Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2022 (USDA)

313.5

On 9-19-22 at 16:49, I, REDACTED, SPHV, was on my way to the barn to perform antemortem inspection (HATS Category IV), when I observed the following situation involving CO2 stunning (HATS Category VIII): The door to the south CO2 stunning chamber loading area was open and three hogs were in the gondola. Two were fully within the gondola and one had its tail and caudal dorsum just outside of the threshold to the gondola. All three hogs were dyspneic, with labored, open-mouth breathing, and laterally or sternally recumbent. Superintendent Mr. REDACTED told me that they were in the process of draining the chamber of CO2. At 17 minutes after my arrival the CO2 levels on the control panel read 2.1% at the first stop and 1.1% at the second stop. A team member entered the loading area and attempted to slide a flat sort board under the hog that was partially out of the gondola; in the process the entirety of the hog was moved inside the gondola. Shortly after, the moving wall advanced and the gondola door closed. With the door closed, I had limited visibility into the gondola, but could see one hog periodically moving from lateral to sternal recumbency and the noticeable movements of its thorax. During this period, the CO2 concentrations in the chamber were increasing (39% at 24min, 60% at 26min). At 27 minutes, Sr. Director Pork FSQA Ms. REDACTED informed me that they were going to empty the chamber of CO2 so that the hogs could be stunned via hand-held captive bolt gun (HHCB). At 30min the panel read 73% CO2 at the bottom stop. By 51min the CO2 had been purged, and the outer door was opened. The three hogs were recumbent but had their heads up, looking around, and their breathing was relaxed. At 58 minutes the first was stunned via HHCB in the gondola. When the second was stunned at 1hr 2 min, the kicking and motion of the stunned hog caused the third hog to get up and walk out of the gondola. This situation represents noncompliance with 9CFR 313.5(a)(1); animals are to be exposed to the carbon dioxide gas in a way that will accomplish the anesthesia quickly and calmly, with a minimum of excitement and discomfort. I took a regulatory control action, placing US Rejected tag NO.B-45731005 across the south CO2 stunning chamber alley and telling General Supervisor Mr. REDACTED that stunning in this chamber was temporarily stopped. After giving the verbal preventive measure that an assessment of the situation would be performed by supervisors present prior to depleting the CO2 from the CO2 stunning chamber, I released the regulatory control action at 19:18. Plant Manager Mr. REDACTED was informed that the incident would be documented on a noncompliance report.

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 10:35 AM I was in the stick area performing humane handling activities for category VI Electric prod/alternative object use and category VIII Stunning effectiveness. I was watching the movement of hogs to the stunner when I saw an employee open a side gate and remove a hog from the irons near the restrainer. The hog had collapsed in the irons and rolled onto its side when the gate was opening, laterally recumbent and open mouth breathing. Area supervisor REDACTED saw the hog and gathered a red plastic U board, 2 captive bolt guns, and another employee to stand nearby. He placed the U board around the front end of the hog. He gave one captive bolt gun to the employee standing nearby and placed the other against the hogs forehead. I heard a pop as the captive bolt gun was discharged. The hog immediately rolled so that it was positioned laying on its belly and sternum, its head was extended and the hog continued to breathe with its mouth open in respiratory distress. The hog did not have any further reaction and did not vocalize. Within a few seconds Mr. REDACTED and the second employee had repositioned the U board around the hog. I saw both employees leaning over the U board and heard a pop as the second handheld captive bolt gun was discharged. The hog fell on its side limp and began to have uncoordinated movement in its limbs, consistent with a successful stun by a captive bolt. The hog had no reaction to a cornea touch and the employee removed the carcass from the area to be denatured and sent to inedible rendering. I asked Mr. REDACTED what happened and he showed me the captive bolt gun. He said the gun did not function properly and the bolt was never discharged from the chamber. He said this captive bolt gun would be removed from operation until it could be checked and repaired if necessary. I told him I would be documenting this incident. 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) requires that a captive bolt stunner should be applied to cause immediate unconsciousness. The establishment failed to render the animal unconscious with the first discharge of an applied hand held captive bolt gun due to mechanical malfunction but immediately stunned the animal with the application and discharge of a second hand held captive bolt stunner. No regulatory control action was taken. There was no indication that the unsuccessful stunning attempt caused any pain or suffering in this case and establishment 244L has been determined to have a robust humane handling program.

313.5

On September 12 at 18:34, I, REDACTED, SPHV, was on my way to the barn to perform antemortem inspection (HATS Category IV) when I observed a noncompliance with Electric Prod/Alternative Object Use (HATS Category VI). As I entered the room containing the CO2 stunning chambers, I observed that the door to the south chamber loading area (immediately before the gondola opening) was open. Live hogs were being moved from the area. Three hogs were still in the gondola, a dead hog in the back, caught by the snout in the mechanism of the gondola, and two live animals: one trapped by the hind limb at the gondola entrance, the other on the opposite side of the gondola with its head facing out. The hog with its head facing out was stunned via handheld captive bolt gun (HHCB) soon after I arrived. The front edge of the gondola was not flush with the floor, rather raised approximately two inches from level. The entrapped hog’s right hind leg was wedged in this gap between the lip of the gondola and the floor. Its head was facing the back left corner of the gondola. At the point of entrapment, the hog’s tibia was fractured just proximal to the hock and displaced greater than 90 degrees, such that the distal limb was facing into the gondola pit. A team member reached in to pull the entrapped hog by its forelimb to the front of the gondola so that its head could be accessed; I observed this hog breathing and conscious, exhibiting tracking eye movement. It was rendered insensible via HHCB. Immediately outside of the chamber loading area was a dead, captive bolt stunned hog that had an acute right hind limb fracture in the same anatomical location as that of the entrapped hog. At 18:36 hours, I told Operations Manager Mr. REDACTED and Superintendent Mr. REDACTED that stunning was suspended, and I took a regulatory control action, placing US Rejected tags NO. B-45731006, -007 across the alleys to the north and south stunning chambers. This incident represents noncompliance with 9CFR 313.5(b)(2). I informed General Supervisor Mr. REDACTED that the incident would be documented on a noncompliance report, and I would be contacting the district office through supervisory channels for further guidance.

313.2

On 07/20/2022 at approximately at 0500 hours I, SPHV REDACTED while performing ante-mortem inspection and verifying HATS Task Category III – Water and Feed Availability, observed the following noncompliance: Half pen #16 had 57 steers averaging 1463 pounds, the high density in the pen cattle did not provide enough room for the animals to lie down overnight, and it seemed that it prevented them from reaching the water troughs easily. A steer that was resting on sternal recumbency had difficulty getting up because the animals next to it trampled on it, preventing it from getting up freely. There were 6 empty pens available. None of the animals in this half pen appeared to have any injuries. I informed Yard Supervisor Mr.REDACTED and Superintendent Trainee Mr. REDACTED that this is noncompliance with the regulations as cattle need access to water at all times in accordance with 9 CFR 313.2 (e), and that if the animals are to be held overnight, they will need adequate space to lie down.

313.15(a)(3),313.15(a)(1)

On June 22, 2022, at 1612 hours while verifying Humane Handling HATS Category IX (Conscious Animals on the Rail) on the Hide-On Side of the Harvest Department, I, the CSI, observed the following noncompliance. I observed the establishment’s safety stun operator retrieve his designated hand-held captive bolt (HHCB) device and I followed him to an animal that was shackled and hoisted on the rail in the stack prior to bleeding. I observed the animal curl up (i.e. ventrally) toward its abdomen/hind feet. As I approached the animal, I observed that the tongue was not protruding limply from the mouth. I was not able to observe whether there was eye movement as the safety stun operator immediately applied a second stun to the animal. I took a regulatory control action by applying U.S. Reject tag #B840096475 to the stun box and verbally informed the Superintendent, the Superintendent Trainee, and the QA Tech of my observations and asked for corrective and preventive measures. I observed the Superintendent Trainee do a stand-down with all teams involved, reviewing with them the signs of sensibility and stating he would hold a meet after shift concerning stunning procedures and sensibility. I verbally informed the SCSI of my observations, and the Denver District Management Team was notified through supervisory channels. The SPHV inspected the dressed head and verified two penetrating stun holes in the target zone. There have been no noncompliance records documented in the past 90 days for the same root cause.

