Technical hearing on meat inspection of bovines 1, 2

Supporting Publications 2012:EN-374 EVENT REPORT Technical hearing on meat inspection of bovines 1, 2 European Food Safety Authority European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy SUMMARY The European Commission requested EFSA to issue Scientific Opinions on public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat in different animal species. In order to support the work of the Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) and of its working groups in drafting the BIOHAZ Scientific Opinions, the BIOHAZ Unit organised four technical hearings in relation to the following animal species: bovine animals, sheep and goats, farmed game and domestic solipeds. In particular, the aim was to collect information and data which are not readily available in scientific literature or in other sources of data at European Union (EU) level. EU-wide stakeholder organisations linked to the remit of the Scientific Opinion on public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat of bovines were invited to participate in a technical hearing which took place on 25 May 2012. The stakeholder organisations invited were: Copa-Cogeca (Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives), CLITRAVI (Liaison Centre for the Meat Processing Industry in the EU), FVE (Federation of Veterinarians of Europe) and UECBV (European Livestock and Meat Trading Union). A questionnaire was sent in advance to the meeting to these organisations in order to collect information and data on several issues related to meat inspection of bovines. At the same time, experts from the working groups on meat inspection of bovines of the BIOHAZ and Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) Panels were also invited to the meeting. All the organisations provided replies to the questionnaire, and two of them (FVE and UECBV) also attended the technical hearing meeting. Both organisations presented the replies to the questionnaire at the meeting. The meeting was followed by a discussion between the representatives of the stakeholder organisations, experts from the working groups of the EFSA Panels and EFSA staff. Main issues discussed included the use of clean livestock policies, microbial and chemical testing practices and the implementation of FCI in the bovine slaughtering context. The latter revealed a range of different attitudes when conveying FCI and interpretations of its concept. In addition, questions about residues, targeted sampling and illicit substance use were also asked. 1 Question No EFSA-Q-2012-00276. 2 Disclaimer: The views or positions expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent in legal terms the official position of the European Food Safety Authority. The European Food Safety Authority assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or inaccuracies that may appear. Any enquiries related to this output should be addressed to biohaz@efsa.europa.eu Suggested citation: European Food Safety Authority; Technical hearing on meat inspection of bovines. Supporting Publications 2012:EN-374. [48 pp.]. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/publications European Food Safety Authority, 2012

This report summarises the information that was provided by the representatives of the different stakeholder organisations participating in the technical hearing either by means of presentations or by replying to a questionnaire provided a priori by EFSA. European Food Safety Authority, 2012 KEY WORDS Meat inspection, bovines, stakeholders. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary... 1 Table of contents... 3 Background as provided by EFSA... 4 Terms of reference as provided by EFSA... 4 Consideration... 5 1. Introduction... 5 2. Participants... 5 3. Purpose of meeting and background to the mandate on meat inspection... 5 4. Summary presentations on responses to questionnaire previously sent by EFSA to stakeholders.. 5 4.1. Information provided by UECBV... 5 4.2. Information provided by FVE... 6 5. Responses to questionnaire made by other stakeholders that could not attend the meeting... 6 6. Discussion... 6 Documentation provided to EFSA... 7 Appendices... 8 A. List of questions for stakeholders... 8 B. Additional information provided by UECBV... 10 C. Additional information provided by FVE... 36 D. Additional information provided by Copa-Cogeca... 43 E. Additional information provided by CLITRAVI... 45 Abbreviations... 48 Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 3

BACKGROUND AS PROVIDED BY EFSA Technical Hearing Meat Inspection Bovines The European Commission has requested that EFSA issue Scientific Opinions on public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat in different animal species (mandate number M-2010-0232). The following species or groups of species should be considered within this mandate: domestic swine, poultry, bovine animals, domestic sheep and goats, farmed game and domestic solipeds. The Scientific Opinions for swine and poultry have been adopted 3, the drafting for the other groups of species is currently underway, with a deadline for these Opinions of June 2013. TERMS OF REFERENCE AS PROVIDED BY EFSA The biological hazards (BIOHAZ) Unit is invited to organise four technical hearings with experts recommended by stakeholder organisations who are requested to give presentations and answer questions from EFSA in the field of biological and chemical hazards on different aspects of the meat inspection and slaughtering practices. The Unit on contaminants in the food chain (CONTAM) will assist in the identification of issues in the field of chemical residues and contaminants needed to support the work of the CONTAM Panel and of its working group (WG) in drafting the CONTAM Scientific Opinions. In particular, the BIOHAZ Unit is asked to: Identify issues in the field of biological hazards that are needed for supporting the work of the BIOHAZ Panel and of its WGs in drafting the BIOHAZ Scientific Opinions on public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (M-2010-0232). Those issues relate to information or data which are not readily available in scientific literature or in other sources of data at EU level (e.g. EUROSTAT, EU Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses and Zoonotic Agents). The particularities of these issues depend upon the individual groups of species to be considered. Identify experts from EU stakeholder organisations that would be able to provide technical replies to the issues identified above. Organise one-day technical hearings with the identified experts, Panel Members and WG members for the following groups of animal species: Bovine animals Sheep and goats Farmed game Solipeds Prepare from these technical hearings four event reports with a summary of the points discussed and the presentations given. 3 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2351.htm and http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2741.htm Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 4

CONSIDERATION 1. Introduction Following the invitation to organise four technical hearings with experts recommended by stakeholder organisations, the BIOHAZ Unit convened a technical hearing on meat inspection of bovines on 25 May 2012 in Parma, Italy. The purpose of this report, as mentioned in the terms of reference above, is to summarise the information that was provided by the representatives of the different stakeholder organisations either by means of presentations or by replying to a questionnaire provided a priori by EFSA (see Appendix A). The information gathered in equivalent technical hearings about meat inspection of small ruminants, farmed game and solipeds is presented elsewhere 4. 2. Participants Stakeholder organisations: Present at the technical hearing meeting: FVE (Federation of Veterinarians of Europe) UECBV (European Livestock and Meat Trading Union) Not present at the technical hearing meeting but providing written feedback: Copa-Cogeca (Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives) CLITRAVI (Centre de Liaison des Industries Transformatrices de Viandes de l'union Européene - Liaison Center for the Meat Processing Industry in the European Union) EFSA Working groups (WG) on public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat in bovines: Representative from the BIOHAZ WG and a representative from the CONTAM WG EFSA staff from the BIOHAZ, CONTAM and Biological Monitoring (BIOMO) Units 3. Purpose of meeting and background to the mandate on meat inspection EFSA briefly presented the background to the meat inspection mandate and described the terms of reference received from the European Commission. The main objective of the technical hearing was explained: to provide WG experts with an opportunity to seek information from stakeholder representatives about slaughtering practices and meat inspection in bovines based on the answers to a previously distributed questionnaire. 4. Summary presentations on responses to questionnaire previously sent by EFSA to stakeholders Representatives of the two EU-wide stakeholder organisations attending the event presented the main issues to be considered in the context of meat inspection of bovines. 4.1. Information provided by UECBV It was gathered from the information provide that FCI is employed with different level of complexity in different EU MSs. Regarding clean livestock policies in MSs, these are implemented but they are not harmonised. These policies are usually integrated with good hygiene practices during slaughter. 4 http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/373e.htm, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/375e.htm and http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/376e.htm Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 5

