Animal welfare continues to evolve alongside advances in science.
Methods once considered “better” may, through new research, be shown to cause animals severe suffering. Conversely, new technologies and management practices that cause less suffering may also be developed.
For this reason, not only experts and organizations that disseminate information, but also producers and companies that actually keep and use animals are expected to continually incorporate the latest scientific knowledge and maintain a commitment to pursuing higher animal welfare.
This time, regarding a booklet on animal welfare published by the Japan Livestock Technology Association, we requested three improvements from the perspective of consistency with the latest scientific knowledge.
What we requested
1. Cervical dislocation device for broilers
In “Broiler Husbandry Management with Consideration for Comfort,” pliers-type devices were introduced as an overseas example of equipment used for cervical dislocation.
However, subsequent studies have reported that such devices have a low success rate, may crush the animal, and can prolong the time to loss of consciousness. Meanwhile, research is also progressing on improved devices and auxiliary tools.
We requested that this description be removed and replaced with a method supported by stronger scientific evidence.
2. Teeth clipping in pigs
In “Animal Welfare in Pig Husbandry Management,” a method of teeth clipping was introduced as an example of improvement.
However, under the approach set out by WOAH (World Organisation for Animal Health), it is important first to “reduce the procedure itself when possible (Reduction).”
We requested revisions so that, rather than “assuming teeth clipping,” it more clearly conveys the approach of “first reducing teeth clipping, and carrying it out only when truly necessary.”
3. Dehorning in cattle
In “Animal Welfare in Beef Cattle Husbandry Management,” the content mainly described methods for carrying out dehorning.
Meanwhile, the WOAH Code also presents management practices that make dehorning unnecessary, and breeding polled cattle, as important options.
We requested that it convey the approach of not merely assuming dehorning, but first considering “methods that do not involve dehorning.”
The Livestock Technology Association’s response
Regarding Request 1, the Livestock Technology Association stated that
the introduction of pliers for cervical dislocation that had been posted as an overseas example would be removed from its website.
We confirmed that, as of April 2026, it had been removed, including past content.
In addition, regarding alternative devices and training methods,
they stated that they would
consider them after gathering information.
They also responded regarding dehorning in cattle that
they would gather further information on the option of discontinuing the procedure and on alternatives through management practices and breeding, and consider how to describe these in the materials.
they responded.
Meanwhile, regarding teeth clipping in pigs, they stated that because it already says “only when necessary,” they will not make revisions at this time.
Even expert institutions update their information
The Livestock Technology Association is an expert institution that consolidates and disseminates knowledge on Japan’s livestock technologies. Even such expert institutions may need to review their existing content in light of new research findings.
This is not about blaming someone’s mistake.
Animal welfare is a field that is continually updated based on science.
For example, as with the cervical dislocation device in this case, a “method previously considered effective” may later be found, through subsequent research, to cause significant suffering to animals. In this case, it stated:
“[Introducing an overseas example]
When visiting a broiler farm in Germany, we asked a question about euthanasia for chickens, and were told that when euthanasia is unavoidable, they use a dedicated tool for cervical dislocation. We were also told that it is necessary to record daily the number of chickens euthanized and the reasons.” A photo of a device that causes animals suffering was posted next to this text.
In other words, the preconceived notion that “German farms must naturally be advanced” resulted in lower animal welfare. Producers are, ultimately, producers. They are not animal welfare experts; they are practitioners, and the primary purpose of their business is the production and sale of livestock products—profit. Their goal is not to spend time inspecting every detail until everything is perfect, and in many cases they tend to want to continue their own methods; moreover, it is psychologically difficult for people to question customary practices. The Livestock Technology Association should have had a responsibility to fact-check, rather than accept what was introduced at face value.
The same thing is happening with CO₂ gas stunning at pig slaughter. CO₂ has been widely used in Europe for many years, but numerous studies now show that high concentrations of CO₂ cause severe suffering and respiratory distress, and the development of alternative technologies is progressing in countries around the world.
There is no “finished” state in animal welfare.
That is why experts, government, industry, producers, and we as citizens must continually listen to the latest scientific knowledge and, above all, desperately gather the animals’ condition and voices, and keep asking, “Is there a way that causes less suffering than now?”—this is what leads to improved animal welfare.
We at Animal Rights Center will continue to make constructive proposals based on the voices of animals conveyed from the field and the latest scientific knowledge, and will continue our activities to reduce animals’ suffering as much as possible.
