Auditing Animal Welfare at Slaughter Plants
Meat Science 86 (2010) 56–65
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Meat Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci
Review Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants
Temple Grandin
Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins CO 80523, USA article info abstract
Article history: The OIE Welfare Standards on slaughter transport, and killing of animals for disease control are basic minimum Received 9 January 2010 standards that every country should follow. The OIE, European Union, and many private standards used by Received in revised form 8 April 2010 commercial industry have an emphasis on animal based outcome standards instead of engineering based Accepted 15 April 2010 standards. Numerical scoring is used by both private industry and some governments to access animal welfare at slaughter plants. Five variables are measured. They are: 1) Percentage of animals effectively stunned on the first Keywords: attempt, 2) Percentage rendered insensible, 3) Percentage that vocalize (bellow, moo, squeal) during handling Slaughter welfare Cattle and stunning, 4) Percentage that fall during handling, and 5) Percentage moved with an electric goad. Each one of Pigs these critical control points measures the outcome of many problems. A good animal welfare auditing system also Stunning has standards that prohibit really bad practices such as dragging, dropping, throwing, puntilla, and hoisting live animals before ritual slaughter. On farm and transport problems that can be measured at the slaughter plant are: percentage of lame animals, percentage of thin animals, percentage of dirty animals, percentage with sores, bruises or lesions, death losses, morbidity, and percentage of birds with broken wings and legs. © 2010 The American Meat Science Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 57 2. Different types of standards ...... 57 2.1. Animal based outcome standards ...... 57 2.2. Prohibited practices ...... 57 2.3. Input based engineering standards also called resource based ...... 57 2.4. Documentation standards and paperwork ...... 58 3. Vague wording in standards leads to inconsistent enforcement ...... 58 4. Numerical scoring system for slaughter plants ...... 58 4.1. Percentage of livestock or poultry stunned effectively on the first attempt...... 58 4.1.1. Captive bolt ...... 58 4.1.2. Electrical stunning...... 58 4.1.3. Controlled atmosphere stunning (CAS) ...... 58 4.2. Percentage of livestock or poultry with no signs of return to sensibility ...... 59 4.2.1. Evaluating insensibility in cattle, pigs, sheep, and other mammals ...... 59 4.2.3. Evaluating insensibility in chickens, turkeys, and other poultry...... 59 4.3. Percentage of cattle, pigs, sheep, and other livestock that fall during handling ...... 59 4.4. Percentage of cattle, pigs, sheep, and other livestock that are moved with an electric goad ...... 59 4.5. Percentage of cattle and pigs that vocalize (bellow or squeal) during handling before stunning ...... 59 5. Slaughter without stunning (kosher and halal) ...... 60 5.1. Restrain the animal in a comfortable, upright position ...... 60 5.2. Use a very sharp knife that is twice the width of the neck ...... 60 5.3. Score the interval from the cut to loss of sensibility ...... 60 5.4. Cattle, sheep, and goats must be unconscious before removal from the restrainer ...... 60 6.2. Expensive plant renovations not required in most slaughter plants ...... 60 7. Video auditing to maintain the improvements ...... 60 8. Clear comments are essential ...... 61
E-mail address: [email protected].
0309-1740/$ – see front matter © 2010 The American Meat Science Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04.022 T. Grandin / Meat Science 86 (2010) 56–65 57
9. On-farm and transport animal welfare problems that can be measured in the slaughter plant in cattle, pigs, sheep, and poultry ...... 61 9.1. Body condition score (BCS) ...... 61 9.2. Lameness measure ...... 61 9.3. Foot, leg, and body lesions caused by poor housing or disease ...... 61 9.4. Broken wings and legs on chickens and turkeys ...... 61 9.5. Dead animals on arrival at the slaughter plant (DOAs)...... 61 9.6. Dirty soiled livestock and poultry...... 62 9.7. Scoring of bruised carcasses ...... 62 10. Non-ambulatory downed animals ...... 62 11. Conclusions ...... 62 References ...... 62
1. Introduction records the percentage of animals that fall down, the percentage lame, or the percentage where the stunner fails on the first attempt. Animal welfare is becoming an increasing concern around the One of the first animal based scoring systems for evaluating world (Seng & Laporte, 2005). Managers, veterinarians, and scientists stunning and handling of cattle and pigs at the slaughter plant was need to become more knowledgeable on how to assess and audit developed by Grandin (1997, 1998a). Systems using numerical animal welfare at the slaughter plant. The World Organization for scoring of animal handling are also described in Maria, Villarrael Animal Health (OIE) now has welfare standards for slaughter, and Gebresentbet (2004) and Edge and Barnett (2008). The European transport, and killing animals for disease control (OIE, 2009a,b,c; Union now has a major emphasis on the use of animal based methods Shimshony & Chaudry, 2005). Standards for on farm welfare of beef for evaluating animal welfare (European Union Welfare Quality, cattle and meat (broiler) chicken have preliminary drafts. The OIE 2009). In these programs, animals are evaluated for body condition, standards are basic minimum standards that both the developed and lameness, lesions, abnormal behavior, and many other measures. The developing countries have agreed on. In addition to OIE standards, OIE slaughter and transport guidelines also have animal based each country has its own animal welfare laws and standards (Defra, numerical scoring on the percentage of animals falling and electric 2010; USDA, 2010; MAF, 1996). A third type of standards are private goad use. In both OIE (2009a,b) and Grandin (2010a), handling standards that have been created by either large meat buying practices need improvement if more than 1% of the animals fall during customers, livestock producer groups, or scientific societies (Barnett handling. The Food Safety and Inspection Service of the USDA has now & Hemsworth, 2009; Grandin, 2010a; FASS, 2010, National Pork adopted the use of the numerical scoring system that was developed Board (2008), Soil Association (no date). Some of these are stricter by Grandin (1997, 1998a)(FSIS/USDA, 2009). The use of animal based than either legislated standards or OIE standards. Legislative scoring systems has resulted in great improvements in handling and standards and private standards should avoid being in direct conflict stunning when it was used by restaurant companies to audit slaughter with OIE by allowing practices that should not be used according to plants (Grandin, 2005, 2006). This system has been in use for over ten OIE standards. years by large meat buying customers in many different countries (Grandin, 2010b). 2. Different types of standards Each animal is scored as either acceptable or not acceptable. For example, the percentage of animals where stunning failed on the first 2.1. Animal based outcome standards attempt or the percentage of cattle or pigs falling during handling is tabulated. Draft documents for the OIE on the welfare of beef cattle Animal based standards measure conditions that are outcomes of and broiler chickens also have a heavy emphasis on animal based either poor management practices, neglect, abuse of animals, or poorly outcome measures. designed equipment. The use of animal based standards is recom- mended by many researchers (Main, 2009; Hewson, 2003; Wray, 2.2. Prohibited practices Main, Green & Webster, 2003; Wray, Leeb, Main, Green & Webster, 2007, and Webster, 2005). Some examples of welfare problems that To insure a minimum level of basic animal welfare some really bad can be measured with outcome standards are the percentage of practices such as beating or dragging animals are prohibited in both animals that are emaciated, lame, bruised, have lesions, had missed legislated and private standards (Grandin, 2010a; USDA, 2010, stuns before slaughter or fell down during handling. All of these National Pork Board, 2008). For example, OIE slaughter standards conditions are outcomes of many different bad practices or poor state that certain practices should never be used such as dragging, conditions. For example, lameness in dairy cows can be associated dropping, or throwing animals (OIE, 2009b). The puntilla method of with different factors such as cubicle (freestall) dimensions, poor body stabbing cattle behind the poll to immobilize them before slaughter or condition, type of bedding, or lack of hoof trimming (Dippel, Dolezal, cutting tendons is also not permitted by the OIE. Scientific research Breninkmeyer, Brinkman, March, Knierim & Winkler, 2009; Barker, clearly shows that the puntilla should not be used (Limon, Gultian & Amory, Wright, Browey & Green, 2007) and lesions on chicken Gregory, 2008). Prohibited practices are a discreet measure because carcasses are related to litter quality (Allain, Mirabito, Arnould, Colas, the prohibited practice is either present or not present. It is important LeBouquin, Lupo & Michel, 2009). An additional example is high to specify specific painful or stressful practices that are prohibited to numbers of cattle or pigs falling during handling. This can be caused by avoid misinterpretation by different people. Both legislation and either slippery floors or causing animals to become agitated by over industry standards contain specific prohibited practices such as use of electric goads (Cockram & Corley, 1991; Grandin, 1998a; prohibiting dragging of conscious disabled livestock (Grandin, Gregory, 2007). Stunning methods that fail to produce insensibility can 2010a; USDA, 2010). be caused by several factors such as lack of equipment maintenance, agitated animals that make stunner placement difficult, untrained 2.3. Input based engineering standards also called resource based people or poor design of equipment (Grandin, 1998a; Ewbank, Parker & Mason, 1992). Animal based standards are continuous measures that These are standards that specify exactly how to perform a can be numerically scored. For example, an auditor or inspector procedure, specify space requirements or specify design of a piece 58 T. Grandin / Meat Science 86 (2010) 56–65 of equipment. Standards that specify stunner or lairage design, should 4.1. Percentage of livestock or poultry stunned effectively on the first be avoided because they would limit the development of new attempt innovative methods. Most problems with poorly designed equipment can be detected and measured with animal based outcome measures. 4.1.1. Captive bolt For example, if a stun box is poorly designed, it is likely that it may Baseline data collected before restaurant companies started using cause animals to fall down or lower the percentage of cattle stunned numerical scoring indicated that only 30% of the beef plants could effectively on the first attempt. However, there are a few critical stun 95% of the cattle correctly with one shot from a captive bolt engineering standards that may be required to insure a minimum (Grandin, 1997, 1998a). The correct position for captive bolt stunning level of acceptable welfare. Some examples are minimum amperages is in the middle of the forehead (Finnie, 1993; Woods, Shearer & Hill, for electric stunning, bolt velocities for captive bolt and minimum 2010). The most common cause of poor stunning was failure to space requirements for lairage pens (OIE, 2009b; Daly & Whitington, maintain the stunner or damp cartridges (Grandin, 1998a; Grandin, 1989; Gregory, 2007). Research clearly shows that severely over- 2002). After McDonald's Corporation and other restaurant companies loaded trucks or high ammonia levels in an enclosed building are very started using numerical scoring, the percentage of plants that were detrimental to poultry, pig, and cattle welfare (Tarrant, Kenny & able to captive bolt stun 95% or more of the animals on the first shot Harrington, 1988; Ritter et al., 2006,2007; Kristensen & Wathes, 2000; rose to over 90% (Grandin, 2005, 2006). To pass a welfare audit, the Jones, Wathes & Webster, 2005; Kristensen, Burgess, Demmers & first shot must instantly induce insensibility in95% of the cattle for an Wathes, 2000). acceptable score and 99% for an excellent score (Grandin, 2010a; FSIS/ USDA, 2009). Audit data collected by both the restaurant companies 2.4. Documentation standards and paperwork and the author showed that the 95% level is easily attainable (Grandin, 2000, 2005, 2010b). The author has audited slaughter plants in eight different countries for restaurant companies such as McDonald's Corporation. Many cases 4.1.2. Electrical stunning fi of falsified paperwork were found. Therefore, the author recommends Two measures are used. The rst measurement is the percentage that welfare problems that can be directly observed should be used as of pigs, sheep or cattle where the electrodes are placed in the correct the main criteria for passing a welfare audit. locations on the head. The second measurement is the percentage of pigs or cattle that vocalize (squeal or bellow) immediately after the tongs are applied. Correct positioning is essential to induce instanta- 3. Vague wording in standards leads to inconsistent enforcement neous insensibility by passing the electric current through the brain (Croft, 1952; Anil & McKinstry, 1998; Velarde, Ruiz-de-la-Torre, Stub, Vague wording in either regulations or industry standards can lead Diestre & Manteca, 2000a; and Gregory & Wotton, 1984a). Vocaliza- to inconsistent enforcement. A standard that states to minimize tion occurs if the tong is energized before it is in full contact with the electric goad use or avoid excessive electric goad use will be head. To pass an audit, the tong must be placed in the correct position interpreted differently by different inspectors and auditors. Inconsis- on the head on 99% of the animals (Grandin, 2010a). McKeegan, tent enforcement is a problem. A survey conducted by the GAO McIntyre, Demmers, Lowe, Wathes, Broek, Coenen, & Gentle 2007; fi (Government Accountability Of ce) (2010) indicated that enforce- McKeegan, Abeyesinghe, McLeman, Lowe, Demmers, White, Kranen, ment of humane slaughter regulations was very variable between vanBemmel, Lalnkhaar & Wathes, 2007. Data collected in nine pork different Federal meat inspectors. Standards and regulations need to plants showed that all the plants achieved this level (Grandin, 2010b). be clearly written. An example of a clearly written standard is: All the Vocalization due to premature energizing of the tongs must be in 1% fi pigs must have suf cient space to all lie down at the same time or less of the animals. Plants can easily achieve these standards without being on top of each other. (Grandin, 2001a, 2003). When water bath stunning is used for poultry, the percentage of birds that are rendered insensible is 4. Numerical scoring system for slaughter plants determined. Birds that emerge from the water bath showing no signs of return to sensibility are scored as effectively stunned. The scoring system developed by Grandin (1997, 1998a, 2010a) has five numerically scored animal based outcome standards. It is now 4.1.3. Controlled atmosphere stunning (CAS) used as a private standard by major restaurant companies and it has There is a great controversy between different researchers on the been incorporated into a USDA directive for meat inspectors (Grandin, best gas mixture for stunning poultry (Raj & Gregory, 1990; Raj, 2006; 2006; FSIS/USDA, 2009). McKeegan et al., 2007a,b; Coenen, Lankhaar, Lowe & McKeegan, The five animal based measures are: 2009). For pigs, most researchers agree that pigs should be rapidly
exposed to 90% CO2 (Hartung, Nowak, Waldmann & Ellerbrock, 2002; • Percentage of livestock or poultry stunned effectively on the first Becerril-Herrera et al., 2009). Ninety percent CO2 for 120 s was more attempt effective for abolishing corneal reflexes than exposure for 90 s • Percentage of livestock that remains insensible after they are hung (Hartmann, Siegling-Vlitakis, Wolf, Rindermann & Fries, 2009). on the rail must be 100%. For poultry, measure insensibility after Corneal reflexes were present in 6% and 15% of the pigs. Unpublished stunning, and must be 100% before scaulding. research by the equipment companies in U.S. indicates that behavioral
• Percentage of livestock animals that fall during handling. Do not use reactions of chickens and turkeys to CO2 can be greatly reduced by for poultry. raising the level of CO2 very gradually from 0% to 55% (Grandin, • Percentage of cattle and pigs that vocalize (squeal, bellow) during 2010c). There are definite species and genetic differences on how pigs
handling and stunning. Do not use for sheep or poultry. and poultry react to CO2 (Grandin, 1988, 2010b). The author proposes • Percentage of livestock animals moved with an electric goad. DO not that animal based standards should be developed for direct use for poultry. observation of pigs and poultry during the anesthesia induction phase. This could be done through either a window or by a camera. It It is a practical standard that can be easily implemented in both is the author's opinion that gas mixtures that cause either pigs or large and small beef, pork, and sheep slaughter plants (Grandin, 2000, poultry to attempt to jump out of the container should not be used. 2003, 2005). In larger plants score a minimum of 100 cattle, pigs or Vigorous struggling or flapping wings before loss of the ability to sheep or 500 birds. stand would also not be acceptable. When welfare standards for gas T. Grandin / Meat Science 86 (2010) 56–65 59 stunning are being developed, the whole system should be evaluated. 2009) both state that handling practices or flooring needs to be This includes both anesthesia induction and the handling system used improved if more than 1% of the animals fall handling. Restaurant to move the birds into the stunner. Live shackling of poultry is audit data collected in 26 beef plants and 15 pork plants that have definitely stressful (Kannen, Heath, Wabeck & Mench, 1997; Beda- been audited for ten years showed that all plants had 1% or less of the nova et al., 2007). Gas stunning systems eliminate stressful handling animals falling (Grandin, 2010b). because the birds can remain in the travel containers. It also eliminates the opportunity for poorly supervised employees to 4.4. Percentage of cattle, pigs, sheep, and other livestock that are moved abuse live birds. A small percentage of birds gasping or head shaking with an electric goad may be a reasonable trade off so that live shackling of poultry can be eliminated. Another method being researched for poultry is low The OIE standards limit electric goad use to battery-operated units atmospheric pressure stunning (Battula et al., 2008). There is a need and they should not be used on sheep, horses, or small piglets (OIE, for research to determine the stressfulness of this method. 