Dr. Temple Grandin
Department of Animal Science
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado U.S.A.
Fifty beef plants and 24 pork plants were audited by either first party or third party auditors from McDonald’s or Wendy’s. The scores were averaged for plants that received more than one audit. A total of nine beef plants were visited by the author to do internal audits or consult on fixing problems. A total of five pork plants were also visited by the author. This added three pork plants that were not part of a restaurant audit system which bring the total number of pork plants to 27. Data on the tables attached to this summary indicate that the plants are maintaining the excellent standards they have had since auditing started in 1999.
Ninety-one percent of the beef plants passed both the stunning audit and rendered 100% of the cattle insensible. A total of 7,950 cattle were assessed for insensibility during the audits. There were four animals that regained partial sensibility after hoisting and one cow that regained complete sensibility. They were immediately re-stunned. Ninety-one percent of the pork plants passed on both stunning wand placement and they rendered 100% of the pigs insensible. Two plants failed on insensibility due to improper stunning wand placement and the other the reason was not recorded. A total of 4900 pigs were observed.
Ninety percent of the beef plants and seventy-eight percent of the pork plants were able to move 75% or more of the animals with no electric prods. In beef, 60% of the plants used electric prods on 5% or less of the cattle. Two out of three of the plants outside a restaurant audit system failed with 100% and 90% of the pigs prodded with electric prods. A new serious problem has occurred in both beef and pork plants who were attempting to get low electric prod scores. In three (6%) beef plants and two (7%) of the pork plants, restaurant auditors observed sticks or other objects poked into sensitive parts of the animals such as the anus. This was an automatic failure of the audit. People must learn if the animal refuses to move, the electric prod can be picked up, used, and then put back down. One plant maintenance department is to be commended for inventing a non-electric prod that buzzes the cattle. It is very effective and when I tried it on my hand, it did not hurt.
Vocalization scores were excellent this year. None of the beef plants had a serious problem with over 10% of the cattle vocalizing. In one beef plant, 7% of the cattle vocalized due to sharp corners on a Kosher head holder. Removing the sharp corners would fix the problems.
Vocalizing in pigs has been reduced in many plants. None of the plants had constant squealing. One surprising finding was that a CO2 group handling system that should have had a low vocalization score had one of the worst vocalization scores. This is probably due to over crowding with fully automatic gates. These systems usually work better if a person controls the forward movement of the gate.
For both cattle and pigs, the percentage of animals falling down in the stunning area was very low. Only one beef plant and one pork plant had animals that fell. In both beef and pork plants maintenance of flooring to prevent slips and falls requires continuous vigilance. In the beef plants, 85% had excellent non-slip flooring and in the pork plants 80% had good flooring and no gaps where the pigs could fall. The rest of the plants had worn floor areas or broken parts that needed repair.
Transport problems received great attention this year because a large pork plant was shut down by the USDA due to truck drivers running pigs over the top of downer pigs and death losses due to trucks waiting too long to unload during hot weather. Scheduling of trucks so that pigs can be unloaded within 15 or 20 minutes is an area where some plants need to improve.
In pork, the restaurant auditors identified all the problems because the pork plants do not have specialized procedures such as stunning bulls or religious slaughter that the auditor may not observe. All of the plant’s operations are available for observation.
A plant can be held to a high standard but being absolutely perfect is impossible. The author recommends the following:
Cull cows and bulls were a major problem. There was one fully sensible or partially sensible animal per 758 cows and bulls. In pork, out of 4900 pigs, 2 partially sensible animals were observed. It is the author’s opinion that cull cow plants need to improve. Many of the best pork plants have a return to sensibility percentage that is better. My recommendation is to set the pig limit at one per 5000.
There must be a zero tolerance for hoisting an animal that is showing any obvious signs of sensibility. There must also be a zero tolerance for skinning, scaulding, dehairing or removal of any body part on an animal that shows any sign of partial return to insensibility.
Percentage of cattle stunned with one shot | Number of plants | Percentage of plants | Line Speed Range |
---|---|---|---|
Excellent 99 to 100% |
26 | 52% | 11 to 390/hr |
Acceptable 99 to 95% |
23 | 46% | 50 to 390/hr |
Not Acceptable 94 to 90% |
1 | 2% | Under 75/hr |
Serious Problem Over 90% |
0 | 0 | 0 |
Percentage of cattle rendered insensible | Number of plants | Percentage of plants |
---|---|---|
100% insensible (pass) | 45 | 90% |
Less than 100% insensible Serious problem |
5 | 10% |
Percentage vocalizing | Number of plants | Percentage of plants |
---|---|---|
Excellent 0 to 1% |
30 | 60% |
Acceptable 2 to 3% |
13 | 26% |
Borderline Acceptable 4 to 5% |
6 | 12% |
Not Acceptable 6 to 10% |
1 | 2% |
Serious Problem Over 10% |
0 | 0 |
Percentage of cattle electric prodded | Number of plants | Percentage of plants |
---|---|---|
0% Excellent |
5 | 10% |
5% or less Excellent |
25 | 50% |
6 to 25% Not Acceptable |
15 | 30% |
26 to 50% Not Acceptable |
2 | 4% |
Over 50% Serious Problem |
0 | 0% |
*Object poked in a sensitive part of animal – Serious Problem | 3 | 6% |
Number of plants | Percentage of plants | |
---|---|---|
Excellent – no observed maintenance issues on floors or trailers | 41 | 82% |
Slick floor in plant or on unloading ramp | 5 | 10% |
Broken parts on trailers | 2 | 4% |
Holes in floors | 2 | 4% |
Deflects serious enough to fail the audit | 0 | 0% |
Percentage of pigs with correct wand placement | Number of plants | Percentage of plants |
---|---|---|
100% correct Excellent |
15 | 68% |
99% correct Acceptable |
5 | 23% |
98 to 95% Not Acceptable |
2 | 9% |
Percentage of pigs hot wanded | Number of plants | Percentage of plants |
---|---|---|
0% hot wanded Excellent |
19 | 86% |
1% hot wanded Acceptable |
2 | 9% |
2 to 3% Not acceptable |
1 | 5% |
4% or more Serious Problem |
0 | 0% |
100% insensible pain | Number of plants | Percentage of plants |
---|---|---|
Less than 100% | 25 | 93% |
Serious Problem | 2 | 7% |
Percentage of pigs electric prodded | Number of plants | Percentage of plants |
---|---|---|
0% Excellent |
4 | 15% |
1 to 5% Good |
3 | 11% |
6 to 25% Acceptable |
14 | 52% |
26 to 49% Not Acceptable |
2 | 7% |
50% or more Serious Problem |
2 | 7% |
Object poked in a sensitive part of the animal Serious Problem |
2 | 7% |
Percentage of pigs electric prodded | Group 1 – First shift | 10% |
Group 2 – First shift | 7% | |
Group 3 – Second shift – extreme heavy muscled “Bubble Butt” pigs | 50% | |
Group 4 – Second shift | 10% |
Percentage of pigs vocalizing | Number of plants | Percentage of plants |
---|---|---|
10% or less Excellent |
1 | 4% |
11% to 49% Acceptable |
19 | 83% |
50% to 69% Not Acceptable |
3 | 13% |
Over 70% Serious problem |
0 | 0 |
Excellent no. observed maintenance issues on floors or trailers | 15 | 80% |
Slick floors in plant or on unloading ramp | 2 | 10% |
Broken parts on ramp or trailers | 0 | 0% |
Gaps pigs can fall through | 2* | 10% |
Detects serious enough to fail the audit | 0 | 0% |
Click here to return to the Homepage for more information on animal behavior, welfare, and care.
Click here to return to Survey main menu to view surveys done during other years