Progress in Livestock Handling and Slaughter Techniques 6CHAPTER in the United States, 1970–2000

Temple Grandin

have worked as a consultant to the reaction to CO2 gas. Some studies allows a plant to engage in interstate meat industry since the early show evidence of aversion; others do commerce, regardless of who the I 1970s. I’ve been in more than 300 not (Forslid 1987; Grandin 1988a; buyer is.) The act was also extended slaughter plants in the United States, Dodman 1977; Raj et al. 1997). My to cover the handling of animals prior Canada, Mexico, Europe, Australia, own observations lead me to believe to slaughter while they were on the New Zealand, and South America. that some pigs can be anesthetized premises of the slaughter plant. Cruel During the course of my career, I’ve peacefully with CO2 while others fran- practices such as dragging conscious, seen many changes take place, but tically attempt to escape when they crippled, non-ambulatory (downed) I’m going to focus in this paper on my first smell the gas (Grandin 1988a). animals were prohibited. However, work to improve conditions for the Genetic factors appear to influence the handling of animals for ritual slaughter of cattle and calves and the reaction. Purebred Yorkshire pigs slaughter was—and is—exempt, as is later address transport and other ani- are anesthetized peacefully (Forslid the slaughter of poultry. In ritual mal-handling issues. 1987), for example, while other slaughter, both kosher (Jewish) and The U.S. Humane Slaughter Act, strains become agitated prior to halal (Muslim), the throat of an passed in 1958, required that all meat being anesthetized (Grandin 1988a; unstunned animal is cut. sold to the federal government had to Dodman 1977). Jongman et al. come from animals that had been (2000) found that for Landrace– humanely slaughtered. Use of the Large White crossbreeds breathing My First Project pole axe to render animals uncon- either 60 percent or 90 percent My career started at the Swift Fresh scious and the bleeding of fully con- CO2 was less aversive than a shock Meats plant in Tolleson, Arizona, in scious pigs were replaced by use of from an electric prod. CO2, it may 1973. The plant manager allowed me the captive bolt stunning pistol in be noted, causes highly variable reac- to visit every week so I could learn the cattle and administration of either tions in people. It causes anxiety in industry. Nobody knew who I was and carbon dioxide (CO2) or electrical some and has little effect on others no attempt was made by the plant stunning for pigs. This change was a (Perna et al. 1994; Biber et al. 1999; employees to be on “good behavior” major step forward, since scientific Perna et al. 1996). It is my opinion while I was there. studies show that both electrical that CO2 is suitable for some genetic The equipment available was of stunning and captive bolt stunning types of pigs but causes problems poor quality, but at a line speed of will instantly render animals insensi- with other genetic types. CO2 experi- 165 cattle per hour, most animals ble to pain (see reviews by Grandin ments should be conducted with were stunned correctly with one shot 1994, 1985/86; Eikelenboom 1983; stress-susceptible pigs, in particular. from a captive bolt pistol. Swift had a UFAW 1987; Gregory 1998). The potential of other gases, such as stunning box that consisted of a long, Unfortunately, however, CO2- argon, for use in stunning is also wor- narrow stall in which three cattle at a induced stunning is not instanta- thy of investigation. time were loaded. If the animals neous, and there has been controversy In 1978 the Humane Slaughter Act became agitated while in the box, within the scientific community over was amended to cover all federally they jumped on top of each other. whether animals have an adverse inspected plants. (Federal inspection Another problem was that slaughter

101 plants were heavily unionized, and system was safer for plant employees union work rules made it very diffi- and much less stressful for the cattle. Kosher cult to discipline any employees who The one the plant engineer at Swift deliberately abused the cattle. and I installed was the third V con- Slaughter In 1974 I worked on my first equip- veyor restrainer system in the United ment project, replacing the stunning States. By 1980 the V conveyor in the 1970s Late in the 1970s, I had the opportu- box at the Swift plant with a new restrainer had replaced many of the nity to observe kosher slaughter at device, a V conveyor restrainer. This dreadful old stunning boxes that had Spencer Foods, the world’s largest system, a larger version of a system held several panicked cattle at a time. kosher slaughter plant. Cattle weigh- already in use for the slaughter of (Today, stunning boxes are used main- ing 1,200 pounds each were hoisted pigs (Regensberger 1940), had been ly in small plants; those that hold only off the floor by one back leg, and a constructed in the early 1970s by one animal work very well in such cir- nose tong attached to a powerful air Oscar Schmidt of Cincinnati Butch- cumstances, provided they have non- cylinder was used to stretch their er’s Supply Company and Don slip floors.) neck so that the schochet, a rabbi Willems of Armour Company. The ani- who performs kosher slaughtering, mals rode along supported by two could make the throat cut. I was hor- conveyors. Compared to the old mul- rified at the sight and sounds of bel- tiple-animal stunning box, it was a lowing, thrashing beasts. Workers great improvement. The V conveyor wore football helmets to protect their heads from the animals’ flailing front hooves. I could even hear the cattle bellowing from the plant’s office and parking lot. I vowed I would design a system to restrain the cattle in a more comfortable upright position. Many of the smaller kosher slaughter plants that slaughtered large cattle used a holding box called the ASPCA pen (Marshall 1963) (Figure 1). The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) had bought the patents on the box in the 1960s so that any plant could use the box royalty free. Spencer Foods slaughtered 150 cattle per hour, and it would have had to buy two ASPCA pens—and construct a building addi- tion—to accommodate this volume of traffic. Since pre-slaughter handling for kosher slaughter was exempt from the Humane Slaughter Act, shackling and hoisting fully conscious cattle was an economical alternative. I proposed to plant management the idea of building a head-holding device on the V conveyor restrainer. (It is completely described in Grandin 1980a.) I worked with Spencer to help design the system, which involved no structural alterations to the building already in use. For the large kosher plant, it was a great improvement over shackling and hoisting. To reduce stress on the animal, the belly lift should not lift the animal off the floor. All The next big improvement in parts of the apparatus that press against the animal should be equipped with pressure- equipment was the development of limiting devices and move with a slow, steady, smooth motion. upright restraint devices for kosher-

102 The State of the Animals: 2001 slaughtered calves and sheep. The major projects. The first was the positioned the calves’ legs on each Council for Livestock Protection design for a curved chute and V con- side of the moving conveyor. For the (CLP)—a consortium of The Humane veyor system for Moyer Packing. The first time, equipment was available to Society of the United States, Ameri- second one was the completion of the replace shackling and hoisting of can Humane Association, The Fund project that the University of Con- kosher calves and sheep. The new sys- for Animals, Massachusetts Society necticut had started ten years earlier. tem was later installed in two other for the Prevention of Cruelty to Ani- Curved chute systems were an impor- veal plants. mals, and others—funded research at tant innovation for handling cattle the University of Connecticut to because cattle move more easily develop a system for holding calves around a curve (Figure 2). (These sys- The 1990s and sheep in an upright position for tems are described in Grandin kosher slaughter. At that time the 1980b,c, 1987, 1998c, 2000a.) and Behavioral only piece of equipment available for Curved chutes with solid sides, in par- holding an animal in an upright posi- ticular, facilitate cattle movement Principles tion was the ASPCA pen for adult cat- because they take advantage of cat- By the end of 1999, half of all the cat- tle. A restraint device was needed to tle’s natural tendency to want to tle in the United States and Canada replace the shackling and hoisting of return to where they came from. The were being handled in systems I had calves and sheep. A laboratory proto- chute’s solid sides and curves prevent designed for slaughter plants. I had type was completed during the early cattle from seeing moving people and received a grant to make a large-cat- 1970s (Giger et al. 1977; Westervelt equipment ahead of them in the tle version of the conveyor system at et al. 1976). Stress research conduct- slaughter facility so the animals are Utica Veal (Grandin 1991, 2000a) ed at the University of Connecticut less likely to react to the sight by (Figure 3). Cattle entered it more demonstrated that having an animal attempting to go backward. easily and rode more quietly than straddle a moving conveyor was a low- In 1986 the CLP asked me to they had in the V conveyor restrainer. stress method of restraint. The labo- design and install the University of One challenge was that adult cattle ratory prototype was a major innova- Connecticut system in a veal calf are wilder and more difficult to han- tion, but many more components had plant, Utica Veal. We rescued the ply- dle than are tame veal calves. The to be developed to make a commer- wood prototype, which was practically first time the restrainer was run at cially viable system. Since no slaugh- on its way to the landfill, and added the Excel plant in Schyler, Nebraska, ter plant was interested in imple- several other components to make it the cattle refused to enter and they menting the design, the prototype work commercially (Grandin 1988b). did not ride quietly as had the tame was put in an old sheep barn. One was a new entrance design that calves at Utica Veal. Two very simple changes solved the problem, and The 1980s and the Kosher Calf Project During the early 1980s, plant line speeds increased and the labor unions were no longer so powerful. The old Swift and Armour plants, which had employed union labor, were closed. They could no longer compete with new companies that paid lower wages and had fewer restrictive work rules. The emphasis was now on speed, speed, and more speed. In some large plants, stunning practices actually worsened compared to conditions in the 1970s. Crews were reduced in size, and cattle were being handled at a rate of 250 per hour. It was a bad Figure 2. time for both the animals and the Cattle stay calmer because they cannot see the handler on the ramp when they first enter meat industry. the chute. A curved chute also takes advantage of the natural tendency of cattle to want to During that decade I completed two head back to where they came from.

Progress in Livestock Handling and Slaughter Techniques in the United States, 1970—2000 103 The cattle ride along on the moving conveyor. Design details are very important. Cattle remain calmer if the solid hold-down rack is long enough to block the animals’ vision until they are completely off the entrance ramp. The solid false floor prevents cattle from seeing a steep drop-off under the conveyor. In a well-designed system that has proper lighting, 95 percent of the cattle will enter without the use of an electric prod. their success showed the power of removing parts they perceive as I designed a new head-holding device using behavior modification, instead unnecessary. They have not been able for the center-track restrainer (Figure of force, to handle cattle. Both to understand why a piece of metal 4). The new design was a great changes calmed the cattle by control- that blocked the animal’s vision was improvement over the system at ling what they could see. so important. Spencer Foods. The new head holder First, I installed a false floor made At one plant I visited recently, cat- was very similar to the one on an of the conveyor belting. Since the tle were balking, refusing to enter the ASPCA pen. It was mounted on two restrainer conveyor was seven feet off restrainer or not riding quietly. The sliding doors, and the two halves of the floor, the entering cattle had been equipment company had left out the the chin lift slid apart sideways greeted by a “visual cliff” effect. false floor and had shortened the (Grandin 2000a). Ruminants such as cattle and sheep piece of metal that blocked the ani- Employee safety was a major reason can perceive depth (Lemman and Pat- mals’ vision. It had also added a corporations sought to eliminate terson 1964). The belting under the hydraulic cylinder to forcibly push shackling and hoisting of fully con- conveyor provided the animals with rearing cattle down, thinking that scious cattle. Another was Henry the illusion of a solid floor to walk on this was an improvement! I had the Spira, a well-known animal activist, (Grandin 1991, 2000a). maintenance shop build a false floor who wrote letters pointing out the The second change was even easier. and add more metal sheeting to block method’s shortcomings to several A piece of cardboard positioned six the cattle’s vision. After these parts corporations still using it. Today 90 inches above the animals’ backs were installed, the cattle rode calmly. percent of the kosher-slaughtered cat- blocked the animals’ vision straight A two-foot difference in a piece of tle in the United States are held in an ahead. The cardboard was replaced metal was the difference between upright restraint system. (Unfortu- with metal, and the system worked calm and agitated cattle. nately, about half the kosher veal perfectly. Twenty-five of these center- calves and most of the kosher sheep track restrainer systems are now in in the United States are still shackled use around the world. Kosher and hoisted prior to the throat cut.) Although the center-track conveyor In Europe, Canada, and Australia, restrainer was rapidly adopted by the Slaughter upright restraint is now required for industry, one of my biggest frustra- all animals. However, countries such tions has been getting people to fully in the 1990s as Uruguay and Guatemala still use understand the power of using behav- Between 1993 and 1995, several large shackling and hoisting techniques. ioral principles to handle animals. shackle-hoist systems were ripped out Both export meat to Israel and the Equipment companies have often and replaced with either ASPCA pens United States. tried to “improve” the restrainer by or a center-track restrainer system. From an animal welfare perspec- 104 The State of the Animals: 2001 How Stressful is Slaughter? Literature shows equivalent levels of cortisol, a stress hormone, in animals handled at slaughter plants and in animals restrained for vaccinations on the farm. Walking through the chutes at a slaughter plant does cause some stress, but it is similar to that of on-farm restraint and han- dling (Grandin 1997a reviewed Lay et al. 1992; Crookshank et al. 1979; Ray et al. 1972; Zavy et al. 1992; Mitchell et al. 1988; Ewbank et al. 1992; Dunn 1990; Cockram and Corley 1991; Tume and Shaw 1992.) The cortisol range for both on-farm handling and cattle slaughter was 24 to 63 ng/mL. The one exception was a kosher plant that inverted cattle on their backs for 103 seconds; those animals had 93 ng/mL (Dunn 1990). Current Cattle Industry Problems (A) Bi-parting sliding doors with the two halves of the chin lift mounted on them. At the beginning of my career, I (B) Forehead bracket slides up and down. A three-inch-diameter pipe fits behind the thought I could fix all plant problems animal’s poll. (C) A chin-lift yoke raises the head. The chin lift pivots on the sliding with better engineering. I do not doors. (D) The conveyor on which the animal is riding is stopped. believe this today! By the 1990s the meat industry had cattle handling tive, the variables of kosher slaugh- From my work with kosher restraint equipment that was vastly superior to ter—the throat cut and the method devices, I developed four behavior- the equipment in the old Swift plant, of restraint—must be evaluated sepa- based principles of restraint. They but good equipment and engineering rately. When conscious animals are are: 1) the animal’s vision should be are only one-third of the equation. shackled and hoisted, it is impossible blocked so that the animal does not Good management and well-trained to observe the reaction to the throat see people and other moving objects; employees make up the other two- cut itself because the suspended ani- the view of a pathway for escape thirds. Good equipment provides the mal is fighting the highly stressful should also be blocked until the ani- tools that make good handling easier, restraint. Once I had built a restraint mal is fully restrained; 2) optimal but it is useless without good man- device that would hold the animal pressure of holding machinery should agement. In a few poorly managed gently, it became possible to observe not be too tight or too loose, otherwise plants, some of the worst acts of cru- the reactions to the throat cut, or the animal will struggle; 3) equipment elty I have witnessed happened with shechita. When the cut is made cor- should operate with a slow, steady equipment I designed. In these cases, rectly, the animal appears not to feel movement; sudden jerky motion employees were completely unsuper- it (Grandin 1994, 1992; Grandin and scares the animal; and 4) the fear-of- vised. For most of my career, I worked Regenstein 1994). When the head falling righting reflex should not be trig- with the meat industry primarily as a holder was loose enough for the ani- gered; the restrainer must either fully designer and supervisor of equipment mal to move it, the animal did not support an animal or have non-slip installation, so I was able to witness move at all when the cut was per- footing (Grandin 2000a, 1994). “normal” employee behavior. formed correctly. In the mid-1990s, cattle stunning was a definite problem. In 1996 only

Progress in Livestock Handling and Slaughter Techniques in the United States, 1970—2000 105 30 percent of the plants stunned 95 percent of their cattle correctly— Employee A Major Change with one shot (Grandin 1997a,b). I saw more improvement in both han- Cattle were re-stunned prior to bleed- Psychology dling and stunning from 1997 to ing. (Pig stunning was much better, I have observed hundreds of people 1999 than I had seen previously in my with 90 percent of the plants stun- working in slaughter plants. They fall entire career. Two fast-food compa- ning pigs correctly. Eisnitz [1997] into three basic psychology types: 1) nies started auditing U.S. plants dur- did describe horrific conditions in box stapler 2) sacred ritual 3) sadist ing 1999 to make sure they complied two terrible plants, where pigs were (Grandin 1988c). The vast majority of with the American Meat Institute scalded alive and cattle were skinned the employees who stun cattle Guidelines (Grandin 1997c). Both alive. I have observed many abuses, become “box staplers.” They do their federally inspected beef and pork such as broken stun guns, the drag- job as if they were stapling boxes on plants were scored objectively. Many ging of downed, crippled animals, and an assembly line. They will seldom plants now have better stunner main- deliberately driving animals over the engage in deliberate cruelty. Rabbis tenance, and electric prod usage has top of a downed animal; but in the who perform kosher slaughter view it been greatly reduced. One company vast majority of plants, I have never as a religious ritual and they concen- audited forty-one beef plants in 1999; observed live pigs going into the trate on their work within that con- I was present at about half of the scalder or live cattle being dismem- text. Unfortunately, there are a few audits. By end of 1999, 90 percent of bered. When a live pig is scalded, the people who become sadists, and man- beef plants were stunning 95 percent USDA will usually condemn the car- agement should remove them from of the cattle they processed with one cass as unfit because water has been contact with animals. shot; 37 percent were stunning 99 aspirated into the lungs. This pro- The well-managed plant has a man- percent to 100 percent with one shot vides an economic incentive to stun ager or quality-control person who (Grandin 2000b). If the first shot and bleed pigs properly.) acts as a “conscience” to control missed, the animal was immediately People often mistakenly equate behavior. In a poorly managed plant, restunned. (This was a big improve- reflexive kicking with animal con- employees may become rough unless ment over performance noted in sciousness. Grandin (1994) and Gre- someone in authority controls their the 1996 USDA survey [Grandin gory (1998) explain how to assess behavior. It is important not to over- 1997a,b].) Large flags were being insensibility. The beef plant described work employees who handle or stun used to move pigs, and a piece of plas- by Eisnitz (1997) was a small plant animals. Bad behavior is more likely tic on a stick was being used to move where the same employee who bled to occur if the employee is over- cattle. These devices had replaced the animal also skinned the head. whelmed or if equipment is in need of many electric prods. Doing something terrible like skin- repair. For good conditions, animal- In beef production, plants were ning a live head is more likely to handling and -stunning jobs must not scored on percentage of cattle occur in a small plant where the same be understaffed. stunned with one shot, insensibility person performs both bleeding and I have observed that many plants on the bleed rail, and vocalization the initial stages of skinning. In a will have good management and good during handling. Vocalization (moos large plant, stunned and bled cattle handling in the stockyards, but super- and bellows) is a sensitive indicator carcasses suspended by one rear leg vision in the stunning area will be of welfare-related problems such as are moved along a power chain. The poor. This trend was very evident in excessive electric prod use, slipping first part of the animal skinned after my USDA survey (Grandin 1997a,b). and falling, missed stunner shots, and bleeding is the free rear leg. Skinning People who are too close to killing all excessive pressure from a restraint a “live” leg is very dangerous because the time become callous. The person device (Grandin 1998a,b). it will kick the worker in the face. The who supervises employee behavior in Researchers have found that vocal- employees who do “legging,” there- the stunning area must be involved ization in both cattle and pigs is cor- fore, put a lot of pressure on the stun- enough in the day-to-day operations related with physiological indicators ner operator and bleeder to make to care about the process, but not of stress (Dunn 1990; Warriss et al. sure cattle are dead before they reach so involved that he/she becomes cal- 1994; White et al. 1995). Vocalization the legging stand. (It should be lous and indifferent to suffering. (In is also correlated with pain (Watts noted, however, that supervisors also my USDA survey, the two worst- and Stookey 1998; Weary 1998). put pressure on stunner operators to behaved employees were kill fore- Vocalization scoring can pinpoint keep the line moving rapidly, so oper- men.) The supervisor must have the handling problems. Beef plants with ators may not always be so careful authority to discipline employees who good handling practices will have 3 about making sure that the animals abuse animals. percent or less of their cattle vocaliz- are stunned properly.) ing during handling in the stunning chute (Grandin 1998b). (To keep scoring simple, vocalization is scored

