description For penetrative and non-penetrative captive bolt stunning, it is essential to restrain the head to achieve accurate placement and shooting of the bolt. The rabbit should be held down with one hand on a non-slip floor, with its back end placed against something immovable so that the rabbit cannot back away. The restraining hand should gently but firmly hold the rabbit by the neck and shoulders, with the thumb and index finger lightly on either side of the rabbit’s neck with rest of the hand over the rabbit’s shoulders. The other hand operates the captive bolt stunner. Recommended restraining for captive bolt stunning of rabbit: (Figure 4) Captive bolt stunning involves induction of concussion of the brain. In addition, penetrating captive bolts cause severe structural damage to the brain. Effective use of captive bolts and parameters appropriate to the size of rabbits should result in death. Effective application of a penetrating or non-penetrative captive bolt (e.g. mushroom shaped) powered by cartridge, compressed air or spring on the frontal/parietal bones of animals and delivery of a sufficient blow to its head leads to immediate loss of consciousness due to brain concussion. The captive bolt gun should be placed firmly behind the eyes and in front of the ears and fired perpendicular to the skull bones. Both the carotid arteries should be severed swiftly to prevent recovery of consciousness. Penetrative captive bolt should be at least 6 mm in diameter (European Commission, 2018). Spring loaded captive bolts may not always deliver sufficient force and therefore requires close scrutiny. Figure 4: Restrain and position for captive bolt stunning (Source: European Commission, 2018) On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 19 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 The operator should take into consideration some of the important variables, such as age of the animal and development and thickness of skull bones, during the selection of power of cartridge or compressed air pressure that determine the animal welfare outcomes. Published data on the use of non-penetrative captive bolt in rabbits are scarce. Nevertheless, one study (Walsh et al., 2017) provides some data on its effectiveness. It involved the use of a commercially available gun operated by using compressed air and with a bolt extension of 2 cm beyond the muzzle of the gun (Zephyr-E, Bock Industries, Philipsburg, PA, USA). Walsh et al. (2017) carried out a preliminary study using rabbit cadavers of varying sizes and ages and weighing between 0.9 and 4.7 kg to determine the appropriate shooting position and required airline pressure for this device. The correct location and pressure was determined by dissection of the head following application of the device looking for maximum brain damage without breaking the skin or injuring other anatomical sites. The results indicated that the appropriate pressure for sufficient brain trauma and skull fractures was 621 kPa (90 psi) for adult rabbits (>12 weeks old), 483 kPa (70 psi) for growers (6–12 weeks old) and 379 kPa (55 psi) for preweaned kits (150 g and larger, ≤5 weeks old). These age-specific airline pressures are recommended by the Euthanasia Guide for Ontario Commercial Meat Rabbit Producers (2016). Walsh et al. (2017) carried out further trials that reported 100% killed following the application of a commercially available non-penetrative captive bolt device in different age groups as shown in Table 4. This equipment is a modified pneumatically operated nail gun with a mushroom shape nylon bolt head extending 2 cm from the end of the barrel. All rabbits were successfully killed. It should be noted that this equipment was fired twice in quick succession to achieve these results; however, the authors suggested that a single shot would be adequate although did not provide additional data to support this. Repeated firing of captive bolt guns will lead to overheating of its barrel and therefore requires frequent resting to cool. Skin covering the head of rabbit can be loose in some breeds and additional care is needed to ensure effective stunning. There are also potential hazards associated with this method and the important ones are listed below. Inevitably, proper restraint is key to the successful application of the non-penetrative captive bolt. The force delivered to skulls of rabbits varies according to the power of cartridge, airline pressure or spring, and the operator should ensure that is appropriate to the age and size of the animal. It is also essential that the equipment is maintained and used according to the manufacturers’instructions. Related hazards/welfare consequences As welfare consequences during this process, rabbits can be exposed to ‘Pain’,‘Fear’, ‘Consciousness’‘Not dead’, due to ‘Manual restraint’,‘Incorrect shooting position’and ‘Incorrect bolt parameters’. Figure 5: Position of the gun (Source: European Commission, 2018) Table 4: Captive bolt features (airline pressure) for various rabbit age groups (Walsh et al., 2017) Age group Number of animals used Airline pressure needed Body weight, kg (mean +SE) Successfully killed (%) 0–5 weeks; preweaned 17 379 kPa (55 psi) 0.2 +0.04 100% 6–12 weeks; growers 26 483 kPa (70 psi) 1.4 +0.10 100% >12 weeks; adults 20 621 kPa (90 psi) 3.3 +0.20 100% On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 20 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 The hazards identified at ‘captive bolt’, relevant welfare consequences and related welfare indicators, hazard origins, preventive and corrective measures are reported in Table 11. 3.4.3.2. Percussive blow to the head Process description A rabbit can be suspended upside down by firmly holding both its hind legs, or restrained on a nonslippery surface with a backstop so it cannot back away. In the latter case, one hand is holding its neck and shoulder such that the ears are tucked away from the head. A percussive blow to the head delivered with sufficient force using an iron rod, pipe or a wooden club, renders the animal immediately unconscious due to brain concussion. Some animals may be killed if the blow is severe (European Commission, 2018). Alternatively, a rabbit can be suspended by holding its hind legs and striking it against a hard surface (Walsh et al., 2017). The striking surface can be a concrete pillar, a wall or floor. When performed with accuracy and sufficient force, the method is expected to result in immediate loss of consciousness due to brain concussion leading to death. One published study by Walsh et al. (2017) indicated that the probability of failure was highest when adult rabbits were stunned with manual percussive blow to the head (in comparison with nonpenetrative captive bolt or cervical dislocation), with a 43% chance of incorrect application and unsuccessful stun (8 of 14 adult rabbits). In addition, the results showed that ineffective stunning occurred in all age groups tested as presented in the table below. Failure was attributed to poor restraint (manual suspension by hind legs) (Table 5). Potential hazards associated with percussive blow to the head are listed below. Poor restraint and operator fatigue are considered to be the major factors contributing to a low success rate with this method. The accuracy of the blow and the force delivered to the skull varies according to the operators’fitness, skill levels and compassion. For this reason, regulation 1099/2009 stipulates that percussive blow delivered manually may be used to kill no more than 70 rabbits per day. Effective stunning of rabbits with a percussive blow induces reversible loss of consciousness (simple stunning), and therefore, the onus of preventing recovery after stunning relies on the prompt and accurate exsanguination. The earliest sign of recovery of consciousness in effectively stunned rabbit is recovery of spontaneous rhythmic breathing. Walsh et al. (2017) reported: ‘A pattern predictive of a return to sensibility was convulsions suddenly stopping versus slowly fading out. No convulsions occurred when rabbits were sensible’. Walsh et al. (2017) also cited work carried out by Li et al. (2012) who reported that a difference of 150 kPa of force applied during percussive blow delivered using a machine operated device altered the chance of mortality in 2-kg rabbits. In the study by Li et al. (2012), rabbits in the mild injury group were less