Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
EXTERNAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT
Review Of Stunning Interventions In Commercial Rabbits At The Time Of
Slaughter1
A. O’Connor1, R. S. Dzikamunhenga1, S. Totton2, J. Sargeant2, J. Glanville3 and H.
Wood3
1
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA, 2 University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 3 York
Health Economics Consortium, University of York, UK
ABSTRACT
EFSA commissioned a comprehensive review of the welfare aspects of carbon dioxide stunning in rabbits to
assess whether scientific studies would address criteria outlined in an EFSA guidance on the assessment criteria
for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning interventions regarding animal protection at the time of
killing (EFSA Journal 2013;11(12):3486). The objective was to provide an summary of studies assessing
modified atmosphere (using carbon dioxide), electrical and mechanical stunning methods to stun rabbits prior to
slaughter. The outcomes of interest were onset of unconsciousness, duration of unconsciousness, and absence of
pain, distress, or suffering prior to the onset of unconsciousness. The key electronic databases were searched:
Science Citation Index (1900-2014), CAB Abstracts (1910-2014), and MEDLINE (1946-2014). Key conference
and the bibliographies of review articles were also manually searched for relevant studies. Study inclusion
criteria comprised primary research of any study design investigating the effects of modified atmosphere,
electrical and/or mechanical stunning of commercial rabbits on the onset or duration of unconsciousness and/or
absence of pain, distress, or suffering prior to the onset of unconsciousness. Risk of bias assessment was only be
performed on studies that reported the stun method as requested by the EFSA guidance. Data extraction and
study methodological assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently. Data were extracted for two
modified atmosphere stunning studies, one mechanical stunning study, and five electrical stunning studies. None
of the studies reported all the criteria which are detailed in the EFSA guidance, so no risk of bias assessment was
conducted. The two modified atmosphere stunning studies found during this review failed to report several
essential points of intervention information as listed in the EFSA Guidance. As a result, the effectiveness of
modified atmosphere stunning with respect to animal welfare, as compared to electrical and mechanical stunning
methods, could not be assessed.
© European Food Safety Authority, 2015
KEY WORDS
animal welfare, carbon dioxide, stunning, rabbits, slaughter
1
Question No EFSA-Q-2014-00613.
Any enquiries related to this output should be addressed to [email protected]
Suggested citation: A. O’Connor, R. S. Dzikamunhenga, S. Totton, J. Sargeant, J. Glanville and H. Wood systematic review
and provision of abstracts, when available, of studies related tocarbon dioxide stunning of rabbits as an acceptable alternative
to legally applied stunning interventions in the eu
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742. [75 pp.]. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/publications
© European Food Safety Authority, 2015
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... 1
Table of contents ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Background as provided by EFSA ........................................................................................................... 4
Terms of reference as provided by EFSA ................................................................................................ 4
Introduction and Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 6
Materials and Methods ............................................................................................................................. 6
1. Protocol and registration (PRISMA ITEM 5) ................................................................................. 6
2. Eligibility criteria (PRISMA ITEM 6) ............................................................................................ 6
3. Information sources (PRISMA ITEM 7) ......................................................................................... 7
4. Search (PRISMA ITEM 8) .............................................................................................................. 7
4.1.
Search terms ............................................................................................................................ 7
5. Study selection (PRISMA ITEM 9) ................................................................................................ 7
6. Data collection process (PRISMA ITEM 10) .................................................................................. 9
7. Data items (PRISMA ITEM 11) ...................................................................................................... 9
8. Risk of bias of individual studies (PRISMA ITEM 12) ................................................................ 10
9. Summary measure (PRISMA ITEM 13) ....................................................................................... 10
10.
Synthesis of results (PRISMA ITEM 14).................................................................................. 10
11.
Risk of bias across studies (PRISMA ITEM 15)....................................................................... 10
12.
Ancillary analyses (PRISMA ITEM 16) ................................................................................... 10
Results .................................................................................................................................................... 10
13.
Study selection (PRISMA ITEM 17) ........................................................................................ 10
14.
Study characteristics for studies assessing modified atmosphere stunning in rabbits (PRISMA
ITEM 18) ................................................................................................................................................ 11
15.
Risk of bias in studies using modified atmosphere stunning of rabbits (PRISMA ITEM 19) .. 11
15.1. Results of individual studies using modified atmosphere stunning of rabbits (PRISMA
ITEM 20) ........................................................................................................................................... 11
16.
Study characteristics of studies assessing mechanical stunning of rabbits (PRISMA ITEM 18)12
17.
Risk of bias in studies using mechanical stunning of rabbits (PRISMA ITEM 19) .................. 12
18.
Results of individual studies using mechanical stunning of rabbits (PRISMA ITEM 20)........ 12
19.
Study characteristics for the studies assessing electrical stunning of rabbits (PRISMA ITEM
18)
13
20.
Risk of bias in studies using electrical stunning of rabbits (PRISMA ITEM 19) ..................... 13
20.1. Results of individual studies using electrical stunning of rabbits (PRISMA ITEM 20) ....... 13
21.
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 13
22.
Conclusions & Recommendations ............................................................................................ 14
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ 40
Appendix A.
Detailed Protocol provided as start-up contract ......................................................... 41
Step 1: Extensive Literature Search ....................................................................................................... 41
Search terms ....................................................................................................................................... 41
Information sources searched............................................................................................................. 42
Step 2: Relevance screening for publications that report modified atmosphere stunning methods: ...... 43
Screening level 1 based on abstract and title only ............................................................................. 44
Screening level 2 based on full text. .................................................................................................. 44
Step 3. Assessing the relevant modified atmosphere publications for eligibility: .................................. 45
Step 4. Extraction of clinical and methodological source of heterogeneity from eligible publications
that report modified atmosphere stunning methods ............................................................................... 45
Step 5. Summarize the eligible modified atmosphere publications....................................................... 45
Step 6. Relevance screening for publications that report mechanical methods of stunning: ................. 46
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
2
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
Screening level 1 based on abstract and title only ............................................................................. 46
Screening level 2 based on full text. .................................................................................................. 46
Step 7. Assessing the relevant publications that report mechanical methods of stunning for eligibility:47
Step 8. Extraction of clinical or methodological outcomes for publications that report eligible
mechanical methods of stunning ............................................................................................................ 47
Step 9. Summarize publications that report eligible mechanical methods of stunning .......................... 47
Step 10. Relevance screening for publications that report head-only electrical methods of stunning for
rabbits: .................................................................................................................................................... 47
Screening level 1 based on abstract and title only ............................................................................. 47
Screening level 2 based on full text. .................................................................................................. 48
Step 11. Assessing the relevant electrical methods of stunning publications for eligibility for head-only
or head-to-body electrical stunning methods ......................................................................................... 48
Step 12. Extraction of clinical or methodological outcomes for the eligible head-only or head-to-body
electrical methods of stunning publications ........................................................................................... 49
Step 13. Summarize eligible publications that report eligible head-only or head-to-body electrical
methods of stunning ............................................................................................................................... 49
Appendix B.
Search strategies ......................................................................................................... 56
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
3
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
BACKGROUND AS PROVIDED BY EFSA
The European Commission requested EFSA to prepare a scientific opinion on the use of carbon
dioxide for stunning rabbits. Article 4 (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection
of animals at the time of killing (Official Journal, 2009) allows the Commission to amend stunning
parameters laid down in Annex I to this Regulation to take into account scientific and technical
progress on the basis of an EFSA opinion. Any such amendments shall ensure a level of animal
welfare at least equivalent to that ensured by the existing methods.
At present, the use of carbon dioxide is not allowed for stunning rabbits (Council Regulation (EC) No
1099/2099). Legally permitted stunning systems for rabbits are the mechanical and electrical methods.
In support of the evidence base of the scientific opinion concerning carbon dioxide stunning of rabbits
(M-2014-0078; EFSA-Q-2014-00186) EFSA wishes to carry out a systematic literature review. The
aim of this assignment is to undertake a systematic review and elucidate any studies related to carbon
dioxide stunning of rabbits (sections 3.1.3.1. and 3.1.3.2.) as the main focus and of mechanical
interventions (3.1.1.) and electrical interventions (3.1.2.) applied commercially for stunning rabbits as
comparators with regards to welfare advantages/disadvantages and effectiveness following the EFSA
guidance (2013) (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), 2013. Guidance on the
assessment criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning methods regarding animal
protection at the time of killing. EFSA Journal 2013;11(12):3486, 41 pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3486).
The systematic search shall present an overview of the area and shall follow the structure of a PICO
(Population, Interventions, Comparators and Outcomes). The population under study is rabbits, the
intervention is carbon dioxide stunning, comparators are different carbon dioxide stunning options as
outlined in section 3.1.3.1 entitled ‘carbon dioxide (CO2) at high concentrations and CO2 in two
phases’ and section 3.1.3.2. entitled ‘CO2 associated with inert gases’ and mechanical interventions
(3.1.1.) and electrical interventions (3.1.2.) applied commercially for stunning rabbits with regards to
welfare advantages/disadvantages following the EFSA guidance (2013) . Outcomes are immediate
unconsciousness or absence of pain until onset of unconsciousness (according to sections 3.2. entitled
‘outcome’ detailed in sections 3.1.2., 3.2.2. and 3.2.3. of the EFSA guidance (2013).
TERMS OF REFERENCE AS PROVIDED BY EFSA
To undertake a systematic review related to carbon dioxide stunning of rabbits and an external
scientific report detailing the search methodology and provide and interpretation of the results. A
systematic review on the effectiveness of carbon dioxide stunning of rabbits to provide a complete
overview of all information which is available regarding carbon dioxide stunning of rabbits and in
particular on information relating to carbon dioxide stunning of rabbits being an acceptable alternative
for the stunning of rabbits considering the welfare advantages/disadvantages and effectiveness when
compared to other stunning methods used for rabbits under commercial conditions in achieving
unconsciousness, taking into account different requirements possibly attached to the use of carbon
dioxide for stunning rabbits, in particular in terms of minimum and maximum gas concentration,
duration of exposure, stun-to-stick interval, quality of the gas, temperature of the gas, type of
recording and maintenance etc.. The systematic review shall include all available information
regarding the validity to apply carbon dioxide stunning of rabbits in slaughterhouses in Europe.
A systematic review on the effectiveness of carbon dioxide stunning of rabbits (in particular focus on
information relating to carbon dioxide stunning of rabbits being an acceptable alternative for the
stunning of rabbits considering the welfare advantages/disadvantages and effectiveness when
compared to other stunning methods used for rabbits under commercial conditions) in achieving
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
4
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
unconsciousness, taking into account different requirements possibly attached to the use of carbon
dioxide for stunning rabbits, in particular in terms of minimum and maximum gas concentration,
duration of exposure, stun-to-stick interval, quality of the gas, temperature of the gas, type of
recording and maintenance etc. The systematic review shall include all available information
regarding the validity to apply carbon dioxide stunning of rabbits in slaughterhouses in the EU.
This contract/grant was awarded by EFSA to: Annette O’Connor at the Iowa State University, Julie
Glanville at the York Health Economics Consortium, University of York and Jan Sargeant at the
University of Guelph.
Contract/grant title: Systematic review and provision of abstracts, when available, of studies related to
carbon dioxide stunning of rabbits as an acceptable alternative to legally applied stunning
interventions in the EU considering animal welfare and effectiveness
Contract/grant number: RC/EFSA/ALPHA/2014/03
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
5
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
The only legally permitted systems for stunning rabbits in the EU are mechanical (captive bolt) and
electrical (European Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2099 http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/
slaughter/regulation_1099_2009_en.pdf). Since January 2009, stunning using carbon dioxide (at high
concentrations, or in two phases, or associated with inert gases) has not been allowed for rabbits
(Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2099). EFSA commissioned a comprehensive review of the
welfare aspects of carbon dioxide stunning in rabbits to establish the state of the art in the field and to
assess whether scientific studies would address criteria outlined in an EFSA guidance on the
assessment criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning interventions regarding animal
protection at the time of killing (EFSA, 2013).
The request from EFSA was for an overview of information about stunning in rabbits rather than a
standard systematic review approach that would adopt the specific PICO question format (population
(P), the intervention (I) the comparison (C.) and the outcome (O)). The aim therefore was to conduct a
review to locate and evaluate studies of carbon dioxide stunning of rabbits and other methods
described in the EFSA Guidance on the assessment criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of
stunning methods regarding animal protection at the time of killing : and mechanical stunning in
rabbits as described in section 3.1.1., the EFSA Guidance (2013) and electrical stunning in rabbits as
described in section 3.1.2., the EFSA Guidance (2013). The aim of the overall project conducted by
the EFSA working group was to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting and document the welfare
advantages/disadvantages of carbon dioxide stunning compared to the other methods and to ultimately
determine whether carbon dioxide is an acceptable alternative for to the currently permitted methods
for stunning rabbits in European slaughterhouses. This report is to be used by that group as a summary
of such studies and provides a detailed description of the search methodology, followed by
interpretation of the results.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
1.
Protocol and registration
A protocol was developed prior to conducting the review through discussion between EFSA staff and
the contractors. The protocol is not registered but is included in Appendix Appendix A. This approach
to the review deviated from the steps usually used in a systematic review for 2 reasons. First, EFSA
was not interested in a PICO review format, and second, EFSA requested the review team follow the
approach to reviewing the literature proposed in a prior EFSA document specific to stunning methods
rather than the general method proposed in the systematic review guidance. Note that hereafter, when
referring to the EFSA Guidance we are referring to the 2013 document. The protocol in Appendix B
contains detailed discussions of the steps used for this review however a brief summary of the steps is
provided in Table 1. Although a systematic review process was not followed, many steps associated
with a systematic review were included, therefore we used a reporting style consistent with PRISMA
guidelines Moher et al. (2009).
2.
Eligibility criteria
Potentially relevant references were those that described primary research that evaluated modified
atmosphere, mechanical, or electrical methods of stunning commercial rabbits prior to slaughter. The
population of interest was defined as rabbits raised for the production of meat, skins, or fur and
definitions of the other PICO components are not provided because such an approach was not
consistent with EFSA request or needs.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
6
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
3.
Information sources
Consistent with the protocol, a range of information sources indexing published research were
searched for studies reporting stunning methods in rabbits (Table 2).
Ongoing or recently completed trials, unpublished research, and research reported in the grey literature
were identified by searching trial registers, databases indexing conference proceedings, and
specialised search engines as follows: TEKTRAN, CRIS, Conference Proceedings Citation Index –
Science, Science.gov, ScienceResearch.com, Open Grey.
The following key conference web-pages from the last three years (where available) were also
searched to identify additional conference abstracts: International Congress of Meat Science and
Technology, International Workshop on Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level,
OIE Global Conference on Animal Welfare, and Humane Slaughter Association Centenary
International Symposium.
Where possible, search results were downloaded from the information sources and imported into
EndNote (Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, USA) bibliographic management software. Deduplication
was undertaken using a number of algorithms. In addition to the information sources described, the
reference lists of potentially relevant reviews and eligible studies were checked for additional trials
that had not been identified by electronic searches.
4.
Search
Searches were conducted in a range of relevant information sources in order to identify studies of any
method of stunning rabbits, including those reporting the use of modified atmosphere, mechanical, and
electrical methods of stunning, and also including studies reporting on the specificity and sensitivity of
indicators for stunning, and studies reporting the prevalence of successful stuns as measured by the
specified indicators.
4.1.
Search terms
The search strategy comprised two elements: the search terms and the information sources to be
searched. The search strategy used to identify studies indexed in CAB Abstracts (Web of Knowledge)
is presented in Figure 1. This strategy was composed of two key elements:

The population: rabbits (search line 1);

The exposure: stunning methods (search lines 2 to 12).
A second, more focused approach was used in search line 15 to capture any studies concerning
stunning rabbits that may have been missed by the initial two-concept approach. The searches were
not limited by language, date, or study design. The search strategy developed for CAB Abstracts was
adapted appropriately to perform efficiently in other information sources. This included consideration
of database interface differences as well as adaptation to different indexing languages and syntax. The
strategies used to search each information source are presented in Appendix Appendix B.
5.
Study selection
The search results were uploaded into the online systematic review software DistillerSR® (Ottawa,
ON, Canada). Abstracts and titles were screened for inclusion. There were two levels of screening.
Two reviewers (DW and RD), both veterinarians with post-graduate training in epidemiology and with
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
7
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
systematic review methodology experience, independently evaluated each citation for relevance using
the following questions:
1) Does the title/abstract describe a method of stunning in rabbits raised for commercial use
(NOT pet euthanasia) that is mechanical, electrical, or modified atmosphere?
 Yes (Go to Q2)
 No (Exclude)
2) Which methods are described? Choose all that apply.
 100% Carbon dioxide or high concentration carbon dioxide (Go to Q3)
 CO2 and O2 (Got to Q3)
 CO2 and inert gases (Go to Q3)
 Inert gases
 Mechanical methods (Go to Q6)
 Electrical methods
 None of the above (Exclude)
 Not discernible
3) Does the title/abstract describe a review of carbon dioxide stunning in rabbits OR describe a
primary study evaluating the effectiveness of carbon dioxide stunning?
 Yes - primary study (Go to Q4)
 Yes - relevant review
 Not discernible (Go to Q4)
 None of the above
4) Does the title/abstract describe the assessment of one or both of the following in rabbits
stunned with carbon dioxide?
 Unconsciousness and insensibility (Go to Q5)
 Absence of pain, distress and suffering of until onset of unconsciousness and insensibility
(Go to Q5)
 Not discernible - may need full paper to evaluate (Go to Q5)
 None of the above
5) What comparative methods (if any) of stunning are described in the study?
 Carbon dioxide and / or other gas
 Mechanical intervention
 Electrical intervention
 Not discernible
 None of the above
 No comparison described
6) What methods of mechanical stunning are described?
 Stun – cervical dislocation
 Stun – penetrative captive bolt
 Stun – non-penetrative captive bolt
 Stun – described as “captive bolt” only
7) Which methods (IF ANY) are used to assess the efficacy of STUN?
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
8
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742

Text response
8) Does the title/abstract describe meat quality as the only outcome?
 Yes (Exclude)
 No
Citations were excluded if both reviewers responded “No” to the first question. Studies that were not
discernible were procured for evaluation of the full text. This was the second level of screening.
Studies that appeared to be potential review articles were selected so that their reference lists could be
manually scanned for additional relevant studies. Studies for which both reviewers answered “Yes” to
question 8 were excluded. Non-English-language papers with English titles and abstracts were
included in relevance screening. When conflicts about relevance arose, the two reviewers discussed
the abstract, and consulted with a third reviewer (AOC), when necessary, to clarify the relevance
decision
6.
Data collection process
After identifying the relevant studies, we conducted eligibility assessment based on the EFSA
guidance which is Step 3 of Table 1. Studies would be eligible for the next steps of the review, Step 4
of Table 1 onwards, only if they reported the interventions in a manner consistent with the
requirements of the EFSA guidance. In this step we assessed if all the items about the stunning
methods requested by the EFSA guidance are reported. Outcomes of interest are also extracted.
Assessment of eligibility was collected independently for each study by two reviewers (RD and ST),
and conflicts were resolved through discussion. All data were collected and stored in the online
systematic review software DistillerSR® (Ottawa, ON, Canada).
7.
Data items
Data extraction forms were designed to include data fields for the key items identified by EFSA
regarding interventions (for modified atmosphere stunning interventions section 3.1.3. of the EFSA
guidance , for mechanical methods of stunning section 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.2. of the EFSA guidance , and
for electrical methods of stunning section 3.1.2 ‘Electrical stunning interventions’ of the EFSA
guidance (2013) and outcomes as listed in sections 3.2.1.3. ‘Onset of unconsciousness and
insensibility’, 3.2.2. ‘Absence of pain, distress and suffering until the loss of consciousness and
sensibility’ and 3.2.3 ‘Duration of unconsciousness and insensibility’.
Two reviewers independently extracted the following information from each record:
1) Study Level Information








Setting (Commercial, Larger scale experimental (replica plant), Small scale
experimental (laboratory), not reported or not discernible)
Country
Breed
Animal type (Meat, fur, skins)
Sample size
Age in weeks
Weight in kilograms
Sex
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
9
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
2) Intervention Level Information

Available information as detailed in Tables 5, 6, and 7 of the EFSA guidance were
extracted.
3) Outcome Level Information(where possible)








8.
Study arm identification
Outcome (s) reported in the study
Outcome definition (as described by the author(s) of the individual study)
R (if proportion data were reported)
Arm sample size
Mean and dispersion descriptor for continuous data (incl. time in seconds)
Summary effect
P-value
Risk of bias of individual studies
Consistent with the approach recommended by the EFSA guidance , data about risk of bias
(methodological quality) was only extracted if the reporting of the stunning methods was
comprehensive. This process is consistent with Step 4 of Table 1.
9.
Summary measure
Consistent with the request to provide an overview rather than a comparative assessment of a
particular outcome across stunning methods, no particular summary effect measure was of interest.
10.
Synthesis of results
Consistent with the request to provide an overview of the characteristics of stunning methods and
outcomes reported rather than to compare an outcome across stunning methods, it was not anticipated
that quantitative meta-analysis would be performed. The approach to reporting therefore was to
present the characteristics of the stunning methods and to indicate which aspects were not reported and
to present the results of the studies.
11.
Risk of bias across studies
Assessment of risk of bias across studies would require a comparative effective size; as such results
were not of interest, assessment of risk of bias was not conducted.
12.
Ancillary analyses
No ancillary analyses were conducted.
RESULTS
13.
Study selection
The literature searches yielded 2304 records. The source of these records is presented in Table 3:
After de-duplication, 718 records were removed, leaving 1586 records to be assessed for relevance
using the relevance screening questions above. The study identification flowchart is shown in Figure
2: 1586 studies were identified by the search and 1554 were removed as they were not relevant based
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
10
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
on screening of the abstract and title. The remaining 32 studies 24 were excluded with the remaining
8 studies relevant. The reasons for exclusion are presented in the Appendix C.
14.
Study characteristics for studies assessing modified atmosphere stunning in rabbits
There were two relevant studies: Hattingh et al. (1986); Llonch et al. (2012) that assessed modified
atmosphere stunning in rabbits. Llonch et al. (2012) described carbon dioxide at high concentrations,
while Hattingh et al. (1986) described stunning using carbon dioxide associated with inert gases. The
characteristics of the study populations are provided in the Table 4:
The two studies described five approaches to stunning rabbits using modified atmospheres. Table 5
contains the details of the method used to stun the rabbits and also indicates items omitted by the
authors based on the information requested in the EFSA guidance.
Hattingh et al. (1986) used high-concentration CO2 to stun rabbits. Each rabbit was placed in a 120-L
Perspex chamber with 21 % O2, 0.1 % CO2 and 79 % nitrogen. The amount of oxygen was decreased
to 3.5 %, and the amount of CO2 was increased to 50 % over a period of 20 to 30 minutes. Blood
pressure and EEG were recorded continuously, while blood was sampled at regular intervals. The
authors did not report the flow rate (L/min) of the gases entering the chamber, the stocking density
during stunning, the location of the gas monitoring system with respect to the rabbit’s position, the
calibration methods for the monitoring system, the total duration of exposure to the targeted CO2
concentration, the maximum stun-to-stick/kill interval and the humidity and temperature of the gases
used--all essential reporting criteria for this type of modified atmosphere study, according to the EFSA
Guidance (Section 3.1.3.1).
Llonch et al. (2012) investigated stunning with high CO2 (one arm) as well as CO2 associated with
inert gases (second arm). They did not report the following essential reporting criteria according to the
EFSA guidance document (Section 3.1.3.2) for intervention information, for the arm investigating
stunning associated with inert gases combined with CO2: the initial CO2 and O2 concentrations, the
CO2 and O2 concentration gradients, stocking density (kg/m2) of the rabbits at stunning, monitoring of
CO2 and O2 concentrations (how, when and where it was done), time to reach targeted CO2 and O2
concentrations, total duration of targeted CO2 and O2 exposure, source of the inert gas, and the
humidity and temperature of the gases. For the high CO2 treatment arm, the following essential
reporting criteria, according to the EFSA Guidance (Section 3.1.3.1.) for intervention information,
were not reported: the CO2 concentration gradient, stocking density (kg/m2) of the rabbits at stunning,
time taken to reach the targeted CO2 concentration, and the source, humidity, and temperature of the
CO2. They did not kill the rabbits at the end of their study, instead allowing them to fully recover from
the effects of the modified atmosphere stunning; therefore a maximum stun-to-stick/kill interval could
not be reported for this study.
15.
Risk of bias in studies using modified atmosphere stunning of rabbits
For this project, the review team followed the EFSA guidance and risk of bias was only assessed on
papers that reported all of the elements of the intervention requested by EFSA guidance. As no studies
meet that criterion, no risk of bias assessment was conducted.
15.1.
Results of individual studies using modified atmosphere stunning of rabbits
Outcomes reported by Llonch et al. (2012) are shown in Table 6 and Table 7. Llonch et al. (2012)
exposed the rabbits to modified atmosphere treatments by placing them in a crate and lowering them
into a 290 cm-deep pit, pre-filled with the gas mixture. Rabbits were held at the top of the pit (normal
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
11
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
atmosphere) and observed, before being lowered into the pit. Absence of pain, distress and suffering
was ascertained by observing the behavioral response of the rabbit at each phase of being at the top of
the pit, while descending into the pit, at the bottom of the pit and while ascending to the top of the pit,
as well as the physiological response (respiratory distress) at each phase. The authors considered loss
of balance in the rabbits to be the first sign of the onset of unconsciousness. Time to recovery of
balance was then used to assess duration of unconsciousness.
Outcomes reported by Hattingh et al. (1986) are shown in Table 8. Rabbits were placed in a chamber
for stunning under normal atmospheric conditions for 30 minutes, and readings were taken prior to the
gas composition in the chamber being altered. Rabbits were monitored under these conditions until
death (i.e. defined as an isoelectric EEG reading). Onset of unconsciousness was assessed using EEG
recordings and lack of response to visual stimuli and ear pinching; however, the authors did not report
the time to the onset of unconsciousness. A true assessment of pain, distress and suffering was not
reported by the authors, as the physiologic responses recorded (plasma glucose, lactate, cortisol and
the heart rate of the rabbits) were only reported for rabbits that were already unconscious, not for
rabbits after exposure to the gas mixture but prior to losing consciousness. Duration of
unconsciousness was not ascertained because the rabbits were exposed to the gas mixture until death
occurred (i.e. not allowed to recover). Note that although not explicitly reported in the results section
of the manuscript, Hattingh et al. (1986) does comment at the end of the document (last sentence) that
‘all animals become unconscious while hyperventilating severely’.
16.
Study characteristics of studies assessing mechanical stunning of rabbits
Only one relevant study, by Dennis et al. (1988), investigated a mechanical stunning method
(penetrative captive bolt) in rabbits. This method is approved for use according to the Council
Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of
killing (http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/slaughter/regulation_1099_2009_en.pdf). The study
characteristics of this study are shown in Table 9.
The intervention information for the arm describing mechanical stunning is shown in Table 10. The
following key intervention parameters for captive bolt stunning, as identified in section 3.1.1.1. of the
EFSA guidance , were not reported by Dennis et al. (1988): velocity, the length and diameter of the
bolt, whether it utilized contact or trigger firing, whether the bolt was recessed or not, the bolt
dimensions, the mass and velocity, and equipment maintenance, cleaning and storage conditions.
17.
Risk of bias in studies using mechanical stunning of rabbits
As the Dennis et al. (1988) study did not report all of the key intervention parameters and no risk of
bias assessment was conducted.
18.
Results of individual studies using mechanical stunning of rabbits
Dennis et al. (1988) reported seven outcomes, described in Table 11. We were able to group the
outcomes reported into those that evaluated onset of unconsciousness and insensibility, and those that
evaluated absence of pain, distress and suffering until the loss of consciousness and sensibility,
according to the EFSA guidance (2013). Unfortunately, the sample size was very small (n=5) and
Dennis et al. (1988) did not report time measures for most of these outcomes. One rabbit took 100
seconds to stop breathing while all others immediately ceased respiration.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
12
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
19.
Study characteristics for the studies assessing electrical stunning of rabbits
Five relevant studies assessed electrical stunning in rabbits. Four studies assessed head-to-body
electrical stunning Anil et al. (1998b, 2000); Maria et al. (2001); Nodari et al. (2009) and one study
assessed head-to-anus stunning Guerrero et al. (2007). Head-to-anus stunning is not an approved
method of electrical stunning in rabbits according to EFSA guidance (2013). However, because of the
scarcity of information available regarding electrical stunning in rabbits, a summary of the findings
reported by Guerrero et al. (2007) is provided here. The study characteristics of the five studies
describing electrical stunning are shown in Table 12:
The intervention information for the 18 stunning methods (trial arms) describing electrical stunning is
shown in Table 13, Table 14 and Table 15 Anil et al. (2000), Guerrero et al. (2007) and Nodari et al.
(2009) each had a single arm of rabbits that were electrically stunned and these are reported in Table
13. Maria et al. (2001) reported five treatment groups (trial arms) of rabbits (Table 14) while Anil et
al. (1998b) reported seven arms (Table 15). The following electrical stunning parameters were not
reported by Maria et al. (2001) for any of the arms: minimum current type, minimum current (A),
minimum current-waveform, minimum current-latency, minimum voltage, minimum or maximum
frequency, maximum stun-to-stick-/kill interval, frequency of calibration of the equipment, electrode
appearance, prevention of electrical shocks before stunning, and animal skin condition. The following
parameters were not reported by Anil et al. (1998b): minimum current-latency, minimum voltage,
maximum stun-to-stick-/kill interval, frequency of calibration of the equipment, electrode appearance,
and animal skin condition.
20.
Risk of bias in studies using electrical stunning of rabbits
As no studies reported all of the key intervention parameters recommended by the EFSA Guidance
(2013), no risk of bias assessment was conducted.
20.1.
Results of individual studies using electrical stunning of rabbits
The outcomes reported for the studies investigating electrical stunning are shown in Table 16, Table
17, Table 18, Table 19 and Table 20. Because of the differences in stunning approaches and
incomplete reporting of stunning parameters, it was not possible to harmonize the outcomes reported
by each author so these are reported separately.
We classified the reported outcomes into one of the following: (1) onset of unconsciousness and
insensibility, (2) absence of pain, distress and suffering until the onset of unconsciousness, (3)
duration of unconsciousness and insensibility, according to the EFSA guidance. None of the authors
reported all three outcome classifications. To the review team, it was not always clear how each of the
outcomes should be grouped. For example, Nodari et al. (2009) described ‘stunning variables
measured from sticking to death’. These variables appeared to be outcomes that would typically be
used to assess onset of unconsciousness and insensibility. Moreover, many of the rabbits in the study
were stunned multiple times prior to recording of these outcomes. Frequently authors did not report if
reported measures of dispersions were standard deviation or standard error e.g. outcomes reported by
Anil et al. (2000) and Guerrero et al. (2007).
21.
Discussion
The two modified atmosphere stunning studies found during this review failed to report several
essential points of intervention information as listed in the EFSA Guidance (EFSA, 2013). As a result,
the effectiveness of modified atmosphere stunning with respect to animal welfare, as compared to
electrical and mechanical stunning methods, could not be assessed.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
13
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
It is regrettable that many studies failed to comprehensively report information that is relevant to
assessing the efficacy and welfare implications of stunning methods. The review team suspects that
this failure to report is a function of accidental omission or failure to realize the importance of
characteristics that describe stunning methods. There appears to be an urgent need to communicate to
the community of researchers working in this area what constitutes current standards of reporting.
It was also surprising that no study provided a rationale for the number of animals included in the
study. Many studies were case reports (i.e., only one method assessed) and in these situations, sample
sizes might aim to determine the prevalence of an important outcome. For example, if failure of
successful stunning is of interest, then authors may be able to design studies and document a minimum
detection level for successful stunning. Such an approach would require large sample sizes; however it
would also be sensible to include a stopping rule that indicated that as soon as one failure occurred, the
study could stop. For studies that compare methods, clearly there is a need to determine if the aim is to
assess equivalence or superiority, and sample sizes for such approaches can readily be determined.
Under-powering comparative studies can be wasteful, and the concept of reduction should not be used
as justification for underpowered studies.
With respect to the review approach, neither the EFSA working group nor the EFSA guidance was
specific regarding the relative importance of outcomes of interest. The review team considered that it
might be worthwhile considering in future reviews that a threshold outcome be used. Only if that
outcome is assessed, and passes a minimum standard, would other outcomes be extracted. For
example, for stunning methods that should result in immediate unconsciousness such as electrical
stunning methods, perhaps it is sensible to say that the method must document a minimum stunning
efficacy, and only if this threshold is met will other metrics be evaluated.
22.
Conclusions & Recommendations
When generating supporting data for modified or new stunning interventions, the use of live animals
should be minimized as stated in Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific
purposes. Potential pain, distress and suffering of animals subjected to experimental investigations
must be avoided and the principles of replacement, reduction and refinement (the 3Rs) when using
animals for scientific purposes should be applied.
It is recommended that any investigator intending to study the effects of modified atmosphere stunning
in rabbits should first consult the EFSA Guidance document (EFSA, 2013) on the minimum reporting
criteria before conducting their study so that the subsequent study will be reported in a manner than it
can contribute all available information to the body of literature on stunning in rabbits.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
14
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
Table 1:
Brief summary of steps in the review process based on the EFSA guidance (EFSA, 2013)
Step
Process
Step 1. Extensive literature search:
Conduct an extensive literature search to identify studies that report methods of stunning in rabbits
Step 2. Relevance screening for publications that report
modified atmosphere stunning methods:
Screen the literature for relevant publications and partition the literature into those studies that use
Modified atmosphere stunning interventions (section 3.1.3. of the EFSA guidance)
and report the outcomes referred to in section 3.2.1.3. (Onset of unconsciousness and insensibility) and 3.2.2.
Absence of pain, distress and suffering until the loss of consciousness and sensibility) and 3.2.3 (Duration of
unconsciousness and insensibility) of the EFSA guidance
Step 3. Assessing the relevant modified atmosphere
publications for eligibility:
For studies that pass step 2, we assessed the eligibility based on Table 5, 6 or 7 of the EFSA guidance as
applicable and the outcome reported in sections 3.2.1.3, 3.2.2 and 3.2.3. of the EFSA guidance
Step 4. Extraction of clinical and methodological source
of heterogeneity from eligible publications that report
modified atmosphere stunning methods
For studies that passed step 3 and report all of the information, we will extract the data sources of clinical
heterogeneity and methodological quality.
Step 5. Summarize the eligible modified atmosphere
publications
Summarize the findings of the studies that report stunning with modified atmosphere methods.
N.B. we will complete the steps after 5 if sufficient resources remain after screening and identifying the
modified atmosphere studies.
Step 6. Relevance screening for publications that report
mechanical methods of stunning
Screen the literature for relevant publications and partition the literature into those studies that use mechanical
methods of stunning (sections 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.2. of the EFSA guidance.)
And report the outcomes referred to in section 3.2.1.1. (onset of unconsciousness and insensibility ) of the
EFSA guidance and the outcomes reported in sections 3.2.3 (duration of unconsciousness and insensibility) of
the EFSA guidance
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
15
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food
Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an
output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the
rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
Step 7. Assessing the relevant publications that report
mechanical methods of stunning for eligibility
For studies that pass step 6, we will extract the key parameters about captive bolt methods, i.e. the appropriate
velocity, bolt length and diameter of the captive bolt and the outcome reported in sections 3.2.1.1, and 3.2.3 of
the EFSA guidance
Step 8. Extraction of clinical or methodological outcomes
for publications that report eligible mechanical methods
of stunning
For studies that pass step 6, report all of the information requested, we will extract the data about clinical
heterogeneity and methodological quality.
.
Step 9. Summarize publications that report eligible
mechanical methods of stunning
Step 10. Relevance screening for publications that report
electrical methods of stunning for rabbits:
Step 11. Assessing the relevant electrical methods of
stunning publications for eligibility with minimum or
maximum amperes reported using head-only or head-tobody electrical stunning.
Step 12. Extraction of clinical or methodological
outcomes for the eligible electrical methods of stunning
publications using head-only or head-to-body electrical
stunning.
Screen the literature for relevant publications and partition the literature into those studies that use
Electrical methods of stunning that use permitted interventions for rabbits (section 3.1.2 (electrical stunning
interventions) of the EFSA guidance)
And report the outcomes referred to in section 3.2.1.2. (onset of unconsciousness and insensibility ) of the
EFSA guidance and the outcomes reported in section 3.2.3 (duration of unconsciousness and insensibility) of
the EFSA guidance
For studies that pass step 10 we will assess the eligibility based on reporting of the key parameters of
electrical stunning (minimum and maximum current used time of application) and the outcome reported in
sections 3.2.1.2, and 3.2.3. of the EFSA guidance
For studies that pass step 11 report all of the information, we will extract the data sources of clinical
heterogeneity and methodological quality.
Step 13. Summarize eligible publications that report
eligible electrical methods of stunning using head-only or
head-to-body electrical stunning
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
16
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food
Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an
output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the
rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
Table 2:
Information sources searched to identify relevant studies
Database
Interface
Science Citation Index (SCI)
Web of Knowledge, Thomson Reuters
Conference Proceedings Citation Index
– Science (CPCI-S)
CAB Abstracts
Web of Knowledge, Thomson Reuters
BIOSIS Citation Index
Web of Knowledge, Thomson Reuters
MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process
OvidSP
AGRIS
agris.fao.org
AGRICOLA
agricola.nal.usda.gov
TEKTRAN
www.ars.usda.gov/services/tektran.htm
CRIS
cris.nifa.usda.gov
Science.gov
www.science.gov
ScienceResearch.com
http://scienceresearch.com
Open Grey
www.opengrey.eu
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
Web of Knowledge, Thomson Reuters
17
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
Table 3:
Number of records identified, by information source
Information source
Number of records identified
Science Citation Index (SCI)
890
Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science (CPCI-S)
84
CAB Abstracts
428
BIOSIS Citation Index
515
MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process
360
AGRIS
17
AGRICOLA
7
TEKTRAN
0
CRIS
0
Science.gov
0
ScienceResearch.com
0
Open Grey
0
Search of conference abstracts
3
Search of reference lists of relevant studies and reviews
0
Total
2304
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
18
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
Table 4:
Study characteristics for studies describing modified atmosphere stunning
Author
Setting
Country
Breed
Purpose
Llonch et al.
(2012)
Larger scale
experimental
(replica) plant
Small
scale
experimental
(laboratory)
Spain
NR
NR
NR
Hattingh et al.
(1986)
Age
(weeks)
NR
Weight
(kg)
1.8-2.0
Sex
Meat
Sample
size
60
NR
19
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR = Not Reported
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
19
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
Table 5:
Intervention information for studies assessing modified atmosphere stunning based on section 3.1.3 of the EFSA guidance (EFSA, 2013)
Author
Llonch et al. (2012)
Hattingh et al. (1986)
90% CO2
80%N, 20% CO2
Group 1, N=8
Group 2, N=6
Group 3, N=5
CO2 at high
concentrations
NA
CO2 associated with
inert gases
Nitrogen
CO2 associated with
inert gases
Nitrogen
CO2 associated with inert
gases
Nitrogen
CO2 associated with
inert gases
Nitrogen
NA
80%
NR but presumably 49%
90%
NR
NR but presumably
96.5%
0.10%
0.10%
NR but presumably
46.5%
0.10%
Initial O2 concentration
NR
NR
21%
21%
21%
Targeted CO2 concentration
90%
20%
0.10%
50%
50%
Targeted O2 concentration
NR
<2%
3.50%
21%
3.50%
Final CO2 concentration
90%
20%
0.10%
50%
50%
Final O2 concentration
NR
<2%
3.50%
21%
3.50%
NR
NR
NR
NR
Method of stunning
Type of inert gas used to create the
atmosphere
Final concentration of
inert gases
Initial CO2 concentration
*
Monitoring
See footnote
Time to reach targeted CO2 concentration /
Total duration of targeted CO2 and O2
exposure
Total duration of targeted CO2 exposure
NR
NR
20-30 minutes
20-30 minutes
20-30 minutes
1 minute
NR
NR
NR
NR
Quality of gas -- CO2 source
NR
“The concentrations
of both gases inside
the pit were controlled
by a mixed O2/CO2
analyser (MAP Check
Combi,
PBI
Dansensor, Denmark)
placed 1.5 m below
"medical grade" from
gas cylinders
"medical grade" from gas
cylinders
"medical
grade"
from gas cylinders
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
20