It was highlighted that the incorporation of flexibility in meat inspection practices in bovine, as already implemented to some extent in meat inspection of swine, should allow for a more targeted and improved approach to meat inspection of bovines. Furthermore, case study information was provided. The case study of controlling Salmonella Dublin in one EU MS shows how an integrated approach can help in reducing the prevalence of some hazards in bovine meat. The case study of the industry actively monitoring of vero-toxigenic Escherichia coli (VTEC 5 ) and Salmonella in carcasses in some EU MSs show pro-activeness in the design of hazardspecific monitoring plans based on own risk analysis. It was also advised that veal calf production in the EU is not very extended, and in recent years production has been maintained but with less number of farms. There is no quantitative information available on rearing and slaughtering of calves below 6 weeks old. The replies to the questionnaire and the presentation given by the UECBV representative can be found in Appendix B. 4.2. Information provided by FVE The importance of optimising the flow and content of Food Chain Information (FCI) from the farm to the slaughterhouse and vice versa was stressed by the FVE. Variability can be found in the manner by which FCI is handled, reported and used. FCI could be improved if it would be linked to herd health plans. The importance of considering environmental policies within the context of animal production and slaughtering was pointed out. Hazards should be considered, as cattle are reared in nature sometimes in close contact with wild life, tourists and close to rivers and wet areas. Finally, according to the replies received to the questionnaire from some FVE members, veal calf production seems to be limited in the MSs providing replies. The replies to the questionnaire and the presentation given by the FVE representative can be found in Appendix C. 5. Responses to questionnaire made by other stakeholders that could not attend the meeting Replies to the questionnaires by the other two EU-wide organisations Copa-Cogeca and CLITRAVI are presented in Appendix D an E, respectively. 6. Discussion The presentations were followed by a session of questions and answers, were the experts had the opportunity to seek clarification about a number of issues in the areas of biological and chemical hazards in the context of meat inspection. Main issues discussed included the use of clean livestock policies, microbial and chemical testing practices and the implementation of FCI in the bovine slaughtering context. The latter revealed a range of different attitudes when conveying FCI and interpretations of its concept. In addition, questions about residues, targeted sampling and illicit substance use were also asked. 5 It could also be referred to as shigatoxin producing E. coli (STEC) Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 6

DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO EFSA Technical Hearing Meat Inspection Bovines 1. Mandate Ref. M-2012-0056 on Organisation of four technical hearings related to meat inspection. 2. Replies received from EUCBV, FVE, Copa-Cogeca and CLITRAVI to the questions presented in the questionnaire are included in the Appendices B, C, D and E. 3. Data from presentations from EUCBV on replies to the questionnaire and on a case study are included in Appendix B. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 7

APPENDICES A. LIST OF QUESTIONS FOR STAKEHOLDERS Meat inspection of bovines Technical hearing with stakeholders: list of questions 6 With regards to bovines and, where possible, describing the variability that could be found in the EU please provide answers to the following questions. A. Farm: 1. Which are the general differences in farm pre-harvest handling practices for intensively reared, extensively reared, indoor, outdoor, veal, beef, dairy, calves (<6 weeks), buffalo and bison animals and other potential bovine species farmed in Europe for meat? Is there information or estimates on the numbers/proportion of those bovine groups accounting to total bovines farmed in the EU? See question number 1 in the Abattoir section, if complete answer to this one is not possible. 2. What are the sources of the bovine stock reared in the EU? Is there information or estimates on the proportion/percentages of local, national or international sources? 3. What information is commonly included in the FCI records send with the animals to the abattoir? 4. Is feedback on ante mortem and post mortem inspection sent back to the farmers and how? 5. Regarding Food Chain Information (FCI), how is information on mortality, morbidity, microbiology, adverse toxicological events and treatment periods, animal/herd health status, feed supplies and controls collected at the primary production stage? 6. Related to integrated veal calf production farms in Europe: a. Has the number of integrated veal calf production farms increased over last years across Europe? Would you have any available data on numbers? b. Do this integrated farms normally operate by using Good Hygiene Practices (GHP), Good Farming Practices (GFP) and with fully implemented Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) - based protocols c. Do this integrated farms offer detailed and reliable FCI of the animals presented for slaughtered? B. Slaughtering process: 1. What number or percentage of bovine animals of different categories are slaughtered in the EU (i.e. calves less than <6 weeks old), cows, steers, bulls, buffalo and bison and other potential bovine species farmed in Europe for meat? 2. What are the sources of the bovine stock slaughtered in the EU? Is there information or estimates on the proportion/percentages of local, national, EU and/or international sources? 3. Are different batches of animals routinely mixed before or during transportation and in the lairage before slaughter? 4. Briefly describe current slaughtering and processing stages used in the EU and how these could vary in general terms from plant to plant and country to country. 6 Questions of this list were sent to the different stakeholder organisations depending on the part of the production chain covered by their organisation. Furthermore, please note that not all the questions sent to the stakeholder organisations were replied due to lack of readily available data and/or time constrains. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 8

5. Which are the general differences of the different religious slaughter practices? 6. What animal cleanliness schemes/policies are currently operated in the EU Member States? C. Meat inspection process: 1. What information is commonly found in the FCI records send with the animals to the abattoir? 2. How ante mortem inspection is carried out in practice and how does information provided by farmers and the processing plant (FCI) feed into this inspection? Are there mandatory systems in individual Member Stares? 3. Are these data from ante mortem and post mortem findings made available for analysis and further consideration and use to the farmer to the national administration (e.g. sending back and forwarding FCI)? 4. Are there results of the Official/mandatory microbiological testing of bovine carcasses carried out in the EU MSs, and is there information on the results obtained available? Maybe an example from some particular Member States if not at EU level would be helpful. 5. Are there results of microbiological testing of bovine carcasses that the Industry beyond official/mandatory may be carrying out in the EU MSs, and is there information on the results obtained available? Maybe an example from some particular Member States if not at EU level would be helpful. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 9

B. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY UECBV B.1. UECBV REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE (Based on UECBV Ref: 2553) This document gathers the 7 answers received up today from UECBV Representatives from the following EU MSs 7 : AT (Austria), DE (Germany), DK (Denmark), ES (Spain), FR (France), NL (The Netherlands) and UK (United Kingdom). Special thanks to the members/representatives who sent their input. With regards to bovines and, where possible, describing the variability that could be found in the EU please provide answers to the following questions. A. Farm 1. Which are the general differences in farm pre-harvest handling practices for intensively reared, extensively reared, indoor, outdoor, veal, beef, dairy, calves (<6 weeks), buffalo and bison animals and other potential bovine species farmed in Europe for meat? Is there information or estimates on the numbers/proportion of those bovine groups accounting to total bovines farmed in the EU? See question number 1 in the Abattoir section, if complete answer to this one is not possible. AT: No information available on our level. DE: See question number 1 in the Abattoir section, if complete answer to this one is not possible. DK: Intensively reared animals are fed with concentrate supplemented with roughage. Extensively reared animals do normally feed on pastures with no additional feed. In northern Europe extensively reared animals are normally housed in winter season and offered roughage. Calves < 6 weeks are fed with milk and/or milk replacers. Calves that have not yet developed ruminant function can be offered fishmeal. The major part of feed for veal is milk replacers. ES: None in Spain, since the majority of calves are reared intensively from a certain age. The difference is due to feeding: in the case of suckling calves, these are animals which are removed from the teat early and receive milk replacer feed before moving on to starter feed, and are slaughtered at an earlier age (approximately 12 months). In the case of pasture calves, the animals are with their mother until approximately 6 months of age, and then move on to an intensive regime in fattening pens. There has been a substantial fall in white meat production in Spain. The percentage of animals slaughtered in Spain by category in 2011 is as in Table 1. Table 1: Livestock production (slaughter) statistics, Spain, 2011. January-December Number of animals Carcass weight (Tonnes) Mature cattle 1 312 237 374 112 Bulls 624 391 195 046 Cows 345 608 94 690 Heifers 342 239 84 376 Heifer calves 92 163 15 104 Young bovines 901 002 215 504 7 Please note that these data neither are official EU data nor have been submitted by the authorities of those Member States. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 10

FR: The question is not really clear. Which stage are we talking about? Farming? Feeding? Transport to abattoir? Market? NL: For bovines: See answer number 1. For veal: total number of veal calves in the Netherlands in 2010: 927 699 number slaughtered in 2010: < 8 months: 1 215 000 8-12 months: 207 000 UK: No Answer 2. What are the sources of the bovine stock reared in the EU? Is there information or estimates on the proportion/percentages of local, national or international sources? AT: Concerning Simmental breeds, almost 100% of the genetic material used is of Austrian origin, the same is true for small breeds like Waldviertler Blondvieh, Grauvieh Murbodner or Kärntner Blondvieh. As far as Holstein or Brown Swiss is concerned, genetic material from other EC-countries or Canada/USA is used in addition to sires from Austria. DE: See question 2 slaughtering process section. DK: I have no such information. ES: Almost all bovines originate in the EU. Only some milk cows or heifers are imported from third countries (USA or Canada). Animals from third countries are not fattened. In Spain, approximately 20% of animals intended for fattening are imported from intra-community countries. The remainder are of national origin. FR: source of information: http://www.franceagrimer.fr/content/download/14810/109049/file/bil-mer-via-lai-bilan2011- Perspectives2012.pdf There is information available for live animals over 80 Kg for finishing, live animals over 300 Kg for finishing and live animals over 300 Kg for slaughtering. In France, most animals are born and reared in France. In Table 2 the number of bovine animals in France can be found, per category. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 11

Table 2: 1000 head. Number of bovines per category in France and variation between 2011 and 2010. Unit: Year Category Variation (%) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011/2010 Dairy cows 3 597 3 650 3 586 3 513 3 494-0.5 Beef cows 4 150 4 205 4 179 4 189 4 173-0.4 Total cows 7 747 7 855 7 765 7 701 7 666-0.5 Dairy heifers between 1 and 2 years old 1 228 1 201 1 224 1 286 1 253-2.6 Dairy heifers older than 2 years 840 809 790 819 833 1.7 Beef heifers between 1 and 2 years 1 040 1 084 1 097 982 1 022 4.1 Beef heifers older than 2 years 965 990 1 061 1 101 991-10.0 Total all bovine types above 11 819 11 938 11 937 11 889 11 765-1.0 Other females 643 671 727 664 642-3.3 Between 1 and 2 years old 321 344 356 308 321 4.3 More than 2 years old 322 326 371 356 321-9.9 Males between 1 and 2 years 1 172 1 231 1 208 1 144 1095-4.3 Dairy type 385 401 402 430 372-13.4 Meat type 787 829 806 714 723 1.3 Other males (older than 2 years) 452 448 480 490 448-8.6 Other males (less than 1 year) 5 272 5 344 5 017 5 119 5 061-1.1 Total bovines 19 358 19 632 19 369 19 306 19 011-1.5 NL: Veal calves: 869 000 new born calves were imported in the Netherlands in 2010 (Germany: 46%; Poland: 16% and Belgium: 12%). UK: No answer provided. 3. What information is commonly included in the FCI records send with the animals to the abattoir? AT: All information foreseen in the corresponding EC law such as information on residues, on the animals themselves, feed not used, special forms of raising the animals such as organic, and alike. As standardized forms are used, which accompany the animals to the slaughterhouse, we can gladly provide a copy (in German language only) if necessary. DE: Refer to question 1 Meat Inspection section. DK: a. The status of the holding of provenance or the regional animal health status b. The animals health status c. The farmer confirms that eventual withdrawal period after treatment has been respected d. If the holding of provenance is infected with Salmonella or analysis shows a probable presence of Salmonella the FCI must contain information about this e. The name and address of the private veterinarian attending the holding of provenance ES: A specimen Food Chain Information (Información de Cadena Alimentaria ICA) document is shown in Table 3 below. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 12

Table 3: Example of Food Chain Information document from Spain. Royal Decree 361/2009 of 20 March 2009 regulating the food chain information which must accompany animals destined for slaughter ANNEX II: FOOD CHAIN INFORMATION DOCUMENT Document which must accompany the animal origin and health permit/movement for slaughter health document No.. A. ADMINISTRATIVE DATA 1. Time of stay in the past 30 days. In the case of animals being moved which have been at the specified holding for less than 30 days, Annex II from the previous owner shall be included. C. INFORMATION ON THE ANIMALS BEING DELIVERED 1. Indicate whether the animals have been inspected 48 (hours?) beforehand by a private veterinarian (mark as appropriate) YES NO Anomalies observed: 2. Specify any treatments carried out on animals in the past 30 days Animal/batch Date Commercial name Active principle Waiting time A table for entering more animals/batches is attached D. INFORMATION ON THE HOLDING OF PROVENANCE 1. Any relevant change in the other animals on the holding in the previous 48 hours YES NO Symptoms observed: 2. Indicate whether in the past 12 months a veterinarian has diagnosed any illness affecting the safety of the meat. 3. Results of analysis of samples taken in the course of animal health care in the past 6 months. FR: The passport + ASDA are the documents sent with the animal to the slaughterhouse. More information than FCI is available on the passport of the animal accompanying the animal to the slaughterhouse (identification number, herd number, ). Information is available about the health status of the herd on specific diseases as well as ongoing treatment or any other information that should be given for carrying out specific inspection. Health status of the herd, Health status of the animal, Respect of withdrawal period after treatment, Confirmation by the farmer there is / there is no information to be given for further inspection. NL: See Question 1 Meat Inspection section. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 13

UK: Minimum requirements are: Keeper information Declarations and information about: Technical Hearing Meat Inspection Bovines movement restrictions due to bovine tuberculosis or other animal diseases Medication withdrawal periods Diseases that may affect human safety Analysis of samples that would indicate a safety issue with the meat or residue issue Slaughterhouses may ask for other information if they wish. 4. Is feedback on ante mortem and post mortem inspection sent back to the farmers and how? AT: Feeding the findings of the ante mortem (AM) and post mortem (PM) inspection into the Veterinary information database is mandatory. If any signs of diseases are detected, the Official Veterinarian (OV) and the farm are informed additionally (via Email or fax or even phone call). DE: Yes, data collected during AM and PM is being sent back to farmers either by paper document, telephone or digitally. DK: Yes the findings at AM and PM inspection are transferred electronically to the Central Cattle Database where the farmer has access to all data concerning his farm. Most important information is also put on the account settlement from the slaughterhouse. ES: This feedback of information from the slaughterhouse to the farm happens particularly in cases where a problem has been detected, but it should be made standard practice in the new meat inspection model, and the extent to which it is carried out should be monitored. FR: At present, no information is automatically sent back to the farmers from AM inspection. When the animal (or part of the animal) is condemned following the PM inspection, the farmer is informed via the 'condemned certificate'. Discussions are engaged to send back more information to the farmers, following AM and PM inspections. The information could be send back to the farmers on a regular basis, gathering the information of all animals being slaughtered from a defined farm on a defined period. An evaluation of the cleanliness of the animals is done at the point of reception of the animals at the slaughterhouse. If the animals are very dirty (D on a scale running from A to D), the farmer is informed and financially penalised. NL: Yes data collected during AM and PM is being sent back to farmers either by paper document, telephone or digitally. UK: That is the responsibility of the Competent Authority (CA) according to the legislation. Slaughterhouses may choose to send more information back if the farmer wishes to see it. 5. Regarding Food Chain Information (FCI), how is information on mortality, morbidity, microbiology, adverse toxicological events and treatment periods, animal/herd health status, feed supplies and controls collected at the primary production stage? AT: The farmer is obliged the keep records on those events and data, as well as on when which animal come to or leaves the farm. He might do so in electronic form or in paper. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 14

DE: Information is sent in a written document to the abattoir prior to slaughter. Farmer declares and undersigns the aforementioned items on these documents. DK: Information about mortality, morbidity is introduced in the Central Cattle Database and so is microbiology and adverse toxicological events if they are of any significance to food health. Information on feed supplies can be achieved from the feeding plan and the recipes on feed from feed mills. FR: The information on mortality, morbidity, etc. is kept at the farm level. Slaughterhouses are informed of any treatment on the animal which does not respect the prescribed delay between the end of the treatment and slaughtering (for offal or meat). Other information about animal/herd health status: see question 3. NL: Information is sent in a written document or digitally through a designated website application (www.inforund.nl and www.infokalf.nl) sent to the abattoir prior to slaughter. Farmers declare the aforementioned items on these documents. ESP: It is collected in the different farm registers that the producers are obliged to keep. UK: No Answer. 6. Related to integrated veal calf production farms in Europe: a. Has the number of integrated veal calf production farms increased over last years across Europe? Would you have any available data on numbers? b. Do this integrated farms normally operate by using Good Hygiene Practices (GHP), Good Farming Practices (GFP) and with fully implemented HACCP-based protocols c. Do this integrated farms offer detailed and reliable FCI of the animals presented for slaughtered? AT: No information available on our level. Veal is only of minor importance in Austria. DE: No Answer DK: There is no veal production in Denmark. ES: a) We have no data indicating any increase, and they are very rare in Spain. FR: France: NL: a. To be sent. b. Integrated farms operate by using GHP, GFP and HACCP based protocols. These are included in privately owned specifications as well or in national standards. c. Yes. This is part of the requirement for presenting the animals for slaughtering. a. 1. The number of veal calf production farms has evolved as follows: a. Year 1995: 2 334 b. Year 2000: 2 885 c. Year 2005: 3 329 d. Year 2010: 2 064 Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 15

b. These farms operate with GHP and GMP, with fully implemented HACCP-based protocols. (the IKB-quality system with monitoring by the SKV (Foundation for Quality Guarantee of the Veal Sector) UK: No Answer B. Slaughtering process 1. What number or percentage of bovine animals of different categories are slaughtered in the EU (i.e. calves less than <6 weeks old), cows, steers, bulls, buffalo and bison and other potential bovine species farmed in Europe for meat? AT: figures 2011: total: 688 489 bovine animals, of which: heifers: 100 600 (14,6%), cows: 192 592 (28%), bulls: 289 342 (42%), steers: 32 619 (4,7%), calves: 73 336 (10,7%), no date on what percentage of the calve slaughtering. DE: See Table 4. Table 4: Data on categories of bovines slaughtered in Germany (Mt=metric Tonnes). Animal species Unit 1.Quarter 2011 1.Quarter 2012 Change to prior year in % Beef total 1 000 animals 895.9 920.3 2.7 1 000 Mt 283.8 294.0 3.6 Thereof (type, unit, quarter 2011, quarter 2012, change to prior year in %): - Oxen and bulls 1 000 animals 352.6 367.2 4.1 1 000 Mt 132.1 142.3 7.7 - Cows 1 000 animals 326.8 327.3 0.1 1 000 Mt 101.2 100.4-0.8 - Heifers 1 000 animals 130.1 125-3.3 1 000 Mt 38.4 37.2-3.1 - Veal Calves 1 000 animals 76.8 85.2 10.9 1 000 Mt 10.4 11.8 12.8 - Young beef 1 000 animals 9.7 14.9 54.2 1 000 Mt 1.6 2.3 45.2 DK: All figures concern EU27 in 2011. Total number of bovines slaughtered: 27 269 000 Bulls: 7 299 000 Steers: 1 997 000 Cows: 7 511 000 Heifers: 3 859 000 Veal calves < 8 months: 4 776 000 Young bovines > 8 months and < 12 months: 1 774 000 ES: At the European Union level, the data should be taken from the European Commission itself, and more specifically from EUROSTAT. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 16

