Table: Memorandums of Interview for Livestock Humane Handling in August 2017

District

Est#

EstName

Mol#

Date

Task

Code

Description

80

M5425

Salem Halal Meat
Packaging, LLC

NWL19
090850
27G

2017-08-27

Livestock
Humane
Handling

04C02

MOI—Summary of Odd Hour Inspection Visit 8/27/17 9:30 am Attendees: Mr.
Kamran i(b) (6) | Livestock trailer was being unloaded humanely by
establishment management and trailer driver. | checked all pens; feed and water was
available in all pens. Pens were in good repair, with the exception of a board starting
to come loose from the outside wall of the long pen being used to hold custom
animals. | informed Mr. Kamran Iftikhar about the loose board, and he immediately
began to fix it. Animals were not in immediate danger due to this issue, and no sharp
objects were observed in the pens. There are many small livestock on site at this
time, but not to the point of overcrowding. There were two dead animals on site
which were removed from the livestock unloading area and properly denatured and
disposed of. | checked the outside concrete pad which is used to store inedible
materials until the time of pickup. Barrels in this area did not appear to be creating
an insanitary condition or pest harborage condition, and there were fly control
pellets sprinkled on the ground to control flies. Mr. Iftikhar informed me that he
was diligently checking the feed and water yesterday and overnight. | did mention
that it is a good practice to have water available in the pens before unloading new
animals into pens. Thank you for your effort in humane handling.

80

M8496

Central Meat
Packing

UKC341
108353
0G

2017-08-30

Livestock
Humane
Handling

04C02

A meeting was held mg) (6) to discuss the ramp up to

the knock box from the pen system. During a previous humane handling visit about
one month ago, a broken board was noticed above the ramp and directly underneath
the roof. Some sharp pieces of wood were protruding from the broken end of the
board and the wood is rough length-wise as the board runs across the roof to a point
from the break. The long, angular portion of the board that runs the length of the
roof is still present with sharp/rough surfaces. The establishment has since removed
the sharp pieces of wood protruding from the broken end. | spoke with
regarding the remaining piece of the board still in place and it's rough/sharp surfaces
and removing the entire board rather than just the few splinters present. | notified
(>) | that a NR may follow this MOI if the plant does not adequately fix the board.



Table: Memorandums of Interview for LivestockHH from 07/01/17-07/31/17

District

EstNbr

EstName

MoOl#

Date

Description

50

M31578

Trenton
Processing Center,
Inc.

LKK121307
5321G

2017-07-21

(b)(6) and(@@) ) discussed an issue that

is of concern , This concerns proper handling of livestock, during the kill period on

7/21/17 (YO) Em(b)(6) | noticed that the gatepole closest to the outside exit to
the holding pens has a sharp edge on the bottom edge of it , in which can possibly create
injury , in addition we also witnessed a trailer being off loaded and not square , leaving a gap
that could have potentially harmed the animal or allowed for escape of the animal. This is a
concern that needs attention in a timely manner. Both of these issues are explained in
Regulation 313.1(a)

60

M9443,

LaRue Meat
Processing

GGE45090
75025G

2017-07-25

Memorandum of Interview July 25,2017 Today, July 25, 2017, at approximately 0845
hours, | verbally notified Mr. Luke Sredy, the establishment manager, that | had taken a
regulatory control action in the stunning area for improper stunning resulting in egregious
inhumane treatment of a steer. | also informed Mr. Sredy that I was contacting the
Philadelphia District Office to discuss the regulatory control action and further enforcement
actions. At approximately 0830 hours today, (()()MM and | were observing the stunning
of a large steer. The establishment manager, Luke Sredy, loaded the captive bolt and applied
a stun to the beef animal in the stun chute. The steer immediately dropped in the chute and
quickly rolled into the cutting area. The beef was then shackled and hoisted. At this point, ld
| | and | observed the steer begin to rhythmically breath and blink its eye. The
establishment stuck the animal and it began to vocalize and attempt to right itself. The
establishment manager immediately reloaded the captive bolt and applied two additional
stuns which were ineffective at rendering the animal unconscious. At this point, the
establishment retrieved a .22 caliber rifle and applied a final stun which rendered the animal
unconscious. _| instructed the establishment employees to halt slaughter operations
immediately. and | tagged the entrance of the stun chute with U.S. Rejected tag
#A6910155 to halt the slaughter process. The establishment does not currently have a Robust

Systematic Approach to Humane Handling Program. (GG) (b)(6)

90

M7356

Harmon Brothers
Meats, Inc.

KO915071
617G

2017-07-17

On July 17, 2017, at approximately 1:22 PM ET, while conducting HATS Category 8 (Stunning
Effectiveness) verification, the Consumer Safety Inspector (CSI) observed the following: an
establishment employee at M7356 stunned the 4th cow by captive bolt. The cow went down
in the chute as if it was unconscious and employees raised the chute door and shackled the
back legs and hoisted the cow into the air. The CSI observed that the cow began vocalizing and
moving its head side to side. It tried to right itself. The CSI also observed natural blinking and
coordinated eye movement. An establishment employee delivered a second stun attempt by
captive bolt approximately 2 minutes following the first attempt. The second stun attempt
rendered the animal unconscious and insensible. The CSI tagged the chute at 2:00 PM ET with
USDA Retain/Reject Tag B19167822 and notified the owner Dave Harmon of the incident.

08:03 Tuesday, August 15,2017 5



Table:Memorandums of Interview (MOlIs) in response to FOIA2018_00012_October 10, 2017

EstNbr EstName Task_Code MOl# Date Description

successfully shoot the animal, denature it, and were loading it
onto a refrigerated truck for storage until a rendering truck
could pick it up.



Table: Memorandums of Interview for 04C02 from 9/1/17-9/30/17

14:11 Wednesday, October 4, 2017

District

EstNbr

EstName

MoOl#

Date

Description

50

M45358

Countrystyle
Meats

HFJ290909
0129G

29SEP2017

At CountryStyle Meats, the morning of 9/27/2017 at 0915 Central time a livestock trailer was
getting ready to unload nine hogs into the scales pen, before the livestock was to be put into a
holding pen. There was an opening between the floor for the scales and the frame of the door
going into the scale that was five inches wide and ten inches deep. If animals were too hasty
in going from the trailer to the scales pen and stepped into this opening there is a substantial
chance of having a foot or lower leg injury. This situation was observed by GE.

and| . The situation was brought to the attention of the
establishment owner Mr. Yoder. He put a piece of plywood from the scales into the trailer,
covering the opening. The hogs were unloaded and there were no injuries. On closer
examination of the scales pen, there were gaps from the scales floor edge horizontally to the
side of the pen also in a few places. No livestock was injured, no NR was written, but the
situation was brought to the attention of Mr. Yoder so hopefully he will make the repairs and
no livestock is injured. SOMETHING TO CHECK ON LATER.

60

M9428

East Conway
Beef & Pork
Processing

XML58070
93314G

14SEP2017

At approximately 9:15 AM on 09/13/17, | observed a missed stunning of a market swine. The
wand of the electrical stunning device used was first placed on the back of the head, behind
the ears of the animal and electrical current was delivered to the animal for approximately five
seconds. However, the animal was not immediately rendered insensible and, instead,
remained upright, vocalized, and tried to run away by taking a few steps forward in the kill
box. The employee performing the stunning then applied the wand to the chest of the fully
conscious, upright animal and delivered electrical current for an additional five seconds. A
combination of the electrical current and physical force of the wand knocked the animal down
on its side. When the wand was removed, | observed the tracking of eyes, continuous
vocalization, and the swine trying to upright itself. After a third attempt, the animal was
successfully rendered insensible with a shot to the head using a captive bolt gun. |
immediately took regulatory control action by applying "U.S. Rejected" tag NO. B41286123 to
the kill box and reported to establishment officials, informing them that no more stunning
could take place.

5


Table: Memorandums of Interview for 04C02 from 9/1/17-9/30/17

14:11 Wednesday, October 4, 2017

District EstNbr EstName Mol# Date Description
15 M630 CS Beef Packers, KJN571209 | 21SEP2017 | On September 20, 2017, at approximately 1210 hours while performing ante-mortem
LLC 0021G inspection (HATS Category IV) at Est. 630, , noticed a

semi-truck/trailer pulling up at the unloading dock. While she was performing ante-mortem
inspection of cattle in several pens five head of Holstein cows were unloaded from the tail
section of the trailer. By the time the ante-mortem inspections were completed,|
was at the truck and called out for and|

to come over to the semi-truck. explained that there
were possibly six head of Holstein down in the belly section of the trailer with one of the
down animals blocking the stairs up out of the trailer belly. The immediate plan was to knock
the one animal blocking the stairs as in appeared she would probably be unable to rise
unassisted and pull her off of the trailer. He believed the cow lying down next to the first one
would be able to get up on her own when the first one was out of the way. He wasn’t sure of
the condition of the other cattle that were lying down. looked through the left
side of the trailer and concurred with assessment regarding the first two head of
cattle. She also observed a cow lying down on the right side of the trailer with another cow
straddling her. On the left side of the trailer immediately adjacent to the first cow were two
more cows — one lying completely on top of another cow; the cow on the bottom was not
moving and exhibited no respiratory signs. At 1222 hours| proceeded to knock
and stick the cow blocking the stairs and had her pulled out of the trailer; the second cow was
able to rise unassisted and exited the trailer. The standing cow that was straddling the cow
lying down on the right side of the trailer stepped over the cow under it with one back foot
and on the cow — in the flank area - with the second back foot; in [QQ opinion there
was no way the cow straddling the other cow could have been prevented from stepping
over/on the cow on the floor without endangering a person. Once that cow had exited the
belly of the trailer, [EGE knocked the cow on the left side trailer which was on top of
the other cow at 1235 hours and the cow on the right side of the trailer at 1236 hours; he
verified that the cow under the cow knocked at 1235 hours was dead. The two cows on the
left side of the trailer were pulled out and the rest of the cows in the belly were unloaded
without issue. After the upper deck cows were unloaded - the last cow came off of the trailer
at approximately 1255 hours — the remaining dead cow in the belly was pulled off of the
truck. All four dead cows were ante-mortem condemned and Z-tags issued; a plant employee
denatured all four carcasses. At 1331 hours| notified ) and
by email of the incident. Since} was in travel status
she notified| ) and Dr. Reeder (DDM) who reviewed the above narrative.
After discussion which included input from |, the decision was made at
approximately 1620 hours to issue an MOI to document the incident. then notified
plant management by phone of the decision to issue an MOI and that she would issue the
MOI on Thursday, 9/21/2017.

2


Table: Memorandums of Interview for 04C02 from 9/1/17-9/30/17

14:11 Wednesday, October 4, 2017

District EstNbr EstName Mol# Date Description
15 M969 Swift Beef UOA17090 | O9SEP2017 | On Wednesday, September 6, 2017, the FSIS Public Health Veterinarian (PHV) documented in
Company 94809G a Memorandum of Information the following event at establishment M 969 JBS Swift Beef:

At approximately 0828 hours while performing a routine humane handling assessment at M
969, JBS Swift Beef the PHV observed the knocker attempt to stun a beef animal with a
pneumatic captive bolt. The PHV observed that it appeared to glance off of its head but was
unsure if it made contact. The same employee attempted two more stunning attempts with
the a pneumatic captive bolt where the animal was obviously conscious, vocalizing, head and
legs thrashing before rendering it unconscious on the final attempt. All attempts occurred in
rapid succession. During this time the employee demonstrated that he either did not have the
knowledge or else the initiative to try and secure the animal for a successful attempt which
was evident because of the actions of other employees who stop the rotating belly belt,
squeeze the chute or try to get the animals attention. The PHV inspected the head once it was
unconscious, shackled and hanging and could verify 4 knock holes. The line was immediately
stopped and the PHV discussed the situation with the|

After conferring with Deputy District Manager Robert Reeder the PHV applied a US
Rejected/Retained tag B41992386 to the pneumatic captive bolt at approximately 0928 hours
and notified . completed the
Certified Stunner Training Program on 6-8-2017 which was verified through signed documents
presented >) OT M 969 JBS Swift Beef does have a robust
Humane Handling Program.

1


District

50

EstNbr

M45705

EstName

Meat Processing
Career Center

Table: Memorandums of Interview for 04C02 from 9/1/17-9/30/17

Mol#

IGR490609
5320G

Date

20SEP2017

14:11 Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Description

On Tuesday 09/19/17 at approx. 0730 hours, the completed “Meat Processing Career
Center / Attachment 1 — Robust Humane Handling Daily Assessment” record, dated: 9-18-17,
record documents

was reviewed. The Attachment 1]
evaluations of the various facility and humane handling concerns. As reviewed, it is
determined that the Attachment 1 record does not document the occurrence or immediate
corrective actions taken by this establishment, in response to a potential noncompliance that
occurred during electrical stunning of Swine on Monday 09/18/17. John D Sifrit, Plant
manager was advised. On Monday 09/18/17 at approx. 1150 hours, during Swine stunning
operations (animal 36 of 40), USDA-FSIS-IPP was directly verifying that Electrical Stunning
methods were being appropriately and effectively administered. The stunning operator placed
the head fork (or wand) behind the ears to electrically stun a market hog, upon activation of
the wand switch, the stunning was ineffective, in which the electrical stunning wand was not
properly functioning. The animal did not appear excited as a result of the missed stunning
attempt. The stunning operator immediately replied that the stunning wand malfunctioned
(short-circuited). The stunning operator ani were verbally advised

not to continue stunning operations until immediate corrective actions were taken.

Immediate corrective actions encompassed retrieval of the backup Stunning Wand from their
secure tool equipment storage room. The PWS Supervisor verified that the backup stunning
wand was properly functioning prior to stunning operations being resumed. Upon resumption,
electrical stunning methods were appropriately and effectively administered. The “Meat
Processing Career Center Est. 45705 (MPCC) Robust Systematic Approach to Humane
Handling / Animal Welfare”, revised 7/24/17, in part documents: Section:

fin part totes OCD
EE) (4)

in parts states:\igaay

part states:((o) I)

parts states:


Table: Memorandums of Interview for LivestockHH from 07/01/17-07/31/17

08:03 Tuesday, August 15, 2017

District

EstNbr

EstName

MoOl#

Date

Description

15

M889A

J.F. O'Neill
Packing Co. Inc.

DSC541307
5531G

2017-07-31

On July 31, 2017 at approximately 1300, (YG) ) discussed my humane
handling concerns with(()() regarding the use of the
hydraulic push gate in the knock box. Throughout the day, | observed approximately 15
bovines slaughtered under the religious Kosher exemption. The animals entered the knock
box and went directly into the head restrainer, while the hydraulic rear push gate was
simultaneously brought down to crowd the animal into the head restrainer. Approximately
six of the observed 15 animals ended up into a dog sitting position with their head caught in
the head restrainer due to the hydraulic push gate overcrowding them. Two of the six animals
vocalized when in this position. This issue of overcrowding appeared to occur most frequently
on longer animals due to less available compression room. Also, the hydraulic push gate does
not appear to have the ability to be manually stopped at the operator's discretion. The gate
can be stopped at approximately half-way, but once it is past the half-way point it continues
to depress.

