If you want to follow these concepts, especially towards “truth” then empirical defining is important. Life is qualified very differently—in human terms in QUALS—quality in and over time; animals potentially as a biomass including sentience %; ecosystems have not yet been empirically evaluated. Despite the discomfort of defining “value” in this way, unless we do so priorities cannot be made and only apportioned according to biases and beliefs. Equally if we want true “impact” this needs to be empirically given.
Ben St
Karma: 14
This is a very interesting question and at the moment we have to say—uncertain. The response of warm water prawn and shrimp appear notably different from cold water decapod species (i.e. crabs, lobsters, langoustine etc) where electrical stunning (ES) appears more reliable (from EEG and behavioural responses).
Review shows that (for warm water species) both ES or use of Ice slurry (at 5 to −2.5 degrees C) lead to “stun” as established under EFSA criteria—namely demonstrates one or more of the following:
Loss of evoked responses (ERs) like visual evoked response (VER), or other such as no response to touch, etc.
Generalized tonic clonic seizures with high EEG fluctuations, indicating no central brain processes.
Prolonged period of total power to values < 10% of those pre stun (i.e. FFT (Fast Fourier transform, an indicator of total power content)
However, there are variables with both techniques seeing behavioural responses associated with pain—i.e. tail flick, VER response etc post “stun”—hence actual behavioural measures (of unconsciousness) are unreliable; and both can lead to visible damage to the animal (rostral carapace and eyes). In addition ES leads to higher lactate measures (as a proxy for stress) vs ice.
In the interest of EA truth seeking we need to investigate more to establish best technique (or indeed combination of techniques—ie ice and ES, or ice at lower temperatures) to satisfy EFSA criteria. Until that is established i agree that we should be careful in establishing a process that has yet to be validated consistently. We should follow the “precautionary principle” in the interim but with the opinion that we must be open to new evidence (i.e. is ice better)?
My last point would be that almost always we talk and base our decisions on scientific standards. However, we must also understand that the in field conditions and practicality also affect results, very often significantly. Hence, methodology must also consider the in-field operation from a practical, socioeconomic, cultural or even religious position when making a recommendation.