Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:07:40.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of penetrating and non-penetrating captive bolt in an alternative occipital approach in calves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

SL Collins ,
J Kull ,
C Benham ,
P Krawczel ,
KD Donohue  and
M Caldwell
SL Collins
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, 2407 River Dr, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
J Kull
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
C Benham
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, 2407 River Dr, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
P Krawczel
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
KD Donohue
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA
M Caldwell*
Affiliation:
Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, 2407 River Dr, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence: [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 objective of this study was to describe the effect of penetrating or non-penetrating captive bolt using an occipital approach in 4-5 month old, Holstein steers weighing between 100-200 kg. Twelve calves were divided into two treatment groups; penetrating captive bolt (PCB; n = 6) and non-penetrating captive bolt (NPCB; n = 6). This sample size was chosen out of convenience and in conjunction with a separate study. Each calf was sedated with xylazine hydrochloride, then a captive-bolt device, outfitted with a standard penetrating bolt or a non-penetrating bolt, was placed flush on the dorsal midline of the cranium at the external occipital protuberance and aimed downward as though to intersect the intermandibular area. Following impact, indicators for loss of consciousness, such as respiration, righting response, corneal reflex, movement and vocalisation were recorded and characterised along with electrocardiogram and electroencephalogram recordings. After a 5-min observation period, all calves were administered potassium chloride. All calves experienced immediate and sustained loss of consciousness. The mean (± SEM) time to cessation of respiration was 60 (± 53.67) and 0 (± 0.0) s for PCB and NPCB, respectively. The mean time to cessation of convulsions was 310.4 (± 79.74) and 180.0 (± 60.24) s, respectively, and the mean number of convulsions was 2.75 (± 1.03) and 2.0 (± 0.837) for PCB and NPCB, respectively. Isoelectric EEG patterns were observed in 3/5 PCB and 3/4 NPCB with mean time to onset of isoelectric pattern in 69.0 (±52.24) and 113.5 (± 56.87) s. Both treatments induced a successful stun, which suggests these techniques are appropriate for humane euthanasia in calves of this age.

