1

Evaluation of HACCP Inspection 

Models Project (HIMP)

United States Department of Agriculture

Food Safety and Inspection Service

August 2011
2

Table of Contents

SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................... 5

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 8

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF HIMP AND NON-HIMP ESTABLISHMENTS................................... 10

2.1 Inspection in HIMP and Non-HIMP Establishments.......................................................... 10

2.2 Line Speed Estimation ........................................................................................................ 11

2.3 Selection of Non-HIMP Comparison Establishments ........................................................ 11

3.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Inspection of Each Carcass by Online FSIS Inspectors to Determine Whether the Carcass 

is Not Adulterated and therefore Eligible to Bear the Mark of Inspection............................... 14

3.2 Verification by Offline Inspectors of the Establishment Executing its HIMP Process 

Control Plan under which Establishment Employees Sort Acceptable and Unacceptable 

Carcasses and Parts................................................................................................................... 15

3.2.1 Offline Inspection Procedures per Establishment........................................................ 15

3.2.2 FSIS Condemnation Rates and HIMP Establishment Sorting Rates........................... 17

3.3 Verification of the Establishment Executing its Sanitation SOPs and its HACCP System 

under 9 CFR parts 416 and 417 ................................................................................................ 19

3.3.1 Offline Inspection Procedures Performed.................................................................... 19

3.3.2 Public Health Non-Compliance Rates......................................................................... 19

3.3.3 Fecal Contamination .................................................................................................... 21

3.4 Verification of the Outcomes of the Establishment Process Control Plan, both 

Organoleptic and Microbiologic ............................................................................................... 22

3.4.1 Food Safety Performance Standards............................................................................ 22

3.4.2 Other Consumer Protection Performance Standards ................................................... 24

3.4.3 Salmonella Positive Rates............................................................................................ 26

4.0 DISCUSSION......................................................................................................................... 27

4.1 Previous Evaluations of HIMP Performance...................................................................... 27

4.2 Food Safety Performance Standards................................................................................... 29

4.3 Other Consumer Protection (OCP) Standards.................................................................... 30

4.4 Offline Inspection Procedures............................................................................................. 32

4.5 Salmonella Positive Rates................................................................................................... 32

4.6 Carcass-By-Carcass Inspection........................................................................................... 33

5.0 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 35

6.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 37

7.0 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 38

Appendix A - History of HIMP ................................................................................................ 38

Appendix B - Line Speed Methodology ................................................................................... 42

Appendix C- W3NR Non-Compliance Rates........................................................................... 44

Appendix D - Fecal NR Rate Regression ................................................................................. 55

Appendix E - Line Speed Analysis........................................................................................... 58

Appendix F - Salmonella Positive Rates .................................................................................. 62

Appendix G – Sorting and Condemnation Rates For HIMP and Non-HIMP .......................... 64
3

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 2- 1 Flowchart for HIMP Inspection System .................................................................... 10

Figure 2- 2 Flowchart for Traditional (Non-HIMP) Inspection Systems..................................... 11

Figure 3- 1 Annual Number of 03J Inspections as a Function of Volume for HIMP and NonHIMP Comparison Establishments............................................................................................... 17

Table 2- 1 Characteristics of Comparison Young Chicken Slaughter Establishments................. 12

Table 2- 2 Geographical Distribution of HIMP and Comparison Non-HIMP Establishments.... 13

Table 3- 1 Comparison of Sep/Tox Detection Rates for Carcass and Verification Inspectors..... 15

Table 3- 2 Comparison of Fecal Detection Rates for Carcass and Verification Inspectors ......... 15

Table 3- 3 Ratios of Inspection Procedures per Establishment in HIMP to Non-HIMP for 

CY2010......................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 3- 4 Sorting and Condemnation Rates for HIMP and Non-HIMP Broiler Establishments 18

Table 3- 5 Health-Related Noncompliance Rates for HIMP and Non-HIMP Broiler 

Establishments .............................................................................................................................. 20

Table 3- 6 Five Year Average Health-Related NR Rates for HIMP and Non-HIMP Broiler 

Establishments .............................................................................................................................. 21

Table 3- 7 Fecal NR Rates at HIMP and Non-HIMP Comparison Establishments ..................... 21

Table 3- 8 HIMP Achievement of Food Safety Performance Standards at Young Chicken 

Establishments .............................................................................................................................. 22

Table 3- 9 Comparison of Sep/Tox Detection Rates for Carcass and Verification Inspectors..... 23

Table 3- 10 Comparison of Fecal Detection Rates for Carcass and Verification Inspectors ....... 24

Table 3- 11 HIMP Achievement of OCP Performance Standards at Young Chicken 

Establishments .............................................................................................................................. 24

Table 3- 12 Salmonella Percent Positive Rates for HIMP and Non-HIMP Broiler Establishments

....................................................................................................................................................... 26

Table 4- 1 Performance Metrics for Comparing HIMP and Non-HIMP Establishments............. 28

Table 4- 2 HIMP Achievement of Food Safety Performance Standards...................................... 29

Table 4- 3 Septicemia/Toxemia Rates in HIMP and Non-HIMP Establishments........................ 30

Table 4- 4 HIMP Achievement of OCP Performance Standards ................................................. 31

Table B- 1 Example Data Used to Compute Slaughter Rates ...................................................... 43

Table B-2 Summary of Line Speeds for HIMP and Non-HIMP Establishments......................... 43

Table C- 1 Procedure Code Description ....................................................................................... 44

Table C- 2 W3NR Rates for Each Procedure Code by Year........................................................ 47

Table C- 3 W3NR Rates by Procedure Code for the 5 years of Combined CY2006 to CY2010 52

Table C- 4 Regression Statistics for Number of W3NRs by Process Code for 5 Years of 

Combined Data ............................................................................................................................. 53
4

Table G- 1 Sorting and Condemnation Rates for HIMP and All Non-HIMP Establishments in

CY2010......................................................................................................................................... 64

Table G- 2 Sorting and Condemnation Rates for HIMP and All Non-HIMP Establishments in 

CY2009......................................................................................................................................... 64

Table G- 3 Sorting and Condemnation Rates for HIMP and All Non-HIMP Establishments in 

CY2008......................................................................................................................................... 64

Table G- 4 Sorting and Condemnation Rates for HIMP and All Non-HIMP Establishments in 

CY2007......................................................................................................................................... 65

Table G- 5 Sorting and Condemnation Rates for HIMP and All Non-HIMP Establishments in 

CY2006......................................................................................................................................... 65
5

SUMMARY

The objective of this report is to evaluate Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspection 

findings in young chicken slaughter establishments participating in the HACCP Inspection 

Models Project (HIMP) program and, as appropriate, compare them with established HIMP 

performance standards or with a comparison set of 64 non-HIMP establishments comparable 

with HIMP establishments with respect to production volume, lines speed, and geographical 

distribution. The FSIS inspection findings are assessed across four interrelated inspection 

activities:

1. Inspection of each carcass by on line FSIS inspectors to determine whether the carcass is 

not adulterated and therefore eligible to bear the mark of inspection

2. Verification, by off line inspectors, of the establishment’s execution of its HIMP process 

control plan, under which establishment employees sort acceptable and unacceptable 

carcasses and parts

3. Verification of the establishment executing its sanitation standard operating procedures 

(Sanitation SOP) and its Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system 

under 9 CFR Parts 416 and 417.

4. Verification of the outcomes of the establishment HIMP process control plan, both 

organoleptic and microbiologic

A summary of results follows:

Inspection of each carcass by on line FSIS inspectors to determine whether the 

carcass is not adulterated and therefore eligible to bear the mark of inspection

The data show that as a result of industry practices, such as carcass sorting activities, very 

few adulterated poultry carcasses are presented to inspectors stationed at the end of the 

slaughter line in HIMP establishments. The number of carcasses with septicemia, 

toxemia, or fecal material that arrive at the online carcass inspector location is very low 

(less than 8 carcasses with infectious conditions per million carcasses processed and less 

than 0.8 carcasses with fecal contamination per 1,000 carcasses). These levels are less 

than those found in the baseline non-HIMP plants after carcasses have passed FSIS 

carcass inspection. The carcass inspector (CI) in HIMP establishments further reduces the 

number of carcasses with septicemia/toxemia or visible fecal contamination.

For septicemia/toxemia, the CI detected affected carcasses at a rate of 0.000004% or 4 

per 100 million carcasses slaughtered. For visible fecal contamination, the CI detected 

affected carcasses at a rate of 0.0009% or 9 per million carcasses slaughtered. These data 

demonstrate that CIs in HIMP establishments detect and condemn carcasses affected with 

septicemia and toxemia, as well as carcasses with visible fecal contamination, before 

such carcasses enter the chiller. 

These findings support that the online inspectors in HIMP establishments are performing 

in a manner that enables them to properly inspect each carcass and, therefore, make the 

necessary appraisals to adequately identify adulterated carcasses. 
6

Verification, by off line inspectors, of the establishment’s execution of its HIMP 

process control plan, under which establishment employees sort acceptable and 

unacceptable carcasses and parts

FSIS inspectors perform offline inspection procedures in HIMP establishments to verify 

that the establishments are executing their HIMP process control plan. Because fewer 

inspectors are required to conduct online carcass inspection in HIMP establishments, 

FSIS is able to conduct more offline food safety related inspection activities. FSIS 

inspectors performed an average of 14,136 offline verification inspections per HIMP 

establishment in CY2010 versus an average of 8,724 offline verification inspections per 

non-HIMP establishment. Overall, FSIS inspectors perform 1.6 times more offline 

verification inspection procedures in HIMP establishments than in non-HIMP 

establishments and 3.2 times more HACCP verification inspection procedures. This 

increased level of inspection insures that HIMP establishments continuously satisfy food 

safety performance standards and HACCP regulations and are maintaining OCP- and 

food safety defects at levels that are less than in non-HIMP establishments and thereby 

producing a safer product. 

Verification of the establishment executing its sanitation standard operating 

procedures (SSOP) and its hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) 

system under Code of Federal Regulations 9 CFR 416 and 417

FSIS inspectors conduct offline inspection procedures in HIMP establishments to monitor 

for food safety and OCP defects, pathogen levels, and for compliance with federal 

sanitation and HACCP regulations. In CY2010 FSIS inspectors performed about 2.8 

times more SSOP and HIMP inspection procedures in HIMP establishments than in nonHIMP establishments and find that over a 5 year period the health-related noncompliance rates for SSOP and HACCP are about 1.4 times lower in HIMP 

establishments than in non-HIMP establishments.

In CY2010, FSIS inspectors in HIMP establishments performed 3.4 more 03J01 

procedures than inspectors in non-HIMP establishments. The inspection activities under 

the 03J01 procedures include among other things, verification of food safety standards 

and all slaughter HACCP requirements. The majority of these activities involve verifying 

an establishment’s compliance with FSIS’s zero tolerance for visible fecal contamination. 

The rate of 03J01 health-related non-compliances over a 5 year period is about 1.6 times 

lower in HIMP establishments than in non-HIMP establishments

The rate of visible fecal material contamination in HIMP establishments is about half that 

in non-HIMP establishments. Since fecal contamination of carcasses is the primary

avenue for contamination by pathogens in slaughter establishments, HIMP establishments 

should have lower public health impacts than non-HIMP establishments. 
7

Verification of the outcomes of the establishment process control plan, both 

organoleptic and microbiologic

Toxemia and septicemia food safety conditions in HIMP establishments are below 8 per 

million carcasses, which is 125 times less than HIMP performance standards.

Salmonella positive rates in HIMP establishments average about 80% those in non-HIMP 

establishments. FSIS believes that lower Salmonella positive rates result in fewer public 

health impacts (FSIS 2011). Salmonella positive rates at HIMP establishments were not 

found to be related to line speed.

Fecal contamination levels are below 8 per ten thousand carcasses, which is about 19 

times less than HIMP performance standards. FSIS believes that lower fecal 

contamination levels and Salmonella positive rates result in fewer public health impacts.

These data indicate that compared to inspection on non-HIMP establishments, HIMP has 

improved the safety of poultry products and increased overall consumer protection. 

FSIS concludes that an inspection system based on the HIMP system in which establishments are 

responsible for sorting and identifying unacceptable carcasses and parts before an online FSIS 

inspector performs a visual carcass-by-carcass inspection will ensure an equivalent, if not better, 

level of food safety and other consumer protection than that provided by the existing poultry 

slaughter inspection systems. 

Given the low numbers of adulterated poultry carcasses presented to the inspector in HIMP 

establishments, the stability of line speeds in the HIMP pilot project, and the ability of the 

carcass inspector to personally inspect each and every carcass leaving the slaughter line 

sufficiently to identify adulterated carcasses, FSIS has determined that the addition of a second 

carcass inspector to each line would not further HIMP project objectives and is not necessary to 

meet statutory mandates.
8

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In October 1999, FSIS initiated the HIMP project in volunteer slaughter establishments to

determine whether new government slaughter inspection procedures, along with new plant 

responsibilities, could improve food safety and increase consumer protection. Under HIMP 

employees of slaughter establishments sort carcasses on the slaughter line before they reach FSIS 

on-line inspectors, making an initial determination whether they are unacceptable, allowing the 

on-line inspector to focus on any remaining food-safety issues. This approach is consistent with 

HACCP where industry rather than federal inspectors is responsible for identifying steps in food 

production where food safety hazards are most likely to occur and for establishing controls that 

prevent or reduce them. Currently, there are 20 young chicken; 5 young turkey, and 5 market 

hog slaughter establishments participating in HIMP. This report focuses on the 20 young 

chicken slaughter establishments in HIMP. 

FSIS inspectors perform post-mortem inspection on a bird-by-bird basis of every chicken 

eviscerated at a HIMP establishment that enters commerce. The purpose of post-mortem 

inspection is to insure that any carcasses or parts that are unwholesome or adulterated, and 

thereby unfit for human food, do not enter commerce. A short history of HIMP is given in 

Appendix A. 

Prior to beginning HIMP, Research Triangle Institute (RTI) conducted baseline organoleptic and 

microbiological data collection in 16 young chicken slaughter plants that volunteered to 

participate in the HIMP program. The baseline data documents the accomplishments of preHIMP slaughter-line inspection systems and provide a measure for comparing performance of 

establishments operating under the new HIMP inspection system with those operating under 

traditional inspection systems. In March 2000, FSIS held a public meeting to present the HIMP 

baseline results and receive comments on proposed HIMP performance standards (FSIS 2000a). 

In November, 2000 FSIS published the final HIMP performance standards for two food safety 

and five Other Consumer Protection (OCP) concerns. HIMP establishments are expected to 

revise their HACCP systems to achieve the food safety standards and to develop process control 

plans to achieve OCP standards. Plants are responsible for identifying and removing carcasses 

that do not meet these standards. FSIS inspectors are responsible for verifying that plants are 

continuously achieving the required outcomes. The National Alliance for Food Safety 

determined that food safety performance standards provide a scientifically valid measure by 

which performance of HIMP establishments can be evaluated (Hargis et al. 2002).

Following entry of the 16 young chicken slaughter plants into the HIMP program, data was again 

collected in order to evaluate the achievements of the new inspection system. RTI conducted an 

initial evaluation of the performance of HIMP chicken slaughter establishments in 2001 that

suggested inspection under HIMP was equivalent or superior to that of traditional inspection

(Cates et al. 2001). Subsequent data collection over the time periods Sep 18, 2000 – April 30, 

2001, Sep 18, 2000 - Sep 30, 2002 and July 14, 2003 - December 31, 2004 confirmed that HIMP 

plants were meeting or exceeding HIMP performance standards (FSIS 2001, 2002b, 2008a).

Organoleptic and microbiological data compared to the performance standards were 

Food safety measures
9

o Septicemia/Toxemia rates

o Visible fecal contamination rates

Other Consumer Protection measures

o OCP1 (Animal Diseases, e.g., airsacculitis)

o OCP2 (Miscellaneous Conditions, e.g., bruises, sores, and other processing 

defects)

o OCP3 (Digestive Content, e.g., ingesta)

o OCP4 (Dressing Defects- Other, e.g., feathers)

o OCP5 Dressing Defects- Digestive Tract Tissue, e.g., bursa, cloaca)

These studies demonstrated that HIMP young chicken slaughter establishments were performing 

as well or better than young chicken slaughter establishments under traditional (non-HIMP) 

inspection systems. 

