Abbyland Foods, Inc.: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2024 (USDA)
See the detail of the non-compliance of humane livestock handling that the USDA observed at the Abbyland Foods, Inc. slaughterhouse establishment in 2024.
You can also see other establishments that were non-compliant in 2024.
313.15(a)(1)
On July 16th, 2024 at approximately 10:39 a.m. while performing HATS category VIII (Stunning Effectiveness), I, CSI REDACTED observed the following noncompliance: In pen 1 of the establishment’s barn/cattle holding area, an ambulatory Holstein dairy cow remained conscious after the first stunning attempt from the handheld captive bolt gun. The cow was bright, alert, responsive and her head and eye movements were controlled. Establishment personnel had a second captive bolt gun available in the vicinity but it was not loaded and ready for use. Establishment personnel walked a short distance to grab a shell to reload the first captive bolt gun. The second stun attempt with the same handheld captive bolt gun rendered the cow unconscious. The first ineffective stun is noncompliance with 9CFR 313.15(a)(1). I immediately notified REDACTED Barn Manager, of the noncompliance observed. A verbal regulatory control action was taken and stunning immediately stopped. REDACTED provided verbal preventive measures and stunning resumed. The issue of not having the second handheld captive bolt gun loaded and ready for use was addressed by Dr. REDACTED as a vulnerability that could lead to noncompliance during the Weekly Meeting with Establishment on 5/23/24 and documented in the MOI in PHIS on 5/28/24 I applied USDA Retain Tag NO. B-45 621641 to the carcass of the affected cow. Post-mortem findings revealed two holes measuring approximately 3⁄4 inch in diameter. The first stun hole was 6 1⁄2 inches from the top of the poll and 1⁄2 inch left of the midline. The second stun hole was 3 inches from the top of the poll and 1⁄2 inch right of the midline. After measurements and observations were made, my U.S. Retain tag was removed.
313.2
December 8, 2023 at 11:10 - 11:15 a.m. While performing a Livestock Humane Handling task involving HATS category Handling During Ante Mortem Inspection I, CSI REDACTED, observed noncompliance of regulation 9CFR 313.2(b). While watching animals being moved from Pen 4 to the Run leading up to the knock box, I observed Barn Manager REDACTED at the opened gate of Pen 4 moving cattle from Pen 4 to the Run. Another establishment personnel was at the back of the Run where a swing gate locks and cattle can no longer move backwards. The establishment personnel applied an electric prod to the rump/round of the last cow entering the Run and held the electric prod in that location for approximately 10-15 seconds continuously, as he was trying to force the cows forward so the swing gate would lock. The affected cow began vocalizing and was unable to move forward as the Run was already at capacity. I managed to get the attention of Barn Manager REDACTED and he was able to communicate to the establishment personnel to remove the electric prod from the rump/hind of the affected cow. One more cow in front of the affected cow was also allowed to back out allowing the establishment personnel to now lock the swing gate. I informed Barn Manager REDACTED that I would be issuing an NR. Barn Manager REDACTED then spoke to the establishment personnel. The establishment then resumed moving animals from the Run to the knock box.
313.15(a)(1)
On October 24th at approximately 10:00 AM while performing a humane handling task, I was observing HAT category VIII, stunning effectiveness, and I, CSI REDACTED, observed the following noncompliance with HAT category VIII. I walked up the stand above the north side of the restrainer. A beef bull entered the restrainer and the establishment stunner applied a stun with a handheld captive bolt to the bull’s forehead. The stun was ineffective. The bull did not drop but stood with blinking eyes and rhythmic breathing. This is noncompliance with 9 CFR313.15(a)(1). The stunner operator applied a second stun immediately. The second stun was effective. The animal dropped and was insensible. Upon examination of the skull one hole was angled with poor penetration. The second hole was placed centered on the forehead and above a line between the eyes, and the hole was perpendicular to the skull into the brain cavity. I spoke with REDACTED (establishment’s barn manager) and placed a verbal regulatory hold on the restrainer while I informed the IIC, Dr. REDACTED. QA lead, REDACTED, was informed that an NR would be forthcoming. She informed me that the stunner would be retrained and then I removed regulatory hold on the restrainer, and slaughter resumed.
