Long Prairie Packing Company, LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2024 (USDA)

313.2

At approximately 12:05PM while performing HATS Category VIII, Stunning Effectiveness, I was informed and observed a Charolais heifer that had become non-ambulatory in the chutes leading to the restrainer. While the establishment employees were getting their equipment together, a Jersey cow and two Holstein cows went under the rump gates and walked on and over the non-ambulatory heifer. The cows stepped on the Charolais heifer's legs and stood over her body; however, she did not vocalize during this occurrence. A few minutes after this occurrence, the Charolais heifer stood up and became ambulatory. The heifer had a previous injury that I observed on ante-mortem inspection earlier in the day; however, I did not notice any additional injuries on her. After I verified that she was ambulatory, she entered the restrainer and was rendered unconscious by the pneumatic captive bolt gun (followed by a security stun with the pneumatic captive bolt gun). I notified Barn Supervisor, REDACTED and VP of Operations, REDACTED of the forthcoming noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.2.

313.15(b)(1)(iii)

On July 12, 2024 at approximately 09:00 AM while verifying HATS Category VIII, Stunning Effectiveness, per the establishment's verification plan, I observed the following noncompliance: a Jersey cow was in the restrainer. The cow was off of the "belly belt" and on the north side of the restrainer hanging by her hooks/hips. The cow was vocalizing and grunting. After a short delay, the cow was rendered unconscious with a handheld captive bolt. There were two additional security stuns applied with a handheld captive bolt. I informed REDACTED Harvest Superintendent, of the forthcoming noncompliance.

313.16(a)(1)

On July 10, 2024 at approximately 11:30 hours while performing HATS category VIII stunning effectiveness per verification plan, I observed the following noncompliance: A non-ambulatory Black Angus cow, located in pen 12A of the barn, remained conscious after the 1st stun attempt with a 22 magnum firearm. The cow was bright, alert, responsive, her head and eye movement were controlled and was attempting to stand while an establishment employee immediately fired a second shot, with the same firearm and rendered the cow unconscious. This cow was transported to the dead pile area, where the head was skinned and the location of both shots could be observed. While observing the location of these shots, REDACTED (Plant Manager) and REDACTED (Harvest Superintendent) were both present and notified of my observations and the forthcoming non-compliance with 9 CFR 313.16 (a)(1). The head of this cow was retained with U.S. Retan tag B-45321731. Post-mortem findings revealed two holes measuring approximately 1⁄4 inch in diameter. The first hole was 6 inches from the top of the poll and 2 3⁄4 inches left of midline. The second hole was 5 inches from the top of the poll and on midline. After measurements and observations were made, my U.S. Retain tag was removed.

313.15(b)(1)(iii)

On Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at approximately 0710 hours, while at the restrainer verifying HATS category VIII, as part of the verification plan, the following noncompliance was observed: two cattle, one a beef cow and the other a smaller jersey cow were observed entering the conveyor prior to the restrainer, and the beef cow went onto the left hand side of the conveyor, with her head between the side rail and the brisket conveyor. The Jersey was on the right side of the conveyor and slipped down into the space between the conveyor and the side of the restraint. She was trapped and hanging from her left tuber coxae immediately above the brisket conveyor, with her head and front legs hanging approximately three feet below just touching the floor below the restraint. Her body was pinched between the conveyor and the side walls at the level of the paralumbar fossa and caudal ribs, in a space approximately 10 inches wide, which was compressing her caudal thorax and abdomen. I observed rumen contents coming from her nostrils and pooling on the floor below her head. For safety reasons, I was unable to verify consciousness. An employee attempted to stun the beef cow with a handheld captive bolt (HHCB). With the first two attempts the HHCB did not fire. On the third attempt, the animal was successfully stunned. The employee then was handed another HHCB to perform the security stuns, however the HHCB did not fire after 3 attempts. The employee then realized that the HHCB was not loaded. The employee then had the HHCB loaded, and successfully applied two security stuns. This process caused a delay in the Jersey cow being stunned. The Jersey cow was then stunned successfully on the first attempt followed by two security stuns. The remaining animals in the runway prior to the restraint were allowed to be stunned as they cannot be backed out without causing distress. I then tagged the restraint with US Reject Tag B45321732, and notified REDACTED, Plant Manager of the reason for the regulatory control action and the forthcoming noncompliance record. After verbal preventive measures were provided I removed my tag and slaughter resumed. The establishment is not in compliance with 9 CFR 313.15(3)(b)(iii).

313.15(a)(1)

On June 11, 2024 at approximately 07:00 hours while performing HATS category VIII stunning effectiveness per verification plan, I observed the following noncompliance: A black/white Holstein cow remained conscious after the 1st attempt with the pneumatic stun gun with the cow's head in the restrainer. The cow was bright, alert, responsive and her head and eye movements were controlled while an establishment employee immediately repositioned her head for a 2nd stun attempt. The 2nd stun with the pneumatic stun gun rendered the cow unconscious. I immediately notified REDACTED, Harvest foreman of the noncompliance observed, at which time, the carcass was identified on the stacking rail with the assistance of REDACTED, Harvest Superintendent. Mr. REDACTED was also notified of my observations and the forthcoming noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15 (a)(1). The head of this cow was retained with U.S. Retain tag B-63255310. Post-mortem findings revealed two holes measuring approximately 3⁄4 inch in diameter. The first stun hole was 4 1⁄4 inches from the top of the poll and 2 1⁄2 inches left of midline. The second stun hole was 3 3⁄4 inches from the top of the poll and on midline. After measurements and observations were made, my U.S. Retain tag was removed.

313.15(a)(1)

On March 28, 2024 at approximately 06:57 hours while performing HATS Category VIII stunning effectiveness, I observed the following noncompliance: A black Angus cow passed ante-mortem inspection and was being driven into the stunning area. She became non-ambulatory prior to entering the final drive alley with cement walls on both sides measuring approximately 8.5 feet tall. The establishment employee used a handheld captive bolt to stun this cow. After the first stun with the handheld captive bolt, the cow remained conscious and immediately staggered up and walked backwards. The handheld captive bolt was stuck in the stun hole until the cow knocked it out. There was no vocalization. After a short delay to clear the area of employees for safety reasons, a second stun was made by an establishment employee with a 0.22 caliber rifle (Magnum) and rendered the cow unconscious. A security stun was placed with a second back-up handheld captive bolt. The stun box was tagged with U.S. Reject tag B-45321958. The measurement on center from the top of the poll to the midline between the eyes is 18 cm. The first stun hole measured 8.5 cm from the top of the poll on midline. The second stun hole (firearm) measured 11.5 cm from the top of the poll, 1 cm to the right of midline. The security stun measured 12 cm from the top of the poll on midline. I informed REDACTED, Harvest Superintendent, and REDACTED, Plant Manager, of the forth-coming noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15 (a)(1). After receiving verbal preventative measures, the U.S. Reject tag was removed, and slaughter operations resumed.

313.2

On 3/27/2024 at approximately 8:30, while performing HATS Category III, water and feed availability, I observed the following non-compliance. The water trough between pens 31B, which held 10 bulls and pen 32 containing 33 cows was empty and no water was available. The cattle from both of these pens were immediately moved to pens with water available. I notified both REDACTED and REDACTED (Supervisor) at 8:30 and 8:45 respectively, of my observations and the forthcoming non-compliance. Mr. REDACTED notified plant maintenance and they were making repairs to the water trough while I continued ante-mortem inspection. At approximately 12:00 and again at 3:30, after repairs were made, I verified water was available and appropriate temperature.

313.2,313.15(a)(2)

Between the hours of 13:50 and 15:30 on March 25th, 2024, while performing HATS Category VI, alternative object use, I observed the following non-compliance (s): While plant employees were using the push-gate behind the restrainer, I observed several animals being pushed (sliding their feet) for 8 to 10 feet towards the restrainer. I informed REDACTED that this is not acceptable use of the push gate. In addition, while using the push-gate on two separate occurrences, I observed the gate come unlatched and slide off the rump of the animal in front and hit the animal immediately behind on the head or face. I addressed both of these instances with REDACTED (Supervisor) when they occurred, as she was present at that time. I also observed the head of the bull immediately behind the bull being pushed was caught between the push-gate and the rump. While driving animals towards the restrainer, just behind the drop-door, a bull was reluctant to enter the restrainer. Establishment employees used an electric prod a minimum of 6 times while this bull continued to move back and forth 15 to 20 feet, which caused increased excitability in the bull, as I prepared to intervene, the plant employees swung the switch gate and brought other bulls from the adjacent runway, leaving this bull to calm down. In the carousel when approximately ten bulls were left in the group, all ten bulls were facing the opposite direction of the entrance into the carousal lanes and were crowded into the corner (gate hinge point). Establishment employees were using electric prods, which continued to drive the bulls tighter in the corner. During this time, one bull vocalized when the electric prod was used on him. In addition, plant employees were yelling and banging their paddles on the concrete. This group of bulls became very agitated and would not enter the runways leading to restrainer and another group of bulls were brought in their place. I observed a plant employee using a paddle on the back of one bull strike the face of the trailing bull with the shaft of the paddle and observed him flinch as the second bull's head was over the back of the first. While standing just behind restrainer entrance, I observed two separate instances where plant personnel used an animal behind to push the animal in front into restrainer. The first instance involved a cow that laid down at the top of the downslope of the restrainer and another cow was run in and onto her back. The other instance involved a bull standing just at top of the downslope in the restrainer, and a plant supervisor used the vibrator on the bull immediately behind. The bull that was behind the balking bull was becoming agitated and eventually placed his head between the rear legs and picked the first bull off the ground. The supervisor placed the vibrator on this same second bull again, at which time I instructed him not to continue. I notified REDACTED, Harvest Superintendent, at 15:30 of what I observed and the forthcoming noncompliance.

313.15(a)(1),313.15(a)(3)

On February 8, 2024, at 0905 hours while performing HATS Task Category IX, checking for consciousness on the rail, I observed the following non-compliance: I observed a conscious Holstein cow that was shackled and hanging on the stack rail between the restrainer and the sticker. The cow was lifting her head straight up towards her spine, holding her head there for a few seconds in an attempt to right herself; this occurred two times in a course of twenty seconds. I also observed her blinking consistently with intention in a controlled manner. The cow was breathing, which I observed her abdominal cavity and neck move in and out as she was taking her breath. This breathing activity was rhythmic and observed the entire time while she was attempting to right herself. I did not hear the cow vocalize and the tongue was inside the mouth at the time. I notified Harvest Supervisor REDACTED that the cow was still conscious on the rail. No action was taken by Mr. REDACTED. I then went to notify Harvest Superintendent REDACTED of my observations. Mr. REDACTED and I arrived just as the cow was being re-stunned. I did not observe any signs of consciousness after the re-stun was applied. The animal was then stuck and bled. I asked Mr. REDACTED for the establishment to save the head for further observation. During postmortem inspection, I observed two holes in the skull. The larger stun hole 1 3⁄4 inch long and 3⁄4 inch oblong in shape that was 8 inches below the top of the poll on center, approximately 3⁄4 inch dorsal to the center of the eye from a horizontal line drawn from center of the right and left eye. The smaller stun hole was 6 1⁄4 inches from the top of the poll on center. FSIS IPP took regulatory control action, and the restrainer was tagged at approximately 0940 hours with U.S. Reject tag B-45321944. Harvest Superintendent REDACTED was notified of the forthcoming noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15 (a), and that USDA IPP would be contacting the District Office for further guidance.

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 1440 hours on December 12, 2023, while performing a Routine Livestock Humane Handling task observing HATS Category IV Antemortem Inspection by the scale, IPP was called to the restrainer by establishment personnel and observed the following noncompliance with HATS Task Category VIII Stunning effectiveness. A cow was down in the chute alley and only the head was inside the restrainer chamber. The cow appeared to be in good body condition and was able to rise on her front legs (e.g. dog sit) but was unable to rise on her hind legs. Superintendent REDACTED was present and asked IPP if he could apply the electric prod to the animal and IPP said yes. Mr. REDACTED applied the prod to the left hip region with no result. Mr. REDACTED positioned himself to stun the cow in the restrainer chamber with a handheld captive bolt stunner. Mr. REDACTED attempted to hold the cow’s head with one arm and applied the handheld captive bolt stunner with the other. As the stunner was triggered, the cow pulled its head back. After the first stun attempt, controlled eye movements, rhythmic breathing, and controlled head movements were observed by IPP. The cow did not vocalize after the ineffective stun attempt. Blood was observed running from the wound. IPP told Mr. REDACTED that this animal needed to be rendered unconscious as soon as possible but an immediate second attempt was not made with the handheld captive bolt stunner. Establishment personnel gathered around the restrainer chamber to discuss next steps. Mr. REDACTED directed Supervisor REDACTED to shoot the animal with a firearm, but Mr. REDACTED responded that the firearm was located in the office, where it is routinely stored during slaughter. The two continued to discuss why the firearm was not readily available and Mr. REDACTED stated, “he wasn’t asked to bring the firearm”. At some point the animal simply stood up and was moved forward into the restrainer chamber and restrained. After second stun attempt was applied with the pneumatic stunner by an establishment employee, the animal had a flaccid tongue and no controlled voluntary movements. This stun effectively rendered the animal unconscious. A routine security knock was applied per the establishment’s stunning procedure. The head of the animal was retained and hide was removed. IPP observed the entry wound from the first ineffective attempt, 2 inches medial and proximal to the right eye, entering the right sinus. The second stun entrance wound was located approximately 1 inch (2.5 cm) above the intersection of the “X” made by drawing a line between the top of the ears/base of the horn and the inside of the eye on the opposite side. The security knock had the same entrance wound. This is noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) in that the establishment failed to render this animal unconscious with the handheld captive bolt stunner on the first attempt and did not perform immediate effective corrective action stun attempt. Immediate regulatory control was taken by tagging the stunning station with US Rejected tag #B37861741. Superintendent REDACTED was immediately notified of the incident, that the stun area was tagged, and that USDA IPP would be contacting the District Office for further guidance.