FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 

Resources

FSIS has several resources available to support enhanced outreach to small 

and very small establishments on humane handling and GCPs. As outreach 

efforts continue, DVMSs are encouraged to provide feedback on guidance and 

resources developed by FSIS and to identify useful support developed through 

partners. These are a few examples: 

• Industry Support and Resources (see updated link from FSIS homepage);

• Small Plant Help Desk;

• Niche Meat Processor Assistance Network (search for humane handling);

• Cooperative Extension System

See Appendix 3 (page 23) for a more comprehensive list of resources.

Additionally, the National Humane Handling Enforcement Coordinator (HHEC) 

will facilitate coordination with the Office of Employee Experience and 

Development (OEED), OPACE and the Office of Policy and Program 

Development (OPPD) to develop additional resources and support as needed 

and assist in coordination with other outreach efforts across the Agency and 

with Industry. 

Next Steps

After the Agency completes preparations for the small and very small

establishment DEO program, including readying the DVMSs for additional 

duties, the Office of Field Operations (OFO) will fully implement the program 

in calendar year (CY) 2020. OFO will continue to identify resources and review 

the program to make adjustments as needed. Updates will be provided to the 

DVMSs by email and/or through the DVMS SharePoint site. OFO will work with 

OPACE, OEED, OPPD and others as appropriate to identify training and 

resources for DVMSs on crucial conversations, messaging, policy changes, and 

related topics that may be beneficial. 

14
• Humane Methods of Slaughter Act §1902 (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/

USCODE-2014-title7/pdf/USCODE-2014-title7-chap48.pdf);

• 9 CFR 313 (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2000-title9-vol2/pdf/

CFR-2000-title9-vol2-part313.pdf);

• FSIS Directive 6900.2 Rev.2 8/15/11 Humane Handling and Slaughter of Livestock

(https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/

connect/2375f4d5-0e24-4213-902d-d94ee4ed9394/6900.2.pdf?

MOD=AJPERES);

• FSIS Humane Handling Resources webpage

(https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatory-compliance/

humane-handling);

• HIKE Scenarios (https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/inspection/

workforce-training/hike/hike-scenarios);

• Situation-Based Humane Handling Modules 1 and 2 (2011) (https://

www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/inspection/workforce-training/regionalon-site-training/Humane+Handling+of+Livestock);

• 2013 FSIS Compliance Guide of a SA to the HH of Livestock (https://

www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/

da6cb63d-5818-4999-84f1-72e6dabb9501/Comp-Guide-Systematic-ApproachHumane-Handling-Livestock.pdf?MOD=AJPERES);

• 2017 PHV Refresher Training: Consciousness and Stunning (https://

www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/bd0306ae-68ce-4337-

ad3e-61da08eabbaa/PHV-Refresher-Training-ConsciousnessStunning.pdf?MOD=AJPERES);

• Federal Register Notice/Vol. 69, No. 174, September 9, 2004 – Merits of a

Systematic Approach (https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/

connect/3057b87f-1b34-49ea-8e8d-73414b576e5e/04-013N.pdf?MOD=AJPERE S);

• USDA FSIS Humane Handling of Livestock and Poultry: An Education Guidebook

Based on FSIS Polices (Revised June 2015) (https://

www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/96407439-2142-40c7-8e16-c24949f637ce/

humane_handling_booklet.pdf?MOD=AJPERES);

These resources are available to DVMSs to share with slaughter establishments.

FSIS Humane Handling Resources

Humane Handling and GCP Resources

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 24
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 25

 

• Humane Handling of Livestock and Good Commercial Practices in Poultry PHV

Training (04-18-2017) (https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/175cda99-

ece9-48de-9f75-95499ac3cee7/PHVt-Humane_Handling.pdf?MOD=AJPERES);

• AskFSIS Humane Handling Answered Questions (https://

askfsis.custhelp.com/app/answers/list/st/5/kw/Humane%20Handling/page/1);

• FSIS Humane Handling Blog (https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/archive/tag/

humane-handling);

• Small Plant Help Desk (https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulatorycompliance/svsp/sphelpdesk);

o Email: InfoSource@usda.gov or call 1-877-FSIS-HELP (1-877-374-7435).

FSIS Poultry Resources 

• FSIS PHIS Directive 6100.3 4/11/11 Ante-Mortem and Post-Mortem Poultry Inspection

(https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/

connect/724ad094-823a-4e06-83f4-47ecbbefad53/PHIS_6100.3.pdf?MOD=AJPERES);

• FSIS Directive 6110.1 7/3/18 Verification of Poultry Good Commercial Practices

(https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/39d791f2-6bc2-4bb4-

bdfc-72504da30f76/6110.1.pdf?MOD=AJPERES);

• Federal Register Notice/Vol. 70, No. 187, September 28, 2005 - Treatment of Live

Poultry Before Slaughter (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2005-09-28/

pdf/05-19378.pdf);

• DOAs in a Poultry Slaughter Establishment Ask FSIS Question (https://

askfsis.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1166/kw/doa);

• Humane Handling Ombudsman: Dr. Kurt Schulz

o If you have a humane handling related comment, concern, or wish to file a

complaint, Dr. Schulz’s contact information is below:

Email: kurt.schulz@osec.usda.gov

USDA/FSIS Attn: Dr. Kurt Schulz

Edward Zorinsky Federal Building

1616 Capitol Avenue, Suite 260

Omaha, NE 68102

Resources for Industry

• North American Meat Institute Foundation (http://www.animalhandling.org/);

o Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines & Audit Guide: A Systematic

Approach to Animal Welfare; June 2017 Rev. 1 (http://certifiedhumane.org/

wp-content/uploads/animal-handling-guidelines-June152017.pdf);

• Temple Grandin – Website Resources (https://www.grandin.com/);

• Humane Slaughter Association (UK Resource) (https://www.hsa.org.uk);
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 2

 6

•

•

National Chicken Council (https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/);

National Turkey Federation (https://www.eatturkey.org/standards/).

Captive Bolt

•

•

Captive-Bolt Stunning of Livestock, Humane Slaughter Association (2013) (http://

www.hsa.org.uk/introduction/introduction); and

Bildstein, Chuck. Captive Bolt Guns & Electrical Stunners. Bunzl Processor Division

Koch Supplies (2019) (https://www.meatinstitute.org/index.php?ht=a/

GetDocumentAction/i/160441).

Firearms

•

•

Humane Killing of Livestock Using Firearms. Humane Slaughter (2014)(https://

www.hsa.org.uk/downloads/publications/humane-killing-using-firearms-updatedwith-2016-logo.pdf); and Woods, Jennifer. Firearm Stunning Beef and Sheep. VPM – 

Animal Welfare; NAMI Animal Care and Handling Conference. (Oct. 2016) (https://

www.meatinstitute.org/index.php?ht=a/GetDocumentAction/i/127674).

Electrical

•

•

Electrical Stunning of Red Meat Animals. Humane Slaughter Association (2016)

(https://www.hsa.org.uk/downloads/publications/

electricalstunningdownload.pdf); and

Vogel, K. D., Bradtram, G., Claus, J. R., Grandin, T., Turpin, S., Weykler, R. E., and

Voogd, E. (2011). Head-only followed by cardiac arrest electrical stunning is an

effective alternative to head-only electrical stunning in pigs. Journal of Animal

Science. 89 (1412-1418) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21183712).

Controlled Atmosphere

•

•

Martoft, L., Lomholt, L., Koltoff, C., Rodriguez, B. E., Jensen, E. W.,

Jorgensen, P. F., Pedersen, H. D., & Forslid, A. (2002). Effects of CO2

anaesthesia on central nervous system activity in swine. Laboratory Animals

36 (116-126)(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11943075); and

Carbon Dioxide Stunning and Killing of Pigs. Humane Slaughter Association

(May 2007) (https://www.hsa.org.uk/downloads/technical-notes/TN19-carbondioxide-pigs-HSA.pdf).
• Welfare Guidelines. National Turkey Federation. AMI Animal Care and Handling

Conference. (October 2014) (https://www.meatinstitute.org/index.php?ht=a/

GetDocumentAction/i/104491);

• National Chicken Council Animal Welfare Guidelines and Audit Checklist For Broilers.

NCC. (February 2017) (https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/wp-content/

uploads/2018/07/NCC-Animal-WelfareGuidelines_Broilers_July2018.pdf);

• Grandin, T. Poultry Slaughter Plant and Farm Audit: (July 2009) (https://

www.grandin.com/poultry.audit.html);

• Slaughter Guidelines for Poultry. A Greener World. (https://agreenerworld.org/

certifications/animal-welfare-approved/standards/slaughter-guidelines-for-poultry/);

• Thaxton, Yvonne Vizzler and Christensen, Karen D. Poultry Stunning. University of

Arkansas System (https://www.meatinstitute.org/index.php?ht=a/

GetDocumentAction/i/116619); and

• Bourassa, Dianna V. Controlled Atmosphere Stunning for Poultry Processing. Auburn

University. NAMI Animal Care and Handling Conference. (Oct. 2019)(https://

www.meatinstitute.org/index.php?ht=a/GetDocumentAction/

i/160399).

27 FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 

Poultry Resources

• Grandin, T. (1996). Factors that impede animal movement at slaughter plants.

Journal American Veterinary Medical Association. 209 (757-797)(https://

www.grandin.com/references/abstract-14.html);

• Trouble shooting Captive-Bolt Equipment, Humane Slaughter Association (2013)

(https://www.hsa.org.uk/introduction/troubleshooting-captive-bolt-equipment);

and

• Voogd, Erika L. Improving Electrical Stunning with B&D Stunner. Voogd

Consulting, Inc. (2011) (http://www.voogdconsulting.com/images

Improving_Electrical_Stunning_with_B_D_Stunner_w_d.pdf).

Troubleshooting

• Grandin, T. (2014). Kosher Box Operation, Design, and Cutting Technique will

Affect the Time Required for Cattle to Lose Consciousness. Department of

Animal Science at Colorado State University (http://grandin.com/ritual/

kosher.box.variables.time.lose.sensibility.html); and

• Grandin, T. (2012). Maintaining acceptable animal welfare during Kosher or Halal

slaughter. Department of Animal Science at Colorado State University(http://

grandin.com/ritual/maintain.welfare.during.slaughter.html).

Kosher and Halal Slaughter
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 

APPENDIX 5: 

Sample Humane Handling/GCP

Non-compliance Records (NR)

32 
Sample HHNRs

HATS Category I – Adequate Measures for Inclement Weather 

At approximately 0645 hours while performing HATS Category IV - Handling During 

Ante-mortem Inspection, I observed the following non-compliance with HATS 

Categories I – Adequate Measures for Inclement Weather and III – Water and Feed 

Availability: Three goats were present in pen 1 and four steers were present in pen 

3. Both pens had red plastic water buckets placed in the corners of the pens and as I

reviewed the contents I noted that the water was frozen. I notified Mr. Smith,

Slaughter Supervisor of the non-compliance with regulation 9 CFR 313.2(e) with

regards to access to water in holding pens. Mr. Smith proceeded to dump the

contents of the buckets out and I noted an approximately eight-centimeter layer of

ice build-up on the top of each water bucket. Mr. Smith immediately refilled the

buckets and stated he would refill them as needed during the day’s production. I

periodically verified that the establishment was compliant through the day. I

verbally notified Mr. Smith of the forthcoming non-compliance record.

HATS Category II – Truck Unloading 

At approximately 1430 hours while performing HATS Category II – Truck Unloading, I 

observed the following non-compliance: While watching truck unloading from the 

outside unloading area, I observed a livestock hauler driving one dairy cow off a 

livestock trailer. The cow slipped as she was walking from the trailer to the 

unloading ramp and her right front foot slipped into an approximately fifteencentimeter gap between the trailer and the ramp. The cow was not able to remove 

her foot from the gap and vocalized. The hauler continued to try and drive the 

animal forward. I verbally requested that he discontinue trying to move the animal 

and informed him that the cow was stuck. I then notified Ms. Smith, Slaughter 

Supervisor, of the situation and she immediately assisted the cow in removing its 

front foot. After the foot was removed, I noted a five-centimeter bleeding wound 

on the right front foot, but the animal was fully ambulatory. As there were two

other dairy cows on the trailer, I verbally notified Ms. Smith that no further 

unloading could occur until the gap hazard was corrected. Ms. Smith had the 

livestock hauler realign his truck and once no hazards were present, I allowed the 

other two dairy cows to be unloaded. The unloading of the other two animals went 

without incident. I verbally informed Ms. Smith of the forthcoming non-compliance 

record with regulations 9 CFR 313.1(b) (provide good footing) and 9 CFR 313.2(a) 

(driving with a minimum of excitement and discomfort). 

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 33 
HATS Category III – Water and Feed Availability (1 NR for Lack of Feed and 1 NR for 

Lack of Water) 

At approximately 1140 hours while performing HATS Category III – Water and Feed 

Availability, I observed the following non-compliance: I noticed that pen 2, 

containing twenty head of market swine, had no visible feed in the pen. I observed 

truck unloading of this lot at approximately 0730 hours yesterday 

(2019-04-10). I asked Mr. Smith, Slaughter Supervisor, if the establishment had 

provided feed to the swine prior to my arrival today and he stated they had not. I 

verbally notified Ms. Smith, Establishment Owner of the forthcoming noncompliance record and that the animals had not been provided feed as required by 

regulation 9 CFR 313.2(e) as they had not been provided feed after being held for 

twenty-four hours. Ms. Smith immediately provided adequate feed to the twenty

head of swine. 

At approximately 0830 hours while performing HATS Category III – Water and Feed 

Availability, I observed the following non-compliance: I checked pens 2 and 3 and 

noted there were approximately six head of heifers without access to water. There 

were three black rubber round water bins present in the pens, but they did not 

contain any water. I verbally notified Mr. Smith, Slaughter Supervisor, that there 

was no water in pens 2 and 3 as required by regulation 9 CFR 313.2(e) and that I 

would be documenting my findings in a non-compliance record. Mr. Smith 

immediately filled the three rubber buckets with water. 

HATS Category IV – Handling During Ante-mortem Inspection 

At approximately 1000 hours while performing HATS Category IV – Handling During 

Ante-mortem Inspection, I observed the following non-compliance: I observed a 

dairy cow with a five-centimeter wound on her right rear flank that appeared fresh 

and was actively bleeding. Once all 5 head of dairy cows were removed from pen 5, 

I requested to review the pen. On the north side wall, I observed a rusted gate post 

with adhered hair and fresh blood. The edges of the rusted post were sharp when 

touched. The sharp edge was approximately two-meters off the ground, was 

approximately three-centimeter in length and matched the height of the wound on 

the dairy cow. I verbally notified Ms. Smith, Establishment Owner, of the noncompliance with regulation 9 CFR 313.1(a) with regards to poor pen maintenance 

that led to animal injury. Ms. Smith stated they would not be able to repair the pen 

immediately, so I placed U.S. Reject tag number B40682148 on the pen. I verbally 

notified Ms. Smith of the forthcoming non-compliance and the regulatory control 

action taken. 

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 34 
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 

HATS Category V – Handling of Suspect and Disabled 

At approximately 1445 hours while performing HATS Category IV – Handling During 

Ante-mortem Inspection I observed the following non-compliance with HATS Category 

V – Handling of Suspect and Disabled Animals: At approximately 1000 hours, Dr. Jones, 

Inspector-In-Charge had identified a U.S. Suspect 

(M-1234567) beef cow with back-tag number 41DL 2468. The establishment had 

separated the cow from other animals in pen 6 which was not a covered pen as 

required by regulation 9 CFR 313.1(c) and 313.2(d)(1). It was sunny, hot, (108 degrees 

Fahrenheit according to the establishment’s outside thermometer) and humid. The cow 

was laying laterally on her right side, breathing irregularly, and her tongue was hanging 

out of her mouth. Dr. Jones was notified of the findings and requested that the 

establishment take the animal’s temperature, which was 105 degrees Fahrenheit. Dr. 

Jones notified Mr. Smith, Barn Supervisor, of the findings and Mr. Smith elected to 

euthanize the animal. I observed the animal humanely euthanized and prior to removal 

from the pen, slashed and denatured. I had the establishment place U.S. Condemn tag 

number Z-7654321 in the animal’s ear prior to removal and remove the U.S. Suspect 

tag. I verbally notified Mr. Smith of the forthcoming non-compliance record. 

HATS Category VI – Electric Prod/Alternative Object Use 

At approximately 1030 hours while performing HATS Category VI – Electric Prod/

Alternative Object Use, I observed the following non-compliance: As I entered the pen 

area, I observed an establishment employee near the restrainer driving a sow with a 

hand-held battery powered electric prod. The sow was balking at the entrance to the 

restrainer and the employee shouted at the animal to move. When the animal would 

not move, the employee placed the electric prod on the rear of the animal and pushed 

the button four times in quick succession. The animal vocalized but did not move 

forward. The employee placed the electric prod on the rear of the animal again and 

pushed the button four times in quick succession. The animal again vocalized but did 

not move forward. The employee then used profane language and yelled at the animal 

to move forward and appeared to be in the process of using the electric prod again 

when I requested that he discontinue the use of the prod. I placed U.S. Reject tag 

number B19283746 on the restrainer and requested Ms. Smith, Slaughter Supervisor, 

come to the restrainer. I verbally notified Ms. Smith of my observations of noncompliance with regulation 9 CFR 313.2(b) and the excessive use of the electric prod on 

the sow. Ms. Smith had the employee driving hogs removed from the area. Ms. Smith 

identified and removed a white wash towel that had been draped over the front of the 

restrainer and requested that she try to move the sow forward into the restrainer. 

35
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 

After further verbal preventative measures were given, I removed by the regulatory 

control action and the sow was moved forward and humanely stunned without 

further incident. I verbally informed Ms. Smith of the forthcoming non-compliance 

record. 

HATS Category VII – Observations for Slips and Falls 

At approximately 0730 hours, while performing HATS Category VII –Observations 

for Slips and Falls, I observed the following non-compliance: An establishment 

employee was driving five steers from pen 2 to the holding pen. Three of the five

steers were observed to slip and then fall after being moved around a right handturn between the pens. All three animals rose and appeared unharmed and 

continued to walk into the holding pen area. After the area was clear and safe to 

observe, I noted an area approximately two-meters in radius of ice and manure 

build-up at the area where the steers fell. I notified Mr. Smith, Slaughter Supervisor, 

of the ice and manure build-up and my observations of the movement of animals 

around the right-hand turn and tagged the alleyway prior to the holding pen with 

U.S. Reject tag number B66468123. Mr. Smith scraped the ice and manure away 

and added salt and hay to the area to improve footing and stated they would 

minimize the use of that area due to the sharp corner. After verbal preventative 

measures were given and the area verified as compliant, I removed the regulatory 

control action. I verbally notified Mr. Smith of the forthcoming non-compliance 

record in regard regulations 9 CFR 313.2(b) and 9 CFR 313.2(d). 

HATS Category VIII – Stunning Effectiveness 

At approximately 0915 hours, while observing HATS Category VIII – Stunning 

Effectiveness, I observed the following non-compliance: A stunning employee 

attempted to stun a lamb with a hand-held captive bolt device. The first attempt 

was ineffective as the lamb remained conscious. The lamb remained standing, was 

tracking the stunning employee with its eyes and moving its head away from the 

employee. The lamb vocalized immediately after the captive bolt contacted the 

head. There was a wound observed on the head of the lamb approximately threecentimeters above the half-way point between the eyes and blood was observed 

coming from its nose. The stunning employee immediately and effectively restunned the lamb with a pre-loaded hand-held captive bolt device resulting in an 

unconscious lamb. I placed U.S. Reject tag number B91827364 on the restrainer 

and verbally discussed my observations with Mr. Smith, Establishment Owner. 

 36
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY 

After Mr. Smith provided verbal preventative measures I removed the regulatory control 

action. I verbally informed Mr. Smith of the forthcoming non-compliance record and that 

the establishment failed to render the animal immediately unconscious with the first 

application of the stunner and failed to meet the regulatory requirements of 9 CFR 

313.15(a)(1). 

HATS Category IX – Check for Conscious Animals on the Rail 

HATS Category IX non-compliance is due to animal(s) regaining consciousness which are 

egregious and would result in further enforcement action (NOS or a NOIE in lieu of a NOS).

GCP Poultry NR

At approximately 1530 hours, while performing a Good Commercial Practices verification 

task, I observed the following non-compliance with regulation 9 CFR Part 381.65(b): At 

1530 hours, the inspector at Inspection Station number 1 identified five cadaver birds 

without a bleed cut on the neck. I presented the cadavers to Mr. Smith, Evisceration 

Supervisor and then preceded to the re-hang area and noted twenty cadavers on the rehang table without a bleed cut on the neck and an additional fifteen cadavers in a U.S. 

Condemn barrel next to the re-hang table that did not have a bleed cut on the neck. I 

preceded to the area just prior to the scalder and noted five additional birds enter the 

scalder still breathing and conscious. These birds did not appear to have a neck cut. I then 

preceded to the kill line and found no back-up cuter present at the station located just 

past the automatic knife. Additionally, stunned birds were passing through the automatic 

knife cut without the neck being cut and some birds were passing above the blade not 

stunned. I requested that Mr. Smith immediately stop the kill line and placed U.S. Reject 

tag number B15759535 to the hanging area. Mr. Smith and additional supervisors 

adjusted the stunner and the automatic knife to ensure proper stunning and bleed cuts as 

well as added additional back-up employees after the automatic knife. Any birds prior to 

the scalder that were still conscious, breathing or did not have bleed cuts were cut and 

bleed out and returned to the line. Mr. Smith confirmed an additional forty cadavers were 

condemned per regulation 9 CFR Part 381.90. After corrective actions and preventative 

measures were reviewed, I removed the U.S. Reject tag from the hanging area and the line 

was allowed to restart. 

37