Maui Cattle Company, LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2022 (USDA)

313.15(a)(1)

HATS Category VIII - Stunning Effectiveness On Friday June 10, 2022 at ~0730 hours I, Dr. REDACTED, was onsite for lamb slaughter at Maui Cattle Company (M27268A).  The second lamb of the day was being stunned in an alternative entrance area and not the stun box typically used for cattle.  This area does not have adequate built-in restraint so they relied on an employee to restrain the animal while a second employee stuns.  I was conversing with a plant employee on the other side of the door when I heard the captive bolt device discharge.  A short time (less than 30 seconds) later the CSI called me out to look at the animal.  The lamb in question was standing and walking, disoriented, but quiet.  Blood was observed coming from the nostrils and I could see where the captive bolt made contact on the head.  While I was observing this the stun operator attempted a second stun, in the same area, which was also ineffective.  The lamb dropped but remained conscious.  A palpebral reflex, eye tracking, and rhythmic breathing were all present, and it attempted to rise.  At this point the stun operator was observed to watch the lamb but not make any attempted corrective actions, so we informed him that he needed to stun again.  He had to reload the captive bolt so there was another ~30 sec. delay, and when he attempted to stun, I noticed the captive bolt was placed in the same area, so I asked that he “aim higher”.  He did so and the 3rd stun was effective.  I verbally informed them that we were taking a withholding action and called Ms. REDACTED, DDM.  After the call the alternative entrance knocking area was rejected with US Reject tag, B-45040510.  I informed the responsible plant employee that they could finish the dressing and inspection of the first two animals that were stunned but no further stunning could occur.  I also let them know that a withholding action will remain in place and depending on the conversation with district office they may face a possible suspension if the determination was that this was egregious.  I was informed that the captive bolt device they typically use for lambs is not functioning, so they used the larger cattle captive bolt device.  Even though they had a backup captive bolt device, it was not loaded or used, (i.e. they used the same device on all three attempts).  I verified three penetrating holes through the skull -  the first hole was located right between the eyes and the second hole was touching the first.  The third hole was ~1/2 inch higher on the skull.  I informed the Plant Manager, Ms. REDACTED, of the withholding action via email since she was not on-site. Following establishment notification, the Denver District Office discussed this case and issued a Notice of Suspension.   The establishment does not currently operate under a robust systematic approach to humane handling, so a notice of intended enforcement action was not considered.

313.15(a)(1)

HATS Category VIII - Stunning Effectiveness On October 19, 2021 at approximately 0940 hours, during a Routine Humane Handling Task, I (CSI REDACTED) observed an ineffective stun attempt at Maui Cattle Company M27268A. I observed the Floor supervisor using a hand-held captive bolt device (HHCB) to stun animals with backup HHCB device and a backup 357 magnum rifle within reach of the stun box. I heifer's head secured in the head catch device. The heifer rotated her head as the automatic triggering mechanism of the HHCB made contact with her head. When the captive bolt fired, the barrel and handle appeared to be pushed away from the heifer by the bolt failing to fully penetrate her skull. After the first stun attempt, the heifer remained standing and blinked her eyelids multiple times, but there was no vocalization observed and she did not exhibit signs of distress. I observed the Floor Supervisor immediately and effectively stun the animal on the second stun attempt with the backup HHCB device. I inspected the skull on the head rack to verify my observation. I verified two holes in the center of her skull, one of which was along a lateral plane running laterally inside her frontal sinus. I informed Mr. REDACTED, Floor Supervisor, that the observed ineffective stun would be documented as noncompliant with CFR 313.15. FLS Dr. REDACTED was present and observed the ineffective stunning attempt and determined that the immediate corrective action applied with the back up HHCB device was effective, and that this did not rise to the level of egregious. Denver district management was informed of the humane handling non-compliance via supervisory channels. There have been no noncompliance records of the same root cause documenting with the past 90 days.