Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T15:21:07.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aversion of chickens to various lethal gas mixtures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

V Sandilands ,
ABM Raj ,
L Baker  and
NHC Sparks
V Sandilands*
Affiliation:
SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
ABM Raj
Affiliation:
School of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
L Baker
Affiliation:
SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
NHC Sparks
Affiliation:
SAC, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the event of a notifiable disease outbreak, poultry may need to be culled in situ. This should be performed swiftly and humanely to prevent further spread of the pathogen while preserving the welfare of the animals prior to death. Here, we examined the aversion of broiler chicks (Gallus domesticus) to three lethal gas mixtures at various concentrations to determine the least aversive mix that could be used in whole-house gassing. For 1 h, individual chicks (n = 36) were allowed to place their heads inside three feeding and drinking stations (FDS) in order to access food and water. Each FDS was filled with a different gas mixture, and birds could access each FDS as much as they liked. Twelve chicks each were tested at low (50% carbon dioxide [CO2] in air, 70% argon [Ar] in CO2, 70% nitrogen [N2] in CO2), medium (55% CO2 in air, 80% Ar in CO2, 80% N2 in CO2) or high (60% CO2 in air, 90% Ar in CO2, 90% N2 in CO2) concentrations of gas mixtures. Aversion was assessed based on the time birds spent with head in each FDS (with more time indicating less aversive), and the frequency of head shakes relative to time spent with head in the FDS (with a lower proportion indicating less aversive). Data were analysed by ANOVA. On average, birds spent < 3 min with their head in any FDS. Mixtures containing 90% Ar or N2 in CO2 and 80% argon in CO2 were least aversive and mixtures containing 70% N2 in CO2 and 60% CO2 in air were most aversive, based on time spent with head in. Head shakes s−1 were more frequent with low concentration gas mixtures compared to high concentrations, and with all CO2 in air mixtures, which suggests that the intensity of head shaking is related to the concentrations of CO2. From these results, one concentration of each of the three gas mixtures (90% N2 in CO2, 80% Ar in CO2, and 50% CO2 in air) were chosen for assessment on a further 12 birds and the results showed that both inert gas mixtures were less aversive than 50% CO2 in air based on time spent with head in. Frequency of head shakes s−1 did not differ between the three mixtures. Birds found all gases aversive, however it is concluded that inert gas in CO2 mixtures were least aversive compared to CO2 in air and these gases also caused less signs of respiratory discomfort.

Keywords

animal welfareaversionchickensdisease outbreaklethal gas mixturespreference testing
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , May 2011 , pp. 253 - 262
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Akre, AK, Bakken, M and Hovland, AL 2009 Social preferences in farmed silver fox females (Vulpes vulpes): Does it change with age? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 120: 186–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, BA and Meese, GB 1977 Sensory reinforcement and illumination preference in domesticated pig. Animal Behaviour 25: 497–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouvarel, I, Chagneau, AM, Lecuelle, S, Lescoat, P, Ferreira, G, Duvaux-Ponter, C and Leterrier, C 2009 Feed composition and hardness interact in preference and intake in chickens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118: 62–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deag, J 1993 Keytime: A program system for recording and analysing behavioural data. v3.4d. Penicuik, Midlothian.Google Scholar
Deag, J 1995 Keybehaviour: A programme for recording behavioural data on the DIP pocket PC and Atari Portfolio computer. v3.5a. Penicuik, MidlothianGoogle Scholar
Defra 2008a Disease Factsheet: Avian Influenza, History and Spread of the Disease. http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/notifiable/ai/index.htm#historyGoogle Scholar
Defra 2008b Notifiable Diseases. http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/notifiable/index.htmGoogle Scholar
De Jong, IC, Wolthuis-Fillerup, M and van Reenen, CG 2007 Strength of preference for dustbathing and foraging substrates in laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 104: 24–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2009 Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing pp 1–30. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/slaughter/regulation_1099_2009_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, J 1976 Sexual imprinting: effects of various regimens of social experience on mate preference in Japanese quail, Coturnix coturnix japonica. Behaviour 57: 91–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerritzen, M and Lambooij, E 2004 Killing poultry for disease control. Report ID-Lelystad 04/101242 pp 1–55. Wageningen University and Researchcenter Publications: Wageningen, The Netherlands. http://en.scientificcommons/org/14167211Google Scholar
Gerritzen, M, Lambooij, B, Reimert, H, Stegeman, A and Spruijt, B 2004 On-farm euthanasia of broiler chickens: effects of different gas mixtures on behavior and brain activity. Poultry Science 83: 1294–1301CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerritzen, M, Lambooij, B, Reimert, H, Stegeman, A and Spruijt, B 2007 A note on behaviour of poultry exposed to increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 108: 179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerritzen, M, Lambooij, B, Stegeman, A and Spruijt, B 2006 Slaughter of poultry during the epidemic of avian influenza in the Netherlands in 2003. Veterinary Record 159: 39–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunnarsson, S, Heikkila, M, Hultgren, J and Valros, A 2008 A note on light preference in layer pullets reared in incandescent or natural light. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112: 395–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansch, F, Nowak, B and Hartung, J 2009 Evaluation of a gas stunning equipment used for turkeys under slaughterhouse conditions. Livestock Science 124: 248–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HMSO 2006 The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2006. Statutory Instrument 2006 No 1200 pp 1–2. http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/uk75865.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hoen, T and Lankhaar, J 1999 Controlled atmosphere stunning of poultry. Poultry Science 78: 287–289CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, BO 1983 Headshaking in fowls: the effect of environmental stimuli. Applied Animal Ethology 11: 45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambooij, E, Gerritzen, MA, Engel, B, Hillebrand, SJW, Lankhaar, J and Pieterse, C 1999 Behavioural responses during exposure of broiler chickens to different gas mixtures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62: 255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, PD, Danisman, R and Gous, RM 2009 Photoperiodic responses of broilers I. Growth, feeding behaviour, breast meat yield, and testicular growth. British Poultry Science 50: 657–666CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linares, MB and Vergara, H 2009 Light lamb meat quality packed under modified atmospheres: effect of stunning systems (electrically v gas). Animal 3: 1763–1771CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludders, JW 2001 Inhaled anaesthesia for birds. In: Gleed, RD and Ludders, JW (eds) Recent Advances in Veterinary Anesthesia and Analgesia: Companion Animals. International Veterinary Information Service: Ithaca, USAGoogle Scholar
Machold, U, Troeger, K and Moje, M 2003 Gas stunning of pigs: a comparison of carbon dioxide, argon, a nitrogen-argon-mixture and argon/carbon dioxide, (2 steps-system) under animal welfare aspects. Fleischwirtschaft 83: 109–114Google Scholar
Makowska, IJ, Niel, L, Kirkden, RD and Weary, DM 2008 Rats show aversion to argon-induced hypoxia. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 114: 572–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, HL and Schwartzstein, RM 1995 Pathophysiology of dyspnoea. New England Journal of Medicine 333: 1547–1553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeegan, DEF, Smith, FS, Demmers, TGM, Wathes, CM and Jones, RB 2005 Behavioral correlates of olfactory and trigeminal gaseous stimulation in chickens, Gallus domesticus. Physiology & Behavior 84: 761–768CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKeegan, DEF, McIntyre, J, Demmers, TGM, Wathes, CM and Jones, RB 2006 Behavioural responses of broiler chickens during acute exposure to gaseous stimulation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99: 271–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeegan, DEF, McIntyre, JA, Demmers, TGM, Lowe, JC, Wathes, CM, Van den Broek, PLC, Coenen, A and Gentle, M 2007 Physiological and behavioural responses of broilers to controlled atmosphere stunning: implications for welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 409–426Google Scholar
Nicol, CJ, Caplen, G, Edgar, J and Browne, WJ 2009 Associations between welfare indicators and environmental choice in laying hens. Animal Behaviour 78: 413–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, GH and Fletcher, DL 1995 A comparison of argon, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen in a broiler killing system. Poultry Science 74: 1218–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM 1996 Aversive reactions of turkeys to argon, carbon dioxide and a mixture of carbon dioxide and argon. Veterinary Record 138: 592–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM 1997 Novel on-farm killing system. Poultry International August: 48–49Google Scholar
Raj, ABM 1999 Behaviour of pigs exposed to mixtures of gases and the time required to stun and kill them: welfare implications. Veterinary Record 144: 165–168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raj, ABM and Gregory, NG 1990 Effect of rate of induction of carbon dioxide anaesthesia on the time to onset of unconsciousness and convulsions. Research in Veterinary Science 49: 360–363Google Scholar
Raj, ABM and Gregory, NG 1991 Preferential feeding-behaviour of hens in different gaseous atmospheres. British Poultry Science 32: 57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM and Gregory, NG 1993 Time to loss of somatosensory-evoked potentials and onset of changes in the spontaneous electroencephalogram of turkeys during gas stunning. Veterinary Record 133: 318–320CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raj, ABM and O’Callaghan, M 2001 Evaluation of a pneumatically operated captive bolt for stunning/killing broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 42: 295–299CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raj, ABM and Tserveni-Gousi, A 2000 Stunning methods for poultry. World's Poultry Science Journal 56: 291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM, Gregory, NG and Wotton, SB 1991 Changes in the somatosensory evoked potentials and spontaneous electroencephalogram of hens during stunning in argon-induced hypoxia. British Veterinary Journal 147: 322–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM, Sandilands, V and Sparks, NHC 2006 Review of gaseous methods of killing poultry on-farm for disease control purposes. Veterinary Record 159: 229–235CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rioja-Lang, FC, Roberts, DJ, Healy, SD, Lawrence, AB and Haskell, MJ 2009 Dairy cows trade-off feed quality with proximity to a dominant individual in Y-maze choice tests. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 117: 159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, DB, Mortensen, K, Bertelsen, T and Vognbjer, K 2008 Enriching the metabolic cage: effects on rat physiology and behaviour. Animal Welfare 17: 395–403Google Scholar
Struelens, E, Tuyttens, FAM, Ampe, B, Odberg, F, Sonck, B and Duchateau, L 2009 Perch width preferences of laying hens. British Poultry Science 50: 418–423CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, AB and Fletcher, DL 2001 Reactions of laying hens and broilers to different gases used for stunning poultry. Poultry Science 80: 1371–1377CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, AB and Fletcher, DJ 2004 Assessment of the aversion of hens do different gas atmospheres using an approach-avoidance test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88: 275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar