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

313.2

On 8/20/2025 at around 0409 while performing Livestock Humane Handling Antemortem task I observed the following noncompliance: While inspecting pen number 5, I observed that there were a small number of pigs in the back half of the pen, I counted approximately around 70 pigs. The total number of pigs recorded being in pen #5 was 352 pigs. I looked towards the front of the pen and the middle separation gate was closed and the remaining pigs were confined to the front of this pen. Some of the pigs were observed panting and had no room to lie down. The pigs in the middle of the group could not access water due to lack of space for movement. I also observed some hogs climbing over others just to move around the pen due to lack of space. This is non-compliance with 9 CFR 313.2(e). I showed Supervisor REDACTED the noncompliance. Supervisor REDACTED immediate corrective action was to open the middle gate to create more room in the front half of pen #5. Supervisor REDACTED was informed that a NR would be issued. Previous preventative measures proffered by the establishment failed to prevent the recurrence of this observed noncompliance. This NR is associated to NR#PUN3214071901N/1 dated 7/1/2025 for the same like cause noncompliance.

313.2

At approximately 1100 while performing ante-mortem inspection in the barn, the following non-compliance was observed: I observed two hogs that were left in the South alleyway of pens #15, #16 & #17. These hogs were confined to this area with a closed gate not allowing the hogs access to water. This is non-compliance with 9 CFR 313.2(e). I immediately pointed out the non-compliance to QA REDACTED Avila, Barn Supervisor REDACTED and Supervisor REDACTED. The non-compliance was promptly corrected by moving these two hogs into pen #14 where they could access water. These two hogs appeared to be in good condition. Supervisor REDACTED was told that a non-compliance would be issued.

313.15(a)(1)

HATS task Category VIII: Stunning Effectiveness Around 1805 during antemortem inspection of slow (non-ambulatory, or ambulatory disabled) hogs, one hog was condemned. After I told the employee to euthanize the animal, I observed the employee using the captive bolt gun on the hog while Supervisor REDACTED held the sorting board. The employee placed the gun in the correct location while the hog was in lateral recumbency. The sound from the gun was a click, rather than the usual large boom. The hog sat up and backed up slightly. The employee immediately reloaded the captive bolt gun, placed in correct location and rendered the hog immediately unconscious. After the hog's kicking reflexes stopped, I checked the forehead of the hog and verified there were two holes at the correct site for euthanasia. This is noncompliant with 313.15. Stunning should render immediate unconsciousness. Supervisors REDACTED and REDACTED were notified of the noncompliance.

313.5

At 1505 hours on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, while observing HATS Category VI - Electric Prodding / Alternative Object Use task, SPHV made the following observations: A small group of market hogs were being moved in the inside alley to the REDACTED Samson #1. While being moved with the last hydraulic push-gate in the alley, one hog was knocked down by the movement of the other hogs. The push-gate continued pushing the down hog, and it was not getting back up and was vocalizing. Upon further observation, the hog’s back right limb was stuck under the push-gate, causing the hog to not be able to rise. The push gate continued to operate, resulting in the downed stuck hog continuing to be pushed approximately 2-3 feet. There was an establishment employee in the area not motioning towards the Emergency Stop button; therefore, I got his attention to stop the push-gate and lift it. Once the gate was lifted, the downed hog remained down for a few moments and then rose but was non-weightbearing on the injured limb. US Reject Tags B-30606240 and B-30696239 were placed on both alleys leading to both Butinas and slaughter ceased. I informed Barn Supervisor REDACTED and later explained the findings to QA and HACCP Managers Ms. REDACTED and Mr. REDACTED. I informed them of the forthcoming noncompliance. This incident is not in compliance with 9 CFR 313.5(a)(2).

313.5,313.15(a)(3)

On February 05, 2025, at approximately 1615 hours, SCSI REDACTED, was en route to conduct HATS Category IV Antemortem Inspection. As I was walking past the stick area, I observed a noncompliance with HATS VIII Stunning Effectiveness. I observed the establishment addressing issues identified with the REDACTED. I then proceeded to the shackle table to observe hogs that have already been through the CO2 stunning chamber but prior to being shackled, hoisted, and stuck. I observed a hog begin to intermittently gasp for air. I observed this animal and motioned to Supervisor REDACTED that the animal was showing signs of regaining consciousness. I kept observing the animal and it began to blink its eyes and show signs of rhythmic breathing. The animal’s eyes began to track. From lying on its right side, the animal tried to lift its head. Supervisor REDACTED then attempted to apply a handheld captive bolt (HHCB) stun to the animal behind the right ear. After the HHCB discharged, the animal righted itself onto its front legs and vocalized. Supervisor REDACTED immediately grabbed the animal by its ear and applied a 2nd HHCB stun to the center of the animal’s forehead, rendering the animal unconscious. I initiated regulatory control action by notifying Superintendent REDACTED not to place any additional animals into the REDACTED at this time, effectively halting stunning of animals. I allowed the establishment to empty the REDACTED without additional incident. I applied US REJECT tag B36667297 to the drive alley leading to the REDACTED. This is in noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.5(a)3, and 313.15(a)(3). I then contacted the District Office for additional direction. After the establishment offered corrective actions, I notified Plant Manager REDACTED and FSQA Manager REDACTED that I was releasing regulatory control action by removing the REJECT tag from the drive alley at approximately 1922 hours.

313.2,313.5

On January 10, 2025, at approximately 10:55 a.m. I was conducting a Livestock Humane Handling Task and verifying HATS Category VIII. Stunning Effectiveness and observed the following noncompliance. There was a group of hogs placed in the loading area of the newly installed carbon dioxide stunning device. As the automatic push gate began to move one hog fell. The hog was sternal and did not return to a standing position before the gate contacted the hog. The hog was pushed approximately 1.5-2 feet. The hog did not vocalize while being pushed. There were 10-15 establishment employees is the new addition of the barn along with several outside contractors. Of those establishment personnel there were 4-5 that were close enough to the loading area to have a partial view of the hogs. They did not appear to be observing the hogs at the time of the incident. They were not within reach of the emergency stop and did not move to stop the push gate. I pulled the emergency stop on the gate. SCSI REDACTED stayed in the area and observed the hog standing and exiting the loading area under its own power, it appeared to have not sustained injury. I informed Humane Handling Manager REDACTED that an NR would be issued and regulatory control action would be taken by tagging the carbon dioxide stunner and that stunning also needed to be stopped on the other carbon dioxide stunning devices. This is in noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.2(d)2 and 313.5(a)2. U.S. Rejected Tag B-46754568 was placed on the carbon dioxide stunner. I then contacted my front-line supervisor and the district office for additional correlation. REDACTED QA manager was also latter notified of the upcoming NR.

313.2

At 2245 hours on Tuesday, November 26, 2024, I, Dr. REDACTED SPHV, was performing HATS Category II Truck Unloading in the barn, when I observed the following noncompliance. During the entire duration of my observations (approximately 15 min), Bay 5 had a group of hogs in it; additionally, the bay had been divided into two sections by a gate. In the section of Bay 5 furthest from the unloading area, there is only one water spigot for hogs to get access to water. In this section of Bay 5, I observed a slow hog that had been segregated/protected with the metal shield. However, the hog and shield were positioned in a way that blocked this one access point the hogs had to water, resulting in the entire section not having water available to them. I brought this to the attention of Barn Supervisor Mr. REDACTED and later Slaughter Superintendent Mr. REDACTED. Mr. REDACTED was quick to resolve the issue and moved the slow hog and shield, so they were no longer blocking the single water spigot. Mr. REDACTED later stated he was going to have maintenance add water lines Bay 5 to provide multiple water access points to the hogs. Mr. REDACTED was informed of the forthcoming noncompliance. This finding is not in compliance with 9 CFR 313.2(e).