Overview on current practices of poultry slaughtering and poultry meat inspection1

Supporting Publications 2012:EN-298

Any enquiries related to this output should be addressed to [email protected]

Suggested citation: Corporate author: Löhren, U; Overview on current practices of poultry slaughtering and poultry meat

inspection. Supporting Publications 2012:EN-298. [58 pp.]. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/publications

© European Food Safety Authority, 2012

EXTERNAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT

Overview on current practices of poultry slaughtering and poultry

meat inspection1

Dr Ulrich Löhren2 3

SUMMARY

This report describes the current slaughtering practices (methods) with the main focus on broilers, but

also taking other poultry species, such as turkeys, ducks and spent hens into consideration. If avail-

able, information on minor species, such as guinea fowl and quails, will also be provided.

The report describes the food chain information (FCI) and explains the significance of the FCI within

the application of the hygiene package for poultry.

The description also includes the specific laboratory testing which is carried out by the official veteri-

narian and by the food business operator (FBO). Specific laboratory testing refers to microbiological

testing and to chemical (residue) testing.

The general organisation of poultry meat inspection, including ante and post-mortem inspection, will

be described. The conditions, abnormalities, and biological hazards that are detected by the poultry

meat inspection system are also depicted.

As poultry meat inspection is not carried out in a harmonized way by the Member States, a separate

chapter will provide country-specific information and on how poultry meat inspection is implemented.

Figures on the quantities of poultry meat produced in the Community will conclude this report.

© Copyright Dr Ulrich Löhren

Key words

Food chain information, risk-based meat inspection, poultry meat inspection findings

Disclaimer

The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried

out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s),

awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to

which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety

Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present

document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.

1 Question No EFSA-Q-2011-00338 2 Author name: Ulrich Löhren 3 Acknowledgement: The contractor wishes to thank Mrs. Lorraine Herfort from Lohmann Animal Health for reviewing the

English language and grammar of the manuscript.

Overview on current practices of poultry slaughtering and poultry meat inspection

Supporting publications 2012:EN-298 2

The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively

by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender pro-cedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be con-

sidered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues

addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Table of contents ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Background .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction and objectives ...................................................................................................................... 5 Materials and methods.............................................................................................................................. 5 1. Overview of the current slaughtering practices for poultry ............................................................. 5

1.1. Catching and transport, and implications on welfare and meat inspection findings ............... 5 1.2. Arrival at the slaughterhouse .................................................................................................. 8 1.3. Hanging, stunning and bleeding.............................................................................................. 9 1.4. Scalding and plucking ........................................................................................................... 11 1.5. Neck slitting and foot removal .............................................................................................. 13 1.6. Evisceration line.................................................................................................................... 13 1.7. Speed of the lines .................................................................................................................. 14 1.8. Technical systems to assist the meat inspection ................................................................... 14 1.9. Cooling of poultry carcasses ................................................................................................. 15

2. Food chain information (FCI) ........................................................................................................ 16 2.1. General context of FCI .......................................................................................................... 16 2.2. What type of FCI is collected? .............................................................................................. 16

2.2.1. The overall health status of the holding of provenance .................................................... 16 2.2.2. The health status of the animals........................................................................................ 16 2.2.3. Veterinary medicinal or other treatments administered to the animals within a relevant

period and within a withdrawal period greater than zero, together with their dates of

administration and withdrawal periods .......................................................................................... 17 2.2.4. The results - if these are of relevance to the protection of public health - of any analysis

carried out on samples taken from the animals or other samples taken to diagnose diseases that

may affect the safety of meat, including samples taken in the framework of the monitoring and

control of zoonoses and residues. .................................................................................................. 17 2.2.5. Name and address of the private caretaking veterinarian attending the holding of

provenance ..................................................................................................................................... 18 2.2.6. Any other laboratory testing ............................................................................................. 18

2.3. Operational role of the FCI ................................................................................................... 18 2.4. What to do with positive results in the FCI? ......................................................................... 19

3. Specific laboratory testing carried out with regard to a risk-based meat inspection ..................... 20 3.1. Salmonella testing ................................................................................................................. 20 3.2. Campylobacter testing .......................................................................................................... 21 3.3. Avian Influenza ..................................................................................................................... 21 3.4. Residue testing ...................................................................................................................... 21

4. Poultry meat inspection and findings ............................................................................................ 25 4.1. Organization of poultry meat inspection ............................................................................... 25 4.2. Risk-based meat inspection and control ................................................................................ 26 4.3. Organization of the ante-mortem inspection (AMI) ............................................................. 27 4.4. Organization of post-mortem inspection (PMI) .................................................................... 28 4.5. Time requirements for post-mortem inspection (PMI) ......................................................... 28 4.6. Conditions, abnormalities and biological hazards that are detected by poultry meat

inspection ........................................................................................................................................... 30 4.7. Percentage of condemned poultry meat ................................................................................ 36

5. Country-specific information......................................................................................................... 39 5.1. Austria ................................................................................................................................... 39 5.2. Belgium ................................................................................................................................. 39







5.3. Cyprus ................................................................................................................................... 39 5.4. Czech Republic ..................................................................................................................... 40 5.5. Denmark ................................................................................................................................ 40 5.6. Estonia .................................................................................................................................. 41 5.7. Finland .................................................................................................................................. 42 5.8. France .................................................................................................................................... 42 5.9. Germany ................................................................................................................................ 43 5.10. Hungary ................................................................................................................................ 43 5.11. Italy ....................................................................................................................................... 43 5.12. Latvia .................................................................................................................................... 44 5.13. The Netherlands .................................................................................................................... 44 5.14. Poland ................................................................................................................................... 45 5.15. Portugal ................................................................................................................................. 45 5.16. Slovakia ................................................................................................................................ 46 5.17. Slovenia ................................................................................................................................ 46 5.18. Sweden .................................................................................................................................. 46 5.19. United Kingdom.................................................................................................................... 47

6. Quantitative Information on poultry meat production ................................................................... 48 6.1. Poultry meat produced .......................................................................................................... 48 6.2. EU approved poultry slaughterhouses .................................................................................. 49

Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 50 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 52 References .............................................................................................................................................. 53 Glossary .................................................................................................................................................. 58

This contract was awarded by EFSA to:

Contractor: Dr Ulrich Löhren

Contract title: Overview on current practices of poultry slaughtering and meat inspection

findings in the EU

Contract number: CT/EFSA/BIOHAZ/2011/01







BACKGROUND

During their meeting in November 2008, Chief Veterinary Officers (CVOs) of the Member States

agreed on conclusions on the modernisation of sanitary inspection in slaughterhouses based on the

recommendations issued during a seminar organized in July 2008 under the French Presidency. The

CVO’s conclusions have been considered in the Commission Report on the experience gained from

the application of the Hygiene regulations, adopted in July 2009. Council Conclusions on the Com-

mission report were adopted in November 2009 inviting the Commission to prepare concrete propos-

als allowing the effective implementation of modernised sanitary inspection in slaughterhouses while

making full use of the principle of the “risk-based approach”.

The BIOHAZ panel of EFSA has set up an ad hoc working group on meat inspection in poultry. As

with domestic swine, the ad hoc working group shall be provided with a report that gives an overview

on current practices of poultry slaughter and poultry meat inspection findings.







INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Introduction

The European Commission has requested that EFSA issue scientific opinions related to meat inspec-

tion in different species (mandate number M-2010-0232). Meat inspection is defined by regulation

(EC) No 854/04. The following species or groups of species should be considered within this mandate,

taking into account the following order of priority: domestic swine, poultry, bovine animals over six

weeks old, bovine animals under six weeks old, domestic sheep and goats, farmed game, and domestic

solipeds.

Objectives

The objective of this assignment is to provide an overview on current practices of poultry slaughtering

and poultry meat inspection findings, understanding poultry as per the Regulation on Official Controls

in the EU (853/2004). This report may be used by the ad hoc working group on meat inspection in

poultry set up by the BIOHAZ Panel to deal with this mandate as a supporting document for the draft

scientific opinion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This report is based on

- long-term experience of the author as a poultry veterinarian in the poultry meat industry

(broilers, turkeys and Peking ducks),

- information from scientific literature

- information received on request from the Chief Veterinary Officers of the Member States

- information from the poultry industry (poultry associations, manufacturers of poultry slaugh-

ter equipment, personal contacts to other European poultry vets from the Poultry Veterinary

Study Group of the EU (PVSG). See list of references.

1. Overview of the current slaughtering practices for poultry

The process of slaughtering is basically identical for all poultry species. This description will mainly

focus on the slaughter of broilers, for which slaughter technology is most advanced. Differences to

other poultry species – to the knowledge of the author – will be mentioned.

With regard to the information provided in this chapter the assistance given by the two leading suppli-

ers of poultry processing equipment Stork PMT (Jos. van den Nieuwelaar and Simone Prinz) and

Meyn B.V. (Willem Heemskerk) is highly appreciated.

1.1. Catching and transport, and implications on welfare and meat inspection findings

Dir. 1/2005, Reg. 854/2004 and Reg. 1099/2009 provide legislation for the humane slaughter and pre-

slaughter treatment of poultry. This includes catching and transport to the slaughterhouse.

There are two systems of catching poultry: hand (manual) catching and automatic harvesting (me-

chanical catching).

Three different systems are established for the transport of poultry to the processing plant, these being:

- liners (fixed cages on the truck), whereby the birds must be carried to the truck,

- crates for manual catching (with a small opening in the lid through which the birds must be

put into the crate upon loading and pulled out upon unloading)

- container systems (main producers: Stork PMT, Meyn VDL and Anglia Autoflow)







Container systems are most popular in broiler transport, as they can not only be used for later process-

ing plant automation, but also for ducks, turkeys, and spent hens.

For the transport of other minor poultry species only the crate system is in use.

The risk of damage (broken wings, injuries to the back and thigh, bruises etc.) is greater with transport

crates in comparison to container systems. This is mainly as a result of the small opening of the crates.

For this reason great care must be taken upon loading the birds into and unloading them out of trans-

port crates. Management and loading speed are critical with crate systems.

With automated harvesting systems container systems or liners are exclusively in use. Transport cages

cannot be used because of the small opening of the crates.

Left: scheme of an open (Meyn) container system

Right: loading containers onto a trailer with a forklift

The container consists of 4 - 6 stacked compartments (cages); a sliding floor is used for opening or

closing the compartments.

Loading starts with the bottom cage of the column by placing the birds into the cage from above. Once

a compartment has been loaded the sliding floor of the compartment is closed and loading continues in

the second compartment. When all compartments of the container have been loaded a forklift will put

the container gently onto a lorry (picture above right). Loading can be done manually or by means of a

mechanical catching machine. The following is a rough estimation of the current transport practice in

the EU 27 for the different poultry species (van den Nieuwelaar and Prinz, July 2011)

Broilers: 70 % container systems

30 % crates

Turkeys: 40 % liners (fixed cage on the truck)

40 % crates (special crates for turkeys)

20 % containers (prototype)

Spent hens: 75 % crates

25 % closed containers, prototype







Ducks: 33 % crates

33 % container systems (mainly drawer type containers)

33 % liners (different compared to turkeys)

Guinea fowl: 50 % crates

50 % containers (only closed containers are possible, guinea fowl would jump out)

Quails: 100 % crates

Automated harvesting systems have long, rotating rubber fingers which gently collect the birds onto a

transport belt which then conveys the broilers into the drawers of the container system.

Three different catching machines for broilers are available on the market:

Apollo (Ciemmecalabria), Chicken Cat (Claus Ohlsen and son), and Easyload harvesting system (An-

glia Autoflow).

Automated harvesting systems for broilers are more widely distributed in countries where labour is

more expensive, i.e., EU9. Automated catching systems for turkeys are mainly supplied by Ciemme-

calbria. They are used to some extent in France, Italy, and Southern Germany.

Chicken Cat (Claus Ohlsen and Son) Easyload Harvester (Anglia Autoflow)

Advantages of automated harvesting systems compared to manual catching: less damage, broken

wings, bruises and less dead animals on transport (Gocke, 2000, Remmer, 2011).

The disadvantages: automated harvesting is only possible in larger houses. As these are large ma-

chines, extra transport must be provided which increases the costs. The use is not possible in houses

with two levels. The cleaning and disinfection of automated harvesting machines poses a major prob-

lem; harvesting rubber fingers are extremely difficult to clean, e.g. for Salmonellae and Campylobac-

ter meaning that the next flock may become infected, and thus resulting in a farm-to-farm cross con-

tamination.

Providing a safe position of the crates or containers on the truck with sufficient shelter against weather

conditions whilst still ensuring sufficient fresh air are the key attention points during transport.

The containers are positioned on the truck in stacks of two (see picture on page 2 above right). The

truck floors, front end and rear end are constructed in such a way that the stack of containers cannot

move in any direction other then up. Many trucks are therefore equipped with an adjustable roof which

is lowered after loading, thus ensuring that the load remains in a fixed position.

Shelter against the elements is provided by sails on the side of the truck. Nearly all modern poultry

transport trucks use automatic sails that are integrated into the roof of the truck.







1.2. Arrival at the slaughterhouse

The poultry arrives at the slaughter plant where the crates or the containers are offloaded. The birds

wait (normally) in an air-conditioned room until slaughter. The duration of their stay at the plant is

between 1 and 3 hours. A resting time of 2 hours is recommended. The advantage of a constant resting

time (of 2 hours) is a better meat quality. If waiting time is too short, the glycogen concentration in the

muscle may still be very high. If waiting time before slaughter is significantly longer than 2 hours, this

will lead to a higher pH value of the meat and to a darker meat. The meat will then be tougher.

During the waiting time the AMI according to Reg. 854/2004, Annex I, Section I, Chapter II, part B

can be carried out and the official veterinarian can check the food chain information.

The possibility of obtaining a good view of the health status of the birds after transport and while the

birds are still in their crates or containers must be questioned. The AMI should aim at obtaining an

overview on the health status of the flock rather than of the individual birds.

In those countries where the AMI is performed on the holding of provenance (currently only in a few

countries), the AMI will be performed at this point by official auxiliaries and covers the requirements

of Annex I, Section IV, Chapter V, A, 4 of Reg. 854/04:

- control of the identification of the animals

- a screening to ascertain compliance with animal welfare rules and the presence of any condi-

tion which might adversely affect human or animal health

- control of food chain information (by the OV)

Depending on the stunning method, the broilers are either manually (crates) or automatically

unloaded. Spent hens, turkeys, most of the ducks, geese, quails, and guinea fowl are manually re-

moved from their crates and hung onto the shackles. With drawer type containers, the drawers are

taken out of the containers and placed on a conveyor belt for shackling.

Shackling of broilers out of open container drawers.

Photo by courtesy of Anglia Autoflow.

In the Meyn VDL or Stork PMT container system the birds are typically unloaded from the container

by means of a tilting system. First of all the doors at the side of the container are opened while the

container is positioned along a number of slides. The containers and corresponding slides are then

tilted at a gradually increasing angle. The live birds that no longer have sufficient grip to hold their

ground slide out of their compartments onto a transport belt.

The transport belt will either bring the birds to a carousel from which they are picked up manually and

hung onto the shackle of the transport line, or will lead directly into the CO2 stunning tunnel.







1.3. Hanging, stunning and bleeding

There are two (three) different stunning systems:

electrical stunning (whereby hanging must always take place in somewhat dark or blue illuminated

areas and the birds must be hung on the shackles before stunning):

- high-voltage, whole-body electrical stunning (birds pass upside down through an electrical

water bath)

- head-only (or Top Kip) stunning, electricity only passes through the head of the chicken. Cur-

rently under development

controlled atmosphere stunning (CAS):

- anoxia

- CO2 stunning

- multiphase CAS (application of CO2 in two phases with up to 40% CO2 in phase I for a gentle

induction of unconsciousness in combination with an elevated level of oxygen, followed by a

higher concentration of CO2 in phase II. (van den Nieuwelaar and Prinz, pers. communication)

With controlled atmosphere stunning (CAS), shackling can take place in fully illuminated areas and

can therefore become part of the more logical management circuit. Hanging of the birds occurs after

they have been stunned.

Depending on the stunning system, the slaughter poultry is either hung fully conscious (electrical

stunning) or unconscious (after CAS).

For stunning and killing see also Council Reg. 1099/2009 for the protection of animals at the time of

killing.

The following section shall provide a short description of the different stunning systems with their

relevant advantages and disadvantages.

Electrical stunning

The birds are stunned by their heads passing through an electrically-charged water bath with a con-

stant voltage. The required setting of the voltage, the frequency of the electric current, and the length

of the water bath depend on the type of birds (broiler, spent hen, turkey, duck, guinea fowl, quail) and

the intended degree of stunning. Reversible stunning means that the birds may recover after a certain

time span. This is an essential requirement of Halal slaughter.

Research has shown that it is more humane to kill the birds in the electrical stunner (irreversible stun

or stun to death). Stunning to death means that bleeding is not supported by a pumping heart. As the

electric current pass through the whole body, bone fractures and haemorrhages are very common with

whole-body electrical stunning.

Top Kip stunning is so far only used for broilers and only as a prototype system.

The birds are stunned by their fixed heads coming into contact with a 500 volt electrified metal slope

(wire). The advantage of this system is that the electric current only passes the head. The birds are

clinically dead but their hearts are still pumping, thus supporting the bleeding.







For more scientific information on this new development in stunning technology see: Lambooij, E., et

al, 2010, Evaluation of head-only electrical stunning for practical application.

Controlled atmosphere stunning

Controlled atmosphere stunning (often referred to as CO2 stunning) is well established for broilers and

turkeys, however, it does not work with ducks, geese, quails, and guinea fowl as these birds are too

flighty.

Four companies offer such systems: Anglia Autoflow, Meyn, Stork PMT and Linco-Baader.

All four systems can be combined with slaughterhouse automation and with their transport container

system. With Anglia Autoflow the birds remain in the drawers and pass the tunnel where they are

stunned. With the Stork CAS (multiphase CAS) system the container is gently tipped, the drawer

compartments will open to the side and the chickens gently slip onto a transport belt which leads into a

tunnel with two different CO2 atmospheres (see above). They are irreversibly stunned when they leave

the CO2 tunnel. Turkeys are unloaded from the containers via conveyor belts. The birds are hung onto

the shackles after they have been stunned. This is considered to be an animal welfare advantage com-

pared to shackling when fully conscious.

The Meyn/VDL arrival system works in a similar way.

Within 10 – 15 sec. (standard recommendation from the manufacturers) after electric stunning bleed-

ing will be performed. With CO2 stunning this varies according to the system. The recommendation is

within 30 sec. after stunning. Time for hanging has to be added. With open drawers this time span may

be longer.

The birds can be bled by an automated killer or manually.

Automated killers are used in most of the broiler, turkey, and hen slaughterhouses. Manual killing is

still widespread with ducks, and with chicken for some markets where the bird is sold with its head on.

The automated killer consists of a rotating knife, which severs either the right or left jugular carotid. If

reversible stunning has been performed, both arteries have to be cut (Reg 1099/09). If stunned to death

only one carotid is needed.

An operator placed behind the automated killer will check if all birds are bleeding correctly. In smaller

poultry slaughterhouses, and with religious slaughter (halal or kosher) bleeding is performed by an

operator instead of an automated killer.

Three types of killers are in use:

side killers (cut both carotids)

o single sided killers (only cut one carotid)

o double sided killers (cut both carotids)

throat killers (cut the throat, including trachea and gullet)

killing by decapitation is performed in some processing plants in Italy, UK and Spain.

With side cuts the neck will be less contaminated compared to throat cut while a higher contamination

during scalding may occur when a throat cut is performed.

Decapitation ensures that the entire oesophagus is cut near the head and removed during evisceration,

thereby avoiding that the crop is torn. This way no crop contents can spill into the body cavity.







A further advantage of decapitation is the certainty that a bird cannot feel pain after decapitation as

birds that may occasionally miss the killer are easily recognizable by the back-up person.

With all three systems (side killers, throat killers and decapitation) a consistent bleeding should take

place.

Bleeding times varies between 60 sec. and 200 sec. depending on cutter, scalding temperature and lo-

cal conditions. Bleeding with one side cut takes longer compared to double side cut or throat cut. Tur-

keys have to bleed longer than broilers.

Normally 30 - 50 % of the total blood volume is lost in the bleeding tunnel.

With game birds (guinea fowl, quails, pigeons) only about 10 – 20 % of the blood is lost, so the meat

will look darker and gets a game taste.

About 60 % of duck plants and some smaller chicken, quail, and guinea fowl plants perform manual

killing. This is performed from outside, by the so-called ear disc stick. 25 % of the chicken plants

(mainly in Southern Europe) have both options: automated bleeding and manual bleeding. They need

the possibility of manual bleeding if the birds are to be sold with neck and head. For aesthetic reasons

the carotids of the slaughter birds are mostly stuck from inside the beak (beak sticking and neck stick-

ing). This avoids external damage to the carcass and will be carried out when the carcass is sold with

neck and head on. In these plants often only a small percentage of the birds are killed like this, but it is

an alternative. In duck plants manual killing by beak sticking (or neck sticking) is very popular as

these birds are very often sold with neck and head on.

1.4. Scalding and plucking

After bleeding, while still suspending from the line, the birds pass through a scald tank in which there

is a continuous flow of agitating water at a constant temperature between 50 and 65°C. The required

scalding temperature depends on the type of poultry and the intended sales condition: fresh or deep-

frozen. Higher temperatures and longer times in the scalding tank will facilitate feather loss, but may

also contribute to skin tears and to blemishes of the epidermis. The epidermis loosens more the higher

the scalding temperature. For deep-frozen poultry the scalding temperature may be slightly higher

compared to poultry meat intended to be sold fresh.

By means of a controlled injection of air into the water through nozzles, (and / or mechanical agita-

tion) a consistent, powerful turbulence is achieved which gives a better scalding effect. The scalding

time should vary between 60 and 210 sec., depending on temperature and local requirements. The

scalding will loosen the feathers for the plucking process. In some countries outside the EU detergents

are added to the scald water, making it much easier for the water to penetrate the feather follicles.

There are different scalding systems which have an influence on the bacterial load of the product:

single bath scalding tank

single bath with counterflow

multi bath scalding tanks

multi bath with counterflow

Multi bath scalding with counterflow reduces the bacterial count in the last scalding tank, and subse-

quently lowers the counts in the water remaining on the bird after scalding.

The effect of this on the microbiological load of the skin is seen as controversial.







Counterflow scalding leads to higher counts in the first scalding tank and to lower counts in the last

scalding tank. During plucking massive recontamination occurs, nullifying any hygienic benefit

achieved during scalding. Scientific literature did not prove any relation between the contamination

rate of the scalding water in the last scalding tank and the contamination rate after plucking. Accord-

ing to Rosenquist, 2006, the Campylobacter count in the scalding tank is of negligible importance with

regard to the Campylobacter count on the surface of the carcass.

Steam scalding, which was propagated 10 years ago as it avoids cross contamination during scalding,

is today no longer state of the art, as the control of temperature on the skin during the operation is

more difficult.

Recently, the so-called jetstream scalder was introduced: the downward force on the birds is achieved

y a direct waterflow, not by air injection. This leads to lower energy consumption and a better oppor-

tunity to pasteurize the whole system. This was not possible with the air system of the former “Ja-

cuzzi” steam scalders.

After this procedure the birds will then pass into the plucking machines. These consist of revolving

drums with rubber beaters or discs with plucking fingers. The birds are continually flailed or scraped

by these rubber fingers while being sprayed with warm or cold water.

Cold water: harder plucking and picking

Warm water: softer plucking (picking). Fat is not attached to the plucking fingers.

The plucking process takes approximately 30 – 90 sec. Ducks are plucked by a hot wax process which

facilitates the removal of the finer feathers and the down.

Electro stimulation may be applied to the carcasses after plucking to accelerate the removal of energy

from muscles. Some systems carry out the electro stimulation before scalding. If electro stimulation is

performed before scalding it is more difficult to remove feathers, however, it will save time. (The rigor

mortis process of the birds sets in earlier).

Most of the bacterial cross contamination occurs during picking (Berrang, M.E., 2000 and 2006,

Heemskerk, 2005), as faeces are expressed during this process. There is currently no picking technol-

ogy available that can prevent this.

After plucking the birds either drop onto a conveyor belt which transfers them from the “dirty” section

of the slaughterhouse to the “clean” section where they are hung up again by the hocks on to the

shackles of the evisceration line. This work is often facilitated by using automated rehangers. Such

rehangers bring the advantage of not only saving labour but also lead to less carcass contamination

through the hands of the workers (Chiarini et al, 2009).

Today the transfer from the slaughter line to the evisceration line is thus performed automatically in

modern broiler slaughterhouses.

The birds are subsequently washed by overhead sprayers.

Following this procedure the first post-mortem inspection may take place here. Post-mortem findings

at this inspection location are:

1 undersized birds

2 ascites birds







3 cellulitis (deep dermatitis)

4 not fully bled birds

5 birds with skin defects e.g. Sarkomatosa (very rare)

6 abnormal colour

7 bruises

8 broken wings or broken legs

9 breast blisters

1.5. Neck slitting and foot removal

In processing plants in some southern EU countries where the bird is sold whole with the neck, the

neck skin is left on the bird. In this case a vertical incision is made in the skin of the dorsal surface of

the neck. Otherwise the head, the neck (plus neck skin) will now be removed. The feet are removed

automatically by a cutter on the line or by manually-operated scissors.

In most cases the feet are removed during automated rehanging from the slaughter line to the eviscera-

tion line, except in duck slaughterhouses.

For some markets the feet may stay connected with the carcass as this is the wish of the consumer.

Inspecting the feet of the birds may be of importance to detect animal welfare faults in the farm of ori-

gin (foot pad dermatitis). In many processing plants 100 feet (from 100 different birds) per batch are

collected and inspected for food pad dermatitis. This is a requirement in Sweden, Denmark, Finland,

and the UK. Some slaughter plants in Germany and the Netherlands are also evaluating foot pad der-

matitis, as animal welfare is of major significance for an increasing number of customers.

1.6. Evisceration line

Various operations are carried out on this line.

Head removal can be performed at different positions of the slaughter line (see also killing by decapi-

tation, page 5). For some markets and some species the head may stay connected with the carcass.

Also in many duck operations the head is not removed from the slaughtered duck. The heads are gen-

erally removed mechanically by traction of a head puller. After proper positioning the head and tra-

chea puller breaks the spine at its weakest point after which the head, crop and trachea are stretched

out (depending on the kill cut). In the UK in some plants the head is cut away before scalding and

plucking. Killing by decapitation is carried out to some extent in France and Spain. In Italy heads are

not removed at all if the customer wishes to have the whole carcass with head and feet.

Venting: Scissors cut a round vent in order to remove the intestines from the carcass. Great care is

needed in this important operation as faecal contamination of the carcass and /or edible offal as well as

contact with the operator’s hands must be avoided. This is usually a highly automated process. All

kinds of automation are in use.

Drawing: All the viscera are drawn out of the body’s cavity, leaving them hanging from the carcass

ready for poultry meat inspection (turkeys, spent hens, ducks, geese, guinea fowl, and quails). The

drawing is either done by hand (smaller processing plants) or by operators using evisceration forks or

alternatively by automatic eviscerating machines.

More modern broiler processing plants with fast-running slaughter lines completely remove the vis-

cera and present them to the inspector on a tray (or on a shackle) running exactly in front of the car-

cass from which they have been pulled out. This avoids leakage of faecal content from the rectum onto

the carcass during the (remaining) evisceration process. The carcass and corresponding visceral pack-







age are presented simultaneously to the poultry meat inspector, allowing for both of them to be in-

spected.

Poultry meat inspectors may be official auxiliaries (OA) or qualified company staff (QCS) of the

slaughter-house, both working under the supervision of the official veterinarian (OV). Responsibilities

and requirements are laid down in Reg. 854/04, Annex I, Section III, chapter I (for OA) and chapter III

(for QCS)

It is important to conclude that this is the place where the second poultry meat inspection will nor-

mally take place. The inspector can view the most important organs of the slaughtered bird: heart,

liver, spleen, intestines and into the abdominal cavity. Placing the viscera on a tray (or on separate

shackle) in front of the bird gives the inspector the opportunity to easily inspect the abdominal cavity,

this being more difficult with the viscera hanging outside but still attached to the carcass.

1.7. Speed of the lines

The speed of the line depends on the degree of automation.

Broilers: any speed, up to 13.000 broilers / hour.

Spent hens: any speed, up to 9.600 hens / hour.

Turkeys: any speed, up to 3.600 for turkey hens (16 kg) and up to 2.700 for turkey toms (21 kg)

Ducks: any speed between 2.000 – 6.000 ducks per hour

Geese, quails, guinea fowl, partridges: no information. These birds are mainly slaughtered in small

abattoirs with limited automation.

Chiarini et al (2009) made a comparison of the level of Listeria monocytogenes in Brazilian slaughter-

houses differing in manual (plant M) or automatic evisceration (plant A). In conclusion products from

a plant M with manual evisceration were more contaminated than those from plant A with highly

automated evisceration. The greatest incidence of contamination with Listeria monocytogenes was

found in the automated plant A in non food contact surfaces (27,3%), while in the manual plant M it

was found on and in the products (19,4 %).

1.8. Technical systems to assist the meat inspection

Poultry meat inspection focuses on the carcass as well as the viscera. There is much debate on how

much time is needed to allow for “proper inspection” and what the meaning of proper inspection is.

Reg. 854/2004 requires in Annex I, Chapter II, part D, No 1 requires:

“Carcasses and accompanying offal are to be subjected without delay to post-mortem meat inspection.

Particular attention is to be paid to the detection of zoonotic diseases and diseases on OIE list.”

It must be questioned whether zoonotic diseases or OIE diseases can be identified post-mortem. The

most relevant zoonotic diseases, such as Salmonella infections or Campylobacter infections, do not

reveal any post-mortem findings. OIE listed diseases must be identified at the ante-mortem inspection.

Zoonotic diseases and also most OIE listed diseases will not even be detected by a careful post-

mortem examination that may take several minutes time.

What can be found at post-mortem are obvious defects of carcass, meat and viscera quality, which can

be detected by the naked eye. In the German meat inspection statistics this is summarized under the

term of patho-physiological changes. See also the chapter “Conditions, abnormalities and biological

hazards that are detected by poultry meat inspection”.







As the capability of the human eye is limited, some countries, such as Austria, Sweden and Germany,

insist on a minimum inspection time, e.g. Germany 2.5 sec. for broilers, which is at no stage laid down

in Reg. 854/2004. As a consequence this will limit further developments in slaughter technology, in

particular developments in line speed.

Three technical systems are in place which can make poultry meat inspection (broilers) in high-speed

lines more efficacious or which may give more safety to the authorities.

Mirror systems

In some slaughterhouses a mirror is placed opposite the meat inspector, so that he / she can view the

bird from the other side. In some rare instances – because of the humid atmosphere of slaughterhouses

- the mirrors may be steamed up with aerosol, preventing the inspectors from making proper use of

them.

Line dividers

These mean that the high speed line is divided at the inspection location. The line is split and divided,

so that only half the number of birds will pass the inspector. The divided line will pass two independ-

ent inspection stations and the two will be merged together after inspection. The line is split in such a

way that one inspector inspects all even carcasses and viscera packs, and the other inspector all odd

carcasses and viscera packs. This procedure allows a longer inspection time per carcass, while main-

taining a high line speed.

Camera systems

Camera systems and analyzing software will typically apply fixed limits when it comes to allowances

of defects. As an example, the size of a bloodspot on the breast, leading to downgrade of the whole

bird, is defined as a number of pixels. When a camera system is applied there are virtually no limits as

to the number of defects per bird to be checked. The camera will record everything and the analyzing

software will downgrade according to preset limits. (Chao, 2010)

Camera systems can help to identify with much greater reliability than the human eye those birds that

have an obvious defect. They are currently in use by some processing plants to downgrade birds or to

score foot pad dermatitis (Fries, 2007).

They may in the future also be used in poultry meat inspection. The OV (the OA or QCS) can then

focus more on other issues that the camera cannot identify. Even today there are camera systems that

assist the OA in poultry meat inspection with high speed lines. They can be adjusted by the OV ac-

cording to his decisions and he / she or the OA can, without time pressure, re-examine those carcasses

which the camera has rejected. (Fries, R. personal communication, 2011, van den Nieuwelaar, per-

sonal communication, 2011).

All three systems (mirror, line dividers and camera systems) can be combined.

1.9. Cooling of poultry carcasses

After evisceration the birds are cooled. There are different types of cooling system, namely air chill-

ing, air-spray chilling and immersion chilling and a combination of these. This step is not considered

part of the slaughtering process per se, therefore it will not be covered further in this report.







2. Food chain information (FCI)

2.1. General context of FCI

Reg. (EC) 852/04 lays down the records which food business operators (FBO) rearing animals are re-

quired to keep. The FBO of the animals (normally referred to as the farmer) is defined as either the

owner of the farm or the farm manager.

Reg. (EC) 853/04 lays down and describes the minimum FCI that the slaughterhouse FBO must re-

quest, receive and act upon.

Reg. (EC) 854/04 requires that the official veterinarian (OV) checks and analyses the FCI. He has to

take the FCI into account when carrying out ante- and post-mortem inspections.

Most EU countries have provided the FBO rearing the animals with a standardized declaration form.

For this report the author had access to the standardized FCI form used in France, the United Kingdom

and Germany. It must be filled in and signed by the producer and subsequently forwarded to the

slaughter plant.

This is done min. 24 hrs prior to the intended slaughter in those countries where ante-mortem inspec-

tion is performed at the processing plant. If the ante-mortem inspection (AMI) is performed at the

farm of provenance, it is sufficient to send the FCI with the first slaughter lorry to the slaughterhouse.

For more information on the use of food chain information see also the doctoral thesis by Coralie

Lupo, 2009, University of Rennes.

2.2. What type of FCI is collected?

The FCI standard declarations of France, the United Kingdom and Germany all have a slightly differ-

ent format, whereby all of them covered the information required in Reg. 853/04, Annex II, Section

III:

For the purpose of this report the author refers to the German standard declaration which covers the

following information:

2.2.1. The overall health status of the holding of provenance

The poultry farmer (FBO) provides relevant information on the health status of his flock and the pro-

duction data of the animals intended for slaughter in addition to relevant results of previous ante- and

post-mortem inspection findings.

Comment of the author of this report:

It very rarely occurs that a farmer adds information to this part of the standard declaration, even in

spite of the use of several medications mentioned at a later point in the FCI.

2.2.2. The health status of the animals

The poultry farmer (FBO) declares that there are currently no signs of a disease or signs that may indi-

cate the outbreak of a disease which may influence the safety of the poultry meat.


It is unclear how the poultry farmer (FBO) can identify signs or symptoms of a disease which might

influence the safety of poultry meat.







The standard FCI used in France requests the farmer to indicate the mortality within the last week be-

fore slaughter.

The standard FCI used in the UK at least asks the farmer to indicate reasons if the accumulated mortal-

ity exceeds 4.5 %.

2.2.3. Veterinary medicinal or other treatments administered to the animals within a relevant

period and within a withdrawal period greater than zero, together with their dates of

administration and withdrawal periods

This information will include the name and withdrawal time of coccidiostats.

The producer will state the name of the VMP (veterinary medicinal product), dates of administration,

and the withdrawal period. This can easily be cross-checked with the data recorded by the caretaking

veterinarian.

Germany: broiler chickens (and ducks) - the FCI must cover the whole production cycle. For turkeys

data are only requested for the last 28 days.

France: data for medical or other treatment is required for the last 30 days before slaughter.

In the UK there are no obvious time limitations for reporting medications.

The author has no information about how this issue is handled with minor species, such as geese,

guinea fowl, quails, pheasants, and pigeons, as no drugs are registered for these animals. In case of a

disease a medication may only be possible within the prescribing cascade, which means a withdrawal

time of at least 28 days.

2.2.4. The results - if these are of relevance to the protection of public health - of any analysis

carried out on samples taken from the animals or other samples taken to diagnose dis-

eases that may affect the safety of meat, including samples taken in the framework of

the monitoring and control of zoonoses and residues.

For the most relevant poultry species (breeding flocks of Gallus gallus, commercial layers, broilers,

and turkeys) Reg. 2160/03 requires compulsory testing for Salmonella by the FBO. The results of this

Salmonella testing must be recorded in the FCI. Normally the information given is positive or nega-

tive. In case of “positive”, additional information will be given on the results of serotyping if finalized

24 hrs before slaughter. If full serotyping is not yet available, most countries require at minimum in-

formation as to whether the lab can exclude Salmonella Enteritidis (S.E.), Salmonella Typhimurium

(S.Th.) or a monophasic variant of S.Th.

All voluntary and sporadic testing for zoonoses, such as Campylobacter, or with other poultry not

mentioned in Reg. 2160/03, such as water fowl, or minor species, such as guinea fowl, quails, pheas-

ants, and pigeons is normally not reported.

In case Avian Influenza is present in a given country, temporary ante-mortem testing for Influenza

may be required by the slaughterhouse on the request of retailers. In this case technical staff from the

poultry company will take trachea and cloacal swabs within max. 72 hrs before slaughter. The swabs

will be analyzed in an accredited laboratory which has to notify positive results. The slaughterhouse

will only accept the birds if a negative PCR result can be presented. This can also be considered as

part of the food chain information, although normally not mentioned in the standard declaration.







2.2.5. Name and address of the private caretaking veterinarian attending the holding of

provenance

This means that – if needed – the processing plant and the official veterinarian may have access to

post-mortem reports and any laboratory results (e.g. antimicrobial sensitivity testing).


The caretaking veterinarian may be able to decide if certain findings and laboratory results may affect

the safety of meat. Therefore, if needed, the official veterinarian and the slaughter plant can obtain

more detailed information by contacting the private veterinarian, whereby he/she may be in a conflict

of interest situation. It may be questioned whether he is entitled to provide information without per-

mission / informing the farm FBO? This may be in conflict with the protection of personal data.

2.2.6. Any other laboratory testing

This requirement was only found in the German standard FCI declaration.

This will include post-mortem reports and sensitivity testing of the private veterinary surgeon.

In particularly when the daily mortality exceeds a certain percentage, some countries require clear di-

agnostic information, e.g. Germany requires AI testing (PCR) whenever the daily mortality exceeds 2

%. The UK requires reasons (i.e. normally veterinary diagnostic) if the cumulated mortality is higher

than 4.5 %. The author has no information whether other countries have set a mortality limit at which

the FBO must conduct laboratory testing.

Other countries (such as Sweden and France) require in the event of suspicion of botulism mortality,

that the disease be confirmed (or excluded). In case of confirmation of botulism, the toxin-type must

be determined and flocks will only be accepted for slaughter if toxin-type C or D is confirmed. In

Germany poultry flocks with confirmed botulism (irrespectively of toxin-type) may not be accepted

for slaughter.

In addition some countries require information on vaccinations that might have been carried out. In

countries where Newcastle Disease (ND) vaccination is mandatory non-compliance can be verified

here as the farmer must state the date of the ND vaccination and the batch number of the vaccine on

some standard declarations.

The broiler welfare directive requires that also the daily and the cumulated mortality in % are recorded

in the food chain information. This must be sent to the slaughter plant in all cases.

2.3. Operational role of the FCI

If the ante-mortem inspection (AMI) is performed at the holding of provenance, the OV of the slaugh-

terhouse has the option to cross-check the information in the FCI (control of documentation).

In those cases where the AMI is performed upon arrival at the slaughterhouse, there is little chance to

cross-check the information in the standard FCI declaration.

The FBOs of establishments processing poultry must request, receive, check, and act on FCI. They

may not accept poultry for slaughter unless they have requested, received, and acted upon the informa-

tion. FCI should normally arrive (by fax or electronically) in the processing plant not less than 24

hours before arrival of the birds. In those cases where the ante-mortem inspection is performed on the

holding of provenance, the FCI may arrive together with the first shipment of birds from the farm. In

such cases the FBO of the poultry processing establishment is notified via other routes of information

about the Salmonella status or any other relevant information before arrival.







After deciding to accept the birds for slaughter, the FBO must make the FCI available to the official

veterinarian (OV), who from his side also has to approve the flock for slaughter. The FBO must notify

the OV of health concerns before the OV carries out the AMI.

Legislation reference: Reg. 853/04, Annex II, Section III, 1, 2 and 5.

The official veterinarian (OV) must check the FCI for completeness and content as a part of the AMI.

This should then be taken into consideration when post-mortem inspection (PMI) is carried out.

For example, if there is a statutory requirement for Salmonella on-farm testing (breeders, layers, broil-

ers, and turkeys), the FCI must state whether the result was positive or negative and if positive, what

serotype.

The FCI may be used, for example, to plan the number of inspectors on the line. This would be then a

risk-based poultry meat inspection which is required in Art. 5, paragraph 5 b. Only very few countries,

such as Sweden, take account of this and adjust the number of poultry meat inspectors on the basis of

FCI. Other countries, such as Germany and Austria, have a minimum inspection time which is suffi-

cient for flocks with any health status.

When abnormal data is collected at the post-mortem inspection, the OV may compare the results to the

information in the FCI.

Food chain information (FCI) data is mainly used today by the FBO of the slaughter plant:

- logistic slaughter in case of Salmonella findings and / or Campylobacter (in some Scandina-

vian countries)

- demonstration of freedom from Avian Influenza (marketing purposes)

- requirements of some retailers and other customers with respect to the usage of certain drugs:

o tetracyclines and doxycycline can easily be found by exposing the bones to fluores-

cent light, even if the tissue residues are well below the MRL levels

o some countries, such as Russia, have a zero tolerance for tetracyclines and doxycyline

o the use of fluroquinolones is critical, Some retailers request a guarantee that antim-

icrobials of this group have not been used

During my investigation I discovered that many OV make little use of the food chain information if it

is presented in the way of a standard declaration.

2.4. What to do with positive results in the FCI?

Where a positive result for Salmonella is indicated in the FCI, or where no Salmonella testing is re-

corded, the FBO should have a procedure in their HACCP-based food safety management system

which they can follow. In Germany the OV would expect the FBO to take the following action (Good

Hygiene Practice):

- retain the affected batch and slaughter them at the end of the day

- a full clean down must be made at the end of the batch

- where a Salmonella positive batch has been processed either in error, or because of other cir-

cumstances, in the middle of the production run, the line should be stopped as soon as the af-

fected batch has been processed, and a full clean down must take place before any further

processing commences







- in the absence of relevant AMI or PMI findings the carcasses can enter the food chain as nor-

mal

SANCO/11010/2010 rev. 2 final for a Commission regulation amending Annex II to Regulation

2160/03 and Annex I to Regulation 2073/05 as regards Salmonella in fresh poultry meat prohibits that

fresh poultry meat be put onto the market that may be contaminated with S. Enteritis, S. Typhimurium

or a monophasic variant of S. Typhimurium. The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal

Health has adopted this proposition with a qualified majority. If the Commission adheres to the time-

table, this would mean that this legislation will enter into force on 1st December, 2011.

The FBO must make corresponding adaptations in his HACCP plan in the event of the FCI indicating

that an incoming flock is infected with one of the three above-mentioned serotypes. The German OV

would probably expect him to reject such a batch of poultry or require a heat-treatment procedure.

- In the Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Finland and Denmark) Salmonella positive flocks are

not accepted for slaughter.

- The above-mentioned Scandinavian countries have a similar policy for Campylobacter in

place as in the rest of Europe for Salmonella, i.e. slaughter at the end of the day.

- The OV must check and analyze relevant information from the FCI report. If there is doubtful

information in the FCI he may take any of the following decisions, depending on the FCI in-

formation:

Poultry flocks which show symptoms of a disease or condition that may be transmitted to animals or

humans through the handling or eating of meat may not be allowed for slaughter. In this case slaughter

must be delayed to allow for further testing in order to obtain a clearer picture and to see whether the

flock recovers from this disease.

In case the withdrawal time has not yet elapsed, a delay of slaughter will be the consequence.

In case of information that the overall health situation is not optimal, but the slaughter flock is not af-

fected by a disease or condition that may be transmitted to animals or humans the OV may require a

change in the slaughterhouse procedure:

- reduce line speed or increase the number of inspectors

- he/she will detain (animals or) carcasses for further testing.

3. Specific laboratory testing carried out with regard to a risk-based meat inspection

3.1. Salmonella testing

Salmonella testing is required for all spent hens (commercial layers and breeding flocks of Gallus gal-

lus), turkeys, and broilers according to the requirements of Reg. 2160/03. The results are considered

(in most countries) to decide for logistic slaughter and for an intensive cleaning and disinfection after

slaughter of these flocks. SANCO/11010/2010 rev. 2 final for a Commission regulation amending An-

nex II to Regulation 2160/03 and Annex I to Regulation 2073/05 as regards Salmonella in fresh poul-

try could prohibit as from December 1st, 2011 that fresh poultry meat be put onto the market that may

be contaminated with S. Enteritidis, S. Typhimurium or a monophasic variant of S. Typhimurium. This

means that the poultry meat of flocks infected with one of these three serotypes must be heat-treated

after slaughter. Some duck integrated companies also test on a voluntary basis and decide on similar

basis as with broilers, i.e. Salmonella positive flocks are slaughtered at the end of the day.







3.2. Campylobacter testing

Campylobacter testing is routinely performed in the Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Denmark and

Finland) and in the Netherlands. As most Campylobacter infections occur at a very late stage (after 28

days), flocks may become infected between sampling and slaughter, so logistic slaughter has not

proven very successful with Campylobacter. The option of freezing positive Campylobacter batches

after slaughter is not considered as an option as the consumer prefers fresh poultry meat, and also be-

cause this option would reduce the volume of fresh poultry meat during the barbecue season in the

summer very dramatically.

3.3. Avian Influenza

Avian influenza is tested on a voluntary basis on the initiative of poultry associations of certain coun-

tries (such as Germany) or on the initiative of some vertically integrated companies. This is in addition

to the government’s AI monitoring. In these countries blood samples from every duck and turkey flock

are collected at slaughter and tested with a group specific AI ELISA on a regular basis. This will give

retrospective information as to whether the slaughtered flock has been exposed to an AI infection. Re-

sults are only communicated to the authorities in case of positive findings. In those countries or in

those integrated companies where serological AI monitoring of slaughter blood samples is in place,

this is more a monitoring of the situation in the field. Broilers are not tested as they do not live long

enough. Ducks are tested as they may harbour undetected HPAI infection without clinical symptoms

for a longer period (see, for example, the AI outbreak in ducks in Germany 2007). Turkeys are tested

as they seem to be very sensitive to any AI virus which may circulate in the field (see, for example, the

AI outbreak in Italy 1999/2000, where mainly turkey flocks were affected).

In case of notified AI outbreaks or in case of reports in the media, all slaughter flocks (in a certain

area) will be tested ante-mortem by PCR as closely as possible to the slaughter date. This is done at

the initiative of the FBO of the slaughter plant to make sure that no AI positive flocks arrive at his

premises.

3.4. Residue testing

The minimum amount of residue testing is laid down in Dir. 96/23 EC dd. 29th April, 1996. This is the

basis for the implementation of national control plans by the Member States. All MS have to submit

their national residue testing plan to the European Commission and report annually. The results can be

found on the SANCO website.

This directive requires in chapter III, Article 9 the self-monitoring and co-responsibility on the part of

operators.

The Member States shall ensure that:

“2. The owners or persons in charge (in the terminology of the hygiene package these are the FBOs) of

the establishment of initial processing of primary products of animal origin (in the terminology of the

hygiene package this is slaughter) take all necessary measures, in particular by carrying out their own

checks, to

b) satisfy themselves that farm animals or products brought into their establishment (in the terminol-

ogy of the hygiene package this means “accept for slaughter”):

i) do not contain residue levels which exceed maximum permitted limits;

ii) do not contain any trace of prohibited substances or products;

3.a) the producer or the person in charge referred to in points [1 and] 2 place on the market only:







i) animals to which no unauthorized substances or products have been administered or which have not

undergone illegal treatment within the meaning of this Directive;

ii) animals in respect of which, where authorized products or substances have been administered, the

withdrawal periods prescribed for these products or substances have been observed;

iii) products derived from the animals referred to in i) and ii)”

Competent Authorities: Annex IV, Chapter II defines the minimum sampling levels and frequency of

testing broiler chickens, spent hens, turkeys, and other poultry.

“For each category of poultry considered, the minimum number of samples to be taken each year must

at least equal one per 200 tons of animal production (dead weight), with a minimum of 100 samples

for each group of substances if the annual production of the category of birds is over 5.000 tons.

What follows is a specification on how the Member State has to split the testing between the different

groups of products and substances (for details see Annex IV, Chapter II of Dir. 96/23 EC).

In most Member States the requirements of this Annex are implemented by national regulations.

As an example the national regulations of Germany are mentioned here:

“Nationaler Rückstandskontrollplan (NRKP) und Einfuhrrückstandskontrollplan (ERKP) für Le-

bensmittel tierischen Ursprungs“.

„Tierische Lebensmittel-Überwachungsverordnung – Tier LMÜV“. This national directive requires in

§ 10 Residue monitoring:

1) The Competent Authority shall in order to enforce Annex I, Section I, Chapter II, letter F, Nr.

1 letter c of Reg. (EC) No 854/2004

2) take official samples from live animals for the purpose of § 4 part 1 Nr. 1 des “Lebensmittel-

und Futtermittelgesetzbuches” and from products of animal origin and initiate residue testing

according to the requirements of the Nationaler Rückstandskontrollplan (NRKP) und Einfuhr-

rückstandskontrollplan (ERKP) für Lebensmittel tierischen Ursprungs.

The amount of self-testing by the FBO is further laid down in Commission Reg. EC 37/2010 of 22nd

December, 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum

residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin and by Commission Reg. (EC) 1881/2006 of 19th Decem-

ber 2006 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs.

The amount of self-monitoring of the FBO is often determined by requirements of the retailer, which

exceeds in many instances the requirements of Reg. No. 854/04 in combination with Dir. 96/23. With

regard to residue testing private contracts frequently have wording such as the following:

“The supplier establishes a monitoring system which will consist of testing of all batches destined for

the purchaser for residues of antimicrobials or metabolites thereof.” As a result of the dioxin scandal

early this year retailer requirements for residue testing on Xenobiotics (such as dioxin) have again in-

creased the amount of testing.

Export to the Russian Republic is of great economic importance to parts of the European poultry in-

dustry. Therefore, residue testing in accordance with the Russian requirements (SanPin) is also im-

plemented in various poultry processing plants.

The amount of self-testing is dependent on the market, the requirements of retailers, and on the current

residues under discussion:







- e.g. the consumer markets: German consumers are very sensitive towards residues; therefore,

companies selling poultry products on the German market are more sensitive towards chemi-

cally detectable residues.

- Russia has a zero tolerance for tetracyclines: Therefore, poultry meat exported to Russia must

be tested free for tetracyclines residues.

- requirements of the retailers: Scandinavian retailers are very sensitive towards the use of

fluoroquinolones: Therefore, these compounds are banned in broiler batches destined for ex-

port to Scandinavian countries. This must be confirmed by routine residue testing for this

group of products.

- testing for contaminants such as dioxin: During the dioxin crisis in Germany there was an in-

creased demand from the side of the consumers that the products were tested for dioxin, even

if the supplying feed mill was not affected.

As an example, the amount of self-monitoring with respect to residue testing in a larger German verti-

cal poultry integrated company over the last 18 months is listed as follows (Jan Barhorst, personal

communication):

Antimicrobial inhibition test, 3 plate agar diffusion test:

2010: 1.257 samples

2011: 3.386 samples (increase in 2011 because of retailer requirements)

Tetracyclines: screening method of the bones (Reg. No 37/10 EC):

2010: 1.195 samples

2011: 3.351 samples (increase in 2011 because of retailer requirements)

Macrolides, fluoroquinolones, beta-lactams and ampenicols (Reg. No 37/10 EC):

2010: 781 samples

2011: 579 samples

Sulfonamides (Reg. No 37/10 EC):

2010: 484 samples

2011: 351 samples

Aminoglycosides (national “Rückstands-Höchstmengenverordnung”):

2010: 36 samples

2011: 16 samples

Nitrofurans (Reg. No. 37/2010):

2010: 6 samples

2011: 3 samples

Fluoroquinolones (Reg. No. 37/10 EC):

2010: 12 samples

2011: 6 samples

PCB, heavy metals (Reg. No. 1881/06):

2010: 24 samples

2011: 12 samples







Pesticides (national “Rückstands-Höchstmengenverordnung”):

2010: 24 samples

2011: 12 samples

Dioxins (Reg. No. 1881/06):

2010: 3 samples

2011: 59 samples (increase caused by the dioxin food scare)

Zearalenone (ZEA) and desoxynivalenon (DON) (Reg. No. 1881/06):

2010: 6 samples

2011: 3 samples

Lasalocid: (Reg. No. 37/2010):

2010: 10 samples

2011: 5 samples

Nicarbacin:

2010: 6 samples

2011: 5 samples

Radioactivity:

2010: 10 samples

2011: 5 samples

These figures represent a much higher testing frequency compared to the legal minimum testing re-

quirements.







4. Poultry meat inspection and findings

4.1. Organization of poultry meat inspection

Flow Diagram of Organization of Poultry Meat Inspection Modified from Coralie Lupo’s doctoral thesis, 2009

Competent Authority

Official veterinarian Official auxiliaries

GHP Holding of provenance

ante-

mortem

inspection

Catching & transport

Processing Plant

Arrival at the slaugh-

terhouse

Shackling

Stunning

Scalding, bleeding

First inspection point

Evisceration

Second inspection

point

Transport line

Third inspection point

Cooling

Conditionnement

FCI

Food Business Opera-

tor

Official Veterinarian

Ante-mortem

inspection Verification

Supervision

Inspection

post

mortem

GHP

HACCP

Plan

Post-mortem

inspection

points







The Organization of the Sanitary Inspection according to Reg. 853/04 and 854/04 is nicely presented

in the flow diagram which was taken from Carolie Lupo’s doctoral thesis, 2009.

The holding of provenance keeps (rears) his birds according to Good Management Practice on poultry

farms (Löhren, 2002). This corresponds to what Carolie Lupo describes as GHP. The farm manager or

food business operator (FBO) gives his food chain information to the official veterinarian if the AMI

is performed on the holding of provenance. Otherwise he will send it to the slaughter plant at mini-

mum 24 hrs before arrival of the birds. If the AMI is performed at the holding of provenance, it is eas-

ier for the OV to check the information on the FCI.

The birds will then be caught under the welfare responsibility of the farm manager (FBO of the hold-

ing of provenance) and transported to the slaughterhouse. If the AMI has been performed at the hold-

ing of provenance, then the FBO of the processing plant will check the information, decide if he ac-

cepts the flock, and then hand the FCI over to the OV.

Upon arrival at the slaughterhouse, the information of the ante-mortem inspection (AMI) will be veri-

fied in such a way that at least the identity of the birds on the AMI document is checked. In case the

AMI has not yet been performed on the holding of provenance, the AMI can be performed at two (or

three) stages:

- during the resting time at the slaughterhouse before killing; inspection while the birds are still

in their crates

- during shackling when they are taken out of the crates; this allows for estimation whether the

number of dead birds on arrival is within the normal range

- after stunning, to control the efficacy of stunning (corneal reflex) and to prevent pre-stun

shocks (Watton & Gregory, 1991).

The post-mortem inspection can take place at three stages:

- 1st inspection immediately after defeathering and rehanging onto the evisceration line

- 2nd

inspection immediately after evisceration, with the viscera being presented separately or

attached

- 3rd

inspection - eviscerated carcass from inside (and or outside) to check for slaughter defects

and residues of feathers, faecal contamination, etc.

The individual post-mortem inspection is normally performed either by official auxiliaries (OA) or by

qualified competent staff (QCS) of the processing plant working under the responsibility and supervi-

sion of the official veterinarian. If employees of the slaughterhouse are employed for inspection pur-

poses, they must have the same qualification as the OA’s. Both are normally referred to as poultry

meat inspectors.

4.2. Risk-based meat inspection and control

Article 5, No 5 b of Reg. 854/04 suggests a risk based approach with respect to the number of official

staff that needs to be present to perform meat inspection. In my opinion this would mean that - pro-

vided there is no contradictory advice resulting from the history of the meat inspection data of the

supplying farm and from the FCI - the number of official staff can be adjusted. Experience has shown

that this requirement is very difficult to implement. In most countries the government has no back up

of official auxiliaries in case of suspicious flocks and they do not want to send their staff home when –

which is normally the case - flocks in good condition come to slaughter.







This has led to the fact that the number of poultry meat inspectors on the line (OA) varies much more

from Member State to Member State than from flock to flock on a risk-based approach.

4.3. Organization of the ante-mortem inspection (AMI)

Most EU countries carry out the AMI at the slaughterhouse.

First of all the FCI is checked before the crates or containers are offloaded. The birds will subse-

quently be visually inspected in the waiting room (see 1.2, page 8). There is no handling of the birds

unless repeated abnormalities are detected. During the inspection attention is paid to respiratory symp-

toms, and to the behaviour of the birds, which is - to some extent - also dependent upon the transport

conditions. If the AMI is extended to the shackling procedure, the number of dead on arrival can also

be taken into account (see also page 29).

There is some debate whether a meaningful ante-mortem inspection can be carried out after arrival at

the slaughter plant. It is impossible to offload the birds out of the crates or out of the containers.

Therefore, often only the birds sitting in the first row can be inspected and may not give a true picture

of the flock.

For this reason Reg. No. 854/2004 provides the option to carry out the ante-mortem inspection at the

holding of provenance according to Annex 1, Section III, Chapter II. According to the investigation of

the author, the competent authorities from:

Germany

Austria

Poland

Slovakia

have decided to perform the AMI at the holding of provenance. This also offers the opportunity to

check some details of the FCI on the spot and to check if, e.g., withdrawal times have been respected.

If the AMI is carried out at the holding of provenance, the person carrying out the AMI will first check

the documentation on the farm before inspecting the poultry shed. Special attention is paid to the be-

haviour of the birds including their walking ability (presence of lameness) and to possible respiratory

symptoms. This inspection in combination with the documentation and the results of the laboratory

analyses indicate whether or not there is suspicion of a disease or condition in the flock which may be

transmitted to other animals or humans through handling or eating the meat. The farmer or the caretak-

ing veterinarian may be asked for clarification or additional testing in case of abnormal findings.

Some countries have the option to carry out the AMI either at the holding of provenance or upon arri-

val at the slaughterhouse such as Cyprus and Hungary. To the information of the author in most cases

the AMI is performed for convenience reasons upon arrival at the slaughterhouse.

In the remaining MS countries the AMI is performed upon arrival at the slaughterhouse. The following

arguments are raised to justify this procedure:

- biosecurity aspects, when one official veterinarian has to visit several farms on one day.

- biosecurity aspects, which are even more important when it comes to thinning or when the

country is not free from ND or AI

- cost-benefit aspects may also play a role when the poultry is kept in several small holdings at

a larger distance from each other.







Some countries, such as Denmark, carry out AMI at the farm of origin only under certain circum-

stances, for example in case of obvious post-mortem findings in previous slaughter batches, such as

food pad dermatitis, or specific and repeated reasons for declaring a higher percentage of carcasses as

unfit for human consumption.

4.4. Organization of post-mortem inspection (PMI)

As pointed out under the chapter of current slaughtering practices, the birds will pass two (or three)

possible inspection stations during the line. Whether these inspection stations are staffed by an OA or

by qualified competent staff (QCS) from the slaughterhouse depends on national regulations:

- 1st closed carcass immediately after defeathering

- 2nd

immediately after evisceration, with the viscera being presented separately or attached

3rd

final inspection of the eviscerated carcass (including abdominal cavity)

It is widely accepted that the PMI in poultry is not a diagnostic procedure with the intention of diag-

nosing whether or not the bird was infected by a certain infective disease. Aetiological diagnoses must

be performed on a flock basis and the FCI should give valuable information for this purpose.

The PMI will be restricted with normal carcasses to a visual inspection only, followed by a closer ex-

amination of those carcasses which are suspicious of certain defects. This closer examination may in-

clude incision or palpation of suspected carcasses.

If, for example, a slight discoloration of the skin in the latero-ventral area of the cloaca or the thigh is

detected, or if the poultry meat inspector is not sure about cellulitis (infectious process or deep derma-

titis), he may make an incision in the affected part of the skin in order to detect a possible subcutane-

ous inflammation. For this finding see also page 35: Cellulitis.

Another example is ascites which can in most circumstances be detected by visual inspection only,

which however, may go undetected in the early stages. In case a small enlargement of the abdominal

cavity is detected during the visual inspection, some poultry meat inspectors puncture the abdomen,

and if only a small amount of fluid leaks out, the carcass will be diagnosed as ascites.

In case of an abnormality that affects the whole carcass, e.g. jaundice, ascites, septicaemia etc. the

whole carcass will be condemned. If only local parts of the bird are affected, such as bruises, cellulitis,

scratches etc., the decision will be made whether the carcass is trimmed or condemned. With high

speed lines, trimming is only practicable if adjacent trimming areas are provided. With slower line

speeds and with more valuable birds, such as waterfowl (ducks, geese), turkeys and guinea fowl,

trimming is more popular.

The identification of meat which is unfit for trimming is part of the responsibility of the PMI.

Post Mortem Inspection stations normally include:

- sufficient space for post-mortem inspection

- additional lighting

- height adjustable seats

- facilities to wash hands and tools

- sterilizing bath for tools

- touch-screen registration panels.

4.5. Time requirements for post-mortem inspection (PMI)

Reg. No. 854/2204 requires in Annex I, Section I, Chapter II, part D, No. 1 that:







“Carcasses and accompanying offal are to be subjected … to post-mortem inspection.” “The speed of

the slaughter line and the number of inspection staff present are to be such as to allow for proper in-

spection.”

This means that for the speed of the line Reg. No. 854 sets no limit, however, it requires that the num-

ber of inspectors per line must allow for a “proper” inspection.

The number of inspectors per line differs between Member States and even within Member States if

the MS has a federal structure, such as Germany.

Most countries have one inspector per line, irrespective of the line speed.

Other countries, such as Austria, Sweden, the UK, and Germany, have up to three inspectors per line

depending on the line speed:

1st inspector to inspect the whole carcass from the breast (front) – before evisceration

2nd

inspector to inspect the organ package and the offal – after evisceration

3rd

inspector to inspect the eviscerated carcass from outside and possibly also from inside

Ideally the 2nd

and 3rd

inspectors are placed on platforms in opposite positions at the line. Due to lim-

ited space in many processing plants the 2nd

and 3rd

inspectors are often placed next to each other on

the evisceration line. In some of these slaughterhouses the competent authorities require a mirror to

allow for inspection of the opposite part of the carcass.

It has been scientifically demonstrated that increasing the number of inspectors per line does not in-

crease the efficacy of meat inspection (Fries and Kobe, 1993).

With the high-speed slaughter lines in broiler processing plants, technical assistance is offered by the

slaughterhouse equipment manufacturers (see: 1.8 Technical systems to assist the meat inspection,

page 15):

- mirrors

- line dividers:

the speed of the lines remains the same but the number of carcasses passing the inspector is

reduced by 50 %

- camera systems:

these detect obvious patho-physiological abnormalities, thus reducing the number of carcasses

the inspector has to concentrate on. These carcasses can be taken off the line and inspected

without time pressure.

Reg. No. 853/2004 requires in Annex III, Section II, Chapter IV, No. 12 that:

“Slaughterhouse operators must follow the instructions of the competent authority to ensure that post-

mortem inspection is carried out under suitable conditions in accordance with Reg. 854.”

This paragraph gives the competent authority the power to fix conditions for inspection and require a

minimum inspection time.

Germany, for example, has an administration act for meat inspection (AVV Lebensmittelhygiene) that

requires minimum inspection times for each meat-producing domestic animal. See Table 1:







Table 1: Minimum inspection time, Germany, (AVV Lebensmittelhygiene)

Species Minimum inspection time

Ungulates & domestic cattle over 6 weeks 300 sec

Domestic cattle under 6 weeks 180 sec

Domestic pigs 50 sec

Sheep and goats > 10 kg 40 sec

Sheep and goats < 10 kg 30 sec

Poultry up to 1.5 kg 2.5 sec

Poultry above 1.5 kg “appropriate” minimum inspection time

Any minimum inspection time is not scientifically based, but may lead to distortions in meat inspec-

tion. When investigating for this report both official authorities as well as slaughterhouse operators

were not happy with this vague concept in Reg. No. 853/2004, Annex III, Section II, chapter 12.

Austria has a similar national regulation (Austrian “Fleischuntersuchungsverordnung”) that requires

(irrespective of the weight) a minimum inspection time of 3 sec. for each carcass.

The question will always arise what to do with affected flocks that have a higher condemnation rate.

The OV has two options here:

- reduce the speed of the line

- put more poultry meat inspectors on the line

Reducing the line speed has several drawbacks such as a longer scalding time which will affect the

skin quality: see also under Discussion, page 53.

4.6. Conditions, abnormalities and biological hazards that are detected by poultry meat in-

spection

Carolie Lupo (2009) compares in her literature review the most frequent post-mortem findings from

different broiler slaughterhouses within the same country and between different countries. In total she

mentions 21 different conditions for condemnation of single carcasses. All 21 different diagnoses are

based on visual inspection of the broiler carcasses. The 22nd

position for condemnation in her table is

“other reasons”. Without the use of a touch screen, a correct recording of post-mortem findings is only

possible with slow running lines and normal condemnation rate, and only with a limited number of

diagnoses. This highlights that there is a need for harmonization of nomenclature of visible abnormali-

ties found at poultry meat inspection.

In her survey there are two plants with only one single reason for condemnation. These were one plant

in Brazil which only diagnosed “Ascites” and one plant in Poland which only diagnosed “Cachexia”.

The plant which registered the widest spectrum of different condemnation reasons was a broiler proc-

essing plant in Canada with 13 different diagnoses. The most frequent reasons for condemnation were







“Cellulitis” (Canada), “Cachexia, Emaciation” (France, Poland) and Aerosacculitis (Canada, USA,

UK).

In the following chapter those diagnoses mentioned by the Competent Authorities and which play a

role according to the experience of the author are described.

Dead on arrival / Death in the lairage:

This is in most cases a catching or transport problem, e.g. crates overloaded, enthalpy values of the

outside air too high. Under enthalpy we understand the heat energy of the outside air. It is expressed in

MJ/m3

of air and combines temperature and humidity. Problems include heat stress in hot weather

conditions (truck may have been caught in a traffic jam) or freezing during the winter times. This oc-

curs with most poultry species. Less ducks and quails are dead on arrival compared to the other poul-

try species.

Ante-mortem rejects:

Small birds are culled in the lairage. These birds are manually killed (by neck dislocation) before

shackling. This is important for slaughterhouses with electrical stunning, as these small birds may be

too small to make contact with the water bath. Culling birds at this point is also an animal welfare ob-

ligation. The percentage of small birds that have to be rejected (culled) ante-mortem depends on the

uniformity of the flock. It only plays a role in broiler slaughter.

Abnormal colour:

Red colour: due to death other than slaughter (e.g. uncut, badly bleeding).

Yellow colour: Icterus (Hepatitis).

Blue-red colour: poor bleeding, fevered birds.

Turkeys are very frequently condemned because of this. It is a more rare condemnation reason for

ducks.

Bruising and fractures:

This may occur ante-mortem (an animal welfare observation) or post-mortem (technical problem in

the processing plant).

Dislocation of the wing Breast haematoma, ante-mortem

(occurred post-mortem) (animal welfare finding)







Ascites / oedema:

An unopened carcass, showing enlargement of the vent area. In this case there is fluid in the abdomi-

nal cavity. It seems to be one of the major reasons for condemnation in many processing plants and in

many of the countries from which data has been obtained. Ascites as a post-mortem finding is still in-

creasing and seems to have a changing epidemiology (see Olkowski et al 1996). Recently Langkabel

and Fries (2011) summarized the vast literature on the ascites syndrome in broiler chickens. Different

stages of the ascites syndrome exist. In the manifested, clinical stage this is associated with liver pa-

thology and floating clots of fibrin in the abdominal cavity. These birds will be detected after eviscera-

tion and will be condemned. These cases are clear metabolic disorders - not an infectious disease - the

birds are condemned as the meat is of poor quality.

In less severe cases there is only a small amount of liquid in the abdominal cavity with no liv-

er pathology. It cannot be detected after evisceration. The carcass is unsuspicious. Meat quali-

ty is in order with no higher bacterial content. These carcasses are detected by the OA in some

processing plants at the inspection point 1 (unopened carcass). Often suspected carcasses are

punctured by the OA (or the QCS) and in case a small amount of liquid leaks out, the whole

carcass is condemned.

It is often a very subjective decision as to which bird should be condemned and which bird can pass

the poultry meat inspection. Ascites is a very good example for this. In a particular processing plant in

Germany the condemnations because of “ascites” have been and still are significantly higher com-

pared to slaughter of the same batches of broilers in three other plants. Whereas ascites plays a major

role for condemnation in Northern Europe (Scandinavia, Germany and on the British islands), this

situation is of less significance in southern European countries. This is based on the information given

by the CVO’s. The reason for this is not understood. The most likely explanation is at which meat in-

spection stage ascites is diagnosed (on the non-eviscerated carcass or after evisceration and washing)

and how good the poultry meat inspectors are trained to diagnose this on the unopened carcasses.

Liver necrosis (spots on the liver):

The reason is unclear, often occurring in normal broiler flocks, sometimes associated with increased

ascites (see Fries), R. 2011, Ascites Syndrom beim Geflügel: Erkennung in der Praxis und vorläufige

Bewertungsansätze).







The declaration fit or unfit for human consumption, based on these liver findings, differs from country

to country and sometimes even within a country. It may be considered as an infective septicaemic bac-

terial disease and the whole carcass will be condemned. Other OV (OA, QCS) only consider this to be

a local infection and only the intestinal package will be condemned.

In a study with 368 birds with suspected ascites from this particular processing plant, Fries (2011)

found that a considerable part of these carcasses had liver lesions (hepatitis, liver necrosis), which ei-

ther caused the ascites or misled the OA to condemn this bird because of enlarged abdomen and sus-

pected ascites. In his study Fries (2011) found in broilers with liver necrosis that Vibrionaceae could

be detected in the abdominal fluid. These Vibrionaceae were not related to Campylobacter. Their sig-

nificance with respect to liver necrosis remains unclear.

Cellulitis (infectious process, deep dermatitis)

These are locally restricted subcutaneous inflammations which are difficult to detect during PMI. They

consist of a fibrinous layer in the subcutaneous tissues of the thigh mostly between the inner part of

the thigh and the carcass. The abdominal ventral part of the carcass can also be affected. The skin will

show a distinct discoloration from outside, but in some cases it may be necessary to make an incision

in the suspected part of the skin to detect the subcutaneous inflammation. For more detailed informa-

tion see Tessier et al (2001) “Cellulitis in broiler chickens: A one year retrospective study in four

Quebec abattoirs.” E. coli was found as a single bacterial organism. Some carcasses also show a

higher E. coli rate in the muscle tissue, indicating that in some birds, cellulitis is associated with septi-

caemia. This would also justify condemning the whole carcass instead of trimming the affected parts.

The reason for cellulitis is not yet fully understood. There is speculation about the influence of hatch-

ery hygiene. However, it is commonly accepted that skin lesions and scratches contribute to the occur-

rence of cellulitis. There are conflicting management practices that contribute to the occurrence of

scratches on the poorly feathered thigh, lateral part of the pygostyle and the caudal vent area:

- good litter quality contributing to sharp toe nails

- nervous flocks due to the lighting regime required for animal welfare reasons (minimum 6 hrs

of darkness and minimum 20 lux light intensity during the rest of the day; in Germany there is

also a requirement for natural light, which makes flocks even more nervous).

In some instances the scratches can no longer be detected at the time of slaughter.

Cellulitis is one of the most difficult abnormalities to detect during PMI (Fries and Kobe, 1993).

In high speed lines both false positive diagnoses (i.e. carcasses without cellulitis are condemned) and

false negative diagnoses (i.e. carcasses with cellulites are missed) occur. This situation could not be

improved by putting more poultry meat inspectors on the line (Fries, personal communication). Be-

cause most broilers are further processed today, missed cellulites birds will be detected when the birds

are cut up. Camera systems cannot reliably detect this post-mortem finding (Fries, personal communi-

cation).

Scabby skin, scabby hip, scratches







Whereas in the case of cellulitis the subcutaneous tissue layers are infected, in the case of scratches or

scabby skin the superficial skin lesions are healing, however, the healing skin can cause scabby sur-

faces which will be detected at PMI. In this case there is no inflammation in the subcutaneous layers.

Scabby skin (or scabby hip) is a frequent finding in the PMI in ducks. The reason is that ducks often

aggregate when disturbed, and thus the ducks on the bottom receive more or less severe scratches from

their pen mates. This occurs despite ducks having the lowest stocking density of all meat producing

poultry (5 ducks / m2 or 15 – 20 kg. live weight / m

2). Fortunately, the subcutaneous skin layers do not

tend to get infected. Therefore, cellulitis (infectious process or deep dermatitis) does not occur, or very

rarely occurs, in ducks.

The author recently visited a duck processing plant where up to 5 % of the delivered ducks were re-

jected at PMI because of fresh scratches.

In the case of scabby skin (scabby hip or scratches) the decision made by the OV (OA) varies from

one processing plant to another and from country to country. In some countries these birds are down-

graded, which means that the affected parts of the carcass (i.e. the back and sometimes also the thighs)

are condemned while the more valuable parts of the carcass (breast and wings) may be used after cut-

ting up.

Air sac infections (respiratory diseases)

Airsacculitis giving rise to condemnation may occur because of:

- poor air quality (NH3) and management in combination with unspecific bacterial infections

- Mycoplasma gallisepticum (MG) infections

- Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale (ORT) infections

The FCI should (could) give information whether air sac infections (airsacculitis) are due to an infec-

tious disease, such as ORT or MG, or more as a result of a management problem.

Irrespective of the aetiology, air sac infections are restricted to the air sac and to the abdominal cavity.

There are no indications so far that the meat quality is affected. In some countries like The Nether-

lands – providing the air sac alone is affected – only the intestinal package is condemned, whereas the

rest of the carcass is declared as fit for human consumption. In other countries, the whole carcass (in-

cluding the intestinal package) is always condemned.

Septicaemia (peritonitis)

Septicaemia is diagnosed by a fibrinous layer on the heart (pericarditis), and/or on the liver (perihepa-

titis) and/or on the mucosal layer of the abdominal cavity (peritonitis). In most cases E. coli is the sin-

gle causative organism that can be isolated. In ducks also Riemerella anatipestifer may be a significant

reason for septicaemia. In isolated cases with chicken and more rarely with turkeys and ducks septi-

caemia can also be found at PMI due to a S. Gallinarum or S.E. or S.Th. infection.

At PMI only the diagnosis “septicaemia” can be made. The causative organism could be covered by

the FCI, as today we expect that the chicken farmer will have any disease symptoms clarified by his

caretaking veterinary surgeon.

In case of a higher condemnation rate due to E. Coli septicaemia in chicken, the FCI should indicate a

higher mortality (in the last week before slaughter).

In case of a higher condemnation rate due to Riemerella septicaemia in ducks, the FCI should indicate

a higher mortality (in the last week before slaughter).







In case of a higher condemnation rate due to Salmonella Gallinarum septicaemia in chicken, the FCI

should indicate a higher mortality. In case of a higher condemnation rate due to other Salmonellae

(S.E., S.Th.) septicaemia, the FCI should indicate this and slaughter must be organized correspond-

ingly.

Salpingitis

This is typical for spent hens and one of the major reasons why the condemnation rate of spent hens is

usually higher compared to meat type poultry. Salpingitis is considered to be an “occupational dis-

ease” of laying hens. It is often associated with ovariitis.

Joint lesions

Isolated joint lesions occur as a major condemnation rate in ducks, turkeys and quails. If they occur in

broiler chicken (a rarer finding) joint lesions are associated in most cases with E. coli, Staphylococcus

or Enterococci). In broiler chickens in some instances also pure Reo virus infections may be responsi-

ble for joint lesions. A good FCI should report about increased leg lesions and thus warn the OV that

more joint lesions may occur.

Poultry carcasses with lesions restricted to the joints are totally condemned in broilers, ducks and

quails, whereas turkeys are trimmed.

Emaciation (cachexia)

In spent hens emaciation (or cachexia) is often one of the predominant reasons for condemnation

without a specific disease or management problem being the cause.

In broiler flocks a higher percentage of cachetic birds always affects the uniformity of the flock. This

can be due to poor management, and also sex dimorphism with certain breeds. A higher percentage of

condemned poultry carcasses due to cachexia is reported from quails, ducks and broilers. Specific

pathogens are normally not detected in emaciated birds (cachexia). In broilers it is discussed that Rota

viruses of group D may contribute to the runting and stunting syndrome (Otto et al, 2006), and thus

may be a reason for an increased number of small birds (emaciation, cachexia). In many processing

plants factory employees take out the small ones before the birds are presented to the poultry meat in-

spector.

Other farm associated post-mortem findings

Oregon muscle disease (deep pectoral muscle myopathy): this is not detected at PMI, however, it is

detected when the breast is further processed.

Jaundice: this may be the result of a Clostridium welchii infection. It is very rare in broilers and

probably in most factories summarized under “abnormal colour”.

Dark firm and dry: the author came across this as a major reason for condemnation in a Polish process-

ing plant some years ago. This post-mortem finding disappeared after some time. The reason for it was

never found out.

Carcass contamination, machine damage

The contents of the crop, the proventriculus or of the intestine contaminate the eviscerated carcasses

and cannot be washed off sufficiently. This may occur because of poor evisceration technology (evis-

ceration machines not adapted to carcass size, etc.) or because the birds have not been fasted long

enough.

Machine damage occurs when the evisceration line is not carefully adapted to the size of the birds or

when the speed of the line exceeds the recommendations of the equipment manufacturer.







Poor plucking, overscalding

This may be a transient post-mortem finding and is always associated with poor slaughtering technol-

ogy. Adjusting the scalding procedure will solve the situation. This may also occur if the OV requires

reduced line speed because of suspicious flocks. In some processing plants the poultry meat inspector

also assists the quality control of the processing plant in picking out single feathers.

Assessment of the post mortem findings

More or less all of the above-mentioned post-mortem findings during poultry meat inspections are

considered to be quality or animal welfare associated reasons rather than indicators of diseases trans-

missible to men or other animals, although this may be disputed. In the German poultry meat inspec-

tion statistics these findings are summarized under the term of “patho-physiological abnormalities”.

Should there be a human health risk associated with some findings, e.g. in the unlikely event that sep-

ticaemia is associated with a Salmonella infection, this should be identified beforehand by the FCI.

4.7. Percentage of condemned poultry meat

The percentage of whole carcasses condemned depends on the flock prevalence of some abnormali-

ties. The following post-mortem findings may fluctuate very much from flock to flock.

- Septicaemia (peritonitis) in ducks and broilers

- Polyarthritis in ducks

- Salpingitis in laying hens

- Emaciation (cachexia)

- Cellulitis (may contribute up to > 10 % to the condemnation rate), if not accepted or not al-

lowed to trim.

- Air sac infections (ORT) may contribute in many cases to condemnation rates well above 20

%.

- Scabby hip or scabby skin may contribute to higher condemnations in some duck flocks

- Liver necrosis – alone or in combination with ascites – may also vary significantly from flock

to flock and from slaughter plant to slaughter plant.

According to Annex I, Section II, Chapter V, 1 the (poultry) meat has to be declared unfit for human

consumption if it

f) derives from animals affected by a generalized disease, such as generalised septicaemia, pyaemia,

toxaemia or viraemia.

p) indicates patho-physiological changes, abnormalities in consistency, insufficient bleeding (except

for wild game), or organoleptic anomalies, in particular a pronounced sexual odour.

With reference to f) normally the whole carcasses of birds which show post-mortem findings sympto-

matic for septicaemia, peritonitis, polyarthritis and cellulitis (in most cases) will be condemned. Also

an acute hepatitis falls under this definition.

With reference to p) normally the whole carcass of birds with ascites or jaundice will be condemned.

However, in case of a more chronic hepatitis exclusively with liver necroses (small white spots) and a

lack of other post-mortem findings, it can be assumed that the process is not generalised. With refer-

ence to p) the CA has the option to declare only the affected organ (intestine package) as unfit for hu-







man consumption and to declare the rest of the carcass as fit. The same applies to air sac infections,

such as the so-called “cheesy chickens” due to ORT.

Within the framework of my contract I approached the CVOs of the Member States requesting infor-

mation on different issues in context with poultry meat inspection.

Of the EU 15: Spain and Greece did not answer.

Of the EU 27: Lithuania, Romania, and Bulgaria did not answer.

One of my questions concerned the average condemnation rate (carcasses) for the different poultry

species in the Member State. Statistics in the EU do not seem to be comparable.

Based on this information Table 2 was compiled by the contractor. The variation between the Member

States does not necessarily reflect a significant different health status, but rather the different attitude

of the Competent Authorities towards certain post-mortem findings (hepatitis, air sac infections, cellu-

litis) as a generalised disease (Annex I, Section II, Chapter V, 1 f) or as a localised process (Annex I,

Section II, Chapter V, 1 p).

Countries without significant poultry production, such as Luxemburg and Malta, and countries where

information was not available have been omitted. For this reason the average of EU 15 in table 2 is

based on the arithmetic mean value of the 10 countries mentioned.

Correspondingly, the average of EU 27 is only composed of the arithmetic mean value of the 20

Member States of which I had access to information.

Neither the share of poultry production in the respective countries could be taken into consideration,

nor the fact that some Member States differentiate between veterinary reasons and quality reasons.







Table 2: Condemnation rates at poultry meat inspection in different Member States

Broilers Turkeys Ducks Spent hens

Austria1)

1.45 %. 0.98 % n.i.a. 1.45 %

Belgium 1.29 % 0.76 % 0.34 % 2.9 %

Denmark 0.7 % n.i.a. n.i.a. n.i.a.

Finland 2.0 % 4.0 % n.ia. n.i.a.

Ireland2)

0.017 % 0.02 % n.i.a. 0.1 %

Ireland4)

1.1 % n.i.a. n.i.a. n.i.a.

Italy 0.8 % 0.75% n.i.a. n.i.a.

Germany3)

2.35 % 2.13 % 2.75 n.i.a.

France 0.85 % 2.0 % 2.0 % n.i.a.

Netherlands 0.84 % n.i.a. 0.67 % 1.1 %

Sweden 0.5 % n.i.a. 2.0 % n.i.a.

United Kingdom 1.29 % 0.77 % 2.51 % 1.84 %

EU – 15

1.00 % 1.42 % 1.67 % 1.48 %

Cyprus 1.8 % 1.0 % n.i.a. n.i.a

Czech Republic 1.3 % 0.83 % 1.68 % 1.3 %

Estonia 2.65 % n.i.a. n.i.a 11.4 %

Latvia 0.6 % n.i.a. n.i.a. n.i.a.

Slovenia 0.75 % 1.15 % n.i.a 1.4 %

Slovakia 1.26 % 0.33 % n.i.a. 1.03

Poland 0.37 % 0.815 % 0.25 % 3.374%

Hungary1)

1.3 % 1.2 % 1.5 % 1.3 %

EU- 27

1.12 % 1.12 % 1.40 % 2.8 %

n.i.a. = no information available, i.e. their condemnation rate was not stated separately or because these species

are not slaughtered in the country concerned (such as turkeys in Denmark or the Netherlands)

1) Austria, Czech Republic and Hungary gave figures for Gallus gallus, therefore identical values

were given to broilers and spent hens. It can be assumed that the figures for broilers are lower and for

spent hens higher.

2) Most Member States have figures on the percentage of condemned carcasses for the different poul-

try species that are slaughtered on their territory. Ireland only reported the figures for kgs of con-

demned poultry meat. For this table the kgs of condemned poultry meat are expressed as a percentage

of total slaughtered poultry meat.

3) Germany: industry information

4) Ireland: industry information. The difference between government information and industry infor-

mation may also be due to the fact that the government information may only contain veterinary rea-

sons whereas the industry information includes the quality rejects.







5. Country-specific information

The information in this chapter is based on a request of the contractor to the CVOs of the different

Member States. Some MS gave more general information on the poultry meat industry and on the in-

spection of slaughter plants. Some MS gave very detailed information. The following countries did not

reply to my request: Spain, Greece, Lithuania, Romania, and Bulgaria.

5.1. Austria

Austria has 20 EU approved poultry processing plants, 8 of which are considered as large with a ca-

pacity of above 150.000 birds per year. Twelve plants are considered as small with an annual capacity

of less than 150.000 birds.

Ante-mortem inspection must be performed on the holding of provenance within 72 hrs prior to

slaughter. No information is available regarding the purpose of and to what extent the FCI is used

within the frame of poultry meat inspection.

There is also no information on the speed of the evisceration lines.

Austria has no official auxiliaries according to Annex I, Section III, Chapter IV, lit B of Reg.

854/2004.

The individual poultry meat inspection (post-mortem inspection) is carried out by qualified competent

staff according to Annex I, Section III, Chapter III, lit A of Reg. 854/2004. They have to be registered

by the Austrian government and work under the supervision of the official veterinarian. Ninety-two

trained slaughterhouse members of staff are registered for poultry meat inspection in Austria. The

minimum inspection time is 3 sec. / bird.

The condemnation rate is 1.45 % for Gallus gallus (this includes broilers and spent hens) and 0.98 %

for turkeys.

5.2. Belgium

Belgium has 49 EU approved poultry slaughterhouses of different sizes. AMI is always performed at

the slaughterhouse.

FCI is used for scheduling the slaughter; logistic slaughter occurs for Salmonella positive batches.

There are no official auxiliaries in Belgium. However, some slaughterhouses may – under certain con-

ditions – call on employees of the slaughterhouse to carry out the inspection of the processed poultry

carcasses. The responsibility and training of this slaughterhouse staff is laid down in a Belgian Royal

decree. The carcasses they reject must be kept at the disposal of the OV. A minimum inspection time

is not set. The performance of the slaughterhouse assistants is evaluated on a monthly basis and a

score is given for every inspector. If the score is not sufficient, corrective actions will be taken.

For condemnation rates see Table 2.

5.3. Cyprus

Cyprus has 22 EU approved poultry slaughter houses with an average annual capacity of 480.000

birds. The largest plant slaughters 3.3 million per annum and the smallest 32.000 per annum.

From the response given it is not clear where the ante-mortem inspection is normally performed. I un-

derstand that both options are possible; in the holding of provenance as well as at the slaughter plant.







No minimum post-mortem inspection time is required. There is, therefore, no specific information on

the number and positioning of poultry meat inspectors.

The official auxiliaries need a minimum training time of 50 hrs at the slaughter line for broilers and

turkeys.

Condemnation rates:

1.8 % for broilers

1.0 % for turkeys

0.01 % for quails

5.4. Czech Republic

The CZ has 32 EU approved poultry slaughterhouses with a total capacity of:

125 million broilers

3.8 million spent hens

2.4 million ducks and geese

151,550 turkeys

Ante-mortem inspection is performed at the slaughterhouse.

In connection with the ante-mortem inspection the official veterinarian will check the FCI. If there is

information from the FCI that a Salmonella positive flock will arrive for slaughter, this flock is shifted

to the end of the day (logistic slaughter) and a more intensive cleaning and disinfection of all slaugh-

tering premises and equipment shall be performed afterwards.

No information is available on the line speed of the broiler processing plants, but the largest plant has

an annual capacity of 27.5 million and, therefore, must have modern evisceration and automated tech-

nology.

There is no minimum inspection time and no information on numbers and position of poultry meat

inspectors available. In case of suspect flocks being slaughtered the line speed is adapted so “that a

proper inspection of the poultry carcasses is possible”.

The average condemnation rate is:

1.3 % for Gallus gallus (spent hens and broilers)

1.64 % for ducks and geese

0.84 % for turkeys.

A total of 5,628 small farmed game birds (predominantly quails) were slaughtered in the Czech Re-

public in 2010. There is no information on the condemnation rate of these small birds.

5.5. Denmark

Denmark has four broiler processing plants with a total capacity of 130 million broilers per annum.

Food chain information is passed from the farmer to the slaughterhouse prior to slaughtering. This is

done electronically in most cases. The farmer also receives feedback on the results of the post-mortem

inspection from the slaughterhouse electronically via a common database called “KIK”.

Ante-mortem inspection is performed at the processing plant by the official veterinarian.







An exception to this are broiler farms which had relevant findings at meat inspection on consecutive

slaughter dates:

e.g. significantly higher foot pad dermatitis

significantly higher condemnation rate

In these cases the ante-mortem-inspection will be performed the next time at the farm of provenance.

(This can be considered as part of a risk-based meat inspection).

The official veterinarian checks the food chain information regularly at the ante-mortem inspection

and by audits according to the audit plan for each slaughterhouse.

The speed of the evisceration line is 8,500 – 11,500 broilers per hour.

The post-mortem inspection is carried out by official auxiliaries as well as by trained slaughterhouse

staff under the supervision, direction and responsibility of the official veterinarian.

There is no minimum inspection time per carcass.

No specific information was given on the number and positioning of poultry meat inspectors on the

line.

No specific information is available on technical systems to assist the poultry meat inspector.

The average condemnation rate is 0.6 % – 0.8 % (broilers).

Spent hens are slaughtered in Germany or are fed to the mink industry (chicken pulp).

All turkeys are slaughtered in Germany (Heidemark).

5.6. Estonia

Estonia has four EU approved processing plants with a total capacity of 9.6 million broilers (one plant

which also slaughters spent hens), 384,000 spent hens (in three plants) and 23,500 farmed quails in

one specialized quail slaughterhouse. Estonia obviously has a significant quail production.

The ante-mortem inspection is performed at the slaughterhouse upon arrival of the birds.

No minimum post-mortem inspection time is required. Therefore, there is no specific information on

the number and positioning of poultry meat inspectors.

The condemnation rate is 2.65 % for broilers, 11.4 % for laying hens, and 0.244 % for quails.

These are the highest condemnation figures from all EU MS I requested reconfirmation of these fig-

ures, and Estonia has reconfirmed to me that the figures are correct. This suggests that the CA of Esto-

nia does not allow much trimming and seems to be very strict, when it comes to the decision whether

the whole carcass or only parts need to be condemned.







5.7. Finland

Finland has four large poultry slaughterhouses:

- 3 for broilers (10,000 to – 50,000 tonnes of broiler meat per annum)

- 1 for turkeys (> 8,000 to of turkey meat per annum)

Finland has 12 small slaughterhouses:

- 3 for spent hens and young roosters (0.5 – 100 tonnes chicken meat per annum)

- 8 for turkeys (0.8 – 50 tonnes turkey meat per annum)

- 4 for ducks (1 – 15 tonnes of duck meat per annum)

- 1 for geese (23,000 geese per annum)

- 2 for pheasants (1,000 pheasants per annum)

- 2 for wild ducks (5,000 wild ducks per annum)

- 1 for partridges (1,000 partridges per annum)

As a routine the AMI is carried out in the case of large and medium size processing plants at the

slaughterhouse. With small slaughterhouses the AMI may be performed at the holding of provenance,

especially in cases when the slaughterhouse is at the same site as the holding.

There is no minimum inspection time. There are no official auxiliaries in Finland. Instead slaughter-

house staff will assist the official veterinarian in poultry meat inspection.

The FCI is taken into account for the inspection time (number of slaughterhouse staff to assist on the

line) and for Salmonella. In case of (rare) Salmonella positive batches, these will be slaughtered at the

end of the working day. Salmonella positive turkey batches will not be allowed for slaughter. They

will be killed on the farm.

The average condemnation rate is 2 % for broilers and 4 % for turkeys.

5.8. France

France has the widest range of poultry slaughterhouses and the widest range of poultry species that is

slaughtered. There are 287 EU approved poultry slaughterhouses plus 338 very small slaughterhouses

(presumably not EU approved).

In France broilers, turkeys, ducks, spent hens, quails, guinea fowl, and cockerels are slaughtered. Sev-

eral plants slaughter more than one species.

All degrees of automation are present in France, from hand slaughter with very little automation to

high-speed, fully automated plants with 13,000 broilers per hour.

Ante-mortem inspection is performed at the processing plant by the food business operator in first in-

stance and then by the official veterinarian.

No minimum post-mortem inspection time is required. Therefore, there is no specific information is

available on the number and positioning of poultry meat inspectors.


The average condemnation rate is 0.85 % for broiler, 2 % for turkeys and 2 % for ducks.







No information was given on the condemnation rate for the other poultry species.

5.9. Germany

Germany has 622 EU approved processing plants or further processing plants for poultry and lago-

morphs.

Less than 10% of these are members of the German poultry processors association and can be consi-

dered as large, these 60 plants slaughter more than 90 % of the poultry meat produced in Germany and

are highly automated. The remaining slaughterhouses are small or very small, may slaughter different

poultry species and often slaughter only for Christmas season. They have very little automation.

The largest broiler plant can slaughter 320,000 broilers per day in two shifts.

The ante-mortem inspection is in generally performed at the holding of provenance within 72 hrs be-

fore slaughter.

Speed of the line of the larger commercial slaughter houses:

broilers: between 8,000 and 13,000 broilers / hour.

spent hens: up to 8,000 hens / hour.

turkeys: any speed, up to 3,600 for turkey hens (16 kg) and up to 2,700 for turkey toms (21 kg)

Ducks: 3,200 – 4,200 ducks per hour.

Inspection time: national regulations require a minimum inspection time of 2.5 seconds per carcass

unless the company provides for “conditions that allow a proper inspection in a shorter time”. There is

much discussion with the authorities on the minimum inspection time with fast running evisceration

lines and conditions that facilitate a shorter inspection time.

To the knowledge of the author, with fast running evisceration lines the minimum inspection time in

broiler plants is 1 second when the company provides for technical systems to assist.

5.10. Hungary

Hungary has 81 approved poultry slaughterhouses, which slaughtered in total 476,208 tonnes of poul-

try meat in 2010.

The ante-mortem inspection is performed either at the farm or at the slaughter plant. No minimum in-

spection time is required.

Condemnation statistics:

Gallus gallus species 1.3 % (no separate figures for broilers and spent hens)

turkeys: 1.2 %

ducks and geese together: 1.5 %

5.11. Italy

Italy has 228 approved poultry slaughter plants. However, there is no information on size etc. Italy’s

poultry industry has a comparable structure to that of France with a significant turkey and guinea fowl

production, and also with a wide range of minor poultry species. Therefore, it is assumed that the

range of poultry slaughterhouses with respect to size and automation (from hand slaughter with very

little automation to high speed plants with 13,000 broilers per hour) is similar to that of France.

The ante-mortem inspection is done either at the farm or at the slaughter plant. If the ante-mortem

inspection is performed at the farm, the official veterinarian will gather the FCI, otherwise the farmer







fills in a self-declaration of the food chain information and will send it 24 hrs before slaughter to the

processing plant. In this case the ante-mortem inspection is carried out at the plant. There was no in-

formation available regarding why in some instances the ante-mortem is performed at the farm of

provenance and in other cases at the slaughter plant.

No minimum post-mortem inspection time is required. Therefore, no specific information is available

on the number and positioning of poultry meat inspectors


Food chain information is used for evaluating the public health risk of Salmonella positive flocks. The

meat deriving from S.E. and/or S.Th. positive flocks must be subjected to heat treatment.

The average condemnation rate is 0.85 % for broilers (average live weight 2.5 kg), 0.75 % for turkeys

(average live weight 15.135 kg), and 1.8 % for guinea fowl (average live weight 1.82 kg).

5.12. Latvia

The AMI is performed at the processing plant, except for:

two major slaughterhouses, only slaughtering broilers reared from their own holdings, perform the

AMI at the holding of provenance. As the OV (official veterinarian) has close connection related to

poultry health, a specific FCI is not needed. I understand that the OV at AMI records the data needed

for the FCI. The rest of Latvian poultry slaughterhouses are small. In these cases AMI is performed

upon arrival on the plant. There is no national requirement for minimum inspection time, but OA are

always present in the (small) slaughterhouses.

5.13. The Netherlands

Ante-mortem inspection (AMI) is carried out at the slaughter-house. There are no OAs in the Nether-

lands. Post-mortem inspection (PMI) is carried out by company staff under supervision of the OV. It is

required that every poultry meat inspector has to perform poultry meat inspection at least once every

three weeks to maintain competence. Checks by the official authorities in the slaughterhouses on the

performance level of the company meat inspection staff is considered to be very important. The results

of these checks are used to make the decision whether the person will be allowed to continue with

poultry meat inspection or if additional training is needed.

How many company employees must be on the inspection platform depends on the slaughter line, the

speed of the line, the condition of the flock that is being slaughtered, and the competence of the person

of the company that is involved in poultry meat inspection. The conclusion is that the official authori-

ties in the Netherlands do not require a minimum inspection time. Several factors are used to make the

decision on how and with how many company staff the post-mortem inspection must be carried out.

The Netherlands claims that there is no clear correlation between FCI and post-mortem findings, at

least this was the conclusion of a scientific study carried out by a Dutch institute and the official au-

thorities with the assistance of the industry. Unfortunately, no reference could be given from the Dutch

Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority. It sounds as if these are preliminary results from a

study not yet published or not intended for publication.

When making the decision on the organization of the post-mortem inspection (number of inspectors)

the results from previous flocks from the same poultry farmer are taken into account.

When a new flock is slaughtered the first chickens slaughtered are inspected by the OV. He may then

decide, and take measures to carry out satisfactory meat inspection. If there are unexpected findings







during the PMI, the OV may carry out investigation, and in this case the FCI will be taken into ac-

count. Other factors which do not appear on the FCI, such as growth / development curve, climate of

the chicken house etc., may also be taken into account.

The Netherlands has:

- 12 large broiler slaughterhouses with continuous slaughter, each of them with a capacity of minimum

500,000 broilers a week.

- 7 medium sized slaughterhouses with continuous slaughter, each of them with a capacity between

200,000 – 500,000 birds per week.

- 3 for broilers

- 2 for spent hens

- 2 for ducks

- 2 medium sized slaughterhouses with discontinuous slaughter, capacity around 4,000 birds per week,

slaughtering different poultry species and lagomorphs

- 5 small sized slaughterhouses with discontinuous slaughter, capacity around 350 birds per week,

slaughtering different poultry species and lagomorphs

5.14. Poland

Poland carries out the AMI at the farm of provenance. The veterinarian will check FCI and the birds

will be re-examined upon arrival at the plant by an OV.

For the inspection of poultry carcasses no minimum inspection time is required.

Poland has 196 EU registered poultry processing plants.

The average condemnation rate is:

broilers: 0.368 %

spent hens: 3.374 %

turkeys: 0.815 %

ducks: 0.248 %

geese: 0.454 %

ostriches: 0.046 %

other poultry: 1.213 %

wild game: 0.03 %

5.15. Portugal

Portugal has 46 EU approved slaughterhouses, of which 23 are approved for the slaughter of more

than one species.

- 38 slaughterhouses for broilers (14 with an annual capacity of more than 5 million broilers)

- 22 slaughterhouses for spent hens

- 15 slaughterhouses for turkeys

- 7 slaughterhouses for ducks

- 1 slaughterhouse for geese.

The ante-mortem inspection is performed at the slaughterhouse. There is no minimum inspection time

required. It is mandatory to have at least one OV or one OA on the slaughter line irrespective of line

speed.







The FCI is considered as a useful tool to arrange the order of the flocks for slaughter

5.16. Slovakia

Slovakia has nine EU approved poultry slaughterhouses for broilers and spent hens. They have two

turkey slaughterhouses, but no EU approved slaughterhouse for ducks, geese, guinea fowl, and quails.

AMI inspection is performed at the holding of provenance. There is no minimum inspection time re-

quired. The number of inspectors per line depends on the health status of the flock, the speed of the

line, and the capacity of the slaughterhouse.

The FCI is considered important for the decision on findings at poultry meat inspection. It may lead to

the decision of the OV to reduce the speed of the slaughter line to allow for a more detailed inspection.

The FCI may also be used to fix the order of the slaughtering the different batches of poultry. For av-

erage condemnation rates see table 2.

5.17. Slovenia

Slovenia has transferred the AMI, which was originally performed at the holding of provenance, to the

processing plant. The reason for the change of the system is the shortage of OV. With the change of

the system for AMI the FCI is now considered to be of higher importance.

The current form of the FCI used in Slovenia is considered to be to general (identical, standard decla-

ration for all food-delivering animals). In Slovenia there is no minimum inspection time. The inspec-

tion time (or the number of poultry meat inspectors) is decided on the spot by the OV. It is based on

the speed of the line, the information provided by the FCI, and other written information about the

flock, as well as on the basis of the AMI and of the PMI findings of the first birds slaughtered of the

batch concerned.

Slovenia has five EU approved slaughterhouses for poultry. One is considered as large, and slaughters

only broilers (24.3 million broilers in 2010).

Two slaughterhouses have an intermediate size and slaughter broilers (3.2 - 5.2 million in 2010) and

spent hens (8,500 – 30,200 spent hens in 2010).

One medium-sized slaughterhouse slaughtered mainly turkeys in 2010 (463,000) but also spent hens

(365,000) and to a small extent also broilers (22,000).

One slaughterhouse is small and slaughtered (discontinuously) 16,700 broilers in 2010.

5.18. Sweden

Sweden has nine slaughterhouses: seven for broilers (one to be closed soon), one for turkeys and one

for spent hens.

Five broiler slaughterhouses are considered to be large, with a slaughtering capacity of more than 10

million per year. The line speed in the five larger slaughterhouses for broilers varies between 5,500

and 12,000 birds per hour.

Ante-mortem inspection is always carried out at the slaughterhouse. Sweden has no OA for post-

mortem inspection. The poultry meat inspection is performed only by trained slaughterhouse staff. The

normal number of poultry meat inspectors varies between three and five depending on the line speed







and the health status of the flock. If FCI includes information on problems during rearing, more in-

spectors will be on the line.

The first 50 birds from every batch must be checked for stunning efficacy.

The most frequent post-mortem findings have been: ascites (0.27%), emaciation, discoloration, celluli-

tis (0.35%), hepatitis (0.13%) and flocks with pericarditis. Several flocks had pericarditis, whereby the

FCI did not give rise to suspicion of increased condemnation. This would have required more poultry

meat inspectors to be placed on the inspection line.

In case of clinical botulism during rearing, slaughter will be prohibited unless the results of serotyping

are finalized. The decision will be made according to serotype(s) found. In case of botulism serotype C

and D slaughter will be allowed.

In case the rate of condemnation is increased due to liver / intestine lesions (>0.5 %) histopathology is

performed on the livers. Salmonella sampling (neck skin) and Campylobacter sampling is performed

on birds from each flock.

5.19. United Kingdom

In total there are 86 EU approved poultry slaughterhouses. Many of them may slaughter more than one

species as we can see from table 3. Smaller, low-throughput abattoirs are more likely to be approved

for all poultry species:

Table 3: Number of EU approved slaughterhouses in the UK. Note: some of the slaughterhouses in

the UK may have approval for several poultry species. In total there are 86 slaughter plants.

Species Broilers Ducks Geese Guinea

fowl

Spent hens Quails Turkeys

Number 71 26 15 12 44 10 44

All ante-mortem inspections are carried out at the slaughterhouse by OVs. Generally the UK does not

carry out official ante-mortem inspection at the holding of provenance.

The OV will check all FCI data. Based on the contents of the FCI and on previous historical findings

from the same farm / house the PMI is targeted. The PMI is performed either by OA or by plant in-

spection assistants.

The FCI will also be the basis for alternative slaughtering arrangements by FBOs (e.g. slaughter of

Salmonella positive flocks at the end of the processing date). The inspection team will assess the level

of abnormalities found at post-mortem inspection at the beginning of the processing of the flock and

advise the OV on any significant deviations so that immediate and appropriate actions can be taken.

There are no specific requirements with regards to a minimum inspection time. The number of poultry

meat inspectors depends on the line speed, processing plant layout, health status of the flock, facilities

available, etc. All these factors are taken into account when making a decision related to the level of

official inspectors. As a general rule the UK reports for broilers:

abattoir < 3,600 birds / hour: one inspection post (evisceration)

abattoir > 3,600 – 7,200 birds / hour: two inspection posts whole bird and evisceration

abattoir > 7,200 birds / hour: three inspection posts (one whole bird, two evisceration)







The speed and requirements for turkeys would be slightly different, while the rest of the poultry spe-

cies have similar pattern of inspection.

Comments of the author: this corresponds to approximately one second per carcass and the positioning

of the inspection posts allows for optimal inspection.

6. Quantitative Information on poultry meat production

6.1. Poultry meat produced

Table 4: Poultry meat produced in the different Member States 2010, geese and guinea fowl 2009.

Broilers

x 1,000 t Turkeys

x 1,000 t Ducks

x 1,000 t Geese &

guinea fowl

Spent hens

x 1,000 t

Belgium 255 4 0.4 0 12

Denmark 175 0 no data 45 4.5

Germany 1,030 439 66.4 2,378 50

Greece 160 3 0.2 189 7

Spain 1,022 23 0.0 0 60.5

France 1,045 412 240 2,493 59

Ireland 109 6 4.6 1,200 3

Italy 780 279 14 13,005 65.5

Netherlands 663 27 18 0 43.5

Austria 90 22 0.1 360 6.5

Portugal 267 39 10 0 8

Finland 88 9 0 0 5.5

Sweden 79 4 0 0 8.5

United Kingdom 1,379 162 30 2,254 50.5

EU 15 7,142 1,430 383.7 21,924 384

Bulgaria 77 0 18 4,400 4

Check Republic 181 3 8 1,500 no data

Estonia 14 0 0 0 1

Cyprus 27 1 0.2 0 0.5

Latvia 23 0 0 0 3.0

Lithuania 67 0 0.2 245 3.5

Hungary 240 100 61 27,214 no data

Malta 5 0 0 0 no data

Poland 1,070 280 17 19,193 42.5

Romania 380 0 0 0 no data

Slovenia 57 6 1.2 0 1.5

Slovakia 74 0 0.4 41 5

EU 27 9,356 1,832 491.2 74,517 465

Broilers, turkeys and ducks (figures from 2010 in 1,000 tons) from Beck, M.M., M. Klotz, Verlag

Eugen Ulmer, 2011

Geese and guinea fowl (figures from 2009 in 1,000 kg), from FAO database (goose data always in-

cludes guinea fowl meat as FAO data does not show data for goose meat separately from guinea fowl

meat).

Spent hens (figures from 2010) from Margit Beck, Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Schlachthennen MEG Kalku-

lation, 2011







6.2. EU approved poultry slaughterhouses

Table 5: Number of EU approved poultry slaughterhouses and the annual capacity of the largest

and of the smallest poultry slaughterhouse in the relevant Member State. Source: CVO information

Total Capacity (biggest) Capacity (smallest)

Belgium 51 40 million/year 22 slaughterhouses slaugh-

ter more than 1 species

Cyprus 22 3.3 million / year 32.000 / year

Denmark 4 46 million /year 1.7 millions/year

Germany 622 60 million / year n.i.a.

France 287 14 x > 30 million 92 < 0,1 million

Ireland 10 Largest

Broiler: 36 million p.a.

Turkeys: 580,000

Spent hens: 2.6 million

p.a.

Smallest

Broilers: 5 million p.a.

Turkeys: 85,000 / p.a.

Italy 228 n.i.a. n.i.a.

Netherlands 26 Av. 26 million / year 18.000 / year

Austria 20 8 with > 150.000 p.a. 12 with < 150.000 p.a.

Portugal 46

38 for broilers

22 for spent hens

15 for turkeys

n.i.a. 23 slaughterhouses slaugh-

ter more than one species

Finland 16 12 large

3 broilers

1 turkeys

(10 – 50 million p.a.)

12 small

3 broiler s(500 – 100,000 )

8 turkeys (800 – 5,000 kg)

4 ducks (1,000 – 1,500 kg

1 geese (23,000 p.a.)

2 pheasants (1,000 birds)

2 wild ducks (5,000 p.a.)

1 partridges (1,000 p.a.)

Sweden 19 4

annual production 8 – 25

million birds

1 spent hens (3 million)

6 turkey plants

Rest for minor species

United Kingdom 86 see also table 3 see also table 3

Check Republic 32 Broilers: 27.5 million

Turkeys: 78.000 /year

Ducks: 2.35 million

Broilers: 684 /year

Turkeys: 39 / year

Ducks/Geese: 35 /year

Estonia 4 9.9 million / year. 19.440 / year

Latvia 2 15 million / year n.i.a.

Hungary 81 n.i.a. n.i.a.

Poland 196 n.i.a. n.i.a.

Slovenia 5 24.3 million / year 16.700 / year

Slovakia 9 28 million / year 1 million / year







DISCUSSION

Ante-mortem inspection

The food chain information (FCI) fully supports the cornerstone of the European food safety policy

“from farm to fork”.

Inspection of live poultry loaded in crates is of limited value.

Inspection of live poultry on the farm of origin is a biosecurity risk, and consumes time and money.

This is particularly the case when it comes to the slaughter of small batches of minor species.

As poultry flocks are often scattered over the country, different OV departments may be involved. In

areas with low poultry density the OV may not have the necessary technical background for a sound

AMI.

A good and reliable quality of food chain information is much more valuable when compared to the

ante-mortem inspection.

This can (and does in some instances even today) include farm parameters that will clearly demon-

strate food safety, health, and welfare of the poultry, e.g.:

- daily growth rate (this may be the growth curve of the flock). Most broiler farms (and some

duck and turkey farms) today have automated scaling systems.

- daily feed and water intake

- reports of all veterinary visits and of other laboratory samples

- veterinary indications for any flock medications

- inspection and condemnation data from previous flocks

These parameters could be introduced as mandatory information on the FCI with the intention of re-

placing the time, labour and money-consuming ante-mortem inspection at the farm of origin. The AMI

at the holding of provenance should be restricted to flocks with suspect FCI information or when the

farm FBO had higher condemnation rates for previous flocks.

The purpose of the AMI at the slaughterhouse would then be to verify the FCI.

Welfare can be determined by transport records and dead on arrivals (DOA) as well as from post-

mortem findings.

All these parameters are recorded, monitored and acted upon by the FBOs (of the rearing poultry) on a

daily basis.

The FBO (of the rearing poultry) has a clear legislative responsibility for food safety and animal wel-

fare.

It must be the duty of the competent authority to audit whether the farm FBO complies with the rele-

vant legislation on food safety, animal health, and animal welfare.

Farm animal welfare checks are now increasingly being monitored more closely and more frequently

by the competent authority as a direct result of the implementation of the Broiler Welfare Directive.







None of the Member States had provided for investigations or appropriate actions if it is discovered

that the FCI records do not correspond with the real situation at the holding of provenance or the real

conditions of the poultry delivered for slaughter. In future the FCI will have a higher impact with risk-

based poultry meat inspection; this means that the competent authority must supervise at random the

reliability of the FCIs.

The post-mortem inspection

Post-mortem visual inspection is mainly restricted to detecting quality defects of individual carcasses,

such as abnormal colour, ascites, bruises and fractures, cellulitis, liver necrosis (liver spots), airsaccu-

litis, emaciation (cachexia), scratches, joint infections (arthritis), pericarditis, perihepatitis, etc. The

percentage of these differs from flock to flock and from farm to farm.

In flocks with an increased percentage of post-mortem findings, the OV will either request more poul-

try meat inspectors for the line or for the line speed to be reduced.

- In case the AMI is performed by OAs, their availability may be limited as the competent au-

thorities do not have stand-by personal.

- If the slaughterhouse offers additional staff, these may not have the required training equiva-

lent to that of the OA, as required by Reg. No. 854/04.

- In such cases the OV often requires either a reduction of the line speed or a certain percentage

of the shackles to be left empty.

This requirement has the following technical drawbacks:

some process parameters are related (fixed) to a certain line speed, such as

- bleeding time

- time in the scalding tanks

- time in the picking machines

A prolongation of these time parameters (due to a reduction of line speed) may have an impact on the

quality of the final product. If shackles are left empty, this could lead to more carcasses being torn

(pulled) out of their shackles during the picking process.

Putting more slaughterhouse staff on the line to assist the OV and the OA is the best solution in this

case. This alternative should be foreseen in the new legislation, even though the personnel may not

have the equivalent training and experience.

Some frequent post-mortem findings, such as air sac infections due to ORT or liver necrosis (hepati-

tis), are frequently judged in different ways from country to country and even within a country be-

tween different processing plants. The different judgement is based on whether these findings are re-

garded as local processes or as a sign of a septicaemic process.

Food safety issues for poultry include:

- Salmonella contamination

- Campylobacter contamination







- antimicrobial residues (not regarding the withdrawal times)

- other residues or environmental contaminants

- xenobiotics such as dioxin

- antimicrobial resistance of commensal bacteria, such as ESBL or MRSA

None of the above can be detected by visual inspection.

The current visual inspection system cannot detect any of the primary causes of food safety problems,

but is still considered as the most important part of poultry meat inspection. It is clearly overestimated.

Food safety issues should be the direct responsibility of and controlled by the FBOs (of the poultry

farm and of the slaughter plant) using HACCP principles. The fully integrated broiler, turkey, and

duck operations allow for this.

This is an important procedure (cornerstone) to maintain quality of the product within the industry.

The competent authority must supervise the HACCP system of the FBOs.

All this questions the need for regular AMI at the holding of provenance and minimum inspection

times at PMI of normal and non-suspicious flocks. AMI at the holding of provenance and detailed

PMI should be restricted to obvious problem flocks and problem farms.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

This report has shown that the current legislation (that is Reg. Nos. 853/04 and 854/04) does not cover

the specific requirements of poultry meat inspection in an optimal way. Most of the abnormalities de-

tected by the post-mortem inspection are more related to quality or animal welfare than veterinary or

food safety issues.

There is insufficient harmonization in the implementation of Reg. No. 854/04 in the different Member

States. The legislation lacks a clear catalogue of reasons for condemnation. It also does not specify

under which circumstances the whole carcass must be rejected, or if only the affected organ system

needs to be condemned. An example of this is the different rejection rates with air sac infections

(ORT), liver necrosis (hepatitis) and ascites between different Member States and even between dif-

ferent slaughter-houses of the same Member State.

Higher emphasis should be placed on good quality FCI. This would allow for reduced intensity of

AMI and PMI on normal flocks and increased intensity of PMI on obvious problem flocks.

The intention of a risk-based meat inspection (except for logistic slaughter) is not explained in detail in

the specific legislation and not fully understood by the competent authorities of the Member States.

Recommendations

Similar to the zoonosis regulation, where Reg. No. 2160/03 describes the general objectives and time-

frame in addition to specific regulations addressing breeders, layers, broilers, and turkeys, the meat

inspection rules should be laid down in species-specific legislation. The European Commission ob-

viously supports this approach as it has requested that EFSA issue scientific opinions related to meat

inspection according to different species.







For the different poultry species one single special regulation related to poultry alone would be helpful

and sufficient.

REFERENCES

Scientific and technical literature

Beck, M.M., M. Klotz, 2011, MEG-Marktbilanz Eier und Geflügel 2011, Verlag Eugen Ulmer

Bilgili, S.F., 2001, Poultry meat inspection and grading, in Poultry Meat Processing, edited by A.R.

Sams, chapter 5, P 47 – 61. 2001, Taylor and Francis. ISBN: 0-8493-0120-3

Berrang, M.E. and J.A. Dickens, 2000, Presence and level of Campylobacter on broiler carcasses

throughout the processing plant. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2000, 9: 43-47

Berrang, M.E., J.K. Northcutt, and J.A. Dickens, 2004, The contribution of airborne contamination of

Campylobacter counts on defeathering broiler carcasses. J. Appl. Poult. Res., 2004, 13:1 - 4

Chao, K., C.-C. Yang, Y.R. Chen, M.S. Kim, and D.E. Chan, 2007, Hyperspectral-Multispectral Line-

Scan Imaging System for Automated Poultry Carcass Inspection Applications for Food Safety.

Poult Sci, 2007, 86:2450 - 2460

Chao, K. (2010), Automated Poultry Carcass Inspection by a Hyperspectral-Multispectral Line Scan

Imaging System, in Hyperspectral Imaging for Food Quality, Analysis and Control, edited by Da-

Wen Sun, 2010, Elsevier. ISBN: 978-0-12-374753-2

Chiarini, E., K. Tyler, J.M. Faber, F. Pagotto and M.T. Destro, 2009, Listeria monocytogenous in two

different poultry facilities: Manual and automatic evisceration. Poultry Science, 88 : 791 - 797

FAO database July 2011: www.faostat.org

Fries, R., A. Kobe (1993), Ratification of broiler carcass condemnation in poultry meat inspection.

Brit. Poult. Sci., 34, 105 – 109.

Fries, R., 2007, Einsatz von Kamerasystemen in der Geflügelfleischgewinnung, Proceedings 7. Facht-

agung Fleisch- und Geflügelfleischhygiene für Angehörige in der Veterinärverwaltung, Berlin, 1.

und 2. Mrz. 2007

Fries, R., 2009, Nutztiere in der Lebensmittelkette, Eugen Ulmer KG, ISBN 978-3-8252-2975-7

Fries, R., 2009, Veterinary Inspections in Slaughterhouses: Future Challenges. In Proceedings WPSA,

XIX Syposium on the Quality of poultry Mear, 21 – 25 June 2009, Turku, Finland, PL 15, 12 pp

Fries, R. 2011, Ascites Syndrom beim Geflügel: Erkennung in der Praxis und vorläufige Bewertung-

sansätze. Proceedings 11. Fachtagung Fleisch- und Geflügelfleischhygiene für Angehörige in der

Veterinärverwaltung, Berlin 1. und 2. März 2011

Fries, R., June 2011, Personal communication on the use of camera systems in a German broiler proc-

essing plant.

Gocke, A., 2000, Untersuchungen über den Einsatz einer Hähnchenfangmaschine in Mastbetrieben in

Norddeutschland. Vet. Med. Diss Hannover, 2000

Heemskerk, W.J.C., 2005, Preventive strategies during slaughter of poultry to improve food safety.

Proceedings, 17th European Symposium on the Quality of Poultry Meat (Doorwerth, NL), may, 23-

26, 2005

Klein, G., F. Reich, L. Beckmann, V. Atanassova, 2007, Quantification of thermophilic Campylobac-

ter spp. in broilers during meat processing. Antonie van Leuwenhoek (2007), 92:267-273.

http://www.faostat.org/







Langkabel, N., R. Fries, 2011, Ascites Syndrom beim Geflügel: Klinik und Ätiologie (Eine Literatur-

sichtung). Proceedings 11. Fachtagung Fleisch- und Geflügelfleischhygiene für Angehörige in der

Veterinärverwaltung, Berlin 1. und 2. März 2011

Lambooij, E., H.G.M. Reimert, and V.A. Hindle, 2010, Evaluation of head-only electrical stunning for

practical application: Assessment of neural and meat quality parameters. Poultry Science, 2010,

89:2551 – 2558

Löhren, U., 2002, Good Mangement Practice on Poultry Farms, Proceedings 11th European Poultry

Conference, Sept., 6th – 10th, 2002, Bremen, Germany

Lupo, C., 2009, Appréciation du risque de saisie sanitaire des carcasses de volailles à abattoire à partir

d’informations sur la chaine alimentaire, PhD thesis, University of Rennes, France

Olkowski, A.A., L. Kumor, and H.L. Classen, Changing epidemiology of ascites in broiler chickens,

1996, Can.J.Anim.Sci., p 135 – 140

Otto, P., E.M. Liebler-Tenorio, B. Elschner, J. Reetz, U. Löhren, R. Dillinger (2006), Detection of Ro-

taviruses and Intestinal Lesions in Broiler Chicks from Flocks with Runting and Stunting Syn-

drome (RSS), Avian Diseases, 50:411-418,

Rosenquist, H., H.M. sommer, N.L. Nielsen, B.B. Christensen (2006), The effect of slaughter opera-

tions on the contamination of chicken carcasses with thermotolerant Campylobacter. Food Micro-

biology, 108, 2006, p. 226-232

Tessier, M., M.-A. Fredette, G. Beauchamp and M. Boulianne, 2001, Cellulitis in Broiler Chickens: A

one year retrospective study in four Quebec abattoirs. Avian Diseases, 2001, 45: 191 -194

Wotton, S., & N. Gregory, 1991, How to prevent pre-stun electric shocks in waterbath stunners. Tur-

keys, 1991, Vol 39: p 15 and 30.

Yang, C.-C., K. Chao, M.S. Kim, D.E. Chan, H.L. Early and M.Bell, 2010, Machine vision system for

on-line wholesomeness inspection of poultry carcasses. Poul Sci 2010, 89:1252 - 1264

Personal communications (orally or per email):

Government information:

Altenburgs, Janis, Deputy Director of Food Surveillance Department, Riga, Latvia, July 2011

Anonymus, Meat Hygiene Service, UK, Conditions for rejection of poultry at post-mortem, 2008

Bires, Jozef, Chief Veterinary Officer, Slovak Republik, July 2011

Dominguez, Javier, Deputy Veterinary Director & Head of Strategy, Food Standard Agency, UK,

2011

Donguy, M.-P., France, Ministère de l’Agriculture, France, July 2011

Gaglione, Rosa, Igliene degli alimenti do origine animale, Italy, July 2011

Germany1:

hppt://apps2.bvl.bund.de/bltu/app/process/bvl-btl_p_veroeffentlichung?execution=e1s3

Germany2:

http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Publikationen/Fachvero

effentlichungen/LandForstwirtschaft/ViehbestandTierischeErzeugung/Fleischuntersu-

chungJ,templateId=renderPrint.psml

Grönlund, Anna-Maija, Ministry of Agriculture, Finland, July 2011

http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Publikationen/Fachveroeffentlichungen/LandForstwirtschaft/ViehbestandTierischeErzeugung/FleischuntersuchungJ,templateId=renderPrint.psml









Gucek, Matjaz, Ministry of Agriculture, Republic of Slovenia, August 2011

Foltin, Franz, Austria, Federal Ministry for Health, department food safety in meat and primary pro-

duction, July 2011

Hoc Edith, Belgium, Agence fédéral pour la sécurité de la chaine alimentaire, July 2011

Ignacio Patricia, Portugal, Direcccao General de Veterinaria; July 2011

Jelsma, Ate, Food and Consumer Protection Authority, the Netherlands, July 2011

Lamp, Heneli, Food Department Veterinary and Food Board, Estonia, July 2011

Larson, Viveka, Sweden, senior veterinary officer, Food Standards Department; July 2011

Lynch, David, Ireland, Veterinary Public Health Inspection Service, July 2011

Papadopoulos, Ramon, Veterinary Public Health Division of Cyprus, July 2011

Pasztor, Szabolocs, Ministry of Rural Development, Department of Food Chain Control, Hungary,

August 2011

Pascuska, Paulina, Glowny Inspektorat Weterynarii, Poland, July 2011

Non-governmental information:

Barhorst, Jan, Central Wiesenhof Quality Control department, July 2011

Beck, M, Schlachthennen, MEG Kalkulation, Verlag Eugen Ulmer, July 2011

Driessen; Roy, Stork PMT B.V., Sept. 2011

Gustafsson, Pia, Swedish Member of the PVSG, Sweden, August 2011

Hardy, Margret, Irish Member of the PVSG, Irland, July 2011

Heemskerk, W., Meyn / VDL, July 2011and Aug. 2011

Kucharska, Anna, private DVM, Poland, July 2011

Oleson, Liz, Danish Member of the PVSG, Denmark, July 2011

Pearson, D. B., and K. Hussein, Vion Food, UK, July 2011

Remmer, Marco, Chicken Cat, Automated catching machines, July 2011

Van den Nieuwelaar, J., S. Prinz, Stork PMT B.V., July 2011

Van Rijsbergen, P., Topkip B.V., July 2011

Vermeeren, Cees, avec poultry, July 2011

Vinco, James, Italian Member of the PVSG, July 2011

Woelke, Angelika, Anglia Autoflow, July 2011

Legislation:

AVV Lebensmittelhygiene vom 12. September 2007, Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift über die

Durchführung der amtlichen Überwachung der Einhaltung von Hygienevorschriften für Lebensmittel

tierischen Ursprungs, relevant for Germany only.







Council Directive 96/23 EC of 29 April 1996 on measuring certain substance and residues thereof in

live animals and animal products

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain

contaminants in foodstuffs

Commission Regulation (EC) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacological active substances

and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin.

Nationaler Rückstandskontrollplan (NRKP) und Einfuhrrückstandskontrollplan (ERKP) für Le-

bensmittel tierischen Ursprungs.

OIE: terrestrial Animal Health Code, 2010, Chapter 6.2: Control of Biological Hazards in Animal

Health and Public Health Importance through Ante- and Post-mortem Inspection.

Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the

hygiene of foodstuffs

Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, laying

down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin


down specific rules for the organization of official controls on products of animal origin intended for

human consumption.

Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of the Council of 24 September 2009 on protection of animals at the

time of killing.

SANCO/11010/2010 rev. 2 final. Amending Annex II to Reg. No 2160/03 and Annex I to Reg.

2073/05 as regards Salmonella in fresh poultry meat. Adopted by the Standing Committee on Food

Chain and Animal Health.

Tierische Lebensmittel-Überwachungsverordnung – Tier LMÜV vom 08. Aug. 2000 - Austria

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 of 19 December 2006 setting maximum levels for certain

contaminants in foodstuffs

Commission Regulation (EC) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacological active substances

and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin.

Nationaler Rückstandskontrollplan (NRKP) und Einfuhrrückstandskontrollplan (ERKP) für Le-

bensmittel tierischen Ursprungs.

OIE: terrestrial Animal Health Code, 2010, Chapter 6.2: Control of Biological Hazards in Animal

Health and Public Health Importance through Ante- and Post-mortem Inspection.

Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the

hygiene of foodstuffs


down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin








down specific rules for the organization of official controls on products of animal origin intended for

human consumption.

Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of the Council of 24 September 2009 on protection of animals at the

time of killing.

SANCO/11010/2010 rev. 2 final. Amending Annex II to Reg. No 2160/03 and Annex I to Reg.

2073/05 as regards Salmonella in fresh poultry meat. Adopted by the Standing Committee on Food

Chain and Animal Health.

Tierische Lebensmittel-Überwachungsverordnung – Tier LMÜV from 08. Aug. 2000 - Austria







GLOSSARY

AMI = Ante-mortem Inspection

CAS = Controlled Atmosphere Stunning (mostly referred to as CO2 stunning)

Dir. = Directive (EC)

FBO = Food Business Operator

FCI = Food Chain Information

GHP = Good Hygiene Practice

MS = Member State

n.i.a. = no information available

PMI = Post-mortem Inspection

PVSG = Poultry Veterinarian Study Group of the EU

QCS = Qualified Company Staff

Reg. = Regulation (EC)

OA = Official Auxiliary

OV = Official Veterinarian

QCS and OA are often referred to as “poultry meat inspector”

Overview on current practices of poultry slaughtering and poultry meat inspection1

Health & Medicine

Transcript of Overview on current practices of poultry slaughtering and poultry meat inspection1