ArticleJournal of animal science2024
Evaluation of the capacity and effective angle of thalamic damage for 2 commercially available captive bolt tool types on cadaver heads from sows >200 kg body weight.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Relationship of tissue dimensions and stun placement on cadaver heads from 2- to 3-yr-old male bison (Bison bison).Journal of animal science · 2025Article
- Description of tissue profiles, thalamic location, and recommended penetrating captive bolt placement in cadaver heads from domesticated 24- to 48-mo-old male yaks (Translational animal science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the ability of 2 penetrating captive bolt (PCB) types (PISTOL, INLINE) to reach and disrupt the thalamus when applied in 2 placements (FRONTAL, BEHIND EAR) to chilled cadaver heads (N = 60) from sows >200 kg. Heads were randomly distributed across 6 treatments (n = 10): FRONTAL-INLINE, FRONTAL-PISTOL, FRONTAL-NO SHOT, BEHIND EAR-INLINE, BEHIND EAR-PISTOL, and BEHIND EAR-NO SHOT. The FRONTAL shot was placed 3.5 cm superior to the optic orbits at the midline; the BEHIND EAR shot was placed directly caudal to the pinna of the ear on the same plane as the eyes and targeting the middle of the opposite eye. For INLINE treatments, a Jarvis PAS-Type C 0.25R Super Heavy Duty PCB with a Long Bolt and 6.0 GR power loads was used. For PISTOL treatments, a Jarvis PAS-Type P 0.25R Pistol PCB with a Long Stunning Rod Nosepiece Assembly and 3.5 GR power loads was used. Heads were split along the bolt with a band saw. Tissue depth measurements are reported as Mean ± SE followed by 97.5% one-sided upper reference limit (URL). Total tissue thickness was less (P < 0.0001) at the FRONTAL (56.31 ± 1.76 mm; URL: 73.17 mm) than the BEHIND EAR placement (95.52 ± 3.30 mm; URL: 126.53 mm). Thalamic depth was less (P < 0.0001) at the FRONTAL (78.31 ± 1.32 mm; URL: 88.19 mm) than the BEHIND EAR placement (111.86 ± 3.22 mm; URL: 135.99 mm). The effective angle was greater (P < 0.0001) at the FRONTAL (4.72 ± 0.20°) than the BEHIND EAR placement (3.22 ± 0.17°). Potential for bolt-brain contact was not different (P = 1.0000) between FRONTAL-INLINE (10/10, 100% ± 0.01%), FRONTAL-PISTOL (10/10, 100% ± 0.01%), BEHIND EAR-INLINE (9/10, 90% ± 9.49%), and BEHIND EAR-PISTOL (10/10, 100% ± 0.01%); brain damage (P = 0.5577) between FRONTAL-INLINE (9/9, 100% ± 0.02%), FRONTAL-PISTOL (10/10, 100% ± 0.02%), BEHIND EAR-INLINE (4/10, 40% ± 15.49%), and BEHIND EAR-PISTOL (1/10, 10% ± 9.49%); potential for bolt-thalamus contact (P = 0.0683) for FRONTAL-INLINE (2/10, 20% ± 12.65%), FRONTAL-PISTOL (8/10, 80% ± 12.65%), BEHIND EAR-INLINE (7/9, 77.78% ± 13.86%), and BEHIND EAR-PISTOL (9/9, 100% ± 0.02%); or thalamic damage (P = 0.8041) for FRONTAL-INLINE (1/10, 10% ± 9.49%), FRONTAL-PISTOL (1/10, 10% ± 9.49%), BEHIND EAR-INLINE (2/8, 25% ± 15.31%), and BEHIND EAR-PISTOL (0/9, 0% ± 0.00%). The FRONTAL placement with an INLINE PCB may present the least risk of failure for the PCB euthanasia of mature sows >200 kg body weight due to less total tissue thickness and thalamic depth, greater effective angle, and prevalent brain damage.
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.