Welfare of pigs at slaughter
2020; Wiley; Volume: 18; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6148
ISSN1831-4732
AutoresSøren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Álvarez, Dominique Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin‐Bastuji, José Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar, Virginie Michel, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Helen Clare Roberts, Liisa Sihvonen, H.A.M. Spoolder, Karl Ståhl, Arvo Viltrop, Christoph Winckler, Candiani Denise, Chiara Fabris, Yves Van der Stede, Antonio Velarde,
Tópico(s)Meat and Animal Product Quality
ResumoEFSA JournalVolume 18, Issue 6 e06148 Scientific OpinionOpen Access Welfare of pigs at slaughter EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Corresponding Author EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) alpha@efsa.europa.eu Correspondence: alpha@efsa.europa.euSearch for more papers by this authorSøren Saxmose Nielsen, Søren Saxmose NielsenSearch for more papers by this authorJulio Alvarez, Julio AlvarezSearch for more papers by this authorDominique Joseph Bicout, Dominique Joseph BicoutSearch for more papers by this authorPaolo Calistri, Paolo CalistriSearch for more papers by this authorKlaus Depner, Klaus DepnerSearch for more papers by this authorJulian Ashley Drewe, Julian Ashley DreweSearch for more papers by this authorBruno Garin-Bastuji, Bruno Garin-BastujiSearch for more papers by this authorJose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis Gonzales RojasSearch for more papers by this authorChristian Gortázar Schmidt, Christian Gortázar SchmidtSearch for more papers by this authorVirginie Michel, Virginie MichelSearch for more papers by this authorMiguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel Miranda ChuecaSearch for more papers by this authorHelen Clare Roberts, Helen Clare RobertsSearch for more papers by this authorLiisa Helena Sihvonen, Liisa Helena SihvonenSearch for more papers by this authorHans Spoolder, Hans SpoolderSearch for more papers by this authorKarl Stahl, Karl StahlSearch for more papers by this authorArvo Viltrop, Arvo ViltropSearch for more papers by this authorChristoph Winckler, Christoph WincklerSearch for more papers by this authorDenise Candiani, Denise CandianiSearch for more papers by this authorChiara Fabris, Chiara FabrisSearch for more papers by this authorYves Van der Stede, Yves Van der StedeSearch for more papers by this authorAntonio Velarde, Antonio VelardeSearch for more papers by this author EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Corresponding Author EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) alpha@efsa.europa.eu Correspondence: alpha@efsa.europa.euSearch for more papers by this authorSøren Saxmose Nielsen, Søren Saxmose NielsenSearch for more papers by this authorJulio Alvarez, Julio AlvarezSearch for more papers by this authorDominique Joseph Bicout, Dominique Joseph BicoutSearch for more papers by this authorPaolo Calistri, Paolo CalistriSearch for more papers by this authorKlaus Depner, Klaus DepnerSearch for more papers by this authorJulian Ashley Drewe, Julian Ashley DreweSearch for more papers by this authorBruno Garin-Bastuji, Bruno Garin-BastujiSearch for more papers by this authorJose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis Gonzales RojasSearch for more papers by this authorChristian Gortázar Schmidt, Christian Gortázar SchmidtSearch for more papers by this authorVirginie Michel, Virginie MichelSearch for more papers by this authorMiguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel Miranda ChuecaSearch for more papers by this authorHelen Clare Roberts, Helen Clare RobertsSearch for more papers by this authorLiisa Helena Sihvonen, Liisa Helena SihvonenSearch for more papers by this authorHans Spoolder, Hans SpoolderSearch for more papers by this authorKarl Stahl, Karl StahlSearch for more papers by this authorArvo Viltrop, Arvo ViltropSearch for more papers by this authorChristoph Winckler, Christoph WincklerSearch for more papers by this authorDenise Candiani, Denise CandianiSearch for more papers by this authorChiara Fabris, Chiara FabrisSearch for more papers by this authorYves Van der Stede, Yves Van der StedeSearch for more papers by this authorAntonio Velarde, Antonio VelardeSearch for more papers by this author First published: 17 June 2020 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6148Citations: 1 Requestor: European Commission Question number: EFSA-Q-2018-00717 Panel members: Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Klaus Depner, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin-Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar Schmidt, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Virginie Michel, Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Helen Clare Roberts, Liisa Helena Sihvonen, Hans Spoolder, Karl Stahl, Antonio Velarde, Arvo Viltrop and Christoph Winckler. Reproduction of the images listed below is prohibited and permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder: Figure 1: © Virginie Michel; Figure 2: © Correia-da-Silva, IBPSA; Figures 4–6: © Virginie Michel; Figure 7: © Dalmau; Figure 8: © Virginie Michel; Figure 9: © IRTA; Figure 10: © DEFRA; Figures 12-13: © Virginie Michel; Figure 14: © Antonio Velarde; Figure 16: © IRTA; Figure 18: © UFAW; Figure 19: © Humane Slaughter Association; Figure 20: © Lotta Berg; Figure 22: © Virginie Michel. Acknowledgements: The AHAW Panel wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: the hearing experts Marien Gerritzen and Mohan Raj; the trainee Sara Gisella Omodeo and the ad-interim staff Cristina Rapagnà (AHAW team, ALPHA unit, EFSA). Adopted: 6 May 2020 AboutSectionsPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract The killing of pigs for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or on farm. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed for welfare, from the arrival of pigs until their death, were grouped into three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading from the truck, lairage, handling and moving of pigs); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding. Stunning methods were grouped into three categories: electrical, controlled atmosphere and mechanical. Twelve welfare consequences the pigs can be exposed to during slaughter were identified: heat stress, cold stress, fatigue, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, impeded movement, restriction of movements, resting problem, negative social behaviour, pain, fear and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures were described. In total, 30 welfare hazards that could occur during slaughter were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were identified as the origin of 29 hazards, which were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Corrective and preventive measures for these hazards were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified, and management was shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origins and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed. Summary In 2009, the European Union (EU) adopted Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 'on the protection of animals at the time of killing', which was prepared on the basis of two scientific opinions adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2004 and 2006. In 2013, EFSA produced another scientific opinion related to this subject. In parallel, since 2005, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) has developed two chapters in its Terrestrial Animal Health Code: (i) Slaughter of animals (Chapter 7.5), (ii) Killing of animals for disease control purposes (Chapter 7.6). OIE has created an ad hoc working group to revise these two chapters. Against this background, the European Commission requested EFSA to write a scientific opinion providing an independent view on the slaughter of pigs. With specific reference to arrival of the pigs, unloading, lairage, handling and moving to the stunning point restraint, stunning, bleeding, emergency slaughter and methods, procedures or unacceptable practices on welfare grounds, EFSA was asked to: identify the animal welfare hazards and their possible origins in terms of facilities/equipment and staff (Term of Reference (ToR)-1); define qualitative or measurable criteria to assess performance on animal welfare (animal-based measures (ABMs)) (ToR-2); provide preventive and corrective measures (structural or managerial) to address the hazards identified (ToR-3); and point out specific hazards related to types of animal (e.g. young ones, etc.) (ToR-4). In addition, the European Commission asked EFSA to provide measures to mitigate the negative consequences on the welfare (so called 'welfare consequences') that can be caused by the identified hazards. This scientific opinion aims at updating the above reported EFSA outputs by reviewing the most recent scientific publications and providing the European Commission with a sound scientific basis for future discussions at international level on the welfare of pigs in the context of slaughter. The mandate also requested a list of unacceptable methods, procedures or practices that need to be analysed in terms of the above welfare aspects. It has to be noted that methods, procedures or practices cannot be subjected to a risk assessment procedure if there is no published scientific evidence related to them. Chapter 7.5.10 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code includes a list of several unacceptable practices and the Panel agrees with this list. In addition, the Panel listed some practices that lead to serious welfare concerns. These practices should be avoided, re-designed or replaced by other practices, leading to better welfare outcomes. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 defines slaughtering as 'the killing of animals intended for human consumption' and the related operations are 'operations that take place in the context and at the location where the animals are slaughtered.' This opinion concerns the killing of pigs for human consumption that takes place at slaughterhouse or during on-farm slaughter. In the context of this opinion, each related operation is a process, and several related operations (processes) are grouped in phases. The phases that have been assessed in this opinion, from arrival until the animal is dead, are: Phase 1 – pre-stunning, Phase 2 – stunning and Phase 3 – bleeding. Phase 1 includes (in chronological order): (a) arrival, (b) unloading of animals from the truck, (c) lairage and (d) handling and moving to the stunning area. Because restraint prior to stunning varies depending on the stunning method, restraint is assessed as a part of the relevant stunning method (Phase 2). The bleeding phase (Phase 3) includes exsanguination following stunning. To address the mandate, three main sources of information were used in developing this opinion: (i) literature search and (ii) consultation of Member States (MSs) representatives, followed by (iii) expert opinion through working group (WG) discussion. The literature search was carried out to identify peer-reviewed scientific evidence providing information on the elements requested by the ToRs (i.e. description of the processes, identification of welfare hazards and their origin, preventive and corrective measures, welfare consequences and related ABMs) on the topic of slaughter of pigs (killing of pigs for human consumption). During the 2019 meeting of the representatives of the EU MSs' organisations designated as National Contact Points (NCPs) for Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 (NCPs Network meeting), hazards pertaining to each process of slaughtering were identified and discussed to gather information on which are most common in EU and are considered by national authorities as the most urgent to be addressed in order to safeguard animal welfare during the slaughtering of pigs. From the available literature, their own knowledge and the results of the discussion with the NCPs Network, the WG experts identified the processes that should be included in the assessment and produced a list containing the possible welfare hazards of each process related to the slaughter of pigs. To address the ToRs, experts identified the origin of each hazard (ToR-1) and related preventive and corrective measures (ToR-3), along with the possible welfare consequences of the hazards and relevant ABMs (ToR-2). Measures to mitigate the welfare consequences were also considered. Specific hazards were identified in the case of certain categories of pigs (ToR-4). In addition, uncertainty analysis on the hazard identification was carried out, but limited to quantification of the probability of occurrence of false-positive (included but non-existent) or false-negative (existing and not-included) hazards. As this opinion will be used by the European Commission to address the OIE standards, more methods for slaughter than those reported in Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 have been considered. However, among the methods that are used worldwide, the following criteria have been applied for the selection of those included in this assessment: (a) all methods with described technical specifications known to the experts, not only those described in Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009, and (b) methods currently used for slaughter of pigs as well as those still in development but likely to become commercially applicable and (c) methods for which the welfare aspects (in terms of welfare hazards, welfare consequences, ABMs, preventive and corrective measures) are described sufficiently in the scientific literature. Applying these criteria, some methods that may be applied worldwide have not been included in the current assessment. The stunning methods that have been identified as relevant for pigs can be grouped in three categories: (1) electrical, (2) controlled atmospheres and (3) mechanical. Electrical methods include head-only and head-to-body. Controlled atmosphere stunning methods (CAS) include carbon dioxide (CO2) at high concentration (defined in this opinion as higher than 80% by volume), inert gases and CO2 associated with inert gases. The mechanical methods that have been described in this report are captive bolt, percussive blow to the head and firearm with free projectile. These methods are mainly used as backup method or for small-scale slaughtering as in small abattoirs or on-farm slaughter. Because of the diversity of available stunning methods, this opinion will consider the assessment of welfare consequences, hazards, related animal-based measures (ABMs) and mitigation measures, origin of hazards and preventive/corrective actions for each method. For each process related to slaughter, a description on how it is technically and practically carried out is provided. In addition, the relevant welfare consequences and ABMs are identified (ToR-2). A list of the main hazards associated with the relevant welfare consequences is provided (ToR-1). Twelve welfare consequences have been identified: heat stress, cold stress, fatigue, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, impeded movement, restriction of movements, resting problem, negative social behaviour, pain, fear and respiratory distress. Pigs experience welfare consequences due to the presence of hazards only when they are conscious, which applies to all pigs during the pre-stunning phase. In the stunning phase, pigs may experience welfare consequences if hazards occur during restraint (before stunning), if induction of unconsciousness is not immediate, or if stunning is ineffective. During bleeding following stunning, pigs will experience welfare consequences in cases of persistence of consciousness or if they recover consciousness after stunning and before death. The mandate also asked for definitions of qualitative or measurable (quantitative) criteria to assess performance (i.e. consequences) on animal welfare (ABMs; ToR-2); this ToR was addressed by identifying the welfare consequences occurring to pigs and the relevant ABMs that can be used to assess qualitatively or quantitatively these welfare consequences. List and definitions of ABMs to be used for assessing the welfare consequences have been provided in this Opinion. ABMs for the assessment of all the welfare consequences have been identified, except for prolonged hunger and prolonged thirst at the time of arrival. However, under certain circumstances, not all the ABMs can be used because of low feasibility (e.g. at arrival/during lairage due to the lack of accessibility to the animals in the truck). Even if welfare consequences cannot be assessed during the slaughter of pigs, it does not imply they do not exist. It is to be noted that ABMs during stunning are the signs of consciousness, since consciousness is the prerequisite for animals to experience pain and fear during stunning. These ABMs of consciousness are specific to the stunning methods and were proposed in a previous EFSA opinion (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2013). Flowcharts, including ABMs of consciousness to be used for monitoring of stunning efficacy, are reproduced in this opinion in order to provide the European Commission with the full welfare assessment at slaughter. In answering ToR-1, 30 related hazards to the previous welfare consequences were identified, from arrival of the pigs at the slaughter plant until they are dead. Some of these hazards were common to different phases. All the processes described in this opinion have hazards; regarding the stunning methods, some hazards related to the induction phase to unconsciousness (CAS), others to the restraint of pigs (i.e. electrical and mechanical methods). The main hazards are associated with lack of staff skills and training, and poor-designed and constructed facilities. Animal welfare consequences can be the result of one or more hazards. Exposure to multiple hazards has a cumulative effect on the welfare consequences (e.g. pain due to injury caused at arrival will lead to more severe pain during unloading). Some hazards are inherent to the stunning method and cannot be avoided (e.g. restraining), other hazards originate from suboptimal application of the method, mainly due to unskilled staff (e.g. rough handling, use of wrong parameters e.g. for electrical methods). In fact, most of the hazards (29) had staff as origin, and hazards could be attributed to lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. The uncertainty analysis on the set of hazards provided for each process in this opinion revealed that the experts were 95–99% certain that all listed hazards occur during slaughter of pigs. However, the experts were 90–95% certain that at least one hazard was missing in the assessment considering the three criteria for the inclusion of methods and practices in this assessment. The three criteria are: a. all methods known to the experts that have technical specifications, b. methods currently used for slaughter of pigs and c. methods for which the welfare aspects are sufficiently described in the scientific literature. Furthermore, in a global perspective, the experts were 95–99% certain that at least one welfare hazard was missing. This is due to the lack of documented evidence on all possible variations in the processes and methods being practised (see Interpretation of ToRs on the criteria for selection of stunning/killing methods to be included). In response to ToR-3, preventive and corrective measures for the identified hazards have been identified and described. Some are specific for a hazard; others can apply to multiple hazards (e.g. staff training and rotation). For all the hazards, preventive measures can be put in place with management having a crucial role in prevention. Corrective measures were identified for 24 hazards; when they are not available or feasible to put in place, actions to mitigate the welfare consequences caused by the identified hazards should be put in place. Finally, outcome tables summarising all the mentioned elements requested by the ToRs (identification of welfare hazards, origin, preventive and corrective measures, welfare consequences and related ABMs) have been produced for each process in the slaughter of pigs to provide an overall outcome, where all retrieved information is presented concisely. Conclusions and recommendations are provided subdivided for specific processes of slaughter. To spare pigs from severe welfare consequences, a standard operating procedure (SOP) should include identification of hazards and related welfare consequences, using relevant ABMs, as well as preventive and corrective measures. At arrival, pigs should be unloaded as soon as possible and those with severe pain, signs of illness or those unable to move independently should be inspected and a procedure for emergency slaughter should be applied immediately. Keeping pigs in lairage should be avoided, unless it benefits their welfare. Permanent access to water, adequate space and protection from adverse weather conditions should always be ensured during lairage. Stunning methods that require painful restraint or induction of unconsciousness should not be used. To monitor stunning method efficacy, the state of consciousness of the animals should be checked immediately after stunning, just prior to neck cutting and during bleeding. Death must be confirmed before carcass processing begins. 1 Introduction 1.1 Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor 1.1.1 Background The European Union adopted in 2009 Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/20091 on the protection of animals at the time of killing. This piece of legislation was prepared based on two EFSA opinions respectively adopted in 20042 and 20063. The EFSA provided additional opinions related to this subject in 20124, 20135,6,7,8,9,10, 201411,12, 201513 and 201714,15. In parallel, since 2005, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) has developed in its Terrestrial Animal Health Code two chapters covering a similar scope: – Slaughter of animals (Chapter 7.5) – Killing of animals for disease control purposes (Chapter 7.6) The chapter slaughter of animals covers the following species: cattle, buffalo, bison, sheep, goats, camelids, deer, horses, pigs, ratites, rabbits and poultry (domestic birds as defined by the OIE). The OIE has created an ad hoc working group with the view to revise the two chapters. Against this background, the Commission would like to request the EFSA to review the scientific publications provided and possibly other sources to provide a sound scientific basis for the future. 1.1.2 Terms of Reference The Commission therefore considers it opportune to request EFSA to give an independent view on the slaughter of animals (killing for human consumption) concerning two categories of animals: – free moving animals (cattle, buffalo, bison, sheep, goats, camelids, deer, horses, pigs, ratites) – 2013 animals in crates or containers (i.e. rabbits and domestic birds). The request covers the following processes and issues: – arrival of the animals, – unloading, – lairage, – handling and moving of the animals (free moving animals only) – restraint, – stunning – bleeding – slaughter of pregnant animals (free moving animals only) – emergency killing (reasons and conditions under which animals have to be killed outside the normal slaughter line), – unacceptable methods, procedures or practices on welfare grounds. For each process or issue in each category (i.e. free moving/in crates or containers), EFSA will: – ToR-1: Identify the animal welfare hazards and their possible origins (facilities/equipment, staff), – ToR-2: Define qualitative or measurable criteria to assess performance on animal welfare (animal-based measures (ABM), – ToR-3: Provide preventive and corrective measures to address the hazards identified (through structural or managerial measures), – ToR-4: Point out specific hazards related to species or types of animals (young, with horns, etc.). 1.2 Interpretation of the Terms of Reference (if appropriate) The European Commission asked EFSA to provide an independent view on the slaughtering of pigs, covering all processes; for each of these, several welfare aspects needed to be analysed (including, e.g. welfare consequences, welfare hazards and preventive/corrective measures). Slaughtering is defined as the killing of animals intended for human consumption; the related operations include handling, lairage, restraining, stunning and bleeding of animals that take place in the context and at the location where the animals are slaughtered (Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 of 24 September 200916). Emergency killing is intended in this opinion as emergency slaughter. This opinion will therefore concern the killing of pigs for human consumption, which could take place in a slaughterhouse or during on-farm slaughter, from arrival until the animal is dead. In the context of this opinion, ea ch related operation is a process, and several related operations (processes) are grouped into phases. The phases that will be assessed in this opinion are: Phase 1 – pre-stunning, Phase 2 – stunning and Phase 3 – bleeding. Phase 1 includes (in chronological order): (a) arrival, (b) unloading of animals from the truck, (c) lairage and (d) handling and moving to the stunning area. Because restraint prior to stunning varies depending on the stunning method, restraint will be assessed as a part of the relevant stunning method, including emergency slaughter situation (Phase 2). The bleeding phase (Phase 3) includes exsanguination following stunning. Because of the diversity of available stunning methods, this opinion will consider the assessment of welfare consequences, hazards, related animal-based measures (ABMs) and mitigation measures, origin of hazards and preventive/corrective actions of the stunning methods (phase 2) including restraint. The mandate requests EFSA to identify hazards at different stages (processes) of slaughtering and their relevant origins in terms of equipment/facilities or staff (ToR-1). When discussing the origins, it was considered necessary to explain them further by detailing what actions of the staff or features of the equipment and facilities can cause the hazard. Therefore, for each origin category (staff, facilities/equipment), relevant origin specifications have been identified by expert opinion. It has to be noted that hazards originated from the farm or during transport, which welfare consequence persist on arrival, are considered in this opinion. It is to be noted that ToR-1 of the mandate asks to identify the origins of the hazards in terms of staff or facilities/equipment. This Opinion will report the hazards that can occur during slaughtering of pigs in all 'types' of slaughterhouses (from industrial plants with automated processes to on-farm manual slaughter), but not all of the hazards apply to all slaughter situations, i.e. in small abattoirs or during on-farm slaughter. Indeed, hazards applicable to a specific stunning method may occur in all situations where this method is applied; whereas some other hazards may not apply in certain circumstances, e.g. the ones specific to the arrival or unloading of the animals in on-farm slaughter. The level of detail to be considered for the definition of 'hazard' is not specified in detail. One hazard could be subdivided into multiple ones depending on the chosen level of detail. For example, the hazard 'inappropriate electrical parameters' for electrical stunning methods, could be further subdivided into 'wrong choice of electrical parameters or equipment', 'poor or lack of calibration', 'voltage/current applied is too low', 'frequency applied is too high for the amount of current delivered'. For this opinion, it was agreed to define hazards by an agreed broad level of detail ('inappropriate electrical parameters' in the example above). The mandate also asks to define measurable criteria to assess performance (i.e. consequences) on animal welfare (ABMs; ToR-2). This ToR has been addressed by identifying the negative consequences on welfare (so-called welfare consequences) occurring to the pigs due to the identified hazards and the relevant ABMs that can be used to assess these welfare consequences qualitatively and/or quantitatively. In some circumstances, it might be that no ABM exist or their use is not feasible in the context of slaughtering of pigs; in these cases, emphasis to the relevant measures to prevent the hazards or to mitigate the welfare consequences will be given. Pigs experience welfare consequences due to the presence of hazards only when they are conscious, which applies to all pigs during the pre-stunning phase. In the stunning phase, pigs may experience welfare consequences (pain and fear), if hazards occur during restraint (before stunning), if induction of unconsciousness is not immediate, or if stunning is ineffective. During bleeding following stunning, pigs will experience welfare consequences in cases of persistence of consciousness or if they recover consciousness after stunning and before death. Therefore, consciousness is not a welfare consequence per se but a prerequisite for experiencing pain and fear. During the stunning phase, the state of consciousness is assessed to identify if animals are successfully rendered unconscious or, if they are conscious (e.g. stunning was ineffective or they recovered consciousness) and therefore at risk of experiencing pain and fear. The ABMs of state of consciousness are phrased neutrally (e.g. tonic/clonic seizures after electrical stunning). For each ABM, outcomes either suggesting unconsciousness (e.g. presence of tonic/clonic seizures) or suggesting consciousness (e.g. absence of tonic/clonic seizures) have been identified. In this opinion, distress, which can be defined as an aversive, negative state in which coping and adapt
Referência(s)