Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2025 (USDA)

313.15(a)(1)

HATS Task VIII: Stunning Effectiveness On Friday, August 29, 2025, at approximately 1019 hours, I, the SPHV observed the following events while performing routine Livestock Humane Handling Verification task. The first position stun operator applied a stunning attempt with a pneumatic captive bolt on a beef heifer. The SPHV observed the captive bolt deploy and graze the head of the heifer. The animal remained standing, did not vocalize, was alert and looking around with eyes tracking. The stun operator retrieved the backup hand-held captive bolt device readily available next to the stun box and immediately applied a second stun, which was effective. The second position stun operator immediately switched places and called for a supervisor. The SPHV informed the Slaughter Foreman, who followed the head and removed it from the line for the SPHV to inspect. The SPHV observed a 3.5 inch groove in the skull consistent with the path of the improperly applied first stun attempt, approximately 1.5 inches above and 0.5 inch to the right of the preferred target area. The SPHV informed the Slaughter Foreman and the Slaughter Superintendent that a noncompliance record would be issued. The District Management Team was notified through supervisory channels. The establishment operates under a robust systemic approach to the humane handling of livestock. There have been no noncompliance records issued for the same root cause in the last 90 days.

313.15(a)(1)

HAT Category VIII: Effective Stun 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) On Tuesday 2/25/25 @ 1213, I Dr. REDACTED, DVMS while observing (100) head for effective stunning as part of the humane handling verification visit. I have observed an ineffective stun on a steer no. (38) out of the (100) count. The steer was in the conveyor restraint system. The primary stun operator applied a knock with a pneumatic captive bolt on the steer, and it was ineffective as the steer remained conscious with head moving and normal blinking. An immediate effective stun was applied by a backup employee using a handheld captive bolt that rendered the steer unconscious. Few minutes later @ 1221, a second ineffective stun was observed on a steer no. (72) out of (100) count. The same primary stun employee applied ineffective knock with the pneumatic captive bolt. The steer was alert with its head moving. An immediate corrective action was made by the same backup employee. He applied an effective stun on the steer with the hand-held captive bolt that rendered the steer into complete unconsciousness. A security knock was applied in both incidents. Both steers remained unconscious through bleeding. Mr. REDACTED, FSQA manager was informed with the noncompliance. The plant replaced both the primary and the backup stun operators, removed the pneumatic captive bolts for maintenance and the new team of the two stun operators continued stunning with hand-held captive bolts. No issues encountered. A security knock was applied on each animal (steers & heifers). The plant was in violation of 9 CFR 313.15(1)(a). No record of humane handling noncompliance in the last 90 days and the plant as an active robust systematic approach program. In consideration for the short period between the two incidents, immediate corrective action taken, and no recent history of HH noncompliance, these incidents were documented on one. The plant provided verbal response that they will submit written corrective and preventive measures in response to these ineffective stuns including re-training of stun operator and review and maintenance to the pneumatic captive bolts including verification that psi of air pressure is withing manufacture recommendation.

313.1

At approximately 2250 hours on Thursday, 02/13/2025, while performing HATS Task Category IV – Handling During Antemortem, I observed the following noncompliance. I went to pen 68 to perform ante-mortem inspection on 42 steers. I entered the empty adjacent pen to view the lot at rest and immediately observed a steer with its head entrapped between the pipes. This animal was deceased. I then requested the presence of a supervisor and completed the ante-mortem portion of viewing all animals in motion while I waited. I asked an establishment employee if all pens in this section were setup like this one. He replied yes. Next to the waterer there is a short pipe approximately 15 inches in length extending towards the waterer that allows the animal to move it’s its head in from the side. The configuration of bars near the water tank results in small space where an animal can put its head and become entrapped. This is a failure of 313.1(a) {Unnecessary openings where the head, feet, or legs may be entrapped} An establishment employee called B Shift Animal Welfare specialist Mr. REDACTED and informed him of the occurrence. Mr. REDACTED called me immediately and said he was on his way home but returned to the premise. I took a verbal regulatory control action and rejected the pen. Mr. REDACTED said that he would hold the pen as a company reject. He retained Maintenance personnel to immediately close the open area. He also said that the remaining pens would have preventive measures instituted as they were emptied and that his intention was this would all be accomplished prior to use on Monday.

313.2

On 01/20/2025, at approximately 0550 hours before starting HATS Category – IV Antemortem Inspection with Mr. REDACTED, Livestock Driver I observed a noncompliance with HATS Category III – Water and Feed Availability. I noticed three animals in Shipper pen #1. There were two sources of available water in the pen those being drop down hoses each with a nipple device attached. The hoses appeared very stiff, so I tried moving the rods inside the housing of both nipple devices that dispense water, but both were frozen solid. I showed the frozen devices to Mr. REDACTED, Scaler. Mr. REDACTED also could not move the rods. Shortly thereafter I met up with Mr. REDACTED, Animal Welfare Specialist. I showed Mr. REDACTED the water nipple devices. For an immediate corrective action Mr. REDACTED put a portable water trough in the pen. I informed Mr. REDACTED of the noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.2(e) and that a noncompliance record would be issued for not supplying water for the animals.

313.1

At approximately 16:00 hours on Wednesday 10-30-2024, I, REDACTED, D.V.M., was performing antemortem inspection with Procurement Supervisor REDACTED when I noticed a hog in pen #12 had gotten its front foot caught in between one of the lower gate panels and the bottom framework of the gate. The hog was lying laterally recumbent and was unable to right itself or to free its foot. The panel was cutting into the foot just above the toenails and looked to be pushing the upper part of the toenails outward. There was some blood on the gate and under the gate in the proximity of the entrapped foot. Shortly after the hog was found the Procurement Supervisor called for the captive bolt guns and a panel and he had the hog euthanized to minimize further suffering. This incident represents a failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.1. Procurement Supervisor REDACTED was informed an NR would be forthcoming.