(Updated October 2014)
There have been some questions about whether or not a captive bolt actually kills an animal. Practical experience in slaughter plants indicates that cattle shot correctly with a penetrating captive bolt have irreversible damage to their brain and they will not revive. If a non-penetrating captive bolt is used the animal may revive unless it is bled promptly.
|Correct position for shooting horned cattle with captive bolt. The exact location may vary slightly depending on the cattle breed and head shpae. Splitting skulls with a band saw can be used to verify the ideal location for penetrating the brain. Diagram courtesy of Jan Shearer, Iowa State University, and AVMA 2013. Note: The "X" is drawn from the top of the eyes to the middle of the horns. This position raises the position of the shot.|
|Side view showing correct location for captive bolt placement for effective shots that penetrate the brain. The gun must be placed perpendicular on the skull surface for maximum hitting power. Angling the gun will reduce the ability of the captive bolt to penetrate the brain. Diagram courtesy of Jan Shearer, Iowa State University, 2011.|
|Sheep Diagram: Correct shot locations. Diagram courtesy of AVMA, 2013.|
|Pig Diagram: Correct shot locations; shows front and side locations. Diagram courtesy of AVMA, 2013.|
These photos show correctly applied captive bolt stunning. The animal is instantly rendered insensible to pain.
Plants that have an effective systematic approach to good captive bolt stunning practices will usually average about 96 to 98% of the animals rendered insensible with a single shot (Grandin, 2005). Some plants will routinely shoot animals twice to insure that they remain insensible. When the plant is being evaluated for stunning, the auditor or inspector should inspect the animal before the second shot is applied. The operator has to be able to demonstrate that he is capable of rendering 95% or more of the animals insensible with a single shot (Grandin, 2010). And experienced operator can easily achieve this (Atkinson et al., 2013). The reason the AMI guideline allows 5% extra shots is to enable the stunner operator to use an extra shot on a questionable animal. Operators who attempt to never take an extra shot are more likely to have problems with return to sensibility. Both the USDA/FSIS and the AMI have zero tolerance for stunning invasive procedures such as skinning or leg removal on an animal showing signs of return to sensibility (see section on determining insensibility).
When captive bolt is used for halal slaughter, many Muslim religious authorities do not want stunning to kill the animal. After both types of captive bolt, the heart will continue to beat for several minutes (Vimini et al, 1983; Jerlstrom, 2004). If the animal is bled quickly, the heart will be beating at the time of bleeding. If bleeding is delayed, the heart will stop beating due to a lack of oxygen. Properly done, captive bolt stunning will instantly stop breathing. Farnuk (2013) explains that there are differences of opinion on the requirements for an animal to be alive at the time of slaughter. Many Muslim authorities will accept the animal as being alive if the heart is still beating. Some Jewish religious authorities require the animal to be both alive and conscious, but others will accept post cut captive bolt stunning.
There has been renewed interest in the use of non-penetrating captive bolt due to concerns about BSE (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy). The elimination of stunners that injected air into the brain greatly reduced the amount of brain or spinal cord tissue that could be spread to other parts of the body. However, research has shown that even when air injection had been removed, small amounts of brain tissue may enter the body and brain tissue may contaminate plant equipment. The effective use of non-penetrating captive bolt requires much more accurate aim than a penetrating captive bolt. This will require the use of equipment to hold the animal's head. Designs for head holders can be found in the religious slaughter section of www.grandin.com and in the restraint for stunning section. Mushroom head non-penetrating captive bolt stunners inflict varying degrees of damage to the skull. Non-penetrating captive bolt that fractures the skull is more effective than a stunner that does not fracture the skull. Effectiveness increases as the degree of skull fracturing increases. It is likely that reducing the spread of at risk brain material is reduced when fracturing is minimized. Unfortunately, effective stunning and reducing skull fracturing are two opposite goals. As the amount of damage to the skull is reduced, placement of the shot must become more and more precise to achieve instantaneous insensibility. Shooting on a slight angle may result in failure to induce instantaneous insensibility. A mushroom head with a larger diameter may be more effective with less fracturing than a mushroom head with a small diameter.
Observations of the Jarvis pneumatic mushroom head non-penetrating stunner showed that it was effective on Zebu type cattle with very short hair. The plant had a head holding device to hold the bovine's head. The stunner fractured the skull but did not break the skin. Observations indicate that non-penetrating stunners may be less effective on cattle with wooly heads such as herefords compared to short haired cattle.
In plants using a non-penetrating captive bolt animal welfare should be evaluated with the American Meat Institute scoring system in the same manner as penetrating captive bolt. The plant must be able to stun 95% or more of the cattle correctly with a single shot. They must be able to attain an acceptable score of 75% of the cattle moved with no electric prod and 3% or less of the cattle vocalizing. If a head restraint is used, a vocalization score of 5% is acceptable.
Heavy mature bulls are more difficult to stun with captive bolt compared to cows or fed beef. Practical experience in plants indicates that heavy bulls are most effectively stunned with either a perfectly maintained cartridge fired penetrating captive bolt stunner, a fire arm with a free bullet, or one of the new powerful pneumatic penetrating captive bolt stunners. Stunning mature bulls correctly has been a continuous problem that has repeatedly shown up in restaurant audits. The stunning of bulls with a non-penetrating stunner will need to be carefully monitored and audited to maintain a high standard of animal welfare.
