Restraining systems for bovine animals slaughtered without stunning : welfare and socio-economic implications : Acronym: Borest, final report.
Date: 2019-08-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety
Subjects: animal welfare, cattle, occupational safety, report, slaughter of animals, socioeconomic conditions, veterinary legislation

Restraining systems for bovine 
animals slaughtered without 
stunning 

Welfare and socio-economic implications 

Acronym: Borest 

SANCO/2012/10357 

FINAL REPORT 

Coordinated by Institut de l’Elevage 

June 2015 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Coordinator 

Luc Mirabito, Institut de l’Elevage - 149, Rue de Bercy, 75595 Paris Cedex 12 

Authors and participants 

Lisanne Stadig, ILVO 

Claudia Terlouw, INRA 

Cécile Bourguet, INRA 

Virginie Marzin, Institut de l’Elevage 

Barbara Ducreux, Institut de l’Elevage 

Florence Bergeaud-Blackler, IREMAM 

Antoni Dalmau, IRTA 

Pedro Rodriguez, IRTA 

Joaquim Pallisera Lloveras, IRTA 

Willy Baltussen, LEI-Wageningen UR 

Marien Gerritzen, Wageningen UR- Livestock Research 

Mariet de Winter, LEI-Wageningen UR 

Troy Gibson, Royal Veterinary College 

Beniamino Cenci-Goga, University of Perugia 

Sara Novelli, University of Perugia 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety 

Directorate G — Crisis management in food, animals and plants 

Unit G.2 — Animal health and welfare 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission  however,  it  reflects  the  views  only  of  the 
authors,  and  the  Commission  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  any  use  which  may  be  made  of  the  information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 

Catalogue number EW-01-16-056-EN-N 

© European Union, 2019 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONTENT 

1. 

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1 

2.  OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 4 

3. 
REVIEW  OF  THE  CURRENT  LITERATURE  ON  UPRIGHT  AND  ROTATING  RESTRAINT  SYSTEMS  FOR 
SLAUGHTER OF BOVINE ANIMALS WITHOUT STUNNING ....................................................................................... 9 

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 

Rotating restraint ............................................................................................................................................. 13 

Upright restraint .............................................................................................................................................. 16 

Entry to slaughter interval ............................................................................................................................... 19 

Time to Insensibility in rotating and upright restraints .................................................................................. 21 

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 

4. 
CURRENT  SITUATION  OF  THE  RESTRAINT  PRACTICES  OF  BOVINE  ANIMALS  SLAUGHTERED  WITHOUT 
STUNNING ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 

Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 23 

Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 25 

Overview of meat production and restraint practices used for Religious slaughter of bovine animals in 
European Union ........................................................................................................................................... 25 

Inventory  of  the  restraint  devices  used  by  commercial  slaughterhouses  performing  slaughter  without 
previous stunning in six selected Member states ...................................................................................... 39 

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 51 

5. 
ASSESSMENT OF WELFARE OF BOVINE ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT STUNNING USING DIFFERENT 
RESTRAINT DEVICES/PRACTICES ........................................................................................................................... 53 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 53 

Material and Method ....................................................................................................................................... 55 

Description of the sample of groups of animals ......................................................................................... 55 

Measures...................................................................................................................................................... 59 

Planning ....................................................................................................................................................... 75 

Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 77 

Entry  of  the  bovine  animals  into  the  restraint  device  (from  “nose  in  device”  to  “head  out  of  device” 
before start of the restraining procedure) .................................................................................................. 77 

 
 
Restraint procedure ..................................................................................................................................... 84 

Cutting and bleeding ................................................................................................................................... 92 

Signs of consciousness ................................................................................................................................. 98 

Conclusion and recommendations ................................................................................................................ 108 

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 108 

Recommendations and best observed practices for adult bovine animals ............................................... 110 

SOCIO-ECONOMIC 

6. 
IMPLICATIONS  OF  THE  USE  OF  THE  DIFFERENT  RESTRAINT  SYSTEMS  FOR 
SLAUGHTERING BOVINE ANIMALS WITHOUT STUNNING .................................................................................. 114 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 114 

Objectives and scope of the study ................................................................................................................ 116 

Objectives and scope ................................................................................................................................. 116 

Method ...................................................................................................................................................... 116 

Process ....................................................................................................................................................... 119 

Socio-economic implications of the different restraint systems .................................................................. 124 

Economic costs ........................................................................................................................................... 124 

Religious aspects ........................................................................................................................................ 128 

Work safety ................................................................................................................................................ 130 

Intra-EU trade and trade with third countries .......................................................................................... 131 

Animal Welfare .......................................................................................................................................... 132 

DISCUSSION and Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 134 

Scenarios for implementing technical recommendations ............................................................................ 137 

Description of the Scenarios ..................................................................................................................... 137 

Assessment of the impact of the different scenarios ............................................................................... 142 

Indicators for monitoring and evaluation ..................................................................................................... 156 

Conclusion on the socio-economic implications ........................................................................................... 157 

7.  GENERAL CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 159 

context of the study ....................................................................................................................................... 159 

restraint practices of bovine animals slaughtered without stunning .......................................................... 159 

Welfare of animals and restraint devices/practices ..................................................................................... 160 

Scenarios for future EU policies ..................................................................................................................... 161 

 
 
8. 

9. 

FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................................... 163 

TABLES ........................................................................................................................................................ 165 

10. ANNEXES ....................................................................................................................................................... 169 

ANNEX 1 : SURVEY OF RESTRAINING SYSTEMS CURRENTLY USED FOR CATTLE AT THE TIME OF KILLING .... 169 

ANNEX 2 : SURVEY OF RESTRAINING SYSTEMS CURRENTLY USED FOR CATTLE AT THE TIME OF KILLING .... 175 

ANNEX 3 : LIST OF MANUFACTURERS AND NUMBER OF DEVICES PER SELECTED COUNTRY ........................ 181 

ANNEX 4 : EQUIPMENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE WORKING AREA ......................................................... 183 

ANNEX 5 : DEFINITION OF OPERATING PROCEDURE AND BEHAVIORAL ITEMS ............................................. 185 

ANNEX 6 : “BEHAVORIAL” AND OPERATING PROCEDURE OBSERVATION ..................................................... 189 

ANNEX 7 : ANIMALS CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................................... 193 

ANNEX 8: QUESTIONNAIRES FOR DATA COLLECTION (SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS) ........................... 195 

ANNEX 9 : METHODOLOGY FOR THE MEETING WITH RELIGIOUS REPRESENTATIVES ................................... 211 

ANNEX 10 : PROPOSED BASIS FOR IMPROVED STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES AND WORK SAFETY . 213 

ANNEX  11:  VALUATION  OF  THE  INDICATORS  PER  JUDGEMENT  AREA  TO  COMPARE  THE  UPRIGHT  AND 
ROTATING RESTRAINING SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 217 

11. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 221 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

BoRest final report June 2015 

An  essential  requirement  for  the  slaughter  of  bovine  animals  with  or  without  stunning  is 
adequate restraint. The objective of the different systems is to restrain the animal in the pen 
so that stunning and slaughter can be performed effectively, safely, while minimising stress, 
distress and pain to the animals (Anil 2012). 

Regulation  (EC)  No  1099/2009  allows  the  possibility  to  derogate  from  stunning  animals  in 
the  case  of  religious  slaughter  (Jewish  and  Muslim  methods  of  slaughter  respectively 
Shechita  and  Dhabiha  for  the  production  of  kosher  and  halal  meat).  Two  main  restraint 
systems are used for this purpose in European countries: 

  Rotating  restraint  device  where  the  bovine  animals  are  slaughtered  in  dorsal 

(inverted) or lateral position  

  Upright restraint device where animals are restrained in an upright position.    

The  2004  report    on    the    welfare    aspects    of    animal    stunning    and    killing    methods, 
prepared    by    the    European    Food    Safety    Authority,  concluded  that  there  is  a  welfare 
advantage in restraining animals in upright position on the basis of  studies comparing the 
two  systems  that  was  carried  out  at  the  beginning  of  the  nineties.  However,  during  the 
political  debate  that  led  to  the  adoption  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1099/2099,  some  religious 
communities  expressed  concerns  about  compatibility  of  the  upright  position  with  their 
religious  requirements.  Furthermore,  different  stakeholders  highlighted  that  the  new 
designs of rotating restraint devices (including adjustable lateral and head restraint) that are 
currently  in  use  in  Europe,  significantly  differ  from  those  used  in  the  previous  research 
studies. These newer devices have been suggested to provide advantages in terms of animal 
welfare  and  work  safety.  As  a  conclusion,  Article  27  (2)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1099/2009 
provides that: “No later than 8 December 2012, the Commission shall submit to the European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  a  report  on  systems  restraining  bovine  animals  by  inversion  or 
any  unnatural  position.  This  report  shall  be  based  on  the  results  of  a  scientific  study 
comparing  these  systems  to  the  ones  maintaining  bovines  in  the  upright  position  and  shall 
take  into  account  the  animal  welfare  aspects  as  well  as  the  socio-economic  implications, 
including their acceptability by the religious communities and the safety of operators. (…)”. 

The general purpose of the present study was therefore to collect relevant information for 
the Commission to prepare the above mentioned report. 

1 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

To achieve this objective, the study firstly examined the overall current situation regarding 
restraining practices for bovine animals slaughtered without stunning in Europe. A review of 
the  scientific  literature  was  conducted  and  detailed  information  about  practices  and 
Italy,  The 
in  slaughterhouses  of  six  Member  States  (Belgium,  France, 
equipment 
Netherlands, The United Kingdom and Spain) were collected. 

The  second  part  of  the  study  aimed  to  assess  animal  welfare,  taking  into  account  the 
diversity  of  systems  (upright  vs.  rotating)  and  variations  in  practices.  This  assessment  was 
carried out in a sample of slaughterhouses of the selected Member States. 

A third part of the study aimed to analyse the socio-economic implications of the use of the 
different restraint system. Based on data collected from the sampled slaughterhouses, costs 
and  work  safety  aspects  were  analysed.  Religious  communities’  opinions  were  collected 
through interviews and meetings. At the end, different  scenarios of future European Union 
(EU)  policies for  implementing technical  recommendations  were  proposed  and  analysed  in 
comparison with the future situation without any EU policy change (baseline scenario).  

2 

 
 
 
WP4:  Management  and 
coordination 

Task  4.1:  Management 
including  KO  meeting 
and interim reports 

Task  4.2:  Joint  meeting 
for  standardisation  of 
methodology 

Task 4.3:  

Joint  meetings  WP2  & 
WP3 

Joint  meetings  WP2  & 
WP3  

Draft final report 

Final report 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Figure 1: Organization of the project 

WP 1: Current situation 

Task 1.1: Literature review 
Task 1.2 Inventory slaughterhouses, use restraining devices, EU; including 
legislation and enforcement. 
Task 1.3 Third countries 

Output 
State of art in EU countries 
Determination of sample 

WP2: Welfare implications 

2.1: 

Preparation 

Task 
slaughterhouse 
(development of protocol) 

3: 

WP 
implications 

Socio-economic 

Task  3.1:  Preparation  and 
testing  of  questionnaires  and 
meetings 

of 
visits 

Output: 
Protocol for welfare assessment 
and proposed methodology for 
interview/meeting 

2.2: 

Task 
slaughterhouses 
collection 

Visits 

to 

and 

the 
data 

  Welfare assessment 
 
Economics for WP 3 
  Working conditions for 

 

WP3 
Interviews with 
slaughtermen 

Task 
3.2:  Data 
(combined with Task 2.2) 

collection 

Stakeholders Interviews 

Meetings 
representatives 

with 

religious 

Task  2.3:  Data  analysis  and 
interpretation.  

SWOT  analysis  of  different 
restraint devices 

Output: 
Draft final report on welfare 
assessment 

3.3: 

Task 
scenarios 

Baseline 

and 

3.4: 

Feasibility 

Task 
indicators 

Output: 
Socio-economic implications 
Analysis of the different scenarios  

and 

Task 3.3: Baseline and scenario 
Overall  analysis  of  technical 
and socio economic issues 

3 

3.4: 

Task 
indicators 

Feasibility 

and 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

2.  OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY  

The objectives of the project and the different tasks that were carried out are listed in figure 
1.  The project was divided in four work packages. 

Work package 1: Current situation 

The first work package aimed to describe the current situation in terms of restraint devices 
and practices used for slaughtering bovine animals without stunning in the European Union 
and  in  some  third  countries.  Data  were  collected  through  questionnaires  sent  to  the 
competent  authorities  of  the  different  Member  States  to  provide  an  overview  of  the  beef 
meat production with and without stunning and the implementation of the Regulation (EC) 
No  1099/2009.  Then,  a  second  survey  for  slaughterhouses  was  conducted  for  six  selected 
Member  States  (Belgium,  France,  Italy,  The  Netherlands,  Spain,  The  United-Kingdom)  in 
order to get an overview of restraint devices currently in used and of the practices.  

This  work  package  also  included  an  updated  literature  review  in  order  to  describe  the 
scientific  background  available  about  the  use  of  restraint  systems  for  slaughter  of  bovine 
animals without stunning.  

The results of this work package were used to: 

  determine  the  sample  of  the  slaughterhouses  where  socio-economic  data  were 
collected (work package 3) and the sample of restraining systems that were studied 
for their effect on animal welfare (work package 2) 

  design the method of assessment of welfare (work package 2) 
  design and analyse different scenario for future European policies (work package 3) 

Work package 2: Welfare impacts 

The  main  objective  of  this  second  work  package  was  to  compare  the  animal  welfare 
advantages and disadvantages of the different types of restraint systems commercially used 
in European slaughterhouses for slaughtering bovine animals without stunning.   

A  common  methodology was  first  established  and  tested  in  slaughterhouses during  a joint 
meeting of all partners in April 2013. Based on results of the work package 1, the sample for 
data collection was designed to include: 

  both categories of bovine animals (calves and adults) 
 

the  diversity  of  restraint  systems  used  in  the  seven  selected  Member  States  by 
including  the  different  positions  of  the  animals  at  the  time  of  bleeding  (upright, 
lateral and inverted)  

  different restraint device designs and practices that have been previously suggested 

to have particular impacts on animal welfare (positive and negative).  

4 

 
Table 1 : Summary of the location visited in the different countries and the groups of animals 
assessed according to the category of animals and the restraining method 

(Source: BoRest study “Methodology”) 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Category 
of 
animals 

Country 

Slaughter-
house 
code 

Adults 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

The 
Netherlands 
United 
Kingdom 
France 

Italy 
The 
Netherlands 
Belgium 

Calves 

Total 
Number 

6** 

SH1 
SH2 
SH3 
SH4 
SH5 
SH6 
SH7 
SH8 
SH9 
SH10 
SH11 
SH12 
SH13 

SH14 
SH15 
SH16 
SH16 
SH8 
SH12 
SH17 
SH17 
SH18 

18 

Restraining 
method of 
the group 
of animals 
observed 
Inverted 
Inverted 
Inverted  
Inverted 
Inverted 
lateral 
Inverted 
Inverted 
Inverted 
Lateral 
Upright 
Inverted 
Inverted 

Upright 
Upright 
Inverted 
Upright 
Inverted 
Inverted 
Inverted 
Upright 
Inverted 

Number of 
animals 
assessed 

60 
60 
20 
60 
60 
57 
63 
51 
60 
60 
60 
24 
61 

56 
28 
64 
9 
58 
36 
16 
82 
68 

22*** 
(21) 

1,113*** 
(1,105) 

*SH16 upright not included in the analysis  
** Lacking data from Ireland and Israel (1 location expected in each country) 
*** 25 groups expected and 1500 animals expected 
(Number of observations – groups or animals - Included in the analysis) 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Initial  plan  was  to  collect  data  from  sixty  animals  per  slaughterhouse,  in  twenty-five 
slaughterhouses  of  seven  Member  States  and  Israel  (1,500  animals  in  the  overall).  It  was 
expected that each slaughterhouse would be considered as a statistical unit characterized by 
the restraint device used and the position of the animals at the time of bleeding.  

However, it was decided with Commission officials to include both calves and bovine adults 
in the sample (due to the number of calves slaughtered without stunning). Consequently, in 
some 
i.e.  “slaughterhouses”,  where  both  bovine  adults  and  calves  were 
slaughtered but in separate line or according to different restraining method, we considered 
each group from the two categories of animals as an independent statistical unit.  

locations 

The  visits  finally  carried  out  were  depending  on  the  willingness  of  slaughterhouses  to 
participate in the survey and their characteristics. Eventually, eighteen locations were visited 
representing 22 groups of animals assessed (Table 1).   

Deviation  from  expected  number  of  visits  was  observed  in  the  United  Kingdom,  the 
Netherlands and Israel due to the refusal of some contacted slaughterhouses to participate. 
While, no visits were conducted in Ireland because of delays in completion of survey 1 by the 
competent  authority,  despite  the  best  efforts  of  the  research  teams.  In  order  to  partially 
compensate  this  deviation,  additional  observations  or  visits  were  organised  in  some 
slaughterhouses and in some countries.  

Furthermore, in some cases, due to the line speed or the willingness of slaughterhouses to 
collaborate,  a  reduced  number  of  animals  was  observed  compared  to  the  sixty  expected. 
This was compensated partly by additional days of observations. Finally, for the analysis, we 
considered that this had only a limited effect.  

Consequently, at the end, 21 groups representing 1,105 animals assessed were included in 
the analysis and the twenty second one (9 animals) was used only for additional information.     

Data  collection  in  slaughterhouses  took  place  from  July  to  December  2013.  In  each 
slaughterhouse, animal welfare was assessed on a random sample of animals from the entry 
in the restraining system to the release out of the device after the cut. Data were collected 
on  the  device,  the  operating  procedure,  the  practices  of  operators,  the  behaviour  of  the 
animals, the characteristic of the bleeding and the sign of consciousness. 

All  data  were  centralized  and  processed  to  produce  descriptive  statistics.  These  statistics 
were  further  classified  according  to  opinion  of  four  experts  on  the  project.  Based  on  their 
judgement, key points for operating procedure, indicators of monitoring and range of best 
practices observable were proposed.  

6 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Work package 3: Socio economic implications 

The  goal  of  this  work  package  was  to  determine  the  socio-economic  implications  of  the 
different  restraint  systems  with  special  attention  to  economics,  religious  expectation  and 
freedom, working condition and safety of operators. 

At  the  end,  different  scenarios  of  future  EU  policy  options  were  proposed  and  analysed 
according to their effect on different judgement area, in particular animal welfare and socio-
economic implications. 

To achieve this goal, the following tasks were carried out: 

  Meetings with religious representatives in the selected Member States 
  A  synthesis  of  economic  data,  religious  opinion,  working  condition  and  animal 
welfare  in  order  to  perform  a  SWOT  (strengths,  weaknesses,  opportunities  and 
threats) analysis for restraint systems taking into account the competitiveness of EU 
slaughterhouses, the social implications, the freedom of religion and the welfare of 
animals. 

  An evaluation of the future situation in EU based on different scenarios including the 
baseline  and  different  EU  policy  options  to  implement  new  technical  rules  or  to 
phase out certain restraining systems. 

Data  about  animal  welfare,  economics  of  slaughterhouse  and  work  safety  were  collected 
during  visits  of  slaughterhouses  that  took  place during  the  work  package  2. Meetings  with 
religious representative were carried out by each partner in the selected Member States and 
were based on a common methodology consisting in the collection of opinion regarding the 
two  main  restraint  systems  (upright  and  inverted).  Meetings  took  place  from  November 
2013 to March 2014. Future EU options and scenarios were proposed and discussed during 
the  two  steering  committees  (January  and  November  2013)  and  refined  following  direct 
exchanges  with  DG  SANCO.  Analyses  were  carried  out  from  November  2013  to  April  2014 
taking into account the output from the other tasks.  

Work Package 4: Management and coordination 

The  main  objective  of  this  Work  Package  was  to  ensure  a  close  coordination  between  the 
different tasks. To achieve this objective, different tasks were performed: 

  Monthly phone meeting of the consortium, organization of the steering committees 
(January 2013, November 2013 and March 2015) and exchanges with DG SANCO.  
  Organization of a joint meeting (April 2013) between all partners to analyse the first 
output of WP 1 and to finalise the methodology used for data collection on welfare 
and collection of social and economic data. 

  Reporting. 

7 

 
 
Table 2 : Basic principles of restraint device design common for all restrain systems - adapted from 
Grandin’s (2013) 

(Source: BoRest study “literature survey”) 

BoRest final report June 2015 

  Provision of non-slip flooring surfaces leading up to and in the pen. 
  Raceways/entrance ways should be curved and avoid sharp corners to prevent balking and 

allow easy access into the pen. 

  There should be no obstructions that can cause the animals to balk or cause injury when 

entering or being restrained in the pen. 

  There should be sufficient lighting to minimise balking. 
  Equipment should be engineered to minimise noise that could cause agitation/distress to the 

animals.  

  All parts of the restraint pen that contact the animal should move with smooth, steady 

motion, as sudden jerky motions may cause the animal to become agitated / distressed. 
  The pressure applied by the device should not be excessive. The application of excessive 

pressure could cause struggling, vocalizations, pain and distress. 

  Stunning or slaughter without stunning should occur immediately after the animal is fully 

restrained. 

  Solid panels should be used to prevent entering animals from seeing people or moving 

equipment. 

  Animals must be irrecoverably insensible before release from the pen. 
  The pen should be designed to allow the safe and effective ejection of the carcase from the 

device, without putting the operators in harms way.  

8 

 
 
3.  REVIEW  OF  THE  CURRENT  LITERATURE  ON  UPRIGHT  AND 
ROTATING  RESTRAINT  SYSTEMS  FOR  SLAUGHTER  OF  BOVINE 
ANIMALS WITHOUT STUNNING 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Task leader: T. Gibson (RVC) 

INTRODUCTION 

An essential requirement for the slaughter of animals with or without stunning is adequate 
restraint. The objective of the different systems is to restrain the animal in the pen so that 
stunning and slaughter can be performed effectively, safely, while minimising stress, distress 
and  pain  to  the  animals  (Anil  2012).  Table  2  highlights  some  of  the  basic  principles  of 
restraint design that are common to all systems. 

Inadequate  restraint  is  an  important  welfare  concern  for  slaughter  with  and  without 
stunning.  During  slaughter  without  stunning  it  is  essential  for  welfare  and  religious 
requirements  that  the  animals  are  sufficiently  restrained.  It  is  important  that  the  restraint 
system  allows  the  operator  to  perform  a  sufficient  cut  to  the  ventral  surfaces  of  the  neck 
that severs the jugular veins, carotid arteries, trachea, oesophagus, connective tissue, vagus 
and  other  sensory  nerves.  The  restraint  should  be  designed  to  allow  the  wound  site  to 
remain  open  to  enable  sufficient  bleeding,  while  preventing  further  stimulation  of  the 
wound. Furthermore the animal should be restrained for a sufficient period post-cut to allow 
exsanguination, onset of insensibility/unconsciousness and to minimise the risk of injuries to 
slaughterhouse staff.  

Restraint  systems  for  slaughter  without  stunning  often  incorporate  both  body  and 
head/neck holder devices that allow the operation of the specific slaughter method. Devices 
should  be  designed  to  hold  the  animal  sufficiently  to  facilitate  immobilization,  while  not 
causing  significant  discomfort,  pain,  stress  or  distress.  Cattle  when  distressed 
in 
slaughterhouses  often  struggle,  kick,  vocalize  and  attempt  to  escape.  This  can  lead  to 
hesitation when entering the restraint, poor presentation in the restraint and frustration in 
slaughterhouse staff which can sometimes lead to the excessive use of electric cattle prods 
to position the animal. In both rotating and upright systems the design of the neck yoke and 
chin-lift i.e. the head/neck holder has an important impact on the performance of the cut. 
The chin-lift should provide good access to the neck, allow for efficient cutting and bleeding, 
avoid excessive neck tension (which could be painful), should not obscure the face, eyes (for 
assessment of consciousness/sensibility) or potential stunning positions (if a post-cut stun is 
required). Furthermore the metal work of the chin-lift must not obstruct the cutting action. 
In  Europe  a  variety  of  restraint  systems  are  used  for  the  slaughter  without  stunning  of 
bovine animals.  

9 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Figure 2 : Minimum requirements for restraint device (Source: Grandin) 

Figure 3 : Example of rotating restraint in inverted position (source: Banss) 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

They can be broadly grouped into: 

  Rotating  restraints:  where  the  animal  is  slaughtered  in  dorsal  (inverted  180o)  or 

lateral recumbency (90o). 

  Upright restraints: where the animal is slaughtered in the upright position.  

Examples of design of upright restraint (ASPCA) and rotating restraint are given in  figures 2 
and  3 respectively. Both devices should be operated from rear to front.  After entrance of 
the animals, the back or rear pusher is engaged, this is followed by the belly lift (in case of 
upright  restraint)  or  the  lateral  pusher  (in  case  of  rotating  restraint).  Finally  the  head  and 
neck is restrained with the chin-lift and neck yoke. With well-designed and operated rotating 
restraints, the rotation should start immediately after the head and neck is restrained. After 
performance of the cut to the ventral tissues of the neck by the slaughterman, there may be 
rotation back to upright position depending on the operating procedure of slaughterhouses. 
Rotating restraint may be also used for slaughter in upright position. 

The  slaughter  of  un-stunned  cattle  in  dorsal  recumbency  (inverted)  is  prohibited  in  many 
countries (Grandin 1994), because of the stress involved in inverting the animal (Dun 1990, 
Grandin  &  Regenstein  1994,  Shragge  &  Price  2004).  Upright  restraining  systems  have 
replaced inverted systems in many countries  (Gregory 2005). In the EU, Slovakia, Denmark 
and the  United  Kingdom  prohibit  the  use  of rotating  or  inverted  restraint  pens  for  use for 
slaughter  without  stunning.  In  the  UK,  it  is  a  legal  requirement  that  cattle  slaughtered 
without stunning are restrained in an upright pen (Rosen 2004), all pens in operation are to 
be  approved  by  the  Minister  (Anon  1995).  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1099/2009  (2009) 
states that for animals killed without prior stunning, checks should be made to ensure “that 
animals do not present any signs of consciousness or sensibility before being released from 
restraint”.  Current  UK  legislation  makes  it  mandatory  for  cattle  slaughtered  without 
stunning,  to  remain  in  the  upright  restraint  (including  chin-lift)  until  unconscious  and  not 
before the expiry of 30 seconds (Anon 1995).  

Rotating  designs  are  widely  used  in  many  other  EU  countries  and  are  currently  allowed 
under Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009. In The Netherlands representatives of the Jewish and 
Muslim communities with the Ministry of Economic Affairs, have agreed on a period where if 
the animal is still conscious 40 seconds after the  neck cut, the animal is to be immediately 
stunned  (Tyler  2012).  In  France,  the  slaughterhouse  industry  has  produced  in  consultation 
with  the  Ministry  and  the  National  Food  Safety  Agency,  guidelines  on  good  practice  at 
slaughter  (Guide  to  Good  Practices  of  Animal  Care  at  Slaughter).  The  guidelines  detail 
standard  operating  procedures  for  minimizing  risks  of  poor  welfare  when  using  rotating 
pens. In the guidelines a mandatory period of restraint of, at least, 45 seconds after the cut 
(and  before  checking  for  sign  of  consciousness)  for  all  categories  of  cattle  is  specified.  

11 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

It  is  further  recommended  in  the  guidelines  that  any  cattle  that  still  display  signs  of 
consciousness/sensibility  after  this  period,  are  immediately  stunned  (http://www.interbev.fr/ 
ressource/guide-de-bonnes-pratiques-pour-la-maitrise-de-la-protection-animale-des-bovins-a-labattoir/).  

A number of bodies have stated that the inversion of cattle for slaughter without stunning 
could  result  in  welfare  compromise  compared  to  upright  restraint  (Blokhuis,  et  al.  2004, 
FAWC  1995,  Wathes  2012).  Many  of  the  restraint  systems  used  in  slaughterhouses  are 
modified  or  custom  made,  often  making  it  difficult  to  make  assessments  on  the  relative 
merits and disadvantages of different systems. It is important to note that irrespective of the 
system or slaughter method, all restraints including those of the highest standards are open 
to  operator  abuse  if  used  incorrectly  and  can  result  in  poor  animal  welfare  (Grandin  & 
Regenstein 1994). It is important with any restraint system employed, that adequate training 
and supervision are also provided.  

This  review  aims  to  critically  examine  the  major  studies  examining  upright  and  rotating 
restrain  systems  in  regards  to  animal  welfare.  The  shackling  and  hoisting  of  live  cattle  is 
prohibited in Europe and is not discussed. 

In summary: 

There  are  a  variety  of  restraint  systems  that  are  employed  by  slaughterhouses  for  the 
slaughter  of  cattle  without  stunning.  These  can  be  broadly  broken  down  into  upright  and 
rotating systems (45o, 90o and 180o). The objective is to restrain the animal so that slaughter 
can  be  performed  effectively  and  without  compromising  worker  safety.  Both  types  of 
devices  generally  include:  rear,  ventral  (upright)  lateral  and  head  holding  restraints.  They 
should  be  operated  from  rear  to  front  and  improper  use  can  compromise  animal  welfare. 
Rotating designs are used in a number of EU countries but a few of Member States prohibit 
the use of rotating restraint due to animal welfare concerns. 

12 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

ROTATING RESTRAINT 

The  first  widely  adopted  mechanized  restrain  pen  for  slaughter  without  stunning  of  cattle 
was  the  Weinberg  casting  pen  (Grandin  1980).  When  introduced  it  was  seen  as  a  major 
improvement  over  traditional  casting  or  shackling  systems  in  both  slaughterhouse  worker 
safety and animal welfare (Hall 1927, Levinger 1979). Since the introduction of the Weinberg 
pen  there  has  been  significant  alteration  to  the  original  design  and  operation  (by 
manufacturers  such  as  Facomia,  Banss,  Dyne,  North  British,  Nawi).  Now  the  pens  are 
operated  by  electrical  or  hydraulic  systems  and  don’t  rely  on  manual  operation  like  the 
original Weinberg design. Rotating pens, restrain the animal after they enter with adjusting 
side plates, back-pusher, neck yoke and chin-lift. Then the animal is rotated 45 °, 90° or 180° 
depending  on  the  practice  of  the  slaughterhouses.  Grandin  and  Regenstein  (1994)  stated 
that  improved  rotating  pens,  such  as  the  Facomia  pen,  are  probably  less  stressful  for  the 
animal  than  the  original  Weinberg  design,  however  the  authors  did  further  state  “that  a 
well-designed  upright  restraint  system  would  be  more  comfortable  for  cattle”.  Rotating 
systems should be designed to quickly and smoothly restrain and rotate the animal without 
interruption.  This  is  to  reduce  the  time  spent  restrained  in  the  unnatural  and  possibly 
stressful position.  

Much of the public and scientific debate on the welfare aspects of rotating restraint systems 
have focused on issues regarding unnatural posture, abdominal pressure on visceral tissues, 
and  stress during  inversion.  Van  Oers  (as  cited  in  Gregory  (2005)) observed  more  vigorous 
struggling in animals where the chin-lift was applied after the animal was inverted compared 
to prior to inversion. This suggests that in inverted designs it is important that the chin-lift is 
applied prior to the process of inversion. Wagner (1990) reported that in cattle both lateral 
and  dorsal  recumbency  can  significantly  impair  arterial  oxygenation.  It  was  hypothesised 
that lateral or dorsal recumbency can result in reduced lung volumes, due to compression of 
the thoracic cavity by the weight of the rumen and abdominal viscera pressing against the 
diaphragm. Furthermore in another study the process of inversion from an upright position 
was  demonstrated  to  significantly  decrease  arterial  blood  oxygenation  (P<0.001)  in 
conscious  restrained  cattle  due  to  the  inhibition  of  oxygenation  of  blood  in  the  lungs 
(Tagawa,  et  al.  1994).  Inversion  also  resulted  in  significantly  increased  plasma  cortisol 
concentrations  (control  1.6  +  1.0;  inverted  4.8  +  2.2  μg/dl,  P<0.001)  reaching  peak 
concentrations 30 minutes after onset of inversion, compared to upright or lateral restraint 
(Tagawa, et al. 1994). This suggests that inversion causes a larger stress response compared 
to upright or lateral restraint.  

13 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

However in a study comparing restraint systems for claw trimming of cows, it was reported 
that  cattle  restraint  upright  in  a  walk-in  crush  had  significantly  higher  faecal  cortisol 
metabolite concentrations nine hours after trimming compared to those trimmed at 90o on 
a tilt table (mean concentrations of 292 and 218 nmol/kg respectively, P<0.001). The authors 
associated  this  difference  with  the  significantly  increased  time  required  to  perform  the 
procedure in the walk-in crush compared to the tilt table (Pesenhofer, et al. 2006). 

In  an  slaughterhouse  based  experiment,  Dunn  (1990)  reported  significantly  increased 
cortisol (upright 143.2+102.0; inverted 259.6 + 104.0 nmol/l, P<0.001), haematocrit (upright 
0.41 + 0.03; inverted 0.47 + 0.03 litres/litre, P<0.001) values and vocalisations (upright 0.3 + 
0.75;  inverted  4.65  +  6.09,  P<0.05)  in  cattle  slaughtered  in  the  inverted  Weinberg  pen 
compared  to  the  upright  position.  Bourguet  et  al  (2011),  reported  cattle  restrained  in 
rotating pens had an increased incidence of vocalisations per animal compared to those in 
upright stunning pens without head or body restraint (0.73  + 0.2; 0.02 + 0.02 respectively). 
However 20% of the animals in rotating pen vocalised before inversion and the number of 
vocalisations  was  significantly  reduced  (10.5%)  following  inversion  prior  to  the  neck  cut 
(P<0.03) (Bourguet, et al. 2011). The authors hypothesised that the physical restraint in the 
rotating pen may have exerted too much pressure on some animals.  

It has been suggested that lateral restraint can reduce the pressure of the rumen depressing 
on the internal organs and diaphragm, compared to full 180° inversion (Von Holleben, et al. 
2010). The Dialrel project suggested that lateral restraint can reduce pressure on the aorta, 
major veins and diaphragm compared to full inverted restraint  (Von Holleben, et al. 2010). 
Petty  et  al  (1994)  found  that  cattle  restrained  in  lateral  recumbency  during  Shechita  and 
secular (captive bolt stunning) slaughter showed no significant difference in catecholamine 
and cortisol concentrations compared to upright restraint, the authors suggested that these 
animals  were  not  significantly  stressed  by  lateral  recumbency.  Lambooij  (2012)  reported 
that  independent  of  the  angle  (90°,  120°,  180°),  inversion  caused  a  significant  increase  in 
heart  rate  (from  already  raised  levels  following  handling  and  entrance  into  the  restraint) 
from  113-118  to  126-138  beats/min  (bpm)  (P<0.05),  suggesting  a  stress  mediated 
sympathetic  response.  Furthermore  the  authors  found  a  significant  decrease  in  oxygen 
saturation  from  entrance  into  the  restraint  and  rotation  (P=0.02)  (Lambooij,  et  al.  2012). 
Work  by  Rushen  (1986)  reported  that  sheep  in  a  forced  paired-choice  experiment,  found 
upright restraint in a wire cage (0.5 x 1.2 x 0.9 metres) compared to manual inversion by a 
human  less  aversive.  This  result  should  be  taken  with  caution  as  the presence  of  a human 
and the isolation of sheep during inversion, compared to the sheep in the wire cage which 
were surrounded by 4-6 sheep would be expected to have influenced the results. 

14 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

The advantage of the 180° rotating systems is that they often provide good presentation of 
the ventral surface of the neck for the neck incision. However a criticism of inverted restraint 
positions is that blood and rumen content can contact the cranial and caudal aspects of the 
wound  surface.  This  could  result  in  carcass  contamination,  aspiration  of  liquid  into  the 
respiratory  tract  (Blokhuis,  et  al.  2004,  Grandin  &  Regenstein  1994),  and  possible  further 
stimulation  of  the  wound  site  which  could  cause  pain  and  distress  (Gibson,  et  al.  2009a). 
However  blood  aspiration  in  the  respiratory  tract  has  been  reported  in  upright  restrained 
cattle (Gregory, et al. 2009).  

In summary:  

Since  the  introduction  of  the  Weinberg  pen, there  have  been  significant  alterations to  the 
original  design  of  rotating  restraints.  The  animal  welfare  issues  that  have  been  associated 
with  inverted  restraints  include:  restraint  in  a  unnatural  posture,  abdominal  pressure  on 
visceral  tissues,  stress  during  inversion  and  duration  of  inversion.  It  is  suggested  that 
immobilization, including head, should be carried prior to inversion.  

15 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

UPRIGHT RESTRAINT 

Upright restraint systems confine cattle in an upright position for slaughter. This can either 
be  free  standing  or  straddling  a  centre  track  conveyor  restrainer  in  sternal  recumbency, 
where the feet are off the floor and the conveyor and walls support the body weight via the 
brisket, abdomen and flanks (Grandin 1990). The head is secured and stretched by a chin-lift 
into  position  for  the  ventral  neck  cut,  either  mechanically  (hydraulic  or  electrical)  or 
sometimes manually for calves. Many systems such as the Cincinnati or ASPCA pen have a 
back-pusher/tailgate and belly plate that further confines the animal. Dunn (1990) reported 
that  when  entering  the  upright  ASPCA  pen  some  animals  stopped  to  investigate  the  belly 
plate  on  the  floor  before  walking  over  it  to  enter  the  pen.  To  improve  entry  into  upright 
restraints it has been recommended that the belly plate when loading the animal should be 
recessed into the floor (flush with the floor surface), this will prevent the plate from being an 
obstruction and facilitate more effective entry (Grandin 1992). 

A  common  complaint  of  upright  systems  is  that  animals  can  be  over  restrained.  Poorly 
designed upright restraints can apply excessive pressure (Berg & Jakobsson 2007, Grandin & 
Regenstein 1994). For example excessive pressure of the back-pusher, lifting of animals with 
the  belly  plate  (problematic  with  smaller  or  young  stock)  and  excessive  neck  tension 
(hyperextension)  with  the  chin-lift,  could  all  cause  discomfort,  pain  and  suffering.  Grandin 
(1998) reported that in two separate slaughterhouses 3.25% and 8% of cattle vocalized due 
to  excessive  pressure  of  the  back-pusher  and  chin-lift  respectively.  In  the  second 
slaughterhouse it was found that animals were initially quiet in the chin-lift, but vocalized as 
the pressure was increased (Grandin 1998). The Dialrel project reported that during the spot 
visits  63%  of  cattle  restrained  in  upright  pens  showed  struggling  compared  to  37%  in 
inverted pens (Velarde & Cenci-Goga 2010), potentially due to excessive pressure from the 
chin-lift,  back-pusher  and  belly  plate.  Chin-lifts  and  back-pushers  should  be  designed  with 
pressure  limiting  devices  when  possible  (Grandin  1992,  Grandin  &  Regenstein  1994),  and 
should  be  operated  with  the  concept  of  “optimal  pressure”  required  to  firmly  restrain  the 
animal,  but  not  cause  discomfort  (Grandin  &  Regenstein  1994).  Even  with  the  use  of  the 
chin-lift  and  neck  yoke,  the  ventral  cutting  surface  of  the  neck  in  upright  pens  is  less  well 
presented  than  for  animals  restrained  in  the  inverted  position.  The  cut  is  made  upwards 
against  the  ventral  aspect  of  the  neck,  this  makes  the  cut  more  awkward  (Gregory  2005). 
Furthermore due to the action of the cut, it is possible to incompletely severe the carotids 
on the contralateral side to the operator. When slaughtering animals in upright restraints it 
is important to assess the success or otherwise of the neck cut either visually (blood flow) or 
by palpation, however  this  can be  difficult  in  upright  restrained  animals.  A  greater  level  of 
skill  may  be  required  to  achieve  an  appropriate  cut  and  manage  the  post-cut  period  with 
slaughter of cattle in the upright versus the inverted positions. Work on the Dialrel project 
reported that in the slaughterhouses surveyed (n=12, 315 animals) the mean number of cuts  

16 

 
BoRest final report June 2015 

performed was higher for cattle restrained in upright (9) compared to 180° (5), 90° (3) and 
45° (1) pens (Velarde & Cenci-Goga 2010).  

It has been stated that the advantage of the chin-lift is that it can help in the prevention of 
re-occlusion of the carotid arteries (Rosen 2004). However research has demonstrated that 
the  prevalence  of  false  aneurysm  formation  is  not  influenced  by  method  of  restraint 
(rotating  pen;  manual  casting  into  lateral  recumbency;  upright  restraint  pen;  shackled  by 
one leg and lowered into lateral recumbency) (P>0.05) (Gregory, et al. 2008). A disadvantage 
of  upright  pens  from  the  operators  perspective  is  that  when  performing  the  cut  they  are 
more likely to be covered with blood because of their position relative to the cut  (Gregory 
2005). 

There  have  been  concerns  that  during  slaughter  without  stunning  animals  with  prolonged 
sensibility  could  aspirate  blood  into  the  respiratory  tract  (Grandin  &  Regenstein  1994, 
Gregory, et al. 2009). This could cause irritation and distress. Previously concern over blood 
aspiration  was  focused  on  cattle  held  in  inverted  systems  (Blokhuis,  et  al.  2004).  Recent 
research  has  shown  that  in  cattle  slaughtered  in  the  upright  position  by  Shechita  and 
Dhabiha  that  19%  and  58%  had  substantial  amounts  of  blood  in  the  trachea  respectively 
(Gregory,  et  al.  2009).  Severance  of  the  vagus  nerves  was  previously  thought  to  prevent 
lower  respiratory  irritation.  However  stimulation  of  the  glottis  (innervated  by  the  cranial 
laryngeal nerve) and hemorrhage or blood entering the lower respiratory tract (innervated 
by  a  collateral  spinal  afferent  pathway)  could  cause  distress  and  suffering  (Gregory,  et  al. 
2009). Grandin and Regenstein  (1994) reported that in some  slaughterhouses where cattle 
are released from the upright restraint pen before becoming insensible, that welfare can be 
compromised when the neck cut wound edges contact each other or make contact with the 
metal  work  of  the  restraint.  This  would  be  likely  to  cause  further  pain  and  suffering  (Von 
Holleben, et al. 2010), therefore it is essential that the animal is completely insensible before 
release from the pen. 

In summary: 

A  common  complaint  of  upright  systems 
is  that  animals  can  be  over  restrained. 
Consequently,  they  should be  operated  with  the  concept  of  “optimal  pressure”. Even with 
the  use  of  head  holder,  the  ventral  cutting  surface  of  the  neck  in  upright  pens  compared 
with rotating pens is less well presented. This may lead to more awkward cut and impaired 
working conditions. 

17 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 3 : Studies investigating the interval between entry and slaughter for rotating and upright 
restraint systems (standard deviation SD; standard error SE) 

(Source: BoRest study “literature survey”) 

Restraint 

Mean interval between 

Number of 

Reference 

entry and slaughter 

animals 

(seconds) 

Rotating (180o) 

103.8 + 18.4 (SD) 

Upright 

11.1 + 3.8 (SD) 

Rotating (180o) 

69.2 (range 19 – 241) 

Upright* 

14.3 (range 2 – 120) 

Rotating (90o) 

Upright 

115.8 

97.5 

Rotating (180o)† 

17.6 + 2.7 (SE) 

* Held in the same pen but upright and stunned. 

† Interval between end of inversion and the neck cut 

18 

50 

1628 

1563 

14 

30 

95 

(Dun 1990) 

(Koorts 1991)  

(Cenci-Goga, 

et 

al. 

2010) 

(Bourguet, et al. 2011) 

Table 4: Medium time and range (seconds) for entry and initiation of physical of restraint, start of 
restraint and end of rotation, and end of rotation and cut in cattle slaughter without stunning 
(Warin-Ramette & Mirabito 2010) 

Angle of 

Entry and start of 

Start of restraint 

End of rotation 

Number of 

rotation 

restraint 

and end of 

and neck cut 

animals 

180o 

135o 

<90o 

(seconds) 

rotation (seconds) 

(seconds) 

10 (7-37) 

16 (12-111) 

19 (5-110) 

15 (10-54) 

12 (1-107)* 

4 (1-13)* 

4 (1-14) 

1 (1-3) 

1 (1-34) 

116 

35 

108 

* Limit between the 2 periods was difficult to evaluate due to observer position 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

ENTRY TO SLAUGHTER INTERVAL 

The interval from entry of the animal into the pen and the act of slaughter with or without 
in  operation  of  the 
stunning  has  direct  consequences  on  animal  welfare.  Delays 
restraint/slaughter procedure can cause undue stress, pain and distress to the animal. Table 
3  details  studies  that  have  reported  the  interval  between  entry  and  slaughter  for  rotating 
and upright restraint systems. The findings suggest that for the majority of restraint designs 
assessed  the  interval  between  entry  and  restraint  is  longer  for  rotating  systems  (90°  and 
180°) compared to upright. However it is important to note that the studies of Dunn  (1990) 
and Koots (1991) were performed with the older Weinberg restraint system. Bourguet et al 
(2011) reported that of 95 animals observed in a modern rotating pen for Dhabiha slaughter, 
the  interval between  end  of  inversion  and the neck  cut  was  17.6  +  2.7  seconds.  They  also 
reported a significant correlation between percent haematocrit and delays before inversion 
(r=0.55, P=0.008) of cattle in the rotating pen. Meanwhile in a study by Warin (2009) it was 
observed  that  the  median  time  from  start  of  restraint  and  completion  of  rotation  was 
longest for cattle restrained in the 180o (range 12-111) compared to 135o (range 10-54) and 
<90o (range 1-13) positions (Table 4). While the interval between end of rotation and neck 
cut for all restraint positions ranged from 1 to 34 seconds (n=259). Modern rotating restraint 
systems  rotate  the  animal  around  its  own  axis.  It  has  been  observed  that  pens  that  are 
designed to rotate outside of the animals own axis can take a prolonged period of time from 
initiation of restraint to full 180o rotation (range 53-77 seconds, un-published data). 

Anil  (2012)  stated  that  some  designs  of  rotating  pens  can  take  an  unduly  long  period  to 
rotate  and  present  the  animal  for  slaughter.  Furthermore,  Velarde  and  Cenci-Coga  (2010) 
reported  that  during  the  Dialrel  slaughterhouse  spot  visits  the  restraint  to  cut  interval  for 
cattle was longer in animals restrained at 45°, 90° compared to those inverted 180° or in the 
upright  position.  Koorts  (1991)  compared  struggling  in  cattle  restrained  in  the  inverted 
position  for  Shechita  slaughter,  with  cattle  restrained  in  the  same  pen  but  in  a  upright 
position  for  secular  slaughter  (captive  bolt  stunning).  It  was  reported  that  animals  in  the 
upright position struggled less with 68.5% been classified as ‘calm’ compared to 31.2% in the 
inverted  position.  Warin-Ramette  and  Mirabito  (2010)  reported  in  a  study  of  rotating 
restraint systems in France that the frequency of vocalizations was directly linked to the time 
spent by the animals in inverted position (table 4). 

In summary: 

Delays  between entry  of  the  animal  into the  pen  and  the  act of  slaughter  with  or  without 
stunning can cause undue stress, pain and distress to the animal. The findings suggest that 
for  the  majority  of  restraint  designs  assessed  the  interval  between  entry  and  restraint  is 
longer for rotating systems (90° and 180°) compared to upright.  

19 

 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 5 : Studies investigating the time to insensibility after ventral neck incision slaughter without 
prior stunning in cattle and the parameters reported. 

(Source: BoRest study “literature survey”) 

Restrain 

Parameter  Mean time to 
insensibility + 
SD (seconds) 

Upright 

EEG, B 

Time to 
insensibility 
range 
(seconds) 
2-10 

3.5-5 

10-23 

Reference 

Levinger 
(1961) 
Nangeroni and Kennett 
(1964) 
Schulze et al (1978) 

10 

Groß (1979) 

28-168 

34-85 

Blackmore and Newhook 
(1981); Blackmore et al 
(1983) 
Newhook and Blackmore 
(1982) 
Blackmore (1984) 

Gregory and Wotton 
(1984b) 
Daly et al (1988) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

EEG 

EEG 

EEG, B 

EEG, B 

EEG 

B 

VEP 

146 (+ SD 174) 

20-385 

17 (+ SD 4) 

11.5-23 

SEP, VEP 

72 (+ SD 48) 

19-113 

ECoG 

EEG 

TLP 

B 

B, EEG, CD 

- 

10-52 

Bager et al (1992) 

34 (+ SD 16)* 

16-63* 

Gibson (2009) 

20 (+ SD 33) 

-265 

Gregory et al (2010) 

- 

80 

10-210 

Bourguet et al (2011) 

- 

Lambooij et al (2012) 

TLP 

18 (+ SD 24) 

1-257 

Gibson et al unpublished 
preliminary data 

- 

- 

Upright 

- 

- 

Upright 

Upright 

Rotated 
(180o) 
Upright 

Rotated 
(180o) 
Upright 

Rotated 
(180o) 
Rotated 
(90o,  120o, 
180o) 
Upright 

B: behaviour; CD: correlation dimension analysis; ECoG: electrocorticogram; EEG: electroencephalogram; SEP: 
somatosensory  evoked  potentials;  TLP:  time  to  loss  of  posture;  VEP:  visually  evoked  potentials.  *  Animals 
where anaesthetised, time to loss of active EEG waveform. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

TIME TO INSENSIBILITY IN ROTATING AND UPRIGHT RESTRAINTS 

During slaughter without stunning there is a window following the neck incision and before 
the onset of cerebral hypoxia and insensibility during which the animal is both conscious and 
sensible to pain, distress  and  stress  (Gibson, et al.  2009a,  Gibson,  et  al.  2009b).  There  is a 
range in time to insensibility for all species and this is shortest and narrowest in sheep (2 to 
14  seconds),  then  in  pigs  (13  to  25  seconds),  poultry  (12  to  26  seconds)  and  longest  and 
widest in cattle (2 to 385 seconds) (Bager, et al. 1992, Barnett, et al. 2007, Blackmore 1984, 
Blackmore & Newhook 1981, Blackmore, et al. 1979, Bourguet, et al. 2011, Daly, et al. 1988, 
Gregory, et al. 2010, Gregory & Wotton 1984a, b, Groß 1979, Lambooij, et al. 2012, Levinger 
1961, Nangeroni & Kennett 1964, Newhook & Blackmore 1982, Wotton & Gregory 1986). In 
contrast,  acute  arrest  of  cerebral  blood  circulation  in  normal  healthy  young  men  with  the 
use of a cervical pressure cuff has been demonstrated to produce a loss of consciousness on 
average in 6.8 seconds (range of 6.4 to 6.9) (Estrella, et al. 1992, Rossen, et al. 1943). Table 5 
details studies that have examined time to insensibility in cattle and the different slaughter 
positions used. The reported times to insensibility ranged from 2 to 385 seconds. Based on 
the limited data it can be concluded that there is little effect of restraint system on time to 
insensibility (upright 1-385; rotating 10-210 seconds).  

Caution  must  be  taken  when  interpreting  this  data,  as  the  restraint  systems  used  varied 
significantly  between  the  studies,  there  are  differences  between  experimental  and 
slaughterhouse observational based experiments, and variations in sample sizes. However it 
can be similarly concluded that:   

  The  time  to  undoubted  insensibility  is  longest  in  cattle  compared  to  other  species. 
The  causation  of  this  is  potentially  due  to  the  anatomy  of  the  blood  supply  to  the 
brain in different species and the formation of false aneurysms (carotid occlusion) on 
the carotid arteries during and after slaughter in cattle.  

  There  is  a  large  amount  of  variability  between  individual  cattle  in  the  time  to 

undoubted insensibility.  

  Restraint  appears  not  to  have  a  significant  effect  on  the  time  to  undoubted 

insensibility, however further data is required to validate this hypothesis.  

In summary:  

After the neck incision and before the onset of cerebral hypoxia and insensibility, there is a 
window during which the animal is both conscious and sensible to pain, distress and stress. 
The range in time for bovine animals is the longest and widest (2 to 385 seconds) compared 
with other farm animals. Based on the limited data available, it can be concluded that there 
is  little  effect  of  restraint  system  on  time  to  loss  of  sensibility,  however  further  data  is 
required to validate this hypothesis.  

21 

 
BoRest final report June 2015 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the existing literature both rotating and upright  restraint systems have strengths 
and weakness. Specific animal welfare concerns of rotating systems are delays in operation 
between entry and slaughter, and pain/stress/distress from being restrained in an unnatural 
position.  While  upright  restraints  can  cause  pain  and  distress  to  the  animal  if  excessive 
pressure is applied, and more skill is required to perform a successful neck cut. Irrespective 
of restraint pen, they should be designed to allow a post-cut stun if required; this is for any 
animals  that  are  declared  as  non-kosher,  non-halal,  or  take  a  prolonged  period  to  die. 
Furthermore  for  both  restraint  systems  the  cutting  technique  needs  to  be  sufficient  to 
achieve  complete  severance  of  the  major  blood  vessels  of  the  neck  to  allow  for 
exsanguination.  

22 

 
  
 
4.  CURRENT  SITUATION  OF  THE  RESTRAINT  PRACTICES  OF  BOVINE 

ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT STUNNING  

BoRest final report June 2015 

Task leader: V. Marzin (Institut de l’Elevage) 

INTRODUCTION 

The objective of this part of the study was to provide an overview of the general situation of 
meat production and restraining practices used for religious slaughter in the European Union 
and in some third countries.  

In the EU, we emphasized the current situation in six Member States (Belgium, France, Italy, 
Spain,  The  Netherlands  and  the  United  Kingdom)  where  further  investigations  and 
assessment  were  carried  out  in  slaughterhouses  during  the  project.  In  these  countries, 
details  were  collected,  at  slaughterhouses  level,  about  the  restraint  devices  used  and  the 
restraining  procedure  for  slaughtering  bovine  animals  without  stunning.  The  situation  was 
not  further  assessed  in  Germany  because  no  slaughter  without  stunning  was  performed 
according to the competent authorities at the time we contacted them1.  

METHODOLOGY 

The data collection was based on a two-step survey in Member States. 

The  competent  authorities  were  firstly  interviewed  to  collect  general  information  on 
slaughter  without  stunning,  implementation  of  the  Regulation  (EC)  No  1099/2009  and  if 
possible practices in terms of type of restraining systems in use  (Annex 1). This survey was 
carried out in all Member States and in some third countries.  

In  the  second  step,  slaughterhouses  licensed  to  practice  slaughter  without  stunning  in  six 
Member  States  (FR,  BE,  UK,  NL,  ES,  IT)  were  sent  a  questionnaire  (Annex  2)  to  get 
information about their used restraint system and operating procedure. 

It was first intended to carry out the detailed investigations in Ireland but the answer to the 
questionnaire  from  the  competent  authority  was  received  too  late  to  allow  us  to  include 
Ireland in our sample. 

1    Slaughter  without  stunning  is  performed  in  Germany  according  to  a  recent  audit 

DG(SANCO)2014-7073 but probably at a very limited scale. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Number of adult cattle and calves slaughtered in the 27 Member 
States in 2012 
(source Borest, 'competent authority survey')

Adults

Calves (<8 months)

s
d
a
e
h
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

5,000,000

4,500,000

4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0

R
F

E
D

T
I

K
U

S
E

L
N

L
P

E
I

E
B

T
A

K
D

E
S

I

T F
P

Z
C

L
E

T
L

I

O S
R

U
H

V
L

K
S

E
E

U
L

G
B

Y
C

T
M

Figure 4 : Number of adult cattle and calves slaughtered in the 27 Member States  
(Source: BoRest study “competent authorities survey”-Data: 2012 ) 

Table 6 : General situation of slaughter without stunning practices in the 27 Member States  
(Source BoRest study “competent authorities survey”-Data: 2012) 

Member states where slaughter without stunning 
was performed in 2012  

(* slaughter without stunning was allowed only if 
a post-cut stun was applied) 

Member States where slaughter without stunning 
was not performed in 2012 (forbidden or not 
performed for other reasons)  

Austria* 
Belgium 
France 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy  
Latvia* 
Cyprus 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
Germany 
Lithuania 

Portugal  
Romania  
Slovakia* 
Spain 
The Netherlands 
United Kingdom 

Luxemburg  
Malta  
Poland 
Slovenia  
Sweden 

No data available 

Bulgaria 
Czech Republic 
Greece 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

RESULTS 

The  questionnaires  have  been  collected  from  23  Member  States  including  all  the  selected 
countries. Conversely, no data was received from Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Greece. 

One of the expected results from the questionnaire sent to competent authorities was the 
list of slaughterhouses known to perform religious slaughter. We expected to use these lists 
to  submit  to  the  second  questionnaire  for  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  practice  in  these 
slaughterhouses.  However,  it  appeared  that  in  some  countries,  the  list  was  not  available 
because  of  lack  of  centralization  or  because  of  confidentiality  rules;  this  was  the  case  in 
France  and  the  UK  respectively.  In  these  countries,  slaughterhouses  were  identified  from 
other sources (for example, from knowledge of partners, animal welfare non-governmental 
organizations  and  industry  organizations).  In  other  case,  the  list  obtained  needed  to  be 
updated.  In  Italy,  for  instance,  based  on  phone  call,  it  appeared  that  one  third  of 
slaughterhouses listed are closed or do no longer perform slaughter without stunning.  

OVERVIEW  OF  MEAT  PRODUCTION  AND  RESTRAINT  PRACTICES  USED  FOR 
RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER OF BOVINE ANIMALS IN EUROPEAN UNION 

NUMBER OF ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED IN THE 27 MEMBER STATES IN 2012 

In  the  27  Member  States,  25  million  bovine  animals  were  slaughtered  in  2012.  It 
corresponds to almost 20 million adults and 5 million calves (Figure 4).    

GENERAL SITUATION OF SLAUGHTER PRACTICES IN THE MEMBER STATES IN 2012 

According  to  competent  authorities,  slaughter  of  bovine  animals  without  stunning  was 
performed  in  13  Member  States  in  2012.  However,  three  of  these  (Austria,  Latvia  and 
Slovakia) require slaughterhouses to systemically perform a stun after the throat cut.  

On  the  other  hand,  11  Member  States  didn’t  perform  slaughter  without  stunning  in  2012 
(according  to  our  respondents),  because  of  a  legal  ban  or  for  other  reasons.  Finally,  the 
situation  in  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic2 and  Greece  was  not  included  because  no  data  were 
provided by these countries (Table 6). 

2 According  to  FVO  report  2014-7060,  slaughter  without  stunning  is  allowed  in  Czech 
Republic under very specific conditions.  

25 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 7 : Number of slaughterhouses officially registered in the selected Member States and 
number and percentage of slaughterhouses performing slaughter of bovine animals without 
stunning  
(Source: BoRest study “competent authorities survey”-Data: 2012) 

Member State 

Number of 
slaughterhouses 
officially registered 
in the country 

Number of 
slaughterhouses 
slaughtering bovine 
animals without stunning 

Percentage of the 
slaughterhouses registered 
that perform slaughter 
without stunning 

Austria 

Belgium 

France 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Spain 

2,560 

48 

210 

64 

31 

1,369 

48 

41 

100 

66 

286 

The Netherlands 

205*** 

United Kingdom 

TOTAL 

227 

5255 

17 

43 

99 

10 

7 

106* 

2 

No data 

5 

No data 

60 

67 

18** 

434 

0,66% 

90% 

47% 

16% 

23% 

8% 

4% 

No data 

5% 

No data 

21% 

33% 

8% 

8% 

*  Current  estimate  based  on  partner  contact  suggest  74  plants  slaughter  without  stunning  (closed 
slaughterhouses or no longer performing slaughter without stunning) 

**  Data  from  September  2011,  current  estimates  suggest  less  than  10  plants  slaughter  without 
stunning in the UK. 

***Include all slaughterhouses of domestic ungulates  

 (http://www3.vwa.nl/EULijst%20SECTION%20I-Meat%20of%20domestic%20ungulates-Slaughterhouse.pdf 

)

26 

 
BoRest final report June 2015 

NUMBER  OF  SLAUGHTERHOUSES  OFFICIALLY  REGISTERED  AND  NUMBER  OF 
SLAUGHTERHOUSES  THAT  PERFORM  SLAUGHTER  OF  BOVINE  ANIMALS  WITHOUT 
STUNNING IN THE EU 

According  to  the  competent  authorities,  10,294  slaughterhouses  are  officially  registered 
according to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 for slaughtering cattle in the 27 Member States. 

Considering  the  13  countries  where  slaughter  without  stunning 
is  allowed,  5,255 
slaughterhouses  are  officially  registered.  Of  these,  434  have  the  possibility  to  slaughter 
cattle without stunning, corresponding to 8% of the slaughterhouses. 

Data  provided  by  the  different  countries  show  that  there  is  a  huge  difference  between 
countries  with  a  range  of  slaughterhouses  approved  varying  from  10  to  90%  of  the  total 
(Table 7).  

NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT STUNNING IN THE 
EU 

According  to  the  competent  authorities  who  answered  to  the  questionnaire,  2.1  million 
bovine animals were slaughtered without stunning in 2012 (approximately 8% of the animals 
slaughtered in the EU). Nearly all of these animals were slaughtered in seven Member states 
(FR,  NL,  ES,  UK,  BE,  IE,  IT,  sorted  by  descending  number  of  bovine  animals  -  Table  8). 
However,  it  should  be  noticed  that  this  number  of  animals  should  be  seen  as  a  maximum 
because,  in  several  slaughterhouses,  post-cut  stun  may  be  performed  depending  on  local 
agreements  with  religious  authorities  that  are  not  known  by  the  competent  authorities. 
Furthermore,  in  some  countries,  figures  collected  in  2012  should  be  considered  as  rough 
estimation that need to be updated in particular because the conditions for the derogation 
were  updated  with  the  implementation  of  the  new  regulation  in  2013  and  because  data 
were not routinely collected at the time of the study (e. g. France). 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8 : Number and percentage of bovine animals slaughtered with and without stunning in each 
of the 13 Member States where slaughter without stunning is performed   
(Source: BoRest Study “competent authorities survey”-Data: 2012) 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Country 

France 

The Netherlands 

Spain 
United Kingdom 
Belgium 

Ireland 

Italy 
Hungary 
Latvia 
Romania 
Austria 
Portugal 

Slovakia 

TOTAL 

Number of animals slaughtered 
without stunning 

% of animals slaughtered without 
stunning in the country 

1,269,009 

310,000 

222,226 
151,661 
82,468 

46,741 

44,032 
13,088 
4,505 
2,798 
760 
10 

2 

24% 

15% 

10% 
6% 
10% 

3.3% 

1% 
13.5% 
5% 
2% 
0,11% 
0.003% 

0.005% 

2 147 300 

Use of rotating or upright restraint device for bovine animals 
according to competent authorities in Member States where 
slaughter without stunning is performed (source: Borest 
Study:'competent authorities survey')

Rotating pen

Upright pen

1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0

Figure 5 : Use of rotating or upright restraint device for bovine animals in the 13 Member States 
where slaughter without stunning is performed  

(Source: BoRest Study “competent authorities survey”-Data: 2012) 

28 

 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

RESTRAINT  SYSTEMS  USED  IN  THE  MEMBER  STATES  WHERE  SLAUGHTER  WITHOUT 
STUNNING WAS PERFORMED 

Rotating restraining systems are in use in all the main (in terms of number of bovine animals 
slaughtered  without  stunning)  Member  States  with  the  exception  of  the  United  Kingdom 
where it is legally banned. These restraint systems are not in use in the following countries: 
Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia (Figure 5). 

Based on the estimates provided in Table 9, it can be calculated that more than 1.6 million 
bovine animals are annually slaughtered without stunning in a rotating device (78% of the 
animals slaughtered without stunning) while a little more than half a million are slaughtered 
in an upright device (22% of the animals slaughtered without stunning).  

The United Kingdom represented 28.3% of the total of the animals slaughtered using upright 
device followed by Belgium  (10.6%) and Ireland  (6.2%) where more than two third of the 
bovine animals were estimated to be slaughtered with this system according to  competent 
authorities.  

On the contrary, in France, Hungary, The Netherlands and Spain, the rotating devices are the 
most frequent ones (70 to 99% of the animals). In France, this may be considered as a rough 
estimate because other sources gave higher percentage of plants using the rotating device. 
In  Spain,  according  to  the  data  collectors,  the  information  provided  by  the  competent 
authorities may have over-estimated the number of animals slaughtered in upright devices. 
This  could  be  due  to  confusion  between  the  restraint  systems  used  for  conventional  and 
slaughter  without  stunning.  In  Italy,  the  numbers  of  animals  are  similar  between  the  two 
restraint  systems.  This  may  be  linked  to  a  high  number  of  small  slaughterhouses  involved, 
which did not invest in expensive restraining devices. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 9 : Use of rotating or up right restraint device for slaughter without stunning of the bovine 
animals according to competent authorities in the Member States in 2012*  
(Source: BoRest study “competent authorities survey”-Data: 2012) 

Rotating device 

Upright device 

Country 

Belgium 

France 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 

Spain 

Number of 
animals 

25,565 

1,142,108 

12,957 

13,555 

22,016 

0 
ND 
0 
0 

146,669 

The Netherlands 

248,000 

United Kingdom 

0 

TOTAL 

1,610,870 

*no data is available for Austria 

% of animals 

31% 

90% 

99% 

29% 

50% 

0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 

66% 

80% 

0% 

78% 

Number of 
animals 

56,903 

126,901 

131 

33,186 

22,016 

4,505 
10 
2,798 
2 

75,557 

62,000 

151,661 

535,670 

% of animals 

69% 

10% 

1% 

71% 

50% 

100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

34% 

20% 

100% 

22% 

Table 10 : Implementation of regulation EC NO1099/2009 regarding religious slaughter in the 
Member States (Source BoRest study “competent authorities survey”-Data: 2013) 

without any explicit 
authorization 

Member States where 
slaughter without 
stunning is allowed 

under conditions provided by 
competent authority  

Belgium 
Portugal 

Ireland 
France 
Luxemburg  
Estonia 
Hungary 

Romania 

Germany  
Cyprus 
Italy  
Spain  
The Netherlands 
United Kingdom 

only if a post-cut stun is 
performed 

Austria                                  Latvia                        
Slovakia                                Estonia 
 Finland 

Member states where slaughter without pre-stunning is 
forbidden 

No data available 

Sweden 
Denmark 
Malta 

Poland* 
Slovenia  
Lithuania 

Bulgaria                    Czech Republic 
Greece 

*This ban has been considered unconstitutional in December 2014 but applied during the study. 

30 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

SITUATION IN SOME THIRD COUNTRIES 

Different attempts were made to get information (direct contact, sending of questionnaires) 
from North African and South American countries. Eventually, data were obtained from only 
Israel and Argentina 

In  Israel,  105,800  bovine  animals  were  slaughtered  in  2012.  100%  of  the  animals  were 
slaughtered without stunning in rotating devices. 

In  Argentina,  5,861,729  bovine  animals  were  slaughtered  in  2012  and  438,472  animals 
without stunning (7.5% of the animals slaughtered). According to the information received, 
100%  of  the  bovine  animals  slaughtered  without  stunning  were  slaughtered  in  upright 
position and there is no specific authorization for slaughterhouses.  

ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  REGULATION  (EC)  No  1099/2009  ON  THE  PROTECTION  OF 
ANIMALS AT THE TIME OF KILLING IN THE MEMBER STATES 

Regarding  the  general  situation  in  EU  on  practices  for  slaughter  without  stunning,  at  the 
time  of  this  study  (2013)  and  according  to  answers  received,  three  main  categories  of 
countries  can  be  identified:  countries  where  religious  slaughter  without  prior  stunning  is 
allowed without any explicit authorization , countries where religious slaughter without prior 
stunning  is  allowed  under  certain  conditions  (as  an  authorization  provided  by  competent 
authority  or  a  post-cut  stun,  for  example),  and  countries  where  slaughter  without  pre 
stunning is completely forbidden (Table 10). 

In  Belgium,  Portugal,  and  Romania,  there  is  no  specific  condition  for  slaughterhouses  to 
slaughter  without  stunning.  Every  slaughterhouse  officially  approved  by  the  competent 
authority according to the Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 for slaughtering cattle is allowed to 
perform slaughter without stunning on the condition they comply with the Regulation (EC) 
No  1099/2009.  Consequently,  business  operators  are  not  obliged  to  inform  competent 
authorities that slaughter without stunning is performed.  

Conversely,  in  11  Member  States,  food  business  operators  must  apply  to  the  competent 
authority  for  official  permission  to  slaughter  without  pre-stunning.  In  some  counties, 
derogations have never been accorded by the relevant competent authorities or competent 
authorities  answered  that  no  animal  was  slaughtered  without  stunning  in  2012  (Germany, 
Estonia, Finland and Luxembourg). 

In other countries, the competent authority can have additional requirements to Regulation 
(EC) No 1099/2009 that concern the method to kill animals in accordance with religious rites.   

31 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Number of adult cattle and calves slaughtered in the 6 countries 
selected by the study in 2012 
(Source Borest Study, 'competent authority survey')

Adult bovine

Calves (<8 months)

4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0

Belgium

France

Italy

Spain

The
Netherlands

UK

Figure 6 : Number of adult cattle and calves slaughtered in the 6 countries selected by the study  
(Source: BoRest study “competent authorities survey”-Data: 2012) 

Number and percentage of animals slaughtered with and without
stunning in the 6 selected Countries
(Source : BoRest study ‘competent authorities survey’ – Data: 2012) 

4000000

3000000

2000000

76%

99%

Without stunning
With stunning

90%

94%

85%

24%

1000000

90%

10%

0

BE

FR

1%

IT

10%

15%

ES

NL

6%

UK

Figure 7 : Number and percentage of bovine animals slaughtered with and without 

stunning in the 6 selected countries in 2012  
(Source: BoRest study “competent authorities survey”-Data: 2012) 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

For  example  in  the  United  Kingdom,  DEFRA  has  laid  down  several  requirements  in  the 
WATOK (Welfare of Animals at the Time Of Killing) so that animals must be restrained in an 
upright  position.  In  Latvia,  Austria,  Slovakia,  Estonia,  a  post-cut  stun  applied  immediately 
after the beginning of the bleeding process is mandatory. In Finland, stunning and bleeding 
at  the  same  time  (two  operators)  is  mandatory  according  to  the  Animal  Welfare  Act 
(247/1996)  in  the  presence  of  an  official  veterinarian.  But  no  animal  was  slaughtered 
without stunning in 2012 in this country.  

Finally, six Member States have forbidden the slaughter of cattle without stunning: Sweden, 
Denmark, Malta3, Poland4, Slovenia and Lithuania. However, in this last country, a discussion 
has been engaged to change actual legislation and allow slaughter without stunning. 

So far, different additional rules may have been implemented in the Member States since 
the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 regarding ritual slaughter:  

  Regarding  the  position  of  the  animals  during  slaughter  without  stunning,  upright 
position is mandatory in two countries (United Kingdom and Estonia). Furthermore, 
in  the  United  Kingdom,  all  new  slaughter  restraint  systems  must  be  inspected  and 
approved  on  behalf  of  the  Minister.  In  the  other  Member  States,  no  specific 
requirement has been specified in the survey by competent authorities. 

  A  traceability  system  for  incoming  and  outgoing  orders  of  meat  obtained  from 
animals religiously slaughtered has been implemented in 3 countries: Austria, France 
and  Ireland.  In  these  countries,  slaughterhouses  must  have  a  written  customer 
specification  for  meat  from  cattle  slaughtered  without  pre  stunning.  They  must 
demonstrate that numbers slaughtered match with customer orders. 
In France, the United Kingdom, Spain and The Netherlands, a  minimum duration of 
restraining in the pen before releasing the animals must be respected. This duration 
is 45 seconds in the Netherlands and France, 30 seconds in the UK, while in Spain it 
depends on the regions (from 30 seconds to 5 minutes).  

 

  Similarly,  a  minimum  time  between bleeding  and  processing  is  applied  in  France  (5 
minutes  and  30  seconds)  and  in  Spain  (from  2  to  7  minutes  depending  on  the 
regions). In Portugal and Germany, animals must not be hanged before their bleeding 
has ended. 

3 Slaughter without stunning in Malta is legally possible but the Competent Authority had 
reached an agreement in 2008 with the religious community to carry out stunning prior 
to slaughter. 

4 This ban has been considered unconstitutional in December 2014 but applied during the 
study 

33 

 
 
                                                                 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Figure 8 : Number and percentage of bovine animals slaughtered with or without stunning and 
restraining systems used to perform slaughter without stunning  
(Source: BoRest study “competent authorities survey”-Data: 2012) 

34 

With stunning76%Upright pen10%Rotating pen90%Without stunning24%France 4.880.000 animals slaughtered in 2012With stunning85%Upright pen20%Rotating pen80%Without stunning15%The Netherlands1.934.000 animals slaughtered in 2012With stunning90%Upright pen34%Rotating pen66%Without stunning10%Spain2.221.000 animals slaughtered in 2012With stunning90%Upright pen70%Rotating pen30%Without stunning10%Belgium825.000 animals slaughtered in 2012With stunning99%Upright pen50%Rotating pen50%Without stunning1%Italy3.528.000 animals slaughtered in 2012With stunning93%Upright pen100%Without stunning7%UK2.252.000 animals slaughtered in 2012 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Other additional requirements (e.g. sharpness of the knife, number of cuts, etc…) regarding 
the  procedure  exist  in  some  Member  States  (for  example,  in  France  and  the  United 
Kingdom).  Regarding  how,  in  each  country  (2013),  it  is  ensured  that  slaughterhouses 
employees dealing with live animals are competent regarding animal welfare, no answer was 
given by Italy, Hungary, Latvia, Romany, Finland, Spain and the United Kingdom. Almost all 
other  Member  States,  mentioned  training  and  licensing  to  reach  this  objective.  Seven 
Member States mentioned also the presence of an Animal Welfare Officer (EE, FR, DE, IE, PT, 
SE  and  NL) 
IT)  mentioned  the 
implementation of standard operating procedures. 

in  the  slaughterhouses.  Three  countries  (DK,  FR, 

OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATION IN SIX SELECTED MEMBER STATES IN 2012 (BE, FR, IT, 
NL, SP, UK)  

Of  the  total  number  of  bovine  animals  slaughtered  in  the  EU  (i.e.  20  million  adults  and  5 
million calves), 60% of the adults and more than 80% of the calves are slaughtered in the 6 
Member States selected for the second part of this study (Figure 6).  

Slaughter  without  stunning  of  bovine  animals  takes  place  nearly  entirely  (97%)  within 
these  six  Member  States.  It  corresponds  to  2,079,396  million  bovine  animals  slaughtered 
without stunning. In these Member States, 393 slaughterhouses are approved to slaughter 
cattle without stunning according to the Regulation (EC) No 853/2004. 

According  to  the  data,  France  accounts  for  more  than  60%  of  the  animals  slaughtered 
without stunning in the selected countries. In France, nearly a quarter of the bovine animals 
are  slaughtered  without  stunning.  The  Netherlands  with  15%  of  the  cattle  slaughtered 
without stunning is the second Member States (Figure 7). 

The  situation  regarding  the  percentage  of  animals  slaughtered  without  stunning  and  the 
percentage  of  use  of  both  types  of  devices  in  the  6  selected  countries  is  synthesized  in 
Figure 8. 

35 

 
 
 
 
Table  11  :  Number  of  slaughtermen  registered  in  the  6  selected  Member  States  (Source:  Borest 
study “competent authorities survey”-Data: 2012) 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Country 

Belgium 

France 

Italy 

Spain 

The Netherlands 

United-Kingdom 

Total 

Dhabiha 

unknown 

unknown 

unknown 

40 

unknown 

unknown 

73 

unknown 

unknown 

39 

unknown 

unknown 

Shechita 

unknown 

unknown 

unknown 

1 

unknown 

unknown 

*  Italy: Additional partial data  were  obtained by phone  call from 17 plants but not included in this 
analysis 

36 

 
 
 
In  most  of  the  countries,  the  number  of  slaughtermen  registered  seems  to  be  unknown 
(Table 11). In France, for example, this information is not available at the veterinary services 
level. 

BoRest final report June 2015 

37 

 
 
  
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

17%

55%

26%

15%

35%

17%

BE

FR

IT

ES

NL

UK

Figure 9 : Number and percentage of respondents to the survey compared to the total number of 
slaughterhouses licensed to perform slaughter of bovine animals without stunning in the selected 
countries  
(Source: BoRest study “competent authorities survey”-Data: 2012) 

* 

Table 12 : Profile of the respondents of the slaughterhouses survey (calves:  less than 8 months old 
- adult: more than 8 months old)  
(Source: BoRest study “competent authorities survey”-Data: 2012) 

Country 

Number of 
respondents 
to the survey 

Number of 
slaughterhouses 
which mainly 
slaughter adult 
cattle 

Number of 
slaughterhouses 
which mainly 
slaughter calves 

Number of 
slaughterhouses 
which mainly 
slaughter other 
species 

Belgium 

France 

Italy 

Spain 

The Netherlands 

United Kingdom 

11 

54 

17 

21 

10 

3 

TOTAL 

116 

8 

39 

15 

18 

7 

3 

90 

2 

11 

1 

1 

1 

0 

16 

1 

4 

1 

2 

2 

0 

10 

38 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

INVENTORY  OF  THE  RESTRAINT  DEVICES  USED  BY  COMMERCIAL 
SLAUGHTERHOUSES  PERFORMING  SLAUGHTER  WITHOUT  PREVIOUS 
STUNNING IN SIX SELECTED MEMBER STATES 

NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS TO THE SURVEY 

The questionnaires (Annex 2) were sent to slaughterhouses in March 2013, it took up to four 
months for all the responses to be returned. 

The mean response rate was 28% and ranged between 15 and 55% for the slaughterhouses 
that  perform  slaughter  without  stunning  (Figure  9).  Data  from  116  slaughterhouses 
(approximately  30%  of  the  estimated  number  of  slaughterhouses  performing  slaughter  of 
bovine animals without stunning in the surveyed Member States) were finally collected. 

Table 12 describes the profile of the respondents to the survey by country according to the 
specialization of the slaughterhouse.  

Responses were received from 90 slaughterhouses that mainly slaughter adult cattle (80% of 
them  are  located  in  France,  Spain  and  Italy)  and  from  16  slaughterhouses  that  mainly 
slaughter calves i.e. bovine animals of less than 8 months old (France and Belgium mainly in 
terms  of  number  of  animals).  Ten  respondents  were  multispecies  slaughterhouses,  which 
mainly slaughter sheep and limited numbers of cattle.  

NUMBER OF ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED IN THE SLAUGHTERHOUSES SURVEYED 

The data collected in the 116 slaughterhouses through the survey covers more than 3 million 
bovine  animals  slaughtered:  2  million  adults  and  1  million  calves  (Figure  10).  From  these 
data,  approximately  one  quarter  of  bovine  animals  (calves  and  adults)  were  slaughtered 
without stunning (737,134 animals), most of them being slaughtered according to Dhabiha 
(80% of the calves and 90% of the adult cattle slaughtered without stunning). 

On average, 22%  of  the  calves  and  20%  of  the  adults  cattle  are  slaughtered  according  to 
Dhabiha. Shechita is carried out for approximately 5% of the calves and 3% of the adults 
slaughtered without stunning of this survey (Figure 10).  

All  the  slaughterhouses  except  one  responded  that  they  perform  Dhabiha  slaughter. 
Shechita is performed in 13 slaughterhouses for calves and in 17 slaughterhouses for adult 
cattle.  

39 

 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Number of calves and adult cattle slaughtered by conventional, halal 
and shechita practices in slaughterhouses surveyed (N=116)
(Source : Borest study ‘slaughterhouses survey’ - Data 2012) 

Conventional slaughter

Halal slaughter

Shechita slaughter

1800000

1600000

1400000

1200000

1000000

800000

600000

400000

200000

0

77%

73%

22%

5%

20%

3%

Calves

Adult cattle

Figure 10 : Number of calves and adult cattle slaughtered according to conventional slaughtering, 
dhabiha and shechita rite in the 116 slaughterhouses surveyed  
(Source: BoRest study “slaughterhouses survey”–Data: 2012)  

Type and number of restraining devices used in the 
slaughterhouses surveyed
(Source : Borest study ‘slaughterhouses survey’ - Data 2012)

Rotating pen

Upright pen

85%

71%

73%

44%

BE

FR

62%

NL

ES

IT

UK

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 11 : Type and number of restraining devices used in the 116 slaughterhouses of the sample  
(Source: BoRest study “slaughterhouses survey”–Data: 2012) 

40 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

TYPE AND NUMBER OF RESTRAINT DEVICE USED IN THE SLAUGHTERHOUSES 

Of 116 respondents to the survey, seven did not give any answer to the question asking for 
the  type  of  restraining  system  in  use  in  the  slaughterhouse  mainly  because  they  stun  the 
animals  systematically  before  sticking.  Consequently,  the  following  data  on  the  use  of 
restraining systems and practices is based on the answers of 109 slaughterhouses. 

Overall,  70%  of  the  slaughterhouses  of  the  sample  are  using  mainly  a  rotating  restraint 
device  (Figure  11).  In  all  the  countries,  a  majority  of  the  slaughterhouses  are  using  this 
device  except  in  Belgium  and  in  the  United  Kingdom  where  rotating  devices  are  not 
permitted.  

Regarding  France,  Spain,  Belgium  and  the  United  Kingdom,  these  data  are  consistent  with 
the  estimates  provided  by  the  competent  authorities.  However,  for  the  Netherlands,  the 
rotating  pen  is  less  often  present  in  the  slaughterhouses  of  the  sample  compared  to  the 
estimates  of  competent  authorities  (62%  instead  of  80%).  Conversely,  regarding  Italy,  the 
use  of  rotating  pen  in  the  Italian  slaughterhouses  of  the  sample  is  more  frequent  than 
estimates by competent authorities (73% instead of 50%). 

Of  the  82  slaughterhouses  that  mainly  slaughter  adult  cattle,  rotating  pens  represent  the 
majority (70%) of the restraint devices used. Conversely, in slaughterhouses that specialized 
in calf slaughter, the proportion is more balanced (Table 13). 

In 48 slaughterhouses, the unique or most used restraint device is dedicated to adult cattle 
and in five slaughterhouses to calves. Thirty one slaughterhouses have restraint devices that 
can be adapted to slaughter  either calves or adult cattle. It should also be noted that  nine 
slaughterhouses have two restraint devices and when looking at the second equipment, it is 
always dedicated to one category of animals (two  for adult and five for calves and two for 
others). 

41 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 13 :  Type and number of restraining system installed in the slaughterhouse according to the 
main species slaughtered  
(Source: BoRest study “slaughterhouses survey”–Data: 2012) 

Main species slaughtered 

Number of rotating pens 

Number of upright pens 

Adult cattle 

Calves 

Sheep 

TOTAL 

58 

8 

7 

74 

24 

6 

3 

35 

42 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

MANUFACTURERS AND MODELS 

Thirty  two  different  manufacturers  (list  in  Annex  3)  have  been  identified  through  the 
survey sent to the slaughterhouses while ten slaughterhouses have declared to have a self-
made  pen.  In  most  of  the  cases,  it  seems  however  that  this  self-made  pen  is  a  modified 
commercial device.  

Fifty percent of the devices in the sample are from three manufacturers (Facomia, Couedic 
Madoré  and  Vendramini)  (n  =  103)  but  it  should  be  noted  that  this  is  the  result  of  French 
market share of these manufacturers (80% of the total market share). In fact,  most  of  the 
manufacturers  are  local  and  few  are  present  in  the  different  countries.  In  our  sample, 
Banss  and  Couedic  Madore  are  present  in  France  and  Spain,  Nawi  in  Belgium  and  The 
Netherlands  and  Norman  in  Belgium  and  France.  Furthermore,  in  countries  other  than 
France, there does not appear to be manufacturers with dominant market share. 

Manufacturers  are  specialized 
in  one  type  of  device.  Nevertheless,  according  to 
respondents, two manufacturers, Facomia and Couedic Madoré produce both rotating and 
upright  restraint  device.  Regarding  the  first  manufacturer  it  seems  however  that,  in  one 
slaughterhouse,  it  is  a  rotating  device  used  in  upright  position.  In  the  case  of  Couedic 
Madoré,  this  is  explained  by  the  existence  of  a  classical  rotating  restraint  device  and  of  a 
“restrainer” i.e. conveyor with head restraint at one end that is used for calves exclusively in 
upright position. 

When  looking  at  the  type  of  device,  according  to  the  respondents,  it  appears  that 
approximately 80 different models are quoted. However this result should be interpreted in 
view of: 

  Denominations are frequently inaccurate or unclear.  
  Most of the manufacturers are only present in one slaughterhouse of the sample. 
  36 slaughterhouses have asked for major modification of the device (12 for the chin 

lift, 9 for adjustment for calves, and 15 for others). 

  10 slaughterhouses have self-made pen 

The only  model  that  appeared to be frequently  quoted  is  the  F7BV  from  Facomia  which  is 
consistent with the market share of this manufacturer and its long history in the field.  

43 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

1991 1992 1994 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Figure 12 : Number of devices according to the year of investment 

(Source: BoRest study ”slaughterhouses survey”) 

Figure 13 : Description of the restraining practices used to slaughter adult cattle in terms of 
number of slaughterhouses and in terms of number of animals slaughtered 
(Source: BoRest study “slaughterhouses survey”–Data: 2012) 

44 

Inverted position 180°Rotation 90°Rotation 45°UprightMixed positionsPercentage of abattoirs depending on the restraining practice usedInverted position 180°Rotation 90°Rotation 45°UprightMixed positionsNumberof animalsslaughtereddependingon the restrainingpractice used64%19%14%63%27%5%4% 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

YEAR OF INVESTMENT 

In the sample, two peaks of investment can be emphasized: in the mid-nineties and during 
the ten last years. But taking into account available data of the sample (n=81), 54 devices i.e. 
67%  are  less  than  ten  years  old.  11  slaughterhouses  (not  included  in  the  Figure  12) 
answered that the device was built before 1990 but by looking at the model it appears that 
most of them were produced after this date i.e. major change/renovation have been carried 
out since the first investment. 

RESTRAINT PRACTICES IN THE SLAUGHTERHOUSES 

Using a rotating device may offer different possibilities of restraint practices depending on 
the angle of rotation and including an upright position. 

Restraining practices for adult bovine  

Overall, 323 020 animals in 60  slaughterhouses of the sample (76% of the adult cattle and 
60%  of  the  slaughterhouses)  are  slaughtered  without  stunning  after  rotation  while  77 600 
animals in 22 slaughterhouses (18% of the adult cattle and 20% of the slaughterhouses) are 
slaughtered  without  stunning  in  upright  position.  In  the  other  18  slaughterhouses  which 
slaughter  limited  number  of  adult  bovine  animals  according  to  Dhabiha  (7%  of  the  adult 
animals),  stunning  is  reported  by  the  respondents  to  be  performed  systematically  before 
exsanguinations (only Dhabiha) and/or information is lacking.  

In  more  than  60%  of  the  slaughterhouses  surveyed  and  for  64%  of  the  adult  bovine 
animals in the sample, the main restraining practice used for slaughter without stunning is 
“inverted position” (180° rotation on the back). It may be noted that, for the Shechita, in our 
sample, 75% of the adult bovine animals are slaughtered in inverted position compared to 
58% for Dhabiha.  

Only four slaughterhouses are performing the “90° rotation” (lateral recumbency) for the 
slaughter of adult cattle but this practice is quite relevant in terms of number of animals 
slaughtered  (15%  of  the  animals  of  the  sample), and quite similar (in terms of number of 
animals)  to  the  upright  position  (Figure  13).  Finally,  other  restraint  practices  are  a  mix 
between  different  positions,  generally  including  inverted  position.  The  use  of  different 
position  in  the  same  slaughterhouse  is  due  to  the  presence  of  several  slaughtermen  with 
different practices and procedures. 

45 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Figure 14 : Number of slaughterhouses according to the restraining practices used  
(Source: BoRest study “slaughterhouses survey”–Data: 2012) 

Figure 15 : Number of adult bovine animals slaughtered without stunning according to the 
restraining practices used in the 6 selected countries  
(Source: BoRest study “slaughterhouses survey”-Data: 2012) 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

When  considering  the  countries  of  the  sample,  the  situation  in  France  and  Spain  is  quite 
similar.  The  inverted  position  is  the  most  widely  used  practice  in  slaughterhouses.  Lateral 
recumbence  is  not  frequently  used  but  it  is  not  negligible  in  terms  of  total  numbers  of 
animals  slaughtered.  Conversely,  Belgium  and  the  United  Kingdom  were  similar  by  the 
exclusive  practice  of  upright  restraint  for  slaughter  without  stunning.  In  Italy  and  The 
Netherlands,  the  situation  is  more  balanced  but  this  is  also  due,  in  the  case  of  The 
Netherlands, to the limited number of slaughterhouses in the sample (Figures 14 and 15). 

Restraint practices for calves 

Thirty  slaughterhouses  (65%)  restrain  calves  in  the  inverted  position,  representing  57%  of 
the animals. Restraint in lateral recumbence is used in one  slaughterhouse, which is one of 
the largest plants in the survey. Similarly, it has to be noticed that “mix practice” (70% of the 
calves  are  bleeding  in  inverted  position  and  30%  in  upright  position)  is  performed  in  one 
large  plant.    Overall,  it  is  estimated  that  233 138  calves  (83%  of  the  sample)  were 
slaughtered without stunning using rotating restraint practice. 

Consequently,  even  if  upright  restraint  is  quite  more  frequent  in  terms  of  number  of 
slaughterhouses  (29%)  compared  to  adult,  it  only  represents  17%  of  the  animals  of  the 
total sample (Figure 16).  

Differences  between  countries  are  not  relevant  because  Belgium  and  France  are  the  main 
contributors to the sample for calves with a reduced number of slaughterhouses in Belgium 
compared to France. 

Figure 16 : Percentage of slaughterhouses and calves slaughtered without stunning according to 
the restraining practices 

(Source: BoRest study “slaughterhouses survey”–Data: 2012) 

47 

Inverted position 180°Rotation 90°Uprightmixed positionsPercentage of abattoirs depending on the restraining practice used2%2%31%65%Inverted position 180°Rotation 90°Uprightmixed positionPercentage of animal slaughtered without stunning depending on the restraining practice used57%15%16%12% 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 14 : Number of slaughterhouses and adult cattle slaughtered without stunning according to 
the device (manufacturer) and the restraining practice  
(Source: BoRest study “slaughterhouses survey”-Data: 2012) 

Restraining 
practice 

Number of devices 

Number of 
adult cattle 
slaughtered 

Restraining 
device 

Manufacturer 

Facomia 

BANSS 

Couedic Madoré 

Vendramini 

SUCMANU 

MECÁNICAS GARROTXA 

Self made 

BEMO 

Emme 

180° 

Rotating pen 

Bulgarelli Engineering & Trade 
SRL 

SIBEMIA 

ROVANI 

Nuova Innocenti e Cipollini 

STORK 

Couedic Madoré 

90/180 

90 

BAERT 

BSM IA 

Facomia 

Norman 

TAESA 

Self made 

AVI SILVA 

Baeten 

BERMEJO 

Facomia 

45 

Upright 

Upright 

VITELLI / VITELLONI MASCHI E 
FEMMINE 

Bob Snarr 

Upright pen 

21 

3 

6 

6 

1 

1 

3 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

83,073 

71,011 

28,801 

24,906 

14,618 

9,638 

6,939 

5,377 

4,194 

3,250 

2,347 

960 

30 

1,000 

33,446 

22,353 

1,575 

5,875 

10,000 

14,110 

10,366 

10,000 

8,500 

3,014 

435 

229 

167 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

RESTRAINING PRACTICES RELATED TO THE DEVICE USED 

As stated above, there are a wide variety of types of devices used by slaughterhouses in the 
sample. A large part of the market is shared by three manufacturers, while rest is made up of 
numerous small local manufacturers (upright or rotating).  

When looking at the relationship between practices and manufacturers (Tables 14 and 15), 
it should be noted that:  

  For both categories of bovine animals, there is no direct link between the frequency of 
device  in  slaughterhouses  and  the  number  of  animals  slaughtered  with  this  device. 
This results from the size heterogeneity of slaughterhouses 

  For both categories, a small number of manufacturers/device are used for a large part 
of the  animals  slaughtered  without  stunning  in  the  inverted position  while  there  is  a 
more balanced situation in the upright position  

  For adults, the 90° position is not linked to a particular device and is performed with 4 

different ones 

  For calves, when the upright position is used, the most frequent situation is the use of 
conveyors  with  head  restraint  at  the  end  using  a  Couedic  Madoré  device  (4 
slaughterhouses and 22,134 calves). 

49 

 
 
 
Table 15 : Number of slaughterhouses and calves slaughtered without stunning according to the 
device (manufacturer) and the restraining practice  
(Source: BoRest study “slaughterhouses survey”-Data: 2012) 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Restraint 
device 

Rotating pen 

Upright pen 

Restraining 
Practice 
180° 

180° 

180° 

180° 

Manufacturer 

Nawi 

Facomia 

Vendramini 

Couedic Madoré 

UR/180 ° (30/70°) 

Couedic Madoré 

180° 

180° 

180° 

180° 

180° 

90° 

UR 

UR 

UR 

UR 

UR 

UR 

UR 

UR 

UR 

UR 

Norman 

BEMO 

BANSS 

ROVANI 

Self made 

Nawi 

Facomia 

Couedic Madoré 

BSM IA 

AVI SILVA 

Facomia 

J&W Services 

Baeten 

COMAZZI 

Self made 

Self made per 
vitelli/vitelloni  

Number of 
devices 
2 

16 

6 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

Number of animals 
slaughtered 
80,050 

54,942 

20,554 

3,638 

45,000 

1,323 

781 

153 

9 

5 

43,094 

4,613 

22,134 

6,260 

4,000 

2,598 

1,065 

450 

357 

281 

39 

50 

 
 
 
BoRest final report April 2015 

CONCLUSION 

Regarding the general situation in the European Union in 2012 

Of  25  million  bovine  animals  slaughtered  in  the  EU,  more  than  2  million  are  annually 
slaughtered  without  stunning,  corresponding  to  8%  of  the  animal  slaughtered.  Of  24 
Member  States  that  answered  the  questionnaires,  13  have  performed  slaughter  without 
stunning in 2012. Meanwhile, this practice was legally banned (or there is an agreement to 
not perform it) in five Member States at the time of the study. 

There is significant variation in the numbers of animals slaughtered without stunning in the 
different Member States. In the EU: France, The Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom 
(which account for approximately 45% of the total cattle slaughtered in the EU) account for 
84%  of  all  cattle  slaughtered  without  stunning,  while  Belgium,  Italy  and  Ireland  (which 
account for approximately 20% ) only account for 8%. 

In  the  EU,  almost  80%  of  the  animals  slaughtered  without  stunning  are  slaughtered  in  a 
rotating  pen  and  20%  in  an  upright  pen.  The  slaughter  of  cattle  in  the  inverted  position  is 
currently not permitted in 2 countries (the United Kingdom and Estonia). The use of rotating 
device  is  the  most  common  practice  in  the  other  major  countries  (France,  The  Netherland 
and Spain). 

Regarding the current situation in the six selected countries in 2012 

Based  on  data  collected  from  both  competent  authorities  and  slaughterhouses,  rotating 
devices are the most widely used system, approximately 70% of the slaughterhouses5.  

Inverted  position  is  the  most  frequent  restraint  practice  used  in  more  than  half  of  the 
slaughterhouses.  Upright  restraint  is  used  in  20-30%  of  the  slaughterhouses  while  other 
practices are mainly a mix between different practices or lateral recumbence. 

The percentage of animals killed without stunning while restrained in inverted position is of 
60% (64% of the adults and 57% of the calves), in upright position of 20% of the adults and 
12% of the calves, in lateral recumbence of 15% for both with the remaining being a mix of 
different practices. 

There is a large variety of manufacturers/models used for the restraint of cattle for slaughter 
without stunning. Manufacturers are generally specialized in one type of device. 

5 All  these  estimations  are  including  the  United  Kingdom  where  rotating  devices  are  not 
permitted 

51 

 
 
 
                                                                 
BoRest final report April 2015 

Rotating restraint devices in the majority of slaughterhouses, and in particular in large scale 
slaughterhouses, originate from a few manufacturers. The remaining slaughterhouses source 
the  rotating  devices  from  many  different,  mainly  local,  manufacturers.  Altogether,  the 
“Facomia  like”  design  is  the  most  frequent  and  only  a  few  devices  seem  to  be  based  on 
different principles.  

the  other 
the  upright  restraint  manufacturers/devices,  almost  all  of 
Regarding 
slaughterhouses are using different manufacturers/devices. In The United Kingdom, due to 
the  national  requirements,  upright  devices  are  based  on  the  ASPCA  principles.  In  other 
countries, a larger diversity was observed.  

Overall,  most  of  the  investments  were  recent  ones  with  67%  of  the  devices  less  than  10 
years old. This implies that most of the device are supposed to be used for the next decades. 

52 

 
 
 
BoRest final report April 2015 

5.  ASSESSMENT  OF  WELFARE  OF  BOVINE  ANIMALS  SLAUGHTERED 
RESTRAINT 
USING 

DIFFERENT 

STUNNING 

WITHOUT 
DEVICES/PRACTICES 

Task leaders: L. Mirabito (Idele), A. Dalmau (IRTA) and C. Terlouw (INRA) 

INTRODUCTION 

The  main  objective  of  this  second  step  of  the  project  was  to  analyze  the  animal  welfare 
advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  different  types  of  restraining  systems  commercially 
used in European slaughterhouses and to provide recommendations on good practice. 

The results of the survey in slaughterhouses that are licensed to perform slaughter without 
stunning of cattle were used to define sampling principles and to select slaughterhouses in 
which  observations  would  be  carried  out  to  assess  the  impact  of  the  different  restraining 
systems and operating procedure on animal welfare.  

In  this  objective,  a  common  methodology  was  elaborated  and  tested  in  slaughterhouses 
during a three days meeting, which was held in Girona in April 2013.  

It  was  first  planned  that  at  least  four  slaughterhouses  would  be  visited  in  five  selected 
European countries (Spain, France, Italy, The Netherlands and The United Kingdom), one in 
Belgium  and  Ireland  and  a  third  country  (Israel).  The  expected  sample  of  slaughterhouses 
was defined on the basis of the results of the survey about practices and restraining systems 
used  in  slaughterhouses  considering  both  categories  of  animals  (calves  and  adults) 
separately.  However, due to willingness of the slaughterhouses to participate to the study, 
eventually a total of twenty two different groups of animals (category of animals combined 
with restraining method) were assessed in eighteen locations. A total of 1113 bovine animals 
were observed.   

Data  collection  took  place  from  July  to  December  2013  by  each  partner  in  its  country  and 
monthly phone meetings were organized to finalize the analysis and the recommendations 
from January to April 2014. 

The main results and conclusions are reported in this document. 

53 

 
 
 
 
Table 16: Characteristics of the slaughterhouses 
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

BoRest final report April 2015 

Slaughterhouses  Number of cattle 
slaughtered per 
year ( dhabiha or 
shechita) 

Total number 
of animals 
studied 

Line 
speed 

Slaughter 
method  

Post-cut 
stunning 

Animal 
position 
during the cut 

Device 
manufacturer 

Head 
restraint 

ADULT CATTLE (n = 780) 

SH1 

SH2 

SH3 

SH4 

SH5 

SH6 

SH7 

SH8 

SH9 

SH10 
SH11 
SH12 

SH13 

SH14 

SH15 

SH16 

SH8 

SH12 

SH17 

SH18 

9,700 

33,500 

6,000 

11,000 

38,000 

10,488 

- 

2,747 
3,919 

3,425 

400 
470 
960 (adult cattle 
and calves) 
15,000 

14,500 

7,800 

45,000 

20,301 

960 (adult cattle 
and calves) 
1,250 
150,000 
87,000 

60 

60 

20 

60 

60 

57 

63 

15 
36 

60 

60 
60 
24 

61 

56 

28 

64 
4 
5 
58 

36 

16 
82 
68 

20 

30 

18 

22 

Dhabiha 

Dhabiha 

Dhabiha 

Dhabiha 

30-40 

Dhabiha 

20-22 

Dhabiha 

30-34 

Dhabiha 

48 
48 

Dhabiha 
Shechita 

20-25 

Dhabiha 

10 
10 
12 

21 

30 

20 

Dhabiha 
Dhabiha 
Shechita 

Dhabiha 

Shechita 

Dhabiha 

CALVES (n = 333) 

Shechita 
Shechita 
Dhabiha 
Shechita 

Shechita 

Shechita 
Dhabiha 
Dhabiha 

30 

44 

12 

20 
60 
80 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 
No 
No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 
Yes 
No 

180 ° 

180 ° 

180° 

180 ° 

180° 

90° 

150 ° 

180 ° 

180 ° 

90 ° 
0° 
180 ° 

180 ° 

0° 

0 ° 

180 ° 
0 ° 
0 ° 
180 ° 

180 ° 

180 ° 
0 ° 
180 ° 

Metal 
chinlift 
Metal 
chinlift 
Metal 
chinlift 
Metal 
chinlift 
Metal 
chinlift 
Metal 
chinlift 
Metal 
chinlift 
Metal 
chinlift 
Metal 
chinlift 

Rope 
Rope 
Metal 
chinlift 
Metal 
chinlift 
Metal 
chinlift 
Metal 
chinlift 

Metal 
chinlift 
Metal 
chinlift 
Rope 

Metal 
chinlift 
No chinlift 

Mecanicas 
Garrotxa SA 
Couedic 
Madore 
Home made 

BANSS 

BANSS 

Facomia 

Norman 

Sceria 

Bulgarelli 
Engineering  
& Trade srl 
Mancini IMAS 
Home made 
Rovana 

NAWI 

- 

JC Engineering 

Couedic 
Madore 

Vendramini 

Rovana 

Home made 

NAWI 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MATERIAL AND METHOD  

BoRest final report April 2015 

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE OF GROUPS OF ANIMALS 

Slaughter plants were first sampled according to the following principles: 

  Categories of animals (calves and adult cattle) 
  Position  of  the  animal  at  the  time  of  bleeding  (Upright,  inverted  and  lateral 

recumbence) 

For the Rotating device: 

  Main  manufacturers  in  term  of  number  of  slaughterhouses  and  animals 
slaughtered without stunning in inverted position for both categories of animals 
(i.e. Facomia Couedic Madoré, Vendramini/Sceria, Nawi, Banss) 

  Random  sampling  of  at  least  one  slaughterhouse  restraining  bovine  animals  in 

lateral recumbency  

  Sampling of slaughterhouses to provide a “picture” of national diversity  
  Additional  slaughter  plants  were  added  to  the  sample  when  it  was  known  that 

special devices/practices were carried out. 

For the upright device: 

  Random  sampling  of  at  least  an  slaughterhouse  using  conveyor  for  calves  with 

head restraint at the end 

  Sampling of slaughterhouses to provide a “picture” of national diversity included 

as far as possible “special“ design 

The  British,  Dutch  and 
Israeli  partners  encountered  difficulties  getting  access  to 
slaughterhouses  (due  to  management  refusals).  Furthermore,  the  delayed  answers  from 
Ireland  to  the  first  survey  prevented  us  from  contacting  the  Irish  slaughterhouses. 
Consequently, the final number of slaughterhouses visited was lower than expected in these 
countries.  To compensate, five groups of animals in total were observed in France, Italy and 
Spain. Some difficulties were also encountered regarding the availability of slaughterhouses 
with restraining systems other than rotating device. For example, in France, upright position 
using a rotating device and upright position using a conveyor of calves were no longer used 
in the two initially sampled (from survey 2) slaughterhouses of calves.  Eventually, this study 
was  carried  out  in  eighteen  locations  representing  22  different  groups  of  bovine  animals 
(combinations  of  category  of  animals  and  restraining  practices  -  Table  16).  Thirteen 
slaughterhouses  performed  slaughter  without  pre  stunning  of  adult  bovine  animals,  three 
performed  slaughter  without  pre  stunning  of  calves  and  the  last  two  slaughtered  both 
categories  of  animals.  In  two  slaughter  plants,  we  observed  bovine  animals  slaughtered  in 
inverted and upright position in the same device. 

55 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report April 2015 

The slaughterhouses were located according to the following distribution: five in Spain, four 
in France including one with  two separate lines for adults and calves and one slaughtering 
calves  in  inverted  and upright  position, four  in  Italy  including  one  slaughtering  both  adults 
and  calves  in  the  same  device  after  adjustment,  two  in  the  Netherlands  including  one 
slaughtering calves in inverted and upright position, two in the UK and one in Belgium.  

Slaughterhouses were very variable in terms of numbers of animals slaughtered without pre 
stunning:  from limited numbers  (< 5000  animals/year)  to  very  large  throughputs  (>  80 000 
animals/year).  Average  line  speeds  varied  between  slaughterhouses  but  the  line  speed 
observed  during  the  observation  days  were  similar  to  the  average  speed  provided  by  the 
slaughterhouses. 

Except  in  the  United  Kingdom,  the  majority  of  bovine  animals  slaughtered  without  pre 
stunning  are  killed  in  the  inverted  position.  Attempts  were  made  to  visit  slaughterhouses 
that  slaughter  bovine  animals  in  the  upright  position  in  the  other  countries.  In  the 
Netherlands, the upright position for calves was also associated with performance of a post-
cut  stun  (Dhabiha).  In  Italy,  the  upright position  for  adult  bovine animals  also  involved the 
use  of  rope  for  head  restraint  (SH11).  In  France,  one  upright-slaughtering  slaughterhouse 
was identified but refused to participate in the study and another one, specialised in calves, 
accepted but changed its operating procedure between the first survey and the visit. Then 
only  a  small  number  of  animals  slaughtered  in  the  upright  positions  were  observed  here, 
after the observers requested this.  

Regarding the rotating restraint device, the sampling was based firstly on the distribution of 
restraint  devices 
in  the  different  countries.  The  main  manufacturers  are  therefore 
represented  in  the  sample:  Facomia,  Couedic  Madoré,  Vendramini/Seria,  Banss,  Nawi  and 
Norman.  In  the  other  slaughterhouses,  restraining  devices  were  either  built  by  a  local 
manufacturer  or  were  “self-made”  by  the  slaughterhouses.  In  two  slaughterhouses,  adult 
bovine animals were slaughtered in the lateral position. 

56 

 
 
 
BoRest final report April 2015 

At  last,  we  also  made  attempts  to  identify  some  special  restraint  devices  used  in 
slaughterhouses that were thought to have a particular effect on animal welfare. The use of 
a  mobile  head  restraint  device  for  calves  at  the  end  of  the  conveyor  was  one  of  these 
systems  but  the  slaughterhouse  selected  did  no  longer  use  it.  One  slaughterhouse  was 
selected  because  of  the  use  of  a  rotating  device  where  the  restraining  device  was  not 
rotating  around  its  own axis  but followed  a  semi-circular path.  One  slaughterhouse used  a 
concrete device with a window at the front end and the use of rope for the restraint of the 
head.  Another  slaughterhouse  used  a  device  consisting  of two  separate  parts.  In  this  case, 
when  the  first  bovine  animal  is  inverted  and  cut,  the  slaughterman  introduces  the  second 
animal into the other part. Then after the bleeding and the release of the first animal, the 
restraining  device  turns  around,  the  second  animal  is  cut  in  inverted  position  and  a  third 
animal enters the part previously occupied by the first animal.  

The number of animals observed per plant was set at an objective of 60 animals slaughtered. 
A total of 1113 bovine animals were finally observed during slaughter plant visits (780 adults 
– more than 8 months –and 333 calves – less than 8 months). 

57 

 
BoRest final report April 2015 

Figure 17 : Standard pattern of the used of rotating device  

(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

Figure 18 : Standard pattern of the used of upright device 

(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

58 

RestrainingproceduresStartinterventionNosein boxCutANIMAL POSITIONStages of slaughterprocedureUPRIGHT HeadrestraintHeadrelease*Bodyrelease*BackpusherBellyplateNeckrestraint*No data on neck release.Durationof box introductionRestraintdurationHead out of boxStartinterventionNosein boxCutBack pusherRotation 1StartRotation 1EndRotation 2StartRotation 2EndReleaseStartRestrainingproceduresANIMAL POSITIONStages of slaughterprocedureUPRIGHTHead out of boxDurationof box introductionRestraintdurationRotation durationInvertedpositionIN ROTATIONINVERTED 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report April 2015 

MEASURES 

PROCEDURES DEVELOPMENT 

The  first  draft  of  the  protocol  was  produced  by  the  task  leaders  (C.  Terlouw,  INRA  and  A. 
Dalmau, IRTA) and sent to all partners by the end of March 2013.  

Subsequently,  a  three  days  meeting  was  held  in  Girona  (hosted  by  IRTA)  with  all  project 
partners.  During  the  meeting,  the  observation  protocol  was  discussed  and  improved 
accordingly.  Several  local  slaughterhouses  were  visited  to  test  and  refine  the  observation 
protocol. The output of the standardization meeting was a description  of a list of variables 
that  was  discussed  and  finalized  by  mail  in  April  2013.  Some  additional  descriptions  were 
then added by V. Marzin and B. Ducreux (Institut de l’Elevage) after having tested  some of 
the variables in slaughterhouses for another French project.  

OVERVIEW OF THE FUNCTIONING OF THE DEVICE 

The general patterns of the use of rotating and upright devices are described at Figures 17 
and 18. The observations started when the animals were in the corridor before the entrance 
of the device. Then the animals start entering the device (nose in box), go through and have 
their  head  out  of  the  device  on  the  other  side  (head  out  of  box).  At  this  moment,  the 
restraining procedure is started by activating the back pusher, the lateral pusher (or the belly 
plate in upright devices) and finally the head restrainer and the chin lift. Then the rotation 
takes place and, at the end of the rotation, the throat of the animal is cut. After the cut, the 
animals may stay in inverted position until the release or they can be rotated back again.  

OBSERVATIONS 

During the visits, we gathered information on: 

  The layout of the area including the corridor, restraining device and releasing area 
  The  organization  of  the  work  (operators,  slaughtermen)  and  the  equipment  used 

(Annex 4) 

  The functioning of the device  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report April 2015 

Table 17 : Definition of the variables analysed  

(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

Duration of entrance 

Duration of restraint 
Duration of rotation 
Duration of inverted position 

Negative contact (entrance) 
Prod-use (entrance) 

Period 

from “nose in device” at the back end  to “head out of device” at 
the front end 
from “back pusher” to “start cut” 
from “start rotation” to “rotation completed” 
from “rotation completed” to “start cut”  
Human-animal interactions 
Tail twist + Door on back + Give a kick 
Electric prod used 

Animal behaviour 
Stress-related behaviour (entrance)  Walk backwards + Walk forwards + Is compressed + Compresses 

Slips and falls (entrance) 
Vocalisations 
restraint) 

(entrance 

Quality of head restraint 
Number of cuts 

Both carotids  
Impeded flow 

+ Is mounted + Mounts + Other 
Slips + Falls 
vocal sound intentionally expressed by the animal 

and 

Cut and bleeding 

Judgment 
number of movements (total of backwards and forwards) of the 
blade while in contact with the neck tissue 
Both carotids severed 
Impeded flow after the cut due to blood clot or other restriction 

spontaneous eyes movements  
eyes convulsing 

eyelids closing without previous pressure on the cornea 
eye white visible, eyes turning inwards 

Signs of consciousness/unconsciousness 

loss of corneal reflex 

absence of eye closure after a LIGHT touch on the canthus of the 
eye (brush fixed on a stick) 

struggles (before or after cut) 

loss of posture 

movements  involving  the  whole  body,  legs  and  possible  head 
with the intention to escape from the situation 
animal  sitting  or  lying  down.  Apparent  loss  of  posture:  animals 
seems  not  to  carry  its  weight  but  is  carried  by  the  restraining 
system. 

Attempt to inspire 

successful  or  unsuccessful  inspiration  movement  discontinued 
with guttural sound 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Moreover, we observed for each animal: 

  Behavioral indicators of stress from the beginning of human intervention until its 

death (falls and slips, vocalizations and other behaviors). 

  Human-animal interactions (use of electric prods and other negative contacts) 
  The cut and indicators of bleeding efficiency 
  The signs of consciousness 

The details are given in Annex 5, 6 and 7. 

Each slaughterhouse was visited for one or several days (according to the line speed) and a 
sample  of  animals  were  observed  according  to  the  methodology,  which  was  commonly 
defined by the consortium.  

Observations were carried out on animal behavior from the corridor to a minimum duration 
of  45  seconds  after  the  cut.  However  due  to  technical  limitations,  it  was  not  possible  to 
observe all the variables in every slaughterhouses.  

All  observations  were  continuously  voice  recorded  except  the  corneal  reflex  which  was 
tested every 15 seconds after the cut. 

For the analyses, we calculated the duration of the different period and, for a given period, 
the  number  of  occurrence  per  animal  and/or  the  frequency  of  animals  that  expressed  or 
were subject of the behavior/events. The definitions of the variables are given in Table 17. 

The variables were coded in MS Excel sheet. Descriptive statistics were calculated with Excel 
StatExact. 

PLANNING 

Data collection started in July and ended in December 2013.  

Data analysis was carried out from January to April 2014. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 18 : Duration (s) of entry of the adult bovine into the restraint device (from “nose in box” to 
“head out of box”) (Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Number of animals 

DURATION 
Range 

UPRIGHT 

60 
56 
28 

57 
60 

60 
60 
20 
60 
60 
63 
51 
60 
24 

1 – 25 
0 – 20 
0 - 139 

LATERAL 

1 – 94 
0 – 24 

INVERTED 

0 – 58 
3 – 48 
2 – 23 
2 – 52 
3 – 72 
0 – 38 
1 - 130 
0 – 53 
0 – 50 

SH11 
SH14 
SH15 

SH6 
SH10 

SH1 
SH2 
SH3 
SH4 
SH5 
SH7 
SH8 
SH9 
SH12 

Mean (SD) 

7.2 (5.3) 
2.0 (4.1) 
15.4 (26.2) 

12.3 (16.4) 
7.8 (5.5) 

8.5 (9.0) 
13.6 (9.6) 
13.0 (6.5) 
12.4 (8.8) 
14.6 (9.8) 
6.9 (7.1) 
10.1 (18.0) 
19.3 (14.2) 
9.6 (10.4) 

Table 19 : Human-animal interactions (HAI) during entry of adult bovine into the restraining device  
(Range and Mean: occurrence per animal- Freq: %of animals) 
 (Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 
Negative contact  
Mean (SD) 

Prod-use 
Mean (SD) 

Range  

Range 

Freq 

Freq 

SH14 
SH15 

0 – 1 
0 – 0 

0.2 (0.3) 
0 (0) 

SH6 

0 – 1 

0.04 (0.2) 

SH1 

SH2 

SH3 

SH4 

SH5 

SH7 

SH8 

0 – 1 

0 – 2 

0 – 2 

0 – 2 

0 – 1 

0 – 1 

0 – 1 

0.02 (0.1) 

0.1 (0.4) 

0.6 (0.8) 

0.2 (0.5) 

0.03 (0.2) 

0.1 (0.3) 

UPRIGHT 
17.9% 
0.0% 
LATERAL 
3.5% 

INVERTED 
1.7% 

8.3% 

35.0% 

21.7% 

3.3% 

9.5% 

0 – 8 
0 – 3 

1.1 (1.8) 
0.3 (0.8) 

50.0% 
17.9% 

0 – 11 

0.9 (2.3) 

19.3% 

0 – 4 

0.4 (0.7) 

0 – 13 

1.4 (2.2) 

0 – 2 

0.1 (0.5) 

0 – 17 

0.5 (2.5) 

0 – 10 

3.0 (2.3) 

0 – 6 

0.7 (1.4) 

36.7% 

55.0% 

5.0% 

8.3% 

90.0% 

31.7% 

58.8% 

76 

0.2 (0.4) 

17.6% 

0 – 10 

2.8 (2.9) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
RESULTS 

BoRest final report June 2015 

ENTRY  OF  THE  BOVINE  ANIMALS  INTO  THE  RESTRAINT  DEVICE  (FROM 
“NOSE  IN  DEVICE”  TO  “HEAD  OUT  OF  DEVICE”  BEFORE  START  OF  THE 
RESTRAINING PROCEDURE) 

CASE OF ADULT BOVINE 

 Duration of entry into the restraint device (Table 18) 

In most of the slaughterhouses, the time it took the adult bovine animals to enter into the 
device was between 5s and 15s. In some cases, this time could increase dramatically up to 2 
minutes, the maximum time registered.   

The  layout  of  the  area  may  explain  some  delays.  For  example,  lighting  environment  was 
judged as “bad” by observers in SH2, SH3 and SH5. But, where the longest average duration 
was recorded (SH9), this result could be explained by the design of the device and the added 
factor that the animal was introduced in the second part of the device while the other one in 
the first part was being bleeding.  

Human-animal  interactions,  in  the  corridor  especially,  also  had  an  effect  on  duration  of 
entry.  For  example,  in  SH14,  the  animals  “ran”  into  the  box  in  2s  because  of  a  highly 
frequent use of the electric prod in the badly designed end of corridor.  

Human-animal interactions into the restraint device (Table 19) 

For 40% of the animals, there were no human-animal interactions during the entry into the 
restraint  device.  When  human-animal  interactions  were  observed,  this  was  exclusively  the 
use of electric prods (used in all slaughterhouses) for 137 animals over 293 (47%).  

The use of electric prod was low in some slaughterhouses i.e. in SH3 and SH4 (less than 10% 
of  the  animals)  while,  in  others,  more  than  50%  of  the  animals  were  stimulated  with  an 
average number  of prods  higher than  one per  animal  (SH8,  SH2,  SH5,  SH14).  The  frequent 
use of the electric prod was linked to the design of the entry of the device (e.g. SH14) or to 
the behaviour of some operators who tended to use it repetitively on some animals with a 
counter-productive effect. (e.g. SH8). 

77 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 20 : Animal behaviour in the restraint device- Adult bovine 
 (Range and Mean: occurrence per animal- Freq: %of animals) 
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

Stress-related behavior 

Fall or slip 

Vocalisation 

Range  Mean (SD) 

Freq 

Range  Mean (SD) 

Freq 

Range  Mean (SD) 

Freq 

UPRIGHT 

SH11 

SH14 

SH15 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 – 1 

0.5 (0.5) 

50.0% 

0 – 5 

0.5 (1.1) 

7.1% 

0 – 1 

0.04 (0.2) 

3.6% 

0 – 6 

0.3 (1.2) 

10.7% 

0 - 2 

0.2 (0.5) 

17.9% 

0 – 0 

0 (0) 

0.0% 

0 – 0 

0 (0) 

0.0% 

LATERAL 

SH6 

0 – 10 

1.6 (2.3) 

45.6% 

0 – 0 

0 (0) 

0.0% 

0 – 12 

0.9 (2.1) 

29.8% 

SH10 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 – 1 

0.6 (0.5) 

60.0% 

INVERTED 

SH1 

SH2 

SH3 

SH4 

SH5 

SH7 

SH8 

SH9 

SH12 

SH13 

0 – 1 

0.2 (0.4) 

15.0% 

0 – 2 

0.07 (0.3) 

5.0% 

0 – 1 

0.02 (0.1) 

1.7% 

0 – 4 

0.3 (0.7) 

18.3% 

0 – 9 

0.6 (1.4) 

31.7% 

0 -  

0.2 (0.4) 

16.7% 

0 – 1 

0.1 (0.3) 

10.0% 

0 – 2 

0.3 (0.6) 

25.0% 

0 – 6 

0.3 (1.3) 

5.0% 

0 – 2 

0.3 (0.5) 

30.0% 

0 – 1 

0.02 (0.1) 

1.7% 

0 – 2 

0.1 (0.4) 

8.3% 

0 – 2 

0.3 (0.5) 

26.7% 

0 – 2 

0.1 (0.4) 

10.0% 

0 – 6 

0.6 (1.2) 

30.0% 

0 – 2 

0.1 (0.5) 

9.5% 

0 – 1 

0.1 (0.3) 

9.5% 

0 – 2 

0.1 (0.4) 

9.5% 

0 – 1 

0.04 (0.2) 

3.9% 

0 – 1 

0.04 (0.2) 

3.9% 

0 – 10 

0.7 (1.8) 

19.6% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 – 4 

1.7 (1.3) 

78.3% 

0 – 1 

0.5 (0.5) 

50.0% 

0 – 2 

0.4 (0.6) 

29.5% 

0 – 3 

0.05 (0.4) 

1.6% 

0 – 1 

0.05 (0.2) 

4.9% 

78 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Negative contacts (i.e. tail twist, door on back, give a kick or use the prod as a stick)  other 
than the use of an electric prod were rarely observed (55 bovine animals and 1 interaction 
per  animal  almost  exclusively  when  it  happened)  but  in  all  slaughterhouses.  There  did  not 
appear to be any link between the use of electric prod and the other negative behaviour of 
slaughtermen  as,  in  some  slaughterhouses,  less  relative  use  of  the  electric  prod  was 
associated  with  high  relative  other  negative  contacts  (SH3,  SH4)  and  the  contrary  (SH15, 
SH5) while, in others, the relative use was the same (SH6, SH1, SH8, SH14).  

Animal behavior in the restraint device (Table 20) 

Stress-related behaviours of the animals (Walk backwards + Walk forwards +kick + struggle) 
were  observed  in  all  slaughterhouses.    Overall,  117  out  of  576  animals  expressed  these 
behaviours.  Except  in  SH6  where  44%  of  the  animals  expressed  these  behaviours,  with  an 
average  of  1.6 behaviour/animal  and  a  large  variability,  in  the  other  slaughterhouses,  the 
frequency varied between 4% (SH8) and 30% (SH4).  

These  behaviours  did  not  appear  to  be  directly  linked  to  the  human  interactions  and,  in 
particular,  the  frequency  of  prod-use.  In  fact,  these  behaviours  could  depend  on  the 
emotional  status  of  the  animals,  the  operators’  strategy  and  the  environment  that  the 
animals  encountered  when  seeing  the  outside  of  the  device.  This  may  explain  that,  for 
example in SH6, in spite of a handling that is supposed to be not too stressful, the animals 
expressed very frequently these behaviours. 

Falls or slips were observed in a limited number of cases: 47 animals out of 576 animals (8%), 
including  19  animals  out  of  60  in  SH2  (31.7%)  and  5  out  20  in  SH3  (25%).  In  these 
slaughterhouses however, observers noticed that the junction of the floor between corridor 
and the restraining device needed to be improved. We did not observe any clear relationship 
between the frequency of the use of the prod in the restraint device and the frequency of 
falls and slips. 

In  contrast,  except  for  SH6  (and  SH9  to  12  where  the  use  of  prod  was  not  recorded),  a 
positive  relation  was  apparent  between  the  frequency  of  prod-use  and  the  frequency  of 
vocalisations,  which  were  expressed  by  0  to  30%  of  the  animals  depending  on  the 
slaughterhouse. 

79 

 
 
 
 
Table 21 : Duration (s) of entry of the calves into the restraint device  
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Number of 
animals 
58 
36 
73 

Duration  
Range 

Mean (SD) 

5 – 16 
1 – 12 
0 – 30 

8.7 (2.3) 
2.8 (3.1) 
5.7 (5.6) 

SH8 
SH10 
SH16 

Table 22 : Behaviour of the calves during the entry into the restraint device  
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

Stress-related behaviour 

Vocalisation 

Number of 
animals  
58 

73 
98 
68 

SH8 
SH10 

SH16 
SH17 
SH18 

Nb  % animals  Nb  % animals 

0 

0 
24 
36 

0 

0 
24.5% 
52.9% 

0 
18 

0 
19 
- 

0 
50% 

0 
19.4% 
- 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ENTRY OF CALVES IN THE RESTRAINT DEVICE 

BoRest final report June 2015 

The  duration  of  entry  of  calves  into  the  restraining  device  was  estimated  in  three 
slaughterhouses  (SH16,  SH8,  SH12)  because  it  was  impossible  to  distinguish  between 
corridors and device in SH18 and SH17 (Table  21). The mean duration range was between 
2.8s (SH12) and 8.6s (SH8) with more than 90% of the calves entering the box in less than 
15s.  This  duration  appeared  to  be  lower  than  those  observed  for  adults.  As  for  the  adult 
bovine  animals,  the  shortest  duration  observed  in  SH12  could  be  explained  partially  by 
frequent  negative  human-calves  interactions  in  the  corridor  just  before  the  restraining 
device. 

Human-calves interactions were observed in the device on a sub sample of animals in SH16 
and SH17. Respectively, 66 and 71% of the calves were “handled” with an average number 
of interactions per animal of 1.1 and 1.4. No negative contact (i.e. tail twist, door on back, 
give a kick or use the prod as a stick) was observed, nor the use of electric prod. 

No falls and slips were observed. 24.5% of calves expressed behavioural indicators of stress 
in  SH17  and  0%  in  SH16  and  SH8.  Over  19.4%  of  the  calves  in  SH17  and  50%  in  SH12 
(probably  in  relation  with  human-calves  interactions  in  the  corridor)  vocalized,  none 
vocalized in SH16 and SH8 (Table 22).  

CONCLUSION  

In conclusion, the duration of the entry of the bovine animals into the restraint device could 
be very variable depending on the slaughterhouses. Almost half of the animals were handled 
without  any  interaction  and  the  use  of  electric-prod  was  the  most  frequent  negative 
interaction  observed  for  the  others.  The  lay-out  of  the  end  of  the  corridor  /  entry  to  the 
device  and  the  human-animals  interaction  in  this  part  are  the  main  factors  of  variation 
Human-animals interactions in the device, particularly the prod-use, could be inefficient and 
result in high frequency of vocalizing animals. Slips and falls were mainly related to the floor 
quality.  

The duration of the entry of the calves in the restraining device appeared to be shorter and 
less stressful than those observed for adult bovine. However, it was again observed that the 
shorter duration observed was associated with intensive negative interaction in the corridor 
and this could also be linked with a high percentage of calves that vocalized. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

It is not possible to set precise objective for the duration of entry into the device. The animal 
should be handle with care and remain as quiet as possible. Recommendation for the lay-out 
of  this  area  are  provided  by  different  guidelines.  It  is  however  frequent  that  restraining 
devices were introduced later. This can explain some poor design due to existing constraints. 
Where  relevant,  progress  in  this  point  should  be  prioritized.  Knowledge  and  skill  of  the 
handlers  should  also  be  improved  as,  in  some  cases,  their  behaviour  appeared  to  have  a 
counter-productive  effect.  Entry  of the  animals  in  restraint device  is usually  a  critical  point 
and therefore should be regularly monitored by the managers of the slaughterhouses.    

82 

 
Table 23 : Restraint durations (s) of adult bovines  
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”)  

BoRest final report June 2015 

Restraint duration  

Rotation duration  

Inverted duration  

From start restraint to start cut 

From start to end of 

From end rotation to 

Nb 

Range 

Mean (SD) 

Range 

Mean (SD) 

Range 

Mean (SD) 

the rotation inside 

start cut  inside 

“Restraint duration” 

“Restraint duration” 

UPRIGHT 

10 – 335 

90.1 (60.5) 

15 – 63 

25.7 (9.6) 

12 - 46 

16.9 (7.2) 

- 

- 

- 

LATERAL 

- 

- 

 - 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

 - 

6 – 55 

23.0 (8.9) 

1 – 6 

3.8 (0.9) 

0 – 52 

3.18 (7.3) 

23 – 208 

83.5 (27.7) 

2 – 40 

10.1 (5.2) 

0 – 12 

3.95 (3.2) 

INVERTED 

29 – 99 

52.2 (16.1) 

0 – 23 

15.6 (3.0) 

0 – 40 

6.5 (7.5) 

12 – 37 

18.4 (5.7) 

6 – 11 

8.5 (1.6) 

0 – 10 

1.4 (3.5) 

53 – 112 

68.2 (13.5) 

23 – 35 

29.0 (2.9) 

6 – 57 

18.7 (10.8) 

28 – 84 

48.3 (13.3) 

2 – 44 

12.1 (4.8) 

0 – 41 

7.6 (7.9) 

21 – 24 

22.5 (2.1) 

9 – 26 

14.1 (2.9) 

0 – 57 

3.3 (8.2) 

7 – 27 

16.0 (4.1) 

4 – 9 

6.3 (1.3) 

0 – 5 

0.75 (1.0) 

14 – 58 

23.1 

5 – 10 

7.5 

0 – 21 

3.9 

21 – 258 

113.7 (44.8) 

1 – 44 

13.1 (8.02) 

1 – 55 

10.8 (7.3) 

- 

- 

1 – 14 

10.9 (2.9) 

1 – 33 

7.6 (9.4) 

60 

56 

28 

57 

60 

60 

60 

20 

60 

60 

63 

42 

60 

24 

SH11 

SH14 

SH15 

SH6 

SH10 

SH1 

SH2 

SH3 

SH4 

SH5 

SH7 

SH8 

SH9 

SH12 

83 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

RESTRAINT PROCEDURE  

ADULT BOVINE ANIMALS 

Restraint duration (Table 23) 

We  observed a  wide  range  of  average  restraint  duration  (start of  restraint to  start  of  cut), 
from 16s to 114s.  

For  the  duration  measured,  we  can  distinguish  between  slaughterhouses  where  the  mean 
durations  were  lower  than  30s  with  maximum  values  lower  than 65s  (SH6,  SH7,  SH8,  SH2, 
SH5, SH14, SH15) and slaughterhouses where the mean durations were higher than 60s with 
minimum values higher than 20s (SH9, SH10, SH11, SH3).  

The  position  of  the  animals  at  the  cut  could  not  be  linked  to  these  mean  durations.  Both 
groups  (short  duration  and  long  duration)  included  animals  in  the  inverted  position  (SH6, 
SH7,  SH8,  SH2,  SH5  and  SH9,  SH3  respectively),  in  the  lateral  position  (SH6  and  SH10 
respectively) and in the upright position (SH14, SH15 and SH11 respectively).  

On  the  contrary,  all these  results  could  be  explained by  the  specifications  of the device  or 
the management of the animals. For example, with the double part rotating device observed 
(SH9), the restraint (not a full head and body restraint) of a given animal started while the 
previous  one  was  already  being  bled  and  lasted  until  it  was  released  out  of  the  device.  In 
SH3,  the  device  used  was  not  a  “Facomia  like”  and  did  not  turn  around  its  own  axis  but 
following a semicircular path at a very low speed. In SH10 and SH11, ropes were used for the 
head  restraint  and  the  preparation  of  the  animals  took  a  longer  time  than  with  automatic 
head restraint.  

At last, in SH1 and SH4, intermediate restraint durations were recorded. For SH4, this could 
be explained in part by difficulties encountered by the operators during the handling of the 
animals (animals offering resistance to the back pusher).  

Duration of rotation (Table 23) 

The duration of rotation (included in restraint duration) varied between 6s and 15s when the 
animals were inverted except in one case (SH3) where it took 29s in average to rotate the 
animals.  Some  extreme  values  (more  than  40s)  were  observed  in  some  slaughterhouses, 
generally linked to problems of head positioning.  

84 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 24 : Vocalisation of adult bovine during restraint  
(Range and Mean: occurrence per animal- Freq: %of animals) 
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

Vocalisation during restraint 

Range  Mean (SD) 

Freq 

UPRIGHT 

0 – 1 

0.05 (0.2) 

0 – 0 

0.00 (0.00) 

0 - 0 

0.00 (0.00) 

LATERAL 

5.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0 – 11 

0.9 (2.1) 

30.4% 

0 – 1 

0.07 (0.25) 

6.7% 

INVERTED 

0 – 2 

0 – 1 

0 – 2 

0 – 5 

0 – 1 

0 – 3 

0 – 6 

0 – 2 

0.2 (0.5) 

11.7% 

0.05 (0.2) 

0.1 (0.45) 

0.1 (0.7) 

0.1 (0.3) 

0.2 (0.6) 

0.6 (-) 

0.1 (0.4) 

5.0% 

5.0% 

3.3% 

13.3% 

15.9% 

30.9% 

10.0% 

0 – 1 

0.04 (0.20) 

4.2% 

0 – 5 

0.4 (1.1) 

13.1% 

SH11 

SH14 

SH15 

SH6 

SH10 

SH1 

SH2 

SH3 

SH4 

SH5 

SH7 

SH8 

SH9 

SH12 

SH13 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Where the animals were inverted, the lowest duration observed in SH7 could be explained 
by  the  final  position  of  the  animal  which  was  150°  rather  than  180°.  The  longest  duration 
recorded  in  SH3  was  directly  linked  with  the  specific  design  of  the  restraint  device  (semi-
circular path) and the low speed of rotation. 

