Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T19:11:35.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are severely depressed suckling pigs resistant to gas euthanasia?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

LJ Sadler ,
LA Karriker ,
KJ Schwartz ,
AK Johnson ,
TM Widowski ,
C Wang ,
MA Sutherland  and
ST Millman
LJ Sadler
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
LA Karriker
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA Swine Medicine Education Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
KJ Schwartz
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
AK Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
TM Widowski
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
C Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA Department of Statistics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
MA Sutherland
Affiliation:
AgResearch Ltd, Ruakura Research Center, Hamilton, New Zealand
ST Millman*
Affiliation:
2440 Lloyd Veterinary Medical Center, 1600 S 16th Street, Ames, IA 50011, USA Department of Biomedical Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: smillman@iastate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Severely depressed pigs exhibit differences in a number of important parameters that may affect gas euthanasia, including decreased respiration rate and tidal volume. Hence, the objectives of this study were to assess the efficacy and animal welfare implications of gas euthanasia of suckling pigs with varied disease severity (severely depressed [DP] vs other [OT]). A 2 × 2 factorial design was utilised with two gas types (carbon dioxide [CO2]; argon [Ar]) and two flow rates (G = gradual, 35% box volume exchange per min [BVE min−1]; P = prefill + 20% BVE min−1). Sixty-two pigs were enrolled and tested as DP/OT pairs in each gas treatment combination. Pigs identified for euthanasia were assigned a subjective depression score (0 = normal to 3 = severely depressed). Pigs scored 3 and ≤ 1 were categorised as DP and OT, respectively. Significantly lower respiration, rectal temperature, pulse and weight were observed for the DP pigs relative to OT. Pigs were assessed for behavioural indicators of efficacy and welfare. No differences were observed between DP and OT when using P-CO2 or G-CO2. However in P-Ar, DP had greater latency to loss of consciousness relative to OT (212 [± 22] vs 77 [± 22] s), decreased latency to last limb movement (511 [± 72] vs 816 [± 72] s), greater duration of open-mouth breathing (151 [± 21] vs 69 [± 21] s), decreased duration ataxia (101 [± 42] vs 188 [± 42] s) and decreased righting response (27 [± 11] vs 63 [± 11] s). The G-Ar treatment was removed due to ethical concerns associated with prolonged induction. In conclusion, depression score did not affect pig responses to euthanasia with CO2 gas, but did affect responses to Ar. Furthermore, Ar was associated with a prolonged euthanasia process, including frequencies and durations of distress behaviours.

Keywords

animal welfareargoncarbon dioxideeuthanasiamoribundswine
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , May 2014 , pp. 145 - 155
Copyright
© 2014 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

Anil, MH 1991 Studies on the return of physical reflexes in pigs following electrical stunning. Meat Science 30: 13–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(91)90030-TCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
AVMA 2013 AVMA Guidelines for Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition. American Veterinary Medical Association: Schaumber, IL, USA. http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdfGoogle Scholar
Blackmore, DK and Delany, MW 1988 Slaughter of stock a practical review and guide publication number 118. Foundation for Continuing Education of the New Zealand Veterinary Association: Palmerston North, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, JK, Fenwick, DC, Beattie, AW and Allan, DJ 1988 The behaviour of chickens, mice and rats during euthanasia with chloroform, carbon dioxide and ether. Laboratory Animals 22: 67–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/002367788780746674CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blood, DC, Studdert, VP and Gay, CC 2007 Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary. WB Saunders: Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Burkholder, TH, Niel, L, Weed, JL, Brinster, LR, Bacher, JD and Foltz, CJ 2010 Comparison of carbon dioxide and argon euthanasia: effects on behaviour, heart rate, and respiratory lesions in rats. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 49: 448Google ScholarPubMed
Burki, NK and Lee, LY 2010 Mechanisms of dyspnea. Chest 138: 1196–1201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest. 10-0534CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daniels, CS 2010 Gas euthanasia methods in swine: process and physiology. 2010 AASV Annual Meeting: Implementing Knowledge; Swine Well-being: Euthanasia, Pigs & People pp 447–450. 6-9 March 2010, Omaha, NE, USAGoogle Scholar
Danneman, PJ, Stein, S and Walshaw, SO 1997 Humane and practical implications of using carbon dioxide mixed with oxygen for anesthesia or euthanasia of rats. Laboratory Animal Science 47: 376–385Google ScholarPubMed
Deliagina, TG, Beloozerova, IN, Zelenin, PV and Orlovsky, GN 2008 Spinal and supraspinal postural networks Brain Research Reviews 57: 212–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres-rev.2007.06.017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dodman, NH 1977 Observations on the use of the Wernberg dip-lift carbon dioxide apparatus for pre-slaughter anaesthesia of pigs. The British Veterinary Jounral 133: 71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 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. The EFSA Journal 45: 1–29Google Scholar
FDA (US Department of Human and Health Services Food and Drug Administration) 2007 Guidance for industry: recommended study design and evaluation of effectiveness studies for swine respiratory disease claims. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Veterinary Medicine: Rockville, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, KJ, Sadler, LJ, Parsons, RL and Millman, ST 2014 Effects of stocking rate on measures of efficacy and welfare during carbon dioxide gas euthanasia of young pigs. Animal Welfare, in pressGoogle Scholar
Forslid, A 1987 Pre-slaughter CO2-anaesthesia in swine: influence upon cerebral electrical activity, acid/base balance, blood oxygen tension and stress hormones. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Physiology: Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1998 Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning practices at slaughter plants. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 212: 36–39Google ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 2010 Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines & Audit Guide: a Systematic Approach to Animal Welfare. AMI (American Meat Institute) Foundation: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Gregory, NG, Mohan-Raj, AB, Audsey, ARS and Daly, CC 1990 Effects of CO2 on man. Fleischwirtschart 70: 1173–1174Google Scholar
Guyton, AC and Hall, JE 2010 Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology, 11th Edition. Elsevier Saunders: Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Hansen, NE, Creutzberg, A and Simonsen, HB 1991 Euthanasia of mink (Mustela vison) by means of carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2). British Veterinary Journal 147: 140–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0007-1935(91)90104-UGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, P, Playle, L, Gooledge, H, Leach, M, Banzett, R, Coenen, A, Cooper, J, Danneman, P, Flecknell, P and Kirkden, R 2006 Newcastle consensus meeting on carbon dioxide euthanasia of laboratory animals. Animal Technology and Welfare 5: 125–134Google Scholar
HSUS (The Humane Society of the United States) 2009 The HSUS urges Tyson Foods to reduce suffering of animals at its slaughter plants. http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press releases/2009/09/tyson re solution_090109.htmlGoogle Scholar
Hurnik, JF, Webster, AB and Siegel, PB 1985 Dictionary of Farm Animal Behaviour. University of Guelph: CanadaGoogle Scholar
Johnson, AK, Sadler, LJ, Gesing, LM, Feuerbach, C, Hill, H, Faga, M, Bailey, R, Stalder, KJ and Ritter, MJ 2010 Effects of facility system design on the stress responses and market losses of market weight pigs during loading and unloading. Professional Animal Scientist 26: 9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissin, I 2000 Depth of anesthesia and bispectral index monitoring. Anesthesia & Analgesia 90: 1114–1117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200005000-00021Google ScholarPubMed
Kohler, I, Meier, R, Busato, A, Neiger-Aeschbacher, G and Schatzmann, U 1999 Is carbon dioxide (CO2) a useful short acting anaesthetic for small laboratory animals? Laboratory Animals 33: 155–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/002367799780578390CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, C, Boccara, G, Grevy, V, Navarro, F, Fabre, JM and Colson, P 1997 Argon pneumoperitoneum is more dangerous than CO2 pneumoperitoneum during venous gas embolism. Anesthesia & Analgesia 85: 1367–1371CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martoft, L, Lomholt, L, Kolthoff, C, Rodríguez, BE, Jensen, EW, JØrgensen, PF, Pedersen, HD and Forslid, A 2002 Effects of CO2 anaesthesia on central nervous system activity in swine. Laboratory Animals 36: 115–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/0023677021912398Google ScholarPubMed
Mota-Rojas, D, Bolanos-Lopez, D, Concepcion-Mendez, M, Ramirez-Telles, J, Roldan-Santiago, P, Flores-Peinado, S and Mora-Medina, P 2012 Stunning swine with CO2 gas: controversies related to animal welfare. International Journal of Pharmacology 8: 141–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ijp.2012.141.151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Pork Board 2009 On-farm Euthanasia of Swine: Recommendations for the Producer. National Pork Board: Des Moines, IA, USA. http://www.aasv.org/aasv/documents/SwineEuthanasia.pdfGoogle Scholar
Niel, L, Stewart, SA and Weary, DM 2008 Effect of flow rate on aversion to gradual-fill carbon dioxide exposure in rats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109: 77–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.02.004Google Scholar
Opriessnig, T, Thacker, EL, Yu, S, Fenaux, M, Meng, XJ and Halbur, PG 2004 Experimental reproduction of Postweaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome in pigs by dual infection with Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae and Porcine Circovirus Type 2. Veterinary Pathology 41: 624–640. http://dx.doi.org/10.1354/vp.41 -6-624Google ScholarPubMed
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) 2002 Hundreds of thousands of hens are given a more humane death. http://www.peta.org/about/victories/Hundreds-of-Thousands-of-Hens-Are-Given-a-More-Humane-Death.aspxGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM 1999 Behaviour of pigs exposed to mixtures of gases and the time required to stun and kill them: welfare implications. Veterinary Record 144: 165–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.144.7.165CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raj, ABM and Gregory, NG 1996 Welfare implications of the gas stunning of pigs 2: stress of induction of anaesthesia. Animal Welfare 5: 71–78Google Scholar
Raj, ABM, Johnson, SP, Wotton, SB and McInstry, JL 1997 Welfare implications of gas stunning pigs 3: the time to loss of somatosensory evoked potential and spontaneous electrocorticogram of pigs during exposure to gases. The Veterinary Journal 153: 329–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1090-0233(97)80067-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rault, JL, McMunn, KA, Marchant-Forde, J and Lay, DC Jr 2013 Gas alternatives to carbon dioxide for euthanasia: a piglet perspective. Journal of Animal Science 91: 1874–1883CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodríguez, P, Dalmau, A, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, JL, Mantexa, X, Jensen, EW, Rodríguez, B, Livan, H and Velarde, A 2008 Assessment of unconsciousness during carbon dioxide stunning in pigs. Animal Welfare 17: 341–349Google Scholar
Sadler, L 2013 Effect of flow rate, gas type and disease status on the welfare of neonate and suckling pigs during gas euthanasia. Iowa State University: Iowa, USAGoogle Scholar
Sadler, L, Hagen, C, Wang, C, Widowski, T, Johnson, A and Millman, S 2014 Effects of flow rate and gas mixture on the welfare of weaned and neonate pigs during gas euthanasia. Journal of Animal Science 92: 793–805. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6598CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandström, V 2009 Development of a monitoring system for the assessment of cattle welfare in abattoirs. Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Skara, Sweden. http://ex-epsilon.slu.se:8080/archive/00003176/01/pdf_VS_Epsilon.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sharp, J, Azar, T and Lawson, D 2006 Comparison of carbon dioxide, argon, and nitrogen for inducing unconsciousness or euthanasia of rats. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 45: 21–25Google ScholarPubMed
St John, WMS 2009 Noeud vital for breathing in the brainstem: gasping — yes, eupnoea — doubtful. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B364: 2625–2633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straw, BE, D’Allaire, S, Mengeling, WL and Taylor, DJ 1999 Diseases of Swine 8th Edition. Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA, USAGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, M 2011 The use of different gases and gas combinations to humanely euthanize young suckling pigs. National Pork Board Research Report Animal Welfare NPB #09-199: Des Moines, IA, USAGoogle Scholar
Velarde, A, Cruz, J, Gispert, M, Carrión, D, Ruiz de la Torre, JL, Diestre, A and Manteca, X 2007 Aversion to carbon dioxide stunning in pigs: effect of carbon dioxide concentration and halothane genotype. Animal Welfare 16: 513–522Google Scholar
Whelan, G and Flecknell, PA 1992 The assessment of depth of anaesthesia in animals and man. Laboratory Animal Science 26: 153–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/002367792780740602CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, AJ, Whiting, M and Taylor, A 2009 Letter to the Editor on the surgical castration of piglets. Animal 3: 1474–1475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109990607CrossRefGoogle Scholar