| |
Advocacy in action
 Science versus emotion
We face an interesting conundrum in swine production today. What
role does science play in the decisions made by industry leaders
when the science is unclear and the issue emotional? The adoption
of science-based technological and managerial changes over the last
20 years have resulted in dramatic improvements in the quality,
safety, and wholesomeness of the pork our industry produces and the
way our animals are reared. However, today we find that very same
scientific process often ignored to promote the agendas of
well-funded organizations determined to destroy animal
agriculture.
A perfect example is the issue of sow stalls versus pens for
gestation housing. As all of us involved in the industry are well
aware, the vast majority of commercial sows are housed in gestation
stalls post breeding. A lot of research has attempted to answer the
question of which housing system maximizes the animals’
welfare. Not surprisingly, the research findings are mixed. It
would appear that the level of management and attention to detail
are more important factors associated with animal welfare than is
the type of housing system.
Part of the dilemma is that there is no universally agreed-upon
method to measure all facets of animal welfare. Likewise, not
everyone agrees on which facets should even be considered when
evaluating the quality of an animal’s state of being. I think
many would agree that providing adequate shelter from the elements,
freedom from predation, recognition and treatment of disease and
injury, and access to appropriate nutrition and water would form
the minimum basis for “humane treatment.” Others would
argue, however, that additional amenities are necessary, such as
something larger than minimum space requirements and access to
bedding or nest-making materials. And, then, of course, at the
extreme end of the spectrum, some are adamant that nothing short of
a lifestyle as depicted in Charlotte’s Web1 is
adequate.
In other words, welfare exists on a continuum because our
estimation of an animal’s welfare is ultimately measured and
defined by human beings using measures derived from our experience,
previous exposure, and system of values and beliefs. From a
scientific perspective, we attempt to compare different systems in
the hopes of detecting variations in the responses we can measure
in variables we consider as “good” and
“bad” indices. In the case of sow stalls, the science
tells us that no one system is consistently “better,”
given our measures of sow welfare. As we all know, animal welfare
is an emotional issue and thus it’s relatively easy to
portray sow stalls as “bad” because emotion
doesn’t require proof. It’s intensely personal and
there is no clearly defined “right” or
“wrong.”
Now, however, we have the additional influence of product
perception and marketing. In today’s highly competitive
commodity markets, everyone is looking for a niche or a
differentiator. Shifting away from sow stalls is one of those
issues that marketers see as putting a favorable face on their
product. Smithfield Foods and Maple Leaf Farms have both announced
plans to phase out gestation stalls gradually over the next few
years. Both were quick to point out that the scientific research
was not the basis for this decision, but rather a response to what
the companies perceive as their customers’ preferences.
I think, however, that there is a legitimate concern about the
welfare effects on the animals were there to be a widespread, rapid
shift from today’s stall housing systems to pen gestation
housing. Much work needs to be done to adjust our management
styles, facility designs, and training programs to adequately meet
the needs of the animals in pen gestation. Potentially, we may even
need to change our genetics and nutritional recommendations to
maximize the production performance of animals housed in a
different system.
Our critics like to point out that it is not natural for a sow
not to be able to turn around or exhibit other
“natural” behaviors. The thing they fail to convey is
that not all “natural” or innate behaviors are
necessarily good things. For instance, in many cases, the
instinctual behavior of pigs in a group setting is to develop a
hierarchy for purposes of access to favored resources such as feed.
This hierarchy is often achieved by establishing dominance through
aggressive behavior and fighting, which in turn results in the
subordinate animals (often the weaker or diseased) receiving less
feed or fewer feeding opportunities and may result in severe
injury. While these considerations are well understood by the
scientific and production communities, it is a difficult message to
convey to the average consumer. Thus, in an attempt to “do
what’s right” we may wind up with a situation that is
significantly worse for the animals and less productive for the
farmer.
The recent ban on horse slaughter is another example of what I
see as a disturbing trend of ignoring science and expert opinion in
favor of an emotional response. Overlooking the facts that 90,000
to 100,000 unwanted horses are slaughtered for human food in the
United States each year, that this bill offers no alternative for
caring for those horses, and that in this country horses are
considered private property, the US Congress is poised to pass
legislation outlawing the business of processing horses for human
consumption or even transporting your horse to Mexico or Canada to
be processed.
By the time you read this, we will likely be in the throes of
debate over the 2007 Farm Bill and appropriations. More than
likely, our critics will be actively promoting legislation or
amendments supporting their vision of how swine producers should be
raising pigs and even how you should practice your profession.
I’m sure all of us do not agree precisely on all the issues
facing our profession and the swine industry. We are somewhere
along that continuum.
I would, however, ask that you be aware of the forces that are
working to reshape animal agriculture today and the declining
influence that farmers and agricultural scientists have on those
making decisions that will affect all of us in the future. To this
end, I encourage you to be involved in this process and ensure that
your opinion is heard. It’s now more important than ever. It
is no longer a given that animal agriculture is in charge of its
own destiny. Decision-makers who know nothing of what you and your
producers do are being influenced by folks whose agenda is likely
much different than yours. I encourage you to contact your state
and federal elected officials and let them hear your opinions.
Reference
1. White EB, Williams G. Charlotte’s Web. New York,
New York: HarperTrophy Publishers; 2006.
-- Harry Snelson
|
|
