 |
|
| Humane Interactive
Knowledge Exchange (HIKE) Scenario 02-08: Cattle Unloading: Slips
and Falls |
|
 |
 |
 |
The Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1978 [7 USC 1901 - 1906] states that the handling and slaughtering of livestock are to be carried out only by humane methods. The Federal Meat Inspection Act [21 USC 601 et seq.] authorizes Federal Meat Inspectors to inspect, verify compliance, and enforce humane methods of handling and slaughtering of livestock so as to prevent needless suffering of animals. FSIS personnel verify that an establishment is meeting these requirements by performing procedure 04C02 daily and recording the results on the procedure schedule for each inspection shift. They also should record the time spent verifying human handling and slaughter activities in the Humane-handling Activities Tracking System (HATS).
The following references should be used when studying this HIKE:
|
|
 |
 |
You are an off-line inspector at a large, high speed cattle
kill. The establishment slaughters feedlot heifers and steers at
a line speed of 390/hour. You are in the yards to watch cattle
being unloaded from trucks (time should be recorded under HATS
Category II), to verify that the establishment is humanely
handling the animals (as mandated by 9 CFR 313.2).
You are observing unloading activities at chute #1. The cattle
appear calm, and you do not detect animals vocalizing. The
animal handlers do not appear to be using hot shots excessively
and appear to be very patient as they move animals from the
truck into the unloading chute. As you watch the animals being
unloaded, you notice that some animals are slipping and sliding
down the floor of the chute; 1 animal loses its balance and
falls down. You examine the floor of the chute and observe that
it is covered with a slurry composed of dirt and manure.
You inform establishment management of the incident, in
accordance with 9 CFR 313.50, which states that an inspector
will inform the establishment operator when they observe an
incident of inhumane handling, that is not egregious, and
request that the operator take the necessary steps to prevent a
recurrence. You also tell them that they are noncompliant with 9
CFR 313.1 (b) and you will document this incident on an NR. (You
recall from your training, and according to FSIS Directive
5000.1, that the appropriate way to inform an establishment of a
regulatory noncompliance is by documenting the incident on an
NR.)
The establishment yard supervisor informs you that the
establishment will stop unloading animals at chute #1 and will
evaluate and correct the situation before unloading any more
animals. After your discussion with the supervisor, you move to
chute # 2 and continue to observe unloading activities. While
observing animals coming down the chute, several animals slip
and 2 animals lose their balance and fall down. Again you find
that the floor of this chute is covered with a slurry composed
of manure and dirt. Because cattle continue to slip and fall,
you determine that the establishment is noncompliant with 9 CFR
313.1 (b).
Based on the above findings and the fact that the establishment
failed to take the necessary steps to prevent recurrences, you
inform yard management to stop unloading cattle, and then, as
instructed in FSIS Directive 6900.2, you take a regulatory
control action (RCA) as authorized by 9 CFR 500.2. You place “US
Rejected” tags across the openings of chute #1 and #2 as
indicated in 9 CFR 313.50 (a).
The plant orally proffers immediate and further planned actions to control the problem.
For immediate actions, the plant institutes corrective measures
of washing down the unloading chutes every 3rd truck. The
establishment also indicates that it will use sawdust or sand if
the cleaning of the floor is not adequate. For further planned
actions the plant says that it will install metal mesh on the
floors of both chutes over the weekend. You decide that these
immediate and further planned actions are acceptable and remove
the US Reject tags from the unloading chutes after communicating
with the DVMS who concurs with your assessment of the plant’s
response.
You have determined that there is noncompliance with regard to 9 CFR 313.1(b) which states:
Floors of livestock pens, ramps, and driveways shall be constructed and maintained so as to provide good footing for livestock. Slip resistant or waffled floor surfaces, cleated ramps …are examples of acceptable construction and maintenance.
You document the events in an NR. You document the humane
handling noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.1 (b) using the 04C02
procedure code and mark “protocol” for the trend indicator. In
block 10 of the NR, you reference HATS Category II – Truck
Unloading and HATS Category VII – Observation for Slips and
falls (as per FSIS Notice 16-08). The plant gives no written
response, so you carefully and completely document the plant’s
oral responses for corrective actions and further planned
actions. You fax a copy of the NR to the District Office to
provide information to the DVMS and Deputy District Manager.
Follow-up:
At a later time, during the same day, you observe that the
chutes’ floors are being washed at the specified frequency. In
addition, you determine that animals are not vocalizing,
slipping, or falling during unloading. You continue to monitor
unloading operations to verify that the plant maintains and
fully implements their verbal corrective actions.
The following week, you observe that the establishment has
installed the metal mesh on the floors of the chutes by the
specified completion date.
Note: Time spent observing this noncompliance
should be entered into HATS under Category II and Category VII.
Regulatory References:
9 CFR 313.1(b): Livestock pens, driveways, and ramps.
Floors of livestock pens, ramps, and driveways shall be
constructed and maintained so as to provide good footing for
livestock. Slip resistant or waffled floor surfaces, cleated
ramps and the use of sand, as appropriate, during winter months
are examples of acceptable construction and maintenance.
313.50 Tagging of equipment, alleyways, pens, or
compartments to prevent inhumane slaughter or handling in
connection with slaughter.
When an inspector observes an incident of inhumane slaughter or
handling in connection with slaughter, he/she shall inform the
establishment operator of the incident and request that the
operator take the necessary steps to prevent a recurrence. If
the establishment operator fails to take such action or fails to
promptly provide the inspector with satisfactory assurances that
such action will be taken, the inspector shall follow the
procedures specified in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this
section, as appropriate.
(a) If the cause of inhumane treatment is the result of facility
deficiencies, disrepair, or equipment breakdown, the inspector
shall attach a “U.S. Rejected” tag thereto. No equipment,
alleyway, pen or compartment so tagged shall be used until made
acceptable to the inspector. The tag shall not be removed by
anyone other than an inspector. All livestock slaughtered prior
to such tagging may be dressed, processed, or prepared under
inspection. |
|
|
|
Access the HIKE Scenario home page and review previously posted
HIKE's from:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Employees/HIKE/index.asp
HIKE is a service of the FSIS Policy Development Division and DVMS
to foster awareness and regulatory compliance for welfare of livestock.
It is important that everyone understands that HIKE and the information
herein is intended for the use of all field employees and to be
shared with plant management.
If questions pertaining to any of the scenarios, or answers provided
on HIKE are not resolved through discussions within the work-group
or with the supervisor, they should be submitted to
Hike@fsis.usda.gov.
Last Modified:
June 13, 2008
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
To view PDF files you must have Adobe Reader installed on your computer.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
