Long Prairie Packing Company, LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2022 (USDA)

313.15(b)(1)(iii)

At approximately 14:40 while performing Humane Handling task: HATS Category VIII, I observed a Jersey cow's body wedged on the right side of the belly conveyor of the stunning area.  The cow's head and nose was extended forward while her back was facing the front of the restrainer.  The cow's hips were wedged between the outer restrainer wall and the belly belt.  I did not witness the cow enter the restrainer or get wedged in that previously described position; however, a small Jersey cow and a large framed Holstein cow followed the previously mentioned Jersey cow in the restrainer. The cow did vocalize while in this position. An establishment employee euthanized the cow with a handheld captive bolt in a timely manner. The cow was unconscious after the first stun. The establishment employee then performed a security stun on the unconscious cow.  The next morning (8/26/2022), I informed REDACTED, SQF Practitioner, of the forthcoming noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15 (b)(1)(iii), which states stunning areas should be designed to comfortably accommodate the kinds of animals to be stunned.

313.2

At 08:30 hours, on 18 August 2022 while performing HATS Category- antemortem inspection I, SPHV REDACTED, observed a half pen of mostly large framed Holstein cows in pen 17B which appeared to be overcrowded with no free space available and unable to easily reach the water.  I was informed by barn personnel that this was in fact a full pen of cattle numbering 62 head which is within the maximum capacity, but that the newly installed gate hold open latch had not been used and the cattle subsequently were able to close it turning it into a half pen.  A count of pen 17B was performed during Antemortem inspection and it was observed that 39 head of cattle were located there with the remainder of 23 head left in pen 17A.  All the cattle were found to be in good condition with no resultant injury or harm.  These cattle were received the previous evening and moved to this pen where they resided overnight.  Supervisor REDACTED was informed that this observation would result in a noncompliance This is a noncompliance of CFR 313.2e which states there should be adequate space for animals to freely move, drink, and rest.

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

At approximately 07:00 I began verifying HATS categories VIII and IX, "Stunning Effectives" and "Remain Unconscious," respectively by watching the cows' for signs of consciousness by the overhead "stacker," and then for successful stunning attempts beside the restrainer.  At approximately 07:05 I observed the restrainer operator run the belly belt such that a cow was brought far enough forward so that the portion of the restrainer that is designed to restrain the poll of the cow's head from going back would not prevent the cow from bending her head back.  Every time the pneumatic captive bolt operator approached the forehead of the cow with the pneumatic captive bolt device, the cow would bend her head back.  Each time the cow bent her head back the pneumatic captive bolt device could only approach the forehead of the cow at a sharp angle; there was not room between the restrainer and the forehead of the cow for the pneumatic captive bolt to approach the forehead of the cow at a near-90 degree angle.  Thus, if a knock attempt were to be made, the device would only be able to penetrate the cow's forehead at a very sharp angle, rather than the usual near-90 degree angle.  So the operator would back the device away from the cow's head without attempting to stun her, let her settle down, and then try again. The device operator made multiple attempts to get the device into position to stun the cow, but no matter how slowly and gently he tried to move it into position, the cow would react and bend her head back.  In spite of numerous failed attempts by the pneumatic captive bolt operator to get his device into position, the restrainer operator made no attempts to back the cow up so that the cow's head could be restrained. Eventually, the pneumatic captive operator attempted to stun the cow with his device, but the cow was able to bend her head back during the stun attempt.  Thus, the captive bolt penetrated the cow's forehead at a very sharp angle and the cow was not rendered unconscious; as evidenced by her vocalization and controlled movement of her head immediately after the stun attempt.  The operator made a follow up attempt at stunning the cow within three seconds after the failed attempt, and this time he successfully stunned the cow. I continued to watch the cow as she was dropped onto the conveyor below and the chain lifted her carcass up and downline to the stacker.  There were no attempts by the cow to breath as she progressed down the line, confirming my observation that she was successfully stunned with the second attempt. I then summoned the area's supervisor, Mr. REDACTED, explained what I had observed, and notified him that I would document the establishment's failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.15(b)(1)(iii) and 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) on a non-compliance record.

313.2

On June 4th at approximately 07:40 hours while performing HATS Category IV, Ante-mortem Inspection, I observed the following noncompliance:  there were 20 Canadian bulls presented for ante-mortem inspection in pen 20A.  I had also observed these bulls in this pen the previous day (6/3) because the bulls were unloaded on 6/2 at approximately 11:57 PM.  There appeared to be little-to-no cornstalk bedding/feedstuff in the pen (6/4/2022).  When I checked the feed log for the evening of 6/3, I observed that pen 20A did not get fed.  I informed REDACTED, SQF Practitioner, about the forthcoming noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.2 (e), which states animals shall have access to feed if held longer than 24 hours.  Pen 15B was bedded with cornstalk bedding, and the bulls were moved into pen 15B.

313.16(a)(1)

At approximately 13:50 while performing HATS Category IV - Antemortem Inspection, I became aware of a non-ambulatory cow in the belly of a cattle trailer. While performing HATS Category VIII - Stunning Effectiveness, the following noncompliance was observed: The cow was in sternal recumbency at the front of the trailer, so the plant employee elected to euthanize the animal via gunshot from a .22 magnum rifle to the forehead of the animal. When he discharged the firearm the cow's head became erect, the eyes blinked, and she made an attempt to rise. The establishment employee immediately grabbed a loaded handheld captive bolt device and rendered the animal unconscious. The establishment failed to meet the regulatory requirements of 9 CFR 313.16(a), as the cow was not immediately render unconscious with a single firearm shot. I notified establishment Lead Person REDACTED, who was also the employing stunning the animal, of the noncompliance and the forthcoming noncompliance record.

313.2

On March 3rd, 2022 at approximately 0900 hours, while performing HATS Category IV - Antemortem Inspection, I observed the following noncompliance with HATS Category III - Water and Feed Availability. When we came to pen 24 the barn worker physically struggled to open the latch because of the animals pushing against the gate. The cattle were standing shoulder and shoulder - I could not see any visible open space in the pen. Pen 24 had no room for animals to turn and move freely or gain access to water. When the animals came out, we counted 62 head of cattle, mostly Holstein cows. The 62 head were immediately moved to the larger pen 36. I informed establishment supervisor REDACTED of the forthcoming noncompliance.

313.1

At approximately 12:10 on Friday February 25th, 2022 while verifying Humane Handling Activities Tracking System (HATS) Category VI - Electric Prod/Alternative Object Use - I, SPHV Dr. REDACTED, observed the following humane handling noncompliance: While performing HATS Category IV - Antemortem Inspection, in the vicinity of pen thirty-seven, I observed Dr. REDACTED, DVMS-trained SPHV, beckoning me from the opposite, East, end of the barn's North alley. Dr. REDACTED was conducting the establishment 90-day Humane Handling Verification visit, of the Verification Plan of 11/19/2021. Following Dr. REDACTED to the establishment's single-file chutes leading to the restrainer, I observed Harvest General Foreman REDACTED, Harvest Superintendent REDACTED, and an establishment maintenance person peering into the North single-file chute. Within the chute, stood a single, small frame, black and white belted steer, weighing approximately 750-1000 pounds. The steer was facing East, away from the restrainer, loosely contained between the closed, hinged hydraulic gate separating the two single-file chutes, and an overhead, one-way gate further down the chute. From above and between the two single-file chutes, where is located an electric-powered, chain winch, dangled a length of chain which extended to the floor of the North single-file chute, the end of which was wrapped once around the coronary band of the steer's right foot. I observed as the establishment maintenance person hauled a length of the attached chain over the wall of the single-file chute, such that there remained sufficient slack in the chain for the free movement of the steer, and cut the chain with a power grinder. At 12:18, with the chain severed approximately six to eight feet from the winch, though still affixed to the steer's distal leg, establishment employees opened the overhead one-way gate and allowed the steer back into the crowd pen. With approximately twelve feet of loose chain trailing from its front right pastern, the steer trotted to the open pen 11A, which was closed behind it. There, at 12:20, establishment employees were successful in freeing the steer from the chain, by gently manipulating the free end from outside the pen. Throughout my observations, the steer demonstrated signs of mild agitation and demonstrated no signs of discomfort and distress. I informed Superintendent REDACTED, who remained present throughout, of the forthcoming noncompliance record documenting the establishment's failure to meet the regulatory requirements of 9 CFR 313.1(a), that the establishment's livestock pens, driveways, alleyways, and ramps be free of protrusions which may cause injury or pain to the animals. As the protruding chain was removed, from the animal and from the area, and discarded, I took no regulatory control action.

