Abattoir provision and opportunities for mobile slaughterhouses in Scotland by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission

4. Outcomes of evidence gathering

4.1 What type and length of journey are Scottish livestock undertaking on their way to the abattoir?

Livestock movement data generated from ScotEID (the livestock traceability system for Scotland) between January 2021 (October 2021 for cattle) and December 2023 were analysed by the Centre of Expertise on Animal Disease Outbreaks (EPIC). ScotEID records movements of cattle, sheep and pigs. Poultry movements were not included in the report. The analysis included all livestock movements originating from holdings in Scotland, where the abattoir destinations were in Scotland, England, or Wales.

During the period included in the analysis, approximately 420,000 cattle, 2 million sheep, and 530,000 pigs per year were sent to slaughter from Scottish livestock holdings. Of these totals, approximately 385,000 cattle (92%), 916,000 sheep (46%), and 231,000 pigs (44%) were slaughtered at Scottish abattoirs; the rest were slaughtered at abattoirs in England or Wales. Typical travel time to an abattoir was about 1 hour for abattoirs in Scotland (maximum 19-20 hours), 4-5 hours for abattoirs in England (maximum 8-24 hours), and 6-8 hours for abattoirs in Wales (maximum 8-23 hours). It should be noted that journey times were estimated using an online route planning tool so did not include loading and unloading times, or time spent in markets and many of the long duration journeys analysed incorporate a ferry leg. Time spent on the ferries from the Northern Isles in the cassette system, is classified as “neutral time” for the purposes of the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (Scotland) Regulations and such periods do not therefore contribute towards the legal maximum journey time.

Considerable proportions (≥ 5%) of cattle originating from holdings in areas of the Highlands and Islands (Argyll, Bute, Nairn, Orkney and Shetland) had a long (over 8 hour) journey to slaughter, whilst for sheep originating from Banff, Moray, Orkney and Shetland, over 50% of movements were long.

Most sheep (95%) travelling on long journeys were going to an abattoir outside of Scotland. Long journeys within Scotland were limited to movements departing from the Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles.

Of the movement of pigs involved in the analysis, very few (131 pigs in total (0.008%)) had a journey of more than 8 hours. All these journeys occurred within Scotland. The majority of these movements (85%) originated from Orkney, while the rest originated from Inverness. For those livestock travelling more than 8 hours within Scotland, their journey ended at various Scottish abattoirs, some on the islands and others on the mainland; only some of which offered private kill.

The data were used to estimate the proportion of animals not killed at their nearest abattoir. On average, approximately 71% of cattle, 77% of sheep, and 71% of pigs departing from a Scottish holding and going to slaughter did not go to the abattoir nearest to their point of departure.

Over 90% of cattle originating from Angus, Argyll, Caithness, Lanarkshire, Orkney, Peebles, Roxburgh, Selkirk and Sutherland were not slaughtered at their closest abattoir. For sheep, journeys to slaughter originating in Orkney, Bute, Wigtown, and Kirkcudbright had the highest percentage of movements that did not terminate at the closest slaughterhouse (> 90%). Orkney sent 40% of its sheep to slaughter in Clyde Valley and over 50% were sent outside Scotland. Over 90% of movements to slaughter from Wigtown and Kirkcudbright ended at slaughterhouses in England and Wales. The largest percentage of moves that terminated at the nearest abattoir originated from the Western Isles and Ross and Cromarty (84% and 77%, respectively). Bute, Berwick, Roxburgh, Moray, West Lothian, Wigtown had the highest percentage of pig movements that did not terminate at the closest slaughterhouse (>90%). The majority of movements from Berwick, Roxburgh, West Lothian and Wigtown ended in England, usually North Yorkshire or Greater Manchester.

Although the exact reasons why livestock were not slaughtered at their nearest abattoir were not explored in the EPIC report, it is likely multifactorial and influenced by economics, supply chain integration, accessibility and abattoir availability.

Poultry movements were not included in the EPIC report, however SAWC received figures from the Scottish Government Eggs and Poultry Unit suggesting that due to the lack of slaughter facilities in Scotland, approximately 4.8 million end-of-lay hens are sent from Scotland to abattoirs in Bradford and Gainsborough, Lincolnshire. There is also no operating slaughter facility for end-of-lay hens in Northern Ireland. This results in a further 1.2 million end-of-lay hens being transported through Scotland annually from Northern Ireland on their journey to slaughter in England.

Section summary

Significant numbers of Scottish livestock are undertaking long journeys to slaughter, oftentimes bypassing another abattoir enroute. Further understanding of why producers are sending animals potentially further than apparently necessary would be useful in ascertaining whether this is the result of issues with suitable abattoir provision or driven by other factors such as economics (e.g., getting a higher price from a more distant abattoir). Encouraging producers, where practicable, to choose the nearest abattoir could reduce potential welfare compromise associated with long journey distances and times.

4.2 What are farmers’/producers’ perspectives on the current slaughter provision in Scotland?

During meetings with stakeholders, it was acknowledged that, in general terms, slaughter capacity in Scotland is presently sufficient, but there are issues with reliance on large, high-throughput facilities. Some of these abattoirs are reluctant to accept small batches of livestock or certain breeds, for example long horned cattle or hairy pigs. This can result in animals being transported long distances to access an appropriate abattoir, leading to both animal welfare and economic concerns. It was also mentioned that a large supermarket chain would not accept animals into their supply chain that have travelled for more than 8 hours to slaughter. Although this requirement is intended to assure a certain welfare standard for animals entering the retailer’s supply chain, there may be unintended welfare consequences. A subset of animals whose journey to slaughter may have been just over 8 hours and therefore rejected as a result of this performance standard, would then have a significantly longer journey to access an alternative slaughter facility.

The Scottish pig industry in particular was described as vulnerable, with only one high throughput abattoir currently operational in Scotland. A previous pig abattoir located in Broxburn, West Lothian killed 85% of Scotland’s pigs until it closed in 2013. Further reduction in pig slaughter capacity would result in an increase in the number of pigs travelling to England for slaughter, increasing journey distance and duration and negatively impacting pig welfare. There may also be a resultant reduction in the number of pigs farmed in Scotland.

A significant concern was the relatively small number and location of facilities offering a private kill service. This was a particular issue for small producers and those living in rural communities. It is estimated that 80 – 90% of small producers transport animals in their own vehicles. Experimental studies using accelerometers in a small two-wheeled trailer (1.8m x 1.3 m x 1.0m) transporting goat kids/lambs reported marked vertical acceleration forces of up to 12g as well as high noise levels ^[54,55]. Although SAWC is not aware of any study comparing the welfare of livestock conveyed in small trailers with other modes of transport, it is likely that conditions experienced may be more challenging than within commercial livestock vehicles. In providing evidence to SAWC some crofters reported journeys of up to 7 hours from Skye to Dingwall with tourist traffic, road blockages and poor road conditions causing delays. Due to a lack of abattoirs on the small islands, some producers need to make two separate ferry crossings to access slaughter facilities with a second journey required a few days later to collect the products. Prolonged journeys can negatively impact animal welfare and may not be financially viable when an individual is transporting small numbers of their own animals. Procuring professional livestock haulage companies to service rural communities can also be difficult. It was described that some haulage companies are reluctant to service remote areas, especially if they have large contracts elsewhere, or when there is an unreliable ferry service. Some areas only have the option of two companies that will transport their livestock and there are currently only 12 companies across Scotland with a licence to transport pigs, the number of which has declined rapidly over recent years. There has also been a decrease in the availability of both butchery and refrigerated transport for carcasses and meat products, particularly from the islands, leading to increased costs for producers when arranging for their animals to be butchered and then delivered to consumers/retailers.

A national private kill coordinator was suggested as a resource that could improve the coordination and logistics of producers sending their animals for private kill. While there may be a requirement for producers to coordinate their production cycles, pooling loads of animals/products together in a larger load, rather than numerous smaller loads would result in reduced transport costs and increased efficiency. Although beneficial from an economic standpoint, due regard must be given to animal welfare especially if pooling of livestock loads results in increased transport time or the mixing of unfamiliar animals. Trade-off with improved animal comfort on larger, better ventilated vehicles may also need to be considered.

The Scottish Government is currently providing support for private kill services including the funding of private kill coordinators as outlined in the National Islands Plan Annual Report 2024 ^[56] presented to the Scottish Parliament in March 2025. This includes funding to SOAS, QMS and a number of individual abattoirs including Munro’s of Dingwall, Wishaw, Shetland, Mull and Barra. Additional funding was given to Orkney Auction Mart, to assist them to update their business plan for building an abattoir on Orkney, and to provide support for the creation of a stakeholder co-operative and knowledge transfer for staff that will run the abattoir if it is built.

Section summary

Small scale producers, especially those in rural areas, can face economic and logistical challenges when sending their animals to slaughter. Provenance can add value to a product, however with the current slaughter provisions in Scotland and lack of local abattoirs in certain areas, this can be difficult to achieve. SAWC welcomes the SG investment in private kill provisions to support the current network, and we await any future updates on the impact of this investment. Although we appreciate the need to be cost-effective and efficient when transporting animals to slaughter, animal welfare must be prioritised, especially considering journey length, structure, vehicle suitability and the mixing of animals.

4.3 What are the meat industry perspectives on the current slaughter provision in Scotland?

Industry stakeholders drew attention to over-capacity in Scotland, and the competition between abattoirs to purchase livestock to slaughter. Low throughput, alongside increasing costs and lack of skilled labour, were reported as significant influences on the recent closures of small abattoirs. Currently a number of the small Scottish abattoirs are only open during certain seasons. The lack of throughput to support full time workers was cited as a contributing factor to this.

It was noted that there has been no new successful abattoir opened in Scotland for 40 years. The reasons for this include, the small margins associated with the sector, significant capital costs required (approx. £1million to set up a micro-abattoir), scarcity and costs of skilled labour, energy costs (mostly from the requirement to chill carcasses and products) and the requirement for specialised waste disposal. Previous grants for establishing new abattoirs have not led to long term success. For example, the Lathallan abattoir was partly funded by the Scottish Government but went into administration after five months of operation. Small abattoirs were

described as particularly vulnerable to closure, due to their business model primarily being a ‘service provision’ (i.e. offering private kill) in which it is more difficult to add value compared to secondary processing. Integrated business models, such as a co-located shop offering value-added products, can be a source of extra revenue and a number have been successful in Scottish abattoirs. Private kill also was described as very labour intensive, particularly with regard to administration and logistics. Some small-scale producers require certain products in order to supply specialist markets. This in turn means there are specific requirements, often individual for each producer, for the meat processer/butchery to fulfil.

Sourcing and supporting skilled labour to work in the abattoir sector is difficult. In smaller facilities where the workforce may have numerous roles in the slaughter and butchery process and are required to be multi-skilled, recruitment can be even more challenging. Issues such as lack of affordable housing in some rural communities/tourist areas and impacts of the UK exit from the EU may also impact the labour market.

Data supplied by Foods Standards Scotland (FSS) (Table 2, Annex II) shows that the number of Certificates of Competence (CoC) issued since 2017 have remained reasonably consistent. CoCs are required by those working in an abattoir in order to be permitted to perform certain operations including handling, restraining, stunning and bleeding of animals. They are not required for workers involved with carcass dressing or butchery. As CoCs are a lifelong qualification the numbers included in the table may not be truly representative of the number of individuals currently working in the industry.

¹ this includes abattoirs and on-farm slaughter of all species.

² Six island abattoirs, Dingwall, Grantown, Shotts, Wishaw, Carmichael, Paisley & Lockerbie

Alongside the recruitment of staff to work in the slaughter process, stakeholders highlighted the essential role played by butchers and abattoir management. Having abattoirs that are well run by a proficient management team is a key component when considering both animal welfare and business prosperity. The Scottish Craft Butchers training scheme is an important service for small and medium abattoirs. Increased funding to this scheme would allow for more apprentices to enter the trade. Larger processors which have in-house butchery training, however, still find it difficult to recruit experienced butchers.

The slaughter industry is highly regulated in respect of both animal welfare and food hygiene requirements. SG has previously provided financial support to smaller abattoirs in order to meet newly implemented legislative obligations. For example, £5000 was offered to each of the Island abattoirs to install CCTV to ensure compliance with the Mandatory Use of Closed-Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (Scotland) Regulations 2020. The industry described new legislation as burdensome, prohibitive and costly, and some smaller abattoirs felt overregulated. All abattoirs require official controls (presence of an Official Veterinarian and Meat Hygiene inspectors) for which FSS issues charges to be paid by the abattoir operator. Discounts are applied to abattoirs killing smaller numbers of livestock units, with a discount up to 75-80% available to the smallest abattoirs.

There have been a number of projects in recent years exploring the potential for new abattoirs in rural areas of Scotland. In 2012 a study commissioned by the Scottish Agricultural College (now SRUC) concluded that, on the basis of throughput conservatively predicted from a producer and consumer survey, a small-scale abattoir could be modestly profitable, provided it did not carry a debt burden from the outset. The initial cost was estimated at £1.5 million. In 2025, Orkney Auction Mart received a £15,000 grant from the Scottish Government to help build a business case for a new, fit-for-purpose processing plant. However, industry stakeholders were in agreement that priority should be given to maintaining the current abattoir network in Scotland, maintaining its infrastructure and supporting a skilled workforce. It was reported that the opening of new abattoirs would reduce throughput in some current facilities leaving them economically unviable.

Section Summary

The number of abattoirs in Scotland has been declining. There is currently adequate slaughter provision in Scotland, however this does not take account of abattoir location, or difference in service provision. The small/medium abattoir network is vulnerable due to issues around staff recruitment, livestock procurement, energy costs and waste management. These same issues may limit the possibilities of new facility development. Improving access to training (e.g. through the Scottish Craft Butcher training scheme) and continued investment in the current network would be beneficial in maintaining Scottish abattoir provision. CoCs are a lifelong qualification, with no specific requirements for those who hold a CoC to keep up to date with any welfare developments or updates to best practice. CoC holders are not required to inform FSS when they retire/no longer work in the industry. This presents a challenge when maintaining records on the number of individuals in Scotland working in the slaughter industry who are licensed to perform animal slaughter.

Without the expansion or development of new slaughter facilities some of the potential welfare issues described in Section 4.2 (e.g. livestock experiencing increased journey times/multiple ferry crossings) will persist. Although increasing the number of abattoirs in Scotland, especially in certain locations underserved by the current network may improve welfare by reducing animal transport times and complexities, it may also have implications for the continued financial viability of existing facilities.

4.4 What are the slaughter provisions and associated welfare impacts of high-risk animal groups reared in Scotland? (e.g. end-of-lay hens)

It was not possible to gather in depth data on the transportation of specific high-risk animal groups.

Currently all of Scotland’s end-of-lay hens are slaughtered in England. Birds travelling from the north of Scotland may experience journey times of up to 12 hours. These birds have a low economic value, and their processing is highly marginal in terms of economic benefit, but this is not a reason to overlook their welfare. This requires larger scale abattoirs to be an economically viable business. Scotland currently sends around 4.8 million end-of-lay hens to slaughter annually; but it is estimated that 8.5 million birds would be required to sustain a viable processing option^[53]. There may be a potential for a mixed broiler/end-of-lay hen abattoir in Scotland, however this would require further investment and support from within the industry.

There are a number of abattoirs in Scotland that accept cull breeding boars and sows, including a large processor in Brechin. This larger processor received a SG Food Processing and Marketing Cooperation Grant in 2014 which allowed significant upgrading of the plant. One of the grant conditions was that the abattoir would be able to process boars and sows.

Although not necessarily a high-risk animal group, producers did report difficulties when arranging slaughter of certain rare/native cattle breeds, especially those with long horns, cattle over 4 years old and heavy, hairy pig breeds. This is often due to lack of appropriate facilities for handling and processing of these animals at some abattoirs, resulting in increased journey times to an alternative facility that will accept them. This is of particular concern in the Highlands and Islands where these breeds are often kept due to be being well adapted to the environment and farming systems.

Section Summary

There is an adequate provision of slaughter facilities for some high-risk animal groups in Scotland, with cull breeding pigs being a good example. Other groups such as end-of-lay hens require significant journeys to an abattoir which can have a negative impact on bird welfare due to their particular vulnerability to feed and water withdrawal, space restriction, bone damage, and extreme temperatures (due to thermodynamics in poultry transport, birds positioned at the front of a load, behind the cab are vulnerable to heat stress, whilst those at the back of the load can suffer from cold stress, especially if feather coverage is poor). Government scheme conditions can give leverage to improving slaughter provisions for certain animal groups.

4.5 Would the use of Mobile Slaughter Units (MSUs) be viable and do you think they would improve animal welfare?

There were a variety of stakeholder views on the potential viability and animal welfare impact of MSUs.

Some producers highlighted the welfare benefits of MSUs due to the potential of significantly reducing transport time for livestock. Subject to there being no time pressure on staff to slaughter animals quickly, it was suggested that there could be substantial benefits in both animal welfare and product quality. For these improvements to be realised, however, there would need to be experienced staff available and well-designed facilities suitable for the animals being slaughtered. Further, MSUs may offer a benefit by slaughtering animals not always accepted by the larger plants (rare/native breeds etc.) and therefore could play a role in regenerative farming. Consideration would need to be given as to where MSUs would operate and how often they would change location. Due to the seasonality in livestock production there are particular times of the year during which demand would be higher. There are also regulations associated with Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs) in consequence of which producers often want their cattle to be slaughtered by 30 months of age. If an MSU was only available in a certain location for a short period of time once a year this would not be suitable for the majority of producers. Some crofters giving evidence to SAWC reported their preference for a static abattoir, open year-round, even if not every week. Others suggested that changes in regulation around on-farm slaughter could be an option to eliminate welfare compromises associated with transport to slaughter. Currently all livestock (with some exemptions for poultry) must pass through a licensed abattoir for inspection and health marking.

Many of the challenges associated with MSUs centred on finances and logistics. Stakeholders questioned how they would be financed in respect of both capital expenditure and ongoing costs, who would own and operate potential MSUs, and also identified issues around economies of scale and profitability. Existing difficulties with labour costs and procurement may be exacerbated in the context of a MSU, particularly (as presumably would be the case) if operators were required to travel in rural areas. Consideration would also need to be given to the sourcing of the required veterinary inspection as it was reported that vet practices in some areas of rural Scotland are under considerable pressure to recruit and retain staff.

Chilling infrastructure for carcasses, capacity, and carcass storage are limited in MSUs which in some cases may require producers to have their own facilities. Having MSUs associated with ‘docking stations’ or ‘hubs’ such as auction marts or butchers may help with this and be beneficial in establishing chilling and storage facilities as well as making use of current resources such as animal pens and waste collection/disposal routes, the latter being of particular concern.

Published scientific literature regarding the viability and welfare impacts of MSUs explores similar topics to those raised by the stakeholders. MSUs can minimise stress-related and loading injuries associated with the transport of both red meat and white meat species ^[57,58], can reduce road transportation of livestock and their carcasses and therefore may also contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases ^[59]. Slaughtering on the home farm allows for the reduction of stressors caused by novel environments ^[60], especially if animals are handled by familiar stock people ^[61]. On-farm slaughter usually means a slow line speed, which contributes to a calm and relatively stress-free slaughter ^[62] with animals in one study showing fewer backing up and violent behaviours than in conventional abattoirs ^[61]. When designed and used appropriately, MSUs can reduce welfare risk in certain animal groups, for example cull dairy cows that are unfit for transport but fit for slaughter ^[63], or fractious animals for which transportation would pose a health and safety risk ^[60]. Not every study reported welfare benefits of MSUs. Hultgren et al (2022) ^[64] found higher blood lactate levels in cattle slaughtered in an MSU versus those killed at a static plant, indicating increased stress in these animals. On the other hand, Eriksen et al (2013) ^[65] reported that blood parameters in lambs slaughtered at an MSU indicated lower stress compared to those slaughtered at a static plant. It is important to note that large, industrial slaughter facilities have the potential for investment to achieve improved animal handling ^[61], which may not be available to smaller facilities. Stunning before slaughter, especially of pigs, bleeding, and the installation of suitable equipment to scald carcasses are also reported to be more problematic in mobile abattoirs than in regular slaughterhouses ^[63,66]. The question was also raised as to what would happen to animals that were rejected at ante-mortem inspection at on-farm MSUs. In conventional abattoirs the animal would be humanely dispatched in the lairage, however there was no insight into what would happen on-farm after rejection ^[63].

Although the focus of the literature search on this topic was predominantly around the animal welfare impact of MSUs, a number of studies mentioned some of the challenges associated with MSUs, including regulatory aspects and the constraints around ante-and-post mortem inspection ^[59], achieving sufficiently rapid and even cooling of carcasses to guarantee food hygiene, and ensuring availability of pure water supplies ^[58]. The success of mobile abattoirs is affected by many factors and profitability largely depends on the opportunities to create added value and get premium retail prices for end products ^[67].

Plans for a small-scale on-farm MSU on Orkney have recently been announced ^[68]. The ‘Tiny Trailer’ abattoir is currently in development; it will only slaughter sheep and will be hired out on a not-for-profit basis. In order to operate the facility will require licensing from FSS, Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) and Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). An official veterinarian and licensed slaughterman will also be required to perform the slaughtering and official controls. According to reports ^[68] the Tiny Trailer may be operational by late winter/early spring 2026.

Static micro-abattoirs may offer some benefit over MSUs with regard to facilities, chilling and storage, however challenges remain around staffing costs and procurement (both those working at the abattoir and local veterinary surgeons required for inspection) and maintaining economic viability. Ensuring that any new static abattoir facility has room for expansion is a key consideration for future development and business sustainability.

Section Summary

When used on farm, MSUs can reduce some of the welfare risks associated with the transportation and slaughtering of livestock. They may offer considerable welfare benefits to certain ‘high-risk’ animals such as cull dairy cattle. Significant challenges remain in regard to financial sustainability, labour, chilling, storage and waste disposal. Due to factors such as seasonality in production and small numbers of animals being presented for slaughter, producers and crofters giving evidence to SAWC favoured the development of new static abattoirs over MSUs. There is currently work on-going funded by the Scottish Government exploring the feasibility of new static abattoirs in rural areas of Scotland. SAWC welcomes this work and awaits the outcomes in due course.