Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T10:51:08.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of pulse width of a direct current used in water bath stunning and of slaughter methods on spontaneous electroencephalograms in broilers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

ABM Raj ,
M O'Callaghan  and
SI Hughes
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
SI Hughes
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 effect of the pulse width of a direct current (DC) on the effectiveness of electrical water bath stunning, and slaughter, was evaluated in broilers (n = 29). Broilers were individually stunned in a water bath for 1 s with a constant peak current of 400 mA of 200 Hz DC delivered using a variable voltage/constant current stunner. The pulse width of the 200 Hz DC was set at 0.5, 1.5 or 2.5 ms (10, 30 or 50% of 5 ms current cycle). The results showed that pulse width had a significant effect on the incidence of epileptiform activity in the electroencephalograms (EEGs). A pulse width of 10% of the current cycle was less effective than pulse widths of 30 and 50% of the current cycle; there was no significant difference between a pulse width of 30 and 50%. The results of a univariate analysis showed that ventral neck-cutting resulted in a significantly shorter time to the onset of less than 10% of the pre-stun power contents in the 13–30 Hz and 2–30 Hz EEG frequency bands when compared with unilateral neck-cutting. It is concluded that a pulse width of 30 or 50% of the current cycle of 200 Hz DC, delivering 400 mA peak current, was better than using a pulse width of 10% of the current cycle.

Keywords

animal welfarechickenEEGelectrical stunningpulse widthslaughter
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , February 2006 , pp. 25 - 30
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.)

References

Anon 1995 The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations. Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 731. Her Majesty's Stationary Office (HMSO): London, UKGoogle Scholar
Bawin, SMA, Sheppard, AR, Mahoney, MD, Abu-Assal, M and Adey, WR 1986 Comparison between the effects of extracellular direct and sinusoidal currents on excitability in hippocampal slices. Brain Research 362: 350–354CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bawin, SMA, Sheppard, AR, Mahoney, MD and Adey, WR 1984 Influences of sinusoidal electric fields on excitability in the rat hippocampal slice. Brain Research 323: 227–237CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bilgili, SF 1992 Electrical stunning of broilers — basic concepts and carcass quality implications: a review. Journal of Applied Poultry Science 1: 135–146Google 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: 195–205Google ScholarPubMed
Gregory, NG and Wotton, SB 1989 Effect of electrical stunning on somatosensory evoked potentials in chickens. British Veterinary Journal 145: 159–164CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
McIntyre, CC and Grill, WM 2002 Extracellular stimulation of central neurones: influence of stimulus waveform and frequency on neuronal output. Journal of Neurophysiology 88: 1592–1604CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 Journal 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 2006b 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 Knowles, TG 2006a The effects of amount and frequency of alternating current used in water bath stunning and of slaughter methods on electroencephalograms in broilers. Animal Welfare 15: 7–18CrossRefGoogle 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
Tehovnik, EJ 1996 Electrical stimulation of neural tissue to evoke behavioural responses. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 65: 1–17Google Scholar