| |
 OPINION
Animal welfare in the United Kingdom
Richard H.C. Penny, DVSc, PhD, DPM, FACVSc, FRCVS; and H.
Jane Guise, BSc, PhD, CBiol, MIBiol
RHCP, Nether End, Warton Lane, Austrey, Nr Atherstone, Warks.
CV9 3EJ, United Kingdom; JHG, UK.
Opinions are not peer refereed and represent the authors
alone.
Within the past 50 years, animal welfare
issues have become a major force affecting livestock agriculture
in the United Kingdom (UK). In this editorial, We'll describe
some of the ways that animal welfare concerns have altered the
profile of swine production in the UK.
After World War II, the recovery of the pig industry in the
UK was slow, and meat rationing did not end until July 1954. However,
a more progressive industry replaced the old, and new breeding,
husbandry, and management methods were introduced. The era of
the breeding company, the improved leaner hybrid pig, and more
intensive production had arrived. This so-called "factory
farming," however, did not meet with universal approval.
Public criticism over such things as stalls and tethers for sows,
fully slatted floors, sweatboxes, tail docking, and darkness conditions
prompted the government to set up a committee to investigate these
systems.
Welfare codes
In 1967, the government established a body to advise on matters
of animal welfare, and this became the Farm Animal Welfare Council
(FAWC). The FAWC propounded the "Five Freedoms," on
which most current welfare legislation in the UK is based:
- freedom from hunger and thirst,
- freedom from discomfort,
- freedom from pain, injury, and disease,
- freedom to express normal behavior, and
- freedom from fear and distress.
All these freedoms had short qualifying clauses, but the freedoms
were never prioritized.
Government advice to farmers on welfare is encompassed in the
Welfare Codes provided for all farm species. Codes are not law,
but in any court a breach of a code may be relied on by the prosecution
as tending to establish guilt. Codes cover such matters as stocking
rates and densities, the availability of light, frequency of feeding
and watering, and husbandry procedures such as tooth clipping,
castration, and tail docking.
Transport welfare issues
There are more detailed Orders for matters such as animal transport.
Currently, pigs are moved under The Welfare of Animals (Transport)
Order, July 1997. This Order is the third Transport Order passed
within 10 years, with the most recent already under revision--a
situation smacking of excessive bureaucracy and too much government
interference.
The 1997 Order extends to 31 pages. The length and complexity
of this Order have obviously made it extremely difficult for farmers,
haulers, and veterinarians to interpret. Not until May 1999 was
a 93-page guide to interpretation made available.
The Order mandates that no casualty "unfit" pigs
may be transported if they are likely to be caused unnecessary
suffering. An animal must not travel if it is likely to give birth
in transport, or has given birth within the preceding 48 hours,
and newborn animals cannot travel until their navels have healed
completely. In the 1997 Order, "unfit"--which had previously
been defined as a pig that is ill, injured, infirm, or fatigued
(the interpretation was left to the courts)--was qualified by
the insertion of the adjective "slightly." For some
years prior to January 1993, a veterinarian had to examine all
casualties and certify in writing that they were fit to travel.
However, there were complaints about the cost, so self-certification
by farmers was introduced. While the certificate that farmers
now sign must state the cause of the unfitness, its main function
is to confirm that the withdrawal period for any drug used as
treatment has been honored.
While the occasional veterinarian was taken to court under
the old system, many farmers and even haulers have been prosecuted
and convicted since 1993. The courts face major difficulties in
assessing the degree of lameness or the size of a lesion, and
the introduction of the term "slightly unfit" has not
helped. A conviction is on record for life, as this is a criminal
offense.
The European Union (EU) requires that stocking density of 100-kg
(220-lb) pigs during transport not exceed 235 kg per m2
(47 lb per sq. foot). A 20% increase may be required depending
upon environmental conditions. Research has demonstrated that
on the short journeys typical of current domestic transport within
the UK (with a mean distance of 106 km [65 miles] or a mean travel
time of 2 hours and 50 minutes), pigs tend to stand when their
transport is in motion, and they lie down only when the vehicle
stops.1,2 They support themselves against other pigs
or the pen partitions. We concluded that although extremely high
stocking densities are obviously inappropriate, a low stocking
density might be as serious a welfare risk as a high one because
pigs can be thrown around and injured by the motion of the vehicle.
Unnecessarily low stocking densities during transport also increase
costs.
Travel sickness has been raised as a potential welfare problem
in pigs. We have made a preliminary study of the problem and concluded
that while it occurs in a small proportion of transported pigs,
it is not a major problem in well-designed vehicles on acceptable
roads.3,4
Mortality
Sow mortality in the UK has increased over the past 40 years,
from 2.8% to >= 5%. This means that an additional 16,500 sows
are dying in the UK each year. Some of this increase may be due
to disease and/or unsuitably thin sows being maintained under
poor environmental conditions due to the demand for leaner pork.
However, in part it reflects the increasing tendency to euthanize
"unfit sows" on the farm because they are deemed a welfare
risk in transport.
Although there is no evidence that weaner/grower mortality
has increased, there is some evidence that finisher mortality
has risen. In 1981, recorded finisher mortality was 3.2%; by 1998,
the rate had risen to 3.5%. In the 1980s, finisher mortality in
8 of the 10 years ranged from 2.7%-3.9%, with a mean for all of
these years of 2.99%. The annual rates in the 1990s have been
>3.0 for all 9 years (range 3.1%-4.0%) .
What are the reasons for this steady decline in finishers sold
per sow in the UK compared to some of our EU competitors (Table 1)? Undoubtedly, competitors have
made improvements in their husbandry and management, but there
is no evidence that our producers have lost their ability to husband
pigs well. Could disease be the cause? There is no evidence for
this, either. A few loss-making pigs may be being kept for home
consumption, but the most likely explanation is that producers
are destroying "unfit" pigs on the farm rather than
running the risk of prosecution.
Welfare advocates favor on-farm slaughter and various systems
have been studied, including mobile slaughterhouses. However,
meat hygiene and inspection regulations, along with the added
cost of carcass disposal, make this an uneconomic alternative.
Carcass disposal has become an increasingly difficult and costly
problem for farmers. Prior to the bovine spongioform encephalopathy
(BSE) epidemic, knackers offered a free carcass-collection service
to farmers, but BSE control regulations made the feeding of the
meat and bone meal they produced illegal, and many knackers have
since gone out of business. Hunt kennels collect carcasses from
farmers to feed to their hounds. However, a proposed ban on fox
hunting would also put a stop to this practice.
Further areas of welfare concern
Transport is not the only area in which pig welfare legislation
has been introduced. Sweat boxes were banned years ago, and the
FAWC fourth freedom (to express normal behavior) has become a
priority, making sow stalls and tethers illegal as of January
1, 1999. This freedom is also the one leading to the current criticism
of farrowing crates. There was hope that the swine industries
of other members of the EU would follow our lead, but apart from
a Danish proposal to ban stalls after the first month of pregnancy
for sows producing bacon pigs for the UK market, other countries
have yet to change their systems.
In 1997-1998, bills were introduced into both house of our
legislature providing that:
- the present recommended space allowances for all pigs be
doubled;
- all pigs be provided with suitable bedding;
- pigs not be weaned, except in exceptional circumstances,
under 6 weeks of age; and
- tail docking be banned.
The implications for the industry are obvious, but fortunately
the bills were defeated, mainly by the intervention of two senior
churchmen and a veterinarian, who were briefed by proactive veterinarians
and animal scientists. However, matters are only "on hold"--a
ban on docking, farrowing crates, and fully slatted floors are
all impending.
Human health and food safety
Growth promoters
Some antibiotic growth promoters, which have undoubtedly helped
to increase profitability and contributed to animal health and
welfare, have been banned in the United Kingdom and EU since June
30, 1999. Additional controls seem inevitable. Producers will
have to introduce new strategies for disease control that will
undoubtedly increase their costs.
In Sweden, a ban on the use of all antibiotics/chemotherapeutics
in feed, except to prevent and treat disease, was imposed in 1985.
Sweden would like other EU countries to follow suit, but the effects
of this ban on pig health and the cost of production in Sweden
have been to increase disease, the use of antibiotics for treatment,
and production costs.5 The main pressure for
such a ban has come from the medical profession, who believe that
growth promoters may contribute to antibiotic resistance in humans.
The benefit to the swine producer in terms of improved growth
rates is not a consideration.
Food safety has also become a highly charged, vote-catching
political issue. The changes demanded by the welfare lobby do
not always coincide with changes needed to meet food safety requirements.
For instance, the use of bedding--extremely popular with the welfare
lobby--leads to dirtier pigs at slaughter. This increases the
risk of bacterial contamination, such as with Salmonella.
Water sprays on the farm and in lairage, although they lead to
cleaner pigs at slaughter, are perceived to predispose to chilling.
There will be further conflict between animal welfare and meat
hygiene concerns.
Government legislation regulating perceived animal welfare
has had a major impact on pig production in the UK. The economic
consequences have been serious and the attendant increases in
costs to producers have not been reflected in higher prices received
for their product. In fact, supermarket chains that have enacted
strict requirements on their home producers have imported cheaper
products from our EU competitors and other countries. This has
resulted in much bitterness within our industry. The recent purchase
of one of our largest supermarket chains--ASDA--by the American
company Wal-Mart could exacerbate the price war. The government
must be held at least partially responsible for the precarious
state of the UK pig industry.
References
1. Guise HJ, et al. Observations of the behaviour of slaughter-weight
pigs in transport. The Pig Journal. 1996; 38:19-29.
2. Riches HL, et al. A national survey of transport conditions
for pigs. The Pig Journal. 1996;38:8-18.
3. Guise HJ, et al. Transport of pigs. Vet Rec. 1996;
138:139.
4. Riches HL, et al. Preliminary investigation of frequency
of vomiting by pigs in transport. Vet Rec. 1996; 139:428.
5. Tronstad A. The Swedish ban on antibiotic growth promoters
in animal feeds. The Pig Journal. 1997; 40:89-98.
|
|
