Very Good Meat Company: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2023 (USDA)
See the detail of the non-compliance of humane livestock handling that the USDA observed at the Very Good Meat Company slaughterhouse establishment in 2023.
You can also see other establishments that were non-compliant in 2023.
313.16(a)(1)
On 2/10/23, at approximately 12:20 pm, while verifying HATS category VIII (stunning effectiveness) I observed the following noncompliance. While observing stunning, I saw the hog was placed in the restrainer and swing panel was in place, so I stepped behind the wall for safety. I heard the .22 caliber gun discharge. I looked around the corner of the wall and observed the conscious hog was standing hovering next to the wall with his face buried. I then saw the stunner operator reload the gun and the owner REDACTED arrived in the kill and aided the operator in opening the restrain and the owner and made noise so the hog would look up. They took a second shot which rendered the animal unconscious. When performing my inspection of the head of the hog I did observe two bullet holes in the temple that indicated that the first shot did not render the hog unconscious but did make contact with the hog. I informed the owner of Hudson Meats, Mr. REDACTED of the noncompliance and the forthcoming noncompliance report. This noncompliance will be associated with NR TFO10140127N/1, dated 01/27/2023, as the corrective actions or preventive measures were either not effective or were not fully implemented to prevent reoccurrence. Mr. REDACTED presented written corrective actions stating that they should have waited for the hog to calm down because the hog kept moving its head.
313.16(a)(1)
On 1/27/23, at approximately 9:25 am, while verifying HATS category VIII (stunning effectiveness) I observed the following noncompliance. While observing stunning, I saw the hog was placed in the restrainer, so I stepped behind the wall for safety. I heard the .22 caliber gun discharge and then the hog loudly vocalized. I looked around the corner of the wall and observed the conscious hog was turned around in the restraint and standing up on all four legs vocalizing loudly. I then saw the stunner operator reload the gun to attempt a second stun with the gun. Several minutes passed and he handed the gun to a co-worker. The second stunner operator went into the restrainer through the entrance gate and applied a second stun. I then looked around the protective wall and saw the hog was upright on its knees, blinking his eyes and was conscious. The second stunner operator then applied a third stun and I confirmed the animal was unconscious. I informed the owner of Hudson Meats, Mr. REDACTED that I am going to write a noncompliance record on this issue. I placed a U.S. Reject tag no.B20898479 on the restrainer and notified the district office through supervisory channels.
313.16(a)(1)
On October 11, 2022, at approximately 11:20AM IPP was verifying HATS Category VIII (Stunning Effectiveness) on the slaughter floor and observed the following non-compliance. IPP was standing next to the far south wall of the slaughter floor. Hearing the gun shot from the 22 long rifle, IPP looked up and observed one white/pink unphased hog with an abnormal black stain/substance on the head. The hog was standing upright and fully conscious but was not vocalizing. The employee looked at me and said that there is no way to hold the head still. He immediately reloaded the 22 long rifle and waited for the hog to remain still to get a second shot. The second shot was effective, and the hog immediately fell unconscious. The slaughter chute was tagged with US Reject tag NO. B-45871450. Upon inspection of the head there were two fully identifiable bullet holes in the skull. One was in the center of the skull and the other located approximately 1 inch to the right of center. Plant Owner/Operator REDACTED was informed of the non-compliance and the forthcoming non-compliance record. After verbal Preventative Measures were provided, IPP removed the Reject tag and slaughter resumed. The establishment failed to meet the regulatory requirements of 9 CFR 313.16(a)(1)
