Proposed Prohibition of the Use of Electroimmobilisation Devices

MAF Public Discussion Paper No: 30

ISBN No: 0-478-07659-2
ISSN: 1171-8951
December 2002

Notes for Submitters

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) is consulting on a proposal to prohibit electroimmobilisation devices. This proposal has been forwarded to the Minister of Agriculture by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.

This paper has been prepared for consultation and discussion only, and does not represent the policy of the Government or MAF.

Your submission is invited on the proposal. Submissions may be the subject of requests for information under the Official Information Act 1992 (OIA). The OIA specifies that information is to be made available to requesters unless there are sufficient grounds for withholding it, as set out in the OIA. Submitters may wish to indicate grounds for withholding specific information contained in their submission, such that the information is commercially sensitive or they wish personal information to be withheld. Any decision to withhold information requested under the OIA is reviewable by the Ombudsman.

All those making a submission will receive a copy of the submissions analysis along with the final proposals. The Minister of Agriculture will consider submissions during the development of final proposals.

Please mail, fax, or email your submission to:

Kerry Milanovic-King 
 Executive Assistant 
Food, Biosecurity and Science Policy 
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
WELLINGTON

Email: kerry.milanovic-kingi@maf.govt.nz
 Fax: 04 474 4206
Direct dial: 04 474 4189

If you would like further information to assist with making a submission, or if you have any enquiries, please contact:

Suzanne Main 
Policy Adviser 
Biosecurity Coordination - Policy 
Biosecurity Authority
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
P O Box 2526
WELLINGTON

Email: suzanne.main@maf.govt.nz
 Fax: 04 470 2730
Direct dial: 04 498 9930

All submissions must be received by 5.00 p.m. on 28 February 2003. Late submissions may not be accepted.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Evaluation of NAWAC’s Proposal Against the Criteria in Section 33
  3. Use for Velvet Removal
  4. International Regulation
  5. Research
  6. Conclusion
  7. Summary of Options
  8. References
  9. Bibliography

1. Introduction 

1.1 Background

The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) is an advisory committee to the Minister responsible for animal welfare. The committee is established under section 56 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 ("the Act") to provide advice to the Minister on any matter relating to the welfare of animals in New Zealand (in accordance with section 57 of the Act). NAWAC may also provide advice to the Minister on the making of Orders in Council declaring traps or devices to be prohibited or restricted and any conditions that should be attached to the sale or use of any restricted trap or device.

NAWAC wrote to the Minister of Agriculture on 21 November 2000 recommending that an Order in Council be passed pursuant to section 32(1)(a) of the Act declaring that electroimmobilisation devices be prohibited. NAWAC further advised that no restriction should be placed on such devices obtained and used for bona fide research purposes.

The request by NAWAC was supported by Federated Farmers of New Zealand, the New Zealand Game Industry Board, Deer Industry New Zealand, the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the New Zealand Veterinary Association.

Through an Order in Council, devices such as electroimmobilisers can be declared to be prohibited or restricted after consideration of criteria set out in section 33 of the Act. An order may also contain provisions regulating the sale or use of a restricted device (section 32(4)).

Section 32(5) specifically provides that an order prohibiting or restricting a device may be general in its application, or it may relate to a particular device or class of device, or use in relation to a particular species or type of animal, or a specified part of New Zealand. Any breach of the provisions of the Order in Council becomes an offence punishable by up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine up to $25,000 or both (or $125,000 for a body corporate).

The purpose of this paper is to analyse NAWAC’s proposal to ban electroimmobilisation devices against the criteria set out in section 33 of the Act.

1.2 Use of the device

Electroimmobilisation involves passing a pulsed, low voltage electrical current through the body of an animal. Usually electrodes are applied to two parts of the animal’s body and a pulsed low voltage electric current is delivered along its spine, however, there are variations to the technique. The electrical current induces contraction of the muscles supplied by the nerves of that segment of the spine, preventing voluntary movement of the animal. Movement is regained as soon as the current is switched off.

Electroimmobilisation devices are used to immobilise animals in order to perform animal husbandry procedures where there are perceived risks to handler safety or animal safety with other forms of restraint, or for handler convenience.

The use of these devices is contentious in New Zealand and overseas due to doubts about its humaneness and the potential for abuse (e.g. major surgery carried out on a fully conscious but immobile animal). Their use has been banned in some European Union countries.

