Animal welfare considerations of laparoscopic A.I.

Authors: Conway DA
Publication: New Zealand Veterinary Journal, Volume 35, Issue 7, pp 117-118, Jul 1987
Publisher: Taylor and Francis

Animal type: Goat, Livestock, Production animal, Ruminant
Subject Terms: Animal welfare, Artificial insemination, Reproduction - female, Breed/breeding, Husbandry/husbandry procedures, Reproduction, Reproduction - male
Article class: Correspondence

---

Abstract: Members of the public have brought to my attention that there are some within our profession performing laparostopic A.I. in goats in an unsatisfactory fashion. Goats which are poorly tranquillised (if at all) are being restrained in cradles and held down while laparascopic A.I. is performed using only local analgesia in skin (& muscle ??). Considerable struggling occurs with distressed vocalisation. This presents a very poor image to the public and must also be unsatisfactory to the profession. I have done a considerable amount of laparoscopic work over the last two years. I have tried the xylazine/pethidine pre-med with and without local analgesia and found these techniques most unsatisfactory. A struggling goat is not a good subject for laparoscopic work. It is even less acceptable from a public relations/animal welfare point of view. I weigh the goats, inject a bolus induction dose of thiopentone, intubate, and then perform A.I. laparoscopically. Recovery is very rapid and the goats are generally eating within 10 minutes. The only added input is someone to oversee recovery and tube removal. I would seriously question the motives of the exponents of minimal sedation/analgesia techniques. Is this being done to minimise stress or purely maximise throughput and hence income?…

---