UK farmers opinions and challenges regarding fitness for transport and emergency slaughter

Fitness for transport decisions are essential for safeguarding livestock welfare, yet the UK’s current legislation leaves room for subjective judgement. Previous studies indicate that farmers often lack confidence when assessing borderline cases, and although emergency slaughter provides an option for animals unfit for transport, eligibility is narrow and access is limited. This study explores UK farmers’ experiences, challenges, and preferences regarding fitness for transport assessments for poultry, pigs, cattle and sheep, and emergency slaughter of domestic ungulates. An online questionnaire was created (Jisc, 2019) containing twenty-eight questions to collect qualitative and quantitative data from UK commercial livestock farmers. It was distributed online and through in-person events during July and August 2023. The survey was advertised publicly through a variety of routes including social media (Instagram, Facebook), livestock markets, agricultural shows, veterinary practices, University of Nottingham staff and student emails, NFU website, national boards, and specialist veterinary groups. Lameness was identified as the most challenging condition to assess (79%), followed by pregnancy stage and body condition. While 86% reported familiarity with legislation, 39% lacked confidence in their transport decisions. Private veterinarians were the preferred source of advice, with gender differences observed in reliance on previous education and peer networks. Barriers to emergency slaughter included cost, location, and limited veterinary capacity. Over half of respondents wanted clearer guidance or more training, and 76% supported broadening eligibility for emergency slaughter to include older, aggressive, or chronically lame animals. Free-text responses raised concerns about long travel distances, the decline of small abattoirs, and interest in mobile abattoirs. Convenience sampling and a small number of responses (51) could influence the results of this study. Despite high reported familiarity with regulations, farmers experience uncertainty in fitness for transport assessments. Clearer guidance, targeted training, and a review of emergency slaughter criteria may support better, more consistent decision-making and improve animal welfare outcomes.

According to official government figures; the United Kingdom is home to 209,000 farm holdings, 58% of which, in England, are involved in animal agriculture. The agricultural sector accounts for 0.5% of the UK economy and provides almost half a million jobs. In financial terms, revenue from UK agriculture was £30 billion in 2023, 62% (£19.2 billion) of this from livestock farming, making it the biggest component of the sector (Department for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2025). Output from livestock can be broken down into meat (35%), milk (19%), acquiring stock (4%) and eggs (3%). According to DEFRA’s 2024 UK agricultural national statistics there are currently approximately 9.6 million cattle and calves, 4.7 million pigs, 32 million sheep and 178 million poultry in the United Kingdom (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) et al., 2023). When translating into slaughter numbers, official government figures for May 2024 report that 103 million animals (mostly poultry) were slaughtered in UK approved premises (Department for Environtment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2026a; Department for Environtment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2026b). In England and Wales, according to a 2024 slaughterhouse survey, the majority of animals arriving at the slaughterhouses travelled directly from farms (63% of all red meat species and 99% of poultry), while the rest arrived from livestock markets and dealers. Equivalent data is not publicly available for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but applies to England and Wales (Department for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2022).

To protect animal welfare during transport, a maximum of eight hours journey time without breaks have been established, though exceptions do exist (Council of the European Union, 2005; Farm Animal Welfare (FAW) Committee, 2019). In the UK, travel distances and journey length to slaughterhouses align with these time limits, as most are under 8 hours in duration, with an average of 72.2 miles (116.2 kilometres) for beef cattle, 66.2 miles (106.5 kilometres) for dairy cows, 69.9 miles (112.4 kilometres) for sheep, 87 miles (140 kilometres) for pigs and 100.5 miles (161.7 kilometres) for poultry. Figures from the National Farmers Union (NFU) found that 64% of beef cattle, 73% of dairy cows and 70% of sheep were transported to abattoirs within 50 miles (80 kilometres) of their farm of origin. Transport to agricultural shows was consistently the longest journey experienced by livestock (Clifford, 2020).

There is substantial scientific evidence indicating that transport can be a highly stressful experience for animals if it is not appropriately managed (Schwartzkopf-Genswein et al., 2012). Recent reports published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) identified up to ten potential adverse welfare consequences associated with the transport of pigs, including social stress, handling stress, heat stress, motion stress, injuries, hunger, thirst, insufficient rest intervals, restriction of movement, and sensory overstimulation (Nielsen et al., 2022a).

Similar welfare risks have been identified for cattle (Nielsen et al., 2022b) and small ruminants, with the additional concern of post-transport respiratory disease (Uddin et al., 2025). Domestic birds are also vulnerable during transport, particularly to cold and heat stress (Nielsen et al., 2022d). However, adverse welfare consequences are not inevitable during transport; with appropriate journey management, they can be minimised or prevented (Marahrens et al., 2011). Negative affective states identified due to these welfare consequences included fear and pain. Despite these being multifactorial and not entirely unavoidable (Gosálvez et al., 2006), the EFSA reports suggest more could be done to advise farmers and improve the management of animal transport (Nielsen et al., 2022a; Nielsen et al., 2022b; Nielsen et al., 2022c; Nielsen et al., 2022d).

Current legislation regarding the protection of animals during transport is listed under Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 (Council of the European Union, 2005) and The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006 (The welfare of animals (Transport) (England) order 2006, 2006). Food-producing animals are often transported at least once in their lives and must be fit for transport to do so (Council of the European Union, 2005). The term ‘fitness for transport’ however, is poorly defined; while specific conditions deeming an animal unfit for transport are listed and published under guidance documentation (Council of the European Union, 2005), there is margin for subjective interpretation (Dahl-Pedersen, 2022). Conditions that render an animal unfit for transport include, but are not limited to, lameness causing inability to walk independently, severe open wounds and prolapses and pregnant females where >90% of the pregnancy has elapsed. The legislation also states that ‘slightly injured or ill’ animals may also be considered fit for transport (Council of the European Union, 2005). In the UK, NFU studies found lameness, mastitis, blindness, injuries and pregnancy to be among conditions influencing fitness for transport in cattle, sheep and pigs, while general health and ambient temperatures play a bigger role in poultry (Clifford, 2020).

The unspecific language used and lack of objective guidelines to aid farmers, workers and hauliers when deciding to transport their animals provides flexibility to application, but may also be associated with reduced animal welfare, as variation in understanding, potentially also due to language barriers, and decision-making regarding fitness for transport exists (Clifford, 2020). For example, a recent survey in Denmark reported that 59% of farmers found legislation around transport challenging to understand. In this paper almost a third of the farmers surveyed said they have doubted their decision to transport. Almost half of the participants added that they found fitness for transport regulations too subjective, and feared being reported to relevant authorities if their own interpretation didn’t align with the competent authorities (Dahl-Pedersen, 2022).

When domestic ungulates are unfit for transport, the law recognises an exception to allow them to be used for human consumption through emergency slaughter on farm, instead of an abattoir. On-farm emergency slaughter is defined as the slaughter of an otherwise healthy animal which suffered an accident that prevented its transport to the slaughterhouse for welfare reasons (Council of the European Union, 2004). Definitions for eligibility of acutely injured animals include fractures, catastrophic injuries resulting in paralysis or severe wounds. Currently there are no mechanisms in the UK which enable animals which do not meet this definition, and are experiencing a chronic condition, but are otherwise fit to be presented for slaughter, from being killed on farm. Fractious animals and some game and poultry can be slaughtered on farm under certain conditions, but all other animals must be slaughtered at an approved abattoir, if entering the food chain. Whilst guidance is publicly available (British Veterinary Association, 2010), a study focussing on acutely injured cattle in Ireland found farmers preferred using their private veterinarian for information regarding the management of injured cattle, as well as information from farming organisations to inform them of the most up-to-date transport guidelines. The Irish study additionally reported that both dairy and beef cattle farmers used their private veterinarian’s guidance when dealing with acutely injured stock, prioritising animal welfare despite emergency slaughter being a more costly option (McDermott et al., 2023).

Aims

The aim of this project was to gain insight into the opinions and challenges UK farmers face when making the decision to transport their animals from farm to slaughter or elsewhere, in relation to fitness for transport, specific transport conditions and emergency slaughter provisions. The results of this project could inform future research based on areas where farmers report a lack understanding and require further assistance, as well as a benchmark to review the current emergency slaughter guidance. These may, in turn, improve animal welfare during transport overall.

