Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp.: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2023 (USDA)

313.1

At approximately 2133 hours while performing HATS category IV—Handling During Ante-Mortem Inspection, I, REDACTED, SPHV, IIC, observed the following noncompliance on A side of the establishment’s barn: I observed the gate of pen A8 broken off the bottom hinge, laying at a displaced angle on top of a group of approximately ten market hogs. These animals were at rest while the gate laid on top of them. One of the hogs then readjusted it's position which resulted in the gate making unsteady movements. This pen was the closest pen to the main alleyway that leads the hogs to slaughter and contained approximately 65 market hogs. At the time of my observation, the establishment was actively moving market hogs to slaughter in the main A side alleyway. I then notified Mr. REDACTED, USDA Assistant, and Mr. REDACTED, Barn Coordinator, of the broken gate and the establishment’s failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.1 of the regulations. Regulatory control was taken of pen A8 using U.S. Rejected tag #B46536067. Establishment employees attempted to remove the gate from the top of the hogs. I then observed one market hog become lodged underneath the gate. The animal vocalized as it tried to remove itself from under the gate. The animal then freed itself and calmly walked down the A side main alleyway. Mr. REDACTED, Barn Supervisor, arrived and was demonstrated the noncompliance. I then observed as Mr. REDACTED had all animals removed from the pen. At approximately 2329 hours, the gate was presented for reinspection and was found to be restored to an operable condition. Regulatory control was then released of the pen.

313.2

At approximately 1214 hours while on my way to conduct ante mortem dispositions, I (Dr. REDACTED) observed the following humane handling noncompliance. I observed overcrowding of a driveway cut in the driveway leading to the outside carbon dioxide chamber on B-side. Some of the animals in the back of the cut were on top of other animals and there was no additional space for the animals to spread out. I took regulatory control action of the driveway and notified Mr. REDACTED (Production Supervisor) and Mr. REDACTED (Production Supervisor) of the establishment's failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.2(a), and I took regulatory control action of the driveway using US Rejected/Retained tag B42303392. To correct the issue, Mr. REDACTED had some of the hogs removed from the cut and the driveway to create space. As further planned actions, Mr. REDACTED stated he would retrain all 1st shift personnel in the Stick Pen Department not to exceed 15 hogs in a driveway cut. I released regulatory control of the driveway at 1233 hours after the employees stationed at the involved driveway were retrained.

313.2

HATS Category III:. Water and Feed On Monday, 3/27/2023, at approximately 0622 hours, while verifying Water and Feed availability, I observed a noncompliance. I noticed that the two drinking water bowls in pen 5 were empty. I tested the automatic waterers for both bowls, and they did not deliver any water. I continued with antemortem inspection and observed the same problem with the water bowls and the automatic waterers in pen 16, 17, and 21. There was no other accessible drinking water source besides the water bowls in these pens. I informed a Livestock Coordinator of the lack of drinking water. He corrected the problem by turning on the water so that the waterers delivered water into the bowls. At approximately 0744 hours, I informed Harvest Floor Superintendent that I would document a noncompliance record for the observation. The Denver District Management Team was notified through supervisory channels. There have been no noncompliance records of similar root cause documented within the past 90 days. The establishment operates under a Robust Systematic Approach to Livestock Humane Handling.

313.15(a)(1)

HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness On Friday, 3/24/2023, at approximately 1025 hours, while performing antemortem inspection, I observed a market hog that was not effectively stunned. I had just condemned a market hog in a pen holding segregated animals and as I was continuing with antemortem inspection in this pen, two establishment personnel were ready to euthanize the condemned animal. Each establishment person had a loaded hand-held captive bolt (HHCB) device in their hands. The first person proceeded to deliver the first stun attempt. Immediately after the first stun was delivered, I observed the animal stand up and take a step away from the person. There was a hole on the hog’s forehead, evidence that the HHCB device contacted the animal. The hog’s eyes were open and tracking. It did not vocalize. The other establishment person readily delivered a second stun attempt which was effective and rendered the animal unconscious. I took regulatory action by verbally informing the establishment lead personnel that stunning of segregated hogs must stop. I called the establishment's Animal Handling Specialist and then talked to the Kill Floor Superintendent to inform them of my observation, my regulatory control action, and that I would document a noncompliance record for this incident. The Denver District Management Team was contacted through supervisory channels. There have been no noncompliance records of similar root cause documented within the past 90 days. The establishment operates under a Robust Systematic Approach to Livestock Humane Handling. The establishment provided written corrective actions.

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 11:50 hours while observing HATS category V, I, Dr. REDACTED, observed a noncompliance with HATS Category VIII, stunning effectiveness, due to a missed stunning attempt. I first observed a hog walking around the CO2 area. Two employees began following the animal as it was moving quickly around the area. One held a board and one a captive bolt gun. An employee held the captive bolt gun to the head of the hog. As it began to walk away from them, the employee fired the captive bolt gun. The hog was observed not to be rendered unconscious. The employee moved to the new location of the pig. At this time, one employee stood on each side of the hog, one holding a board. Employees followed the animal in this stance as it moved throughout the area. A stun was again attempted. The pig was seen to be alert. It moved forward, away from the employees, and stumbled into the wall of the A side REDACTED loading area. Blood could be seen on the animal’s head. As the hog remained sitting, the employees reloaded the captive bolt gun, followed the hog to this area and administered a stun which rendered the animal unconscious. Regulatory control was taken of captive bolt guns CO211701 and CO213346 and the entire lot of cartridges, as well as the captive bolting process with tag U.S. Rejected/Retain tag B42302076. Mr. REDACTED and Ms. REDACTED were informed of the noncompliance. After examining the euthanized pig, two holes were seen on the head, one in the center and one off of center. The first attempt was determined to be a misfire. Due to lack of restraint on the animal and multiple stunning attempts, I thought this noncompliance may be considered egregious and after informing my supervisor, regulatory control was taken of the CO2 kill process with U.S. Rejected/Retained tag B42303387 at approximately 1215 hours. After further consultation with my supervisor and with District Veterinary Medical Specialist, a determination was made that the noncompliance was non-egregious, since the first attempt to stun the hog did not make contact, it is not considered an ineffective stun. The first attempt that made contact with the animal (the 2nd stun attempt), which was ineffective, was followed immediately by an effective corrective action. The following corrective actions were proposed by Mr. REDACTED and Mrs. REDACTED: 1. Retraining of all captive bolt gun operators stationed at the REDACTED in the proper placement of captive bolt guns and proper restraining (Applicable captive bolt gun operators will not be allowed to stun any animals until they have been retrained. All training will be completed today.) 2. Pulling certification of captive bolt operator involved (will no longer be allowed to stun any animals) 3. Check the functionality of captive bolt guns and discard lot of cartridges associated in the incident Regulatory control of all captive bolt and chemical stunning was released at 1240 hours.

313.2

At approximately 1338 hours while verifying HATS category II at the B-side unloading ramps, FI REDACTED observed the following humane handling noncompliance. According to FI REDACTED, she observed a REDACTED employee inside the trailer at the inside unloading ramp lifting a paddle above the shoulder and striking several hogs on the top of head and snout multiple times while unloading animals off the trailer causing the hogs to vocalize very loudly. REDACTED is contracted by the establishment to provide personnel to assist in truck unloading. FI REDACTED took regulatory control action of the B-side truck unloading process using US Rejected/Retained tag B42304001. After taking regulatory control action, she notified Mr. REDACTED (Plant Procurement Manager), Dr. REDACTED (FSIS SPHV), and Dr. REDACTED (FSIS SPHV) of the plant’s failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.2(a) and 313.2(b). As further planned actions, Mr. REDACTED proposed retraining the individual involved on the Smithfield Animal Welfare policy with emphasis on not using driving tools on the head or sensitive areas of the animal. In addition to this, Mr. REDACTED stated a supervisor would verify the effectiveness of the retraining by observing the individual handling the animals until Wednesday (02/01/2023). After verifying the retraining, Dr. REDACTED released regulatory control action at 1420 hours.

313.15(a)(1)

On January 24, 2023, at 1730 I, Dr. REDACTED, was performing the Livestock Humane Handling task (HATS Category VIII Stunning Effectiveness), at the segregation pens in the establishment’s B-side live receiving area. Establishment employees were in the process of captive bolt stunning pigs in a segregation pen. I observe an animal stunned successfully with a captive bolt. The employee went on to the next animal. I heard the captive bolt discharged but the animal remained upright and did not drop immediately as is normal. The animal’s eyes were open and blinked. There was blood dripping from its nose and a small amount around the hole caused by the captive bolt in the forehead. The employee performed a successful second stunning with a captive bolt placed at the same location on the forehead. I informed Mr. REDACTED, Hog Procurement Business Manager, of the miss-stunning occurrence. I applied U.S. Reject tag NO. B29701557 to the captive bolt. Use of the captive bolt in the segregation area was discontinued by the establishment while they conducted their investigation into the incident. After completing their investigation Mr. REDACTED stated that the captive bolt was applied correctly by the employee during the stunning. He provided me with a corrective action which stated that an examination of both captive bolts found that they were operating correctly with no repairs needed. The failure of the initial stunning was attributed to an ineffective stun by the stunner load (the cartridge that when activated powers the captive bolt). The identified lot of cartridges was discarded by the plant as a precaution against other defective cartridges in the lot. Regulatory control was removed at 2010.

313.5

On January 16, while on her way to perform Livestock Humane Handling Ante-Mortem Verification Task (HATS Category IV), Supervisory Public Health Veterinarian (SPHV) Dr. REDACTED observed the following noncompliance. Dr. REDACTED was walking out to the REDACTED area of the facility to sign for end of day suspects, when she heard a pig vocalizing very loudly. She went around to the REDACTED located closest to the suspect pen and saw a few employees unloading the group of pigs from the REDACTED carousal itself (the first position loading carousal). One of the pigs being unloaded out the side gate of the REDACTED had a severe compound fracture, that it was now trying to walk on as it was being unloaded with the group of pigs. Dr. REDACTED instructed the employees to please euthanize the pig humanely because while it could use three of its legs normally, it was trying to place weight on the compound fracture and the leg was buckling under the weight each time the animal used that leg in its sequence of walking, and it would go down when that occurred; the animal was able to move, but Dr. REDACTED would not qualify its movements as walking, but falling, then getting back up, then falling, and so on. An employee retrieved the handheld stunning device and effectively captive bolted the hog. Dr. REDACTED then asked for a supervisor to be called, and Lower Kill Supervisor REDACTED came. She told REDACTED that she had not observed how the hog had broken its leg, but she told REDACTED that they needed to identify the cause and address the issue. As she was talking with REDACTED, the REDACTED solid pneumatic door that slides up and down to close the hogs inside the first carousal of the REDACTED, closed onto the back of another pig, pinning it to the ground in the middle of the hog’s back for a number of seconds before an employee was able to get the door to rise. This hog was not able to use either of its back legs after being released from the door pinning it—the hog dragged its two back legs behind it using its front legs. This hog also had to be euthanized using the handheld device. Dr. REDACTED told REDACTED they needed to stop loading pigs into both REDACTED, but before they were able to move all the hogs out of the immediate loading area of the REDACTED carousal, the gate closed on and pinned a third hog’s leg to the ground. This hog was able to get up and walk normally after the gate was released from pinning it down. Dr. REDACTED went and instructed the other REDACTED to stop loading any more hogs. She reiterated with REDACTED to not load anymore hogs into either REDACTED and she said that the situation would be addressed in a write-up, but she had to call her supervisors. She told REDACTED they could finish processing anything they had already loaded into the REDACTED, but no more animals could be loaded in either REDACTED until a decision was made. She then left the area, and encountered Kill Floor Superintendent REDACTED, Assistant Operations Supervisor REDACTED, and Upper Kill Floor REDACTED who she explained the events above to them and reiterated that they could process any animals already loaded in the REDACTED but could not load any more animals into the REDACTED. Dr. REDACTED instructed Consumer Safety Inspector REDACTED to attach Reject tags NO B39297734 and NO B39297735 to each REDACTED loading chute to prevent any more animals from being loaded. This incident represents noncompliance with 9CFR 313.5(b)(2). Dr. REDACTED then called the District Veterinary Medical Specialist for the Des Moines District Office and relayed the events to him described above.

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 0830 hours I, Dr. REDACTED, was verifying HATS category VIII stunning effectiveness observed the following noncompliance. On B side of the barn in suspect pen #2, farthest from the aisleway I observed two employees knocking hogs. One employee held a captive bolt while one employee held a board to restrain hogs and a second captive bolt. The employee stunning applied a captive bolt to a suspect hogs head. I heard a knock and observed the stunned pig running across the pen. The employee followed the hog, restrained it, reloaded the captive bolt gun and applied a second knock which rendered the pig insensible. I informed Mr. REDACTED (procurement manager) this is a noncompliance of 9 CFR 313.15 (a)(3). Regulatory control action was taken of the captive bolt process with U.S. Rejected Tag #B42303255. In response to the ineffective stun, establishment conducted an investigation to determine the root cause of the incident. It was determined that the employee euthanizing the animal did not follow the establishment's Captive Bolt Gun Training. The employee failed to place the bolt gun flush to the forehead of the animal, but the animal was immediately rendered unconscious with a second effective stun. Due to failure to follow protocol, the employee will be retrained on establishment policy. After these corrective actions were given, regulatory control was released at 1256 hours.

313.5

While performing Livestock Verification Task VIII Stunning Effectiveness in the REDACTED area of establishment M717, SPHV Dr. REDACTED observed the following noncompliance: At an estimated time of 220pm, Dr. REDACTED entered the REDACTED chamber from the barn around the same time as the employees in the REDACTED area and at the gam tables were coming back from their afternoon break. Shortly after arriving, Dr. REDACTED observed that in the REDACTED chamber located next to the suspect pen, hogs had been loaded into the first carousal/first loading position, and the door had been closed, so the hogs were enclosed within the REDACTED chamber. However, the carousal remained at floor level (not lowered) for longer than usual – normally, after the hogs are loaded and the REDACTED door closed, the carousal is lowered into the stunning CO2 chamber within 30 seconds to 1 minute. Dr. REDACTED observed the situation to see why the hogs were not being lowered, and it became apparent that there had been a break down that had occurred, preventing the hogs from moving forward in the process. Upon noticing this, Dr. REDACTED started her stopwatch and began monitoring the hogs enclosed within that first carousal position. She also watched to see if any of the establishment employees were monitoring the enclosed hogs, which it was not apparent to Dr. REDACTED that any of the employees were watching the enclosed hogs or observing the condition of the conscious hogs enclosed within the REDACTED chamber. At approximately 2 minutes, as noted on her stopwatch, Dr. REDACTED observed that all seven of the enclosed hogs had begun to show moderate signs of respiratory distress, with each hog still conscious, but visibly demonstrating open mouth breathing. Dr. REDACTED was standing at the platform facing the conveyor and could observe the hogs through the REDACTED chamber’s see-through door, where the hogs are dumped out onto the conveyor; this is located directly across from the loading door/first carousal position. After observing the hogs in respiratory distress, Dr. REDACTED went over to the supervisor who was present in the REDACTED area – Superintendent REDACTED—and she asked him who was monitoring the hogs enclosed within, and as a sequalae to this question, she reminded REDACTED that as part of the facility’s corrective actions for the previous noncompliance record that they received for this same issue, the establishment stated they would have an employee monitor any enclosed hogs within the REDACTED in the event of a breakdown. REDACTED responded that he was monitoring the hogs, to which Dr. REDACTED responded by asking him if he was monitoring them demonstrate signs of respiratory distress, specifically if he was monitoring their open mouth breathing and gasping. REDACTED walked over and peered through the gap in the loading door to look at the hogs. He then came back to Dr. REDACTED and said that maintenance was working on getting the breakdown fixed, which would get the hogs moving again. Dr. REDACTED asked him what was the point of having a corrective action