Pathophysiology of Concussive Non-Penetrative Captive Bolt Stunning of Turkeys

Abstract

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.

A decade on: where is the UK poultry industry for emergency on-farm killing?

“…This highlights the importance of applied research being made accessible to relevant stakeholders ( Graham et al, 2006 ), especially given the outcomes of killing method selection play a major part in protecting poultry welfare on-farm. Additionally, it further highlights that methods such as the CASH Small Animal Tool ( Frontmatec Accles & Shelvoke, 2022 ), which have been evidenced as high welfare ( Martin et al, 2018b ; Gibson et al, 2019 ) and available since the legislation reform have not been taken up by the industry. This could be partly due to operator perceptions of challenges around operation, maintenance and technical issues raised following repeated use ( Martin et al, 2018b ).…”