Temple Grandin: The Welfare Of Animals On Factory Farms And Slaughter Plants

Animal welfare is defined as the well-being of nonhuman animals. However, the standards of “good” animal welfare vary based upon different contexts (McArthur 27). In general, there are two forms of criticism with opposite positions on the concept of animal welfare. One point of view, believes humans owe no duties of any kind to animals. On the other hand, is the opposing view which believes animals should not be regarded or treated as property. More often than not, authorities in the meat industry, animal farming or industrial livestock production, also known as factory farming, treat animal welfare and rights according to the first point of view. Factory farming is a type of intensive agriculture designed specifically for an approach to animal husbandry with the intention of maximizing production while reducing costs which consequently disregards the well-being of the animals (Bowling 143). However, livestock welfare is important for the regulatory, scientific, and ethical requirements of this industry. Therefore, the welfare of animals on factory farms and slaughter plants needs to be improved for the benefit of livestock and humans by implementing more stockperson training and creating change in the marketing and payment system.

Animals on factory farms are confined to unsanitary warehouses rather than actual farms in order to cut costs and maximize efficiency. To cut costs, factory farms take shortcuts in the disposal of animal waste, serve cheap, unwholesome feed to which contain harmful substances, and administer antibiotics as well as growth hormones to these animals. The conditions to which the animals are raised in present concerns for both animal welfare and even human health. An inevitable byproduct of housing thousands of animals in a confined area is the infinite amount of waste that is produced. In fact, a dairy farm with 2,500 cows generates as much feces and urine as a city of 411,000 people (Stathopoulos 5). Confined animals must stand in their own waste until it falls through slats in the floor or is otherwise washed or transported away. It is important to obtain proper treatment of industrial animal waste since it is probably closer to radioactive waste than to organic manure. However, factory farms do not properly treat the produced animal waste. Instead, they are poured into enormous cesspools known as “lagoons” which are highly toxic (Stathopoulos 5). Pollution resulting from these lagoons is disastrous for the environment. To add, it has been linked to the health of residents of communities near factory farms. Studies have shown that lagoons release hundreds of noxious gases into the air, including but not limited to ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide (Stathopoulos 5). Epidemiological studies conclude that breathing this toxic air may result in asthma, bronchitis, heart palpitations, depression, and brain damage (Stathopoulos 5). In the wild, cows and other animals eat grass. Pigs and chickens eat grass, worms, and insects. Yet, factory-farmed animals are fed an excess of an unnatural diet. One that consists mostly of cheap, genetically-modified corn and soy. As well as unsavory additives and byproducts (Stathopoulos 3). Livestock are fed this diet to cut costs, increase milk production in dairy cattle, and fatten up beef cattle in a shorter period of time. This diet is unhealthy due to the animals’ digestive system being specifically designed for grass. A modified diet causes painful diseases and health problems including acidosis and liver abscesses (Stathopoulos 3). As a result of these issues, farmers must supply livestock with a chain of chemical additives and antibiotics.

Livestock behavior is strongly influenced by its external environment, whether it be the facilities there are kept it, the alleyways they travel, or stockperson interactions. There is a major concern for the welfare of farm animals on factory farms as large numbers of animals are reared in confinement during high stocking densities. There are limited opportunities for natural behaviors in confinement, such as battery cages, and veal and gestation cages. Instead, the animals in confinement perform abnormal behaviors such as feather pecking, tail-biting, cannibalism, and invasive procedures such as beak trimming, ear notching, and castration. In addition, the alleyways to which cattle use to travel to slaughter showed a significant correlation with behavior. Cattle had greater odds of running out of the chute when a straight alleyway was used (Simon 3490). Livestock animals remain calm during handling when their vision is blocked through the use of curved alleyways, louvers, and solid sidewalls. There is a high risk of injury and stress during the handling of livestock in a poorly designed handling facility. This will eventually cause a financial loss to producers, transporter and slaughterhouse. However, properly designed and constructed facilities at either farms, auction yards, or slaughterhouses will contribute significantly towards the safe livestock handling (Simon 3490). As well as a reduced risk of injuries and stress to both animals and workers. Electric prod use in slaughter plants has consistently proven to have a positive correlation with livestock behavior. The risk of electric prod use increased when operations had more breeding cows. Factory farm producers may perceive electric prods as a tool that assists in the increase of cattle flow rate. Therefore, stock persons may be more apt to use them especially when there are more cattle to process. However, studies have concluded that a cow would refuse to move forward or backward within four seconds of being touched by either a moving aid or electric prod. It was also found that ranches with Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) training had a lower risk of mis-catching cattle in the restraint (Chambers and Grandin 3). Due to a portion of the program concentrating on the proper ways to handle cattle. The interaction between stockperson and cattle handling techniques is complicated. In fact, the most promising predictor of stockperson handling is the individual’s perspective towards animals (Sinclair 4). This is why proper training of stockperson and factory farm employees is crucial to the improvement of animal welfare. As it will inform employees on its significance while training them with the appropriate techniques and skills needed to be a qualified handler.

