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

313.15(a)(1)

On 11/1/2022 at approximately 10:25 AM while performing a post-mortem disposition inspection, I was informed by CSI REDACTED that there was a bull in the knock box that had had 2 unsuccessful stunning attempts performed on it. The stunning device used was a gunpowder-driven captive bolt device that employs a 4 grain (260mg) 25 caliber REDACTED stunning load. I immediately proceeded to the platform above the knocking box and observed a large Brahman-cross bull that was alert, standing, and not observably in distress or a state of agitation. There were 2 sites where the hair was disturbed in the temporal region about midline and above the eyes that were consistent with unsuccessful stunning attempts. I informed the floor Supervisor, REDACTED that the incident constituted an egregious stunning violation and proceeded to contact Frontline Supervisor REDACTED, who advised me to contact DVMS. Per consultation with Dr. REDACTED at approximately 10:40AM I informed Mr. REDACTED and plant owner REDACTED that the plant needed to immediately, successfully stun the bull, that the knocking box had a US rejected tag (No. B-45 815740) placed on it, and that the slaughter was suspended pending a response from the plant to address the egregious stunning violation. Mr. REDACTED then, within a minute of the discussion successfully stunned the bull using the same gunpowder-driven captive bolt, very close to the site of the more ventrad unsuccessful site. Subsequent examination of the bull’s head post-mortem confirmed the account described above. Failure to properly stun an animal after one attempt is a violation of 9 CFR313.15 (a)(1). Failure to stun an animal after a corrective action stunning attempt made this an egregious violation of 9 CFR313.15 (a)(1).

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 3:30 PM on 9/15/221 while performing routine observation of the stunning procedure in the area adjacent to the knocking box, I observed a missed knocking procedure. The establishment employee was using the pneumatic captive bolt device on a properly restrained Angus cow. Previous and subsequent observations of the pressure gauge for the pneumatic captive bolt device indicated adequate pressure for proper function. The pneumatic device fired seemingly normally but the cow did not drop immediately after discharge and stood for a second or two shifting her weight between her rear legs, indicating an improper stunning procedure. The cow did not vocalize or indicate distress in any other way. The operator proceeded immediately to apply the gunpowder driven captive bolt device to the cow’s occipital region which resulted in an effective stunning procedure. I asked the plant employee if the device had misfired and he indicated it had when the cow moved unexpectedly and said he thought it had missed the cow. To verify proper operation of the pneumatic captive bolt device, the plant managers and I observed its use on the next cow, which was as successful as it had been immediately before the missed knock. I saw no bleeding to indicate where the captive bolt device had struck but low light and a black cow made detection difficult. Subsequent examination of the skull after hide removal revealed a fresh hole in the maxilla off center and approximately half the distance from the usual stunning site location and the nasal planum. I alerted Slaughter Superintendent REDACTED and he inspected the head with me and I informed him of the non-egregious missed knocking procedure and my intention to write this non-compliance record. Failure to properly stun an animal on the first attempt is a violation of 9 CFR313.15 (a)(1). I judged this to be a non-egregious missed knock that arose from the less than perfect restraint achieved with a larger cow. Previous instances have involved smaller cows, but was not the case in this instance.