Molokai Livestock Cooperative: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2022 (USDA)
See the detail of the non-compliance of humane livestock handling that the USDA observed at the Molokai Livestock Cooperative slaughterhouse establishment in 2022.
You can also see other establishments that were non-compliant in 2022.
313.15(b)(1)(iii),313.15(a)(1)
Category VIII-Stunning Effectiveness On 8/25/2022 at approximately 0840 hours while performing livestock postmortem inspection, I observed the following humane handling noncompliance. I observed the supervisor attempt to hand-held captive bolt (HHCB) stun an excited cow in the stun box. I heard the HHCB device discharge, but the cow remained standing and taking a few steps in the stun box. The supervisor reloaded the HHCB device and immediately applied an effective second stun, rendering the bovine completely unconscious. I spoke with the plant manager, who informed me that the cow bucked the HHCB device with her head during the first stun attempt. On postmortem inspection of the dressed head, the plant manager and I observed two penetrating captive bolt holes on the front of the skull. One captive bolt hole was too shallow due to the bucking movement and too low down the skull. I verbally notified the plant manager of the noncompliance with 313.15(a)(1) and 313.15(b)(1)(iii). There was one other noncompliance issued on August 18, 2022, for the same root cause.
313.15(a)(1)
Category VIII-Stunning Effectiveness On 8/18/2022 at approximately 1245 hours while performing livestock postmortem inspection, I observed the following humane handling noncompliance. I observed the supervisor attempt to hand-held captive bolt (HHCB) stun a very agitated bull in the stun box. I heard the HHCB device discharge but observed no change in the bull’s consciousness or demeanor. The bull remained standing, pawing the floor, vocalizing and snorting in the stun box. The supervisor reloaded the HHCB device and applied a second stun attempt to the bull. I observed the bull immediately drop to the floor of the stun box. When the establishment personnel opened the stun box door, I observed the bull on the floor, but he blinked. The establishment immediately delivered an effective third stun via the reloaded HCCB device, rendering the bull effectively unconscious. I spoke with the plant manager and supervisor, who informed me that the bull bucked the tip of the HHCB device with his head during the first stun attempt with no contact made between the penetrating rod and the bull. On postmortem inspection of the dressed head, the plant manager and I confirmed that no contact occurred on the first stun attempt, as evidenced by only two penetrating captive bolt holes on the front of the skull with no other wounds observed. We also confirmed that one captive bolt hole was slightly too low on the skull. Thus, contact to the brain was made, but did not fully render the bull immediately unconscious on the second stun attempt (first stun attempt to make contact with the bull). I verbally notified the plant manager of the noncompliance with 313.15(a)(1). No regulatory control action was taken due to the observed immediate and effective corrective actions demonstrated by the establishment without IPP intervention. The Denver District Office was contacted through supervisory channels. There have been no noncompliance’s for the same root cause issued within the past 90 days.
