Swift Beef Company: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2025 (USDA)

313.15(a)(1)

HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness On September 9, 2025, at approximately 1247 hours, I, the DVMO, was performing a livestock humane handling verification task and observed the following noncompliance: The stun operator used a pneumatic captive bolt device to apply a stun attempt to a bovine. The attempt contacted the head; however, it was ineffective. The animal arched its neck and moved its head in short, controlled, side-to-side motions. Its eyes remained open and tracking, it blinked several times, and rhythmic breathing was observed based on inspiratory movements of its nostrils. A second stun operator immediately applied a second stun attempt using a hand-held captive bolt device, which effectively rendered the animal unconscious. Due to the immediate, effective corrective action, no regulatory control action was taken. The dressed head was split and two penetrating holes were observed – one hole was low and off-center and failed to enter the cranial cavity, the second hole was on target. The area supervisor was verbally notified of the forthcoming noncompliance. The Denver District Management Team was contacted through supervisory channels. This noncompliance is being associated with NR UOA0212085406N/1, dated 08/06/2025, for the same root cause. This establishment operates under a robust systematic approach to livestock humane handling and slaughter.

313.1

HATS Category IV - Antemortem On Saturday, September 6, 2025, at approximately 0512 hours I, Consumer Safety Inspector (CSI) observed a humane handling noncompliance while I was performing ante-mortem inspection. A group of cattle in pen 14 were next to be presented for antemortem. Upon arrival at pen 14, it was found that one of the cows had its head trapped between the concrete floor and the lowest bar of the gate that opens into the alley way, a highly visible area. The cow had a bloody nose and appeared to have been caught for some time as it was tired, possibly from a prolonged attempt at freeing itself and had given up trying. Plant employees immediately made efforts to free the animal, using a jack on bars of the fence in attempt to release the cow. Upon freeing the cow, the plant employees gave the animal the opportunity to rise, with humane encouragement and the cow appeared too weak to rise. The establishment elected to apply a stun attempt to the cow using a hand-held captive bolt device (HHCB). The stun attempt was effective, and a security stun was applied using the same device. The animal was then stuck and bled, never regaining consciousness. This is a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.1(a) “... unnecessary openings where the head, feet, or legs of an animal may be injured shall be repaired.” The cow was antemortem condemned with tag number (Z5641021). The Harvest Superintendent informed me (the CSI) that the maintenance department would be contacted to rectify the bars and gate panels to help prevent this incident from recurring. During a weekly meeting with the establishment held August 27, 2025, a conversation was had with the establishment about concerns with cattle having their heads stuck in between the bars of various pens and how cattle need to be kept in an environment free from unnecessary openings where their head or feet / legs may become injured. This conversation was made to provide an added measure of due process to the plant (MOI # YKA0313090604G). A record review of the past 90 days shows no noncompliance records issued for the same root cause. This establishment operates under a robust systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock. The District Veterinary Medical Officer was contacted through supervisory channels.

313.2

Category III – “Water and Feed Availability” At approximately 2205 hours while I, the SPHV, was conducting ante-mortem inspection, I observed that there was no water accessible to livestock in holding pens 15; North Alley and 17. The water troughs were empty. The pen handler was immediately notified of the situation, and he contacted the Team Lead. It was determined that whoever turned off the sprinklers also turned off the water to the holding pen troughs and I observed the water was turned back on. The cattle did not seem overly thirsty and had time to drink prior to harvest. The Quality Assurance Superintendent was verbally notified of this noncompliance record documentation. There have been no humane handling noncompliance records issued for the same root cause in the past 90 days. This establishment operates under a robust systematic approach to livestock humane handling and slaughter.

313.15(a)(1)

HATS Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness On August 6, 2025, at approximately 0905 hours, I, the DVMO, accompanied by an SPHV, were performing a livestock humane handling verification task and observed the following noncompliance: The stun operator used a pneumatic captive bolt device to apply a stun attempt to a bovine. The attempt contacted the head; however, the attempt was ineffective. The animal’s head remained upright, it moved its head from right to left in a controlled, conscious manner, and it continued to display eye tracking and blinked. A second stun operator immediately applied a second stun attempt using a hand-held captive bolt device, which effectively rendered the animal unconscious. Due to the immediate, effective corrective action, no regulatory control action was taken. The area supervisor, QA humane handling monitor, and QA Harvest Superintendent were verbally notified of the forthcoming noncompliance. The Denver District Management Team was contacted through supervisory channels. There have been no humane handling noncompliance records issued in the past 90 days. This establishment operates under a robust systematic approach to livestock humane handling and slaughter.

313.2

On July 29, 2025, “B” shift harvest production was unable to start due to maintenance issues near the knock box in Area 1. At approximately 1500 hours the PHV, Dr. REDACTED, observed cattle in the drive alley used to bring the cattle up to the establishment. At or about 1518 hours I proceeded outside and observed the cattle still in the drive alley. I spoke with Operations Manager REDACTED regarding and estimated time for start-up and he indicated approximately 10 minutes. At or about 1538, the current outside temperature was 95 degrees with a Heat Advisory in place until 2000 hours. The real feel was 104 degrees. At this time, establishment maintenance personnel were still working in the area. The cattle appeared to be experiencing heat stress which includes an elevated breathing rate, open mouth breathing, and excessive foaming and drooling from the mouth with no adequate water supply. The cattle were crowded and touching one another while standing without room to maneuver, spread out, or lay down. Slaughter Harvest Manager REDACTED informed me the cattle would be returned to their holding pens. I informed Mr. REDACTED of the forthcoming noncompliance. The establishment has failed to comply with 9 CFR 313.2(a) and 313.2(e).

313.1,313.2

On Tuesday March,18, 2025, at approximately 0847 hours I, Consumer Safety Inspector observed a humane handling noncompliance while I was performing ante-mortem inspection. No water was observed in the water trough between pen 11 and 1 for cattle to consume. I asked the plant employee if the water trough had any water, and the plant employee verified and said no. I observed the plant employee then go and turned on the water valve. Once the water started rising in the water trough, the cattle in pens 11 and 1 were hovering over and drinking nonstop. A regulatory control action was not taken due to the observed immediate corrective actions. I verbally notified the pens supervisor that a noncompliance would be issued. The District Veterinary Medical Specialist was contacted through supervisory channels. On February 26, 2025, in a weekly meeting there was a conversation had with the establishment about cattle needing to have access to water in the cattle pens. This establishment operates under a robust systematic approach to the humane handling of livestock.

313.15(a)(1)

On 2/24/25 at approximately 10:00am while performing HAT category VIII task, I SCSI REDACTED observed the stun operator stun a heifer in the restraint box with a captive bold. The 1st attempt contacted the heifer head, and it was ineffective as the heifer remained standing. The stun operator retrieved a back-up captive bolt and applied an immediate second knock that caused the heifer to collapse completely unconsciousness and remained so through bleeding. I informed QA Supervisor REDACTED that I will be documenting a noncompliance for the plant failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1). No recent noncompiance in the last 90 days and the plant has an active robust systematic program.