Banner
    Gestation Stalls For Pigs - A Business And Cultural Win
    By Hank Campbell | July 20th 2012 03:00 PM | 6 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

    View Hank's Profile
    Have you noticed a huge increase in the price of pork chops or bacon or hot dogs?

    Neither have I, despite the fact that sow gestation stalls, or crates or whatever you may call them in your neighborhood, are disappearing.  The stalls are basically where pregnant sows are kept. Anti-science hippies who are always looking for ammunition in their war on human food contend big business uses these crates because they are, you know, eeeevil, but that isn't true.  Long before Big Pork even existed farmers kept sows apart because they fight.  And during pregnancy, if you screw with a female pig, you are asking to roll in the mud.   The American Veterinary Medical Association says stalls are safer and therefore better than pens(1).

    You can't build apartments for pigs and farmers feed a lot of people so space is at a premium.  Crates make some sense in that regard, but sows are pregnant a lot, which means they spend a lot of time in them. It was only a matter of time before people began to question their use. Smart activists did not hire lobbyists to hammer the public over the head with ridiculously partisan laws, like in the current effort to exempt organic food from GM warning labels. Nor did they ironically act like PETA and exploit naked, human women in order to make the case for not exploiting dead fish. Most of them instead made the case that there had to be a better way.

    Over time, the public agreed and then governments took some action - normal states too, not progressive enclaves in love with passing new laws to regulate all conduct, like California.  Florida ended the use of crates 10 years ago and eight other states have followed suit.  But it probably is not necessary.  Business listens to their customers - there is no point hiring lobbyists about public opinion - and customers more and more want them gone.

    America's largest pork supplier, Smithfield Foods, began phasing them out in 2007 due to pressure from McDonald's.  McDonald's, commonly reviled by progressive zealots, is actually a world leader on animal welfare issues. Earlier this year they declared that everyone they buy from was going crate-free.  McDonald's is immune to hysterical protesters who don't buy their food anyway so it wasn't vegetarians mailing our brochures and raising money that did it. Despite bizarre claims by activists - that all of the corporate world (and the academic world also, when it comes to food, vaccines, etc.) is made up of unthinking automatons - the human beings at McDonald's were not convinced crates are the only way now.  Science has progressed. 

    Now Heinz is doing the same thing, despite the fact that Big Government is not forcing them to do it. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is claiming they are bringing these companies to their knees but, honestly, no one in the public is listening to some crank group that is determined to end all animal agriculture.  Standing on a podium with them is just good public relations.

    The reason it is best to let customers make these demands rather than government?  A large company like Smithfield has a lot of ways to optimize their margins but small farmers do not. In a bad economy more punitive anti-business laws that accomplish little impact them most and should be avoided.  But the customers of farmers can make any demands they want and that is just fine.

    NOTE:

    (1) PETA hates veterinarians, people who save animals, as much as they hate people who eat meat. The Pike's Place fish toss was for the AVMA. But you know who they love? Mass-murdering sociopaths like darling-of-the-dangerous-left Che Guevara.  Here is his granddaughter Lydia dressed to kill human carnivores:


    Credit: PETA

    Comments

    UvaE
    But you know who they love? Mass-murdering sociopaths like darling-of-the-dangerous-left Che Guevara.  Here is his granddaughter Lydia dressed to kill human carnivores
    The ad is definitely in poor taste, but I don't think she's out to kill carnivores. 
    I probably posted this already, but my former chem student Juliet Johns from LaPietra promoted vegetarianism with more style:
    Hank
    Sure, that is more appealing to everyone.  Guevara was a mass-murdering sociopath and she dressed up in ammo belts and his beret so I wrote 'dressed to kill', not 'is about to kill'.

    Why PETA doesn't do more like your student did is beyond understanding. They think they have to offend people.  Want more men to ride bikes?  Get more women to ride bikes.  Want men to appreciate vegetarianism more? Put women in vegetables.  It's Marketing 101.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    UvaE
    This one's also a better alternative---most people will take Lennon over Guevara, if you can stomach the pun:

    Interestingly last night,  my 8-year old niece did not want to finish her peas.


    First I tried singing "All we are saying is give peas a chance". Of course she had never heard the original so when that failed, I tried the nutritionist perspective. That sailed over her head, so what finally worked was telling her that peas are known to make pretty girls even prettier.

    End over means. How terrible of me! :) 
    Hank
    Most parents of our generation are fine with it but modern psychologists are going to be circling your house with pitchforks.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    End over means. How terrible of me! 
    Yes Enrico, if she can't trust you to tell her the truth who can she trust? Still, I have to admit once telling my boys that snow peas might help them to ski better!
    Make love not war
    We appreciate the ongoing dialogue regarding appropriate approaches to housing sows. We believe however, that clarification is needed regarding the AVMA's recommendations regarding pregnant sow housing. The AVMA believes that sow housing systems should (1) provide every animal access to appropriate food and water, (2) reduce exposure to hazards that result in injuries, pain or disease, (3) protect sows from environmental extremes, and promote good air quality and proper sanitation, (4) facilitate observation of individual sows, (5) allow sows to express normal patterns of behavior, and (5) minimize aggression and competition among sows.

    Considering all factors, all sow housing systems in current use have advantages and disadvantages for animal welfare. Current group systems allow freedom of movement and social intereaction. However, these same systems, when they fail to work well, can lead to problems, especially in the areas of aggression, injury and uneven body condition. When they lack manipulable material, sows in group systems also are unable to forage. Current stall systems minimize aggression and injury, reduce competition, allow individual feeding and assist in control of body condition. Stalls, however, also negatively impact welfare by restricting movement, exercise, foraging behavior, and social interaction.

    AVMA believes that to address animal welfare in the long term, sow housing efforts should follow a model of continuous improvement. Advantages of current housing systems should be retained, while making improvements to overcome problems identified.