313.16(a)(1),313.16(a)(3),313.15 (b)(1)(i)

At 1405 hours while verifying HATS category II Truck Unloading and HATS category IX Consciousness On The Rail, I observed the following noncompliance involving euthanasia of a non-ambulatory animal on a livestock trailer. The establishments policy is to notify inspection personnel that a firearm is going to be used and utilize three stuns, verifying the animal is unconscious after the first stun. The establishment employee notified me that they will be euthanizing a down cow on the livestock trailer while I was verifying truck unloading. I then proceeded to perform ante-mortem inspection on a different group of cattle on the opposite end of the scale area from where the cattle are unloaded. While performing ante-mortem I heard multiple firearm discharges but was not in a line of site to determine the origin of the firearm discharge. After noticing the establishment employee went to denature the animal on the livestock trailer, I decided to verify consciousness of the euthanized animal. When I got onto the trailer, I observed a sternal recumbent dairy cow in the front-most lower-deck of the trailer adjacent but not touching the passenger side wall, with her front end facing the hitch of the trailer, with the establishment employee leaning over the cow. I observed the employee slash and inject denaturant in the middle of the left shoulder area of the cow, this being the last of six cuts through which denaturant was injected. The establishment employee had already made a cut to exsanguinate the animal prior to performing the denaturing process, the cut was actively bleeding. Remaining in sternal recumbency, the animal was holding its head up on its left side off the ground. I watched as the cow moved her head straight forward in a controlled manner holding it up off the ground, still in sternal recumbency, right after the last denaturing cut and injection was performed. At that point I also noticed the cow was rhythmically breathing. I then proceeded to investigate more closely, the conscious state of the animal. When I approached the left side of the cow, she moved her head from the straight, forward position back to her left side showing signs of distress with clenched teeth and eyes drawn tight at the inner corners. The cow blinked in a controlled manner twice, with labored breathing of increasing intensity, with blood running down her forehead, further confirming the animal was conscious. A different establishment employee brought a handheld captive bolt to attempt to stun the animal a fourth time. The handheld captive bolt device did not discharge at all with three attempts. After the first attempt with the handheld captive bolt device the cow moved her head out away from her body, holding it up of her own accord. The establishment employee then touched the inner corner of the cow’s left eye and the cow blinked in response. The establishment employee then retrieved a firearm from the barn office and returned, administering an effective stun rendering the animal unconscious. At my insistence the establishment employee verified the animal was insensible by touching the inner corner of the animal’s left eye, the animal did not respond to the touch. The establishment employee then administered two more security stuns with the firearm. I took regulatory control action, stopping all slaughter operations, by applying “U.S. Rejected” tag B41501050 to the restrainer. I notified General Foreman Mr. REDACTED, Harvest Floor Superintendent Mr. REDACTED, and Vice President Mr. REDACTED of my observations and the forthcoming noncompliance. I also informed the establishment management I will be contacting the District Office through supervisory channels for further guidance on a possible enforcement action.

313.2

On 11/12/2021 at 14:44 hours while performing antemortem inspection in the barn at pen 15A, verifying HATS category V, I observed the following noncompliance. The establishment had sorted 2 beef cows in pen 15 A. One cow was in lateral recumbency the other cow was ambulatory and blind due to extensive corneal scars. The establishment employee moved the blind animal by himself. While being driven to the adjacent pen the blind animal stumbled on the lateral recumbent animal and fell on top of her. The lateral recumbent animal made an unsuccessful attempt to get into sternal recumbency. The blind animal then got up and proceeded into the adjacent pen. Both animals were condemned on antemortem inspection. I informed Zone 2 harvest supervisor REDACTED of the forthcoming noncompliance record with 9 CFR 313.2.