A total of 32 federally inspected U.S. and Canadian beef plants and 23 federally inspected U.S. pork plants were audited under two different restaurant auditing systems in 2008. All tabulated results for beef plants include conventional, captive bolt stunning methods. One plant performed religious slaughter and is discussed in this report. Overall, pork plants continued to show improvement in audit scores by AMI criteria in 2008 while beef plants did not perform as well as 2007 (Tables 1 and 7).

One beef plant performed kosher slaughter during the auditing period. All scores on the core criteria were satisfactory. The following scores were observed during the audit: 3% vocalization, 0% electric prod usage, 1% falls, and 100% bleed rail insensibility. This plant demonstrated that good animal welfare is a product of good management and well-maintained handling facilities.

Eight beef plants received automatic failures on the 2008 restaurant audits. Two plants scored over 25% on electric prod usage. Both plants scored 48% prod usage at the entrance to the restrainer. One plant primarily slaughtered cows and had lighting and distraction problems at the entrance to the restrainer. The other plant slaughtered primarily fed cattle and the high prod score can be attributed to poor enforcement by management. Electric prod usage continues to be an issue in some plants. This can be caused by poor management, distractions at the restrainer entrance, and/or a restrainer entrance that is too small for the cattle. To this effect, a fed cattle and beef cow plant that wanted to slaughter dairy cows had to raise the head hold-down on their restrainer this year to allow tall Holstein dairy cows to fit. In general, if the withers of the animals touch the roof of the restrainer entrance at any point, they will balk at the restrainer entrance. A plant would only have to raise the head hold-down 2-4 inches to reduce balking in tall cattle.

Another plant failed after 4% of cattle vocalized near the restrainer entrance. This was caused by multiple distractions near the restrainer entrance that caused many cattle to refuse to enter. Two of these distractions were movement of the air hose supplying the captive bolt gun and the presence of a yellow flashing light that signaled the operation of a piece of equipment. Movement of the flashing light and the addition of sheet metal above the restrainer to block the view over the restrainer entrance would have helped to reduce the vocalization score.

Plants must continue to monitor facility condition and animal handlers to maintain good animal welfare. One plant pushed an animal to the ground with a stun box tailgate. This can result from trying to push animals through a facility too quickly. In another plant, an employee dropped a backstop gate on the head of an animal. Animal handlers must continue to pay specific attention to animal location to prevent easily avoidable injuries. Another plant automatically failed because a trucker mishandled a non-ambulatory animal. It is important for plants to develop downer-handling protocols and follow them precisely. During unloading, one plant failed after 2% of cattle fell on the unloading ramp. This is the most common area for falling in beef plants. Non-slip flooring and calm, quiet handling eliminates most falling during unloading. One plant also failed when an animal displayed rhythmic breathing and nose twitching, which are signs of return to sensibility, on the bleed rail. Fortunately, the animal was not fully sensible. It is important to monitor stunning accuracy in-plant to maintain a high level of stunning accuracy. Overall, these failures were easily avoidable. Plant management must continue to train and monitor their employees to prevent relapses to poor animal handling and welfare. The best approach to maintaining good animal welfare is a proactive approach. Plants that locate potential problems before they become acute problems will be the most successful in maintaining good animal welfare. Some of the problems with poorly trained employees in 2008 may be partly due to high employee turnover caused by increased enforcement of immigration laws.

Pork Summary

As a whole, the pork plants performed very well on all other core criteria. All audited plants rendered 100% of the animals unconscious before shackling and hoisting. All plants also passed on electric prod usage, stunning accuracy, and falls (Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13). Only five plants that used electric stunning were evaluated using the 2007 AMI Animal Welfare Audit Guidelines. Uniformity between the audit programs will help to improve this assessment in 2009.

^* One animal in this plant displayed rhythmic breathing and nose twitching on the bleed rail.

^* One plant scored 4% on vocalization at the restrainer entrance due to excessive balking from seeing a moving stunner air hose hanging above the restrainer. Some other noted distractions were water spraying on the restrainer takeaway and a flashing light near the restrainer.

Table 5: Percentage of cattle moved with electric prods during handling in 32 U.S. and Canadian beef plants

Percentage of Cattle Electric Prodded	Number of Plants	Percentage of Plants
0%: Excellent	12	38%
5% or Less: Very Good	10	31%
6% to 25%: Acceptable	8	25%
26% to 50%: Not Acceptable	2*	6%
Greater than 50%: Serious Problem	0	0%

^* Two plants scored 48% on electric prodding due to excessive balking at the restrainer entrance. They both automatically failed their audits.

Table 6: Percentage of cattle falling during handling in 32 U.S. and Canadian beef plants

Percentage of Cattle Falling During Handling	Number of Plants	Percentage of Plants
0%: Excellent	28	88%
1% Acceptable	3*	9%
2% to 4%: Not Acceptable	1**	3%
Greater than 5%: Serious Problem	0	0%

^* One plant failed the audit due to a willful act of abuse. One animal was pushed to the ground by a stun box tailgate.

^** One plant failed the audit when two animals fell during unloading.

Table 7: Percentage of pork plants that passed or failed restaurant audits out of 23 U.S. plants

Plant Performance Rating - Pigs	Number of Plants	Percentage of Plants
Pass on all the numerically scored criteria and no acts of abuse	12	52%
Non-conformance by 5 points or less on one scored criteria	10	44%
Non-conformance by 5 points or less on two scored core criteria	0	0%
Automatic Failed Audit. One or more scores in the serious problem category or, act of abuse, or hanging a sensible animal on the rail	1	4%

Table 8: Stunning percentage and insensibility in 10 U.S. pork plants with CO2 stunning systems

Percentage of Pigs Stunned Correctly and Rendered Insensible on the Bleed Rail	Number of Plants	Percentage of Plants
100% stunned / 100% insensible: Excellent	10	100%

Table 9: Percentage of pigs moved with an electric prod during handling in 10 U.S. pork plants with CO2 stunning systems

Percentage of Pigs Electric Prodded in Plants With CO2 Stunning Systems	Number of Plants	Percentage of Plants
0%: Excellent	7	70%
5% or Less: Very Good	2	20%
6% to 25%: Acceptable	1	10%
26% to 50%: Not Acceptable	0	0%
Greater than 50%: Serious Problem	0	0%

Table 10: Stunner placement accuracy and hot-wanding in 13 U.S. pork plants with electrical stunning systems

Percentage of Pigs With Correct Electric Stunner Placement and No Hot-Wanding	Number of Plants	Percentage of Plants
100% Correct: Excellent	12	92%
99% Correct or 1% Hot-Wanded: Acceptable	1*	8%
96% to 98% Correct Placement or 2% to 3% Hot-Wanded: Not Acceptable	0	0%
Less than 96% Correct Placement or Greater than 3% Hot-Wanded: Serious Problem	0	0%

^* One plant applied an activated stunner wand to a pig. The pig was rendered unconscious prior to bleeding.

Table 11: Percentage of pigs moved with an electric prod during handling in 13 U.S. pork plants with electrical stunning systems

Percentage of Pigs Electric Prodded in Plants With Electric Stunning Systems	Number of Plants	Percentage of Plants
0%: Excellent	2	15%
5% or Less: Very Good	4	31%
6% to 25%: Acceptable	7	54%
26% to 50%: Not Acceptable	0	0%
Greater than 50%: Serious Problem	0	0%

Table 12: Percentage of pigs vocalizing in the restrainer in five U.S. pork plants with electrical stunning systems^*

Percentage of Pigs Vocalizing in the Restrainer in Electric Stunning Systems	Number of Plants	Percentage of Plants
<2%: Excellent	2	40%
2% to 5%: Acceptable	2	40%
6% to 10%: Not Acceptable	1**	10%
Greater than 10%: Serious Problem	0	0%

^* Eight plants were excluded because vocalization was not scored according to the 2007 AMI Animal Welfare Audit Guidelines.

^** One plant scored 10% on vocalizations in the restrainer. Cause was not noted.

Table 13: Percentage of pigs falling during handling in 23 U.S. pork plants

Percent of Pigs Falling During Handling	Number of Plants	Percentage of Plants
0%: Excellent	22	96%
1%: Acceptable	1	4%
2% to 4%: Not Acceptable	0	0%
Greater than 5%: Serious Problem	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