The Grandin Papers E-Book

Temple Grandin

• Herausgeber: Future Horizons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 858

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

"The Grandin Papers is a compilation of some of my most important scientific papers with an emphasis on livestock facility design, the development of animal welfare auditing programs, and behavior of cattle and horses during handling. They are in chronological order. I chose the papers and book chapters that would most likely be of interest to the general public, policymakers, and people interested in farm animal welfare and behavior. This anthology will show how my thinking has evolved over a fifty-year career.” —Temple Grandin

Temple Grandin is famous for her groundbreaking approach to decoding animal behavior. Her 50 + years of experience in observing animals shines through in The Grandin Papers. Dr. Grandin’s professional training as a scientist and her amazing life as a person with autism has given her a perspective like that of no other expert in the field of animal science. The Grandin Papers celebrate her storied career.

A professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University, Dr. Grandin is also a designer of livestock handling facilities. The curved chute and race systems she has designed for cattle are in worldwide use, and her writings on the flight zone and other principles of grazing animal behavior have helped people to reduce stress on their animals during handling. She has also developed an extraordinarily successful objective scoring system for assessing the handling of cattle and pigs at meat plants. Other areas of research include:

• Cattle temperament
• Environmental enrichment for pigs
• Training procedures
• Horse perception of novel objects
• Effective stunning methods for cattle and pigs at meat plants
• And much more

Selected Awards:

• University Distinguished Professor, Colorado State University - 2022
• Named top 10 Best College Professors in the U.S., CEO Magazine - 2020
• National Women's Hall of Fame - 2017
• The Distinguished Alumni Medallion, National 4-H Council - 2012
• Liberty Science Center Distinguished Humanitarian Award - 2011
• Inducted into the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame - 2010
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary's Highest Award - 2007
• Founder’s Award, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - 1999

Dr. Grandin is also a past member of the board of directors of the Autism Society of America. She lectures to parents and teachers throughout the U.S. on her experiences with autism, and her work has appeared in the New York Times, People, National Public Radio, and 20/20. She was one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people of the year. The HBO movie based on her life, starring Claire Danes, received seven Emmy Awards.

Leseprobe

THE

GRANDIN PAPERS

Over 50 Years of Research Articles on Animal Behaviorand Welfare That Improved the Livestock Industry

DR.TEMPLE GRANDIN

the GRANDIN papers

Over 50 Years of Research Articles on Animal Behaviorand Welfare That Improved the Livestock Industry

All marketing and publishing rights guaranteed to and reserved by:

[phone]

[phone] (fax)

E-mail: [email protected]

www.fhautism.com

© 2023 Temple Grandin

All rights reserved.

No part of this product may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission of Future Horizons, Inc.,except in the case of brief quotations embodied in reviews or unless noted within the book.

Chapters 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 17, 19, 20, 23, and 24 reprinted with permissions from Elsevier.

Chapters 9 and 22 reprinted with permissions from CABI Publishing.

Chapters 11, 12, 16, and 21 reprinted with permissions from the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Chapters 25, 26, 27, and 28 reprinted with permissions from MDPI Open Access.

ISBN: 9781957984292

Foreword

Looking Back on 50 Years of Research on Farm Animal Behavior, Handling Facility Design, and Welfare of Cattle and Other Livestock v

one

Observations of Cattle Behavior Applied to the Design of Cattle Handling Facilities 1

TWO

Bruises on Southwestern Feedlot Cattle 17

THREE

Double Rail Restrainer for Livestock Handling 19

FOUR

Behavior of Slaughter Plant and Auction Employees Towards Animals 35

five

Voluntary Acceptance of Restraint by Sheep 51

SIX

Effect of Rearing Environment and Environmental Enrichment on the Behavior and Neural Development in Young Pigs 59

seven

Behavioral Agitation during Handling of Cattle Is Persistent over Time 67

EIGHT

Teaching Principles of Behavior and Equipment Design for Handling Livestock1 79

NINE

Behavioral Principles of Handling Beef Cattle and the Design of Corrals, Lairages, Races and Loading Ramps 91

TEN

The Reluctance of Cattle to Change a Learned Choice May Confound Preference Tests 137

ELEVEN

Euthanasia and Slaughter of Livestock 147

twelve

Factors That Impede Animal Movement at Slaughter Plants 163

thirteen

Habituating Antelope and Bison to Veterinary Procedures 173

FOURTEEN

Assessment of Stress During Handling and Transport 185

FIFTEEN

Feedlot Cattle with Calm Temperaments Have Higher Average Daily Gains Than Cattle with Excitable Temperaments 205

SIXTEEN

Objective Scoring of Animal Handling and Stunning Practices at Slaughter Plants 219

SEVENTEEN

Behavioral Genetics and Animal Science 229

EIGHTEEN

The Relationship Between Reaction to Sudden Intermittent Movements and Sounds and Temperament 283

NINETEEN

Cattle Vocalizations Are Associated with Handling and Equipment Problems at Beef Slaughter Plants 301

TWENTY

Transferring the Results of Behavioral Research to Industry to Improve Animal Welfare on the Farm, Ranch, and Slaughter Plant 317

TWENTY-one

Special Report Maintenance of Good Animal Welfare at Beef Slaughter Plants by Use of Auditing Programs 337

TWENTY-TWO

Implementing Effective Animal-Based Measurements for Assessing Animal Welfare on Farm and Slaughter Plants 347

TWENTY-three

On-Farm Conditions That Compromise Animal Welfare That Can Be Monitored at the Slaughter Plant 389

TWENTY-FOUR

Crossing the Divide Between Academic Research and Practical Application of Ethology and Animal Behavior Information on Commercial Livestock and Poultry Farms 409

TWENTY-FIVE

Evaluating the Reaction to a Rotated Complex Object in the American Quarter Horse 423

TWENTY-SIX

Cattle and Pigs That Are Easy to Move and Handle Will Have Less Preslaughter Stress 439

TWENTY-SEVEN

Grazing Cattle, Sheep, and Goats Are Important Parts of a Sustainable Agricultural Future 451

TWENTY-EIGHT

Practical Application of the Five Domains Animal Welfare Framework for Food Supply Animal Chain Managers 471

contents

The Grandin Papers

Foreword

Looking Back on 50 Years of Research on Farm Animal Behavior, Handling Facility Design, and Welfare of Cattle and Other Livestock

By Temple GrandinDistinguished Professor of Animal Science, Colorado State University

This book is a compilation of some of my most important scientific papers with an emphasis on livestock facility design, the development of animal welfare auditing programs, and behavior of cattle and horses during handling. They have been placed in chronological order. I chose the papers and book chapters that would most likely be of interest to the general public, policymakers, and people interested in farm animal welfare and behavior. This anthology will show how my thinking has evolved over a fifty-year career. When I started my work in the early 1970s, cattle handling on many ranches, feedlots, and slaughter plants was often rough and sometimes cruel. I wanted to change this, and at the time, I thought I could solve all the problems with improved equipment. This is a common mistake that is made by many young engineers and policymakers. They think that either a technology or a new method will solve all the problems.

Over the years, I learned that well-designed equipment will make livestock handling easier, but it does not replace management. Good animal welfare requires both well-designed equipment and a commitment by top management to maintain high standards. Today handling of cattle and other farm animals has improved, but it is still necessary to constantly remind people about the basics. Some examples of the basics are having nonslip flooring, not yelling at animals, and using behavioral principles of handling instead of electric prods. I often get asked, “What is the most important thing that you did to improve animal welfare?” In the first twenty-five years of my career, I focused on equipment design and then I switched my emphasis to welfare assessment. This switch occurred after I was hired in 1999 by McDonald’s Corporation, Wendy’s International, and Burger King to assess animal welfare at slaughter plants. When these large corporate buyers enforced standards, big positive changes occurred. In this single year, I saw huge improvements. The plant managers had to repair broken equipment, add nonslip floors, employ behavioral principles of handling, and make simple changes in facilities, such as adding a light to a dark chute entrance. Cattle and other animals do not like to enter dark places.

Prior to this, many large beef plants already used equipment I had designed. Unfortunately, some people tore it up and wrecked it. Some of my major papers describe the development of a simple, objective animal welfare assessment method for slaughter plants. The scoring system was very effective because it was outcome-based, objective, and easy to understand. I like to use traffic rules as an analogy. Enforcement of a few simple rules will greatly improve public safety. To be effective, the most important rules have to be chosen for enforcement, including drunken driving, speeding, stopping violations, seatbelts, and texting. These rules are not vague. Speeding and drunken driving are measured with a device. Vague guidelines, such as “handle cattle properly,” do not work, because one person’s definition of proper is different from another person’s. Numerical outcome measures of the consequences of poor handling are easy to access. Papers are included on scoring the effectiveness of stunning, slips and falls, electric prod use, and vocalization.

Throughout my career, I have also done basic research on animal behavior during handling. Some of the areas of research are how animals make choices, visual perception of rotated objects, and training of animals to cooperate with veterinary procedures. This greatly reduces fear and stress. My first graduate student’s paper on cattle temperament and weight gain is also included.

The last section contains my more recent papers. I have included research on animal perception and sustainability. I want people who are interested in animal welfare to learn from my work.

Many times throughout my career, I get asked “Why do I still work for the meat industry, instead of being an activist against it?” Cattle handling was atrocious in the 1970s, but the cattle in the dry Arizona feedlots, where I started my career, had good living conditions. All the feedlots had shades and the pens remained dry. At this early point in my career, if I had been exposed to muddy, filthy pens that lacked shade, it is likely that I could have gone down the activist road.

I visualized a future where cattle handling could be improved, because there were a few people who handled cattle with compassion. Two of the cattle producers who made a big positive impression on me were Bill and Penny Porter at Singing Valley Ranch, a kind stockperson who taught me how to gently run a squeeze chute, and a wonderful dairy manager. These good managers convinced me that it was possible to raise animals that had a decent life. I dedicated my work to making the rest of the industry improve.

Temple Grandin

The Grandin Papers

One

Observations of Cattle Behavior Applied to the Design of Cattle Handling Facilities

T. Grandin (1980) Observations of Cattle Behavior Applied to the Designof Cattle Handling Facilities, Applied Animal Ethology, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 19-31.

This was my first published scientific paper. It contains my hand drawn drawings of designs for cattle-handling facilities. It also contains my first flight zone diagram, which has slowly improved and evolved over the years. I was greatly inspired by the sheep handling work of Ron Kilgore in New Zealand. Jack Albright from Purdue University encouraged me to write this paper. This shows the importance of mentors in helping students get started in research.

ABSTRACT

Field observations were conducted while cattle were being handled in abattoirs, auction markets, yards on ranches, dipping vats and restraining chutes. Mature cattle and calves of many different breeds were observed under commercial conditions. A review of the literature and the observations indicated that cattle can be most efficiently handled in yards and races which have long narrow diagonal pens on a 60° angle. In yards designed by the author, cattle which are waiting to be sorted are held in a 3–3.5 m-wide curved race with an inside radius of 7.5–11 m. From the curved race, the animals can either be sorted into the diagonal pens, or they can be directed to the squeeze chute, dipping vat, or restraining chute at the abattoir. The handler works from a catwalk which is located along the inner radius of the race. This facilitates the movement of the animals because they will tend to circle around the handler in order to maintain visual contact. The curved holding race terminates in a round crowding pen which leads to a curved single file race. Cattle have 360° panoramic vision and poor depth perception. Sharp contrasts of light and dark should be avoided. Single file races, forcing pens, and other areas where cattle are crowded should have high solid fences. This prevents the animals from observing people, vehicles, and other distracting objects outside the facility.

INTRODUCTION

Field observations and a review of the literature were conducted to determine the most efficient and humane designs for yards and races for handling cattle. The Livestock Conservation Institute (1974) estimates that the cattle industry loses $22 million annually from bruises in the U.S.A. The discussion. will be limited to beef cattle-handling facilities where there is little opportunity for learned behavior. At an abattoir or auction market the animals pass through the facility only once. In cattle feeding operations each animal will be handled in the facility once or twice during its lifetime. On ranches, cattle are handled only once or twice a year.

MATERIALS STUDIED

Field observations were conducted while cattle were being handled in abattoirs, auction markets, yards on ranches, dipping vats and restraining chutes. Both Bos taurus and Bos indicus were observed, along with many crossbreds. The observations were conducted throughout the Southwestern, Midwestern and Northwestern United States, from 1973 to 1978, in over 100 different cattle operations. The author actually worked with the regular employees in order to gain a more complete understanding.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND OBSERVATIONS

Effect of noise on handling

Observations indicated that equipment should be designed to minimize loud noises. The incidence of balking was lower in hydraulically actuated restraining chutes when the motor was located off to one side instead of on top of the restrainer (Grandin, 1975). Webb (1966) reported that cattle would move away from a compressed air jet or siren. When air cylinders are used to operate gates the exhausts should be muffled. Cattle are more sensitive to high frequency noise than humans. The auditory sensitivity of cattle is greatest at 8000 hz and the human ear is most sensitive at 1000–3000 hz (Ames, 1974). Falconer and Hetzel (1964) found that exploding firecrackers caused visible fright in sheep. Cattle will move more easily if handlers are quiet and refrain from yelling. All welded construction and rubber stops on gates will reduce noise in steel facilities.

