New Angus, LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2023 (USDA)

313.2

At 6:00 am, Food Inspector (FI) REDACTED was conducting antemortem Inspection HATS IV. FI REDACTED called to inform me that the barn conditions were excessively foggy, humid, and hot with elevated ammonia. FI REDACTED reported that the visibility was too low to continue antemortem inspection and reported three dead cattle, two dead in pen 5 and one in pen 13. I instructed her to move to an area with more visibility and less fog and to have the plant walk the cattle past her from there. I also talked to the plant employee doing antemortem inspection with FI REDACTED, he informed me that the fans and the Air Make UP unit (AMU) were not working when he arrived, but they were able to lower curtains and turn fans on. FI REDACTED called back at 6:30 am, because she was still having difficulty seeing cattle and FSIS was forced to delay further antemortem inspection. At 7:00 am, I arrived at the barn to conduct antemortem inspection and discovered an additional dead steer in pen 14. Additionally, some of the cattle throughout the barn were open mouth breathing, indicating respiratory distress. The barn and pens were full of fed cattle. There were 750 steers and heifers. The pen cards indicated unloading times from 5:00 pm to 8:15 pm the night prior. At post-mortem inspection, there were no significant pathologic findings that would indicate an increased prevalence of disease among the pens where dead animals were found during antemortem. I spoke with the Director of Technical Operations REDACTED, who informed me that the fans and AMU malfunctioned about 4:00 am that morning. The temperature, humidity and ammonia built up to a point where the lack of fresh air may have contributed to four animals dying. On 04/04/2023, I finished reviewing the antemortem, postmortem, and historical dead numbers recorded for this establishment. The spike in dead animals on 04/03/2023 exceeds historical expectations; pathology among corresponding groups does not indicate disease prevalence; and my observations of respiratory distress indicate that the increase in dead animals was caused by the failure of the establishments air management system. This is a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.2(a). On 04/04/2023, I informed the Barn Supervisor REDACTED that a noncompliance report would be issued for the noncompliance.

313.15(a)(3),313.15(a)(1)

On 3/2/2023, at approximately 1149 hours, while verifying HATS Category VIII – Stunning Effectiveness, I SCSI REDACTED observed the following noncompliance issue: I observed a shackled and hoisted animal that had already received an initial stun regain consciousness. The animal began kicking and wrestling as it made it to the sticking platform. The first sticker began trying to hold the animal but was unable to apply the stick as the animal was trying to right itself and pull away from the sticker. The sticker then called for another employee that was present on the sticking platform to help hold the animal and to apply a secondary stun, but again the animal was struggling to right itself and kicking too much for two people to hold and apply the secondary stun. The second sticker employee (and third employee total) then also tried to hold the animal by the ears to apply the secondary stun but could not hold the animal still enough to apply the stun while on a moving chain. It was clear by the controlled movements the animal was trying to turn its head and twist away from the employees to right itself. I verbally notified the secondary sticker to stop the chain and rejected the area with USDA Reject Tag#B45243085. After the line was stopped, the three employees managed to apply the second stun rendering the animal unconscious. I requested the Supervisory Public Health Veterinarian Dr. REDACTED to review the establishments corrective actions for the humane handling violation. Dr. REDACTED reviewed the stun locations and determined that two were located on the midline of the forehead with one stun wound two inches lower than the other wound. Review with Plant Manager Mr. REDACTED regarding the issue occurrence was that the assigned stunning employee had previously failed to be certified and was therefore still in training. Plant Manager Mr. REDACTED verbally notified us that he would move the stunning employee and place the senior stunning employee back at this location as part of the corrective actions. Review of recent previous memorandums of interview show MOI#VUE5808033401G issued 3/1/23 discussed concerns regarding the potential of improper stuns due to the employee’s lack of supervision.

