Charlie DiMaria & Son Inc: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2025 (USDA)

313.2

HATS Category VI-Electric Prod/Alternative Object Use FSIS investigated allegations of inhumane handling of animals destined for slaughter for human food, depicted in several scenes from covertly captured videos recorded at M934 Charlie DiMaria & Son, Inc. On April 9, 2025, Establishment Management confirmed that the scenes in the video were of this establishment. Video 121257AA, recorded on December 9, 2024, shows a Holstein cow that has gone down in sternal recumbency in the single file alley way just before the knock box. An employee wearing a red hat used a battery operated hand-held electric prod device to prod the animal approximately 5 times in 10 seconds. In the professional assessment made by Alameda District Veterinary Medical Specialist, each time the animal was prodded it reacted in distress, opening its mouth wide and tongue out, consistent with vocalization, and its forelimbs contacted the floor and/or walls of the alleyway in a frantic manner. The animal attempted to rise but was unable to regain its footing in the narrow alley. The employee stepped away from the animal and it was given approximately 20 seconds in which there was no prodding. The animal attempted to rise once more and then stopped trying and stretched its head out with its chin resting on the floor, no longer moving. An employee wearing a blue smock approached the animal and used the electric prod to prod the animal approximately 7 times in 14 seconds. The animal reacted in distress, mouth open consistent with vocalization and still unable to rise. As the recording stopped, the employee was still prodding the animal. Three additional videos showing the same animal being prodded while in sternal recumbency were also reviewed. Video 121536AA showed the animal was prodded at least twice in rapid succession and the animal showed signs of distress. Video 121936AA showed it was prodded at least three times in rapid succession and the animal showed signs of distress. In Video 122227, the animal was euthanized with a handheld captive bolt device for being non-ambulatory disabled. Prior to stunning the animal, it was prodded two additional times and showed signs of distress. Collectively, during approximately 7 minutes of recorded video, the animal was prodded by establishment employees at least 19 times, showed signs of distress, and was unable to rise. This was the only animal condemned at ante-mortem at M934 on December 9, 2024 (Condemn Certificate MP3708547). Due to these findings, M934 was notified on April 9, 2025, by the Alameda District Office, of the forthcoming NR for noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.2(a) and 313.2(b).

313.1

On 1/15/2025, at approximately 6:10am, while performing antemortem inspection and verifying HATS categories ante mortem inspection (4), suspect and disabled (5) and slips and falls (7), I, SPHV Dr. REDACTED observed the following humane handling noncompliance: I observed a cow in the alleyway slip and its foot lost contact with the floor resulting in a skid mark approximately two feet long where the cow slipped. The skid mark exposed the waffled cement flooring underneath an accumulation of mud and fecal matter. Upon further inspection, all the holding pens and drive/alleyways contained an accumulation of mud/fecal matter that varied from approximately one to two inches in depth and were a slipping hazard. Due to the condition of the pens/alleyway/ramp, I took a regulatory control action (RCA) and rejected the holding pens and alleyways/driveways and did not permit truck unloading of additional animals into the hazardous holding pens/alleyway. US reject tags B-46600784, B-46600785, B-46600787, B-46600793, B-46600798, B-46600786, and B-46600784 were applied to the rejected portion of the ante mortem area. General Manager REDACTED, was notified of the forthcoming NR for failure to maintain floors of livestock pens, ramps, and driveways to provide good footing for livestock 9 CFR 313.1(b). Once the plant’s corrective actions of removing/cleaning the accumulated mud and fecal matter from the pens/alleyways was complete, RCA was removed. A review of noncompliance in the last 90 days shows one similar noncompliance: VMH0109114013N issued on 11/13/2024. Additionally, inspection personnel have noted non-regulatory concerns regarding pen cleaning in weekly meetings with the establishment, most recently in a MOI documented on 01/10/2025.

313.1

On January 2, 2025, at approximately 0955 hours, the following non-compliance was observed while performing HATS Category II - Truck Unloading. The cattle unloading ramp had a steel rod protruding from the floor of the ramp at an angle of approximately 45 degrees. The protrusion was approximately six inches in length and located near the South edge of the ramp. I applied U.S. REJECTED Tag No. B-46 600778 to the West gate of the unloading ramp. No cattle was injured by the steel rod during the unloading process. I informed QA Supervisor Mr. REDACTED of my observation and that a non-compliance record would be issued. At approximately 1510 hours, I was informed by Kill Floor Supervisor REDACTED that the unloading ramp was fixed. The protruding steel rod was removed and the remaining metal frame was resoldered with new steel. I removed the U.S. REJECTED Tag from the West gate of the ramp at approximately 1515 hours. This constitutes a non-compliance with 9 CFR 313.1(a) which states "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."

313.1

On November 13, 2024 starting at approximately 0615while performing the humane handling task I, Dr. REDACTED, observed the following noncompliance: about 30% of the cattle presented for antemortem inspection were slipping and/or falling in the alleyways and pens. There is a significant buildup of animal waste in the pens and alleyways, especially near pen 7. This is in violation of 9cfr 313.1: Livestock pens, driveways and ramps.(a) 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.(b) Floors of livestock pens, ramps, and driveways shall be constructed and maintained so as to provide good footing for livestock. Slip resistant or waffled floor surfaces, cleated ramps and the use of sand, as appropriate, during winter months are examples of acceptable construction and maintenance. GM REDACTED has been notified about this issue in previous MOIs from weekly meetings and Slaughter Manager REDACTED have been notified of this noncompliance. See MOIs: VMH3614104810G, VMH2708112301G, and VMH2816105403G.

313.2

Today, October 7, 2024, at approximately 1900 hours while performing a routine humane handling task, I, CSI REDACTED, observed the following noncompliance(s): Upon entering the cattle holding pins, through the gate adjacent to holding pin 1, I observed two pins occupied by cattle. Both pins 4 and 5 had cattle that shared one water tank. After closer observation and flashlight illumination I was able to observe that the water tank was completely empty. This is a non-compliance with 9 CFR 313.2(e) which states: “Animals shall have access to water in all holding pens and, if held longer than 24 hours, access to feed. There shall be sufficient room in the holding pen for animals held overnight to lie down.” The establishment failed to provide cattle in their holding pins with access to water. REDACTED was notified and shown this non-compliance. Under CSI supervision, the water tank was filled with water. A 90 day review has been conducted and no patterns or reoccurrences have been identified. The establishment has not met the requirements of the Federal Meat and Poultry Regulations as stated on item six of this NR.