The New Swine Industry Audit - Rob Christine and Dinah Peebles, National Pork Board, from the 2015 Missouri Pork Expo, February 10 - 11, 2015, Columbia, MO, USA. More presentations at http://www.swinecast.com/2015-missouri-pork-expo

1. Common Swine Industry Audit

2. Outline
• Background and History of Quality Assurance
• Industry Audit Task Force
• Common Swine Industry Audit
• Next Steps and PQA Plus
• Comprehensive Quality Assurance

3. Background and History

4. Timeline and Evolution
• 1959 The first HACCP system developed
• 1989 The PQA® program is launched
– Sulfa residues
– Food safety
• 2001 TQA is launched
– Meat quality
– Animal care during handling and transport
– V5 released this year
• 2003 SWAP program introduced
– On-farm animal care
– Site assessment
• 2005 The Take Care program is released
• 2007 The PQA Plus® program is launched
• 2008 The industry launches the We Care responsible pork initiative
• 2008 Packers show commitment to PQA Plus
4

5. PQA Plus Program
• Comprehensive platform to align producer performance with
market chain expectations
• Guiding principles:
– Workable
– Credible
– Affordable
• Voluntary education program available through Pork Checkoff
– Pork Checkoff legally cannot restrict market access to producers.
– Many packers require certification and/or site assessment as condition of sale
• Designed to be applicable to any pig farm independent of size,
phase of production, building design, geographic location, etc.

6. PQA Plus—Continuous Improvement
• 2007 – First Version
– Food safety and animal welfare
– On-farm assessments
• 2010 – Second Version
– Addition of antibiotic use and animal handling
– Beginning of 3rd
party verification (program audit)
• 2013 – Third Version
– Addition of worker safety and environment
– Individual Certification exams
– Assessment and audit tool revised

7. Program Elements

8. Is the Program Successful?
• 59,692 current certifications
• 75.14% of US pigs raised on a site assessed farm
– Niche production & Youth production (27,555 individuals)
• Exposure to the concept of third party auditing
• Evidence of continuous improvement

9. Industry Evolution
• The industry is clearly moving towards individual on-farm audits to
meet customer expectations.
• How do we avoid the British experience?
• Can the industry agree to one set of audit criteria?
• What is the future of PQA Plus?
• How can we position the US industry in the global marketplace re:
animal welfare?
– 2013 exports = 26% pork and variety meat production
– 2013 value = $52.95/head

10. Industry Audit Task Force

11. 2013 & 2014 Pork Forum Resolution
• NPB shall work with the various packers
and other industry stakeholders to develop
a common foundation for on-farm animal
welfare audits, facilitate equivalency
among packers, and minimize the need for
multiple audits on a farm supplying
multiple packers. The common foundation
for the audit would be based on PQA Plus
and TQA.

12. Industry Audit Task Force
• Purpose - Facilitate the development of a workable, credible
and affordable on-farm verification system.
• Objectives
– Provide stakeholders with a consistent, reliable and verifiable system that
assures on-farm animal well-being
– Eliminate duplication of audits and/or minimize the administrative burden placed
on producers
– Develop consensus about consistent standards between and among various
independent audit programs. PQA Plus could be the foundation with possible
company-specific addendums
– Create a standard process that results in inter- and intra-observer consistency
and protection of herd health

13. Industry Audit Task Force
• JBS
• Clemens/Hatfield
• Hormel
• Tyson
• Smithfield/Farmland
• Cargill
• Triumph
• Seaboard
• Murphy-Brown
• Pipestone
• Iowa Select
• Maschhoffs
• Hanor
• Bigstone Marketing
• AMVC
• New Fashion Pork
• NPB AWC
• NPB PSQ&HN
• NPB Board
• NPPC Board

14. IATF Progress
•Exploration (Feb 2013)
–Learning from others
–Can we proceed
•Data Review (Aug 2013)
–Audit Gap analysis
•10 entities submitted on-farm AW audits to AASV
•3 Main categories
–Retail and Foodservice Survey
• qualitative interviews (n-5) and quantitative online survey (n-15)
• Not statistically valid however the respondents include opinion leaders in both retail and
restaurant sectors

15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MANAGEMENT/
RECORD KEEPING
Herd Health Plan (VCPR)
Manuals
Mortality Records
Medication Records
Training Program
Emergency Action Plan
Written Euthanasia Plan
Daily Records
Site Assessments
Other
ANIMAL
OBSERVATIONS
Body Condition Score
Lesion Scoring
Lameness
Food/Water Access
Space Allowance
Euthanasia
Transport
Willful Acts of Abuse
Animal Handling
Medical Admin.
Other
FACILITY
OBSERVATIONS
Air Temperature
Air Quality
Emergency Back-up Equip.
Facilities
Feed/Water Facilities
Biosecurity

16. On-farm animal well-being programs in the pork industry should
include independent, third-party audits.

17. On-farm animal well-being programs in the pork industry should include an
education component to help producers understand and comply with
expectations measured in a third-party audit.

18. All packers in the pork industry should follow a consistent program for on-farm
animal well-being audits so results can be compared from packer to packer.

19. Inferences
• Overwhelming support for third party audits.
• Strong support for producer education to enhance compliance.
• Strong support for a consistent baseline standard with a desire to
customize programs to meet specific customer needs

20. On-farm animal well-being audits should be designed to assure appropriate care
of the animals based on standards that are grounded in peer-reviewed science.

21. On-farm animal well-being audits should be designed to address public
perception of animal care practices regardless of what peer-reviewed science
indicates.

22. The audit results will hold more value for our company if the audit
instrument measures…
the animal’s well-being regardless of geography,
farm size, facility types, or practices and
technologies used. This is sometimes referred to
as an outcome based audit.
the specific practices and technologies used on
the farm. This is sometimes referred to as an
input based audit.

23. I believe should be directly involved in establishing standards for on-farm
animal well-being audits.
Pig Farmers Pork Packers
Food Retailer and Restaurant Representatives

24. I believe the entire supply chain, including farmers, packers and
retailers, should be involved in setting audit standards.

25. Inferences
• Standards need to be based on science and address public perception and
market concerns
• Strongest support for producer involvement in standard setting
• Strong support for outcome based audits, but also interest in input based audits.

26. The third-party animal well-being audit instrument or program should be
validated by a separate, credible body that has no financial interest in the audit
program or audit results.

27. Please rate the credibility of these entities that could potentially certify
audit results or an audit program
Answer Options Not at all
credible
Not very
credible
Neither not
credible or
credible
Some
what
credible
Highly
credible
Total
Credible
Professional Animal Auditor Certification Organization
(PAACO)
0% 5% 25% 15% 55% 70%
A group of selected academicians that is facilitated by a
third-party organization other than PAACO
0% 10% 15% 35% 40% 75%
U.S. Department of Agriculture 0% 20% 35% 30% 15% 45%
A group of selected academicians that is facilitated by the
National Pork Board
20% 25% 30% 15% 10% 25%
A group of selected academicians that is facilitated by the
National Pork Producers Council
20% 35% 25% 15% 5% 20%
A group of selected academicians that is facilitated by a
packer trade association
20% 40% 20% 20% 0% 20%
A group of selected academicians that is facilitated by the
retail and/or foodservice trade association
20% 40% 25% 15% 0% 15%

28. Today, pork industry audit programs measure on-farm animal well-being. Are
there other elements of pork production that you believe should be included in
an on-farm audit program?
1. worker health and safety
2. environmental and sustainability checks,
3. We would like all of the PQA Plus program standards included in the audit.
4. How the animal is treated during transport is also important.

29. Inferences
• Strong support for third party validation of the audit instrument or program
by a body that has no financial interest in the program or results.
• Significant difference in support for adding additional elements to the audit
between qualitative and quantitative sample (100% qualitative – 50% -
50% quantitative)
• Potential issues to add include worker health and safety, environmental
impacts, group housing, transport, etc.

30. IATF Progress
• Draft Development (Dec 2013)
–Development of a draft framework
–Development of a draft audit standard
• Customer Engagement (Jan 2014)
–17 partners from 11 food service/retail companies
–Gather input on draft framework and audit standard
• Producer/Packer Review (Apr 2014)
–Review edits to Audit Standard
–Review Audit Tool and scoring system
• Full IATF meeting (May 2014)

31. IATF Progress
• Beta Testing - objectives
– Determine the approximate amount of time required to conduct an audit on sites
of various sizes and phases of production.
– Determine if the audit tool and standard provides necessary clarity to auditors
for how to evaluate each audit criteria.
– Validate that the scoring mechanism is appropriate and provides an accurate
summary of the conditions of the site.
– Gather input from the perspective of third-party auditors who have experience
with on-farm auditing.
– Establish credibility of the new audit by submitting the Industry audit for PAACO
review and certification.
• Beta testing - phases
– Phase 1 – desk review (AMS)
– Phase 2 – field testing (IATF/Validus/FACTA)
– Phase 3 – external review (PAACO)

32. Common Swine Industry Audit

33. Common Swine Industry Audit
• www.pork.org/commonaudit
• Audit materials
– Audit instructions
– Audit standards
– Audit tool
– Corrective Action template
– Interactive audit tool spreadsheet
• FAQ’s
• Resources
– PQA Plus & TQA
– Fact sheets and other educational materials
– SOP templates
– Record templates
• Branding

34. Audit Instructions
• Scope
– birth to transport from the farm
– Animal welfare and food safety
• Auditing Instructions
– Preface/objectives
– Defining a site
– Scheduling an Audit
– Biosecurity
– Animal sampling/selection
– Conducting an audit
– Scoring
– Completing an audit/corrective action

35. Audit Standard
• Willful Acts of Abuse
• Humane Euthanasia
• Animal Handling
• Space Allowance
• Body Condition
• Lameness
• Abscesses
• Deep Wounds
• Shoulder Sores
• Tail Biting
• Hernias
• Prolapses
• Scratches
• Vulva Biting
• Mortality
Management
• Thermal Comfort
• Transport/load-out
• Air Quality
• Emergency Backup
Ventilation
• Feed/Water Access
• Facilities
• Animal Cleanliness
• Caretaker Training
• Daily Observations
• Site Assessments
• Written Euthanasia Plan
• Emergency Action Plan
• Animal Care/Abuse Policy &
Reporting
• Piglet Processing Procedures
• Treatment
Management
• Manuals/SOP’s
• Mortality Records
• Med & Treatment
Records
• Needle & Sharps Usage
• Biosecurity

36. Audit Scoring
• Critical criteria = pass/fail
• All others = score for each question/all or
nothing
• Presentation of benchmarks
• Total and Section cores
• Defining a passing score

37. Audits vs. Assessments
Assessments
• Educational and benchmarking
• Measurement and feedback
• Completed by first or second
party
• If I have recently completed a
site assessment, will that
count as an audit?
– No
Audits
• Objective snapshot in time
• No educational component
• Completed by a third party
• If I have recently completed a
third-party audit, will that
count as an assessment?
– No

38. Questions About Implementation
• What happens if my farm fails an audit?
• What happens if I refuse to be audited?
• Do all farms have to be audited?
• How frequently will farms need to be audited?
• Who is paying for the audit to be completed?
This will depend on the market where you sell your pigs.
Buyers in the marketplace (i.e. packers) will be responsible for
reviewing audit results and corrective actions to determine if
their supplier has adequately resolved the identified issue or if
the site requires a re-audit.

39. Next Steps and PQA Plus

40. Common Industry Audit - Next Steps
• Visual resources for animal/benchmarking criteria
• PAACO Certified auditor training
• Communications plan
• Producers
• Packers
• Customers
• Discussion on data management and usage
• IATF ongoing efforts

41. PQA Plus Revision
1. Producer Education
– Content update
1. Site Assessment
– Content update
– Data entry/database update
1. Third-party Verification/Audit
– Replaced by Common Industry Audit
• Timeline
– Finalized content due March 31st
– Educational materials developed/beta-tested
– Trainers and Advisors trained
– Release 2016

42. Role of PQA Plus Advisors in the Meantime
• Resource for producers
–Before and audit
• Completing a site assessment
• Conducting PQA Plus certification classes
• Assistance in developing SOP’s and records
–During an audit
• Producer may ask for you to be in attendance
• Not obstructing the auditing process
–After an audit
• Reviewing audit results with producer
• Discussing root causes and potential corrective
action for items found out of compliance
• Helping to write a corrective action report

43. Comprehensive Quality Assurance

44. Comprehensive Approach

45. Summary
• Change is the one of the few things that stay the same
– 25 year history of quality assurance in the pork industry
– PQA Plus will continue to evolve
• Engaging with customers to gain understanding of perspectives and
meet current marketplace expectations
• Embracing a comprehensive assurance process
– Of which auditing is one piece
– Common Swine Industry Audit is available for anyone to use

46. Thank You
swebb@pork.org
dpeebles@pork.org
1-800-456-7675