Maui Cattle Company, LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2023 (USDA)

313.15(a)(1)

HATS Category VIII - Stunning Effectiveness On 10/4/2022 at approximately 0850 hours, I, the DVMS, observed the establishment’s attempt to stun a bovine. I observed the steer driven through the chute into the stun box and the hydraulic butt push and head catch utilized, with the animal placing its chin on the chin rest. The initial stun attempt applied with the hand-held captive bolt (HHCB) device sounded weak and was ineffective in rendering the steer unconscious. I observed the steer remain standing with eyes tracking and rhythmically breathing. I utilized my flashlight to verify a pupillary light response. There were no signs of distress or vocalization. The establishment stun operator retrieved the readily available backup HHCB device and applied a second stun attempt. The second stun attempt was immediately effective in rendering the animal unconscious. The stun operator applied a security stun (third stun) from the reloaded HHCB device. The animal remained unconscious throughout the shackling, hoisting and bleeding process. No regulatory control action was taken due to the observed immediate and affective corrective actions. I verbally notified the Processing Manager of the noncompliance. Upon inspection of the dressed head, I observed a non-penetrating stun hole and two penetrating stun holes all within the target zone on the front of the skull. The Denver District Office was contacted through supervisory channels. The establishment is not currently operating under a Robust Systematic Approach to Humane Handling of Livestock and is under a Humane Handling Verification Plan.

313.15(a)(1)

HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness On Oct. 4, 2022, at approximately 0515 hours, I (IIC on duty) and a District Veterinary Medical Specialist (DVMS) observed an ineffective stun attempt during Maui Cattle Company’s 90-day Verification Plan Review and Humane Handling Task. A mature sheep was placed in a mechanism containing a head catch device designed to restrict the animal’s movement. The sheep’s head was secured in the device during the first stun attempt. An establishment employee used a Handheld Captive Bolt device (HHCB) for the first stun attempt. After I heard the HHCB device discharge, an establishment employee released the animal from the head catch and the sheep remained standing and stepped back away from the head catch. The animal was driven back into the head catch where its head was secured. The backup HHCB device was readily available to the stun operator and used to successfully stun the animal. No regulatory control action was taken due to the observed immediate and effective corrective actions and this being the only sheep presented for slaughter for the day. After the sheep’s head was removed, I inspected the dressed head. I observed two penetrating holes in its skull. Incorrect placement appeared to be the cause of the ineffective stun attempt. Establishment management was immediately informed of the noncompliance and the incidence would be documented in a Noncompliance Record (NR). The DVMS notified the Denver District Office. There have been no noncompliance records issued for the same root cause within the past 90 days, but the establishment is operating under a Humane Handling Verification Plan for a similar incident.