For large bulls and other heavy livestock such as bison, some plants routinely shoot them twice with a captive bolt. To verify that 95% or more are rendered insensible with one shot, the auditor or inspector should check for signs of return to sensibility BEFORE the second shot is done. A stunner shot that shoots in the air and does not touch the animal does not count. If the bolt of the stunner touches or partially penetrates the animal it is counted as a missed shot.
Some European regulations require that animals be bled within 45 to 60 seconds after captive bolt stunning. This is especially important after non-penetrating captive bolt. There have been questions on how to interpret this regulation that need to be clarified. If the first shot fails to render the animal completely insensible and the animal has to be shot a second time, how should the interval be timed? It should be timed AFTER the second shot. An animal showing signs of return to sensibility must NEVER be hung on the rail. This is a direct violaton of USDA regulations and hanging a sensible animal would cause suffering.
The issue of stunner problems with brain tissue contamination must be kept in perspective. The carcass splitting saw also spreads spinal cord tissue on the carcass (Bowling et al., 2007). Splitting saw contamination may possibly be worse than contamination from a standard penetrating captive bolt.
Studies done under good commercial conditions show that contamination from brain proteins is low. A study done by Rovira et al (2007) at Colorado State University indicated that only one animal out of 360 had a positive GFAP immuno assay for brain protein in the blood after penetrating captive bolt. Thirty cattle were sampled in 12 commercial plants. In 10 out of the 12 plants, the animals were shot with a single shot. The one positive sample occurred in a plant where the kill floor layout made it impossible to verify that the animal was shot with a single shot. A study done at the University of Bristol by Coore et al (2005) showed much higher levels of contamination. They used methods that may have confounded their results. The cattle were anesthetized and a catheter with a balloon was inserted into the jugular vein. There is a possibility that this device may have slowed down bleedout and changed blood flow patterns in the brain. Another study done under commercial conditions had results similar to the Colorado State study (Lucker et al, 2005).
Atkinson, S., Velarde, A., and Algers, B. 2013. Assessment of stun quality at commercial slaughter in cattle shot with captive bolt. 22:473-481.
AVMA. 2013. AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasio of Animals, 2013 Edition. American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumberg, Illinois.
Bowling, M.B., Yemm, R.S., Belk, K.E., Sofos, J.N., Smith, G.C., and Scanga, J.A. 2007. An evalutation of central nervous system cross-contamination due to carcass splitting in commercial beef packing plants. Journal of Food Protection. 71: 83-92.
Coore, R.R., et al, 2005. Brain tissue fragments in jugular vein blood of cattle stunned by use of penetrating and non-penetrating captive bolt guns. Journal of Food Protection, 68:882-884.
Faruk, M.M. 2013. Advances in industrial production of halal and kosher meat. Meat Sciences, 95:805-820.
Lucker, E. et al, 2002. Studies of contamination of beef with tissues from the central nervous system (CNS) as pertaining to slaughter technology and human BSE exposure risk. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenscher, 115:118-121.
Grandin, T. 1998. Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning practices in slaughter plants. Journal of Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 212:36-39.
Grandin, T. 2002. Return to sensibility problems after penetrating captive bolt stunning of cattle in commercial beef slaughter plants. Journal Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 221: 1258-1261.
Grandin, T. 2005. Maintenance of good animal welfare standards in beef slaughter plants by use of auditing programs. Journal Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 226:370-373.
Grandin, T. 2010. Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines and Audit Guides. Am. Meat. Institute. Washington, D.C.
Gregory, N. et al. 2007. Depth of concussion in cattle shot with penetrating captive bolt. Meat Science. 77:499-503.
Gregory, N. 2007. Animal Welfare and Meat Production, 2nd Edition. Cabi Publishing. Oxfordshire, UK.
Jerlstrom, J. 2014. When and what determines the death of an animal? A study investigating the heart activity during slaughter of farm animals. Thesis. Swedish University, Skara.
Lambooy, E., and Spanjaard, W. 1981. Effect of shooting position on the stunning of calves by captive bolt. Vet. Record. 109:359-361.
Predergast, D.M., et al. 2003. Dissemination of central nervous system tissue from the brain and spinal cord of cattle after captive bolt stunning and carcass splitting. Meat Science. 65: 1201-1209.
Rovira, P.J., Scanga, J.A., Grandin, T., Hossner, K.L., Yemm, R.S., Belk, K.E., Tatum, D.J., Sofos, J.N., and Smith, G.C. 2007. Central nervous system tissue contamination of the circulatory system following humane cattle stunning procedures. Food Protection Trends. 27:524-529.
Vimini, R.J. et al. 1983. Effect of delayed bleeding after captive bolt stunning on heart activity and blood removal in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 57:628-631.
Click here to return to the Homepage for more information on animal behavior, welfare, and care.
Click here for more information on Captive Bolt Stunning of Cattle, Sheep, and Pigs.