Swift Beef Company: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2024 (USDA)

313.2

HATS Category I – Inclement Weather HATS Category III – Water and Feed Availability At approximately 2113 hours, I, the B Shift SPHV, was inspecting an animal in the suspect pen. A red steer was laying down in the pen exhibiting tachypnic [i.e. abnormally rapid] breathing (approximately 60 breaths per minute). I observed that the automatic water tank in the pen was dry and completely empty. I informed the establishment lead employee in the yards and establishment lead scaler of the situation and asked if the water tank was functional. Immediately, another establishment team member stated that the water tank did work, and he knew how to turn it on. I stated to the establishment leads that this warranted noncompliance and would be documented. No regulatory control action was taken as I observed the team member proceeded to the pen and turned the water tank on. The establishment team member provided the steer with a bucket of water, and I observed the steer drink. Cool water was poured on the animal’s back. After approximately 10 minutes, the animal’s breathing visibly slowed, and the steer was able to rise to its feet. The steer proceeded to the water tank and drank more water. I was able to determine the animal was ambulatory and passed for slaughter. I verbally informed the QA Superintendent of the situation when I returned from the yards. The District Management Team was notified of the events. There have been no noncompliance records issued for the same root cause in the past 90 days. This establishment does not currently operate under a robust systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock.

313.1

HATS Category IV: Ante-mortem Inspection HATS Category VII: Slips and Falls At approximately 1715 hours, Wednesday, June 19th, 2024, while performing antemortem inspection from the catwalk of pen 20, I, the SPHV observed the following noncompliance. As I approached pen 20, I observed a cow with its head stuck between the water trough heater associated with pens 18/20 and a horizontal fence pole located directly above the heater. The animal was standing and alert but began to vocalize as it tried to move backwards to free its entrapped head. I observed the animal begin breathing rapidly and flailing its limbs. The animal continued to fight the entrapment and tried multiple times to back out. The animal continued to flail and slipped multiple times onto one or both front knees on the corrugated concrete floor, until its energy was exhausted, and the animal attempted to lay down in a sternal position with its head and neck extended in an unusual, stretched position. The pen employee assisting with antemortem ran into the pen’s office and retrieved a handheld captive bolt (HHCB) device and oil. The Pen Supervisor and Technical Services were alerted and came quickly to the site. The Pen Supervisor took control of the HHCB device and rendered the animal insensible on the first stun attempt. A security stun was applied with the same reloaded HHCB device. The Technical Services technician was verbally notified of the forth coming non-compliance record. The Technical Service Superintendent, Technical Supervisors, Maintenance Supervisor, and Plant Engineer Supervisor arrived a couple minutes later to assess the situation. Per the Technical Services Superintendent and Plant Engineer, a single bar would be added above the water trough to prevent further cattle from sticking their heads through the opening and thereby becoming entrapped. Cattle were withheld from both pens 18 and 20, by the establishment, until the bar was installed. Cattle were allowed back in to pens 18 and 20 at approximately 1940 hours. This non-compliance record is not being associated with any other non-compliances for the same root cause issued in the past 90 days. Notification of the forth coming non-compliance was also communicated with the Denver District management team through contact of supervisory channels. This establishment has implemented a robust systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock.

