Cimpl's, LLC.: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2023 (USDA)

313.1

On 6/27/2023 during the NOIE exit meeting Dr. REDACTED DVM notified the establishment of her finding in pen 10 which was noted in MOIPMB29120658271 issued that day (6/27/2023). In the MOI the following finding was noted: At approximately 0745 hours, Dr. REDACTED was walking around Pen 10, which was observed empty, and observed a piece of corrugated metal contiguous to the lower corner of the white garage door, at the level of the cement barrier, that was rusted and had jagged edges protruding outward. No evidence of animal injury was observed. On 7/6/2023, the establishment provided a response to the previous mentioned MOI. In the establishments response it was stated, “The corrugated piece of metal was removed and a thorough inspection of the barn was performed by QA to identify any other like areas of concern that could potentially cause injury to any cattle during the transition from receiving to slaughter with no additional findings.” After reviewing the establishments response to the MOI, at approximately 1700 hours, I (CSI REDACTED) visited Pen 10. There were no animals present in the pen at this time. Upon entering Pen 10 I observed the area mentioned by Dr. REDACTED in the MOI. I observed a hole approximately 5 inches by 5 inches with jagged edges, large enough for cattle to get their nose into and potentially cause injury. At this time I took a regulatory control action and placed U.S. Reject tag #B-45869985 on the west gate of Pen 10. I then notified Barn Lead REDACTED, Harvest Supervisor REDACTED and FSQA Manager REDACTED of the finding and forth coming NR. On7/7/2023, at approximately 0555 hours, prior to performing HATS task category VIII Ante-Mortem inspection I visited Pen 10 and observed that the area previously mentioned had been adequately repaired preventing any possible injury to animals. At this time I released the area for livestock holding use. This finding is not compliant with 9CFR313.1(a)

313.15(a)(1)

On 6/12/2023, at approximately 0835 hrs. While performing HATS task category VIII (Stunning Effectiveness), I (CSI REDACTED) observed a mature Charolais bull enter the restrainer. Stunning personnel successfully captured the animals head in the head catch. Stunning personnel applied the pneumatic stunner to the animals head and applied a stun. After the initial stun I observed the animal was still standing with coordinated eye movement but no vocalization I also observed a wound from the initial stun. Stunning personnel looked in my direction I reminded him that immediate corrective actions are necessary. At this time stunning personnel applied a 2nd stun with the same pneumatic stunner which was effective. Harvest Floor Superintendent REDACTED arrived in the area and was informed of the finding. At this time I applied U.S. Reject tag #B-45860087 to the stunning area. I returned to the USDA office and relayed my findings to Dr. REDACTED for further guidance. A meeting was held with establishment management to discuss the incident. Management personnel stated that the stunning operator assessed the bull for sensibility as well as checked the pressure gauge, then performed the second effective stun. Management also stated that the stunning operator will be retrained and a head-split verification will be performed on the affected bull as part of the training process. In the meantime, the stunning operator was replaced by Mr. REDACTED until the retraining was complete. After the meeting took place and corrective actions implemented, the US Reject tag was removed and slaughter resumed at approximately 0955 hours. This finding is not in compliance with 313.15(a)(1). This Non-compliance is being associated with a like finding NR #PMB3709024627N/1 issued on 2/27/2023.

313.15(a)(1)

On February 27, 2023, at approximately 0848 hours, while performing a Hats Category VIII task (Stunning Effectiveness), IPP observed the following non-compliance: A mature black Angus bull entered the restrainer. Stunning personnel securely restrained the head of the animal. The initial stun attempt was applied using a a pneumatic captive bolt stunning apparatus. IPP observed that the animal remained conscious, it did not drop, and the animal was still standing in the restrainer. IPP observed stunning personnel apply a second stun attempt with the same device. The animal remained conscious and standing in the restrainer. As stunning personnel checked the left eye, the animal was blinking with no vocalization from the animal. Stunning personnel applied a third stun using the same pneumatic stunning apparatus as the first two attempts, which effectively rendered the animal unconscious. At this time I applied U.S. Reject tag #B39492669 to the Restrainer. IPP informed the Harvest Floor Supervisor of the non-compliance, and then returned to the Inspection office and relayed the findings to the District Office through supervisory channels for further guidance

