DOCSLIB.ORG

Long Distance Transport and Welfare of Farm Animals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Long Distance Transport and Welfare of Farm Animals LONG DISTANCE T RANSPORT AND WELFARE OF FARM ANIMALS This page intentionally left blank LONG DISTANCE TRANSPORT AND WELFARE OF FARM ANIMALS Edited by Appleby, M.C., Cussen, V.A., Garcés, L., Lambert, L.A. and Turner, J. CABI is a trading name of CAB International CABI Head Offi ce CABI North American Offi ce Nosworthy Way 875 Massachusetts Avenue Wallingford 7th Floor Oxfordshire OX10 8DE Cambridge, MA 02139 UK USA Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 Tel: +1 617 395 4056 Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508 Fax: +1 617 354 6875 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cabi.org ©WSPA 2008. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, by photocopying, record- ing or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owners. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library, London, UK. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Long distance transport and welfare of farm animals/editorial board: Appleby, M.C. [et al.]. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-84593-403-3 (alk. paper) 1. Livestock--Transportation. 2. Animal welfare. I. Appleby, Michael C. SF89.L66 2008 636.08'3--dc22 2007041035 ISBN-13: 978 1 84593 403 3 Typeset by SPi, Pondicherry, India. Printed and bound in the UK by Biddles, Kings Lynn. Contents Contributors vii Foreword ix T. Grandin Overview xvii Acknowledgement xxv 1. Science of Animal Welfare 1 M.C. Appleby 2. Economic Aspects 18 Agra CEAS Consulting Ltd 3. Physiology and Disease 69 X. Manteca 4. Meat Quality 77 G.A. María 5. Enforcement of Transport Regulations: 113 the EU as Case Study V.A. Cussen 6. The Welfare of Livestock During Sea Transport 137 C.J.C. Phillips v vi Contents 7. The Welfare of Livestock During Road Transport 157 D.M. Broom 8. Africa 182 K. Menczer 9. North America 218 M. Engebretson 10. South America 261 C.B. Gallo and T.A. Tadich 11. Asia 288 P.J. Li, A. Rahman, P.D.B. Brooke and L.M. Collins 12. Australia and New Zealand 324 M.W. Fisher and B.S. Jones 13. Europe 355 S. Corson and L. Anderson 14. Middle East 387 S. Abdul Rahman Appendix: Introduction to the Guidelines 413 for Animal Welfare Index 445 Contributors AgraCEAS Consulting Ltd, Imperial College, University of London, Wye, Ashford, Kent, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Libby Anderson, ANNEX Consultancy, Edinburgh, UK. E-mail: libby.anderson@ blueyonder.co.uk Michael C. Appleby, PhD, Animal Welfare Policy Advisor, World Society for the Protection of Animals, 89 Albert Embankment, London, UK. Formerly Senior Lecturer, University of Edinburgh. E- mail: [email protected] Philip Brooke, Compassion in World Farming, River Court, Mill Lane, Godalming, Surrey, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Professor Donald Broom, Cambridge University Animal Welfare Information Centre, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge, UK. E-mail: [email protected]. ac.uk Lissa Collins, PhD, Compassion in World Farming, River Court, Mill Lane, Godalming, Surrey, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Sarah Corson, MSc, E-mail: [email protected] Victoria A. Cussen, MSc, BSc, DipCABT, Research Manager, World Society for the Protection of Animals, 89 Albert Embankment, London, UK. E-mail: victoriacussen@wspa international.org Monica Engebretson, Project Director, Animal Protection Institute, 1122 S Street, Sacramento, California, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Mark Fischer, PhD, Kotare Bioethics, PO Box 2484 Stortford Lodge, Hastings, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected] Carmen Gallo, PhD, Instituto de Ciencia Animal y Tecnología de Carnes, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Chile. E-mail: [email protected] Leah Garcés, Msc, Director of Programmes, World Society for the Protection of Animals, 89 Albert Embankment, London, UK, E-mail: [email protected] Temple Grandin, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. E-mail: [email protected] vii viii Contributors Bidda Jones, PhD, Chief Scientist, RSPCA Australia, Australia. E-mail: bjones@rspca. org.au Lesley A. Lambert, DPhil, Director of Research and Education, Compassion in World Farming, River Court, Mill Lane, Godalming, Surrey, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Peter, J. Li, PhD, Assistant Professor, Social Sciences Department, University of Huston- Downtown, Office 682-S, One Main Street, Huston, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Xavier Manteca, PhD, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] Gustavo A. Maria, PhD, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Zaragoza, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] Karen Menczer, PhD, Natural Resources Biodiversity Consultant, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Professor Clive Phillips, Professor of Animal Welfare, Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] Abdul Rahman, PhD, FRVCS, Secretary, Commonwealth Veterinary Association, #123, 7th ‘B’ Main Road, 4th Block (West), Jayanagar, Bangalore, India. E-mail: [email protected]. net.in Tamara A. Tadich, MV, MSc, Programa Doctorado en Ciencas Veterinarias, Escuela de Graduados, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Chile. E-mail: [email protected] Jacky Turner, PhD, Research Consultant, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Foreword: Strategies to Improve Farm Animal Welfare and Reduce Long Distance Transport of Livestock Going to Slaughter T. G RANDIN Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA Most people interested in animal welfare would agree that transporting livestock destined for slaughter across either an ocean or a continent is a practice that should be discontinued. Shipping the chilled or frozen meat and processing the animals in the region of origin would improve welfare and reduce stress. This book makes a valuable contribution to that aim by providing the first comprehensive coverage of the science, welfare problems and incidence of long- distance transport, with many authors contributing from many countries around the world. In many situations, the time that an animal is on a vehicle and the condition of the roads are more important than the distance travelled. A 500 km trip on a smooth highway will probably be less stressful than a 100 km trip on a bumpy dirt road that takes the same length of time. This foreword will cover areas where welfare during transport is likely to have some of the greatest problems. I will then outline methods that are already being successfully used to improve animal welfare on farms, vehicles and slaughter plants, which could be used to eliminate long-distance transportation of slaughter animals. During a career spanning over 35 years, I have learned to under- stand more and more how economic forces can be used to improve animal welfare. In this foreword, I will discuss how economic incentives to treat animals better can be very effective. All of the things that I recommend are based on either first-hand experi- ence implementing a programme, observations during extensive travel, research or interviews with other individuals who have implemented effective programmes. Major Problem Areas Customers require live animals The Australian live sheep trade is a primary example. The welfare of the sheep would be greatly improved if the sheep were slaughtered in Australia and the meat ix x Foreword was shipped to the Middle East. The religious requirements for halal slaughter could be met in Australia. The main barrier to eliminating this trade is that many customers want unchilled meat. The only ways to change this are to increase customers’ awareness of animal welfare issues or to convince them that chilled or frozen meat is a good product. Old cull breeding stock of little value Some of the worst long-distance travels occur with old cull breeding stock. In the USA, these animals often travel greater distances than young animals. There is less economic incentive to treat these animals well. An effective way to reduce abuses is to increase the value of old breeding stock. Producers need to be educated that if they sell animals before they become emaciated, they will receive more money. In the USA and other parts of the developed world, programmes have been implemented in some areas to fatten old breeding stock so that they will become more valuable for meat. Highly segmented marketing chains In the developed world, such as Europe and North America, most high-quality young animals that are fattened for slaughter go directly from the feedlot or farm to a slaughter plant. The transport time is often less than 4 h. Old breeding stock often passes through a series of auctions or dealers and the origin of the animals may not be able to be traced. In the developing world, all classes of livestock are often sold through middlemen and dealers. Sectors of the livestock market where animals go through a series of auctions, dealers or middlemen will be the most dif- ficult to improve. Middlemen and dealers who do not own the animals have little economic incentive to reduce bruises, injuries and sickness because they are not held financially accountable for losses. Transport requires less expertise and capital investment than alternatives Importing animals from an unstable country to a slaughter plant in a stable economic zone requires much less expertise and financial risk compared to building and operat- ing a slaughter plant in a foreign country. A large slaughter plant is a big investment and many merchants who are either exporting or importing livestock may be lacking either the expertise or the financial capital to build a plant. Transporting live animals usually requires less capital than building and operating a slaughter plant.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CHANGING PERCEPTIONS of WILD HORSES in the AMERICAN LANDSCAPE a Dissertation Submitted to the Gradu
    RUNNING WILD, RUNNING FREE?: CHANGING PERCEPTIONS OF WILD HORSES IN THE AMERICAN LANDSCAPE A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the North Dakota State University of Agriculture and Applied Science By Andrea Lynn Mott In Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major Department: History, Philosophy, and Religious Studies May 2014 Fargo, North Dakota North Dakota State University Graduate School Title Running Wild, Running Free: Changing Perceptions of Wild Horses in the American Landscape By Andrea Lynn Mott The Supervisory Committee certifies that this disquisition complies with North Dakota State University’s regulations and meets the accepted standards for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: Thomas D. Isern Chair Angela Smith Cynthia Prescott Kevin Sedivec James F. Hoy Approved: July 11, 2014 John Cox Date Department Chair ABSTRACT Since the 1930s, wild horses have become a subject of public concern. They are often showcased as symbols representing the historic past of the western United States. More recently they have become symbols of a mythic, or imagined, west. Writers, scholars, politicians, advocates, ranchers, and land managers are among the few groups who have taken a role in the livelihood of these animals living freely on public rangelands. The protection movement that began in the 1950s and carried over into the 1970s ultimately resulted in the passage of the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. This act placed all wild horses living on public rangelands under the protection of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. Before this legislation individuals in the West could round up wild horses without interference.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tragedy of the Horse, American Icon
    Journal of Food Law & Policy Volume 7 Number 2 Article 6 2011 The Tragedy of the Horse, American Icon Tim Opitz University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jflp Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Agency Commons, Animal Law Commons, Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Food and Drug Law Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Opitz, T. (2021). The Tragedy of the Horse, American Icon. Journal of Food Law & Policy, 7(2). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jflp/vol7/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Food Law & Policy by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE TRAGEDY OF THE HORSE, AMERICAN ICON Tim Opitz* I. AUTHOR'S NOTE .......................................... 357 II. INTRODUCTION....................................358 III. FORMER INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES...... ................. 360 IV. HORSE PROCESSING ................................ ........ 363 A. Anti-slaughterPosition...........................364 B. RegulatedHorse Processing .................. ..... 365 V. TRANSPORTATION OF THE HORSE.... ........................ 368 VI. LAWS GOVERNING THE HORSE-SLAUGHTER INDUSTRY.................370 A. Federal Legislation ........................ ..... 370 B. ProposedFederal Legislation ........... ......... 374 C State Legislation .......................... ...... 376 VII. CONSEQUENCES OF THE BAN ON SLAUGHTER...... ............. 379 VIII. CONCLUSION .................................... ......... 381 I. AUTHOR'S NOTE Whether a prohibition on slaughter improves the welfare of the American horse population is the focus of this article. At the time it was written, winter of 2010-2011, a confluence of Federal and State legislative action had ended domestic slaughter. These actions are detailed in the body of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives to Horse Slaughter
    ALTERNATIVES TO HORSE SLAUGHTER December, 2010 By Allen Warren – Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc. Poulsbo, Washington IN COLLABORATION WITH THE FOLLOWING LEADING EQUINE RESCUE SANCTUARY OPERATORS FROM ACROSS THE UNITED STATES: Jerry Finch, Habitat for Horses, Texas; Hilary Wood, Front Range Equine Rescue, Colorado; Grace Belcuore, California Equine Retirement Foundation, California; Teresa Paradis, Live & Let Live Farm, New Hampshire; Katie Merwick, Second Chance Ranch, Washington, and Melanie Higdon, Hidden Springs Equine Rescue, Florida. THERE IS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE CONTINUED SLAUGHTER OF U.S. HORSES IF THE COMMERCIAL EQUINE INDUSTRY PARTICIPATES According to its proponents, if the slaughter of America’s displaced horses in Canada and Mexico were to be halted tomorrow, there would be approximately 100,000 needing to be dealt with each year by alternative means which they claim do not exist today. Those that would continue the practice of disposing of these companion animals, never bred or raised to be part of the food chain, and that totals only about 1% of the total U.S. population of horses each year, argue that equine slaughter for human consumption abroad is the only economical way to handle what they call the “unwanted” horse problem. The purpose of this paper is to prove that not only does an alternative already exist, but that it can be quickly expanded to accommodate America’s not unwanted but displaced horses if the commercial equine industry will stop using slaughter as a dumping ground for its byproduct and participate in providing for the true welfare of the animals upon which its businesses are based.
    [Show full text]
  • The Continuing Saga of Wild Horse Management: Finding a Balance in the Case of One of America's Iconic Symbols
    William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 41 Issue 3 Article 7 April 2017 The Continuing Saga of Wild Horse Management: Finding a Balance in the Case of One of America’s Iconic Symbols Elspeth Visser Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr Part of the Animal Law Commons, and the Environmental Law Commons Repository Citation Elspeth Visser, The Continuing Saga of Wild Horse Management: Finding a Balance in the Case of One of America’s Iconic Symbols, 41 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 683 (2017), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol41/iss3/7 Copyright c 2017 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr THE CONTINUING SAGA OF WILD HORSE MANAGEMENT: FINDING A BALANCE IN THE CASE OF ONE OF AMERICA’S ICONIC SYMBOLS ELSPETH VISSER* Like the wild West Wind that Shelley yearned to be, the mustangs, the best ones at least, were “tameless, and swift, and proud.” –J. Frank Dobie1 INTRODUCTION Wild horses have long captured the imagination of American audi- ences. The wild Mustang early on came to symbolize the freedom and untamed beauty of the American West.2 Since Congress passed the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (“the Act”) in 1971, wild horses that live in the western states have been protected under federal law as “symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West” and as part of an effort to preserve the ecological diversity of the area.3 This legislation resulted from increased public protest over the inhumane capture and slaughter of wild horses, which had led to a significant decline in their numbers from the late 1800s on.4 The Act declares that wild horses living on public lands are to be protected and managed by the federal govern- ment, and that the Secretary may “designate and maintain specific ranges on public lands as sanctuaries for their protection and preservation.”5 * J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • By: Fahran Kj Robb
    ! ! ! ! "#$%&!%'()*"+&$!,%%)&%!,-!+"&!)-,+&.!%+(+&%! /01!2("$(-!3454!$#//! 6(0!7897! ! :$&:($&.!(%!(-!(;(.&6,;!$&<),$&6&-+!2#$!+"&!(*$,;)'+)$('!'(=!;#)$%&!! (+!+"&!:&--%0'>(-,(!%+(+&!)-,>&$%,+0?%!.,;3,-%#-!%;"##'!#2!'(=! %:$,-*!%&6&%+&$!7897! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! +@A!BCDE!FDCGHIJ!ICKJLMKAG!MK!J@MN!FLFAD!MN!AKJMDAOP!J@LJ!CQ!J@A!NJHGAKJ!LHJ@CD4! ! Domestic horse slaughter has been a particularly contentious issue for the better part of a decade. Congress passed various laws in an attempt to address some stakeholders’ concerns over the inhumaneness and immoral disposition of horse slaughter. Campaigning efforts eventually led to the elimination of funds for horse slaughter inspection services that resulted in a cessation of domestic horse slaughter for the past five years. A June 2011 report issued by the United States Government Accountability Office created at the direction of the United States Congress, “Horse Welfare: Action Needed to Address Unintended Consequences from Cessation of Domestic Slaughter,” facilitated the support needed to delete the language contained in previous agricultural appropriations bills that had effectively banned horse slaughter in the United States over the five-year period.1 This bill, Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, was signed by President Barack Obama on November 18, 2011. No horse slaughter plants have opened as of yet, but some investors have begun discussion of possible horse slaughter operations. I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Overview of United States Horse Industry In June 2011, the United States government estimated that there were 9 million horses living in the United States.2 A June 2005 study commissioned by the American Horse Council Foundation gives insight into the status of the U.S. horse industry prior to the cessation of domestic horse slaughter and the economic downturn of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act
    THE AMERICAN HORSE SLAUGHTER PREVENTION ACT Federal legislation is currently pending in Congress which, if enacted, would make it a federal offense to transport horses for the purpose of slaughter for human consumption.! Californians chose to step up for their horses in 1998, when they enacted the initiative which criminalizes the transportation of horses for human consumption.2 However, Califor­ nia is unable to protect all of America's horses on its own and needs the support of federal law so that persons crossing state lines will also be penalized. Horse slaughter will only end in the United States when the American people are made fully aware of its existence and place pressure on law­ makers to stop it. Americans in the past have made efforts to protect their wild horses, burros, and Mustangs from being killed for pet food and providing refuge where they could exist without further persecution, yet Americans have failed to enforce these regulations.3 Irresponsible horse ownership is the main reason why horse slaughter has thrived over the years4 and therefore is a major contributing factor to the cruelty suf­ fered by horses whose lives end at the slaughter house. 1. California has enacted a law to attempt to stop the horse slaughter for human consumption market. Californians voted by a 62% majority to make it a felony to sell a horse for human consumption.5 The Prohibition of Horse Slaughter and Sale of Horse Meat for Human Consumption Act of 1998 (Proposition 6) was adopted by California voters and codified into Penal Code section 598c.6 Section 598c provides that it is a felony offense to "possess, to import into or export from [California], or to sell, buy, give away hold, or accept any horse with the intent of killing, or having another kill, that 1 H.R.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Legislative Review
    \\server05\productn\L\LCA\16-2\LCA207.txt unknown Seq: 1 10-MAY-10 9:43 2009 LEGISLATIVE REVIEW By Jennifer O’Brien & Randall Szabo* REVIEW EDITOR’S NOTE It is my pleasure to introduce the twelfth annual edition of Animal Law’s Legislative Review. This Review discusses animal-related legis- lation that the federal and state legislatures considered during their legislative sessions in 2009. This Review is intended to serve not only as a discussion of the legislative developments that occurred in the past year, but also as an educational tool for those interested in learning more about animal law issues. We hope that our analysis of 2009’s legislative develop- ments provides our readers with valuable information regarding the process of proposing and passing animal-related legislation. We also hope our analysis will help develop the field of animal law. As always, Animal Law welcomes any comments or suggestions for future edi- tions of the Legislative Review. Robin C. McGinnis Legislative Review Editor I. FEDERAL LEGISLATION ................................ 372 R A. Bears ................................................. 372 R 1. Importation of Polar Bear Trophies .................. 372 R 2. Bear Protection Act of 2009 ......................... 375 R B. Shark Finning ........................................ 377 R C. Fur Labeling .......................................... 379 R D. Horses ................................................ 381 R 1. Horse Transportation Safety Act .................... 381 R 2. Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act .................... 383 R * Jennifer O’Brien and Randall Szabo 2010. Ms. O’Brien and Mr. Szabo are sec- ond-year students at Lewis & Clark Law School. Ms. O’Brien earned her B.A. degree from Willamette University. Ms. O’Brien has had a lifelong concern for animal welfare, particularly protection of wildlife and endangered species.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Timeline of Horse Slaughter
    A Timeline of Horse Slaughter Legislation in the United States The complicated legal issue of horse slaughter for human consumption has been debated in U.S. courts and Congress for years. Edited from an article by Leslie Potter, March 2012 for The Horse Channelhttp://www.horsechannel.com/horse-resources/horse- slaughter-timeline.aspx The horse slaughter argument has heated up in recent months since the 2012 appropriations bill was approved without a ban for horsemeat inspections. But this isn't the first time the horse slaughter debate has been a hot topic. The timeline below lists some of the key dates in the United States horse slaughter industry. Updated January 2014 Nov. 3, 1998: California voters passed Proposition 6 which banned the slaughter of horses, donkeys and mules and sale of horsemeat for human consumption. June 8, 2005: Rep. John Sweeney (R-NY) proposes an amendment to the 2005-2006 appropriations bill that prohibits the use of federal funding for inspections of horses for meat. The amendment passed on a vote of 269-158.: Sept. 20, 2005: Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), a veterinarian, and nine co-sponsors proposed a companion amendment to the Sweeney amendment that had passed the House of Representatives. The Senate amendment passed a funding limitation to ban horse slaughter by a 69-28 margin, following a bipartisan House vote of 269-158 in June 2005. Funding limitations remained in place in the federal budget until 2011. Nov. 10, 2005: The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005-2006 was signed into law.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Economic Impacts of Horse Slaughter in the United States Kristen N
    Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC Research Papers Graduate School 5-2014 A Review of Economic Impacts of Horse Slaughter in the United States Kristen N. Fort [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/gs_rp Recommended Citation Fort, Kristen N., "A Review of Economic Impacts of Horse Slaughter in the United States" (2014). Research Papers. Paper 535. http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/gs_rp/535 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Papers by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A REVIEW OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HORSE SLAUGHTER IN THE UNITED STATES by Kristen Fort B.S., Southern Illinois University, 2012 A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Masters of Science in Agribusiness Economics Department of Agribusiness Economics Southern Illinois University Carbondale August 2014 RESEARCH PAPER APPROVAL A REVIEW OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HORSE SLAUGHTER IN THE UNITED STATES By Kristen Fort A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Masters of Science in the field of Agribusiness Economics Approved by: Dwight R. Sanders Graduate School Southern Illinois University Carbondale June 17, 2014 AN ABSTRACT OF THE RESEARCH PAPER OF KRISTEN FORT, for the Masters of Science degree in AGRIBUSINESS ECONOMICS, TITLE: A REVIEW OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HORSE SLAUGHTER IN THE UNITED STATES MAJOR PROFESSOR: Dr. DWIGHT R. SANDERS Horse slaughter has been a widely contested issue in the United States recently.
    [Show full text]
  • Update on the Horse Slaughter Industry
    Update on the Horse Slaughter Industry AMI - Animal Handling and Care Conference October 2012 J. Woods Livestock Service Jennifer Woods, M.Sc. J. Woods Livestock Services Background Information : - Over one billion people, or 16% of the worlds population consume horse meat. - Most commonly consumed in European and Asian countries. China consumes the most. - The price of horse meat is at an all time high in Europe. - Major exporting countries are Argentina, Belgium, Poland, Brazil, Canada, France, Netherlands, Mongolia and Uruguay. The U.S. used to be on this list. The Alberta Horse Welfare Report - 2008 J. Woods Livestock Services ◊ Under the 1996 Farm Bill it became Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) responsibility to regulate the commercial and humane transport of horses to slaughter. ◊ Authority was delegated to the Deputy Administrator of Veterinary Services. J. Woods Livestock Services ◊ Collaboration was established between the private and public sector. - Equine Industry - Horse Welfare Groups - Auction Terminals - Horse Abattoirs - Trucking Industry - Research and Veterinary Community ◊ Opinions were gathered from various animal welfare groups. J. Woods Livestock Services ◊ Three areas of research enlisting three research groups. - Colorado State University (Dr. Temple Grandin) Welfare of horse arriving at abattoirs - Texas A & M (Dr. Ted Friend) Effects of water deprivation - University of California, Davis (Dr. Carolyn Stull) Stress in equines shipped to slaughter plants ◊ First time NA animal welfare regulation had been science based. J. Woods Livestock Services ◊ Recommendations from the research. - Separate stallions and other aggressive horses - Feed, water and rest 6 hours prior to loading - In trailer no longer then 28 hours - Owner/shippers certificates X - Provide adequate floor space - Phase out two tier trailers ◊ These were incorporated into APHIS Act, Standards for Conveyance 9 CFR 88.3 ◊ Transport expert for the humane transport of meat horses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Unwanted Horse Issue: What Now?
    NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LIBRARY ARCHIVED FILE Archived files are provided for reference purposes only. This file was current when produced, but is no longer maintained and may now be outdated. Content may not appear in full or in its original format. All links external to the document have been deactivated. For additional information, see http://pubs.nal.usda.gov. The Unwanted Horse Issue: What Now? Forum Revised Proceedings United States Department of Agriculture Jefferson Auditorium South Agriculture Building Washington, DC June 18, 2008 Edited by Camie Heleski Michigan State University Karen Waite Michigan State University Richard Reynnells USDA/CSREES/PAS Table of Contents Sponsor Recognition ii Preface, Camie Heleski iii Introduction, James J. Hickey Jr. 2 The Historical Perspectives of the Unwanted Horse, Nat T. Messer 3 Ethical Perspectives on the Unwanted Horse Issue & the US Ban on Equine Slaughter, Camie R. Heleski 7 Panel: Unwanted Horses: Fact or Fiction Carcass Disposal Options, David L. Meeker 13 Unwanted Horses: Fact or Fiction, Holly Hazard 18 The “Unwanted” Horse in the U.S.: An Overview of the Issue, Tom Lenz 24 The Need for Real Data and Common Understandings, Karin Bump 29 Panel: What is the Federal Role in Creating Viable Solutions to the Unwanted Horse Issue? The Honorable Ed Whitfield, R-KY 40 The Honorable Charles W. Stenholm, Olsson, Frank and Weeda, P.C. 41 Panel: Commercial Transportation of Horses to Slaughter in the United States: Knowns and Unknowns Commercial Transportation of Horses to Slaughter in the United
    [Show full text]
  • HORSE WELFARE Action Needed to Address Unintended Consequences from Cessation of Domestic Slaughter
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees GAO June 2011 HORSE WELFARE Action Needed to Address Unintended Consequences from Cessation of Domestic Slaughter GAO-11-228 June 2011 HORSE WELFARE Accountability • Integrity • Reliability Action Needed to Address Unintended Consequences from Cessation of Domestic Slaughter Highlights of GAO-11-228, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found Since fiscal year 2006, Congress has Since domestic horse slaughter ceased in 2007, the slaughter horse market has annually prohibited the use of federal shifted to Canada and Mexico. From 2006 through 2010, U.S. horse exports for funds to inspect horses destined for slaughter increased by 148 and 660 percent to Canada and Mexico, food, effectively prohibiting domestic respectively. As a result, nearly the same number of U.S. horses was slaughter. The U.S. Department of transported to Canada and Mexico for slaughter in 2010—nearly 138,000—as Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for was slaughtered before domestic slaughter ceased. Available data show that overseeing the welfare of horses horse prices declined since 2007, mainly for the lower-priced horses that are transported for slaughter. more likely to be bought for slaughter. GAO analysis of horse sale data Congress directed GAO to examine estimates that closing domestic horse slaughtering facilities significantly and horse welfare since cessation of negatively affected lower-to-medium priced horses by 8 to 21 percent; higher- domestic slaughter in 2007. GAO priced horses appear not to have lost value for that reason. Also, GAO examined (1) the effect on the U.S.
    [Show full text]