Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35262702›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2022

Technical Note: Validation of the effectiveness of electric stunning for euthanasia of mature swine (Sus scrofa domesticus).

Scott A Kramer, Brooklyn K Wagner, Steve J Moeller, Andrew S Bowman, Justin D Kieffer, Andréia Gonçalves Arruda, Michael D Cressman, Monique D Pairis-Garcia

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Scott A KramerAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Riverdale, MD 20737, USA.
Brooklyn K WagnerCollege of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA.
Steve J MoellerDepartment of Animal Science, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Andrew S BowmanCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Justin D KiefferDepartment of Animal Science, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Andréia Gonçalves ArrudaCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Michael D CressmanDepartment of Animal Science, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Monique D Pairis-GarciaCollege of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA.
The Ohio State University · USNorth Carolina State University · USUnited States Department of Agriculture · US

Funding

National Pork BoardPork Checkoff 20-097
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrocution and the use of a penetrating captive bolt gun (PCBG) are both acceptable methods of euthanasia for market weight swine. Research has demonstrated that a PCBG is effective in both growing and mature swine. Given limited to no published research base on electrocution in mature swine, the objectives of the present study were to evaluate the efficacy of a two-stage (head only followed by head to heart, 10 s contact for each) mobile electric stunner (E-STUN, Hubert HAAS TBG 96N) and to assess euthanasia outcomes when comparing E-STUN with the frontal placement of a heavy-duty PCBG (Jarvis, In-line Cylinder Style) when applied to heavy-weight (>200 kg) mature boars and sows. Effectiveness of the E-STUN and PCBG was evaluated first in unconscious anesthetized mature swine (n = 7 boars and sows per treatment; average weight 282 ± 48 kg, n = 28) to reduce the risk of failure in a conscious animal and then in conscious mature swine (n = 3 boars and sows per treatment; average weight 282 ± 63 kg, n = 12). Data from both stages were combined for analyses. Treatment efficacy was defined as any pig that achieved cardiac and respiratory arrest within 10 min after treatment application. A three-point traumatic brain injury score (0 = normal; 1 = some abnormalities; and 2 = grossly abnormal, unrecognizable) was used to evaluate six neuroanatomical structures (cerebral cortex, cerebellum, hypothalamus, thalamus, pons, and brain stem), and the presence of intracranial hemorrhage was also noted. All animals were immediately rendered insensible with E-STUN and PCBG, and no difference was noted between treatments for the detection of corneal reflex following treatment application (P = 0.11). Rhythmic breathing was absent following the administration of either E-STUN or PCBG. When evaluating the time to last heartbeat, there was a significant interaction between sex and treatment. Boars euthanized via E-STUN had a 346.8-s decrease in time to last heartbeat compared with boars euthanized via PCBG (P < 0.001), and females euthanized via E-STUN had a 479.3-s decrease in time to last heartbeat compared with females euthanized via PCBG (P < 0.001). Intracranial hemorrhage was common for both methods, and visible disruption of neural tissue was evident due to the physical nature of the PCBG. This study demonstrated that a mobile E-STUN system is as effective as a heavy-duty PCBG in inducing insensibility and death and shows promise as an alternative method for euthanizing mature pigs on-farm.

Indexed as

Euthanasia, AnimalSwine DiseasesAnimalsBrain StemFarmsFemaleIntracranial HemorrhagesMaleSus scrofaSwineelectrical stunningeuthanasiamature swine

Identifiers

PMID35262702
PMCPMC9030131
OpenAlexW4220727338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.