Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:12:50.503Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Auditing animal welfare and making practical improvements in beef-, pork- and sheep-slaughter plants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

T Grandin*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1171, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A welfare audit that utilises numerically scored, animal-based outcome measures has been used successfully by McDonald's and other restaurant companies for over ten years. In 2010, audit data from two restaurant companies indicated that all 30 of their North American plants rendered 95% or more of the cattle insensible with a single shot from a captive-bolt gun. Eight pork plants that used electrical stunning placed the tongs correctly on 99% or more of the pigs. All animals were insensible prior to hoisting. In 32 beef plants, the percentage of cattle vocalising in the stunning area was 5% or less. In 94% of the beef plants and 86% of the pork plants, none of the animals fell during handling. The worst falling score was 2% in two of the plants. High standards were attained by making simple changes. To improve welfare, plant managers did the following: improved stunner maintenance; installed non-slip floors in stun boxes and unloading ramps; and trained employees. To reduce balking and improve animal movement, the following modifications were made: illumination of dark race entrances; moving of lamps to eliminate reflections; reducing equipment noise; stopping employee yelling; installation of solid sides on races or shields to prevent animals from seeing activity outside the facility; and the elimination of air blowing in the faces of approaching animals. Employees were trained to use behavioural principles of animal handling such as the point of balance and the flight zone. The five numerically scored outcome measures in this audit are critical control points that can detect a variety of problems. They are: i) the percentage of animals stunned effectively with a single application of the stunner; ii) the percentage of animals falling during handling must be 1% or less to pass; iii) the percentage of pigs or cattle vocalising (moo, bellow, squeal) in the stun box or while entering into the stun box must be 5% or less to pass (vocalisation scoring is not used for sheep); iv) the percentage of animals moved with an electric goad; and v) the percentage of animals rendered insensible before hoisting must be 100% to pass an audit. An animal is scored as either silent or as a vocaliser and whether stunned correctly with a single application or not stunned correctly. The audit also contains a list of banned practices that will result in an automatic failure. To maintain improvements in handling, 23 plants have installed video cameras that are monitored by auditors viewing the footage over the internet. These external auditors perform numerical scoring at random times throughout the day. Video auditing over the internet is an important new tool for improving welfare.

Type
Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Abbott, TA, Hunter, EJ, Guise, JH and Penny, RHC 1997 The effect of experience of handling on pigs willingness to move. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 371375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00045-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackmore, DK 1984 Differences in behaviour between sheep and cattle during slaughter. Research in Veterinary Science 37: 223226CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourquet, C, Deiss, V, Tannugi, CC and Terlouw, EM 2011 Behaviourial and physiological reactions of cattle in a commercial abattoir: relationship between organisation aspects of the abattoir and animal aspects. Meat Science 88: 158168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.12.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, PS 1952 Problems of electrical stunning. Veterinary Record 64: 255258Google Scholar
Dunn, CS 1990 Stress reactions of cattle undergoing ritual slaughter using two methods of restraint. Veterinary Record 126: 522525Google ScholarPubMed
Geverink, NA, Kappers, A, van de Burgwal, E, Lambooji, E, Blokhuis, JH and Wiegant, VM 1998 Effects of regular moving and handling on the behavioral and physiological responses of pigs to pre-slaughter treatment and consequences for meat quality. Journal of Animal Science 76: 20802085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1982 Pig behaviour studies applied to slaughter plant design. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 141-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(82)90190-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1992 Observations of cattle restraint devices for stunning and slaughter. Animal Welfare 1: 8591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1996 Factors that impede animal movement in slaughter plants. Journal of American Veterinary Medication Association 209: 757759Google ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 1997 Survey of Stunning and Handling in Federally Inspected Beef, Veal, Pork, and Sheep Slaughter Plants. (United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service Project 3602-32000-002-08G. USDA: Beltsville, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1998a Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning practices at slaughter plants. Journal of the American Veterinary Association 212: 3639Google ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 1998b The feasibility of using vocalisation scoring as an indicator of poor welfare during slaughter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 121138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00102-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2001a Solving return to sensibility problems after electrical stunning in commercial pork slaughter plants. Journal of the American Veterinary Medication Association 219: 608611. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.2001.219.608CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 2001b Cattle vocalisations are associated with handing and equipment problems in slaughter plants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71: 191201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00179-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2002 Return to sensibility problems after penetrating captive-bolt stunning of cattle in commercial slaughter plants. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 221: 12581261. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.2002.221.1258CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 2005 Maintenance of good animal welfare standards in beef slaughter plants by use of auditory programs. Journal American Veterinary Medical Association 226: 370373. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.2005.226.370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2007 Livestock Handling and Transport. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, Oxon, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781845932190.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2010a Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach. CABI International: Wallingford, Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2010b Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines and Audit Guide: A Systematic Approach to Animal Welfare. American Meat Institute Foundation: Washington DC: USA. www.animal-handling.org (Accessed April 3, 2010)Google Scholar
Grandin, T 2010c Auditing animal welfare in slaughter plants. Meat Science 86: 5665. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. meatsci.2010.04.022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, NG 2007 Animal Welfare and Meat Production. CABI Publishing: Wallingford, Oxon, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambooij, E 1982 Electric stunning of sheep. Meat Science 6: 123135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(82)90022-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambooij, E and Spanjaard, W 1982 Electric stunning of veal calves. Meat Science 6: 1525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(82)90047-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanier, JL, Grandin, T, Green, RD, Avery, D and McGee, K 2000 The relationship between reaction to sudden intermittent movements and sounds and temperament. Journal of Animal Science 78: 467474CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchant-Forde, JN, Lay, DC, Pajor, JA, Richert, BT and Schinckel, AP 2003 The effects of ractopamine on the behavior and physiology of finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 81: 416422CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
OIE 2009 Chapter 7.5 Slaughter of Animals. Terrestrial Animal Health Code, World Organization for Animal Health, 18th Edition. OIE: Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
Poletto, R, Rostagno, MH, Richert, ET and Marchant-Forde, JN 2009 Effects of ‘step up’ ractopamine feeding program, sex and social rank on growth performance, hoof lesions and Enterobacteriaceae shedding in finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 87: 304313. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1188CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Talling, JC, Waran, NK, Wathes, CM, and Lines, JA 1998 Sound avoidance by domestic pigs depends on characteristics of the signal. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 255266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00142-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanida, H, Miura, A, Tanaka, T and Yosimoto, T 1996 Behavioural responses of piglets to darkness and shadows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49: 173183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(96)01039-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Putten, G and Elshof, WJ 1978 Observations of the effects of transportation the well-being and lean quality of slaughter pigs. Animal Regulation Studies 1: 247271Google Scholar
Vogel, KD, Badram, JR, Claus, JR, Grandin, T, Turpin, S, Weyker, S and Voogd, E 2010 Head only followed by cardiac arrest electric stunning is an effective alternative to head only electric stunning in pigs. Journal of Animal Sciences 89: 14121418. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-2920Google ScholarPubMed
Warriss, PD, Brown, S and Adams, SJM 1994 Relationship between subjective and objective assessment of stress at slaughter and meat quality in pigs. Meat Science 38: 329340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(94)90121-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waynert, DF, Stookey, J, Schartzkopf-Genswein, KS and Watts, CA 1999 The response of beef cattle to noise during handling. Applied Animal Behavior Science 62: 2742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00211-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Braithwaite, LA and Fraser, D 1998 Vocal response to pain in piglets. Applied Animal Science Behaviour 61: 161172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00092-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, CA, Brown SN Warriss, PD, Lane, S and Heason, L 2009 Noise levels in lairages for cattle, sheep and pigs in abattoirs in England and Wales. Veterinary Record 165: 308314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.165.11.308CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, RG, DeShazer, IA, Tressler, CJ, Borcher, GM, Davey, S, Waninge, A, Parkhurst, AM, Milanuk, MJ and Clems, ET 1995 Vocalizations and physiological response of pigs during castration with and without anesthetic. Journal of Animal Science 73: 381386CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wotton, SB and Gregory, NG 1986 Pig slaughtering procedures: time to loss of brain responsiveness after exsanguination or cardiac arrest. Research in Veterinary Science 40: 148151CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed