Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wlg5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T06:03:29.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of amount and frequency of alternating current used in water bath stunning and of slaughter methods on electroencephalograms in broilers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

ABM Raj ,
M O'Callaghan  and
TG Knowles
ABM Raj*
Affiliation:
School of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
M O'Callaghan
Affiliation:
School of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
TG Knowles
Affiliation:
School of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: M.Raj@bristol.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effectiveness of electrical water bath stunning of 172 individual broilers for 1 s with a constant root mean square (RMS) current of 100, 150 or 200 mA, delivered using a variable voltage/constant current stunner with 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200 or 1400 Hz sine wave alternating current (AC), followed by slaughter using a unilateral or ventral neck-cutting procedure, was evaluated. A binary logistic regression of broilers showing epileptiform activity or not following stunning showed that both the electrical frequency (Hz) and RMS current (mA) had a significant effect on the probability of the electroencephalogram (EEG) manifestation. The univariate analysis of variance showed that the time to the onset of less than 10% of the pre-stun relative power contents was significantly affected only by the interaction between electrical frequency and slaughter method. A similar analysis of variance of the time to reach less than 10% of the pre-stun total power content showed slaughter method, RMS current, the slaughter method/frequency interaction and the RMS current/frequency interaction to be either significant or approaching significance. Based on these results it is recommended that effective water bath stunning of broilers with a minimum constant current of 100, 150 and 200 mA could be achieved with electrical frequencies of up to 200, 600 and 800 Hz, respectively. In addition, It is likely that electrical frequencies of above 800 Hz would have required a minimum current of greater than 200 mA to induce epileptiform activity in the EEGs of broilers.

Keywords

animal welfarechickenEEGelectrical stunningfrequencyslaughter

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , February 2006 , pp. 7 - 18
Copyright
© 2006 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anon 1995 The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations. Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 731. Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO): London, UKGoogle Scholar
European Community 1993 Directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. European Community Official Journal 340: 21–34Google Scholar
Gregory, NG and Wotton, SB 1986 Effect of slaughter on the spontaneous and evoked activity of the brain. British Poultry Science 27: 195–205CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, NG and Wotton, SB 1989 Effect of electrical stunning on somatosensory evoked potentials in chickens. British Veterinary Journal 145: 159–164CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, NG and Wotton, SB 1990 Effect of stunning on spontaneous physical activity and evoked activity in the brain. British Poultry Science 31: 215–220CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hosmer, DW and Lemeshow, S 2000 Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingling, AL and Kuenzel, WJ 1978 Electrical terminology, measurement and units associated with the stunning technique in poultry processing plants. Poultry Science 57: 127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouchoniere, M, Le Pottier, G and Fernandez, X 1999 The effect of current frequency during waterbath stunning on the physical recovery and rate and extent of bleed out in turkeys. Poultry Science 77: 485–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM 2003 A critical appraisal of electrical stunning in chickens. World's Poultry Science Journal 59: 89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM and O'Callaghan, M 2004a Effect of amount and frequency of head-only stunning currents on the electroencephalogram and somatosensory evoked potentials in broilers. Animal Welfare 13: 159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM and O'Callaghan, M 2004b Effects of electrical water bath stunning current frequencies on the spontaneous electroencephalogram and somatosensory evoked potentials in hens. British Poultry Science Journal 45: 230–236CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raj, ABM, O'Callaghan, M and Hughes, SI 2006a The effects of amount and frequency of pulsed direct current used in water bath stunning and of slaughter methods on spontaneous electroencephalograms in broilers. Animal Welfare 15: 19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM, O'Callaghan, M and Hughes, SI 2006b The effects of pulse width of a direct current used in water bath stunning and of slaughter methods on spontaneous electroencephalograms in broilers. Animal Welfare 15: 25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, SA and Sykes, AH 1964 Observations on the electrical stunning and slaughter of poultry. Veterinary Record 76: 835–839Google Scholar
Robb, DHF, O'Callaghan, M, Lines, JA and Kestin, SC 2002 Electrical stunning of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): factors that affect stun duration. Aquaculture 205: 359–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rural Area Veterinary Service 2004 Monitoring the Anaesthesia Patient. www.ruralareavet.org/PDF/Anesthesia-Patient_Monitoring.pdf (accessed 7 November 2005)Google Scholar
Schuett-Abraham, I 1999 Humane Stunning of Poultry — Part I: Electrical Stunning. EC Seminar Animal Welfare 30pp. 24 August–2 September 1999. Dublin, Ireland. www.schuett-abraham.de/isa-poult-en.htm (accessed 7 November 2005)Google Scholar
Sparrey, JM, Kettlewell, PJ, Paice, MER and Whetlor, WC 1993 Development of a constant current waterbath stunner for poultry processing. Journal of Agricultural and Engineering Research 56: 267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velarde, A, Ruiz-de-Torre, JL, Rosello, C, Fabrega, E, Diestre, A and Manteca, X 2002 Assessment of return to consciousness after electrical stunning in lambs. Animal Welfare 11: 333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, LJ, Wotton, SB, Parkman, ID, Kettlewell, PJ and Griffiths, P 1999 Constant current stunning effects on bird welfare and carcass quality. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 8: 465–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar