Talk:Slaughterhouse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why were links to Slaughterhouse Investigations Removed?

There have been numerous slaughterhouse investigations over the past several years. I think these are highly relevant and should be re-included.

ok, I've put "Surveys of Stunning and Handling in Slaughter Plants" into external links. David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 07:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Split

This needs to be split out into modern slaughterhouses, and historical info. Mark Richards 18:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

intro

I removed the phrase Most horse slaughter is done in Europe until it can be supported by a citation. Una Smith 02:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The sentence "Slaughtering animals is opposed by ..." should be changed. It is misleading. Not all vegetarians (or even vegans, maybe?) oppose animal slaughter on ethical grounds. Some just choose that diet for health concerns. Some are concerned about mass animal production in relation to the environment and are not specifically opposed to the slaughter of animals. The sentence may not even be necessary at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.250.184 (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Delhi slaughterhouse

Moved link added by an anon to here

To read more on work being done on the slaughterhouse in Delhi, India:

Visit http://blog.sarai.net/users/ritika

Initially it doesn't look promising, but about a page down there is a significant amount of information relating to Delhi's main slaughterhouse. Its a bit POV, but also has an international perspective, so somebody could probably extract some useful details for the article. -- Solipsist 09:13, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PETA link removal

Hi

Sorry, I made a cut instead of a copy. Glad you noticed it and fixed it. Reply to David Latapie 17:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

warning

shouldn't there be a warning disclaimer before the process section if it so disturbing to know how animals are slaughtered, like for example:warning:the following may include disturbing unpleasant details on the slaughter of an animal.

That might make a little sense, but why would anyone look at the slaughterhouse page if they didn't want to know about slaughterhouses? Tekana (O.o) Talk 09:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. The title of the section is "Slaughterhouse", not "pink bunny petting zoo". Jake b 05:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is offical policy that Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. I think the article requires more pictures of abattoirs, pictures that show what they are like inside and how the animals are processed. If someone comes the the "Slaughterhouse" article and is easily offended, they can 'turn off images' in their webbrowser. Ashmoo 04:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)+

Is there a page about and linking to those slaughterhouse videos where the cows were left to die in a pool of their own and other cows blood with their trachea hanging out while an employee kicked blood on its face? Ok, maybe that's too specific but I think it is common knowledge that slaughterhouse conditions are disgusting and inhumane. I would like to know more about it and see if anyone else has been able to sneak in and get real footage? 19:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC) The big Cowhuna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.52.221 (talk) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THIODWTqx5E Merry Christmas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.111.43 (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutral?

I noticed one particular phrase and a friend of mine pointed it out.

"In their turn, most slaughterhouses are secretive to avoid controversy."

they follow strict USDA regulation by the federal government and are not "secrective" at all. Its just that the general public isn't allowed access just like any other corporate enterprise would deny you access into their establishment because you have no business there.

KerryJones 22:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You are probably right. I thought that might have been my wording following a big POV cleanup last Novemeber. There had been some stronger statements in there before, and it looks like the phrase has been subsequently strengthened again to 'secretive' by someone else.

Ideally you want a phrasing that suggests that abatoirs are happy to be ignored. Its not really true that all corporate enterprises are equally secretive. There's a spectrum. If you were a journalist and said you wanted to do a piece about them, most companies would be happy to show you around. Some might have industrial secrets or health and safety concerns and not want to show you sensitive parts of the factory, but they would still welcome the free publicity.

I suspect the opposite is the case with most abatoirs — they are not customer facing businesses and would have little to gain from the publicity. It is certainly possible to visit them, but my guess would be you would have to work harder to pursuade them that you weren't a threat. -- Solipsist 12:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There are many video documentaries about slaughterhouses, butcher shops and meat processing companies. Discovery channel has an excellent one and I've seen at least three others. There are some very real reasons why they may not invite unknown people in such as sanitation issues (you want your meat to be kept clean), the time it takes to give tours and the very real threat from animal rights activists. -- pubwvj 8:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.134.45.190 (talk)

Disturbing? The truth about what people eat should be available in detail for all to see. The habit of hiding the gory details of the meat industry is ethically suspect. Children should know that a "hot dog" is actually made of shredded pieces of dead animal. Why not? It's the truth, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.237.231 (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor correction on some stuff here

1st let me chime in on the secretive stuff. The slaughter plants are pretty nasty. There is no way you would want to visit them. When I drove a truck I had the unfortunate experience of having to spend the night parked at one in Dodge City KS. It's about 1 mile from the other (there are 2 there). The smell is so bad that just being outside can make you nauseous. Inside, God help you. I have also slaughtered more than my fair share of cattle, pigs and sheep. I was an ag major and we had a class that we simply called "Slaughter class". Guess what we did. I hated that class and thus didn;t go much. Bad plan. I took it 3 times. Anyway, these places are nasty not to mention too dangerous to have visitors shuttle through. Besides, if a visitor were to accindentally loose something like a pen, that would shut down the plant for hours while they looked for it. Forein matter in the food is a big deal.

Anyway, some comments on the article.

• It would be good to note that live inspection is always done by a veterinarian. Also, the USDA has decided not to allow the slaughter of downer cattle. I'm not so sure about pigs and sheep but I assume this also applies to them.
• The inspection and grading of the carcas are two separate issues. Every carcas must be inspected. It need not be done by Federal inspectors. If the meat is not to be offered for sale outside of the state in which it is slaughtered, it can be inspected by a state dept of ag inspector. Many states simply choose not to offer this service in which case it would be done by a federal inspector.
• The grading of a beef or sheep is voluntary. As the slaughter house pays for each carcass graded, they only send those that are sure to be graded select or better to be graded. Who cares if that old cow graded "Cutter".

In the history section, it might be nice to mention the move to boxed beef, and the laws that were enacted as a result of The Jungle. Also, how refirgeration led to the move to large packing plants.

Just my 2 cents worth. matt

"...refusing to eat meat because of the way a cow is slaughtered is absolutely ridiculous"- respectfully, I disagree. Although this is a very personal POV and I get that Wiki is about fact not debate, I just wanted to offer an alternative non-meat-eater's POV regarding the subject of slaughterhouses (that isn't completely mental ;-0) Hence, my two cents worth, if you'll all permit me. I personally believe humans are- in fact, should be naturally omnivorous; I am however greatly disturbed by the practice of mass slaughter (yes, I accept it's a reality) whereby a great deal of suffering and torment is experienced. Therefore, I choose not to partake, albeit at the end, of THAT process. Would I kill and eat an animal if my life depended on it? Yes, of course, and I'd try to do it as swiftly as possible, and no doubt it would upset me a lot to do it but hey, it's me or the pig, right? In that circumstance, yes, I would unavoidably inflict distress and pain on an animal as part of killing it for food. But, as in my day to day life I have the luxury of living in a society where not eating meat is an option for me (a society that brings meat to my table in a way I find extremely unsettling), I choose to exercise that option. I'm sure there is much hypocrisy in my eating habits, but I only hope to educate myself and make my own choices- this is in fact the first time I've 'defended' my POV because I do believe it to be a personal choice. Again, I accept these slaughterhouse practices are a reality and I'm not deluded enough to believe my choices will make the blindest bit of difference to anyone or anything except myself- but it's myself I have to live with, so I opt out. Thanks for tolerating my POV. N.Auld 110.33.209.139 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ritual Slaughtering (Kosher)

I didn't see anything on Kosher slaughtering, and I think there are some similar Islamic procedures about such things. Should there be any mention or linkage to relevant articles? Jake b 05:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There are links to Kosher and Halal under the "Slaughterhouse process" section. I have edited the links to point them to the section discussing slaughering method. Under "International variation", there is also mention of halal and kashrut laws requiring animals to be slaughtered when conscious, hence no stunning before killing. --Dodo bird 08:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey If anybody lives in or near Smithfield, Virgina then can that person tell me If the largest slaughterhouse in the world is open to the public, I would love to visit it.

Why not make a list of the major slaughterhouses of the world —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.153.204.25 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 25 August 2006.

Humane Slaughter Act "unenforceable"?

In the United States, there is the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958, an unenforceable declaration of policy requiring that animals be stunned before killing.

"unenforceable" doesn't seem like the right word here. It suggests that the law cannot be enforced. Humane Slaughter Act doesn't seem to support that assertion. Perhaps "poorly enforced" or "unenforced" would be more appropriate. (Note: I have no opinion and no information on the enforcement status of this law; my interest here is in consistently reporting that status, whatever it might be construed to be.)

Jordan Brown 05:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Major slaughterhouses section

I moved all the discussion of big slautherhouses into a new section to keep it all together. I don't know how it ought to be structured, but what's there now isn't very good.

It might be interesting to expand it by listing the types of animals handled at each facility.

Jordan Brown 23:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am an animal lover and strongly believe that your web site is stupid any one whoever thinks about hurting an animal should suffer the painful death but someone who dose should die in the most painful way possible like the animals do anyone who works at a slaguhterhouse and perticipates in the senseless murder of animals should die and go to hell suffering the way animals do!I am a vegetairian meat is stupid let the animals be free and happy and die the way God wants them to.and for cows that have to be milked let kind farmers have them to be cared for properly

That's all fine and good, but this is an encyclopedia and not a repository of your insane opinions or your emotions and angst, no matter how poorly written they are. --Heterodyne (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I guess call me a animal masochist, because I in no way think that the life of a cow, or any other animal for that matter, is in any way more important than a human's. And regardless of your loving of animals, you should include all animals which includes everything down to the smallest of amoebas. I doubt strongly though that you are overtly concerned about the millions of tons of bug killer you put down on you veggies and fruits to kill the bugs that are just trying to eat "your" food. It seems the animal lovers only seem to want to save the cute animals. I would like to hear an idea on exactly how you would feed an entire world on vegetables alone. While allowing the current levels of animals to survive and breed. How would you deal with the overpopulation of species in certain areas of the world when hunting is banned. You forget your own origins as a primal animal yourself. Just because you a holier than thou attitude about how the animal kingdom works, don't begin to wish for our demise and pray for our painful ends. Your final closing comment about how GOD wants them to die is hypocritical. If a Zebra or Gazelle is hunted down by a lion on the African plains, then why is it so much different for a human to hunt down a deer for meat and a hide to make something with. Are we supposed to buy meat in the store or buy clothes that do not use animal hides. Well, then that leaves only vegetable and fruits which there isn't enough land available to grow enough vegetarian food for the world, and the non animal hides that you speak of would have to be plant based thereby decreasing the available land for food. Or we could use synthetics, but those of course endanger the environment with hazardous hydrocarbon based chemicals which reduce useable land for food and for clothing and for housing. So, before you spew your hatred for meat eaters, think about a solution first before you criticize. You offer hatred and contempt with no viable solution. Take your insane antics to a blog site designed for such. This is a site designed as a repository for FACTS not opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.99.29.18 (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

to 63.99.29.18, as Heterodyne was saying, this is an encyclopedia and not a repository of your insane opinions or your emotions and angst, no matter how poorly written they are. And by the way, maybe you want to call yourself an animal sadist, not an animal masochist, as the latter doesn't make much sense at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.74.18.220 (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

POV and other stuff

I removed the word "mortifying" from the description of the slaughter prcedure and I am also doubting the use of an iron rod in the description of iserting a rod into the anus of the animal. Wouldnt any iron tool of this job begin to rust? I am unsure though as to the fact of this procedure...--69.151.38.40 02:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's doubtful the tools used are iron. Stainless steel would be more likely. 143.138.26.178 (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I also doubt that this procedure is used if, like the worker says, it can rip hams apart. It seems like any slaughterhouse would want to keep the hams (one of the most valuable parts of the hog) intact and would not use any procedure likely to tear them apart. Jma2820 (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Misleading Descriptions

"Animals are usually made unconscious by stunning or "knocking" using various methods including the use of a captive bolt pistol or applying an electric shock to the animal's head."

The problem is that this method (as well as the others listed) do not render the animal "unconscious," they actually kill the animal. For some reason, this wording seems like a subtle way to push a POV, or give the article a less controversial tone. That aside, we need to be down-right technical -- "unconscious" and "death" cannot be used interchangably.

This can be somewhat debated, because death is not gauranteed. While captive bolts were designed with the intention of simply stunning the animal and destroying central nerves, it often results in death. 74.242.99.231 22:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Small Text== NPOV of Design == There may or may not be other parts of this article that are not neutral, but I don't find the section regarding "design" to lack a NPOV. Agree? Disagree? If there is no disagreement I will proceed to remove the template. I did add the citation template to it, however, as it only had one source that didn't verify the information. Andrew Nutter (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear fellow Wikian,

Sorry but i unfortunately disagree strongly. This whole section should be reduced here to a mere mention and then given it's own seperate article about the good Dr's works and involvement in 54% of US facilities. For one thing the Wikipedia is not an 'American only' works domain (although sadly it often seems so in the english version anyway) it is supposed to be a global repository of knowledge and, furthermore, it just takes up space that, let's be honest, should be devoted to the workings of slaughterhouses. NOT this completely unscientific and unproven (other than anecdotely) approach to 'decor'! After reading this article i still don't know any more about the processes involved in the food i eat than i did before. That almost NEVER happens in Wikipedia, and indeed if it does is always a big warning sign in my eyes that something's gone seriously wrong in an article big time!

Outofthewoods (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said Outoftehwoods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.99.29.18 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Who created this article P.E.T.A.???

this article is most certainly not npov. 3/4 of the article consist of rants about inhumane slaughter methods and the likes. there needs to be an organized and npov controversy section not sloppy rants scattered thoughout the article.

on a different note the design section needs to be either completely redone or deleted altoghether. it is more of an endorsement of dr.grandin than anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.127.145 (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah tell me about it, I came here looking for factual information about US slaughterhouses and I find wacked out qoutes like "we hook them by their bunghole". PETA wrote this article straight from their anti-meat campaign. 68.111.246.29 (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There are many sentences in the article and in this discussion page that make me think that many who edit them have agendas beyond the scope of this topic. I hope people realize that Wikipedia isn't a forum for heated abstract debates, just objective presentation. Umma Kynes 11:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummakynes (talk • contribs)

History of Slaughterhouses

I find the opening statement about slaughterhouses only occuring once population centres appeared as a nonsense. My family had an extremely remote farm high in the alps of western Europe that dates back continuously in our family to the 12th century. The first road to the farmhouse that allowed access by car (instead of oxen through the forest) was not laid down til the 1970s and electrification followed not long after, and yet it had a slaughterhouse. This was exclusively used for the procurement of meat from animals reared on the farm, or occasionaly hunted, and was usually purely for normal day to day family consumption (admittedly fresh produce was often shared or traded with neighbours and friends who made the trek through the pine forest surrounding the mountain on all sides, but this had nothing to do with why they had a seperate building for the slaughter of their animals of various kinds).

They also had a smokehouse and a grainshed and a cidercellar, a bakery a kitchen a rootcellar, an apple and pearcellar as well as a woodshed. I show this only to highlight the separation of tasks and their assignment of them to distinct areas as predating large centres of civilization. Moreover, i am quite certain any theory stating otherwise would appear to be seriously flawed.

If no one objects, i will be glad to make the appropriate changes as soon as seems appropriate to address this, or perhaps the original author might like to consider doing so in light of my concerns.

Also, although i agree that this is a very VERY passionate subject to many folk on both sides of the debate (ie. omnivours and the various opposing individuals and groups), i think the article has suffered badly because of this tension. Furthermore, it feels to me like too many cuts and changes have been made, by a variety of folk, to the complete detrimet of the article as a whole.

I also agree with the previous author in the discussion who suggests a seperate section should be given to the negative aspects and feelings expressed by an obvious variety of individuals. The article has reached a stage where it needs a concise cleaning and restoration to make it a factual, informative and concise piece first and foremost. Individual and political attitudes always need expressing or we as humanity would have never progressed but, and this is extremely important, this needs to be contained in context. Sadly, i feel much of those viewpoints have been diluted and have lost their punch by being scattered.

After all, this is an encyclopedia and not a forum of debate. When looking up any topic about a process, one needs to learn about the process and the various steps involved in how the process is undertaken, NOT the attitudes and individual beliefs of certain passionate, idealistic and i'm sure good and sincere people. Indeed, the internet has allowed for more individuals and places to debate and discuss matters than could EVER before have even been dreamt of in all of history. Whereas Wikipedia, in stark contrast, is the exact opposite and is at this stage at any rate a very rare, very precious and unique entity born of good will.

To me personally it provides hope for the future and a glimpse of the direction perhaps if everything goes well and just so, things might just maybe be possible for the human race to evolve. So let's please make sure our Wikipedia doesn't just become another blog site or another chat room. Surely there are enough of them already.

Wikipedia articles are NEVER the place for pet peevs, grindstones or propaganda. They are, i wholeheartedly believe, the most noble endeavor ever undertaken by the human race. After all, the ancient library of Alexandria was the knowledge repository of the kings often forcibly procured; Wikipedia is the knowledge repository of people everywhere, freely given and shared by all!

Much love, peace and the kindest regards to all, Outofthewoods (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC) SLAUGHETERHOUSES ARE CRUEL AND THEY SUCK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.26.193.32 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

slaughter houses people think they are sick but we ave to eat just think if there was not slaughter houses we would have to hunt and kill animals our selfes to eat {{{}}}}}}

Or--you could be a vegetarian! Duh! --Wolfcm (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of slaughterhouses in the US

While researching some of the information stated in the film Food, Inc. I ran across this statement "Did you know there are only 13 slaughterhouses in the US?" [1] Yet the second paragragh in this article says there are 5,700 slaughterhouses in the US. Seems like a big discrepancy. So which is correct? 68.111.246.29 (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Getafilm.blogspot.com is not a peer-reviewed, neutral, good source; it's just some schmoe with a blog who likes movies. Who knows where they got that "13 slaughterhouses" statistic from? I certainly wouldn't rely on it myself. But notice: The sentence in this Wiki article does not say "5,700 slaughterhouses." It says "5,700 slaughterhouses and processing plants" (emphasis mine). Notice, too, that the source in the article (Why Animals Matter) is not necessarily neutral. The book's complete title is Why Animals Matter: The Case for Animal Protection (one possible source of bias) and one of the authors (Erin E. Williams) works for The Humane Society of the United States (another possible source of bias). Although the publisher (Prometheus Books) is unbiased, the book's general outlook and at least one author is not. Note, too, that we don't know if the book itself cited any reports, government statistics, etc. Was it a statistic pulled out of thin air? A guess? We don't know. I did three minutes of searching: USA Today said in February 2008 there were at least 900 slaughterhouses in the U.S. (although the way the article phrased it is not definitive that that is all the slaughterhouses there are in the U.S.).[2] CNN reported in March 2008 there were about 800 cattle slaughterhouses (not specifying how many chicken, turkey, horse, swine, sheep, turkey, etc. slaughterhouses there were).[3] And I didn't even begin to search the USDA Web site.[4] These numbers aren't hard to find. Just spend some time looking for them, if you think the article is wrong. And remember: Everyone can edit. Be bold! Cite your sources. When there is conflict, cite both claims and note in the article that sources differ as to facts. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

1100 hogs slaughtered by one worker, PER HOUR???

A slaughter house is a terrible place it kills innocent animals that never did a thing to anyone! they should be to put to an end expecially if they slaughter horses because it is in humane! This in 3600 *seconds* in said hour... Or ~9000 per day, 180 000 per month, and 2 000 000 per year. Sounds somewhat unlikely. Aadieu (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This assumption is made by considering the slaughterhouse has only one line of production. Usually, great plants have more than one line, and the production requirements are made to all the team of workers on a shift.--Valenajarro (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a review on Eisnitz book? I see it is often used as a source, but I don't know how reputable it is. I thought Inspectors had to be on the floor to check not only the carcasses and heads but also to check for humane slaughter. 70.171.207.217 (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

---

How is the USDA opposed to the Humane Slaughter Act? And are there no penalties? Can someone please cite government source for this? otherwise this should be removed.

"The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is opposed to the Humane Slaughter Act, and violations of the Act carry no penalties." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZgokE (talk • contribs) 10:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Move `radical environmentalist' view to new section

This should be moved out of the lead and into its own section:

``However, more radical environmentalists consider domesticated animals to be “goofies”[7] or “freaks” of nature...

--Wolfcm (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Slaughter-man ticket.

How old did you have to be to get a slaughter-man ticket in 1973? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.98.80 (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Link for idiots.

Quotes from the top of this page as follows: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Slaughterhouse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming Neutral point of view. Here is a link for idiots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graypaul4 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Broken Links and Miscitations

I'm seeing that this page was tagged for miscitations back in October of 2008, and I'm finding tons of broken links, and links that just don't verify what is claimed that they do. I'm going to go through and remove them, putting up citation tags for now. If I can't find any WP:RELIABLE for them, I'm going to remove them, since there is no reason we should have that tag on for almost 3 years. Homo Logica (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Going to put all the links and changes in here, along with an explanation, since this will apparently involve most of the article.

• Approximately 45-50% of the animal can be turned into edible products meat. About 15% are waste, and the remaining 40-45% of the animal are turned into byproducts such as leather, soaps, candles (tallow), and adhesives. -- No citation
• -- Reference says 1.13 billion as of 2011, and around 900 million at the time it was added, not 9 billion. Wildly different numbers, so I'm holding it over here, until that 9 billion can be verified. If not, I'll re-add as 1.13 billion.
• -- This WP:RELIABLE did not establish the number. They pulled from one that is not WP:RELIABLE.
• -- I'm leaving this in, but I'd ideally like to find another source, since some people who visit might call it POV (since the GAN is an organization against slaughterhouses).
• -- Dead link
• Slaughtering animals on a large scale poses significant logistical problems and public health concerns -- No citation
• Hershaft, Alex. "Review of Gail Eisnitz's Slaughterhouse, written by the president of FARM, retrieved March 17, 2008. -- Distinctly POV. I'd also like to find better sources than
• McNeil, Donald. "Videos cited in calling kosher slaughterhouse inhumane," The New York Times, December 1, 2004, cited in Williams, Erin E. and DeMello, Margo. Why Animals Matter. Prometheus Books, 2007, p. 60. -- Videos are not WP:RELIABLE, and the addition of the journal which later references does not contribute to the citation.
• Also see a PETA video taken inside AgriProcessors Inc. in Iowa in 2004 (warning: graphic images). [5] -- Videos are not WP:RELIABLE and it's a broken link.
• Slaughtering animals is opposed by some vegetarians, vegans and animal rights groups on ethical grounds. -- Took out WP:WEASEL
• Early maps of London show numerous stockyards in the periphery of the city, where slaughter occurred in the open air. A term for such open-air slaughterhouse is a shambles. There are streets named "The Shambles" in some English towns (e.g. Worcester, York) which got their name from having been the site on which butchers killed and prepared animals for consumption . -- Uncited
• In particular she applied an intuitive understanding of animal psychology to design pens and corrals which funnel a herd of animals arriving at a slaughterhouse into a single file ready for slaughter. Her corrals employ long sweeping curves so that each animal is prevented from seeing what lies ahead and just concentrates on the hind quarters of the animal in front of it. This design also attempts to override the animals' survival instincts and prevent them from reversing direction. -- Uncited
• -- Directly contradicted by the source provided

b) Methods of restraint causing avoidable suffering such as the following should not be used

in conscious animals. Such methods include the following:

ii) indiscriminate and inappropriate use of stunning equipment;

v) severing the spinal cord, for example using a puntilla or dagger, to immobilise

animals; using electric currents to immobilise animals, except for proper stunning.

• Entire Process subsection is unsourced
• -- Per
• International Variations subsection is unsourced
• (Eiznitz 1997) -- I don't know where/what the reference is supposed to be to

There are other problems with the article, but there seems to only be 1-2 sources here, and are either from Animal Rights Organizations, or contradict their own claims.

Homo Logica (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Law Section This whole section seems problematic, it is dealing with something that ought to be at least partially verifiable but it doesn't have a single citation and hasn't since may of last year. This seems a pretty clear violation of WP verifiability policies, it isn't a sentence or two its an entire section. I am removing it until this is resolved.--Holden caulfield 2 (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Addition of Scientific Information

The article is fairly objective however it still leaves room for more scientific information. This would include diseases found in the slaughterhouses, disease-spreading prevention methods and environmental effects of slaughtering processes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.208.68 (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutral?

well there are many places in which the public is never to view for an example a gas company wouldn't allow you to go around their factility or nuclear power plant. I know quite a few companies who don't allow public access to their factility. I'm pretty sure if I wanted to do a documentary on a Slaughterhouse there are companies out there who would gladly show me around.

I've seen a dairy farm where they showed the device that attaches to the utters and milk the cow.

Hmmm, well actually, until recently my local nuclear power plant, Sizewell B in Suffolk, had a visitors centre. They were really quite keen to get people to come and have a look at the plant and try and counter the general public's negative perception of nuclear power — they even advertised on TV for a while. Unfortunately the visitors centre was closed down a couple of years ago due to increasing fears over the possibility of a terrorist bombing (see BBC news story). Now you can't get withing ten miles of the place. -- Solipsist 18:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

the point being that not all of them don't want to avoid conversty, its just a place that really isn't suitable for people visiting. I doubt a slaughterhouse would setup a visitor centre. 172.139.245.160 22:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

When I was a fairly young kid (maybe twelve or so), I was taken to a sausage factory (which I believe killed pigs as well) on a school field trip. While we were shown around quite a bit of the plant, we did not see any animals or any meat or really anything to indicate what really happened there. Just pointing this out as a statement of fact. Draw your own conclusions. Or if you really want to know, call up your local kill place and ask if they do tours, and if so what they show. Epastore 02:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article is at all NPOV. We raise sheep, we live down the road from a former slaughterhouse, so I have some experience of them. Obviously the ethical concerns involved are important to the article, but I don't think they should appear in the introduction. (Ethan Mitchell, Feb 25, 2006)

The article is about Slaughterhouses, not the ethics of meat eating. That discussion has no place here. Jake b 05:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethical concerns are of great importance to this article. Although Ethics of Eating Meat is the main place for the discussion, slaughterhouses are pretty central to the issue, and this article should include some discussion of ethics and the treatment of animals in slaughterhouses. Saluton 02:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, except that the only difference is that while explaining fact about how a cow or other animal is slaughtered does not include how ethical the method being used is. There is also alot of out-dated information here. Especially since the bolt gun is no longer used as part of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy scare in the 90's and early 2000's as it can dislodge brain materials into the rest of the carcass thereby infecting the rest of the meat. Regardless of your own personal views on eating meat, this is not an ethics of slaughterhouses page. Opinions on the ethics of this are just that, opinions. You can not mix fact with opinion and then call it neutral. Because a basic part of the human diet is meat, you will never see every human become vegetarians. Meat eaters must also realize that not everyone is a fan of meat and will be a vegetarian. However, refusing to eat meat because of the way a cow is slaughtered is absolutely ridiculous. A few hundreed thousand people giving up meat, or even a few million will not even remotely make a dent in the 26.4 billion pounds of beef consumed in the United States alone every year. So instead of becoming violent and publicly criticizing 98% of the worlds population for being inhumane and barbaric for eating meat, be educational... with REAL facts about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarian diets can be very healthy and so can a diet with meat. Eating meat also does not make you unfriendly to animals. So please both sides need to stop arguing about this stuff and if you are writing a page about something of fact, please leave out the ethical implications since ethics are entirely subjective and not fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.99.29.18 (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that a page that can garner such passionate attitudes, as they concern the treatment and consuming of animals, cannot stick to the subject matter? Surely, even the most ardent supporter of animal rights can see that this is simply supposed to be a list of material facts about an aspect of human behavior that has existed in one form or another since the dawn of time? There are many other places on Wikipedia where they can read and contribute their individual viewpoints on the ethical, moral and practical points of animal consumption. I do not wish to enter into personal attacks, and will not on an individual level, but there seem to be quite a few people who are either too stupid or too self-centered to leave their personal opinions out of an encyclopedia article. Can anyone imagine opening a copy of an Encyclopedia Britannica to the "Slaughterhouses" entry only to find a jumbled mess of a few verifiable facts mixed in with opinions and hysterical rants about how terrible are slaughterhouses and meat eaters? Why can't these people understand that this is simply a webpage that is attempting to describe what is a slaughterhouse, what it does, where they operate, how they operate, and what types of animals they process? There would be no opinions stating that slaughterhouses are wonderful, desirable places that exist for the pleasure of some sadistic monsters who kill simply for the pleasure of it. Likewise, there will not be any sections condemning slaughterhouses and all people who either work there or utilize the products that are produced in such a place. This article, once completed satisfactorily, will simply be a repository of verifiable facts about slaughterhouses, their genesis, their necessity (as it stands right now in our modern world), and their operating procedures. Yes, there will be facts about the historical conditions, including, I am sure, mention of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle." Also, there will most likely be a small section that notes these vegetarians' and vegans' attitudes and activities concerning slaughterhouses. In this aforementioned small section, I can imagine that there will be external links leading to Wikipedia pages that support these vegetarians' and vegans' points of view. Now, what is wrong with that? A place for everything, and everything in its place? Oh, and if you are still confused about what is a fact and what is an opinion, an "opinion" is explained in detail on a (what else?) Wikipedia page residing here: "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion," and it says something like this, for starters: "1. An opinion is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts..." NOW do you see the difference? Please say, "Yes!" so that we may move on to more productive pursuits. I have to admit that all of the extremely emotional opinions and diatribes are exhausting me, so CUT IT OUT! Please? John L. Hunter 05:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)AceHall — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLHunter (talk • contribs)

