Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T11:48:26.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aversion to nitrogen and carbon dioxide mixtures for stunning pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

P Llonch ,
A Dalmau ,
P Rodríguez ,
X Manteca  and
A Velarde
P Llonch
Affiliation:
IRTA, Animal Welfare Subprogram, Finca Camps i Armet s/n, E-17121 Monells (Girona), Spain Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Facultat de Veterinària, Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Campus Bellaterra, edifici V Cerdanyola del Vallès, 08193, Barcelona, Spain
A Dalmau
Affiliation:
IRTA, Animal Welfare Subprogram, Finca Camps i Armet s/n, E-17121 Monells (Girona), Spain
P Rodríguez
Affiliation:
IRTA, Animal Welfare Subprogram, Finca Camps i Armet s/n, E-17121 Monells (Girona), Spain
X Manteca
Affiliation:
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Facultat de Veterinària, Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Campus Bellaterra, edifici V Cerdanyola del Vallès, 08193, Barcelona, Spain
A Velarde*
Affiliation:
IRTA, Animal Welfare Subprogram, 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.

Inhalation of concentrations greater than 30% of carbon dioxide (CO2) by volume in atmospheric air causes aversion in pigs. The objective of this study was to assess, using aversion learning techniques and behavioural studies, the aversion to three alternative gas mixtures of nitrogen (N2) and CO2: 70% N2 and 30% CO2 (70N30C), 80% N2 and 20% CO2 (80N20C) and 85% N2 and 15% CO2 (85N15C). The experiment consisted of two trials of three groups of ten pigs each. Pigs were placed individually at the starting point of the test facility and allowed to enter the crate of a dip-lift stunning system during one control session with atmospheric air and three treatment sessions with one of the gas treatments in each group. When the pit contained any of the three gas mixtures, the time taken to cross the raceway and enter the crate did not increase compared to the control session. However, when exposed to the gas mixtures, the majority (85.80%) of pigs performed attempted retreats in the crate, 22.22% exhibited escape attempts, and 7.91% vocalised, without differences between gas mixtures. The percentage of pigs gasping was higher when exposed to 70N30C compared to 80N20C and 85N15C. The results suggest that pigs show signs of aversion to the inhalation of 15 to 30% CO2 in nitrogen atmosphere compared to atmospheric air but the aversion response did not increase in consecutive sessions.

Keywords

animal welfareaversioncarbon dioxidenitrogenpigsstunning
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , February 2012 , pp. 33 - 39
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Broom, DM 2000 Welfare assessment and welfare problems areas during handling and transport. In: Grandin, T (ed) Livestock Handling and Transport pp 43–61. CABI Publishing: New York, NY, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalmau, A, Llonch, P, Rodríguez, P, Ruíz-de-la-Torre, JL, Manteca, X and Velarde, A 2010a Stunning pigs with different gas mixtures. Part 1: gas stability. Animal Welfare 19: 315–323Google Scholar
Dalmau, A, Rodríguez, P, Llonch, P and Velarde, A 2010b Stunning pigs with different gas mixtures. Part 2: aversion in pigs. Animal Welfare 19: 324–333Google Scholar
Dodman, NH 1977 Observations on the use of the Wernburg dip-lift carbon dioxide apparatus for pre-slaughter anaesthesia of pigs. British Veterinary Journal 133: 71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 2009 The protection of animals at the time of killing. European Community Official Journal L303: 1–30Google Scholar
EFSA 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. 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.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernsting, J 1963 The effect of brief profound hypoxia upon the arterial and venous oxygen tensions in man. Journal of Physiology 169: 292CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ernsting, J 1965 The effect of anoxia on the central nervous system. In: Gillies, JA (ed) A Textbook of Aviation Physiology pp 271–289. Pergamon Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Forslid, A 1992 Muscle spasms during pre-slaughter carbon dioxide anaesthesia in swine. Fleischwirtschaft 72: 167–168Google Scholar
Gregory, NG 1995 Recent developments in gas stunning pigs. Meat Industry Research Conference 9B: 1–4Google Scholar
Gregory, NG, Moss, B and Leeson, R 1987 An assessment of carbon dioxide stunning in pigs. 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 CO2 stunning of slaughter pigs: Effects on EEG, catecholamines and clinical reflexes. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift 109: 135–139Google ScholarPubMed
Manning, HL and Schwartzstein, RM 1995 Pathophysiology of Dyspnea. New England Journal of Medicine 333: 1547–1553CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 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 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, Johnson, SP, Wotton, SB and McInstry, JL 1997 Welfare implications of gas stunning of pigs 3. The time to loss of somatosensory evoked potentials and spontaneous electrocorticogram of pigs during exposure to gases. The Veterinary Journal 153: 329–340CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodríguez, P, Dalmau, A, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, JL, Manteca, X, Jensen, EW, Rodríguez, B, Litvan, H and Velarde, A 2008 Assessment of unconsciousness during carbon dioxide stunning in pigs. Animal Welfare 17: 341–349Google Scholar
Rushen, J 1986 The validity of behavioural measures of aversion: a review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 16: 309–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushen, J 1996 Using aversion learning techniques to assess the mental state, suffering, and welfare of farm animals. Journal of Animal Science 74: 1990–1995CrossRefGoogle 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, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, JL, Stub, C, Diestre, A and Manteca, X 2000 Factors affecting the effectiveness of head-only electrical stunning in sheep. Veterinary Record 147: 40–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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