ll Gj. STUNNING OF CATTLE WITH PENETRATING CAPTIVE BOLT STUNNERS No. C/86 P.M. HUSBAND & F.D. SHAW -.J' ~,!!' 'U' Clfulo <ffiju.

Similar documents
Euthanasia and Worker Safety

EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH & CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL BLOOD AND CARCASS WHEN APPLYING CERTAIN STUNNING METHODS.)

Handling, Stunning, and Determining Insensibility in Cattle. Temple Grandin Department of Animal Science Colorado State University

On-Farm Euthanasia of Swine. Options for the Producer

Guidance for Euthanasia of Non-ambulatory Livestock at Meat Plants By Erika L. Voogd, Voogd Consulting, Inc.

Practical Euthanasia of Cattle. Considerations for the Producer, Livestock Market Operator, Livestock Transporter, and Veterinarian

EUROPEAN LIVESTOCK AND MEAT TRADES UNION UECBV

Review of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System

HOT TOPICS SESSION. Matthew Terns. John Morrell Food Group

FINAL REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE NORTH LEI...RSHIRE CLUSTER OF VARIANT CREUTZFELDT-JAKOB DISEASE

Welfare and meat quality Preslaughter handling, slaughter and killing

Slaughterhouses-A Necessary Evil. Slaughterhouses- A Necessary Evil Maegan Gossett Jennifer Hohle Tarleton State University

The Animal Welfare offi cer in the European Union

RESTRAINING SYSTEMS FOR BOVINE ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT STUNNING WELFARE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS

Euthanasia of veal cattle and dairy calves

FINAL REPORT - Review of Percussive Stunning

Breed Survey Requirement amended - 1 st July 2008

Chapter 2 - Handling Animals Cattle

Safe Food Production Queensland: Animal Welfare SOPs: Version 1.1 October

Code of Recommendations and Minimum Standards for the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Slaughter at Licensed and Approved Premises

School Pet Policy. Policy date: September Review date: September Governors Approval: 28 th September 2016

going veggie... for the animals

Meat: is the common term used to describe the edible portion of animal tissues.

The kindest act. Euthanasia

The genetic factors under consideration in the present study include black (+) vs. red (y), a sex-linked pair of alternatives manifesting

SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDELINES 2014

Survey and spot visits of slaughterhouses. A. Velarde, P. Rodriguez, C. Fuentes, A. Dalmau Animal Welfare Unit IRTA

Animal Welfare in Beef Production. Jim Rothwell Manager Sustainability R&D Meat & Livestock Australia

SPECIAL SURVEY ON HUMANE SLAUGHTER AND ANTE-MORTEM INSPECTION

Assured Meat Processing Standard Animal Welfare Module (AW)

ADNAN MENDERES UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF VETERINARY MEDICINE

Web Site / Site Internet :

Animal Liberation Queensland Submission on Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines Section A: Cattle 04/05/13

EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH & CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL

Economic Significance of Fasciola Hepatica Infestation of Beef Cattle a Definition Study based on Field Trial and Grazier Questionnaire

Safefood helpline from the South from the North The Food Safety Promotion Board Abbey Court, Lower Abbey Street, Dublin 1

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL. on systems restraining bovine animals by inversion or any unnatural position

Submission to the review of the. Land Transport of Livestock Codes of Practice (to be called Standards and Guidelines) May 2008

Destination Vet Programme

OUTSTANDING TEAM OF NORWEGIAN RED SIRES NOW AVAILABLE FROM GENETICS AUSTRALIA. Writes John Harle

The Western Australian Farmers Federation Inc. Wool and Meat Section. Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines Sheep

The Animal Welfare Regulations (Defence of Animals) (Raising Pigs and Keeping Them for Agricultural Purposes), 2015

Breeding Spangles by Ghalib Al-Nasser

Policy on the use of animals in research and education at SLU

SHEEP TRANSPORTATION. Code of practice for the transportation of sheep in Western Australia ISBN X

Ground Fighting with a Police Service Dog (K-9) By Terry Fleck

ANTHR 1L Biological Anthropology Lab

OVER 30 MONTH CATTLE SLAUGHTER RULE (OTM Rule)

Jim Reynolds DVM, MPVM

Convegno ASIC th WRC: Inviati speciali in Cina. 30 settembre 2016, Padova

Delegating to Auxiliaries in Food Animal & Equine Practice

Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists. Membership Examination. Veterinary Behaviour Paper 1

Meat Science 100 (2015) Contents lists available at ScienceDirect. Meat Science. journal homepage:

Religious slaughter in Italy

Antibiotic Resistance

Welfare of Animals at Slaughter and Killing A New Regulation

Exhibitor -- General Eligibility Rules for the. Beef & Sheep Educational Award Trip

ESEVT Indicators. European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education

Euthanasia of Cattle: An Important Service for Your Clients

FCI-Standard N 233 / / GB. LOWCHEN (LITTLE LION DOG) (Petit Chien Lion)

Long-distance Live Transport: Common problems and practical solutions

Improving efficiencies in small scale sheep production Welcome

Key considerations in the breeding of macaques and marmosets for scientific purposes

Primary Industries Standing Committee Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals The Sheep

Guideline for Prevention of Brucellosis in Meat Packing Plant Workers

FASINEX 100 Oral Flukicide for Sheep, Cattle and Goats

Animal Welfare Certification & Auditing

Quality Standards for Beef, Pork and Poultry

CODE OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WELFARE OF PET HAMSTERS DUTY OF CARE TO A PET HAMSTER UNDER THE ANIMAL WELFARE (GUERNSEY) ORDINANCE, 2012

A1 Control of dangerous and menacing dogs (reviewed 04/01/15)

Fenbender 100 CAUTION. Oral Anthelmintic for cattle & horses. ACTIVE CONSTITUENT: 100 g/l FENBENDAZOLE

Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for. Sheep. Edition One Version One Subject to Government Endorsement

Cat Alliance of Australia Inc

GUIDE TO THE CONSULTATION REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE AUSTRALIAN ANIMAL WELFARE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES CATTLE

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above Standards and Guidelines and its accompanying Regulation Impact Statement (RIS).

Information document accompanying the EFSA Questionnaire on the main welfare problems for sheep for wool, meat and milk production

Cw_gUjU WD4S490

The 1999 EU Hens Directive bans the conventional battery cage from 2012.

About Food Health Impact Assessment

Code of Welfare. Commercial Slaughter. Code of Welfare. 15 December 2016

For more information, see The InCalf Book, Chapter 8: Calf and heifer management and your InCalf Fertility Focus report.

Livestock at Slaughtering Establishments

Small-scale poultry production Small producers provide outdoor access, natural feed, no routine medications Sell to directly to consumers

FDQ Ltd - Qualification Specification. Review date. FDQ number. EQF Level. approval number (QAN)

By Camille Lambert (Sturtmoor)

Standard requirements for the submission of programmes of eradication and monitoring of TSE

A nurse s view through Thailand

The complete guide to. Puppy Growth Charts. Puppy Growth Chart. Puppy Growth Chart. Dog s Name: Dog s Name: D.O.B. Dog s Name: Neuter Date:

Exhibitor -- General Eligibility Rules for the. Beef & Sheep Educational Award Trip

Faculty of Veterinary Science Commitment Statement

Fallen Stock. Animal welfare concerns and consequences. Johannes Baumgartner

Animal Welfare Judging Competition

Calculating Beef Yield Grades Worksheet

Animal Health and Welfare policies in the EU Status quo and tendencies

Approximate costs of equipment for a low-capacity modern pigslaughter line (in US$) (similar to Fig. 54 and Annex A7, Fig. 99)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE WASHINGTON, DC ANTE-MORTEM LIVESTOCK INSPECTION

On the Methods of Live Stock Slaughter in the US:Laws, Regulations, and Expert opinions. Abdel-Hameed A. Badawy

APPLICATION FOR LIVE ANIMAL USE IN TEACHING AT COASTAL ALABAMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development WORKING DOCUMENT. on minimum standards for the protection of farm rabbits

INTRODUCTION TO VISUAL HEALTH ASSESSMENTS

Transcription:

No. C/86 j1 ~,!!' J. -!!' 1- CRCULATON LST DATE OFFCER NTALS RECEVED STUNNNG OF CATTLE WTH PENETRATNG CAPTVE BOLT STUNNERS BY P.M. HUSBAND & F.D. SHAW RETURN TO OFFCE WHEN CRCULATON COMPLETE ll Gj.. GfudJ~~ (;)o@)., Q;}13 a @Doox;:m G:Dlo @»Do aj'@ 'U' Clfulo <ffiju.v -.J'

This document is prepared primarily as a record of work which is either incomplete or is not to be formally published. ts distribution is strictly limited and it must not be used in bibliographies. r '\.)

SUMMARY The effectiveness of penetrating captive bolt stunners when used for the stunning of adult cattle was assessed at three abattoirs. Although the animals in the trials were of excitable temperament, 97% of animals were effectively stunned with a single application of the stunner. AUGUST, 1986.

(l. '~1 CONTENTS (~,/ SUMMARY NTRODUCTON METHODS EXPERMENTAL DETAL PAGE NO. RESULTS 2 DSCUSSON 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4 e APPENDX 5 REFERENCE 4 FGURE 6 FGURE 2 7,,, FGURE 3 8

NTRODUCTON The majority of Australian abattoirs use a penetrating captive bolt stunner for the stunning of cattle. nformation from a recent survey (Anon 1985) suggested that, in general, these stunners provided a humane and effective method of stunning. The survey results showed that in most abattoirs the vast majority of animals received only a single application of the stunner, however, in some abattoirs approximately 10% of cattle received one or more additional stuns. n an endeavour to obtain detailed information on the incidence and causes of multiple stunnings, a comprehensive investigation was conducted at three abattoirs. Two of the abattoirs were located in northern Western Australia, one in the Northern Terri tory. Stunning position, carcass weight, dentition and classification were recorded for 291 individual animals in the investigation. METHODS Two people were involved at each abattoir, their detailed tasks and method of recording are listed in Appendix A. One person was stationed at the knocking box to record the stunning position (front or back) and the number of times the animal was stunned. The second person, located on the slaughter floor, examined the heads and recorded the location of the penetration of the bolt (Fig. 1) and the animal's dentition. Carcass weights and classifications were subsequently obtained from abattoir records. EXPERMENTAL DETALS Abattoir 1 Observations were made on 112 animals, all Shorthorn or Brahman cross and all classified as steer or cow. Mean carcass weight was 202 kg, with a range of 120-345 kg. The dentition varied. from temporary teeth (one animal) to broken mouth (one animal). All animals were stunned with a Schermer penetrating captive bolt stunner using black cartridges. This works was different from the others surveyed in that only 77% of animals were stunned from the front, while in the other works, in excess of 95% of animals were stunned from the front. Abattoir 2 Observations were made on two separate groups of animals, a group of 64 cows and a group of 28 bulls, the Schermer penetrating captive bolt stunner being used in both instances. Red cartridges were used with cows while black cartridges were used with the bulls. The mean carcass weight of the cows was 151 kg, with a range of 112-247 kg, while for the bulls the mean carcass weight was 283 kg, with a range of 194-373 kg. The cows were all Shorthorn or Poll Shorthorn while the bulls were Brahman, Brahman cross or Shorthorn. For the cows, the dentition varied between 6 tooth (one animal) and broken mouth (7 animals). The bulls' dentition range was also between 6 tooth (one animal) and broken mouth (3 animals)~ ~"J~

2 Abattoir 3 Observations were made on a total of 87 steers (Shorthorn or Brahman cross), all animals being stunned with a Schermer penetrating captive bolt pistol using black cartridges. The mean carcass weight was 261 kg, with a range 214-348 kg. Dentition varied from 4 tooth (one animal) to broken mouth (one animal). Animal Temperament Practical limitations prevented any attempt at a formal assessment of the temperament of individual animals. However a subjective assessment of animal temperament was made and considered in conjunction with previous experience of animals at the abattoirs in question. This led to the conclusion that the animals under study were representative of those in the Northern Terri tory and Kimberley regions. Animals in these regions are reared on extensive properties where exposure to human contact is at best limited. The environment tends to be harsh and growth rates are such that the majority of animals are greater than four years of age at turn off. Given these circumstances, the animals tend to be easily frightened, and the process of mustering, drafting and transport over long distances generally results in animals arriving at the abattoir in a stressed condition. Thus, it can be said that, in general terms, the animals were excited rather than calm. RESULTS A summary of the results is listed in Table 1. TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF TRALS NVOLVNG CATTLE STUNNED WTH PENETRATNG CAPTVE BOLT STUNNERS Number % Front Stunned Mean Carcass Weight % Single Stun ABATTOR 1. Steer/cow 11 2 77 202 97 ABATTOR 2. Cow Bull 64 28 97 96 1 51 283 97 100 ABATTOR 3. Steer 87 1 00 261 97 One of the aims of the study was to ascertain reasons for the ineffective stunning of individual animals. Details for the 9 animals that received more than one stun are given below.

3 Abattoir 1. Three steers and one cow were stunned twice. Bolt penetration positions of 5 and 1 were recorded for one animal, for the remaining three animals, bolt penetrations were in positions other than position 5. These three animals were representative of the entire group, and it is possible that inaccurate positioning of the captive bolt stunner was a contributing factor to the initial inadequate stun. Abattoir 2. Two animals were stunned twice. n both cases the initial stun was at the back of the head, followed by a stun to the front of the head. Only 4 animals from the group of 94 were stunned behind the head. n two of these cases it was noted that the animals were very excited and presumably these animals were stunned from behind because of difficulties in gaining access to the front of the head. Thus, the main cause for failure to effectively stun at least one of these animals could have been excessive animal movement. Abattoir 3. Two steers were stunned twice while one steer was stunned three times. One of these animals received two stuns in position 5 and thus it would appear that poor positioning of the captive bolt was not a contributing factor to the ineffective stunning of the animal. This steer was representative of the group and there was no apparent reason for the ineffective stun. The steer that was stunned three times was the heaviest animal in the group (carcass weight 348 kg). The stun penetrations were in positions 9, 2 and 1, so it cannot be stated definitely that the size of the animal contributed to the ineffective stunning. t is possible that a single shot in position 5 may have been effective. DSCUSSON The results show that at least 97% of animals were effectively stunned with a single shot from the captive bolt stunner. n an abattoir an animal will receive a second stun if (i) it does not collapse following the first stun, or (ii) if it attempts to rise following the first stun, or (iii) if at any stage pr,ior to sticking the animal is making voluntary movements. There were no occasions during these trials when the observers believed a second stun was obviously necessary but not administered. t is reasonable to assume that the majority of animals that receive a single penetrating captive bolt stun have been humanely stunned. t is usually recommended that the captive bolt be applied at the intersection of imaginary diagonal lines between the eyes and ears, this point will be within position 5 (Fig.1 ). From the histograms (Figs. 2 and 3), it can be seen that 55%-85% of frontal stuns were applied to the correct position. n this study, it was not possible to prove that incorrect positioning of the stunner led to ineffective stunning, as

4 effective stunning seemed to be achieved with stunning positions well displaced from the midline. A total of 30 animals were effectively stunned with a bolt penetration in one of the lateral positions (1,4,7,3,6,9). n these cases, the bolt penetration would have been several centimetres from the midline. t should not however be deduced that stunning position is irrelevant; an examination of the anatomical relationships between the brain and the skull indicates the theoretical advantages of position 5. t.would appear that the stunner used in the$e trials is sufficiently powerful to ensure effective stunning with less than optimal location of the bolt. Experimental studies conducted in 1981 indicated that the Schermer pistol, whether powered by either red or black cartridges, generated a greater force than the captive bolt pistols produced by other manufacturers at that time (Lambooy 1981 ). An.examination of the details of the animals stunned more than once suggests, but does not prove, that in some cases incorrect positioning of the stunner contributed to the ineffective stunning..t\ With the vast majority of animals in these trials, an effective stun was achieved with the first application of the stunner. Ensuring this degree of effectiveness required skill and concentration on the part of the operator. Despite the apparent difficulties, it is clear that, even with animals of excitable temperament, a very high percentage can be effectively stunned by a single application of a penetrating captive bolt stunner. With less excitable animals, it should be possible to consistently achieve a first stun success rate closely approaching 100%. However, to achieve this figure, it will be necessary for the correct stunning equipment to be ~sed, for it to be regularly maintained, and for the stunner operator to be properly trained and supervised~ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We wish to acknowledge the assistance provided by the management and staff at the three abattoirs. REFERENCES Anon. (1985). Survey of abattoir animal welfare. Dept. of Primary ndustry. Lambooy, E. (1981). Mechanical aspects of skull penetration by captive bolt pistol in bulls, veal calves and pigs. Fleischwirtsch.61 :1865-67.

5 APPENDX ([~ nformation obtained by Person A, located at the knocking box and Person B, located on the slaughter floor after heads have been skinned. Person A MRL No. - Animals numbered serially from 1 to 100 Works No. - Number used by works to identify carcass Stunner/cartridge - Record make of stunner and colour of cartirdge Front/back -Stunning position Breed Person B MRL No. - Serial No. Works No. No. of Teeth- Temporary, 2,4,6,8, Broken mouth Number of stuns - Number of visible penetrations Position(s) - Location of penetration recorded as 1-9 as indicated in Figure 1.

6 2 5 8 Figure 1. Position chart for recording location of penetration of skull by captive bolt. (Position 5 is the theoretically correct position).

7 ABATTOR 1 (if le % 1fftt 9S as 7fil 68 sa 4fil 3fil 2B 1S " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i- i-... - J 1 2 ' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 STUNNNG POSTON Ci ABATTOR 2 <BULLS> % lfftt 9fil as 7fil era Slil 4S 3fil 2S 1B ",..... 1-... 1-... 1-... 1- ~ -. 1 2 '3 5 6 7 8 9 STUNNNG POSTON Figure 2. Histograms showing percentage of cattle stunned at each stunning position.(see Figure 1). (t~!t cj

8 % lflt r- era ~ era 1-7ra 1- era.. sra... 4ra... 3S!- 2ra 1- ls!- ra 1 r l,. ABATOR 2 <COWS> 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 { :\1 ',, STUNNNG POSTON ABATOR 3 lftllrgra... as ~ 1ra... BS "'" % sra... 4S!- 3ra... 2S 1- lra... ra l 4-- 5 6 7-8 STUNNNG POSTON 9 Figure 3. Histograms showing percentage of cattle stunned at each stunning position (s ee Figure 1).