106 The State of the Animals: 2001 Table 1 Improvements in Vocalization Percentages in a Cow Slaughter Plant When Practices and Equipment Were Changed

Audits Vocalization (percentages) Practices and Equipment

1 17 V conveyor restrainer—cows balked at the restrainer entrance and excessive use of electric prod caused vocalization

2 14 No changes in model

3 7 Employee training on reducing prod usage

4 10 Continued working with employees

5 9 Continued working with employees

6 5 Removed V conveyor restrainer and replaced center-track conveyor

7 2 Improved lighting, installed false floor and sheet metal to block the cattle’s vision (these had been left out because the equipment installer did not believe they were important)

on a “yes” and “no” basis—a cow distractions can be found in Grandin by Smith et al. indicated that 1.5 per- either vocalizes or it does not. Vocal- 1998c, 1996.) cent of all culled dairy cows arrived at ization in the yards where cattle are People manage the things that a slaughter plant down and unable to standing undisturbed is not scored.) they measure. Bad practices become walk. In the beef industry, 0.77 per- In 1999 74 percent of forty-two U.S. “normal” if there is no standard to cent of the cows were downers. beef plants had vocalization scores which they can be compared. Vocal- In the past thirty years, although of 3 percent or less for cattle. In 1996 ization scoring can be used to chart the handling of beef cattle on ranch- only 43 percent of the plants had a progress as a plant improves its es and feedlots has improved, welfare vocalization score of 3 percent or less. equipment and practices. Table 1 problems in the transport of old, Excessive electric prod use, due to shows vocalization scored from seven culled dairy cows have worsened. cattle balking, had raised vocalization audits of 100 cattle each in a single Genetics is partly to blame. Selection scores to as high as 17 percent at plant. These audits took place over a of individuals for milk production has some plants. period of several months. increased the incidence of lameness. Vocalization scoring can be used to John Webster at Bristol University in chart handling improvement within a the United Kingdom states that the plant. It also works well on feedlots Dairy and Pig typical cow’s foot can no longer sup- and ranches. Vocalization scores will port its weight. A dairy veterinarian in often be higher than 3 percent when Industry Florida told me that the incidence animals are ear-tagged on ranches or and aspects of lameness in dairy cows feedlots. In contrast, it is easy to have Problems are horrendous. Leg conformation is a 0 percent vocalization rate for ani- The number-one transport problem heritable, and good conformation will mals moving through the chutes, in the 1970s—and the number-one help prevent lameness (Boettcher et being restrained in the squeeze transport problem today—is loading al. 1998; Van Dorp et al. 1998). chute, and being vaccinated. onto a truck animals who are not fit Slaughter plant managers and truck The presence of distractions, which for transport. The dairy industry has drivers have reported that dairies that makes cattle balk, makes a 3 percent some of the worst such problems. use bovine somatrophin (BST), bovine or less vocalization score almost Baby dairy calves, who are too young growth hormone, in their dairy herds impossible. The movement of a to walk, are not fit for transport. Ema- sometimes have more thin, weak small chain hanging in a chute, for ciated or lame dairy cows are not fit cows. Administration of BST reduced example, will make an approaching for transport. Downer dairy cows, body condition score (Jordan et al. animal stop and impede the flow those who are unable to walk, are 1991; and West et al. 1990). Unless of the other animals. Lighting a dark more prevalent now than in 1994. the cow is fed very well, it may lose restrainer entrance will often improve Numbers of beef cattle downers have body condition. The degree of body animal movement. (Information on decreased slightly (Smith et al. 1994, condition reduction is related to the debugging systems and removing 1995; Roeber 2001). The 1999 audit dose of BST.

Progress in Livestock Handling and Slaughter Techniques in the United States, 1970—2000 107 Single-trait selection of pigs for lot that handled cattle roughly in the needed to address problems of faulty rapid growth and leanness has creat- squeeze chute recorded a 16 percent stunning equipment, ever-increasing ed pigs who are more fragile and like- drop in feed consumption the follow- line speed, and enforcement of the ly to die during transport. I have ing day. Humane Slaughter Act when viola- observed that death losses during If good stockmanship could be pur- tions occur. transport have tripled in the 1990s chased, everybody would buy it imme- Attitudes can be changed, and that compared to the 1980s. Some hybrid diately. I have observed that people change can improve both animal wel- pigs are very excitable, which makes buy twice as many books on corral fare and productivity. handling them more difficult design as videos on low-stress cattle (Grandin 2000a). These pigs act as handling and stockmanship princi- though they have high sympathetic ples. They would rather buy equip- Literature Cited nervous system arousal. A tap on the ment than change their behavior. To Biber B., and T. Alkin. 1999. Panic rump will make them squeal. Normal be a really good stockman, one has disorder subtypes: differential pigs are much less likely to startle. to change one’s attitude toward the responses to CO2 challenge 38% Pigs who are selected solely for pro- animals. Animals can no longer be CO2, 65% 02. American Journal of ductivity may have a loss of disease viewed simply as economic units. Psychiatry 156: 739–744. resistance. Genetic factors affect sus- I have observed that when people Boettcher, P.J., J.C. Dekkers, L.O. ceptibility to disease. on farms and in feedlots and meat Warnick, and S.J. Wells. 1998. One of my biggest concerns is the plants start handling animals more Genetic analysis of lameness in cat- possibility that producers are pushing gently, their attitudes toward the tle. Journal of Dairy Science 81: animals beyond their biological lim- animals change. In 1999 when one 1148–56. its. The pig industry, for example, has company’s audits started, many Cockram, M.S., and K.T.T. Corley. repeated most of the mistakes that workers at the company’s plants 1991. Effect of pre-slaughter han- the broiler-chicken industry made. replaced electric prods with other dling on the behaviour and blood Genetic traits are linked in unexpect- driving aids such as flags. I noticed composition of beef cattle. British ed ways. Some pigs grow so fast that that the employees’ manner towards Veterinary Journal 147: 444–54. they have very weak bones. These pigs the animals changed. Instead of Crookshank, H.R., M.H. Elissalde, have large bulging muscles but are so aggressively poking at animals with R.G. White, D.C. Clanton, and H.E. fragile that livestock insurance com- an electric prod, they patted them Smalley. 1979. Effect of transporta- panies will not sell transport insur- gently on the rear. Changing the tion and handling of calves on ance to producers to cover them. For- worker’s actions helps to change the blood serum composition. Journal tunately, some breeders are now worker’s attitudes. of Animal Science 48: 430–35. selecting for more “moderate” pigs, Dodman, N.H. 1977. Observations on which will have fewer problems. the use of the Wernberg dip-lift car- Conclusions bon dioxide apparatus for pre- Promoting better stockmanship is slaughter anesthesia of pigs. British Good essential to improving animal welfare. Veterinary Journal 133: 71–80. Large meat-buying customers such as Dunn, C.S. 1990. Stress reactions of Stockmanship fast-food restaurants in the United cattle undergoing ritual slaughter States and supermarket chains in the using two methods of restraint. Vet- Pays United Kingdom can motivate great erinary Record 126: 522–25. Good stockmanship can improve pro- change by insisting that suppliers Eikelenboom, G. (ed.). 1983. Stunning ductivity of pigs and dairy cattle by uphold better animal welfare stan- animals for slaughter. The Hague, more than 10 percent (Hemsworth dards. The greatest advances of the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. 1998; Rushen et al. 1999). Animals last thirty years have been the result Eisnitz, G.A. 1997. Slaughterhouse. who are fearful around their caretak- of company audits. To maintain such Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ers are less productive. They experi- progress, handling and stunning must Ewbank, R., M.J. Parker, and C.W. ence lower weight gain and lower be continually audited, measured, Mason. 1992. Reactions of cattle milk production. Pigs have fewer and managed. Handlers tend to revert to head restraint at stunning: A piglets. At the highest-producing to rough handling unless they are practical dilemma. Animal Welfare dairy in Colorado, the cows are very monitored and managed. An objec- 1: 55–63. tame and approach people for pet- tive scoring system provides a stan- Forslid, A. 1987. Transient neocorti- ting. Good stockmanship costs very dard that can be upheld. An over- col, hippocampal, and amygdaaloid little. Feedlots that handle cattle gen- worked employee cannot do a good EEG silence induced by one-minute tly find that the animals go back onto job of taking care of animals. Good infiltration of high concentration their feed more quickly than those stockmanship requires adequate CO2 in swine. Acta Physiologica who aren’t handled gently. One feed- staffing levels. More efforts are also Scandinavica 130: 1–10. 108 The State of the Animals: 2001 Giger, W., R.P. Prince, R.G. Wester- ——————. 1996. Factors that 1998. Human-livestock interac- velt, and D.M. Kinsman. 1977. impede animal movement at tions. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB Inter- Equipment for low-stress animal slaughter plants. Journal of the national. slaughter. Transactions of the American Veterinary Medical Asso- Jongman, E.C., J.C. Barnett, and P.H. American Society of Agricultural ciation 209: 757–59. Hemsworth. 2000. The aversiveness Engineers 20: 571–78. ——————. 1997a. Assessment of of carbon dioxide stunning in pigs Grandin, T. 1980a. Problems with stress during handling and trans- and a comparison of the CO2 stun- kosher slaughter. International port. Journal of Animal Sci- ner crate vs. the V restrainer. Journal of the Study of Animal Prob- ence 75: 249–57. Applied Animal Behavior Science lems 1(6): 375–90. ——————. 1997b. Survey of han- 67: 67–76. ——————. 1980b. Livestock beha- dling and stunning in federally Jordan, D.C., A.A. Aquilar, J.D. Olson, vior as related to handling-facili- inspected beef, pork, veal, and C. Bailey, G.F. Hartnell, and K.S. ty design. International Journal of sheep slaughter plants. ARS Madsen. 1991. Effects of recombi- the Study of Animal Problems 1: Research Project No. 3602-32000- nant methionyl bovine somatrophic 33–52. 002-08G. Washington, D.C.: U.S. (sometribove) in high-producing ——————. 1980c. Observations Department of Agriculture. cow’s milk three times a day. Jour- of cattle behavior applied to the de- ——————. 1997c. Good manage- nal of Dairy Science 74: 220–26. sign of cattle-handling facilities. ment practices for animal handling Lay, D.C., T.H. Friend, R.D. Randel, C.I. Applied Animal Ethology 6: 10–31. and stunning. Washington, D.C.: Bowers, K.K. Grisson, O.C. Jenkins. ——————. 1985/86. Cardiac American Meat Institute. 1992. Behaviorial and physiological arrest stunning of livestock and ——————. 1998a. Objective scor- effects of freeze and hot iron brand- poultry. Pp. 1–30 in Advances in ing of animal handling and stun- ing on crossbred cattle, Journal of Animal Welfare Science, ed. M.W. ning practices in slaughter plants. Animal Science 70: 330–336. Fox and L.D. Mickley. Boston: Mart- Journal of the American Veterinary Lemmon, W.B., and G.H. Patterson. inus Nijhoff. Medical Association 212: 36–93. 1964. Effects of interrupting the ——————. 1987. Animal han- ——————. 1998b. The feasibility mother-neonate bond. Science 145: dling. Veterinary Clinics of North of using vocalization scoring as 835–36. America Food Animal Practice 3: an indicator of poor welfare dur- Marshall, M., E.E. Milburg, and 323–38. ing slaughter. Applied Animal E.W. Schultz. 1963. Apparatus ——————. 1988a. Possible ge- Behavior Science 56: 121–28. for holding cattle in position for netic effect on pig’s reaction to ——————. 1998c. Solving live- humane slaughtering. U.S. Patent CO2 stunning. In Proceedings, stock handling problems in slaugh- 3,092,871. Thirty-fourth International Con- ter plants. In Animal welfare and Mitchell, G., J. Hattingh, and M. Gan- gress of Meat Science and Technolo- meat science, ed. N.G. Gregory. hao. 1988. Stress in cattle assessed gy. Cannon Hill, Queensland, Aus- Wallingford, U.K.: CAB Interna- after handling, transport, and tralia: CSIRO Meat Research tional. slaughter. Veterinary Record 123: Laboratory. ——————. 2000a. Livestock han- 201–05. ——————. 1988b. Double-rail dling and transport. Second Edi- Perna, G., M. Battaglia, A. Garberi, C. restrainer conveyor for livestock tion. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB Inter- Arancio, A. Bertani, L. Bellodi. handling. Journal of Agricultural national. 1994. Carbon dioxide/oxygen chal- Engineering Research 41: 327–38. ——————. 2000b. 1999 Audits of lenge test in panic disorder. Direc- ——————. 1988c. Behavior of stunning and handling in federal- tory of Psychiatry Residency Train- slaughter plant and auction ly inspected beef and pork ing Programs 52: 159–171. employees. Anthrozoös 4: 205–13. plants. Paper presented, Ameri- Perna, G., A. Bertani, D. Caldirola, L. ——————. 1991. Double-rail can Meat Institute 2000 Confer- Bellodi. 1996. Family history of restrainer for handling beef cattle. ence on Handling and Stunning, panic disorder and hyper-sensitivity Paper No. 91-5004. St. Joseph, Kansas City, Mo. to CO2 in patients with panic disor- Mich.: American Society of Agri- Grandin, T., and J.M. Regenstein. der. American Journal of Psychiatry cultural Engineers. 1994. Religious slaughter and ani- 153: 1060–1064. ——————. 1992. Observations of mal welfare: A discussion for meat Raj, A.B., S.P. Johnson, S.B. Wotton, cattle-restraint devices for stun- scientists. Pp. 115–23 in Meat Focus and J.L. McInstry. 1997. Welfare ning and slaughtering. Animal International. Wallingford, U.K.: implications of gas stunning of Welfare 1: 85–91. CAB International. pigs: The time to loss of somatosen- ——————. 1994. Euthanasia Gregory, N.G., and T. Grandin. 1998. sory-evolved potentials and sponta- and slaughter of livestock. Jour- Animal welfare and meat science. neous electrocorticogram of pigs nal of the American Veterinary Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International. during exposure to gasses. Veteri- Medical Association 204: 1354–60. Hemsworth, P.H., and G.J. Coleman.

