Browsing by Subject "slaughter"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-6 of 6
  • Lindström-Kippola, Nina (Helsingfors universitet, 2016)
    Tämä alkuperäistutkimuksen sisältävän lisensiaatin tutkielman tavoitteena on kerätä kuvaileva tieto siitä kuinka paljon ja minkälaisia löydöksiä emakoilla on lihantarkastuksessa yhdellä teurastamolla Suomessa. Kirjallisuuskatsauksessa käsitellään lihantarkastuksen lainsäädäntöä ja perusteita sekä emakoiden yleisimpiä poistosyitä ja yleisesti sikojen yleisimpiä lihantarkastuslöydöksiä. Tutkimusosan tarkoitus on selvittää emakoiden teuraslöydösten määrä prosentuaalisesti ja kilomääräisesti. Yhdeltä suomalaiselta sianlihaalan laitokselta saatiin vuoden 2010 emakoiden lihantarkastuslöydökset, jossa oli tuottaja- ja eläintasolle asti jäljitettävissä oleva numerokooditettu valikoimaton tiedosto emakoiden teuraslöydöksistä ja niiden seurauksena hylätyistä lihan kilomääristä. Vuonna 2010 kyseisessä teurastamossa teurastettiin yhteensä 17624 emakkoa, mikä vastasi n. 40 %:a Suomessa teurastetuista emakoista. Aineisto käsiteltiin Excel-taulukkolaskelmaohjelmalla käyttäen ohjelman Pivot-apuohjelmaa. Noin 70 %:lla vuoden aikana teurastetuista emakoista ei ollut teuraslöydöksiä, kun taas 5297 emakolle oli merkitty yksi tai useampi teuraslöydös. Yhteensä 85 %:lla oli havaittu vain yksi lihantarkastuslöydös. Eniten merkintöjä kerääntyi märkäpesäkkeistä, keuhkokalvojen tulehduksista, makuuhautumista ja teurasvirheistä. Seurantavuoden aikana teuraslöydöksiä kerääntyi keskimäärin 15 emakolta tuottajaa kohden. Lihaa hylättiin emakkoa kohden keskimäärin 26 kg ja tuottajaa kohden 382 kg. Märkäpesäkkeet aiheuttivat kolmanneksen (44000 kg) teuraslöydöksistä aiheutuvista hylätyistä kiloista. Keuhkokalvojen tulehduksia oli 17 %:lla ja makuuhautumia 9 %:lla teurastetuista emakoista. Vaikka keuhkokalvon tulehduksia esiintyi määrällisesti paljon ei niistä aiheutunut ruhohylkäyksiä. Vaikka teuraslöydöksistä aiheutuva tuotannollinen tappio tuottajaa kohden ei ole suuri, vaikuttavat ne eläinten hyvinvoinnin huonontumisen lisäksi tuotannon heikkenemiseen ja työnmäärän lisääntymiseen eläinten sairastuvuudesta johtuen.
  • EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW); Nielsen, Søren Saxmose; Alvarez, Julio; Bicout, Dominique Joseph (2019)
    The killing of poultry for human consumption (slaughtering) can take place in a slaughterhouse or during on-farm slaughter. The processes of slaughtering that were assessed, from the arrival of birds in containers until their death, were grouped into three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading of containers from the truck, lairage, handling/removing of birds from containers); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding (including bleeding following stunning and bleeding during slaughter without stunning). Stunning methods were grouped into three categories: electrical, controlled modified atmosphere and mechanical. In total, 35 hazards were identified and characterised, most of them related to stunning and bleeding. Staff were identified as the origin of 29 hazards, and 28 hazards were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Corrective and preventive measures were assessed: measures to correct hazards were identified for 11 hazards, with management shown to have a crucial role in prevention. Ten welfare consequences, the birds can be exposed to during slaughter, were identified: consciousness, heat stress, cold stress, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, restriction of movements, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures were described. 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 were also proposed. (C) 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.
  • EFSA Panel Anim Hlth Welf AHAW; Nielsen, Soren Saxmose; Sihvonen, Liisa Helena (2020)
    This opinion on the killing of rabbits for human consumption ('slaughtering') responds to two mandates: one from the European Parliament (EP) and the other from the European Commission. The opinion describes stunning methods for rabbits known to the experts in the EFSA working group, which can be used in commercial practice, and which are sufficiently described in scientific and technical literature for the development of an opinion. These are electrical stunning, mechanical stunning with a penetrative and non-penetrative captive bolt and gas stunning. The latter method is not allowed in the EU anymore following Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, but may still be practiced elsewhere in the world. Related hazards and welfare consequences are also evaluated. To monitor stunning effectiveness as requested by the EP mandate, the opinion suggests the use of indicators for the state of consciousness, selected on the basis of their sensitivity, specificity and ease of use. Similarly, it suggests indicators to confirm animals are dead before dressing. For the European Commission mandate, slaughter processes were assessed from the arrival of rabbits in containers until their death, and grouped in three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading of containers from the truck, lairage, handling/removing of rabbits from containers), stunning (including restraint) and bleeding (including bleeding following stunning and bleeding during slaughter without stunning). Ten welfare consequences resulting from the hazards that rabbits can be exposed to during slaughter are identified: consciousness, animal not dead, thermal stress (heat or cold stress), prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, restriction of movements, pain, fear, distress and respiratory distress. Welfare consequences and relevant animal-based measures (indicators) are described. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, indicators, origins, preventive and corrective measures are developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are also proposed. (C) 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.
  • EFSA Panel Anim Hlth Welf AHAW; Nielsen, Soren Saxmose; Winckler, Christoph (2020)
    The killing of cattle 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 cattle until their death (including slaughtering without stunning), were grouped into three main phases: pre-stunning (including arrival, unloading from the truck, lairage, handling and moving of cattle); stunning (including restraint); and bleeding. Stunning methods were grouped into two categories: mechanical and electrical. Twelve welfare consequences that cattle may be exposed to during slaughter were identified: heat stress, cold stress, fatigue, prolonged thirst, prolonged hunger, impeded movement, restriction of movements, resting problems (inability to rest or discomfort during resting), social stress, pain, fear and distress. Welfare consequences and their relevant animal-based measures are described. In total, 40 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 39 hazards, which were attributed to the lack of appropriate skill sets needed to perform tasks or to fatigue. Measures to prevent and correct hazards were identified, and structural and managerial measures were identified as those with a crucial role in prevention. Outcome tables linking hazards, welfare consequences, animal-based measures, origin of hazards, and preventive and corrective measures were developed for each process. Mitigation measures to minimise welfare consequences are proposed. (C) 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.
  • EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW).; Nielsen, Søren Saxmose; Sihvonen, Liisa (2020)