A Closer Look at Factory Farming

October 2006

Some 5.3¹ million piglets are born and raised for pork, ham and bacon products each year in Australia. Only a small portion (some 5%) of pigs are born and raised in ‘free range’ conditions. Unless labeled ‘free-range or ‘organic’, pigmeat products at a butchers or supermarket will be from factory farmed pigs.

Pig farming in Australia is now big business. ‘Farm’ sizes have quadrupled in the last 2 decades, and the vast majority of pigs are kept indoors for their entire life. The breeding pigs – the sows and boars – may be kept in barren cement and metal bar confinement for all of their productive years. For some, the only time they will feel the sun on their backs will be on the day they are sent for slaughter.

How are breeding sows housed?
Almost three quarters (about 62%)² of the farms which house the 320,000 breeding sows in Australian herds hold their sows in a single stall for at least part of their 16 week pregnancy, with 26% of all farms keeping the sows in a stall for their entire pregnancy. The metal-barred stall need only measure 0.6m wide by 2.0m long (minimum in the Australian Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals), and some are less (e.g. Broom 1998 see Endnote 8). The sow cannot turn around, and can usually only take a step forward and back. Some sows are so large that when they lay their legs or teats intrude into the next sow stall space. The sow stall was introduced to enable individual monitoring of pigs, to reduce competition during feeding and to house a higher density of animals within a single shed.

Some sows are housed in ‘group pens’ with other pregnant sows. They are housed indoors on cement and slatted metal floors with no bedding and a minimum space per sow of just 1.4 sq metres (Code).

Intensive confinement causes suffering to pigs

Single sow stalls during pregnancy (behavioural and physical concerns)

The severe and barren confinement barely allows the sows any movement. According to the Code³ pigs must be able to stand normally, lie with limbs extended, stretch, and should have a clean dry place to lie. Even when this (unenforceable) Code is adhered to, such restriction over an extended period of time (up to 16 weeks) denies natural behaviour and adequate exercise and can result in frustration and abnormal behavioural patterns. Documented stereotypical behaviour includes head waving, bar biting, sham chewing and chain pulling⁴ . Frustration can lead to unresolved aggression and unresponsiveness, and inactivity to weaker bones and muscles. Confined sows are more likely to suffer foot injuries, lameness, and long-term pain from infected cuts and abrasions, weakened bones and muscles due to a lack of exercise, urinary tract infections and heart problems.⁵

Sow stalls severely restrict normal movement for mother pigs - for some larger sows, it is even difficult to stand up and lie down comfortably.

Farrowing crates

A few days prior to giving birth to their piglets, the vast majority (over 90%, likely 95%⁶ ) of sows are each then moved to 'farrowing crates' which similarly confine them (0.5 metre x 2.0 metres) until their piglets are weaned (3-4 weeks). In these barren enclosures, designed to reduce the sows crushing or smothering piglets, the sow is unable to carry out normal ‘nesting activities’ prior to farrowing. Instead she performs vacuum activities and appears restless. After farrowing, confined sows show reduced maternal behaviour, including piglet directed behaviour (vocalization, sniff, touch) and are less responsiveness to piglet distress calls. Within days of weaning, sows are again mated/impregnated and the majority (e.g. at least 62%) returned to single stalls.

Just prior to giving birth, sows are moved to even smaller farrowing crates for a further 3-4 weeks - most will then go on to be re-impregnated and returned to single stalls.

Lack of bedding in indoor systems (stalls, farrowing crates and group pens)

Bedding is important to pigs to enable body heat regulation, for comfort, and to provide manipulable rooting material. In Australia bedding is not used in the breeding accommodation – primarily due to cost and the risk of blocking drainage systems. Barren concrete or slatted floor housing, where nesting materials are absent, are linked with increased savaging of piglets by sows⁷. Similarly, less aggression (e.g. tail biting) is recorded between piglets in pens where straw is provided. Foraging activity with loose straw reduces stereotypies.

Lack of roughage/bulk in food and thus hunger for sows (relevant to stalls and other housing).

