Methods of stunning freshwater fish: impact on meat quality and aspects of animal welfare

被引:0
|
作者
H. Marx
Bernhard Brunner
Waltraud Weinzierl
Rudolf Hoffmann
Andreas Stolle
机构
[1] Institut für Hygiene und Technologie der Lebensmittel tierischen Ursprungs,
[2] Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität,undefined
[3] Veterinärstrasse 13,undefined
[4] D-80539 München,undefined
[5] Germany,undefined
[6] Institut für Zoologie,undefined
[7] Fischereibiologie und Fischkrankheiten,undefined
[8] Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität,undefined
[9] Kaulbachstrasse 37,undefined
[10] D-80539 München,undefined
[11] Germany,undefined
关键词
Key words Fish stunning; Substantial quality; Organoleptic properties;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
 Taking into account aspects of meat quality and animal welfare, three methods of stunning fish were compared: a manual technique (blow on the head, stab in the neck), one using electricity and one using CO2. The following results were obtained using eel (n=72), carp (n=120) and trout (n=54). From the viewpoint of animal welfare, the effects on the fish were judged. Excitation and mucus secretion as well as the time taken for the fish to be anaesthetized were recorded. With manual and electrical stunning, all fish were anaesthetized almost immediately, while using CO2 it took 3.2 min (trout), 9.2 min (carp) and 109.7 min (eel) on average. After slaughter and after 3 and 8 days of storage on ice, the fish meat quality parameters, i.e. pH value, water-holding capacity and rigor mortis, were measured. CO2 stunning gave rise to the lowest pH values and water-holding capacities. Rigor mortis in carp and eel advanced the most. Testing of raw and prepared fish was performed by a panel assessing organoleptic properties. In many cases, fish anaesthetized manually were ranked to be better than those in the other groups.
引用
收藏
页码:282 / 286
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Animal welfare aspects of husbandry systems for farmed fish: Carp
    不详
    EFSA JOURNAL, 2008, 6 (12):
  • [32] Methods of marking birds - Objects and aspects of animal welfare
    Kummerfeld, N
    PRAKTISCHE TIERARZT, 1996, 77 (09): : 792 - &
  • [33] METHODS OF PREDICTING MEAT QUALITY IN THE LIVE ANIMAL
    FISCHER, K
    FLEISCHWIRTSCHAFT, 1983, 63 (03): : 310 - &
  • [34] Animal welfare during transport and its relationship with meat quality
    Romero P, Marlyn
    Sanchez, Jorge, V
    REVISTA MVZ CORDOBA, 2012, 17 (01) : 2936 - 2944
  • [35] Electrical stunning parameters: impact on the quality of turkey meat (Meleagris gallopavo)
    Parteca, Sandro
    Tonial, Ivane Benedetti
    do Prado, Naimara Vieira
    Alfaro, Alexandre da Trindade
    JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-MYSORE, 2020, 57 (07): : 2612 - 2618
  • [36] Electrical stunning parameters: impact on the quality of turkey meat (Meleagris gallopavo)
    Sandro Parteca
    Ivane Benedetti Tonial
    Naimara Vieira do Prado
    Alexandre da Trindade Alfaro
    Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2020, 57 : 2612 - 2618
  • [37] Effects of loading methods on rabbit welfare and meat quality
    Mazzone, G.
    Vignola, G.
    Giammarco, M.
    Manetta, A. C.
    Lambertini, L.
    MEAT SCIENCE, 2010, 85 (01) : 33 - 39
  • [38] Animal-friedly gas stunning of broilers and meat quality aspect Part 2: Alternative gas stunning - Studies
    Machold, Ulrike
    FLEISCHWIRTSCHAFT, 2021, 101 (01): : 84 - 89
  • [39] ANIMAL WELFARE ASPECTS OF HUSBANDRY SYSTEMS FOR FARMED FISH: CARP Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare
    Algers, Bo
    Blokhuis, Harry J.
    Broom, Donald M.
    Costa, Patrizia
    Domingo, Mariano
    Greiner, Mathias
    Guemene, Daniel
    Hartung, Joerg
    Koenen, Frank
    Mueller-Graf, Christine
    Morton, David B.
    Osterhaus, Albert
    Pfeiffer, Dirk U.
    Roberts, Ron
    Sanaa, Moez
    Salman, Mo
    Sharp, J. Michael
    Vannier, Philippe
    Wierup, Martin
    EFSA JOURNAL, 2008, 6 (12):
  • [40] Currently no Alternatives to CO2 Stunning Techniques for Pigs and their Impact on Animal Welfare
    Klaaborg, Joanna
    Schroder-Petersen, Dorte Lene
    FLEISCHWIRTSCHAFT, 2021, 101 (11): : 26 - 29