There is no doubt - it’s an election year. Even if you wanted to, it
would be nearly impossible to escape the seemingly endless political propaganda
making its way into every media channel out there. But, even as the presidential
race heats up, there is another debate going on – one that has an effect on
pork producers across the U.S. – the crate debate.
In recent months, major retailers and restaurants, including McDonalds, ConAgra
Foods and Kroger, have announced plans to move toward sourcing their pork products from suppliers who raise their
pigs without the use of gestation crates. This push for crate-free pork is a
major concern for producers, who must not only decide if a shift to group
housing is the right decision for their animals, but if it is even economically
feasible for their operation.
Like any good debate, there are two sides to consider. Animal
rights activists, among others, claim that gestation stalls are inhumane and unacceptable.
Producers, as well as industry processors, can be found on both sides of the
debate.
Some, like Tom Dittmer, originally
made the shift from group housing to crates because of aggressive animal
behavior. When Dittmer began farming in the ’70s, his sows lived in
pastures with huts for shelter – but he eventually transitioned to indoor housing
and gestation crates.
“The reason the industry switched to crates wasn’t because we
wanted to harm our animals…We did it because we thought it was best for the
animals.”
On the other side of the fence are individuals like Paul Willis, who
oversees a group of farmers raising pork for Niman Ranch, which rebukes animal
confinement of any kind.
Read the rest of this New York Times story with Dittmer and Willis here.
For further debate on the topic, visit
this page from
CNN’s eatocracy site.
At the end of the day, there are a few important lessons here.
First, as producers, we need to inform ourselves on both sides of the debate
and know not only where we stand but why. Often what consumers are really
looking for is an open line of communication and a genuine interest from
producers who not only listen to their concerns, but respond to them. It is
also important that we recognize there are several approaches to animal production,
and one is not necessarily better than another. This point was emphasized in
the National Pork Board’s response to
McDonald’s announcement last February that the fast food giant plans to transition away from conventionally
raised pork:
“…the National Pork Board
maintains the position, supported by the American Veterinary Medical
Association and the American Association of Swine Veterinarians, that there are
numerous ways, including sow gestation stalls, to provide proper care for sows.
Each housing system, including gestation stalls, open pens, free-access stalls
and pastures, has welfare advantages and disadvantages that must be considered
by an individual farmer. Regardless of the type of system used, what really
matters is the individual care given to each pig – a mainstay of our industry's
Pork Quality Assurance Plus program.”
If group housing is something you are considering, two swine
researchers from Minnesota offer management tips for that transition here.
As with political propaganda in an election year, the amount of
available information on sow housing can be overwhelming – and the information
you do find will likely be conflicting. Although at times it can be
exasperating, it is our job to be informed. Take time to read all sides of the
debate, and make a decision that you can support with a mix of reliable information and practical experience. You, after all, are the pork producer.
Look for more industry insights to come!
