ArticleAnimal welfare (South Mimms, England)2025
Assessing the use of a mechanical rump pusher in a commercial cattle slaughter plant.
Article in Animal welfare (South Mimms, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Commercial cattle slaughter operations have shown an increasing trend towards automation, with the aim being to improve animal welfare, product quality and efficiency. Several cattle slaughter plants have introduced mechanical rump pushers (RP) prior to the entrance of the stun box to reduce human-animal interaction and facilitate a smoother transition from the raceway to stun box. Presently, there are no data regarding the use of RPs in commercial slaughter environments operating at 40 cattle per hour. Therefore, this study observed normal operations at a UK slaughter plant, which has an RP installed, and assessed the level of coercion required to enter the RP, the use of the RP, cattle behaviour inside the RP and carcase bruising. The RP was used on 267 of the 815 cattle observed (32.8%) and was more likely to be used on dairy cattle and those who received a higher coercion score when entering the RP. Overall, 60 cattle (7.4%) required the highest coercion score and four (0.49%) required the use of the electric goad. Inside the RP, eleven animals slipped (1.8%) and ten vocalised (1.6%) although no incidences were directly associated with RP use. However, increased time restrained in the RP was significantly associated with more gate slams into the RP entrance gate. The use of the RP was not significantly associated with carcase bruising. These results are encouraging, and although it cannot be concluded that the presence of an RP improves cattle welfare at slaughter, use of automation within cattle slaughter facilities warrants further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.