313.15(a)(1)

On Friday 1/13/23 at approximately 12:53pm while performing HATS Category VIII Stunning Effectiveness, I, CSI REDACTED observed the following noncompliance. At the Harvest restrainer area, standing on the observation deck on the east side of the alley, (directly above the establishment shackler), the employee shackled 2 cows (one after the other) prior to rendering the animals unconscious. At this moment, I stopped the production line and applied U.S. Rejected tag #B37801648 to the restrainer knock box controls. I informed Supervisor REDACTED about why I stopped the line and asked him to call over the radio for the PHV to be present at the restrainer area. The cows did not struggle or vocalize while the shackle was being placed and were immediately rendered unconscious with a single pneumatic captive bolt stun and were hoisted after the captive bolt was applied. Supervisor REDACTED, Director of Technical Services REDACTED were informed of the noncompliance with 9CFR 313.15(a)(1) and the forthcoming noncompliance record (NR). After immediate corrective action was taken and verbal preventive measures proffered, I removed U.S. Rejected tag #B37801648, and slaughter operations resumed. This noncompliance is associated with NR VUE3614013410N issued on 1/10/13 for similar cause as corrective actions given was not effective in preventing reoccurrence.

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 12:42pm while performing HATS Category VIII Stunning Effectiveness, I, CSI REDACTED observed the following noncompliance: At the Harvest restrainer stand area, standing to the right side of the employee who is shackling the cows, I observed the employee shackle 5 cows prior to rendering the animals unconscious, production line was stopped and U.S. Rejected Tag #B-37801649 was applied to the restrainer controls and I asked Supervisors Mr. REDACTED, Supervisor Ms. REDACTED and QA Supervisor Ms. REDACTED to have the PHV present at the restrainer area. The cows did not struggle or vocalize while the shackle was being placed. All 5 animals were immediately rendered unconscious with a single pneumatic captive bolt stun, and all were hoisted until after the captive bolt was applied. Floor Supervisor Mr. REDACTED, Supervisor Ms. REDACTED and QA Supervisor Ms. REDACTED were informed of the noncompliance with 9CFR 313.15(a)(1) and the forthcoming noncompliance record (NR). Immediate corrective action was taken (and verbal preventive measures proffered) , I removed U.S. Rejected tag #B-37801649, and slaughter operations resumed.

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 2:21pm while performing HATS Category VIII Stunning Effectiveness, I, CSI REDACTED observed the following noncompliance. At the Harvest restrainer area, standing on the mezzanine stand (about 5' high and 5' to the right side of-behind the shackler), the employee shackled three cows prior to rendering the animals unconscious. The cows did not struggle or vocalize while the shackle was being placed. All three animals were immediately rendered unconscious with a single pneumatic captive bolt stun and were hoisted after the captive bolt was applied. At this time, I stopped the line and U.S. Rejected tag #B37801636 was applied to the controls. I informed Supervisor REDACTED about why I stopped the line and asked him to call over the PHV. Supervisors Mr. REDACTED, Mr. REDACTED and QA Manager REDACTED were informed of the noncompliance with 9CFR 313.15(a)(1) and the forthcoming noncompliance record (NR). After immediate corrective action was taken and verbal preventive measures proffered. U.S. Rejected tag #B37801636 was removed, and slaughter operations resumed at around 2:30pm.

313.1

At approximately 1100 hours on 10-10-22 while verifying HATS Category II – Truck Unloading, IIC observed the following noncompliance: Four cattle within the lot of forty being unloaded slipped and fell. One of them fell forward onto its knees, two of them fell flat onto their sternum/abdomen, and the last one fell back onto its hind quarters. Neither the truck driver nor the employee were causing any unnecessary excitement. The cattle were moving fast off the truck, and they all fell going around the corner leading to the scale. The floor had a moderate amount of fecal material with very minimal sand. IIC had watched three other trucks being unloaded prior to this with no slipping or falling involved. The barn manager REDACTED was informed that the establishment had failed to meet the regulatory requirements of 9 CFR 313.1(b), and that a non-compliance record would be issued. He informed IIC that they would clean the alley and scale prior to the next day’s slaughter since they were currently done for the day.