Farrowing is giving birth and then feeding the piglets where crates are used to prevent the sow crushing the piglets. And if you think the only alternative is Old MacDonald's, you are incorrect. Free range piggeries rely on small "huts" where sows can have and hide their piglets (in the wild, sows will use hollows to make a nest). Even if kept indoors, providing larger space and nesting materials and keeping sows in groups is an alternative. However, the latter too has welfare issues. From Karlen et al, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 105, 2007, "The welfare of gestating sows in conventional stalls and large groups on deep litter" Abstract: Confinement of breeding sows and gilts is a controversial welfare issue in livestock production and there is worldwide interest in finding alternative housing systems for gestating pigs. This study measured aspects of the welfare of gestating sows housed in either large groups on deep litter (Hoops) or conventional stalls (Stalls). Six hundred and forty sows were studied, with 40 recently mated sows weekly entering each treatment over an 8-week period; groups of 85 were formed using 40 experimental and 45 non-experimental animals. Sows in Hoops had a higher (P < 0.001) number of scratches, a higher (P < 0.01) return rate to oestrus after mating (13.20% versus 7.35%) and there was a trend (P = 0.06) for higher salivary cortisol concentrations in week 1 of gestation (6.29 nM versus 4.03 nM). Sows in Stalls had a higher incidence of lameness at weeks 9 and 15 of gestation (13.8% versus 0.8% at week 15) (P < 0.01). There were changes in some leucocyte sub-populations in the Stalls treatment late in gestation: the percentage of neutrophils was higher (46% versus 41% of WBC), the number and percentage of lymphocytes was lower (4.59 x 106 c/mL versus 5.16 x 106 c/mL and 41.6% versus 46.5% of WBC) and consequently there was a higher neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (1.22 versus 0.94) (P < 0.05). There was a trend (P = 0.06) for a lower reproductive failure in the Stalls treatment (14.5% versus 27.3%); farrowing rate was higher (76.8% versus 66%), and while sows in Stalls weaned fewer piglets per litter (8.31 versus 8.97), the average weaning weight of these piglets was higher (8.69 kg versus 8.01 kg) (P < 0.01). The combination of these reproductive parameters resulted in sows in the Stall treatment weaning the equivalent of 39 more piglets per 100 mated sows. The results suggest that sows in large groups on deep litter faced greater welfare challenges in the early stages of gestation based on the findings of increased scratches, a higher rate of return to oestrous and a trend for higher cortisol concentrations early in gestation, all possibly a consequence of aggression. In contrast sows in stalls faced greater welfare challenges later in gestation based on a higher incidence of lameness and an increased neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio perhaps as a consequence of increased stress. In conclusion, these data suggest that in both housing systems the welfare advantages and disadvantages change overtime.
Food for thought... In addition, people are looking at sustainability and husbandry, see for instance McGlone, in Animals, vol 3, 2013, "The future of pork production in the world: Towards sustainable, welfare-positive systems"
Abstract: Simple Summary: More pork is eaten in the world than any other meat. Making production systems and practices more sustainable will benefit the animals, the planet and people. A system is presented by which production practices are evaluated using a sustainability matrix. The matrix shows why some practices are more common in some countries and regions and the impediments to more sustainable systems. This method can be used to assess the sustainability of production practices in the future where objective, science-based information is presented alongside ethical and economic information to make the most informed decisions. Finally, this paper points to current pork production practices that are more and less sustainable. Abstract: Among land animals, more pork is eaten in the world than any other meat. The earth holds about one billion pigs who deliver over 100 mmt of pork to people for consumption. Systems of pork production changed from a forest-based to pasture-based to dirt lots and finally into specially-designed buildings. The world pork industry is variable and complex not just in production methods but in economics and cultural value. A systematic analysis of pork industry sustainability was performed. Sustainable production methods are considered at three levels using three examples in this paper: production system, penning system and for a production practice. A sustainability matrix was provided for each example. In a comparison of indoor vs. outdoor systems, the food safety/zoonoses concerns make current outdoor systems unsustainable. The choice of keeping pregnant sows in group pens or individual crates is complex in that the outcome of a sustainability assessment leads to the conclusion that group penning is more sustainable in the EU and certain USA states, but the individual crate is currently more sustainable in other USA states, Asia and Latin America. A comparison of conventional physical castration with immunological castration shows that the less-common immunological castration method is more sustainable (for a number of reasons). This paper provides a method to assess the sustainability of production systems and practices that take into account the best available science, human perception and culture, animal welfare, the environment, food safety, worker health and safety, and economics (including the cost of production and solving world hunger). This tool can be used in countries and regions where the table values of a sustainability matrix change based on local conditions. The sustainability matrix can be used to assess current systems and predict improved systems of the future.
So rather than simplistically advocating a meat free diet, the global picture of not farming animals (if possible) creates long-term problems in feeding the world, and is likely to increase rather than reduce using non-renewable resources. It is about more than food: If we cannot have wool, leather and fur, what will we wear? Fertilizer and water hungry cotton that will even take even more land away from animals and peoples? Hemp? What will replace all those pig parts that are now used but not eaten (see my earlier message).
There is a middle way, in sustainable agriculture and in educating people about choices. We cannot take away all stress to animals in that; but we can reduce it. Why is n't that good enough for the world and its people?
|