Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:27:01.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Killing wild geese with carbon dioxide or a mixture of carbon dioxide and argon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

MA Gerritzen ,
HGM Reimert ,
A Lourens ,
MBM Bracke  and
MTW Verhoeven
MA Gerritzen*
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
HGM Reimert
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
A Lourens
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
MBM Bracke
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
MTW Verhoeven
Affiliation:
Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: marien.gerritzen@wur.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The killing of animals is the subject of societal and political debate. Wild geese are caught and killed on a regular basis for fauna conservation and damage control. Killing geese with carbon dioxide (CO2) is commonly practiced, but not listed in legislation on the protection of flora and fauna, and societal concerns have been raised against this method. In this study, an experiment was carried out killing 30 wild-caught geese using either CO2 or a mixture of CO2 and argon (Ar). Brain function (EEG) and heart function (ECG) were measured to determine loss of consciousness and onset of death. The stage of unconsciousness was reached on average within one minute in both treatments (56 s for CO2 and 50 s for CO2 and Ar). States of minimal brain activity and ineffective heart beat were reached more quickly using CO2 compared to CO2 and Ar (112 versus 178 s for minimal brain activity and 312 versus 394 s for ineffective heart beat for CO2 and the mixture of CO2 and Ar, respectively). The mixture of carbon dioxide and argon did not significantly reduce time to loss of consciousness or death. Further studies on behaviour and stress physiology are needed to determine conclusively whether CO2 alone is a satisfactory agent to kill wild-caught geese as the lower CO2 concentration in the CO2-Ar treatment may act as a sedative and reduce the aversiveness of the animals during exposure to lethal gas concentrations.

Keywords

animal welfareargonCO2geesekillingstunning
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 22 , Issue 1: Including selected abstracts from the WSPA/Defra Whale Welfare and Ethics Workshop, March 2011 , February 2013 , pp. 5 - 12
Copyright
© 2013 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Coenen, A, Smit, A, Li, ZH and van Luijtelaar, G 2000 Gas mixtures for anaesthesia and euthanasia in broiler chickens. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 56: 225–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/WPS20000017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke Fauna management undated Available (in Dutch) at: http://www.dukefaunabeheer.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73&Itemid=81Google Scholar
Ewbank, R 1983 Is CO2 euthanasia humane? Nature 305: 268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/305268a0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faunafonds 2010 Jaarverslag 2010. Faunafonds: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, X, Lahirigoyen, E, Auvergne, A, Molette, C and Bouillier-Oudot, M 2010 The effects of stunning methods on product qualities in force-fed ducks and geese 1. Carcass downgrading and meat quality. Animal 4: 128–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109990851CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forslid, A, Andersson, B and Johansson, S 1986 Observations on normal EEG activity in different brain regions of the unrestrained swine. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 128: 389–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1716.1986.tb07992.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genstat 2010 Genstat for Windows, 13th Edition. VSN International: Hemel Hempstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Gerritzen, MA, Lambooij, B, Reimert, HGM, Stegeman, A and Spruijt, B 2004 On-farm euthanasia of broiler chickens: effects of different gas mixtures on behavior and brain activity. Poultry Science 83: 1294–1301CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerritzen, MA, Lambooij, B, Reimert, HGM, Spruijt, BM and Stegeman, JA 2006 Susceptibility of duck and turkey to severe hypercapnic hypoxia. Poultry science 85: 1055–1061CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerritzen, MA, Lambooij, B, Reimert, HGM, Stegeman, JA, and Spruijt, B 2007 A note on behaviour of poultry exposed to increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 108: 179–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.11.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempleman, SC and Posner, RG 2004 CO2 transduction mechanisms in avian intrapulmonary chemoreceptors: experiments and models. Respiratory Physiology and Neurobiology 144: 203–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resp.2004.02.013CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jukes, MGM 1971 Control of respiration, In: Freeman, DJB (ed) Physiology and Biochemistry of the Domestic Fowl pp 187–196. Academic Press London: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Littin, KE 2010 Animal welfare and pest control: meeting both conservation and animal welfare goals. Animal Welfare 19: 171–176Google Scholar
Ludders, JW, Schmidt, RH, Dein, FJ and Klein, PN 1999 Drowning is not euthanasia. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 666–670Google Scholar
Martoft, L, JØrgenson, HS, Forslid, A, Pedersen, HD and JØrgenson, PF 2003 CO2 induced acute respiratory acidoses and brain tissue intracellular pH: a 31P NMR study in swine. Laboratory Animals 37: 241–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/00236770376 6453092CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKeegan, DEF, McIntyre, JA, Demmers, TGM, Wathes, CM and Jones, RB 2006 Behavioural responses of broiler chickens during acute exposure to gaseous stimulation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 99: 271–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeegan, DEF, McIntyre, JA, Demmers, TGM, Lowe, JC, Wathes, CM, van den Broek, PLC, Coenen, AML and Gentle, MJ 2007a Physiological and behavioural responses of broilers to controlled atmosphere stunning: Implications for welfare. Animal Welfare 16: 409–426.Google Scholar
McKeegan, DEF, Abeyesinghe, SM, McLeman, MA, Lowe, JC, Demmers, TG, White, RP, Kranen, RW, van Bemmel, H, Lankhaar, JA and Wathes, CM 2007b Controlled atmosphere stunning of broiler chickens II. Effects on behaviour, physiology and meat quality in a commercial processing plant. British Poultry Science 48: 430–442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00 071660701543097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modica, PA, Tempelhoff, R and White, PF 1990 Pro-and anticonvulsant effects of anesthetics (Part I). Anaesthesia & Analgesia 70: 303–315Google Scholar
Raj, ABM 1998 Welfare during stunning and slaughter of poultry. Poultry science 77: 1815–1819CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raj, ABM 2006 Recent developments in stunning and slaughter of poultry. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 62: 467–484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/WPS2005109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM and Gregory, NG 1991 Preferential feeding behaviour of hens in different gaseous atmospheres. British Poultry Science 32: 57–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071669108417327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM and Gregory, NG 1994 An evaluation of humane gas stunning methods for turkeys. The Veterinary Record 135: 222–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.135.10.222CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raj, ABM and Gregory, NG 1995 Welfare implications of the gas stunning of pigs 1. Determination of aversion to the initial inhalation of carbon dioxide or argon. Animal Welfare 4: 273–280Google Scholar
Raj, ABM, Wotton, SB and Gregory, NG 1992 Changes in the somatosensory evoked potentials and spontaneous electroencephalogram of hens during stunning with a carbon dioxide and argon mixture. British Veterinary Journal 148: 147–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0007-1935(92)90106-BCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raj, ABM, McKinstry, JL, Hillebrand, SJW and Pieterse, C 1998 Changes in somato-sensory evoked potentials and spontaneous electroencephalogram of broiler chicken during exposure to gas mixtures. British poultry science 39: 686–695. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00071669888584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turcsán, Z, Szigeti, J, Varga, L, Farkas, L, Birkás, E and Turcsán, J 2001 The effects of electrical and controlled atmosphere stunning methods on meat and liver quality of geese. Poultry science 80: 1647–1651CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van den Bogaard, AJM, van Dam, E and Weekers, FH 1985 Het gebruik van een koolzuurgas euthanasie apparaat voor ratten. Biotechniek 3: 34–38. [Title translation: The use of a carbon dioxide euthanasia apparatus for rats]Google Scholar
van der Jeugd, HP, Voslamber, B, van Turnhout, C, Sierdsema, H, Feige, N, Nienhuis, J and Koffijberg, K 2006 Overzomerende ganzen in Nederland: grenzen aan de groei? SOVON Vogelonderzoek Nederland: Beek-Ubbergen, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Geese staying in The Netherlands over the summer: limits to growth?]Google Scholar
Wideman, RF Jr, Maynard, P and Bottje, WG 1999 Venous blood pressure in broilers during acute inhalation of five percent carbon dioxide or unilateral pulmonary artery occlusion. Poultry Science 78: 1443–1451CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed