Pohlmans Meat Processing Plant: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2025 (USDA)

313.15(a)(1)

On January 14, 2025, at approximately 8:00 AM while performing a HATS Category VIII task for stunning effectiveness at Pohlman's Meat Processing (Est.M6961+V6961), I, Dr. REDACTED, District Veterinary Medical Officer (DVMO), observed a noncompliance issue as follows: A steer was placed in the knock box without its head being restrained. The animal was constantly moving its head while Mr. REDACTED, the owner, attempted to apply the captive bolt device. When the animal briefly stopped moving, Mr. REDACTED used a penetrating handheld captive bolt device (HHCB) to stun the steer. Although the bolt made contact with the head as evidenced by a bloody wound at the spot, it proved ineffective, and the animal remained standing, conscious, and was moving its head around. Mr. REDACTED then picked up a second handheld captive bolt device, which was already loaded and ready for use, and applied a second stun. At this point, the animal dropped to the floor and was rendered unconscious. To examine the stun sites, the hide was removed from the head. Two penetrating wounds from the handheld captive bolt devices were identified: one at the center of the forehead and another adjacent to it on the right side with path towards ear/side of the face. I informed Mr. REDACTED about the noncompliance observed. Since this was the last cattle to be slaughtered for the day, no regulatory control action was taken regarding the knock box. I explained to Mr. REDACTED that this situation violated 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) and requested corrective action to prevent similar occurrences in the future. This noncompliance is linked to a similar noncompliance report (NR # WMD3312125211N/1) documented on December 10, 2024.

313.15(a)(1)

On 12/10/2024, at approximately 0800 hours, while performing a HATS Category VIII task with stunning effectiveness at Pohlman Meats Processing (M6961+V6961), I, Dr. REDACTED, District Veterinary Medical Officer (DVMO), observed the following instance of noncompliance: A black heifer was placed in the knock box with its head restrained. The animal was pulling against the head restrainer. Mr. REDACTED (owner) then applied a handheld (penetrating) captive bolt (HHCB) to the animal's head and discharged it. Although the bolt made contact and penetrated the skull, it was ineffective, as the animal remained standing and continued to move its head. Mr. REDACTED subsequently picked up a second handheld captive bolt, which was already loaded and ready for use, and applied a second stun. At this point, the animal dropped to the floor and was rendered unconscious. The employee then reloaded the HHCB and applied three more security stuns in quick succession while the animal was unconscious on the floor. Of these three security stuns, the first two were muffled, and only the third security sun made a normal loud bang and was effective in penetrating the skull. To examine the stun sites, the hide was removed from the head. Three handheld captive bolt penetrating wounds were identified: one at the center of the forehead and two others located on either side of the central wound. At this point, I informed Mr. REDACTED, the owner, about the noncompliance and took verbal regulatory control of the knock box. Consumer safety inspector (CSI) Mr. REDACTED tagged the knock box with the U.S. Rejected Tag #B 21623830.I explained to Mr. REDACTED that this situation violated 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) and requested immediate corrective action before proceeding with the slaughter operation. Mr. REDACTED then went to the supply room to retrieve two new cartridges, which he used to load the HHCB for the next heifer to be slaughtered. After this, I removed the USDA reject tag from the knock box and lifted the regulatory control action over it.