Prairie Meats, Inc.: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2021 (USDA)

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 10:45 hours, while verifying HATS Category VIII – Stunning Effectiveness, I/CSI REDACTED, observed the following noncompliance: After the first stunning attempt by Mr. REDACTED, Kill Floor Manager Assistant, using a hand-held captive bolt device on a steer in the head restrainer, the animal was still conscious. Bleeding was observed from the skull area where the stun device was discharged and could be seen from the nose, and mouth. The steer eyes were open, blinking and tracking movement. Also, the body of the animal did not fall completely down. The establishment employee then used a second pre-loaded hand-held captive bolt device to attempt a second stun. After the second stun bleeding and particles of brain tissue were coming out of the wound, at which point the animal was verified insensible. I verbally notified Mr. REDACTED of my observations and issuance of the Noncompliance Report. Establishment employees had taken immediate corrective actions and no enforcement action needed to be performed. The establishment failed to meet the regulatory requirements of 313.15(a)(1).

313.15(a)(3),313.15(a)(1),313.15(b)(1)(iii)

At approximately 7:30 hours, while verifying HATS Category VIII - Stunning Effectiveness, I/CSI REDACTED, observed the following noncompliance: After the first stunning attempt by Mr. REDACTED Kill Floor Manager, using a hand-held captive bolt device on a lamb in the head restrainer, the animal was still conscious. Bleeding was observed from the skull area where the stun device was discharged and could be seen from the nose, and mouth. The lamb moved its head, neck, and tracked objects around him. The establishment employee then used a second pre-loaded hand-held captive bolt device to attempt a second stun. After the second stun bleeding could still be observed from the wound, nose, and mouth. The lamb lost mobility of the head, the head and neck dropped, and it discontinued tracking objects with its eyes. The establishment employee took the lamb out of the restrainer and it regained consciousness, it stood up on four legs and walked around the harvest floor taking approximately six steps toward the nearby livestock pens. An establishment employee then restrained the lamb using his hands and legs while another establishment employee performed a third stunning attempt with a re-loaded hand-held captive bolt device. Bleeding continued to be observed from the stun wound, nose, and mouth. The lamb lost mobility and was dragged to the shacking area. At about the same time, an establishment employee touched the eyes and noticed the eyes twitched with hand contact. The establishment employee then reloaded the hand-held captive bolt device and performed a fourth stun, at which point the animal was verified insensible. The establishment employee then performed the sticking procedure to initiate bleed out. On post-mortem examination, two head wounds were observed. The wounds were in approximately the same location on the skull, just slightly overlapping. All wounds were approximately half-way between a line drawn between both ears and the medial canthus of the opposite eye. I placed U.S. Reject tag number B43041586 on the restrainer and verbally notified Mr. REDACTED of my observations regarding the establishment’s inability to render the animal unconscious after multiple stunning attempts and allowing the lamb to regain consciousness. The establishment failed to meet the regulatory requirements of 313.15(a)(1), 313.15(a)(3), and 313.15(b)(1)(iii). I notified establishment management that I would be contacting the Des Moines District Office through supervisory channels for further guidance regarding possible enforcement action.