Hometown Meat Market LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2025 (USDA)

313.2

On Tuesday, July 22, 2025, at 0802 hours, CSI REDACTED was performing HATS Category III inspection of the cattle in the pens. I was following up from the afternoon prior, when I had observed two cattle in separate pens. I noticed that one steer had water in his pen which consisted of a lug with dirty water – this lug had been in that pen all weekend. The other animal, a bull, had no access to water. After making this observation yesterday afternoon, I asked an employee, Mrs. REDACTED, if the other animal would get water, and I was told that the cattle would be placed together. When I followed up this morning, I observed that the cattle were still in separate pens, and one was still without access to water. Additionally, I don’t think they were given any feed since I saw no feed pans in either pen. I spoke with Supervisor, REDACTED, and asked him about the lack of water access for the one animal, and he said that he had forgotten about it. This demonstrates a noncompliance with 9CFR 313.2(e) since the animals must have access to water in all holding pens.

313.15(a)(1)

On Thursday, April 17, 2025, at 1408 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was conducting a HATS Category VIII Livestock Inspection task in the kill room when I observed the following noncompliance. A steer was loaded into the knock box and the headgate was lowered. However, the gate had closed across his horn rather than over his neck, so his head slipped back into the opening of the gate. This did not ensure an accurate placement of the stunner. The stun operator administered the first stun on the forehead, and it was not effective. The steer was still breathing laboriously and heavily and moving his eyes. A second stun was administered, which was not effective either as the animal showed the same signs of consciousness. The operator then delivered a third stun at the back of the head, and it appeared to be effective for the most part, yet there was still some slight eye movement, and the steers breathing slowed. The stunner delivered a fourth stun, and it was fully effective. The eye movements ceased, and the breathing was not noticeable. For security, the operator administered a fifth knock. The steer was chained, hoisted, and bled and did not regain consciousness on the rail. This demonstrates a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) because the steer was not rendered unconscious immediately on the first stun.

313.15(a)(1)

On Tuesday, April 1, 2025, at 1430 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was conducting a HATS Category VIII Inspection Task on the kill floor when I observed the following noncompliance. A steer was loaded into the knock box and the head gate was lowered. The steer was upset and moving his head in the lowered gate. The nose bar is still not working to full capacity. The stun operator administered the first stun which was ineffective. The steer was still alert, and his head, eyes and body were moving. Another stun was administered but it too was ineffective. The steer was getting more stressed and anxious. He was still alert and continued moving his head and body. Blood was dripping from his mouth and nose, yet he was not vocalizing. The operator delivered a third stun which rendered the steer unconscious. There was no reaction when the cornea was tapped. The steer was chained, hoisted, and bled without further issue. I examined the skull afterwards and it appeared the entry wound for the first stun was in a slightly lower location on the skull. It had barely penetrated the skull. The second stun wound was at the correct location of the skull, and it had penetrated its surface. The repair of the nose bar is essential since it will limit the head movement of the cattle and allow the stun operators to ensure placement of the stunner is correct. After speaking with establishment management, I was informed that a new hand stunner has been ordered. I am documenting a noncompliance and citing 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) since the steer was not rendered unconscious on the first stun.

313.15(a)(1)

On Friday, March 14, 2025, at 1036 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was performing a HATS Category VIII Inspection task when I observed the following. A bull was loaded into the knock box and the head gate was lowered. There was minimal head movement as the stun operator administered the first stun. The placement was correct, but the stun was not effective. His eyes were blinking and were tracking around the room, yet there was no vocalization. The operator administered a second and third stun which were also ineffective. The bull was still not vocalizing yet he was blinking, and there was eye movement. Finally, a fourth stun was applied, and it was effective. There was no reaction when the cornea was tapped. The bull was chained, hoisted, and bled with no further signs of consciousness. The bull did have a large head and thicker skull that normal. The rod did penetrate each time. Both of the stunners are cleaned and maintained on a daily basis. The backup stunner was working properly as well. I discussed with management the possibility of a higher caliber device, such as a .22 for instances like this one. This demonstrates a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) due to the establishments failure to render the bull unconscious on the first stun. This NR will be associated with NR# EYH5614033512N from 03/12/25.

313.15(a)(1)

On Wednesday, March 12, 2025, at 1313 hours, I, CSI REDACTED, was performing a HATS Category VIII Humane Handling Inspection Task when I observed the following ineffective stun. The heifer entered the knock box, and the head gate was lowered. She was calm and there was minimal head movement. The nose bar is still not operable. The stun operator delivered the first stun which was not effective. The rod penetrated the skull and it was difficult for the operator to remove. The heifers’ eyes were alert and moving as the rod was being removed, yet she did not vocalize. The backup stunner was not firing, so the primary one was reloaded, and the second stun was administered. This second one was effective, the animal was rendered unconscious and was hoisted and bled. The first, ineffective stun was slightly off center on the skull. In all the HH noncompliances I’ve observed and documented the last few months, the rod has penetrated the cattle’s skulls, yet the animals are remaining conscious. The stunners are disassembled and cleaned on a daily basis. The cartridges used are of the highest caliber available for the hand stunners at this establishment. I am documenting a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) due to the establishments failure to render an animal unconscious on the first stun.

