Springfield Meat Company, Inc.: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2021 (USDA)

313.16(a)(1)

Humane Handling Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness On July 2, 2021, at approximately 0922 hours while performing humane handling verification activities at Establishment M9704, I CSI REDACTED observed the following Noncompliance: The employee performing the stunning aimed at a bison in a livestock trailer with a .44 caliber pistol and attempted to stun the animal. At the last second bison moved his head downwards and the shot did not render the bison unconscious evidenced by the bison still standing and moving around in the trailer. The establishment employee attempted to reposition to get a better shot and delivered a second stun. The second stun rendered the bison unconscious through the remainder of the shackling and sticking process. Upon observing the head, the first shot was placed approximately six inches above the midline and two inches to the left of the mid line at the base of the left horn. The second shot was appropriately placed. This is noncompliant with 9CFR 313.16(a)(1). Richard Dewitt establishment owner was notified of this noncompliance verbally and with this notice. No regulatory control action was taken due to the immediate action by the employee.

313.15(a)(2)

HATS CATEGORY II Truck Unloading On June 30, 2021, at approximately 0835 hours while performing humane handling verification activities at Establishment M9704, I CSI REDACTED observed the following Noncompliance: Four steers were unloaded by an establishment employee into the alley way leading to the knock box. After the fourth steer entered the alley way the gate was shut behind them and the employee remained outside, leaving the steers unattended in the alley way. As I approached, I noticed the third steer in line was laying down with the steer in front of him sitting on him and the steer behind him standing on him. I immediately notified the slaughter floor employee about the situation and he came to move the steers and allow the one on the ground to get up. As the steers started to move, the one that had been stepping on the animal in front of it slid and stuck its leg through the bars of the alley way, an opening approximately 3-4 inches above shoulder height. As the steer in front of him moved away he fell onto his side with is leg stuck in the bars. The establishment employee tried to free the leg of the steer but did require the help on another employee to free it. While they worked on this, the other 3 animals had tried to back down the alley but did not have anywhere to go without stepping on each other. An establishment employee stuck a bar across the alley way to keep the other steers from backing up and they were able to free the leg of the steer in question. After his leg was free the steer stood up and did not have any obvious injuries. Due to the length of time the steers leg was stuck Regulatory control action was taken by rejecting the stunning box for use with USDA Reject Tag (No. B24778384). After discussion with the DVMS, I removed the U.S. Reject tag from the knock box and production resumed. The plant manager was notified of the Noncompliance and the Establishment’s failure to adhere to the regulatory requirements of 9 CFR 313.15(a)(2).”

313.15(a)(1)

Humane Handling Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness On June 28, 2021, at approximately 1610 hours while performing humane handling verification activities at Establishment M9704, I CSI REDACTED observed the following Noncompliance: The employee performing the stunning aimed at the heifer in the chute with a handheld captive bold device (HHCB) and attempted to stun the animal. At the last second the heifer moved her head and the shot did not render the heifer unconscious evidenced by her still standing and moving her head. The establishment employee immediately retrieved the secondary loaded HHCB device and delivered a second stun. The second stun rendered the heifer unconscious through the remainder of the shackling and sticking process. Upon observing the head, the first shot was placed approximately two inches to the left of the midline. The second shot was appropriately placed. This is noncompliant with 9CFR 313.15(a)1. Richard Dewitt establishment owner was notified of this noncompliance verbally and with this notice. No regulatory control action was taken due to the immediate action by the employee.