Effect of odor on handling

Cattle have been observed refusing to enter, or balking at, the entrance to either a stunning pen or a restraining chute when there was blood on the floor. The animal would stop and sniff the blood (Grandin, 1975). People who work in abattoirs have reported that the cattle will often refuse to enter the abattoir when the wind is blowing abattoir odors towards them.

Visual perception and handling

Kilgour (1972) stated that cattle are visual animals that are easily motivated by fear. They have 360° panoramic vision with a binocular visual field of 25–50° depending on the breed (Prince, 1970; McFarlane, l976a). Cattle have poor depth perception. They can detect movement behind themselves without turning their heads.

Cattle are able to distinguish colors (Albright, 1969). They can distinguish all of the colors from gray except dark blue (Hebel and Sambraus, 1976; Sambraus, 1978). Observations by the author indicated that cattle will often balk and refuse to cross a shadow or drain grate. The illumination should be even and there should be no sudden discontinuity in the floor level or texture (Lynch and Alexander, 1973). Slatted type sunshades which cast a zebra stripe shadow pattern can cause balking. For most efficient handling, yards and races should be painted one uniform color.

Observations also revealed that cattle will often refuse to enter buildings or pass under overhead catwalks. At one abattoir the animals would readily enter the building at night, but they often refused to enter during the daytime. At night the inside of the building was brightly illuminated compared to the stockyards. Extending the single file races out into the stockyards reduced balking. Cattle will enter a truck, building or other dimly lit enclosure more readily if they are lined up in a single file race. Lighting in indoor facilities should be diffused and bare bulbs should be covered. Loading ramps should be directed so that the animals do not have to look directly into the sun. Il luminating the interior of trucks at night will reduce balking during loading.

Curved races with solid sides

In areas where animals are crowded, they should not be able to see either through or over the fences (Rider et al., 1974; Grandin, 1977a; McFarlane, 1976b). Crowding-pen gates should also be solid, otherwise the animals will look out through the Crowding-pen gate instead of facing the entrance to the single file race (Rider et al., 1974). Cattle will stand more quietly and move more easily through a single file race with solid sides. Sheep moved more rapidly through a single file race with solid sides (Hutson and Hitchcock, 1978).

Observations at an abattoir indicated that cattle balked frequently in a crowding pen built from bars which enabled the animals to see people outside the pen. The cattle entered the single file race from the crowding pen with less hesitation after the fences were covered. Experience indicated that straight single file races were inefficient because the animals tend to balk and back up to the end of the race. Curved races prevent the animals from seeing the restrainer, stunning pen, or an auction ring surrounded by people, until they are almost in it. For mature cows the inside radius of a curved single file race should be 5 m (McFarlane, 1976b,c). For smaller cattle a 3.54 m inside radius will work (Grandin, 1978a).

Cattle can be handled more easily if they maintain visual contact with the handler (Williams, 1978). They will turn and face a person and circle around him when he enters the pen. Cattle can be driven more efficiently when the handler orients himself at an angle from the animal’s shoulder (Fig.1) instead of standing directly behind it (Williams, 1978). A curved race should have a catwalk for the handler along the inner radius (Fig.2). The catwalk should be alongside the fence and NOT overhead. A handler working from the catwalk is forced to stand at the correct angle from the animal’s shoulder (Fig. 1) (Grandin, 1978b). In the curved race in Fig. 2 the cattle can see the handler but outside distractions are blocked.

Zebra could be moved with less excitement with a helicopter if the machine moved slowly, which enabled the animals to maintain visual contact (Oelofse, 1970). Cheviot sheep would twist their heads when they entered a strange pen to maintain visual contact with the handler and his dog (Whateley et al., 1974). Both cattle and sheep maintain visual contact with their herd-mates (Crofton, 1958; Strickland, 1978b).

Following the leader

A well-designed handling facility takes advantage of the animal’s tendency to follow the leader (Ewbank, 1961; Hafez et al., 1969). The next animal in line should be able to observe the animal in front of it moving down the race. The sides of the race should be solid, but sliding gates, one-way gates, and the tailgate on the restraining chute should be constructed so that the animals can see through them. Observations indicate that this will facilitate handling.

The single file race must be long enough to maintain a smooth flow of cattle. Observations in many abattoirs revealed that an abattoir which slaughters 30 cattle or less per hour should have a 9 m-long race. An abattoir slaughtering 100 cattle per hour would need 30 lineal meters. This insures a steady supply of cattle even if the handlers in the yards have difficulties. For most ranches, cattle-feeding operations and auctions a 9–15 m-long race is recommended. A single file race longer than 15 mis is not usually needed for these operations.

Following behavior can impede cattle movement if animals in adjacent races observe each other moving in the opposite direction. Fences between races where cattle move in the opposite direction should be solid. If the cattle movement is in the same direction the fence between two adjacent races should be constructed so that the animals can see through it.

Flight distance

The flight distance is that radius of surrounding area within which intrusion provokes a flight reaction (Fraser, 1974; McFarlane, 1976c). Williams (1978) and Strickland (1978a) have done research on flight distance. The flight distance during handling is usually 1.5–7.6 m for beef cattle raised in a feeding operation and up to 30 m on mountain ranges. Brahman cattle have a larger flight distance than most English breeds (Grandin, 1978b).

The critical distance for most efficient cattle movement is on the boundary of the flight zone (Fig.1). Bulls maintained a fixed distance between themselves, and a moving mechanical trolley and they turned and ran past the trolley when cornered (Kilgour, 1971). Penetrating the flight zone will cause the animal to move away, and retreating from the flight zone will cause the animal to stop moving. Deep penetration of the flight zone will cause the animal to either run away or turn and run back past the handler. If an animal starts to turn back the handler should retreat instead of rushing up closer (Williams, 1978). To make an animal move through a curved race he should move from Position A to Position B (Fig.1). As soon as the animal has moved forward as far as possible the handler should retreat back to Position A. A common cause of excitement and rearing up in a single file race is handlers leaning over the fences over the animals.

Loading and unloading ramps

There is a difference in the design of ramps which will be used solely for unloading trucks and ramps which are used for both loading and unloading.

When cattle are exiting from a confined area they will move more readily if they have a broad clear path to freedom. Ramps in abattoirs which are used for unloading only are 2.35–3 m wide. This type of ramp is hazardous for loading.