Electroimmobilisers can potentially be used on a range of species, including non-domestic animals. Domestic species for which electroimmobilisers have been promoted for use include:

  • bovines – cattle, buffalo and bison;
  • deer;
  • camelids – alpaca and camels;
  • sheep;
  • goats;
  • birds – emus and ostriches.

Electroimmobilisers can be used to carry out routine husbandry practices such as:

  • dehorning;
  • castration;
  • branding, tattooing;
  • ear marking;
  • hoof trimming and foot examinations;
  • pregnancy and blood testing;

2. Evaluation of NAWAC’s Proposal Against the Criteria in Section 33

The Minister, in deciding whether or not to recommend the making of an Order in Council under section 32(1), must have regard to the following matters:

2.1 The nature & purpose of the trap or device (section 33 (a) )

2.1.1 Definition

The Act defines "device" and "trap" as follows:

"Device means any electrical or electronic thing (not being a trap) that is used for the purpose of killing, managing, entrapping, capturing, entangling, restraining, or immobilising an animal"

"Trap means—

  1. A net, cage, snare, pen, pitfall, or mechanical or adhesive thing used for the purpose of killing, entrapping, capturing, entangling, restraining, or immobilising an animal; but
  2. Does not include—
    1. Any fenced area of land or other effective enclosure used for handling, herding, or mustering an animal; or
    2. Any enclosure, such as a cage, used for transporting an animal; or
    3. A firearm;—
      and trapping has a corresponding meaning"

Although an electroimmobilisation device is encompassed by both definitions, the definition of device specifically refers to an electrical or electronic thing. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis an electroimmobiliser is considered to be a "device".

2.1.2 Nature of the Device

Electroimmobilisers pass electrical pulses of approximately 1-2 millisecond duration, repeated 50 times per second. The output voltage is approximately 50 hertz. The current produced varies from 20 milliamps (mA) to 240 mA. Depending on the device used, current may be adjusted according to the behaviour, size and species of animal.

Three methods of immobilisation are used, although there are other variations:

  • Nose-to-tail or head-to-tail. Electrodes are attached to the head of the animal usually via an electrode clip attached to the corner of the mouth or cheek and also to the caudal fold on the tail of the animal using a needle. Most applications of electroimmobilisation to date involve head-to-tail electrodes resulting in whole body immobilisation.
  • Back-to-tail. Electrodes are inserted subcutaneously in the midline above the lumbar vertebra 1 (L1) and through the caudal fold of the tail.
  • Rectally. An electrode is inserted into the rectum so that the tip of the electrode is located near the two femoral nerves, which control the hind legs of the animal.

The electrodes are attached or inserted and the current switched on. The "switch-on" current is low, but a higher current is required to obtain immobility and rigidity. This often stops the animal’s breathing as the respiratory muscles may also be paralysed. If the current is reduced, breathing should resume and stabilise, however, most animals will breathe in a laboured manner. The use of excessive current can cause tetanic spasms with paralysis of respiratory muscles and can lead to death.

Some models with variable current control can, by increasing the current, render an animal immobile by progressively generalised muscle contraction.

2.1.3 Brands and Types of Electroimmobilisers

2.1.3.1 Stockstill

Australian Merino Wool Harvesting Company has been developing, since the mid-1970s, an automated wool harvesting system (robotic shearer) based on the concept of immobilisation of the sheep using an electroimmobiliser. The Stockstill device was originally developed to restrain sheep for this automated shearing.

Stockstill devices are now marketed by Stockstill Limited, a private company based in South Australia.

The three electroimmobilisation devices developed by Stockstill Limited are the Original Stockstill, the Super-Stockstill, and the Breathe-Easy, although the Original Stockstill is no longer available. The Original Stockstill device had only current control and applied a fixed pulse width of 1 millisecond. The inability to vary the pulse width caused a strong "crunch" i.e. the animal was rendered rigid and often unable to breathe when the device was turned on. Farmers were the main customers of the Original Stockstill.

The Super-Stockstill is able to supply a variable current from 0 to 240 milliamps and the pulse width can be varied from 0 to 1 millisecond enabling gentler introduction of the current.

The Breathe-Easy is the latest model, which manufacturers claim is gentler still as it momentarily releases the current so that the animal can take a breath.

Marketers of Stockstill devices claim that increased safety of both operators and animals is one of Stockstill’s major advantages.

