Operational guideline: Humane care and handling of food animals

On this page

• 1.0 Purpose
• 2.0 Authorities
• 3.0 Reference documents
• 4.0 Definitions
• 5.0 Acronyms
• 6.0 Operational guideline
  • 6.1 Compliance verification
  • 6.2 General principles of compliance action applicable to humane care and handling
    • 6.2.1 Compliance actions for issues which directly contravene SFCR provisions
      • 6.2.1.1 Compliance actions for zero tolerance issues
      • 6.2.1.2 Compliance actions for deliberate acts of cruelty
    • 6.2.2 Compliance actions for issues which do not directly contravene SFCR provisions
  • 6.3 Procedures for verifying compliance to humane care and handling regulatory requirements
    • 6.3.1 General information
    • 6.3.2 Procedures for mammalian food animals and ratites
    • 6.3.3 Procedures for poultry and rabbits
      • 6.3.3.1 Shackling
  • 6.4 Specific information for the inspectorate
    • 6.4.1 Use of video camera to do ante mortem inspection
    • 6.4.2 Ante mortem inspection of non-ambulatory animals
    • 6.4.3 Use of electric, air or vibrating prods or other devices having a similar effect
    • 6.4.4 Quail and other similar small birds handling
    • 6.4.5 Waterfowl handling
• 7.0 Annexes

1.0 Purpose

The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Inspection Staff on Humane care and handling of food animals.

This document is intended to be used in conjunction with other guidance documents as referenced in section 3.0 since it is limited to information not included in these documents.

The guidance outlined below should be used when verifying compliance with regulatory requirements related to humane care and handling of food animals.

2.0 Authorities

• Safe Food for Canadians Act (SFCA)
• Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR)

The inspection powers, control actions and enforcement actions authorized by the above legislation are identified and explained in the Food regulatory response guidelines.

3.0 Reference documents

• Operational guideline – Food regulatory response guidelines
• Compliance verification system guidance (under development)
• Industry guidance – Humane treatment of food animals at the slaughter establishment
• Industry guidance – Guidelines for the humane care and handling of food animals at slaughter
• Industry guidance : Objective performance criteria for humane slaughter

4.0 Definitions

Unless specified below, definitions are located in either the:

• Safe Food for Canadians Regulations: Glossary of Key Terms
• Integrated Agency Inspection Model (iAIM) - Glossary of Terms (Annex F)
• My CFIA Glossary of Terms

Additional technical definitions are located in the Guidelines for humane care and handling of food animals at slaughter.

5.0 Acronyms

Acronyms are spelled out the first time they are used in this document and are consolidated in the Food business line acronyms list (under development).

6.0 Operational guideline

The legal framework for Humane care and handling of food animals is sections 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 63, 64, 65, 70, 71, 75, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137 and 140 of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR).

The information presented in this document is intended to help CFIA staff undertake their inspections and to be used in conjunction with the following documents: Humane treatment of food animals at the slaughter establishment and Guidelines for the humane care and handling of food animals at slaughter.

CFIA must understand Industry requirements to be able to verify compliance to SFCR. Additionally, this document provides guidance intended specifically for inspectors to enable them to conduct compliance verification activities and to take enforcement action.

6.1 Compliance verification

• Use Compliance Verification System (CVS) Task 5.1.02 – Humane Receiving and Handling of animals – to verify that regulatory requirements for humane care and handling are met. Other CVS tasks applicable to care and handling include:
  • task 5.1.05 – Design of livestock facilities, pre stun and suspect/held pens (red meat)
  • task 5.1.07 – Design of holding and unloading Areas/pens (poultry)
  • task 5.1.12 – Animal Welfare Control Program
• Ratites are normally handled and slaughtered in a manner similar to mammalian species. Use CVS Task 5.1.02 (red meat) to verify the regulatory requirements for humane care and handling and CVS Task 5.1.05 to verify regulatory requirements for the design of facilities, pre stun and suspect/held pens (red meat).
• Rabbits are normally handled in a manner similar to avian species. Use CVS Task 5.1.02 (poultry/rabbits) to verify the regulatory requirements for humane care and handling and CVS Task 5.1.07 to verify regulatory requirements for the design of holding and unloading Areas/pens (poultry).

6.2 General principles of compliance action applicable to humane care and handling

Please refer to the Food regulatory response guidelines as each situation is unique and different compliance and/or enforcement actions could be taken depending on the context. In the following sub-sections, general examples are given but judgment needs to be applied as well as consultation with the appropriate resources in your Area.

6.2.1 Compliance actions for issues which directly contravene SFCR provisions

• Issues which directly contravene SFCR provisions are those where the observed deficiency represents non-compliance with a regulatory requirement.
• Refer to sections 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.1.2 for guidance on zero-tolerance issues and deliberate acts of cruelty.
• If the operator identifies the issue independently (without being notified by CFIA) and takes immediate and effective corrective action, the process is in control. CFIA takes no action and an Inspector's Report-Corrective Action Request (IR-CAR) is not issued.
  • example: A barn employee that have failed to notice a compromised animal during unloading notice it when the animal arrive in the holding pen, he immediately removes the animal from the pen and segregates it in the suspect pen with other compromised animals
• If CFIA identifies the issue and the operator takes immediate and effective corrective action upon being made aware of the issue, the process is still not in control because the issue failed to be identified by the operator. CFIA had to take action in this case and alert the operator so that immediate corrective action would be taken. An IR-CAR is issued.
  • example: A barn employee does not notice a pig showing severe signs of stress syndrome (non-ambulatory, trembling, patching skin discoloration and labored breathing). As soon as CFIA draws his attention to it, the employee immediately humanely kill the pig with a captive bolt followed by an intra-thoracic bleeding
• If CFIA identifies the issue but the operator either fails to respond, or responds with incorrect action, or the corrective action is not effective, the process is not in control because of deficiencies in development or implementation of the Animal Welfare Preventive Control Plan (AWPCP). CFIA must take control at this point. An IR-CAR is issued.
  • example: After looking in the dead on arrival (DOA) bin, CFIA notice live birds in it. As soon as CFIA draws his attention to it, the employee take out the birds from the bin and try to do cervical dislocation to them but without success as he does not know how to do it. The birds are still alive and suffering. The barn supervisor is called rapidly on site to do it and to show the employee how to do it properly as he has not been trained for this task before
• If the operator identifies the issue but the operator either fails to respond, or responds with incorrect action, or the corrective action is not effective, the process is not in control because of deficiencies in development or implementation of the AWPCP. CFIA must take control at this point. An IR-CAR is issued.
  • example: A barn employee prods a cull cow twice in front of his supervisor to speed the process even if the animal is walking in the alley in direction of the stunning box. The animal vocalizes. CFIA notifies the barn supervisor and his response is that they know it is not acceptable to do so but this is an exception as they need to speed the process to finish the slaughter on time so this cow needs to walk more rapidly
• If the operator identifies the issue and takes immediate and effective corrective action each time, but non-compliances to the same section of the SFCR reoccur frequently, this represents a pattern of failure and the process is not in control. This could happen whether or not preventive measures were implemented, in which case they are ineffective. An IR-CAR is issued.
  • The definition of "pattern of failure" is subjective. Its interpretation requires sound judgment and knowledge of the operator's history of repetitive issues

6.2.1.1 Compliance actions for zero tolerance issues

• Zero-tolerance issues are those where a single occurrence is unacceptable because of the severe animal welfare impact. Zero-tolerance events during care and handling of animals are access to water and deliberate acts of cruelty. Refer to section 6.2.1.2 for deliberate acts of cruelty.
• The operator has full responsibility for monitoring that they remain in compliance with SFCR at all times.
• The operator's AWPCP must include measures to identify problems and take effective corrective action and preventive measures to prevent reoccurrence.
• Compliance action depends on the operator's response.
  • An IR-CAR will not be issued if the operator identifies the issue independently (without being notified by CFIA) and takes immediate and effective corrective action
    • example: there is a water supply shutdown; the municipality is saying it will be resolve soon. Waiting for the water to come back, the barn manager, with the help of other employees, brings safe water from a tanker truck to the pigs in holding pens in big buckets according to their AWPCP. In this case an IR-CAR will not be issued
  • An IR-CAR will be issued either when CFIA identifies the issue and has to request corrective action, or when the operator identifies the issue but either fails to respond; or responds with incorrect or ineffective action
    • example: You notice a lot of automatic water dispensers out of order in holding pens so many pigs do not have access to water and the supervisor tells you that, at the moment, nothing can be done but they will be repair at the end of the day. In this case an IR-CAR will be issued
  • An IR-CAR will be issued if a zero tolerance issue is no longer a rare occurrence, even if the operator identifies the issue and responds appropriately
    • example: The establishment has a small number of holding pens and regularly has difficulty managing the arrival of animals, so very often animals are left in alleys instead of in holding pens without any access to water even for a short time. In this case an IR-CAR will be issued
• Review the AWPCP to see what it says about zero-tolerance issues, including follow-up procedures to determine the reason for the non-compliant event and effective measures to prevent reoccurrence.
• Do not confuse zero tolerance issues with self-audit criteria that result in automatic self-audit failure. An automatic self-audit failure because of a failed zero-tolerance criterion does not mean an automatic IR-CAR unless it is a deliberate act of cruelty. IR-CAR issuance depends on who identified the issue and the operator's response to it.

6.2.1.2 Compliance actions for deliberate acts of cruelty

• Do not confuse zero tolerance issues (e.g. access to water) with deliberate acts of cruelty.
• Deliberate acts of cruelty are those where a single occurrence is unacceptable because of their willful nature and the severe impact on animal welfare.
• Use judgment to decide whether the action was unintentional or truly deliberate with the clear intention of harming animals.
  • example: there is a non-ambulatory cow in a truck and a new employee decides to begin to unload animals but some animals cannot avoid the cow and are trampling it. You arrive on site and tell the employee to stop and he immediately stops unloading the animals
    • The intent of the employee must be determined in this case. There is a difference between truly want to harm an animal and not being aware of the harm an action could cause
  • example: the gate at the back of a pen falls on the back of an animal and injures it
    • The intent of the operator must be determined in this case. Did the gate suddenly malfunction and then fall, or did the employee deliberately slam the gate on the animal? Was the gate control mechanism properly maintained, or was this an accident waiting to happen?
• Deliberate acts of cruelty during care and handling of animal could include :
  • Mammalian food animal and ratites:
    • hitting or beating an animal with any implement
    • deliberately slamming gates on animals
    • drag, push, or do any action on a conscious non-ambulatory or compromised animal in order to move or to deliberately cause avoidable injury or suffering to it
    • intentionally prodding an animal in a sensitive area (anus, genitalia, mammary glands, face)
    • repeated prodding of the same animal, regardless of the cause or intentionally prodding an animal even if the animal has no clear path to move forward
    • violent acts to move animals, such as breaking tails or grasping eyes
    • throwing or dropping of conscious animals
    • lifting or dragging animals by body parts
    • willful misuse of powered equipment or causing injury due to improper maintenance
  • Avian and rabbits:
    • kicking, hitting, throwing, crushing, or mutilating birds in (or with) equipment
    • intentionally washing crates containing live birds
    • shackling birds by only one leg
    • shackling conscious rabbits
    • Compliance and/or enforcement actions (IR-CAR and/or Inspector Non-Compliance Report-INCR) will automatically be taken by CFIA even if the operator has responded to it because of the intention to harm an animal and the severe impact on animal welfare.
      • example: CFIA notices an employee taking a live poultry from the floor and throwing it violently in an open crate in front of the shackling line. The foreman sees him and tells him he wants to talk with him right away. You then hear that this employee has been terminated. In this case an IR-CAR will be issued
      • example: CFIA and a supervisor notice an employee hitting and prodding an animal with the electric prod. The supervisor asks the employee to stop. The employee says the animal is stubborn and that this is the only way this animal can walk. The supervisor agrees that sometimes they have no choice than to be rude with these kinds of animals. In this case an IR-CAR will be issued

6.2.2 Compliance actions for issues which do not directly contravene SFCR provisions

• CFIA's role is to verify compliance to regulations. When the observation is not a regulatory requirement, and does not result in animal suffering (therefore no violation of SFCR 128 or 135), CFIA conducts the corresponding CVS task and rates the task accordingly.
  • example: The barn employee is using the electric prod on each bovine to move them in the barn. In this case, CFIA will verify what the AWPCP says about prodding animals and conduct CVS Task 5.1.02
  • example: CFIA notice that after unloading the truck, cows slip when they turn a corner in the barn area and 2 cow falls. This is not the first time the inspector notices this. In this case, CFIA will verify what the AWPCP says about slipping and falling and conduct CVS Tasks 5.1.02 and 5.1.05

6.3 Procedures for verifying compliance to humane care and handling regulatory requirements

6.3.1 General information

• Part XII of the Health of Animals Regulations outlines the requirements for humane transportation of all animals. Transportation begins when animals are being caught to be loaded and ends when they have been unloaded from a conveyance (for animals not confined in crates) or from a crate at destination.
  • Poultry and other animals transported in crates are considered to be in transport while they remain in crates after unloading from the conveyance at the slaughter establishment and until they are removed from the crate to be humanely slaughtered
    • In cases where birds are to be stunned while in the crates (e.g. controlled atmosphere stunning-CAS), it ends when these crated birds enter the gas chamber
• Under SFCR 128 and 130, the operator is responsible for the welfare of animals on their arrival at the establishment.
• As such, in a control and enforcement context, it will become important to clearly establish the boundaries of the establishment identified in the licence for carrying out the licence holder's activities (slaughter facility only or slaughter facility and surrounding land), in order to be able to demonstrate which regulated party had direct control over the animals at the time of non-compliance.
  • Assess what role, if any, the producer, catching crew, transporter, transport company, and establishment operator may have had in the non-compliance and which regulation was in effect
• In the event that both regulations are theoretically in force, the regulation to use in priority is the one that most clearly establishes the non-compliance as well as identifies the regulated party that had direct control over the animals at the time of non-compliance and that best protects the welfare of the animals (e.g. there are requirements for time without food and water in both regulations). For more details, please refer to the Food regulatory response guidelines.
• A consistent, systematic approach is recommended in order to assess all care and handling activities in the same manner each time a verification activity is conducted.
  • Observe the care and handling of animals, crates, cages or modules to evaluate if the process is under control. If applicable, observe also the unloading of animals or crates, cages, modules from the conveyance. This could be associated with other tasks such as transportation
  • An efficient approach to verify care and handling during and after unloading and prior to shackling or stunning is to take time to observe and count a given amount of animals, crates, cages or modules at each step or over a given amount of time so that compliance can be consistently assessed
• Inspectors should familiarize themselves with Annex 1 for signs of suffering and injury specific to the species slaughtered at the establishment.

6.3.2 Procedures for mammalian food animals and ratites

• Ensure the condition of the animals was assessed by the operator upon arrival at the establishment and corrective actions were taken if needed (e.g. humanely kill animals showing signs of suffering), as per the requirement of SFCR 130.
• Observe the barn employee taking general care and handling of animals. Observe the handling tools used and the way they are used, listen if animals vocalize, observe if animals slip or fall during their way to the holding pen or to the stunning box and the general conditions of animals.
• Observe more closely groups of animals in holding pens for access to water, overcrowding and ventilation requirements and the design of the facilities in general and observe animals in the suspect pen. If there is a conveyance in the unloading area, observe the handling of animals during unloading and the efficiency of the screening done by the employee to segregate animals with abnormalities for veterinary inspection and to take care of animals showing obvious signs of suffering or injury (e.g. non ambulatory, stress pigs, compromised). Knowledge of actual performance care and handling criteria during the verification (e.g. % of vocalization, % of prodding, % of slipping and falling) is useful information because it allows CFIA to observe whether industry is taking appropriate corrective action when they are below established performance standards.
• Observe if employees are taking effective control action in assessing animals with signs of injuries or suffering upon arrival, assessing conditions that may lead to suffering or injuries or death of animals, humanely kill animals that show signs of suffering, segregate animals according to their species, condition and compatibility etc.
• Observe the unloading area, the barn, the live animal shed, the ramps, chutes, corrals, the pens and alleys to ensure they are correctly design, used and maintained to prevent avoidable suffering and injury to animals.

6.3.3 Procedures for poultry and rabbits

• Ensure the condition of poultry or rabbits was assessed by the operator upon arrival at the establishment and corrective actions were taken if needed to prevent suffering or injury (ex. weather protection, ventilation in holding area, emergency slaughter) as per the requirement of SFCR 130.
• Observe more closely poultry or rabbits in crates, cages, modules (general conditions, loading density) and observe the condition of the crates, cages, modules.
• Observe if employees are taking effective control action in assessing animals with signs of injuries or suffering upon arrival, assessing conditions that may lead to suffering or injuries or death of animals, humanely kill animals that show signs of suffering (e.g. cervical dislocation of moribund poultry before putting them in the DOA bin), ensure live poultry do not pass in the crate washer, ensure free birds in lairage are frequently caught and shackled.

6.3.3.1 Shackling

• Shackling is considered a distressing and painful procedure:
  • the acts of handling, inverting (a physiologically abnormal posture for birds) and shackling are stressful
  • birds have nociceptors (pain sensors) in the skin and periosteum (tissue surrounding bone) of their shanks
  • forceful shackling or tight-fitting shackles put more pressure on these pain sensors.
  • shackles that are too large will result in poor electrical contact and poor stunning, while shackles that are too small will induce flapping because of the pain, and flapping will interfere with stunning
  • sudden jerky movements, sharp curves, dips and unevenness of the shackling line cause more discomfort and possibly pain due to more pressure placed on the shanks.
  • heavier birds experience more pain because the heavier body weight puts more pressure on the shanks
  • birds with leg injuries or deformities experience more pain during shackling because of the weight of the body exerting pressure on the affected limb
  • birds do not have a diaphragm. When they hang upside down, the weight of the abdominal viscera puts pressure on the heart and birds can die. Probability of death increases with time spent shackled
• Verify what the AWPCP says about time frames for shackling prior to stunning; maximum time limits for leaving birds shackled during line stoppages or breakdowns; deviation procedures, corrective actions and preventive measures.
• Length of time birds remain shackled during breakdowns and line stoppages must be minimized. The World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH; founded as Office International des Épizooties (OIE)), section 7.5.7 (3) b), recommends not exceeding one minute for birds while the Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, Annex II, (5.2), recommends not exceeding one minute for birds with the exception of ducks, geese and turkeys, where the recommendation is maximum 2 minutes. There is no difference between time spent in shackles prior to slaughter and time spent in shackles during a line stoppage. An operator cannot define a prolonged breakdown as one exceeding the average breakdown time and use that as a guide to determine how long birds can stay shackled.
• Initiate control action if there is evidence that shackling times or shackling factors are causing avoidable suffering. Refer to Annex 2 for clinical signs (indicators) associated with inversion stress and risk of avoidable suffering in birds when inverted and conscious during shackling.

6.4 Specific information for the inspectorate

6.4.1 Use of video camera to do ante mortem inspection

A video camera cannot be used to replace the on-site veterinary ante-mortem inspection, of animals showing signs of abnormal behaviour, physiology or appearance for the following reasons:

• Cameras with a limited range do not allow a close-up of the animal in the trailer, nor the condition of the trailer, so it is difficult to observe if there is non-compliance. Cameras do not allow visualization of all of the animal's lesions, e.g. hernia, fracture, especially if it is lying down, nor of the often subtle behavioural signs of an animal in pain.
• The only way to fully inspect an animal is by directly observing and touching it.
• The VM is in charge of the ante mortem inspection of food animals showing signs of abnormal behaviour, physiology or appearance, held for inspection by the operator as per SFCR 138 and 139. An inspector can perform the assessment (e.g. for non-injured, non-ambulatory animals such as stressed hogs) and call a VM only if necessary as long as there is an agreed-upon protocol to do so with the veterinarian with supervisory authority as per SFCR.

6.4.2 Ante-mortem inspection of non-ambulatory animals

• Non-ambulatory animals require a VM ante-mortem inspection before they can be considered eligible for slaughter to evaluate the condition of the animal, the unloading and the fitness for transport, but animals that become non-ambulatory AFTER an ante-mortem inspection do not necessarily require a second ante-mortem inspection.  Providing there is an agreed-upon protocol with the veterinarian with supervisory authority, the animal can be stunned in place without additional inspection and then processed.
• The VM is in charge of the ante mortem inspection of food animals showing signs of abnormal behaviour, physiology or appearance, held for inspection by the operator as per SFCR 138 and 139. An inspector can perform the assessment (e.g. for non-injured, non-ambulatory animals such as stressed hogs) and call a VM only if necessary as long as there is an agreed-upon protocol to do so with the veterinarian with supervisory authority as per SFCR.

6.4.3 Use of electric, air or vibrating prods or other devices having a similar effect

• SFCR 129(2) now forbids the use of an electric prod on any animal other than a pig or a bovine.
• Vibrating or air prods are relatively new driving tools that can move bovine or pigs without applying electrical current; the use of air or vibrating prods follows the same principle (species, age, body region) as electric prod.
• These prods or a device that has a similar effect should not be used on a piglet or young bovine unless the animal is at least 3 months of age, should be used as a last resort, and cannot be justified if the animal is small enough to be moved by hand.
• These devices should not be used for sheep because wool cover makes them less effective and, in addition, a sheep's skin is softer than cattle hide, which may make them more prone to injury from careless use of the device; as well, due to the nature of ostrich (nervous temperament, aggressive potential, thick feathers encourage prolonged use, thin skin), the use of these tools is contraindicated.
• In the case of air or vibrating prods, CFIA should observe that they are used properly by applying basic principles to gauge how well they work (or not)
  • observe the animal's reaction i.e. do not generate a reaction greater than the reaction from an electric prod
  • examine the prod to ensure it does not have a sharp point
  • observe how employees use it and that they are using it according to the same guidelines as electric prods, i.e. not in a sensitive area, only to the extent needed to cause movement, only if the animal has a clear path to move forward and to the minimum extent necessary, etc.
• The operator must demonstrate that these tools are used properly and do not cause avoidable suffering; the operator's training program must include the use of all types of prods, and all employees using these handling tools must be trained to use them properly. CFIA should ask the operator how he intends to audit prod use when they conduct their self-audit.

6.4.4 Quail and other similar small birds handling

• The same handling requirements as for chickens apply (IG under development).
• Shackles must be designed specifically for smaller birds.
  • the shackle must be much smaller than a chicken shackle due to the birds' small size
  • they must also be shackled by 2 feet, one foot in each slot

6.4.5 Waterfowl handling

• Handling of waterfowl birds can be done by catching and restraining them gently first on the floor by their neck but before they are lifted, their weight must be supported, even if they are carried a very short distance (IG under development).

7.0 Annexes

Annex 1: Signs of suffering

Annex 2: Clinical signs (indicators) associated with inversion stress and risk of avoidable suffering in birds when inverted while conscious during shackling

Annex 1: Signs of suffering

Behavioural signs: escape reactions (avoidance behaviour, attempting to run away); fear, anxiety, excitement/agitation; withdrawal or recoil response; not eating; lack of curiosity or showing no interest in surroundings; restlessness, writhing, tail flicking or swishing; not moving away from people when approached; standing still (especially prey animals); aggressiveness; vocalization or attempts to vocalize (silent bellowing); chewing/rubbing/kicking the injured part; lethargy, laying down a lot or lying motionless; not licking nostrils (ruminants); standing apart from group; colic/kicking in the abdomen, kicking or pawing the ground; muscle tension, tremors, twitching or spasms, auto-mutilation.

Physiological signs: altered breathing patterns (shallow breathing, rapid breathing, groaning, increased respiratory rate, open mouth breathing); spontaneous autonomic responses (sweating, increased or reduced heart rate, increased or reduced blood pressure); reduced gut motility, no rumination; grinding teeth; weight loss; muscle atrophy or increased muscle tone; excess salivation; dehydration; hyperglycemia, protein catabolism, lipolysis.

Appearance: hair/feather coat (dull, rough, erect, not groomed), hunched or rounded back; tense abdomen; lowered head, lowered ears, wings drooping; dull eyes, dilated pupils; dirty nostrils; abnormal posture or gait; looks lifeless, depressed, or anxious.

Annex 2: Clinical signs (indicators) associated with inversion stress and risk of avoidable suffering in birds when inverted while conscious during shackling

Overview

Signs or indicators of inversion stress when birds are suspended by the legs vertically in an inverted state while conscious as it is done for routine shackling prior to stunning and slaughter, can readily result in cardiopulmonary distress because of the bird's anatomy. Birds lack a diaphragm which results in compression of the heart and lungs by abdominal viscera, resulting in progressive compromised breathing and cardiac activity during inversion, or it begins immediately if the bird is particularly heavy when first shackled.

Unavoidable suffering refers to suffering which occurs after all reasonable measures and decisions to alleviate suffering and minimize additional suffering have been taken. Although there is always a risk of unavoidable suffering for birds during shackling, once clinical signs are observable for indicators of cardiopulmonary distress, then this signals the requirement to implement immediate corrective actions^Footnote 1 to address additional avoidable suffering and to implement preventive measures to address the root cause and prevent recurrence. The risk for suffering of birds during shackling increases with the weight of the bird; therefore, heavy birds (for example turkeys, geese, ducks and breeders from other species such as Gallus) can suffer more from being shackled conscious than chickens. So, the preventive measures may include committing to only receive birds that are smaller in size, pre-stun (with their back-up stunner, such as captive bolt pistols) heavier birds before hanging or breast support conveyor systems. The licence holder must incorporate the preventive measures that will demonstrate how this risk for shackling heavy birds is controlled, what immediate corrective actions will be implemented when signs of suffering are observed, list the signs of suffering and do a root cause analysis to determine why these are happening in order to prevent recurrence in the Preventive Control Plan (PCP) for Animal Welfare.

Additional sources of distress for the bird during shackling can be caused by direct compression pressure on the legs from the shackles used to suspend or stun and slaughter. Shackles can result in considerable pain from compression pressure, depending on the size of the shackle opening, the diameter of the bird's shank and the bird's weight. This will be exacerbated by any pre-existing leg conditions/deformities/injuries, such as fractures, dislocations and large leg wounds.

Clinical signs or indicators of cardiopulmonary distress (Table 1) must be assessed as a whole (while not all the indicators need to be present) and in conjunction with a complete history of production and the transport process as well as ante and post-mortem inspections. The assessment cause may include (but not be limited to) the bird's health (such as pre-existing respiratory diseases during primary production), transport conditions (for example high ambient temperature/humidity causing heat stress, fitness for transport, injuries, etc.) and time in transport prior to shackling and these can influence the onset of clinical signs of cardiopulmonary distress or indicate other causes of observed signs (when these signs are mild). It is helpful to determine whether these signs begin immediately upon shackling or become progressively worse to help differentiate the observed signs of distress from causes other than shackling (such as heat stress). The bird's weight is also a major determinant in the assessment since the heavier the bird is, the greater the risk for respiratory distress and legs injuries and subsequent suffering.

The veterinarians have to exercise their professional judgement on a case by case basis to be able to provide a rationale and observations/findings/results must be documented (notes, videos, pictures) in order to support their actions on individual bird or a group of birds that are showing signs of avoidable suffering.

References:

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2004. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing the main commercial species of animals EFSA Journal 45: 1-29

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) AHAW Panel, (EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare), Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P,[…] Michel V, 2019. Slaughter of animals: poultry. EFSA Journal 17 (11): 5849, 5891 pp.

Farm Animal Welfare Council, 2009. Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing. Part 2:White Meat Animals. London, England

Humane slaughter association, Guidance Notes No7, Electrical Waterbath Stunning of Poultry, 2016

Lambooij B & Hindle V, 2018. Electrical stunning of poultry. In: Mench JA (ed.), Advances in Poultry Welfare. Duxford: Woodhead Publishing. pp. 77-98

Literature Review on shackling of poultry (CFIA internal document), Animal Health Risk Assessment, Science Branch, CFIA

The Terrestrial Animal Health Code - World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) Chapter 7.5, 2021:https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/?id=169&L=1&htmfile=chapitre_aw_slaughter.htm