Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T00:42:34.855Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigating the welfare, management and human-animal interactions of cattle in four Indonesian abattoirs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

RE Doyle ,
GJ Coleman ,
DM McGill ,
M Reed ,
W Ramdani  and
PH Hemsworth
RE Doyle*
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia
GJ Coleman
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia
DM McGill
Affiliation:
Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation, Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia
M Reed
Affiliation:
North Australian Cattle Company, Cullen Bay, Darwin, Northern Territory 0820, Australia
W Ramdani
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Australia, BSD City South Tangerang, Banten 15322, Indonesia
PH Hemsworth
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Science Centre, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study reports novel information on the animal handling, management and human-animal interactions in Indonesian cattle abattoirs. The slaughter of 304 cattle was observed and there was a high percentage of re-stuns in all abattoirs (range: 8-18.9%) when compared to a variety of international auditing guidelines. The average stun-to-neck cut time was within international recommendations (average: 9 s; range: 4-15 s). Time spent in lairage varied between animals and facilities and was compliant with international guidelines. Handling times were extremely variable (2 s-23 min 40s), but were only weakly correlated with a variety of handler techniques including the total number of handler interactions (sum of visual, auditory and tactile interactions, suggesting that long handling time does not increase handler interactions. There was a moderate correlation between the subjective handling scale and most of the objective behaviours, indicating that this may be a useful way to summarise handler behaviour in future assessments. The current study provides novel information about animal welfare in Indonesian abattoirs and highlights that management practices at the four abattoirs generally comply with international standards. The results also suggest that the subjective handling scale was moderately associated with the frequency of handler interactions, and so may be a useful measure of handler behaviour.