Stockstill have the following patents registered in New Zealand:
No. 250732 – Method and apparatus for handling animals
No. 331072 – Improved immobilisation of animals

Stockstill electroimmobiliser

Figure 1: Stockstill electroimmobiliser 

2.1.3.2 Rectal Probe

The rectal probe is a device similar to that used for electroejaculation (see section 2.8) in which a probe is inserted approximately halfway into the rectum of the animal so that the tip of the probe is located near the two femoral nerves, which control the animal’s hind legs. As the device targets a specific nerve only the hind legs are immobilised, rather than immobilising nerves along the whole spine causing total immobilisation of the animal.

2.1.3.3 Slaughterhouse devices

Electroimmobilisation devices are used in slaughterhouses to immobilise insensible (stunned) animals prior to slaughter. Once an animal has been stunned they are electroimmobilised to prevent the carcass from twitching to protect the safety of workers. As they are considered essential and due to the fact that they are used on insensible animals destined for slaughter, they have not been considered for prohibition or restriction.

2.2 Whether any pain or distress that the trap or device is likely to cause would be unreasonable (Section 33 (b) )

In order to assess whether pain or distress is likely to be unreasonable, it is important to make the distinction between pain or distress caused by the device and pain or distress caused by the procedure undertaken whilst the animal is immobilised by the device. Because electroimmobilisation causes (in most situations) total immobilisation and an animal is unable to struggle, the operator may not be aware that the procedure being undertaken is causing pain or distress to the animal, in addition to the possible pain from the device.

When electroimmobilisation is carried out for a procedure that usually requires anaesthetic or analgesia, pain or distress caused would be considered unreasonable. The infliction of unreasonable pain or distress on an animal, without reasonable excuse, is an offence under the Act.

Several studies have evaluated the physiological effects of electroimmobilisation as an indicator of the stress caused by the device. The physiological effects, such as increases in levels of blood parameters used to measure levels of stress, indicate that electroimmobilisation is physically and psychologically stressful to cattle, sheep and pigs and probably deer. Furthermore, trials which measured the time taken for animals to move towards an area where they had previously been electroimmobilised suggest that electroimmobilisation is sufficiently unpleasant for cattle, deer and sheep for them to show considerable aversion to returning to that area.

Electroimmobilisation may be justified where alternative methods of restraint entail more pain or distress (e.g. physical restraint of fractious animals). Additionally an alternative method of restraint may pose higher risks to the animal through injury or side-effect in these cases. An injury sustained may cause the animal pain or distress for some time after the procedure, whereas the pain or distress caused by an electroimmobiliser will probably stop soon after the device is switched off.

A review of literature by Stafford and Mesken (1992) concluded that head-to-tail electroimmobilisation is painful, and suggested back-to-tail may have some practical possibilities if it were proven to be painless. Stafford and Mesken (1992) also suggested that it is unlikely that head-to-tail electroimmobilisation could be justified for use in situations where practical and easily available alternative methods of restraint and analgesia are available.

Criteria used to assess reasonableness:

  • Pain or distress caused by alternatives

    Electroimmobilisation does cause some pain or distress. Rushen (1986) studied the aversion of sheep to electroimmobilisation and to simple physical restraint and found that sheep developed an aversion to the place where they had been previously electroimmobilised, suggesting that they find it a more unpleasant experience than simple physical restraint.

    Research has also shown that alternative methods of restraint also cause pain or distress as measured by aversion tests. However, as there is no absolute value for an acceptable level or threshold of pain and distress, just because electroimmobilisation may cause more pain or distress than other methods does not mean that that level is unreasonable.

    Shearing is quoted as being one of the most stressful routine activities that is performed on sheep, and is accepted practice. Several studies concluded that electroimmobilisation causes equivalent stress compared to shearing. Rushen and Congdon (1986b) concluded that there was little evidence to suggest that electroimmobilisation was markedly more stressful than shearing. Other studies indicate that electroimmobilisation is more stressful and sheep are more averse to electroimmobilisation.

  • Duration and intensity of experience

    The duration of electroimmobilisation is variable. Provided breathing is maintained, animals can be electroimmobilised for quite long periods. However, given that most routine husbandry procedures that an electroimmobiliser would be used for take a matter of minutes, the effective duration of the immobilisation would typically be short. Also, as the animal is generally immobile and unable to move and struggle, a procedure may take less time as time is not wasted whilst the animal is struggling.

    The intensity of the electroimmobilisation varies between species, size of animal and between techniques and even within breeds (e.g. fractious animals may require a higher intensity current). Rushen (1986) found that aversiveness (the push-up time) of the method in sheep was not affected by the duration of immobilisation, but was greater if a current of 60 mA was used than if a current of 30 mA was used.

  • Side effects

    Most research does not specifically cover the potential for side-effects. Anecdotal reports suggest that there are no side effects once an electroimmobiliser is switched off. Kuchel (1990) (unpublished) studied the physiological and biochemical consequence of electroimmobilisation and found that the recovery of cardiovascular, respiratory and metabolic changes occurred by 30 minutes after electroimmobilisation. There was no evidence of life-threatening changes induced by electroimmobilisation. Rushen (1986) found that (in an experiment testing aversiveness to electroimmobilisation and physical restraint), 50% of the sheep electroimmobilised with a current of 60 mA showed total leg collapse after release and many sheep were unable to free themselves from the handling machine. No such reactions were seen when a 30 mA current was used

2.2.1 Do the ends justify the means?

Why is the electroimmobilisation being conducted and does a suitable alternative exist? The key question is whether any pain or stress caused by electroimmobilisation is justified by the benefit of the electroimmobilisation or benefit of the procedure being undertaken (i.e. the husbandry procedure).

The following four "ends" for which electroimmobilisation devices may be used are ranked in order of importance.

2.2.1.1 Human health and safety

It is possible that human life could be preserved. Injuries resulting in death of handlers can occur, particularly when handling large or flighty animals.

Many injuries of handlers occur whilst trying to restrain or during restraint of an animal using conventional methods, particularly because the animal remains mobile and can still struggle. Most husbandry procedures require a handler to be in close proximity to the animal, thereby increasing the chances of injury if the animal were to suddenly struggle or if the method of restraint were to fail (e.g. a slipping or breaking rope). Testimonials provided by Stockstill Ltd advise of reductions in employee injury when an electroimmobiliser is used for routine practices such as dehorning and castration of cattle.

2.2.1.2 Animal health and safety

Animal safety benefits result from electroimmobilisation. Animals are less likely to injure themselves whilst struggling during restraint (as they are unable to move). A procedure that is being undertaken whilst an animal is electroimmobilised is also more likely to be carried out successfully as the animal would be motionless.

2.2.1.3 Economic benefit

Although the cost of an electroimmobiliser could be considered to be high for a device (approximately $1000 for a Stockstill model), this may be offset by the increased efficiency with which animals can be treated. This is because animals are not struggling and therefore the procedures can be carried out more quickly. Furthermore, as no anaesthetic drugs are involved in the immobilisation process, there is generally little need to monitor the animal after the immobilisation (although monitoring may be required for certain husbandry procedures).

Economic benefit can also be derived from the fact that a veterinarian may not be required to immobilise an animal with drugs (i.e. cost of drugs and time).

2.2.1.4 Convenience

Electroimmobilisers, in some instances, would be more convenient to use than conventional or alternative methods of restraint. This is especially due to their small size, which means that they are very portable and could be used at any location. Yards, head bales etc may not be needed. However, given that most farms may have a head bale, race or a rope, there may be no greater convenience when compared to other methods of restraint.

2.2.1.5 Summary

When considering the "ends" (ranked 1-4), the benefits from electroimmobilisation are not more marked towards the top ranking end (which would have meant that it was more justifiable) than the bottom ranked end. There are human and animal welfare benefits in addition to the benefit of convenience.

If electroimmobilisation has the potential to enhance and protect human and animal lives, then societal tolerance of such a procedure may increase. Tolerance is further increased if there are no or limited reasonable alternatives.

Table 1 shows an assessment of electroimmobilisation and the alternative methods of restraint against the criteria used in 2.2.1. However, the alternative methods of restraint were not analysed in 2.2.1, therefore the table is an indicative assessment for those methods of restraint.

Table 1: Matrix showing an indicative assessment of methods of restraint against section 2.2.1 criteria

Method of restraint Pain or distress caused Application time (duration) Intensity Side-effects Ends justify the means?
Electroimmobilisation High. Low. Variable due to the state of the animal. No permanent side-effects. High.
Chemical Low. High. Low. High risk. Not examined.
Crushes High. High. High. Animal could injure itself. Not examined.
Ropes May cause more pain and stress than crushes, bales and races. High. High. Animal could injure itself. Not examined.
Head bales High. High. High. Animal could injure itself. Not examined.
Races High. High. High. Animal could injure itself. Not examined.

2.3 Whether the use of other instruments under this Act, or instruments under other Acts, are adequate to manage the effects of the trap or device (Section 33 (c) )

2.3.1 Code of Welfare

Part 5 of the Act allows the Minister to issue a code of welfare. Section 68 of the Act states the purpose of codes of welfare:

The purpose of this Part is to establish procedures for the development, issue, amendment, review, and revocation of codes of welfare that:

  1. Relate to animals that are owned by any person or are in the charge of any person; and
  2. Establish minimum standards with regard to the way in which persons care for such animals and conduct themselves towards such animals; and
  3. Include recommendations on the best practice to be observed by persons in caring for such animals and in conducting themselves towards such animals.