This project gained ethical approval from the University of Nottingham (project number 3867230613).

An online questionnaire software (Jisc 2019) was used to design a survey and to collect qualitative and quantitative data. The survey was designed by the three authors with experience in survey design (AGA) and farm (CW, JM) and abattoir work (CW, AGA) and piloted by 20 farmers and sector policy specialists from the National Farmers Union (NFU) and their sister organisation the National Pig Association (NPA), who found the questions to be clear and suggested no further amendments, therefore no changes were deemed necessary after piloting. The target population was UK commercial livestock farmers and professional hauliers. The study population was a convenience sample of the target population. The questionnaire contained a maximum of 28 questions and was distributed among the study population online and through in-person events during July and August 2023. The survey was advertised through a variety of routes: peer networks on social media platforms; such as Instagram and Facebook, livestock markets, agricultural shows, veterinary practices, University of Nottingham student and staff emails, NFU website, national boards, and specialist veterinary groups. Participants who consented to take part in the survey were informed that their answers would be anonymous, and that they would be able to withdraw from the study at any point.

The survey was comprised of three sections, section one was titled: ‘About you, your animals and your work on the farm’, section two ‘About your experience of fitness for transport’ and section three ‘Your proposed developments’. The first section aimed to collect information on demographics and included age, gender of the respondent, farm location and species farmed. Section two assessed previous experience with fitness for transport, any challenging conditions for deciding an animal’s fitness for transport and how to deal with them, and the use of the existing exception for on-farm emergency slaughter. The final section of the survey sought farmers’ opinions on improvements around fitness for transport information and emergency slaughter, followed by opportunity to express opinions on the development of these topics. Guidance for Official Veterinarians (OVs) on certification of Emergency Slaughter was amended in 2025, after the survey data collection was completed; the relevance of changes will be addressed in the discussion.

No sample size calculation was performed before the study as the aims were descriptive in nature. Results have been expressed as percentages where appropriate and open-text answers were categorised by the first authors (CW, JM) into themes using thematic analysis methodology (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). Quotes may include informal language, typographical and grammatical errors as they were directly taken from the data without correction, to accurately represent respondent answers. Descriptive statistical analysis has been used, and averages have been calculated where required. Responses were collected and analysed using Microsoft Forms, Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft, Redmond, USA) and R Studio (Posit Software, PBC, Boston, USA). Chi-squared tests were performed on relevant associations; statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. If not all the respondents answered a particular question, the total number of respondents answering the question was reported and considered as the denominator for calculating a proportion. The Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research (Tong et al., 2007) and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines (von Elm et al., 2007) were used to report the results of this study.

A total of 51 respondents completed the survey. No results were discarded and therefore incomplete questionnaires did not affect these values.

Demographics

Most respondents were male (57.1%, n=29/51), with females accounting for 35% (n=18/51), and four of the participants choosing “other” or “preferred not to say” when asked about their gender. Most were farm owners (58.8%, n= 30/51) or workers (29.4%, n=15/51) under the age of 55 (74.5%¸ n=38/51). There was no significant difference between female owners (53%, n=10/19, of all female respondents) versus male owners (68%, n=19/28, of the male who respondents were owners). Female respondents were all under 55 years old, with half under 30 (53%, n= 10/19), while only a quarter of the male respondents were under 30 years old (25%, n=7/28). Responses were received from farmers of a range of species, including sheep (34%, n=30), beef (31%, n=28), dairy (23%, n=21), pigs (6%, n=5) and poultry (3%, n=3) (Figure 1). Just over half of the respondents (51%, n=26/51) farmed more than one species, with the most common combination being beef cattle and sheep (65%, n=17/26). A small number of responses (6%, n=3) were also received from those who did not farm but were involved in livestock transport in another way, for example, veterinarians or hauliers. Responses were received from farms of varying size across the UK (Figure 2).

Fitness for transport

When asked “Which conditions do you find most difficult to judge? (for example, lameness, or wounds, or injuries, or body condition score, or pregnancy stage,…)” as a question requiring an open-text answer with some prompts, a total of 34 respondents provided an answer to this question. Lameness was the most frequently mentioned problematic condition (79%, n=27/34), followed by stage of pregnancy and body condition score. Other conditions mentioned included injuries and one respondent mentioned drug withdrawal periods; no significant differences were found between males or female participants or between age groups.

When asked to score resources from one to five, respondents rated their private veterinarian as the most used source of information on fitness for transport (3.6/5), followed by colleagues (2.8/5). Both options were preferred to government webpages (2.7/5), other online resources (2.5/5), previous education (2.2/5) and farming membership organisations (2.2/5) (Figure 3). Both female and male respondents reported a preference for asking their veterinarian and did not use online resources frequently; although not statistically significant, females mostly relied on previous education (P = 0.32) and government sites (P = 0.51), while males preferred asking another farmer or colleague (P = 0.085) over any other resources and scored government sites lower than females (Figure 4).

When asked how borderline cases are dealt with, 16.7% (n=8/51) opted to transport as soon as possible; 33.3% (n=16/51) said they would ask their private veterinarian for advice. Although not listed as a response option, one participant mentioned that they would seek advice from representatives, for example an Official Veterinarian, at the animal’s destination.

Location of facilities, cost, and lack of veterinary capacity were identified as barriers for access to emergency slaughter, with costs being the most common problem (27.4%, n= 14/51).

Over half of respondents (59.6%, n= 28/51) stated that they ‘sometimes check’, or ‘never check’ the temperature or weather conditions before transporting their animals. A further question asked a participant at what temperature they would consider “too hot” to transport their animals. The average temperature answered by dairy and beef cattle farmers were 28.3 °C and 26.8 °C respectively.

When asked “How familiar would you consider yourself with the most up to date legislation and official guidance regarding ‘fitness for transport’?”, most respondents (85.7%, n=42/49) considered themselves ‘familiar’ or ‘very familiar’. However, when this question was followed up by “How often do you find it difficult to decide on whether an animal is ‘fit for transport’?”, 38.8% (n=19/49) respondents said they ‘sometimes’ or ‘very often’ lacked confidence in their decision. This finding raises the concern that there is a mismatch between understanding and confidence in their judgement of a condition.

Proposed developments

Participants were given the option to suggest changes to improve animal welfare at transport and emergency slaughter provisions to improve welfare at end of life. The final question gave participants the option to provide other comments. The results to these three open text questions show that over half of the participants (53.3%, n= 24/45) would like more information to be available to support them when deciding to transport their animals. Most respondents (60.5%, n=26/43) thought that clear guidance and refresher training would be an effective way of improving animal welfare at transport, keeping farmers and livestock drivers updated on the most recent transport guidelines. Mobile abattoirs were mentioned by one respondent when asked how these challenges with emergency slaughter could be combated.

Most respondents were in favour of extending emergency slaughter eligibility (75.6%, n= 28/37), and five suggested specific examples as the inclusion of old, aggressive and chronically lame animals that would improve animal welfare. One respondent offered a further comment that ‘criteria for emergency slaughter is difficult to adhere to [ … ] and ability of vet [veterinarian] to co-ordinate [makes it] challenging’, while some respondents mentioned that the distance to travel to an abattoir post-slaughter makes accessing the service challenging, and that extending the eligibility for emergency slaughter would exacerbate these existing problems. Respondents were given the opportunity to express any other comments or concerns around fitness for transport and emergency slaughter eligibility through open text answers. A total of nine respondents added additional comments highlighting the impact transport has on animal welfare, supporting small abattoirs or referred to the farmers reputation and legal responsibility of transporting unfit animals (Table 1).

To the authors knowledge this is the first study that considers UK farmers opinions and challenges on livestock fitness for transport, as well as their opinions on potential improvements on emergency slaughter guidance. There was a small representation from the pig and poultry industry, which was expected to be due to the integrated nature of these sectors. Nevertheless, most participants were cattle and sheep farmers or a mixture of both, and targeted commercial farms, since the survey was disseminated through professional networks and commercial agricultural settings, such as livestock markets. As a result of the approach to sampling, through voluntary survey completion, and the small sample size the limitations of the study may impact the validity of the conclusions and recommendations. Larger, or more focussed studies may be necessary to ensure wider validity and representation.

Comparison of responses from female and male participants revealed some differences in age and sources of information on animal transport guidance. However, the main challenges and suggested improvements were broadly similar, although female participants tended to be younger. Female participants chose previous education as their primary source of information, in contrast with males who preferred asking a colleague, suggesting female farmers are more academically educated. In contrast, 68% of the male participants stated they were the farm owners, vs only 53% of the females stating they owned the farm business. This is representative of the current male-dominated sector (Department of Environtment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2025), but suggests a growing feminisation and professionalisation of the agricultural sector in the UK that may need considering when designing new strategies, including training; since studies report lower access levels to training (Dunne et al., 2021), but a higher level of general education in women (Hopkins1 et al., 2021). Addressing barriers such as time constraints and male-dominated training environments may require flexible, self-paced online or hybrid options, as well as female-led programs that better accommodate participants’ life commitments (Shortall, 2018). Examples of these which could be applied further in the UK, include the European Commission funded Horizon Europe projects including the ‘Grass Ceiling’ (The GRASS CEILING MOOC, a free online course designed to empower rural women and strengthen their role in agricultural innovation and rural development across Europe, 2026) and Female-Led Innovation in Agriculture and Rural Areas framework (FLIARA) (Farrell et al., 2024) that seek to address structural challenges to empower female development and innovation.

The results of the present study highlight a disparity between familiarity and confidence when transporting animals considering ‘fitness for transport’ guidance, which may jeopardise animal welfare in some cases. Lameness was identified as the most problematic condition, aligning with previous research that found only moderate agreement, between veterinarians, livestock drivers and farmers in lameness scoring (Dahl-Pedersen et al., 2018). A further interview-based study on UK cattle farmers perception, knowledge and treatment barriers around lameness, highlighted confusion over transport and slaughter options available to farmers which could be due to the unclear information available. The farmers reported that not being allowed to transport lame animals represented a barrier to culling these animals, and that the uncertainty of the acceptance of these animals into the abattoir leads to confusion and frustration (Tunstall et al., 2019). The present study supports these findings and provides additional evidence to inform future research aimed at refining the definition of “fitness for transport”. A refined definition could provide greater clarity on conditions that may compromise animal welfare and affect legal compliance, helping to align interpretations among stakeholders. The welfare during transport guidelines from Canada (Government of Canada, 2026) or the European Union existing guidelines (European Commission, 2015-2017) are examples of how more detailed information can be provided in accessible formats, including factsheets and species-specific videos. Additionally, accessible technology, such as the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries ‘Fit for Transport’ app, has been developed for ease and efficiency of use in field settings (Ministry for Primary Industries (New Zealand), 2016). These tools could inspire the development of tailored material to the UK livestock sector.

When discussing the survey in person with farmers, comments were made that while government webpages are used for guidance, they are difficult to navigate and are not user-friendly. New resources that are clear and objective could be developed to aid farmers and private veterinarians in making decisions or for advising on fitness for transport, both on and off-line to account for rural areas where network coverage might be poor. Refresher training could also be considered to improve the knowledge of farmers, hauliers and veterinarians on the topic of livestock transportation as it has proved to be useful in other countries, for example in Germany (Michaelis et al., 2022), and is further supported by the results in this study.

Nevertheless, it’s worth highlighting that just above half the participants (53%) stated they would like more information to be available around fitness for transport. Reasons for this could include that the respondents already had a good understanding of the regulations and agree with the existing guidance and resources, or that they are not interested in the production of new resources. Individuals may also experience difficulties when searching for and interpreting definitive guidance, due to regional variation and inconsistency between sources, even within the same regulatory framework (Duval et al., 2024; Lipovšek et al., 2024; Schröder et al., 2026). However, most animal welfare issues in transport are due to inadequate training (Nielsen et al., 2022b), which supports that a good understanding of the rules around fitness for transport is vital, and must be highlighted to all people involved in the transportation of animals. A UK-based study to assess the financial and social benefits to farmers of improving animal welfare during transport may be useful in raising awareness of the importance of animal welfare during transport by quantifying losses due to poor transportation decisions. Equally, refresher training could be considered to improve and update the knowledge of farmers, hauliers and veterinarians on the topic of livestock transportation, and was favoured by several participants. This continuous development learning is common practice in many professions, and could be offered through regular, optional sessions, periodic compulsory sessions or when problems are identified by relevant authorities such as the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), as suggested by some of the participants of this study. In fact, as an example, since April 2025, the food safety authorities in Great Britain (Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland) have addressed this in the veterinary sector, by requiring all veterinarians performing ante-mortem inspection on emergency slaughter animals to complete additional online training (Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, [[NoYear]]; Food Standards Scotland, [[NoYear]]).

