SIR, – How many of us have sent a cull animal away and given any thought to what happens to it after it leaves the farm gate?

I’m sure many have had a moment of reflection when our favourite old bull or tup which has served us well producing many cracking good calves or lambs goes 'away' and we get a cheque from the market or local dealer.

I recently sent an animal 'away' for cull, the bull was not breeding quality and had a snotty attitude (a bit like the owner at times).

My freezer is well stocked so he went through the market system. In an attempt to support the auction system. I subsequently learnt via a 'source' that he ended up in an abattoir that practices 'non-stun' slaughter. Here I suggest an internet search of UK 'non-stun' slaughter.

Had I known this fact I would have sent the bull to be dispatched at a local abattoir that always stuns the animals at slaughter, even accepting a lower payment consequently.

Here lies the moral dilemma? There are two methods of slaughter in the UK. One where the animals are stunned pre-slaughter and one where they are not. However, the ultimate mode of death, is blood loss.

I like many others are farmed assured. The selling point of which is the emphasis placed on the welfare of our animals from farm to plate.

As per QMS: “Farmers who rear animals for food in Scotland have an important job. They must ensure their animals have a healthy, contented and stress-free life and are fed a nutritious diet so that the best possible meat reaches your plates. That puts animal welfare top of the list when it comes to rearing animals for high-quality meat.”

Are cull animals exempt from this?

All livestock farmers put animal welfare at the top of their priorities; they must. It has a direct impact on income!

Does the above from QMS include or ignore the cull animals? Is their welfare important, they have produced all our farm assured prime stock?

I would suggest that our responsibility extends beyond the farm gate to the point of slaughter. Having bred and reared an animal I believe my responsibility to it extends up to the point its life ends. Which should end in a humane manner, ie stunned first.

Are you happy sending a cull animal to an abattoir that practices 'non-stun' slaughter. I am not!

The cull trade in animals is a murky area. It amounts to many hundreds of thousands of old and surplus breeding stock. It is a sector of the 'Scotch red meat' industry being conveniently ignored. Many are slaughtered south of the border with the subsequent loss of any levies to Scotland.

As responsible farm assured producers, how do we dispose of our old and surplus breeding stock that make up a significant portion of the red meat for sale in Scotland and the UK? Think pies and beef olives?

I am uncomfortable sending any animal to an abattoir that practices non-stun slaughter. I am sure the public is equally uncomfortable with this practice.

We as responsible Scottish producers emphasising the highest animal welfare from 'farm to plate' must ensure that all our animals, whether prime or surplus cull, receive humane treatment at point of slaughter.

We are being hypocritical if our prime stock gets better treatment than our old producing stock!

QMS must advise via their website which Scottish abattoirs are licensed to practice non-stun slaughter. We as responsible producers must be informed to allow us to choose the abattoir which practices humane slaughter for our older animals. Otherwise we are open to criticism and hypocrisy.

Producers need to know which abattoirs in Scotland practice non-stun slaughter; hopefully there aren’t any. Responsible producers will act accordingly.

The Disgruntled Drover

Name and address supplied