ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2019
Macroscopic Examination of Multiple-Shot Cattle Heads-An Animal Welfare Due Diligence Tool for Abattoirs Using Penetrating Captive Bolt Devices?
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electroencephalographic assessment of pneumatic penetrating captive-bolt stunning of donkeysAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2026Article
- Pathophysiology of penetrating captive-bolt stunning of horses.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2025Article
- Assessment of ante mortem welfare indicators and the pathophysiology of captive-bolt trauma in equids at slaughter.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2024Article
- Animal Welfare during Transport and Slaughter of Cattle: A Systematic Review of Studies in the European Legal Framework.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
- A Case of Multiple Stun Attempts in a Bovine Due to Chronic Disease Process Causing Cranial Abnormalities.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ideally, the application of a penetrating captive bolt device to render cattle immediately unconscious prior to slaughter would be 100% effective. Unfortunately, due to various factors this is not always the case. This paper examined, as an initial proof of concept, 12 bovine heads which had received more than one shot from a penetrating captive bolt, collected from various abattoirs within the United Kingdom. The heads were frozen to facilitate splitting on the medial plane to prevent distortion of soft tissue and each sagittal section was examined macroscopically to ascertain if this method could be used to determine the reasons for repeated stun attempts. In 10 out of 12 heads, shot placement was the determining factor, in one other head it was felt that anatomical variation was the reason and the twelfth head demonstrated signs of gun malfunction as the likely cause. This work provides evidence for a larger trial to facilitate the production of guidance for the abattoir industry, the Animal Welfare Officer and regulators on the examination of heads as part of an investigation of failures of a mechanical stunning system and to provide training material for slaughter staff tasked with effectively stunning cattle.
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.