Sow stalls and animal welfare

Abstract

Caulfield and Cambridge1 have written a thoughtful essay arguing that the criteria for assessing the welfare of animals should be widened from a consideration of scientific evidence to encompass moral and ethical considerations. They have drawn from a review of the Code of practice for the welfare of animals – pigs and argue, among other things, against the individual confinement of sows in stalls. They recognise that the available science finds no one system of housing superior to others under all conditions and according to all criteria of animal welfare. Citing Duncan, who states that human experience, and what is distressing to a member of another sentient species, must be taken into account, the authors argue that the question of how sows should be housed can be answered only by approaching the question from this broader viewpoint. Hemsworth and others2 over the last three decades have researched the welfare of animals from several perspectives. They argue that the attitude and behaviour of the people looking after the animals are major determinants of animal welfare in farm animals. Fear, methods of interaction with human handlers, stocking density, group size and pen design all have an impact on welfare status.3 Within the welfare science discipline, the welfare of an animal can be defined as how well the animal copes with its environment.4 As defined by Broom, this refers to both how much has to be done in order to cope with an event or situation, as well as the extent to which coping attempts are succeeding. Thus, biological functions (growth, reproductive performance, immune response) are compromised by an adverse welfare environment. This implies that as the animal's welfare status improves, its biological output should continue to improve, assuming that people are clever enough to understand and manage the system. Pig producers moved sows into stalls not because they were fundamentally cruel people, but because, 50 years ago, they saw an advantage in terms of the care of the sow, her nutrition and protection from other aggressive sows. Sows under these conditions were easier to manage and the stalls enabled a high standard of care in a financial environment that has always been competitive. The focus through the 1980s was on productivity and there were plenty of studies and experiences worldwide demonstrating the superior output of sows in stalls compared with various group housing arrangements. During this period, the importance of the stockperson to improved herd output, including the level of knowledge, competency to apply that knowledge, and the attitudes and behaviour of stockpeople towards pigs, were just starting to be investigated. Higher notions of animal welfare, beyond the basic care of the animal, were a peripheral issue for the livestock sectors. Approximately 50% of Australian producers house their sows in stalls for the entire pregnancy and over the past 20 years new construction of large-scale farms has leant towards this method of housing. Welfare science through the 1980s and 1990s failed to demonstrate consistent differences in welfare status5 because of different housing systems at a time when the Australian industry focus was on domestic competition and later competition from imports. Those producers housing their sows in stalls recognised a production advantage6 and the threat of a possible 2% reduction in return on equity if they changed their system to provide more generous space allowances. More recent data7 suggest there's not much difference between the two. Perhaps this is a reflection of the Australian industry's increasing focus on staff understanding of animal management and innovation in housing design. Producers need a stable environment for them to invest in food production of any sort. They have demonstrated that they can change food production practices, but they are also cautious of change where the outcomes are uncertain. There are plenty of studies to demonstrate that individual attitudes to ethical positions do not necessarily rationally translate at the point of purchase. It is clear that community perceptions of livestock production in general, and the acceptability of different housing and husbandry practices, are evolving and that the animal welfare debate is becoming more polarised. There are many views. As the resolution of the debate in terms of the Welfare Codes pragmatically moves toward the centre, it risks satisfying no-one completely. While commending Caulfield and Cambridge on their essay, it is ultimately consumers making their choices in the supermarket who can encourage the pig industry to invest in the construction of new housing accommodation for sows that is financially sustainable for the farmer, and also perceived as ‘welfare-friendly’. In fact, consumers are now able to purchase certified range-bred or RSPCA badged products. Perhaps Government should assist producers and the welfare groups by facilitating increased demand for the latter products, rather than try and regulate on the strength of moral opinion, whatever that may be.