Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:21:20.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stunning pigs with different gas mixtures: aversion in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

A Dalmau ,
P Rodríguez ,
P Llonch  and
A Velarde
A Dalmau*
Affiliation:
IRTA, Animal Welfare Subprogram, Finca Camps i Armet s/n Monells, 17121, Girona, Spain
P Rodríguez
Affiliation:
IRTA, Animal Welfare Subprogram, Finca Camps i Armet s/n Monells, 17121, Girona, Spain
P Llonch
Affiliation:
IRTA, Animal Welfare Subprogram, Finca Camps i Armet s/n Monells, 17121, Girona, Spain
A Velarde
Affiliation:
IRTA, Animal Welfare Subprogram, Finca Camps i Armet s/n Monells, 17121, Girona, Spain
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: antoni.dalmau@irta.es
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The objective of this study was to assess the aversion to exposure of 90% argon, 70% N2/30% CO2 and 85% N2/15% CO2 by volume in atmospheric air in 24 halothane-free slaughter-weight pigs using aversion learning techniques and behavioural studies in an experimental slaughterhouse. Pigs were subjected to the treatments individually during 2 separate trials of 12 animals each. The time of exposure to the gases was 46 and 32 s, respectively. When the pit contained any of the 3 gas mixtures, the time taken to cross the raceway and enter the cradle (TCREC) increased compared with the training sessions (atmospheric air). The incidence of pigs showing retreat and escape attempts and gasps and the number of times that this behaviour was performed was lower in 90% argon than in the gas mixtures with N2 and CO2. On the other hand, the time to loss of posture was lower with 70% N2/30% CO2 than with argon. The second exposure to all gas mixtures was more aversive than the first and the loss of posture also occurred earlier in the second exposure. In conclusion, pigs showed more aversion to gas mixtures with N2 and either 15% or 30% CO2 by volume than 90% argon by volume.

Keywords

animal welfareargonaversioncarbon dioxidenitrogenpigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , August 2010 , pp. 325 - 333
Copyright
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Broom, DM 2000 Welfare assessment and welfare problems areas during handling and transport. In: Grandin, T (ed) Livestock Handling and Transport pp 43–61. CABI Publishing: New York, NY, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalmau, A, Llonch, P, Rodríguez, P, Ruiz de la Torre, JL, Manteca, X and Velarde, A 2010 Stunning pigs with different gas mixtures: gas containability. Animal Welfare 19: 315–323Google Scholar
Dodman, NH 1977 Observations on the use of the Wernburg dip-lift carbon dioxide apparatus for pre-slaughter anaesthesia of pigs. British Veterinary Journal 133: 71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EC (European Community) 2009 Council Regulation No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing. Official Journal of the European Union L303: 1–30Google Scholar
EFSA 2004 Welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing method. Scientific report of the Scientific Panel of Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission. Question. Adopted on the 15th of June 2004. Brussels, Belgium. http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/ahaw/ahaw_opinions/495/opinion_ahaw_02_ej45_stunning_report_v2_en1.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forslid, A 1987 Transient neocortical, hippocampal and amygdaloid EEG silence induced by one minute inhalation of high concentration CO2 in swine. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 130: 1–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forslid, A 1992 Muscle spasms during pre-slaughter CO2-anaesthesia in pigs. Fleishwirtschaft 72(462): 167–168Google Scholar
Gregory, NG, Raj, ABM, Audsley, ARS and Daly, CC 1990 Effects of carbon dioxide on man. Fleishwirtschaft 70: 1173–1174Google Scholar
Jongman, EC, Barnett, JL and Hemsworth, PH 2000 The aversiveness of carbon dioxide stunning in pigs and a comparison of the CO2 stunner cradle vs the V-restrainer. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambooij, E, Gerritzen, MA, Engel, B, Hillebrand, SJW, Lankhaar, J and Pieterse, C 1999 Behavioural responses during exposure of broiler chickens to different gas mixtures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62: 255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, HL and Schwartzstein, RM 1995 Pathophysiology of dyspnea. New England Journal of Medicine 333(23): 1547–1553CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peppel, P and Anton, F 1993 Responses of rat medullary dorsal horn neurons following intranasal noxious chemical stimulation: effects of stimulus intensity, duration, and interstimulus interval. Journal of Neurophysiology 70: 2260–2275CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raj, ABM 1999 Behaviour of pigs exposed to mixtures of gases and the time required to stun and kill them: welfare implications. Veterinary Record 144: 165–168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raj, ABM and Gregory, NG 1995 Welfare implications of the gas stunning of pigs 1. Determination of aversion to the initial inhalation of carbon dioxide or argon. Animal Welfare 4: 273–280Google Scholar
Raj, ABM and Gregory, NG 1996 Welfare implications of the gas stunning of pigs 2. Stress of induction of anaesthesia. Animal Welfare 5: 71–78Google Scholar
Raj, ABM, Johnson, SP, Wotton, SB and McKinstry, JL 1997 Welfare implications of gas stunning pigs: 3. The time to loss of somatosensory evoked potentials and spontaneous electroencephalogram of pigs during exposure to gases. Veterinary Journal 153: 329–340CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raj, ABM, Wotton, SB and Gregory, NG 1992 Changes in the somatosensory evoked potentials and spontaneous electroencephalogram of hens during stunning with a carbon dioxide and argon mixture. British Veterinary Journal 148: 147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez, P, Dalmau, A, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, JL, Manteca, X, Jensen, EW, Rodríguez, B, Litvan, H and Velarde, A 2008 Assessment of unconsciousness during carbon dioxide stunning in pigs. Animal Welfare 17: 341–349Google Scholar
Rushen, J 1986 Aversion of sheep to electro-immobilization and physical restraint. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J and Congdon, P 1987 Electro-immobilization of sheep may not reduce the aversiveness of a painful treatment. Veterinary Record 120: 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troeger, K and Woltersdorf, W 1991 Gas anaesthesia of slaughter pigs: 1. Stunning experiments under laboratory conditions with fat pigs of known halothane reaction type: meat quality, animal protection. Fleischwirtschaft 71: 1063–1068Google Scholar
Velarde, A, Cruz, J, Gispert, M, Carrión, D, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, JL, Diestre, A and Manteca, X 2007 Aversion to carbon dioxide stunning in pigs: effect of the carbon dioxide concentration and the halothane genotype. Animal Welfare 16: 513–522Google Scholar
Velarde, A, Gispert, M, Faucitano, L, Alonso, P, Manteca, X and Diestre, A 2001 Effects of the stunning procedure and the halothane genotype on meat quality and incidente of haemorrhagies in pigs. Meat Science 58: 313–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velarde, A, Gispert, M, Faucitano, L, Manteca, X and Diestre, A 2000 Effect of stunning method on the incidence of PSE meat and haemorrhagies in pork carcasses. Meat Science 55: 309–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar