Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T13:55:03.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of pre-stun shocks in electrical water-bath stunners on carcase and meat quality in broilers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

MA Rao ,
TG Knowles  and
SB Wotton
MA Rao*
Affiliation:
Euro Quality Lambs Ltd, Euro House, Dale Street, Craven Arms SY7 9PA, UK
TG Knowles
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
SB Wotton
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this study was to identify the extent of pre-stun shocks in a commercial broiler processing plant and to collect any evidence of their effect on broiler carcase and meat quality. The results showed that the degree of bird movement on entry to the water-bath was related to the incidence of pre-stun shocks, with heavier male birds showing less movement and correspondingly lower levels of pre-stun shocks. In a separate trial, 500 birds identified as receiving a pre-stun shock were compared with 500 control birds (no pre-stun shock). They were assessed for carcase downgrading conditions, red wing tips, wing haemorrhages, shoulder haemorrhages, breast muscle haemorrhages, the incidence of broken pectoral bones and also for meat quality defects. All downgrading conditions were subjectively assessed using photographic standards. The results of this study have shown that the incidence of pre-stun shocks has a significant effect both on carcase downgrading conditions and on meat quality. Pre-stun shocks are preventable and the poultry processing industry can improve both bird welfare and carcase and meat quality by ensuring that they do not occur.

Keywords

animal welfarecarcase qualityelectrical stunningmiss-stunpre-stun shockswater-bath stunner
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 22 , Issue 1: Including selected abstracts from the WSPA/Defra Whale Welfare and Ethics Workshop, March 2011 , February 2013 , pp. 79 - 84
Copyright
© 2013 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

Council Regulation 2009 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing. EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) 2009 Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing, Part Two: White Meat Animals. FAWC: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Hindle, VA, Lambooij, E, Reimert, HGM, Workel, LD and Gerritzen, MA 2010 Animal welfare concerns during the use of the waterbath for stunning broilers, hens, and ducks. Poultry Science 89: 401–412. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humane Slaughter Association 2006 Prevention of pre-stun shocks in electrical waterbaths. Technical note. HSA: Wheathampstead, Herts, UKGoogle Scholar
Liao, CY, Wang, CY, Feidu, SJ, Hsu, T-S and King, YT 2009 Effects of ante mortem struggling behaviour on the quality of duck carcasses. The Veterinary Record 164: 557–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.164.18.557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prinz, S 2009 Electrical waterbath stunning: effects of electrical parameters on the electroencephalogram and physical reflexes of broilers. PhD Thesis, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM and Tserveni-Gousi, A 2000 Stunning methods for poultry. World's Poultry Science Journal 56: 292–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Arnold, C, Auperin, B, Berri, C, Bihan-Duval, ELE, Deiss, V, Lefevre, F, Lensink, BJ and Mounier, L 2008 Pre-slaughter conditions, animals stress and welfare: current status and possible future research. The Animal Consortium 2(10): 1501–1517Google ScholarPubMed
Veerkamp, CH, Rincker, AHH, Pieterse, C and de Vries, AN 1987 Onderzoek naar de invloed van verdovingskondities op de kwaliteit van slachtkvikens. Spelderholt: Beekbergen, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Research into the influence of stunning conditions on the quality of broilers]Google Scholar
WASK 1995 The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations, Statutory Instrument No 731. HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, LJ, Gregory, NG, Wotton, SB and Parkman, ID 1998 Effectiveness of electrical stunning applied using a variety of waveform-frequency combinations and consequences for carcase quality in broiler chickens. British Poultry Science 39: 511–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071669888692CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, JG and Brunson, CC 1968 The effects of handling and slaughter method on the incidence of haemorrhagic thighs in broilers. Poultry Science 47: 1315–1318. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.0471315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wotton, SB 2000 Welfare and quality concerns with the operation of poultry waterbath stunners and the development of an electronic monitoring device. MSc Dissertation, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Wotton, SB and Gregory, NG 1991 How to prevent pre-stun shocks in waterbath stunners. Turkeys 39(2): 15–30Google Scholar
Wotton, SB and Wilkins, LJ 2004 Primary processing of poultry. In: Weeks CA and Butterworth (eds) Measuring and Auditing Broiler Welfare pp 161–180. CABI: Wallingford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar