Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T04:29:58.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of the efficiency of captive-bolt stunning in cattle and feasibility of associated behavioural signs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

KG Gouveia ,
PG Ferreira ,
JC Roque da Costa ,
P Vaz-Pires  and
P Martins da Costa
KG Gouveia*
Affiliation:
ICBAS Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar, Universidade do Porto, Largo Prof. Abel Salazar 2, 4099-003 Porto, Portugal
PG Ferreira
Affiliation:
ICBAS Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar, Universidade do Porto, Largo Prof. Abel Salazar 2, 4099-003 Porto, Portugal
JC Roque da Costa
Affiliation:
FMV Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Rua Prof. Cid dos Santos, Pólo Universitário da Ajuda 1300-477 Lisboa, Portugal
P Vaz-Pires
Affiliation:
ICBAS Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar, Universidade do Porto, Largo Prof. Abel Salazar 2, 4099-003 Porto, Portugal CIIMAR Centro Interdisciplinar de Investigação Marinha e Ambiental (CIIMAR), Universidade do Porto, Rua dos Bragas 289, 4050-123 Porto, Portugal
P Martins da Costa
Affiliation:
ICBAS Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar, Universidade do Porto, Largo Prof. Abel Salazar 2, 4099-003 Porto, Portugal CIIMAR Centro Interdisciplinar de Investigação Marinha e Ambiental (CIIMAR), Universidade do Porto, Rua dos Bragas 289, 4050-123 Porto, Portugal
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: kellygarces@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Efficient stunning is essential for the welfare of animals destined for slaughter. Several studies have dictated certain signs as reliable for the assessment of stunning efficiency in cattle. However, there is still a lack of data concerning the viability of these signs. The aim of the following study was to assess stunning efficiency at a slaughterhouse, studying the relationship between age, sex and breed of cattle and the efficiency of stunning and determining the feasibility of the following signs in assessing stunning efficiency: immediate collapse, muscle spasms, rhythmic breathing, rotation of the eyeballs, painful response to ear or nose pinch, vocalisation and muscle tone of the ears. Cattle were observed immediately after stunning and hoisting onto the bleed rail. Results showed that stunning efficiency decreased with age, was greater in females than males (for animals greater than 12 months of age) and was superior in ‘dairy’ compared to ‘beef’ cattle at all age ranges. Presence of ear muscle tone, absence of muscular spasms, presence of rhythmic breathing, and vocalisation were the most common signs of inefficient stunning recorded in the present study. Recognition of the most frequently occurring signs associated with inefficient stunning will point out the need for re-stunning, preventing animals from regaining sensibility.

Keywords

animal welfarebehavioural signscaptive-bolt stunningcattleEFSA reportstunning efficiency
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , May 2009 , pp. 171 - 175
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cockrum, MS and Corley, KTT 1991 Effect of pre-slaughter handling on the behaviour and blood composition of beef cattle. British Veterinary Journal 147: 444–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, CE, Graafhuis, AE, Muir, PD and Chrystall, BB 1993 The effect of growth rate ultimate pH on meat quality of lambs. Meat Science 35: 63–77CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyce, KM, Sack, WO and Wensing, CJG 1997 Tratado de Anatomia Veterinária pp 429–509. Editora Guanabara Koogan SA: Rio de Janeiro, BrazilGoogle Scholar
European Food Safety Authority 2004 Welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing methods. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/etc/medialib/efsa/science/ahaw/ahaw_opinions/495.Par.0002.File.dat/opinion_ahaw_02_ej45_stunning_re port_v2_en1.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnie, JW 1996 Livestock slaughter, head injury and firearms. Meat Focus International (September): 320–323Google Scholar
Gracey, J, Collins, DS and Huey, R 1999 Humane Slaughter. Meat Hygiene pp 197–222. WB Saunders Company Ltd: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1994 Euthanasia and slaughter of livestock. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 204: 1354–1360Google ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 1996 Animal welfare in slaughter plants. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference on American Association of Bovine Practioners pp 22–26. 12-24 September 1996, San Diego, USAGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1998 The feasibility of using vocalization scoring as an indicator of poor welfare during cattle slaughter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2001 Welfare of cattle during slaughter and the prevention of non-ambulatory (downer) cattle. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 219: 1377–1381Google Scholar
Grandin, T 2002 Return-to-sensibility problems after penetrating captive bolt stunning of cattle in commercial beef slaughter plants. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221: 1258–1261CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, NG 1998 Stunning and slaughter. Animal Welfare and Meat Science. CABI Publishing: Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Immonen, K 2000 Bovine muscle glycogen concentration in relation to diet, slaughter and ultimate beef quality. University of Helsinki, Department of Food Technology EKT series 1203: Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
Sisson, S 1986 Osteologia ruminante. Sisson/Getty Anatomia dos Animais Domésticos, Fifth Edition pp 693–735. Editora Guanabara Koogan SA: Rio de Janeiro, BrazilGoogle Scholar
Velarde, A, Gispert, M, Diestre, A and Manteca, X 2003 Effect of electrical stunning on meat and carcass quality in lambs. Meat Science 63: 35–38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed