5.1 Species‐Specific Considerations

The Code of Federal Regulations considers the term “livestock” to include cattle, sheep, horses (discussed separately in Chapter 4), goats, and other domestic animals ordinarily raised or used on the farm. Turkeys and domesticated fowl are considered poultry and not livestock. People keep and raise livestock mainly for production purposes and/or companionship. Clients who want to raise and keep livestock may do so for small “hobby” farming rather than large‐scale production. By caring for the animals, they learn about their unique behaviors and personalities and develop strong bonds of attachment best characterized as a pet relationship (Figure 5.1).

These more intimate connections make end‐of‐life (EOL) decisions naturally more difficult. Practitioners will be asked to euthanize companion livestock in a variety of settings including small farms, petting zoos, animal rescues, and sanctuaries. In most cases, the preferred location for conducting euthanasia is the farm of origin. In some cases, practitioners are equipped to handle animals presented for euthanasia in their clinic facilities. For animals that are nonambulatory, euthanasia must be conducted at the farm. Regardless of where the procedure is performed, practitioners need to be aware of carcass disposal options relative to burial, composting, or landfills based on local laws and ordinances.

Production livestock are raised in agricultural settings for the purpose of producing commodities such as food including milk and meat, and fiber, such as leather, wool, and mohair. Farms are businesses that must generate a profit, and like any enterprise that is not profitable, it will not last. Dairy farmers have dairy cows because they like dairy cows, but unless they are able to make enough milk to pay for the feed and a barn to house them, they won’t be milking them very long. Therefore, the primary objectives in production settings are performance and profit. However, it’s a love for the animals and a lifestyle that, no matter how meager, drives them forward.

Livestock producers understand from experience that disease can have catastrophic consequences ending in death or the need for euthanasia. As the saying goes, “If you have livestock, you will have dead stock.” Ranchers see their cattle as individuals readily identifying their unique physical characteristics and personality traits (Irvine and Ellis 2010). They care about their animals and will do whatever is necessary to minimize their suffering in the face of illness or injury.

The key to preserving the welfare of livestock is the early detection of disease or injury, prompt treatment as necessary, and humane euthanasia for animals with serious or terminal diseases. Options for an animal compromised by disease or injury include further treatment, slaughter, or euthanasia. The choice to euthanize an animal is based on:

• severity of pain and distress of the animal
  
• the likelihood that treatment will lead to a return to a healthy productive state
  
• disease or injury that results in a permanent nonambulatory state
  
• disease, injury, or disability that would make an animal unfit for transport
  
• disease or injury for which treatment is cost‐prohibitive or where treatment would require an extraordinarily prolonged drug withdrawal time
  
• disease or treatment that would prohibit the slaughter of an animal for human use

Specific indications for euthanasia include the following:

• Fractured leg, where treatment is not considered a suitable option
  
• Severe trauma
  
• Progressive or nonresponsive infectious disease
  
• Inability to stand or walk
  
• Zoonotic disease with significant public health implications
  
• Unresponsive metabolic disease resulting in debilitation
  
• Progressive organ failure
  
• Persistent pain or discomfort that is not responsive to medical treatment

When a practitioner is presented with an animal in grave condition from injury or disease, further examination is needed to determine if additional treatment is warranted or if euthanasia may be necessary (Figure 5.2). If it is determined that euthanasia is best for the welfare of the animal, and the client agrees, the discussion turns to the method to be used. Some may be unfamiliar with methods of euthanasia acceptable in livestock. They may be uncomfortable with the use of a firearm and unfamiliar with captive bolts or be under the mistaken impression that these methods are less humane than euthanasia by the intravenous (IV) administration of a barbiturate. This is a teaching opportunity for the practitioner; an opportunity to affirm perceptions that are accurate and correct those which are not.

5.2 Equipment and Handling

Positioning and restraint of livestock are important for successful euthanasia procedures. For large livestock, one should also consider the animal’s location at the time of euthanasia and how that relates to human safety and ease of removal or disposal of the carcass. For example, cattle should not be euthanized in a chute or narrow alleyway unless there is a way of opening the side to remove the carcass (Figure 5.3).

Good restraint is an important prerequisite for safe and efficient euthanasia of livestock. This may be accomplished with chemical restraint, physical restraint, or a combination of both. The guiding principle is to provide sufficient restraint to minimize stress, discomfort, or pain associated with the procedure. In practical terms, this implies sufficient restraint to either perform a competent venipuncture or sufficiently stabilize the head for an accurate gunshot or captive bolt stun.

Except for very docile or obtunded animals, some degree of physical restraint is likely to be necessary to stabilize an animal’s head and neck. For manageable adult cattle and calves, a halter may be all that is needed. The halter can be secured to any convenient, sturdy object or, in some instances, held by an assistant. Sometimes, using two halters and cross‐tying the animal will provide more restraint. In recumbent cattle, a single halter can be placed, pulling the head to the side and securing the lead around the rear leg and tied at the level of the stifle to provide stabilization of the head and neck. This will provide good restraint allowing for either lethal injection or euthanasia by physical method.

The mechanics of euthanasia for smaller ruminants and camelids is generally the same as in cattle except that the animals are smaller and more easily restrained without a chute. The goal is to position the animal so that the head and neck are accessible. For severely ill, obtunded, or recumbent animals, only minimal physical restraint may be necessary. Even in alert and active animals, gentle physical restraint is often sufficient. A halter can also be used. A head catch or chute is rarely needed to restrain a sheep or goat for euthanasia.

Euthanasia of swine can be more challenging than other livestock species due to the difficulty of proper restraint and positioning. In general, pigs do not accept physical restraint well. In severely debilitated or obtunded animals, this may not be an issue. While pig snares can be used, this often results in significant resistance and distress for the patient. Another alternative for smaller pigs is to suspend them in a sling. This may allow access to the cephalic vein for IV injection. However, because of the challenges with restraint and venipuncture, humane euthanasia performed by lethal injection may be best performed following heavy sedation or anesthesia to allow for a calm venipuncture or intracardiac (IC) injection. Otherwise, gunshot or captive bolt methods should be utilized.

Sedation may be appropriate for all livestock species, particularly when simple physical restraint is not sufficient, or if the client specifically requests it. The primary reason for using sedation would be if the animal cannot be restrained sufficiently to allow for an effective euthanasia method. The practitioner will need to use their discretion and err on the side of caution.