Ritueel Slachten:Hoorzitting Tweede Kamer 16 juni 2011:
Heel Nederland en de beschaving moest drie kwartier wachten op ‘LORD SACHS, Chief Rabby’ uit Londen die in gezelschap uit Londen kwam vliegen en groots met alle persaandacht en gevoel voor drama werd ingeleid. Dat je maar weet waar Nederland zijn moraal vandaan haalt! De Thora/Bijbel zou het eerste boek zijn waarin over dierenwelzijn wordt geschreven. Van andere beschavingen, zoals Hindu nooit gehoord..
Er waren vertegenwoordigers van joodse en islamitische organisaties uitgenodigd, juristen , theologen en veterinair deskundigen.
Principiele onderwerping van dier aan mens
De abrahamitische godsdiensten willen ‘dieren geen mensenrechten geven’. Dierenrechten zijn mensenplichten. Het dier is geen rechtssubject. Individualiteit van het afzonderlijke dier wordt niet erkend, het is een serieprodukt, een gebruikswezen, wel met een ziel, maar toch ‘devoid of apprehension and the effect of pain’ (gespeend van de mogelijkheid pijn en het effect ervan te ervaren)(Dr.J.Hidmi, The Scientific Miracle of the Holy Quran ‘Between the Islamic method of Slaying Animals (Zabah Halal) and Human Health’. Uitdrukkelijk wordt Brigitte Bardot verweten in de naam van Allah!! een persoonlijke en individuele band met dieren te hebben ( Benefits of religious slaughter without stunning for animals and humans, 24 march 2008, Asidcom Association)
Schijnheiligheid der religieuzen
Zij hebben geprobeerd de niet-voorbedwelmde slacht als meest humane methode voor te stellen.
Het zou gaan om een arbeidsintensief op maat van en met alle aandacht voor het het dier toegesneden langzaam proces itt de ‘industriele slacht in de bioindustrie. Onzin, de islamitische slacht is evenzo massaal en voorheen ook de joodse voor de export en de dieren komen gewoon uit de bioindustrie. De joodse slacht had juist een voortrekkersrol voor de islamitische organisaties. Die wonden er overigens geen doektjes om, dat het hun gaat om de bescherming en verdere infrastructurele uitbouw van hun monopoliepositie in slachtproductie en handel: ‘The Green Muslim Foundation actively promotes the reform of the dutch meat and halal industry’ sc: voor de export, waarvoor het leeuwendeel van de rituele slacht geschiedt: Men verdient vermogens aan de halssnede!Men pleit voor eigen slachthuizen.
Men heeft ook de huidige voorbedwelmingsmethoden bekritiseerd in de waan, dat niemand anders beweert dat die niet ook verbeterd moeten worden. Dat is niet zo. Iedereen is ermee bekend, dat we nog niet goed kunnen weten, of na bijvoorbeeld het penschot of een halssnede slechts insensibiliteit (uitval van motorisch zenuwstelsel), dan wel onbewustzijn optreedt en wanneer, of dat onbewustzijn dan blijvend is tot aan de dood of toch ook niet weer even een pijnbeleving toelaat. Deze kan met een goede bedwelmingsmethode worden voorkomen. Joodse en islamitische woordvoerders hebben deze voorbedwelming voorgesteld als een dubbele executie. Zij gaan ervan uit, dat die voorbedwelming vaker mislukt dan hun slachtingreep. Anderzijds wil stelt men wel, dat ‘not well working slaughtering systems should not be used to judge the inhaerent potential of any slaughtering system to humanely slaughter animals’ ( Preliminary Report by Regenstein pag 9).
Het gaat om het beginsel: Beter een dubbele executie dan een halve !!
Het wetsvoorstel doet geen uitspraak over welke bedwelmingsmethode de beste is. Dat moet later worden uitgezocht door experimenten.
Men wil het doen voorkomen, ook al door de bewijslast om te draaien, dat de reli-slacht de meest diervriendelijke methode is, maar dat deden rabbijnen en imams ook voordat dierenbeschermers een fixeerbox oplegden ter voorkoming van de toen gebruikelijke botbreuken door kluisterkettingen en ophanging aan de jacobsladder, een methode nog altijd veel in de wereld toegepast, bv in Zuid-Amerika, maar na jaren actie door dierenbeschermers (niet op initiatief van joden of moslims of christenen) door de EU vanaf 13 januari 2013 is verboden. De beelden vn de islamitische slachthuizen in Indonesie, waartegen nooit een moslim protesteerde en die aanleiding gaven tot de onmiddellijke stopzetting van een 200 miljoen waarde hebbende Autralische runderexport, spreekt boekdelen over de beweerdelijke vermeende diervriendelijkheid van de islamitische wereld.
De joodse inbreng getuigde van een goede verbale inbreng met vewijzing en bekritisering van wetenschappelijke rapporten en stelden, dat ook in de joodse ethiek het dierenwelzijn vooropstond. Onhandig genoeg, gaf de islamitische inbreng die vooral steunde op joods onderzoek, blijk van waar het uiteindelijk om gaat: de kwaliteitsverbetering en de houdbaarheid van het vlees. Door stress-opwekking vlak voor de uitbloeding wordt door de betere doorbloeding alllerlei zuren en afvalstoffen beter afgevoerd. Dan moet dat ‘vervuilde bloed’ wel heel goed worden afgevoerd en men denkt, dat verdoving die verbloeding stagneert. ‘Rapid breathing (hijgen, adem snakken) assures adequate oxygenation of tissues and prevent a stagnant anoxia, which interferes with the PH of the tissues; PH is very important in extracting the blood from the tissues and influences tthe keeping quality of the meat… These factors are operative only when the blood vessels are severed while the animal is conscious with a normal vaso motor centre, a normal heart and normal circulatory and normal respiratory centre.’, aldus Hidmi. Het dier moet dus maar bij volle bewustzijn in doodsangst naar adem blijven happen bij versnelde hartslag om de smaak en de houdbaarheid van het vlees te verbeteren. Hoezo dierenwelzijn op de eerste plaats? Het geschiedt dus om precies dezelfde reden als waarom de Chinezen die slachthonden afranselen vlak voor de slacht.
Ook ontkent men of laat achter weg, dat er nog wel twee grote problemen onweerlegd gebleven tav onbedwelmd slachten zijn gebleven
1. een dier, met name runderen, moet veel langer worden gefixeerd. Een rund is van nature claustrophobe en de stress, doodsangst in zo’n box, zeker wanneer die het dier kantelt in zij- of rugligging, kan het bewustzijn na de halssnede aanzienlijk verlengen tot enige minuten. Door kanteling loopt het bloed ook over de ogen, krijgt het rund bloed en pensinhoud in de luchtpijp, terwijl dan al de ophoestreflex door doorsnijding van de nervus vagus en de nervus phrenicus is uitgeschakeld.
2. Een dier heeft pijnreceptoren in de hals en voelt met name wanneer moet worden bijgesneden na de eerste haal, pijn en stress. Dit gebeurt bij de joodse slacht gemiddeld 3,2 keer en bij de islamitische slacht zelfs 5,2 keer. Dan nog is bij een op de tien dieren de halsader niet of onvoldoende opengesneden. Eeen joodse bijdrage probeert het zo voor te stellen, dat die pijnreceptoren alleen werken bij verslinding door een roofdier en niet bij een opensnijding door een mes. Let wel, als de rituele meshaal mislukt, wordt er door joden en islamieten niet ‘nageschoten’, omdat dat het vlees ongeschikt zou maken voor hun consumptie : Ook hier blijkt het vlees belangrijker dan dierenwelzijn van het individuele slachtdier.
Er zijn wel met name een aantal verbeteringen voor (onbedwelmd) slachten voorgesteld
t paper van Dr. Temple Grandin (voorgelegd door joodse lobby en gebruikt door de islamitische lobby bij gebrek aan eigen onderzoekskwaliteit:
1.illiminate cruel methods of restraint such as dragging, shackling, hoisting or leg clamping.
2.Keep animals clam before slaughter (don't select too wild animals), since an agitated animal takes longer to become unconscious.
3.Perform the cut immediately after an animal's head is restrained (after 5 max secunds) and a well certificated slaughter man should cut more agressively between the thyroid and the cricoid cartilage. with qualified knife to be laser-inspected after each slaughter from an ergonomic optimal position.
4.Use restraining devices that hold animals in a comfortable upright position.
5.Perform collapse scoring to keep track of the proportion of animals that quickly loose consciousness.
6.Use video auditing by an outside firm and practise transparency by streaming the video to a webpage so that the public can see it.
Religious slaughter and animal welfare:
a discussion for meat scientists.
Meat Focus International – March 1994 pages 115-123
Published by : CAB International
Department of Animal Science
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
Joe M. Regenstein
Cornell Kosher Food Initiative
Department of Food Science
Ithaca, New York 14853-7201, USA.
FOR RELATED TECHNICAL PICTURES OF RESTRAINT DEVICES SEE:
Both the Muslim and Jewish faiths have specific requirements for the slaughter of religiously acceptable animals. The major difference from the general practices in most countries is that the animals are not stunned prior to slaughter. It is important that meat scientists understand the implications of these differences. They need to critically consider the scientific information available about the effects of different slaughter practices on animals before reaching any judgements about the appropriateness of a particular form of slaughter. It is also important that they understand the importance of these practices to the people who follow these religious codes. We hope to discuss some information that may be useful in evaluating religious slaughter.
The Jewish dietary code is described in the original five books of the Holy Scriptures. The Muslim code is found in the Quran. Both codes represented major advancements in the respect for animals and their proper handling in ancient times. For example, the Jewish code specifically forbid the use of limbs torn from live animals and the slaughter of both a mother animal and her children on the same day.
One way to view the rather comprehensive legal system of the Jewish faith is spelled out in the paragraphs below. We feel this explanation may help others understand the degree of significance of these religious practices to those of the Jewish faith (Grunfeld, 1972).
"And ye shall be men of holy calling unto Me, and ye shall not eat any meat that is torn in the field" (Exodus XXII:30)
Holiness or selfsanctification is a moral term; it is identical with…moral freedom or moral autonomy. Its aim is the complete selfmastery of man.
"To the superficial observer it seems that men who do not obey the law are freer than law-abiding men, because they can follow their own inclinations. In reality, however, such men are subject to the most cruel bondage; they are slaves of their own instincts, impulses and desires. The first step towards emancipation from the tyranny of animal inclinations in man is, therefore, a voluntary submission to the moral law. The constraint of law is the beginning of human freedom….Thus the fundamental idea of Jewish ethics, holiness, is inseparably connected with the idea of Law; and the dietary laws occupy a central position in that system of moral discipline which is the basis of all Jewish laws.
"The three strongest natural instincts in man are the impulses of food, sex, and acquisition. Judaism does not aim at the destruction of these impulses, but at their control and indeed their sanctification. It is the law which spiritualises these instincts and transfigures them into legitimate joys of life."
We hope that the above quote suggests the importance of the kosher dietary laws to people of the Jewish faith. Similar religious philosophies underpin the Muslim requirements. Thus, the ability to carry out ritual slaughter is extremely important to people of these two faiths. The banning of such slaughter would certainly be viewed as a hostile act.
The actual reference to slaughter in the Jewish Holy scriptures is quite cryptic:
"…thou shall kill of thy herd and of thy flocks, which the Lord hath given thee, as I have commanded thee…"(Deuteronomy XII:21)
Clearly it was assumed that people were familiar with the rules for kosher slaughter. These were a pan of the "oral code". Eventually these rules were written down in the series of volumes referred to as the Talmud as well as in other religious texts. The Talmud contains an entire section on slaughter and the subsequent inspection of animals to ensure that they are religiously "clean". The text includes detailed anatomical information in order to teach the religious Jew exactly what was to be done during slaughter and the subsequent post-mortem inspection.
The Muslim rules with respect to animals and slaughter are contained in the Quran. Blood, pork, animals dying due to beating, strangulation, falls, goring or other damage from animals and animals dedicated to other religions are all forbidden. Any Muslim may slaughter an animal while invoking the name of Allah. In cases where Muslims cannot kill their own animals, they may eat meat killed by a "person of the book", i.e., a Christian or a Jew. Again stunning prior to slaughter is generally not the practice . However, a non-penetrating concussion stunning prior to slaughter has received approval from some Muslim authorities. Work in the 80's in New Zealand led to the development of a very sophisticated electrical stunning apparatus that met a Muslim standard where an animal must be able to regain consciousness in less than a minute and must be able to eat within five minutes. Head-only electric stunning prior to Muslim slaughter is used in almost all sheep slaughter plants in New Zealand and Australia. Electric stunning of cattle is used in many New Zealand Muslim cattle slaughter plants and the practice is spreading to Australia. Meat from electrically stunned cattle and sheep is exported to middle eastern countries with stringent religious requirements. "Halal" slaughter in New Zealand and Australia may be carried out by regular plant workers while Muslim religious leaders are present and reciting the appropriate prayers. However, the larger Halal slaughter plants in Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland do employ Muslim slaughtermen. Muslim slaughter without stunning is forbidden in New Zealand. With Muslim slaughter in countries not using stunning, we are also concerned about the training given to the slaughtermen. More work is needed on training programs to teach proper sharpening of knives and to improve the actual slaughter techniques.
The Jewish religious codes require that allowed animals be slaughtered by a specially trained Jewish male, while the Muslims prefer that allowed animals be slaughtered by a person of that faith. In the case of the Jewish dietary laws, a specially trained person of known religiosity carries out the slaughter. This person, the "shochet", is specifically trained for this purpose. He is trained to use a special knife, called the "chalef", to rapidly cut in a single stroke the jugular vein and the carotid artery without burrowing, tearing or ripping the animal. The knife is checked regularly for any imperfections which would invalidate the slaughter. This process when done properly leads to a rapid death of the animal. A sharp cut is also known to be less painful .
Need for objective evaluation
Given the importance of religious slaughter to people of these two major faiths, it is important that scientists must be absolutely objective when evaluating these practices from an animal welfare standpoint.
Evaluation of religious slaughter is an area where many people have lost scientific objectivity. This has resulted in biased and selective reviewing of the literature. Politics have interfered with good science. There are three basic issues. They are stressfulness of restraint methods, pain perception during the incision and latency of onset of complete insensibility.
A key intellectual consideration is separation of the variable of restraint stress from the animal's reaction to the slaughter procedure. Stressful or painful methods of restraint mask the animal's reactions to the throat cut. In North America some kosher slaughter plants use very stressful methods of restraint such as shackling and hoisting fully conscious cattle by one rear leg.
Observations of the first author indicate that cattle restrained in this manner often struggle and bellow and the rear leg is bruised. Bruises or injures caused by the restraint methods (or from any other cause) would be objectionable to observant Jews. In Europe, the use of casting pens which invert cattle onto their backs completely mask reactions to the throat cut. Cattle resist inversion and twist their necks in an attempt to right their heads. Earlier versions of the Weinberg casting pen are more stressful than an upright restraint device (Dunn 1992). An improved casting pen, called the Facomia pen, is probably less stressful than order Weinberg's pens but a well designed upright restraint system would be more comfortable for cattle. Another problem with all types of casting pens is that both cattle and calves will aspirate blood after the incision. This does not occur when the animal is held in an upright position.
Unfortunately some poorly designed upright American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) restraint boxes apply excessive pressure to the thoracic and neck areas of cattle. In the interest of animal welfare the use of any stressful method of restraint should be eliminated. A properly designed and operated upright restraint system will cause minimum stress. Poorly designed systems can cause great stress. Many stress problems are also caused by rough handling and excessive use of electric prods. The very best mechanical systems will cause distress if operated by abusive, uncaring people.
In Europe there has been much concern about the stressfulness of restraint devices used for both conventional slaughter (where the bovine is stunned) and ritual slaughter. Ewbank et al., (1992) found that cattle restrained in a poorly designed head holder, i.e., where over 30 seconds was required to drive the animal into the holder, had higher cortisol levels than cattle stunned with their heads free. Cattle will voluntarily place their heads in a well designed head restraint device that is properly operated by a trained operator (Grandin 1992). Tume and Shaw (1992) reported very low cortisol levels of only 15 ng/ml in cattle during stunning and slaughter. Their measurements were made in cattle held in a head restraint (personal communication, Shaw 1993). Cortisol levels during on-farm restraint of extensively reared cattle range from 25 to 63 ng/ml (Mitchell et al., 1988; Zavy et al., 1992).
Head stanchions used for electrical stunning of cattle in New Zealand work quite well. The first author observed these systems in two plants. Most cattle entered the stunning box voluntarily and quietly placed their heads in the stanchion. The animal was immediately stunned after its head was clamped. Immediate electrical stunning is essential in order to prevent the animal from fighting the stanchion. When this system was operated correctly the cattle were quiet and calm. The electric stun stanchion did not restrain the body. For ritual slaughter or captive bolt stunning devices to restrain the body are strongly recommended. Animals remain calmer in head restraint devices when the body is also restrained. Stunning or slaughter must occur within 10 seconds after the head is restrained.
Reactions to the throat cut
The variable of reactions to the incision must be separated from the variable of the time required for the animal to become completely insensible. Recordings of EEG or evoked potentials measure the time required for the animal to lose consciousness. They are not measures of pain. Careful observations of the animal's behavioural reactions to the cut are one of the best ways to determine if cutting the throat without prior stunning is painful. The time required for the animals to become unconscious will be discussed later.
Observations of over 3000 cattle and formula-fed veal calves were made by the first author in three different U.S. kosher slaughter plants. The plants had state of the art upright restraint systems. The systems are described in detail in Grandin (1988,1991,1992,1993a). The cattle were held in either a modified ASPCA pen:
This drawing illustrates (on the left side, in front of the animal) the solid barrier that is necessary to block the animal's vision.
The sides of the ASPCA box must also be completely solid
or a double rail (centre track) conveyor restrainer:
To induce the cattle to stay still and ride quietly, the solid hold down rack MUST be long enough so that the animal entering the restrainer can NOT see out until it's feet are completely off the enterance ramp.
This equipment was operated by the first author or a person under her direct supervision. Very little pressure was applied to the animals by the rear pusher gate in the ASPCA pen. Head holders were equipped with pressure limiting devices. The animals were handled gently and calmly. It is impossible to observe reactions to the incision in an agitated or excited animal. Blood on the equipment did not appear to upset the cattle. They voluntarily entered the box when the rear gate was opened. Some cattle licked the blood.
In all three restraint systems, the animals had little or no reaction to the throat cut. There was a slight flinch when the blade first touched the throat. This flinch was much less vigorous than an animal's reaction to an eartag punch. There was no further reaction as the cut proceeded. Both carotids were severed in all animals. Some animals in the modified ASPCA pen were held so loosely by the head holder and rear pusher gate that they could have easily pulled away from the knife.
These animals made no attempt to pull away. In all three slaughter plants, there was almost no visible reaction of the animal's body or legs dunng the throat cut. Body and leg movements can be easily observed in the double rail restrainer because it lacks a pusher gate and very little pressure is applied to the body. Body reactions during the throat cut were much fewer than the body reactions and squirming that occurred during testing of various chin lifts and forehead hold-down brackets. Testing of a new chin lift required deep, prolonged invasion of the animal's flight zone by a person. Penetration of the flight zone of an extensively raised animal by people will cause the animal to attempt to move away (Grandin, 1993a). The throat cut caused a much smaller reaction than penetration of the flight zone. It appears that the animal is not aware that its throat has been cut. Bager et al., (1992) reported a similar observation with calves. Further observations of 20 Holstein, Angus and Charolais bulls indicated that they did not react to the cut. The bulls were held in a comfortable head restraint with all body restraints released. They stood still during the cut and did not resist head restraint. After the cut the chin lift was lowered, the animal either immediately collapsed or it looked around like a normal alert animal. Within 5 to 60 seconds, the animals went into a hypoxic spasm and sensibility appeared to be lost. Calm animals had almost no spasms and excited cattle had very vigorous spasms. Calm cattle collapsed more quickly and appeared to have a more rapid onset of insensibility. Munk et al.,(1976) reported similar observations with respect to the onset of spasms. The spasms were similar to the hypoxic spasms which occur when cattle become unconscious in a V-shaped stanchion due to pressure on the lower neck. Observations in feedyards by the first author during handling for routine husbandry procedures indicated that pressure on the carotid arteries and surrounding areas of the neck can kill cattle within 30 seconds.
The details spelled out in Jewish law concerning the design of the knife and the cutting method appear to be important in preventing the animal from reacting to the cut. The knife must be razor sharp and free of nicks. It is shaped like a straight razor and it must be twice the width of the animal's neck. The cut must be made without hesitation or delay. It is also prohibited for the incision to close back over the knife during the cut. This is called "halagramah" (digging) (Epstein, 1948). The prohibition against digging appears to be important in reducing the animal's reaction to the cut. Ritual slaughtermen must be trained in knife sharpening. Shochets have been observed using a dull knife. They carefully obeyed the religious requirements of having a smooth, nick-free knife, but they had failed to keep it sharp. Observations of Halal cattle slaughter without stunning done by a Muslim slaughterman with a large, curved skinning knife resulted in multiple hacking cuts. Sometimes there was a vigorous reaction from the animal.
Further observations of kosher slaughter conducted in a poorly designed holder, i.e., one which allowed the incision to close back over the knife during the cut, resulted in vigorous reactions from the cattle during the cut. The animals kicked violently, twisted sideways, and shook the restraining device. Cattle which entered the poorly designed head holder in an already excited, agitated state had a more vigorous reaction to the throat cut than calm animals. These observations indicated that head holding devices must be designed so that the incision is held open during and immediately after the cut. Occasionally, a very wild, agitated animal went into a spasm which resembled an epileptic seizure immediately after the cut. This almost never occurred in calm cattle.
Time to loss of consciousness
Scientific researchers agree that sheep lose consciousness within 2 to l5 seconds after both carotid arteries are cut (Nangeroni and Kennett, 1963; Gregory and Wotton, 1984; Blackmore, 1984). However, studies with cattle and calves indicate that most animals lose consciousness rapidly, however, some animals may have a period of prolonged sensibility (Blackwore, 1984; Daly et al, 1988) that lasts for over a minute. Other studies with bovines also indicate that the time required for them to become unconscious is more variable than for sheep and goats (Munk et al., 1976; Gregory and Wotten, 1984). The differences between cattle and sheep can be explained by differences in the anatomy of their blood vessels.
Observations by the first author of both calf and cattle slaughter indicate that problems with prolonged consciousness can be corrected. When a shochet uses a rapid cutting stroke, 95% of the calves collapse almost immediately (Grandin 1987). When a slower, less decisive stroke was used, there was an increased incidence of prolonged sensibility. Approximately 30% of the calves cut with a slow knife stroke had a righting reflex and retained the ability to walk for up to 30 seconds.
Gregory (1988) provided a possible explanation for the delayed onset of unconsciousness. A slow knife stroke may be more likely to stretch the arteries and induce occlusion. Rapid loss of consciousness will occur more readily if the cut is made as close to the jaw bone as religious law will permit, and the head holder is loosened immediately after the cut. The chin lift should remain up. Excessive pressure applied to the chest by the rear pusher gate will slow bleed out. Gentle operation of the restrainer is essential. Observations indicate that calm cattle lose consciousness more rapidly and they are less likely to have contracted occluded blood vessels. Calm cattle will usually collapse within 10 to 15 seconds.
