JMF Slaughter (Mobile Unit): Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2021 (USDA)

313.2

On 9/23/2021 at approximately 1715 hours, I, Dr. REDACTED SVMO, while performing HATS category III, Water and Feed Availability for the Livestock Humane Handling task during an odd hours inspection, observed the following noncompliance. In one of the corner outdoor uncovered pens, the automatic water bucket had been displaced from it’s usual position, and was empty on the ground on the other side of the pen. This bucket is the only source of water in the holding pen, and there were three cattle present in the pen. I contacted FLS Dr. REDACTED, who contacted owner Mr. John Fagundes and notified him of the noncompliance. Mr. Fagundes took immediate corrective action to open up the pen to an adjacent area with an available water source. As the establishment failed to ensure that animals have access to water in all holding pens, this is noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.2(e).

313.15(a)(1)

HATS VIII: Stunning effectiveness On Friday September 10, 2021, at about 12:45pm while observing a captive bolt knock during a routine humane handling task, I Inspector REDACTED, witnessed the following non-compliance. After properly restraining a finished steer into the head gate and head restraint mechanisms, the knock box operator, was having difficulty completing an initial knock because the steer was restless. After waiting for the steer to calm itself, I observed the operator lift the captive bolt device away from the head and re-check and re-secure the head restraint which had partially loosened. As the steer continued to move its head while restrained and prevented the operator from reaching a point calm enough to engage the captive bolt trigger, the delay continued. At last, the trigger was engaged, the bolt went off, and the animal went down completely, so that the animals head and belly were resting on the concrete floor and bottom frame in the head gate. However, after a few seconds, the steer began to right itself. I observed the animal at this stage lifting itself on all four legs, with only the head bowed. When the animal went down initially in response to the first knock, the head was completely resting on the concrete floor and the bottom frame of the head gate. When the steer stood back up, the head moved up as the neck slid up within the space provided in the vertical bars of the head gate at about 1.5-2.0 feet above the concrete floor. In reviewing the incident with the operator, it was agreed that the steer was about 80-85% fully erect with only the neck and head in a bowed position like their stance at a feeding trough. At this point after about 5 -10 seconds, the operator observed the steer getting up and reached for a backup. As the backup was not loaded, the operator picked up a shell, which was next to the initial captive bolt device, loaded the initial device and administered a successful second knock upon which the animal dropped immediately from its partially erect stance. The second successful knock occurred soon after the operator observed the animal get up. I tagged the knock box with U.S. Reject tag # B0083923. I informed Mr. John Fagundes, Owner and Manager, that I observed a knock failure and that I communicated the details of my observations to my FLS. At approximately 1610 hours, Dr. REDACTED, Petaluma Circuit FLS informed Mr. Fagundes that a NR would be issued for the knock failure.

313.15(a)(1)

HATS VIII: Stunning effectiveness On Saturday August 14, 2021, at about 4:10 am while observing a captive bolt knock during a routine humane handling task, I Inspector REDACTED, witnessed the following non-compliance. After properly restraining a finished steer into the head gate and head restraint mechanism, REDACTED, the knock box operator, conducting the knock was having difficulty completing an initial knock because the steer was unusually restless. The steer continued to move its head while restrained and prevented the operator from reaching a point calm enough to engage the captive bolt trigger. At last, the trigger was engaged, the bolt went off, but the animal stood erect. The operator observed the animal remained standing, saw eye movement, and then promptly within 20 seconds, located the ready nearby back-up and engaged the trigger and the steer went down. The operator then observed the animal and confirmed there was no eye movement, no attempt to right itself, no vocalization, or any other signs of consciousness. He then performed an effective bleeding stick and after a few minutes was able to observe all signs of movement cease, and began hoisting the animal for cleaning and processing. I informed the operator this was a knock failure, to which he agreed, and then asked from his perspective why the knock failed on the first attempt. He said that he felt he was impatient with the repeated head movement, and was too hasty to pull the trigger. On inspecting the head after removal, the initial knock was about 1/2 to 3/4" low and to the right side of intended entry point on the head. Additionally, the knock box operator's response repeated his answer to my question, saying he would more patiently wait until the head was more still. He also said in the future that he would stop and check the head restraint to make sure it was as secure and tight as possible and that all other parts of the knock box and head gate were properly set. Accepting his answer and verbal corrective action, I permitted the knocking to continue. Later, when Dr. REDACTED, the PHV arrived, I informed her of the knock failure. The incident is non-compliant with humane handling 9 CFR 313.15 (a)(1). No record of similar incidents have occurred in the last thirty days.

313.1

On Friday, August 6, 2021, I Relief Inspector REDACTED, observed the following non-compliance. In the establishment's alleyway, I found wire paneling that had come detached from the permanent fence to which it was fastened. The paneling was bowed upward at the bottom and exposing some sharp edges that had caught an animal's leg and caused some minor surface abrasions in two places of one animal. I pointed out the relevant wire panel to Mr. John Fagundes, Owner, and the surface abrasions on the lower left leg of the affected animal. A US Rejected Tag # B36296363 was applied to the alleyway fencing. As it was the end of the production day, no additional regulatory action was taken, except to inform Mr. Fagundes that I would be issuing this record of non-compliance. The alleyway conditions described above is non-compliant with the Humane Handling regulation 9 CFR 313.1 that requires livestock pens, driveways and ramps be maintained in good repair and free from sharp or protruding objects that may cause injury or pain to the animals.