Chapter 19 – Poultry Inspection Programs
Annexes

This page is part of the Guidance Document Repository (GDR).

Looking for related documents?
Search for related documents in the Guidance Document Repository

Annex A Data Collection Forms

The following documents are available upon request from CFIA inspectors:

A.1 Flock Sheets

  • Template For Flock Sheets For Ducks

A.2 Presentation Standards

  • Defects Log: Traditional Presentation Standards
  • Defects Log: Presentation Standards For MPIP - Process Evaluation and Corrective Measure(s) Evaluation
  • Defects Log: ISO - Based Presentation Standard For Sorting and Veterinary Dispositions

A.3 Defect Detection Standards (DDS)

  • Defect Detection Standards - Process Evaluation and Corrective Measure(s) Evaluation
  • Defect Detection Standards Defects Log - Post-Chill Product Verification

A.4 Reprocessing and Reconditioning Standards

  • Defects Log: Off-Line Reprocessing/Reconditioning for Poultry

A.5 Carcass Dressing Standards (CDS)

  • Carcass Dressing Standards Defects Log - Process Evaluation and Corrective Measure(s) Evaluation - Chicken
  • Carcass Dressing Standards Defects Log - Post-Chill Verification - Chicken
  • Carcass Dressing Standards Defects Log - Process Evaluation and Corrective Measure(s) Evaluation - Fowl
  • Carcass Dressing Standards Defects Log - Post-Chill Verification - Fowl
  • Carcass Dressing Standards Defects Log - Process Evaluation and Corrective Measure(s) Evaluation - Turkey
  • Carcass Dressing Standards Defects Log - Post-Chill Verification - Turkey
  • "Phase-In Period" - Carcass Dressing Standards Defects Log - Process Evaluation and Corrective Measure(s) Evaluation - Quail
  • "Phase-In Period" - Carcass Dressing Standards Defects Log - Post-Chill Verification - Quail

A.6 Poultry Reinspection Standards

  • Poultry Reinspection Worksheet For Use With the Poultry Reinspection Program

A.7 Preparation of Offal For Edible Purposes or Animal Food

  • Defects Log: Poultry Paws or Feet (ISO Sampling Plan 2859-1) AQL = 2.5%, Sample Size = 50 Feet/Paws, Inspection Type = Normal

A.8 Specific Quality Control Programs

  • Defects Log: Head and Feet-On Carcasses (ISO Sampling Plan 2859-1), Sample Size = 20 Carcasses, Inspection Type = Normal

A.9 Condemnation Certificate For Poultry

  • Condemnation Certificate For Poultry

A.10 Rejection Certificate For Poultry

  • Rejection Certificate For Poultry

A.11 Evisceration Standard For Poultry

  • Evisceration Standards Defects Log
    Process Evaluation and Corrective Measure(s) Evaluation - Chicken, Fowl
  • Evisceration Standards Defects Log
    Process Evaluation and Corrective Measure(s) Evaluation - Turkey

Annex B Training and Accreditation Protocol

B.1. Introduction

It is industry's responsibility to produce safe and wholesome poultry products of acceptable quality. This is facilitated by having industry assume responsibility for detection and removal of defective poultry carcasses during the slaughter process. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has developed this training and accreditation protocol to ensure that establishment staff assigned to specific tasks carries out their duties competently, so that operations proceed under optimum conditions. The training and accreditation provided by CFIA staff shall be carried out as described herein. Company trainers must use equivalent procedures.

All employees assigned to one or more of the following five (5) positions must be trained and accredited as per this protocol:

  • Defect detectors (carcass, cavity, viscera);
  • RejectersFootnote 24 (carcass and viscera);
  • Evisceration Standards monitors;
  • Presentation Standards monitors
  • Defect Detection Standards (DDS) monitors; and
  • Carcass Dressing Standards (CDS) monitors.

Establishment employees may be trained and accredited for all five (5) tasks or any combination thereof. Training and accreditation is also species-specific. For example, an employee who works on broiler and fowl defect detection must therefore be trained and accredited for both species. The operator must keep up-to-date records (Forms I to VI of this annex) of each employee's training and accreditation results for government audit. Copies of all available training and accreditation materials for the industry employees are to be maintained in the establishment office while the copies for the trainers are kept in the CFIA office.

B.2. General Accreditation Requirements

To become accredited, an employee must pass:

  • A knowledge evaluation consisting of an off-line theoretical test; and
  • An ability evaluation consisting of an on-line practical test.

Note: All employees assigned to the positions described in this Annex must posses the physical attributes required to perform their tasks such as:

  • wear glasses (corrective lenses) when required to see fine details at high line speeds; and
  • pass a test for colour-blindness to ensure that they can distinguish colour.

B.2.1. Accreditation Requirements for Establishment Trainers

The CFIA shall provide training and accreditation to designated establishment trainers for the five (5) positions previously listed. A specific accreditation is also required for each of the three (3) defect detection stations (carcass, viscera and cavity) and for each of the two (2) rejection stations (carcass and viscera).

A minimum of two (2) establishment employees shall be chosen by the operator to act as designated establishment trainers. Establishment trainers must perform in a manner satisfactory to the Veterinarian in Charge (VIC). If a replacement becomes necessary, CFIA staff shall train the new trainer as soon as possible.

Once trained and accredited, the establishment trainers shall function as trainers and accreditors for the remaining establishment employees. The CFIA verifies the Operator's written training and accreditation program to ensure that the delivery of that program is in compliance with all the requirements contained in this Annex.

The accreditation of the Establishment Trainers shall include:

Establishment Trainers
Trainee Position Theoretical
Evaluation
Practical
Evaluation
Trial Period
(4 weeks)
Periodic
Review
On-Line Defect Detectors 1 off-line test 3 on-line tests No Yes
On-Line Rejecters 1 off-line test 3 on-line tests No Yes
Off-line Defect Detectors 3 off-line tests 3 off-line tests No Yes
Off-Line Rejecters 3 off-line tests 3 off-line tests No Yes
Evisceration Standards Monitor Questionnaire 1 evisceration test No Yes
Presentation Standards Monitor Questionnaire 1 presentation test No Yes
DDS Monitor Questionnaire 1 DDS test No Yes
CDS Monitor Questionnaire 1 CDS test No Yes

Note:

  • Evaluations for the trainer of defect detection/rejection are specific for each defect detection/rejection station (carcass, cavity or viscera)
  • To ensure that the trainer of the DDS monitors have adequate knowledge of DDS defects, DDS monitor trainers also need to be accredited as a defect detector.
  • An off-line defect detector does not work on the main evisceration line, such as: employees who eviscerate and assess for defects non eviscerated carcasses removed from the evisceration line; etc.
  • The Trial Period of four (4) weeks for the trainer of defect detectors is not required unless the trainer(s) also functions as a replacement for any of the defect detection stations.

For the accreditation of the trainers of the Presentation Standards monitors, the DDS monitors and the CDS monitors, please refer to the sections related to the accreditation of these monitors.

B.2.2. Accreditation Requirements for Defect Detectors and Rejecters

As stated above, once the establishment trainers are accredited for defect detection and/or rejection, they may train and accredit establishment defect detectors or rejecters using the same training and accreditation process under which they were trained(plus, if applicable, the additional trial period).

The accreditation of the Defect Detectors and Rejecters shall include:

Defect Detectors / Rejecters
Position Theoretical
Evaluation
Practical
Evaluation
Trial Period Periodic
Review
On-Line Defect Detectors 1 off-line test 3 on-line tests Yes No
On-Line Rejecters 1 off-line test 3 on-line tests Yes No
Off-line Defect Detectors 3 off-line tests 3 off-line tests Yes Yes
Off-Line Rejecters 3 off-line tests 3 off-line tests Yes No

Note:

  • All evaluations are specific to the defect detection/rejection station (carcass, cavity or viscera)
  • An off-line defect detector does not work on the main evisceration line, such as: employees who eviscerate and assess for defects non eviscerated carcasses removed from the evisceration line; etc.

When employees have successfully completed each of these tests, they are accredited for the position(s) for which they have been trained.

B.2.3. Accreditation Requirements for Supervisors and Monitors

As stated above, once the establishment trainers are accredited, they may train and accredit establishment supervisors using the same training and accreditation process under which they were trained.

The accreditation of the Establishment Supervisors and monitors shall include:

Supervisors and Monitors
Position Theoretical
Evaluation
Practical
Evaluation
Trial Period
(4 weeks)
Periodic
Review
Defect Detection Supervisors 3 off-line tests 3 off-line tests No Yes
Rejection Supervisors 3 off-line tests 3 off-line tests No Yes
Evisceration Standards Monitor Questionnaire 1 Evisceration test No Yes
Presentation Standards Monitor Questionnaire 1 Presentation test No Yes
Defect Detection Standard
(DDS) Monitor
Questionnaire 1 DDS test No Yes
Carcass Dressing Standard
(CDS) Monitor
Questionnaire 1 CDS test No Yes

Note:

  • On-line tests and Trial Period of four (4) weeks for the defect detection/rejection supervisors and monitors are not required unless they also function as a replacement for any of the on-line defect detection stations.
  • To ensure that DDS monitors have adequate knowledge of DDS defects, DDS monitor trainers also need to be accredited as a defect detector.

B.3. Training and Accreditation Procedures for Defect Detection/Rejection

B.3.1. Theoretical Training

The defect detector and the defect detector trainers shall be supplied with copies of the following training materials, for the type of poultry under which the training session is given:

Module IND-B1: Defect Detection - Chicken
Module IND-B2: Defect Detection - Fowl
Module IND-B3: Defect Detection - Turkey
Module IND-B4: Defect Detection - Secondary Species

After studying the available training materials, the defect detectors and defect detector trainers shall continue the theoretical training. The following training steps are recommended:

  • The trainer shows the trainee a normal carcass indicating the proper conformation, coloration and size;
  • The trainer dissects a carcass in order to clearly identify the internal and external anatomical structures;
  • The trainer demonstrates normal viscera indicating the structures (liver, heart, gizzard, spleen etc.)
  • The trainer explains the various conditions that must be recognized and identified using specimens (carcasses and viscera with various conditions) and training material developed for this purpose by the CFIA. The pathologies described are those most frequently encountered, e.g. subcutaneous condition (Cellulitis), respiratory condition (Airsacculitis, Pericarditis), liver condition (Hepatitis), etc.

Note: Training for rejections shall include the understanding of the corresponding condition names for recording purposes.

B.3.2. Theoretical Evaluation

This evaluation determines the employee's knowledge in order to identify specified defects. Employees must undergo this test once they have completed their theoretical training and prior to starting their ability or practical training.

The trainer shall follow the following procedure:

  • Off-line test on twenty (20) carcasses/viscera.
  • Time allotted: 10 minutes.
  • Carcass/viscera selection criteria:
    • Choose carcasses and/or viscera that are representative of the defects that are commonly detected at the establishment;
    • Choose carcasses and/or viscera with obvious defects (avoid questionable cases or cases that are more difficult to interpret);
    • Choose carcasses and/or viscera that have only one defect each; and
    • Include one or two normal carcasses and/or viscera in the group.
  • Carcasses/viscera should be identified with numbers so that they may be easily recognized if moved during the test.
  • The employee must point out any defective carcass or defective viscera. The accreditor shall take note of the answers. This is an oral test since a written test is not always possible.
  • One (1) point is given for each correct answer.

    Note: For the rejecter evaluation, a correct answer includes the identification of a defective carcass or viscera and the corresponding condition name for recording purposes.

  • The passing mark is 95% or correct answers or nineteen (19) correct answers for the group of twenty (20) carcasses and/or viscera.
  • Forms IV-a and IV-b found at the end of this document, "Theoretical Accreditation Record", are used to record test results.

The test score shall be reported as "passed" or "incomplete". When an employee fails the test, the accreditor shall identify where the problems are, and ensure that the employee receives additional training in this area before being tested again.

B.3.3. Practical Training

The objective of practical training is to reach the required ability for performing adequate defect detection directly on the evisceration line at normal operating line speeds. The theoretical accreditation must be completed before the practical training can begin.

For the time period specified in the operator's written training program, the employee shall work as a defect detector under the supervision of the accredited trainer. The trainee must correctly identify carcasses or viscera with specified defects. Once the trainee demonstrates on-going competence with the necessary practical skills at normal operating line speeds, the trainer can begin the practical evaluation.

B.3.4. Practical Evaluation

The practical evaluation test evaluates the employee's effectiveness under normal working conditions.

Tests must be scheduled so as to include all defects encountered at the establishment (suggest at least one test on a "bad flock" to reproduce worst case scenario).

The trainer shall follow the following procedure:

  • The employee shall take his/her place as a defect detector and evaluate carcasses or viscera. The test must be carried out under normal operating conditions.
  • The accreditor is positioned after the employee in order to evaluate the defect detector /rejecter 's performance. The evaluation is performed using one of the two following options:

    Option A: The accreditor evaluates the candidate's ability using an ISO sampling plan, randomly selecting 200 carcasses and/or viscera examined and accepted by the trainee for an on-line test for defect detection or 200 carcasses examined off-line and rejected or passed while performing off-line rejections. Candidates for performing rejections on-line must pass an off-line test on 200 carcasses screened out by the defect detectors for evaluation by the rejecter off-line before they may perform rejections on-line. (See the sampling procedure for the Defect Detection Standard in Chapter 19).

    Using an AQL of 0.4%, the passing criteria is a score of 2 defective carcasses/viscera or less (Acceptance number = 2) and the failure criteria is a score of 3 or more (Rejection number = 3).

    Option B: For an on-line test for defect detection, the accreditor evaluates all of the carcasses or viscera examined and passed by the candidate for a complete period of fifteen (15) minutes.

    The passing criteria is a minimum efficacy of 99.6% [i.e. 100 - (number of defects missed ÷ number examined × 100)].

    If the operation is halted during the test, the period of stoppage must be taken into account so that the evaluation is based on a total time of fifteen (15) minutes.

  • Should the accreditor find that an excessive number of carcasses or viscera are being selected when they should not have been (false positives), the evaluation must be stopped and the employee's supervisor informed of the situation. The test shall be repeated when the accreditor judges that the employee is no longer selecting normal carcasses or viscera.
  • A missed defective carcass or viscera, represents an error on the part of the candidate. Each error is noted and counts for a demerit point.

    Note: For rejecters, a correct answer includes the identification of a defective carcass or viscera and the corresponding condition name for recording purposes.

  • In order to pass the practical evaluation, the trainee must pass three on-line tests out of a maximum of 5 attempts.
  • Form V, found at the end of this document, "Practical Accreditation Record", used to record test results.

When an employee fails the practical test, the accreditor must identify where the problems lie and ensure that the employee receives appropriate additional training in this area before being tested again. Each failed test may be resumed without having to start the practical training evaluation process all over again, but need only retake the failed test. However, when an establishment employee fails three (3) attempts out of five (5) consecutive tests, the VIC and the operator shall reassess the suitability of the training process and of the employee as a defect detector or rejecter.

B.4. Trial Period

A trial period is required for all defect detectors and/or rejecters. Once the trainee has successfully passed the theoretical and the practical evaluations, he or she shall begin a stipulated trial period of a minimum of four (4) working weeks. During this period, the employee shall perform independent defect detection or rejection and be evaluated on a weekly basis by the accredited establishment trainer, until the candidate has passed four (4) practical tests.

The practical evaluation procedure corresponds to one of the two options that are described previously in the "Practical Evaluation" section. On-line detectors or rejecters receive on-line evaluations and off-line detector or rejecters receive off-line evaluations.

The trial period ends when the employee has succeeded four (4) weekly evaluations. If the employee fails two (2) attempts, he or she must start the trial period over again. The accreditor will before identify the cause of the failures and correct them in an appropriate manner (e.g. additional period of training, or work pairing with a very qualified employee). Once the trial period has been successfully completed, the employee receives his/her accreditation.

Note: If employees are trained for more than one detection/rejection position, they must successfully pass four (4) weekly evaluations, for each position for which they are being trained. An employee may be evaluated on all positions during the same four (4) week period.

B.5. Periodic Review

The periodic review is to determine whether the level of skill of the employee remains still satisfactory. The frequency of this review must be specified in the company's written training program and shall not exceed 12 months. This periodical review of all establishment trainers is administered by a certified CFIA representative.

One evaluation is required for each defect detection or rejection position, subject to this protocol. The practical evaluation procedure corresponds to one of the two options that are described previously in the "Practical Evaluation" section.

If the employee's score does not meet the standards, the employee shall be notified of the errors made. The employee shall then have to take the test again as soon as possible. Employees who fail the test again will lose their accreditation. They shall be given appropriate training and undergo the entire accreditation process a second time. Employees who obtain satisfactory scores (whether on the first test or when taking the test again if they failed the first time) shall have their accreditation updated and be allowed to continue working in their positions.

B.6. Loss of Accreditation

Whenever a VIC determines that an accredited employee is not performing their tasks in a complete and proper manner, the VIC shall notify the operator.

The operator must take immediate corrective action. If, after the corrective action has been taken and the employee's performance is still not deemed satisfactory by the VIC, then the employee must undergo a practical evaluation. The test is conducted using the practical evaluation procedure of this protocol, but is given by the CFIA. However, since the quality of the employee's performance has already been called into question, the employee is permitted only one test (the employee does not have the right to take the test again). If the employee fails this test, the employee automatically loses his or her accreditation. From that moment on, the employee is not allowed to perform the duties of the position in question until such time as he or she has been reaccredited.

B.7. Reaccreditation

An employee must be fully reaccredited should any of the following arise:

  • the employee has not worked in one of the positions included in this protocol for a twelve (12) month period; or
  • the employee has failed two (2) consecutive periodic reviews as described previously in the section "Periodic Review"; or
  • the employee has lost their accreditation as stipulated previously in the section "Loss of Accreditation".

To be reaccredited, the employee must go through the entire training and evaluation process again. Theoretical and practical training and evaluations (including the four (4) week trial period for the detectors/rejecters) are to be performed.

B.8. Grandfather Clause

Please note that this clause applies to those employees occupying positions that have been previously trained and accredited as per this protocol. If an employee has not worked in the given position for a twelve (12) month period, this clause does not apply.

Employees are eligible to be grandfathered provided they are judged acceptable by the VIC and pass a practical evaluation using the practical evaluation procedure of this protocol. Upon successful completion of this test the employee is considered as grandfathered for that position.

The employee's records shall state the positions for which he/she has been grandfathered.

B.9. Evisceration Standards Trainers and Monitors

The CFIA shall train and accredit one (1) or two (2) establishment employees as Evisceration Standards trainers. These trainers shall be responsible for the training and accreditation of the Evisceration monitoring personnel.

Evisceration Standards trainers and monitors with valid and documented accredited status as per this protocol shall maintain their accredited status for the Modernized Poultry Inspection Program (MPIP) and shall not require any further testing.

B.9.1. Theoretical Evaluation

The operator's Evisceration Standards trainers and monitors shall be supplied with copies of the following training materials:

Module IND-B5: Process Controls for the Poultry Industry
Module IND-BP: Industry Trainer's Manual

After studying the available training materials, Evisceration Standards trainers and monitors shall be given a theoretical questionnaire. The Evisceration Standards trainee must pass the theoretical questionnaire to be eligible for the practical evaluation.

B.9.2. Practical Evaluation

The employee shall have the practical skills in the detection of the various presentation non-conformances, corrective actions, process action and the completion of the necessary forms.

Under the supervision of the accreditor, the practical evaluation shall consist of an actual Evisceration Standards test as per Module IND-PS-1, the Industry Trainer's Manual.

The final test results of the theoretical and practical accreditation may be entered in the employee's training chart from the Trainer's manual.

B.10. Presentation Standards Trainers and Monitors

The CFIA shall train and accredit one (1) or two (2) establishment employees as Presentation Standards trainers. These trainers shall be responsible for the training and accreditation of the Presentation Standards monitoring personnel.

Presentation Standards trainers and monitors with valid and documented accredited status as per this protocol shall maintain their accredited status for the Modernized Poultry Inspection Program (MPIP) and shall not require any further testing.

B.10.1. Theoretical Evaluation

The operator's Presentation Standards trainers and monitors shall be supplied with copies of the following training materials:

Module IND-B5: Process Controls for the Poultry Industry
Module IND-BP: Industry Trainer's Manual

After studying the available training materials, Presentation Standards trainers and monitors shall be given a theoretical questionnaire. The Presentation Standards trainee must pass the theoretical questionnaire to be eligible for the practical evaluation.

B.10.2. Practical Evaluation

The employee shall have the practical skills in the detection of the various presentation carcass and/or viscera conditions, corrective actions, process action and the completion of the necessary forms.

Under the supervision of the accreditor, the practical evaluation shall consist of an actual Presentation Standards test as per Module IND-PS-1, the industry trainer's manual.

The final test results of the theoretical and practical accreditation may be entered in the employee's training chart in the Trainer's manual.

B.11. Defect Detection Standards Trainers and Monitors

The CFIA shall train and accredit one (1) or two (2) establishment employees as Defect Detection Standards (DDS) trainers. These trainers shall be responsible for the training and accreditation of the DDS monitoring personnel.

DDS trainers and monitors who were accredited under another method of poultry inspection (e.g. Canadian Poultry Inspection Program [CPIP]) with valid and documented accredited status as per this protocol shall maintain their accredited status for MPIP and shall not require any further testing.

B.11.1. Theoretical Evaluation

The operator's DDS trainers and monitors shall be supplied with copies of the following training materials:

Module IND-B5: Process Controls for the Poultry Industry
Module IND-BP: Poultry Industry Trainers Manual

After studying the available training materials, DDS trainers and monitors shall be given a theoretical questionnaire. The DDS trainee must pass the theoretical questionnaire to be eligible for the practical evaluation.

B.11.2. Practical Evaluation

Practical skills in the detection of the various carcass and/or viscera conditions, corrective actions, process action and the completion of the necessary forms, shall be evaluated.

Under the supervision of the accreditor, the practical evaluation shall consist of an actual DDS test as per Module IND-DDS-1, the industry trainer's manual.

The final test results of the theoretical and practical accreditation may be entered in the employee's training chart in the Trainer's manual, IND-DDS-1.

B.12. Carcass Dressing Standards Trainers and Monitors

The CFIA shall train and accredit one (1) or two (2) establishment employees as Carcass Dressing Standards (CDS) trainers. These trainers shall be responsible for the training and accreditation of the CDS monitoring personnel.

B.12.1. Theoretical Evaluation

The operator's CDS trainers and monitors shall be supplied with copies of the following training materials:

Module IND-B5: Process Controls for the Poultry Industry
Module IND-BP: Industry Trainer's Manual

After studying the available training materials, CDS trainers and monitors shall be given a theoretical questionnaire. The CDS trainee must pass the theoretical questionnaire to be eligible for the practical evaluation.

B.12.2. Practical Evaluation

Practical skills in the detection of the various dressing defects, corrective actions, process action and the completion of the necessary forms, shall be evaluated. These practical skills shall be evaluated.

Under the supervision of the accreditor, the practical evaluation shall consist of an actual CDS test as per Module IND-CDS-1, the Industry Trainer's manual.

The final test results of the theoretical and practical accreditation may be entered in the employee's training chart in the Industry Trainer's manual, IND-CDS-1.

B.13. CFIA's Role in Relation to this Accreditation Protocol

The CFIA shall provide training to all designated establishment trainers according to this protocol and shall maintain a copy of their accreditation records. All subsequent training, accreditation and documentation shall be the responsibility of the operator. Records must be maintained for CFIA reference, audit and verification purposes.

Summary of Accreditation Testing

On-line Defect Detectors / Rejecters Accreditation Testing
Stages Minimum Required No.
of Tests Passed
Passing Criteria
Theoretical Evaluation 1 (off-line) 95% (19/20)
Practical Evaluation 3 (on-line)

Option A:
AQL = 0.4%
Ac = 2, Re = 3

Option B:
99.6% efficacy

Trial Period 4 (on-line)

Option A:
AQL = 0.4%
Ac = 2, Re = 3

Option B:
99.6% efficacy

Off-line Defect Detectors Accreditation Testing
Stages Minimum Required No.
of Tests Passed
Passing Criteria
Theoretical Evaluation 3 (off-line) 95% (19/20)
Trial Period 4 (off-line) 95% (19/20)
Presentation Standards, DDS and CDS Accreditation Testing
Process Theoretical Evaluation Practical Evaluation
Evisceration Standards Monitors 80% 80%
Presentation Standards Monitors 80% 80%
Defect Detection Standards (DDS) 80% 80%
Carcass Dressing Standards (CDS) 80% 80%

B.14. Training and Accreditation Forms

The CFIA has developed industry training and accreditation forms (see list below) and they are included in the document "Module IND B-P Poultry Industry Trainer's Manual".

Poultry Industry Accreditation Forms
Form Title
Form 1 Industry training chart: Defect detectors and rejecters
Form 1.1 Industry theoretical training record: Carcass defect detector and carcass rejecter
Form 1.2 Industry theoretical training record: Cavity defect detector
Form 1.3 Industry theoretical training record: Viscera defect detector and viscera rejecter
Form 1.4 Industry theoretical accreditation record: Carcass/cavity/viscera defect detector
Form 1.5 Industry theoretical accreditation record: Carcass/viscera rejecter
Form 1.6 Industry practical accreditation record: Carcass/cavity/viscera defect detector / rejecter
Form 2 Industry training chart: Process control monitors
Form 2.1 Industry practical accreditation record: Process controls practical evaluation results
Form 3 Training Summary for all Accredited Positions

Annex C Generic Protocol for Evaluating Proposed Changes to Poultry Operations and Procedures

C.1. Introduction

The generic protocol is a tool to facilitate the acceptance by regulatory agencies and the incorporation by establishments registered under the Meat Inspection Act and Regulations of new technology or procedures. It specifies the basic tests and the resulting data which are required to permit an evaluation based on science. The generic protocol may need to be customized for specific plant situations. Examples of procedures which may be tested under the protocol; on-line or off-line reprocessing, reuse of chiller overflow water, reconfiguration of evisceration line(s) potentially affecting defect detection or carcass bacteria counts.

C.2. Prerequisites

The proposed test and control operation(s) must operate under a HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) system (prerequisite programs and HACCP plan), acceptable to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), and demonstrate continuous process control, e.g. meet Finished Products Standards (FPS), for the associated establishment to be eligible to participate as a pilot plant under the generic protocol.

C.3. Scope

Proposed changes with potential to have a negative impact on one or more of the following areas must be evaluated by the protocol:

  • pathogen count and faecal contamination,
  • defect detection relating to postmortem judgment,
  • defect detection and their removal.

Operations throughout an establishment may be proposed for a pilot project e.g. live hanging, scalding/defeathering, evisceration, chilling, cut-up/boning, packaging, etc.

C.4. Appeal Mechanism

Whenever there is doubt as to whether a proposed change requires evaluation under this protocol, industry or inspection staff may refer the proposal to the Chief, Poultry Inspection Programs, for a decision following consultation with technical specialists.

C.5. Application Procedure

A submission containing the following items is to be provided to the Veterinarian In Charge (VIC):

  • a detailed protocol fully describing the proposed operation(s) including a complete experimental design for a pilot project including information referenced in the section titled Experimental Design; o amended blueprints with facilities and equipment in compliance with Chapter 3;
  • description of how process control will be demonstrated based on visual observations and the charting of microbiological test results(refer to section titled Pass/Fail Criteria);
  • assurances that the company understands it must perform or pay for all laboratory tests as well as the statistical analysis of the data;
  • assurances that the company will supply trained, competent personnel (refer to section titled Employee Competence);
  • specify the laboratory to be used and give assurances that the bacteriological test methods and media are listed as an Official Method of Analysis by Health Canada (HC) or by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC), International. Indicate if the lab is accredited, and if not, include assurances that the company will provide full access to CFIA to the lab to monitor applicable procedures and test results (refer to the section titled Laboratory Accreditation).

The Veterinarian in Charge (VIC) shall review the submission to ensure all required information has been provided. If judged complete, the submission, including a covering letter from the VIC indicating any concerns shall be referred to the Regional Program Manager, Meat Products for his/her input and transmission to the Chief, Poultry Inspection Programs, Meat and Poultry Products Division (MPPD). The pilot project may only commence after the plant receives a letter of authorization from the MPPD. New procedures or processes which may impact on food safety will be copied to Health Canada (HC).

Control tests may commence before receipt of the letter of authorization provided the VIC agrees to monitor the procedures. However, additional tests or procedures may be required to complete the experimental protocol if it is amended by the MPPD.

C.6. Policy Development

Generally, three(3) - five(5) replications should be adequate to provide sufficient information for related policy formulation including any required control procedures and associated standards or operational guidelines to be included in the Meat Hygiene Manual of Procedures (MOP). Published reports and confidential information submitted by industry will be considered when determining the number of pilot projects required by the Chief, Poultry Inspection Programs, prior to amending the MOP.

A draft of the proposed policy will be circulated for comments to all appropriate groups (including HC).

Confidential projects will be treated as information which is plant specific (i.e. not to be published) until it becomes evident that several establishments have conducted similar pilot projects at which time policy formulation will be initiated.

C.7. Experimental Design

The effect of the proposed change must be demonstrated by collecting control and treatment samples according to an experimental design approved by the MPPD and conducted as a pilot project under the oversight of CFIA.

The following are suggested options:

  • complete all control sampling, then collect all the treatment samples;
  • split each test lot in half, collect the control samples, affect the change, and then collect the treatment samples (repeat for the required number of lots);
  • randomly split carcasses from the same lot between two similar processing (e.g. evisceration) lines (one line changed to function as treatment line) operating simultaneously in the same plant.

The proposed experimental design must include the following information:

  • current and proposed flow chart of affected and related operations including sampling locations;
  • description of how control and treatment phases will be accomplished (see listed options above).

C.8. Employee Competence

Applicable employees must be trained to facilitate the proposed change. Personnel must be accredited where required for specified functions e.g. pre-selection, presenter/detectors, reprocessing, FPS testing. A written training program and employee training records must be on-site and readily accessible for auditing by the CFIA.

C.9. Sampling Location

For microbiology tests, carcasses shall be collected as specified in the USDA's Pathogen Reduction/HACCP regulations i.e. minimum of 1/22,000 chickens, 1/3,000 turkeys, although the sampling location may be changed to suit the needs of the experiment.

Sampling should be conducted such that the test results can also be credited towards fulfilling export requirements for the U.S. The experimental protocol shall define a precise location for collection of the sample(s) for each test.

The sample location for prevalence testing for carcass defects (if required) and tests for monitoring the detection of internal cavity defects shall be determined in consultation with the Chief, Poultry Inspection Programs, for pilot projects which involve reconfiguration of the evisceration line. Otherwise, carcasses will be selected:

  • downstream from team of establishment carcass/cavity/viscera detectors; and
  • before or after establishment helper/trimmer; and
  • before viscera is harvested (or discarded) or the carcass is trimmed (other than by the helper/trimmer) and before the carcass is vacuumed.

C.10. Microbiology Tests

Note: refer to Chapter 11, export requirements for the United States, Annex T for full details on sample selection and processing for bacteriology (E. coli) testing.

Samples are to be randomly selected and handled using sterile technique.

Bacteria counts shall be determined using the carcass rinse technique (Butterfield's phosphate diluent (BPD), 400 ml for chickens, 600 ml for turkeys or by other procedures mandated by CFIA (e.g. swabbing for turkey carcasses). Rinsing with the diluent may occur in a compatible area of the plant or alternatively, the carcass may be transported to the lab for the rinsing.

Samples (carcasses or rinse fluid) must be refrigerated to 4°C or lower (but not frozen) until analyzed (on-site) or packaged for shipping. Shipped samples shall be packed in insulated containers containing ice packs so as to maintain a carcass surface temperature of between 0 and 7°C during (overnight) transport to the lab.

Microbiology tests must commence within 24 h of sample collection and with approximately the same time interval between collection and laboratory processing for all samples.

Total E. coli count per ml or cm2 shall be determined to serve as an indicator of faecal contamination.

Total Plate Count (TPC) should also be determined for each carcass to serve as a confirmatory test for the effect of the proposed change on process hygiene and to provide an indicator of shelf life.

Domestic policy and international trade considerations may require federal establishments to demonstrate a pathogen reduction (program) based at least on Salmonella spp.

Testing for specified pathogens such as Salmonella spp. and/or Campylobacter spp. will be a requirement after development and international acceptance of economical enumeration tests.

Presence or absence for specified pathogens shall be performed whenever it is determined by the Chief, Poultry Inspection Programs, in consultation with technical experts (including HC), that the proposed procedure may favour the growth of, or selective survival of, particular pathogen(s), or when deemed necessary to facilitate international acceptance of new or novel inspection methods, processes, or technology.

C.11. Laboratory Accreditation

Pilot projects for processes/procedures which have been published in peer reviewed journals will usually not require an accredited laboratory as determined by the Chief, Poultry Inspection Programs. However, new, unpublished procedures, may require the use of an accredited lab if required to facilitate international acceptance (and favourable export markets) as determined by the MPPD or if requested by HC or the CFIA to resolve food safety concerns, particularly for any required bacterial tests for foodborne pathogens.

Laboratories accredited by a federal, provincial or U.S. government agency for the specific bacteriology test(s) or by an internationally recognized registrar e.g. Standards Council of Canada (SCC), will be considered as accredited for the Generic Protocol. Laboratories of the federal or provincial governments and Universities will be recognized as having equivalent to accredited status for this protocol. Establishments wishing recognition of their in-plant laboratory require a Quality Management System (QMS) for the lab, equivalent to that required for government (HC/CFIA) accreditation. A submission should be made to the Chief, Foodborne Pathogens, CFIA, for his/her evaluation. One or more on-site review(s) by the Chief or his/her delegated representative(s), at the plants' expense, will be required for recognition as equivalent to accreditation status for the purposes of this protocol.

Non-accredited laboratories must be included within the plants' prerequisite programs, as part of their HACCP system, and be accessible to CFIA staff (for auditing the applicable test procedures, records and equipment) to qualify for use under this protocol. If remotely located from the plant, the company must provide assurances of unrestricted access to CFIA staff and to pay for CFIA audit expenses on a fully cost recovered basis.

Note: Upon completion of the pilot project under the Generic Protocol, an accredited lab is no longer required. Ongoing microbiological testing is to be performed in the laboratory specified by the plant's HACCP system.

C.12. Sample Size

Note: this section describes test requirements for pilot projects which consistently remain in compliance with all program requirements and standards including monitoring tests for the detection of internal cavity defects and pre-chill FPS tests as described in Annex D of this chapter. Refer to section titled Pass/Fail Criteria for corrective action, including additional test requirements, whenever ongoing testing fails to indicate that the tested process is still under control.

Whenever a Canadian national standard does not exist, then a plant specific standard must first be established by collecting samples during a control period conducted over the same period of time as planned for the treatment phase of the pilot project.

Various studies have found that the greatest source of experimental variation is commonly between carcasses from the same lot processed under what appears to be similar conditions. However, a significant source of variation may be between the producers or lots. Therefore, sampling for tests should be spread over at least 30 lots and 20 producers for control samples and again for treatment samples or over a minimum of 20 lots or producers if collected as paired samples. Testing for defects shall continue throughout the control and treatment phases of the pilot project.

C.12.1. Microbiology Tests; (Total E. coli counts)

One hundred control and 100 treatment carcasses if collected as before and after samples (design option i.);

Fifty paired samples if control and treatment samples collected from same lot in same time period (design option ii.), if experimental design and process controls considered valid by consulted technical experts, and for option iii.

Using a 95% confidence limit and 80% power, and assuming a pooled variance of 0.58, a sample size of 100 carcasses was calculated as sufficient to detect a 0.3 log10 mean E. coli count difference between the control and treatment groups.

C.12.2. Defect Detection and Removal

FPS pre-chill tests and post-chill tests

C.12.3. Defect Non-detection Rate

Monitoring tests for internal cavity defects are described in section 19.6.2 of this chapter.

If a process is not covered by this Generic Protocol or Chapter 19, sample selection and frequency shall be specified by the Chief, Poultry Inspection Programs.

C.12.4. Prevalence of Defective Carcasses Requiring Veterinary Judgment

Only required for proposed changes which have potential to affect evidence of generalized disease of a public health significance in carcasses prior to postmortem detection/inspection.

Required tests are to be performed by the government inspection staff. The Veterinarian in Charge (VIC) shall ensure that postmortem detection/inspection is not compromised. Unusual situations which might affect Veterinary disposition are to be referred to the VIC throughout the prevalence testing. The Operations Director must agree to provide the staff to perform the tests. The evaluator and scribe require training to correlate their judgment for the test with national policy/interpretation. The need for the test will be determined by the Chief, Poultry Inspection Programs, in consultation with technical experts, in particular, the Chief, Epidemiology Risk Analysis. If applicable, they will provide the sample size and a detailed sampling protocol for each prevalence test.

In general, for a plant with two similar evisceration lines and permitting paired sampling (e.g. inspector rotates to the other line every "X" min. and spends approximately the same amount of time on each line for each lot), a total of 14,000 carcasses should be evaluated i.e. 700 carcasses/day × 20 days and 7,000 carcasses/line. However, if the testing can be replicated in a second plant, (also with two lines) to facilitate statistical analysis, then 7,000 carcasses should be collected from each plant over 10 working days i.e. 700 carcasses/day × 10 days and 3,500 carcasses/line × 4 lines, again for a total of 14,000 carcasses.

Using a 95% confidence level, an 80% power, a one (sided) tailed test, and an estimated national prevalence rate of 1.2%, a sample size of 14,224 was calculated as sufficient to detect a 0.3% difference (drop) in the number of carcasses with visible evidence of disease or conditions (at the postmortem detection/inspection stations) and which require removal from the line for veterinary disposition.

C.13. Pass/Fail Criteria:

C.13.1. Testing While in Compliance:

C.13.1.1. Microbiology Tests

If a plant specific standard is required, the results from control samples shall be analyzed to calculate required values for the control chart as selected for use during the treatment phase. Bacteriology counts for treatment carcasses shall be plotted on a control chart e.g. Shewart, Cusum or as illustrated in the USDA's Pathogen Reduction/HACCP Regulations as outlined in Chapter 11, section on export requirements for the United States.

Treated carcasses may be sold as "edible" if the plant provides evidence satisfactory to the CFIA that product complies with all regulatory requirements. Treatment carcasses will be deemed to be in compliance whenever test results comply with the predetermined acceptance/rejection limits as specified in the application for the pilot project (see section titled Application Procedure) e.g. if using the Shewart Control Chart, then no bacteria count from a treatment carcass may exceed the Upper Control Limit (UCL) or if using the chart from the USDA's Pathogen Reduction/HACCP Regulations (1996), a moving window of the last 13 tested carcasses must indicate that no more than 3 exceeded the marginal value (little m) and none exceeded the fail value (large M).

C.13.1.2. Defect Detection and Removal

Shall be deemed to be in compliance whenever product rework is not required e.g. under FPS pre-chill tests.

Defective carcass detection and removal-shall be deemed to be in compliance whenever line speed reductions are not required as a result of the tests performed to monitor the detection and handling of defective carcasses by plant employees.

C.13.2. Corrective Action:

Whenever a bacteria count exceeds the fail/rejection limit and/or treated carcasses must be reworked under the FPS program and/or the line speed must be reduced due to ineffective carcass detection by plant employees, then the cause must be determined, corrective action taken (including possibly amending the treatment protocol or implementing a CCP to improve process control). The treatment period counter must then be reset to zero i.e. start all over again. The Chief, Poultry Inspection Programs shall be copied all relevant information and may terminate a pilot project for repeated failure i.e. 2 or more resets to zero.

C.13.3. Acceptance by the CFIA:

Statistical analysis of the data must indicate that the proposed change (treatment) either exceeds or at least maintains the then current CFIA standard(s) for whichever of the following items were included in the pilot project:

  • pathogen count (if specified by CFIA) and total E. coli counts as an indicator of faecal contamination,
  • defect detection relating to postmortem judgment,
  • defect detection and their removal (e.g. CDS testing including compliance with "zero tolerance" for visible evidence of faecal contamination).

C.14. Records, ATIP and Auditing:

Data and associated statistics analysis will be considered as confidential and is only to be released under ATIP (Access to Information Procedures) in a summarized generic format (e.g. plant A, plant B, etc.) such that test results cannot be identified to a specific originating establishment.

Upon completion of analysis and review by the MPPD, all copies of raw data are to be returned by the CFIA to the plant(s) of origin.

The following records shall be stored on-site by plant management and be readily accessible for review by the VIC and government auditors:

  • complete submission and corresponding letter of authorization from the MPPD;
  • all raw data (e.g. completed forms, test results);
  • records of ongoing monitoring and verification tests and other procedures for the retention period specified in the associated policy section of the appropriate CFIA manual (e.g. MOP, Food Safety and Enhancement program (FSEP)).

Annex D Poultry Reinspection Program

D.1. Introduction

The purpose of the Canadian Poultry Reinspection Program is to provide standards and methods to be used when determining the acceptability of poultry carcasses and parts. This standard may be used for the reinspection of both imported and domestic shipments; and for the monitoring of an establishment's quality control program. This standard for fresh and frozen poultry carcasses and parts derives its authority from the Meat Inspection Act and Regulations.

D.2. Scope

This standard applies to fresh or frozen poultry carcasses and parts including young and mature chicken, turkey, duck and goose.

D.3. Nomenclature

The name of the product shall be that required in common usage in Canada and in accordance with the Meat Inspection Act and Regulations. Nomenclature for poultry parts may be found in the Meat Hygiene Manual of Procedures Chapter 7 "Cutting and labelling of poultry parts". For the purposes of this standard, only product which conforms to this nomenclature shall be inspected.

D.4. Definition of Defects

The poultry carcass defects shall be considered as either minor, major or critical depending on the associated safety risk. The specific defect definitions and their defect classification are defined in the attached "Defect Criteria for Poultry Carcasses and Parts".

D.5. Description of Defects

The defects found in poultry carcasses or parts shall be classified as either decomposition, unwholesomeness or workmanship related. The severity of the associated defect is explained in this section, as well as in the more specific "Defect Criteria for Poultry Carcasses and Parts" section. Carcasses and parts shall be considered defective when one or more of these conditions are encountered:

D.5.1. Decomposition

A poultry carcass or part shall be classified as decomposed when any part of the carcass is affected by an off-condition identified by:

  • Odours

    Persistent and distinct off-odours in a poultry carcass such as: fruity, vegetable, musty, sour, sour milk-like, faecal, ammonia or putrid smelling.

  • Colour

    Distinct green colour in a poultry carcass.

  • Slime

    Moist and sticky gelatinous-like carcass.

    Note: Some slaughter methods (slack scald and ritual slaughter) may leave wholesome carcasses that are slightly sticky to the touch. This should not be characterized as slime for the purpose of these standards.

Any evidence of the above is considered as a critical defect, and shall result in rejection of the lot.

D.5.2. Unwholesomeness

  • Pathology

    A carcass or part shall be considered defective if there is any evidence that it is affected by any pathology as defined in the Meat Hygiene Manual of Procedures.

  • Critical Extraneous Material

    A sample unit shall be classified as critical and rejected when any of the following conditions are found:

    • The presence of any material which has not been derived from poultry and which poses a threat to human health (such as glass, etc.); or
    • Distinct and persistent odour of any material which has not been derived from poultry and which poses a threat to human health (such as solvents, fuel oil, etc.).
  • Contamination

    A carcass or part shall be considered defective if any bile, ingesta or non-critical extraneous material is present. Faecal material shall result in rejection of the lot.

  • Other Defects

    A sample unit shall be considered defective when any of the following conditions are found:

    • Dehydration (freezer burn) where more than 10% of the surface area is affected;
    • Overscalded, dark coloured carcass and inadequate bleeding;

Any evidence of the above will be considered critical, major or minor as defined in the attached "Defect Criteria for Poultry Carcasses and Parts".

D.5.3. Workmanship

Those defects which are present as a result of poor workmanship and should have been previously removed:

  • Dressing/processing defects such as the presence of parts of the viscera or feathers;
  • Trimming defects such as trimmable pathology, bruises and scabs;
  • Bones in boneless poultry parts.

Any evidence of the above will be considered as a major or minor defect as defined in the attached "Defect Criteria for Poultry Carcasses and Parts".

D.6. Examination Methods

D.6.1. Definitions

Acceptance Number (Ac)
The maximum number of defective units in the sample permitting the lot to be accepted because the requirements of this standard have been met.
Cull
The removal of individual product pieces affected with defects. (Only permitted for domestic product. It is not permitted to cull or rework unsatisfactory imported product.)
Defective Unit
A defective unit is a sample unit whose subsample exceeds the allowable number of defects as stated in the defect criteria.
Inspection
The visual examination of a subsample of poultry carcasses or parts for the presence of defects.
Lot Size (N)
The number of containers (boxes/totes or combos) similar in size, type and style which have been processed under identical conditions. Specifically, the lot size may be the number of containers (boxes/totes or combos) from a specified production period, or from an incoming or outgoing shipment.
Sample Size (n)
The number of sample units comprising the total sample drawn from the lot.
Sample unit
The individual container (boxes/totes or combos) that is examined as a separate unit.
Subsample
A representative portion of the contents of the sample unit withdrawn for the purpose of inspection.

D.6.2. Scope

The methodology described in this section outlines a procedure for the examination of poultry carcasses and parts. The examination shall be made of products of a defined lot (N), in the fresh or tempered state for decomposition, wholesomeness and workmanship related defects.

D.6.3. Presentation/staging of the Lot

The establishment is required to present the lot so that:

  • its placement ensures the safety of the inspector;
  • each unit in the lot has an equal chance of being selected for the sample;
  • the lot is distributed uniformly to facilitate the verification of the lot size;
  • the main panel of each shipping container is plainly visible to the inspector; and
  • its placement allows adequate space for the inspector to select samples and visually examine the lot for transportation damage.

The inspector shall conduct an overall inspection of the lot which includes general condition, label and count verification, and accuracy of any related documentation.

D.6.4. Inspection Procedure

The inspector shall thoroughly examine all carcasses and parts as specified under section D.6.5.2, "Poultry carcasses packaged in boxes or totes", or D.6.5.3 "Poultry carcasses or parts packaged in bulk combos", and:

  • All defects from the lot shall be recorded, removed, and identified with the carcass, part and sample unit, from which they were found;
  • If the lot is rejected, all defects found, their respective carcasses or parts, and the sample unit from which they where found, shall be saved should an examination of the defects be requested;
  • If the lot is accepted, all defects found in inspected product shall be discarded; and
  • Poultry carcasses or parts found free of defect upon inspection shall be returned to the lot.

D.6.5. Sampling

D.6.5.1. Sampling of lots for Sensory Examination

The sampling of lots for the sensory examination of the product shall be in accordance with the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius "Sampling Plan for Prepackaged Foods" as follows.

D.6.5.2. Poultry Carcasses or Parts Packaged in Boxes or Totes
  • The sample unit shall consist of a box or tote;
  • Calculate the number of boxes or totes in the lot (N);
  • Using the label weight to determine the net weight of a box or tote, pick out the number of boxes / totes required under the sampling plan selected from tables D.8.1 or D.8.2 according to the average net weight of the boxes or totes;
  • The sampling plans dictate the minimum sample size (n) to be taken. The inspector chooses the samples at random as explained in the random sampling procedure. If necessary, in the opinion of the inspector, more than the minimum sample size specified may be taken, provided that it corresponds to a sampling level from table D.8.1 or D.8.2. In the case of an import shipment, the boxes shall be pre-selected by the import tracking system;
  • The sample unit must be sufficiently tempered to permit a thorough inspection;
  • From each sample unit, choose a representative subsample consisting of at least 10% of the product;
  • In each subsample, examine the carcasses or parts for defects and, if present, assign them as Critical, Major or Minor, as defined in Section D.7, "Defect Criteria for Poultry Carcasses and Parts". Any critical defect found will result in the rejection of the lot. The presence of at least a major defect or any two minor defects in a subsample will result in that corresponding sample unit being considered defective;
  • Using the Acceptance (Ac) number corresponding to the level of the sampling plan selected, determine the acceptability of the lot based on the number of defective sample units. If this number is less than or equal to the acceptance number, the lot is accepted; otherwise, the lot is deemed to fail;
  • In the case of domestic product, if a lot fails using the appropriate sample plan due to workmanship related conditions, the lot may be culled and re-inspected using the same sampling plan previously used. However, under reinspection each subsample to be examined shall comprise 20% of the product from the corresponding sample unit.
D.6.5.3. Poultry Carcasses or Parts Packaged in Bulk Combos
  • As per table D.8.3, a maximum of 13 combos are to be randomly sampled from the lot (a full combo is approximately 1000 kg). If the lot consists of less than 13 combos, then each combo shall be inspected;
  • The bulk combo must be tempered sufficiently to permit an inspection of a representative sample;
  • Take a representative 50 kg subsampleFootnote 25 from each selected combo;
  • In each combo, examine the carcasses or parts for defects and if present assign them as Critical, Major or Minor as defined in Section D.7 "Defect Criteria for Poultry Carcasses and Parts". Any critical defect found will result in the rejection of the lot. The presence of at least five Major defects, any ten Minor defects, or any combination of Minor and Major defects totalling ten in any subsample, will result in that corresponding combo being considered defective;
  • Using the Acceptance (Ac) number corresponding to the number of combos in the lot, determine the acceptability of the lot based on the number of defective sample units. If this number is less than or equal to the acceptance number, the lot is accepted; otherwise, the lot is deemed to fail;
  • In the case of domestic product, if a lot fails under this inspection procedure due to workmanship related conditions, the lot may be culled and re-inspected by repeating the above steps. However, for the purpose of re-inspection, the subsample selected from each combo is now to be twice the original weight and the criteria for the acceptance of the lot is to be adjusted proportionally;

Where d = Combo unit weight (kg) / 200

Note: d and 2d are rounded up to the next whole number.

D.7. Defect Criteria for Poultry Carcasses and Parts

Decomposition Off-Conditions
Type Description Classification
Odours Persistent and distinct off-odours in a poultry carcass. Critical
Colour Distinct green colour in a poultry carcass. Critical
Slime Moist and sticky gelatinous-like carcass surface.
Note: Some slaughter methods (slack scald and ritual slaughter) may leave wholesome carcasses that are slightly sticky to the touch. This should not be characterized as slime for the purpose of this program.
Critical
Unwholesomeness
Type Description Classification
Extraneous Material Extraneous material > 3 mm will result in rejection of the lot. For example: Glass, wood, metal, etc. Critical
Extraneous Material Extraneous material covering an area > 25 mm in the largest dimension. For example:
  • Grease, unattached feathers, bile contamination, yolk, crop contents, ingesta, stains or specks too numerous to count;
  • Whole spleen and/or gall bladder.
Major
Extraneous Material Extraneous material covering an area ≤ 25 mm in the largest dimension. For example:
  • Grease, unattached feathers, bile remnants, yolk, crop contents, ingesta, stains or specks too numerous to count;
  • Part of a spleen and/or gall bladder.
Minor
Hair Each incidence of 26 hairs ≥ 6 mm per sub-sample counts as one defect. Minor
Faeces Any material (solid, liquid or stain), determined to be from the lower gastrointestinal tract. Critical
Pathology Any evidence of pathological lesions such as cellulitis, salpingitis, tumours, airsacculitis or peritonitis. 5 Major defects
Others Sores, scabs, or inflamed wounds >13 mm in the largest dimension or a cluster of smaller lesions in close proximity covering a surface > 13 mm. Major
Others Sores, scabs, or inflamed wounds measuring in their largest dimension 3 to 13 mm. Minor
Workmanship
Type Description Classification
Bruises A black, blue, or green bruise > 25 mm in the greatest dimension. Major
Bruises A black, blue, or green bruise, 6 to 25 mm in the greatest dimension. Minor
Bruises Bruises other than black and/or green > 13 mm
Very small bruises other than black and/or green less than 13 mm (dime size) and areas showing only slight reddening shall not be counted as defects.
Minor
Lungs Portion ≥ 6 mm. Minor
Trachea Any identifiable portion Minor
Oil gland Recognizable fragment(s) up to and including both lobes Minor
Breast Blister Inflamed tissue, fluid or pus filled Minor
Compound fracture Any compound fracture (not including the rib cage) Minor
Mutilation Extensive mutilation Minor
Bursa of Fabricius Bursa of Fabricius or any identifiable portion. Minor
Crop Any complete crop Major
Crop Any portion of the crop that includes the mucosal lining Minor
Intestine/ cloaca Any identifiable portion of intestine or cloaca = 5 Major defects
Intestine/ cloaca Any identifiable portion of oesophagus, proventriculus or gizzard. Minor
Long shank Complete coverage of the tibial-tarsal articulation
≥ 3 mm (both condyles covered).
Minor
Kidneys or testes/ovaries Kidneys or testes/ovaries in chickens weighing greater than 2 kg or ducks greater than 3 kg. Minor
Reproductive organs Reproductive organs in spent fowl. Minor
Bones In the case of boneless poultry parts:
Any bone > 1 cm
Major
Bones Any identified bone 3 mm to 1 cm. Minor
Feathers or pinfeathers 25 mm or less:
Score each multiple of 8 as one defect.
Minor
Feathers or pinfeathers Greater than 25 mm:
Score each multiple of 2 as one defect.
Minor
Heads Heads on dressed carcasses not designated as "head and feet attached". Major

D.8. Sampling Plans for Poultry Carcasses and Parts

D.8.1. For Sample Units Under 4.5 kg

Sampling Plans for Poultry Carcasses and Parts For Sample Units Under 4.5 kilograms
Level Lot Size (N) Sample Size (n) Ac
1 2400 or less 13 2
2 2,401 to 15,000 21 3
3 15,001 to 24,000 29 4
4 24,001 to 42,000 48 6
5 42,001 to 72,000 84 9

D.8.2. For Sample Units 4.5 kg or Greater

Sampling Plans for Poultry Carcasses and Parts For Sample Units 4.5 kilograms or Greater
Level Lot Size (N) Sample Size (n) Ac
1 600 or less 13 2
2 601 to 2,000 21 3
3 2,001 to 7,200 29 4
4 7,201 to 15,000 48 6
5 15,001 to 24,000 84 9

D.8.3. If the Sample Unit is a Combo

Sampling Plans for Poultry Carcasses and Parts If the Sample Unit is a Combo
Level Lot Size (N) Sample Size (n) Ac
1 2 or less all 0
2 3 to 8 all 1
3 9 to 12 all 2
4 13 or Greater 13 2

D.9. Records

An example of the Poultry Reinspection Worksheet is available in Annex A of this chapter.

D.10. Examples

D.10.1. Poultry Carcasses or Parts Packaged in Boxes or Totes

Example 1)

17,990 kg of whole chicken carcasses packed in 18 kg boxes.

  • The number of boxes in the lot is 1000;
  • Net weight of a box is 18 kg; therefore, use the level 2 sampling plan found in D.8.2;
  • This sampling plan states that for a lot of 1000 boxes, the sample size is to be 21 boxes;
  • Choose the 21 boxes randomly from the lot;
  • The 21 boxes must be thawed sufficiently to permit inspection;
  • Choose a representative 10% subsample from each box; that is 1.8 kg of the product or the smallest number of carcasses aggregately weighing 1.8 kg;
  • In each subsample, examine the carcass(es) for defects and assign them as Critical, Major or Minor as defined in the "Defect Criteria for Poultry Carcasses and Parts" section of this document;

Suppose the inspection reveals the following defects:

Box #3 - 1 Major
Box #8 - 1 Minor
Box #12 - 1 Minor
Box # 15 - 1 Major and 2 Minor
Box # 20 - 2 Minor

  • In this case, boxes # 3, 15 and 20 are considered defective, since they contained at least either a major defect, two minor defects or both in their subsamples;
    • Based on the accept (Ac) number of 3, this lot would be accepted since 3 defective sample units are permissible in the randomly selected sample of 21 boxes.

If in the opinion of the inspector, a larger sample size should be selected from this lot, then a random sample of 29 boxes could be selected for inspection and rated for defects as above and a decision taken on the acceptability of the lot based on the corresponding Acceptance number of 4.

D.10.2. Poultry Carcasses or Parts Packaged in Bulk Combos

Example 1)

Five bulk combos of poultry carcasses containing approximately 1000 kg per combo.

  • The combos must be thawed sufficiently to permit inspection;
  • Take a representative 50 kg sample from each combo;
  • Examine the carcasses for defects and assign them as Critical, Major or Minor as defined in the "Defect Criteria for Graded and Ungraded Poultry Carcasses and Parts" section of this document;

The findings are as follows:

Combo #1 - 1 Critical Defect, 1 Major and 4 Minors
Combo #2 - 3 Majors and 3 Minors
Combo #3 - 5 Majors and 8 Minors
Combo #4 - 2 Majors and 12 Minors
Combo #5 - 4 Majors and 9 Minors

  • Based on the accept and reject values, combo numbers 1, 3, 4 and 5 would be rejected, since they exceed the acceptance numbers of zero Critical defects, four Major defects, nine Minor defects or a combination of any nine Major or Minor defects;
  • As per table D.8.3., the maximum number of defective combos permitted is 1. In this example, the lot would be rejected since 4 defective combos were found. The lot would also be immediately rejected since a Critical defect was found.
Example 2)

One bulk combo containing 500 kg of poultry parts.

  • The combo must be thawed sufficiently to permit inspection;
  • Since in this case the sample unit is less than 1000 kg, take a representative sample consisting of 5% of the total weight of the combo;
  • Sample size is 500 kg × .05 = 25 kg;
  • Examine the poultry parts for defects and assign them as Critical, Major or Minor as defined in the "Defect Criteria for Poultry Carcasses and Parts" section of the Canadian Poultry Standard;

The findings are as follows: 1 Major and 4 Minor defects

  • Calculate the accept and reject criteria using the formula from section D.6.5.3. The number of major defects accepted is 500kg/200 = 2.5, rounded up to 3. The number of minor defects accepted is 5 (2 × 2.5);
  • For this example, the sample will pass, since the defects found fall within the accept criteria which was calculated at 3 Major, 5 Minor defects or any combination of 5 Major and Minor defects.
Date modified: