This study evaluated the ability of 2 penetrating captive bolt (PCB) types (PISTOL, INLINE) to reach and disrupt the thalamus when applied in 2 placements (FRONTAL, BEHIND EAR) to chilled cadaver heads (N = 60) from sows >200 kg. Heads were randomly distributed across 6 treatments (n = 10): FRONTAL-INLINE, FRONTAL-PISTOL, FRONTAL-NO SHOT, BEHIND EAR-INLINE, BEHIND EAR-PISTOL, and BEHIND EAR-NO SHOT. The FRONTAL shot was placed 3.5 cm superior to the optic orbits at the midline; the BEHIND EAR shot was placed directly caudal to the pinna of the ear on the same plane as the eyes and targeting the middle of the opposite eye. For INLINE treatments, a Jarvis PAS-Type C 0.25R Super Heavy Duty PCB with a Long Bolt and 6.0 GR power loads was used. For PISTOL treatments, a Jarvis PAS-Type P 0.25R Pistol PCB with a Long Stunning Rod Nosepiece Assembly and 3.5 GR power loads was used. Heads were split along the bolt with a band saw. Tissue depth measurements are reported as Mean ± SE followed by 97.5% one-sided upper reference limit (URL). Total tissue thickness was less (P < 0.0001) at the FRONTAL (56.31 ± 1.76 mm; URL: 73.17 mm) than the BEHIND EAR placement (95.52 ± 3.30 mm; URL: 126.53 mm). Thalamic depth was less (P < 0.0001) at the FRONTAL (78.31 ± 1.32 mm; URL: 88.19 mm) than the BEHIND EAR placement (111.86 ± 3.22 mm; URL: 135.99 mm). The effective angle was greater (P < 0.0001) at the FRONTAL (4.72 ± 0.20°) than the BEHIND EAR placement (3.22 ± 0.17°). Potential for bolt-brain contact was not different (P = 1.0000) between FRONTAL-INLINE (10/10, 100% ± 0.01%), FRONTAL-PISTOL (10/10, 100% ± 0.01%), BEHIND EAR-INLINE (9/10, 90% ± 9.49%), and BEHIND EAR-PISTOL (10/10, 100% ± 0.01%); brain damage (P = 0.5577) between FRONTAL-INLINE (9/9, 100% ± 0.02%), FRONTAL-PISTOL (10/10, 100% ± 0.02%), BEHIND EAR-INLINE (4/10, 40% ± 15.49%), and BEHIND EAR-PISTOL (1/10, 10% ± 9.49%); potential for bolt-thalamus contact (P = 0.0683) for FRONTAL-INLINE (2/10, 20% ± 12.65%), FRONTAL-PISTOL (8/10, 80% ± 12.65%), BEHIND EAR-INLINE (7/9, 77.78% ± 13.86%), and BEHIND EAR-PISTOL (9/9, 100% ± 0.02%); or thalamic damage (P = 0.8041) for FRONTAL-INLINE (1/10, 10% ± 9.49%), FRONTAL-PISTOL (1/10, 10% ± 9.49%), BEHIND EAR-INLINE (2/8, 25% ± 15.31%), and BEHIND EAR-PISTOL (0/9, 0% ± 0.00%). The FRONTAL placement with an INLINE PCB may present the least risk of failure for the PCB euthanasia of mature sows >200 kg body weight due to less total tissue thickness and thalamic depth, greater effective angle, and prevalent brain damage.
Keywords: captive bolt; euthanasia; sow; stunning; swine; welfare.
Euthanasia is a necessary procedure to safeguard animal welfare on swine farms. Penetrating captive bolt (PCB) is often used to euthanize sows by passing a metal bolt through the animal’s skull and into the brain. This causes severe brain damage with the anticipated result of an immediate loss of consciousness. This study evaluated frontal and behind-ear PCB placements for sows weighing more than 200 kg with 2 commercially available types of PCB devices. The frontal placement, when used with an inline free-flight PCB device, may be more reliable than other placement and device combinations due to less total tissue thickness, more room for error with positioning the PCB, and prevalent brain damage.
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.