An Industry defends itself...

Animals Australia recently started its first TV ad campaign ('You didn't know, did you?') to inform Australian consumers about the hidden truth behind factory farmed products. In response to this campaign and the exposé on pig farming shown on 60 Minutes (22/11/09), Australian Pork Limited (APL) has updated their consumer information website with more misleading information to misrepresent the welfare status of pigs on Australian factory farms.

Prominently featured on APL's Aussie Pig Farming website are five new claims about pig welfare which are false or misleading. Here we will explain why:

APL claims that a 'healthy pig is a better product' and therefore 'pig farmers understand better than anyone the crucial importance of a high standard of care for each and every animal on their farm'.

Truth:
Factory farms house animals in an unnatural, inappropriate environment devoid of enrichment and quality of life. The reality is that animal welfare is secondary to production goals on factory farms and in many respects these do not go together. This is exhibited by the fact that a number of routine practices in factory farms would be prosecutable cruelty offences were it not for the exemptions provided to industry operators through a Code of Practice.

For example; body mutilations such as tail docking and teeth clipping (which are carried out without pain relief) and confinement in single sow stalls and farrowing crates severely restricting movement, are confirmed by numerous pre-eminent scientific reports as having significant negative welfare impacts. Pregnant sows in stalls have a high incidence of leg injuries, lameness, weakened bones and muscles, urinary tract infections and weakened hearts. As a result of the welfare impacts these devices have been banned or being phased out in the UK, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands and 6 states of the USA.

It is also reported that gastric ulcers occur in up to 60% of pigs at slaughter (ThePigSite.com, an industry website). Causes for the development of gastric ulcers include the provision of too finely ground food designed to maximise growth, management deficiencies that lead to stress, and infections. The extremely high level of occurrence of such physical health problems puts the APL claim of "healthy pigs" in a different light.

Furthermore animal "health" includes mental and emotional health. The denial of behavioural needs such as exercise, foraging, pre-farrowing nesting has been shown to lead to depression, frustration and stress related behaviour exhibited by stereotypic behaviour such as bar biting and sham chewing.

Breeding sows also suffer from chronic hunger through being fed a high protein diet devoid of roughage.

In recent years, 3 major piggeries have been prosecuted or have charges pending relating to failing to alleviate the suffering of animals.

APL claims there are 'strong regulations' 'specifically designed to care for and protect the welfare of our pigs'.

Truth:
This is categorically false. These 'regulations' (the pig industry code of practice) allow cruel practices such as mutilations without pain relief and the use of sow stalls and farrowing crates. It is these 'regulations' that make it legal to keep breeding pigs in a metal and concrete crates one centimetre longer and wider then their bodies for their entire 4 months pregnancy. In effect the Model Code of Practice (the "regulations" wrongly named by APL) exists to shield pig farmers from prosecutions for animal cruelty. The Code does not take into account the behavioural needs of these intelligent social animals and it denies them legal protection under the various State and Territory animal welfare Acts.

APL falsely states that the Code is enforceable by law. This is (to date) only the case in South Australia where the Code is incorporated in the Animal Welfare Act. Other States are yet to incorporate aspects of the Code into their laws. However, as the Code does not significantly protect pigs from any form of impaired welfare, this makes no difference.

Regarding the housing systems and practices on pig farms, APL claims that 'Strong progress has been made and innovations to improve welfare are gaining ground.'

Truth:
This is an unsubstantiated claim. Certainly as of November 2009 APL was still strongly defending the use of pregnant sow stalls despite these devices being banned or phased out in a number of other countries on welfare grounds.

APL mentions that 'a deadline has been imposed for farmers to cut the maximum time a sow is allowed to stay in a stall by more than half, to just the most vulnerable first 6 weeks of pregnancy.' The reality is that until 2017 producers can keep pregnant sows in sow stalls for their full 4 month pregnancy. Even after 2017 producers will be permitted to keep pregnant sows in stalls for 6 weeks and in the even closer confinement of farrowing crates for up to six weeks during each pregnancy. With breeding animals subjected to two pregnancies per year this still means that from 2017 they can be confined barely able to move for half of the year. Until 2017 it is legal for producers to keep breeding pigs in a space barely bigger than their bodies for their entire "productive" life.

APL blames aggression between pigs for the need to house them in isolation during pregnancy.

Truth:
However, aggression between pigs is a result of too high densities on factory farms and the impossibility to perform natural behaviour. Rather than provide the obvious welfare solution – provide the animals with more space and quality of life – the response of the pig industry has been to individually confine animals in metal and concrete crates barely bigger than their bodies – compounding cruelty upon cruelty. Confining any animal so that they are barely able to move and providing nothing but a hard metal or concrete floor to lie on can never be claimed to be motivated by animal welfare. Sow stalls are about maximizing productivity.

When given adequate space, bedding and foraging material, such as on free-range farms, or in well managed group systems where sows are mixed directly after mating, aggression is not a welfare issue. On top of that, sows have fewer lameness problems in these systems than stall-housed sows.

APL claims 'The temporary use of farrowing crates plays a crucial role in protecting piglets from being crushed'.

Truth:
Maxmising the number of sows that can be housed, and thus the amount of "products" that can be raised for slaughter in a restricted indoor space is the primary motivation for the pig industry using farrowing crates. Scientific studies in Australia and overseas have shown that alternative housing systems which provide the sow with the ability to move (free-range and group housing) achieve similar piglet survival rates as farrowing crates.

Farrowing crates inflict one of the greatest cruelties on mother pigs. Research shows that in the hours prior to giving birth mother pigs undergo a hormonal urge to build a nest to give birth to her young in. In farrowing crates mother pigs have no choice but to give birth on a metal or concrete floor in the same area that they toilet and they deny her all movement aside from standing or lying, resulting in the same welfare impacts as sow stalls.

In farrowing crates in Australia, on average one piglet will still be crushed from each litter – therefore some 600,000 piglets a year die in farrowing crates in Australia.

APL claims that its quality assurance program (APIQ) 'ensures facilities are maintained to a high standard', that producers have a system for 'animal welfare management', and states that the program will be strengthened in 2010.

Truth:
The pig industry’s quality assurance program has been shown to be an abject failure in light of the cruelty prosecution in Tasmania and the filthy conditions in the large commercial piggery connected to an APL board member in South Australia.

The APIQ scheme is entirely voluntary and pig producers who are involved have prior notice of when an audit will take place. There is no legitimate, independent system in place that ensures that all piggeries are audited in Australia.

--
For further information that counters the claims of Australian Pork Limited, please visit the website of the Australian Free Range Pork Farmers Association.

Prepared by Animals Australia
November 2009

Pigs in factory farms have committed no crime, yet they are condemned to suffer, and their sentence is for life. You can change the way they live—make the Pro Pig Pledge today!