Seriously, use your own legal definitions

To all the poultry folks out there.....I'm  :angry2: this morning over a CAR that we felt was unwarranted

How do you manage the animal welfare portion i.e. Chapter 12. It reads as if we need to train each employee as a vet, which is ludicrous and goes on to define "compromised" as "An animal with reduced capacity to withstand transportation but where transportation with special provisions is not likely to lead to suffering, injury or death."

BUT they keep using the word compromised to define birds state while alive.  It's exhausting trying to match CFIA and the legal mess they have made in the regulations......

We currently perform 3! ante mortems (2 of ours, 1 CFIA inspector), have approved methods for humane euthanization, correct procedures for DOA, as well as 4/day monitoring of live hang employees and the birds

I refuse to roll over and give in......enough is enough

Any thoughts from meat folks in general and poultry specifically would be appreciated

I should note: we are NOT chicken or turkey 

A paper GBP 5 on "legal"

@scampi - it does sound like a highly complex problem. My sympathies. Would that the Universe was Vegetarian ?

Charles, GBP?

The Meat Manual of Procedures is a legally binding set of requirements......supported by the Meat Inspection Regulations.........

It is a very complex and exceedingly grey area.......I'm responsible for the welfare of the animals but i am not a vet and my employees certainly are not..........is the bird small or is it unhealthy......sigh

A world of vegetarians????  Well, my job would be simpler and more straight forward that's for sure!

Charles, GBP?

 

The Meat Manual of Procedures is a legally binding set of requirements......supported by the Meat Inspection Regulations.........

Sorry, GBP = British Pound but the comment was a reply to a Post from  :sorcerer:  which no longer exists.