Upright restraint equipment design
Good upright restraint equipment is available for low stress, comfortable restraint of sheep, calves and cattle (Giger et al., 1977; Westervelt et al., 1976; Grandin, 1988,1991,1992,1993). To maintain a high standard of animal welfare, the equipment must be operated by a trained operator who is closely supervised by plant management. Handlers in the lairage and race areas must handle animals gently and induce each animal to calmly enter the restrainer. Unfortunately, some very poorly designed restraint systems have recently been installed in Europe. The designers had little regard for animal comfort. Below is a list of specific recommendations:
* All restraint devices should use the concept of optimal pressure.
The device must hold the animal firmly enough to provide a "feeling of restraint" but excessive pressure that would cause discomfort should be avoided. Many people operating pens make the mistake of squeezing an animal harder if it struggles. Struggling is often a sign of excessive pressure.
* To prevent excessive bending of the neck, the bovine's forehead should be parallel to the floor. This positions the throat properly for ritual slaughter and stretches the neck skin minimizing discomfort. There is an optimal tightness for the neck skin. If it is too loose, cutting is more difficult. If it is too tight, the Jewish rule which prohibits tearing may be violated as the incision would have a tendency to tear before being cut by the knife. This also would be likely to cause pain. Some head restraints cause great distress to the cattle due to excessive bending of the neck in an attempt to obtain extreme throat skin tightness. This is not necessary for compliance with religious law. One must remember that 4000 years ago hydraulic devices which could achieve such extremes of throat tightness were not available. All head holders must be equipped with pressure limiting devices. Pressure limiting valves will automatically prevent a careless operator from applying excessive pressure. A 15 cm wide forehead bracket covered with rubber belting will distribute pressure uniformly and the animal will be less likely to resist head restraint. The forehead bracket should also be equipped with an 8 cm diameter pipe that fits behind the poll. This device makes it possible to hold the head securely with very little pressure.
* The rear pusher gate of the ASPCA pen must be equipped with a pressure limiting device. The animal must not be pushed too far forward in the head holder. The pressure must be regulated so that the animal stands on the floor with its back level. Arching of the back is a sign of excessive pressure. A calm relaxed animal will stand quietly in the pen and will not attempt to move its head. If the animal struggles, this is due to excessive pressure or being thrown off balance by the pusher gate.
* The animal must not be lifted off the floor by the belly lift of an ASPCA pen. The list is for restraint not lifting. Lift travel should be restricted to 71 cm from the floor to the top of the lift. Other restrainers such as the double rail system are designed to give full support under the belly. The conveyor slats must be shaped to fit the contours of the animal's sternum.
* All parts of the equipment should always move with a slow steady motion. Jerky motions or sudden bumping of the animal with the apparatus excites and agitates them. Jerky motion can be eliminated by installing flow control valves. These valves automatically provide a smooth steady motion even if the operator jerks the controls. All restraint devices should use the concept of optimal (NOT maximum) pressure. Sufficient pressure must be applied to give the animal a feeling of being held, but excessive pressure that causes struggling must be avoided. Animals will often stop struggling when excessive pressure is slowly reduced.
* All equipment must be engineered to reduce noise. Air hissing and clanging metal noises cause visible agitation in cattle. Air exhausts must be muffled or piped outside. Plastic guides in the sliding doortracks will further reduce noise.
* A solid barrier should be installed around the animal's head to prevent it from seeing people and other distractions in it's flight zone. This is especially important for extensively reared cattle, particularly when they are not completely tame. On conveyor systems the barrier is often not required because the animals feel more secure because they are touching each other.
* Restraint equipment must be illuminated to encourage animals to enter. Lighting mistakes or air blowing back at the animals will cause cattle to balk (Grandin 1993b). Distractions that cause balking must be eliminated.
For plants which slaughter small numbers of sheep and goats a simple upright restrainer can be constructed from pipe (Giger et al., 1977). For veal calf plants a small ASPCA pen can be used. For large high speed plants a double rail restrainer can be equipped with a head holding device.
hear to Temple Grandin:
STOP ONBEDWELMD SLACHTEN. AUSTRALIA TOONDE BALLEN NU WIJ NOG