Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:28:59.926Z 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
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.

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

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