True West Beef LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2023 (USDA)

313.2

HATS Category VI - Electric Prod/Alternative Object Use At approximately 0955 hours, Tuesday, August 8, 2023, I, observed establishment employees attempting to drive a bovine onto the brisket conveyor belt at the restrainer. The employees were utilizing rattle paddles and repeatedly prodding the animal with the rattle paddles. I then observed one of the employees retrieve the hand-held battery-operated electric cattle prod. The employee applied the first jolt with the prod to the bovines back end, the animal crowded backwards. The employee applied another jolt with the prod in the same location, the animal crowded backwards again and vocalized. Around this time the other employee went to the other side of the lead up chute and both employees were simultaneously prodding at the animal’s sides and back end with rattle paddles. The bovine continued to baulk and refused to enter the restrainer. A third employee retrieved the hand-held battery-operated electric cattle prod and applied a third jolt to the animal’s backside. I observed the bovine take one step forward before crowding back again. The employee applied a fourth jolt with the cattle prod to the bovine’s backside, which caused the animal to vocalize a second time. The employee let up on the electric prod for a couple seconds and prodded a fifth time in the same location, causing the animal to vocalize a third time. There were no burn areas visible on the bovine. At this point I took a regulatory control action and stopped the employees’ actions. While discussing with management what I had observed, the cattle were removed from the area through the side gate to have them rest and come back through later. Establishment management reviewed video footage from the area and informed me that they were removing one employee from working in that area, and the other would be retrained. I released the area back to the establishment at approximately 1010 hours, when management provided adequate corrective action that would prevent the likeliness of recurrence. I verbally notified the establishment management of the forthcoming noncompliance record. The Denver District Management Team was notified through supervisory channels. There have been no noncompliance records issued for the same root cause within the past 90 days. This establishment operates under a robust systematic approach to livestock humane handling and slaughter.

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

HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness On 7-19-2023 at approximately 0607 hours MT IPP observed a first stunning attempt with a pneumatic captive bolt gun on the #60 steer from Lot #1 that was ineffective. The animal’s immediate response post stun was a purposeful elevation of the head/fore end from the brisket belt. Additionally, there was a purposeful movement of the head moving from side-to-side multiple times while its head/fore end was elevated above the knock box retaining walls. As the head and fore end came to a position that the stunner could administer a second stun with the same pneumatic captive bolt gun, the stun operator did so with the immediate effect of rendering the animal immobile with no evidence of purposeful movement observed. The second stun occurred without FSIS IPP intervention. As the carcass was moved onto the conveyor belt and shackled, there continued to be no purposeful movement apparent. I observed no vocalization or breathing activity (extension/retraction of thoracic cavity or nares) while the carcass was being moved to the entrance of the “bleed out” area. The tongue was extended in a relaxed position extending from the entrance of the oral cavity. At the “bleed out” area prior to sticking I observed no vocalization, no eye movement, no evidence of breathing, and the tongue was still in the previously described relaxed position. There was one hole situated over the midline in the approximate area of the sinus cavity (1st knock attempt) and a second hole situated over the midline of the cranium (2nd knock attempt). It was apparent that the establishment’s corrective actions were successful at rendering the animal unconscious and insensitive to pain. No Regulatory Control Actions were initiated by USDA due to the immediate successful corrective actions taken by the establishment. At approximately 0735 hours MT, I examined the detached head on postmortem. My previous observations were confirmed. The first unsuccessful stun attempt was situated directly over the frontal sinus and the 2nd stun attempt was placed directly over the cranium. At 0615 hours MT, I verbally notified the plant’s QA Manager of the forthcoming noncompliance. The Denver District Management Team was notified through supervisory channels. The establishment has implemented a robust systematic approach to humane handling of livestock. There have been no noncompliance records issued for the same root cause within the past 90 days.