Messina Meats: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2022 (USDA)

313.2,313.50

On Friday, 9/23/22, while performing Humane Handling inspection for HATS Category III, Water and Feed Availability, I, CSI REDACTED observed the following non-compliance at approximately 1000 hours. At the establishment's holding pen area, I observed approximately 20 goats in pen one that had no access to water. The pen had a container for water, but it was completely empty and dry. The animals were enclosed in the pen by gates and could not access water in other areas of the pens. This is a non-compliance with 9CFR313.2(e), which states animals in holding pens shall have access to water at all times. At approximately 1010 hours, SPHV, Dr. REDACTED observed that there was no water available in pen one and goats were still in the pen. Immediately after these observations, Floor Supervisor REDACTED filled the container with water and told her the animals had just been placed in the pen. The establishment has previously been issued three NR's due to non-compliance with 9CFR313.2(e). Dr. REDACTED and I then agreed that previous preventive measures taken by the establishment were ineffective, and a Regulatory Control Action should be taken as described in 9CFR313.50(b) and 9CFR500.2(a)(4). At approximately 1020 hours, I approached REDACTED at the holding pen area and explained to him I was rejecting the alley way leading to the Lamb/Goat stun box and no further slaughter operations could begin until the establishment provides IPP with verbal and written corrective actions and preventive measures that are effective to ensure animals in holding pens have access to water at all times. I then placed US Rejected Tag NO. B42066534 onto the gate leading to the Lamb/Goat stun box to prevent animals from being driven into the area for slaughter. At approximately 1040 hours, Dr. REDACTED and I were approached by Plant Owner REDACTED and REDACTED who explained they would immediately install a water hose with a float device into the water container in pen one. REDACTED also stated that he would make sure all pens have water before the start of slaughter regardless of the presence of animals. Dr. REDACTED and I found the proposed measures by the establishment to be acceptable and I removed the US Rejected Tag at approximately 1045 hours and allowed slaughter operations to resume. REDACTED and REDACTED were informed of non-compliance with 9CFR313.2(e) and of this NR. NR BEJ3914092608N-1 dated , 9/8/22, is being associated with this NR due to similar root cause.

313.2

On Thursday, 9/8/22, while observing conditions at the establishment's livestock holding pens, I , CSI REDACTED, observed the following non-compliance at approximately 1100am. While observing animals in the outside pen area of the establishment, I saw one goat in in the US Suspect Pen that had no access to water. There was no container for water and the animal was enclosed in the pen by gates, and could not access water in other areas of the pens. A pen employee informed me the goat was placed in that pen to separate it from lambs that had been passed for slaughter. I approached Floor Supervisor, REDACTED, and informed him of the issue. REDACTED stated he would have the goat removed from the pen. At approximately 1105am, I observed the goat had been returned to the establishment's pasture area. Also, a white bucket with water in it had been placed into the US Suspect Pen, which had no animals in it at this time. This is non-compliance with 9CFR313.2(e), that states that animals in holding pens shall have access to water at all times. REDACTED was informed of the non-compliance and of this NR. This NR is being associated with NR listed in Block 6a of this NR, due to similar root cause.

313.30(b)(2)

On Wednesday, 8/31/2022, at approximately 800am, I, CSI REDACTED observed the following non-compliance issue. At the start of lamb slaughter operations, I observed two employees attempting to test the establishment’s electrical stunning wand. The light on the electrical stunning unit that indicates the unit is functioning would not illuminate. The employees then installed a second wand on the unit, and the function light on the unit still would not illuminate. The employees then removed the second wand and reattached the first wand that was not functioning. Initially, the wand still would not function, but after re-inserting the wand plug several times and pressing the wand button several times, the indicator on the stunning unit illuminated, indicating the unit was functioning properly. Floor Supervisor, REDACTED, then took the second wand to perform maintenance on it to repair it. An employee then began stunning lambs. Two lambs were stunned properly without incident. However, while stunning the third lamb, the stunning wand malfunctioned after approximately 2 seconds out of the 7 second set interval of the stunning unit, and the stunning unit indicator light went out. The employee then removed the wand from the stunned animal, pressed the wand button several times to get the wand working again. The wand began functioning and the employee applied the stunning wand a second time to the stunned animal for the entire 7 second set interval of the stunning unit. As is standard procedure for this establishment, the stunning employee then applied a backup electrical stun to the lamb successfully and performed a heart stick using his knife to allow the animal to bleed out. I then informed the employee to not stun any more animals. I then placed US Rejected Tag NO. B42071776 on the electrical stunning unit to prevent its further use at approximately 803am. I then approached REDACTED, who was repairing another wand, and informed him I rejected and tagged the stunning unit because it malfunctioned during stunning of a lamb. I explained my observation to REDACTED and informed him that even though the lamb did not receive the full stun interval, the partial stun seemed effective enough to render the animal insensible to pain, therefore, the incident was not considered egregious. However, the incident is non-compliance with 9CFR313.30(b)(2) which states in part, all equipment used to apply and control the electrical current shall be maintained in good repair, and all indicators, instruments, and measuring devices shall be available for inspection by Program inspectors during the operation and at other times. REDACTED then installed the wand he had repaired onto the stunning unit, and after several tests, the unit appeared to be working properly. I then removed the US Rejected Tag from the stunning unit at approximately 820am and allowed slaughter operations to resume and did not observe any further malfunctioning of the electrical stunning wand. I informed REDACTED of the non-compliance with 9CFR313.30(b)(2), and of this NR.

