2011 Restaurant Animal Welfare and Humane Slaughter Audits in U.S. Federally Inspected Beef and Pork Slaughter Plants

Temple Grandin
Department of Animal Sciences
Colorado State University

In 2011, a total of 34 beef plants and 22 pork plants were audited by two major restaurant companies for animal welfare. Thirty-three beef plants passed on all of five of the numerically scored audit criteria. All of the beef plants rendered all of the cattle insensible before they were hoisted and hung on the bleed rail. One beef plant had a not acceptable score of 92% of the cattle rendered insensible with a single shot. Ninety-one percent (31 plants) rendered 99% to 100% of the cattle insensible with a single shot from a captive bolt. The stunning scores for all the beef plants are shown on Table 1. One cow slaughter plant had a not acceptable score of 2.5% of the cows falling during truck unloading. Falling scores for all the beef plants are shown in Table 2. Table 3 shows that all the beef plants passed with 3% or less of the cattle vocalizing (bellow or moo) in the stunning area. Twenty percent (7 plants) of the beef plants used 0% electric prods and 15% (3 plants) had electric prod scores of 5% or less (Table 4). The remaining beef plants had electric prod scores of 25% or less.

Best Practices Beef

One best practice that was observed was the use of tightly stretched shade cloth over cattle holding pens. To prevent the shade cloth from ripping, it was stretched tightly by lacing it to a frame through grommets in the edge of the cloth.

Video Auditing

I had the opportunity to view 23 beef plants that have installed video cameras that are monitored by the Arrowsight auditing company. All the cameras had a good clear view of the stunner and truck unloading. Cameras in the leadup race should be positioned so that the entrance of the stun box and three cattle waiting in line can be viewed. Most plants had their cameras in a good position but in three plants, it was obvious that cattle were being prodded outside the camera view. In one plant, too many cattle were put in the crowd pen, and in a second plant, one steer fell in the stunning chute area.

In all 23 plants, stunning was excellent and would have passed. In five plants, the positioning of the camera for the insensibility audit will need to be improved. Locating cameras in a good position for determining insensibility is sometimes difficult due to all the water and blood. Video auditing has resulted in big improvements and it solves the problem of people “acting good” when they know they are being watched. To be effective, video cameras need to be watched by auditors outside the plant.

Beef Problem Area

I am concerned about heat stress problems in cattle fed beta-agonists I observed fed steers which were showing obvious signs of heat stress and lameness. The effects were very uneven. In a group of approximately 100 steers, 4 or 5 steers showed very severe heat stress with open mouths and extended tongues. About 50% of the cattle were sore footed and the rest were normal. The temperature was hot, ranging from 90°F (32.2°C ) to 100° F (37.7°C). Cattle that are heat stressed will have open mouth breathing. Open mouth breathing is a clear sign that the beef animal’s welfare has been compromised.

Pork Audits

There were 12 pork plants that used group CO2 stunning and 10 that used electric stunning. Twenty plants out of 22 passed on all the numerically scored criteria. Out of 22 plants, one plant with electric stunning failed to render 100% of the pigs insensible before hanging them on the rail. All of the plants that used electric stunning placed the stunning wand in the correct position on 100% of the pigs. Table 5 shows the scores for falling during handling in all 22 pork plants. Seventy-three percent of the pork plants had 0% of the pigs falling both during unloading and in the stunning chute area. One plant had several pigs fall during unloading due to a truck driver rushing the pigs. Tables 6 and 7 show electric prod use percentages for electric stunned and CO2 stunned pigs. In 12 plants with group CO2 stunning, 67% (8 plants) had 0% electric prod use. For the plants using electric stunning, 70% (7 plants) used electric prods on 10% or less of the pigs. Since the pigs have to be lined up in single file, it is very difficult to completely eliminate electric prods. Thirty percent (3 plants) used electric prods on 11% to 25% of the pigs. Table 8 shows the scores for pigs vocalizing in the V restrainer. All 10 plants had acceptable scores of 5% or less of the pigs vocalizing in the restrainer.

Pork Best Practices

In one plant, the alley leading up to the group CO2 stunning was made non-slip by installing rubber conveyor belting on the floor that had a pattern of V shaped cleats. The cleats must be positioned in the correct position to prevent the pigs from slipping. The belting worked really well.

Pork Problem Areas

There is great variation in the ease of driving pigs from certain producers. Some pigs constantly balk and do not move easily. Plant management needs to work with producers. Pigs will be easier to handle at the plant if the producer walks through the pens during finishing to get the pigs accustomed to people walking through them. Another area of concern is plants that pass their audits by slowing down the line speed or allowing the line to run out. They do this to improve their falling and electric prod scores. There was one pork plant that passed on all of its restaurant audit items, but sources within the industry have informed me that their electric prod scores are much higher. There is a need to get video auditing more widely used in pork to stop the problem of “acting good” when they know they are being watched.

Table 1: Captive Bolt Stunning Accuracy in 34 U.S. and Canadian beef plants
Percentage of Cattle Stunned with One Shot Number of Plants Percentage of Plants
100 % to 99% Excellent 31 91%
95% to 98% : Acceptable 2 6%
90% to 94% : Not Acceptable 1 3%
Less than 90% : Serious Problem 0 0%

Table 2: Percentage of Cattle Falling During Handling in 34 U.S. and Canadian Beef Plants
Percentage of Cattle Falling During Handling Number of Plants Percentage of Plants
0% : Excellent 30 88%
1% : Acceptable 3 9%
2% to 4% : Not Acceptable 1* 3%
Greater than 5% : Serious Problem 0 0%

*All falls occurred during unloading.

Table 3: Percentage of Cattle Vocalizing During Handling and Stunning in 34 U.S. and Canadian Beef Plants
Percentage of Cattle Vocalizing Number of Plants Percentage of Plants
0% to 1% : Excellent 26 76%
2% to 3 % : Acceptable 8 24%
4% to 10% : Not Acceptable 0 0%
Greater than 10% : Serious Problem 0 0%

Table 4: Percentage of Cattle Moved with Electric Prods During Handling in 34 U.S. and Canadian Beef Plants
Percentage of Cattle Electric Prodded Number of Plants Percentage of Plants
0% : Excellent 7 20%
5% or less : Very Good 5 15%
6% to 25% : Acceptable* 22 65%
26% to 50% : Not Acceptable 0 0%
Greater than 50% : Serious Problem 0 0%

Table 5: Percentage of Pigs Falling During Handling in 22 U.S. and Canadian Pork Plants
Percentage of Pigs Falling During Handling Number of Plants Percentage of Plants
0% : Excellent 16 73%
1% : Acceptable 5 23%
2% to 5% : Not Acceptable 1 4%
Greater than 5% : Serious Problem 0 0%

Table 6: Percentage of Pigs Moved with Electric Prods During Handling in 12 U.S. and Canadian Pork Plants with Group CO2 Stunning
Percentage of Pigs Electric Prodded Number of Plants Percentage of Plants
0% : Excellent 8 67%
1 to 5% : Acceptable 4 33%
Greater than 5% : Serious Problem 0 0%

Table 7: Percentage of Pigs Moved with Electric Prods During Handling in 10 U.S. and Canadian Pork Plants with Electric Stunning in a V Restrainer
Percentage of Pigs Electric Prodded Number of Plants Percentage of Plants
0% : Excellent 0 0%
1 to 5% : Very Good 2 20%
6% to 10% : Acceptable 5 50%
11% to 25% : Not Acceptable 3* 30%
Greater than 25% : Serious Problem 0 0%

*The worst electric prod score was 12%.

Table 8: Percentage of Pigs Vocalizing in the V Restrainer in 10 U.S. and Canadian Pork Plants that use Electric Stunning
Percentage of Pigs Vocalizing Number of Plants Percentage of Plants
0% : Excellent 1 10%
1% to 5% : Acceptable 8 80%
6% to 10% : Not Acceptable 0 0%
Greater than 10% : Serious Problem 1* 10%

*One plant, 2 audits, 0% one audit and 25% on another audit; Average is over 10%.

Click here to return to the Homepage for more information on animal behavior, welfare, and care.

Click here to return to Survey main menu to view surveys done during other years