Files and links (1)
Published (Version of Record)CC BY V4.0, Open Access
Journal article
Pig welfare and ethical considerations during abattoir stunning: CO2 vs. alternative methods such as argon gas
Frontiers in veterinary science, Vol.12, 1542798
2025
Abstract
Pigs are the fourth most commonly slaughtered species used for food, after fish, chickens, and ducks (1). In 2022, an estimated 1.49 billion pigs were slaughtered globally. Within the UK for example, more than 11.4 million pigs, sows, and boars (hereafter, pigs) were slaughtered in UK slaughterhouses in 2022 (2). By late 2024 this equated to nearly a million pigs monthly, or nearly a quarter of a million weekly (3). In 2023, there were 84 slaughterhouses accepting pigs in the UK, with 10 of these specializing in pigs insofar as 95% or more of the animals slaughtered were pigs (4).
Stunning aims to render pigs unconscious before being killed and processed. The vast majority (88%) of pigs in England and Wales are stunned and killed using high concentration CO2, with electrical stunning being used for most of the remaining 12% (5). Since 2003, there have been calls for the phasing out of high concentration CO2 (6, 7), which have been reiterated more recently (8).
In the following, we provide a brief review of the animal welfare concerns associated with CO2 stunning. These are then compared with the welfare concerns associated with alternative stunning methods. Welfare concerns arising from preslaughter handling and restraint for each method are also considered. This review does not cover religious slaughter because: 1) Judaism and Islam do not permit the consumption of pig flesh (9), and 2) religious (e.g., Shechita and Halal) slaughter doctrines normally proscribe methods that both stun and kill animals, which may occur with CO2 stunning, as is required when CO2 is used within the UK, for example (10).
Details
- Title
- Pig welfare and ethical considerations during abattoir stunning: CO2 vs. alternative methods such as argon gas
- Authors/Creators
- Jenny L. MaceAndrew Knight
- Publication Details
- Frontiers in veterinary science, Vol.12, 1542798
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media S.A.
- Number of pages
- 4
- Grant note
- Animal Equality (UK): 28 Nov. 2024 Representing Animals (UK): 28 Feb. 2025
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research and its open access publication was funded by Animal Equality (UK) (grant: 28 Nov. 2024) and Representing Animals (UK) (grant: 28 Feb. 2025). These organizations are opposed to the slaughter of pigs for food for animal welfare, environmental, and public health reasons. These funders played no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, preparation of the resultant manuscript, nor decisions relating to publication. We are grateful for their financial support.
- Identifiers
- 991005754833907891
- Copyright
- © 2025 Mace and Knight
- Murdoch Affiliation
- School of Veterinary Medicine
- Language
- English
- Resource Type
- Journal article
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:
Metrics
23 Record Views
InCites Highlights
These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output
- Collaboration types
- Domestic collaboration
- International collaboration
- Citation topics
- 3 Agriculture, Environment & Ecology
- 3.51 Dairy & Animal Sciences
- 3.51.799 Farm Animal Welfare
- Web Of Science research areas
- Veterinary Sciences
- ESI research areas
- Plant & Animal Science