Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T01:13:11.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of stocking rate on measures of efficacy and welfare during carbon dioxide gas euthanasia of young pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

KJ Fiedler ,
RL Parsons ,
LJ Sadler  and
ST Millman
KJ Fiedler
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
RL Parsons
Affiliation:
Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
LJ Sadler
Affiliation:
Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
ST Millman*
Affiliation:
2440 Lloyd Veterinary Medical Center, 1600 South 16th Street, Ames, Iowa, USA Department of Biomedical Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: smillman@iastate.edu
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 evaluate the effects of chamber stocking rate on facets of animal welfare and efficacy during gas euthanasia of young pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus). Crossbred pigs (390 neonatal and 270 weaned) designated for euthanasia at production farms were randomly assigned to group sizes of one, two, four, or six pigs. Gas euthanasia of each piglet group was performed in a Euthanex® AgPro chamber. The chamber air was gradually displaced with CO2 gas over 5 min to establish an in-chamber concentration of approximately 80% CO2. Pigs remained in that atmosphere for an additional dwell period of at least 5 min. Higher stocking rates were associated with higher CO2 concentrations after gradual fill for both age groups. While there was no evidence of an effect of stocking rate on latencies to loss of posture or last movement in neonatal pigs, there was evidence of an effect on all measured efficacy variables in weaned pigs, with grouped pigs faster to succumb than solitary pigs. This finding is consistent with expected consequences of higher CO2 concentration at increased stocking densities. Aversive states and behaviours of focal pigs in the chamber were scored from video. Weaned solitary pigs displayed a high incidence of pacing and may have experienced isolation distress. Escape attempts were absent in neonates and not linearly affected by stocking rate in weaned pigs. Although the risk of hazardous interactions was correlated with group size, this study provided no evidence that isolation during gas euthanasia would benefit animal welfare.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourcarbon dioxideeuthanasiapigsstocking rate
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , August 2014 , pp. 309 - 321
Copyright
© 2014 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) 2007 AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. American Veterinary Medical Association: Schaumburg, USAGoogle Scholar
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) 2013 AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of animals: 2013 Edition. American Veterinary Medical Association: Schaumburg, USA. https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdfGoogle Scholar
Amory, JR and Pearce, GP 2000 Alarm pheromones in urine modify the behaviour of weaner pigs. Animal Welfare 9(2): 167–175Google Scholar
Atkinson, S, Velarde, A, Llonch, P and Algers, B 2012 Assessing pig welfare at stunning in Swedish commercial abattoirs using CO2 group-stun methods. Animal Welfare 21(4): 487–495. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.4.487Google Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) 2010 CCAC guidelines on: euthanasia of animals used in science. In: Charbonneau, R, Niel, L, Olfert, E, von Keyserlingk, M and Griffin, G (eds) Canadian Council on Animal Care. CCAC: Ottawa, Canada. http://www.ccac.ca/Documents/Standards/Guidelines/Euthanasia.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dalmau, A, Rodríguez, P, Llonch, P and Velarde, A 2010 Stunning pigs with different gas mixtures: aversion in pigs. Animal Welfare19: 325-333Google Scholar
Düpjan, S, Tuchscherer, A, Langbein, J, Schön, P-C, Manteuffel, G and Puppe, B 2011 Behavioural and cardiac responses towards con-specific distress calls in domestic pigs (Sus scrofa). Physiology & Behavior 103: 445–452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.03.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekkel, ED, Spoolder, HAM, Hulsegge, I and Hopster, H 2003 Lying characteristics as determinants for space requirements in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 80: 19–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00154-5Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2004 Welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing methods. European Food Safety Authority- AHAW/04-027. EFSA: Parma, Italy. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/45ax1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Forslid, A 1987 Pre-slaughter CO2-anaesthesia in swine: influence upon cerebral electrical activity, acid/base balance, blood oxygen tension and stress hormones. Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Forslid, A and Augustinsson, O 1988 Acidosis, hypoxia and stress hormone release in response to one-minute inhalation of 80% CO2 in swine. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 132(2): 223–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1716.1988.tb08321.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, D 1975 Vocalization of isolated piglets II. Some environ-mental factors. Applied Animal Ethology 2(1): 19–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(75)90062-0Google Scholar
Gerritzen, MA, Kluivers-Poodt, M, Reimert, GM, Hindle, V and Lambooij, E 2008 Castration of piglets under CO2-gas anaesthesia. Animal 2(11): 1666–1673. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731108002887Google ScholarPubMed
Gregory, NG 2008 Animal welfare at markets and during trans-port and slaughter. Meat Science 80: 2–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.05.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, NG, Moss, BW and Leeson, RH 1987 An assessment of carbon dioxide stunning in pigs. The Veterinary Record 121: 517–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.121.22.517CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holst, S 2001 Carbon dioxide stunning of pigs for slaughter – practical guidelines for good animal welfare. 47th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology pp 48–54. 26-31 August,2001, Krakow, PolandGoogle Scholar
Kanitz, E, Puppe, B, Tuchscherer, M, Heberer, M, Viergutz, T and Tuchscherer, A 2009 A single exposure to social isolation in domestic piglets activates behavioural arousal, neuroen-docrine stress hormones, and stress-related gene expression in the brain. Physiology & Behavior 98: 176–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.05.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingston, SK, Dussault, CA, Zaidlicz, RS, Faltas, NH, Geib, ME, Taylor, S, Holt, T and Porter-Spalding, BA 2005 Evaluation of two methods for mass euthanasia of poultry in dis-ease outbreaks. Vet Med Today: Special Report. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 227(5): 730–738. http://dx.d oi.org/10.2460/javma.2005.227.730Google Scholar
Kohler, I, Moens, Y, Busato, A, Blum, J and Schatzmann, U 1998 Inhalation anaesthesia for the castration of piglets: CO2 compared to halothane. Journal of Veterinary Medicine 45: 625–633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0442.1998.tb00867.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Llonch, P, Rodríguez, P, Gispert, M, Dalmau, A, Manteca, X and Velarde, A 2012 Stunning pigs with nitrogen and carbon dioxide mixtures: effects on animal welfare and meat quality. Animal 6(4): 668–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111001911CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKeegan, DEF, Abeyesinghe, SM, McLeman, MA, Lowe, JC, Demmers, TGM, White, RP, Kranen, RW, van Bemmel, H, Lankhaar, JAC and Wathes, CM 2007 Controlled atmosphere stunning of broiler chickens II. Effects on behaviour, physiology and meat quality in a commercial processing plant. British Poultry Science 48(4): 430–442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0007166 0701543097Google Scholar
Mota-Rojas, D, Bolanos-Lopez, D, Concepcion-Mendez, M, Ramirez-Telles, J, Roldan-Santiago, P, Flores-Peinado, S and Mora-Medina, P 2012 Stunning swine with CO2 gas: controversies related to animal welfare. International Journal of Pharmacology 8(3): 141–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ijp.2012.141.151Google Scholar
National Pork Board 2008 On-farm euthanasia of swine. Recommendations for the producer. National Pork Board: Des Moines, USA. http://www.aasv.org/aasv/documents/SwineEuthanasia.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nowak, B, Mueffling, TV and Hartung, J 2007 Effect of different carbon dioxide concentrations and exposure times in stunning of slaughter pigs: impact on animal welfare and meat quality. Meat Science 75: 290–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.07.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliver, JE Jr, Lorenz, MD and Kornegay, JN 1997 Handbook of Veterinary Neurology. Third Edition p 216. WB Saunders Company: Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM 1999 Behaviour of pigs exposed to mixtures of gases and the time required to stun and kill them: welfare implications. The Veterinary Record 144: 165–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.144.7.165Google ScholarPubMed
Raj, ABM 2006 Recent developments in stunning and slaughter of poultry. World's Poultry Science Journal 62: 467–484. http://dx.d oi.org/10.1017/S0043933906001097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM, Johnson, SP, Wotton, SB and McInstry, JL 1997 Welfare implications of gas stunning pigs: 3. the time to loss of somatosensory evoked potentials and spontaneous electrocor-ticogram of pigs during exposure to gases. The Veterinary Journal 153: 329–340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1090-0233(97)80067-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Sadler, LJ 2013 Effects of flow rate, gas type and disease status on the welfare of sucking and weaned pigs during gas euthanasia. Graduate Theses and Dissertations, Paper 13365, Iowa State University, Ames, USA. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/13365Google Scholar
Sadler, LJ, Hagen, CD, Wang, C, Widowski, TM, Johnson, AK and Millman, ST 2014a Effects of flow rate and gas mixture on the welfare of neonate and weaned pigs during gas euthanasia. Journal of Animal Science 92: 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6598Google Scholar
Sadler, LJ, Karriker, LA, Schwartz, KJ, Johnson, AK, Widowski, TM, Wang, C, Sutherland, MA and Millman, ST 2014b Are severely depressed suckling pigs resistant to gas euthanasia? Animal Welfare 23: 145–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.2.145Google Scholar
Sharp, J, Zammit, T, Azar, T and Lawson, D 2003 Stress-like responses to common procedures in individually and group-housed female rats. Continuing Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 42: 9–18Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, JH, Boon, CR, Webster, AJF and Wathes, CM 1999 Measurements of the effect of animals on airflow in an experimen-tal piggery. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 72: 105–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1998.0350Google Scholar
Straw, BE, Meuten, DJ and Thacker, BJ 1999 Physical examination. In: Straw, B, D’Allaire, S, Mengeling, W and Taylor, D (eds) Diseases of Swine 8th Edition pp 3–5. Iowa State Press: Ames, USAGoogle Scholar
Talling, JC, Waran, NK, Wathes, CM and Lines, JA 1996 Behavioural and physiological responses of pigs to sound. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48: 187–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(96)01029-5Google Scholar
Velarde, A, Cruz, J, Gispert, M, Carrión, D, Ruiz de la Torre, JL, Diestre, A and Manteca, X 2007 Aversion to carbon diox-ide stunning in pigs: effect of carbon dioxide concentration and halothane genotype. Animal Welfare 16: 513–522Google Scholar
Vieuille-Thomas, C and Signoret, JP 1992 Pheromonal transmission of an aversive experience in domestic pig. Journal of Chemical Ecology 18(9): 1551–1557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00993228CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, AB and Fletcher, D 2004 Assessment of the aversion of hens to different gas atmospheres using an approach-avoidance test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88: 275–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.04.002Google Scholar
Weeks, CA 2008 A review of welfare in cattle, sheep and pig lairages, with emphasis on stocking rates, ventilation and noise. Animal Welfare 17: 275–284Google Scholar