Big Sky Processing, LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2025 (USDA)

313.16(a)(3),313.16(b)(1)(iii),313.16(a)(1)

Hats Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness On Tuesday July 29, 2025, at approximately 0800 hours I, the CSI was standing inside the building on the slaughter floor doing a postmortem inspection task when I heard the first shot with a 12-gauge shot gun outside in the knocking area. Establishment employees went to raise the garage door to roll the carcass into the slaughter floor however, from the inside of the facility I heard what was a heifer vocalizing repeatedly. The new stun operator said to the employees to close the door. I went outside to see what had transpired after hearing the vocalization and the knocker’s direction to close the garage door. While standing at the knock box, I directly observed blood on the heifer’s head, but no apparent entry hole. The animal had not been caught and secured in the head catch. I observed that the heifer was partially down on all fours, with its shoulder touching on one side of the knock box, however it was eventually able to pull its legs back into and under itself and finally center its weight in attempt to right itself. Prior to this, its shoulder was down but the head was erect and moving side to side in a controlled manner. The animal continued to be audible. The right eye was blinking and tracking. The left eye that had been observed on antemortem was now missing. The animal was still vocalizing with a consistent mooing at this point. The animal started pushing forward with its hind legs with the head rocking forward. The stun operator said it was not down. He readied another shot, so I went back to the slaughter floor through the door to a safe distance. I continued hearing the heifer vocalize while inside the building until the 2nd shot was discharged. After the 2nd shot was applied the animal stopped making all audible noises. I checked and confirmed that the animal, after the second attempt, was sufficiently stunned. The animal’s legs were splayed out, with no additional movement. The animal was still, and the head was drooped. The tongue was hanging outside of the mouth. I asked to observe the dressed head. The first initial shot was approximately 2 inches behind the left eye closer to the left ear. The second shot was in the middle of the forehead approximately 1-2 inches above the eyes. The plant employee was informed of the noncompliance for failure to render an animal insensible with a single stun attempt. A U.S. Reject tag number B-45250154 was applied to the knock box and my supervisory chain contacted.

313.15(a)(1),313.16(a)(1)

HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness On Tuesday March 18, 2025, at approximately 1419 hours, I, the CSI, was present on the slaughter floor, preparing to conduct post-mortem inspection on a carcass, when I observed the stun operator exit the building to the stun box alongside another employee to stun a single pig within the stun box. The stun operator, from inside the stun box, utilized a .410 shotgun loaded with birdshot and applied what was thought to be an effective stun to the pig on the first attempt as the pig dropped to the floor. Meanwhile, another employee opened the garage door to allow the carcass to enter the slaughter room floor. As the plant employee proceeded to stick the animal, as there was a slow trickle of blood from the stick, I observed the pig emit a loud squeal and blink its eyes multiple times. I also observed that the animal was breathing rhythmically. I informed the employee that the pig was still alive and required another stun. The plant employee retrieved the readily available hand-held captive bolt device and applied a second stun attempt to the animal on the forehead. The plant employee remarked that the animal did not appear to be alive. As the plant employee attempted to finish the sticking process for bleeding, the animal squealed again. The employee approached me, asserting that the pig was indeed lifeless. I turned to look at the swine, I observed the pig standing on all 4 hooves on the ground briefly, the pig pitched forward and slipped on the wet floor falling to its chest rolling then to its left side. The pigs’ eyes were open, and the pig was making audible sounds while bleeding from the neck. The stun operator applied a third stun with the captive bolt rendering the animal insensible. I applied U.S. Reject tag B-45150101 to the stun box and verbally notified the plant manager of the forthcoming noncompliance record. Upon inspection of the dressed head, there was penetrating birdshot above the left eye, a penetrating captive bolt hole to the left of center on the forehead and a third penetrating captive bolt hole within the target zone. The Denver District Management Team was notified through supervisory channels. This noncompliance is being associated with noncompliance record #CRP2318022220N-1 issued on 2/20/2025 for the same root cause. This establishment is operating within the abeyance period for an egregious humane handling event.

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

HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness At approximately 1430 hours, I, the CSI, was observing stunning from a safe location but with window access. A cow had been driven into the modified stun box with the metal butt bar behind the animal in an attempt to prevent the animal from backing up. The stun operator aimed the 12-gauge shotgun loaded with pellet and made physical contact with the cow’s head. As the stun operator applied the first stun attempt, the cow’s head moved up and away from him. The cow remained standing, tracking the stun operator’s movement with its eyes with blood dripping from its nose. The stun operator retrieved another shell from his pocket, the cow was moving its head from side to side and up and down inside the stun box but not vocalizing. The stun operator waited until the cow had slowed movement of its head to apply a second stun attempt. The cow collapsed inside the stun box and the stun operator checked the cow’s eyes which did not move. After the stun operator started to leave the stunning area, I observed the animal lift its head upward and attempt to stand in a controlled manner. I observed blood dripping from the cow’s nose and the cow pulled its tongue back into its mouth while breathing rhythmically. The establishment manager noticed the cow was still alive and breathing and informed the stun operator. The stun operator returned and retrieved another shell from his pocket and reloaded the same 12-guage shotgun and applied a third stun attempt, which rendered the cow unconscious. I applied U.S. Reject tag B25219808 to the stun box and verbally notified the plant manager of the noncompliance. Upon inspection of the dressed head, I verified one penetrating hole on the lower left side of the bridge of nose, a second penetrating hole higher up on the left side of the bridge of the nose and a third ~6cm expunged cavernous region of the left cranium above the orbit. The Denver District Management Team was notified through supervisory channels. This noncompliance is being associated with noncompliance record CRP221402919N/1 issued on February 19, 2025, for the same root cause. This establishment was placed into abeyance on February 19, 2025, for a humane handling Notice of Suspension (NOS).

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

HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness At approximately 10:15 AM, I, the CSI, observed from the slaughter room door, which faces west and features a clear glass window providing an unobstructed view of the stun box, as a plant employee required five attempts to render a cow insensible. The initial attempt, utilizing a 12-gauge shotgun, was ineffective at rendering the cow unconscious. The cow remained upright, vocalizing, rhythmically breathing, and thrashing within the stun box. I observed blood on the side of the cow’s head. The employee then entered the side room to retrieve another shotgun shell (i.e., slug) for a second stun attempt, which also proved ineffective, as the cow remained standing and thrashing audibly within the stun box with more blood observed on the cow’s head. The animal tracked the employee with its gaze while the employee prepared a third stun attempt, struggling to align the same 12-gauge shotgun as the cow repeatedly struck the gate of the stun box. Despite another stun attempt being applied, the cow remained standing, vocalizing and continued breathing rhythmically. The employee retrieved a fourth shotgun shell, chasing the cow's head movement with the shotgun. This fourth attempt also failed to render the cow insensible, although the cow eventually dropped to its knees, still vocalizing and attempting to rise. Ultimately, the fifth stun attempt with the same 12-gauge shotgun succeeded in rendering the cow insensible, at which point its eyes ceased tracking, and both breathing and movement came to a halt. I applied U.S. Reject tag B25219805 to the stun box and verbally notified the plant manager of the noncompliance. Upon inspection of the dressed head, I verified a penetrating hole in the right jaw, a second penetrating hole in the left jaw, two penetrating holes at the top of the bridge of the nose and a fifth penetrating hole within target zone of the forehead. The Denver District Management Team was notified through supervisory channels. This noncompliance is being associated with noncompliance record CRP5616011206 issued on January 6, 2025, for the same root cause. This establishment is currently operating within the deferral period for a humane handling Notice of Intended Enforcement (NOIE).

313.15(a)(2)

HATS Category IV: Ante-Mortem Inspection On 01/27/2025 at approximately 0720 hours, I, the FSIS inspection personnel observed the following humane handling noncompliance in the driveway: Plant employees had just unloaded the sheep that had escaped out of the alleyway to the stun box and off premise. The sheep were restrained off property with a rope around the fore and hind legs. Together the plant employees carried the last sheep to the forced gate where the employees set the animal on the ground. The plant employee that carried at the head of the animal brought his foot to the sheep’s head, then kicked the animal in the ribs two times. I said, “Hey”, to the employee. The plant employee then swiftly kicked the animal in the face. I instructed the plant employee to stop. The plant employee looked at me stopping what he was doing, and I said, you cannot hit the animals. FSIS Inspection Personnel applied U.S. Rejected Tag #B-25219810 to the alleyway leading to the stun box and verbally notified the establishment management to halt slaughter operations. Denver District Office was contacted via supervisory channels. This establishment operates under a robust systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock and there have been no issued noncompliance records of the same cause in the last 90 days.

313.15(a)(1)

On 01/06/2025 at approximately 1304 hours, I, the FSIS inspection personnel observed the following humane handling noncompliance in the stun box: A beef was brought into the stun box by a staff member of the establishment. The employee utilized a hand-held captive bolt device for the initial stunning attempt, which was ineffective. After hearing the captive bolt device discharge, I walked to the stun box from the USDA office. As I approached, I overheard a plant employee say to the other plant employee that the animal was not dead. I observed the animal to be turned around backwards in the stun box and positioned facing north. The animal’s head was erect, and it was rhythmically breathing and blinking, the animal was conscious. I observed the animal on its knees, maintaining an upright head position while exhibiting signs of awareness, such as blinking with eyes tracking and licking blood from its nose. I observed the stun operator retrieve a shotgun from near the entry door then navigate around the stun box and open the chute door. When the stun operator opened the gate to approach the animal, I observed the animal attempt to rise and move against the gate. The stun operator was oriented southward while the animal continued to face north. I was in a safe location when the shotgun was discharged, and the animal was rendered unconscious. Inspection of the dressed head revealed two penetrating stun holes, with one hole having been made low in the center of the forehead, just above the bridge of the nose. I applied U.S. Rejected Tag #B-45150099 to the stun box. The Denver District Office was contacted via supervisory channels. The Owner and the Plant Manager were verbally informed of the noncompliance. This establishment operates under a robust systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock and there have been no issued noncompliance records of the same cause in the last 90 days. FSIS Inspection Personnel applied U.S. Rejected Tag #B-45150099 to the stun box. Denver District Office was contacted via supervisory channels. The est. M46090 has a robust plan and there has been no issued NRs of the same cause in the last 90 days. Owner, REDACTED and Plant Manager, REDACTED was verbally informed of the noncompliance.

313.1

Humane Handling Task, HATS Task Category III: Water and Feed Availability On 11/27/2024, at approximately 0630 hours, FSIS Inspection Personnel conducted a Humane Handling Verification Task of the livestock located in the outside pens that are located west of the main building of EST #46090 and the following noncompliance was observed: Outside animal holding pen “USDA Suspect” that was open to the ally, contained 3 Sheep; FSIS IPP observed that the water tubs in pen had water, but the top layer was frozen approximately 1⁄2 inch thick. There was a 45 -gallon water tank that was 1⁄4 full and 20-gallon tub 1⁄2 full of frozen water, leaving the animals with no access to water. During inspection the outside temperature was approximately 22 degrees Fahrenheit. FSIS IPP returned inside and located an establishment employee. IPP informed the employee the animals did not have access to water as the water was ice in both tubs. The establishment immediately checked the level of Ice by breaking holes in the surface of the 45-gallon tub, allowing water to come through the surface. A heater was placed in the tank by approximately 730 hours to prevent further freezing. I verbally notified plant manager she was in violation of 9 CFR 313.2(e) states; "animals shall have access to water in all holding pens ". The Denver District Veterinary Medical Specialist was notified through supervisory channels. There have been no noncompliance records written for the same root cause in the past 90 days. This establishment operates under a robust systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock. Plant management was verbally informed of the noncompliance and again in writing with the issuance of this noncompliance record.