This is of particular concern if sows are on a restricted diet prior to farrowing and lactation. The highly concentrated diet commonly provided to pigs in stalls results in long periods of inactivity and abnormal behaviours and may physically damage the pigs (e.g. ulcers). It also results in constant hunger⁸. It is estimated that sows are fed just 60% of the amount they would consume if fed ad lib. Being fed bulkier more fibrous food may satisfy hunger without causing obesity, but would still not satisfy the pig’s urge to root in the earth⁹ or similar substrate for food rewards.

High 'Culling' rates

Around 10% (10.27% farm mean) of breeding sows die each year at piggeries, but many more are 'culled' due to injuries, lameness, or through failure to readily become pregnant. Over 61% of breeding female pigs on surveyed properties are ‘replaced’ each year (with young 'gilts' being mated to have their first litter of piglets). It is not surprising then that 'sow parity' - the number of litters born to a breeding female pig during her short life in the Australian industry, is recorded as a mean of just 4.11¹⁰. On average a sow will have around 2 years in the intensive breeding system before dying or being ‘culled’.

What do the scientists say about sow stalls?

Professor Donald Broom, first Professor of Animal Welfare at the University of Cambridge UK, Chairman of the EU Scientific Veterinary Committee (which produced the 1997 report ‘The welfare of intensively kept pigs’ [Endnote 3] and led to the EU Directive to phase out stalls) visited a NSW piggery in 1998 to observe sow stalls and found many to be too small for the large sows, and thus causing difficulty with standing and lying with limbs outstretched. Prof. Broom stated:

"Other aspects of stall-housing for sows and gilts cause severe problems for the animals. Many aspects of the needs of sows and gilts are not fulfilled by stall-housing. In addition to the problems with lying mentioned above, the animals cannot exercise, show normal foraging, rooting and manipulatory behaviour, interact normally with other animals, respond when frightened of humans, or use most normal means to regulate their body temperature. Sows kept in stable groups in a reasonably varied environment can do these things. Sows in groups can be managed so that all individuals are fed adequately with minimal aggression. Evidence for much poorer welfare in sows kept in stalls than in sows kept in groups is: the extreme escape responses shown when first put in stalls, the higher levels of emergency adrenal cortex hormone production, much higher levels of abnormal behaviour such as stereotypies, and weaker muscles and bones as a result of lack of exercise."¹¹

Professor David Mellor, Chairperson of the NZ National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC), and Director of the Animal Welfare Science and Behaviour Centre (Massey University NZ) summed up the NAWAC position after consideration of submissions during a recent review of the NZ code:

"NAWAC is of the opinion that sows, when confined in dry sow stalls, do not have the opportunity to display natural behaviour, which NAWAC believes is beneficial and necessary for welfare. Section 4 of the [NZ] Animal Welfare Act 1999, requires that there are five needs which must be taken into account when deciding the appropriate physical, health and behavioural needs of an animal. One of those needs is the ability to display normal behaviour. When confined in stalls, sows are only able to stand up and sit or lie down. The environment is barren (as is generally seen in the other parts of the production system) and this, plus an inability to exert any control over this environment, results in boredom and frustration and often abnormal behaviour. Dry sow stalls are an unrewarding environment for sows. ….
NAWAC is of the opinion that confinement in dry sow stalls does not meet the legal requirements of the Act and therefore should be phased out."¹²

What are the alternatives?
Other housing systems for breeding sows include:

• Indoor large open-sided sheds with litter (ricehulls, straw, sawdust or similar), sometimes referred to generically as ‘Ecoshelters’¹³ , housing compatible groups of pigs.
• Outdoor straw yards or paddocks, which include rooting areas, wallows, kennels/huts and enough space to meet pigs' behavioural requirements (free range).

Are there welfare problems with the alternatives?
An RIRDC paper entitled ‘Developing Free-range Animal Production Systems’¹⁴ discusses the welfare attributes of free-range pig farming and cites a number of studies which concluded that:

• allowing pigs to forage on pastures is particularly suited to the pig’s natural behaviour and also improved carcass composition and health
• despite high temperatures during a study by Glatz and Ru no pig performed abnormally
• pigs did not suffer from sunburn being protected by a coat of mud on the skin from the wallow
• experience in Tasmania with free range pigs suggests no additional health problems and the free-range pigs ‘have a reputation for robustness…’
• free-range reared pigs are calmer and less aggressive
• access to bedding and roughage for outdoor pigs meant they spent more time foraging and less time on tail biting and other stereotypic behaviours (than indoor pigs), and
• free-range sows have a better nursing capability.

The financial costs:
Dr Suzanne Pope, in her report ‘Critical Pathways in Welfare for the Pig’¹⁵ makes the case that well-run less intensive methods of pig production can compete economically with the typical close confinement facilities.
The costs of switching to group housing will depend upon both the current system (its age and configuration) and the new system chosen. The EU Scientific Veterinary Committee (SCV) report (1997) compared the veterinary costs of an Electronic Sow Feeder (to ensure individually monitored volumes) to sow stalls and concluded that ‘total investment per sow decreases for the group housing system’ since ‘… expensive crates [stalls] are not needed anymore’. Using the SVC scenario the actual profit margin of the model led to an 8% increase in income. A paper by Turner in 2000¹⁶ estimated that changing from stalls to group housing with straw would add only a minimal amount (approx. 5 cents/kg) to the cost of producing pig meat, and less if the straw delivery was automated and the sows consumed the straw (as is common), thus reducing or eliminating manual removal costs.

In Australia, some research is underway on the productivity (piglet survival at weaning per sow) of sows kept in eco-shelters during pregnancy (QAF at Corowa) and some piggeries have already established this system. A number of piggeries in Australia have already expanded their operations by housing large groups of pregnant sows in litter-based shelters. Two piggery operators¹⁷ who reported at a symposium in 2001, have individual feeding stalls and provide additional straw bales. They house sows at between 3 – 5.5sq m/sow. These new sheds have operated since 2000, and although comparisons will be confounded by factors such as disease, and climate, these sheds reported in early 2001 achieving a level of reproductive performance similar to the industry average.

A study by Frey of Portec Australia¹⁸ examined performance records of 45 Australian pig herds representing 11% of the Australian herd over 3 years to February 2003. Frey concluded ‘Results of this comparison [of stalled, grouped (indoor pigs) and outdoor (free range) pig herds] provide a good indication that, where management and stockmanship are good, the productivity of alternate housing systems can compete with and exceed that of conventional confinement housing for sows with compromising sow welfare.’

European Developments
In June 2001, European Agriculture Ministers adopted new rules for the protection of pigs. The EU Directive occurred only after a comprehensive review of the science by the Scientific Veterinary Committee (see Endnote 3), and then consideration by the European Commission which concluded that sow stalls ‘are causing serious welfare problems to the animals’.¹⁹ The resulting Directive bans the keeping of sows (other than for the first 4 weeks of pregnancy) by 2013 on existing farms (and 2003 on new facilities) in all 15 EU countries. Those countries collectively represent a pig industry of some 15 million sows. The EU has agreed on a legally binding protocol to its founding Treaty that recognises animals as sentient beings rather than just ‘agricultural products’.

Several EU countries have already passed national legislation on a unilateral basis banning sow stalls (completely) ahead of the EU restrictions. Bans are already in force in Sweden (since 1994) and in the United Kingdom (since 1999). Finland will ban them from this year (2006), Switzerland in 2007, and The Netherlands’ total ban commences in 2008.²⁰

Other aspects of the Directive will assist pig welfare, including some increase in space allowance when in groups, permanent access to manipulable material (e.g. straw), and sufficient high fibre foods to satisfy their hunger and need to chew. Further reviews of the EU Directive are planned and will include reports designed to reduce the need for castration, and findings on tail biting, stocking densities and farrowing crates.²¹

… in New Zealand
The New Zealand Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) released its Animal Welfare (Pigs) Code of Welfare in January 2005.²² The Code requires a phase out of dry sow stalls other than for the first 4 weeks of pregnancy, for all new facilities (from 1/1/05) and for all facilities by 1/1/2015.

The Code also indicates that the disadvantages of the farrowing crate system for the sow ‘include the restriction of movement and a reduced ability to carry out nest building’, and indicates that NAWAC would like to see farrowing crate use ‘eventually phased out altogether’. The NAWAC will review the Code in 2009.

… in Australia
The Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare in its 1990 report on Intensive Livestock Production indicated –
" It is this Committee’s view that an intensive system is proper if the health of the animals is not affected, if their behaviour is not disturbed, and if their adaptability is not overcharged’.
" …that future trends in housing the dry sow should be away from individually-confined stall systems and that this be reflected in the Codes of Practice for the Welfare of the Pig’. ²⁴

Further, the Committee noted that ‘sow size has increased over the years’ and so recommended that attention should be given to sow stalls and farrowing crates to ensure they ‘do not cause suffering due to cramping’.

Public opinion also says - 'free the pigs'.
New Zealand, European and Australian surveys have revealed great public concern about pig welfare.

NZ: A Colmar Brunton Poll conducted in New Zealand revealed that 86% of those people surveyed believed that keeping pigs in sow stalls was unacceptable, with 87% wanting a ban by 2006. Prior to the poll, there were over 20,000 submissions to the NZ government supporting a ban.

Europe: The 'European Coalition for Farm Animals' and 'Compassion in World Farming' jointly commissioned opinion polls in seven countries - Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Portugal in 2001. They polls found that a large majority of people considered sow stalls to be cruel (average: 85%) and wanted the practice banned (84%). 84% of respondents indicated that they were willing to pay more for pigmeat if the pigs were not kept in stalls.

Australia: In 2000, Meat and Livestock Australia commissioned The Roy Morgan Research Centre to conduct a survey on public perceptions of animal welfare. The survey revealed that the importance of animal welfare and cruelty to animals as a social issue increased from 29% to 54% since 1994 and that the keeping of pigs in pens was one of the top three farming practices with which respondents disagreed.

‘Surgical’ mutilations of pigs also of concern

• castration of males; increasing number of male pigs are being held until after puberty, and thus the fear of ‘boar taint’ leads some producers to routinely castrate piglets without anaesthesia/analgesia in the first week of life;
• tail docking in the first few days, using scissors without anaesthesia/analgesia, is common;
• teeth clipping of piglets, using clippers or a grinder, is common and is designed to reduce damage during fighting between litter mates, or to protect the sows teats ["…it is likely that tooth resection induces severe pain in piglets. … the pain probably lasts at least up until the fiftieth day of life, when they lose their lacteal teeth’ – extract only²⁵ ];
• ear notching of young piglets for identification is common; and
• these ‘mutilations’ and invasive techniques such as injections and assisted mating may be undertaken by workers that have not received adequate training.

Piglets endure painful mutilations, often by untrained workers, without any pain relief. (left-castrating of male piglet, right- teeth clipping)

Other welfare concerns in the pig Industry include stocking densities for group-housed animals, both breeding animals and for ‘growers’, the high rates of lameness of sows and boars and consequent suffering and early ‘culling’, and the death rates of piglets on some farms (despite the use of ‘farrowing crates’).

Group Housing: high stocking densities and lack of behavioural enrichment can lead to chronic boredom and stress in factory farmed pigs.

The legal situation

In Australia each State and Territory has a Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, or similarly-named law. These legally enforceable Acts are all slightly different, but they all make it an offence (punishable by fines or imprisonment) to treat animals in a manner that is shown to be 'cruel', or cause unnecessary suffering or pain to an animal. However, those State and Territory animal protection laws are then totally undermined by 'exemptions' written into those Acts which allow practices included and described in 'Codes of Practice' to be carried out without fear of prosecution where suffering or pain is caused.

This means that animals used in agriculture, in industries that have a Code of Practice (and each industry does have one), are treated in a different manner under the State and Territory laws. For example, to keep a dog in a stall for months at a time, a space so small it cannot turn around, would be likely to lead to a prosecution under the existing law - but a pig is exempted because of the 'Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals - Pig' adopted in each State and Territory as an exemption to the law.

Further examples include the many 'mutilations' that occur on intensive and extensive farms, e.g. 'mulesing', the cutting of folds of skin from a lamb without pain relief, and as above, teeth clipping, tail cutting and castration of piglets without pain relief. These procedures are described in Codes and thus are exempt if carried out as described in those Codes. To undertake similar 'mutilations' to companion animals or native wildlife would in all likelihood lead to a prosecution of the offender.

Further, it should also be noted that there is no automatic offence if producers fail to comply with Codes of Practice (except for some Codes in South Australia). Codes are not enforceable.

Further Information:

> Read Voiceless' 'From Paddocks to Prisons' Report (PDF)
> More about 'Codes of Cruelty'

 

Endnotes: 

[1]	Australian Pork Limited, Pig Annual 2005 - http://www.australianpork.com.au/media/Australian%20Pig%20Annual%2Epdf
[2]	Barnett JL, Hemsworth PH, Cronin GM, Jongman EC, Hutson GD (2001)  ‘A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing’, Australian Journal for Agricultural Research 52, 1-28.  This review quotes a PRDC paper by Paterson, Pointon and Cargill in 1997 which estimates 62% of Australian farms have pregnant sows in individual stalls at some stage during pregnancy (26% of farms used only individual stalls, 28% used only group pens, and 36% used a combination).
[3]	National ‘Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Pigs’ 1998 (2nd Edition)  Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management. (CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood)
[4]	Pope, S. ‘Critical Pathways in Welfare for the Pig’, for Animal Liberation NSW, 1999
[5]	comprehensive description of these problems and the research is to be found in the European Union Report ‘The Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee’. Adopted 30/9/1997.  Doc XXIV/B3/ScVC/0005/1997
[6]	Barnett et al, 2001
[7]	Pope, S. ‘Critical Pathways in Welfare for the Pig’, for Animal Liberation NSW, 1999.
[8]	Barnett et al, 2001.
[9]	Prof John Webster, Department of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, see ‘Animal Welfare, A Cool Eye towards Eden’, Chapter 8, Blackwell Science, 1994.
[10]	Australian Pork Limited, Pig Annual 2005 - http://www.australianpork.com.au/media/Australian%20Pig%20Annual%2Epdf
[11]	Extracted from an expert witness statement by Prof. Broom in the prosecution of Boen Boe Piggery under the NSW POCTA, dated 2/9/1998.
[12]	Mellor, D, ‘Comments to accompany Draft Animal Welfare (Pigs) Code of Welfare 2002 as at 9 December 2002’, accessed at http://www.maf.govt.nz/biosecurity/animal-welfare/codes.
[13]	‘Ecoshelter’ is a trademark and should only be used in reference to the constructions by that single company.
[14]	Glatz P & Ru Y,. 2004 ‘Developing Free-range Animal Production Systems’, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Publication number 04/058. http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/Ras/04-058.pdf
[15]	Pope, S. ‘Critical Pathways in Welfare for the Pig’, for Animal Liberation NSW, 1999
[16]	Turner J. 2000 ‘The welfare of Europe’s sows in close confinement stalls’. Hampshire (UK): Compassion in World Farming Trust.
[17]	G & B Dent and D & G Bradford, WA farmers speaking at the ‘Housing Symposium: What’s new and where are we going?’ Dept. of Agriculture, WA, 23/11/2001.
[18]	Frey B. 2004 ‘Sow performance in different housing systems’ study of data from 45 Australian herds over 3 years to Feb. 2003. – Report provided to AA, presumed unpublished. B. Frey is with Portec Australia in WA.
[19]	EU Commission, 2001. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the welfare of intensively kept pigs in particular taking into account the welfare of sows reared in varying degrees of confinement and in groups. Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Brussels, 16.01.2001. COM (2001) 20 final.
[20]	From Druce C and Lymbery P, (2002) ‘Outlawed in Europe, How America is falling behind Europe in farm animal welfare’, A report for Animal Rights International, Archmedian Press, NY.
[21]	The Council Directive (amending Directive 91/630/EEC) is available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/aw/aw_legislation/pigs/prop_en.pdf
[22]	http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/codes/pigs/
[23]	http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/history/index.htm
[24]	Para 11.72, Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare (1990) 'Intensive Livestock Production' Parliament House, Canberra
[25]	Animal Welfare Journal (V 13, Issue 1) February 2004