likely to die from their brain injuries with only 10% mortality compared to 60% mortality in the marked injury group, as determined on the basis of lesions and extent of haemorrhaging in the brain that are considered to be characteristics of traumatic brain injury. Related hazards/welfare consequences As welfare consequences during this process, rabbits can be exposed to ‘Pain’,‘Fear’, ‘Consciousness’‘Not dead’, due to ‘Manual restraint’,‘Inversion’and ‘Incorrect application’. Assessment of animal welfare Death can be confirmed through the cessation of bleeding, the absence of breathing, dilated pupils and a relaxed carcass (EFSA, 2020b). If death is not confirmed, a back-up method should be applied. The hazards identified at ‘Percussive blow to the head’, relevant welfare consequences and related welfare indicators, hazard origins, and preventive and corrective measures are reported in Table 12. Table 5: Number of cull rabbits per age group euthanised using blunt force trauma in different age groups (Walsh et al., 2017) Age group Number of animals used Body weight kg (mean SE) Successfully stunned (%) 0–5 weeks; preweaned 23 0.1 0.03 87% 6–12 weeks; growers 21 1.6 0.10 81% >12 weeks; adults 14 3.6 0.30 57% On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 21 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 3.4.3.3. Cervical dislocation Process description Mechanically assisted cervical dislocation of adult rabbits (occasionally leading to decapitation) is routinely used in some countries. For example, the Euthanasia Guide for Ontario Commercial Meat Rabbit Producers (2016) provides the following indications: Alignment: 1) Adjust the opening of the device to the correct size for the animal. Larger animals require a larger slot. 2) Grasp the rabbit by the scruff of the neck with the dominant hand and use the other hand to support the rabbit’s hind end. Carry the rabbit to the device and slide its head into the opening. The rabbit should be facing away from the operator. 3) Once head is in device, use dominant hand to gently adjust the rabbit’s head while still supporting the rabbit’s weight with other hand. 4) Reposition hands so that they are on either side of the rabbit’s hips grasping the upper thighs. Operator’s arms should be at a 90°angle holding the rabbit at a 45°downward angle from their body. Application: 5) With both hands on the rabbit’s hips and the rabbit’s head correctly positioned pull the rabbit at a 45 o downward angle towards the operator’s body in one quick and firm motion. Manual cervical dislocation of kits weighing less than 150 g (preweaned kits) can be also performed by placing a narrow metal object, such as a closed pair of scissors, at the base of the skull prior to dislocation. Application: 1) Restrain the kit on a solid surface with the animal’s underside on the surface. 2) Place the object at the base of the skull with the dominant hand and firmly press the rabbit’s chin to the surface. 3) Grasp the hips of the kit with the non-dominant hand. 4) Pull the rabbit’s body upward away from the head and surface in one swift smooth motion at an upward angle. 5) A sizeable gap will be felt between the skull and first vertebrae. Related hazards/welfare consequences The hazards related to cervical dislocation include ‘manual restraint’(leading to pain and fear) and ‘incorrect application’(leading to the absence of unconsciousness, pain, fear and distress). Assessment of animal welfare The hazards identified at ’Cervical dislocation’, relevant welfare consequences and related welfare indicators, hazard origins, preventive and corrective measures are reported in Table 13. 3.4.4. Lethal injections Process description When performed correctly using barbiturates, this is a method that stuns and kills. Anaesthetic drugs should be injected intravenously (IV); however, intraperitoneal (IP) injection can be performed if a blood vessel is not accessible or the rabbit is too small. When the IP injection route is used, operators should ensure that the pH of drugs is not irritating, and the solution is buffered, diluted and combined with a fast-acting local anaesthetic such as lignocaine (also known as lidocaine) immediately prior to injection (Ambrose et al., 2000) to reduce irritation. It is mentioned in the MSD Veterinary Manual 17 that rabbits may jump or scream when barbiturate is given in the marginal ear vein. Therefore, sedation with midazolam (5 mg/kg, IM or IV) or propofol (10 mg/kg, IV) is recommended before administration of the barbiturate. As a further precaution, euthanasia solution 17 https://www.msdvetmanual.com/exotic-and-laboratory-animals/rabbits/management-of-rabbits On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 22 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 may be diluted 1:1 with saline to prevent a negative reaction and to reduce viscosity of the solution to facilitate a faster and smoother injection. Related hazards/welfare consequences As welfare consequences during this process, rabbits can be exposed to ‘Pain’,‘Fear’,‘Distress’, ‘Consciousness’,‘Not dead’, due to ‘Manual restraint’,‘Administration of non-anaesthetic drug’, ‘Inappropriate route of administration’and ‘Sub-lethal dose’. Assessment of animal welfare The hazards identified at ‘Lethal injection’, relevant welfare consequences and related welfare indicators, hazard origins, preventive and corrective measures are reported in Table 14. 3.4.5. Exposure to controlled atmospheres (gas mixtures) Controlled atmosphere stunning methods are not allowed in Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 for rabbits, are not listed in Chapters 7.5 and 7.6 of the OIE guidelines and are evaluated in a limited number of research papers (Llonch et al., 2012; Nakyinsige et al., 2014; Dalmau et al., 2016). Rabbits are effectively stunned by exposure to concentrations of carbon dioxide at 70-98% and a mixture of 80% N 2 and 20% CO 2 (Llonch et al., 2012; Dalmau et al., 2016). During exposure to these gas mixtures, rabbits gradually lose consciousness. Rabbits exposed to at least 80% CO 2 will lose consciousness in on average 30 seconds, but to ensure death, they should be exposed to the gas concentration for longer periods. Dalmau et al. (2016) reported that in the case of 70% CO 2 60% of the animals died after 360 seconds of exposure. The exposure at 80% CO 2 for 170 seconds induced the death of only 68% of the animals, 90% CO 2 for 90 seconds induced the death of 75% and 98% CO 2 for 60 seconds the death of 63% of the animals. Therefore, to ensure death, the exposure time should be longer that those reported in the paper. Furthermore, the use of slowly rising concentrations of carbon dioxide gas has been reported to be acceptable for killing preweaned kits and adult rabbits (NFACC, 2018), but the minimum standards required to achieve good welfare outcomes are not provided. For example, the rate of increase, final concentration and duration of exposure or the aversive reactions occurring in animals during the induction of unconsciousness are not known. The exposure of rabbits to carbon dioxide, inert gases or mixture of carbon dioxide and inert gases can be used as a killing method, as it has been stipulated for killing poultry on farm. In this regard, it is envisaged that the gas mixtures can be administered (a) into houses containing rabbit rearing cages, without any need for handling conscious animals, or (b) to rabbits removed from rearing cages and placed in crates or containers which can then be loaded into a containerised gassing system. However, scientific evidence about the procedures for on-farm killing of rabbits with controlled atmosphere methods do not exist and neither the feasibility of this process nor the related hazards and welfare consequences can be assessed. 3.4.6. Methods for on-farm killing of kits The time courses for brain cortical and white matter development is different between species of mammals and this can influence the response to injury. Rabbit kits are considered to be neurologically moderately mature at birth (Mellor and Diesch, 2006) and perinatal brain developers (Clancy et al., 2007). Neurophysiological and electron-microscopic studies revealed the development of functional responses and myelination in projection and limbic tracts in the brain during the rapid phase of changes during the first to second week of life in rabbits (Drobyshevsky et al., 2014). There are no documented scientific data on mechanical methods for killing kits on farm. Still, the following methods were elicited during discussions with field experts: blunt force trauma, cervical dislocation, decapitation, chilling/freezing and suffocation or smothering in a bag. However, some of these are considered not acceptable (see Section 3.5). For all methods, it is important to ensure that all rabbits are dead before carcass disposal (e.g. transport to the rendering plant, buried, etc.). If animals are still alive, a back-up killing method must be applied. It is important to avoid improper application of methods due to operator fatigue (Guide for Managing The Risk Of Fatigue At Work, Safe Work Australia, 2013). On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 23 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 3.4.6.1. Blunt force trauma Process description: Involves striking the back of the head of the kit with a hard implement or object. The kit’s body should be held gently but firmly with one hand, with the back of the head facing away from the operator. The head of the kit should be struck accurately and with sufficient force against a hard surface. A suitable killing method needs to be applied immediately. 3.4.6.2. Cervical dislocation Process description: Involves restraining of the kit on a solid surface with one hand, placing a narrow, blunt metal object such as closed pair of scissors on the base of the skull and firmly pressing the kits chin to the surface, grasping the hip of the kit with the other hand and pulling its body upward and away from the head and surface in one swift and continuous motion. Blunt force trauma should be used as a method to stun the kits before performing cervical dislocation. Cervical dislocation by crushing should not be used. 3.4.6.3. Decapitation Process description: Placing a pair of scissor/shear blade at the base of the skull and the top of the neck and cutting through in one swift, smooth motion. Blunt force trauma should be used as a method to stun the kits before performing decapitation. 3.4.6.4. Chilling/freezing (leading to hypothermia) Process description: Placing kits in a domestic freezer and let them die due to hypothermia. 3.4.6.5. Suffocation or smothering in a bag Process description: Bagging large number of kits and leaving them to die due to the lack of air. 3.5. Unacceptable methods, procedures or practices on welfare grounds The mandate requests to identify unacceptable methods in terms of welfare. The Panel considers that there are two problems with these requests. First, the question of what practices are acceptable cannot be answered by scientific risk assessment, but rather involves, e.g. ethical and socio-economic considerations that need to be weighed by the risk managers. Second, it should to be noted that methods, procedures or practices cannot be subjected to a risk assessment procedure if there is no published scientific evidence relating to them. Nevertheless, the panel has no scientific arguments to disagree with OIE and EC Regulation 1099/2009 on unacceptable methods and practices. EC Regulation 1099/2009 presents a list of methods of restraint which are prohibited. Some of these methods are related to rabbit killing. (a) suspending or hoisting conscious animals; (b) mechanical clamping or tying of the legs or feet of animals; (c) severing the spinal cord, such as by the use of a puntilla or dagger; (d) the use of electric currents to immobilise the animal that do not stun or kill it under controlled circumstances, in particular, any electric current application that does not span the brain. Similarly, the Panel has no arguments to disagree with the principle in Chapter 7.5.10 of the OIE Terrestrial code (World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), 2018), which says that ‘methods and practices e.g. restraining methods [...] that cause severe pain and stress in animals, cannot be considered acceptable’. In addition to this, in Chapter 7.6 the Code refers to the principle that ‘when animals are killed for disease control purposes, methods used should result in immediate death or immediate loss of consciousness lasting until death; when loss of consciousness is not immediate, induction of unconsciousness should be non-aversive and should not cause anxiety, pain, distress or suffering in animals’. On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 24 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 Again, the Panel has no reason to disagree with this principle and considers it a basis for acceptability. As a result, the panel agrees that the following are examples of methods that should not be used on welfare grounds: killing rabbits by burying, burning, drowning, suffocating, chilling/freezing and the addition of poisons, pesticides or any other toxic substances to feed or water for the purpose of killing. 3.6. Response to ToR-1: hazard identification, origin and specific preventive and corrective measures According to EFSA (2012), a hazard is any aspect of the environment of the animal in relation to housing and management, animal genetic selection, transport and slaughter, which may have the potential to cause poor welfare. In this opinion, hazards have been identified through the activities described in Section 2.2 and analysed for each phase and process under consideration. The hazards listed in the following sections are related to conscious animals. According to the mandate, the possible origin of the hazards, in terms of facilities/equipment or staff, should also be identified. When discussing these categories, it was agreed that the ‘origin’can be explained further by detailing which actions from the staff or features from equipment and facilities can cause the hazard. Therefore, for each ‘origin category’(facilities/equipment, staff), relevant explanations (so called ‘origin specifications’) have been specified. The mandate also requests to identify the preventive and correctives measures related to the identified hazards. Quite often, hazard corrective measures do not exist. In this case, measures to mitigate the welfare consequences can apply. However, most of the times the main mitigation measure is to kill the animal as soon as possible (see also Section 3.7.1). In the case that the killing method fails, a back-up method should be applied to mitigate severe welfare consequences such as pain, fear and distress. When preventive and corrective measures can be identified, if they are specific for a particular hazard, they will be described in this section together with the relevant hazard. If the preventive and corrective measures available can apply to several hazards (general measures), they will be described under Section 3.8 (response to ToR-3). When no further explanation is needed, reference to the outcome tables will be made. The full list of the 14 hazards identified (see Table 6), with their definitions, indication of which process they apply to and relevant preventive and corrective measures, are reported in the following sections. In particular, hazards specific to the category of kits are reported in Section 3.9. The identified hazards with relevant origin categories and origin specifications, are listed in the outcome tables (Tables 9–14; Section 3.10:first column –hazards, third column –origin category, fourth column –origin specification). In addition, considering that each hazard may lead to one or more negative consequences on the welfare of the rabbits, the outcome tables also report the welfare consequences with which each hazard is associated (second column of the outcome tables mentioned above). 3.6.1. List of hazards 3.6.1.1. People entering the house Definition: people related to the operation entering the house in a way that cause fear to the animals. Process to which this hazard applies: handling Hazard’s preventive and corrective measures The man-animal relationship assumes particular importance in rabbits, due to their shyness and diffidence towards man. In rabbit farms, contacts between animal and man begin soon after birth and continue to be frequent, so usually a positive relationship free from fear of man is developed. In fact, fear levels fall when animals become accustomed to human presence and contact, but the arrival of large numbers of strangers can stress rabbits (Trocino and Xiccato, 2006). This hazard is unavoidable since it is a part of the method. The only thing that can be done is to minimise disturbance as much as possible. On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 25 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 Fear can be elicited by different occasional stimuli or even by defective management practices and housing conditions, which can affect animals’response and welfare to a different extent depending on the frequency of occurrence, duration and severity of the threat. In the on-farm killing situation, rabbits might experience fear during handling and removing of animals from containers and during phases 2 and 3 (stunning and bleeding). Welfare indicators: Rabbits react to fear or threat by ‘fight-or-flight’response, but also manifest tonic immobility (also defined as immobilisation catonia or death feigning) (Giannico et al., 2014). Under different conditions (farmed, lab or pet rabbits), when exposed to threats (noises, the presence of man or unknown operators, introduction of new animals into an established group), rabbits have been observed running away into a hiding place or into a corner of the cage, or freezing, or attacking with teeth and claws (Mullan and Main, 2006; Crowell-Davis, 2007; Verga et al., 2009). Measurements of fear levels in rabbits have been based on changes in posture, inhibition of normal behaviour or occurrence of some abnormal behaviours, altered response to reactivity tests as well as physiological indicators (EFSA, 2005; Verga et al., 2009; Verwer et al., 2009; Buijs and Tuyttens, 2015; Trocino et al., 2018). Indeed, as for the other species, the interpretation and evaluation of the results require special care and an approach as much as possible comprehensive, since some behavioural and physiological indicators are associated with more than one poor welfare state (Broom and Fraser, 2015). Hampshire and Robertson (2015) suggested that the Rabbit Grimace Scale can be used to assess pain and distress, which are negative mental states like fear, and therefore, the use of this scale for assessing fear needs to be explored. Signs of fear are not easily recognisable while animals are housed in containers. Possible welfare indicators during handling outside the container are: 1) Escape attempts, flight (escape) 2) Vocalisations 3) Tonic immobility 4) Grimacing Mitigation measures: Mitigation measures are to identify and eliminate the source of fear, where possible. Pain: Description: Pain can be defined as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage (International Association for the Study of Pain). Most of the processes of killing are potentially painful for conscious animals (see Tables 9–14). They include rough handling, miss-stunning and the injection of nonanaesthetic substances. Welfare indicators: Since pain is a subjective feeling, its intensity, or even the presence, can be very difficult to diagnose, especially in prey species which have been subject to evolutionary pressure to minimise external signs of this state. There are few validated assessment tools for pain assessment in farmed rabbits, but there has been extensive research into pain assessment in laboratory rabbits and this knowledge can be applied in the context of rabbits farmed for meat. Laboratory research has validated changes in natural behaviour, facial expressions and body temperature for pain assessment (Farnworth et al., 2011; Leach et al., 2011; Keating et al., 2012). Behavioural changes include reduced feeding and drinking, tight huddle posture (sitting with their back arched and fore and hind limbs drawn in tightly), locomotory changes including shuffle (walking at a very slow pace) and partial hop movements (forward extension of forelimbs as if to hop, without movement of hind limbs) (Farnworth et al., 2011). General grooming is also reduced, although sites of injury may receive increased grooming (Farnworth et al., 2011). EFSA (2005) noted that although rabbits are normally silent animals, they may squeal loudly if in severe pain or distress; they may also grind the teeth in cases of more chronic pain. More recently, the use of facial expression (i.e. grimacing) as an indicator of pain has been validated in rabbits (Keating et al., 2012). The Rabbit Grimace Scale assesses five different facial action units (orbital tightening, cheek flattening, nose shape, whisker position and ear position) to create an overall score that increases when rabbits experience pain. On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 32 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 From all of the above welfare indicators, vocalisations seem to be the most practical one to assess pain during killing. In addition, withdrawal responses or escape attempts from painful stimuli are also indicative of pain. In addition, pain can be indirectly assessed by scoring the injuries. Feasible welfare indicators are physical damages to the muscles and skin (e.g. scratches and open wounds, bruises). Traumatic injuries during post-mortem inspection are considered to be an indicator for poor handling causing negative welfare consequences. Therefore, possible welfare indicators to monitor the killing process are: 1) Vocalisations 2) Injuries to muscles and skin 3) Withdrawal reactions, escape attempts 4) Grimacing Mitigation measures: Preventative measures should be aimed at the avoidance of injuries during handling and at correct stunning and killing procedures. Staff training is an important element. There are no mitigating measures during the stunning process, other than to proceed as effectively as possible. Distress: Description: Distress is a welfare status difficult to describe, assess and quantify; however, it is a negative welfare consequence that animals can experience in addition to (and different than) pain and fear. It can be a mental or physical suffering, such as extreme anxiety or fear, impossibility to cope with environmental conditions, sadness, or pain, or the state of being in danger or urgent need. For on-farm killing, rabbits are exposed to a number of distressing situations in a short period of time. People are entering the building, which can induce anxiety and fear followed by catching and handling the animals causing fear. When not handled with care, it causes injuries and can be painful. Different hazards will lead to a combination of welfare concerns including distress. Welfare indicators: No specific welfare indicators have been identified to assess distress. However, depending on the origin of mental suffering welfare indicators for pain (see pain) or fear (see fear) or thermal stress (see thermal stress) can be applied. Hampshire and Robertson (2015) suggested that the Rabbit Grimace Scale can be used to assess pain and distress. Mitigation measures: end the process as quickly as possible in order to reduce the time rabbits experience this welfare consequence. State of consciousness: Description Consciousness is the ability of an animal to feel emotions, be sensitive to external stimuli and able to control its voluntary mobility. Consciousness is a prerequisite for experiencing other welfare consequences and can be caused by ineffective stunning or when animals are allowed to recover after stunning. Unconsciousness should be confirmed by ensuring the presence of signs of unconsciousness or the absence of signs of consciousness: Indicators –Signs of state of consciousness Righting reflex: Head righting (attempt to raise head), head shaking after stunning. Ineffectively stunned rabbits and those recovering consciousness will attempt to raise their heads, which is referred to as righting reflex in this opinion, and animals showing this reflex will have to be re-stunned. Breathing: Effective stunning will result in immediate onset of apnoea (absence of breathing). Ineffectively stunned animals and those recovering consciousness will start to breathe in a pattern commonly referred to as rhythmic breathing, which may begin as gagging and lead to respiratory cycle of inspiration and expiration. Breathing can be recognised from the regular flank and/or mouth and nostrils movement. Recovery of breathing, if not visible through these movements, can be checked by holding a small mirror in front of the nostrils or mouth to look for the appearance of condensation due to expiration of moist air. Immediately after stunning, the absence of breathing (apnoea) will be observed. A rabbit recovering consciousness while hanging on the shackle will attempt to breathe, On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 33 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 which may begin as regular gagging before leading to resumption of breathing. Rabbits showing breathing will have to be re-stunned using a back-up method. Tonic–clonic seizures: Effective stunning will result in the presence of tonic–clonic seizures. Tonic seizures can be recognised by an arched back and rigidly flexed legs under the body, and will last for several seconds. It is followed by clonic seizures lasting for seconds and manifested as leg kicking or paddling. The absence of tonic–clonic seizures is indicative of consciousness. Vocalisation: One or repeated short and loud shrieking (squealing) at high frequencies. Vocalisation is expected only in conscious animals and can be used as an indicator in all key stages of monitoring. However, not all conscious animals will vocalise, and hence the absence of vocalisation does not always mean that the animal is unconscious. Animals showing vocalisation must be re-stunned using a back-up method. Corneal reflex: The corneal reflex is elicited by touching or tapping the cornea. Ineffectively stunned animals and those recovering consciousness will blink in response to the stimulus. Effectively stunned and stuck (bled) animals show the absence of the corneal reflex during any key stage. On the other hand, ineffectively or poorly stunned animals and those recovering consciousness prior to sticking or during bleeding are expected to show the presence of the corneal reflex at any key stage. Animals showing a positive corneal reflex must be re-stunned using a back-up method. It is worth noting that placement of electrical stunning tongs (electrodes) over the eyes of rabbits may render this indicator invalid. Palpebral reflex: The palpebral reflex is elicited by touching or tapping a finger on the inner/outer eye canthus or eyelashes. Correctly stunned animals will not show a palpebral reflex. Ineffectively stunned animals and those recovering consciousness will blink in response to the stimulus at any key stage. Animals showing a positive palpebral reflex must be re-stunned using a back-up method. It is worth noting that placement of electrical stunning tongs (electrodes) over the eyes of rabbits may render this indicator invalid. Spontaneous blinking: Conscious animals may show spontaneous blinking and therefore this sign can be used to recognise ineffective stunning or recovery of consciousness after stunning. However, not all the conscious animals may show spontaneous blinking. Spontaneous blinking can be used as an indicator at all key stages of monitoring. Animals showing blinking must be re-stunned using a back-up method. It is worth noting that placement of electrical stunning tongs (electrodes) over the eyes of rabbits may render this indicator invalid. Immediate collapse: Effective stunning can be recognised from the immediate loss of posture leading to collapse of the animal. Ineffectively stunned animals, on the other hand, will fail to collapse or will attempt to regain posture after collapse. Some ineffectively stunned animals, as may occur, for example, if captive bolt shooting position is wrong or electrically immobilised animals, may lose posture, but remain conscious. The absence of immediate collapse of the animal is indicative of consciousness. State of death: Description According to Council regulation 1099/2009, ‘killing’means any intentionally induced process which causes the death of an animal. The purpose of killing methods is to induce death in all animals without requiring bleeding for biosecurity reasons. Nevertheless, bleeding unconscious animals, as a killing method, remains to be an option under certain circumstances. Death should be ensured before animal carcasses are disposed or transported to a rendering place. Death should be confirmed by ensuring the presence of signs of death: Indicators –Signs of death Muscle tone: Immediately after killing, dead animals will lose muscle tone, which can be recognised from the completely relaxed legs, floppy ears, and relaxed jaws. Heart-beat: Onset of death leads to permanent loss of heart beat, which can be ascertained physically by using a stethoscope or by palpation, where possible. Dilated pupils: Dilated pupils (midriasis) are an indication of death. Breathing: a dead rabbit is not expected to show any signs of breathing. Mitigation measures: Any animal showing signs of life should be killed using appropriate back-up methods. On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 34 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 3.7.2. Welfare indicators and their definitions As mentioned previously, welfare indicators are used to assess the welfare consequences. They are the responses of an animal to a specific input and can be measured directly from the animal or indirectly by using animal records (e.g. number of animals DOA at the slaughterhouse) (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2012a). Use of some welfare indicators may not be feasible under certain circumstances, for example, rabbits in the middle of a container may not be visible for assessment. In this situation, if existence of the hazard is realised, it should be assumed that the related welfare consequences exist (Table 8). Table 8: List of welfare indicators with definitions and the welfare consequence/s they are related to. In bracket the references of welfare indicators definition; when references are not available the definition is based on experts’opinion Welfare indicators Definition with References Relevant welfare consequences Attempts to regain posture Head righting (attempt to raise head). Head shaking after stunning. Also: righting reflex Consciousness Cessation of bleeding Profuse bleeding from the neck cut wound following neck cutting reduces after a few seconds to minor dripping Absence of death Corneal reflex Blinking response to touching the eyeball (EFSA, 2006) Consciousness Dilated pupils Wide open pupils (‘midriasis’) (EFSA, 2006) Death Facial grimace Facial expressions related to Orbital tightening, Cheek flattening, Nostril shape, Whisker change and position and Ear shape and position (Keating et al., 2012; Hampshire and Robertson, 2015) Distress Escape attempts Attempts to move or run away from the situation (Trocino et al., 2018) Fear, pain Flight Moving or running away or attempts to do so, often accompanied by vocalisations (see ‘escape attempts’) Fear Gagging or gasping Rudimentary respiratory activity occurring through mouth (oral breathing) (EFSA, 2006) Consciousness Head shaking Rapid shaking of the head, most times accompanied by stretching and or withdrawal movements of the head Pain, fear and/or distress Immediate collapse The immediate loss of posture leading to collapse of the animal Consciousness Injuries Tissue damage (bruises, scratches, broken bones, dislocations) (EFSA, 2012) Pain Muscle tone Loss of muscle tone can be recognised from the completely relaxed legs, floppy ears and relaxed jaws with protruding tongue Consciousness Palpebral reflex Closing the eyelid following touching or tapping a finger on the inner/outer eye canthus or eyelashes Consciousness Righting reflex Head righting (attempt to raise head), head shaking or after stunning. Also: attempts to regain posture Consciousness (Rhythmic) breathing: Rhythmic breathing recognisable by the regular flank and/or mouth and nostrils movement Consciousness Tonic immobility Attempts to move or run away from the situation. Also ‘Escape attempts’ Fear Tonic–clonic seizures Tonic seizures can be recognised by an arched back and rigidly flexed legs under the body, and will last for several seconds. It is followed by clonic seizures lasting for seconds and manifested as leg kicking or paddling (EFSA, 2019) Consciousness Vocalisation One or repeated, short and loud shrieking (screaming) at high frequencies (Manteuffel et al., 2004) Fear, pain On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 35 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 3.8. Response to ToR-3: Identification of preventive and corrective measures The hazards that potentially appear during on-farm killing can be prevented or corrected by putting in place structural or managerial actions. Preventive and corrective measures refer to the actions that can be