2005 Restaurant Animal Welfare Audits of Federally Inspected Beef and Pork Slaughter Plants

by Temple Grandin, PhD
Department of Animal Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523

U.S. Beef Plants

A total of 43 beef plants were audited in 2005. The beef plants did extremely well this year. All of the plants rendered 100% of the cattle insensible, and 55% of the plants had an excellent stunning score of 99% or more, rendering the cattle insensible with one shot from a captive bolt stunner (Table 1). Table 2 shows the average scores for the top 20 plants which have been audited for over five years by more than one restaurant.

Cattle falling down during handling has dropped to 0% during the last three years in the top 20 plants (Table 3). Falling is still a problem in new plants and in plants that do not get regular audits. Electric prod use was 5% or less in 74% of the 43 plant sample (Table 4). The average electric prod score in the top 20 plants was 6% of the cattle moved with an electric prod. One new cow slaughter plant which recently joined the audit system had a very bad 61% electric prod score. Vocalization scores were 3% or less in 90% of the plants (Table 5). The new plant with the poor 61% electric prod score had a 6% vocalization score. The average vocalization score for the top 20 plants was 1%.

Canadian Beef Plants

Data was obtained from three plants. All three plants passed the stunning audit and rendered all of the cattle insensible. One plant had a slightly elevated vocalization score in the 4% to 5% range. Electric prod scores were just average with all three plants in the acceptable 6% to 25% range.

Pork Plants

The pork section did less well in 2005 compared to the beef plants. Unfortunately, three plants out of 28 (10%) had sensible pigs on the bleed rail (Table 6). The four sow plants rendered all of the sows insensible (Table 7). One large plant that processed market pigs had three live pigs on the rail. This was most likely caused by having only one operator to stun over 1000 pigs per hour. Many plants have two stunner operators, stunning every other pig at this speed. There were three large Canadian plants and they rendered all of the pigs insensible. Stunning and insensibility scores are shown on Tables 6 and 8.

Table 9 shows the scores for the top 10 most heavily audited pork plants. These plants have been audited by more than one restaurant for over five years. Falling was 0% for 2003, 2004, and 2005 in the top ten plants (Table 10). The plants that had a CO2 system with a group handling system had excellent electric prod scores. Two of these plants had a 0% electric prod score. There were several plants with conventional single file chutes that also had very low electric prod scores of 1% and 3%. Most of the other plants had electric prod scores that were in the teens (Table 11).

Data was also collected on the percentage of pigs squealing in the entire chute and stunner area (Table 12). Seven plants out of 28 (25%) had very low squealing scores of 10% or less. Getting these good scores is due to hard work on pig handling. Three of these plants were older facilities with conventional single file or double file races. There were also pigs stunned in a CO2 group handling system. Data was not collected on the percentage of pigs squealing in the restrainer.

**Table 1: Captive Bolt Stunning in 42^* U.S. Beef Plants**
% of cattle stunned with one shot	number of plants	% of plants
99% to 100% Excellent	23	55%
95% to 98% Acceptable	19	45%
90% to 94% Not Acceptable	0	0
Less than 90% Serious Problem	0	0

^* One plant was kosher and is not in the data set. All beef plants rendered 100% of the cattle insensible prior to hoisting.

**Table 2: Average scores for the top 20 large beef plants that have been audited by more than one restaurant company for over five years. These heavily audited plants have the best scores.**
Percentage of cattle rendered insensible prior to hoisting	100%
Percentage stunned with one shot	98.5%
Percentage falling down	0%
Percentage vocalizing	1%
Percentage moved with electric prod	6%

**Table 3:Average scores for cattle falling in the top 20 large beef plants that have been audited by more than one restaurant company for over five years^*.**
	Percentage of cattle falling	Percentage of cattle slipping
2003	0%	0.27%
2004	0%	0.34%
2005	0%	0.24%

^*There is a minimum of 20 plants each year. On some years the actual number of plants in the data set is higher. Called the top 20 to conceal identity.

**Table 4:Percentage of cattle moved with NO electric prod in 43 beef plants**
	Number of plants	Percentage
0%	10	23%
Under 5% Excellent	22	51%
6% to 25% Acceptable	10	23%
26% to 50% Not acceptable	0	0%
Over 50%	1^*	2.6%

^*This was a new plant added to the audit system in 2005

**Table 5: Percentage of cattle vocalizing in 43 U.S. beef plants**
	Number of plants	Percentage of Plants
0% to 1% Excellent	26	60%
2% to 3 Acceptable	13	30%
4% to 5% Borderline Acceptable	3	7%
6% to 10% Not Acceptable	1^*	2.3%
Over 10% Serious Problem	0	0%

^*This was a new plant that entered the audit system in 2005

**Table 6: Insensibility in 29^* Pork Plants**
	Number of Plants	Percentage of Plants
100% Excellent	26	90%
99% Fail	2	7%
More than 99% Fail	1^**	3%

^*The four plants with CO2 stunning rendered 100% of the pigs insensible

^**Had three sensible pigs and only one stunner operator for over 1000 pigs per hour

**Table 7: Sow Plants**
Insensibility	Stunner Placement	Falls	Electric Prod Use
Plant 1	100%	100%	0%	0%
Plant 2	100%	100%	0%	10%
Plant 3	100%	100%	0%	0%
Plant 4	100%	100%	2%	7%

One plant had poor handling with excessive yelling and hitting. Data on vocalization in the restrainer was not collected.

**Table 8: Electric Stunning Wand Placement in 24 U.S. Pork Slaughter Plants**
Percentage with correct placement	Number of plants	Percentage of plants
100% Excellent	15	62.5%
99 Acceptable	9	37.5%
98% to 95% Not Acceptable	0	0%
Less than 95%	0	0%

**Table 9: 2005 Average for Top 10^* Pork Plants**
Average scores for Top 10 Pork plants that have been audited by more than one restaurant company for over five years. These heavily audited plants have the best scores.

Percentage of pigs with correct stunning electric stunner placement	99.60%
Percentage Insensibility	99.90%**
Percentage Falling	0%
Percentage Slipping	0.20%
Percentage moved with electric prod	7.8%

^*The actual number of plants in this data set is slightly higher. Called Top 10 to conceal identity.

^**One plant had one pig return to sensibility. The pig was re-stunned prior to scalding.

Table 10: Average scores for Falling in the Top 10 Pork Plants that have been audited by more than one restaurant company for more than five years^*
	Percentage of pigs falling down	Percentage of pigs slipping
2003	0.07%	0.18%
2004	0%	0.26%
2005	0%	0.19%

*The actual number of plants each year is slightly higher. Called Top 10 to conceal identity.

**Table 11: Percentage of Pigs moved with NO Electric Prods in 28 Pork Plants**
	Number of Plants	Percentage of Plants
0% Excellent	2	7%
Less than 5% Excellent	8	29%
6% to 25% Acceptable	18	64%
26% to 50% Not Acceptable	0	0%
Over 50% Serious Problem	0	0%

**Table 12: Percentage of Pigs Vocalizing in all parts of the handling system**
	Number of Plants	Percentage of Plants
Less than 10% Excellent	7	25%
11% to 49% Acceptable	18	64%
50% to 69% Not Acceptable	3	11%
More than 70% Serious Problem	0	0%

Data was not collected on vocalizing in the restrainer. This table is for the entire stunning area.

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