313.30 (a)(2),313.2

At approximately 10:35 AM on 5-25-22 I was walking to the barn to perform ante-mortem when I stopped in the stunning area to watch the handling of animals.  I was observing the use of electric prods/alternative objects (HATS category VI) to move market swine from the circle tub to the electrical stunner.  I observed an employee moving hogs through the irons, he had a hand held electric prod in one hand and a long handled plastic brush in the other.  I watched this employee moving hogs through the irons near the stunner and he walked toward the circle tub along the irons using his hand held prod exclusively as he moved along.  I counted 7 times that the prod was used on animals in the irons with no attempt to use an alternative object.  When the employee stopped near the circle tub he continued to move animals through the irons and used the hand held electric prod two more times before using the long handled brush in his other hand.  There were animals vocalizing during this time while moving through the irons, but from my vantage point I was unable to observe whether the animals were vocalizing in response to the use of the prod.  I continued to observe employees moving animals and did not seen any further excessive use of the electric prod.   Animal well being specialist REDACTED was in the area and I told him what I had just observed.  I told him that I had seen an employee using his prod exclusively to move animals without attempting to use any alternative objects.  I told Mr. REDACTED I would be documenting my findings in a noncompliance report.  Mr. REDACTED left the area to investigate and review video footage.  No regulatory control actions was taken because the noncompliance was not egregious and because the excessive use of the electric prod did not continue.   The establishment failed to meet the regulatory requirement to minimize the use of an electric prod to use animals (313.2(b)) and the establishment failed to meet the regulatory requirement to move animals to the electric stunner with a minimum of excitement and discomfort (313.30(a)(2)).

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 16:05 I, REDACTED, PHV, observed the following non-compliance: I was monitoring the stunning effectiveness (HATS category VIII) of company condemned hogs that were being euthanized via hand-held captive bolt (HHCB) gun on the west side of Pen 22.  A team member and Procurement Supervisor REDACTED each held loaded HHCB guns and had restrained a gilt within a U-shaped panel.  I could see the team member preparing to stun the hog briefly pause and reposition the gun before making the stun attempt, which was ineffective and the gilt was still conscious.  Immediately following the stun attempt, I heard the pig vocalize, and then I saw Supervisor REDACTED reach over the panel with his HHCB.  I walked from the south side of the pen to the raised walkway at the west side of the pen; from this viewpoint, I could see within the panel, where the pig was standing with its forelimbs knuckled under, moving its head to avoid the gun that Supervisor REDACTED was positioning against its head.  Supervisor REDACTED then rendered the pig insensible with an effective stun from the backup HHCB.  Two entry wounds were present in the skull, one along the midline in the location of an X connecting the eyes to the opposite ear with a trajectory perpendicular to the skull; the other was approximately one cm dorsal with a shallow trajectory. This is not in compliance with 9CFR 313.15(a)(1).  I informed Supervisor REDACTED that a noncompliance report would be issued and asked AW specialist REDACTED that captive bolt stunning cease until an acceptable preventive measure was provided.

313.1

On March 18, 2022 at approximately 4:15PM, while completing a Humane Handling task – HATS III (Water/Feed Availability), I observed the following non-compliance: While walking through the yards, I observed that Pin 42 had no water inside the Water Tank, while Pin 42 housed 78 cattle. As I approached the pin, I noticed that the water nozzle had been moved and the water was being poured onto the ground instead of inside the tank. I then alerted the Area Supervisor REDACTED of the issue and the forthcoming noncompliance, for the lack of water availability in accordance with regulation 313.2(e). The nozzle was then moved it back into the correct position and then a chain was applied to keep it affixed to the correct position. We awaited and we observed the water tank filling up again and after the tank was filled, I confirmed that the water was filled and the pin was back in compliance.

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 18:45 while verifying HATS Category VIII – Stunning Effectiveness, CSI REDACTED, observed the following noncompliance: CSI REDACTED observed a steer enter the center-belly restrainer and the stunning operator attempted a head stun by discharging the pneumatic captive bolt gun (PCB). The first discharge of the PCB gun was ineffective, and the steer remained conscious, standing with his head up looking around and did not vocalize. CSI REDACTED observed that the PCB gun had penetrated the hide and a wound was visible on the forehead. The establishment’s stunning operator immediately applied a second, effective stun using the PCB gun, rendering the animal unconscious. The security stun was then applied using the PCB gun. CSI REDACTED took regulatory control action by tagging the restrainer with the U.S. Reject Tag number B40211363 and halted slaughter production. Animal Welfare Supervisor, Mr. REDACTED arrived at the restrainer area and was informed of the situation and the forthcoming noncompliance record for failure to render the animal unconscious on the first attempt. Mr. REDACTED, Assistant Operations Manager’s, Mr. REDACTED and Mr. REDACTED, gave SPHV Dr. REDACTED verbal corrective actions and preventative measures to prevent reoccurrence. CSI REDACTED then removed the U.S. Reject Tag. The observation is noncompliant with 9CFR 313.15(a)(1). Dr. REDACTED performed postmortem examination on the skull, there were two confirmed stun wounds, both were on midline approximately 2.5 inches above the eyes.

313.2,313.30 (a)(2)

At 10:38 AM I, Dr. REDACTED, was performing humane handling activities and ante mortem in the hog barn. I was observing the use of electric prods/alternative objects (HATS category VI).I was standing in the barn between the two main drive alleyways. I was watching through the doorway as employees were moving animals through the circle tub. The south side of the circle tub contained approximately 12-15 hogs that were balking at the entrance to the irons. I observed two employees touching each hog in this side of the circle tub multiple times with the hand held electric prod (EP), causing the animals to vocalize and flinch. I counted 28 times that the employees touched the EP to the back of the hogs, making it likely that the prod had been used on each hog in the area, some hogs were prodded multiple times. When employees switched to begin moving hogs out of the north side of the circle tub employees resumed using flags as the primary tool to move animals. As I continued to observe movement of animals I did not see any further inappropriate EP usage. I spoke with area supervisor REDACTED and told him what I had observed. I told him I would be documenting my findings on a noncompliance report(NR). No regulatory control action was taken because the noncompliance is not egregious and because the excessive prodding did not continue. The establishment failed to meet the regulatory requirements of 313.2(b) and 313.30(a)(2) The establishment is required to move animals to the electrical stunner while minimizing excitement and discomfort. The establishment is also required to minimize the use of the electric prod to move animals.

313.2

On 11-17-21 at approximately 6:30 AM I, Dr. REDACTED, was performing ante-mortem inspection of animals in the hog barn. I was inspecting the down and disabled animals that were carried over from the previous day's production. I noticed that one of the hogs was marked as subject hog #67 from the previous day. There were five hot hogs in addition to subject hog #67 contained in a small pen. The pen had a working nipple waterer but no food available. All hogs appeared to be in good condition though several were slightly lame and stiff. I verified on yesterday's pen card that subject hog 67 had been inspected and passed for slaughter at 6:22 AM on 11-16-21. This hog had arrived at the facility sometime prior to ante-mortem inspection at 6:22AM and held on the premises for more that 24 hours with no access to food. The establishment humanely euthanized subject hog 67, all other animals had been onsite less than 24 hours and were moved to slaughter in a timely manner. I spoke with yard supervisor Ms. REDACTED. She verified that no food had been provided to this group of animals and said she was using the establishment's cameras to track the movement of this hog throughout the day yesterday. I told her that I would be documenting my findings on a noncompliance, establishment 244L is in noncompliance with 313.2(e).