Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:32:39.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of captive bolt to cattle stunning – a survey of stunner placement under practical conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2012

R. Fries ,
K. Schrohe ,
F. Lotz  and
G. Arndt
R. Fries*
Affiliation:
Panel Veterinary Public Health, Institute of Meat Hygiene and Technology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Brümmerstr. 10, 14195 Berlin, Germany
K. Schrohe
Affiliation:
Panel Veterinary Public Health, Institute of Meat Hygiene and Technology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Brümmerstr. 10, 14195 Berlin, Germany
F. Lotz
Affiliation:
Institute of Biometrics and Data Processing, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Oertzenweg 19 B, 14163 Berlin, Germany
G. Arndt
Affiliation:
Institute of Biometrics and Data Processing, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Freie Universität Berlin, Oertzenweg 19 B, 14163 Berlin, Germany
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In two cattle head deboning plants, a total of 8879 cattle skulls were investigated for number and precision of shots. Deviation from the ideal position on the forehead and the direction of the shot were measured, results were then attributed to three classes of precision. In all, 64.7% of the skulls in plant 1 and 65.3% in plant 2 were shot from the ideal position and in the ideal direction. A medium precision was observed in 31.3% and 31.5% of cases, 4.0% and 3.1%, respectively, of the skulls indicated a poor precision. In both plants, skulls with more than one shot hole were observed. Shot holes may indicate the precision of a shot, and thus the risk of suffering during the sensitive time of stunning. In addition to observations at the time of stunning, the observation of shot holes on skulls at random or in total after a day's slaughter can reflect the shooting precision.

Keywords

stunningcattleshot precisioncaptive boltanimal welfare
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 7 , 28 May 2012 , pp. 1124 - 1128
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

AHAW (Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare) 2004. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission Related to Welfare Aspects of the Main Systems of Stunning and Killing the Main Commercial Species of Animals. The EFSA Journal 45, 1–29.Google Scholar
EU 2004. Welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing methods. Scientific Report of the Scientific Panel for Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission Related to Welfare Aspects of Animal Stunning and Killing Methods (Question No. EFSA-Q-2003-093). Accepted on the 15th of June 2004. EFSA – AHAW/04-027.Google Scholar
FAO 2004. Good practices for the meat industry. Section 7, pp. 9, 14. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Foundation Internationale Carrefour, Rome.Google Scholar
Finnie, JW 1995. Neuropathological changes produced by non-penetrating percussive captive bolt stunning of cattle. New Zealand Veterinay Journal 43, 183–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gouveia, KG, Ferreira, PG, Roque da Costa, JC, Vas-Pires, P, Martins da Costa, P 2009. Assessment of the efficiency of captive-bolt stunning in cattle and feasibility of associated behavioural signs. Animal Welfare 18, 171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1998. Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning practices at slaughter plants. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 212, 36–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, NG, Lee, CJ, Widdicombe, JP 2007. Depth of concussion in cattle shot by penetrating captive bolt. Meat Science 77, 499–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagen, U, Paulsen, P, Smulders, FJM, König, HE 2002. Anatomische Überlegungen zur Bolzenschußbetäubung bei Schlachtrindern. Proceedings 43, pp. 109–113. Arbeitstagung des Arbeitsgebietes Lebensmittelhygiene der DVG, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.Google Scholar
Ilgert, H 1985. Effizienz der Bolzenschussbetäubung beim Rind mit Berücksichtigung der Einschussstelle und der Eindringrichtung des Bolzens unter Praxisbedingungen. Dissertation med. vet., Berlin, Germany, Journal No. 1263.Google Scholar
Kaegi, B 1988. Untersuchungen zur Bolzenschussbetäubung beim Rind. Dissertation med.vet., Zürich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Palmer, AC 1982. Concussion: the result of impact injury to the brain. Veterinary Record 111, 575–578.Google ScholarPubMed
Schrohe, K unpublished. Schußpräzision bei der Bolzenschußbetäubung von Rindern. Dissertation med. vet., Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar