Situation

You are the Inspector-In-Charge (IIC) of a large federally inspected hog slaughter establishment.  After performing ante-mortem inspection, you are walking back to the kill floor to perform post-mortem dispositions when you hear the sound of a hog squealing loudly.  The sound is coming from the livestock unloading area.  You go to the unloading area and observe a truck driver and an establishment employee drag a sow, by the back legs, down the unloading ramp of the trailer.  The sow is still squealing loudly.  You immediately inform the employee to stop dragging the sow, and the employee informs the truck driver that they should stop. You place a “US Rejected” tag on the doorway between the trailer and the unloading bay to prevent any further unloading of animals. 

The sow is on the ramp, sitting on its haunches with its front legs extended to support the rest of its body.  The sow is not able to stand and ambulate.  You determine that the sow is disabled, non-ambulatory, and conscious.  The establishment is noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.2 (d) (2) and you know that this noncompliance is egregious.  Following the requirements of 9 CFR 313.50 (b), you attach US Rejected tags to the alleyways leading to the stunning area to prevent any further slaughter. 

NOTE:  FSIS Directive 6900.2 provides a definition for egregious inhumane treatment and one of the examples given for egregious inhumane treatment is “Excessive beating or prodding of ambulatory or nonambulatory disabled animals or dragging of conscious animals.”

You locate establishment management (the livestock barn supervisor), describe the noncompliance, and inform the supervisor that you have taken a regulatory control action in accordance with 9 CFR 500.2 (a) (4).  Additionally, you inform the supervisor that you will immediately call the District Office because the noncompliance may result in a suspension action or a notice of intended enforcement action. You inform the supervisor that hogs already slaughtered may be further processed, but that there will be no further federally inspected slaughter until this issue is resolved.

You contact your Front Line Supervisor (FLS), District Veterinary Medical Specialist (DVMS) and District Office (DO) to inform them of the regulatory control action and to discuss and assess your observations of the noncompliance.  In addition, you provide the DVMS with the following information:

1. As the IIC, you previously determined, in consultation with the DVMS, that the establishment has a written, robust systematic approach for humane handling of animals. The robust plan includes a procedure for handling disabled animals and discusses corrective actions in the case of a deviation from standard procedures.
2. You have periodically reviewed the establishment audit records for humane handling and slaughter, and the establishment is effective in implementing its systematic approach.
3. The establishment has no additional recent humane handling and slaughter noncompliances, including none for mishandling non-ambulatory disabled hogs.

Assessment

After discussing the noncompliance with DO personnel and the DVMS, you make the following assessments:

• The egregious noncompliance is an atypical event;
• The establishment has a well-implemented robust systematic approach to humane handling of livestock that includes handling of suspect and disabled animals;
• The establishment has no recent history of humane handling and slaughter noncompliance and has never had a noncompliance for mishandling suspect and disabled animals.

Along with the DO, you recognize according to the instructions contained in FSIS Directive 6900.2 Rev.2, that when an establishment has a proven robust systematic approach to humane handling, you are to consider first whether a notice of intended enforcement action (NOIE) is warranted instead of a notice of suspension (NOS) in response to an egregious humane handling noncompliance.

Based on the discussion and assessment of the egregious noncompliance, you determine that a NOIE is appropriate rather than a NOS because of the existence of a written, robust systematic approach, the noncompliance history of the establishment, and the atypical nature of the situation. You inform the establishment management of this decision.  You advise establishment management that it will have 72 hours to respond to the NOIE.   At this point, you also inform establishment management that in order to resume operations, it will need to take immediate corrective actions for the egregious noncompliance. 

You begin to document the egregious noncompliance in a Memorandum-of-Interview (MOI) when the establishment’s manager presents to you the establishment’s immediate corrective actions.  These corrective actions derive from the establishment’s corrective action plan for this type of egregious humane handling noncompliance. 

The corrective actions are:

1. The establishment employee and the truck driver have been removed from the livestock area for today. 
2. In addition to removing the employee in question from the workplace, consistent with the corrective action plan, the establishment has directed the employee to attend mandatory retraining in handling disabled, injured, and non-ambulatory hogs before he can return to the livestock area.
3. The establishment has told the truck driver that if he wants to continue to bring hogs onto the establishment’s premises, he must attend the same training as the employee.    The truck driver agrees to take the training.
4. The establishment will monitor the employee and truck driver’s progress after training.

You call the DO and discuss the proffered corrective action with DO personnel.  In consultation with the DO, you decide to accept the corrective action.  You remove the US Rejected tags from the alleyways and unloading ramp.  

You finish documenting the egregious noncompliance in the MOI, in PHIS, by entering a Livestock Humane Handling task.   Because you are writing an MOI (rather than an NR) you mark in the Findings tab, “non-regulatory concern;” the NOIE will also document the noncompliance.  The DVMS and DO will use the information supplied in the MOI to write the NOIE.  In the MOI, you document the time and date of the event, and a description of the incident.  Before the end of your work shift, you document this time in HATS Categories II and V.   You close the task at the end of your work shift.

NOTE: A copy of the completed MOI is given to the establishment.

This prudent establishment reviews its robust humane handling systematic approach plan and determines that it needs to initiate additional training on handling disabled and non-ambulatory hogs for truck drivers and haulers and to provide a back-up plan for pen handlers moving slow or disabled hogs. The establishment incorporates the changes into its humane handling plan and monitoring records.  The DO reviews the establishment’s revisions and identifies some concerns.  The establishment resolves the concerns, and the DO notifies the establishment that the NOIE is deferred and the effectiveness of the corrective actions in their Verification Plan will be monitored by the IIC.

Appendix

The following references should be used when studying this HIKE: 

• 9 CFR 313.2   Handling of livestock.

(d) Disabled livestock and other animals unable to move.

(1)  Disabled animals and other animals unable to move shall be separated from normal ambulatory animals and placed in the covered pen provided for in Sec. 313.1 (c).

(2)  The dragging of disabled animals and other animals unable to move, while conscious, is prohibited. Stunned animals may, however, be dragged.

(3)  Disabled animals and other animals unable to move may be moved, while conscious, on equipment suitable for such purposes; e.g., stone boats.

• 9 CFR 313.50 (b) Tagging of equipment, alleyways, pens, or compartments to prevent inhumane slaughter or handling in connection with slaughter.

(b) If the cause of inhumane treatment is the result of establishment employee actions in the handling or moving of livestock, the inspector shall attach a “U.S. Rejected” tag to the alleyways leading to the stunning area. After the tagging of the alleyway, no more livestock shall be moved to the stunning area until the inspector receives satisfactory assurances from the establishment operator that there will not be a recurrence. The tag shall not be removed by anyone other than an inspector. All livestock slaughtered prior to the tagging may be dressed, processed, or prepared under inspection.

• FSIS Directive 6900.2 - FSIS Directive 6900.2 - Humane Handling and Slaughter of Livestock
• Humane Handling and Slaughter Requirements and the Merits of a Systematic Approach To Meet Such Requirements - [Federal Register Notice: September 9, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 174, pages 54625-54627)

HIKE Scenario 01-10

Situation
You are the IIC of a federal beef slaughter and processing establishment. While performing humane handling verification (Livestock Humane Handling Verification task), you decide to verify that the establishment is:

• maintaining facilities to prevent injuries and slips and falls.
• handling animals with a minimum of excitement and discomfort.
• not excessively using driving implements, especially electric prods, in order to minimize excitement and injury.

Based on historical findings at this establishment, you decide that you will verify the establishments handling and driving practices as cattle are being off loaded and as cattle are being moved up the single file chute to the stunning area (knocking area).

You are aware that 9 CFR 313.1 (a) & (b) provide that the construction and maintenance of the floors of ramps, pens, and alleyways must be such that they provide adequate traction for livestock and prevent injury; 9 CFR 313.2(a) specifies cattle should be moved with a minimum of excitement and at no more than walking speed; and 9 CFR 313.2(b) states overuse of electrical prods should be avoided.

You first go to the cattle receiving area to observe cattle being off-loaded from the truck. The trucks have backed up to the unloading area, and the truck driver and establishment employees start to unload cattle. So, as not to distract the cattle, you locate yourself so that cattle will not balk when they see your white coat. The establishment utilizes a variety of equipment to move the cattle. Employees have garbage bags, sticks with flags on the ends, rattle paddles, and battery operated prods. The employees are using calm voices and moving the cattle with minimal excitement down the ramp. They are not yelling at the cattle or waving their arms in excess to get them moving onto the off-loading ramp. You also observe that the cattle have adequate footing and are not slipping or falling as they move down the ramp and into the alleyways.

Suddenly, you notice that a group of cattle balk and refuse to go down an off-loading ramp adjacent to the one you had been observing. The truck driver begins to get agitated raising his voice and using the electric prod to force a few of the cattle to move. You observe the use of the prod and make a determination that it is not excessive on any individual animal, nor is it being used on sensitive portions of the cattle. A few of the cattle are vocalizing, but the animals that are vocalizing are not the same cattle that the truck driver has tapped with the prod. The pen manager notices that the cattle are looking at a sweatshirt that has been hung on a post by the off-loading ramp and has it removed. Once it has been removed, the cattle again move down the ramp, and the truck driver lays down the electric prod.

Next, you move to the single-file chute that leads to the stunning area (knocking box) and observe cattle being driven up the chute to the knocking-box. Because it can be difficult to move cattle in this area and being familiar with the establishment policy to permit the use of battery operated prods in this area, you verify that establishment personnel are not over-using the prods. During your observation, you note the prod being used on 8 of the cattle, and of these only 2 vocalize. The prod is never used on the anus, eyes, or other sensitive parts of the cattle. You also note that the prod is never used excessively on any of the cattle. You observe only a few head of cattle losing traction as they moved up the chute and no animal fell.

You ask the establishment employee in the drive area how often he is allowed to use the prod, and he states he is allowed to use it on a maximum of 25% of the cattle. However, the employee adds that he has been instructed by his plant management to use his flag as the primary driving tool and the electric prod as a last resort. You then ask about vocalizations, and he states the establishments goal for him is to have no more that 3% of the beef vocalize. You are confident that the observation confirms the establishment is meeting the requirement of 313.2(b) by minimizing excitement and injury as well as avoiding overuse of electrical prods.

Conclusion
As the IIC you determine that the plant is using a systematic approach for humane handling of animals by using a variety of approaches for handling animals. You felt that the pen manager was very astute to notice the sweatshirt and to gain control of the situation in off-loading animals. Further, you are aware that the establishment has chosen to follow and has trained its employees using the American Meat Institute Recommended Handling Guidelines and Audit Guide 2017 Edition to meet the regulatory requirements regarding electrical prodding. You share with establishment management that, while this document is not regulatory in nature, it is an excellent guideline to assist in ensuring that the establishment is in fact meeting the regulatory requirement that states that it should be minimizing excitement and injury and avoiding excessive use of electrical prods.

Note: You document specific times you spent performing those verification activities in the Humane Activities Tracking System (HATS) found within the Livestock Humane Handling Verification task in PHIS. Time is documented in Categories IV, II, VI and VII. 

Appendix

• 9 CFR 313.2(a) Driving of livestock from the unloading ramps to the holding pens and from the holding pens to the stunning area shall be done with a minimum of excitement and discomfort to the animals. Livestock shall not be forced to move faster than a normal walking speed.
• 9 CFR 313.2(b) Handling of livestock. Electric prods, canvas slappers, or other implements employed to drive animals shall be used as little as possible in order to minimize excitement and injury. Any use of such implements which, in the opinion of the inspector, is excessive, is prohibitive. Electrical prods attached to AC house current shall be reduced by a transformer to the lowest effective voltage not to exceed 50 volts AC.
• 9 CFR 313.1(b) 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.

The Humane Interactive Knowledge Exchange (HIKE) is a service of the FSIS Policy Development Staff 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.

References

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 the Livestock Humane Handling Verification task and recording the results in the Public Health Information System (PHIS) 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).

• Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1978 ( FSIS Directive 6900.2  Attachment 1) (PDF Only)
• Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 313 (Humane Slaughter of Livestock) and 500 (Rules of Practice)
• FSIS Directive 6100.1 Rev 2 - Ante-Mortem Livestock Inspection (PDF Only)

You are the IIC of a fed cattle slaughter and processing establishment. It is close to the end of the shift, and therefore you are aware that the cattle remaining in the pens will need to be held overnight. 9 CFR 313.2 (e) requires that establishments provide adequate space for animals to lie down if held overnight and this regulation requires that animals have access to water. You decide to verify that the establishment is compliant with this regulation. (Time will be recorded under Category III Water and Feed Availability in HATS.)

You know that the water tanks at this facility are permanent structures, so you want to verify that all tanks are filled with water, are working properly and accessible to the animals. In addition, you want to determine whether the cattle have adequate room in the pens to lie down. 

Appendix

• 9 CFR 313.2(a) Driving of livestock from the unloading ramps to the holding pens and from the holding pens to the stunning area shall be done with a minimum of excitement and discomfort to the animals. Livestock shall not be forced to move faster than a normal walking speed.
• 9 CFR 313.2(b) Handling of livestock. Electric prods, canvas slappers, or other implements employed to drive animals shall be used as little as possible in order to minimize excitement and injury. Any use of such implements which, in the opinion of the inspector, is excessive, is prohibitive. Electrical prods attached to AC house current shall be reduced by a transformer to the lowest effective voltage not to exceed 50 volts AC.
• 9 CFR 313.1(b) 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.

The Humane Interactive Knowledge Exchange (HIKE) is a service of the FSIS Policy Development Staff 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.

You are aware that the establishment has developed a written program that creates a systemic approach of humane handling and slaughtering following the Federal Register Notice dated September 9, 2004 (volume 69, number 174). This program describes how the plant will space cattle held overnight following the Recommended Animal Handling Guides by Dr. Temple Grandin, Colorado State University to American Meat Institute. This particular program includes a non-regulatory provision of 20 square feet per 1200 pound cattle to allow for adequate space for handlers to drive cattle safely, for the cattle to have access to water, and for all the animals to be able to lie down. The establishment personnel have the responsibility, based on the establishments written program, to check the holding pens randomly per shift to verify that the cattle have access to water. Also at end of the shift, the establishment needs to check that cattle held overnight will have adequate space to lie down and access to water.

You are surprised when you enter the livestock holding area and find that 2 holding pens are full and appear to be overcrowded; you investigate further. You determine that the two cattle pens are overcrowded because animals in the back of the pen cannot move to the water trough and therefore do not have access to the water. You ask the yards supervisor about the conditions in these pens, and he explains that there is a gate broken in the 1 large pen, so he mixed groups of cattle together (double the normal density). You share with him that, in observing the cattle, it is clear that not all cattle in these 2 pens have access to the water, and that, based on the double density in the pen the cattle will also not have room to lie down. You further question him about the establishments written program and why it is not being followed. He stated that they are short 2 livestock handlers and that the random checks had not been performed, and that 3 loads of cattle had arrived early.

You inform him (as directed by 9 CFR 313.50) that this is noncompliance with the regulations as cattle need access to water at all times [in accordance with 9 CFR 313.2 (e)], and that if the animals are to be held overnight, they will need adequate space to lie down. He states that he just filled these pens, and that he had fully intended to move approximately half the cattle to the large pen. He also states that maintenance has been notified to fix the gate, and the cattle will be separated again, within the hour, when the gate is repaired.

As you finish your discussion with the yard's supervisor, a livestock truck arrives with a full load of cattle. You ask the yards supervisor where he is going to pen these animals. He explains to you that this truck came early, and that it was supposed to arrive tomorrow morning. He asks whether the establishment (after it stops driving cattle to slaughter) could use the alleyways as a temporary holding pen in order to decrease the cattle density in each pen and to pen the new arrivals. Because of the unusual circumstance, you state that it would be acceptable to use the alleyway as long as the animals penned there have access to water and room to lie down. He states that large stable water buckets will be placed in the alleyways so that the animals have access to water. He also points out that by using the alleyways; there will be more then enough room for the animals to lie down. You find this approach, if correctly implemented, is consistent with the regulatory requirement.

