Welfare Implications of Electroimmobilization

Literature Review

March 3, 2008

This peer-reviewed summary has been prepared by the American Veterinary Medical Association Animal Welfare Division. While principally a review of the scientific literature, it may also include information gleaned from proprietary data, legislative and regulatory review, market conditions, and scholarly ethical assessments. It is provided as information and its contents should not be construed as official AVMA policy. Mention of trade names, products, commercial practices or organizations does not imply endorsement by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

.pdf version

Electroimmobilization is the use of electrical current to restrain conscious animals by causing paralysis. The direct action of electrical current on animal's muscle and/or nervous systems is used to prevent animals from moving. There is concern that electroimmobilization is a source of distress because animals are believed to be conscious and aware of their surroundings and experiences, but unable to respond. In addition, physical discomfort may result due to loss of bodily control, sustained overstraining of muscles and labored1 or suspended respiration.2,3

Electroimmobilization of livestock

Commercial electroimmobilization devices have been developed to retrain livestock such as sheep,4,5 swine and cattle.2 Electroimmobilization usually involves placing electrodes at distal ends of an animal's spine, excluding the brain, and produces a conscious rigid paralysis for the length of a procedure. These devices are mainly for use with large, potentially dangerous, free-ranging livestock to prevent injury to handlers and to the animal during infrequent handling.6 Electroimmobilization is anecdotally reported to produce unpleasant sensations when applied to humans.7,8c.f.9 Livestock have been shown to avoid the electroimmobilization5,10,11 and show physiological stress reactions when it is applied12,13 or in anticipation of its use.2

Electoimmobilization of other terrestrial animals

Electroimmobilization has also been used to hold small animals such as insects still for purposes of photography and other imaging.14

Electroimmobilization is not an anesthetic or analgesic

Speculation that electro-immobilization might produce some analgesic or anesthetic effects is not clearly supported anecdotally7 or experimentally. 1,15,16 Nevertheless electroimmobilization along the spine has sometimes been discussed as if it produces "surgical anesthesia"17 or causes "pain to be blocked out"18 for procedures on animals such as turtles. These uses are not supported by any research at this time and electroimmobilization should not be considered a form of anesthesia or analgesia,1 nor should electroimmobilization equipment ever be employed as an electric goad.19


The following procedures are not considered to be electroimmobilization as a method of conscious paralysis because they are 1) not a method of restraint, 2) produce immediate unconsciousness or death, 3) are applied to animals that are already unconscious or dead, or 4) they do not act by causing paralysis.

Electrofishing—Electrofishing is use of transient applications of electrical current for the purpose of collecting fish samples as part of fish population surveys. 20,21 Voltage, current, and wave forms are varied depending on water chemistry and target species and are designed to produce temporary immobility or involuntary swimming toward the anode. Electrofishing is a method of fish capture, not a method of restraint. It is unclear whether electrofishing produces paralysis by acting on the muscles (electroimmobilization) or by producing an epileptic state22 (stunning).

Electroanesthesia and stunning— Electricity applied to the brain may be used as a form of anesthesia—producing near instantaneous unconsciousness. Stunning23,24 is a form of electroanesthesia used immediately prior to25 or simultaneous with slaughter (e.g. by cardiac arrest).26

Post-stunning restraint—Electrification my also be used to suppress seizure movements of animals of stunned animals but so long as the animal is effectively stunned they will remain unconscious during this procedure.

Electrical devices and TENS—Electrical devices such as fences, goads and training collars, while applied to conscious animals, should not cause paralysis. A device providing transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TENS) should not, even at the highest settings, produce paralysis. TENS has been proposed as a method for controlling pain, however its effectiveness is often not supported by controlled studies.27e.g.28 Therefore TENS devices should not be used for analgesia or anesthesia in animal unless convincing supporting data is available for that application. It has also been suggested that TENS delivered by rectal probe prevents cows from kicking and calms them, but this has not been objectively demonstrated.29,30


Electroimmobilization, the use of electrical current to restrain conscious animals by causing paralysis, is likely to be disturbing to animals and detrimental to their welfare. Procedures that are not considered to be electroimmobilization include: electrofishing, electroanesthesia, stunning, electrical restraint of stunned animals, electrical devices such as fences and transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TENS).


  1. Lambooy E. Electroanaesthesia or electroimmobilisation of calves, sheep and pigs by the Feenix Stockstill. Vet Quarterly 1985;7:120.
  2. Pascoe PJ, McDonell WN. The noxious effects of electroimmobilization in adult Holstein cows: a pilot study. Can J Vet Res 1986;50:275-279.
  3. Jephcott EH, Lynn RD, Thorburn GD, et al. Effects of electroimmobilisation on blood gas and pH status in sheep. R Vet Sci 1990; 48:314-320.
  4. Grandin T, Curtis SE, Widowskii TM, et al. Electro-immobilization versus mechanical restraint in an avoid-avoid choice test for ewes. J Anim Sci 1986;62:1469-1480.
  5. Rushen J, Congdon P. Sheep may be more averse to electro-immobilisation than to shearing. Aus Vet J 1986;63:373.
  6. Petherick JC. Animal welfare issues associated with extensive livestock production: the northern Australian beef cattle industry. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2005;92:211-234.
  7. Carter PD. Electroimmobilisation on man and animals (letter). Aust Vet J 1987;64:356.
  8. Rushen J. Electro-immobilisation (letter). Aust Vet J 1987;64;194-195.
  9. Baxter JR. Response of sheep to short term restraint by electro-immobilisation. Aust Vet J 1987 1987;64:195.
  10. Pascoe PJ. Humaneness of an electro-immobilization unit for cattle. Am J Vet Res 1986;47: 2252-2256
  11. Rushen J. Aversion of sheep to electro-immobilization and physical restraint. Appl Anim Behav Sci 1986;15:315-324.
  12. Jephcott EH, McMillen IC, Rushen JP et al. A comparison of the effects of electroimmobilisation and, or, shearing procedures on ovine plasma concentrations of B-endorphin/B-lipoprotein and cortisol. Res Vet Sci 1987; 43:97-100.
  13. Jephcott EH, Lynn RD, Thorburn GD, et al. Effects of electroimmobilisation on blood gas and pH status in sheep. R Vet Sci 1990; 48:314-320.
  14. Monkman GJ. An analysis of astrictive prehension. Int J Robotics Res 1997;16:1-10.
  15. Rushen J, Congdon P. Electro-immobilisation of sheep may not reduce the aversiveness of a painful treatment. Vet Rec 1987;120:37-38.
  16. Carter PD. Johnstone NE, Corner LA et al. Observations on the effect of electro-immobilisation on the dehorning of cattle. Aust Vet J 1983;60:17-19.
  17. Wood JR, Wood FE. Recent developments in the anesthesia of sea turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 1983;26:6-7.
  18. Balazs GH, Forsyth RG, Kam AKH. Preliminary assessment of habitat utilization by Hawaiian green turtles in their resident foraging pastures. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NIAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-71, March 1987, p. 6.
  19. Grandin T. Electric stunning of pigs and sheep. Grandin.com available at:http://www.grandin.com/humane/elec.stun.html Accessed: November 5, 2007.
  20. Bohlin T, Hamrin S, Heggberget TG et al. Electrofishing—theory and practice with special emphasis on salmonids. Hydrobiologia 1989;173: 9–43.
  21. Snyder DE. Electrofishing and its harmful effects on fish. Information and technology report USGS/BRD/ITR—2003-0002: US Government Printing Office, Dencer, CO, 149 p. https://www.fort.usgs.gov/sites/default/files/products/publications/21226/21226.pdf (PDF, 3.8MB). Accessed:​ November 18, 2015.
  22. Sharber NG, Black JS. Epilepsy as a unifying principle in electrofishing theory: a proposal. Transactions American Fisheries Society 1999;128:666-671.
  23. Warrington R. Electrical stunning: a review of the literature. Vet Bull 1974;44:617635.
  24. Gregory NG. Preslaughter handling, stunning and slaughter. Meat science 1994;36:45-56.
  25. Bilgili SF. Electrical stunning of broilers–basic concepts and carcass quality implications: a review. J Appl Poult Res 1992;1:135-146.
  26. Grandin T. Cardiac arrest stunning of livestock and poultry. Advances in Animal welfare science MW Fox and LD Mickey 1985. Martinus Nijhoff. Available at: http://www.grandin.com/humane/cardiac.arrest.html Accessed: November 5, 2007.
  27. Carroll D, Moore RA, McQuay HJ, Fairman F, Tramèr M, Leijon G. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003222. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003222
  28. Woodbury MR, Caulkett NA, Bauman D. Comparison of analgesic techniques for antler removal in wapiti. Can Vet J 2001;42:929-935.
  29. Newtek website. Handling instructions. ​​Accessed: November 18, 2015.
  30. Verkerk G. Brief communication: adrenocorticol responses of dairy cows to TENS-wave stimulation. DCV Mag 2007;September:32.