Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33498740›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

Head-Only Stunning of Turkeys Part 2: Subjective and Objective Assessment of the Application of AC and DC Waveforms.

Steve Wotton, Andrew Grist, Mike O'Callaghan, Ed van Klink

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 59% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Steve WottonBristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, BS40 5DU Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9855-0267
Andrew GristBristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, BS40 5DU Bristol, UK.
Mike O'CallaghanBristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, BS40 5DU Bristol, UK.
Ed van KlinkBristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, BS40 5DU Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3175-5823
University of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrical stunning is likely to remain an important stunning method for turkeys at slaughter. The purpose of this study is to understand the application of various waveforms of alternating current (AC) and pulsed direct currents (DC), head-only, to turkeys and to improve the effectiveness of handheld stunning of turkeys. We evaluated the effectiveness of stunning by documenting physical responses and recording electroencephalograms (EEGs). For the assessment of physical responses, the stunning voltage was varied depending on the proportion of animals effectively stunned at a certain voltage level. If all turkeys in a group of 10 were stunned, the voltage was decreased, and the next group was stunned. This was repeated until not all turkeys showed signs of being effectively stunned. The experiment was then repeated at the voltage level just above the one that showed incomplete effective stunning. The effects of the stunning on the EEG recording was assessed in 16 turkeys to measure the occurrence of epileptiform EEGs, in 14 turkeys to assess epileptiform EEGs after neck-cut (bleeding), and in 14 turkeys to assess the effect of increased voltage and reduced frequency on epileptiform EEGs. Assessing EEGs in a laboratory setting contributes considerably to the understanding of electrical stunning procedures. Voltages between 125 and 250 V, depending on the waveform assessed, were effective in producing an effective stun in turkeys in this study.

Indexed as

head-only electrical stunningturkeysvoltages

Identifiers

PMID33498740
PMCPMC7912398
OpenAlexW3124328870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.