The quality of meat and by-products are affected by stress and injury the livestock may endure during the slaughter process. There are a number of causes and effects stress have on different livestock. In the case of meat quality, it is dependant upon sugars (glycogen) in the muscle of the animal (Chambers and Grandin 4). The energy required for muscle activity in the live animal is obtained from glycogen in their muscles. A high glycogen content is the result of a healthy animal (Chambers and Grandin 4). However, after the animal is slaughtered, the glycogen is converted into lactic acid (Chambers and Grandin 4). As a result, the muscle and carcass become firm. Lactic acid is necessary to produce meat that is tender, tasty, and of good color and quality. But, if the animal is stressed before and during slaughter, the glycogen is used up. Therefore, the level of lactic acid developed in the meat after slaughter is reduced (Chambers and Grandin 4). This has negative effects on the meat quality. In addition to the impact of meat quality from a stressed or injured animal, spoilage of meat can occur if the livestock is not well-rested during the twenty-four-hour period before slaughter. This resting period allows as much glycogen to be replaced by the body as possible (Chambers and Grandin 4). Glycogen levels in the muscle need to be high in order to develop a maximum amount of lactic acid in the meat. The lactic acid provides the meat with an ideal pH level of 6.2 or lower which is measured twenty-four hours after slaughter (Chambers and Grandin 4). A pH level of 6.2 or higher indicated the animal was stressed, diseased, or injured prior to slaughter. Lactic acid can delay the growth of bacteria that may have contaminated during slaughter (Chambers and Grandin 4). This bacteria can cause spoilage of meat during storage, especially in warm environments. Spoilage of meat causes off-smells, color change, slime, and rancidity. In result of spoilage, shelf life of meat decreases which causes wastage of valuable food (Chambers and Grandin 4). To add, it’s possible the contaminating bacteria may cause food poisoning. Thus making the consumers of the meat become sick, which may result in costly treatment and the loss of manpower hours to the national economy. Therefore, meat of animals that have suffered stress or injury during handling, transport, and slaughter, is likely to have a shorter shelf life due to spoilage. Which, is perhaps the biggest cause for meat wastage during the production process. Bruising, which is the escape of blood from damaged blood vessels into the surrounding muscle tissue, is another type of injury that can cause a decrease in meat quality (Chambers and Grandin 4). This may be caused by a physical blow by a stick or stone, metal projection, animal horn or fall that can occur anytime during handling, transport, penning or even stunning. Meat that is bruised is wasted as it is not suitable for use as food due to a number of reasons. These reasons include not being acceptable to the consumer, the meat cannot be used for processing or manufacture, it decomposes and soils rapidly as bloody meat makes for an ideal environment for growth of bacteria (Chambers and Grandin 4). Therefore, the meat must be, for the previously mentioned reasons, condemned at meat inspection. Bruising is a common cause of meat wastage but it can be reduced significantly if slaughter plant and factory farm employees would consider the welfare of the livestock as well as perform correct handling, transport, and slaughter techniques.

There may be a considerable loss in the quality and quantity of meat and by-products during the production chain from farm to market for the reasons listed above. In many countries, these losses are high due to the marketing system not always providing an economic incentive to reduce these losses (Chambers and Grandin 7). However, its been found that one of the most effective methods for improving welfare and reducing losses is to design a marketing and payment system that will hold involved organizations accountable for these losses. One of the possibly worst marketing systems from both a welfare and economic perspective is to sell livestock on a live mass or per head basis (Chambers and Grandin 7). This system is considered one of the worst because it does not provide an economic incentive to prevent bruising, injury, disease, stress, or any other meat quality problem (Chambers and Grandin 7). When livestock is sold to a slaughter plant on a live mass basis, producers and transporters are not held accountable for the loss of meat due to injury or other damages. So, these losses are then paid for by the slaughter plant. It’s been observed that cattle sold on a live mass basis have twice as many bruises compared to those sold on a carcass mass basis (Chambers and Grandin 7). When cattle is sold based on carcass mass and quality, it causes both producer and transporter to have an economic incentive to reduce bruising and injury. Which means greater care, handling, and welfare conditions for the animals. Changing the payment system could possibly be one of the most effective ways to improve handling and transport practices for both livestock and human.

The welfare of animals on factory farms and slaughter plants needs to be improved for the benefit of livestock and humans by implementing more stockperson training and creating change in the marketing and payment system. Animals on factory farms are confined to unsanitary warehouses and fed modified diets causing a number of health problems to which farmers solve by feeding them chemical additives and antibiotics. To add, these stressful environments and harmful interactions with stock person can impact the quality and quantity of meat produced from the slaughtered animal. Which then negatively impacts the marketing and payment system. However, if consistent and proper training of employees were required among these facilities along with corporate and governmental regulations for production chains and markets were in place, the incentive to improve animal welfare would occur.