JBS Green Bay, Inc.: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2025 (USDA)

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

On Wednesday July 16, 2025, at approximately 12:35pm, while performing the HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness task the following noncompliance was observed: Inspection program personal (IPP) observed a stunning operator using a pre-loaded, handheld captive bolt device (HHCB) to stun a steer (orange ear tag 37 11-20-23 7348). The steer entered the chute after the animal in front was discharged. The steer was held at the sides by the restrainer with the head and neck freely moving. The stunning operator followed the movement of the steer’s head, waiting for the animal to be still, then placed the HHCB on the animal’s forehead and discharged it. As the operator discharged the HHCB the animal moved its head again. After the first stunning attempt, the steer remained conscious, tracking the movement of the establishment employees, moving its head away from the employee, and blinking. A different employee waited for the steer to stop moving and made a second stunning attempt with a second pre-loaded HHCB. After the second attempt the steer was rendered unconscious, head and neck were observed falling to the side. IPP took regulatory control action by applying U.S. Reject tag number B-37 033056 to the restrainer. IPP informed Establishment Restrainer Supervisor, REDACTED and Operations Superintendent, REDACTED of their observations and the forthcoming noncompliance record. It was verified that there were two stunning holes in the animal’s head, one more centrally located and one more to the left. The hole to the left angled up penetrated the left frontal sinus and then out the back of the head, missing the brain cavity, and the central hole penetrated the brain cavity. The establishment failed to produce immediate unconsciousness after the initial stunning attempt on the steer. This fails to meet the regulatory requirement in 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1). Further, the design and construction of the stunning area did not sufficiently limit the free movement of the steer’s head to allow the operator to locate the stunning blow with a high degree of accuracy, failing to comply with the regulatory requirements in 9 CFR 313.15(b)(1)(iii). This noncompliance is associated with NR QSM1716074110N issued on July 10, 2025, for a similar noncompliance with stunning. Previous preventive measures have been shown to be ineffective, and as such the Des Moines District Office was contacted, and regulatory control actions remained in place.

313.15(a)(1),313.15(b)(2)(i)

On Tuesday July 15th at approximately 1:33pm, while performing the HATS Category VIII task at the restrainer, IPP observed a stunning operator using the pneumatic captive bolt device attempting to stun a bull. The animal entered the chute placing its head on top of the rump of the animal in front of it. The stunning operator positioned the pneumatic captive bolt device on the bull’s forehead and discharged the pneumatic captive bolt device. Upon discharge, the bull’s head was forced down quickly and then came back up, the gun also recoiled off the animal’s head. The bull was conscious, maintained the posture of his neck and head in a controlled manner and blinked. A second stunning attempt with a second pre-loaded handheld captive bolt device was immediately performed by the same establishment employee, and the bull was rendered unconscious, losing control of its head and neck with the head flopping to the side. IPP took regulatory control action by applying U.S. Reject tag number B-46 538494 to the restrainer. IPP informed Establishment Operations Manager REDACTED and Plant Manager REDACTED of their observations and the forthcoming noncompliance record. It was verified that there was one stunning hole in the animal’s head that penetrated the brain cavity, and one larger area of skull fracture associated with the left frontal sinus had no penetration of the brain cavity. The establishment failed to render the bull insensible with a single stunning blow, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) as well as 9 CFR 313.15(b)(2)i. Establishment provided verbal preventative measures to bring themselves back into compliance and the regulatory control action was lifted at approximately 3pm.

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

On July 10th at approximately 8:22 am, while performing the HATS Category VIII task, IPP observed a stunning operator using the pre-loaded handheld captive bolt device attempt to stun a steer. The animal entered the chute and the animals head was down between the belly conveyor and the restrainers left wing. The stunning operator leaned over the edge of the restrainer and placed the handheld device on the steer’s head, the handheld stunner was then discharged while making contact with the animal’s forehead. Following the stunning attempt, the steer was still conscious, quickly moving its head back up from between the belly conveyor and the wing, blinking his eyes and moving its ears in way that showed it to be aware of its environment. A second stun attempt with a pre-loaded handheld captive bolt device was immediately performed by an establishment employee, and the steer was rendered unconscious. IPP took regulatory control action by applying U.S. Reject tag number B-46 036019 to the restrainer. IPP informed Establishment Restrainer Supervisor REDACTED and Technical Services Director REDACTED of her observations and the forthcoming noncompliance record. The head was then skinned and split by the establishment. There were two stun holes, one centrally located that was associated with an angled trajectory into the left sinus and one off slightly to the right at penetrated the brain cavity. At approximately 8:35 am, after corrective actions were given, the US Reject tag was removed from the restrainer, allowing operations to resume. The establishment failed to render the steer insensible with a single stunning blow, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1). Further, the design and construction of the stunning area did not sufficiently limit the free movement of the steer’s head in order to allow the operator to locate the stunning blow with a high degree of accuracy, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(b)(1)(iii). This noncompliance is associated with NR QSM5812063617 written on June 16, 2025, for a similar noncompliance.

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

On Monday July 10th at approximately 12:44pm, while performing the HATS Category VIII task, IPP observed a stunning operator using the pre-loaded handheld captive bolt device attempting to stun a steer (yellow ear tag 43). The animal entered the chute quickly and was held at the sides by the restrainer with the head and neck free. The stunning operator followed the movement of the steer's head waiting for the animal to be still, then discharged the handheld captive bolt device while contacting the animal’s forehead. Upon discharge, the captive bolt remained stuck in the animal’s skull with the establishment employee still grasping the handheld captive bolt device. The steer was conscious, moving its head quickly around in a controlled manner up, followed by down and to the right, and then up to the left, pulling the device out of its head. A second stunning attempt with a second pre-loaded handheld captive bolt device was immediately performed by an establishment employee, once the device was dislodged, and the steer was rendered unconscious. IPP took regulatory control action by applying U.S. Reject tag number B-46 036006 to the restrainer. IPP informed Establishment Restrainer Supervisor REDACTED and Technical Services Director REDACTED of their observations and the forthcoming noncompliance record. It was verified that there were two stunning holes in the animal’s head, one more centrally located and one more to the right. The hole to the right penetrated the right frontal sinus and the central hole penetrated the brain cavity. The establishment failed to render the steer insensible with a single stunning blow, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1). Further, the design and construction of the stunning area did not sufficiently limit the free movement of the steer’s head in order to allow the operator to locate the stunning blow with a high degree of accuracy, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(b)(1)(iii). This noncompliance is associated with NR QSM1716074110N written earlier the same day, for a similar noncompliance with stunning. Previous preventive measures have been shown to be ineffective, and as such the Des Moines District Office was contacted, and regulatory control actions remained in place.

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

On June 16th at approximately 11:48 am, while performing the HATS Category VIII task, CSI REDACTED observed a stunning operator using the pre-loaded handheld captive bolt device attempt to stun a steer. The animal entered the chute, and the stunning operator followed the steer’s head with the handheld stunner, attempting to place the stunner in the kill zone area on the steer’s forehead. The handheld stunner was then discharged while making contact with the animal’s forehead. Following the stunning attempt, the steer was still conscious, moving its head slightly up and to the side in a controlled manner, away from the stunner. A second stun attempt with a pre-loaded handheld captive bolt device was immediately performed by an establishment employee, and the steer was rendered unconscious. CSI REDACTED took regulatory control action by applying U.S. Reject tag number B-46 036005 to the restrainer. CSI REDACTED informed Establishment Operations Manager REDACTED, REDACTED, Technical Services Director REDACTED, and Harvest supervisor REDACTED of her observations and the forthcoming noncompliance record. The head was then skinned and split by the establishment. PHV Dr. REDACTED observed the wounds. One hole initiated 2 cm rostral to the pole at a 30 degree angle caudal. This wound made contact with the frontal sinus and did not penetrate the brain cavity or brain. The second wound was 6 cm rostral to the pole and at a 90 degree angle to the head. This wound penetrated the brain cavity and brain. Technical Services Director REDACTED provided acceptable preventive measures to Dr. REDACTED, and at approximately 12:53 pm, the US Reject tag was removed from the restrainer, allowing operations to resume. The establishment failed to render the steer insensible with a single stunning blow, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1). Further, the design and construction of the stunning area did not sufficiently limit the free movement of the steer’s head in order to allow the operator to locate the stunning blow with a high degree of accuracy, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(b)(1)(iii). This noncompliance is associated with NR QSM1214042116 written on April 16, 2025, for a similar noncompliance.

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

On Monday May 19th at approximately 7:00am, while performing the HATS Category IV antemortem task, CSI REDACTED observed the following noncompliance associated with HATS category VIII, stunning effectiveness. CSI REDACTED observed a Red Angus cow slowly rise and walk from pen 17 to pen 19. The other animals in the group were moved out of the pen, but this cow laid down. The establishment employee moving the animals left to get a hand-held stunning device. As the employee left, the cow again got up. When the employee returned the cow was standing but appeared shaky. It walked into a corner and laid back down. The establishment employee placed the hand-held stunning device on the animal’s forehead and discharged it. The cow jumped up and ran toward the other side of the pen. The animal was fully alert and then walked more calmly toward the pen gate and had blood coming out of both nostrils. The barn supervisor arrived at the area and moved the animal out of the pen and down the alley to an area where the cow could be secured between two gates. The cow was stunned a second time with a hand-held stunning device secured between two gates. The animal immediately fell to the floor and appeared unconscious after the stunning device was discharged. The barn supervisor then reloaded and performed a 3rd security stun with the same hand-held stunning device again on the forehead and then reloaded and performed a 4th security stun behind the pole. The establishment failed to render the cow insensible with a single stunning blow, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) and failed to properly restrain the cow which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(b)(1)(iii). CSI REDACTED took regulatory control action by applying U.S. Reject tag number B-46 036009 to the crowd pen leading to the chute and the restrainer. CSI REDACTED informed Barn Supervisor REDACTED of his observations and the forthcoming noncompliance record. It was verified that there were three stunning holes in the animal’s forehead, all located central along the midline. The hole behind the pole was not examined as only the forehead was skinned. The two more caudal holes, one slightly overlapping and above the other, were one inch distal from the base of the pole and 4 inches from a line drawn between the left and right medial canthi bisecting midline. The third stun hole was 1.5 inches more rostral than the other grouping of 2 holes and 2.5 inches from the line drawn between the left and right medial canthi bisecting midline. The establishment did not split the head to observe the trajectory of the penetrating bolt within the skull. CSI REDACTED then notified the District office through the chain of command.

313.50

Directed to close by supervisor

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

On April 16th at approximately 1:40 pm, while performing the HATS Category VIII task, CSI REDACTED observed a stunning operator using the pneumatic stunner captive bolt device attempt to stun a steer. The animal entered the chute, and the pneumatic stunner was discharged while making contact with the animal’s forehead. Following the stunning attempt, the steer was still conscious, moving its head up and to the side in a controlled manner, away from the stunner. A second stun attempt with a pre-loaded handheld captive bolt device was immediately performed by an establishment employee and the steer was rendered unconscious. The establishment failed to render the steer insensible with a single stunning blow, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1). Further, the design and construction of the stunning area did not sufficiently limit the free movement of the steer’s head in order to allow the operator to locate the stunning blow with a high degree of accuracy, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.15(b)(1)(iii). CSI REDACTED took regulatory control action by applying U.S. Reject tag number B-46 036234, to the restrainer. It was verified that there were 2 stun holes in the animal’s head, both centrally located one above the other 7.5 in and 8 in from the right medial canthus. The hole on top (more dorsal) entered the frontal sinus and did not enter the brain cavity. The rostral hole did penetrate the brain cavity. After Technical Services Director REDACTED provided preventive measures, the US Reject tag was removed from the restrainer and operations were allowed to resume. CSI REDACTED informed Establishment Operations Manager REDACTED of his observations and the forthcoming noncompliance record.

313.1

On March 27, 2025, at approximately 10:37 am, while performing HATS IV-Handling During Ante Mortem Inspection, CSI REDACTED SCSI REDACTED and the establishment barn supervisor REDACTED observed a beef steer with his head stuck between the bars of pen 43. The steer was pulling its head back aggressively and appeared to be getting tired from exertion. The animal ended up laying down but still had its head stuck in the bars and was starting to have difficulty breathing as the bar was putting pressure on its ventral neck. Attempts were made by the establishment to remove the animal’s head by manipulating the steer which were unsuccessful. Then the establishment utilized a hydraulic jack about a 2 ft away from where the steer was stuck to separate the pen bars further, giving the animal enough space to remove its head. Afterwards the steer was seen walking normally with no identifiable injuries. The establishment failed to maintain the pen walls in pen 43, which represents noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.1(a). The Barn supervisor, REDACTED, was notified of the pending non-compliance. CSI REDACTED took a regulatory control action and placed US Rejected tag B45 965032 on Pen 43, which remained in place until the spacing of the bars was improved so that an animal’s head could not get wedged between them. Around noon, SCSI REDACTED observed pen 43. As a preventative measure the establishment removed one of the bent bars in the pen, so space was wide enough to keep cattle from getting theirs heads stuck between the bars. The rejected tag was removed.

313.1

At approximately 7:05am while performing ante-mortem inspection, HATS task IV and water/feed availability HATS task III, CSI REDACTED noticed a water trough between pen 16 & pen 17 had no water in it. Cattle were in pen 16 and were about to be moved for ante-mortem inspection with plant barn associate present moving cattle so we moved them to a different pen with water available, pen 30. When the cattle were moved they appeared healthy and didn't go for the water. A verbal regulatory action was taken and Ante-mortem was paused. Company Food Safety inspector REDACTED was in the barn at the time so he was notified and contacted maintenance to address this issue. It was noticed that the water valve had been turned off. After water was back on and the water trough was in compliance ante-mortem inspection resumed. Supervisor REDACTED was notified of the Noncompliance.

313.15(a)(2),313.2

At approximately 8:17 am CSI REDACTED was performing HATS VIII – Stunning Effectiveness, when he observed a noncompliance with HATS VII-Slips and Falls and HATS VI-Electric Prod and Implement use. He observed a Holstein steer pushed out of the restrainer on the belly conveyor without any stunning attempts. The animal fell onto the moving belt below, landing on its chest. The steer fall was a distance of about three feet. The animal was not shackled and was moved by the belt to the end where it fell another two feet to the concrete floor. The steer then got up and was moved back into the barn. The animal never vocalized, and afterward it moved with a normal gait, and did not have any visible injuries. REDACTED, Food Safety Superintendent, was informed of the noncompliance with 313.15a(2) as well as 313.2a.

313.15(a)(1)

On November 11th at 12:05 pm, while performing the HATS Category VIII task, CSI REDACTED observed a stunning operator using the pneumatic stunner captive bolt device attempt to stun a dairy cow. The dairy cow moved its head at the last moment and the pneumatic stunner fired but the dairy cow was still conscious, moving its head up and side to side in a controlled manner. A second stun attempt with a pre-loaded handheld captive bolt device was immediately performed by another establishment employee and the dairy cow was rendered unconscious. CSI REDACTED took regulatory control action by applying U.S. Reject tag number B-46 036283, to the restrainer. It was verified that there were 2 stun holes in the cow’s head, one more centrally located 0.5 inches left of center and one more off to the left 2 inches from the center and 6 inches from the left medial canthus. The hole more to the left entered the frontal sinus and an exit wound was seen in the muscle on the side of the skull 2 inches dorsal to the left temporal mandibular joint and caudal to the eye showing that it did not enter the brain cavity. The more centrally located stun hole did penetrate the brain cavity. After corrective measures of removing the stunning operator was given by Food Safety Manager REDACTED, the U.S. Reject tag was removed. I informed Establishment management (Restrainer Supervisor REDACTED) of my observations and the forthcoming noncompliance record.