Review Of The Main Welfare Risks Related To Electrical Stunning Of Small Ruminants (Ovine And Caprine Species) O'Connor, Annette O'Connor, Annette Dzikamunhenga, Rungano Totton, S. Glanville, J. Wood, H.
dc.contributor.department Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine 2018-02-17T02:07:41.000 2020-07-07T05:13:58Z 2020-07-07T05:13:58Z Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC 2015 2015-09-30 2015-01-01
dc.description.abstract <p>EFSA commissioned a comprehensive review of the welfare aspects of electrical stunning methods for small ruminants with an emphasize on low ampere stunning to establish the state of the art in the field and to assess whether scientific studies would address criteria outlined in an EFSA guidance on the assessment criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning interventions regarding animal protection at the time of killing (EFSA Journal 2013;11(12):3486). The review was not formulated as a systematic review with a focused question instead the review followed the approach to assessing the literature described by the EFSA guidance. The key databases searched were: Science Citation Index (1900-2014), CAB Abstracts (1910-2014) and Medline (1990-2014). Key conferences proceedings and the bibliographies of review articles were manually searched. The search yielded 1599 records. 706 duplicate records were removed and 894 records assessed for relevance. Relevant studies reported electronic stunning of small ruminants and outcomes associated with onset and duration of unconsciousness. Eighteen papers reported electrical approaches to stunning in sheep. No goats were studied. None of the papers reported all of the parameters detailed in the EFSA guidance (EFSA, 2013) and a risk of bias assessment was not conducted. No studies reported the appearance of the electrodes. When the frequency (Hz) applied to the animal was reported, it was not specified whether this represented a minimum or maximum frequency. Only one study explicitly reported an effect size for amperes. The study suggested that the odds of a poor stun were higher for amperes of 0.6 (odds ratio (OD) of 6.27 with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.98-20.7) and 0.8 (OR of 24.4 with 95% CI of 6.98-85.2) when compared to a poor stun at 1.25 ampere.</p>
dc.description.comments <p>This report is <em>EFSA Supporting Report </em>(2015): EN-741, 68 pp. Available online: <a href="" target="_blank"></a>. Posted with permission.</p>
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.identifier archive/
dc.identifier.articleid 1003
dc.identifier.contextkey 7662247
dc.identifier.s3bucket isulib-bepress-aws-west
dc.identifier.submissionpath vdpam_reports/3
dc.language.iso en
dc.relation.ispartofseries 2015:EN-741
dc.source.bitstream archive/|||Fri Jan 14 23:19:24 UTC 2022
dc.subject.disciplines Laboratory and Basic Science Research
dc.subject.disciplines Large or Food Animal and Equine Medicine
dc.subject.disciplines Meat Science
dc.subject.keywords animal welfare; electrical stunning; small ruminant slaughter
dc.title Review Of The Main Welfare Risks Related To Electrical Stunning Of Small Ruminants (Ovine And Caprine Species)
dc.type article
dc.type.genre report
dspace.entity.type Publication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication bbd2db96-9105-4b96-8f96-713be18a75ac
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication 5ab07352-4171-4f53-bbd7-ac5d616f7aa8
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
1.31 MB
Adobe Portable Document Format