Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:06:06.048Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of unconsciousness during carbon dioxide stunning in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

P Rodríguez ,
A Dalmau ,
JL Ruiz-de-la-Torre ,
X Manteca ,
EW Jensen ,
B Rodríguez ,
H Litvan  and
A Velarde
P Rodríguez
Affiliation:
IRTA, Finca Camps i Armet s/n, E-17121 Monells (Girona), Spain
A Dalmau
Affiliation:
IRTA, Finca Camps i Armet s/n, E-17121 Monells (Girona), Spain
JL Ruiz-de-la-Torre
Affiliation:
Department de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Facultat de Veterinària, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
X Manteca
Affiliation:
Department de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Facultat de Veterinària, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
EW Jensen
Affiliation:
Morpheus Medical Ed, Barcelona Activa, Llacuna Number 162, 08018 Barcelona, Spain
B Rodríguez
Affiliation:
Danmeter Research Group, Kildemosevej 13, 5000 Odense C, Denmark
H Litvan
Affiliation:
Department of Cardiac Anaesthesia and Postoperative Intensive Care, Cirugia Cardiovascular, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, 08025 Barcelona, Spain
A Velarde*
Affiliation:
IRTA, Finca Camps i Armet s/n, E-17121 Monells (Girona), Spain
*
* 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.

The aim of this study was to assess unconsciousness in pigs during exposure to CO2 through changes in the middle latency auditory evoke potentials (MLAEP) of the central nervous system (CNS), blood parameters (pH, carbon dioxide partial pressure [pCO2], oxygen partial pressure [pO2], oxygen saturation [SatO2] and bicarbonate [HCO−3]), behaviour and the corneal reflex. The MLEAP did not decrease significantly until after 60 s exposure to CO2. The blood parameters (decreased pH, pO2 and SatO2 and increased pCO2 and HCO3) changed 53 s after the onset of immersion. The burst suppression index (BS%) and the A-line ARX index (AAI) from the MLEAP recovered basal levels at 136 and 249 s, respectively. The first blood parameter to return to basal levels was HCO−3 at 76 s of exposure, followed by SatO2 at 180 s, pH and pO2 at 210 s and pCO2 at 240 s. During exposure to the gas, pigs exhibited lateral head movements and sneezing (10.3 s), gasping (23.5 s) and vocalisation (26.1 s). Furthermore, all pigs demonstrated muscular excitation after between 19 and 39 s exposure, when the AAI and BS% values were not significantly different from basal values. It was suggested, therefore, that these excitatory movements represent conscious movement, indicative of aversion to the gas. According to our results, loss of consciousness began, on average, after 60 s inhalation of 90% CO2. During exposure to the gas, decreased brain activity was seen, immediately following the changes in blood parameters. Following exposure, the restoration of blood parameters to basal levels allows a return to normal brain activity.

