[Factotum]

OK, now I'm confused.

In Scotland:
Slaughter on-farm by an itinerant slaughterman
27. It is  unlawful for a farmer to use the services  of an itinerant slaughterman both to
slaughter his animal and to dress it.  This is because the slaughterman would be
supplying goods (i.e. a dressed carcase) in the course of his business.


Has this guidance been replaced - if so can you provide a link.

[colliewoman]

yes,, as long as the meat is used for the owners
and as long as the waste(offal/bone) is disposed of
legally, and the animals two tag ref numbers are
taken , farm number & animal number and the
authorities informed that the animal has been disposed.
off

Ooooooohhh!!! SO if for example, someone in Somerset wanted a few lambs killed and cut, what paperwork would be required/provided please?
I am liking the sound of this so long as the paper trail is OCD proof

[deepinthewoods]

OK, now I'm confused.

In Scotland:
Slaughter on-farm by an itinerant slaughterman
27. It is  unlawful for a farmer to use the services  of an itinerant slaughterman both to
slaughter his animal and to dress it.  This is because the slaughterman would be
supplying goods (i.e. a dressed carcase) in the course of his business.


Has this guidance been replaced - if so can you provide a link.

 
would this not apply only to meat aimed to enter the market, ie sold by the farmer??

[Factotum]

No I don't think so as there is another section:

Home slaughter by the farmer for his  own consumption and/or that of his
immediate family living in the same household 
25. This is lawful.  As the farmer does not, in these circumstances, act as a food business
operator, the EU Food Hygiene Regulations do not apply.  However home slaughter
does fall within the scope of the WASK,  the TSE and animal by-products (ABP)
Regulations.  So animals must be slaughtered humanely, SRM must be removed,
stained and disposed of as a category 1 animal by-product.  Cattle requiring BSE
testing must test negative before consumption.

I take that to mean the farmer does the slaughtering and then eats the meat with his family - that's OK. But section 27 says an itinerant slaughter man is illegal - no mention of the final destination of the meat.

[Calvadnack]

Do have a look at the our local mobile slaughterman's website, as his business is still running after a legal ruling.  http://www.lesstress.co.uk/  which may not apply under Scottish law.


Our local trading standards is perfectly happy with animals being slaughtered at home and I was even told about Keith Long by our local police officer - but maybe that's just rural Cornwall!!

[Factotum]

The same rules apply in England, according to the Food Standards Agency.


Q3. How should I have my own animals slaughtered for my own
consumption?
There are two lawful ways in which to have your animals slaughtered and
prepared for your own consumption:
(a) in an approved slaughterhouse; or
(b) on your farm by you.
The Food Standards Agency advises that option (a) would generally carry a
lower risk to your health than option (b).
It would be unlawful in all cases to employ anyone else - including a
slaughterman to slaughter the animal on your property. It would also be
unlawful to have the animal slaughtered anywhere else away from your
property other than in an approved slaughterhouse.

It may be the local authority is turning a blind eye to this, but it's still illegal. The emphasis in section 'b' is by you

See link here:http://www.food.gov.uk/business-industry/guidancenotes/meatregsguid/home-slaughter-livestock/livestockguidance/homekillguide.pdf

[moony]

It is by the letter of the law illegal. I posted a few links earlier on in the post. Lesstress were prosecuted, appealed and again founnd to be operating illegally.. Its only because of a technicality that the governing body had a name change making the prosecution unenforceable that they were able to continue trading. A lot of money was wasted pursuing the case and it therefore hasn't been looked at again.

[deepinthewoods]

lucky cornwall eh!

[jinglejoys]

Just move to Europe and do what the hell you like they still farm over there!

[deepinthewoods]

arent we in europe

[Richard Underwood]

I would like to point out that just because the FSA guidelines say the use of a mobile slaughterman is against the law does not mean that it is. It is always worth going back to the primary legislation. In this case it does appear the FSA is trying to stretch the legislation well beyond what was intended.

In paragraph 26 they say "It is unlawful for a farmer to use the services of an itinerant slaughterman both to slaughter his animal and to dress it. This is because the slaughterman would be supplying goods (i.e. a dressed carcase) in the course of his business." This is not in the legislation it is the FSA's interpretation of it. And it is a remarkable interpretation of the business relationship between a slaughterman and the animal owner as it assumes ownership of either the animal or the carcase at some point passes to the slaughterman and then back again rather than assuming that the slaughterman is providing a service to the owner. This is like saying that if you employ a dog walker then they take ownership of your unexercised dog and they later supply you with an exercised dog!

In fact the EU regulation the FSA quote (No 853/2004) states explicitly that "This Regulation shall not apply in relation to:
(a) primary production for private domestic use; (b) the domestic preparation, handling or storage of food for private domestic consumption; ..." which appears to cover what most of us want to do.

Unfortunately, until someone successfully defends against a prosecution it isn't possible to determine whether or not it really is legal to employ a slaughterman in this way and you risk prosecution, even if it is unsuccessful.

 

[kanisha]

thank you

[Padge]

Gosh this subject is facinating    Just been reading this
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/nelincs/bus1item.cgi?file=*BADV654-1001.txt
 
 

[woollyval]

Dear All

Dont know about fascinating....I am now totally confuddled.....I reckon that you have several different departments all contradicting each other.....its like some sort of black comedy! In Europe total common sense seems to reign....Here it would seem each government department has taken European advice/legislation and added differing whistles and bells to it....often at odds with another department, then given them all to local authorities to decipher and consequently we have Cornwall doing something you apparently cannot do in Nuneaton and Scotland saying you cannot do ir at all but in case you do...

I'm not surprised we are confused if the powers that be are confused

Signed
Confused of Somerset

[oaklandspigs]

In paragraph 26 they say "It is unlawful for a farmer to use the services of an itinerant slaughterman both to slaughter his animal and to dress it. This is because the slaughterman would be supplying goods (i.e. a dressed carcase) in the course of his business." This is not in the legislation it is the FSA's interpretation of it.

Richard,
 
Interestingly the 2006 version of the same guidance said "

16. It is unlawful for a farmer to use the services of an itinerant slaughterman both to

kill his animal and to dress it. This is because (as explained at paragraph 6(b) above) the

slaughterman would be supplying goods (i.e. a dressed carcase) in the course of his

business. The slaughter and the supply of the dressed carcase back to the farmer would

give rise to a number of offences under Article 4 of EC Regulation 853/2004, as would

any subsequent placing on the market. If, however, the slaughterman did no more than

kill the animal for the farmer, leaving the farmer to dress and cut the carcase, the Courts

might be less likely to conclude that the slaughterman was supplying goods (and more

likely to be supplying services). If so, this activity might be held to be lawful, (i.e. neither

the Hygiene Regulations nor the TSE Regulations would prohibit it) although the issue is

far from clear."
 
Somewhere the last 2 sentances were taken off the 2009 version, although no law had changed !