Erik Sindhøj

Dr. Erik Sindhøj

NIBIO, Ås, Norway
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

27Years (2000-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 December 2009 in Wetlands
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
CTCassondra R. Thomas
Cassondra R. Thomas
SMShiLi Miao
ShiLi Miao
ESErik Sindhøj
Erik Sindhøj

21 September 2017 in Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
BOBergjord Olsen
Bergjord Olsen
AKA. K.
A. K.
TPT. Persson
T. Persson
AWAllard de Wit
Allard de Wit
LNL. Nkurunziza
L. Nkurunziza
HEH. Eckersten
H. Eckersten

15 October 2015 in The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
USUlf Gunnar Sonesson
Ulf Gunnar Sonesson
KLKatarina Lorentzon
Katarina Lorentzon
AAAnnica Andersson
Annica Andersson
UBUlla-Karin Barr
Ulla-Karin Barr
JBJan Bertilsson
Jan Bertilsson
HWHelena Wall
Helena Wall

1 March 2021 in Animal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
ESErik Sindhøj
Erik Sindhøj
CLC. Lindahl
C. Lindahl
LBL. Bark
L. Bark
Using carbon dioxide (CO2) for stunning pigs at slaughter is common in Europe. The use of group stunning is a major advantage with CO2, which is done without restraining the pigs and with minimized human contact. However, high concentrations of CO2 have been known for decades to cause pain, fear and distress in pigs before loss of consciousness, and the stunning method is clearly associated with animal welfare concerns. This study reviewed the scientific literature to find recent developments or evaluations of alternative methods that could lead to the replacement of CO2 for stunning pigs at slaughter. Potential alternative methods found in the literature were described and then assessed to identify specific research and development needs for their further development. Only 15 empirical studies were found in the search of peer-reviewed literature since 2004, which is less than one per year. Furthermore, half of the studies focused on evaluating methods to improve high-concentration CO2 stunning rather than an alternative to CO2. Since no clear alternative has emerged, nor a method to improve CO2 stunning, there is obviously a strong need to focus research and development to find solutions for improving animal welfare when stunning pigs at slaughter.

1 August 2000 in Plant and Soil
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
ESErik Sindhøj
Erik Sindhøj
AHAnn-Charlotte Hansson
Ann-Charlotte Hansson
OAOlof Andrén
Olof Andrén
TKThomas Kätterer
Thomas Kätterer
MMMark Marissink
Mark Marissink
RPRoger Pettersson
Roger Pettersson

25 November 2020 in Animals
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CLCecilia Lindahl
Cecilia Lindahl
ESErik Sindhøj
Erik Sindhøj
RHRebecka Brattlund Hellgren
Rebecka Brattlund Hellgren
Charlotte BergCharlotte Berg
Charlotte Berg
UWUppsala Wallenbeck
Uppsala Wallenbeck
Nitrogen gas (N2) delivered in high expansion foam in a closed container could be a feasible method for humanely stunning pigs. This study aimed to evaluate potential aversion in pigs to the N2 foam method and its effect on stun quality. Furthermore, the study aimed to assess potential aversion to the foam itself. Sixty pigs (27.8 ± 4.4 kg) were divided into three treatments and were exposed to either N2-filled foam, air-filled foam, or no foam air. The N2 foam was effective at purging the air from the container and quickly created stable anoxic conditions. The pigs did not show any strong aversive behaviours when exposed to foam. However, they seemed to avoid putting their heads and snouts into the foam when foam levels became high. Escape attempts through the lid also increased when the foam started covering their heads. The mean time to loss of posture was 57.9 s. Based on the results, stunning with the N2 foam technique could be a viable alternative to high concentration CO2 stunning and potentially lead to improved animal welfare at slaughter.