The Future of Pork Production in the World: Towards Sustainable, Welfare-Positive Systems

Simple Summary More pork is eaten in the world than any other meat. Making production systems and practices more sustainable will benefit the animals, the planet and people. A system is presented by which production practices are evaluated using a sustainability matrix. The matrix shows why some practices are more common in some countries and regions and the impediments to more sustainable systems. This method can be used to assess the sustainability of production practices in the future where objective, science-based information is presented alongside ethical and economic information to make the most informed decisions. Finally, this paper points to current pork production practices that are more and less sustainable. Abstract Among land animals, more pork is eaten in the world than any other meat. The earth holds about one billion pigs who deliver over 100 mmt of pork to people for consumption. Systems of pork production changed from a forest-based to pasture-based to dirt lots and finally into specially-designed buildings. The world pork industry is variable and complex not just in production methods but in economics and cultural value. A systematic analysis of pork industry sustainability was performed. Sustainable production methods are considered at three levels using three examples in this paper: production system, penning system and for a production practice. A sustainability matrix was provided for each example. In a comparison of indoor vs. outdoor systems, the food safety/zoonoses concerns make current outdoor systems unsustainable. The choice of keeping pregnant sows in group pens or individual crates is complex in that the outcome of a sustainability assessment leads to the conclusion that group penning is more sustainable in the EU and certain USA states, but the individual crate is currently more sustainable in other USA states, Asia and Latin America. A comparison of conventional physical castration with immunological castration shows that the less-common immunological castration method is more sustainable (for a number of reasons). This paper provides a method to assess the sustainability of production systems and practices that take into account the best available science, human perception and culture, animal welfare, the environment, food safety, worker health and safety, and economics (including the cost of production and solving world hunger). This tool can be used in countries and regions where the table values of a sustainability matrix change based on local conditions. The sustainability matrix can be used to assess current systems and predict improved systems of the future.

[1]  M. Miller,et al.  Alternative housing systems for pigs: influences on growth, composition, and pork quality. , 2002, Journal of animal science.

[2]  M. Miller,et al.  Diverse birth and rearing environment effects on pig growth and meat quality. , 2002, Journal of animal science.

[3]  J. Coetzee,et al.  The physiological and behavioral response of pigs castrated with and without anesthesia or analgesia. , 2012, Journal of animal science.

[4]  Paulo J. U. de Moraes,et al.  LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA) AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION (EPD) OF AN IMMUNOLOGICAL PRODUCT FOR BOAR TAINT CONTROL IN MALE PIGS , 2013 .

[5]  E. Knol,et al.  Genetic opportunities for pork production without castration , 2009, Animal Welfare.

[6]  John J. McGlone,et al.  Oral/nasal/facial and other behaviors of sows kept individually outdoors on pasture, soil or indoors in gestation crates , 1997 .

[7]  Ruth Harrison,et al.  Animal Machines: The New Factory Farming Industry , 1964 .

[8]  J. M. Hellman,et al.  Local and general anesthetic effects on behavior and performance of two- and seven-week-old castrated and uncastrated piglets. , 1988, Journal of animal science.

[9]  A. Webster,et al.  Farm animal welfare: the five freedoms and the free market. , 2001, Veterinary journal.

[10]  S. Dowd,et al.  Environmental prevalence and persistence of Salmonella spp. in outdoor swine wallows. , 2005, Foodborne pathogens and disease.

[11]  J. McGlone REVIEW: Updated scientific evidence on the welfare of gestating sows kept in different housing systems , 2013 .

[12]  W. J. Underwood Pain and distress in agricultural animals. , 2002, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[13]  J. Dailey,et al.  Pregnant gilt behavior in outdoor and indoor intensive pork production systems , 1997 .

[14]  M. Sutherland,et al.  Physiology and behavior of pigs before and after castration: effects of two topical anesthetics. , 2010, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[15]  M. Bonneau,et al.  Responses to restricted index selection and genetic parameters for fat androstenone level and sexual maturity status of young boars , 2000 .

[16]  Stuart Spencer,et al.  A New Framework for the Assessment of Animal Welfare: Integrating Existing Knowledge from a Practical Ethics Perspective , 2006 .

[17]  John J. McGlone,et al.  Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues: toward sustainable systems , 2001 .

[18]  S. Edwards Product quality attributes associated with outdoor pig production , 2005 .

[19]  A. Prunier,et al.  Effects of castration, tooth resection, or tail docking on plasma metabolites and stress hormones in young pigs. , 2005, Journal of animal science.

[20]  W. Verbeke,et al.  Effect of information provisioning on attitude toward surgical castration of male piglets and alternative strategies for avoiding boar taint. , 2011, Research in veterinary science.

[21]  W. Pond,et al.  Effects of stocking rate and crude protein intake during gestation on ground cover, soil-nitrate concentration, and sow and litter performance in an outdoor swine production system. , 2002, Journal of animal science.

[22]  A. Johnson,et al.  Behavior and performance of lactating sows and piglets reared indoors or outdoors. , 2001, Journal of animal science.

[23]  M. Appleby,et al.  A comprehensive review of housing for pregnant sows. , 2005, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.

[24]  M B M Bracke,et al.  Decision support system for overall welfare assessment in pregnant sows A: model structure and weighting procedure. , 2002, Journal of animal science.

[25]  Ronald M. Mutai Economic feasibility of outdoor weaned pig farming in West Texas , 2002 .

[26]  Greg M. Cronin,et al.  A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing , 2001 .

[27]  J. Deshazer,et al.  Vocalization and physiological response of pigs during castration with or without a local anesthetic. , 1995, Journal of animal science.

[28]  R. Patterson Identification of 3α‐hydroxy‐5α‐androst‐16‐ene as the musk odour component of boar submaxillary salivary gland and its relationship to the sex odour taint in pork meat , 1968 .

[29]  Anna K. Johnson,et al.  REVIEWS: Compilation of the Scientific Literature Comparing Housing Systems for Gestating Sows and Gilts Using Measures of Physiology, Behavior, Performance, and Health1 , 2004 .

[30]  F R Dunshea,et al.  Vaccination of boars with a GnRH vaccine (Improvac) eliminates boar taint and increases growth performance. , 2001, Journal of animal science.