Buck N' Bull Meatworx: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2024 (USDA)

313.16(a)(1),313.16(b)(1)(iii)

HATS Category VIII—313.16(a)(1) immediate unconsciousness, 313.16(b)(1)(iii) stunning area design, limit free movement Around 0904, while verifying regulatory compliance for a FSIS routine humane handling task under the HATS category VIII (Stunning effectiveness), I observed the following noncompliances; -Plant owner, REDACTED rendered an initial ineffective stunning attempt on a Jersey Bull after firing the .22 Magnum rifle used to render livestock unconsciousness. After the first ineffective stunning attempt the animal displayed no loss of posture and remained standing, blood was visible on the animal’s head approximately 1 3/8” distal from the medial center of the skull and centered between the eye and ear on the right side. Mr. REDACTED took immediate action, without hesitation or help from FSIS, and chambered another round into the firearm and took aim for the second stunning attempt. The second stunning attempt was also ineffective, as the animal remained standing as after the first attempt. Mr. REDACTED repeated his immediate corrective actions as he previously did after the first stunning attempt and promptly discharged the firearm again. The third attempt also failed to render unconsciousness and the animal remained standing after the firearm was discharged. Mr. REDACTED repeated the process and promptly began the third stunning attempt. At this time, I noticed that the establishment did not have the higher caliber, back-up firearm in reach and the movement of the animal’s head was free of restraint because the head catch had not been utilized. The third stunning attempt also was ineffective, and the animal continued to remain standing and alert. Mr. REDACTED repeated his previous actions, and the fourth stunning attempt brought the animal to the ground. The animal was observed on the ground with fixed and dilated eyes consistent with a blank stare and tongue was hanging limply out of the mouth. Mr. REDACTED reloaded the firearm immediately and rendered the final safety stun and unconsciousness was confirmed. The animal displayed no signs of regaining consciousness after this point. The five stunning attempts elapsed a time of no longer than 90 seconds. After the animals was determined unconscious, I informed Mr. REDACTED that I would be documenting a report of noncompliance for failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.16(a)(1) and 313.16 (b)(1)(iii). I also informed Mr. REDACTED that I would be taking regulatory control action by placing US Retained Tag NoB35878432 to the front of the knock box and contacting the District Office for further guidance. The skull of the animal was observed after the kill and the other three contact points were observed about 1 1⁄4” distal from the medial line of the skull approximately 1” above the left eye. The establishment has a higher caliber firearm, but it was not in reach and ready to operate in a manner that would be deemed prompt for the circumstance. Mr. REDACTED stated that he believed the .22 Magnum was likely not powerful enough for the animal’s skull and bone structure, but the location of the impacts on the skull were not consistent with that of an accurately placed shot to the brain cavity. The animal was observed moving its head prior to the first attempt and continued to move its head during additional attempts. Mr. REDACTED stated that his head catch does not hold animals due to a malfunction and so it has not been used. No previous HH NRs have been issued at this establishment and the establishment does not have a current RHH handling plan. Although the duration of time from the first attempt to the safety stun was relatively short; the number of failed attempts causing injury to the animal was high enough to merit this as an egregious act. Use of head restraint or having a higher caliber firearm readily available could have resulted in fewer attempts causing injury to the animal.