Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp.: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2022 (USDA)

313.1,313.2

At approximately 1448 hours while conducting HATS category I, I (Dr. REDACTED) observed the following humane handling noncompliance. I observed torrential rain blowing into the back outer B-side segregation pen (Suspect pen) and onto several animals in being held in the pen. The segregation pens (Suspect pens) are used to hold injured and diseased animals warranting veterinary disposition. The plant has curtains in place to protect these animals from climatic conditions, but the curtains were down at the time and no employees were attending to these animals. I notified Mr. REDACTED of the establishments failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.1(c) and 313.2(d)(1). The curtain to the segregation pen was immediately raised but was still allowing rain to be blown into the pen due to being torn at the end. As a result, the animals were moved to another pen, and I took regulatory control of the pen using US Rejected/Retained tag B42304282. I observed no injury to the animals as a result of these conditions.

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

On September 26, 2022, at 1811 I was in the establishment’s B-side live receiving area at the segregation pens. Establishment employees were in the process of captive bolt stunning the pigs in a segregation pen. An employee attempted to stun with a captive bolt gun a pig sitting next to the railing of the pen between other pigs. The pig moved it head at the same time that I heard the captive bolt activated. The pig did not drop as normal after a successful stun but vocalized and moved away from the employee. I approach the pen and could see a hole in the forehead of the pig, about the level of the eyes and closer to the pig’s right eye in the circular shape of the captive bolt. There was a reddish discharge draining from the right eye. An employee, after gaining position over the animal, used a second back up captive bolt device to successfully captive bolt the animal. The employee who attempted the first stunning stated that he thought the captive bolt did not operate properly and partially disassembled the device. I applied U.S. Reject tag NO. B29874133 to the captive bolt gun and informed Supervisor REDACTED to discontinued captive bolt stunning in the segregation area. Mr. REDACTED, Hog Procurement Business Manager, told me, after the bolt gun had been examined, that the end cap of the bolt gun was found to be loose and that 2 of the 5 internal buffers were in disrepair and replaced. Prior to repair the bolt gun speed was found to be 154, which is unacceptable. After repairs were made the bolt speed was in the acceptable range of greater than 180. The preventative given by Mr. REDACTED was that all bolt gun operators on both shifts would be retrained to visually verify that the bolt end cap was properly attached prior to use of the captive bolt. Regulatory control was removed at 1950.

313.1

At approximately 21:15 hours, while performing HATS category IV—Handling During Ante-Mortem Inspection, I observed the following noncompliance in the B side segregation pen, the segregation pen just after truck unloading facing the parking lot area of the barn. I observed the gate of the B side segregation pen that leads to the main alleyway from truck unloading broken off the hinge with a severely jagged edge. The gate was leaning at an angle toward the inside of the segregation pen. Upon further investigation, I found that the hinge was wrapped with a single metal chain which made the gate unstable, therefore, displacing it at an angle. I then rejected this B side segregation pen with U.S. Rejected tag #B45712020 to prevent future harm to animals. At this time, most of the animals in this pen had been U.S. Inspected and Passed or U.S. Condemned and were awaiting euthanasia. I then notified Barn Supervisor, REDACTED, of the establishment’s failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.1. I informed Mr. REDACTED that regulatory control would be maintained until the gate was repaired and that newly segregated animals could not be placed in this pen. Mr. REDACTED informed me maintenance would be able to repair the gate at approximately 21:30-22:00 hours. At approximately 00:05 hours, the gate was presented for inspection and was found to be restored to an operable condition. Mr. REDACTED stated the gate had broken earlier in the shift and that the metal chain had become loose, therefore, causing the gate to become unstable. The pen was then released.

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

At approximately 08:30 hours while performing a Livestock Humane Handling task, HATS category VIII—Stunning Effectiveness, in the rear segregation pen of line B, I (REDACTED, SPHV) observed the following noncompliance. I observed two establishment employees utilizing a captive bolt gun to stun animals located in the segregation pen that had already received antemortem inspection. I observed the establishment employees apply the captive bolt to several animals, all of which immediately were rendered unconscious. I then observed the establishment employees attempt to captive bolt one market hog in the front of the pen. The animal was moving to avoid the employee and was moving on top of several animals that had already been rendered unconscious. The employee then applied the captive bolting device to the head of the animal. The gun fired and made contact with the animal. I then observed the animal still standing and looked up at the captive bolt handler after the application of the captive bolt. The establishment employee realized the animal was not rendered unconscious. The employee then immediately repositioned himself and applied a second captive bolt application to the animal which then rendered the animal unconscious. I then notified REDACTED, Humane Handling Manager, of the establishment’s failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) and 9 CFR 313.15(b)(1)(iii). At approximately 08:40 hours, U.S. Rejected tags were applied to the captive bolt gun and cartridges used to stun the animal (#B42304768) and on the captive bolt stunning process in the back of the livestock area (#B42304769) to prevent further injury to animals until corrective actions were provided. Dr. REDACTED, IIC, SPHV, later evaluated the hog the missed stun was applied to and verified that two captive bolt applications had been applied to the animal's head: one within the appropriate vicinity of an effective captive bolt application and one too high above what would be appropriate range.  REDACTED, Assistant Hog Procurement Manager, then conducted an investigation which concluded that the two establishment employees involved were not following establishment protocol for restraining hogs for captive bolt application. The two employees were re-trained on appropriate animal restraint and captive bolt application.  Ms. REDACTED also stated that these two particular employees would be monitored daily over the course of the next week, at random, by the Humane Handling Supervisor, and that records of that verification would be made available to inspection personnel. After the corrective actions were deemed sufficient by inspection personnel, regulatory control was released from the captive bolt gun and cartridges and rear livestock captive bolt process at approximately 10:25 hours.  This NR is being linked to NR#VFB2514061729N documented on 06/29/2022 involving failure to render an animal insensible from captive bolt stunning. Failure to comply with regulatory requirements could result in additional regulatory or administrative action.

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 1414 on June 29, 2022, I was verifying HAT Category VIII, Stunning Effectiveness, near the live receiving B-side suspect pen, where 2 plant employees were in the process of stunning pigs with a captive bolt.  The employees went over to a pig sitting near the fencing of the pen.  I observed the employee place the captive bolt on the animal’s head and heard the captive bolt released.  The pig did not drop immediately as is normal after an effective stun but remained sitting upright.  The employees looked at the pig, looked at each other, looked at the pig again, then looked around them in the direction of the trailers.  I came over to the pen and observed that the animal was conscious, able to maintain an upright position, was blinking and had a circular wound high on its head near the top or poll of the head in the shape of the captive bolt.  The employees looked at me but just stood there.  During this time neither made any further attempt to complete the stunning of the animal.  I asked them “what are you going to do?” and the one with the captive bolt said, “Get REDACTED”.  Supervisor REDACTED was nearby and came over when they called him.  He told the employee holding the captive bolt to stun the animal.  The employee then tried to put the captive bolt at or near the original wound at the top of the head.  The animal moved purposely away, and the employee tried to position it again in the same area.  Mr. REDACTED then took the captive bolt and effectively stunned the animal.  Afterwards I examined the wound, it was approximately 5/8 inch deep, and skull did not appear to be penetrated.  I suspended stunning of the animals in the suspect pens until plant management provided preventative measures.  Mrs. REDACTED, Assistant Hog Procurement Manager, later informed me that the employee would be retrained on proper captive bolt stunning procedures including actions to take in the event of a ineffective stun, and proper placement of the captive bolt when stunning.  The suspect pens were released at approximately 1315. This is a repetitive noncompliance, a similar noncompliance, NR# VBF5314062322N/1, involving failure to render an animal insensible from captive bolt stunning was documented on June 22, 2022.  Failure to comply with regulatory requirements could result in addition regulatory or administrative action.

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

At approximately 1430 while verifying HATS category VIII, I observed the following humane handling noncompliance. I observed an animal bolted 3 times with captive bolt gun. The noncompliance occurred in the outer driveway leading to the carbon dioxide chamber on A-side. The animal had stopped and was going down from porcine stress syndrome. The 1st attempt to bolt the animal was characterized by a muffled sound and failure to render the animal insensible. The animal stood up and began to vocalize. I observed a black mark on the middle head where the bolt hit, but there were no signs of penetration. The second attempt was made by a second gun and characterized by a muffled sound. The second attempt failed to render the animal insensible. The animal attempted to move away from the individuals involved. After reloading the guns, the third attempt was successful. I took regulatory control action of the two captive bolt guns and the bag of cartridges involved using US Rejected/Retained tag B42304770. I took regulatory control action of the driveway involved using US Rejected/Retained tag B42304767. I notified Mr. REDACTED of the establishment's failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) and 31.15(b)(1)(i). As further planned actions, the establishment proposed breaking the guns down to determine and correct any issues and take the associated bag of cartridges out of commission. After discussing the situation with the District Office regulatory control action of the driveway was released at 1715 hours. Mr. REDACTED was informed the regulatory control action of the guns would be maintained a their investigation was complete and a cause could be determined. I verified disposal of the cartridges.

313.1

At approximately 0815 hours while performing ante mortem dispositions in Livestock, I observed the following humane handling noncompliance. I observed the metal siding of a segregation pen door separating from the door frame and creating a opening between the siding an the frame. The edges at the bottom of the metal siding were frayed, and the opening created was large enough for an animal's leg to get caught in it and cause injury. The pen was holding 21 animals at the time. I took regulatory control action of the pen using US Rejected/Retained tag B42304823, and Mrs. REDACTED was notified of the establishment's failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.1. The establishment immediately euthanized all animals in the pen to prevent injury and allow maintenance to make repairs. Regulatory control action of the pen was released at 1330 hours after repairs were complete.

313.1

At 1109 hours while verifying HATS category V, I (Dr. REDACTED) observed the following humane handling noncompliance. I observed a wall panel associated with the driveway leading to the outer B-side carbon dioxide chamber slid open. The open panel exposed a roughly 6 inches in width opening within the wall that ran the entire length of the wall. The feet of animals could become wedged within the opening while moving to the carbon dioxide chamber and cause injury. The affected driveway contained animals at the time. I took regulatory control of the driveway using US Rejected/Retained tag B42304578, and notified Mr. REDACTED of the establishments failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.1(a). To correct the issue, Mr. REDACTED had the panel slid shut. As further planned actions, Mr. REDACTED stated he would speak with maintenance about having the panel permanently closed. I released regulatory control action at roughly 1111 hours. I observed no injured animals as result of the noncompliance.

313.2

I, Dr. REDACTED, at approximately 17:49, on March 18, 2022, I observed a humane handling noncompliance. I was verifying HATS category IV ante-mortem inspection on A side, when I observed a Green hat employee inhumanely handle the hogs. The employee was in the first cut of the 1st pen on A side. He was using a paddle by coming from behind his shoulders over his head and the paddle would make contact on the hogs loudly, he did this 3 times. The hogs were bunched up in the corner by the cut gate of the pen. The hogs were vocalizing, getting more excited, and not moving out of the corner while he was using the paddle. I had called for a stop and notified Supervisors REDACTED and REDACTED of the incident. The employee was excessively using the instrument (noncompliance with 313.2(b)) and causing excessive excitement of the hogs (noncompliance with 313.2(a)). When the hogs were observed no hogs appeared injured. Supervisor REDACTED said that they will do re-training with the employee and he has only been employed a short time. I believe that the retraining would be acceptable on account of the short time of employment.

313.2

At approximately 12:40pm, while walking back from performing antemortem inspection (HATS Category IV) in the barns, IPP observed egregious noncompliance with HATS Category II (Truck Unloading). The IPP passed along the fence immediately parallel to the truck unloading area, where they heard a man’s voice yelling explicit vulgar words from inside the truck. The IPP backtracked to the side of the truck where they observed the unloading of the lower level of the truck by an establishment employee that was using a battery-powered electric prod, and the truck driver that was using a rattle paddle. The two men were attempting to unload the last few groups of market hogs that were bunching up in the back corner of the lower level. Each time the two men tried to get them to go out towards the ramp and out the trailer door the hogs continued to bunch up in the corners. The IPP heard the men continue to yell explicit vulgar words at the pigs. The IPP also heard the establishment employee tell the truck driver to “relax” because “the vet is watching”. The IPP moved to the side of the truck where they could see more clearly through the side windows as the men tried to move the last two groups of bunched up pigs off the truck. The IPP observed the establishment employee indiscriminately prod with the battery-powered electric prod several pigs in the group, including multiple animals in the face. The prod was energized, as the IPP could hear it sizzle each time it contacted the animals. The truck driver paddled several of the animals in the face, head region, and on the back of the animals (bringing his arm to the level of his head and/or above his head, then bringing the paddle down directly onto the animals, making a slapping sound with each hit). Several of the animals vocalized in response to the paddling and electric prodding, and the group bunched up further in the corner of the trailer, some crawling up on the backs of others with their forelegs (piling on top of one another). The IPP looped back around the front of the truck to enter the barn area where they could access the inner part of the barn. The IPP found the barn managers, Mr. REDACTED and Mr. REDACTED and asked them to stop all truck unloading. The IPP called the USDA office and had the SCSI bring U.S. Reject tags to the barn area, which they applied to each of the truck unloading doors (U.S. Reject Tag number B42 276265, B42 276264, B42 276263, and B42 276262). After communicating with the District Veterinary Medical Specialist, the IPP was instructed to have the stunning area of the facility tagged with a U.S. Reject tag, which the CSI applied to the alleyways leading into the REDACTED areas (U.S. Reject Tag number B27 073432). The IPP notified Mr. REDACTED, Establishment Manager, of the regulatory control action due to the egregious animal handling observations at truck unloading and that the District Office management team was contacted for further guidance. This is a violation of the FMIA (21 U.S.C.) 603, regulations 9 CFR Part 313.2(a) and 313.2(b) and the HMSA of 1978.

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

At approximately 0912 hours while verifying HATS category VIII (Stunning Effectiveness), I (Dr. REDACTED) observed the following humane handling noncompliance. I observed the establishment fail to render a hog insensible on the first attempt. The incident occurred right outside the front A-side segregation pen. Two individuals were attempting to stun an undersized hog with a penetrating captive bolt gun. One was responsible for restraining the animal and the other was responsible for bolting the animal. The first attempt to stun the animal was characterized by a weak firing sound. I observed a wound in the middle of the animal's head where the gun was placed. The animal did not fall when bolted and attempted to run from the individuals while vocalizing. The 2nd attempt was immediate and effective. The individual restraining the animal was Supervisor REDACTED. I notified her of the establishment's failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.15(a)(1) and 313.15(b)(1) and took regulatory control of the gun (ID #15342) using US Rejected/Retained tag B42304577. Supervisor REDACTED submitted the gun to maintenance for examination.

313.1

At approximately 0930 hours, while verifying compliance with facilities while hogs were moved to the REDACTED, the Public Health Veterinarian Trained District Veterinary Medical Specialist (DTP), observed noncompliances with HATS Category IV – Antemortem Inspection, Facilities: The establishment’s moving wall framework had approximately 2 feet in length of metal welds eroded on the bottom and sides with multiple sharp and jagged edges. The bottom portion has a small opening of less than 1 inch in diameter, too small for a toe to be entrapped. Both the south and north REDACTED drive alleys have two walk through gates, allowing people to walk from the outside walkway to the inside area between the two REDACTED. The gates have a stainless-steel metal shield attached to square metal framework. The north drive alley outside gate had an eroded area approximately 1 foot by 2.5 inches (the entire width of the inside edge of the square metal frame) on the left and right frame pieces. The north drive alley inside gate had approximately 1 foot by 2.5 inches eroded area on the left framework, 2 feet by 2.5 inches eroded area on the right framework, and 6-7 by 2.5 inches eroded area on the bottom framework. The outside gate on the south REDACTED alley had a 1 foot by 2.5 inches eroded area on the bottom framework. The inside gate of the south alleyway had a 1 foot by 2.5 inches eroded area on the left, right, and bottom framework. These eroded areas had continuous jagged and sharp to touch edges and were large enough that could entrap a claw or foot. There was no observable blood or hair; thus, no regulatory tag was placed. In addition, the U-board used in the U.S. Suspect pen for slow or downer hogs, had approximately 80-90% of the welds on the top edge of the stainless-steel shield were detached from the framework. On the long edge, at least 5 detached welds had a sharp edge sticking up. A 5 inch section on the long edge was bend outwards. The DTP notified Mr. REDACTED, Animal Handling Specialist, and Mr. REDACTED, FSQA Manager, of the observed noncompliance with regulation 9 CFR 313.1(a) and the forthcoming noncompliance record. Mr. REDACTED mentioned the night maintenance team would be looking into it that night.

313.1

HATS Category IV: Ante-mortem Inspection On 1/12/22, at approximately 1330 hours, while performing antemortem inspection in the barn, I observed a live hog with its neck stuck in a gap between two pen gates that were loosely latched with a metal chain. The hog was vocalizing and moving backward but was unable to free itself from the gates. I immediately found the Animal Handling Specialist to take her to the hog. Once we arrived at the location where the hog was stuck, she was not able to free the hog quickly enough and proceeded to quickly euthanized the animal. The pen gates were subsequently latched tight. I verbally informed the Animal Handling Specialist that a noncompliance record would be documented for this incident. No regulatory control action was taken due to the observed immediate and effective corrective actions. Denver District Office was notified through supervisory channels. There had been no other non-compliances for the same root cause within the last 90 days.

313.2

At approximately 1210 hours while verifying HATS category V (SUSPECT AND DISABLED), I (Dr. REDACTED) observed the following humane handling noncompliance. I observed the driveway leading to the outer CO2 chamber on B-side overcrowded with hogs. A few hogs were resting on the backs of other hogs due to the lack of space and causing these hogs to vocalize. Since their were a group of hogs waiting to enter the driveway, I took regulatory control of the driveway entrance using US Rejected/Retained tag B42302558. I notified Mr. REDACTED and Mr. REDACTED of the establishment's failure to comply with 9 CFR 313.2(a). Mr. REDACTED worked with the employees at the driveway to correct the overcrowding. I observed no injured animals as a result of the overcrowding. The cause of the issue was determined to be due to the actions of a new employee (green hat). As further planned actions, Mrs. REDACTED had the employee removed from the line for retraining. I released regulatory control of the entrance of the driveway at approximately 1215 after immediate and further planned actions were implemented.

313.2

HATS TASK CATEGORY II TRUCK UNLOADING On 11/26/2021 at 1050 hours while performing HATS task category II Truck Unloading, I observed the following. A truck driver was unloading a trailer at the North receiving dock. I observed the truck driver deliberately contact the face of a hog multiple times with a paddle. The hog was flinching and closing its eyes with each contact. I immediately notified an establishment employee who moved to enter the trailer and speak with the truck driver. I then observed the same truck driver using the end of the paddle several times to jab at the sides and bellies of three separate hogs in the trailer. These hogs were vocalizing and running away from the jabs. I notified Assistant Hog Procurement Manager REDACTED of my observations. The truck driver was removed from the trailer and an establishment employee completed the unloading. This is a noncompliance with 9 CFR 313.2(a) and (b). I notified Assistant Hog Procurement Manager REDACTED and Animal Handling Specialist REDACTED that I would be issuing this NR.

313.15(a)(1)

At approximately 02:45 PM, while performing HATS category IV, Antemortem Inspection, Dr. REDACTED condemned a pig in the U.S. Suspect pen. The establishment employee accompanying Dr. REDACTED immediately prepared two hand-held captive bolt devices (HHCB) to humanely euthanize the animal. Dr. REDACTED then observed the following noncompliance with HATS category VIII, Stunning Effectiveness. The employee attempted to stun the animal with one of the HHCB device, but the attempt was unsuccessful and the animal remained conscious, attempting to roll over from a recumbent position. Dr. REDACTED observed blood trickling down the forehead from where the stunning attempt had made contact. Dr. REDACTED then had to instruct the establishment employee to make a second stun attempt on the animal. The employee then used the second HHCB device in attempt to stun the animal and again the animal remained conscious, attempting to roll over. After the second attempt Dr. REDACTED observed the animal blinking and tracking movement with its eyes. Dr. REDACTED then had to instruct the employee to make a third attempt to stun the animal. The employee promptly reloaded the HHCB, and on the third attempt, successfully rendered the animal unconscious. Dr. REDACTED informed plant management, Mr. REDACTED of her observations regarding the establishments failure to render the animal unconscious after multiple stunning attempts and that a noncompliance record (NR) would be issued. Dr. REDACTED informed the Animal Welfare Supervisor Mr. REDACTED that she contacted the Des Moines district through supervisory channels for further guidance regarding possible enforcement action.

313.2

HATS Category III Water and Feed Availability, IV Ante-mortem Inspection At approximately 1205 on Monday, October 18th, I (Dr. REDACTED) was leaving the barn after performing antemortem inspection and heading towards the REDACTED area, when I realized there were hogs in the alley to the south REDACTED. The gate at the entrance to the alley was shut, and around nineteen hogs were in two locations in the alley. No water appeared available, and only a few establishment employees were present as they had just started to return from lunch. No supervisor was in the immediate area, so I went to the kill floor where I found Supervisor REDACTED who was able to contact Supervisor REDACTED, the individual in charge of the REDACTED area. I informed Mr. REDACTED of the situation and he asked me to show him. Upon our return to the alley, the gate was now open as more employees had returned and slaughter operations begun. I asked Mr. REDACTED if he could confirm the gate had been locked, and after reviewing video and talking with the employees in the area, it was known to have been shut before lunch. I informed Mr. REDACTED that I would be issuing a noncompliance record for lack of water availability in accordance with 9 CFR 313.2. He indicated that he understand the reason for this, and that he had already spoken to the employees in the area and reminded them of the policy to have the gate open at lunch.

313.1

At approximately 20:45, on 10/5/2021, I, SPHV Dr. REDACTED, observed a humane handling noncompliance. While I was performing the antemortem inspection on the disabled hogs on B Line outside pen, I noticed a piece of metal that is used to cover the drain was loose. The metal was a panel that stands on the end approximately 3 feet tall, C- shaped and connected to the railing in a few areas. The ends of the C shaped metal then formed a 90 degree angle to be flat against the pen. When a hog would bump into it, the metal would come out from the bottom and stick a few inches in the air, having the edges stick out. I tagged off the pen with U.S. Rejected tag no B42317154, due to 9 CFR 313.1 (a), Livestock pens, driveways, and ramps shall be maintained in good repair. They shall be free from sharp or protruding objects which may, in the opinion of the inspector, cause injury or pain to the animals. . During my examination it did not appear that any hog was injured. I notified Supervisor REDACTED of the pen, the problems, and that the hogs can be moved out, but none can be put into the pen until the loose metal is fixed and re-inspected.