Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for poultry

Welfare, EFSA Panel on Animal Health and

doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3521

Cited by 9 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1099/2009 'on the protection of animals at the time of killing', which was prepared on the basis of two Scientific Opinions adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2004. Successively (in 2012, 2013, 2014, EFSA produced other Scientific Opinions related to this subject.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Killing for purposes other than slaughter: poultry

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2019

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poultry of different ages may have to be killed on-farm for purposes other than slaughter (in which slaughtering is defined as being for human consumption) either individually or on a large scale (e.g. because unproductive, for disease control, etc.). The processes of on-farm killing that were assessed are handling and stunning and/or killing methods (including restraint). The latter were grouped into four categories: electrical methods, modified atmosphere, mechanical methods and lethal injection. In total, 29 hazards were identified and characterised, most of these regard stunning and/or killing. Staff were identified as origin for 26 hazards and 24 hazards were attributed to lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or due to fatigue. Specific hazards were identified for day-old chicks killed via maceration. Corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 13 hazards, and management showed to have a crucial role in prevention. Eight welfare consequences, the birds can be exposed to during on-farm killing, were identified: not dead, consciousness, heat stress, cold stress, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins, preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences were also proposed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Killing for purposes other than slaughter: poultry

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2019

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hazard's preventive and corrective measures: This hazard raises bird welfare and/or ethical concerns. To prevent it, it is important to ensure proper monitoring of consciousness and death during key stages of slaughtering (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2013;Raj and Velarde, 2016), and ensuring death of the animal before it enters the scalding tank is the only way to be sure that no bird will recover consciousness while being processed. Backup stunning and backup neck cutting should be performed in case birds miss the neck cutter (EFSA, 2004).…”

Section: Birds Entering the Scalding Tank Alivementioning

confidence: 99%

Slaughter of animals: poultry

Nielsen¹,

Álvarez²,

Bicout³

et al. 2019

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The killing of poultry for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or during on-farm slaughter. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed, from the arrival of birds in containers until their death, were grouped into three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading of containers from the truck, lairage, handling/removing of birds from containers); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding (including bleeding following stunning and bleeding during slaughter without stunning). Stunning methods were grouped into three categories: electrical, controlled modified atmosphere and mechanical. In total, 35 hazards were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were identified as the origin of 29 hazards, and 28 hazards were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 11 hazards, with management shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Ten welfare consequences, the birds can be exposed to during slaughter, were identified: consciousness, heat stress, cold stress, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, restriction of movements, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures were described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins, and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences were also proposed.

show abstract

“…The correlation between EEG evidence of unconsciousness and animal-based indicators is characterized for established stunning methods, permitting the use of animal-based indicators as proxies for unconsciousness. A list with indicators for recognition of a successful stun in different species after exposure to hypoxic atmospheres using gas mixtures is provided in previous EFSA opinions (EFSA, 2004(EFSA, , 2013d. Studies in poultry and pigs concerning welfare suggest that loss of posture is the earliest behavioural sign of the onset of unconsciousness.…”

Section: Onset Of Unconsciousness and Insensibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The extent of disruption caused by a stunning intervention and the induction of unconsciousness and insensibility are best demonstrated using EEGs and ECoGs (EFSA, 2004(EFSA, , 2013d. As described in the EFSA guidance (2013c), it is acceptable that studies reporting interventions assess the onset of unconsciousness as this state is always accompanied by the onset of insensibility.…”

Section: Onset Of Unconsciousness and Insensibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indicators of recovery of consciousness after stunning are listed in EFSA scientific opinion (EFSA, 2004(EFSA, , 2013d, but their sequence depends on the stunning intervention. Recovery of spontaneous breathing is considered to be the earliest indicator of recovery of consciousness, which may begin as regular gagging (a brainstem reflex of forced/laboured breathing through the mouth) in a recumbent animal.…”

Section: Duration Of Unconsciousness and Insensibility (Until Death)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scientific Opinion on the use of low atmosphere pressure system (LAPS) for stunning poultry

Authié¹,

Berg²,

Bøtner³

et al. 2014

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The EFSA"s Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the use of a low atmosphere pressure system (LAPS) for stunning poultry. Four documents were provided by the European Commission (EC) as the basis for an assessment of the extent to which the LAPS is able to provide a level of animal welfare at least equivalent to that ensured by the current allowed methods for stunning poultry. The LAPS is described as rendering poultry unconscious by gradually reducing oxygen tension in the atmosphere leading to progressive hypoxia in the birds. In order to be allowed in the EU, new stunning methods must ensure 1) absence of pain, distress and suffering until the onset of unconsciousness, and 2) that the animal remains unconscious until death. The submitted studies were peer-reviewed by the AHAW Panel as outlined in its "Guidance on the assessment criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning intervention regarding animal protection at the time of killing". It is unclear from the submitted documents whether the rate of decompression used in LAPS induces unconsciousness and death without causing avoidable pain and suffering in poultry. The assessed studies did not pass the eligibility assessment and, therefore, no further assessment was undertaken. © European SUMMARYFollowing a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the use of a low atmosphere pressure system (LAPS) for stunning poultry prior to slaughter. Four documents were provided by the EC as the basis for an assessment of the extent to which the LAPS is able to provide a level of animal welfare at least equivalent to that ensured by the current allowed methods for stunning poultry. In the case that the outcome of the assessment was positive, the EC requested an assessment of the conditions under which the LAPS could be used in a commercial context.The LAPS is described as rendering poultry unconscious by gradually reducing oxygen tension in the atmosphere leading to progressive hypoxia in the birds. This intervention is not permitted in the EU. In order to be allowed in the EU, new stunning methods must ensure a level of welfare at least equivalent to that of the methods already provided in Council Regulation 1099/2009.In this opinion, the term "acceptable alternative" is defined as an alternative stunning intervention that is at least as good as those listed in the Council Regulation (EC) 1099/2009. In particular, for interventions that do not induce immediate unconsciousness, the alternative procedure should ensure 1) absence of pain, distress and suffering until the onset of unconsciousness and, 2) that the animal remains unconscious and insensible until death.Following the adoption of two Scientific Opinions on the stunning of rabbits by CO 2 and the electrical stunning of lambs (EFSA, 2013a, b), the EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare developed a guidance on the process and criteria applied by...

show abstract

Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for poultry

Cited by 9 publications

References 21 publications

Killing for purposes other than slaughter: poultry

Killing for purposes other than slaughter: poultry

Slaughter of animals: poultry

Scientific Opinion on the use of low atmosphere pressure system (LAPS) for stunning poultry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About