Efficacy of a Novel Mechanical Cervical Dislocation Device in Comparison to Manual Cervical Dislocation in Layer Chickens
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Animals and Facilities
2.2. Koechner Euthanizing Device (KED)
2.3. Anesthesia and Killing Procedures
2.4. Antemortem Assessment
2.5. Postmortem Assessment
2.5.1. Assessment of Radiographs
2.5.2. Macroscopic Assessment of Tissue Damage
2.5.3. Microscopic Assessment of Brain Trauma
2.6. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Assessment of Antemortem Measures
3.1.1. Effects of Anesthesia on Birds Killed by Manual Cervical Dislocation
3.1.2. Effect of Manual CD Versus Mechanical CD in Anesthetized Birds
3.2. Assessment of Postmortem Measures
3.2.1. Assessment of Cervical Vertebrae Radiographs
3.2.2. Macroscopic Tissue Damage Assessment
3.2.3. Microscopic Evaluation
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gregory, N.G.; Wotton, S.B. Comparison of neck dislocation and percussion of the head on visual evoked responses in the chicken’s brain. Vet. Rec. 1990, 126, 570–572. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Mason, C.; Spence, J.; Bilbe, L.; Hughes, T.; Kirkwood, J. Methods for dispatching backyard poultry. Vet. Rec. 2009, 164, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bader, S.; Meyer-Kûhling, B.; Günther, R.; Breithaupt, A.; Rautenschlein, S.; Gruber, A.D. Anatomical and histologic pathology induced by cervical dislocation following blunt head trauma for on-farm euthanasia of poultry. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2014, 23, 546–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Humane Slaughter Association (HSA). Practical Slaughter of Poultry: A Guide for the Small Producer; Humane Slaughter Association: Wheathampstead, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- European Council. European Council Regulation (EC) 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/325000/regulation_1099_2009_en.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2019).
- Sparrey, J.; Sandercock, D.A.; Sparks, N.H.C.; Sandilands, V. Current and novel methods for killing poultry individually on-farm. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2014, 70, 737–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- American Veterinary Medical Association. AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition; American Veterinary Medical Association: Schaumburg, IL, USA, 2013; Available online: https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2018).
- Woolcott, C.R.; Torrey, S.; Turner, P.V.; Chalmers, H.; Levison, L.; Schwean-Lardner, K.; Widowski, T.M. Assessing a method of mechanical cervical dislocation as a humane option for on-farm killing using anesthetized poults and young turkeys. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5, 275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Widowski, T.; Woolcott, C.; Turner, P.; Schwean-Lardner, K.; Caston, L.; Torrey, S. Evaluation of a mechanical cervical dislocation tool for growing and mature turkeys (Abstract). In Proceedings of the Poultry Science Association 107th Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX, USA, 23–26 July 2018; p. 97. [Google Scholar]
- Jacobs, L.; Bourassa, D.V.; Harris, C.E.; Buhr, R.J. Euthanasia: Manual versus mechanical cervical dislocation for broilers. Animals 2019, 9, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martin, J.E.; McKeegan, D.E.F.; Sparrey, J.; Sandilands, V. Evaluation of potential killing performance of novel percussive and cervical dislocation tools in chicken cadavers. Br. Poult. Sci. 2017, 58, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkire, M.T.; Hudetz, A.G.; Tononi, G. Review: Consciousness and Anesthesia. Science 2008, 322, 876–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erasmus, M.A.; Lawlis, P.; Duncan, I.J.H.; Widowski, T.M. Using time to insensibility and estimated time of death to evaluate a non-penetrating captive bolt, cervical dislocation and blunt trauma for on-farm killing of turkeys. Poult. Sci. 2010, 89, 1345–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erasmus, M.A.; Turner, P.V.; Nykamp, S.G.; Widowski, T.M. Brain and skull lesions resulting from use of percussive bolt, cervical dislocation by stretching, cervical dislocation by crushing and blunt trauma. Vet. Rec. 2010, 167, 850–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandara, R.M.A.S.; Torrey, S.; Turner, P.V.; Schwean-Lardner, K.; Widowski, T.M. Anatomical Pathology, Behavioral, and Physiological Responses Induced by Application of Non-penetrating Captive Bolt Devices in Layer Chickens. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Woolcott, C.R.; Torrey, S.; Turner, P.V.; Serpa, L.; Schwean-Lardner, K.; Widowski, T.M. Evaluation of Two Models of Non-Penetrating Captive Bolt devices for on-farm euthanasia of turkeys. Animals 2018, 8, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sandercock, D.A.; Auckburally, A.; Flaherty, D.; Sandilands, V.; McKeegan, D.E.F. Avian reflex and electroencephalogram responses in different states of consciousness. Physiol. Behav. 2014, 133, 252–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koechner MFG. Co., Inc. Tipton, MO (2016). Available online: http://www.turkeycoops.com/euthanizingdevice.html (accessed on 8 February 2019).
- Sinclair, M.D. A review of the physiological effects of α2-agonists related to the clinical use of medetomidine in small animal practice. Can. Vet. J. 2003, 44, 885–897. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Zornow, M.H.; Fleischer, J.E.; Scheller, M.S. Dexmedetomidine, and α2-adrenergic agonist, decreases cerebral blood flow in the isoflurane-anesthetized dog. Anesth. Analg. 1990, 70, 624–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Keegan, R.D.; Greene, S.A.; Bagley, R.S.; Moore, M.P.; Weil, A.B.; Short, C.E. Effects of medetomidine administration on intracranial pressure and cardiovascular variables of isoflurane-anesthetized dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1995, 56, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Cullen, L.K. Medetomidine sedation in dogs and cats: A review of its pharmacology, antagonism and dose. Br. Vet. J. 1996, 152, 519–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul-Murphy, J.; Fialkowski, J. Injectable anesthesia and analgesia of birds. In Recent Advances in Veterinary Anesthesia and Analgesia: Companion Animals; Gleed, R.D., Ludders, J.W., Eds.; International Veterinary Information Service: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Hernandez, E. Electroencephalographic and Behavioral Evaluation of Physical Methods for on-Farm Euthanasia of Poultry. Doctoral Thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Heard, D. Perioperative supportive care and monitoring. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Exot. Anim. Pract. 2000, 3, 587–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, J.E.; McKeegan, D.E.F.; Sparrey, J.; Sandilands, V. Comparison of novel mechanical cervical dislocation and a modified captive bolt for on-farm killing of poultry on behavioural reflex responses and anatomical pathology. Anim. Welf. 2016, 25, 227–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martin, J.E.; Sandercock, D.E.; Sandilands, V.; Sparrey, J.; Baker, L.; Sparks, N.H.C.; McKeegan, D.E.F. Welfare risks of repeated application of on-farm killing methods for poultry. Animals 2018, 8, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dumont, R.J.; Okonkwo, D.O.; Verma, S.; Hurlbert, R.J.; Boulos, P.T.; Ellegala, D.B.; Dumont, A.S. Acute Spinal Cord Injury, Part I: Pathophysiologic Mechanisms. Clin. Neuropharmacol. 2001, 24, 254–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Harrop, J.; Sharan, A.; Vaccaro, A.R.; Przybylski, G.J. The cause of neurologic deterioration after acute cervical spinal cord injury. Spine 2001, 26, 340–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- DeTroyer, A.; Estenne, M. Coordination between rib cage muscles and diaphragm during quiet tidal breathing in humans. J. Appl. Physiol. 1984, 57, 899–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Winslow, C.; Rozovsky, J. Effect of spinal cord injury on the respiratory system. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2003, 82, 803–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Age (Week) | Killing Method | Number of Birds | Strain | Sex | Body Weight (Kg) (Avg wt ± SD) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
12 | CD | 8 | White Leghorn | All females | 1.00 ± 0.10 |
aCD | 8 | White Leghorn | All females | 0.94 ± 0.09 | |
aMCD | 8 | White Leghorn | 2 Males + 6 Females | 1.02 ± 0.62 | |
27–29 | CD | 8 | White Leghorn | 1 Male + 1 Females | 1.77 ± 0.03 |
Columbian Rock | 1 Male + 5 Females | 1.75 ± 0.36 | |||
aCD | 8 | White Leghorn | 3 Males + 3 Females | 1.79 ± 0.29 | |
Columbian Rock | 2 females | 2.03 ± 0.29 | |||
aMCD | 8 | White Leghorn | 3 Males + 4 Females | 1.86 ± 0.35 | |
Columbian Rock | 1 female | 1.98 | |||
65–70 | CD | 8 | White Leghorn | All males | 2.16 ± 0.18 |
aCD | 8 | White Leghorn | All males | 2.10 ± 0.19 | |
aMCD | 8 | White Leghorn | All males | 2.29 ± 0.29 |
Measures | Description | Procedure |
---|---|---|
Pupillary light reflex | Constriction of the pupil in response to light | Light from a medical penlight was directed into the eye and pupil constriction was examined |
Nictitating membrane reflex | Transient closure of the nictitating membrane in response to mechanical stimulation | The medial canthus of the eye or the cornea was lightly touched with a fingertip |
Gasping | Paroxysmal opening of the beak | Visual observation of paroxysmal opening of the beak |
Feather erection | Sudden erection of feathers, not in response to external stimuli | Visual observation of first occurrence of feather erection |
Clonic convulsions | Rapid, uncoordinated movement of the body and wings | Visual observation of rapid wing flapping and foot paddling |
Tonic convulsions | Muscle rigidity with the legs and wings outstretched | Visual observation of the time of onset of legs and neck outstretched |
Cloacal relaxation | Cloacal opening following contractions of cloaca | Visual observation for cloacal opening following contractions |
Cardiac arrest | Cessation of heartbeat | Auscultation by using a stethoscope |
Terminology | Definition |
---|---|
Luxation | Complete dislocation of two vertebrae at the articular process joints. |
Subluxation | Partial (incomplete) dislocation of two vertebrae at the articular process joints. |
Sagittal | Fracture parallel to the long axis of the vertebra on midline. |
Trans (transverse) | Fracture perpendicular to the long axis of the vertebra. |
Articular processes | Fractures of the articular processes of a vertebra. |
Dens | Fracture of the dens (tooth-like process that projects from the cranial aspect of the centrum of the axis (C2) to articulate with the atlas (C1). |
Crushed vertebral bodies | Multiple fractures of a vertebra that cannot be classified as a fragment, articular process, or dens fracture. |
Score | Macroscopic | Microscopic |
---|---|---|
Subcutaneous or Subdural Hemorrhage | Subdural or Parenchymal Hemorrhage | |
0 | None | None |
1 | <25% of surface area | Minimal (<5% of section) |
2 | 26–50% of surface area | Mild (5–10% of section) |
3 | 51–75% of surface area | Moderate (11–30% of section) |
4 | 76–100% of surface area | Marked (>30% of section) |
Antemortem Measure | Method | ||
---|---|---|---|
CD | aCD | aMCD | |
n = 24 | n = 24 | n = 24 | |
Pupillary light reflex | 24 | 24 | 24 |
Nictitating membrane reflex | 16 a | 1 b,d | 9 c |
Gasping | 18 | 11 d | 24 c |
Feather erection | 21 | 20 | 18 |
Clonic convulsions | 24 a | 12 b | 11 |
Tonic convulsions | 15 a | 1 b | 1 |
Cloacal relaxation | 24 a | 7 b | 5 |
Antemortem Measure | p Value | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age (week) | CD | aCD | Age | Anesthesia | Age × Anesthesia | |
Time to loss of pupillary reflex | 12 | 81 ± 7 | 70 ± 7 | 0.85 | <0.05 | <0.05 |
27–29 | 77 ± 5 | 80 ± 5 | ||||
65–70 | 96 ± 7 a | 62 ± 7 b | ||||
Overall | 85 ± 3 | 71 ± 3 | ||||
Gasping duration | 12 | 22 ± 7 | 50 | 0.15 | 0.35 | 0.77 |
27–29 | 57 ± 8 | 68 ± 8 | ||||
65–70 | 73 ± 13 | 74 ± 17 | ||||
Overall | 51 ± 7 | 64 ± 11 | ||||
Time to first feather erection | 12 | 82 ± 15 | 104 ± 16 | 0.89 | 0.22 | 0.37 |
27–29 | 78 ± 19 | 114 ± 17 | ||||
65–70 | 93 ± 15 | 84 ± 11 | ||||
Overall | 85 ± 10 | 101 ± 10 | ||||
Time to cessation of heart beat | 12 | 191 ± 20 | 173 ± 20 | <0.001 | 0.14 | 0.59 |
27–29 | 122 ± 9 | 119 ± 9 | ||||
65–70 | 152 ± 12 | 119 ± 12 | ||||
Overall | 155 ± 3 | 137 ± 8 |
Antemortem Measure | p value | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | aCD | aMCD | Age | Method | Age × Method | |
Time to loss of pupillary reflex | 12 | 70 ± 14 | 142 ± 14 | 0.20 | <0.001 | 0.31 |
27–29 | 80 ± 8 | 118 ± 8 | ||||
65–70 | 62 ± 10 | 107 ± 10 | ||||
Overall | 71 ± 7 b | 123 ± 7 a | ||||
Gasping duration | 12 | 50 | 117 ± 18 | 0.53 | <0.05 | 0.73 |
27–29 | 63 ± 13 | 102 ± 10 | ||||
65–70 | 70 ± 20 | 132 ± 16 | ||||
Overall | 64 ± 16 b | 117 ± 9 a | ||||
Time to first feather erection | 12 | 104 ± 25 | 146 ± 30 | 0.70 | 0.04 | 0.56 |
27–29 | 114 ± 10 | 125 ± 11 | ||||
65–70 | 87 ± 15 | 135 ± 14 | ||||
Overall | 101 ± 12 b | 135 ± 11 a | ||||
Time to cessation of heart beat | 12 | 173 ± 23 | 172 ± 23 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.09 |
27–29 | 119 ± 10 | 153 ± 10 | ||||
65–70 | 119 ± 13 | 193 ± 13 | ||||
Overall | 137 ± 9 b | 172 ± 9 a |
Luxation | Subluxation | Spinal Cord Transection | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | Method | Total Number of Birds Assessed | Number of Birds with Luxation | Sk–C1 | C1–C2 | C2–C3 | C3–C4 | Number of Birds with Subluxation | Sk–C1 | C1–C2 | C2–C3 | C3–C4 | Number of Birds |
12 | CD | 8 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
aCD | 8 | 8 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | |
aMCD | 8 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 * | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 5 | |
27–29 | CD | 8 | 8 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
aCD | 8 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | |
aMCD | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 | |
65–70 | CD | 8 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
aCD | 8 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | |
aMCD | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 8 |
Age (Weeks) | Treatment | Number of Birds with Fractures | Fracture Type | Location |
---|---|---|---|---|
12 | CD (n = 8) | 0 | - | |
aCD (n = 8) | 0 | - | ||
aMCD (n = 8) | 1 | Trans | C3 | |
1 | Crushed vertebral bodies | C3 and C4 | ||
27–29 | CD (n = 8) | 1 | Small fractures | Dens of C2 |
aCD (n = 8) | 1 | Trans | Dens of C2 | |
1 | Small fractures | Dens of C2 | ||
aMCD (n = 8) | 0 | - | ||
65–70 | CD (n = 8) | 0 | - | |
aCD (n = 8) | 0 | - | ||
aMCD (n = 8) | 2 | Articular processes | C3 |
Method | Age | Score | p | Value | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Method | Age | Method *Age | |||
SCH | CD | 12 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 | <0.001 | 0.76 | 0.23 |
27–29 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | |||||
65–70 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | |||||
aCD | 12 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | ||||
27–29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | |||||
65–70 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 1 | |||||
aMCD | 12 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | ||||
27–29 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 0 | |||||
65–70 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
Age | Method | Subdural Hemorrhage | Parenchymal Hemorrhage | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Week) | Cerebrum | Mid Brain | Hind Brain | Cerebrum | Mid Brain | Hind Brain | |
12 | CD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
aCD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
aMCD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
27–29 | CD | 0 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
aCD | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
aMCD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
65–70 | CD | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
aCD | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
aMCD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Method | Age | Score | p | Value | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Method | Age | Method *Age | |||
SDH of | CD | 12 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.17 | <0.001 | 0.06 |
Spinal | 27–29 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||||
cord | 65–70 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||
aCD | 12 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||
27–29 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | |||||
65–70 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||||
aMCD | 12 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||||
27–29 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | |||||
65–70 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | |||||
PCH in | CD | 12 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | <0.05 | 0.09 | 0.07 |
spinal | 27–29 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||||
cord | 65–70 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | ||||
aCD | 12 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | ||||
27–29 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
65–70 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||||
aMCD | 12 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | ||||
27–29 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | |||||
65–70 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bandara, R.M.A.S.; Torrey, S.; Turner, P.V.; Linden, A.z.; Bolinder, A.; Schwean-Lardner, K.; Widowski, T.M. Efficacy of a Novel Mechanical Cervical Dislocation Device in Comparison to Manual Cervical Dislocation in Layer Chickens. Animals 2019, 9, 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9070407
Bandara RMAS, Torrey S, Turner PV, Linden Az, Bolinder A, Schwean-Lardner K, Widowski TM. Efficacy of a Novel Mechanical Cervical Dislocation Device in Comparison to Manual Cervical Dislocation in Layer Chickens. Animals. 2019; 9(7):407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9070407
Chicago/Turabian StyleBandara, Rathnayaka M.A.S., Stephanie Torrey, Patricia V. Turner, Alex zur Linden, Anna Bolinder, Karen Schwean-Lardner, and Tina M. Widowski. 2019. "Efficacy of a Novel Mechanical Cervical Dislocation Device in Comparison to Manual Cervical Dislocation in Layer Chickens" Animals 9, no. 7: 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9070407
APA StyleBandara, R. M. A. S., Torrey, S., Turner, P. V., Linden, A. z., Bolinder, A., Schwean-Lardner, K., & Widowski, T. M. (2019). Efficacy of a Novel Mechanical Cervical Dislocation Device in Comparison to Manual Cervical Dislocation in Layer Chickens. Animals, 9(7), 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9070407