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 biohaz@efsa.europa.eu
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 available, 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 veterinarian 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 inspection 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 slaughter 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 (mechanical 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 machines, 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 contamination.
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 condition 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 removed 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 constant 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 compared 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 bleeding 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 local 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 sticking). 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 subsequently 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 opportunity 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 technology 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 evisceration 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 origin (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 dermatitis, 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 decapitation, 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 trachea 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 viscera and present them to the inspector on a tray (or on a shackle) running exactly in front of the carcass 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 inspected.
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 normally 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 slaughterhouses 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 according 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, personal 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 chilling, 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 required 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 request, 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 inspection 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 different 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 production 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 indicate 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 before slaughter.
The standard FCI used in the UK at least asks the farmer to indicate reasons if the accumulated mortality 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 diseases 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 negative. 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 information 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, pheasants, 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 diagnostic 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 slaughterhouse 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 information. 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, broilers, 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 sufficient 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 antimicrobials 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 recorded, 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 affected 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 normal
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 information:
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 affected 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 gallus), 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 poultry 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 because 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 countries (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 terminology 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 industry. Therefore, residue testing in accordance with the Russian requirements (SanPin) is also implemented 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 export 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 vertical 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 requirements.

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 minimum 24 hrs before arrival of the birds. If the AMI is performed at the holding of provenance, it is easier 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 holding of provenance) and transported to the slaughterhouse. If the AMI has been performed at the holding 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 verified 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 supervision of the official veterinarian. If employees of the slaughterhouse are employed for inspection purposes, 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 - provided 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 subsequently 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 symptoms, 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 behaviour 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 caretaking 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 arrival 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.

Overview on current practices of poultry slaughtering and poultry meat inspection1

Overview on current practices of poultry slaughtering and poultry meat inspection1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Overview on current practices of poultry slaughtering and poultry meat inspection1

Similar to Overview on current practices of poultry slaughtering and poultry meat inspection1 (20)

More from ABOHEMEED ALY

More from ABOHEMEED ALY (19)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Overview on current practices of poultry slaughtering and poultry meat inspection1