Vol 1~Iss 1, Meat Packing Journal, March~April 2014

The international magazine for the meat and poultry industry

P.52

when and how to use stun methods

P.42

inside Dc's mega slaughterhouse

P.74

what not to miss at interpack 2014

MEAT PACKING J O U R N A L

are we right to eat meat? hugh fearnleywhittingstall takes up the debate

material movement matters mpj goes indepth on the latest in logistics

March~April 2014 volume 1 | issue 1 ISSN 2054-4677

VIV Europe 2014 World Expo for Animal Husbandry & Processing May 20-22, 2014 | Utrecht, the Netherlands

REGISTER NOW Special themes

for FREE entrance at www.viv.net

Come to Utrecht in 2014 and connect to all players in today’s complete animal protein production chain.

C O MMEN T

A call to arms

M

Slicing deeper into the industry to bring the most insightful coverage of meat packing and processing methods and equipment

www.meatpacking.info

eat packing journal is a brand new magazine for the meat and poultry industry.

Founded by a former meat processing plant owner and supported by a team of researchers and industry leaders, MPJ is firmly rooted in the industry and poised to deliver reliable and useful papers and commentary.

Our pledge to you as our readers is to bring you the most insightful coverage of the developments in methods and technology. To make you aware of key regulatory changes and how they might affect your role as owner or operator of a processing plant or a slaughterhouse. To keep you abreast of the latest chemical developments and biological research, but deliver the information in an easily digestible manner.

MPJ will be a dialogue, a conversation among professionals, sharing information, honing ideas, asking difficult questions and always expecting more. We want you to play an active role in this conversation, throw your opinion into the debate and help broaden other readers' knowledge of the challenges and opportunities that may lay ahead.

In an industry that is frequently besieged by negative media coverage and public mistrust, this journal will stand testament to our unrelenting efforts to grow and improve. Together we will defy complacency and spearhead progression.

MPJ is an international publication because this should be a global conversation.

While traditionally operators have stayed within their domestic market, this has now changed. And as processors in one country set up plants in another, sharing knowledge across boarders is becoming ever more important.

There is a great deal to be learnt from your counterparts around the world. From variations in methods and equipment to boosting productivity and exploring new uses for materials. Each country and region is cutting its own path into the future.

Send us a letter, email your thoughts, follow us on Twitter, connect on Linkedin.

Join the conversation.

Rhian Owen rhian@meatpacking.info @Meat_Packing

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 3

Advanced vacuum pump technology for a changing industry.

Reliable performance. Proven worldwide. At Oerlikon Leybold Vacuum, our wide range of solutions makes it possible to match the correct vacuum pump to your ever-changing requirements. From standard pumps and boosters to central vacuum systems, we can help you improve productivity, reduce downtime, and maximize profitability. Make the change today – to Oerlikon Leybold Vacuum.

SOGEVAC Rotary Vacuum Pumps ■ ■

■

RUVAC Vacuum Boosters

Well-proven food industry standard

■

Provides vacuum up to a decade better than competitive pumps

■

Oil mist elimination system with on-board oil recirculation ■

Oerlikon Leybold Vacuum GmbH Bonner Strasse 498 D-50968 Köln T +49 (0)221 347-0 F +49 (0)221 347 1250 info.vacuum@oerlikon.com www.oerlikon.com/leyboldvacuum

Increases pumping speeds to improve cycle times Provides oil-free compression of gases in combination with a vacuum pump Can be prepared for washdown duty

DRYVAC Dry Vacuum Pumps ■

■

■

Dry compressing pumps provide the highest level of food safety Dry pumps eliminate any chance of oil coming in contact with food and environment No oil means less maintenance, no disposal, lower cost of ownership, and eco-friendly

C O N tent s

7 16

28

42

52

74

www.meatpacking.info

News

the latest news from around the world and across the industry

Opinion

Renowned chef and cultural foodie Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall tackles the moral debate over the slaughter of animals for food

intralogistics

The fast and effecient flow of material throughout the processing facility is crucial to optimising plant output. Rhian Owen digs deep into the industry trends and looks at the role of track and trace

Mega plant

Danish Crown's pig processing plant in Horsens, Denmark, is one of the most heavily automated and sophisticated plants in the world. Alex Conacher takes a look at how it is functioning several years after construction

Stunning

Speedy and reliable stunning of livestock helps keep stress levels low and meat quality high. James Chappelow looks at the available methods and their use. Separately a team of researchers publish a paper on CO2 stunning in Sweden

show time

The largest packaging show in the world is set to kick off in May. MPJ looks at what you need to know and who to watch out for

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 5

Specialist for the Food Industry

Innovation

3600 Projects in 95 countries

Founded in 1904

Full line supplier

Industrial Waste Water Treatment

24/7 Service

MPS meat processing systems World market leader in design, engineering, manufacturing, installation and 24/7 service of advanced systems for the meat and food processing industry and systems for industrial waste water treatment, sludge handling and dewatering.

Red Meat Slaughtering | CO2 Stunning | Blood Collection Carcass Splitting | Cutting & De-boning | Food Logistic Systems Industrial Waste Water Treatment | Service & Spares

Company Head Office:

MPS Albert Schweitzerstraat 33 P.O. Box 160 7130 AD Lichtenvoorde The Netherlands T: +31 544 390500 info@mps-group.nl

MPS Worldwide: Chile, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Scandinavia, Spain, UK/Ireland and USA.

www.mps-group.nl

ne w s

Denmark bans non-stun slaughter

T

he danish government has introduced a ban on the religious slaughter of animals for the production of kosher and halal meat. The new law was implemented in mid-February this year.

Slaughterhouses specialising in ritual slaughter in Poland forced to close after the practice was outlawed in 2012, effectively shutting down the US$500 million kosher and halal meat industry.

The Danish ban was defended by Agriculture and Food Minister Dan Jorgensen, who told Danish newspapers, “animal rights come before religion".

The move has been criticised by non-profit halal monitoring group Danish Halal, which has launched a petition against the ban.

Salah Messikh, the founder of one of Poland’s oldest halal slaughterhouses, saw his revenues halved because of a 2012 court ruling that rescinded a government regulation exempting Jews and Muslims from a requirement that animals be stunned prior to slaughter.

Messikh now struggles to resell meat imported from Romania, where ritual slaughter is permitted, but the quality of meat is low.

EU countries find fix for Russia's pork import ban

Big rise in New Zealand mutton exports

EUROPE: Six EU countries have proposed the introduction of a temporary veterinary certificate in order to resume supplies of pork to Russia, recently limited due to outbreaks of African swine fever (ASF) in Lithuania and Poland.

The move was revealed by Sergey Dankvert, head of the Russian veterinary watchdog Rosselkhoznadzor, following a meeting with EU chief veterinary officers and heads of industry unions and associations from France, Netherlands, Denmark and Lithuania.

Dankvert warned Europe that while additional guarantees on exported pork products will make it possible to resume trade, Russia should first agree on this with the Customs Union, which could take some time.

Rosselkhoznadzor is also carrying out work to allow the supply from a number of slaughterhouses in the US, which had been closed more than a year ago due to the use of ractopamine, a drug used as a feed additive. In addition, a number of contracts have been finalised for the increase of the supply of pork from Paraguay, Brazil and Canada.

According to Konstantin Suslov, deputy prime minister of the regional government for the Kaliningrad region, the ban has stop production at five processing plants to due to a shortage of pork supplies in the Kaliningrad region of Russia.

NEW ZEALAND: Mutton exports rose 16.3% in volume and 22% in value in the last three months of 2013, a report by Beef and Lamb New Zealand showed.

Statistics revealed that China remains the largest market for mutton and continues to grow. New Zealand’s mutton exports to China doubled in the first three months of the 2013-14 season, compared to last season’s first quarter.

The report showed that export lamb volumes dropped but the return increased 8.9% because of the supply/demand equation.

Beef exports were practically unchanged. The report stated there was a notable decline in exports to North America – down 13% – although partly offset by rises in exports to Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan and China.

www.meatpacking.info

Multivac launches traysealer line GERMANY: Packaging solution provider, Multivac, has announced it will launch acomplete traysealer line for convenience products. The

company said the new line aims to meet the growing demand for turnkey end-to-end solutions for packaging food.

Multivac is presenting the line at Interpack 2014. The complete traysealer line includes a denester, drag-chain infeed conveyor, filling unit and inspection and marking equipment.

Go to page 74 for a review of the show and details on what and who not to miss.

First donkey abattoir in Kenya gets approval KENYA: Kenya is to host Africa's first donkey slaughterhouse, to meet China's growing demand for donkey meat in China.

The abattoir has been granted approval in Nakaru County's market town, Naivasha, and will aim to slaughter up to 100 donkeys per day.

Residents of Naivasha, hope a licensed

slaughterhouse might address the problem of donkey carcasses left by the roadside, killed by illegal traders.

Newspaper The Kenya Standard recently reported that the slaughterhouse has sparked outrage from traders, donkey owners and religious leaders in the area.

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 7

ne w s

FDA slammed over antibiotic use

A

natural resource Defense Council (NRDC) study recently revealed that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the US allowed 30 potentially harmful antibiotics into the food chain, including 18 rated 'high risk' of exposing humans to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

The study found the FDA took no action to remove 30 antibiotic-based livestock feed products from the market, even though the antibiotics would likely fall short of current regulatory standards set by the agency.

The study by the NRDC, which criticises the use of drugs in the meat industry, is the latest report covering the US debate over the practice of antibiotic use in meat production.

Late last year the FDA said it would begin phasing out the use of antibiotics in animal feed that help livestock grow faster on less food, while phasing in requirements for veterinary oversight of the remaining uses of such drugs.

Ossid launches new packaging line USA: US packaging equipment manufacturer Ossid, a subsidiary Pro Mach, unveiled a new packaging line at this year’s International Production and Processing Expo (IPPE) in Atlanta. The line includes an Ossid stretch overwrapper, a weigh-price labeller, a case scale, and an ID Technology 252 printer.

The 500Si high-speed stretch overwrapper produces tightly wrapped, PVC case ready packaging at speeds of up to 120 trays per minute. A human machine interface ensures ease of operation and tool-free changeover

"FDA continues to knowingly allow the use of drugs in animal feed that likely pose a ‘high risk’ to human health. That’s a breach of their responsibility and the public trust,” explained Carmen Cordova, microbiologist, NRDC. The FDA stated that the final guidance document made participation voluntary as it is the fastest, most efficient way to make changes. The agency has been working with associations that include those representing drug companies, the feed industry, producers of beef, pork and turkey, as well as veterinarians and consumer groups.

“We need to be selective about the drugs we use in animals and when we use them,” said William Flynn, deputy director for science policy at FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine.

He added, “Antimicrobial resistance may not be completely preventable, but we need to do what we can to slow it down.”

of poultry and meat packaging facilities. The 500Si has a relatively small footprint and is ideal for spaceconstrained environments.

The 1500 series weigh price labeller improves production with accurate and flexible label placement. The 1500 series is rated at up to 120 trays per minute. The unit is packed with both standard features and options. A host of data acquisition capabilities are available, including the productivity enhancing Ossid Overall Equipment

between package sizes is quick and easy, Ossid stated. The open stainless steel frame and other construction aspects are compatible with the harsh environments 8 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

Effectiveness (OEE) tool.

The CS5000 is an NTEP Certified case scale that weighs cases with the company’s newest tolerance range of +/- .02lbs (.01kg). The unit’s Microsoft SQL Database delivers seamless data integration and data transfer. Ethernet network functionality facilitates automatic order processing and tracking, remote user training, off-site maintenance and software upgrades.

The Model 252 label printer applicator from ID Technology, a division of Pro Mach, is the newest addition to ID Technology’s line of label printer applicators.

The printer applicator features the same modular design and construction of the Model 250 with the additions of a new touch screen user interface, a redesigned rewind motor ‘module’ that is hot swappable, a plasma coated air assist tube that eliminates label sticking, and an optional service position www.meatpacking.info

ne w s

Tamp Module.

“Poultry and meat industries attendees will discover that Ossid can provide a one-stop-shop solution for an integrated packaging line that delivers performance, reliability, durability, and production data integration,” said Jason Angel, vice president of sales, Ossid.

UK funds meat identification project Great Britain: Three UK companies have secured Government funding to accelerate the development of a new test to combat food fraud. The test will detect any DNA in processed foods coming from at least 12 different animal species, including some not normally associated with the food chain.

By quantifying the relative amounts of DNA, the test will also indicate the severity of any contamination or deliberate adulteration.

The one-year project is a collaboration between Safeguard Biosystems (SG Bio), Reading Scientific Services and Arrayjet. The new test is based on proprietary DNA detection technology, developed by the lead partner SG Bio, and will allow identification and quantification of cow, pig, chicken, horse, goat, sheep, turkey, donkey, dog, cat, rat and mouse in foods.

Expansion of the range of meat species will follow in future versions, as well as the ability to authenticate the breed or location of origin, Arrayjet stated. Migrating the technology to other food groups that are susceptible to fraud or adulteration such as fish, juices and wine is also planned.

The principle of the test is to identify the targeted DNA sequences in a given food sample and then to calculate the ratio of different species within a sample to establish whether adulteration or contamination has occurred.

The new test aims to reduce the cost and time of food testing so that it becomes possible to routinely check all points in the supply chain.

The currently available tests are www.meatpacking.info

limited by cost and time. The key to speeding up the process and bringing down costs is making it highthroughput.

It will do this by taking advantage of microarray technology, which enables biological tests to be miniaturised and multiplexed.

This allows multiple DNA tests to be carried out on a single sample simultaneously, whilst also enabling multiple food samples to be processed in parallel.

The project has been designed collaboratively utilising SG Bio’s DNA expertise, Arrayjet’s printing specialisation and experience in food authenticity.

The publication of results is expected in late 2014.

polyethylene containers, offering the company a product that reduces lead time and is 100 per cent recyclable.

Maurice Abou Zeid, business manager MENA, Octal said: “Until recently, meat and poultry processors in the Middle East and North Africa region widely used inefficient packaging. Today, Octal is leading the global conversion from traditional packaging materials to its cutting edge, environmentally and mechanically advanced products.

Partnering with large food and beverage producers such as Almarai demonstrates the reputation our products hold.”

Talks are underway to expand product supply to other major regional poultry brands.

Caromtec products approved in Italy

Provisur hires new VP for Asia Pacific

ITALY: Caromtec, which specialises in carcass grading equipment for pig and cattle slaughterhouses, recently announced that two of its products, AutoFom and Fat-O-Meat'er, have completed the approval process for sale in Italy.

AutoForm III, a classification system for pig producers, can provide information such as the total lean meat percentage and grading class.

The AutoFom III completed the approval with outstanding good results and was named 'best in test' among the equipment participating in the approval test.

Caromtec announced that the previous version of the Fat-O-Meat’er was the standard grading equipment in Italy for many years. The company stated that the new generation of Fat-O-Meat’er has been approved and continues to be a top grading equipment in Italy.

USA: Provisur Technologies has appointed Andrew MacLeod as vice president of its Asia Pacific business unit. MacLeod will be responsible for building up the company's organisation in the region to reflect the growth expectations, the company said.

“Fuelled by increased disposable income and demand for prepared and value added food products, Asia Pacific represents the company's fastest growing regional market.

“We are making continued investments in our business infrastructure to better serve our customers' needs in the region," said Mel Cohen, CEO and president of Provisur Technologies.

"MacLeod's appointment to vice president of our Asia Pacific business unit is intended to accelerate our international growth in this vitally important strategic market."

Poultry processor opts for recyclable trays Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabian foods giant, Almarai, has selected OCTAL’s high definition DPET/PE trays for its poultry product line, Alyoum.

Octal stated that its high-grade trays replace traditional polypropylene/

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 9

ne w s

Lab reveals Britain's fake food scandal

C

onsumers are allegedly at risk of buying 'fake food' including ham on pizza that is 'meat emulsion' or poultry, and beef mince that contains pork or poultry products, according to tests by a public laboratory in West Yorkshire.

The checks on 900 food samples, revealed that almost 40 per cent were not what they claimed to be, or were mislabelled. Their results have been shared with The Guardian newspaper.

The samples were anonymised to ensure the testing was scientific and unbiased, so it was not revealed which products were 'fake'. The products were taken

One third of Americans cutting back on red meat USA: More than one-third of Americans are cutting back on red meat for health reasons, but the number of meat-eaters are still booming, research from Mintel revealed earlier this year. The market research firm found that 39% of beef and other red meat consumers ate less in 2013 than they did in 2012.

Mintel found that 25% of pork consumers claimed to have eaten less pork in 2013 than they did in 2012. Some 10% of beef and other red meat eaters are eating more, and some13% of pork consumers are eating more.

Some 16% of those Americans who say they are consuming less red meat are eating less but higher quality red meat. “Health trends motivating consumers to cut fat and cholesterol intake are by far the most dominant factors affecting the red meat market,” said Patty Johnson, global food analyst at Mintel.

“While some consumers are turning away from red meat, in favor of healthier alternatives, there are still a staggering amount of Americans who partake on a regular basis. For many of those who are cutting back they are very well trading up to a higher quality meat product.”

Packaging may be an area for meat manufacturers to innovate, particularly to appeal to women, Mintel added. Some 35% of women would like to see more resealable packaging, 26% want individual

from a wide range out outlet, including fast-food restaurants, independent retailers, and larger stores and manufacturers.

West Yorkshire's public analyst, Dr Duncan Campbell, told The Guardian: “We are routinely finding problems with more than a third of samples, which is disturbing at a time when the budget for food standards inspection and analysis is being cut.”

The problems included were mincing machines not being cleaned properly, as well as substitutions for cheaper meat. Ham was often made using poultry that was coloured pink in the production process.

sized portions and 23% would like to see recipe options on the package.

JBT hires new CFO USA: Technology solutions provider to the food processing industry JBT Corporation, recently announced that Brian Deck has joined the company as vice president and chief financial officer.

Deck began his new role in February this year. Deck joined JBT upon departing as CFO of National Material LP. Ron Mambu, the JBT’s current VP and CFO, had earlier announced his intent to retire and will remain with the company through March to ensure a smooth transition.

"We are thrilled to welcome Brian to the JBT executive team," said Tom Giacomini, president and chief executive officer of JBT. "Brian's twenty plus years of comprehensive financial experience, including a strong strategic planning and margin expansion toolkit, as well as significant global hands-on M&A expertise, is exceptional," continued Giacomini. "Brian is the ideal CFO for JBT. His skill set and personality fit well with our focus on growing revenues and increasing margins within a culture of high integrity."

Deck added: "I am excited to join JBT at this very important time, as the company is embarking upon its growth strategy. "I am enthusiastic to be both a key leader of this transformation and to ensure the company maintains the strong

10 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

financial footing necessary to enhance shareholder value."

Oerlikon Leybold Vacuum moves to new centre GERMANY: Swiss headquartered vendor for vacuum pumps and systems for the food industry, Oerlikon Leybold Vacuum, moved to its new logistics centre at the Cologne site earlier this year.

Oerlikon Leybold Vacuum stated that its new building is the logistics hub supplying production facilities with goods and controlling international goods flows from the company to customers and worldwide subsidiaries.

“We are highly satisfied with the architectural planning and the realisation of this concept,” said Dr Martin Füllenbach, CEO of Oerlikon Leybold Vacuum. “In spite of running operations, the restricted space and increased traffic on the factory premises everything worked out without a hitch. We are now in a position to optimally implement our future oriented logistics visions.” www.meatpacking.info

PROCESSES AND PACKAGING LEADING TRADE FAIR DÜSSELDORF, GERMANY

08 –14 MAY 2014 FOOD.INTERPACK.COM

NOURISHMENT FOR THE

FOOD INDUSTRY

For further information contact ITSL Ltd _ Ramsay House _ Marchmont Farm Link Road _ Hemel Hempstead _ Hertfordshire _ HP2 6JH Tel 01442 230033 _ Fax 01442 230012 info@itsluk.com

ne w s

US supplier recalls beef products

U

S supplier Rancho Feeding Corporation has recalled approximately 8.7M lbs of products due to processing 'diseased and unsound animals, which are 'unfit for human consumption', according to the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).

Classified as a high risk recall, the FSIS stated that the products 'must be removed from commerce'. The products included beef jerky and frozen Hot Pockets and were served to schools for lunches, hospitals and retail giants such as Walmart.

FSIS decided to reissue the recall release first issued on 8 February 2014 a week later, when the extent of

Beef Producers call for comprehensive TPP deal Pacific region: Beef producers from the four largest beef producing Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) member countries continue to advocate that any TPP agreement must deliver on the 2011 TPP Ministers’ position of eliminating tariffs and other barriers to trade.

Beef producers of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US, working in a coordinated partnership known as the Five Nations Beef Alliance (FNBA), issued a statement in February 2014 expressing concern at the possibility that some TPP members may seek to exclude some 'sensitive' products from comprehensive, duty free access.

Granting a TPP member any such exclusion would result in other members seeking similar treatment, leading to a decline in the agreement’s level of ambition and the resulting economic growth that it would bring, the statement noted.

The alliance also called for each TPP member to provide equal market access to all other TPP members, including during the transition period, in order to ensure that competitive disadvantages are not created and also to set clear expectations of the level of commitment required from any potential future TPP members.

The beef producers also noted the importance of adopting sciencebased regulations and incorporating

the adulteration was confirmed.

In a statement, the FSIS stated: "FSIS now believes that recalled product was shipped to distribution centres and retail establishments nationwide.

“This update is a consequence of a properly working recall process. Retail establishments may issue their own recall statements to inform the public about products processed with meat associated with this recall," the statement explained.

FSIS also criticised the company for carrying out these activities without the benefit or full benefit of federal inspection.

trade facilitative rules of origin in the Partnership.

The FNBA comprises the Cattle Council of Australia, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, Confederacion Nacional de Organizaciones Ganaderas, Beef and Lamb New Zealand and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

Report calls for UK food police force Great Britain:The UK needs to set up a specialist food crime unit following the horsemeat incident, a Government-commissioned report has recommended. Professor Chris Elliott of Queens University Belfast has said that there is a 'worrying lack of knowledge regarding the extent to which we are dealing with criminals infiltrating the food industry'.

In the review into how the safety and authenticity of food can be protected, Professor Elliott said a new unit should be set up as a nonHome Office police force.

“I envisage this new unit being constituted as a non-Home-Office police force so that it can have all the necessary warranted powers including powers of entry and powers of arrest," said Professor Elliot.

The report added that food crime prevention should be a primary focus. It called for data collection, surveys and 'intelligence hubs' to 'fill in the knowledge gap' of the extent of any criminal activity within the UK food supply network.

12 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

Logistics company acquires robotic firm Netherlands: Netherlands-based Vanderlande Industries, which specialises in meat logistics, is set to acquire Ferdar Automation Technology. The company stated that Ferdar is active as a robotics system integrator, including in the logistics sector.

Robotics is becoming increasingly important in logistics automation, such as in palletising and depalletising products, Vanderlande stated. The company added that its customers are demanding greater flexibility and a higher level of automation. As a result of taking over Ferdar, Vanderlande will acquire experience and competence in the application and development of robotics and related technology for goods handling.

“We are very pleased with this takeover,” said Govert Hamers, the new CEO of Vanderlande Industries.

“Ferdar is a valuable addition to our product portfolio and strengthens our profile as a high-tech system integrator. As a result of the takeover, we will immediately acquire highquality expertise and we will be able to offer our customers even more comprehensive services.

“Robotics can be used to create solutions for food distribution or parts warehouses and this takeover will make our range of hardware and software products more complete," explained Hamers. www.meatpacking.info

ne w s

New dark meat deboning solution unveiled netherlands: Poultry processing system supplier, Foodmate, recently presented a new dark meat deboning system. The OPTI-LTD chicken whole leg, thigh and drumstick deboner has been developed to produce quality meat efficiently and cost effectively, the company stated.

The OPTI-LTD is capable of deboning 100 skinless or skinon anatomical whole legs, thighs and drumsticks per minute and no additional parts or changes are required when switching between dark meat deboned products.

The OPTI-LTD can process left and right legs at the same time, with no need to separate the legs.

Foodmate stated that the machine produces high quality deboned meat with only a few trimmers and inspections required. It removes the meat with low bone content left in the meat and leaves the pin bone on the drumstick.

Weber boosts production USA: The fifth high-tech milling machine arrived at Weber’s production site in Groß Nemerow, Germany, late last year. The machine completed the company’s investment in an automated production system, which cost a total of €2.5M (US$3.4M).

At the Weber Maschinenbau

www.meatpacking.info

GmbH production site in Groß Nemerow 55 employees manufacture blades for the slicers used in the food-processing industry for cutting and infeeding lunch meat.

"The high number of orders and our annual market growth are reasons for us to look positively on the future," explained company owner Günther Weber. "However, in order to remain a market leader with our products we need to continually improve our production processes.

Success on the international market is not only determined by technology, but also by cost leadership," stressed Weber.

Provisur enters freezing partnership USA: Processing equipment company Provisur, recently announced that it has entered into an agreement with Scanico in which Scanico has become Provisur’s global partner in commercial freezing technology.

Provisur stated that the partnership allows the company to offer its customers a broader range of freezing technologies, including a variety of spiral and impingement freezing options. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed.

“Our entire company is delighted with this agreement and is very much looking forward to working with Provisur Technologies in the future,” said Lars Colding, managing director, Scanico. “As Provisur’s partner in freezing technology, our combined

processing and freezing expertise now has the ability to benefit many more processors throughout the world.”

Brian Perkins, vice president global product Management for Provisur Technologies, said: “Welcoming Scanico as a valued business partner greatly enhances the Provisur global product and services platform. Scanico’s freezing technology solutions, which already benefit millions of consumers around the world, will now be available through Provisur Technologies’ everexpanding product portfolio.”

New tunnel freezing system launched USA: Connecticut headquartered Praxair, recently unveiled its newest tunnel freezing system, the Praxair ColdFront cryo-saver tunnel at the International Production and Processing Expo in Atlanta. The freezer will help processors freeze their products more economically in the same footprint as a traditional cryogenic tunnel system, the company claimed.

Praxair added that its cryo-saver tunnel freezer’s entrance and exit are positioned to prevent room air from infiltrating into the freezer, which can result in up to 15% savings in customer operating costs depending on the production parameters. The freezer enclosure is also designed to meet US Department of Agriculture sanitation standards.

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 13

ne w s

Cargill settles OFCCP allegations

K

ansas based Cargill Meat Solutions Corporations, recently announced it has settled hiring discrimination allegations made by the US Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) involving three of the company’s North American meat processing plants. The company will pay USD 2.2M into a settlement fund.

The company stated that it chose to avoid the cost, business interruptions and lengthy litigation. “The decision to settle was not taken lightly, because we work hard every day to ensure compliance with all hiring laws, and we have an unwavering commitment to diversity and equal employment opportunity,” said Bill Buckner, Cargill’s senior vice president. “The plants involved in the bundled settlement include

Fort Morgan, Colorado; Springdale, Arkansas; and Beardstown, Illinois. They have diverse employee populations, representing dozens of nationalities. It’s a fact we take great pride in, especially because these communities are thriving with economic prosperity that results from the diverse Cargill employee population.

“We are disappointed with the way OFCCP uses a mathematical model to allege violations in the absence of evidence. We believe the agency needs to change the way it applies the law to ensure that OFCCP is not forcing employers to violate – by using quotas – the very laws the agency is supposed to be enforcing. We will continue to hire the best candidates available from those who apply for positions at our plants. People make Cargill the great organisation it is.”

pork label aims to improve pork reputation

the facilities of Nevinnomyssk and Blagodarny were equipped with complete Meyn processing lines.

FINLAND: Packages in Finland containing pork will have a label added in the coming months informing of its quality certification, local press reported.

The label indicates that during meat production the animals have been treated better than what is minimally required by law.

The criteria, put together by the meat industry and the Association of Animal Disease Prevention and approved by Evira, the Finnish Food Safety Authority, takes into account the pigs’ health and the prevention of animal diseases on farms. The label clearly sets the domestic meat apart from the imported meat.

Conveyance solutions provider expands

Meyn wins Russian poultry line contract RUSSIA: Poultry processing equipment manufacturer Meyn, has recently announced it has received a new order for a 9,000 birds per hour line from Gap Resource.

The new line is to be installed in Blagodarny, Russia. In 2008, GAP Resource, a producer of poultry meat in the Southern regions of Russia, installed a 9,000 bird per hour broiler processing line in Ptitcekombinat LLC. In the last five years both

USA: Manufacturer specialising in modular plastic conveyor belts, Intralox, recently announced the installation of its 100th injection molding machine from partner KraussMaffei at its Hammond facility in Louisiana.

Representatives from Intralox, KraussMaffei and local government officials from Tangipahoa Parish were on hand to witness the handoff from KraussMaffei to Intralox.

Intralox stated that the addition of the machine provides the company with further capacity.

By the end of next year Intralox expects to receive a further 14 machines from KraussfMaffei across various sites.

“At Intralox, our priority is to create customer value,” said Edel Blanks, Intralox

14 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

president and general manager. “By guaranteeing high-quality, on-time delivery and extraordinary service around the globe, we’ve been able to grow our business and make an increasingly valuable contribution to our customers. Molding high quality products is the beginning of the process, and KraussMaffei machines help us achieve that goal.”

Ishida to launch new products at Interpack GERMANY: Weighing and packaging equipment company Ishida Europe will unveil a number of new products for the industry at this year’s Interpack, the company announced recently. Highlights include a new x-ray system capable of detecting small bones in meat and poultry.

The x-ray system for bone detection in fillets, IX-G2-4027-H, pinpoints the smallest bones in meat and poultry. Ishida will also show an enhanced version of its FLEXGrader for meat and poultry batching and grading, which uses Ishida weighing technology to grade at high speed according to specified weights, minimum weight or number per pack. www.meatpacking.info

MEAT PACKING J

O

U

R

N

A

L

Sign up for a GET ONLINE GO DIGITAL Sign up for a www.meatpacking.info

O P INI O N

meat and morality Renowned chef Hugh FearnleyWhittingstall looks at the moral matters surrounding meat eating and the meat industry, arguing eating meat is right. You can read his opinions in full in the River Cottage Meat Book published by Hodder & Stoughton

Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall

I

have, over the years, done a great deal of research into the way we produce meat.

I’ve visited meat-producing farms and tasted their products. I have been inside broiler houses, pig units, abattoirs, supermarkets, butcher's shops and farm shops. In addition to trying to increase my knowledge of the subject, I have also tried to shake off my preconceptions and think about meat from first principles. This food, that many millions of us take for granted, is riddled with complex issues — issues of health, economics and environment, not to mention, of course, taste. But also, undeniably, issues of right and wrong. When thinking about the role meat plays in our lives and how to improve it, it is not enough simply to search for the facts. We must also consider our choices, and examine our consciences. Why do we eat meat? Is it right, morally, that we do?

16 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

www.meatpacking.info

Shutterstock | Smereka

O P INI O N

www.meatpacking.info

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 17

O P INI O N

Our Carnivorous History

draw the moral authority to bring about their deaths? And what is the moral status of the means and methods we use to run their lives?

Perhaps the easiest answer to the first question, and historically one of the most enduring arguments in defence of meat eating, is the religious one. It's okay because god says it’s ok. This has its variations in different religions but the Christian version involves a fairly crude citing of the scriptures: 'Let them have dominion over every living thing that moves upon the earth' (Genesis 1:28). This and other biblical references are interpreted as a general approbation for the slaughtering of animals for food. Personally I don't think that's good enough – and nor is any religious defence per se a moral one.

A related argument is that because animals

M

ost meat eaters never really ask themselves these questions. That fact in itself sheds some light on the issue.

Unthinkingly, we are carnivores. For millennia, we have hunted and farmed animals so we can eat their meat. There is continuity in our meat eating and it is, in some deep-rooted, even hard-wired way, natural. But that's not enough to resolve the moral dilemma: I need to persuade myself not merely that it's been okay for my ancestors to eat meat but that it's still okay for me today. Things change. We continue to evolve and so does our relationship with the animals with whom we share the planet.

For a long period of evolutionary history, our

Let them have dominion over every living thing Genesis !:28

primate ancestry was primarily vegetarian.

Today our cousins, the gorillas and orangutans, thrive without a scrap of meat in their diets.

On the other hand, our closer relatives, the chimpanzees, do hunt for meat.

So why has the human primate hung on to the meat-eating habit? Some carnivores in search of absolution argue that meat is essential for human survival or at least good health but, in all but a few extreme environments, that is clearly not the case. Others may simply dismiss vegetarians as pallid, pasty-faced types who are missing something good in their diets. All they are really observing, though, is that ours is a meat-eating culture essentially hostile to vegetarians. Pro-meat arguments based on habit, health or survival do not really bite. At best, they merely establish the self-evident fact that the human race is, and long has been meat-eating.

present and future choices

A

ny useful moral discussion about eating meat has to focus on the choices we have as individuals today. It must take the world as we find it but also take seriously the possibility of improving it. It seems obvious to me that the morality of meat eating lies in the factual details of our relationships with the animals we kill for food: it is what we do to them that counts.

There is the simple fact that we plan and carry out their slaughter. And, in the case of farmed animals, there are the more complex interactions through which we manage and control almost every aspect of their lives. From where do we

18 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

themselves are not moral beings, their welfare is not an issue. Or, put another way, because they have no soul, they have no status. We can do with them what we want. This was the view taken by the Cartesian scientists in the seventeenth century, who pioneered vivisection and dismissed the cries of the animals they cut up as 'no more than the sound of breaking machines’. In a post-Darwinian world, where our biological links to the rest of the animal kingdom are clear and the differences between 'them and us' have been demonstrated to be merely quantitative, few would own up to such a view. There is no doubt whatever that you can cause pain and suffering to a pig or a chicken.

Of course they are in our moral sphere.

Yet when we look at industrial meat production and consider the miserable lives of animals in the factory-farming system, it is hard not to be reminded of the Cartesian vivisectionists. How can the people who work in these units, and the people who earn profit by them, reconcile their work with their consciences? Only, one imagines, by diminishing or denying the sentience of the animals concerned, and thereby abolishing their moral status — or by simply not thinking at all.

At the opposite end of the moral spectrum is a group with a very different creed. It believes that all life is sacred, that animal suffering equates to human suffering and that to kill an animal for any reason is wrong. Even if we have an instinct to kill for meat, we have evolved to a point where we can deny that instinct. For those who take this position, a strict vegan code is the only option. I find this a fairly sympathetic www.meatpacking.info

Shutterstock | Monticello

O P INI O N

proposition - certainly a lot more compelling than the opposite extreme. The commitment to eliminate the suffering of animals at the hands of humans has to be morally superior to the commitment to ignore it.

the limits of the vegetarian utopia

I

n the end, however, I feel this position is also simplistic. To maintain that we can live in harmony with the rest of animal kind is naive. It misunderstands the nature of our connections with other species, and amounts to another form of denial of our shared moral sphere. The undeniable fact is that any species' pursuit of its interests will always have an impact on the rest of the planet’s life - the fox impacting on the chicken population and the sheep on the grass.

Living in a bubble where one's individual actions have only a benign effect on other living things. is not an option. Such morality simply doesn't exist. In pursuit of their goals, vegetarians too affect the balance of nature.

Of all the creatures whose lives we affect, none are more deeply dependent on us than the animals we raise to kill for meat. We control almost every aspect of their lives: their breeding, their health, their pain, and finally their deaths.

We have done so for hundreds of thousands of years, to the point where their dependence on us is in their nature. With these physical controls come moral responsibilities. Their suffering, or lack of it, is down to us.

This dependency would not be suspended if we all became vegetarians. If we ceased to kill the domesticated meat species for food, www.meatpacking.info

these animals would not revert to the wild. We would remain their custodians, with full moral responsibility for their welfare.

Meanwhile, an agriculture that cultivated only fruit and vegetables would create intense pressures on the environment. The organic system of farming, which depends on an integration of arable and livestock systems and the use of natural animal manures, would be among the first casualties. The hedgerows and coppices that define our landscape and support the biodiversity of the countryside are integral to a mixed farming economy, but would soon become redundant in the vegetarian landscape.

The hard-line proposal for a vegetarian future rejects such arguments as beside the point.

It accepts the inevitability of the population crash in domesticated livestock, and the radical realignment of the landscape, as necessities for the good of the cause. Better to have no animals than animals we kill for food. But what does this really mean? Better to be indirectly responsible for their death than directly?

the morality of killing animals

S

uch determined adherence to the vegetarian cause, at whatever cost, only brings us back to the irreducible, absolute moral position with which we started: that killing animals to eat them is always, and absolutely, wrong. Once the vegetarian position is reduced to this fundamentalist tenet, it becomes hard to counter rationally. But you can have an intuitive objection to such a moral absolute. Who says it's wrong? What makes it wrong? It doesn't strike March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 19

O P INI O N

me as in any way obvious that killing animals is, in itself, morally wrong. Particularly if we are killing them for food. And if we don't kill them for food, then somebody else, or something else, will.

That may sound trite, but it is an important point. That animals kill other animals for food is a fact of nature. That all animals will eventually die is another. A less obvious fact is that, of all the available deaths an animal can face in the wild, the most common, and probably the least traumatic, is death at the hands of another animal who wants to eat it.

'Dying of old age' barely exists in nature. An animal suffering from injury or illness is likely to be killed by a predator before it succumbs to weakness or disease. Humans and the animals they raise for food do not operate outside this natural sphere. We kill animals for food that would otherwise die another death. We are not taking life from the immortal. There are differences, though, between ourselves and the other potential killers of our livestock. One

become so shameful that those who condone it — by eating meat every day — are entirely protected from thinking about it. Food animals are killed and their meat is cut up and packaged far from human eyes. By the time meat reaches the consumer, its animal origins have been all but obliterated. This is the reason I have chosen to show photographs of a pair of my North Devon beef cattle being taken to slaughter..

Along with my photographer, Simon Wheeler, I was present throughout the process — I loaded them up, drove them myself, unloaded them, watched them wait, watched them queue and watched them die. Then I watched them being skinned and sawn in half. I'll admit it was somewhat shocking to see such an unfamiliar process in full, unexpurgated detail. But I'm glad I witnessed it.

Understanding the process is fair to both sides of the debate. First of all, it reminds all carnivores that there is no meat without the death of a warm-blooded, sentient animal — and that those who eat meat must take responsibility

We are not taking life from the immortal Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall

is that we tend to kill animals that are in the prime of life, whereas other predators favour the young, the weak and the sick. But our preference for the healthy isn't a moral perversion: every predator would prefer a healthy animal to a diseased one, if it could catch it. And by killing animals before they begin to degenerate or get sick, we are arguably minimising their pain and suffering, not increasing it. Another difference is the way in which we kill animals for food. We don't chase them down, and tear them to death with our teeth and claws. We corral them into groups, load them on to lorries, prod and poke them into a reasonably orderly queue, and then shoot them in the head with a captive bolt gun.

It is ironic, and also fairly astonishing, that the killing methods of many non-human predators are considered such a fascinating aspect of the natural world that films displaying them in graphic detail are considered to be at the classy end of prime-time entertainment.

Whereas, the final moments of human predation of our farmed livestock are considered too disturbing to be made available even for information. In fact, such limited footage as does exist has often been filmed undercover, and is more likely to be used te to fuel the rage of the militant vegetarian than to educate us dispassionately about he way our meat is made.

The human act of killing animals for food, once familiar to most of society, has now 20 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

for these deaths. And at the same time, to ask vegetarians to consider at just what point of the slaughter process they believe that cruelty and suffering are taking place. Or, put another way, how exactly would they prefer these animals to die — given that immortality is not an option.

Of course, I cannot vouch for all abattoirs or all slaughtermen. But I can say that, when practised by a group of sympathetic professionals, the process does not seem to me to cause much suffering. Compare it to almost any other conceivable death for a farmed or wild animal — predation, starvation, drowning, disease — and it stacks up as certainly no worse, and probably a lot better, than any of them. It isn't pretty, and it doesn't compare for excitement with a cheetah running down a gazelle. But there is something about it that perhaps should inspire a kind of admiration: an intelligent social creature using its brain and its technology in an attempt to maximise the efficiency and minimise the cruelty of its predation. That's not to say that there is no room for improvement. We should be constantly striving to make the slaughter of our farm animals as painless and stress free as possible.

But what I witnessed at the slaughterhouse did not make me feel angry, or sick, or guilty, or ashamed. In fact, it made me feel that, whatever is morally questionable about the way we treat our livestock happens not so much in the way www.meatpacking.info

Hodder & Stoughton | Simon Wheeler

O P INI O N

www.meatpacking.info

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 21

O P INI O N

22 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

www.meatpacking.info

All images: Hodder & Stoughton | Simon Wheeler

O P INI O N

www.meatpacking.info

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 23

Shutterstock | Igor Stramyk

Shutterstock | Dario Sabljak

O P INI O N

Above: We can only claim the moral authority to kill animals for food on the basis that we are offering them a better deal in life

24 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

www.meatpacking.info

O P INI O N

we bring about their death but at almost every stage of our dealings with them prior to those final minutes.

The symbiosis of domestication

O

f course, it is not only the death of our farm animals over which we have such complete control. It is also their birth, and their life. We breed them and we feed them; and after we kill them, they feed us. In this sense, the relationship is undeniably symbiotic. And such is the success of the symbiosis that, along with ourselves, our sheep, cattle, pigs and poultry are among the most 'successful' species on the planet — at least in crude terms of overall population and global distribution.

Yet the contract here seems a little one-sided, if indeed it is any kind of contract at all. Did these animals have a choice'? It can be argued that — in an evolutionary sense, at least — they did. After all, not all the wild animals that our ancestors killed for food became domesticated.

Can it perhaps be argued that those that did, chose their evolutionary fate? This is the controversial but compelling thesis that Stephen Budiansky puts forward in his brilliant book, The Covenant of the Wild (HarperCollins, 1992).

He argues that the evolution of the process of domestication was largely consensual - though he is at pains to emphasise that the notion of individual consent should not be confused with the symbiotic cooperation of a species over evolutionary time. He believes that consensual domestication began when certain species of wild animals became 'camp followers' of human settlements — increasingly dependent on handouts of waste food and leftovers. Then came the cultivation of fodder crops specifically for keeping the animals close and fattening them up.. And finally, as the symbiosis embraced full domestication, the livestock received protection from predators, assistance in bearing young, and even rudimentary healthcare.

It is interesting that enclosure of animals comes historically very late in the day, if at all. In other words, the regular removal and slaughter of their companions has done nothing, over time, to deter our livestock from going along with the arrangement that is domestication.

The results of hundreds of thousands of years of domestication of livestock are populations of many millions of animals who neither know nor want anything else. They do not crave wildness, or the freedom of their ancestors. They accept the way things are. And they thrive under these terms. Premature slaughter is not the best part of the deal but it is, nonetheless, part of the deal. www.meatpacking.info

I find the notion of the symbiotic contract persuasive. I believe that, under the terms of this arrangement, farm animals can be healthy and contented for the duration of their lives and that these short, domesticated lives are, on balance, better than no life at all.

And so I continue to eat meat. I allow myself to be party to the killing of animals for food, because I have thought about it and concluded that meat eating is, on balance, morally acceptable human behaviour.

the contract of good husbandry

B

ut that isn't the end of the discussion. It is just the beginning. These arguments, I am aware, are nothing if not fragile. For a start, they demand that we embrace the moral status of the animals we farm for food. They embody the notion of a contract with our farm animals that is not God-given but man-made. The contract is not absolute, but conditional. And it is open to frightening levels of abuse.

The critical point is that we may claim the moral authority to kill animals for food only on the basis that we are offering them a better deal in life than they would get without our help.

This means, among other things, better health, better survival rates, less pain, less stress, more comfort, suitable food and plenty of it. These are our promises. And they come with a huge set of responsibilities.

The word that expresses the good farmer's sense of these responsibilities – husbandry - also acknowledges the contractual nature of the arrangement. The farmer will be a good husband to his animals. In return for the living they provide him and the food they put on the table, he will look after them.

But what happens when the husbandry is not good? When animals suffer pain and stress at our hands? When their quality of life is no longer a clear improvement on the alternatives?

When terrible but preventable diseases rip through the populations of our food animals, causing them to suffer and die?

a cynical breach of contract

W

e need to address these questions urgently because, as anyone who cares to look can see, farming today is guilty of all this and more. The vast majority of our food animals are now raised under methods that are systematically abusive. For them, discomfort is the norm, pain is routine, growth is abnormal and diet is unnatural. Disease is widespread March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 25

Shutterstock | Branislav Pudar

O P INI O N

and stress is almost constant. We have battery laying hens in wire cages so small they can't turn round. We farm broiler chickens indoors in such close confinement and such huge numbers that premature deaths counted in the millions are considered the norm. We raise millions of pigs who never see daylight, soft ground or even straw, but only strip-lighting, steel and concrete.

We keep cattle indoors not for months but for years, bedded on their own excrement and given drug-laced feeds - the only way to stave off the diseases that would inevitably invade such intensive systems. Sheep, who may be lucky enough to have lived outside, are herded into trucks to be driven for days, without food or water, to their slaughter.

This isn't husbandry, it's persecution. We have completely failed to uphold our end of the contract. In the face of such abuse, the moral defence of meat eating is left in tatters.

I am keen to do whatever I can to change this state of affairs. If I do nothing, then I can no longer claim any credible moral justification for my meat-eating habits. So what can I do? I can speak out, to try and raise levels of indignation about the way things are currently done, and encourage appropriate action to change them. It shouldn't be too hard. The cruel practices I have mentioned have been increasingly publicised, 26 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

and numerous polls and surveys indicate that the vast majority of the public object to them and would like to see them banned. So surely they soon will be? Won't they?

Not just yet, it seems. Because the same moral majority of the pollster’s high street becomes the immoral, or at least apathetic, majority once they get behind the wheels of a shopping trolley.

They buy the products they condemn. These appalling, abusive practices actually do have popular support, albeit that the supporters are in denial.

In the face of such apathetic meat-eating, I have a lot of respect for morally-motivated vegetarians. They feel sufficiently strongly about the practices of industrial farming to take a clear stance. That impresses me.

Personally, though, I think there is a better way to change things. I think we should change the way we shop but there is a positive vote to be cast as well as a negative one, by buying the meat of those who practice good husbandry, who continue to embrace the notion of a contract with their animals and do all they can to uphold it. They are in a minority but their numbers are growing and I dare to hope they may yet gain the ascendancy so that good husbandry will become the rule, not the exception www.meatpacking.info

‘EXTREMELY GOOD...AT ONCE A RECIPE COLLECTION, A SERIES OF TUTORIALS ON THE PRINCIPLES OF COOKING, A DIRECTORY OF ORGANIC SUPPLIERS, A PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAY, A TIMELY REPORT ON THE STATE OF INTENSIVE FARMING AND A FORCEFUL POLEMIC’ Daily Telegraph

Available now

IN T R A L O GIS T IC S

A matter of moving meat Traditional warehouse and factory logistics are greatly complicated by the less traditional challenges thrown up by the meat industry. Speed, coordination and above all cleanliness are the governing factors when designing a processing plant's internal logistics setup. MPJ editor Rhian Owen speaks to the industry about the challenges

28 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

www.meatpacking.info

IN T R A L O GIS T IC S

E

very so often, a buzzword sweeps through the industry. Right now, that word is ‘intralogistics'. Although the term entered the English language fairly recently, the history of intralogistics goes back to the immediate postwar period – when economic and industrial development was largely driven by manufacturing. Intralogistics isn't a new trend in the industry, we're always talking about striving towards an effective, efficient production line; this is what providers of internal logistics systems and support software say they are offering.

Logistics is generally regarded as moving goods from Point A to Point B. Intralogistics providers, however, are companies that supply technical systems and services to help other companies manage their in-house materials handling requirements. At the slaughterhouse,

created in stainless steel. Soiled containers were transported via a separated material flow to the cleaning station and from there as clean containers back to empty boxes storage.

MPS Group, which offers a range of intralogistic products and solutions for meat facilities, has made the choice to build everything in stainless steel. Abachem Engineering in the UK, Pepperl-Fuchs International, based in Germany, North America, and Asia, and Kortlever, emphasise how their products meet the highest standards for hygiene and are built in stainless steel. Pepperl-Fuchs International notes: “The applied cleaning processes are very demanding and electronic components need to be designed to tolerate harsh chemicals, moist environments, and frequently changing temperatures."

sanitation is at the forefront of every decision Aaron Jones, VP of Bastian Solutions

livestock are led in the front and packaged products exit the rear. The unsung hero is the crisscrossing network of belts, rollers, hoists and stackers, as well as software solutions, that keep the cogs turning and ensure optimum production.

KNAPP

hygiene first

T

he logistical systems in a meat plant vary from non-food operations. Improving hygiene in the meat warehouse is an issue of growing importance. “The demands of a meat plant are truly unique in that there is no higher focus on sanitation within any industry, and as it should be, sanitation is at the forefront of every decision within a meat facility," says Aaron Jones, vice president of Bastian Solutions. “The industry has had instances over the past decade that we hope do not occur again. If we are to prevent it, the entire logistics system must be centred on a high level of sanitation within the facility. Sanitation aspects throughout the entire life cycle of the product need to be reviewed from incoming raw product through outbound shipping."

As issues surrounding hygiene grab public attention, many companies are choosing to build products in stainless steel. Swiss-based company Stöcklin supplied and implemented the conveying system and the controllers for meat processor Ernst Sutter; to meet the strict hygienic requirements for a meat processing centre all metallic conveyor elements were www.meatpacking.info

Bastian VP Aaron Jones says that it is vital for intralogistic providers to consider the industry's hygiene requirement with all applications: "Bastian Solutions has also spent considerable time developing the highest level of sanitation conveyance on the market, whether considering small package conveyor all the way through large VAT/Crib conveyor. Heavy duty VAT/Crib conveyor within primary or secondary packaging rooms used to be taboo prior to a few years ago, but we have spent considerable time in this development so it can be offered as one of our standard products." This is unique to the meat industry, the company explains.

changes

T

he processing industry has consolidated significantly in the last few decades, and the demand for intralogistic services has evolved.

Research was conducted by anthropologist Donald Stull and geographer Michael Broadway on communities in the US where extremely large slaughterhouses have opened. The authors found that small businesses were forced out of the market or taken over by new, larger operations.

Indeed, slaughterhouses are much larger today and have expanded their capacity. Ian MacLachlan wrote in Kill and Chill, 2000, that in the mid-1980s in North America it was estimated that processing plants might be able to process 600,000 to 700,000 cattle per year; however, by end of 20th century, the largest plants were processing one million cattle per March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 29

IN T R A L O GIS T IC S

year. This has had a revolutionary impact on the production line.

With slaughterhouses expanding their capacity, Paul Gossink, product group manager of MPS Food Logistic Systems explains that processing plants are under pressure to improve the accuracy of their operations. “You want to know exactly what you have in stock," Gossink notes. “If you have a standard ERB system, that's not going to give you real-time information. You want to know exactly what you have in stock because at the end of the day, if for example you have poultry, can you still sell it tomorrow or is it going to be too close to the expirary date? People want to make a decision - at 4pm if you have all this meat that you won't be able to sell, you're going to want to freeze it. These type of decisions are real-time decisions and if you leave this to your ERB system, you're always too late. If you sell fresh meat, intralogistic services gives you the highest pay back."

Loss and wastage are a major issue in food production today. In 2007, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimated that one-third of the edible food produced for human consumption, gets wasted globally. Some 1.3bnt per year. In developed nations, food waste is mainly due to the actions of the consumer but there is still significant waste that occurs early in the food supply chain.

Bastian Solutions VP Jones explains how logistic solutions can help mitigate the causes of loss and wastage in a meat processing plant: “With software improvements, proper forecasts and future order blend requirements, production planning has never been more informed. The ability to now have exactly what you need, in nearly the exact quantity, where you need it, and in the time it is needed has improved loss and wastage immensely. In years past, you would see much more loss and wastage than what one should expect to see in a modern facility that has employed automation."

While many small and mid-sized meatpackers have been replaced by large meatpacking firms, recent reports have revealed that consumer demand for local meat and poultry is rising.

Independent facilities aren't being eschewed.

However, implementing a logistics solution in a small to medium plant as opposed to a large scale facility is a completely different ball game, says Gossink.

"The large scale facilities have the advantage that they normally have a skilled team of technicians available," Gossink explains. “They have people who's job it is to make sure they understand the control software, and know in detail how things work. With the smaller facilities, they often have the problem that the 30 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

Right: Danish Crown's Horsens plant has one of the most sophisticated logistics systems in the world

www.meatpacking.info

IN T R A L O GIS T IC S

www.meatpacking.info

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 31

IN T R A L O GIS T IC S

guy who is the head of maintenance is also responsible for the IT." That said, MPS explains that it solves this problem by having a completely online system; the company says it understands the importance of maximum uptime of a meat facility's process. “If there is a problem the operator can call our help desk," says Gossink. “In Holland alone, there are some five customers of ours that subcontract that service part to us. It's a challenge because it's a 24 hour business, but it works well."

In addition, many companies supply a range of products to suit its small, medium and large customer base. For example, MPS supplies various types of lifts for vertical transport.

For environments where low capabilities are required, MPS provides the Vertical Tray Mover (VTM), which is a discontinuous lift. The VTM can lift single or multiple loads and stores them at one or multiple levels. For larger businesses, MPS' step lift moves single loads and stores them at one or multiple levels. “We can offer different products for smaller customers who run at a slower speed than a big distribution centre where everything needs to be running at high speed; our customers never invest in something that is overkill," says Gossink.

conveyor belts

C

onveyor belts are an essential component of meat production and processing and equipment needs to meet both technical - loads of kg/m² are not uncommon - and hygiene requirements.

Conveyance solutions provider, Intralox, explains that in order to avoid risking foreign body contamination following a belt break, it uses a material named 'Tough Belt', which is made from a a highly breakresistant synthetic material.

In oder to meet the strict hygiene requirements of the meat industry, the company developed Intralox ThermoDrive.

The company said that the conveyor belt combines the positive properties of a traditional belt (sealed, easy-to-clean surface) with those of a modular belt (positive-drive, no belt tensioning required).

Intralox adds that the belts can be simply and easily lifted up for gaining access to the interior of the conveyor, and is easy to clean, which can help to reduce cleaning time.

the limits to automation are cost driven Paul Gossink, group manager of MPS Food Logistic Systems

automation domination

T

oday, the supply chain is more complex, and companies are successfully embracing these challenges with automated systems.

Although automated logistic solutions come with a hefty price tag, this isn't a big problem for the larger companies. “That's another big difference between the small and large facilities; larger plants have better capabilities for funding more automation. So they are always a step ahead of the smaller companies," says MPS product manager Gossink.

For larger companies, automation in the warehouse can in fact be a cost-effective solution. “Larger scale facilities often mean that distances within a plant increases, which adds complexity," says Andy Blair, sales manager at Swisslog. “It is in these types of facilities where automation systems can pay for themselves.

However, the limits to automation, as ever, are cost driven and to what level processes should and can be automated."

But as the need for efficient warehousing and traceability grows, even smaller warehouses are 32 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

being compelled to introduce some degree of automation into their processes.

“Large scale facilities have been interested in automation for many years and this has not diminished; however, we have seen an increased interest in automation from smaller and medium-sized facilities over the past few years," says Jones. “With the price of equipment becoming more competitive, smaller scale facilities have improved logistics through the use of automation. When considering the benefits of a more automated system, one of the biggest is reducing the high costs of adding personnel. When those numbers are taken into consideration, there is often no argument against investing in automation. When smaller facilities do automate, the challenges of accurate information, sanitation, and lean manufacturing are really the same as a large facility, just on a smaller scale."

Swisslog's Blair agrees: “The economic landscape has led many industries to examine the cost of increasing manpower over the benefits of improving infrastructure. As systems have become more affordable and reliable, the industry has looked to automation to provide www.meatpacking.info

IN T R A L O GIS T IC S

Stacking

M

PS food Logistic Systems supplies equipment for stacking and destacking crates. They are built in conjunction with the environment, such as crate stack transporters and storage and buffer systems, and are available for a variety of applications: top stacker, bottom stacker, top destacker and bottom destacker. They can be integrated into the intralogistics system and like all MPS logistic products are built in stainless steel.

intralox

value while being flexible enough to move with future business needs."

And a flexible intralogistic system is a prerequisit, Gossink says: “Our customers are demanding more and more flexibility from their intralogistic system. They know that the business model they have today could be completely different in five years time."

Bastian Solutions believes that there are no limits to automating a modern facility: “We have installed lower level automated storage and retrieval systems, robotic case packers, palletisers, auto carton erectors, and fully automated production lines in both greenfield and brownfield facilities," says Jones.

Warehouse automation supplier Knapp has developed a solution for the automatic handling of containers. The company states that its fully automated standard tray (FAST) system solution has been installed in several sites across Europe.

Standard containers are common in the industry, and are often moved manually. However, Knapp says the containers, which circulate the supply chain, are ideal for automation; FAST has been developed for the automatic storage and picking of these containers - the company states it is a flexible system for fresh items requiring fast warehouse transit.

In addition, the passage of the US Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 (FSMA) has had an influence on automation in the warehouse, at least in North America. In a manual operation, there is a higher chance of data errors in relation to tracking tainted products. Companies with automative solutions are better equipped at tracing potentially contaminated meat and preventing further contamination. (see article on page 39 on tracking and tracing.)

However, a facility that moves towards automating its warehouse, is not necessarily going to be an efficient business. In some cases, facilities focus on technology, rather than what makes the business more productive.

“The drivers for automation can be many fold and dependant on the specific market – it clearly

www.meatpacking.info

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 33

bastian solutions

MPS Food Logistics Systems

IN T R A L O GIS T IC S

34 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

www.meatpacking.info

IN T R A L O GIS T IC S

is the straight forward productivity and labour cost savings that offer benefit," says Heimo Robosch, director integrated projects division, Knapp. “But more and more other factors such as being able to provide an ergonomic working environment for the workforce, accuracy, scaleability and the influence of legal requirements become important drivers too."

workplace design

E

rgonomic workstations are becoming an important ingredient in a plant's internal logistic setup and can be viewed as one of the main engineering disciplines involved in the physical planning of transporting meat through the warehouse.

Texas-based company Cisco-Eagle summarises the importance of workplace design well: “Think

Lifting

C

isco-eagle supplies various types of lifts for transport within a company's intralogistics system. The company offers Lift Tables & Scissor Lifts, Vertical Lifts, Vertical Lifts and elevation stations. The company The company Washington Beef, a beef processing/fabrication facility located in the Northwest US, to relocate and expand its material handling system from a single line scaling/labelling operation to an expanded dual line scaling/labelling operation. The company stated that eight specially designed pallet lifts were utilised to provide operators with an ergonomically favourable manual palletising operation.

the biggest issue with meat is you have limited time Paul Gossink, group manager of MPS Food Logistic Systems

of a rope. When it's tugged, knotted, coiled, or shaped to take a form, the entire length is affected. Facility layout is similar; all parts make up one interconnected whole."

MPS – which has developed work area design around packing, repacking, ID point, labelling and loading of roll containers – explains that a fully ergonomic environment is critical for business, as it allows employees to function at their highest level of productivity and quality.

Knapp's Heimo agrees and adds: “Ergonomic requirements have been most affected by regulatory changes. Resulting, for example, in our Pick-it-Easy product family for highly ergonomic workstations which put the person who works at the work station in the focus. The Pick-it-Easy workstation is the perfect goods to person solution, combining ergonomics, multifunctionality, efficiency and design."

Vanderlande, based in the Netherlands, states that it realised workstation design was becoming a critical success factor in warehouse automation in 2007. The company then launched PICK@ EASE, a family of ergonomic workstations. The company implemented two PICK@EASE order picking workstations for EDEKA Südwest, a sausage and meat factory, in Germany, as part of a logistic system that included pallet high-bay storage system, 20 depalletising workstations and conveyor system.

Planning and preparing for internal logistics within a processing plant is one of the most difficult aspects for any facility. Choosing an intralogistic system often comes down to where www.meatpacking.info

the processing plant is in the world. “The location of production as related to the storage location will strongly influence technology that can be considered," notes Jones.

Gossink agrees: “If you have a distribution centre in Germany, then you're expedition is limited as your truck can only arrive at a shop between certain hours. Your organisation should be built to be able to fill that truck very fast, so that it can leave on time, and so it only makes one trip. If your supplying somewhere in Saudi Arabia then this time limit is not there; as soon as the truck is full you go, so the guy in the Middle East can use his truck as storage capacity. Whereas, someone in Germany has to fill up his factory and make sure everything is out by the end of the day. The biggest issue with meat is that you have a limited time in which you can store it."

regularoty compliance

G

overnment regulations, too, are impacting on warehousing operations across the globe. In North America, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), has recently proposed legislation to change the way meat and poultry is inspected, proposing to speed up meat and poultry processing lines and move towards riskbased inspections.

While the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has received comments opposed to replacing its inspectors with plant March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 35

IN T R A L O GIS T IC S

A robotic end of line tool for picking

employees and worker safety advocates – there are concerns that plant workers will suffer increased rates of injuries trying to keep up with increased line speeds – Gossink explains that this regulation could be a positive outcome for the intralogistic provider. “For the intralogistic supplier this is good news as warehouses will need a lot more equipment to handle everything," Gossink says. "So as an intralogistics supplier, I'm happy."

While all food facilities have historically operated under more stringent standards, new rules and regulations globally are raising the bar even higher. Naturally, this has affected the design of equipment and the popularity of certain products. “We have seen increased popularity in the x-ray market," says Jones. “It seems like x-rays have become smaller, faster, and more accurate over the past decade. It also seems that facility managers know this is where it all starts."

The meat market is highly dynamic. Meat processing plants have overcome - and are likely to face - difficulties related to quality, logistical challenges and distribution. But as the industry takes a closer look at its production line, and viable intralogistic products on the 36 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

market are surfacing, it's clear that facilities are keeping pace with changing regulations and requirements. It's a job well done, at least so far.

references Kerry, J., Kerry J., Ledward D. (2002) Meat Processing: Improving quality. Cambridge, England: Woodhead Publishing Kartnig, G., Grösel B., Zrnic N. (2012) Past, State-of-the-Art and Future of Intralogistics in Relation to Megatrends. Paper retrieved from: http://www.mas.bg.ac.rs/istrazivanje/biblioteka/ publikacije/Transactions_FME/Volume40/4/7_ GKartnig.pdf MacLachlan, I. (2001) Kill and Chill: Restructuring Canada's Beef Commodity Chain.

Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press Nenad Z & Miloš R. (2011) Energy efficiency in intralogistics: A new trend in research. Paper retrieved from: http://www. academia.edu/1071350/Energy_efficiency_in_ intralogistics_A_new_trend_in_research Stull, D & Broadway, M. (1995) Any Way You Cut It: Meat Processing and Small-Town America. Kansas, US: University Press of Kansas www.meatpacking.info

MEAT PACKING J

O

U

R

E INTELRNATIONA N THA L MAGAZINE FO R P.52 UWSHEESNTUANNDMHETOHWO TO INSIDE THE MEAT AND POULTRY INDUSTRY DC'S DS

MEAT PACKING P.42

J

O

ARE WE RIGHT TO EAT MEAT?

HUGH FEARNLEYWHITTINGS TALL TAKES UP T HE DEBATE

U

R

N

A

SLAUGH

MEGA TERHOU SE

P.74

WHAT N OT AT INTER TO MISS PACK 20 14

L

MATERIAL MOVEMEN T MATTERS MPJ GOES INDEPTH ON THE

LATEST IN LOGISTICS

MARCH~ APRIL 201 4 VOLUME 1 | ISSUE 1

Sign up for a FREE SUBSCRIPTION

ISSN 2054

-4677

MEAT PACKING J O U R N A L

Sign up to a one year FREE SUBSCRIPTION of MPJ delivered directly to your door and desktop Name: Company name:

Address: Post/Zip code: Email: Telephone: Sector:

Husbandry

Slaughter

Processing

Distribution

Retail

Industry supply

Research Subscription:

Other

Please email me alerts and a digital version of MPJ Please 'snail' mail me a free promotional subscription to MPJ Please do not share my detail with third parties

In signing this subscription form you agree to our Terms and Conditions, which can be found in full at www. meatpacking.info. You give Reby Media permission to share your information internally in order to deliver services to which you have subscribed. To unsubscribe email your details to unsubscribe@rebymedia.com or write to Reby Media, 42 Crouchfield, Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP1 1PA

IN T R A L O GIS T IC S

where's the beef?

00 -t-r-a-C-k - a-n-d - t-r-a-c-eMeat tracing can fall apart as it gets closer to the consumer, Rhian Owen looks at the latest trends in tracking and trace, the initatives and how the industry is regaining customer confidence

I

n the spring of 1999, Belgium faced a food contamination crisis, which caused a loss of around £1,500M to £2000M (US$2,050M to US$2,734M) to the country's economy. Animal feed in Belgium was contaminated with cancer-causing dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Dioxincontaminated feed was then fed to chicken, pigs, and cattle, and was introduced into the Belgian food supply chain, including exports.

The incident led to the formation of the Belgium Federal Food Safety Agency. Two years later, the EU Regulation 178/2002 – also called The Food Law – made traceability compulsory by compelling producers to label and track food products throughout the supply chain.

Meanwhile in the US, the events of 9/11, reinforced the need to enhance the security of the US food supply. The Bioterrorism Act of 2002 was passed to prepare for and protect the country from harmful activities. The act www.meatpacking.info

requires all food facilities to register with the FDA and maintain records needed to determine the immediate previous source, and immediate subsequent recipients.

The recent horsemeat scandal in Europe illustrates the complexity that still exists within the food supply chain in developed markets, and how exposed it is. Although there was no significant health risk, the food-labelling scandal created an uproar in the beef industry and among consumers. Following the incident, consumers are seeking more information about food producers and traceability.

Undoubtedly, in the wake of the horsemeat incident meat processors were left wandering what impact it will have on their business.

Regulatory compliance is getting tougher, and track and trace initiatives are being examined a lot more closely as the industry, and governments, grapple with how to enhance the granularity of visibility into the supply chain.

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 39

IN T R A L O GIS T IC S

“The ability to trace meat back up the chain is increasingly important," says Andy Blair, sales manager at Swisslog. "With every food scare the public’s awareness of large scale food production methods increases, bringing political and commercial pressure on producers to act responsibly and sensitively. Of course as time progresses, and technology improves, expectations are also raised and regulation builds to reflect those expectations."

Indeed, the US' 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) places more focus on food safety and traceability in the supply chain.

It hones in on IT architecture and preventing the adulteration of products, rather than responding to them after the fact.

technology driven

H

ighly flexible systems that respond quickly to more frequent and changing retail orders are being implemented. Swisslog notes that more electronic data interchange is needed within the supply chain to keep track of fast moving meat deliveries. The latest warehouse management systems (WMS), along with controls in the automated storage and retrieval systems (ASRS), mini loads, pick systems and conveying systems are capable of monitoring batch numbers, productions dates and weight as the units are stored and moved through the meat plant.

Paul Gossink, product group manager of MPS Food Logistic Systems, MPS-Group, says that technology is paving the way for widespread track and trace solutions within the meat industry, with an eye toward delivering safe food and quickly reacting to a recall. “Technology today makes it easier to track a single article," notes Gossink. “It makes the control more complex, you have to keep more data, and you have to handle data in a faster way. You need a good control system to know exactly what you have in stock. One of the key things that MPS excells in, is that we make a very simple mechanical construction with the integration of our IT Control Software and ensure there is maximum flexibility."

MPS supplies the entire process from the ERP customer orders up to having the order ready for shipping, including the labelling. The entire system, including the operating software, hardware and all necessary equipment.

MPS explains that its IT Control System is integrated in the complete intralogistic solution developed and delivered by the company. The concept is based on equipping the IT Control System with standard software developed in close cooperation with food processing plants 40 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

in Europe. MPS notes that its IT Control System can be equipped with a traceability module, which collects, handles and saves data in order to give the customers reliable traceability of the individual products or batches being produced.

But food fraud is as old as the hills, every scare raises questions about the security of our food supply. It is becoming increasingly important to help spot potential spoilage or tampering incidents before food reaches the store shelves.

“We design our systems with a so-called ‘zero defect warehouse' approach," says Heimo Robosch, executive vice president, Knapp. “This is done in a way where, in principe, all processes in the solution are controlled so that errors are avoided in the original processes rather than identified through checking processes later on.

“Knapp, with its KiSoft Vision system, is leading in using optimal recognition systems in all areas of our intralogistic solutions.

All process steps can be traced completely to avoid errors and track any necessary information during the process. For example, by using Kisoft Vision Manual Picking the employee is guided through the warehouse with the help of a see-though display combined with augmented reality. An integrated camera scans barcodes during the picking process.

Combining this technology with the adequate process can give a 100% quality guarantee in manual picking." www.meatpacking.info

IN T R A L O GIS T IC S

rfid emergence

I

n 2006 the EU provided â‚Ź7.5M (US$7.5M) to fund projects developing and extending the use of Radio Frequency Identification. RFID technology is an automatic identification system that aims to provide information on products without human interference, automatically reducing potential human errors.

Pepperl-Fuchs, which supplies identification systems including RFID, believes that in today's modern slaughterhouse, the complex logistic problems are almost impossible to solve without RFID. The company adds that the overall goal is that an RFID solution enables single-piece traceability in case a recall is necessary. The solution should allow logistics processes to be optimised; reducing the handling times and number of interactions will also have a positive impact on the safety of all processes.

More and more companies are utilising RFID technology. According to new research www.meatpacking.info

by IDTechEx Research, the RFID market is expected to grow to US$9.2bn this year, up from US$7.8bn in 2013. What's more, the forecast expects the RFID market to triple by 2020.

Another horsemeat scandal can be avoided.

Pressure from governments and the international media is mounting for meat processing plants to implement more advanced tracking systems such as RFID technologies to trace information from producer to consumer. But these solutions are costly, making implementation rather sporadic.

But six years is a long time in the world of technology; by 2020 the RFID market could be booming and meat processing plants globally could be implementing RFID along with other intralogistic solutions. Time will tell.

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 41

ME G A

P L A N T

a CUT ABOVE

Danish Crown

Denmark is a country that punches well above its weight in the global pork export market, with local companies facing several major challenges in a bid to compete globally. Danish Crown’s Horsens facility is the jewel of not only the Danish production industry, but also arguably the most technologically advanced pig slaughterhouse in the world. Alex Conacher speaks with factory director Per Laursen to discover what the difficulties are, and how the factory keeps up to code

42 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

www.meatpacking.info

ME G A

Alex Conacher

P L A N T

W

ITH A high production capacity in any industry, it’s not unknown for quality to suffer. If there’s even a small problem in a high-value, high-output process, the resulting substandard yield can be devastating in scale. When opening its slaughterhouse at Horsens, Danish Crown was looking at the very top end of production levels. Designed for 75,000 pig slaughters per week – and currently operating at 100,000 – quality control is vital. But the North European giant faced two other key challenges. Firstly, the expense of its native Denmark, where high taxes, living costs, standards and salaries all vie to increase Danish Crown’s outlay. Secondly, Denmark’s population of less than six million means that any large producer in the country must necessarily be a large exporter.

Indeed, Denmark is the second largest exporter of pork in the world, and Danish Crown, as a 90 per cent exporter, grapples with competition from lower-cost domestic suppliers worldwide, and the challenges of meeting varying national standards.

And it’s Japan that draws the company’s focus. The value of the market is incredibly high in this country. But besides this, predominantly the price that can be charged for premium products, particularly in the loin market, as well as the high ethical and quality standards demanded, makes the country a lucrative as well as a practical benchmark for such a heavy exporter.

A NEW DIRECTION

D

ENMARK CANNOT expect to be the second largest pork exporter forever, with our population this notion just seems crazy” says Per Laursen, Danish Crown’s Horsens factory director. “When we built the [then] new Horsens facility, it was a new direction in several ways for the company. This is the most modern slaughterhouse in the world. It’s the third biggest in terms of capacity, but I would not say any individual part makes it unique, rather it is the automation throughout the entire process.

The high labour costs necessitate this. This is especially true for example in logistics – you will see conveyor systems wherever possible.”

The previous slaughterhouse at Horsens was built the better part of a century ago in the city centre. The new premises were outside the www.meatpacking.info

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 43

ME G A

P L A N T

city, and main design began in January 2001 by lead designer Cowi and a number of specialised sub-consultants. NCC was contracted to build the facility, breaking ground in 2002 and commissioning in 2004. Well in keeping with its cooperatively owned history, the company sought ranging input into the design of the new slaughterhouse. Some 15 groups of employees from different parts of the company were put together to discuss optimum designs for the new facility, and feedback was given.

The other change in direction for Danish Crown was attitude towards informing the public of its activities. A viewing gallery was built into the facility at Horsens to welcome the public inside, to learn about the process and the standards the company adheres to. “You can have two communication strategies,” says Laursen, “You can keep the doors closed until something goes wrong and reporters begin to call, or you can invite people inside from the start to inform opinions and prove your standards. We have even had school groups in, and this has the bonus of broadening our recruiting area.

“Domestically it is an open industry anyway, we invite our competitors in and cooperate over developments. The Danish Meat Research Institute (DMRI) is funded jointly by ourselves and our competitors, for example, to help us improve and compete internationally. We all want to develop.”

SOOTHED AND MOVED

A

ND THE highly developed Horsens facility is apparent from the start.

Given the wealth of research by various institutions into the effects of stress at the point of slaughter, for example Støier et al (2000), the systems on the black slaughter line have been meticulously designed.

In Denmark, CO2 stunning followed by sticking in the carotid artery is viewed as the most humane method of slaughter.

Following Council Directive 93/119/EC, there is a requirement from the European Union, and elsewhere, for animals to be stunned instantly and “remain insensitive to pain until there is a complete loss of brain activities due to exsanguinations” (Holst, 2001). The anaesthesia induced by CO2 stunning of pigs is an established means to render pigs “insensible to pain”.

The points above being as given, Danish Crown opted for two Butina-manufactured Backloader XL6 stunning systems for Horsens.

The Backloader is specifically developed for the CO2 stunning of pigs.

44 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

www.meatpacking.info

P L A N T

Danish Crown

ME G A

www.meatpacking.info

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 45

ME G A

P L A N T

Jette Jochumsen, a project manager and sales agent at Butina, part of MPS, says, “Butina is the world market leader within the supply of CO2 stunning systems, we have more than 40 years of experience and have supplied more than 800 CO2-stunning systems to slaughterhouses all over the world.

“The Backloader is a CO2 stunner of highest quality supplied with the most sophisticated and modern technology available. The Backloader was developed in cooperation with the DMRI. We are focusing on high animal welfare in the handling of the pigs both upwards to the stunner as well as during the stunning procedure. All the way the pigs are handled in groups. From the lairage towards the stunning system the pigs are handled by automatic driveway system in groups of 15 pigs. Just in front of the stunner the group is divided in two. From there, seven or eight pigs enter the stunning box together as a group. The pigs are calm and unstressed all the way. It has been proven that high animal welfare means less stress among the animals; better meat quality and thereby more profit to our customers.”

This group method plays into the herding instinct of the animals. Moving partition walls, aided if necessary by personnel, encourage movement forwards in a relaxed way up an optimal two per cent incline. The sealed system also keeps groups of pigs together, which is the most humane.

If a pig arrives as an individual, it will usually be shot with a bolt gun, as veterinary advice is strongly against putting individual pigs into lairage. DMRI has a ‘pig psychologist’ able to advise on animal welfare throughout the process.

water wise

D

THE AGONY OF CHOICE

anish crown boasts that its water consumption at Horsens is at approximately 200 litres per pig compared with a Danish average of around 225, and down from 1,000 some 40 years ago, a decrease of 80 per cent. Re-use of water is critical to this improvement, and now, where water has not been fouled or otherwise contaminated, it is stored in a large tank of around 1Ml. In this way, water that is contained in pipes can continue to circulate.

Water used for cooling machinery is a good example of this, and could later be used for cleaning purposes.

The switch to steam scalding has also helped this efficiency boost; steam scalders have a distinct water advantage over scalding tanks. Although a superior system in this respect, they are also considered by the Danes to be more hygienic. This assertion is theoretical, and has not been solidly proven according to Danish Crown, but is a fairly sound switch, based on the fact that tank water is shared by subsequent pigs, all with open wounds from sticking.

Potentially dirty water has a route into the body in this way, and into the lungs, but with steam scalding this possibility is eliminated.

All improvements in this area are helpful, as the plant produces as much wastewater as the nearby city of Horsens, with a population of nearly 60,000. Laursen adds, “The cooperative attitude of local government has been helpful in this regard.”

HEN CHOOSING machinery for Horsens, it is seen as preferable to have three options when selecting any piece of equipment on the line, according to Laursen, however sometimes there are only two. He explains, “With stunning

from elsewhere. The primary suppliers for us are SFK, MPS and KJ Machinery.”

SFK delivered nearly all of the machinery on the killing line. “We have done everything except the primal cut line and the deboning line,”

W

less stress in the animals equals better quality meat Jette Jochumsen, Butina project manager

for example we have a history with Butina and their Backloaders, we have them at two or three other sites and are confident in the machinery.

We only need the second offer for pricing.

“Our philosophy was to target only a few suppliers for Horsens. If whatever equipment that is needed isn’t in the supplier’s range, he is responsible for tracking it down and acquiring it 46 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

says Jesper Gade, group marketing manager at SFK Leblanc. “Danish Crown Horsens was such a big project for us, with so much of our equipment installed it is difficult to cover everything, but we provided the lairage area (unloading area for pigs / resting pens for the pigs / automatic run to CO2 stunner); for the dirty end (shackle table / elevator to bleeding www.meatpacking.info

P L A N T

Danish Crown

ME G A

www.meatpacking.info

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 47

ME G A

P L A N T

conveyor / cleaning machine / vertical scalding system / dehairing machine & hair separator); for the clean end (gambrel table / elevator to machine conveyor / dry whipper / flame-off singer / brushing & whipping machine); for the dressing area (dressing conveyor / automatic bunger / platforms / automatic carcass opener / automatic evisceration / gut pan conveyor / plucks conveyor / head conveyor (DC do not use it as they don’t cut off the heads anymore) / leaf lard loosening device / automatic back finning/ veterinarian inspection line / steam vacuum system / terminals and sliding scales); for the pluck room and handling area - platforms etc; for the chill tunnel and chill rooms (conveyors, sorting system etc.); conveyor of carcass and x-mass trees to truck loading area (conveyors,

environmental benefits and improved hygiene.

