During the outbreak of H7N7 in Holland, 29,500.000 birds were killed at the farm. This presentation compares different culling techniques, such as stable gas, container gassing and electrocution.

1. Avian Influenza in theAvian Influenza in the
NetherlandsNetherlands
Evaluation of
culling methods used
during the
outbreak in 2003

2. Avian Influenza in theAvian Influenza in the
NetherlandsNetherlands
 Students: Judith Dietvorst
Marjan Kamphorst
 Supervisors: Dr. Simon Oosting (WUR)
Harm Kiezebrink (HKI)

3. Colloqium Avian InfluenzaColloqium Avian Influenza
 Introduction
 Problem definition and research questions
 Material and methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions

4. IntroductionIntroduction
 Outbreak AI started March 2003
 Culling AI-sensitive animals
 HKI Wageningen B.V. offered equipment to
cull poultry

5. Problem definitionProblem definition
 Many animals have to be culled
 Not much knowledge about culling methods
used during AI outbreak in Netherlands

6. Research questionsResearch questions
 What is the:
- capacity
- animal welfare
- feather spreading
- working condition
of each method used during the AI outbreak
in the Netherlands in 2003, defined per
farming system?

7. Research questionsResearch questions
 What are the advantages and disadvantages
of the culling methods used during the
outbreak in the Netherlands?

8. Material and methodsMaterial and methods
 Culling methods used during outbreak
- Electrocution: small mobile slaughter lines with a
water box

9. Material and methodsMaterial and methods
- RF2: small garbage containers are filled with 60 %
CO2.

10. Material and methodsMaterial and methods
- CAS: Controlled Atmosphere stunning. Tunnel with
conveyor belt which goes trough stunning system.
Combination of CO2, O2 and N2.

11. Material and methodsMaterial and methods
- House gassing: 4 different companies worked with
CO2. Gas is distributed out of the gas tank into the
house through tubes.

12. Material and methodsMaterial and methods
 Farms
 Located in Gelderse Vallei and Nederweert
 22 observations on 11 farms and one
slaughterhouse
 Different farming systems

13. Material and methodsMaterial and methods
 Four aspects of culling methods were
measured:
1 Capacity: number of animals per hour that can be
culled
2 Feather spreading: amount of feather spreading
during culling was observed.
Scores were given from zero till four ( no
spreading till extreme spreading)

14. Material and methodsMaterial and methods
Observing periods Electrocution RF2 House gassing
Catch X X
Shackle X
Put into container X
Tubes brought into house X
Culling process X X X
3. Animal welfare: divided in stress, back laying and
live animals
Stress: observed animals on behavior like wing flapping,
struggling, vocalization, head shaking and gasping. Scores
were given from one to ten. One is enormously stressfull and ten
absence of stress

15. Material and methodsMaterial and methods
Back laying: Counted dead poultry that were laying on their
back. Could mean that poultry had to struggle
before they died.
Live animals: Counted surviving animals after the culling
process.

16. Material and methodsMaterial and methods
4. Working conditions:
- Catching birds out of house
- Walking with birds
- Shackling birds
- Use of CO2

17. ResultsResults
Culling
method
Cage
systems
Floor
systems1
Average
RF2 9.5b, y
3.2x
6.3b
Electrocution 2.5a
3.0 2.8a
House gassing 13.3c,y
4.6x
9.0b
CAS n.a. n.a. -
Average 8.4y
3.6x
1
Hobby animals excluded
n.a. : not available
 Capacity: x 1000 animals per hour

18. ResultsResults
 Feather spreading
Culling method Score
RF2 1.9b
Electrocution 2.7c
House gassing 0.9a
Different superscripts within column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05)

19. ResultsResults
Culling
method
Catching Importing Culling
RF2 4.9 5.1b
5.4b
Electrocution 3.9 3.4a
3.9a
House gassing - 4.8a
3.9a
Different superscripts within column indicate significant differences (P < 0.05)
 Animal welfare
- Stress observations: scored as affected by catching,
importing animals into culling operation and the culling
as such

20. ResultsResults
Culling method Live animals % Incidence
RF2 (n = 6) 0 0
Electrocution (n = 4) 2.3 3
House gassing (n= 11) 4.5 1
CAS (n = 1) 0 0
 Animal welfare
- Back laying: assessed for the four house gassing
systems. Average of 3.7% was found back laying after
culling
-Live animals:

21. ResultsResults
Observations RF2 Electrocution House
gassing
Catching live birds out of
cages, floor or aviary system
+++ +++
Walking with live birds out of
house
+++ +++
Use of CO2 ++ ++
Shackling birds ++
Putting birds into container ++
+ = light work
++ = average work
+++ = heavy work
 Working conditions

22. DiscussionDiscussion
 Capacity
- Farming system
- Number of RF2 containers used

23. DiscussionDiscussion
 Animal welfare
- Subjective results
- Back laying: could be a measurement , but back
laying is a result of convulsions.
- RF2 no live animals, but maybe not only by CO2.

24. DiscussionDiscussion
 Feather spreading
- Assumption made feathers could spread virus. Not
found in literature.
 Working conditions
- Cage system and house gassing: clearly heavier than
the other farming system. Rigor mortis takes place
very soon after gassing.

25. ConclusionsConclusions
 Capacity
Capacity Advantage Disadvantage
RF2 - the more containers
available the quicker
the culling goes
- time needed to walk from
house to RF2
- time needed to fill the
container with gas
Electrocution - many animals could
be shackled
- time needed to walk out of
the house to electrocution
system
House
gassing
- a lot of animals in
one time
- waiting after gassing before
evacuators can do their
work
CAS - not many animals could be
culled per hour

26. ConclusionsConclusions
 Animal welfare
Animal
welfare
Advantage Disadvantage
RF2 - quick death
- no live animals
- sultriness while animals are
consciousness
Electrocution - when system
properly used
quick death
- live animals
- pre stun shock
House
gassing
- normally a mild
culling process
- slow death
CAS - quick death - not enough animals, birds
could be consciousness in
phase two.

27. ConclusionsConclusions
 Feather spreading
Feather
spreading
Advantage Disadvantage
RF2 - closed container - walking with birds
out of the house
Electrocution - walking with birds
and shackling
House
gassing
- closed house - ventilation on and
doors open after
gassing
CAS - closed system

28. ConclusionsConclusions
 Working conditions
Working
conditions
Advantage Disadvantage
RF2 - cage system: not
running after birds
- catching live birds:
aviary, free range
and floor systems
Electrocution - cage system: not
running after birds
- catching live birds:
aviary, free range
and floor systems
House
gassing
- dead birds: no
running
- rigor mortis
CAS - cage system: not
running after birds
- catching live bids:
aviary, free range
and floor systems

29. Thank you for your attention.Thank you for your attention.
Questions?