Humane-Slaughter-Guidelines

Recommendations

Info

with which enforcement and inspection activities are reviewed. The Humane Handling Enforcement Coordinator coordinates the agency’s implementation and daily enforcement of humane handling requirements and provides professional expertise to support inspectors in the field. Additionally, in 2011, the FSIS revised and combined older directives and notices that defined egregious animal abuse, providing field inspectors with clearer guidance that supports more consistent enforcement. 8 In October 2013, the FSIS published a new guidance on the systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock. 9 Proper implementation of this guidance by industry should ensure the humane treatment of livestock presented for slaughter because the guidance provides establishments with a set of practices that will assist in minimizing excitement, discomfort, and accidental injury. The agency will continue to improve its guidance to ensure the best practices are implemented in establishments. Food Safety and Inspection Service inspection program personnel perform humane handling activities on an ongoing basis. The FSIS can, and does, take enforcement actions against slaughter plants that do not comply with HMSA or the regulations. The goal is to prevent suffering of animals while protecting the food supply. H3 Auditing by Private Industry A scoring system that was developed for use as part of a 1997 review became the basis of the voluntary industry guidelines published by the American Meat Institute. 5,6 The first version was published in 1997, and the most recent complete version is by Grandin. 10 The guideline considers five outcome measures. The use of outcome-based measurements to assess animal welfare is recommended. 11–13 Following is a summary of the five major measurements 14 : 1. Percentage of animals rendered unconscious with a single shot from a captive bolt or percentage of animals where the electric stunner is placed on the head in the correct position. The minimum acceptable scores are 95% first-shot efficacy for captive bolt and 99% correct positioning for electric stunning. 2. Percentage of animals rendered unconscious before hoisting to the bleed rail. To pass an audit, 100% unconsciousness is required on a sample of 100 animals. There is zero tolerance for starting invasive procedures, such as skinning or leg removal, on an animal showing any signs of return to consciousness. 3. Percentage of cattle and pigs that remain silent and do not vocalize (bellow, moo, or squeal) in the stunning area. To pass an audit, 95% of the cattle or pigs must remain silent in the stun box or conveyor restrainer or during restraint for religious slaughter. Refer to Grandin 10 for more detailed information on scoring vocalization. Vocalization scoring should not be used for sheep. 4. Percentage of animals moved without an electric prod. The minimum acceptable score is 75% of the animals moved without use of an electric prod. An excellent score is 95%. 5. Percentage of animals that remain standing and do not fall during handling. A score of a fall is given if the body touches the ground. Restrainer devices that are designed to trip animals and make them fall are not acceptable. The minimum acceptable score is 99% handled with no falling. Falling is scored in all parts of the facility. Acts of abuse that should never be tolerated include, but are not limited to: 1) dragging nonambulatory animals; 2) beating animals; 3) poking sensitive areas such as the animal’s eyes, nose, udder, or anus; 4) deliberately driving animals over the top of other animals; and 5) deliberately slamming gates on animals. In 1999, the use of this scoring system by major meat-buying customers resulted in great improvements. A year after McDonald’s Corporation and Wendy’s International started using the objective scoring system, more than 90% of beef plants were able to render 95% of cattle unconsciousness with a single shot. 15,16 The use of electric prods and the percentage of animals vocalizing were also greatly reduced. 16 The AVMA PHS believes that important elements for best practice with regard to humane slaughter are: 1) maintenance logs on stunners, 2) training programs for employees, and 3) auditing using accepted industry auditing methodologies, such as video auditing. 17 Individual plants can vary on the structure and elements of their approach, so each plant will need to develop its ownprogram. Developing best practices for humane slaughter and handling is similar to writing a hazard analysis and critical control points plan for food safety. Industry assessors and auditors should conduct direct observations to ensure that the plant employees are following their plant’s written program. Best practices for humane slaughter include procedures that are done in the plant. There should be records to show that reviews have been conducted and that procedures are being followed. Additional critical areas for best practice include: nonslip floors on unloading ramps and in stun boxes, electric prod use, and handling of down, nonambulatory animals. Many assessors/auditors use the American Meat Institute objective scoring system to determine when a plant has a problem. H3.1 Clear Comments When a problem is identified, it is essential that both FSIS inspectors and private auditing companies write clear comments describing exactly what they saw. When return to sensibility is observed, it is essential to not confuse corneal reflex, nystagmus, and natural blinking (menace reflex). An animal that has a weak corneal reflex after electric stunning is usually unconscious, but after captive bolt or gunshot, the corneal reflex must be absent. An animal that has natural blinking like a live animal in the lairage is definitely sensible. This applies to all types of stunning methods. An example of a poor description in an inspection report would be “rough handling.” An example of a clear description of an abusive handling incident would be “intentional electric prod use on sensitive mucosal areas.” Clear comments are essential so that supervisors may appropriately manage problem behavior. The 12 AVMA Guidelines for the Humane Slaughter of Animals: 2016 Edition
FSIS has two excellent examples of clear descriptions of an egregious situation of inhumane handling in attachments 4 and 5 of Directive 6900.2, revision 2. 17 H3.2 Video Auditing by Industry Two major meat companies have installed video cameras that are monitored by a private third-party auditing company. The use of video auditing helps prevent the problem of employees following correct procedures when they are being watched and then reverting to inappropriate methods after the inspector or auditor is gone. Video auditing is most effective when it is done by a third-party auditor over the Internet. Experience has shown that internal video auditing programs are less effective. H4 References 1. Rawson JM. Issue brief for congress: meat and poultry inspection issues. Updated August 27, 2002. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, 2002. Available at: www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/IB10082.pdf. Accessed Sep 14, 2012. 2. FSIS. Humane handling of livestock and good commercial practices in poultry. 2009. Available at: www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/ FSRE-HH-GCP.pdf. Accessed Sep 14, 2012. 3. OIE. Chapter 7.5. Slaughter of Animals. In: Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 2015. Available at: www.oie.int/ index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_aw_slaughter.htm. Accessed May 25, 2015. 4. Gavinelli A. Developments in AW policies in the EU: everyone is responsible. Seminar of the European Institute on Animal Welfare: market-driven animal welfare in the EU and the US. Available at: www.slideshare.net/EUintheUS/washingtonandrea-1. Accessed Jul 14, 2014. 5. Grandin T. Survey of stunning and handling in federally inspected beef, veal, pork, and sheep slaughter plants. Available at: www.grandin.com/survey/usdarpt.html. Accessed Jul 14, 2014. 6. Grandin T. Objective scoring of animal handling and stunning practices at slaughter plants. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1998;212:36– 39. 7. Government Accountability Office. Humane methods of slaughter act. February 2010. Available at: www.gao.gov/ assets/310/300921.pdf. Accessed Oct 17, 2012. 8. FSIS. Facilitator guide for situation-based humane handling training. Beltsville, Md: FSIS, 2011. 9. FSIS. FSIS compliance guide for a systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock. Available at: www.fsis.usda.gov/ wps/wcm/connect/da6cb63d-5818-4999-84f1-72e6dabb9501/ Comp-Guide-Systematic-Approach-Humane-Handling-Livestock.pdf?MOD=AJPERES. Accessed Feb 19, 2016. 10. Grandin T, American Meat Institute Animal Welfare Committee. Recommended animal handling guidelines and audit guide: a systematic approach to animal welfare. Washington, DC: American Meat Institute Foundation, 2012. Available at: www.animalhandling.org. Accessed Aug 21, 2012. 11. Hewson CJ. Can we assess welfare? Can Vet J 2003;44:749–753. 12. Webster J. The assessment and implementation of animal welfare: theory into practice. Rev Sci Tech 2005;24:723–734. 13. Whay HR, Main DCJ, Guen LE, et al. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Vet Rec 2003;153:197– 202. 14. Grandin T. Auditing animal welfare at the slaughter plants. Meat Sci 2010;86:56–65. 15. Grandin T. Effect of animal welfare audits of slaughter plants by a major fast food company on cattle handling and stunning practices. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;216:848–851. 16. Grandin T. Maintenance of good animal welfare standards in beef slaughter plants by use of auditing programs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005;226:370–373. 17. FSIS. Humane handling and slaughter of livestock. Directive 6900.2, Revision 2. Washington, DC: FSIS, 2011. AVMA Guidelines for the Humane Slaughter of Animals: 2016 Edition 13
Page 1 and 2: AVMA Guidelines for the Humane Slau
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS Part I—Introduction I1.
Page 5 and 6: AVMA Guidelines for the Humane Slau
Page 7 and 8: ence of the animal and competence o
Page 9 and 10: unconscious animals may be mistaken
Page 11: History of Regulations, Industry Gu
Page 15 and 16: mal is in poor condition prior to l
Page 17 and 18: slaughter plants shows that vocaliz
Page 19 and 20: D1.7 Conditions That Cause Welfare
Page 21 and 22: chamber to prevent return to consci
Page 23 and 24: duced by preslaughter use of electr
Page 25 and 26: al activities are depressed soon af
Page 27 and 28: Figure 5—The low atmospheric pres
Page 29 and 30: estraint, such as a tray to prevent
Page 31 and 32: full metal jacketed bullets. Solid-
Page 33 and 34: A B Figure 8—For polled sheep (A)
Page 35 and 36: time to unconsciousness. Animals st
Page 37 and 38: eturning to consciousness after hea
Page 39 and 40: 7. When head-only stunning is used,
Page 41 and 42: of birds. BRD Information and Techn
Page 43 and 44: 132. Sparrey JM, Ketylewell PJ, Pai
Page 45 and 46: Unique Species Issues U1 Additional
Page 47 and 48: may require as much as 12 to 24 hou
Page 49 and 50: of the journey, other studies 47 ha
Page 51 and 52: The following methods, or a combina
Page 53 and 54: must be positioned between the wing
Page 55 and 56: a. Gregory N. Anatomical and physio
Page 57 and 58: 67. Bates G. Humane issues surround
Page 59 and 60: Design of Facilities and Slaughter
Page 61 and 62: authorities who supervise either ko
Page 63 and 64:
signed to make animals fall, leg-cl
show all

Humane-Slaughter-Guidelines

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?