Page images
PDF
EPUB

When wheat is at a high level of price the tendency is to increase its acreage. The decrease in the acreage of wheat in the United Kingdom during the past 50 years has been occasioned by low price-levels and by cheap transport for wheat from various parts of the world, especially from the United States and Canada, from which countries wheat is usually carried to British ports at less than the cost of railing it 60 miles-say from Northampton to London.

To sum up. Both the production and the consumption of wheat have increased enormously throughout the world during the past twenty years. Eastern races now eat it freely, provided the price is reasonable. Wheat is grown everywhere in the world, and it has never yet happened that the wheat harvest has failed simultaneously throughout the world. Wheat is easy to move, and it is also easy to finance, because, since it is always marketable, bankers consider it the finest collateral against loans. For these reasons wheat can be moved from any one part of the world to any other part of the world at a very small cost. Merchants in every part of the world are constantly watching for opportunities to earn a small margin of profit (certainly not more than 1 per cent. gross profit) by moving wheat from one country to another. As a result the prices of wheat throughout the world always bear a distinct relation towards each other, and the price in no one country ever rises or falls to a figure disproportionate to that prevailing in other countries. If owing to the failure of some important harvest the price of wheat in general rises, those nations which have only recently taken to consuming wheaten bread tend to revert to the use of the food which they formerly used, and thus a larger quantity of wheat is set free for those countries which have always used wheaten bread. As examples of this practice, in times of high prices, Germany reverts to the use of rye; India to the use of pulse and millet; Italy to the use of maize polenta; China and Japan to the use of rice. By this means additional wheat can be secured by countries such as the United Kingdom, which have for many generations used only wheaten bread. Prophecy is dangerous, but it seems unlikely that the people of this country will for many years to come have to pay as much for their bread as is to-day being paid in the United States and Canada.

HERBERT T. ROBSON

THE SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS

1. Report of the Committee Appointed by the Admiralty to consider the Humane Slaughtering of "Animals.

2.

1904.

Model By-laws issued by the Local Government Board. 1915.

3. London County Council-By-laws-Humane Killing. 1923.

4. Corporation of London. Report relative to the Humane Slaughtering

of Animals.

THE

1925.

"HERE is, without any doubt, a widespread and growing feeling throughout the country that the old ways of killing animals for food involve great and unnecessary suffering. Much has been done by Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, by butchers and others, to improve slaughtering methods; but the shocking fact remains that every day about 40,000 animals in this country are killed in the traditional way.* Meat-eating friends have confessed to me that, after witnessing ordinary slaughtering operations, they have felt very distinct qualms on facing their next steak or mutton chop. Many of us believe that it is unnatural for human beings to eat flesh at all, but, as the majority of the inhabitants of Great Britain do not share this view, it seems to me that the best course to take is to work with humane butchers and others for slaughterhouse reform. And here I would like to say that many butchers are among the most earnest and helpful people in this crusade.

[ocr errors]

In the four reports on which this article is founded there is no more important pronouncement than the first general recommendation of the Admiralty Committee in 1904: 'That all animals, without exception, should be stunned, or otherwise rendered unconscious, before blood is drawn." This committee had the assistance of two eminent physiologists, Professors Michael Foster and Ernest Starling. It examined many witnesses, including butchers, superintendents of slaughter-houses, veterinary surgeons, and others; and methods of slaughter both at home and abroad were studied.

Every decent person will agree that if animals have to be

*Unless otherwise stated, everything referred to in this article applies to what happens in Great Britain.

killed for food the killing should be as painless as it is possible to make it; with a humane killer (or mechanically-operated instrument) it can actually be accomplished without the fraction of a second's physical suffering. There are many slaughterhouses in the country to-day where this statement can be proved. I, myself, on many occasions have watched the killing of numbers of cattle, sheep, pigs and calves, with the greatest thankfulness at the certainty, as proved by the eye-test, of the complete painlessness of the operation.

In March, 1923, the Public Health Committee of the London County Council published a very instructive report, the first paragraph of which reads as follows:

We have given further and prolonged consideration to the question whether the Council should be advised to amend the by-laws respecting slaughterhouses in the County of London by the incorporation from the model by-laws issued by the Minister of Health of clause 9b requiring the use of mechanically operated instruments in connection with the slaughter of animals. We reported (December 20, 1921) that on the facts then before us we were not prepared to advise the Council to adopt the clause; but as we are now of opinion that the clause should be adopted, and are so recommending, it is necessary for us to place the case fully before the Council.

The Council agreed to the recommendation and the following by-law (clause 9b.) was adopted and came into force in March, 1924:

96.-A person shall not in a slaughterhouse proceed to slaughter any animal until the same shall have been effectually stunned, and such stunning shall, except as hereinafter provided, be effected with a mechanically operated instrument suitable and sufficient for the purpose.

Provided that this by-law, so far as it would require the stunning of sheep and the use of a mechanically operated instrument, shall not apply until the expiration of three months from and after the date of the confirmation of these by-laws.

Provided further that this by-law shall not be deemed to apply to any member of the Jewish faith, duly licensed by the Chief Rabbi as a slaughterer, when engaged in the slaughtering of cattle intended for the food of Jews according to the Jewish method of slaughtering, if no unnecessary suffering is inflicted.

The L.C.C. committee received replies from fifty-seven local authorities to whom they addressed inquiries. The experience of Southampton is so important, extending as it does for over

nine years, that I quote in full the letter received from Dr. Lauder, Medical Officer of that town, November 23, 1922:

I beg to say that the by-law adopted by my Council in respect of the humane slaughtering of animals by the use of a mechanical instrument has been rigidly enforced since 1916. It has worked satisfactorily and with little opposition.

The humane killer stops the cruelties of the pole-axe and the knife, and allows slaughtering to be done with the minimum of pain to the animal.

Questions have arisen from time to time with regard to the keeping qualities of the meat, but it has been found that there is no appreciable difference between the meat of animals killed with the humane killer and that of those killed by the knife, provided that they are bled immediately on being shot.

By using a suitable strength cartridge according to the size of the animal the risk of any danger is eliminated, and with the ordinary care required in the use of firearms there is little risk of an accident. Only three minor accidents to the hands have been reported since the operation of the by-law, and these occurred through the improper and careless use of the instrument.

Let us now compare the traditional and the humane method of killing cattle.

Chiefly, I think, to save themselves trouble, butchers almost invariably stun cattle before bleeding them, the time-honoured weapon for this purpose usually being the pole-axe, though in some districts a blunt hammer is used. The pole-axe is a longhandled axe with a hollow punch or "thimble" fixed at the back of the axe head. This punch, if the blow struck is successful, is driven through the frontal bone and into the brain and the animal then drops to the ground insensible. I think nobody denies that, when used with perfect accuracy of aim and sufficient strength, the pole-axe is a satisfactory weapon; but it is by no means an "instrument of precision," and even experts, as a butcher once said, cannot "guarantee "to fell a beast with one blow. The Ministry of Agriculture (Circular, March 5, 1921) points out with perfect truth that :

The men who wield the pole-axe skilfully are in the minority, and all beginners must, or rather do, learn by actual practice on living animals.

It must be understood that the part of the head to be struck is only about the size of the top of a breakfast cup, and that to give an effective blow the axe must be swung fairly high before being

brought down on the animal's head. The "thimble" of the axe sometimes gets embedded in the skull of the animal and has to be shaken to and fro to get it out.

Mr. Dodds, Superintendent of Carlisle Public Slaughterhouse, who has been connected with the meat trade for over forty years, writes in 1923

The pole-axe for cattle is a most uncertain weapon even in skilled hands only recently I witnessed a small Ayrshire cow with the axe driven in near the eye and pulled out again.

Mr. Terry, slaughterman, Croydon, says :

I have seen a professional slaughterman hit a bullock as many as twelve or thirteen times before it was properly stunned. I have seen bullocks hit several times go absolutely mad, foaming at the mouth and bellowing with pain.

The difficulties of successful stunning with the axe are enormously increased when a bull or very restive animal has to be dealt with. The practice of cutting through the hide with a knife and laying the skull bare, so as to facilitate stunning, is by no means unknown when bulls have to be killed with the pole-axe. Consider also the trouble that the men have with very restive or nervous cattle, and the suffering that is inevitable when nothing but the pole-axe is available!

Mr. Terry (mentioned above) writes very graphically on the difference of the two methods with particular reference to difficult cattle :

To use the pole-axe it is necessary to have the animal's head pulled very securely. (N.B.-This is done with a rope down to a ring on the wall or in the floor of the slaughterhouse.) If this is not done he will move his head, and the slaughterman strike in the wrong place. The process of pulling him about with ropes excites and terrifies him. Many animals are very sulky, lie down and refuse to move. To get him in position for using the pole-axe the slaughterman, however humane he may be, is obliged to use some cruelty to get the animal to move. With the humane killer none of this is necessary. In the first place it is not required to secure him so firmly. Then a sulky animal is easily stunned with the humane killer without getting him up at all.

On two occasions I, myself, saw cattle, which had slipped and fallen, easily shot on the ground where they lay, with the R.S.P.C.A. killer. The men told me that with the pole-axe it would have been necessary to get them up and into special position for the fatal blow. It is an undoubted fact that in the

« PreviousContinue »