Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

Humane Handling Verification for Livestock and Good 

Commercial Practices for Poultry 

Objectives 

Upon completion of this module, you will be able to accomplish the following 

without the aid of references: 

1. Name the two approved methods of slaughter in the Humane Methods of 

Slaughter Act (HMSA). 

2. List the steps in performing the Livestock Humane Handling task in the 

Public Health Information System (PHIS). 

3. List the Humane Activity Tracking System (HATS) categories and give one 

example of a requirement in each. 

4. Define egregious noncompliance, and given a specific scenario, be able to 

identify regulatory noncompliance, whether it is egregious, and what action 

to take, if any. 

5. Describe the action an inspector should take when he/she observes a nonegregious incident of inhumane treatment resulting from: 

a. Facility deficiencies, disrepair, or equipment breakdown 

b. Establishment employee actions in handling livestock 

c. Improper stunning 

6. Name the documents completed for non-egregious and egregious 

noncompliances. 

7. List the steps in performing the PHIS Good Commercial Practices (GCP) 

task. 

8. Identify regulatory noncompliance with Good Commercial Practices or 

mistreatment of birds and actions to take in each case. 

References 

1. 9 CFR 313: Humane Slaughter of Livestock 

2. 9 CFR 352.10: Exotic Animals; Voluntary Inspection 

3. Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1978 

4. Federal Meat Inspection Act Section 603 

5. FSIS Directive 6900.2 Rev. 2 – “Humane Handling and Slaughter of 

Livestock” 

6. FSIS Directive 6100.1. Rev.3 – “Ante-mortem Livestock Inspection” 

7. FSIS Directive 6910.1 Rev. 1 – “District Veterinary Medical Specialist 

(DVMS) Work Methods” 

8. Federal Register Notice Docket No. 04-013N – A Systematic Approach to 

Humane Handling 

9. Poultry Products Inspection Act Section 453(g)(5) 

10.9 CFR 381.65(b): Poultry Products Inspection Regulations 

Inspection Methods 27-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

11.Federal Register Notice, Docket No. 04-037N, Treatment of Live Poultry 

Before Slaughter 

12.FSIS Directive 6100.3 Rev. 1 – “Ante-mortem and Post-mortem Poultry 

Inspection” 

13.FSIS Directive 6110.1 – “Verification of Poultry Good Commercial 

Practices” 

14.Humane Interactive Knowledge Scenarios (livestock and poultry) at: 

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/inspection/workforcetraining/hike/hike-scenarios 

15.AskFSIS 

16.PHIS User Guide 

Livestock Humane Handling Verification 

Introduction 

The Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act (HMSA) of 1978 is the current 

law requiring the humane slaughter of livestock. The 1978 Act made mandatory 

the humane slaughter and handling of livestock in connection with slaughter of all 

food animals slaughtered in USDA inspected establishments. This includes 

cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, goats, swine, and other livestock. 

Two methods of slaughter are humane according to the HMSA. The first method 

requires that livestock be rendered insensible to pain on the first application of 

the stunning device before being shackled, hoisted, cast, or cut. This means that 

the animal must be unconscious and unable to feel pain before it is “stuck” (veins 

and arteries severed so it bleeds out) before it is shackled and hoisted into the 

air, or before it is dropped onto a table/floor. 

The second method is in accordance with the ritual requirements of any religious 

faith that prescribes a method of slaughter where the animal suffers loss of 

consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and 

instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument. This 

method is known as ritual slaughter. In ritual slaughter, the animal’s throat is cut 

from side to side with a sharp knife, deeply enough for the major arteries and 

veins to be severed. Examples of ritual slaughter include Jewish (Kosher) 

slaughter and Islamic (halal) slaughter. 

Additionally, Section 1906 of the HMSA exempts the handling or other 

preparation of ritually slaughtered livestock from the terms of the Act. This means 

that the statutory requirement that livestock be rendered insensible to pain prior 

to shackling, hoisting, casting, or cutting does not apply to the handling or 

restraint that is immediately associated with the ritual slaughter cut. 

Inspection Methods 27-2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

The regulations for humane slaughter are in the Title 9 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 313, titled Humane Slaughter of Livestock. Additional 

Agency guidance is detailed in the “References” section above. 

Inspection program personnel (IPP) will verify that establishments are meeting 

regulatory requirements by performing the Livestock Humane Handling task 

during every slaughter shift. 

At this time, the HMSA of 1978 does not cover poultry. However, welfare 

practices for poultry are covered by the regulatory requirement for good 

commercial practices (GCP). The regulations for poultry good commercial 

practices are in 9 CFR Part 381. GCP for poultry will be discussed later in this 

material. 

Performing the Livestock Humane Handling Task 

Inspectors assigned to livestock slaughter will verify that establishments comply 

with the humane slaughter law and regulations. 

Perform the Livestock Humane Handling task each shift that animals are 

slaughtered, or when animals are on site, even if it is during a processing-only 

shift. PHIS will include the task in the Establishment Task List for all livestock 

slaughter operations. To perform the task: 

• Schedule the task on the Task Calendar in PHIS. 

• Initiate or claim the task in PHIS by selecting the component in the 

Inspection Results section of PHIS. 

• Make observations based upon the appropriate HATS categories to 

determine if there is compliance with the regulatory requirements. HATS 

categories are covered in the following section. 

• Record the task outcome in Inspection Results by selecting the verified 

regulations and checking the appropriate boxes. If noncompliance is found 

complete the Noncompliance Record (NR). 

• Record the HATS time spent by category while performing humane 

verification in quarter hour increments. 

When performing the task, make certain not to be predictable in how, where, and 

when observations are performed. Randomly select areas and times such that 

all areas are observed at different times of the day. In addition, vary the route 

taken to get to the areas being observed. The bottom line here is that 

establishment personnel should not be able to anticipate when IPP are going to 

be observing their humane handling and slaughter methods because they are 

always in about the same place at about the same time. 

Inspection Methods 27-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

NOTE: In some establishments, more than one IPP may perform the Livestock 

Humane Handling Verification task on any given day. In that case, one inspector 

will perform the routine task and the other IPP will perform a directed task. For 

example, a Consumer Safety Inspector (CSI) is the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC) at a 

small slaughter establishment and a Public Health Veterinarian (PHV) covers the 

establishment on a patrol basis. In that situation, the CSI may perform the routine 

humane verification task as part of their ante-mortem duties and the PHV may 

come later in the day and perform a directed task to verify stunning and 

consciousness. 

HATS Categories 

The HATS categories covered while performing the Livestock Humane Handling 

Verification task include the following: 

I. Inclement Weather (9 CFR 313.1 and 313.2): Under this category, IPP 

record their verification of how the establishment adapts its facilities and 

handling practices to inclement weather to ensure the humane handling of 

animals. Some things to look for include: 

• Inclement weather (e.g., rain, heat, snow, ice) having adverse effects 

on facilities and animal handling; 

• Animals slipping or falling because of wet floors or because of a 

buildup of snow and ice; 

• Animals with no access to water when water buckets or troughs freeze 

over; 

• Livestock overheated because of a lack of proper shade or because of 

a lack of water for cooling; 

• Disabled livestock not in a covered pen protected from the elements. 

II. Truck Unloading (9 CFR 313.1 and 313.2): Under this category, IPP record 

their verification of the establishment’s humane handling procedures during 

livestock unloading activities. Some things to look for include: 

• Facility conditions causing injury to animals; 

• Vehicles or ramps not be properly positioned, leading to the injury of 

animals; 

• Animals forced to move faster than a normal walking speed; 

• Animals slipping and falling; 

• Disabled or U.S. Suspect animals not be separated from normal 

ambulatory animals; 

• Animals being prodded excessively or not driven with a minimum of 

excitement and discomfort. 

Inspection Methods 27-4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

III. Water and Feed Availability (9 CFR 313.2): Under this category, IPP record 

their verification of the establishment’s compliance with 9 CFR 313.2(e), 

which requires that water be available to livestock in all holding pens at all 

times, and that animals held longer than 24 hours have access to feed. Some 

things to look for include: 

• Water not accessible to livestock in holding pens; 

• Feed not provided to livestock held for longer than 24 hours; 

• Feed provided not appropriate for species and age. 

IV. Ante-mortem Inspection (9 CFR 313.1 and 313.2): Under this category, while 

IPP are conducting ante-mortem inspection, they are to record the time spent 

verifying the establishment’s facilities and procedures for humanely handling 

animals during ante-mortem inspection. Some things to look for include: 

• Livestock being excessively prodded with an electric prod; 

• Livestock being injured because of handling practices; 

• Livestock being moved faster than a normal walking speed. 

V. Suspect and Disabled (9 CFR 313.1 and 313.2): Under this category, IPP 

record their verification of the measures that an establishment takes to ensure 

that “U.S. Suspect” and disabled livestock (9 CFR 313.2(d)) are handled 

humanely. Some things to look for include: 

• Conscious animals being dragged; 

• Disabled animals not separated from normal ambulatory animals. 

VI. Electric Prod/Alternative Object Use (9 CFR 313.2): Under this category, IPP 

record their verification of the establishment’s procedures for humanely and 

effectively moving livestock without excessive prodding or the use of sharp 

objects after ante-mortem inspection has occurred (9 CFR 313.2). Some 

things to look for include: 

• Livestock being excessively prodded resulting in overexcitement or 

injury; 

• Livestock being driven with sharp objects or other means which cause 

pain or injury. 

VII. Slips and Falls (9 CFR 313.1 and 313.2): Under this category, IPP record 

time spent observing whether any animals are slipping and falling as they are 

handled and moved through the livestock facilities. Some things to look for 

include: 

• Livestock slip and fall due to inadequate footing or improper handling 

practices; 

Inspection Methods 27-5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

• Livestock slip and fall because of lack of slip-resistant flooring. 

VIII. Stunning Effectiveness (9 CFR 313.5, 313.15, 313.16, and 313.30): Under 

this category, IPP record their verification of the establishment’s procedures 

to appropriately and effectively administer stunning methods that produce 

unconsciousness in the animal before the animal is shackled, hoisted, thrown, 

cast, or stuck. Some things to look for include: 

• Livestock not rendered unconscious with a single application of the 

stunning methodology; 

• No records for carbon dioxide gas concentrations. 

IX. Conscious Animals on the Rail (9 CFR 313.5, 313.15, 313.16, and 313.30): 

Under this category, IPP (usually a Public Health Veterinarian) record their 

verification that the establishment ensures that animals do not regain 

consciousness throughout shackling, sticking, and bleeding. This category 

focuses specifically on the time after stunning and throughout the process of 

shackling, hoisting, sticking and bleeding of the animal. Some things to look 

for include: 

• Processing (e.g., shackle, hoist, cut) livestock not rendered 

unconscious by the method of stunning. 

• Animals regain consciousness after being stunned. 

Determining Which HATS Categories to Verify 

When determining the HATS categories to verify, consider the following: 

• Each time you perform ante-mortem inspection, you are to make 

verification observations as described above for HATS Category IV – 

“Ante-Mortem Inspection”. 

• In addition to the daily verification of HATS Category IV, you are to verify 

one or more other HATS category during each slaughter shift unless you 

are in a very small establishment (see next section). 

• Consider previous inspection results, historical observations, and 

supervisory direction. You may want to repeat some activities if a 

significant amount of time has passed between ante-mortem inspection 

and slaughter. 

• It is important to focus on doing complete, quality verifications of each 

category. 

If you are in a multi-IPPS assignment, conduct one or more HATS category 

verifications whenever you visit an establishment to perform AM and PM 

Inspection Methods 27-6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

inspection disposition activities. Focus on verifying Category VIII “Stunning 

Effectiveness” and Category IX “Conscious Animals on the Rail”. 

Recording Time in HATS 

You are to accurately and completely record the time that you spend on the nine 

specific HATS categories. 

• Record the total time spent verifying each HATS category, in quarter-hour 

increments, rounding up to the next quarter-hour. 

• There should be an entry of at least one-quarter hour in HATS Category 

IV – “Ante-mortem Inspection” for every slaughter shift except in very 

small establishments (see below). 

• In addition, verify one or more of the other HATS categories during each 

slaughter shift and ensure that, over time, all HATS categories are 

verified, and the appropriate time recorded. 

• During normal operations, the total maximum time entered across all 

HATS categories will generally not exceed the total operational hours for 

that respective shift. 

At many very small establishments the total amount of inspection time spent on 

HATS procedures, including observations at ante-mortem inspection, may only 

total .25 hour. Therefore, because the minimum amount of time that can be 

recorded for any given HATS activity is .25 hour, the expectation that .25 hour be 

entered in HATS Category IV - "Ante-mortem Inspection" for each slaughter shift 

does not apply at those establishments. Instead, IPP would rotate through the 

appropriate HATS categories (i.e., those categories actually performed at a 

particular establishment including Ante-mortem Inspection) and record .25 hour 

per day in a different HATS category each slaughter day. 

Very Small Establishment, Recording HATS Time Example: At Est. 38, which 

kills only a few animals a day, two or more humane handling HATS categories 

can be verified in .25 hour. When entering the HATS time, IPP will rotate through 

the appropriate HATS categories (i.e., those categories actually performed 

including Category IV: Ante-mortem Inspection) and record .25 hour per day in a 

different HATS category each slaughter day. In this manner, all HATS activities 

actually performed by IPP at the establishment are reflected over the course of 

several slaughter days. The HATS time for Est. 38 might look like this: 

Monday – Category VIII Stunning Effectiveness .25 hr. 

Tuesday – Category III Water and Feed Availability .25 hr. 

Wednesday – Category VI – Electric Prod/Alternative Object Use .25 hr. 

Thursday – Category IX – Conscious Animals on the Rail .25 hr. 

Friday – Category VII – Slips and Falls .25 hr. 

Inspection Methods 27-7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

As explained above, Category IV - Ante-mortem Inspection is performed every 

day but is only recorded as .25 hour at some frequency in the rotation to best 

reflect actual time spent. 

Specific Considerations for the Humane Handling Task 

Truck Unloading (9 CFR 313.1, 313.2) 

Establishment personnel are required to meet the regulatory requirements for 

humane handling and slaughter from the time livestock arrive at the 

establishment until they are killed. This includes handling associated with 

livestock trailers. Once a vehicle has entered the official establishment premises, 

it is considered part of the premises and is subject to the FSIS regulations that 

ensure humane handling. 

This is an important concept to understand because it means that your 

responsibility for verifying humane handling begins when the animals are coming 

onto the premises, not just once they reach the holding pens. If you observe a 

humane handling violation during truck unloading, you are to follow the same 

procedure as when a violation is observed elsewhere in the facility. 

Truck unloading must be done in a manner that allows animals to be unloaded 

without injury. This includes proper positioning of the trucks, movement of 

animals while on the trucks, and the movement of animals off the trucks into the 

holding pens. 

Twenty-Eight Hour Law 

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Twenty-Eight Hour Law 

requires transporters to stop at least every 28 hours to provide animals with food, 

water and rest, and those who do not are in violation of this law. If livestock 

arriving on transport vehicles appear exhausted or dehydrated, IPP need to ask 

establishment management if the truck driver stopped within 28 hours to provide 

food, water, and rest to the livestock. IPP are to contact the APHIS Area 

Veterinarian-in-Charge (AVIC) via their FSIS chain of command if establishment 

management or the truck driver is unwilling to supply that information, or if IPP 

believe the condition of the animals could be a result of being deprived of food, 

water, and rest for more than 28 hours. APHIS can use that information to 

conduct an investigation. IPP should also prepare a Memorandum of Interview 

(MOI) to document what was observed and all actions taken. 

Conducting Ante-mortem Inspection on Vehicles 

Inspection Methods 27-8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

IPP can enter onto transport vehicles to conduct ante-mortem inspection if 

establishment employees cannot humanely remove disabled livestock from the 

vehicles. The decision to enter a transport vehicle to conduct ante-mortem 

inspection or to conduct ante-mortem inspection from outside the vehicle is to be 

made by each inspector individually and is voluntary. Inspection personnel may 

enter onto the transport vehicle or perform ante-mortem inspection from outside 

the transport vehicle if, in his or her professional opinion, he or she can safely 

and adequately conduct the ante-mortem inspection. No adverse or disciplinary 

action can or will be taken against any inspection program personnel choosing 

not to conduct ante-mortem inspection of disabled livestock on or from outside of 

a transport vehicle. 

Livestock Pens, Driveways and Ramps (9 CFR 313.1, 313.2) 

Personnel responsible for moving livestock must do so with a minimum of 

excitement and discomfort to the animals. The ramps, driveways, and the floors 

of pens must be constructed and maintained so that the livestock have good 

footing. There are many ways this can be accomplished, such as using metal 

mesh and grooves cut or impressed into the cement. Establishments also need 

to consider the impact that seasonal weather conditions may have on footing. 

For example, it may be necessary for the establishment to use sand or some 

other material on the floors during the winter to overcome slick conditions. 

Livestock pens and driveways should be constructed so that animals are not 

driven around multiple sharp corners. Pens, driveways, and ramps must be 

maintained in good repair. They must be kept free from sharp or protruding 

objects that can cause injury. Loose boards, splintered or broken planks, broken 

pipe rails, broken unloading ramps, and unnecessary openings where the head, 

feet, or legs of an animal may be injured must be repaired. Pens, alleyways, or 

fencing in disrepair such that an animal may be injured as a result is considered 

a regulatory violation of humane practices. 

When observing the facilities for compliance, remember to look at the off-loading 

ramps, inside the holding pens, at the back of solid gates, inside the single file 

chute, restraint device, and stunning box. You may have to wait until the animals 

are out of these areas before you can complete your verification activities. 

Handling of Livestock (9 CFR 313.1, 313.2) 

Livestock must not be driven faster than a normal walking speed. That is, the 

animals must not be forced by the handlers to move more quickly than their 

normal walking speed. If you see one or a group of animals running, you need to 

determine what is causing the animal to run before deciding if there is regulatory 

noncompliance. The key here is whether human actions caused the animal to 

move faster than a walk. 

Inspection Methods 27-9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

The use of electric prods, canvas slappers, or any other type of implement must 

be minimized to prevent injury and excitement. The use of implements such as 

baseball bats, shovels, sharp prods, whips and the like, which in the opinion of 

the inspector can or will cause injury, are prohibited. Electric prods wired into AC 

current must not carry a charge higher than 50 volts. 

Livestock must have access to water at all times while in holding pens. If they 

are held longer than 24 hours, they must also have access to feed. Agency 

policy is that feed must be of appropriate for the age and species of animal being 

fed. For example, feeding hay to bob veal calves held more than 24 hours would 

not meet the regulatory requirement for access to feed. If held overnight, they 

must have enough room in the holding pen to lie down. 

Animals that are disabled, non-ambulatory, or designated as U.S. Suspect must 

be segregated into a separate pen. The pen has to protect these animals from 

adverse weather conditions until you make your ante-mortem disposition, 

because the weakened state of these animals renders them less resistant to 

even “normal” weather conditions. This means that you need to take into 

account the geographic location of the facility, the season, and the current 

weather conditions when determining if the covered pen meets regulatory 

requirements. It also means that the overall level of cover may change, based 

on the above factors. 

The regulations strictly prohibit dragging a conscious animal that is disabled or 

unable to walk. Establishment personnel must either stun these non-ambulatory 

disabled animals before dragging them or move the animals by placing them on 

a skid, stone boat, bucket lift, or some other type of equipment that is suitable for 

moving a conscious disabled animal. 

All non-ambulatory disabled cattle, including non-ambulatory disabled veal 

calves, that are offered for slaughter (including those that have passed antemortem inspection) be condemned and properly disposed of in accordance with 

9 CFR 309.13. 

Secondary Entrances 

Some establishments may use secondary or alternative entrances, such as 

alleyways, doorways, or passageways, to move livestock into the facility. 

Secondary entrances are considered potential routes of movement to slaughter 

that differ from the route followed by the normal livestock population, which is 

ante-mortem inspected and passed livestock. 

There are several concerns with using secondary or alternative pathways. 

Inspection Methods 27-10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

• First, IPP may not be aware that animals are being moved through these 

secondary pathways, so may not be able to determine whether such 

animals are eligible for slaughter. Examples of this include bringing in 

non-ambulatory disabled cattle, dead, or uninspected animals. 

• Second, the nature of the entrance may lead to inhumane handling of the 

animal. For example, the entrance is so small that the animal may be 

hurt. 

• Third, the equipment used, or lack of equipment, may lead to inhumane 

handling of the animal. For example, ramps may be slippery or missing 

altogether. 

It is important to recognize that using alternative entrances is not prohibited. 

However, establishments using secondary or alternative entrances must ensure 

that livestock entering the establishment do so under conditions that meet all the 

relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. While performing HATS 

Category VII – Stunning Effectiveness verification, IPP are to look for evidence 

that animals are being moved through secondary entrances and verify that the 

situations described above are not occurring at the establishment. 

If IPP find evidence that any of the situations described above are have occurred, 

they are to control the condemned livestock and take a regulatory control action 

by tagging the entrance to prevent its use. If IPP observe that livestock have 

been inhumanely handled because of the nature of the entrance or equipment 

used, they are to take a regulatory control action and document a noncompliance 

record in as specified in the “Enforcement” section later in this module. 

Stunning (9 CFR 313.2, 313.5, 313.15, 313.16, 313.30) 

To meet the statutory requirements in the HMSA, all animals must be rendered 

insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or by an electrical, chemical or 

other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, 

cast, or cut. This requirement includes cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, 

swine, and other livestock. 

There are some general principles that apply to all stunning methods 

1. Stunning equipment must be maintained in good repair. Equipment in 

poor repair can interfere with the rapid and effective application of the 

stunning blow. This can result in an incomplete or unsuccessful stun. 

2. Effective stunning requires effective restraint. If an animal is not 

effectively restrained, it will be much more difficult to locate the stunning 

blow with a high degree of accuracy. The stunning area should be 

designed and constructed to limit the free movement of animals. 

3. A well-trained and experienced establishment employee must operate 

stunning devices. The employee must be able to accurately and 

Inspection Methods 27-11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

consistently position the stunning devices so that the animal is rendered 

immediately unconscious. 

4. Animals need to be delivered to the stunning area with a minimum of 

excitement or discomfort. It is more difficult to place the stunning device 

accurately, and the method of stunning may not work as effectively, on an 

excited or injured animal. 

With any stunning method, it is important to observe the amount of time it takes 

for the animal to begin bleeding out (“sticking”) after being stunned. Although 

there is no regulatory requirement for this time period, if the “stun to stick” interval 

is prolonged, it could result in animals regaining or beginning to regain sensibility 

on the bleed rail. 

It is also important to perform humane verification at different times of the day. 

Equipment that may be working well in the morning can malfunction later in the 

day. Personnel get fatigued, may feel pressure to get a certain number of 

animals stunned by a particular time, or may be focusing on after-work activities. 

Animals that have been standing around all day can get restless and more 

difficult to handle quietly and calmly. All these things can contribute to careless 

handling and/or stunning techniques, resulting in ineffective stuns. 

The regulations describe four acceptable methods for producing a state of 

surgical anesthesia (surgical anesthesia is defined as a state where the animal 

feels no painful sensations). The four acceptable methods are: 

• Chemical (Carbon Dioxide - CO2) 

• Mechanical (captive bolt) 

• Mechanical (gunshot) 

• Electrical (electrical current) 

Carbon Dioxide (9 CFR 313.5) 

Carbon dioxide gas (CO2) is approved for rendering swine, sheep, and calves 

unconscious. A carbon dioxide gas chamber is designed on the principle that 

carbon dioxide is heavier than normal atmospheric air. The chamber is open at 

both ends for the entry and exit of the animals to anesthetizing CO2 

concentrations, or can be a pit structure where animals are lowered into the pit 

then brought out after inducing insensibility to pain. For swine only, CO2 can be 

administered to induce death. Once anesthesia has occurred, the animals are 

removed from the chamber and are ready to be shackled, hoisted, or placed on a 

table for bleeding. 

The gas must be administered in a way that produces surgical anesthesia quickly 

and calmly, with a minimum of excitement and discomfort to the animals. The 

establishment must maintain a uniform carbon dioxide concentration in the 

chamber so that the degree of anesthesia in exposed animals will be constant. 

Inspection Methods 27-12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

The gas concentration and exposure time, also known as the dwell time, must be 

recorded graphically throughout each day’s operation. All gas-producing and 

control equipment must be maintained in good repair and all indicators, 

instruments, and measuring devices must be available for inspection by FSIS. 

Mechanical – Captive Bolt (9 CFR 313.15) 

There are two types of mechanical captive bolt stunners—penetrating and nonpenetrating—used to produce immediate unconsciousness in cattle, sheep, 

goats, swine, and equines. Both types have gun-type mechanisms that fire a bolt 

or shaft out of a muzzle. A measured charge of gunpowder (a blank cartridge) or 

accurately controlled compressed air propels the stunning bolt. A well-trained 

and experienced establishment employee must operate both types. The 

employee must be able to accurately and consistently position the stunning 

device so that the bolt hits the skull at the right location to produce immediate 

unconsciousness. The employee must also be able to adjust the air pressure or 

detonation charge when the sex, the breed, or the size of the animal changes. 

Some establishments have adopted a practice of “double knocking”—that is, the 

animals are stunned with two blows delivered in very rapid succession. The 

rationale behind this procedure is that the consequences of an animal regaining 

consciousness are so severe that establishment managers want to make certain 

that it will not happen. Therefore, there is a second blow as a “security stun” 

only. The important point to consider here is that to meet the statutory and 

regulatory requirements, the first stun must be effective at rendering the animal 

insensible to pain. 

When fired, the bolt in the penetrating type of captive bolt stunner penetrates the 

skull and enters the brain. Unconsciousness is caused by physical brain 

damage, sudden changes in intracranial pressure, and concussion. Penetrating 

captive bolt devices powered by compressed air must have accurate, constantly 

operating air pressure gauges. The gauges must be easily read and 

conveniently located for inspection by FSIS. The brain from animals stunned 

with penetrating captive bolts may be saved for edible purposes provided the 

establishment removes the large blood clots, bone splinters, hair, and debris 

from the brain. 

After a Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) positive cow was found in 

Washington State on December 2003, a number of policies were issued to 

protect the public health against BSE. One of these policies involved the 

prohibition of air-injection stunning of cattle. Air-injection stunning is a method of 

deliberately injecting compressed air into the cranial cavity as a part of the 

stunning process. Therefore, 9 CFR 313.15(b)(2)(ii) states “Captive bolt 

stunners that deliberately inject compressed air into the cranium at the end of the 

penetration cycle shall not be used to stun cattle.” This is to ensure that portions 

Inspection Methods 27-13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

of the brain are not translocated into the tissues of the carcass as a consequence 

of humanely stunning cattle during the slaughter process. 

Many establishments will use the non-penetrating type captive bolt in order to 

avoid the time-consuming task of physically removing large blood clots, hair, 

bone, splinters, and debris from the brain. The non-penetrating (concussion) bolt 

is similar to the penetrating bolt except that it has a bolt with a flattened circular 

head (mushroom head). When fired, the mushroom head meets the skull, but 

does not penetrate the brain. The animal becomes insensible from acceleration 

concussion and sudden changes in intracranial pressure. 

Accurate placement of the stunning blow is very important when using a nonpenetrating captive bolt stunner. The amount of hair on the animal’s head will 

also have an impact on the effectiveness of the stunning blow. Because there is 

no physical destruction of the brain during non-penetrating stunning, close 

observation and rapid bleed-out is important post-stun to ensure the animal does 

not regain consciousness. 

Mechanical – Gunshot (9 CFR 313.16) 

Another type of mechanical device used for stunning is the firearm. It can be 

used on cattle, calves, sheep, goats, swine, and equine. The caliber of the 

firearm must be such that a single shot of a bullet or projectile into the animal 

must produce immediate unconsciousness. If a small-bore firearm is used, the 

regulations identify the following types of projectiles as acceptable: 

• Hollow pointed bullets 

• Frangible iron/plastic composition bullets 

• Powdered iron missiles 

Remember that the standard is that every animal is rendered insensible to pain 

(unconscious) by a single gunshot, regardless of the type of projectile used. 

Always consider your safety when observing stunning done with firearms. 

Ensure that you are out of the way of ricochet and standing away from the 

direction of fire. 

Regardless of the type of projectile, a large percentage of the brain, cheek meat, 

and head trimmings may contain whole or fragmented bullets. Therefore, 

310.18(b) of the Regulations states that after the head is inspected, the brains, 

cheek meat, and head trimmings may not be saved for human food. The only 

portion of the head that can be salvaged for human food is the tongue. 

Electrical (9 CFR 313.30) 

Inspection Methods 27-14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

The final method approved for stunning animals is electrical current. Electrical 

stunning is used for hogs, calves, sheep, and goats. While approved for use in 

cattle, this is not a common practice. It is most widely used for hogs. The animal 

is restrained so that the electric current can be applied with a minimum of 

excitement and discomfort. There are two types of electrical stunning—headonly and cardiac arrest. Head-only stunning induces a grand mal epileptic 

seizure, resulting in insensibility to pain. Cardiac arrest stunning will induce a 

grand mal epileptic seizure and cardiac fibrillation—essentially inducing a heart 

attack. This means that the head must be stunned first (or simultaneously with 

the heart) because to stun the chest first would cause pain but not insensibility, 

which is a violation of the humane handling requirements. 

The placement of the electrodes varies from establishment to establishment. It 

can be across the head only (head-only stunning), on the head and thoracic 

region (cardiac arrest stunning), or across the head only then thoracic region only 

(two-phase stunning). The design of the stunning wand can vary considerably 

(one or two pieces). Whichever way is used, the current passing through the 

animal must be enough to ensure surgical anesthesia throughout the bleeding 

operation. The operator must control the timing, voltage, and current so that 

each animal is properly stunned. If too much current is applied in the stunning 

process, hemorrhages or other tissue changes can occur that could interfere with 

the inspection procedure. Too high an electrical current can damage capillaries, 

resulting in multiple pinpoint hemorrhages in the muscle tissue. This is 

commonly referred to as "splashing" or "speckling". If this condition is seen on 

the postmortem disposition rail, it would be prudent to investigate the stunning 

process and discuss the findings with establishment managers. 

To meet the statutory requirements, animals must be stunned prior to being 

shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. With head-only stunning the stun to bleed 

interval should not exceed 30 seconds. This is not a regulatory timeframe, but if 

the “stun to stick” interval is prolonged, it could result in animals regaining or 

beginning to regain sensibility on the bleed rail. In cardiac arrest stunning, the 

stun to stick interval is not as critical because the animal is much less likely to 

regain sensibility. However, some establishments have had problems with 

cardiac arrest stunned animals regaining consciousness and stunning 

effectiveness must be verified on a regular basis. 

Ritual Slaughter (HMSA) 

Slaughtering is permitted without a stunning device in accordance with ritual 

requirements. An example would be kosher slaughter. The animal is fully 

conscious when the stick or cut takes place. The cut is done by a shochet 

Inspection Methods 27-15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

(slaughterer) chosen from the community, trained in the dietary laws of the 

Jewish religion, and supervised by a rabbi in his area. The cut is made with a 

razor-sharp knife called a chalef that is honed after each cut. 

In halal slaughter, a person of the Islamic faith or a designee performs the ritual 

cut. A prayer to Allah is recited during the procedure. You may see a lot of 

variation in how halal slaughter is done. Many religious authorities will accept 

stunning either before or after the ritual slaughter cut. 

The ritual slaughter cut and the handling and restraint that immediately precedes 

that cut is often called the “ritual bubble”. The activities that occur within that 

“ritual bubble” fall under Section 1906 of the HMSA and are protected as part of 

the Constitutional right of religious freedom. This does not mean that Agency 

personnel are to ignore completely what happens within the “ritual bubble”. What 

it means is that Agency personnel do not enforce humane handling regulations 

within that “ritual bubble”. That said, if you see something during the “ritual 

bubble” that concerns you, contact your immediate supervisor and the District 

Veterinary Medical Specialist (DVMS) for guidance on what action can be 

initiated. 

It is important to understand that ritual slaughter establishments are required to 

meet all the humane handling regulatory requirements except stunning prior to 

shackling, hoisting, throwing, cutting, or casting. All animals must be 

unconscious or insensible to pain prior to any dressing procedures such as head 

removal, skinning, leg removal, ear removal, horn removal, or opening hide 

patterns. 

When you perform your humane verification activities in a ritual slaughter 

situation, you will observe all HATS categories except stunning effectiveness. An 

exception to this is if stunning methods are an accepted part of that religious 

slaughter protocol. For example, you will verify the availability of water, check 

the condition of pens and ramps and that there is no excessive prodding in any 

part of the establishment when moving animals. You will also verify that after the 

ritual cut (and any additional cuts to facilitate bleeding) no dressing procedure 

(e.g., head removal, skinning, leg removal, ear removal, horn removal, opening 

the hide) is performed until the animal is insensible to pain. 

Inspection Methods 27-16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

Assessing Unconsciousness (9 CFR 313.5, 313.15, 313.16, 313.30) 

Livestock must remain insensible to pain (unconscious) from the time they are 

stunned until they are dead. You can use the following signs to verify that 

animals are insensible to pain (unconscious): 

1. The head dangles from a flaccid (limp and flexible) neck. If the animals 

are suspended from an overhead rail, the head should hang straight 

down. This can be difficult to see if the animal is lying on its side. 

2. The tongue may hang straight down and out of the mouth. 

3. The eyelids should be wide open, and the pupils fully dilated so, at a 

distance, the eyes appear black. 

4. There is no vocalization—lowing, bellowing, bleating, or squealing. 

You may observe movement of the head and neck. This movement can be 

because of involuntary reflexes caused by random firing of damaged muscle 

neurons. It can be associated with movement of equipment. It may also be 

voluntary movement because the animal is regaining consciousness. 

Some of the signs that an animal might be returning to sensibility include: 

1. Rhythmic breathing. 

2. Eye reflex in response to touch. This sign is not used for electrically 

stunned animals. Also, be very aware of safety if using this method to 

check insensibility. 

3. Spontaneous natural eye blinks without touching the eye or eye area. 

4. Tense and moving tongue or lips. 

These signs need to be carefully assessed and interpreted, as they are 

indications that the animal may be returning to consciousness or that the 

stunning was ineffective. They are not, in and of themselves, a definitive 

determination that the animal is conscious and able to feel pain. 

A previously stunned animal that has regained sensibility (consciousness) may 

vocalize. It may also show a “righting reflex”. The term “righting reflex” is used 

to describe the physical actions taken by an animal to move itself into a normal 

lying, sitting or standing posture. For example, a conscious cow hanging from a 

bleed rail will show a contracted back, stiff extended neck and rigid extended 

forelegs as it tries to pull itself into a normal upright position. An animal lying flat 

on its side may try to lift its head and may try to roll up onto its chest or stand. 

On occasion, you may see an animal’s neck flex laterally—that is, to one side — 

after it’s been stunned and hoisted. Do not mistake this sideways spasm for a 

“righting reflex”; make sure you look at the head to determine if the animal is 

unconscious. Vocalization and the righting reflex are always signs that the 

animal is conscious and able to feel pain. 

Inspection Methods 27-17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

When assessing unconsciousness, you need to observe the animals at different 

places along the bleed rail. For example, you could perform verification just after 

stunning when the animal is in the shackle pit. Then, you could observe animals 

after they have been hanging on the bleed rail for several minutes. Always be 

aware of your safety when performing verification of unconsciousness. 

If you observe an animal regain consciousness after stunning, you must contact 

your supervisor immediately and take the actions described in the “Enforcement” 

section below. 

If the establishment participates in the Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) 

National School Lunch Program (NSLP), determine whether the establishment is 

meeting the AMS Animal Welfare Requirements, including a review of all 

humane handling records generated in accordance with this program. If you 

have reason to believe that the establishment is not fully following its AMS NSLP 

humane handling obligations, notify your immediate supervisor and the DVMS. 

If the establishment has an identified robust systematic approach, verify that the 

establishment is following its written animal handling program. If the 

establishment is not following its program, first discuss your observations with 

establishment management. Document the discussions in a MOI. If the 

establishment continues to ineffectively implement its written animal handling 

program, notify your immediate supervisor and the DVMS of your concerns by 

email. 

Off-hour Verification Visits 

Performing unannounced humane handling verification at a time when IPP are 

not on duty is another component of HATS. Contact your immediate supervisor 

and the District Veterinary Medical Specialist (DVMS) if you think you need to 

perform humane handling verification when there is no assigned tour of duty for 

inspection and services. 

The IIC, in conjunction with the FLS and DVMS, determines how frequently IPP 

need to perform off-hour inspection to observe the livestock facilities and 

handling practices. This decision is based on establishment history or other 

observations, such as: 

• A significant percentage of animals are unloaded outside normal hours 

of operation when Federal inspectors are not on duty. 

• Animals are frequently held over the weekend and automatic watering 

devices are not present in pens and/or that there is no access to food 

within 24 hours of their receipt at the facility. 

• Animals delivered outside the regular tour of duties are found with 

injuries during ante-mortem inspection. 

Inspection Methods 27-18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

• Down or disabled animals are being delivered to the establishment 

outside the regular tour of duty when inspection program personnel 

(IPP) are not on duty. 

• Phone calls have been received from eyewitnesses alleging inhumane 

handling practices during times when IPP are not on duty. 

All time incurred in the performance of off-hour inspection will be paid as nonreimbursable overtime. Document your observations on FSIS Form 8100-1, and 

record time under the appropriate HATS category in the livestock humane 

handling task on the date for the next regularly scheduled inspection shift 

(slaughter or processing shift, whichever is first). If noncompliance is identified, 

write the NR on the date for the next regularly scheduled inspection shift. 

Systematic Approach 

There is no regulatory requirement for an establishment to use a systematic 

approach to humane handling and no requirement that such approach, if used, 

be in writing. However, an establishment may choose to develop and implement 

in a robust way a written animal handling program that effectively addresses the 

four aspects of a systematic approach that FSIS outlined in the 2004 Federal 

Register Notice. For a systematic approach to be considered “robust,” it would 

have to be written. These four steps are: 

1. Conduct an initial assessment of where, and under what circumstances, 

livestock may experience excitement, discomfort, or accidental injury while 

being handled in connection with slaughter, and of where, and under what 

circumstances, stunning problems may occur; 

2. Design facilities and implement practices that will minimize excitement, 

discomfort, and accidental injury to livestock; 

3. Evaluate periodically the handling methods the establishment employs to 

ensure that those methods minimize excitement, discomfort, or accidental 

injury and evaluate those stunning methods periodically to ensure that all 

livestock are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow; and 

4. Respond to the evaluations, as appropriate, by addressing problems 

immediately and by improving those practices and modifying facilities 

when necessary to minimize excitement, discomfort, and accidental injury 

to livestock. 

If the establishment has a robust systematic approach, FSIS will take that into 

consideration should it be necessary to determine how to proceed when an 

incident occurs that involves egregious inhumane treatment. 

When establishment management states that it believes it has an animal 

handling program that equates to a robust systematic approach, you are to ask to 

review the program and any records generated during its implementation. As a 

Inspection Methods 27-19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

part of performing your daily humane handling verification task, which includes 

observations for the Humane Activities Tracking System (HATS), observe the 

establishment employees handle and slaughter animals. Verify that 

establishment employees are following their animal handling program and are 

implementing effective corrective actions when appropriate. 

Recognize that the establishment is not required to provide you access to a 

written humane handling program. However, without access to the written 

program, you will not be able to verify effective implementation of a humane 

handling program that the establishment considers as systematic. Because a 

documented systematic approach is not a regulatory requirement, failure to 

implement provisions of such a program is not a noncompliance unless such 

failure to implement results in an identifiable failure to meet specific regulatory 

requirements. 

If an establishment claims to have implemented a robust systematic approach, 

but you observe that the establishment is not following the written animal 

handling program, first discuss your observations with establishment 

management and document this discussion in a MOI. If you continue to observe 

ineffective implementation of the animal handling program, notify the DO (DVMS) 

and your immediate supervisor of your concerns by email. This notification 

serves as documentation of your concerns. 

Enforcement 

The thought process that you should follow when performing humane handling 

verification includes: 

1. Is there noncompliance? 

2. If so, is it egregious? 

3. What action(s) should be taken? 

If you observe a humane handling noncompliance, you must take immediate 

action if animals are being harmed. For example, if you observe an employee 

driving livestock with an instrument (e.g., the edge of a shovel, a pointed metal 

prod) that can cause injury, you must stop that action from continuing. 

Once that is done, your next step is to decide if the noncompliance is egregious 

or non-egregious, because the actions you take will be dictated by that 

determination. An egregious humane handling violation is so serious that it 

warrants an immediate suspension of the assignment of inspectors under the 

authority of the Rules of Practice (9 CFR 500.3(b)). 

Inspection Methods 27-20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

Non-egregious Violations 

When a noncompliance is observed, 9 CFR Part 313.50 specifies a progression 

of enforcement actions allowing for an escalating response by IPP when the 

establishment does not comply with the humane slaughter of livestock 

regulations. 

• First, notify establishment management of the humane handling 

noncompliance, if not already done when addressing the needs of the 

animal. 

• Second, request that establishment management immediately correct the 

situation and take the necessary steps to prevent recurrence. 

• Third, document the noncompliance in a noncompliance record (NR). 

If necessary, take a regulatory control action (RCA) to prevent further injury to 

animals or to prevent injuries from occurring to other animals. You will also take 

the appropriate regulatory control action if you do not receive an adequate 

response or corrective actions to the NR or if the noncompliance observed 

continues to occur. The appropriate regulatory control action depends on the 

nature of the noncompliance. Remember that the goals of applying a tag are to 

control the situation and prevent further injury or distress to animals. 

• If the noncompliance is the result of facility deficiencies, disrepair, or 

equipment breakdown, but is not immediately causing injury or distress to 

livestock, attach a U.S. Retained/Rejected tag to the noncompliant 

equipment/pen/etc. Noncompliance examples include holes in pen floors 

or fences that can trap/injure an animal’s legs or feet. 

• If the noncompliance is the result of establishment employee actions in the 

handling or moving of livestock and animals are being injured or treated 

inhumanely, attach the tag either at a point specific to the location and 

nature of the violation or to the alleyways leading to the stunning area. 

Noncompliance examples include animals driven faster than a normal 

walking speed or animals slipping and falling because of slick floors. 

The tag will remain in place until the establishment operator implements 

appropriate immediate actions and measures to prevent recurrence. The tag 

shall not be removed by anyone other than an inspector. All livestock 

slaughtered prior to the tagging may be dressed, processed, or prepared under 

inspection. 

Whenever a non-egregious violation of the humane slaughter requirements is 

observed, inspection personnel must document the incident in a NR and send a 

copy to the DVMS at the District Office. It is important that it clearly and 

specifically describe exactly what was observed, including any response by the 

animal (if the noncompliance involved animal discomfort or injury). Specify all 

the relevant regulations that pertain to the incident. At the top of Block 10 (where 

Inspection Methods 27-21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

the noncompliance is described) on the NR, list the HATS category you were 

performing when you saw the noncompliance. If the noncompliance is covered 

by a second HATS category, note both categories on the NR. 

If the establishment continues to have noncompliances or does not adequately 

correct previously-documented noncompliances, the IIC is to communicate this to 

the FLS and DVMS. The IIC will work with the FLS and DVMS to determine if a 

Notice of Intended Enforcement (NOIE) should be issued for multiple 

noncompliances. 

Egregious Violations 

Under the Rules of Practice, 9 CFR 500.3(b), FSIS can suspend assignment of 

inspectors at an establishment without prior notification for humane handling 

violations. Humane handling violations for which immediate suspension is 

warranted are termed “egregious.” 

So, what is an egregious violation? Webster’s dictionary defines egregious as 

“conspicuously bad or flagrant.” The Agency defines it as any act or condition 

that results in severe harm to animals, for example: 

1. Making cuts on or skinning conscious animals, 

2. Excessive beating or prodding of ambulatory or non-ambulatory disabled 

animals or dragging of conscious animals, 

3. Driving animals off semi-trailers over a drop off without providing adequate 

unloading facilities (animals are falling to the ground), 

4. Running equipment over animals, 

5. Stunning of animals and then allowing them to regain consciousness, 

6. Multiple attempts, especially in the absence of immediate corrective 

measures, to stun an animal versus a single blow or shot that renders an 

animal immediately unconscious, 

7. Dismembering conscious animals, for example, cutting off ears or 

removing feet, 

8. Leaving disabled livestock exposed to adverse climate conditions while 

awaiting disposition, or 

9. Otherwise causing unnecessary pain and suffering to animals, including 

situations on trucks. 

This is a list of some actions that are considered egregious. Each incident of 

inhumane slaughter or handling needs to be assessed individually by IPP. 

If you observe a violation that you believe is egregious, your next set of actions 

will depend on whether or not you are the IIC. If you are the IIC, place a U.S. 

Retained/Rejected tag at the appropriate place and inform establishment 

management that you are communicating with the FLS, District Office and DVMS 

Inspection Methods 27-22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

to discuss the incident and recommend that a suspension without notification be 

imposed in accordance with 9 CFR 500.3(b). 

If you are not the IIC, attach a U.S. Retained/Rejected tag at the appropriate 

place, and inform establishment management that you are taking a regulatory 

control action and that no more animals can be slaughtered until you contact the 

IIC. Whichever action is taken, all livestock slaughtered before the action may be 

dressed, processed, or prepared under inspection. 

The IIC will immediately notify the FLS, District Office and the DVMS of the 

incident to discuss and recommend a suspension action. If the noncompliance is 

determined to be egregious, you are not to issue a NR. 

The IIC will also document the facts that serve as the basis of the suspension 

action in a memorandum of interview (MOI) and promptly provide that information 

electronically to the DO and the DVMS for their use. The MOI will form the basis 

of the Notice of Suspension documented by the DVMS and DO staff and of the 

Administrative Enforcement Report. 

Delayed Implementation – Egregious Violations 

The IIC may also recommend the District Office delay implementing the 

suspension action if immediate action is likely to result in further inhumane 

treatment of additional animals, until he/she can ensure that animals on-site or 

in-transit have been handled humanely. An example is a line stoppage that may 

result in animals having to stay on a truck on an extremely hot day. The IIC 

should encourage establishment management to redirect as many animals that 

are en route as possible and to order the stoppage of further loading of animals 

onto trucks at the source location. The IIC needs to consider: 

• What immediate corrective action is the establishment taking? 

• How likely is it, given the establishment's history, that the corrective action 

will be effective in preventing a recurrence of the root cause of the 

situation? 

• How many animals are on premises or en route that will need to be 

slaughtered? 

• What conditions threaten the welfare of the animals if they are not 

promptly slaughtered? 

The IIC needs to let the District Office know that the suspension action should be 

delayed to prevent the further inhumane treatment of animals. Also, a line 

inspector trained in humane handling must be moved to an appropriate area to 

directly observe establishment employees handling or slaughtering animals, 

which may require a line speed adjustment according to staffing standards in 9 

CFR 310.1. 

Inspection Methods 27-23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

The IIC may allow slaughter to continue at a reduced line speed for a limited time 

on her or his own authority. This is not intended for a “kill-out” of animals at the 

facility; it is only for a “kill-down” to ensure that the number of animals to be held 

on-site meets the requirements for holding animals overnight. Contact your 

supervisor if you are concerned about allowing slaughter to continue at reduced 

line speeds. 

When the IIC determines that animals will not be subjected to inhumane 

handling, the suspension must be promptly implemented. IICs are to document 

their observations and actions in a MOI and submit it to the District Office. 

Enforcement Discretion – Egregious Violations 

When certain conditions are met, the IIC can recommend that the egregious act 

be subject to enforcement discretion and recommend issuance a Notice of 

Intended Enforcement (NOIE) rather than a notice of suspension. This would be 

when the establishment has met all of the following conditions: 

• Does not have any recent humane handling related enforcement actions; 

• Has consistently been meeting the humane handling regulatory 

requirements; 

• Has been operating under a written animal handling program that 

establishment management has proffered as a robust systematic 

approach and made accessible to IPP; and 

• Has demonstrated the robustness of the program to IPP by effectively and 

consistently implementing all aspects of its program. 

The discretion to recommend this enforcement action is based on the Rules of 

Practice regulation (9 CFR 500.3(b)) which states: “FSIS also may impose a 

suspension without providing the establishment prior notification because the 

establishment is handling or slaughtering animals inhumanely.” In determining 

whether the egregious act is an anomaly, and whether the establishment should 

be allowed to continue to operate, the IIC, FLS, DO, and DVMS are to consider: 

• Whether the establishment is operating under an animal handling program 

that provides for how the establishment will respond if an unforeseeable 

event of this type occurs; 

• Whether there is any basis for concern that the planned response in the 

establishment’s animal handling program will not effectively address the 

problem; and 

• Whether the establishment has consistently and effectively implemented 

their animal handling program over time. 

Inspection Methods 27-24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

Exotic Species 

Exotic animals (voluntary inspection) are covered under 9 CFR 352.10. This 

section includes regulations that address humane handling during ante-mortem 

inspection and stunning practices to render animals unconscious. The regulation 

states, “Humane handling of an exotic animal during ante-mortem inspection 

shall be in accordance with the provisions contained in 9 CFR 313.2”. This 

covers unloading procedures, methods of moving exotics through the holding 

facility, handling of disabled animals, access to water and feed if held over 24 

hours, and the effective application of stunning methods. 9 CFR Part 

352.10(a)(5) states that “Stunning to render the animals unconscious shall be in 

accordance with 313.15 or 313.16.”, which are the stunning by captive bolt and 

by gunshot sections of the humane handling regulations, respectively. 

Livestock specified by 9 CFR 352 include antelope, bison, buffalo, catalo 

(cattalo), and deer. Additionally, exotic animals are defined by 9 CFR 352.1(k) 

as any reindeer, elk, deer, antelope, water buffalo or bison. 

If you have questions or concerns about repetitive noncompliances with exotic 

animal humane handling and slaughter, contact the DVMS. Although we cannot 

take action under the Rules of Practice, 9 CFR 500.3(b), these issues can be 

effectively addressed. If IPP observe an egregious humane handling 

noncompliance, they should immediately take a regulatory control action to 

prevent continued egregious humane handling and orally notify the establishment 

management that the District is being contacted. IPP will then work with the 

DVMS and District Office personnel to document the noncompliance in a MOI 

and District Office personnel may initiate a denial of service action. 

Custom Exempt Operations 

The FMIA (21 U.S.C. 610(b)) prohibits slaughter or handling of livestock in 

connection with slaughter in any manner not in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 1901-

1906 (HMSA). This applies to all animals on the premises of a federallyinspected establishment whether those animals are designated for slaughter 

under federal inspection or for slaughter under a Custom Exempt program. 

When FSIS IPP are on-site performing assigned official duties related to 

regulated product, and there is concurrent handling and slaughter of livestock 

under a Custom Exempt program, Agency expectations are that if IPP observe 

inhumane handling or slaughter practices of custom exempt livestock, they are to 

take the following actions: 

• Immediately notify establishment management of their observations and 

request that establishment management address the issue; 

• Document their observations in a MOI; 

Inspection Methods 27-25 
 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

• Provide a copy of the MOI by email to their immediate supervisor, and to 

the DVMS or a DDM if the DVMS is not available. 

• Provide a copy of the MOI (printed or electronic) to establishment 

management. 

The District management team will take any further actions, consistent with the 

instructions found in FSIS Directive 5930.1, “Custom Exempt Review Process.” 

Inspection Methods 27-26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

Poultry Good Commercial Practices (GCP) Verification 

There is no humane handling statute requiring humane handling for poultry. 

However, there is a regulatory requirement that poultry be slaughtered using 

Good Commercial Practices (GCP). This regulatory requirement will be verified 

while performing the Poultry Good Commercial Practices task. 

In the PPIA Section 453(g)(5), a poultry product is adulterated if, among other 

circumstances, it is in whole, or in part, the product of any poultry which has died 

otherwise than by slaughter. The regulations require that poultry be slaughtered 

in accordance with good commercial practices, in a manner that will result in 

thorough bleeding of the poultry carcass and will ensure that breathing has 

stopped before scalding (9 CFR 381.65(b)). Poultry that are still breathing on 

entering the scalder die from drowning, not from slaughter, and are considered 

adulterated and unfit for human food. These “cadavers” are automatically 

condemned on post-mortem inspection per 9 CFR 381.90. 

On September 28, 2005, the Agency published a Federal Register Notice, 

Docket No. 04-037N, Treatment of Live Poultry Before Slaughter. In that FR 

Notice, humane handling terminology was used for the first time by the Agency 

when describing the live poultry being handled in a way consistent with good 

commercial practices. FSIS went on to describe a systematic approach for 

industry to use. The Agency defined a “systematic approach” as one in which 

establishments focus on treating poultry in such a manner as to minimize 

excitement, discomfort, and accidental injury the entire time that live poultry is 

held in connection with slaughter. Recognize that this approach is voluntary on 

the part of industry. Also recognize that it signals a change by the Agency to a 

more assertive approach to the handling of live poultry. 

FSIS Directive 6100.3, “Ante-Mortem and Post-Mortem Poultry Inspection” and 

FSIS Directive 6110.1 “Verification of Poultry Good Commercial Practices” 

provide guidance on performing GCP verification activities. Additional 

information is available in a Humane Interactive Knowledge Exchange—HIKE 

01-05—addressing the issue of humane handling of poultry. It discusses the 

observation of still-breathing chickens entering the scald tank and identifies the 

enforcement actions that are taken by IPP when noncompliance with regulatory 

requirements is observed. 

GCP Verification Activities 

IPP assigned to poultry slaughter facilities are expected on a daily, per shift basis 

when the establishment slaughters, to perform a Poultry Good Commercial 

Practices Verification task. 

Inspection Methods 27-27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

To perform the task, you will do the following: 

• Schedule the task on your Task Calendar in PHIS. 

• Initiate or claim the task in PHIS by selecting the component in the 

Inspection Results section of PHIS. 

• Visit the receiving through pre-scald areas to systematically observe 

whether establishment employees are mistreating birds or handling them 

in a way that will cause death or injury or prevent thorough bleeding or 

result in excessive bruising. 

• Record the task outcome in Inspection Results by selecting the verified 

regulations and checking the appropriate boxes. If noncompliance is 

found, complete the Noncompliance Record (NR). 

Some things to look for include: 

• Establishment employees breaking birds’ legs to hold them in the 

shackles, 

• Birds frozen inside cages or frozen to the cages in cold weather, 

• Birds dead from heat exhaustion—you would primarily see heavy 

panting in poultry suffering from heat stress, or 

• Establishment employees driving over live birds with equipment or 

trucks in the unloading or live hang area. 

If the poultry are stunned prior to bleeding, check the stunning equipment to 

ensure it is functioning properly. Poultry that have been effectively stunned will 

have an arched neck and tucked-in wings posture. 

Check in the bleeding area to determine if the bleeding equipment is functioning 

properly. One way that you might be alerted to problems with the bleeding 

equipment is if the line inspectors report increased number or clusters of 

cadavers at inspection stations or increased numbers of bruised wings or legs. 

Once a week, IPP are to randomly select a day to review establishment records 

documenting adherence to good commercial practices. This review takes the 

place of observation in the receiving through pre-scald areas. Recognize that 

establishments are not required to maintain written records of good commercial 

practices. If records are not kept, IPP are to visit the receiving through pre-scald 

areas as above. 

If such records are kept and made available, IPP are to review a sample of the 

records and assess whether there is evidence that the establishment is 

monitoring its GCPs in the receiving through pre-scald areas. An establishment 

may use video surveillance of live poultry handling areas and can offer this as a 

Inspection Methods 27-28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

form of record. IPP are also to determine if there is enough information in the 

records to judge that the establishment is following good commercial practices. If 

there is not enough information to make that judgment, IPP are to visit the 

receiving through pre-scald areas to verify compliance with the statute and 

regulations. 

Enforcement 

During poultry handling and slaughter, IPP are to document through NRs or 

MOIs establishment failure to follow GCP. From a regulatory perspective, 

adherence to GCP is a process control issue and not a bird-by-bird performance 

standard issue. 

If the establishment is not following good commercial practices, and birds are 

dying other than by slaughter, you are to document a noncompliance record 

citing 9 CFR 381.65(b), using the poultry good commercial practices task in 

PHIS. IPP are to write NRs for GCP noncompliance only when they can 

demonstrate that an establishment has lost process control and that there is an 

ongoing trend of birds dying otherwise than by slaughter. 

Writing a GCP NR 

1. IPP are to document loss of process control by the establishment, and 

thus not operating in accordance with GCPs, when there is repeated 

occurrence of birds: 

a. Dying otherwise than by slaughter (repeatedly entering the scalding 

tank while still breathing); and 

b. Not being appropriately bled out (as evidenced by equipment 

malfunction that results in increased numbers or clusters of cadavers 

being condemned); or 

c. Being intentionally and repeatedly mistreated by establishment 

personnel. 

2. IPP should consider the following questions to determine if there has been 

a loss of process control: 

a. What is the problem? 

b. How long did the problem last? 

c. How did the establishment react? 

d. How did they correct the problem, and did it recur? 

e. What were the periods of control? 

3. IPP are to document the noncompliance with 9 CFR 381.65(b) when the 

establishment is not following GCPs. An isolated incident does not 

represent a loss of process control and should be documented in a 

Inspection Methods 27-29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

mistreatment MOI, not an NR. IPP are not to quote the Humane Methods 

of Slaughter Act of 1978. Refer to attachments 1 and 2 of FSIS Directive 

6110.1 for an example of an NR for 9 CFR 381.65(b) noncompliance in 

PHIS. 

Poultry Mistreatment MOIs 

Poultry Mistreatment MOIs are primarily issued when the establishment is 

mistreating birds at any point prior to the kill step, but the mistreatment event 

does not demonstrate that the establishment’s process is out of control. The MOI 

documents the discussion between IPP and establishment management about 

the poultry mistreatment event. In addition, you are to document the discussion 

and any planned actions on the part of the establishment in a MOI. Give a copy 

of the MOI to establishment management, keep a copy in the inspection file, and 

send a copy to the DVMS. 

1. IPP should document a poultry mistreatment MOI when, for example: 

a. Isolated instance of a bird still breathing when entering the scalder. 

b. Unusually high number of injuries to birds such as broken legs, 

wings, but no evidence of intentional mistreatment. 

2. After observing poultry mistreatment, IPP should: 

a. Notify the establishment immediately. 

b. Discuss the mistreatment after the event is resolved and advise the 

establishment that preventing mistreatment decreases the 

production of adulterated carcasses. 

c. Document the discussion, and any further planned actions 

proffered by the establishment. 

DVMS 

The DVMS will review the MOIs and GCP NRs and determine if additional action 

is warranted. The correlation includes review to determine accuracy and 

consistency of documentation. In specific situations, after review of mistreatment 

MOIs, the DVMS may need to notify appropriate state officials. 

If you have questions or concerns about what you observe during poultry 

slaughter, contact the DVMS for guidance. 

Inspection Methods 27-30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

Hands-on Activity 

The following hands-on section is intended to provide experience with the PHIS 

Livestock Humane Handling and Poultry Good Commercial Practices verification 

tasks. 

For the hands-on activity, you will: 

• Document a Livestock Humane Handling task (as Robert Allen) 

• Document a Poultry Good Commercial Practices task (as Cindy Soundly) 

Follow these steps along with the instructor. 

 Open the laptop 

 Log-onto laptop: 

 User Name: FSIS_user 

 Password: FSIS 

 Double click the Start Internet Explorer icon 

 PHIS Log-in 

 Select User: Robert Allen (your #) 

Document Livestock Humane Handling 

1. Click Task Calendar in navigation menu 

2. Select Establishment: Open Beef 

3. In Task Name filter by “Livestock”, identify the appropriate Livestock 

Humane Handling task (Use the task for the appropriate start and end 

dates that contain today’s date.) 

4. Schedule a routine task for today (Schedule by clicking the Add link in the 

“Routine” column.) 

5. Scroll down to the Task Calendar section 

6. Right click on Livestock Humane Handling task scheduled for today 

7. Select Document to pull up Inspection Results 

8. Click on the Activity tab and click in the Review and Observation radio 

button, then click the Save button 

9. Click the HATS tab 

10.Click in Verified boxes for the following: 

• Adequate Measures for Inclement Weather 

• Truck Unloading 

• Handling During Ante Mortem Inspection 

• Stunning Effectiveness 

• Check for Conscious Animals on the Rail 

11.For each item enter 15 minutes. Enter the time for each item by clicking 

on (Select) in the field under the Duration (Min/Hrs) column 

12.Click Save 

Inspection Methods 27-31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

13.Click the Regulations” tab, and click verified for 313.1, 313.2, 

313.15(a)(1), 313.15(a)(3), 313.15(b)(1)(iii) and 313.15(b)(2)(i). 

14.Check the Inspection Completed box then click “Save” 

15.Click the small X to close the pop-up window and then Sign out 

Document Poultry Good Commercial Practices 

1. Log on as Cindy Soundly (your #)

2. Click Task Calendar in navigation menu 

3. Select Establishment: Novosibar 

4. In Task Name filter by “Poultry”, identify the appropriate Poultry Good 

Commercial Practices task 

5. Schedule one routine task for today 

6. Scroll down, and right click on today’s Poultry Good Commercial 

Practices Task 

7. Select Document 

8. Click on Activity tab, click Review and Observation radio button, then 

click the “Save” button 

9. Click “Regulations” tab, and click the “Verified” box for 381.65(b) 

10.Click the “Findings” tab 

Note: When IPP find mistreatment of live poultry during the performance 

of the GCP task, they are to issue a MOI. Policy requires that the MOI be 

associated with the GCP task. IPP do not use the left navigation menu 

to create the MOI. IPP click the Findings tab on the Inspection Results 

page; check the Non-Regulatory Concerns box, click the save button, click 

the Create/Edit MOI button at the bottom of the Inspection Results page, 

and click the Add MOI link on MOI List page. 

11.Check the “Inspection Completed” box, then click the “Save” button 

12.Sign out 

Inspection Methods 27-32 
 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

Workshop: Humane Handling Verification 

1. Name the two approved methods of humane slaughter in the HMSA. 

2. List the nine HATS categories. 

3. Read the following situations and answer the questions. 

A. Ice, snow, or mud buildup is causing cattle to slip and slide on the 

unloading chute. Two animals fall down but immediately rise and appear 

unhurt. 

• Does this scenario represent noncompliance? 

• If so, is it an egregious situation? 

• What action should be taken by inspection personnel? 

B. A sow goes down at the bottom of the truck unloading chute. Dozens of 

swine continue to exit the trailer for several minutes repeatedly stepping 

on and hitting the downed sow, which vocalizes loudly in response. 

• Does this scenario represent noncompliance? 

• If so, is it an egregious situation? 

• What action should be taken by inspection personnel? 

Inspection Methods 27-33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

C. An electric battery-operated prod is used only occasionally on balking 

swine at the conveyor-restrainer entrance. The prod is never used on the 

anus, eyes, ears, or other sensitive parts and is not used excessively on 

any of the animals. 

• Does this scenario represent noncompliance? 

• If so, is it an egregious situation? 

• What action should be taken by inspection personnel? 

D. Inspectors at the cattle head inspection station notice that some heads 

have 2 or 3 “knock holes”. They notify offline IPP of the multiple knock 

holes. The offline inspector immediately proceeds to the stunning area 

and observes that establishment personnel consistently produce 

insensibility with one shot of the captive bolt gun. The establishment has a 

good history of properly stunning animals and sometimes the employee 

doing the knocking administers additional “security” knocks to ensure 

animals remain insensible. 

• Does this scenario represent noncompliance? 

• Is it an egregious situation? 

• What action should be taken by inspection personnel? 

E. A head fork (or wand) placed behind the ears is used to electrically stun a 

market hog. The hog becomes stiff, goes down, and appears properly 

stunned. By the time it is hoisted on the line, rhythmic breathing has 

returned, the eyes begin to blink normally, and the front feet begin 

paddling motions. A plant employee sticks the animal’s neck and it 

responds with vocalization, struggling, and trying to lift its head while 

looking around until it expires from blood loss about 30 seconds later. 

• Does this scenario represent noncompliance? 

• If so, is it an egregious situation? 

• What action, if any, should be taken by inspection personnel? 

Inspection Methods 27-34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

F. An attempt is made to stun a non-ambulatory disabled sow in the antemortem pens with a captive bolt gun, but the animal moved its head at the 

last moment and the attempt failed, missing the head completely. The 

animal did not appear excited as a result of the missed attempt and the 

operator immediately applied another shot from a pre-loaded backup 

device which was successful in properly stunning the sow. The 

establishment has a good history of properly stunning non-ambulatory 

disabled animals. 

• Does this scenario represent noncompliance? 

• If so, is it an egregious situation? 

• What action should be taken by inspection personnel? 

4. Describe the action an inspector should take when he/she observes a nonegregious incident of inhumane treatment resulting from: 

a. Facility deficiencies, disrepair, or equipment breakdown. 

b. Establishment employee actions in the handling or moving of the 

livestock. 

c. Improper stunning. 

5. Define egregious noncompliance, give one example, and describe the action 

an IIC should take for such noncompliance. 

Inspection Methods 27-35 
 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

6. Name the types of documents completed for non-egregious and egregious 

humane handling and slaughter noncompliances, respectively. 

7. List in proper order the steps to scheduling, performing, and recording the 

results of the Poultry GCP (Good Commercial Practices) Verification task in 

PHIS. 

8. List one example of regulatory noncompliance with good commercial practices 

and one example of poultry mistreatment and the action to take for each. 

Inspection Methods 27-36 
 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

Attachment 1 

Overview of the Humane Handling and Slaughter Regulations (9 CFR 313) 

A. Regulations related to livestock pens, driveways and ramps 

9 CFR section 313.1 states: 

(a) Livestock pens, driveways and ramps shall be maintained in good repair. They shall 

be free from sharp or protruding objects which may, in the opinion of the inspector, 

cause injury or pain to the animals. Loose boards, splintered or broken planking and 

unnecessary openings where the head, feet, or legs of an animal may be injured shall be 

repaired. 

(b) Floors of livestock pens, ramps, and driveways shall be constructed and maintained 

so as to provide good footing for livestock. Slip resistant or waffled floor surfaces, 

cleated ramps and the use of sand, as appropriate, during winter months are examples 

of acceptable construction and maintenance. 

(c) U.S. Suspects (as defined in 9 CFR 301.2(xxx)) and dying, diseased, and disabled 

livestock 9 CFR 301.2(y) shall be provided with a covered pen sufficient, in the opinion 

of the inspector, to protect them from the adverse climatic conditions of the locale while 

awaiting disposition by the inspector. 

(d) Livestock pens and driveways shall be so arranged that sharp corners and direction 

reversal of driven animals are minimized. 

B. Regulation related to handling of livestock 

9 CFR section 313.2 states: 

(a) Driving of livestock from the unloading ramps to the holding pens and from the 

holding pens to the stunning area shall be done with a minimum of excitement and 

discomfort to the animals. Livestock shall not be forced to move faster than a normal 

walking speed. 

(b) Electric prods, canvas slappers, or other implements employed to drive animals shall 

be used as little as possible in order to minimize excitement and injury. Any use of such 

implements which, in the opinion of the inspector, is excessive, is prohibited. Electrical 

prods attached to AC house current shall be reduced by a transformer to the lowest 

effective voltage not to exceed 50 volts AC. 

(c) Pipes, sharp or pointed objects, and other items which, in the opinion of the 

inspector, would cause injury or unnecessary pain to the animal shall not be used to 

drive livestock. 

(d) Disabled livestock and other animals unable to move. 

(1) Disabled animals and other animals unable to move shall be separated from normal 

ambulatory animals and placed in the covered pen provided for in section 313.1(c). 

(2) The dragging of disabled animals and other animals unable to move, while 

conscious, is prohibited. Stunned animals may, however, be dragged. 

(3) Disabled animals and other animals unable to move may be moved, while conscious, 

on equipment suitable for such purposes; e.g., stone boats. (e) Animals shall have 

access to water in all holding pens and, if held longer than 24 hours, access to feed. 

There shall be sufficient room in the holding pen for animals held overnight to lie down. 

Inspection Methods 27-37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

(f) Stunning methods approved in section 313.30 shall be effectively applied to animals 

prior to their being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast or cut. 

C. General regulatory requirements related to approved stunning methods 

Appropriate stunning methods are required for an establishment to be in compliance with 

the HMSA. When stunning is done correctly, animals feel no pain, are rendered instantly 

unconscious, and remain unconscious until slaughtered. There are four methods of 

stunning approved for livestock. A summary of these approved stunning methods 

appears below (refer to 9 CFR sections 313.5, 313.15, 313.16 and 313.30). 

Chemical; carbon dioxide 

Regulatory requirements for the use of carbon dioxide as a humane method of slaughter 

are specified in section 313.5 and include, among other things, the following: 

1) Carbon dioxide gas may be used to slaughter and handle sheep, calves and swine. 

2) The carbon dioxide gas shall be administered in a chamber so as to produce surgical 

anesthesia (a state where an animal feels no painful sensation) before the animal is 

shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. Animals shall be exposed to the carbon dioxide 

gas in a way that will accomplish the anesthesia quickly and calmly. 

3) Gas concentrations and exposure times shall be graphically recorded throughout 

each day’s operation. 

4) It is necessary that the operator be skilled, attentive, and aware of his or her 

responsibility. 

Mechanical; captive bolt 

Regulatory requirements for the use of captive bolt stunners as a humane method of 

slaughter are specified in section 313.15 and include, among other things, the following: 

1) Captive bolt stunners may be used to slaughter and handle sheep, swine, goats, 

calves, cattle, horses, mules, and other equines. 

2) The captive bolt stunners shall be applied to livestock so as to produce immediate 

unconsciousness in the animals before they are shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. 

3) The stunning operation is an exacting procedure and requires a well-trained and 

experienced operator who must use the correct detonating charge with regard to kind, 

breed, size, age, and sex of the animal to produce the desired results. 

4) Stunning instruments must be maintained in good repair. 

Mechanical; gunshot 

Regulatory requirements for the use of gunshot as a humane method of slaughter are 

specified in section 313.16 and include, among other things, the following: 

1) Shooting by firearms may be used to slaughter and handle cattle, calves, sheep, 

swine, goats, horses, mules, and other equines. 

2) A single shot delivery of a bullet or projectile into the animal is to produce immediate 

unconsciousness in the animal before it is shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast or cut. 

3) Firearms must be maintained in good repair. 

4) The shooting operation is an exacting procedure and requires a well-trained and 

experienced operator who must be able to accurately direct the projectile to produce 

immediate unconsciousness. 

Inspection Methods 27-38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humane Handling for Livestock/GCP in Poultry 

9/14/2020 

5) The operator must use the correct caliber firearm, powder charge and type of 

ammunition to produce instant unconsciousness in the animal. 

Electrical; stunning or slaughtering with electric current 

Regulatory requirements for the use of electric current as a humane method of slaughter 

are specified in section 313.30 and include, among other things, the following: 

1) Electric current may be used to slaughter swine, sheep, calves, cattle, and goats. 

2) The animal shall be exposed to the electric current in a way that will accomplish 

surgical anesthesia (a state where an animal feels no painful sensation) quickly and 

effectively before they are shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. 

3) It is necessary that the operator of electric current application equipment be skilled, 

attentive, and aware of his or her responsibility. 

4) Suitable timing, voltage and current control devices shall be used to ensure that each 

animal receives the necessary electrical charge to produce immediate 

unconsciousness.9 

Enforcement 

CFR 313.50 Tagging of equipment, alleyways, pens, or compartments to prevent 

inhumane slaughter or handling in connection with slaughter. 

When an inspector observes an incident of inhumane slaughter or handling in 

connection with slaughter, he/she shall inform the establishment operator of the incident 

and request that the operator take the necessary steps to prevent a recurrence. If the 

establishment operator fails to take such action or fails to promptly provide the 

inspector with satisfactory assurances that such action will be taken, the inspector shall 

follow the procedures specified in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section, as 

appropriate. 

(a) If the cause of inhumane treatment is the result of facility deficiencies, disrepair, or 

equipment breakdown, the inspector shall attach a ``U.S. Rejected'' tag thereto. No 

equipment, alleyway, pen or compartment so tagged shall be used until made 

acceptable to the inspector. The tag shall not be removed by anyone other than an 

inspector. All livestock slaughtered prior to such tagging may be dressed, processed, or 

prepared under inspection. 

(b) If the cause of inhumane treatment is the result of establishment employee actions in 

the handling or moving of livestock, the inspector shall attach a ``U.S. Rejected'' tag to 

the alleyways leading to the stunning area. After the tagging of the alleyway, no more 

livestock shall be moved to the stunning area until the inspector receives satisfactory 

assurances from the establishment operator that there will not be a recurrence. The tag 

shall not be removed by anyone other than an inspector. All livestock slaughtered prior 

to the tagging may be dressed, processed, or prepared under inspection. 

(c) If the cause of inhumane treatment is the result of improper stunning, the inspector 

shall attach a ``U.S. Rejected'' tag to the stunning area. Stunning procedures shall not 

be resumed until the inspector receives satisfactory assurances from the establishment 

operator that there will not be a recurrence. The tag shall not be removed by anyone 

other than an inspector. All livestock slaughtered prior to such tagging may be dressed, 

processed, or prepared under inspection. 

Inspection Methods 27-39