Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39518864›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

Commentary: A Comparison of the Methods of the Pre-Slaughter Stunning of Cattle in Australia-Mechanical, Electrical, and Diathermic Syncope.

Gabrielle C Musk, Craig B Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

2 authors.

Gabrielle C MuskAnimal Anaesthesia, Perth, WA 6107, Australia.
Craig B JohnsonSchool of Veterinary Science, Massey University, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In adult cattle, there are various methods of pre-slaughter stunning, all requiring adequate restraint to ensure the accurate placement of a device to target the brain of the animal and create an unconscious state. For adult cattle, these methods include electrical stunning, mechanical stunning, and a novel system called diathermic syncope (DTS). Peer-reviewed publications, industry reports, government documents, and unpublished reports were considered for inclusion in this review of the attributes of the electrical, mechanical, and diathermic syncope methods of stunning. The parameters for comparison of the methods included Australian approval status, religious compliance, reliability, reversibility, time to effect, duration of effect, carcase damage, cardiovascular effects, logistics, and welfare implications. The pre-slaughter stunning of cattle with DTS is reliable, reversible, non-concussive, non-penetrating, does not cause carcase damage, and has a body of evidence extensive enough to inform appropriate practices in cattle processing facilities. These attributes optimise animal welfare in this context, align with Australian legislative requirements, and suggest that DTS might be a suitable stunning technique for consideration by religious authorities in terms of both halal and kosher slaughter criteria.

Indexed as

animal welfarecattleslaughterstunning

Identifiers

PMID39518864
PMCPMC11545014

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.