Ramps for both loading and unloading should be narrow enough to force the animals into single file. Either a curve or a 15° bend is recommended to prevent the cattle from seeing the truck until they are part way up the ramp. The curve must not be too sharp otherwise the cattle are likely to balk because the ramp will appear as a dead end. Observations indicated that the most efficient ramps had solid fences and an inside radius of 3.5–5 m. The inside width should be 70–75 cm for mature cattle. The ramp should have stairsteps with a 10cm rise and a 30 cm tread width (Grandin, 1978c).

Single animals alarmed

Cattle are less likely to become alarmed when they are together as a group and touching each other (Ewbank, 1968). A lone animal will often attempt to jump a fence to rejoin its herd-mates. A tame cow placed in a race with a wild cow will help keep her calm (Swan, 1975; Elings, 1977). In auctions, a single file race should be built to handle cattle which are sold as individuals. At one auction market, many calves were injured because each individual animal had to be separated from the group before entering the ring.

Pen shape

The Apache on the San Carlos Reservation in Arizona and ranchers in the Northwestern U.S.A. have used round yards for gathering range cattle for the last 100 years. Circular yards have also been described by Daly (1970), Ward (1958), and McFarlane (1976b,c). Since a round yard has no corners for the cattle to bunch up in, they tend to circle the fence and stay together in a cohesive mob. A handler can then direct groups of cattle out of the round yard as they circle about him.

Whereas round yards are efficient for gathering and handling large groups of cattle, long narrow pens are more efficient for sorting and holding groups of cattle prior to transport or slaughter. Many large cattle feeding operations in the U.S.A. sort and handle cattle in long narrow pens constructed on a 60° angle. McFarlane (1976b,c) has conducted extensive research on the benefits of long narrow diagonal pens.

RESULTS

Knowledge gained from the observations and literature review was utilized to design new handling systems which would be more efficient, humane and labor-saving. A system was designed by the author for handling cattle through a dipping vat at the rate of 600 per hour with only three people (Figs. 3 and 4). The entrance and exit from the facility are set on a 60° angle to eliminate comers. Prior to dipping, the cattle are held in a wide curved race (Fig. 2).

This race may be 3–3.5 m wide with an inside radius of 7.5–11 m. The handler on the catwalk can easily direct groups of 15–20 cattle to the round crowding pen (Figs. 2 and 3). A 3.5m gate in the round crowding pen has a ratchet latch which latches automatically as the gate is advanced. The cattle then enter a curved single file race which leads to the dip vat (Fig. 3).

Dip vat entrance

Figure 5 illustrates a dipping vat entrance which was designed to reduce problems with balky cattle and prevent the animals from jumping on each other. An adjustable hold-down rack forces the animals to immerse their heads. Observations indicated that 95% of the cattle were fully immersed and they did not have to be pushed under the water with a dipping stick.

The cleated ramp in Fig. 5 is on a relatively gradual, 25° angle and it appears to continue on into the water. When an animal steps out over the water it falls in due to the steep drop-off hidden under the water (Fig. 5). The ramp must have a nonskid surface because the animal will usually attempt to back out if it slips. The entrance also has two ant bunch gates (Figs. 3 and 5) which can be adjusted so that only one animal can enter the vat at a time.

Drip pens

The handler can release the cattle from the drip pens by opening the exit gates by remote control. The cattle have been observed to leave the drip pens 90% of the time with no assistance from the handler. An advantage of remote-controlled gates is that the handler can open the exit gates without penetrating the animal’s flight zone. Cattle confined in a small pen will often become agitated when a person walks up to the fence. In drip pens with manually opened gates the cattle have been observed ramming fences and jumping back in the dip vat. The drip pen exit gates and the dividing fence between the two drip pens is solid to prevent cattle which are confined on one side from pushing on the gate and attempting to follow cattle which have been released.

Abattoir stockyard

Figure 6 is an abattoir stockyard where all of the animal movement is one way and 90° corners are eliminated (Grandin, 1977b). The cattle are unloaded on a wide ramp with stairsteps. The pens are built on a 60° angle, and they are 22 m long. The gates on the diagonal pens are longer than the drive race is wide to eliminate corners. On a 3m wide drive race, 3.5m gates are recommended and 4.1m gates are recommended on a 3.5m drive race. The drive race should not be wider than 3.5 m otherwise it will be very difficult for a single handler on foot to move the cattle.

Working yards for pasture cattle

Figure 7 is a yard system for gathering cattle from pasture for transport, sorting and handling. Most of the actual working and sorting of the cattle is conducted in the curved races and diagonal pens. The large pens labelled “gathering” and “holding” are used to hold cattle either before or after the actual handling or sorting operation. From the gathering pen, a handler can direct groups of 20–40 animals to the curved race which is labelled “sorting reservoir” (Fig. 7). The cattle will circle around the handler in the round gathering pen and follow the fence into the funnel which leads to the wide, curved race.

The curved race labelled “sorting reservoir” serves two functions (Figs. 2 and 7). It can be used to hold cattle which are waiting to go to the squeeze chute or loading ramp, or it can be used as a reservoir to hold cattle which are being sorted back into the diagonal pens. Sorting cattle back into the diagonal pens is efficient because the animals have a strong tendency to move back in the same direction they originally came from. Three people gathered one hundred cow and calf pairs and sorted the calves from their mothers in 45 min in this system.

During most cattle sorting operations, one of the sort-groups contains the majority of the animals. Passthrough gates are provided to allow cattle in the largest sort-group to enter the pen labelled “holding” (Fig. 7). The holding pen is shaped so that a forcing yard is created at both ends. This makes it possible to drive cattle which are in the holding pen back into the diagonal pen.

The curved “sorting reservoir” terminates in a round Crowding-pen and a curved single file race. A selector gate in the round Crowding-pen is used to direct cattle to either the loading ramp or the squeeze chute. When cattle are being pregnancy tested, a sorting gate located in front of the squeeze chute makes it possible to sort them as they leave the chute. Cull cattle can be directed with the sorting gate to one of the diagonal pens for trucking to the abattoir. The holding pen is curved to facilitate moving the cattle pasture after handling.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of cattle behavior observations to the design of handling facilities in commercial operations resulted in facilities which could handle larger numbers of cattle with fewer people. Facility design based on sound ethological principles reduced the incidence of alarmed, excited cattle and employee accidents. In this paper a dipping vat system was described that can handle 600 cattle per hour with three people. In another facility, three people could gather 100 cow and calf pairs from pasture and separate the calves from the mothers in 45 min. The facilities utilized curved races with solid fences and narrow diagonal pens.

REFERENCES

Albright, J.L., 1969. Social environment and growth. In: E.S.E. Hafez and I, Dyer (Editors),Animal Nutrition and Growth. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, pp. 106-120.

