|
|
| Humane Interactive Knowledge Exchange (HIKE) Scenario 01-03 |
|
 |
 |
 |
The following references should be used when studying
this HIKE:
|
|
 |
 |
You are the IIC at a cull dairy cow slaughter
establishment in Wisconsin. As you arrive in the pen
area to perform ante mortem inspection you observe a
group of animals being driven down the alley to a
holding pen. As the animals go around a corner you
observe multiple animals slipping and then regaining
their footing to continue walking down the alley to the
holding pen. An occasional animal falls during the
process. This is the first time you have observed
animals slipping and falling in this alley in 12 months
(It is now February).
You continue observing the animals unloading for a few
minutes and notice the animals are not being overdriven.
You observe the plant employee's reaction to the
slipping and falling of the animals in that area of the
alley. The handler remains calm, and he waits for the
animals to regain their footing before he continues
moving them down the alley to the holding pen. He does
not use a prod at any time. Upon closer investigation
you observe that there are 6 inches of semi-frozen feces
and mud in the alley where the animals are slipping and
falling.
As the IIC you need to determine if a noncompliance has
occurred and what actions you should take at this time.
You determine that noncompliance exists with respect to
regulation 9 CFR 313.1 (b), and take a
regulatory control action by tagging the alley
"USDA Rejected" as per 9 CFR 313.50 (a). You
inform the plant of your control action and the
noncompliance. The plant performs immediate corrective
action by removing the bulk of the fecal/mud buildup and
then layers the area with sawdust to provide better
footing. The barn supervisor notifies you verbally of
the preventive measures put in place to ensure adequate
non-slip footing in the future. You write an
noncompliance record (NR) using the 04C02 code (as per
FSIS Notice 50-02) with protocol trend indicator, and
referencing the appropriate regulation 9 CFR
part 313.1(b). You send a copy of the completed
NR to the District Office.
The following day, you arrive at the plant in the
presence of a light snowfall. Just as the first
truckloads of animals arrive, you decide to follow up on
the events of the previous day by inspecting the alleys
and walkways in connection with the unloading area. You
notice that the snow has been removed, and fresh sawdust
has been applied. You determine the areas adequate for
the passage of livestock.
Conclusion
The handling of animals by the plant employee was calm.
The employee was not using a prod nor over driving the animals,
Under normal circumstances (during warmer times of the year and when it is drier)
you are aware the flooring provided by the plant is adequate to provide good non-slip
footing. However, you inform the plant that they must maintain a proactive approach
to the humane handling of livestock, and are thereby required to actively monitor both
the environment and procedures in association with these practices. Noncompliances should
be documented, and regulatory control taken accordingly. Additionally, the effectiveness
of the establishment's corrective actions as implemented should be verified
by inspection personnel.
Appendix
Q&As
- Q: In this particular scenario, who at the District
Office received the NR?
A: In this particular case, the NR was received
by the local District Veterinary Medical Specialist (DVMS).
Each District Office will have an established protocol
when receiving NRs from the field. The DVMS is usually
the person to which these NRs are directed, but this can
occur differently in their absence.
- Q: What is the best way to "send" an NR to the District Office?
A: Both mailing and faxing are acceptable. In the event the NR reflects a particularly
egregious event, faxing would be the method of choice, in addition to a phone call.
In this particular scenario, the nature of the NR permitted that the NR be mailed.
Note: After this HIKE was published, the Agency determined that if there is an egregious humane handling non-compliance,
an NR would not be written. A memorandum of interview (MOI) is written instead to document the event and in support of an
immediate suspension action. The MOI is to be forwarded to the DO in the case of an egregious humane handling non-compliance.
- Q: Should the NR which is sent to the District contain the plant's corrective action?
A: This can be decided on a case by case basis. Usually the NR would be sent after receipt
of the plant's corrective actions, as what occurred in this scenario. In the event of a particularly
egregious non-compliance, it may be necessary to inform the District before the establishment has
time to respond.
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.
- FSIS Notice 50-02:
ISP Procedure Code For Humane Slaughter
- Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1978, URL address: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/ch48.html
The Humane Interactive
Knowledge Exchange (HIKE) is a service of the FSIS
Technical Service Center and DVMS to foster awareness and regulatory
compliance for the 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: March 1, 2010 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
To view PDF files you must have Adobe Reader installed on your computer.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
