Otto's Meats, LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2024 (USDA)

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

At approximately 0917 hours on Tuesday, September 17th, 2024, while performing a Directed HATS Category VIII - Stunning Effectiveness task as part of a verification plan, Dr. REDACTED DTP, observed the following noncompliance. Dr. REDACTED observed an establishment employee attempt to stun a Holstein heifer in the restrainer with a hand-held captive bolt (HHCB) device. The animal’s neck was locked in the restrainer head-catch, but the animal was excitable and kept moving her head each time the employee tried to place the HHCB. The stunning employee placed the HHCB against the heifer’s head and pushed the trigger, but the HHCB did not fire. The stunning employee prepared the HHCB to fire again by pulling up on the pull cap for the firing pin. He then placed the HHCB against the heifer’s head and fired. At the last second, the animal moved its head, and the stunning attempt was ineffective in rendering the animal unconscious. The animal remained standing in the restrainer, trying to pull her head through the head catch. Dr. REDACTED observed singed fur and a stunning wound on the animal’s forehead, and blood began to run out of both nostrils. The stunning employee took the pre-loaded, backup HHCB from its holster on the side of the restrainer and prepared for another stunning attempt. He waited for the animal to stop moving her head, placed the HHCB, and fired again. The heifer fell to the floor of the restrainer, with the second stun attempt successfully rendering the animal unconscious. Dr. REDACTED informed Establishment Owner Mr. REDACTED who was monitoring stunning activities at the restrainer, about the stunning noncompliance and took a verbal regulatory control action to stop stunning. U.S. Reject tag B46-036316 was then applied to the restrainer. Examination of the skinned head revealed two separate stunning holes penetrating the skull. Examination of the rostral-most stunning hole on the split skull revealed that the captive bolt penetrated the skull at a shallow angle through the frontal bone into the frontal sinus and missed the brain entirely. The dorsal-most stunning hole revealed that the captive bolt penetrated the skull at an angle perpendicular to the frontal bone and deeply into the brain. At approximately 1010 hours, Mr. REDACTED provided acceptable preventive measures to Dr. REDACTED and CSI REDACTED and they relinquished regulatory control by removing the US Reject tag from the restrainer. The establishment failed to render the heifer insensible with a single stunning blow and with minimal excitement and discomfort, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1). Further, the design and construction of the stunning area did not sufficiently limit the free movement of the heifer’s head in order to allow the operator to locate the stunning blow with a high degree of accuracy, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(b)(1)(iii). This noncompliance is associated with NR ACV1211061327N, dated 6/27/2024, which describes a similar incident wherein the establishment failed to render an animal insensible with a single stunning blow. The preventive measures offered by the establishment in response to that incident failed to prevent reoccurrence of noncompliance.

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

At approximately 0754 hours on Monday, September 9th, 2024, while performing Humane Handling verification activities for HATS Category VIII - Stunning Effectiveness, Dr. REDACTED SPHV, and CSI REDACTED observed the following noncompliance. Dr. REDACTED was near the main animal holding pen when she heard the handheld captive bolt (HHCB) device fire, followed by multiple vocalizations coming from the restrainer. Dr. REDACTED immediately walked toward the restrainer and observed Establishment Owner Mr. REDACTED who was assisting with pig stunning, hand a preloaded, backup HHCB device to the stunning employee who was inside of the restrainer. Dr. REDACTED observed a conscious, vocalizing pig with a stun wound on its forehead, standing on its feet within the restrainer and trying to move away from the stunning employee, who was attempting to place the HHCB on the pig’s forehead. At the same time, CSI REDACTED arrived at the restrainer from the harvest floor, having also heard the HHCB fire followed by vocalizations. From her vantage point on the harvest floor, CSI REDACTED could see that the pig was still standing and walking around in the restrainer after the HHCB fired and went to the barn to investigate. CSI REDACTED and Dr. REDACTED observed the stunning employee, and the vocalizing pig move around inside of the restrainer as the employee attempted to place the HHCB on the pig’s forehead. The employee fired the HHCB, and the pig fell to the floor of the restrainer, with the second stun attempt successfully rendering the animal unconscious. Dr. REDACTED informed Mr. REDACTED about the stunning noncompliance and took a verbal regulatory control action to stop stunning until acceptable preventive measures were offered. US Reject tag B46-036353 was then applied to the restrainer. Examination of the skinned head revealed two separate stunning holes penetrating the skull. Examination of the dorsal-most stunning hole on the split skull revealed that the captive bolt penetrated the skull at a shallow angle in a caudo-dorsal direction into parietal bone only and missed the brain entirely. The rostral-most stunning hole penetrated the skull at an angle perpendicular to the frontal bone and deeply into the brain. At approximately 0838 hours, Establishment Owner Mr. REDACTED provided acceptable preventive measures to Dr. REDACTED and CSI REDACTED and Dr. REDACTED relinquished regulatory control by removing the US Reject tag from the restrainer. The establishment failed to render the pig insensible with a single stunning blow and with minimal excitement and discomfort, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1). Further, the design and construction of the stunning area does not sufficiently limit the free movement of small livestock animals like pigs in order to allow the operator to locate the stunning blow with a high degree of accuracy, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(b)(1)(iii).

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 0710 hours on Thursday, June 27th, 2024, while performing Humane Handling verification activities for HATS Category VIII - Stunning Effectiveness, Dr. REDACTED, SPHV, observed the following noncompliance. An establishment employee was attempting to stun a beef heifer in the restrainer with a handheld captive bolt device. The employee positioned the HHCB on the animal’s forehead and fired. The conscious heifer remained standing in the restrainer and was breathing, blinking, and tracking with her eyes. The establishment employee immediately reloaded the HHCB, positioned it on the animal’s forehead, and fired again. The heifer was still conscious as she remained standing and continued breathing, blinking, and tracking with her eyes. The employee immediately reloaded the HHCB, positioned it on the animal’s forehead, and fired a third time. The third attempt successfully rendered the animal unconscious, as she fell to the floor of the restrainer. Dr. REDACTED informed Establishment Owner, Mr. REDACTED, of the stunning noncompliance and took a verbal regulatory control action to stop any further stunning of livestock until Dr. REDACTED could confer with the Frontline Supervisor and District Office. US Reject tag B-46036438 was placed on the restrainer. Dr. REDACTED examined the head of the heifer and palpated three stunning holes in the skull. Further examination of the skull with the hide removed also revealed three stunning holes in the skull. The dorsal-most stunning hole was located on midline approximately 4.5 inches from the top of the poll. The middle stunning hole was located on midline approximately 5 inches from the top of the poll and the rostral-most stunning hole was located approximately 5.5 inches from the top of the poll and slightly to the left of midline. The ventral-most hole is approximately at the level of a line drawn between the middle of the eyes. All three stunning holes penetrated the skull at about 90 degrees and penetrated deeply. Examination of the split skull revealed that only the dorsal-most stun hole penetrated to the brain. The middle stun hole and rostral-most stun hole penetrated into the frontal sinuses. The establishment failed to render the heifer insensible with a single stunning blow, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1).

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

At approximately 1350 hours on Tuesday, June 4th, 2024, while performing Humane Handling verification activities for HATS Category VIII - Stunning Effectiveness, Dr. REDACTED, SPHV, observed the following noncompliance. An establishment employee was moving goats from a holding pen into the establishment’s restrainer for stunning. Two goats walked into the restrainer, and the employee followed them in. The overhead drop gate was lowered to close the restrainer, which is large enough to restrain cattle and used for stunning all livestock species that the establishment slaughters. The goats were able to move around within the restrainer. The establishment employee successfully stunned the first goat with a single attempt, using a hand-held captive bolt device (HHCB). With the unconscious goat still in the restrainer, the establishment employee attempted to stun the second goat with the HHCB. The employee applied the HHCB to the goat’s forehead and fired, but the goat remained standing and stepped toward the back of the restrainer, where it tried to tuck its head down into the corner. Establishment Owner Mr. REDACTED, who was assisting with goat stunning, immediately handed the employee a preloaded back-up HHCB. The employee lifted the goat’s head upward and moved it back from the corner. He applied a second stunning blow to the goat’s forehead, successfully rendering the goat unconscious, and it fell to the floor of the restrainer. Dr. REDACTED informed Mr. REDACTED of the stunning noncompliance and took a verbal regulatory control action to stop any further stunning of livestock. Dr. REDACTED examined the head of the second goat and palpated two overlapping stunning holes in the skull, in an upright figure-of-eight configuration, located approximately at the intersection of two lines, each drawn from the lateral canthus of one eye to the middle of the base of the opposite ear. Mr. REDACTED provided acceptable preventive measures, and Dr. REDACTED relinquished regulatory control of the stunning area. Later examination of the skinned head revealed that the dorsal-most stunning hole penetrated the frontal bone shallowly into the frontal sinus, while the rostral-most stunning hole penetrated the frontal bone deeply through the frontal sinus. The establishment failed to render the goat insensible with a single stunning blow, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1). Further, the design and construction of the stunning area does not sufficiently limit the free movement of small livestock animals like goats in order to allow the operator to locate the stunning blow with a high degree of accuracy, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(b)(1)(iii).

313.1

At approximately 1210 hours on Tuesday, June 4th, 2024, while performing Humane Handling verification activities for HATS Category VI - Electric Prod/Alternative Object Use, Dr. REDACTED, SPHV, observed the following noncompliance with HATS Category VII - Slips and Falls. An establishment employee was moving a Holstein dairy cow in the final drive alley to the stunning area. As the employee drove the cow around the 90-degree turn in the alley, the cow lost her footing and fell onto her left side. The cow was unable to roll herself up into sternal recumbency due to the single-file width of the drive alley. The establishment employee opened a side panel to the drive alley, allowing the cow more room to move, and she was able to get up. The cow appeared unhurt, and the employee moved her into the restrainer. The flooring of the final drive alley is smooth concrete, and at the time the cow fell, the concrete was wet and covered with manure and wet sawdust. Dr. REDACTED asked the establishment employee to call Establishment Owner Mr. REDACTED to the barn. When Mr. REDACTED arrived, Dr. REDACTED informed him of the noncompliance and took a verbal regulatory control action, stopping any more animals from moving up the final drive alley. Mr. REDACTED cleared the manure and wet sawdust from the drive alley and applied a layer of lime to the floor for traction. Dr. REDACTED relinquished regulatory control of the drive alley. The establishment failed to maintain the flooring in the drive alley, and as a result, did not provide adequate footing to prevent the cow from falling, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.1(b).