Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2021 (USDA)

313.2

At approximately 1850 hours on September 3, 2021, while performing the Humane Handling Category VI - Electric Prod/Alternative Object Use, I, REDACTED, observed the following noncompliance: While observing the round pen, the two employees were unable to drive the lot of cattle into the chute. One employee implemented the use of the electric prod to drive cattle and prodded six different animals near the shoulders, on the upper torso. The same employee also double prodded at least three animals. According to 313.2 (b) electric prods used, in the opinion of the inspector, that is excessive, is prohibited. According to company humane handling programs, no more than one in four cattle shall be prodded. I discussed observations made with the B-Shift Yards Supervisor REDACTED and alerted him to the forthcoming NR. Immediate corrective actions made by the Yards Supervisor REDACTED were to remove the prod and determine further preventative measures pending an investigation.

313.1

While performing antemortem duties, I heard a heifer vocalizing excessively from the square pen. As I approached the area on the catwalk I could see that a part of her hide was stretched away from her body and she was continuing to vocalize and struggle. When she managed to free herself, she had a gaping wound the size of a softball on her flank. I immediately halted the movement of cattle into the square pen and went to inspect the area in question. There was a thin piece of pipe jutting out from the wall that was covered in hair, fat and blood. The length of bloody pipe was approximately a foot in length. Use of the pen was halted until corrective action was taken and the pipe was cut and welded to prevent sharp edges. B shift supervisor REDACTED and Scale house supervisor were informed that a noncompliance would be issued.

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 07:20 I, REDACTED, SPHV, observed the following humane handling noncompliance: As I was performing HATS Category VIII Stunning Effectiveness, I observed the procurement supervisor, and two other team members, prepare to captive bolt stun a down hog in the “Subject” pen at the north end of the barn. The hog was in very poor condition, struggling to breath, with blood hemorrhaging from its mouth. They set up a U panel around the hog, and the supervisor was preparing to shoot the hog. During my observation I could not determine if the hog was in a full sternal position, or if it was leaning more toward its right side, but I could tell that its neck was extended as it was attempting to gasp for air. As the supervisor fired the captive bolt the hog flexed its neck lowering its head and the hog was not rendered unconscious. It did not vocalize, but it had a corneal reflex and eye tracking. The second team member was prepared with a second loaded captive bolt and was able to render an immediate and effective second shot. I discussed the incident with Animal Wellbeing Specialist REDACTED and notified him that a noncompliance record would be issued. He said that he would suspend all captive bolt stunning until he finished his investigation and all yard employees were retrained. Captive bolt stunning resumed at approximately 08:30. Upon close examination of the carcass, I observed one hole in the center of an X between eye and ear with a trajectory through the skull caudoventrally, and another approximately a half-inch rostral to the other hole with a trajectory traveling subcutaneously about two and-a-half inches toward the left ear.

313.2

At approximately 2040 hours on April 2, 2021, while performing the Humane Handling Category VI – Electric Prod/Alternative Object Use, I, REDACTED, observed the following noncompliance: While in the stunning area, I observed that there was a twenty second gap in the line of the cattle. I then observed the chute area to determine the cause to the gap. At this time, I observed an employee in the chute area before the stunning area, using an electric prod and prodding the same animal approximately seven times. After this, the employee stopped and waited for the supervisor to arrive. The supervisor then observed that the line was not moving due to the same animal and prodded it again in order to move the animal. At this point the same animal had been prodded approximately eight times. In the opinion of the inspector, in accordance with 9 CFR 313.2(b), this event represents excessive prodding. It is the policy of the establishment that, in the event that an animal refuses to move after continued unsuccessful attempts, the back-up chute will be used while the establishment determines what to do with the animal in question. The establishment provided corrective actions of sending the employee home and determining progressive discipline pending review of the events. The lot in question would be ran out of the chute area and a new lot would be ran in order to determine how to proceed after resting the lot. For preventative measures, the establishment is discussing possible policy changes regarding prod usage. I then alerted Yards Supervisor REDACTED, B-Shift FSQA Supervisor REDACTED and Supervisor REDACTED to the forthcoming NR.