implemented to avoid or stop the hazard. In case there is no possible correction for certain hazards, then measures to mitigate welfare consequences linked with the hazards have been described in the text of the opinion (see Section 3.7.1). In general, according to the mandate, preventive and corrective measures can be grouped into two broad categories: •‘Structural’measures mean infrastructure or facilities required to minimise or eliminate occurrence of hazards or minimise suffering in rabbits. •‘Management’measures mean decisions to be made or resources to be put in place by personnel with responsibility or legal obligation for animal welfare. On the basis of experts’knowledge and when available, considering the literature, for each of the hazards identified, relevant preventive and corrective measures have been listed in the outcome tables, developed by process of the on-farm killing (for details, see Section 3.10, Tables 9–14). In addition, specific preventive and corrective measures have been developed in association with the relevant hazards’description in section 3.6. Preventive measures that apply to more than one hazard (e.g. staff training) are described in Section 3.8.1. below, whereas corrective measures, when available, are specific for each hazard (and described in Section 3.6). In the case of corrective measures, only those that are considered feasible to implement during onfarm killing have been reported. 3.8.1. Preventive measures that apply to multiple hazards This section lists preventive measures that can be applied to avoid hazards. However, in some situations, the only option to prevent the hazard is to change the method or to try to reduce the consequences of the hazard on the welfare of the rabbits (see mitigation measures to the welfare consequences, Section 3.7.1). 3.8.1.1. Staff training Description: Training of staff to acquire knowledge and skills required to perform their allocated task efficiently and to let them know that animals are sentient beings that can suffer from pain and fear and therefore should be treated correctly in order to avoid negative welfare consequences. Staff training has been identified as a preventive measure for hazards in all the processes assessed (see Tables 9–14). This shows that even in a well-planned and managed operation, training of staff is a key point to ensure the protection of animals (Humane Slaughter Association, 2017). For example, all staff involved in the handling of rabbits must be trained as it is the only way to raise awareness of the importance of humane handling. Grandin (1994) showed that the most important aspect which influences how animals are treated is management attitude. Furthermore, the quality of employees and their proper supervision largely determines how many animals are injured, as it has been showed for broiler chicken (Kettlewell and Turner, 1985) 3.8.1.2. Staff rotation Description: Staff rotation is a management policy in which employees are moved between two or more tasks to avoid boredom and fatigue. Lack of staff rotation is the most important factor that can lead to hazards during killing of rabbits on farm during large-scale killing for disease control purposes (Humane Slaughter Association, 2017). In fact, staff rotation is important to avoid fatigue of workers that can lead to increase a worker’s hazard exposure by reducing mental and physical functioning, impairing judgement and concentration, lowering motivation, slowing reaction time, increasing risktaking behaviour (Guide for Managing The Risk Of Fatigue At Work, Safe Work Australia, 2013). All these factors that can lead to poor rabbit handling practices. Staff rotation has been identified as an important preventive measure specifically during electrical and mechanical stunning/killing methods due to associated rabbit handling and restraining involved. On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 36 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 3.8.1.3. Slow down the process Description: Rushing to complete the task of removal of rabbits from barns or cages for the purpose of killing can lead to poor welfare consequences, which can be prevented by slowing down the process. 3.8.1.4. Ensure correct maintenance of the equipment Description: Design, construction and routine maintenance of equipment is important to ensure good welfare. This applies to all the equipment used for confining, moving and killing rabbits during depopulation actions. 3.8.1.5. Regular calibration and maintenance of the equipment Description: Electrical killing devices should display the output voltage and amount of current under load. For these displays to be accurate, the electrical killing devices should be regularly calibrated and maintained according to the manufacturer’s instruction (AVMA, 2013, 2016). Failing to do so can have severe welfare consequences due to the use of inappropriate parameters leading to ineffective stunning and killing. 3.8.1.6. Adjust equipment accordingly Description: Electrical parameters used for head-only stunning and killing should lead to effective stunning and killing, the outcome should be routinely monitored and equipment adjusted if necessary (Humane Slaughter Association, 2017). Failing to achieve effective stunning followed swiftly by a killing method has serious welfare consequences. 3.8.1.7. Proper monitoring of equipment Description: Proper monitoring and maintenance of equipment is vital to ensure good animal protection during killing on farm. (Humane Slaughter Association, 2017). 3.8.1.8. Ensure equipment is fit for the purpose Description: Choice of killing device, especially captive bolt gun and associated bolt parameters (diameter, penetration depth, velocity) should be correct for the size of rabbits to render them immediately unconscious leading to death (Humane Slaughter Association, 2017). For example, the power of cartridge, compressed air line pressure or spring should be appropriate for the species and size of rabbits. Cartridges should be stored in a dry place according to the manufacturer’s instruction. Operator fatigue and overheating of the gun due to repeated firing in quick succession leads to poor welfare outcomes. There should be sufficient guns such that they are allowed to cool between operations, and they should be cleaned and maintained according to manufacturer’s instruction. Similarly, lack of complete severance of brain and spinal cord and/or blood vessels in the neck following mechanical cervical dislocation leads to poor welfare outcomes. 3.8.1.9. Written standard operating procedures in place Description: Any process used for killing animals on farm should be described in SOPs in order to ensure that animal welfare is protected as much as possible. There should also be contingency plans to mitigate adverse outcomes (Raj et al., 2006) 3.9. Response to ToR -4: specific hazards for animal categories The mandate requests to point out specific cases regarding welfare implications. These could include: •Long-haired breeds (e.g. Angora) may require clipping of hair over the temporal regions to minimise electrical resistance and improve efficacy, especially when using low voltages; •Some breeds of rabbits have loose skin covering the forehead and extra care needs to be taken while placing captive bolts on their heads to prevent slipping or sliding of the bolt when fired; •Some large breeds of rabbits (e.g. Flemish Giant) require modifications to stunning equipment; •Breeds with large/floppy ears require care to prevent pre-stun shocks or mis-stun during captive bolt stunning On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 37 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 •The differences in shape and size of skulls between bucks and does may be more pronounced in some breeds requiring additional attention during stunning. •Animals reared in different farming systems (Cage versus Park pen) may react differently during handling, restraint and stunning. 