South 40 Farms, LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2022 (USDA)

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

On August 19, 2022, at approximately 1:30pm while I was verifying HATS Category VIII- Stunning Effectiveness during swine slaughter, I noted that the establishment stunner was operating a 6-shot .22 revolver. I stepped into the neighboring room while the stunner operator attempted to stun. While in the next room I heard the .22 pistol discharge followed by a loud vocalization from the conscious animal. The market swine was loudly vocalizing with repetition. The second stun was implemented. I heard animal movement but as I was following safety protocols for firearm usage, I was unable to see the animal. A third stun was implemented and upon return to the stunning area, I confirmed that the the animal was unconscious. I placed U.S. Rejected tag B-45 639328 on the entrance of the loading chute leading to the restrainer. I then notified Owner REDACTED of my observations and of the forthcoming noncompliance record and that I will be contacting the Des Moines District Office through the supervisory chain for further guidance. This not in compliance with 9CFR 313.16(a)(1). Post-mortem examination revealed that one wound was about 2 inches above the line between the eyes and approximately 1 inch to the left of center forehead with a depth of zero(bullet still in the skull). (as I look at head). Another wound was 1 inch above a line between the eyes and approximately .25 inch to the left of center forehead with a depth of .25 inches. (as I look at head). Another wound was about in the center of the forehead and approximately .5 inches above the line between the eyes. This noncompliance record is being associated with a similar noncompliance that was documented on 08/11/2022 (ref. NR# KLG1013084411N/1). The establishment failed to implement the corrective actions, or the measures implemented were inadequate to prevent recurrence. Continued failure to meet regulatory requirements may lead to further enforcement action as described in 9 CFR 500.4.

313.16(a)(1)

REDACTED 08/11/2022 On August 11, 2022 at approximately 10:30am while I was verifying HATS Category VIII- Stunning Effectiveness during swine slaughter, I noted that the establishment stunner was operating a 6-shot .22 revolver. I stepped into the neighboring room while the stunner operator attempted to stun. while in the next room I heard the .22 pistol discharge followed by a loud vocalization from the animal. Upon immediate investigation, I saw that the animal was conscience. The market swine was loudly vocalizing with repetition and having controlled movement within the restricted area in the loading chute leading up to the restrainer. The second shot was effective at stunning the swine. I placed U.S. Rejected tag B-45 639311 on the entrance of the loading chute leading to the restrainer, rejecting the area. I then notified supervisor REDACTED of my observations and of the forthcoming noncompliance record. This not in compliance with 9CFR 313.16(a)(1). Post-mortem examination revealed that one wound was about .5inches above the line between the eyes and approximately 1 inch to the left of center forehead. (swine’s point of view). The other wound was about center of the forehead and approximately .75inches above the line between the eyes. This noncompliance record is being associated with a similar noncompliance that was documented on 06/17/2022 (ref. NR# KLG1015065017N/1). The establishment failed to implement the corrective actions, or the measures implemented were inadequate to prevent recurrence. Continued failure to meet regulatory requirements may lead to further enforcement action as described in 9 CFR 500.4.

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

At approximately 1018 hours MT on 6/17/22, while verifying HATS Category VIII – Stunning Effectiveness, Mr. REDACTED, CSI observed a market swine put into the restrainer. The restrainer has a metal insert that restricts the movements gradually as the animal moves closer to the stunning area, where the shoulder squeeze/restraint can be used. The head is free to move while in both restraints. The establishment was employing a hand-held captive bolt (HHCB) device to do the stunning. After the initial stunning attempt, Mr. REDACTED noted the animal was conscious. The animal was standing on its front feet, with the hindquarters on the floor of the restrainer. The animal vocalized, had controlled head movements, and was looking around tracking movement, while sitting upright in the restrainer. The employee immediately retrieved the second HHCB. Cartridges for the HHCB are kept in a container alongside where both HHCB’s are kept. A second stun was applied. The second stun rendered the animal unconscious. Blood was present on the forehead from one of the stunning holes. The restrainer was tagged with U.S. Reject tag number B45 639304. Mr. REDACTED, Establishment Owner was notified of the noncompliance and forthcoming noncompliance record. Humane handling supervisor, Ms. REDACTED also observed the initial stunning attempt and the vocalization of the animal. After written preventive measures were provided, Mr. REDACTED removed the tag and slaughter operations resumed. Post-mortem examination of the head revealed two wounds. The first wound was centered 1 inch above where a line would be between the eyes. It was angled upward towards the crown of the head. The second wound was 0.5 inches lower than the first wound and 3 inches deep at an angle perpendicular to the forehead of the swine.

313.16(b)(1)(iii),313.16(a)(1)

On April 20, 2022, at approximately 0920 hours, while verifying HATS Category VIII – Stunning Effectiveness, Inspector REDACTED observed a Longhorn steer and heifer moved into a pen large enough for a truck/trailer to pull through for unloading purposes normally. The animals were left unrestrained. The inspector left the area per firearm safety protocols. Upon hearing the firearm discharge, Inspector REDACTED immediately returned to an area where he could visually inspect the animal (approximately 30 feet away) and observed the plant employee again aiming the .22 standard caliber firearm, as both the heifer and the steer were both on their feet. The animals did not vocalize. Inspector REDACTED stepped back to safety and again heard the firearm discharge. Inspector REDACTED immediately returned to the area where he could visually inspect the animal (approximately 30 feet away) and observed the plant employee was again aiming the same .22 standard caliber firearm to shoot, as both the heifer and the steer were on their feet. The animals did not vocalize. Inspector REDACTED stepped back to safety and heard a third shot fired. Inspector REDACTED immediately returned to the same area. The steer was observed on the ground, on its side, with all four limbs rigidly extended. The heifer was still standing and observed excitedly moving around the pen. The establishment employees then moved the heifer to an adjacent pen. While the plant employee was closing the gate for the heifer, Inspector REDACTED observed that the steer lost its rigidity and there was controlled lifting of its head as it attempted to sit up by rocking on its side. A second plant employee (Supervisor REDACTED) noticed this right away, grabbed the firearm, and stated that he was going to apply another shot while the steer was on the ground. Inspector REDACTED went to safety again and the firearm was heard discharging a fourth time. Inspector REDACTED immediately returned to the area and upon closer examination of the steer he confirmed that the animal was unconscious. Blood was present from three holes in the skull of the animal. The restrainer was tagged with U.S. Reject tag number B45 639453. REDACTED (Supervisor) and REDACTED (Owner) were notified of the noncompliance. Three stun wounds were observed on postmortem examination: one stun attempt was 2 inches toward the crown of the head from center and .75 inch to the left of a line in the center of the head. This shot was .75 inches deep. A second stun attempt was 1.5 inches left of center and 1 inch deep. A third stun attempt was in the middle of the eye/ear cross pattern and was 1.375 inches deep. All stun attempts were made using the same .22 standard caliber that uses a single shot firing mechanism with a clip to hold extra ammunition.

313.2

REDACTED 03/28/2022 On March 28, 2022 at approximately 7:05am as I was conducting a humane handling verification on 15 head of beef that were received the day before, I noticed that they did not have access to any open water(HATS Category III - Water and Feed Availability). As I investigated further, I saw that 1 of the 3, 25-gallon watering tanks was empty and that the other 2 were about 1/3 of the way full with about an 1⁄2 inch layer of solid ice covering the entire surface of the water in the tank. The water tanks and beef were located in pen #1 which is an outdoor pen. I promptly rejected the pen with U.S. Rejected tag B-45 639455 and notified Supervisor REDACTED of my findings and the forthcoming noncompliance record. This is not compliant 9CFR 313.2(e) for the lack of accessible water in the holding pen. Mr. REDACTED immediately remedied the situation by opening access to the barn which allowed the beef access to the automatic watering system inside the barn. The beef appeared to be in good condition. I later removed U.S. Rejected tag B-45 639455 during my antemortem inspection at approximately 7:30 am after verifying that the ice had been broken through and the tanks had been filled in preparation for any more beef that would be received later in that day. A similar noncompliance was observed and documented on 03/07/2022 (ref. NR# KLG2208033407N /1). The establishment failed to implement the corrective actions, or the measures implemented were inadequate to prevent recurrence. Continued failure to meet regulatory requirements may lead to further enforcement action as described in 9 CFR 500.4.

313.2

REDACTED 03/07/2022 On at approximately 7:00am, as I was conducting a humane handling verification task on a load of beef that were received the day before, I observed that 7 head of beef did not have any accessible water (HATS Category III – Water and Feed Availability). The beef were located in holding pen #1 which is an outdoor pen. The water tank in the pen has a 25-gallon capacity, with a water heater to combat the buildup of ice. The water tank was empty except for approximately 2-3 inches of ice built up around the water heater in the bottom of the water tank. I promptly rejected pen #1 with U.S. Rejected Tag B-45 639458. I then notified Owner, Mr. REDACTED, of my observations and of the forthcoming humane handling noncompliance record. This is not compliant with regulation 9 CFR 313.2(e) for lack of water in the holding pen. Mr. REDACTED immediately remedied the situation by opening access to the inside of the barn for the beef, giving them access to 2 automatic watering systems. The beef were in good condition and did not appear to be dehydrated.. I removed U.S. Rejected Tag B-45 639458, once the water heater was fixed and the tank filled with water in preparation for the next load of beef due to arrive later in the day. Mr. REDACTED did say he would look into obtaining a larger water tank, and that he is investigating the cause of the failed water heater.

313.1

On 12/07/21 at 0915 hours while performing antemortem on 7 beef at the outside pen 1, the following noncompliance was observed with HATS Category IV, Antemortem Inspection. A wire panel attached to a metal gate had a broken wire protruding from the panel with a large amount of hair presumably from the cattle attached to it. Since the broken and protruding wire may cause injury or pain to the animals, this is a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.1(a). Owner: Mr. REDACTED was verbally informed of the noncompliance and that a NR would be issued. The establishment immediately repaired the wire panel. No verbal preventative measures were proffered by the establishment to prevent the reoccurrence of this noncompliance.

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 1015 hours on 10-7-21 while verifying HATS Category VIII – Stunning Effectiveness, IPP observed the following noncompliance on a beef heifer: The animal was put into the restrainer and the head catch. The first stun attempt with the captive bolt did not render the animal immediately unconscious. The animal vocalized and remained standing. The stunning operator immediately grabbed another captive bolt that was already loaded. A second stun attempt also did not render the animal unconscious. IPP observed blinking of the eyes and the animal remained standing. A third stun attempt was again immediately performed after reloading the captive bolt that rendered the animal unconscious and it dropped to the floor. A fourth stun was applied after the animal was down as a safety stun. The restrainer was tagged immediately with U.S. Reject tag number B-45639489. Owner: Mr. REDACTED was present during the incident and was informed that the establishment had failed to meet the regulatory requirements of 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1), a Non-Compliance Record would be issued, and the District Office would be contacted for further guidance. On post-mortem examination there is one hole directly within the eye/ear cross pattern. A second hole is an inch to the right and an inch above the first hole. Both of those holes penetrate the brain cavity. A third hole is approximately 5 inches directly below the first hole. A fourth hole is approximately 2 inches down and 3 inches to the right of the first hole. The last two holes penetrated approximately 1⁄2 an inch into the skull.