Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:58:48.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Humane euthanasia of neonates II: field study of the effectiveness of the Zephyr EXL non-penetrating captive-bolt system for euthanasia of newborn piglets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

A Grist ,
TG Knowles  and
SB Wotton
A Grist*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, North Somerset, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
TG Knowles
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, North Somerset, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
SB Wotton
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, North Somerset, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
*
∗ 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.

A previous study demonstrated the effectiveness of the Bock Industries Zephyr EXL non-penetrating captive bolt, using the abolition of visual-evoked potentials as a determination of brain death, in piglets in a laboratory. A second trial, reported here, involved the field-testing of this device, on-farm, in a commercial setting. Two hundred and seven piglets (mean [± SEM] dead weight: 1.86 [± 0.74] kg) requiring dispatch under the farm's protocols were euthanased with the device and demonstrated immediate loss of consciousness, subjectively assessed by behavioural signs and no recovery. Post mortem examination of the heads was undertaken confirming massive traumatic damage to the cerebrum with associated haemorrhage and bone plate shards forced down to the level of the corpus callosum in the majority of cases. A further trial of 106 piglets demonstrated that under commercial production conditions it took less than 7 s to select, place and euthanase a piglet using the device. One hundred percent of animals in the study were immediately killed. Given this complete kill rate and the sample size of the study, a statistical 95% confidence interval provides a maximum percentage of animals that would not immediately be stunned/killed, by this mechanical non-penetrating captive-bolt system, to be at most 1.2% and at least 0%. The results here, combined with the previous study, allow recommendation of the Bock Industries Zephyr EXL as being suitable as a single application euthanasia device for piglets up to 10.9 kg liveweight.

Keywords

animal welfarecaptive bolteuthanasiamechanical stunningpigletZephyr EXL
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , November 2018 , pp. 319 - 326
Copyright
© 2018 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Altman, DG, Machin, D, Bryant, TN and Gardner, MJ 2000 Statistics with Confidence, Second Edition. BMJ Books: London, UKGoogle Scholar
AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) 2013 Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Section M3.4 Manually Applied Blunt Force Trauma to the Head p 36. AVMA: USAGoogle Scholar
Casey-Trott, TM, Millman, ST, Turner, PV, Nykamp, SG, Lawlis, PC and Widowksi, TM 2014 Effectiveness of a non-pentrating captive bolt for euthanasia of 3 kg to 9 kg pigs. Journal of Animal Science 92: 5166–5174. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-7980Google Scholar
Casey-Trott, TM, Millman, ST, Turner, PV, Nykamp, SG and Widowksi, TM 2013 Effectiveness of a non-pentrating captive bolt for euthanasia of piglets less than 3 d of age. Journal of Animal Science 91: 5477–5484. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council Regulation (EC) 2009 Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing. Official Journal of the European Union 18.11.2009Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2013 Guidance on the assessment criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning interventions regarding animal protection at the time of killing. EFSA Journal 11(12): 3486Google Scholar
Farm Animal Welfare Committee (FAWC) 2017 Opinion on the welfare of animals killed on-farm. https://www.gov.uk/govern-ment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/695225/fawc-opinion-welfare-of-animals-killed-on-farm-march2018.pdfGoogle Scholar
Gemus-Benjamin, M, Kramer, S, Bratton, A and Conklin, T 2015 A perspective of stockpersons and the humane euthanasia of swine. MSU Pork Quarterly Vol 20, No1 March 2015Google Scholar
Grist, A, Murrell, J, McKinstry, JL, Knowles, TG and Wotton, SB 2017 Humane euthanasia of neonates I: Validation of the effectiveness of the Zephyr EXL non-penetrating captive bolt system for euthanasia of new-born and weaned piglets up to 10 kg. Animal Welfare 26: 111–120. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.26.1.111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guertin, PA 2009 The mammalian central pattern generator for locomotion. Brain Research Reviews 62(1): 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2009.08.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hewitt, L 2000 The development of a novel device for humanely dis-patching casualty poultry. PhD Thesis, University of Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Matthis, JS 2004 Selected employee attributes and perceptions regarding methods and animal welfare concerns associated with swine euthanasia. PhD Dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USAGoogle Scholar
Pearson, KG, Misiaszek, JE and Fouad, K 1998 Enhancement and resetting of locomotor activity by muscle afferents. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 860: 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb09050.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saposnik, G, Bueri, JA, Mauriño, J, Saizar, R and Garretto, NS Spontaneous and reflex movements in brain death. American Academy of Neurology 2000: 221Google Scholar
Sharp, TM, McLeod, SR, Leggett, KEA and Gibson, TJ 2014 Evaluation of a spring-powered captive bolt gun for killing kanga-roo pouch young. Wildlife Research 41: 623–632. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR14094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spittler, JF, Wortmann, D, von Düring, M and Gehlen, W 2000 Phenomenological diversity of spinal reflexes in brain death. European Journal of Neurology 7: 315–321. https://doi.org 10.1046/j.1468-1331.2000.00062.xGoogle ScholarPubMed
St John, WM 2009 Noeud vital for breathing in the brainstem: Gasping—yes, eupnoea—doubtful. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences 364: 2625–2633. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, 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
Terlouw, EMC, Bourguet, C, Deiss, V and Mallet, C 2016 Consciousness, unconsciousness and death in the context of slaughter, Part II. Evaluation methods Meat Science 118: 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.03.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
US Humane Slaughter Act 7 USC 1901 – 1907 Section 1902(Pub L 85-765, § 2, Aug 27 1958, 72 Stat 862; Pub L 95-445, § 5(a), Oct 10 1978, 92 Stat 1069). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/1902Google Scholar
Wijdicks, EFM 1995 Determining brain death in adults. Neurology 45: 1003–1011. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.45.5.1003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed