Hometown Meat Market LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2024 (USDA)

313.1

On Wednesday, June 26th, 2024, at 0824 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was standing outside the back door of the kill floor when I observed a steer being moved through the pens. There was a heavy metal mesh panel that should have been anchored across the concrete to prevent livestock from slipping. The panel had been curved backwards into itself and it was cutting into the back legs of the steer as he was stepping back and forth over it. This is the same panel I had pointed out to Mr. REDACTED a few days before. At that point, it had not been misshapen as severely, yet it was enough to cause an issue because cattle were still having to step over it. I notified Mr. REDACTED and Mr. REDACTED of the issue. They ensured that a bowed section of the mesh paneling was cut off and removed. This demonstrates a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.1(a) which states as follows: “Livestock pens, driveways and ramps shall be maintained in good repair. They shall be free from sharp or protruding objects which may, in the opinion of the inspector, cause injury or pain to the animals. Loose boards, splintered or broken planking, and unnecessary openings where the head, feet, or legs of an animal may be injured shall be repaired.” There is still an area of paneling that needs to be anchored down so the same scenario does not occur again.

313.15(a)(1)

On Friday, May 10th, 2024, at 0900 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was performing HATS Category VIII Inspection Task when I observed the following noncompliance. The first steer of the day was loaded into the knock box and the head catch was lowered. The first stun the operator administered was not effective. The steer was still vocalizing, thrashing his head and body around, and his eyes were still tracking around the room. I could observe the wound where the rod had penetrated the head. The operator immediately administered the second stun which was effective, which was followed by a security knock. The steer was chained and hoisted and bled without any further issues. I observed the initial stun wound more closely after the secondary and security knocks had been administered. The wound was slightly lower on the steers’ skull and its size, and its diameter was smaller in comparison to the other two knocks that had followed. I am unsure if the stun was ineffective due to the placement of the stunner or the lack of complete penetration from the stunner or a combination of both. This demonstrates a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) due to the establishments failure to render the steer unconscious immediately.

313.2

On Wednesday, March 20, 2024, at 0824 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was performing HATS Category II Task when the following incident occurred. A Brahman heifer was being unloaded from the trailer. She refused to proceed down the alley leading to the pens. Instead, she continued to turn back towards the gate of the drive and the trailer. As the two plant employees closed the gate behind her and attempted to secure the chain around the gate, the heifer saw a small gap in the gate and forced her way past the employees. She escaped in the narrow opening alongside the trailer and the pens. She trotted towards the Northeast side of the property and eventually disappeared from sight. An establishment employee immediately took action and followed the heifer and arranged to have someone catch her. This incident demonstrates a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.2(a) which states that, “Driving of livestock from the unloading ramps to the holding pens [...] shall be done with a minimum of excitement and discomfort to the animals.” Since this issue caused unnecessary stress and possible injury to the animal, a noncompliance will be documented and issued.

313.15(a)(1)

On Thursday, February 1st, 2024, at 1033 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was conducting a routine HATs Category VIII Task when I observed the following. The steer entered the knock box and placed his head in the catch. The operator administered the stun in the correct location of the skull, but it was ineffective. The steer was blinking, and his eyes were moving back and forth. The supervisor was tapping on the cornea, but the steer was responding to the touch. The steer was still standing and thrashing around in the knock box. The operator then administered a second stun which was rendered effective. A security stun followed that. The steer was then chained, hoisted, and did not exhibit any other signs of consciousness. I documented a similar noncompliance on Tuesday, January 30th. In both instances, the issue has been with the hand stunners and not due to the operator’s error or placement of the stunner, as I have been observing this for the past two weeks. These incidents have been documented in the establishments Sensitivity Logs. Both the Kill Floor Supervisor and the Owner witnessed the incidents and are aware of the issues with the stunner. They have taken appropriate corrective actions to resolve the issue. The hand stunner has since had several parts replaced, and a higher grain cartridge is being utilized. On Friday, February 2nd, all of the stuns were effective since the establishment used the appropriate cartridges. I am documenting a noncompliance under 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1). I am linking this NR to NR#EYH5108023405N.

313.15(a)(1)

On Tuesday, January 30th, 2024, at 1055 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was performing HATs Category VIII Inspection Task when I observed the following: the initial stun delivered to a steer was ineffective, despite proper placement. There was no loud report issued when it discharged. The steer showed obvious signs of consciousness and was reacting to being tapped on his cornea by blinking and eye movements. The operator immediately utilized the backup stunner and delivered an effective stun. He also administered a security stun following the effective one. I spoke with the Kill Floor Supervisor about the ineffective stun and what could be the cause. He thinks it may be the firing pin in the stunner that needs to be replaced. I am documenting a noncompliance and citing 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1).

313.15(a)(1)

On Thursday, January 25th, 2024, at 1542 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was performing HATs Category VIII Inspection task when I observed the following noncompliance. The last heifer for the day was brought into the knock box. She was thrashing around in the knock box and her rear right leg slipped into the gap at the bottom of the gate of the knock box and became wedged. The employees tried but they could not get her to stand. They attempted to open the knock box gate, so she could pull her leg back under herself, but to no avail. Observing this, I feared that the heifer would jump free through the opened gate of the knock box and become loose in the kill room. Since the heifer could not stand fully and walk up far enough to place her head through the head catch, I gave the operator permission to knock her though the door of the head catch providing that the heifer was calm enough, not moving her head, and ensure proper placement of the stunner. The operator administered an initial stun which was not effective, even though her head had been stationary enough for the operator to place the stunner. The operator then immediately administered a second knock which was successful and rendered the heifer unconscious. I am documenting a noncompliance and citing 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1).

313.15(a)(3),313.15(b)(1)(iii)

On Friday, January 19th, 2024, at 0832 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was performing HATS Category VIII as I observed the first steer being knocked for the day. The device used to administer the knock was a mechanical captive bolt stunner. The operator had climbed onto the gate of the knock box and reached through the railing of the gate to administer the knock. This knock box did have a head catch but it was not operable at the time. The knock was administered, the gate was opened, and the animal was hoisted. As he was being hoisted, I noticed his eyes were blinking and he was breathing out of his nostrils. He was also thrashing and attempting to right himself. An employee then proceeded to stick the animal. The steer continued to blink but there was no vocalization. The operator then turned to me and asked if he should administer another knock. Since the steer was already bleeding out because of being stuck, I told the operator that he should have administered the secondary knock prior to hoisting and sticking the animal. As a result, the steer was not administered a secondary knock and bled out. I then proceeded to affix U.S. Retained Tag #B27 647154 on the door of the knock box and suspended further slaughter operations until further notice. I notified Plant Owner, REDACTED. The establishment does not have a robust systematic approach to humane handling program of livestock in place. I have spoken with the HACCP Coordinator and the Owner, and they will begin to expand on what they do have. I am documenting a noncompliance and citing 9 CFR 313.15(a)(3) and 9 CFR 313.15(b)(1)(iii).

313.1

On Wednesday, November 29th at 0836 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was performing a Livestock Humane Handling Task near the cattle pens when I observed the following noncompliance. A gate panels for one of the holding pens had broken off. I was told it had broken off last week when I was on leave. The hinges which hold the gate panel onto the post have blunt and protruding edges which could cause injury to cattle moving in and out of the pen. The broken-off panel is lying in the holding pen and is leaning against the inside of it. Cattle may still have access and movement in and through this pen which could result in injury. I notified the Plant Owner, REDACTED and he is aware of the issue. He is attempting to contact a welder to repair the broken gate. This demonstrates a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.1.