to monitor the status of the enclosed hogs, if upon monitoring them, and then observing them to be in respiratory distress, they weren’t going to take any immediate action to relieve the situation that was causing distress, which in this case, would be to either remove those hogs from the enclosure (or at least open the door to allow for more air flow into the REDACTED carousal) and/or cycle them downwards into the CO2 stunning chamber? REDACTED re-stated that maintenance was working on fixing the problem. The hogs remained enclosed within the REDACTED chamber at floor level. At this point, Dr. REDACTED stopwatch read over six minutes, so she walked back around to the dumping side of the REDACTED where she had a better view of the enclosed hogs so that she could more thoroughly assess their condition. At this vantage point, Dr. REDACTED now observed at least 3, possibly 4, of the enclosed hogs to be on their sides and in a position that appeared to show that they were now unconscious. The remaining 3 conscious hogs were still in an upright sitting position, but they were now demonstrating signs of severe respiratory distress, with obvious open-mouth gasping and side-heaving; it was apparent to Dr. REDACTED that the hogs were having to make an exerted physical effort to inhale and exhale. Dr. REDACTED called the superintendent REDACTED over, and gesturing to the pigs, she pointed out to him the now three unconscious pigs and the severe respiratory distress of the remaining three conscious pigs. Dr. REDACTED asked him: “are we all just going to sit here and ‘monitor’ the hogs suffocating?” [Merriam Webster definition of suffocation: to deprive of oxygen b: to make uncomfortable by want of fresh air]. REDACTED responded that it had only been a few minutes, which looking at her stopwatch, Dr. REDACTED noted it had been approximately 8 mins and 10 seconds when he made this statement. Dr. REDACTED responded to REDACTED comment, saying that it doesn’t matter how many minutes it has been and that just because their program states that they have 10-20 mins until they must manually cycle the hogs through the REDACTED, if the hogs are clearly demonstrating signs of distress at 2 mins, then again at 6 mins, then again at 8 mins, the establishment can’t just sit there and wait until 10-20 mins until they do something about the hogs’ distress, simply because that is how they wrote their program [corrective actions]. At approximately 9 mins, the maintenance team was able to get the breakdown moving again and the hogs cycled downward into the stunning chamber and were rendered unconscious. Dr. REDACTED told the Superintendent REDACTED that they would receive a noncompliance record for the above event. The above event is in noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.5(a)(1). Both the establishment’s humane handling program and their proffered corrective actions (to their previous NR received for the same issue—NR# AE0605112025N, 11/25/2022) failed to prevent the hogs from suffering respiratory distress due to inadequate ventilation and exposure to CO2 levels that were insufficient as to immediately render the hogs unconscious in a manner that was quick and that minimized discomfort.

313.2

HATS Category III. Water and Feed On Tuesday, 12/20/2022, at approximately 0641 hours, while verifying Water and Feed availability, I observed a noncompliance. I observed four (4) live hogs in a small, latched pen labeled “Next Day Harvest.” This pen has one water bowl with an automatic waterer attached. I noticed the bowl had very little water in it. I moved the automatic waterer in different directions to test its functionality, and it did not deliver any water. There was no other available water in the pen. At approximately 0644 hours, I saw a harvest floor Supervisor and explained to her my observation and that I would document a noncompliance record for this lack of water. I applied a U.S. Reject tag number B24308784 onto the gate of this pen. The establishment performed immediate corrective actions by moving the four live hogs into another area with water available and turned on the waterer. I verified that the waterer had been repaired and was delivering water and removed the U.S. Reject tag at approximately 0653 hours. The Denver District Management Team was notified through supervisory channels. There have been no noncompliance records of similar root cause documented within the past 90 days. The establishment operates under a Robust Systematic Approach to Livestock Humane Handling.

313.5

On November 23, 2022, at approximately 430pm, while verifying HATS Category VIII Stunning Effectiveness, Supervisory Public Health Veterinarian Dr. REDACTED observed the following noncompliances: The establishment’s main slaughter chain broke down and the inspectors were sent offline at 412pm; at that time, Dr. REDACTED started her stopwatch to clock offline time for the inspectors. About twenty minutes after the initial breakdown occurred, Dr. REDACTED went to the CO2 REDACTED stunning area of the facility to verify that all the hogs leading up to the stick station had been mechanically stunned with a handheld captive bolt device, which they had. While viewing the REDACTED area, Dr. REDACTED observed a carousal basket in one of the CO2 REDACTED chambers that was full of stunned, unconscious pigs. Dr. REDACTED observed that on the other side of the REDACTED carousal, directly adjacent to this basket of stunned pigs, there was another carousal basket sitting right inside the inner door of the CO2 REDACTED chamber—this basket was full of live hogs; this basket was enclosed within the REDACTED chamber itself but was in the first, ground level position. Dr. REDACTED could see movement in this basket from where she was standing, so she went around to the other side of the CO2 REDACTED chamber where the pigs are loaded into the carousal baskets from the driving alleyway, where she looked in between the junction of the closed REDACTED chamber door and confirmed there were live hogs inside that basket within. Dr. REDACTED immediately had a supervisor called. Dr. REDACTED checked her stopwatch at this time and noted that twenty-four minutes had passed since the line had stopped due to the facility’s breakdown, which indicates an estimate for when the carousal baskets become stalled in their current position. When the designated lower-kill/blue-hat supervisor arrived, Dr. REDACTED told the supervisor the problem. He told Dr. REDACTED that he could not get the pigs out. Dr. REDACTED told him the pigs couldn’t stay enclosed in there indefinitely without access to water. After fiddling with some of the control panel buttons, the supervisor was able to open the first solid door on the loading side of the REDACTED chamber, allowing Dr. REDACTED to fully view into the screened basket of enclosed pigs within the chamber. Dr. REDACTED observed the following: Inside the carousal basket were a total of seven hogs—four hogs were on their sides not moving and appeared to be unconscious. The other three hogs in the basket were sitting on their haunches in an upright seated position, visibly gasping with open mouth breathing and demonstrating signs of severe respiratory distress, including heaving sides and diaphragmatic breathing. At this point, Dr. REDACTED checked her stopwatch once more; twenty-six minutes had passed since the line had stopped, providing an estimate time for when the carousal basket had stalled in its current position with the hogs enclosed within. Dr. REDACTED had superintendent REDACTED called immediately and notified him of the egregiously inhumane situation of the enclosed live hogs within the REDACTED chamber and their prolonged exposure to insufficient levels of the stunning CO2 gas, as to not effectively render them unconscious, yet deprive them of vital ventilation [atmospheric oxygen] for a timeframe that exceeded twenty-minutes. Also, the failure of the establishment to take any immediate corrective actions as to address the hogs’ severe respiratory distress resulting from the establishment’s egregious humane handling violation. Upon notification, the Superintendent was able to force the basket down into the chamber so that the hogs received levels of CO2 gas exposure as to be effectively stunned and rendered unconscious. The above is in noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.5(a): The animals shall be exposed to carbon dioxide gas in a way that will accomplish the anesthesia quickly and calmly, with minimum of excitement and discomfort to the animal. Dr. REDACTED notified Superintendent REDACTED and Operations Supervisor REDACTED that as was standard protocol in the event of an egregious humane handling noncompliance, she was going to take the Regulatory Control Action (RCA) of placing a Reject Tag at their stunning/sticking station, which she proceeded with this action by pressing the stop button at the stick chain line, and by instructing a Consumer Safety Inspector (CSI) to place Reject tags [NO B37105449 and NO B37105450] on that stop button located at the “stick” station. Dr. REDACTED informed the Superintendent and Operations Supervisor that she would be immediately reaching out to her supervisor and the District Office to notify them of the event, and to receive instruction on how to proceed. The operations supervisor asked if they could proceed with processing carcasses through the kill floor in the meantime, but Dr. REDACTED said she would not remove the tag to allow for this without first receiving permission to do so from her supervisor and/or a District Office representative. After thirty-three minutes of having the RCA applied, per Frontline Supervisor instruction, Dr. REDACTED instructed the CSI to remove the Reject Tag placed on the stick line start/stop button to allow the facility to process any carcasses that were already stunned and hanging on the main slaughter line, but she instructed the facility that they were not allowed to process any additional animals through the stunning or hanging steps.

