Puro Alentejano Iberian Hog Corp: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2024 (USDA)

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

The following noncompliance was observed while performing a routine livestock humane handling review and observation task at Puro Alentejano Iberian Hog Corp. on 09/25/2024. At approximately 0829 hours while preforming HATS category VIII- Stunning Effectiveness, I observed a heifer being stunned ineffectively with a captive bolt. The heifer was loaded into the establishments knock box and the head of the heifer secured tightly into a head catch. An establishment employee applied a shot using the captive bolt. The heifer then bellowed loudly as it moved its legs in a forward and backward motion. The heifer then bellowed loudly a second time. The establishment employee responsible for stunning beef immediately initiated a corrective action by reloading a second shot into the captive bolt and applying the second shot to the heifer’s head. The second shot rendered the heifer unconscious. While making observations to the heifers head it was observed that two holes had penetrated the skull. One hole was observed on the left side approximately three inches above the eye line and one inch from the middle of the skull. The second hole was observed approximately two inches above the eye line and to the right one inch from the middle of the skull. Mr. REDACTED establishment Owner, was notified verbally at approximately 0837 hours of this noncompliance. This is a noncompliance with FSIS regulations 313.15(a)(1) and 313.15(a)(3).

313.16(b)(1)(i),313.16(a)(1)

The following noncompliance was observed while performing a routine livestock humane handling review and observation task at Puro Alentejano Iberian Hog Corp. on 06/03/2024. At approximately 0850 hours while preforming HATS category VIII- Stunning Effectiveness, I observed a large boar in the knock box to be shot with a rifle. When the establishment Owner, REDACTED, was asked about the caliber size of the rifle, he stated he was unsure but, after observations, it is believed to be a .22. When the ready was given, I, IIC, went behind the refrigerator door for my safety. The first shot was heard, and a loud audible squeal was heard coming from the boar. A second shot was heard being applied shortly after. While peeking out from behind the refrigerator door after the second shot, I observed the boar’s feet moving forward and back multiple steps in a standing walking motion. A third shot was taken at 0854 hours and a loud audible grunt was heard coming from the boar. After peeking around the refrigerator door again, the boar’s feet were observed taking multiple steps forward and back in a standing walking motion. At 0900 hours Mr. REDACTED came into the refrigerator to speak with me. He stated that the animal has not been rendered unconscious and he only has one bullet left that looked to be damaged. When making observations of the boar in the knock box it was observed in a standing position. The animal has what looked like a small round penetrating mark on the skull, between the eyes with small amounts of blood running out of it. Mr. REDACTED stated that he is getting a larger caliber rifle and will render the animal unconscious once obtained. After receiving a larger caliber rifle, a .33-30 from the neighbor, at 0941 the ready was given and I once again went behind the refrigerator door for my safety. After the rifle was fired, the animal no longer showed signs of consciousness. The boar was then shackled, hung, stuck, and bled. While making observations to the boar’s head after having it removed and skinned, three flattened bullets were observed under the skin/fat/muscle layers. One small hole, barely penetrating the skull at approximately 1/16th of an inch in depth was observed. The mark was approximately a half of an inch low in the middle of the skull, between the eyes of the boar. A second larger hole was observed penetrating the skull in the middle of the skull, between the boar’s eyes and approximately 3⁄4 of an inch above the first smaller bullet hole. Regulatory control action was taken and U.S. Rejected tag NO. B45-791678 was applied to the knock box. Mr. REDACTED was then informed that the suspension for swine slaughter will be reinstated for the act of inhumane slaughter.

313.30(a)(4),313.30(a)(1)

The following noncompliance was observed while performing a routine livestock humane handling review and observation task at Puro Alentejano Iberian Hog Corp. on 02/29/2024. At approximately 0815 hours while preforming HATS category VIII- Stunning Effectiveness, I observed ten roaster swine in the stunning area. After an establishment employee performed stunning to the ten piglets using electrical stimulation to the head and heart, one piglet was observed conscious with slow, rhythmic blinking and breathing and tracing eye movement. The establishment employee then reapplied the electrical stunning device to stun the piglet a second time. The piglet verbalized a squeal when being stunned in the head area. The piglet was stunned in the head and heart and was observed in an unconscious state. After being shackling and hung, the same piglet again showed signs of consciousness. The conscious piglet was observed making coordinated steps with its front two legs in an attempt to walk away. I called out to the establishment employee and pointed to the conscious piglet. The employee removed the piglet from the shackle and let it to the ground where it immediately stood up onto all four feet and took approximately two forward steps in the stunning area. The establishment employee then grabbed the electric stunning instrument and applied an electrical current for the third time to the conscious piglet’s head then heart area. The piglet was then observed to be in an unconscious state again. After shackling all ten unconscious swine, they were all stuck and bled. Immediate regulatory control action was taken and U.S. Rejected tag NO. B40490289 was applied to the stunning area door. Establishment employees were notified that no further stunning will be allowed until further notice. Mr. REDACTED, Establishment employee and acting establishment Manager, was notified of this noncompliance at approximately 0930 hours for the act of inhumane handling of the swine. He was also notified that the establishment will not be allowed to slaughter any animals until further notice. Mr. REDACTED, establishment Owner, was notified of this noncompliance at approximately 0926 hours. This is a noncompliance with FSIS regulations 313.30(a)(1) and 313.30(a)(4).

313.30(a)(1),313.30(a)(4)

The following noncompliance was observed while performing a routine livestock humane handling review and observation task at Puro Alentejano Iberian Hog Corp. on 02/22/2024. At approximately 0857 hours while preforming HATS category VIII- Stunning Effectiveness, I observed ten roaster swine in the stunning area. After all ten piglets were rendered unconscious using electrical stimulation to the head and heart, the establishment employee responsible for slaughtering started to shackle the piglets. While shackling, one piglet that had yet to be shackled, became conscious. The conscious piglet stood on all four feet, took approximately six forward steps over approximately two other unconscious swine and stood upright in the stunning area. The establishment employee then grabbed the electric stunning instrument and applied an electrical current to the conscious piglet’s head then heart area. The piglet was then observed to be in an unconscious state again. After shackling all ten unconscious swine, they were stuck and bled. Mr. REDACTED, Establishment employee, was notified of this noncompliance at 0902 hours for the act of inhumane handling of the swine. Mr. REDACTED spoke in Spanish to the slaughtering employee about the situation. I further observed the establishment employee only slaughtering five to six roaster swine at a time to ensure appropriate and effective administration of stunning to produce immediate unconsciousness to the animal. Mr. REDACTED, establishment Owner, was notified of this noncompliance verbally and in writing. This is a noncompliance with FSIS regulations 313.30(a)(1) and 313.30(a)(4).