Keywords

animal welfareauditory evoke potentialaversionblood gascarbon dioxide stunningpigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , November 2008 , pp. 341 - 349
Copyright
© 2008 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anil, MH and McKinstry, JL 1991 Reflexes and loss of sensibility following head-to-back electrical stunning in sheep. The Veterinary Record 128: 106–107CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cameron, AC and Trivedi, PK 1998 Regression Analysis of Count Data. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
EFSA 2004 Welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing methods. Scientific report of the Scientific Panel of Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission. Question. Adopted on the 15th of June 2004. Brussels, Belgium. http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/ahaw/ahaw_opinions/495/opinion_ahaw_02_ej45_stunning_report_v2_en1.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forslid, A 1987 Transient neocortical, hippocampal and amygdaloid EEG silence induced by one minute inhalation of high concentration CO2 in swine. Acta Physiological Scandinavica 130: 1–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, NG, Moss, B and Leeson, R 1987 An assessment of carbon dioxide stunning in pigs. The Veterinary Record 121: 517–518CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, NG, Raj, ABM, Audsley, ARS and Daly, CC 1990 Effects of carbon dioxide on man. Flieschwirtschaft 70: 1173–1174Google Scholar
Hartung, J, Nowak, B, Waldmann, KH and Ellerbrock, S 2002 Carbon dioxide anaesthesia of pigs for slaughter: Influence of EEG, distribution of catecholamines and clinical reflexes. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 109: 135–139Google Scholar
Hoenderken, R 1983 Electrical and carbon dioxide stunning of pigs for slaughter. In: Eikelenboom, G (ed) Stunning of Animals for Slaughter pp 55–63. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: Boston, USAGoogle Scholar
Holst, S 2001 CO2 stunning of pigs for slaughter, practical guidelines for good animal welfare. 47th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology. 27-31 August 2001, Krakow, PolandGoogle Scholar
Jensen, EW, Lindholm, P and Henneberg, SW 1996 Autoregressive modelling with exogenous input of middle-latency auditory-evoked potentials to measure rapid changes in depth of anaesthesia. Methods of Information in Medicine 35: 256–260Google Scholar
Jensen, EW, Marianne, N and Oteen, WH 1998 On-line analysis of middle latency auditory evoked potentials (MLAEP) for monitoring depth of anaesthesia in laboratory rats. Medical Engineering & Physics 20: 722–728CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, EW 1999 Monitoring depth of anaesthesia by auditory evoked potentials. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Winsløwparken 19, 3 DK-5000 Odense C, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Kokholm, G 1990 Simultaneous measurements of blood pH, pCO2, pO2 and concentrations of haemoglobin and its derivates - a multicenter study. Scandinavian Journal of Clinical Laboratory Investigation Supplementum 203: 75–86CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Litvan, H, Jensen, EW, Revuelta, M, Henneberg, SW, Paniagua, P, Campos, JM, Martínez, P, Caminal, P and Villar Landeira, JM 2002 Comparison of Auditory Evoked Potentials and the A-line ARX index for monitoring the hypnotic level during sevoflurane and propofol induction. Acta Anaesthetic Scandinavica 46: 245–252CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lomholt, L 1998 Changes in blood gases and acid-base values during high concentration pre-slaughter CO2 stunning of pigs. PhD Thesis, Department of Anatomy and Physiology, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
Manning, HL and Schwartzstein, RM 1995 Pathophysiology of dyspnea. New England Journal of Medicine 333: 1547–1553CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martoft, L, Jensen, EW, Rodriguez, BE, Jorgensen, PF, Forslid, A and Pedersen, HD 2001 Middle-latency auditory evoked potentials during induction of thiopentone anaesthesia in pigs. Laboratory Animals 35(4): 353–363CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martoft, L, Lomholt, L, Kolthoff, C, Rodríguez, BE, Jensen, EW, Jorgensen, PF, Pedersen, HD and Forslid, A 2002 Effects of CO2 anaesthesia on central nervous system activity in swine. Laboratory Animals 36(2): 115–126CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murillo, D 1995 Control of respiration. In: AG Sacristan (ed) Veterinary Physiology pp 409–417. McGraw-Hill Interamericana: Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
Panella, N, Dalmau, A, Fàbrega, E, Font, I, Furnols, M, Gispert, M, Tibau, J, Soler, J, Velarde, A, Oliver, MA and Gil, M 2008 Effect of supplementation with MgCO3 and L-tryptophan on the welfare and on the carcass and meat quality of two halothane pigs genotype (NN and nn). Livestock Science 115: 107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM and Gregory, NG 1995 Welfare implications of the gas stunning of pigs 1. Determination of aversion to the initial inhalation of carbon dioxide or argon. Animal Welfare 4: 273–280Google 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 and Gregory, NG 1996 Welfare implications of gas stunning of pigs 2. Stress of induction of anaesthesia. Animal Welfare 5: 71–78Google Scholar
Raj, ABM 1999 Behaviour of pigs exposed to mixtures of gases and the time required to stun and kill them: welfare implications. The Veterinary Record 144: 165–168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS 2001 SAS for Windows Release v8.2. SAS Institute Inc: Cary, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
Thornton, C, Konieczko, KM, Knight, AB, Kaul, B, Jones, JG, Dore, CJ and White, DC 1989 Effect of propofol on the auditory evoked response and oesophageal contractility. British Journal Anaesthesia 63: 411–417CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Troeger, K and Woltersdorf, W 1991 Gas anaesthesia of slaughter pigs. Stunning experiments under laboratory conditions with fat pigs of known halothane reaction type: meat quality and animal protection. Fleischwirtschaft 71: 1063–1068Google Scholar
Velarde, A, Cruz, J, Gispert, M, Carrión, D, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, JL, Diestre, A and Manteca, X 2007 Aversion to carbon dioxide stunning in pigs: effect of the carbon dioxide concentration and the halothane genotype. Animal Welfare 16: 513–522Google Scholar
Velarde, A, Gispert, M, Faucitano, L, Alonso, P, Manteca, X and Diestre, A 2001 Effects of the stunning procedure and the halothane genotype on meat quality a incident of haemorrhages in pigs. Meat Science 58: 313–319CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Velarde, A, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, JL, Stub, C, Diestre, A and Manteca, X 2000 Factors affecting the effectiveness of head-only electrical stunning in sheep. The Veterinary Record 147: 40–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed