Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-x2lbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T17:49:03.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Pathophysiology of penetrating captive-bolt stunning of horses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2025

Katharine A Fletcher*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science and Ethics Group, Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College , Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield AL9 7TA, UK
Beatrice Benedetti
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale Giuseppe Fanin 46, 40127 Bologna, Italy
Georgina Limon
Affiliation:
Veterinary Epidemiology, Economics and Public Health Group, Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College , Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield AL9 7TA, UK The Pirbright Institute, Woking GU24 0NF, UK
Andrew Grist
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare and Behaviour Group, School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
Barbara Padalino
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale Giuseppe Fanin 46, 40127 Bologna, Italy Faculty of Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University, East Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia
Mariano Hernández-Gil
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Surgery and Zootechnics for Equines, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), Avenida Universidad 3000, Colonia UNAM, CU, Coyoacán, 04510 México
Troy J Gibson
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science and Ethics Group, Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College , Hawkshead Lane, Hatfield AL9 7TA, UK
*
Corresponding author: Katharine A Fletcher; Email: kfletcher20@rvc.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There has been limited research into the effectiveness of penetrating captive bolt (PCB) for stunning horses (Equus caballus) at slaughter. This study observed 100 horses at a commercial abattoir in Mexico, stunned using pneumatic PCB. Animals were assessed at the time of stunning and immediately after for signs of effective/ineffective stunning and shot positioning, with macroscopic gross brain pathology conducted to determine brain trauma. Twenty-five percent (25/100) received more than one shot and 28% (28/100) displayed behavioural signs of ineffective stunning. Of these 28 animals, all had deviations of more than 10 mm from the suggested shot position outlined by the Humane Slaughter Association with rostral-caudal deviation associated with an absence of damage to the thalamus, midbrain, and pons. Forty-four percent (44/100) of animals displayed no damage to critical brain structures (thalamus, midbrain, pons and medulla), with this associated with ineffective stunning. Overall, 16% of shots missed the brain (16/100), with a higher proportion of poll shots (30%) missing the brain compared to frontal shots (12%). There is the potential, when animals are shot into the poll, for paralysis from damage to the spinal cord and caudal brainstem structures. Appropriate position, angle and performance of PCB is therefore vital to achieving an effective stun, by targeting critical brain structures responsible for maintaining consciousness and ensuring proper PCB maintenance. Animals should be routinely checked between stunning and exsanguination, with minimal time between these stages, to minimise recovery of consciousness and alleviate suffering for horses at slaughter.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
Figure 0

Table 1. Brainstem and behavioural signs of consciousness assessed immediately post-penetrating captive-bolt stunning in horses (n = 100) (adapted from Gibson et al. 2015a)

Figure 1

Table 2. Behavioural signs of ineffective penetrating captive-bolt stunning observed in horses (n = 100) immediately post-first shot stratified by proportion of animals shot at each shot position (frontal or poll)

Figure 2

Figure 1. Scatterplot showing penetrating captive-bolt deviation in horses (n = 100) from the suggested HSA (2016) shot position in the frontal plane, rostral-caudal and lateral, and whether animal (a) showed signs of ineffective stunning, and (b) received a repeat shot attempt (i.e. left from operator’s perspective and rostral of midline).

Figure 3

Table 3a. Macroscopic gross brain damage to individual lobes of the cerebrum in horses (n = 100) after penetrating captive-bolt stunning, based on first shot attempt, stratified by frontal shots (n = 77) and poll shots (n = 23),with P-value, odds ratio and 95% confidence interval determined through Binary logistic regression tests to determine if position of shot, poll versus frontal, was associated with damage to a particular region (presence/absence), with damage as the outcome variable. Where damage assessment % does not add up to 100% this is due to missing data/inability to assess

Figure 4

Table 3b. Macroscopic gross brain damage to cerebellum, thalamus, brainstem and spinal cord, assessed in horses (n = 100) after penetrating captive-bolt stunning, based on first shot attempt, stratified by frontal shots (n = 77) and poll shots (n = 23),with P-value, odds ratio and 95% confidence interval determined through Binary logistic regression tests to determine if position of shot, poll versus frontal, was associated with damage to a particular region (presence/absence) with damage as the outcome variable. Where damage assessment % does not add up to 100% this is due to missing data/inability to assess

Figure 5

Table 4. Assessment of gross macroscopic brain pathology including details of penetrating captive-bolt entry and haemorrhage details (n = 100), stratified by frontal shot horses (n = 77) and poll shot (n = 23)

Figure 6

Figure 2. Photographs of two horse brains shot by penetrating captive bolt examined during gross pathology. Showing (a) an effectively shot horse, shot once, into cerebellum. Trajectory into midbrain and pons. Multiple bone fragments found in cerebellum. Mild (superficial) damage to occipital lobe. Moderate damage to pons and medulla. Severe damage to cerebellum. And (b) an ineffectively stunned horse, shot twice with first shot not penetrating the cranial vault and the second into the spinal cord. After the first shot the horse righted itself, had rhythmic respiration and spontaneous blinking. Rhythmic respiration was still present after the second shot.

Figure 7

Table 5. Associations between transverse or rostral-caudal penetrating captive bolt shot angle and damage to brain structures for horses (n = 100) (significant P-values in bold)

Figure 8

Table 6. Linear regression tests conducted to determine associations between lateral or rostral-caudal deviation and damage to brain structures with no damage as the reference catagory (significant P-values in bold, indicating where deviation was less likely to cause damage) for horses (n = 100) observed during penetrating captive-bolt stunning

Figure 9

Figure 3. Bar chart showing associations between macroscopic damage to critical brain structures (thalamus, midbrain, pons and/or medulla) and behavioural signs of ineffective penetrating captive-bolt stunning in horses (n = 100).