Expert Knowledge Elicitation on Indicators for Success of Stunning and Killing

Sellke, Piet

doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2013.en-501

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, an online survey was launched using a questionnaire to gather subjective opinion from experts with knowledge and experience in stunning and slaughtering of animals. The survey was outsourced to an external communication company and its final technical report can be found on EFSA's website (Sellke, 2013). The survey was structured on the basis of the results from the questionnaire distributed at the stakeholder meeting held on 30 January 2013 and was addressed to approximately 160 participants.…”

Section: Questionnaire 2 (Online Survey)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for poultry

Welfare¹

2013

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This scientific opinion proposes toolboxes of welfare indicators, and their corresponding outcomes of consciousness, unconsciousness or death, for developing monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for poultry stunned using electrical waterbaths and gas mixtures or slaughtered without stunning. For waterbath stunning, the opinion proposes a toolbox of indicators for assessing consciousness in poultry at two key stages of monitoring: (a) between the exit from the waterbath stunner and neck cutting and (b) during bleeding. For gas stunning, the opinion proposes a toolbox of indicators for assessing consciousness in poultry at two key stages of monitoring: (a) during shackling and (b) during bleeding. For slaughter without stunning, a toolbox is proposed for confirming death prior to entering scald tanks. Various activities‐including a systematic literature review, an online survey and stakeholders’ and hearing experts’ meetings‐were conducted to gather information about the specificity, sensitivity and feasibility of the indicators. On the basis of such information, a methodology was developed to select the most appropriate indicators to be used in the monitoring procedures. The frequency of checking differs according to the role of each person with responsibility for ensuring poultry welfare. The personnel will have to check all the birds and confirm that they are not conscious following stunning with electrical waterbaths or gas mixtures and that they are dead before entering scald tanks. For the animal welfare officer, a mathematical model for the sampling protocols is proposed, giving some allowance to set the sample size of birds that he/she needs to check at a given throughput rate (total number of birds slaughtered in the slaughterhouses) and threshold failure rate (number of potential failures‐birds that are conscious after stunning). Finally, different risk factors and scenarios are proposed to define a ‘normal’ or a ‘reinforced’ monitoring protocol, according to the needs of the slaughterhouse.

show abstract

Section: Questionnaire 2 (Online Survey)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for poultry

Welfare¹

2013

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, an online survey was launched using a questionnaire to gather subjective opinion from experts with knowledge and experience in stunning and slaughtering of animals. The conduct of the survey was outsourced to an external communication company and its final technical report can be found on EFSA's website (Sellke, 2013). The survey was structured on the basis of the results from the questionnaire distributed at the stakeholder meeting held on 30 January 2013 and was addressed to approximately 160 participants.…”

Section: Questionnaire 2 (Online Survey)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for pigs

2013

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This scientific opinion proposes toolboxes of welfare indicators for developing monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for pigs stunned with the head‐only electrical method or carbon dioxide at high concentration. In particular, the opinion proposes welfare indicators together with their corresponding outcomes of consciousness, unconsciousness or death. The opinion proposes a toolbox of indicators and the outcomes to be used to assess consciousness in pigs at three key stages of monitoring: (a) after stunning and during shackling and hoisting, (b) during sticking and (c) during bleeding. Various activities‐including a systematic literature review, an online survey and stakeholders’ and hearing experts’ meetings‐were conducted to gather information about specificity, sensitivity and feasibility of the indicators that are to be included in the toolboxes for monitoring welfare. On the basis of information gathered during these activities, a methodology was developed to select the most appropriate indicators that could be used in the monitoring procedures. The frequency of checking differs according to the role of each person with responsibility for ensuring animal welfare at slaughter. The personnel performing stunning, shackling, hoisting and/or bleeding will have to check all the animals and confirm that they are not conscious following stunning. For the animal welfare officer, who has the overall responsibility for animal welfare, a mathematical model for the sampling protocols is proposed, giving some allowance to set the sample size of animals that he/she needs to check at a given throughput rate (total number of animals slaughtered in the slaughterhouses) and tolerance level (number of potential failures‐animals that are conscious after stunning; animals that are not unconscious or not dead after slaughter without stunning). The model can also be applied to estimate threshold failure rate at a chosen throughput rate and sample size. Finally, different risk factors and scenarios are proposed to define a ‘normal’ or a ‘reinforced’ monitoring protocol, according to the needs of the slaughterhouse.

show abstract

Expert Knowledge Elicitation on Indicators for Success of Stunning and Killing

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for poultry

Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for poultry

Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for pigs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About