Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T03:22:23.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying reasons for stun failures in slaughterhouses for cattle and pigs: a field study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

M von Wenzlawowicz ,
K von Holleben  and
E Eser
M von Wenzlawowicz*
Affiliation:
Bsi Schwarzenbek, Postbox 1469, 21487 Schwarzenbek, Germany
K von Holleben
Affiliation:
Bsi Schwarzenbek, Postbox 1469, 21487 Schwarzenbek, Germany
E Eser
Affiliation:
Bsi Schwarzenbek, Postbox 1469, 21487 Schwarzenbek, Germany
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: info@bsi-schwarzenbek.de
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.

Checking the effectiveness of stunning was one of the major tasks when the authors evaluated the stunning process on request of the slaughterhouse managements, retailers or competent authorities in slaughterhouses in Austria, Germany and Switzerland between the years 2000 and 2011. A total of 50 assessments in slaughterhouses for cattle and 116 for pigs were included in this study. For every assessment the technical features of the stunning device, the performance by the personnel and the clinical signs of the animals after stunning were recorded. The assessments of captive-bolt (CB) stunning were made in 1,823 cattle. For pigs, 63 assessments were carried out in electrical stunning (26 in a pen [ESP], 24 in a trap [EST] and 13 in an automatic restrainer [ESR]) and 53 assessments in CO2 stunning, covering a total of 35,220 pigs (6,855 electrically stunned and 28,365 stunned using CO2). The proportions of assessments in which there were no failures were 28% (CB), 12% (ESP), 21% (EST), 31% (ESR) and 13% (CO). The mean percentages of animals showing signs not compatible with sufficient depth of stunning were 13.5 (± 19.0)% (CB), 12.5 (± 16.4)% (ESP), 10.9 (± 11.4)% (EST), 3.2 (± 3.3)% (ESR) and 7.5 (± 13.0)% (CO2) showing a high variability between premises assessed. Stunning effectiveness for cattle was better where a chest stick was performed compared to a neck cut. For pigs, less stunning failures occurred in electrical stunning where the two-cycle method (head/heart current) was applied compared to head-only stunning, and most of the failures in CO2 stunning were due to insufficient dwell time. Reasons for the stunning failures are described and recommendations given to improve the situation.

