Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T11:12:37.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of a single empirical outcome measure to assess welfare in slaughter plants: between- and within-sector comparisons of the supply base for a major retail multiple

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

F Roberts ,
A Lucas  and
S Johnson
F Roberts*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Conservation and Welfare, Kingston Maurward College, Dorchester, Dorset DT2 8JD, UK Integra Food Secure Ltd, Hanborough Business Park, Long Hanborough, Oxford OX29 8SJ, UK
A Lucas
Affiliation:
Integra Food Secure Ltd, Hanborough Business Park, Long Hanborough, Oxford OX29 8SJ, UK
S Johnson
Affiliation:
Tesco Stores Ltd, Tesco House, Delamare Road, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN8 9SL, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: fiona@foodsecure.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of the present retrospective analysis was to review between- and within-sector variations in an outcome-based measure of animal welfare throughout slaughterhouses that currently supply to Tesco Stores Ltd, UK. Non-conformances in relation to individual scheme standards were designated a specific level in terms of severity and frequency and from this a single outcome status, based on a ‘traffic-light’ system is assigned to the site (which informs both subsequent corrective action and future inspection frequency). Sector-specific, country and time differences were found and underlying contributory factors and associated commercial implications are reviewed.

Keywords

animal welfareassessment protocoloutcome measuresquality assuranceslaughterhouseTesco Stores Ltd
Type
Papers
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue S2: Proceedings of the HSA Centenary International Symposium ‘Recent Advances in the Welfare of Livestock at Slaughter’ Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UK, 2011 , June 2012 , pp. 139 - 145
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bonney, RJ 2006 Farm animal welfare at work. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100(1-2): 140–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 1991 Animal Welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalmau, A, Temple, D, Rodríguez, P, Llonch, P and Verlarde, A 2009 Application of the Welfare Quality® Protocol at pig slaughterhouses. Animal Welfare 18: 497–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EA IAF/ILAC-A4 2004 IAF Guidance on the Application of ISO/IEC 17020:1998. General criteria for the operation of various types of bodies performing inspection Issue 1: 1–20. http://www.european-accreditation.org/Docs/0003_International/0003_Joint%20ilaciaf/eaiafilac-a4_2004.pdfGoogle Scholar
EC Council Directive 1993 The Protection of Animals at the Time of Slaughter and Killing 93/119/EC. EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
FAWC 2005 Report on Animal Welfare Implications of Farm Assurance Schemes. Farm Animal Welfare Council: London UKGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2000 Effect of animal welfare audits of slaughter plants by a major fast food company on cattle handling and stunning practices. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 216: 848–851. http://dx.doi.org/10.2460/javma.2000.216.848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandin, T 2001 Cattle vocalizations are associated with handling and equipment problems at beef slaughter plants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71: 191–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00179-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingenbleek, PTM and Immink, VM 2011 Consumer decisionmaking for animal-friendly products: synthesis and implications. Animal Welfare 20: 11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, L 2009 Animal welfare inspection reports in Sweden. Animal Welfare 18: 391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, DCJ, Whay HR Leeb, C and Webster, AJF 2007 ‘Formal animal-based welfare assessment in UK certification systems’. Animal Welfare 16: 233–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miele, M, Veissier, I, Evans, A and Botreau, R 2011 Animal welfare: establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare 20: 103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NAWAC 2010 Animal Welfare (Commercial Slaughter) Code of Welfare 2010. National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee: Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Rao AR and Ruekert 1994 Brand alliances as signals of product quality. Sloan Management Review 36: 87–97Google Scholar
Roe, E, Buller, H and Bull, J 2011 The performance of farm animal assessment. Animal Welfare 20: 69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Special Eurobarometer 229 2005 Attitudes of Consumers towards Welfare of Farmed Animals pp 138. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/euro_barometer25_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
SPSS 17.0 2010 SPSS for Windows Release. SPSS Inc Headquarters: Chicago, Illinois, USAGoogle Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2008 Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116(1-3): 126–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar