Benson + Turner Foods, Inc.: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2024 (USDA)

313.15(a)(1)

While doing a check of HATS Category VIII - Stunning Effectiveness, at 0905 hours the following noncompliance was observed by IPP. Plant owner REDACTED applied a stun, with a handheld captive bolt device, to a beef animal held in the restrainer. The first stun attempted was ineffective, and the conscious animal remained standing in the head restraint, with the nose band on and blinked when the eye was touched. Mr. REDACTED immediately applied a second stun with the same captive bolt device and the animal dropped to the floor and was rendered unconscious. Slaughter was stopped and IPP asked Mr. REDACTED what he thought to be the reason why the first stun was ineffective. Mr. REDACTED stated that the first stun was a little low and that he moved up about 1 1/2 inches, above the first stun, on the second stun. Mr. REDACTED was informed of the issuing of this noncompliance for ineffective stunning as per 9CFR 313.15(a)(1).

313.15(a)(1)

At about 11:55 hours while performing HATS verification of category VIII, Stunning Effectiveness, inspection program personnel (IPP) observed the following noncompliance: There was a black heifer in the restrainer that was moving around and throwing her head. The establishment employee waited for her to stop moving her head and then applied the handheld captive bolt (HHCB) to the animal’s head and discharged the HHCB. IPP observed that the animal had thrown its head at the last minute, and the captive bolt went sideways and IPP observed the bolt travel under the skin of the animal’s head. The animal was observed still standing throwing its head and moving in the restrainer. The employee reloaded the HHCB device and applied another stun. This was also ineffective, the animal vocalized, was still standing and observed fighting against the restrainer. At this time the employee had the 22-caliber pistol and gave inspection time to withdraw to a safe area. The animal was then shot with the 22-caliber pistol and the animal dropped to the floor and was rendered unconscious. IPP checked the animal, and the eye did not blink when the eye was touched after the 22-caliber pistol was used. The hide was removed from the head to allow the stun sites to be examined. The two handheld captive bolt wounds were side by side in the center of the forehead right between the eyes. The 22-caliber pistol wound was two inches above the handheld captive bolt wounds toward the poll. This is a violation of 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1). IPP took regulatory control action and placed a U.S. Reject tag MP-35 #B45259471on the restrainer. IPP notified REDACTED establishment owner of the forthcoming noncompliance and that FSIS IPP would be contacting the District Office for further guidance.