Discussion:
Your verification of establishment humane handling practices found overcrowded livestock holding pens, so overcrowded, that many cattle did not have access to water. Though the establishment has a humane handling program in place, it failed to follow that program and was noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.2(e). This regulation requires that livestock have access to water at all times while being held in holding pens. Also, you had concern with the amount of room the cattle have for lying down, since they are going to be held overnight. You discussed this concern with establishment management.

You informed the establishment of your findings, as mandated by 9 CFR 313.50, and received assurances from the establishment that its intent was to reduce the number of livestock in the holding pens to an acceptable number. In addition, you informed the establishment that it did not follow its program. Therefore your decision was not to take a regulatory control action but you did document this noncompliance on an NR.

During your discussions with establishment management, more cattle arrived, and you discussed with the establishment how it would effectively handle these animals in addition to the animals already being held in the holding pens. The decision to accept the use of drive alleys as holding pens is acceptable as long as the establishment understands that water needs to be accessible to these animals.

Conclusion:
As the IIC, you determine that there is a noncompliance with 313.2 (e), all cattle should have access to water in the holding pens. You document the overcrowding of two pens on a noncompliance record. Also you determine that there was not a violation of the portion of Part 313 that requires that there be space for all cattle to lie down when held overnight. However, you determine that it is appropriate to verify the establishments planned actions to determine whether any further action or documentation is necessary. So, you go back out on the catwalk above the cattle pens just prior to leaving for the day to verify that the cattle have been moved, have adequate space to lie down, and have access to water.

• Therefore, you documented the NR in PHIS under the Livestock Humane Handling Verification task for the cattle not having access to water in the pens and you cite regulation 9 CFR 313.2 (e).

Appendix
Regulatory References:

• 9 CFR 313.2 (e) Animals shall have access to water in all holding pens and, if held longer than 24 hours, access to feed. There shall be sufficient room in the holding pen for animals held overnight to lie down.

• The Humane Interactive Knowledge Exchange (HIKE) is a service of the FSIS Policy Development Staff 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.

References

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 the Livestock Humane Handling Verification task and recording the results in the Public Health Information System (PHIS) 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).

• Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1978 ( FSIS Directive 6900.2  Attachment 1) (PDF Only)
• Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 313 (Humane Slaughter of Livestock) and 500 (Rules of Practice)
• FSIS Directive 6100.1 Rev 2 - Ante-Mortem Livestock Inspection (PDF Only)

You are the IIC in a small cattle slaughter and processing operation. While you are performing ante mortem inspection, you decide to verify that animals are treated humanely (under Category IV of the Humane-handling Activities Tracking System (HATS) as per instruction in FSIS Directive 6900.2). Upon completion, you also decide to verify that the establishment has made water accessible to cattle in holding pens (HATS category III).

You know that the regulations require that animals have access to water in the holding pens. Specifically, 9 CFR 313.2(e) states, "Animals shall have access to water in all holding pens and, if held longer than 24 hours, access to feed. There shall be sufficient room in the holding pen for animals held overnight to lie down." In addition, you realize that

makes a distinction between pens, driveways, and ramps.

You observe cattle in all the holding pens and verify that they have access to water in all pens. However, at 12:24 PM, toward the end of the lunch period, you observe that cattle are in the drive alley and in the single file chute that leads to the knock box. You determine that these cattle have been in the drive alley and single file chute since 12:00 PM, and you know that water is not accessible to cattle in these areas. However, the drive alley and single file chute are under cover, and you observe that cattle are not crowded, they show no signs of stress or discomfort, and the temperature is 70° F.

You are aware that the establishment has developed a written program, using the systematic approach, for humanely handling and slaughtering cattle. This program describes how the establishment will handle cattle during lunch and break periods. The procedure is that during a break (or the lunch period), if there are cattle in the drive alley or single file chute, they will be adequately spaced to avoid any discomfort, stress, or injury. However, if the establishment encounters an extended delay more than an hour in the slaughter operation, the establishment's handling procedures change. The handling procedure then directs that establishment employees provide the cattle with water in the single file chute and the drive alley or move them to the holding pens with a minimum of excitement and discomfort to the animals.

Discussion:
Establishments may include in their procedures for humane handling a period of time after which water will be provided to animals being held in the drive alley or single file chute. In the absence of a specified period, you need to consider whether the establishment considers relevant factors in deciding whether to give animals water. Some of these factors include amount of time in the chute or alley, whether the animals are adequately spaced, whether the chute or alley is covered, the outside temperature, the age of the animals, and the physical and health condition of the animals. Inspection program personnel should determine compliance for each situation on a case by case basis after examining all the applicable facts and conditions that are relevant to a determination under 9 CFR 313.2(e).

Conclusion:
You consider all of the factors that you observed, and based on the cattle being under a roof; not being crowded; showing no sign of stress or discomfort; the cattle not being left in the drive alley and single file chute for an inordinate period of time; and the establishment following its humane handling plan, you determine that the cattle in the drive alley and single file chute are not being treated inhumanely. The single file chute and the drive alley are not considered as holding pens in this situation. Therefore, the establishment is in compliance with requirements in 9 CFR 313.2(e).

Note:

• You indicate verification within PHIS.
• ​Time spent verifying that animals are treated humanely should be entered into HATS under Category III and Category IV.

References

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 the Livestock Humane Handling Verification task and recording the results in the Public Health Information System (PHIS) 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).

• Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1978 ( FSIS Directive 6900.2  Attachment 1) (PDF Only)
• Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 313 (Humane Slaughter of Livestock) and 500 (Rules of Practice)
• FSIS Directive 6100.1 Rev 2 - Ante-Mortem Livestock Inspection (PDF Only)

You are the IIC at a very small plant that slaughters and processes multiple species of animals. After the ante mortem inspection of roaster pigs and the performance of the Livestock Humane Handling Verification task per 9 CFR 313.2 (time is recorded in HATS Category IV), you decide to observe the establishment implementing their electrical stunning of the roaster pigs for compliance with 9 CFR 313.30 (time is recorded in HATS Category VIII).

When you arrive at the stunning area, you observe that this establishment uses head-only electrical stunning. A few pigs are brought into the stun area, then the employee corners a moving pig and stuns it by placing the electrodes (tongs) of the V-shaped electric stunner at the base of the ears in close proximity to the eyes. You determine that the stunning apparatus was correctly applied to the animal, and that the animal was rendered unconscious. The stun operator proceeds to stun two more pigs with the same results. At this time, the last pig stunned is shackled, hoisted, bled, and hung on the rail; you note that this pig is being bled in less than 30 seconds after being stunned. The first two pigs are then shackled, hoisted, bled and hung on the rail.

Since this is a very small establishment, the stunning and bleeding operations are being performed in the same general area. You observe the bleeding pigs to verify that the pigs remain unconscious until bleeding is complete per 9 CFR 313.30 (time is recorded in HATS Category IX). You observe that the two pigs that were stunned first are showing the following signs of consciousness:

• Righting reflexes (back arching or raising of head)

• Vocalizing (squealing of one pig)

Establishment personnel and management are unaware of the conscious pigs, and therefore, no corrective action is taken. Since the establishment is not taking appropriate actions to prevent inhumane slaughter of the animal(s), you as the IIC need to establish what noncompliances have occurred, and what actions, if any, you should take at this time.

At this point, to ensure that all provisions of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the humane handling regulations are met, you determine with which regulation the establishment has failed to comply. You determine that noncompliance exists with respect to 9 CFR 313.30 (a) (4), which states: The stunned animal shall remain in a state of surgical anesthesia through shackling, sticking and bleeding.

Therefore, you immediately direct establishment supervision to re-stun the pigs. Then, as described in FSIS Directive 6900.2, you take a regulatory control action, based on 9 CFR 500.2 (a) (4), and reject the stunning area utilizing a U.S. Rejected Tag. The stunning area is rejected because 9 CFR 313.50 (c) provides that, if the cause of inhumane treatment is the result of improper stunning, then the stunning area will be rejected. Moreover, because the facts in this particular situation constitute an egregious noncompliance, you verbally notify plant management that inspection, on the slaughter floor, has been suspended in accordance with 9 CFR 500.3(b). You also contact the DVMS and Deputy District Manager (DDM) to alert them of the suspension but allow animals that had already been killed to be processed. You document the facts that served as the basis for the egregious noncompliance on a Memorandum of Interview (MOI) under the Livestock Humane Handling Verification task in PHIS and promptly provide that information electronically to your District Office.

Electrical stunning of animals, and then allowing them to regain consciousness, are actions that cause unnecessary pain and suffering, and any such action is an egregious act. Because of the egregious nature of the noncompliance, you suspend the assignment of inspection personnel, and the District Office documents this suspension of the assignment of inspectors for slaughter per 9 CFR 500.3 (b), Rules of Practice.

Establishment management offers as an immediate corrective action that it will switch from electric stunning to a mechanical captive bolt gun. They also indicate at this time that they believe that the stun-to-stick interval may have been too long but elect to use a captive bolt gun.

Establishment management documents these corrective measures and submits them to you and the District Office for consideration. The DVMS and the DDMs review and discuss the proposed corrective measures with you and the Front Line Supervisor (FLS) and decide that the actions do not sufficiently address the cause or further planned actions. The District Office responds to plant management by stating that not only should the electrical stunning apparatus be evaluated, but also consideration should be given to the stun-to-stick interval if the establishment decides to return to using electrical stunning. In addition the district office discusses the September 9, 2004 Federal Register on Humane Handling and Slaughter Requirements and the Merits of a Systematic Approach to Meet Such Requirements with plant management. The plant subsequently provides an additional response that includes specifics on training plant personnel, validation of its stun-to-stick interval, and a discussion that demonstrates that it is implementing and monitoring the systematic approach.

The establishment is informed by the District Office that the suspension of the assignment of inspectors for slaughter operations will be held in abeyance in accordance with 9 CFR 500.5 (e). The District Office discusses with you and the FLS the verification plan that will be used by appropriate inspection program personnel during the abeyance period. You provide plant management with a copy of the suspension held in abeyance letter, remove the US Reject tag from the stunning area, and allow slaughter operations to resume.

Hogs are now being stunned using a captive bolt stunner, and you proceed to verify that the animals are being rendered unconscious with a single stunning blow. You determine that the hogs are stunned to an immediate state of unconsciousness and stay unconscious throughout the shackling, hanging, sticking, and bleeding procedure.

Hogs are now being stunned using a captive bolt stunner, and you proceed to verify that the animals are being rendered unconscious with a single stunning blow. You determine that the hogs are stunned to an immediate state of unconsciousness and stay unconscious throughout the shackling, hanging, sticking, and bleeding procedure.

Conclusion
Regulations on the humane slaughter of livestock require that stunning operators be skilled and attentive in stunning livestock. It is plant managements responsibility to train the employees in the effective use of stunning devices and to monitor employee performance and that the stunning equipment is functioning properly. The effectiveness of the establishments corrective actions as implemented, both immediate and long term, will be verified by inspection program personnel including the DVMS through a verification plan.

Note: Based on the verification of humane slaughter regulations [9 CFR 313.2, 9 CFR 313.30, and 9 CFR 313.30 (a) (4)], your time should be recorded in three different HATS categories: HATS Category IV, HATS Category VIII, and HATS Category IX. Time recorded under HATS Category IX would include the time spent checking for consciousness and the time spent taking the enforcement action (suspension), paperwork issues, etc. 

Appendix

Questions & Answers
Q: What is the correct voltage and amperage for electric stunning?
A: The regulatory requirement is the lowest effective voltage. The regulation 9 CFR 313.30(a) (3) states that the quality of shock shall be such as to produce immediate insensibility. The scientific research has shown that a minimum of 1.25 amps at 250 to 300 volts must pass through the hogs brain to induce instantaneous unconsciousness. The amperage requirement also depends upon the size and condition of the animal, e.g.; higher amperage and voltage is required when stunning large sows.

Q: How long should the electrodes be held on the head (current flow)?
A: 9 CFR 313.30(a) (1) states the current will accomplish the desired result quickly and effectively, with a minimum of excitement and discomfort.The B&D stunner has a setting from 1-15 seconds; three second is the recommended time.

The Humane Interactive Knowledge Exchange (HIKE) is a service of the FSIS Policy Development Staff 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.

References

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 the Livestock Humane Handling Verification task and recording the results in the Public Health Information System (PHIS) 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).

• Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1978 ( FSIS Directive 6900.2  Attachment 1) (PDF Only)
• Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 313 (Humane Slaughter of Livestock) and 500 (Rules of Practice)
• FSIS Directive 6100.1 Rev 2 - Ante-Mortem Livestock Inspection (PDF Only)

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 plants response.

You have determined that there is noncompliance with regard to 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 in PHIS under the Livestock Humane Handling Verification task. You document the humane handling noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.1 (b). 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 Directive 6900.2). 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.

The Humane Interactive Knowledge Exchange (HIKE) is a service of the FSIS Policy Development Staff 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.

References

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 the Livestock Humane Handling Verification task and recording the results in the Public Health Information System (PHIS) 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).

• Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1978 ( FSIS Directive 6900.2  Attachment 1) (PDF Only)
• Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 313 (Humane Slaughter of Livestock) and 500 (Rules of Practice)
• FSIS Directive 6100.1 Rev 2 - Ante-Mortem Livestock Inspection (PDF Only)

You are the IIC at a large cull cow slaughter and processing establishment. The establishment approaches you and inquires about the possibility of routinely double stunning (i.e., using two shots or blows to stun) cattle as part of its slaughter process. The establishment states that it wants to ensure that animals will not regain consciousness after the initial stun, and that there is a minimum of excitement and discomfort. The plant refers to the second stun as a "security knock."

The establishment's systematic approach is documented in a plan that it has developed. One aspect of the plan is for establishment management to randomly select 4 times during each day to observe 5 animals being stunned and record the stunning results.

(The establishment could choose other options for the frequency and number of animals selected for verification procedures.) In addition, the establishment has experienced and well-trained captive-bolt stunner operators and it documents its ongoing training practices.

You decide to consider this request and contact the District Veterinary Medical Specialist (DVMS) to discuss the double stunning procedure in the context of the establishments plan. The DVMS advises you that the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act (7 USC 1901-1906) and the Agencys humane handling regulations (9 CFR 313.15) require that livestock be rendered unconscious by a single stunning blow, but that there is no regulation that prohibits an establishment from delivering a second stunning blow to an animal that was effectively rendered unconscious due the first stunning blow.

Therefore, a double knock procedure can meet regulatory requirements so long as the establishment effectively implements its program. Thus, the establishment needs to ensure that its personnel will verify that the double stunning of cattle is humane.

The establishment decides to implement the following plan:

• All operators of stunning equipment will be trained on how to properly use the equipment to effectively stun the animals and will need to demonstrate competency in placing and firing the captive-bolt stunner.
• The operators will need to demonstrate that they are able to recognize when an animal has not been adequately stunned, and that they must immediately respond by re-stunning with a single additional blow to render the animal unconscious.
• The establishment will maintain its existing verification checks to ensure immediate unconsciousness from the first stun.
• The establishments existing maintenance program for the captive-bolt stunners will remain in effect, but be routinely assessed for continued effectiveness.

You also inform the establishment that you will continue to verify that the establishment is meeting the intent of the Acts and regulatory requirements. Your verification of 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) needs to consider whether the establishment employing a double knock (stun) procedure has a basis for knowing that the first knock rendered the animal immediately unconscious. The establishment's means of ensuring that the knock is effective may include, but are not limited to, verification of the effectiveness of its training of its employees who perform the knock, equipment maintenance schedules and equipment modifications, and establishment audits. The establishment could also render the animals unconscious with the initial stun in order for FSIS inspection to verify, on a random basis, that the establishment is consistently rendering animals unconscious with a single stunning blow.

The use of these types of procedures would be considered by FSIS to be consistent with a systematic approach to humane handling and slaughter. Because the establishment is using a systematic approach, you verify execution of the establishment's procedures by direct observation of the establishments routine stunning methods and its effectiveness.

If your observation raises a significant question about the effectiveness of the first knock, however, you may request that the establishment deliver one stunning blow to the animal in order to evaluate the results of the stun, but this request should rarely, if ever, be necessary.

• This HIKE scenario only addresses the routine stunning of cattle using a double stun technique. Other species (e.g., swine) may effectively be stunned using this technique as well. Also, establishments may choose to routinely double-stun certain slaughter classes (e.g., cows and bulls) and not others (e.g., fat cattle). If an establishment does use this methodology, FSIS will expect the establishments training and documentation to describe which animals are routinely double-stunned and which are not.
• This HIKE scenario does not address stunning failure in establishments that routinely use a single-stun method. Another HIKE will address stunning failure in establishments that have ineffective initial stuns and must re-stun to render the animal unconscious.

The Humane Interactive Knowledge Exchange (HIKE) is a service of the FSIS Policy Development Staff 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.

References

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 the Livestock Humane Handling Verification task and recording the results in the Public Health Information System (PHIS) 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).

• Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1978 ( FSIS Directive 6900.2  Attachment 1) (PDF Only)
• Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 313 (Humane Slaughter of Livestock) and 500 (Rules of Practice)
• FSIS Directive 6100.1 Rev 2 - Ante-Mortem Livestock Inspection (PDF Only)

Under the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), a poultry product is adulterated if, among other circumstances, it is

in whole, or in part, the product of any poultry which has died otherwise than by slaughter (21 U.S.C. 453(g)(5). Regulations also provide that carcasses of poultry showing evidence of having died from causes other than slaughter will be condemned (9 CFR 381.90). Additionally, the regulations require that poultry be slaughtered in accordance with good commercial practices, in a manner that will result in thorough bleeding of the poultry carcass and will ensure that breathing has stopped before scalding (9 CFR 381.65 (b)). Live poultry should be treated in a manner that is consistent with good commercial practices.

• Take enforcement action with respect to noncompliance that occurs in poultry establishments when poultry is treated in a manner that is NOT consistent with good commercial practices or poultry has died otherwise than by slaughter.
• Understand the process of evaluating situations and applying the relevant statutory provision or regulations in the poultry handling/slaughtering area (before to the point of entering the scalder).

You are the PHV in a poultry slaughter and processing establishment. Approximately 45 minutes into your shift, one of your line inspectors calls you to their postmortem inspection station to notify you that they have condemned numerous cadavers for approximately ten minutes. The inspector, however, does comment that the situation seems to have improved just prior to your arrival at the station.

You check condemned barrels and Poultry Inspection-Lot Tally Sheets (FSIS Form 6000-16) at each inspection station and confirm, that for the production lot in question, each inspection station did record an abnormally high number of carcasses condemned in the Cadaver category. Carcasses in the U.S. Condemned barrels show characteristic signs of birds that died other than by slaughter. You concur that these birds were accurately condemned as per 9 CFR 381.90. You then notify all of the line inspectors to inform you immediately if they observe unusual numbers or patterns of cadaver birds while performing postmortem inspection.

You decide to investigate further. You go back to the picking room to observe operations and notice two plant employees with knives standing downstream from the electrical stunner and automatic neck cutter equipment. The plant employees are cutting many of the necks by hand but at this point there is no evidence that the birds are being inadequately slaughtered.

An hour later, the GS-8 floor inspector informs you that two line inspectors want you to evaluate an unusually high incidence of cadavers. As you are observing from one postmortem station and looking across at the other evisceration line you see multiple cadavers are currently coming down both lines. These cadavers are condemned as per 9 CFR 381.90. You determine that line inspectors can still adequately properly inspect each bird processed and decide that a line speed reduction is not indicated at this time. You immediately proceed to the picking room where you observe a maintenance employee and a plant foreman monitoring the stunning equipment. Additionally, there is one plant employee backing-up the equipment in the kill area; he is working very rapidly, but the cuts that this employee is making are inadequate as evidenced by limited hemorrhage from the necks of the birds. Simultaneously you observe several birds in quick succession entering the scald tank while still breathing.

You inform the plant foreman that their slaughter procedure is out of compliance with 9 CFR 381.65(b). They cannot be considered to be using good commercial practices because carcasses have not thoroughly bled out, and birds are still breathing when entering the scalding tank. The establishment's slaughtering practices are producing adulterated product [9 CFR 381.1 (b) (v) and PPIA Sec. 4 (g) (5)]. You also inform the plant foreman that you are going to take a regulatory control action per 9 CFR 500.2(a) (2) & (3) by placing a "U.S. Rejected" tag at the live hang table. You notify the plant foreman to stop hanging birds and that immediate corrective actions are needed to prevent further scalding of breathing birds. First you hear the foreman give the order to stop the hang and then you observe the foreman direct 2 employees to be back up cutters at the point in the line after the neck cutter but before the bleed trough. The plant foreman verbally informs you that another employee will observe the birds at the point between the bleed trough and the first scalder so they can remove breathing birds from the line before they enter the scalder. Assured that further scalding of breathing birds is prevented; you proceed to the live-hang area and place your tag.

Upon returning to the killing area you observe that corrective actions are being followed. You inspect birds prior to the scalder and find that birds are no longer entering the scalder while still breathing. The plant foreman assures you that the preliminary staffing of the two back up cutters and the observer will be kept in place, as an interim measure, until the maintenance staff completes stunning and killing machine adjustments. The plant foreman also tells you the plant will conduct a thorough assessment of the events and will communicate to you final planned actions that will be implemented to prevent breathing birds from entering the scalder. You accept the corrective actions and, with the plant foreman's offer of developing and implementing effective long term actions, you release the regulatory control action on the live-hang table. You return to the killing area and observe that the plant's corrections on the equipment seem to have worked as there are no breathing birds entering the scalder.

You document the circumstances of the noncompliance on an NR including observations that a large number of cadavers were noted at postmortem inspection. Investigation showed that a malfunction of the stunning/killing equipment resulted in the plant not slaughtering in accordance with good commercial practices in a manner that results in thorough bleeding of the carcasses and ensuring that breathing has stopped prior to scalding. You document the noncompliance report in the Public Health Information System under the Poultry Good Commercial Practices Verification task. You reference the appropriate regulations, 9 CFR 381.90, 9 CFR 381.1 (b) (v) and 9 CFR 381.65(b), which states in part that "Poultry must be slaughtered in accordance with good commercial practices in a manner that will result in thorough bleeding of the carcasses and ensure that breathing has stopped prior to scalding."

Appendix Regulatory References: 9 CFR 381.1(b)(v) If it is, in whole or in part, the product of any poultry which has died otherwise than by slaughter.

The Humane Interactive Knowledge Exchange (HIKE) is a service of the FSIS Policy Development Staff 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.

References

The following references should be used when studying this HIKE:

• Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) 453 (g)(5)
• Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations381.65(b) and 381.90, and 500 (Rules of Practice).

You are the IIC of a cull cow and bull slaughter and processing establishment. Slaughter operations have been working overtime, including Saturdays, to meet the increased production demand, and the establishment is having difficulty with finding enough pen space to hold animals needed for a ten hour slaughter day.

One morning, as you arrive at the livestock holding area to perform ante-mortem inspection, you observe that two of the alleyways leading to the holding pens contain 12-15 cattle that have been left in these improvised pens overnight. You observe these animals a few minutes and realize that they can not reach the water troughs in the adjacent holding pens, and drinking water has not been provided by other temporary means.

As the IIC, you need to determine whether a noncompliance has occurred and consider what actions need to be pursued, if any, at this time. You determine that a noncompliance exists with respect to regulation 9 CFR 313.2(e); access to water had not been provided to these animals (The alleyways were closed and animals were placed inside; therefore, the alleyways became holding pens. The cited regulation requires access to drinking water in all holding pens). You inform plant management of the noncompliance, and their immediate corrective action is to fill several buckets with water and place them in the alley where the cattle can reach them. Verbally, the barn foreman informs you that the preventative measures that will be taken to ensure that all animals have access to water is to provide barrels of water for animals in an alley which will be secured by chains to prevent the barrels from being tipped over. Additionally, a receiving log will be implemented so that the plant employee(s) who receives cattle must document that water was provided to the animals penned in the alleyways.

You write a Noncompliance Record (NR) under the Livestock Humane Handling Verification task in the Public Health Information System , citing the appropriate regulation, 9 CFR 313.2(e), and send a copy of the completed NR to the District Office along with the establishment's corrective actions and preventative measures.

The following day you arrive at the barn and notice that animals have again been penned in the alleyways. You view the alleyways and see that filled barrels of drinking water have been placed in the improvised pens, and you observe a notation in the receiving log that the receiving employee documented that water was provided to the animals in the alley. You conclude that the animals in the alley have adequate access to water as required by 9 CFR 313.2(e).

The plant employee who was responsible for unloading and penning the cattle was unaware that the cattle that he penned in the alleyways did not have access to water. Under normal circumstances, the establishment has adequate pen space to accommodate all the cattle slaughtered in a production day and these pens have permanent watering troughs. The establishment was informed, regardless of the circumstance, that they are required to actively monitor both the animals, environment and their handling procedures to assure regulatory requirements are being met. In this case, noncompliance should and was documented and regulatory control action taken accordingly. Moreover, the effectiveness of the corrective actions that were implemented by the establishment should be verified by inspection personnel.

Appendix
Regulatory References:

• 9 CFR 313.2(e): Animals shall have access to water in all holding pens and, if held longer than 24 hours, access to feed. There shall be sufficient room in the holding pen for animals held overnight to lie down.
• Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1978,

The Humane Interactive Knowledge Exchange (HIKE) is a service of the FSIS Policy Development Staff 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. 

References

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 the Livestock Humane Handling Verification task and recording the results in the Public Health Information System (PHIS) 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).

• Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1978 ( FSIS Directive 6900.2  Attachment 1) (PDF Only)
• Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 313 (Humane Slaughter of Livestock) and 500 (Rules of Practice)
• FSIS Directive 6100.1 Rev 2 - Ante-Mortem Livestock Inspection (PDF Only)

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 the regulations, 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 a noncompliance record (NR) under the Livestock Humane Handling Verification task in the Public Health Information System, and reference 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.

The Humane Interactive Knowledge Exchange (HIKE) is a service of the FSIS Policy Development Staff 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.

References

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 the Livestock Humane Handling Verification task and recording the results in the Public Health Information System (PHIS) 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).

• Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1978 ( FSIS Directive 6900.2  Attachment 1) (PDF Only)
• Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 313 (Humane Slaughter of Livestock) and 500 (Rules of Practice)
• FSIS Directive 6100.1 Rev 2 - Ante-Mortem Livestock Inspection (PDF Only)