Legal assessment of ingrown horns and other horn-related anomalies in cattle and sheep

TL;DR

This paper examines legal cases in Sweden involving cattle and sheep with ingrown horns, highlighting how these horn-related issues are identified and addressed under animal welfare laws.

Contribution

The study provides a comprehensive legal review of horn-related anomalies in cattle and sheep in Sweden, offering insights into detection methods and judicial outcomes.

Findings

53% of legal cases were identified during farm inspections, and 44% during abattoir inspections.

81% of cases resulted in convictions, but no cases led to imprisonment.

Common reasons for acquittals included insufficient evidence of animal suffering or how the anomalies occurred.

Abstract

Cattle and sheep horns have the potential to grow in such a way that the horn bends toward the animal’s head and, if left untreated, may penetrate the skin, causing pressure, pain, and suffering. According to the Swedish Animal Welfare Act, animals must be looked after in a way that prevents ingrown horns; otherwise, the person responsible for the animal may be prosecuted. Here, we present a review of 32 legal cases that occurred in Sweden between 2008 and 2022 for which the charge involved horn-related anomalies in cattle or sheep. The aim being to investigate the nature of these horn-related anomalies and the circumstances under which they occur. Of the legal cases, 53% were discovered during official animal welfare control on farms and 44% at an abattoir during pre-slaughter inspection. These include extreme injuries, e.g. both horns penetrating the periosteum into the skull bone, or a horn penetrating into the eye or oral cavity. The reasons offered by the accused for failing to detect animals with horn-related anomalies included that the animal appeared normal, that it was long-haired, shy, or hard to reach, or that the horns had not undergone gradual growth but had accidentally or suddenly penetrated the skin. Overall, 81% of the cases led to convictions; however, none of these resulted in imprisonment. Reasons for acquittals included insufficient crime description or evidence as to how the horn-related anomaly occurred or of the animal being exposed to suffering. A number of recommendations are provided that could help limit the occurrence of ingrown horns.

Figures