JMF Slaughter (Mobile Unit): Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2023 (USDA)

313.15(a)(1)

On 6/22/2023, at 1120 hours, while observing Stunning Effectiveness, HATS Category VIII, I, the CSI, observed the following noncompliance. An excited steer was moved into the stun box and was restrained in the head catch. For approximately 30 seconds the steer moved its head and body excitedly. The stun operator waited for the animal to calm. Once the steer settled, the stun operator applied the hand-held captive bolt (HHCB) device to the middle of the steer’s forehead. The HHCB discharged; however, the steer remained standing, eye tracking, blinking, moving its head in a circular motion, and vocalizing. The stun operator immediately applied a second stun using the back-up HHCB that was loaded and ready for use. The second stun, applied approximately 12 seconds after the first stun, rendered the animal immediately insensible. Due to the ineffective first stun, at 1125 hours, I took regulatory control action of the stun box (U.S. Reject tag # B4536943) and verbally informed both the Plant Owner and Stun Operator of the noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15 (a)(1). At 1126 hours, I communicated with the SPHV regarding the incident. Upon examination of the dressed carcass head, the SPHV observed two distinct holes. The plant’s proffered corrective actions were submitted to the SPHV and found acceptable. The area was released for slaughter at approximately 1330 hours on 6/22/2023. The plant is currently under a verification plan for an ineffective stun incident regarding pigs that occurred on 4/25/23.

313.1,313.15(b)(1)(iii)

At 0638 hours on 6/6/2023 while observing HATS Category IV - Ante-mortem Inspection and Category VII - Slips and Falls I, Dr. REDACTED, SPHV observed the following noncompliance. A beef cow was loaded in the knock box with its head closed in the head catch. It was in the box for approximately two minutes and during this time it was throwing its head around and trying to get out. As this was occurring a shackled and hoisted beef cow was being washed by pen manager and stunner operator, Mr. REDACTED. The cow in the knock box then went down on both front legs and was unable to rise. It attempted to gain footing but could not. Its eyes were wide, and its front legs were flexed with both carpi on the ground. I got Mr. REDACTED attention, and I said the cow cannot get up. He approached the knock box and attempted to get the animal to rise by tapping its head and back. The cow attempted but could not rise. I noticed under its hind feet was a rubber mat used to insulate the knock box for hog electrical stunning. This mat was coated in blood clots. The front part of the knock box was not covered by a mat, however the traction dug into the cement had multiple blood clots in it. The traction on the right side of the knock box, where the cows place their right front foot, was completely worn. The flooring was not adequately kept to prevent slips and falls. I told Mr. REDACTED that he could knock the cow without it standing since I saw it go down and I was worried it was under stress. In a previous weekly meeting, I mentioned my concern about the rubber mats being left in the knock box during cattle and small ruminant stunning on 4/24/2023. I mentioned that the rubber mat can get quite slippery when wet and covered with blood and that some cattle have a hard time keeping their footing but so far none have slipped and fallen. Mr. REDACTED, plant owner, agreed at that meeting that the material is not appropriate for cattle and sheep and will only be used for pigs. After the cow was knocked and bled, I went into the pens that did not have animals in them to inspect. I noticed in Pen 2 a black plastic water bucket had been smashed revealing a sharp edge. In Pen 3 a vertical metal bar inside the pen, near the top, had snapped off and exposed a sharp edge. Pen 3 also had metal fence wire, near the bottom, that had come undone and was sharp. Pen 1 had a metal fence wire, near the bottom, that had come undone and was sharp on its edge. In addition, the wooden boards along the chute leading to the knock box were cracked on top from previous cows that had tried to jump over. The wood was also showing signs of wear along its side. In previous weekly meetings Mr. REDACTED said he would replace the wood. At approximately 0650 hours I informed Mr. REDACTED of my findings and the forthcoming noncompliance. He removed the rubber mat from the knock box. No animals were in the pens, so a US reject tag was not placed on the pens. This is noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.1 (a), 313.1 (b), and 313.15(b)(1)(iii). The plant is currently under a humane handling verification plan for a suspension that occurred on 4/25/2023.

313.30(a)(4)

At 1247 hours on 4/25/2023 while observing HATS Category VIII - Stunning Effectiveness, I CSI REDACTED observed the following noncompliance. REDACTED, stunning operator, had a market swine (16th pig of the day) loaded in the knock box to be electrically stunned. The wooden board proffered in the plant’s verification plan, from their Notice of Suspension issued on 2/13/2023, was placed against the pig to reduce movement. Behind the pig, another employee was holding a plastic hog board to also reduce movement. The stunner applied the first electric shock to the pig’s head and effectively rendered it unconscious. The pig went down immediately after the wand was removed, the animal was convulsing, the forelimbs were extended with no vocalization or eye tracking. The pig was pulled from the knock box so that the chest stun could be applied. Mr. REDACTED tried to apply the chest stun, but he could not make contact with the chest due to the animal’s reflexive kicking movements while unconscious. He tried to make contact with the chest again, but then the pig regained consciousness, stood up without difficulty, and walked at a normal speed towards the office area (approximately 20 feet). Mr. REDACTED took the captive bolt stunner while the second operator restrained the pig. Mr. REDACTED captive bolt stunned the pig and effectively rendered it unconscious. The animal went down with no signs of vocalization or eye tracking. Finally, the animal was bled. I verified the correct captive bolt hole positioning on the animal’s head. I immediately tagged the knock box with US Rejected tag No. B45136920 and notified Mr. REDACTED, Plant Owner that no more stunning could occur. This is non-compliant with 9 CFR 313.30(a)(4). I then contacted my supervisor, Dr. REDACTED. The plant is currently under a verification plan for a humane handling incident on 2/13/2023 and the last humane handling incident was documented on 3/1/2023 (NR # OZK5814030401N). Today’s event led to a reinstatement of suspension.

313.15(a)(1)

On 3/1/23 at 0853 hours while observing HATS Category VIII -Stunning Effectiveness I Dr. REDACTED, SPHV observed the following non compliance. A market swine was loaded in the knock box (designed for cattle) at 0841 and a wooden board was pressed up against the hog to try to keep it still. The hog was able to move freely forwards and backwards and pushed the board up with its nose multiple times and even pushed it out of the knock box. The stunner, Mr. REDACTED attempted to keep the hog still for several minutes but asked for Mr. REDACTED, plant manager at 0853 for assistance. Mr. REDACTED stood in the knock box behind the pig holding the board against its body. Mr. REDACTED stood outside the knock box in front of the pig with the cattle head catch ajar. Mr. REDACTED was holding a loaded captive bolt gun and attempting to place it on the pigs head. I heard the captive bolt go off then the pig vocalized. I went to observe and saw the pig standing, eyes closed, shivering. A second stun with the back up captive bolt was given seconds later by Mr. REDACTED and the pig was rendered unconscious. Mr. REDACTED stated he thinks the first shot missed because the pig moved its head then he went back onto the slaughter trailer. After the pig was bled I asked for the head to be skinned by Mr. REDACTED. The forehead skin was removed and I noticed two holes. One hole, presumably the first stun, penetrated under the skin parallel to the top of the head, through the subcutaneous tissue and did not make contact with the skull. There was hemorrhage among the tissue on the top of the skull but there was no entry into the bone. The second hole was millimeters below and penetrated the skull and into the brain. I tagged the knock box with U.S. Reject tag # B-19890520. I informed Mr. REDACTED that they may continue processing but no more slaughter could occur. Mr. REDACTED told me that the pig knocked his hand causing the gun to fire during the first knock. This is in noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1). The plant is currently under a verification plan for a humane handling incident on 2/13/23.

313.15(a)(1)

On 2/13/23 at 0833 hours I CSI REDACTED, while I was inside the mobile slaughter unit performing on-line duties heard a captive bolt fire and right after I heard a hog grunting (vocalization). I went outside to verify HATS Category VIII - Stunning Effectiveness. When I went outside, I saw the market swine inside the knock box was still standing and calm, no signs of discomfort, with normal breathing, eye movement and the tongue was inside its mouth. I saw the hog had a hole in the middle of his head. I saw Mr. REDACTED , stunning operator, preparing the preloaded backup captive bolt when I asked him what happened, he said the stunner effectively activated when he shot it, however the animal remained standing. Mr. REDACTED then called Mr. REDACTED, plant manager, because the hog began to act aggressively, dodging the stunner by moving its head (same behavior that previous hogs had before being stunned). Mr. REDACTED applied the second stun to the hog while Mr. REDACTED restrained the animal inside the knock box. The second shot was effective and animal dropped to the ground without any signs of consciousness. The second stun was about 3 minutes later after the first stun attempt at 8:36am. Due to the ineffective first stun, I tagged the knock box with U.S. Reject tag # B-45136918 in accordance with 9 CFR 313.50(c) and called my supervisor, Dr. REDACTED, SPHV. I informed Mr. REDACTED, plant manager, of the stunning failure and forthcoming noncompliance. I also informed him that no further stunning would be allowed due to the inhumane handling of livestock. Afterwards, the SPHV examined the head using a probing tool and observed two holes closely located together, with one of the holes not penetrating the brain. This is noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1).The establishment does not have a robust humane handling program. This noncompliance led to a notice of suspension.

313.15(a)(1)

On 1/12/23 at 0910 hours while observing Stunning Effectiveness, HATS Category VIII, I CSI, REDACTED, observed the following noncompliance: A heifer was loaded and restrained properly in the knock box. The heifer initially showed some head movement, so the stun gun operator waited for the animal to calm. Once the heifer settled, the stun gun operator applied the initial stunning attempt using the captive bolt gun; the device discharged, but the stun attempt was not effective as the animal remained standing, with its eyes blinking and its head moving in a circular motion. When the stun operator observed the animal still standing, he followed with an immediate second stun attempt with the back-up captive bolt gun, approximately six seconds after the initial stun attempt. The back-up captive bolt device was properly loaded and staged. I observed the animal drop to the ground, no eye movement, and no vocalization. Due to the ineffective first stun, I tagged the knock box with U.S. Reject tag # B29170488 in accordance with 9CFR313.50(c), I informed Mr. REDACTED, Plant owner, of the stunning failure and forthcoming noncompliance. Doctor REDACTED and I examined the head with the operator after it had been removed from the carcass and observed that there were two distinct holes from the stunning attempts. Space between the two holes was 3⁄4 of inch, and one of the attempts was lateral to the ideal captive bolt position. Mr. REDACTED initiated immediate corrective action by retraining the stun operator, after which the US reject tag was removed. . This is noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.15 (a)(1).

313.15(a)(1)

On 12/15/22 at 0714 hours while observing HATS Category VIII - Stunning Effectiveness, I Dr. REDACTED, SPHV observed the following noncompliance. A hog was loaded into the knock box and the stunning operator entered the knock box with the hog. The walls of the knock box are solid so I could only see the hog’s feet. I heard the captive bolt fire but saw that the hog remained standing. The stunning operator immediately exited the knock box to grab the already loaded back up captive bolt. I looked into the knock box through the bars and saw blood on the hog’s forehead. The hog remained standing and moving its head back and forth. The operator applied a second stun that effectively rendered the hog unconscious. There was approximately 30 seconds in between stuns. The hog remained unconscious through sticking and bleeding. I immediately tagged the knock box with US Reject Tag NoB26817484 and informed plant manager Mr. REDACTED of the stunning failure and forthcoming noncompliance. This is noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.15 (a)(1).

313.2

On 11/30/22 at 0621 hours while performing HATS category II- Truck Unloading, I SPHV Dr. REDACTED, observed the following noncompliance. A Toyota Tundra truck carrying 6 goats in a metal box started to be unloaded at the establishment. The two men unloading, livestock transporters that are not employed by the establishment, started pulling up a metal box (approximately 5 ft wide by 6 ft long by 3.5 ft high with solid sides, and open on the top and bottom) with the goats towards the back of the truck. As the box moved it knocked over one of goats, and then due to the continued movement of the metal box, two other goats stood on top of the down goat. The goat on its side was vocalizing, but got up and was uninjured. The men continued unloading by scooping the goats up by the belly and dropping them to the ground from a height of approximately 24 inches. During this process, one goat fell on its side. Additionally, a different goat still on the truck got its head stuck under a metal bar in the box and one of the livestock transporters started grabbing it by the horns to force it out causing it to vocalize. I asked the two men to please not grab the goats in such a manner and to please not drop them off the truck. The men did not respond to me, so the CSI asked the men in Spanish to cease unloading in such a manner. The two livestock unloaders did not acknowledge that they heard us so I immediately went to get the plant manager, Mr. REDACTED, to tell him what I observed outside so he could get them men to stop unloading. By the time Mr. REDACTED and I went to observe the unloading together the two men had finished. At 0633 hours I verbally notified Mr. REDACTED that a noncompliance would be written. U.S Reject tag no. B26819430 was placed on the unloading gate and Mr. REDACTED was verbally notified that no more sheep or goats could be unloaded today. At 0710 hours Mr. REDACTED verbally offered corrective actions which included that no more sheep or goats would be accepted if arriving on a pickup truck and that they would have to be on a livestock trailer. Mr. REDACTED stated that in the future, if he receives animals from a truck, he would either incorporate a ramp, or be present during truck unloading of small ruminants to ensure they are unloaded in a humane manner. I accepted these corrective actions and removed the tag at 0713 hours. The establishment’s failure to ensure animals were offloaded in a manner that results in a minimum of excitement is non-compliant with 313.2(a).

313.2

On 10/20/22 at 1:08pm while conducting a humane handling task, HATS III: Water and feed availability, I SPHV Dr. REDACTED, observed the following noncompliance. Two pens holding cattle did not have water. One pen had two cattle and the other pen had five cattle. I informed pen manager, REDACTED that the cattle did not have water. He immediately went to fill up two empty plastic buckets outside the pens with water and place them in the pens. I asked if the buckets had been outside the pens since morning and he said yes. At 1:10pm I informed the owner, Mr. REDACTED of the forthcoming noncompliance. As the establishment failed to ensure that animals have access to water in all holding pens, this is noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.2(e).