3 ms·

Sounds like this one is different. > We have invested in research to understand which techniques cause the least pain and stress to the animals and to their ha

Sounds like this one is different. > We have invested in research to understand which techniques cause the least pain and stress to the animals and to their handlers. For pigs weighing less than 65 pounds, we use either carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes painless loss of consciousness and death, or a device called a nonpenetrating captive bolt gun, which administers a controlled blow to the head without breaking the skin, instantaneously rendering the animal insensible and causing a quick death. For pigs larger than 65 pounds, we use a penetrating captive bolt gun that fires a retractable metal bolt into the brain, resulting in insensibility and death. https://www.smithfieldfoods.com/animal-care https://www.smithfieldfoods.com/animal-care (near the bottom is a section labelled "Humane Euthanasia and Slaughter")

Ancapistani 4y ago
Surely that's a mistake - if not, it's a huge problem. I'm going to reach out to them and ask for clarification, because that statement is entirely inconsistent with reality.
- Ancapistani 4y ago
  Hmm. I'm doing some digging, and apparently CO2 is used, at least in some context, for a lot of large processors. Here's an example of a product advertising it: https://www.frontmatec.com/en/pork-solutions/unclean-line/stunning/co2-stunning-system# https://www.frontmatec.com/en/pork-solutions/unclean-line/st... Mea culpa. I'll do a bit more digging first, to make sure I understand how it's being used. Just putting an animal into a chamber with a concentrated CO2 atmosphere would be identical to putting a bag over their head - obviously inhumane. Logically, that doesn't make sense to me. If nothing else, the animals would struggle and be very loud, which would panic the rest of the queue. I'll follow up once I know more.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    "Painless" is subjective enough[0] that someone who genuinely doesn't care says "good enough" despite much pain and suffering. Makes me wonder about relative costs of these substances. Point being, I believe that you are correct and that it's entirely possible the relevant decision makers simply don't care or, worse, recognize that they are being dishonest and don't care about that. [0] Unless you can completely eliminate pain it's not strictly painless. Once you allow interpretation, you'll see questionable interpretations.

Ancapistani 4y ago

Surely that's a mistake - if not, it's a huge problem. I'm going to reach out to them and ask for clarification, because that statement is entirely inconsistent with reality.

Ancapistani 4y ago
Hmm. I'm doing some digging, and apparently CO2 is used, at least in some context, for a lot of large processors. Here's an example of a product advertising it: https://www.frontmatec.com/en/pork-solutions/unclean-line/stunning/co2-stunning-system# https://www.frontmatec.com/en/pork-solutions/unclean-line/st... Mea culpa. I'll do a bit more digging first, to make sure I understand how it's being used. Just putting an animal into a chamber with a concentrated CO2 atmosphere would be identical to putting a bag over their head - obviously inhumane. Logically, that doesn't make sense to me. If nothing else, the animals would struggle and be very loud, which would panic the rest of the queue. I'll follow up once I know more.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  "Painless" is subjective enough[0] that someone who genuinely doesn't care says "good enough" despite much pain and suffering. Makes me wonder about relative costs of these substances. Point being, I believe that you are correct and that it's entirely possible the relevant decision makers simply don't care or, worse, recognize that they are being dishonest and don't care about that. [0] Unless you can completely eliminate pain it's not strictly painless. Once you allow interpretation, you'll see questionable interpretations.