3.10. Content of outcome tables linking the aspects requested by the ToRs Outcome tables were developed and include summarised information linking all the elements analysed to respond to the terms of reference of the opinion –i.e. hazards, welfare consequences, relevant welfare indicators, hazard origins, preventive and corrective actions. The outcome tables are intended as the main result of this scientific opinion with a concise presentation of all retrieved information. Detailed and supporting background information are included in the main chapters of this opinion. The terminology referred to in the outcome tables is explained in Section 2.2.2.1. On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 38 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 Table 9: Outcome table on ‘handling of rabbits’: hazards, with relevant welfare consequences, welfare indicators, origin and preventive and corrective measures Hazard Welfare consequence/s occurring to the rabbits due to the hazard Hazard origin/s Hazard origin specification Preventive measure/s of hazards (implementation of SOP) Corrective measure/s of the hazards People entering the house (see Section 3.6.1.1) Fear Staff All the methods require catching and removal of rabbits from cages None (Unavoidable as part of the method) Minimise disturbance Rough handling of the rabbits (see Section 3.6.1.2) Pain, fear Staff, equipment unskilled personnel; operator fatigue; poorly designed containers or rearing cages (with small openings), too fast operation Staff training; staff rotation; slow down the process None Unexpected loud noise (see Section 3.6.1.3) Fear Staff, equipment Staff shouting, machine noise, killing methods Identify and eliminate the source of noise; staff training; avoid personnel shouting None Manual restraint (see Section 3.6.1.5) Pain, fear Staff The process of handling implies to manually restraint the rabbits None (unavoidable as part of the process) None Welfare indicators: vocalisations (fear, pain), flight (fear), injuries (pain), escape attempt (fear), tonic immobility (fear) Table 10: Outcome table on ‘head-only electrical stunning’: hazards, welfare consequences and relevant welfare indicators; hazard origin and preventive and corrective measures Hazard Welfare consequence/s occurring to the rabbits due to the hazard Hazard origin/s Hazard origin specification Preventive measure/s of hazards (implementation of SOP) Corrective measure/s of the hazards Manual restraint (see Section 3.6.1.5) Pain, fear Staff Presentation of rabbits to the method is required None None Poor electrical contact (see Section 3.6.1.6) Consciousness, pain, fear Staff, equipment Lack of skilled operators, staff fatigue; incorrect placement of the electrodes; poorly designed and maintained equipment; intermittent contact, thickness of fur Staff training; staff rotation; ensure correct presentation of the rabbits, ensure correct maintenance of the equipment; ensure the equipment includes electrodes for different sized animals; ensure continuous contact between the electrodes and the rabbits None Too short exposure time (see Section 3.6.1.7) Consciousness, pain, fear Staff Lack of skilled operators, too fast operation Staff training; reduce throughput rate; ensure a timer is built in the stunner to monitor the time of exposure or use of a visual or auditory warning system to alert the operator None On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 39 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 Hazard Welfare consequence/s occurring to the rabbits due to the hazard Hazard origin/s Hazard origin specification Preventive measure/s of hazards (implementation of SOP) Corrective measure/s of the hazards Inappropriate electrical parameters (see Section 3.6.1.8) Consciousness, pain, fear Staff, equipment Wrong choice of electrical parameters or equipment; poor or lack of calibration; voltage/current applied is too low; frequency applied is too high for the amount of current delivered; lack of skilled operators, lack of monitoring of stun quality; lack of adjustments to the settings to meet the requirements Use parameters appropriate to the frequency and waveforms of current; ensure the voltage is sufficient to deliver minimum current; regular calibration and maintenance of the equipment; staff training; consider the factors contributing to high electrical resistance and minimise-eliminate the source of high resistance; monitor stun quality routinely and adjust the equipment accordingly; use constant current source equipment; wetting the head with a damp sponge None Prolonged stun-to-kill interval (see Section 3.6.1.9) Consciousness, pain, fear Staff Lack of skilled operators; too long time between stunning and the application of the killing method Staff training; prompt and accurate killing; reduce stun-to killing interval None Welfare indicators: signs of state of consciousness (conscious), injuries (pain), vocalisations (pain, fear), escape attempts (fear, pain, consciousness) Table 11: Outcome table on ‘captive bolt stunning and killing’:hazards, welfare consequences and relevant welfare indicators; hazard origin and preventive and corrective measures Hazard Welfare consequence/s occurring to the rabbits due to the hazard Hazard origin/s Hazard origin specification Preventive measure/s of hazards (implementation of SOP) Corrective measure/s of the hazards Manual restraint (see Section 3.6.1.5) Pain, fear Staff Presentation of rabbits to the method is required None None Incorrect shooting position (see Section 3.6.1.10) Not dead, consciousness, pain, fear Staff Lack of skilled operators, operator fatigue, poor presentation of rabbits, wrong angle of shooting Staff training and rotation, appropriate restraint of the rabbit Kill in the correct position Incorrect bolt parameters (see Section 3.6.1.11) Not dead, consciousness, pain, fear Staff, equipment Lack of skilled operator, wrong choice of equipment, poor maintenance of the equipment, too narrow bolt diameter, shallow penetration, low bolt velocity Staff training, ensuring equipment is fit for purpose, None Welfare indicators: signs of state of consciousness (conscious), signs of death (not dead), injuries (pain), vocalisations (pain fear), escape attempts (fear, pain, consciousness) On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 40 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 Table 12: Outcome table on ‘percussive blow’: hazards, welfare consequences and relevant welfare indicators; hazard origin and preventive and corrective measures Hazard Welfare consequence/s occurring to the rabbits due to the hazard Hazard origin/s Hazard origin specification Preventive measure/s of hazards (implementation of SOP) Corrective measure/s of the hazards Manual restraint (see Section 3.6.1.5) Pain, fear Staff Presentation of rabbits to the method is required None None Inversion (see Section 3.6.1.4) Pain, fear Staff Manually inverting the rabbit for the application of the blow Avoid the inversion of conscious animals None Incorrect application (see Section 3.6.1.12) Not dead, consciousness, pain, fear Staff Lack of skilled operator, operator fatigue, poor restraint, hitting in wrong place, insufficient force delivered to the head, wrong choice of tool to deliver the blow Staff training and rotation, place the head of the rabbit on a hard surface while delivering the blow Correct application of the method Welfare indicators: signs of state of consciousness (conscious), signs of death (not dead), injuries (pain), vocalisations (pain, fear), escape attempts (fear, pain, consciousness) Table 13: Outcome table on killing with cervical dislocation’: hazards, with relevant welfare consequences, welfare indicators, origin and preventive and corrective measures Hazard Welfare consequence(s) occurring to the rabbits due to the hazard Hazard origin(s) Hazard origin specification Preventive measure(s) of hazards (implementation of SOP) Corrective measure(s) of the hazards Manual restraint (see Section 3.6.1.5) Pain, fear Staff Presentation of rabbits to the method is required None None Incorrect application (see Section 3.6.1.12) Not dead, consciousness, pain, fear, distress Staff, equipment Lack of skilled operators, operator fatigue, equipment not suitable for size/species of rabbits, attempt to induce cervical dislocation by crushing of the neck rather than by stretching and twisting •Staff training and rotation; •Use of equipment fit for purpose None Welfare indicators: signs of state of consciousness (conscious), signs of death (not dead), vocalisations (pain, fear), escape attempts (fear, pain, consciousness) On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 41 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 Kettlewell PJ and Turner MJB, 1985. A review of broiler chicken catching and transport systems. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 31, 93–114. Leach MC, Coulter CA, Richardson CA and Flecknell PA, 2011. Are we looking in the wrong place? Implications for behavioural-based pain assessment in rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculi) and beyond? PLoS ONE, 6, e13347. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013347 Li K, Cao Y, Yang Y, Yin Z, Zhao H and Wang L, 2012. Establishment of a blunt impact-induced brain injury model in rabbits. Chin. J. Traumatol., 15, 100–104. Llonch P, Rodriguez P, Velarde A, de Lima VA and Dalmau A, 2012. Aversion to the inhalation of nitrogen and carbon dioxide mixtures compared to high concentrations of carbon dioxide for stunning rabbits. Animal Welfare, 21, 123–129. Maertens L, Rommers J and Jacquet M, 2011. Le logement en parcs, une alternative pour les cages classiques dans un syst eme’duo’?. Manteuffel G, Puppe B and Schon PC, 2004. Vocalization of farm animals as a measure of welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 88, 163–182. Maria G, Lopez M, Lafuente R and Moce ML, 2001. Evaluation of electrical stunning methods using alternative frequencies in commercial rabbits. Meat Science, 57, 139–143. Mellor DJ and Diesch TJ, 2006. Onset of sentience: the potential for suffering in fetal and newborn farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100, 48–57. Mullan SM and Main DCJ, 2006. Survey of the husbandry, health and welfare of 102 pet rabbits. Vet Rec., 159, 103–109. Nakyinsige K, Sazili AQ, Zulkifli I, Goh YM, Abu Bakar F and Sabow AB, 2014. Influence of gas stunning and halal slaughter (no stunning) on rabbits welfare indicators and meat quality. Meat Science, 98, 701–708. National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC), 2018. Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Rabbits: Review of Scientific Research on Priority Issues. Available online: https://www.nfacc.ca/codes-of-practice/rabbits Nodari SR, Lavazza A and Candotti P, 2009. Technical Note: Rabbit Welfare during Electrical Stunning and Slaughter at a Commercial Abattoir. World Rabbit Science, 17, 163–167. Raj ABM, Sandilands V and Sparks NHC, 2006. Review of gaseous methods of killing poultry on-farm for disease control purposes. Veterinary Record, 159, 229–235. Rommers JM, Meijerhof R, Noordhuizen JP and Kemp B, 2001. Effect of different feeding levels during rearing and age at first insemination on body development, body composition, and puberty characteristics of rabbit does. World Rabbit Sci., 9, 101–108. Rommers JM, Meijerhof R, Noordhuizen JP and Kemp B, 2002. Relationships between body weight at first mating and subsequent body development, feed intake, and reproductive performance of rabbit does. Journal of Animal Science, 80, 2036–2042. Rommers JM, Meijerhof R, Noordhuizen JP and Kemp B, 2004. Effect of body weight and age at first insemination on performances during subsequent reproduction in rabbit does. Reproduction, Nutrition and Development, 44, 321–332. Rosell JM and De la Fuente LF, 2009. Culling and mortality in breeding rabbits. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 88, 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2008.08.003 Szendr} o Z, Trocino A, Hoy S, Xiccato G, Villagr a A, Szendr} o K and Maertens L, 2019. A review of recent research outcomes about the housing of farmed domestic rabbits: Reproducing does. World Rabbit Sci., 27, 1–14. Trocino A and Xiccato G, 2006. Animal welfare in rabbits: A review with emphasis on housing systems. World Rabbit Science, 14, 77–93. Trocino A, Filiou E, Zomeno C, Birolo M, Bertotto D and Xiccato G, 2018. Behaviour and reactivity of female and male rabbits housed in collective pens: effects of floor type and stocking density at different ages. World Rabbit Science, 26, 135–147. Verga M, Luzi F, Petracci M and Cavani C, 2009. Welfare aspects in rabbit rearing and transport. (Special Issue: Criteria and methods for the assessment of animal welfare.). Italian Journal of Animal Science, 8, 191–204. Verwer CM, van Amerongen G, van den Bos R and Hendriksen CFM, 2009. Handling effects on body weight and behaviour of group-housed male rabbits in a laboratory setting. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117, 93–102. Walsh J, Percival A and Turner PJA, 2017. Efficacy of Blunt Force Trauma, a Novel Mechanical Cervical Dislocation Device, and a non-Penetrating Captive Bolt Device for on-Farm Euthanasia of pre-Weaned Kits, Growers, and Adult Commercial Meat Rabbits. Animals, 7, 100. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), 2005. Terrestrial Animal Health Code, OIE, 14th Edition, Paris. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), 2018. Terrestrial Animal Health Code, OIE, 27th Edition, Paris. Abbreviations ABM animal-based measure AHAW EFSA Animal Health and Welfare Panel IP intraperitoneal IV intravenous LS literature search On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 48 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 OIE World Organisation for Animal Health RHD rabbit haemorrhagic disease SOP standard operating procedure ToR Term of Reference WRSA World Rabbit Science Association WG Working Group On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 49 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943 Appendix A –Literature search outcomes As described in Section 2.2.1, a literature search was carried out to identify peer-reviewed scientific evidence on the topic of ‘stunning and killing of rabbits’that could provide information on the elements requested by the ToRs, i.e.: description of the processes, identification of hazards, origins, preventive and corrective measures, welfare consequences and indicators. To obtain this, first, a broad literature search was carried out, and the results were successively screened and refined as described below. Sources of information included in the search: Bibliographic database ‘Web of Science’. The search string was designed to retrieve relevant documents to ‘animal welfare’during ‘slaughter’,‘stunning’and ‘killing’of ‘rabbits’. Restrictions applied in the search string related to the processes under examination and the date of publication (considering only those records published after EFSA, 2005). No language or document type restrictions were applied in the search string. Refinement of literature search results The search yielded a total of 53 records that were exported to an EndNote library together with the relevant metadata (e.g. title, authors, abstract). Titles and abstracts were first screened to remove irrelevant publications (e.g. related to species, productive systems, processes and research purposes that were out of the scope of this opinion) and duplicates, and successively to identify their relevance to the topic. Full-text publications were screened if title and abstract did not allow assessing the relevance of a paper. The screening was performed by one reviewer, with support by a second reviewer in cases of doubt; publications that were not considered relevant nor providing any additional value to address the question were also removed. The screening led to nine records relevant to rabbit slaughter, stunning and killing, which are reported in Table A.2. Only one record was considered relevant to the practice of on-farm killing of rabbits (Walsh et al., 2017), whereas the other records were relevant for the description of stunning methods, related hazards and welfare consequences for rabbits. Table A.1: Date of the search: 19 December 2018 Web of science search string Years 2004–2019 Category Search terms Field searched Rabbit* OR TS=lepor* OR TS=oryctolagus OR TS=“oryctolagus cuniculus”Topic AND TS=slaughter* OR TS=kill* OR TS=stun* Topic AND TS=Arriv* OR TS=*load* OR TS=lairage* OR TS=handl* OR TS=mov* OR TS=restrain* OR TS=cut* OR TS=bleed* OR TS=conscious* OR TS=pain* OR TS=behav* OR TS=stress* Topic Welf* or “animal welfare”Topic Results: 53 Results after screening: 20 Table A.2: List of publications relevant to ‘slaughter’,‘stunning’and ‘killing’of rabbits resulting from the literature search ID Reference 1EFSA (2005) 2EFSA (2006) 3Dalmau et al. (2016) 4Llonch et al. (2012) 5Nakyinsige et al. (2014) 6Nodari et al. (2009) 7Trocino et al. (2018) 8Verga et al. (2009) 9Walsh et al. (2017) On-farm killing of rabbits www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 50 EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5943