Situation Scenario Based Humane Handling Training American Meat Institute Foundation October 17, 2012 Kansas City Larry A. Davis, DVM Humane Handling Enforcement Coordinator USDA-FSIS-Office of Field Operations
Reason for Situation Based Humane Handling Training On December 22, 2010, FSIS announced several measures that would better ensure the humane treatment and slaughter of all livestock presented for processing at FSIS inspected facilities In addition, FSIS Directive 6900.2 Rev. 2 was implemented on September 15, 2011
Situation Based Humane Handling Training Module One Animal Handling: Truck Unloading through Entrance to Stunning Area Facilitation provided by Supervisory PHV PHVs, FSIs, and CSIs with performance elements concerning ante-mortem inspection
HAT Categories covered in Module One Category I Inclement Weather Category II Truck Unloading Category III Water and Feed Category IV Ante-mortem Inspection Category V Suspect and Disabled Category VI Electric Prod/Alternative Object Category VII Slips and Falls
Objectives from Module One Training When presented with specific situations at livestock slaughter establishments, IPP will be able to: Identify humane-related regulatory noncompliance Determine whether non-compliance is egregious Select appropriate actions to take
Example of Scenario Module One A sow goes down at the bottom of the truck unloading chute. Dozens of swine continue to exit the trailer for several minutes repeatedly stepping on and hitting the downed sow which vocalizes loudly in response
Decisions From Training Objectives Module One Does this scenario represent noncompliance?
Decisions From Training Objectives Module One Does this scenario represent noncompliance? Yes, 313.2 (d) (1) requires that disabled livestock be separated from other ambulatory livestock. If the establishment were following recommended handling practices they would be moving small groups of animals or there would be a person helping who could see the animal go down
Decisions From Training Objectives Module One Since non-compliance was observed, is it an egregious situation?
Decisions From Training Objectives Module One Since non-compliance was observed, is it an egregious situation? Yes, it meets the definition for egregious noncompliance from FSIS Directive 6900.2 Rev. 2 (Read the definition of egregious in the directive)
Decisions From Training Objectives Module One What actions should be taken by inspection program personnel?
Decisions From Training Objectives Module One What actions should be taken by inspection program personnel? A regulatory control action should be taken at the alleyways leading to the stunning area according to 313.50 (b) and 500.2 (a) (4) and the IIC will follow current instructions for egregious non-compliance in FSIS Directive 6900.2 Rev. 2.
Situation Based Humane Handling Training Module Two Stunning and Post-Stunning Situations Facilitation provided by Supervisory PHV PHVs and CSIs with performance elements concerning ante-mortem to humane verification duties and perform those duties on a regular recurring basis
Situation Based Humane Handling Training - Module two Covers stunning and post-stunning assessment for consciousness Determination of sensibility to determine what, if any, enforcement action needs to be taken
HAT Categories covered in Module Two Category VIII Stunning Effectiveness Category IX Conscious Animals on the Rail
Objectives from Module Two Training Verify humane-related regulatory compliance Identify humane-related regulatory noncompliance Determine whether a non-compliance is egregious Select appropriate actions to be taken
Example of Scenario Module Two A small heifer is in a large knocking box with plenty of room to move around and the operator is attempting to chase the animal s head to deliver the stunning blow with a captive bolt stunning device. The operator completely misses the first attempt, the second attempt strikes the animal s head off center. The animal vocalizes loudly, but still does not go down. After two more attempts and several minutes, the animal is properly stunned.
Decisions From Training Objectives Module Two Does this scenario represent noncompliance?
Decisions From Training Objectives Module Two Does this scenario represent noncompliance? Yes, there is non-compliance with 313.15 (a) (1) and 313.15 (b) (1) (iii) because the stunner is not being applied to produce immediate unconsciousness and the stunning area is not limiting the free movement of the animal to allow for stunning with a high degree of accuracy
Decisions From Training Objectives Module Two Since non-compliance was observed, is it an egregious situation?
Decisions From Training Objectives Module Two Since non-compliance was observed, is it an egregious situation? Yes, multiple attempts, especially in the absence of immediate corrective measures, to stun an animal versus a single blow or shot are egregious according to FSIS Directive 6900.2 Rev. 2
Decisions From Training Objectives Module Two What action should be taken by inspection program personnel?
Decisions From Training Objectives Module Two What action should be taken by inspection program personnel? A regulatory control action should be taken at the stunning area according to 313.50 (c) and 500.2 (a) (4) and the IIC will follow current instructions for egregious non-compliance in Directive 6900.2 Rev. 2
Results of training Number of Inspectors, who have completed and passed a quiz (70% minimum score) Module One 3,756 Module Two 2,757
Enforcement Data 2007 suspensions (includes re-instatements) reinstate ments NOIEs NRs L 0 0 1 75 S 6 2 0 167 VS 6 0 0 279 Total 12 2 1 521 2010 suspensions (includes re-instatements) reinstate ments NOIEs NRs L 13 1 1 106 S 19 3 1 194 VS 43 8 0 295 Total 75 12 2 595 2008 suspensions (includes re-instatements) reinstate ments NOIEs NRs L 21 3 1 127 S 29 5 1 189 VS 48 14 0 269 Total 98 22 2 585 2011 suspensions (includes re-instatements) reinstate ments NOIEs NRs L 14 2 5 106 S 16 4 1 183 VS 38 4 0 253 Total 68 10 6 542 2009 suspensions (includes re-instatements) reinstate ments NOIEs NRs L 11 1 0 114 S 27 7 0 152 VS 48 7 0 219 Total 86 15 0 485 2012 suspensions (includes re-instatements) reinstate ments NOIEs NRs L 2 1 6 79 S 9 1 3 122 VS 26 7 1 247 Total 37 9 10 448
Enforcement Data Suspensions (includes re-instatements) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 98 86 75 68 48 48 43 29 27 38 37 21 19 16 26 12 6 11 13 14 9 0 2 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 L S VS Total
Enforcement Data 12 NOIE's 10 8 6 4 2 0 10 6 6 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Large Plants Small Plants Very Small Plants Total
Enforcement Data NR's 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 521 585 595 542 485 448 279 269 295 219 253 247 167 189 194 152 183 122 75 127 114 106 106 79 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Large Plants Small Plants Very Small Plants Total
Thank you!