Menus Subscribe Search

The Things We Eat

industrial-slaughterhouse

(Photo: pixelpeter/Shutterstock)

Support Industrial Slaughterhouses

• March 10, 2014 • 8:00 AM

(Photo: pixelpeter/Shutterstock)

Local meat is a booming business, but the mobile slaughterhouse units used to process it are polluting our backyards with plasma-flecked wastewater, blood, and offal—dangerous byproducts that they’re ill-equipped to handle properly.

Last week, on the New York Times’ Sunday opinion page, Nicolette Hahn Niman, a California rancher who owns BN Ranch with her husband Bill Niman, posed an op-ed kind of question: “When was the last time you saw someone wearing a T-shirt that said ‘Support Local Slaughterhouses’?” The answer that immediately popped into my mind was “never, thank God.” But Niman was asking the question rhetorically. She thinks it’s a great idea.

The first point to note regarding Niman’s plea to localize slaughter is that it’s essentially self-serving. The pretext to her argument was an 8.7 million pound beef recall by the Rancho Feeding Corporation, a Bay Area slaughterhouse with whom Bill Niman has worked for over 40 years. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s decision to recall Rancho’s meat prevents BN Ranch from selling over 100,000 pounds of its own frozen supply of grass-fed beef. That’s unfortunate for the ranch. But the subsequent call to localize slaughterhouses—which have been consolidating since the 1970s— should give the rest of us pause.

Obvious statement alert: Slaughterhouses are nasty and resource-intensive operations. Any hope that they’ll become less nasty or resource intensive if scaled down and dispersed is belied by the use of mobile slaughterhouse units (MSUs). Mobile slaughterhouses are currently beloved by locavore-carnivores as a USDA-inspected alternative to industrial-scale operations. MSUs drive to the farm, kill and process a handful of animals on location, provide a USDA stamp of approval, and then trundle off, leaving behind a happy local farmer and cuts of meat he can now legally sell to conscientious carnivores willing to spend more for “humane” meat. No more hacking a cow into quarters and selling them to that eccentric woodsman with a deep freeze.

The efficiency of an industrial slaughterhouse, macabre as it may be, is a spectacle to behold. A farm animal entering the front door will reach the exit about 19 minutes later.

But small slaughterhouses also leave behind a mass of viscera—namely plasma-flecked wastewater, blood, and offal. In rule-abiding industrial slaughterhouses, these byproducts are effectively disposed of and processed. The efficiency of an industrial slaughterhouse, macabre as it may be, is a spectacle to behold. A farm animal entering the front door will reach the exit about 19 minutes later. It will do so not only as chops destined for the meat counter, but as pelts bound for Turkey, lungs sent to dog-treat manufacturers, bile for the pharmaceutical industry, caul fat (the lining of organs) for Native American communities, and liver destined for Saudi Arabia (which, go figure, distributes cow liver globally).

As MSUs demonstrate, smaller slaughterhouses are much less capable of processing or recycling these organic byproducts. Even if they could, their decentralization would, from a distribution perspective, pose a thorny logistical problem. Example: Large slaughterhouses are critical to the trade in animal blood, which is transformed into blood meal for animal feed. Dispersed slaughterhouses would make it economically prohibitive to collect and recycle this industrial byproduct. Because of their scale, mobile slaughterhouses are authorized to leave behind a literal bloody mess after a day on the farm. Eight slaughtered cows—a plausible number for a small-scale rancher to slaughter with an MSU—generate about 800 pounds of blood. Current USDA rules on what to do with it are less than assuring.

“Blood and waste water might be dispersed on the producer’s property,” according to the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). This dispersal should happen “well away from any stream or drainage.” There is no oversight, but it suggests, “Bleeding animals on a sloped concrete pad equipped with lines to a drain field is recommended.” And when it comes to the viscera, “farmers can make their own arrangement.” The decentralization of slaughter might make it easier for small farmers to kill their animals. But fragmenting the process disperses the blood and guts of slaughtered creatures across the landscape rather than consolidating it in places that are, for good reason, located in the middle of nowhere.

Well, middle of nowhere for you and me. There are about 1,100 federally inspected slaughterhouses in the United States. Each of them exists in someone’s backyard. But someone is not everyone. Here’s a haphazardly chosen short list of places that have a slaughterhouse in their town limits: Tuscumbia, Alabama; Moscow, Idaho; Boscawan, New Hampshire; Ladonia, Texas; and El Rito, New Mexico. A map is here.

Aside from housing an abattoir, these towns share other similarities. They typically have household median incomes far below national and state averages, a sparse population, comparatively low property values, and an undereducated workforce. San Francisco, California, lacks a slaughterhouse; so does Brooklyn Heights, New York; Charlottesville, Virginia; and Chapel Hill, North Carolina. (Search “slaughterhouse and Chapel Hill” and you’re likely to get hit with a lot of Vonnegut.) It seems safe to predict that even as small-scale animal farming proliferates in these well-to-do areas, slaughterhouses will be kept at bay. All of which raises an interesting follow up question to Niman’s proposition: In whose backyards will local slaughterhouses live?

Not Brooklyn’s. When the borough’s Columbia Street Waterfront District began to gentrify, the lone local slaughterhouse—Yeung Sun Live Poultry—came under heavy fire as a noxious nuisance that sent blood and feathers into the streets. Neighbors complained of escaped animals running around the area, cowering in traffic. Upwardly mobile residents were, according to a 2011 Times story on the feud, “too posh for poultry.” The reaction was hardly new. The area once hosted three slaughterhouses, but complaints reached a crescendo a decade ago, with a district manager receiving from an angry resident a jar of slaughterhouse ooze that had pooled in the street. When the Yeung Sun Live Poultry was accidentally felled in 2011 by city workers digging a tunnel, residents reacted with a sigh of relief.

Recent research on the long-term impact of slaughterhouses on local communities suggests that the blood and guts aren’t the only reason communities will continue to say no thanks to the prospect of a new slaughter facility. It’s unlikely that local slaughterhouses will mean more local jobs. The small farmers who are leading a revival of family farming in the United States are generally not the sort of folk who will take a position in the local slaughterhouse. People who work the slaughterhouse floor are the most socioeconomically marginalized and politically disenfranchised people working in North America. Annual turnover rates are often higher than 100 percent. It’s one of the most dangerous jobs on the face of the Earth. And, as new research is showing, it leads to crime.

Dr. Amy Fitzgerald, a criminologist at the University of Windsor, draws a disturbing and data-driven conclusion between slaughterhouses and local crime. Analyzing slaughterhouses in 581 counties over eight years, Fitzgerald crunched the numbers to conclude that “slaughterhouse employment increases total arrest rates, arrests for violent crimes, arrests for rape, and arrests for other sex offenses in comparison with other industries.” Why would slaughterhouses have a greater impact on local crime than other industries? In talking to The Toronto Star, Fitzgerald linked the connection to the act of slaughter. She said of slaughterhouse workers,  “One of (the explanations) is the violence they witness and sometimes have to participate in might result in some kind of desensitization.” When’s the last time you saw a T-shirt saying “Support Local Crime Increase”?

Perhaps the strangest aspect about the call to localize slaughterhouses is that it’s being made this late in the game, at least a generation after the backlash against factory farming inspired a shift toward smaller-scale animal agriculture. In a sense, the key question—how can animals raised under alternative conditions be slaughtered under alternatives conditions—should have been the first order of business among those seeking to reform the industrial food system. At the same time, it’s understandable that this question has been put off as long as it has. There’s no way, after all, to avoid the fact that the proposal bangs right into a hard conundrum: People might want local meat but—because that meat requires the violent death of an animal that didn’t want to die—they will always prefer that death takes place in someone else’s backyard.

James McWilliams
James McWilliams is a professor at Texas State University and the author of Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly and A Revolution in Eating: How the Quest for Food Shaped America. His writing on food, agriculture, and animals has appeared in The New York Times, Harper’s, The Washington Post, Slate, The Atlantic, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter @the_pitchfork.

More From James McWilliams

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

July 24 • 4:00 PM

Overweight Americans Have the Lowest Risk of Premature Death

Why do we use the term “normal weight” when talking about BMI? What’s presented as normal certainly isn’t the norm, and it may not even be what’s most healthy.


July 24 • 2:00 PM

California’s Lax Policing of the Fracking Industry Has Put the Drought-Stricken State in a Terrible Situation

The state’s drought has forced farmers to rely on groundwater, even as aquifers have been intentionally polluted due to exemptions for the oil industry.


July 24 • 12:00 PM

What’s in a Name? The Problem With Washington’s Football Team

A senior advisor to the National Congress of American Indians once threw an embarrassing themed party that involved headdresses. He regrets that costume now, but knows his experience is one many others can relate to.


July 24 • 11:00 AM

How Wildlife Declines Are Leading to Slavery and Terrorism

As wildlife numbers dwindle, wildlife crimes are rising—and that’s fueling a raft of heinous crimes committed against humans.


July 24 • 10:58 AM

How the Supremes Pick Their Cases—and Why Obamacare Is Safe for Now

The opponents of Obamacare who went one for two in circuit court rulings earlier this week are unlikely to see their cases reach the Supreme Court.



July 24 • 9:48 AM

The People Who Are Scared of Dogs

While more people fear snakes or spiders, with dogs everywhere, cynophobia makes everyday public life a constant challenge.


July 24 • 8:00 AM

Newton’s Needle: On Scientific Self-Experimentation

It is all too easy to treat science as a platform that allows the observer to hover over the messiness of life, unobserved and untouched. But by remembering the role of the body in science, perhaps we humanize it as well.


July 24 • 6:00 AM

Commercializing the Counterculture: How the Summer Music Festival Went Mainstream

With painted Volkswagen buses, talk of “free love,” and other reminders of the Woodstock era replaced by advertising and corporate sponsorships, hippie culture may be dying, but a new subculture—a sort of purgatory between hipster and hippie—is on the rise.


July 24 • 5:00 AM

In Praise of Our Short Attention Spans

Maybe there’s a good reason why it seems like there’s been a decline in our our ability to concentrate for a prolonged period of time.


July 24 • 4:00 AM

How Stereotypes Take Shape

New research from Scotland finds they’re an unfortunate product of the way we process and share information.


July 23 • 4:00 PM

Who Doesn’t Like Atheists?

The Pew Research Center asked Americans of varying religious affiliations how they felt about each other.


July 23 • 2:00 PM

We Need to Start Tracking Patient Harm and Medical Mistakes Now

Top patient-safety experts call on Congress to step in and, among other steps, give the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wider responsibility for measuring medical mistakes.


July 23 • 12:19 PM

How a CEO’s Fiery Battle Speeches Can Shape Ethical Behavior

CEO war speech might inspire ethical decisions internally and unethical ones among competing companies.


July 23 • 12:00 PM

Why Do We Love the ‘Kim Kardashian: Hollywood’ Game?

It’s easy enough to turn yourself into a virtual celebrity, complete with fame and mansions—but it will likely cost you.


July 23 • 11:49 AM

Modern Technology Still Doesn’t Protect Americans From Deadly Landslides

No landslide monitoring or warning systems are being used to protect vulnerable communities.


July 23 • 10:00 AM

Outing the Death-Drug Distributors

Calling all hackers: It’s time to go Assange on capital punishment.


July 23 • 8:00 AM

The Surprising Appeal of Products That Require Effort to Use

New research finds they enable consumers to re-establish a feeling that they’re in control of their lives.



July 23 • 6:00 AM

How the Other Half Lifts: What Your Workout Says About Your Social Class

Why can’t triathletes and weightlifters get along?


July 23 • 5:02 AM

Battle of the Public Intellectuals: Edward Glaeser vs. Richard Florida

On gentrification and housing costs.


July 23 • 4:00 AM

Our Fear of Immigrants

Why did a group of fourth graders rally in support of an undocumented classmate while the citizens of Murrieta, California, tried to stop immigrant children from entering their town?


July 22 • 4:00 PM

Can Meditation Really Slow Aging?

Is there real science in the spiritualism of meditation? Jo Marchant meets a Nobel Prize-winner who thinks so.



July 22 • 2:00 PM

The Alabama Judge Who Refuses to Let Desegregation Orders Go Ignored

A federal judge in Alabama says a local school board has failed to meet legal mandate to integrate.


Follow us


Subscribe Now

How Wildlife Declines Are Leading to Slavery and Terrorism

As wildlife numbers dwindle, wildlife crimes are rising—and that's fueling a raft of heinous crimes committed against humans.

How a CEO’s Fiery Battle Speeches Can Shape Ethical Behavior

CEO war speech might inspire ethical decisions internally and unethical ones among competing companies.

Modern Technology Still Doesn’t Protect Americans From Deadly Landslides

No landslide monitoring or warning systems are being used to protect vulnerable communities.

The Link Between Carbs, Gut Microbes, and Colon Cancer

Reduced carb intake among mice protected them from colon cancer.

The New Weapon Against Disease-Spreading Insects Is Big Data

Computer models that pinpoint the likely locations of mosquitoes and tsetse flies are helping officials target vector control efforts.

The Big One

Today, the United States produces less than two percent of the clothing purchased by Americans. In 1990, it produced nearly 50 percent. July/August 2014

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.