313.1,313.2

Humane Handling Routine Task: HATS Category IV & VII: Handling During Ante Mortem Inspection and Observation for Slips and Falls At approximately 0515 hours, while observing antemortem, the USDA Food Inspector, observed the following non-compliance when cattle were being moved from pen 22, through the middle alley, into pen 17. A heifer out of Pleasant Valley, lot 121 was entering the middle alley, when one of the gates separating pen 22 from the middle alley began to close and contacted the cow’s left flank. This caused the cow to launch forward. In doing so, the cow slipped under a portion of the closing gate and upon standing up, the force of impact with the spring-loaded gate, the gate pin then punctured the left flank of the cow. The USDA Food Inspector reported that the cow vocalized and struggled to get away from the area of impact. However, was unable to do so as the cow’s hide was impaled and attached to the gate pin. Establishment pen personnel quickly made the decision to humanely euthanize the animal. The cow was effectively stunned at approximately 0520 hours. The carcass was placed in a holding area and antemortem inspection continued. The series of events was reported to the SPHV, at 0530 hours, who went outside to observe the animal carcass. No musculature was punctured; however, there was a noticeable area of where the gate pin punctured the left flank, which extended into the subcutaneous layer of the skin. Additionally, there was an approximately 8-inch incision extending from the puncture site, as the animal had to be cut off the gate pin to be properly removed from the area. This incision was verified to have occurred after the animal was stunned. The spring-loaded gate pin was also checked for any sharpness. Direct inspection of the gate pin elicited a blunt, smooth ended surface, with no sharp protrusions. The Harvest Floor superintendent was verbally notified of the series of events and of the forth coming non-compliance. Immediate corrective actions provided by the establishment included adding a longer chain to the associated gate so that it can be secured when cattle are being moved. The ends of the gate pin were also checked by maintenance personnel. Furthermore, a line meeting is to be held with pen employees to ensure that gates are properly secured prior to the movement of cattle and to move cattle with minimal amounts of excitement. This non-compliance does not have any links associated with same, or similar occurrences over the past 90 days. The Denver District management team was contacted through supervisory channels. This establishment operates under a Robust Systematic Approach to Livestock Humane Handling.

313.1

HATS Category I: Inclement weather HATS Category VII: Slips and Falls I, the B shift SPHV, observed the following noncompliance at approximately 1735 hours on 1/18/24: I was walking to the scale house via the catwalk after performing antemortem inspection. I looked to my right and observed that cattle were coming off of receiving scale 1 into the alley. I observed two cattle lose their footing and fall, with one of the animals falling fully onto its side and becoming laterally recumbent while exiting scale 1. These two cattle got up without apparent injury and continued to the holding pen. I proceeded to the scale house and informed the Production Superintendent of my observations. I inspected the area at the exit of scale 1 where the event occurred. I observed a 2"-5" layer of snow mixed with dirt and feces and a layer of ice under the snow mix where the cattle fell. U. S. Reject tag B-45836244 was applied to scale 1. At approximately 2128 hours, I re-inspected the area. Considerable snow had been removed and the ice melted. I released regulatory control by removing U.S. Reject tag B-45836244. The Denver District Management Team was notified through supervisory channels. There have been no noncompliance records issued for the same root cause in the past 90 days. The establishment currently operates under a systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock, but has not been assessed for Robust status.

313.2

At approximately 0035 hours, I, the B Shift SPHV was observing establishment employees drive an outdoor holding pen of inspected animals to slaughter via the North alley. Most of the animals walked with a minimum of excitement in the proper direction at normal walking speed, but one bovine did not proceed with the group. Instead, this single bovine tried to return to the pen from which it had just come. The establishment employee driving animals yelled at the solo bovine and raised his hands before proceeding to run several strides directly toward the animal causing it in turn to run. I immediately called out for the establishment employee to stop. The employee’s supervisor was nearby and I verbally informed the supervisor of what I had just observed and that I would be documenting a noncompliance for forcing an animal to move faster than normal walking speed. No regulatory control action was taken. There have been no noncompliance records issued for the same root cause in the past 90 days. This establishment currently operates under systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock, but has not been assessed for Robust status.

313.1

On Tuesday, November 14th, 2023, at approximately 1000 hours, while performing a routine Livestock Humane Handling task and verifying HATS category IV (ante-mortem inspection), I, the SPHV, observed the following noncompliance: In a pen with approximately 35 cattle, I observed one bovine fall and two bovines slip. The first animal was moving from the south side to the north side of the pen and tried to stop and both hind feet slid underneath it, leading its rear quarters and belly to contact the ground. The animal recovered its upright position without apparent injury. In approximately one minute, two more cattle slipped. Each of these slips was characterized by the metacarpus contacting the ground. The waffled concrete footing was covered by excess slurry manure. I notified the lead in the yards of the forthcoming noncompliance for not meeting the regulatory requirements of 9 CFR 313.1(b). There have been no noncompliance records issued for the same root cause in the past 90 days.