A Need for Clarity in Animal Welfare Regulation and Research Terminology: What is ‘Cervical Dislocation’ and ‘Stunning’ in On-farm Poultry Slaughter?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2018.205.210Keywords:
Animal welfare, cervical dislocation, geese, on-farm slaughter, stunningAbstract
Clarity in the terminology used in animal welfare regulation and science is important. The use of the terms ‘cervical dislocation’ and ‘stunning’ in regulations regarding on-farm poultry slaughter and the role of the scientific evidence in developing these regulations are examined. It is concluded that the use of limited scientific evidence can unwittingly lead to a reduction in animal welfare standards. To avoid such dilemmas, it is suggested that clear definitions in the terminology used is essential at all levels from the design of experiments, the interpretation of results, the work of scientific committees and drafters of legislation and subsequently at the level of the competent authorities and enforcers. If this clarity is not achieved and it has not been achieved in some instances, then confusion and misunderstanding will arise, with negative consequences for animal welfare, primary producers and professionals.
References
Stevens, S.S., 1935. The operational definition of psychological concepts. Psychol. Rev., 42: 517-527.
Martin, P. and P. Bateson, 1986. Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Lehner, P., 1996. Handbook of Ethological Methods. 2nd Edn., Cambridge University Press, UK., ISBN: 978-0521637503, Pages: 672.
Hogan, J.A., 2017. The Study of Behaviour: Organization, Methods and Principles. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bernard, L.L., 1924. Instinct: A Study in Social Psychology. Henry Holt and Co., New York, USA.
Tinbergen, N., 1951. The Study of Instinct. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Council of the European Union, 2009. Council regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing. Offic. J. Eur. Union, L303: 1-21.
European Commission, 2017. Preparation for Best Practices on the Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing: Final Report. Office of the European Union, Luxemburg, ISBN 978-92-79-75331-2.
Gregory, N.G. and S.B. Wotton, 1990. Comparison of neck dislocation and percussion of the head on visual evoked responses in the chicken's brain. Vet. Record, 126: 570-572.
European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA), 2004. Welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing the main commercial species of animals. EFSA J., 45: 1-29.
Erasmus, M.A., P. Lawlis, I.J.H. Duncan and T.M. Widowski, 2010. Using time to insensibility and estimated time of death to evaluate a nonpenetrating captive bolt, cervical dislocation and blunt trauma for on-farm killing of turkeys. Poult. Sci., 89: 1345-1354.
European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA), 2006. The welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing applied to commercially farmed deer, goats, rabbits, ostriches, ducks, geese and quail. EFSA J., 326: 1-18.
Council of the European Union, 1992. Council regulation (EEC) No. 2082/92 of 14 July 1992 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs. Offic. J. Eur. Union, L208: 9-10.
Kijowski, J., A. Mikolajczak, L. Kwitowski, J. Nencki and M. Sliga, 2005. Traditional rearing and slaughter of Christmas turkeys in England. Polish J. Food Nutr. Sci., 14: 75-78.
Salamon, A., 2012. NYD Turkeys and EU regulations. Irish Farm. J., 26 May 2012, pp: 22!.
The European Parliament and The Council of The European Union, 2004. Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 of the European parliament and of the council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs. Offic. J. Eur. Commun., L139: 1-54.
Blokhuis, H.J., B. Roth, S. Holst, R. Mohan and C. Terlouw, 2004. Welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing methods. Scientific report of the Scientific Panel for Animal Health and Welfare on request from the commission related to welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing methods: EFSA-Q-2003-093. European Food Safety Authority.
Sparrey, J., D.A. Sandercock, N.H.C. Sparks and V. Sandilands, 2014. Current and novel methods for killing poultry individually on-farm. World's Poult. Sci. J., 70: 737-758.
Verhoeven, M.T.W., M.A. Gerritzen, L.J. Hellebrekers and B. Kemp, 2015. Indicators used in livestock to assess unconsciousness after stunning: A review. Animal, 9: 320-330.
Anil, M.H., 1991. Studies on the return of physical reflexes in pigs following electrical stunning. Meat Sci., 30: 13-21.
Hewitt, L., 2000. The development of a novel device for humanely dispatching casualty poultry. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bristol, England.
Hewitt, L., 2004. A test of the effectiveness of the poultry casualty slaughter device for use in ducks and geese. DEFRA Review of Animal Welfare at Slaughter Research Programme, September 2004.
Gibson, T.J., C.B. Rebelo, T.A. Gowers and N.M. Chancellor, 2018. Electroencephalographic assessment of concussive non-penetrative captive bolt stunning of turkeys. Br. Poult. Sci., 59: 13-20.
Martin, J.E., D.E. McKeegan, J. Sparrey and V. Sandilands, 2016. Comparison of novel mechanical cervical dislocation and a modified captive bolt for on-farm killing of poultry on behavioural reflex responses and anatomical pathology. Anim. Welfare, 25: 227-241.
Martin, J.E., V. Sandilands, J. Sparrey, L. Baker and D.E. McKeegan, 2018. On farm evaluation of a novel mechanical cervical dislocation device for poultry. Animals, Vol. 8.
Cranley, J., 2017. EU council regulation 1099/2009. UK J. Anim. Law, 1: 24-25.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
