So I followed the link and read the information on SAFE's website. I am still horrified by what I read. Not because it highlighted cruelty. Not even remotely. Because it was packed full of lies, half-truths and easily discredited opinion.
I freely admit that I have issues with SAFE. I have had conversations with their volunteers, conversations where I found their propoganda was filled with errors and lies. At the time, I was working at an egg farm. Part of my job included studying the animal welfare codes and legislation, dealing with MPI audits and ensuring that our farm was up to the standards and codes of practice required by law.
SAFE were campaigning against colony cages. Out of curiosity, I went to see what they were saying. The volunteer told me that it was all a con. Colony cages were bigger, but there would be more birds in them so they ended up with less individual space than battery cages. I knew this to be false. Battery cages required birds to have 0.5 sqm per bird, colony cages required birds to have 0.75 sqm per bird. This is monitored by MPI in two separate audits each year (if you have a high standard of compliance, more often if you don't), one of these audits is booked in advance and one is unannounced. There is no opportunity to rearrange the birds or hide what you might have been doing. Even if you could, where would you hide the thousands of birds you'd need to be shifting?
He talked about how the birds were pumped full of growth hormone. I asked if he was sure, he said, "Oh, I mean meat birds, they're the ones full of growth hormones." I told him that growth hormones had been illegal in poultry in NZ for over 30 years. He looked stunned and didn't know what to say. I couldn't decide if he was shocked that I knew enough to refute his propoganda or if he was shocked to learn that he'd been given false information.
We live in an age where information; correct, factual information is easily accessible. Right from your comfy chair in your living room, you have access to the details of political campaign promises from two and six years ago. You have access to the documents submitted to the Government by the independent organisations who oversee animal welfare. This includes their recommendations and reasoning. You have access to the reports and recommendations from national Veterinary associations. Less than five minutes searching on Google and you can have all of those documents right in front of you.
So why aren't we fact-checking?
These documents are not written in difficult to understand jargon. It's not as though they're beyond the reading comprehension of the average person. They're in plain English. They're accessible.
We have people getting up in arms and angry about the abuses they're reading about. Which is understandable. People are getting wound up about the broken promises and ignored recommendations from Vets and welfare bodies. That's also understandable and commendable even.
But when all that anger is directed at lies, what should happen then?
How does an organisation like SAFE get away with lying to everyone? How much contempt must they have for their own volunteers and the general public to assume (albeit correctly it would seem) that they're just going to believe whatever they're told if there's enough outrage attached.
Below is the story according to SAFE:
Now let's break that down shall we.
Mother pigs are confined for over three months each year. They are confined in mating stalls for up to seven days during early pregnancy. They are confined again in farrowing crates for up to five weeks, just before they give birth until their babies are weaned.
This is a mix of lies and implications and half-truths.
A dry sow or gilt can be confined in a mating stall for up to seven days. This will not be during early pregnancy. This is for mating, (you know, how they become pregnant - if they're already pregnant, mating wouldn't happen) when they're in season to prevent fighting between sows. A mating stall must (by law) be big enough for them to get up, lie down, turn around and have separate space for toileting, eating and drinking. Artificial insemination is also the most common method for breeding in NZ which would make most of this week unnecessary and therefore unused.
They can go into a farrowing crate a maximum of five days before farrowing until a maximum of four weeks after. So while up to five weeks is accurate, the bold first line implies that five weeks is standard, not the maximum. Most keep their sows in the crates for no more than ten days after farrowing, making it two weeks rather than five. The exceptions are when there are health issues or fostering of piglets that requires human intervention, for the safety of all concerned.
The first line says "Mother pigs are confined for over three months each year." Normally, they only have two litters each year. This makes it a maximum of 12 weeks a year (which is just short of 3 months) that they can be confined, not that they are confined.
So let's fix that and make it more honest and truthful.
Mother pigs can be confined for up to three months each year. The aggressive ones might be confined in mating stalls for up to seven days to mate. They might be confined again in farrowing crates for up to five weeks, just before they give birth until their babies are weaned.
Next bit:
They can’t take more than a step backwards or forwards, and can’t turn around. Expressing natural behaviours like nest building, foraging, or interacting with their piglets and other pigs are impossible.
This implies that the mating stall is the same size as a farrowing crate, which isn't true, as stated above.
The minimum standards in the Code of Welfare practices states that at no time should the sow be able to touch both sides, or both ends simultaneously. She must be able to stand and lie down comfortably at full length without leg restriction.
"Expressing natural behaviours" is a misleading phrase. From the Pork Industry Submission to the Primary Production Select Committee:
Animal behaviour is an important component and valuable indicator that contributes to an integrated assessment of animal welfare status. In the current pig welfare code, Minimum Standard No. 9(a) requires that pigs be managed in a manner that provides sufficient opportunities to express and satisfy their normal behaviours (NAWAC, 2010). These include, but are not limited to, feeding, drinking, sleeping, excreting, vocalising, thermoregulation, and social behaviours.
Conversely, natural behaviour describes most elements of species-specific normal behaviour, but is performed in the context of natural conditions (e.g. allogrooming, pacing a territory, fleeing a predator). Natural behaviour is performed because it is pleasurable and promotes biological functioning in a wild or natural setting in the environment of evolutionary adaptation (i.e., the environment in which the animal evolved) (Bracke and Hopster, 2006). However, natural behaviour is never fully hard-wired; and always includes an element of plasticity or flexibility depending on the context and situation (Spinka, 2006). It follows that behaviour which is natural in one situation, or towards one object, may be unnatural in other situations or towards another object (Spinka, 2006). The assumption is often that animals living in a wild or natural state are all in good condition and experience good welfare (Volpato et al., 2009). Thus, the implication is that animals that can perform natural behaviour are therefore in a good state of welfare, which may not be the case. The issue of accommodating an animal’s normal behaviour is often raised in the context of achieving positive welfare outcomes. As acknowledged in the Animal Welfare (Pigs) Code of Welfare, some normal behavioural traits of pigs (such as dominance-related aggression and fighting in social groups, and feed-related aggression) need to be managed carefully in order to minimise or prevent negative consequences for welfare (NAWAC, 2010). Furthermore, and perhaps most significantly, what is considered normal behaviour of domesticated livestock is the result of their adaptation to an agricultural environment, including regular interactions with humans (Segerdahl, 2007). The behaviour of domesticated livestock, as observed in farm housing systems, may vary in many ways from the behaviour of the same species in a natural environment. However, it is not reasonable to assume that these differences in behaviour equate to poor animal welfare (Wechsler, 2007). Thus, natural behaviours of wild boar may not always be considered normal for domesticated pigs, and we need to meet the needs of domesticated farm animals that have evolved in the presence of humans, not those in the wild.
For the tl;dr folks, this is pointing out that natural behaviours are not the same as normal behaviours. What is natural to wild pigs is not necessarily natural to domesticated pigs and it is not reasonable to assume that the difference results in poor animal welfare. Positive traits in the wild (specifically dominance-related aggression and feed-related aggression) are not positive traits for the welfare of domestic pigs.
The Code of Welfare states that sows in all farrowing systems must have manipulable material before farrowing - that is straw most commonly and it is there to allow the sow to build a nest.
They have free access to food at all times, removing the need to forage. They only forage when they're hungry and don't have food freely available.
The piglets come and go freely. In the first few weeks, piglets nurse hourly and sleep a lot. Normal interaction with their mother consists of feeding and sleeping it off. That is completely available in a farrowing crate. The sows are also exhausted by the demands of their piglets and spend most of their time eating, feeding their piglets and sleeping.
Interactions with other pigs isn't normal or natural behaviour until the piglets are weaned. This being impossible is not a problem for sows.
So shall we fix this one too?
While they are confined, they must still have enough space to stand and lie comfortably at full length without leg restriction. Expressing natural behaviours like nest building is possible and provided for, foraging is unnecessary as there is plenty of food provided, interacting with their piglets happens just like normal and interacting with other pigs isn't normal or natural behaviour after farrowing.
Next paragraph.
Pigs are intelligent, sensitive animals that show obvious signs of distress, their heart rate becomes elevated and they may bite the bars of the crates.
This is vague opinion and an appeal to emotion. It implies that you would have to be heartless to approve of this. This is like all those facebook guilt trip posts that tell you only people with a heart will like and share.
Next paragraph.
The Government’s own advisors, the National Animal Welfare Committee (NAWAC) had previously advised the Government that farrowing crates do not meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. Both the Labour Party and the Green Party committed to banning farrowing crates prior to the election. More than 112,000 caring Kiwis like you signed a petition and told the Government that they want farrowing crates banned.
From the Code of Welfare:
Note: Before the Animal Welfare Act was amended in 2015, Section 73(3) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 provided that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) may, in exceptional circumstances, recommend minimum standards that do not fully meet the obligations to ensure that the physical, health and behavioural needs of the animal are met. In making this recommendation NAWAC must have regard to, among other things, the feasibility and practicality of effecting a transition from current practices and any adverse effects that may result from such a transition, and the economic effects of any transition from current practices to new practices.
NAWAC considers that the confining of sows in farrowing crates for extended periods does not fully meet the obligations of the Act. Minimum Standards 10 (e) and (f) restrict the time sows are confined in farrowing crates to a maximum of five weeks in any reproductive cycle.
Simplified, before 2015 NAWAC could recommend minimum standards that didn't quite meet their obligations but only in special circumstances. For the amendment to the Act to be mentioned means that this loophole was closed, that they can no longer recommend minimum standards that don't meet those Welfare obligations. I believe that the second paragraph explains how the standards now do meet those obligations.
This statement now becomes kind of half true, although SAFEs statement is missing the words "for extended periods" which makes it misleading at best.
Both the Labour Party and the Green Party committed to banning farrowing crates prior to the election.
Now, I can find the Green Party's manifesto online easily enough including where they say they want to "reduce confinement of sows in farrowing crates". This is not the same thing as "committed to banning farrowing crates". However, I cannot find any sign of the Labour Party having any position whatsoever. In fact, all my google searches only showed up instances of SAFE claiming that Labour had made this promise and should be held to it.
More than 112,000 caring Kiwis like you signed a petition and told the Government that they want farrowing crates banned.
"More than 112,000 caring Kiwis" gosh, that sounds somewhat impressive doesn't it? In a population of over 4 million this is maybe 2.5% of people in New Zealand. Not quite so impressive now is it? It is also not the 75% claimed in the article I linked to above. "Caring Kiwis like you" is another appeal to emotion, another guilt trip and more attempts at manipulation.
Shall we fix this one too?
The Government’s own advisors, the National Animal Welfare Committee (NAWAC) had previously advised the Government that the use of farrowing crates for extended periods do not meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. This has now changed. The Green Party committed to reducing confinement in farrowing crates prior to the election. SAFE claims that Labour also promised to have them banned but this can't be verified anywhere. Approximately 2.5% of the population, caring Kiwis like you signed a petition and told the Government that they want farrowing crates banned.
Next paragraph.
But your voices have been ignored - because the Government continues to allow the unlawful confinement of mother pigs in farrowing crates and mating stalls.
Oh dear, how sad. That tiny percent of the population should be the only voice that is listened to? This is more emotional manipulation. The big bad Government doesn't care about you, it's not listening to you and you are really important. You are the only ones who care. Do you see how you're being played?
As is shown in the Code of Welfare, there is nothing unlawful about the use of farrowing crates or mating stalls.
But your voices have been ignored - because the Government continues to follow the advice from the industry experts and independent advisors and allows the lawful confinement of mother pigs in farrowing crates and mating stalls.
Next paragraph.
The Government has failed to protect mother pigs and continues to put the interests of profits for farmers above the well-being of mother pigs. It’s not right and it contradicts the Animal Welfare Act.
The Government has not failed to protect mother pigs at all. The health and welfare of mother pigs must be balanced with the health and welfare of her piglets. NAWAC, the New Zealand Veterinary Association and the Pork Industry all agree that while this system isn't ideal, it is the most suitable one available that best meets the needs of sows, piglets and farmers.
Profits and well-being go together. It costs farmers to be neglectful or cruel to their animals. Stressed animals fail to thrive - which means they don't gain weight or breed easily and therefore don't make a profit - or they die. It has always been more profitable to ensure that your animals are well cared for. Don't fall for the hype.
As has been shown above, the Animal Welfare Act is not being contradicted at all.
So let's fix this paragraph.
The Government has balanced the health and welfare of mother pigs with the health and welfare of their piglets. It’s the best we currently have for all concerned and is completely in line with the Animal Welfare Act.
And the last part.
Because of their failure to act, mother pigs are suffering every day.
We need your help to ensure justice for mother pigs.
It’s time your voices are heard.
These are more appeals to emotion and to believe the lies stated above.
The Government has no need to act, because the current laws and practices are the best thing for all concerned. Sows, piglets and farmers. There is no justice required. Your voices refers to the fraction of a fraction of the populace who have signed the petition and it's ridiculous and arrogant to think you should be the only voices that matter.
Because of their failure to be moved by misleading propoganda, mother pigs and their piglets are thriving and mortality rates are low.
We need your help to interfere with things we don't really understand.
It’s time your voices are heard.
Shall we put it all back together again?
Mother pigs can be confined for up to three months each year. The aggressive ones might be confined in mating stalls for up to seven days to mate. They might be confined again in farrowing crates for up to five weeks, just before they give birth until their babies are weaned.
While they are confined, they must still have enough space to stand and lie comfortably at full length without leg restriction. Expressing natural behaviours like nest building is possible and provided for, foraging is unnecessary as there is plenty of food provided, interacting with their piglets happens just like normal and interacting with other pigs isn't normal or natural behaviour after farrowing.
Pigs are intelligent, sensitive animals that show obvious signs of distress, their heart rate becomes elevated and they may bite the bars of the crates.
The Government’s own advisors, the National Animal Welfare Committee (NAWAC) had previously advised the Government that the use of farrowing crates for extended periods do not meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. This has now changed. The Green Party committed to reducing confinement in farrowing crates prior to the election. SAFE claims that Labour also promised to have them banned but this can't be verified anywhere. Approximately 2.5% of the population caring Kiwis like you signed a petition and told the Government that they want farrowing crates banned.
But your voices have been ignored - because the Government continues to follow the advice from the industry experts and independent advisors and allows the lawful confinement of mother pigs in farrowing crates and mating stalls.
The Government has balanced the health and welfare of mother pigs with the health and welfare of their piglets. It’s the best we currently have for all concerned and is completely in line with the Animal Welfare Act.
Because of their failure to be moved by misleading propoganda, mother pigs and their piglets are thriving and mortality rates are low.
We need your help to interfere with things we don't really understand.
It’s time your voices are heard.
This makes it a very different story.
So my questions are:
Did someone from SAFE read the information freely available online and misunderstand it or did they knowingly choose to misrepresent it?
Do they assume that their volunteers and the general public whose opinions they're trying to sway are stupid and gullible enough to just swallow this without checking for themselves?
Do they really expect that 2.5% of the population should be heard over the remaining 97.5%? Especially when in the 97.5% there are people who actually know what they're talking about?
Is there a hidden agenda buried in all of this contempt and misleading information?
Why aren't we checking for ourselves? This is the information age after all, are we too lazy, too afraid we won't understand or too gullible?
I'm sure SAFE was created with noble intentions. Well, to be fair, I'm not sure, but my Pollyanna side wants to believe that most people are good and honourable. I'm sure that at some point, they've done good works, even if I haven't seen it. However, when you are campaigning on easily discredited misinformation and emotion, it makes you easy to ignore. You clearly don't have enough of a clue to be taken seriously and as an organisation you become a joke to the rest of the populace.
Main Sources:
NAWAC - this website provides links to documents detailing full codes of welfare, best practices and the reviews of current and previous codes. All documents are pdfs which need to be downloaded. I recommend reading the Review of the use of farrowing crates for pigs in NZ.
SAFE - this is the page regarding the proposed legal challenge to current laws around the use of farrowing crates. The main body of text is what I have used above.
The New Zealand Veterinary Association - This page explains what is meant by much of their terminology and their guidelines regarding the use of farrowing crates.
NZPork's Submission to the Primary Production Select Committee - This is a well researched document with plenty of references to studies on both sides of the fence.
I have also had conversations with two large pig farmers, one who no longer breeds pigs, but is internationally recognised as an Industry Expert and the other who for personal reasons, no longer has a pig farm. I cannot quote them directly, name them or cite their references as I have not asked their permission and these conversations have been occasional ones over several years. Mostly when I have asked for advice regarding issues with my own pigs. I am grateful to them for their knowledge and expertise and how much it has helped my own understanding of raising pigs.
No comments:
Post a Comment