Hemps, Inc.: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2023 (USDA)

313.16(a)(1)

On 2/27/23 at approximately 0917 hours while observing HATS Category VIII, Stunning Effectiveness, as part of a routine Livestock Humane Handling Task at Hemp’s Meats (M-10799), FSIS personnel, Dr REDACTED, SPHV, and REDACTED, CSI, observed the following livestock humane handling (HH) noncompliance. The 4th animal to be stunned for the day, a solid black, young (less than 30-month), market heifer entered the knock box normally and was caught automatically in the establishment’s head restraint system. However, the employee failed to further isolate head movement by lowering the top, neck restrainer bar and locking the heifer’s head in place at the lowest setting on the chute. The experienced employee administered the first attempt with the customarily used 0.22 magnum rifle. As IPP were outside in a place of safety, a first shot was heard, followed by an expletive, then a ratcheting sound of the top, neck restrainer bar being lowered. The employee subsequently administered the 2nd shot, which was properly placed and effective at rendering the animal unconscious; the state in which it remained throughout shackling, hoisting, sticking, and bleeding. When questioned about the animal’s state of consciousness after the failed 1st stunning attempt, the experienced employee noted the heifer conscious and still standing in the knock box as before, thereby necessitating an immediate, effective, 2nd stun. After the head was skinned and removed, IPP observed two (2), distinct indentations; the first was at the level of the eyes (low) and approximately 0.75” to the right of midline, the second was properly placed in the X between the eyes and poll of the animal, signifying the point of optimal stunning accuracy, according to industry standards. Taking more than one stunning attempt to achieve unconsciousness represents a noncompliance with regulation 9 CFR 313.16(a)(1), which states: "The firearms shall be employed in the delivery of a bullet or projectile into the animal in accordance with this section so as to produce immediate unconsciousness in the animal by a single shot before it is shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. The animal shall be shot in such a manner that they will be rendered unconscious with a minimum of excitement and discomfort." The employee followed their written robust systematic approach (RSA) to humane handling, reloaded the same device (0.22 magnum rifle) and utilized it for each stunning attempt. Humane handling records indicate the last equipment maintenance being performed on 2/15/2023, while the last monthly record verification check was performed on 2/13/2023. The last Livestock Humane Handling NR written by IPP at M-10799 was on 1/30/2023 for a similar cause and was noted in the HH record, but no corrective actions were indicated on the back of the HH log for 1/30/2023 as are stated will occur in the RSA to HH plan. Furthermore, this was the 4th slaughter day since the incident on 1/30/2023. Part of the written corrective actions and preventative measures proffered by establishment management were that “...placement of shot to be watched reviewed and verified by management for 4 kills.” Management was not present at the time of the current HH incident on 2/27/2023. Mr. REDACTED was verbally notified by IPP and establishment management is hereby notified in writing of this repetitive, non-egregious Livestock Humane Handling non-compliance.

313.16(a)(1)

On 1/30/23 at approximately 0830 hours while observing HATS Category VIII, Stunning Effectiveness, as part of a routine Livestock Humane Handling Task at Hemp’s Meats (M-10799), FSIS personnel, Dr REDACTED, SPHV, and REDACTED, CSI, observed the following livestock humane handling (HH) noncompliance. The 3rd animal to be stunned for the day, a tannish-brown, young (less than 30-month), market steer entered the knock box relatively normally and was caught automatically in the establishment’s head restraint system, with an employee further isolating head movement by lowering the top bar and locking the steer’s head in place at the lowest setting on the chute. The experienced employee administered the first attempt with the customarily used 0.22 magnum rifle. A first shot was heard, followed by a second shot 2-3 seconds later. Due to safety concerns, IPP were still safely outside during both the 1st and 2nd attempts, so no direct observation of signs of consciousness were possible by IPP after the 1st shot. Therefore, Dr REDACTED questioned the employee on what he saw that necessitated a 2nd shot. The employee stated the animal didn’t appear to go down all the way and still seemed partially conscious. At this time, IPP and establishment employees observed the steer for signs of consciousness for several minutes, with discussion of those signs back and forth amongst the group. When no signs were observed, the employee considered starting the shackling process. At that moment, while still laying on its side, the animal began intermittent, involuntary vocalization (not a sign of consciousness), so the employee immediately administered a 3rd shot with the 0.22 magnum rifle, followed up with more evaluation for signs of consciousness for an extended period. When none were observed after several more minutes, employees successfully shackled and hoisted the animal with no signs of consciousness present. Not until the steer was fully hoisted, did it begin to swish its tail slightly and vocalize in an intermittent, involuntarily manner once again. Immediately, the employee fetched the firearm and administered a 4th shot, which effectively rendered the animal fully unconscious during the remainder of the sticking, bleeding, and skinning procedure. After the head was removed and skinned, IPP observed four (4), distinct, yet partially overlapping indentations in the middle of the cranium indicating proper precision. The accuracy of the shots however was slightly off, with each approximately 0.5-1.0” below the X between the eyes and poll of the animal, signifying the point of optimal stunning accuracy, according to industry standards. Taking more than one stunning attempt to achieve unconsciousness represents a noncompliance with regulation 9 CFR 313.16(a)(1), which states: "The firearms shall be employed in the delivery of a bullet or projectile into the animal in accordance with this section so as to produce immediate unconsciousness in the animal by a single shot before it is shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. The animal shall be shot in such a manner that they will be rendered unconscious with a minimum of excitement and discomfort." The employee followed their written robust systematic approach (RSA) to humane handling, reloaded the same device (0.22 magnum rifle) and utilized it for each stunning attempt. Humane handling records indicate the last equipment maintenance being performed on 12/16/2022, while the last monthly record verification check was performed on 12/12/2022. No other recent HH incidents or corrective actions have been noted in the HH record log by establishment personnel. The last Livestock Humane Handling NR written by IPP at M-10799 was on 6/28/2021 for a similar cause. Mr. REDACTED and Mr. REDACTED were verbally notified by IPP and are hereby notified in writing of this non-egregious Livestock Humane Handling non-compliance.