The main rationale behind the use of FCI is that poultry flocks intended for slaughter can be classified into food safety risk categories, so that slaughter procedures and/or decisions on fitness for consumption can be adapted to the health status and food safety risk presented by the flock/batch. FCI must be checked for completeness and content as part of ante-mortem inspection. FCI may be used to adapt ante- and/or post-mortem inspections, e.g. to plan the number of inspectors needed on the slaughter line or to reduce the speed of the slaughter line to allow for a more detailed post-mortem inspection (see contractor‟s report16). FCI may also be used to fix the order of slaughter of the poultry batches, i.e. logistic slaughter.
16 www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/298e.htm
A risk-based classification of flocks/batches is possible, provided that appropriate and relevant food safety information from previous production stages is submitted before the arrival of the slaughter batch at the slaughterhouse, or at least before slaughter, depending on the risk management action required as a result of such classification. Ante-mortem findings can also contribute to this risk-based classification. FCI should be provided to the slaughterhouse at least 24 hours in advance of the arrival of the birds in order for the food business operator (FBO) to plan slaughterhouse activity accordingly.
FCI serves to augment the process of evaluating the health of the birds, and preventing sick or abnormal animals entering the slaughterhouse, by providing early data on probable disease conditions that may be present in the flock. This is based on either direct information related to the health status of the flock (mortality rate, occurrence of disease, veterinary treatments, specific laboratory testing) or indirectly (changes in water or feed consumption, average daily weight gain). FCI is recorded at the flock level, and its minimum content is described in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004. FCI related to primary production of poultry flocks is based on a farmer‟s declaration. Most MSs have made available to poultry farmers a standardised FCI declaration form.
Little information is available on the reliability of FCI in poultry production, but a French comparison of on-farm collected survey data for 404 chicken flocks selected at random and the corresponding information declared on the FCI form (Lupo, 2009) has shown that declaration of FCI by chicken farmers is reliable when the form is well adapted and designed. Thus, FCI declared by farmers may be suitable for decision support at the slaughterhouse for meat inspection purposes. Standardising the collection and interpretation of the primary production information at the slaughterhouse is also necessary to ensure effective use of FCI.
The FCI principle includes a flow of information from farm to slaughterhouse in order to help classify the flock according to its expected food safety risk. Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 also requires feedback of the results of the meat inspection process from the slaughterhouse to farmers, but currently this feedback is not fully implemented in all MSs. However, the assessment of strengths and weaknesses will not consider the lack of compliance with current legislative requirements.
3.2.2. Strengths
FCI is currently being used as part of ante-mortem inspection and provides useful information. In particular, information related to disease occurrence during rearing and veterinary treatments helps to focus the ante-mortem inspection on flocks with an animal health concern.
Providing information related to Salmonella on-farm testing status within 3 weeks of slaughter is mandatory for broilers (Regulation (EC) No 646/2007) and turkeys (Regulation (EC) No 584/2008).
Specific slaughter procedures, such as logistic slaughter or diversion to production of heat-treated products, can be decided according to this information. An example of actions implemented according to the Salmonella on-farm testing status of the poultry flock can be found in Annex B.
3.2.3. Weaknesses
Although the content of FCI is described in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, it is not fully detailed. The legislation prescribes that each MS should define appropriate data that might be useful to ascertain the sanitary status of a flock, based on its own epidemiological disease context and farm organisation. As a consequence, each MS has implemented FCI in different ways (Table 6), and comparison among MSs is not straightforward.
Table 6: Examples of FCI items taken into account in the primary production of poultry17
(b) The animals‟ health status NS FR: any pathological event encountered during the last 30 days of the rearing period with observed symptoms for the last 30 days (trade name or active compound, dosages, date of beginning and end, withdrawal time and identification number of the veterinary prescription, use of medical feedstuff)
GE: description of the treatment administered for the whole production period in chicken and ducks and for the last 28 days in turkeys IT: use of medical feedstuffs, vaccination, therapy during the last 90 days (trade name or active compound, dates of administration and withdrawal periods)
UK: description of the veterinary products or other treatments administered (trade name or active compound, dates of administration and withdrawal periods)
FR: results of Salmonella laboratory tests (date of sampling, name of laboratory)
Regulatory content of FCI
Total mortality rate DK: stocking density, welfare data
FR: production type, genetic strain, hatchery details, date of placement, number of animals at placement, flock size, average live weight at slaughter date, average live weight 1 and 2 weeks before slaughter date, cumulative mortality rate 1 and 2 weeks before slaughter
NS, not specified. DK: Denmark; FR: France; GE: Germany; IT: Italy; UK: United Kingdom
The food safety relevance of all the FCI items identified per MS is often limited. In addition, the reported information is based on common sense rather than on truly scientific criteria and its interpretation is not defined by legislation. Thus, the provision and use of FCI is not always consistent among MSs or even among producers and slaughterhouses in the same MS. Currently, the main factor taken into account when considering FCI-based risk categorisation of broiler flocks is the Salmonella on-farm testing status within 3 weeks of slaughter (Table 6). However, the results of this laboratory testing lead to different decisions among the MSs. For example, in the case of positive status some countries do not accept the poultry flock for slaughter, whereas others require logistic slaughter followed by intensive cleaning and disinfection of the line after slaughter of the flock. Heat treatment of products originating from the flock is further required by some MSs if S. Enteritidis or S.
Typhimurium are detected. Further details can be found in the external report (see contractor‟s report16). In practice, FCI lacks adequate and standardised indicators for the main public health hazards previously identified, which could form the basis for risk categorising the flocks. Exceptions are the results of the harmonised monitoring of Salmonella in broiler and turkey flocks before slaughter (point (e), Table 6).
FCI can be used by slaughterhouses to plan the slaughter of flocks for commercial and operational reasons, e.g. with respect to certification requirements of products with special quality attributes.
These are often related to outdoor access production (e.g. organic status) and, to be certified, the flock must be slaughtered at the beginning of the slaughter day, before any conventional poultry flocks. But, for example, the flocks that are likely to be positive for Campylobacter are mainly those with outdoor access intended for certification (Engvall, 2001; Heuer et al., 2001; Newell et al., 2011; Newell and Fearnley, 2003).
3.3. Ante-mortem inspection