Archived - Chapter 19 – Poultry Inspection Programs
19.6 Post Mortem Inspection/Examination

19.6.1 Traditional Inspection Method for Poultry

All classes of poultry may be inspected under traditional inspection.

Under traditional inspection, a CFIA inspector inspects the carcass exterior, the abdominal cavity and the corresponding viscera of each carcass. Only one (1) station is permitted for operators of newly registered poultry abattoirs under traditional inspection.

Operators shall provide one (1) or more competent plant employees, referred to as a helper, who shall be positioned next to each inspector. As directed by the inspector, the helper shall:

• remove identified carcasses and corresponding viscera from the evisceration line for veterinary examination or for disposal;
• remove carcasses with processing defects for off-line salvaging or reprocessing (refer to section 19.5.2 of this chapter);
• recording the reason for rejecting each carcass as instructed by the CFIA inspector; and
• trim abnormal localized conditions and correct minor dressing errors.

Operators wishing to remove condemned poultry legs not under the direct supervision of the post mortem inspectors shall submit a proposal to the Veterinarian in Charge as per section 19.5.5.3 of this chapter.

19.6.1.1 Traditional Presentation Standards

19.6.1.1.1 Introduction

These traditional presentation standards are to be used for the presentation of carcasses and viscera under the traditional method of inspection.

Consistent post mortem presentation is a must in order to ensure optimal inspection efficiency for all classes of poultry. Therefore, carcasses presented for post mortem inspection shall be hung in such a way as to facilitate the examination of the external surfaces, the internal cavity, the internal organs and the viscera.

19.6.1.1.2 General Requirements

19.6.1.1.2.1 Operator's Responsibilities

The operator is responsible for providing consistently adequate presentation of carcasses for inspection. Therefore the operator must:

• train and assign plant employees in the proper presentation of carcasses for inspection; and
• provide adequate facilities as specified in Chapter 3 of this manual.

19.6.1.1.2.2 CFIA Responsibilities

The inspection staff monitors presentation compliance by performing presentation tests at each inspection station and on each evisceration line, and take appropriate action when the presentation standards are not met.

The inspection staff must:

• carry out the test required to assess the presentation of carcasses for inspection; and
• communicate test results and any requirements for corrective measures to appropriate plant personnel.

19.6.1.1.3 Defects Associated with Improper Presentation

19.6.1.1.3.1 Defects Monitored by the Presentation Standards

19.6.1.1.3.1.1 Outside Carcass Errors

• Front or Side (weight of 11)
  Carcasses arriving other than with back towards the inspector.
• Hung By One Leg (weight of 9)
  Carcasses arriving with both legs not properly suspended in the shackle.
• Carcasses Swinging (weight of 6)
  Carcasses arriving with sufficient swinging motion to interfere with the inspection process. Excessive swing is defined as movements at 30 degrees or more to the chain and away from the inspector.
• Viscera Not Uniform (weight of 6)
  Carcasses arriving with viscera on the opposite side of normal presentation or in the middle of the abdominal opening.
• Contaminated Viscera (weight of 6)
  Carcasses arriving with contaminated viscera requiring the inspector to wash his/her hands.
• Viscera Below Wing (weight of 12)
  Carcasses arriving with the heart and/or the liver (and/or not the spleen in the case of birds over 8 weeks) below the wing breast joint.
• Viscera Not Free (weight of 10)
  Carcasses arriving with viscera not adequately separated from the abdominal fat pad and suspended alongside the carcass. If only a cross strip of fat is present, it will be considered that the viscera are free.
• Viscera in Shackle (weight of 8)
  Carcasses arriving with visceral organs hung in shackle.
• Out of Sequence (weight of 15) Carcasses arriving on guide bar out of sequence for the inspection station due to kick-out malfunction or missing the kick-out.
• No Viscera (weight of 20)
  Carcasses arriving without viscera. Those carcasses arriving with one or two organs, i.e., heart and/or liver (and/or the spleen in the case of birds over 2.7 kg) missing, will be scored with a weight of 5.

19.6.1.1.3.1.2 Inside Carcass Errors

• Membrane (weight of 2)
  Carcasses arriving with the inside cavity obstructed by the air sac membrane from viscera to cavity.
• Opening Cut (weight of 1)
  Carcasses arriving with inside cavity obstructed by an inadequate opening cut. This includes cross strips of skin, the anus or cloaca still in the carcass or any other obstacle to appropriate inspection located in the area of the opening cut. It has been found that a cut made within 2 cm (3 cm for turkeys) to the point of the keel is an adequate opening.
• Not Reflected (weight of 2)
  Carcasses arriving with the viscera not reflecting the appropriate abdominal flap.
• Parts Inside (weight of 1)
  Carcasses arriving with one or more of the visceral organs^Footnote 5 left in the cavity.
• Contamination Inside (weight of 6)
  Carcasses arriving with contamination occurring on the inside surfaces of the carcass.
• Mutilation (weight of 2)
  Carcasses arriving with internal mutilation caused by the vent or evisceration equipment.

19.6.1.1.3.1.3 Line Speed

Each carcass per minute exceeding the current maximum equals one error with a weight of 5.

19.6.1.1.3.2 Other Defects Controlled by the HACCP System

The following categories of carcasses will be hung-back by the presenter or the inspector's helper for correction and post-mortem inspection. These other defects shall be controlled by the operator as part of the operator's written HACCP system. No error will be recorded on a presentation check for these defects.

In the case of a recurrence, the operator will be notified and 5 demerit points will be recorded on the "Defects Log: Traditional Presentation Standard" for each subsequent defect. These other defects are as follows:

• Not Opened – Carcasses arrives at the inspection station with no opening cut made in the carcass;
• Not Drawn – Carcass arrives at the inspection station with opening cut made but with viscera insufficiently drawn to permit inspection; or
• Two Legs Out of Shackle – Carcass arrives at inspection station hung by the neck or wing.

19.6.1.1.4 Presentation Monitoring by CFIA Personnel

19.6.1.1.4.1 Sampling Method

Each test (random tests and retests) consists of two separate 10 carcass observations, one for outside errors and the second for inside errors.

The sampling must be done to avoid sample bias. Randomly select a carcass by picking one, then count a predetermined number of carcasses, e.g., third one, and then examine this carcass and corresponding viscera. This carcass shall be the first one of the sample.

Repeat the procedure for each subsequent carcass until the required number is examined.

The outside of 10 carcasses per station will be checked for any of the listed outside errors. This test will be conducted off-line with the person conducting the test standing behind and between the presenter and the inspector. Each error observed will be recorded on the "Defect Log: Traditional Presentation Standard" form included in Annex A of this chapter.

Then at the same station, but with the person doing the test standing on line between the presenter and the inspector, 10 additional carcasses will be observed for listed inside errors. Each error observed will be recorded on the "Defect Log: Traditional Presentation Standard" included in Annex A of this chapter.

The last part of all checks is the line speed check.

The outside and inside errors are converted to a weighted score, and added to any line speed error to determine the total non-conformance for each inspection station.

19.6.1.1.4.2 Sampling Frequency

The frequency of presentation checks on each eviscerating line is once per half shift. The frequency can be reduced to once per line/shift with growing confidence in the operational compliance. The frequency can also be increased with loss of confidence.

19.6.1.1.4.3 Aggregate Results and Actions Required

During a random sampling:

• If any weighted non-conformance total is 25 through 39, or 3 or more of the same presentation errors occur, the operator is required to take immediate corrective action within 10 minutes before a retest of the affected station;
• If any test result has a total non-conformance weight of 40 or more, the line speed must be reduced by 10% immediately, corrective actions implemented and a retest conducted within 10 minutes. The increment used for the line speed increase is equivalent to the increment used for line speed reduction.

During a retest:

• If any retest total is 25 or more, or 3 or more of the same presentation errors occur, the line speed must be reduced by 10% immediately, corrective actions implemented, and a retest conducted within minutes;
• Line speed reductions of 10% continue on each retest until a total of 24 or less and 2 or less of any one error is achieved or until the third line speed reduction in a row for presentation has taken place; or
• Line speeds will be increased by allowed increments to the maximum speed permitted only after presentation control is satisfactory (24 or less and 2 or less incidences of the same errors) has been demonstrated. When line speeds are increased, process control must again be demonstrated for this station at the higher line speed as soon as possible and not more than 10 minutes after each increase.

When three consecutive line speed reductions for presentation non-conformance on one line do not result in acceptable presentation on that line, the VIC must:

• evaluate the presentation problem;
• determine the effect the presentation problem is having on post mortem inspection and operational sanitation; and
• determine acceptable presentation at less than 70% of optimum line speed.

Each element of the process control and their interaction are explained below and are presented in the decision tree.

The MIR have precedence over the presentation decision tree (corrective measure(s) can be mandated at any time by the VIC).

19.6.1.1.4.4 Records

Because of shift to shift and day to day differences in plant staffing and supervision, the presentation results of each shift and each production day will be independent of all other presentation results. There will be a new presentation form and a new start for each station, each shift and each production day.

A sample Traditional Presentation Standards monitoring form is available in Annex A of this chapter.

19.6.1.1.5 Traditional Presentation Standard Monitoring Decision Tree

19.6.1.2 Line Speeds for Traditional Inspection

Line speeds listed in the following table are the maximum line speeds which are permitted only under optimal conditions consistent with good presentation, average incidence of pathology (disease) and effective process control over trimming/dressing defects and evisceration accidents. Failure by the operator to take effective corrective action may result in line speed reductions imposed by the Veterinarian in Charge.

19.6.1.2.1 Maximum Line Speeds for Poultry Under Traditional Inspection

These speeds represent the maximum number of carcasses that may pass by the inspection station every hour on the assumption that the line moves at a constant speed without stopping and that each shackle is full.

19.6.2 Modernized Poultry Inspection Program (MPIP)

19.6.2.1 Introduction

The Modernized Poultry Inspection Program or MPIP is a post mortem examination program as defined in section 2 of the Meat Inspection Regulations, 1990 (MIR). The following subsections of this chapter contain the requirements for the MPIP, as referred to in section 29.1 (3) of the MIR.

A CFIA veterinarian shall be present throughout evisceration operations at the establishment.

19.6.2.1.1 Definition of MPIP

MPIP is a HACCP and science-based inspection system that focuses on the slaughter process within the gate to plate food safety continuum. MPIP represents the latest Canadian advance in the evolution of poultry inspection methodology.

19.6.2.1.2 Objectives:

• Provide the CFIA and industry personnel with the policies and procedures that contribute to the uniformity of interpretation and consistency in the implementation of the MPIP.
• Control hazards associated with food-borne pathogens during the slaughter and processing of poultry.
• Promote the proactive control (prevent, eliminate or reduce) of hazards through the implementation of a CFIA-recognized HACCP system in poultry slaughtering establishments.
• Facilitate the change from prescriptive regulatory requirements to objective performance standards in poultry inspection.
• Facilitate the transition of CFIA staff from hands-on inspection to audit-based verification activities.
• Facilitate the assumption by industry of the responsibility for the detection and handling of defective carcasses under continuous government oversight.
• Respond to changing international trade requirements, e.g., Pathogen Reduction and HACCP Program Rule in the US.

19.6.2.1.3 CFIA MPIP Training and Certification

As per the "Modernized Poultry Inspection Program (MPIP) Certification Program", all employees of the CFIA assigned on a regular basis or providing relief in poultry slaughtering establishments operating under MPIP must be certified.

19.6.2.2 MPIP Implementation

19.6.2.2.1 Introduction

An operator in a registered establishment, or an operator sending an application to be registered, may request to implement a post mortem examination program or MPIP.

The implementation of MPIP consists of three phases:

• Phase 1 – Preparatory Period
• Phase 2 – Trial Period
• Phase 3 – Implementation Period

The steps for implementing MPIP under each phase are described below. All checklists (i.e., assessment, implementation or others) pertinent to MPIP referred to in the following sub-sections may be obtained from the Area Poultry Inspection Program Specialist.

Slaughter operations shall initially comply with a post mortem inspection system performed by CFIA inspectors, as described under the "Traditional inspection method" section in this Chapter. The inspectors assigned to the plant shall be trained under the Traditional Inspection System and the Traditional Presentation Standards.

The operator is expected to take traditional line speed caps into consideration when calculating expected daily kill goals.

19.6.2.2.2 Preliminary Assessment

Step 1

An operator interested in implementing MPIP shall submit a letter of request to the Regional Director with a copy to the Area Poultry Inspection Program Specialist as per article 29.1 of the MIR, "Post mortem Examination Program".

The request shall include blueprints and a project description showing the positions/locations of the inspectors and company employees at the different phases of the implementation and must be presented to the CFIA Area Program Specialist before the beginning of the next phase. The number and location of inspectors and plant employees may vary from one phase to the next.

Upon receipt of an acceptable request, a two (2) station traditional inspection environment, and corresponding line speed, may be allowed at the discretion of the Regional Director and Area Poultry Program Specialist.

Step 2

The Regional Director shall forward the operator's request to the Area Poultry Inspection Program Specialist who then assembles an assessment team with the following suggested composition:

• Area Poultry Inspection Program Specialist;
• The Veterinarian in Charge; and
• The Inspection Manager and/or the local Regional Veterinary Officer covering the establishment.

