Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:47:19.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing measures to audit welfare of cattle and pigs at slaughter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

T Grandin
T Grandin*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins CO 80523, USA; email: [email protected]
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.

Since 1999, animal welfare auditing programmes that utilise five numerically scored core criteria have been used successfully by major restaurant chains to monitor animal welfare in slaughter plants. They had to achieve specific numerical scores in order to remain on the approved supplier list. The five numerically scored criteria (critical control points) are: i) Percentage of animals that fall down during handling; ii) Percentage of animals moved with an electric prod; iii) Percentage of cattle or pigs vocalising in the stunning box or restrainer; iv) Percentage of animals stunned effectively with one application of the stunner; and v) Percentage rendered insensible when hoisted to the bleed rail (has to be 100% to pass the audit). Audit data collected in 2010 by two restaurant companies in 30 beef plants, indicated that 77% of them effectively stunned 100 to 99% of the cattle with a single shot from a captive-bolt gun. All 30 plants passed the audit, which required 95% of more of the cattle stunned with one shot. In eight pork plants with electric stunning, the tongs were placed correctly on 100% of the pigs held in a V-conveyor restrainer. In 95% of the beef plants, and 86% of 25 pork plants, 0% of the animals fell during unloading, movement in the lairage and during handling in the stunning area. In 81% of the beef plants and 77% of the pork plants, 5% or less of the animals were moved with an electric prod. The percentage of cattle vocalising in the stun box and during movement into the stun box was 3% or less in all the plants except one. All scores are per animal, an animal is stunned correctly in the first shot, or not stunned correctly. It either vocalises or it is silent. A passing score is required on all five of the numerically scored core criteria. Due to financial and time constrains, the same auditor assesses both welfare and food safety. Workshops for training auditors last 1.5 days and include two plant visits.

Keywords

animal welfareauditscattlepigsslaughterstunning
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue 3: Selected papers from the 5th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , August 2012 , pp. 351 - 356
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
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bourquet, C, Deiss, V, Tannugi, CC and Terlouw, EM 2011 Behavioral and physiological reactions of cattle in a commercial abattoir: The relationship between organizational aspects of the abattoir and animal aspects. Meat Science 88: 158–168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.12.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, CS 1990 Stress reactions of cattle undergoing ritual slaughter using two methods of restraint. Veterinary Record 126: 522–525Google ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 1996 Factors that impede animal movement in slaughter plants. Journal of American Veterinary Medication Association 209: 757–759Google ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 1997a Good Management Practices for Animal Handling and Stunning. American Meat Institute: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1997b 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 The feasibility of using vocalization scoring as an indicator of poor welfare during slaughter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 121–13810.1016/S0168-1591(97)00102-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 1998b Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning practices at slaughter plants. Journal of the American Veterinary Association 212: 36–39Google ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 2000 Effect of animal welfare audits of slaughter plants by a major fast food company on cattle handling and stunning practices. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 216: 848–851CrossRefGoogle 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: 608–611CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 2001b Cattle vocalizations are associated with handing and equipment problems in slaughter plants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71: 191–201CrossRefGoogle 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: 1258–1261CrossRefGoogle 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: 370–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2010a 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 2010b Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants. Meat Science 86: 56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velarde, A, Gispert, M, Faucitano, L, Mantecca, X and Diestre, A 2000 Survey of the effectiveness of stunning procedures used in Spanish pig abattoirs. Veterinary Record 146: 65–68CrossRefGoogle 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: 329–34010.1016/0309-1740(94)90121-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welfare Quality® 2009 Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
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: 381–386CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wray, HR, Main, DCJ, Green, LE and Webster, AJF 2003 Assessment of welfare of dairy cattle using animal based measurements, direct observations, and investigation of farm records. Veterinary Record 153: 197–202Google Scholar