The Colorado Livestock Association is pushing back on a Denver ballot measure seeking to ban slaughterhouses within city limits, saying it targets a single business that employs more than 150 people who have worked in the industry for decades.
If the measure passes, the largest lamb packing plant in the U.S. would have to close by Jan. 1, 2026. Employee-owned Superior Farms’ slaughterhouse near the National Western Stock Show complex processes about 300,000 animals a year, sending millions of pounds of packaged meat across the U.S. and generating as much as $861 million in economic activity for Colorado’s second-largest industry, according to a Colorado State University report.
It is Dixon, California-based Superior’s largest facility. Only it and Colorado Lamb Processors, a family owned processing plant in Brush, are capable of packing more than 100,000 sheep per year in Colorado. Colorado currently has the third-largest sheep and lamb inventory in the U.S. and ranks second in the nation, behind California, for slaughter-ready lambs. Total capacity of Colorado’s 21 USDA-inspected facilities is 400,000 sheep per year. Superior’s facility in Denver accounts for 15% to 20% of lamb processing capacity in the U.S.
The group behind the ballot measure, Pro-Animal Future, says slaughterhouses are “inhumane to workers, animals and the surrounding communities they pollute,” and that the proposed ordinance would “promote community awareness of animal welfare, bolster the city’s stance against animal cruelty, and, in turn, foster a more humane environment in Denver.”
The Humane League, A Pro-Animal Future affiliate, says animals killed in slaughterhouses are “‘stunned’ by electrocution, gassing or having a metal bolt shot into their skull before being hoisted upside down or shackled as their throats are slit.” Citing a 2013 study over a five-day period in Sweden, the group claims only 84% of cattle are adequately stunned before slaughter.
Zach Riley, chief executive officer of the Colorado Livestock Association, said the USDA “would certainly not allow multiple failed stunning attempts” at the Superior slaughterhouse or others. Jessica Lemmel, Colorado Livestock Association spokesperson, said that fact that Superior is USDA-inspected “drives home the point that this is a facility that needs to continue to process the lambs in the industry rather than smaller processors that aren’t USDA-inspected.”
☀️ READ MORE
The measure was approved for the November municipal ballot this spring, as was a second measure from Pro-Animal Future that seeks to ban the creation and sale of fur products in Denver starting July 1, 2025.
Olivia Hammond, communications lead for Pro-Animal Future, said, “Rather than placing the burden of change on individual consumers, this measure allows voters to lead a collective change away from a harmful industry. We believe that a transition towards more ethical and sustainable practices will build a legacy for Denver as a leader in responsible food production.”
What would happen if it passed?
In June, the Regional Economic Development Institute at Colorado State University released a report outlining the far-reaching economic implications of the ban should it pass in November.
It says the total annual output of the animal processing in Denver County currently exceeds $382 million, provides nearly 600 jobs and creates nearly $45 million in employee compensation.
But closing the Superior facility would likely “substantially impact the U.S.-based lamb supply chain and would severely strain existing facilities, thus reducing the volume of Colorado lamb available for purchase in Colorado and the rest of the U.S.,” says the report.
In the “most pessimistic” scenario, all economic activity related to Superior Farms leaves the state, for a loss of $861 million in economic activity and 2,787 jobs “after accounting for multiplier effects.”
If half of the economic activity moves to an existing plant outside of Denver, $430 million and 1,394 jobs would be lost after accounting for multiplier effects. And the report says even if 80% of Denver’s lost economic activity is retained elsewhere in Colorado, the state would still lose 697 jobs and over $215 million in economic activity.
Rick Stott, chief executive officer of Superior Farms, told Meat + Poultry magazine he believes Pro-Animal Future’s goal with the ban is “to eliminate animal ag in the state of Colorado.”
Riley agreed, adding the past five or six years in Colorado “have been peppered with a litany of anti-ag sentiment.”
MeatOut Day, when Gov. Jared Polis encouraged Coloradans to collectively ditch eating animal products on March 20, 2021, springs to mind for Riley. “It was like, why? What is the necessity? Why are (producers) under fire?”
That same year, a measure that would have declared basic veterinary procedures, including artificial insemination, acts of animal cruelty, did not make it to the statewide ballot.
The CSU report says “economic spillovers will reverberate throughout the regional economy, because of the transport of goods and services to and from the Denver location.” It adds “the meat slaughter and processing sector in Denver County is intertwined with other value-added food businesses who rely on the meat slaughter and processing sector for inputs.”
The ordinance “runs counter to demonstrated consumer preferences and choices,” the report continues. The ban would “reduce the resilience of the meat supply chain,” by increasing costs for small and medium livestock producers “who are unlikely to find alternatives,” it says. And the authors of the report conclude closing Superior Farms will make it harder for new startups in the growing local food industry, “because they will not have nearby access to Denver retail markets, and investment capital may be restricted or come at a higher cost.”
Pro-Animal Future’s position
Pro-Animal Future’s website says “banning a cruel practice in Denver won’t defeat the industry immediately” but shutting down Superior Farms “would be a major disruption for a company and industry that are profiting off harm to animals, workers and our environment.”
Hammond added, “CSU’s report acknowledges that its headline numbers are the ‘most pessimistic potential scenario,’ rather than the most likely scenario,” and said experts the group has consulted with “have struggled to understand the vague models used to land on such substantial numbers with the closing of just one plant, while noting that the findings exclude any potential benefits of the ban.”
The proposed measure contains a provision directing the city of Denver “to prioritize any affected workers in its employment assistance programs, including those provisioned by the Climate Protection Fund.”
And Pro-Animal Future’s website suggests that should Superior Farms close and its operational facilities be bulldozed, “any developer who buys (the lot) would be expected to develop it according to Blueprint Denver, the city’s long-term plan, which designates that by 2040, the area of 80216 where the slaughterhouse is will become a ‘Community Center.’”
As far as Riley is concerned, the future of one of Colorado’s leading agriculture businesses shouldn’t be left to a vote, “but it’s a playbook for special interests,” he said. “They can’t get their way because the elected body of officials recognizes the importance of the industry, so let’s run it in a misinformed-type ballot situation where people vote with their emotions.”
Hammond said Pro-Animal Future believes “Denver voters recognize the need for a more humane, sustainable food system.”