313.15(a)(1)

On Thursday, March 6, 2025, at 0913 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was performing HATS Category VIII Humane Handling Inspection Task when I observed the following: A steer was loaded into the knock box and placed its head into the head gate. The nose bar was not operable. The stun operator administered the first stun which proved to be ineffective due to the steer’s eyes tracking, head movement, and vocalization. The stun rod penetrated the skull but became lodged in the skull momentarily. The stunner was removed and a second, effective stun followed immediately which rendered the animal unconscious. A third, security stun was then administered, and the steer was hoisted and bled. Based on my observations, the stun operator is not at fault since the stunner placement on the skull was correct. The stunner fired as normal, and the rod pierced the skull. There was slight movement of the steers head as the first stun was administered which may have been part of the cause. The repair of the nose bar would help to limit head movement from the cattle. Noteworthy, is that the steer had an odd-shaped body and a potentially denser skull than normal cattle. This demonstrates a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) since the steer was not rendered unconscious on the initial stun.

313.15(a)(1)

On Tuesday, February 11, 2025, at 0818 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was performing a HATS Category VIII Humane Handling Inspection Task when I observed the following noncompliance. The stun operator administered the initial stun to a steer. The report following the stun was not as loud as usual, and for the first couple of seconds the stun appeared to be effective. However, the steer began to vocalize, blink his eyes, and move his head. The operator immediately delivered a second and effective stun followed by a third security knock. There was no more vocalization or movement from the animal, and he was hoisted and bled accordingly. The stun operator did have the shot positioned correctly on the steers skull, so it was not an issue with incorrect placement of the stunner. I examined the head afterwards and the rod did penetrate the skull. The stunners are cleaned and maintained on a daily basis. This incident demonstrates a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) due to the establishments failure to render steer unconscious on the first stun.

313.2

On Monday, January 13th, 2025, at 1600 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was conducting a HATS Category III Verification Task when I observed the following. One of the cattle was closed off in the other section of the off-premises pen and did not have access to water. I notified the Office Manager, REDACTED of this issue. On Tuesday, January 14th, 2025, at 0810 hours, I followed up and noticed that the steer was still in the same pen and did not have access to water or hay/cubes in the afternoon and overnight period. This demonstrates a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.2(e) which states, (e) “Animals shall have access to water in all holding pens and, if held longer than 24 hours, access to feed[...]”

313.15(a)(1)

On Thursday, December 12, 2024, at 1131 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was performing a HATS Category VIII when I observed as the second pig of the day was placed in the knock box. The first stun initially appeared to render him unconscious since the rod did penetrate the skull and there was the normal kicking movement from the pig. However, it was soon determined to be ineffective as the animal was trying to right itself and stand/walk. There was no vocalization as it did this. The operator immediately administered a second and effective stun to the pig which rendered it unconscious. The operator was then able to bleed the animal and hoist it. It is possible that the round was defective as it did not issue a loud report. The establishment has done a good job about ensuring the rounds are kept moisture free prior to being loaded into the stunner. I am documenting a noncompliance and citing 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) due to the establishments failure to render the animal unconscious immediately.

313.15(a)(1)

On Monday, December 2, 2024, at 0906 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was conducting a HATS Category VIII Task when I observed the following noncompliance. The first steer of the day was secured in the knock box with the head catch lowered. The stun operator administered the first knock which was not effective. The rod did penetrate the skull because the operator had to force it out. The steer’s gaze was still alert and observing, yet there was no vocalization. The operator immediately delivered a second and effective stun which rendered him unconscious. A third security knock was applied before the operator checked for sensibility. The steer was then shackled, hoisted, and bled. It is possible that the round in the stunner was defective since there have been issues in the past. This does constitute a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) due to the operator’s failure to render the steer unconscious on the first stun.

313.15(a)(1)

On Thursday, October 17th, 2024, at 1057 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was conducting HATS Category VIII Task on the kill floor when an ineffective stun was administered. A steer was loaded into the knock box and the head catch was lowered. He was thrashing his head and body around in the box and continued to do so after the first report of the stun gun sounded. The stun operator immediately delivered a second and effective stun to the steer. This rendered him unconscious, and a backup/security stun followed. I examined the steers head after the effective stun. I found the initial wound where the first stun had bounced off the skull due to the movement of his head which was why it wasn’t effective. It was not deep and only penetrated the skin and hide, but not the skull. The steer remained in a state of unconsciousness as he was chained, hoisted, and bled. This demonstrates a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) due to the establishments failure to render the animal unconscious on the first stun.