Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:14:37.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of brainstem disruption following penetrating captive-bolt shot in isolated cattle heads: comparison of traditional and alternative shot-placement landmarks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

JN Gilliam ,
JK Shearer ,
RJ Bahr ,
S Crochik ,
J Woods ,
J Hill ,
J Reynolds  and
JD Taylor
JN Gilliam*
Affiliation:
Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Oklahoma State University, 1 Farm Rd, Stillwater, OK, USA
JK Shearer
Affiliation:
Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
RJ Bahr
Affiliation:
Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Oklahoma State University, 1 Farm Rd, Stillwater, OK, USA 119 Oakridge Drive, Stillwater, OK 74074, USA
S Crochik
Affiliation:
Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Oklahoma State University, 1 Farm Rd, Stillwater, OK, USA VCA-South Shore Animal Hospital, 595 Columbian St, South Weymouth, MA 02190, USA
J Woods
Affiliation:
Innovative Livestock Solutions, Blackie, AB, Canada
J Hill
Affiliation:
Innovative Livestock Solutions, Blackie, AB, Canada
J Reynolds
Affiliation:
College of Veterinary Medicine, Western College of Health Sciences, Pomona, CA, USA
JD Taylor
Affiliation:
Veterinary Pathobiology, Oklahoma State University, 1 Farm Rd, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: john.gilliam@okstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Currently recommended landmarks for captive-bolt euthanasia of cattle often result in failure to penetrate the brainstem. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability to disrupt the brainstem by placing the shot at a higher position on the head. Intact heads from euthanased animals or natural mortalities were used for this study. Heads were grouped as adult (> 2 years), young (6-24 months) and neonate (< 1 month) and randomly assigned to either the LOW group (the intersection of two lines drawn from the medial canthus to the top of the opposite ear) or the HIGH group (midline halfway between the top of the poll and an imaginary line connecting each lateral canthus). Each head received a single shot from a CASH penetrating captive bolt with bolt length and power load selected based on manufacturer's recommendations. Computed tomography images of each head were evaluated independently by two veterinary radiologists. Brainstem disruption was assumed to occur if the bolt passed caudal to the presphenoid bone and deep to the third ventricle and was within 1.5 cm of midline. Brainstem disruption occurred in 16/18 adult HIGH and 7/14 adult LOW heads, 13/16 young HIGH and 11/19 young LOW heads, and 11/11 neonate HIGH and 14/14 neonate LOW heads. The higher shot location landmarks used in this study increased the probability of disrupting the brainstem when adult cattle were shot with a penetrating captive bolt which should reduce the risk of regaining sensibility. Reliable brainstem disruption is a precondition for considering penetrating captive bolt as a single-step euthanasia method. Further research is needed to determine if this method will reliably ensure a humane death.

Keywords

animal welfarebrainstemcaptive boltcattleeuthanasiashot placement
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , August 2016 , pp. 347 - 353
Copyright
© 2016 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

American Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP) 1999 Practical Euthanasia of Cattle. http://www.aabp.org/resources/euth.pdfGoogle Scholar
American Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP) 2013 Practical Euthanasia of Cattle. http://www.aabp.org/resources/AABP_Guidelines/Practical_Euthanasia_of_Cattle-September_2013.pdfGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, S, Velarde, A and Algers, B 2013 Assessment of stun quality at commercial slaughter in cattle shot with captive bolt. Animal Welfare 22: 473–481. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.22.4.473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AVMA 2013 AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. https://www.avma.org/kb/policies/documents/euthanasia.pdfGoogle Scholar
Daly, CC and Whittington, PE 1989 Investigation into the prin-cipal determinants of effective captive bolt stunning of sheep. Research in Veterinary Science 46: 406–408CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Lahunta, A and Glass, E 2009 Veterinary Neuroanatomy and Clinical Neurology, Third Edition. Saunders: St Louis, MO, USAGoogle Scholar
Finnie, JW 1995 Neuropathological changes produced by non-penetrating percussive captive bolt stunning of cattle. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 43: 183–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00480169.1995.35886CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finnie, JW 1997 Traumatic head injury in ruminant livestock. Australian Veterinary Journal 75: 204–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-0813.1997.tb10067.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finnie, JW and Blumbergs, PC 2002 Traumatic brain injury. Veterinary Pathology 39: 679–689. http://dx.doi.org/10.1354/vp.39-6-679CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, DL 1999 Practical and humane methods for bovine euthanasia. Veterinary Medicine 94: 92–93Google Scholar
Gilliam, JN, Shearer, JK, Woods, J, Hill, J, Reynolds, J, Taylor, JD, Bahr, RJ, Crochik, S and Snider, TA 2012 Captive-bolt euthanasia of cattle: determination of optimal-shot placement and evaluation of the Cash Special Euthanizer Kit for euthanasia of cat-tle. Animal Welfare 21(S2): 99–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13353700593806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouveia, KG, Ferreira, PG, Roque da Costa, JC, Vaz-pires, P and Marins da Costa, P 2009 Assessment of the efficiency of captive-bolt stunning in cattle and feasibility of associated behav-ioural signs. Animal Welfare 18: 171–175Google 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: 1258–1261. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.2002.221.1258CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, N and Shaw, F 2000 Penetrating captive bolt stunning and exsanguination of cattle in abattoirs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 3: 215–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327604JAWS0303_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, NG, Lee, CJ and Widdicombe, JP 2007 Depth of concussion in cattle shot by penetrating captive bolt. Meat Science 77: 499–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.04.026CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambooy, E 1981 Mechanical aspects of skull penetration by captive bolt pistol in bulls, veal calves and pigs. Fleischwirtschaft 61:1865–1867, 1882-1885Google Scholar
Lambooy, E 1982 Some aspects of the effectiveness of stunning in sheep by the captive bolt. Meat Science 7: 51–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(82)90098-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Millar, GI and Mills, DS 2000 Observations on the trajectory of the bullet in 15 horses euthanased by free bullet. Veterinary Record 146: 754–757. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.146.26.754CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
OIE World Organization for Animal Health 2015 Slaughter of Animals Article 7.5.1. Terrestrial Animal Health Code. http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_aw_ slaughter.htmGoogle Scholar
Smith, JC, Abdala, AP, Rybak, IA and Paton, JF 2009 Structural and functional architecture of respiratory networks in the mammalian brainstem. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364: 2577–2587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0081CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wenzlawowicz, Mv, Holleben, Kv and Eser, E 2012 Identifying reasons for stun failures in slaughterhouses for cattle and pigs: a field study. Animal Welfare 21(S2): 51–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13353700593527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, J 2012 Analysis of the use of the ‘CASH’ Dispatch Kit captive bolt gun as a single stage euthanasia process for pigs. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USAGoogle Scholar