HyLife Foods Windom, LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2021 (USDA)

313.2

Category III Water and Feed Availability Category IV Ante-mortem Inspection At approximately 1500, while performing ante-mortem inspection I noticed two lots of hogs in pens 13 and 14 that were received at 1400 on September 28th. I did not notice any signs of feed in either pen. I asked Barn Supervisor REDACTED Jr. if these hogs had been fed and if there was any record of feeding them. Supervisor REDACTED looked through the records, made a phone call and then stated they had not been fed. I notified Supervisor REDACTED that I would be issuing a non-compliance for holding hogs longer than 24 hours without feed. This is a violation of 9 CFR 313.2(e).

313.15(a)(1),313.15(b)(1)(iii)

At approximately 1820 hours, while performing a HATS Category VIII task, Stunning Effectiveness, I observed the following noncompliance. Mr. REDACTED, Yards Supervisor, was attempting to stun a market hog in the alleyway outside of Receiving Pen 3 with a hand-held captive bolt device. The hog was lying against the wall and no restraint devices were being utilized. Mr. REDACTED placed the device for stunning and the hand-held captive bolt device audibly discharged. The hog remained conscious, vocalized, stood up, and took several steps away from Mr. REDACTED. I observed a bleeding wound above the hog’s eyes. Mr. REDACTED reloaded the device and tested the device by firing it into the air. He reloaded the same hand-held captive bolt device again and moved towards the hog. After a short delay, Mr. REDACTED then applied a second stun with the hand-held captive bolt device which effectively rendered the animal insensible. On postmortem, I observed two bleeding wounds. One penetrating wound was on midline approximately one inch above the medial canthus of the eyes. A second partially penetrating wound was approximately 1⁄2 inch to the left of midline. I notified Mr. REDACTED and Ms. REDACTED, Yards Supervisors of the noncompliance and to stop stunning hogs. I applied U.S. Rejected Tag No. B41215197 to the alleyway leading to the REDACTED. Mr. REDACTED, Director of Operations, verbally provided me with preventative measures and I released the REDACTED. The establishment failed to meet the requirements of 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) and 313.15(b)(1)(iii). A similar noncompliance, ODB1621084910N/1, was observed on August 10, 2021 and has been associated with this noncompliance. On August 10, 2021 an ineffective stun noncompliance occurred with a hog that was not restrained. The establishment's preventative measures were either not properly implemented or were inadequate in preventing recurrence. Continued failure to meet regulatory requirements may lead to further regulatory enforcement action as described in 9 CFR 500.3.

313.15(b)(1)(iii),313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 1915 hours, while walking on the catwalk towards the exit of the yards after performing a HATS Category II task, Truck Unloading, I observed the following HATS Category VIII, Stunning Effectiveness, noncompliance. An establishment employee was attempting to stun a market hog with a hand-held captive bolt device. The hog had been sorted out of the holding pen by the REDACTED and was along the side wall of the alleyway leading to the holding pen from pens 10 through 12. No additional restraint devices were being utilized. As the employee placed the device for stunning, the hog abruptly moved its head to the side. The hand-held captive bolt device audibly discharged. The hog remained conscious, quickly moved its head upwards, and took several steps away from the employee. The employee immediately reloaded the hand-held captive bolt device with a second cartridge and applied a follow-up stun which effectively rendered the animal insensible. On postmortem, I observed a bleeding abrasion approximately one inch in length beginning at the medial canthus of the left eye and extending below the eye. At the lateral side of the abrasion under the eye was a penetrating hole approximately 1⁄4 inch deep. I observed a second penetrating wound on midline approximately one inch above the medial canthus of the eyes. I notified Mr. REDACTED, Yards Lead, of the ineffective stun noncompliance. Mr. REDACTED called Mr. REDACTED, Yards Manager, who I also informed of the noncompliance. Mr. REDACTED verbally provided me with preventative measures prior to any additional hand-held captive bolt stunning. The establishment failed to meet the requirements of 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) and 313.15(b)(1)(iii). Similar noncompliance, ODB2219033315N/1, was observed on March 15, 2021 and has been associated with this noncompliance. On March 15, 2021 an ineffective stun noncompliance occurred with a hog that was not restrained. The establishment's preventative measures were either not properly implemented or were inadequate in preventing recurrence. Continued failure to meet regulatory requirements may lead to further regulatory enforcement action as described in 9 CFR 500.4.

313.2

At approximately 1430 on 08/05/2021 while performing antemortem inspection prior to the start of the night shift, I observed the following noncompliance: A hog was standing against a gate in the alley leading to the REDACTED. An establishment employee was walking past the hog to enter a pen intending to drive more hogs to the REDACTED. As he passed the standing hog, he struck the hog twice in the face with his paddle. I stopped him and informed him that striking hogs in the face is not allowed. I immediately informed Yards Supervisor REDACTED who removed the establishment employee from the yards. I informed her that an Noncompliance record (NR) would be generated for violation of 9CFR 313.2 (b) for excessive alternative object use as well as for egregious inhumane treatment.