Are Are Animals For Food In The Us Treated
The slaughter of animals used for food
Making creature products means killing nonhuman animals. This is pretty obvious in the case of meat, leather, fur, and other products that are fabricated from the flesh of animals. Simply animals are also killed when they are exploited for other purposes such as the product of dairy products and eggs. Younger cows and chickens produce more than milk and eggs, and dairy cows and egg-laying hens are killed when exploiting them is less profitable than convenance new animals and exploiting them instead.
A minor percentage of animals raised for food are raised on small farms rather than mill farms. Defenders of small farms claim that the animals on them are treated ameliorate than those on factory farms. Even so, no affair what conditions they are raised in, farmed animals are all eventually sent to a butchery to be killed.
Death is a harm to animals because, equally beings with the chapters for positive experiences, they accept an interest in living. In slaughterhouses, animals also experience fear and pain before they die. Some of the torments they undergo are described below, starting with aquatic animals, who make upwardly the bulk of farmed animals.
Fish farms
While it is nearly incommunicable to capture sentient aquatic animals in the wild without causing them to suffer, we might call up things are different for farmed fishes. But they are not much different. The amount and types of suffering that fishes and other aquatic sentient animals endure during their slaughter, and also prior to it,i varies from 1 method to another. But all methods cause significant pain and distress and they all end in death. The methods that are employed to kill fishes include the following:two
i. Asphyxia. Fishes are taken out of water and slowly suffocate because they tin just get oxygen from water through their gills. It can take upwardly to 15 minutes for them to die.3
2. Chilling. Fishes are submerged in ice or in almost frozen water, causing hypothermia and decease. This method does non necessarily reduce sensitivity to pain, as indicated by the fact that the reduction in temperature has been related to an increase in the animals' levels of cortisone.4
3. Carbon dioxide narcosis. Fishes are put in tanks in which the h2o has high levels of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide dissolved in loftier concentrations in water has a narcotic issue on fishes breathing it. This stuns the fishes, only the process is ho-hum, and equally the carbon dioxide begins to affect them, they move around violently and try to escape. They display what in the scientific literature is called "aversive behavior",5 which is a strong indicator of their existence distressed.
iv. Bleeding without stunning. Fishes are taken out of the h2o and, while held manually, their gills or their hearts are cut with a knife and so they bleed to death. This procedure can last between four and 15 minutes or more than, during which time the fishes are conscious and struggling, just as other animals would in their state of affairs.6
Sometimes an attempt is fabricated to stun fishes before killing them. There are several stunning methods used.
Percussive stunning. The animals are hit with a wooden or plastic club so they lose consciousness.
Electrical stunning. This method is used with large fishes. Fishes are stabbed with a harpoon that has an electrical connection. In some cases, this doesn't work and the fishes remain conscious while bleeding to death.7
In other cases fishes are killed in a way that, at least in theory, crusade them less suffering, such as shooting them in their heads.
Slaughterhouses
Things aren't very unlike in country slaughterhouses in which mammals and birds are killed. Mammals and birds also experience fright and pain, as well every bit being deprived of their lives. In many countries animals are supposed to be stunned start so they don't suffer, or at least suffer less, when they are killed.
Animals in slaughterhouses as well undergo terrible psychological suffering. In add-on to the distress of not knowing where they are, they see other animals being killed, and they hear their cries. All this is terribly frightening to them.8 This happens after a very harsh journeying from farms.
Ship to killing units
During their trip to the slaughterhouse, animals are crowded together and often have picayune protection from temperature extremes. They are usually not fed forth the way because information technology'due south not in a farmer'south economic interest to give them food when at that place won't be time for it to exist digested and converted into more flesh,9 and likewise considering it is easier for the truck driver and the shambles workers if they don't have to deal with animal waste.
The animals mostly make it at slaughterhouses in a weakened physical and psychological country. They are hungry, exhausted, and often dislocated and frightened. When they go to the slaughterhouse, there are other factors that tin can add to their distress and pain such as slippery floors. If an animals falls, others backside them may be injured likewise.
Sometimes animals at a slaughterhouse are washed before they are killed. This is often done by pressure washers, which can crusade them pain, oftentimes in sensitive parts. The temperature of the water tin can too hurt the animals, and they may notice the process very stressful.
In add-on, animals are oftentimes offloaded from trucks and violently forced to move to and from holding pens on the way to their slaughter. When the animals are so scared that they won't move without painful prodding, pricks, sticks or electric goads are used, causing pain to the animals. Sometimes hooks are used. 1 slaughter-house worker reported:
"Hogs get stressed out pretty piece of cake. If you prod them likewise much, they accept heart attacks. If y'all get a hog in the chute that'south had the shit prodded out of him and has a middle assault or refuses to motility, you take a meat hook and hook it into his bunghole. You attempt to do this by clipping the hipbone. Then you elevate him backwards. You're dragging these hogs live, and a lot of times the meat hook rips out of the bunghole. I've seen hams — thighs — completely ripped open. I've as well seen intestines come out. If the hog collapses nigh the front of the chute, you shove the meat hook into his cheek and drag him forward."10
In some cases, the animals tin become stuck in one function of the slaughterhouse, and then any form of violence at all may be used to move them. A testimony by another slaughter-house employee shows this very clearly:
"I've drug cows till their bones offset breaking, while they were still alive. Bringing them around the corner and they get stuck upward in the doorway, just pull them till their hide exist ripped, till the blood only drip on the steel and concrete. Breaking their legs… And the cow be crying with its tongue stuck out. They pull him till his cervix just pop."11
Immobilization
In the slaughter units, animals are supposed to exist stunned before they are killed. Some animals (such as pigs and sheeps) are often stunned without being immobilized first. The workers simply walk up to the animals and stun (or try to stun) them using methods such as electrical goads. They do this repeatedly to dissimilar animals in the same group.
This method doesn't work with large animals such as cows because the goad can't exist positioned in a higher place them to stun them. To make the stunning procedure easier and to protect the workers from possible injuries acquired by the animals when they effort to escape, larger animals are immobilized before they are stunned and killed. The following methods of immobilization are used.
Traditional stunning boxes. These are enclosed spaces where an beast is placed in order to be stunned. The box is narrow then that the animal cannot turn effectually, and the floor of the box is rough to forbid slipping or falling.12 The person doing the stunning ordinarily stand up to the side of the box to shoot the animal. On occasion, the workers neglect in the shooting and the animal remains conscious during the hoisting and bleeding.
Boxes with a mechanism for restraining the head. These are boxes that have a restraint mechanism which is airtight around the neck of the animals, thus restraining their heads. This type of box is mandatory in sure countries whenever animals are stunned using not-penetrative methods, since they require greater precision when shooting in order to exist effective.
Moving rails. These are automated rails which atomic number 82 the animal to the stunning area. They are designed in a W shape and so that the animals' legs are separated at all times, ensuring that they cannot turn back.
The method used to keep birds immobilized while they are stunned is dissimilar. They are hoisted upside down on a conveyor belt that brings the animals to stunning tanks, which are described below. The birds are oftentimes injured and have their legs or other parts of their bodies broken when they are chop-chop and sometimes violently grabbed and hung from the belt. A former slaughterhouse employee who after repented and became an brute activist, Virgil Butler, described the situation every bit follows:
"The line is running. The smell is awful and the chickens are panicking. Many of them are squawking loudly, some are just sitting there trembling. Sometimes you catch ane looking up at y'all, eye to center, and yous know it's terrified."13
Stunning
Once an animal is sufficiently immobilized (or sometimes, with smaller animals, without immobilizing them), an attempt is made to stun them so they are not conscious when they are killed. This tin can exist done by different methods.
Electronarcosis
This method gives an electric shock to the animals until they are unconscious. Its method of awarding is dissimilar depending on the type of animal.
Birds
Electronarcosis is the nearly commonly used method on birds (such as chickens, hens, turkeys, geese, and ducks). The well-nigh common implementation is to submerge the animals' heads in a tub with electrified h2o.14 A current of 80 milliamps is applied for 3 seconds. This process is ordinarily mechanized, with animals hoisted on hooks and dragged through a large tub of electrified water for a few seconds before they go to the adjacent stage in the assembly line where their throats are slit.
Studies have shown that this is very painful for the animals. The current runs through the entire body, usually causing a break in the coracoid and the scapula (shoulder blade), muscular contractions, and hemorrhages.15
In ane study, approximately 44% of the chickens submerged in electrified h2o suffered the breaking of bones and 35% of them had hemorrhages. Too, half of the animals stunned through this system showed ventricular fibrillation. Similar results were obtained in studies carried out in the European Wedlock comparing this method with the gassing method.16 The effectiveness of this method has been doubted as there were reports of animals arriving witting to the scalding tank.
Pigs
In the case of pigs, there are two methods of electronarcosis: passing electric electric current through the brain, or passing electrical current through the brain and heart.
i. Passing electric electric current through the encephalon. An electrical current is practical direct to the head of the animal with the aim of producing an epileptic assail. The current is induced through tongs equanimous of ii electrodes placed on either side of the head under the ears. The tongs have a sharpened piece that pierces the animal'south skin to concur them in place. Another variant consists of applying one electrode under the jaw and another to the side of the neck (behind the ears). When it works, this method volition stun the animals for only almost 15 seconds, and the animals may regain consciousness before being bled to death, thus suffering not just pain, merely besides panic and distress.
2. Passing electric electric current through the encephalon and hear. This causes a heart set on. This stunning method usually causes death direct by electrocution. One electrode is placed on the forehead or on the groove behind the ear, and another on the back or side of the body, then that the electric current also reaches the eye.
These methods require shaving and dampening the area where the electrodes will be placed to allow for the catamenia of the electric current. Not dampening the area, mispositioning the electrodes, applying this type of stunning to an imprecise indicate of the torso, or at dissimilar amperage than indicated can crusade paralysis of the animal without causing loss of consciousness (which is known equally Lost Stupor or "nightmare state of Leduc"). This ways that the animal will remain awake during the whole process and volition endure the consequent stress and hurting. Additionally, if the distance between the electrodes is very short, cardiac arrest does not occur.
The near common discharge equipment is one of depression voltage (70-150V), applied for several seconds, during which time the animal sometimes suffers from a painful discharge before becoming stunned. In many cases the discharge is not applied co-ordinate to the directions, which can cause the animal to suffer a generalized and painful paralysis (if the belch is lower), or to suffer os fractures, ecchymosis, and hemorrhages (if the discharge is higher), oft without being stunned. Just even when they are stunned past the procedure, the animals can suffer pain and fright earlier losing consciousness.17
Cows
Electronarcosis is a seldom used method on cows due to their large size. When it is used on cows, electrical stunning is supposed to be carried out in two rounds. A minimum of ane.v amps is applied first to the head, followed by another belch to the body, which should cause cardiac arrest.18
The application of electrodes to a cow may non stun her.19 Depending on the immobilization method used, it may be hard to keep the electrode secured to the moo-cow'southward head when she falls to the ground, which will cause her to feel the daze. Also, incorrect positioning of the electrodes can cause fractures in the spine and hemorrhages, among other problems.
Gassing
This type of stunning is used in many countries. Animals are led into a chamber that is filled with asphyxiating gas: argon, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or a combination of these. This makes the animals lose consciousness.
There is a bang-up variation in the response of the animals subjected to gas, which depends, basically, on genetic factors. The loss of consciousness is never instantaneous, but takes from thirty-39 seconds.20 The gas can crusade very violent reactions and desperate attempts to flee,21 which shows that this method can be very painful and stressful.
Mechanical stunning
At that place are two kinds of mechanical stunning:
Penetrative
This is with a convict bolt pistol. It shoots a retractable projectile by means of an explosive cartridge or compressed air. The projectile impacts the cerebral cortex and and so returns to its original position without becoming lodged in the brain. It causes permanent brain impairment.
In that location is a model of pistol that also propels a stream of water into the open hole, causing further damage to the encephalon.22 Another practise consists of putting a spoke into the hole created past the projectile to produce lacerations on the brain.
Not-penetrative
A device with one end shaped like a mushroom is used to hit the attic without entering into contact with the brain. The stunning is acquired by the resulting concussion.23
Mallet or hammer blows
This is used in places with fewer economic resource as it is inexpensive and simple, although information technology requires a lot of skill to hit the exact bespeak and exit the fauna unconscious. In fact, the success of this method in stunning the animal is but about l%.24 Frequently it is necessary to administer several blows, which causes terror, stress, and pain to the animals. On many occasions, due to a lack of precision, the animals have their throats slit and slowly bleed to death while fully witting.
Domicile-made electrical stunning
This is employed in impoverished countries. It consists of using tongs or cables connected to a house'due south current. It is not clear that this method really stun its victims; it certainly does not in the case of bovines and other big animals who are non stunned by low currents.25 It causes a lot of suffering to the animals, in addition to what they will endure while beingness killed.
Immobilization without stunning
Severing the spinal cord with a knife. This is the use of a sharpened pocketknife to sever the spinal cord at the base of the skull. It causes immediate immobilization in the animals who suffers it, merely it does not crusade loss of consciousness, hence the animals remain conscious until they bleed to expiry.
Killing animals
In places where regulations require it, animals go through a stunning process, commonly one of the methods described above, which is intended to render them unconscious or immobile before they are killed. Because the purpose of slaughterhouses is to kill animals as quickly as possible, many are all the same conscious when their bodies are dragged through scalding tanks and as their throats are slit and their bodies are dismembered.
Bovines
Once they take gone through the stunning phase, during which they may or may non accept been stunned, cows, steers, calves and bulls have their hind legs chained and they are raised so they are hanging upside downwardly. Then a deep knife slits their throats, which severs the carotid artery, and they bleed to death. At the adjacent stage, their heads and anxiety are cutting off, their digestive tracts are taken out, they are skinned and the remaining viscera are extracted from the animals' carcasses.