Another interesting finding was that some of the participants in this study indicated they would transport cattle at temperatures of up to 30 °C, as permitted by official guidance for transport in warm weather (Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs (DEFRA), 2025). EFSA, however, places the upper critical temperature (UCT) for transporting cattle at 25 °C (Nielsen et al., 2022b). This highlights the disparities between custom and practise, official guidance and scientific opinion, in a period where hot weather events are becoming more frequent and longer due to climate change (Kennedy-Asser et al., 2021). In contrast, the average temperature answered by sheep, pig and poultry farmers were below the EFSA UCT’s recommended for these species (Nielsen et al., 2022a; Nielsen et al., 2022c; Nielsen et al., 2022d). A focused survey around heat stress could give richer data across sectors, where variances in extreme temperature mitigations for transport are anecdotally understood; nevertheless, the study results suggest that transport temperature guidance acknowledging the latest research, should be included when designing new training.

The open-text answers of this study provided useful information to be considered in any further discussions for on-farm slaughter. In addition to clarification of fitness for transport, extending the eligibility for on-farm emergency slaughter to other animals, like “end-of-career” dairy cows was mentioned by several participants. This suggests farmers are not completely satisfied when they need to send their older animals to the abattoir, and is supported by EFSA’s opinions on animal welfare at transport as requiring more attention (Nielsen et al., 2022b). There may be potential scope for improvement to management of on-farm killing in the UK, reflecting recent changes to the EU regulation EC No. 853/2004, through Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1141, which has widened the definition of eligibility for on-farm killing (European Commission, 2026). Nevertheless, the potential for unintended consequences of revising the scope of emergency slaughter in terms of worsening animal welfare and food safety outcomes should be thoroughly risk assessed before policy implementation.

Finally, two of the participants mentioned the use of mobile abattoirs and availability of local abattoirs to improve animal welfare. With journey times to local livestock markets reported as the shortest off-farm journey livestock animals are subjected to (Clifford, 2020), basing mobile abattoirs near these centres on market days could be an option. Mobile abattoirs and on-farm slaughter are more widely used in other countries and have been linked to improvements in meat quality and animal welfare (Eriksen et al., 2013; Lauterbach et al., 2023). Such outcomes are valued by consumers worldwide, particularly given that animal transport is one of the most visible aspects of an animal’s life (Vanhonacker et al., 2010; Buddle et al., 2018). Though economic and logistical viability in the UK is yet to be determined, this study suggests a demand in some areas and supports further studies around increasing the use of mobile facilities. Future research could focus on the characteristics of the current on-farm slaughter emergencies, such as frequency, location or main causes leading to this outcome. Coupled with this, a study on the meat inspection outcomes of on-farm emergency slaughter would help to consider any additional measures required to mitigate potential food safety issues. Studies of this nature could also inform the future development and regulatory requirements of mobile abattoirs, including how such systems might be implemented at a national scale for the benefit of food-producing animals in the UK.

‘Fitness for transport’ guidelines are still difficult to understand for farmers and hauliers and therefore are difficult to interpret, potentially risking animal welfare as a result. Developing clearer, more accessible informative resources and progressing alternative options for animals which are fit to enter the food chain, but unsuitable for transport would be beneficial for all parties. The results from this study could inform new guidance and offer new opportunities to improve animal welfare in transport; and unify farmers, hauliers, veterinarians and authorities in making the best possible decisions for livestock transport in the UK.