MEAT+POULTRY - August 2015 - 106

FROM THE CORRAL

Telling the STUNNING STORY

Photo by Rosalie Winard

One advantage of being in the meat industry for a long time
is that I know its history. I can remember when stunning
and handling in the 1980s and '90s was really terrible. In
some plants, stunner maintenance was non-existent and
cattle were shot multiple times with broken stunners.
Today, beef and pork plants are totally different
compared to the bad old days. In fact, both my own
observations and data in scientific literature indicate that
many of the US plants have better animal welfare and more
effective stunning than plants in Europe. The problem
is that the public does not know about the excellent
performers in the US. If somebody,
who does not know about the bad
old days, looks at the USDA/FSIS
website's list of suspensions, that
person would think the industry is
performing poorly.
When the audits by major
foodservice and QSR customers
began in 1999 and 2000, there were
huge improvements. Restaurant
audits forced plants to fix broken
equipment and do a much better
job of handling and stunning.
Another reason these restaurant
audits were so successful was
"It is impossible that they used a simple objective
to be perfect, but scoring system that became the
basis of the AMI (now North
it is possible
American Meat Institute) animal
handling guidelines.
to operate at
To pass the audit, a plant had
a high level of
to effectively render 95 percent
excellence."
of the cattle insensible with a
single shot. If a shot was missed,
the stunner had to immediately apply an effective second
shot. Unfortunately, activist pressure on USDA/FSIS is
forcing the inspectors to enforce the letter of the law of
the Humane Slaughter Act, which contains the word "all"
when referring to stunning. In order to be compliant, a
plant has to be perfect. In real-world applications, it is
impossible to be perfect.
I have been in a beef plant where the inspector stood
next to the stunner and the plant was suspended and
shut down if a single shot was missed. Current USDA
directives state that missing a single stun is an egregious
act. I disagree with this. I suggest that shooting cattle

106

MEAT+ POULTRY | 08.15 | www.meatpoultry.com

repeatedly with a poorly maintained and underpowered
stunner would be egregious.

GOOD REASONS TO NOT BE PERFECT
When a plant attempts to always have 100 percent first
shots, it may make welfare worse. When we originally
developed the AMI guidelines, one of the reasons for
allowing a 5 percent double stun was to prevent hoisting
of an animal that returned to sensibility. I have been in
plants where they tried to always attain a perfect 100
percent first shot score. Those plants had more problems
with hanging live cattle on the rail than a plant that
routinely has an effective first shot score of 98 percent.
Within the last year, I have been in three large plants
where I kept score. The effective first shot scores were
99 percent, 100 percent and 99 percent. All animals hung
on the rail were properly stunned and insensible. The
three plants rendered 100 percent of the cattle insensible
before they were hung on the rail. In the real world,
these three beef plants are top performers. To give one
of these plants a suspension for a second shot totally
misrepresents its excellent performance.
A more reasonable place to have a zero-tolerance
policy is hanging animals that show signs of return to
sensibility on the bleed rail. The stunner operator needs
to be sure they are insensible before hoisting. Another
place where the word "all" should be used is on starting
dressing procedures too soon. There must be a zero
tolerance for starting procedures such as skinning or
cutting off feet on an animal showing any signs of return
to sensibility.
If I was writing a directive for USDA/FSIS inspectors,
it would state that a plant has to be able to maintain a
minimum effective first shot stunning score of 95 percent
and have equipment readily available for immediate
second shots. This is the guideline in the industry
numerical scoring system.
Where I would use the word "all" is: "All" animals
hung on the rail and before start of invasive dressing
procedures must be insensible to pain. Some plants
routinely shoot bulls with heavy skulls twice. This is a
good practice that I endorse. The plant should be able to
demonstrate that the first stun is effective 95 percent of
the time. I like clear guidance, which is like traffic rules.
In the real world, it is impossible to be perfect, but it is
possible to operate at a high level of excellence.
BY D R . T E M P L E G R A N D I N | M E AT P O U LT RY@ S OS L A N D.CO M
http://www.meatpoultry.com
MEAT+POULTRY - August 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of MEAT+POULTRY - August 2015