Gade adds, “All the equipment for DC Horsens were standard solutions. The only thing that was developed specially for this project was the he horsens site has a fat-rendering plant. When surplus fat cannot be used for food, there is furnace capable of burning animal fat to fulfil up to 10 to 15 per cent of its total energy requirements. The high market price for fat makes this unprofitable at the time of writing, however fluctuations mean that it could be burning again within months. The furnace can be cold on a Monday, then firing at full capacity on a Friday, allowing for optimisation of materials, and savings. x-mass loader / unloader which was done in

up in smoke

T

there is full traceability at horsens Jesper Gade, SFK Leblanc marketing manager

loading system); conveyor and laydown conveyor for primal cutting; automatic loading of primal cuts onto Christmas trees, Christmas tree conveyor and automatic unloading stations for x-mass tree; handtools for the deboning line (blade bone puller / rib loosener).”

The fully automatic conveyor system from SFK does not include the belt conveyors in the cutting and deboning area. “We work with conveyor concepts that easily interface with any third party machinery,” says Gade, “There is full traceability at DC Horsens, with RFID on all gambrels, xmas trees and trays.”

Machinery provided by MPS to the remainder of the slaughterhouse included: two RotaStick Optima 14, two ANIMARK veterinary id systems, two RectaStore 28 batch tank systems and a 4,000 litre per hour separation plant.

KEEPING CLEAN

A

T HORSENS there is no cleaning in place (CIP) system. That’s why they only operate in two shifts to keep the third for cleaning. SFK has developed a CIP solution for the vertical scalding system – it requires only a manual cleaning of hooks once a week compared with the normal everyday cleaning. As an option for the dehairing machine there, a wash down system has been developed, which uses recirculated water from the hair separator (which is not installed at Horsens), but it does not replace manual cleaning – it limits the amount of water used. The advantages of a CIP system are reductions in staffing and stoppage time used for cleaning, as well as the associated

48 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

cooperation with DMRI. The head remover was also a standard machine but is no longer in use.”

BUTCHERY BY DESIGN

D

ESIGNER 3PART was responsible for much of the design of cutting equipment.

Simon Skafdrup, founding partner of 3Part says, “The butchery equipment was developed in collaboration between the Slaughterhouse Research Institute, Attec, and 3Part. Attec is the manufacturer who supplied the cutting machines to Danish Crown’s Horsens facility.

“Equipment was tested by Steff Houlberg [now owned by Danish Crown] and Danish Crown itself during the development process.

The basis for the cooperation was a desire to improve the working conditions of the slaughterhouse workers, particularly over the hard work of cutting animal body parts in two, and a more accurate and thus more rational sharing of the equatorial section [...] and thus greater profitability.

Skafdrup concludes, “In addition to the more precise carcass division and removal of demanding manual operations, the project was based on three key factors: ease of cleaning, modularity in the manufacturing process, simplicity and clean lines.”

CAPACITY OUTLOOK

A

LTHOUGH BUILT for 75,000 slaughters per week, the current rate of 100,000 has been maintained for the past four years. Plant www.meatpacking.info

P L A N T

Danish Crown

ME G A

www.meatpacking.info

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 49

ME G A

P L A N T

production kicked off in September 2005, so this represents a significant portion of the facility’s lifespan. And, with the overall positive trend in aggregate market demand, disregarding the occasional dip, it does not look like the plant will reduce to design capacity in the near future.

The main choke point on production is definitely storing and loading, putting an upper limit on slaughter capacity at 115,000 per week. This is based on the shift schedule of 18 hours production per day (excluding night time cleaning), five days per week. Laursen reflects that he could see a scenario in which six-day 50 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

operation were brought into effect, and that there is facility for this in the agreement with the workers’ union, however moving to the full seven days is unlikely.

“From opening the plant, to meet this higher 100,000 slaughter-per-week demand, it was necessary to construct a new chilling room for primals,” says Laursen. “This was the biggest addition, along with changing rooms for workers in the deboning section.

“And this is the way we will increase, improving areas rather than upgrading to an entirely new site already.” www.meatpacking.info

P L A N T

Danish Crown

ME G A

references On automation in the deboning area, which is also a very manual, complex job, Gade of SFK comments, “We have no current solutions for an automated deboning function. But we are following the increasing interest in this area. We have so far developed the Christmas Tree laydown system, which removes the need for manual lifts that you see in other slaughterhouses.”

Laursen adds, “At the moment this is too complex to automate. Pigs are not uniform, but we have cooperation with the DMRI, which could see development in this area.” www.meatpacking.info

Støier, S.; Aaslyng, M.D.; Olsen, E.V.; Henckel, P., The effect of stress during lairage and stunning on muscle metabolism and drip loss in Danish pork (Danish Meat Research Institute, 2000) Holst, S., CO2 stunning of pigs for slaughter Practical guidelines for good animal welfare. (Danish Meat Research Institute, 2001) http://www.manufacturing.net/ articles/2006/05/new-japanese-food-importstandards-affecting-us-pork-industry March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 51

S T UNNIN G

stunning advance The choice of stunning method is crucial to the efficiency of the overall plant and the welfare of the animals. New equipment is being introduced to the market every year with solutions for the small the medium and the massive slaughterhouses. Technical editor James Chappelow reviews the various methods and takes stock of the changing popularity Captive bolt

James Chappelow

F

F

arming becomes meat production at the slaughterhouse or abattoir. The work of slaughterhouses has increasingly come under scrutiny. This is particularly true in North America and throughout the European Union where numerous laws regulate the trade. The good practice that is thereby enforced has had an impact on meat production around the world. High standards are demanded from countries exporting animals and meat to the lucrative markets of North America and Europe. Slaughterhouses have regularly become subjects of academic study and regular inspection is common. The motors for this interest have included animal welfare concerns, the spread of disease, particularly Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), health and safety issues for the workers and the efficiency of various practices.

Effective stunning of larger animals has been a key focus for many investigations. It is also a major concern for the manufacturers of stunning equipment. The work of Dr Temple Grandin in the US, Dr Frank Alleweldt and the Food Chain Evaluation Consortium for the EU, and the reports of the Department of Meat Animal sciences at Bristol University in the UK demonstrate many similarities in the stunning procedures in North America and Europe. They also highlight a number of common problems.

52 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

or cattle, the most common method of stunning is with the use of the penetrating captive bolt. The trauma to the cortex that results from firing a bolt through the forehead of an animal will render it senseless for at least 10 minutes, which is ample stun-to-stick time.

The bolts are shot using either cartridgefired or pneumatic stunners both of which are available from a wide variety of manufacturers.

Care must be taken to find the correct firing position and it is recommended that a head restraint be used for the animal to ensure more accurate firing. This must happen within five seconds to avoid stress in the animal. If the bolts are properly fired by skilled operators there is little difference in blood-splash between the two methods. Grandin highlights the problem of pneumatic stunners since the onset of BSE, namely that pieces of neurological tissue ‘as large as a pencil' may end up in the heart or other organs. This food safety concern has led most slaughterhouses that use the penetrating captive bolt to accept the extra cost of blank cartridges and use the cartridge fired stunner.

The non-penetrating captive bolt stunner is also used for cattle. A mushroom headed steel bolt is fired - either with cartridge or air – with sufficient force to stun the animal without penetrating the skull. There are some disadvantages to this method. There is a shorter stun-tostick time – as low as 20 seconds potentially.

An EU field study suggested that between 20% and 30% of cattle needed a re-stun, which is difficult because of swelling that immediately occurs in the region where the stun should occur. This is particularly likely with cattle with wooly heads such as www.meatpacking.info

Jarvis Products Coporation

S T UNNIN G

Above and left: The USSS-1 pneumatically operated high speed captive bolt stunner for cattle by Jarvis Products

www.meatpacking.info

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 53

S T UNNIN G

Percussive stunning

T

he UK Humane Slaughter Association explains, when a sharp, heavy blow is correctly applied to the skull it produces a rapid acceleration of the head, causing the brain to impact against the inside of the skull.

There is disruption of normal electrical activity resulting from sudden, massive increase in intra-cranial pressure, followed by an equally sudden drop in pressure. The consequent damage to the nerves and blood vessels causes brain dysfunction and/or destruction, and impaired blood circulation. The duration of insensibility depends on the severity of damage to the nervous tissue and the degree to which the blood supply is reduced. There may be physical damage to the skull or brain according to the type of stunner used.

The initial effect on the animal is immediate unconsciousness accompanied by what is known as ‘tonic’ activity. The animal collapses, stops breathing and becomes rigid, with its head extended and its hind legs flexed towards the abdomen. This period of rigidity normally lasts for 10 to 20 seconds following stunning. The forelegs may be flexed initially and then gradually straighten out. However, this depends on the species and the severity of the blow. This tonic activity is followed by a period of involuntary kicking, which gradually subsides. If an animal immediately shows paddling or kicking movements on collapse, it is almost certain the stun has been ineffective and it should be re-stunned immediately.

An effective stun can be defined as one that renders the animal immediately unconscious and insensible to pain. The animal collapses, exhibiting exaggerated tonic activity followed by gradual relaxation and involuntary kicking movements. Once the animal is stunned it must be bled without delay.

The physical signs of an effective stun are: Animal collapses No rhythmic breathing Fixed, glazed expression in the eyes No corneal reflex Relaxed jaw Tongue hanging out

firing

C

aptive bolt stunners may be triggerfired or fired by contact with the animal’s head. Trigger-fired penetrative stunners are the most versatile and can be used on a range of different species in different situations, such as

54 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

in abattoirs, on the farm or in a confined space.

The trigger mechanism may be a conventional pistol-grip (Figure 1) or a trigger pad on the body of the stunner (Figure 2). Contact-fired captive-bolt stunners (Figure 3) are only suitable for stunning cattle that are restrained in a stunning box; they are not suitable for use outside the abattoir on unrestrained animals.

In general, it is easier if the stunning box or restrainer-conveyor presents the animal to the slaughterman’s favoured side. The system should also be designed so that the slaughterman does not have to bend right over to carry out the stun. However, the sides of a stunning box must be high enough to prevent large cattle jumping out before they are stunned. Alternatively, overhead restraint bars must be fitted.

Where an air-powered captive-bolt stunner is used with a restrainer-conveyor, it should be properly counterbalanced above the stunning point so that it returns to the ‘resting’ position without the slaughterman having to lift it.

safety

T

he equipment is potentially lethal to the operator. However, each stunner includes a number of inbuilt safety features: The bolt is ‘captive’ within the barrel of the stunner, rather than a free bullet.

Recuperator sleeves automatically return the bolt to its pre-firing position. This prevents it from becoming embedded in the animal’s head and reduces the possibility of the operator being dragged down as the animal falls.

The double ‘rolling block’ action necessitates at least two positive actions by the slaughterman before it is possible to fire.

Most trigger-fired stunners have antidrop mechanisms that prevent them firing if accidentally dropped, even when fully cocked.

There is a need for positive action from the ‘safe’ position on contact-fired equipment.

All operators of stunning equipment should be properly trained in its safe operation and maintenance. Equipment must be regularly checked by a qualified engineer and the following procedures should be observed: When handling captive-bolt equipment, during and on completion of loading, the muzzle of the stunner must be pointed away from any part of the operator’s, or any other person’s, body at all times.

Refer to the manufacturer’s instruction sheet for the correct loading procedure and the correct cartridge size. Avoid repeated use of too heavy a cartridge, or air shots, which can result in the

www.meatpacking.info

S T UNNIN G

K

A

B

B

K

J

C

D

E

I

F

G

H

Figure 1: Penetrative, trigger-fired captive-bolt stunner. Key: Bolt (A), Stop washers (B), Flange & piston (C), Expansion chamber (D), Breech (E), Ejector (F), Hammer (G), Trigger mechanism (H), Trigger (I), Undercut (J), Recuperator Sleeves (K)

D

F

bolt shearing and flying free of the stunner.

Once the stunner has been loaded, ensure that the mechanism is in the ‘safe’ position until an animal is ready to be stunned.

Never leave a loaded stunner unattended.

In the event of a misfire, do not open the stunner breech for 30 seconds. Sometimes slow primer ignition will cause a ‘hang fire’ and the cartridge will explode after a short pause.

At the end of the day’s kill, return the stunner to the person appointed to carry out the daily cleaning procedure. Make certain the stunner is unloaded before cleaning.

Report any faults in the operation of the stunner to the person responsible for maintenance and do not use the equipment until the fault has been rectified.

When not in use, ensure that captive-bolt equipment is stored securely at all times.

Daily maintenance must include: Dismantling of the stunner.

Visual examination for evidence of damage and signs of excessive wear.

Removal of blood and water.

Removal of carbon deposits from the breech and undercut.

Check on recuperator sleeves' condition.

Reordering of the recuperator sleeves on the bolt assembly.

General lubrication.

suppliers A

B

C E

G

H

I

J

Figure 2: Non-pentrative, trigger-fired captive-bolt stunner. Key: Cocking mechanism (A), Trigger (B), Breech (C), Ejector (D), Expansion chamber (E), Flange & piston (F), Bolt (G), Barrel (H), Damper (I), Mushroom head (J)

A

B C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

T

here are numerous manufacturers of Captive Bolt Guns suitable for use on smaller animals up through the range to larger bulls. Most of the companies trade internationally but there are more restrictions on the use of air transport of cartridge guns.

Leading the field in the UK are Accles and Shelvoke, with a large range of Cash guns; the Jarvis Products Corporation, which produces cartridge and pneumatic guns as well as the non penetrating mushroom stunners; Le Fiell General Beef Equipment, producing cartridge and pneumatic stunners; Karl Schermer, with its automatic bolt retraction system; and Beetta Instruments & Equipment’s head to back stunner.

Figure 3: Penetrative, contact-fired captive-bolt stunner. Key: Firing pin (A), Breech (B), Expansion chamber (C), Flange & piston (D), Stop washer (E), Cap (F), Retaining band (G), Recuperator sleeves (H), Stop washers (I), Bolt (J)

acknowledgements

M

PJ would like to thank the UK Humane Slaughter Society for assistence in providing the above information. To read the HSA's guidance in full go to www.hsa.org.uk

www.meatpacking.info

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 55

S T UNNIN G

Herefords. Accuracy is just as important and head restraints should be used. In comparison, between 4% and 6% of cattle require re-stun with the penetrating captive bolt and in many cases these may be explained by the human factor – such as tiredness of the operative or failure to properly maintain the equipment. An EU survey of 2003 suggested that only 16% of respondents used the non-penetrating bolt for cattle. The UK Humane Slaughter Association explains that under EU legislation, nonpenetrative stunners are now only permitted for use on poultry, rabbits, hares and ruminants less than 10kg liveweight.

Electronarcosis and electrocution

L

ess frequently used to stun cattle is electronarcosis – an electric current through the brain applied through electrode tongs placed either side of the head – and electrocution – passing an electric current across the heart, often following electronarcosis.

Electronarcosis by itself, achieved manually or by purpose built devices, has the dual problem of clonic convulsions and a short duration of unconsciousness giving a stun-to-stick time of a little over 20 seconds for cattle and 12 seconds for calves. Electrocution is a more successful method provided there is a gap of between 30 and 60 seconds before hoisting the animal, thus preventing resuscitation. A recent report by the department of Meat Animal Science at Bristol University suggested that in terms of animal welfare the electrocution method was preferable as it stops the heart of the animal. This was backed by the UK Ministry of Agriculture whose spokesman said, “The welfare considerations of the systems are as good as if not better than other more traditional systems because it stops the heart.” Judiciously, it was added, “This is not to say that the other systems are not good.”

Equipment for electrocution of cattle is supplied by manufacturers such as Jarvis of New Zealand but the costs are high, which is the likely explanation of the fact that only four out of 450 slaughterhouses in the UK are so equipped.

Similar electrical means are also used to stun pigs but gas stunning is also used. For electronarcosis the manual positioning of electrodes is common as without pre-selection it is difficult to use automated systems because of the varying sizes of the pigs. Tonic-clonic seizures accompany this method and the duration of unconsciousness is short. The voltage used is critical. Where there is a high throughput of pigs there is danger of stress and even pain if the stun is inadequately applied.

56 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

Electrical stunning

T

he principle of electric stunning is to pass sufficient current through the brain to interrupt its normal activity, so that the animal becomes immediately unconscious and unable to feel pain. When electrodes are applied to the head, the amount of current that flows will depend on the voltage difference between the electrodes, and the electrical resistance of the animal. This section explains some basic electrical principles and how they apply to animals.

The Humane Slaughter Association explains, the waveform and frequency of the supply voltage can alter the effect that electric current has on animals. Consequently, electrical stunning is often blamed for meat quality issues leading to carcase downgrading. As a result, adjustments are sometimes made to electrical equipment that could compromise animal welfare.

Most conventional stunners operate with the same 50Hz sine wave as the mains supply. However, research has demonstrated that direct muscle stimulation is responsible for downgrading conditions. Increasing the frequency of the applied waveform to 1500Hz significantly reduces the level of direct muscle stimulation and manufacturers have now produced equipment that applies high frequency current followed by low frequency current. Research has also shown that, although electrical stimulation of muscles at stunning can lead to blood splash, bruising and broken bones, the occurrence of these

www.meatpacking.info

S T UNNIN G

Table 1. Physical symptoms of an epileptic seizure

conditions also depends on other factors, including: the source, breed and strain of the animal; nutrition; changes in temperature prior to slaughter; preslaughter handling; and interrupted contact of stunning electrodes.

These may account for the frequency and random nature of the incidence of downgrading between individual animals. All these factors must be thoroughly investigated before making changes to the settings of a stunner.

Any changes to stunner settings that could compromise animal welfare should not be made in an attempt to rectify meat quality problems.

Phase

Electronarcosis

Tonic

Animal collapses and becomes rigid No rhythmic breathing Head is raised Forelegs extended and hind legs flexed into the body

Clonic

Gradual relaxation of muscles Paddling or involuntary kicking (can be severe at times) Downward movement of eyeballs Urination and/or defecation

Recovery

Resumption of normal rhythmic breathing Response to painful stimuli Becomes visually aware Attempts to stand

Source: Humane Slaughter Association

W

hen electrical stunning is carried out effectively, the result is essentially the same as an epileptic seizure in man, known as a grand mal epileptic fit, during which the brain is severely stimulated, the body exhibits tonic/clonic activity, and there is complete loss of consciousness. During the first (tonic) phase, when current flows through the brain, the animal collapses and stops breathing, with the front legs extended rigidly and the hind legs flexed into the body. The second (clonic) phase sees the animal relax and start involuntary kicking of both the fore and hind legs. As the clonic activity subsides, the animal moves into the third (recovery or exhaustion) phase.

It is recognised that while an animal is in the first two phases it is unconscious and, therefore, insensible to pain. However, the onset of the third phase is an indication that the animal is beginning to recover and may be able to experience pain. The first sign that an animal is recovering from the effect of the stun is a return to normal rhythmic breathing. Rhythmic

breathing can be determined by watching for the rise and fall of the chest, with evenly spaced breaths. This should not be confused with random gasping (agonal breathing), a result of spasmodic muscle contractions, which can occur when the brain is dying. During these random contractions, air can also be forced from the lungs, causing the animal to make involuntary noises.

Go to www.hsa.org.uk/publications to read the full guidance.

suppliers

A

Karl Schermer

www.meatpacking.info

Physical symptions

large variety of products are used to induce stunning (or cause death) electrically. At one end of the market are the large cattle stunning boxes produced by companies such as Jarvis Products, The Nanjing Sky Food Machinery Manufacturer – with its Super Three Point Brain-Heart Stunning Machine for pigs - and the Banns Multifuctions Stunning Box. At the other are the more humble, but widely used simple electrodes such as those produced by Best and Donovan of Ohio, Kentmaster, Karl Schermer and Abachem Engineering amongst others.

Equipment for stunning poultry varies in relations to the size of the business. On a small scale, many companies - such as Wells Poultry - provide straightforward and simple electrical stunning devices. In contrast, companies such as TopKip have developed factory scale solutions to meet the need to slaughter humanely large numbers of birds. In the US the Simmons Engineering Company is the leading manufacturer of poultry stunning and killing machinery. From China a shower style stunning machine is available from the Nanjing Changxun Machinery Company.

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 57

Topkip

S T UNNIN G

Above: The new Odigos System for stunning poultry is manufactured by Netherland's based Topkip.

58 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

www.meatpacking.info

S T UNNIN G

Electrocution is more commonly used. This adds to electronarcosis by passing an additional current over the heart. Clonic seizures are less common as immediate unconsciousness and often death result from the shocks. Again, stress may be caused to the pigs as they have to line up in single file.

smaller animals, bigger challenge

T

wo forms of gas stunning are used for pigs: the dip lift system and the paternoster system. The latter is more widely used in the EU and both depend upon exposing pigs to a high concentration of carbon-dioxide in order to achieve stun with groups of between six and eight pigs being processed together. The recommended stun to stick time is 60 seconds but a recent Swedish survey showed that this may well not be met for the last pigs in a group.

Additional precautions are used to ensure that pigs do not regain consciousness. The European Food and standards Agency recommends a concentration of 85% carbon-dioxide for meat quality purposes as well as animal welfare considerations. Penetrating captive bolt to headonly electric stunners are used as back-up to this method.

The more complex carbon-dioxide equipment is very much more costly to install and hence not so widely available. BGG Food Industry Equipment is one company that makes a simpler Intoxication Box. In contrast, the Quindao Empire Machinery company (in china) will redesign and build the complete plant to individual specifications. Similarly the V-Conns Group fit complete installations for Carbon Dioxide stunning. Buitina of Denmark (a member of the MPS Group) has built over 800 plants using this method with the capacity to stun up to 500 pigs per hour.

Sheep are stunned either using penetrative or non penetrative bolts or electronarcosis. The European Food Safety Authority says that the penetrating captive bolt is most commonly used, but statistical evidence is not fully developed.

Restraint is thought to be needed for an effective stun and it is suggested that misstunning may be a problem with this method.

Care needs to be taken with the positioning of the electrode in electronarcosis and wool can hinder conductivity. Pointed electrodes may be used to create better contact with the sheep's skin. Electrocution was not found to be widely used for sheep in the EU survey. Gas stunning is also rare. Converted pig stunners are used in these cases.

There are significant differences between www.meatpacking.info

North America and the EU on the issue of stunning poultry. Low voltage electric shock systems are used in North America and high voltage systems are used in the EU. In both cases, issues of animal welfare have been a key focus in recent decades. Killing chickens by simple concussion is no longer acceptable.

In the description of the Odigos Head Only Stunning System produced by TopKip, the manufacturers promote the system ‘gentle' and ‘animal friendly.' It can produce the stun in three seconds. In the US the low voltage – measured in milliamps – has a 99.9% success rate in stunning chickens. The higher voltage European systems aim to stop the heart of the bird but there has been evidence of an impact on the quality of the product caused by haemorrhaging and broken bones. This has led European producers to turn to ‘controlled atmosphere stunning' using carbon-dioxide or argon.

Comparative studies on animal welfare for each system is yet to be done.

Animal stunning is the pivotal process in the slaughterhouse. Yet it represents only 7% of the costs of the process. Stunning needs to be seen in the wider context of a wider picture.

Meat production is big business. The quality of the product is as important as that of any other industry as are the ethical considerations that surround it. Most recent research shows that there is a direct correlation between the quality of meat produced and the welfare of the animals, not least at the slaughterhouse. This means that stunning should take place only when animals are calm and properly treated.

Chemical changes take effect in stressed animals such as higher pH values, the production of more cortisol and accompanied, as Grandin points out, by increased vocalisation on the part of the animals. Stress may then be heaped on stress as poor handling based on force rather than behavioural principles has its negative effect.

A note on lairage

I

t is Obvious that for a well run slaughterhouse a great deal of thought and expense - needs to be given to improved lairage – the preslaughter conditions for the animals. Lairage will be the subject of a later paper but it worth noting its importance in relation to the stun-stick process. An EU report pointed to a number of possible improvements.

Most slaughterhouse had complied with an EU Directive for non-slip flooring in lairages with “floors which minimise the risk of slipping and do not cause injury to animals in contact with them.” In the majority of cases of firms March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 59

S T UNNIN G

that were investigated non-stick flooring had also been put in the stunning area. Managers identified such flooring as the most beneficial improvement in terms of animal welfare. Other design measures that were regarded as important were a one-way flow in lairages (particularly for cattle and pigs) and curved passageways without any sharp angles – taking advantage of the animals' natural tendency to circle.

Ramp inclination may also cause problems to animals on arrival at lairages and an EU directive states that “exit or entry ramps must have the minimum possible incline” and never more than 20 degrees. The technology for noise reducers or blinders is available and, according to the French animal welfare organisation, OABA, this would reduce levels of excitement in animals. Few slaughterhouses have responded to this idea.

Slaughterhouses can be slow to adopt new technologies. Modernisation and redesign can be costly and spending is often linked to factors that improve competitiveness. Priority may be given to improvements in hygiene and throughput rather than animal welfare.

It is often retailers, with their demands for high standards, who push for improvements in technological design. The new technologies can be most economically introduced at the stage of design and construction. Unfortunately, many slaughterhouses are not new and adaptations therefore can mean prohibitive additional cost.

Yet change does happen and the trend towards improvement is firmly set.

All the equipment used by slaughterhouses is subject to governmental approval at some level in North America and throughout the EU. As this implies, the manufacturers of equipment are expected to comply with numerous legal restrictions and standards. Very often official veterinarians are responsible for the trial and inspection of new equipment. In Germany field tests are common while in the UK the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has a very active system to assess all aspects of the work of slaughterhouses and the use of new technologies. Across the EU there are schemes for information sharing in this area. Yet there is a lack of clarity on the issue of new equipment simply because there is no single standard to apply internationally. There is a tendency for manufacturers to adopt the standards of the country where they are highest.

While this may increase costs, it also forces manufacturers to take issues of animal welfare into consideration. Thus higher standards are spread by a process of osmosis.

Things sometimes do go wrong. Despite the many improvements in the treatment of animals by the industry, the human factor occasionally comes into play. However good 60 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

the equipment, if a slaughterhouse tries to increase throughput too much, the technology can fail. The equipment needs to be regularly serviced and the workers need proper training.

The manufacturers provide manuals, but these need to be followed. It is perhaps inevitable that there is a high turnover of staff and, in the EU especially, language difficulties have become a real problem. Accidents can happen if staff members are overworked and completing long shifts. There are dangers for the staff as well as the animals.

The issue of ritual slaughter is a nettle that some slaughterhouses are grasping. An EU study showed that as many as 80% of sheep slaughtered in France and 40% in Belgium were killed in a manner that met the Halal requirements. The figures are much lower in other EU countries and in North America. Some of the authorities questioned admitted that their statistics were little better than guesswork at present. There is much controversy about this issue both in Europe and the US. The debate has only just started in ernest and the issues raised warrant further investigation.

The work of slaughterhouses is utterly undervalued by society. They always get a bad press. The gory details of rare horror stories create lasting but ill informed pictures in the public mind. The recent shock about horsemeat in the food chain in the UK was the most recent manifestation of this phenomena. This is as unfair as it is illogical. While people are happy to investigate life on the farm and demand ‘Farm Assured' labels in the shops, between these two lies a conveniently dark tunnel. The industry deserves illumination and praise for its work

references and further reading Alleweldt, F., Kara, S. Schubert, K., Fries, R., Grosspietsch, R., 2003. Study on stunning/ killing practices in slaughterhouses. Food Chain Evaluation Consortium.

Bowling, M.B., Yemm, R.S., Belk, K.E., Sofos, J.N., Smith, G.C., and Scanga, J.A., 2007. An evalutation of central nervous system cross-contamination due to carcass splitting in commercial beef packing plants. Journal of Food Protection, vol. 71 pp83-92.

Cook, C.J., Devine, C.E., and Gilbert, K.V., 1991. Electroencephalograms and electrocardiograms in young bulls following upper vertebrae to brisket stunning. New Zealand Veterinary Journal vol. 39 pp121-125.

Coore, R.R., et al, 2005. Brain tissue fragments in jugular vein blood of cattle stunned by use of penetrating and nonwww.meatpacking.info

The Jarvis Products USSS-2 pneumatically operated high speed, non-penetrating stunner for cattle and veal.

penetrating captive bolt guns. Journal of Food Protection, vol. 68 pp882-884.

Grandin, T. 1985/86 (with 1997 updates).

Cardiac arrest stunning of livestock and poultry.

Advances in Animal Welfare Science. M.W. Fox and L.D. Mickley (Editors) Martinus Nijhoff Publisher Grandin, T. 1994. Euthanasia and Slaughter of Livestock. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association vol. 204 pp1354-1360 Grandin, T. 1994. Methods to reduce PSE and bloodsplash. Allen D. Leman Swine Conference vol. 21 pp206-209. College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota.

Grandin, T. 1998. Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning practices in slaughter plants. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association vol. 212 pp36-39.

Grandin, T. 2002. Return to sensibility problems after penetrating captive bolt stunning of cattle in commercial beef slaughter plants.

Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association vol. 221 pp1258-1261.

Grandin, T. 2005. Maintenance of good animal welfare standards in beef slaughter plants by use of auditing programs. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association vol.

226 pp370-373.

Grandin, T. 2010. Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines and Audit Guides. Am. Meat. Institute. Washington, D.C. Gregory, N.G., 1993. Slaughter technology electrical stunning in large cattle. Meat Focus.

January, pp. 32-36.

Gregory, N.G., 2001. Profiles of currents during electric stunning. Australian Veterinary www.meatpacking.info

Journal vol. 79 pp844-845.

Gregory, N. et al. 2007. Depth of concussion in cattle shot with penetrating captive bolt. Meat Science vol. 77 pp499-503.

Gregory, N. 2007. Animal Welfare and Meat Production, 2nd Edition. Cabi Publishing.

Oxfordshire, UK. Humane Slaughter Association. http:// www.hsa.org.uk/publications/online-guides Lambooy, E., and Spanjaard, W. 1981.

Effect of shooting position on the stunning of calves by captive bolt. Veterinary Record vol. 109 pp359-361.

Lucker, E. et al, 2002. Studies of contamination of beef with tissues from the central nervous system (CNS) as pertaining to slaughter technology and human BSE exposure risk. Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenscher, vol. 115 pp118-121.

Predergast, D.M., et al. 2003. Dissemination of central nervous system tissue from the brain and spinal cord of cattle after captive bolt stunning and carcass splitting. Meat Science vol.

65 pp1201-1209.

Rovira, P.J., Scanga, J.A., Grandin, T., Hossner, K.L., Yemm, R.S., Belk, K.E., Tatum, D.J., Sofos, J.N., and Smith, G.C. 2007. Central nervous system tissue contamination of the circulatory system following humane cattle stunning procedures. Food Protection Trends vol. 27 pp524-529.

Weaver, A.L. and Wotton, S.B. 2008. The Jarvis Beef Stunner: Effects of a prototype chest electrode. Meat Science vol. 81 pp51-56.

Wotton, S.B., Gregory, N.G., Whittington, P.E., and Parkman, I.D., 2000. Electrical March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 61

Jarvis Products Coporation

S T UNNIN G

S T UNNIN G

Assessing pig welfare at stunning in Swedish commercial abattoirs

using CO2 group-stun methods While regular monitoring of stun quality in abattoirs is now required by EU law, guidelines specific to species and stun method have not been adequately developed.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) gas stunning of pigs in groups is widely used because of efficiency and reduced pre-slaughter stress. However, some pigs may recover from the stun process if it is not correctly managed. In light of these concerns, this study aims to develop and implement a standardised assessment for stun quality for use in commercial pig abattoirs. This paper is presented by S Atkinson and B Algers of the Department of Animal Environment and Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, and A Velarde and P Llonch of the Animal Welfare Subprogram, Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia AgroalimentĂ ries (IRTA)

T

he purpose of stunning animals at slaughter is to ensure they are rendered insensible to bleeding (sticking) and post-slaughter procedures, and it is a statutory requirement of the EU (EC 2009).

All major abattoirs in Sweden use groupwise carbon dioxide (CO2) stun systems where approximately 2.8 million pigs are slaughtered annually (Official Statistics of Sweden 2011).

CO2 stunning is now favoured over electrical or captive-bolt methods due to greater benefits for animal welfare (Stoier et al 2000; Barton Gade & Christensen 2002; Terlouw et al 2008) and meat quality (Velarde et al 2000a; Channon et al 2003). The main animal welfare advantage is that pigs can be handled and stunned in groups rather than individually restrained and stunned as with alternative methods. CO2 systems can also be operated with mechanical push gates that separate pigs into small groups and push them into the stun-box, abolishing the use of electric prodders. When these systems are properly operated, preslaughter stress can be reduced (Christensen & Barton-Gade 1997).

The depth of unconsciousness (stun quality) from CO2 gas stunning depends on CO2 concentration, exposure time and the animal.

Due to individual biological variation, some pigs may regain consciousness while others not, even 62 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

if stunned in the same group (Forslid 1987; Holst 2001). To ensure good animal welfare the stun should ensure unconsciousness is induced for a sufficient duration to include not only the stun-to-stick interval but also the time taken for brain death to occur due to sticking. Anil and McKinistry (1993) found that sticking does not always result in rapid and profuse blood loss in pigs, and the time taken for permanent loss of brain responsiveness varies in commercial practice. Problems with slow bleeding (and consequen- tial delay of death) can occur if the size of the sticking wound is too small (Gregory 1999; Anil et al 2000). It is therefore imperative for animal welfare that unconsciousness is closely monitored, and pigs restunned when necessary; especially as pigs are hoisted upside down and conveyed to a scalding tank for dehairing within five minutes after sticking in some abattoirs.

Stun quality can be assessed under practical conditions by observing animals after stunning for physical symptoms that indicate complete loss of sensitivity or different levels of sustained brain function. Criteria for assessing stun quality are broadly described by Gregory et al (1987) and The European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA 2004). Some of the criteria have been applied in stun-quality assessments www.meatpacking.info

ALL IMAGES: MPS | BUTINA

S T UNNIN G

Above: Butina supplied the Paternoster and the dip and lift systems to each of the abattoirs in the study

www.meatpacking.info

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 63

S T UNNIN G

at commercial slaughter in pigs by Velarde et al (2000b), Nowak et al (2007) and Van de Perre et al (2010). EFSA (2004) mentions the following symptoms in pigs indicative of inadequate stunning with CO2: rhythmic breathing, attempts to raise the head, vocalisation, corneal reflex, convulsions and spontaneous blinking.

The objective assessment of unconsciousness is difficult as some symptoms commonly considered important are indicative only of brain stem activity and do not relate to cortical function (Anil & McKinstry 1991). Recent EU regulations on the protection of animals at the time of killing state that abattoirs should ensure stun quality is regularly monitored by competent staff (EC 1099/2009). External quality assurance schemes are also gaining increasing acknowledgement as a safeguard for animal welfare. However, standardised animal welfare assessments at stunning, specific for species and stun methods, are not adequately developed.

Surveys carried out in Spain and Germany, respectively, revealed percentages of inadequately stunned pigs in the range of 42 to 60% (Velarde et al 2000b; Dalmau et al 2009) and six to 66% (Holleben et al 2002; Nowak et al 2007; Hartmann et al 2010). Velarde et al (2000b) looked only at percentage of pigs with righting reflex and pain sensitivity. Both Holleben et al (2002) and Hartmann et al (2010) only tested corneal reflexes and no other symptoms. Nowak et al (2007) and Dalmau et al (2009) used more comprehensive criteria, testing for pain and eye reflexes, convulsions and righting reflexes. Differences in the assessment methodology make comparisons in stun quality between the studies difficult.

Even though all major abattoirs in Sweden use Butina® stun systems (Butina Aps, Copenhagen, Denmark), there are variations in size and technical designs related to different models installed. Dip-lift designs have only one box in the system that can be loaded with a nominal capacity of six pigs. The box descends into a two to four-metres deep pit filled with an increasing gradient of CO2. The box is paused at the pit bottom where concentrations are highest (> 85%), before ascending and tipping the pigs onto a table where shackling takes place. The paternoster designs have up to seven boxes (a nominal capacity to stun eight pigs per group), rotating through the CO2 gradient in a three to eight-metres deep pit, stopping at various intervals for loading of pigs on one side and unloading on the other. The number of pigs per group, the time taken to reach maximum CO2 concentrations, and total exposure times, vary.

These factors are manipulated by the individual abattoirs according to their own discretion, but the manufacturers do provide operational 64 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

recommendations for each type of system.

EU legislation states that sticking must start as soon as possible after stunning but specify no time limit (EC 1993). Swedish regulations stipulate that the stun- to-stick interval (stick time) should not exceed 60s (SJVFS 2008). Many abattoirs fail to fulfil these requirements, due to the technical design of the slaughter line which cannot transfer animals to sticking within this time constraint. With increasing stun-group size, the time taken to stick the last pigs in the group increases; a potential risk factor to main- taining unconsciousness throughout the slaughter process. Abattoirs can apply to the Swedish authorities for an extension of maximum stick times if it can be verified that there are no concerns for stun quality. This prompted a demand from the slaughter industry and competent authorities for externally conducted assessments of stun quality.

The objective of this study was to develop and implement a practical standardised procedure to assess stun quality in commercial pig abattoirs where CO2 stunning is used. It also aimed to find the stun-group size and corresponding stick intervals and if times over 60s negatively affected animal welfare.

materials and methods

T

hese studies were conducted with the approval of the ethical committee in Gothenburg, Sweden, in accordance with Swedish regulations SJVFS 20011/91. In total, 9,520 pigs (with a slaughter live weight average of 85 [± 20] kg), of halothane negative ‘PigHam’ strains (Hampshire sire lines with Landrace × Yorkshire sows), were assessed during routine stunning. Ten visits in eight abattoirs were conducted. Each abattoir was numbered numerically from 1 to 8 from largest to smallest processing rate. Abattoirs 1 to 5 and 8 were assessed once and abattoirs 6 and 7 twice (after adjustments in CO2-stunning parameters).

Two full days were spent in abattoirs 6 to 8 (processing 200–250 pigs per day) and one full day in abattoirs 1 to 5 (processing 1,500–3,000 pigs per day).

Stun system

The CO2 concentration and exposure time (ie total time each stun-box holding pigs had completed a cycle through the CO2 gradient), were recorded from the digital display monitors mounted on the stun machines. A permanently installed sensor positioned in the pit at a height corresponding to the top of the stun box when in the lowest position (ie approximately one metre from pit bottom) gave the reading for www.meatpacking.info

S T UNNIN G

the CO2 concentrations. In abattoirs 1 and 2, the CO2 levels were also checked using an external CO2 monitor (Butina- 85, Copenhagen, Denmark). In abattoirs 1 to 4, rotation times varied according to loading times, therefore, at least 10 rotation times were recorded to give an average. In all other abattoirs the CO2 exposure times were fixed.

Group size and stun-to-stick interval

Group sizes in the stun-boxes were recorded by counting the number in each group as they came out of the stunbox. The stun-to-stick interval was timed for every pig in the group using a stopwatch. The time when the ‘end’ of the stun occurred for all pigs in a group began when the stun- box stopped just before the gate opened to release the pigs. All pigs were chest stuck (severing all major blood vessels in the thorax). Sticking was considered to be the point at which the knife was pushed into the chest and signalled the end of the stun-to-stick time. Stick times were recorded sequentially for

each pig in the group. Any incidents or stops or causes for delays in sticking were recorded.

Stun quality

Pigs were continually observed for physical symptoms that could indicate consciousness or a risk that recovery was imminent. When pigs were in a state of whole body relaxation, and there was no evidence of rhythmic breathing, righting reflex, vocalisations, convulsions, blinking, pain or eye responses to stimulation, pigs were considered in a state of deep anaesthesia and adequately stunned. Pigs that showed symptoms outside of the deep stun criteria (Table 1) were more closely examined and the eyes tested by carefully touching the corneal area with a pen tip angled at approximately 45°. If the pig blinked in response it was noted as a corneal reflex. Pain response was tested by pricking the inner snout of the pig with the sharp point of a metal pencil casing and withdrawal response was noted as pain reflex. Every last pig in the group was routinely tested for reflexes. To

Table 1. Stun quality protocol (SQP) describing symptoms of inadequate stunning rated for risk to inferior animal welfare from 4 (highest) to 1 (lowest).

Risk level 4

Interpretation Inadequate stunning and the highest risk to animal welfare due to symptoms signifying consciousness

Sympton Righting reflex (RR) Pain reflex (PR) Blinking (B) Vocalisation (V)

3

2

1

Inadequate stunning at a lower risk level due to symptoms signifying a recovery risk rather than specific signs of consciousness

Nystagmus (N) Corneal reflex (CR) Rhythmic breathing (RB)

If shown independently indicates a low risk and not considered as inadequate stunning but if seen in combination with other symptoms in this rating re- stunning is recommended

Convulsion (C)

If shown independently indicates a low risk of return to consciousness and not considered as inadequate stunning but pigs should be monitored

Irregular gasping (IR)

Eyeball rotation (ER) Regular gasping (RG) Regular kicking (RK)

Irregular kicking (IK)

Definition Raising of the head or arching of back in animal’s attempt to right itself or recover normal body position Any response to a painful stimulus such as a severe prick on the nose with a sharp instrument Animal blinks its eye on its own without stimulation When animal squeals or groans using vocal cords not associated with involuntary sounds during the dying process Raising of the head or arching of back in animal’s attempt to right itself or recover normal body position Animal blinks in response to careful touching of the cornea Rhythmic air inhalation seen in the form of regular expansion/contraction of chest or flank area or feeling rhythmic air exhalations on the back of the hand Involuntary, violent seizure-like muscle contractions (excluding slight muscle twitches) The eyeball is rotated in a fixed position so the sclera is predominantly seen and little or no iris remaining 40s after stunning Opening of the mouth with the sound or appearance of short gasps of air while flexing the head forwards occurring more than 3 times within 10s intervals Multiple movements of the limbs Occasional opening of the mouth while flexing the head forwards with the sound or appearance of short gasps of air intake at sporadic intervals Occasional movements of the limbs

Source: Authors

www.meatpacking.info

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 65

S T UNNIN G

Table 2. Description of the eight abattoirs and ten study visits including: box type, loading mechanism, number of boxes, average group size/box, CO2 concentration and exposure times, average stick time for last pig (LP), and number and percentage of inadequately stunned pigs.

Abattoir

Box type

Loading method

No. boxes

Mean (± SD) pigs per box

CO2 (%) pit base

Mean (± SD) exposure time

Mean (± SD) stick time last pig(s)

Number inadequately stunned (n/N) (%)

1

Paternoster

Auto

7

7 (± 1.2)

93

282 (± 44)

117 (± 13)

0/3,444 (0)

2

Paternoster

Auto

6

4 (± 1)

93

238 (± 42)

117 (± 9)

1/2,325 (0.04)

3

Paternoster

Auto

4

3 (± 0.4)

93

250 (± 34)

96 (± 8)

0/500 (0)

4

Paternoster

Auto

3

3

91

240 (± 10)

68 (± 15)

0/700 (0)

5

Paternoster

Auto

3

3

93

240

70 (± 4)

0/507 (0)

6a

Dip-lift

Auto

1

7

91

172

86 (± 13)

10/602 (1.6)

6b**

Dip-lift

Auto

1

7

93

180

67 (± 3.2)

0/252 (0)

7a

Dip-lift

Manual

1

5

93

208

60 (± 8)

19/582 (3.3)

7b**

Dip-lift

Manual

1

5

94

224

65 (± 10)

0/200 (0)

8

Dip-lift

Manual

1

4

92

224

66 (± 9)

8/408 (2)

* Taken as an average of 40 box rotations in abattoirs 1 and 2, and 10 in abattoirs 3 and 4, due to variations in time taken to load pigs effecting CO2 exposure times (exposure times in abattoirs 5 to 8 never varied). ** 6b and 7b are reassessments. N is the total number of pigs studied in each abattoir and n is the portion of pigs of that number.

Source: Author

assist with the practical assessments, a stunquality protocol (SQP) was designed to identify and categorise symptoms signifying recovery risk of consciousness. Four groups indicated an interpreted risk level (RL) of inferior animal welfare from highest (4) to lowest (1) (Table 1).

Righting reflex (RR), pain reflex (PR), blinking (B) or vocalisations (V) were rated risk level 4 due to the high probability of consciousness (EFSA 2004; von Holleben et al 2010). Nystagmus (N), rhythmic breathing (RB) and corneal reflexes (CR) can be displayed just prior to recovery (Holst 2001; Velarde et al 2002) but also during light anaesthesia (Rodríguez et al 2008; Vogel et al 2011) and were therefore rated at risk level 3. It is not certain if convulsions (C), eyeball rotation (ER), regular gasping (RG) and regular kicking (RK) are emanating from a still active neocortex or associated with involuntary nerve responses during deep CO2 anaesthesia (Forslid 1987; Tranquilli & Thurmon 2007). Therefore, these symptoms were rated risk level 2. Symptoms of irregular gasping (IG) and irregular kicking (IK) were recorded and rated RL 1 because, if shown independently, are not indications of consciousness (EFSA 2004). Any pigs with a single display of symptoms rated RL level 3 or 4, were considered inadequately stunned. Pigs showing a single display of RL 2 symptoms were closely examined and monitored, and only if other RL2 symptoms appeared was inadequate stunning registered. The percentage and frequency of symptoms shown individually or in 66 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

combination were evaluated for both individual abattoirs and as a total of pooled data.

Data analysis

Descriptive data analysis was used with Microsoft Excel version 2007. For the statistical analysis, the Statistical Analysis System software (SAS 9.2, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA 1999–2001) was used. Differences in the prevalence of the different risk levels (RL1, RL2, RL3 and RL4) and of the different symptoms assessed (RR, PR, B, V, N, RB, CR, C, ER, RG and RK) were analysed with a general linear model analysis of variance (PROC GENMOD) following a binomial distribution. The ‘time of exposure’, ‘box type’, ‘group size’ and ‘stun-to-stick interval’ were taken as fixed effects whereas the ‘CO2 concentration’ was taken as a covariate.

The correlation (PROC CORR) using the Fisher’s exact test between all the different symptoms of recovery were analysed. Also, the correlation between the time of exposure and the number of pigs in each group was assessed. In all comparisons, results were taken to be statistically significant when P < 0.05.

results

F

ive abattoirs used the Butina paternoster (abattoirs 1–5) and the other three (6–8) used the Butina dip-lift stun systems. The number of boxes in the stun machine, group www.meatpacking.info

S T UNNIN G

Table 3. Mean (± SD) stick time (s) and, beneath these figures, the total number (N) of pigs in each group for all abattoirs.

Pig

1

2

3

4

5

6a

6b

7a

7b

8

1

68 (± 7) 502

58 (± 10) 53

45 (± 6) 161

41 (± 14) 36 (± 4) 27 (± 3) 174 169 122

24 (± 2) 36

32 (± 5) 33 (± 5) 158 42

51 (± 8) 102

2

75 ( ± 7) 502

69 (± 10) 553

63 (± 6) 161

55 (± 15) 53 (± 4) 36 (± 4) 174 169 122

33 (± 3) 36

39 (± 6) 41 (± 6) 158 42

56 (± 9) 102

3

80 (± 8) 502

80 (± 10) 551

81 (± 8) 161

68 (± 15) 70 (± 4) 45 (± 5) 174 169 122

39 (± 3) 36

46 (± 7) 49 (± 8) 158 42

61 (± 9) 102

4

90 (± 8) 500

91 (± 11) 505

96 (± 8) 16

53 (± 6) 122

47 (± 3) 36

53 (± 8) 57 (± 9) 158 42

66 (± 9) 102

5

96 (± 8) 493

102 (± 10) 155

103 (± 0) 11

62 (± 7) 122

54 (± 4) 36

60 (± 8) 65 (± 10) 158 42

6

96 (± 9) 438

117 (± 9) 8

7

101 (± 9) 306

8

106 (± 9) 148

9

111 (± 12) 42

10

117 (± 13) 11

72 (± 11) 62 (± 3) 122 36 81 (± 14) 67 (± 3) 122 36

Abattoirs 1 to 6 are paternoster stun systems and abattoirs 6 to 8 dip-lift systems. * Abattoir 6b and 7b are reassessments.

Source: Authors

size, stun-to-stick intervals, CO2 concentrations, CO2 exposure times and stun quality varied in each abattoir (Table 2).

Stun system

In abattoirs 1 and 2, the CO2 concentrations measured with the external monitor, registered 81 and 83% in the first stop and 91 and 93% in the bottom stop, respectively, which corresponded to slightly higher concentrations than that displayed on the stun-box monitor.

In the other abattoirs the machines displayed CO2 concentrations between 91 to 94%.

The abattoirs with the longest stick times (1 and 2) also had the longest CO2 exposure times, averaging 282 (± 44)s and 238 (± 42) s, respectively. In abattoir 1 (seven boxes), it took 13s to reach each stop, in which the CO2 levels at the first stop exceeded 80%. The boxes stopped five times for 40s during the rotation. The boxes were in the pit bottom for a minimum of 80s where CO2 concentrations were above 90%.

Group size and stun-to-stick interval

Five abattoirs (4 and 5 with paternoster and all the dip-lift systems), had consistent group sizes ranging from three to seven pigs. Abattoirs 1 to 3 had varying group sizes from a minimum of three to a maximum of 10 pigs. In the paternoster systems, the average stick time for

www.meatpacking.info

the last pig in the group, varied from a minimum of 70 (± 4)s to a maximum of 117 (± 12)s and in the dip-lift systems, from a minimum of 60 (± 8)s to a maximum of 86 (± 13)s (Table 3). Of 7,476 pigs in the paternoster systems, 80% had stick times greater than 60s, 62% greater than 70s and 42% greater than 80s. In abattoirs 1 and 2, 30% were stuck after 90s. In the dip-lift systems, 75% of the pigs were stuck within 60 s, but 71% of the last pigs in each group were stuck over 60s and 50% over 70s.

Stun quality

When pooling data, a total of 38 pigs displayed symptoms of inadequate stunning from the SQP. Pigs were consistently adequately stunned in the five abattoirs using paternoster systems (only one of 7,476 pigs showed corneal reflex at sticking). In all three dip-lift systems, pigs were found inad- equately stunned with 1.5% of pigs in abattoir 6a, 3.3% in 7a, and 2% in abattoir 8 during the first study (Table 2). A reinvestigation was completed in abattoirs 6 and 7 after service of the stun systems and an increase in CO2 exposure times (from 172 to 180s in abattoir 6b and 208 to 224s in abattoir 7b). The second stun-quality assessment found all pigs properly stunned in both abattoirs. The total proportion of pigs inadequately stunned in the paternoster systems was lower (0.01%) compared to the dip-lift systems (1.8%) (P < 0.001). The number of pigs in the group increased significantly (P < March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 67

S T UNNIN G

Figure 1

Number of pigs

8 7

RL4

6

RL3

5

RL2

4 3 2 1 0 RG B,

B

G ,R R ,C

B,

RK

C B,

R

G, ,R

RK

K

B,

,R CR

B,

, RB

CR

K G G ,R ,R ,R G C R , C ,R CR CR

K

CR , RB

,R CR

, RG

RK

C,

RK

C,

RG

Combination of symptons The combinations of symptoms seen in inadequately stunned pigs (n = 38), grouped in the category of the symptom with the highest risk level (RL).

B: Blinking, RB: Rhythmic breathing, CR: Corneal reflex, C: Convulsions, RG: Regular gasping, RK: Regular kicking.

Source: Author

0.001) the stun-to-stick interval.

The probability that pigs displayed symptoms rated risk level 3 or 4 increased significantly when the CO2 exposure time decreased (P > 0.01) and when the CO2 concentration decreased (P = 0.05). The symptoms rated as risk level 3 were significantly more frequent when the CO2 concentration and the time of exposure decreased (P = 0.03 and P = 0.046, respectively) and when the stun-to-stick interval increased (P = 0.028). Most inadequately stunned pigs (95%) showed more than one symptom. The most frequent symptom observed was the corneal reflex, present in 74% (28) of the 38 pigs in total that were inadequately stunned. It was observed in 1.5, 2.6 and 0.7% of the total pigs assessed in abattoirs 6, 7 and 8, respectively (Table 4). In 26 cases of corneal reflex (RL3) there were also RL2 symptoms shown and the most frequent combination was corneal reflex with regular gasping (Figure 1).

Blinking was seen in 0.5% of pigs in abattoir 7, 1.7% in abattoir 8 (Table 4), and in 26% (10) of the 38 inadequately stunned pigs. The symptoms pain reflex, righting reflex (RL4), nystagmus and eyeball rotation (RL3) were never 68 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

observed. There was a significant correlation between the appearance of blinking and corneal reflex (r = â&#x20AC;&#x201C;0.31, P = 0.048). All pigs in the study that were inadequately stunned were promptly restunned with back-up devices, such as electrical stun (six abattoirs) and captive-bolt gun (two abattoirs). In abattoirs 7 and 8 (dip-lift systems), most of the stick times of inadequately stunned pigs (21/28) remained under 60s and all under 68 s. The longest stick times in abattoirs 1 to 8 were 160, 145, 119, 245, 83, 145, 104 and 116 s, respectively, and all these pigs were adequately stunned.

Discussion Stun system

P

igs were consistently adequately stunned in the paternoster systems despite most stick times exceeding 60s. The shortest CO2 exposure time recorded in the paternoster systems was 238s; indicating pigs were exposed to CO2 concentrations higher than 80% for at least 192s. Studies in Germany and Spain on similar Butina paternoster systems, reported www.meatpacking.info

S T UNNIN G

Table 4. In each abattoir the number of pigs and percentage in brackets that displayed certain symptoms from the SQP. Risk level

Abattoir number Sympton

P1 (n=3,444)

P2 (n=2,325)

P3 (n=500)

P4 (n=700)

P5 (n=507)

D6 (n=602)

D6b (n=252)

D7 (n=582)

D7b (n=200)

D8 (n=408)

4

Righting reflex

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

Pain reflex

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

Blinking

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3 (0.5)

0

7 (1.7)

4

Vocalise

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

Nystagmus

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

Corneal reflex

0

1 (0.04)

0

0

0

9 (1.5)

0

15 (2.6)

0

3 (0.7)

3

Rhythmic breathing

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1 (0.2)

0

1 (0.2)

2

Eye rotation

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Convulsions

0

0

0

0

0

6 (1)

0

1 (0.2)

0

0

2

Regular kicking

0

0

0

0

0

3 (0.5)

0

12 (2)

0

4 (1)

2

Regular gasping

2 (0.05)

60 (2.5)

0

0

0

14 (2.3)

0

20 (3.4)

0

6 (1.5)

1

Irregular gasping

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1 (0.2)

0

5 (1.2)

1

Irregular kicking

0

1 (0.04)

0

0

0

0

0

1 (0.2)

0

0

0

1 (0.04)

0

0

0

10 (1.7)

0

19 (3.3)

0

8 (2)

Inadequate stun

P: paternoster stun-box type; D: dip-lift stun-box type. * 6b and 7b are reassessments. n = total number of pigs studied in each abattoir.

Source: Author

shorter CO2 exposure times coupled with much higher percentages of inadequately stunned pigs. Hartmann et al (2010) reported exposure times of 120 and 90s in 90% CO2, with 6.2 and 17% pigs displaying corneal reflex, respectively.

Velarde et al (2000b) reported 25 and 28% pigs with pain and righting reflex when stunned in 83% CO2 for 103s. The CO2 exposure times and concentra- tions should be high enough to ensure all pigs in the group remain unconscious during sticking and until death. In this study, at least 200 stick times in the smaller abattoirs and 500 in the larger ones, were considered an adequate sample size to gauge the stick-time variations. Swedish regulations state that pigs should be exposed to a minimum of 70% CO2 for 140 s, of which 60s of that time, the CO2 concentration should increase to 90%. In the paternoster systems where 80% of the pigs were stuck > 60s, these recommendations may not provide suitable stunning, especially in abattoirs www.meatpacking.info

1 and 2 where 98.5% of the pigs had stick times > 60s.

Group size and stun-to-stick interval

Four abattoirs (1, 2, 4 and 7a) had several stops in the system causing delayed stick intervals related to slaughter line congestion, shackles derailing, jams in the stun gate when releasing pigs at the system exit, or pigs flipping over the edge of the stun crate (requiring a separate pulley to attach them to the shackle line). Abattoirs with few stops or interruptions in the system had less variable stick times.

Many stick times of the inadequately stunned pigs in abattoir 6 were extended due to restunning prior to sticking. In the second study assessment, however, stick times were more efficient because no pigs required restunning. In abattoirs 6a and 7a restunning occurred after sticking because the symptoms were detected post sticking.

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 69

S T UNNIN G

Stun quality

Abattoir 6 had a larger group size (and longer stick times) than abattoirs 7 and 8. Therefore, it was unexpected to record shorter CO2 exposure times than the other abattoirs using dip-lift stun-boxes. Despite using longer CO2 exposure times and having shorter stick times, abattoir 7a had a two-fold higher percentage of inadequately stunned pigs compared to abattoir 6a. However, by increasing the CO2 exposure times and concentrations, all pigs were properly stunned in follow- up assessments. Abattoir 8 used an exposure time of 224s and 91% CO2 at the pit base, yet 2.4% pigs were inade- quately stunned. These exposure times should have consis- tently stunned all pigs. Although the stun machine registered a CO2 concentration higher than 90% CO2, air draughts, cold gas, or excess water in the stun-pit base, may have reduced individual CO2 consumption thus preventing proper stunning in some pigs. In abattoirs 6 and 7, gas-transfer pipes were insulated and valves upgraded to ensure the CO2 entered the stun-box at no less than at 20°C, possibly improving stun efficiency found in the second assessments.

In abattoir 8, none of the pigs with blinking or corneal reflex had pain responses.

When showing a blink response, the eyelid slowly closed and opened. The corneal reflex response also occurred only once when tested repetitively. Pigs in abattoir 7a, however, opened the eyelid fully and quickly on repeat tests. This suggests that these pigs were in a more shallow state of stun than in abattoir 8.

Danish Meat Association guidelines (Danish Meat Research Institute 2011) for CO2 groupwise stunning, do not consider a corneal reflex response unless it occurs twice and EFSA (2004) states that the corneal reflex is positive if the eyelid closes after touching once. Vogel et al (2011) considered the corneal reflex as any blink or twitch of the eyelid in association with physical touch. RodrĂ­guez et al (2008) reported corneal reflex in stunned pigs that showed brain activity values indicating unconsciousness, therefore they doubted the effectiveness of the corneal reflex in accurately assessing consciousness. Panella-Riera et al (2008) found corneal reflex in 20% of pigs immediately after stunning in a Butina diplift system, which disappeared after 40 s.