Keywords

animal welfarecattlehandlinghuman-animal interactionslive exportslaughter
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 191 - 197
Copyright
© 2016 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ahsan, M, Hasan, B, Algotsson, M and Sarenbo, S 2014 Handling and welfare of bovine livestock at local abattoirs in bangladesh. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 17: 340–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2014.905782CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alam, M, Gregory, N, Uddin, M, Jabbar, M, Chowdhury, S and Debnath, N 2010 Frequency of nose and tail injuries in cat-tle and water buffalo at livestock markets in Bangladesh. Animal Welfare 19: 295–300Google Scholar
Barnett, JL and Hemsworth, PH 2009 Welfare monitoring schemes: using research to safeguard welfare of animals on the farm. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12: 114–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888700902719856CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayvel, A 2004 The OIE animal welfare strategic initiative–Progress, priorities and prognosis. Global Conference on Animal Welfare: An OIE Initiative. 23-25 February 2004, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, JK and Blackshaw, AW 1994 Heat stress in cattle and the effect of shade on production and behaviour: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 34: 285–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/EA9940285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaszak, K 2011 WSPA Final Report on cattle industry and welfare in Indonesia. World Society for Protection of Animals: Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Bourguet, C, Deiss, V, Tannugi, CC and Terlouw, EC 2011 Behavioural and physiological reactions of cattle in a commercial abattoir: Relationships with organisational aspects of the abattoir and animal characteristics. Meat Science 88: 158–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.12.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, PH, Barnett, JL, Matthews, LR and Coleman, GJ 2000 Behavioural response to humans and the pro-ductivity of commercial dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 273–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00097-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CIWF 2010 Compassion in world farming - slaughter fact sheet. http://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/3818632/slaughter-factsheet.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J 2013 Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge Academic: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, G and Hemsworth, P 2014 Training to improve stockperson beliefs and behaviour towards livestock enhances welfare and productivity. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) 33: 131–137Google ScholarPubMed
Coleman, GJ, Rice, M and Hemsworth, PH 2012 Human-ani-mal relationships at sheep and cattle abattoirs. Animal Welfare 21:15–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13353700593329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commonwealth of Australia 2015 Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System Report. Department of Agriculture: Canberra, ACT, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, DM and Warner, RD 2008 Have we underestimat-ed the impact of pre-slaughter stress on meat quality in rumi-nants? Meat Science 80: 12–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2008 Toward a global perspective on farm animal wel-fare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 330–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, P 2010 Livestock in a Changing Landscape, Volume 2: Experiences and Regional Perspectives. Island Press: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Gibson, TJ, Stafford, KJ, Johnson, CB, Murrell, JC, Mitchinson, SL and Mellor, DJ 2011 Amelioration of electroen-cephalographic responses to slaughter by non-penetrative captive-bolt stunning after ventral-neck incision in halothane-anaes-thetised calves. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 57: 37–41Google Scholar
Grandin, T 1998 The feasibility of using vocalization scoring as an indicator of poor welfare during cattle slaughter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 121–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00102-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2007 Livestock Handling and Transport. CABI: Oxfordshire, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781845932190.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2010 Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants. Meat Science 86: 56–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04.022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grandin, T 2012a Developing measures to audit welfare of cat-tle and pigs at slaughter. Animal Welfare 21: 351–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/09627286.21.3.351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2012b Recommended Captive Bolt Stunning Techniques for Cattle. http://www.grandin.com/humane/cap.bolt.tips.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gregory, NG 2005 Recent concerns about stunning and slaugh-ter. Meat Science 70: 481–491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.06.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Rice, M, Karlen, MG, Calleja, L, Barnett, JL, Nash, J and Coleman, GJ 2011 Human-animal interactions at abattoirs: Relationships between handling and animal stress in sheep and cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 135: 24–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2011.09.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Islam, MJ 2014 Welfare assessment of cattle and water buffalo during pre-slaughter handling and using selective physiological indicators at the time of slaughter. Masters Thesis, Chittagong Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chittagong, BangladeshGoogle Scholar
Jones, B 2011 The slaughter of Australian cattle in Indonesia: an obser-vational study. RSPCA Australia: Deakin West, ACT, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Krzanowski, W 1988 Principles of Multivariate Analysis: A User's Perspective. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Meagher, RK 2009 Observer ratings: Validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119:1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellor, DJ and Bayvel, ACD 2008 New Zealand's inclusive sci-ence-based system for setting animal welfare standards. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113: 313–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miranda de la Lama, GC, Leyva, IG, Barreras-Serrano, A, Pérez-Linares, C, Sánchez-López, E, María, GA and Figueroa-Saavedra, F 2012 Assessment of cattle welfare at a commercial slaughter plant in the northwest of Mexico. Tropical Animal Health and Production 44: 497–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11250-011-9925-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
OIE 2014 Slaughter of Animals, Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 18th Edition. World Organization for Animal Health: Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
Petherick, JC, Doogan, VJ, Holroyd, RG, Olsson, P and Venus, BK 2009 Quality of handling and holding yard environ-ment, and beef cattle temperament: 1. Relationships with flight speed and fear of humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 120:18–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.05.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pleiter, H 2010 Review of Stunning and Halal Slaughter. Meat and Livestock Australia: North Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
R Core Team 2015 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
Seng, P and Laporte, R 2005 Animal welfare: the role and per-spectives of the meat and livestock sector. Revue Scientifique et Technique: International Office of Epizootics 24: 613–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockman, CA, McGilchrist, P, Collins, T, Barnes, AL, Miller, D, Wickham, SL, Greenwood, PL, Cafe, LM, Blache, D and Wemelsfelder, F 2012 Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of Angus steers during pre-slaughter handling and relationship with tempera-ment and physiological responses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 142:125–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2012.10.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terlouw, EMC, Arnould, C, Auperin, B, Berri, C, Le Bihan-Duval, E, Deiss, V, Lefèvre, F, Lensink, BJ and Mounier, L 2008 Pre-slaughter conditions, animal stress and welfare: current status and possible future research. Animal : An International Journal of Animal Bioscience 2: 1501–1517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731108002723CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuyttens, FAM, de Graff, S, Heerkens, JLT, Jacobs, L, Nalon, E, Ott, S, Stadig, L, Van Laer, E and Ampe, B 2014 Observer bias in animal behaviour research: can we believe what we score, if we score what we believe? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90:273–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voisinet, BD, Grandin, T, Tatum, JD, Connor, SFO and Struthers, JJ 1997 Feedlot cattle with calm temperaments have higher average daily gains than cattle with excitable tempera-ments. Journal of Animal Science 75: 892–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waynert, D, Stookey, J, Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K, Watts, J and Waltz, C 1999 The response of beef cattle to noise during handling. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62: 27–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00211-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, CA 2008 A review of welfare in cattle, sheep and pig lairages, with emphasis on stocking rates, ventilation and noise. Animal Welfare 17: 275–284Google Scholar