In my last article, I noted that most of the new draft Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs was good husbandry and therefore acceptable to producers. The proposals also include some “priority” areas which are more sensitive for producers. These are controlling the pain of castration, methods of euthanasia, space allowances for growing pigs and sows, sow housing and social management of sows.
As far as euthanasia is concerned, I support the position taken in the draft codes — in fact if anything I would make more of it mandatory because I see this as being an area where improvement is needed on many farms. The other requirement that I see no problem with is the space requirements for gilts and sows in groups.
Read Also
Horns aren’t unlocking anytime soon on livestock transport standards
Standards good enough meet the definition of “humane” animal transportation still vary widely between what what industry wants, what animal rights advocates want and, between the two, what federal regulators decide is good enough.
However, the proposed space allowances for pigs from weaning to market are more controversial. The codes use a formula which relates body weight of the pig to the space it requires, using a constant, or k-value. For example, if the constant is 0.3 and the pig’s weight is 50 kg, then the space requirement is 0.03 x 500.667 = 0.41m2, weight to the power 0.667 being what is called the metabolic weight of the pig. Obviously, as the constant number increases, so does the space allowance. The codes define the required space allowance according to this formula and use a constant of 0.335 to calculate it.
The draft code states that “Performance of nursery and growing/finishing pigs is negatively affected when k < 0.335.” This statement arises from a review of all the research on this subject by a number of scientists around the world. The problem that I have with it is that almost none of this research measured whether pig welfare was affected by space allowance. If we set the required allowance at a point at which performance is optimized, this is a far different criterion than the point at which welfare starts to be compromised. In practice, producers do not aim for maximum growth performance, they aim for maximum return per unit of floor space without, of course, compromising the pigs’ welfare.
In addition, the space requirement varies considerably depending on the type of housing, pen layout and environmental conditions. The draft codes recognize this by providing recommendations for fully and part-slatted floors (both the same space allowance) and bedded systems. I would prefer to see a required figure given for lying area only with suggested additional area recommendations according to system. Ideally, this should be the “effective lying area,” which would be the free floor space available to the pig for lying, excluding feeding, drinking and dunging areas.
Comparing the proposed space allowances to minimums mandated in the EU (Table 1), it can be seen that both the required and recommended (based on k = 0.039) allowances are significantly higher. This raises the question of competitiveness, because complying with higher space requirements will lead to increased cost. Therefore, while the code provides for short-term increases in stocking density at the end of a batch, the minimum space allowances are too high.
As widely expected, the draft code requires producers to convert to group sow housing, with the exception of a period of 28-35 days after breeding. It proposes that no new sow stall housing may be constructed after July 1, 2014 and existing housing be replaced by July 1, 2024.
The arguments for and against this change are less scientific and more emotional than other aspects of the code. Many producers will vehemently oppose such a change. However, would the industry prefer to set its own agenda on this issue or eventually be forced into change, perhaps on an unreasonable time scale as happened in the U.K.? We have recently witnessed the unedifying spectacle of the Humane Society of the United States announcing that many of the U.S. major food-service companies and retailers will require pork to be sourced from non-stall systems in future. Who set the agenda there?
Even in Canada, it was the Humane Society that announced Olymel’s decision to phase out stalls, before producers had heard a thing about it. Continuing down that route is not a palatable option. The new codes provide a unique opportunity for the industry to define the agenda on this issue and set a time scale that is reasonable.
My main concern about an industry-led change is that it will be producers who pay the cost. There is a valid argument for producers to demand that retailers and consumers share in that cost, but this will not be easy to achieve. Producer organizations must engage with processors and retailers to ensure that producers are not left holding the baby.
The issue of pain control during castration is another contentious one. There is no denying that this is a painful procedure which is coming under close scrutiny around the world. The proposal to require the use of an analgesic to control pain after July 1, 2019 is a compromise which gives time to investigate practical methods of anesthesia, pain control, immunization and the avoidance of castration by genetic selection against boar taint.
The draft code of practice can be viewed on the National Farm Animal Care Council website www.nfacc.ca and I encourage everyone in the industry to read it and submit comments.
