ArticleBMC veterinary research2018
Stunning of common carp: Results from a field and a laboratory study.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Farmed fish welfare during slaughter in Italy: survey on stunning and killing methods and indicators of unconsciousness.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Article
- Is humane slaughtering of rainbow trout achieved in conventional production chains in Germany? Results of a pilot field and laboratory study.BMC veterinary research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommon carp Cyprinus carpio is an important food fish in Central Europe, which in some regions is consumed as part of local tradition. The majority of carp are sold by small retailers and not processed in commercial processing plants. The overall objective of this study was to monitor how animal welfare is safeguarded during the stunning and slaughtering of carp for retail sale. For this, the stunning and slaughtering process was monitored on 12 carp farms. Four welfare-related parameters were assessed: (i) stunning success, (ii) injuries related to the applied stunning method, (iii) time between stunning and slaughter, and (iv) visible responses of carp during slaughtering. In addition, indicators of physiological stress were measured. In order to analyse whether the absence of behavioural indicators of consciousness after electrical stunning was correlated with unconsciousness a complementary laboratory study was performed. Here, carp were exposed to electrical current densities between 0.09 and 0.41 A/dm
resultsThe carp farms applied manual percussive (18%) or electrical (23%) stunning methods, while the majority of farms used a combination of electrical stunning immediately followed by manual percussive stunning (59%). In the latter condition, 92.6% of stunned carp displayed no behavioural indicators of consciousness and significantly fewer injuries related to mishits compared to sole percussive stunning. In the laboratory study, behavioural indicators of consciousness recovered in carp between 1 and 9 min following removal of the electrical current. However, VER could be recorded already at 30 ± 8 s post stunning. This indicates a fast recovery of carp from electrical stunning when exposed to current densities in the range of those generated by commercially available stunning instruments for fish.
conclusionsUnder field conditions, percussion (applied manually) and electrical stunning might be poor inducers of unconsciousness before slaughter, while a combination was most effective. In order to undertake improvements in electrical stunning, further investigations into the current density, required for inducing prolonged insensibility in carp during electrical stunning, are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.