Farmers Union Industries, LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2024 (USDA)

313.2(f),313.30(a)(3),313.30(b)(3)

At approximately 08:38 hours, while performing a HATS Category VIII task, Stunning Effectiveness, as part of a Verification Plan for a Notice of Reinstatement of Suspension (NROS), I observed the following noncompliance. In the stunning room, I observed an establishment employee attempt to stun a market hog in the restrainer with the simultaneous application of two electrical stunning wands to the head and thorax. When he started to stun, I observed the hog stiffen up for a second before the ears went from erect to floppy, head came down, and the neck muscles had relaxed while The stun probes maintained electrical contact during the full stun cycle. Following the stun cycle I observed the conscious hog vocalizing, with rhythmic breathing (the chest was moving in and out in a normal rhythmic pattern), the hog was blinking normally, and the hog was pushing back in the restrainer. The employee immediately applied a second stun with a preloaded handheld captive bolt device (HHCB), which effectively rendered the hog unconscious. I took a regulatory control action and informed the employee to stop stunning and placed a U.S. Reject tag # B-45701119 to the restrainer. I then informed Operations Manager REDACTED and QA Manager REDACTED of the forthcoming noncompliance and reached out for further guidance through the supervisory chain. This is noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.30(a)(3) and 313.30(b)(3). This noncompliance is being associated to NR#OXG5415024123N dated 2/23/2024 for similar cause. The establishment's preventative measures were either not properly implemented or were inadequate in preventing recurrence.

313.30(a)(3),313.30(b)(3)

At approximately 1250 hours, while performing a HATS Category VIII task, Stunning Effectiveness, as part of a Verification Plan for a Notice of suspension (NOS), I observed the following noncompliance. In the stunning room, I observed an establishment employee attempt to stun a market hog in the restrainer with the simultaneous application of two electrical stunning wands to the head and thorax. When he touched the hog with the wands the animal stiffened momentarily. The stunning wand, that initiates the stun cycle, broke at the base of the unit. The hog remained conscious, vocalizing, and struggling in the restrainer. I observed the hog exhibiting rhythmic breathing and blinking normally. The employee immediately applied a second stun with a preloaded handheld captive bolt device (HHCB), which effectively rendered the hog unconscious. I took a regulatory control action and informed the employee to stop stunning and placed a U.S. Reject tag # B-45701099 to the restrainer. I then informed operations manager REDACTED and QA manager REDACTED of the forthcoming noncompliance and called Dr. REDACTED for further guidance. . This is noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.30(a)(3) and 313.30(b)(3). This noncompliance is being associated to NR OXG1906025806N dated 02/06/2024, for similar cause. The establishment's preventative measures were either not properly implemented or were inadequate in preventing recurrence.

313.15(a)(1),313.2(f)

At approximately 1455 hours, on 2/5/24,while performing a directed HATS Category VIII task, Stunning Effectiveness, as part of a Verification Plan for a Notice of suspension (NOS), I observed the following noncompliance. In the stunning room, I observed an establishment employee attempt to stun a market hog in the restrainer with the simultaneous application of two electrical stunning wands to the head and thorax. When he touched the hog with the wands the animal became stiff momentarily. The hog remained conscious and was vocalizing and struggling in the restrainer. I observed the hog exhibiting rhythmic breathing and blinking normally. The employee immediately applied a follow-up stun with a preloaded handheld captive bolt device, which effectively rendered the hog unconscious. I took a verbal regulatory control action and informed the employee to stop stunning. The pair of wands were tested and delivered sufficient electrical current and the establishment continued to operate. I informed operations manager REDACTED of the forthcoming noncompliance . This is noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.30(a)(3) and 313.30(b)(3). The establishment's preventative measures were either not properly implemented or were inadequate in preventing recurrence. Continued failure to meet regulatory requirements may lead to further regulatory enforcement action as described in 9 CFR 500.4.

313.15(b)(1)(iii),313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 1402 hours, while performing a directed HATS Category VIII task, Stunning Effectiveness, as part of a Verification Plan for a Notice of Intended Enforcement (NOIE), I observed the following noncompliance. In the stunning room, I observed an establishment employee attempt to stun an ambulatory disabled market hog with a handheld captive bolt (HHCB) device in the area prior to the raceway. The hog was standing and was not restrained. The HHCB device audibly discharged and contacted the skull, causing a bleeding wound. The hog remained conscious in a standing position, vocalized, and walked away from the operator. The employee left the area for a period of time and returned with the mobile electrical stunner, which is stored in the barn. The employee tested the mobile electrical stunner and determined the voltage was sufficient. During this time, the hog continued to walk around the enclosed area. The employee applied a second stun with the mobile electrical stunner, with two stunning probes on one wand applied first behind the ears, then on the heart. This effectively rendered the animal unconscious. The employee applied a security stun with a HHCB device. On the skull of the hog, I observed a partially penetrating wound on midline approximately one inch above the medial canthus of the eyes and a second penetrating wound slightly above the first. I took a regulatory control action and applied U.S. Rejected tag No. B-46568479 to the raceway and informed employees not to resume stunning. I notified Mr. REDACTED, QC Manager, of the noncompliance and informed him I would be contacting the district management team for further guidance. This is noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) and 313.15(b)(1)(iii).

313.30(a)(3),313.30(b)(3)

At approximately 1303 hours, while performing a directed HATS Category VIII task, Stunning Effectiveness, as part of a Verification Plan for a Notice of Intended Enforcement (NOIE), I observed the following noncompliance. In the stunning room, I observed an establishment employee attempt to stun a market hog in the restrainer with the simultaneous application of two electrical stunning wands to the head and thorax. When he touched the hog with the wands the animal became stiff momentarily. The hog remained conscious and was vocalizing and struggling in the restrainer. I observed the hog exhibiting rhythmic breathing and blinking normally. The employee immediately applied a follow-up stun with a preloaded handheld captive bolt device, which effectively rendered the hog unconscious. I took a verbal regulatory control action and informed the employee to stop stunning. QC Manager REDACTED and Barn Supervisor REDACTED were called to the area. The pair of wands were tested and failed to deliver sufficient electrical current. The pair of backup wands were tested and were effective in delivering sufficient electrical current. The establishment provided verbal corrective actions and preventative measures. I notified Mr. REDACTED of the forthcoming noncompliance. This is noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.30(a)(3) and 313.30(b)(3). This noncompliance is being associated to NR OXG4718092012N-1, dated September 12, 2023, for similar cause. The establishment's preventative measures were either not properly implemented or were inadequate in preventing recurrence. Continued failure to meet regulatory requirements may lead to further regulatory enforcement action as described in 9 CFR 500.4.