Professional Documents
Culture Documents
11 Effect of Stun Duration and Current Level Applied During Head To Back and Head Only Electrical Stunning of Pigs On Pork Quality Compared With Pigs Stunned With CO2 PDF
11 Effect of Stun Duration and Current Level Applied During Head To Back and Head Only Electrical Stunning of Pigs On Pork Quality Compared With Pigs Stunned With CO2 PDF
11 Effect of Stun Duration and Current Level Applied During Head To Back and Head Only Electrical Stunning of Pigs On Pork Quality Compared With Pigs Stunned With CO2 PDF
www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci
Abstract
The eect of current, duration and method of application of manual electrical stunning on pork carcass and meat quality attributes in comparison with stunning pigs with CO2 was investigated. Two experiments were conducted using a total of 96 Large
WhiteLandrace boars (homozygous dominant for the halothane gene). In Experiment 1, 48 pigs were allocated to one of six
stunning treatments: CO2 (90% in air), electrical stunning (ES) using head only (HO) tongs delivering current at a frequency of 50
Hz at 1.3 or 2.0 A for 4 s and 0.9, 1.3 or 2.0 A for 19 s. Higher drip loss occurred in M. longissimus thoracis et lumborum (LTL)
muscles from ES pigs, except those stunned with 0.9 A for 19 s, compared with pigs stunned with CO2. The incidence of pale, soft
exudative (PSE) meat was higher in ES pigs, except those stunned at 1.3 A for 4 s, compared with CO2 stunned pigs. In Experiment
2, 48 pigs were allocated to one of six stunning treatments: ES using a head to back (HB) handpiece delivering current at 1.3 or 2.0
A for 4 s and 0.9 or 1.3 A for 10 s; HO 1.3 A for 4 s or CO2. Although stunning treatment did not inuence ultimate pH, muscle
lightness, tenderness or cooking loss, drip loss and PSE incidence in LTL muscles from CO2 stunned pigs were lower compared with
ES pigs. Overall, ecchymosis and bone fractures were more prevalent in ES pigs compared with CO2 stunned pigs. This research
identied that stunning pigs with CO2 compared with manual ES lowered the incidence of bone fractures, ecchymosis, PSE and drip
loss of pork.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stunning; Slaughtering; Meat quality; Pork
1. Introduction
The majority of Australian pig processing plants with
manual electrical stunning systems installed use constant voltage systems (Green, Shaw, Trout, Reiser, &
Sentence, 1993) rather than constant current systems,
despite amperage being the most important factor producing unconsciousness (Gregory, 1985). Many electrical stunning systems operating in Australia are
installed without the capacity to set stun duration that
may contribute to the variation in carcass and meat
quality between carcasses from electrically stunned pigs
(Green et al., 1993). From an occupational health and
safety viewpoint, the amount of post-stun movement of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +613-9742-0415; fax: +613-97420400.
E-mail address: heather.channon@nre.vic.gov.au (H.A. Channon).
0309-1740/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00053-6
the animal tends to decrease with increasing stun duration. Increased stun duration induces a longer period of
unconsciousness than when a shorter stun duration is
applied, enabling workers to shackle, hoist and exsanguinate pigs with potentially less risk (Devine, Cook,
Maasland, & Gilbert, 1993).
Head to back stunning of pigs was originally developed as an alternative to head only application of stunning tongs as cardiac arrest can be induced, thus
eliminating the risk of pigs regaining consciousness
prior to exsanguination (Wotton, Anil, Whittington, &
McKinstry, 1992). The degree of animal stillness following head to back stunning, resulting from cardiac
brillation and depolarisation of spinal neurones, is also
advantageous in occupational health and safety terms
(Gilbert, Devine, Hand, & Ellery, 1984). However,
muscle contraction that occurs during head to back
stunning can contribute to ecchymosis (Gilbert et al.
1326
and the 5th and 6th lumbar vertebrae (Site 3). Muscle
pH was measured at each site in the LTL at 40 min, 90
min (Experiment 2 only), 100 min (Experiment 1 only),
3, 6 and 24 h post-slaughter using a portable pH meter
(Jenco Electronic Ltd., model 6007) tted with a polypropylene spear-type electrode (Ionode IJ42S, Brisbane,
QLD) and a temperature probe. Muscle pH was measured in the BF muscle at 40 min, 90 min (Experiment 2
only), 100 min (Experiment 1 only), 3 h (Experiment
2 only), 6 h (Experiment 2 only) and 24 h. To limit the
number of holes made at Site 2, pH was measured at 3
and 6 h post-slaughter in the LTL muscle at Sites 1 and
3 only.
Muscle lightness (CIE L*) was determined in triplicate following exposure to air for 10 min using a Minolta Chromameter CR-200 using D-65 lighting, a 2 C
standard observer and a 8-mm aperture in the measuring head on both the LTL muscle at Site 2 in the LTL
muscle and the BF muscle.
At 24 h post-slaughter, a section of the right LTL,
between the rst and third lumbar vertebrae, and the
BF muscle were dissected from the carcass, trimmed of
all fat and frozen at 20 C for subsequent tenderness
testing. Samples were then partially thawed and prepared into 100 g 2 g samples in duplicate and then
cooked from the semi-frozen state. Each sample was
placed individually into labelled plastic bags, suspended
from a metal rack and cooked in a water bath at 80 C
for 75 min. Cooling was achieved by immersion in cool
running water for 30 min (Bouton, Harris, & Shorthose,
1971). Samples were dried and weighed to determine
cooking loss (expressed as a percentage of weight lost
due to cooking) and then stored at 4 C for 24 h. From
each sample, ve 1 cm2 replicate samples were cut parallel to the orientation of muscle bres for tenderness
assessment. Tenderness was measured using a WarnerBratzler (WB) shear blade tted to an Instron Universal
Testing Machine model 4465 at a crosshead speed of
300 mm/min.
At 24 h post-slaughter, a sample from the right LTL
(between sites 1 and 2) was removed of all fat and prepared into 100 2 g samples in duplicate. Each sample
was individually suspended in netting and placed into
an air-lled, labelled plastic bag and kept at 4 C for 48
h (Honikel, Kim, Hamm, & Roncales, 1986). Excess
moisture was then lightly removed from the muscle
surface and samples were reweighed. Drip loss was calculated and expressed as a percentage of initial weight.
Carcasses were classied as pale soft and exudative
(PSE) as dened by Warner, Kauman and Greaser
(1997): (PSEpHu< 6.0; L* value > 50, drip loss > 5%).
2.4. Statistical analysis
Data were analysed using the analysis of variance
function of Genstat 5 (Payne, Lane, & Genstat 5 Com-
1327
3. Results
3.1. Experiment 1
At 40 min post-slaughter, the muscle pH of the LTL
muscle at both sites 2 (P< 0.001) and 3 (P=0.050) was
higher in CO2 stunned pigs compared with pigs electrically stunned (Table 1). Similarly, at 100 min postslaughter LTL muscles from CO2 stunned pigs and
those in the 1.3 A for 4 s ES treatment had a higher
(P=0.021) muscle pH at site 3 compared with pigs in all
other treatments. LTL muscle pH at 3 h at Site 3 was
also higher (P=0.014) in pigs stunned with CO2 compared with those electrically stunned. Pigs stunned for
19 s had a lower muscle pH at both sites 1 (P=0.001)
and 3 (P=0.007) at 6 h post-slaughter compared with
pigs in all other treatments. Although average muscle
pH measured at 40 min post-slaughter of the BF muscles from CO2 stunned pigs was higher (P=0.052)
compared with pigs electrically stunned, both stun
duration and current level applied had inconsistent
eects on muscle pH. Despite these eects of stunning
method on muscle pH at 40 min, 90 min and 3 h postslaughter, the relative rate of muscle pH decline from 40
min to 24 h post-slaughter in the LTL muscle at both
sites 1 and 3 was not inuenced (P=0.26) by stunning
treatment. Although the rate of muscle temperature
decline at site 3 was inuenced (P=0.057) by stunning
treatment, these dierences were inconsistent.
1328
Table 1
Eect of stunning treatment on muscle pH in the M. longissimus thoracis et lumborum (LTL) at 40 min, 90 min, 3 h and 6 h post slaughter and in the
M. biceps femoris (BF) at 40 and 100 min post-slaughter and the relative rate of muscle pH and temperature decline from 40 min to 24 h postslaughter at sites 1 and 3 of the LTL muscle
CO2
stunning (n=12)
S.E.D.a (range)
0.9 A,
19 s (n=7)
1.3 A,
19 s (n=7)
2.0 A,
4 s (n=7)
2.0 A,
19 s (n=7)
P value
LTL muscle
pH 40 min
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
6.45
6.63
6.58
6.42
6.42
6.47
6.39
6.37
6.31
6.48
6.33
6.28
6.35
6.27
6.32
6.47
6.32
6.40
0.08 0.09
0.090.10
0.110.12
pH 100 min
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
6.28
6.43
6.41
6.21
5.92
6.38
6.22
6.14
6.09
6.28
6.16
6.11
6.21
6.16
6.14
6.13
6.07
6.14
0.080.09
0.120.14
0.120.13
0.30
0.31
0.021
pH 3 h
Site 1
Site 3
6.08
6.31
6.02
6.06
5.99
5.94
5.97
5.97
5.91
6.08
6.03
6.06
0.080.09
0.110.12
0.33
0.014
pH 6 h
Site 1
Site 3
6.01
6.11
5.90
5.98
5.72
5.80
5.95
5.71
5.82
5.93
5.82
5.83
0.07
0.110.12
0.001
0.007
BF muscle
pH 40 min
pH 100 min
6.60
6.32
6.37
6.19
6.45
6.28
6.31
6.18
6.44
6.15
6.26
6.19
0.110.13
0.130.15
0.052
0.38
0.270
0.333
0.268
0.237
0.406
0.167
0.243
0.306
0.0840.094
0.0870.098
0.26
0.26
0.233
0.357
0.255
0.513
0.274
0.499
0.0310.035
0.0720.081
0.32
0.057
0.66
<0.001
0.050
Range in S.E.D.s for each attribute given due to dierences in numbers of animals in each treatment.
Relative to dierence between pH/temperature at any given time and nal pH/ temperature at 24 h post-slaughter.
Table 2
Eect of stunning treatment on pH 24 h, muscle lightness (L*), drip loss, Warner-Bratzler (WB) shear force and the incidence of pale, soft and exudative (PSE) pork of the M. longissimus thoracis et
lumborum (LTL) and M. biceps femoris (BF), the amount of ecchymosis-aected meat removed from the shoulder and middle primals and the incidence of bone fractures
Attribute
CO2 stunning
(n=12)
1.3 A 19 s
(n=7)
2.0 A, 4 s
(n=7)
2.0 A, 19 s
(n=7)
LTL muscle
pH 24 h
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Muscle lightness (L*)
Drip loss (%)
WB shear force (kg)
Incidence of PSEb (%)
5.56
5.56
5.60
50.90
4.48
5.47
42
5.52
5.49
5.53
50.65
6.71
5.20
38
5.48
5.43
5.47
51.29
5.10
5.80
86
5.49
5.45
5.44
53.92
9.53
5.24
100
5.50
5.48
5.48
51.96
7.06
5.59
71
5.50
5.52
5.52
51.98
7.14
5.99
86
0.050.06
0.050.06
0.070.08
1.291.46
1.081.21
0.770.87
0.60
0.079
0.31
0.24
0.001
0.93
< 0.05
BF muscle
pH 24 h
Muscle lightness (L*)
Drip loss (%)
WB shear force (kg)
Incidence of PSEb (%)
5.60
49.22
3.15
7.72
8
5.59
49.41
5.48
8.35
0
5.54
49.41
3.44
7.77
57
5.60
51.79
5.07
7.72
71
5.59
50.73
4.15
8.28
14
5.58
50.57
5.10
8.17
43
0.040.05
1.261.43
0.750.84
0.650.73
0.82
0.35
0.53
0.87
< 0.05
Ecchymosis (g tissue/primal)
Shoulder
Middle
0
0
208
16.2
99
15.8
137
54.5
103
30.6
134
40.9
25
14
43
a
b
57.864.9
15.817.8
0.018
0.022
1.3 A, 4 s
(n=8)
S.E.D. (range)a
< 0.05
Range in S.E.D.s for each attribute given due to dierences in numbers of animals in each treatment.
Chi-square analysis.
1329
1330
Table 3
Eect of stunning treatment on muscle pH at 40 min, 90 min, 3 and 6 h post-slaughter of the M. longissimus thoracis et lumborum (LTL) and M.
biceps femoris (BF) and relative rate of muscle pH and temperature decline from 40 min to 24 h post-slaughter at sites 1 and 3 of the M. longissimus
thoracis et lumborum (LTL)
Attribute
CO2
(n=12)
Head Only
1.3 A, 4 s
(n=8)
S.E.D.
(range)a
0.9 A,
10 s (n=7)
1.3 A,
4 s (n=7)
1.3 A,
10 s (n=7)
2.0 A,
4 s (n=7)
LTL muscle
pH 40 min
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
6.37
6.67
6.52
6.29
6.59
6.56
6.45
6.51
6.31
6.38
6.28
6.21
6.44
6.50
6.34
6.41
6.34
6.44
0.070.08
0.080.09
0.120.13
0.33
<0.001
0.060
pH 90 min
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
6.39
6.58
6.45
6.18
6.41
6.21
6.39
6.30
6.33
6.34
6.15
6.17
6.37
6.34
6.25
6.33
6.14
6.10
0.08
0.090.10
0.100.11
0.094
<0.001
0.021
pH 3 h
Site 1
Site 3
6.14
6.24
6.03
6.19
6.15
6.10
6.27
6.01
6.14
5.98
6.17
6.14
0.080.09
0.130.15
0.18
0.38
pH 6 h
Site 1
Site 3
6.05
6.21
6.03
6.07
5.92
5.88
6.02
5.86
6.03
5.89
6.07
5.86
0.090.10
0.120.13
0.76
0.012
BF Muscle pH
40 min
90 min
3h
6h
6.53
6.46
6.19
6.02
6.40
6.12
6.01
5.80
6.37
6.40
6.04
5.90
6.22
6.21
6.10
5.83
6.33
6.33
6.14
5.83
6.24
6.21
5.90
5.81
0.110.12
0.110.12
0.110.13
0.130.15
0.050
0.031
0.28
0.43
0.110
0.436
0.153
0.314
0.140
0.194
0.0970.109
0.2320.268
0.027
0.88
0.259
0.421
0.256
0.398
0.0300.034
0.0740.083
0.83
0.91
a
b
Range in S.E.D.s for each attribute given due to dierences in numbers of animals in each treatment.
Relative to dierence between pH/temperature at any given time and nal pH/ temperature at 24 h post-slaughter.