A code may relate to procedures and equipment used in management, care, or killing of animals or in the carrying out of surgical procedures on animals. Therefore, the inclusion of electroimmobilisation in a code of welfare could be an alternative or additional option for control of electroimmobilisation.

Codes can assist facilitating overseas market access and achieving success in those markets. This may be particularly important considering that the European Union is an important market for New Zealand animal products and has issued a directive for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (98/58/EC). This could be used against New Zealand animal products if electroimmobilisation is considered by overseas consumers to be inhumane or unjustified.

The existing voluntary Code of Recommendations and Minimum Standards for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes states that electroimmobilisation must not be used as an alternative to analgesia or anaesthesia.

2.3.2 Import restrictions

An Order in Council could be sought under section 54 of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 to prohibit the importation of electroimmobilisers into New Zealand. The order could allow for imports of electroimmobilisers for specific purposes, such as research. Any proposal for an order would have to satisfy the Governor-General that the prohibition on the import is necessary in the public interest. Also, orders promulgated under section 54 would usually expire in the year or the year after they came into effect.

NAWAC supports this approach, in addition to banning the use of electroimmobilisers under the Animal Welfare Act.

However, given the small size of the device, particularly the Stockstill device (which resembles some brands of large torch), it could be easily concealed in luggage or made to look like a torch. Therefore a ban may only be feasible to prohibit legitimate imports. Devices could easily be smuggled into the country.

2.4 Whether the trap or device conforms to any relevant New Zealand standard within the meaning of the Standards Act 1998 (Section 33 (d) )

The Standards Act 1988 defines standard to mean a specification relating to goods, services, processes, or practices approved or adopted by the Standards Council or another standards organisation, and includes modifications to any such specification. There are no New Zealand standards relating to electroimmobilisers.

There are, however, two international standards, but they relate to user safety rather than animal safety or welfare:

  • BS EN 60335.2.87-1999: Specification for safety of household and similar electrical appliances – particular requirements for electric animal-stunning equipment (British Standard).
  • IEC 60335.2.87-1998: Safety of household and similar electrical appliances – particular requirements for electric animal-stunning equipment (International Electrotechnical Commission).

2.5 The availability and cost-effectiveness of, and the feasibility of a transition to, other traps or devices (Section 33 (e) )

Many comparisons between electroimmobilisation and other methods of physical restraint of sheep and cattle indicate that electroimmobilisation is more stressful and aversive than physical restraint. Experiments such as that conducted by Rushen (1986) concluded that electroimmobilisation is more stressful and aversive than physical restraint.

Other methods of restraint are:

  • chemical restraint;
  • crushes;
  • ropes;
  • head bales;
  • races.

Table 2: Availability, cost-effectiveness, and feasibility of transition to other methods of restraint.

Method of restraint Availability Cost-effectiveness Feasibility of transition to
Chemical Usually vet only administration, therefore not readily or quickly available. Can be costly if administered by a vet. Not always feasible, as many procedures do not require a vet and would be undertaken by the farmer. May be more time consuming, especially if animals need to be monitored for side effects post-operation.
Crushes Not always available. Crushes can be costly, but may be used for other purposes which increases cost effectiveness. If available, then transition may not be a problem. However, a crush is not usually portable.
Ropes Usually available, but not all farmers may be able to restrain an animal properly. Not costly. If assessed purely on cost of a rope, transition is feasible, but the use of rope may not be a satisfactory method of restraint for those not proficient with its use or for certain animals.
Head bales Usually available. Can be costly, but as it would usually be required or useful for other procedures would be cost-effective. Once again, a head bale is not portable. However, when available transition may not be a problem. In some instances an additional method of restraint may need to be used in conjunction.
Races Usually available. Can be costly, but usually a farm would have a race. Transition may not be a problem, however in some instances an additional method of restraint may need to be used in conjunction.

Chemical restraint, mainly using xylazine and rarely, general anaesthetics, can be costly and time-consuming and can lead to complications for the animal. Other methods are usually standard equipment for most farms and therefore cost-effective. However, they may not be as effective as electroimmobilisers.

2.6 Whether the trap or device could be modified, or the method of use controlled, to avoid unacceptable effects on animal welfare (Section 33 ( f) )

The device could be modified so that there is a variable pulse width and current (as is the case with the Super-Stockstill) to enable the current of the device to be turned down once initial immobilisation is achieved. A limit could be put on the current that the electroimmobiliser emits. However, this may limit the effectiveness of the device as some animals and species require a higher current to initiate electroimmobilisation. Additionally, the output of current may be difficult to regulate and monitor as an operator could easily modify the device to produce a greater current.

2.7 The consultation conducted under Section 32(1) or Section 32(6), as the case may be, and any consultation conducted under Section 184(1) (Section 33 (g) )

The outcomes of the consultation process (of which this discussion paper is a part) are pending.

2.8 Any other matter considered relevant by the Minister (Section 33 (h) )

2.8.1 Electroejaculation

Because electroejaculation uses a device, which is similar to a rectal probe electroimmobiliser, the use of devices for the electroejaculation of animals is outlined below.

Electroejaculation involves the stimulation of the hypogastric and parasympathetic nerves by electrical current via a probe inserted into the rectum of the animal.

An electroejaculator

Figure 2: An electroejaculator

Electroejaculation is an important method of quickly obtaining a semen sample from a wide range of species. It is widely used for semen collection during breeding soundness evaluation in bulls and is the only way to retrieve semen from deer. Electroejaculation is also used for Brucella ovis testing in rams, a disease that has associated welfare issues.

Prompted by European Union moves to ban the procedure, MAF commissioned research to investigate the welfare implications of electroejaculation. Stafford (1995) states that, although there are alternatives, electroejaculation is the only practical way of collecting semen from domestic ruminants not trained to use an artificial vagina and suggests that electroejaculation is no more aversive or stressful than part-shearing. Therefore, as distress caused by shearing is considered to be acceptable, electroejaculation may also be considered acceptable.

Several electroejaculation devices are currently used, with differing effects on the animals. Stafford (1995) suggested that electroejaculation is an aversive experience but the level of aversion is probably influenced by the probe type used and the restraint involved. An experiment carried out with a ring electrode probe on rams suggested that distress caused by electroejaculation is similar to that caused by shearing.

It is common practice to sedate or anaesthetise animals being subjected to electroejaculation. The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee Code of Recommendations and Minimum Standards for the Welfare of Sheep (1996) states that electroejaculation must be carried out only by veterinarians or by trained and competent operators under veterinary supervision. These two measures help to lessen any adverse effects caused by electroejaculation.

The use of electroejaculation in sheep is regulated (though the Code of Recommendations and Minimum Standards for the Welfare of Sheep (1996)). It potentially causes no more distress than shearing, is relatively quick and in some instances (e.g. for deer) there is no alternative. Therefore, a potential ban or restriction on electronic devices such as electroimmobilisers should not cover devices used for electroejaculation.

2.8.2 Impact of a prohibition in New Zealand

Information received by the MAF and NAWAC suggests that the use of electroimmobilisers is limited. The use may even be limited to certain geographical areas. Deer Industry New Zealand suggested that there is much less publicity about electroimmobilisation than previously and that proponents are not actively promoting their use, therefore use has declined.

Given that the current use of electroimmobilisation in New Zealand appears to be very small and limited, if they were to be banned, the impact would appear to be relatively small. However, the impact may be large for an individual user.

2.8.3 Viewpoints

The following groups have previously indicated that they support a ban on electroimmobilisers:

  • National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee;
  • New Zealand Veterinary Association;
  • Deer Industry New Zealand;
  • Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals;
  • Federated Farmers.

No groups are known to support the use of electroimmobilisers in New Zealand, other than the producers or the current users of the devices.

3. Use for Velvet Removal

The National Velvetting Standards Body (NVSB) administers a training and certification programme for the removal of velvet based on an animal welfare code of recommendations and minimum standards. The programme is approved under the 1994 Animal Remedies (Develvetting) Regulations 1994, and endorsed by NAWAC.

The surgical removal of velvet antler without some form of anaesthesia causes significant pain or distress to the animal. The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee Code of Recommendations and Minimum Standards for the Welfare of Deer During the Removal of Antlers (1992) requires that animals must be restrained during the velvetting procedure. This can be achieved by either properly designed physical restraining devices or by the use of chemical agents. The velvet antler must also be fully desensitised before velvet harvesting, using approved forms of analgesia.

There are concerns that farmers may use electroimmobilisation when develvetting deer, without appropriate analgesia. The integrity of the NVSB velvet-harvesting scheme could be compromised by this practice.