The objective of the present analysis is to update these previous evaluations of HIMP 

performance and to determine whether the HIMP inspection system results in improved safety of 

poultry products and increased overall consumer protection, while ensuring carcass-by-carcass 

inspection of each eviscerated carcass. The current evaluation is based on data for the years 

CY2006 through CY2010, with exceptions where only more recent data are available. The 

evaluation compares the 20 HIMP young chicken establishments with established HIMP 

performance standards or with a comparison set of 64 non-HIMP establishments selected to be 

comparable with HIMP establishments with respect to production volume, lines speed, and 

geographical distribution. The FSIS inspection findings are assessed across four interrelated 

inspection activities:

1. Inspection of each carcass by on line FSIS inspectors to determine whether the carcass is 

not adulterated and therefore eligible to bear the mark of inspection

2. Verification, by off line inspectors, of the establishment’s execution of its HIMP process 

control plan, under which establishment employees sort acceptable and unacceptable 

carcasses and parts

3. Verification of the outcomes of the establishment process control plan, both organoleptic 

and microbiologic

4. Verification of the establishment executing its SSOP and HACCP systems under Code of 

Federal Regulations 9 CFR 416 and 417.
10

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF HIMP AND NON-HIMP 

ESTABLISHMENTS

A description of HIMP and non-HIMP inspection systems follows.

2.1 Inspection in HIMP and Non-HIMP Establishments 

Under the HIMP inspection system, one online carcass inspector (CI) and one offline verification 

inspector (VI) are assigned to each line. The online CI visually inspects every carcass at a fixed 

location on the evisceration line immediately prior to the chiller (See Figure 2-1), to insure that 

poultry products do not injure human health in any way because they ―consist in whole or part of 

any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance or is for any other reason unsound, unhealthy, 

unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food; Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) Sec. 

453(g)(3)‖ or ―has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may 

have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious of human 

health; PPIA Sec. 453(g)(4).‖ Carcass inspection is conducted much more efficiently under 

HIMP than under the non-HIMP inspection systems because establishment personnel have 

already sorted (i.e., removed from the evisceration line), trimmed, and reprocessed the carcasses, 

thereby removing most visible defects, before the online carcass inspector appraises them. More 

detail on the activities of the online and offline inspectors under HIMP is given in Appendix A.

Figure 2- 1 Flowchart for HIMP Inspection System

Establishment controls for food safety hazards reasonably likely to occur, for example critical 

control points (CCP) for Infectious Conditions (FS-1) or Fecal Material Contamination (FS-2),

can be located either before or after the FSIS carcass inspection. Sixty percent (12 

establishments) of the young chicken HIMP establishments have the CCP for FS-1 (Sep/Tox) 

before the CI and all 20 of the young chicken establishments have the CCP for FS-2 (fecal 

material) located after the CI. CIs do not create noncompliance records for visible fecal material 

when the CCP for fecal material is located after the CI. 

Under the current (non-HIMP) inspection, online food inspectors visually inspect every carcass, 

with its corresponding viscera, at a fixed location on the evisceration line immediately following 

separation of the viscera from the interior of the carcass (see Figure 2-2). Carcasses have not 

been sorted prior to the online inspection. The number of online inspectors is dependent on the 

type of inspection system (see 9 CFR 381.67 and 381.76). The FSIS offline inspectors collect 10 

bird samples at the end of the line prior to the chiller to reinspect carcasses that have passed FSIS 

online inspection and have been trimmed and washed by the establishment. Reinspection verifies 

Evisceration → Plant Sorting →Trim/Wash →FSIS offline Fecal, → FSIS online→ Chiller

 Sep/Tox, OCP Carcass 

 Verification Inspection 

 

 
11

Finished Product Standards program described in 9 CFR 381.76 (other consumer protections). 

The off line inspector also selects 10 bird samples to verify that the food safety standard (zero 

tolerance) for fecal contamination is being met.

Figure 2- 2 Flowchart for Traditional (Non-HIMP) Inspection Systems

2.2 Line Speed Estimation 

HIMP slaughter establishments are permitted to operate at higher line speeds than slaughter 

establishments operating under current inspection systems. To evaluate the impact of line speed 

on HIMP establishment performance, it is necessary to know line speeds in HIMP 

establishments. 

In 2010, FSIS through a contractor collected profile data on official establishments in order to 

populate the establishment profile data set in the Public Health Information System (PHIS) 

(Dynamac 2010). This profile data contains, among other things, information on the number of 

lines, line speeds, and the inspection system used by FSIS inspectors at establishments. In 2011 

FSIS conducted another survey on line speeds at poultry slaughter establishments. Line speeds in 

these two data sets agree in all but a few cases. However, many line speeds obtained from the 

survey are maximum permitted line speeds rather than average operating line speeds. 

To clarify line speeds, the annual average line speed at a young chicken slaughter establishment 

was calculated based on the establishment’s annual slaughter volume, hours of operation, and the 

number of evisceration lines. Appendix B presents a description of the methodology. 

The average line speeds at the 20 young chicken HIMP establishments vary from 88 to 180 birds 

per minute (bpm), with an average line speed of 131 bpm. The 64 non-HIMP comparison 

establishments have an average line speed of 115 birds per minute. 

2.3 Selection of Non-HIMP Comparison Establishments

Two sets of non-HIMP establishments were selected for comparison with the 20 HIMP 

establishments. The first was a subset of non-HIMP establishments selected to be similar to 

HIMP establishments with respect to total slaughter volume, line speeds, and geographic 

distribution. This set is selected to minimize confounding effects of volume, line speeds, and 

geographical distribution on comparisons of operating performance between HIMP 

establishments and traditionally inspected establishments. The second comparison set of 176 

establishments consists of all non-HIMP establishments that slaughtered young chickens in all 5 

years considered in the current study. A description of the selection process follows:

Evisceration → FSIS online → Trim/Wash → FSIS offline Fecal and → Chiller 

 Inspection OCP Verification 

 
12

Control Set of 64 Non-HIMP Establishments

o A set of all non-HIMP establishments with similar operating characteristics as 

HIMP establishments were selected. These are all non-HIMP establishments that 

operated in all 5 years of the study, had CY2010 production volumes greater than 

40 million head per year, had average lines speeds greater than 80 bpm, and 

operated in the same 7 districts as HIMP establishments. Note that the average 

lines speeds of the 64 non-HIMP comparison set do not completely overlap with 

those of HIMP establishments since line speeds in non-HIMP establishments are 

limited to 140 bpm, while HIMP establishments have line speeds up to 180 bpm. 

Comparison Set of 176 All Non-HIMP Establishments

o All non-HIMP slaughter establishments that slaughtered young chickens at some 

time in each of the years CY2006 to CY2010 were selected for the all non-HIMP 

comparison set. There are 176 establishments in the all non-HIMP comparison 

set. 

Table 2-1 presents a summary of the HIMP and two sets of comparison non-HIMP 

establishments. HIMP establishments have an average line speed of 131 birds per minute while 

the 64 non-HIMP comparison establishments have an average line speed of 115 birds per minute. 

Table 2- 1 Characteristics of Comparison Young Chicken Slaughter Establishments

Description Number of

Establishments

CY2010 Production 

Volumes

CY2010 Line 

Speeds

HIMP All HIMP 

establishments

20 38to 115million birds 88 to 180 bpm

NonHIMP Non-HIMP 

establishments 

with operating 

characteristics 

similar to 

HIMP 

establishments

64 40 to 110 million birds 81 to 140 bpm

All 

NonHIMP

All non-HIMP 

establishments 

that operated 

during the 5 

years of the 

study 

176 400 birds to 130 million 

birds

1 to 140 bpm

Table 2-2 presents a summary of the geographical distribution of the establishments. For both 

HIMP and comparison non-HIMP establishments, approximately 70% operate in the Southeast 

(Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, and West 

Virginia) and about 30% operate in the Southwest (Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas).
13

Table 2- 2 Geographical Distribution of HIMP and Comparison Non-HIMP 

Establishments

District Lawrence Springdale Dallas Beltsville Raleigh Atlanta Jackson

Number of 

HIMP

1 4 2 2 3 2 6

Number of 

Comparison 

Non-HIMP

4 12 6 4 11 13 15
14

3.0 RESULTS

This section presents a summary of FSIS inspection findings in HIMP establishments and 

compares them to inspection findings in a comparison set of 64 non-HIMP establishments or 

with FSIS HIMP performance standards, as appropriate. The findings are organized around the 

following four interrelated inspection activities:

1. Inspection of each carcass by on line FSIS inspectors to determine whether the carcass is 

not adulterated and therefore eligible to bear the mark of inspection

2. Verification, by off line inspectors, of the establishment’s execution of its HIMP process 

control plan, under which establishment employees sort acceptable and unacceptable 

carcasses and parts

3. Verification of the establishment executing its sanitation standard operating procedures 

(Sanitation SOP) and its Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system 

under 9 CFR Parts 416 and 417.

4. Verification of the outcomes of the establishment process control plan, both organoleptic 

and microbiologic

3.1 Inspection of Each Carcass by Online FSIS Inspectors to Determine 

Whether the Carcass is Not Adulterated and therefore Eligible to Bear the Mark 

of Inspection

An important issue that this HIMP report addresses is whether FSIS inspectors in young chicken 

slaughter establishments operating under HIMP are able to make a determination as to whether 

each carcass in not adulterated and therefore eligible to bear the mark of inspection. To address 

this issue, the HIMP report evaluates the ability of the FSIS online carcass inspector (CI) to 

detect carcasses affected with septicemia/toxemia and visible fecal contamination before the 

chiller. 

Data collected from April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2011, show that the CI in HIMP establishments 

found 125 carcasses affected with Septicemia/Toxemia and 26,815 carcasses with visible fecal 

contamination (see Tables 3-1 and 3-2). This data demonstrates that the CI in HIMP 

establishments is able to identify carcasses affected with Septicemia/Toxemia and visible fecal 

contamination. 

The findings of FSIS off-line verification inspector (VI) checks show that fewer than 8 per 1 

million carcasses (0.0008%) processed in HIMP establishments have septicemia/toxemia and 

that fewer than 8 per ten thousand carcasses (0.08%) processed in HIMP establishments have 

visible fecal contamination (Tables 3-1 and 3-2). These rates are lower than in the RTI baseline 

non-HIMP establishments. As the data above show, the CI in HIMP establishments further 

reduces the number of carcasses with septicemia/toxemia or visible fecal contamination. These 

data demonstrate the HIMP inspection system improves young chicken product food safety. 
15

Table 3-1 below compares the rate at which CIs and VIs in HIMP establishments detect

carcasses affected with Septicemia/Toxemia conditions. Table 3-2 compares the rate at which 

CIs and VIs detected carcasses with visible fecal contamination. 

Table 3- 1 Comparison of Sep/Tox Detection Rates for Carcass and Verification Inspectors

Number Sep/tox 

findings detected

CY2009-CY2010

Carcasses Inspected Sep/tox detection rate

Carcasses Inspectors 125 2.97E+09 0.000004%

Verification 

Inspectors

32 3.82E+06 0.0008%

Table 3- 2 Comparison of Fecal Detection Rates for Carcass and Verification Inspectors

Number fecal 

contaminations 

detected CY2009-

CY2010

Carcasses Inspected Fecal detection rate

Carcasses Inspectors 26,815 2.97E+09 0.0009%

Verification 

Inspectors

2,994 3.822E+06 0.08% 

These data demonstrate that, although CIs in HIMP establishments are presented with an 

extremely low rate of adulterated carcasses, they do detect and condemn carcasses affected with 

septicemia and toxemia, as well as carcasses with visible fecal contamination, before such 

carcasses enter the chiller, thereby reducing food safety defects to levels lower than found in the 

RTI baseline non-HIMP establishments.

3.2 Verification by Offline Inspectors of the Establishment Executing its HIMP 

Process Control Plan under which Establishment Employees Sort Acceptable 

and Unacceptable Carcasses and Parts

Under HIMP, employees of slaughter establishments sort carcasses on the slaughter line before 

they reach FSIS on-line inspectors. The sorted carcasses are expected to meet food safety and 

OCP performance standards. FSIS inspectors verify that plants are continuously achieving the 

required outcomes. This section address inspection activities in HIMP establishments related to 

verification by offline inspectors of the establishment executing its HIMP process control plan 

under which establishment employees sort acceptable and unacceptable carcasses and parts to 

achieve performance standards.

3.2.1 Offline Inspection Procedures per Establishment 

FSIS inspectors conduct offline inspection procedures in HIMP establishments to monitor for 

food safety and OCP defects, pathogen levels, and for compliance with federal sanitation and 

HACCP regulations. It is expected that the number of offline inspection procedures will be 

higher in HIMP than non-HIMP establishments and that the noncompliance rates will be lower. 

This will increase the confidence that HIMP establishments are complying with all federal 

regulations and are producing a safe and wholesome product.
16

This study focuses on 11 FSIS offline inspection procedures that apply to all poultry slaughter 

establishments. Each inspection procedure has an associated code and the procedures determine 

the type of inspection activities that FSIS personnel perform to verify compliance with specific 

regulatory requirements. The 11 inspection procedures considered in this HIMP study are:

Verify an establishment’s compliance with the sanitation SOP regulations in 9 CFR

416.11-416.16 (procedure codes 01A01, 01B01, 01B02, 01C01, 01C02); 

Verify compliance the HACCP regulations in 9 CFR part 417 (procedure codes 03A01, 

03J01, 03J02);

Verify compliance with relevant regulations for finished product standards (FPS) or 

OCPs and good commercial practices (procedure code 04C04); 

Verify compliance with generic E. coli testing requirements under 9 CFR 381.91 

(procedure code 05A01); and

Verify compliance with the Sanitation Performance Standards regulations in 9 CFR 

416.1-416.6 (procedure code 06D01). 

These procedures, which are further described in Appendix C, reflect FSIS verification activities 

related to, among other things, the establishment’s sanitary practices and HACCP 

implementation.

Because fewer inspectors are required to conduct online carcass inspection in HIMP 

establishments, FSIS is able to conduct more offline food safety related inspection activities.

Table 3-3 presents for CY2010 the ratio of the number of offline inspection procedures per 

establishment in HIMP and non-HIMP establishments for the 11 inspection procedures 

considered in this study. Overall, FSIS inspectors perform 1.6 times more of the 11 offline 

verification inspection procedures in HIMP establishments than in non-HIMP establishments.

This increased level of inspection insures that HIMP establishments are maintaining OCP- and 

food safety defects at levels that are less than in non-HIMP establishments and thereby 

producing a safer product. 

The number of 04C04 inspections in HIMP establishments in Table 3-3 appears to be less than in 

non-HIMP establishments. However, the number of 04C04 inspection procedures in HIMP and 

non-HIMP establishments is not directly comparable since they are counted differently. In HIMP 

plants, a minimum of 2 OCP 10 bird sample sets are conducted in a single shift and are counted 

as a single 04C04 inspection procedure. In non-HIMP plants, each 10 bird sample set is counted 

as a separate 04C04 inspection procedure. 

Table 3- 3 Ratios of Inspection Procedures per Establishment in HIMP to Non-HIMP for 

CY2010

Procedure 

Code1

20 HIMP Establishments

(Procedures/Establishment)

64 Non-HIMP Comparison 

Establishments

(Procedures/Establishment)

HIMP/Non-HIMP 

Ratio

01A01 3.4 3.7 0.9

01B01 140.3 148.7 0.9
17

01B02 98.0 110.9 0.9

01C01 259.2 272.5 1.0

01C02 294.8 299.0 1.0

03A01 2.5 1.9 1.3

03J01 10296.1 3027.5 3.4

03J02 287.0 259.4 1.1

04C04 2612.3 4447.4 0.6

05A01 0.2 1.3 0.2

06D01 142.2 151.5 0.9

Total for all 

11 

Procedures

14135.9 8723.7 1.6

1. See Appendix C for description of inspection procedure codes

Figure 3-1 presents the annual number of 03J inspections (03J01 plus 03J02) per establishment

for HIMP and non-HIMP establishments for CY2006-CF2010. The inspection activities under 

the 03J01 and 03J02 procedures include among other things, verification of food safety standards 

and all slaughter HACCP requirements. The majority of these activities involve verifying an 

establishment’s compliance with FSIS’s zero tolerance for visible fecal contamination. Figure 3-

1 indicates that HIMP establishments receive more 03J inspections than non-HIMP 

establishments and that the number of 03J inspections increases with establishment volume. 

Figure 3- 1 Annual Number of 03J Inspections as a Function of Volume for HIMP and 

Non-HIMP Comparison Establishments

3.2.2 FSIS Condemnation Rates and HIMP Establishment Sorting Rates

In non-HIMP establishments, FSIS condemnation rates are the number of carcasses condemned 

by FSIS on-line inspectors divided by the total number of young chickens slaughtered. This 

information is reported in the FSIS electronic Animal Disease Reporting System (eADRS). In 

y = 0.1531x

R2 = 0.5

y = 0.0486x

R2 = 0.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

03J Inpsections (10,000) 

20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Volume (Million Head)

HIMP

Non-HIMP

Total for 8 

SSOP and 

HACCP 

Procedures

60,112.10 20,140.88 3.0
18

the current non-HIMP inspection system, establishment employees are not allowed to proactively 

dispose of adulterated carcasses, since FSIS assumed this activity when federal inspection was 

first provided to the poultry industry.

Under HIMP, employees of slaughter establishments assume their responsibility to produce safe 

and wholesome products by sorting and disposing of non-complying carcasses before they reach 

the FSIS online carcass inspector positioned at the end of line to inspect each carcass. HIMP 

establishment employees dispose of non-complying carcasses at many locations both prior to and 

after the establishment sorting station. The number of carcasses disposed of at the sorting station 

is reported in the eADRS. However, carcasses disposed at other locations are not recorded. 

Table 3-4 presents a summary of the sorting rates for HIMP establishments and condemnation 

rates for the control set of non-HIMP establishments for the years CY2006 to CY2010. Sorting 

rates are determined by the number of carcasses disposed by establishment sorters divided by the 

total head slaughtered. Condemnation rates are computed as the ratio of heads condemned by 

FSIS inspectors divided by total production volume in heads. Appendix H presents more detailed 

information on sorting and condemnation rates for young chicken slaughter establishments for 

the years CY2006 to CY2010. 

The data show that sorting rates in HIMP establishments are less than condemnation rates in 

non-HIMP establishments. This is to be expected since reported sorting rates by HIMP 

employees do not provide a complete record of all birds removed. HIMP establishment 

employees are only required to report the number of birds sorted at sorting stations at the end of 

the evisceration line. Birds removed prior to the evisceration line or at locations other than 

sorting stations are not consistently recorded by industry and provided to FSIS for recording in 

eADRS. Despite the fact that soring and condemnation rates are not directly comparable, these 

rates are included in this report for completeness. However, they cannot be used to compare the 

effectiveness of sorting by HIMP establishments; instead FSIS verification inspection to 

determine compliance with HIMP performance standards for food safety and OCPs measures are 

used to determine the effectiveness of establishment sorting activities. The verification checks 

are performed randomly through a shift with approximately one ten-bird check per hour 

providing reliable data that sorting is effective.

Table 3- 4 Sorting and Condemnation Rates for HIMP and Non-HIMP Broiler 

Establishments

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Sorting Rates in 20 HIMP 

Establishments 0.27% 0.27% 0.45% 0.27% 0.23%

Condemnation Rates in 64 NonHIMP Establishments 0.42% 0.39% 0.39% 0.34% 0.30%

Condemnation Rates in 176 All 

Non-HIMP Establishments 0.45% 0.42% 0.40% 0.34% 0.30%
19

3.3 Verification of the Establishment Executing its Sanitation SOPs and its 

HACCP System under 9 CFR parts 416 and 417

This section addresses FSIS inspection activities related to verification that the HIMP 

establishment is executing its sanitation standard operating procedures (SSOP) and its hazard 

analysis and critical control point (HACCP) system under Code of Federal Regulations 9 CFR 

416 and 417.

3.3.1 Offline Inspection Procedures Performed

The sanitation SOP regulations in 9 CFR 416 and the HACCP regulation in 9 CFR 417 are 

among the regulations most strongly related to public health. Sanitation standard operating 

procedures are written procedures than an establishment develops to prevent contamination or 

direct contamination of product. The establishment must maintain daily records sufficient to 

document implementation and monitoring of sanitation SOPs and any corrective actions taken. 

There are eight inspection procedure associated with activities that FSIS inspectors perform to 

verify compliance with the sanitation SOP and HACCP regulations. These are 01A01, 01B01, 

01B02, 01C01, 01C02, 03A01, 03J01, and 03J02. In CY2010, FSIS inspectors performed 

approximately 2.8 more offline procedures to verify compliance with sanitation SOP and 

HACCP regulatory requirements in HIMP than in non-HIMP establishments. FSIS inspectors 

also performed 3.4 more 03J01 procedures in CT2010 in HIMP than in non-HIMP 

establishments (see Table 3-3 above). 03J01 procedures verify food safety standards and 

HACCP requirements in slaughter establishments.

Thus, FSIS verification inspectors are performing more verification of slaughter HACCP

requirements including food safety (infectious and fecal) verification checks in HIMP than in 

non-HIMP establishments. This insures that HIMP establishments continuously meet food safety 

performance standards and HACCP regulations. Under HIMP, FSIS inspectors are able to spend 

more time on HACCP prevention-oriented inspections and better protect the public from 

foodborne diseases.

3.3.2 Public Health Non-Compliance Rates

FSIS inspection program personnel perform inspection procedures in federally-inspected 

establishments each day to verify that the establishments are executing their SSOP and HACCP 

system under 9 CFR 416 and 417. A noncompliance record (NR) is a written record that 

documents noncompliance with FSIS regulations. It is expected that noncompliance rates will be 

lower in HIMP than non-HIMP establishments since establishments assume more responsibility 

for their production processes. This will increase the confidence that HIMP establishments are 

complying with all federal regulations and are producing a safe and wholesome product. 

In 2007 FSIS categorized its regulations according to potential public health significance and

identified 61 out of 565 possible regulations most strongly related to public health (FSIS 2007). 

NRs documenting noncompliance with these regulations are referred to as health-related or 

―W3NRs.‖ For purposes of this report, the terminology ―health-related‖ will be used. The rate at 

which an establishment fails to meet these health-related requirements and receives a healthrelated noncompliance is considered by FSIS to be an indication of the establishment’s inability 

to control its production process and risk.
20

Eleven inspection procedures are utilized by FSIS inspectors in all poultry slaughter 

establishments. They are 01A01, 01B01, 01B02, 01C01, 01C02, 03A01, 03J01, 03J02, 04C04, 

05A01 and 06D01. See Appendix C for a description of these inspection procedures and 

associated codes. The number of inspection procedures performed and the number of healthrelated NRs issued were determined for each procedure code for each of the years CY2006 to 

CY2010 for each HIMP and control sets of non-HIMP establishments.

Table 3-5 presents a summary of the health-related noncompliance rates for these establishments. 

The health-related noncompliance rate for an inspection procedure code is calculated by dividing 

the total number of health-related NRs associated with that procedure code by the total number 

of inspection procedures performed under that procedure code. There is no statistical difference 

between HIMP establishments and non-HIMP establishments for the majority of the procedure 

codes. Health-related noncompliance rates for HIMP establishments were statistically lower or 

were not statistically different for 47 HIMP/non-HIMP comparisons in Table 3-5 and the rates 

were statistically higher for 3 comparisons. These data demonstrate that HIMP establishments 

are meeting all food safety and HACCP sanitation and process control regulations designed to 

insure that establishments are producing safe and wholesome products. Appendix C presents 

further detail on the health-related noncompliance analysis.

Table 3- 5 Health-Related Noncompliance Rates for HIMP and Non-HIMP Broiler Establishments

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Proc

Code1

HIMP 

Broiler 

Estab.

Non-HIMP 

Comparison 

Broiler 

Estab.

HIMP 

Broiler 

Estab.

Non-HIMP 

Comparison 

Broiler 

Estab.

HIMP 

Broiler 

Estab.

Non-HIMP 

Comparison 

Broiler 

Estab.

HIMP 

Broiler 

Estab.

Non-HIMP 

Comparison 

Broiler 

Estab.

HIMP 

Broiler 

Estab.

Non-HIMP 

Comparison 

Broiler 

Estab.

01A01 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.42%

01B01 0.47% 0.57% 0.17% 0.24% 0.31% 0.52% 0.00% 0.04% 0.07% 0.02%

01B02 1.67% 1.97% 1.60% 1.82% 2.71%* 1.30% 0.52%* 1.36% 0.05% 0.10%

01C01 0.74%* 0.40% 0.27%* 0.44% 0.40% 0.50% 0.17% 0.27% 0.29% 0.33%

01C02 2.08%* 1.47% 1.64% 1.61% 1.25%* 1.74% 1.12% 1.11% 0.25% 0.37%

03A01 0.00% 1.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%

03J01 1.01%* 1.26% 0.79%* 1.35% 0.96%* 1.43% 0.98%* 1.40% 0.78%* 1.62%

03J02 0.80% 0.95% 0.61% 0.61% 0.67% 0.87% 0.89% 0.77% 0.33%* 0.55%

05A01 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

06D01 0.07% 0.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

* indicates a statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level. 

1. See Appendix C for description of procedure code

Table 3-6 presents a summary of the health-related noncompliance rates by process code for the 

5 years of combined CY2006 to CY2010 data. Health-related noncompliance rates at HIMP 

establishments are not statistically different or are statistically lower for all procedure codes.

These data again demonstrate that HIMP establishments are satisfying all food safety and 

HACCP sanitation and process control regulations designed to insure that establishments are

producing safe and wholesome products.
21

Table 3- 6 Five Year Average Health-Related NR Rates for HIMP and Non-HIMP Broiler 

Establishments

Procedure Code1

HIMP Broiler 

Establishments

Non-HIMP Comparison 

Broiler Establishments

01A01 0.00% 0.09%

01B01 0.21% 0.28%

01B02 1.33% 1.33%

01C01 0.38% 0.39%

01C02 1.27% 1.27%

03A01 0.00% 0.39%

03J01 0.90%*

1.41%

03J02 0.67% 0.75%

05A01 0.00% 0.00%

06D01 0.02% 0.03%

 * indicates a statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level. 

1. See Appendix C for description of procedure codes

3.3.3 Fecal Contamination

Under the HIMP system, FSIS inspectors conduct off-line verification checks for fecal 

contamination 8 times per day per line, which is four times more frequently than under 

traditional inspection. FSIS inspectors also inspect each carcass at the end of the slaughter line 

for fecal contamination and have affected carcasses removed and condemned.

The current report analyzes fecal contamination rates for HIMP and non-HIMP comparison 

establishments for the years CY06 to CY10. The fecal NR rate was computed as the number of 

fecal contamination NRs divided by the sum of the number of 03J01 and 03J02 procedures 

performed. The fecal NR rates at HIMP establishments are statistically lower than those in both 

the control set of non-HIMP establishments and the all non-HIMP comparison set for all the 

years considered (Table 3-7). The rate of visible fecal material contamination on carcasses in 

HIMP establishments is about half that in non-HIMP establishments. Since in slaughter 

establishments, fecal contamination of carcasses is the primary avenue for contamination by 

pathogens, it is expected that that pathogen rates (e.g. Salmonella positive rates) should be lower 

in HIMP establishments.

Table 3- 7 Fecal NR Rates at HIMP and Non-HIMP Comparison Establishments

HIMP Non-HIMP

Comparison 

Establishments

All Non-HIMP

Establishments

2006 0.70% 1.10% 1.07%

2007 0.59% 1.21% 1.17%

2008 0.67% 1.25% 1.26%

2009 0.65% 1.25% 1.20%

2010 0.73% 1.49% 1.40%
22

To further analyze the fecal NR rates in HIMP and non-HIMP establishments, the number of 

fecal NRs was regressed against the HIMP dummy variable (denoting whether an establishment 

is HIMP or control non-HIMP), production volume and the number of 03J procedures. The 

purpose of the analysis is to determine the influence of production volume and number of 03J 

procedures on the number of fecal NRs and fecal NR rates. The analysis shows that (a) there is 

not a statistically significant difference between HIMP and non-HIMP with respect to the 

number of fecal NRs after adjusting for number of 03J01 and 03J02 procedures performed, (b) 

fecal NR rates are statistically significantly lower in HIMP establishments than non-HIMP 

establishments after adjusting for production volume, and (c) production volume is not a 

statistically significant predictor of fecal NR rates. Appendix D presents the details of the 

negative binomial regression for fecal NR rates. 

It is expected that the rate of visible fecal contamination on carcasses in HIMP establishments 

will not depend on line speeds. To evaluate the effect of line speeds on fecal NR rates, a negative 

binomial regression was performed using CY2010 data since that is the only year for which lines 

speeds are available. There is no statistical difference in fecal NR rates between establishments 

with different line speeds. Appendix E presents the details of the negative binomial regression 

for fecal NR rates and line speeds. The analysis indicates that increased line speeds in HIMP 

establishments are not having a negative impact on visible fecal contamination rates. 

3.4 Verification of the Outcomes of the Establishment Process Control Plan, 

both Organoleptic and Microbiologic

This section addresses FSIS inspection activities related to verification of the organoleptic and 

microbiologic outcomes of the establishment process control plan.

3.4.1 Food Safety Performance Standards

FSIS has a zero tolerance policy for food safety conditions involving infectious conditions (e.g., 

Septicemia/Toxemia) and fecal material contamination. FSIS developed food safety performance 

standards (FS-1 and FS-2) for these conditions set at the 75th percentile of what was achieved 

under the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) baseline study (see Appendix A for discussion of 

performance standards). A comparison of young chicken HIMP establishment performance with 

HIMP food safety performance standards is given in Table 3-8. The analysis is based on FSIS 

food safety inspection findings for the 2 year period April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2011. 

Performance standards for HIMP establishments provide a scientifically valid measure by which 

changes in food safety data can be assessed (Hargis et al. 2002).

Septicemia/Toxemia food safety conditions in HIMP establishments are below 8 per million 

carcasses, which is 125 times less than the HIMP performance standard (Table 3-8). Fecal 

material contamination levels are below 8 per ten thousand carcasses, which is about 19 times 

less than HIMP performance standards.

Table 3- 8 HIMP Achievement of Food Safety Performance Standards at Young Chicken 

Establishments
23

Defect Categories Performance Standards 

Based on Traditional 

Inspection

(% of carcasses) 

HIMP Establishment Performance 

During FSIS Offline Inspector 

Verification Checks 

(% of carcasses)

Food Safety 1

Condition- Infectious

(e.g., Septicemia, 

toxemia)

0.1%* 0.0008% ± 0.002%

Range 0.0 – 0.008%

Food Safety 2

ContaminationDigestive Content

(e.g., fecal material)

1.5% * 0.08% ± 0.05%

Range 0.008 – 0.17% 

* FSIS has a zero tolerance policy for Food Safety 1 & 2

Period of data collection: April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2011

Despite the low rate of food safety defects in HIMP establishments, it is expected that FSIS 

carcass inspectors will detect and remove remaining food safety defects, thereby lowering the 

rate of food safety defects even further. In the HIMP system, the FSIS online CI is positioned at 

the end of the production process just before the chiller, making the inspector well positioned to 

find adulterated carcasses. Evaluation of the FSIS online CI findings over the past 2 years (April 

1, 2009 to March 31, 2011) show that the CI can inspect sufficiently to detect adulterated 

carcasses, both FS-1 and FS-2, in young chicken HIMP establishments. At the carcass inspection 

station, the CI found 125 carcasses affected with infectious conditions and 26,815 carcasses 

affected with visible fecal material (Tables 3-9 and 3-10). 

The CI detection rates for Sep/tox and for fecal findings are calculated by dividing the number of 

affected carcasses by slaughter volume minus the number of condemned carcasses or the total 

number of carcasses sampled; respectively. For Sep/tox, the CI detected affected carcasses at a 

rate of 0.000004% (or 4 per 100 million carcasses inspected). For fecal contamination the CI 

detected affected carcasses at a rate of 0.0009% (or 9 per million carcasses inspected). Although 

these rates are low, they provide evidence that the carcass inspector can inspect sufficiently to 

detect adulterated carcasses. 

The FSIS offline VI detection rates for Sep/tox and for fecal findings are calculated by dividing 

the number of affected carcasses by number of verification inspections (80 per line per shift per 

days of production), which is 4 times greater in HIMP than in non-HIMP establishments. For the 

2 year period considered, the VIs found 32 carcasses affected with Sep/tox and 2,994 carcasses 

affected with visible fecal material (Tables 3-9 and 3-10). For Sep/tox, the VIs detected affected 

carcasses at a rate of 0.0008% (or 8 per million carcasses slaughtered). For fecal material, the 

VIs detected affected carcasses at a rate of 0.08% (or 8 per ten thousand carcasses inspected). It 

is important to note that the VI removes their sampled carcasses from the evisceration line for 

inspection, and conducts an examination and inspection of each bird for up to one minute each

which allows for possibly greater identification of food defects than CIs. 

Table 3- 9 Comparison of Sep/Tox Detection Rates for Carcass and Verification Inspectors
24

Number Sep/tox 

findings detected

CY2009-CY2010

Carcasses Inspected Sep/tox detection 

rate

Carcasses Inspectors 125 2.97E+09 0.000004%

Verification 

Inspectors

32 3.82E+06 0.0008%

Table 3- 10 Comparison of Fecal Detection Rates for Carcass and Verification Inspectors

Number fecal 

contaminations 

detected CY2009-

CY2010

Carcasses Inspected Fecal detection rate

Carcasses Inspectors 26,815 2.97E+09 0.0009%

Verification 

Inspectors

2,994 3.822E+06 0.08%

The data demonstrate that while fewer adulterated poultry carcasses are presented to the 

inspector in HIMP establishments, FSIS carcasses inspectors can inspect sufficiently to detect

adulterated carcasses. 

3.4.2 Other Consumer Protection Performance Standards

Other consumer protection (OCP) standards are non-food safety standards concerned primarily 

with carcass appearance. FSIS developed OCP performance standards for HIMP establishments 

and monitors HIMP establishment performance to verify that OCP performance standards are 

being met. It is expected that HIMP establishments maintain OCP defects at levels below the 

OCP performance standards. OCP performance standards provide a scientifically valid measure 

by which changes in food safety and other consumer protection data can be assessed (Hargis et 

al. 2002).

A comparison of young chicken HIMP establishment performance with OCP HIMP performance 

standards is given in Table 3-11 (see Appendix A for discussion of HIMP performance 

standards). The analysis is based on FSIS food safety inspection findings for the 2 year period 

January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010. 

For the two year period CY2009 through CY2010, FSIS verification data show that OCP defect 

levels average about half the corresponding OCP performance standards. It is emphased that 

FSIS verification of OCP defect levels occurs before the CI is presented with the carcass. It is 

expected that FSIS carcass inspection will result in further reductions in OCP levels. 

Table 3- 11 HIMP Achievement of OCP Performance Standards at Young Chicken 

Establishments

Performance Standards HIMP Establishment
25

Based on Non-HIMP 

Inspection (% of carcasses)

Performance During FSIS 

Inspector Verification 

Checks (% of carcasses ± 

one standard deviation)

OCP 1

Condition-Animal Diseases

(e.g., airsacculitis) 

1.7% 0.38% ± 0.36%

Range 0.0-1.25%

OCP 2

Condition- Miscellaneous

(e.g., bruises, sores, and other 

processing defects)

52.5% 34.1% ± 9.3%

Range 18.2- 49.9%

OCP 3

Contamination-Digestive 

Content

(e.g., ingesta)

18.6% 6.3% ± 4.3%

Range 0.25 – 15.2% 

OCP 4

Dressing Defects- Other

(e.g., feathers)

80.0% 66.4% ± 10.4%

Range 41.2 – 80.2% 

OCP 5

Dressing Defects- Digestive 

Tract Tissue

(e.g., bursa, cloaca)

20.8% 9.8% ± 4.0% 

Range 3.2 – 15.8%

Period of data collection: CY2009 through CY2010

It is expected that the increased line speeds in HIMP establishments will not result in an increase 

rate of OCP defects on carcasses. Poisson and negative binomial regressions were evaluated for 

utility in analyzing OCP rates versus line speeds. It was decided to use negative binomial 

regression. The analysis shows that there is no statistically significant difference in OCP2 –

OCP5 rates between HIMP establishments with different line speeds. OCP1 rates do show a 

positive correlation with line speeds, but the model with line speed does not fit significantly 

better than random chance (i.e., the null model without line speeds). The analysis suggests that 

increased line speeds in HIMP establishments are not having a negative impact of OCP defect 

levels. 

One OCP condition that is difficult for online carcass inspectors to identify is avian leucosis, a 

viral disease that affects chickens. Avian leukosis is not transmissible to humans and does not 

present a human health concern. However, it may render poultry carcasses and viscera 

unwholesome (as do other OCPs). Therefore, it is important to identify its presence in poultry 

intended to receive the USDA official inspection legend. Avian visceral leukosis cannot be 

identified through a carcass inspection alone, but rather is detected by observing the viscera.

Accordingly, in the young chicken HIMP establishments a FSIS offline inspector observes the 

carcass and corresponding viscera of the first 300 birds slaughtered of each flock to evaluate the 

leukosis status of the flock. 

It is common commercial practice to vaccinate each flock of chickens for viral leukosis. On rare 

occasions, the vaccine is not effective. If it is not, visceral leukosis is present throughout the 
26

entire flock. In the young chicken HIMP establishments, the first 300 birds slaughtered of each 

flock are observed to evaluate the leukosis status of the flock. Based on this analysis, the 

Inspector in Charge (IIC) or Supervisory Public Health Veterinarian (SPHV) decides whether a 

flock is designated as positive for leukosis and may expand the sample size, if necessary. If a 

flock is found to be positive, a FSIS offline inspector inspects each viscera for visceral leukosis 

only at a location where it can be identified with the carcass until all carcasses in the flock have 

been slaughtered. It is FSIS experience that when a flock has avian visceral leukosis, 10 to 15 

percent of the birds in the flock have detectable leukosis lesions. For a flock in which 10% of the 

birds have detectable avian leukosis, a 300 bird sample provides a greater than 95% probability 

of detecting 22 or greater birds with visible leukosis lesions. Thus a 300 bird sample is adequate 

to detect avian leucosis in a flock. 

3.4.3 Salmonella Positive Rates

FSIS uses data from its Salmonella verification testing programs to verify that establishments are 

meeting their regulatory obligations. The Agency believes that the higher the percent positive 

rate, the greater the potential for the public to consume a product that may cause foodborne 

illness. 

Table 3-12 presents a summary of the Salmonella percent positive rates for HIMP and the 

control set of 64 non-HIMP establishments for the years CY2006 to CY2010. In CY2006-

CY2008, the Salmonella positive rate in HIMP establishments was statistically significantly 

lower than in the non-HIMP comparison set and there was no statistically significant difference 

in the years CY2009 and CY2010. The Salmonella positive rate in HIMP establishments was 

statistically significantly lower than in the all non-HIMP comparison set for CY2006 to CY2009. 

There was no statistically significant difference in CY2010. Appendix F presents further detail 

on the Salmonella verification testing results for young chicken slaughter establishments for the 

years CY2006 to CY2010.

Table 3- 12 Salmonella Percent Positive Rates for HIMP and Non-HIMP Broiler 

Establishments

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

20 HIMP Broiler Establishments 9.0% 5.8% 4.2% 4.9% 4.7%

64 Non-HIMP Comparison 

Establishments 10.8% 8.5% 7.3% 4.3% 4.0%

176 All Non-HIMP Establishments 11.1% 8.1% 7.6% 6.8% 4.7%

It is expected that the increased line speeds in HIMP establishments will not result in increased

Salmonella positive rates. To evaluate the effect of line speeds on Salmonella positive rates, a

negative binomial regression was performed on Salmonella positive rates versus line speed. The 

analysis shows that there is no statistical difference in the Salmonella positive rate between 

establishments with different line speeds. This analysis it is based on the 10 HIMP 

establishments with Salmonella testing during CY2010. The line speeds for these 10 

establishments ranged from 98 to 162 bpm. Appendix E presents the details of the negative 

binomial regression for Salmonella and line speed. The analysis indicates that increased line 

speeds in HIMP establishments are not having a negative impact on Salmonella positive rates. 
27

4.0 DISCUSSION

In October 1999, FSIS began the HIMP project to determine whether new government slaughter 

inspection procedures, in conjunction with new plant responsibilities, could improve food safety

in slaughter establishments. Under HIMP, employees of slaughter establishments sort carcasses 

before they reach FSIS on-line inspectors, making an initial determination whether they are 

unacceptable, allowing the on-line inspector to focus on fewer food-safety issues. This approach 

is consistent with HACCP where industry rather than federal inspectors is responsible for 

identifying steps in food production where food safety hazards are most likely to occur and for 

establishing controls that prevent or reduce them. Currently, there are 20 young chicken; 5 young 

turkey, and 5 market hog slaughter establishments participating in HIMP. This report focuses on 

the 20 young chicken slaughter establishments in HIMP. 

4.1 Previous Evaluations of HIMP Performance 

Prior to implementing the HIMP program, Research Triangle Institute (RTI) established a 

baseline level of performance in traditional (non-HIMP) young chicken slaughter establishments.

RTI collected thousands of samples from 16 young chicken slaughter establishments operating 

under existing inspection systems. The sampled birds had already passed FSIS online inspection, 

undergone trimming by establishment personnel to remove visible defects, and been determined 

by FSIS offline inspectors to be in compliance with FSIS Finished Product Standards. Based on 

this baseline level of performance, FSIS developed HIMP performance standards for two food 

safety and five Other Consumer Protection (OCP) non-food safety defects. 

The HIMP performance standards were set at the 75th percentile of what the 16 young chicken 

slaughter establishments were achieving under traditional inspection before they entered the 

HIMP program. To meet the HIMP performance standards, food safety and OCP defects at 

HIMP establishments, after establishment employee sorting, will have to be 25 percent lower 

before FSIS carcass inspection than the corresponding levels in non-HIMP establishments after 

FSIS carcass inspection. 

To meet HIMP performance standards, HIMP establishments must reduce food safety 

(Septicemia/Toxemia and fecal) and OCP defects in carcasses to levels less than found in the 

RTI baseline non-HIMP plants after carcasses have passed FSIS carcass inspection. And these 

lower levels of carcass defects must be achieved before the FSIS carcass inspector in HIMP 

establishments inspects the carcasses. To verify that FSIS carcass inspectors are being presented 

with carcasses satisfying the HIMP performance standards, FSIS verification inspectors check 80 

birds per line per shift for food safety defects and between 20 and 50 birds per line per shift for 

OCP defects each day. 

RTI conducted an initial evaluation of the performance of HIMP chicken slaughter 

establishments in 2001 (Cates et al. 2002). That evaluation found that young chicken slaughter 

establishments under HIMP performed as well as or better than they did before beginning the 

HIMP program. Subsequent verifications over the time periods Sep 18, 2000 – April 30, 2001, 
28

Sep 18, 2000 - Sep 30, 2002 and July 14, 2003 - December 31, 2004 confirmed that HIMP plants 

were meeting HIMP performance standards (FSIS 2001, 2002, 2008a). These studies 

demonstrated that HIMP young chicken slaughter establishments were performing as well or 

better than young chicken slaughter establishments under traditional inspection systems. 

The present study updates these studies based on data for the years CY2006 through CY2010, 

with exceptions where earlier data are not available. The evaluation compares the 20 HIMP 

young chicken establishments with established HIMP performance standards or with a 

comparison set of 64 non-HIMP establishments selected to be comparable with HIMP 

establishments with respect to production volume, lines speed, and geographical distribution.

Performance metrics used in the comparison of HIMP and non-HIMP establishments are 

presented in Table 4-1. This table presents the data used in comparing HIMP and non-HIMP 

establishments and why it was selected. It is expected that HIMP establishments will perform at 

least as well or better than non-HIMP plants with respect to these performance metrics. 

Table 4- 1 Performance Metrics for Comparing HIMP and Non-HIMP Establishments

Performance Metrics for Comparing HIMP 

and Non-HIMP Establishments

Justification for Metric

Food Safety Metrics

Septicemia and toxemia rates 

Visible Fecal contamination rates

FSIS has zero tolerance for food safety defects

Component of FSIS performance standards for HIMP 

plants 

Food safety metrics provide a scientifically valid 

measure by which performance of HIMP establishments 

can be evaluated (Hargis et al. 2002)

Other Consumer Protection Metrics Component of FSIS performance standards for HIMP 

plants

OCP defects at high levels can render carcasses 

unwholesome

OCPs provide a scientifically valid measure by which 

performance of HIMP establishments can be evaluated 

(Hargis et al. 2002)

Offline Inspection Procedures 

Number of offline inspection procedures

Rate of health-related regulatory noncompliances

Offline inspections verify sanitation and HACCP 

process control plans and whether the plant is meeting 

relevant carcass performance standards

Regulatory non-compliances are indicators of process 

control 

Increasing offline inspection procedures results in lower 

Salmonella positive rates (FSIS 2008b)

Salmonella Positive Rates Salmonella on carcasses poses a potential risk to 

consumers
29

4.2 Food Safety Performance Standards

Food safety performance standards are an accepted means of evaluating the food safety 

performance of HIMP establishments (Hargis et al. 2002). FSIS has a zero tolerance policy for 

food safety conditions involving infectious conditions (e.g., Septicemia/ Toxemia) and fecal 

material contamination. However, for the purpose of comparison of performance between HIMP 

and non-HIMP establishments, FSIS developed food safety performance standards (FS-1 and FS2) for these conditions set at the 75th percentile of what was achieved under the RTI baseline 

study. 

The FSIS offline inspectors check 80 birds per day for each line and each shift for

Septicemia/Toxemia and for fecal findings. The National Alliance for Food Safety determined 

that food safety performance standards provide a scientifically valid measure by which 

performance of HIMP establishments can be evaluated (Hargis et al. 2002).

Since the inception of HIMP in 1999, HIMP plants have consistently maintained food safety 

defects at levels less than the FSIS food safety performance standards. For the period CY2009 

through CY2010, toxemia and septicemia food safety conditions in HIMP establishments are 

below 8 per million carcasses, which is 125 times less than HIMP performance standards.

Fecal contamination levels are below 8 per ten thousand carcasses, which is about 19 times less 

than HIMP performance standards.

This means that level of food safety (infectious and fecal) carcass defects achieved in HIMP 

establishments before the FSIS carcass inspector in HIMP establishments inspects the carcasses 

is at least 19 times lower than levels found in the RTI baseline non-HIMP plants after carcasses 

have passed FSIS carcass inspection. 

Table 4- 2 HIMP Achievement of Food Safety Performance Standards 

Food Safety 

Performance 

Standards 

(% of 

carcasses)

HIMP Plant 

Performance

9/00-4/011

HIMP Plant 

Performance

9/00-9/022

HIMP Plant 

Performance 

2009-2010

FS-1 Infectious 

Conditions

(e.g., Septicemia, 

toxemia)

0.1%* 0.001% 0.003% 0.008%

FS-2 Digestive 

Content Contamination 

(e.g., fecal material)

1.5%* 0.1% 0.1% 0.08%

* FSIS has a zero tolerance policy for Food Safety 1 & 2

1. Fourteen young chicken HIMP establishments post redesign (see FSIS 2001)

2. Twenty one young chicken HIMP establishments post redesign (see FSIS 2002b)

Table 4-2 compares Septicemia/Toxemia rates in HIMP establishments with food safety 

performance measures. Another comparison that can be made is to compare 2009-2010 

Septicemia/Toxemia rates in HIMP establishments with Septicemia/Toxemia rates in non-HIMP 
30

establishments in the same time period. Table 4-3 presents Septicemia/Toxemia rates in nonHIMP plants for the years 2006 to 2010. While Septicemia/Toxemia detection rates in nonHIMP establishments have declined over time, they are still higher than the performance 

standards for Septicemia/Toxemia in HIMP establishments (see Table 4-2). The rate at which 

FSIS offline verification inspectors detect Septicemia/Toxemia defects in HIMP establishments 

is about 14 times less than FSIS inspectors detect Septicemia/Toxemia in non-HIMP 

establishments. 

Assuming that the incoming rate of Septicemia/Toxemia defects on birds is about the same in 

both HIMP and non-HIMP establishments, this indicates that HIMP establishment employees are 

effective at removing (sorting) birds with Septicemia/Toxemia defects before they are presented 

to FSIS carcass and offline inspectors. 

Table 4- 3 Septicemia/Toxemia Rates in HIMP and Non-HIMP Establishments

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

20 HIMP Broiler Establishments 0.008%

64 Non-HIMP Comparison Broiler 

Establishments 0.17% 0.14% 0.13% 0.12% 0.11%

167 All Non-HIMP Broiler 

Establishments 0.19% 0.17% 0.15% 0.13% 0.12%

In addition to comparing fecal contamination rates in HIMP establishments with performance 

standards, fecal noncompliances in HIMP establishments can be compared with those in nonHIMP establishments. In slaughter establishments, fecal contamination of carcasses is the 

primary avenue for contamination by pathogens. Therefore, FSIS enforces a ―zero tolerance‖ 

standard for visible fecal material on poultry carcasses. 

Over the time period CY06 to CY10, the rates of visible fecal contamination on young chicken 

carcasses at HIMP establishments average about 50 percent lower than those in both the control 

set of non-HIMP establishments and the all non-HIMP comparison set (Table 3-7). 

This analysis confirms that HIMP establishments are meeting all food safety performance 

standards and have statistically significantly less visible fecal contamination on carcasses than do 

non-HIMP establishments. 

4.3 Other Consumer Protection (OCP) Standards

FSIS established five performance standards for OCP non-food safety concerns in HIMP 

establishments. Non-compliance with OCP concerns does not constitute a food safety issue, but 

it may result in unwholesome product. The National Alliance for Food Safety determined that 

OCP performance standards provide a scientifically valid measure by which performance of 

HIMP establishments could be evaluated (Hargis et al. 2002).

Since the inception of HIMP, HIMP plants have consistently maintained OCP defect levels less 

than FSIS OCP performance standards. For the two year period CY2009 through CY2010, 
31

HIMP plants have maintained OCP defect levels that average about half the corresponding OCP 

performance standards (Table 4-4). 

Table 4- 4 HIMP Achievement of OCP Performance Standards 

Performance 

Standards 

Based on NonHIMP 

Inspection (% 

of carcasses)

HIMP 

Establishment 

Performance

2000-20011

HIMP 

Establishment 

Performance

2000-20022

HIMP 

Establishment 

Performance 

2009-2010 

(% of carcasses 

± one standard 

deviation)

OCP 1

Condition-Animal 

Diseases

(e.g., airsacculitis) 

1.7% 1.0% 1.1% 0.38% ± 0.36%

Range 0.0-1.25%

OCP 2

ConditionMiscellaneous

(e.g., bruises, 

sores, and other 

processing 

defects)

52.5% 26.3% 26.9% 34.1% ± 9.3%

Range 18.2-

49.9%

OCP 3

ContaminationDigestive Content

(e.g., ingesta)

18.6% 9.6% 10.0% 6.3% ± 4.3%

Range 0.25 –

15.2% 

OCP 4

Dressing DefectsOther

(e.g., feathers)

80.0% 54.4% 60.8% 66.4% ± 10.4%

Range 41.2 –

80.2% 

OCP 5

Dressing DefectsDigestive Tract 

Tissue

(e.g., bursa, 

cloaca)

20.8% 7.0% 8.1% 9.8% ± 4.0% 

Range 3.2 –

15.8%

1. See FSIS (2001)

2. See FSIS (2002b)

This analysis confirms that HIMP establishments are meeting all OCP performance standards.

This means that the level of OCP carcass defects achieved in HIMP establishments before the 

FSIS carcass inspector in HIMP establishments inspects the carcasses is lower than levels found 

in the RTI baseline non-HIMP plants after carcasses have passed FSIS carcass inspection. 
32

4.4 Offline Inspection Procedures

FSIS inspectors conduct offline inspection procedures in HIMP establishments to ensure

compliance with mandatory food safety standards and federal regulations. These inspection

procedures include monitoring for food safety and OCP defects, pathogen levels, and for 

compliance with federal sanitation and HACCP regulations. It is expected that the number of 

offline inspection procedures will be higher in HIMP than non-HIMP establishments and that the

noncompliance rates will be lower. This will increase the confidence that HIMP establishments 

are complying with all federal regulations and are producing a safe and wholesome product. 

The FSIS risk assessment on poultry slaughter inspection (FSIS 2008b) found that increasing the 

number of offline inspection procedures, especially sanitation, HACCP, and sampling 

procedures, should reduce Salmonella positive levels in establishments. Because fewer 

inspectors are required to conduct online carcass inspection under HIMP, FSIS is able to conduct 

more offline inspection activities. 

Overall, FSIS inspectors perform 1.6 times more total offline verification inspection procedures

and 3 times more sanitation and HACCP inspection procedures in HIMP establishments than in 

non-HIMP establishments (see Table 3-3). These procedures include verifying compliance with 

both OCP- and food safety-related regulations. 

Since FSIS inspectors perform more offline verification inspection procedures in HIMP plants, 

the FSIS poultry slaughter risk assessment predicts that Salmonella positive rates should be 

lower in HIMP plants. The data indicate that Salmonella positive rates in HIMP establishments 

average about 80% those in non-HIMP establishments (see below and Table 3-12).

Health-related non-compliance rates provide an indication of the effectiveness of establishment 

process control. When considered over CY2006 to CY2010, health-related non-compliance rates

at HIMP plants are not statistically different or are statistically lower for all comparable 

procedure codes. 

This analysis confirms that HIMP establishments are complying with federal regulations as well 

or better than non-HIMP establishments. Since the majority of offline inspection procedures in 

young chicken slaughter establishments involve verifying sanitation and HACCP regulations, 

HIMP plants are complying with federal sanitation and HACCP regulations as well as or better 

than non-HIMP plants.

4.5 Salmonella Positive Rates

Salmonella in raw product is not an adulterant, but however does pose a potential health risk to 

consumers. FSIS estimates that Salmonella on young chicken carcasses causes about 170,000 

illnesses each year (FSIS 2011). The principal effect of verifying Salmonella levels on young 

chicken carcasses is to encourage industry to produce a safer product.

Salmonella positive rates in HIMP establishments average about 80% those in non-HIMP 

establishments. Salmonella positive rates at HIMP establishments were not found to be related to 
33

line speed. FSIS believes that lower Salmonella positive rates result in fewer public health 

impacts (FSIS 2011). 

This analysis confirms that HIMP establishments have equal or lower Salmonella positive rates 

than non-HIMP establishments.

4.6 Carcass-By-Carcass Inspection

A key issue that this report addresses is whether FSIS inspectors in young chicken slaughter 

establishments operating under the HIMP inspection system are able to make a determination as 

to whether each carcass is not adulterated and therefore eligible to bear the mark of inspection. 

The data show that as a result of industry practices, such as carcass sorting activities, very few 

adulterated poultry carcasses are presented to inspectors stationed at the end of the slaughter line 

in HIMP establishments (see Tables 4-2 and 4-4). The number of carcasses with septicemia or 

toxemia that arrive at the online carcass inspector location is very low (less than 8 carcasses with 

infectious conditions per million carcasses processed), as is the number of carcasses with visible 

fecal contamination (less than 8 carcasses with fecal contamination per 10,000 carcasses). The 

low rate at which adulterated carcasses are presented for inspection under HIMP allows FSIS 

inspectors to inspect sufficiently to determine whether each carcass is not adulterated.

If the frequency of defects exceeds the carcass inspector’s ability to inspect each carcass, he or 

she can request the Inspector in Charge to perform addition food safety verification checks and 

or reduce the line speed. Under traditional (non-HIMP) carcass inspection, the inspector visually 

inspects each carcass, its corresponding viscera, and physically touches each carcass to look 

inside. HIMP establishment carcass inspection is a visual carcass inspection of the carcass of 

each bird that eliminates the time required for the hand motion associated with touching the 

carcass. Carcass inspection under HIMP takes less time than under traditional inspection. 

Evaluation of carcass inspector food safety findings for the most recent 2 year period (April 2009 

to April 2011) shows that HIMP carcass inspectors can inspect sufficiently to detect both 

infectious conditions (FS-1) and visible fecal material (FS-2) adulterated carcasses in young 

chicken HIMP establishments. Although defect levels presented to the carcass inspector are low 

(125 and 19 times less than HIMP performance standards for sep/tox and fecal contamination, 

respectively), the HIMP carcass inspector detects carcasses with infectious conditions at a rate of 

4 per 100 million carcasses slaughtered and visible fecal contamination at a rate of 9 per million

carcasses slaughtered. The FSIS carcass inspectors can inspect sufficiently to detect adulterated 

carcasses. 

Because under the HIMP system, the online inspector is positioned at the end of the slaughter 

line and just before the immersion chiller, he or she is well-positioned to prevent carcasses with 

fecal contamination from entering the chiller and to protect consumers from adulterated 

products. They see birds after the establishment’s interventions have been applied to verify that 

the carcasses are free of food safety defects. 
34

Before implementing the HIMP program, FSIS established food safety and non-food safety 

performance standards as a means for measuring the performance of slaughter establishments 

operating under the new HIMP inspection procedures (see Appendix A). Performance standards 

provide a scientifically valid measure by which changes in food safety and OCP data can be 

assessed (Hargis et al. 2002). HIMP establishments have consistently maintained food safety 

defect levels at least a factor of 10 less than the performance standards and OCP finding levels 

that average about half the corresponding OCP performance standards. 

Under the HIMP system, FSIS inspectors conduct off-line verification checks for fecal 

contamination four times more frequently than under traditional inspection. FSIS online 

inspectors also inspect each carcass at the end of the slaughter line for fecal contamination and 

have affected carcasses removed and condemned. Evaluation of carcass inspector food safety 

findings data from April 2009 to April 2011 shows that the HIMP FSIS inspectors find and

remove carcasses with visible fecal material. In addition, fecal positive rates in HIMP 

establishments average about half those in non-HIMP establishments. 

As part of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of the HIMP models project 

(GAO 2001), 210 USDA inspectors and veterinarians were surveyed as to whether product 

safety was the same or better under HIMP system as compared to the traditional system. 

Seventy one percent of USDA inspectors and veterinarians surveyed indicated that product 

safety was the same or better under HIMP system as compared to the traditional system, and 

57% indicated that product quality was the same or improved. The National Alliance for Food 

Safety review (Hargis et al. 2002) agreed that the data indicated that the safety and quality of 

young chickens inspected under the HIMP system is either the same or improved as compared to 

the traditional system. The CY2009 to CY2010 data analyzed in the current report show that all 

HIMP establishments are meeting the food safety and OCP performance standards for HIMP.

In aggregate, these findings support that the on line inspectors in HIMP establishments are 

performing in a manner that enables them to properly inspect each carcass and, therefore, make 

the inspection to identify adulterated carcasses. The data demonstrate that while fewer 

adulterated poultry carcasses are presented to the inspector in HIMP establishments, FSIS 

carcasses inspectors can inspect sufficiently to find adulterated carcasses. 
35

5.0 CONCLUSION

This final report contains an evaluation of FSIS inspection findings in HIMP establishments and, 

as appropriate, compares those with established HIMP performance standards or with a 

comparison set of 64 non-HIMP establishments selected to be comparable with HIMP 

establishments with respect to production volume, lines speed, and geographical distribution. 

The evaluation confirms, in agreement with previous evaluations, that HIMP establishments are 

meeting all food safety and OCP HIMP performance standards. The HIMP performance 

standards are a stringent metric. To meet HIMP performance standards, HIMP establishments 

must reduce food safety (infectious and fecal) and OCP defects in carcasses to levels less than 

found in the RTI baseline non-HIMP plants after carcasses have passed FSIS carcass inspection. 

And these lower levels of carcass defects must be achieved before the FSIS carcass inspector in 

HIMP establishments inspects the carcasses. Compliance with HIMP performance standard 

means that HIMP establishments are reducing food safety and OCP defects in carcasses to levels 

less than or equal to levels in non-HIMP establishments. 

Fecal contamination rates and Salmonella positive rates are lower in HIMP than in non-HIMP 

establishments. FSIS believes that lower Salmonella positive rates result in fewer public health 

impacts (FSIS 2011). 

Because fewer inspectors are required to conduct online carcass inspection in HIMP 

establishments, FSIS is able to conduct more offline food safety related inspection activities.

HIMP establishments have higher compliance with SSOP and HACCP prevention practice 

regulations and lower levels of non-food safety defects, fecal defect rates, and Salmonella

verification testing positive rates than non-HIMP establishments. These data indicate that HIMP 

inspection provides improvements in food safety and other consumer protections.

A summary of results follows:

Toxemia/septicemia food safety conditions in HIMP establishments are below 8 per 

million carcasses, which is 125 times less than HIMP performance standards.

Toxemia/septicemia defect rates are about 14 times lower in HIMP than non-HIMP 

establishments.

Fecal contamination levels are below 8 per ten thousand carcasses, which is about 19 

times less than HIMP performance standards.

OCP conditions in HIMP establishments average about half the corresponding OCP 

performance standards. 

SSOP and HACCP systems in HIMP establishments function statistically better or not 

statistically different than comparison non-HIMP establishments for all comparable 

slaughter-related procedure codes. The rate of HACCP 03J01 health-related 

noncompliances in HIMP establishments is 1.6 times lower than in non-HIMP 

establishments.

The fecal NR rates at HIMP establishments are about half than those in non-HIMP 

establishments. Fecal NR rates are not found to be related to line speed.
36

Salmonella positive rates in HIMP establishments average about 80% those in non-HIMP 

establishments. Salmonella positive rates at HIMP establishments were not found to be 

related to line speed.

In aggregate, the findings support that the online inspectors in HIMP establishments are 

performing in a manner that enables them to properly inspect each carcass and, therefore, make 

the appraisals sufficient to identify adulterated carcasses. The data demonstrate that fewer 

adulterated poultry carcasses are presented to the inspector in HIMP establishments and that the 

FSIS carcasses inspector can perform in a manner that that enables them to properly inspect each

carcass. 

Given the low numbers of adulterated poultry carcasses presented to the inspector in HIMP 

establishments, the stability of line speeds in the HIMP pilot project, and the ability of the 

carcass inspector to personally inspect each and every carcass leaving the slaughter line, FSIS 

has determined that the addition of a second carcass inspector to each line would not further 

HIMP project objectives and is not necessary to meet statutory mandates.
37

6.0 REFERENCES

1. Cates SC, Anderson DW, Karns SA, Brown PA. Traditional versus hazard 

analysis and critical control point-based inspection: results from a poultry 

slaughter project. J Food Prot. 2001 64 (6):826-32.

2. Dynamac 2010, Establishment Profile Data Collection for PHIS, Dynamac 

Corporation, Rockville, MD, data collected in 2009 and 2010.

3. Federal Register 1997, Vol 62(111, HACCP-Based Meat and Poultry Inspection 

Concepts. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/fr/96-008N.htm

4. Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) 2011, Potential Public Health Impact of 

Salmonella and Campylobacter Performance Guidance for Young Chickens and 

Turkeys

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Potential_Public_Health_Impact_Sal_Campy_Perf

ormance_Guidance_Broilers_Turkeys_2011.pdf

5. Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) 2008a, Improvements for Poultry 

Slaughter Inspection: Appendix G – Other Consumer Protection Performance 

Standards

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/NACMPI/Feb2008/Slaughter_Appendix_G.pdf

6. Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) 2008b, FSIS Risk Assessment for Guiding 

Public Health-Based Poultry Slaughter Inspection

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Poultry_Slaughter_Risk_Assess_Jan2008.pdf

7. Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) 2007, Ranking of Non-Compliance Records 

(NR) Based on Public Health Significance. 

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/RBI_Ranking_of_NR.pdf

8. Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) 2002a, HACCP-Based Inspection Models 

Project: Baseline Results for Young Chickens. 

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Frame/FrameRedirect.asp?main=http://www.fsis.usda.g

ov/oa/haccp/baseline_broilers/index.htm Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) 

2002b, HIMP Redesign: Achievement of Performance Standards Young Chicken 

Plants http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Science/HIMP_Data/index.asp

9. Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) 2001, Redesign Achievement of 

Performance Standards in Young Chicken Plants

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/haccp/himp_update5.htm

10. General Accounting Office (GAO), 2001, FOOD SAFETY: Weaknesses in Meat

and Poultry Inspection Pilot Should Be Addressed Before Implementation

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0259.pdf

11. Hargis

, 

BM., Curtis PA, Johnson MG, and Williams JD 2002 Review of the 

HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project by the National Alliance for Food 

Safety Technical Team

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/nacmpi/Nov2002/Papers/NAFS97.pdf
38

7.0 APPENDICES

Appendix A - History of HIMP 

HIMP was developed by FSIS to test inspection models that produce a more flexible and 

efficient inspection system. A key element of HIMP is that establishment personnel are required 

to conduct carcass sorting activities before FSIS conducts online carcass inspection so that only 

carcasses that the establishment deems likely to pass inspection are presented to the carcass 

inspector. HIMP allows FSIS carcass inspectors to perform a carcass-by carcass inspection more 

efficiently and in less time than is the case where establishments have not sorted and trimmed 

carcasses before they are inspected. As a result, under HIMP, a single online carcass inspector is 

able to conduct an effective carcass-by-carcass inspection at higher line speeds, subject to the 

establishment’s ability to maintain continuous process control. Because fewer inspectors are 

required to conduct online carcass inspection, FSIS is able to conduct more offline food safety 

related inspection activities.

A-1 HIMP Inspection activities

Every HIMP establishment has an online CI and an offline VI. The online carcass inspector 

conducts a carcass-by-carcass appraisal before the carcasses enter the chiller. If the online 

carcass inspector observes any food safety hazards on any of the carcasses, such as the presence 

of septicemic or toxemic animal disease or fecal material, he or she stops the line to prevent the 

contaminated carcass from entering the chiller.

In addition to the online carcass inspector, one offline verification inspector is assigned for each 

evisceration line in HIMP establishments. The HIMP offline inspectors focus their attention on 

food safety related inspection activities, such as conducting HACCP and sanitation verification 

procedures and collecting samples for pathogen testing. The offline VI also verifies and 

evaluates the HACCP and OCP process control plans and determines whether the establishment

is meeting relevant regulatory requirements and performance standards.

The duties of the CI include:

Visually inspects each carcass on the line including the exterior of the carcasses as they 

are presented to see if they are adulterated

Identifies FS-1 or FS-2 affected carcasses defects

o If the CI is before the CCPs for Sep/Tox and fecal contamination and the CI 

identifies an FS-1 or FS-2 defect, he or she stops the evisceration line and has 

the carcass removed and documents each finding on a tally sheet, but does not 

write a NR.

o If the CI is after the CCPs for Sep/Tox and fecal contamination and the CI 

identifies an FS-1 or FS-2 defect, he or she stops the evisceration line and has 

the carcass removed, and writes an NR. 

Condemns carcasses with OCP defects that clearly exhibit condemnable conditions

The duties of the VI include: 
39

Conduct scheduled and unscheduled sampling by examining carcasses, selected in 10 bird 

sets before the CI position, to determine if the establishment is complying with relevant 

performance standards. 

Conduct eight 10-bird-sample sets per line for shift for FS-1 and FS-2 defects. If the VI finds 

a food safety defect (FS-1 or FS-2), he or she will document the noncompliance on a NR. 

Conduct OCP verification activities. The minimum number of OCP sample sets per line is 

two sets (20 birds) and the minimum number of birds per shift is 50. The VI writes an NR to 

document the failure of OCP-1 maximum limits.

Issue an NR, if at any point within the 25-day period the 25-day limit for OCP performance is 

exceeded for any OCP category. 

Assess the overall design and execution of all the establishment processes under its HACCP 

and process control procedures. 

Verify HACCP and process control plans and whether the plant is meeting relevant 

carcass performance standards.

A-2 HIMP Performance Standards

Under HIMP, FSIS has established performance standards for food safety (FS) and non-food 

safety defects (also known as OCP) found in young chickens, hogs, and turkeys. The food safety 

performance standards are set at zero to protect consumers from conditions that may be harmful. 

The OCP performance standards are set at the 75th percentile of what was achieved under the 

Research Triangle Institute (RTI) baseline study; thus, 25 percent of the establishments entering 

HIMP have to improve upon their baseline results in order to meet the more stringent standards. 

To develop the OCP performance standards, RTI collected thousands of samples from 16 young 

chicken slaughter establishments operating under the existing inspection systems. The sampled 

birds had already passed FSIS online inspection, undergone trimming by establishment personnel 

to remove visible defects, and been determined by FSIS offline inspectors to be in compliance 

with FSIS Finished Product Standards (FPS). Then, FSIS ranked the 16 establishments based on 

their performance under each of the five OCP categories. The performance standard for each 

OCP category was then established based on the performance level of the establishment 

representing the 75th percentile for that category (i.e., the performance level of the fourth-best 

performing establishment of each category). Thus, the OCP performance standards represent a 

reduction from the highest prevalence of defects found in product that had passed the FPS. 

Participating establishments must revise their HACCP systems to meet these food safety 

performance standards and establish process control systems to address the OCP concerns.

No food safety or non-food safety defects are acceptable to FSIS. HIMP is an effort to reduce

and eliminate defects that pass through traditional inspection. Under HIMP inspection, FSIS 

inspectors check for fecal contamination and other organoleptic food safety defects four times 

more frequently than under the traditional system to ensure that performance standards are met.

A-3 HIMP Pilot Project Litigation 

In June 1997 FSIS sought public comment on the proposed HIMP inspection model project. 

Under the HIMP inspection system proposed at that time, FSIS did not plan to have fixed FSIS 

inspection stations on slaughter lines. Instead, FSIS inspectors would provide oversight at the 

slaughter lines and verification that establishments were properly implementing HACCP, among 

other things.
40

In April 1998, the FSIS inspectors’ union filed suit in the United States District Court to enjoin 

the USDA from proceeding with the pilot project, on the grounds that it violated the Federal 

Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. section 604, and the Poultry Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. 

section 455, by not requiring federal government officials to perform carcass-by-carcass 

postmortem inspections. 

In September 1999, U.S, District Court ruled the proposed HIMP pilot project did not violate the 

requirements of the federal meat and poultry inspection statutes. In June 2000, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that delegating the task of inspecting 

carcasses to establishment employees violated the acts because both statutes require that federal 

inspectors, rather than private employees, determine whether a product is adulterated. 

As a result of this ruling, in September 2000, FSIS redesigned the pilot project and placed at 

least one FSIS inspector back at a fixed location on each slaughter line to inspect each carcass

and determine whether it is adulterated. In January 2001, the United States Court of Appeals ruled 

that the redesigned HIMP pilot project satisfied the requirements of the federal meat and poultry 

inspection statutes.

A-4 Research Triangle Institute Study

The purpose of the HIMP pilot study was to determine if HIMP establishments could provide a 

level of safety and quality equal to or better than traditionally inspected slaughter establishments. 

To obtain data with which to evaluate the performance of HIMP establishments, FSIS contracted 

with Research Triangle Institute (RTI) to gather baseline data on the performance of traditional 

young chicken slaughter establishments. Between 1998 and 2000 and prior to young chicken 

slaughter establishments beginning to operate under HIMP, RTI conducted a study of 16 young 

chicken establishments to establish baseline organoleptic and microbial levels at traditional 

young chicken slaughter establishments. Based on baseline information, FSIS developed and 

published performance standards on November 2, 2000 that allow for evaluation of HIMP 

establishment food safety and other consumer protection performance relative to traditional 

inspection systems. 

After the HIMP program began and during the period September of 2000 to December of 2001, 

RTI collected microbial and organoleptic data in the 16 young chicken establishments in the 

HIMP pilot study to determine their performance relative to the performance standards 

established in November 2000. HIMP establishment performance for FS-1 or FS-2 was less 

than 0.003% and 0.1% for carcasses with defects for FS-1 and FS-2, respectively, compared to 

the performance standards of 0.1% and 1.5%, respectively, which are based on performance at 

non-HIMP establishments. HIMP establishment OCP performance was also consistently below 

OCP performance standards. 

The RTI study concluded that inspection under the new models is equivalent and in some ways 

superior to that of traditional inspection (Cates et al. 2001). The pilot project suggested that the 

HIMP inspection system can maintain or improve food safety and other consumer protection 

conditions relative to traditional hands-on inspection methods.
41

A-5 National Alliance for Food Safety Review

In 2002 a technical review team selected by the National Alliance for Food Safety under contract 

with FSIS reviewed results of the RTI study. The review team consisted of nationally and 

internationally recognized experts in the area of poultry microbiology, food safety, poultry 

health, poultry processing, and statistical evaluation. The results of the National Alliance for 

Food Safety review were published in Hargis et.al. (2002). The review team determined that the 

overall design and methodology of the RTI study were generally appropriate, and were perhaps 

the best available options to allow for comparison of organoleptic data between the traditional 

and HIMP systems. The Hargis et al. (2002) report found that the RTI data showed marked 

improvement in the organoleptic defect scores of carcasses processed under the HIMP model 

system as compared to the baseline data collected under the traditional system. 
42

Appendix B - Line Speed Methodology

It is possible to calculate annual average line speed at young chicken slaughter establishments 

from an establishment’s annual slaughter volume, hours of operation, and the number of 

evisceration lines as follows:

The annual slaughter volume and total annual hours of operation for each shift and 

weekday of operation are obtained from the electronic Animal Disease Reporting System 

(eADRS). For each shift and weekday of operation, the total heads slaughtered per 

minute can be calculated by dividing the annual heads slaughtered by the annual duration 

of operation in minutes.

Average heads slaughtered per minute is calculated by averaging the above, usually 10, 

numbers (5 days and 2 shifts). Saturdays and Sundays are excluded since they generally 

have smaller volumes.

An average line speed is computed by dividing the heads slaughtered per minute by the 

number of lines obtained from the PHIS establishment profile dataset (Dynamac 2010).

The calculated line speed is compared with lines speeds from the 2011 line speed survey 

and the PHIS establishment profile to provide a reality check. 

The data presented in Table B-1 can be used to illustrate the process (This is data for a single 

establishment). The table gives the annual heads slaughtered as a function of the day of the week 

(2= Monday and 7= Saturday) and shift. The table also gives the start and end time of each 

weekday of operation, from which the duration of slaughter operations can be calculated. In most 

cases, slaughter establishments work an 8.5 hour shift that includes two 15 minute breaks. Thus, 

most slaughter establishments actually slaughter 8 hours per shift. The 8 hours of slaughter time 

is converted to 480 minutes. Sometimes the night shift operates on slightly different hours. The 

actual hours of operation for each establishment are used in the calculation of slaughter rates for 

that establishment. 

To obtain the slaughter rate for a given shift and day of the week, the annual heads slaughtered 

for each shift/day of the week combination is divided by the days per year of slaughter 

operations to yield heads slaughtered per shift per day. This is then divided by the slaughter time 

in minutes (480 in example Table A-1) for that shift/day of the week to obtain the heads 

slaughtered per minute for a given shift/day of the week. The slaughter rates on Saturdays are not 

calculated because of the lack of data on hours of operation and the low slaughter volumes on 

Saturdays. The 10 slaughter rates for each of the 2 shifts and 5 days of the week are then 

averaged to obtain an average slaughter rate in heads per minute. 
43

Table B- 1 Example Data Used to Compute Slaughter Rates

shift Day of 

week

Start 

Time of 

Shift

Stop 

Time of 

Shift

Slaughter 

time in min

Heads 

Slaughtered

Days per 

year of 

Slaughter

Slaughter 

rate

(bpm)

1 2 600 1430 480 7812867 48 319.153

1 3 600 1430 480 8443243 51 324.615

1 4 600 1430 480 8224615 50 322.534

1 5 600 1430 480 8344310 51 320.812

1 6 600 1430 480 8130976 50 318.862

1 7 . 1990439 13 .

2 2 1500 2330 480 7761714 48 317.063

2 3 1500 2330 480 8199549 51 315.246

2 4 1500 2330 480 8097335 50 317.543

2 5 1500 2330 480 8140068 50 319.218

2 6 1500 2330 480 7968529 50 312.491

2 7 . 1398501 10 .

To covert average heads slaughtered per minute into an average line speed it is necessary to 

know the number of evisceration lines in operation at each establishment. The number of lines is 

obtained from the establishment profile dataset (Dynamac 2010). The calculated line speeds are 

then compared with line speeds from the 2011 survey and the establishment profile dataset and 

an estimate made of the most likely number of lines at each establishment. Based on the most 

likely number of lines, the most likely line speed is estimated. Table B-2 presents a summary of 

the line speeds for the HIMP and non-HIMP establishments. 

Table B-2 Summary of Line Speeds for HIMP and Non-HIMP Establishments

Number of 

Establishments

CY2010 

Production 

Volumes

CY2010 

Number of Lines

CY2010 

Line Speeds

HIMP 20 38.8 to 115.7 

million birds

1 to 5 88 to 180 bpm

NonHIMP 64 41.2 to 108.4 

million birds

2 to 6 81 to 140 bpm
44

Appendix C- W3NR Non-Compliance Rates

C-1—Procedures Codes

FSIS inspectors perform inspection verification procedures to verify that establishments are 

executing their sanitation standard operating procedures (SSOP) and hazard analysis and critical 

control point (HACCP) system as specified under federal regulations 9 CFR 416 and 9 CFR 417. 

Table C-1 presents a summary of the 11 procedure codes considered in this study along with the 

associated health-related (W3NR) federal regulation numbers.

Table C- 1 Procedure Code Description

Procedure 

Code

Description Associated RegNbrs

01A01 Verify that establishment has met regulations for 

development or maintenance of sanitation 

standard operating procedures (SSOP)

416.15(a), 416.15(b)

01B01 Pre-operational review of establishment’s SSOP 

records to verify daily documentation of 

implementation and monitoring of SSOP 

procedures and required corrective actions. 

310.22(b), 310.22(d)(2), 

416.15(a), 416.15(b), 430.4(a), 

430.4(b)(1), 430.4(b)(2), 

430.4(b)(3)

01B02 Pre-operational review and observation of SSOP 

including implementation and monitoring, 

maintenance, corrective actions, and 

recordkeeping. Observe sanitation conditions; 

check one or more areas to ensure establishment 

is clean.

310.22(b), 310.22(d)(2), 

416.15(a), 416.15(b), 416.4(d), 

430.4(a), 430.4(b)(1), 

430.4(b)(2), 430.4(b)(3)

01C01 Review establishment’s operational SSOP 

records to verify that the regulatory requirements 

for operational sanitation are met. Ensure 

monitoring activities are conducted at required 

frequency, that the corrective actions are 

initiated to prevent direct contamination, and 

that records are being authenticated. 

01C02 The 01C02 procedure is for operational SSOP 

verification. It is the same as the 01B02 

procedure except that it is conducted during 

operations. It inspects one or more areas of the 

establishment to ensure procedures are effective 

in preventing direct contamination or other 

adulteration of product, observes the 

establishment perform the monitoring 

procedures, and compares finding to what the 

establishment has documented.

310.22(b), 310.22(d)(2), 

416.15(a), 416.15(b), 416.4(d), 

430.4(a), 430.4(b)(1), 

430.4(b)(2), 430.4(b)(3), 

03A01 Determine establishment met regulation 

requirements for development and 

implementation of hazard analysis critical 

381.94(b)(3)(ii), 417.3(a)(1), 

417.3(a)(2), 417.3(a)(3), 

417.3(a)(4), 417.3(b)(1), 
45

control point (HACCP) Plan(s) 417.3(b)(2), 417.3(b)(3), 

417.3(b)(4), 417.3(c), 417.4(a), 

417.6

03J01 Verify one or more HACCP requirements for 

monitoring, verification, and recordkeeping at a 

slaughter establishment. The 03J01 procedure is 

designed to provide a ―snapshot‖ of the HACCP 

system. A 03J01 noncompliance necessitates 

performing a 03J02 procedure. 

FSIS Directive 5000.1

301.2(1)_Adulterated, 

301.2(1)_E.coli_O157:H7, 

301.2(1)_L.monocytogenes, 

301.2(1)_Salmonella, 

301.2(2)_Adulterated, 

301.2(3)_Adulterated, 

301.2(4)_Adulterated, 

301.2(4)_Foreign_Material, 

301.2(6)_Adulterated, 

301.2(9)_Adulterated, 309.3, 

309.4, 309.9, 310.22(b), 

310.22(d)(2), 310.25(a), 

310.25(b), 311.16, 311.17, 

318.14(a), 

381.1(i)_Adulterated, 

381.1(i)_E.coli_0157:H7, 

381.1(i)_L.monocytogenes, 

381.1(i)_Salmonella, 

381.1(ii)_Adulterated, 

381.1(iii)_Adulterated, 

381.1(iv)_Adulterated, 

381.1(iv)_Foreign_Material, 

381.1(vi)_Adulterated, 

381.144(a), 381.151(a), 

381.65(e), 381.83, 381.91(a), 

381.94(b)(3)(ii), 417.3(a)(1), 

417.3(a)(2), 417.3(a)(3), 

417.3(a)(4), 417.3(b)(1), 

417.3(b)(2), 417.3(b)(3), 

417.3(b)(4), 417.3(c), 417.4(a), 

417.6

03J02 Verify all HACCP requirements at all critical 

control points in the HACCP establishment for a 

specific production. Verify that the pre-shipment 

review requirements for that specific production 

have been met. 

FSIS Directive 5000.1

301.2(1)_Adulterated, 

301.2(1)_E.coli_O157:H7, 

301.2(1)_L.monocytogenes, 

301.2(1)_Salmonella, 

301.2(2)_Adulterated, 

301.2(3)_Adulterated, 

301.2(4)_Adulterated, 

301.2(4)_Foreign_Material, 

301.2(6)_Adulterated, 

301.2(9)_Adulterated, 309.3, 

309.4, 309.9, 310.22(b), 

310.22(d)(2), 310.25(b), 
46

311.16, 311.17, 318.14(a), 

381.1(i)_Adulterated, 

381.1(i)_E.coli_0157:H7, 

381.1(i)_L.monocytogenes, 

381.1(i)_Salmonella, 

381.1(ii)_Adulterated, 

381.1(iii)_Adulterated, 

381.1(iv)_Adulterated, 

381.1(iv)_Foreign_Material, 

381.1(vi)_Adulterated, 

381.144(a), 381.151(a), 

381.65(e), 381.83, 381.91(a), 

381.94(b)(3)(ii), 417.3(a)(1), 

417.3(a)(2), 417.3(a)(3), 

417.3(a)(4), 417.3(b)(1), 

417.3(b)(2), 417.3(b)(3), 

417.3(b)(4), 417.3(c), 417.4(a), 

417.6

04C04 Verify that poultry slaughter establishments 

comply with the relevant regulations for poultry 

finished product standards and good commercial 

practices for poultry slaughter 

381.1(i)_Adulterated, 

381.1(i)_E.coli_0157:H7, 

381.1(i)_L.monocytogenes, 

381.1(i)_Salmonella, 

381.1(ii)_Adulterated, 

381.1(iii)_Adulterated, 

381.1(iv)_Adulterated, 

381.1(iv)_Foreign_Material, 

381.1(vi)_Adulterated, 381.78, 

381.91(a)

05A01 Review establishment E. Coli records to 

determine maintained accuracy in accord with 

regulation—verifies compliance with the basic 

regulatory requirements for E. coli testing in 

slaughter establishments.

310.25(a), 310.25(b), 

381.91(a)

06D01 Verify compliance with Sanitation Performance 

Standards requirements -- addresses the manner 

in which establishments must be operated and 

maintained to prevent the creation of insanitary 

conditions, thereby ensuring that insanitary 

conditions are not created, and that product is 

not adulterated.

310.22(b), 310.22(d)(2), 416.1, 

416.4(d)

C-2—W3NR Rate Year by Year Analysis

This appendix presents the W3NR rates for eleven (11) procedure codes and the fecal 

contamination regulation 381.65(e) W3NR rate for young chicken slaughter establishments for 

each of the years CY2006 to CY2010. There is no statistical difference between HIMP 

establishments and Non-HIMP establishments for the majority of the process codes. W3NR rates 
47

for HIMP establishments were statistically lower or were not statistically different for 49 entries 

in Table C-2 and the rates were statistically higher for 6 entries.

Table C- 2 W3NR Rates for Each Procedure Code by Year

CY2006 

HIMP

Non-HIMP 

Comparison 

Establishment

s

All NonHIMP 

Establishment

s

HIMP/ NonHIMP 

Comparison

HIMP/ All 

Non-HIMP

Number of Establishments 20 64 176

01A01Number W3NRs - - - No difference No Difference

01A01Number Procedures 77 263 528

01A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

01B01Number W3NRs 14 55 97 No difference No Difference

01B01Number Procedures 2,952 9,577 25,234

01B01W3NR Rate 0.47% 0.57% 0.38%

01B02 Number W3NRs 35 149 264 No difference No difference

01B02 Number Procedures 2,102 7,572 20,365

01B02 W3NR Rate 1.67% 1.97% 1.30%

01C01 Number W3NRs 40 73 209 HIMP Greater 

pvalue=0.0014

HIMP Greater 

pvalue=0.0374 01C01Number Procedures 5,405 18,309 40,330

01C01 W3NR Rate 0.74% 0.40% 0.52%

01C02 Number W3NRs 123 308 513 HIMP greater 

pvalue=0.0009

HIMP greater

pvalue<0.0001 01C02Number Procedures 5,913 21,022 45,076

01C02 W3NR Rate 2.08% 1.47% 1.14%

03A01 Number W3NRs - 1 2 No difference No difference

03A01Number Procedures 41 58 118

03A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 1.72% 0.016949153

03J01Number W3NRs 2,360 2,257 4,105 HIMP less 

pvalue<0.0001

HIMP less 

pvalue<0.0001 03J01Number Procedures 233,595 179,342 333,996

03J01 W3NR Rate 1.01% 1.26% 1.23%

03J02 Number W3NRs 60 160 290 No difference No difference

03J02 Number Procedures 7,544 16,919 34,983

03J02 W3NR Rate 0.80% 0.95% 0.83%

05A01Number W3NRs - - - No difference No difference

05A01Number Procedures 22 93 238

05A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

06D01 Number W3NRs 3 15 25 No difference No difference

06D01Number Procedures 4,441 11,279 25,572

06D01 W3NR Rate 0.07% 0.13% 0.10%
48

CY2007 

HIMP

Non-HIMP 

Comparison 

Establishment

s

All NonHIMP 

Establishment

s

HIMP/ NonHIMP 

Comparison

HIMP/ All 

Non-HIMP

Number of Establishments 20 64 176

01A01Number W3NRs - - 1 No difference No difference

01A01Number Procedures 63 240 542

01A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0.00% 0.18%

01B01Number W3NRs 5 22 51 No difference No difference

01B01Number Procedures 2,866 9,326 24,590

01B01W3NR Rate 0.17% 0.24% 0.21%

01B02 Number W3NRs 34 139 209 No difference HIMP greater

pvalue=0.0101 01B02 Number Procedures 2,130 7,625 20,931

01B02 W3NR Rate 1.60% 1.82% 1.00%

01C01 Number W3NRs 14 80 183 No difference No difference

01C01Number Procedures 5,209 18,019 40,265

01C01 W3NR Rate 0.27% 0.44% 0.45%

01C02 Number W3NRs 95 330 509 No difference HIMP greater 

pvalue=0.0008 01C02Number Procedures 5,790 20,500 45,005

01C02 W3NR Rate 1.64% 1.61% 1.13%

03A01 Number W3NRs - - 1 No difference No difference

03A01Number Procedures 62 82 224

03A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0 0.45%

03J01Number W3NRs 1,764 2,510 4,594 HIMP less 

pvalue<0.0001

HIMP less 

pvalue<0.0001 03J01Number Procedures 224,564 185,311 346,569

03J01 W3NR Rate 0.79% 1.35% 1.33%

03J02 Number W3NRs 34 103 221 No difference No difference

03J02 Number Procedures 5,530 16,947 36,055

03J02 W3NR Rate 0.61% 0.61% 0.61%

05A01Number W3NRs - - - No difference No difference

05A01Number Procedures 1 36 88

05A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

06D01 Number W3NRs - - - No difference No difference

06D01Number Procedures 2,913 11,014 24,864

06D01 W3NR Rate 0 0.00% 0.00%
49

CY2008 

HIMP

Non-HIMP 

Comparison 

Establishment

s

All NonHIMP 

Establishment

s

HIMP/ NonHIMP 

Comparison

HIMP/ All 

Non-HIMP

Number of Establishments 20 64 176

01A01Number W3NRs - - - No difference No difference

01A01Number Procedures 70 228 411

01A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

01B01Number W3NRs 9 47 58 No difference No difference

01B01Number Procedures 2,865 8,970 23,637

01B01W3NR Rate 0.31% 0.52% 0.25%

01B02 Number W3NRs 55 102 143 HIMP higher 

pvalue<0.0001

HIMP higher 

pvalue<0.0001 01B02 Number Procedures 2,029 7,870 20,950

01B02 W3NR Rate 2.71% 1.30% 0.68%

01C01 Number W3NRs 21 88 158 No difference No difference

01C01Number Procedures 5,281 17,442 39,969

01C01 W3NR Rate 0.40% 0.50% 0.40%

01C02 Number W3NRs 68 335 467 HIMP less 

pvalue=0.0126

No difference

01C02Number Procedures 5,432 19,286 43,799

01C02 W3NR Rate 1.25% 1.74% 1.07%

03A01 Number W3NRs - - 5 No difference No difference

03A01Number Procedures 74 161 411

03A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0.00% 1.22%

03J01Number W3NRs 2,087 2,673 4,977 HIMP less 

pvalue<0.0001

HIMP less 

pvalue<0.0001 03J01Number Procedures 218,315 186,981 347,703

03J01 W3NR Rate 0.96% 1.43% 1.43%

03J02 Number W3NRs 38 140 194 No difference No difference

03J02 Number Procedures 5,661 16,166 35,352

03J02 W3NR Rate 0.67% 0.87% 0.55%

05A01Number W3NRs - - - No difference No difference

05A01Number Procedures 4 36 109

05A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

06D01 Number W3NRs - - - No difference No difference

06D01Number Procedures 2,596 10,363 23,482

06D01 W3NR Rate 0 0.00% 0.00%
50

CY2009 

HIMP

Non-HIMP 

Comparison 

Establishment

s

All NonHIMP 

Establishment

s

HIMP/ NonHIMP 

Comparison

HIMP/ All 

Non-HIMP

Number of Establishments 20 64 176

01A01Number W3NRs - - - No difference No difference

01A01Number Procedures 49 203 377

01A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

01B01Number W3NRs - 4 10 No difference No difference

01B01Number Procedures 2,631 9,144 23,831

01B01W3NR Rate - 0.04% 0.04%

01B02 Number W3NRs 10 107 127 HIMP less 

pvalue=0.0024

No difference

01B02 Number Procedures 1,915 7,853 20,365

01B02 W3NR Rate 0.52% 1.36% 0.62%

01C01 Number W3NRs 9 48 87 No difference No difference

01C01Number Procedures 5,293 17,563 39,643

01C01 W3NR Rate 0.17% 0.27% 0.22%

01C02 Number W3NRs 62 211 322 No difference HIMP greater 

pvalue=0.0026 01C02Number Procedures 5,522 18,963 43,331

01C02 W3NR Rate 1.12% 1.11% 0.74%

03A01 Number W3NRs - - - No difference No difference

03A01Number Procedures 63 99 262

03A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0 0

03J01Number W3NRs 2,050 2,614 4,663 HIMP less 

pvalue<0.0001

HIMP less 

pvalue<0.0001 03J01Number Procedures 210,170 186,883 344,353

03J01 W3NR Rate 0.98% 1.40% 1.35%

03J02 Number W3NRs 48 125 203 No difference HIMP greater 

pvalue=0.0077 03J02 Number Procedures 5,405 16,186 34,901

03J02 W3NR Rate 0.89% 0.77% 0.58%

05A01Number W3NRs - - - No difference No difference

05A01Number Procedures 6 51 111

05A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

06D01 Number W3NRs - - - No difference No difference

06D01Number Procedures 2,675 10,335 23,316

06D01 W3NR Rate 0 0.00% 0.00%
51

CY2010 

HIMP

Non-HIMP 

Comparison 

Establishment

s

All NonHIMP 

Establishment

s

HIMP/ NonHIMP 

Comparison

HIMP/ All 

Non-HIMP

Number of Establishments 20 64 176

01A01Number W3NRs - 1 1 No difference No difference

01A01Number Procedures 67 237 489

01A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0.42% 0.20%

01B01Number W3NRs 2 2 6 No difference No difference

01B01Number Procedures 2,806 9,514 24,511

01B01W3NR Rate 0.07% 0.02% 0.02%

01B02 Number W3NRs 1 7 11 No difference No difference

01B02 Number Procedures 1,960 7,095 19,190

01B02 W3NR Rate 0.05% 0.10% 0.06%

01C01 Number W3NRs 15 58 79 No difference No difference

01C01Number Procedures 5,184 17,440 40,089

01C01 W3NR Rate 0.29% 0.33% 0.20%

01C02 Number W3NRs 15 71 104 No difference No difference

01C02Number Procedures 5,896 19,137 44,300

01C02 W3NR Rate 0.25% 0.37% 0.23%

03A01 Number W3NRs - 1 2 No difference No difference

03A01Number Procedures 49 119 320

03A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0.01 0.63%

03J01Number W3NRs 1,613 3,133 5,442 HIMP less 

pvalue<0.0001

HIMP less 

pvalue<0.0001 03J01Number Procedures 205,922 193,763 353,900

03J01 W3NR Rate 0.78% 1.62% 1.54%

03J02 Number W3NRs 19 92 140 HIMP less 

pvalue=0.0382

No difference

03J02 Number Procedures 5,740 16,601 35,646

03J02 W3NR Rate 0.33% 0.55% 0.39%

05A01Number W3NRs - - - No difference No difference

05A01Number Procedures 4 85 146

05A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

06D01 Number W3NRs - - - No difference No difference

06D01Number Procedures 2,844 9,696 22,401

06D01 W3NR Rate 0 0.00% 0.00%

C-3-- W3NR Rates by Procedure Code for the 5 years of combined CY2006 to CY2010 

Data
52

Table C-3 present the W3NR rate for each procedure code based on 5 years of CY2006 to 

CY2010 combined data. Thus, the number of W3NRs and inspection procedures for each code 

represents the total number over 5 years of inspection results. 

Table C- 3 W3NR Rates by Procedure Code for the 5 years of Combined CY2006 to 

CY2010

Chicken Only 

HIMP

Non-HIMP 

Comparison 

Establishments

All Non-HIMP 

Establishments

Chi Square p value

Number of Establishments 100 320 880

01A01Number W3NRs 0 1 2 

01A01Number Procedures 326 1,171 2,347 1.00*

01A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0.09% 0.09%

01B01Number W3NRs 30 130 222 

01B01Number Procedures 14,120 46,531 121,803 0.17

01B01W3NR Rate 0.21% 0.28% 0.18%

01B02 Number W3NRs 135 504 754 

01B02 Number Procedures 10,136 38,015 101,801 0.96

01B02 W3NR Rate 1.33% 1.33% 0.74%

01C01 Number W3NRs 99 347 716 

01C01Number Procedures 26,372 88,773 200,296 0.72

01C01 W3NR Rate 0.38% 0.39% 0.36%

01C02 Number W3NRs 363 1,255 1,915 

01C02Number Procedures 28,553 98,908 221,511 0.97

01C02 W3NR Rate 1.27% 1.27% 0.86%

03A01 Number W3NRs 0 2 10 

03A01Number Procedures 289 519 1,335 0.54*

03A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0.39% 0.75%

03J01Number W3NRs 9,874 13,187 23,781 

03J01Number Procedures 1,092,566 932,280 1,726,521 <0.0001

03J01 W3NR Rate 0.90% 1.41% 1.38%

03J02 Number W3NRs 199 620 1,048 

03J02 Number Procedures 29,880 82,819 176,937 0.15

03J02 W3NR Rate 0.67% 0.75% 0.59%

05A01Number W3NRs 0 0 0

05A01Number Procedures 37 301 692 

05A01 W3NR Rate 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

06D01 Number W3NRs 3 15 25 
53

06D01Number Procedures 15,469 52,687 119,635 0.78*

06D01 W3NR Rate 0.02% 0.03% 0.02%

* indicates p value is computed using Fisher Exact test

C-4—Negative Binomial Regression Statistics for W3NRs Rates by Procedure Code for 5 

Years of Combined Data

To normalize for the slaughter volumes and the number of process code procedures, a negative 

binomial regression analysis was performed for each procedure code using 5 years of data. The 

number of W3NRs was regressed against a dummy variable denoting whether a establishment

was HIMP or control non-HIMP and the production volume for the 5 years of combined data for 

CY2006 to CY2010. The number of 03J inspections was used as an offset variable. 

The results are shown in Table C-4. W3NR rates at HIMP establishments are not statistically 

different or are statistically lower for all procedure codes except 04C04. The procedure code 

04C04 verifies non-food safety consumer protection regulatory requirements and is performed at 

different rates in HIMP and non-HIMP establishments. 

Table C- 4 Regression Statistics for Number of W3NRs by Process Code for 5 Years of 

Combined Data

Process 

Code Variable

Estimate Standard 

Error

Chi Square P value

01A01 Intercept 1.5677 12.9933 0.01 0.9040

HIMPDummy -27.6234 15869.30 0.00 0.9986

Production Volume -0.0333 0.2054 0.03 0.8713

Dispersion 804.0334 925.8368

01B01 Intercept -0.1591 0.7794 0.04 0.8382

HIMPDummy -0.6642 0.4645 2.04 0.1527

Production Volume 0.0193 0.0120 2.59 0.1075

Dispersion 9.2756 1.7328

01B02 Intercept 3.1925 0.6741 22.43 <.0001

HIMPDummy -0.0120 0.3747 0.00 0.9744

Production Volume -0.0070 0.0101 0.48 0.4886

Dispersion 9.2316 1.1098

01C01 Intercept 0.4194 0.3470 1.46 0.2269

HIMPDummy -0.3401 0.2539 1.79 0.1805

Production Volume 0.0145 0.0052 7.93 0.0049

Dispersion 3.1293 0.3983

01C02 Intercept 2.3099 0.3607 41.01 <.0001

HIMPDummy -0.1834 0.2585 0.50 0.4779

Production Volume 0.0047 0.0056 0.71 0.4010

Dispersion 3.4362 0.2976

03A01 Intercept 4.1981 10.3933 0.16 0.6863

HIMPDummy -27.2746 9131.202 0.00 0.9976
54

Production Volume -0.0543 0.1643 0.11 0.7408

Dispersion 816.8107 634.6140

03J01 Intercept 2.7731 0.1369 410.60 <.0001

HIMPDummy -0.3793 0.0913 17.28 <.0001

Production Volume -0.0012 0.0020 0.33 0.5657

Dispersion 0.5750 0.0388

03J02 Intercept 2.6808 0.3613 55.06 <.0001

HIMPDummy 0.1647 0.2350 0.49 0.4833

Production Volume -0.0106 0.0053 4.00 0.0456

Dispersion 3.5151 0.3672

05A01 Intercept 19.7704 0.0000

Intercept -12.2725 0.0000

HIMPDummy -0.0499 0.0000

Production Volume 1.144E12 0.0000

06D01 Intercept -1.7397 1.0185 2.92 0.0876

HIMPDummy -0.4317 0.7379 0.34 0.5585

Production Volume 0.0079 0.0145 0.30 0.5868

Dispersion 5.3516 4.4165
55

Appendix D - Fecal NR Rate Regression

A Negative Binomial regression on the fecal counts using the GENMOD Procedure was 

performed. The model specification information is as follows:

Distribution Negative Binomial

 Link Function Log

 Dependent Variable Number of Fecal NRs 

A clustered analysis was performed on 420 data points from CY2006 to CY2010 (20 HIMP and 

64 non-HIMP establishments for 5 years each). Production volumes were divided by 1 million 

and 03J counts were divided by 1,000.

D-1 Negative Binomial Three Parameter Model for Fecal Counts

The first model developed was a negative binomial regression with three input variables (HIMP, 

Production Volume, and Total 03J01/02 Procedures) and a response variable of fecal counts. The 

model is regressed on 420 data points (100 HIMP data points and 320 non-HIMP data points). 

The results are

 Empirical Standard Error Estimates

 Standard 95% Confidence

 Parameter Estimate Error Limits Z Pr > |Z|

 Intercept 3.0348 0.2490 2.5467 3.5229 12.19 <.0001

 HIMPDummy -0.1800 0.2339 -0.6385 0.2785 -0.77 0.4415

 ProductionVolume 0.0049 0.0041 -0.0031 0.0129 1.20 0.2287

 _03J01J02 0.0970 0.0269 0.0443 0.1496 3.61 0.0003

Goodness Of Fit

 

Criterion DF Value Value/DF

 Deviance 416 457.1109 1.0988

 Scaled Deviance 416 457.1109 1.0988

 Pearson Chi-Square 416 431.6861 1.0377

 Scaled Pearson X2 416 431.6861 1.0377

 Log Likelihood 63773.9134

 Full Log Likelihood -1972.7961

 AIC (smaller is better) 3955.5923

 AICC (smaller is better) 3955.7372

 BIC (smaller is better) 3975.7936

After adjusting for production volume and 03J procedures, there is no statistical difference 

between HIMP and non-HIMP in the number of fecal NRs.

D-2 Negative Binomial Two Parameter Model for Fecal Counts

A negative binomial regression was performed with two input variables (HIMP and Production 

Volume).

The results are
56

 

Empirical Standard Error Estimates

 

 Standard 95% Confidence

 Parameter Estimate Error Limits Z Pr > |Z|

 Intercept 2.9302 0.2463 2.4475 3.4130 11.90 <.0001

 HIMPDummy 0.4801 0.1295 0.2263 0.7338 3.71 0.0002

 ProductionVolume 0.0114 0.0035 0.0046 0.0182 3.28 0.0010

Goodness Of Fit

Criterion DF Value Value/DF

 Deviance 417 457.2437 1.0965

 Scaled Deviance 417 457.2437 1.0965

 Pearson Chi-Square 417 437.4870 1.0491

 Scaled Pearson X2 417 437.4870 1.0491

 Log Likelihood 63772.8977

 Full Log Likelihood -1973.8118

 AIC (smaller is better) 3955.6236

 AICC (smaller is better) 3955.7200

 BIC (smaller is better) 3971.7846

The two parameter model does not fit the data significantly better than the three parameter model 

(since the log likelihoods are nearly identical resulting in a p value of 0.15)

A negative binomial regression was performed with two input variables (HIMP and Total 03J 

Inspections).

The results are

Empirical Standard Error Estimates

 

 Standard 95% Confidence

 Parameter Estimate Error Limits Z Pr > |Z|

 Intercept 3.2810 0.0998 3.0855 3.4766 32.88 <.0001

 HIMPDummy -0.3026 0.2316 -0.7565 0.1512 -1.31 0.1912

 _03J01J02 0.1203 0.0242 0.0729 0.1678 4.97 <.0001

Goodness Of Fit

 Criterion DF Value Value/DF

 Deviance 417 457.6650 1.0975

 Scaled Deviance 417 457.6650 1.0975

 Pearson Chi-Square 417 407.9347 0.9783

 Scaled Pearson X2 417 407.9347 0.9783

 Log Likelihood 63760.4740

 Full Log Likelihood -1986.2356

 AIC (smaller is better) 3980.4711

 AICC (smaller is better) 3980.5675

 BIC (smaller is better) 3996.6321

This two parameter model fits the data significantly better than the three parameter model (p 

value <0.0001). It does not show a statistically significant difference between HIMP and non-
57

HIMP with respect to the number of fecal NRs after adjusting for number of 03J inspections. 

D-3 Negative Binomial Two Parameter Model for Fecal Counts with Offset for Number of 

03J Procedures

To determine the impact of production volume on the fecal NR rate, a negative binomial 

regression on fecal counts using the GENMOD Procedure with an offset for the number of 03J 

procedures was performed. The use of the offset for the number of 03J01 procedures is 

equivalent to regressing fecal NR rate on production volume. The model specification 

information is as follows:

 Distribution Negative Binomial

 Link Function Log

 Dependent Variable Number of Fecal NRs 

 Offset Variable Log_03J01J02

 Empirical Standard Error Estimates

 Standard 95% Confidence

 Parameter Estimate Error Limits Z Pr > |Z|

 Intercept 2.6390 0.2714 2.1071 3.1709 9.72 <.0001

 HIMPDummy -0.5989 0.1341 -0.8617 -0.3360 -4.47 <.0001

 ProductionVolume -0.0011 0.0038 -0.0086 0.0063 -0.30 0.7620

Goodness Of Fit

Criterion DF Value Value/DF

 Deviance 417 456.6893 1.0952

 Scaled Deviance 417 456.6893 1.0952

 Pearson Chi-Square 417 417.5443 1.0013

 Scaled Pearson X2 417 417.5443 1.0013

 Log Likelihood 63770.2476

 Full Log Likelihood -1976.4619

 AIC (smaller is better) 3960.9239

 AICC (smaller is better) 3961.0203

 BIC (smaller is better) 3977.0849

Production volume is not a statistically significant predictor of fecal NR rates. After adjusting for 

production volume, the rate of fecal NRs in HIMP establishments is statistically less than in nonHIMP establishments.
58

Appendix E - Line Speed Analysis

Two different negative binomial regression analyses are presented in this Appendix: the first for 

fecal NRs and the second for Salmonella positives.

E-1 Fecal NR Analysis

A negative binomial regression on the fecal NR counts and line speeds using the GENMOD 

Procedure was performed. The model specification is as follows:

Distribution Negative Binomial

 Link Function Log

 Dependent Variable Fecal NRs

Offset Variable log Total 03J01J02 Procedures

The analysis is restricted to CY2010 since that is the only year for which lines speeds are 

available. 

E-1.1 Negative Binomial Three Parameter Fecal Model with Offset for Log Number of 03J 

Procedures Performed

A negative binomial regression with three input variables (HIMP, production volume, and line 

speed) and a response variable of fecal NRs was performed with an offset for Log number of 

03Jprocedures performed.

 Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimates

 Standard Wald 95% Confidence Wald

 Parameter DF Estimate Error Limits Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq

 Intercept 1 2.2992 0.4290 1.4585 3.1400 28.73 <.0001

 HIMPDummy 1 -0.7688 0.1878 -1.1369 -0.4007 16.76 <.0001

 ProductionVolume 1 -0.0020 0.0041 -0.0100 0.0060 0.24 0.6235

 LineSpeed 1 0.0048 0.0038 -0.0027 0.0123 1.58 0.2089

 Dispersion 1 0.4372 0.0669 0.3239 0.5900

 

Criteria For Assessing Goodness Of Fit

 Criterion DF Value Value/DF

 Deviance 80 89.4566 1.1182

 Scaled Deviance 80 89.4566 1.1182

 Pearson Chi-Square 80 82.6261 1.0328

 Scaled Pearson X2 80 82.6261 1.0328

 Log Likelihood 15346.6840

 Full Log Likelihood -405.1567

 AIC (smaller is better) 820.3133

 AICC (smaller is better) 821.0825

 BIC (smaller is better) 832.4674
59

After adjusting for HIMP status and production volume there is no statistical difference in the 

fecal NR rates between establishments with different line speeds.

E-1.2 Negative Binomial Two Parameter Fecal Model with Offset for Log Number of 03J 

Procedures Performed

A negative binomial regression with two input variables (HIMP and line speed) and a response 

variable of fecal NRs was performed with an offset for Log number of 03J procedures

performed.

 Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimates

 Standard Wald 95% Confidence Wald

 Parameter DF Estimate Error Limits Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq

 Intercept 1 2.2473 0.4151 1.4337 3.0608 29.31 <.0001

 HIMPDummy 1 -0.7820 0.1865 -1.1475 -0.4165 17.59 <.0001

 LineSpeed 1 0.0041 0.0036 -0.0029 0.0111 1.34 0.2478

 Dispersion 1 0.4382 0.0670 0.3247 0.5914

 Criteria For Assessing Goodness Of Fit

 Criterion DF Value Value/DF

 Deviance 81 89.4935 1.1049

 Scaled Deviance 81 89.4935 1.1049

 Pearson Chi-Square 81 83.7916 1.0345

 Scaled Pearson X2 81 83.7916 1.0345

 Log Likelihood 15346.5648

 Full Log Likelihood -405.2758

 AIC (smaller is better) 818.5515

 AICC (smaller is better) 819.0579

 BIC (smaller is better) 828.2748

Line speed is not a statistically significant predictor of fecal NR rates. 

E-2.0 Salmonella Positives Analysis

A negative binomial regression on the Salmonella positives and line speeds using the GENMOD 

Procedure was performed. The model specification is as follows:

Distribution Negative Binomial

 Link Function Log

 Dependent Variable Salmonella positives

Offset Variable log Total 03J01J02 Procedures 

The analysis is restricted to CY2010 since that is the only year for which lines speeds are 

available. 
60

E-2.1 Negative Binomial Three Parameter Salmonella Model with Offset for Log Number 

of Salmonella Tests Performed

A negative binomial regression with three input variables (HIMP, production volume, and line 

speed) and a response variable of Salmonella positives was performed with an offset for Log 

number of Salmonella verification tests performed.

Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimates

 Standard Wald 95% Confidence Wald

 Parameter DF Estimate Error Limits Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq

 Intercept 1 -2.9002 1.1402 -5.1349 -0.6655 6.47 0.0110

 HIMPDummy 1 0.1677 0.4726 -0.7586 1.0941 0.13 0.7226

 ProductionVolume 1 -0.0000 0.0000 -0.0000 0.0000 1.65 0.1990

 LineSpeed 1 0.0050 0.0095 -0.0136 0.0235 0.27 0.6008

 Dispersion 1 0.8292 0.4082 0.3160 2.1762

Criteria For Assessing Goodness Of Fit

Criterion DF Value Value/DF

 Deviance 39 45.4653 1.1658

 Scaled Deviance 39 45.4653 1.1658

 Pearson Chi-Square 39 34.6058 0.8873

 Scaled Pearson X2 39 34.6058 0.8873

 Log Likelihood -5.7467

 Full Log Likelihood -70.8680

 AIC (smaller is better) 151.7359

 AICC (smaller is better) 153.3575

 BIC (smaller is better) 160.5419

Line speed is not a statistically significant predictor of Salmonella positive rates between 

establishments.

E-2.2 Negative Binomial Two Parameter Salmonella Model with Offset for Log Number of 

Salmonella Tests Performed

A negative binomial regression with two input variables (HIMP and line speed) and a response 

variable of Salmonella positives was performed with an offset for Log number of Salmonella

verification tests performed.

Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimates

 Standard Wald 95% Confidence Wald

 Parameter DF Estimate Error Limits Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq

 Intercept 1 -3.4638 1.0921 -5.6044 -1.3233 10.06 0.0015

 HIMPDummy 1 0.0379 0.4723 -0.8878 0.9637 0.01 0.9360

 LineSpeed 1 0.0017 0.0094 -0.0167 0.0201 0.03 0.8573

 Dispersion 1 0.9584 0.4345 0.3941 2.3306
61

Criteria For Assessing Goodness Of Fit

 Criterion DF Value Value/DF

 Deviance 40 44.3942 1.1099

 Scaled Deviance 40 44.3942 1.1099

 Pearson Chi-Square 40 33.4443 0.8361

 Scaled Pearson X2 40 33.4443 0.8361

 Log Likelihood -6.5582

 Full Log Likelihood -71.6794

 AIC (smaller is better) 151.3588

 AICC (smaller is better) 152.4114

 BIC (smaller is better) 158.4036

Line speed is not a statistically significant predictor of Salmonella positive rates between 

establishments.
62

Appendix F - Salmonella Positive Rates

This Appendix presents Salmonella verification testing results for young chicken slaughter 

establishments for the years CY2006 to CY2010. The Salmonella positive rates in HIMP 

establishments were statistically significantly less than in the comparison non-HIMP 

establishments for the 3 years CY2006 through CY2008. There is no statistical difference 

between the Salmonella positive rates in HIMP and the Non-HIMP comparison establishments 

for the years CY2009 and CY2010. 

CY2006 HIMP 

Salmonella

Non-HIMP 

Comparison 

Salmonella

All NonHIMP 

Broiler 

Salmonella

HIMP/ NonHIMP 

Comparison

HIMP/ All 

Non-HIMP

Number of 

Establishments

20 64 176 HIMP less

pvalue=0.0496

HIMP less

pvalue=0.0189

Positives 92 424 989

Total Tests 1,026 3,935 8,898

Salmonella Rate 8.97% 10.78% 11.11%

CY2007 HIMP 

Salmonella

Non-HIMP 

Comparison 

Salmonella

All NonHIMP 

Broiler 

Salmonella

HIMP/ NonHIMP 

Comparison

HIMP/ All 

Non-HIMP

Number of 

Establishments 20 64 176

HIMP less 

pvalue=0.0028

HIMP less

pvalue=0.0067

Positives 56 297 650

Total Tests 963 3,479 8,056

Salmonella Rate 5.82% 8.54% 8.07%

CY2008 HIMP 

Salmonella

Non-HIMP

Comparison 

Salmonella

All NonHIMP

Broiler 

Salmonella

HIMP/ NonHIMP

Comparison

HIMP/ All 

Non-HIMP

Number of 

Establishments

20 64 176 HIMP less 

pvalue=0.0008

HIMP less 

pvalue=0.0002

Positives 33 203 434

Total Tests 787 2,780 5,712

Salmonella Rate 4.19% 7.30% 7.60%

CY2009 HIMP 

Salmonella

Non-HIMP

Comparison 

Salmonella

All NonHIMP

Broiler 

Salmonella

HIMP/ NonHIMP

Comparison

HIMP/ All 

Non-HIMP

Number of 

Establishments

20 64 176 No difference HIMP less 

pvalue=0.0195
63

Positives 38 104 387

Total Tests 780 2,401 5,651

Salmonella Rate 4.87% 4.33% 6.85%

CY2010 HIMP 

Salmonella

Non-HIMP

Comparison 

Salmonella

All NonHIMP

Broiler 

Salmonella

HIMP/ NonHIMP

Comparison

HIMP/ All 

Non-HIMP

Number of 

Establishments

20 64 176 No difference No difference

Positives 20 56 146

Total Tests 427 1,390 3,115

Salmonella Rate 4.68% 4.03% 4.69%
64

Appendix G – Sorting and Condemnation Rates For HIMP and Non-HIMP

Table G- 1 Sorting and Condemnation Rates for HIMP and All Non-HIMP Establishments 

in CY2010

Production Volume 

(Heads)

Sorted or Condemned 

(Heads)

% Sorted or 

Condemned

20 Young chicken 

HIMP Establishments

1,486,323,399 3,369,458 0.23

64 Young chicken 

NonHIMP Comparison 

Establishments

4,229,139,755 12,831,408 0.30

176 Traditional Young 

Chicken Establishments

7,067,147,697 21,507,692 0.30

Table G- 2 Sorting and Condemnation Rates for HIMP and All Non-HIMP Establishments 

in CY2009

Production Volume 

(Heads)

Sorted or Condemned 

(Heads) 

% Sorted or 

Condemned

20 Young chicken 

HIMP Establishments

1,446,334,828 3,968,132 0.27

64 Young chicken 

NonHIMP Comparison 

Establishments

4,094,877,048 13,734,416 0.34

176 Traditional Young 

Chicken Establishments

6,877,930,806 23,466,502 0.34

Table G- 3 Sorting and Condemnation Rates for HIMP and All Non-HIMP Establishments 

in CY2008

Production Volume 

(Heads)

Sorted or Condemned

(Heads) 

% Sorted or 

Condemned

20 Young chicken 

HIMP Establishments

1,465,425,094 6,565,999 0.45

64 Young chicken 

NonHIMP Comparison 

Establishments

4,128,546,087 16,054,300 0.39

176 Traditional Young 

Chicken Establishments

7,067,955,141 28,511,869 0.40
65

Table G- 4 Sorting and Condemnation Rates for HIMP and All Non-HIMP Establishments 

in CY2007

Production Volume 

(Heads)

Sorted or Condemned

(Heads) 

% Sorted or 

Condemned

20 Young chicken 

HIMP Establishments

1,450,583,852 3,850,234 0.27

64 Young chicken 

NonHIMP Comparison 

Establishments

4,123,286,110 16,053,200 0.39

176 Traditional Young 

Chicken Establishments

7,047,631,288 29,522,408 0.42

Table G- 5 Sorting and Condemnation Rates for HIMP and All Non-HIMP Establishments 

in CY2006

Production Volume 

(Heads)

Sorted or Condemned

(Heads) 

% Sorted or 

Condemned

20 Young chicken 

HIMP Establishments

1,467,047,880 3,978,092 0.27

64 Young chicken 

NonHIMP Comparison 

Establishments

4,075,325,331 16,958,281 0.42

176 Traditional Young 

Chicken Establishments

6,919,393,008 30,783,786 0.45
66

LIST OF ACRONYMS

BPM – Birds per minute

CCP – Critical Control Points

CI – Carcass Inspector

FS-1 – Food Safety 1 Infectious Conditions

FS-2 – Food Safety 2 Fecal Material Contamination

FSIS – Food Safety and Inspection Service

GAO – Government Accountability Office

HACCP – Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point

HIMP – HACCP Inspection Models Project

NR – Non-compliance Record

OCP – Other Consumer Protections

PHIS – Public Health Information System

RTI – Research Triangle Institute

SSOP – Sanitation Standard Operation Procedures

USDA – United States Department of Agriculture

VI – Verification Inspector

W3NR- W3 Non-compliance Record