Anderson & Son Meat Processing LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2024 (USDA)

313.16(a)(1)

On Tuesday September 10th at approximately 8:45am while performing the review and observation component of the humane handling task and verifying HATS Category VIII- Stunning Effectiveness I, IPP REDACTED observed the following noncompliance: Establishment employee brought in an older black beef cow for slaughter on the kill floor at Anderson and Son Meat Processing LLC. The establishment employee used a .22 magnum rifle to first stun the animal which was unsuccessful because I heard the 12-gauge shotgun fire. This establishment uses a 12-gauge shot gun with a slug shell as a backup firearm. Before entering the kill floor after the second shot I heard a second shot, from the 12-gauge shotgun. Upon further examination of the animal’s skull, I observed the .22 magnum entered too far to the left above the animal’s eye. The first shotgun slug entered too low and to the right, the second shotgun slug (Third shot overall) entered in the proper location rendering the animal unconscious. Because the backup firearm was readily available and because the corrective actions were taken immediately, this incident was not determined to be egregious by IPP. The establishment does have a validated robust systematic approach to humane handling. This is found to be noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.16(a)(1). Establishment Supervisor REDACTED and Owner REDACTED was notified verbally and with this written noncompliance record.

313.16(a)(1)

On Thursday April 18th at approximately 3:10pm while performing a routine Humane Handling task- Stunning Effectiveness HATS Category VIII the following noncompliance was observed: Establishment employee brought in a market swine for slaughter at Anderson and Son Meat Processing LLC. Establishment employee chose to start with the .22 rifle, the animal was not properly stunned and did not go down on the first shot. The hog was vocalizing, and sitting up on its hind hocks which indicated it was still conscious. Without IPP having to intervene, establishment employee grabbed the backup firearm which is a .22 mag rifle and applied a second shot which did then effectively stun the animal. One bullet hole was placed correctly the other was slightly to the right and low over the eye. This is found to be noncompliant with the above regulations. Establishment Supervisor REDACTED and Owner REDACTED was notified verbally and with this written noncompliance record.

313.16(a)(1)

On 11/28/2023 at approximately 1050 hours while verifying HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness, I, CSI REDACTED, and CSI (in training) REDACTED observed the following noncompliance. While attempting to stun a white lamb, Establishment Owner REDACTED failed to render the animal unconscious on the first shot while using a .22 long caliber rifle. The lamb remained standing in the box after the first stun attempt, so Mr. REDACTED immediately used the same firearm to take a second shot. Mr. REDACTED noticed the rear of the animal drop after the second shot but because the lamb's head was in the headgate, the front end did not drop. Mr. REDACTED does not usually stun animals, and this was the first time he had attempted to stun a lamb. Mr. REDACTED then administered a third shot with the .22 Long rifle and then an additional shot with the .22 Magnum rifle as security stuns. After no more shots were heard and I was certain the animal was unconscious, I contacted Dr. REDACTED, PHV, for a plan of action to move forward. Mr. REDACTED was informed at 1055 hours that the incident was a noncompliance and a US Reject tag #B46516861 was applied to the stunning area. The establishment does not have a robust systematic approach to humane handling. After discussing this matter with Dr. REDACTED, we concluded that this was a noncompliance and Mr. REDACTED was informed verbally and with this written NR.