Ames, D.R., 1974. Sound stress in meat animals. Proc. Int. Livestock Environment Symp., Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., SP017 4: 324-330.

Crofton, H.D., 1958. Nematode parasite populations in sheep on lowland farms. IV. Sheep behavior and nematode infections. Parasitology, 48: 251-260.

Daly, J.J., 1970. Circular cattle yards, Advisory Leaflet No. 660. Division of Animal Industry, Department of Primary Industries, Reprinted in Queens. Agric. J., May, 1970.

Elings, J.T., 1977. Facilities and equipment. Proc. 11th Conf. Artificial Insemination of Beef Cattle, Nat. Assoc. Animal Breeders, Columbia, Missouri, pp. 14-19.

Ewbank, R., 1961. The behaviour of cattle in crushes. Vet. Rec., 73: 853-856.

Ewbank, R., 1968. The behavior of animals in restraint. In: M.W. Fox (Editor), Abnormal Behavior in Animals. Saunders, Philadelphia.

Falconer, LR. and Hetzel, B.S., 1964. Effect of emotional stress on TSH on thyroid vein hormone level in sheep with exteriorized thyroids. Endocrinology, 75: 42-48.

Fraser, A.F., 1974. Farm Animal Behaviour. Bailliere Tindall, London.

Grandin, T., 1975. Survey of behavioral and physical events which occur in hydraulic re straining chutes for cattle. Thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

Grandin, T., 1977a. Processing feedlot cattle. In: I. Dyer and C. O’Mary (Editors), The Feedlot. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, pp. 213-232.

Grandin, T., 1977b. Cattle handling systems for meat-works. Meat Research Newsletter, CSIRO, Division of Food Research, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 77: 110.

Grandin, T., 1978a. Design of lairage, yard and race systems for handling cattle in abattoirs, auctions, ranches, restraining chutes and dipping vats. 1st World Congr. Ethology Applied to Zootechnics, Madrid, Spain, pp. 37-52.

Grandin, T., 1978b. Observations of the spatial relationships between people and cattle during handling. Proc. Western Sect., Am. Soc. Anim. Sci., 29: 76-79.

Grandin, T., 1978c. Transportation from the animal’s point of view. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., Technical Paper No. 786013, St. Joseph, Michigan.

Hafez, E.S.E., Schein, M.W. and Ewbank, R., 1969. The behaviour of cattle. In: E.S.E. Hafez (Editor), The Behaviour of Domestic Animals, 2nd edn., Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, Maryland.

Hebel, R. and Sambraus, H.H., 1976. Are domestic mammals colorblind? Ber. Miinch. Tierarztl. Wochenschr., 89: 321-325.

Hutson, G.D. and Hitchcock, D.K., 1978. The movement of sheep around corners. Appl. Anim. Ethol., 4: 349-355.

Kilgour, R., 1971. Animal handling in works. Proc. 13th Meat Industry Conf., Meat Industry Res. Inst., Hamilton, New Zealand, pp. 9-12.

Kilgour, R., 1972. Animal behaviour concepts and the veterinarian. In: J.L. Albright (Editor), Animal Behavior. School of Veterinary Science, Purdue University, Lafayette, pp. 73-78.

Livestock Conservation Institute, 1974. Livestock safety is a $61,000,000 word, 1100 Jorie Blvd., Oak Brook, Illinois.

Lynch, J.J. and Alexander, G., 1973. The Pastoral Industries of Australia. Sydney University Press, Sydney, Australia, pp. 371-400.

McFarlane, L, 1976a. A practical approach to animal behavior. In: M.E. Ensminger (Editor), Beef Cattle Science Handbook. Agri services Foundation, Clovis, California, 13: 420-426.

McFarlane, I., 1976b. Rationale in the design of housing and handling facilities. In: M.E. Ensminger (Editor), Beef Cattle Science Handbook. Agri-services Foundation, Clovis, California, 13: 223-227.

McFarlane, I., 1976c. Personal communication.

Oelofse, J., 1970. Plastic for game catching. Oryx, 10: 306-308.

Prince, J.H., 1970. The eye and vision. In: M.J. Swenson (Editor), Dukes Physiology of Domestic Animals. Cornell, New York, pp. 11351159.

Rider, A., Butchbaker, A.F. and Harp, S., 1974. Beef working, sorting, and loading facilities. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., Technical Paper No. 744523, St. Joseph, Michigan.

Sambraus, H.H., 1978. Personal communication.

Strickland, W.R., 1978a. Knowledge of animal behavior can reduce livestock handling and management problems. Proc. 62nd Annu. Meet. Livestock Conservation Institute, 1100 Jorie Blvd., Oak Brook, Illinois, pp. 8386.

Strickland, W.R., 1978b. Personal communication.

Swan, R., 1975. About Al facilities. New Mexico Stockman, February, pp. 24-25.

Ward, F., 1958. Cowboy at Work. Hasting House Publishers, New York, pp. 19-105.

Webb, T.F., 1966. Feasibility tests of selected stimuli and devices to drive livestock. Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agric. Agric. Res. Puhl., No. 5211.

Whateley, J., Kilgour, R. and Dalton, D.C., 1974. Behaviour of hill country sheep breeds during farming routines. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod., 34: 28-36.

Williams, C., 1978. Livestock consultant, personal communication.

Fig. 1.

Handler positions for driving cattle.

Fig. 2.

Wide curved holding race.

Fig. 3.

Handling system for dipping cattle with curved races.

Fig. 4.

Aerial view of dipping vat system with curved races.

Fig. 5.

Dipping vat entrance.

Fig. 7.

Yard for working beef cattle.

Fig. 6.

Abattoir stockyard.

The Grandin Papers

Two

The Grandin Papers

Three

Double Rail Restrainer forLivestock Handling

T. Grandin (1988) Double Rail Restrainer for Livestock Handling,Journal of Agricultural Engineering, Research, Vol. 41, pp. 327-338.

This paper covers the initial design of a conveyorized restrainer system I developed for large calves. The center track restrainer that I developed for large beef slaughter plants is based on this paper. It is described in detail in later papers. This system is now in use in many large beef plants in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Australia, and other countries. All the drawings in this paper were hand-drawn by the author. In the early part of my career, I was primarily focused on improving equipment. Later in my career, I became more focused on the importance of good management and training employees.

A double rail restrainer conveyor has been operating for two years in a commercial calf slaughter plant. It is operating at a production rate of 300 small calves or 150 large veal calves/h. The calves straddle a moving double rail which supports them under the brisket and belly. The moving rail is formed from metal segments which are attached to an endless chain. Adjustable sides on each side of the conveyor can be rapidly positioned to accommodate different sized animals while the slaughter line is running.

