Stunning methods and slaughter of rabbits for human consumption

Abstract

This opinion on the killing of rabbits for human consumption ('slaughtering') responds to two mandates: one from the European Parliament (EP) and the other from the European Commission. The opinion describes stunning methods for rabbits known to the experts in the EFSA working group, which can be used in commercial practice, and which are sufficiently described in scientific and technical literature for the development of an opinion. These are electrical stunning, mechanical stunning with a penetrative and non-penetrative captive bolt and gas stunning. The latter method is not allowed in the EU anymore following Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, but may still be practiced elsewhere in the world. Related hazards and welfare consequences are also evaluated. To monitor stunning effectiveness as requested by the EP mandate, the opinion suggests the use of indicators for the state of consciousness, selected on the basis of their sensitivity, specificity and ease of use. Similarly, it suggests indicators to confirm animals are dead before dressing. For the European Commission mandate, slaughter processes were assessed from the arrival of rabbits in containers until their death, and grouped in three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading of containers from the truck, lairage, handling/ removing of rabbits from containers), stunning (including restraint) and bleeding (including bleeding following stunning and bleeding during slaughter without stunning). Ten welfare consequences resulting from the hazards that rabbits can be exposed to during slaughter are identified: consciousness, animal not dead, thermal stress (heat or cold stress), prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, restriction of movements, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animalbased measures (indicators) are described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, indicators, origins, preventive and corrective measures are developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are also proposed.

Impacts of Heat Stress on Rabbit Immune Function, Endocrine, Blood Biochemical Changes, Antioxidant Capacity and Production Performance, and the Potential Mitigation Strategies of Nutritional Intervention

“…The genetically improved rabbits in recent years have higher metabolic rates and production performances, making them sensitive to environmental stress, such as high temperature, transportation and changes in feed composition and intensive farming ( 6 ). These stressors affect the health and production performance of rabbits, and the negative impact of high temperature on production is prominent due to the thick villi and lack of sweat glands in rabbits; facing with the high ambient temperature, rabbits stretch out to lose heat by radiation and convection and raise their ear temperature, stretch the ear pinnae and spread them far from the body to expose the surface to the surroundings ( 7 , 8 ).…”

“…The normal body temperature of rabbit ranges from 38.5 to 39.5°C, and the individual difference ranges from 0.5 to 1.2°C. The optimal temperature range of rabbits is 15–25°C, and the optimal humidity is 55–65%, heat stress occurs when the ambient temperature is higher than 30°C, when the temperature is higher than 35°C, rabbits cannot regulate body temperature, resulting in heat failure ( 7 , 10 ). As known, heat stress has multiple unfavorable impacts on rabbit health and production performance, it has been suggested that heat stress causes 20–25% reduction in daily weight gain, 8–15% decrease in feed conversion ratio and 9–12% increase in mortality rate; and the reproductive performance decreased by 6–10%, as well as negatively influences the meat quality and carcass traits ( 6 , 11 , 12 ).…”

Pros and cons of different stunning methods from a Halal perspective: a review

“…It has been observed that the effective application of nonpenetrating captive bolt (mushroom-shaped) stunning powered by a cartridge and delivery of a sufficient blow to the frontal/parietal bones, causes acceleration and deceleration of the head and creates shear and rotational forces in the brain that leads to the immediate unconsciousness due to a brain concussion ( EFSA AHAW et al, 2020 ). Observations showed that the nonpenetrating stunning was less efficient on wooly head cattle such as Herefords compared with short haired cattle.…”

“…Rabbits lose their consciousness on average in 30 s when exposed to at least 80% CO 2 but they should be exposed to gas concentration for at least 2 min to ensure enough duration of unconsciousness until slaughtering. As gas stunning is done in larger batches, the interval between the end of exposure to the gas and sticking of the last animal might get longer when compared with other stunning methods so requires longer exposure of the animal to gas when compared with electrical stunning ( EFSA AHAW et al, 2020 ). Sometimes animals can be killed using higher concentrations of carbon dioxide ( Raj et al, 1994 ).…”

“…This method is more stressful for the animals when compared with electrical and captive bolt stunning when they are done correctly ( Llonch et al, 2012 ). Gasping is an indicator of respiratory distress that is associated with CO 2 stunning which is perceived as an alarming response but is also related to unpleasant reactions to gas inhalation ( EFSA AHAW et al, 2020 ). LIonch et al (2012) reported a higher percentage of rabbits gasping when exposed to 90% CO 2 than to 80% N 2 and 20% CO 2 .…”