AK's Midstate Meats, LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2024 (USDA)

313.2,313.16(a)(2)

HATS Category VI: Electric Prodding/Alternative Object Use At approximately 9:45am on Monday 8/19/2024 while verifying HATS Category VI Electric Prodding/Alternative Object Use in the barn, I, the Consumer Safety Inspector (CSI), observed the following non-compliance. I observed a non-employee livestock producer handling a beef cow in the single lane alleyway just prior to the smooth concrete ramp of the kill chute. The cow was pacing back and forth in the alleyway away from the ramp and refusing to enter the chute and swinging its head from side to side and trying to put its head between the bars of the alleyway. The livestock producer used the electric prod four times in quick succession on the rear right hind leg which caused the cow to vocalize each time and back up further in the alleyway and try to turn around within the alleyway. Each time the cow would take a step forward its hoof would slide across the smooth concrete prior to the ramp. I immediately called out to the livestock producer and told him to stop using the electric prod and let the cow rest to allow it to calm down. The livestock producer did stop using the electric prod, however, the livestock producer yelled at me that he has handled cattle for many years and that he knows what he is doing. Again, I told the livestock producer that I am the inspector and that he was to stop the use of the prod until the cow calmed down. After approximately a minute, the livestock producer used his hand to tap the back end of the cow and the cow moved forward into the chute. A regulatory control action was taken when I placed U.S. Reject tag number B39485299 on the entrance to the kill chute. I verbally notified the plant manager of the noncompliance. I contacted the Frontline Supervisor who notified the Denver District Management Team. This noncompliance is being associated with NR#NZS1617084613N-1 issued for the same root cause on 8/12/2024. This establishment has not implemented a robust systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock.

313.16(a)(2)

HATS Category VI: Electric Prodding/Alternative Object Use At approximately 9:40am on Monday 8/12/2024 while verifying HATS Category VI Electric Prodding/Alternative Object Use in the covered and enclosed barn, I, the Consumer Safety Inspector (CSI), observed the following non-compliance. As I entered the barn, I observed one of the establishment employees in the pen striking a market swine with a PVC pipe across the top of its rear right leg (multiple swings at waist level) causing the swine to vocalize. I immediately called out to the employee and told the employee to stop using the PVC pipe which the employee did stop. The swine refused to move forward and kept trying to turn around to remain in the pen. However, with the assistance of another employee, the two employees were able to guide the swine into the single file alleyway leading to the stun box. While in the single file alleyway, the swine was able to turn around and face the two employees who were also in the alleyway. The employees backed out of the alleyway and allowed the swine to return to its pen so they could turn the swine around again. The two employees then used a wooden push board to guide the swine back from the pen to the single file alley way. However, just prior to the ramp leading to the stun box, the pig went down on all fours and the same employee who had used the PVC pipe started kicking the hind end of the swine with a heavily booted foot as the swine was vocalizing and breathing very rapidly. I called out again and told the employee to stop kicking the animal while it was lying prone on the floor of the single lane alleyway in front of the ramp to the stun box. The second employee then intervened and took over to try and assist the animal (which was then laying on its stomach with its front and back legs splayed out) to stand up by lifting its hind end so that its rear legs could get back underneath the swine’s body. The swine continued to refuse to move forward into the stun box and with the use of a hand-held battery-operated electric prod used once, the swine did stand up and entered the stun box without further undue stress. A regulatory control action was not taken. The plant owner was verbally notified of the impending non-compliance record. The Denver District Management Team was not promptly contacted through supervisory channels. There have been no noncompliance records issued for the same root cause within the past 90 days. This establishment has not implemented a robust systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock.

313.16(a)(1),313.16(a)(3)

HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness At approximately 12 noon on Monday 8/12/2024 I observed the following humane handling non-compliance. I observed the stun operator administer three stun attempts to render a market swine unconscious utilizing the same .357 revolver for all three attempts. The stun operator did not have to reload the revolver between stunning attempts. Following the first stun attempt, upon entering the slaughter floor I observed the animal roll out from the stun box with eyes blinking and trying to stand up. I called the stun operator to come back over and stun the animal a second time. I vacated the slaughter floor, and the stun operator immediately applied a second stun in which the animal collapsed to the floor. Again, upon reentering the slaughter floor, I observed the animal stand up again and remain standing with uncoordinated leg movements. No vocalization was observed. However, again, I immediately called to the stun operator to come back and stun the animal a third time. I vacated the slaughter floor and the stun operator immediately apply the third stun, which effectively rendered the animal unconscious. A regulatory control action was not taken. The plant owner and the stun operator were verbally notified of the impending non-compliance record. After the carcass was split, I inspected the dressed head and observed three penetrating stun holes roughly in the shape of a triangle located in the brain area. The Denver District Management Team was not promptly contacted through supervisory channels. There have been no noncompliance records issued for the same root cause within the past 90 days. The establishment has not implemented a robust systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock.

313.2

HATS Category III: Water and Feed Availability At approximately 9:15am on Tuesday 10/24/23 while verifying HATS Category III Water and Feed Availability in the barn, the District Veterinary Medical Specialist (DVMS) observed the following non-compliance. She observed the remaining cattle in the barn did not have any water buckets in the pens. On Monday 10/23/23 at approximately 8:15am the cattle arrived in the barn. I, the Supervisory Public Health Veterinarian (SPHV), verified with an employee that no water was given to the cattle being held in the barn yesterday or this morning. Water was provided by the establishment employee. A regulatory control action was not taken due to the observed immediate and effective corrective actions. The plant manager was verbally notified of the impending non-compliance record. The Denver District Management Team was contacted through supervisory channels. There have been no noncompliance records issued for the same root cause within the past 90 days.