In praise of production

Will Coggin defends industrial pig farming from the locavore zealots,

No one cares more about farm animals than the farmers who raise them. That’s why it is disappointing to see British Columbia pork producer Dirk Keller attack his fellow pork farmers and other livestock farmers in a recent Citizen opinion article by accusing them of animal cruelty simply for raising animals in a different way than he chooses to. Not only are his animal husbandry claims flawed, but his proposals for meat production are economically unrealistic.

Animal welfare is a complicated — and contentious — issue. We hear a lot from animal liberation activists or vegan food activists. But often left out of the fray are what mainstream farmers and veterinarians have to say.

With that in mind, take the public campaign on pig welfare that Canada is experiencing. Keller and animal liberation activists are speaking out against the widespread use of individual maternity pens, which are used to house pregnant pigs until they are about to give birth.

To Keller and animal liberation activists, maternity pens are “torture.” So why then do so many pork farmers use them? Because to them maternity pens provide for good animal husbandry. And veterinarians agree.

Two hundred large-animal veterinarians recently signed an open letter affirming that maternity pens are a humane way to house pregnant pigs, and the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Swine Veterinarians both find that maternity pens provide for animal welfare. Maternity pens allow for individual feeding and care for the animals. In contrast, when housed in groups, sows can fight for food and dominance, leading to nasty injuries.

There’s no perfect system for animal welfare. All involve trade-offs. Consider Keller’s promotion of his outdoor, pastured system. Housing animals indoors consistently protects them from the elements, from predators and from catching diseases from wildlife. That’s hardly nefarious.

Different ways of raising livestock each has advantages and disadvantages. But does using one or another really make a farmer more or less caring?

While there’s room for a diversity of systems in raising animals, it’s important also to recognize the economic realities of feeding people. A more old-fashioned system of raising animals requires more land and has higher production costs, meaning that the meat costs more for consumers. Free-range, organic meat can be found at places such as charcuterie shops and boutique grocers. It’s a niche market, and one that is out of reach for the average shopper.

Here in the U.S., the average price of a pork chop is $3.50 a pound. But the trendy brand Niman Ranch, which uses a pastured/free-range system for producing pork, sells chops online for $25 a pound. How many people can afford that?

The faddish free-range method of farming may serve the upper class or trendy yuppies, but that’s hardly a sustainable model for the average Joe who’s trying to make ends meet or feed a family.

For Keller to act as if his way is the only way is like a Ferrari owner looking down on people who drive a Honda.

There’s a narrative among food activists that our agricultural system is flawed and needs to become more “organic,” more local and less technological. Bigger farms that provide lots of food are something to be attacked.

But our food system is something to be valued, providing a bounty of choices at inexpensive prices — and plenty of choices at higher prices, for those who can afford it. For the vocal minority of people who are hand-wringing over whether their food is pasture-raised, organic, heritage-breed, or any other of a dozen labels, they should put their woes in context. A person who has food has many problems. A person who has no food has only one.