Proposed Guide to Assist FSIS Inspectors on a Systematic Approach to Humane Handling is Too Vague

Under personal practices, the phrases "minimize discomfort" and "minimize excitement" are used in reference to "electric prods", "other equipment", "stunning equipment," and "livestock movement." In general, indicators of discomfort in cattle or pigs would be vocalization during handling or restraint. It is my opinion that a plant has failed to minimize discomfort if the percentage of cattle or pigs vocalizing in either the stun box or conveyor restrainer exceeds 10%. Discomfort would also be occuring if an animal vocalizes in direct response to a gate slammed on it, or to electric prods, or it is reacting to sharp edges or excessive pressure applied by a restraint device.

Vocalization scoring cannot be used in sheep. Cattle and pigs will vocalize (moo, bellow or squeal) in direct response to an aversive event such as being poked with an electric prod. To put it in simple terms, cattle and pigs will tell you when they are hurt or scared. Sheep are the ultimate prey species animal and they remain silent when hurt or scared. However, sheep may either struggle and become agitated (excited) in an attempt to escape or chose not to react when subjected to an aversive event. Sheep will vocalize when separated from their mother. Recently, weaned lambs may vocalize at a packing plant. Weaned lambs vocalizing is not caused by plant operations. For all species vocalization is not scored in the lairage or stockyard.

Excitement would be occurring if an animal exhibits agitated behavior or struggling before it loses sensibility. Some examples of excited behavior are a series of small rapid slips in a stun box or alley. This causes animals to constantly move and refuse to stand still. This can be prevented by installing either rubber mats or steel bars on the floor of the stun box. Other indicators of excitement are animals rearing, hitting fences, jumping, or struggling. Struggling, kicking, or convulsions that occur after loss of consciousness has no effect on welfare. Therefore from the standpoint of the regulation, only excitement that occurs before loss of consciousness would be subject to regulatory requirements. These signs of excitement are valid for ALL species of animals. Excited sheep may struggle or jump in an attempt to escape. During the year 2008 many slaughter plants were shut down by USDA inspectors for several hours or days because an act of egregious animal abuse had occurred. There has been a great lack of consistency between inspectors on what constitutes egregious abuse. When does a plant really deserve to be shut down and have meat inspection suspended? The Merriam Webster dictionary defines egregious as “conspicuously bad” or flagrant. The definition of flagrant is that it “applies usually to offenses or errors that are so bad they can neither escape notice nor be condoned.” Dictionary.com provided synonyms for egregious: flagrant, deplorable, outrageous, heinous, shocking, or atrocious. The intent of the USDA directive on egregious abuse is to have greater punishments for the very worst Humane Slaughter Act violations. The best way to define egregious and help inspectors and auditors differentiate between egregious violations and less serious violations is to provide specific examples. Egregious acts are not limited to this list.

Egregious Acts of Animal Abuse

1. Intentionally poking of a stick, electric prod, or other object into a sensitive part of the animal such as the eye, nose, mouth, ear, rectum, or udder.

2. Cutting off limbs, skinning, or scalding an animal that shows any sign of return to sensibility. The American Meat Institute guidelines also have zero tolerance for starting dressing procedures on animals showing signs of return to sensibility. They MUST be immediately restunned.

3. Breaking a bone, causing bruises, or causing falls in sensible animals with powered equipment such as animal restraint devices, head holders, stun box doors, or mechanical gates. This can be caused by either willful intent by a person, improper adjustment of the equipment, poor maintenance, or exceeding the capacity of the equipment. Some more specific examples are:
   • A headholder that breaks an animal’s jaw or causes bruises.
   • A powered gate that drags a fallen animal along the floor.
   • A powered guillotine gate that slams an animal down onto the floor. A fall occurs if the body touches the floor.
   • A broken rib due to excessive pressure from a restraining device.

4. Throwing, dragging, or dropping sensible animals. The Humane Slaughter Act regulation specifically forbids dragging sensible animals. There have been arguments between plant management and inspectors on what constitutes dragging. Is rotating a non-ambulatory pig on the floor to get it onto a sled an egregious act of dragging? I recommend that an egregious act of dragging be defined as dragging the animal more than 1 body length. This provides a guideline that is easy for an inspector to interpret and it allows for positioning a pig to put it on a sled or remove it from a chute.

5. Multiple applications of a stunner that is obviously broken or malfunctioning.

6. Numerical scoring on the American Meat Institute guidelines for stunning, falling, vocalization, or electric prod use that is over the serious problem level. Slipping scores would not be included. Egregious numerical score would be:

   Vocalization	Over 10% of the cattle vocalize. The level for egregious vocalization in pigs needs to be determined. Do not use vocalization scoring for sheep.
   Electric Prod Use	Over 50% of the animals are electrically prodded. Applies to all species.
   Falling	Over 5% of the animals fall in any part of the plant's facilities. Applies to all species.
   Stunning	Captive bolt - Over 10% of the animals require a second shot. Electric stunning - Over 5% of the animals wrong wand placement; Over 4% hot wanded.

7. All of the acts of abuse listed in the NAMI guidelines. Beating animals, deliberately driving animals over the top of other animals, or willfully slamming any type of object on an animal are listed as acts of abuse. There have been several plants shut down and there was an argument over whether or not a person was beating an animal or tapping it. This is an area where a good training video is needed. Until that video is available, another method for determining that egregious beating has occurred is to look for bruises or injuries. If the INTENTIONAL actions of a person cause a bruise or other injury that it should be considered egregious.

8. Hoisting of a sensible animal by it’s leg or legs onto the bleed rail. This is an egregious violation of humane slaughter regulations. Unfortunately, there is a religious exemption in the U.S. regulation. However, the NAMI guidelines and the regulations in Europe and Canada forbid hoisting of sensible animals before religious slaughter. Most large meat customers also forbid live shackling and hoisting. See the ritual slaughter section of Grandin.com and the NAMI guidelines. There have been questions on how to interpret this when an animal showing a small sign of partial return to sensibility is re-stunned while it is hanging on the rail. Re-stunning the animal in this situation is the right thing to do. This would definitely NOT be an egregious violation and a plant should never be punished for doing this. Hoisting a sensible animal is egregious when it is an animal showing OBVIOUS signs of sensibility such as bellowing, squealing, natural blinking like live animals in the lairage (stockyard), or a full righting reflex.

9. Failing to provide water for animals held over a weekend.

10. A death loss of 10% of the pigs on a truck load of pigs which was caused by the truck having to wait 3 hours to unload when the temperature was 100 degrees F. This could have been prevented with fans, a water hose, or driving the truck to create better ventilation. This would be an example of egregious abuse caused by negligence.

Less Serious Distressful Conditions that would be out of Compliance but not Egregiuos

1. Numerical scores on any one of the NAMI numerically scored items that are at the not acceptable level. Slipping scores should be included.

2. Bumping cattle with a stun box gate and causing the animal to slip but not fall completely down.

3. Spanking pigs hard on the ham with a paddle.

4. An animal gets it’s leg caught in the gap between the truck and the unloading dock.

5. Broken cleats or a slippery floor at the unloading dock that causes slipping.

6. Over stocking a stockyard pen where there is not sufficient space for all the pigs to lie down without being on top of each other. Overstocking pens is especially detrimental for pigs during hot weather.

7. Yelling at cattle and causing the animals to become visibly agitated.

8. Leaving an animal in the stun box during lunch or during a break.

9. A slippery floor in a stun box that causes an animal to make rapid small slips that causes it to become agitated and excited.

10. An animal is observed striking a sharp edge on a broken gate as it enters a pen.

11. Animals are left overnight with no water.

Possibly Harmful Things

1. A broken gate in the stockyard (lairage).

2. A worn our floor in the one stockyard pen.

3. Animals often balk and refuse to enter a chute. This can often be easily corrected by changing lighting or other simple changes. See other parts of www.grandin.com.

4. Hydraulic controls that are broken or stiff and difficult to operate.

5. A broken water trough.

6. Worn out parts on restraining devices that have sharp edges.

7. Broken slats on a conveyor restrainer.

8. Lack of a good maintenance program for stunning equipment. Captive bolt guns should be taken apart and cleaned EVERY day.

9. Gates that are difficult to open and close.

10. Failure to prevent a build up of ice on the unloading ramp.

In Conclusion, There are Three Categories of Violations.

1. Egregious abuse: The plant should be severely punished by either suspension of inspection or get suspended or delisted by a customer.

2. Humane violations that must be corrected but are not egregious: These problems may be serious enough that an inspector should issue an NR (non-compliance record) or a customer should require a corrective action letter and a re-audit.

3. Possibly harmful things should be corrected because they are likely to create a humane violation in the future: These should be noted by inspectors or in commercial auditor reports. These items need to be fixed before they cause a violation.

How Important is Intent?

How important is the intent of the person handling the animal?

In most cases, to make decision making easier for auditors, inspectors, and plant management the question of the intentn of the plant employee should be eliminated. For example, if a pig is dragged by an automated gate there is no intent. Other examples where there is no intent are stunning failures that exceed the NAMI serious problem level or malfunctioning or poorly maintained equipment that causes bruises or broken bones. All three of the above examples would be egregious. Where problems occur during restraining, stunning, hoisting, or bleeding the intent of the plant employee should not be part of the decision making process. Therefore both intentional and unintentional acts should be considered egregious.

However, there are a few situations during handling at the plant and unloading of trucks where the intent of either the employee or the truck driver should be considered. In some cases it is impossible to prevent other animals from running over the top of a downed non-ambulatory animal. In this situation, intent should be considered. The auditor or inspector should answer the following questions:

1. Did the person do it on purpose? If yes, it is egregious.

2. Did the person make any attempt to stop the other animals?

Another situation where intent should be considered is when sensitive parts of the animal get poked by an electric prod or other object. There have been situation where an animal kicked an electric prod away from a person and it flew up and hit another animal in the eye. This should be considered an accident.

November 2020 Update: FSIS/USDA Directive on Interpretation of Egregious

• Making cuts or skinning conscious animals

• Dismembering conscious animals for example, cutting off ears or removing feet

• Excessive beating or prodding animals and dragging conscious animals

• Driving animals off semi-trailers without unloading facilities and they fall to the ground. This would apply to farm trucks and pick-up trucks. This would not apply to low stock trailers.

These are their new definitions for egregious inhumane treatment during stunning:

• Stunning of animals and then allowing them to return to unconsciousness

  Both the NAMI guidelines and scientific research clearly shows that there is a transition zone between fully conscious and brain dead and unconscious. If an animal is restunned when it is still in the transition zone, the plant would have avoided committing an egregious act. Refer to the table in the NAMI Guideline.

  Assessing Unconsciousness in Livestock During Slaughter

  Definitely Unconscious: ALL of the following signs are ABSENT	Unconscious But Beginning Transition Back to Consciousness: ONE OR MORE of the following signs are PRESENT	Definitely Conscious: ANY of the following are PRESENT
  Menace reflex that occurs when a ahand is waved in front of the eye without touching Eyelash reflex in response to touch Corneal reflex* Rhythmic breathing where the ribs move in and out at least twice	Eyelash reflex in response to touch Rhythmic breathing where the ribs move in and out at least twice Corneal reflex*	No loss of posture/animal standing Righting reflex on the rail Vocalization Spontaneous, unprovoked blinking Menace reflex that occurs when a hand is waved in front of the eye without touching Eye pursuit of a moving object
  Unconscious: No Action Needed	Unconscious: Re-stun Immediately	Conscious: Re-stun Immediately

  ^*For cattle, a finger may be used to test the corneal reflex. Because pigs and sheep have small eyes, a small blunt object, like a pencil eraser or something similar may be used. (NAMI, 2019).

• Failing to immediately (or promptly) render an animal unconscious after a failed initial attempt (e.g. no planned corrective action)

  My interpretation of this is if a second stun was immediately applied and it was effective, the plant would have avoided an egregious act. A plant that has an effective corrective action would have a well-maintained cartridge fired stunner located where the operator could quickly grab it and administer a second shot.

• Multiple ineffective stun attempts (2 or more) that are due to one or more of the following establishments failure to properly handled and stun an animal

  The directive lists five establishment failures ranging from untrained operators poor restraint and inadequate stunning equipment. My interpretation of this is a third stunning attempt is likely to be egregious. In Canada, a failed second shot when euthanizing feedlot cattle is a welfare audit failure. Managers need to keep the stunning equipment well­maintained so that the second shot will be effective.

• Leaving disabled livestock exposed to adverse climate conditions

• Otherwise causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals including situations in trucks

  This definition of egregious is vague and similar to many European guidelines.

  In Directive G100.1 Revision 3 USDA/FSIS there are some revisions on the slaughter of cattle that have passed ante-mortem inspection and they go down due to getting trapped or jammed in a chute or restrainer that leads to the stunner. These animals can be passed for inspection and will not have to be sent to rendering because they slipped on the floor. Cattle that become non-ambulatory in the yards or on trucks are not permitted for use in food as a precaution against BSE. Plant management should correct problems with equipment that may cause animals to become entrapped.

  Both of these directions provide clearer guidance. They may lead to better humane treatment because the new guidance provides some flexibility of using a second shot. Attempting to never use a second shot will result in more animals returning to full consciousness.

Click here to return to the Homepage for more information on animal behavior, welfare, and care.

Click here to return to the Welfare Guidelines section..

Click here to return to the Religious Slaughter section.