Animal welfare during slaughter is an important ethical concern for various stakeholders, including consumers, farmers, producers, and retailers (1, 2). The subject of animal welfare during slaughter has become a point of political and social debate due to an increasing demand for ethical food production (3, 4). In Germany, an animal welfare violation at the abattoir is legally characterized as the infringement of provisions outlined in Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 (5) and/or the German Ordinance on the Protection of Animals in Connection with Slaughter or Killing (Tierschutzschlacht-Verordnung) (6). Section 18 of the German Animal Welfare Act (Tierschutzgesetz) delineates a regulatory offense as an action perpetrated either intentionally or due to negligence (absent a justifiable cause), resulting in the unnecessary infliction of severe pain, suffering, or harm on a vertebrate (7). Section 17 of the German Animal Welfare Act defines a crime as the unjustified infliction of considerable pain or suffering upon a vertebrate, either through cruelty or by inflicting persistent or repeated severe pain or suffering. These infractions are legally and ethically unacceptable (8). Additionally, it should be considered that substandard animal welfare may have adverse effects on the quality of meat (9–11). For example, a 2014 study conducted by Dokmanović found that “rough handling” at the abattoir was correlated with increased blood lactate levels and reduced meat quality (10). In this research, “rough handling” was defined by the occurrence of at least one particular handling or behavioral parameter, or a combination thereof, including the use of a stick or electric prod, instances of pigs slipping, falling, or emitting high-pitched vocalizations.

Currently, there is no national data on the occurrence of different animal welfare violations at abattoirs. Scientific literature and official documents describe a sample of the transgressions that occurred in the past. According to Reymann in 2016 (12), animal welfare violations took place during preslaughter handling, stunning, and exsanguination in the majority of the 20 Bavarian abattoirs examined. A separate report on the inspections of Bavarian abattoirs in 2014 and 2015 found that more than 50.0% of the abattoirs inspected showed significant deficiencies, including animal welfare violations (13). However, this information may not be representative of the rest of Germany. In official printed matters, the following transgressions have been described, regarding different abattoirs across Germany: the illicit use of devices that administer electric shocks (14); an inadequate provision of feed, water, bedding and enrichment (15, 16); overcrowding and constructional deficits (16) and an insufficient restraint of animals during immobilization (allowing animals intended for slaughter to turn around, hide, resist, or even attempt to escape) (17). In 2001, Grandin described that a major cause of return to sensibility after electrical stunning in the United States was either poor bleeding or improper electric tong placement (18). In an article published in 2006, Grandin reported significant improvements in most plants between 1996 and 2003, which she attributed to the implementation of audits (19). In the same article, Grandin also described the effective stunning of bulls with a captive bolt as a problem area, but overall, facilities greatly improved animal welfare by improving stunner maintenance, installing non-slip floor gratings in stun boxes, and training staff. Nevertheless, some facilities continued to fall short during these audit assessments. In recent years, there has been a growing surge in media coverage highlighting deficiencies in the handling and slaughter of animals at abattoirs in Germany (20). Examples of violations in Germany caught on camera by animal welfare NGOs include the following: abattoir employees beating and kicking animals (especially targeting sensitive body parts) (21); the illicit use of prohibited tools to drive animals (e.g., electric prods) (22); forcefully dragging downer cattle into the abattoir instead of providing emergency slaughter as delineated in Section 8 of the German Ordinance on the Protection of Animals in Connection with Slaughter or Killing (23); and slaughtering animals despite one or more signs of consciousness after ineffective stunning (24). It is known that violations of all sorts occur, however, to the authors’ knowledge, the occurrence of different violations has not yet been investigated scientifically. Currently, there are no nationwide statistics on the frequency of various animal welfare violations in German abattoirs, given that violations recorded in individual districts are not systematically aggregated on state and federal levels by the regulatory authorities (25). To gain a better understanding of compliance and non-compliance with established regulations at German abattoirs, this study investigates the occurrence of animal welfare violations using an anonymous online-survey and available judicial decisions.

The data analyzed in this research project were collected as part of a research project entitled “Development of a catalogue of measures to combat animal welfare violations at abattoirs” (German: “Erarbeitung eines Maßnahmenkatalogs zur Bekämpfung von Tierschutzverstößen im Schlachthof” –abbreviation “EMaTiSch”), which was funded by the German Veterinary Association for Animal Welfare (Tierärztliche Vereinigung für Tierschutz e.V.). The data gathered in this project were used to compile a list of measures and penalties for relevant and frequent violations of 40 provisions of the German Ordinance on the Protection of Animals in connection with Slaughter or Killing (in conjunction with the Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 and the German Animal Welfare Act). For further information, see Schneidewind et al. (26). This project focused on violations at the abattoir, meaning that violations during transport to the abattoir were not addressed. The current study consisted of two major parts. Firstly, the data were obtained through an anonymous online survey and were analyzed. This survey invited official veterinarians (OVs) and other individuals responsible for upholding animal welfare laws and regulations within German abattoirs to participate, so that all professionals dealing with animal welfare at the abattoir would feel addressed. These professionals could include, for example, official veterinarians employed or authorized by competent authorities to carry out official animal welfare monitoring duties, veterinary meat inspectors, animal welfare officers, and lawyers with relevant experience.

Two separate parts of the survey provided different information on the occurrence of different animal welfare violations. In Part A of the survey, participants were asked to report the five most prevalent animal welfare violations observed in their work environments over the past 3 years (2019–2021). In Part B, they were asked to indicate whether or not 22 specific violations had occurred. Secondly, the study encompassed an examination of relevant German court decisions. All of the violations assessed in the realm of this project were divided into distinct categories: (1) use of prohibited driving aids; (2) inadequate husbandry in lairage; (3) inappropriate handling of animals with special care needs; (4) improper restraint, stunning, and bleeding of animals; and, (5) unqualified task execution/inadequate administrative work (e.g., documentation of a violation). This project received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of the Fee University Berlin (protocol code ZEA-Nr. 2022–007; approval date: April 11th, 2022). The principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki were adhered to. The following sections will describe the three major components deployed to investigate the occurrence of animal welfare violations at German abattoirs.

The objective of this study was to assess the occurrence of different transgressions related to animal welfare laws and regulations in German abattoirs. This topic warrants investigation, so that strategies to optimize animal welfare at abattoirs can be developed: e.g., improving the education of abattoir personnel (31) and advising official veterinarians (OVs) on which steps in the process of slaughtering animals require more frequent and extensive monitoring. The findings from the online survey and analysis of court decisions showed that animal welfare violations at German abattoirs most frequently fall into categories 1 (use of prohibited driving aids), 2 (inadequate husbandry in lairage), and 4 (improper restraint, stunning, and bleeding of animals). However, it is crucial to contextualize the obtained results to derive meaningful insights. For instance, a single violation at an abattoir might have far-reaching consequences for numerous animals, as illustrated in Table 4. Consequently, the interpretation of violation frequency remains contingent on whether one examines the number of abattoirs where such breaches occurred or the magnitude of animals impacted. Moreover, the information sources play a pivotal role in determining frequencies. The dual components of the online survey yielded a marginally different ranking compared to the outcomes derived from the analysis of court verdicts. This variance is expected, considering that not all violations result in court trials. Typically, it is the more severe cases that find their way into court, while less severe transgressions are addressed by alternative authorities. Additionally, not even all severe cases go to court (32). Recognizing this dichotomy is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the reported frequencies. The findings of this study reveal a notable frequency of animal welfare violations within German abattoirs. Among the 22 specific violations examined, five were reported to occur in over 50.0% of the surveyed participants’ working environments. If comparable findings can be gained in larger, more standardized studies, it would indicate that there is a need for significant enhancements in the enforcement of animal welfare laws and regulations. The reasons for this occurrence of animal welfare violations may lie in deficits regarding law enforcement (8). In the context of farm animals, infringements against the German Animal Welfare Act are often dismissed (33). Moreover, Thilo (34) found no significant relationship between the severity of animal welfare violations and the outcome of the proceedings. The data gathered on animal welfare violations according to a voluntary survey and obtainable judicial decisions suggests that animal welfare conditions at abattoirs may need improvement. Understanding which violations are especially prevalent can inform strategies for improvement and provide incentives to improve practices. According to Fötschl (35), it is particularly important for OVs to repeatedly point out misconduct to slaughterhouse personnel and impose the necessary measures. The findings of this study could support such efforts. Improving animal welfare at the abattoir is important from an ethical standpoint, given the occurrence of unwarranted pain and suffering. In this context, the results of this study may serve as an incentive for abattoir operators to assume greater responsibility in addressing violations and improving the monitoring of animal handling practices. To the authors’ knowledge, this project presents the first study of its kind. The results obtained could be explained by the statement made in an article by Scheibl (36), which describes that in many cases, the cause of an animal welfare violation is that the involved parties lack sufficient knowledge regarding the handling of slaughter animals. The author describes that the affected group includes individuals ranging from ordinary workers to managerial personnel, and that the primary focus for improving the situation should be on providing the necessary knowledge in the form of continuing education for both experienced butchers already in the workforce and those undergoing initial training (37). Furthermore, according to Braunmiller (38), the fines imposed to sanction animal welfare violations do not have a deterrent effect. To some extent, this could possibly account for the findings of this study. According to the study published by Reymann in 2016, animal welfare violations occurred during preslaughter handling, stunning, and exsanguination in the majority of the 20 largest Bavarian abattoirs audited (12). The study reported on violations occurring during unloading in the holding pen, driving animals, stunning, bleeding and documentation/management. The findings of Reymann’s study align with the outcomes of the present study, as both studies reveal that all aspects related to animal handling and care can be improved. Instances of animal welfare violations often stem from a variety of factors, including negligence of abattoir employees or operators, or specific challenges such as structural deficiencies, as reported in the works of Fötschl (35), Scheibl (36, 37), and Hahn and Kari (20). Furthermore, these transgressions can be linked to additional factors, such as time constraints, high slaughter rates, inadequate infrastructure, or economic interests (39). The most evident factor to tackle is a lack of education and training for the tasks personnel are hired for. According to Nicolaisen et al. in 2023 (40), the training program they developed holds the promising potential to enhance animal welfare practices, alleviate stress levels for both workers and animals, and create a more favorable overall work environment (41).

A limitation of data collected through a voluntary and anonymous survey is that the information reported cannot be verified. This is a common challenge associated with survey research (42). However, by using this methodology, participants were allowed to disclose which violations occurred in their working environments in the past 3 years without concerns about potential identification and respective consequences about data protection. This aspect is particularly significant given the subject matter, as there has been media coverage highlighting concerns about OVs inadequately responding to animal welfare violations (43). However, due to the anonymous nature of the survey, the findings may not generalize to the entire country. It cannot be ruled out that violations that occurred at one abattoir were reported more than once. For instance, it is conceivable that both the animal welfare officer and the responsible OVs working at the same abattoir may have reported on the same cases. Moreover, given the uncertainty surrounding the number of individuals who received or could have received the email, the representativeness of the obtained results cannot be determined. It cannot be excluded that violations were over- or under-reported. Additionally, the number of incidents of animal welfare violations is likely much higher when OVs are not present for monitoring. This could mean that the incidents reported in the online-survey is most likely lower than the actual number of animal welfare violations which occurred in the timeframe studied. Professionals who encountered a higher number of animal welfare violations in their work environments may have been more inclined to participate in this survey under such circumstances. Consequently, individuals with little or no such experiences might have been less motivated to engage in the survey. Moreover, one would expect more compliance with animal welfare laws and regulations when OVs are present. To this end, the fact that 81.25% of the court decisions were based on secret video recordings heavily suggests that the number of animal welfare violations is under-reported. Additionally, when OVs are monitoring, there may be differences in inter-observer reliability, meaning that some of the OVs could lack adequate training to identify breaches of animal welfare laws and regulations (e.g., not identifying signs of recovery of consciousness). Furthermore, the interpretation of animal welfare laws and regulations can be rather subjective (44). Also, some OVs see breaches of animal welfare violations, but do not document them out of fear of retaliation (30). As for the court decisions, the limitations regarding generalizability also apply, especially due to the low number of court decisions available. It is to be expected that with 317 abattoirs across Germany (not including poultry slaughter) (source: BMEL), there will be significantly more judicial violations of animal welfare legislation. The fact that there are only 16 court decisions that could be an indication that there is a low number of animal welfare violations in Germany which get reported as crimes, but could also mean that law enforcement is inadequate. Therefore, the representativeness can only be speculated. These results serve as a first indication that compliance with animal welfare laws and regulations may be inadequate. However, it is essential to validate these findings through future studies. Regarding the collected judicial decisions, there were constraints which restricted the number of violations that could be examined within the scope of this study. While there are additional court decisions beyond those included in this research, their inclusion was hindered by the factors outlined in the results section (3.2). However, it is often the case that severe animal welfare violations are not proceeded in court, due to reasons such as inadequate documentation and procedural errors (33), meaning that the number of actual court cases concerning animal welfare violations at the abattoir may be relatively low. A very interesting and relevant question in field of research regarding animal welfare violations at abattoirs is the role of abattoir size on the occurrence of violations. However, investigating this was not feasible with the data obtained in this survey. Most participants had experience monitoring animal welfare in abattoirs of different sizes and were not asked to indicate whether a violation had a occurred at a smaller or larger abattoir. This could be investigated in future studies. Future studies could also assess violation frequencies over time to identify whether there are any trends (e.g., differences after implementing mandatory video surveillance or implementing artificial intelligence to identify non-compliance). Additionally, similar studies should be conducted in other countries. Subsequently, a comparative analysis could be conducted to identify which countries practice animal handling the best and how these findings can be considered in German policymaking. Afterwards, the impact of different interventions (e.g., training programs for abattoir staff) could be evaluated. Future studies could also develop metrics to help OVs assess animal welfare violations. Also, a similar study could be conducted to investigate animal welfare during transport to abattoirs, seeing as this is also known to be a critical part of the process in which various animal welfare violations occur (45).

The most important practical implication this study aims to achieve is an improvement of industry practices. Apart from more extensive training on animal welfare standards and best practices, the number of internal and external audits may increase to ensure that suppliers are sourcing meat from abattoirs that comply with animal welfare standards. In the future, should the findings be confirmed by additional studies, they could serve as the foundation for establishing certifications and labels for meat products that adhere to elevated animal welfare standards at abattoirs.

The objective of this study was to investigate the occurrence of various animal welfare violations occurring at German abattoirs, encompassing violations in five different categories (use of prohibited driving aids; inadequate husbandry in lairage; inappropriate handling of animals with special care needs; improper restraint, stunning, and bleeding of animals; and unqualified task execution/inadequate administrative work). It employed two major parts: an analysis of data collected in an online survey among individuals responsible for enforcing animal welfare regulations at abattoirs, and an analysis of available relevant court decisions. Violations were reported to occur most frequently in the following categories: use of prohibited driving aids; inadequate husbandry in lairage; and improper restraint, stunning, and bleeding of animals. Five specific infractions pertaining to these categories were reported to have taken place in the working environments of over 50.0% of the surveyed participants between 2019 and 2021. The findings of this research project suggest that there may be a need to improve the implementation of animal welfare laws and regulations, but this needs to be validated in future studies. The results are a first step toward improving monitoring activities and shaping training programs for abattoir personnel.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

This project received an ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of Freie Universität Berlin (protocol code ZEA-Nr. 2022–007; approval date: April 11th, 2022). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

SS: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SL: Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. DM: Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.