This new introductory statement by Temple Grandin is to address concerns raised by Sean Leffert in a 2021 paper titled, "Is ongoing ritual slaughter justifiable in modern America?" It appeared in the Journal of Applied Animal Research. He recently worked as a USDA/FSIS veterinary meat inspector and was responsible for overseeing enforcement of U.S. Humane Slaughter regulations. Dr. Leffert stated that "until better animal welfare support for religious slaughter is provided, I believe the religious exemption from humane handling regulations should be removed." He referred to several of my papers and questioned observations I had made in 1994. In Grandin and Regenstein (1994), I stated that "the animals had little or no reaction to the throat cut." In several publications I have stated that kosher slaughter without stunning can have an acceptable level of animal welfare if close attention is paid to the details of the procedures (Grandin and Boogal, 2020). I need to make it very clear that when I reported my original observations in Grandin (1994) and Grandin and Regenstein (1994) kosher slaughter was performed under PERFECT conditions. I operated the upright restraint box that was custom built to my specifications. The shocket was an expert and I also supervised all the cattle handling. Under these condition, it is my opinion that animal welfare was acceptable.

There continues to be many problems with sloppy kosher and halal operations. This results in severe animal welfare issues. In 2021, I saw a video where a live bovine was walking around with it's throat cut because it was removed from the box too quickly. Dr. Leffert stated that "this religious exemption allowed slaughter establishments to do as they please with the animals they are euthanizing and thatthere is unchecked animal suffering that occurs." When he was an inspector, Dr. Leffert observed several bad operations. I did not review or see Dr. Leffert's paper before it was published. He never communicated with me prior to publishing his paper.

In my work with slaughter, the greatest animal welfare improvements occurred when large meat buyers performed audits and inspections. These successful programs are described in detail in Grandin (2002),(2005). To improve procedures and stop sloppy operations that cause animal suffering, the buyers of kosher and halal meat that is performed without pre-slaughter stunning should implement a rigorous program of inspection and auditing. During the last twenty years, I have learned that when large buyers hold their suppliers to high standards, animal welfare and food safety are greatly improved. In all types of businesses, the economic power of buyers can reform entire industries. Maintaining an acceptable level of welfare during slaughter without stunning is much more difficult compared to the use of preslaughter stunning. Many halal religious authorities will accept pre-slaughter stunning and its use should be encouraged. In most situations the use of pre-slaughter stunning will improve animal welfare.

References

Grandin, T. (1994). Euthanasia and slaughter of Livestock. Journal of American Veterinary Association, 204:1354-1360.

Grandin, T. (2000). Effect of animal welfare audits of slaughter plants by a major fast food company on cattle handling and stunning practices. Journal of American Veterinary Association, 216:848-851.

Grandin, T. (2005). Maintenance of good animal welfare standards in beef slaughter plants by use of auditing programs. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association, 226:370-373.

Grandin, T. and Regenstein, J.M. (1994). Religious slaughter and animal welfare: A discussion for meat scientists. Meat Focus International, CABI International. March 1994, pp 115-123.

Grandin, T. and Voogal, E. (2020). Religious slaughter and how to improve welfare during Kosher and halal methods. In T. Grandin and M. Cockram (Editors), The slaughter of farmed animals. CABI International, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK. pp. 159-174.

Leffert, S. (2021). Is ongoing religious slaugher justifiable in modern America? Journal of Applied Animal Health. 49(1):492-522.

To insure an acceptable level of animal welfare, cattle should become unconscious and collapse quickly after kosher slaughter. Target 90% or more collapse within 30 seconds. Data collected in five kosher plants in several different countries indicated that improvements in procedures will greatly shorten the interval between the cut and loss of consciousness. All five plants had an upright kosher restraint box that held the animal in a standing position. The time in seconds was recorded from the end of the cut until the eyes rolled back and the animal started to collapse.

Plant 1 had a good upright box that was long enough so that long cattle would not be pushed up too hard against the front of the box. Pushing the animal’s chest up against the front of the box will restrict blood flow. It was standard practice in this plant to totally release the head holder belly lift and rear pusher gate immediately after the animal was cut. This will promote bleeding.

Plant 1, Group 1: Excellent box operator and cutting technique

Plant 1, Group 2: Cutting done by a different rabbi than Group 1

Plant 1, Group 3: Released pressure from the head holder, belly lift and rear pusher more quickly than Group 2

Plant 2 had a good box that fit the cattle. Group 1 had shorter collapse times because pressure on the animal’s body from the head holder, rear pusher gate and belly lift was released more quickly.

Plant 3 was doing everything right. They had an excellent upright box and both the box operator and the schohets had worked on perfecting the details of box operation and cutting. The schohets made deep cuts with a swift stroke with very little sawing motion. The total time that the animal was held tightly fully restrained in the box was under 10 seconds. Immediately after the cut, the head holder and rear pusher were released, and the animal was removed from the box. Plant 3 is one of the few plants that perform no second cut after the kosher cut. This plant has a very low level of blood splash.

Plant 4 had an excellent schohet, but there were problems with the design of their box. It was too short for long cattle which caused vocalization (bellow) in 30% of the cattle. They did not perform the total release procedure that has been successfully used in other plants because the box was too short to release the rear pusher gate. The head holder was released immediately after the cut.

In plant 5, cattle were held in the box too long while a second cut was being done in the box. Their box also held the animal too tightly and applied excessive pressure.

In plant 6, the following improvements were made:

1. Reduce pressure applied by a head holder to reduce constriction of the throat, and
2. Reduce pressure on the animal's throat.

Note: Corneal reflex occurs after the animal has collapsed.

Recommendations to shorten the interval between cutting and loss of sensibility. These methods will also reduce bloodsplash damage in the meat (Grandin 2010).

1. Deep cuts
2. Rapid swift knife stroke with a minimum of sawing motions.
3. Minimize the time that the animal is fully restrained by the head holder, belly lift, and rear pusher. Under 10 seconds is ideal.
4. Restrict travel of the belly lift so that it does not lift the animal off the floor.
5. Immediately after the cut, COMPLETELY release the belly lift, rear pusher gate, and loosen the head holder. See paper titled "Recommendations to facilitate onset of rapid insensibility after Kosher or Halal religious slaughter" for more information.
6. Keep cattle calm and reduce use of the electric prod. Calm cattle bleed out faster.
7. Install non-slip flooring in the box and lead up chute. Cattle panic when they slip.
8. The percentage of cattle vocalizing (bellow or moo) should be 5% or less. Vocalizing cattle are stressed.
9. Avoid excessive pressure applied by the rear pusher gate that compresses the animal’s chest against the front of the box.
10. If the neck opening is too tight, it may restrict bleed out.

Gregory et al (2010) have reported very similar results when good techniques were used. In this study, 88% of the cattle collapsed within 30 seconds and a few cattle had prolonged periods of sensibility. This is similar to our observation. Cattle take longer to lose sensibility compared to sheep and goats. Sheep will lose consciousness and become insensible within 2 to 14 seconds (Gregory and Wotton 1984, Blackmore 1984). Time to eye rollback can also be used to determine onset of unconsciousness.

When a rotating box is used, scoring of onset of unconsciousness can be determined by observing the animal's response to waving a hand within 15 cm (6 in) of it's eye. Any response such as natural blinking, flinching, vocalization, or kicking is a sign that the animal is still conscious. Another indicator of consciousness is eye tracking when a hand is moved slowly past the eye (H. Anil personal communication, 2010). When the eyes roll back this is another indicator of loss of consciousness.

Update August 2021

Cattle restraint boxes should be evaluated on the following outcome based indicators of animal welfare:

• Vocalization in the box score: Score as silent or bellowing/mooing
• Struggling before or after the throat cut
• Time to lose consciousness after the cut

There are big differences in the percentage of cattle vocalizing in correctly designed and operated restraint boxes and poor ones. In two different plants, the percentage of cattle vocalizing with good restraint practices in an upright box was 1% and 2%. In a plant with a rotating box with good practices the percentage of cattle that vocalized was 4.5%. In two beef abattoirs with poor practices, 32% of the cattle vocalized in an upright box and 25% vocalized in a rotating box (Grandin (1998) and Bourquet et al (2011)). The cause of the high vocalization percentages was excessive pressure applied by the equipment.

When future studies are conducted on the effects of the restraint position, the variable of the animal position should be separated from the variables of either excessive pressure or struggling. Struggling before the throat is cut will increase stress. If cattle bellow or struggle when they are held in a restraint box, there is a problem that must be corrected. This may occur regardless of the position.

References

Bourquet, C. et al. 2011. Behavioral and physiological reactions of cattle in a commercial abattoir; Relationships with organizational aspects of the abattoir and animal characteristics. Meat Science. 88:158-168.

Grandin, T. and Voogal, E. 2020. Religious slaughter and how to improve welfare during Kosher and Halal methods. In T. Grandin and M. Cockram (Editors), The slaughter of farmed animals: Practical ways of enhancing welfare. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK. pp 159-174.

Grandin, T. 2010. Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach. CABI Publishing, UK.

Grandin, T. 1998. The feasibility of using vocalization scoring as an indicator of poor welfare during slaughter. Applied Animal Behavior Science. 56:121-125.

Gregory, N.G. and Wotton, S.B. 1984a. Sheep slaughtering procedures - II: Time to loss of brain responsiveness after exsanguination or cardiac arrest. British Veterinary Journal. 140:354-260.

Gregory, N.G., Fielding, H.R., von Wenzlawowicz, M., and von Hollenben, K. 2010.Time to collapse following slaughter without stunning. Meat Science. 85:66-69.

Imian, J.C. et al. 2021. Effects of slaughter positions on catecholamine, blood biochemical, and electroncephalogram changes in cattle restrained using modified Mark IV Box. Animals. 2021 11(7) 1979.

Imian, J.C. et al. 2020. Effects of slaughter knife sharpness on blood biochemical and electroncephalogram changes in cattle. Animals. 2020 10(4).

Verhouven, M.T. et al. 2016. Validation of indicators used to assess unconsciousness in veal calves at slaughter. Animal. 10:1457-1465.

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

Click here to return to the Religious Slaughter menu.