NAWAC’s draft welfare code for pigs, on which submissions close this week, is conservative, and not supported by the experience of free range pork producers, who speak openly to Pundit about their pigs
So, SAFE’s done it again.
Writing last year, here on Pundit, I noted SAFE’s impeccable timing— smashing through public consciousness, with the help of reformed character Mike King and TVNZ, in the year that the pig welfare code was due for a review.
Public submissions on the draft Animal Welfare (Pigs) Code of Welfare 2009 close this coming Friday, April 16. Time for another covert operation by SAFE activists, more prime-time debate on Close Up, and some “challenging” (as Mike Hosking dryly put it) footage.
The Pork Industry Board’s bland assertions of good faith and commitment to animal husbandry, whilst defending these practices, seem at odds with the trend of producers here and overseas to abandon ‘factory farming’ methods— methods we would not countenance for any other kind of animal, only the ones bred for our convenience, in the form of cheap food.
But they give some good, welfare-based reasons to continue the practices. I asked two free-range own-brand producers whether, when you open the cages, all hell really does break loose.
The draft code released for comment by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) was delayed, after the Pork Industry Board threatened legal action. On matters around pig confinement—such as dry sow stalls and farrowing crates—key proposals include:
- The use of dry sow stalls (which confine pregnant animals) would be limited, to four weeks post-mating, from December 31, 2012.
- Their use is to be discontinued, from a date to be determined, with a proposed date of December 2017.
- The use of farrowing crates (for birthing animals and their litters) would be limited, to four weeks post-farrowing, from the date of issue of the code. Phase out is an aspiration, but there is no clear path to it.
- Although a best practice is identified of providing pigs with straw or deep bedding material, to facilitate their natural rooting habit, nothing in the code precludes continuing to fatten weaners in barren concrete pens.
NAWAC’s comment on farrowing crates, in particular, notes that their continued use is an interim compromise. The code is an advance on the road to better methods, but a small cautious risk-averse one. Its conservatism has heart-breaking real world impacts for individual animals. The dry sow stall status quo persists for another couple of years. Even from 2013, breeding sows, pregnant a couple of times each year, could spend several months in close confinement annually.
The code describes the animal welfare threats dry sow stalls and farrowing crates evolved to prevent. Pigs establish a hierarchy, and enforce it by “bullying, fighting and vices such as vulva, tail and ear biting”. These can result in significant injuries; subordinate pigs may suffer from lack of access to food and water. Aggression among sows can be severe in early pregnancy. Sows may be a hazard to their piglets, including accidentally crushing or eating them.
But the Animal Welfare Act requires the opportunity for animals to display normal patterns of behaviour— negative, as well as positive behaviour. The draft code also says pigs are social animals that prefer to live in groups. Sows have a strong urge to build a nest in the days leading up to farrowing, and only when she is farrowing and raising a litter will a sow choose to be isolated from others. Pigs of all ages seek out oral and nasal stimulation, such as by rooting and chewing. Many simple cruelty-free methods are suggested, for mitigating adverse behaviour.
Havoc Pork and Freedom Farms are free-range producers. I approached them separately for comment; their responses were all but identical.
For farrowing, “we give our mums a hut, a bale of straw, a trough with water, fence her off a piece of the paddock, feed her three times a day and let her get on with what she does naturally” wrote Havoc, and Freedom was much the same.
Neither experiences problems with aggression, Freedom noting that this is more likely to be a response to confinement, overcrowding, or when a sow feels that something is threatening her piglets.
Both acknowledged some risk of increased mortality due to ‘mum’ accidentally crushing a piglet, but it happens in the wild, is not a regular occurrence, and is far outweighed by the need for the sow to be able to create a nest and interact with her newborn, something a farrowing crate completely denies.
Whereas these producers might naturally be expected to have some interest in their niche market protection, as far as I could tell, their delight would be heartfelt, if the whole industry turned around. First and foremost, shining through their comments, was empathy with the character of the pigs; of which these animals have bucketloads:
“One thing that does happen from time to time [wrote my Havoc correspondent] is when gilts (first time mums) farrow they sometimes move in with their friend (who they have grown up with) this makes it a tight squeeze and Ian spends a lot of time taking the invader back to her own hut, they get the message after a while … Good stockmanship and watching your pigs at our farm is what we do, it is not just a numbers game.”
Ironically, one concern of the pork industry, in defending the status quo, is the risk of imported pork substitution. Yet for many years there was no labelling; and there still is no labelling of the imported product. Instead, the mark to look for is the NZ Pork brand Mike King promoted.
But the industry itself has resisted labelling of the kind we now see on eggs, which identifies different methods of production; about half the industry is now free range, but as SAFE has shown, the brand shields a mix of methods.
So NZ Pork is trumpeted as better than imported, whilst at the same time defending the same methods by some producers, on the grounds that we cannot give imports a price-point advantage.
It's also worth noting that, according to NAWAC, “MAF’s draft economic analysis [that accompanies the welfare code] indicates that substantial import substitution is unlikely”.
Submissions on the draft code close this Friday April 16, 2010 and can be addressed to animalwelfare@maf.govt.nz. Please watch the TVNZ footage, if you missed it (and can bear it), and consider making a brief submission.
Comments (18)
We've converted to Freedom Farms since the Sunday programme last year. We tend to buy when it's on special, so it's only a dollar or two more than the other stuff. It's in most supermarkets these days, and in my local butcher's.
I'll have to keep an eye out for Havoc.
Thing about those SAFE pics played on Close Up is that no matter what the vets and Pork Board people say, your own eyes tell you the story. They can make all the arguments they like about pig management, and some may have a degree of credit (or they may not), but when you see the dead piglets and the gouged out pigs, your gut tells you something ain't right.
Hardly evidence-based reasoning, I know, but gee a picture really is worth a thousand words sometimes.
Brief postscript, with one thing I forgot, and a couple of afterthoughts ...
First, on the subject of aggression, Havoc also commented that when a bigger sow is seeing off a younger cheeky girl, at the feeding trough or whatever, typically it is just noise.
Second, on piglet mortality. While Freedom anecdotally acknowledged this risk, a number of studies have apparently been done on this, which have found that the overall mortality across different production systems is in fact not significantly different. Which makes sense, when you think about it, in the light of the latest SAFE footage, which had dead piglets (from whatever cause) in the farrowing crate -- evidently, no guarantee of success.
Third, I thought I would also share both producers' comments, on the subject of this post (which wasn't my original reason for approaching them -- originally, I only wanted to inform my own submission). "That is just fine with me [wrote Linda from Havoc]. Pigs do all have their individual personalities ..." And Gregor from Freedom said, "I have added your blog to my favourites. Thanks for giving a damn."
So of course, the other thing you can do, apart from writing a submission, is let your wallet do the talking, by supporting indie producers like these.
Tim -- yes [our comments must have crossed]. That footage was just harrowing stuff, even when you know what to expect. It is what prompted me to post again.
Havoc is Waimate-based; I think Dunedin Farmers' Market was the first to see their product. Moore Wilson Fresh in Wellington sells their bacon now. Somewhere like Farro Fresh in Auckland might [checks ... yes, it does]. They also do mail order.
Interestingly, and somewhat ironically, one of the major suppliers of Freedom Farms is the Department of Corrections. They have this as an industry to allow prisoners to gain skills (and qualifications) as well as work experience. So, for those who believe in rehabilitation, there is an extra reason to buy free range pork (at least from Freedom Farms, I don't know about Havoc).
Extremely interesting, thanks for that. It works for me: freeing both caged species.
I am encouraged by people's sadness upon witnessing the videos of these pigs. But unfortunately, no one is really addressing the fundamental question which is; what justification do we have for doing any of this to any animals at all?
"Free range" pigs and other animals end up in the same slaughterhouses as their "factory farmed" counterparts. Why is no one showing that footage? All animals farmed for their flesh, skin, milk, eggs, whatever, are exploited their entire lives and then slaughtered horrifically. The free range producers can talk about "empathy for the character of the pigs", but if "empathy" means being enslaved and confined, forced to breed endlessly, having my babies taken away (to be bred/confined/slaughtered) only to end up being horrifically slaughtered myself, then I will do without that kind of "empathy" thank you very much.
Veganism is the best way to help animals. It's easy, don't believe the hype. We as consumers are responsible for this slaughter of billions of animals every year, including almost a million pigs in NZ alone, and telling ourselves we are buying "humane" products is not the answer.
If those videos bother anyone, there is a good reason why, and continuing to eat and otherwise consume pigs or any other animals, and calling it "humane" is not addressing the issue one single bit. We all claim to be opposed to violence and unnecessary suffering and death on animals, yet most of us directly participate in it, every single time we purchase animal products. The change for better starts with the individual, and nonviolence is the key. Veganism is a rejection of violence and a recognition that what we are doing to all the other animals of this earth is cannot be justified.
Put aside the welfare arguments for a moment. Let's question our Use of Animals; in this one case, the use of Pigs. It is in no way necessary to use Pigs, or any nonhuman for that matter. We certainly don't need to consume the Pigs' flesh, his/her body parts or secretions, we're better off without. We claim to want nonviolence and peace, yet upon reflection of all Animal Exploitation it will always be violent and cruel. We are using nonhumans for trivial purposes. The Use of nonhumans is what is cruel, not the treatment. We use nonhumans, they are sentient beings like us humans, they have an interest in not being the property of another. Put yourself or a human in any Pigs situation. We would be outraged if we found out that humans were being used for their flesh, body parts and other secretions. Yet how is using Pigs any different? We cannot justify using Pigs or any nonhumans. SAFE is wasting their time pursuing Animal Welfare legislation, sow stalls and farrowing crates are maybe going to be abolished by 2017? This is besides the point. Pigs will still be used.Their Use is cruel, treatment is irrelevant. Could you imagine the positive, meaningful change that could be achieved if people were inspired to go Vegan, stop participating in all forms of Animal Use and continue to spread that peaceful message themselves? We certainly would be somewhere meaningful then.
Perhaps one of the very saddest issues is how farmers can talk about loving animals, can recognise that yes, these are females who become pregnant (through force), and give birth, and yet they are nothing more than "stock". They start as "livestock" and become "deadstock", divied up and sold in plastic packets for a few dollars apiece.
All animals feel pain, all animals have feelings and worth. Chickens, Cows, Pigs, Sheep....each can recognise their own kind, talk to each other in specialised languages and I believe genuinely feel love for their offspring. Why wouldnt they, they *ARE* animals, just like us you know!
Treatment is not the problem, if each sow had a planet to herself, it would be no different to the current "caged in" situation most pigs find themselves in. How in any way could this be considered "fair", or moral?
Please, if you are not Vegan, become Vegan, its easy for *ANYONE* to be Vegan, and you will know you are absolutely making a world of difference for animals.
For more information about Veganism, I reccomend the following podcasts and websites:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/
http://www.vegansociety.co.nz/
http://veganacious.com/
http://coexistingwithnonhumananimals.blogspot.com/
http://fftradio.wordpress.com/
http://nzveganpodcast.blogspot.com/
Thanks Elizabeth, William and Jordan for your views, and information. It had to happen; I wondered when we would hear from you all!
I have been down your road, as a vegetarian for eight years or so, and vegan for a couple of those. I didn't like what I found at the end of it. I made a considered -- actually, agonised -- choice to return to meat-eating. It was among the hardest decisions I have ever grappled with. It took me years to come to terms with.
I don't consider your choice sound, and I set out the reasons for that here. But I acknowledge it is an individual choice. I appreciate the same courtesy in return; therefore, I'm afraid my tolerance for proselytising is a bit limited.
Thanks for responding Claire. I am intrigued to know what you didn't like about Veganism. I think it is very ignorant to call this matter simply an 'individual choice'. Who's ultimately being affected here - the animals are. Our use of animals is unjustified, we can only justify it on the grounds of pleasure, convenience and habit. I will never have respect for Speciesism, as I will never have respect for Racism, Sexism and other forms of discrimination. Yet, I do respect all as human beings, regardless of what they do and what their backgrounds are. To put your statement in the context of human slavery would be outrageous, that it would be your 'individual choice' to participate in human slavery, yet, how would that be any different to our enslavement of sentient nonhumans. None whatsoever. You have completely removed the victims from this situation. I suggest you think about your 'individual choice' and who that is affecting. As to your article 'Killing Sacred Cows' I think reading this page www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/ (thanks to Jordan who linked before) will answer your points made in that article regarding Veganism and this current Animal Welfare fiasco.
...If it is animal suffering, vegetarianism, you might think, is defensible. Cruelty-free milk and egg harvesting troubles the animals little..."
We have a vastly different concept about what constitues "troubling animals little".
"...Veganism is best defended in the pristine environs of the supermarket, buying the tofu ready-prepared and plastic-wrapped...."
This shows utter lack of knowledge about the vegan diet. P.S Veganism is not just a diet.
I suggest if you really care about animals and the environment, as seems to be your claim, do some real reasearch on the truth about vegan diets, vegan agriculture, and remember, always, that veganism is not just a diet. So maybe once, for a little while, you ate a vegan diet, but you were not vegan, because if you were, you still would be. Veganism is not a diet. Veganism is not a personal choice based on personal preferences. Veganism is a rejection of violence, and a recognition that we have no right to use sentient beings, of any species, as a means to an end. Veganism and nonviolence is a good thing. For all of us. Please, think about it critically, taking yourself out of it for one second.
It is not about "proselytising". Let's use a hypothetical in the human context: If we go to a country where it is perfectly socially acceptable to sell 5 year old girls as sex slaves, and try to educate the people there, on behalf of the little girls who cannot free themselves from the exploitation, about how it is wrong to do so and why it should be stopped, would you also call that "proselytising"?
If they said "it's our personal choice to use these girls as sex slaves and we've been doing it for centuries" would you accept that? how about "our entire economy is based on using these little girls as sex slaves, and we refuse to consider another way to live, because it is not against the law here". Is that acceptable to you?
Personal choice is what colours to wear, what music to listen to etc. Personal choice is just that, personal. The unecessary torture and death of innocent animals is not a "personal choice". True, because it is socially accepted, there are no real consequences to the individual for directly participating in the slaughter of billions of animals yearly, however, that does not make it any more a personal choice than a man who enjoys watching child pornography videos "in the privacy of his own home" because "he enjoys it". We recognize that that is not a personal choice? Why? Because there are third parties involved. The victims.
Just because the victims in the discussion about veganism are non-humans and just because our species has decided it is socially acceptable to use them as a means to an end doesn't make them any less victims than human victims of torture, slavery and death. We don't need to use animals. We don't need to eat them, wear them, chase them around rings, put them in cages, test cosmetics on them etc etc etc—all the myriad of horrible ways we use them are totally unecessary and therefore not justified.
Please, don't take our word for it. I suggest doing some research, contact the NZ Vegan Society, look at the links that Jordan provided. IF you really do care about animals and the environment (which is my environment too thank you very much, and my young nephews' a neices' environment, not to mention every single other inhabitant of the earth's environment!) you owe it to yourself, to us and to the animals of the planet to really consider what we are saying. Do you care?
Thanks.
William.
Principally, what I do not like about 'Veganism' is when it is pursued with zealotry and sanctimony, capital V's, and so on. This is not, of course, particular to you, or your field. My antipathy would be as large to an argument of 'dominion' over animals, from Christian principles. You don't have to read around very far on Pundit to find I am not espousing that.
I may be ignorant, but I'm guessing you are quite young. Sorry if that sounds patronising. It is quite patronising, but it's not just the hair that greys as one ages -- in my experience, anyway! Having read that page -- which was familiar ground, I assure you -- I can only suggest that you re-read my other post, because the page responds to few of the points that I made.
To put it in simple terms, my position was that vegetarianism has more logical flaws than either of the other two options. But both veganism and omnivory have their pros and cons: both are indefensible, in my view, albeit from different perspectives. In the end, you choose your poison, and live with the consequences -- including, in my case, the knowledge that creatures die so that I might live.
So I wasn't removing the 'victims', as you term them, from the equation. That is, in fact, why they are front and centre in this post, and a number of my other Pundit posts. And please don't put words in my mouth: I didn't try to justify it on any of your "pleasure, convenience, or habit" grounds. My point was that, in a face off between a vegan vision of the world and, let's say, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's River Cottage one, I choose the River Cottage. Because that is real life.
Elizabeth, ditto. Thanks for your endeavours, and I wish you the best with them, but you are wasting your time with me. Over and out.
That's fine Claire, I am hoping others actually read your column. I am not just writing these things for you to read. The world is full of people who do care, who just have never been presented with the arguments before, and those are people we are trying to reach, especially right now, at the beginning. So please don't be concerned, it is not a waste of time at all :)
Note to readers - "creatures" don't "need to die so that we might live" in the way that is suggested. Even if there are deaths that occur because our species is wreaking havoc on the earth, including in the farming of vegatables (that doesn't mean that that cannot be addressed, of course, but we have to care enough to address it) there is an enormous difference between deaths caused by accident and deliberate slaughter of "creatures", especially for unecessary consumption of animal products that are not needed for our survival, such as leather trinkets and meat and dairy. I am sure anyone can recognize the difference.
Elizabeth,
Yep, I know what you're doing -- hence my initial reference to 'proselytising'! -- and please don't think I meant that unkindly. I, too, hope others actually read both column and comments, and advocating for minimum welfare standards is a similar thing, after all.
And all power to you, really. It would be a kinder world if more people would stop to consider the arguments, let alone putting them into practice. You've got a long row to hoe, though: it's hard enough to convince most shoppers to justify a buck or two more for free-farmed products, let alone the revolution.
Thanks Claire, I appreciate you taking the time to talk with us. You are right we do have a lot of work to do, we are just at the beginning, better times are ahead. :)
There is a kind of middle ground on meat eating, that accords some respect to the life animals have or might choose to have, that looks at domestiction as a kind of Faustian pact. In this view, a Coromandel jungle fowl (The origins of our domestic fowl) might conceivably swap its high threat life for the managed threat of a barnyard or free range operation, but could not conceivably assent to being battery farmed.
It seems a reasonable guideline, for all its anthromorphism, that perspective being not entirely eradicable from our species.
& Good luck you Vegans - it is a principled position, if a little too strenuous for some of us.
Post new comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.