CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES - gpvec

Food in pens
enforCement of federal laW in u.s. Plants
crowded and were squealing loudly and climbing up on the back of the hogs
ahead of them. 145
Regulations require animals in pens to have access to feed if held longer than 24 hours. 146
Failure to provide food is infrequently cited, most likely due to the fact that few animals
are held at slaughter facilities for extended periods of time. Following are examples from
federal NRs of failure to provide access to food:
•
•
I noted that several bulls deemed too large for slaughter that were being held in
Pen 13 awaiting shipment off the company premises did not have access to feed.
A portion of these bulls had been on the premises longer than 24 hours without
access to feed. 147
I observed 4 dairy cows in a pen that had been in that pen for over 24 hours. I
noticed that the animals had not been fed and I asked the manager if indeed this
was the case. He admitted that these animals had not been fed. 148
Observed 8 sheep in the holding pens. These sheep had been held at the plant
in excess of 24 hours, with no indication of an accessible water supply or food.
Observed an overturned rubber/plastic pan. Observed no evidence of food or
water on the floor or in any area of the pen where the animals were being held. 149
Half of all humane violations were caused by either personnel negligence or lack of
proper maintenance or repair of facilities (Table 12). However, stunning equipment
malfunction and personnel incompetence in stunning also caused a significant number
of violations. These violations are seen as having more serious consequences, as they
result in animals being subjected to repeated stunning attempts or being cut, scalded or
skinned while conscious. Cattle were more often the victims of inhumane treatment than
any other species (Table 13), although three times as many pigs as cows are slaughtered
every year in the United States. 150 One explanation for this discrepancy is that electrical
stunning, which is used with pigs, is considered to be more effective and accurate than
captive bolt stunning, the method typically used to render cattle insensible. 151
145 NR issued to plant #05537M on October 3, 2003.
146 9 CFR 313.2(e).
147 NR issued to plant #00532M on March 27, 2003.
148 NR issued to plant #20670M on January 22, 2003.
149 NR issued to plant #02969M on December 16, 2003.
150 Refer to Table 1, Livestock Slaughter by Species.
151 USDA-FSIS, Human Resources Development Staff, For the welfare of livestock (interactive CD training
guide), July 1998.
47