HK Cooperative, Inc.: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2025 (USDA)

313.2

HATS Category VI: Electric Prod/Alternative Object Use On September 24, 2025, at approximately 1400 hours, while performing Livestock Humane Handling Verification Task (HATS) verifying HATS Category VI- Electric Prod/Alternative Object Use, I, SPHV REDACTED, observed the following non-compliance: While observing the hogs in the chute leading to the restrainer from the rail on the platform beside the tattoo employer, the bleeding chain stopped moving causing the hogs in the chute to stop moving. As the line began to move again, an establishment employee was observed using the electric prod on the first hog and then immediately using a raddle paddle on the second hog. The first hog jumped forward putting his shoulders into the front of the restrainer. Immediately following, the electric prod was used on the third and fourth hog in quick succession without allowing time for the second hog to move out of the way, preventing any space for the third and fourth hog to move forward and away from the electric prod. The establishment employee then used a raddle paddle on the fifth hog, while the previous hogs were still in front, stopped, and in the way. At the time of the third, fourth and fifth hogs being prodded and paddled, each hog had at least one hog in front of them and several hogs behind them, preventing the hogs from moving forward, backwards or sideways due to the walls of the chute and other hog(s) in the way. The fourth hog was observed attempting to move forward, despite several hogs in front of it, when it was prodded with the electric prod. The electric prod was applied to the hips, thighs or back on each hog. Several hogs squealed when prodded before attempting to jump forward where they were stopped by other hogs in the way. All hogs were observed moving forward on their own and into the restraint without additional prompting once the hogs had room and all hogs in front had moved. I verbally discussed the electric prod use on hogs that had nowhere to move due to the stopped hogs in front and the line of hogs behind with Harvest Superintendent REDACTED and Barn Supervisor REDACTED. The establishment failed to comply with the regulatory requirements prescribed in 9 CFR 313.2(b). This document serves as notification that continued failure to meet regulatory requirements could lead to further regulatory or administrative action.

313.1

HATS Category IV: Ante-Mortem Inspection On August 2, 2025, at approximately 0520 hours, while performing Livestock Humane Handling Verification Task (HATS) verifying HATS Category IV- Ante-mortem inspection, I, SPHV REDACTED, observed the following non-compliance: While performing ante-mortem inspection at pen 1, I observed all the hogs lying down at rest before Barn Manager REDACTED used a raddle can to encourage the hogs into motion. All of the hogs were calm and unstressed. Upon shaking the raddle can, we observed a hog that had been lying on its side along the southwest wall of the pen attempting to get up but was unable to do so due to its head being stuck under the wooden fence beam. The hog squealed and attempted to stand before lying back down in sternal recumbency. Manager REDACTED immediately attempted to help the hog maneuver its head from under the wooden beam. He attempted to raise the beam using a metal pole to allow room for the hog to remove its head. Due to the angle caused by the hog lying sternally, the hog was not able to free itself; therefore, Manager REDACTED ran to retrieve several tools, including a wrench, to remove the bolt that secured the wooden beam to the post. The bolt was loosened, and the beam was removed, allowing the hog to be released. Once released, the hog immediately stood up, shook its head, and walked off in a normal and relatively calm manner. No marks, cuts, or redness were observed on the side of the hog’s neck/head. Manager REDACTED replaced the board and had an employee watch the pen to prevent further accidents until the pen was emptied and the hogs could be removed from Pen 1. The hogs were removed by 6am, and US Rejected tag number B-46512066 was placed on the gate of Pen 1. I further discussed the situation with Barn Manager REDACTED. The establishment failed to comply with the regulatory requirements prescribed in 9 CFR 313.1(a). This document serves as notification that continued failure to meet regulatory requirements could lead to further regulatory or administrative action.