FR: In France, there is no information available about calves < 6 weeks. The following data in Table 5 is the number of animals per category slaughtered in France in 2011. Table 5: Data on categories of bovines slaughtered in France in 2011. Type Number % Bulls 954 735 19% Steers 239 663 5% Heifers 447 814 9% Cows 1 953 085 38% Calves < 8 months 1 439 476 28% Young bovine 8 to 12 months 120 146 2% Total Bovine 5 154 919 NL: 2010: 543000 head of cattle and 1514000 calves UK: In the UK 2011 figures were: 2 761 000 cattle Steers: 1 017 000 Young Bulls (entire males, 6-24 months): 309 700 Adult Bulls: 24 200 Cull Cows: 620 400 Heifers: 789 800 2. What are the sources of the bovine stock slaughtered in the EU? Is there information or estimates on the proportion/percentages of local, national, EU and/or international sources? AT: 87.7% of all bovine animals slaughtered in Austria are of Austrian origin. 12.3% are imported for slaughter from other EU-member states (figures from 2010). The figures in detail: calves and young bovine animals: 6.2% (5 265: from CZ, SK, HU, SL), heifers: 4.6% (3 907: from DE,CZ,HU,SL), cows: 26.5% (22 339: from CZ,SK,HU,SL), and bulls: 62.7% (52 947: from DE, CZ, SL, HU, RU, SK, LV). DE: animals are mostly born and bred in Germany. DK: the major slaughterhouses only slaughter animals born and raised in Denmark. Imported animals are slaughtered in small local slaughterhouses. ES: This question has already been answered in Question 2 of Section A (Livestock Rearing). However, in the past few years there has been an increase in Spanish exports of live bovines, born and/or fattened in Spain but sent to third countries for slaughter. FR: In France, the importation of animals is very small (17 000 animals in 2011), which represents less than 0.4% of total animal slaughtered. Imported animals are exclusively coming from EU countries (BE, ES, DE, NL). No imported animals from third countries. Animals being slaughtered are mainly from local catchment areas. NL: Cows mostly born and bred in NL. UK: Information for the UK is taken from our Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board Market Intelligence section. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 17

3. Are different batches of animals routinely mixed before or during transportation and in the lairage before slaughter? AT: Completely depending on the size of the batch: in the alpine regions, where small scale farms are standard, a batch might consist of one or two animals, so mixing is unavoidable. Batches from bigger fattening farms are not mixed on transport or in lairage. DE: Cows: dairy cows and heifers are collected at dairy farms where normally only a few animals are offered for slaughter. These animals are mixed with animals from other farms before they are transported to the abattoir. Veal and Bulls are raised at specialised small and medium sized farms mostly indoor in feedlot systems. However, depending on the size of the farms a mixing is possible DK: Yes. Some slaughterhouses in Europe have individual housing in the lairage. ES: No, never. FR: No. Animals are not routinely mixed before or during transportation. In the lairage, most abattoirs have enough separated areas not to have to mix the animals (or individual pens). NL: Cows: dairy cows are collected at dairy farms where normally only a few animals are offered for slaughter. These animals are mixed with animals from other farms before they are transported to the abattoir. UK: Cattle bought from market may be transported together but the separate social groups would be kept together and separate within the vehicle. Animals are kept in social groups, though held by age in the lairage. Different social groups are kept separately in the lairage. 4. Briefly describe current slaughtering and processing stages used in the EU and how these could vary in general terms from plant to plat and country to country. AT: Difference only occurs due to the fact, that some small scale butchers still have a discontinuous slaughter line. One animal is slaughtered, cut into quarters or even smaller cuts, stored in the cold store room and after cleaning the facility the next animal is slaughtered. DE: Lairage, AM Inspection, stunning, sticking/bleeding, dehiding, decapitation/bse sampling, evisceration, splitting, PM Inspection, minor dressing, weighing/classification, chilling/cooling. Process steps marked in bold can be seen as most important to prevent any contamination with VTEC or Salmonella. Process control is supported by HACCP systems. Some FBOs put special emphasis on the control of faecal contamination as VTEC and Salmonella can be seen as the most relevant food safety hazards. DK: First step is stunning and bleeding. Stunning can be performed in different ways: 1) penetrating bolt, 2) cash-knocker (non penetrating bolt or mushroom pistol) cannot be used from 1st of January 2013 according to Reg. 1099/2009, 3) electrical stunning either to unconsciousness or to cardiac arrest. Bleeding is either done by chest sticking or by throat cutting. In general there are three different slaughter techniques: 1) Hanging slaughter where animals are hung by the hind legs during the whole process. 2) After bleeding the animals are placed lying on a conveyor belt until partly skinned then hoisted by their hind legs and the rest of processing is done as hanging slaughter. 3) After bleeding the animals are placed on a cradle until partly skinned then hoisted by their hind legs and the rest of the processing is done as hanging slaughter. The majority of carcasses in Denmark are treated with steam vacuum cleaner on a level with the cutting lines in the skin to remove eventual contaminations. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 18

ES: Moving to the slaughter point, restraining in boxes, stunning, hanging, throat-slitting, removal of the head, tying of the oesophagus, skinning, belly-slitting, evisceration, splitting, polishing, weighing and classification. The various stages are generally the same in all plants. FR : In France, national Guidelines fully describing step by step the killing process are available. Enclosed the killing process described in those Guidelines. Intake Individual controls by FBO (6 controls: welfare, health, area of origin, cleanliness, identification, FCI) on animals + AM inspection. Stunning Captive bolt. No stunning for ritual slaughtering (abattoir has to have authorization from OV from 1st July 2012) Hanging For ritual slaughtering, bleeding done before hanging in a special killing box. Bleeding heart or carotids. Ritual slaughtering: throat cutting. Skinning horns and feet are also taken off at that stage. Mostly hind to fore technique. Evisceration white and red offal. Identification of evisceration incidents is now in place in most places. No water used for cleaning carcasses. PM inspection done by OV and OA Finishing/ dressing taking off fat cover under strict regulation for weighing and grading. Most places are using a portable steam vacuum cleaner mainly used on forequarters. Specified Risk Material (SRM) different places for taking off SRM. Spinal cord has to be taken off before splitting the carcass. Weighing and grading before entering the cooling rooms. NL: Lairage, AM inspection, stunning, sticking/bleeding, dehiding, decapitation/bse sampling, evisceration, splitting, PM Inspection, minor dressing, weighing/classification, chilling/cooling. UK: In the UK cattle are primarily stunned using a captive bolt then shackled and hoisted before being stuck. A small number of plants use a Jarvis box for stunning. Generally, the carcases are then moved down a processing line with each station undertaking an operation such as removing the hide, the head, evisceration, etc until the health mark is applied at the end of the line. As long as the animal welfare regulations, EU hygiene regulations and HACCP principles are followed then each slaughterhouse is free to devise their own working methods. 5. Which are the general differences of the different religious slaughter practices? AT: Most animals in Austria, which are slaughtered Halal are slaughtered with prior stunning, so except the different placing of the bleeding cut and the fact, that the cutter is a Muslim, there are no differences compared with normal slaughtering. Animals slaughtered for the Jewish Community are slaughtered by a Rabbi, who has undergone a special training and under supervision of the OV. Equipment is used to fix the animal and turn it on its back. When the ritual cut is performed the animal is stunned just in time. DE: Some Halal-slaughter is implemented but based on EU animal welfare law. DK: The Jewish ritual slaughter (Schächtning) is done without any stunning at all by cutting the throat transversely so that both arteries are opened. Normally the animal is turned in a rotating box so it is lying on its back with the neck stretched. The Muslim ritual slaughter (Halal) can be done with or without stunning, but in general it is a demand that the stunning is reversible, meaning that the animal must be able to recover from the Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 19