Where the animals were restrained in lateral position (90°), the two  slaughterhouses were 
quite different with mean duration of 3.8s in SH6 and 10.1s in SH10.  

Duration of inverted or lateral position (Table 23) 

Where  bovine  animals  were  rotated,  the  mean  duration  between  the  end  of  the  rotation 
and the start of the cut (included in the restraint duration)  varied within the interval of 1s 
and 18.7s.  

These differences could be explained by the organization of work in SH3 where the operator 
in charge of the cut was most of the time out of the bleeding area. On the contrary, in SH7, 
operating procedure has been optimized to reduce this delay. It should also be noticed that 
limited  range  of  variation  (0-5s  in  SH7  and  0-10s  in  SH2)  were  associated  with  the  lowest 
mean duration observed in these slaughterhouses confirming the possibility of optimization.  

At last, in the two slaughterhouses where animals were cut in lateral position, the average 
duration was similar and equal to 3 or 4 seconds. 

Vocalisation during restraint and rotation (Table 24) 

Except  in  SH6  and  SH8,  where  30%  of  the  animals  vocalised,  and  in  SH14,  SH15  where  no 
animals vocalised, the frequency varied between 3% (SH4) to 16% (SH7).  

Animals may vocalise at several steps of the process. Rotation in itself, even if it is a stressful 
procedure  (which  is  characterised  by  some  specific  reactions of the  eye balls),  may  not be 
the  main  factors.  Poor  head  restraint  (in  particular  hyperextension)  was  often  linked  to 
vocalisation.  

Quality of head restraint 

Head  restraint  was  carried  out  using  either  a  classical  metal  equipment  or  a  rope  halter 
(SH10 with an additional metallic chin lift, SH11).  

During  the  cut,  the  knife  was  seen,  in  certain  cases,  coming  in  contact  with  the  head 
restraint (SH16, SH7, SH11 and SH13).  

86 

 
 
 
Table 25 : Frequency of adult bovine with a “bad head restraint” according to the slaughterhouse 
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Number of animals 

nb 

% animals with “bad 

head restraint” 

SH11 

SH14 

SH15 

SH6 

SH10 

SH1 

SH4 

SH5 

SH7 

SH9 

SH12 

SH13 

UPRIGHT 

LATERAL 

INVERTED 

60 

3 

0 

1 

0 

6 

9 

36 

2 

3 

0 

61 

60 

56 

28 

51 

60 

7 

9 

36 

63 

60 

24 

61 

100% 

5.4% 

0% 

1,7% 

0% 

85.7% 

100% 

100% 

3,2% 

5% 

0% 

100% 

Table 26: Restraint durations (s) of calves  

(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

Restraint duration 

Rotation duration 

Inverted duration  

From start restraint to 

From start to end of 

From end rotation to 

start cut 

the rotation inside 

start cut  inside 

“Restraint duration” 

“Restraint duration” 

SH8 inverted 

SH12 inverted 

SH16 inverted 

SH16 upright 

SH18 inverted 

Nb 

46 

36 

73 

9 

68 

Range  

Mean 

Range 

Mean (SD) 

Range 

Mean (SD) 

15 – 32 

20.3 

4 – 7 

5.8 (-) 

0 – 6 

3.8 (-) 

- 

- 

5 – 19 

12.4 (2.7) 

6 – 55 

26.6 (10.5) 

10 – 196 

23.8 

4 – 13 

6.9 (1.8) 

0 – 13 

2.6 (3.0) 

5 – 16 

- 

8.4 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

3 – 7 

4.7 (0.7) 

0 – 6 

1.5 (1.1) 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Head  restraint  was  judged  as  “bad”  almost  systematically  in  some  slaughterhouses  (SH11, 
SH13, SH1, SH4, and SH5) (Table 25). In others, the frequency varied from 0% (SH10, SH15) 
to 5% (SH9, SH14) with SH6 and SH7 in-between. In SH1, SH4 and SH5, bad head restraint 
was  systematically  associated  with  the  start  of  the  rotation  before  the  end  of  the  head 
restraint.  In  SH11,  the  use  of  rope  was  considered  as  not  satisfactory  by  the  observers.  In 
SH13, animals were able to move their head after restraining. Head movements or bad head 
positioning  were  generally  the  reason  why  the  observers  considered  the  head  restraint  as 
bad in the other slaughterhouses.  

CASE OF CALVES 

Restraint durations were measured in SH16 and SH8 and varied between 23.8s and 20.3s. In 
SH16, based on the nine calves cut in upright position, we also calculated duration of 8.4s of 
restraint in upright position. Rotation duration varied between 4.7s and 6.9s in  SH18, SH16 
and  SH8.  The  duration  in  SH12  was  more  than  twice  of  those  observed  in  other 
slaughterhouses (12.4s). The time spent in inverted position by the calves was less than 3.8s 
in SH18, SH16 and SH8 but 26.6s in SH12 (Table 26). The results obtained in SH12 suggested 
an  inadequate  management  of  the  calves  that  could  be  explained  by  the  use  of  rope  for 
head  restraint  which  induced  a  very  bad  head  restraint  of  the  animals  (100%  -  Table  27). 
Head restraint was also judged as bad for all the animals in SH18 in relation with the lack of 
real  head  restraint.  A  specific  design  was  present  in  this  slaughterhouse  with  the  head 
restrained simultaneously with the body by a mobile part situated on the top of the device 

Calves did not vocalize during the restraint in SH18 and SH8 and only 1 out of 36 did in SH12. 
In  SH16, 10.9%  of the  calves  slaughtered  in  inverted  position  and  none  of the  9  in  upright 
position  vocalized  but  the  contrary  was  recorded  in  SH17  where  18.3%  of  the  animals 
slaughtered in upright position vocalized and none of those slaughtered in inverted position 
(Table 27). 

88 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 27: Vocalization and quality of head restraint of calves 
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

Number 

% animals with 

% animals with “Bad 

of animals 

“Vocalization” 

head restraint” 

SH8 inverted 

SH12 inverted 

SH16 inverted 

SH16 upright 

SH17 inverted 

SH17 upright 

SH18 inverted 

47 

36 

64 

9 

16 

82 

68 

0% 

2.8% 

10.9% 

0% 

0% 

18.3% 

0% 

- 

100% 

17.2% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

100% 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

CONCLUSION 

Restraint duration is one of the key factors regarding the risk of poor welfare when animals 
are  slaughtered  without  stunning.  It  is  expected  that  the  longer  it  is  the  higher  the  risk  to 
have  an  impaired  welfare.  Rotation  and  duration  in  the  inverted  position  will  increase  the 
stress of the animals.   

Regarding the duration of immobilization, our results show that, with the current operating 
procedure  and  restraint  devices  used,  the  mean  duration  observed  to  perform  all  these 
operations  are  in  the  same  range  of  time  duration  using  a  rotating  system  or  an  upright 
system  for  adults.  The  duration  measured  confirmed  the  reduction  of  the  time  needed  to 
restraint  the  animals  by  using  modern  rotating  device  (“Facomia-like”)  compared  to  older 
design (Dun et al., 1990).  

In the present study, the main factors that increase the duration of restraint are the design 
of the device (especially with some particular rotating device observed during our visits), the 
head restraining procedure (manual vs automatic independently of the restraint system) and 
the  optimization  of  the process  (operator  ready  to perform the bleeding  at the  end  of  the 
head restraint or rotation).  

The time it takes to rotate the animals can be less than 10s and represents, in the optimized 
situation observed, approximately one third of the total restraint duration. Using the upright 
position may allow reducing the total duration when using the same device. But due to the 
limitation of the sample size, the behaviour of the calves and the fact that this device does 
not include any belly plate, this remains theoretical.   

In most of the slaughterhouses visited, the animals spent less than 10s in inverted position. 
It is possible to optimize the operating procedure to reduce this duration. Evidence from this 
study show that the cut can be performed immediately at the end of the rotation. In order 
to  do  so,  a  good  head  restraint  before  the  rotation  and  a  sufficient  number  and  well 
organised operators are of particular importance. 

 Vocalization could be an indicator of stress of the animals. Regarding the different position, 
our  results  suggest  that  they  are  less  frequent  in  the  upright  position  for  adults  but  no 
conclusion can be drawn for calves. For improvement, it would be of particular relevance to 
interpret  vocalization  regarding  the  different  step  of  the  restraining  procedure  e.g. 
vocalizations  associated  with  risk  of  hyperextension  and  vocalizations  associated  with 
inverted position. 

90 

 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 28 : Number of cuts per animal - Adult bovine  

(Range and Mean: occurrence per animal) 

(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

Nb 

Range  Mean (SD)  Method 

Knife 
length 

60 

56 

28 

57 

60 

60 

60 

20 

60 

60 

63 

51 

60 

24 

61 

UPRIGHT 

8 – 28 

15.1 (4.4) 

1 – 6 

3.3 (1.5) 

3 - 4 

2.5 (0.2) 

LATERAL 

1 – 10 

5.2 (1.5) 

4 – 11 

5.8 (1.6) 

INVERTED 

1 – 9 

3.7 (1.6) 

4 – 18 

10.3 (2.4) 

1 – 3 

1.2 (0.5) 

4 – 23 

8.5 (4.4) 

3 – 22  

8.8 (3.7) 

2 – 4 

2.4 (0.6) 

D 

S 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

2 – 8 

4.4 (2.2) 

S + D 

4 – 15 

8.7 (2.0) 

1 – 4 

1.7 (0.8) 

2 – 8 

3.6 (1.4) 

D 

S 

D 

D: Dhabiha, S: Shechita 

30 

NA 

20 

36 

40 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

45-50 

45 

30 

45 

45 

SH11 

SH14 

SH15 

SH6 

SH10 

SH1 

SH2 

SH3 

SH4 

SH5 

SH7 

SH8 

SH9 

SH12 

SH13 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

CUTTING AND BLEEDING 

NUMBER OF CUTS FOR ADULTS 

Fifteen  animals  out  of  726  adult  bovine  vocalised  during  the  cut.  This  happened  mainly  in 
SH6 (6 animals) and occasionally in SH7, SH9, SH10, SH11 and SH13. It could be noticed that 
the  highest  frequency  of  animals  vocalizing  during  restraint  was  also  recorded  in  SH6 
suggesting also an effect of the emotional status of the animals.  

The  average  number  of  cuts  varied  from  1.2  to  15.1  depending  on  the  slaughterhouses 
(Table  28).  However,  the  variability  per  slaughterman  was  relatively  low  suggesting  that 
number of cuts is a good indicator of the practice or the skill of the operator. 

The  highest  number  of  cuts  was  observed  in  SH11  (15.1)  where  the  animals  were  in  the 
upright position but, on the contrary, in SH14 and SH15 (also upright), the mean number of 
cuts  varied  from  2.5  to  3.3  and  were  similar  to  those  recorded  in  other  slaughterhouses 
where the bleeding was performed in the inverted position (SH7, SH12, SH13, SH1, SH3).  

Where  the  cut  was  performed  with  the  animals  restrained  on  the  side,  the  results  were 
similar  in  the  2  slaughterhouses  (5.2  to  5.8  –  SH6  and  SH10).  This  could  suggest  increased 
number of cuts in this position but it is difficult to draw firm conclusions as we also observed 
higher number of cuts in slaughterhouses where animals were in the inverted position (SH9, 
SH2, SH4, and SH5). 

The length of the knife used by the operators varied from 20cm to 45cm and there was no 
obvious relation between this specification and the number of cuts.  

The  Jewish  operators  (SH12  and  SH14)  performed  the  cut  with  a  limited  number  of 
movements (1.6 and 3.3 respectively) but,  even though the variability was higher between 
Muslim  operators,  we  observed  similar  number  of  cuts  for  several  Muslim  slaughtermen 
(SH7, SH13, SH1, SH3, and SH15). 

The  objective  data  do  not  allow  to  directly  link  the  number  of  cuts  to  the  quality  of  head 
restraint but according to observers, there were obvious relations in some cases e.g. in SH4 
and SH5. 

92 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 29 : Quality of bleeding – Adult bovine 
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

Number of 

% animals with no 

% of animals with 

animals 

« Both carotids » 

impeded flow 

severed 

Nb 

Freq 

Nb 

Freq 

SH11 

SH14 

SH15 

SH6 

SH10 

SH1 

SH2 

SH3 

SH4 

SH5 

SH7 

SH8 

SH9 

SH12 

SH13 

UPRIGHT 

LATERAL 

2 

5 

0 

1 

17 

INVERTED 

2 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

9 

0 

1 

3.3% 

13.5% 

0% 

1.8% 

28.3% 

8% 

3.3% 

0% 

1.7% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

15% 

0% 

1.6% 

60 

37 

28 

57 

60 

25 

60 

20 

60 

60 

63 

42 

60 

24 

31 

0 

5 

6 

10 

8 

2 

0 

- 

4 

10 

0 

18 

4 

0 

6 

0% 

9.1% 

21.4% 

17.5% 

13.3% 

3.4% 

0% 

- 

6.7% 

16.7% 

0% 

42.8% 

6.7% 

0% 

9.8% 

93 

 
  
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

QUALITY OF BLEEDING OF ADULTS 

Both carotids cut 
On  average,  one  carotid  was  not  severed  in  5.4%  of  the  animals  (Table  29).  Relative  high 
level were observed in all three positions. 8.0% and 15% where slaughter was performed in 
inverted position (in, respectively, SH1 and SH9), 28.3% where slaughter was performed in 
lateral position (SH10) and 13% where the animals were in upright position (SH14).  

The type of slaughter (Shechita and Dhabiha) did not appear to have an effect. 

Impeded flow 
Overall, “impeded flow” was observed in 9.8% of the animals (Table 29). The highest levels 
were recorded in SH6, SH8, SH10, SH5, SH14, and SH15 where more than 15% of the animals 
showed “impeded flow”.  

This result may suggest that the lateral position (SH6, SH10) or upright position (SH14, SH15) 
may  lead  to  an  increased  risk  for  “Impeded  flow”.  In  SH15,  for  example,  the  observers 
reported that after the animals were cut, the lower part of the neck made contact with the 
metal  part  of  the  restraint  device  and  this  appeared  to  cause  physical  occlusion  of  the 
vessels and "impeded flow".   

However,  it  should  also be  noticed  that  in  SH8  and  SH5  (animals  in the  inverted  position), 
high frequencies were also recorded, linked to poor skills of slaughtermen according to the 
observers.   

In most of the cases “impeded flow” was clearly linked with blood clots and both  variables 
were generally similar when they were both observed.  

Blood in trachea 

Blood  in  the  trachea  was  assessed  in  sub  samples  of  SH8,  SH13,  SH1,  SH2,  SH3,  SH4,  SH5 
representing 148 animals. Presence of blood was observed in almost all the animals (except 
4 animals). 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 30 : Number of cuts per animal - calves  
(Range and Mean: occurrence per animal) 
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

SH18 
SH12 
SH16 inverted 
SH16 upright 
SH17 upright 
SH17 inverted 
SH8 

Nb 
68 
36 
64 
9 
82 
16 
58 

Range  Mean (SD)  Method  Knife length 
1 – 2 
1 – 4 
3 - 7 
2 - 3 
1 - 2 
1 – 5 
2 – 4 

1.0 (0.1) 
1.8 (0.8) 
4.7 (0.8) 
2.9 (0.33) 
1.1 (0.2) 
2.8 (1.3) 
2.6 (0.7) 

D 
S 
S 
S+D 
D 
S 
S 

30 
45 
42 
42 
40 
40 
40 

D: Dhabiha, S: Shechita 

Table 31 : Quality of bleeding – calves 
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

Number of 

% animals with no « Both 

% of animals with 

animals 

carotids » severed 

impeded flow 

SH8 

SH12   

SH16 inverted  

SH17 upright  

SH17 inverted  

SH18 

46 

36 

64 

82 

16 

19 

Nb 

0 

4 

4 

0 

0 

1 

Freq 

0% 

11.1% 

6.3% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

5.3% 

Nb 

25 

5 

43 

9 

12 

Freq 

54.3% 

13.9% 

67.3% 

56.3% 

63.2% 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
NUMBER OF CUTS AND QUALITY OF BLEEDING OF CALVES 

BoRest final report June 2015 

It  should  be  noticed  firstly  that,  except  in  SH18  and  SH17  upright,  all  the  animals  were 
bleeding according to the Shechita. It appeared that the mean number of cuts when Dhabiha 
was performed was lower (1.0 – 1.1) than when Shechita was applied (1.8 – 4.7). This could 
be  explained  by the religious  requirement  of  absence  of  “knife  pressure”  for the  Shechita.  
Overall, only one calf vocalized during the cut. 

The mean number of cuts for calves was generally lower than those observed for adults with 
less  extreme  value.  Regarding  the  position  of  the  animals  at  the  cut,  when  Dhabiha  was 
performed, the number of cuts was similar between the inverted (SH18) and upright position 
(SH17  upright).  In  the  other  slaughterhouses,  all  the  animals  were  cut  in  inverted  position 
according to the Shechita method (Table 30).  

Nine  calves  out  of  283  were  observed  with  only  one  carotid  severed  representing  5.3%  to     
11.1%  of  their  respective  groups  (SH18,  SH16,  and  SH12).  The  frequencies  of  animals  with 
“impeded flow” were high in all the slaughterhouses (range 13.9% - 63.2%) (Table 31).  

CONCLUSION 

The number of cuts can be similar when the animals are slaughtered in upright or in inverted 
position.  From  this  study,  the  skill  of  the  operators  appeared  to  be  the  main  factor  of 
variation.  Overall,  when  adult  animals  were  cut  in  upright  position,  our  results  suggest  a 
higher  risk  of  impeded  flow  in  relation  with  the  head  movement  of  the  animals  during 
bleeding and the design of the device. 

The number of cuts per calve is reduced compared to adults. But the frequency of animals 
with impeded flow is higher suggesting a need for further research and improvement. 

Due to the limited number of observations, no firm conclusion can be drawn regarding the 
effect of lateral position. However, our results suggest some possible negative effects on the 
number of cuts and the quality of bleeding and further investigations are needed.   

96 

 
 
 
 
Table 32 : Frequency of animals with spontaneous eyes movements according to the period after 
the cut (Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Time elapsed from the start of cut 
60-75s 

30-45s 

45-60s 

Group 

total SH6 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 
total SH10 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 

total SH1 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH3 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH5 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH7 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH8 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 
total SH13 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 

total SH8 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 
total SH16 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 
total SH17 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 

51 
2 
3.9 
60 
0 
0.0 

0-15s 

51 
35 
68.4 
60 
60 
100.0 

60 
52 
86.7 
20 
19 
95.0 
60 
54 
90.0 
62 
37 
59.7 
42 
27 
64.3 
58 
58 
100.0 

15-30s 
LATERAL 
51 
7 
13.7 
60 
28 
46.7 
INVERTED 
60 
13 
21.7 
20 
2 
10.0 
60 
5 
8.3 
62 
24 
38.7 
42 
8 
19.1 
61 
60 
98.4 
CALVES – INVERTED 
46 
46 
12 
39 
26,1 
84,8 
65 
65 
19 
29 
29,2 
44,6 
16 
16 
16 
16 
100 
100 

60 
2 
3.3 
20 
0 
0.0 
60 
2 
3.3 
61 
8 
13.1 
42 
4 
9.5 
61 
57 
93.4 

46 
2 
4,35 
62 
6 
9,68 
16 
16 
100 

39 
2 
5.1 
60 
0 
0.0 

60 
0 
0.0 
20 
0 
0.0 
60 
1 
1.7 
25 
7 
28.0 
0 
- 
- 
61 
50 
82.0 

0 
- 
- 
46 
10 
21,7 
13 
5 
38,5 

25 
0 
0.0 
60 
0 
0.0 

60 
0 
0.0 
20 
0 
0.0 
60 
1 
1.7 
37 
4 
10.8 
0 
- 
- 
58 
34 
58.6 

0 
- 
- 
22 
4 
18,2 
2 
0 
0 

75-90s 

0 
- 
- 
60 
0 
0.0 

60 
0 
0.0 
20 
0 
0.0 
60 
0 
0.0 
49 
5 
10.2 
0 
- 
- 
50 
21 
42.0 

0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 

97 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

SIGNS OF CONSCIOUSNESS 

SPONTANEOUS EYES MOVEMENTS 

In  all  the  slaughterhouses,  blinking  and  spontaneous  eye  movements  were  present  in  the 
majority  of  the  adult  animals  at  the  beginning  of  bleeding  varying  from  59.7%  in  SH7  to 
100% in SH10 and SH13 (Table 32). 

The frequency dropped during the 15s – 30s period in all slaughterhouses between 8.3 and 
46.7%  except  in  SH13  where  it  remained  at  a  high  level  of  98.4%  with  no  particular 
explanation. 

During the third period (30s – 45s), in most of the slaughterhouses, we did not observe this 
sign except in SH7 where it was still present for 13.1% of the animals and in SH13 (93.4%).  

The frequency of animals that showed eye ball rotation followed exactly the same tendency 
as the spontaneous eye movements with a strong decrease of frequencies between the first 
and the third period after the cut. This evolution was also observed in SH13 (Table 33).  

The course of spontaneous eyes movements was similar for calves in SH16 and SH8 to those 
generally observed for adults with a decrease between the first fifteen seconds period when 
the frequencies varied between 44.6% and 84.8 and the third period when the frequencies 
varied between 4.3% and 9.7%. On the contrary, the frequency was stable in SH17 inverted 
until 45s but seemed to drop after (5 over 13 between 45s and 60s). Frequencies of eye ball 
rotation were seen in all slaughterhouses decreasing from the cut (8.7% - 62.5% during the 0 
– 15s period) to the third period (0% - 1.6% during 30s – 45s period).    

98 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 33 : Frequency of animals with Eye ball rotation according to the period after the cut  
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

Group 

Time elapsed from the start of cut 
15-30s  30-45s  45-60s  60-75s 

0-15s 

75-90s 

total SH6 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 

total SH1 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH3 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH5 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH7 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH13 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 

total SH8 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 
total SH16 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 
total SH17 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 

51 
27 
52.9 

LATERAL 
51 
8 
15.8 
INVERTED 

51 
0 
0.0 

60 
12 
20.0 
20 
2 
10.0 
60 
5 
8.3 
62 
27 
43.5 
61 
38 
62.3 

60 
42 
70.0 
20 
20 
100.0 
60 
44 
73.3 
62 
57 
91.9 
59 
39 
66.1 
CALVES - INVERTED 
46 
4 
8,7 
65 
9 
13,8 
16 
10 
62,5 

46 
6 
13,0 
65 
7 
10,8 
16 
9 
56,3 

60 
5 
8.3 
20 
1 
5.0 
60 
0 
0.0 
61 
5 
8.2 
61 
4 
6.6 

46 
0 
0 
62 
1 
1,61 
16 
0 
0 

25 
0 
0.0 

60 
0 
0.0 
20 
0 
0.0 
60 
0 
0.0 
39 
4 
10.3 
59 
0 
0.0 

0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
0 
- 

39 
0 
0.0 

60 
1 
1.7 
20 
0 
0.0 
60 
1 
1.7 
25 
1 
4.0 
61 
2 
3.3 

0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
13 
0 
0 

14 
0 
0.0 

60 
0 
0.0 
20 
0 
0.0 
60 
0 
0.0 
49 
3 
6.1 
50 
0 
0.0 

0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
0 
- 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 34 : Frequency of animals with corneal reflex according to the period after the cut 
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Time elapsed from the start of cut 
90s 

60s 

75s 

Group 

total SH11 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 

total SH6 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 

total SH1 (n°) 

"yes" (n°) 

"yes" (%) 

total SH3 (n°) 

"yes" (n°) 

"yes" (%) 

total SH5 (n°) 

"yes" (n°) 

"yes" (%) 
total SH7 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH10 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH12 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH13 (n°) 

"yes" (n°) 

"yes" (%) 

total SH16 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 
total SH8 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 
total SH12 (n°) 

"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 
total SH17 (n°) 

"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 

15s 

60 
60 
100 

28 
28 
100 

60 

60 

100 

20 

20 

100 

60 

60 

100 
0 
- 
- 
60 
60 
100 
24 
23 
95.8 
58 

58 

100 

65 
65 
100 
43 
1 
2,33  
36 

36 
100 
15 

15 
100 

30s 

60 
60 
100 

42 
28 
66.6 

60 

60 

100 

20 

20 

100 

60 

60 

100 
57 
21 
36.8 
60 
60 
100 
24 
22 
91.7 
61 

61 

100 

45s 
UPRIGHT 
0 
- 
- 
LATERAL 
41 
22 
53.7 
INVERTED 
60 

60 

100 

20 

20 

100 

58 

58 

100 
51 
20 
39.2 
60 
60 
100 
24 
17 
70.8 
61 

61 

100 

CALVES – INVERTED 

63 
61 
96,8 
30 
10 
33,3 
36 

35 
97,2 
16 

16 
100 

33 
30 
90,9 
25 
11 
44 
36 

34 
94,4 
16 

16 
100 

0 
- 
- 

26 
8 
30.8 

60 

60 

0 
- 
- 

11 
2 
18.2 

60 

60 

0 
- 
- 

0 
- 
- 

60 

60 

105s 

120s 

0 
- 
- 

0 
- 
- 

60 

58 

0 
- 
- 

0 
- 
- 

60 

53 

100 

100 

100 

96.7 

88.3 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

100 

100 

100 

47 

47 

100 
33 
10 
30.3 
59 
59 
100% 
23 
12 
52.2 
61 

58 

95.1 

48 
43 
89,6 
0 
- 
- 
35 

32 
91,4 
12 

8 
66,7 

27 

27 

100 
33 
5 
15.2 
60 
55 
91.7 
20 
6 
30.0 
54 

40 

74.1 

59 
6 
10,2 
0 
- 
- 
35 

31 
88,6 
2 

0 
0 

15 

15 

100 
27 
6 
22.2 
60 
50 
83.3 
19 
5 
26.3 
42 

24 

57.1 

0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
32 

22 
68,8 
0 

- 
- 

20 

18 

90 

3 

2 

66.7 
22 
2 
9.1 
60 
40 
66.7 
16 
3 
18.8 
29 

14 

48.3 

0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
31 

19 
61,3 
0 

- 
- 

20 

15 

75 

1 

1 

100 
10 
2 
20.0 
60 
27 
45.0 
16 
2 
12.5 
14 

3 

21.4 

0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
31 

13 
41,9 
0 

- 
- 

100 

 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

 CORNEAL REFLEX 

The corneal reflex was present in almost all the adult animals tested during the first period 
(Table 34).   

The frequency of animals that showed corneal reflex decreased with time after the cut but 
more  or  less  quickly  according  to  the  slaughterhouse.  At  45s,  the  frequency  ranged  from 
39.2% (SH7) to 100% (SH10, SH13, SH1, SH3, SH5) with intermediate results for SH6. In some 
slaughterhouses, this decrease was clearly delayed after 90s (SH1, SH3 and SH5). 

In some cases, it is possible that we have overestimated the percentage of animals that have 
prolonged  corneal  reflex  because,  in  most  slaughterhouses,  the  sample  was  reduced  after 
60s  due  to  the  release or  hoisting  of  some  animals.  Therefore,  we  can  suppose  that  those 
which  were  not  released/hoisted  at  this  time  expressed  more  frequently  some  signs  of 
consciousness. 

Nevertheless, there appeared to be huge differences in terms of percentage of animals and 
patterns  of  decline  between  slaughterhouses  suggesting  differences  in  terms  of  bleeding 
efficiency. 

Similar  patterns  were  observed  for  calves.  The  frequency  of  calves  with  positive  corneal 
reflex was stable (SH17) or slightly decreasing (SH16, SH12) between the cut and 45s. Then 
the frequencies started to decrease more or less quickly depending on the  slaughterhouse: 
between  45s  and  60s  in  SH17  (100%  to  66.7%),  between  60s  and  75s  in  SH16  (89.6%  to 
10.2%), between 75s and 90s in SH12 (88.6% to 68.8%). 

However, from a practical point of view, several points should be noticed. It may sometimes 
be  difficult  to  avoid  touching  the  eyelid  and  the  eye  lashes,  reason  why  several  observers 
used as much as possible a paintbrush or a pen. This technical problem may explain part of 
the differences in our results. Furthermore, at the beginning of the bleeding period, because 
of  blinking  and  eye  movements  or  the  muscular  tonus  of the  eyes, the test  of  the  corneal 
reflex  may  not  be  fully  relevant.  For  example,  in  several  cases,  we  observed  that  animals 
may be negative at one time and positive some seconds later due to a change in the status 
of the eyes becoming open-fixed.  

101 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 35 : Frequency of animals with Struggle according to the period after the cut 
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

15-30s 

Time elapsed from the start of cut 
75-90s 

45-60s 

60-75s 

total SH6 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 

total SH1 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH3 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH5 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH7 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
Total SH8 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH10 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH13 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 

total SH8 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 
total SH16 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 
total SH17 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 

0-15s 

51 
4 
7.8 

60 
5 
8.3 
20 
2 
10.0 
60 
13 
21.7 
62 
20 
32.3 
42 
6 
14.3 
60 
33 
55.0 
59 
17 
28.8 

46 
12 
26.1 
65 
10 
15.4 
16 
3 
18.8 

51 
2 
3.9 

39 
0 
0.0 

60 
0 
0.0 
20 
0 
0.0 
60 
0 
0.0 
24 
2 
8.3 
0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
61 
6 
9.8 

30-45s 
LATERAL 
51 
0 
0.0 
INVERTED 
60 
0 
0.0 
20 
0 
0.0 
60 
1 
1.7 
61 
1 
1.6 
38 
9 
23.8 
0 
- 
- 
61 
7 
11.5 
CALVES - INVERTED 
0 
46 
- 
0 
- 
0 
46 
62 
4 
2 
8.7 
3.23 
13 
16 
0 
0 
0 
0 

60 
2 
3.3 
20 
1 
5.0 
60 
2 
3.3 
62 
6 
9.7 
42 
4 
9.5 
60 
38 
63.3 
61 
17 
27.9 

46 
9 
19.6 
65 
13 
20 
16 
3 
18.8 

25 
0 
0.0 

60 
0 
0.0 
20 
0 
0.0 
60 
0 
0.0 
38 
2 
5.3 
0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
60 
0 
0.0 

0 
- 
- 
22 
1 
4.55 
2 
0 
0 

0 
- 
- 

60 
1 
1.7 
20 
0 
0.0 
60 
0 
0.0 
50 
1 
2.0 
0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
50 
1 
2.0 

0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 

90-105s 

105-120s 

0 
- 
- 

60 
0 
0.0 
20 
0 
0.0 
60 
0 
0.0 
42 
0 
0.0 
0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
33 
2 
6.1 

0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 

0 
- 
- 

60 
0 
0.0 
20 
0 
0.0 
60 
0 
0.0 
25 
0 
0.0 
0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
17 
1 
5.9 

0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 

102 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

 POSTURE AND BODY MOVEMENTS 

Loss of posture 

It was only possible to assess loss of posture when the animals  were weight bearing on all 
four feet (i.e. upright without a belly plate or a lateral pusher). In the UK, it was impossible 
to observe this behaviour because the animals were supported by the restraint device even 
when fully insensible. This sign was only observed in  SH11 where 41 out of 60 animals lost 
posture during the first 15s and the other 19 between 15s and 30s.  

Righting body or head reflexes  

No body righting reflex was observed.  

Head  righting  reflex  was  only  observed  in  SH7  where  the  percentage  of  animals  varied 
between  11.2  at  30s  and  2.4  at  105s  (with  an  unexpected  value  of  25.9%  at  60s  but 
monitored  on  half  of  the  animals  and  defined  as  reflex  movements  by  the  observer)  and 
SH13 where it declined from 28.6% at 30s to 16.3% at 105s. 

However, righting reflex should be interpreted with caution because it may depend on the 
restraint  applied  to  the  animals  during  the  post-cut  period.  Therefore  it  is  difficult  to 
compare  between  slaughterhouses.  Furthermore,  it  is  also  difficult  to  distinguish  between 
intentional or reflex movements. 

Struggle 

The  possibility  of  recording  struggle  and  the  frequency  may  also  depend  on  the  restraint 
procedure and the device. However, struggle is typical reaction of bovine animals in restraint 
devices  and  was  observed  for  adults  in  all  the  slaughterhouses  during  the  first  30  second 
with a decreasing course (Table 35). The frequency varied from 7.8% to 55% during the first 
period  and  from  3.3%  to  63.3%  during  the  second  period.  After  30s,  this  sign  was  only 
observed in SH8 and rarely in SH7 and SH13. 

In SH10, lateral position of the animals may have enhanced the expression of this sign but 
this was not confirmed by SH6.  

Struggles were less frequent in calves (from 15.4% to 26.1% during the first period) and also 
almost disappeared in the third period (0% to 3.2%). 

103 

 
 
 
Table 36 : Frequency of animals who inspire according to the period after the cut  
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

BoRest final report June 2015 

total SH6 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 

total SH7 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
Total SH8 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 
total SH13 (n°) 
"yes" (n°) 
"yes" (%) 

total SH8 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 
total SH16 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 
total SH17 (n°) 
"Yes" (n°) 
"Yes" (%) 

0-15 s 

51 
17 
33.3 

61 
2 
3.3 
42 
10 
23.8 
58 
41 
70.7 

46 
3 
6,52 
65 
2 
3,08 
16 
14 
87,5 

15-30 s  30-45 s 

Time elapsed from the start of cut 
75-90 s 

45-60 s 

60-75 s 

90-105 s 

105-120 s 

40 
34 
85 

60 
22 
36.7 
0 
- 
- 
60 
27 
45.0 

LATERAL 
51 
48 
94.1 
INVERTED 
61 
56 
91.8 
42 
37 
88.1 
60 
47 
78.3 
CALVES – INVERTED 
0 
46 
- 
39 
- 
84,8 
46 
62 
36 
49 
78,3 
79,0 
13 
16 
2 
7 
15,4 
43,8 

51 
42 
82.3 

60 
39 
65.0 
42 
16 
38.1 
61 
52 
85.2 

46 
28 
60,1 
65 
19 
29,2 
16 
12 
75 

25 
22 
88 

33 
20 
60.6 
0 
- 
- 
58 
14 
24.1 

0 
- 
- 
22 
16 
72,7 
2 
0 
0 

14 
12 
85.8 

46 
38 
82.6 
0 
- 
- 
50 
5 
10.0 

0 
- 
- 
6 
6 
100 
0 
- 
- 

0 
- 
- 

40 
33 
82.5 
0 
- 
- 
33 
1 
3.0 

0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 

0 
- 
- 

24 
20 
83.3 
0 
- 
- 
17 
0 
0.0 

0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 
0 
- 
- 

104 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

ATTEMPT TO INSPIRE 

This behaviour was assessed in SH6, SH7, SH8 and SH13 for adults (Table 36). 

During  the  first  15s,  the  percentage  of  animals  inspiring  was  relatively  low  although 
depending  on  the  slaughterhouses.  Subsequently,  the  frequency  of  animals  that  inspired 
increased until 30 to 45s. Then the frequency subsequently decreased. It should be noticed 
that  this  late  decrease  may  also  result  from  a  decrease  in  number  of  inspirations  per  unit 
time. Consequently, the interpretation of these figures may depend on the time the animals 
are observed.  

Frequency  of  “attempt  to  inspire”  behaviour  followed  a  similar  scheme  for  calves  with 
increased frequencies between the first and third period in SH16 and SH8 (stable also during 
the fourth period in this slaughterhouse). In SH17, however, the frequency appeared to be 
very high at the beginning and then decreased quickly until the fourth period. 

CONCLUSION  

It  has  already  been  emphasized  that  loss  of  consciousness  after  the  cut  i.e.  during 
haemorrhaging  cannot  be  easily  monitored  in  slaughterhouses  and  may  be  very  variable 
from an animal to another. At the end, the death of the animal may be characterised by the 
end  of  bleeding  and  permanent  loss  of  breathing,  the  loss  of  muscle  tone  and  the  loss  of 
eyes’ reflexes and presence of permanent midriasis.  

Some  authors  hypothesized  that  the  animals  may  probably  experience  different  states  of 
consciousness during the bleeding. Gregory et al. (2009) suggested that loss of posture may 
be  a  first  sign  of  loss  of  consciousness.  Some  authors  proposed  to  check  different  signs 
based on the ability of the animals to exhibit signs of brain function or cognitive responses 
(Limon et al., 2010). The Dialrel project also proposed similar recommendations (Velarde et 
al.,  2010)  such  as  loss  of  posture  and  no  attempt  to  regain  it,  absence  of  response  to 
threatening movements, absence of eye movements. 

In this study, we have included some of these signs of consciousness with a particular focus 
on the course after the cut as we expected that differences between groups will first appear 
on the frequency of the different signs in relation with the time after the cut. However, due 
to  numerous  practical  limitations  and  probably  a  high  variability  between  and  within 
slaughterhouses, it is not possible to draw simple conclusions about an effect of restraining 
system.  

105 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 37 : Summary of the frequencies of adults bovine showing the different signs of 
consciousness or loss of consciousness according to the period after the cut  
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) 

Tendency 

Comments 

- 
- 

- 

- 
= 

+ 
- 
- 

- 

Time after the cut 

Signs observed 

Upright posture 
Struggle 

Frequency 
range 
33% 
7.8% - 55% 

0 - 15s 

Spontaneous  eyes 
movements 
Eye ball rotation 
Corneal reflex 

59.7% - 100% 

52.9%  - 100% 
95.8% - 100% 

« Inspire » 
Upright posture 
Struggle 

Spontaneous  eyes 
movements 
Eye ball rotation 
Corneal reflex 

« Inspire » 
Upright posture 
Struggle 

Spontaneous eyes 
movements 
Eye ball rotation 
Corneal reflex 

« Inspire » 
Upright posture 
Struggle 

Sspontaneous eyes 
movements 
Eye ball rotation 
Corneal reflex 

15s  – 30s 

30s – 45s 

45s – 90s 

3.3%  - 70.7% 
0% 
3.9% - 63.3% 

8.3% - 98.4% 

8.3% - 43.5% 
36.8% - 100% 

- 
=/- 

38.1% - 85.2% 

0% - 23.8% 

0% - 93.4% 

+ 

- 

- 

0% - 8.3% 
39.2% - 100% 

- 
=/- 

78.3% - 94.1% 

0% - 9.8% 

0% - 82% 

+ 

- 

- 

0 - 10.3% 
22.2% - 100% 

- 
=/- 

« Inspire » 

10% - 85% 

- 

SH11 only 

SH7 not included 

SH11 only 

8.3% - 46.7%  
without SH13 

66.6% - 100% without 
SH7 

0% - 13.1%  
without SH13 

53.7% - 100%  
without SH7 

0% - 13.1%  
without SH13 

26.3% – 100% without 
SH7 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

We can just underline that  SH7 (Dhabiha inverted) and SH12 for adults (Shechita inverted) 
were both characterised by: 

  Low number of cuts, 100%  of both carotids severed, 0% of “Impeded flow”,  
  Quick  decrease  or  low  frequency  of  animals  exhibiting  corneal  reflex  (in  particular 

SH7) 

This result suggests that it is possible to  hasten the loss of consciousness by good practice 
and bleeding efficiency but further investigations are necessary to better understand what 
the factors are that could explain these results.  

However,  overall,  our  results  may  be  considered  as  a  framework  of  course  of  signs  of 
consciousness/unconsciousness after the cut. We summarized in Table 37 the range of the 
frequency measured according to the delay after the cut.  

This  table  suggests  a  two-step  evolution  which  is  coherent  with  the  literature  mentioned 
above. During the first 30 s, spontaneous eye movements and the ability to maintain posture 
are  decreasing  dramatically.  We  can  also  assume  that,  during  this  period,  struggle  is 
interpreted,  as  intended  movements  and  therefore  follows  the  same  pattern  as  posture. 
Frequency of eye ball rotation also decreased. At the end of this first step, during the 30s – 
45s period, most of these signs have disappeared and we usually observe animals that have 
fixed open  eyes  with no  attempt to  struggle. These  events take  place  while  an  increase  of 
frequency  of  the  animals  that  are  exhibiting  “attempt  to  inspire”  behaviour  takes  place. 
Most of the animals have corneal reflex at 30s or 45s. 

After  45s,  with  caution  because  of  the  reduced  number  of  animals,  we  mainly  observed  a 
decrease  in  the  frequency  of  animals  that  express  “attempt  to  Inspire”  and  a  decrease  of 
animals  that  have  a  corneal  reflex.  The  decrease  of  frequency  of  “attempt  to  Inspire” 
behaviour  seems  to  occur  concomitantly  with  an  increase  of  the  delay  between  two 
“inspirations”.  

These  data  could  provide  slaughterhouses  with  guidance  to  manage  the  restraining  of  the 
animals during the bleeding period, taking into account that it is compulsory to restrain the 
animals  until  the  loss  of  consciousness.  In  practice,  we  can  suggest that animals  should  be 
restrained in the device for at least 45s before checking that they will not exhibit sign of eyes 
movements, signs of maintained posture or intentional struggle (also head righting when it 
can be observed). If these signs are absent, the animal may be released out of the restraint 
device and then further process (in particular dressing) should not be carried out before the 
loss of corneal reflex and the end of attempt to “inspire”. A similar strategy may be applied 
for calves as it appeared the same trends in our results. 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

CONCLUSION 

This  study  was  an  opportunity  to  collect  numerous  data  about  restraining  and  bleeding 
practices in European slaughterhouses where bovine animals are slaughtered without prior-
cut stunning.  

According to the literature, the position of the animals  in the restraint device may have an 
effect on the stress and welfare of bovine animals. The longer is the duration of restraint and 
unnatural position, the higher is the risk of impaired welfare.   

Taking into account all the results obtained, it did not appear that the position of the animals 
at the time of bleeding was the main factor that can explain the variability of the durations 
of restraint or the cutting practices observed between slaughterhouses and slaughter men. 
For  most  of  the  variables,  the  ranges  of  the  averages  obtained  in  the  three  positions 
(inverted,  lateral,  upright)  were  similar.  At  first,  a  reduction  of  duration  of  immobilisation 
before  the  cut  was  expected  with  upright  devices  but  this  was  not  confirmed  by  the 
observations in commercial conditions. We also expected differences in the ease of cut that 
could  be  estimated  by  the  number  of  cuts  (higher  for  upright  position)  and  the  quality  of 
bleeding (lower for upright position). Our results showed some differences but most of them 
could be associated with some particularities of the design of the device, the quality of the 
head restraint and the skill of the operators.  

Due  to  the  large  variability  of  the  design  of  the  slaughterhouses  (layout  of  the  corridor, 
layout of the restraining and bleeding area, design of the restraining device, etc) and skills 
and capabilities of the slaughter men observed during this study, it was not possible to take 
into account and analyse all the factors. Based on the initial surveys (see section 4), it was 
estimated that 70% to 80% of the bovine animals are slaughtered in the lateral or inverted 
position.  Upright  restraint  devices  are  mainly  used  in  the  UK  where  they  are  mandatory. 
Therefore, although attempts were made in other countries to include this type of device in 
the  sample,  the  number  of  slaughterhouses  with  upright  restraint  visited  in  the  present 
study was, at the end, very limited.  

108 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

However, in order to identify what could be the best observed practices in this sample, four 
experts of the consortium were asked to classify slaughterhouses of adult bovine animals for 
each variable measured, to judge the relevance of this variable regarding animal welfare and 
to propose ranges for “best observed practices” and “alarms”. In this case, “best  observed 
practices”  shall  not  be  interpreted  as  an  absolute  but  as  a  “state  of  art”  for  continuous 
improvement in slaughterhouses. 