313.2

HATS Category VI: Electric Prod/Alternative Object Use On June 6, 2025, at approximately 1130 hours, while performing Livestock Humane Handling Verification Task (HATS) verifying HATS Category VI- Electric Prod/Alternative Object Use, I, SPHV REDACTED, observed the following non-compliance: While performing humane handling observation from above the single file chute in the tattoo area, I observed two market hogs enter the chute from the squeeze pen. Immediately upon entering, the hogs stopped. An establishment employee proceeded to use an electric prod on both hogs sequentially placing the electric prod once on the mid-to-lower back of each hog without attempting to move the hogs first using other instruments such as a raddle paddle or raddle can. The hogs squealed moved forward before stopping again and trying to back out of the chute. The electric prod was placed on the hogs again on the midback to upper ham area, one prodded then the other, before the hogs fully backed out of the chute. The employee with the electric prod then moved to the squeeze pen area, which is not visible from my location. I then observed several hogs try to rush into the chute, climbing over each other and squealing. Once in the chute, the employee came back into view and proceeded to use the electric prod on approximately 5-6 hogs in a row, placing the electric prod on the hog’s mid-to- lower back once before moving to the next hog, repeating the action to move the hogs forward and into the restrainer. A couple of the hogs were prodded twice, once as they entered the chute and then again at the beginning of the restrainer to force the hog into the restrainer. I went to find a supervisor and asked a QC Tech to radio for one while I looked. I was able to locate Kill Floor Supervisor REDACTED on the kill floor, and he came to observe the electric prod use at that time with me from the same location, above the chute in the tattoo area. Standing on the metal walkway, we observed the employee occasionally using the raddle paddle to touch a hog once when the hog would slow or stop moving forward before immediately using the electric prod. Several times, only the electric prod was used to move the hogs without attempting to move the hogs by another means or instrument such as a raddle can or raddle paddle. Supervisor REDACTED said he would go address the situation with the employee. Between the time that Supervisor REDACTED left the tattoo area walkway, and I noticed him in the chute area, I observed the same establishment employee use the electric prod on four hogs in a line when the animals stopped due to the front hog stopping. Each hog was then prodded once on the back in sequential order without allowing time for the animal in front of it to respond to the electric prod and start moving. The establishment employee then touched the fifth hog with the rattle paddle once before immediately using the electric prod again. I allowed for Supervisor REDACTED to address the issue, and for a short period of time, the raddle paddles were used more, but often I observed the raddle paddles being used as a single touch before the electric prod was then immediately applied. Shortly after Supervisor REDACTED had entered the chute area, Quality Control Supervisor REDACTED arrived in the tattoo area walkway. As I was explaining to her what I was observing, I watched three more hogs enter the chute, and the establishment employee used the electric prod on the hogs’ lower back and ham sequentially without the use of the rattle paddle when the hogs slowed/stopped due to the front hog stopping. The second hog was already starting to move when the electric prod was applied. I asked QC Supervisor REDACTED if she had seen that, and she affirmed that she had. I informed her that I was going down to address the issue and left the tattoo area to go to the chute area. Upon arriving in the chute area, I took regulatory control and stopped the movement of hogs into the chute. I discussed the excessive use of the electric prod with Supervisor REDACTED and then with Kill Floor Superintendent REDACTED before placing U.S. Rejected tag number B46512051 on the squeeze pen gate. I discussed the excessive use of the electric prod including sequentially prodding hogs in a row, the lack of other instruments used, and that when I did observe the raddle paddle being used, it was often a single tap before the electric prod was applied immediately after. I noted to both supervisors that I observed the electric prod being applied to hogs that were behind a stopped hog, requiring the prodded hog to jump on top of the front hog to get away. I also stated that of the hogs I watched, it appeared that the vast majority of the hogs that entered the chute were prodded with the electric prod. I also briefly discussed the situation with President REDACTED and Quality Control Director REDACTED. QC Director REDACTED stated that the immediate corrective actions would consist of placing Barn Lead REDACTED to monitor the humane handling for the rest of the day. If Lead REDACTED was unable to monitor the chute, then another member of management would be present for monitoring. QC Director REDACTED stated that employees would also get further training and the establishment would investigate the situation further before completing corrective actions. I removed the regulatory control tag, and the establishment started moving hogs through the chute again. The establishment failed to comply with the regulatory requirements prescribed in 9 CFR 313.2(a) and 313.2(b). This document serves as notification that continued failure to meet regulatory requirements could lead to further regulatory or administrative action.

313.15(a)(1)

HATS Category II – Truck Unloading HATS Category VIII – Stunning Effectiveness On May 5, 2025, at approximately 0855 hours, while in the barn, I, CSI REDACTED, made the following observations. I was verifying truck unloading as part of livestock humane handling task when Barn Supervisor Mr. REDACTED informed me that there was a hog on the trailer that the establishment was going to euthanize with a captive bolt gun. Mr. REDACTED and Barn Lead Mr. REDACTED entered the trailer with two captive bolt guns, several extra charges, and other equipment. I stood on the loading dock looking into the trailer. The hog was at the front of the trailer closest to the truck on the passenger side lying down against the wall of the trailer with its nose facing the front of the trailer. Mr. REDACTED used a sort board to restrain the hog. I could not see exactly where Mr. REDACTED was placing the captive bolt gun on the head due to the distance between, he and I. It was on the head of the animal but exact location was not seen. Right as Mr. REDACTED discharged the captive bolt gun, the hog moved. The stunning attempt failed to render the animal insensible to pain. The hog remained conscious and immediately vocalized and tried to get up and get away, rising onto its two front feet. Mr. REDACTED kept the hog restrained to the best of his ability. The animal was still able to move its head. Mr. REDACTED used the pre-loaded backup captive bolt gun to administer a second stunning attempt, which rendered the animal insensible. Mr. REDACTED then stuck the hog, and it bled out without any further issue. After consultation with my supervisor, I informed Mr. REDACTED that he would be receiving a noncompliance record. The establishment failed to meet the regulatory requirements prescribed in 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1).

313.1,313.15(a)(1),313.15(a)(3)

HATS Category II – Truck Unloading HATS Category VIII – Stunning Effectiveness HATS Category IX – Conscious Animals on the Rail On April 22, 2025, at approximately 1600 hours, while performing a livestock humane handling task verifying HATS Category II – Truck Unloading, I, SPHV REDACTED, observed the following non-compliance. Against the right side of a semi-trailer and unloading dock, I observed a market hog lying parallel to the trailer wall. Upon closer inspection, I noticed that the trailer on the right side was not flush to the building, creating an approximate 2-inch gap where the hog’s right foot and leg had fallen into. Since the last hog had been unloaded from the truck, Mr. REDACTED, Barn Lead, went to the barn office and retrieved the captive bolt gun to stun the entrapped hog. He then placed the captive bolt gun on the hog’s forehead and discharged it. The hog showed normal reactions consistent with an insensible hog. The barn lead returned the captive bolt gun to the office and grabbed a chain to move the hog. The chain was attached to the hog’s front left foot, and the barn lead attempted to move the hog. When the hog did not move, the chain was handed to a second barn employee to pull, and the barn lead used his hands to lift on the hog’s rear left leg to maneuver the hog out of the gap and onto the unloading dock. The hog was pulled approximately 6 feet away from the trailer onto the dock. The barn lead then retrieved the cradle sled and moved to position the sled against the back of the hog. At this point, the barn lead commented that the hog was still breathing and went back to the barn office to retrieve the captive bolt gun. As the barn lead was returning, the hog regained consciousness and righted itself from a lateral position into sternal recumbency. The barn lead placed the captive bolt gun against the hog’s forehead and discharged the device. The hog remained conscious in sternal recumbency and was looking around and tracking movement with its eyes. The barn lead then went back to the office to retrieve another charge for the captive bolt gun. During that time, the hog proceeded to stand onto all four feet, and as the barn lead returned and placed the captive bolt gun against the hog’s forehead, the hog squealed and moved away from the barn lead approximately a foot and a half. The barn lead then repositioned himself on the opposite side of the hog. The hog took a few more steps away before the barn lead was able to place the captive bolt gun and discharge it. The hog immediately collapsed and exhibited normal reactions of an insensible hog. The hog was left under observation until all normal reflexive motion had stopped. The hog was then placed in the cradle sled and moved off the dock and into the small, enclosed area behind a gate. At this time, U.S. Reject Tag number B-46512040 was placed across the single file chute entering the stunning area. The barn lead was notified of the noncompliance. After discussing my observations with supervisory and district office personnel, I went to examine the hog before leaving the barn area. The hog was still in the cradle sled on its back, but, upon observation, was rhythmically breathing. No other actions or movements were observed at that time. I notified the barn lead of my observations and requested that they apply a security stun to ensure that the animal remained insensible. Upon the barn lead placing the captive bolt gun against the left side of the hog’s head behind the ear, the hog regained consciousness and pulled away from the captive bolt gun and then squealed as the barn lead discharged the captive bolt gun. The barn lead again placed the captive bolt gun behind the left ear in the same position and discharged the device. The hog was rendered insensible at that time. Once the reflexive kicking had ceased, the barn lead applied a security stun with the captive bolt gun behind the right ear. Upon examination of the hog’s head, there were three wounds in the forehead, two behind the left ear, and one behind the right ear. Two of the wounds on the forehead were on midline at the level of the eyebrow, almost directly on top of each other. The third wound on the forehead was just to the left of midline, approximately at the same level as the other two forehead shots. Two wounds were observed behind the base of the left ear, one slightly lower than the other. One wound was observed behind the base of the right ear. The establishment failed to comply with the regulatory requirements prescribed in 9 CFR 313.1(a), 313.15(a)(1), and 313.15(a)(3). The Chicago District Office was contacted, and a Notice of Suspension (NOS) was issued for the egregious event.

313.2

On October 2, 2024, at approximately 0515, while conducting ante-mortem inspection I, CSI REDACTED, made the following observations. I began inspection in the alphabet pens working from north to south. Once I reached the south end of the alphabet pens, I crossed over to the main aisle and began working north in the main aisle. I observed a gate across the aisle when I reached the gate, I observed a single hog in the aisle blocked in by 2 gates. The hog did not have access to water. I spoke with barn supervisor Mr. REDACTED. Mr. REDACTED moved the hog into a pen with a water trough. Mr. REDACTED stated he would check with the 2nd shift to see what happened before he can give corrective actions. This is a failure of 9 CFR 313.2(e) and is the reason for this Noncompliance Record.