Swift Beef Company: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2022 (USDA)
See the detail of the non-compliance of humane livestock handling that the USDA observed at the Swift Beef Company slaughterhouse establishment in 2022.
You can also see other establishments that were non-compliant in 2022.
313.15(a)(1)
Category VIII - Stunning Effectiveness (9 CFR 313.15) I, REDACTED DVM, while evaluating stunning effectiveness at approximately 2223 hours observed an establishment employee attempt to render a bovine unconscious with a single blow from a compressed air driven knocking gun however the attempt failed resulting in the animal vocalizing and throwing its head around before another employee could effectively and promptly apply a follow up knock from a hand held knocking gun which did render the animal unconscious with a single blow. The noncompliance was promptly and effectively corrected by removing the employee who failed to render the animal unconscious with a single blow. I immediately informed Cattle Pens Supervisor REDACTED who was standing next to me on the knocking platform that a non compliance record would be issued.
313.2
HATS Category III: Water and Feed Availability On June 23, 2022, at or about 0523 hours while performing a Livestock Humane Handling task I observed the following noncompliance. During Ante mortem Inspection in pens 9a and 10A the water tank for the cattle was empty. One pen had 40 head and the other pen had 41 head which had been placed in these pens at approximately 0130 hour. No regulatory control action was taken, as the establishment moved the animals to pens 9B and 10B with a full water tank. I showed my findings to the Pen Supervisor and verbally informed her of the forthcoming NR. The Pen Supervisor stated that the cattle knocked the plug out of the tank during the night and the Pen Supervisor and replaced it and the tank was refilled. There have been no noncompliance records issued within the past 90 days for the same root cause.
313.15(a)(1)
On Friday, June 3, 2022, at approximately 1222 hours, I, SPHV Dr. REDACTED, observed the following noncompliance. I was performing humane handling HATS category VIII at the stunning box. A Charolais colored heifer with a tan ear tag #2243 entered the restrainer behind another animal. I observed the employee fail to successfully stun this animal with a single stun attempt as per 9 CFR 313.15 (A) (1) & (3). The hand held captive bolt appeared to be operationally sound. I in review, I visually confirmed the first stun attempt probe had contacted the animal’s head as there were two separate wounds on the forehead. After the first stun attempt, the heifer raised her head, looked over its left shoulder and voluntarily blinked its eyes several times. There was a hole in the head with no blood exiting the wound. It is my professional judgement that that this animal was completely conscious and alert after the first stun attempt. I requested the operator re-stun this animal for the second stun effort for fear the animal would be released from the restrainer still conscious. The animal was successfully rendered unconscious after the second stun attempt was performed. There have been no noncompliances issued for similar incidents in the last 90 days.
313.2
On February 21, 2022, at approximately 1930 hours, while performing HATS Categories VI, I, SPHV Dr. REDACTED, observed the following. I observed pens employees moving cattle in the main drive alley towards the stunning box. A group of approximately 15-20 cattle were circling continuously in the drive alley and not making much forward progress. Four pens employees were standing on the sides and behind the group of cattle waving rattle paddles. I observe one employee standing at the very back of the group of cattle raise his paddle above his head and make contact with the animal’s rump. I observed the employee raise his paddle above his head and make contact with the same animal approximately 5 times. As I walked down the catwalk to be closer to the animals in the drive alley, I observed the employee move to the other side of the drive alley, raise his paddle above his head and makes contact with another animal approximately 5-6 times. I tried yelling at the employee to stop using the paddle to strike the same animal, but considering how hard the wind was blowing it appeared the employee couldn’t hear me. I walked to the ground and told the employee he was not allowed to use his rattle paddle for the remainder of the shift. I spoke with his supervisor and the QA Superintendent REDACTED about the what I observed and I verbally notified Ms. REDACTED that I would be issuing a noncompliance record. There have been no noncompliance records issued within the past 90 days for the same root cause. The observed behavior by the employee is in noncompliance with 313.2. Part (a) says cattle should be moved with a minimum of excitement and discomfort. Part (b) says other implements used to move cattle should be used as little as possible to minimize excitement and injury to the animals. Furthermore, any use of implements which, in the opinion of the inspector, is excessive is prohibited.
313.2
On Monday, January 3, 2022, at approximately 2130 hours, while performing a Livestock Humane Handling review and observation task accompanied by CSI REDACTED the following noncompliance was observed on holding pens 5B and 6B. I, SCSI REDACTED, observed approximately 70 cattle head (35 head per pen) that have passed ante-mortem inspection with no access to water. The water trough between both pens was observed with solid ice and no available water to the livestock. I notified Animal Handling personnel of this noncompliance and proceeded to take regulatory control action by placing US Reject tags B36803501 and B36803502 on both holding pens. This is noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.2(e), REDACTED, Quality Assurance Supervisor was verbally notified of the noncompliance. At approximately 2300 hours appropriate corrective actions were implemented and upon verification the water trough between pens 5B and 6B was filled with water. At this time regulatory control action was relinquished.
313.15(a)(1)
HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness On 11/11/2021, at approximately 1735 hours, while observing stunning effectiveness, I observed the following noncompliance. A black angus bovine upon entering the stun box was vocalizing repeatedly and using controlled movements in an to attempt to escape the belly belt and stun box. The stun operator applied the first stun attempt with the handheld captive bolt (HHCB) device, which was ineffective. I observed the bovine continue to vocalize numerous times and continue to use controlled movements to lift its legs and head in an attempt to escape the stun box. The stun operator immediately retrieved the backup HHCB device, which was readily available at the stun box, to deliver the second stun attempt, which rendered the bovine unconscious. I inspected the dressed head and verified three separate penetrating stun holes and retained the head using U.S. Retained tag number B38605321. I observed two penetrating stun holes in the forehead and a third penetrating stun hole in the top of the poll. Area 1 Supervisor REDACTED informed me that the designated plant employee monitoring consciousness on the rail applied a security stun to the bovine while it was hanging in the stack. This is a regulatory noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a). The Denver District Office was contacted via supervisory channels and I verbally informed Kill Floor Superintendent, REDACTED, that an NR was forthcoming. This noncompliance is being associated with NR# NDH5500112709N-1 issued on 11/6/21 for same root cause.
313.15(a)(1)
HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness On 11/6/2021, at approximately 2135 hours, while observing stunning effectiveness, I observed the following noncompliance. The primary stun operator applied an ineffective stun with the pneumatic captive bolt device. I observed the red Hereford bovine immediately lift its head and move its head with a controlled movement from side to side, as well as blink multiple times. The primary stun operator motioned to the secondary stun operator, and the secondary stun operator immediately used the backup handheld captive bolt device to deliver the second stun, which rendered the bovine unconscious. I inspected the dressed head and verified two separate penetrating stun holes. This is a regulatory noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a). The Denver District Office was contacted via supervisory channels and I verbally informed QA Superintendent REDACTED that an NR was forthcoming. There have been no Humane Handling NR’s or MOI’s documented for this same root cause within the past 90 days.