stunning. Bleeding is performed by a transverse cut of the throat. A rotating box is frequently used for Halal slaughter without stunning. In Denmark no ritual slaughter is performed without stunning. ES: In Spain most religious slaughter is carried out in accordance with Halal ritual and meets the required conditions (with a rotating box, placing the animal feet upwards and cutting the neck) and is carried out by a properly approved slaughterman of the Muslim faith. Otherwise everything is the same. Kosher slaughter is almost inexistent. FR: In both cases, the abattoir who wants to do religious slaughtering (Halal and casher) has to have a formal authorization given by the CA after the evaluation of a specific dossier prepared by the FBO (from 1st of July 2012). This is including temporary abattoirs. Both Halal and casher are done without stunning and by cutting the throat of the animal (oesophagus, trachea, and arteries). Specific equipment is required (killing box, with or without rotation 90 or 180 ) for holding the animal during the sticking process and until the animal has lost consciousness. In some cases, captive bolt can be used just after sticking (Muslims only). At present, some studies are being carried out to investigate the possible usage of a reversible stunning techniques on bovines. For casher slaughtering a full investigation process is carried out by the Rabin to ensure if the animal is fit for casher grading or not (about 1 out of 3 animals are casher graded after this evaluation). NL: Jewish slaughter (Kosher) bleeding without prior stunning. Animal has to be restrained extensively and positioned additionally. Halal slaughter can be done with stunning. UK: No Answer 6. What animal cleanliness schemes/policies are currently operated in the EU Member States? AT: If animals are dirty in a way that it might pose a risk on the cleanliness of the carcass, they are rejected during AM inspection. DE: If existent run by private companies through check and feed back systems. Dirty animals are then slaughtered at the end of line. However, cleanliness schemes have to be seen integrated in a comprehensive system with hygienic working practices at cattle slaughter to reach a good hygienic performance. Some FBOs have implemented a Critical Control Points (CCP) to control faecal contamination as it is seen as the major risk for bacteriological contamination with VTEC or Salmonella. DK: all animals are considered dirty and the line speed is adjusted accordingly. In other countries animals are classified according to the cleanliness. In some countries farmers are fined if the animals are dirty and in other countries the animals are rejected for slaughter and returned to the farmer. ES: Very dirty animals are slaughtered at the end of the day. For some time now the livestock sector has been producing leaflets and guides recommending the cleaning of animals and the assessment of cleanliness when they arrive at the slaughterhouse. FR: For adult bovines, a scale running from A (very clean) to D (very dirty) has been set up for dry dirt only. This is evaluated at reception of the animals at the slaughterhouse. The grading is reported on the information sent back to the farmer and into a general database (BDNI). Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 20

Less than 1 animal out of 1 000 is graded D. In that case, the farmer is informed and penalized (100 ). Technical Hearing Meat Inspection Bovines Humid dirt is also evaluated by most FBO as they may have special procedures in place for the slaughtering process (out of a national protocol but sometimes included in private standards or specifications). Evaluation of cleanliness of the animal is one of the 6 essential points to evaluate at reception (define in regulation). NL: No national schemes. The individual FBOs have their own hygiene protocols, based on HACCP. UK: In the UK, HACCP and EU Hygiene Regulations. C. Meat inspection process 1. What information is commonly found in the FCI records send with the animals to the abattoir? AT: No response DE: It is mandatory to send FCI together with every animal/consignment of animals. The information at minimum consists of: Identification Number of the farm Number of animals delivered. Individual identification of the animals from birth to slaughter Information of prior slaughter results Health status of the animals and farms Analytical results that are important for food safety Name and address of attending veterinarian of the farm Veterinary use of medication DK: a)the status of the holding of provenance or the regional animal health status. b)the animals health status. c)the farmer confirms that eventual withdrawal period after treatment has been respected. d)if the holding of provenance is infected with Salmonella or analysis shows a probable presence of Salmonella the FCI must contain information about this. e)the name and address of the private veterinarian attending the holding of provenance. Upon arrival at the slaughterhouse the animal s eartag number is typed in the computer and entered into the Central Cattle Database, then all these information are showed on the screen. If some of the information is missing or if the eartag number is wrong or if the supplier is not registered as the owner it is showed on the screen that the animal must not be slaughtered and the reason why. Ad d) If a holding has been found infected with Salmonella or a notifiable disease, animals from that holding can only leave the holding for slaughter and must be accompanied by a pass issued by the regional OV. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 21

ES: All the information required under EU legislation, assembled at national level, based on an information declaration format agreed by the livestock sector and the meat industry. FR: More information than FCI are available on the passport of the animal accompanying the animal to the slaughterhouse (identification number, herd number, ).Information is available about the health status of the herd on specific diseases as well as ongoing treatment or any other information that should be given for carrying out specific inspection. Health status of the herd Health status of the animal Respect of withdrawal period after treatment Confirmation by the farmer there is / there is no information to be given for further inspection NL: It is mandatory to send FCI together with every animal/consignment of animals. The information at minimum consists of: UK: See above. Identification Number of the farm Number of animals delivered. Individual identification of the animals Health status of the animals and farms Information on mortality Information on morbidity Analytical results that are important for food safety Results of AM/PM meat inspection of previous slaughtering Name of attending veterinarian of the farm Veterinary use of medication (treatment period, type and registration number of the drug used) 2. How is ante mortem inspection carried out in practice and how does information provided by farmers and the processing plant (FCI) feed into this inspection? Are there mandatory systems in individual Member Stares? AT: The OV has to be present at the time the animals arrive at the slaughterhouse. He has to check he means of transport, the loading density and supervise the unloading of the animals. The FCI sheet accompanying the animals (standard form in Austria) has to be handed to the OV. He has to check the identity of the animals and make the AM inspection control as given in the regulation. DE: AM inspection is carried out by OV of CA at delivery of the animals in the lairage of the abattoir. Every single animal is observed for any clinical symptoms and any animal welfare issues that might have arisen on farm or during transport. The food chain information is collected and evaluated by the FBO. The information is then presented to the OV. The information is taken into account when inspecting the animals. If necessary, additional investigations are carried out. Sometimes additional measures are being taken during slaughter and/or PM inspection. DK: AM inspection is carried out by the OV normally upon arrival of the animals as all animals must be seen in motion. See also answer to C 1. If animals come from a farm infected with Salmonella or a notifiable disease the official pass is handed over to the OV. Such animals are separated in the lairage and normally slaughtered at the end Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 22

of the day. The transporting lorry, the lairage and the slaughterline must then be cleaned with extra carefulness and disinfected. ES: As specified in Community legislation. It is a matter of operator-to-operator communication (between the stockbreeder and the manager of the slaughterhouse). The person in charge at the slaughterhouse checks that it has been received and evaluates its contents. It is then notified to the OV, who cannot authorise the slaughter without this information from the FCI document ( ICA ). FR: Even though all animals should be checked by the OV before slaughtering, it is difficult for the OV to carry out a AM inspection on all animals at the point of arrival, in big as well as in small abattoirs, for different reasons of organization. Therefore, AM inspection is not fully done by VO. In abattoirs, the FBO has got trained people for the reception of the animals. Animals are checked at the point of arrival against the 6 major points (welfare, health, area of origin, cleanliness, identification, FCI). The result of this first check is recorded by the FBO. Any animal which is not fully complying with one of these 6 point is put apart in a dedicated / identified pen. The FBO informs the OV who will come and check this / these animals. NL: AM inspection is carried out by OV of CA at delivery of the animals in the lairage of the abattoir. The food chain information is first considered by the FBO and then presented to the OV and the information is taken into account when inspecting the animals. If necessary, additional measures are being taken during slaughter and/or PM inspection. UK: The FBO has initial responsibility for deciding if animals are fit for slaughter. They check the FCI and the animals then pass the animals to the OV for official inspection. The CA has decided what is the minimum FCI information that must be checked and acted upon. 3. Are these data from ante mortem and post mortem findings made available for analysis and further consideration and use to the farmer to the national administration (e.g. sending back and forwarding FCI)? AT: Feeding the findings of the AM and PM inspection into the Veterinary information database is mandatory. If any signs of diseases are detected, the OV and the farm are informed additionally. DE: Data from the AM and PM mortem inspection are available for analysis and further consideration by both the CA as the FBO. This information is sent back to the farm of origin. DK: Yes the findings at AM and PM inspection are transferred electronically to the Central Cattle Database where the farmer has access to all data concerning his farm. Most important information is also put on the account settlement from the slaughterhouse. The farmer s private veterinarian as well as the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration have access as well to all data in the Central Cattle Database from AM and PM inspection. ES: Normally yes. And where this is not the case, the operator (who has the right to make the final analysis) must be provided with a retroactive notification to the cattle farmer from the OV and an notification to the CA of the need to evaluate the historical results of the slaughterhouse (essential for future meat inspections in order to be able to carry out a risk assessment which will determine the extent and frequency of official audits). FR: FBO have to have in place a recording system concerning the result / finding of the AM inspection. At present, this information is only available for the slaughterhouse and not gathered for further investigation. For PM inspection, only when a part (or the animal) is condemned, there is a record sent to the farmer. But the information is not (yet) centralized. Discussions are ongoing to find a better way for circulating the information from the slaughterhouse back to the farmer on a centralized system. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 23

NL: Data from the AM and PM inspection are available for analysis and further consideration by both the CA as the FBO. This information is sent back to the farm of origin. UK: The AM inspection and PM inspection information is fed back to our ministry of health and our ministry of food and farming 4. Are there results of the Official/mandatory microbiological testing of bovine carcasses carried out in the EU MSs, and is there information on the results obtained available? Maybe an example from some particular Member States if not at EU level would be helpful. AT: The results of the microbiological tests are also fed into the database and in addition sent back to the OV, who sent in the sampling to the official lab. There are different levels of access to the database depending on which level the OV is working (ministry, province, or district). The vet-part of the database is for official use only, and only official vets have access to that part of the database. DE: Official/mandatory microbiological testing of carcasses according to Reg. (EC) 2073/2005 is being carried out by the FBO and the results and actions taken following unsatisfactory results are available for supervision of the CA. DK: all Salmonella findings must be sent to the National Laboratory for serotyping and the results are sent to the Danish Zoonosis Centre and the National Food Institute. All results are published in the Annual Report on Zoonoses in Denmark. ES: The analytical results obtained during an official check must be notified to the operator and duly placed on file. FR: Microbiological testing is done at the stage of slaughtering according to EU regulation 2073/2005. Each slaughterhouse gathers the information for hygiene improvement. All results are available on request for VO. All Salmonella findings (even though it is a process hygiene criteria) should be reported to the VO. NL: Official/mandatory microbiological testing of carcasses is being carried out in NL and the results are available to the CA and FBO. UK: There are carcasses swabbing tests for process hygiene efficiency. The results go to the sites and the OV has access to them at audit. At present there is no centralized system to gather all results from micro testing at the stage of bovine slaughtering (total count, Enterobacteriae and Salmonella). 5. Are there results of microbiological testing of bovine carcasses that the Industry beyond official/mandatory may be carrying out in the EU MSs, and is there information on the results obtained available? Maybe an example from some particular Member States if not at EU level would be helpful. AT: Microbiological tests are carried out on a daily basis within the framework of the companies self control system on HACCP-basis, but the results of those tests are not submitted to the official database. Those results are only available to the company and the OV, in whose district the company is placed. Of course, if a severe microbiological problem or a disease is detected, the OV has to inform the province and the Ministry of Health immediately and also take action immediately. DE: Risk-based Microbiological testing of carcasses and meat cuts, trimmings etc. beyond official/mandatory levels is being carried by some FBOs. Results are available to the CA. Private Testing regimes are either extended in frequency, process step or includes more additional bacteria including VTEC monitoring schemes. The private risk based monitoring schemes sometimes go far beyond legal requirements. We will bring some examples to the technical hearing. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 24

DK: According to Danish order on Salmonella in cattle all cattle herds are monitored serologically for Salmonella Dublin quarterly, milking herds by milk samples and other herds by blood samples taken at the slaughterhouses. All herds are classified according to findings in 1) probably free, 2) probably infected and 3) infected. Herds in category 3 are placed under official restriction and can only deliver animals for slaughter accompanied by an official pass. Such animals are slaughtered at the end of the day under tightened hygienic precautions and at a slower line speed. All carcasses from such animals are swab sampled both inside and outside in total approximately 6 000 cm2. If a carcass is found positive for Salmonella Dublin it must either be heat treated or condemned. ES: All slaughtering establishments carry out microbiological tests on their meat as part of their HACCP and self-monitoring programmes and keep a written record to ensure traceability of their selfmonitoring. FR: Same answer as for previous question. Microbiological testing are done by the FBO at the stage of slaughtering according to Reg. (EC) 2073/2005. Each slaughterhouse gathers the information for hygiene improvement. All results are available on request for VO. All Salmonella findings (even though it is a hygiene criteria) should be reported to the VO. At present there is no centralized system to gather all results from micro testing at the stage of bovine slaughtering (total viable count, Enterobacteriaceae and Salmonella enterica). NL: Microbiological testing of carcasses by the industry beyond official/mandatory levels is being carried out in NL by some FBOs. Results are available to the CA and FBO. UK: Some of industry does. The results are private and not publicly available. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 25

B.2. UECBV GENERAL PRESENTATION DURING THE MEETING In this section of Appendix B, the answers in the presentation delivered during the meeting held represent the UECBV general reply on behalf of the EU Meat Industry and it is based on the replies from AU, DE, DK, ES, FR, NL, UK 8. A. Farm 1. Which are the general differences in farm pre-harvest handling practices for intensively reared, extensively reared, indoor, outdoor, veal, beef, dairy, calves (<6 weeks), buffalo and bison animals and other potential bovine species farmed in Europe for meat? Is there information or estimates on the numbers/proportion of those bovine groups accounting to total bovines farmed in the EU? See question number 1 in the Abattoir section, if complete answer to this one is not possible. Intensively reared animals are fed with concentrate supplemented with roughage. Extensively reared animals do normally feed on pastures with no additional feed. In northern Europe extensively reared animals are normally housed in winter season and offered roughage. Calves < 6 weeks are fed with milk and/or milk replacers. Calves that have not yet developed ruminant function can be offered fishmeal. The major part of feed for veal is milk replacers. 2. What are the sources of the bovine stock reared in the EU? Is there information or estimates on the proportion/percentages of local, national or international sources? Most of the live bovines are reared locally in the EU or coming from intra-community trade for further fattening There is a very small import of live bovines from Third Countries to the EU for fattening and even less for direct slaughter 3. What information is commonly included in the FCI records send with the animals to the abattoir? The information requested according the EU legislation: Identification number of the farm Number of animals delivered. Individual identification of the animals Health status of the animals and farms Information on mortality Information on morbidity Analytical results that are important for food safety Results of AM/PM meat inspection of previous slaughtering Name of attending veterinarian of the farm Veterinary use of medication (treatment period, type and registration number of the drug used) 4. Is feedback on ante mortem and post mortem inspection sent back to the farmers and how? In general yes. It can be done in different ways. In most MS it is done by an electronic system. 8 Please note that these data neither are official EU data nor have been submitted by the authorities of those Member States. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 26

5. Regarding Food Chain Information (FCI), how is information on mortality, morbidity, microbiology, adverse toxicological events and treatment periods, animal/herd health status, feed supplies and controls collected at the primary production stage? The Farmer is responsible to collect and keep records of all the information on mortality, morbidity, microbiology, adverse toxicological events and treatment periods etc. 6. Related to integrated veal calf production farms in Europe: a. Has the number of integrated veal calf production farms increased over last years across Europe? Would you have any available data on numbers? Most EU MS are not producing veal calf. The data represent only one MS: The number of veal calf production farms has evolved as follows for the following years: a. 1995 2 334 b. 2000 2 885 c. 2005 3 329 d. 2010 2 064 In conclusion: There is a decrease in the number of farms producing veal calves. 6. Related to integrated veal calf production farms in Europe: b. Do this integrated farms normally operate by using Good Hygiene Practices (GHP), Good Farming Practices (GFP) and with fully implemented HACCP-based protocols? Most EU MS are not producing veal calf. The data represent only two MS: These farms operate with GHP and GMP, with fully implemented HACCP-based protocols. B. Slaughtering process 1. What number or percentage of bovine animals of different categories are slaughtered in the EU (i.e. calves less than <6 weeks old), cows, steers, bulls, buffalo and bison and other potential bovine species farmed in Europe for meat? All figures concern EU27 in 2011: Total number of bovines slaughtered: 27 269 000 Bulls: 7 299 000 Steers: 1 997 000 Cows: 7 511 000 Heifers: 3 859 000 Veal calves < 8 months: 4 776 000 Young bovines > 8 months and < 12 months: 1 774 000 2. What are the sources of the bovine stock slaughtered in the EU? Is there information or estimates on the proportion/percentages of local, national, EU and/or international sources? Most of the live bovines are reared locally in the EU or coming from intra-community trade for further fattening. There is a very small import of live bovines from Third Countries to the EU for fattening and even less for direct slaughter. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 27

3. Are different batches of animals routinely mixed before or during transportation and in the lairage before slaughter? The animals are separated as much as possible in social groups. But mixing of animals can not be completely avoided. 4. Briefly describe current slaughtering and processing stages used in the EU and how these could vary in general terms from plant to plat and country to country. Lairaige, AM Inspection, stunning (except for some ritual slaughter practices), sticking/bleeding, dehiding, decapitation/bse sampling, evisceration, splitting, PM Inspection, minor dressing, weighing/classification, chilling/cooling. 5. Which are the general differences of the different religious slaughter practices? Jewish slaughter practices (Kosher): no use of stunning. Muslim slaughter practices (Halal): different practices depend on the Muslim community (some communities accept stunning and some don t). If stunning is accepted it must be reversible. C. Meat inspection process 1. What information is commonly found in the FCI records send with the animals to the abattoir? It is mandatory according to EU legislation to send FCI together with every animal/consignment of animals. The information at minimum consists of: Identification Number of the farm Number of animals delivered. Individual identification of the animals from birth to slaughter Information of prior slaughter results Health status of the animals and farms Analytical results that are important for food safety Name and address of attending veterinarian of the farm Veterinary use of medication 2. How is ante mortem inspection carried out in practice and how does information provided by farmers and the processing plant (FCI) feed into this inspection? Are there mandatory systems in individual Member Stares? It is mandatory by the EU legislation that the AM Inspection is carried out by OV of CA at delivery of the animals in the lairage of the abattoir. FCI is validated by the FBO and presented to the OV. 4. Are there results of the Official/mandatory microbiological testing of bovine carcasses carried out in the EU MSs, and is there information on the results obtained available? Maybe an example from some particular Member States if not at EU level would be helpful. Official/mandatory microbiological testing of carcasses according to Reg. (EC) 2073/2005 is being carried out by the FBO. MSs are using different procedures. All the results are available for supervision upon request from the CA. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 28

5. Are there results of microbiological testing of bovine carcasses that the Industry beyond official/mandatory may be carrying out in the EU MSs, and is there information on the results obtained available? Maybe an example from some particular Member States if not at EU level would be helpful. Official/mandatory microbiological testing of carcasses according to Reg. (EC) 2073/2005 is being carried out by the FBO. MSs are using different procedures. All the results are available for supervision upon request of the CA. Additional microbiological testing is carried out by FBOs and the results are available upon request from the CA. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 29

B.3. UECBV CASE STUDY PRESENTATION DURING THE MEETING In this section of Appendix B, the information included was provided during a case-study presentation showing actual practices carried out by one company. Food chain information The leading question. What information do I need for what kind of decisions? For AM and PM inspection decisions. For further follow up, or specific targeted analyses. As back up in case of calamities. Food chain information beef. Food chain information collected from the farm: Standard declaration: Traceability, Animal Health, Food safety aspects at farm, Veterinarian of the farm, Use of medication. Other data: Farm apply a guide of good practice scheme (either dairy or meat based), Audit results from private audit standards. Food chain information at the slaughterhouse: Food chain information system of historical delivery performance: Meat inspection results, Key performance indicator results on Animal welfare. Food chain information in a decision oriented context: Organised by FBO. Figure 1: Context of the food chain information organised by FBO. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 30

HACCP System. Technical Hearing Meat Inspection Bovines Basic Hygiene requirements and Hazard Analysis: Own scientific knowledge, literature, Scientific advice of public institutes. Continuously updated, according to the scientific state of the art. Process control plan: Translation of hazard analysis into process control plan. Use of most recent scientific knowledge for the Identification and Control of relevant hazards. Hazard Analysis. List of (potential) hazards. Risk assessment (severeness x frequency of adverse effect) for human. Attributive factor of the product under concern. Figure 2: Risk Assessment matrix Figure 3: Categories of hazards in Beef. This may be applicable to many European regions. Some additionally have to take Tuberculosis into consideration. Supporting publications 2012:EN-374 31