Whether you have actively raised hogs or not, you have undoubtedly seen pregnant sows become aggressive to each other, which threaten the health of the submissive sow as well as jeopardize the welfare of her unborn litter. However, non-farm based social pressures have been brought to bear on the US pork production industry, putting the sow’s comfort above safety for herself and welfare for her pigs. If technology that is used throughout the US pork industry has to be reversed, how much of an expense will that be to the pork industry?
The social action being taken against pork producers has not only been legislated, but has also been approved in public referenda in several states. Those initiatives call for the abolition of gestation stalls and set various deadlines for action. University of Minnesota economist Brian Buhr says the last Farm Bill was even proposed as a vehicle for national change in the way hogs are raised. He says if the social trends force a change in US production; it will mean increased expense for pork producers and ultimately will cause consumers to pay more for pork at the grocery store. His research looks at the cost to the industry if it has to change from gestation pens to a more open facility with a group of sows in a single large pen.
Such group pens allow for more free movement by sows, but allow aggressive behavior to occur between dominant and submissive sows. Such behavior can result in aborted litters, diminished appetites for the submissive sows, and physical injuries from fighting, as well as extreme variation in body conditions among sows. If the industry is forced to transition from gestation crates to open pens, Buhr says pork producers have suggested what impacts will result:
1) Group dynamics within a pen of sows much be managed to reduce fighting.
2) Some sows will have to be isolated in stalls after breeding to insure embryo implantation.
3) A closer watch will have to be made on feeding management to maintain body condition.
4) Sows must have a minimum amount of space in a group pen.
5) There is a potential for catastrophic loss of production with open pen gestation.
Buhr explored the costs of alternative systems. A trickle feed system is simple to manage, but requires more space per animal. An electronic feed system can be retrofitted in current buildings housing the same number of animals, but is more complex in maintenance and management. The added cost occurs in the retrofitting for each system, but without additional revenue generated. For the entire pork production industry, the cost varies from $1.8 billion to $3.2 billion, depending on the system selected. Using standard multipliers for commodities, Buhr says that translates to an added $5 billion to what consumers will have to pay for pork. He says beef and poultry producers will benefit because of consumer preferences that will switch away from the higher pork costs. He contends that although a small subset of consumers says they want sows raised in pens, instead of gestation crates, consumers as a whole are not going to be willing to pay the additional 25% higher costs that will result.
Buhr believes one possible way to reduce the cost of the transition is to wait for the end of the useful life of the confined gestation buildings and make the transition at that time, as long as there are no reductions in productivity or decline in sow welfare that will require additional research and delays in the transition. He also suggests that a method of labeling pork produced from sows in open gestation pens will allow consumers to purchase that type of meat if preferred. He says, “This would avoid the aggregate cost impacts of a large scale mandatory transition, and allow consumers to target their spending to preferred animal rearing methods and products.”
Summary:
Social pressures on the pork industry are forcing changes in production management, which could be expensive for both the producer, and eventually for all consumers. A small group of consumers has complained about the use of gestation crates, and has caused laws to be changed in some states that require open pen housing, despite the potential for injury to sows, aborted litters, and variation in body weight and performance. While there are possible solutions that suggest buildings could be retrofitted at the end of their useful life, other potential solutions suggest labeling pork products that meet certain production practice standards and allow consumers to choose the higher priced product if they prefer that production practice.