Northwest Premium Meats, LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2025 (USDA)

313.15(a)(1)

HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness On April 9th at approximately 1020 hours, I, CSI, observed the following: While observing the humane handling of market hogs I observed the hand-held captive bolt (HHCB) device discharge, following with vocalization from the hog that remained standing inside the stun box with the stun operator. I also observed blood coming from the hogs head where the stun was attempted and the hog moved backwards within the stun box. I observed the second stun attempt from the reloaded HHCB device, following with vocalization from the hog again. I observed what looked like two distinct separate stun holes at this time in the head. I observed the hog still standing upright and conscious inside the concrete rectangular stun box. The stun operator then discharged a third stun to the hog with the reloaded HHCB device. I then observed no signs of consciousness after the third stun. I applied U.S. Reject Tag #B38905658 to the stun box. Upon inspection of the dressed head, I observed an approximately 1-inch hole in the center of the forehead and could feel two distinct curvatures of that penetrating hole from the captive bolt. I also observed a separate penetrating hole to the top left of that penetrating hole. The District Management Team was notified through supervisory channels. This establishment has not implemented a robust systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock. This noncompliance is being associated with noncompliance record #AOC1916044201N-1 issued on April 1, 2025, for same root cause.

313.15(a)(1)

HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness On April 1st at approximately 13:52 hours, I, CSI, observed the following: While completing a final rail post-mortem inspection on the slaughter floor, I heard the hand-held captive bolt (HHCB) device discharge, following with vocalization from the hog that was in the stun box with the stun operator. As I made my way over towards the stun box, I heard a second discharge from the HHCB device. I then got to the stun box and observed the hog still standing upright and conscious inside the concrete rectangular stun box. The stun operator then discharged a third stun to the hog with the reloaded HHCB device. I then observed no signs of consciousness after the third stun. I applied U.S. Reject Tag #B38905672 to the stun box. Upon inspection of the dressed head, I observed an approximately 1-inch hole in the center of the forehead and could feel three distinct curvatures of the single penetrating hole from the captive bolt. The District Management Team was notified through supervisory channels. There have been no noncompliance records issued within the past 90 days for the same root cause. This establishment has not implemented a robust systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock.

313.2

HATS Category IV: Ante-mortem Inspection On January 30, 2025, at approximately 0900 hours, I, the CSI, observed the following: An establishment employee was moving multiple lambs from the alley way into the stun box. The lamb in front had reached the stun box entrance, but was not moving forward enough to where other lambs could also enter the stun box. I observed the establishment employee then reach for front lamb and lift the lamb in an upward motion to where the lambs hide legs went over its head and the lamb landed on its back. The lamb did not vocalize or show any signs of injury and righted itself and stood up on its own. I applied U.S. Reject tag #B38905660 to the stun box entrance to prevent further driving of livestock into the stun box. The lambs in the stun box were stunned effectively on the first stun attempt with a hand-held captive bolt device. The Denver District Veterinary Medical Specialist was contacted through supervisory channels. The plant manager was verbally notified of the forthcoming noncompliance record. On post-mortem inspection, I did not observe any areas of bruising or injury to the carcass. This noncompliance record is being associated with noncompliance record #AOC3714124205N-1 for same root cause. This establishment has not implemented a robust systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock.

313.2

HATS Category IV: Ante-Mortem Inspection On December 4th, at approximately 1400 hours, the following Humane Handling noncompliance was observed: Upon returning to the harvest floor, I, the CSI, was beckoned toward the stunning area by another CSI. The other CSI believed that the harvest employee in charge of stunning the animals was standing and potentially bouncing on a hog. I proceeded to the catwalk above the pen area to observe the alley way where the employee and the hog were, I did not hear any animal vocalization. I observed the employee supporting his weight with his arms on the top of the alley way walls but standing with his feet on the back of the hog, with the hog facing away from the stun box, in a west facing position. The hog had its snout pressed in the corner created by the walls of the alley way and the gate which separates the alley from the pens. The employee had one hand on the gate and the employee was bearing weight on the hog’s shoulders using his feet, with the hog in a sitting position with the hog’s rump on the ground and both front feet on the ground and its neck and shoulders up. I did not observe the employee bouncing on the hog nor did I hear the hog vocalizing. I intervened and asked that the employee not stand on the hog. The employee removed his feet from the hog, by utilizing his arms to lift himself up on the walls of the alley. During this movement, the hog vocalized. There was a second hog in the alley, which was facing toward the stun box, in an east position. The east facing hog entered the stun area while the west facing hog remained seated with its snout in the corner. The employee then lifted the hog’s body by the front legs, placing the hog straight up on its rump, and pushed the hog at its upper body in one fluid motion. This caused the hog to fall straight onto its back, with all four legs protruding in the air. The hog vocalized once more when the employee lifted the front half of the hog’s body, but not when the hog fell onto its back. The hog was not attempting to right itself, possibly due to the tight quarters of the alley, so the employee lifted the hog by the shoulders and pushed the hog’s upper body, in one fluid motion, until the hog was righted. The hog did not vocalize. The hog was, again, in a sitting position, but still not standing. The employee utilized a hand-held battery-operated electric prod twice, on the rump of the hog. The hog vocalized, but this encouraged the hog to assume a standing position and from there, the employee was able to calmly back the hog into the stun area. Once in the stunning area, the two hogs were rendered insensible on the first stun attempt via an electrical current stunning device and bled effectively. A regulatory control action was not taken. Establishment management was verbally informed of the forthcoming noncompliance. The Denver District Management Team was not immediately notified through supervisory channels. A review of the establishment noncompliance history does not show a similar noncompliance documented in the past 90 days. This establishment has not implemented a robust systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock.