Veterinary experts (including a former U.S. Department of Agriculture inspector), livestock handling experts, humane slaughter experts, and psychologists reviewed the videotaped evidence from the three-month investigation into Belcross Farm, a pig-breeding facility in North Carolina, and offered testimony to the court. Are the practices they describe below isolated incidents, characteristic of Belcross alone? No, they are endemic to factory farming and to the process of animal slaughter. Slaughter house workers are often required to kill more than 1000 animals per hour. Unfortunately, the animals receive the brunt of the workers' frustration. Note how many times the experts use the word "suffering" to describe the treatment of the poor, defenseless animals at Belcross Farm:

"The sow vocalizes and moves while her neck is being incised, indicating consciousness to the procedure. The pig continued to respire, apparently even through her nasal passages. It is obvious that no vital structures in her neck have been severed. Even with the animal still moving and breathing, the men in attendance begin a slow butchering process in which the living creature is skinned and disjointed. At times, there appear to be pain reflexes in response to specific cuts, which indicates that this animal was not only alive but still conscious enough to respond to pain. This was one of the most horrific demonstrations of animal cruelty that I have viewed."

"The American Veterinary Medical Association euthanasia policy dictates that an animal be swiftly killed for that death to be considered humane. In none of the "killing" in this video was death swift or painless. In fact, the reverse is true: All sustained multiple beatings to the head and/or body prior to stunning, some had their necks partially severed while conscious or alive, and one was actually butchered while still breathing! In conclusion, numerous counts of cruelty to animals were demonstrated on this videotape."

Kerry Levin-Smith, D.V.M.
University of California at Davis, B.S., D.V.M. (Large Animal Track)

"Some of the scenes on this video are among the worst cruelty imposed on animals that I have seen during my 25-year professional career."

"There is by no means any certainty that the method used in the video could create unconsciousness in a grown pig. Many strokes by the wrench are used. It is my opinion that the stunning method used is cruel and that it causes the sow unnecessary and unjustifiable pain and suffering. … The skinning of a conscious sow causes unjustifiable and unnecessary pain and suffering. It is cruel not to make sure that the sow, beyond any doubt, is unconscious before starting the skinning procedure."

"The worker can by no means be certain that the sow is unconscious before she is being placed in the incinerator."

"There can be no professional reason for such a beating, as the sows clearly can be seen to exit through the gates immediately after the gates are opened. The beating causes unnecessary and unjustifiable pain and suffering to the sows. In my opinion, the action of the worker is malicious and cruel."

Bo Algers, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Visiting Professor, Cornell University
Professor and Head of the Department of Animal Environment and Health
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Member, Animal Welfare Committee of the Swedish Agricultural Board

"It is apparent that the sow was not dead during the skinning and went through a prolonged agonal period characterized by agonal breathing and paddling and kicking movements."

"Furthermore, it was unnecessary to force the sow to walk out on a broken leg. She could have been slaughtered humanely where she lay and then removed from the building."

"In fact, he was so eager to beat them, that they were struck in the head and neck even as they were attempting to exit the stall and move in the desired direction. The potential for injury is obvious; both soft tissue contusions and injury to bony structures could occur. The actions of this person appear to be willful, wanton, malicious, cruel, unnecessary, and sadistic."

"The potential for contusion and lacerations of deep forceful penetration are obvious. Retroperitoneal hemorrhage, infection, abcessation, and peritonitis would result. Injury could also occur to the urethra."

"She suffered needlessly the callous attempts to force her up. Slitting her throat without stunning is inhumane and the poor attempt resulted in prolonging her suffering. She lay for some minutes and was obviously aware of and responsive to her surroundings up to the moment of being shot with the captive-bolt gun."

G. John Benson, D.V.M., M.S., Dip. ACVA
Professor and Head of the Anesthesia Section, Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine
University of Illinois

"Once outside, a man beats her five times with a heavy monkey wrench on the dome of the skull and renders her semi-conscious (i.e., she is recumbent, unable to rise or escape the blows, but still clearly reacts to painful stimuli). She is beaten two more times before her throat is slit with an inadequately small blade. The fact that the blade is so small in length and width makes it unable to properly sever the great vessels in the throat to exsanguinate her. The men then proceed to skin her alive, and, in my opinion, she shows throughout the process that she is at least semi-conscious, since she reacts to pain stimuli (the knife slitting her throat and the multiple knife cuts into her hide along her back), and she attempts to kick off the snare that one man attempts to place on her hind limb while her throat is slit. She also attempts to vocalize after her throat is slit."

"Throughout these painful segments, I see many instances of the infliction of unjustifiable pain and suffering and many instances of malicious behavior on the part of the perpetrators. These actions do NOT fall under the heading of normal livestock production practices and therefore cannot be excused as an exemption (2) under the state’s Cruelty to Animals statute #14-360. As a professional familiar with farming practices, I find these actions to be brutally and unnecessarily cruel. It is my fervent wish that the perpetrators be tried for violation of this statute, and, in sentencing (if they are found guilty), that they never be permitted to handle livestock of any species ever again."

Holly Cheever, D.V.M.
Harvard University, A.B., Summa cum Laude
Cornell University, D.V.M., class rank #1

"Using such a small instrument, such as a scalpel, is very ineffective to sever the jugular veins. I counted 25 separate incisions in the neck area in an attempt to bleed the sow. … This sow had overwhelming pain and suffering which could have been prevented if these people used the proper and most effective tool. … The sow also felt pain when they were hacksawing her limbs."

"In my opinion, the worker could not be certain the sow is dead before she is placed in the incinerator. I did not see anybody check for pulse, eye reflex, or respiration before the sow was placed in the incinerator."

Lester Friedlander, B.A., D.V.M.
National Association of Federal Veterinarians (NAFV), Board of Directors 1991-1992
Supervisory Veterinary Median Officer (SVMO), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), 1985-1995
USDA Certificates of Merit and/or Commendation, 1987-1995
USDA Veterinary Trainer of the Year, 1987

"The sow’s reactions to skinning suggest that she is conscious even as she is being skinned. Not only does she writhe, but she also vocalizes, indicating she is still conscious, as her leg is being sawed off. This scene represents the most extreme case of animal cruelty I have ever seen."

Diane Halverson
Farm Animal Consultant, Animal Welfare Institute
Developed first USDA-approved label for identifying pork from hogs raised on farms using behaviorally appropriate husbandry methods

"All of the actors observed display intentionally cruel behavior under almost any legal definition of the term and certainly under any clinical definition. The literature on human-directed violence distinguishes different underlying motivational bases, varying from least to most pathological and dangerous – anger, power (control), and sadism. As suggested, these actors demonstrate those differences in this setting of animal abuse. Given the correlation between human and nonhuman animal violence, they should also be treated as an at-risk population for both forms of abuse."

Kenneth J. Shapiro, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
American Board of Professional Psychologists, certified