Electroencephalographic assessment of pneumatically powered penetrating and non-penetrating captive-bolt stunning of bulls

被引:19
作者
Gibson, Troy John [1 ]
Octavio Oliveira, Steffan Edward [2 ,3 ]
Dalla Costa, Filipe Antonio [2 ,3 ]
Gregory, Neville George [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ London, Royal Vet Coll, Dept Pathobiol & Populat Sci, London, England
[2] Univ Estadual Paulista, Fac Ciencias Agr & Vet, Programa Posgrad Zootecnia, BR-14884900 Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil
[3] Univ Estadual Paulista, Fac Ciencias Agr & Vet, Grp Estudos & Pesquisas Etol & Ecol Anim, Dept Zootecnia, BR-14884900 Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil
基金
巴西圣保罗研究基金会;
关键词
Bulls; Cattle; Electroencephalogram (EEG); Non-penetrating; Penetrating; Pneumatic captive bolt stunning; VENTRAL-NECK INCISION; CATTLE SHOT; SLAUGHTER; RESPONSES; CONCUSSION; EFFICIENCY; CALVES; SHEEP;
D O I
10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.01.006
中图分类号
TS2 [食品工业];
学科分类号
0832 ;
摘要
The electroencephalographic (EEG) responses of 31 bulls (zebu crossbred cattle) stunned with either pneumatically powered Jarvis penetrating (PCB) or non-penetrating captive bolt (NPCB) was examined. Animals were organized into two treatment groups: PCB (n = 20); and NPCB (n = 11) stunning, both using airline pressures of 220 psi (1517 kPa). All bulls shot with PCB (n = 20/20) had patterns of EEG activity that were inconsistent with consciousness. Of the cattle shot with NPCB 82% (n = 9/11) showed waveforms suggesting complete unconsciousness. After stunning two NPCB bulls had periods of normal EEG activity and maintenance (Ptot, delta, theta, beta) or increased (alpha) spectral power compared to pre-treatment values, indicating incomplete concussion. The study showed that pneumatic PCB stunning was effective in rendering all bulls unconscious, while NPCB was less effective. This highlights the potential animal welfare risks associated with NPCB compared to PCB stunning of mature bulls in commercial abattoirs.
引用
收藏
页码:54 / 59
页数:6
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2004, EFSA J, V45, P1, DOI [10.2903/j.efsa.2004.45, DOI 10.2903/J.EFSA.2004.45]
[2]   Assessment of stun quality at commercial slaughter in cattle shot with captive bolt [J].
Atkinson, S. ;
Velarde, A. ;
Algers, B. .
ANIMAL WELFARE, 2013, 22 (04) :473-481
[3]  
Atkinson S, 2016, THESIS
[4]  
Bauer G, 2005, NIEDERMEYERS ELECTRO, V5, P471
[5]  
Blackmore D., 1988, Slaughter of stock, a practical review and guide
[6]   NON-PENETRATIVE PERCUSSION STUNNING OF SHEEP AND CALVES [J].
BLACKMORE, DK .
VETERINARY RECORD, 1979, 105 (16) :372-375
[7]   Assessing the carbon footprint of beef cattle in Brazil: a case study with 22 farms in the State of Mato Grosso [J].
Cerri, Carlos Clemente ;
Moreira, Cindy Silva ;
Alves, Priscila Aparecida ;
Raucci, Guilherme Silva ;
Castigioni, Bruno de Almeida ;
Mello, Francisco F. C. ;
Cerri, Domingos Guilherme P. ;
Cerri, Carlos Eduardo P. .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2016, 112 :2593-2600
[8]   CORTICAL FUNCTION IN CATTLE DURING SLAUGHTER - CONVENTIONAL CAPTIVE BOLT STUNNING FOLLOWED BY EXSANGUINATION COMPARED WITH SHECHITA SLAUGHTER [J].
DALY, CC ;
KALLWEIT, E ;
ELLENDORF, F .
VETERINARY RECORD, 1988, 122 (14) :325-329
[9]  
DALY CC, 1987, BRIT VET J, V143, P574, DOI 10.1016/0007-1935(87)90049-2
[10]  
DENNIS MB, 1988, LAB ANIM SCI, V38, P459