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food
Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an
output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the
rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
the top of the pit”
Quality of gas -- Inert gas source
NR
NR
"medical grade" from
gas cylinders
"medical grade" from gas
cylinders
"medical
grade"
from gas cylinders
NR = Not reported
*"When 90% CO2 was used, the pit was automatically pre-filled and the concentration controlled by a sensor placed 1.5 m below the top of the pit (the position of the crate after 8 s of descent)
and connected to a pump into the stunning system"
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
21
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food
Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an
output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the
rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
Table 6:
Behavioural outcomes reported by Llonch et al. (2012)
Outcome
Control
80%N,
20% CO2
(N=30)
90% CO2
(N=30)
Effect Size
P-value
Exposure
Time
(seconds)
Top*
8.5±0.5
6.5±1
8.5±1
NR
NR
120
Descent*
1.5±0.5
3.5±0.5
2.5±0.5
C2=11.84
0.0027
15
Stationary*
1.44±1.939
2.23±1.991
0.07±0.365
C2=34.79
<0.0001
30
Ascent*
2.10±2.006
0
0
C2=106.3
<0.0001
15
Top again*
9.37±5.366
0.19±0.535
0.27±0.450
C2=137.47
<0.0001
120
Top
100
90
100
NR
NR
120
Descent
85
75
70
NR
NR
15
Stationary
85
0
0
C2=113.88
<0.0001
30
Ascent
90
0
0
C2=127.15
<0.0001
15
Top again
97
91
57
NR
<0.01
120
Escape
attempts
(percentage of total)
Top
43
14
10
NR
NR
120
Descent
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
15
Stationary
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
30
Ascent
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
15
Top again
0.33
NR
NR
NR
NR
120
General activity
Exploratory activity
NR=Not reported
NA = Not applicable
Control (Atmospheric air) (Each rabbit served as its own control)
General activity (counted as number of moves, i.e. number of times that rabbits crossed one of the lines painted on the floor)
Exploratory activity (defined as chewing or licking crate elements, sniffing the environment, gnawing or marking with the
chain) %
The measures of precision reported here are according to the author +/- SEM.
*”Animals were positioned one in front of the other in the two sides of the crate, with a distance of 150 cm between them
(three floor marked lines). During this period, the onset and latency of the explorative behaviour, defined as chewing or
licking crate elements, sniffing the environment, gnawing or marking with the chain (Prinz et al 2008; Shepers et al
2009) and general activity (counted as number of moves, i.e. number of times that rabbits crossed one of the lines
painted on the floor [Dalmau et al 2009]) were assessed. …General models (PROC GENMOD) by means of a binomial
distribution and with animal as a repeated measure were used to analyse the percentage of exploratory behaviour when
the crate was on the top of the pit, descending, stationary at the bottom of the pit, ascending and again at top of the
pit.” Llonch et al. (2012)
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
22
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
Table 7:
Onset of unconsciousness and insensibility reported by Llonch et al. (2012).
Outcome
Control
80N20C (N=30)
90C (N=30)
Effect Size*
P value
Time to appearance of respiratory distress (seconds)
NA
14.46
16.9
F=5.17
0.0284
Overall % with respiratory distress
0
42
97
C2*=12.31
0.0005
Number with loss of balance (during gas treatment)
NA
30
29
NR
NR
Time to loss of balance/posture (seconds)
NA
24.16
28.34
F=9.7
0.0028
Rabbits that lost balance that subsequently recovered it
NA
30
29
NR
NR
Time to appearance of muscle twitches (muscle contractions
similar to spams or convulsions)
Duration of unconsciousness and insensibility
NA
23.9
37.4
F=41.41
<0.0001
Time to recovery of balance
NA
74.43
81.81
F=12.81
0.0007
Number of rabbits showing muscle twitches (muscle contractions
similar to spasm or convulsions)
Duration of muscle twitches (seconds)
0
NR
NR
C2*=39.65
<0.0001
NA
NR
NR
F=6.48
0.0156
NR=Not reported
NA = Not applicable
*The study did not report the contrast information and instead reported with the F statistic or C2. The review team was unable to determine what C2 means.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
23
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food
Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an
output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the
rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
Table 8:
Outcomes reported by Hattingh et al. (1986).
Outcomes
Group 1, N=8
Group 2, N=6
Group 3, N=5
Onset of unconsciousness and insensibility
EEG recording
NR
NR
NR
Lack of response to stimuli (ear
pinching)
Lack of response to stimuli (visual)
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
*Absence of pain, distress and suffering until the loss of unconsciousness and insensibility
Arterial blood Po, (mm Hg)
23 ± 2
86 ± 18
25 ± 1
Arterial blood Pco, (mm Hg)
9±3
131 ± 12
99 ± 27
Arterial blood pH
7.480 ± 0,170
6.893 ± 0.090
7.021 ± 0.055
Heart rate (b/m)
195 ± 90
160 ± 51
118 ± 37
Systolic pressure (mm Hg)
132 ± 26
125 ± 20
110 ± 14
Plasma glucose (mmol/l)
12.00 ± 2,44
10.40 ± 1.60
9.07 ± 1,32
Plasma lactate (mmol/l)
10.83 ± 7,08
2.14 ± 0.91
7.46 ± 1.17
Plasma cortisol (nmol/l)
82 ± 7
63 ± 19
53 ± 35
NR= Not reported;
*While these outcomes are described to determine absence of pain, distress and suffering until the loss of unconsciousness
and insensibility according to the EFSA Guidance, the authors appear to have measured these outcomes in rabbits that
were already unconscious.
The measures of precision reported here are according to the author +/- standard deviation.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
24
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
Table 9:
Study characteristics for study describing mechanical stunning
Author
Setting
Country
Breed
Purpose
Dennis et al.
(1988)
NR
NR
New
Zealand
Whites
NR
Sample
size
5
Age
(Weeks)
NR
Weight
(kg)
2.5-5
Sex
Mixed
NR=Not reported
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
25
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
Table 10: Intervention information for study assessing mechanical stunning by Dennis et al. (1988)
Parameter
Description
Mechanical stunning method described
Penetrative captive bolt
Restraining system
“Rabbits were placed in sternal recumbency. They were petted and calmed in order to minimize anxiety and
movement, but no other restraint was needed.”
“The end of the rod was placed onto the animal's head at the intersection of imaginary lines drawn from the
lateral canthus of each eye to the base of the ear on the opposite side.”
“The rod was held firmly against the head, aimed toward the location of the medulla oblongata, and the trigger
was pulled, discharging the blank cartridge and propelling the bolt forward into the skull.”
NR
Position of captive bolt gun
Bolt penetration site
Captive bolt characteristics – Velocity, length, diameter
of bolt
Cartridge or compressed air specifications
0.22 caliber blank cartridge
Bolt dimensions, mass and velocity
NR
Equipment maintenance, cleaning and storage conditions
NR
Maximum stun to stick/kill interval(s)
NR
NR=Not reported
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
26
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food
Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an
output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the
rights of the authors.
Supporting Publications 2015:EN-742
Table 11: Outcomes for the study assessing mechanical stunning as reported by Dennis et al. (1988)
Outcome
R
n
Mean (seconds)
Dispersion
Disappearance of corneal reflex
5
5
NR
NA
Immediate cessation of respiration
4
5
NR
NA
Cessation of respiration
NA
1
100 sec
NA
Extensor rigidity
2
5
NR
NA
Onset of unconsciousness and insensibility
Absence of pain, distress and suffering until the loss of consciousness and sensibility
Cessation of heartbeat
NA
5
146.2
SEM = 34.6
Hind limb movement
5
5
NR
NA
Vocalization
1
5
NR
NA
R=number of rabbits exhibiting the outcome
n=sample size
NR=Not reported
NA=Not applicable
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
27
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Publications 2015:EN-742
Table 12: Study characteristics for studies describing electrical stunning of rabbits
Author
Setting
Country
Breed
Anil et al. (1998b)
NR
NR
NR
Anil et al. (2000)
NR
NR
NR
Purpose
Sample size
Age (weeks)
Weight (kg)
*Dispersion
Sex
NR
71
NR
1.7-3.1
NR
Mixed
NR
8
NR
NR
NR
0.07 (with
rest group),
0.10 (without
rest group)
Mixed
NR
Mixed
NR
Mixed
Guerrero et al. (2007)
Larger scale
experimental
(replica
plant)
Mexico
Californian
Meat
40
10
Maria et al. (2001)
Commercial
NR
NR
NR
148
NR
1.7-3.1
Mean= 2.85
(with rest
group), 2.90
(without rest
group)
“around 2”
Nodari et al. (2009)
Commercial
Italy
Crossbreed
NR
1020
22.5
Mean=2.5
NR=Not reported
Mixed = Bucks and Does
NR=Not reported
*Not reported in text if SD or SE
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
28
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food
Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an
output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the
rights of the authors.
Publications 2015:EN-742
Table 13: Interventions of the studies assessing electrical stunning
Nodari et al. (2009)
Anil et al. (2000)
Guerrero et al. (2007)
Treatment group (applicable only for multiple arm
trials)
Electrical stunning method
No description, single arm assessed
No description, single arm assessed
Head-only
Head-only
Electrical stunning (applied to males
and females, with or without rest)
Head-to-anus
Minimum current (A) - current type
NR
NR
NR
Minimum current - waveform
NR
Sinusoidal
NR
Minimum current (A)
1.1
22-390
NR
Minimum current --latency
0 seconds
NR
NR
Minimum voltage
Peak to peak voltage
NR
NR
Exposed minimum voltage (V)
NR
NR
NR
Delivered minimum voltage (V)
117
100
110
Frequency (Hz)
NR
50
60
Minimum time exposure in seconds
Mean : 1.31, SD : 0.29
1
5
Maximum stun-to-stick-/kill interval (s)
Mean : 5.55, SD : 0.88, n : 50
240-300
NR
Frequency of calibration of the equipment
NR
NR
NR
Electrode characteristics
NR
NR
Alligator clips
Electrode appearance
NR
NR
Prevention of electrical shocks before stunning
“The apparatus incorporated a device
which measured the impedance of
the load and prevented the
functioning of the apparatus if the
minimum required current was not
available.”
Thick accumulation of carbon and
tarnish on the electrodes
NR
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
NR
29
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food
Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an
output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the
rights of the authors.
Publications 2015:EN-742
Position of the electrodes
“two arms of the stunner between the
eyes and the ears of the rabbit”
across the head
Type of electrode
PZ004C, Gozlin®, Italy
NR
“alligator clips are attached to one
ear and the other in the ANAL
region”
alligator clips
Animal skin condition
NR
NR
NR
NR= Not reported
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
30
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food
Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an
output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the
rights of the authors.
Table 14: Interventions of the studies assessing electrical stunning in Maria et al (2001)
Parameter
Electrical stunning
method
Minimum current waveform
Exposed minimum
voltage (V)
Delivered minimum
voltage (V)
Maximum frequency
(Hz)
Minimum time
exposure in seconds
Electrode
characteristics
Position of the
electrodes
Type of electrode
49 V, 5.6 ms,
179 Hz, 3 s,
n=10
Head-only
130 V, 6.2 ms,
161 Hz, 3 s,
n=10
Head-only
19 V, 0.6 ms,
1667 Hz, 3 s,
n=10
Head-only
130 V, 0.6 ms,
1667 Hz, 3 s
n=10
Head-only
19 V, 6.2 ms,
161 Hz, 3 s
n=10
Head-only
Square waves
Square waves
Square waves
Square waves
Square waves
49
130
19
130
9
49
130
19
130
19
179
161
1667
1667
161
49 V, 5.6 ms, 130 V, 6.2 ms, 19 V, 0.6 ms, 130 V, 0.6 ms, 19 V, 6.2 ms,
179 Hz 1s
161 Hz, 3 s
1667 Hz, 3 s,
1667 Hz, 3 s
161 Hz, 3 s
"V'' shaped metal electrode (with serrated edges for optimum contact)
“applied between the back of the eyes and the base of the ears to span the brain”
"V" shaped metal electrode (with serrated edges for optimum contact) (Verderio
Impianti S.N.C., Strumentazione Meccanica, Milan, Italy)
The following electrical stunning parameters were not reported by Maria et al. (2001) for any of the arms: minimum current
type, minimum current (A), minimum current-waveform, minimum current-latency, minimum voltage, minimum or
maximum frequency, maximum stun-to-stick-/kill interval, frequency of calibration of the equipment, electrode
appearance, prevention of electrical shocks before stunning, and animal skin condition.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
31
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Publications 2015:EN-742
Table 15: Interventions of the studies assessing electrical stunning in Anil et al. (1998b)
Parameter
100 V head-only
application, n =
10
75 V head-only
application, n =
10
50 V head-only
application, n = 10
100 V head-only
application for 1
s, n = 10
100 V head
only application
for 3 s, n = 10
50 V head-only
application for
1 s, n = 10
50 V headonly
application
for 3 s, n = 10
Minimum current (A)
Mean : 0.216,
Range : 0.1540.279
Mean : 0.178,
Range : 0.1380.211
Mean
Range
0.012
Mean : 0.143,SD
: 0.0656
Mean : 0.158,SD
: 0.0386
Mean : 0.077,SD
: 0.0128
Mean
0.070,SD
0.0116
Exposed minimum voltage
(V)
100
75
50
100
100
50
50
Delivered minimum voltage
(V)
Mean : 94, Range
: 88-100
Mean : 69, Range
: 65-75
Mean : 48, Range :
46-49
Mean : 92, SD :
4.7
Mean : 97, SD :
4.9
Mean : 48, SD :
1.1
Mean : 48, SD
: 0.1
Frequency (Hz)
50Hz
50Hz
50Hz
50Hz
50Hz
50Hz
50Hz
Minimum time exposure in
seconds
Mean
:
4.6,
Range : 4.1-5.2
Mean
:
4.4,
Range : 4.0-4.9
Mean : 4.1, Range :
3.5-4.4
1
2
1
2
Electrode characteristics
“A wall mounted ‘V’ shaped metal electrode, with serrated edges for optimum contact, was used as the stunning electrode”
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
:
:
0.105,
0.092-
:
:
32
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food
Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an
output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the
rights of the authors.
Publications 2015:EN-742
Prevention of electrical
shocks before stunning
“The electrodes were attached to a variable transformer which in turn was attached to an electronic timer. Therefore, it was possible to stun
the animal while limiting the current flow.”
Position of the electrodes
“The head of the rabbit was placed into the ‘V’ of the electrodes which were firmly applied between the back of the eyes and the base of the
ears to span the brain.”
Type of electrode
A wall-mounted V-shaped metal electrode, with serrated edges
Comments for Anil et al. (1998b):
--Electrical stunning method for all groups was Head-only
--Minimum current (A) - current type for all groups was Sine alternating current (bipolar or biphasic)
--Minimum current – waveform for all groups was sinusoidal
--The following parameters were not reported minimum current-latency, minimum voltage, maximum stun-to-stick-/kill interval, Frequency of calibration of the equipment, electrode
appearance, and animal skin condition.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
33
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food
Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an
output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the
rights of the authors.
Table 16: Outcomes as reported by Anil et al. (2000)
Duration of unconsciousness and insensibility
R
n
*Mean
Time for return of spontaneous physical activity (tonic) (s)
NR
3
18.5
Time for return of spontaneous physical activity (clonic) (s)
NR
3
9.7
Time to return of corneal reflex (s)
NR
8
39
Time to return of breathing (s)
NR
8
40
Time to return of pain reflex (s)
NR
7
54
Time to return of head righting (s)
NR
8
86
Duration of cortical parameters- grand mal (s)
6
8
NR
Duration of cortical parameters - polyspikes (s)
5
8
NR
Duration of cortical parameters - ECOG suppression (s)
4
8
NR
Duration of cortical parameters - high amplitude low frequency (s)
2
8
NR
Time to return of normal ECOG (s)
NR
5
NR
Time to return of visual evoked responses (s)
NR
7
NR
Time to return of sensory evoked responses (s)
NR
7
NR
R= The number of rabbits for which this outcome was reported
NR=Not reported
*SD or SE not reported
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
34
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Publications 2015:EN-742
Table 17: Outcomes as reported by Anil et al. (1998b)
Outcome
100 V headonly
application, n
= 10
75 V headonly
application, n
= 10
50 V headonly
application, n
= 10
100 V headonly
application for
1 s, n = 10
100 V head
only
application for
3 s, n = 10
50 V headonly
application for
1 s, n = 10
50 V headonly
application for
3 s, n = 10
Onset of unconsciousness and insensibility (mean + SD)
Duration of spontaneous physical activity Tonic phase (s)
17±2.6
17±3.8
16±2.3
15±3.4
14±3.5
17±1.7
16±1.3
Duration of spontaneous physical activity Clonic phase (s)
17±6.4
14±6.0
17±6.4
8±2.4
12±5.4
10±3.5
12±3.5
0
1/11
0
0
0
0
0
*Failed to be stunned
Duration of unconsciousness and insensibility (mean + SD)
Time to return of rhythmic breathing (s)
38±5.0
37±6.1
41±3.2
35*± 11.1
34± 5.5
40±6.2
35±5.7
Time to return of corneal reflex (s)
26±5.0
26± 5.4
26 ±2.6
26±9.8
25±5.0
25±4.9
24±4.0
Time to return of response to nose prick (s)
54±13.8
56±10.8
55±7.2
44±17.9
44±6.0
55±14.6
46±8.5
Time to return of head righting reflex (s)
62±9.2
64±10.8
60±7.4
NR
NR
NR
NR
Time to return of hind leg posture reflex (s)
75±14.6
70±13.5
71±7.8
NR
NR
NR
NR
*One rabbit getting 75V failed to be stunned, therefore duration of insensibility could not be reported for this rabbit. Instead, one additional rabbit was used hence n=11.
NR= Not reported
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
35
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food
Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an
output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the
rights of the authors.
Table 18: Outcomes reported by Nodari et al. (2009)
Outcome
R
n
Corneal reflex (elicited by fingerprint contact of the eyeball)
1002
1020
Absence of gasping (measured from sticking to death)
729
1020
Absence of blinking (measured from sticking to death)
993
1020
Absence of head righting (measured from sticking to death)
1019
1020
Absence of rhythmic breathing (more than 10 breaths per min)
1020
1020
Absence of pain, distress and suffering until the loss of consciousness
and sensibility
Absence of vocalization (measured from sticking to death)
1017
1020
Flight at current application
1
1020
Onset of unconsciousness and insensibility
R=Number of rabbits exhibiting the outcome; n=sample size
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
36
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 19: Outcomes as reported by Guerrero et al. (2007)
Outcome
n
Mean (s)
*Dispersion
Absence of pain, distress and suffering until onset of unconsciousness
Group: Electrical stunning without rest
Ear temperature at weight (degrees C)
10
35.81
0.108
Post-stunning ear temperature (degrees C)
10
36.02
0.386
Glucose (mg/dL)
10
125.00
4.07
Creatine kinase (IU/L)
10
772.08
46.83
Lactate dehydrogenase (IU/L)
10
417.53
28.16
pH blood
10
7.47
0.03
Blood temperature (degrees C)
10
20.70
0.44
Absence of pain, distress and suffering until onset of unconsciousness
Group: Electrical stunning with rest
Ear temperature at weight (degrees C)
10
35.07
0.355
Post-stunning ear temperature (degrees C)
10
36.49
0.431
Glucose (mg/dL)
10
134.72
5.66
Creatine kinase (IU/L)
10
842.40
53.29
Lactate dehydrogenase (IU/L)
10
307.60
29.14
pH blood
10
7.31
0.03
Blood temperature (degrees C)
10
20.9
0.98
*Not reported in text if SD or SE
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
37
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Table 20:
Outcomes reported by Maria et al. (2001) as (mean + ** seconds)
N
49 V/179
Hz
Onset of unconsciousness and insensibility
130 V/161
Hz
19 V/166
Hz
130 V/166
Hz
19 V/161
Hz
Start of the tonic phase
2.90 ± 0.26
3.22 ± 0.27
3.14 ±0.31
3.10 ±0.26
3.55± 0.27
0/10
0/10
1/11
0/10
1/11
10
*Failed to be stunned
Duration of unconsciousness and insensibility
Finish of the tonic phase
10
12.90±1.02
13.77±1.07
14.00±1.22
14.70±1.02
14.11±1.08
Start of the clonic phase
10
14.00±1.27
21.11±1.34
14.42±1.52
14.70±1.27
14.88±1.34
Finish of the clonic phase
10
29.30±1.77
30.43±2.12
31.50±1.78
Return to rhythmic breathing
10
28.10±1.35
38.88±
1.87
26.22±1.43
32.86±1.62
31.10±1.35
31.22±
1.87
32.44±1.43
Return of corneal reflex;
10
33.70±3.13
37.55±3.29
25.14±3.73
33.00±3.12
29.33±3.29
Return of hind leg posture
10
93.60±6.66
81.71±7.96
96.90±6.66
79.37±7.45
Return of response to nose
prick.
10
90.44±
7.88
103.44±7.0
2
84.22±7.88
85.00±8.94
99.60±7.48
118.75±
8.36
*One rabbit getting 19V, 0.6ms, 1667 Hz, 3s failed to be stunned. One rabbit getting 19V, 6.2ms, 161 Hz, 3 s also failed to
be stunned; therefore duration of insensibility could not be reported for those rabbits, so one additional rabbit was used
for each of those treatments
**Authors described SE in text but SD in table so this measure of precision is unclear
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
38
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Figure 1: Search strategy to identify studies reporting on stunning of rabbits in CAB Abstracts (Web
of Knowledge, Thomson Reuters)
# 16
#15 OR #14
# 15
TS=((rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*) NEAR/5 (“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns”
OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun*))
# 14
# 13
# 12
# 11
# 10
#9
#8
#7
#13 AND #1
#12 OR #11 OR #10 OR #9 OR #8 OR #7 OR #6 OR #5 OR #4 OR #3 OR #2
TS=(ritual* OR religious* OR “kosher” OR “halal” OR “shechita” OR “shehitah” OR “shehita”
OR “shechitah” OR “dhabihah” OR “zabiha”)
TS=(("mechanized" OR "mechanised" OR mechanical* OR "percussive") NEAR/5 (stunning
OR stun OR stunned OR stuns OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun* OR
unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter* OR
abattoir*))
TS=(("penetrating" OR "penetrative" OR "needle") NEAR/3 bolt*)
TS=(("captive” NEAR/2 bolt*) OR (bolt* NEAR/2 pistol*) OR zephyr* OR "bolt gun*" OR
boltgun* OR "stun bolt*” OR stunbolt* OR “cattle gun*” OR "cattle bolt*")
TS=("low atmosphere*" OR "controlled atmosphere*" OR "atmosphere pressure*" OR
“modified atmosphere*” OR “atmosphere stun*”)
TS=(waterbath* OR "water bath*")
#6
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR
slaughter* OR abattoir*) AND (electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR voltage* OR "volts" OR
"current" OR "currents" OR "wave form" OR "waveform" OR frequenc* OR “amps” OR
“amperage”))
#5
TS=(("head" OR "body" OR "back" OR "cardiac" OR "heart") AND ("stunning" OR "stun" OR
"stunned" OR "stuns" OR stunner*))
#4
#3
#2
TS=((electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR stun*) AND ("wand" OR "wands" OR "tong" OR
"tongs"))
TS=(“electronarcosis” OR “electro-narcosis” OR “electronarcoses” OR “electro-narcoses”)
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR
slaughter* OR abattoir*) AND ("carbon dioxide" OR "CO2" OR "CO 2" OR "gas" OR "gases"
OR "gassing" OR "gassed" OR "gaseous" OR LAPS OR inert))
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
39
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
#1
TS=(rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares" OR
"pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*)
IDENTIFICATION
Figure 2:
Flow diagram showing study identification process
Records identified through
database searching
(n=2301)
Additional records identified
through other sources
(n= 3)
SCREENING
Records after duplicates removed
(n=1586)
INCLUDED
ELIGIBILITY
Records screened at Level 1
(n=1586)
Records screened at Level 2
(n=32)
Records excluded
(n=1554)
Records excluded (n=24)
Studies included in data
collection (n=8)
Modified atmosphere (n=2)
Mechanical stunning (n=1)
Electrical stunning (n=5)
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
40
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
APPENDICES
Appendix A.
DETAILED PROTOCOL PROVIDED AS START-UP CONTRACT
STEP 1: EXTENSIVE LITERATURE SEARCH
Searches were conducted in a range of relevant information sources in order to identify studies related
any method of stunning rabbits, including those reporting the use of carbon dioxide, mechanical, and
electrical methods of stunning.
The search strategy comprised two elements: the search terms and the information sources to be
searched.
Search terms
The search strategy used to identify studies indexed in CAB Abstracts (Web of Knowledge) is
presented in Figure 2. The strategy comprised two key elements:

The population: rabbits (search line 1);

The exposure: stunning methods (search lines 2 to 12).
A second, very focused approach is used in search line 15 to capture any studies concerning stunning
rabbits that may have been missed by the two-concept approach. The searches were not limited by
language, date, or study design.
The search strategy developed for CAB Abstracts will be adapted appropriately to perform efficiently
in other information sources. This included consideration of database interface differences as well as
adaption to different indexing languages and syntax.
Figure 3: Search strategy to identify studies reporting on stunning of rabbits in CAB Abstracts (Web
of Knowledge, Thompson Reuters)
# 16
#15 OR #14
# 15
TS=((rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*) NEAR/5 (“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns”
OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun*))
# 14
#13 AND #1
# 13
#12 OR #11 OR #10 OR #9 OR #8 OR #7 OR #6 OR #5 OR #4 OR #3 OR #2
# 12
TS=(ritual* OR religious* OR “kosher” OR “halal” OR “shechita” OR “shehitah” OR “shehita”
OR “shechitah” OR “dhabihah” OR “zabiha”)
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
41
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
# 11
TS=(("mechanized" OR "mechanised" OR mechanical* OR "percussive") NEAR/5 (stunning
OR stun OR stunned OR stuns OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun* OR
unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter* OR
abattoir*))
# 10
TS=(("penetrating" OR "penetrative" OR "needle") NEAR/3 bolt*)
#9
TS=(("captive” NEAR/2 bolt*) OR (bolt* NEAR/2 pistol*) OR zephyr* OR "bolt gun*" OR
boltgun* OR "stun bolt*” OR stunbolt* OR “cattle gun*” OR "cattle bolt*")
#8
TS=("low atmosphere*" OR "controlled atmosphere*" OR "atmosphere pressure*" OR
“modified atmosphere*” OR “atmosphere stun*”)
#7
TS=(waterbath* OR "water bath*")
#6
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR
slaughter* OR abattoir*) AND (electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR voltage* OR "volts" OR
"current" OR "currents" OR "wave form" OR "waveform" OR frequenc* OR “amps” OR
“amperage”))
#5
TS=(("head" OR "body" OR "back" OR "cardiac" OR "heart") AND ("stunning" OR "stun" OR
"stunned" OR "stuns" OR stunner*))
#4
TS=((electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR stun*) AND ("wand" OR "wands" OR "tong" OR
"tongs"))
#3
TS=(“electronarcosis” OR “electro-narcosis” OR “electronarcoses” OR “electro-narcoses”)
#2
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR
slaughter* OR abattoir*) AND ("carbon dioxide" OR "CO2" OR "CO 2" OR "gas" OR "gases"
OR "gassing" OR "gassed" OR "gaseous" OR LAPS OR inert))
#1
TS=(rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares" OR
"pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*)
Information sources searched
A range of information sources indexing published research will be searched for studies reporting on
stunning methods (Table below).
Table: Information sources searched to identify relevant studies
Database
Interface
Science Citation Index (SCI)
Conference Proceedings Citation
Index – Science (CPCI-S)
CAB Abstracts
Web of Knowledge, Thompson Reuters
Web of Knowledge, Thompson Reuters
Web of Knowledge, Thompson Reuters
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
42
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
BIOSIS Citation Index
MEDLINE and MEDLINE InProcess
AGRIS
AGRICOLA
TEKTRAN
CRIS
Science.gov
ScienceResearch.com
Open Grey
Web of Knowledge, Thompson Reuters
OvidSP
http://agris.fao.org/
http://agricola.nal.usda.gov/
www.ars.usda.gov/services/tektran.htm
http://cris.nifa.usda.gov/
www.science.gov/
http://scienceresearch.com/
www.opengrey.eu/
Information on ongoing or recently completed trials, unpublished research, and research reported in
the grey literature will be identified by searching trial registers, databases indexing conference
proceedings, and specialised search engines as follows:

TEKTRAN;

CRIS;

Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science;

Science.gov;

ScienceResearch.com;

Open Grey.
The following key conference web-pages from the last three years (where available) were also
searched to identify additional conference abstracts:

International Congress of Meat Science and Technology;

International Workshop on Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level;

OIE Global Conference on Animal Welfare;

Humane Slaughter Association Centenary International Symposium.
Where possible, search results will be downloaded from the information sources and imported into
EndNote bibliographic management software. Deduplication will be undertaken using a number of
algorithms. In addition to the information sources described, the references of recent reviews and
eligible studies will be checked for additional trials which had not been identified by electronic
searches.
STEP 2: RELEVANCE SCREENING FOR PUBLICATIONS THAT REPORT MODIFIED ATMOSPHERE
STUNNING METHODS:
We will identify the relevant studies using a two-step screening process.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
43
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Screening level 1 based on abstract and title only
Q1 Does the title/abstract describe methods of stunning rabbits that uses a modified atmosphere
methods?

Yes (Go to Q2 based on full text)

No- exclude
Screening level 2 based on full text.
Q1 For the modified atmosphere methods does the study describe unconsciousness outcomes referred
to in section 3.2.1.3. of the EFSA guidance (EFSA, 2013) in either laboratory or in-plant settings.

Appearance of slow waves (high amplitude, low frequency (less than 4 Hz)) in EEG activity

Profoundly suppressed or quiescent EEGs, i.e. a complete loss of spontaneous brain activity
or a reduction of EEG total power content to less than 10 % of the pre-stun EEG power
content has been used as an indicator of consciousness

Abolition of evoked electrical activity in the brain (somatosensory evoked potentials, auditory
evoked potentials or flash visual evoked potentials),

dilated pupils

absence of palpebral reflexes

absence of corneal reflexes

absence of pupillary reflexes

apnoea

relaxed body / lack of muscle tone / paralysis

absence of response to painful stimuli such as nose pricking.

None of the above (Go to Q 2)
Q 2. For the modified atmosphere methods does the study describe the outcomes that measure the
absence of pain, distress and suffering until the loss of consciousness and sensibility referred to in
section 3.2.2. and Table 9 of the EFSA guidance (EFSA, 2013) of in either laboratory or in-plant
settings.

vocalisations

posture and movements

general behavior
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
44
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.

hormone concentrations

blood metabolites

automatic responses

brain activity

None of the above (Go to Question 3).
Q 3. For the modified atmosphere methods does the study describe the outcomes that measure the
duration of unconsciousness and insensibility referred to in section 3.2.3. of the EFSA guidance
(EFSA, 2013) of in either laboratory or in-plant settings.

Return of regular gagging (forced/laboured breathing through the mouth)

Return of corneal reflex

Recovery of spontaneous or evoked electrical activity in the brain

Time to the return of total EEG power content (voltage squared) to 10% or more of the prestun level has been used as an indicator of consciousness.
STEP 3. ASSESSING THE RELEVANT MODIFIED ATMOSPHERE PUBLICATIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY:
For each full text obtained from Step 2, 2 reviewers will assess the fulfilment criteria (yes-no) based
on Tables 5, 6, and 7 of the EFSA guidance (EFSA, 2013) based on the type of modified atmosphere
intervention used. For yes responses, one reviewer will extract the relevant information when reported.
Outcome data will also be extracted using a template form listed in Appendix A of this document for
each of the outcomes of interest (listed above in Q1, Q2 and Q3) of section below of this report. .
STEP 4. EXTRACTION OF CLINICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL SOURCE OF HETEROGENEITY FROM
ELIGIBLE PUBLICATIONS THAT REPORT MODIFIED ATMOSPHERE STUNNING METHODS
For those studies that do report the eligibility information requested by EFSA in Tables 5, 6, and 7 of
the EFSA guidance (EFSA, 2013) and the outcomes of interest, we will also extract additional clinical
relevant information and information about methodological quality. The form for the clinically
relevant information will use Appendix B of this document and the form for the methodological
quality assessment will be Appendix C of this document.
STEP 5. SUMMARIZE THE ELIGIBLE MODIFIED ATMOSPHERE PUBLICATIONS
For each paper included in Step 3, we will provide the extracted information for interventions
summarized in one table and the outcomes information in another table organized by each method of
modified atmosphere stunning and each category of outcome (unconsciousness, absence of pain, and
duration of unconsciousness). For papers that are included in Step 4, we will provide the information
extracted in two tables, one that summarizes the clinical heterogeneity information and one that
provides the methodology information.
N.B. we will complete steps after 5 if sufficient resources remain after screening and identifying the
modified atmosphere studies.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
45
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
STEP 6. RELEVANCE SCREENING FOR PUBLICATIONS THAT REPORT MECHANICAL METHODS OF
STUNNING:
If time and resources are available after completion of the information about modified atmosphere
publications, the approach to screening for relevance for mechanical stunning methods will be as
follows.
Screening level 1 based on abstract and title only
Q1 Does the title/abstract describe methods of stunning rabbits that uses mechanical methods of
stunning (section 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.1.2. of the EFSA guidance.)

Yes (Go to Q2 based on full text)

No- exclude
Screening level 2 based on full text.
Q1 For the mechanical methods of stunning, does the study describe onset of unconsciousness and
insensibility outcomes referred to in section 3.2.1.1. of the EFSA guidance in either laboratory or inplant settings.

Induction of brain concussion can be recognised from the predominance of less than 4 Hz
high-amplitude (slow wave) EEG activity.

The slow wave activity is followed by a quiescent EEG

Somatosensory, visual or auditory evoked responses or potentials in the brain are abolished
immediately after captive bolt stunning

Immediate collapse of the animal accompanied with apnoea (absence of breathing),

Onset of tonic seizure, which can be recognised from the occurrence of arched back and legs
flexed under the body, and fixed eyes.

Tonic seizure lasts for several seconds, followed by loss of muscle tone, which can be
recognised from drooping ears, relaxed jaw, protruding tongue and limp tail and legs,

Absence of palpebral, corneal and pupillary reflexes and response to external stimuli including
pain (e.g. nose prick) are also abolished

Absence of palpebral reflexes

Absence of corneal reflexes

Absence of pupillary reflexes

Response to external stimuli including pain (e.g. nose prick) are also abolished

For non-penetrative captive bolt applications, the incidence of skull fractures needs to be
reported.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
46
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.

None of the above (Go to Q 2)
Q 2. For the mechanical methods of stunning, does the study describe the outcomes that measure the
duration of unconsciousness and insensibility referred to in section 3.2.3. of the EFSA guidance of in
either laboratory or in-plant settings.

Return of regular gagging (forced/laboured breathing through the mouth)

Return of corneal reflex

Recovery of spontaneous or evoked electrical activity in the brain

Time to the return of total EEG power content (voltage squared) to 10% or more of the prestun level has been used as an indicator of consciousness.
STEP 7. ASSESSING THE RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS THAT REPORT MECHANICAL METHODS OF
STUNNING FOR ELIGIBILITY:
For studies that pass step 6, 2 reviewers will assess the reporting of the key parameters about captive
bolt methods, i.e. the appropriate velocity, bolt length and diameter of the captive bolt methods (yes or
no). For yes responses, two reviewers will extract the relevant information when reported. The
outcome data will be extracted using a template form listed in sections described below of this
document.
STEP 8. EXTRACTION OF CLINICAL OR METHODOLOGICAL OUTCOMES FOR PUBLICATIONS THAT
REPORT ELIGIBLE MECHANICAL METHODS OF STUNNING
For those studies that do report the key parameters about the stunning methods and the outcomes of
interest, we will also extract additional clinically relevant information and information about
methodological quality. The form for the clinically relevant information will use Appendix B in this
document and the form for the methodological quality assessment will be Appendix C in this
document.
STEP 9. SUMMARIZE PUBLICATIONS THAT REPORT ELIGIBLE MECHANICAL METHODS OF
STUNNING
For each paper included in Step 7, we will the provide the extracted information for interventions
summarized in one table and the outcomes information in another table, organized by each method of
modified atmosphere stunning and each category of outcome (unconsciousness, absence of pain, and
duration of unconsciousness). For papers that are included in Step 8, we will provide the information
extracted in 2 tables, one that summarizes the clinical heterogeneity information, and one that provides
the methodological information.
STEP 10. RELEVANCE SCREENING FOR PUBLICATIONS THAT REPORT HEAD-ONLY ELECTRICAL
METHODS OF STUNNING FOR RABBITS:
If time and resources are available after completion of the information about modified atmosphere
publications, the approach to screening for relevance for mechanical stunning methods will be as
follows:
Screening level 1 based on abstract and title only
Q1 Does the title/abstract describe methods that use permitted interventions for rabbits ( section 3.1.2
(electrical stunning interventions) of the EFSA guidance?
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
47
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.

Yes (Go to Q2 based on full text)

No- exclude
Screening level 2 based on full text.
Q1 For the electrical methods of stunning does the study describe the onset of unconsciousness and
insensibility outcomes referred to in section 3.2.1.2. of the EFSA guidance in either laboratory or inplant settings?

Induction of a generalised epileptiform activity in the brain, which can be recognised from the
predominance of 8–13 Hz high-amplitude EEG activity, followed by a quiescent EEG.

An immediate onset of a quiescent EEG. (laboratory)

No somatosensory, visual or auditory evoked responses or potentials in the brain immediately
after the stunning. (laboratory)

Occurrence of tonic seizure after the application of the electric current followed by apnoea

Occurrence of tonic seizure after the application of the electric current followed by lack of
response to painful stimuli (laboratory)

Presence of tonic seizures after removal of the current AND apnoea during tonic and clonic
seizures. (in-plant studies)

None of the above (Go to Q 2)
Q 2. For the mechanical methods of stunning does the study describe the outcomes that measure the
duration of unconsciousness and insensibility referred to in section 3.2.3. of the EFSA guidance of
in either laboratory or in-plant settings?

Return of regular gagging (forced/laboured breathing through the mouth))

Return of corneal reflex

Recovery of spontaneous or evoked electrical activity in the brain

The time to the return of total EEG power content (voltage squared) to 10% or more of the
pre-stun level has been used as an indicator of consciousness.
STEP 11. ASSESSING THE RELEVANT ELECTRICAL METHODS OF STUNNING PUBLICATIONS FOR
ELIGIBILITY FOR HEAD-ONLY OR HEAD-TO-BODY ELECTRICAL STUNNING METHODS
For studies that pass step 10, 2 reviewers will assess the fulfilment eligibility based on reporting of the
key parameters (minimum and maximum current used time of application) of the EFSA guidance (yes
or no). For yes responses, two reviewers will extract the relevant information when reported. The
outcome data will be extracted using a template form listed in Appendix A for each of the outcomes of
interest (listed above in Q1 and Q2 ) of section 6.10.2. of this report.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
48
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
STEP 12. EXTRACTION OF CLINICAL OR METHODOLOGICAL OUTCOMES FOR THE ELIGIBLE HEADONLY OR HEAD-TO-BODY ELECTRICAL METHODS OF STUNNING PUBLICATIONS
For those studies that do report the key parameters about the stunning methods and the outcomes of
interest (i.e., pass step 11), we will also extract additional clinically relevant information and
information about methodological quality. The form for the clinically relevant information will use
Appendix B and the form for the methodological quality assessment will be Appendix C.
STEP 13. SUMMARIZE ELIGIBLE PUBLICATIONS THAT REPORT ELIGIBLE HEAD-ONLY OR HEAD-TOBODY ELECTRICAL METHODS OF STUNNING
For each paper included in Step 11, we will the provide the extracted information for interventions
summarized in one table and the outcome information in another table organized by each method of
electrical stunning and each category of outcome (unconsciousness and insensibility, and duration of
unconsciousness). For papers that are included in Step 12, we will provide the information extracted in
2 tables, one that summarizes the clinical heterogeneity information and one that provides the
methodological information.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
49
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Publications 2015:EN-742
OUTCOMES EXTRACTION FROM FOR PROTOCOL
Question
Methods
Response type
Checkbox
Unconsciousness
outcomes measured -
Checkbox
Notes
Modified atmosphere
Mechanical
Electrical
None measured
Not applicable
Appearance of slow waves (high amplitude, low frequency (less than 4 Hz)) in EEG activity
Profoundly suppressed or quiescent EEGs, i.e. a complete loss of spontaneous brain activity or a reduction of EEG
total power content to less than 10 % of the pre-stun EEG power content
Abolition of evoked electrical activity in the brain (somatosensory evoked potentials, auditory evoked potentials or
flash visual evoked potentials),
Dilated pupils
Absence of palpebral reflexes
Absence of corneal reflexes
Absence of pupillary reflexes
Apnoea
Relaxed body / lack of muscle tone / paralysis
Absence of response to painful stimuli such as nose pricking
Tonic seizure lasts for several seconds, followed by loss of muscle tone, which can be recognised from drooping
ears, relaxed jaw, protruding tongue and limp tail and legs
Onset of tonic seizure, which can be recognised from the occurrence of arched back and legs flexed under the body,
and fixed eyes.
Immediate collapse of the animal accompanied with apnoea (absence of breathing)
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
50
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food
Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an
output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the
rights of the authors.
Publications 2015:EN-742
Absence of pain outcomes
Duration of consciousness
outcomes
None measured
Not applicable
Vocalizations
Kicking
Tail flicking
Avoidance
Agitation
Freezing
Retreat attempts
Escape attempts
Corticosteroids
ACTH
Adrenaline
Noradrenaline
Glucose
Lactate
Lactate dehydrogenase
Heart rate
Heart rate variability
Blood pressure
Respiratory rate
Body temperature
EEG
ECoG
None measured
Return of regular gagging (forced/laboured breathing through the mouth)
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
51
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food
Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an
output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the
rights of the authors.
Publications 2015:EN-742
Return of corneal reflex
Recovery of spontaneous or evoked electrical activity in the brain
Time to the return of total EEG power content (voltage squared) to 10% or more of the pre-stun level has been used
as an indicator of consciousness.
Outcome definition (as
described by authors)
Text box
Copied from paper
R (if proportion data is
described)
Text box
Number only
N (if proportion data is
described)
Text box
Number only
Mean for continuous data
(or time)
Text box
Number only
Dispersion descriptor
Radio
SD
SEM
Not discernible or not reported
Value of dispersion
Summary effect
P value
Text box
Text box
Text box
Number only
Number only
Number only
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
52
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food
Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an
output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the
rights of the authors.
STUDY LEVEL INFORMATION FORM
Questions items
Response type
Answers
Q1. Is the full text available in English?
Radio
Yes
No (end here and note)
Q2. Setting
Checkbox
Commercial
Larger scale experimental (replica plant)
Not discernible or not reported
Small scale experimental (laboratory)
Q3. Country
Radio
List countries
Q4. Breed
Radio
New Zealand Whites
Californians
Angora
This list will be added to as the review identifies
breeds.
Q5. Animal type
Checkbox
Meat
Fur
Not discernible or not reported
Q6 Sample size N
Text
Q7. Age (Weeks)
Text
Q8. Descriptor of age
Radio
Mean
Range
Not discernible or not reported
Q9. Dispersion descriptor for age
Radio
SD
SEM
Not discernible or not reported
Not applicable
Q10. Value of dispersion
Text
Q11. Weight (kg)
Text
Q12. Descriptor of age
Radio
Mean
Range
Not discernible or not reported
Q13. Dispersion descriptor for weight
Radio
SD
SEM
Not discernible or not reported
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
53
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Q14. Value of dispersion
Text
Q15. Sex
Checkbox
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
Bucks
Does
Mixed (bucks and does)
Not discernible or not reported
Kits
54
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY FORM BASED ON THE EFSA GUIDANCE
Question
Q1. Information bias for the exposure — Was the
extent of information bias on the exposure
variable likely to be non-differential? (e.g., were
different evaluations of the exposure applied to
different groups?)
Rationale
Q2: Selection bias — Was the approach to
enrolment likely to be associated with differential
selection probabilities for different outcome
groups? (e.g., farm with indoor management
systems with high prevalence of lameness were
more likely to be enrolled than other groups)
Rationale
Q3. Confounding — Were known confounders
identified a priori and controlled for, either by
restriction, matching, or multivariable analysis?
Style
Radio
Rationale
Text
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
Text
Radio
Text
Radio
Answers
Yes
No
Unclear
Yes
No
Unclear
Yes
No
Unclear
55
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Appendix B.
SEARCH STRATEGIES
1.
Database: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI Expanded) Web of Knowledge,
Thomson Reuters. 1900-Present. Last Updated 23/07/14. Searched 24/07/14.
# 16
#15 OR #14
876
# 15
TS=((rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*) NEAR/5 (“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR
stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun*)) 136
# 14
#13 AND #1
837
# 13
#12 OR #11 OR #10 OR #9 OR #8 OR #7 OR #6 OR #5 OR #4 OR #3 OR #2
32,290
# 12
TS=(ritual* OR religious* OR “kosher” OR “halal” OR “shechita” OR “shehitah” OR
“shehita” OR “shechitah” OR “dhabihah” OR “zabiha”) 11,653
# 11
TS=(("mechanized" OR "mechanised" OR mechanical* OR "percussive") NEAR/5 (stunning
OR stun OR stunned OR stuns OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun* OR unconscious*
OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter* OR abattoir*)) 196
# 10
TS=(("penetrating" OR "penetrative" OR "needle") NEAR/3 bolt*)
40
#9
TS=(("captive” NEAR/2 bolt*) OR (bolt* NEAR/2 pistol*) OR zephyr* OR "bolt gun*" OR
boltgun* OR "stun bolt*” OR stunbolt* OR “cattle gun*” OR "cattle bolt*")
531
#8
TS=("low atmosphere*" OR "controlled atmosphere*" OR "atmosphere pressure*")
3,794
#7
TS=(waterbath* OR "water bath*")
4,584
#6
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND (electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR voltage* OR "volts" OR "current" OR
"currents" OR "wave form" OR "waveform" OR frequenc* OR “amps” OR “amperage”)) 8,007
#5
TS=(("head" OR "body" OR "back" OR "cardiac" OR "heart") AND ("stunning" OR "stun"
OR "stunned" OR "stuns" OR stunner*)) 2,737
#4
TS=((electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR stun*) AND ("wand" OR "wands" OR "tong" OR
"tongs"))
409
#3
TS=(“electronarcosis” OR “electro-narcosis” OR “electronarcoses” OR “electro-narcoses”)
116
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
56
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
#2
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND ("carbon dioxide" OR "CO2" OR "CO 2" OR "gas" OR "gases" OR "gassing" OR
"gassed" OR "gaseous"))
1,880
#1
TS=(rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*)
302,212
876 records retrieved and downloaded
Search updated with new potentially relevant terms 12/08/14. Date of last database update 08/08/14.
14 new records retrieved and downloaded.
# 21
#20 NOT #14 14
# 20
#19 AND #1
17
# 19
#18 OR #17
3,945
# 18
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND ("LAPS" OR "inert"))
167
# 17
TS=(“modified atmosphere*” OR “atmosphere stun*”) 3,780
# 16
#15 OR #14
877
# 15
TS=((rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*) NEAR/5 (“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR
stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun*)) 136
# 14
#13 AND #1
838
# 13
#12 OR #11 OR #10 OR #9 OR #8 OR #7 OR #6 OR #5 OR #4 OR #3 OR #2
32,391
# 12
TS=(ritual* OR religious* OR “kosher” OR “halal” OR “shechita” OR “shehitah” OR
“shehita” OR “shechitah” OR “dhabihah” OR “zabiha”) 11,695
# 11
TS=(("mechanized" OR "mechanised" OR mechanical* OR "percussive") NEAR/5 (stunning
OR stun OR stunned OR stuns OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun* OR unconscious*
OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter* OR abattoir*)) 196
# 10
TS=(("penetrating" OR "penetrative" OR "needle") NEAR/3 bolt*)
41
#9
TS=(("captive” NEAR/2 bolt*) OR (bolt* NEAR/2 pistol*) OR zephyr* OR "bolt gun*" OR
boltgun* OR "stun bolt*” OR stunbolt* OR “cattle gun*” OR "cattle bolt*")
532
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
57
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
#8
TS=("low atmosphere*" OR "controlled atmosphere*" OR "atmosphere pressure*" )
3,806
#7
TS=(waterbath* OR "water bath*")
4,598
#6
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND (electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR voltage* OR "volts" OR "current" OR
"currents" OR "wave form" OR "waveform" OR frequenc* OR “amps” OR “amperage”)) 8,035
#5
TS=(("head" OR "body" OR "back" OR "cardiac" OR "heart") AND ("stunning" OR "stun"
OR "stunned" OR "stuns" OR stunner*)) 2,737
#4
TS=((electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR stun*) AND ("wand" OR "wands" OR "tong" OR
"tongs"))
410
#3
TS=(“electronarcosis” OR “electro-narcosis” OR “electronarcoses” OR “electro-narcoses”)
116
#2
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND ("carbon dioxide" OR "CO2" OR "CO 2" OR "gas" OR "gases" OR "gassing" OR
"gassed" OR "gaseous" ))
1,883
#1
TS=(rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*)
302,627
2.
Database: CAB Abstracts. Web of Knowledge, Thomson Reuters. 1910-Present. Last
Updated 17/07/14. Searched 22/07/14.
# 16
#15 OR #14
419
# 15
TS=((rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*) NEAR/5 (“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR
stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun*)) 25
# 14
#13 AND #1
414
# 13
#12 OR #11 OR #10 OR #9 OR #8 OR #7 OR #6 OR #5 OR #4 OR #3 OR #2
26,929
# 12
TS=(ritual* OR religious* OR “kosher” OR “halal” OR “shechita” OR “shehitah” OR
“shehita” OR “shechitah” OR “dhabihah” OR “zabiha”) 6,992
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
58
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
# 11
TS=(("mechanized" OR "mechanised" OR mechanical* OR "percussive") NEAR/5 (stunning
OR stun OR stunned OR stuns OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun* OR unconscious*
OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter* OR abattoir*)) 126
# 10
TS=(("penetrating" OR "penetrative" OR "needle") NEAR/3 bolt*)
35
#9
TS=(("captive” NEAR/2 bolt*) OR (bolt* NEAR/2 pistol*) OR zephyr* OR "bolt gun*" OR
boltgun* OR "stun bolt*” OR stunbolt* OR “cattle gun*” OR "cattle bolt*")
888
#8
TS=("low atmosphere*" OR "controlled atmosphere*" OR "atmosphere pressure*")
6,055
#7
TS=(waterbath* OR "water bath*")
4,059
#6
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND (electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR voltage* OR "volts" OR "current" OR
"currents" OR "wave form" OR "waveform" OR frequenc* OR “amps” OR “amperage”)) 7,668
#5
TS=(("head" OR "body" OR "back" OR "cardiac" OR "heart") AND ("stunning" OR "stun"
OR "stunned" OR "stuns" OR stunner*)) 483
#4
TS=((electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR stun*) AND ("wand" OR "wands" OR "tong" OR
"tongs"))
77
#3
TS=(“electronarcosis” OR “electro-narcosis” OR “electronarcoses” OR “electro-narcoses”)
663
#2
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND ("carbon dioxide" OR "CO2" OR "CO 2" OR "gas" OR "gases" OR "gassing" OR
"gassed" OR "gaseous"))
1,839
#1
TS=(rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*)
108,612
419 records retrieved and downloaded.
Search updated with new potentially relevant terms 12/08/14. Date of last database update 08/08/14.
9 new records retrieved and downloaded.
#21
#20 NOT #14 9
# 20
#19 AND #1
11
# 19
#18 OR #17
4,635
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
59
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
# 18
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND ("LAPS" OR "inert"))
56
# 17
TS=(“modified atmosphere*” OR “atmosphere stun*”) 4,583
# 16
#15 OR #14
421
# 15
TS=((rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*) NEAR/5 (“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR
stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun*)) 25
# 14
#13 AND #1
416
# 13
#12 OR #11 OR #10 OR #9 OR #8 OR #7 OR #6 OR #5 OR #4 OR #3 OR #2
28,031
# 12
TS=(ritual* OR religious* OR “kosher” OR “halal” OR “shechita” OR “shehitah” OR
“shehita” OR “shechitah” OR “dhabihah” OR “zabiha”) 7,003
# 11
TS=(("mechanized" OR "mechanised" OR mechanical* OR "percussive") NEAR/5 (stunning
OR stun OR stunned OR stuns OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun* OR unconscious*
OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter* OR abattoir*)) 127
# 10
TS=(("penetrating" OR "penetrative" OR "needle") NEAR/3 bolt*)
35
#9
TS=(("captive” NEAR/2 bolt*) OR (bolt* NEAR/2 pistol*) OR zephyr* OR "bolt gun*" OR
boltgun* OR "stun bolt*” OR stunbolt* OR “cattle gun*” OR "cattle bolt*")
889
#8
TS=("low atmosphere*" OR "controlled atmosphere*" OR "atmosphere pressure*" )
6,060
#7
TS=(waterbath* OR "water bath*")
4,071
#6
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND (electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR voltage* OR "volts" OR "current" OR
"currents" OR "wave form" OR "waveform" OR frequenc* OR “amps” OR “amperage”)) 7,711
#5
TS=(("head" OR "body" OR "back" OR "cardiac" OR "heart") AND ("stunning" OR "stun"
OR "stunned" OR "stuns" OR stunner*)) 484
#4
TS=((electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR stun*) AND ("wand" OR "wands" OR "tong" OR
"tongs"))
77
#3
TS=(“electronarcosis” OR “electro-narcosis” OR “electronarcoses” OR “electro-narcoses”)
665
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
60
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
#2
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND ("carbon dioxide" OR "CO2" OR "CO 2" OR "gas" OR "gases" OR "gassing" OR
"gassed" OR "gaseous" ))
1,843
#1
TS=(rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*)
108,800
3.
Database: Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science (CPCI-S) Web of
Knowledge, Thomson Reuters. 1990-Present. Last Updated 23/07/14. Searched 25/07/14.
# 16
#15 OR #14
83
# 15
TS=((rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*) NEAR/5 (“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR
stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun*)) 17
# 14
#13 AND #1
78
# 13
#12 OR #11 OR #10 OR #9 OR #8 OR #7 OR #6 OR #5 OR #4 OR #3 OR #2
4,376
# 12
TS=(ritual* OR religious* OR “kosher” OR “halal” OR “shechita” OR “shehitah” OR
“shehita” OR “shechitah” OR “dhabihah” OR “zabiha”) 1,340
# 11
TS=(("mechanized" OR "mechanised" OR mechanical* OR "percussive") NEAR/5 (stunning
OR stun OR stunned OR stuns OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun* OR unconscious*
OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter* OR abattoir*)) 19
# 10
TS=(("penetrating" OR "penetrative" OR "needle") NEAR/3 bolt*)
6
#9
TS=(("captive” NEAR/2 bolt*) OR (bolt* NEAR/2 pistol*) OR zephyr* OR "bolt gun*" OR
boltgun* OR "stun bolt*” OR stunbolt* OR “cattle gun*” OR "cattle bolt*")
65
#8
TS=("low atmosphere*" OR "controlled atmosphere*" OR "atmosphere pressure*")
1,256
#7
TS=(waterbath* OR "water bath*")
641
#6
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND (electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR voltage* OR "volts" OR "current" OR
"currents" OR "wave form" OR "waveform" OR frequenc* OR “amps” OR “amperage”)) 714
#5
TS=(("head" OR "body" OR "back" OR "cardiac" OR "heart") AND ("stunning" OR "stun"
OR "stunned" OR "stuns" OR stunner*)) 270
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
61
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
#4
TS=((electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR stun*) AND ("wand" OR "wands" OR "tong" OR
"tongs"))
72
#3
TS=(“electronarcosis” OR “electro-narcosis” OR “electronarcoses” OR “electro-narcoses”)
3
#2
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND ("carbon dioxide" OR "CO2" OR "CO 2" OR "gas" OR "gases" OR "gassing" OR
"gassed" OR "gaseous"))
119
#1
TS=(rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*)
29,489
83 records retrieved and downloaded.
Search updated with new potentially relevant terms 12/08/14. Date of last database update 08/08/14.
1 new record retrieved and downloaded.
# 21
#20 NOT #14 1
# 20
#19 AND #1
1
# 19
#18 OR #17
700
# 18
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND ("LAPS" OR "inert"))
9
# 17
TS=(“modified atmosphere*” OR “atmosphere stun*”) 17
# 16
#15 OR #14
83
# 15
TS=((rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*) NEAR/5 (“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR
stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun*)) 17
# 14
#13 AND #1
78
# 13
#12 OR #11 OR #10 OR #9 OR #8 OR #7 OR #6 OR #5 OR #4 OR #3 OR #2
4,383
# 12
TS=(ritual* OR religious* OR “kosher” OR “halal” OR “shechita” OR “shehitah” OR
“shehita” OR “shechitah” OR “dhabihah” OR “zabiha”) 1,342
# 11
TS=(("mechanized" OR "mechanised" OR mechanical* OR "percussive") NEAR/5 (stunning
OR stun OR stunned OR stuns OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun* OR unconscious*
OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter* OR abattoir*)) 19
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
62
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
# 10
TS=(("penetrating" OR "penetrative" OR "needle") NEAR/3 bolt*)
7
#9
TS=(("captive” NEAR/2 bolt*) OR (bolt* NEAR/2 pistol*) OR zephyr* OR "bolt gun*" OR
boltgun* OR "stun bolt*” OR stunbolt* OR “cattle gun*” OR "cattle bolt*")
66
#8
TS=("low atmosphere*" OR "controlled atmosphere*" OR "atmosphere pressure*")
1,259
#7
TS=(waterbath* OR "water bath*")
641
#6
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND (electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR voltage* OR "volts" OR "current" OR
"currents" OR "wave form" OR "waveform" OR frequenc* OR “amps” OR “amperage”)) 715
#5
TS=(("head" OR "body" OR "back" OR "cardiac" OR "heart") AND ("stunning" OR "stun"
OR "stunned" OR "stuns" OR stunner*)) 270
#4
TS=((electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR stun*) AND ("wand" OR "wands" OR "tong" OR
"tongs"))
72
#3
TS=(“electronarcosis” OR “electro-narcosis” OR “electronarcoses” OR “electro-narcoses”)
3
#2
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND ("carbon dioxide" OR "CO2" OR "CO 2" OR "gas" OR "gases" OR "gassing" OR
"gassed" OR "gaseous" ))
119
#1
TS=(rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*)
29,516
4.
Database: BIOSIS Citation Index. Web of Knowledge, Thomson Reuters. 1969-Present.
Last Updated 18/07/14. Searched 25/07/14.
# 16
#15 OR #14
499
# 15
TS=((rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*) NEAR/5 (“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR
stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun*)) 104
# 14
#13 AND #1
489
# 13
#12 OR #11 OR #10 OR #9 OR #8 OR #7 OR #6 OR #5 OR #4 OR #3 OR #2
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
19,416
63
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
# 12
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) NEAR/5 ("carbon dioxide" OR "CO2" OR "CO 2" OR "gas" OR "gases" OR "gassing"
OR "gassed" OR "gaseous")) 566
# 11
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) NEAR/5 (electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR voltage* OR "volts" OR "current" OR
"currents" OR "wave form" OR "waveform" OR frequenc* OR “amps” OR “amperage”)) 1,139
# 10
TS=(ritual* OR religious* OR “kosher” OR “halal” OR “shechita” OR “shehitah” OR
“shehita” OR “shechitah” OR “dhabihah” OR “zabiha”) 7,929
#9
TS=(("mechanized" OR "mechanised" OR mechanical* OR "percussive") NEAR/5 (stunning
OR stun OR stunned OR stuns OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun* OR unconscious*
OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter* OR abattoir*)) 175
#8
TS=(("penetrating" OR "penetrative" OR "needle") NEAR/3 bolt*)
26
#7
TS=(("captive” NEAR/2 bolt*) OR (bolt* NEAR/2 pistol*) OR zephyr* OR "bolt gun*" OR
boltgun* OR "stun bolt*” OR stunbolt* OR “cattle gun*” OR "cattle bolt*")
632
#6
TS=("low atmosphere*" OR "controlled atmosphere*" OR "atmosphere pressure*")
1,874
#5
TS=(waterbath* OR "water bath*")
4,206
#4
TS=(("head" OR "body" OR "back" OR "cardiac" OR "heart") AND ("stunning" OR "stun"
OR "stunned" OR "stuns" OR stunner*)) 3,358
#3
TS=((electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR stun*) AND ("wand" OR "wands" OR "tong" OR
"tongs"))
202
#2
TS=(“electronarcosis” OR “electro-narcosis” OR “electronarcoses” OR “electro-narcoses”)
41
#1
TS=(rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*)
434,108
499 records retrieved and downloaded.
Search updated with new potentially relevant terms 12/08/14. Date of last database update 08/08/14.
16 new records retrieved and downloaded.
# 21
#20 NOT #14 16
# 20
#19 AND #1
16
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
64
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
# 19
#18 OR #17
2,704
# 18
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND ("LAPS" OR "inert"))
144
# 17
TS=(“modified atmosphere*” OR “atmosphere stun*”) 2,563
# 16
#15 OR #14
500
# 15
TS=((rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*) NEAR/5 (“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR
stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun*)) 104
# 14
#13 AND #1
490
# 13
#12 OR #11 OR #10 OR #9 OR #8 OR #7 OR #6 OR #5 OR #4 OR #3 OR #2
19,467
# 12
TS=(ritual* OR religious* OR “kosher” OR “halal” OR “shechita” OR “shehitah” OR
“shehita” OR “shechitah” OR “dhabihah” OR “zabiha”) 7,962
# 11
TS=(("mechanized" OR "mechanised" OR mechanical* OR "percussive") NEAR/5 (stunning
OR stun OR stunned OR stuns OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun* OR unconscious*
OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter* OR abattoir*)) 178
# 10
TS=(("penetrating" OR "penetrative" OR "needle") NEAR/3 bolt*)
26
#9
TS=(("captive” NEAR/2 bolt*) OR (bolt* NEAR/2 pistol*) OR zephyr* OR "bolt gun*" OR
boltgun* OR "stun bolt*” OR stunbolt* OR “cattle gun*” OR "cattle bolt*")
633
#8
TS=("low atmosphere*" OR "controlled atmosphere*" OR "atmosphere pressure*")
1,874
#7
TS=(waterbath* OR "water bath*")
4,215
#6
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND (electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR voltage* OR "volts" OR "current" OR
"currents" OR "wave form" OR "waveform" OR frequenc* OR “amps” OR “amperage”)) 1,141
#5
TS=(("head" OR "body" OR "back" OR "cardiac" OR "heart") AND ("stunning" OR "stun"
OR "stunned" OR "stuns" OR stunner*))3,360
#4
TS=((electric* OR electrif* OR electro* OR stun*) AND ("wand" OR "wands" OR "tong" OR
"tongs"))
203
#3
TS=(“electronarcosis” OR “electro-narcosis” OR “electronarcoses” OR “electro-narcoses”)
41
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
65
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
#2
TS=((“stunning” OR “stun” OR “stunned” OR “stuns” OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun*
OR unstun* OR unconscious* OR euthan* OR "narcosis" OR "narcoses" OR insensib* OR slaughter*
OR abattoir*) AND ("carbon dioxide" OR "CO2" OR "CO 2" OR "gas" OR "gases" OR "gassing" OR
"gassed" OR "gaseous" ))
568
#1
TS=(rabbit* OR "buck" OR "bucks" OR "doe" OR "kitten" OR "kit" OR "hare" OR "hares"
OR "pika" OR "pikas" OR "leporidae" OR "lagomorpha" OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o
cuniculus" OR fryer* OR roaster*)
434,559
5.
Database: Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid
MEDLINE(R). 1946 to Present. Updated daily. Searched 25/07/14
1
exp Lagomorpha/ (312377)
2
(rabbit* or buck or bucks or doe or kitten or kit or hare or hares or pika or pikas or leporidae or
lagomorpha or oryctolagus cuniculus or o cuniculus or fryer* or roaster*).ti,ab. (267361)
3
1 or 2 (403079)
4
((stunning or stun or stunned or stuns or stunner* or prestun* or restun* or unstun* or
unconscious* or euthan* or narcosis or narcoses or insensib* or slaughter* or abattoir*) adj5 (carbon
dioxide or CO2 or CO 2 or gas or gases or gassing or gassed or gaseous)).ti,ab. (469)
5
(electronarcosis or electro-narcosis or electronarcoses or electro-narcoses).ti,ab. (213)
6
((electric* or electrif* or electro* or stun*) and (wand or wands or tong or tongs)).ti,ab. (103)
7
((head or body or back or cardiac or heart) and (stunning or stun or stunned or stuns or
stunner*)).ti,ab. (1689)
8
((stunning or stun or stunned or stuns or stunner* or prestun* or restun* or unstun* or
unconscious* or euthan* or narcosis or narcoses or insensib* or slaughter* or abattoir*) adj5 (electric*
or electrif* or electro* or voltage* or volts or current or currents or wave form or waveform or
frequenc* or amps or amperage)).ti,ab. (799)
9
10
(waterbath* or water bath*).ti,ab. (3821)
(low atmosphere* or controlled atmosphere* or atmosphere pressure*).ti,ab. (374)
11 ((captive adj2 bolt*) or (bolt* adj2 pistol*) or zephyr* or bolt gun* or boltgun* or stun bolt* or
stunbolt* or cattle gun* or cattle bolt*).ti,ab. (256)
12
((penetrating or penetrative or needle) adj3 bolt*).ti,ab. (21)
13 ((mechanized or mechanised or mechanical* or percussive) adj5 (stunning or stun or stunned or
stuns or stunner* or prestun* or restun* or unstun* or unconscious* or euthan* or narcosis or narcoses
or insensib* or slaughter* or abattoir*)).ti,ab. (158)
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
66
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
14
(ritual* or religious* or kosher or halal or shechita or shehitah or shehita or shechitah or
dhabihah or zabiha).ti,ab. (19925)
15
exp meat packing industry/ (5248)
16
or/4-15 (32321)
17
3 and 16 (371)
18 ((rabbit* or buck or bucks or doe or kitten or kit or hare or hares or pika or pikas or leporidae or
lagomorpha or oryctolagus cuniculus or o cuniculus or fryer* or roaster*) adj5 (stunning or stun or
stunned or stuns or stunner* or prestun* or restun* or unstun*)).ti,ab. (66)
19
17 or 18 (393)
20
humans/ not animals/ (12103067)
21
19 not 20 (357)
357 records retrieved and downloaded.
Search updated with new potentially relevant terms 12/08/14. Date of last database update 12/08/14.
3 new records retrieved and downloaded.
1
exp Lagomorpha/ (313827)
2
(rabbit* or buck or bucks or doe or kitten or kit or hare or hares or pika or pikas or leporidae or
lagomorpha or oryctolagus cuniculus or o cuniculus or fryer* or roaster*).ti,ab. (268734)
3
1 or 2 (405054)
4
((stunning or stun or stunned or stuns or stunner* or prestun* or restun* or unstun* or
unconscious* or euthan* or narcosis or narcoses or insensib* or slaughter* or abattoir*) adj5 (carbon
dioxide or CO2 or CO 2 or gas or gases or gassing or gassed or gaseous)).ti,ab. (470)
5
(electronarcosis or electro-narcosis or electronarcoses or electro-narcoses).ti,ab. (213)
6
((electric* or electrif* or electro* or stun*) and (wand or wands or tong or tongs)).ti,ab. (103)
7
((head or body or back or cardiac or heart) and (stunning or stun or stunned or stuns or
stunner*)).ti,ab. (1705)
8
((stunning or stun or stunned or stuns or stunner* or prestun* or restun* or unstun* or
unconscious* or euthan* or narcosis or narcoses or insensib* or slaughter* or abattoir*) adj5 (electric*
or electrif* or electro* or voltage* or volts or current or currents or wave form or waveform or
frequenc* or amps or amperage)).ti,ab. (804)
9
(waterbath* or water bath*).ti,ab. (3841)
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
67
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
10
(low atmosphere* or controlled atmosphere* or atmosphere pressure*).ti,ab. (377)
11 ((captive adj2 bolt*) or (bolt* adj2 pistol*) or zephyr* or bolt gun* or boltgun* or stun bolt* or
stunbolt* or cattle gun* or cattle bolt*).ti,ab. (255)
12
((penetrating or penetrative or needle) adj3 bolt*).ti,ab. (21)
13 ((mechanized or mechanised or mechanical* or percussive) adj5 (stunning or stun or stunned or
