Harpley's Meat Packing Inc.: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2025 (USDA)

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately at 7:55 AM while performing the Humane Handling task of stunning observation I saw a non-egregious missed stunning procedure. The operator had a cow placed in the head restraint and was moving with the pneumatic captive bolt device when the cow raised its and caused the bolt to misfire into a site rostral to the target area. I was able to see a crescent-shaped break in the skin indicating the site. I immediately summoned the Slaughter Supervisor, REDACTED while the establishment employee attempted to apply a second stun using the gunpowder-driven handheld captive bolt, but it did not fire. Mr. REDACTED then quickly applied the pneumatic device to effectively stun the cow. Subsequent investigation by an establishment employee who maintains the gunpowder driven captive bolt device revealed that the firing spring had broken when fired previously that morning.

313.15(a)(1)

At 9:55 AM on 3/14/2025 as observed by REDACTED, SPHV while standing adjacent to the knocking area while performing a routine Livestock Humane Handling Task the establishment employee unsuccessfully attempted to stun a Holstein cow on the first attempt. The employee attempted the stunning procedure using the pneumatically activated captive bolt with the head properly secured. The cow remained standing after the first stunning attempt and I moved to observed that the cow’s eyes were still tracking movements and that the cow was still conscious. Within seconds the establishment employee applied an effective stunning procedure using the gun powder activated hand-held captive bolt device to the cow’s occipital region. I instructed the operator to cease stunning and asked the Slaughter Department Supervisor to radio the plant manager, REDACTED to address the non-compliance. After I reported my findings to Mr. REDACTED he briefly interviewed the establishment employee and determined that the missed knock was likely a mechanical failure. This was confirmed soon after by observing that a shallow depression in the maxillary bone in the correct location was left by the pneumatic device. I also observed immediately after the missed stunning attempt that the pressure gauge for the pneumatic captive bolt device registered in the desired range for operation. Mr. REDACTED instructed the establishment employee to use only the gun powder activated captive bolt until the pneumatically driven captive bolt could be replaced, which it subsequently was and I observed its effective use on three cows before concluding the observation of stunning task. In subsequent discussions with Mr. REDACTED, he said that the pneumatic captive bolt device used in the failed attempt would be carefully inspected and serviced and that the unit used as a replacement had been recently thoroughly reconditioned. Failure to properly stun an animal on the first attempt is a violation of 9 CFR313.15 (a)(1). I judged this to be a non-egregious missed knock that arose from the likely mechanical failure of a device that I had, until the failure, observed to have been working properly and because the action of an effective stunning procedure was applied on the second attempt and in a timely manner.

313.15(a)(1)

At 11:22 AM on 2/21/2025 as observed by CSI REDACTED while standing adjacent to the knocking area while performing a routine Livestock Humane Handling Task the establishment employee attempted unsuccessfully to capture and secure a cow’s head in the head restraint. The same employee attempted a stunning procedure using the hand-held captive bolt with the head unsecured. As he fired the device at the cow’s rostral cranium the cow moved her head and the stunning procedure was unsuccessful. Post-mortem inspection of the cow’s head revealed that the bolt struck lateral to the targeted area. The cow continued to attempt to reposition itself in the knocking box as the operator reloaded the captive bolt device. Within 10 seconds of the first attempt the operator performed a successful stunning procedure to the occipital area of the cow’s head. Inspector REDACTED Instructed the operator to cease stunning and attempted to speak to of an establishment QC employee but encountered a language barrier. He asked CSI REDACTED to inform the IIC, REDACTED, SPHV of the incident. Soon afterward he was joined by the REDACTED, plant manager. While explaining what he had observed to Mr. REDACTED, Dr. REDACTED arrived. CSI REDACTED again described his observations to Dr. REDACTED and Mr. REDACTED. Dr. REDACTED said that he judged the incident to be a non-egregious missed stunning procedure and would issue a non-compliance record. Plant management counseled the employee prior to resumption of stunning operations and no other missed stunning procedures occurred before completion of slaughter on 2/212025 Failure to properly stun an animal on the first attempt is a violation of 9 CFR313.15 (a)(1). I judged this to be a non-egregious missed knock that arose from the less than perfect restraint and movement of the cow’s head during the stunning attempt and because the action of an effective stunning procedure was applied on the second attempt and in a timely manner.