25

M244

Tyson Fresh
Meats, inc.

HKG13170
74411G

2017-07-11

On June 29, 2017 at approximately 2111, while walking towards pen 27 to check
slow/downer hogs at establishment M244, | observed a squealing and flailing hog
half out of the restrainer and the establishment employee trying to properly place the wands
on the hog and failing. | immediately summoned the stopping of the line and had
management properly stun the hog. | was unable to determine whether the hog was
vocalizing due to a miss-stun attempt or because of the physical constraints. During the ten
minutes of down time, | discussed my findings with barn management em(o)(6) |
and OG aaa. They commented that in the case of a “piggyback” hog, the hog
underneath is stunned electrically and the one on top is immediately captive bolted, and that
what | had observed was an improper execution of their past practices. | told management |
would inform my proper superiors and document my findings on an MOI. Management
informed me a meeting would be held after shift that night. | then allowed them to resume
normal operations. The establishment is invited to add corrective actions/preventative
measures: On June 30, 2017, at 2119 while performing HATS tasks VIII and IX, | was able to
observe the establishment's change in stunning execution: they allowed more spacing
between hogs, stunner operators appeared more alert and on task, and standby employees
were stationed to observe the stunning process and prepared to administer a captive bolt stun
in any circumstance if necessary.

1


Table: Memorandums of Interview for Livestock Humane Handling in August 2017

District

Est#

EstName

Mol#

Date

Task

Code

Description

25

M17D

John Morrell & Co.

WU132
008530
2G

2017-08-02

Livestock
Humane
Handling

04C02

This MOI is to document a conversation between and
me. The conversation was regarding a question | asked about the humane handling
program last week that hasn’t been answered. At the weekly meeting on July 27th,
2017, | asked a question regarding a statement in a 2016 reassessment. The
reassessment indicates that there is a procedure that allows for moving previously
non-ambulatory animals. Although this procedure is mentioned in the reassessment,
| could not find this procedure in the humane handling plan.

indicated he did not know the answer and would need to refer this to on
1st shift. To help make my question clear, | provided QE 2 written
request to pass fey) (6) Fl Itis 5 days later and | have still not received an
answer from the company. The reason | am asking this question stems from an
incident that occurred in the barns: A hog from 1st shift was placed in the B(b) (4)
fatigue pen” directly off of a truck. This pen is typically not used for truck cripples
and is reserved for hogs that become fatigued on their way to slaughter . If hogs that
had not received antemortem inspection are placed in the B() (4)} fatigue pen”, |
want to ensure that there is not a program in place that allows hogs that recover in
the fatigue pen to be placed back into the system without antemortem inspection.
This lack of response to my questions from 1st shift management to is an ongoing
frustration. The mailboxes in the USDA office may be utilized by 1st shift
management to communicate with 2nd shift USDA personnel. *Attached is the
correspondence | provided to| at the meeting on July 27th, 2017. |
also provided this letter to} on the evening of August 31st in a second
attempt to get answers from the company.

25

M1361

VPP Group, LLC

QQo10
180805
03G

2017-08-03

Livestock
Humane
Handling

0402

Attendees: Montana Stewart ~11:30am described an observation,
leading to a concern. She described that, on a regular basis, she observes fresh
bruises and clotted blood on the top-side of the necks, around the 2nd or 3rd cervical
vertebra; at the final rail station. It is not seen on all animals, and she noted that a
lot of them tend to be larger dairy cows. She observed that the location of the bruise
correlates well with the placement of the drop-bar on the head restraint. There are
two concerns: The head restrainer may be injuring some of the animals; although
she has not witnessed any vocalization at that point (however, cattle may not
vocalize while in the chin lift). The drop bar may be causing a fulcrum in taller cattle
when the chin lift is fully activated. The bruises must be trimmed as they are
unwholesome. respectfully asks the establishment to look into this
concern to assure that animals are not being injured. _Later in the day, Corina
Turriff, Plant Manager responded to my observations.

believes the bruises occur on long necked Holsteins from when they
drop after the stun. [GQIEM encouraged Corina to continue looking into this issue.



Table: Memorandums of Interview for 04C02 from 9/1/17-9/30/17

14:11 Wednesday, October 4, 2017

District

EstNbr

EstName

MoOl#

Date

Description

80

M5900

Niblock's Pork
Products

HLD18110
95912G

12SEP2017

On Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at approximately 11:10 am, |

observed the following at Est. M5900 Niblock’s Pork Products. A market pig was stunned
normally using a head stun with electrical stunning equipment. Following the initial stun
which appeared to be effective, the animal was shackled with a chain, and hoisted for sticking.
While the operator was moving the blood bucket under the animal before sticking, | observed
the pig exhibiting a righting reflex characterized by lifting the head in a vertical motion. The
front limbs were stiff and were pointed in a downward direction (towards the ground). Upon
closer observation, | also observed eye movements and eye blinking which was not different
from the eye movements and eye blinking that would be observed in a live animal in the pen.
At this time, | informed the operator that the pig was conscious and needed to be re-stunned
immediately. me)) used the electrical stunning equipment to
immediately and effectively render the shackled animal unconscious. He subsequently stuck
the animal for bleeding. After consulting with the District Veterinary Medical Specialist, |
placed US Rejected tag No. B38059713 on the stunning area at approximately 11:20 am to
stop further stunning of animals and informed of the regulatory control

action. Allowing a stunned animal to regain consciousness is an egregious humane handling
non-compliance of regulation 9 CFR 313.30(a)(4).

90

M27449

O'Guirre Farm
Meats Inc

DKG24140
93026G

26SEP2017

Robust Systematic Approach Determination Task for O’Guirre Farm est# 27449 Date task was
performed 9-25-17 at 12:30pm Determination "NO" (Not Robust) establishment
management was notified of these facts This MOI # is DKG0814091526G

6


Table: Memorandums of Interview for 04C02 from 9/1/17-9/30/17

14:11 Wednesday, October 4, 2017

District

EstNbr

EstName

MoOl#

Date

Description

25

M850

Swift Pork
Company

HEM45190
95923G

23SEP2017

On 09/23/17 LO started the day off by verifying the Ottumwa Hot Weather
Action Plan in place at Est. M85O, JBS, Ottumwa. At 1548 | noticed all three docks with trucks
backed in and another truck driving through the parking lot full of hogs like it was going to
back in but turned around and went back in the opposite direction. | walked around the
corner towards the guard shack and noticed a parked truck across the fence in the Parks lot
full of hogs. At 1556 | walked back to where | started and noticed the truck | had seen at 1548
parked in front of 4 inoperable fans. | also observed 3 trucks to be waiting in line past the
guard shack with their fans operating. At 1603

arrived on the scene and | shared my findings with him and that | would be documenting a
MOI for the establishment's failure to comply with the aforementioned plan. _ In the JBS
eing Requirements handbook: page 24/number 7 states|

At

1745 while reviewing the establishments Robust Humane Handling Plan | noticed a form
entitled ‘Wapello County Hot Weather Action Plan/Fan Audit Form (WCHWAP/FAF) with a
revision date of 10/25/2015, this evidently being a sample form as it was blank. | noted the
form to have the following required sections as follows: date, shift, supervisor/designee,
manager signature of verification, 24 periods, each 1 hour long (to account for one calendar
day), # of trailers inside the fence waiting to unload, # of trailers outside the fence waiting to
unload, are drivers on route? Yes/No, fans running? Yes/No, are water hoses functional?
Yes/No, and supervisor/designee initials. | requested to see the records for 09/23/17 and [J

handed me the WCHWAP/FAF. | noticed the form to be a revision dated 09/04/2012
and it did not have the following sections: are water hoses functional? Yes/No and ‘are drivers
on route’ Yes/No. The form was filled out for the time periods from 1100 to 1759. | checked
the time period that reflected my findings which on the form were from 1500-1559 and it was
documented to have 3 trailers inside the fence and 3 trailers outside the fence with all fans
operating initialed by IS | asked NGI what
‘inside v. outside the fence’ referred to and he informed me that inside the fence referred to
the 3 trailer spots that were in line past the guard shack and outside the fence referred to the
trucks that were on the designated route shown on page 27 of the handbook. So, the sections
‘outside the fence’ and ‘drivers on the route’ are synonymous. advised me that he
had a discussion with the driver who was parked in front of the inoperable fans and instructed
him that this was not an acceptable location for a truck to be waiting in line.

25

M17D

John Morrell & Co.

WU21120
93930G

30SEP2017

At 0856 hours | met with the director of ) in his office to
discuss the verification plan for the NOIE held in deferral. We went through the items that
would be verified and how often. had no questions. At 1014 hour | met with the

OS ce
We reviewed the verification plan for the NOIE held in deferral. We went through the

plan item by item. There were no questions from the establishment.

3


Table: Memorandums of Interview for LivestockHH from 07/01/17-07/31/17

District

EstNbr

EstName

MoOl#

Date

Description

35

M31965

Triumph Foods

NMO5721
070821G

2017-07-21

At approximately 2000 hours, (YG) and)

met briefly to discuss the following incident: At 1938 hours on Friday July 21, 2017

was performing HATS Category II: Truck Unloading and observed the following
concern. A truck driver unloading the nose on the bottom tier of a cattle pot trailer became
increasingly aggressive with the hogs that were balking and refusing to exit via the unimpeded
ramp. At first the driver used a rattle paddle to make repeated but appropriate contact with
the rear and flanks of the hogs, but then proceeded to lean into the compartment and make
contact with the heads and faces of the animals in sharp motions. informed
establishment((@](@) who was present next to him that he was not
comfortable with the behavior and it should cease. (J) told the truck driver to
stop, and he complied and ceased interacting with the animals in the nose and began to drive
the remaining animals in the belly of the trailer out in an appropriate manner. ((@{(@)
examined the hogs and there were no signs of injury or excessive excitement from the
incident GG) instructed the driver to exit the trailer
and unloaded the hogs in the nose and the upper level of the trailer without incident.
conferred with (I) about the incident.

discussed the incident and concerns with{(@)]() that the concern would
be documented as MOI.

50

M51187

Pataskala Meats

000291207
33066

2017-07-06

Establishment Personnel: Mr. Kirk Hall, owner USDA:(@)]@) (b)(6)}
| I reviewed the follow observations and incidents with{(a){(e): On 6/29/17 at an
estimated time of 1045 hours, a pig was left in the knock box unattended for a few minutes to
finish the last goat on the kill floor. The pig knocked one of the two barrels over and was
attempting to climb over the barrel. The pig was attended to immediately and showed no
signs of injury. OG) said he would not leave a pig in the knock box again with the barrels. |
want to emphasize that a pig should not be left alone in the knock box again with the barrels
to prevent potential injury to the pig. On 7/6/17 at approximately 0616 hours, a goat was
tied to a bar in the knock box and left unattended. JQ) eumi(b)(6) |
discussed with((](@Py, at the time, that a goat cannot be left in the knock box with the halter
tied to the bars unattended due to potential for accidental injury. A goat can be left in the
knock box unattended as long as it is not tied up and there are no objects for it to injury

itself on in the knock box. On 7/6/17 at approximately 1029 hours, the last goat of the day
was shot twice. After the first shot, no signs of consciousness were observed, but it was
concerning that the eye was bleeding. The owner followed up with a second shot due to the
concern. On evaluation of the skull, there was blood staining and damage to a 2cm section of
skull behind the right horn and damage to the cornea of the right eye. There was blood
staining in a second location behind the head in the center between the ears. | discussed with
the owner that this does not represent a noncompliance. | emphasized that he needs to make
sure animals are stunned with one shot. It is important to ensure and improve upon accuracy
as the requirement is that an animal is stunned with a single shot prior to being shackled,
hoisted, cut or bleed.

08:03 Tuesday, August 15,2017 4



Table: Memorandums of Interview for Livestock Humane Handling in August 2017

District

Est#

EstName

Mol#

Date

Task

Code

Description

90

M45533

Mississippi State
University Meat
Laboratory

000451
308371
7G

2017-08-17

Livestock
Humane
Handling

04C02

At approximately 12:48 PM, August 17, 2017, the establishment (MSU Meat Lab
M45533) attempted to stun a steer. The captive bolt operator placed the captive bolt
to the animal's head. The animal was moving its head for a couple of minutes,
approximately 2 minutes. The stun operator patiently waited for a proper application
of stun by the captive bolt. Right after the stun attempt, the animal remained
standing, vocalized, and had conscious eye movement. Another establishment
employee cut the animal's throat to initiate bleeding. No second stun attempt for
corrective action was attempted at the point of the cut of the animal's throat,
resulting in the cutting of a conscious animal. | immediately applied U.S. Reject tag
number B43321597 to the knock box. The establishment was immediately informed
of the noncompliance and the rejection of the knock box. (GS.
immediately notified the Jackson District Office, specifically Acting District Manager
Dr. David Thompson, DDM.

90

M8332

Porter Road
Butcher Meat
Company

YTJ540
908432
2G

2017-08-22

Livestock
Humane
Handling

04c02

At approximately 08:25 hours, while | was performing the Livestock Humane
Handling task at M8332, Porter Road Butcher Meats Company, there was a steer that
needed to be shot 5 times before it was stunned. With the first shot, the steer went
down in the rear, elevated its front and turned around in the knock box. The steer
did not vocalize, was standing, conscious and the only sign of a gunshot being
delivered was blood coming from the nostrils. Several different locations were tried
in an effort to stun the steer; the forehead, the back of the head and the side of the
head in the temporal region. The steer showed signs of consciousness after each shot
until the fifth shot was delivered. After the steer was finally stunned and made
unconscious with the fifth shot, it was hung on the rail, had a limp tail and did not
have a righting reflex. It was breathing more than normal, but did not vocalize. It
was bled out and did not regain consciousness. The skull was split and the gunshots
examined. Most did not penetrate the skull or horn sinus. Two shots penetrated, but
one did not disrupt the brain enough to cause unconsciousness. | notifi

of what occurred since | did not have the
DVMS’s number with me. She notified District. At 08:45 hours | tagged up the
knock box with U.S. Rejected tag number B42268009 and notified Co-owner Chris
Carter of my actions for failure to satisfy 331.16(a)(1) and also 313.16(b)(2). Asa
corrective action, Mr. Carter proposed to change the ammunition used to Mini-Mag
.22 LR Copper plated round nose from the .22 lead bullet standard velocity that was
used on the animal.



Table:Memorandums of Interview (MOls) in response to FOIA2018_00012_October 10, 2017

EstNbr EstName Task_Code MOl# Date Description
M4653 | AgriStarMeat | 04C02 HRJO91108 | 13AUG2017 | At approximately 0500 this morning while performing beef
A and Poultry, LLC 4013G ante-mortem inspection, | was told by an establishment

employee that they had a down animal with a broken leg. The
animal was in Pen #3 of the new barn, resting sternally in the
middle of the pen. The leg was at an awkward angle, and there
was blood spread around where the animal had laid down. In
an attempt to see more clearly what the condition of the animal
was, | went into the neighboring pen where | could make out
the irregular angle of the animal's left front leg. | told the
establishment employees and supervisor that | would condemn
the animal. | went to the office for a U.S. Condemn tag while
the establishment gathered their appropriate people. Upon
returning to the pen around 0545, we waited a few moments
for the employee tasked with shooting the animal to arrive. The
establishment uses a shotgun for any stunning other than
traditional kosher slaughter. The shooter entered the pen, but
upon doing so the animal managed to get up and began

acting aggressive (snorting, shaking its head, putting its head
down and taking a step forward). The shooter took his time and
waited for a clear shot. When he attempted the first shot,
nothing appeared to happen, however, a few moments later
blood began to come out of the animals nostrils. The employee
with the extra bullets gave one to the shooter who then took
aim and had to wait again for the animal to stop moving. The
second shot was not effective either, although the animal did
appear to be affected. By this point or around this time, one of
the pen end-gates had been opened into the drive alley because
the bobcat had been brought into the barn to move the carcass.
The animal started moving towards the open gate into the drive
alley, with the shooter following waiting for another chance to
stun the animal. Another shot was taken while the animal was
in the alley, although | could not see from where | was standing.
The barn supervisor asked me if we could walk it up to the
knock box area. | asked if we could put walk it to the suspect
pen as it had a head gate and it was closer. The supervisor said
they had no way to get it out of that pen. So | agreed that the
best way to regain control of the animal was to move it up to
the knock box. While | assumed they were moving it to the
knock box, | went back to the USDA office to try and call my

FLS. As my phone did not have service, | went back out to the
barn. In the few minutes | was gone they had managed to

12


Table: Memorandums of Interview for LivestockHH from 07/01/17-07/31/17

District EstNbr EstName Mol# Date Description
25 M410 Green Bay Dressed | IIF3510070 | 2017-07-25 | On Saturday, July 15, 2007 at approximately 1508 hours while performing the HATS activity
Beef, LLC 325G to verify stunning effectiveness, (Sy observed an establishment employee apply a

stunning blow to a Holstein steer with a pneumatic stunning gun. Following the blow, jj
HH :s2w the steer blink. The establishment employee immediately applied another stunning
blow. saw the steer blink again. Without direction from(()](@p, the establishment
employee then promptly delivered a third stunning blow, and the steer did not blink again.
All blows were delivered with the same pneumatic stunning gun. (GY verbally
instructed establishment employees to suspend stunning so the situation could be
investigated and did not apply a Retain/Reject tag to the entrance of the knock box. [f
called fo TG
to the stunning area. [
arrived at the stunning area. Because of the design of the knocking box and head restrainer,
could not adequately assess other signs of consciousness (e.g., floppiness of the head
ind ears, collapse of the body, menace response, tracking of the eye) when the blows were
being delivered. The animal did not vocalize during this process. Upon consultation wi
|| it was decided this was not a regulatory non-compliance. The establishment replaced
the pneumatic stunning gun with a back-up pneumatic stunning gun, and stunning was
allowed to resume. The steer’s head was identified and examined after the hide was
removed. A single large knock hole was present and appeared to be appropriately placed
within the ‘kill zone’ on the skull. It was unclear, though, if all blows reached the brain, since
establishment employees had not split the skull to view the mat at ol time. On
Monday, July 17, 2007, (YG) informed (QE eof QQH that a Maintenance
Department employee had dissembled the (WE stunning gun an on Saturday and had
discovered a broken piece within the gun
explained that a broken bolt likely allowed air to escape from the gun, possibly reducing the
pressure that drives the stunning rod into the skull. The stunning gun was to be rebuilt that
day and fully tested before being returned to service. On Tuesday, July 18, 2007, [())@)
HB vet again with GG) and (QB to discuss the stunning event that
occurred on Saturday. While the initial stun resulted in unconsciousness, the employee
continued to stun until all signs of consciousness were absent. noted that the
establishment does have a hand-held captive bolt gun available as a back-up device
immediately available in the knocking box, but it was not used in this case. This situation
reveals a potential vulnerability in the implementation of the humane handling program. ff
stated that establishment management would discuss and consider this point in the

stunning process. (Gy informed(H} and QQ that all discussions

pertaining to Saturday's event would be documented in a Memorandum of Interview.

()J met with the Maintenance employee who

08:03 Tuesday, August 15,2017 3



Table: Memorandums of Interview for LivestockHH from 07/01/17-07/31/17

District EstNbr EstName Mol# Date Description
25 M244W Tyson Fresh BTD400107 | 2017-07-21 | At approximately 22:15 on 7-19-17, while performing antemortem inspection (HATS category
Meats, Inc. 2421G IV) on pen 20, | observed a hog with a 2-3cm piece of wire sticking straight out of its mouth. A

team member isolated the hog, and | was able to grab and remove the item from its mouth.

There was no bleeding, and the hog did not appear distressed. The wire was approximately

25cm long, 2mm diameter, and slightly bent. The end that had been swallowed was tipped

with a 1-2mm, pink, fleshy piece of tissue. | showed it to|

and) . The hog, tattooed 832, was part of ai Load
)(6) Shortly thereafter, | observed another slightly longer piece of the same type of

wire on the ground in the walkway between the large scale and a “shipper” pen (not in an

area that hogs move through). | showed it tof(){() , and she immediately picked

itup. After checking with a[(@Y@) told me that the wire was
filling rod, used in welding repairs in this establishment. He said that maintenance team
members would be retrained. | informed that the incident would be documented
on an MOI: it is the responsibility of the establishment to maintain pens, driveways, and
ramps in good repair, free from sharp or protruding objects which may cause injury or pain to
the animals (9CFR 313.1 (a)). On 7-20-17, at the start of B Shift, | was in the barn to perform
antemortem inspection when a team member picked up and discarded a longer piece
(approximately 40cm) of filling rod from the walkway along the west drive alley. The team
member pointed out another piece of the same material in the walkway. Both pieces were
bent on one end into a hook shape. | gave the items to[()(@)

08:03 Tuesday, August 15,2017 2



Table: Memorandums of Interview for Livestock Humane Handling in August 2017

District

Est#

EstName

Mol#

Date

Task

Code

Description

35

M2316

Whisnant Meat
Packing LLC

FSF200
708292
5G

2017-08-25

Livestock
Humane
Handling

04C02

At 1100 hours on August 24, 2017, while I was performing inspection duties on the
kill floor | noticed several employees at the knock box. | went over to see what was
happening and observed several (more than two) animals in the knock box and the
end gate was open. As I was observing employees opened the side gate and applied
the wire loop to a hind leg on the bottom hog. It was elevated with the hoist over
the bleed barrel, stuck, and began bleeding out. | then saw the jaws moving so |
motioned to elevate the animal so | could see the eyes. The hog then began moving
its head to the side in a righting reflex and vocalizing. | yelled “vocalizing”, stepped
back and an employee knocked the animal with a captive bolt gun rendering it
unconscious. | immediately tagged the knock box with USDA reject tag #39323391.

M51309

Robinson
Premium Beef, LLC

OLR520
508212
5G

2017-08-25

Livestock
Humane
Handling

04C02

In the establishment meeting yesterday, | notified establishment management of
recent inaccuracies in the totals on the pen cards for the animals presented for
antemortem inspection. This morning at 0530, while | was performing antemortem
inspection, Lot 82517-4, from , listed at 33 animals, had 43 total. |
notified of the discrepancy. | was told that so many cattle
had been received that there was difficulty finding pen space for them all, and that
the night personnel moved animals around, making it difficult to obtain accurate
counts. At the very least, having counts off by that degree could throw off internal
lot records, resulting in carcasses being assigned to the wrong lots, which could in
turn lead to condemned or retained carcasses being assigned to the wrong producer.
At worst, if the establishment slaughters more animals than are recorded as having
received antemortem inspection, some or all carcasses of one or more lots could be
rejected by the USDA as not having received antemortem inspection prior to
slaughter. USDA personnel are instructed in directive 6100.1 to periodically verify
the accuracy of the counts on the pen cards, but it is the responsibility of the
establishment to ensure that the numbers on the cards give an accurate count of the

animals presented for inspection. (b)(6)

50

M31578

Trenton
Processing Center,
Inc.

LKK431
108102
5G

2017-08-25

Livestock
Humane
Handling

0402

A745 AN 2

that the holding pens were over crowded to the point that not all of the animals had
access to water. Their is no written plan on maximum capacity and is highly
suggested to the establishment to implement one in the humane handling portion of
slaughter HACCAP.

M51250

Najaf Halal Meat
Company

000390
708320
3G

2017-08-03

Livestock
Humane
Handling

04c02

July 28-2017- Najaf Halal During a Routine Human handling Task at 7:05 am
inspector found approximately (7) goats in pen one that did not have access to clean
drinking water. In alleyway that contained approximately 6 ( sheep) has access to an
empty bucket . Bucket was completely dry and from the appearance had not
contained water for some time. This is a clear violation of (9 CFR 313.50) that this is
noncompliance with the regulations as cattle/livestock need access to water at all
times.



Table:Memorandums of Interview (MOls) in response to FOIA2018_00012_October 10, 2017

EstNbr EstName Task_Code MOl# Date Description
M1620 | Quality Pork 04c02 QM02222 19JUL2017 | At approx. 8:30 pm while performing the Humane Handling task
Processors 072219G for water availability | observed the following incident. The alley

way on the west side of the livestock barn in front of the pens
316 to 320 was full of approx. 90 head of hogs and all the gates
were shut denying them access to water. This was during the
company lunch period so the hogs were in the alley way approx.
30 minutes with no water. | discussed this issue wit
and
and told them | would be documenting this

incident. According to Regulation 313.2 (e) hogs will have access
to water at all times. After | talked with IG)

about the incident he opened the gates to give
the hogs access to water.