stuns or stunner* or prestun* or restun* or unstun* or unconscious* or euthan* or narcosis or narcoses
or insensib* or slaughter* or abattoir*)).ti,ab. (158)
14
(ritual* or religious* or kosher or halal or shechita or shehitah or shehita or shechitah or
dhabihah or zabiha).ti,ab. (20099)
15
exp meat packing industry/ (5272)
16
or/4-15 (32561)
17
3 and 16 (373)
18 ((rabbit* or buck or bucks or doe or kitten or kit or hare or hares or pika or pikas or leporidae or
lagomorpha or oryctolagus cuniculus or o cuniculus or fryer* or roaster*) adj5 (stunning or stun or
stunned or stuns or stunner* or prestun* or restun* or unstun*)).ti,ab. (67)
19
17 or 18 (395)
20
humans/ not animals/ (12190512)
21
19 not 20 (359)
22
(modified atmosphere* or atmosphere stun*).ti,ab. (806)
23
((stunning or stun or stunned or stuns or stunner* or prestun* or restun* or unstun* or
unconscious* or euthan* or narcosis or narcoses or insensib* or slaughter* or abattoir*) adj5 (laps or
inert)).ti,ab. (67)
24
22 or 23 (872)
25
24 and 3 (3)
26
25 not 21 (3)
6.
Database: National Agriculture Library
http://agricola.nal.usda.gov/ Searched 25/07/14
Catalog
[AGRICOLA]
1970-Current
Advanced search: Articles
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
68
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Search Request: Command = (stun OR stunning OR stunned OR stuns OR stunner? OR prestun? OR
restun? OR unstun?) AND (rabbit? OR buck OR bucks OR doe OR kitten OR kit OR hare OR hares
OR pika OR pikas OR leporidae OR lagomorpha OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o cuniculus") 7
records retrieved and downloaded.
7.
Database: International Information System for the Agricultural Sciences and
Technology [AGRIS] 1975 to date http://agris.fao.org/ Searched 25/07/14
Query: (stun stunning stunned stuns stunner* restun* unstun* prestun*) AND (rabbit* buck bucks doe
kitten kit hare hares pika pikas leporidae lagomorpha "oryctolagus cuniculus" "o cuniculus") 17
records retrieved and downloaded.
8.
Database:
TEKTRAN:
The
ARS
http://www.ars.usda.gov/services/tektran.htm Searched 25/07/14
Manuscripts
Database
Browse: Measure & Evaluate Animal Well-Being, Animal Behavior
Search: rabbit, stun, prestuun, restun, unstun (appears to automatically truncate terms)
Records manually scanned; 0 potentially relevant records identified and added to EndNote
9.
Database: National Institute of Food and Agriculture Current Research Information
System [CRIS] http://cris.nifa.usda.gov/ Searched 25/07/14
CRIS Assisted Search (automatic truncation)
Fulltext Terms: stun; prestuun; restun; unstun; slaughter
AND
Fulltext Terms: Rabbit
Not these: Fulltext Terms: Stunt
Records manually scanned; 0 potentially relevant records identified and added to EndNote
10.
Database: Open Grey http://www.opengrey.eu/ Searched 28/07/14
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
69
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
(stun OR stunning OR stunned OR stuns OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun*) AND
(rabbit* OR buck OR bucks OR doe OR kitten OR kit OR hare OR hares OR pika OR pikas OR
leporidae OR lagomorpha OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o cuniculus")
1 record retrieved, clearly irrelevant not added to EndNote
11.
Database: Science.gov http://www.science.gov/ Searched 28/07/14
(stun OR stunning OR stunned OR stuns OR stunner* OR prestun* OR restun* OR unstun*) AND
(rabbit* OR buck OR bucks OR doe OR kitten OR kit OR hare OR hares OR pika OR pikas OR
leporidae OR lagomorpha OR "oryctolagus cuniculus" OR "o cuniculus")
Search full record: Science.gov websites, Biology and Nature, General Science. Agriculture and Food
not searched as AGRICOLA and TEKTRAN searched separately.
Results scanned in databases – any potentially relevant records already identified by previous database
searches. No records added to EndNote.
12.
Database: Scienceresearch.com http://scienceresearch.com/
Search functionality not working – refused to display results. Could not be searched – July 2014.
13.
International Congress of Meat Science and Technology 2013, August 18-23 Izmir
Turkey http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091740/95 Searched 28/07/14
Proceedings available as a journal supplement; presentations manually scanned. 0 abstracts added to
EndNote.
14.
International Congress of Meat Science and Technology 2012, August 12-17 Montreal,
Canada http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091740/92/3 Searched 28/07/14
Proceedings available as a journal supplement; presentations manually scanned. 0 abstracts added to
EndNote.
15.
International Congress of Meat Science and Technology 2011, August 7-12 Ghent,
Belguim http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091740/89/3 Searched 28/07/14
Proceedings available as a journal supplement; presentations manually scanned. 0 abstracts added to
EndNote.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
70
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
16.
International Congress of Meat Science and Technology 2010, August 15-10 Jeju, Korea
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091740/86/1 Searched 28/07/14
Proceedings available as a journal supplement; presentations manually scanned. 0 abstracts added to
EndNote.
17.
International Conference on Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level,
2011,
August
8-1
Guelph,
Ontario
http://www.uoguelph.ca/csaw/wafl/documents/WAFLproceedingsweb.pdf Searched 28/07/14
Proceedings available online; presentations manually scanned. 2 abstracts added to EndNote.
Conference was not held in 2010, 2012 or 2013 (takes place every 3 years) so proceedings from these
years could not be searched. 2014 conference not due to take place until September.
18.
Humane Slaughter Association Centenary International Symposium. Recent Advances
in the Welfare of Livestock at Slaughter. 30 June-1 July 2011 Portsmouth, UK.
http://www.hsa.org.uk/symposium%202011.html Searched 28/07/14
Proceedings available online; presentations manually scanned.1 abstracts added to EndNote.
This was a one-off event, proceedings from 2010 and 2012 not available to search. Next Symposium
2015.
19.
OIE Global Conference on Animal Welfare. 6-8 November 2012 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia http://www.oie.int/eng/AW2012/presentations.htm Searched 28/07/14
Proceedings available online; presentations manually scanned. 0 abstracts added to EndNote.
Conference was not held in 2010, 2011, 2013 or 2014 so proceedings from these years could not be
searched.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
71
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Appendix C.
EXCLUDED STUDIES AND RATIONALE FOR EXCLUSION
Author
Reason for exclusion
(Civera et al., 1989a)
Non-English publication and potentially about meat quality based on title and
abstract
(Leoni et al., 2005)
Non-English publication
(Lopez et al., 2008)
Meat quality study
(Pares, 2000)
Non-English publication and potentially about meat quality based on title and
abstract
(Lafuente and Lopez,
2014)
(Civera et al., 1989b)
Meat quality study
(Ouhayoun, 1990)
Non-English publication and potentially about meat quality based on title and/or
abstract
(Bosco et al., 1997)
Non-English publication and potentially about meat quality based on title and/or
abstract
(Holtzmann and Loeffler,
1991)
(Holtzmann, 1991)
Non-English publication
(Croft, 1971)
No abstract and could not be obtained
(1984)
Review/report
(2013)
Review/report
(Bosco et al., 2003)
Non-English publication
(Fleischmann and Gisske,
1967)
(Freesemann, 1975)
Non-English publication
(Gregory and Grandin,
2007)
(Hertrampf and Mickwitz,
1979)
(Loliger, 1981)
Review/report in book chapter
Non-English publication
(Nodari et al., 2008)
Conference proceeding; full paper found by search (duplicate)
(Anil et al., 1998a)
Conference abstract only no full paper
(Holtzmann, 1992)
Non-English publication
(Rau et al., 2011)
Conference abstract only no full paper
Non-English publication and potentially about meat quality based on title and
abstract
Non-English publication
Non-English publication
Non-English publication
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
72
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
(Schuttabraham
1992)
et
al.,
Non-English publication
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
73
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
REFERENCES
1984. Report on the welfare of livestock (red meat animals) at the time of slaughter. Report on the
welfare of livestock, 77pp.
2013. Scientific opinion on the use of carbon dioxide for stunning rabbits. EFSA Journal, 11, 3250.
Anil MH, Mohan RAB and McKinstry JL, 1998a. Evaluation of electrical stunning in commercial
rabbits. Proceedings of the 6th World Rabbit Congress, Vols 1-3: Vol 1: Nutrition, Wool &
Fur; Vol 2: Reproduction & Reproduction Physiology - Genetics & Selection - General
Physiology - Ethology & Welfare; Vol 3: Pathology & Prophylaxis - Growth & Meat Management & Production, B407-B410.
Anil MH, Raj ABM and McKinstry JL, 1998b. Electrical stunning in commercial rabbits: Effective
currents, spontaneous physical activity and reflex behaviour. Meat Science, 48, 21-28.
Anil MH, Raj ABM and McKinstry JL, 2000. Evaluation of electrical stunning in commercial rabbits:
effect on brain function. Meat Science, 54, 217-220.
Bosco AD, Castellini C and Bernardini M, 1997. Effect of transportation and stunning method on
some characteristics of rabbit carcasses and meat. World Rabbit Science, 5, 156-119.
Bosco AD, Diverio S, Barone A, Canali C and Porfiri S, 2003. Information on welfare guidelines
Normativa e benessere aspetti da conoscere. Rivista di Coniglicoltura, 40, 37-42.
Civera T, Julini M and Quaglino G, 1989a. Assessment of Meat Quality in Rabbits Slaughtered by
Means of Different Stunning Methods. Industrie Alimentari, 28, 492-&.
Civera T, Julini M, Quaglino G and Ferrero E, 1989b. Influenza delle tecniche di stordimento sulla
qualita della carne cunicola. [Assessment of meat quality in rabbits slaughtered by means of
different stunning methods]. [Italian]. Industrie-Alimentari (Italy). (May 1989. v. 28(271) p.
492-495, 500.,
Croft PG, 1971. Electrocution of Mink and Electric Stunning of Rabbits. Veterinary Record, 89, 372&.
Dennis MB, Dong WK, Weisbrod KA and Elchlepp CA, 1988. Use of captive bolt as a method of
euthanasia in larger laboratory animal species. Laboratory Animal Science, 38, 459-462.
EFSA, 2010. Application of Systematic Review Methodology to Food and Feed Safety Assessments
to Support Decision Making. EFSA Journal, 8, 1-90.
EFSA AHAW Panel (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare), 2013. Guidance on the assessment
criteria for studies evaluating the effectiveness of stunning interventions regarding animal
protection at the time of killing. EFSA Journal, 11, 41.
Fleischmann O and Gisske W, 1967. On the use of Narcpren for the stunning of slaughter animals.
Archiv. Lebensmittelhyg., 18, 109-112.
Freesemann L, 1975. Electroencephalographic and electrocardiographic studies in stunning by the
captive bolt method in sheep Elektroencephalographische und elektrokardiographische
Untersuchungen zur Bolzenschussbetaubung beim Schaf. Elektroencephalographische und
elektrokardiographische Untersuchungen zur Bolzenschussbetaubung beim Schaf., 78pp.
Gregory NG and Grandin T, 2007. Stunning and slaughter. Animal welfare and meat production, 191212.
Guerrero MY, Flores-Peinado SC, Becerril-Herrera M, Cardona-Leija A, Alonso-Spilsbury M,
Zamora-Fonseca MM, Toca J, Ramirez R, Toca JA and Mota-Rojas D, 2007. Insensibilization
of California breed rabbits and it's effect on sanguineous pH, temperature, glucose levels,
creatine kinase and slaughter performance. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 6,
410-415.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
74
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.
Hattingh J, Cornelius ST, Ganhao MF and Fonseca F, 1986. Arterial blood gas composition,
consciousness and death in rabbits. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association, 57,
13-16.
Hertrampf B and Mickwitz Gv, 1979. Stunning of slaughter animals. I. CO2 anaesthesia. (Part 3,
turkey and rabbit) Betaubung von Schlachttieren. I. CO2-Betaubung. Deutsche Tierarztliche
Wochenschrift, 86, 504-510.
Holtzmann M, 1991. Killing of Experimental Rabbits Using Captive Bolt Guns with Consideration of
Animal-Welfare. Journal of Experimental Animal Science, 34, 203-206.
Holtzmann M, 1992. Eine Hilfestellung fuer die Schlachtung: Tierschutzgerechte Betaeubung von
Schlachtkaninchen. [An advice for slaughtering: Preslaughter stunning of rabbits considering
animal welfare]. [German]. Deutsche-Gefluegelwirtschaft-und-Schweineproduktion, 44, 376377.
Holtzmann M and Loeffler K, 1991. Welfare Aspects of the Use of Captive Bolt Guns for the PreSlaughter Stunning of Rabbits. Tierarztliche Umschau, 46, 617-620.
Lafuente R and Lopez M, 2014. Effect of electrical and mechanical stunning on bleeding, instrumental
properties and sensory meat quality in rabbits. Meat Science, 98, 247-254.
Leoni S, Moriggi F and Ghirlanducci G, 2005. Stunning - a delicate phase of slaughter Stordimento,
una fase delicata della macellazione. Rivista di Coniglicoltura, 42, 32-36.
Llonch P, Rodriguez P, Velarde A, Lima VAd and Dalmau A, 2012. Aversion to the inhalation of
nitrogen and carbon dioxide mixtures compared to high concentrations of carbon dioxide for
stunning rabbits. Animal Welfare, 21, 123-129.
Loliger HC, 1981. Humane slaughter of rabbits and furbearing animals Tierschutzgerechte Totung von
Kaninchen und Pelztieren. Krankheiten der Pelztiere, Kaninchen und Heimtiere. 4 Tagung
Fachgruppe Kleintierkrankheiten, Celle, 18-20 Juni 1981., 35-40.
Lopez M, Carrilho MC, Campo MM and Lafuente R, 2008. Halal slaughter and electrical stunning in
rabbits: effect on welfare and muscle characteristics. Proceedings of the 9th World Rabbit
Congress, Verona, Italy, 10-13 June 2008, 1201-1206.
Maria G, Lopez M, Lafuente R and Moce ML, 2001. Evaluation of electrical stunning methods using
alternative frequencies in commercial rabbits. Meat Science, 57, 139-143.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J and Altman DG, 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62,
1006-1012.
Nodari SR, Lavazza A and Candotti P, 2008. Evaluation of rabbit welfare at stunning and slaughtering
in a commercial abattoir. Proceedings of the 9th World Rabbit Congress, Verona, Italy, 10-13
June 2008, 1239-1244.
Nodari SR, Lavazza A and Candotti P, 2009. Technical Note: Rabbit Welfare during Electrical
Stunning and Slaughter at a Commercial Abattoir. World Rabbit Science, 17, 163-167.
Ouhayoun J, 1990. [Slaugther of rabbits. 1. Effects of stunning and chilling rate of carcass on the
evolution of sarcomere length]. 5. Journees de la recherche cunicole en France, Paris (France),
12-13 Dec 1990,
Pares PM, 2000. Stunning of rabbits and effect on carcasses El aturdimiento en los conejos y su efecto
sobre las canales. Medicina Veterinaria, 17, 298-301.
Rau J, Lawlis PC and Joynes K, 2011. Practical animal based measures for assessing the effectiveness
of a novel stunning device for rabbits. International Conference on Assessment of Animal
Welfare at Farm and Group Level, Poster 30.
Schuttabraham I, Knauerkraetzl B and Wormuth HJ, 1992. Observations during Captive Bolt Stunning
of Rabbits. Berliner Und Munchener Tierarztliche Wochenschrift, 105, 10-15.
Supporting publications 2015:EN-742
75
The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively
by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender
procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be
considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the
issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.