Progress in Livestock Handling and Slaughter Techniques in the United States, 1970—2000 109 nary Journal 153: 329–39. Watts, J.M., and J.M. Stookey. 1998. Ray, D.R., W.H. Hansen, B. Theurer, Effects of restraint and branding on G.H. Stott. 1972. Physical stress rates and acoustic parameters of and cortisol levels in steers. Pro- vocalization in beef cattle. Applied ceedings Western Section: American Animal Behavior Science 62: Society of Animal Science 23: 125–35. 255–259. Weary, D.M., L.A. Braithwaite, and D. Regensburger, R.W. 1940. Hog stun- Fraser. 1998. Vocal response to ning pen. U.S. Patent 2,185,949. pain in piglets. Applied Animal Roeber, D.L., P.D. Mies, C.D. Smith, Behavior Science 56: 161–72. K.E. Belk, T.G. Field, J.D. Tatum, West, J.W., K. Bondair, and J.C. John- J.A. Scanga, and G.C. Smith. 2001. son. 1990. Effect of bovine soma- National market cow and bull beef totropin on milk yield and compo- quality audit: 1999: A survey of pro- sition, body weight, and condition ducer-related defects in market score of Holstein and Jersey cows. cows and bulls. Journal of Animal Journal of Dairy Science 73: Science 79: 658–65. 1062–68. Rushen, J., A.A. Taylor, and A.M. de Westervelt, R.G., D. Kinsman, R.P. Pasille. 1999. Domestic animals’ Prince, and W. Giger. 1976. Physio- fear of humans and its effect on logical stress measurement during their welfare. Applied Animal slaughter of calves and lambs. Jour- Behavior Science 65: 285–303. nal of Animal Science 42: 831–34. Smith, G.C., J.B. Morgan, J.D. Tatum, White, R.G., J.A. DeShazer, C.J. C.C. Kukay, M.T. Smith, T.D. Tressler, G.M. Borcher, S. Davey, A. Schnell, and G.G. Hilton. 1994. Waninge, A.M. Parkhurst, M.J. Improving the consistency and Milanuk, and E.T. Clems. 1995. competitiveness of non-fed beef; Vocalizations and physiological and improving the salvage value of response of pigs during castration cull cows and bulls. The final report with and without anesthetic. Jour- of the National Cattlemen’s Beef nal of Animal Science 73: 381–86. Association. Fort Collins: Colorado Van Dorp, T.E., J.C.M. Dekkers, S.W. State University. Martin, and J.P., Noordhuizen, T.M. Smith, G.C., et al. 1995. Improving 1998. Genetic parameters of health the quality, consistency, competi- disorders and relationships with tiveness, and market share of beef: 305-day milk yield and information A blueprint for total quality man- traits in registered dairy cows. agement in the beef industry. The Journal of Dairy Science 81: final report of the National Beef 2264–70. Quality Audit. Fort Collins: Col- Zavy, M.T., P.E. Juniewicz, W.A. orado State University. Phillips, and D.L. Von Tungeln. Tume, R.K., and F.D. Shaw. 1992. 1992. Effects of initial restraint, Beta-endorphin and cortisol con- weaning, and transport stress on centrations in plasma of blood sam- baseline and ACTH-stimulated cor- ples collected during exsanguina- tisol responses in beef calves of dif- tion of cattle. Meat Science 46: ferent genotypes. American Journal 319–27. of Veterinary Research 53: 551–57. Universities Federation Animal Wel- fare (UFAW). 1987. Proceedings, Symposium on Humane Slaughter of Animals. Potters Bar, U.K.: UFAW. Warriss, P.D., S.N. Brown, and S.J.M. Adams. 1994. Relationship between subjective and objective assessment of stress at slaughter and meat quality in pigs. Meat Science 38: 329–40.

110 The State of the Animals: 2001