The  output  of  their  assessment  was  used  to  propose  a  list  of  key  points  regarding  animal 
welfare  (see  below  for  details  and  synthesis  in  Annex  10)  for  slaughter  without  stunning, 
part of them also for slaughter with stunning. These results could be used, for example, by 
animal  welfare  officers  in  slaughterhouses  to  design  standard  operating  procedures, 
monitoring  tools  and/or  implement  an  improvement  action  plan.  According  to  Regulation 
(EC)  No  1099/2009,  training  is  compulsory  and  operators  shall  hold  a  certificate  of 
competence. Competences are precisely described in the EU legislation. In our view, training 
should  be  regularly  reinforced  and  updated.  However  the  modalities  for  training  the 
personnel  are  defined  and  implemented  by  the  competent  authorities  of  Member  States 
and  various  approaches  have  been  taken.  Consequently,  we  consider  that  these 
recommendations could also be used as objectives for deepening training of the operators 
and we emphasize some key points. At last, these recommendations are expected to provide 
manufacturers  with  guidance  for  developing  their  devices  and  improving  the  designs  of 
existing models. 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS AND BEST OBSERVED PRACTICES FOR ADULT BOVINE ANIMALS 

BoRest final report June 2015 

ENTRANCE IN THE RESTRAINING SYSTEM - ALL DEVICES 

  The layout of the end of the corridor and the device should be designed to minimize 
difficulties for the animals to enter the restraining device. Adequate number of 
operators, anti-backward systems, lighting of the bleeding area and avoidance of 
distractions or source of fear should also be considered 

  Corridor and restraining system should have a non-slippery floor surface 
  Operators must be trained for the handling of the bovine animals (legal requirement) 

Monitoring and best observed practices  

  The monitoring of the use of electric prod may be used as an indicator of good 

practice. The “best observed practice» in the present sample was a mean use on less 
than 20% of the animals (with maximum number per animal of 3 or 4). Human-
animal interactions may also be monitored but it is needed to distinguish between 
neutral (gently touching an animal) and negative (e.g. kicking). These last ones should 
be considered as if they were use of an electric prod. 

  Behavioural indicators of stress are the result of several factors including the 

emotional status of the animals, the transport, the handling in the lairage and in the 
corridor. In the best situation, behavioural indicators of stress other than vocalisation 
should be expressed by less than 10% of the bovine animals. No slips and falls should 
be observed and a frequency higher than 10% should induce urgent corrective 
measures. Vocalizations are one of the best indicators of stress because this 
behaviour is not restricted by the device. The frequency of vocalizations should be less 
than 10% and frequency higher than 20% needs urgent corrective actions. 

  Duration of time needed to introduce the animal in the device is not an issue from a 

welfare point of view. However, taking into account behaviours of both the operators 
and the animals, this measure could provide the animal welfare officer with 
additional information. For instance, short periods may be linked to an abusive use of 
the electric prod in the corridor. On the contrary, long durations may be linked to 
obstruction or distraction.  

110 

 
 
 
 
 
RESTRAINING PROCEDURE - ALL DEVICES 

BoRest final report June 2015 

  Restraining can be a stressful and painful procedure for bovine animals. Total 

restraint duration before the cut should be limited as far as possible. This implies 
that restraint should not start without verifying that the cut could be performed 
without any delay (Regulation EC No 1099/2009). 

  Operators must be trained for the handling of the bovine animals and the 

functioning of the device (legal requirement). 

  Operators should be able to monitor the quality of restraint and the behaviour of 
the animals by direct observation and/or by communication with other operators. 
  The different operations should be successively carried out without any delay and 
taking into account the manufacturers’ recommendations and user guide that must 
be provided to the operators (Regulation EC No 1099/2009).  

  Hyperextension of the neck must not be performed.  

All other restraining equipment (back pusher, side plates, neck yoke) must not use 
excessive pressure that causes injury, pain or distress (vocalizations, struggling, etc) . 

  The cut should be carried out without any delay after the head restraint. 
 

If for whatever reason (personal or mechanical) there is a delay in the slaughter 
process when the animal is restrained, it must be immediately stunned with a 
penetrative captive bolt. 

Monitoring and best observed practices 

  Considering a normal smooth restraining procedure (ie happening without any 

sudden change or interruption), the duration of restraint before the cut should be 
on average less than 30s (with a maximum up to 60s).  

  The delay between the end of the restraining procedure and the cut may be 

minimized, with an average of less than 5s (maximum of no more than 10s). This 
delay includes washing of the neck when it is performed. 

  Vocalization could be used as a monitoring tool of the quality of restraint even if this 
behaviour also depends on previous events and handling. The frequency of animals 
vocalizing should be less than 5% and a proportion of higher than 10% requires 
urgent correction action plan. 

  Quality of head restraint is one of the key parameter regarding the performance of 
the cut and the risk of pain for the animals. However, it may be difficult to assess 
because of the risk of hyperextension and the differences of morphology of the neck 
and head of the different categories of animals. Therefore slaughterhouses should 
focus on reducing as much as possible the incidents, in particular those linked to 
inadequate application of operating procedure. . 

  Modification of the design of the chin lift, layout of the area or optical system to allow 

the operators to observe head and behavioural reactions of the animals, 
communication between operators (the one who is driving the head restrainer and the 
one who will carry out the bleeding) are some examples of measures that can be taken 
to improve the quality of head restraint. 

111 

 
RESTRAINING PROCEDURE - UPRIGHT SYSTEM: 

BoRest final report June 2015 

  Animals must not be lifted off the ground with the belly plate (i.e. legs no longer 

significantly supporting weight of the animal)  
Restraint must have a recessed belly plate (otherwise it can cause balking, 
obstructions and falls)  

RESTRAINING PROCEDURE - ROTATING SYSTEM 

  Rotation should start immediately after the restraint of the animals , and should be 

as smoothly as possible i.e. without any sudden changes or interruptions 

Monitoring and best observed practices 

  The duration of the rotation is mainly depending on the device, the angle of rotation 
and the efficiency of the initial restraint. Duration of rotation may be on average less 
than 15s (with a maximum up to 30 s) when the animals are fully inverted. This 
duration should be reduced in other final positions.    

112 

 
 
 
CUT AND BLEEDING EFFICIENCY - ALL SYSTEMS 

BoRest final report June 2015 

  Cut should be performed in order to maximize bleeding. Many factors such as 

category of animals, quality of head restraint, position of the cut, sharpness of the 
knife are influencing the quality of the cut. The skill and capability of the operator 
should be such that they know these potential risks and are able to manage them as 
much as possible. 

MONITORING AND BEST OBSERVED PRACTICES 

  The number of cuts may be a good indicator of the capability of the slaughtermen. 
However, the number of the cuts also depends on religious prescriptions. Our 
observations suggest that the number of the cuts can be, on average, less than 4 
(with a maximum up to 6) but this is based mainly on the Dhabiha method. Multiple 
saw movements require the implementation of urgent corrective actions including 
practical training of the operators. 

  It may happen that both carotids are not cut but this should be monitored by the 

operator who will take immediate corrective action. In case of repetitive miss-cuts, an 
action plan should be implemented. 

  Impeded flow may be primarily linked to the formation of blood clots, the design of 
the device or the post-cut management of the head restraint. The mechanism 
underlying the formation of blood clot is not yet fully understood but is related to the 
operator practice and the animal. Slaughterhouses are encouraged to monitor the 
formation of blood clots. Whatever the case, our observations suggest that it is 
possible to reach a frequency of impeded flow of 0% and that a frequency higher than 
10% need corrective action plan. 

113 

 
6.  SOCIO-ECONOMIC 

IMPLICATIONS  OF  THE  USE  OF  THE 
DIFFERENT  RESTRAINT  SYSTEMS  FOR  SLAUGHTERING  BOVINE 
ANIMALS WITHOUT STUNNING 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Task leader: Willy Baltussen (LEI-WUR) 

INTRODUCTION 

The goal of this third part of the study was to determine the socio-economic implications of 
the  different  restraint  practices  for  slaughtering  bovine  animals  without  stunning  with 
special attention to:  

  Economics  of  slaughtering,  competitiveness  and  trade  aspects  (imports  to  and 

exports from EU and intra-trade among EU Member States); 

  Religious expectation and freedom of religion; 
  Working  condition  and  safety  of  operators 

in  the  bleeding  area  of  the 

slaughterhouse. 

114 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Figure 19 : Research design for socio-economic research  
(Source: BoRest study “Socio-economic implications”) 

Table 38 :  Assessed indicators per judgement area for the SWOT analysis of different types of 
restraining devices for slaughtering bovine animals without stunning  
(Source: BoRest study “Socio-economic implications”) 

Judgement area 

Assessed indicators 

Economic costs 

Religious 
Acceptability 

Work safety 

Intra-EU trade and 
trade with third 
countries 

1.  total investment restraining system (€) 
2.  investment restraining system (% of total investment slaughter line) 
3.  maintenance costs (€  per year) 
4.  total costs (€ per year) 
5.  lifetime restraining system (years) 
6.  line speed (animals per hour) 
1.  Requirements for Jewish religion 
2.  Requirements for Muslim religion 
3.  Religious education slaughterman 
1.  Number of accidents in 2012 
2.  Frequency of accidents (number per year) 
3.  Type of injuries 
4.  Impact of injuries 
5.  Experience of slaughterman 
6.  Education of slaughterman 
1.  Origin of meat 
2.  Destination of meat 
3.  Share cattle slaughtered without stunning (%) 
4.  Meat sold as halal/ kosher (% of total) 
1.  Duration  of  introduction  in  the  restraint  device,  handling  and  behaviour  of  the 

animals 

Animal welfare 

2.  Duration of restraint before the cut and behaviour of the animals 
3.  Duration of rotation and inverted position and behaviour of the animals 

Number of cuts and “Quality of bleeding” indirectly assessed by presence of blood 
clots/impeded flow, presence of signs of consciousness at different time after the 
cut 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY 

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE 

The objectives of the socio-economic research were twofold: 

1.  A  comparison  between  the  upright  and  the  rotating  restraint  system  by  a  SWOT 
analyses on the aspects of costs, acceptability by religious representatives, Intra–EU 
trade  of  meat  and  trade  of  meat  with  third  countries,  work  safety  of  the 
slaughtermen and animal welfare. 

2.  Impact of different scenarios of the European policy on the use of the different types 
of  restraint  systems  used  for  bovine  animals  slaughtered  without  stunning  (adult 
cattle and calves) regarding costs, acceptability by religious representatives, intra EU-
trade  of  meat and  trade  of  meat  with  third  countries,  work  safety  of  slaughtermen 
and animal welfare. 

The research is based on data of: 

a.  Restraint  systems  used  for  bovine  animals  in  slaughterhouses  in  six  EU  Member 
States  (Belgium,  France,  Italy,  Spain,  The  Netherlands,  The  United  Kingdom) 
representing 97% of bovine animals slaughtered without stunning; 

b.  Stakeholders’  information  collected  in  18  slaughterhouses  visited  and  a  limited 
number of responses from other stakeholders such as manufacturers of slaughterline 
system and wholesalers of halal or kosher meat. 

The  limited  number  of  visits  and  response  per  group  of  stakeholders  can  be  explained  by 
different reasons. The first reason is that for this project, 25 visits at slaughterhouses were 
planned. Some of the slaughterhouses refused to cooperate to measure the animal welfare 
of animals slaughtered without stunning. Not all staff members in the slaughterhouse were 
willing  to  have  an  interview  with  the  researchers.  Animal  welfare  and  work  safety  officers 
were not always present in small slaughterhouses and were not always willing to answer the 
questions.  Others  like  insurance  companies,  manufacturers  and  wholesale  traders  were 
called several times and invited to answer the questions by phone but refused or were not 
able to cooperate. 

METHOD 

The main principle of this socio-economic research was to qualify and if possible to quantify 
different  scenarios  for  future  policy  options  in  comparison  with  a  baseline  scenario.  These 
scenarios  were  developed  based  upon 
interviews  with  several 
stakeholders, meetings with religious representatives and a SWOT analysis of the two types 
of restraint system and to a lesser degree from results of other work packages (Figure 19).  

input  mainly  from 

116 

 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 39 : Research topics in the questionnaires per interviewee  
 (Source: BoRest study “Socio-economic implications”) 

Interviewee 

Economic 
costs 

Acceptability 
by religion 

Work 
safety 

Animal 
welfarea 

Trade 

Topics in the questionnaire 

Director of slaughterhouse 

Insurance companies 

Manufacturers of slaughter line 

Animal welfare officer 

Work safety officer 

Slaughter men 

Wholesaler 

Meeting with religious authorities 

X 

X 

X 

X 

x 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

a part of the animal welfare indicators have been calculated from the research described in section 5. 

Table 40 : Number of responses per stakeholder group 
(Source: BoRest study “Socio-economic implications”) 

Interviewee 

Number of respondents/ 
meetings 

Director of slaughterhouse 

12 respondents 

Insurance companies 

0a 

Manufacturers of slaughter line 

2 respondents 

Animal welfare officer 

Work safety officer 

Slaughter men 

Wholesaler 

11 respondents 

8 respondents 

14 respondents 

1 respondent 

Jewish religious representativesb 

5 meetings 

Muslim religious representativesb 

5 meetings 

aThis stakeholder group has been approached but is not able to provide such (specific) data 

bIn Italy the meeting with Jewish authorities and in France the meeting with Muslim authorities was declined. 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

To cover the different judgment areas of the scenario i.e. economics, religious acceptability, 
work  safety,  intra-EU  trade  and  trade  with  third  countries  and  animal  welfare  indicators 
were determined. In  Table  38,  the assessed indicators are listed per judgement area. Data 
have  been  collected  in  order  to  qualify  or  quantify  the  different  indicators  per  restraint 
systems  according  to  a  SWOT  analysis.  For  example,  information  from  the  first  work 
package: description of the current situation has been used to estimate the share of cattle 
slaughtered  without  stunning  in  the  judgement  area  ‘Trade’.  Indicators  of  the  economic 
costs  or  work  safety  have  been  obtained  by  interviewees  at  slaughterhouses  carried  out 
during  the  visits  for  assessing  the  animal  welfare  indicators  or  by  interviews  with  others 
stakeholders, for example manufacturers of slaughter lines or the religious representatives 
by  separate  meetings.  Animal  welfare  has  been  assessed  by  observations 
in 
slaughterhouses.  Religious  acceptability  has  been  analysed  thanks  to  interviewees  of 
slaughtermen and meetings with religious representatives. 

QUESTIONNAIRES STAKEHOLDERS 

For the socio-economic research seven questionnaires (see Annex 8) have been developed 
to interview seven groups of stakeholders:  

Survey 1: 

directors of slaughterhouses,  

Survey 2: 

slaughtermen,  

Survey 3:  

animal welfare officer at slaughterhouse,   

Survey 4: 

work safety officer at slaughterhouse,  

Survey 5: 

insurance companies,  

Survey 6: 

manufactures of restraint systems, 

Survey 7: 

wholesale traders, 

To  be  able  to  determine  the  socio-economic  implications  of  the  different  restraint 
procedures,  the  judgement  areas  formed  the  backbone  of  the  questionnaires.  All  the 
questionnaires  focused  on  slaughter  without  stunning,  but  post-cut  stunning  was  not 
excluded since the main objective of the project is to compare the types of restraint system 
used  for animals  which are  conscious  at the  moment  of  cutting.  Therefore,  situations  with 
post-cut  stunning  were relevant.  But  the questionnaires  differed  per  stakeholder  group.  In 
Table 39 an overview of the topics in the questionnaire is given per group of stakeholders.  

118 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Meetings with religious representatives were dedicated to the religious acceptability of the 
two different restraint systems. They aimed to collect the set of religious arguments used to 
support the refusal or the acceptance of the different restraint systems observed6.  

The  acceptability  of  the  restraint  system  have  been  investigated  for  the  two  communities 
who perform slaughter without stunning in Europe: the Jewish  community and the Muslim 
community.  

The opinion were collected by interviewing and discussing, in local languages, with religious 
representatives during meetings (Table 40).  

We  have  considered  the  certification  bodies  to  be  market  actors  not  religious  actors.  We 
considered as being representative the religious authorities involved in the definition and /or 
application  of  religious  directives,  and/  or  who  are  regular  interlocutor  of  the  Member 
States,  and  /or  who  are  involved  in  the  selection  and/or  accreditation  of  the  religious 
slaughtermen. We have selected them using experts’ knowledge, using religious sociological 
literature and European religious boards’ advices. Some are state recognized religious body 
(such  as  Executif  des  Musulmans  de  Belgique,  Consistoire  Israélite  de  France),  some  are 
regional authorities (such as Rabbi of Barcelona of Catalunya). 

It  should  be  noticed  and  we  were  aware  that  the  opinions  of  selected  religious 
representatives may not represent the majority of opinions of the different religious trends. 
This  also holds for the opinions  of other  stakeholders,  for  example  the manufacturers  and 
wholesalers. This is a limit to the findings that could not be avoided for such a limited size 
project.   

Details about the methodology are given in Annex 9. 

PROCESS 

The development of the questionnaires went in stages. In spring 2013 a draft version of all 
the questionnaires was developed. This draft was discussed during the project team meeting 
in April 2013. Based on the comments a second draft was developed and distributed among 
the team members. In June 2013 the final questionnaires were distributed among the team 
members.  

Most  questionnaires  were  face  to  face  interviews.  The  interviews  with  manufacturers  and 
wholesalers  have  been  executed  by  making  an  appointment,  sending  the  questionnaire 
followed by an interview by phone.  

6 The  goal  of  this  study  is  to  assess  the  current  situation  and  not  to  reach  the  acceptance  of  one  or  the  other 
restraining technique. 

119 

 
                                                                 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Data  were  collected  from  June  2013  to  March  2014.  In  total,  48  responses  have  been 
received  (Table  40).  From  insurance  companies no  response  was  gathered,  while  only one 
wholesaler in the Netherlands was willing to respond to the questionnaire.  

Meetings  with  religious  representatives  were  held  in  the  period  from  October  2013  till 
March 2014. 

SCENARIOS 

The last part of the research focused on scenarios. In order to develop these scenarios the 
following basic assumptions were set in consultation with DG SANTE and taking into account 
results from initial surveys carried out during this project in the different Member States. 
Basic assumptions for developing the scenarios were: 
 

In practice a 78% of slaughterhouses use a rotating restraint system (Table  9, p40). On 
one hand, a few  manufacturers  represent more  than  50%  of market share  and,  on  the 
other hand, there are more than 20 different restraining systems mentioned in practice 
(see above, Table 14, p58).  

  There  is  also  a  high  variation  in  how  frequently  a  restraint  system  is  used  for  cutting 
bovine animals without stunning. Some slaughterhouse / slaughtermen are more or less 
continuously  using  the  system  while  others  only  use  it  during  short  periods  per  year 
(special events).  

  From  animal  welfare  experts’  point  of  view,  based  on  observations  realised  in 
slaughterhouses, operating procedures appeared to be more important than the system 
of restraining bovine animals to ensure animal welfare. In other words different restraint 
system  may  be  acceptable  if  used  in  the  right  way  by  the  users  and  if  users  are 
knowledgeable  about  animal  behaviour,  animal  welfare  and  work  safety.  So  scenarios 
should emphasize the proper use of a restraint system. 

  Per scenario indicators are compared with the baseline scenario. Weighting the different 
indicators  is  fairly  impossible  (i.e.  how  to  weight  better  animal  welfare  with  religious 
acceptability). 

Moreover, a PEST (Political, Economic, Social, Technical) analysis was executed to provide a 
better  understanding  of  the  context  of  restraining  of  bovine  animals  during  slaughtering 
without stunning. 

In socio-economic research we emphasize the internal factors, the pros and cons of restraint 
system  with  a  special  attention  to  costs  and  economic  drivers  for  the  different  restraint 
systems,  religious  acceptability,  work  safety  of  operators  and  animal  welfare.  These 
indicators were, for the intended scenarios, compared with the baseline scenario (no change 
in EU-policy regarding restraining of bovine animals during slaughtering without stunning).  

120 

 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 41 : Summary of the valuation of indicators to compare upright with rotating restraining 
systems  

(Source: BoRest study “Socio-economic implications”-Data: 2013-2014) 

JUDGEMENT 
AREAS 

RESTRAINT SYSTEM FOR BOVINE ANIMALS 
(upright versus rotating) 

Economic costs 

Compared to a rotating system the upright restraint system: 
Is cheaper (50% of the investment cost); 

- 
-  Has a  longer lifetime  (30-50  rather than 14-25 years).   Lifetime is longer in case the restraint 

system is not used full time; 

-  Needs less maintenance (less than half the maintenance costs). 

Next to this, a wide spread of line speed (animals/hour) is observed; it varies from 10 to 80 animals per 
hour. The variation is observed for both systems. For both systems the average line speed is 28 to 30 
animals per hour.  
Conclusions: 1. Restraint systems are neither decisive for the line speed nor for the 
                            slaughter  costs  per  animal  if  more  than  10.000  slaughtering  without  stunning  take                            
place per year; 
                        2. The upright system is less costly than the rotating restraint system. 

Religious 
aspects 

For  the  Jewish  communities,  inverted  position  was  preferred  in  all  cases  in  comparison  to  upright 
position.  
For  the  Muslim  communities,  rotating  system  is  often  preferred,  but  the  upright  position  may  be 
acceptable if correctly adapted and if the slaughterman is experienced. 

Work safety 

No  clear  difference  is  observed  between  the  two  restraint  systems.  There  are  some  minor  incidents 
reported. In some of these cases slaughtermen were not able to work for a few days. 

Intra-EU trade 
and trade with 
third countries 

Few  information  is  available.  In  some  countries  most  of  halal  or  kosher  beef  meat  is  for  the  home 
market and therefore the acceptability will depend on the religious representatives’ opinion.  
Exports  of  beef  meat  to  Jewish  and  Muslim  Mediterranean  countries  are  low  compared  to  other 
countries  and  vary  according  to  the  economic  context.  Trade  figures  can  change  quickly  and  figures 
from the past are not always a good indicator for the future. 

Animal Welfare 

In  slaughterhouses  under  practical  conditions  the  expected  differences  between  restraint  systems 
(duration,  number  of  cuts)  are  not  observed  (see  section  5).  Other  factors  like  layout  of  the  bleeding 
area,  design  of  the  restraint  system,  organisation  of  the  procedures  and  skills  and  capabilities  of  the 
operators have far more impact on animal welfare than the type of restraint system.  
For  both  types  of  restraint  system  good  and  bad  examples  regarding  animal  welfare  have  been 
observed.    Given  the  small  sample  of  slaughterhouses  no  estimates  can  be  given  about  the  state  of 
animal welfare of the total population of bovine animals slaughtered without pre-stunning.  
According to the answers to the questionnaires, incidents with animals are reported only twice.  Most 
animal welfare officer respondents were not able or refused to report and no difference can be made 
between the two systems of restraining. 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

In the Terms of References (n° SANCO/2012/10357) no indication was given about the policy 
scenarios that should be taken into account. During the first meeting of the steering 
committee in January 2013 it was decided that the work package leader would make a 
proposal for scenarios to be discussed during the second meeting of the steering committee 
in November 2013. Based on this discussion and bilateral contacts between project team 
and DG SANCO two scenarios were developed.  

After defining the scenarios, an assessment of the impact of scenarios was carried out. 

122 

 
 
Table 42: Total costs (in euro per  year) for upright and rotating restraining systems 

(Source: BoRest study “Socio-economic implications”-Data: 2013-2014) 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Type of costs 

Total investment costs 

-of which 

 a.  depreciation costs 

Total investment   

Lifetime a:  

 b.  maintenance costs  

(mean costs from questionnaires)  

 c. interest costs   

Upright restraint 
system 

Rotating 
restraint system 

4,300 

12,600 

1,250 

5,000 

50,000 euro 

100,000 euro 

40 years 

20 years 

1,800 

5,100 

(5% over half of the investment amount) 

1,250 

2,500 

Operational costs bleeding areab 

Labour cost per hour (3 people working in the 
bleeding area for 25 euro per hour) 

Per animal (given a line speed of 30 animals per hour) 

75  euro 

75 euro 

2.50 euro 

2.50 euro 

a In the calculations mean (rounded) lifetimes of the systems have been used. As such, 40 years for upright 
system instead of 30-50 years and 20 years for rotating system instead of 14-25 years. 

b Other operational costs like energy, water, removal of waste are not estimated because they are relatively 
low compared to the investment and labour costs. 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE DIFFERENT RESTRAINT SYSTEMS 

BoRest final report June 2015 

To meet the first objective of this socio-economic part of the research all the indicators per 
judgement area were valued based on the results of questionnaires, interviews and results 
of meetings with religious representatives and to a lesser degree from results of other work 
packages.  As  mentioned  in  Table  40,  the  number  of  responses  to  the  questionnaires  was 
limited (per stakeholder 0 to 14 responses). The consequence is that many of the indicators 
are based on scattered information. This makes it difficult to draw straight conclusions for all 
the judgement areas.  

In Table 41 a summary is given of the SWOT analysis between the upright versus the rotating 
restraint system for bovine animals during slaughtering per judgement area (see also Annex 
11).   

ECONOMIC COSTS 

Upright  restraint  systems  are  systematically  cheaper than the  rotating ones  on  all  aspects: 
investment,  maintenance  and  lifetime  (Table  42).  The  total  costs  for  an  upright  restraint 
system are estimated at about 4,300 euro per year (investment of 50,000 euro and annual 
costs of 8.6%) and for a rotating restraint system at 12,600 euro (investment of 100,000 euro 
and 12.6% annual costs). So the rotating system is 2 to 3 times as expensive as the upright 
system. However it should be remembered that costs in the  bleeding area are only a small 
part  of  the  total  slaughtering  costs.  For  example,  rotating  restraint  system  investment 
represent  less  than  7%  of  the  investment  cost  for  the  total  slaughter  line  (excluding  cold 
storage room) according to one of our respondent. According to other respondents, labour 
cost represents more than half of the cost of slaughtering. Also FCEC (2007) concludes that 
“The  cost  of  stunning  and  killing  is  not  seen  as  being  significant  …  (in  the  context  of  the 
competitive position of the EU cattle and sheep sector)”. 

line  speed 

The 
in  number  of  animals  slaughtered  per  hour  differed  between 
slaughterhouses.  For  example,  within  the  slaughterhouses  visited,  it  varied  from  10  to  48 
adult bovine animals per hour and from 12 to 80 calves per hour (Table 16, p64) and the line 
speed  did  not  differ  between  the  upright  and  rotating  system.  In  both  cases,  on  average, 
about  28  to  30  animals  were  slaughtered  per  hour.  The  actual  line  speed  at  a  specific 
slaughterhouse has a far bigger impact on the cost per slaughtered animals than the type of 
restraint system.   

124 

 
 
 
 
Table 43: Costs per animal in the restraining area for upright and rotating systems for different line 
speeds 

(Source: BoRest study “Socio-economic implications”-Data: 2013-2014) 

BoRest final report June 2015 

 Line speed (number of animals per hour) 
labour costs per animal 

10 
7.5 

30 
2.5 

50 
1.5 

investment costs 
Upright 
Rotating 

4,300 
12,600 

4,300 
12,600 

4,300 
12,600 

costs  restraining area per animal (euro per 
animal) 
Upright 
Rotating 

7.93 
8.76 

2.93 
3.76 

1.93 
2.76 

Own calculations based on questionnaires in this study  

Table 44: Costs per animal in the restraining area for upright and rotating systems for different 
quantities of annual slaughterings (in euro) 

(Source: BoRest study “Socio-economic implications”-Data: 2013-2014) 

Number of animals slaughtering per year 

  1000              10,000                45,000 

labour costs (euro per animal) 

2,5 

2,5 

2,5 

investment costs (annual costs) 
Upright 
Rotating 

costs per animal (in euro per animal) 
Upright 
Rotating 

4,300 
12,600 

4,300 
12,600 

4,300 
12,600 

6.80 
15.10 

2.93 
3.76 

2.60 
2.78 

Own calculations based on questionnaires in this study  

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

In  Table  43  the  costs  per  animal  slaughtered  have  been  calculated  for  three  different  line 
speeds: 10, 30 and 50 animals per hour. The costs in the bleeding area per animal vary from 
almost  8  euro  to  2 euro  for  line  speeds  of,  respectively, 10 and  50 animals  per hour.    The 
cost difference between the upright and rotating systems is 83 eurocents. Other factors like 
organisation of the work in the bleeding area are more decisive for the line speed than the 
type of restraint system. 

Also the number of animals slaughtered per year has a huge impact on the costs per animal 
slaughtered  (Table  44).  The  cost  per  animal  slaughtered  varies  from  almost  7  euro  per 
animal  for  1000  animals  slaughtered  per  year  in  an  upright  system  to  2.60  per  animal  if 
45,000 animals are slaughtered. For the rotating systems these figures are 15 euro and 2.80 
euro  per  animal.  The  calculations  in  Tables  43  and  44  also  explain  why  slaughterhouse 
managers mention total slaughter costs between 25 and 100 euro per animal. The difference 
in slaughter costs per animal can be explained by: 

a. 

b. 
c. 

d. 

The  lack  of  definition  of  slaughter  costs.  This  depends  on  whether  the  slaughtering 
includes cooling / freezing; 
The line speed (see the calculations in table 43); 
The number of animals slaughtered per year or the size of the batch (see calculations 
in table 44); 
The variability of labour costs vary between Member States from less than 4 euro per 
Sweden.   
than  40 
hour 
(http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Wages_and_labou
r_costs ) 

euro  per  hour 

in  Bulgaria 

to  more 

in 

The slaughterhouse managers also stated that the slaughtering of animals without stunning 
in total costs 10 to 15% more than slaughtering of animals with pre-stunning.   

According to slaughterhouse managers investment decision regarding restraint systems are 
guided by four criteria, by order of priority: 

1.  religious requirements; 
2.  total investment of the restraint system; 
3.  work safety of people working in the bleeding area; 
4.   animal welfare.  

Taking  into  account  that  upright  system  are  compulsory  in  the  UK,  no  difference  could  be 
observed in priority between the upright and rotating restraint systems. 

126 

 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

RELIGIOUS ASPECTS 

For the Jewish communities, inverted position was preferred in all the cases in comparison 
to upright position. However, the UK Jewish representatives believed that the slaughter with 
an inverted position could be improved.  

The  preference  of  the  Jewish  clerics  for  an  inverted  position  was  supported  by  religious 
requirements  such  as  "Derasah",  i.e.  the  Jewish  slaughterman  (Schochet)  must  not  apply 
pressure  with  the  knife  at  the  throat  of  the  animals  and  "Halada"  i.e.  the  knife  must  be 
visible and not be buried by fur. 

For  the Muslim  communities,  a  rotating  device is  often  preferred,  but  the upright  position 
may  be  acceptable  if  correctly  adapted  and  if  the  slaughterman  is  experienced.  All 
interviewees  emphasized  that  the  efficiency  of  the  cut  is  the  main  objective.  Full  rotation 
was not strictly approved by some representatives interviewed. From their point of view, an 
angle should be respected imitating the laying of the animal on his (left) side.  

At last, a good head restraint, that keeps the head of the bovine animal in a fixed position 
without  hurting  the  animal,  is  a  concern  for  most  of  our  interlocutors in  terms  of  welfare, 
bleeding efficiency and practices regardless of the final position of the bovine animals.  

However, it should be borne in mind that the opinions were given on the basis of two ideal 
scenarios (in video) of Dhabiha cut (for the production of halal meat). No video of Shechita 
cut (for the production of kosher meat) was available due to limitation from slaughterhouses 
which does not allow to record and show videos. Some of our interlocutors knew little about 
the way slaughtering of bovine animals is routinely performed.   

Furthermore,  there  is  a  high  degree  of  distrust  between  the  operators  and  religious 
authorities,  in  particular  regarding  the  question  of  stunning.  Despite  that  we  excluded  it 
from the present study, the issue of stunning, and its political framing was in the mind of the 
religious authorities interviewed. Some were reluctant to give an official statement on this 
aspect of religious slaughter considering that  this statement  could have an impact later on 
the legal framework and indirectly on stunning (in The Netherlands, France, Italy).  

128 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

129 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

WORK SAFETY 

The  Work  safety  officers  report  almost  no  incidents.  One  work  safety  officer  reported  in 
total  two  incidents  in  one  slaughterhouse.  Two  recommendations  were  given  by the  work 
safety officers regarding the work safety of people working in the bleeding area:  

1. Allow post-cut stun if possible;  

2. Increase the available working space for the slaughter man.  

With  one  exception  all  slaughtermen  interviewed  answered  that  they  have  less  than  1 
incident per year. One slaughterman reported 1 to 5 incidents per year. Reported incidents 
are mainly ‘cuts’ and all the slaughtermen were still able to continue working. No differences 
can  be  seen  between  upright  and  rotating  systems.  Also  no  difference  exists  between 
slaughtermen  cutting  according  the  Jewish  rites  and  slaughtermen  cutting  according  the 
Muslim rites (the number of observations are however limited). Slaughtermen indicate that 
they see no possibility to increase work safety by changing the restraint system. 

We also tried to estimate the working conditions of the slaughtermen but there were  clear 
limitations in the answers because they are generally only familiar with one system (upright 
or rotating). The working conditions for slaughtermen was rated 2.3 for physical conditions 
and 2.9 for mental conditions by the slaughtermen themselves on a scale from 1 (no stress) 
to 5 (stressful). No comparison can be made between the two restraining systems because 
only two observations are available for the upright restraint system.  The level of education 
of  slaughtermen  was  mostly  basic  or  middle,  about  20%  was  highly  educated.  No  clear 
differences can be found between the restraint systems.  

Work safety plays an important role in the decision of slaughterhouse managers to choose a 
restraint system. They rank work safety as third after total investment. They see the hoisting 
of the animal as the most dangerous ‘task’ in the bleeding area compared to other tasks like 
‘entering  the  animal  in  the  restraint  system’,  ‘restrain  the  animal’,  ‘cut  the  animal’  and 
‘release the animal from the restraint system’. 

These data do not allow to draw a firm conclusion on the effect of the position during the 
cut but they suggest that the restraint system per se is not a major concern regarding work 
safety.  The  major  risks  in  terms  of  work  safety  are  indeed  linked  to  the  unexpected 
movements of the animals after releasing them from the restraint system and while hoisting. 
This risk increases if the space for the slaughterman to perform the cut is restricted and/or 
the area is poorly designed. So the layout of the bleeding area is probably more relevant in 
terms of work safety than the type of restraint system.  

130 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

INTRA-EU TRADE AND TRADE WITH THIRD COUNTRIES  

Neither Eurostat statistics on trade in meat nor national statistics offer any  information on 
intra-EU  trade  and  trade  with  third  countries  in  halal  and  kosher  meat.  An  additional 
statistical problem is that part of the meat slaughtered according to religious prescription is 
sold on the secular market.  

In  the  European  Union,  the  percentage  of  adult  bovines  and  calves  slaughtered  without 
stunning (2012) varies a lot between 1% in Italy to 24% in France according to data provided 
by competent authorities. In the Netherlands, most of the halal beef meat is for the Dutch 
market (85%), the rest goes mainly as halal meat to other EU countries. In the case of kosher 
slaughtering only the forequarter is used by the Jewish community. The hindquarter is sold 
on the secular market. As such, the Jewish community uses only a part of the carcass due to 
religious reasons whereas the Islamic community can use the whole carcass. Meat not sold 
on  the  local  market  is  mainly  sold  as  halal  or  kosher  meat  in  other  EU  countries.  For 
example, we have been informed of flows of halal meat from Ireland, the United Kingdom 
and Eastern countries to France. 

Based  on  Eurostat  data  2009-2103,  exports  of  beef  meat  from  EU  to  third  countries 
predominantly Muslim or Jewish around the Mediterranean sea are very low (in most years 
less than 15, 000 tonnes carcass weight) compared to the overall export of beef from the EU 
to third countries (138,000 and 400,000 tonnes per year). The export to Muslim neighbour 
countries  like  Tunisia,  Algeria,  Lebanon,  Morocco,  Egypt  and  Libya  varies  from  4,500  to 
14,200  tonnes  in  2009-2013.  The  export  to  Turkey  increases  from  300  tonnes  in  2009  to 
112.000 tonnes in 2011 and decrease to 300 tonnes in 2013. Exports from EU to Israel is also 
low  (about  200  to  280  tonnes  annually).  The  export  figures  to  Turkey  shows  that  trade 
between  EU  and  third  countries  can  change  quickly  (in  positive  and  negative  way).  This 
makes it difficult to use figures from the past to estimate the future trade.   

These  data  suggest  that,  even  if  it  is  important  for  the  EU  industry  to  be  present  in  these 
countries,  other factors than the restraint  system  will  impact  much  more the  international 
competitiveness.  However,  although  the  total  amount  is  low,  we  were  said  by  some 
slaughterhouses that it is an important market for them as individual companies. Therefore, 
taken into account the opinion of Jewish representatives, it may be important that restraint 
systems by inversion can still be used in the future.  

131 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

ANIMAL WELFARE 

In  spite  of  many  attempts  in  different  countries  to  visit  slaughterhouses  that  were  using 
upright  restraint  system,  it  shall  be  noticed  that  only  3  groups  of  animals  outside  the  UK 
were assessed.  

The results obtained during the visits in slaughterhouse suggest that: 

-  handling  and  operating  procedure  will  primarily  affect  animal  welfare.  Differences  in 
duration  of  restraint  between  upright  and  inverted  position  are  rather  limited.  Operating 
procedure may vary a lot from one slaughterhouse to another; 

- poor designed system (rotating or upright) will also have a detrimental effect. 

Regarding the system used in slaughterhouses, based on data collected in section 4, it should 
be  noticed  that  France  represents  almost  59%  of  the  bovine  animals  slaughtered  without 
stunning  (2012)  and  that  rotating  system  used  in  France  come  from  a  small  number  of 
manufacturers (three of them have 80% of the “market” in our survey) who all produce the 
same kind of modern rotating system (“Facomia like”). Among the other manufacturers, we 
also  know  that,  at  least,  three  or  four  of  them  which  are  specialised  in  slaughterhouse 
system are also producing the same kind of system. Consequently, probably more than 90% 
of  the  French  slaughterhouses  are  equipped  with  modern  designed  rotating  system, 
independently of the size of the slaughterhouses.  

These systems are also used in other countries like The Netherlands, Spain and Belgium in 
our sample. Altogether these four countries represent more than 85% of the bovine animals 
slaughtered  without  stunning  in  the  EU.  Consequently,  if  we  assume that,  on  average,  the 
proportion of the different system used is the same in these countries as observed in France,  
we can first  hypothesize that, at least, more than 75% of the bovine animals are slaughtered 
in  the  EU  by  using  this  modern  rotating  restraint  system  that  are  supposed  to  be  well-
designed. Finally, by adding other countries (Italy, Ireland), we can estimate, with a relative 
high probability, that more than 80% of the animals are slaughtered in these conditions. This 
assumption  is  also  coherent  with  the  fact  that,  according  to  our  result,  67%  of  the 
slaughterhouses are equipped with restraint system of less than 10 years old and that less 
than 15% of the slaughterhouses had invested in restraint system before 1990.  

132 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Regarding the use of upright systems, we should  distinguish between UK which represents 
approximately  one  third  of  the  animal  slaughtered  in  upright  position  and  the  other 
countries. In UK, restraint systems used are submitted to an agreement by the Minister and 
are  based  on  ASPCA  design.  Then  it  can  be  hypothesized  that  the  restraint  system  used 
already  fulfils  minimum  requirements. 
In  other  countries,  different  cases  can  be 
encountered, from the use of modern rotating devices used in upright position to the use of 
simple  concrete  systems  which  may  be  considered  as  poorly  designed  (e.g.  those  we 
observed  during the  visits  in  slaughterhouses). However,  due to the  limitations  induced to 
line  speed  by  such  system  and  based  on  the  answers  to  the  questionnaire  of  the 
slaughterhouses  survey,  it  is  expected  that  this  kind  of  systems  are  present  in  a  small 
number of slaughterhouses which are slaughtering few animals, less than 1000 per year (and 
probably limited to some hundreds - see also section 4 and 5 for example in Italy). 

Consequently,  even  if  our  data  do  not  allow  having  an  exhaustive  view,  we  do  not  expect 
that animals slaughtered in poorly designed restraint, represent a high number of animals in 
Europe. Maybe, this accounts for a maximum of 1 to 3% of the bovine animals slaughtered in 
5 to 10% of the slaughterhouses. In terms of number of slaughterhouses, it is probably the 
use  of  rudimentary  upright  system  in  very  small  slaughterhouses  that  constitutes  a  major 
risk factor.  

However, as we underlined previously, whatever the restraint system used, handling of the 
animals and, more generally speaking, poor operating procedure, are the major risk factors. 
Based  on  our  experience,  part  of  the  problems  encountered  can  be  solved  by  the 
management of operators  and the  implementation  of  improved  operating  procedures.  For 
instance,  duration  in  inverted  position,  cut  (number,  position,  …),  minimum  duration  of 
restraint  after  the  cut  could  be  addressed  rather  easily  by  defining  precise  objectives,  by 
training and by monitoring. Others, like handling of the animals at the entry of the system or 
assessment  of  loss  of  consciousness,  are  more  difficult  to  address  because  they  are 
depending on the animals (including previous handling), the design in particular the layout of 
the corridor and the restraint system, the skill of the operators, the procedure and, finally, 
the  current  state  of  knowledge  available.  During  the  last  five  years,  research  has  been 
stimulated  by  the  new  regulation  and  has  allowed  identifying  some  of  the  key  issues. 
Implementation  of  the  regulation  is  an  ongoing  process  that  is  progressively  and  diversely 
disseminating the first results  of  the  research  depending of the Member  States.  Therefore 
we can consider that only a few slaughterhouses in the EU have already addressed most of 
the  risks.  In  some  Member  States  (e.g.  United  Kingdom,  France  and  the  Netherlands), 
national specific rules or industry commitment may have speeded up the process but, even 
in these countries, some issues still remain. 

133 

 
  
 
 
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 

BoRest final report June 2015 

The  results  may  be  surprising  on  some  points  as  it  appears  that  rotating  restraint  systems 
are  more  expensive  without  obvious  advantages  on  line  speed,  work  safety  or  animal 
welfare which are three of the main drivers for the slaughterhouses management. However, 
rotating systems are the most familiar restraint systems within the EU (see Section 4). 

To interpret these results, it is necessary to take into account what happened during the last 
30 years (see also Section 3). In France, the first design of the modern rotating system was 
introduced by Facomia in 1979. At this time, it differed from the Weinberg pen which was 
observed  by  Dun  et  al.  (1990)  by  the  introduction  of  a  back  door,  a  back  pusher  and 
hydraulic restraint system. This initial design was progressively refined during the following 
years with success and progressively adopted by the main manufacturers of slaughterhouse 
system (Warin-Ramette, 2010). 

At the same time, from the religious representatives point of view and in particular from the 
Jewish  community,  there  was  a  strong  requirement  to  carry  out  the  slaughtering  not  in 
upright  position,  but  in  the  same  way  as  “traditional”  slaughtering  in  Jewish  and  Muslim 
communities.  In  France,  furthermore,  one  of  the  main  non-governmental  animal  welfare 
organisation  encouraged  also  slaughterhouses  to  use  this  rotating  restraint  system.  In  this 
context, following the adoption of Directive 93/119/EC, it was observed a generalization of 
the  use  of  mechanical  modern  rotating  restraint  system  for  religious  slaughtered  bovine 
animals with a speed up before the new regulation was adopted. The French situation may 
probably also apply to other Member States where rotating restraint systems are permitted. 

During  the  same  period,  in  the  United  Kingdom,  the  adoption  of  the  same  EC  Directive 
induced  a  development 
in  an  opposite  direction.  Following  several  reports  and 
recommendations  from  the  Farm  Animal  Welfare  Council  (FAWC)  that  emphasized  the 
advantage of ASPCA design of upright restraint system compared with the Weinberg system, 
the British government finally banned the rotating system. 

Results  obtained  should  be  therefore  interpreted  in  these  two  divergent  contexts.  Also  it 
should  be  taken  into  account  that  the  lay  out  of  the  bleeding  area  and  the  operating 
procedure have been progressively optimised over the  last 30 years for the use of either a 
rotating system or an upright one. The background was different and most of the answers 
from food business operators need to be interpreted within a category of restraint systems. 
Therefore, for most of the directors of the slaughterhouse, comparisons are made within a 
category of restraint systems. 

134 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

In conclusion, religious expectation is the main driver for the choice of rotating system and 
inverted  or  lateral  position  at  the  time  of  the  cut.  Consequently,  during  the  last  30  years, 
except  in  the  United  Kingdom,  most  of  the  slaughterhouses  in  the  EU  have  invested  in  a 
rotating system and have optimised the procedures accordingly. 

Upright systems are less costly than rotating ones but the investment and cost linked to the 
bleeding area is low compared to overall investment in a slaughter line or compared to the 
labour cost in a slaughterhouse. 

The choice of the restraint system has a minor impact on competitiveness of the European 
slaughterhouses  compared  to  main  exporting  countries  of  meat  of  bovine  animals  cut 
without stunning. 

Where  using  modern  systems,  work  safety  is  more  linked  to  the  layout  of  bleeding  and 
hoisting area than to the design of the restraint system. 

Available data from this study indicate that no more than 1 to 3% of the bovine animals are 
slaughtered  within  restrain  systems  that  have  a  bad  design.  Given  these  figures  a  poor 
design  of  the  restraining  system  has  a  quantitative  limited  effect  on  animal  welfare 
compared to non-optimised operating procedures. But in this last case, the impact of the on-
going  implementation  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1099/2009  need  to  be  further  investigated  in 
the next years. 

135 

 
Table 45: Result of a PEST analysis regarding restraint of bovine animals during slaughtering 
without stunning  

(Source: BoRest study “Socio-economic implications”-Data: 2014) 

BoRest final report June 2015 

PEST analysis: Starting position for the purpose of all scenarios 

Political 

 

 

 

There  will  be  continuous  opposition  from  animal  welfare  organizations  to  the  slaughter  of  bovine  animals  without  stunning. 
Opinion  regarding  rotating  bovine  animals  before  cutting  depends  on  organization  and  their  experience  in  the  field.  These 
opinions do not result in a lively societal discussion on the subject as long as restraint in itself is performed. 
For  halal,  ongoing  debates  about  the  acceptability  of  pre  or  post-cut  stunning  or  thoracic  sticking  after  the  cut  may  result  in 
national regulation or local agreements with slaughterhouses but it is not expected to become a European policy.  
At an international level OIE standards (http://www.oie.int/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-key-themes/) on animal welfare may 
be  refined  due  to  ongoing  concern  in  some  parts  of  the  world.  But,  so  far,  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  different 
restraining  systems are still under discussion and, whatever the case, implementing restraining procedures is the priority.  

Economic 

 

The  number  of  locations  for  slaughter  will  decrease.  Especially  small  regional  slaughterhouses  will  close  down  in  e.g.  France, 
Spain and Italy. Currently slaughter of bovine animals without stunning takes place in many of these small slaughterhouses. As a 
consequence  the  number  of  slaughtered  bovine  animals  without  stunning  per  slaughterhouse  will  increase  and,  extremely, 
some  slaughterhouses  may  specialise  in  slaughtering  without  stunning  depending  on  the  social  acceptability  of  such  an 
evolution. The current number of 434 slaughterhouses slaughtering bovine animals without stunning is expected to decrease till 
300. This expectation is based on expert knowledge.  

  No  major  change  is  envisaged  in  the  export  of  meat  of  slaughtered  bovine  animals  without  stunning.  Export  increased 
significantly  to  the  Middle  East  in  recent  years  but  also  strongly  fluctuates  at  a  low  level;  export  figures  show  that  trade  can 
change  quickly  Iin  both  positive  and  negative  way.    It  is  known  that  export  to  these  countries  vary  quickly  and  significantly 
according to the economic conditions.  

Social 

 

 

The  Muslim  population  in  the  EU  will  grow  (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEAPREGTOPRURDEV/Resources/Cedomir-
Nestorovic.pdf From this follows an increased demand for halal meat.  In Halal Food Market in Europe 2014-2018 (May 2014) 
the  growth  of  the  Halal  Food  market  in  Europe  is  supported  by  several  drivers,  one  of  which  is  an  increase  in  the  Muslim 
population in Europe, especially in Russia. Consumption of halal food products is directly proportional to the Muslim population. 
The high standard of living in Europe is another major driver of the market. Another factor influencing the demand of halal meat 
is  the  acceptability  of  stunning  by  the  Muslim  Community.    We  assumed  that  for  the  next  15  years  the  acceptability,  in 
particular pre-cut stun, will not change. 
Both types of restraining systems (upright and rotating devices) will be used in the EU. However, the general expectation is that 
the proportion will undergo an alteration. So far, it is highly unpredictable in some cases, for example in France, where different 
trends are observed (upright to inverted, inverted to lateral recumbence and inverted to upright) while a shift is estimated from 
inverted  to  upright  in  other  countries  (e.g.  the  Netherlands).  These  processes  go  slowly  because  the  lifetime  of  restraining 
devices is at least 15 years (daily use and rotating) or much longer (incidental use and/or the upright system). It depends also on 
the type of animals (adult cattle vs. calves). 

  No  major  change  is  envisaged  in  the  pattern  of  numbers  of  slaughtered  animals  during  a  year.  A  certain  basic  level  will  be 

performed throughout the year with additional peaks just before certain religious celebrations.  

Technological 

 

 

The basic upright and rotating systems will remain. There will be no radical change in restraining system used. Existing systems 
will be gradually improved (more use of oil pressure; ....). 
The cutting and slaughtering of bovine animals will remain to be performed by human beings; technique will not be a substitute 
in this matter. 

136 

 
BoRest final report June 2015 

SCENARIOS FOR IMPLEMENTING TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 

Relevant for the development of the scenarios and the PEST analysis is the period which has 
to be taken into consideration. For this, we took the minimum period for the depreciation of 
restraint system. Therefore we allowed for a horizon of 15 years. A PEST analysis based on 
expert  judgement  for  this  period  has  been  executed.  A  PEST  analysis  identifies  the 
underlying  trends  which  have  an  impact  on  the  development  of  restraint  systems  for 
slaughtering  bovine  animals  without  stunning.  This  gives  a  better  understanding  of  the 
context of restraining of bovine animals during slaughtering without stunning and results in 
a starting position for all scenarios. The main findings of the PEST analysis are presented in 
Table 45. 

For the socio-economic impact assessment, three scenarios were defined and are discussed 
below. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE SCENARIOS  

SCENARIO 1: BASELINE - NO CHANGE IN EU POLICY 

This scenario means no policy change at EU level regarding slaughter without stunning and 
with  the  use  of  the  different  restraint  systems.  Present  EU  policies  regarding  restraining 
bovine animals during slaughter without stunning will remain the same for the next 15 years. 

However, due to the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, business operators 
will adopt standard operating procedures and may refine them based on national Guides to 
Good  Practices,  national  specific  requirements  or  European  guidelines.  This  may  change 
practices.  The  Food  and  Veterinarian  Office,  for  example,  audited  EU  regulation  in  several 
Member  States  (The  Netherlands  in  2006  (2006-8041),  France  (2007-7330),  The  United 
Kingdom (2007-7337), Italy (2008-7691), Spain (2012-6373) and Estonia (2013-6825)). Their 
comments aim at improving processes within the bleeding area, and not so much the system 
itself. 

We take an annually growth of the number of animals slaughtered without stunning (+1%) 
for  granted.  We  expect 80%  of  animals  will  be  slaughtered  by 20%  of  the  slaughterhouses 
(from now on: large slaughterhouses). The other 20% of the animals will be processed by the 
other 80% of the slaughterhouses (from now on: small slaughterhouses). This also applies for 
scenario 2 and 3.  

137 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

In  addition  to  this,  we  assume  in  each  country,  where  slaughtering  without  stunning  is 
allowed,  half  of  the  larger  slaughterhouses  will  actively  implement  standard  operating 
procedures  excluding  France.  For  France  we  expect  that  all  small  and  big  slaughterhouses 
participate  in  the  existing  voluntary  program  (also  officially  recognised  by  the  competent 
authority)    to  improve  the  standard  operating  procedures  and  to  train  and  to  educate  all 
operators.  

SCENARIO 2: NON-BINDING SUPPORT MEASURES 

In this scenario the EU will initiate non-binding support measures to improve the quality of 
slaughtering in terms of animal welfare and work safety.  

In  this  scenario  the  Commission  would  design  and  implement  the  following  support 
measures  specifically  aimed  at  restraining  bovine  animals  when  they  are  slaughtered 
without stunning: 

1)  Development  and  implementation  of  templates  for  improved  standard  operating 

procedures; 

2)  Design  and  dissemination  of  educational  and  training  materials  in  several  EU 

languages; 

3)  Provide technical recommendations on restraint systems as a prerequisite for the 

derogation from the obligation to stun animals before slaughter; 

4)  Realisation of technical studies to refine existing systems and processes. 

Improved standard operating procedures, including management of emergency situations, 
will  be  developed  with  EU  financial  support.  Such  procedures  include,  for  example, 
additional  requirements  and  objectives  on  the  duration  of  each  step  of  the  slaughtering 
process  and  indicators  for  the  monitoring  of  animal  welfare  (see  the  recommendations  of 
Section 5). These procedures could be drafted on the basis of output of the  present study, 
existing  Guides  to  Good  Practices  and  scientific  opinions.  This  measure  will  also  include 
translation/dissemination  of  the  templates  of  the  improved  procedures.  These  improved 
operating  procedures  can  be  used  as  a  basis  for  deepening  the  training  of  slaughtermen, 
animal welfare officers, work safety officers and veterinary services. 

Based on the first results of the assessment of animal welfare in this study and project team 
discussions, some basics of these improved operating procedure are described in Annex 10. 

138 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

In  this  scenario  the  design  and  dissemination  of  educational  and  training  materials  in 
several EU languages will be supported by the EU. Because training is compulsory and should 
have  been  performed  already  (in  2013  or  in  2015  depending  on  previous  experience  of 
slaughtermen), these training materials can be used to deepen and update the practical skill 
of the operators compared with training requirements for the certificate of competence. For 
example,  in  France,  all  operators  shall  be  trained  every  5  years  in  order  to  keep  their 
knowledge  and  skill  up  to  date  and  this  can  take  place  during  the  next  session.  Training 
materials could be designed for animal welfare officers as well as for slaughtermen, making 
educational supports adapted to the audience (more theoretical for animal welfare officers, 
more practical and interactive for slaughtermen) and inciting interactions between them.  

Besides  the  aforementioned  measures  technical  recommendations  on  restraint  systems 
could be provided by the EU as prerequisite for the derogation from stunning animals or for 
the improved standard operating procedures. These recommendations would be addressed 
to  the  competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States  who  are  responsible  for  granting  and 
checking the implementation of the derogation from stunning animals.  

Such technical  recommendations  could  improve animal  welfare  and  work  safety  and  could 
emphasize, for example, the need of: 
1.  A visual system to monitor the duration of the different steps of the process; 
2.  Recommendation for the layout of the entrance into the restraint system; 
3.  Organisation of the bleeding area with particular attention paid to the possibility of the 
operator to monitor (directly or at least by the use of optical system) the behaviour of 
the  animals  during  restraining  and  to  be  in  the  best  position  for  doing  the  cut  and 
monitoring the bleeding.  

4.  Mobile front of the system to access the head of the animal when the animal falls down; 
5.  Stun system for emergency cases. 

These  different  pieces  of  equipment  may  also  be  considered  as  prerequisite  for  the 
implementation of high-level animal welfare standard operating procedures in application of 
the Annex II point 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009. 

Finally,  this  scenario  could  also  include  a  series  of  technical  studies  to  refine  existing 
systems and processes, such as systems to monitor pressure, to reduce noise and to develop 
new designs of chin-lift and head-restraint system for different categories of animals. Such 
studies would apply to both upright and rotating restraint system. 

The feasibility of this scenario is relatively high. There are expectations from this study that 
improving the procedure in the bleeding area will improve animal welfare and work safety of 
the people.  

139 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Even  though  further  research  is  still  needed,  some  good  practices  can  already  be 
implemented rather easily.  From the answers of the stakeholders it can be concluded that 
work  safety  and  animal  welfare  are  two  important  aspects  regarding  the  restraining  of 
animals  during  slaughtering.  Because  scenario  2  is  voluntary,  the  support  of  almost  all 
stakeholders  is  needed  to  get  the  maximum  impact.  Therefore  one  of  the  key  elements 
could be to draw  a  clear  and  stable perspective  that  could  help to  enhance  trust  between 
stakeholders. It is also important that this approach is implemented, taking into account the 
different  initial  contexts  in  order  to provide  slaughterhouses the  maximum  added  value.  It 
means  that  a  “gap  analysis”  between  recommendations  and  local  situations  is  probably 
needed and that training should be adapted to the national context.  

This scenario means a policy change at EU level and therefore some additional budgets for 
implementing  this  scenario  are  required  in  order  to  maximise  the  participation  of 
stakeholders. First estimates show a total amount of 1 million Euros7. 

Finally, we assume that in each country, where slaughtering without stunning is allowed, all 
large slaughterhouses will join this  scenario plus half of the small ones. In addition to this, 
we  have  made  the  calculations  without  taking  France  into  consideration  because  this 
scenario  is  already  implemented  in  France  through  the  national  guideline  and  training 
program that we assume it can also be updated according to new scientific evidence. 

SCENARIO 3: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTRAINT DEVICE 

In  this  scenario  the  Commission  will  prepare  a  legislative  proposal  for  further  mandatory 
minimum  requirements  for  restraint  systems  used  for  bovine  animals  in  the  context  of 
slaughter without stunning. This means upright and rotating restraint systems will continue 
to  be  allowed  but  additional  minimum  requirements  will  have  to  be  met.  Eventually  this 
would possibly lead to phasing out unacceptable systems over time in the EU or adaptation 
of these systems. 

7 Based on following assumptions made: 400,000 euro for developing and disseminating 
of  templates  for  standard  operation  procedures  and  the  training  and  educational 
materials in the EU (without France) and 600,000 euro for additional research. 

140 

 
 
 
                                                                 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Requirements regarding restraint systems may be included in point 3 of the Annex II of the 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1099/2009.  For  example,  a  point  3.3  may  be  added,  dedicated  to  the 
restraint  system  used  for  slaughtering  bovine  animals  according  to  Article  4:  “the  system 
shall be designed in order to minimize restraint duration in particular to carry out a smooth 
quick  rotation  according  to  best  practices  available,  allow  a  visual  monitoring  of  animals 
behaviour during restraint and bleeding, allow a secure access to the head of the animals in 
  In  this  way  the  requirements  become  compulsory  for 
case  of  emergency,  ....  “ 
slaughterhouses performing slaughter without stunning. 

The consequences of the implementation of this scenario should be further checked. Annex 
II  of  the  Regulation  can  be  adapted  if  there  is  scientific  or  technical  progress  and  after  an 
advice from EFSA to do so (see Article 14.3). The same holds for Annex III of the Regulation 
(see Article 15. 4). By following the procedures in Article 25 adaptations can be implemented 
through the comitology procedure.  

Finally,  we  assume  that  in  each  country  5  –  10%  of  the  smaller  slaughterhouses  will  be 
impacted  by  this  scenario.  For  these  slaughterhouses,  we  assumed  that  they  will  cease 
production instead of investing in a new restraint system.  

141 

 
 
 
ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS 

BoRest final report June 2015 

The impact assessment per scenario is structured in the same way as the comparison of the 
upright  and  rotating  restraint  system:  economic  aspects,  religious  aspects,  work  safety, 
intra-EU trade and trade with third countries and animal welfare. 

SCENARIO 1: BASELINE  

Economic costs 

As  described  in  the  PEST  analysis,  it  is  expected  that  the  number  of  bovine  animals 
slaughtered  without  stunning  will  increase  slightly  in  the  EU,  mainly  because  the  Muslim 
population is expected to grow. In addition to this, Research and Markets (2014) forecasts 
the  European halal  food  market to  grow  annually with  about 2%  between  2013  and 2018. 
We  assumed  a  growth  of  16%  between  2014  and  2029  for  the  number  of  bovine  animals 
slaughtered without stunning. 

434 slaughterhouses were allowed to perform slaughtering without pre-stunning in the EU 
in 2012. Not all of these were operational or actually performing slaughter without stunning 
For  example,  approximately  40  were  not  operational  in  Italy  and  the  United  Kingdom 
according to partners.  

Furthermore, in France, almost one third of slaughterhouses were closed between 2002 and 
2010 (Ravaux, 2011). These data should be interpreted with caution because several factors 
are  at  play  (for  instance,  food  safety,  territorial  development  and  strong  interest  in  local 
food  supply  chain,  transport,  regional  and  national  legislation)  and  because  it  was  a  non-
linear trend. Yet, this trend probably also occurs in other countries, particularly where there 
are large numbers of small slaughterhouses (e.g. Italy, Spain). On the other hand, slaughter 
without stunning may rise in other countries, for instance in Eastern Europe. However, the 
numbers  in  these  countries  were  very  low  in  2012  and  even  a  doubling  would  not 
significantly affect the overall results of the scenarios.  

Altogether, it is expected that in 15 years there will be an overall decrease from 434  to 3008 
slaughterhouses which are allowed to perform slaughter without stunning of bovine animals 
with  the  closure  of  smaller,  financially  unviable,  slaughterhouses..  This  means  also  a 
significant increase in the number of bovines slaughtered per slaughterhouse. 

8 All calculations in this section are based on the last year  of the scope  of this analysis, 
the 15th year.  

142 

 
 
 
                                                                 
BoRest final report June 2015 

As  follows  from  table  44  slaughtering  costs  per  animal  will  decline  if  the  total  number  of 
bovine animals slaughtered increases. 

With  respect  to  variation  in  annual  number  of  animals  slaughtered  without  stunning  in 
slaughterhouses we expect the most inefficient slaughterhouses with low line speed to close 
down, as they will experience difficulties in maintaining economical viable production (high 
costs  and  low  numbers  of  animal  slaughtered).  However,  some  of  these  small  regional 
slaughterhouses  could  survive by concentrating  their  activities  on  seasonal peak  times  and 
religious  festivals  where  demand  for  halal  and  kosher  meat  is  higher  and  customers  are 
willing to pay higher prices.  

Given the long lifespan of restraint system (14 to 25 years for rotating systems and 30 to 50 
years for upright systems) and because of recent investments in slaughterhouses (see Figure 
12,  p54),  no  big  shifts  are  expected  in  this  system  in  slaughterhouses  compared  with  the 
data reported in Section 4. In case of replacement, the choice of the type of system will be 
influenced by national regulations (for example, the ban on rotating systems in the United 
Kingdom)  and  religious  acceptability.  Within  a  certain  type  of  restraint  system, 
slaughterhouse  managers  look  at  total  investment  cost,  commercial  relations  with  the 
manufacturer, animal welfare and work safety for the selection of a certain system. 

To  conclude  on  economic  costs,  due  to  the  overall  structural  evolution  towards  bigger 
slaughterhouses,  and  therefore  economies  of  scale,  economic  costs  related  to  slaughter 
without  stunning  bovine  animals  are  likely  to  decrease,  whatever  the  restraining  system 
considered. 

Religious aspects 

Regulation  (EC)  No  1099/2009  respects  freedom  of  religion  through  a  derogation  from 
stunning animals.  

Regarding  the  religious  expectations  in  terms  of  the  restraint  system,  the  results  of  the 
interviews show that Jewish religious representatives prefer to continue their interpretation 
of  the  rites  i.e.  inverted  position  is  strongly  recommended.  The  opinion  of  Muslim 
representatives is less firm and may evolve as it appears today that some of them think that 
bovine animals should be restrained in lateral recumbency on the left side. Even if they are 
more flexible, this interpretation will promote the use of rotating restraint systems.  

However,  it  should  be  taken  into  account,  that  in  most  countries,  there  are  recurrent 
concerns  about  stunning  or  labelling.  This  may  also  have  a  technical  impact.  For  example, 
post-cut stunning favours restraining in an upright or lateral position. These topics were not 
in  the  scope  of  this  study  but  may  impact  future  decisions  on  the  choice  of  the  restraint 
system.  

143 

 
 
 
In  the  overall,  we  do  not  expect  major  changes  in  the  religious  expectations  which  could 
substantially affect the type of restraining systems for cattle.  

BoRest final report June 2015 

Work safety 

In  the  baseline  scenario  the  present  EU  policy  regarding  restraint  bovine  animals  during 
slaughter  without  stunning  will  remain.  This  research  shows  that  work  safety  plays  an 
important  role  in  the  decision  for  slaughterhouse  managers  to  choose  a  restraint  system. 
Findings of this research also show that regarding the system which is currently in use, only a 
few incidents are reported with minor impacts for the health of slaughter men  – they were 
still  able to  continue  working. In  addition,  based  on  the data  provided, no  clear  difference 
between  the  two  types  of  system  has  been  identified  regarding  their  work  safety 
performances.  Moreover  and  as  we  mentioned  earlier,  according  to  respondents  to  our 
study, the main risk for workers is the hoisting of the animals. Taken into account that the 
implementation  of  the  new  regulation  will  generalize  the  obligation  of  checking 
unconsciousness before releasing the animals from restraint, we can expect fewer incidents 
in relation with struggling, for example, in this area.  

Compulsory  training  will  also  help  to  improve  the  skills  of  the  slaughtermen  in  particular 
regarding their ability to better analyse and anticipate the behaviour of the bovine animals. 
This will normally lead to reduced work safety risks. 

Altogether,  it  is  assumed  that  an  improvement  of  work  safety  will  happen  in  this  scenario 
even  if  it  is  not  possible  to  quantify  the  decrease  of  risk  of  incidents  nor  the  severity  of 
incidents.  

Intra-EU trade and trade with third countries  

No  specific  developments  are expected  for the baseline  scenario.  Intra-EU  trade  and  trade 
with  third  countries  in  halal  and  kosher  meat  are  both  small  and  there  are  no  signs  that 
these  trade  volumes  will  change  significantly  in  the  near  future.  Moreover,  the  risk  of 
banning  slaughter  without  stunning  in  the  main  countries  (France,  the  Netherlands,  Spain, 
UK and Belgium) is negligible. A significant shift in production and/or trade flows within EU is 
not foreseen because the majority of production is for local markets.  

The cost of slaughtering depends mainly on line speed and labour costs. Restraint systems 
are  only  a  minor  part  of  the  total  capital  investment  and  of  the  total  slaughter  costs  for 
bovine  animals.  Based  on  our  results  in  Section  5,  the  restraint  system  has  also  a  minor 
effect  on  line  speed  because  most  time  is  spent  in  handling  the  animals  and  not  in 
restraining them before the cut.  

Therefore,  the  competiveness  of  slaughterhouses  will  depend  on  other  factors  than  the 
restraint system.  

144 

 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Animal welfare 

Due to Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, standard operating procedures (including emergency 
plans) will be implemented in slaughterhouses.  

Where slaughter without stunning is allowed, we have identified 3 cases: countries without 
any  additional  conditions,  countries  where  specific  conditions  are  in  force  and  countries 
where a post-cut stun is compulsory. However, authorization with specific conditions applies 
to  almost  all  the  main  countries.  Therefore  we  do  not  expect  in  the  next  years  a  ban  on 
upright or rotating restraint systems.  

Implementation of standard operating procedures may vary significantly between countries. 
In  France,  for  example,  standard  operating  procedures  should  be  based  on  the  national 
Guide  to  Good  Practices  which  was  primarily designed  by  the  industry with the  support  of 
scientists,  then  reviewed  by  the  Ministry  and  by  the  French  food  safety  authority  before 
being officially recognised. Animal welfare organizations and representatives from religious 
communities were also consulted. Finally the guide was endorsed by all the stakeholders and 
each  slaughterhouse  should  refer  to  it  when  implementing  its  own  standard  operating 
procedures.  The  certificate  of  competence  is  given  to  the  different  operators  based  on 
training and their knowledge of the national guide to good practice. 

In the UK and the Netherlands, on the other hand, the competent authorities have adopted 
some legal requirements, but each slaughterhouse is required to individually and separately 
implement its own standard operating procedures. There currently appears to be a general 
reluctance in these countries to enter into a process of jointly designing guidelines.  

In  Spain,  the  situation  differs  between  regions  (Comunidades  Autónomas),  but  in  general, 
and especially in high-capacity slaughterhouses, veterinary officials ensure that operators do 
not keep the animals in the restraint system for too long. Some slaughterhouses manage the 
situation by introducing a waiting area of hoisted animals already (or almost) dead, so as not 
to affect line speed. In other cases, they apply post-cut stunning. So, although restraining is 
being  included  in  the  standard  operating  procedures  of  each  slaughterhouse,  there  is  no 
uniformity  and  little  communication  between  slaughterhouses  to  harmonize  minimum 
requirements.  

Lastly, in Italy there is a wide variety of approved systems and rules due to the fact that the 
responsibility  is  assumed  by numerous  local  authorities  who have different  interpretations 
of the regulation. The national reference centre for animal welfare just published a guideline 
for the implementation of the Regulation (June 2014). Training, however, is carried out by a 
single  institution  and  dedicated  to  selected  personnel  from  the  competent  authority.  The 
limited number of personnel trained may slower the dissemination of good practices in Italy.  

145 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

France  represents  almost  60%  of  all  bovine  slaughter  without  stunning  in  the  EU  (see 
“competent  authorities  survey”-2012).  Therefore,  the  progressive  dissemination  of  the 
Guide to Good Practices and implementation of  standard operating procedures will have a 
significant  impact  on  bovine  animals  welfare.  It  is  also  expected  that  the  Guide  to  Good 
Practices will be continuously updated to include new technical and scientific developments. 
So far, some major requirements (e.g. duration of restraint after the cut) have already been 
implemented  in  most  slaughterhouses.    All  slaughtermen  involved  in  slaughter  without 
stunning have undergone training since the end of 2013 and they should be retrained every 
5 years.  

In  other  countries,  some  additional  legal  requirements  will  have  the  same  effect,  for 
example in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands and Spain. The situation may however be 
slightly  different  from  France  because  it  seems  that  there  is  limited  trust  between  the 
different stakeholders and reluctance to collaborate in certain cases.  

On  the  basis  of  these  developments,  we  may  expect  that  a  significant  part  of  the  bovine 
animals  slaughtered  without  stunning  in  the  EU  will  benefit  from  improved  standard 
operating procedures over the next 15 years.  Of the 2,400,000 bovine animals slaughtered 
without  stunning  in  2029,  it  is  therefore  expected  that    1,600,000  animals  (or  64%  of  the 
improved  standard  operating  procedures  related  to  the 
animals)  will  benefit  from 
implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009). 

However,  even  though  improvements  in  animal  welfare  may  be  expected,  there  are  some 
limitations:  

  The  impact  of  improved  standard  operating  procedures  on  animal  welfare  will 
depend  on  the  targets  stated  therein  (e.g.  threshold  for  monitoring,  duration  of 
restraint);  

  Research is still needed to improve the handling of the animals at the entrance of the 
restraint device or to better understand the factors that affect loss of consciousness 
after the cut.  

  There may be a lack of harmonization between countries as is presently the case for 
the  restraint  system.  For  example,  the  Italian  guideline  allows  the  use  of  rope  for 
head  restraint  when  the  body  of  the  animal  is  mechanically  immobilized.  On  the 
contrary, the use of rope is forbidden in France. 

  There  may  be  a  focus  on  some  part  of  the  process  (for  example  restraint  duration 

after the cut) and less attention paid to restraint in itself.  

  Some  difficulties  may  appear  because  of  distrust  between  the  stakeholders  or 

because of lack of references.  

146 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 46 : Comparison of scenario 2 “Non-binding support measures” with the baseline scenario on 
the different judgement areas.  

(Source: BoRest study “Socio-economic implications”) 

Scenario 2* 

Differences compared to baseline scenario 

Judgement area 

Economic costs 

Religious acceptability 

Work safety 

Intra-EU  Trade  and 
with third countries 

trade 

- 

0 

++ 

0 

Animal welfare 

+++ 

Small investments in add on’s 
Time for education and training  

No differences: all types of restraint systems 
are allowed 

Better processes with less incidents and/or 
less severe incidents. 

No change in production nor in Intra-EU 
trade and trade with third countries 

Improved processes in the bleeding area, 
with better welfare for bovine animals 
slaughtered without stunning. 

*For each judgement area a qualitative label is provided indicating whether the area is improving (+) or not (-) 
and how much in comparison with the baseline situation.  

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

SCENARIO 2: NON-BINDING SUPPORT MEASURES 

Compared to the baseline scenario some impacts can be expected. Firstly, these impacts are 
summarized in table 46 followed by an explanation beneath that. From this we can conclude 
that  in  comparison  with  the  baseline,  improved  animal  welfare  is  at  the  top  in  scenario  2 
followed  by  better  work  conditions  at  minimal  cost.    All  these  evolutions  will  have  an 
additional cost for the EU and for the slaughterhouse in the short run.  

Economic costs 

In  this  scenario  the  course  of  the  number  of  slaughterhouses  and  animals  slaughtered 
without stunning is comparable with that expected in the baseline. 

In comparison with the baseline, this scenario will increase costs for slaughterhouses. Some 
investments are needed in add-on’s to better monitor the process and animal welfare during 
restraining. However, in general the costs will be marginal while quality improvement can be 
realised  with  small  investment  in  add-ons  of  restraining  system,  without  changing  the  line 
speed and without additional man power. So we foresee hardly any obstacle from this point 
of  view.  Of  course,  as  in  every  sector,  for  individual  companies  costs  can  turn  out  to  be 
higher than the average that we forecast.  

Moreover, the costs per adult cattle slaughtered for both restraint systems will not change 
significantly, given the fact that line speed is decisive for the slaughter costs. 

For  slaughterhouses  and  slaughtermen  this  scenario  will  in  the  short  run  cost  time  for 
training  and  implementation  of  the  improved  standard  operating  procedures.  Part  of  the 
improved  standard  operating  procedures  will  focus  both  on  the  monitoring  of  animal 
welfare and work safety. These costs can be minimized if the training and implementation is 
part  of  a  ‘normal’  training  program.  As  such,  this  scenario  will  first  increase  costs  but  can 
generate benefits if the process in the bleeding area can be optimized and e.g. the line speed 
can be increased. In addition,  the technical and scientific  studies to refine existing  systems 
and  operating  procedures  can  support  an  increase  in  the  quality  of  the  processes  of  the 
bleeding area.  

In  short,  the  costs  of  implementing  this  scenario  primarily  consist  of  developing  improved 
standard operating procedures and disseminating them. For developing the procedures the 
technical  recommendations  from  the  present  study  can  be  used,  in  conjunction  with 
information on existing procedures like the French guide to good practice. 

For this, this judgement area is scored with a  small minus because of the cost increases in 
the short run.  

148 

 
 
 
Religious aspects 

Within  this  scenario  all  religious  wishes  are  expected  to  be  fulfilled,  like  in  the  baseline 
scenario. So for this, no change is expected.  

BoRest final report June 2015 

Workers’ safety  

The  support  measures  in  this  scenario  are  improving  process  quality  and  hereby  worker’s 
safety is one of the benefitting areas. A better organisation of the working area is foreseen 
while knowledge and practise are deepened.  A significant positive impact can be expected if 
measures  are  implemented  by  slaughterhouses,  slaughtermen  and  national  authorities 
because the interaction between animals, people and equipment is improved.  

By improving the standard operating procedures, by additional education and training of the 
slaughtermen,  and  by  improving  the  restraint  systems  simultaneously,  work  safety  can  be 
increased.  Results  of  this  research  show  that  directors  of  slaughterhouses  are  highly 
interested  in  improving  work  safety.  Based  on  the  arguments  it  can  be  expected  that  the 
majority of slaughterhouses and slaughtermen are willing to join the program for improving 
the quality of the processes. The drawback is that such a program is already implemented on 
national scale in France. Therefore we leave France out of the calculations for this part. As a 
result,  in  60%  of  the  other  slaughterhouses  (all  slaughterhouses  excluding  France)  the 
operators will benefit9.  For this, this area is scored with two plusses. 

Intra-EU trade and trade with third countries  

No  major  change  in  slaughter  costs  is  forecasted  in  this  scenario.  This  implies  that  the 
competitiveness of slaughterhouses will not be affected by this nor the trade flows of meat 
from  bovine  animals  slaughtered  without  stunning.  Competiveness  of  slaughterhouses  will 
depend  on  other  factors  than  the  implementation  of  improved  standard  operation 
procedures, for example entrepreneurship. For this, no change is expected. 

9 At least one team of operators is active in the restraining area, but common practice is 
the presence of more teams. 

149 

 
 
 
                                                                 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Animal Welfare  

In  this  scenario  support  measures  are 
introduced  and  aiming  at  accelerating  the 
improvement of the quality of the slaughtering process in terms of animal welfare and work 
safety.  Improved  standard  operating  procedures,  better  trained  operators  and  improved 
equipment are input and, when applied correctly, key output will be an improved interaction 
between  people,  animals  and  restraint  system.  Adding  the  focus  on  animal  welfare  (e.g. 
optimized  and  monitored  restraining  method,  limited  duration  of  restraint  or  improved 
design  of  the  head  restrainer)  positive  effects  on  animal  welfare  are  expected  for  this 
scenario. This holds for both types of restraint systems. 

Slaughtering  is  not  a  fully  mechanized  operation,  so  the  well-being  of  the  animals  partly 
depends  on  the  work  and  the  skills  of  the  personnel.  This  scenario  will  increase  the 
knowledge  of  slaughter  men  regarding  animal  behaviour.  This  will  positively  impact  on 
animal  welfare.  Operators  will  become  more  adequately  trained  to  recognise  animals’ 
behaviour and intervene whenever necessary to reduce for example stress. On the basis of 
these  developments,  we  may  expect  that  annually  some  800,000  animals  slaughtered 
without stunning in the EU will benefit from improved standard operating procedures over 
the next 15 years (33% of the animals slaughtered in 2029). For this, this judgement area is 
score with three plusses. 

150 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 47 :  Comparison of scenario 3 : “legal minimum requirements for restraint  system” with the 
baseline scenario on the different judgement areas 

(Source: BoRest study  “Socio-economic implications”) 

Judgement area 

Economic costs 

Religious acceptability 

Work safety 

Intra-EU  Trade  and  trade 
with third countries 

Animal welfare 

Scenario 3* 

- 

0 

+ 

0 

+ 

Differences compared to baseline 
scenario 

15 to 32 slaughterhouse will cease 
slaughtering bovine animals without 
stunning. A small part of the restraint 
system will not be fully depreciated. 

Both types of restraint systems 
(upright and rotating) are permitted 

By phasing out the inferior restraint 
system also some dangerous work 
conditions will disappear and work 
safety will be increased for few 
workers  

No change in production nor in Intra-
EU Trade and trade with third 
countries 

Better welfare for 1 to 3% of the 
animals slaughtered without stunning 

aThe  judgement  areas  are  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario.  For  each  area  a  qualitative  label  is  provided 
indicating whether the area is improving (+) or not (-) in comparison with the base line situation. 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

SCENARIO 3: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTRAINT SYSTEM 

Compared  to  the  baseline  scenario  some  impacts  can  be  expected  by  implementing 
minimum  requirements  for  restraint  systems.  Firstly,  these  are  summarized  in  table  47 
followed by an explanation beneath that. From this we can conclude that in comparison with 
the  baseline  scenario,  animal  welfare  will  be  improved  in  scenario  3  followed  by  slightly 
better work conditions at minimal cost. 

Economic costs 

Restraint systems should meet minimum requirements in this scenario. In general, no costs 
are foreseen other than costs to check if the present restraint systems meet the minimum 
requirements. Only for a small part of slaughterhouses in EU this scenario could add costs in 
the bleeding area to adapt the present system to meet the minimum requirements. Based 
on expert judgement we assume that improving the system currently in use is hardly likely. 
As  such,  present  restraint  systems  will  not  be  adjusted  and  systems  will  not  be  replaced 
either.  Instead  these  slaughterhouses  will  cease  slaughtering  without  stunning,  or  even 
cease  production  altogether.  All  slaughterhouses  with  poorly  designed  systems  will  be 
affected  since  the  minimum  requirements  are  mandatory.  As  we  hypothesized  above,  not 
more  than  5  to  10%  of  the  slaughterhouses  use  poorly  designed  system  (15-32 
slaughterhouses). It is difficult to predict the precise number of slaughterhouses which may 
be affected; this will need further investigations because it will also depend on the level of 
the  minimum  standards  required.  No  essential  differences  or  shift  between  upright  and 
rotating system are expected. For this, this judgement area is scored with a minus. 

Religious aspects 

The  modifications  are  such  that  all  religious  wishes  will  be  fulfilled,  like  in  the  baseline 
scenario.  For this, no change is expected. 

Worker’s safety 

By  phasing  out  the  restraint  systems  that  do  not  meet  the  minimum  requirements  work 
safety will be improved. So the number of scarce incidents, which we assume to be related 
with inferior restraining systems, will be further reduced. The uniqueness of the cases makes 
it impossible to calculate the number of operators that will be affected by this scenario. For 
this,  we  expect  the  work  safety  conditions  for  a  few  operators  in  the  bleeding  area  to 
improve which is scored with a plus. 

152 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Intra EU trade and trade with third countries 

No  change  in  slaughter  costs  and  in  demand  and  supply  of  meat  from  bovine  animals 
slaughtered  without  stunning  is  forecasted  in  this  scenario  compared  to  the  baseline 
scenario. This also means that competition among slaughterhouses will not be affected and 
sub consequently the trade flow of meat from bovine animals slaughtered without stunning. 
For this, no change is expected. 

Animal Welfare 

By  phasing  out  the  restraint  systems  that  do  not  meet  the  minimum  requirements  animal 
welfare  will  be  improved.  It  is  assumed  that  the  restraint  systems  that  hurt  the  animal 
welfare the most will be banned in the future.  

As  most  of  the  existing  restraint  systems  will  meet  the  minimum  requirements  the  animal 
welfare will not change in many slaughterhouses. Annually around 30,000 – 70,000 animals 
will benefit (1-3%).  

For this, this judgement area is scored with a plus.  

153 

 
 
 
 
Table 48 : Comparison of the different  scenario with the baseline on all judgement areas. 

(Source: BoRest study “Socio-economic implications”) 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Judgement 
area 

Baseline 

Scenario 2 : Non-binding support 
measures 
- 

Scenario 3 :Minimum requirements 
for restraining systems 
- 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Economic 
costs 

Religious 
acceptability 

Work safety 

Intra  EU  trade 
and trade with 
third countries 

Animal 
welfare 

No additional adjustment cost as all 
expenses for the measures are voluntary and 
financially supported by EU 
Additional training and advice through 
support measures will be more valuable for 
small and medium enterprise where staff is 
limited 
0 

Almost negligible increase in cost; a few 
slaughterhouse probably close down 
because restraint  system does not meet 
minimum requirements 

0 

No change compared to the baseline 

No change compared to the baseline 

++ 

+ 

If a slaughterhouse decides to take up the 
gauntlet, scenario 2 deals with an integrated 
approach. Key output will be an improved 
interaction between people, animals and 
restraint system and better work safety. 
0 

One element of the process is positively 
influenced: the system. But it is only one 
element, other variables are not directly 
impacted by this scenario, so small 
positive impact on work safety 
0 

No change compared to the baseline 

No change compared to the baseline 

+++ 

+ 

If a slaughterhouse decides to take up the 
gauntlet, scenario 2 deals with an integrated 
approach. Key output will be an improved 
interaction between people, animals and 
restraint system. This scenario 2 will lead to 
a more deep-rooted improvement of animal 
welfare 

By phasing out the restraint systems that 
do not meet the minimum requirements 
animal welfare will be improved. As most 
of the existing restraint system will meet 
the minimum requirement; in many 
slaughterhouses the animal welfare will 
not change. 

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

COMPARING THE SCENARIOS 

The main results are summarized in table 48. 

The biggest impact in the near future on animal welfare and work safety is expected for the 
baseline scenario. The reason is that in France, with estimated almost 60% of all slaughtered 
animal without stunning in the EU (2012), a voluntary program is running where improved 
standard  operating  procedures  are 
in  the  slaughterhouses  with  the 
implemented 
involvement  and  approval  of  all  stakeholders.  Such  program  is  lacking  in  other  Member 
States  with  a  substantial  number  of  bovine  animals  slaughtered  without  stunning,  The 
Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom and Belgium.  

In  comparison  with  the  baseline  scenario,  both  alternative  scenarios  will  positively 
contribute  to  animal  welfare  and  work  safety.  Especially  in  scenario  2  bovine  animals  and 
operators  will  benefit  more  than  in  scenario  3.  Economic  cost  score  a  small  minus  in  both 
alternative  scenarios  while  the  other  judgement  areas  are  not  affected  compared  to  the 
baseline.  

In  the  baseline  scenario  the  conditions  for  the  majority  of  bovine  animals  and  a  lot  of 
workers is already improved. Scenario 2 would add to this, but contribution of scenario 3 is 
relatively  marginal.  For  example  in  the  baseline  64%  of  the  animals  slaughtered  will  have 
better welfare conditions in the bleeding area and scenario 2 and 3 will add a maximum of 
33%  and  3%  to that  figure.  If  a  slaughterhouse decides to take up the  gauntlet,  scenario  2 
deals with a more integrated approach, while in scenario 3 animal welfare will be improved 
by phasing out restraint systems that do not meet the minimum requirements. As such the 
expected  impact  on  animal  welfare  and  work  safety  in  scenario  3  is  far  less  than  the 
expected impact of scenario 2. 

Some remarks have to be made with respect to the impact of scenario 2: there will be a split 
between  slaughterhouses  voluntary  introducing  improved  standard  operating  procedures 
and  train  their  people  and  slaughterhouses  not  changing  anything.  Though  part  of  the 
optimisation  of the  slaughter  process  in  the  bleeding  area  (=  scenario 2)  can  be  financially 
supported  by  the  EU  through  dissemination,  training  and  advice  program  by  local  experts 
these support measures are voluntary. Therefore this scenario runs the risk that many small 
slaughterhouses performing the slaughter of bovine animals without stunning only in peak 
periods will not make use of these voluntary measures. Also slaughterhouses that have plans 
to stop their activities will probably not use the support measures (this is only a temporary 
problem). On the other hand, financial support can stimulate a collective approach in other 
countries like in France. We may expect that incentives from the European level may help to 
disseminate the information and share experience and, consequently, induce improvement 
and harmonisation. 

155 

 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

INDICATORS FOR MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The terms of references requests for core progress indicators of a possible EU intervention. However, 
the possible interventions with regard to restraint systems are limited to:  

a.  non-binding support measures;  
b.  defining minimum requirements for restraint systems. 

For all the scenarios upright restraint systems and rotating restraint systems are allowed at EU level. 
Therefore  we  focus  on  indicators  for  monitoring  the  evolution  of  the  future  situation  under 
Regulation (EC) No 1099/ 2009.  

In line with the “study on various methods of stunning for poultry” (FCEC, 2012) we note that general 
monitoring of the legislation on animal welfare is included in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on official 
controls  on  feed  and  food.  What  is  required  for  the  restraint  system  is  the  gathering  of  specific 
figures to get an overview of the developments in: 

  number of slaughterhouses performing slaughter without stunning (number of 

authorizations); 
the number of (bovine) animals cut without stunning; 
type of restraining system used; 

 
 
  presence of standard operating procedures. 

These figures of the  context  should be  collected annually or bi-annually to see the progress made. 
Member  States,  where  slaughtering  of  bovine  animals  without  pre-stunning  is  allowed,  should  be 
requested to provide this information to the Commission in a standard format. This study shows that 
in  2013  not  all  national  governments  have  a  central  list  of  these  figures.  Two  main  countries  with 
regard  to  bovine  animals  slaughtered  without  stunning  are  among  them  France  and  the  United 
Kingdom. The study also shows that Member States who have such lists are not always able to give 
the updated information.  

If it is fairly impossible to gather these data by these Member States, or this system is deemed to be 
too much a burden on Member States or slaughterhouses, a periodic survey can be carried out like 
was done in this study.  A survey can be combined with visits to slaughterhouses. In that case also 
some  output  indicators  can  be  gathered  like  number  of  training  executed  and  certificates  for 
slaughtermen, welfare officers and work safety officers. In this case also indicators related to animal 
welfare or work safety (see annex 10 for possible indicators) can be gathered. 

. 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

CONCLUSION ON THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS 

Religious  acceptability  is  the  most  important  factor  for  the  choice  of  a  type  of  restraint 
system. A general preference for rotating system is expressed by religious representatives of 
the Jewish and Muslim community in all countries.  

The  differences  between  the  upright  and  rotating  restraint  system  regarding  other  socio-
economic aspects are small. The upright restraint system is cheaper in use than the rotating 
system (less than 1 euro per bovine animal for regular use of the system) but other factors 
like numbers of animals slaughtered and line speed are far more decisive for the slaughter 
costs.  

The choice of the restraint system has a minor impact on competitiveness of the European 
slaughterhouses  compared  to  main  exporting  countries  of  meat  of  bovine  animals  cut 
without stunning. 

Where  using  a  modern  restraning  system,  work  safety  is  more  linked  to  the  layout  of 
bleeding/hoisting areas and the operating procedures than to the type of restraining system 
used. 

