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

313.2

On 8/15/2024 while walking to the establishment’s barn office to do the 9:00 am antemortem, I noticed a barn employee sorting market hogs with the help of a trucker. He was opening and closing a gate letting select market hogs onto the scale. The following noncompliance with Category II – Truck Unloading was observed. As I watched, he closed the gate on a market hog catching it at the hips. The gate was forced hard enough that it pushed into the paralumbar fossa of the market hog penning it against the gate latch post keeping it from moving forward. The gate opening had to be widened to release the market hog. Since I was in the office looking through the windows I could not determine if the market hog was vocalizing. I immediately went to Supervisor REDACTEDs office and informed him of what happened. He was able to see the incident on video. Mr. REDACTED told me the employee was trying to stop the market hog behind the one caught in the gate. After antemortem I informed Supervisor REDACTED that there would be a noncompliance report written, he said he would inform Mr. REDACTED The establishment was not in compliance with 9CFR 313.2(a).

313.15(a)(1)

on June 14th, 2024, at approximately 22:04 Hrs. while performing Humane Handling HATS 8 Verification Task VIII. “Stunning Effectiveness”: I witnessed in Pens 16-20 -Row 4, the following non-compliance: I witnessed a Lateral Recumbency Market Hog being stunned 4 times. The 4th stun being a security knock. As I’m walking through the middle driveway of the barn, I turned to look at pen 16-20 Row 4 and I observed a hog laying on its side next to the wall, in an empty pen. It appeared to be moribund and had some discoloration throughout its body (specifically on the side it was laying on). I notified Livestock supervisor REDACTED of my findings and he proceeded to take action. While attempting the first stun, Livestock Supervisor had 2 captive bolt guns with him, and his employee had a sorting board with him for restraint. The employee then proceeded to stand next to the hog and use his sorting board for restriction. The supervisor approached the hog from its’ back side and used his captive bolt gun to stun the hog on its forehead. However, it failed to render the animal insensible to pain. The hog is now standing -still conscious- moving in such a way as to “brush them off” of him. The Hog managed to take a few steps and walk away from them. A second stun is now being attempted. They walk towards the hog. Again, the hog is still standing. One of them uses the sorting board for restraint, while the other attempts to stun the hog on its forehead. He stuns the hog but fails again. The hog is still standing on all 4 legs, conscious, in distress, moving in a way as to “brush them off” of him. It is at this moment that a third stun is being attempted. He stuns the hog from the back of its left ear and the Hog immediately drops on the floor, spasms for a few moments, and then stops. The third stun appeared to be effective as it rendered the animal insensible to pain and it produced immediate unconsciousness. A fourth stun was performed shortly after as a security knock. I then proceeded to approach the scene to further assess the situation. I decided to take a closer look at the hog, precisely looking for the captive bolt gun holes. The 1st knocking hole was right at the center of the forehead. It seemed to have gone through effectively as there was a hole in its skull. The 2nd knocking hole was right next to the first one. However, the skull was not penetrated at all, only the skin had been managed to be penetrated. The second stun did not go through effectively. The 3rd hole was on the back of its’ left ear as well as the 4th hole. These 2 stuns seemed to be effectively performed, the skin and skull were penetrated. I requested for someone to call their Kill Floor Superintendent Assistant REDACTED. He was explained of the situation and him - as well as their Livestock Supervisor - were notified that a Non-compliance would be issued. In an attempt to secure these captive bolt guns, I proceeded to place a U.S. REJECT TAGS on both captive bolt guns (Tag NO. B36565791 and NO. B36565796). Both captive bolt guns were tested and given maintenance. Both U.S. REJECT TAGS were removed once corrective actions were provided by the establishment. That the Establishment’s stunning methods are not being appropriately and effectively administered in producing immediate unconsciousness in the animal indicate Non-Compliance with 9 CFR 313.15 (a) (1). 9CFR 313.15 Mechanical; captive bolt: The slaughtering of sheep, swine, goats, calves, cattle, horses, mules, and other equines by using captive bolt stunners and the handling in connection therewith, in compliance with the provisions contained in this section, are hereby designated and approved as humane methods of slaughtering and handling of such animals under the act. (a) Application of stunners, required effect; handling. (1) The captive bolt stunners shall be applied to the livestock in accordance with this section so as to produce immediate unconsciousness in the animals before they are shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. The animals shall be stunned in such a manner that they will be rendered unconscious with a minimum of excitement and discomfort.

313.2

On January 22nd, 2024, at approximately 2226 hrs. while I, CSI REDACTED, was conducting a Livestock Humane Handling Verification Task on HATS Category IV in the barn, I observed the following regulatory noncompliance: Market hogs from pen 31/35 were driven to the main entrance of the REDACTED alleyway and suddenly stopped moving forward. This resulted in hogs piling up on top of each other. I observed an inappropriate use of the paddle stick by the establishment employee, as I noticed the employee striking one hog 3 times and then another hog 2 times with excessive force, raising his hand over his shoulder, in the attempt to un-pile the hogs and driving them forward. I immediately told the employee to stop and proceeded to take a regulatory control action by placing U.S. Rejected tags #B36565722 and #B36565686 on both alleyways to the REDACTED, stopping further slaughter operations. In addition, I requested IIC Dr. REDACTED on-site. Establishment Plant Manager REDACTED and Kill Floor Supervisor REDACTED removed the employee and re-trained him as an immediate corrective action. At approximate 2250 hrs. I removed the U.S Rejected tags and the line in the barn resumed operations. Kill Floor Superintendent REDACTED and B Shift Plant Manager Superintendent REDACTED were immediately orally notified of the noncompliance. The establishment failed to comply with the regulatory requirements prescribed in 9 CFR 313.2(a) and 313.2(b).

313.1

HATS category IV: Ante-mortem Inspection While performing the Livestock Humane Handling task at JBS Swift (M995) Louisville, KY, Supervisory Veterinary Medical Officer (SVMO) REDACTED, DVM made the following observations at approximately 0940 hrs. EST in the holding pens of the establishment: In pen 27, multiple galvanized metal pipes were found in disrepair; near one water trough was found two approximately 1 1⁄2 inch rusted off pipes with jagged, sharp edges exposed with the potential for animal injury; near a second water trough was found another rusted off pipe with exposed jagged, sharp edges; on the wall opposite the water troughs, another rusted out pipe was observed with exposed jagged, sharp edges with the potential for animal injury. Additionally, pen 26 was found with a similar galvanized metal pipe, rusted out with exposed jagged, sharp edges. U.S. Rejected tag #B45710204 was placed upon pen 27. Barn Supervisor REDACTED was notified of the above observations, regulatory control action, and forthcoming documentation of non-compliance with 9 CFR 313.1(a). At approximately 1100 hrs. EST, following the establishment’s corrective actions, pen 27 was again inspected by Dr. REDACTED. Sharp edges were still found to be present on the galvanized pipes in question. Following additional corrective actions by the establishment, the pen was found satisfactory, and the regulatory control action removed.

313.2

On 10/04/2023 at approximately 1920 hours while performing HATS Category V – Suspect and Disabled with Mr. REDACTED, Stun Tech in pen A, I noticed several animals slipping as they were coming down the sloped alley from unloading dock 3 towards the northeast corner outside of pen A. The employee was behind them tapping the flooring with his rattle paddle. I asked Mr. REDACTED to call for Mr. REDACTED, Livestock Supervisor. I informed Mr. REDACTED of my observations and showed him the area where the animals slipped. Mr. REDACTED determined the feces buildup in between the grooves of the flooring attributed to the animals slipping. Mr. REDACTED had the area hosed down. As Mr. REDACTED and I left pen A on our way to pen B we had to wait for hogs to be moved from the northwest alley of dock 1 to scale A before we could cross over. While waiting I looked to my right towards scale B and observed two animals slip as an employee was tapping his rattle paddle on the flooring to move the hogs on to the scale. As I turned back towards the alley before scale A, I noticed a hog fall as it moved away from the scale. The employee moving that group of hogs to scale A used his rattle paddle to tap the flooring behind the hogs eventually moving the group on to the scale. I informed Mr. REDACTED who was right next to me I had just observed 2 animals slip moments before at scale B and one fall near scale A. Heavy feces buildup was observed in both areas. Mr. REDACTED had both areas hosed. At approximately 2100 hours I returned to the northwest alley of dock 1 to perform HATS Category – VII Slips and Falls. I observed an employee moving hogs from unloading dock 1 towards scale A by tapping his rattle paddle on the flooring and vocal commands. I observed 1 animal fall, 2 slip and 1 lose footing in the northwest alley before scale A. I observed excessive feces in the grooves of the flooring. I asked Mr. REDACTED to radio for Mr. REDACTED. I informed Mr. REDACTED that excessive feces on the flooring caused 1 animal to fall, 2 slip, and 1 lose footing due to inadequate footing and informed him a noncompliance record would be issued and requested an immediate corrective action. Mr. REDACTED had the alley hosed down. MOI HEM4414092227G dated 09/27/2023 documented slips and falls in the same areas as described in this NR.