Baksh Food LLC,: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2022 (USDA)

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 1250 on 28 June 2022, IPP observed a non-compliance while performing HATS Category VIII, Stunning Effectiveness. The twenty second animal (a large sow) was brought into the stunning area where the head was marked for captive bolt. The stunning operator fired the first captive bolt device on the marked spot but had little to no effect on the animal. The animal took a step back, remained standing and conscious. The operator took immediate action and fired a second captive bolt device (was loaded and ready for use) from the back of the animal’s right ear but that too had little effect and the animal remained standing and conscious. The operator then got a firearm (.380 pistol) and fired one shot which rendered the animal unconscious. The firearm was locked in a locker approximately10 feet away from knock box. When the operator noticed he needed the firearm, he went and got maintenance to unlock the locker to access the firearm. In all it took approximately 3 minutes from first captive bolt firing to the use of the firearm which rendered the animal unconscious. The IPP notified management, REDACTED they had failed to meet regulatory requirements of 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1). Management was informed that IPP will take regulatory control action and contact District office through supervisory channels for further guidance regarding possible enforcement action. The stunning area was tagged with U.S. Reject tag B-15-262921. A postmortem was done on the head and the findings included the following: 1.) The first captive bolt shot had good placement but did not pierce the skull. 2.) The second captive bolt shot from behind the right ear had a good angle but only penetrated roughly 4 inches and did not puncture the skull. 3.) The gunshot was placed roughly 1 inch to the left of the first captive bolt shot, which punctured the skull and rendered the animal unconscious.

313.15(a)(1)

On April 30, 2022, at approximately 1800, in plant personnel (IPP) observed a failure to render a market swine unconscious on the first attempt while performing a Category Vlll Stunning Effectiveness task. IPP observed the market swine being detained in a small enclosure that the animal was able to turn around in and is not the primary restrainer used for stunning. The establishment personnel marked the head of the swine with ink to indicate the proper placement for the hand-held captive bolt (HHCB) to be applied. The establishment personnel proceeded to apply the HHCB to the head of the swine and fire it. The swine then began to vocalize and move about the enclosure, to avoid restraint by the personnel. Establishment personnel promptly took a secondary HHCB and attempted to restrain the animal by hand to apply a second shot. The animal calmed enough for the second attempt to be successful. IPP informed the establishment manager, REDACTED that they failed to render the animal unconscious on the first attempt and that they will be issued a noncompliance report. Two reject tags were applied to both HHCB's. (B15 262943, B15 262944)

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 0815, in plant personnel (IPP) observed a humane handling noncompliance while performing HATS category Vlll- Stunning Effectiveness. IPP observed an establishment employee fire a hand-held captive bolt (HHCB) into the head of a beef cow when she was in the restrainer. The cow began to vocalize with her tongue extended, and track movement with her eyes. The establishment employee immediately fired a second shot with the back-up HHCB. The second stun attempt failed to render the animal unconscious, showing the same signs of consciousness as before. Slaughter Floor Supervisor, Mr. REDACTED took control of the first HHCB, immediately reloaded it and quickly made a third stunning attempt, which successfully rendered that animal unconscious. After the animal was removed from the restrainer, IPP inspected the head of the beef cow and found two holes. One hole was noticeably larger than the other hole. The larger hole was on the midline of the head, at the level of the medial canthus of the eyes. The smaller hole was located on the midline of the head several inches dorsal to the larger hole. IPP placed US Reject Tag # B15 262912 on the restrainer then notified Mr. REDACTED of the noncompliance, that a noncompliance report will be issued and that the district office would be contacted for further guidance.

313.15(a)(1)

HATS VIII-Stunning Effectiveness At approximately 1545 hours, in plant personnel (IPP) heard the sound of a hand-held captive bolt (HHCB) device being fired and subsequently vocalization of a market hog coming from the animal restrainer. IPP approached the restrainer and determined that there was one hog in the restrainer and that it was the source of the vocalization. IPP also determined that the attempt to render the swine unconscious was ineffective and the animal remained conscious as exhibited by the hog’s continued vocalization and thrashing. IPP observed Mr. REDACTED the Slaughter Floor/Barn Supervisor, holding a HHCB with the bolt fully extended. Mr. REDACTED Establishment Manager, immediately relieved Mr. REDACTED and placed the backup preloaded HHCB on the head of the hog. He then made a second stunning attempt with the HHCB, and the hog ceased to vocalize.. IPP checked for consciousness and confirmed the animal was successfully rendered unconsciousness. IPP observed two distinctly separate holes in the head of the hog . One hole was equal distance laterally to the medial line of the head and the canthus of the eye . IPP informed Mr. REDACTED that this event was a noncompliance, and a noncompliance record would be issued. IPP applied US Reject tag # B15 262911 to the restrainer. Mr. REDACTED provided verbal preventative measures and I removed my tag and slaughter operations resumed.

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 1100 hours on 01 October 2021, IPP observed a non-compliance while performing HATS Category VIII, Stunning Effectiveness. The fourth animal (Brown Swiss Cow) of the day was brought into the stunning area where its head was restrained in the head restrainer. IPP observed establishment personnel place and fire the held-held captive bolt (HHCB) device. The animal remained conscious and was standing upright, pulled her head backward with the head remaining in the restrainer. The stunning operator was able to then place the back-up HHCB onto the head of the cow and made a second attempt to render the animal unconscious. The animal remained upright, its eyes were tracking movement and made attempts to avoid the HHCB. Establishment Manager REDACTED stepped up and in the same method failed to render the animal unconscious. Mr. REDACTED made a fourth attempt and succeeded in rendering the animal unconscious. IPP informed Mr. REDACTED that the establishment had failed to meet the regulatory requirements of 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1). Mr. REDACTED was informed that IPP will take a regulatory control action and contact the Des Moines District Office through supervisory channels for further guidance regarding possible enforcement action. The stunning area was tagged with U.S Reject tag number B-46100162. IPP inspected the head after it had been removed from the carcass. IPP, referring to the to the training used by the establishment “Observation of Stunning Placement in Cattle”, observed that the placement of three puncture holes were lower than prescribed and a fourth hole was within their guidelines. The establishment proceeded to split the head along the medial line with a saw, to gain visual access to the brain cavity.