Electroencephalographic assessment of concussive non-penetrative captive bolt stunning of turkeys

Gibson, T. J.; Rebelo, C B; Gowers, T A; Chancellor, Natalie

doi:10.1080/00071668.2017.1401215

Cited by 26 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…cervical dislocation) to ensure death. However, scientific evidence has demonstrated that if captive bolt is properly applied in poultry, stunning is already enough to kill the animal (Raj and O'Callaghan, ; Erasmus et al., ,b; Gibson et al., ). It has been suggested that the appropriate specifications for captive bolt stunning of broilers are a minimum of 6 mm bolt diameter driven at an air pressure of 827 kPa to a penetration depth of 10 mm (Raj and O'Callaghan, ).…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been suggested that the appropriate specifications for captive bolt stunning of broilers are a minimum of 6 mm bolt diameter driven at an air pressure of 827 kPa to a penetration depth of 10 mm (Raj and O'Callaghan, 2001). Other authors concluded that the use of captive bolts in turkeys, ducks and geese is effective in inducing death, when properly applied involving similar parameters as in broilers (Erasmus et al, 2010a,b;Sparrey et al, 2014;Gibson et al, 2018). In any case, death should be confirmed after shooting with the captive bolt gun to eliminate the risk of birds surviving due to human error or equipment failure, and, if animals are not dead, a back-up killing method should be applied.…”

Section: Process Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Martin et al (2019) evaluated a captive bolt device with 6 mm diameter, penetration depth of 2.5-3.5 mm and delivering an impact of energy of 11.87 J and reported only 75% success in causing death in chickens. If the bolt is too narrow (less than 6 mm), or the velocity is too low, there will not be enough energy transfer to the head to induce effective stunning (Raj and O'Callaghan, 2001;EFSA, 2004;Karger, 1995;Gibson et al, 2018;Woolcott et al, 2018a).…”

Section: Process Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Killing for purposes other than slaughter: poultry

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2019

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poultry of different ages may have to be killed on-farm for purposes other than slaughter (in which slaughtering is defined as being for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale (e.g. because unproductive, for disease control, etc.). The processes of on-farm killing that were assessed are handling and stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The latter were grouped into four categories: electrical methods, modified atmosphere, mechanical methods and lethal injection. In total, 29 hazards were identified and characterised, most of these regard stunning and/or killing. Staff were identified as origin for 26 hazards and 24 hazards were attributed to lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Specific hazards were identified for day-old chicks killed via maceration. Corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 13 hazards, and management showed to have a crucial role in prevention. Eight welfare consequences, the birds can be exposed to during on-farm killing, were identified: not dead, consciousness, heat stress, cold stress, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences were also proposed.

show abstract

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Process Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Process Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Killing for purposes other than slaughter: poultry

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2019

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shooting of two broilers with a 6‐mm bolt at 620 kPa resulted in effective stunning and a very rapid recovery of consciousness in one bird and death in the other. Similarly, Gibson et al. (2018) evaluated three different commercially available non‐penetrating captive bolt guns in turkeys and reported that accurate shooting and enough cartridge power are critical to achieving effective stunning.…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Slaughter of animals: poultry

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2019

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The killing of poultry for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or during on-farm slaughter. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed, from the arrival of birds in containers until their death, were grouped into three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading of containers from the truck, lairage, handling/removing of birds from containers); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding (including bleeding following stunning and bleeding during slaughter without stunning). Stunning methods were grouped into three categories: electrical, controlled modified atmosphere and mechanical. In total, 35 hazards were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were identified as the origin of 29 hazards, and 28 hazards were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 11 hazards, with management shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Ten welfare consequences, the birds can be exposed to during slaughter, were identified: consciousness, heat stress, cold stress, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, restriction of movements, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins, and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences were also proposed.

show abstract

“…These are generally powered by compressed air, gun powder, or propane. With sufficient airline pressures or powerloads and when placed in the correct position (top of the head on the midline between the eyes and ears), they can be effective in inducing unconsciousness in turkeys and chickens without recovery [2][3][4][5], while variation from the ideal shooting position and inconsistencies in powerloads was reported to result in incomplete concussion in slaughter weight turkeys following stunning with three different NPCB guns, using electroencephalographic (EEG) and behavioural indices to evaluate unconsciousness [4]. Erasmus et al [6] and Woolcott et al [5] examined pathology only or pathology and behaviour respectively after NPCB stunning in turkeys and concluded that pneumatic NPCB stunning was effective in producing profound damage to the brain, which was hypothesised to be responsible for death.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pathophysiology of Concussive Non-Penetrative Captive Bolt Stunning of Turkeys

Gibson

King

Spence

et al. 2019

Animals

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The non-penetrative captive bolt (NPCB) has been proposed as a more humane and practical alternative to constant voltage electrical stunning for small-scale seasonal turkey producers. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the CASH® Small Animal Tool (SAT) (formerly known as the CASH® Poultry Killer, CPK) and three configurations of the Turkey Euthanasia Device (TED), assessing behavioural, cranial/spinal responses and brain pathology. Immediately after stunning all birds showed cessation of rhythmic breathing and loss of neck and beak tension. One bird shot with the TED/hen configuration showed a positive nictitating membrane reflex in one eye with no other positive reflexes. All birds had moderate/severe gross damage to the hyperpallium layer over the cerebrums. For almost all other cerebrum structures, thalamus, and hindbrain, the TED/poult configuration and SAT produced the most extensive damage. The frequency of petechial haemorrhage in the pons and medulla was less in SAT shot birds (76% and 71% respectively) compared to those shot with the different configurations of the TED (ranging from 81% to 100%), however this difference was not significant. In conclusion, both NPCB guns were effective in inducing unconsciousness in turkeys, regardless of the variations in shot position and the different configurations of the TED.

show abstract

Electroencephalographic assessment of concussive non-penetrative captive bolt stunning of turkeys

Cited by 26 publications

References 27 publications

Killing for purposes other than slaughter: poultry

Killing for purposes other than slaughter: poultry

Slaughter of animals: poultry

Pathophysiology of Concussive Non-Penetrative Captive Bolt Stunning of Turkeys

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About