PO25 | COMPARISON BETWEEN MOBILE AND CONVENTIONAL CATTLE SLAUGHTER: EFFECTS ON ANIMAL WELFARE, CARCASS QUALITY AND HYGIENIC SAFETY

Ilda Idrizi¹, Mariachiara Armani¹, Manuela Cuccureddu¹, Michela Rabini², Stefano Colorio², Mara Borghi², Orlando Paciello³ | ¹Azienda Sanitaria dell'Alto Adige, Servizio Veterinario di Bolzano, Italy; ²Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Sezione di Bolzano, Italy; ³Dipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria e Produzioni Animali, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy.

Purpose. Mobile slaughter, introduced by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1374, enables the on-farm slaughter of domestic ungulates using authorised mobile slaughter units. By eliminating transport and minimizing pre-slaughter handling, this approach may improve animal welfare while maintaining high food hygiene and safety standards. This study compared mobile and conventional cattle slaughter regarding animal welfare, carcass quality and hygienic safety.

Methods. Twenty-eight cattle (Highland, Galloway, Grey Alpine and Brown breeds), reared for beef and dairy production (mean age: 2.5 years), were equally allocated to two groups: 14 slaughtered on-farm using a mobile slaughter unit and 14 in an approved conventional slaughterhouse. All animals underwent official ante- and post-mortem inspection. Carcass hygienic quality was evaluated by non-destructive surface sampling (400 cm²) at four anatomical sites. Total Viable Count (TVC), Enterobacteriaceae, Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. were determined according to Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005. Blood creatine kinase (CK), lactate, cortisol, glucose and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (N/L) ratio were analysed as biomarkers of acute stress and muscle damage. Histopathology was performed on the Longissimus dorsi muscle and on samples collected from traumatic lesion sites.

Results. Twenty-eight cattle were examined. Traumatic lesions were identified in 7/28 animals (25.0%), predominantly in conventionally slaughtered cattle, mainly affecting the dorsal, lumbar, scapular and gluteal regions. Animals slaughtered using the mobile system showed significantly lower blood lactate (P = 0.024), glucose (P = 0.043) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (P = 0.018), indicating a reduced physiological response to transport and pre-slaughter handling. Creatine kinase and cortisol also tended to be lower, although differences were not significant. TVC, Enterobacteriaceae and Escherichia coli complied with process hygiene criteria in both slaughter systems, while Salmonella spp. was not detected. Histopathological examination of the Longissimus dorsi revealed no differences between groups. Conversely, samples collected from traumatic lesion sites showed acute degenerative changes and focal myofibre necrosis consistent with localized mechanical injury.

Conclusions. Compared with conventional slaughter, mobile slaughter was associated with a lower prevalence of traumatic lesions and a more favourable physiological profile, demonstrated by significantly lower lactate, glucose and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio. These findings suggest that eliminating transport and reducing pre-slaughter handling mitigates the acute stress response in cattle. The absence of histopathological differences in the Longissimus dorsi indicates that the slaughter system did not induce diffuse muscle damage, whereas lesion-associated changes reflected localized traumatic injury. No evidence of poorer carcass hygienic quality was identified in cattle slaughtered using the mobile slaughter unit. However, mobile slaughter has practical limitations, including limited daily slaughter capacity, logistical requirements, cleaning and disinfection procedures, availability of official veterinary staff, and the need to maintain suitable conditions during carcass transport. Nevertheless, it represents a promising strategy for improving cattle welfare while maintaining food safety and carcass hygiene.