Slaughtering Methods of Livestock and Animal Safety - Term Paper Example

Slaughtering Methods of Livestock Many developments in the practice of animal husbandry and slaughter have been made since the 1970s, but there will always be debate when dealing with such a sensitive issue. In the UK, slaughtered animal groups include traditional farm species killed for meat (such as pigs, beef, cattle and poultry), more exotic species (such as deer, ostriches and turkeys), as well as game birds, farmed fish, and, when required, culling for purposes of disease control. In the last case, this can include culling the animal directly affected by the disease (such as culling cattle in the Foot and Mouth outbreak in 2001), or of animals that are thought to spread the disease (such as the ongoing controversial cull of badgers to prevent the spread of bovine TB). As a minimum standard for protection of farmed animals, the ‘Five Freedoms’ should be upheld; freedoms from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; freedom to express normal behaviour; and freedom from fear and distress (Farm Animal Welfare Council, 1979). These should apply throughout their life, in every step from birth to slaughter. Intensive vs. organic farming Intensive farming practices, while relatively recent developments themselves, have quickly become the norm in the race to produce ever higher quantities. However, the methods used to produce high quantity and inexpensive meats are being brought to public attention, and many people are upset by what they discover. This has led to a boom in change; both in legislation and by personal choice of farmers who see the benefits of ‘organic’ farming. The so-called ‘battery’ farming of chickens and turkeys was the first welfare issue to be brought to public attention, most noticeably in recent campaigns by high profile celebrity chefs - Jamie Oliver, Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall and Gordon Ramsay. The media attention eventually led to a ban on battery cages for laying hens by 2012 (Harris, 2008). The cramped conditions faced by both broiler birds (for eating) and egg-laying birds cause breaches in animal welfare and contradict the five freedoms. Thousands of broiler birds die every day in UK broiler sheds from heart failure, disease and afflictions caused by intensive farming methods (Soil Association, 2009). Intensive farms also keep the cock birds (used to breed broiler chickens) in a state of chronic hunger, which heightens aggression and feather pecking, and 70% of all egg-laying chickens live out their lives in battery cages. Organic chicken and turkey farming methods revolve around providing birds with a habitat close to their natural state so that their behavior is normal. Jamie Oliver, following his campaign on poultry, is now starting a campaign to start the same revolution for pigs (Oliver, 2009) in association with the RSPCA’s campaign ‘Rooting for pigs’ (RSPCA Campaigns, 2009). The objections to intensive farming methods also concern areas of the five freedoms; pigs are very inquisitive creatures by nature, and are often reduced to living their entire life indoors with no possibilities to explore, and only a basic allowance of straw, if any. The worst condition is for breeding sows, which are commonly kept in farrowing crates to stop the sow moving or turning. These face the strongest objections, as it causes many problems, including: health problems (through lack of exercise); prevention of natural and social behaviours; stereotypies (highly repetitive behaviour, performed for no apparent purpose); and abnormal inactivity and unresponsiveness (Compassion in World Farming, 2001). While conditions in the UK are regulated more closely, breaches still occur a large portion of meat on the UK market is imported, where welfare is worse. However, for both cases there are always differences in how ‘free range’ is defined, and even intensive farming methods have their practices controlled by legislation to ensure the welfare of the animals. The Soil Association states that meat that is sometimes labelled 'outdoor bred/reared', 'free range' or 'Freedom Food' can come from pigs that have spent less than 20% of their lives in the fresh air (Soil Association, 2009). Organic pigs however are truly free range and spend much more of their lives outdoors than 'outdoor bred/reared' or 'free range' pigs. Methods of slaughter ‘Slaughter’ refers specifically to the killing of animals, especially for food. Relevant legislation was laid down in the ‘Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995’ (The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1995). Farm animals slaughtered for consumption are, simplistically, bled to death, either through a throat cut or ‘sticking’. Removing as much blood as possible from the flesh and blood vessels maintains the quality of the meat and its keeping potential. However, today in the UK, most animals are first ‘stunned’, so that they are unconscious during the process of cutting and bleeding, and feel no pain. Stunning methods range from electric shock to carbon dioxide gassing to captive bolt. The first and last are the most commonly used methods. Electric shock involves placing electrodes on the animal’s head (or heads are submersed in water in the case of group stunning poultry) to pass a current through its brain. Many believe that this causes instantaneous unconsciousness, but some disagree, and say the animal feels pain as a direct result of the process. Harold Hillman believes that, as the strength of current used to stun animals is not enough to kill them, it does not cause immediate unconsciousness, and the animal feels the pain of the current (Hillman, H., 2009). Captive bolt involves firing a bolt into a part of the brain to destroy some tissues causing instant unconsciousness. Both methods are condoned by the Humane Slaughter Association as long as they are carried out to certain standards (HSA, 2009). These standards also cover the conditions of the lairage, where the animals are kept just prior to slaughter. However, one of the main problems with stunning methods is when they are not effective or done properly, so that the animal may still be semi-conscious during bleeding, or may need re-stunning, both causing unnecessary distress and pain (Compassion in World Farming, 1993). Other animals, whether for consumption or not, are usually slaughtered by free bullet, at close range (e.g. horses) or from a distance (e.g. rabbits and game birds). Fish die of asphyxiation when removed from the water. It has long been thought that fish do not feel pain and so no methods of killing cause pain. However, there is continued research that shows that fish can feel pain (e.g. Sneddon et al., 2003; Chandroo et al., 2004), and organizations are campaigning to introduce more humane methods for fishing (PETA, 2009). Welfare and Meat Quality Improving the welfare of animals for slaughter is a cause traditionally championed by charities and NGOs, and opposed by intensive farmers who are more interested in making a profit. However, meat farmers are waking up to the realities that improving animal welfare, even in small ways, can improve meat quality and get a better price. Poor animal welfare can lead to ‘Dark Dry Firm’ (DFD) meat in lambs and beef (Gregory, 2008), and bruising or stress in ‘Pale Soft Exudative’ meat in pigs (Gregory, 2007). DFD meat was found to look and taste bad and spoil sooner (have a shorter shelf life). Recommendations for preventing DFD meat include reducing over exertion, long distance travel, long periods of lairage, fighting, over-stocking in lairage, and injury; many of the same recommendations that improve animal welfare. Prof Gregory said that just a few simple measures can be taken to greatly improve the meat quality an animal produces, and in the process the welfare of the animal will increase; a win win situation for both producer and animal alike. Religious Slaughter While it is law to stun animals before slaughter (under EU legislation ([Council Directive 119/93/EC of 22 December 1993]), certain groups are exempt from the regulations in the UK. According to Jewish and Muslim religious practices, animals must be ‘fully alive’ before slaughter, and are killed using a very sharp knife to slit the throat. Jewish religious law demands the animal must also be healthy and have suffered no injury. As well as stunning causing the animal to become unconscious, it can also be argued that it causes injury. Although some sections of both religions interpret the teachings to allow stunning of animals before killing, it is still common practice to apply no pre-stunning technique. Religious authorities such as the Association of Muslim Lawyers (UK) assert that the method is painless, as the first incision and the resulting haemorrhage induces anoxia (lack of oxygen) in the brain cells, which acts as a powerful pain-killer. The animal remains conscious but totally insensitive to pain, severe bleeding having disabled the sensory centre (Khan, 1982). They argue that stunning in ‘killing the animal twice’, and is thus surely less humane than religious methods (Mueen-Uddin, 1998). Authorities also object to the stunning as they claim less blood is drained from the animal as a result (beliefs forbid the consumption of blood). However much animals welfare groups such as the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), the Humane Slaughter Association (HSA) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) want to respect religious beliefs and practices, their principles require them to oppose killings that violate animal welfare. Three main areas of objection to killings without pre-stunning are: pre-slaughter handling, the potential for pain and distress during the throat cut, and the time to loss of brain responsiveness (Farm Animal Welfare Council. 2003). The first objection states that the amount of restraint needed to hold the animal and expose its throat is much more than required in normal slaughtering. The second a third objections conclude that slitting the throat does not immediately cause an animal to lose consciousness; sufficient arteries and tissues are cut to send signals of pain and distress to the brain, which does not die for up to 40 seconds after the cut in the case of adult cattle. Separate research has also concluded that there is no difference in the amount of blood loss between pre-stunned and un-stunned carcasses (Anil et al., 2006). The conclusions of a 2003 report led the FAWC to recommend that the Government repeal the exemption allowing animals to be slaughtered without pre-stunning. As of 2005, correspondence between the FAWC and the Government regarding the subject has resulted in no change of the law. A recent RSPCA factsheet about Religious Slaughter describes the organizations’ continuing battle for the welfare of animals legally slaughtered without pre-stunning; referring to the New Zealand system where all animals are either pre-stunned, or stunned immediately following the throat incision; and suggesting that if the law cannot be reformed, a labeling system should be implemented so that customers can make an informed choice about the meat they buy (RSPCA Farm Animals Department, 2009). The HSA further suggest that recent advances in electrical stunning methods do not conflict with religious ideals, since the animal can regain consciousness after the stun, if no further action is taken, proving that it is still ‘fully alive’ (HSA, 2007). Conclusions Since the rise of intensive meat farming, regulations have been put into place to ensure animal safety. However, there are still many issues to be resolved when deciding if current husbandry and slaughter methods are ‘humane’. Intensive farming is attacked for contradicting the ‘five freedoms’, and not allowing animals to live a good life before slaughter. Organic farming and better animal welfare practices have risen in popularity both with the public who are becoming more aware of the conditions on farms and slaughterhouses, and with farmers themselves, who recognise the benefits for meat quality and of having a positive public image. Stunning is seen to be a humane way to incapacitate animals before slaughter, but there are concerns about the effectiveness of the methods. However, there is larger worry about cases where stunning is not used, i.e. for religious slaughter. Animal welfare for slaughter is a continuing debate, but efforts are constantly being made to improve the situation, for example, by DEFRA’s Animal Health & Welfare Strategy for 2014, whose vision includes: “Consumer valuing the confidence they have in food produced safely from healthy animals that are well cared for” (DEFRA, 2008). References Anil M.H., Yesildere T., Aksu H., Matur E., McKinstry J.L., Weaver H.R., Erdogan O., Hughes S.I. and Mason C., 2006 Comparison of Halal slaughter with captive bolt stunning and neck cutting in cattle: xsanguination and quality parameters. Animal Welfare 15: 325-330. Chandroo, K.P., Duncan, I.J.H. and Moccia, R.D., 2004. Can Fish Suffer?: Perspectives on Sentience, Pain, Fear, and Stress. Applied Animal Behavior Science, p.11. Compassion in World Farming, 1993. Welfare at slaughter of meat chickens [Online]. Available at: http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/w/welfare_at_slaughter_of_broilers_1993.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2009]. Compassion in World Farming, 2001. Scientific case against sow gestation crates and the tethering of sows [Online] Available at: http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/s/scientific_case_against_gestation_crates.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2009]. DEFRA, 2008. Animal Health & Welfare Strategy's vision [Online]. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/ahws/vision.htm [Accessed 8 March 2009]. EC Council, 1993. Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing Official Journal L 340 , 31/12/1993 p. 0021 – 0034 Farm Animal Welfare Council. 2008. Five Freedoms [Online] Available at: http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm [Accessed 8 March 2009]. Farm Animal Welfare Council. 2003. Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing - Part 1: Red Meat Animals. [Online] Available at: http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports/slaughter/report.pdf [Accessed 8 March 2009]. Gregory, N., 2007. Animal Welfare and Meat Production. 2rd ed. London: CABI Publishing. Gregory, N., 2008. Meat Quality and Animal Welfare [Online]. Available at: http://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/1454/meat-quality-and-animal-welfare [Accessed 8 March 2008) Harris, C., 2008. What is Behind Welfare Friendly Production? [Online] ThePoultrySite. Available at: http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/962/what-is-behind-welfare-friendly-production [Accessed 8 March 2009]. Hillman, H., 2009. The Slaughter of Animals for Food [Online]. Available at: http://www.hedweb.com/hillman/animpain.htm [Accessed 8 March 2009]. Humane Slaughter Association, 2007. Religious Slaughter: The Facts. [Online] Available at: http://www.hsa.org.uk/Publications/General%20Publications.html [Accessed 8 March 2009]. Humane Slaughter Association, 2009. Humane Slaughter Information [Online]. Available at: http://www.hsa.org.uk/Humane%20Slaughter%20Information.htm [Accessed 8 March 2009]. Khan, G. M., 1982. Al-Dhabh: Slaying animals for food the Islamic way. pp. 23-25. Green Link, London. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1995. The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 [Online]. Available at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si1995/Uksi_19950731_en_2.htm [Accessed 8 March 2009]. Mueen-Uddin, C., 1998. Religious Slaughter and the welfare of Animals. The Muslim Lawyer Journal, 3(2). Oliver, J., 2009. Jamie Saves Our Bacon [Online]. Available at: http://www.jamieoliver.com/bacon/pigwelfare [Accessed 8 March 2009]. PETA, 2009. Fishing Hurts [Online]. Available at: http://www.fishinghurts.com [Accessed 8 March 2009]. RSPCA Campaigns, 2009. Pigs - Rooting for pigs! [Online] Available at: http://www.rspca.org.uk [Accessed 8 March 2009]. RSPCA Farm Animals Department, 2009. Religious Slaughter (Information Sheet). [Online] Available at: http://www.rspca.org.uk [Accessed 8 March 2009]. Sneddon, L.U., Braithwaite, V.A., and Gentle, M.J., 2003. Do Fish Have Nociceptors: Evidence for the Evolution of a Vertebrate Sensory System. The Royal Society Scientific Academy, 7 June Soil Association. 2009. Animal Welfare [Online]. Available at: http://www.soilassociation.org/animalwelfare [Accessed 8 March 2009]. Read More