Abstract
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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Received: 4 June 1996 / Revised version: 5 July 1996
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marx, H., Brunner, B., Weinzierl, W. et al. Methods of stunning freshwater fish: impact on meat quality and aspects of animal welfare. Z Lebensm Unters Forsch 204, 282–286 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/s002170050078
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s002170050078