According to Hall et al (2001), the presence of the corneal reflex may be present for a short time after cardiac arrest has occurred. It can also be the first symptom to appear after recovery from CO2 stunning (Forslid 1987; Anil 1991; Holst 2001), and therefore it can be difficult to interpret if the pig showing corneal reflex is close to death or recovery. In abattoirs 70 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

7 and 8, many pigs displayed corneal reflex, blinking or regular gasping after sticking, but most symptoms disappeared quickly; probably due to rapid blood loss from sticking causing death. However, when one pig with rhythmic breathing prior to shackling was tested for reflexes it failed to show any. Regular kicking symptoms began and the pig showed corneal reflex upon repeat tests, 55s after sticking (115s after stunning). Three pigs initially showed no symptoms, but 50 to 60s after sticking, regular gasping and corneal reflex appeared, indicating some form of recovery of consciousness despite sticking. This may have been due to poor sticking procedures.

Anil and McKinstry (1993) also found a return of rhythmic breathing, and Vogel et al (2011) corneal reflex in some pigs after sticking.

Any delay in the rate of blood loss from ineffective sticking could result in sustained perfusion of the brain by cerebral blood supply, thereby prolonging brain activity and pig consciousness, potentially compromising animal welfare (Anil et al 2000).

The symptom regular gasping appeared to indicate different levels of stun quality in different abattoirs. In abattoir 2 it appeared in up to 2.5% of pigs without any other symptoms. In abattoir 6, 7 and 8, however, most pigs showing regular gasping showed other symptoms indicating inadequate stunning according to the SQP. Gregory et al (1987) reported 75% pigs with gasping of which 16% had corneal reflex after short exposure to CO2 (66s in 86% CO2); therefore gasping was probably a symptom of recovery.

Forslid (1987) and Holst (2001) found that gasping occurred before normal breathing resumed when pigs were allowed to recover after CO2. Grandin (2010), however, mentions that gasping is a symptom of a dying animal, but Raj (1999) refers to it as a rudimentary brain stem reflex. Regular gasping and regular kicking in abattoirs 6, 7 and 8 were good indicators to initiate a closer examination to assess the stun quality and, in fact, 18 pigs with corneal reflex first showed symptoms of regular gasping while on the shackle line.

This highlights the importance of continual monitoring of pigs during a stun- quality assessment, and not just checking them at one point after stunning. It is not clear scientifically what risk level of recovery there is if pigs display RL2 symptoms. In this study, however, it was decided that pigs displaying a combination of these symptoms (convulsions, regular gasping or regular kicking), should be considered inadequately stunned and restunned to eliminate any risk for animal welfare. It seemed a reasonable level of risk www.meatpacking.info

S T UNNIN G

grading since 82% (31 of 38) inadequately stunned pigs with RL2 symptoms also showed RL3 or 4 symptoms (Figure 1). Stun-quality assessments could be enhanced by recording when (eg on the stun crate, shackle or after sticking) and to what degree (eg single/ repeated, weak/strong), the symptoms were displayed. Table 5 suggests appropriate actions to take when pigs display certain symptoms according to the risk level for animal welfare.

According to EFSA (2004), it is acceptable to see 5% of pigs with corneal reflex at the time of sticking. The highest percent of pigs with corneal reflex in this study was 2.6% and in all but two cases other symptoms occurred from the SQP. Using the corneal reflex as the only indicator for assessing stun quality is not recommended. The use of the SQP in this study ensured that all symptoms that could indicate possible inadequate stunning were considered.

This also helped to reduce inconsistencies despite variations in the stun systems, and comparisons could be made between the stunquality standards of the different abattoirs.

When presented with the results, abattoirs 6 and 7 did not find the stun-quality results of 1.6 and 3.2% acceptable, and worked to have all pigs properly stunned in the follow-up studies. It is therefore not unrealistic to expect that abattoirs have no more than 1.5% of pigs with rate 3 symptoms and certainly not more than 1% with rate 4 from the SQP.

animal welfare implications and conclusions

T

he use of a stun-quality protocol (SQP) specific for CO2 gas stunning of pigs helped formulate a standardised method for deciding when pigs were inadequately stunned. In abattoirs using paternoster systems, pigs were consistently adequately stunned, and stick times up to 100s compared to 60 s, did not increase the risk to animal welfare. Stun-quality problems were detected in abattoirs using dip-lift systems, although 75% of the stick times were below 60s. Regular gasping was an important indicator of inadequate stunning in these abattoirs. Blinking and corneal reflex symptoms were sometimes displayed prior to or after sticking, once or on repeated occasions.

These symptoms could therefore be more accurately defined in the SQP. Symptoms of inadequate stunning sometimes appeared while pigs were on the shackle line sometime after sticking. It is therefore important to monitor stun quality continuously and not just at one point after stunning. In some pigs corneal reflex was seen as long as 60s after sticking. www.meatpacking.info

While prompt sticking can reduce recovery risk, it should not be the means, which animals are rendered unconscious while the slaughter procedure is performed

acknowledgements

T

he cooperation of the participating abattoirs and their staff is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks also to Ernst Grauert Wilche for assisting with technical information.

references Anil A and McKinstry J 1991 Reflexes and loss of sensibility fol- lowing head to back electrical stunning in sheep. The Veterinary Record 128(5): 106-107. http://dx.doi. org/10.1136/vr.128.5.106 Anil A and McKinstry J 1993 Results of a survey of pig abattoirs in England and Wales. MAFF Meat Hygiene Division: Tolworth, London, UK Anil A, Whittington P and McKinstry J 2000 The effect of the sticking method on the welfare of slaughter pigs. Meat Science 55: 315-319 Anil MH 1991 Studies on the return of physical reflexes in pigs following electrical stunning. Meat Science 30: 13-21.

Barton-Gade P and Christensen L 2002 Transportation and pre-stun handling: CO2systems. Veterinary Congress pp 1-5. 19-27 November 2002, Helsinki, Finland Channon HA, Payne AM and Warner R 2003 Effect of stun duration and current level applied during head to back and head only electrical stunning of pigs on pork quality compared with pigs stunned with CO2. Meat Science 65: 1325-1333.

Christensen L and Barton-Gade P 1997 New Danish devel- opments in pig handling at abattoirs. Fleischwirtschaft International 77: 604-607 Dalmau A, Temple D, RodrĂ­guez P, Llonch P and Velarde A 2009 Application of the Welfare Quality protocol at pig slaughterhouses.

Animal Welfare 18: 497-505 Danish Meat Research Institute 2011 http://www.dti.dk/specialists/30402?cms.query= guidlines+for+co2+stunning EC (European Community) 1993 Council Directive No 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing. EC: Brussels, Belgium EC (European Community) 2009 Council Regulation No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing. Official Journal March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 71

S T UNNIN G

of the European Union L303: 1-30. EC: Brussels, Belgium EFSA 2004 Welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing meth- ods. Scientific Report on the Scientific Panel for Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission. Adopted on the 15th of June 2004. EFSA: Brussels, Belgium Forslid A 1987 Transient neocortical, hippocampal and amygdaloid EEG silence induced by one-minute inhalation of high concentration carbon dioxide in swine. Acta Physiological Scandinavica 130: 1-10 Grandin T 2010 Recommended animal handling guidelines and audit guide. A systematic approach to animal welfare.

American Industry Foundation: USA Gregory N 1999 Animal Welfare and Meat Science. CABI Publishing: Oxford, UK Gregory N, Moss BW and Leeson RH 1987 An assessment of carbon dioxide stunning in pigs. Veterinary Record 121: 517-518.

Hall LW, Clarke KW and Trim CM 2001 Veterinary Anaesthesia, Tenth Edition. Harcourt Publishers: UK Hartmann H, Rindermann G, SieglingVlitakis C, Arndt G, Wolf K and Fries R 2010 Relationship between the response to the corneal reflex (depth of narcosis) and specific parameters in the slaughter blood of pigs narcotised with CO2. Animal Welfare 19: 515522 Holleben KV, Schuette A, Wenzlawowicz MV and Bostelmann V 2002 Call for veterinary action in the slaughter- houses. Deficient welfare at CO2 stunning of pigs and captive bolt stunning of cattle. Fleischwirtschaft International 3: 8-10 Holst S 2001 Carbon dioxide stunning of pigs for slaughter. Practical Guidelines for Science and Technology, Good Animal Welfare.

Proceedings of the 47th International Congress of Meat Science pp 48-54. 21-26 August 2001, Krakow, Poland Nowak B, Mueffling TV and Hartung J 2007 Effect of differ- ent carbon dioxide concentrations and exposure time in stunning of slaughter pigs: Impact on animal welfare and meat quality. Meat Science 75: 290-298.

Official Statistics Sweden 2011 07JO 48SM 1109. http://www.scb.se/Pages/ PublishingCalendarViewInfo259923.aspx ?PublObjId=15811 Panella-Riera N, Dalmau A, Fabrega E, Font I, Furnols M, Gispert M, Tibau J, Soler J, Velarde A, Oliver MA and Gil M 2008 Effect of supplementation with MgCO3 and L-Tryptophan on the welfare and on the carcass and meat quality of two halothane pig genotypes (NN and nn). Livestock Science 115: 72 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

107- 117.

Raj M 1999 Behaviour of pigs exposed to mixtures of gases and the time required to stun and kill them: welfare implications. The Veterinary Record 13: 165-168.

Rodríguez P, Dalmau A, Ruiz-de-la-Torre JL, Manteca X, Jensen EW, Rodríguez B, Litvan H and Velarde A 2008 Assessment of unconsciousness during carbon dioxide stunning in pigs. Animal Welfare 17: 341-349 SJVFS 2008 69: L22: Chapter 7:2. Swedish Board of Agriculture: Jönköping, Sweden Stoier S, Aaslyng MD, Olsen EV and Henckel P 2000 The effect of stress during lairage and stunning on muscle metabolism and drip loss in Danish pork. Meat Science 59: 127-131.

Terlouw EMC, Arnould C, Auperin B, Berri C, Le Bihan- Duval E, Deiss V, Lefe F, Lensink BJ and Mounier L 2008 Pre-slaughter conditions, animal stress and welfare: current status and possible future research. Animal 2: 1501-1517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S1751731108002723 Tranquilli WJ and Thurmon JC 2007 Veterinary Anaesthesia and Analgesia. Blackwell Publishing: Iowa, USA Van de Perre V, Permentier L, De Bie S, Verbeke G and Geers R 2010 Effect of unloading, lairage, pig handling, stunning and season on pH of pork. Meat Science 86: 931-937. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. meatsci.2010.07.019 Velarde A, Gispert M, Faucitano L, Manteca X and Diestre A 2000a Effect of stunning method on the incidence of PSE meat and haemorrhages in pork carcasses. Meat Science 55: 309-314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0309-1740(99)00158-8 Velarde A, Gispert L, Faucitano L and Diestre A 2000b Survey of the effectiveness of stunning procedures used in Spanish pig abattoirs. Veterinary Record 146: 65-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.146.3.65 Velarde A, Ruiz-de-la-Torre J, Roselló C, Fabrega E, Diestre A and Manteca X 2002 Assessment of return to consciousness after electrical stunning in lambs. Animal Welfare 11: 333-341 Vogel KD, Badtram G, Claus IR, Grandin T, Turpin S, Weyker RE and Voogd E 2011 Head-only followed by cardiac arrest electrical stunning is an effective alternative to head-only electrical stunning in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 89: 1412-1418 Von Holleben K, von Wenzlawowic M, Gregory N, Anil H, Velarde A, Rodríguez P, Cenci Goga B, Catanese B and Lambooij B 2010 Report on good and adverse practices: Animal welfare concerns in slaughter practices www.meatpacking.info

SH OW

P RE V IE W

interpack 2014 Interpack is the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest packaging show, catering for the full range of industries from food to industrial goods. It is the best place to get the latest information on packaging technologies to complete your end of line. MPJ takes a quick look at the show and what you need to know.

www.meatpacking.info

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 73

SH OW

P RE V IE W

I

Date & Opening hours 08. - 14. May 2014 Daily 10 am - 6 pm

74 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

nterpack is more than just a packaging show. It is the major inspiration for the packaging industry and related process technologies. Some 2,700 exhibitors from more than 60 countries will present their latest ideas, innovate concepts and technological visions - not only in equipment and machinery for packaging and processing, but also in production tools for packaging materials, materials themselves, and services for the entire industry.

Innovation is a running theme for the 50 year old event and the Innovationparc Packaging is the show's own forum for special themes of the future. Visitors and exhibitors meet here for an exchange of creative ideas and the development of visionary ideas on basic social, economic and ecological themes.

In 2014 the Innovationparc Packaging will be dedicated to the Save Food theme. With the aid of renowned experts, the aim is to develop sustainable packaging concepts which will explicitly reduce food loss around the world. Every year almost 1/3 of all food is lost.

Worldwide this means 1.3 billion tons rendered unusable because of inappropriate storage, poor transport conditions and under-developed conservation and packaging-methods.

However, food waste is an equally large theme. Over-production of food in western industrial nations results, for example, in food being rejected for minor visual faults. In the Innovationparc Packaging, stakeholders in the food industry, trade, packaging and logistics who are involved in the supply chain will be looking for new ways to stem these losses and thus fight global hunger.

The Save Food initiative was initiated at the beginning of 2010 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Interpack organisers Messe D端sseldorf. Following the well-regarded premiere at Interpack 2011, at which the theme was presented and generally discussed within a congress accompanied by an exhibition with high-calibre participants from the industry and politics, Save Food 2014 will be the central theme in the Innovationparc Packaging at interpack.

The neworking opportunites at Interpack allow for major issues to be discussed and routes forward explored. Some 166,000 visitors attended the 2011 Interpack, 60% from overseas, and the 2014 show expected to better those numbers. The opportunities are enormous to explore and solve industry challenges, better product life, retain meat quality, reduce waste, costs and losses. www.meatpacking.info

SH OW

P RE V IE W

companies to watch Ari Makina ins. Sanayi ve Ticaret Hall 08a / D18-4 Attec Danmark Hall 06 / A28 Beta-Pak Otomatk Paket Hall 08a / D18-1 Chie Mei Enterprise Hall 15 / E59 Emerson Technik Hall 08b / D95 Faerch Plast Hall 10 / D45 Fortress Technology (Europe) Hall 04 / E39-02 Koch Pac-Systeme Hall 12 / E24 & Hall 11 / D56 International Plastic Engineering Hall 07.2 / A38 ITEC Hygiene & Food Technology Hall 06 / A28 Jia-In Industry Hall 08b / G27 JBT Foodtech Hall 06 / A66 Matimex Hall 07.2 / C01 Modern Ambalaj Hall 07.1 / E40-10 MPAK Packaging Hall 07.1 / A40 Multivac Hall 05 / E23 Nor-Reg Systems Hall 14 / E31 OlympusPDX Hall 04 / E39-08 Pal Plastik Ileri Teknoloji Ambalaj Sist Hall 10 / B06-6 Shrinath Flexipack Hall 07.2 / A42 Specialty Polyfilms (India) Hall 07.2 / C17 Spice Application Systems Hall 04 / F14 SPX Flow Technology Copenhagen Hall 06 / A30 Taghleef Industries Hall 09 / D24 Tam Matbaacilik ve Ambalaj Hall 10 / B32 Teknik Plastik Sealed Air Ambalas Hall 10 / B06-3 Terlet Hall 07a / B32 Za Metal Kutu Ambalaj Hall 07.1 / D40-2 www.meatpacking.info

Admission fees Day ticket Online pre-selling: 49 € On site: 60 € 3-day ticket Online pre-selling: 99 € On site: 120 € Visitors holding an eticket can travel free of charge on public transport within the network of the VRR transport authority (and 2nd class on German railways).

show venue & Arrival Düsseldorf fairgrounds Entrances North, South and East Hall 1 - 17

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 75

Advanced vacuum pump technology for a changing industry.

Reliable performance. Proven worldwide. At Oerlikon Leybold Vacuum, our wide range of solutions makes it possible to match the correct vacuum pump to your ever-changing requirements. From standard pumps and boosters to central vacuum systems, we can help you improve productivity, reduce downtime, and maximize profitability. Make the change today – to Oerlikon Leybold Vacuum.

SOGEVAC Rotary Vacuum Pumps ■ ■

■

RUVAC Vacuum Boosters

Well-proven food industry standard

■

Provides vacuum up to a decade better than competitive pumps

■

Oil mist elimination system with on-board oil recirculation ■

Oerlikon Leybold Vacuum GmbH Bonner Strasse 498 D-50968 Köln T +49 (0)221 347-0 F +49 (0)221 347 1250 info.vacuum@oerlikon.com www.oerlikon.com/leyboldvacuum

Increases pumping speeds to improve cycle times Provides oil-free compression of gases in combination with a vacuum pump Can be prepared for washdown duty

DRYVAC Dry Vacuum Pumps ■

■

■

Dry compressing pumps provide the highest level of food safety Dry pumps eliminate any chance of oil coming in contact with food and environment No oil means less maintenance, no disposal, lower cost of ownership, and eco-friendly

DAT E S

A ND

E V EN T S

2014 18 - 21 March Dairy & Meat 2014 Russia www.md-expo.ru 24 - 26 March Foodex Birmingham, UK www.foodex.co.uk 25 -17 March The Middle East Poultry & Livestock Exhibition Dubai, UAE www.md-expo.ru 23 - 25 April VIV India Bangalore, India www.vivindia.nl 20 - 22 May VIV Europe Utrecht, Netherlands www.viveurope.nl 4 - 6 June World Pork Expo Iowa, US www.worldpork.org 15 - 16 June World Meat Congress Beijing, China www.worldmeatcongress2014.com 12 - 14 November International Meat, Meat Products & Equipment Exhibition Shanghai, China http://www.chinaexhibition.com

2015 15 - 18 September Process Expo Chicago, US www.myprocessexpo.com

www.meatpacking.info

March~April 2014 | Meat Packing Journal | 77

C O N TAC T S

Editorial

Ruth Tomlin

Rhian Owen

Editor +44 7903 283 999 rhian@meatpacking.info

James Chappelow

Technical Editor james@meatpacking.info

Alex Conacher

Reporter Alex@meatpacking.info

Jack Young

Publisher +44 7817 756 347 jack@meatpacking.info

Sales Jim Robertson

Group Head of Sales sales@meatpacking.info

Josh Henderson

European Sales +44 7534 470 896 josh@meatpacking.info

Rhian Owen

Editorial advisory board Meat Packing Journal is advised and guided by an editorial advisory board formed of leading professionals and researchers

Jorge Ruiz Carrascal University of Copenhagen Fred W. Pohlman University of Arkansas Ian Richardson University of Bristol Graeme Rolinson Marel Alex Conacher

Ruth Tomlin

North American Sales ruth@meatpacking.info

Production Michael Livingston

Production controller production@meatpacking.info

reby media Reby House

42 Courchfield Hemel Hempstead Herts, HP1 1PA UK info@rebymedia.com 78 | Meat Packing Journal | March~April 2014

James Chappelow

www.meatpacking.info

PROCESSES AND PACKAGING LEADING TRADE FAIR DÜSSELDORF, GERMANY

08 –14 MAY 2014 FOOD.INTERPACK.COM

NOURISHMENT FOR THE

FOOD INDUSTRY

For further information contact ITSL Ltd _ Ramsay House _ Marchmont Farm Link Road _ Hemel Hempstead _ Hertfordshire _ HP2 6JH Tel 01442 230033 _ Fax 01442 230012 info@itsluk.com

VIV Europe 2014 World Expo for Animal Husbandry & Processing May 20-22, 2014 | Utrecht, the Netherlands

REGISTER NOW Special themes

for FREE entrance at www.viv.net

Come to Utrecht in 2014 and connect to all players in todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s complete animal protein production chain.