Elkton Locker and Grocery, Inc.: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2025 (USDA)

313.16(a)(1)

At 0747 hours on Thursday, May 15th, 2025, while performing Humane Handling Stunning Effectiveness, Category VIII, IPP observed the first of eight hogs was moved to the restrainer. The hog was an agitated male. IPP moved to the hallway adjacent to the slaughter floor as the establishment employee prepared to stun the hog with a .22 magnum rifle. Immediately after the first attempt, the employee was heard releasing the floor of the restrainer allowing the animal to roll out onto the floor. When IPP opened the door, she observed the hog blinking several times and rhythmically breathing. The establishment employee was observed reloading the .22 magnum rifle for a second attempt, additional rounds are carried by the employee each time an animal is stunned. Before the second stunning attempt could be made, the animal was able to rise and unsteadily walked across the room moving its head and looking around. The hog walked approximately 11 feet from the restraining cage. The stunning employee effectively performed the second stun once the animal stood still. The animal was observed to be unconscious throughout the remaining process. No vocalization was heard during the incident. A 1⁄2 inch diameter defect was present in the bone midline, two inches below a line drawn between the base of the ears and the eyes. Another 1⁄2 inch diameter defect was present in the bone one inch below a line drawn between the base of the ears. When the head was split, two enlarged projective pathways were found. One terminated inside the cranial vault at the caudal end. The other entry point fragmented and shattered the skull but did not damage the brain. The restrainer was rejected with US B19246642. Noncompliance TLN2115032527N/1 occurred on March 27th, 2025, describing a hog stunning failure, is being associated with this noncompliance. The corrective measures were not effective in preventing recurrence. Establishment supervisor REDACTED was verbally notified of the noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.16(a)(1). Ms. REDACTED then informed Plant Owner Mr. REDACTED of the situation.

313.16(a)(1)

At 1300 hours on Thursday, March 27th, while performing Humane Handling Stunning Effectiveness, Category VIII, IPP observed the third of five hogs was moved to the restrainer. IPP moved to the hallway adjacent to the slaughter floor as the establishment employee prepared to stun the hog with a .22 magnum rifle. Immediately after hearing the first attempt, the hog was heard vocalizing. When IPP opened the door, the establishment employee was observed reloading the .22 magnum rifle for a second attempt. The side of the restrainer facing the doorway is a solid sheet of metal that prevented any visual observations. The hog vocalized again before the second attempt was performed. After the second attempt, the restrainer was opened and IPP observed the second stun was effective. The head was examined. A 1⁄2 inch diameter defect was present in the bone just to the left of midline and was half an inch below a line drawn between the base of the ears. Individual entry points for each attempt could not be discerned. When the head was split, only a single, enlarged projective pathway was found that terminated inside the cranial vault at the caudal end. The restrainer was rejected with US B42241472. Establishment supervisor REDACTED was verbally notified of the noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.16(a)(1). Mrs. REDACTED informed establishment owner REDACTED by phone. After discussion with the District humane handling personnel and receiving adequate preventative measures, the tag was removed, and slaughter was allowed to resume.

313.1

On 3/26/2025 at approximately 8:08 am, while performing a Handling During Ante Mortem Inspection IV task at the barn, IPP observed the following situation: While the establishment personnel was placing an agitated beef in a pen designated as “N3” (located on the north side of the building which serves as a swinging gate to the circle tub) the animal got the head entrapped between the upper horizontal pipes and the lower solid panel of the gate. The animal was trying to lunge at the slaughter employee through the swinging gate to the employee entrance gate. This swinging gate is built of metal fencing, the pipes are welded horizontally with approximately 1 foot in between. The gate was not locked in place and while the beef was entrapped, the gate was following the animal’s movement, moving the gate back and forth. The employee was trying to hold the gate in place to allow the animal to release the head out by pulling a loose rope tight to the gate. Subsequently the cattle pushed the gate back leaving the employee injured due to the rope getting his finger caught. The attempt of the employee to stop the gate was unsuccessful. Consequently, the heifer was able to release itself by its own. Once the cattle was free, IPP observed the beef heifer cough after getting her head out appearing her throat had been irritated by the bottom pipe where the animals head was entrapped. As well, IPP observed several rusty broken hinges on pens 1 through 5. Sharp edges on the rusty gate doors were observed, not maintained to prevent animals from getting injured with sharp objects. These were observed on the north and south gates of the restraining pens near the unloading area. Mr. REDACTED was informed of the noncompliance situation and the documentation of the noncompliance record. This is a 9 CFR 313.1 (a) noncompliance record. A similar situation was discussed on October 22, 2024, under MOI TLN5812104623G.

313.16(a)(1)

On Monday January 23rd, 2025, at approximately 11:55 am IPP observed the following noncompliance while performing a HATS Category VIII for Stunning Effectiveness task: The restraining cage is approximately 8 feet in length by 4 feet wide and located longways on the middle end of the slaughter floor. An over 30 months beef was in place to be stunned with a .22 caliber magnum rifle. While IPP waited outside the slaughter floor for safety purposes, the first stun was applied. After the first stun was performed, the animal was conscious and still standing. IPP observed the animal inhale and exhale, creating vapor from the nose due to the cold temperature on the slaughter floor. IPP observed that the stunner was preparing for a second stun, and IPP returned outside the slaughter floor. The second stun was applied with the same rifle, and the animal remained conscious and standing. IPP saw the animal blink once. The employee quickly prepared to and performed a third stun with the same firearm. IPP returned to the slaughter floor and approached closer to the area and observed the animal to be still standing and breathing, with controlled quick head and eye movement. IPP quickly returned outside the slaughter floor as the stunner prepared to perform a fourth stun with the same firearm. After the fourth stun was performed the animal was confirmed to be unconscious. The animal had dropped, no eye movement was observed, and the head and body remained limp. Upon further investigation of the head, IPP used a pencil the size of the opening to track the four openings left by the bullets. One stun was applied approximately one and a half inches below the center of the head. This opening does not seem to have perforated through the brain due to the pencil not being able to go through. Another opening one inch from the center appeared to be angled and perforated the upper mouth cavity. The remaining two openings were adjacent to each other, 2 inches from the center had two trajectories with different angles, one to the brain and one to the top of the mouth cavity. IPP took regulatory control action by placing a US Rejected tag number B37 026082 and B37026081on the restrainer and the barn door. This was the last animal to be slaughtered for the day. IPP attempted to contact the owner of the establishment, Mr. REDACTED, but he was not available at the time of the findings. IPP also contacted the Frontline Supervisor for further guidance. FLS Dr. REDACTED contacted Mr. REDACTED to inform him of the noncompliance and the regulatory control action that was taken in response.