| |
Results from a just published survey* of
the design of facilities at auction markets and animal handling
procedures on bruising of cattle show that DEFRA and a reinforced
State Veterinary Service have a major task in ousting the
wheeling and dealing in this ramshackle industry and overhauling
what remains. Modern information technology (electronic auctions)
means buyers can go to the animals rather than hawking them
round livestock markets, dealerships, and auction rings –
the process implicated in the rapid spread of Foot and Mouth
Disease (FMD).
*Research Paper: "Influence and design of facilities
at auction markets and animal handling proceedures on bruising
in cattle," The Veterinary Record, Volume 150, Number
24, 743-748.
Authors: Weeks, C. A., McNally, P. W., & Warriss,
P. D.
Published: 15th June 2002
Funded: VEGA
University: Division of Food Animal Science, University
of Bristol, BS40 5DU
Research Extracts
Movements of cattle at 12 livestock auction markets in England
and Wales were observed before the outbreak of FMD to determine
the causes of trauma leading to carcass bruising. The observers
and commentators from the Division of Food Animal Science,
University of Bristol, report a number of design faults including
“right angled bends on races, dead ends, flooring with
insufficient slope or grip, and steps. Sliding gates were
often misused for goading cattle. Projecting fittings and
square edged corners were potentially injurous; inversely
rounded posts and curved races assisted the flow of cattle
with minimum impacts. At all the markets some cattle were
hit directly or poked with wooden sticks, and the variation
in their use could partially explain the differences between
the markets in the prevalence of carcase bruising. Most harder
hits were directed at less valuable parts of the body, such
as the spine, hocks and shoulders, and a survey of bruising
at the abattoir showed that these were the areas with most
bruising…Carcass’ of cattle from markets had a greater
incidence and severity of bruising than those arriving directly
from farms or dealers.”
Key Issues Raised:
- Beating and Goading
As examples of animal handling the report describes conditions
at the markets at Welshpool and Worcester, where “the
cattle tended to be hit without consideration for the need
to do so, but at both sites the inadequacy of the facilities
made the drovers job hazardous and promoted the use of goads”.
The researchers state that at Ludlow market “electric
goads were used excessively and indiscriminately several
times on virtually every animal, although the facilities
were relatively new and well designed… This market
had the highest rate of sale and the insistence of the auctioneer
on achieving this high rate put the drovers under pressure,
with inevitable consequences for animal welfare.”
- They’re going for slaughter anyway
“Evidence aplenty reiterates the message that livestock
markets and all the transportation, loading and unloading
that go with them make these arenas sites of cruelty, injury,
spread of disease and disgrace for the farmers and veterinary
profession who have ignored the warnings and pleas of animal
werfarists horrified at the relentless example being set.
The Countryside Alliance connives despicably,” states
Dr Alan Long, a research advisor at VEGA, the animal welfare
and environmental charity that financed the latest study
at Bristol University. He continues, “when one of our
market monitors called a vet to the aid of a barren cow
slipping and falling and being vigorously beaten on her
way to the auction ring, the vet declined to intervene,
saying ‘They’re used to harsh treatment. Why bother
now? They’re only culls.’”
Bruising on cattle is an indication of poor welfare and
a cause of economic loss that a heavily subsidised and favoured
industry can afford to disregard. Cattle and other livestock
sold through markets are tired and thirsty, and likely to
be under the further sustained stressed of the weather and
alien and uncongenial conditions even before they end up
at the slaughterhouse. “Direct transfers are practicable
between farm and slaughter, and they obviate much cruelty.
Tired animals are less able to maintain balance and are
likely to suffer trapping and injury. Both they and handlers
react with increasing displays of anger, stubbornness, and
blinding and effing,” continues Dr Alan Long.
- Restocking
“There is also plenty of evidence that farmers
are restocking herds and flocks by-passing precautions of
health controls and quarantine. This fecklessness is resumed
even after the evidence of the spread of FMD and of other
viral and bacterial diseases transmitted by stressed animals
passing through the marketing system. The Curry Commission’s
report and the report of the BSE Inquiry both echo the voices
of animal welfare organisations in calling for stringent
measures to deal with the problems arising from the current
system of cheap food production,” warns Dr Alan Long.
“The necessity for improved traceability threatens
more pain and bleeding as some of the profusion of ear tags
are ripped off. Rabies control and equine identification
are achieved in dogs and horses without festooning their
sensitive ears with an array of tags that cattle, calves’
sheep and lambs are required to carry.”
- The National and the Local
It isn’t only Westminster that needs to address the
issue: the responsibilities devolve to local councils, too.
In Norwich, for instance, the Labour Council which had resisted
reopening of the local livestock market, has recently been
replaced by a Liberal Democrat majority and newly elected
members may have to assess evidence provided by this report
in reaching a decision.
In the Spirit of Openness and Objectivity
Researchers at the Division of Food and Animal Welfare Science,
Bristol University, have refused the requests of VEGA, which
financed their study, for open and complete disclosure, in
the manner vaunted by the Food Standards Agency. The Editor
of The Veterinary Record has not yet supported VEGA’s
request. VEGA has permitted pre-publication release to the
government-appointed Farm Animal Welfare Council and other
agencies requiring facts on which to base rapid reform. Unfortunately
these agencies had a record of a closed shop of costive amelioration.
Based on a belief that the public has a right to know about
the conditions in which it’s food is produced, VEGA has
therefore made the decision to break this code of silence.
The markets on which the report was based are:
A: Ludlow
B: Derby
C: Ross
D: Newark
E: Uttoxeter
F: Ruthin
G: Hereford
H: St Asaph
I: Welshpool
J: Worcester
K: Frome
L: Chippenham
M: Highbridge
N: Gloucester
VEGA notes that the Meat Hygiene Service has accumulated
vast amounts of data on reasons for rejection of carcasses
and offals for human consumption. Since this post-mortem evidence
can provide excellent insights into the condition, disease
status, and pre-slaughter treatment of millions of farm animals
and poultry, VEGA calls upon DEFRA to commission an objective
appraisal of this important and expensively-acquired evidence.
<<
PAGE TOP >>
|
|
