Horse Slaughter

Post Reply New Topic

Okay. A bill has been passed allowing horse slaughter in Oklahoma. The Valley Meat Co. in New Mexico has also applied to open a horse slaughter plant there. I would like to have a discussion on the matter.

I am against horse slaughter. WHY? Because it is inhumane, provides no economic benefit to the country, does NOT reduce the cases of abuse and neglect, and it essentially provides no benefit except for the monetary gain of the select few involved in the horse slaughter industry.

Okay, now let me support my statements.
1) Horse slaughter provides no economic benefit to the country.

A letter from Paula Bacon, of Kaufman, TX, where she was mayor, describes the economic impact of having a slaughter plant in the town: "A horse slaughter plant creates expensive environmental problems for tax payers [and] profoundly affects our crime rate" (www.kaufmanzoning.net, "Mayor Paula Bacon Letter Regarding Horse Slaughter and the Effects on Her Community"). Bacon also stated that "had the slaughter plant not closed in 2007, our town would have been required to spend a minimum of $6 million...to build a new wastewater treatment plant" due to the large amounts of waste produced from the slaughter house. Also, toward the end of its operation, the Dallas Crown horse slaughter plant refused to pay the fines for the citations regarding their violations and instead, wanted separate trials regarding each citation. At one time, the plant owed $916,000 in potential fines. The trials were never resolved so the city was left to compensate for the multiple violations of the plant (pg. 4). Also, horse slaughter plants do not provide quality jobs or even many jobs in the first place. In 2006, no more than 178 jobs were supplied by all three of the slaughter houses in the United States. Also, they almost exclusively employed Hispanic immigrants (www.kaufmanzoning.net, "Mayor Paula Bacon Letter Regarding Horse Slaughter..."). Dr. Temple Grandin also stated that horse employees who do the killing, bleeding, shackling, and driving should be rotated (grandin.com, "Behavior of Slaughter Plant and Auction Employees...") most likely due to the psychological stress of a job at a slaughter plant.

2) Horse slaughter does not reduce the cases of abuse and neglect.

When horse slaughter rates fell in the 1990's and early 2000's, there was no corresponding rise in neglect or abuse cases and Illinois neglect and abuse cases actually fell when the Cavel horse slaughter plant was temporarily shut down (homesforhorses.org, "Debunking the unwanted horse myth").

3) Horse slaughter is inhumane.

The entire process from being loaded onto overcrowded, double-decker stock trailers on a trip during which the horses are confined for up to 24 hours with no food, rest, or water (USDA, "Slaughter Horse Transport Program"; vetsforequinewelfare.org, "White Paper"), to the actual slaughtering process. While in double-decker stock trailers, horses are unable to put their heads up in a normal position due to the inadequate height of the ceiling. This frequently causes horses to slip and fall on the urine-covered floor due to their inability to balance. In the United States, the accepted method for rendering horses unconscious is called the penetrating captive bolt. The penetrating captive bolt is a device that shoots a metal rod into the brain of an animal. It was originally designed for cattle, whose brain is positioned more anterior in the skull than that of a horse. This causes issues in the efficacy of the method, often requiring multiple blows to render the horse unconscious. Although it can, under certain circumstances, be used efficiently by a veterinarian, slaughter houses do not use veterinarians (vetsforequinewelfare.org, "White Paper"). Also, for proper administration of this device, the horse's head must be adequately restrained to ensure accuracy (avma.org, "Guidelines on Euthanasia”). This does not happen in slaughter houses. Finally, the captive bolt method has been shown through electroencephalograph monitoring that it causes pain when administered (themodernreligion.com, "Islamic Method of Slaughtering Animals is Better - Scientific Reason") which is contrary to the AVMA's definition of humane euthanasia.

I'm against slaughter of any animal if it's done in an inhumane method.But horses are no different from cattle or chickens.I've seen starving horses and reported them to the police,who very seldom do something,I'd rather someone sell them and they have a quick humane death than to slowly starve in a hot field with no water or shelter.
The problem is there are too many horses and they sell cheap,anyone can purchase one at a whim.They have no idea about the expense and up keep of a large animal.
Stop idiots from breeding them like rabbits and the problem would solve itself.

I agree. Although horses are different from cattle and chickens because they are not raised for human consumption. They are therefore given many harmful medications that are not approved by the FDA or EU for use on horses intended for human consumption. The issue is, the horses that are sent to slaughter aren't the ones that are starved. The people starve horses because they are cruel and not because of a want for slaughter. The same number of horses in the US are currently being sent to slaughter, they are just being shipped over the border to Canada and Mexico but horses continue to be starved. The people who send the horses to slaughter are the mass breeders who have the intelligence and education as well as the funds to find proper homes for their horses, they just choose slaughter because it is easier. Banning slaughter will actually reduce the breeding rate and the number of unwanted horses. This is because these mass breeders will no longer have a dumping grounds for their horses. The will have to find proper homes for their horses and will have to slow down their breeding rate. There is proof that banning horse slaughter will reduce the number of unwanted horses. For a short time after the slaughter houses in the US were shut down, the number of American horses slaughtered decreased. During this time, the New Holland Livestock Auction (the number one slaughter auction in the US) saw a decrease in the number of "loose horses" at the auction (these are the horses that the horse industry considers unwanted). The loose horses that were at the auction were sold for more money. The truth is, the horses that are sent to slaughter are only unwanted because no one has given them a purpose. These are young horses who are healthy and trainable and just need someone to train them. With slaughter banned, these horses will be given this opportunity instead of being shipped to slaughter for an inhumane death.

The SAFE Act (Safeguard American Foods Export Act) will once again place the ban on horse slaughter in the United States and will close the loopholes that allow the transport of horses for slaughter to Canada and Mexico.

So are these horses being slaughtered for food or for glue or what? You sorta imply food but it's a little unclear.

I'm not sure who eats horse...

I'm sorry. The horses are slaughtered for human consumption. Horse meat is a delicacy in France and Belgium.

Name some.

In reality, there is generally little need to medicate horses all that much. When they do, the medications available are probably the same ones used on cattle and other livestock.



That is absurd.

Hardly anyone would even think of starving horses just to torment them.

Horses are usually worth a lot of money -- starving them means that you are going to get much less use out of them.

In the recent drought, horses were starving because of a lack of feed and because of the high costs of it.



Are you sure you are talking about horses instead of dogs?

Okay, here are some of the medications given to horses that are not approved for use on horses designed for human consumption. If you look up on the FDA, it says on the drug information that it is not to be used on horses intended for human consumption. It also says that on the labels of the medications. Here are some of the medications: acepromazine maleate, phenylbutazone (bute), boldenone undecylenate, omeprazole, ketoprofen, ivermectin, xylazine HCl, hyaluronic acid (sodium hyaluronate), pyrantel tartrate, nitrofurazone, polysulfated glycosaminoglycan (PSGAG), clenbuterol HCl, tolazoline HCl, moxidectin, ponazuril, etc.
Phenylbutazone, which is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug(NSAID) has been administered to most American horses some time during their lifetime. There have been several cases where horse meat has tested positive for traces of phenylbutazone.

Many of the people who starve horses starve them because they are cruel. Why do you think people abuse and starve dogs? True, there are some people who starve horses because they do not have the funds to properly feed them, but most of these people wouldn't send their horses to slaughter. The rescue with which I am affiliated has had people literally pay them to take their horses because they don't want them to go to slaughter and they can't afford to keep them.

No, I am talking about horses. Not dogs. For example, the PMU (Pregnant Mare Urine) Ranches who harvest the mares' urine for use in hormone replacement therapy such as Premarin. These ranches have an average of 108 mares who are constantly pregnant. They have catheters collecting their urine. The foals are then shipped to slaughter. That means on average, 108 foals sent to slaughter times the number of PMU ranches in the US just because they don't want to find any homes for the horses. There are also the large quarter horse ranches that breed many quarter horses each year and use embryo transplants so that they can have multiple foals from the same mare each year.

Those are drugs that might be given to horses. We'd probably have to ask a large animal veterinarian to find out how often they are actually used. Note that for most American horses to have been treated with phenylbutazone at some point in their life, that would mean that most of them had a condition requiring such treatment.



I don't think that I've ever met anyone who starved horses because they were cruel. I have known some who couldn't afford to feed their horses, particularly in the recent drought when the grass in the pastures wasn't growing.



And your point is what? Are you saying that they are mistreating the horses out of cruelty?

I agree. Although horses are different from cattle and chickens because they are not raised for human consumption. They are therefore given many harmful medications that are not approved by the FDA or EU for use on horses intended for human consumption.[/quote]

Name some.

I am a Veterinary Technology student and I just did a project that involved listing medications regularly used in horses.
Here are some of the lovely carcinogens, anesthetics, tranquillizers and pain medications used all the time in horses:

Butorphanol- Opioid Analgesic, not labeled for use in horses intended for human consumption.

Ketoprofen- Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Analgesic, not labeled for use in horses intended for human consumption.

Lidocaine- Anti-arrhythmic, not labeled for use in horses intended for human consumption.

Acepromazine- Phenothaizine tranquillizer, not labeled for use in horses intended for human consumption.

Albuterol- Beta-Adrenergic agonist used to treat the horse version of asthma, not labeled for use in horses intended for human consumption.

Cisplatin- Really scary chemotherapy drug used to treat skin tumors, not labeled for use in horses intended for human consumption.

Carprofen- Non Steroidal Anti-inflammatory, not labeled for use in horses intended for human consumption.

Cephalezin- Antibiotic, not labeled for use in horses intended for human consumption.

Famotidine- H2 receptor agonist used to treat stomach ulcers which are very common in horses, not labeled for use in horses intended for human consumption.

Methadone- (Yes the medicine used to treat heroin addiction) Analgesic, not labeled for use in horses intended for human consumption.

Prednisone- Steroid used to reduce inflammation, not labeled for use in horses intended for human consumption.

All from a quick flip through the Plumb's Veterinary Drug Handbook.
The drugs listed are either completely banned in meat animals or have heavily regulated withdrawal times lasting several weeks.

Also the feet and digestive systems of horses are naturally messed up and they all end up being treated for either colic or laminitis in their lifetime. Unlike cattle, they are considered companion animals and usually live long enough to develop cancer and chronic health problems as well.

I know of horses that were starved to death,I've called the cops over it.
Horses are not worth a lot of money here,I could buy one for a hundred dollars.
A horse that's taken care of is going to have womer in its system,and stuff for flies and ticks.
But people that don't care don't do these things,they pin the animal up and let it die.
Horses require good hay,not junk hay,coggins testing,shoes,etc.They are expensive to keep.
I know,I've had a horse.Give me a good mule any day.

Outside of the drought, I haven't seen a horse go that cheap in a long time. My first horse was $50 if I remember correctly, but that was in the mid 60s. At the same time, my father's horse was approximately $1,200 or so (I don't remember the exact amount).

I think its not such a good comparison. The horses that the french eat as delicacy in france are breeded for that task, so they have special foodhorse farms. As example, as most of the beef we eat are young male cows (dont aks me for the name ^^) the delicacy horses are young and treated in a way that supports their flesh and taste.

Horses that were not raised to be eaten, so normal riding horses, sport horses, farm horses and so on are eaten in my country (Austria = beside Germany ) as well, simply because it would have been a waste to throw the flesh in the garbage and you have to get rid of it anyway. But normally its no delicacy, simply because old riding horses dont have that tasty flesh. Some do like it, because the flesh normally has not as much fat as beefflesh and it contents much iron. But only horses are used, that didnt needed to be treated with medications, that are dangerous for humans. We also do have smaller butcher factories, so if you have to drive 1-2 hours to a butcher factory its a long way. If someone had to drive 24 hours to a butcher factory, I would be whondering if he is slaying the horse in Baghdad. ^^

While the French raise their delicacy horses normally themselfs, the horse flesh that is delivered from the USA via Mexico and Canada normally has lower quality. So it is generally used for meals that only contents smaller parts of flesh that are anyway heavy spiced as Lasagne, Ravioli, spiced sausages, fleshpies, china rolls and so on. So in these meals you are not forced to use good quality flesh, because in a heavy spiced lasagne with fleshbrew in it, most people couldnt tell anyway if that was chicken, fish, beef, horse or styropor. ^^

So my opinions: I dont want an animal raised only to end as flesh, so simply industrial animal flesh farms I dont want to support. Anyway if an animal exists for another purpose and it is dying, I dont see the point to throw away useful flesh, so I have no problem with the use of horse flesh generally. But I dont support animal transports for more then some hours, so the 1-2 hours until the regional capital city is ok for me, but I agree that I dont want a horse to be driven 24 hours. I dont know about the butchering itself, but we normally have special horses butcheries in every greater city, so I hope that these butcheries that are specialised on horses also are able to do their job in a way that fits the horses, and dont use unfitting stuff that was originally to butcher beefs. And if a horse needed medications, that are not good for humans, the horse cant be eaten.

Or shortly: Horse flesh ok, torturing horses not ok, dangerous medication in horse flesh = no food.

Of course there are drugs administered to horses that are restricted from animals intended for human consumption.

Veterenary medicine is provided only to a narrow number of animals:

1) Animals raised for human consumption, or for consumption of animal products
2) Animals kept for working purposes
3) Animals kept as pets
4) Animals kept for scientific and cultural purposes

In only one of these cases does a veterenarian need to be concerned about the potential impact on the human food chain. And there are very few animals that cross over these categories. Horses are the prime example of an animal kept both for consumption and working purposes, so it stands to reason that all medications intended for use in horses will be classified as to whether they can properly be used on horses raised for human consumption.

Nothing in any of this demonstrates that the slaughter of horses--whether for food or for other uses--is inhumane in se. If slaughterhouses are not properly run, then by all means use the full force of the law to enforce compliance with both envrionmental and humanitarian regulations. But do not suppose that one poorly run slaughterhouse is the standard by which all are run.

There is no method for killing large numbers of horses in a humane way that does not taint the meat. So yes, slaughter is inhumane.

Like almost all absolute statements, yours does not stand up to scrutiny.

Does inhumane slaughter occur? Yes, it certainly does. Primarily caused by the use of facilities designed for cattle, and a failure on the part of regulators to enforce equine specific treatment.

By way of example, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency regulates the slaughter of all animals destined for human consumption in Part III of the Meat Inspection Regulations and species specific guidelines in the Meat Inspection Manual of Procedures. For example, while stunning of cattle may be undertaken by mechanical or electrical means; and stunning of swine may be done by mechanical, electrical or gas, only mechanical means are approved for horses, bison and cervids. Canada is no different than any other industrial nation in this regard.

Do not confuse the failure of governments to enforce the laws that govern slaughter with the inability of establishment humane methods of slaughter. Given latitude, the industry will naturally attempt to cut corners. But with vigilant oversight, it is possible to undertake humane slaughter, with a minimum of distress to the animal.

Actually, I developed this statement FROM research. The two methods of killing or rendering a horse unconscious in slaughter plants: penetrating captive bolt and a shot to the head cannot be made humane for large numbers of horses.

Okay so first, the penetrating captive bolt. The penetrating captive bolt shoots a metal rod into the horses head and is used to render the horse temporarily unconscious before hoisting it and slitting its throat. The penetrating captive bolt was originally designed for cattle, whose brains are located anterior in the skull to those of horses. Therefore it is not very effective on horses. Second, there is only a small area on the horse's skull where the captive bolt can be effectively applied. In slaughter facilities, the horses heads are not restrained (unlike cattle) which, considering that the horses are moving their heads around, greatly decreases accuracy. Third, when the captive bolt is effective, it only renders the horse unconscious for approximately a minute. That gives the employees a minute to hoist the horse and let the horse bleed out before the horse regains consciousness. Finally, the captive bolt was designed to be used by a veterinarian. The employees at slaughter plants are minimally paid and not given the training which veterinarians receive.

The same goes for the shot in the head. It is perfectly humane for use on a single horse outside of the stressful environment of a slaughter house by a person who is trained in how to properly administer the shot. But again, the lack of head restraint, the mass numbers of horses being slaughtered, and the lack of advanced training by the employees at the slaughter plant leads to a greatly decreased accuracy.

Since those are the only two methods approved for the slaughter of horses, I can confidently say that there is no humane method to render large numbers of horses unconscious without tainting the meat. According to the AVMA, in order for euthanasia to be considered humane, the animal must be killed or rendered unconscious with a single blow and the death must be painless.