Step 3

The assessment team assesses the suitability of the blue print and the project description submission prior to acceptance based on compliance with the following criteria:

• facility requirements and line configuration;
• training program and work plan for defect detectors, Evisceration Standards, Presentation Standards, DDS and CDS monitors as per Annex B of this chapter; and
• a HACCP written program and Pathogen Reduction Program.

Note: For an existing registered establishment, the assessment will also include the compliance history of the operator.

A specific checklist entitled "Pre – MPIP Initial MPIP Assessment Checklist – Prior to Phase 1 (Preparatory Phase)" shall be completed by the assessment team for this purpose.

Minor deficiencies may be addressed through acceptable action plans.

Step 4

The assessment team shall state, on the preceding checklist, the terms and conditions required to be completed prior to initiating operations in an MPIP environment. A copy of this assessment is forwarded to the Regional Director and the operator.

• If the request is accepted, the CFIA personnel from the establishment and the operator are informed that the request to implement MPIP has been approved; the operator may then schedule a Phase 1 start date;
• If the request is refused, the Area MPIP Assessment Team shall explain the decision and rationale to the Regional Director and the operator.

Step 5

Certified MPIP trainers shall organize training workshop(s) to certify CFIA staff.

• The Veterinarian in Charge and one or more inspectors shall receive several days of practical training in one or more MPIP plants.

19.6.2.2.3 Preparatory Period (1st Phase)

Step 6

The operator may switch to a Pre-MPIP environment (carcass/cavity detection, Evisceration Standards, Presentation Standards, DDS and CDS) when the CFIA operational requirement can be met and when plant employees' level of training and expertise with Pre-MPIP can facilitate a functional Pre-MPIP environment as determined by the Area Poultry Inspection Program Specialist and VIC. If the operator desires to remain eligible to export to the United States, a written request must be submit to the VIC for the CFIA to continue staffing this station as an "export" station (refer to Chapter 11, Exports, of this manual).

CFIA staffing and maximum line speeds during the "MPIP Preparatory Period" (Phase 1) shall be determined by the Area Assessment Team depending on the ergonomic facilities and the presentation of the carcasses and corresponding viscera. An onsite review of the establishment is required to ensure MPIP facility requirements have been met. Line speeds may be increased during the MPIP Preparatory Period (Phase 1), once the operator has implemented carcass/cavity detection, Evisceration Standards, Presentation Standards, DDS and CDS by accredited employees. In this case, the maximum line speed shall be approved by the Area Poultry Inspection Program Specialist and the Veterinarian in Charge as per the following:

• 7200 cph for chicken
• 6360 cph for light fowl under 2 kg (live weight)
• 5760 cph for heavy fowl over 2 kg (live weight)
• 3600 cph for light turkey at or under 8 kg
• 3300 cph for heavy turkey over 8 kg

Step 7

The implementation team along with the Veterinarian in Charge shall:

• review the operator's correction of any non-conformities identified during the initial assessment including requisite amendments to the operator's HACCP system; and
• review the evisceration line area with the operator with respect to work and inspection station requirements for Phase 2, as detailed in this chapter.

Step 8

CFIA personnel from the establishment and CFIA replacements receive MPIP training and certification as per the CFIA "National Meat Hygiene Training Program Volume 1: Implementation Guide".

Step 9

Training for Presentation Standards, Defect Detection Standards (DDS) and the Carcass Dressing Standards (CDS) shall be implemented prior to commencing Phase 2. A complete description of DDS and CDS is contained in this chapter.

Step 10

MPIP industry training material is provided to the Veterinarian in Charge or the delegated MPIP-certified inspector in order to train and accredit establishment trainers. As required, the local Regional Director shall arrange for additional veterinary support to permit the Veterinarian in Charge to perform training and accreditation duties at the establishment.

Step 11

Once they are accredited, establishment trainers are to then train and accredit all other establishment employees as per the "Training and Accreditation Protocol", in Annex B of this chapter.

Step 12

The Area Implementation Team shall use the checklist entitled "Pre – MPIP Implementation Assessment Checklist – Phase 1 (Preparatory Phase) to Phase 2 (Trial Phase)" to evaluate the following requirements in order to commence Phase 2, Trial Period:

• the operator's Pathogen Reduction Program is operational and included in the HACCP system;
• establishment QC are accredited to administer the DDS, CDS and Presentation Standards;
• establishment trainers are accredited and a sufficient number of defect detectors have passed the prerequisite tests; and
• the evisceration line has been modified as per work and inspection station requirements for the Trial Period (Phase 2).

Based on the result of this checklist, the implementation team shall recommend the commencement of Phase 2 or that Phase 1 be continued pending the completion of all requirements. A copy of this assessment is forwarded to the Regional Director.

19.6.2.2.4 Trial Period (2nd Phase)

It is strongly recommended that the CFIA and establishment staff hold weekly meetings throughout Phase 2 to discuss any issues related to the ongoing implementation of MPIP.

Step 13

The same number of on-line CFIA inspectors is required during Phase 2, Trial Period, as inspection stations staffed under the operator's previous post mortem inspection system.

Note: A complete description of DDS testing procedures during Phase 2 of MPIP implementation is contained in this subsection.

Step 14

Defect detectors must pass four (4) additional on-line tests during the trial period as per the "Training and Accreditation Protocol", Annex B of this chapter.

Step 15

The inspection staff shall provide feedback to the establishment trainer on the performance of their defect detectors.

At the end of Phase 2:

• When the Veterinarian in Charge is satisfied that defect detectors are performing adequately, he or she may locate the CFIA viscera Inspector downstream; and
• When switching from Traditional inspection to MPIP, if the operator desires to remain eligible to export to the United States and has not submitted a request as described in Step 6, a written request must be submit to the VIC for CFIA to continue staffing this station as an "export" station (refer to Chapter 11, Exports, of this manual).

Step 16

The Veterinarian in Charge shall notify the Regional Director when the operator is ready to proceed to Phase 3 so that an MPIP system and compliance verification review can be conducted.

The MPIP implementation team shall conduct this review to assess compliance to all of the elements of the MPIP policy.

• If performance is acceptable, the operator may enter Phase 3.
• If the operator does not exhibit optimum performance, then the trial period shall continue until performance is acceptable or the operator formally withdraws its MPIP application.

The result of the evaluation and recommendations to proceed or not to proceed to Phase 3 shall be communicated to the operator and the local Regional Director.

A specific checklist entitled "Checklist For MPIP System Compliance And Verification – Phase 2 (Trial Phase) to Phase 3 (Implementation Phase)" shall be completed for this step. A copy of the corrective action(s) required by the operator shall be attached to this checklist. Follow-up activities to be performed by specific CFIA personnel shall be specified in the comments section of the checklist completed by the implementation team.

19.6.2.2.5 Implementation Period (3rd Phase)

There are no maximum line speeds for MPIP. Rather, line speeds are determined by the performance of industry defect detectors and by compliance with MPIP requirements.

Step 17

The following operational modifications shall be made according to the roles and responsibilities of CFIA staff under Phase 3:

• CFIA staffing levels may be reduced; and
• cost recovery fees shall be recalculated based on remaining CFIA inspection stations and inspection staff tasks.

Step 18

Phase 3 shall last a minimum of 3 months. MPIP establishments operating in Phase 3 shall undergo regulatory verification of their MPIP system at the end of the 3 months probationary period. This verification will be conducted by a team comprised of certified area MPIP reviewers. After successful completion of the MPIP Compliance Review, the review shall be conducted on an annual basis. In each case, a specific checklist entitled "Checklist For MPIP System Compliance And Verification – Phase 2 (Trial Phase) to Phase 3 (Implementation Phase)" shall be completed.

19.6.2.2.6 MPIP Requirements for CFIA Inspection Stations

Veterinary Disposition Station (refer to section 19.7.5)

A fully equipped and staffed veterinary disposition station shall be provided by the operator as a prerequisite to receiving a condemnation report from CFIA. Under the framework of the Poultry Rejection Project, the rejection process and the performance of industry rejecters shall be assessed by a CFIA veterinarian.

Evisceration Floor Inspector Station

The entire evisceration, dressing and chilling areas shall comprise the "station" for the evisceration floor inspector. The operator shall provide on-line and/or off-line inspection stations for CFIA inspection staff performing independent or correlation sampling and testing under the Evisceration, Presentation, Defect Detection and Carcass Dressing Standards programs for use by the designated industry personnel and/or CFIA inspection staff. The evisceration floor inspector must also have full access to salvaging and on/off-line reprocessing/reconditioning operations and shall perform all tasks assigned by the Compliance Verification System (CVS) program applicable to poultry dressing, evisceration and chilling operations.

CFIA personnel must maintain a permanent presence within the carcass dressing and evisceration area throughout processing operations.

Note: Additional inspection tasks related to the plant specific upstream and downstream processes from the evisceration floor such as ante mortem verifications and post-chilling process verifications must be delivered as per program requirements.

19.6.2.3 Presentation Standards for the MPIP Inspection System

19.6.2.3.1 Introduction

Presentation standards are used as a Process Control (PC) to contribute to the effectiveness of the related CCP(s) and post mortem examination activities.

Presentation standards aid accredited cavity and viscera defect detectors to carry out their responsibilities in compliance with defect detection standards by ensuring that carcasses and corresponding viscera are presented in a uniform and consistent manner. These standards are designed to ensure that evidence of disease is not lost (e.g., missing viscera) nor hidden (e.g., inadequate abdominal opening) during visual examination by the defect detectors.

Effective control by the operator over the presentation of carcasses and viscera reduces the verification frequency and corrective actions by inspection personnel. Additionally, industry employees must be empowered to take immediate action whenever they notice a potential loss of control. This includes loss of presentation control e.g., excessive missing viscera.

19.6.2.3.2 General Requirements

Presentation standards are applicable to all types of evisceration procedures regardless of the technology used, i.e., whether manual evisceration or automated evisceration equipment leaves the viscera either attached or physically separated from the corresponding carcass.

Presentation monitoring tests are performed on each evisceration line at a presentation test station located after evisceration and prior to viscera detection. Carcasses correctly identified by the cavity defect detectors for removal by the helper/trimmer shall not be included in the sampling for the presentation tests.

All industry employees performing presentation tests shall be trained and accredited as per the "Training and Accreditation Protocol" as per Annex B of this chapter.

19.6.2.3.3 Defects Related to Improper Presentation

19.6.2.3.3.1 Defects to be Monitored by the Presentation Standard

During presentation monitoring, the following three (3) defects shall be counted as presentation errors. These defects are described in the following sub-section and included within the AQL for presentation tests:

1. no viscera;
2. viscera parts missing; and
3. inadequate abdominal opening.

19.6.2.3.3.2 Description of Presentation Errors

The following is a description of presentation errors:

No Viscera

• For chicken, turkey and quail – carcasses are presented without the viscera or the viscera are presented with the heart and liver missing.
• For fowl – the duodenum must be missing in addition to the liver and the heart.

Viscera Parts Missing

• For chicken, turkey and quail – presentation of the viscera with over ½ of the heart or over ½ of the liver missing. There must be at least one intact lobe of the liver present for defect detection purposes.
• For fowl – presentation of the viscera with over ½ of the heart or over ½ of the liver missing or the duodenum missing, with a maximum of one defect per carcass. Multiply the total number of hearts missing by 0.1.
• For mature poultry (including chicken roasters) – missing spleens count as an error if a significant percentage are missing as determined by the VIC.

If a missing heart is combined with a missing liver or a missing duodenum, a maximum of one defect is counted.

Inadequate Abdominal Opening

Presentation of carcasses with an inadequate abdominal opening makes it impossible to examine the abdominal cavity properly. This may result from pieces of skin or flesh obstructing the opening, the anus or cloaca that have remained attached, or any obstacle located in the incision hampering the presentation and view inside. The abdominal opening must be large enough to allow presentation and examination of the inside of the carcass.

For chicken and light fowl, a cut made within 2 cm of the point of the keel is adequate.

For turkey, heavy fowl and roasters, a cut made within 3 cm of the point of the keel is adequate.

For quail, a cut made within 1.5 cm of the point of the keel having a minimum opening diameter of 2.8 cm is adequate. Mutilated carcasses having obstructions which interfere with examination of the cavity shall also be scored as an "Inadequate Abdominal Opening".

Unless specified otherwise, each of the above listed errors will receive a score of one (1) with a maximum of one (1) error allowed per carcass.

19.6.2.3.3.3 Other Defects to be Controlled by the HACCP System

The following six defects (1 to 6) shall not be included as errors as part of the presentation tests and are not included in the AQL for the presentation tests. Rather, they shall be controlled as part of the operator's HACCP system:

1. unopened carcass
   carcass without any abdominal incision;
2. viscera not removed from cavity
   carcass with an abdominal incision but viscera are not sufficiently drawn from the abdominal cavity to permit detection or inspection;
3. carcass not hung by legs
   carcass hung by the neck or a wing;
4. water pooled within the cavity
   accumulated water may mask evidence of pathological and/or processing defects (e.g., Airsacculitis and faecal contamination);
5. contaminated viscera
   severe contamination to the extent that evidence of pathology is obscured (e.g., generalized Airsacculitis); and
6. hearts and livers not visible
   viscera portions to be examined are present, but hidden behind the gizzard on a consistent basis.

Carcasses with presentation defects (1) to (3) shall be removed from the line (before or by the helper/trimmer) for verification of cavity and viscera defects. They shall be identified and kept separate from carcasses for salvaging and not be allowed to unduly accumulate on racks. Errors shall be corrected as quickly as possible, and the carcasses rehung on the line in order not to compromise product safety due to bacterial multiplication. If not, they shall be condemned as "plant rejects". Refer to section 19.7.4.22 of this chapter for more information on "plant rejects".

19.6.2.3.4 Presentation Standards Monitoring

Random sampling for presentation testing is performed by the operator using an "Acceptance Sampling Plan", ISO 2859-1, Special Inspection S-4.

The Presentation Standards monitoring tool has two (2) general components:

• Process evaluation; and
• Corrective measure(s) evaluation.

The process evaluation monitors the presentation defects described in this standard to insure that they do not exceed the established Acceptance Quality Limit. It is performed at a consistent frequency on successive lots. It determines if the process meets the standards on an on-going basis.

The corrective measure(s) evaluation is an assessment of the adequacy of corrective measures that have been implemented following a rejected sample. It determines when the process is back under control.

19.6.2.3.4.1 Testing Frequencies

The frequency of industry monitoring and CFIA verification tests on each eviscerating line shall be based on the operator's ability to maintain uniform carcass presentation. This frequency may be reduced when there is confidence in the operator's presentation control, or it shall be increased when this confidence has been lost, according to the following table.

19.6.2.3.4.2 Sampling Procedure

The sampling must be done at constant intervals, e.g., every fifth carcass, every third carcass, etc. To avoid sample bias, randomly select a carcass by picking one, then count a predetermined number of carcasses, e.g., third one, and then examine this carcass and corresponding viscera. This carcass shall be the first one of the sample. Repeat the procedure for each subsequent carcass until the required number is examined.

The last step consists of checking the line speed.

The total of error incidences is the score for that inspection station and eviscerating line.

19.6.2.3.4.3 Sample Size and Acceptance/Rejection Criteria

The sample size and the applicable accept and reject numbers shall be governed by the line speed range as shown in the following table.

19.6.2.3.4.4 Process Out of Control – Action to be Taken

Management has the responsibility to implement timely and effective corrective actions immediately following each presentation test indicating that the number of presentation defects has reached or exceeded the reject number. In each case, they must inform CFIA personnel and must conduct an investigation to determine the probable cause to help decide on the best course of corrective action.

If the total of missing viscera, for all species, reaches half of the rejection number, or, if the total of missing heart, for turkey and quail, reaches the rejection number, the VIC shall determine if the defects are significant considering the pathology associated with the specific flock. In these instances, corrective actions are required to ensure proper detection of pathology.

Corrective actions implemented by the operator commonly include one or more of the following:

• equipment adjustment and/or maintenance;
• adding employees;
• reducing the line speed (if extra time is required by the defect detectors to examine the carcass and/or viscera due to excessive presentation defects);
• changing the flock (e.g., if extra time is required for the birds to empty their intestines); and,
• temporarily suspending the hanging of live birds.

A corrective measure(s) evaluation shall be conducted within 10 minutes of the failed test in order to evaluate the corrective action(s) implemented.

If a line speed reduction is chosen as the corrective action by the operator or is enforced by CFIA staff, then retests must be done 10 minutes after a line speed decrease or increase.

Immediately following a failed corrective measure(s) evaluation, the presentation standards monitor shall notify the designated representative of the operator and CFIA personnel. An automatic line speed reduction of 10% shall be implemented if a line speed reduction was not included as a corrective action following the previous failed sample. If the corrective action taken by the operator fails to reduce the following evaluations to an acceptable level, then the operator shall re-assess the presentation status, implement additional corrective actions and apply another 10% line speed reduction.

After one (1) accepted corrective measure(s) evaluation, not exceeding the acceptance number (Ac), the process is back to normal process evaluation since the evaluation determined that implemented corrective measures have been adequate.

If three (3) consecutive corrective measure(s) evaluation tests are rejected, the operator and /or the VIC shall:

• determine to what extent the deviations from the presentation standards affect the detection of defective carcasses and viscera;
• evaluate and approve further corrective action(s);
• determine if live hanging operations may continue;
• the operator shall evaluate and assure the safety and wholesomeness of affected product (evaluation results shall be confirmed by the VIC);
• a written action plan, endorsed by the operator and designed to resolve and prevent a recurrence and including amendments to the HACCP system, shall be submitted to the VIC.

In the case of recurring non-compliance, unusually high condemnation rates or consistently ineffective corrective action, the VIC shall be kept aware of all test results for analysis and possible further action.

Each element of the process control and their interaction are explained below and are presented in the decision tree.

The MIR have precedence over the presentation decision tree (corrective measure(s) can be mandated at any time by the VIC).

19.6.2.3.4.5 Records

A separate Presentation Log form (see Annex A of this chapter) shall be used for each class of poultry or shift. If more than one species are slaughtered, the log must clearly indicate which tests correspond to which species slaughtered, e.g., with inserted blue or red vertical lines.

Because of differences of personnel and supervisors between shifts, test results for each shift shall be considered independently.

19.6.2.3.4.6 Line Speed

The line speed must be recorded for all tests. There is no maximum line speed for MPIP provided operations remain in compliance with MPIP requirements. However, if the line speed is reduced as a corrective action, then exceeding the decreased line speed is counted as a defect. Furthermore, management must immediately correct the line speed.

19.6.2.3.5 CFIA Responsibilities

The CFIA staff shall ensure that the presentation standards have been implemented and are being performed according to the operator's written program. Time(s) for the presentation test(s) shall be randomly selected prior to the start of the shift. This may be accomplished by performing independent verification tests and/or correlation tests with the industry monitor.

An independent test or a correlation test shall to be performed at a minimum of once per half shift/evisceration line. A minimum of two verification tests (one (1) independent and one (1) verification test) shall be performed and recorded each week by a veterinarian. The records must show that within one month each veterinarian working at the plant has performed at least one test of each kind.

The Presentation Standard Decision Tree is to be used by the presentation standards monitor and for reference by the CFIA.

The CFIA may perform an additional presentation test at any time as an additional assurance of process control or if they feel that standards are not being met for any reason.

19.6.2.3.5.1 Independent Verification Tests

The CFIA's independent verification tests shall be performed according to the following parameters:

• tests shall be performed on each evisceration line at the frequency indicated and according to the procedure previously described and an independent test shall be performed on each evisceration line;
• if the CFIA test result is equal to or exceeds the rejection number, the operator shall perform an immediate process evaluation test and, if required, initiate any action according to the presentation decision tree;
• the result of each test shall be compared to the operator's monitoring record; if the CFIA test result is not in agreement with the operator's tests, the Inspector shall discuss the test results with the (industry) presentation standards monitor and inform the VIC; and
• CFIA test results may be recorded on a separate Presentation Log (see Annex A of this chapter) or on the operator's records such that CFIA tests can be distinguished from tests conducted by the operator's presentation standards monitor.

19.6.2.3.5.2 Correlation Tests

Correlation testing consists of the CFIA conducting an evaluation of a test being performed by the operator's presentation standards monitor according to the following parameters:

• tests shall be performed on each evisceration line at the frequency indicated and according to the procedure previously described and a correlation test shall be performed on each evisceration line; this frequency may be increased according to the operator's compliance to the monitoring procedures and when a correlation test is performed, it replaces the independent CFIA test scheduled for that half shift;
• a member of the CFIA inspection staff shall examine the same carcasses at the same time as the industry monitor; and
• the monitor will be evaluated for the correct interpretation of defects, completion of forms, correct application of the decision tree and the implementation of corrective actions if necessary.

If the CFIA's evaluation demonstrates a lack of compliance to the presentation standard and/or the monitoring thereof, immediate corrective measures shall be initiated by the operator. The VIC shall decide if the written procedure is to be reassessed and amended accordingly.

19.6.2.3.6 Decision Tree for MPIP Presentation Standard Monitoring

19.6.2.4 Defect Detection

Under the MPIP, designated defect detection employees shall be responsible for the detection of carcass, cavity and viscera defects on a carcass-by-carcass basis, so that defective carcasses are removed from the evisceration line.

Each carcass, cavity and viscera set must be visually examined.

The defect detection process shall be monitored as per the Defect Detection Standards (DDS) as part of the operator's HACCP System.

19.6.2.4.1 Training and Accreditation of Defect Detectors

Refer to Annex B of this chapter (Training and Accreditation Protocol).

19.6.2.4.2 Carcass Defect Detection Before Evisceration

Carcass defect detectors shall identify and remove obviously condemnable carcasses before evisceration. Preselection procedures must be performed at the transfer point from the slaughter line to the evisceration line, or at any other point selected by the operator prior to the eviscerator(s). It is generally accepted that there are few occasions in turkey processing for which preselection is required on an ongoing basis – especially where removal of obviously condemnable birds is performed at the farm level. MPIP therefore leaves to the discretion of the operator of the turkey slaughter establishment the option of implementing preselection based on the flock sheet information. Obviously condemnable turkey carcasses preselected by the carcass defect detector(s) need not be removed provided that such carcasses:

• are identified or marked;
• are not eviscerated;
• do not contact subsequent on-line employees and equipment; and
• are removed by the helper/trimmer after the defect detectors.

Note: The CFIA may require turkey flock preselection if turkey flocks show evidence of poor health, or of other defects or have not been properly handled. Lighting and facilities for holding preselected turkey carcasses must be readily available on site.

19.6.2.4.2.1 List of Carcass Defects

Carcasses affected with the following conditions are to be removed before evisceration. See the following section for a detailed explanation of each defect.

NT: Not Trimmable (too extensive for trimming)
NTOL: Not Trimmable On-line (too extensive for trimming at normal line speed)

The following conditions may be too extensive to be trimmed (they will be condemned as "obviously condemnable") before evisceration or may be less extensive so as to be trimmable off-line in a hygienic and expeditious fashion before chilling. See the following section for a detailed explanation of each defect.

NTOL: Not Trimmable On-line (too extensive for trimming at normal line speed)

19.6.2.4.2.2 Definitions of Carcass Defects

Arthritis/Synovitis/Tenosynovitis:

Carcasses affected with ruptured gastrocnemius tendon and/or presence of liquid and solid material within the joint are to be removed from the evisceration line if they are also emaciated.

Ascites (water belly):

Carcasses showing distended or ballooned abdomen (fluid wave) are to be removed from the evisceration.

For chicken, carcasses showing distended or ballooned abdomen (fluid wave) are to be removed from the evisceration only if they show evidence of associated conditions (e.g., emaciation and/or dark color and/or subcutaneous œdema).

Note: If the evaluation for the associated conditions for chicken carcasses cannot be performed on-line, all carcasses showing distended or ballooned abdomen (fluid wave) must be removed from the evisceration line for further assessment by a company detector or rejecter. If the operator has adequate facilities to segregate carcasses to prevent cross contamination, then affected carcasses without associated conditions may be put back on the line. Such carcasses must be returned to the evisceration line within 10 minutes of having been removed from the line.

Affected carcasses without secondary assessment performed by the operator (not showing associated conditions) presented to the CFIA veterinarian will be disposed of by the operator and will not be included on the condemnation/rejection reports.

Avian Keratoacanthoma:

This skin condition is a formation of deep crater-shaped ulcers mainly on the back. Remove the carcass if the affected skin area is too large to trim on-line.

Cellulitis:

Thickened, yellow coloured skin (may be with a honeycombed appearance). Remove chicken carcasses with Peri-Cloacal Cellulitis. Chicken carcasses with skin lesions smaller than 2 cm × 2 cm, including lesions on the legs and the wings of any dimension, may be passed if included within the operator's HACCP system. Remove turkey and fowl carcasses with extensive Cellulitis lesions. The Veterinarian in Charge will determine the criteria for the size of lesions which may be trimmed on-line for turkeys. Carcasses with scratches with only slight thickening and yellowing of the skin, not affecting underlying tissue, can be trimmed on-line.

Dark Coloured Carcasses (Cyanosis):

Carcasses with a dark blue-purple colour are to be removed from the line. Mild to moderately blue carcasses should be passed if the darker discolouration is the only significant finding, e.g., not emaciated. Carcasses with extremity petechiation ("blood spots"), but are otherwise normal, should be passed.

Emaciation:

Carcasses with extreme thinness and that are dark coloured must be removed from the line. Carcasses which are small (but with good finish or fleshing) may also be culled by the establishment detectors but are to be considered as a plant reject.

Extensive Bruising:

Carcasses must be removed if the affected area is too large to be trimmed on-line.

Inadequate Bleeding:

Carcasses with deep to brick red colour (head may still be attached or incomplete or no neck cut). For carcasses which are mildly red/blue, refer to the definition of Dark Coloured Carcasses (Cyanosis).

Marek's Disease (Cutaneous Marek's):

Enlarged feather follicles often with yellowish coloured surrounding skin. Remove the carcass if the affected skin area is too large to trim on-line.

Mutilation:

Extensive crushing and/or deformation too large to be trimmed on-line.

Over scald:

Damaged skin/muscle too large to be trimmed on-line caused by an over scalding.

Pendulous Crop:

Carcasses are to be removed from the line only if affected with extensive pendulous crops (representing a risk of contamination), or if associated with poor carcass condition (emaciated), or if the carcass has a bad odour.

Sternal Bursitis/Infected Breast Blister:

Usually found in the breast or the keel area, sternal bursitis may be the result of a skin infection or a pectoral cyst. Remove the carcass if the affected area is too large to trim on-line.

Xanthomatosis:

Thick yellowish swellings may be present in the wattles, breast, abdomen and legs. The swelling may become a pendulous mass filled with a honey coloured liquid. Remove the carcass if the affected area is too large to trim on-line.

19.6.2.4.3 Cavity and Viscera Defect Detection After Evisceration

Depending on the speed of the evisceration lines, cavity and viscera defect detection may be performed:

• on a unit-by-unit basis where each defect detector examines the cavity and the viscera of the carcasses presented for examination; or
• on a sequential basis, where all the cavities are examined by specific cavity detectors and all the viscera are examined by a separate viscera defect detector.

The operator may position the viscera defect detector(s) either before or after the cavity defect detectors. However, viscera sets must be presented with their corresponding carcasses throughout the viscera defect detection and the Defect Detection Standards (DDS) testing zones.

The cavity defect detectors shall be positioned before cavities are vacuumed and prior to the internal/external carcass washer unless the operator uses an approved on-line reprocessing and reconditioning process, as explained in this chapter.

Detailed procedures for defect detection, i.e., body position and eye movement sequence, must be established by the operator of each establishment based on the type of equipment used and the layout of the defect detection stations.

All identified carcasses must be either immediately removed or be signalled for removal from the line by a helper/trimmer. The defective carcasses shall be removed with the corresponding viscera in order to maintain their corresponding identity for disposition.

The operator may evaluate the need for an optional detector's helper that removes carcasses signalled by the detectors. The use of a detector's helper should be based on the following:

• ante mortem information;
• the grower's profile; and
• the quality of the incoming lot.

Industry cavity and viscera defect detectors must be empowered to take immediate action whenever they notice a potential loss of control.

19.6.2.4.3.1 Viscera Defect Detection

In descending order, the viscera detector's priorities are to:

• examine each viscera for defects;

  Note: For fowl, palpate the duodenum and/or perform other procedures which are effective for detecting all carcasses with Adenocarcinoma.

• signal carcasses for removal according to agreed codes (if applicable);
• signal the presence of obviously condemnable carcasses that should have been removed from the line prior to evisceration; and
• in some cases, and under the Veterinarian in Charge's discretion, remove defective carcasses and/or viscera from the line if there is no helper/trimmer.

Contamination on the viscera and pathological conditions only affecting the viscera (not affecting the carcass) are not to be counted as a defect if the operator is either not harvesting edible viscera or if an effective program is included within a HACCP system which ensures that affected viscera are not harvested as edible. The Veterinarian in Charge or Evisceration Floor Inspector shall ensure that viscera harvesting operations are appropriately conducted in accordance with the operator's HACCP system.

19.6.2.4.3.1.1 List of Viscera Defects

19.6.2.4.3.1.2 Definitions of Viscera Defects

Adenocarcinoma:

Whitish to yellow malignant nodules/tumours usually 3 mm to 5 mm and frequently present in the duodenal loop of the small intestine. Size varies and distribution can extend throughout the mesentery and peritoneum sometimes invading the ovary. All carcasses exhibiting such lesions must be removed from the evisceration line.

Airsacculitis:

Remove the carcass and corresponding viscera if there is evidence of caseous material covering the pericardial sac (the surface of the heart has white or yellow material) or if the pericardial liquid contains caseous material. Do not remove the carcass or viscera if there are minor white spots on the heart or minor adhesions on the envelope of the heart.

For turkey, the carcass and corresponding viscera are removed if there is evidence of caseous material covering the pericardial sac and in the airsacs. Only the affected viscera are removed if no material is found in the airsacs.

Contamination:

Contamination of the edible portion of the viscera may come from different sources:

• Faecal contamination – Any visible material determined to be from the lower gastrointestinal tract.
• Ingesta – The undigested contents of the crop, gizzard or proventriculus. Remove viscera with liquid or dry ingesta content. Dry and localized ingesta covering an area of a dime or less or a few isolated grains will not be considered as a defect.
• Extraneous material – Grease stains or other foreign material on the viscera.

Emaciation:

Extremely thin carcasses in poor conditions. The remaining fat, on the heart and gizzard, is in a moist, pinkish, sticky and jelly-like consistency.

Hepatitis:

Carcass and viscera are to be removed if the liver exhibits multiple visible white/yellow or green-black spots of any size or shape. In turkey, only the liver is to be removed.

The liver only is to be removed if it is green and enlarged and firm (hard), or if the liver displays multiple pinpoint red spots, or if the liver displays evident signs of ascites (bosselated, cobblestone) with or without pinpoint red spots (petechial haemorrhages).

Note: Carcass and viscera are to be passed if the liver has a normal size, sharp edges, (regardless of the colour of the liver), or if the liver exhibits signs of a fatty liver (light brown, yellowish) even though they are enlarged.

Marek's Disease (Visceral Marek's):

If visceral tumours (white nodules) are present, the carcass is to be removed from the line.

Peritonitis:

Inflammation of the lining of the abdominal viscera often seen with red tags, as a whitish to yellow, opaque, cheesy exudates, and with an off odour.

Septicaemia or Toxaemia:

These are the acute conditions which may present various signs, i.e., haemorrhages on single or multiples organs and in the cavity, congestion of various organs. In those cases, the CFIA VIC should be consulted to identify the cause of the identified lesions.

Note: In Canada, Septicaemia or Toxaemia can only be confirmed through lab analysis.

Tumors (Leiomyoma and Hemangioma):

The benign growth found in the meso-salpinx (membrane enveloping the oviduct) is very common and is not considered malignant. Carcasses with tumours such as Leiomyoma and Hemangioma must be left on the evisceration line. However, the viscera must be removed and discarded.

19.6.2.4.3.2 Cavity Defect Detection

The cavity defect detector is not required to remove carcasses signalled for removal. If they are properly identified, these carcasses may be removed later by the helper/trimmer or by other on-line employees.

In descending order, the cavity detector's priorities are to:

• examine each cavity and abdominal opening for defects (e.g., Faecal Contamination, Peri-Cloacal Cellulitis);
• signal carcasses with specified defects for removal or trimming according to agreed codes (if applicable);
• if applicable, function as presenters (if the operator elects to combine presentation and cavity detection duties) to permit examination of the entire cavity in establishments with eviscerator(s) which do not separate the viscera from the carcass (if applicable); and
• signal the presence of obviously condemnable carcasses that should have been removed from the line prior to evisceration.

19.6.2.4.3.2.1 Definition of Cavity Defects

Airsacculitis:

All carcasses with liquid or solid material in the air sacs or in the lungs, left inside the cavity, measuring greater than 3 mm (5 mm for turkey) are to be removed. Carcasses with lesions that are very well capsulated by a very thick membrane of the air sacs must also be identified.

Cellulitis (Peri-Cloacal):

Thickened, yellow coloured skin. Remove carcasses with cellulitis lesions on the peri-cloacal area.

Contamination:

Contamination of the carcass cavity and/or viscera may come from different sources:

• Faecal contamination: Any visible material determined to be from the lower gastrointestinal tract within the abdominal cavity.
• Ingesta: The undigested contents of the crop, gizzard or proventriculus (liquid or solid) which have contaminated the carcass cavity. Dry and localized ingesta covering an area of a dime or less or a few isolated grains will not be considered as a defect if the operator is not performing on-line reprocessing.
• Bile Contamination: Bile stains causing a discolouration of affected tissue.
• Extraneous material: Grease stains or other foreign material within the abdominal cavity.
• Intestine/Cloaca: Refers to a length of intestine/cloaca attached to the carcass or inside the cavity and is associated with evisceration lines equipped with a new technology system. The cause is improperly adjusted equipment; the length of intestine/cloaca still attached to the carcass or inside the cavity will contaminate the internal cavity with faeces or, if it enters the giblet harvesting process, it will spread faecal contamination onto both equipment and product.

Salpingitis:

This is an infection of the oviduct or salpinx, the reproductive organ of pullets. It is characterized by the presence of liquid or solid material, which is usually yellowish in colour. Very often the tissues surrounding the salpinx become viscous. All viscera exhibiting such lesions must be removed from the evisceration line. Any presence of solid or liquid material within the salpinx observed during examination must be recorded as a defect.

Tumours:

Any enlarged abnormal irregular mass of tissue in the internal cavity.

In Quails, yellowish granules of various sizes (1 mm to 15 mm) located in the air sacs or attached to abdominal cavity (Granuloma).

19.6.2.4.4 Hanging Back and Sorting Carcasses

Carcasses removed from any point along the evisceration line must be submitted to a post mortem examination (defect detection) unless they are rejected by the operator.

Such carcasses shall be examined off-line and sorted into four categories by an accredited defect detector, and are to be handled as follows:

• normal carcasses – returned to the evisceration line;
• carcasses with localized pathology – send for off-line salvaging, trimming or reconditioning or for on-line reconditioning;
• carcasses with processing defects – send for off-line reprocessing or salvage or for on-line reprocessing; and
• carcasses suspected of having generalized pathology diseases or conditions – send for detailed veterinary inspection or examination by a rejecter under the rejection process.

Note: Carcasses removed from the evisceration line for suspected generalized pathology shall be sent to the rejecter or veterinarian.

For products eligible for export to the United States, refer to the procedure concerning carcasses removed from the evisceration line outlined in Chapter 11, "Exports".

19.6.2.4.5 Monitoring Activities by the Operator

The carcass, cavity and viscera defect detection and removal process shall be monitored by the operator on a regular basis by using the Defect Detection Standards (DDS) as described under section 19.6.2.5 of this chapter. If defective carcasses are missed at preselection or at post-evisceration, corrective measures shall be initiated as per the DDS.

Monitoring test results should be periodically, or upon request, be correlated with the CFIA.

19.6.2.5 Defect Detection Standards (DDS)

DDS are used as a Process Control (PC) to contribute to the effectiveness of the related CCP(s) and post mortem examination activities.

DDS are designed to encompass defects affecting the carcass exterior, cavity and viscera. A separate AQL is assigned to carcass defects, to cavity defects and to viscera defects. All three (3) AQLs, including a zero tolerance for septicaemia/toxaemia apply to abattoirs operating under the MPIP. However, for operators phasing out CPIP, the viscera defects and the corresponding AQL for viscera defects do not apply until the operator commences Phase 3 of implementing the MPIP.

19.6.2.5.1 Sampling for Carcasses Using Sampling Plans Indexed by AQL

The defect detection process monitoring is performed using an acceptance sampling plan, the ISO 2859-1 sampling plan.

• The acceptance quality level (AQL) is the maximum percent defective (or the maximum number of defects per 100 units) that, for the purposes of sampling inspection, can be considered satisfactory as a process average (ISO 2859-1:1999).
• The acceptance number (Ac) is the largest number of defects permitted in a sample in order that the lot be accepted for a specific acceptance quality limit.
• A lot is the equivalent of one hour of production volume per evisceration line per shift.
• Sampling time to be randomly selected for each hour of production.
• A nonconformity is a poultry carcass with one or more processing or pathological defects as defined in this section. A defective carcass is a carcass with a defect that cannot be corrected on the evisceration line, i.e., a carcass requiring disposition and with extensive processing defects.
• Other carcasses with defects that are not considered as nonconforming items under the present system are referred to as carcasses with on-line trimmable defects.
• Once the MPIP Phase 3 commences, the switching rules shall be utilized as per the "DDS Decision Tree".

19.6.2.5.2 Elements of Defect Detection Standards (DDS)

The DDS monitoring tool has three general components:

• Process evaluation;
• Corrective measure(s) evaluation; and
• Post chill production verification.

The process evaluation monitors the removal of defective carcasses as described in this standard. It is performed at a consistent frequency on successive lots. It determines if the process meets the standards on an on-going basis.

The corrective measure(s) evaluation is an assessment of the adequacy of corrective measures that have been implemented following a rejected sample. It determines when the process meets the standards on an on-going basis.

The post chill product verification is to be used to insure that potentially defective product of rejected lots meet the standard or should be held for rework.

DDS have been established in two (2) versions. The difference between the versions is the addition or exclusion of the internal cavity defects evaluation.

• "Version 1" applies to an operator that does not use an approved on-line reprocessing and reconditioning process (or during validation). The monitoring defects have been divided into three (3) groups: carcass defect group, viscera defect group and cavity defect group (including Septicaemia /Toxaemia).
• "Version 2" applies to an operator that does use an approved on-line reprocessing and reconditioning process (or during validation). Under this version, the cavity defects are removed such that two (2) defect groups are to be evaluated: carcass defect group and viscera defect group (including Septicaemia/Toxaemia).

19.6.2.5.2.1 Position for the On-line Monitoring DDS Station

• downstream from the team of establishment carcass/viscera/cavity detectors (under version 2, cavity detectors may be positioned after the DDS station); and
• before or after the helper/trimmer; and
• before viscera is harvested (or discarded) or the carcass is trimmed (other than by the helper/trimmer) and before the internal cavity is vacuumed.

19.6.2.5.2.2 Facility Requirements for On-line Monitoring Station

Refer to the "Plant Construction and Equipment" section of this chapter.

19.6.2.5.2.3 Testing Frequency and Sample Size

The DDS monitoring tests are based on a lot-by-lot evaluation determined to be an hour's production. Therefore, accredited plant employees shall conduct scheduled randomized tests, once every hour of production, on a specified number of carcasses and corresponding viscera at the on-line station. Times for the tests shall be randomly selected prior to the start of the shift. The process evaluation shall always remain on a production lot of an hour.

19.6.2.5.2.4 National Survey: Prevalence of Missed Defects in Passed Carcasses

Data collected during a national survey of chicken, turkey, fowl and quail abattoirs was updated based on data collected from abattoirs operating under MPIP.

19.6.2.5.2.5 National AQLs and Monitoring Defects Lists

The National AQLs were determined based on prevalence data resulting from national surveys in slaughtering establishments.

Note: There is a "zero" tolerance for the Septicaemia/Toxaemia defect in the Carcass and Viscera Defect Groups.

The following defects shall be counted during defect detection monitoring. A carcass showing multiple defects shall be scored as one defective carcass. These defects are described previously in this section.

19.6.2.5.2.6 Sampling Procedure

Tests shall be conducted to reflect the performance of the defect detectors without being influenced by the on-line CFIA inspector(s).

All defect groups are to be evaluated using the same carcass sample.

Each sampled carcass must be fully examined (i.e., the carcass exterior, the corresponding viscera and the carcass cavity for version 1). The following step-by-step sampling procedure has been developed to facilitate national uniformity and is designed to ensure that each carcass has an equal chance of being selected. Carcasses must be selected as described below to prevent sampling bias.

Step 1. Randomly select a time for the test (minimum once/hr). At the selected time, begin the test by randomly identifying a carcass and picking the third subsequent carcass to be the first carcass in the sample. If the carcass lacks corresponding viscera, then pick the next complete set of carcass and viscera.

Step 2. Visually examine the carcass exterior, the viscera (heart and liver for young chickens and turkeys plus intestines and spleen for mature poultry) and the carcass cavity (under version 2, the cavity examination is not required). The order of the examination is at the discretion of the monitor to permit the most efficient inspection possible consistent with the presentation of the carcass and corresponding viscera.

Step 3. If a missed defect is suspected, immediately remove the carcass and if applicable, the corresponding viscera, and hang it/them back on the rack provided.

Step 4. Mentally count (add) the carcass, or use a mechanical counter for larger sample sizes (e.g., 125 carcasses).

Step 5. Repeat steps 1 to 4 until the sample size has been reached. (refer to the following table)

Step 6. After completing the on-line examination of the carcasses comprising the sample, carefully examine each hung-back carcass (and its viscera) and determine if it is defective. Record all defects on the form provided in Annex A.

Step 7. Determine if the sample indicates that the lot passed or failed. Take appropriate control action, if warranted, including those indicated by the switching rules for the Decision Tree below.

Step 8. Release removed carcasses for disposition or correction by a designated establishment employee or for the return of normal carcasses to the evisceration line.

19.6.2.5.2.7 Acceptance and Rejection Numbers

Note: Septicaemia / toxaemia has a "zero" tolerance

19.6.2.5.2.8 Process Out of Control – Action to be Taken

During the process evaluation, each defect group is to be monitored independently of the other defect groups, using the same sample.

When the test result reaches the rejection number for a specific defect group, it indicates that the process is under questionable control. Therefore, corrective measures must be implemented for this specific defect group and additional on-line testing is required.

Note: Scheduled randomized hourly pre-chill process evaluation tests shall continue independent of corrective measure(s) evaluation tests and post chill product verification tests.

Once corrective measures have been implemented, the efficacy of these measures shall be evaluated and the evaluation shall only apply to the defect group under questionable control. Corrective measures and additional corrective measure(s) evaluations are required until two (2) accepted samples demonstrate conformance to the standard.

When a corrective measure(s) evaluation is rejected, the operator shall immediately reduce the line speed by 10% and implement corrective measure(s). The efficacy of those corrective measures will be evaluated within 10 minutes.

Immediate post-chill product verification and potential product rework is required when one (1) corrective measure(s) evaluation has been rejected. The verification is required only for the specific defect group(s). The end of additional sampling at post-chill verification station occurs once corrective measures have been accepted (two accepted corrective measure(s) evaluations), by marking identified carcasses entering the chilling process.

The post-chill verification shall cover the entire amount of production or lot that was determined to be out of compliance at the pre-chill station (corrective measure(s) evaluation). If a post-chill product verification sample is rejected, the Establishment's monitor shall then identify the affected product so that it may be segregated and accumulated for rework.

The operator must develop a written program that will clearly indicate how plant personnel will identify lots of carcasses requiring rework, isolate these lots, rework the carcasses, and verify that the rework is satisfactory.

Once a specified lot has been reworked for the appropriate defects, a rework verification test shall be performed using the appropriate pass and fail criteria for that specific defect group. An accepted sample will result in releasing the retained lot.

A carcass and corresponding viscera exhibiting signs of potential Septicaemia/toxaemia, as defined under the "Definitions of Carcass Defects" or "Definitions of Viscera Defects" sections is to be removed for a CFIA veterinary inspection. If the veterinarian suspects a Septicaemia/toxaemia condition, the following procedures shall be initiated:

• The operator shall immediately notify all defect detectors that potential Septicaemia/toxaemia is found during a DDS evaluation;
• The "Corrective Measure(s) Evaluation" procedures and the "Post-Chill Product Verification" for both the viscera and the carcass groups are performed as per the DDS Decision Tree;
• The carcass and viscera are sent for a laboratory analysis confirmation; and
• If the laboratory analysis confirms the Septicaemia/toxaemia condition, the operator shall initiate corrective measure(s) satisfactory to the Veterinarian in Charge.

If the first shift ends in corrective measure(s) mode and/or post-chill product verification mode, the second shift shall continue with only the post-chill product verification mode until the end of affected carcasses.

If the last shift of the day (single or multiple shift establishments) ends in corrective measure(s) mode and/or post-chill product verification mode, the post-chill product verification mode shall continue until the chilling system is emptied.

Each element of the process control and their interaction are explained below and are presented in the decision tree.

The MIR have precedence over the DDS decision tree (corrective measures can be mandate at any time by the VIC).

19.6.2.5.2.9 Relationship Between the DDS and the Presentation Verification Tests

The two monitoring procedures must be carried out separately since they have different objectives. The presentation standards ensure adequate evisceration, so that on-line inspectors can perform a proper inspection and detectors can perform proper detection. The defect detection standards establish the criteria for verifying the operator's performance.

19.6.2.5.2.10 Defect Detection Standards (DDS) Decision Tree

19.6.2.5.3 DDS Defects Log

A separate DDS Defects Log shall be used for each species.

For operators with more than one shift per day, test results for each shift shall be considered independently because of personnel and supervisor differences and shall be recorded on separate DDS Defects Logs.

Carcasses or viscera are scored as a defective sample unit for the presence of any distinguishable defect listed in section 19.6.2.5.2.5, "National AQLs and Monitoring Defects Lists" of this chapter. A carcass or viscera showing multiple defects under the same defect group is scored as one defect (e.g., a carcass with inadequate bleeding and emaciation = one defective carcass).

A carcass with defects under different defect groups is scored as one defective carcass for each group (e.g., a carcass with ascites and hepatitis would = one defect in the Carcass Defect Group and one defect in the Viscera Defect Group).

Defects are scored in their respective defect group, a total score for each group is determined and acceptability is determined by comparing the score to the applicable acceptance and rejection numbers for that group.

19.6.2.5.3.1 Defects Log for Chicken, Fowl, Turkey and Quail

Refer to Annex A of this chapter.

19.6.2.5.4 CFIA Responsibilities

CFIA staff shall ensure that the DDS has been implemented by the operator and is being performed according to this section and the operator's written program. This may be accomplished by performing independent verification tests and/or correlation tests with the industry monitor.

An independent test or a correlation test shall be performed at a minimum of once per half shift/evisceration line. A minimum of two verification tests (one independent and one verification test) shall be conducted and recorded each week by a veterinarian. The records must show that within one month each veterinarian working at the plant has performed at least one test of each kind.

CFIA staff may perform an additional test at any time as an additional assurance of process control or if they feel that standards are not being met for any reason.

Test results may be recorded on a separate DDS Log or on the operator's records such that CFIA tests can be distinguished from tests conducted by the operator's DDS monitor.

Also, an indication should be present to differentiate the independent CFIA verification tests from the correlation tests with the industry monitor.

19.6.2.5.4.1 Independent CFIA Verification Tests

The CFIA's independent verification of the operator's process evaluation tests shall be performed according to the following parameters:

• Tests shall be performed on each evisceration line, at select random times and according to the sampling method described previously. When a correlation test is performed, it replaces the independent test scheduled for that half shift;
• If an independent verification coincides with any of the plant monitor's tests, the inspector shall conduct a correlation test instead of an independent test;
• The sample size will be the same as that used by the operator;
• If the sample is rejected, the DDS monitor shall perform an immediate "Process Evaluation" test and then initiate any required action as per the decision tree in this section; and
• The result of each test shall be compared to the operator's monitoring record. If the CFIA test result is not in agreement with the operator's tests, the Inspector shall discuss the test results with the (industry) DDS monitor and inform the VIC.

The Decision Tree for DDS is to be used by the operator's monitor and for reference by the CFIA.

19.6.2.5.4.2 Correlation Tests

Correlation testing consists of the CFIA conducting an evaluation of a test being performed by the operator's DDS monitor according to the following parameters:

• The test shall be performed on each evisceration line. This frequency may be increased according to the operator's compliance to the monitoring procedures of the Defect Detection Standards. When a correlation test is performed, it replaces the independent CFIA test scheduled for that half shift;
• A member of the inspection staff shall examine the same carcasses at the same time as the industry monitor; and
• The monitor will be evaluated for the sampling method used, correct interpretation of defects, completion of forms, correct application of the decision tree and the implementation of corrective actions if necessary.

If the CFIA's evaluation demonstrates deficiency in the industry's defect detection process and/or the monitoring thereof, immediate corrective measure shall be initiated by the operator. The VIC shall decide if the written procedure is to be reassessed and amended accordingly.

19.6.2.6 Poultry Rejection Process

19.6.2.6.1 Introduction

The Poultry Rejection Process (PRP), as presented in this sub-section, is part of the Modernized Poultry Inspection Program (MPIP), a post mortem examination program, as defined in section 2 of the Meat Inspection Regulations, 1990 (MIR). Both the CFIA and the operator have a role to play under the PRP. This section contains the requirements for the operator, as referred to in section 29.1 (3) of the MIR, and explains the role of the CFIA.

The MPIP requires an operator to perform a post mortem examination of carcasses and to sort defective carcasses based on the criteria specified in this chapter. The PRP involves the operator assuming responsibility, as instructed by the official veterinarian, for rejecting chicken, turkey and heavy fowl (spent breeder hens) carcasses with certain deviations which should be discarded as condemned. The CFIA will evaluate the compliance of the rejection process throughout slaughter and evisceration operations.

The CFIA has initiated the design and development of the PRP under the scope of section 29.1 (4) which stipulates "For the purpose of evaluating an application for authorization to operate a shared inspection program or a post mortem examination program, the President may undertake any consultation, study, research, test, trial or other process that is necessary."

It is to be noted that any operator authorized to implement a post mortem examination program under section 30.2 (a) of the MIR shall "operate the program under the supervision of an official veterinarian". Furthermore, section 30.2 (b) of the MIR stipulates that the operator shall "ensure that the program continues to meet the requirements of the Manual of Procedures"; otherwise a notice of suspension will be delivered to the operator as per MIR section 29.4 (1). In such case, an operator may face a licence suspension or be limited to operate under a traditional mode with one inspection station and the associated maximum permitted line speed.

Section 83. (2) of the MIR stipulates that "Subject to subsection (3), if … the carcass or a part of the carcass of a food animal shows a deviation from normal appearance … the carcass and all its parts shall be held and referred to an official veterinarian for detailed inspection and for instructions regarding the disposition of the blood and the carcass and its parts." The requirements of the PRP policy are described pursuant to the authority given to the Director under section 83.5 of the MIR and further to section 83.(3) of the MIR which stipulates that "An official veterinarian may instruct an operator or an inspector who is not an official veterinarian that blood, carcasses or parts of carcasses with certain deviations from normal appearance (a) are not required to be referred to an official veterinarian for detailed inspection; and (b) are to be disposed of in accordance with the instructions provided by an official veterinarian."

For the purposes of the PRP, carcasses showing "certain deviations from normal appearance" referred to in MIR section 83.(3) are defined as carcasses with deviations and are included within the following table.

The deviations listed in the preceding table have been selected as they are easily identifiable by operator's employees trained and accredited using the training material and accreditation protocol developed by the CFIA. The code assigned to each disease and condition is intended for use by the operator and the CFIA Veterinarian in Charge when issuing condemnation/rejection reports and when collating and submitting condemnation/rejection data on a monthly basis to headquarters.

The deviations listed in the preceding table are explained in section 19.7, "Poultry Dispositions", of this chapter and/or within the applicable training modules as developed by the CFIA for use by industry. The CFIA training modules are available through the local inspection staff. Designated industry employees must be trained and accredited prior to performing rejections as described in Annex B, "Training and Accreditation Protocol", of this chapter.

Please note that the official veterinarian maintains, at all times, his or her discretionary powers pursuant to section 83.(2) even when instructing an operator not to submit carcasses showing certain deviations. Carcasses not falling within the preceding table and "Questionable" carcasses, as described later in this chapter, must be referred to the CFIA Veterinarian for a detailed veterinary inspection and instructions. The operator is required to refer to the CFIA veterinarian whenever the company rejecter encounters a lot with an unusual pathology or a flock with a high rejection rate. The CFIA MPIP evisceration floor inspector may also inform the official veterinarian. In either case, the CFIA veterinarian shall assess the affected lot and provide instructions to the industry rejecter and the CFIA inspector(s) for handling affected carcasses. In addition, at any time, an official veterinarian may require that all rejected carcasses be submitted for detailed veterinary inspection from a particular lot or lots.

Carcasses with processing defects, as described in "Rejection Process", the following sub-section, are to be identified by the industry designated defect detectors and re-routed, using the provisions under MIR section 83.(3), to appropriate processes and/or disposed of according to the requirements of this Chapter. These affected carcasses are not considered under the PRP. However, they are to be handled by the operator under CFIA oversight (CFIA evisceration floor inspector).

19.6.2.6.2 Rejection Process

The rejection process is initiated on the evisceration line by defect detection related activities:

• Carcass defect detector(s) remove obviously condemnable carcasses prior to evisceration for sorting by a trained and accredited rejecter.
• After evisceration, viscera defect detectors identify viscera that have specified defects that may warrant rejection of the carcass and the corresponding viscera. Each such viscera and the corresponding carcass are to be removed from the evisceration line for sorting by a rejecter.
• Carcasses with localized cavity defects shall be handled as per on-line/off-line reprocessing/reconditioning and/or salvaging processes. Carcasses with only cavity defects are not to be submitted to the rejecter.

Carcasses removed from the evisceration line for suspected generalized pathology shall be sorted off-line by a rejecter into three groups as follows:

• rejected carcasses;
• passed carcasses (subject to assessment by the CFIA and removal of any localized defect(s)); and
• "questionable" carcasses (set aside for CFIA veterinary assessment).
  • Each rejected carcass shall be recorded by the rejecter. The rejecter also classifies each rejected carcass under one of the nine (9) categories listed in the preceding table. Carcasses which are passed by the rejecter shall be presented to the CFIA as described later in this chapter under "Phase 3, Pre-authorization Implementation Period".

Questionable carcasses are carcasses that the rejecter is unsure if they should be rejected or passed (e.g., a new or unknown pathology or unknown signs of pathology). Such carcasses shall be set aside in a designated location approved by the Veterinarian in Charge (VIC).

All questionable carcasses and "deviations from normal appearance" not listed in the preceding table must be referred to the CFIA for a veterinary judgment and disposition. Examples include: Anemia, Botulism, Cannibalism, Coligranuloma, Emphysema, Frostbite, Leucosis sarcoma group, Gout, Osteomyelitis, Urolithiasis, Septicaemia, etc.

Rejection Correlation Tests (RCT) performed by the CFIA Veterinarian on rejected carcasses help to assure that questionable carcasses are minimized and help to provide feedback to the rejecter as part of a learning experience.

If the veterinarian is not sure of the diagnosis and/or the disposition, the veterinarian should contact their area poultry National Correlation Team (NCT) representative for advice including whether a sample should be submitted for laboratory analysis.

Carcasses listed in the following table are:

• not part of the rejection process;
• are to be handled by a designated industry employee; and
• are not to be presented to the CFIA (unless requested by the VIC on a case-by-case basis).

Note: Only "Extensive Bruising", "Found Dead" and "Inadequate Bleeding" are to be reported to the VIC for the monthly roll-up in Form CFIA/ACIA 5179, Antemortem and Postmortem Inspection Report.

19.6.2.6.3 Training and Accreditation

Rejecters shall be trained and accredited using the process specified in Annex B of this chapter. The CFIA will train and accredit at least two (2) industry trainers who in turn will train and accredit a sufficient number of rejecters such that at least one accredited rejecter is available on-site for each slaughter shift. Official training material has been developed by the CFIA for use by the industry trainers.

19.6.2.6.4 Implementation of PRP

The PRP will be implemented in three (3) phases in abattoirs that have qualified for Phase 3 of the MPIP implementation and that have completed the preliminary activities listed below prior to commencing Phase 1 of the PRP. The following table summarizes the preliminary activities and the three (3) phases for implementing the PRP:

19.6.2.6.4.1 Preliminary Activities

The CFIA area poultry condemnation National Correlation Team (NCT) member shall ensure that the VIC is correlated to the latest version of the poultry condemnation policies, as contained within this chapter, for all classes of poultry slaughtered at the abattoir. The VIC shall then correlate any other CFIA veterinarian(s) working at the abattoir. The VIC shall also ensure that the industry trainers for defect detection are updated according to the requirements contained in Annex B, Training and Accreditation Protocol, of this chapter. Industry trainers shall update/retrain the remaining defect detectors by using the latest versions of the CFIA developed industry training modules for carcass, cavity and viscera defect detection.

Industry trainers and monitors shall be trained according to the requirements contained in Annex B, Training and Accreditation Protocol, of this chapter.

19.6.2.6.4.2 Phase 1 – Preparatory Period

The area CFIA poultry condemnation NCT member or designate will ensure that the Veterinarian in Charge (VIC) and all other CFIA veterinarians assigned to the abattoir (and who will be assessing the rejection process), including replacement veterinarian(s) are trained for:

• performing RCT for unwarranted rejections (false positives), carcasses passed in error (false negatives) and questionable carcasses;
• recording false positives, false negatives and questionable carcasses; and
• assessing the rejection data and control over the rejection process.

The NCT representative or qualified designate and a Poultry Inspection Specialist or a qualified designate (e.g., a CFIA inspector trained and certified for the MPIP including the PRP) will train and accredit the plant trainers for performing rejections based on the disposition policies contained in this chapter. The plant trainers will then train and accredit the remaining industry defect detectors and other personnel performing or assessing rejections (e.g., supervisor and carcass and viscera defect detectors who will be performing rejections).

CFIA inspectors will also be trained to provide a basic understanding of the rejection process.

The operator should commence preparations to issue a condemnation/rejection report during Phase 1. In particular, computer software and a database should be enhanced or be created such that all the required information, including that required to bench mark the total rejections for farm origin pathology, can be entered onto each condemnation/rejection report.

Operators shall present to the VIC a written description of the facilities and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the rejection process.

Phase 2 should begin as soon as possible after sufficient number of CFIA staff have been trained and industry personnel have been accredited for performing rejections.

19.6.2.6.4.3 Phase 2 – Trial Period

Throughout Phase 2, each carcass removed from the evisceration line for suspected farm origin pathology (as specified in the Defect Detection Standards (DDS) program) is to be presented by the rejecter for veterinary diagnosis and disposition as part of a Rejection Correlation Test as described in the following sub-section, "Rejection Correlation Test". The rejecter shall dispose of the carcass as instructed by the veterinarian and, if rejected, shall record the carcass in the correct category for issuing the monthly Ante Mortem and Post Mortem Inspection Report.

Throughout Phase 2, the CFIA veterinarian(s) mentor/coach the industry rejecters full-time while the rejecters gain practical experience. The CFIA will continue to collate the disposition data for submission to the CFIA HQ at the end of each month.

Both the operator and the CFIA veterinarian are to track the false positives, false negatives and questionable carcasses for each truck/lot. When it appears that the performance of the newly trained rejecters has passed through the learning curve and has plateaued/stabilized, then data on false positives, false negatives and questionable carcasses should be collected for another 20 consecutive production shifts (each shift is considered separately) after which the CFIA will perform a formal audit to assess if the operator qualifies to advance to Phase 3 of implementing the PRP. The data from Phase 2 will be used to construct a variety of charts and graphs for use during Phase 3 and Post-Implementation.

The VIC and the operator shall assess if any facilities or the rejection process needs to be added or modified to facilitate:

• an efficient rejection process;
• the veterinarian performing RCTs; and
• the CFIA Evisceration Floor Inspector examining each carcass removed by the defect detectors for suspected pathology and which was not rejected by the rejecter.

A CFIA review team comprised of the area poultry inspection specialist, the Regional Veterinarian Officer (RVO), the area NCT member and the veterinarian in charge, should perform the Phase 2 to 3 audit (requires 1-3 days) by completing the "Poultry Rejection Process (PRP) Compliance Checklist, Phase 2 (Trial Period) to Phase 3 (Pre-authorization Implementation Period)", provided by the area poultry inspection specialist. The checklist shall be completed by the area poultry inspection specialist and copied to all team members as well as the CFIA Inspection Manager. Phase 3 may commence when all deficiencies identified during the audit/review which might affect the performance of the rejecters have been corrected.

19.6.2.6.4.3.1 Rejection Correlation Test

The CFIA veterinarian shall perform an RCT for false positive and false negative carcasses on each lot of poultry as described in the following four (4) steps. False positives are carcasses that would have been rejected by the rejecter but should have been passed (unwarranted rejections). False negatives are carcasses that would have been passed by the rejecter but should have been rejected (passed in error). For the purposes of an RCT a lot is considered to be comprised of one truck load or about one hour's production of live poultry.

Step no. 1 – Throughout Phase 2, all carcasses with suspected generalized pathology, which are removed from the line by the defect detectors, shall be presented to the CFIA veterinarian by the rejecter in a manner acceptable to the VIC (either manually or on CFIA accepted facilities). Such carcasses shall be:

• presented one at a time to the veterinarian;
• presented in a manner to clearly indicate if the rejecter wants to reject or pass the carcass; and
• if rejected, presented with an indication as to under which one of the nine (9) categories listed in the table in the introduction to this section; and
• if not rejected, presented with an indication as to whether the carcass may be returned to the evisceration line or may be sent for salvaging or off-line reprocessing/reconditioning.

If the rejecter is not sure whether the carcass should be rejected or passed, the rejecter shall indicate that the carcass is a "questionable" carcass.

A procedure should be in place to coordinate the work of the rejecters and the CFIA VMs in an efficient and timely manner.

Step no. 2 – The veterinarian should inform the rejecter of the correct name and disposition for each false positive, false negative and questionable carcass.

Please note that whenever the rejecter correctly indicates that a carcass should be rejected, but places it in the wrong category, the rejecter should be informed that it is a mistake and should be informed of what the correct name/category is, but such a mistake should not be counted as a false positive. Repeated mistakes should be reported by the CFIA veterinarian to the plant operator for follow-up by a plant trainer.

Step no. 3 – Rejecters shall collect the number of carcasses that would have been rejected and collate the rejection results under each of the nine (9) categories listed in the table in the Introduction to this section. This information shall be provided to the CFIA veterinarian. The veterinarian shall verify if the information provided by the rejecter (number of carcasses in each category) correlates with similar information collected by the veterinarian during the RCT.

The operator should put in place a system (manual or electronic) to collect the number of carcasses rejected and the category into which each rejected carcass is placed by the rejecter.

Step no. 4 – The following information should be recorded by the CFIA veterinarian for entry into an Excel spreadsheet for every lot:

• number of carcasses rejected for pathology;
• number of false positives and the correct category/condition for each false positive;
• number of false negatives and the correct category/condition for each false negative;
• number of questionable carcass(es);
• number of birds slaughtered; and
• initials of the plant rejecter(s) and the veterinarian.

It is recommended that the CFIA veterinarian(s) track information on the type and number of questionable carcasses separately to enhance training of the rejecters during phase 2.

19.6.2.6.4.4 Phase 3 – Pre-authorization Implementation Period

The operator commences the following tasks:

• performing rejections (without a detailed veterinary inspection for each carcass removed from the evisceration line for suspected farm origin pathology (as specified in the DDS program)); and
• recording rejection data.

Each carcass removed by the defect detectors for suspected pathology, and which is not rejected by the rejecter, shall be set aside in a designated location for examination by the CFIA.

The CFIA veterinarian will:

• perform all of the activities listed in the following subsection "Role of the CFIA Veterinarian";
• once per half shift:
  • perform an RCT for unwarranted rejections (false positive) and carcasses passed in error (false negative) as described in the preceding sub section, "Phase 2 – Trial Period", on a lot randomly selected by the CFIA veterinarian;
  • perform a detailed inspection on all carcasses from the selected lot which are removed from the evisceration line for suspected pathology (not for carcasses with only processing defects) after the rejecter has made a decision for each such carcass as previously described under Phase 2 of implementing the PRP; and
  • verifies that the rejection data collected and collated by the rejecter for the lot accurately represents the rejections reported on the operator's "Condemnation/Rejection Report for Poultry" (if issued by the operator) disposition report for that lot;
• record and enter false positive and negative data and all of the other information listed under "Phase 2 – Trial Period" into the Excel spreadsheet to generate the control charts and to track trends in corresponding charts and graphs; and
• review the control charts and graphs for false positive and negative to assess industry control over the rejection process as described under the subsequent sub-section 19.6.2.6.5.3, "Assessment of the Rejection Process".

Whenever a lot is selected by the CFIA veterinarian for testing, the rejecter shall present each carcass removed from the evisceration line for suspect pathology to the veterinarian as described under "Phase 2 – Trial Period".

The rejection process is considered to be under control during Phase 3 if the graphs for false positives and negatives appear to be similar to those generated during Phase 2, and provided that the operator remains in compliance with the other requirements for the PRP.

The CFIA Evisceration Floor Inspector will:

• screen each carcass that was removed by the defect detectors for suspected generalized pathology and that was not rejected by the rejecter; and
• monitor the rejection process.

Each carcass and corresponding viscera removed by the defect detectors for suspected generalized pathology, and not rejected by the rejecter, shall be examined by the Evisceration Floor Inspector. If the inspector determines that the carcass and viscera may be a false negative, then the carcass and viscera shall be set aside for a detailed veterinary inspection.

Questionable carcasses and viscera shall be set aside for a detailed veterinary inspection and feedback to rejecters and CFIA inspectors.

The rejection process shall also be monitored by the Evisceration Floor Inspector throughout evisceration operations whenever the CFIA veterinarian is not present within the evisceration area. The VIC shall be advised whenever anything suspicious or abnormal takes place (e.g., there appears to be unwarranted rejections, the rejecter is replaced just before the veterinarian performs an RCT, a new untrained industry employee starts to perform rejections while not being trained by the trainer, a lot with a high level of rejections or with an uncommon disease/condition is being eviscerated, a large number of viscera are being rejected by the viscera defect detector due to contamination and the cause is not corrected in a timely manner, etc.).

The CFIA veterinarian may perform an additional RCT at any time and/or may instruct the operator that all rejected carcasses and corresponding viscera shall be set aside.

Phase 3, Pre-authorization Implementation Period, is considered to be completed after 3 consecutive months of consistently satisfactory performance as assessed by the VIC and the area poultry inspection specialist. This assessment shall include the results of the RCT performed by the CFIA veterinarian for the rejection process during Phase 2 and 3. The Excel file containing the results of all the RCTs shall be submitted to the area poultry inspection specialist who shall determine if an on-site assessment including completion of the PRP checklist is warranted.

19.6.2.6.4.5 Authorization

The PRP is considered to be fully implemented after Phase 3 is successfully completed. The Regional Director will then authorize the operator to operate under the PRP as part of the MPIP. CFIA inspection staff will continue to perform the same activities described in Phase 3 of implementing the PRP including randomly selecting one lot per half shift for an RCT by a CFIA veterinarian.

The VIC shall provide the establishment operator with an electronic copy of the excel file containing the data collected during the RCTs and the resulting control graphs once per week on an ongoing basis. Any emerging trend(s) evident on one or more graphs should be discussed between the VIC and the operator.

Data listed in the previous section for Phase 2 will continue to be collected and collated in the Excel spreadsheet by the CFIA veterinarian for a 12 month period (commencing after Phase 3 is finished) for submission to the Area and National Poultry Specialist for assessment of any seasonal effect. Thereafter, the data from the RCT shall be collected on an ongoing basis for assessment by the VIC.

19.6.2.6.5 Role of the CFIA Veterinarian

The Veterinarian-in-Charge (VIC) plays an important role during the initial implementation and the ongoing operations under the PRP. The VIC shall be closely involved in the training of the industry trainers for the PRP and of the designated rejecters. The VIC is a member of the CFIA review team that performs an audit for the operator to qualify for Phase 3 of implementing the PRP. The VIC also plays a key role during the pre-authorization implementation period and throughout the subsequent ongoing authorization phase by providing feedback to the rejecter and CFIA inspectors after inspecting questionable carcasses and/or identifying new conditions. The VIC maintains the authority to assure adequate control of the rejection process by the operator. The CFIA veterinarian may perform an additional RCT at any time and/or may instruct the operator that all rejected carcasses and corresponding viscera shall be set aside.

A CFIA official veterinarian shall be present throughout evisceration operations at the establishment.

Several factors will be assessed by the CFIA to verify if the rejection process put in place by an operator is under control.

19.6.2.6.5.1 Review of Training Records

Industry rejecters must be trained and accredited according to Annex B, Training and Accreditation Protocol, of this chapter. The operator shall maintain a roster of employees who have been trained and accredited for performing rejections. Annually and whenever a new rejecter commences performing rejections, the CFIA VIC shall review the industry training records to verify that each rejecter received the required training and passed the requisite theoretical and practical tests. An updated list of rejecters is to be provided to the VIC.

Whenever a VIC determines that an accredited employee is not performing his or her tasks in a complete and a satisfactory manner, the VIC shall notify the operator. The CFIA shall verify compliance by the operator with the requirements contained in Annex B including those for the Periodic Review, Loss of Accreditation and Reaccreditation for the rejecters.

19.6.2.6.5.2 Specific Circumstances

Under all of the following specific circumstances, it is to be noted that the CFIA official veterinarian may require that all carcasses suspected of a generalized pathology and removed from the evisceration line for further rejection be submitted for a detailed veterinary inspection.

19.6.2.6.5.2.1 Lack of a Competent Rejecter

Whenever the operator lacks an employee listed on the current roster of trained and accredited rejecters for a slaughter shift (e.g., due to sickness or a severe storm that prevents the rejecters from getting to the establishment), the operator may:

• suspend slaughter operations until a competent rejecter can be brought in; or
• all carcasses sent by the detectors for assessment by the rejecter (i.e., suspected of having generalized pathology) are discarded as operator rejects; or
• other options acceptable to the CFIA

19.6.2.6.5.2.2 Lots with an Unusual Pathology

When either defect detectors and/or rejecters are confronted with a new or unusual condition/pathology, veterinary assistance must be sought. Once the condition is identified, the disposition will be communicated to the rejecter(s) and the CFIA Evisceration Floor Inspector. If carcasses affected with the identified condition are rejected, they should be recorded as per VIC guidance in the operator's database and ultimately reported on the monthly Ante Mortem and Post Mortem Inspection Report.

In the case of an unusual form of pathology not contained in the section titled "Poultry Dispositions" of this chapter, samples may be taken and shipped for assessment by the CFIA veterinary pathologist. In those cases, support must be sought from the area representative of the NCT and of the Area Poultry Inspection Specialist. The precautionary principle must apply until the VIC receives feedback and guidance from the veterinary pathologist and/or NCT member.

19.6.2.6.5.2.3 Flocks with a High Rejection Rate

Outlier flocks (with a high rejection rate) are generally anticipated before they are processed through the review of the advance copy of the flock sheet and of the producer profile in the operator's database. The operator must take appropriate action before the lot reaches the evisceration floor.

As soon as an unusually high rejection rate is experienced by the rejecter(s) for a particular lot, the VIC must be immediately called onto the evisceration floor to assess the condition. Once the condition is identified/confirmed by the VIC, the disposition should be communicated to the rejecter(s) and the CFIA Evisceration Floor Inspector. The CFIA veterinarian may comment on the condition found on form CFIA/ACIA 5639 "Poultry Rejection Process Control Evaluation Report".

19.6.2.6.5.3 Assessment of the Rejection Process

The rejection process shall be assessed based on criteria listed in the preceding subsection, "Role of the CFIA Veterinarian" as well as by ongoing RCTs as follows.

The CFIA veterinarian shall conduct an RCT once per half shift as described in the preceding sub section, "Phase 3 – Implementation Period".

The number and distribution of false positive and negative rejected carcasses will be assessed by evaluating the graphs generated by an Excel spreadsheet. The graphs are automatically updated whenever the results of an RCT are entered into the corresponding data entry chart within the Excel spreadsheet.

The CFIA Evisceration Floor Inspector shall monitor the rejection process as well as the salvaging and off-line reprocessing/reconditioning operations throughout evisceration operations.

19.6.2.6.5.3.1 False Positives

Each incident of an unwarranted rejection (false positive) shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the CFIA veterinarian conducting the RCT. The CFIA veterinarian shall inform the industry rejecter each time a false positive occurs during a RCT. If warranted, the CFIA Veterinarian may require the operator to replace and/or retrain a rejecter, slow down the evisceration line or add extra rejecters. Alternatively, the operator may elect to absorb the loss of all rejected carcasses as "plant rejects".

19.6.2.6.5.3.2 False Negatives

There are two (2) types or origins of false negative carcasses:

• defects that are missed by the defect detectors; and
• carcasses passed in error by the rejecter.

Carcasses missed by defect detectors are controlled as part of the DDS program as described previously in this chapter.

As indicated under the previous sub section "Phase 3 – Implementation Period", each carcass and corresponding viscera removed by the defect detectors for suspected generalized pathology of farm origin, and not rejected by the rejecter, shall be inspected by the Evisceration Floor Inspector. If the inspector determines that the carcass and viscera may be a false negative, then the carcass and viscera shall be set aside for a detailed veterinary inspection. The CFIA veterinarian shall inform the rejecter whenever it is determined to be a false negative.

19.6.2.6.5.3.3 Questionable Carcasses

Each questionable carcass provides an opportunity for the CFIA to provide immediate feedback to the rejecter on-site and to ensure an enhancement of the knowledge and expertise of the rejecters. As rejecters gain experience in performing rejections, the number of questionable carcasses set aside should decrease and will indicate that rejecters are becoming more and more proficient in their duties. Questionable carcasses are also important because they alert the VIC of new emerging conditions.

Repetitive submission of questionable carcasses for the same reason/condition and/or unwarranted questionable defective carcasses by either one or several rejecters should be brought by the official veterinarian to the attention of the plant trainer(s).

Conditions found in these questionable carcasses should be factored into subsequent accreditation and/or re-accreditation of the rejecters (refer to Annex B, Training & Accreditation Protocol).

19.6.2.6.5.4 Process Control

A rejection process that is under control is a process where the number and distribution of false positives and negatives during Phase 3, Pre-authorization Implementation Period, and thereafter during the Post Implementation period, reflects that which occurred during Phase 2, Trial Period, for implementing the PRP.

The CFIA has developed a Statistical Process Control (SPC) which is based on a Shewart Chart as incorporated into the Excel spreadsheet as referenced in the preceding sub-sections. Each data point on the Shewart Chart is comprised of the number of correlation errors (comprised of false positives and negatives) from 40 consecutive RCTs (about one month's production). Exceeding the Upper Control Limit (UCL) or seven consecutive data points located above the Central Line (CL) would be a strong indicator that the operator may have lost control over rejections. The operator shall perform an investigation, determine the probable cause(s), submit an acceptable written corrective action plan, and take effective corrective and preventative action(s).

The number of false positives and negatives should tend toward zero over time, with the understanding that the zero value is the objective but is out of reach under normal operating conditions.

If the rejection process goes out of control as shown by the SPC chart generated by the PRP Excel Spreadsheet, CFIA veterinarians will check off the box indicating that the process is not under control on the CFIA/ACIA 5639 "Poultry Rejection Process Control Evaluation Report" form. The operator shall perform an investigation, determine the probable cause(s), submit an acceptable Corrective Action Plan (CAP) and take effective corrective and preventative action(s). CFIA veterinarians will continue to check off the box indicating that the process is not under control until an acceptable CAP (based on the Compliance Verification System (CVS) policy, chapter 18 of this manual) has been received by the VIC and the process is brought back under control as shown by the SPC chart (e.g., if the last data point exceeded the UCL and the new data point is below the UCL, or if the previous seven consecutive data points exceeded the CL and the new data point is below the CL).

In addition, rejecters shall be retrained and/or replaced or rejected carcasses are to be discarded as operator rejects, if one of the following occurs:

• repetitive errors are made by rejecters; or
• total number rejected or number of carcasses indicated by the rejecter(s) under each category indicated on the operator's condemnation/rejection report is inaccurate on an ongoing basis (repetitive occurrence) based on the RCT; or
• carcasses are rejected by non-accredited rejecters.

CFIA veterinarians shall consult with the operator when there is compelling evidence that an upward trend, as shown by the various graphs generated by the Excel Spreadsheet or a cluster of false positive and/or false negative rejected carcasses, can be attributed to a cause other than normal variation in the rejection process.

19.6.2.6.6 Information for Producers

National and regional data for disposition of chickens and turkeys will continue to be posted at the Poultry Marketplace of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

An annual report summarizing the performance of the rejecters, at poultry abattoirs authorized to implement the Poultry Rejection Process for a minimum of 12 months, will be provided by the CFIA to the Chicken Farmers of Canada (CFC), the Turkey Farmers of Canada (TFC) and the Canadian Poultry & Egg Producers Association (CPEPC) during an initial three-year transition period (2010/11/12).

19.6.2.6.7 CFIA Rejection Reports

Refer to section 19.7.5.2, "CFIA Condemnation and Rejection Reports", in this chapter.

19.6.2.7 Carcass Dressing Standards (CDS)

19.6.2.7.1 Introduction

Carcass Dressing Standards (CDS) is an objective tool designed to ensure that the procedures used in preparing and approving a dressed food animal carcass are in control and that the product is produced in conformance with Canadian regulatory standards. These standards specify the operational requirements for dressing, trimming and processing of dressed approved carcasses. CDS tests are performed on sample sets of dressed carcasses randomly selected throughout the production shift to validate the operator's performance in meeting prescribed product standards.

Each operator that switches from the Finished Product Standards (FPS) to the Carcass Dressing Standards (CDS) may utilize an implementation phase of 12 months to facilitate the transition between standards. The VIC should contact the area poultry inspection program specialist for additional information.

19.6.2.7.2 Responsibilities of the Operator

The operator is responsible to process chill carcasses that have been dressed, trimmed and processed, under the minimum requirements specified under the CDS. Therefore, the operator shall:

• provide adequate facilities to hold and to examine sampled carcasses off-line prior to chilling;
• supply accredited CDS trainers and accredited plant personnel for performing CDS tests monitoring;
• perform CDS testing as established by the standard; and
• determine and take the appropriate action in response to the CDS test results.

19.6.2.7.3 Responsibilities of the CFIA

Certified CFIA inspectors will be responsible for verifying the operator's monitoring tests, corrective actions and records. Therefore, inspectors will be performing correlation tests and periodic independent tests (as deemed necessary by the VIC) to verify the company's compliance and performance, (see section "Verification by CFIA" later in this document).

19.6.2.7.4 Facility Requirements for Off-line Monitoring Station

All defects shall be monitored after dressing, trimming or processing and immediately prior to chilling.

Refer to section 19.1.3 for facility requirements for the CDS station.

19.6.2.7.5 Training of the CDS Establishment's Monitor

The CDS establishment monitor shall be trained and accredited as per the Training Protocol described in Annex B of this chapter.

19.6.2.7.6 CDS Process Control – ISO Based Test

Random sampling for CDS testing is performed by the operator using an "Acceptance Sampling Plan", the ISO 2859-1, Special Inspection Level S-3. For more detailed information on the ISO sampling plan under the CDS, see the CFIA Training Module I-2.

The CDS monitoring tool has 3 general components:

• Process evaluation;
• Corrective measure(s) evaluation; and
• Post-chill product verification.

The process evaluation monitors the removal of all dressing defects comprised in this standard. It is performed at a consistent frequency on successive lots. It determines if the process is under control and meets the present standards on an on-going basis.

The corrective measure(s) evaluation is an assessment of the adequacy of the corrective measures that have been implemented following a rejected sample. It determines when the process is back under control.

The post-chill product verification is to be used to insure that potential defective chilled product or parts of rejected lots meets the standards or should be held for rework.

19.6.2.7.6.1 Sample Size

The sample size for the Process Evaluation (PE), Corrective Measure(s) Evaluation (CME) and Post-chill Product Verification (PPV) using the ISO 2859-1 sampling plan is based on the volume of production and the Special Inspection Level S-3.

19.6.2.7.6.2 Testing Frequency

The CDS monitoring tests are based on a lot by lot evaluation determined to be an hour's production. Therefore, an accredited plant employee shall conduct scheduled randomized tests, once every hour of production, on a specified number of carcasses at the off-line station. Times for the tests shall be randomly selected prior to the start of the shift.

The process evaluation shall always remain on a production lot of an (1) hour.

19.6.2.7.6.3 Sampling Method

All carcass samples shall be randomly selected from the evisceration line using a standard random selection technique to prevent sampling bias and shall be included in the operator's written program. In order to correctly evaluate the defects in a consistent basis, it has been determined that the sampling, the examination and the recording of a twenty (20) carcasses sample should be completed in 7 to 10 minutes. The sampling procedure shall be fully described in the company's written program and must be approved by the VIC.

To facilitate the application of a random sampling, the following method is recommended:

Step 1. Randomly select a time for the test.

Step 2. At the selected time, begin the accumulation of the sample by identifying a carcass on the line, removing the third subsequent carcass from the line. This will be the first carcass in the sample. Hang the carcass on the provided shackle/rack.

Step 3. Repeat step 2 until the sample size has been reached.

Step 4. Visually examine all carcasses (exterior, cavity and inside neck area). Remove the defect(s) from the carcass and hold the accumulated defect(s) for further recording.

Step 5. After completing the examination of all the carcasses comprising the sample, record the defects on the form provided in Annex A of this chapter.

Step 6. Determine if the sample indicates that the lot passed or failed considering each defect or group of defects individually. If applicable, take appropriate corrective measures as per the "DDS Decision Tree" below.

For more details on random sampling, see the CFIA Training Module.

19.6.2.7.6.4 CDS Defect Categories and Defect Definitions

The defects to be monitored under the CDS have been divided into two separate categories.

• the food safety (FS) category is designed to monitor the output of the dressing and evisceration procedures that may become a food safety risk; and
• the other, the dressing condition (DC) category, monitors the establishment's ability to remove unsuitable dressing conditions.

Each category has been divided into several defect groups that are to be monitored independently of the other defect groups. Therefore, the food safety category has 3 different defect groups (FS-1, FS-2 and FS-3) and the dressing condition category has 4 different defect groups (DC-1, DC-2, DC-3 and DC-4). Each of the seven defect groups is evaluated using the same 8, 13 or 20 carcass sample.

Each defect is defined as per the following tables:

19.6.2.7.6.5 CDS Defect Group – Ac and Re Numbers

National Ac and Re numbers have been selected using the expected percent of defective carcasses per defect group determined from a national survey for both Chicken and Turkey. The Ac and Re numbers were determined calculating an overall sampling rejection rate of a maximum 5%. The process is considered to be under control when the test result does not exceed the acceptance number as shown in the following table.

19.6.2.7.6.5.1 Ac and Re Numbers for Process Evaluation and Corrective Measure(s) Evaluation

The following table contains the values to be used for Process Evaluation testing and Corrective Measure(s) Evaluation testing.

19.6.2.7.6.5.2 Ac and Re Numbers for Post-chill Product Ac and Re Numbers for Post-chill Product Verification

This table contains the values to be used for post-chill product verification.

19.6.2.7.6.6 Process Control

The Carcass Dressing Standards are designed to provide feedback on a lot acceptance basis. They give the operator the information needed to respond to and to correct the process. When required, implementing effective corrective measures should prevent the need for post-chill product verification and off-line rework.

CFIA staff shall be informed by the operator after each rejected sample.

Each element of the process control and their interaction are explained below and are presented in the decision tree.

The MIR have precedence over this decision tree (corrective measures can be mandated at any time by the VIC).

19.6.2.7.6.6.1 Process Evaluation

During the process evaluation, each defect group is to be monitored independently of the other defect groups, using the same sample.

When a zero tolerance defect (FS-1, Faecal material) is detected, immediate corrective measure(s) and immediate post-chill product verification shall be initiated as per the following sections.

Note: Scheduled randomized hourly pre-chill process evaluation tests shall continue independent of corrective measure(s) evaluation tests and post chill product verification tests.

19.6.2.7.6.6.2 Corrective Measure(s) Evaluation

When the test result indicates that the process is under questionable control for a specific defect group, corrective measures must be implemented for this specific defect group and additional on-line testing is required.

Once corrective measures have been implemented, the efficacy of these measures shall be evaluated and the evaluation shall only apply to the defect group(s) under questionable control. Corrective measures and additional corrective measure(s) evaluations are required until one (1) accepted sample demonstrates conformance to the standard. Line speed reductions would only be applicable as part of corrective measures.

If corrective measures have been accepted while post-chill product verification is been performed, carcasses entering the chilling process are identified to mark the end of additional sampling at the post-chill verification station.

Note: Maximum of five (5) failed tests during phase-in period and three (3) failed tests after phase-in period after which the corrective measures by the operator must be determined by the VIC on a case-by-case basis:

• Replace staffing
• Additional staffing
• Line speed reduction

19.6.2.7.6.6.3 Post-chill Product Verification

Immediate post-chill product verification and potential product rework is required when one (1) corrective measure(s) evaluation has been rejected in the case of food safety defects and localized pathology defects (FS-1, FS-2, FS-3 and DC-1). The verification is required only for the specific defect group(s) which causes the initial sample to be rejected.

The post-chill verification shall cover the entire amount of production or lot that was determined to be out of compliance at the pre-chill station (corrective measure(s) evaluation). If a post-chill product verification sample is rejected, the Establishment's monitor will then identify the affected product so that it may be segregated and accumulated for rework (see reference on the following "CDS Defect Decision Tree").

The operator must have a written method that will clearly indicate how plant personnel will identify lots of carcasses requiring rework, isolate these lots, rework the carcasses, and verify that the rework is satisfactory.

Once a specified lot has been reworked for the appropriate defects, a rework verification test shall be performed using the appropriate pass and fail criteria for that specific defect group. An accepted sample will result in releasing the retained lot.

19.6.2.7.6.7 CDS Defect Decision Tree

19.6.2.7.6.8 CDS Test Result Scoring

A separate CDS Defects Log shall be used for each species and for each shift.

Carcasses are only scored as "defective carcass" for the presence of any distinguishable defect listed in the previous table "CDS Defects". Therefore a carcass showing evidence of the same defect at multiple locations should be recorded as one defective carcass for that specific defect.

Furthermore, a carcass showing multiple defects under the same defect group is only scored as one defective carcass, therefore one carcass having a lung and a bruise = one defective carcass. Also, a carcass with defects under different defect groups is scored as one defective carcass for each of the corresponding groups, therefore a carcass with salpingitis and a 20 mm bruise = one (1) DC-1 defect and one (1) DC-2 defect.

Defective carcasses are grouped by defect into different specified categories. The sample shall give the total number of defective carcasses according to each group of defects.

For operators with more than one shift per day, test results for each shift shall be considered independently because of personnel and supervisor differences and shall be recorded on separate CDS Defects Logs. Process control is shift specific.

19.6.2.7.6.9 CDS Test Defects Log for Chicken, Fowl, Turkey and Quail

Refer to Annex A of this chapter.

19.6.2.7.7 Verification by the CFIA

CFIA staff shall ensure that the CDS has been implemented and are being performed according to this section and the operator's written program. This may be accomplished by performing independent verification tests and/or correlation tests with the industry monitor.

An independent test or a correlation test shall be performed at a minimum of once per half shift/evisceration line. A minimum of two verification tests (one independent and one verification test) shall be conducted and recorded by a veterinarian each week. The records must show that within one month each veterinarian working at the plant has performed at least one test of each kind.

CFIA staff may perform an additional test at any time as an additional assurance of process control or if they feel that standards are not being met for any reason.

Test results may be recorded on a separate CDS Log or on the operator's records such that CFIA tests can be distinguished from tests conducted by the operator's CDS monitor. Also, an indication should be present to differentiate the independent verification tests and the correlation tests with the industry monitor.

19.6.2.7.7.1 Independent CFIA Verification Tests

The CFIA's independent verification of the operator's process evaluation tests shall be performed according to the following parameters:

• Tests shall be performed on each evisceration line, at select random times and according to the sampling method described previously. When a correlation test is performed, it replaces the independent test scheduled for that half shift;
• If an independent verification test coincides with any of the plant's monitor test, the inspector shall conduct a correlation test instead of an independent test;
• The sample size will be the same as that used by the operator;
• If the sample is rejected, the CDS monitor shall perform an immediate "Process Evaluation" test and then initiate any required action as per the Decision Tree in this section;
• If the test result is rejected for faecal material, immediate corrective measure(s) and immediate post-chill product verification shall be initiated by the CDS monitor; and
• The result of each test shall be compared to the operator's monitoring record. If the CFIA test result is not in agreement with the operator's tests, the inspector shall discuss the test results with the (industry) CDS monitor and inform the VIC.

The Decision Tree for CDS is to be used by the operator's monitor and for reference by the CFIA.

19.6.2.7.7.2 Correlation Tests

Correlation testing consists of the CFIA conducting an evaluation of a test being performed by the operator's CDS monitor according to the following parameters:

• Tests shall be performed on each evisceration line. This frequency may be increased according to the operator's compliance to the monitoring procedures of the Carcass Dressing Standard. When a correlation test is performed, it replaces the independent CFIA test scheduled for that half shift;
• A member of the CFIA staff shall examine the same carcasses at the same time as the industry monitor; and
• The monitor will be evaluated for the sampling method used, correct interpretation of defects, completion of forms, correct application of the Decision Tree and the implementation of corrective actions if necessary.

If the CFIA's evaluation demonstrates deficiency in the industry's dressing process and/or the monitoring thereof, immediate corrective measures shall be initiated by the operator. The VIC shall decide if the written procedure is to be reassessed and amended accordingly.

19.6.3 Post mortem Inspection for Rabbits

The dressed carcass and viscera shall be visually examined. Visual examination should be followed by palpation and incision as deemed necessary.

19.6.3.1 Line Speed for Traditional Post mortem Inspection of Rabbits