Table 4
Eect of stunning treatment on muscle pH at 24 h, muscle lightness, percentage drip loss, Warner Bratzler (WB) shear force, cooking loss and the incidence of pale, soft and exudative (PSE) pork in
the M. longissimus thoracis et lumborum (LTL) and M. biceps femoris (BF), the amount of ecchymosis-aected meat trimmed from the shoulder primal and the incidence of bone fractures
Attribute
CO2
(n=12)
1.3 A, 10 s
(n=7)
2.0 A, 4 s
(n=7)
5.69
5.62
5.62
5.65
5.59
5.62
5.61
5.52
5.52
5.61
5.49
5.47
5.64
5.60
5.64
5.56
5.51
5.48
0.090.10
0.080.09
0.090.10
0.753
0.490
0.282
48.34
2.39
5.74
32.6
0
50.53
4.70
5.94
33.2
38
49.51
4.70
6.85
33.6
57
50.17
4.96
6.34
32.9
57
47.83
4.53
8.45
33.5
57
49.34
5.70
8.33
33.1
57
1.541.72
0.91.0
1.041.17
0.91.0
0.532
0.009
0.059
0.888
<0.001
BF muscle
pH 24 h
Muscle lightness (L*)
Drip loss (%)
WB shear force (kg)
Cooking loss (%)
Incidence of PSEb (%)
5.73
46.83
1.87
7.13
33.9
0
5.63
48.63
3.23
8.48
33.3
0
5.63
49.68
2.82
7.89
34.1
14
5.57
49.89
3.62
8.64
35.5
28
5.68
48.04
2.95
8.25
32.9
28
5.57
48.40
3.04
7.72
32.6
0
0.090.10
1.211.36
0.620.70
0.870.97
1.31.4
0.447
0.135
0.104
0.500
0.384
<0.001
Ecchymosis (g tissue/primal)
Shoulder
11
319
346
384
498
409
93.5105.0
<0.001
25
28
57
28
28
LTL muscle
pH 24 h
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
1.3 A 4 s
(n=7)
S.E.D.
(range)a
<0.05
Range in S.E.D.s for each attribute given due to dierences in numbers of animals in each treatment.
Chi-square analysis.
1331
1332
4. Discussion
In both studies, the eects of method of application of
electrical stunning, current level and stun duration were
inconsistent on muscle pH measured at dierent sites
and at varying time periods post-slaughter. Channon,
Payne, and Warner (2002) found that ES using HO and
HBR electrodes (1.3 A for 4 s) resulted in lower muscle
pH at Site 1 when measured at 40 min, 90 min, 3 h and 6
h post-slaughter compared with pigs stunned with CO2.
In contrast, only muscle pH of both the LTL (Site 2)
and BF at 40 min were higher in CO2 stunned pigs
compared with ES pigs in Experiment 1. Although the
eect of ES on pH decline may be similar to that which
occurs when pig carcasses are electrically stimulated
(Barton-Gade, 1993), consistent eects of ES on muscle
pH measured at intervals between 40 min and 6 h postslaughter compared with CO2 stunning were not
observed in either of these current studies. Unlike
Velarde, Gispert, Faucitano, Manteca, and Diestre
(2000), the ultimate pH in LTL muscles from CO2stunned pigs in these studies was not higher than from
electrically stunned pigs, regardless of method of application.
Overall, the rate of muscle pH decline of the LTL
muscle at the last lumbar vertebrae and between the
fourth and fth thoracic vertebrae was similar in
CO2-stunned pigs compared with those pigs electrically stunned with HB electrodes. This is in contrast to ndings reported by Channon et al., (2002)
who found that that the relative rate of muscle pH
decline of the LTL muscle measured between the
fourth and fth thoracic vertebrae was faster in ES pigs
with head to brisket (HBR) tongs (1.3 A for 4 s) compared with pigs CO2 stunned and HO stunned with 1.3
A for 4 s.
In Experiment 1, a higher incidence of PSE pork was
observed in ES pigs stunned with HO tongs for 19 s
compared with pigs stunned with CO2 or electrically for
only 4 s. Although Barton-Gade (1993), Channon,
Payne, and Warner (2000) and Velarde et al. (2000)
have previously reported that electrical stunning may
result in acceleration of post-slaughter glycolysis resulting in a rapid pH decline post-slaughter, no inuence on
rate of muscle pH decline due to stunning treatment was
found in this study. It is postulated that the longer stun
duration of 19 s may have resulted in protein denaturation, with consequent, deleterious, eects on drip loss.
This may explain the higher incidence of PSE observed
in carcasses in these treatments. However, protein solubility was not measured in this study. Velarde et al.
(2000) stated that the direct eect of current owing
through an electrically stunned pig might be a possible
cause of deterioration in meat quality compared with
pigs stunned with CO2. It is not known whether placing
pigs onto a V-restrainer immediately prior to electrical
Acknowledgements
The authors are appreciative of the funding provided
by Australian Pork Limited, formerly the Pig Research
and Development Corporation and the Department of
Primary Industries, Victoria to undertake this work.
The technical assistance provided by Matthew Kerr,
Paul Weston, Peter Tardrew, Bob Nightingale, Richard
Biden, Darryl DSouza and Melissa Rees, scientic
advice provided by Graham Trout and statistical advice
provided by Kym Butler was appreciated and gratefully
acknowledged.
1333
References
Barton-Gade, P. A. (1993). Eect of stunning on pork quality and
welfare: Danish experience. Allen D. Leman Swine Conference, 20,
173178.
Bouton, P. E., Harris, P. V., & Shorthose, W. R. (1971). Eect of
ultimate pH upon the water holding capacity and tenderness of
mutton. Journal of Food Science, 36, 435439.
Channon, H. A., Payne, A. M., & Warner, R. D. (2000). Halothane
genotype, pre-slaughter handling and stunning methods all inuence
pork quality. Meat Science, 56, 291299.
Channon, H. A., Payne, A. M., & Warner, R. D. (2002). Comparison
of CO2 stunning with manual electrical stunning (50Hz) of pigs on
carcass and meat quality. Meat Science, 60, 6368.
Devine, C. E., Cook, C. J., Maasland, S. A., Gilbert, K. V. (1993). The
humane slaughter of animals: a realistic goal. In: Proceedings of 39th
International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Calgary,
Canada (pp. 223228).
Gilbert, K. V., Devine, C. E., Hand, R., & Ellery, S. (1984). Electrical
stunning and stillness of lambs. Meat Science, 11, 4558.
Grandin, T. (1985). Cardiac arrest stunning of livestock and poultry.
In M. W. Fox, & L. D. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare
science (pp. 130). Boston: Martinus Nijho.
Green, J. M., Shaw, F. D., Trout, G. R., Reiser, P. D., & Sentence,
C. B. (1993). An investigation of the electrical parameters used for the
stunning of pigs in Australian abattoirs (Meat Research Report 4/
93). Brisbane: CSIRO Division of Food Science & Technology.
Gregory, N. G. (1985). Stunning and slaughter of pigs. Pig News and
Information, 6(4), 407413.
Honikel, K. O., Kim, C. J., Hamm, R., & Roncales, P. (1986). Sarcomere shortening of pre-rigor muscle and its inuence on drip loss.
Meat Science, 16, 267282.
Larsen, H. K. (1982). Comparison of 300 volt manual stunning, 700
volt automatic stunning and CO2 compact stunning with respect to
quality parameters, blood splashing, fractures and meat quality. In
G. Eikelenboom (Ed.), Stunning of animals for slaughter (pp. 7381).
The Hague: Martinus Nijho Publishers.
OShea, J. M., Luxford, B., & Ronnfeldt, K. (1995). Processing pigs
for quality. In Meat 95, The Australian Meat Industry Research
Conference, 1012 September. Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Payne, R. W., & Lane, R. W., Genstat 5 Committee.Genstat 5 reference manual. Oxford: Oxford Science Publications.
Snedecor, G.W., & Cochran, W.G. (1980). Tests of hypotheses. In
Statistical methods (pp. 7578) (7th ed.). Ames, IA: Iowa State
University Press.
Velarde, A., Gispert, M., Faucitano, L., Manteca, X., & Diestre, A.
(2000). The eect of stunning method on the incidence of PSE meat
and haemorrhages in pork carcasses. Meat Science, 55, 309314.
Velarde, A., Gispert, M., Faucitano, L., Alonso, P., Manteca, X., &
Diestre, A. (2001). Eects of the stunning procedure and the halothane genotype on meat quality and incidence of haemorrhages in
pigs. Meat Science, 58, 313319.
Warner, R. D., Kauman, R. G., & Greaser, M. L. (1997). Muscle
protein changes post mortem in relation to pork quality traits. Meat
Science, 45(3), 339352.
Wotton, S. B., Anil, M. H., Whittington, P. E., & McKinstry, J. L.
(1992). Pig slaughtering procedures: head to back stunning. Meat
Science, 32, 245255.