Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-pwrkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T07:13:28.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Licensing poultry CO2 gas-stunning systems with regard to animal welfare: investigations under practical conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

K von Holleben ,
M von Wenzlawowicz  and
E Eser
K von Holleben*
Affiliation:
Bsi Schwarzenbek, Postbox 1469, 21487 Schwarzenbek, Germany
M von Wenzlawowicz
Affiliation:
Bsi Schwarzenbek, Postbox 1469, 21487 Schwarzenbek, Germany
E Eser
Affiliation:
Bsi Schwarzenbek, Postbox 1469, 21487 Schwarzenbek, Germany
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Carbon dioxide stunning of broilers is not permitted in Germany. However, the competent authority can license a system for testing, during which scientific evaluation with regard to animal welfare is required. Between 2004 and 2011 several aspects of three systems have been evaluated in Germany and Italy under practical conditions including: (i) supply to the stunning system; (ii) induction conditions; (iii) stunning effectiveness; and (iv) process control. The systems were: (i) LINCO progressive gas-stunning system in which broilers in their transport crates are lowered stepwise into a pit filled with CO2 and exposed to slowly increasing concentrations of CO2 in air up to between 50 and 65% with total dwell times between 275 and 440 s depending on birds’ weight; (ii) Stork PMT two-phase gas-stunning system (40% CO2/30% O2/30%N2 for 1 min/80% CO2 for 2 min) in which broilers are tipped onto a belt, on which they pass through the gas atmospheres; and (iii) Anglia Autoflow two-phase CO2-stunning system, in which the birds are exposed to the atmosphere in their crates. Results on the third system are pending as the investigation is still ongoing. In systems (i) and (ii) analysis of behaviour showed that birds were only exposed to high CO2 concentration (> 40%) after becoming unconscious. Stunning effectiveness was very high but, nevertheless, occasionally birds (0.027% LINCO system and 0.003% Stork PMT system) were able to regain consciousness. Examples of evaluation of behaviour during induction are presented in this paper and animal welfare aspects are compared. Controlled-atmosphere stunning systems for broilers using less than 40% CO2 until animals are unconscious, show obvious advantages compared to electrical water-bath stunning, for example, the avoidance of shackling and achieving high stunning effectiveness.

Keywords

animal welfarebroilerCO2 stunningCASkey parametersmonitoring points
Type
Papers
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue S2: Proceedings of the HSA Centenary International Symposium ‘Recent Advances in the Welfare of Livestock at Slaughter’ Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UK, 2011 , June 2012 , pp. 103 - 111
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

Barton Gade, P, von Holleben, K and von Wenzlawowicz, M 2001 Animal welfare and Controlled Atmosphere Stunning (CAS) of poultry using mixtures of carbon dioxide and oxygen. Report of a Symposium held in Oldenburg, Germany on 4 December 2000. World's Poultry Science Journal 57: 189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coenen, A, Smit, A, Zhonghua, L and van Luijtelaar, G 2000 Gas mixtures for anaesthesia and euthanasia in broiler chickens. World's Poultry Science Journal 56: 225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnington, EA and Siegel, PB 1986 Frequency of headshaking in White Leghorn Chickens in response to hormonal and environmental changes. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 267–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(86)90097-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 255–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00214-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeegan, DEF, McIntyre, J, Demmers, TGM, Wathes, CM and Jones, RB 2006 Behavioural responses of broiler chickens during acute exposure to gaseous stimulation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99: 261–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeegan, DEF, McIntyre, J, Demmers, TGM, Lowe, JC, Wathes, CM, van den Broek, PLC, Coenen, AML and Gentle, MJ 2007 Physiological and behavioural responses of broiler to controlled atmosphere stunning: implications for welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 409–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM, Wotton, SB and Gregory, NG 1992 Changes in the somatosensory evoked potentials and spontaneous electroencephalogram of hens during stunning with carbon dioxide and argon mixture. British Veterinary Journal 148: 147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AB and Fletcher, DL 2001 Reaction of laying hens and broiler to different gases used for stunning poultry. Poultry Science 80: 1371–1377CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, AB and Fletcher, DL 2004 Assessment of the aversion of hens to different gas atmospheres using an approach-avoidance test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88: 257–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar