Common Swine Industry Audit

Outline

• Background and History of Quality Assurance• Industry Audit Task Force• Common Swine Industry Audit• Next Steps and PQA Plus• Comprehensive Quality Assurance

Background and History

Timeline and Evolution

• 1959 The first HACCP system developed

• 1989 The PQA® program is launched– Sulfa residues– Food safety

• 2001 TQA is launched– Meat quality– Animal care during handling and transport– V5 released this year

• 2003 SWAP program introduced– On-farm animal care– Site assessment

• 2005 The Take Care program is released

• 2007 The PQA Plus® program is launched

• 2008 The industry launches the We Care responsible pork initiative

• 2008 Packers show commitment to PQA Plus

4

PQA Plus Program

• Comprehensive platform to align producer performance with market chain expectations

• Guiding principles:– Workable– Credible– Affordable

• Voluntary education program available through Pork Checkoff – Pork Checkoff legally cannot restrict market access to producers.– Many packers require certification and/or site assessment as condition of sale

• Designed to be applicable to any pig farm independent of size, phase of production, building design, geographic location, etc.

PQA Plus—Continuous Improvement

• 2007 – First Version– Food safety and animal welfare– On-farm assessments

• 2010 – Second Version– Addition of antibiotic use and animal handling– Beginning of 3rd party verification (program audit)

• 2013 – Third Version– Addition of worker safety and environment– Individual Certification exams– Assessment and audit tool revised

Program Elements

Is the Program Successful?

• 59,692 current certifications • 75.14% of US pigs raised on a site assessed farm

– Niche production & Youth production (27,555 individuals)

• Exposure to the concept of third party auditing• Evidence of continuous improvement

Industry Evolution

• The industry is clearly moving towards individual on-farm audits to meet customer expectations.

• How do we avoid the British experience?• Can the industry agree to one set of audit criteria?• What is the future of PQA Plus?• How can we position the US industry in the global marketplace re:

animal welfare?– 2013 exports = 26% pork and variety meat production– 2013 value = $52.95/head

Industry Audit Task Force

2013 & 2014 Pork Forum Resolution

• NPB shall work with the various packers and other industry stakeholders to develop a common foundation for on-farm animal welfare audits, facilitate equivalency among packers, and minimize the need for multiple audits on a farm supplying multiple packers. The common foundation for the audit would be based on PQA Plus and TQA.

Industry Audit Task Force

• Purpose - Facilitate the development of a workable, credible and affordable on-farm verification system.

• Objectives– Provide stakeholders with a consistent, reliable and verifiable system that

assures on-farm animal well-being

– Eliminate duplication of audits and/or minimize the administrative burden placed on producers

– Develop consensus about consistent standards between and among various independent audit programs. PQA Plus could be the foundation with possible company-specific addendums

– Create a standard process that results in inter- and intra-observer consistency and protection of herd health

Industry Audit Task Force

• JBS• Clemens/Hatfield• Hormel• Tyson• Smithfield/Farmland• Cargill• Triumph• Seaboard• Murphy-Brown• Pipestone

• Iowa Select• Maschhoffs • Hanor • Bigstone Marketing• AMVC • New Fashion Pork• NPB AWC • NPB PSQ&HN• NPB Board • NPPC Board

IATF Progress

•Exploration (Feb 2013)

–Learning from others–Can we proceed

•Data Review (Aug 2013)

–Audit Gap analysis•10 entities submitted on-farm AW audits to AASV•3 Main categories

–Retail and Foodservice Survey• qualitative interviews (n-5) and quantitative online survey (n-15)• Not statistically valid however the respondents include opinion leaders in both retail and

restaurant sectors

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

MANAGEMENT/RECORD KEEPING

Herd Health Plan (VCPR)

Manuals

Mortality Records

Medication Records

Training Program

Emergency Action Plan

Written Euthanasia Plan

Daily Records

Site Assessments

Other

ANIMAL OBSERVATIONS

Body Condition Score

Lesion Scoring

Lameness

Food/Water Access

Space Allowance

Euthanasia

Transport

Willful Acts of Abuse

Animal Handling

Medical Admin.

Other

FACILITY OBSERVATIONS

Air Temperature

Air Quality

Emergency Back-up Equip.

Facilities

Feed/Water Facilities

Biosecurity

On-farm animal well-being programs in the pork industry should include independent, third-party audits.

On-farm animal well-being programs in the pork industry should include an education component to help producers understand and comply with expectations measured in a third-party audit.

All packers in the pork industry should follow a consistent program for on-farm animal well-being audits so results can be compared from packer to packer.

Inferences

• Overwhelming support for third party audits.• Strong support for producer education to enhance compliance. • Strong support for a consistent baseline standard with a desire to

customize programs to meet specific customer needs

On-farm animal well-being audits should be designed to assure appropriate care of the animals based on standards that are grounded in peer-reviewed science.

On-farm animal well-being audits should be designed to address public perception of animal care practices regardless of what peer-reviewed science indicates.

The audit results will hold more value for our company if the audit instrument measures…

the animal’s well-being regardless of geography, farm size, facility types, or practices and technologies used. This is sometimes referred to as an outcome based audit.

the specific practices and technologies used on the farm. This is sometimes referred to as an input based audit.

I believe should be directly involved in establishing standards for on-farm animal well-being audits.

Pig Farmers Pork Packers

Food Retailer and Restaurant Representatives

I believe the entire supply chain, including farmers, packers and retailers, should be involved in setting audit standards.

Inferences

• Standards need to be based on science and address public perception and market concerns

• Strongest support for producer involvement in standard setting• Strong support for outcome based audits, but also interest in input based audits.

The third-party animal well-being audit instrument or program should be validated by a separate, credible body that has no financial interest in the audit program or audit results.

Please rate the credibility of these entities that could potentially certify audit results or an audit program

Answer Options Not at all credible

Not very credible

Neither not credible or credible

Some what credible

Highly credible

Total Credible

Professional Animal Auditor Certification Organization (PAACO)

0% 5% 25% 15% 55% 70%

A group of selected academicians that is facilitated by a third-party organization other than PAACO

0% 10% 15% 35% 40% 75%

U.S. Department of Agriculture 0% 20% 35% 30% 15% 45%

A group of selected academicians that is facilitated by the National Pork Board

20% 25% 30% 15% 10% 25%

A group of selected academicians that is facilitated by the National Pork Producers Council

20% 35% 25% 15% 5% 20%

A group of selected academicians that is facilitated by a packer trade association

20% 40% 20% 20% 0% 20%

A group of selected academicians that is facilitated by the retail and/or foodservice trade association

20% 40% 25% 15% 0% 15%

Today, pork industry audit programs measure on-farm animal well-being. Are there other elements of pork production that you believe should be included in an on-farm audit program?

1. worker health and safety 2. environmental and sustainability checks, 3. We would like all of the PQA Plus program standards included in the audit.4. How the animal is treated during transport is also important.

Inferences

• Strong support for third party validation of the audit instrument or program by a body that has no financial interest in the program or results.

• Significant difference in support for adding additional elements to the audit between qualitative and quantitative sample (100% qualitative – 50% - 50% quantitative)

• Potential issues to add include worker health and safety, environmental impacts, group housing, transport, etc.

IATF Progress

• Draft Development (Dec 2013)

– Development of a draft framework– Development of a draft audit standard

• Customer Engagement (Jan 2014)

– 17 partners from 11 food service/retail companies– Gather input on draft framework and audit standard

• Producer/Packer Review (Apr 2014)

– Review edits to Audit Standard– Review Audit Tool and scoring system

• Full IATF meeting (May 2014)

IATF Progress

• Beta Testing - objectives– Determine the approximate amount of time required to conduct an audit on sites

of various sizes and phases of production. – Determine if the audit tool and standard provides necessary clarity to auditors

for how to evaluate each audit criteria.– Validate that the scoring mechanism is appropriate and provides an accurate

summary of the conditions of the site.– Gather input from the perspective of third-party auditors who have experience

with on-farm auditing.– Establish credibility of the new audit by submitting the Industry audit for PAACO

review and certification.

• Beta testing - phases– Phase 1 – desk review (AMS)

– Phase 2 – field testing (IATF/Validus/FACTA)

– Phase 3 – external review (PAACO)

Common Swine Industry Audit

Common Swine Industry Audit

• www.pork.org/commonaudit• Audit materials

– Audit instructions– Audit standards– Audit tool– Corrective Action template– Interactive audit tool spreadsheet

• FAQ’s• Resources

– PQA Plus & TQA– Fact sheets and other educational materials– SOP templates– Record templates

• Branding

Audit Instructions

• Scope– birth to transport from the farm– Animal welfare and food safety

• Auditing Instructions– Preface/objectives– Defining a site– Scheduling an Audit– Biosecurity– Animal sampling/selection– Conducting an audit– Scoring– Completing an audit/corrective action

Audit Standard

• Willful Acts of Abuse• Humane Euthanasia• Animal Handling• Space Allowance• Body Condition• Lameness• Abscesses• Deep Wounds• Shoulder Sores• Tail Biting• Hernias• Prolapses• Scratches• Vulva Biting• Mortality

Management

• Thermal Comfort• Transport/load-out• Air Quality• Emergency Backup

Ventilation• Feed/Water Access• Facilities• Animal Cleanliness• Caretaker Training• Daily Observations• Site Assessments• Written Euthanasia Plan• Emergency Action Plan• Animal Care/Abuse Policy &

Reporting• Piglet Processing Procedures

• Treatment Management

• Manuals/SOP’s• Mortality Records• Med & Treatment

Records• Needle & Sharps Usage• Biosecurity

Audit Scoring

• Critical criteria = pass/fail• All others = score for each question/all or

nothing• Presentation of benchmarks• Total and Section cores• Defining a passing score

Audits vs. Assessments

Assessments• Educational and benchmarking• Measurement and feedback• Completed by first or second

party

• If I have recently completed a site assessment, will that count as an audit?– No

Audits• Objective snapshot in time• No educational component• Completed by a third party

• If I have recently completed a third-party audit, will that count as an assessment?– No

Questions About Implementation

• What happens if my farm fails an audit?• What happens if I refuse to be audited?• Do all farms have to be audited?• How frequently will farms need to be audited?• Who is paying for the audit to be completed?

This will depend on the market where you sell your pigs.

Buyers in the marketplace (i.e. packers) will be responsible for reviewing audit results and corrective actions to determine if their supplier has adequately resolved the identified issue or if the site requires a re-audit.

Next Steps and PQA Plus

Common Industry Audit - Next Steps

• Visual resources for animal/benchmarking criteria• PAACO Certified auditor training• Communications plan

• Producers• Packers• Customers

• Discussion on data management and usage• IATF ongoing efforts

PQA Plus Revision

1. Producer Education– Content update

2. Site Assessment– Content update – Data entry/database update

3. Third-party Verification/Audit– Replaced by Common Industry Audit

• Timeline– Finalized content due March 31st

– Educational materials developed/beta-tested– Trainers and Advisors trained– Release 2016

Role of PQA Plus Advisors in the Meantime

• Resource for producers– Before and audit

• Completing a site assessment• Conducting PQA Plus certification classes• Assistance in developing SOP’s and records

– During an audit• Producer may ask for you to be in attendance• Not obstructing the auditing process

– After an audit• Reviewing audit results with producer• Discussing root causes and potential corrective

action for items found out of compliance• Helping to write a corrective action report

Comprehensive Quality Assurance

Comprehensive Approach

Summary

• Change is the one of the few things that stay the same– 25 year history of quality assurance in the pork industry– PQA Plus will continue to evolve

• Engaging with customers to gain understanding of perspectives and meet current marketplace expectations

• Embracing a comprehensive assurance process– Of which auditing is one piece– Common Swine Industry Audit is available for anyone to use

Thank You

swebb@pork.orgdpeebles@pork.org

1-800-456-7675