Musselman's Meats LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2025 (USDA)
See the detail of the non-compliance of humane livestock handling that the USDA observed at the Musselman's Meats LLC slaughterhouse establishment in 2025.
You can also see other establishments that were non-compliant in 2025.
313.15(b)(1)(iii),313.15(a)(1)
On September 3, 2025, at approximately 12:40 PM, while conducting stunning effectiveness verification task at Est. M8615, I observed the following noncompliance: An establishment employee moved a swine from the shed into the restraining area for stunning with a captive bolt. After hearing a single discharge of the captive bolt device from the adjacent room, I did not hear the animal fall to the ground, as is typically expected following effective stunning. I returned to the area, and I observed the animal remained conscious. The employee then applied a second captive bolt stun, after which the animal collapsed. I verified that the animal was insensible and unconscious. Upon inspection, I noted two entry points on the animal’s forehead. This constitutes a failure to comply with 9CFR 313.15(a)(1) and 9 CFR 313.15(a)(3) I immediately informed the establishment manager REDACTED, of the noncompliance.
313.16(a)(3),313.16(a)(1)
HATS Category VIII- Stunning Effectiveness On March 5, 2025, at approximately 0915 hours while observing Stunning Effectiveness at Est. M8615, I observed the following non-compliance. The establishment moved a beef bull into the restrainer for stunning with a 22 magnum rifle. When the stunner said ‘Fire in the hole’ I left the slaughter floor to listen from an adjacent concrete-walled room. I heard the 1st shot but I did not hear the animal fall to the ground, as is customary after shooting. I looked around the wall and could see that the animal was still standing. I went back behind the wall, and heard a 2nd shot, heard the animal fall to the ground signaling a successful stunning attempt. Two additional security stuns were performed. I stepped out from the behind the wall and confirmed that animal was insensible. Examination of the skull with the DVMO revealed 4 full thickness holes on the forehead of the animal. This a failure to adhere to the regulatory requirements of 9CFR 313.16(a)(1) & (3). I verbally informed the establishment owner, REDACTED, of the non-compliance.