Keywords

animal welfarecaptive-bolt stunningcattleCO2 stunningelectrical stunningpigs
Type
Papers
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue S2: Proceedings of the HSA Centenary International Symposium ‘Recent Advances in the Welfare of Livestock at Slaughter’ Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UK, 2011 , June 2012 , pp. 51 - 60
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anil, H and McKinstry, JL 1992 The effectiveness of high frequency electrical stunning of pigs. Meat Science 31: 481–491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(92)90030-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anil, H, Whittington, P and McKinstry, JL 2000 The effect of the sticking method on the welfare of slaughter pigs. Meat Science 55: 315–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(99)00159-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atkinson, S and Algers, B 2009 Cattle welfare, stun quality and efficiency in 3 abattoirs using different designs of stun box loading, stun box restraint, and weapons. Project Report Department of Animal Environment and Health, SLU, Skara, SwedenGoogle Scholar
EFSA 2004 Welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing methods. Scientific Report of the Scientific Panel for Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission Related to Welfare Aspects of Animal Stunning and Killing Methods pp 241. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2004.45. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/45.htmCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endres, JM 2005 Effektivität der Schuss-Schlag-Betäubung im Vergleich zur Bolzenschussbetäubung von Rindern in der Routineschlachtung. PhD Thesis, University of Munich, Germany. [Title translation: Effectiveness of concussion stunning in comparison to captive bolt stunning in routine slaughtering of cattle]Google Scholar
Finnie, JW 1993 Brain damage caused by a captive bolt pistol. Journal of Comparative Pathology 109: 253–258CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gouveia, KG, Ferreira, PG, Roque da Costa, JC, Vaz-Pires, P and Martins da Costa, P 2009 Assessment of the efficiency of captive-bolt stunning in cattle and feasibility of associated behavioural signs. Animal Welfare 18: 171–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2003 Return-to-sensibility problems after penetrating captive-bolt stunning of cattle in commercial beef slaughter plants. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221: 1258–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, NG 2007 Stunning and slaughter. In: Gregory, NG (ed) Animal Welfare & Meat Production pp 191–212. CABI: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, NG, Lee, C and Widdicombe, JP 2007 Depth of concussion in cattle shot by penetrating captive bolt. Meat Science 77: 499–503CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, NG, Shaw, FD and Rowe, RW 1988 Effect of stunning and slaughter method on brain function and bleeding efficiency in calves. 34th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology pp 112–113. 29 August-2 September 1988, Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Ilgert, H 1985 Effizienz der Bolzenschußbetäubung beim Rind mit Berücksichtigung der Einschußstelle und der Eindringrichtung des Bolzens unter Praxisbedingungen. PhD Thesis, Free University of Berlin, Germany. [Title translation: Efficiency of routine penetrative captive bolt stunning in cattle in consideration of shooting position and shooting direction]Google Scholar
Kaegi, B 1988 Untersuchung zur Bolzenschussbetäubung beim Rind. PhD Thesis, University of Zurich, Switzerland. [Title translation: Investigation on captive-bolt stunning in cattle]Google Scholar
Lambooij, E, van Logtestijn, JG and Sybesma, W 1983 Some aspects of electrical and mechanical stunning in ruminants. Fleischwirtschaft 63: 901–903Google Scholar
Lambooij, B, Merkus, SM, Van Voorst, N and Pieterse, C 1997 Effect of low voltage with a high frequency electrical stunning on unconsciousness in slaughter pigs. Fleischwirtschaft International 2/97: 13–14Google Scholar
Meiler, D 2006 Kontrolle des Entbluteerfolges bei der Schweineschlachtung im Hinblick auf Tierschutz und mögliche Auswirkungen auf Ausblutungsgrad und Fleischqualität. PhD Thesis, University of Munich, Germany. [Title translation: Control of exsanguination in pig slaughtering regarding animal welfare and its possible effects on degree of bleeding out and meat quality]Google Scholar
Simmons, NJ 1995 The use of high frequency currents for the electrical stunning of pigs. PhD Thesis, University of Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Simmons, NJ and Daly, CC 2007 The effect of high frequency electrical stunning of pigs on the immediacy and duration of epilepsy and times to recover of brain function. 53rd International Congress of Meat Science and Technology pp 611–612. 5-10 August 2007, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
Troeger, K, Moje, M and Schurr, B 2005 Kontrolle der Entblutung. Fleischwirtschaft 2: 107–110. [Title translation: Monitoring of bleeding]Google Scholar
Von Holleben, K 2007 Handling and restraining issues for the most important species. EU-Commission DG SANCO: Training Workshop on Animal Welfare Concerning the Stunning and Killing of Animals at Slaughterhouses and in Disease Control Situation. 15-19 October 2007, Zagreb, Croatia. http://www. sancotraining.izs.it/news_corso03/training%20aid/16%20October%202007/von%20Holleben.pdfGoogle Scholar
Von Holleben, K 2009 Intelligent prevention of fail stunning. Fleischwirtschaft International 27: 26–30Google Scholar
Von Holleben, K, Schuette, A, von Wenzlawowicz, M and Bostelmann, N 2002 Call for veterinary action in slaughterhouses: deficient welfare at CO2-stunning of pigs and captive bolt stunning of cattle. Fleischwirtschaft International 3/02: 8–10Google Scholar
Von Holleben, K, von Wenzlawowicz, M, Gregory, N, Anil, H, Velarde, A, Rodriguez, P, Cenci Goga, B, Catanese, B and Lambooij, B 2010 Animal welfare concerns in relation to slaughter practices from the viewpoint of veterinary sciences. Dialrel-deliverable 1.3. http://www.dialrel.eu/images/veterinary-concerns.pdfGoogle Scholar
Von Wenzlawowicz, M, Schuette, A, von Holleben, K, von Altrock, A, Bostelmann, N and Roeb, S 1999 Field-study on welfare and meat quality aspects of the Midas-pig-stunning device with Inarco System, Part I: current characteristics and stunning effectiveness. Fleischwirtschaft international 2/99: 8–13Google Scholar
Von Wenzlawowicz, M 2006 Practical tools for animal welfare assessment in the slaughterhouse. Animal Welfare in Chile and the EU: Shared Experiences and Future Objectives pp 117–122. 26 September 2005, Silvi Marina, Italy. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2006: Luxembourg http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/seminars/sem_0905_proceedings.pdfGoogle Scholar
Von Wenzlawowicz, M 2009 Zur elektrischen Betäubung von Sauen und Schafen. Deutsche Tierärtzliche Wochenschrift 116: 107–109. [Title translation: Electrical stunning of sows and sheep]Google Scholar