Animal Welfare and Meat Quality Assessment in Gas Stunning during Commercial Slaughter of Pigs Using Hypercapnic-Hypoxia (20% CO2 2% O2) Compared to Acute Hypercapnia (90% CO2 in Air)
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Technical Aspects of Gas Filling the Pit
2.2. Duration of the Gas Stunning Exposure
2.3. Behavior Recording during Gas Stunning
2.4. Stun Quality Assessments
2.5. Analysis of Filmed Behavior during Stunning
2.6. Assessment of Meat and Carcass Quality
2.7. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Gas and Temperature Recordings
3.2. Behavior Analysis during Gas Mixture Exposure
3.3. Stun Quality
3.4. Meat and Carcass Quality
4. Discussion
4.1. Induction to Unconsciousness
4.2. Stun Quality
4.3. Meat and Carcass Quality
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Velarde, A.; Gispert, M.; Faucitano, L.; Manteca, X.; Diestre, A. The effect of stunning method on the incidence of PSE meat and haemorrhages in pork carcasses. Meat Sci. 2000, 55, 309–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velarde, A.; Cruz, J.; Gispert, M.; Carrión, D.; Ruiz de la Torre, J.L.; Diestre, A.; Manteca, X. Aversion to carbon dioxide stunning in pigs: Effect of carbon dioxide concentration and halothane genotype. Anim. Welf. 2007, 16, 513–522. [Google Scholar]
- Becerril-Herrera, M.; Alonso-Spilsbury, M.; Lemus-Flores, C.; Guerrero-Legarreta, I.; Olmos-Hernández, A.; Ramírez-Necoechea, R.; Mota-Rojas, D. CO2 stunning may compromise swine welfare compared with electrical stunning. Meat Sci. 2009, 81, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steiner, A.R.; Flammer, S.A.; Beausoleil, N.J.; Berg, C.; Bettschart-Wolfensberger, R.; Pinillos, R.G.; Golledge, H.D.R.; Marahrens, M.; Meyer, R.; Schnitzer, T.; et al. Humanely Ending the Life of Animals: Research Priorities to Identify Alternatives to Carbon Dioxide. Animals 2019, 9, 911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gregory, N.G.; Moss, B.W.; Leeson, R.H. An assessment of carbon dioxide stunning in pigs. Vet. Rec. 1987, 121, 517–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) 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 J. 2004, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raj, A.B.; Gregory, N. Welfare Implications of the Gas Stunning of Pigs 1. Determination of Aversion to the Initial Inhalation of Carbon Dioxide or Argon. Anim. Welf. 1995, 4, 273–280. [Google Scholar]
- Raj, A.B.M.; Gregory, N.G. Welfare implications of the gas stunning of pigs 2. Stress of induction of anaesthesia. Anim. Welf. 1996, 5, 71–78. [Google Scholar]
- Verhoeven, M.; Gerritzen, M.; Velarde, A.; Hellebrekers, L.; Kemp, B. Time to loss of consciousness and its relation to behavior in slaughter pigs during stunning with 80 or 95% carbon dioxide. Front. Vet. Sci. 2016, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nowak, B.; Mueffling, T.V.; Hartung, J. Effect of different carbon dioxide concentrations and exposure times in stunning of slaughter pigs: Impact on animal welfare and meat quality. Meat Sci. 2007, 75, 290–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beausoleil, N.J.; Mellor, D.J. Introducing breathlessness as a significant animal welfare issue. N. Z. Vet. J. 2015, 63, 44–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ernsting, J. The effect of brief profound hypoxia upon the arterial and venous oxygen tensions in man. J. Physiol. 1963, 169, 292–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Raj, A.B.M.; Johnson, S.P.; Wotton, S.B.; McInstry, J.L. Welfare implications of gas stunning pigs: 3. The time to loss of somatosensory evoked potentials and spontaneous electrocorticogram of pigs during exposure to gases. Vet. J. 1997, 153, 329–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raj, A.B.M. Behaviour of pigs exposed to mixtures of gases and the time required to stun and kill them: Welfare implications. Vet. Rec. 1999, 144, 165–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalmau, A.; Llonch, P.; Rodríguez, P.; Ruíz-de-la-torre, J.L.; Manteca, X.; Velarde, A. Stunning pigs with different gas mixtures: Gas stability. Anim. Welf. 2010, 19, 315–323. [Google Scholar]
- Llonch, P.; Dalmau, A.; Rodríguez, P.; Manteca, X.; Velarde, A. Aversion to nitrogen and carbon dioxide mixtures for stunning pigs. Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llonch, P.; Rodríguez, P.; Gispert, M.; Dalmau, A.; Manteca, X.; Velarde, A. Stunning pigs with nitrogen and carbon dioxide mixtures: Effects on animal welfare and meat quality. Animal 2012, 6, 668–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llonch, P.; Rodríguez, P.; Jospin, M.; Dalmau, A.; Manteca, X.; Velarde, A. Assessment of unconsciousness in pigs during exposure to nitrogen and carbon dioxide mixtures. Animal 2013, 7, 492–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atkinson, S.; Velarde, A.; Llonch, P.; Algers, B. Assessing pig welfare at stunning in Swedish commercial abattoirs using CO2 group-stun methods. Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 487–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Faucitano, L. Effets des conditions d’attente à l’abattoir et d’abattage sur le bien-être animal et la qualité de la viande chezle porc. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 90, 461–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velarde, A.; Gispert, M.; Faucitano, L.; Manteca, X.; Diestre, A. Survey of the effectiveness of stunning procedures used in Spanish pig abattoirs. Vet. Rec. 2000, 146, 65–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- EUR-Lex—32009R1099—EN—EUR-Lex. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1099/oj (accessed on 22 November 2020).
- Flammer, S.A.; Eskes, C.; Kohler, I.; Pernet, A.O.; Jakob, P.; Marahrens, M.; Gent, T.C.; Golledge, H.; Weary, D. Alternatives to Carbon Dioxide—Taking Responsibility for Humanely Ending the Life of Animals. Animals 2019, 9, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Çavuşoğlu, E.; Rault, J.-L.; Gates, R.; Lay, D.C. Behavioral Response of Weaned Pigs during Gas Euthanasia with CO2, CO2 with Butorphanol, or Nitrous Oxide. Animals 2020, 10, 787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalmau, A.; Rodriguez, P.; Llonch, P.; Velarde, A. Stunning pigs with different gases. Part 2: Aversion in pigs. Anim. Welf. 2010, 19, 324–333. [Google Scholar]
- Gregory, N.G. Physiology and Behaviour of Animal Suffering; Gregory, N.G., Ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2008; ISBN 9780632064687. [Google Scholar]
- Terlouw, C.; Bourguet, C.; Deiss, V. Consciousness, unconsciousness and death in the context of slaughter. Part I. Neurobiological mechanisms underlying stunning and killing. Meat Sci. 2016, 118, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rodríguez, P.; Dalmau, A.; Ruiz-de-la-Torre, J.L.; Manteca, X.; Jensen, E.W.; Rodríguez, B.; Litvan, H.; Velarde, A. Assessment of unconsciousness during carbon dioxide stunning in pigs. Anim. Welf. 2008, 17, 341–349. [Google Scholar]
- Bertram, H.C.; Stødkilde-Jørgensen, H.; Karlsson, A.H.; Andersen, H.J. Post mortem energy metabolism and meat quality of porcine M. longissimus dorsi as influenced by stunning method—A 31P NMR spectroscopic study. Meat Sci. 2002, 62, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Terlouw, C. Stress reactions at slaughter and meat quality in pigs: Genetic background and prior experience: A brief review of recent findings. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2005, 94, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcon, A.V.; Caldara, F.R.; de Oliveira, G.F.; Gonçalves, L.M.P.; Garcia, R.G.; Paz, I.C.L.A.; Crone, C.; Marcon, A. Pork quality after electrical or carbon dioxide stunning at slaughter. Meat Sci. 2019, 156, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Stun Quality Level 1 | Description of Signs |
---|---|
0 | If a pig showed no reflexes or signs mentioned below, it was considered as being in a state of deep unconsciousness and posed no risk for poor animal welfare |
1 | If a pig kicked, convulsed, or gasped infrequently (not more than twice before sticking) but showed no eye or pain reflexes when checked, it was considered adequately stunned but justified continual monitoring until sticking |
2 | If a pig displayed frequent (more than twice) gasps (opening and closing of the mouth with or without stretching of neck), kicks, or body convulsions but was found to have no eye or pain reflexes, it was re-stunned as a precaution to avoid recovery. The stun depth was considered as unacceptable due to the risk that the animal could recover |
3 | If a pig showed corneal or cilia blink reflex at sticking, with or without kicking or convulsions, it was immediately re-stunned, and the recovery risk was thought to be imminent, and the stun was considered inadequate |
4 | If a pig showed spontaneous blinking, righting reflex, vocalization, or pain reflex, it was considered as indicating some form of consciousness and a high risk for poor welfare, and the stun was considered inadequate |
Registered and Timed Onset of Behaviors Observed in the Group | Definition |
---|---|
1. Exploratory | Smelling floor, walls, or roof of pen and looking about the cage |
2. Retreat/escape attempts | Backing, turning, or pushing into one another as they move around the cage in appeared attempt to find an exit |
3. Struggle | Erratic jumping up and down, body jerks, thrusting against cage walls |
4. Gasping | The hyperventilatory response to increased blood PCO2 characterized by maximal tidal volume and increase frequency of breathing. Usually very deep breath through a wide-open mouth, which may involve stretching of the neck. |
5. Fall | Pig falls over with whole body because of the inability of the animal to remain in a standing position and considered an indicator of onset of unconsciousness |
6. Laying | Pig is prone and head is relaxed where snout is not stretched or flexed upwards |
7. Muscle excitations | Convulsive, spasmodic stretching and contracting movement of body, limbs or head after loss of posture |
8. Gagging | Mouth opens and close periodically and occasional emitting of sounds similar to snoring while laying. It has been considered an indicator of deep unconsciousness [6] |
Variable | 90C | 20C2O | p-Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | Mean | SEM | n | Mean | SEM | ||
Retreat/Escape | 108 | 6.26 | 0.250 | 42 | 8.24 | 1.062 | 0.0118 |
Lose posture | 107 | 11.04 | 0.419 | 48 | 15.31 | 1.120 | <0.001 |
Gasping | 105 | 12.92 | 0.559 | 29 | 21.00 | 2.176 | <0.001 |
Start muscle excitation | 112 | 14.38 | 0.447 | 43 | 19.67 | 1.278 | 0.0049 |
Lying | 112 | 18.16 | 0.490 | 43 | 25.37 | 1.429 | 0.015 |
Duration muscle excitation | 111 | 141.55 | 2.711 | 43 | 249.74 | 9.507 | <0.001 |
Variable | O2 Above 2% | O2 Below 2% | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Percentage of gasping % (n) | 12.0% (18) | 3.3% (21) | <0.001 |
Percentage of corneal reflex % (n) | 16.7% (25) | 2.9% (19) | <0.001 |
Percentage of rhythmic breathing % (n) | 10.0% (15) | 3.1% (20) | <0.001 |
Percentage of righting reflex % (n) | 0.7% (1) | 0% (0) | - |
Percentage of inadequate stunning % (n) | 19.3% (29) | 4.8% (31 pigs) | <0.001 |
Meat Quality Measures | 90C | 20C2O | p-Value | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | Mean | SEM | n | Mean | SEM | ||
pH45 | 6.42 | 0.016 | 6.17 | 0.014 | <0.001 | ||
pHu | 5.56 | 0.008 | 5.55 | 0.007 | n/S | ||
EC (µS) | 3.74 | 0.036 | 4.34 | 0.064 | <0.001 |
Carcass Quality Measures | 90C | 20C2O | p-Value | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | Percentage | n | Percentage | ||
Percentage (%) of Ecchymosis | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.45 | - |
Percentage (%) of PSE | 0 | 0 | 11 | 4.82 | <0.01 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Atkinson, S.; Algers, B.; Pallisera, J.; Velarde, A.; Llonch, P. Animal Welfare and Meat Quality Assessment in Gas Stunning during Commercial Slaughter of Pigs Using Hypercapnic-Hypoxia (20% CO2 2% O2) Compared to Acute Hypercapnia (90% CO2 in Air). Animals 2020, 10, 2440. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122440
Atkinson S, Algers B, Pallisera J, Velarde A, Llonch P. Animal Welfare and Meat Quality Assessment in Gas Stunning during Commercial Slaughter of Pigs Using Hypercapnic-Hypoxia (20% CO2 2% O2) Compared to Acute Hypercapnia (90% CO2 in Air). Animals. 2020; 10(12):2440. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122440
Chicago/Turabian StyleAtkinson, Sophie, Bo Algers, Joaquim Pallisera, Antonio Velarde, and Pol Llonch. 2020. "Animal Welfare and Meat Quality Assessment in Gas Stunning during Commercial Slaughter of Pigs Using Hypercapnic-Hypoxia (20% CO2 2% O2) Compared to Acute Hypercapnia (90% CO2 in Air)" Animals 10, no. 12: 2440. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122440
APA StyleAtkinson, S., Algers, B., Pallisera, J., Velarde, A., & Llonch, P. (2020). Animal Welfare and Meat Quality Assessment in Gas Stunning during Commercial Slaughter of Pigs Using Hypercapnic-Hypoxia (20% CO2 2% O2) Compared to Acute Hypercapnia (90% CO2 in Air). Animals, 10(12), 2440. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122440