Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:43:45.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hot-water spraying is a sensitive test for signs of life before dressing and scalding in pig abattoirs with carbon dioxide (CO2) stunning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2015

S. Parotat ,
K. von Holleben ,
S. Arnold ,
K. Troeger  and
E. Luecker
S. Parotat*
Affiliation:
Training and Consultancy Institute for animal welfare at transport and slaughter (bsi Schwarzenbek), PO Box 1469, 21487 Schwarzenbek, Germany Institute of Food Hygiene, Leipzig University, An den Tierkliniken 1, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
K. von Holleben
Affiliation:
Training and Consultancy Institute for animal welfare at transport and slaughter (bsi Schwarzenbek), PO Box 1469, 21487 Schwarzenbek, Germany
S. Arnold
Affiliation:
Department of Safety and Quality of Meat, Max Rubner-Institut (Federal Research Institute of Nutrition and Food), E.C.-Baumann-Str. 20, 95326 Kulmbach, Germany
K. Troeger
Affiliation:
Department of Safety and Quality of Meat, Max Rubner-Institut (Federal Research Institute of Nutrition and Food), E.C.-Baumann-Str. 20, 95326 Kulmbach, Germany
E. Luecker
Affiliation:
Institute of Food Hygiene, Leipzig University, An den Tierkliniken 1, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This study investigated the benefits of hot-water spraying (HWS) as a diagnostic test to verify the absence of signs of life (SOL) before scalding in pigs slaughtered with carbon dioxide (CO2) stunning. A total of 37 108 finishing pigs from five German abattoirs (A to E) operating at 55 to 571 pigs per hour were assessed. Suspended pigs were sprayed onto the muzzle, head and front legs (143 to 258 s post sticking for 4 to 10 s, 57°C to 72°C). Any active movements during HWS were rated as positive test outcomes. In comparison, SOL were considered to be absent if a subsequent manual examination was negative and no active movements were observed following HWS. The incidence of pigs with activity during hot-water spraying (PWA) was restricted to two abattoirs (B: 0.25%; D: 0.02%; A, C, E: 0.00%). PWA showed movements of facial muscles (88%), mouth opening (78%), righting reflex (63%), isolated leg movements (35%) and vocalization (4%). The manual examination was positive in 71% of PWA (corneal/dazzle reflex: 67%/53%, nasal septum pinch: 33%), whereas all inactive pigs tested negative (P<0.001). The sensitivity for HWS as a test for SOL was calculated as 100%, dropping to 75% when only obvious and strong movements were taken into account. The specificity was >99.9% in either case. Any positive manual findings as well as any respiratory activity were instantly terminated using a penetrating captive bolt. Active movements triggered by the shot were shown to be an indicator for SOL (P<0.001). Video analyses revealed that spontaneous movements (SM) following sticking were present in 100% of PWA as opposed to 3.1% in pigs without such activity (controls). Results for different categories of SM in PWA v. controls were as follows: 100% v. 2.6% for mouth opening, 16.0% v. 0.1% for righting reflex and 22.0% v. 0.9% for isolated leg movements (all P<0.001). First mouth opening after sticking was observed later in PWA (28±24 v. 10±7 s), but mouth openings were observed for a longer period of time (141±44 v. 27±25 s) (both P<0.001). PWA with shorter mouth-opening intervals showed higher movement intensities during HWS and more positive manual findings (P<0.05). We conclude that HWS is a promising test for SOL. SM and sustained mouth opening in particular are indicators for compromised animal welfare and affected pigs should be shot by captive bolt.

Keywords

pigsslaughtercarbon dioxidehemorrhageanimal welfare
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , February 2016 , pp. 326 - 332
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Alkire, MT, Hudetz, AG and Tononi, G 2008. Consciousness and anesthesia. Science 322, 876–880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anil, MH, Whittington, PE and McKinstry, JL 2000. The effect of the sticking method on the welfare of slaughter pigs. Meat Science 55, 315–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antognini, JF, Barter, L and Carstens, E 2005. Overview - movement as an index of anesthetic depth in humans and experimental animals. Comparative Medicine 55, 413–418.Google ScholarPubMed
Arnold, S, Parotat, S, Moje, M, Machtolf, M, von Wenzlawowicz, M, Troeger, K and Luecker, E 2014. Ascertaining death in pig slaughter using hot water. Paper presented at the 60th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, August 17-22, 2014, Punta del Este, Uruguay.Google Scholar
Atkinson, S, Velarde, A, Llonch, P and Algers, B 2012. Assessing pig welfare at stunning in Swedish commercial abattoirs using CO2 group-stun methods. Animal Welfare 21, 487–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackmore, DK and Newhook, JC 1981. Insensibility during slaughter of pigs in comparison to other domestic stock. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 29, 219–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 2009. EC of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing. Official Journal of the European Union L 303, 1–30.Google Scholar
EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) 2013. Scientific opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for pigs. EFSA Journal 11, 1–62.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2004. Opinion of the scientific panel on animal health and welfare on a request from the commission related to welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing the main commercial species of animals. EFSA Journal 45, 1–29.Google Scholar
Forslid, A 1987. Transient neocortical, hippocampal and amygdaloid EEG silence induced by one minute inhalation of high concentration CO2 in swine. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 130, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 2013. Making slaughterhouses more humane for cattle, pigs, and sheep. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences 1, 491–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humane Slaughter Association 2014. Novel or improved methods of detecting un/consciousness in animals after stunning. HSA workshop report, workshop held on 18 June 2014, London, UK. Retrieved February 10, 2015, from http://www.hsa.org.uk/downloads/hsaworkshop18june14.pdf.Google Scholar
Llonch, P, Rodriguez, P, Jospin, M, Dalmau, A, Manteca, X and Velarde, A 2013. Assessment of unconsciousness in pigs during exposure to nitrogen and carbon dioxide mixtures. Animal 7, 492–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lykke, L, Arnmark, P and Borggaard, C 2010. One incident every twentieth year – system to control successful sticking at the slaughter line. Fleischwirtschaft International 25, 10–12.Google Scholar
Martoft, L, Stodkilde-Jorgensen, H, Forslid, A, Pedersen, HD and Jorgensen, PF 2003. CO2 induced acute respiratory acidosis and brain tissue intracellular pH: a 31P NMR study in swine. Laboratory Animals 37, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweiger, A, Fischer, J and Troeger, K 2013. Optimal positioning of the sticking incision: investigation of the manner and extent of vessel lesions along the sticking canal in slaughter pigs. Fleischwirtschaft International 28, 28–32.Google Scholar
Troeger, K 2011. Supervision of an effective sticking and bleeding of slaughter pigs by means of an infrared camera. Fleischwirtschaft 91, 119–122.Google Scholar
Troeger, K and Meiler, D 2006. Development of a method for use under practical conditions to examine the killing of slaughter pigs by exsanguination (feasibility study). Mitteilungsblatt der Fleischforschung Kulmbach 45, 15–22.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, MT, Gerritzen, MA, Hellebrekers, LJ and Kemp, B 2015. Indicators used in livestock to assess unconsciousness after stunning: a review. Animal 9, 320–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Von Wenzlawowicz, M, von Holleben, K and Eser, E 2012. Identifying reasons for stun failures in slaughterhouses for cattle and pigs: a field study. Animal Welfare 21, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, J 2012. Analysis of the use of the “CASH” Dispatch Kit captive bolt gun as a single stage euthanasia process for pigs. Thesis MS, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA.Google Scholar
Wotton, SB and Gregory, NG 1986. Pig slaughtering procedures: time to loss of brain responsiveness after exsanguination or cardiac arrest. Research in Veterinary Science 40, 148–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed