Home 
Action Alert Look out for bruises Rethinking Christmas Dinner updated
Action Alert Look out for bruises Rethinking Christmas Dinner updated | Rethinking Christmas Dinner updated |
|
|
  Update on Rethinking Christmas Dinner 131.65 KbBroken bones and bruises.. Somewhere along the production line, Tydstroom’s chickens are being battered? Clues come to light as our investigation continues… Special Report by Compassion in World Farming (South Africa) The story so far: In November 2008, Compassion in World Farming (South Africa) asked the Animal Welfare Society of South Africa (AWS) to investigate a complaint by Robertson resident Anne Botha that the chickens on display under the Tydstroom Free Range label at her local Pick n Pay branch had bruises and broken bones. After investigation of the complaint by the AWS team and the subsequent report published by Compassion in World Farming (South Africa) (see www.animal-voice.org then click on ‘News’ and scroll down to see this report), Mr Charlie Gerber, General Manager of Pioneer Foods, the controlling company of Tydstroom Poultry Farms, formally invited the AWS inspectors to revisit the plant. The saga continues: Who or what is causing Tydstroom’s chickens to have broken bones and bruises? The AWS team finds clues: On 26th November, at the invitation of Tydstrooms’ Mr Gerber, the three-man Animal Welfare Society team revisited Tydstrooms’ chicken abattoir in Durbanville, near Cape Town. The team comprised: Inspector Alicia Hewitt-Coleman, Inspector Neels Ferreira and Onderstepoort-qualified Veterinary Nurse, Janet Simon. This is their report: “We met Mr Gerber but could sense immediately that he was not particularly happy about our presence. He led us straight to the processing plant and immediately we saw that, unlike our last visit when the crates of chickens had been standing in the hot sun, this time the crates had been off-loaded from the truck and had been placed under cover with a fine mist of water spraying through the facility. Mr Gerber said that this cooling technique was customary whenever the temperature exceeded 25 deg C. On our second visit, therefore, our initial impression was that conditions were more favourable for the birds. However, we then asked if we could pull out a crate at random and check that the stocking density of 22 chickens per crate had been adhered to. Mr Gerber agreed and confirmed that the standard is 22 chickens per crate. However, the crate we selected at random contained 27 chickens with one dead and several others gasping. Mr Gerber said it was acceptable to have a dead-on-arrival rate of 0.3%. From our subsequent observation of events, we estimated that there were many more dead chickens than the accepted 0.3%. We observed that many of the crates, like last time, were still in bad condition with broken pieces that could easily jab into the chickens. We watched as the forklift machine picked up each crate and tipped it out onto a conveyer belt that was constructed in such a way that dead chickens fall through slots in the belt while the live chickens are caught for shackling. During the unloading process, some chickens escape and perch on top of the machinery. The entire operation is carried out outdoors and only after the bleeding process do the chickens enter into a factory building. What concerns us most is that there was no qualified supervision whatsoever, to ensure the humane handling of the live chickens. Mr Gerber acknowledged this fact. There was no supervision as the birds passed through the stun bath, no one to monitor the strength of the stunner, and no one to oversee the bleeding process. We saw lots of birds moving after they had supposedly been bled. Mr Gerber said this was normal. However, our subsequent investigation at another abattoir not belonging to Tydstroom, suggests that movement after bleeding is not the norm. Of specific concern to us was the additional stress and potential discomfort or even injury to the birds as a result of a poorly placed metal beam. As the shackled birds are carried on the conveyer belt towards the stun bath, there is a metal beam which is part of the construction of the plant, that they either bang against or have to try and lift their heads to miss. Inspector Coleman immediately suggested to Mr Gerber that the metal beam was the likely cause of so many bruises and breakages. Mr Gerber thanked Inspector Coleman for pointing this out to him. We concluded that Tydstroom should give immediate and urgent attention to methods that will reduce the level of stress of the chickens, as indicated by the frantic beating of wings. We suggest:
Meanwhile, further complaints about the condition of Tydstroom’s chickens have come into this office in the last few days. On 6th November, Anne Botha, our original complainant, said: “Yesterday I was at P n P and examined the birds. Tiny things hardly bigger than a pigeon (!) most with some bruising on wings, but one poor bird had a massive purple/brown bruise bigger than a R5 coin on its breast. I am absolutely appalled that this abuse has continued unabated. No doubt you will bring this to Tessa Chamberlain's attention, among others. It seems the Tydstroom team are very smug that nothing whatever will happen about the abuse.” After our first report, an independent Animal Welfare Inspector Jenny Copley, who lives in Grahamstown wrote: Dear Louise and team. Well done on this shocking story! Strangely enough on Saturday I pointed out some severely bruised Tydstroom "free range" pieces to the manager at the Grahamstown Pick n Pay. I also explained to him (which he didn't know) that bruising occurs pre-mortem. He promised to email them (Tydstroom) immediately to complain. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|