In many cases, the animals can exist fully witting when they are killed. Sometimes they do not die in the killing stage and are even so fully witting at the side by side phase, when they are skinned and cut into pieces. This happens considering it takes several minutes to drain to death. However, the animals are cutting into pieces immediately subsequently their throats are slit, so they are very often dismembered alive. As reported in an interview with a slaughter-house worker:
"From the sticker to the legger is possibly ten seconds. They're breathing real hard over there, mooing, they're falling off the rails because they're alive."26
Another slaughter-house employee, Ramón Moreno, whose job was quartering the animals (cutting their bodies into pieces), reported doing this many times every day while they were fully conscious. They were supposed to be dead before they got to Moreno. But as well oftentimes they weren't:
"They blink. They brand noises," he said softly. "The head moves, the eyes are broad and looking around."
Still Moreno would cut. On bad days, he says, dozens of animals reached his station clearly alive and witting. Some would survive every bit far equally the tail cutter, the abdomen ripper, the hide puller. "They die," said Moreno, "piece by piece."27
"If you put a knife into the cow, it'south going to make a dissonance: It says, 'Moo!'."28
A U.South. Section of Agriculture technician, Tim Walker, reported:
"I complained to everyone — I said, 'Expect at it, they're skinning alive cows in there,' Walker said. Always it was the same answer: 'We know it'southward true. Merely there's nothing we can do about it'."29
This has been confirmed by other slaughterhouse workers:
"I've seen thousands and thousands of cows become through the slaughter process live," IBP veteran Fuentes, the worker who was injured while working on live cows, said in an affidavit. "The cows can go seven minutes downwards the line and all the same exist live. I've been in the side-puller where they're still live. All the hide is stripped out downwards the neck in that location."xxx
Pigs
Carbon dioxide tin can be used not merely to stun pigs, only also to kill them direct by depriving their bodies of oxygen, and so they suffocate to decease. However, usually they are only stunned with carbon dioxide and then have their throats slit. Once the pigs go through the stunning stage and whether they are stunned or non, they are hoisted and hung from their hind legs on a conveyor belt that brings them to the place where the workers who kill them are. The workers slit the animals' throats. Most of the pigs bleed to death. But some do not. Stunning methods are frequently designed in general for a single species, but they can bear upon animals within that species differently, due to factors such every bit their weight. In other cases, the animals are simply not stunned because the process is washed very chop-chop, or because of the way the systems are designed or human being error. In these cases, animals are fully conscious when they reach the next step in the slaughterhouse process, which is scalding tanks, baths with very hot water in which animals are literally scalded and then that their feathers and hairs tin can exist hands removed.31 Again, there are reports of this by workers:
"I've seen hogs in the scalding tub trying to swim."32
"These hogs get upwardly to the scalding tank, hit the water and start screaming and kicking. Sometimes they thrash and so much they kick water out of the tank… Sooner or later they drown. In that location'south a rotating arm that pushes them under, no gamble for them to go out. I'm not sure if they burn to death earlier they drown, but information technology takes them a couple of minutes to stop thrashing."33
Birds
In the first phase in a chicken abattoir, chickens are hung upside down on a conveyor belt, then their heads pass through electrified stunning tanks, which are baths with electric currents running through them to stun the animals. Adjacent, an automated bract slits their throats. From there, the conveyor belt pulls them through scalding tanks with boiling water where their feathers are removed.
Hanging from a conveyor belt is very uncomfortable and distressing, and the birds are struggling, flapping their wings and moving their heads. For this reason, when they laissez passer over the electrified tanks, their heads may be raised and they may not be stunned. They may still be moving when they achieve the automatic blade. As a result, the blade might non cut their throats. The blade might not touch the animals at all, or instead cutting another part of their body, such as the wings, face, or beak.
The slaughterhouse workers might then decapitate the animals that they see have not been killed automatically. Withal, the conveyor belt runs quickly and cannot end, so they oft miss animals. This means the animals will accomplish the scalding tanks fully witting, where they volition be boiled live.
Boosted factors that brand the torment worse
There are additional factors that can crusade slaughterhouse deaths to exist even more painful and stressful, such every bit improperly working equipment. A slaughterhouse worker says:
"The line is and then fast in that location is no fourth dimension to sharpen the knife. The knife gets deadening and you accept to cut harder."34
Others factors include the lack of concern workers may have for the animals. In club to exist able to impale the animals, shambles workers demand to be well-nigh completely insensitive to them. As one worker put it:
"Pigs down on the kill flooring have come and nuzzled me similar a puppy. Two minutes later I had to kill them – trounce them to death with a pipe. I can't intendance."35
Moreover, animals tin can be the victims of some workers' brutality. At that place are many records of cases of terrible hurting being inflicted on animals on purpose. This can happen if workers are stressed, are having a bad solar day, or if some animals struggles for their life and the worker wants to retaliate. In any of those situations, every bit on farms, the animals are completely defenseless and the workers are often in a situation in which they can do whatever they want to the animals. The post-obit statement past some other slaughterhouse worker shows this quite clearly:
"Y'all're already going to kill the sus scrofa, but that's non enough. It has to suffer… y'all don't just kill it, yous go in hard, push button hard, blow the windpipe, arrive drown in its own blood. Separate its nose. A live pig would exist running effectually the pit. It would only exist looking up at me and I'd be sticking, and I would just take my knife and—eerk—cut its heart out while information technology was just sitting at that place. And this sus scrofa would just scream. One fourth dimension I took my knife – it's sharp enough – and I sliced off the end of a hog's nose, just like a piece of bologna. The sus scrofa went crazy for a few seconds. And so information technology just saturday in that location looking kind of stupid. So I took a handful of common salt brine and ground it into his nose. Now that squealer really went nuts, pushing its nose all over the place. I all the same had a agglomeration of table salt in my hand – I was wearing a rubber glove – and I stuck the salt correct up the pig's ass. The poor grunter didn't know whether to shit or go blind… Merely I wasn't the only guy doing this kind of stuff… One guy I work with actually chases hogs into the scalding tank."36
There is no reliable way to control this, even with frequent inspections. Someone who harms animals this way can end doing it when he'southward being watched. As long every bit people demand animal products, at that place will be industrial beast agriculture and this will proceed to happen.
Fifty-fifty when there is no unusual abuse, the standard slaughter-house practices we take seen in a higher place can crusade animals to suffer terribly. And in all cases, even if they don't suffer much hurting or distress, nonhuman animals are harmed past being deprived of their lives.
Further readings
Anil, 1000. H. (1991) "Studies on the render of concrete reflexes in pigs following electric stunning", Meat Science, xxx, pp. 13-21.
Anil, Yard. H.; McKinstry, J. L.; Wotton, South. B. & Gregory, N. G. (1995) "Welfare of Calves – one. Investigations into some aspects of calf slaughter", Meat Science, 41, pp. 101-112.
Blackmore, D. K. (1984) "Differences in behaviour between sheep and cattle during slaughter", Research in Veterinary Science, 37, pp. 223-226.
Chandroo, K. P.; Yue, S. & Moccia, R. D. (2004) "An evaluation of current perspectives on consciousness and hurting in fishes", Fish and Fisheries, five, pp. 281-295.
Croft, P. Southward. (1952) "Issues with electrical stunning", Veterinarian Tape, 64, pp. 255-258.
Dalmau, A.; Nande, A.; Vieira-Pinto, One thousand.; Zamprogna, Due south.; Di Martino, Thou.; Ribas, J. C. R.; Paranhos da Costa, Yard.; Halinen-Elemo, K. & Velarde, A. (2016) "Application of the welfare quality® protocol in pig slaughterhouses of five countries", Livestock Science 193, pp. 78-87.
Daly, C. C.; Gregory, Northward. M. & Wotton, S. B. (1987) "Captive bolt stunning of cattle-effects on encephalon function and the role of bolt velocity", British Veterinary Periodical, 143, pp. 574-580.
Eikelenboom, M. (1982) Stunning animals for slaughter, London: Martinus Nijhoff.
European Commission. Scientific Veterinary Committee, Animal Welfare Section (1996) Study on the slaughter and killing of animals, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities [accessed on 14 February 2012].
Ewbank, R.; Parker, M. J. & Mason, C. West. (1992) "Reactions of cattle to head restraint at stunning: A applied dilemma", Animal Welfare, 1, pp. 55-63.
Fossat, P.; Bacqué-Cazenave, J.; de Deuerwaerdère, P.; Delbecque, J.-P. & Cattaert, D. (2014) "Anxiety-like behavior in crayfish is controlled by serotonin", Science, 344, pp. 1293-1297.
Gentle, M. J. & Tilston, V. L. (2000) "Nociceptors in the legs of poultry: Implications for potential hurting in pre-slaughter shackling", Animal Welfare, 9, pp. 227-236.
Grandin, T. (1998a) "The feasibility of using vocalization scoring as an indicator of poor welfare during slaughter", Applied Animate being Behaviour Scientific discipline, 56, pp. 121-128.
Grandin, T. (2002) "Return to sensibility problems after penetrating captive bolt stunning of cattle in commercial beef slaughter plants", Periodical of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 221, pp. 1258-1261.
Gregory, Northward. G. (1985) "Stunning and slaughter of pigs", Pig News and Information, 6, pp. 407-413.
Gregory, N. G. (1988) "Turkey stunning", Turkeys, 36 (3), pp. 29-30.
Gregory, Northward. Chiliad. (1996) "Welfare of poultry at slaughter", in Bremner, A. S. & Johnston, A. M. (eds.) Poultry meat hygiene and inspection, London: W. B. Saunders, pp. 53-72.
Gregory, N. G. & Wotton, S. B. (1984a) "Sheep slaughtering procedures. eleven. Fourth dimension to loss of brain responsiveness after exsanguination or cardiac arrest", British Veterinary Journal, 140, pp. 354-360.
Gregory, Due north. M. & Wotton, South. B. (1984b) "Time of loss of brain responsiveness following exsanguination in calves", Resource Veterinary Science, 37, pp. 141-143.
Gregory, North. G. & Wotton S. B. (1986a) "Grunter slaughtering procedures: Time to loss of encephalon", Research in Veterinary Science, 40, pp. 148-151.
Gregory, N. G. & Wotton, S. B. (1986b) "Upshot of slaughter on the spontaneous and evoked action of the encephalon", British Poultry Science, 27, pp. 195-205.
Gregory, N. Yard. & Wotton, S. B. (1988) "Stunning of chickens", Veterinary Record, 122, p. 399.
Gregory, N. G. & Wotton South. B. (1990) "Comparing of neck dislocation and percussion of the head on visual evoked responses in the chicken'southward brain", Veterinary Tape, 126, pp. 570-572.
Hoenderken, R. (1978) Elektrische bedwelming van slachtvarkens, Doctoral thesis, Universiteit Utrecht.
Hoenderken, R. (1983) "Electrical and carbon dioxide stunning of pigs for slaughter", in Eikelenboom, Grand. (ed.) Stunning of animals for slaughter, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 59-63.
Huntingford, F. A.; Adams, C.; Braithwaite, V. A.; Kadri, S.; Pottinger, T. 1000.; Sandøe, P. & Turnbull, J. F. (2006) "Current bug in fish welfare", Journal of Fish Biology, 68, pp. 332-372.
Iwama, Thou. W.; Pickering, A. D.; Sumpter, J. P. & Schreck, C. B. (eds.) (2012 [1997]) Fish stress and health in aquaculture, reissue ed., Cambridge: Cambridge Academy Press.
Jarvis, A. M.& Cockram, M. South. (1995) "Some factors affecting resting behaviour of sheep in shambles lairages after send from farms", Animal Welfare, iv, pp. 53-60.
Kestin, S. C.; Vis, J. W. van de & Robb, D. H. F. (2002) "Protocol for assessing brain function in fish and the effectiveness of methods used to stun and impale them", Veterinarian Tape, 150, pp. 302-307.
Mitchell, G.; Hattingh, J. & Ganhao, Thousand. (1988) "Stress in cattle assessed afterwards handling, transport and slaughter", Veterinary Record, 123, p. 201.
Pascoe, P. J. (1986) "Humaneness of electro-immobilization unit of measurement for cattle", American Journal of Veterinarian Research, ten, pp. 2252-2256
Pearson, A. J.; Kilgour, R.; Delangen, H. & Payne, E. (1977) "Hormonal responses of lambs to trucking, handling and electric stunning", New Zealand Gild Brute Product, 37, pp. 243-249.
Raj, A. B. M. (1999) "Behaviour of pigs exposed to mixtures of gases and the fourth dimension required to stun and kill them: Welfare implications", Veterinarian Tape, 144, pp. 165-168.
Raj, A. B. M. & Gregory, N. G. (1996) "Welfare implications of the gas stunning of pigs: 2. Stress of induction of anaesthesia", Animal Welfare, 5, pp. 71-78.
Raj, A. B. G.; Johnson, S. P.; Wotton, S. B. & McKinstry, J. L. (1997) "Welfare implications of gas stunning pigs: 3. The time to loss of somatosensory evoked potentials and spontaneous electrocorticogram of pigs during exposure to gases", Veterinarian Journal, 153, pp. 329-340.
Rushen, J. (1986) "Disfavor of sheep to electro-immobilization and physical restraint", Applied Animal Behaviour Science, fifteen, p. 315.
Shimshony, A. & Chaudry, M. M. (2005) "Slaughter of animals for human consumption", Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics), 24, pp. 693-710.
Troeger, Thousand. & Woltersdorf, Westward. (1989) "Measuring stress in pigs during slaughter", Fleischwirtsch, 69, pp. 373-376.
Troeger, K. & Woltersdorf, W. (1991) "Gas amazement of slaughter pigs", Fleischwirtschaft, 71, pp. 1063-1068.
Vis, H. van de; Kestin, South. & Robb, D.; Oehlenschläger, J.; Lambooij, B.; Münkner, W.; Kuhlmann, H.; Kloosterboer, K.; Tejada, M.; Huidobro, A.; Otterå, H.; Roth, B.; Sørensen, North. K.; Akse, L.; Byrne, H. & Nesvadba, P. (2003) "Is humane slaughter of fish possible for industry?", Aquaculture Enquiry, 34, pp. 211-220.
Waynert, D. F.; Stookey, J. M.; Schwartzkopo-Genwein, K. S.; Watts, J. M. & Flit, C. S. (1999) "Response of beefiness cattle to noise during handling", Applied Animate being Behaviour Science, 62, pp. 27-42.
Weeding, C. M.; Hunter, E. J.; Guise, H. J. & Penny, H. C. (1993) "Effects of abattoir and treatment systems on stress indicators in grunter blood", Veterinarian Record, 133, pp. 10-13.
Westervelt, R. One thousand.; Kinsman, D.; Prince, R. P. & Giger, W. (1976) "Physiological stress measurement during slaughter of calves and lamb", Journal of Animal Scientific discipline, 42, pp. 831-834.
Wotton, S. B. & Wilkins, L. J. (1999) "Outcome of very low pulsed direct currents at high frequency on the return of neck tension in broilers", Veterinary Record, 145, pp. 393-396.
Notes
ane Poli, B. M.; Parisi, K.; Scappini, F. & Zampacavallo, G. (2005) "Fish welfare and quality as afflicted by pre-slaughter and slaughter direction", Aquaculture International, thirteen, pp. 29-49.
ii Robb, D. H. F. & Kestin, S. C. (2002) "Methods used to kill fish: Field observations and literature reviewed", Animal Welfare, xi, pp. 269-282. Robb, D. H. F.; Wotton, S. B.; McKinstry, J. L.; Sørensen, N.K. & Kestin, S. C. (2000) "Commercial slaughter methods used on Atlantic salmon: Determination of the onset of brain failure by electroencephalography", Veterinary Record, 147, pp. 298-303.
3 Benson, T. (2004) Advancing aquaculture: Fish welfare at slaughter, London: Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, p. 23.
iv Lambooij, East.; Vis, J. Due west. van de; Kloosterboer, R. J. & Pieterse, C. (2002) "Welfare aspects of live spooky and freezing of farmed eel (Anguilla anguilla L.): Neurological and behavioural assessment", Aquaculture, 210, pp. 159-169; Skjervold, P. O., Fjaera, S. O., Ostby, P. B. & Einen, O. (2001) "Alive-spooky and crowding stress before slaughter of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)", Aquaculture, 192, pp. 265-280. Yue, Due south. [ca. 2009] An HSUS report: The welfare of farmed fish at slaughter, Washington, D. C.: Humane Society of the United states, p. iv [accessed on 27 November 2014].
5 Salmons stunned in this mode may fight violently for several minutes, encounter Robb, D. H. F.; Wotton, Due south. B.; McKinstry, J. L.; Sørensen, Due north. 1000. & Kestin, S. C. (2000) "Commercial slaughter methods used on Atlantic salmon: Determination of the onset of encephalon failure by electroencephalography", op. cit.
half-dozen Benson, T. (2004) Advancing aquaculture: Fish welfare at slaughter, op. cit., p. 6.
seven Ibid., p. 9.
8 The author who has worked most extensively on this is Temple Grandin, who has collaborated with the brute exploitation manufacture to back up the exploitation of animals while reforming information technology then animals endure less. She is in favor of killing animals for nutrient, so her work does non accost the harm to animals of having their lives taken away. See for instance: Grandin, T. (1987) "Animal treatment", Veterinary Clinics Northward America: Food Animal Practice, iii, pp. 323-324; (1988b) "Double rail restrainer conveyor for livestock handling", Journal of Agricultural Engineering Inquiry, 41, pp. 327-338; (1998c) "Solving livestock handling bug in slaughter plans", in Gregory, N. G. & Grandin, T. Animal welfare and meat science, Wallingford: CABI Publishing, pp. 42-63; (1990) "Design of loading and belongings pens", Applied Brute Behavior Science, 28, pp. 187-201; (1991) Recommended animal handling guidelines for meat packer, Washington, D. C.: American Meat Establish; (1992) "Observation of cattle restraint devices for stunning and slaughtering", Animal Welfare, 1, pp. 85-90; (1994) "Euthanasia and slaughter of livestock", Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association, 204, pp. 1354-1360; (1996) "Factors which impede fauna movement in slaughter plans", Journal of American Veterinary Medical Clan, 209, pp. 757-759; (1997a) "Assessment of stress during handling and transport", Journal of Creature Scientific discipline, 75, pp. 249-257; (1997b) "Proficient management practices for animal handling and stunning", Washington, D. C.: American Meat Institute; (1997c) Survey of stunning and handling in federally inspected beef, veal, pork and sheep slaughter plants, Fort Collins: Grandin Livestock Handling Systems.
9 Kirton, A. H.; Moss, R. A. & Taylor, A. One thousand. (1971) "Weight losses from milk and weaned lamb in mid Canterbury resulting from different lengths of starvation before slaughter", New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Enquiry, 14, pp. 149-160 [accessed on 15 January 2014]. Terlouw, E. Thou. C.; Arnould, C.; Auperin, B.; Berri, C.; Le Bihan-Duval, E.; Deiss, 5.; Lefèvre, F.; Lensink, B. J. & Mounier, L. (2008) "Pre-slaughter conditions, animal stress and welfare: Current status and possible futurity research", Animal, ii, pp 1501-1517.
10 Eisnitz, 1000. (1997) Shambles: The shocking story of greed, fail, and inhumane treatment inside the U.S. meat industry, Amherst: Prometheus, p. 82.
11 Ibid., p. 145.
12 Grandin, T. (1991) Recommended fauna treatment guidelines for meat packer, op. cit.
thirteen Butler, V. (2003) "A night in Tyson'south hell", The Cyberactivist, September 23 [accessed on 12 March 2013].
xiv Bilgili, S. F. (1992) "Electrical stunning of broilers – Basic concepts and carcass quality implications: A review", The Periodical of Applied Poultry Research, 1, pp. 135-146.
15 Hillebrand, South. J. W.; Lambooij, Due east. & Veerkamp, C. H. (1996) "The upshot of alternative electric and mechanic stunning methods on haemorrhaging and meat quality of broiler breast and thigh muscles", Poultry Science, 75, pp. 664-671.
16 Göksoy, O.; McKinstry, L. J.; Wilkins, L. J.; Parkmanm I.; Phillips, A.; Richardson, R. I. & Anil, M. H. (1999) "Broiler stunning and meat quality", Poultry Science, 78, pp. 1796-1800. Raj, A. B.; Gregory, N. K.; Wilkins, 50. J. (1992) "Survival rate and carcass downgrading after the stunning with carbon dioxide-argon mixtures", Veterinary Record, 130, pp. 325-328.
17 Adams, D. B. & Sheridan, A. D. (2008) Specifying the risks to beast welfare associated with livestock slaughter without induced insensibility, Canberra: Australian Government Department of Agriculture, pp. one-55.
xviii Gregory, North. Grand. (1993) "Slaughter technology electrical stunning in large cattle", Meat Focus, pp. 32-36; (1994) "Preslaughter handling, stunning and slaughter", Meat Science, 36, pp. 45-56.
19 Atkinson, S.; Velarde, A. & Algers, B. (2013) "An assessment of carbon dioxide stunning in pigs", Creature Welfare, 22, pp. 473-481.
20 Gregory, Northward. G.; Moss, B. & Leeson, R. (1987) "An cess of carbon dioxide stunning in pigs", Veterinary Record, 121, pp. 517-518.
21 Dodman, North. H. (1977) "Observations on the use of the Wernberg dip-elevator carbon dioxide apparatus for preslaughter anesthesia of pigs", British Veterinary Journal, 133, pp. 71-80. Grandin, T. (1988d) "Possible genetic effect in pig's reaction to CO2 stunning", Congress proceedings: 34th International Congress of Meat Science and Technologies, 29 August – ii September, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 96-97.
22 Bauer, N. A.; Buckley, S. A. & Ferris, R. A. (1997) "Encephalon emboli in the pulmonary arteries, hepatic veins and renal veins of slaughtered cattle as a sequelae to the stunning procedure", Epidemiology and Economics Symposium '97, August 19-21, Fort Collins, Colorado.
24 Lambooij, E.; Spanjaard, W.; Eikelenboom, Thou. (1981) "Concussion stunning of veal calves", Fleischwirtchaft, 61, pp. 98-100.
25 Wotton, Southward. B.; Gregory, N. Thou.; Whittington, P. E. & Parkman, I. D. (2000) "Electrical stunning of cattle", Veterinary Record, 147, pp. 681-684.
26 Eisnitz, G. (1997) Abattoir: The shocking story of greed, fail, and inhumane treatment inside the U.S. meat manufacture, op. cit., p. 216.
27 Warrick, J. (2001) "They die piece past piece", Washington Post, 10 April, p. A01.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Eisnitz, M. (1997) Slaughter-house: The shocking story of greed, neglect, and inhumane handling inside the U.S. meat industry, op. cit., p. 33.
33 Ibid., p. 84.
34 Human Rights Watch (2005) "Blood, sweat and fear: Workers' rights in U.S. meat and poultry plants", Human being Rights Lookout man, January [accessed on 8 March 2013]. Business hither is only for the butchery workers' safety, equally information technology is typical of human being rights organizations that are not concerned in the least for animals. All the same we can clearly sympathise how this harms animals, who will endure significantly due to the poor equipment with which they are killed.
35 Eisnitz, G. (1997) Shambles: The shocking story of greed, neglect, and inhumane treatment inside the U.S. meat industry, op. cit., p. 87.
36 Ibid., pp. 92-93.
Source: https://www.animal-ethics.org/slaughter-animals-used-food/
Posted by: dunnfamenter87.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Are Are Animals For Food In The Us Treated"
Post a Comment