313.2

On Monday, 8/8/22, while observing conditions at the establishment's livestock holding pens, I observed the following non-compliance at approximately 1155am.  While observing animals in the outside pen area of the establishment, I saw one steer in pen number three that had no access to water. There was no container for water and the animal was enclosed in the pen by gates, and could not access water in other areas of the pens.  Pen employees had already gone to lunch, so I approached Floor Supervisor, REDACTED, and showed him the issue. REDACTED immediately moved the steer from pen three, into pen two. Pen two had a water container that was full of water, already placed inside it. This is non-compliance with 9CFR313.2(e), that states that animals in holding pens shall have access to water at all times. REDACTED was informed of the non-compliance and of this NR.  This NR is being associated with NR listed in Block 6a of this NR, due to similar root cause.

313.2

On Thursday, 8/4/22, while observing conditions at the establishment's livestock holding pens, I observed the following non-compliance at approximately 130pm.  While observing animals in the outside pen area of the establishment, I saw seven sows in pen number three that had no access to water. There was no container for water and the animals were enclosed in the pen by gates, and could not access water in other areas of the pens.  This is non-compliance with 9CFR313.2(e), that states that animals in holding pens shall have access to water at all times. REDACTED was informed of the non-compliance and of this NR. During subsequent follow up of this issue at approximately 330pm, Dr. REDACTED (SPHV), and I observed the sows in pen three had been moved to pen H, in the establishment's hog barn. Water was available in this pen and accessible by the animals.

313.2

On Thursday, 7/28/2022, at approximately 1045am, I, CSI REDACTED observed the following non-compliance issue. While performing post-mortem beef carcass inspection inside the establishment’s slaughter room, I heard a steer vocalizing as if in distress. I proceeded to the outside pen area of the establishment and saw a steer on the loading ramp leading to the establishment’s knock box. I saw an establishment employee next to the ramp, and he had hold of a steel bar, which he was placing on both sides of the ramp rails, behind the animal to keep it from backing up and help it to move forward into the kill box. The bar was approximately four feet long, placed on the center rail, which was near the center of the steer’s upper hind quarter. The steer backed up against the steel bar, and one side of the bar fell inside the ramp while the other side remained in place on the ramp rail. The steer continued backing up, and its right hind leg was able to step over the bar, but its left hind leg was not able to step over the bar. At that point, the steer began tripping and struggling to get past the bar and became even more distressed and vocal. The employee holding the bar, then let go of the bar completely and it then fell completely inside the ramp and the animal was able to move freely back down to the beginning of the ramp. I then informed the kill box employee that was holding a rope that was tied to the animal’s neck, to stop trying to move the animal. The rope was being used to pull the animal forward into the kill box. I did not see any signs of the animal choking or being stressed from the rope. The employee in fact stopped trying to move the animal any further. I then approached Establishment Owner, REDACTED, and informed him that I had stopped the movement of this steer due to Humane Handling concerns of possible injury to the animal. REDACTED then asked if he could switch out the animal for another one that was not so stressed, and I informed him that was his choice. He proceeded to replace the steer with another one that freely went into the kill box, and they then proceeded with slaughter without further incident. The above incident is non-compliance with Humane Slaughter of Livestock regulation 9CFR313.2, which clearly states driving of livestock from the holding pens to the stunning area shall be done with a minimum of excitement and discomfort to the animals. REDACTED was informed of the non-compliance and of this NR.