Scientific Opinion on monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for pigs


Panel on Animal Health and Welfare
EFSA Journal
EFSA Journal 2013;11(12):3523 [62 pp.].
Panel members at the time of adoption
Edit Authie, Charlotte Berg, Anette Bøtner, Howard Browman, Ilaria Capua, Aline de Koeijer, Klaus Depner, Mariano Domingo, Sandra Edwards, Christine Fourichon, Frank Koenen, Simon More, Mohan Raj, Liisa Sihvonen, Hans Spoolder, Jan Arend Stegeman, Hans-Hermann Thulke, Antonio Velarde, Ivar Vågsholm, Preben Willeberg and Stéphan Zientara

The Panel wishes to thank the members of the Working Group: Charlotte Berg, Mohan Raj, Hans-Hermann Thulke, Hans Spoolder, Antonio Velarde for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion and the hearing experts: Bosse Algers, Haluk Anil, Antonio Benlloch, Rebeca Garcia, Marien Gerritzen, Karen von Holleben, Charlie Mason, Luc Mirabito, Elisiv Tolo and Cees Vermeeren, and EFSA staff: Denise Candiani, Chiara Fabris, Maria Ferrara and Gabriele Zancanaro for the support provided to this scientific opinion.

Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
On request from
European Commission
Question Number
12 December 2013
Published in the EFSA Journal
20 December 2013
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy

This scientific opinion proposes toolboxes of welfare indicators for developing monitoring procedures at slaughterhouses for pigs stunned with the head-only electrical method or carbon dioxide at high concentration. In particular, the opinion proposes welfare indicators together with their corresponding outcomes of consciousness, unconsciousness or death. The opinion proposes a toolbox of indicators and the outcomes to be used to assess consciousness in pigs at three key stages of monitoring: (a) after stunning and during shackling and hoisting, (b) during sticking and (c) during bleeding. Various activities—including a systematic literature review, an online survey and stakeholders’ and hearing experts’ meetings—were conducted to gather information about specificity, sensitivity and feasibility of the indicators that are to be included in the toolboxes for monitoring welfare. On the basis of information gathered during these activities, a methodology was developed to select the most appropriate indicators that could be used in the monitoring procedures. The frequency of checking differs according to the role of each person with responsibility for ensuring animal welfare at slaughter. The personnel performing stunning, shackling, hoisting and/or bleeding will have to check all the animals and confirm that they are not conscious following stunning. For the animal welfare officer, who has the overall responsibility for animal welfare, a mathematical model for the sampling protocols is proposed, giving some allowance to set the sample size of animals that he/she needs to check at a given throughput rate (total number of animals slaughtered in the slaughterhouses) and tolerance level (number of potential failures—animals that are conscious after stunning; animals that are not unconscious or not dead after slaughter without stunning). The model can also be applied to estimate threshold failure rate at a chosen throughput rate and sample size. Finally, different risk factors and scenarios are proposed to define a ‘normal’ or a ‘reinforced’ monitoring protocol, according to the needs of the slaughterhouse.

stunning, slaughter, consciousness, welfare indicators, monitoring procedures
Print on demand
Number of Pages