This system has many advantages compared to existing V restrainer conveyor systems. Some of the advantages are less expensive to construct, animals enter the restrainer more easily, easier captive bolt stunning, and it is adjustable for a wide variety of animal sizes. It can handle calves weighing 23–226 kg and all sizes of sheep. Systems are under development for adult cattle and automatic stunning of pigs. A double rail for handling cattle for veterinary procedures is also being developed.

Introduction

There is a need for more efficient and humane systems for rapidly handling large numbers of livestock in slaughter plants and large cattle fattening operations. The V restrainer conveyor which is presently used in many slaughter plants was a major innovation.1,2 This system consists of two obliquely angled conveyors which form a V. The animals ride in the V with their feet protruding through a space at the bottom. However, there have been some problems with this equipment. Cattle and calves often balk and refuse to enter the V restrainer conveyor. Large 200 kg veal calves had difficulty entering the restrainer and small baby calves crossed their legs and fell through the opening between the two conveyors.3,4

Pigs and sheep can be handled efficiently and humanely in a V restrainer conveyor. In lambs the V restrainer may damage meat quality by causing petechial haemorrhages.5,6

Petechial haemorrhages are small pinpoint haemorrhages in the fat and connective tissue. During electrical stunning V restrainer conveyors sometimes increase the incidence of petechial haemorrhages because the animal’s skin and muscles are stretched when muscle spasms occur against the sides of the conveyor.

On large US cattle fattening operations, thousands of cattle have to be individually restrained for vaccinations and other veterinary procedures. Cattle are caught in a hydraulic squeeze restrainer with a stanchion head bail. They are sometimes injured when they strike the head bail.7 These restrainers are also inefficient because in some operations 1–3% of the animals escape before the veterinary procedures are completed.7 Two to four percent of the animals are bruised during handling in these devices.8 Stressing an animal during handling can lower weight gains.9,10

2. Previous research

Researchers at the University of Connecticut developed a laboratory prototype double rail conveyor restrainer system.4,11 Calves and sheep straddled two moving double rails. The animal was supported under the belly and brisket. Their research demonstrated that calves and sheep would ride quietly on the double rail with a minimum of stress. The prototype was a major innovation, but many components needed to be invented to create a system which would work in a commercial slaughter plant.

Some of the components which needed to be developed were: a device at the entrance to the double rail conveyor which would reliably position a calf’s legs on each side of the moving conveyor, a system for rapid adjustment for a wide variety of calf and sheep sizes and compatibility with existing shackling systems.

3. A new type of calf and sheep system

A double rail restrainer system was constructed and installed in a commercial calf slaughter plant (Figs 1 and 2). The plant has a maximum production rate of 300 baby calves, or 150 large formula fed calves. Calf weights varied from 23 to 225 kg. Both large and small calves were often mixed together, so it was essential to have a system for rapid size adjustment. The plant also slaughtered sheep.

Calves entering the restrainer straddle a 150 mm wide stationary leg spreader bar in the restrainer entrance (Fig. 3). The bar is 480 mm above the entrance race floor and the surface of the cleated ramp. The height of the leg spreader bar was determined by trying bars at different heights. A 200- or 300-mm high leg spreader bar worked poorly because calves stepped over it to one side. For sheep a lower bar is used. A 1–5 m long hold down rack prevents the calves from jumping up.

Calves will readily straddle the bar and walk into the restrainer. Baby calves which are too young to walk unassisted, have to be manually placed in the entrance and pushed. The width between the solid entrance race walls is 500 mm for all calves over 90 kg and narrowed with bars down to 330 mm for baby calves.

To facilitate handling of baby calves which have difficulty walking, the restrainer was installed in a pit to eliminate ramps. If the system is going to be used with bigger calves or sheep, it can be installed above the floor with a ramp leading to the entrance.

The moving double rail conveyor is 5–48 m long. The animals straddle a conveyor constructed from stainless steel segments attached to an endless chain (Fig. 4). The top of the conveyor is even with the floor of the entrance race (Fig. 1). Each one-piece segment is bent to form a double rail configuration (Fig. 5). The total conveyor width of the stationary frame is 215 mm. The moving segments themselves are 190 mm. A 76 x 76 mm space in the middle of each segment accommodates the animal’s brisket. The moving conveyor in the prototype constructed by Giger et al.4 was 170 mm wide. The width of the conveyor was increased to 190 mm to accommodate the two chains the metal segments were attached to. The goal was to create a system which could be constructed from standard components available to the meat industry.

Adjustable sides were mountedabove the moving conveyor to adjust the restrainer for different sized animals (Fig. 2). They lightly press against the top portion of the animal’s body to hold it upright on the conveyor. The sides are on pivots, and they can be rapidly adjusted by pulling a chain hoist. For calves and sheep, the space between the adjustable sides can be varied from 510 mm for large formula fed calves to 250 mm for baby calves. The double rail conveyor does not require adjustment.

The adjustable sides are positioned so that the bottom of the adjustable side is slightly above the top of the double rail. This provides room for the animal’s leg joints. The space between the bottom of the adjustable side and the top of the double rail is 50 mm when the sides are spaced 250 mm apart and 127 mm when the sides are spaced 457 mm apart.

The design of the system enables the stunner operator to stand closer to the animal compared to a V restrainer (Fig. 6). After stunning, calves and sheep are shackled while they are held in the restrainer. The shackle conveyor runs along one side of the restrainer in the same manner as the shackle system for a cattle V restrainer conveyor. Since the shackle conveyor could be placed closer to the animal’s leg, noose type shackles which loop tightly around the leg could be used.

Ritual slaughter is conducted one day each week on formula fed calves. The double rail restrainer is stopped when each calf reached the end. The configuration of the system is similar to the cattle V restrainer conveyor described in Grandin.12 A vertical sliding gate with a U-shaped back holder descends against the animal’s back (Fig. 1). The head is held by a person for the throat cut. After the throat cut, the animal is ejected onto a stainless-steel slat conveyor table (Fig. 1). The table dimensions are 5–48 m x 1–2 m. The table conveyor is continually washed by a water spray to prevent blood cross contamination between animals. A shorter table could be used for stunning only.

4. Large cattle system

A double rail system for large cattle slaughter is under development. Fig. 7 illustrates a large cattle double rail system which could be used to replace an existing stunning box without major plant modifications. It would be suitable for plants under 100 cattle/h and it does not require the large ramp and shackling system which is described in Grandin.This system could utilize the existing hoist, and stunned cattle would be shackled just before they are ejected off the restrainer onto the floor. The double rail could also be used with the standard ramp and shackle system configurations which are used with V restrainers in large American beef slaughter plants.2

Measurements for the outermost width of the double rail conveyor were obtained by placing two pipes underneath the armpits of different sized cattle. The animals were restrained in a head bail. The pipes were held parallel to the animal’s spine and raised up under the animal’s body. A system to handle 275–700 kg cattle would require a double rail 300 mm wide with a 100 x 100 mm space between the rails. The leg positioner bar would have to be 558 mm above the floor, and the width between the adjustable sides would also have to be increased.

S. Pig stunning system

Fig. 8 illustrates a proposed electric pig stunning system on a double rail. Automatic stunning on a double rail could have advantages. A double rail restrainer reduced petechial haemorrhages compared to a V restrainer conveyor.13

A pig double rail would have to be narrower than a calf system. Pigs have stiffer legs than calves and sheep. They must sit with their legs absolutely straight up and down as they ride on the conveyor. The leg spreader bar would have to be lowered and the angle on the entrance ramp would probably have to be reduced to 10 degrees. Since the entrance ramp on a V restrainer for pigs is at a shallower angle than the entrance ramps used for cattle, it is likely the same principle would apply to the double rail.

Two double rail conveyors placed end to end would enable the pigs to be automatically stunned without stopping the restrainer. One conveyor would run faster than the other, to create a separation between the animals. Creating a separation between the animals enables the automatic stunner to reset itself for the next animal while the conveyors are continually moving. This feature enables higher throughputs.

When two conveyors are placed end to end, it is recommended to redesign the segments to eliminate the gaps which open on the ends. Commercially, V restrainer conveyors are available with overlapping segments to eliminate pinch points which occur when the segments close as they turn around the end pulley. Practical experience has shown that this design reduces pinching when an animal transfers from one conveyor to the other. If this is not done, it may be possible to transfer the pigs between the two conveyors by installing rollers. A powered roller at the junction between the two conveyors would help transfer the animal from one conveyor to the next.

The stunner would pass electric current from head to shoulder (Fig. 8). Two to three flaps hinged at the top would contact the pig’s head as it rides on the conveyor. The head flap electrodes were invented by Raymond Cooper at the Queen’s University in Belfast and Wilson Swilley, Persia, Iowa, USA. The flaps would ‘1be constructed from heavy insulating plastic with a flat metal electrode on each one of them. To prevent blood splash (large haemorrhages in the muscle or around the joints), the metal plate on the electrode must be bordered with plastic. This will prevent it from shocking the pig as it passes over the shoulders and back. The flaps are spaced so that as the pig’s head passes from one flap to the next, the flow of electricity is continuous. A spring or air cylinder must be attached to the flaps to maintain firm contact with the pig’s head. Both the first head flap and the shoulder electrode must be in firm contact with the pig before the electricity is turned on. Current flow could be initiated by the shoulder electrode striking a limit switch.

The shoulder electrode contacts the pig’s shoulder. It slides on a track and is pushed forward by the forward movement of the animal. At the end of the stunning cycle, a small air cylinder retracts the electrode. It then returns to the start position for the next pig. The shoulder electrode is positioned slightly below the adjustable side. It must be positioned so that the pig’s leg does not bend excessively when the electrode is pushed forward. This stunner should be used with a New Zealand type constant current power supply to reduce blood splash and petechial haemorrhages.14 Excessive current and current surges increase petechial haemorrhages. A minimum of 1·25 A at 300 V 50 Hz must be used for stunning pigs to insure instantaneous unconsciousness.15 The head to shoulder configuration has the potential to reduce petechial haemorrhages. Head to front leg electrodes caused fewer haemorrhages than head to back electrodes.6 In a head to foot system stunning current must not pass through the back feet. In head to shoulder systems, it is easier to ensure proper electrode placement.

6. Veterinary system

A veterinary version of the double rail could be used in large cattle fattening operations (Fig. 9). In the US hundreds of cattle have to be handled every week when they arrive at the feedlots. V restrainer conveyors have not been used in feedlots due to high cost. Cattle weights range from 100 to 450 kg. An experimental prototype double rail conveyor with a width of 260 mm was constructed. The adjustable sides had a maximum spacing of 760 mm. Veterinary procedures such as vaccinations, applying pesticides, dehorning, foot trimming, giving medicines, ear tagging, etc., could be conducted while the animals are held on the conveyor. After treatment, the animal would walk off down an exit ramp. For operations requiring head restraint a stanchion head bail could be installed. Possible benefits of a conveyorized system would be reduced injuries and labour reduction.

It may also be possible to develop a veterinary double rail for sheep, to replace the rubber belt V restrainer conveyors which are currently used for this purpose.

7. Results and discussion

The double rail system has been operating in a commercial calf slaughter plant for two years. It can easily maintain the plant’s top production line speeds of 300 baby calves, or 150 large formula fed veal calves or sheep/h. The existing floor stunning and shackle hoist system had been removed and the plant was completely dependent on the double rail system. Replacement of the shackle hoist with the double rail restrainer has greatly reduced accidents. For an eighteen-month period prior to installation of the restrainer there were five lost time accidents. Three were very serious and three workers were absent for more than three weeks. Injuries were caused by kicking calves or a shackle trolley falling on a person’s head. A total of 126 working days were lost. For an eighteen-month period after installation of the restrainer there was only one lost time accident with two days of worker absence. A person’s hand was bruised while attaching the shackle chain.

The double rail has several advantages compared to a V restrainer conveyor system. Stunning with a heavy pneumatic stunner was easier and more accurate because the operator could stand closer to the restrainer. The distance is 70–180 mm in the double rail system and 400–430 mm in a V restrainer. A heavy pneumatic stun gun could be easily used without a balancer. Use of the same gun without a balancer is extremely difficult in a V restrainer. The author stunned animals with a pneumatic gun in both the double rail and V conveyor systems. Stunning calves in the double rail system for 3 h was done with minimum exertion by the author. The author had insufficient arm and wrist strength to operate the same brand of pneumatic stunner for 3 h in a V restrainer conveyor.

The calves entered the restrainer more easily compared to a V restrainer. Balking and refusing to enter the restrainer was reduced because the animals were less likely to feel the moving conveyor contact their legs. The animals could walk into the restrainer more easily because their legs were in the natural position. In a V restrainer the small gap between the two conveyors forces the animal to walk in with its legs pinched together.

Another advantage was that calves seldom reared up or attempted escape from the double rail restrainer. Over 250 wild, pasture reared calves of 136–226 kg and over 2400 formula fed veal calves weighing approximately 160 kg were observed. An animal was never observed rearing up over the sides or putting its leg over the stationary side of the restrainer. Approximately 5 to 10% of the 136–226 kg calves placed one front leg on the top of the conveyor. This appeared to cause no discomfort and an animal with its leg in this position was unable to raise its belly or brisket off the top of the conveyor. Over 99% of the animals had both rear legs in the correct position for shackling.

In a V restrainer conveyor cattle will often rear up and are difficult to stun. Head movement in the double rail is reduced due to the relatively narrow solid sided passage formed by the adjustable sides. The solid sides restrict the animal’s vision and prevent it from seeing activity outside the restrainer. Visual restriction reduces stress in poultry.16 Similar results have also been obtained with cattle.17

Shackling in the double rail was also easier. The shackle conveyor rail can be placed approximately 150 mm closer to the animal’s legs. The closer position of the shackle conveyor rail made it possible to use noose type shackles instead of shackles with an open hook fastener. Noose type shackles are less likely to come off if the chain remains loose. The use of noose type shackles made it possible to eliminate the cumbersome shackle chain tensioning devices that are used in V restrainer systems for cattle. Initially several types of tensioning devices were installed, but they have all been removed. The double rail was also less expensive to construct because it contains only one powered conveyor instead of two.

Entering calves must not be able to see bright light under the restrainer. The restrainer room should be illuminated with bright diffuse ceiling lamps. Sources of bright light under the restrainer must be eliminated.

Calves of all weights ranging from 23 to 225 kg rode quietly on the conveyor. Ample space for the animal’s leg joints between the bottom of the adjustable sides and the top of the double rail conveyor was very important. The adjustable sides must not press on the leg joints. Pressure on the leg joints causes calves to struggle and vocalize. When the correct leg joint clearance was determined, calves sat quietly on the conveyor without struggling or vocalizing for 15–30 min.

When large number of baby calves are handled, a single file race cannot be used. In the double rail installation, large calves would enter the double rail restrainer without the aid of a single file race. This is another indicator that animals enter easily. In plants which do not handle baby calves a single file race should be constructed. Designs for races can be found in Grandin.18-20 The adjustable sides could be moved within 10–15 s to accommodate different sized calves in mixed weight groups.

Cattle weighing 180–410 kg readily entered the experimental veterinary prototype and rode on the conveyor. The animals entered easily despite the fact that a makeshift arrangement of portable livestock panels and a portable loading ramp was used to direct them into the restrainer. These animals were wild, and they had a flight distance of approximately 8 m. The experimental prototype was located outdoors and cattle on the conveyor could see cattle in pens through the end of the restrainer. Some animals struggled in an attempt to escape. Placement of a solid barrier to prevent vision through the exit point of the restrainer immediately caused the animals to calm down and ride quietly.

A multiple flap head electrode has been tested for two weeks on a commercial pig slaughter line. Blood splashing and petechial haemorrhage levels were similar to the best commercially available manual and automatic stunning equipment. Maintaining firm contact with the head during stunning is essential to prevent blood splash. The flaps must not be allowed to bounce and make or break contact while the current is applied. Planning is in progress to install a large cattle slaughter system and a pig double rail in commercial operations.

8. Conclusions

The double rail restrainer is a superior system for handling calves of varying sizes compared to the V restrainer conveyor. It also worked well with sheep. Initial testing indicates that the system will also work for larger cattle. Animal welfare will be improved because it is easier for the operator to reach the animal’s head for proper placement of a captive bolt stunner. A double rail can replace a V restrainer conveyor with minimum modification of existing shackling or race systems. Installation of double rail restrainers on commercial pig and adult cattle slaughter lines will be required to fully evaluate the system for these animals.

Acknowledgments

Funding for installation of the double rail restrainer in a commercial slaughter plant was from the Council for Livestock Protection, New York, USA, and Utica Veal Co., Marcy, New York, USA. Double rail equipment fabrication by Clayton H. Landis, Souderton, Pennsylvania, USA. Layout and design Grandin Livestock Handling Systems, Inc.

References

Regensburger, R. W. Hog stunning pen. U.S. Patent No. 2 185 949, 1940Grandin, T. System for handling cattle in large slaughter plants. ASAE 1983, Paper No. 83406Lambooy, E. Automatic electrical stunning of veal calves in a V-type restrainer. Proceedings 32nd European Meeting of Meat Research Workers, Ghent, Belgium, 1986, Paper 2: 2, pp. 77-80Giger, W.; Prince, R. P.; Westervelt, R. G.; Kinsman, D. M. Equipment for low stress animal slaughter. Transactions of the ASAE 1977, 20: 571-578Thornton, R. N.; Blackmore, D. K.; Jolly, R. D.; Harris, R. E.; Marsden, N. A. Petechial hemorrhages in carcasses of slaughtered lambs. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 1979, 27: 181-189Gilbert, K. V.; Devine, C. E. Effect of stunning method on petechial hemorrhages and on blood pressure of lambs. Meat Science 1982, 7: 197-207Grandin, T. Good cattle restraining equipment is essential. Veterinary Medicine and Small Animal Clinician 1980, 75: 1291-1296Brown, H.; Elliston, N. G.; McAskill, J. W.; Tonkinson, L. V. The effect of restraining fat cattle prior to slaughter on the incidence and severity of injuries resulting in carcass bruises. Proceedings Western Section of Animal Science 1981, 32: 363365Grandin, T. Reduce stress of handling to improve productivity of livestock. Veterinary Medicine 1984, 79: 827-831Grandin, T. Handling stress. Recueil de Medecine Veterinaire 1988 (In press)Westervelt, R. G.; Kinsman, D. M.; Prince, R. P.; Giger, W. Physiological stress measurement during slaughter of calves and Jambs. Journal of Animal Science 1976, 42: 831-837Grandin, T. Problems with Kosher slaughter. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems 1980, 6: 375-390Lambooy, E. Research Institute for Animal Husbandry, Zeist, The Netherlands, 1987Devine, C. E.; Gilbert, K. V.; Ellery, S. Electrical stunning of lambs: The effect of stunning parameters and drugs affecting blood flow and behaviour on petechial haemorrhage incidence. Meat Science 1983, 9: 247-256Hoenderken, R. Electrical and carbon dioxide stunning of pigs for slaughter. In: Stunning of Animals for Slaughter (Eikelenboom, G., ed.). Martinus Nijhoff, 1983, pp. 59-63Douglas, A. C.; Darre, M. D.; Kinsman, D. M. Sight restriction as a means of reducing stress during slaughter. In: Proceedings of the 30th European Meeting of Meat Research Workers, Bristol, England, 1984, pp. 10-11Kinsman, D. M. University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.