60
Moreover, even considering the variability of routine slaughter conditions, usually no “back upâ€?- stunning is performed after slaughter without stunning. •
Stunning post neck cutting will avoid potential pain and suffering from the moment it is applied. This should markedly improve animal welfare in relation to neck cutting without stunning during the time between the cut and loss of consciousness. Nevertheless the time needed to perform the cut and the period after the cut are not affected by post-cut stunning.
Although it was not within the scope of the project to perform a risk assessment approach a comparative analysis of the risks is shown in Table 7. Table 7: Comparative ranking of risks with regard to compromised animal welfare due to different slaughter methods Hazard neck cutting stunning prior stunning post without to neck cutting neck cutting stunning Pre slaughter handling stress High High High Restraint stress and injury High Intermediate Low Inadequate equipment High High High Lack of knowledge or skills High High High Pain and suffering during the cut High High Low Pain and suffering during the post cut High Low Intermediate period High slaughter line speed High Low Low Failure to diagnose of prolonged High Intermediate Intermediate consciousness or inadequate stunning Need for back up stunning in case of High Low Low prolonged consciousness/ or failed stunning Without making a value judgement it can be stated that neck cutting without stunning poses the highest risk for animal welfare because restraining for the cut and during bleeding imposes extra manipulation to the animal. Additionally, pain, suffering and distress during the cut and during bleeding are highly likely. The latter is partly reduced during stunning post neck cutting, which represents an intermediate risk for animal welfare. Although stunning methods themselves involve risks to animal welfare which have to be managed, stunning prior to neck cutting represents the lowest risk for overall compromise of animal welfare.