Keywords

animal welfarecattleeuthanasianon-penetrating captive boltoccipital approachpenetrating captive bolt
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 59 - 67
Copyright
© 2020 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Collins, SL, Caldwell, M, Hecht, S and Whitlock, BK 2017 Comparison of penetrating and nonpenetrating captive bolt meth-ods in horned goats. American Journal of Veterinary Research 78:151–157. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.78.2.151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, C and Whittington, P 1989 Investigation into the princi-pal determinants of effective captive bolt stunning of sheep. Research in Veterinary Science 46: 406–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-5288(18)31189-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnie, J 1995 Neuropathological changes produced by non-pen-etrating percussive captive bolt stunning of cattle. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 43: 183–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.1995.35886CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fricker, C and Riek, W 1981 Pre-slaughter stunning of cattle with a captive bolt apparatus. Fleischwirtschaft 61: 124–126Google Scholar
Gibson, T, Johnson, C, Murrell, J, Chambers, J, Stafford, K and Mellor, D 2009a Amelioration of electroencephalographic responses to slaughter by non-penetrative captive-bolt stunning after ventral-neck incision in halothane-anaesthetised calves. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 57: 96–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2009.36885CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, T, Johnson, C, Murrell, J, Mitchinson, S, Stafford, K and Mellor, D 2009b Electroencephalographic responses to con-cussive non-penetrative captive-bolt stunning in halothane-anaes-thetised calves. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 57: 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2009.36884CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, T, Ridler, AR, Lamb, C, Williams, A, Giles, S and Gregory, N 2012 Preliminary evaluation of the effectiveness of captive-bolt guns as a killing method without exsanguination for horned and unhorned sheep. Animal Welfare 21(S2): 35–42. https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13353700593446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, TJ, Johnson, CB, Stafford, KJ, Mitchinson, SL and Mellor, DJ 2007 Validation of the acute electroencephalographic responses of calves to noxious stimulus with scoop dehorning. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 55: 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2007.36760CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilliam, J, Woods, J, Hill, J, Shearer, J, Reynolds, J and Taylor, J 2018 Evaluation of the CASH Dispatch Kit combined with alter-native shot placement landmarks as a single-step euthanasia method for cattle of various ages. Animal Welfare 27: 225–233. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.27.3.225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1991 Recommended animal handling guidelines for meat packers. Colorado State University Libraries: Colorado, USAGoogle Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.2002.221.1258CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, N and Shaw, F 2000 Penetrating captive bolt stunning and exsanguination of cattle in abattoirs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 3: 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1207/S 15327604JAWS0303_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, NG, Lee, CJ and Widdicombe, JP 2007 Depth of concussion in cattle shot by penetrating captive bolt. Meat Science 77: 499–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.04.026CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grist, A, Lines, JA, Knowles, TG, Mason, CW and Wotton, SB 2018a The use of a mechanical non-penetrating captive bolt device for the euthanasia of neonate lambs. Animals 8: 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8040049CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grist, A, Lines, JA, Knowles, TG, Mason, CW and Wotton, SB 2018b Use of a non-penetrating captive bolt for euthanasia of neonate goats. Animals 8: 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8040058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grist, A, Lines, JA, Knowles, TG, Mason, CW and Wotton, SB 2018c The use of a non-penetrating captive bolt for the euthanasia of neonate piglets. Animals 8: 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8040048CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambooij, E, Van der Werf, J, Reimert, H and Hindle, V 2012 Restraining and neck cutting or stunning and neck cutting of veal calves. Meat Science 91: 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.11.041CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leary, SL, Underwood, W, Anthony, R, Gwaltney-Brant, S, Poison, A and Meyer, R 2013 AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals, 2013 Edition. American Veterinary Medical Association: Schaumburg, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
Martin, MS, Kline, HC, Wagner, DR, Alexander, LR, Edwards-Callaway, LN and Grandin, T 2018 Evaluation of dif-ferent captive bolt lengths and breed influence upon post-stun hind limb and forelimb activity in fed cattle at a commercial slaughter facility. Meat Science 143: 159–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, R 2015 Physiologic measures of animal stress during tran-sitional states of consciousness. Animals 5: 702–716. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani5030380CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliveira, SEO, Dalla Costa, FA, Gibson, TJ, Dalla Costa, OA, Coldebella, A and Gregory, NG 2018 Evaluation of brain damage resulting from penetrating and non–penetrating stunning in Nelore Cattle using pneumatically powered captive bolt guns. Meat Science 145: 347–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.07.016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panel, A 2004 Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to wel-fare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing the main commercial species of animals. The EFSA Journal 45: 29. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2004.45Google Scholar
Prins, M, Greco, T, Alexander, D and Giza, CC 2013 The pathophysiology of traumatic brain injury at a glance. Disease Models & Mechanisms 6: 1307–1315. https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.011585Google ScholarPubMed
Sánchez-Barrera, IC, Albarracin, W and Rojas, MJ 2014 Electroencephalographic spectrum power of sheep's brain after stunning. Journal of Applied Animal Research 42: 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2013.822805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shearer, JK 2018 Euthanasia of cattle: Practical considerations and application. Animals 8(4): 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8040057CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Terlouw, EC, Bourguet, C, Deiss, V and Mallet, C 2015 Origins of movements following stunning and during bleeding in cattle. Meat Science 110: 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.07.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service 2013 Humane methods of slaughter 313.15 Mechanical – captive bolt p 29. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/76a541e6-ae51-4b98-baa1-2718d00a9ed0/Petition-AWI-Humane-Slaughter-052013.pdf?MOD=AJPERESGoogle Scholar
Welty, J 2007 Humane slaughter laws. Law and Contemporary Problems 70: 175–206Google Scholar