Hubbry Logo
CullingCullingMain
Open search
Culling
Community hub
Culling
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Culling
Culling
Culling
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Drafting out culled sheep

Culling is the process of segregating organisms from a group according to desired or undesired characteristics. In animal breeding, it is removing or segregating animals from a breeding stock based on a specific trait. This is done to exaggerate desirable characteristics, or to remove undesirable characteristics by altering the genetic makeup of the population. For livestock and wildlife, culling often refers to killing removed animals based on their characteristics, such as their sex or species membership, or as a means of preventing infectious disease transmission.

In fruits and vegetables, culling is the sorting or segregation of fresh harvested produce into marketable lots, with the non-marketable lots being discarded or diverted into food processing or non-food processing activities. This usually happens at collection centres located at, or close to farms.

Etymology

[edit]

The word cull comes from the Latin verb colligere, meaning "to gather". The term can be applied broadly to mean partitioning a collection into two groups: one that will be kept and one that will be rejected. The cull is the set of items rejected during the selection process. The culling process is repeated until the selected group is of proper size and consistency desired.

Pedigreed animals

[edit]
Further information: Selective breeding

Culling is:

... the rejection or removal of inferior individuals from breeding. The act of selective breeding. As used in the practice of breeding pedigree cats, this refers to the practice of spaying or neutering a kitten or cat that does not measure up to the show standard (or other standard being applied) for that breed. In no way does culling, as used by responsible breeders, signify the killing of healthy kittens or cats if they fail to meet the applicable standard.

— Robinson's Genetics for Cat Breeders and Veterinarians, Fourth Edition[1]

In the breeding of pedigreed animals, both desirable and undesirable traits are considered when choosing which animals to retain for breeding and which to place as pets. The process of culling starts with examination of the conformation standard of the animal and will often include additional qualities such as health, robustness, temperament, color preference, etc. The breeder takes all things into consideration when envisioning their ideal for the breed or goal of their breeding program. From that vision, selections are made as to which animals, when bred, have the best chance of producing the ideal for the breed.[2]

Breeders of pedigreed animals cull based on many criteria. The first culling criterion should always be health and robustness. Secondary to health, temperament and conformation of the animal should be considered. The filtering process ends with the breeder's personal aesthetic preferences on pattern, color, etc.

Tandem method

[edit]

The tandem method is a form of selective breeding where a breeder addresses one characteristic of the animal at a time, thus selecting only animals that measure above a certain threshold for that particular trait while keeping other traits constant. Once that level of quality in the single trait is achieved, the breeder will focus on a second trait and cull based on that quality.[2] With the tandem method, a minimum level of quality is set for important characteristics that the breeder wishes to remain constant. The breeder is focusing improvement in one particular trait without losing quality of the others. The breeder will raise the threshold for selection on this trait with each successive generation of progeny, thus ensuring improvement in this single characteristic of his breeding program.

For example, a breeder that is pleased with the muzzle length, muzzle shape, and eye placement in the breeding stock, but wishes to improve the eye shape of progeny produced may determine a minimum level of improvement in eye shape required for progeny to be returned into the breeding program. Progeny is first evaluated on the existing quality thresholds in place for muzzle length, muzzle shape, and eye placement with the additional criterion being improvement in eye shape. Any animal that does not meet this level of improvement in the eye shape while maintaining the other qualities is culled from the breeding program; i.e., that animal is not used for breeding, but is instead neutered and placed in a pet home.

Independent levels

[edit]

Independent levels is a method where any animal who falls below a given standard in any single characteristic is not used in a breeding program. With each successive mating, the threshold culling criteria are raised thus improving the breed with each successive generation.[2]

This method measures several characteristics at once. Should progeny fall below the desired quality in any one characteristic being measured, it will not be used in the breeding program regardless of the level of excellence of other traits. With each successive generation of progeny, the minimum quality of each characteristic is raised thus ensuring improvement of these traits.

For example, a breeder has a view of what the minimum requirements for muzzle length, muzzle shape, eye placement, and eye shape they are breeding toward. The breeder will determine what the minimum acceptable quality for each of these traits will be for progeny to be folded back into their breeding program. Any animal that fails to meet the quality threshold for any one of these criteria is culled from the breeding program.

Total score method

[edit]

The total score method is a selection method where the breeder evaluates and selects breeding stock based on a weighted table of characteristics. The breeder selects qualities that are most important to them and assigns them a weight. The weights of all the traits should add up to 100. When evaluating an individual for selection, the breeder measures the traits on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most desirable expression and 1 being the lowest. The scores are then multiplied by their weights and then added together to give a total score. Individuals that fail to meet a threshold are culled (or removed) from the breeding program. The total score gives a breeder a way to evaluate multiple traits on an animal at the same time.[2]

The total score method is the most flexible of the three. it allows for weighted improvement of multiple characteristics. It allows the breeder to make major gains in one aspect while moderate or lesser gains in others.

For example, a breeder is willing to make a smaller improvement in muzzle length and muzzle shape in order to have a moderate gain in improvement of eye placement and a more dramatic improvement in eye shape. Suppose the breeder determines that she would like to see 40% improvement in eye shape, 30% improvement in eye placement, and 15% improvement in both muzzle length and shape. The breeder would evaluate these characteristics on a scale of 1 to 10 and multiply by the weights. The formula would look something like: 15 (muzzle length) + 15 (muzzle shape) + 30 (eye placement) + 40 (eye shape) = total score for that animal. The breeder determines the lowest acceptable total score for an animal to be folded back into their breeding program. Animals that do not meet this minimum total score are culled from the breeding program.

Livestock and production animals

[edit]
See also: Chick culling

Livestock bred for the production of meat or milk may be culled by farmers. Animals not selected to remain for breeding are sold, killed, or sent to the slaughterhouse.

Criteria for culling livestock and production animals can be based on population or production (milk or egg). In a domestic or farming situation, the culling process involves the selection and selling of surplus stock. The selection may be done to improve breeding stock—for example, for improved production of eggs or milk—or simply to control the group's population for environmental and species preservation. In order to increase the frequency of preferred phenotypes, agricultural practices typically involve using the most productive animals as breeding stock.[3]

With dairy cattle, culling may be practised by inseminating cows—considered to be inferior—with beef breed semen and by selling the produced offspring for meat production.[4]

Approximately half of the chicks of egg-laying chickens are males who would grow up to be roosters. These individuals have little use in an industrial egg-producing facility as they do not lay eggs, so the majority of male chicks are killed shortly after hatching.[5]

Culling of farmed animals is considered a necessary practice to prevent the spread of damaging and fatal diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease, avian flu, Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 and bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("mad cow disease").[6][7][8]

Wildlife

[edit]
Main article: Animal population control
Further information: Nuisance wildlife management

In the United States, hunting licenses and hunting seasons are a means by which the population of game animals is maintained. Each season, a hunter is allowed to kill a certain amount of wild animals, determined both by species and sex. If the population seems to have surplus females, hunters are allowed to take more females during that hunting season. If the population is below what is desired, hunters may not be permitted to hunt that particular species, or only hunt a restricted number of males.[9]

Populations of game animals such as elk may be informally culled if they begin to excessively eat winter food set out for domestic cattle herds. In such instances the rancher will inform hunters that they may hunt on their property in order to thin the wild herd to controllable levels. These efforts are aimed to counter excessive depletion of the winter feed supplies.[10] Other managed culling instances involve extended issuance of extra hunting licenses, or the inclusion of additional "special hunting seasons" during harsh winters or overpopulation periods, governed by state fish and game agencies.[11]

Culling for population control is common in wildlife management, particularly on African game farms and Australian national parks. In the case of very large animals such as elephants, adults are often targeted. Their orphaned young, easily captured and transported, are then relocated to other reserves. Culling is controversial in many African countries, but reintroduction of the practice has been recommended in recent years for use at the Kruger National Park in South Africa, which has experienced a swell in its elephant population since culling was banned in 1995.[12]

Arguments against wildlife culling

[edit]

Culling acts as a strong selection force and can therefore impact the population genetics of a species. For example, culling based on specific traits, such as size, can enforce directional selection and remove those traits from the population. This can have long-term effects on the genetic diversity of a population.[3]

However, culling can act as a selection force intentionally implemented by humans to counteract the selection force of trophy hunting. Hunting typically enforces selection towards unfavorable phenotypic traits because of the strong hunting bias for specific traits, such as large antler size. Culling "low-quality" traits can counteract this force.[13]

Animal rights activists argue that killing animals for any reason (including hunting) is cruel and unethical.[14][15]

Birds

[edit]
Further information: Cormorant culling
Double crested cormorant
Double-crested cormorant

Some bird species are culled when their populations impact upon human property, business or recreational activity, disturb or modify habitats or otherwise impact species of conservation concern. Cormorants are culled in many countries due to their impact on commercial and recreational fisheries and habitat modification for nesting and guano deposition. They are culled by shooting and the smothering of eggs with oil. Another example is the culling of silver gulls in order to protect the chicks of the vulnerable banded stilt at ephemeral inland salt lake breeding sites in South Australia. The gulls were culled using bread laced with a narcotic substance.[16] In the Australian states of Tasmania and South Australia, Cape Barren geese are culled to limit damage to crops and the fouling of waterholes.[17] Cape Barren Geese remain one of the rarest geese in the world, though much of their habitat is now regarded as secure.[18]

Seals

[edit]
New Zealand fur seal
New Zealand fur seal

In South Australia, the recovery of the state's native population of New Zealand fur seals (Arctocephalus forsteri) after severe depletion by sealers in the 1800s has brought them into conflict with the fishing industry. This has prompted members of Parliament to call for seal culling in South Australia.[19] The State Government continues to resist the pressure[20] and as of July 2015, the animals remain protected as listed Marine Mammals under the state's National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.[21]

Sharks

[edit]
Main article: Shark culling
Great white shark
Great white shark

Shark culling occurs in four locations as of 2018: New South Wales, Queensland, KwaZulu-Natal and Réunion.[22][23][24] Between 1950 and 2008, 352 tiger sharks and 577 great white sharks were killed in the nets in New South Wales—also during this period, a total of 15,135 marine animals were caught and killed in the nets, including whales, turtles, rays, dolphins, and dugongs.[22] From 2001 to 2018, a total of 10,480 sharks were killed on lethal drum lines in Queensland.[25] In a 30-year period up to early 2017, more than 33,000 sharks were killed in KwaZulu-Natal's shark-killing program—during the same 30-year period, 2,211 turtles, 8,448 rays, and 2,310 dolphins were killed.[23] Authorities on Réunion kill about 100 sharks per year.[24] All of these culls have been criticized by environmentalists, who say killing sharks harms the marine ecosystem.[22][26][27]

In 2014, a controversial policy was introduced by the Western Australian state government which became known as the Western Australian shark cull.[28] Baited hooks known as drum lines were to be set over several consecutive summers to catch and kill otherwise protected great white sharks. The policy's objective was to protect users of the marine environment from fatal shark attack. Thousands of people protested against its implementation, claiming that it was indiscriminate, inhumane and worked against scientific advice the government had previously received.[29] Seasonal setting of drum lines was abandoned in September 2014 after the program failed to catch any great white sharks, instead catching 172 other elasmobranchii, mostly tiger sharks.[30]

Deer

[edit]

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have been becoming an issue in suburbs across the United States due to large population increases.[31] This is thought to be caused mainly by the extirpation of most of their major predators in these areas.[32] In response to these population booms, different management approaches have been taken to decrease their numbers mainly in the form of culls.[31][33] Culls of deer are often partnered with exclusions with fencing and also administering contraceptives.[34]

White-tailed deer buck

The effectiveness of these deer culls has been debated and often criticized as only a temporary fix to the larger problem of deer overpopulation and argue that the use of culling will increase fertility of remaining deer by reducing competition.[35] Those in favor of the culls argue that they can be used to combat the selection pressure that is imposed by hunting that creates smaller antler and body sizes in deer.[3] People in favor of the culls recommend that they not be random and actively select for smaller individuals and bucks with smaller antlers, specifically "button bucks" or bucks with only spiked antler in their first year as opposed to forked antlers.[36][37]

Culling of deer can also have benefits in the form of disease prevention[38] and in places that the white-tailed deer is an invasive species such as New Zealand culling of deer has added benefits for native species.[34] Diseases are density dependent factors and decreases in the density of the deer populations through culling causes diseases, such as chronic wasting disease and Lyme disease, to spread less quickly and effectively.[38]

Zoos

[edit]
See also: List of animals culled in zoos

Many zoos participate in an international breeding program to maintain a genetically viable population and prevent inbreeding.[39] Animals that can no longer contribute to the breeding program are considered less desirable and are often replaced by more desirable individuals.[40] If an animal is surplus to a zoo's requirements and a place in another zoo can not be found, the animal may be killed. In 2014, the culling of a young, healthy giraffe Marius raised an international public controversy.[41]

Zoos sometimes consider female animals to be more desirable than males.[42] One reason for this is that while individual males can contribute to the birth of many young in a short period of time, females give birth to only a few young and are pregnant for a relatively long period of time. This makes it possible to keep many females with just one or two males, but not the reverse. Another reason is that the birth of some animal species increases public interest in the zoo.

Germany's Animal Welfare Act 1972 orders that zoo animals cannot be culled without verification by official veterinary institutes of the Landkreis or federated state.[43]

In the UK, there is no general prohibition on animal euthanasia, which is allowed when overcrowding compromises the well-being of the animals.[44]

Ethics

[edit]
See also: Conservation (ethic)

Jaak Panksepp, an American neuroscientist, concludes that both animals and humans have brains wired to feel emotions, and that animals have the capacity to experience pleasure and happiness from their lives.[45]

Culling has been criticized on animal rights grounds as speciesist—it has been argued that killing animals for any reason is cruel and unethical, and that animals have a right to live.[14][15]

Some argue that culling is necessary when biodiversity is threatened.[46] However, the protection of biodiversity argument has been questioned by some animal rights advocates who point out that the animal which most greatly threatens and damages biodiversity is humanity, so if we are not willing to cull our own species we cannot morally justify culling another.[47][48]

Non-lethal alternatives

[edit]

There are non-lethal alternatives which may still be considered culling, and serve the same purpose of reducing population numbers and selecting for desired traits without killing existing members of the population. These methods include the use of wildlife contraceptives and reproductive inhibitors. By using such methods population numbers might be reduced more gradually and in a potentially more humane fashion than by directly lethal culling actions.

Currently, wildlife contraceptives are largely in the experimental phase and include such products as Gonacon, an adjuvant vaccine which delivers a high dosage of a competitor ligand of the hormone GnRH to female mammals (e.g. whitetail deer). The complex formed of GnRH and the Gonacon molecule promotes production of antibodies against the animal's own GnRH, which themselves complex with GnRH. This encourages an extended duration of the drug's effects (namely, reduction of active/unbound GnRH in the animal's system).[49] Though the endocrinology behind Gonacon is sound, the need for multiple lifetime doses for full efficacy make it a less-guaranteed and less-permanent solution for wildlife than lethal culls. Even among domestic animals in controlled conditions, Gonacon cannot ensure 100% reduction in the occurrence of pregnancies.[50]

Reproductive inhibitors need not act on the parental individuals directly, instead damaging reproductive processes and/or developing offspring to reduce the number of viable offspring per mating pair. One such compound called Nicarbazin has been formulated into bait for consumption by Canada Geese, and damages egg yolk formation to reduce the viability of clutches without harming the adult geese.[51]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Culling

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Culling is the selective killing of animals within a population to reduce numbers, typically targeting surplus, diseased, or genetically inferior individuals in wildlife, livestock, or invasive species contexts. This practice serves to control overpopulation that exceeds habitat carrying capacity, thereby averting starvation, habitat degradation, and heightened disease transmission among animals and to humans. In agriculture and forestry, culling mitigates crop and property damage from herbivores like deer, while in disease management, it aims to interrupt pathogen cycles, as seen in efforts to curb bovine tuberculosis via badger reduction. Effectiveness hinges on factors such as population isolation, culling intensity, and species behavior; isolated groups respond better to reduction than open systems where immigration and compensatory breeding offset losses. Controversies arise over ethical implications and outcomes, with critics questioning humane methods like shooting or gassing and citing instances where culling fails to achieve goals or disrupts ecosystems, though proponents emphasize empirical needs for balancing anthropocentric and ecological priorities.

Definitions and Terminology

Definition and Scope

Culling is the deliberate and selective removal of individual animals from a population, typically through killing, to reduce numbers, improve overall health, or enhance genetic traits. This process targets animals deemed unfit, such as those with poor productivity, disease, weakness, or undesirable characteristics, distinguishing it from random slaughter or euthanasia applied to isolated cases without broader population goals. The scope of culling extends across agriculture, where it optimizes livestock herds by exiting low-performing animals—such as dairy cows sold for slaughter or salvage—to sustain productivity and replace them with higher-potential stock; wildlife management, aiming to curb overpopulation that leads to habitat degradation or human conflicts; and disease control, involving mass removal to halt pathogen spread below persistence thresholds. In agricultural contexts, it has been applied since at least the mid-20th century in programs like U.S. beef cattle management to address infertility rates exceeding 10-15% in herds. Wildlife applications include targeted reductions in species like elephants or deer to maintain ecosystem carrying capacity, often when populations exceed sustainable densities by factors of 2-5 times. While primarily focused on vertebrates like mammals and birds, culling principles apply to aquaculture and occasionally invertebrates, though ethical and efficacy debates persist, with evidence showing variable success in disease suppression depending on population density and contact rates. It excludes non-selective harvesting or natural predation, emphasizing human-directed intervention for predefined outcomes rather than incidental mortality.

Etymology

The term "cull" entered English in the mid-15th century as a verb meaning "to select, pick, or gather," borrowed from Old French cuillir or cueillir ("to pick, gather, or pluck"), which traces to Latin colligere ("to collect, gather together, or bind"), a compound of com- ("together") and legere ("to gather, choose, or read"). This root emphasized selection from a group, initially applied to gathering fruits, flowers, or superior items. By the 17th century, the specialized sense emerged in agriculture and animal husbandry: "to select livestock by weeding out the weak, diseased, or inferior," reflecting a shift toward removal rather than retention of the chosen. The noun form, denoting the act or the removed animals, followed around 1600 for general selection but extended to rejected stock by the mid-1600s. In modern usage for population control, "culling" retains this selective partitioning but implies systematic killing to maintain herd quality or ecological balance.

Historical Development

Pre-Modern Practices

In the Neolithic era, selective culling emerged as a foundational practice in early animal husbandry, particularly involving the slaughter of young male sheep, goats, and cattle to preserve breeding females for milk production and sustainable herd management. This strategy optimized resource use in nascent pastoral economies, with archaeological evidence from sites in Anatolia showing widespread adoption by the mid-eighth millennium BC (circa 7000 BC), as indicated by mortality profiles dominated by juvenile males under 2-3 years old. Similar patterns in Southwest Asian Neolithic assemblages confirm culling targeted surplus males to reduce competition for forage while retaining reproductive stock, marking a shift from opportunistic hunting to managed exploitation. By the Bronze and Iron Ages, these practices persisted and refined in the Southern Levant and Mediterranean, where selective removal of animals with undesirable traits or excess numbers supported secondary products like wool and dairy alongside meat. Zooarchaeological data from multifunctional sites reveal kill-off patterns favoring the culling of immature males in dairy-oriented systems, ensuring herd viability amid environmental constraints. In classical antiquity, Roman agricultural texts describe analogous farm-level decisions to eliminate weak or diseased livestock, though ritual sacrifices often mirrored utilitarian slaughter techniques, such as stunning with hammers or axes before throat-cutting to minimize suffering and preserve meat quality. Medieval European farming continued these traditions, with early records from England (circa 5th-11th centuries AD) documenting elevated autumn-winter mortality in calves and lambs attributable to deliberate culling, driven by fodder shortages and the need to prioritize draft or milking animals. Such removals curbed overpopulation, mitigated disease transmission in communal pastures, and focused resources on high-value stock, as evidenced by faunal remains showing selective slaughter of non-productive individuals. Overall, pre-modern culling relied on rudimentary tools like axes and relied on empirical observation rather than genetics, emphasizing herd health and economic necessity over large-scale intervention.

Industrial and Scientific Era Advancements

During the late 18th century, as part of the British Agricultural Revolution, Robert Bakewell (1725–1795) introduced systematic selective breeding practices that incorporated rigorous culling to enhance livestock traits such as meat yield, wool production, and disease resistance. By evaluating progeny performance and culling animals failing to transmit superior qualities—such as faster growth or finer fleece—Bakewell developed breeds like the New Leicester sheep, which yielded up to 30% more carcass weight than earlier varieties, and improved Longhorn cattle for dairy and beef efficiency. These methods marked a shift from haphazard elimination to performance-based selection, influencing continental European agriculture by the early 19th century. In the 19th century, scientific understanding advanced culling through emerging veterinary diagnostics, notably the tuberculin test for bovine tuberculosis developed by Robert Koch in 1890, enabling test-and-slaughter protocols to isolate and remove infected animals from herds, thereby preventing widespread epizootics. This approach, formalized in early 20th-century programs like the U.S. Meat Inspection Act of 1906, reduced TB prevalence in cattle from over 5% in tested herds by 1917 to near eradication in many regions by mid-century, prioritizing herd health over individual retention. Wildlife management in the Industrial and Scientific Eras evolved with ecological insights, incorporating culling quotas based on population surveys to sustain game species amid habitat loss from urbanization and agriculture. In North America, the late 19th-century crisis of overhunted populations—such as passenger pigeons driven to extinction by 1914—spurred the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, formalized in principles by the 1930s, which used regulated harvests as targeted culling to balance ecosystems and prevent starvation from overabundance. Technological aids, including breech-loading rifles introduced in the 1860s and aerial reconnaissance by the early 20th century, improved precision and scale in predator or invasive species culls, such as wolves in the U.S. to protect ungulates. By the early , quantitative integrated culling with estimates, allowing breeders to cull based on predicted breeding values rather than alone; for instance, programs culled low-milk producers using early evaluations, boosting yields by 20-30% per in U.S. herds from 1920 to 1950. These data-driven strategies, rooted in 19th-century biometric , underscored culling's in causal genetic , distinct from mere reduction.

Methods and Techniques

Selective Culling in Breeding

Selective culling in breeding entails the systematic removal of animals displaying undesirable traits from a population to concentrate favorable genetic characteristics in future generations. This practice applies artificial selection by excluding individuals based on phenotypic assessments of traits such as productivity, health, conformation, or fertility, thereby increasing the selection differential and accelerating genetic gain. The response to selection follows the breeder's equation, R=h2×SR = h^2 \times S, where RR is the genetic gain, h2h^2 is heritability, and SS is the selection differential enhanced through culling. In livestock breeding programs, criteria for culling often include low reproductive performance, structural weaknesses, or failure to meet growth benchmarks. For instance, beef cow herds maintain annual culling rates of 15-20% to replace underperformers with superior , directly linking to improved herd profitability and calf production. In poultry flocks, selective culling targets unproductive or ill birds post-lay, preserving resources and elevating average egg production and viability across the flock. Dairy operations similarly cull heifers with predicted low lactation yields, optimizing genetic progress despite potential short-term herd size reductions. Empirical data from controlled breeding trials demonstrate that rigorous culling elevates trait heritability; for example, consistent removal of inferior animals in cattle lines has yielded measurable increases in weaning weights and fertility rates over successive generations. However, unadjusted culling can bias breeding value estimations by preferentially removing extremes, necessitating statistical corrections in genetic evaluations to accurately predict progeny performance. While genomic tools now supplement phenotypic culling by identifying carriers of deleterious alleles early, traditional selective culling remains foundational for realizing heritable improvements in closed populations.

Mass Culling in Populations

Mass culling in populations entails the large-scale, non-selective killing of animals within wild, feral, or extensive livestock groups to curb disease transmission or mitigate overabundance impacts on ecosystems and human activities. This approach prioritizes rapid population reduction over individual assessment, often implemented via methods like aerial shooting, poisoning, or coordinated sharpshooting when containment zones encompass entire herds or flocks. Empirical evidence from outbreaks demonstrates its role in halting epidemics, though ecological rebound and ethical concerns persist where alternatives like vaccination or habitat management prove feasible. In disease eradication efforts, mass culling has been pivotal during viral outbreaks affecting livestock. The 2001 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in the United Kingdom necessitated the slaughter of approximately 6.5 million animals across infected and contiguous premises to prevent further spread, incurring direct costs of £8 billion and disrupting rural economies for years. Preemptive culling of at-risk farms reduced transmission rates by removing potential carriers, as modeled in epidemiological analyses of the event. Similarly, highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) responses involve depopulating entire flocks; since January 2022, U.S. outbreaks have impacted over 174 million birds across 1,708 sites, with culling enforced under federal guidelines to avert zoonotic risks and sustain poultry production. Globally, HPAI control has led to over 400 million birds culled since 2003, underscoring the scale required for containment in dense commercial settings. For overpopulation management, mass culling targets species exerting pressure on habitats or human infrastructure. In the United States, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations exceeding carrying capacities in urban-suburban interfaces prompt organized removals; the Huron-Clinton Metroparks in Michigan initiated sharpshooter-led culls in 1999, stabilizing densities and enabling oak regeneration by curbing browsing damage. Such programs harvest hundreds to thousands annually in localized areas, balancing recreational hunting limits with targeted reductions to minimize vehicle collisions and crop losses, which exceed $2 billion nationwide from deer-related damages. Feral swine (Sus scrofa) control similarly employs population-wide tactics like aerial gunning and trapping; a 2018 Nebraska study documented removals of over 500 individuals in weeks via integrated culling, disrupting social structures and slowing recolonization. Controversial applications include predator culls for human safety, where efficacy data often lags implementation. Australia's Queensland Shark Control Program, operational since 1962, deploys drum lines and nets targeting species like great whites (Carcharodon carcharias), but peer-reviewed assessments find no causal link to reduced bite incidents, attributing stability to broader surveillance rather than lethality. These programs remove dozens annually yet face criticism for incidental bycatch of non-target marine life, highlighting trade-offs in causal realism over precautionary measures. Overall, mass culling's success hinges on precise execution and monitoring, as incomplete efforts can exacerbate issues like compensatory reproduction in resilient species.

Technological and Humane Methods

Captive bolt devices represent a primary technological method for humane culling in livestock, delivering a high-velocity bolt to induce immediate cerebral disruption and unconsciousness in ruminants such as cattle and sheep. Penetrating variants embed the bolt into the brain for destruction of vital centers, while non-penetrating models rely on concussive force; both achieve insensibility within fractions of a second when positioned accurately at the forehead intersection of imaginary lines from the base of each ear to the opposite eye. Modern pneumatic or powder-actuated pistols incorporate ergonomic designs and calibration tools to match animal size, reducing operator error and ensuring compliance with kinetic energy thresholds, such as at least 300 joules for mature cattle. Electrical stunning systems apply controlled alternating or direct current via electrodes to provoke generalized epileptiform activity, rendering pigs, sheep, and calves unconscious for slaughter or culling; head-only applications last 3-10 seconds at 1-2 amps to avoid cardiac arrest until exsanguination. Advancements include automated restraint conveyors with integrated stunners that synchronize current delivery to animal movement, minimizing variability and stress indicators like elevated cortisol levels observed in manual handling. These systems must adhere to parameters validated by electroencephalography studies showing loss of evoked potentials indicative of insensibility. Gas-based methods, such as systems using or mixtures, facilitate culling of and small mammals by inducing hypercapnic hypoxia, leading to and without ; concentrations escalating from 20-40% CO2 achieve unconsciousness in 20-40 seconds for broilers. Technological refinements include multi-chamber tunnels with gas and sensors for real-time monitoring of oxygen depletion below 2% and CO2 above 40%, optimizing welfare during outbreaks where manual methods prove infeasible. Ventilation shutdown plus adjuncts like or CO2 injection in enclosed barns enable rapid depopulation of thousands of birds, though depends on facility sealing and ambient conditions to prevent prolonged distress. In wildlife culling, free projectile firearms deliver humane kills via high-velocity rounds ensuring brain destruction with minimal peripheral wounding, requiring minimum muzzle energies of 1,000 foot-pounds for large ungulates like deer. Technological integrations such as thermal imaging scopes and suppressors enhance precision in aerial or nocturnal operations, reducing escape of injured animals and bystander stress from noise; thermal-assisted helicopter culling for invasive species like feral pigs achieves cull rates exceeding 80% per sortie with one-shot lethality verified by post-mortem examination. These methods prioritize direct neural targeting over indirect poisons, aligning with empirical assessments of instantaneous insensibility over prolonged agonistic behaviors.

Applications in Animal Breeding

Pedigreed and Companion Animals

In pedigreed animal breeding, culling involves the euthanasia or exclusion of individuals failing to meet breed-specific standards for conformation, temperament, or health, thereby preventing the dissemination of suboptimal genetics within closed populations. This practice is particularly emphasized in breeds subjected to intense selection pressures, such as German Shepherds, where breeders employ "ruthless culling" to mitigate the degenerative impacts of close inbreeding and preserve working ability. Puppies exhibiting faults like incorrect limb structure, coat color deviations, or early indicators of hereditary diseases—such as preliminary signs of hip dysplasia—are commonly culled shortly after birth to uphold registry requirements and avoid propagating traits that compromise breed functionality. For companion animals derived from pedigreed lines, culling focuses on traits affecting suitability as pets, including aggression linked to genetic predispositions or poor socialization potential, which breeders remove to prioritize welfare and owner compatibility. In cases of severe congenital anomalies, such as untreatable cardiac defects or neurological impairments evident neonatally, euthanasia is performed when prognosis indicates chronic suffering, guided by veterinary assessments prioritizing minimal distress via methods like sodium pentobarbital injection. Responsible protocols often integrate pre-breeding genetic testing to reduce culling rates, though empirical data from breed clubs indicate that 20-30% of litters may still require intervention to sustain long-term breed viability. Critics from animal welfare organizations argue that such culling exacerbates inbreeding depression, but proponents counter that excluding substandard animals averts larger-scale welfare failures, as evidenced by historical breed improvements through selective removal in working dog populations. In companion contexts, non-lethal alternatives like mandatory sterilization for non-breeding stock have gained traction since the early 2000s, diminishing outright euthanasia while still enforcing standards via contract stipulations with buyers.

Genetic Improvement Strategies

Selective culling constitutes a primary mechanism for genetic enhancement in animal breeding by excising individuals with suboptimal estimated breeding values (EBVs) or phenotypic expressions of low-merit traits, thereby concentrating favorable alleles within the population and amplifying selection differentials. This approach leverages the principles of quantitative genetics, where the realized response to selection depends on trait heritability, selection intensity (heightened by culling inferior candidates), genetic variation, and generation interval. In practice, culling targets traits such as production efficiency, disease resistance, and reproductive fitness, preventing dilution of genetic progress and mitigating inbreeding depression in closed herds. In dairy cattle breeding, routine culling of cows exhibiting low milk yield, poor fertility, or health vulnerabilities—often guided by performance data and EBVs—has underpinned sustained genetic advancements, with improved genetics responsible for at least 50% of the observed increases in milk, fat, and protein production over the last five decades in the United States. For instance, selection programs incorporating culling for longevity and udder health have elevated average herd productivity while reducing involuntary cull rates associated with mastitis or reproductive failure. Genomic evaluations further refine culling decisions by identifying carriers of deleterious mutations, enabling preemptive removal to preserve overall genetic health. Swine breeding employs selective culling to prioritize traits like litter size, growth rate, and lean meat yield, yielding a 50% rise in average litter size from the 1960s to 2005 through targeted removal of sows with inadequate maternal performance or boars with subpar feed efficiency. Culling also addresses robustness, such as eliminating pigs prone to lameness or high mortality, which enhances overall population resilience without compromising production gains; studies in closed herds demonstrate that such practices maintain or boost selection response even under phenotypic or BLUP-based indexing. In poultry, analogous strategies—culling birds with inferior egg-laying rates, body weight, or feed conversion—exploit short generation intervals (1-1.5 years) to achieve rapid annual genetic progress, often exceeding 1% in key commercial traits, as heritability and intense selection differentials compound over cycles. These strategies' efficacy hinges on accurate phenotyping and genetic assessment; for example, in beef and dual-purpose breeds, culling for low carcass quality or adaptability traits supports breed substitution or crossbreeding to accelerate step changes in performance. Empirical data affirm that integrating culling with modern tools like genomic selection doubles genetic gain rates compared to phenotypic-only methods, as seen in net merit indices rising from $40 annually pre-2010 to $79 post-genomic implementation in dairy systems. However, over-reliance on production-focused culling risks antagonistic correlations, such as reduced fertility, necessitating balanced indices to sustain long-term viability.

Culling in Agriculture and Livestock Production

Economic and Productivity Rationales

In livestock production, culling unproductive animals reallocates feed, labor, and space resources to higher-performing individuals, thereby elevating average output per unit input and enhancing farm profitability. This practice targets animals with low growth rates, poor reproductive performance, or suboptimal yields, preventing dilution of herd genetics and minimizing maintenance costs for non-contributors. Empirical analyses indicate that selective removal based on economic thresholds—such as milk production below herd averages in dairy systems—can increase net returns by optimizing replacement strategies and genetic progress. In dairy operations, voluntary culling for low milk production constitutes a primary driver of productivity gains, with studies showing that herds achieving higher rates of such removals often realize superior profitability through elevated average yields and genetic improvement. For instance, larger dairy herds (over 500 cows) culled 28.1% of animals specifically for low production unrelated to disease, enabling faster incorporation of superior genetics and a comparative production advantage over smaller operations with lower voluntary cull rates. Culling decisions incorporate factors like current lactation revenues against lifetime costs, where retaining underperformers beyond their first lactation yields lesser economic returns than early replacement with higher-potential heifers. Beef cattle management similarly employs culling to boost efficiency, particularly by eliminating open (non-pregnant) cows, as economic modeling demonstrates that replacement with bred heifers—even at elevated purchase prices—outperforms retaining non-breeders for another cycle by avoiding lost production and feed expenses. In cow-calf systems, culling rates tied to fertility and weaning weights directly correlate with per-cow profitability, as unproductive animals impose opportunity costs equivalent to forgone calf sales and increased carrying charges. Poultry production benefits from routine culling of slow-maturing or defective birds, which fosters uniform flocks with accelerated growth and reduced feed conversion ratios, thereby lowering overall costs and amplifying meat or egg output per square foot of housing. Targeted removal of low performers in broiler or layer operations enhances genetic selection for traits like feed efficiency, with data from integrated systems showing that optimized culling protocols can minimize waste and support secondary revenue from processed cull birds.

Disease Prevention and Herd Management

Culling infected or exposed livestock is a cornerstone of disease prevention strategies in agriculture, aimed at interrupting transmission chains for highly contagious pathogens that can devastate herds and economies. By removing animals that test positive or reside on contaminated premises, authorities prevent lateral spread via direct contact, aerosols, or fomites, preserving uninfected populations and enabling repopulation with disease-free stock. This approach relies on rapid surveillance, quarantine, and depopulation, often supplemented by movement restrictions and disinfection, as empirical models demonstrate that delays in culling exponentially increase outbreak scale. A prominent example is the control of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), where pre-emptive culling of surrounding herds limits undetected spread from index cases. During the 2001 United Kingdom epidemic, over 6 million cattle, sheep, and pigs were culled across more than 2,000 premises, including uninfected animals within 3 km radii of outbreaks, which eradicated the virus within months despite initial rapid dissemination via livestock markets and transport. Studies modeling FMD dynamics affirm that such contiguous culling reduces epidemic duration and geographic extent by 20–50% compared to reactive measures alone, though effectiveness hinges on high-capacity implementation exceeding pathogen reproduction rates. In poultry production, culling entire flocks upon avian influenza detection is standard protocol for highly pathogenic strains like H5N1, as partial depopulation risks persistent shedding and environmental contamination. The 2014–2015 United States outbreak prompted the culling of approximately 50 million birds, primarily turkeys and layers, using on-site methods such as composting or foam depopulation, which contained the virus to 21 states and prevented sustained endemicity in commercial flocks. However, ongoing H5N1 incursions since 2022, despite culling over 166 million birds globally, highlight limitations when wild bird reservoirs sustain reintroduction, underscoring the need for integrated biosecurity beyond culling. For chronic diseases like bovine tuberculosis (bTB), culling wildlife vectors such as badgers targets interspecies transmission to cattle herds, with Ireland's nationwide badger removal program from 1997–2003 correlating to a 60% decline in bTB incidence. In England, post-2013 badger culling trials reported 37–56% fewer confirmed bTB herd breakdowns inside cull zones over four years, attributed to reduced badger densities lowering spillover events. Yet, randomized trials reveal perturbation effects, where culling displaces surviving badgers, elevating transmission risks by up to 25% in adjacent areas, and longitudinal data indicate no net reduction in national herd incidence after a decade of widespread implementation. Routine herd management extends culling to subclinical carriers, low performers, or genetically vulnerable animals, fostering resilience through selective retention of robust stock. In dairy operations, culling decisions prioritize reproductive failure (27–40% of cases), mastitis (10–20%), and low milk yield, with higher-producing herds achieving 20–30% annual turnover rates that correlate with lower disease prevalence via improved immunity and hygiene. Risk-based protocols, targeting high-density or high-movement farms, further optimize prevention by preemptively removing suspects before symptoms manifest, as validated in simulations for swine and cattle pathogens. These practices, while economically burdensome, underpin certification schemes like tuberculosis-free status, enabling trade and averting multimillion-dollar losses from quarantines.

Wildlife and Conservation Management

Population Control and Ecosystem Balance

Culling serves as a management tool to regulate overabundant wildlife populations that exceed ecosystem carrying capacities, thereby mitigating disruptions to vegetation structure and biodiversity. In forests lacking sufficient natural predators, herbivores such as white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) can overbrowse understory plants, suppressing tree regeneration and reducing plant species diversity by 48-81% in primary old-growth stands at high densities. This overbrowsing alters forest composition, favors invasive species, and diminishes habitat quality for other taxa, including birds and small mammals dependent on diverse understories. Targeted culling reduces herbivore densities to levels that permit vegetation recovery and ecosystem stabilization. At Catoctin Mountain Park in Maryland, culling initiated in February 2010 increased tree seedling density approximately 11-fold from pre-culling levels (2006-2009) to post-culling monitoring (2014-2017), demonstrating enhanced woody regeneration despite ongoing challenges like invasive species and pests. Similarly, a before-after-control-impact study in Australian peatlands found that culling invasive sambar deer (Rusa unicolor) significantly lowered browsing pressure, preserving endangered vegetation communities. These interventions mimic natural predation dynamics, preventing population irruptions that lead to habitat degradation and subsequent famine in the culled species. Sustained culling efforts have restored forest functions in managed landscapes. In central New Jersey, a 2004 cull combined with ongoing hunting reduced deer densities to about 3.8 per km² within exclosures, enabling native tree recruitment and understory recovery that supported broader biodiversity. Such outcomes underscore culling's role in averting trophic downgrading, where unchecked herbivory cascades to soil erosion, reduced carbon sequestration, and diminished resilience to disturbances like fire. However, efficacy requires maintaining low densities long-term, as partial reductions may fail to fully restore canopy succession. Empirical data from these cases affirm that strategic population control via culling can reinstate ecological equilibria, benefiting multiple trophic levels without relying on less predictable alternatives like fertility control.

Disease Eradication Efforts

Culling of wildlife reservoirs represents a strategy to control zoonotic and livestock diseases by reducing infection prevalence in animal populations that serve as vectors or amplifiers. In the United Kingdom, badger culling has been employed since the early 2000s to mitigate Mycobacterium bovis transmission to cattle, responsible for bovine tuberculosis (bTB). The Randomized Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), conducted from 1998 to 2006, demonstrated that proactive culling reduced bTB incidence in cattle herds within cull zones by approximately 23%, though reactive culling following outbreaks increased incidence by 25% due to badger population disruption and dispersal. Subsequent policy, including supplementary badger control in high-risk areas since 2013, correlated with up to 66% reductions in bTB herd incidents in some regions, as reported by the Animal and Plant Health Agency in 2019, yet neighboring areas experienced elevated risks from badger perturbation. In North America, targeted culling addresses chronic wasting disease (CWD), a prion disorder affecting cervids like white-tailed deer. Illinois implemented intensive culling in endemic zones starting in 2003, stabilizing CWD prevalence at low levels (under 5%) over a decade while minimally impacting overall deer harvest rates. Similarly, Texas's 2018 CWD management plan incorporates localized culling of infected clusters alongside hunter reporting to prevent widespread establishment. Evidence from modeling indicates culling can suppress prevalence long-term if sustained, though short-term spikes may occur as infected animals are selectively removed, leaving susceptible juveniles. A 2025 study further suggested that selective hunting of males, akin to targeted culling, slows CWD spread by disrupting transmission networks. European efforts against African swine fever (ASF) in wild boar, ongoing since 2014, involve density reduction via culling to curb spillover to domestic pigs. Despite culling millions of boar across affected states like Poland and Germany, ASF persists due to the virus's environmental stability and boar's high reproductive rates, with prevalence fluctuating but not eradicated. In Italy, 2023 culls targeted over 40,000 pigs in outbreak zones, yet wild boar monitoring revealed ongoing circulation, underscoring culling's limitations without integrated biosecurity like fencing and carcass removal. Overall, while culling achieves localized control in some cases, full eradication in free-ranging wildlife remains elusive, often requiring complementary vaccination or habitat management, as perturbation effects can exacerbate spread.

Invasive Species Control

Culling serves as a targeted lethal control method for invasive species, which are non-native organisms that proliferate rapidly, outcompeting indigenous flora and fauna, altering habitats, and causing economic losses estimated at over $120 billion annually in the United States alone. By reducing population densities, culling aims to mitigate these impacts, allowing native ecosystems to recover through decreased predation, herbivory, or competition. This approach is often integrated with non-lethal measures like barriers or habitat restoration, but empirical data indicate that sustained, intensive culling can yield measurable ecological benefits in isolated or monitored sites. A prominent example involves invasive lionfish (Pterois volitans and P. miles) in the western Atlantic and Caribbean, introduced via aquarium releases in the 1980s and 1990s. These predatory fish have decimated native reef fish populations by up to 80% in affected areas. Derbies and diver-led spearing campaigns, initiated around 2008, have removed over 200,000 individuals by 2021, locally reducing densities by 50-90% in Bahamian and Floridian reefs and correlating with increased recruitment of native species. Repeated culling events have also induced wariness in survivors, altering foraging behavior and enhancing control efficacy, though immigration from uncullled areas necessitates ongoing efforts. Successful eradications highlight culling's potential in contained environments. On islands and ponds, invasive American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), which prey on endemic amphibians and spread chytrid fungus, have been fully removed through trapping and shooting; a 2023 study documented rapid recovery of native frog abundances and diversity post-eradication in Pacific Northwest wetlands, with no reinvasion after three years of monitoring. Similarly, feral swine (Sus scrofa), invasive across the U.S. and responsible for $2.5 billion in annual agricultural damage, face aerial and ground-based culling programs; Texas operations culled over 300,000 hogs in 2022, reducing local densities by 40-60% and crop depredation accordingly, though adaptability and high reproduction rates (up to 12 piglets per litter twice yearly) limit long-term suppression without comprehensive fencing. Challenges persist, as culling's effectiveness varies with species traits and landscape connectivity. Peer-reviewed analyses show that while local reductions occur, population-level declines require addressing source populations and dispersal; for instance, a 2025 PNAS review of invasive predator control found that lethal removal protects natives in 60% of cases but fails when behavioral plasticity or compensatory reproduction offsets losses. Government agencies like the USDA prioritize culling for high-impact invasives based on cost-benefit models, emphasizing empirical monitoring over assumptions of uniform success.

Culling in Captive Settings

Zoos, Aquariums, and Sanctuaries

In zoos, culling—often termed management euthanasia—is implemented to sustain genetic diversity and demographic health within captive breeding programs coordinated by organizations like the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA). EAZA guidelines define this practice as the removal of animals for population management purposes when alternatives such as relocation, contraception, or sterilization prove insufficient or counterproductive to long-term conservation goals, such as avoiding inbreeding depression that could reduce population viability. This approach prioritizes maintaining reproductively fit groups over indefinite retention of surplus individuals, which could strain resources and compromise breeding success rates. For example, a 2023 analysis of zoo practices highlighted that selective culling helps counteract the genetic limitations inherent in small, closed populations, enabling sustained contributions to species recovery efforts. In contrast, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) in the United States endorses euthanasia only as a last resort after exhausting options like transfer to other facilities or non-lethal interventions, with policies requiring adherence to institutional welfare standards and veterinary oversight. Accredited AZA institutions avoid routine culling of healthy animals for population control, focusing instead on proactive breeding planning to minimize surpluses, though euthanasia may occur for medical reasons or when animals pose unmanageable risks to conspecifics or staff. European zoos have faced public scrutiny for such decisions, as in the 2024 case of a German facility planning to cull excess hamadryas baboons after contraception failures led to overpopulation, illustrating tensions between genetic management imperatives and public perceptions of animal welfare. Aquariums apply culling primarily to fish stocks in breeding or display contexts, selecting against deformities, aggression, or overcrowding to uphold exhibit quality and genetic standards, with humane euthanasia methods like anesthetic overdose recommended for individuals. For marine mammals, such as cetaceans or pinnipeds, euthanasia is restricted to cases of irreversible injury, disease, or poor prognosis in stranded or captive animals, rather than systematic population reduction, as determined by federal guidelines emphasizing suffering alleviation over surplus control. Wildlife sanctuaries, which typically forgo breeding to focus on rescue and rehabilitation, employ culling infrequently, favoring separation, relocation, or lifelong housing for surplus or incompatible animals; euthanasia is reserved for welfare endpoints like untreatable conditions, aligning with non-proliferative mandates that reduce the need for proactive population interventions. This restraint reflects sanctuaries' operational model, which avoids the breeding-driven surpluses common in zoos, though resource constraints may necessitate humane dispatch in extreme overcapacity scenarios.

Empirical Evidence on Effectiveness

Documented Benefits and Success Cases

In New Zealand, sustained culling of brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula), primary wildlife hosts of Mycobacterium bovis, has demonstrably reduced bovine tuberculosis (bTB) prevalence in cattle herds. Intensive culling programs since the 1990s, coordinated by the Animal Health Board, achieved local eradications in over 80% of targeted areas by 2011, correlating with a national decline in infected herds from 7.6% in 1996 to under 1% by 2020, thereby minimizing livestock losses and export restrictions. Preventive culling of livestock during outbreaks of highly contagious diseases, such as classical swine fever (CSF), has proven effective in containing epidemics. In the 1997-1998 Netherlands CSF outbreak, culling approximately 700,000 pigs on affected and adjacent farms within a 1-3 km radius halted transmission chains, eradicating the disease by mid-1998 and averting projected losses exceeding €2 billion in pork production. In wildlife conservation, targeted culling of invasive barred owls (Strix varia) has stabilized populations of the endangered northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) in overlapping habitats. A U.S. Geological Survey experiment from 2017-2023 removed about 3,000 barred owls across 1,500 km² in Washington state, resulting in no net decline in spotted owl site occupancy and occupancy rates stabilizing at 60-70% in treatment areas versus continued declines in controls. Eradication-focused culling of invasive mammals on islands has yielded high success rates in restoring native biodiversity. A global review of 15 large-scale programs (islands >10 km²) documented an 84% eradication success rate, with subsequent rebounds in seabird colonies and vegetation cover; for instance, rat (Rattus spp.) removal on Palmyra Atoll (2003-2005) increased native arthropod densities by over 1,000% and supported recovery of 14 seabird species.

Limitations, Failures, and Unintended Consequences

Culling programs often fail to achieve sustained population reductions due to high reproductive rates, immigration from uncull areas, and compensatory mechanisms such as increased survival or fecundity among survivors. For instance, in white-tailed deer management, efforts in Oxford, Ohio, through 2025 demonstrated insufficient impact on overabundant populations despite ongoing interventions, as density remained elevated and vehicle collisions persisted. Similarly, hunting seasons on Catalina Island in 2024 failed to curb invasive axis deer numbers, highlighting logistical limits in achieving removal targets on large scales. The UK's badger culling trials, intended to reduce bovine tuberculosis (bTB) transmission to cattle, provide a prominent case of empirical failure. The Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), conducted from 1998 to 2006 and involving over 11,000 badgers culled, found that proactive culling reduced bTB in culled areas by about 23% but increased incidence by 25% in surrounding unculled zones due to badger movement perturbations. Independent analyses of government data up to 2022 confirmed no overall decline in cattle bTB attributable to culling, with statistical models showing no detectable link between badger removals and herd incidence rates. Cull operations frequently missed targets, such as the required 70% population reduction within six weeks, as seen in 2013 pilots where only 38-58% were removed, compounded by welfare failures where 7.4-22.8% of badgers suffered prolonged deaths exceeding humane endpoints. Unintended consequences frequently undermine culling efficacy and exacerbate problems. Perturbation effects, where partial culling disrupts social structures and increases dispersal, have been documented in multiple taxa; for example, culling wild geese altered network stability, potentially hindering disease control by promoting wider pathogen spread. In disease contexts, selective removal can drive pathogen evolution toward higher virulence, complicating eradication as modeled in theoretical extensions of wildlife epidemiology. Ecologically, culling predators or pests can trigger trophic cascades, such as elevated prey populations following removals, inverting the intended pest reduction. Broad-host diseases amplify risks, where targeting one reservoir species shifts burdens to others without net control, as analyzed in systemic wildlife disease models. These outcomes underscore culling's limitations in complex systems, where incomplete implementation or overlooked dynamics often yield neutral or counterproductive results.

Ethical and Philosophical Debates

Utilitarian and Pragmatic Justifications

Utilitarian justifications for culling rest on consequentialist principles, positing that actions are morally permissible if they maximize overall welfare by minimizing aggregate suffering across sentient beings. In wildlife contexts, proponents argue that targeted culling averts greater harms from unchecked population growth, such as widespread starvation, heightened disease transmission, and intraspecies conflict, which inflict prolonged distress on larger numbers of animals than humane, selective killing. For instance, culling overabundant herbivores like deer preserves ecosystems essential for broader biodiversity, thereby safeguarding the welfare of dependent species through maintained habitat integrity and forage availability. In disease management, utilitarian calculus weighs the rapid reduction of pathogen reservoirs against individual losses, emphasizing net benefits to human and animal populations alike. During highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreaks, culling infected flocks has prevented transmission cascades costing over US$10 billion globally and the destruction of 250 million birds, averting cascading ecological disruptions and economic fallout that exacerbate animal suffering via habitat loss and intensified farming pressures. Under a One Health framework, which integrates human, animal, and environmental health, such measures promote shared utility by curbing zoonotic risks and sustaining livestock systems that support food security without unduly privileging short-term anthropocentric gains. Pragmatic justifications emphasize culling's efficacy as a swift, resource-efficient tool when non-lethal alternatives prove inadequate or impractical for large-scale population control. Fertility control, for example, demands invasive procedures, high costs, and repeated applications that often fail to achieve rapid density reductions in expansive wild populations, rendering culling a more feasible option for restoring balance in overabundant species. In conservation settings, culling eastern grey kangaroos in Australia's Canberra Nature Park—totaling 15,620 individuals since 2009—has controlled herbivore pressures on native vegetation, with byproducts like meat sales offsetting operational expenses exceeding A$500,000 annually and providing protein sources for human or pet consumption, thus minimizing waste and generating socioeconomic value. Similarly, the culling of 748 bison in Yellowstone National Park during 2016–2017 supplied meat to Indigenous communities, aligning practical management with cultural needs while curbing brucellosis risks to livestock. These approaches underscore culling's role in averting ecosystem collapse, where unchecked growth degrades habitats and precipitates mass mortality events far costlier in welfare terms than regulated interventions. Pragmatically, in urban or agricultural interfaces, culling mitigates human-wildlife conflicts—such as crop depredation or vehicle collisions—more reliably than translocation, which spreads diseases or fails due to homing behaviors, ensuring sustained viability of conservation efforts amid finite resources.

Animal Rights Critiques and Alternatives

Animal rights proponents argue that culling infringes on the fundamental interests of sentient animals, which possess the capacity to experience pain and suffering, rendering lethal control ethically equivalent to unjustified killing. This perspective emphasizes individual animal welfare over collective ecosystem goals, critiquing culling as a failure to address root causes like habitat loss or human encroachment while inflicting unnecessary harm through methods such as shooting or poisoning, which can cause prolonged distress. For instance, in cases involving overabundant deer or elephants, advocates from groups like Born Free USA have opposed proposed culls, asserting that such actions prioritize expediency over humane treatment and ignore animals' intrinsic value independent of utility to humans or other species. Critiques extend to the inefficacy of culling for long-term population regulation, as surviving animals often reproduce at accelerated rates to compensate for losses, potentially exacerbating issues without resolving underlying ecological imbalances. Animal rights organizations highlight that culling programs, such as those targeting invasive species or disease vectors, frequently employ inhumane techniques that violate welfare standards, with public opposition growing due to visible cruelty and perceived alternatives' availability. These views, advanced by entities like the Animal Welfare Institute, frame culling as a symptom of flawed human-animal coexistence rather than a solution, urging a shift from death-centric management to preventive strategies that respect animals' rights to exist without lethal intervention. Proposed alternatives prioritize non-lethal interventions to manage populations and conflicts. Fertility control methods, including immunocontraception vaccines like porcine zona pellucida (PZP), have been tested on deer and wildlife, inducing temporary infertility without killing and showing population stabilization in trials, such as those reducing deer numbers by up to 50% over several years in controlled areas. Habitat modification and exclusion barriers, such as fencing or repellents, prevent access to human areas, as demonstrated in programs protecting livestock from predators with non-invasive deterrents like lights or guard animals, which reduced depredation by 70-90% in some studies. Translocation and behavioral conditioning offer further options, relocating animals to suitable habitats or using aversion training to alter habits, though success depends on site availability and monitoring to avoid disease spread. Advocacy groups advocate integrating these with policy reforms, such as stricter land-use planning to mitigate overpopulation drivers, positioning non-lethal approaches as ethically superior and potentially more sustainable, albeit resource-intensive, for achieving balance without sacrificing individual lives. Empirical evaluations, including those from wildlife fertility initiatives, indicate that while implementation challenges exist—such as vaccine delivery logistics—these methods align better with welfare principles by minimizing suffering compared to recurrent culling cycles.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/animal-culling
  2. https://lod.nal.usda.gov/nalt/en/page/9435
  3. https://thinkwildlifefoundation.com/is-culling-an-effective-solution-to-the-overpopulation-of-a-species/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5081039/
  5. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/140305-culling-badgers-deer-bison-swans-ethics-conservation
  6. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2018.0901
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12036994/
  8. https://theconversation.com/culling-pest-animals-can-do-more-harm-than-good-40702
  9. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10518
  10. https://reuben.ox.ac.uk/article/cull-wild-killing-name-conservation
  11. https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302%2806%2972257-3/fulltext
  12. https://avulasafaris.com/understanding-culling-vs-conservation-avula-safaris/
  13. https://conservationzambia.org/culling-wildlife-management/
  14. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/beef97_is_cullingprac.pdf
  15. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-1032-z
  16. https://rossparkzoo.org/the-complexities-of-culling-balancing-ecosystems-and-wildlife-management/
  17. https://www.etymonline.com/word/cull
  18. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cull
  19. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34661/chapter/295340112
  20. https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-548
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268872189_Pace_and_process_in_the_origins_of_animal_husbandry_in_Neolithic_Southwest_Asia
  22. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-27647-z
  23. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14614103.2022.2151723
  24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-roman-studies/article/hammers-axes-bulls-and-blood-some-practical-aspects-of-roman-animal-sacrifice/5B47448DD9FFBB9EB37A595758B07EE5
  25. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/18493117.pdf
  26. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-018-0723-6
  27. https://www.ans.iastate.edu/about/history/people/robert-bakewell
  28. https://www.rbst.org.uk/robert-bakewell-a-pioneer-of-modern-livestock-farming
  29. https://katahdins.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/gilbert_bakewelltoblup_2008.pdf
  30. https://www.britannica.com/science/test-and-slaughter-technique
  31. https://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/North-American-model-of-Wildlife-Conservation.pdf
  32. https://www.fishwildlife.org/application/files/1017/1943/1567/The_North_American_Model_Decadal_Review_6.2024.pdf
  33. https://www2.arpel.org/default.aspx/u10F0F/242104/TheCull.pdf
  34. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/81567
  35. https://www.uaex.uada.edu/farm-ranch/animals-forages/beef-cattle/breeding-genetic-selection.aspx
  36. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/AN323
  37. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/234662403.pdf
  38. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32037180/
  39. https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/items/5a101704-0f85-4c1d-8549-1d60d5db04c4
  40. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215778/
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7340795/
  42. https://ridgewayresearch.co.uk/foot-and-mouth-disease/
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6132414/
  44. https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation-summary/data-map-commercial.html
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3851691/
  46. https://wc4eb.org/examples-of-urban-and-suburban-deer-management/
  47. https://congressionalsportsmen.org/policy/white-tailed-deer-management-hunting-as-a-preferred-management-tool/
  48. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2109&context=icwdm_usdanwrc
  49. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10063
  50. https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-is-the-rspcas-view-on-killing-sharks-to-reduce-shark-incidents/
  51. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3223&context=isp_collection
  52. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1839&context=hwi
  53. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/Humane-Slaughter-Guidelines-2024.pdf
  54. https://agriculture.institute/meat-animals-abattoir-practices/humane-slaughter-methods-importance/
  55. https://www.provisioneronline.com/articles/105807-humane-innovation-in-the-slaughter-process
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7278393/
  57. https://news.vin.com/doc/?id=12468590
  58. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Guidelines-on-Euthanasia-2020.pdf
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6463779/
  60. https://theoriginsfoundation.org/conservation-resources/thermal-aerial-culling-enhances-humane-wildlife-management/
  61. https://www.vdd-gna.org/post/breeder-s-guide
  62. http://www.bordercollierescue.org/advice/breeding/conformity.html
  63. https://www.grit.com/animals/livestock/selective-breeding-examples-zm0z23sozawar/
  64. https://www.americanbreeder.com/resources/american-breeder-blog/dogs/ethical-dilemmas-euthanizing-puppies-congenital-defects
  65. https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=animshel
  66. https://englishshepherd.org/bad-genes/
  67. https://www.ashgi.org/home-page/genetics-info/breeding/breeding-genetic-diversity/the-downside-of-inbreeding
  68. https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/70/8/2338/4705033
  69. https://sites.google.com/view/animalbreedingbygupta/selection/response-to-selection
  70. https://uscdcb.com/dairy-progress/
  71. https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302%2808%2971030-0/fulltext
  72. https://uscdcb.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/PIIS0022030225001092.pdf
  73. https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/animalsciencesdept/2022/04/25/genetic-improvement-and-sustainability-of-animal-industries/
  74. https://edepot.wur.nl/212255
  75. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/20203549151
  76. https://uscdcb.com/services/genetic-evaluations/genomic-impact/
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175173112100135X
  78. https://wwsires.com/resources/management/economics-matter-in-culling-decisions
  79. https://agmanager.info/sites/default/files/2007%252520WDMC%252520%2528Economics%252520of%252520culling%252520cows%2529.pdf
  80. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/dairy96_is_biosecurityprac.pdf
  81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731122001859
  82. https://afs.mgcafe.uky.edu/articles/are-you-making-profitable-culling-decisions
  83. https://www.drovers.com/news/beef-production/keep-or-cull-economic-insights-managing-open-cows
  84. https://agriculture.institute/introduction-to-poultry-farming/role-of-culling-in-poultry-production/
  85. https://www.poultry.care/blog/maximizing-profits-by-managing-cull-birds-efficiently-for-secondary-processing
  86. https://veterinaryresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1297-9716-42-81
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10909358/
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2817163/
  89. https://www.epa.gov/disaster-debris/carcass-management-during-avian-influenza-outbreaks
  90. https://www.unmc.edu/healthsecurity/transmission/2025/02/26/killing-166-million-birds-hasnt-helped-poultry-farmers-stop-h5n1-is-there-a-better-way/
  91. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167587725000492
  92. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54062-4
  93. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39009688/
  94. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2813%2901533-9
  95. https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302%2806%2972300-1/fulltext
  96. https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/74/3/201/518135
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4676796/
  98. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1217&context=natlpark
  99. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2664.14498
  100. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349352298_Restoring_Forests_in_Central_New_Jersey_through_Effective_Deer_Management
  101. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.14544
  102. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12166
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6451411/
  104. https://www.bovinetb.info/docs/is-culling-badgers-effective.pdf
  105. https://news.illinois.edu/targeted-culling-of-deer-controls-disease-with-little-effect-on-hunting/
  106. https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/diseases/cwd/plan.phtml
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2695855/
  108. https://esa.org/blog/2025/01/29/new-study-finds-deer-hunting-can-help-keep-chronic-wasting-disease-in-check/
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8472013/
  110. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/25/italy-african-swine-fever-asf-outbreak-lombardy-culls
  111. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/african-swine-fever-fences-alone-arent-enough
  112. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3976393/
  113. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12970
  114. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2506919122
  115. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3384&context=icwdm_usdanwrc
  116. https://strapi.eaza.net/uploads/EAZA_Population_Management_Manual_V6_2_67db7a6627.pdf
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10044634/
  118. https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2332/aza_policy_on_responsible_population_management_1_12_2016.pdf
  119. https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/10/14/448527516/why-do-european-zoos-kill-healthy-animals
  120. https://animalsurvival.org/trade-and-legislation/german-zoo-sparks-outrage-with-plans-to-cull/
  121. https://kb.rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-is-the-most-humane-way-to-euthanase-aquarium-fish/
  122. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/understanding-marine-mammal-euthanasia
  123. https://www.icam-coalition.org/evidence-against-culling-dogs-and-cats/
  124. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5248632/
  125. https://catalinaconservancy.org/stories/2024-hunting-season-fails-to-curb-invasive-deer-population/
  126. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11429747/
  127. https://www.badgertrust.org.uk/post/new-scientific-study-reveals-that-badger-culling-has-had-no-effect-in-reducing-bovine-tb-in-cattle
  128. https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/badger-culls-ineffective-and-failed-humaneness-test
  129. https://theecologist.org/2014/sep/09/badger-cull-fail-government-throws-science-scrapheap
  130. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.14522
  131. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23448881/
  132. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227954678_Unwanted_and_unintended_effects_of_culling_A_case_for_ecologically-based_rodent_management
  133. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ859824.pdf
  134. https://www.fishwildlife.org/application/files/7315/3745/9637/AFWA_Deer_Mngmt_Pop_Areas_August_31_2018_version.pdf
  135. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.105
  136. https://www.laurelhollow.org/public-safety-police-fire/files/deer-overabundance-publication-nys-dec
  137. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16358526/
  138. https://www.bornfreeusa.org/campaigns/coexisting/protecting-native-species-from-culling-and-hunting/
  139. https://awionline.org/content/humane-wildlife-management
  140. https://portal.ct.gov/CAES/Plant-Science-Day/2002/Non-lethal-Methods-of-Controlling-Deer-Population-Growth
  141. https://www.wildlifefertilitycontrol.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Ethical_management_of_wildlife_Lethal_versus_nonle-1.pdf
  142. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7384438/
  143. https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/files/eurogroupforanimals/2023-01/2023_01_05_pp_Seeking%2520alternatives%2520to%2520lethal%2520management_%2520A%2520framework%2520to%2520respect%2520wild%2520animal%2520welfare.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.