313.2

While performing Humane Handling verification task II truck unloading. At approximately 1045 hours on 11/15/2022 I observed the following noncompliance. I observed an employee raise his paddle above his shoulder multiple times forcefully striking a hog on its back This action caused the hog to vocalize in discomfort and to move at a faster than normal walking speed while moving the animal from the truck unloading site to the holding area. I then exited out of the entrance of the truck unloading site where I first observed this action, to the outside of the barn, then entered the barn at the holding area. I again observed this action continue until I informed the employee to stop and keep the paddle below his shoulder. The employee then threw his paddle to the ground and responded with vulgar language. I informed REDACTED of my observations after the incident and informed him a noncompliance would be issued. This is a noncompliance with CFR 313.2(A) and 313.2(B).

313.1

At approximately 1852 on October 31, 2022, I was performing HATS Category II (Truck Unloading) and approaching live receiving B side to view the trucks being unloaded there. As I approached, I heard vocalization from the pigs at the far, outside trailer. This trailer was of the single door variety where there is an internal metal ramp to access the top level of the trailer. I could see a number of pigs piled on top of each other from the door of the trailer to almost to the top of the ramp. None of the animals were on their feet, all were laying in various positions on top of each other. The pig on the bottom near the door was covered so only its head was visible. The animal was open mouth breathing and appeared in distressed. Plant employees were using the shaker paddles in a general fashion on the pigs on the ramp but the pigs were unable to move. Eventually they got the pig nearest to the top of the ramp standing and back up on the upper floor of the trailer. They then sequentially got each pig up and onto the trailer except for the pig at the bottom of the pile. At this point I could see the two-piece metal hinged bridge attached to plant’s offloading ramp that covers the gap between the off-loading dock and the trailer was not in position. The two pieces slide apart to adjust to the width of the trailer door, and one these pieces had slid under the other so that there was a gap approximately half the width of the door opening. The pig at the bottom of the pile had both of its front feet in the gap up to its shoulders. When released, the pig sat upright but would not get to its feet and continued to rapidly open mouth breathe. After several minutes, plant employees moved the pig by a carrier to a holding area to recover. Plant employees again attempted to unload the pigs from the upper level but the pigs repeatably slid and fell down when approximately halfway down the ramp. I stop the unloading and informed Mr. REDACTED, Hog Procurement Business Manager, of the situation. He had an employee hose down the ramp and unloading was attempted again but the pigs continued to fall when part way down the ramp. Eventually the pigs were offloaded one at a time slowly down the ramp. Mr. REDACTED later stated that the type of trailer involved are all being converted to a two-level style trailer with no internal ramp similar to the type generally used. The animals would then be off-loaded from each level via the establishment's live receiving ramp. The trailer involved (trailer 16) would not be used to deliver animals to the plant until it has been modified. It will be the next trailer to be converted after the current one undergoing alterations is completed.

313.1

At approximately 9:45am, while performing Livestock Humane Handling Verification task IV Antemortem Inspection, Dr. REDACTED was walking along the upper level of the REDACTED chamber, from the barn area towards the elevated walkway and suspect pen. As she turned the corner around the first REDACTED chamber screen, she saw a pig that had been diverted out of the main chute area to rest along the sideline, but that had made its way towards the staircase and was now facing the elevated walkway over the REDACTED conveyor belts. She stopped and indicated to the establishment employee who was accompanying her on antemortem inspection of the animal, so that he could usher it away from the staircase and platform entrance. The employee attempted to divert the animal back towards the resting area along the outer chutes, but the pig ran forward and lunged through an opening that led off the edge of the upper REDACTED platform to the lower REDACTED area below, which was about a 3.5-foot drop. The animal did not immediately fall to the floor below, as it became wedged against a belt motor located a few feet out and down from the opening. However, after a few moments, the animal became unwedged from against the motor and fell the remaining feet to the lower level below. Here it became cornered under the conveyor belt and between some piping, where it unsuccessfully tried to escape a few times, but mostly remained in an alert sitting position. Dr. REDACTED asked a nearby food safety technician to please go get a blue-hat establishment supervisor, which the technician did. The supervisor came and assisted the antemortem employee to crawl down to the lower level between the piping and conveyor belt, where they were able to successfully stun the animal unconscious. The animal was then hoisted out from under the belt and onto the REDACTED conveyor. The above is in noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.1(a), as the area where the animal was being held (i.e. a defacto pen) was not free from unnecessary openings capable of causing injury to the animal. Dr. REDACTED notified Supervisor REDACTED that the above incident would be documented in a noncompliance record. Supervisor REDACTED notified Dr. REDACTED that they were having maintenance come and address the opening right away, which Dr. REDACTED confirmed had been addressed with the placement metal bars to prevent entrance of any other animals.

313.15(a)(3)

Humane Handling Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness On 10/20/202, at approximately 0708 hours, while verifying Stunning Effectiveness, I observed a market hog that was not effectively stunned. At approximately 0707 hours, I stood by the south REDACTED that delivers carbon dioxide stunning to hogs to observe hogs coming out of the REDACTED and verify unconsciousness. I heard a captive bolt device discharge and turned around to see an establishment personnel holding a hand-held captive bolt (HHCB) device and another personnel using a blunt hook to drag the hog out of the REDACTED entrance. Due to the dividing wall, I could not fully visualize the hog. I returned my sight to where the REDACTED release the carbon dioxide stunned hogs. At approximately 0708 hours, I turned around to head for the door to go inside. I looked over at the hog that had been stunned via the HHCB device and observed the animal laying laterally on the ground, evident with the hemorrhaging stun hole on its forehead. I observed the animal to be exhibiting rhythmic breathing and its eyes were tracking. It was not vocalizing nor trying to right itself. I touched the right eyelid and the hog blinked. At that time, I also saw the establishment personnel, who was dragging the hog previously, standing next to the HHCB device supply box with the captive bolt device in his hand. I motioned his person to deliver another stun to render the animal fully unconscious. The employee immediately came over and delivered an effective stun. I proceeded inside and located a supervisor, who I informed of my observations. I arrived at the USDA FSIS office to call an establishment humane handling specialist at approximately 0715 hours and informed him of the same observation and to let him know I will be documenting a noncompliance record for this humane handling observation. I contacted the DVMS and the FLS at approximately 0730 hours to inform them of my observations. I returned to the establishment stunning area at approximately 0735 hours and applied U.S. Rejected tags number B24308788 and B24308787 on the north and south REDACTED to stop further stunning of hogs. I verbally informed establishment management of the tag application as per 9 CFR 313.50(c) and that the establishment needs to provide corrective actions. The Denver District Management Team was contacted through supervisory channels. There have been no noncompliance records of similar root cause documented within the past 90 days. The establishment operates under a Robust Systematic Approach to Livestock Humane Handling. The establishment provided written corrective actions.