Lone Star Beef Processors: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2022 (USDA)

313.15(a)(1)

At 1418 hours on 9/29/2022, while performing my humane handling task HATS Catagory VIII, I observed the following non-compliance. At 1418 hours, I visually observed the hourly employee attempt to stun the animal and did not render the animal insensible as evidenced by the animal looking around and moving around in the knocking box. The hourly employee then obtained the handheld captive bolt and rendered the animal insensible in approximately 10-15 seconds. When I returned to the FSIS office, REDACTED (Assistant Plant Manager) and REDACTED (QA Supervisor) came into the office to inquire about the incident. At that time I informed the supervisors concerning the incident and they left and stated they were going to review the video and will return. I determined that the establishment is non-compliant with 9CFR313.15(a)(1) by not rendering an animal insensible on the first stunning attempt.

313.15(a)(1)

At 1413 hours, while performing a Livestock Humane Handling task HATS VIII, I observed the following non-compliance. The hourly employee, using a compressed air captive bolt tool, stunned the animal a couple inches above the eyes (as you would draw a line from eye to eye). The animal was not rendered insensible with the first attempt as evident by the animal remaining standing up, looked around and was walking back and forth in the knocking box. After 18 seconds of the hourly employee trying to wait for the animal to stop moving, the animal was successfully stunned as evident by the animal falling to the ground. At 1425 hours, establishment supervisor REDACTED (Assistant Plant Manager) was notified of the incident and was informed that a NR would be written after further review. I determined that the establishment is not compliant with 9CFR313.15(a)(1) by not rendering the animal unconscious with the first stunning attempt.

313.15(a)(1)

On Monday May 2, 2022 at approximately 0930 hours, while performing a Humane Handling Routine Task: HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness, I SPHV REDACTED observed an establishment employee in the pens attempting to stun a beef cow that had been condemned on ante-mortem for epithelioma. Following the initial stun attempt with a captive bolt, which was aimed at the poll of the cow, the cow remained with its head upright and conscious. The beef cow was alert, showing signs of rhythmic breathing, and took a few steps forward and a few steps backward. A few seconds later, the employee then attempted a second stun to the forehead of the beef cow, which was effective at rendering the animal unconscious. A third, additional safety knock was also applied to the forehead at this time. Pen Lead REDACTED, Cattle Manager REDACTED, and Vice President of Food Safety REDACTED were made aware of the occurrence and forthcoming noncompliance record. This occurrence described above fails to meet the regulatory requirements of 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1).