2009a,b). Electric goads are very stressful for both cattle and pigs (Benjamin et al., 2001; Warner, Ferguson, Cottrell & Knee, 2007). Poor 4.2. Percentage of livestock or poultry with no signs of return to handling shortly before slaughter is detrimental to pork quality and sensibility raised lactate levels (Hambrecht, Eissen, Newman, Cerstegen & Hartog, 2005; Hambrecht, Eissen, Newman, Smits, deHertog & For both livestock and poultry, there is a zero tolerance for Verstegan, 2005). Some animal welfare specialists have proposed skinning, scaulding, limb removal or other invasive dressing proce- banning electric goads, but the author has observed in many slaughter dure on any animal or bird that is exhibiting signs of return to plants that an electric goad is preferable to beating an animal or other sensibility (Grandin, 2010a). All livestock and birds must be rest- abusive treatment to make it move. Score the percentage of animals unned if return to sensibility occurs. moved with an electric goad. Score each animal as either moved with an electric goad or not moved with one. Handlers should not be 4.2.1. Evaluating insensibility in cattle, pigs, sheep, and other mammals allowed to constantly carry electric goads (Grandin, 2006). The To prevent a failing score on an audit of 100 animals, all animals electric goad should only be picked up when an animal refuses to should be rendered insensible before they are hoisted to the bleeding move. Restaurant data from plants that had been audited for ten years rail. For poultry, evaluate after the stunner. For livestock, second showed that 26 beef plants and 15 pork plants could achieve the application of the stunner before hoisting to the bleed rail is scored as private standard of 25% or less of the animals moved with an electric a percentage point off the stunning score. For detailed descriptions of goad (Grandin, 2010b). Twenty-two out of 26 beef plants used electric signs of return to sensibility. Refer to Grandin ( 2001a, 2002, 2010a,c), prods and 5% or less of the cattle (Grandin, 2010b). Velarde, Gispert, Faucittano, Manteca & Diestre, 2000b; Velarde, Ruiz- de-la-Torre, et al., 2000a; Gregory (2007, 2008), and OIE (2009b). For 4.5. Percentage of cattle and pigs that vocalize (bellow or squeal) during all methods of stunning, to insure that an animal is insensible and handling before stunning stunned effectively, the following signs of return to sensibility must all be absent. They are regular rhythmic breathing (Wenzlawowicz & Vocalizations are correlated with physiological measures of stress Von Holleben, 2005), response to needle prick on the nose (Limon, in cattle and pigs (Dunn, 1990; Warriss, Brown & Adams, 1994; GUitian & Gregory, 2010), spontaneous natural eye blinking like live Weary, Braithwaite & Fraser, 1998; and White et al., 1995). In cattle animals in the lairage, righting reflex, and vocalization (moo and vocalizations during painful procedures are correlated with the squeal)(Grandin, 2010a). Kicking limbs are reflexes and should be neuropeptide P that is involved in pain perception Coitzee et al., ignored because they are due to spinal reflexes. A flaccid, soft 2008). extended tong is another indicator of effective stunning (Gregory, Each animal is scored as either a vocalizer (squeal, bellow or moo) 2007). There is a need for more research on the relationship between or a silent animal. All vocalizations that occur in the stun box or clinical signs that can be observed in a slaughter plant and laboratory restrainer are counted. For cattle, also count vocalizations that occur measurements of insensibility. when the animal is entering the stun box or restrainer. An acceptable score for pigs is 5% or less of the pigs vocalizing (squealing) in the 4.2.3. Evaluating insensibility in chickens, turkeys, and other poultry restrainer stun box or stunning pen (Grandin, 2010a). Do not count All birds must be completely insensible before they enter the vocalizations that occur in the lairage or when animals are at rest and scaulder. Live birds that may have entered the scaulder can be not being moved by a person. Vocalizations in cattle can be accurately determined by counting the number of dark red scaulded birds that counted (Welfare Quality, 2009). For cattle, an acceptable score is 5% have no throat cut. Birds that are not bled turn dark red. Birds should or less when a head holder is used and 3% or less when no head holder be monitored for effective stunning and bleeding before the scaulder. is used (Grandin, 2010a). Welfare audit data from two restaurant A bird is definitely sensible and not properly stunned if it responds to companies indicated that all 26 beef plants achieved this standard a comb pinch, has spontaneous eye blinking, is vocalizing (cackling) (Grandin, 2010b). Do not use vocalization scoring for sheep because or has full outstretched flapping wings. sheep do not vocalize during aversive stressful handling procedures. In both mammals and poultry, vocalizations that occur after stunning 4.3. Percentage of cattle, pigs, sheep, and other livestock that fall during are an indicator of a fully sensible animal. A vocalizing cow or pig handling hung on the rail is a serious animal welfare problem. Grandin (1998b) reported that 99% of the cattle vocalizations that Falling down during handling in slaughter plants has been occurred in the stunning box and race were associated with obviously documented as a problem (Grandin, 1998a; Cockram & Corley, aversive events such as electric goads, missed captive bolt stuns, 1991). Gregory (2007) reported that 40% of the stun boxes in UK slipping in the stun box, gates slammed on animals or excessive abattoirs had slippery floors. Score falling in both the truck unloading pressure from a restraint device. Simple improvements can greatly area and in the stunning area. Score a fall if an animal's body touches reduce the percentage of vocalizing cattle or pigs. Reducing pressure the floor while it is being moved off a truck, through an alley, or applied by a head restraint device reduced the percentage of cattle through the stunning area. Stun boxes that are deliberately designed vocalizing from 23% to 0% (Grandin, 2001b). Adding a light at a dark to make animals fall down before stunning is an automatic failed audit restrainer entrance to facilitate cattle movement and reduce electric (Grandin, 2010a). The OIE (2009a,b),(Grandin, 2010a and FSIS/USDA, goad use reduced the percentage of cattle vocalizing from 8% to 0% 60 T. Grandin / Meat Science 86 (2010) 56–65
(Grandin, 2001b). Baseline data collected by Grandin (1997) before Use numerical scoring for evaluating falling, electric goad use and restaurant audits started indicated that the two worst plants had 32% vocalization. The handling variables should be measured the same and 12% of the cattle vocalizing and the four best plants had 7.5%, 2.6%, way as they are measured for conventional slaughter with stunning. A 6.6%, and 1%. well managed slaughter without stunning plant can easily attain scores similar to a conventional plant. Measurement of collapse times 5. Slaughter without stunning (kosher and halal) between the cut and loss of posture and eye roll back should also be used to monitor and improve slaughter without stunning methods. Slaughter without stunning is extremely controversial from an animal welfare standpoint. Research indicates that cutting the neck 5.4. Cattle, sheep, and goats must be unconscious before removal from causes pain. Gibson et al. (2009b, 2009a) states that in calves the restrainer weighing 109 to 170 kg, a cut made with a short 24.5 cm long knife was painful. Another big animal welfare concern is aspiration of blood The animal must be insensible and unconscious before it is into the lungs while the animal is still sensible. In cattle slaughtered removed from the restraint box or restrainer and hung on the rail. An without stunning, this varied from 36% to 69% of the cattle (Gregory, animal showing signs of sensibility when hung on the rail is a failed von Wenzlawowicz & von Holleben, 2008). audit. This is the same as conventional slaughter. The OIE (2009b), the EU, and the USA, all permit slaughter without stunning to allow Jews and Muslims to practice their religious beliefs. 6.2. Expensive plant renovations not required in most slaughter plants To improve animal welfare, some religious authorities will accept stunning either immediately before or immediately after the throat In the U.S., the author was hired to implement animal welfare cut. Based on observations in over 50 kosher and halal plants where auditing programs at slaughter plants for McDonald's Corporation, stunning is not allowed, the author recommends the following Wendy's International, and Burger King (Grandin, 2006). Most plants practices should be used to improve animal welfare during slaughter did not have to install expensive new facilities to achieve numerical without stunning. scores that were within the values in Grandin (2010a). Out of 50 beef plants, and 24 pork plants, only two had to install totally new 5.1. Restrain the animal in a comfortable, upright position restrainer and race systems (Grandin, 2006). The other plants had to make simple changes in equipment and retrain employees. The most For design information on upright restraint equipment, refer to common changes to achieve acceptable scores were: Grandin (1992, 2007, 2009). Both Westervelt, Kinsman, Prince and Giger (1976) and Dunn (1990) found that upright restraint was less 1. Improve maintenance of captive bolt stunners and store cartridges stressful compared to shackling and hoisting or inverted restraint. in a dry location (Grandin, 1998a, 2002). fl Drawings can be obtained on http://www.grandin.com and http:// 2. Install non-slip ooring in stunning boxes and stunning pens to www.spiritofhumane.com. prevent slipping and falling. Animals will stand calmly and be easier to stun when slipping is prevented. Non-slip flooring is 5.2. Use a very sharp knife that is twice the width of the neck essential (Cockram & Corley, 1991; Grandin, 2010c). 3. Change lighting to improve animal movement. See Grandin (1996, The author has observed that knives that are too short where the 2010b) for more information. Animals tend to move towards a tip gouges into the neck will often cause violent struggling. The author lighted area (Van Putten & Elshof, 1978; Grandin, 1982, 1996, and has observed that allowing the wound to close back over the knife Tanida, Miura, Tanaka & Yosimoto, 1996). Installation of indirect during the cut will also cause struggling. Carefully done kosher lighting over a race entrance will often improve animal movement slaughter done with the special long knife which prevents gouging by (Grandin, 1996, 2010c). The light must never shine directly into the the knife tip caused little or no behavioral reaction from most cattle or eyes of approaching animals. Moving lamps will often eliminate fl fl chickens (Grandin, 1994; Barnett, Cronin & Scott, 2007). re ections on shiny metal and wet oors that make animals balk and refuse to move. 5.3. Score the interval from the cut to loss of sensibility 4. Install shields for people to stand behind and install solid sides on races to prevent approaching animals from seeing people or Cattle take longer to lose sensibility after slaughter without stunning moving equipment up ahead (Grandin, 1996; Grandin, 1980; compared to sheep (Baldwin, 1971; Blackmore, 1984). Sheep lose Kilgour, 1971). sensibility within an average time of 2 to 14 seconds with good cutting 5. Remove distractions such as dangling chains, coats on fences, loose fl technique (Gregory & Wotton, 1984a; Blackmore, 1984). In cattle, some plastic, hoses on the oor and other objects that make animals balk animals may require over a minute to lose sensibility (Blackmore, 1984; and refuse to move (Grandin, 1996, 2001b; OIE, 2009a,b). Changes fl Daly, Kallweit & Ellendorf, 1988; Gregory & Wotton, 1984b; Gregory, in ooring surface also retard movement (Hutson, 1980; Kilgour, Fielding, von Wenzlawowicz & von Hollenben, 2010). Careful technique 1971). will shorten the time required for cattle to collapse (lose posture and no 6. Reduce noise both from people yelling and equipment. Yelling and longer be able to stand) after the cut. Collapse is the initial indicator of intermittent high pitched noise is stressful to cattle and pigs onset of insensibility (Blackmore, 1984; Grandin, 1994; Von Holleben et (Talling, Waran, Wathes & Lines, 1998; Waynert, Stookey, al., 2010). When poor technique was used, only 68% of the cattle Schartzkopf-Genswein & Waltz, 1999). The mechanical equipment collapsed within 30 seconds and good technique increased the for handling animals is extremely noisy in some plants. Research ∧ percentage of cattle that collapsed within 30 seconds to over 90% in commercial plants indicates that if may be 80 to 90 dB[ ] (Grandin, 2010c). Gregory et al. (2010) reported similar results where (Weeks et al., 2009). 88% of the cattle collapsed within 30 seconds. It is possible that loss of 7. Better training and supervision of employees. sensibility may not be complete after the initial collapse (Gregory et al., 2010). Cattle will lose sensibility more quickly if they enter the restraint 7. Video auditing to maintain the improvements box calmly and are cut immediately after the head is restrained with a swift knife stroke (Grandin, 1994). Releasing body and head restraints The author observed that when McDonald's and other companies immediately after the cut also facilitates more rapid collapse (http:// first started auditing slaughter plants in 1999, many bad practices www.grandin.com, 2009). were done in front of the auditors because managers did not know T. Grandin / Meat Science 86 (2010) 56–65 61 that they were wrong. In 2010 the author has observed that some of leg abnormalities in pigs can be found in Grandin (2010c) and plant employees will “act good” during an audit and then revert to National Hog Farmer (no date). old, bad practices as soon as the auditor leaves. To prevent this from happening, the Cargill Corporation and five other U.S. beef and pork 9.3. Foot, leg, and body lesions caused by poor housing or disease companies have installed cameras that can be monitored by independent third party auditors outside the plant. At any time At the slaughter plant, it is also easy to inspect the legs and feet of either the third party auditor or a person at the corporate office can both livestock and poultry. Photographic charts for scoring foot pad observe stunning, handling in the leadup race, bleed area, and truck lesions and feather condition in poultry can be found on the Laywel unloading. (2005) and the European welfare quality publications (European Union Welfare Quality, 2009). Poor litter conditions in the poultry 8. Clear comments are essential barn can cause foot pad lesions in broiler chickens (Dawkins et al., 2004). Additional measures for poultry are foot pad lesions, hock burn When a non-compliance is observed, auditors and inspectors must and breast blisters. These lesions are caused by poor litter conditions write clear comments. This will help determine the best corrective (Allain et al., 2009). action or enforcement penalty. An example of a vague comment In dairy cattle, the percentage of animals with swollen hocks was would be “bad stunning” and an example of a clear, well written highly variable. It ranged from 0% on the best dairies to 10.7% on the comment would be “85% of the cattle were prodded with an electric worst dairy (Grandin, 2010c). Good management of the stalls in goad and agitated cattle were difficult to stun because they moved freestall (cubicle) barns and reducing overcrowding is a major fac- their heads.” tor in preventing hock lesions (Rutherford et al., 2008). In the top third dairies with the lowest percentage of severely swollen hocks, 9. On-farm and transport animal welfare problems that can be the stalls were cleaned and rebedded more than once a week measured in the slaughter plant in cattle, pigs, sheep, and poultry (Fulwider et al., 2007). A hock was scored as severely swollen if it had a swelling larger than a baseball (7.4 cm diameter) on the worst leg. In Many on-farm animal welfare problems can also be measured in pigs, the percentage of sows with shoulder lesions can be tabulated the slaughter plant where it is easy to observe large numbers of (Ritter et al., 1999). Shoulder lesions are usually more common when animals or birds. Many problems that are detrimental to animal sows are housed in gestation stalls, but the author has observed them welfare that occur on the farm or during transport and handling can in group housing systems. be scored at the plant. 9.4. Broken wings and legs on chickens and turkeys 9.1. Body condition score (BCS) In poultry, the percentage of broiler chickens with either broken or The percentage of thin and emaciated animals can be scored dislocated wings is a sensitive indicator of handling practices during (Ritter, Xuc, Dial, Morrison & Marsh, 1999). This is especially catching and loading into the transport containers. Ten years ago the important to measure in old cull breeding animals. An animal is author first started auditing broken wings in chickens, many plant scored as either too thin or acceptable. Scoring charts for body managers thought it was normal to have 5% to 6% of the birds with condition scoring would have to be made for each country using broken wings. When auditing of broken wings was implemented, the pictures of the local livestock. Body condition scoring charts for percentage of broken wings dropped to 1% or less in the best plants improved dairy cattle breeds such as American Holsteins can be found (Grandin, 2010c). Broken wings should be scored with the feathers on in Wildman et al. (1982) and Edmonson, Lean, Weaver, Farver and to avoid confusion with wing breakage caused by the feather picking Webster (1989). machines. Score a bird as having a broken wing if a wing hangs straight down when the bird is hanging in the shackles. Dislocated 9.2. Lameness measure wings should also be classified as broken.
The percentage of lame animals can be counted (Roeber et al., 9.5. Dead animals on arrival at the slaughter plant (DOAs) 2001). For poultry, lameness would have to be evaluated on the farm. Lameness is a serious animal welfare issue for intensively raised The percentage of dead pigs, chickens, or other animals arriving at broiler chickens and Holstein dairy cows (Dawkins, Donnelly & Jones, a slaughter plant dead can vary greatly between different producers 2004; Rutherford et al., 2009; Espejo, Endres & Salter, 2006; Knowles and transporters. A survey of 12,333 truckloads of market pigs et al., 2008). Lameness in dairy cows definitely causes pain (Rushen, indicated that the best farms had significantly fewer dead pigs Pombourceq & dePaisselle, 2006; Flowers, de Passille, Weary, compared to the worst farms (Fitzgerald, Stalder, Matthews, Schultz- Sanderson & Rushen, 2007). Hardy local breeds of animals Kaster & Johnson, 2009). Many different conditions can increase death often have less lameness. In Holstein dairy cows, lameness ranges losses such as rough handling, overcrowded transport vehicles or from 0 to 13% in the best dairies and 34.9% to 54.4% in the worst 20% crates and metabolic or genetic problems in animals. Ritter, Ellis, (Wray et al., 2007). The best dairies have less than 5% lame cows Berry, Curtis et al., 2009 contains an excellent review of death loss (Espejo et al., 2006). statistics in pigs from studies all over the world. On a truck, a large Thompson, Munkgaard and Toyerson (2008) reported that inter- 129 kg market pig needs a minimum of 0.462 m2 per pig or greater observer reliability for lameness scoring is high when observers are (Ritter et al., 2006, 2007). In large intensive pig farms, internal trained. Both limping animals that can keep up with the group when unpublished data showed that when handlers loading trucks became the group is walking, and animals that are not able to keep up fatigued after about six hours of work, death losses increased. The PSS should be classified as lame. Broiler chickens should be able to walk porcine stress gene can greatly contribute to death losses. Some pork ten paces with an even gait (Dawkins et al., 2004). Videos for producers bred for the heterozygous condition because it was training people to score lameness can be found at Zinpro/ associated with leaner pork. Murray and Johnson (1998) found that ASPX_Main/enUS/species/dairy/lameness.aspx for cattle and death losses upon arrival at the plant were 9.2% for homozygous pigs, (Knowles et al., 2008) for chickens. Poultry and pigs can also be 0.27% for heterozygous pigs, 0.05% for pigs which were free of the scored for leg abnormalities that can cause lameness. Twisted or stress gene. In poultry, there are also differences in their susceptibility crooked legs can be easily scored at the slaughter plant. Illustrations to sudden death losses. 62 T. Grandin / Meat Science 86 (2010) 56–65
9.6. Dirty soiled livestock and poultry slaughter plants in the U.S. that greatly reduced the number of non- ambulatory pigs by limiting ractopamine use and replacing a genetic Both livestock and poultry can be assessed for cleanliness. Dirty line of pigs with poor leg conformation and a high incidence of animals are caused by either poor litter conditions in the poultry barn lameness with a different genetic line. A chart for measuring leg or muddy feedlots. A simple four point scoring system can be used conformation can be found in Grandin (2010b) and National Hog (University of Minnesota Extension; Munoz et al., 2008). Farmer (no date). Handling problems with pigs can be further reduced when producers walk the fattening pens to get the pigs 1. Clean animal or bird. Birds must have completely clean feet and accustomed to people walking through them, before they arrive at the cattle may have soil below the knee. plant. Research clearly shows that producers can train their pigs to be 2. Legs are soiled. easier to handle (Geverink et al., 1998; Abbott, Hunter, Guise & Penny, 3. Legs and belly/breast is soiled. 1997; Brown, Toth, Stanton, Lawlis & Widowski, 2006). 4. Legs, belly/breast and sides of body are soiled.
11. Conclusions 9.7. Scoring of bruised carcasses The use of numerical scoring and animal based measurements will Each animal or bird should be scored to determine the percentage improve animal welfare during handling and stunning in slaughter of animals with bruises. Bruises should be classified by both the plants. These measurements also provide the advantage of greater location on the body and severity with the Australian Carcass Bruise consistency between different auditors and inspectors. This method Scoring System (Wythes, Kaus & Newman, 1985). When a plant has a for evaluating animal welfare in slaughter plants is practical and easy severe bruising problem, the first step that should be taken is to to implement because there are only five numerically scored determine if the bruises are occurring inside the plant or outside the measures that assess effectiveness of stunning, insensibility, vocali- plant. If they are occurring inside the plant, they will occur on animals zation, falling during handling, and electric goad use. At the slaughter from many different producers. If they are occurring outside the plant, plant, livestock and poultry can also be assessed for many conditions they can usually be traced to a particular producer or trucker. that are detrimental to animal welfare that are due to problems A major cause of bruising is overloaded trucks (Tarrant et al., during transport or poor conditions on the farm. Some of the 1988). Rough handling of both livestock and poultry is another major conditions that can be assessed at the plant are, poor body condition, cause (Grandin, 1981, 2010b). Horned cattle will have more bruises lameness, broken wings, death losses, animal cleanliness, serious than cattle with no horns (Shaw, Baxter & Ramsey, 1976). Tipping injurious, and obvious neglected health problems. horns will not reduce bruises (Ramsey, Meischke & Anderson, 1976). The cruel practice of cutting horns on adult animals without anesthetics should be banned. Dehorning older cattle is more stressful References than disbudding calves (Stafford & Mellor, 2005). Research clearly Abbott, T. A., Hunter, E. J., Guise, J. H., & Penny, R. H. C. (1997). The effect of experiences shows that anesthetics and analgesics should be used (Stewart et al., of handling on pig's willingness to move. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 54, 2009; McMeekan et al., 1998). Contrary to popular belief, animals can 371−375. be bruised up until the time of bleeding. Meischke and Horder (1976) Allain, V., Mirabito, L., Arnould, C., Colas, M., LeBouquin, S., Lupo, C., & Michel, V. (2009). Skin lesions in broiler chickens measured at the slaughter house: Relationships found that stunned cattle could be bruised prior to bleeding. Cattle between lesions and between their prevalence and rearing factors. British Poultry sourced through auctions had more bruises compared to cattle Science, 50, 407−417. sourced directly from a farm (Hoffman, Spire, Schwenke & Unruh, Anil, M. H., & McKinstry, J. L. (1998). Variation in electrical stunning tong placements and relative consequences in slaughter pigs. The Veterinary Journal, 155,85−90. 1998). Baldwin, B. A. (1971). Anatomical and physiological factors involved in slaughter by cantid section. Humane Killing and Slaughterhouse Techniques, University Federation 10. Non-ambulatory downed animals For Animal Welfare (pp. 34−43). Herts, UK: Potters Bar. Barker, Z. E., Amory, J. R., Wright, J. L., Browey, R. W., & Green, L. E. (2007). Management factors associated with impaired locomotion in dairy cows in England and Wales. Many factors can contribute to causing cattle, pigs or other animals Journal of Dairy Science, 90, 3270−3277. to become non-ambulatory and not able to walk to the stunning area. Barnett, J. L., Cronin, G. M., & Scott, P. C. (2007). Behavioral responses of poultry during Loading animals that are not fit for transport onto a truck is a major kosher slaughter and their implications for the bird's welfare. The Veterinary Record, 160,45−49. cause of downers (Roeber et al., 2001). Overloading trucks is another Barnett, J. L., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2009). Welfare monitoring schemes: Using research to cause of downer animals. When cattle were packed into a vehicle too safeguard animals on the farm. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 12,114−131. tightly, an animal that fell down was not able to get back up because Battula, V., Schilling, M. W., Vizzler-Thaxton, Y., Behrends, J. M., Williams, J. B., & Schmidt, T. B. (2008). The effects of low atmosphere stunning and deboning time the other cattle closed up the opening (Tarrant et al., 1988). on broiler meat breast meat quality. Poultry Science, 87, 1202−1210. A third factor that can cause animals to become non-ambulatory is Becerril-Herrera, M., Alonso-Spilsbury, M., Lemus-Flores, C., Guerrero-Legarreta, I., overuse of ractopamine in pigs. Ractopamine is fed to pigs to increase Hernandez, A., Ramirez-Necocecha, R., & Mota-Rojas, D. (2009). CO2 stunning may fi compromise swine welfare compared to electrical stunning. Meat Science, 81, lean muscle (Fernandez-Due as et al., 2008; Carr et al., 2005). The 233−237. label on Paylean (ractopamine) states “may increase the number of Bedanova, I., Vaslarova, E., Chioupek, P., Pisekova, V., Suchuy, P., Blahova, J., Dobsikova, injured or fatigued pigs during marketing (Elanco, 2009; Espejo et al., R., & Vecerek, V. (2007). Stress in broilers resulting from shackling. Poultry Science, 80, 1065−1069. 2006). Marchant-Forde, Lay, Pajor, Richert and Schinckel (2003) and Benjamin, M. E., Gonyou, H. W., Ivers, D. L., Richardson, L. F., Jones, D. J., Wagner, J. R., Poletto, Rostagno, Richert and Marchant-Forde (2009) found that Seneriz, R., & Anderson, D. V. (2001). Effect of handling method on the incidence of ractopamine made pigs more difficult to handle and increased the stress response in market swine in a model system.Supplement 1. Journal of Animal incidence of hoof cracks. The author has observed that pigs that Science, 7, 279 (abstract). Blackmore, D. K. (1984). Differences in behaviour between sheep and cattle during become non-ambulatory due to ractopamine and pigs that became slaughter. Research in Veterinary Science, 37, 223−226. non-ambulatory due to PSS, behave differently. PSS pigs are usually Brown, J. A., Toth, E. L., Stanton, A. L., Lawlis, P., & Widowski, T. (2006). The effects of hot when touched, exhibited open mounted breathing, rapid grunts, different frequencies of human interaction on handling responses of market pigs. Suppl. 1. Journal of Animal Science, 84, 301 (Abstract). and quivering. Pigs that became fatigued and non-ambulatory due to Carr, S. N., Ivers, D. J., Anderson, D. B., Jones, D. J., Mowrey, D. H., England, M. B., Killerfer, an overuse of ractopamine do none of these behaviors. Instead they lie J., Rincker, P. J., & McKeith, F. K. (2005). The effects of ractopamine hydrochloride on down and remain quiet. If they are allowed to rest, they will recover lean carcass yield and pork quality characteristics. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 2886−2893. and may be able to walk to the stunner. They act like they do not have Cockram, S., & Corley, K. T. (1991). Effect of preslaughter handling on the behavior and sufficient strength to move. The author observed two large pork blood composition of cattle British Veterinary Journal, 147, 444−454. T. Grandin / Meat Science 86 (2010) 56–65 63
Coenen, A. M., Lankhaar, J., Lowe, J. C., & McKeegan, D. E. (2009). remote monitoring of Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, CSIRO) (pp. 96−97). Australia: electroencephalograml, electrocardiogram and behavior during controlled atmo- Brisbane. sphere stunning in broilers, implications for welfare. Poultry Science, 88,10−19. Grandin, T. (1992). Observations of cattle restraint devices for stunning and slaughter. Coitzee, J. F., Lubbers, B. V., Toeber, S. E., Gehring, R., Thompson, D. U., White, B. J., & Animal Welfare, 1,85−91. Apley, M. D. (2008). Plasma concentration of substance P and cortisol in beef calves Grandin, T. (1994). Euthanasia and slaughter of livestock. Journal of the American after castration and simulated castration. American Journal of Veterinary Research, Veterinary Medical Association, 204, 1354−1360. 69, 751−752. Grandin, T. (1996). Factors that impede animal movement in slaughter plants. Journal of Croft, P. S. (1952). Problems of electrical stunning. The Veterinary Record, 64, 255−258. American Veterinary Medication Association, 209, 757−759. Daly, C. C., Kallweit, E., & Ellendorf, F. (1988). Cortical function in cattle during Grandin, T. (1997). Survey of Stunning and Handling in Federally Inspected Beef, Veal, Pork slaughter. Conventional captive bolt stunning followed by exsanguination compared to and Sheep Slaughter Plants, United States Department of Agricultural Research Service shechita slaughter, Veterinary Record, 122, 325−329. Project 3602-32000-08G. Beltsville, MD: USDA. Daly, C. C., & Whitington, P. E. (1989). A Survey of Commercial Practices Used in Stunning Grandin, T. (1998). Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning practices at Cattle. Report for the RSPCA and MAFF: Bristol University, Langford, UK. slaughter plants. Journal of the American Veterinary Association, 212,36−39. Dawkins, M. S., Donnelly, C. A., & Jones, T. A. (2004). Chicken welfare is influenced more Grandin, T. (1998). The feasibility of using vocalization scoring as an indicator of poor by housing conditions, than stocking density. Nature, 427, 343−348. welfare during slaughter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 56, 121−138. Defra (2010). Dept. for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Farm Animal Welfare Grandin, T. (2000). Effect of animal welfare audits of slaughter plants by a major fast Slaughter United Kingdom, accessed, March 26, 2010 (http://www.defra.gov.uk/ food company on cattle handling and stunning practices. Journal of the American foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/slaugher/index.html#1). Veterinary Medical Association, 216, 848−851. Dippel, S., Dolezal, M., Breninkmeyer, C., Brinkman, J., March, S., Knierim, V., & Winkler, Grandin, T. (2001). Solving return to sensibility problems after electrical stunning in C. (2009). Risk factors for lameness in cubicle housed Austrian Simmental dairy commercial pork slaughter plants. Journal of the American Veterinary Medication cows. Preventative Veterinary Medicine, 90, 102−112. Association, 219, 608−611. Dunn, C. S. (1990). Stress reactions of cattle undergoing ritual slaughter using two Grandin, T. (2001). Cattle vocalizations are associated with handling and equipment methods of restraint. The Veterinary Record, 126, 522−525. problems in beef slaughter plants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 2, 191−201. Edge, M. K., & Barnett, J. E. (2008). Development and integration of animal welfare Grandin, T. (2002). Return to sensibility problems after penetrating captive bolt standards into company quality assurance programs in the Australian livestock stunning of cattle in commercial slaughter plants. Journal of the American Veterinary meat. processing industry. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 48(7), Medical Association, 221, 1258−1261. 1009−1013. Grandin, T. (2003). The welfare of pigs during transport and slaughter Pig News and Edmonson, A. J., Lean, I. J., Weaver, L. D., Farver, T., & Webster, G. (1989). A body Information, 24, 83N−90N. condition scoring chart for Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 72, 68. Grandin, T. (2005). Maintenance of good animal welfare standards in beef slaughter plants Elanco (2009) Paylean 9 package label http://www.elanco.us/products/paylean.htm by use of auditing programs Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, (accessed December 27, 2009). 226, 370−373. Espejo, L. A., Endres, M. I., & Salter, J. A. (2006). Prevalence of lameness in high-producing Grandin, T. (2006). Progress and challenges in animal handling and slaughter in the Holstein cows housed in freestall barns in Minnesota Journal of Dairy Science, 89, U.S.. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100, 129−139. 3052−3058. Grandin, T. (2007). Livestock Handling and Transport. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: European Union Welfare Quality Project, (2009) http://www.welfarequality.net CABI Publishing. (accessed November 30, 2009). Grandin, T. (2009) Temple Grandin's Webpage, http://www.grandin.com, accessed Ewbank, R., Parker, M. J., & Mason, C. W. (1992). Reactions of cattle to head restraint at December 11, 2009. stunning: A practical dilemma. Animal Welfare, 1,55−63. Grandin, T. (2010). Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines and Audit Guide: A FASS (2010). Guide for the care and use of agricultural animals in research and Systematic Approach to Animal Welfare. Washington, D.C: American Meat Institute teaching. Third Edition, Federal of Animal Science Societies. Illinois, USA: Champaign Foundation (http://www.animalhandling.org (accessed April 3, 2010)). (http://www.fass.org/page.asp?pageID=216 (accessed April 3, 2010)). Grandin, T. (2010). 2009 Restaurant animal welfare and humane slaughter audits in Fernandez-Duefias, D. M., Myers, A. J., Scramlin, M. S., Parks, C. W., Carr, S. N., Killefer, J., Federally inspected beef and pork slaughter in the U.S (http://www.grandin.com/ & McKeith, F. K. (2008). Carcass, meat quality, and sensory characteristics of heavy survey/2009.restaurant.audits.stml (accessed March 13, 2010)). body weight pigs fed ractopamine hydrochloride (Paylean). Journal of Animal Grandin, T. (2010). Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach. Wallingford, Science, 86, 3544−3550. Oxfordshire, Oxfordshire, UK: CABI International. Finnie, J. W. (1993). Brain damage caused by captive bolt pistol. Journal of Comparative Gregory, N. G. (2007). Animal Welfare and Meat Production, 2nd Edition Wallingford, Physiology, 109, 253−258. UK: CABI Intl. Fitzgerald, R. F., Stalder, K. J., Matthews, J. O., Schultz-Kaster, C. M., & Johnson, A. K. Gregory, N. G. (2008). Animal welfare at markets and during transport and slaughter Meat (2009). Factors associated with fatigued, injured, and dead pig frequency during Science, 80,2−11. transport and lairage at a commercial abattoir. Journal of Animal Science, 87, Gregory, N. G., Fielding, H. R., von Wenzlawowicz, M., & von Hollenben, K. (2010). Time 1156−1166. to collapse following slaughter without stunning. Meat Science, 85,66−69. Flowers, F. C., de Passille, A. M., Weary, D. M., Sanderson, D. J., & Rushen, J. (2007). Gregory, N. G., von Wenzlawowicz, M., & von Holleben, K. (2008). Blood in the Softer, higher friction flooring improves gait of cows with and without sole ulcers. respiratory tract during slaughter with and without stunning in cattle. Meat Science, Journal of Dairy Science, 90, 1235−1242. 82,13−16. FSIS/USDA (2009). FSIS Directive 6910.1 Revision 1, District Veterinary Medical Gregory, N. G., & Wotton, S. B. (1984a). Sheep slaughtering procedures — II. Time to loss Specialist (DVMS) Work methods, United States Department of Agriculture, Food of brain responsiveness after exsanguination or cardiac arrest. The British Veterinary Safety, and Inspection Service, December 7, 2009 (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ Journal, 140, 354−360. OPPDE/rdad/FSISDirectives/6910.1Rev1.pdf. (accessed December 19, 2009). Gregory, N. G., & Wotton, S. B. (1984b). Sheep slaughtering procedures — III. Head to Fulwider, W. K., Grandin, T., Garrick, D. J., Engle, T. E., Lamm, W. D., Dalsted, N. L., & back electrical stunning. The British Veterinary Journal, 140, 570−575. Rollin, B. E. (2007). Influence of free-stall base on tarsal joint lesions and hygiene in Hambrecht, E., Eissen, J. J., Newman, D. J., Cerstegen, M. W., & Hartog, L. A. (2005). dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 90, 3559−3566. Preslaughter handling affects pork quality and glycoytic potential of two muscles GAO (Government Accountability Office) (2010). Humane Methods of Slaughter Act: differing in fiber type organization. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 900−907. Actions are needed to strengthen enforcement Government Accounting Office, Hambrecht, E., Eissen, J. J., Newman, D. J., Smits, C. H. M., den Hertog, L. A., & Vestegen, GAO 10-203. Washington, D.C., USA: Humane Slaughter (http://www.gao.gov/ M. W. A. (2005). Negative effects of stress immediately before slaughter on pork docsearch/locate?searched=1&o=0&order_by=date&search_type=publications quality are aggravated by suboptimal transport and lairage conditions. Journal of (Accessed April 3, 2010)). Animal Science, 83, 440−448. Geverink, N. A., Kappers, A., van de Burgwal, E., Lambooji, E., Blokhuis, J. H., & Wiegant, Hartmann, H., Siegling-Vlitakis, C., Wolf, K., Rindermann, G., & Fries, R. (2009). Different
V. M. (1998). Effects of regular moving and handling on the behavioral and CO2 stunning procedures and post mortem obtained lung lesions in response to physiological responses of pigs to pre-slaughter treatment and consequences for corneal reflex and parameters in blood of slaughtered pigs. Berl Munch Tierarzl meat quality. Journal of Animal Science, 76, 2080−2085. Wochenschr, 122, 333−340.
Gibson, T. J., Johnson, C. B., Murrell, J. C., Chambers, J. P., Stafford, K. J., & Mellor, D. J. Hartung, J., Nowak, B., Waldmann, K. H., & Ellerbrock, S. (2002). CO2 stunning of (2009). Components of electroencephalographic responses to slaughter in slaughter pigs: Effects of EEG, catecholamines and clinical reflexes. Deutsche halothane-anaesthetized calves: Effects of cutting neck tissues compared to Teraztliche Wochenschnift, 109, 135−139. major blood vessels. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 57,84−89. Hewson, C. J. (2003). Can we access welfare? The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 44, Gibson, T. J., Johnson, C. B., Murrell, J. C., Hulls, C. M., Mitchinson, S. L., Stafford, K. J., 749−753. Johnstone, A. C., & Mellor, D. J. (2009). Electroencephalographic responses of Hoffman, D. E., Spire, M. F., Schwenke, J. R., & Unruh, J. A. (1998). Effect of source of halothane-anesthetized calves to slaughter by ventral-neck incision without prior cattle and distance transported to a commercial slaughter facility on carcass bruises stunning. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 57,77−85. in mature beef cows. Journal of the American Medical Veterinary Association, 212, Grandin, T. (1980). Observations of cattle behavior applied to the design of cattle 668−672. handling facilities. Applied Animal Ethology, 6,19−31. Hutson, G. D. (1980). Sheep behavior and the design of sheep yards and shearing sheds. Grandin, T. (1981). Bruises on Southwestern feedlot cattle. Suppl. 1. Journal of Animal In M. Wodzicka-Tomaszewska, M. Edey, & J. J. Lynch (Eds.), Behavior in Relation to Science, 53, 213 (Abstract). Reproduction, Management, and Welfare of Farm Animals (pp. 137−141). Armidale, Grandin, T. (1982). Pig behavior studies applied to slaughter plant design. Applied New South Wales: University of New England Publishing Unit. Animal Ethology, 9, 141−151. Jones, E. K. M., Wathes, C. M., & Webster, A. J. F. (2005). Avoidance of atmospheric
Grandin, T. (1988). Possible genetic effect on pig's reaction to CO2 stunning. Proc. Of ammonia by domestic fowl and the effect of early experience. Applied Animal the 34th Intl. Congress of Meat Sci, and Tech., Brisbane, Australia Commonwealth Science Behaviour, 90, 293−308. 64 T. Grandin / Meat Science 86 (2010) 56–65
Kannen, G., Heath, J. L., Wabeck, C. J., & Mench, J. A. (1997). Shackling broilers effects on market-weight pigs on the incidence of transport losses at the parking plant and stress response and breast meat quality. British Poultry Science, 38, 323−332. the relationships between transport conditions and losses. Journal of Animal Kilgour, R. (1971). Animal handling in works pertinent behavior studies. Proceedings Science, 84, 2856−2864. 13th Meat Industry Research Conference, Meat Industry Research Institute, Hamilton, Ritter, L. A., Xuc, J., Dial, G. D., Morrison, R. B., & Marsh, W. E. (1999). Prevalence of New Zealand (pp. 9−12). lesions and body condition scores among female swine at slaughter. Journal of the Knowles, T. G., Kestin, S. C., Hasslam, S. M., Brown, S. M., Green, L. E., Butterworth, A., Pope, American Veterinary Medical Association, 214, 525−528. S. J., Pfeiffer, D., & Nocol, C. J. (2008). Leg disorders in broiler chickens: prevalence, risk Roeber, D. J., Mies, P. D., Smith, C. D., Field, T. G., Tatum, J. D., Scanga, J. A., & Smith, G. C. factors and prevention, PLOS One 3(2). (Available at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih. (2001). National market cow and bull beef quality audit, 1999. A survey of gov/articlerender,febi?articl+221234 (accessed 17 June 2009)). producer-related defects in market cows and bulls. Journal of Animal Science, 79, Kristensen, H. H., Burgess, L. R., Demmers, T. G. H., & Wathes, C. M. (2000). The 658−665. preferences of laying hens for different concentrations of ammonia. Applied Animal Rushen, J., Pombourceq, E., & dePaisselle, A. M. (2006). Validation of two measures of Behaviour Science, 68, 307−318. lameness in dairy cows Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 106, 173−177. Kristensen, H. H., & Wathes, C. M. (2000). Ammonia and poultry: A Review. World Rutherford, K. M., Landford, F. M., Jack, M. C., Sherwood, L., Lawrence, A. B., & Haskell, M. J. Poultry Science Journal, 56, 235−243. (2008). Hock injury prevalence and associated risk factors on organic and nonorganic Laywel (2005) http://www.laywel.eu (Accessed April 3, 2010). farms in the United Kingdom. Journal of Dairy Science, 91,2265−2274. Limon, G., GUitian, J., & Gregory, N. G. (2010). An evaluation of the humaneness of Rutherford, K. M., Langford, F. M., Jack, M. C., Sherwood, L., Lawrence, A. B., & Haskell, M. puntilla in cattle. Meat Science, 84, 352−355. J. (2009). Lameness prevalence and risk factors in organic and non0organic dairy Limon, G., Gultian, J., & Gregory, N. G. (2008). A note on slaughter of llamas in Bolivia by herds in the United Kingdom. The Veterinary Journal, 189,95−105. puntilla method. Meat Science, 82, 405−406. Seng, P. M., & Laporte, R. (2005). Animal welfare: The role and perspectives of the red MAF (1996). Code of recommendations and minimum standards for the emergency meat livestock sector. Review Science and Technology, 24, 613−623. slaughter of farm animals. Code of Animal Welfare, No. 19. Ministry of Agriculture and Shaw, F. D., Baxter, R. I., & Ramsey, W. R. (1976). The contribution of horned cattle to Forestry. New Zealand: Wellington (http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-wel- carcass bruising. The Veterinary Record, 98, 256−257. fare/codes/emergency-slaughter/index.htm (Accessed April 3, 2010)). Shimshony, A., & Chaudry, M. M. (2005). Slaughter of animals for human consumption. Main, D. C. (2009). Application of welfare assessment to commercial livestock Review Science and Technology, 24, 693−710. production. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 12,97−104. Soil Association (no date) Animal Welfare, United Kingdom. Marchant-Forde, J. N., Lay, D. C., Pajor, J. A., Richert, B. T., & Schinckel, A. P. (2003). The Stafford, K. J., & Mellor, D. J. (2005). Dehorning and disbudding distress and its effects of ractopamine on the behavior and physiology of finishing pigs. Journal of alleviation in calves. The Veterinary Journal, 169, 337−349. Animal Science, 81, 416−422. Stewart, M., Stookey, J. M., Stafford, K. J., Tucker, C. B., Rogers, A. R., Dowling, S. K., Maria, G. A., Villarrael, M., & Gebresentbet, G. (2004). Scoring system for evaluating Verkerk, G. A., Schaefer, A. L., & Webster, J. R. (2009). Effects of local anesthetic and stress to cattle during commercial loading and unloading. The Veterinary Record, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug on pain responses of dairy calves to hot-iron 154, 818−821. dehorning. Journal of Dairy Science, 92, 1512−1519. McKeegan, D. E. F., Abeyesinghe, S. M., McLemen, M. A., Lowe, J. C., Denmeus, T. G. M., Talling, J. C., Waran, N. K., Wathes, C. M., & Lines, J. A. (1998). Sound avoidance by White, R. P., Kranen, R. W., can Bemmel, H., Lankhaar, J. A. C., & Wathes, C. M. domestic pigs depends on characteristics of the signal. Applied Animal Behaviour (2007). Controlled atmosphere stunning of broiler chickens, II. Effects of behavior, Science, 58, 255−266. physiology and meat quality in a commercial processing plantBritish Poultry Science, Tanida, H., Miura, A., Tanaka, T., & Yosimoto, T. (1996). Behavioral responses of piglets 48. (pp. 430−442). to darkness and shadows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 49, 173−181. McKeegan, D. E. F., McIntyre, J. A., Demmers, T. G. M., Lower, J. C., Wather, C. M., Van den Tarrant, P. W., Kenny, F. J., & Harrington, D. (1988). The effect of stocking density during Broek, P. L. L., Coenen, A. M. L., & Gentle, M. J. (2007). Physiological and behavioral 4 h transport to slaughter on behaviour blood constituents and carcass bruising in responses of broilers to controlled atmosphere stunning implications for welfare. Friesian steers. Meat Science, 24, 209−222. Animal Welfare, 16, 409−426. Thompson, P. T., Munkgaard, L., & Toyerson, F. A. (2008). Evaluation of lameness scoring McMeekan, C. M., Stafford, K. J., Mellor, D. J., Bruce, R. A., Ward, R. N., & Gregory, N. G. in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 91, 119−125. (1998). Effect of regional analgesia and/or a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory University of Minnesota (no date) Worksheet 13 Cow Cleanliness Scorecard, Minnesota analgesic on the acute cortisol response to dehorning in calves. Research in Dairy Initiatives, Dairy Diagnostic Tool Box, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, Accessed Veterinary Science, 64, 147−150. March 26, 2010. Meischke, H. R. C., & Horder, J. C. (1976). Knocking box effect on bruising in cattle. Food USDA (2010). United States Department of Agriculture. Humane Methods of Slaughter Technology, Australia, 28, 369−371. Act, National Agriculture Library, Accessed March, 26, 2010. Munoz, M. A., Bennett, G. J., Ahlstrom, C., Griffiths, H. M., Schukken, Y. H., & Zadoks, R. N. Van Putten, G., & Elshof, W. J. (1978). Observations of the effects of transportation the (2008). Cleanliness scores as indicator of klebsiella exposure in dairy cows. Journal well-being and lean quality of slaughter pigs. Animal Regulation Studies, 1,247−271. of Dairy Science, 91, 3908−3916. Velarde, A., Gispert, M., Faucittano, L., Manteca, H., & Diestre, A. (2000). Survey of the Murray, A. C., & Johnson, C. P. (1998). Importance of the halothane gene on muscle effectiveness of stunning procedures used in Spanish pig abattoirs. The Veterinary quality and preslaughter death in western Canadian pigs. Canadian Journal of Record, 146,65−68. Animal Science, 78, 543−548. Velarde, A., Ruiz-de-la-Torre, J. L., Stub, C., Diestre, A., & Manteca, X. (2000). Factors National Hog Farmer (no date) Conformation and structural soundness in replacement affedting the effectiveness of head only electrical stunning in sheep. The Veterinary gilts, http://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/posters/ (Accessed April 3, 2010). Record, 147,40−43. National Pork Board (2008) Trucker Quality Assurance Manual, Des Moines, Iowa, USA, Von Holleben, K., Von Wenzlawowicz, M., Gregory, N., Anil, H., Velarde, A., Rodriguez, P., http://www.pork.org/Producers/TQA/TQA.aspx (accessed April 3, 2010). Cence Goga, B., Catanese, B., & Lambooy, B. (2010). Report on good and adverse OIE (2009). Transport of Animals by Land, Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 18th Edition practices, animal welfare concerns in relation to slaughter practices from the France: World Organization for Animal Health Paris. viewpoint of veterinary sciences. (http://www.dialrel.eu Eu funded project No. OIE (2009). Slaughter of Animals, Terrestrial Animal Health Code, World Organization for FP6-2005-FOOD-4-C (Accessed April 3, 2010)). Animal Health, 18th Edition Paris: France. Warner, R. D., Ferguson, D. M., Cottrell, J. J., & Knee, B. W. (2007). Acute stress induced OIE (2009). Chapter 7.6 Killing Animals for Disease Control Purposes, Terrestrial Animal by the preslaughter use of electric prodders causes tougher beef meat. Australian Health Code, 18th Edition Paris, France: World Organization for Animal Health. Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 47, 782−788. Poletto, R., Rostagno, M. H., Richert, E. T., & Marchant-Forde, J. N. (2009). Effects of ‘step Warriss, P. D., Brown, S. N., & Adams, S. I. M. (1994). Relationship between subjective up” ractopamine feeding program, sex and social rank on growth performance, and objective assessment stress at slaughter and meat quality in pigs. Meat Science, hoof lesions and Enterobacteriaceae shedding in finishing pigs. Journal of Animal 38, 329−340. Science, 87, 304−313. Waynert, D. F., Stookey, J., Schartzkopf-Genswein, K. S., & Waltz, C. A. (1999). The Quality, Welfare (2009). Assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality Consortium. response of beef cattle to noise during handling. Applied Animal Behavior Science, Netherlands: Leystad (accessed March 26, 2010, http://il.clermont.inra.fr/wql). 63,27−42. Raj, A. B. M. (2006). Recent developments in stunning and slaughter of poultry. World Weary, D. M., Braithwaite, L. A., & Fraser, D. (1998). Vocal response to pain in piglets. Poultry Science Journal, 62, 467. Applied Animal Science Behaviour, 161−172. Raj, A. B. M., & Gregory, N. G. (1990). Investigation into the batch stunning/killing of Webster, J. (2005). The assessment and implementation of animal welfare: Theory into chickens using carbon dioxide or argon induced hypoxia. Research in Veterinary practice. Review Science Technology Off. International Epiz., 24, 723−734. Science, 49, 364−366. Weeks, C. A., Brown, S. N., Lane, S., Heasman, L., Benson, T., & Warriss, P. D. (2009). Noise Ramsey, W. R., Meischke, H. R. C., & Anderson, B. (1976). The effect of tipping horns and levels in lairages for cattle, sheep, and pigs in abattoirs in England and Wales. The interruption of the journey on bruising cattle. Australian Veterinary Journal, 52, Veterinary Record, 165, 308−314. 285−286. Wenzlawowicz, M., & Von Holleben, K. (2005). Evaluation of animal welfare during Ritter, M. J., Ellis, M., Berry, N. L., Curtis, S. E., et al. (2009). Review: Transport losses in Controlled Atmosphere Stunning (CAS) of broilers under practical conditions. 77th market weight pigs. A review of definitions, incidence, and economic impact. The European Symposium on Poultry Welfare (WPSA Working Group Poultry Welfare). Professional Animal Scientist, 25, 404−414. Polland: Lublin, Agricultural University (15.06.05). Ritter, M. J., Ellis, M., Bertelson, C. R., Bowman, R., Brinkman, J., Dedecker, J. M., Keffaber, Westervelt, R. G., Kinsman, D., Prince, R. P., & Giger, W. (1976). Physiological stress K. K., Murphy, C. M., Peterson, B. A., Schipf, J. M., & Wolter, B. F. (2007). Effects of measurement during slaughter of calves and lambs. Journal of Animal Science, 42, distance moved during loading and floor space on the trailer during transport on 831−834. losses of market weight pigs on arrival at the packing plant. Journal of Animal White, R. G., DeShazer, I. A., Tressler, C. J., Borcher, G. M., Davey, S., Waninge, A., Science, 85, 3454−3461. Parkhurst, A. M., Milanuk, M. J., & Clems, E. T. (1995). Vocalizations and Ritter, M. J., Ellis, M., Brinkman, J., DeDecker, J. M., Keffaber, K. K., Kocher, M. E., Peterson, physiological response of pigs during castration with and without anesthetic. B. A., Schlipf, J. M., & Wolter, B. F. (2006). Effect of floor space during transport of Journal of Animal Science, 73, 381−386. T. Grandin / Meat Science 86 (2010) 56–65 65
Wildman, E. E., Jones, G. M., Wagner, P. E., Borman, R. L., Trout, H. F., & Lesch, T. N. Wray, R., Main, D. C. J., Green, L. E., & Webster, A. J. F. (2003). Assessment of welfare of (1982). A dairy cow body condition scoring system and its relationship to selected dairy cattle using animal based measurements, direct observations, and investi- production characteristics. Journal of Dairy Science, 65, 495−501. gation of farm records. The Veterinary Record, 153, 197−202. Woods, J., Shearer, J. K., & Hill, J. (2010). Recommended on-farm euthanasia practices. In Wythes, J. R., Kaus, R. K., & Newman, G. A. (1985). Bruising in cattle slaughtered at an T. Grandin (Ed.), Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach (pp. 186−213). abattoir in Southern Queensland. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 25, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Publishing. 727−733. Wray, H. R., Leeb, C., Main, D. C. J., Green, L. E., & Webster, A. J. F. (2007). Preliminary Zinpro.com/ASPX_Main/en-US/species/dairy/lameness.aspx, Lameness scoring – The assessment of finishing pig welfare using animal based measurements. Animal Simple Lameness Tool, accessed December 11, 2009. Welfare, 16, 209−211.