Animal Welfare And Meat Quality: A Review From A ‘Small Exporter’

High welfare meat products have become more popular with consumers in recent years, and consequently they can demand a higher sales price in stores. On an industry level, animal welfare is measured using a range of indicators related to an animal’s health: longevity, productive and reproductive success, behavior and physiology, and measures of animals’ preferences or motivations. But welfare regulations are usually based on scientific studies of animals in intensive farming systems, not extensive (free range) systems. As such, it’s important to evaluate whether meat production systems classed as “higher welfare” really do improve the animal’s lives.

A new study of cow farming in Uruguay examines the impact of a change in farming from 2003 to 2014 on animal welfare and meat quality. During this period, Uruguay underwent a shift from traditional rangeland grazing systems to intensive fattening systems where feed concentrates are used. Cow husbandry practices and pre-slaughter conditions were also investigated. It’s important to note from the outset that, in many ways, this review conflates meat quality with good welfare.

The review found that feed cereal concentrates were commonly used to increase the growth of a cow when they are near slaughter age (finishing) or when pasture is scarce (during the winter). While feeding concentrates to cattle from Uruguay improved meat quality (and, theoretically, their welfare), the researchers also noted that feedlot systems were not advised because they caused behavioral stress in the cattle.

Additionally, consumers were often not aware that some procedures used in Uruguay’s extensive ranching systems were painful to animals. In one example, the study examined different methods of castration and how much stress they inflicted on male calves of 1 week, 1 month, and 6 to 7 months of age. Rubber bands were the most painful method, surgical castration was less painful (using a knife or scalpel), and Burdizzo (using a clamp) was the least painful method. The study recommended the castration of male calves at an age of 1 week to 1 month using a local anesthetic to minimize animal suffering.

It’s worth noting that some husbandry practices which are recommended to promote animal welfare are not actually applicable to Uruguay’s farming systems. For example, pre-slaughter transport and handling can be stressful and have a negative impact on welfare and meat quality (pH, meat color, and tenderness). Most animal welfare recommendations say that animals should be killed as soon as they arrive at the slaughterhouse and food should be provided if they stay in the lairage (holding pen) for more than 12 hours. In Uruguay, the report found a reduction in animal stress levels was observed after being in the lairage more than 3 hours but less than 12 hours, and feeding at the lairage was not recommended due to the short travel time from farm to slaughterhouse.

The study also found that when it comes to welfare, animals’ individual temperaments are also important. Animals with a calmer temperament were found to have better meat quality and lower levels of the cortisol stress hormone. Yet all animals were stressed by the slaughter process, no matter whether they came from extensive or intensive systems.

Overall, the study shows that better animal welfare practices in a range of scenarios can improve meat quality: pain from castration can be reduced by changing practices and perhaps be avoided altogether by using a vaccine, while stress at the slaughterhouse can be reduced by certain changes in transport and lairage time. As one of the smaller meat-producing countries, Uruguay seems committed to maintaining its reputation for high animal welfare. The government is actively training farmers and slaughterhouse workers to use this research for making changes to their farming methods which will reduce animal suffering.

Astute animal advocates know that equating good welfare with meat quality is a slippery slope: enacting better welfare practices simply to improve meat quality is likely to mean that welfare shortcuts will be taken if they are found not to affect it. However, sometimes as advocates we want to find common ground with industry for the sake of bettering animal lives. Animal advocates who promote welfare reform can use the information in this study to work with farmers in their own country to effect positive change for the animals.