Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp.: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2024 (USDA)

313.2,313.5

On September 19, 2024, at approximately 1015 hours, while conducting HATS Category IV Antemortem Inspection, IPP walked past the South CO2 stunning unit, and observed a noncompliance with HATS VI Alternative Object Use. In the alley, immediately prior to the area that loads into the gondola basket, there were a group of four hogs. One hog was standing but was open mouth breathing and legs were beginning to shake. As the pre-dividing gate started to move East towards the loading area, the hog sat down with its rear end contacting the floor. The hog was pushed by the pre-dividing gate approximately three (3) feet into the loading area. The hog did not vocalize. At this time, IPP informed establishment employee Ms. REDACTED Humane Handling Specialist, of the sitting hog and Ms. REDACTED walked away from the area towards the REDACTED operator. In the meantime, the moving gate/wall began to move North, and the sitting hog was pushed approximately four (4) feet into the gondola basket; with its rear end contacting the floor the entire time. IPP then proceeded to let Ms. REDACTED know that a regulatory control action would be taken by stopping stunning. IPP also informed Mr. REDACTED Harvest Superintendent of the incident and U.S. Retain Tags #B42276688 and B42276687 were placed on both CO2 stunners. This is in noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.2(d)2 and 313.5(a)(2). IPP then contacted the District Office for additional direction

313.15(a)(1)

HATS Category VIII - Stunning Effectiveness On Monday, August 26, 2024 at approximately 1614 hours while performing Humane Handling Stunning Effectiveness (Category VIII) Task, I, SPHV REDACTED observed the following noncompliance. An establishment employee attempted to knock a moribund market hog in the slow pen with a handheld captive bolt device. The first attempt failed to render the animal unconscious; I continued to observe voluntary movement, palpebral reflex, and normal, rhythmic breathing. A second attempt was made immediately with a handheld captive bolt device and the hog was rendered immediately unconscious. I notified REDACTED and REDACTED of the stunning failure and that a noncompliance record would be written. The establishment identified operator error as the cause of the stun failure. Preventive measures include retraining personnel on captive bolt use and placement. This noncompliance represents a failure to meet the regulatory requirements of 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1). A review of NR history at this establishment revealed no recent noncompliance records with a similar cause.

313.1

At approximately 1045 hours while conducting ante mortem inspection of animals in subject pens, I (Dr. REDACTED observed the following humane handling noncompliance. Inside the A-2000 pen, I observed some damaged metal along the wall with jagged edges. The pen contained 3 subject hogs that were presented for inspection. The damaged metal was low enough inside the pen for a standing animal to come in contact with. No animals inside the pen were injured. I informed Mr. REDACTED and Mrs. REDACTED of the establishment's failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.1. Mr. REDACTED had the 3 hogs immediately removed from the pen and placed an establishment hold tag on the pen to prevent use until repaired. I verified repair of the pen at approximately 1320 hours.

313.2

HATS Category III: Water and Feed On Thursday, 7/11/24, at approximately 0651 hours, while verifying Water and Feed availability, I, SPHV Dr. REDACTED observed a noncompliance. I observed a group of three (3) hogs in the "Next Day Harvest" pen. These 3 hogs had paint marks on them to indicate that they had passed antemortem inspection from the previous day. I informed the Livestock Coordinator of this and later confirmed that these hogs were placed in this pen on Tuesday, 7/9/24. I did not see any evidence that feed was made available to these hogs within the 24 hours after their arrival. In reviewing the establishment’s feeding records, there was no record of feeding these hogs. I informed the establishment’s Humane Handling Specialist that I would document a noncompliance record for this lack of feed availability to hogs held on the premise for longer than 24 hours. No regulatory control action was taken as the establishment provided feed to these hogs very soon after I spoke to the Livestock Coordinator. This noncompliance record is associated with noncompliance record number RZG1316063125N/1, documented on 6/25/24, for the same cause of not making feed available to livestock held on the premise for longer than 24 hours. The establishment operates under a Robust Systematic Approach to Livestock Humane Handling. The Denver District Management Team was notified through supervisory channels.

313.2

HATS Category III: Water and Feed On Tuesday, 6/25/24, at approximately 1320 hours, while verifying Water and Feed availability, I observed a noncompliance. I observed a group of approximately fourteen live hogs in pen #4 without any feed in the pen, but water was available. I had observed some of these hogs placed in this pen on the previous morning, Monday, 6/24/24. I reviewed the establishment’s record for feeding hogs and the last entry was dated 6/20/24. I contacted the establishment’s Humane Handling Specialist, and asked if there was any record of feed made available to hogs in pen #4 since their arrival on Monday morning. After the Humane Handling Specialist reviewed establishment’s video footage, she informed me that these hogs in pen #4 have not been fed since they arrived on Monday morning. Therefore, I informed her that I would be documenting a noncompliance record for this lack of feed availability to hogs held on the premise for longer than 24 hours. No regulator control action was taken as I verified, at approximately 1645 hours, that the establishment provided feed to the animals in pen #4. 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.

313.2

HATS Category V: Suspect and Disabled On June 20, 2024, at approximately 0841 hours, I observed the following noncompliance. An establishment bobcat driver was carrying a slow hog to be placed in the slow hog area near the REDACTED exits. I observed the drive at the point of the entry of the alleys to the REDACTED. I observed the hog standing in the bucket of the bobcat with the bucket lifted approximately 3-4 feet above the ground. The hog proceeded to jump out of the bucket while the bobcat was in motion. I took a regulatory control action by stopping the driver from continuing to move equipment. The hog was able to ambulate a few steps and then laid down and recovered. I verbally informed the Animal Handling Specialist and the team lead of the noncompliance and the issuance of this noncompliance record and that I also observed the left rear tire of the bobcat was flat and coming off the rim. Immediate corrective actions included removing the establishment driver from driving the bobcat until he was retrained, and removing the bobcat from operations until it could be repaired. The Animal Handling Specialist proffered the preventative measure of retraining the employee to keep the bucket in the lowest position possible, while driving, and to stop movement if a hog is moving in the bucket. There have been no noncompliance records issues for the same root cause within the past 90 days. The establishment has implemented a robust systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock.

313.15(a)(1),313.15(b)(1)(iii)

At approximately 08:50 hours, SCSI REDACTED and I (Dr. REDACTED SPHV) were verbally notified by CSI REDACTED that he had just observed the establishment ineffectively render a hog unconscious via captive bolt on initial attempt, but a second immediate captive bolt attempt was successful in rendering the hog unconscious. CSI REDACTED described that, at approximately 08:35 hours, he was verifying HATS category II (Truck Unloading) and HATS category VIII (Stunning Effectiveness) on the south side of the barn, when two hogs became stressed and establishment employees decided to captive bolt both hogs. The first hog was effectively captive bolted on the first attempt and rendered unconscious. The second hog was sitting at the end of the truck unloading ramp as an establishment employee, holding two captive bolt guns, rapidly approached the hog directly from the front of the hog and proceeded to quickly apply the captive bolt to the forehead and discharge the captive bolt. CSI REDACTED stated that the captive bolt made the normal sound when firing. The hog then immediately stood and ran up the entirety of the unloading ramp towards the truck. A second establishment employee, with a holding board, assisted the initial employee in stabilizing the hog as he performed a second captive bolt shot which then effectively rendered the hog unconscious. After this notification, SCSI REDACTED and I proceeded to the barn to discuss the matter and investigate further with Mr. REDACTED, Barn Manager, and Ms. REDACTED, Humane Handling. We identified the above-mentioned hog within the ‘plant reject’ dumpster and observed that two holes/bullet entry points (of the same size) were present on the forehead of the hog, with one hole being approximately 1⁄4 inch from the other. We then proceeded to observe video footage provided by the Mr. REDACTED to verify what had occurred. Review of this video footage confirmed the CSI’s observations. I discussed with Mr. REDACTED and Ms. REDACTED that I would be issuing a non-compliance as the establishment had shown to not be in compliance with 9 CFR 313.15 (a)(1) and 313.15 (b)(1)(iii). It was determined from watching the video footage that the establishment employee did not correctly/adequately restrain/immobilize the hog when applying the first stun attempt which led to the ineffective rendering of complete and immediate unconsciousness. The establishment employee also rapidly approached the cornered and stressed hog directly from the front as he quickly applied the first stun attempt, causing the hog to jerk its head back and to the side to avoid the threatening approach. Mr. REDACTED and Ms. REDACTED verbally stated that all establishment employees (both 1st and 2nd shifts) will be re-trained and the above-mentioned employee will also be required to perform stunning under observation for a set period of time.

313.1

On 2/2/2024, at approximately 5:55am, when I was performing HATS IV – Antemortem inspection, I observed a hog with its head stuck under a gate (located on the side by the suspect pen) on Pen 4. The hog had foam by its mouth and on the floor. The hog was opening its mouth wide when taking a breath. I immediately tried to lift the gate up, but it did not budge. I hollered over at Foreman REDACTED who was in the area, by pen 6. He came over and as I tried to lift on the gate, he tried to get the hogs head out from under the gate. When he put his hand close to the hogs head the hog squealed in fear. Mr. REDACTED immediately stopped. Mr. REDACTED quickly went over to the suspect pen and got the hand-held captive bolt gun. He euthanized the hog using the captive bolt gun. I noticed that one end of the gate had a gap from the bottom of the gate to the floor approximately 6 to 8 inches and the gap to floor gradually got smaller towards the other end of the gate. I also noted that the hog was a lot smaller than the average hog in the pen. I informed Mr. REDACTED and Assistant Plant Manager REDACTED that I needed to make a phone call to discuss the Humane Handling issue and get further guidance. Mr. REDACTED said after they remove the hogs in Pen 4, they would not use the pen until corrective actions were done. I notified Plant Manager REDACTED and Assistant Plant Manager REDACTED that I was going to issue them a noncompliance record-(NR). I placed a U.S. Reject Tag #B42 276561 on Pen 4. At 8:40am, I observed the gate on pen 4. The company added another bar to the bottom of the gate. Now there was approximately 2-3 inches from the bottom of the gate to the floor. I removed my U.S. Reject Tag on 8:40am. I notified Animal Handling Specialist, REDACTED that I removed my U.S. Reject Tag.

313.5

At approximately 2130 hours, while performing a Livestock Humane Handling verification task, HATS category VIII—Stunning Effectiveness, on the B side REDACTED (CO2 stunning area), I, Dr. REDACTED, SPHV, observed the following noncompliance on B side, line #2: I observed the B side, line #2 REDACTED gondola dump approximately eight to nine market hogs onto the below conveyor belt, leading to shackling. The line was paused at this point due to shackling employees not in attendance as they were on establishment lunch break. Upon further observation, I noted a rhythmic breath being expelled into the air from the group of dumped hogs. I then approached the conveyor belt and observed one market hog rhythmically breathing. I then proceeded to conducting a menace response test which the animal responded to with a blink. The animal continued to blink independently after the menace response test had ceased. The animal then began looking around the room. I proceeded to alerting establishment employees of the ineffectively stunned market hog. Mr. REDACTED, CO2 area supervisor, was demonstrated the hog. Mr. REDACTED then effectively rendered the animal unconscious using a captive bolt device. It was also noted that the animal looked up at Mr. REDACTED prior to captive bolt application. I notified Mr. REDACTED and Mr. REDACTED, Operations Manager, of the establishment’s failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.5 of the regulations and that a noncompliance would be documented.

313.1

On 11/14/2023 during the performance of a routine humane handling visit, Dr. REDACTED, District Veterinary Medical Specialist (DVMS), observed the following noncompliance. Areas of rust corrosion with sharp, jagged metal edges were observed on the outside metal panels of the gates for Pens 2 and 3 and the interior metal bar on the gate for Pen 10. The areas in disrepair were pointed out to Mr. REDACTED, Animal Welfare Specialist, who was accompanying Dr. REDACTED during the visit. The alleyway in front of Pens 2 and 3 was not in use and Pen 10 had just been emptied at the time of the observations. Mr. REDACTED contacted maintenance personnel and submitted a work order. Mr. REDACTED, Mr. REDACTED, Operations Manager, and Ms. REDACTED, FSQA Manager, were notified of the noncompliance and the establishment’s failure to comply with the regulatory requirements prescribed in 9 CFR 313.1(a).