Although  the  information  is  scattered  it  can  be  assumed  that  at  least  80%  of  the  bovine 
animals slaughtered without stunning are slaughtered with  a modern restraining system in 
the  EU.  If  these  systems  are  used  in  the  right  way  neither  animal  welfare  nor  work  safety 
should be unduly endangered. However, in practice the process from entering the animal in 
the bleeding area till hoisting the animal is often not optimal, and this leads to situations in 
which  animal  welfare  is  endangered.  In  the  18  slaughterhouses  visited,  there  were  some 
possible improvement at different stage of the process. 

Besides the suboptimal slaughtering process there is also a small minority (estimated at 5 to 
10%)  of  restraint  systems  that  don’t  meet  the  minimum  requirements  (according  to  the 
judgement  of  the  experts  involved  in  this  project)  to  slaughter  bovine  animals  without 
stunning under optimal conditions for the welfare of the animals.  

The different scenarios will not impact the use of the type of restraint systems in practice. 
Upright and rotating systems are allowed in all scenarios. 

Opting for no additional EU action (baseline scenario) will increase animal welfare and work 
safety  in  many  slaughterhouses.  In  France  (which  represents  nearly  60%  of  the  bovine 
in  the  EU),  a  national  voluntaryprogram  for 
animals  slaughtered  without  stunning 
developing and implementing standard operating procedures and educating and training of 
people involved in the bleeding area is implemented. Such a program is still lacking in some 
other Member States where many bovine animals are slaughtered without stunning.  

157 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Opting for non-binding support measures will speed up the improvement of animal welfare 
during  slaughtering  without  stunning,  especially  in  other  Member  States  than  France. 
Experiences  from  France  show  that  commitment,  trust  and  cooperation  of  government, 
is  needed  to  develop  and 
slaughterhouses  managers  and  religious  representatives 
implement such a programme.  

One  important  condition  exists  at  this  moment.  All  stakeholders  interviewed  are  willing  to 
enhance  animal  welfare  and  the  work  safety  of  the  people  working  in  the  bleeding  area. 
However, mutual trust among stakeholders is not present in all EU Member States and this 
might limit the efficiency of such option. In addition, this option has two negative aspects: 
firstly, it involves for the EU budget one-off costs of around 1 million Euros to develop and 
implement  improved  standard  operating  programmes  and  research  program.  Secondly, 
differences  within  countries  and  slaughterhouses  who  participate  and  who  do  not  may 
increase.  

Opting  for  minimum  requirements  for  restraint  system  has  as  advantage  that  almost  no 
costs  or  investments  are  involved  (only  for  15  to  32  slaughterhouses  not  meeting  the 
minimum  requirements).  The  disadvantage  is  that  this  scenario  will  have  less  additional 
impact  on  animal  welfare  and  work  safety  as  only  slaughterhouses  not  meeting  the 
minimum requirements are affected. The main drawback of this scenario, compared to the 
second one, is that we expect that only a few restraining devices  will be banned and most 
slaughterhouses will not be affected at all. As such the impact on animal welfare and work 
safety in scenario 3 is far less than the impact of scenario 2. 

158 

 
 
 
  
7.  GENERAL CONCLUSION 

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY 

BoRest final report June 2015 

In slaughterhouses, bovine are restrained in upright position in a box before being stunned, 
mainly  by  a  penetrating  captive  bolt.  However,  the  EU  legislation  (Regulation  (EC)  No 
1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing) also allows the possibility to 
derogate  from  stunning  animals  in  the  case  of  religious  slaughter  (Jewish  and  Muslim 
methods of slaughter). 

For  that  purpose,  specific  restraining  systems  have  been  designed  to  reverse  the  animal 
upside  down  or  on  its  side  in order  to facilitate  the  cutting  by the  slaughterman  (rotating 
system).  However,  during  the  process  of  adoption  of  Regulation  (EC) No 1099/2009, there 
was a debate on the welfare aspects of such rotating restraining system. 

As  a result,  this  regulation requires  the  Commission to  submit  to the  European Parliament 
and  the  Council  a  report  on  systems  restraining  bovine  animals  by  inversion  or  any 
unnatural position.  

The purpose of the present study was therefore to collect the relevant information  for the 
preparation of the above mentioned Commission report. Here below are the main findings 
of the study. 

The  study  exclusively  refers  to  the  slaughter  without  stunning  of  bovine  animals  and 
conclusions are limited to this scope. The study does not aim at questioning the legitimacy of 
slaughter without stunning for religious reasons. 

RESTRAINT  PRACTICES  OF  BOVINE  ANIMALS  SLAUGHTERED  WITHOUT 
STUNNING 

No more than 8% of bovine animals were slaughtered without stunning in the EU in 2012, 
most of them (84%) in only four Member States (France, The Netherlands, Spain and United 
Kingdom) involving approximately 400 slaughterhouses.  

Almost 80% of these animals are slaughtered in a rotating device and the remaining 20% in 
an  upright  device.  Within  the  main  Member  States  that  perform  slaughtering  without 
stunning,  the  use  of  the  rotating  device  is  not  permitted  only  in  the  United  Kingdom. 
Through  a  survey  carried  out  in  116  slaughterhouses,  it  was  estimated  that  approximately 
60% of the bovine animals are slaughtered without stunning in inverted position, 17-18% of 
the animals in upright position and 15% in lateral position.  

159 

 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

More  than  30  manufacturers/models  have  been  identified  for  the  restraint  of  cattle  for 
slaughter  without  stunning.  However,  no  more  than  seven  manufacturers  of  rotating 
restraint  devices  are  present  in  more  than  half  of  the  slaughterhouses  or  in  large  scale 
slaughterhouses. This contrasts with a large diversity of the origin of the equipment, mainly 
from local manufacturers, in the other slaughterhouses. Overall, 67% of the restraint devices 
were less than 10 years old. 

Slaughterhouse  operators  primarily  choose  their  restraining  system  for  slaughter  without 
stunning  to  meet  the  religious  expectations  of  their  customers.  Religious  representatives 
from  Muslim  and  Jewish  communities  confirmed  that  inverted  or  lateral  position  is  the 
preferred  position.  Consequently,  during  the  last  30  years,  except  in  the  United  Kingdom 
where inverted systems were banned, most of the slaughterhouses in the EU have invested 
in rotating system and have optimised their procedure accordingly. 

However, upright devices are cheaper than rotating ones both in terms of investments and 
operating costs but these costs are low compared to the costs of the overall slaughter line. 
These  costs  do  not  play  a  significant  role  for  the  competitiveness  of  business  operators. 
Labour  cost,  the  line  speed  or  the  number  of  animal  slaughtered  per  year  are  factors  far 
more economically important for the competitiveness of a slaughterhouse than the type of 
restraining system. 

Little information is available on trade of halal or kosher bovine meat within the EU or with 
third  countries.  Exports  to  third  countries  (Israel  or  predominantly  Muslim  countries)  over 
the last years are very low and variable according to political agreements (e.g. Turkey). Intra-
EU trade does not appear to be very significant and most of the meat is sold locally. 

Where  using  modern  restraining  devices,  work  safety  is  more  linked  to  the  layout  of  the 
bleeding  and  hoisting  area  rather  than  the  type  of  restraining  device  itself.  Releasing  and 
hoisting the animals represent a major risk for the safety of workers and this applies to both 
restraining systems. 

WELFARE OF ANIMALS AND RESTRAINT DEVICES/PRACTICES 

In terms of animal welfare, both rotating and upright restraint systems have strengths and 
weaknesses.  Specific  animal  welfare  concerns  of  rotating  systems  are  delays  in  operation 
between entry and slaughter, and pain/stress/distress from being restrained in an unnatural 
position. Upright restraints can cause pain and distress to the animal if excessive pressure is 
applied  on  the  body  or  the  head  during  restraint,  and  more  skill  is  required  to  perform  a 
successful neck cut than inverted or lateral restraints.  

160 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

From  our  observations  on  various  animal  welfare  criteria  carried  out  on  more  than  1000 
animals  observed  from  entry  into  to  the  device  to  post  bleeding  period  in  commercial 
slaughterhouses, no  conclusive  findings  could  be  established  in  favour  of  one  of  the  two 
types  of  restraining  systems.  More  than  20  variables  were  analysed.  The  ranges  of  the 
duration  of  restraint,  the  operator  or  animal  behaviour,  the  cut  and  the  course  of  loss  of 
consciousness  after  the  cut  were  similar  in  the  different  positions.  Most  of  the  extreme 
values  observed  or  deficiencies  could  be  explained  by  inefficient  operating  procedure  or 
poor skill of operators, on one hand, or improper layout of the bleeding area or design of the 
restraint  device,  on  the  other  hand.  This  applied  to  both  restraining  system,  rotating  and 
upright. 

Based  on  these  observations  and  experts’  opinions,  we  suggest  recommendations  to 
improve the welfare of animals and workers' safety. Quantitative objective based on best 
practices  observed  (e.  g.  duration  of  restraint  in  inverted  position,  number  of  cuts)  are 
provided for animal welfare officer to monitor the efficiency of their procedure (see section 
5).  

SCENARIOS FOR FUTURE EU POLICIES 

In  addition,  the  study  explored  three  options  for  possible  future  EU  initiative:  (1)  no  EU 
action  (baseline),  (2)  non-binding  measures  and  (3)  minimum  requirements  for  restraining 
devices. 

Regulation  (EC)  No  1099/2009  applies  from  January  2013  and  its  implementation  by  the 
European meat industry is still ongoing on several aspects in particular the development of 
good practices.  

In  the  next  15  years,  the  number  of  bovine  animals  slaughtered  without  stunning  is 
expected to slightly increased in the EU (due to the growth of the Muslim population) while 
the  number  of  slaughterhouses  is  expected  to  decrease.  Based  on  previous  trends,  we 
expect that 300 slaughterhouses will perform slaughter without stunning at the end of this 
period. This will increase the number of animals slaughtered per slaughterhouse and slightly 
decrease  the  slaughter  costs.  No  major  change  is  expected  in  terms  of restraining  systems 
used or in trade of such meat (intra-EU or with third countries). 

Without any new EU initiative, we still expect an improvement of animal welfare and work 
safety  for  the  slaughter  of  bovine  animals  without  stunning.  This  is  mainly  due  to  the 
proactive strategy developed in France (guidelines and training) where more than 50% of the 
slaughter  of  bovine  animals  without  stunning  of  the  EU  took  place  (based  on  2012 
estimation). 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Compared to this baseline, the option of “non-binding support measures” would have clear 
positive  impacts  on  animal  welfare  and  work  safety,  especially  in  other  countries  than 
France  (approximately  one  third  of  the  animals  slaughtered  without  stunning)  without 
major negative effect on costs, religious acceptability or trade. This scenario is based on the 
development  of  EU  guidelines  for  improved  procedures,  additional  training,  promotion  of 
additional prerequisites and technical/pilot studies.  

Experiences  from  France  show  that  commitment,  trust  and  cooperation  between  public 
authorities,  the  meat  industry  and  religious  representatives  are  needed  to  develop  and 
implement  such  programmes.  We  consider  that  in  the  rest  of  the  EU  these  conditions  are 
also  met  since  most  EU  stakeholders  are  committed  to  improve  animal  welfare  and 
workers' safety. However, this voluntary approach involves a cost for the EU budget and the 
process  will  not  lead  to  a  more  harmonized  set  of  rules  within  European  Union  since  it  is 
likely that few operators will ignore the proposed measures.  

The  option  of  setting  up  minimum  requirements  for  restraint  device  by  amending  the 
legislation  has  the  advantage  of  generating  almost  no  costs  or  investments  (only  for 
slaughterhouses not meeting the minimum requirements). However, our observations have 
showed  that,  in  terms  of  quantitative  effect,  improvements  on  animal  welfare  and  work 
safety  largely  depend  on  the  progress  realised  on  operating  procedures  and  skills  of  the 
personnel  rather  than  by  changing  or  upgrading  pieces  of  equipment.  Therefore,  this 
scenario  will  have  much  less  positive  impact  on  animal  welfare  and  work  safety  than  the 
previous option since few slaughterhouses are likely to be concerned (expected to account 
for less than 30). 

162 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

8.  FIGURES 

Figure 1: Organization of the project ...................................................................................................................... 3 

Figure 2 : “Minimum requirements for restraint device” ..................................................................................... 10 

Figure 3 : Example of rotating restraint in inverted position (source: Banss) ....................................................... 10 

Figure 4 : Number of adult cattle and calves slaughtered in the 27 Member States ........................................... 24 

Figure  5  :  Use  of  rotating  or  upright  restraint  device  for  bovine  animals  in  the  13  Member  States  where 
slaughter without stunning is performed (Source: BoRest Study 'competent authorities survey'-Data: 2012) 28 

Figure 6 : Number of adult cattle and calves slaughtered in the 6 countries selected by the study .................... 32 

Figure 7 : Number and percentage of bovine animals slaughtered with and without stunning in the 6 selected 
countries in 2012 .................................................................................................................................................. 32 

Figure  8  :  Number  and  percentage  of  bovine  animals  slaughtered  with  or  without  stunning  and  restraining 
systems used to perform slaughter without stunning .......................................................................................... 34 

Figure  9  :  Number  and  percentage  of  respondents  to  the  survey  compared  to  the  total  number  of 
slaughterhouses licensed to perform slaughter of bovine animals without stunning in the selected countries . 38 

Figure 10 : Number of calves and adult cattle slaughtered according to conventional slaughtering, dhabiha and 
shechita rite in the 116 slaughterhouses surveyed .............................................................................................. 40 

Figure 11 : Type and number of restraining devices used in the 116 slaughterhouses of the sample ................. 40 

Figure 12 : Number of devices according to the year of investment .................................................................... 44 

Figure  13  :  Description  of  the  restraining  practices  used  to  slaughter  adult  cattle  in  terms  of  number  of 
slaughterhouses and in terms of number of animals slaughtered ..................................................................... 44 

Figure 14 : Number of slaughterhouses according to the restraining practices used .......................................... 46 

Figure  15  :  Number  of  adult  bovine  animals  slaughtered  without  stunning  according  to  the  restraining 
practices used in the 6 selected countries ........................................................................................................... 46 

Figure  16  :  Percentage  of  slaughterhouses  and  calves  slaughtered  without  stunning  according  to  the 
restraining practices ............................................................................................................................................. 47 

Figure 17 : Standard pattern of the used of rotating device ................................................................................. 58 

Figure 18 : Standard pattern of the used of upright device .................................................................................. 58 

Figure 19 : Research design for socio-economic research .................................................................................. 115 

163 

 
BoRest final report June 2015 

164 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

9.  TABLES 

 ..................................................................................................................................................................................  

Table  1  :  Summary  of  the  location  visited  in  the  different  countries  and  the  groups  of  animals  assessed 
according to the category of animals and the restraining method......................................................................... 5 

Table 2 : Basic principles of restraint device design common for all restrain systems  - adapted from Grandin’s 
(2013) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8 

Table  3  :  Studies  investigating  the  interval  between  entry  and  slaughter  for  rotating  and  upright  restraint 
systems (standard deviation SD; standard error SE) ............................................................................................. 18 

Table 4: Medium time and range (seconds) for entry and initiation of physical of restraint, start of restraint and 
end of rotation, and end of rotation and cut in cattle slaughter without stunning (Warin-Ramette & Mirabito 
2010) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 18 

Table  5  :  Studies  investigating  the  time  to  insensibility  after  ventral  neck  incision  slaughter  without  prior 
stunning in cattle and the parameters reported. ................................................................................................. 20 

Table 6 : General situation of slaughter without stunning practices in the 27 Member States ........................... 24 

Table  7  :  Number  of  slaughterhouses  officially  registered  in  the  selected  Member  States  and  number  and 
percentage of slaughterhouses performing slaughter of bovine animals without stunning ................................ 26 

Table 8 : Number and percentage of bovine animals slaughtered with and without stunning in each of the 13 
Member States where slaughter without stunning is performed ........................................................................ 28 

Table  9  :  Use  of  rotating  or  up  right  restraint  device  for  slaughter  without  stunning  of  the  bovine  animals 
according to competent authorities in the Member States in 2012* ................................................................... 30 

Table 10 : Implementation of regulation EC NO1099/2009 regarding religious slaughter in the Member States 
(Source BoRest study “competent authorities survey”-Data: 2013) .................................................................... 30 

Table  11  :  Number  of  slaughtermen  registered  in  the  6  selected  Member  States  (Source:  Borest  study 
“competent authorities survey”-Data: 2012) ....................................................................................................... 36 

Table  12  :  Profile  of  the  respondents  of  the  slaughterhouses  survey  (calves:    less  than  8  months  old  -  adult: 
more than 8 months old) ...................................................................................................................................... 38 

Table 13 :  Type and number of restraining system installed in the slaughterhouse according to the main species 
slaughtered ........................................................................................................................................................... 42 

Table 14 : Number of slaughterhouses and adult cattle slaughtered without  stunning according to the device 
(manufacturer) and the restraining practice ........................................................................................................ 48 

Table  15  :  Number  of  slaughterhouses  and  calves  slaughtered  without  stunning  according  to  the  device 
(manufacturer) and the restraining practice ........................................................................................................ 50 

Table 16: Characteristics of the slaughterhouses ................................................................................................. 54 

Table 17 : Definition of the variables analysed ..................................................................................................... 60 

165 

 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 18 : Duration (s) of entry of the adult bovine into the restraint device (from “nose in box” to “head out of 
box”) (Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) ........................................................................................ 76 

Table 19 : Human-animal interactions (HAI) during entry of adult bovine into the restraining device................ 76 

Table 20 : Animal behaviour in the restraint device- Adult bovine ...................................................................... 78 

Table 21 : Duration (s) of entry of the calves into the restraint device ................................................................ 80 

Table 22 : Behaviour of the calves during the entry into the restraint device ..................................................... 80 

Table 23 : Restraint durations (s) of adult bovines ............................................................................................... 83 

Table 24 : Vocalisation of adult bovine during restraint ....................................................................................... 85 

Table  25  :  Frequency  of  adult  bovine  with  a  “bad  head  restraint”  according  to  the  slaughterhouse  (Source: 
BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) ................................................................................................................ 87 

Table 26: Restraint durations (s) of calves ............................................................................................................ 87 

Table 27: Vocalization and quality of head restraint of calves ............................................................................. 89 

Table 28 : Number of cuts per animal - Adult bovine ........................................................................................... 91 

Table 29 : Quality of bleeding – Adult bovine ....................................................................................................... 93 

Table 30 : Number of cuts per animal - calves ...................................................................................................... 95 

Table 31 : Quality of bleeding – calves .................................................................................................................. 95 

Table  32  :  Frequency  of  animals  with  spontaneous  eyes  movements  according  to  the  period  after  the  cut 
(Source: BoRest study “assessment of welfare”) .................................................................................................. 97 

Table 33 : Frequency of animals with Eye ball rotation according to the period after the cut ............................ 99 

Table 34 : Frequency of animals with corneal reflex according to the period after the cut ............................... 100 

Table 35 : Frequency of animals with Struggle according to the period after the cut ........................................ 102 

Table 36 : Frequency of animals who inspire according to the period after the cut .......................................... 104 

Table 37 : Summary of the frequencies of adults bovine showing the different signs of consciousness or loss of 
consciousness according to the period after the cut .......................................................................................... 106 

Table  38  :    Assessed  indicators  per  judgement  area  for  the  SWOT  analysis  of  different  types  of  restraining 
devices for slaughtering bovine animals without stunning ................................................................................ 115 

Table 39 : Research topics in the questionnaires per interviewee ..................................................................... 117 

Table 40 : Number of responses per stakeholder group .................................................................................... 117 

Table 41 : Summary of the valuation of indicators to compare upright with rotating restraining systems ....... 121 

Table 42: Total costs (in euro per  year) for upright and rotating restraining systems.................................... 123 

Table 43: Costs per animal in the restraining area for upright and rotating systems for different line speeds . 125 

166 

 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Table 44: Costs per animal in the restraining area  for upright  and rotating systems for different  quantities of 
annual slaughterings (in euro) ............................................................................................................................ 125 

Table 45: Result of a PEST analysis regarding restraint of bovine animals during slaughtering without stunning
 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 136 

Table  46  :  Comparison  of  scenario  2  “Non-binding  support  measures”  with  the  baseline  scenario  on  the 
different judgement areas. ................................................................................................................................. 147 

Table 47 :  Comparison of scenario 3 : “legal minimum requirements for restraint   system” with the baseline 
scenario on the different judgement areas ........................................................................................................ 151 

Table 48 : Comparison of the different  scenario with the baseline on all judgement areas. ............................ 154 

167 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

ANNEXES 

ANNEX 1 : SURVEY OF RESTRAINING SYSTEMS CURRENTLY USED FOR CATTLE AT THE TIME OF KILLING ......... 169 

ANNEX 2 : SURVEY OF RESTRAINING SYSTEMS CURRENTLY USED FOR CATTLE AT THE TIME OF KILLING ......... 175 

ANNEX 3 : LIST OF MANUFACTURERS AND NUMBER OF DEVICES PER SELECTED COUNTRY ............................. 181 

ANNEX 4 : EQUIPMENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE WORKING AREA ............................................................. 183 

ANNEX 5 : DEFINITION OF OPERATING PROCEDURE AND BEHAVIORAL ITEMS ................................................. 185 

ANNEX 6 : “BEHAVORIAL” AND OPERATING PROCEDURE OBSERVATION .......................................................... 189 

ANNEX 7 : ANIMALS CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................................................. 193 

ANNEX 8: QUESTIONNAIRES FOR DATA COLLECTION (SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS) ............................... 195 

ANNEX 9 : METHODOLOGY FOR THE MEETING WITH RELIGIOUS REPRESENTATIVES ....................................... 211 

ANNEX 10 : PROPOSED BASIS FOR IMPROVED STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES AND WORK SAFETY ...... 213 

ANNEX  11:  VALUATION  OF  THE  INDICATORS  PER  JUDGEMENT  AREA  TO  COMPARE  THE  UPRIGHT  AND 
ROTATING RESTRAINING SYSTEM ....................................................................................................................... 217 

168 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

10. ANNEXES 

ANNEX 1 : SURVEY OF RESTRAINING SYSTEMS CURRENTLY USED FOR CATTLE 
AT THE TIME OF KILLING 

This questionnaire applies ONLY TO CATTLE. 

Please try to answer by using the data of 2012. If not, specify the year. 

1.  INTRODUCTION  

Current  EU  legislation  gives  a  dispensation  from  stunning  animals  for  religious 
slaughter  (Jewish  and  Muslim  methods  of  slaughter).  It  is  a  requirement  in  the  legislation 
that animals are immobilized until the loss of consciousness. In commercial slaughterhouses 
in  Europe,  bovines  are  currently  being  restrained  in  the  upright  position  or  inverted  (or 
restrained laterally) in a rotating box.  

During the EC Council debate that led to the adoption of Regulation 1099/2009, some 
delegates expressed concerns about the impact on animal welfare of the use of rotating box, 
while  others  argued  that  these  systems  have  some  advantages  for  slaughter  without 
stunning.  It  was  settled,  that  the  Commission  would  submit  a  report  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council,  the  report  will  be  based  on  the  results  of  a  scientific  study, 
which  will  investigate  the  animal  welfare  aspects  and  socio-economic  implications  of 
different restraint systems.  

 A consortium of scientists, economic experts and sociologists originating from 6 EU 
Member  States  and  one  non-EU  country  will  perform  the  study  that  will  be  used  for  the 
SANCO 
evaluation 
(http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/financing/docs/call_2012_10357_tor_rotating_b
ox_en.pdf).   

options 

policy 

DG 

by 

of 

The  initial  phase  of  the  study  will  collect  information  on  the  current  practices  in 
terms of restraining systems in Member States and some third countries. The objectives are 
to get information on restraining practices used for slaughter without stunning.  

In the first step, competent authorities are contacted to provide an overview of the 
situation  in  their  country,  and  provide  information  on  slaughterhouses  which  have  a 
derogation to slaughter bovines without stunning. In the second step, slaughterhouses will 
be  individually  contacted  for  further  information  on  the  restraining  systems  currently  in 
operation and their operating procedures. An animal welfare assessment and an evaluation 
of economic and work safety implications will be performed at a later stage in the project in 
a sub-sample of European slaughterhouses. 

169 

 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Overall the study aims to analyze the welfare of bovines in during slaughter without 
prior  stunning  in  different  restraining  systems  and  to  evaluate  the  range  of  relevant 
improvements that could be made in terms of equipment and practices. The study will also 
take into account socio-economic implications and stakeholders acceptability.  

In [country], the investigation is being conducted by (name BOREST partner). 

We would be grateful if you could please spare a few minutes to answer the surveys 
questions.  Any  information  provided  will  be  treated  in  the  strictest  confidence  and  no 
individual organization/slaughterhouse/companies will be named. We also like to emphasize 
that the aim of this survey is to obtain reliable and up to date data. So where possible please 
use real data, however if an estimate is provide, please indicate. 

2.  GENERAL INFORMATION 

Country: ___________________________________________________________________ 

Please identify your organization (name of organization): ___________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

Questionnaire completed by: 

Name: ______________________________________________________________ 

Email: ______________________________________________________________ 

Phone number: _______________________________________________________ 

3.  CATTLE SLAUGHTERED 

3.1 Annual numbers of cattle slaughtered in your country from 2007 to 2012 

If  available,  please  specify  data  for  adult  cattle  and  calves.  If  the  numbers  of  cattle 
slaughtered  is  not  available,  please  indicate  volume  of  beef  produced  (in  tons  of  carcass 
weight equivalent) 

NUMBER 

UNIT 

ADULT CATTLE 

CALVES 

2007 

2008 

170 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

3.2 Number of religiously  slaughtered cattle  in 2012 

Please  estimate  the  percentage  of  cattle  religiously  slaughtered  in  2012  by  Dhabiha  or 
Shechita  methods  (if  figures  are  unavailable  for  the  previous  year  please  estimated  using 
2011 figures).  

Year of the data : 

Dhabiha 

Shechita 

Bovine animal 

3.3 Please  estimate  the  amount  of  meat  (in  tons)  obtained  from  cattle  slaughtered 

without stunning (according to Art. 4 regulation 1099/2009) that is : 

  Imported to your country 

Please indicate the main country of origin: ____________________________ 

  Exported from your country 

Please indicate the main country of origin: ____________________________ 

  Tick here if you don’t have this information 

3.4 What  percentage  of  cattle  slaughtered  in  your  country  are  restrained  with  the 

following restraint systems : 

  Rotating pen :  ________% 
  Upright pen :   ________% 

3.5 Percentage of cattle slaughtered per category in 2012 

If 2012 is not available, please present the most recent data and indicate the year 

171 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Year : 

Methods 

No stun applied 

Pre-cut stun (stun applied 
prior to cut/bleeding) 
Post-cut stun applied (stun 
after the cut/bleeding) 

TOTAL 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Dhabiha 

Shechita 

100% 

100% 

3.6 In the next 5 years, do you expect the number of animals slaughtered without any 

form of stunning to : 

Please estimate the percentage in the case of increase or decrease 

  Increase (____________%) 

  Decrease (___________%) 

  Remain stable 

4.  SLAUGHTERHOUSES AND LEGISLATION 

4.1 What is the number of slaughterhouses that : 

  Are  officially  registered  in  your  country  or  approved  by  the  competent  authority 
according to regulation N°853/2004 for slaughtering cattle? ____________________ 

If data are available only for red meat as a whole, please specify  

  Have  an  exemption  to  slaughter  cattle  without  stunning  according  to  Regulation 
N°1099/2009 in your country? ____________________________________________ 

If data are available only for red meat as a whole, please specify 

4.2 Enforcement  of  regulation  1099/2009  on  the  protection  of  animals  at  the  time  of 

killing 

4.2.1  Have  additional  rules  been  implemented  in  your  country  concerning  religious 
slaughter  since  the  adoption  of  regulation  N°1099/2009  in  the  protection  of 
animals at the time of killing? 

  Yes      
  No 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2.2 If yes, what do they specify concerning : 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Stunning 

Animal position 

Slaughtermen training 

Traceability  system  for  incoming  and 
outgoing  orders  of  meat  obtained 
from animals religiously slaughtered 

Duration of restraining 

Minimum time between bleeding and 
the beginning of the processing 

Other 

4.2.3 How is it currently ensured in your country that slaughterhouse employees dealing 

with live animals are competent regarding animal welfare? 

  Training 
  Licensing 
  Animal welfare officer (local or central government) 
  Other (please specify) : 
  Nothing 

4.3  How many slaughtermen were registered in your country in 2012? 

Please indicate the number of slaughtermen who had a license certifying their competence to 
perform. 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Dhabiha slaughter 

Shechita slaughter 

4.4  Licensing  requirements  for  slaughtermen  involved  in  slaughter  without  stunning  in 

your country. 

4.4.1 Is there any specific license for slaughtermen performing religious slaughter without 

stunning? 
  Yes 
  No 

4.4.2 If  yes,  does  the  license  include  an  approval  or  authorization  of  a  religious 

community or a religious institution? 

  Yes  
  No 

4.4.3 If  yes,  please  name  the  relevant  religious  institution/authorities  who  give 

approval for licensing religious slaughtermen: 

Dhabiha slaughter 

Shechita slaughter 

4.5  Please  provide  a  list  of  slaughterhouses  that  are  licensed  to  perform  slaughter 
without  stunning  of  cattle  (only  for  7  selected  Member  States  :  FR,  BE,  IT,  ES,  NL, 
GB, IRE) 

If possible, please indicate for each plant: 

  Name 
  Location 
  Estimation of the number of cattle slaughtered without stunning per year 

End. Thank you for your participation. 

174 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2 : SURVEY OF RESTRAINING SYSTEMS CURRENTLY USED FOR CATTLE 
AT THE TIME OF KILLING 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Please complete and return this questionnaire 

by email before______________________                                

This questionnaire applies ONLY ON CATTLE. 

Please try to answer by using the data of 2012. If not, specify the year. 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

Current  EU  legislation  gives  a  dispensation  from  stunning  animals  for  religious 
slaughter  (Jewish  and  Muslim  methods  of  slaughter).  It  is  a  requirement  in  the  legislation 
that animals are immobilized until the loss of consciousness. In commercial slaughterhouses 
in  Europe,  bovines  are  currently  being  restrained  in  the  upright  position  or  inverted  (or 
restrained laterally) in a rotating box.  

During the EC Council debate that led to the adoption of Regulation 1099/2009, some 
delegates expressed concerns about the impact on animal welfare of the use of rotating box, 
while  others  argued  that  these  systems  have  some  advantages  for  slaughter  without 
stunning.  It  was  settled,  that  the  Commission  would  submit  a  report  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council,  the  report  will  be  based  on  the  results  of  a  scientific  study, 
which  will  investigate  the  animal  welfare  aspects  and  socio-economic  implications  of 
different restraint systems.  

 A consortium of scientists, economic experts and sociologists originating from 6 EU 
Member  States  and  one  non-EU  country  will  perform  the  study  that  will  be  used  for  the 
evaluation 
SANCO 
(http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/financing/docs/call_2012_10357_tor_rotating_b
ox_en.pdf).   

options 

policy 

DG 

by 

of 

After having established an overview of the situation of slaughtering bovine without 
stunning in the EU from competent authority, the present survey focused on the restraining 
systems currently in operation and their operating procedures in all the slaughterhouses in 7 
selected Member States. These data will be used to set a sub-sample of restraining devices 
and  slaughterhouses  where  an  animal  welfare  assessment  and  an  evaluation  of  economic 
and work safety implications will be carried out in a later stage of the project.  

175 

 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Overall  the  study  aims  to  analyze  the  welfare  of  bovines  in  different  restraining 
systems  during  slaughter  without  prior  stunning  and  to  evaluate  the  range  of  relevant 
improvements that could be made in terms of equipments and  practices; this will take into 
account socio-economic implications and stakeholders acceptability.  

In [country], the investigation is being conducted by (name BOREST partner). 

We would be grateful if you could please spare a few minutes to answer the surveys 
questions.  Any  information  provided  will  be  treated  in  the  strictest  confidence  and  no 
individual organization/slaughterhouse/companies will be named. We also like to emphasize 
that the aim of this survey is to obtain reliable and up to date data. So where possible please 
use real data, however if an estimate is provide, please indicate. 

2.  LOCATION DATA 

Country: ____________________________________________________________________ 

Slaughterhouse’s name: _______________________________________________________ 

Slaughterhouse’s address: _____________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________ 

Identification code for your slaughterhouse: ______________________________________ 

Questionnaire completed by: ___________________________________________________ 

Phone number: ______________________________________________________________ 

Email: ______________________________________________________________________ 

3.  GENERAL INFORMATION 

3.1 Please mark the main species slaughtered in your plant (only one answer possible) : 

  Calves (up to 8 months) 
  Adult cattle  
  Sheep 

176 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

3.2 How  many  cattle  have  been  slaughtered  in  your  plan  in  2012  with  following 

methods? 

If  exact  figures  are  unavailable  for  cattle  religiously  slaughtered,  please  indicate  the  total 
number of cattle slaughtered in your plant and on estimation of the percentage of animals 
slaughtered by Dhabiha and/or Shechita. 

Number of cattle slaughtered 

CALVES (up to 8 months) 

ADULT CATTLE 

Conventional 

Dhabiha 

Shechita 

METHODS 

3.3 Percentage of cattle slaughtered per category in 2012 

DHABIHA 

SHECHITA 

Calves  

Adult cattle 

Calves  

Adult cattle 

(< 8 
months) 

(< 8 
months) 

No stun applied 

STUNNING 
METHODS 

Post-cut stun 
applied (stun after 
the cut/bleeding) 

Pre-cut stun  

(stun applied prior 
to cut/bleeding) 

TOTAL 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

177 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

3.4 Is slaughter without stunning : 

  A predominant (majority of animals) practice in your plant? 

  A  punctual  activity  (some  categories  of  cattle  or  in  relation  with  some 

customers)? 

3.5 What  is  the  average  line  capacity  in  your  plant  when  slaughtering  cattle  without 

stunning?  

Number / hour 

Processing speed in calves per hour for slaughter without stunning 

Processing speed in adult cattle per hour for slaughter without stunning 

Processing speed in calves per hour for slaughter with stunning 

Processing speed in adult cattle per hour for slaughter with stunning 

4.  TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE RESTRAINING DEVICE USED FOR THE 

SLAUGHTER OF CATTLE 

4.1 What  type  of  restraining  system  is  currently  in  use  in  your  plant  to  perform 

slaughter of cattle without stunning? 

  Rotating pen 
  Upright pen 

4.2 Concerning the restraining device used in your plant to perform slaughter without 

prior stunning, please indicate : 
  The manufacturer : 
  The model : 
  The year of construction : 
  The category of cattle : 

If you use more than one restraining device, please indicate for the others: 

  The manufacturer : 
  The model : 
  The year of construction : 
  The category of cattle : 

178 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

4.3 Have major modifications ever been made to the restraining system? 

  Yes 
  No 

4.4 If yes, can you describe these modifications and the reasons for:  

5.  HANDLING AND RESTRAINING METHODS 
5.1 Percentage of cattle slaughtered per category in 2012 

For  religiously  slaughtered  cattle  can  you  please  estimate  the  percentage  of  animals 
slaughtered with these methods and corresponding restraint systems. 

RESTRAINING METHOD 
POSITION OF THE ANIMAL AT THE TOME OF BLEEDING 

Upright 
position 

Rotation 
45° 

Rotation 90° 
(turned on the side) 

Rotation 180° 
(turned on the back) 

Other 
(specify) 

STUNNING 
METHOD 

No stun 
applied 
Post-cut 
stun 

6.  POST-CUT MANAGEMENT 
6.1 Is post-cut stunning performed in your plant? 

  Yes 
  No 
  Only as welfare intervention (poor bleeders, animal deemed unacceptable for 

religious purposes during and after the cut) 

IF YES  

6.2 Is that practice performed : 

  Systematically (on every cattle religiously slaughtered) 

  Only in specific cases (client wishers) 

6.3 Is post-cut stunning performed : 

  Immediately after the neck cut? 

  After a  determined time after the cut or before the opening of the pen? 

6.4 Which method is used : 

179 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

  Penetrating captive bolt 

  Non-penetrating captive bolt 

  Other (specify) : _______________________________________________ 

End. Thank you for your participation!  

180 

 
 
ANNEX 3 : LIST OF MANUFACTURERS AND NUMBER OF DEVICES PER 
SELECTED COUNTRY 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Country 
Belgium 

France 

Italy 

NL 

Spain 

UK 

Manufacturer 
Baeten 
J&W Services 
Nawi 
Norman 
Self made 
AVI SILVA 
BAERT 
BANSS 
BEMO 
BSM IA 
COMAZZI 
Couedic Madoré 
Facomia 
Norman 
SIBEMIA 
STORK 
SUCMANU 
Vendramini 
Bulgarelli Engineering & Trade SRL 
G &G MANTOVA 
Innonceti e Cipollini 
Nuova Innocenti e Cipollini 
ROVANI 
SLAUGHTERING SERVICE 
Self made 
Tonon Attrezzaure Per Mattatoi 
VITELLI / VITELLONI MASCHI E FEMMINE 
Nawi 
Self made 
BANSS 
BERMEJO 
CTM-LORCA 
Couedic Madoré 
Emme 
GUITERA 
MECÁNICAS GARROTXA 
Self made 
TAESA 
Bob Snarr 

Number of devices 
2 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
9 
24 
1 
1 
2 
1 
7 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
6 
3 
2 
1 
4 
4 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

181 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

182 

 
 
 
ANNEX 4 : EQUIPMENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE WORKING AREA 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Identification  

Corridor 

Restraint 
device 

Release area 

slippery yes/no 
slopes 
anti-slip steps 

light/light contrasts 
presence of sharp corners 
presence of noise 
presence of obstacles 

 Name 
 Number of cattle slaughtered per year by Dhabiha and/or Shechita 
General line speed (without pre-cut stun) or standard operating procedures (without 
pre-cut stun) 
 Line speed during observation day 
 Length of corridor 
 Number of animals put in the corridor 
 Duration of queuing 
 Time needed to empty corridor 
 Use of anti-back-up devices 
 Physical aspects of corridor:  
 
 
 
 
 Specific aspects of the floor of the corridor  
 
 
 
 Manufacturer/Model 
 Physical aspects of the box while taking into account the animals visual perspective  
 
light conditions 
 
obstacles /gaps 
 
noise 
 
floor surface 
 Degrees of rotation 
 Frequency of cleaning of the box 
 Restraining system of the box  
 
 
 
 Chin lift  
 
 
 Release of the animal from the box: 
 
 
 
 

How 
When 
rotation of the box at that point in time 
Difficulties and interventions of the operator to release the animal 
 Blood management in the area (cleanliness high medium, low) 

which body parts fixed in which order and in how many stages 
animal properly restrained yes/no 
position of animal with respect to the box at the end of rotation 

produce picture or drawing 
does it hamper the cut e.g. knife potentially in contact with the chin lift 

Equipment 

Its use (reciprocal, one way, perpendicular) 

  Knife  
  Description 
  Size  
 
  Key indicators that the operator uses to identify the cut location  
  Position and number of operators 
  Ways of communication between operators 
  Can he see the head of the animal, directly or via mirrors? 
  Risks for the operators in the area 
  Number of slaughter men  
  Their roles (introduction animal, cut, restraining, monitoring consciousness, hoisting) 
  Give a rating of the reliability of the information you obtained 

Operators 

Slaughter 
men 

183 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

184 

 
 
 
ANNEX 5 : DEFINITION OF OPERATING PROCEDURE AND BEHAVIORAL ITEMS 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Operating 
procedure 

Definition 

head entrance 

nostrils not visible 

head out of box 

ears (and horns) visible outside of the box (until start 
head contention) 

start 
belly/back 

contention 

press on button by operator 

start contention head  press on button by operator 

start rotation 

end rotation 

direct  observation  of  box  or  press  on  button  by 
operator 

direct  observation  of  box  or  press  on  button  by 
operator 

time start cut 

first contact between blade and neck: cutting tissue 

number of cuts 

bleeding quality  

number  of  movements  (total  of  backwards  and 
forwards)  of  the  blade  while  in  contact  with  the  neck 
tissue 

impeded  flow,  yes/no;  both  sides:  yes/no;  visible 
blood  clot:  yes/no.  If  needed,  check  before  or  after 
hoisting 

secondary 
interventions  
(removal blood clot) 

operator  takes  carotid  and  removes  blood  clot.  Any 
other  type  of  secondary  intervention  needs  to  be 
mentioned and described 

time end of bleeding  no longer pulsing if normal blood flow 

start 
rotating box 

re-positioning 

direct  observation  of  box  or  press  on  button  by 
operator 

end-re-positioning 
rotating box 

direct  observation  of  box  or  press  on  button  by 
operator 

opening side of box 

direct  observation  of  box  or  press  on  button  by 
operator 

animal  released  from 
box 

stimulation  of 
wound 

the 

animal out of the box 

box side is between caudal and rostral part of the neck 
cut while in contact with sectioned tissue or any other 
stimulation 

185 

 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Item 

Definition 

Operators behaviour 

voice speak 

voice shout 

Noise 

Hand 

stick  

Prod 

tail twist 

door on back 

operator speaks loud to make animal move 

operator shouts to make animal move 

clapping hands, banging on fittings 

slap with hand on animal 

stick on animal 

prod in contact with animal 

twisting tail on back 

closing  door  of  the  box  on  the  back  of  the 
animal (or on the animal following the first) 

Other 

any other activity not mentioned above 

Animal behaviour 

walk forwards 

at least 3 legs put forward 

walk backwards 

at least 3 legs put backward 

Slips 

Falls 

is walked on 

vocalises 

is compressed 

compresses 

is mounted 

mounts 

at least 1 leg sliding over floor 

any  part  of  the  body  apart  from  the  legs 
touching the floor (unintentionally) 

at  least  one  other  animal  having    at  least  2 
feet on the observed animal on the floor 

vocal  sound  intentionally  expressed  by  the 
animal 

animal  physically  compressed  by  two  other 
animals or by one animal and a solid wall 

animal physically compressing another animal 

animal mounted by another animal 

animal mounting another animal 

struggles  (before  or  after 
cut) 

movements involving the whole body, legs and 
possible  head  with  the  intention  to  escape 
from the situation 

eye  pursuit  or  eye  tracking 
(after cut) 

looking intentionally at the surroundings 

186 

 
BoRest final report June 2015 

eyes convulsing 

eye white visible, eyes turning inwards 

spontaneous  movements  of 
the eye lids 

eyelids  closing  without  previous  pressure  on 
the cornea 

head rising (after cut) 

intentional neck moving upwards 

loss of posture 

body rising  

animal  sitting  or  lying  down.  Apparent  loss  of 
posture: animals seems not to carry its weight 
but is carried by the restraining system. 

movement  of 
the  whole  body  aiming 
(intentionally)  to  orient  the  sternum  in  the 
horizontal plane 

guttural sound (after cut) 

unintentional  audible  sound  arising  from  the 
throat 

attempt to inspire 

Tongxit 

other 

successful 
movement discontinued with guttural sound 

unsuccessful 

inspiration 

or 

Tensed tongue out of the mouth (ended when 
withdrawal of tongue or relaxed tongue 

any  behavior not mentioned above 

loss of corneal reflex 

absence of eye closure after a LIGHT touch on 
the canthus of the eye (brush fixed on a stick) 

187 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

188 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

ANNEX 6 : “BEHAVORIAL” AND OPERATING PROCEDURE OBSERVATION 

IN CORRIDOR AND IN RESTRAINING SYSTEM 

OPERATOR 

BEHAVIOUR 

voice, hand, stick, prod, tail twist, door on back, other, objective of the operator 
(all behaviors are event) 

ANIMAL 
BEHAVIOUR 

walks  forwards,  walks  backwards, 
is  compressed,  compresses,  mounts/is 
mounted, slips, falls, is walked on, struggle, vocalization (all behaviors are event) 

DEVICE 

Head entrance, Head out of box, door closing (event) 

OPERATINGS 

Start/End : belly plate, back/lateral pusher, neck/head restraint, rotation 

PROCEDURE  

BLEEDING AND POST-CUT PRACTICES : OPERATOR 

Number  of  cuts:  number  of  movements  (total  of  backwards  and  forwards)  of 
the blade while in contact with the neck tissue 

CUT 

Multiple small movements (saw): yes/no 

Operator blood covered : yes/no 

Vocalisation during cut: yes/no 

Both carotids cut: yes/no 

Impeded flow: yes/no 

Both sides: yes/no 

BLEEDING QUALITY 

Visible blood clot: yes/no.  

Secondary intervention: yes/no 

Regurgitation of fluid : yes/no 

Time end of bleeding: no longer pulsing if normal blood flow 

Stunning : Yes/no 

POST-CUT STUN 

Quality of stunning: well/bad due to clear difficulties/bad due to other reasons 

Why stunning is not performed 

189 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Start re-positioning rotating box 

End re-positioning rotating box 

Releasing head restraint 

RELEASING 

Releasing neck restraint 

Release from body restraint 

Animal released from box 

Start hoisting 

BLEEDING AND POST-CUT PRACTICES: ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR 

Loss of posture or apparent loss of posture: animal sitting or lying down (event)  

POSTURE 

Struggle (event) 

head/body movement (intentionally-event) 

Spontaneous movements of the eye lids, blinking (event) 

EYES 

Eyes convulsing (start/end) 

Loss of corneal reflex (light touch with small paintbrush). Scan every 15 seconds 

Guttural sound (event) 

HEAD 

Rhythmic breathing (start/end) 

Attempt to inspire (event) 

Tongue exit (start/end) 

Comment:  Regarding the signs of consciousness, there is a general  behavioral pattern that 
could be observed following the cut in many animals. A first short period of head movements 
and eyes blinking occurred followed by eye rotation. When in upright position, loss of posture 
took  place  during  this  first  phase.  Then  animals  generally  seem  in  tetanic  phase  with  fixed 
eyes.  Later  inspiration/expiration  (not  a  rhythmic  breathing)  attempt  with  tongue  exit  and 
characteristic vocalization start while bleeding become more and more contractile. It is not 
really  known,  so  far,  when  the  loss  of  consciousness  takes  place  during  these  different 
phases.  Based  on  previous  study,  we  know  that,  where  it  is  possible  to  observe,  loss  of 
posture which is generally considered to be the first sign of loss of consciousness, takes place 

190 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

before  eye  rotation  (Michard  and  Mirabito,  unpublished).  Furthermore,  we  also  know  that 
corneal  reflex  or  reflex  to  threatening,  for  instance,  are  not  testable  during  some  of  the 
phases.  

Taking  into  account  all  these  parameters  and  also  the  different  situations  of 
observation,  it  was  agreed  between  partners  then  to  focus  on  continuous  behavioral 
observations after bleeding (except corneal reflex) with an analysis/interpretation of the data 
post hoc. Loss of posture or orientated raising attempt will however be observed only when 
the position of the animal and/or the restraining practice allow. 

BLEEDING AND POST-CUT PRACTICES: ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR 

POSITION OF THE 
CUT 

In  a  subsample  of  20  animals,  the  position  of  the  cut  will  be  checked  first  by 
counting the tracheal rings from the larynx to the cut (figure 1) and later, after 
dressing,  considering  the  cervical  vertebra  in  which  the  cut  was  performed 
(figure  2).  Methods  used  may  be  updated  later  depending  on  feasibility  and 
accuracy. 

PRESENCE OF 
BLOOD IN THE 
TRACHEA/LUNGS 

In  a  subsample  of  20  animals,  the  presence  of  blood  in  the  trachea  will  be 
assessed  by  cutting,  after  dressing  the  trachea  longitudinally  and  scoring  the 
presence of blood as “present” or “absent” according to the figures below. 

Direct observation of the position of the cut will be made. It is important to note that 
this will be only a rough estimation and depends also on the practice of the slaughter men. 
In order to have a more reliable estimation, observations could be carried out directly on the 
animal  after  the  cut  by  counting  the  number  of  tracheal  rings  from  larynges  or  by 
observation  of  the  localization  of  the  end  point  of  the  cut  on  carcasses  (vertebrae).  These 
two  methods  will  be  used  as  exploratory  tools  on  sub  sample  of  animals  when  possible 
(depending  on  the  organization  of  the  slaughterhouse  and  the  acceptability  by  slaughter 
men).  For  the  same  reason,  the  presence  of  blood  in  trachea/lungs  will  be  estimated  in  a 
sub-sample.  

191 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Tracheal rings (Source : Marzin and Ducreux, 2013). 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Cervical vertrebrae (Source : Marzin and Ducreux, 2013) 

Absence and presence of blood in the trachea (Source : Marzin and Ducreux, 2013) 

192 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

ANNEX 7 : ANIMALS CHARACTERISTICS 

Time since the entry of the animal in the walls of the slaughterhouse 
(Dhabiha or shechita slaughter) : Rest time yes/no 

SPECIFIC 
PARAMETERS 
FOR EACH 
ANIMAL 

Post-cut stun 

Degrees of rotation 
Type : Dairy, Meat or mixed 
Sex 
Age (Calves : up to 8 months- Young : from 8 à 24 months - Adult : 
more than24 months) 
Carcass weight  (kg) 

193 

 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

194 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

ANNEX 8: QUESTIONNAIRES FOR DATA COLLECTION (SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS) 

Survey | WP3 |Questions for Directors of slaughter plant 

The questionnaires should focus on slaughtering without stunning or post-cut stunning (only). 

1. Slaughter men and their knowledge 

1.1. How many slaughtermen with a license to slaughter cattle without stunning, perform that work 
in your plant?? (total number, so employees on your payroll and those who are not). Please 
specify if they are on your pay roll or outsourced  

Dhabiha: ____________________  payroll                         outsourced 

Kosher: ___________________ payroll                         outsourced 

1.2 Does this task provide work for 100% of their time: 

□ Yes, fully at my plant 

□ Yes, fully but only partial at my plant 

□ No, namely....% of their time 

1.3 What is the level of experience of the slaughtermen? And do they have any certificates?   

Years of experience:  

....................... years 

Certificated:   

 yes   no  

1.4 How do you ensure that the slaughtermen are informed about animal welfare? 

2.  Work safety of Slaughtermen  

2.1. 

Please indicate the number of incidents with slaughtermen per year and per 1000 cattle 
slaughtered in your plant and related to the restraining area in 2012?  

Number of incidents in 2012 with unstunned slaughter of cattle in restraining area   
Number of incidents with unstunned slaughter  
In the restraining area per 1000 cattle slaughtered:  

..... 

..... 

2.2. 

Severity of injuries 

Please  indicate  the  type  of  impact  and  the  frequency  of  the  incidents  on  slaughtermen  in  the 
restraining areas. 

195 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Type of injury 

Brushes 

Illness 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Type of impact 
(delete as appropriate) 

Frequency / 
year 

  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 

Muscle pull or strain    Still able to work  

Cuts 

Got hit by ... 

Break a leg / arm / 
... 

  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 

Breathing problems    Still able to work  

Others, ... 

  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 

2.3    If  it’s  up  to  you,  with  regard  to  improving  workers  safety....  what  would  you  alter  first  at  the 
restrainer used in your plant? 

3.  Economic aspects of the restraining device 

3.1. 

 Please indicate the year of investment? _____________________________________Year: .... 

3.2.  What is the amount of total investment of the restraining device, including modifications of the 

plant? ___________________________ Euro 

And what are the annually maintenance costs?    .......................... euro/year 

196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3.  Why has this restraining system been chosen? 

Please  number in sequence  the motives given below if applicable in your opinion (1= most 
important argument; 2= second most important argument etc...). 

BoRest final report June 2015 

  Total investment (price of the restraining system) 
  Possibilities for negotiations concerning price 
  Work safety of slaughtermen 
  Animal welfare 
  Familiarity with supplier 
  Existing business relation 
  Maintenance costs  
  Breakdowns 
  Religious requirements 
  Others...................................................................................... 

3.4.  Would the same decision have been taken today?   

      Yes/No 

If no, what choice would be made? And please explain why. 
.......................................................................................................................................... 
.......................................................................................................................................... 
.......................................................................................................................................... 
If you want to replace your existing restraining device by another system, how would this 
influence your restraining area in terms of investments? Does this affect more than the 
investments of the restraining device only or should you alter more in the slaughter line? 

3.5. 

Investments are needed for: 

  only the restraining device 
  more than the restraining device, additional investments are …. Euro. 

3.6. 

 What is the expected life time of the restrainer in the case of normal maintenance:         Years:....  

3.7. 

Can you estimate the labour costs in the restraining area per slaughtered adult cattle. You only 
have to include the direct personnel costs, no worries about other costs like maintenance, 
depreciation, electricity and so on.  

….. euro/adult cattle (if more people in restraining area, please add costs of all attended people 
and note per 1 bovine) 

3.8. 

How many people are active in the neighborhood of the restrainer and what are their roles?  

___a.___________________________ people with role ... 

___b.___________________________ people with role ... 

___c.___________________________ people with role ... 

197 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___d.___________________________ people with role ... 

BoRest final report June 2015 

3.9.  What is the time needed to slaughter an adult cattle: number of animals slaughtered per hour 

....... 

3.10.  How long do the animals stay in the restrain device?  

(Please state the average 

time.) Average time in seconds......... 

3.11.  What are the total costs of slaughtering an adult cattle under different conditions? (e.g. labour, 

maintenance, electricity, depreciation)  

Euro per adult cattle 

Conditions 

Conventional  

Dhabiha 

Kosher 

3.12. 

In the next 5 years, do you expect the number of animals slaughtered without any form of 
stunning in your plant to : 
Please estimate the percentage in the case of increase or decrease 

Increase (                    %) 

Decrease (                    %) 

Remain stable 

198 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Survey | WP3 | Questions for Animal welfare officer at slaughter plant 

The questionnaires should focus on slaughtering without stunning or post-cut stunning (only). 

Animal welfare  

1. 

 Please indicate the number of incidents with animals (animal welfare is harmed) per year and 
per 1000 cattle slaughtered in your plant in the restraining area in 2012?  This only relates to 
animals slaughtered unstunned before killing. 

Incidents in 2012 
Incidents per 1000 cattle slaughtered unstunned    ......... 

......... 

2.  Where did offences of animal welfare take place (% of total)? 

a.  During lairage    
b.  During restraining 
c.  Not killed properly 
d.  Bleeding 
Total 

% 
% 
% 
% 

100 

3. 

In your opinion, does the type of restrainer (rotatory or upright) influence the incidents related  

to animal welfare?                Yes /no 
Please explain: 

4. 

In your opinion, can improvement of animal welfare be realised by adapting the restrainer?  Yes 
/no 

Please explain: 

5. 

In your opinion, which type of restrainer is best for animal welfare? 

o  Upright 
o  Rotating 
o  The position of the animal makes no difference 

6.    If  it’s  up  to  you,  with  regard  to  improving  animal  welfare....  what  would  you  alter  first  at  the 
restrainer used in your plant? 

Survey | WP3 |Questions for Work Safety Officer at slaughter plant 

The questionnaires should focus on slaughtering without stunning or post-cut stunning (only). 

Work safety of slaughter men 

Please  indicate  the  number  of  incidents  with  slaughtermen  per  year  and  per  1000  cattle 

1. 
slaughtered in your plant in the restraining area in 2012?  

2. 

Severity of injuries 

199 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Please  indicate  the  type  of  impact  and  the  frequency  of  the  incidents  on  slaughtermen  in  the 
restraining areas. 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Type of injury 

Brushes 

Illness 

Type of impact 
(delete as appropriate) 

Frequency / 
year 

  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 

Muscle pull or strain    Still able to work  

Cuts 

Got hit by ... 

Break a leg / arm / 
... 

  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 

Breathing problems    Still able to work  

Others, ... 

  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 

3.  If  it’s  up  to  you,  with  regard  to  improving  workers  safety....  what  would  you  alter  first  at  the 
restrainer used in your plant? 

Survey | WP3 |Question for slaughtermen  

The questionnaires should focus on slaughtering without stunning or post-cut stunning (only). 

General  

200 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  How many people are active in the neighborhood of the restrainer and what are their roles?  

BoRest final report June 2015 

___a.___________________________ people with role ... 

___b.___________________________ people with role ... 

___c.___________________________ people with role ... 

___d.___________________________ people with role ... 

2.  Number of animals slaughtered per hour ....... 

3.  On average, how long do the animals stay in the restrain device?  

Average time in seconds......... 

4.  What are the total costs of slaughtering an adult cattle under different conditions? 

Euro per adult cattle 

Conditions 

Conventional  

Halal 

Kosher 

 I do not know 

Type of work 

5.  Period active as a slaughtermen: Working as a slaughter man for   years...... 

6.  Type of work;      

rotating tasks/  single task 

7.  Full time job of part time job  

hours per week:.... 

8.  What training do you have for the job of slaughter man? 

9.  How are you informed about the animal welfare aspects related to the slaughtering and stunning 

process? By whom or what? 

Experience and training 
10. Experienced as Islamic/Jewish slaughter man for  

.... years 

201 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

11. Slaughter plant training, if yes, what, how long?     

no/yes, if yes for  

.... years 

12. religious training, if yes, what,  how long, where ? 

no/yes, if yes for  

.... years 

Status 

13.  How  is  your  employment  arranged?  Are  you  on  the  payroll  of  the  slaughter  house,  of  a 
certification agency or do you work for yourself (independent/freelance)?    
  Employee at slaughterhouse 
  Employee at certification agency 
  Independent 

14. Do you have a religious license for ritual slaughter?  

yes/ no 

14b. If yes, did you ask for it or did your employer ask it for you? 

I did/ Employer did 

15. Is there any link with a certification agency?  

yes/ no 

15b. If yes, please specify the certification agency .................................................................... 

Religious activities 

14. Where did you got your religious education? 
  family 
  self-educated,  
  association,  
  Muslim / Jewish school  
  Mosque/ Synagogue frequentation : which one, frequency   

15. Please specify your religious activities:  

......times per week 

16. Please specify two or three reference books about Islam/ Judaism if any: ..................................... 

Work safety  

17.   How do you judge your working conditions?   

a. physical (stressful = 5.....no stress =1) :    

b. mentally (stressful=5.... no stress =1)  : 

18. How often did you get injured during job time?  

..... 

..... 

(less than once a year (=1); annually 1-5 times (=2); annually > 5 times (3). 

...... 

19. Type of injuries and frequency 

Type of injury 

Type of impact 
(delete as appropriate) 

Frequency / 
year 

Brushes 

  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

202 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Illness 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 

Muscle pull or strain    Still able to work  

Cuts 

Got hit by ... 

Break a leg / arm / 
... 

  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 

Breathing problems    Still able to work  

Others, ... 

  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 

20.  If  it’s  up  to  you,  with  regard  to  improving  workers  safety....  what  would  you  alter  first  at  the 
restrainer used in your plant? 

Restraining system 

21.  Which restraining system do you prefer? 

a. Rotatory restraining device 

b. up right restraining device 

c. another system.......................................... 

d. no experience because I only worked with one system. 

22.   Why do you prefer a rotatory restraining device or an upright restraining device? 

-  Work safety 
-  Costs 
-  Time needed to sacrifice an animal 

203 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

-  Others ................................................................. 

23. 

 Can the current restraining system be improved (by making adaptations) regarding 

a. work safety 

b. animal welfare 

yes/ no 

yes/ no 

23b. if yes please describe the kind of adaptation? 

........................................................................................ 

Socio economic background 

- Age 

- Nationality 

- County of birth          

- Age arrived in country   

- language of the interview  

.... year 

................................... 

            ................................... 

            .....year  

................................... 

- Highest level of (completed) education 

 basic/ middle/high  

- Previous jobs   

            ................................... 

................................... 

.................................... 

- Net income / month for slaughter activity (per slaughterhouse if more than one)  

.................... € net per month 

204 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Survey | WP3 |Questions for Insurance companies 

1.  What is the number of incidents with slaughtermen?  In number per full time equivalent per 

year? 

2.  What is the type of injury, the type of impact and frequency of the injures per year? 

Type of injury 

Brushes 

Illness 

Type of impact 
(delete as appropriate) 

Frequency / 
year 

  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 

Muscle pull or strain    Still able to work  

Cuts 

Got hit by ... 

Break a leg / arm / 
... 

  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 

Breathing problems    Still able to work  

Others, ... 

  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 
  Still able to work  
  Not able to work for a moment / a 

day / some days  

  Not able to work anymore 

3. 

4. 

5. 

If available, can you mention the incidents for slaughtermen operating in the area where the 
animals are killed? In number per full time equivalent per year? 
If available, can you differentiate this number between the incidents for slaughtermen killing 
the animals unstunned versus stunned? In number per full time equivalent per year? 

If available, can you mention the incidents for slaughtermen killing the animals unstunned in 
an upright pen versus a rotatory restraining pen? In number per full time equivalent per 
year? 

205 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Survey | WP3 | Questions for manufacturers of restrainers 

ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE RESTRAINING DEVICE 

GENERAL 

1.  Can you estimate the percentage of the different types of restrainers in EU-27 for 

slaughterhouses performing unstunned slaughtering? 

a.  No 
b.  Yes : 

i.  ..% rotatory restraining device 
ii.  ..% up right restraining device 
iii.  ..% other 

2.  What is your market share on the EU market? 
3.  Can you list your main competitors? Including country of origin  

..% 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 

......................... from  ………………………………. 
......................... from  ………………………………. 
........................... from  ………………………………. 
......................... from  ………………………………. 
.......................... from  ………………………………. 

Costs for restraining systems for ADULT CATTLE 

4. 

If your customers want to replace the existing restraining device by another system, how 
would this influence the restraining area in terms of investments? Does this affect more than 
the investments of the restraining device only or should they alter more in the slaughter line? 
Investments are needed for: 
 only the restraining device 
 more than the restraining device, additional investments are …. Euro. 

5.  Rough estimate of the investment of restraining device? (=the purchase of the restraining 

device and its installation by the manufacturer). 
a.  Rotatory restraining device:      euro 
b.  Up right restraining device: 
 euro 

6.  Can you give a rough estimate about the investments in restraining system compared to the 

investment of a total slaughter line?  

.....% of total costs is intended for the restraining system 

7.  Rough estimate of the maintenance (as a percentage of the investment) of the restraining 

system? 

a.  Rotatory restraining device:     % 
b.  Up right restraining device: 
% 

206 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

8.  What is the expected life time of restraining system? 
a.  Rotatory restraining device:      years 
b.  Up right restraining device: 
 years 

9.  Do you have any insight in important and deciding buying motives for your customers (the 

slaughterhouses) when choosing a certain restraining system? 
If so, please number in sequence  the motives given below if applicable in your opinion (1= 
most important argument; 2= second most important argument etc...). 

  Total investment (price of the restraining system) 
  Possibilities for negotiations concerning price 
  Work safety of slaughtermen 
  Animal welfare 
  Familiarity with supplier 
  Existing business relation 
  Maintenance costs  
  Breakdowns 
  Religious requirements 
  Others...................................................................................... 

10. Could you please give us the different models you have produced, their characteristic (see 

table below) and the year of release? (please underline change) 

Model 

Year  of 
release 

Type 
(upright 
or 
rotating)  

of 

Type 
body 
restraining 
device 

of 

Type 
neck 
restraining 
device 

If 
rotating, 
type  of 
cycle  an 
control 

Main 
changes 
from 
previous 
models 

Main  specific 
requirements 
from 
customer 

11. What are the main requirements for adaptation from your customers? 

12. Could you please send us the user guide (also in English if available)? 

207 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Survey | WP3 | Questions for other stakeholders: Wholesale 

1.  Where do you buy (origin of the meat) meat of cattle religious slaughtered? 

a. 
b. 

In home Market 
Import  from (names of countries) 

i.  ......... 
ii.  ......... 
iii.  ......... 

2.  Where do you sell (destination of the meat) meat of cattle religious slaughtered? 

In home Market 

a. 
b.  Export  to (names of countries) 

i.  ......... 
ii.  ......... 
iii.  ......... 

3.  What share of total cattle meat traded is: 

a.  Religious slaughtered without any stunning             
b.  Religious slaughtered with stunning before killing 
c.  Religious slaughtered with stunning directly after killing 

    ...% 

   .....% 
   .....% 

4.  Do you manage to sell the whole carcass as Halal/ Kosher on the home market?  Yes/NO 

            If Not: In which market(s) are the remaining parts sold? 

a.  Home market as regular meat;   
b.  Export market as regular meat:  
c.  Export market as religious slaughtered meat: 

Total 

.....% 
.....% 
.....% 
100% 

208 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Islamic and Jewish Institutions contacted for expressing their opinion on acceptability of the different restraint 
system (Source: BoRest, “Acceptability by religious communities”) 

BoRest final report June 2015 

Member 
States   

Islamic institutions  

Jewish institutions   

United 
Kingdom 

The Muslim Council of 
Britain 

Shechita UK  

National Council of Shechita Boards 

Spain 

Comisión Islámica de 
España 

Principal rabbi of Barcelona and 
Catalonia and  

Junta Islámica 

Instituto halal 

The 
Netherlands 

The Contactorgaan Moslims 
en Overheid 

Contact Groep Islam 

Italy 

UCOII Unione delle 
Comunità Islamiche d'Italia 

Grand Rabbin de Roma 

CCII, Centro Culturale 
Islamico d'Italia (Islamic 
Cultural Center in Rome) 

France 

Le Conseil français de culte 
musulman 

Grand Rabin de Metz, 

Grande Mosquée de Paris 

Grande Mosquée de Lyon 

Grande Mosquée d’Evry 

Belgium 

L’Executif des Musulmans 
de Belgique 

Belgium  ; Grand Rabbin de Bruxelles 
Synagogue de Bruxelles 

209 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

210 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

ANNEX 9 : METHODOLOGY FOR THE MEETING WITH RELIGIOUS REPRESENTATIVES 

The meeting was introduced by a formal presentation from the consortium recalling the aim 
of  the  study.  It  was  recalled  that  it  was  dealing  with  restraining  device  used  in  case  of 
slaughter without stunning and that the project was not addressing the issue of stunning.  

 Two  videos of upright  and  rotating  devices  were  shown,  allowing  identifying  precisely  the 
sequence to comment on: from the restraint of the animal until  -and including- the cut. In 
order  to  trigger  precise,  detailed  and  comparable  comments,  we  have  shown  the  same 
videos  in all  countries.  These  videos  were  taken from  one  Dhabiha  example.  Except of  the 
restraining  system,  the  two  videos  differ  (non-intentionally  but  in  relation  with  the  video 
material available) also by the number of cuts performed by the operator (higher number in 
the video of upright system). 

The religious authorities were invited to give their detailed opinions on each of the methods, 
their advantages and disadvantages from a religious point of view.  

Then,  the  religious  authorities  were  invited  to  send  a  written  document  of  their  opinions 
within  two  weeks  after the  meeting,  especially  if  they  wished  to  reflects  on  their  opinions 
within their communities, and give an official statement.  

The institutions listed in the table have been contacted. 

Separated meeting with Jewish and Muslim authorities took place from November 2013 to 
March 2014 and were organised in Belgium, France, the UK and Spain.  

No meeting could be organised in the Netherlands for both Muslim and Jewish communities, 
nor  in  Italy  for  Jews,  and  in  France  for  the  Muslims,  because  the  religious  authorities 
contacted  declined  the  invitation.  In  Italy  for  Muslims,  the  debate  focused  rather  on 
bleeding and stunning. Then the data were not fully usable in this report. 

211 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

212 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

ANNEX  10  : PROPOSED BASIS FOR IMPROVED  STANDARD OPERATING  PROCEDURES  AND 
WORK SAFETY 

The present proposal is based on output from “assessment of welfare” and  experts’ opinions. Values 
into brackets referred to best observed practices in the sample and experts’ opinions. 

Entry in the restraining system 

Animal Welfare: 

1.  The  layout  of  the  end  of  the  corridor  and  the  device  should  be  designed  to  minimize 

difficulties for the animals to enter the restraining device 

2.  Corridor should have a non-slippery floor surface  
3.  The operators should be trained for the handling of the animals 
Examples  of  monitoring  indicators:  use  of  electric  prod,  behavioural  indicators  of  stress, 
vocalizations 

Work Safety: 

1.  Slaughtermen and restraint operators must have safety access and vision of the animal 

Restraining procedure (all device) 

Animal Welfare: 

1.  Restraint device must have a non-slippery floor surface 
2.  Operators  should  be  trained  with  their  specific  restraint  device  and  able  to  monitor  the 

quality of restraint and the behaviour of the animals 

3.  The different operations should be carried without any delay e.g. in less than [on average 30 

seconds (maximum up to 60 seconds)] 

4.  Hyperextension of the neck must not be performed with the chin lift.  

All other restraining equipment (back pusher, side plates, neck yoke) must not use excessive 
pressure that causes injury, pain or distress (vocalizations, struggling, etc)  

5.  Animals  must  be    immediately  e.g.  less  than  [on  average  5  seconds  (maximum  up  to  10 
seconds)] after being fully restrained or restrained and rotated (this includes washing of the 
neck) 
If  ,  for  whatever  reason  there  is  a  delay  when  the  animal  is  restrained,  it  should  be 
immediately stunned. 

6. 

Examples  of  monitoring  indicators:  Duration  of  restraint,  Delay  between  end  of  head  restraint  and 
cut, vocalizations 

Work safety: 

1.  Layout of the  device  area should be such that the operators are able to control the  device 
and monitor the animals without having the risk of being in contact with mobile part of the 
device 

2.  Layout of the area should allow the restraint operator to see the head of the animal in a safe 

way. Where needed, mirror or other vision system should be installed 

3.  Device  should  allow  a  safe  access  to  the  animals  (body  and  head)  in  particular  in  case  of 

welfare emergency 

213 

 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Restraining procedure (Upright system):  

Animal Welfare: 

4.  Animals must not be lifted off the ground with the belly plate (i.e. legs no longer significantly 

supporting weight of the animal)  
Restraint must have a recessed belly plate (can cause bulking, obstructions and falls)  

Restraining procedure (Rotating system) 
Animal Welfare:  

1.  Animals must  be  securely restrained without  causing  injury,  pain,  distress  prior  and  during 
rotation e.g. use  the  animals must  be well positioned before immobilisation and operators 
should monitor the behaviour of the animals during the restraining process. 

2.  Rotation should start immediately after the restraint of the animals, should be as smooth as 
possible  and  should  not  last  more  than  [on  average  15  seconds  (maximum  up  to  30 
seconds)];  

Example of monitoring indicators: Duration of rotation 

Bleeding  

Animal Welfare: 

5.  Many  factors  such  as  category  of  animals,  quality  of  head  restraint,  position  of  the  cut, 
sharpness  of  the  knife  are  influencing  quality  of  the  cut.  The  skill  and  capability  of  the 
operator should be such as they know these potential risks and are able to manage them as 
far as possible. 

6.  The  number  of  cuts  depends  on  religious  prescription.  As  far  as  possible,  it  should  be 

minimized  

7.  Animals must be checked for signs of sensibility before removal from the restraint, at least, 
not before [45 seconds] after the cut. If signs of consciousness are still present, the animal is 
to be immediately stunned. 

8.  The  restraint  practices  must  be  designed  to  allow  the  use  of  mechanical  stun  device  if 

required (e. g. obvious prolonged consciousness). 

9.  All animals must be monitored after removal from the restraint during [45 seconds] for signs 

of regain consciousness before hoisting. 

10. When immediate post-cut stun is performed, the animals may be removed from the restraint 

device after having been checked for the absence of sign of consciousness. 

Example of monitoring indicators: Number of cut, frequency of miss-cuts (i. e. both carotids are 
not severed), frequency of impeded flow, frequency of signs of consciousness at the end of the 
periods 

214 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Work Safety: 

2.  Layout of the bleeding area should be such as to minimize the risk of the operator to be hurt 

by the head of the animals or any other mobile equipment 

3.  Operators must be positioned comfortably using safe equipment (e. g. fixed equipment)  
4.  Slaughtermen must have good access and vision of the animal’s head, neck and cut. 
5.  Animals  should  be  restrained  until  insensible  to  minimise  the  likelihood  of  worker  injuries 

during shackling and hoisting. 

6.  During removal from the restraint sufficient space should be allowed in case of swinging of 
the  animals,  convulsive  hind  leg  kicking  and  the  potential  of  the  animals  falling  off  the 
shackle.  

7.  Protected  area  for  operators (e.g.  for when  an  animal  stands  up  after  being released  from 

the restrainer) 

8.  Attachment of hind leg after removal from the restraint device as soon as possible  
9.  When the bovine animals show obvious signs of consciousness that require corrective action, 
the stunning of the animal should be performed unless it does endanger the operator.  
10. Pre  or  immediate  post-cut  stun  is  performed,  when  accepted  by  religious  authorities,  to 

minimize the risk for workers.  

215 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

216 

 
 
 
ANNEX  11:  VALUATION  OF  THE  INDICATORS  PER  JUDGEMENT  AREA  TO  COMPARE  THE 
UPRIGHT AND ROTATING RESTRAINING SYSTEM 

BoRest final report June 2015 

INDICATOR 

UPRIGHT POSITION 

ROTATING 

Economic costs 

A.  Total investment 

B.  Restrainer  as%  of  total 
slaughter 

investment 
line 

C.  Maintenance costs 

D.  Total 

costs(= 
investment 
+ 
maintenance + interest)  

E.  Lifetime restrainer 
F.  Line  speed  (see  part  3) 

(animals per hour) 

30-60,000  pound=  36-
72,000  euro  (mean  : 
50.000 euro) 
About 7% 

100,000 euro 

About 10% 

1000-2000 pound = 
1200-2400  euro  per 
year 
4,300 euro per year 

3000-  15,300  euro  per 
year 

12,600 euro per year 

30-50 years 
30    (variation  10-80 
animals per hour) 

14-25 years 
28 
animals per hour) 

(variation 

10-80 

Religious aspects 

A.  Requirements 

from 

Inverted 

Jewish religion 

B.  Requirements 

from 

Rotating preference 

Muslim religion 

C.  Religious  education  of 

slaughter man 

Work safety 

A.  Number of accidents 

B.  Frequency of accidents 
C.  Type of injuries 

D.  Impact of injuries 
E.  Experience  of  slaughter 

man 

F.   Education  of  slaughter 

man 

Jewish :no info 
Halal:  Muslim  school 
(1)/ Mosque (2) 

Jewish  :  Jewish  School 
and Synagogue 
Halal:  all  Mosque  and 
some Muslim school 

2  incidents  recorded  in 
2012 
No information 
Brushes + hit by 

3  incidents  recorded  in 
2012 
No information 
Cuts+  2  break  a  leg/ 
arm 

All are working full time  

None/ still able to work  None + few days off 
Except  one  all  are 
working  full  time  (one 
person  works 
part 
time; 0.5 week). 
Working  experience  5-
23 years 
Basic 
to 
education ; 
Further  trained  on  the 
spot 

Basis to middle 
further 
Mainly 
on 
sometimes 
courses 

middle 

spot 

the 

Working  experience  2-
20 years 

trained 
and 
external 

217 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

218 

 
 
 
 
Trade 

A.  Origin of meat 
B.  Destination meat 

n.a.  
No information 

C.  Share cattle slaughtered 

without stunning 

495.000 of 15.6 million 
animals 
slaughtered 
(=3%) 

D.  % sold as halal/ kosher 

BoRest final report June 2015 

n.a. 
Mainly  for  home  market 
as religious meat (80%) 
European  market  as 
religious meat (20%) 
European  market  as 
regular meat (1%) 
1.584.000  of  the  15.6 
million 
slaughtered 
cattle (=10%) 
=99%  sold  as  halal 
meat  
 No info on Kosher meat  

Animal Welfare 
AW indicators 
Number  of  accidents  with 
animals  

1  incident  reported  by 
2 respondents 

Not willing to respond  

219 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

220 

 
 
 
BoRest final report June 2015 

11. REFERENCES 

Anil MH 2012 Religious slaughter:  A current controversial animal welfare  issue.  Animal Frontiers 2: 
64-67. 

Anon  1995  The  Welfare of  Animals  (Slaughter or  Killing)  Regulations  Statutory  Instrument  no. 731: 
United Kingdom 

Bager F, Braggins TJ, Devine CE, Graafhuis AE, Mellor DJ, Tavener A, and Upsdell MP 1992 Onset of 
Insensibility  at  Slaughter  in  Calves  -  Effects  of  Electroplectic  Seizure  and  Exsanguination  on 
Spontaneous  Electrocortical  Activity  and  Indexes  of  Cerebral  Metabolism.  Research  in  Veterinary 
Science 52: 162-173. 

Barnett JL, Cronin GM, and Scott PC 2007 Behavioural responses of poultry during kosher slaughter 
and their implications for the birds' welfare. Veterinary Record 160: 45-49. 

Berg C, and Jakobsson T 2007 Post-cut stunning at religious slaughter. Svensk Veterinärtidning 59: 21-
28. 

Blackmore DK 1984 Differences in Behavior between Sheep and Cattle During Slaughter. Research in 
Veterinary Science 37: 223-226. 

Blackmore DK,  and Newhook  JC 1981 Insensibility  During Slaughter of Pigs in Comparison to Other 
Domestic Stock. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 29: 219-222. 

Blackmore DK, Newhook JC, and Grandin T 1983 Time of Onset of Insensibility in 4-Week-Old to 6-
Week-Old Calves During Slaughter. Meat Science 9: 145-149. 

Blackmore DK, Newhook JC, and Petersen GV 1979 Electrical Stunning and Humane Slaughter.  New 
Zealand Veterinary Journal 27: 224-224. 

Blokhuis HJ, Roth B, Holst S, Kestin S, Raj M, Terlouw C, Velarde A, and von Wenzlawowicz M 2004 
Welfare aspects of animal stunning and killing methods.  Scientific Report  of the Scientific Panel for 
Animal  Health  and  Welfare  on  request  from  the  Commission  related  to  welfare  aspects  of  animal 
stunning and killing methods, (Question No. EFSA-Q-2003-093, p.24). European Food Safety Authority 
(AHAW 04-027) 

Bourguet C, Deiss V, Tannugi CC, and Terlouw EMC 2011 Behavioural and physiological reactions of 
cattle 
in  a  commercial  slaughterhouse:  Relationships  with  organisational  aspects  of  the 
slaughterhouse and animal characteristics. Meat Science 88: 158-168. 

Cenci-Goga  BT,  Mattiacci  C,  De  Angelis  G,  Marini  P,  Cuccurese  A,  Rossi  R,  and  Catanese  B  2010 
Religious slaughter in Italy. Vet Res Commun 34 Suppl 1: S139-143. 

Daly CC, Kallweit E, and Ellendorf F 1988 Cortical Function in Cattle During Slaughter - Conventional 
Captive  Bolt  Stunning  Followed  by  Exsanguination  Compared  with  Shechita  Slaughter.  Veterinary 
Record 122: 325-329. 

Description of PEST –analysis : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEST_analysis  

221 

 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Dun CS 1990 Stress reactions of cattle undergoing ritual slaughter using two methods of restraint. 
Veterinary Record 126: 522-525. 

Estrella  M,  Forester  BS,  and  Whinnery  JE  1992  Statistical  Analysis  of  the  Human  Strangulation 
Experiments:  Comparison  to  +Gz-Induced  Loss  of  Consciousness,    1-21.  Naval  Air  Warfare  Centre  - 
Aircraft Division: Warminster 

EU 2009 Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at 
the time of killing: Offical Journal of the European Union 

FAWC 1995 Report on the welfare of livestock when slaughtered by religious methods. Farm Animal 
Welfare Council: London 

FCEC,    2007,  Study  on  the  stunning/killing  practices  in  slaughterhouses  and  their  economic,  social 
and  environmental  consequences  Assignment  3  of  the  Framework  Contract  for  evaluation  and 
evaluation related services - Lot 3: Food Chain  (awarded through tender no 2004/S 243-208899) p 1. 

Gibson  TJ  2009  Electroencephalographic  responses  of  calves  to  the  noxious  sensory  input  of 
slaughter  by  vental  neck  incision  and  its  modulation  with  non-penetrative  captive  bolt  stunning 
Institute  of  Veterinary,  Animal  and  Biomedical  Sciences,    0-280.  PhD  Thesis,  Massey  University: 
Palmerston North, New Zealand 

Gibson  TJ,  Johnson  CB,  Murrell  JC,  Chambers  JP,  Stafford  KJ,  and  Mellor  DJ  2009a  Components  of 
electroencephalographic responses to slaughter in halothane-anaesthetised calves: Effects of cutting 
neck tissues compared with major blood vessels. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 57: 84-89. 

Gibson TJ, Johnson CB, Murrell JC, Hulls CM, Mitchinson SL, Stafford KJ, Johnstone AC, and Mellor DJ 
2009b Electroencephalographic responses of halothane-anaesthetised calves to slaughter by ventral-
neck incision without prior stunning. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 57: 77-83. 

Grandin  T  1980  Problems  with  Kosher  Slaughter.  International  Journal  for  the  Study  of  Animal 
Problems 1: 375-390. 

Grandin T 1990 Humanitarian Aspects of Shehitah in the United States. Judaism 39: 436-446. 

Grandin  T  1992  Observations  of  cattle  restraint  devices  for  stunning  and  slaughtering.  Animal 
Welfare 1: 85-90. 

Grandin  T  1994  Farm  Animal-Welfare  During  Handling,  Transport,  and  Slaughter.  Journal  of  the 
American Veterinary Medical Association 204: 372-377. 

Grandin  T  1998  The  feasibility  of  using  vocalization  scoring  as  an  indicator  of  poor  welfare  during 
cattle slaughter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 121-128. 

Grandin T 2013 Making Slaughterhouses More Humane for Cattle, Pigs, and Sheep. Annual Review of 
Animal Biosciences 1: 491-512. 

Grandin  T,  and  Regenstein  JM  1994  Religious  slaughter  and  animal  welfare:  a  discussion  for  meat 
scientists. Meat Focus International: 115-123. 

222 

 
BoRest final report June 2015 

Gregory NG 2005 Recent concerns about stunning and slaughter. Meat Science 70: 481-491. 

Gregory NG, Fielding HR, Von Wenzlawowicz M, and Von Holleben K 2010 Time to collapse following 
slaughter without stunning in cattle. Meat Science 85: 66-69. 

Gregory  NG,  von  Wenzlawowicz M,  Alam  RM,  Anil  HM,  Sildere  TY,  and  Silva-Fletcher  A  2008  False 
aneurysms in carotid arteries of cattle and water buffalo during shechita and  halal slaughter. Meat 
Science 79: 285-288. 

Gregory  NG,  von  Wenzlawowicz M,  and  von  Holleben  K  2009  Blood  in  the  respiratory  tract  during 
slaughter with and without stunning in cattle. Meat Science 82: 13-16. 

Gregory  NG,  and  Wotton  SB  1984a  Sheep  Slaughtering  Procedures  .2.  Time  to  Loss  of  Brain 
Responsiveness after Exsanguination or Cardiac-Arrest. British Veterinary Journal 140: 354-360. 

Gregory NG, and Wotton SB 1984b Time to Loss of Brain Responsiveness Following Exsanguination in 
Calves. Research in Veterinary Science 37: 141-143. 

Groß R 1979 Elektroencephalographische und Elektrokardiographische Verlaufsuntersuchungen nach 
Bolzenschußbetäubung und nach Töten durch Entbluten in der Form des rituellen Schlachtens durch 
die Tierärztliche Hochschule,  1-112. durch die Tierärztliche Hochschule: Hannover 

Hall TC 1927 Demonstration of a New Jewish Method for Casting and Slaughtering Animals for Food. 
Veterinary Record 7: 765-766. 

Koorts  R  1991  The  Development  of  a  Restraining  System  to  Accommodate  the  Jewish  Method  of 
Slaughter  (Shechita)  School  of  Biological  and  Health  Technology.  Technikon  Witwatersrand: 
Johannesburg 

Lambooij  E,  van  der  Werf  JTN,  Reimert  HGM,  and  Hindle  VA  2012  Restraining  and  neck  cutting  or 
stunning and neck cutting of veal calves. Meat Science 91: 22-28. 

Levinger IM 1961 Untersuchungen zum Schächtproblem. University of Zürich: Zürich 

Levinger IM 1979 Jewish method of slaughtering animals for food and its influence on blood supply 
to the brain and on the normal functioning of the nervous system. Animal Regulation Studies 2: 111-
126. 

Nangeroni  LL,  and  Kennett  PD  1964  Electroencephalographic  Studies  of  the  Effects  of  Shechita 
Slaughter  on  Cortical  Function  in  Ruminants  Report  of  the  New  York  State  Veterinary  College  at 
Cornell Universtiy for the Year 1963-64,  38-39. Cornell University: New York 

Newhook JC, and Blackmore DK 1982 Electroencephalographic Studies of Stunning and Slaughter of 
Sheep and Calves .2. The Onset of Permanent Insensibility in Calves During Slaughter. Meat Science 6: 
295-300. 

Pesenhofer  G, Palme  R, Pesenhofer  RM,  and Kofler J  2006 Comparison of  two  methods  of  fixation 
during functional claw trimming - walk-in crush versus tilt table - in dairy cows using faecal cortisol 

223 

 
BoRest final report June 2015 

metabolite concentrations and daily milk yield as parameters. Wiener Tierarztliche Monatsschrift 93: 
288-294. 

Petty DB, Hattingh J, Ganhao MF, and Bezuidenhout L 1994 Factors which affect blood variables of 
slaughtered cattle. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association 65: 41-45. 

Regulation (EC) N°1099/2009: on the protection of animals at the time of killing (2009):  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:303:0001:0030:EN:PDF  

Ravaux X. 2011 Filière slaughterhouse : Synthèse des études et données économiques et sanitaires 
disponibles fin 2010 partie 1: économie, CGAAER n°10227 

Rosen SD 2004 Opinion piece; Physiological insights into Shechita. Veterinary Record 154: 759-765. 

Rossen  R,  Kabat  H,  and  Anderson  JP 1943  Acute  Arrest  of Cerebral  Circulation  in  Man.  Archives  of 
Neurology and Psychiatry 50: 510-528. 

Rushen  J  1986  Aversion of  Sheep  for  Handling  Treatments  -  Paired-Choice  Studies.  Applied  Animal 
Behaviour Science 16: 363-370. 

Schulze W, Schultze-Petzold H, Hazem AS, and Gross R 1978 [Experiments for the objectification of 
pain and consciousness during conventional (captive bolt stunning) and religiously mandated (ritual 
cutting) slaughter procedures for sheep and calves]. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr 85: 62-66. 

Shragge  JE,  and  Price  MA  2004  Religious  Slaughter,  In:  Jensen  W,  Devine  C  and  Dikeman  M  (eds) 
Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences  p^pp 1162-1167. Elsevier Ltd: Oxford 

Tagawa  M,  Okano  S,  Sako  T,  Orima  H,  and  Steffey  EP  1994  Effect  of  Change  in  Body  Position  on 
Cardiopulmonary  Function  and  Plasma-Cortisol  in  Cattle.  Journal  of  Veterinary  Medical  Science  56: 
131-134. 

Tyler J 2012 Dutch compromise on ritual slaughter. Radio Netherlands Worldwide 

Velarde  A, and Cenci-Goga B 2010 WP2.2 Religious slaughter:  Evaluation of current practices,   1-4. 
dialrel 

Von  Holleben  K,  Von  Wenzlawowicz  M,  Gregory  N,  Anil  H,  Velarde  A,  Rodriguez  P,  Cenci-Goga  BT, 
Catanese B, and Lambooij E 2010 Report on good and adverse practices - animal welfare concerns in 
relation 
sciences:  dialrel. 
http://www.dialrel.eu/images/veterinary-concerns.pdf 

the  viewpoint  of  veterinary 

slaughter  practices 

from 

to 

Wagner  AE,  Muir  WW,  and  Grospitch  BJ  1990  Cardiopulmonary  Effects  of  Position  in  Conscious 
Cattle. American Journal of Veterinary Research 51: 7-10. 

Warin A 2009 Etude des reactions comportementales des bovins et de l’utilisation du box rotatif dans 
le processus d’abattage rituel. Université Paris XIII 

Warin-Ramette A, and Mirabito L 2010 Use of rotating box and turned-back position of cattle at the 
time  of  slaughter  61st  Annual  Meeting  of  the  European  Association  for  Animal  Production  56. 
European Federation of Animal Science: Heraklion, Crete, Greece 

224 

 
Wathes CM 2012 Cattle inversion for religious slaughter. Farm Animal Welfare Committe: London 

Wotton SB, and Gregory NG 1986 Pig Slaughtering Procedures - Time to Loss of Brain Responsiveness 
after Exsanguination or Cardiac-Arrest. Research in Veterinary Science 40: 148-151. 

BoRest final report June 2015 

225 

 
 
E
W
-
0
1
-
1
6
-
0
5
6
-
E
N
-
N