Talking the way this article does about slaughterhouses is like saying that every police officer in the world systematically tortures detained people because some cases have been recorded. Slaughter industry loses money, for instance, if animals are stressed when killed, as this affects meat quality. I visit european slaughterhouses frequently because of my work and I have read things which simply seems to me like extracted from a novel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.96.162 (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC) 

Removed two unsourced paragraphs from lede

I removed two unsourced paragraphs from the lede. They had citation needed tags on them for quite a while now, and the information was significant enough that it requires citation. If somebody can provide sources to the information within, feel free to repost with the citations attached. Until then, the article is better off without them. Lgnlint (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lgnlint, the second para you removed doesn't need a cite because it's written in very general terms and is obviously correct (though, having said that, the way it's written could be improved and cites added for anything specific). I've supplied cites for the first para you removed, except for the EU, which I can't find at the moment and have made invisible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A US ordinance 30 years before there was a United States?

"In 1747, an ordinance in the United States “forbade people from slaughtering cattle at their home." " The proper source source of this ordinance should be stated, possibly it was a local city ordinance in one of the colonies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.185.32 (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about section "Animal welfare concerns" - move to animal welfare

Section starts by reviewing and quoting from an extreme POV book which cannot be considered a WP:RS. "This would imply that certain slaughter houses throughout the country are not following the guidelines and regulations spelled out ..." is WP:OR and is soapboxing a particular POV.

And fish have nothing to do with slaughterhouses. More soapboxing. Animal cruelty exists and by all means should be exposed but that is not Wikipedia's role. A focussed article Animal welfare exists to cover this important topic. Moondyne (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"Animal Welfare Concerns" is an extraordinarily bland title for the industrialised mass killing of sentient beings. Yes, Wikipedia should aspire to a neutral POV. If there is a credible source that suggests slaughterhouses are not places of immense suffering, then it should be cited too. --Davidcpearce (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Slaughterhouse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605193008/http://www.londonrailways.net/snowhill.htm to http://www.londonrailways.net/snowhill.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121202233118/http://www.organic-halal-meat.com/article/fatwa-stunning.php to http://www.organic-halal-meat.com/article/fatwa-stunning.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090519182758/http://www.hfa.org/hot_topic/slaughterhouse.html to https://hfa.org/hot_topic/slaughterhouse.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)