4.2 Article

Electroencephalographic responses of halothane-anaesthetised calves to slaughter by ventral-neck incision without prior stunning

期刊

NEW ZEALAND VETERINARY JOURNAL
卷 57, 期 2, 页码 77-83

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00480169.2009.36882

关键词

Calves; compressed spectral array; electroencephalogram; emergency slaughter; minimal anaesthesia; nociception; pain; slaughter; ventral-neck incision

资金

  1. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom
  2. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of New Zealand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To investigate whether the electroencephalographic (EEG) responses to slaughter by ventral-neck incision without prior stunning may be perceived as painful in halothane-anaesthetised calves. METHODS: Fourteen Angus steers were minimally anaesthetised with halothane, using an established anaesthesia protocol. EEG indices were recorded bilaterally for 5 minutes prior to and 5 minutes following ventral-neck incision. A single incision was made in the ventral aspect of the neck, severing all tissues ventral to the vertebral column including the major blood vessels supplying and draining the head. Changes in the median frequency (F50), 95% spectral edge frequency (F95) and total power of the EEG (Ptot) were used to investigate the effects of ventral-neck incision. At the completion of the experiment, brains of calves were examined histologically. RESULTS: During the 30 seconds following ventral-neck incision, the F95 and Ptot showed significant changes (p<0.05) compared with pre-treatment values. The F50 increased significantly from recordings from the right side of the cranium. No gross or histological abnormalities were detected in the brains following slaughter. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first investigation of the noxiousness of slaughter by ventral-neck incision, using EEG spectral analysis. It demonstrated that there is a period following slaughter where ventral-neck incision represents a noxious stimulus.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据