Evaluación del bienestar animal por medio De indicadores conductuales durante el Sacrificio de bovinos

Abstract

Abstract

Colombian laws establish the guidelines for slaughtering of cattle which have to f guarantee a humane procedure, besides complying with some quality parameters for the final product. The objective of this study was to evaluate efficiency of the stunning process in two slaughterhouses as an indicator of animal welfare. Stunning was evaluated in 1343 bovines. Signs of loss of consciousness (corneal reflex, attempts to head up, vocalizations and rhythmic breathing) as well as behavioral indicators of Animal Welfare (AW) loss (slipping, falling, vocalizations, jumping and backward movements) were assessed to identify animal welfare standards. Besides, the stunning delay, the number of shots per animal, the appropriate location of the shots and the interval between shot and bleeding were measured. Although, 98.5% of animals collapsed immediately after receiving the first shot, 23.6% (n=307) recovered sensitivity before bleeding, because of the wide interval between stunning and bleeding which was higher than 60 seconds (98.7%). There was a significant association between stunning delay and the number of behavioral events counted (p<0.01). Moreover, differences in the behavioral indicators among the slaughterhouses evaluated were found (p<0.01) showing greater incidence in slaughter house “A” which had a head fixation system, but not one to hold still the entire body of the animal. Aversive behavioral responses were encountered in plant “B”, such as the use of cattle prods to hold and push the animal while it was in the stunning box. The results indicate that in the slaughterhouses evaluated animal welfare during slaughtering is defficient and it is necessary to implement personnel training, improvement of infrastructure and evaluation indicators. 

Keywords:

Bienestar del animal

comportamiento

ganado de carne

insensibilización

sacrificio humanitario

Animal welfare

behavior

livestock

stunning

humanae slaughtering

References

 Blokhuis, H.J.; Keeling, L.J.; Gavinelli, A.; Serratosa, J. (2008). Animal welfare´s impact on the food chain. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 19: S79-S87.

 Bourguet, C.; Deiss, V.; Boissy, A.; Andanson, S. & Terlouw, E. M. C. (2011). Effects of feed deprivation on behavioral reactivity and physiological status in Holstein cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 88: 3272-3285.

Ferguson, D.M. & Warner, R.D. (2008). Have we underestimated the impact of pre-slaughter stress on meat quality in ruminants? Meat Science. 80: 12-19.

 Gallo, C. (2007). Animal welfare in the Americas. Compendium of technical items presented to the international committee or to the regional commissions of the OIE. Florianopolis, Brasil.

 Gallo, C. (2010). Bienestar animal y buenas prácticas de manejo animal relacionadas con la calidad de la carne. En: Bianchi, G. & Feed, O. (Eds.). Introducción a la ciencia de la carne. Uruguay., pp. 455-494.

 Gallo, C.; Teuber, C.; Cartes, M.; Uribe, H. & Grandin, T. (2003). Mejoras en la insensibilización de bovinos con pistola neumática de proyectil retenido tras cambios de equipamiento y capacitación del personal. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria. 35:159-170.

 Grandin, T. (2001). Cattle vocalizations are associated with handling and equipment problems at beef slaughter plants. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 71: 191-201.

 Grandin, T. (2003).Transferring results of behavioral research to industry to improve animal welfare on the farm, ranch and the slaughter plant. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 81: 215-228.

 Grandin,T. (2006). Progress and challenges in animal handling and slaughter in the U.S. Applied Animal BehaviorScience.100:129-139.

 Grandin, T. (2010a). Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants. Meat Science. 86, 56-65.

 Grandin, T. (2010b). Recommended animal handling guidelines audit guide: A systematic approach to animal welfare. Obtenido el 20 de agosto de 2011. Desde http://www.animalhandling.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/5
8425.

 Grandin, T. (2010c). Slaughter plants: behavior and welfare assessment. En: Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior. Colorado: Elsevier., pp.197-508

 Gregory, N.G. (2005). Recent concerns about stunning and slaughter. Meat Science. 70: 481-491.

 Gregory, N.G.; Lee, C. J. & Widdicombe, J.P. (2007). Depth of concussion in cattle shot by penetrating captive bolt.Meat Science. 77: 499-503.

 Grignard, L.; Boivin, X.; Boissy, A. & Neindre, P.L. (2001). Do beef cattle react consistently to different handling situations?.Applied Animal Behavior Science. 71: 263-276.

 Linares, M.B.; Bornez, R. & Vergara, H. (2007).Effect of different stunning systems on meat quality of light lamb. Meat Science. 76: 657- 681.

 Manteuffel, G.; Puppe, B. & Schön, P. (2004). Vocalization of farm animals as a measure of welfare. Applied Animal Behavior Science.88: 163-182.

 Ministerio de la Protección Social. (2007a). Decreto 1500. Bogotá, Colombia. Ferguson, D.M. & Warner, R.D. (2008). Have we underestimated the impact of pre-slaughter stress on meatquality in ruminants? Meat Science. 80: 12-19.

 Gallo, C. (2007). Animal welfare in the Americas. Compendium of technical items presented to the international committee or to the regional commissions of the OIE. Florianopolis, Brasil.

 Gallo, C. (2010). Bienestar animal y buenas prácticas de manejo animal relacionadas con la calidad de la carne. En: Bianchi, G. & Feed, O. (Eds.). Introducción a la ciencia de la carne. Uruguay., pp. 455-494.

 Gallo, C.; Teuber, C.; Cartes, M.; Uribe, H. & Grandin, T. (2003). Mejoras en la insensibilización de bovinos con pistola neumática de proyectil retenido tras cambios de equipamiento y capacitación del personal. Archivos de Medicina Veterinaria. 35:159-170.

 Grandin, T. (2001). Cattle vocalizations are associated with handling and equipment problems at beef slaughter plants. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 71: 191-201.

 Grandin, T. (2003).Transferring results of behavioral research to industry to improve animal welfare on the farm, ranch and the slaughter plant. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 81: 215-228.

 Grandin,T. (2006). Progress and challenges in animal handling and slaughter in the U.S. Applied Animal BehaviorScience.100:129-139.

 Grandin, T. (2010a). Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants. Meat Science. 86, 56-65.

 Grandin, T. (2010b). Recommended animal handling guidelines audit guide: A systematic approach to animal welfare. Obtenido el 20 de agosto de 2011. http://www.animalhandling.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/58425.

 Grandin, T. (2010c). Slaughter plants: behavior and welfare assessment. En: Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior. Colorado: Elsevier., pp.197-508

 Gregory, N.G. (2005). Recent concerns about stunning and slaughter. Meat Science. 70: 481-491.

 Gregory, N.G.; Lee, C. J. & Widdicombe, J.P. (2007). Depth of concussion in cattle shot by penetrating captive bolt.Meat Science. 77: 499-503.

 Grignard, L.; Boivin, X.; Boissy, A. & Neindre, P.L. (2001). Do beef cattle react consistently to different handling situations?.Applied Animal Behavior Science. 71: 263-276.

 Linares, M.B.; Bornez, R. & Vergara, H. (2007).Effect of different stunning systems on meat quality of light lamb. Meat Science. 76: 657- 681.

 Manteuffel, G.; Puppe, B. & Schön, P. (2004). Vocalization of farm animals as a measure of welfare. Applied Animal Behavior Science.88: 163-182.

 Ministerio de la Protección Social. (2007a). Decreto 1500. Bogotá, Colombia.