The Green Party of Canada’s submission to the National Farm Animal Care Council’s (NFACC) Draft Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs
1.1.3 Gestating Sows
The Green Party of Canada supports the proposed partial ban on the use of gestation crates and the move toward implementing group-housing of all mated gilts and sows by July 1, 2024. However, the exception for confining sows in gestation crates for 35 days should be removed. It is well-established in the science-based literature on the subject that the practice of confining sows to gestation crates can have serious adverse implications, both psychological and physical, for sows. Gestation crates confine the animals so intensively that they are unable to engage in social and natural behaviours or to even turn around, and it has been posited that persistent difficulty in performing the movements of standing and lying down is indicative of poor sow welfare. Compared to sows that are group-housed, sows housed in gestation crates show a greater incidence of behaviours that indicate stress, likely due to their inability to express social and natural behaviour. According to Marchant and Broom, “this confinement has resulted in alteration or prevention of many of the sow’s normal behaviours, increases in abnormal behavior and in various other indicators of poor welfare.”[i] Studies have also shown that the restriction of movement in crates can create problems of reduced muscle mass and bone strength. If, in certain circumstances, it is necessary to house sows individually for short periods of time, at all times each individual animal should have enough space to stand up, lie down, turn around and extend her limbs in order to allow for a full range of movement and avoid the behavioural restrictions imposed by gestation crates.
In the July 2012 report of the NFACC`s Pig Code Scientists’ Committee, the authors conclude that ‘mixing sows in the week after breeding or at 35 days of gestation does not result in a difference in reproductive performance.’ Because both timeframes allow for the same reproductive performance, there is no reason to individually confine sows for longer than a week. This is in keeping with the global trend to ban gestation crates. The 2001 European Union directive banning use of gestation crates came into effect on January 1, 2013, and although the ban has an exception allowing confinement in stalls until 4 weeks after mating, several EU member countries, including the UK and Sweden, have gone further and implemented full bans. Similarly, since 2002 nine U.S. states have banned gestation crates. While many of these U.S. bans allow for crating, none allows for confinement for a five-week period. New Zealand and Australia plan to phase out the use of gestation crates by 2015 and 2017, respectively. In Australia’s case, the decision to phase out crating was voluntary and in large part a response to public backlash over a 2007 code of practice to allow six weeks’ confinement per four-month pregnancy. The final 2010 decision allows for only 5 days of crating after mating as of 2017. Since 2002, more than 50 leading food companies, including Tim Horton’s, McDonald’s and Burger King, have committed to phasing out gestation crates.
The statement that sows are ‘inherently aggressive’ should be removed. There are many environmental causes of aggression and there are viable alternatives for reducing aggression and managing grouping. Protocols can and should be developed to detail alternative environmental enrichment strategies for diminishing aggression.
1.1.4 Nursing Sows with Piglets
There should be a more ambitious timeline for the requirement concerning the length of farrowing crates. Farrowing crates are extremely restrictive and priority should be attached to ensuring that sows have enough room to move backward and forward and lie down unhindered by a raised trough or rear gate.
1.2.2 Weaned/Grower/Finisher Pig Space Allowances
It is necessary to define ‘short-term’ when discussing the temporary decrease in space allowance that is permitted under this section.
2.1.4 Boars
Each recommendation under this section should be a requirement.
2.1.5 Gestating and Farrowing Sows
Each recommendation under this section should be a requirement.
4.5.1 Castration
Consideration should be given as to whether this practice is needed and should be prohibited.
4.5.2. Identification
Ear-notching should be prohibited as it is painful and viable, less painful alternatives exist.
4.5.3 Tail Docking and Tail-biting
Consideration should be given as to whether there is a need for tail docking, as viable, less painful alternatives, such as environmental enrichment strategies, exist to combat tail-biting.
5.1 Pre-Transport Planning
The recommendations in this section should be requirements. Each is essential for ensuring the welfare of the pigs during loading and transport.
Specific welfare criteria and protocols should be developed for training swine haulers in the proper loading and transport of pigs.
5.2 Fitness for Transport
Appendix L in the decision tree for transport, under “transport with special provisions,” should be amended to remove the provision to transport a pig with an amputated limb. Transporting an animal that cannot bear weight on all four legs, because one is amputated, is inconsistent with the third bullet point under ‘requirements’ that states: “Animals that cannot bear weight on all four legs must not be loaded; these animals will likely become non-ambulatory during transport.”
6.3 Methods of Euthanasia
The appropriateness of the inclusion of ‘thumping’ of piglets as part of an acceptable method of euthanasia (‘Blunt trauma’) in Appendix M is questionable. This practice is extremely violent and requires the exertion of considerable force and determination to be effective. Many people are uncomfortable administering this method and there is therefore greater likelihood that it will be improperly administered. Alternative methods such as captive bolt guns are designed for this purpose and provide a more consistent and efficient level of force. These guns are less violent, more accessible and easier to administer and should be used instead.
[i] Marchant JN and Broom DM. 1996. Effects of dry sow housing conditions on muscle weight and bone strength. Animal Science 62:105-13.