Swift Beef Company: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2021 (USDA)

313.2

At 2030 while in the antemortem pen area to perform antemortem inspection, I (SVMO REDACTED) observed the following noncompliance under HAT category III, Water and Feed Availability. Pens 1A through 6A and pens 8A through 14A all held cattle awaiting antemortem inspection, but the water troughs for those pens were empty of water. According to the employees in the pens, the water had gone off at approximately 1900, and maintenance had been notified of the problem. As the cattle received antemortem inspection, they were moved into other pens which had full water troughs (1B through 6B and 8B through 14B). Pens 1 through 14 share water troughs which are situated between the pens so one trough serves two pens. According to the pen cards, each of the pens held between 34 and 40 head of cattle so each trough would have served between 68 and 80 head of cattle if operational. At 2320, I visited the pens again and found all troughs full of water. All animals on premise had access to water at that time. This finding represents a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.2(e). The water supply issue has been recurring this week as the sprinklers in the pens had been observed by inspection personnel to be operating intermittently on previous days on both shifts during conditions of high heat and humidity. This issue of providing water for the pens to prevent heat stress in the cattle was discussed and documented at the weekly meeting with management held earlier today. According to management, the issue was being addressed, and a hose was run from an alternate source to provide constant flow to the pens. During the observation tonight, the hose appeared to be delivering water as intended, but the system was not operating the sprinklers or filling the water troughs. REDACTED, Day Shift Slaughter Superintendent, and REDACTED, Evening Shift Slaughter Superintendent, were both notified of this finding and the forthcoming noncompliance record. This noncompliance record is not associated with a previous noncompliance.

313.15(a)(1)

HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness While performing antemortem inspection on Saturday, June 5, 2021 at approximately 0935, I observed the following humane handling noncompliance: While unloading cattle from a trailer, establishment employees identified a non-ambulatory disabled beef cow. After failed attempts to mobilize the animal in a humane manner utilizing a cattle prod, the establishment determined that the animal would be euthanized. This process consists of stunning the animal with a handheld captive bolt device (HHCBD) and severing the arteries by “sticking” the animal in the neck and upper chest. Utilizing the HHCBD, the establishment employee failed to stun the animal on the first attempt. Although the animal did not vocalize, it made conscious movements away from the employee. The employee took immediate corrective action and attempted to stun the animal a second time. The establishment employee failed to stun the animal with the second attempt. Again, the animal did not vocalize but it made conscious movement away from the employee. The employee, utilizing a backup HHCBD that was readily available, successfully rendered the animal unconscious with their third attempt, which occurred at 0937. Supervisor REDACTED was verbally notified of the unsuccessful attempts to stun the animal and the forthcoming noncompliance. Further investigation demonstrated that the device did not completely fail during these attempts and that all three stun attempts made contact with the animal. This was evident by three holes through the animals hide. Two of these holes did not penetrate through the animal’s skull (first two attempts) and the third, which successfully stunned the animal, penetrated through the skull. This was verified by Dr. REDACTED (SPHV). Since the establishment failed to produce immediate unconsciousness the observations detailed above are noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1). There have been no other non-compliances for the same root cause issued to the establishment within the past 90 days.