Situation

You are the IIC of a small beef and swine slaughter establishment.  The establishment is slaughtering cattle today, and you decide to perform verification of HATs Category VIII (Stunning Effectiveness).  The establishment is developing a systematic approach to humane handling and slaughter.  It adopted stunning practices found in the American Meat Institute Foundation’s Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines & Audit Guide, 2012 edition.  You have not observed a stunning failure at this establishment, and establishment records indicate that they maintain, and share voluntarily, a history of humane slaughter compliance.

The establishment’s written cattle stunning procedure describes two hand-held captive bolt stun gun operators--a lead operator and a backup operator--and the establishment maintains a captive bolt stun gun for each operator.  According to the written procedure, if an animal appears to be conscious or is returning to consciousness after the first stunning blow, t the backup operator is to immediately step in and deliver a second stunning blow or hand their captive bolt stun gun to the lead operator to deliver an additional stunning blow.  You have observed in the past that occasionally an animal received a second stunning blow because the lead operator was not satisfied with the results of the first blow or placement of the initial stunning blow. On those occasions, you did not detect signs of consciousness, and assured the plant that this second stun was not a noncompliance when re-stunning an animal that was already unconscious.

You are now located at the restrainer to observe stunning effectiveness.  The establishment uses a restrainer with a head gate.  Today, the establishment is slaughtering several grass-fed cattle.   A steer is moved into the restrainer, but the establishment does not use the head gate because the steer is very nervous and is moving around a lot.  In the past, you questioned this practice and the establishment explained that the head gate causes grass-fed cattle to fight the restraint, making them difficult to stun.  The lead operator waits to deliver the first stunning blow while the steer calms down, but when the lead operator applies the stunning blow, the steer moves its head, and the stunning blow strikes high on the forehead. The stunning blow is not effective and the steer is conscious, standing, and there is a laceration on its forehead. The backup stunning operator immediately applies a second stunning blow; the steer is stunned successfully.  The lead operator applies a third blow to ensure that the steer is unconscious.

You know that failure to render an animal unconscious on the initial stunning blow is noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15 (a) (3) and place a US Rejected tag on the restrainer according to 9 CFR 313.50 (c).  You review the instruction in FSIS Directive 6900.2, Rev. 2, on when multiple stunning attempts is considered an egregious noncompliance.  Because the establishment took immediate corrective measures, you determine that this is not an egregious noncompliance.  You inform the livestock barn supervisor of the situation, that it is a noncompliance, and that a regulatory control action (as per 9 CFR 500.2 (a) (4)) was taken.  You also inform him that no more cattle may be slaughtered until the inspector receives satisfactory assurances from the establishment that there will not be another failure to render an animal unconscious on the initial stunning blow are presented (as required in 9 CFR 313.50(c)).  All cattle previously slaughtered may be processed.

Note:  FSIS Directive 6900.2, Rev.2 provides guidance on when multiple stunning attempts is considered an egregious noncompliance.   “Multiple attempts, especially in the absence of immediate corrective measures, to stun an animal versus a single blow or shot that renders an animal immediately unconscious.”

Assessment

You know that because the establishment failed to render the animal unconscious on the initial stunning blow as required by 9 CFR 313.15 (a) (3), this is a noncompliance.  However, the establishment took an immediate corrective measure (or action) and rendered the animal unconscious on the second stunning blow; you concluded that this was not an egregious noncompliance.   You also observed that because this particular animal was able to move its head while in the restrainer without the use of the head gate, the stunning operator failed to deliver an effective stun. 

You return to the USDA office and begin to compose the following noncompliance record narrative in a Word Document as follows:  “On December 2, 2013 at approximately 07:45 hours, while performing HATS Category VIII, Stunning Effectiveness observations at Establishment M38, I observed the following noncompliance. A very active steer was in the restrainer and the plant employee did not use the head restraint gate. The steer moved its head when the captive bolt stun gun was applied to its forehead.  The steer was struck by the bolt that caused a laceration to its forehead but it remained conscious and standing. The backup operator applied an additional stunning blow, which rendered the steer unconscious.  The establishment was noncompliant with regulation 9 CFR 313 (a) (3) for not rendering the steer unconscious with a single blow.  Also, the steer, because he was not adequately restrained, moved its head as the gun was discharged which led to the stunning failure.  The establishment was noncompliant with regulation 9 CFR 313.15 (b) (1) (iii), which requires limitations on the free movement of livestock in order to allow the stunning operator to locate the stunning blow with a high degree of accuracy.”   At this moment, the plant manager enters your office to offer assurances that the problem will not recur.   

The manager specifies, since there are only a few head of cattle remaining, that he will personally stun the remaining animals, with the lead operator standing by with the loaded backup captive bolt gun.  He agrees, now and in the future, to use the head gate with each animal, but reiterates that he may have to release any fractious animals from the head gate to stun them if they are in danger of harming themselves or the plant employees. You determine that these proffered actions are acceptable. You go to the restrainer and remove the US Rejected tag from the restrainer. You observe that the remaining four animals are stunned effectively on the first blow, and remain unconscious while shackling, hoisting, sticking and bleeding.

You return to the office to complete the noncompliance report.  You continue documenting the NR by writing, “I placed US Rejected tag #5551212 on the entrance to the restrainer, and notified the livestock barn supervisor about the US Rejected tag and that a noncompliance record would be issued. The plant manager proffered the assurance that he would stun the remaining animals, using the head gate in the restrainer unless he had to release any fractious animals from the head gate. This measure was acceptable to me, and I removed the US Rejected tag from the restrainer.”

In PHIS, you open a directed Livestock Humane Handling verification task and perform the following:

1. Select the “Activity” tab.
2. Choose “Review and Observation” for your verification activity.
3. Select the “HATS” tab.
4. Check the verification box for “Stunning Effectiveness”.
5. Select the time you spent observing this activity under the “Duration” column.
6. Click on the “Inspection Completed” box below the HATS categories.
7. Select “Regulations” tab.
8. Mark the “Verified” box for “Mechanical, Captive Bolt (313.15)”. 
9. Check the “Regulatory Noncompliance” box located under the list of regulations. 
10. Check “Save”.
11. The “Create/Edit NR” button at the bottom of the page is now activated.
12. Click on the “Create/Edit NR” button to create a noncompliance record.
13. Enter information in the “Addressed To:” section and any additional preliminary information.
14. Copy and paste the text from your Word document into the NR in PHIS.
15. Click “Save”.
16.  When you are ready to print, check the “Noncompliance Finalized” box at the bottom of the page, click “Save”, then “Cancel”
17. On the Noncompliance Record (NR) page, go to the “Noncompliances” tab and click the “Print” icon. Print one copy for FSIS records and two copies to give to the plant.

Appendix
The following references should be used when studying this HIKE:

• 9 CFR 313.15 Mechanical; captive bolt (stunning). (a) (3) and (b) (1) (iii)

 (a) Application of stunners, required effect; handling.

(3) Immediately after the stunning blow is delivered the animals shall be in a state of complete unconsciousness and remain in this condition throughout shackling, sticking and bleeding. 

(b) Facilities and procedures—(1) General requirements for stunning facilities; operator.

(iii) The stunning area shall be so designed and constructed as to limit the free movements of animals sufficiently to allow the operator to locate the stunning blow with a high degree of accuracy.

• 9 CFR 313.50 Tagging of equipment, alleyways, pens, or compartments to prevent inhumane slaughter or handling in connection with slaughter.

(c) If the cause of inhumane treatment is the result of improper stunning, the inspector shall attach a ‘‘U.S. Rejected’’ tag to the stunning area. Stunning procedures shall not be resumed until the inspector receives satisfactory assurances from the establishment operator that there will not be a recurrence. The tag shall not be removed by anyone other than an inspector. All livestock slaughtered prior to such tagging may be dressed, processed, or prepared under inspection.

• 9 CFR 500.2 (a) (4)  Regulatory Control Action

(a) FSIS may take a regulatory control action because of:

(4) Inhumane handling or slaughtering of livestock.

• FSIS Directive 6900.2 - Humane Handling and Slaughter of Livestock
  
• Humane Handling and Slaughter Requirements and the Merits of a Systematic Approach to Meet Such Requirements [Federal Register Notice: September 9, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 174, pages 54625-54627)]
  
• FSIS PHIS Directive 1300.1 - Scheduling In-Plant Inspection Tasks in the Public Health Information system (PHIS)
  
• American Meat Institute (AMIF)