Animal handling and stress-related behaviour at mobile slaughter of cattle

Abstract

By avoiding animal transportation, mobile slaughter may have the potential to reduce animal stress. In a crosssectional study with elements of cohort design, we investigated relationships between animal handling and stress-related animal behaviours in connection with slaughter at two Swedish slaughter plants: a newly started small-scale on-farm mobile abattoir and a relatively large-scale stationary slaughterhouse. To the stationary plant, the animals were transported on average 99 km from farms, and one third of these animals spent one night in lairage before slaughter. Data were collected during processing of 298 animals at both plants during one year. Stockperson actions and animal behaviours were observed in the driveways (2.4 to 7.3 m long) to the stun box. Data on season, hour of day, air temperature, animal breed, animal category, animal age, carcass weight and stockperson category (plant or farm) were also collected. We used Spearman rank correlation, principalcomponent analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to develop a final generalised structural equation model, which contained six variables that represented observed animal backing; turning; slipping; eliminating; vocalising; and violent behaviour, regressed on a latent variable representing animal stress level. Stress level and animal behaviours were also regressed on five variables representing observed stockperson actions (touching, patting or hitting with hand; touching, patting or hitting with a tool; pushing; tail-twisting; and prodding with an electric goad) and on background variables including plant identity. The animal behaviours were modelled as counts per driveway length, clustered on farm identity. Marginal effects of stockperson actions and predictive margins of plants were calculated. The animals displayed backing and violent behaviour (kicking, goring or violent fighting) at significantly lower frequencies at the mobile plant than at the stationary one. In general, stockperson actions were significantly positively associated with animal behaviours, i.e. increased actions were associated with more frequent behaviours. Stockperson moving with tool, pushing and using electric goad were indirectly significantly associated with all animal behaviours via animal stress level. This study shows the importance of adequate cattle handling to limit pre-slaughter stress.

Significant variation in the management of cull sows before transport for slaughter: results from a survey of Danish pig farmers

“…However, if the condition of a given sow does live up to the legal requirements for fitness for transport, killing her on farm may be considered an ethical problem due to the human food wasted,25 as well as an economic problem for the farmer. Recently, the possibility for on-farm emergency slaughter26 or the use of smaller-scale mobile slaughter facilities27 have been suggested to be an alternative to transport to slaughter for compromised dairy cows, but to the best of our knowledge, no such development is taking place regarding the slaughter of cull sows.…”

Practical Application of the Five Domains Animal Welfare Framework for Supply Food Animal Chain Managers

“…Animals may become injured or stressed if they fall. Ease of animal movement through a handling facility, on a farm or at a slaughter plant can be assessed by counting the numbers of animals, turning back, stopping, balking or refusing to move forward [ 9 , 19 , 43 ].…”

The Visual, Auditory, and Physical Environment of Livestock Handling Facilities and Its Effect on Ease of Movement of Cattle, Pigs, and Sheep

“…When cattle, pigs or other livestock refuse to move, through a handling system, people are more likely to resort to using more aversive methods for moving them (Hultgren et al, 2020;Willson et al, 2021). Some examples of aversive methods are tail twisting and beating.…”

“…When livestock refuse to move easily through a handling facility, handlers are more likely to use electric prods to move them (Grandin, 2001;Hultgren et al, 2020;Willson et al, 2021). Electric prod use will increase cortisol levels in cattle and lactate levels in pigs (Benjamin et al, 2001;Edwards et al, 2010;Hemsworth et al, 2011).…”