313.2

On the morning of 12/19/22, at approximately 0500 hours, I was performing an Odd Hours Humane Handling task, when I observed that pen 10 looked to be overcrowded. There were 72 Jersey cows in the pen that were all standing upright shoulder to shoulder with no free space in the pen. There is only one waterer in the pen which is located in the Southwest corner of the pen. 9 CFR 313.2(e) states that livestock held in holding pens must have access to water at all times, must have access to feed if held longer than 24 hours, and must have ample room to lie down if held overnight. I brought the issue to the attention of the barn employee. He moved 8 of animals to another holding pen. Establishment records showed that the animals were received at two different times on the night of 12/18/22. One load of 31 head were received at 2049 hours and another load of 41 head were received at 2102 hours. The records show both loads were moved to pen 10. Since the animals did not have ample room to lie down overnight and that access to water would be restricted due to the crowding of the pen, the establishment is not in compliance with 9 CFR 313.2(e). FSQA Manager, REDACTED and Harvest Superintendent, REDACTED were notified of the noncompliance and the forth-coming noncompliance report.

313.2

On the morning of 12/19/22, at approximately 0640 hours, I was performing Ante-mortem Inspection duties when the following non-compliance was observed: While pen 19 was being unloaded, there was a downed cow in the pen. The establishment did a good job of moving the rest of cattle around the downed cow and locked them up in another pen. Two establishment employees (EE) approached the downed cow and tried to coax the animal up with rattle paddles but was unsuccessful. When one of the EE’s went to retrieve an electric prod, the downed cow rolled over on her side and laid her head flat to the ground. When the EE returned with the electric prod the animal did not respond to his presence and only flinched slightly when the EE contacted her with the prod. The EE physically rolled the cow to an upright position before administering a shock with the prod pressed underneath the animal in the rib area and administered a long shock with a lifting/jabbing motion. The cow tried to stand but failed. It was apparent to me that she was weak and was unable to stand. On the last attempt, the EE with the prod contacted the cow behind the shoulder and administered another shock. The cow struggled to get up slightly and was twitching from the shock with her mouth open. This prod also appeared to be longer than usual based on prods that I have previously witnessed. At this point, I stated to the EE to stop verbally and using hand gestures. The EE’s decided to euthanize the cow shortly after. Before the EE's returned with the euthanasia equipment, the cow rolled back on her side and laid her head flat to the ground. In my opinion, the cow was showing signs of severe distress which was being amplified by the EE’s attempts to get her to rise, and the length of the shocks were an excessive use of the electric prod. At this point it was apparent to me that this cow was unable to stand on its own and any attempts to raise the animal would be unnecessary and excessive. Due to the excessive use of an electric prodding device the establishment is not in compliance with 9 CFR 313.2(b). FSQA Manager, REDACTED and Harvest Superintendent, REDACTED were notified of the noncompliance and the forth-coming noncompliance report.

313.2

On 12/16/2022, at approximately 0615 hours, while performing Ante-mortem Inspection duties -HATS Category IV, I (CSI REDACTED) observed a non-compliance with Water and Feed Availability- HATS Category III. The waterer servicing pens 17 & 18 was completely crusted over with approximately 1/8 inch of ice on the side servicing pen 17. At this time pen 17 did not contain any animals. I observed an area in the waterer servicing pen 18 large enough for the approximately 40 animals in the pen to gain access to water although it was in the process of freezing over. I applied U.S. Rejected tag #B-45871751 on the hanger of pen 17. I notified acting barn lead Ms. REDACTED of the finding. Immediate corrective actions given from Ms. REDACTED were that the animals in pen 18 would be moved to pen 22 which had a fully functional waterer. Ms. REDACTED also placed establishment hold cards on both pens 17 & 18. After Ante-mortem inspection was completed I reviewed the establishments water log records and observed that overnight personnel had signed off at approximately 0500 hours that all waterers were in good working order. At approximately 0655 hours, while making my way to the stunning area I observed that the waterer in pen 10 appeared to be freezing/frozen over. At this time pen 10 contained approximately 50 head of animals. A barn employee entered pen 10 and checked the waterer as I observed. The barn employee confirmed that the waterer did indeed have a thin layer of ice. At this time I applied U.S. Rejected tag #B-45871752 to the gated latch for pen 10. I requested a barn employee contact Ms. REDACTED. When Ms. REDACTED arrived I informed her of the finding. She immediately moved the animals contained in the pen to pens 2 & 12. After pen 10 was emptied I checked the waterer and verified that both sides of the waterer were iced over with approximately 1/8 inch of ice. I informed Ms. REDACTED of the forthcoming non-compliance record. This finding is not in compliance with 9CFR313.2(e).