Barriers to Entry: North Carolina Pig Farmers and the Feasibility of Animal Welfare
Improvements in animal welfare across livestock industries have recently become a critical topic of conversation for stakeholders as consumer demand for farm animal friendly products continues to rise. In the pork industry, consumer concerns include issues with gestation and farrowing crates, prolonged confinement, indoor space allotment, outdoor access, physical alterations (piglet tail docking, teeth clipping, castration) and antibiotic usage. Consumers are challenging the industry to be transparent about their practices. Producers, livestock and trade associations, agriculture and animal welfare organizations and policymakers acknowledge consumer expectation as both individual and collective entities. However, the onus to meet consumer demand for higher animal welfare standards falls on producers specifically.
Currently, few have examined the barriers pork producers face regarding the adoption of on-farm animal welfare improvements. This study aims to fill that gap in the literature by analyzing data collected through interviews with pig farmers, agriculture lawyers and other stakeholders. My primary goal is to identify specific impediments to raising animal welfare standards in the swine industry and the feasibility of their solutions’ implementation. I consider two types of operations, located in the major pork producing state, North Carolina. The first consists of farmers contracted by large-scale packers, such as Smithfield Foods (WH Group), who produce hogs in confinement, and the second are farmers who run smaller operations, typically raising the hogs on pasture, and do not sell to the powerhouse pork companies.
Production Practices
The first type of farm considered is classified as a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO). The large scale CAFO animal production facilities generally employ rearing methods that rely on the utility of gestation and farrowing crates, prophylactic use of antibiotics and what are often considered inhumane rearing methods. Pigs in confinement are housed in crates for insemination, gestation and/or farrowing with little access to the outdoors. Facilities with open-pen housing or group housing may have some access to outdoors (e.g. a concrete patio outside of the gestation area) but it is not common in the main pork producing counties.
The second case I consider is a smaller farm, which raises animals on pasture. Generally, hogs raised on pasture have a significant amount of outdoor space with access to forage and enrichment. Farms like these rarely have indoor housing (aside from barn-like structures built to shelter pigs in the colder months) and rarely use crates or confinement mechanisms to restrain their pigs. They may or may not alter piglets by docking their tails or clipping their teeth. Antibiotics are rarely used on pasture but the practice is not unheard of in the case of an ill or sick pig that needs to be treated. However, it is rare for antibiotics to be used preventatively or in place of a growth hormone (which are illegal in pork production in the U.S.) in a pasture setting. Depending on the marketing channels for the farm, the use of antibiotics may alter the pig’s ability to enter the farm’s supply chain.
Methods & Data
In January 2019, I conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with conventional and pasture-raising hog farmers, agriculture lawyers and other stakeholders who have a stated interest in raising animal welfare standards in the pork industry. Producers were asked about their production practices, animal welfare standards and challenges to raising those standards. Other stakeholders were asked about animal welfare legislation at the federal and state levels, third party certifications and financial, political and legal barriers to improving animal welfare on hog farms. The constituents interviewed were identified through a snowball method, using farmer email mailing lists, contacts with meat distributors, livestock organizations as well as veterinarians throughout the U.S.
Results
Interviews with farmers and those with partners yielded different but complementary results. Farmers of both production types expressed a variety of barriers to improving the animal welfare on their farms, including (1) affordable land access, (2) lack of financial capital for new housing and/or increased farm labor, (3) little education of economically and/or environmentally sustainable practices, innovative production methods and marketing channels; and (4) expensive and/or remote processing.
Both conventional hog farmers and those raising pigs on pasture expressed affordable land access as a barrier to raising animal welfare standards on their farm. For conventional hog farmers, raising animal welfare standards means on-farm improvements to confinement systems, with the most pertinent being a transition from crated gestating and farrowing sows to open-pen housing, partial outdoor access and/or pasture. These changes would require financial capital as well as education of those production systems and access to their marketing channels. One conventional farmer reported, “The barriers are financial. To change my infrastructure and housing would cost me another million dollars, and I have absolutely no idea how I would pay that off.” In some cases, it may also force a breach of contract between the farmer and their parent company, making those changes legally impossible. For those on pasture, raising animal welfare standards means a significant increase in land, new infrastructure and more farm labor: “Animal welfare is not about inside or outside, it’s about human capital and environment for people who need to care for those pigs outside in the super cold temperatures.” These changes also require financial capital and education of those production systems as well as access to their marketing channels but also access to affordable processors that meet all of their animal welfare standards and are within their transportation range. Another farmer who has since given up on raising pigs on pasture reported, “Processing is what was really killing me. It was $200-225 per pig, which is my whole profit right there. There aren’t a lot of USDA processors here and I wanted three certifications for my pork so I was being picky and had hauled them 2.5 hours to drop off and pick up. I was losing on every end of it.”
Conversations with agricultural lawyers, economists, third party animal welfare certification organizations and non-profits dedicated to improving farm animal welfare provide perspective on the results of the farmer interviews. Many expressed concerns that consumers and pork producers do not agree on what “animal welfare” means for farming hogs. Unanimously, agriculture lawyers reported a lack of federal legislation regulating the treatment of farm animals (beyond slaughter) and an inadequate amount at the state level as well, outside of confinement statutes, that can be attributed to the lack of definition for and adherence of these standards. In their words, “There is no federal law relating to any animals in agriculture. At the state level, there are anti-cruelty laws but 36 states don’t consider farm animals, animals, and the definition of cruelty varies. This is a barrier because humans by nature need regulation or they will do what they want. With no law, there’s no mandate and with no mandate, the producer will just do what’s most convenient for them.” Many also expressed concern about the enforcement mechanisms of these laws that exist but are not functioning. Another barrier mentioned by many stakeholders is profitability: they do not believe farmers will or are able to raise animal welfare standards unless it will guarantee an increase in revenue or avoid heavy taxation: “Does it matter what the barriers are if nothing changes even if they’re lifted? It’s all about money.” Lastly, many believe a cultural change is difficult for conventional farmers – many of these producers are not willing to become the “other” in their communities.
Policy Recommendations and Conclusion
The changes required to raise animal welfare standards – for both conventional and pasture farmers – are complicated. It is clear from the perspective of stakeholders that the definition of animal welfare needs to be better defined between consumers and producers, before any further changes can be made. After establishing a clear definition, the barriers to on-farm improvements for hog production can be addressed through new regulations, along with effective enforcement, at the federal and state level. The largest obstacle, affordable land access, could be resolved for confinement farmers via a buy-out program supplemented by loan pre-approval for federal credit opportunities. For pasture farmers, a program modeled after the Conservation Stewardship Program for animal welfare improvements could be a financial support. Farmers experienced with innovative systems and outdoor hog rearing and those hoping to transition could be connected through a technical assistance program, possibly through extension offices. The same sources could establish technical assistance programming to inform farmers about environmentally sustainable practices and marketing channels. Contract farmers and those in need of access to processors are in a complex situation that will need further research and attention to navigate fully.
Given that, for many consumers, animal welfare standards are not being met, it is imperative that feasible solutions to the barriers for these on-farm improvements are explored. Further research on the topic should be conducted in order to address the market failure this lack of synchronicity creates.