State of Animals Ch 06
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.