Messina Meats: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2023 (USDA)
See the detail of the non-compliance of humane livestock handling that the USDA observed at the Messina Meats slaughterhouse establishment in 2023.
You can also see other establishments that were non-compliant in 2023.
313.2
On Monday, 9/18/2023, while performing a Humane Handling HATS Category III inspection, I, CSI REDACTED observed the following issue at approximately 1105am. In the establishment's animal holding pens, pens 6 and 7 have one shared water container in pen 6, to provide animals with water in both pens 6 and 7. I observed one cow in pen 7, and the gate between pens 6 and 7 had been closed and chained. The cow did not have access to the container of water in pen 6. I immediately showed the issue to employee REDACTED, who then entered pen 6 and unchained and opened the gate to pen 7, allowing the cow to access the water in pen 6. The above is non-compliance with 9 CFR 313.2. I informed Floor Supervisor, REDACTED, of the non-compliance and of this NR.
313.30(b)(2),313.30(b)(3),313.2(f)
At approximately 802am, while observing HATS VIII Stunning Effectiveness of goats for slaughter, I, CSI REDACTED, observed the following humane handling issue. I observed five goats stunned properly using the establishment’s electrical hog stunner. While observing the sixth goat being stunned, the stunning wand was placed on the back of the neck of the animal as is standard. However, when the door of the stun box was opened, the employee pulled the animal out to administer a heart stick, but the animal was vocalizing, trying to stand upright, and was attempting to free itself from the employee restraining it. The animal was not stunned properly and was conscious. The employee then tried to administer a heart stick to bleed the animal out when I stopped him and instructed him to stun the animal with the backup captive bolt gun. The employee retrieved the loaded captive bolt backup gun approximately 2 feet away from the restrainer and applied a stunning blow to the goat. The goat was immediately rendered unconscious, and the employee was able to stick it for bleeding out. I then informed the employee to stop stunning any more animals. At 8:05 am, I informed Floor Supervisor, REDACTED and Establishment Owner, REDACTED, of my observation, and informed them I was preventing any further slaughter of animals until I had communication with my chain-of- command about the noncompliance. I then placed US Rejected Tag No. B42071170 on the establishment’s lamb/goat ramp leading to the stun box. I also tagged the electrical hog stunning unit using US Rejected Tag No B42066551 to prevent further stunning of any animals. The above observations are non-compliance with 9 CFR 313.2(f), 9 CFR 330.30(b)(2) and 9 CFR330.30(b)(3). Plant Owner, REDACTED, and Floor Supervisor, REDACTED, were informed of the non-compliance and of this NR. NR #BEJ3216111901N/2 dated 11/01/2022, is being associated with this NR due to similar root cause. This event resulted in a Notice of Suspension issued to the establishment.
313.30(b)(2)
On Tuesday, 11/01/2022, while performing a HATS Category VIII inspection, I, CSI REDACTED, observed the following non-compliance at approximately 1100am. After an electrical hog stunner, currently being used for lamb stunning, had malfunctioned, I observed establishment employees install a second electrical hog stunner unit to replace the malfunctioning stunner unit. Employees made several adjustments to the stunner unit, and to the stunner wand, and were able to get the unit functioning. After several successful stuns of lambs, the unit appeared to be working properly. However, while observing stunning of a lamb at approximately 1115am, I saw the stunning employee place the wand on the back of the animal's neck, and when he pressed the wand button, the hog stunner unit light illuminated for approximately one second, then went out. The unit was set to apply electrical current to the wand for 7 seconds. The employee continued with stunning the animal and the stunner unit light illuminated off and on several times during the entire 7 second stun interval. The animal appeared fully stunned and insensible to pain. The employee then administered a heart stick to the animal to allow it to bleed out. I then indicated to the stunning employee to not stun any more animals and I placed US Rejected Tag NO. B42066541onto the establishment's stun box to prevent further stunning of animals. I then approached Establishment Owner, REDACTED, and Floor Supervisor, REDACTED, and explained my observation to them. REDACTED informed me he was preparing to ship the malfunctioning stunning unit to the manufacturer to have it repaired. REDACTED then informed me he would have employees stun remaining animals with a captive bolt gun. I found this to be an acceptable alternative for stunning and removed the US Rejected Tag from the stun box and allowed slaughter operations to resume. I then observed several successful stuns of lambs using the captive bolt gun. The above is non-compliance with 9 CFR 313.30(b)(2) which states in part, all equipment used to apply and control the electrical current shall be maintained in good repair. REDACTED and REDACTED were informed of the non-compliance and of this NR.
