Guideline Diagnostic Data in Poultry Slaughtering

Similar documents
Supporting document Antibiotics monitoring Short database instructions for veterinarians

DG(SANCO)/ MR

The Scottish Government SHEEP AND GOAT IDENTIFICATION AND TRACEABILITY GUIDANCE FOR KEEPERS IN SCOTLAND

SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF THE FCI TRADITIONAL STYLE (TS) HERDING EUROPEAN CHAMPIONSHIPS FCI HEC TS

Dr Karim Ben Jebara Head of Department, Copyright Animal ( OIE 2013) Health Information Department, OIE

RESPONSIBLE ANTIMICROBIAL USE

Dogs and Cats Online All of our Puppies in One Basket

This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents

TEXTS ADOPTED Provisional edition. P8_TA-PROV(2018)0429 Animal welfare, antimicrobial use and the environmental impact of industrial broiler farming

Working for organic farming in Europe

NEW ENTRANTS TO FARMING WORKSHOP 3 RECORDS & WHAT TO EXPECT AT AN INSPECTION 25 TH JANUARY 2017

Sustainable Meat Initiative for Dutch CBL. ENGLISH VERSION 1.0_JAN14 Valid from: JANUARY 2014

The Regulation of medical devices in the European Union

PNCC Dogs Online. Customer Transactions Manual

Official Journal of the European Union. (Acts whose publication is obligatory)

RULES FOR THE FCI EUROPEAN CUP FOR ENGLISH HUNTING SPANIELS REGULATION A OF THE FCI

BREEDING & REGISTRATION RULES (January 2011)

OIE Standards for: Animal identification and traceability Antimicrobials

Responsible Antimicrobial Use

Highlights on Hong Kong Strategy and Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance ( ) (Action Plan)

PNCC Dogs Online. Customer Transactions Manual

Surveillance. Mariano Ramos Chargé de Mission OIE Programmes Department

OIE Standards on Veterinary Legislation: Chapter 3.4 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code

Listed Status Club (Obedience) APPLICATION FORM

SUBJECT: Standards for the registration of a veterinary approved dipping station. Registration of a veterinary approved dipping station.

Effective Vaccine Management Initiative

Starting Up An Agricultural Business

ANNEX. to the COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION

ISO INTERNATIONAL STANDARD

CARMEN A. TRUTANICH City Attorney

Texas 4-H/FFA Heifer Validation Program

NATIONAL CODE OF PRACTICE

COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) /... of XXX

SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

Law On Breeding and Animal Production

American Humane Association Humane Conservation program. Animal Welfare Certification for Zoos, Aquariums and Conservation Centers

This document is a preview generated by EVS

About Food Health Impact Assessment

3. records of distribution for proteins and feeds are being kept to facilitate tracing throughout the animal feed and animal production chain.

RESIDUE MONITORING AND CONTROL PROGRAM. Dr. T. Bergh Acting Director: Veterinary Public Health Department Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

How to use Mating Module Pedigree Master

ruma Cattle Responsible use of antimicrobials in Cattle production GUIDELINES

PROVOST AND VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND LIFE SCIENCES DIRECTOR OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY HEALTH

EN SANCO/745/2008r6 EN EN

American Veterinary Medical Association

EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH AND CONSUMERS DIRECTORATE-GENERAL

Chicken Farmers of Canada animal Care Program. Implementation guide

OIE standards on the use of antimicrobials and antimicrobial resistance monitoring

OIE Standards on biosecurity and compartmentalisation

Guide to Preparation of a Site Master File for Breeder/Supplier/Users under Scientific Animal Protection Legislation

NASH Analysis Lab. Report of the audit. Prepared by: NASH Analysis Lab. CEO: Ni Ni Win. Quality manager: AgnieszkaPaszkowska

WORLD ANIMAL HEALTH INFORMATION SYSTEM AND DATABASE (WAHIS & WAHID)

Industry Vision and Mission for Quality..3. Background and Executive Summary. 4-5

edit subtitle style 1

Improved animal welfare, the right technology and increased business. August 16, 2016 Susanne Støier,

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY

Review of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System

Animal Welfare Management Programmes

CIVIL GRAND JURY FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND RESPONSES TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Questions and answers about methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

Welfare on farms: beyond the Five Freedoms. Christopher Wathes

Library. Order San Francisco Codes. Comprehensive Ordinance List. San Francisco, California

THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION

Responsible Pet Ownership Program Working Group Summary of Recommendations

Webinar: Update and Briefing on Feed Rule November 13, 2008 FDA, Center for Veterinary Medicine Office of Surveillance & Compliance

German Antimicrobial Resistance Strategy DART 2020

(Non-legislative acts) DECISIONS

ANIMAL HEALTH ACT 1981 THE DISEASE CONTROL (ENGLAND) ORDER 2003 (AS AMENDED) GENERAL LICENCE FOR THE MOVEMENT OF SHEEP AND GOATS PART I

Specific Rules for Animal Product

REGULATION (EC) No 854/2004 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 29 April 2004

CARMEN A. TRUTANICH City Attorney REPORT NO.

DOGS QUEENSLAND DNA PROGRAMME

ISO INTERNATIONAL STANDARD

Better Training for Safer Food

Custom Software Solution

SCRAPIE: ERADICATE IT

Regulated Control Scheme Control of Specified Substances 14 December 2017

Animal Welfare Assessments and Audits in the US

ANNUAL REPORT. Regional Workshop on the World Animal Health Information System (WAHIS) for National Focal Points. Chiba, Japan, 3 5 February 2016

DRAFT UGANDA STANDARD

Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms and Pet Shops) Bill 2016

KB Record Errors Report

ANNEX Part 1 Model animal health certificate for imports into the Union of dogs, cats and ferrets COUNTRY:

BEST PRACTICE - SHEARING QUALITY PROGRAMME BEST PRACTICE - SHEARING

6.14(a) - How to Run CAT Reports Record Errors Report

& chicken. Antibiotic Resistance

Franck Berthe Head of Animal Health and Welfare Unit (AHAW)

Break Free from BVD. What is BVD? BVD outbreak in 2013/ cow dairy herd in Staffordshire. Costs Calculation Costs*

Completing your Post-Birth Weight Performance Recording Forms

The Animal Welfare offi cer in the European Union

FREE RANGE EGG & POULTRY AUSTRALIA LTD

Better Training for Safer Food

Transmitted by Co-Chairs of the Informal Working Party On Periodical Technical Inspections. WP (08-11 March 2016, agenda item 7.

T H E I R I S H W O L F H O U N D R E S C U E T R U S T

Level 3 Award in Implantation of Identification Microchips in Animals VSMI001 Qualification Handbook

DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE RECURSOS AGRÍCOLAS Y GANADEROS [Directorate-General for Agriculture and Livestock Resources

CROATIA TRENDS AND SOURCES OF ZOONOSES AND ZOONOTIC AGENTS IN HUMANS, FOODSTUFFS, ANIMALS AND FEEDINGSTUFFS

TRAINING CLUB LISTED STATUS APPLICATION FORM

Small-scale poultry production Small producers provide outdoor access, natural feed, no routine medications Sell to directly to consumers

Investigation of hand washing facilities and practices in various settings on the island of Ireland

Transcription:

Diagnostic Data in Poultry Slaughtering This reflects the current status of consultation on the documentation and use of diagnostic data from the slaughtering of poultry. The guideline will be updated, if new provisions are made.

Contents 1 Fundamentals... 3 1.1 Responsibilities... 3 1.2 Scope... 3 2 Findings... 3 2.1 Which diagnostic data are recorded?... 3 3 Data transfer... 3 3.1 Which data must be transferred?... 3 3.2 What reporting options are there?... 6 3.3 Data access... 6 4 Evaluation of the diagnostic data... 7 Page 2 of 8

1 Fundamentals The collection, documentation and feedback of diagnostic data are important tools for the management of animal health in poultry herds and therefore play a key role in quality assurance. The documentation of the diagnostic data of all slaughter batches of broilers and turkeys in a central database forms the basis for comparative evaluations. 1.1 Responsibilities Transfer of recorded diagnostic data to the QS diagnostic database is the responsibility of the abattoirs. They must comply at all times with the requirements of the QS scheme and always be in a position to demonstrate compliance with said QS requirements. 1.2 Scope All abattoirs in the QS scheme report diagnostic data from the slaughtering process to the central diagnostic database. No separate authorisation of the abattoirs by the livestock owner is necessary, as this authorisation is already governed by the declaration of participation. The diagnostic data must be reported for all broilers and turkeys delivered by livestock owners that participate in the QS scheme. All abattoirs that record diagnostic data must ensure that their process is in line with this. 2 Findings 2.1 Which diagnostic data are recorded? The poultry industry has conducted pilot projects on the recording and feedback of diagnostic data from poultry slaughtering together with Osnabrück University. The insights gained from these projects are being incorporated in the systematic recording of diagnostic data within the QS scheme. The following diagnostic data must be recorded for each slaughter batch and reported to the central diagnostic database for poultry: Mortality during fattening (animals that died or were culled during the fattening period) Animals that died during transport Footpad changes (score) 3 Data transfer 3.1 Which data must be transferred? The following data must be recorded for each poultry slaughter batch: Abattoir ID (performed automatically via registration) Main destocking/pre-destocking Number of slaughter batch Shed number/shed designation (optional) Slaughter date Number of animals delivered for slaughter Location number of livestock owner Animal species/animal group (turkeys, broilers) Gender (optional, only for turkeys) Mortality during fattening (in percent (%)) Animals that died during transport (in percent (%)) Footpad score Figures of 2b >20% in broilers or C >25% in turkeys Recording system, camera-based Page 3 of 8

Tab. 1: Recording of diagnostic data in poultry Details for each slaughter batch Mandatory information Format Example Abattoir ID Automatic (via registration) Main destocking (H) /Predestocking Yes Text V (V) Slaughter batch number Yes Numerical 12345 Shed number/shed designation Optional Alphanumerical AB, 123, A1 Slaughter date Yes Date 23 Sep 2017 23.09.2017 Number of animals delivered for slaughter Yes Numerical 12021 Location number of the livestock business (e.g. registration number according to the VVVO ivestock transport ordinance) Yes Numerisch Foreign countries also alphanumerical Animal species/animal group Yes Numerical (QS production scope) Gender Optional, only for turkeys Text Mortality in percent (%) Yes, at main Numerical 3,52 destocking Animals that died during transport Yes Numerical 0,55 in percent (%) Footpad score Yes Numerical 40 Footpad scores of 2b >20% in Yes Yes/No No broilers or C >25% in turkeys Camera-based recording system Yes Yes/No Yes for footpad changes 276011231231234 380111-011A2222 3001 (for broilers) 3004 (turkeys for fattening) M = male W = female Reporting deadlines The diagnostic data must be reported to the diagnostic database without delay, at the latest within 14 days after slaughter. Footpad score broilers: Determination of the percentage of animals with footpad changes in the stages 0, 1, 2a, 2b Multiplication of the percentage in the respective stage by the assessment factors 0 for stage 0, 0,5 for stage 1, 1 for stage 2a, and 2 for stage 2b The sum of the results for the individual stages is the footpad score for the slaughter batch Page 4 of 8

Tab. 2: Calculation example for the footpad score of poultry fattening Stage Percentage Assessment Calculation Result Stage 0 60% 0 60 x 0 0 Stage 1 20% 0,5 20 x 0,5 10 Stage 2a 10% 1 10 x 1 10 Stage 2b 10% 2 10 x 2 20 Result of footpad score 40 Result for footpad score: the slaughter batch has a footpad score of 40 Note: the value for the footpad score is between 0 (all animals in stage 0) and 200 (all animals in stage 2b). Footpad score turkeys for fattening Determination of the percentage of animals with footpad changes with the scores 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 according to Hocking (et al. 2008) Multiplication of the percentage in the respective stage by the assessment factors 0 for stage A (sum of scores 0 and 1), assessment factor 0,5 for stage B (sum of scores 2 and 3), assessment factor 2 for stage C (score 4). The sum of the results for the individual stages is the footpad score for the slaughter batch Tab. 3: Calculation example for the footpad score of turkey production Stage Percentage Total percentage Assessment Calculation Result Score 0 30% Stage A Score 1 30% Score 2 20% Stage B Score 3 10% Score 4 10% Stage C 60% 0 60 x 0 0 30% 0,5 30 x 0,5 15 10% 2 10 x 2 20 Result of footpad score 35 Result of footpad score: the slaughter batch has a footpad score of 35 Note: the value for the footpad score is between 0 (all animals in stage A) and 200 (all animals in stage C). Please note: These findings are recorded on a stock basis and for each slaughter batch. The listed assessment criteria represent a minimum standard. In addition, each abattoir can survey further parameters and/or deepen the parameters already included in the minimum standard. Reporting of the data to the central diagnostic database must always be in line with the stipulations listed in Tab. 1. Details of mortality during fattening must only be provided at main destocking. These details are not required for pre-destocking. Page 5 of 8

Recording systems Abattoirs with a slaughtering capacity of more than 500 turkeys or 4.000 broilers an hour must record diagnostic data using a camera-based system from 1 st January 2018 on. If footpad changes are recorded using a camera-based system, all animals in a slaughter batch must be considered. Even if there is a failure in the camera-based system, recording of footpad changes must be ensured for each slaughter batch manually/visually based on a suitable sample size. If footpad changes are recorded manually/visually, at least 100 pairs in a slaughter batch must be assessed (50 pairs at the start and 50 pairs at the end of slaughtering). The quality of data recording must be regularly monitored. The requirements for this monitoring process must be defined in the in-house quality management system. The sensitivity, specificity and reproducibility of the results of the recording of footpad changes must be defined in the company, known to the competent employees and documented in a way that is comprehensible to third parties. Factors such as light conditions and, where applicable, other influencing factors in the case of camera-based systems must be taken into account. In addition risk-oriented analysis of the recording system must be performed and, where necessary, corrective actions must be taken. Proof of these actions must be provided during the audit. 3.2 What reporting options are there? The diagnostic data can be entered into the database in two different ways: Uploading of a csv file via https://db.qs-befunddaten.de Automated data transfer via an interface from the abattoir s IT to the diagnostic database 3.3 Data access Only authorised users can access the data in the diagnostic database. Access to the database is provided after registration of the user. After signing a data and copyright protection declaration, each user receives a user name and a password from the database administration. a) Abattoir Abattoirs report diagnostic data to the central diagnostic database. They can also commission a third party to report the diagnostic data. Abattoirs and third parties commissioned to report the diagnostic data can view, change (verifiably), delete (verifiably) and download all data that they have entered in the diagnostic database. Access to and viewing of data entered by other abattoirs is only possible if the livestock owner has released the data. On the grounds of data protection, also within the abattoir, downloading all data of an abattoir is only possible based on a separate access to the database. Abattoirs can apply for such access at the database administration. This rule ensures that due consideration is paid to the special need to protect data, also within the abattoir. Page 6 of 8

b) Livestock owner Livestock owners are provided with access to their data after the working group diagnostic data poultry has carried out an assessment of the received data and has coordinated the requirements for data access. c) Coordinators Coordinators are provided with access to the diagnostic data after the working group diagnostic data poultry has carried out an assessment of the data and has coordinated the requirements for data access. In addition, it must be determined whether coordinators are permitted to view and download the data of all livestock owners they coordinate. (Data access also dependents on the content and scope of the information that the coordinators, where applicable, should feed back to the livestock owners.) d) Third parties (e.g. consultant, veterinarian, production association, consultancy circle, food retail) Here, it must be determined who is permitted to perform the function of "third party" and which information the third party should receive. e) Veterinarians / Official veterinarians in the abattoir Here, it must be determined whether veterinarians should be provided with access to the diagnostic data. f) QS Qualität und Sicherheit GmbH As scheme owner, QS has access to all data and evaluation results in the diagnostic database. Access to the data is restricted to individual authorised employees of QS. QS will provide the operating company of the animal welfare initiative Initiative Tierwohl access to information that is defined for the implementation of the Animal Welfare Initiative in this respect. For this purpose, it is necessary to determine together with the representatives of the animal welfare initiative Initiative Tierwohl which data are relevant and how the data can be provided. The data in the diagnostic database can be made available to research establishments (e.g. universities, colleges, and Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR)) for research projects and scientific evaluations in the field of animal welfare/animal health after pseudonymisation of the location number (e.g. based on the VVVO) of the agricultural businesses and the identification number of the abattoir while ensuring appropriate data protection. 4 Evaluation of the diagnostic data The working group diagnostic data poultry is drawing up a proposal for the evaluation of the diagnostic data. Page 7 of 8

QS Qualität und Sicherheit GmbH Managing Director: Dr. H.-J. Nienhoff Schedestraße 1-3 53113 Bonn Tel +49 228 35068-0 Fax +49 228 35068-10 info@q-s.de www.q-s.de Photos: QS Page 8 of 8