4. International Regulation

4.1 Australia

The Australian National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare (NCCAW) position statement is that electroimmobilisation is not a means of analgesia or an acceptable restraint of animals on animal welfare grounds. NCCAW acknowledges that the restraint of large animals can be difficult, especially when they are uncontrolled and suggests that research is needed into easily used, safe, humane methods of restraint.

4.1.1 South Australia

Regulations under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985:

  • Prohibit applying an electroimmobiliser to an animal unless the animal is of class 1, 2, 3 or 4.
  • Require the electroimmobiliser to be approved by the Minister for Environment and Heritage.
  • Require the electroimmobiliser to only be used to restrain the animal for as short a time as practicable for a routine animal husbandry procedure.
  • Require that a person using the electroimmobiliser must be accredited for the relevant class of animal.

Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985, if a person sells, leases, hires out, gives or lends an electroimmobiliser to a person without the person producing an accreditation certificate, each party is guilty of an offence, with a penalty of AUD $1000.

The Act also has provision for approval of demonstrators and training programmes for the use of electroimmobilisers.

4.1.2 New South Wales

Electroimmobilisers are banned in New South Wales (NSW), but may be used by a veterinarian during procedures where analgesia or anaesthesia is not required. Veterinarians who use electroimmobilisation must receive training through the Australian Veterinary Association.

4.1.3 Tasmania

Tasmania has similar restrictions to NSW.

4.2 European Union

The European Union has not banned electroimmobilisation. However a restriction for its use is provided in Article 3 of Council Directive 98/58/EC on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes: "Member states shall make provision to ensure that the owners or keepers take all responsible steps to ensure the welfare of animals under their care and to ensure that those animals are not caused any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury".

Some individual member countries, such as the United Kingdom, have legislation specifically banning the use of electroimmobilisation.

5. Research

The NAWAC proposal to the Minister of Agriculture (see section 1.2) recommended that no restriction should be placed on electroimmobilisation devices obtained and used for bona fide research purposes. However, it is not necessary for any prohibition or restriction on the use of electroimmobilisation devices to include an exemption for research purposes. Part VI of the Act, which regulates the use of animals in research, testing and teaching, is stand-alone. Parts I and II of the Act, including any Orders in Council, do not apply to research, testing and teaching when it is carried out in accordance with the provisions in Part VI.

6. Conclusion

From the analysis undertaken, it appears that animals suffer some pain or distress from electroimmobilisation. Some form of restriction on the use of electroimmobilisers may be appropriate. A total prohibition on the use of electroimmobilisation devices could be difficult to justify, given the potential animal welfare benefits of the devices and the pain or distress of alternative methods of restraint.

Given the potential for mis-use of electroimmobilisation devices, and that it appears some pain or distress is caused by electroimmobilisation, any person using an electroimmobiliser could be required to meet certain standards. Such persons could be veterinarians or other persons who are trained and approved to use electroimmobilisation devices. Consideration will need to be given to who trains and approves the users.

Most research has involved sheep, cattle and deer, and does not cover the scope of animals on which electroimmobilisation could be used. Consideration needs to be given to the potential differences in responses between species and whether the findings from the research can be applied to other species.

Other factors that require further deliberation are the procedures that may be permitted to be carried out whilst an animal is electroimmobilised and the method of application or use of the electroimmobilisation device.

Consultation with interested and affected parties will be important to gauge opinions on the options presented below and any matters that require further consideration.

7. Summary of Options

Views are sought from interested and affected parties on whether or not some form of regulation on the use of electroimmobilisation devices in New Zealand is appropriate. Three broad approaches are presented below.

7.1 Option 1: No action

No change to the current situation i.e. no restriction on the use of electroimmobilisation.

7.2 Option 2: Restriction

Electroimmobilisation devices are declared as restricted devices under Section 32 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 by Order in Council to regulate their sale and use. The following options are proposed:

A

  1. Allowing the use of electroimmobilisation devices in slaughterhouses after animals are stunned and immediately before slaughter; and
  2. Allowing for veterinarian only use. The device would only be available for sale to veterinarians. The following would be prescribed:
    • method of use of the electroimmobilisation device;
    • procedures that can be carried out whilst an animal is electroimmobilised;
    • species that may be electroimmobilised.

B

  1. Allowing the use of electroimmobilisation devices in slaughterhouses after animals are stunned and immediately before slaughter; and
  2. Allowing use by trained and approved users only. The device would be available for sale to approved users only. The following would be prescribed:
    • method of use of the electroimmobilisation device;
    • procedures that can be carried out whilst the animal is electroimmobilised;
    • species that may be electroimmobilised.

7.3 Option 3: Prohibition

Electroimmobilisation devices are declared as prohibited devices under Section 32 of the Act. Sale or use of such devices by anyone becomes an offence under the Act. The prohibition would not include devices used in slaughterhouses.

8. References

Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (1992). Code of Recommendations and Minimum Standards for the Welfare of Deer During the Removal of Antlers. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, ISBN 0-477-08562-8, ISSN 1171-090X.

Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (1996). Code of Recommendations and Minimum Standards for the Welfare of Sheep. Ministry of Agriculture, ISBN 0-477-08550-4
ISSN 1171-090X .

Hargreaves, A.L., Hutson, G.D. (1990). Some Effects of Repeated Handling on Stress Responses in Sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 26: 253-265.

Jephcott, E.H., McMillen, I.C., Rushen, J.P., Thorburn, G.D. (1987). A comparison of the effects of electroimmobilisation and, or, shearing procedures on ovine plasma concentrations of J -endorphin/J -lipoprotein and cortisol. Research in Veterinary Science, 43: 97-100.

Kuchel, T.R. (1990). Physiological and biochemical consequences of electroimmobilisation in conscious sheep. Australian Veterinary Journal 67:33-38.

Kuchel, T.R. (Unpublished). Evidence for analgesia induced by electroimmobilisation in cattle.

Matthews, L.R. (1993). Welfare implications of electroimmobilisation. Surveillance 20(2):10-11.

Rushen, J. (1986). Aversion of sheep to electroimmobilisation and physical restraint. Animal Behaviour Science 15: 315-214.

Rushen, J., Congdon, P. (1986)a. Relative aversion of sheep to simulated shearing with and without electro-immobilisation. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 26: 535-537.

Rushen, J., Congdon, P. (1986)b. Sheep may be more averse to electro-immobilisation than to shearing. Australian Veterinary Journal, 63 (11): 373.

Rushen, J., Congdon, P. (1987). Electroimmobilisation of sheep may not reduce the aversiveness of a painful treatment. Veterinary Record 120:37-38.

Stafford, K.J. (1995). Electroejaculation: a welfare issue? Surveillance 22(2):15-17.

Stafford, K.J. & Mesken, A. (1992). Electroimmobilisation in red deer. New Zealand Veterinary Association: Proceedings of a Deer Course for Veterinarians 9: 56-68.

9. Bibliography

Barnett, J.L. (1987). The physiological concept of stress is useful for assessing welfare. Australian Veterinary Journal, 64(6): 195-196.

Baxter, J.R. (1987). Response of sheep to short term restraint by electro-immobilisation. Australian Veterinary Journal, 64(6):195.

Carter, P.D., Johnston, N.E., Corner, L.A., Jarrett, R.G. (1983). Observations on the effect of electo-immobilisation on the dehorning of cattle. Australian Veterinary Journal, 60: 17-19.

Hogg, B. (1996). A Report on Observations of a Demonstration of the use of the Stockstill machine on cattle (Contract report to MAF Regulatory Authority).

Lambooy, E. Electroanaesthesia or electroimmobilisation of calves, sheep and pigs by the Feenix Stockstill. (1985). The Veterinary Quarterly, 7(2):121-126.

Moloney, V. (1985). The electroimmobilisation and electroanaesthetisation of farm animals: a review. Farm Animal Welfare Council, Survey, 1-43.

Mosure, W.L., Meyer, R.A., Gudmundson,J., Barth,A.D. (1998). Evaluation of possible methods to reduce pain associated with electroejaculation in bulls. Canadian Veterinary Journal, 39: 504-506.

Pollard, J.C., Suttie, J.M., Littlejohn, R.P., Johnstone, P., Laas, F.J., Corson, I.D. (1991). Measurement of Behaviour and Heart Rate to Assess the Aversiveness of Handling Treatment Used for Red Deer. NZVA Deer Branch Proceedings, 8:109-119.

Rushen, J. (1987). Electro-immobilisation. Australian Veterinary Journal, 64(6), 194-195.

Rushen, J. (1986). Observations on the aversion of sheep to electroimmobilisation and physical restraint. Australian Veterinary Journal, 63(2):63-64.

Rushen, J. (1996). Using Aversion Learning Techniques to Assess the Mental State, Suffering, and Welfare of Farm Animals. Journal of Animal Science,74:1990-1995.

Page last updated: 30 April 2008