Free-range pigs: not so free

[Fat Guy]

James McWilliams, the gadfly of food miles, has a piece in Slate about cruelty to free-range pigs. He notes that, while the horrors of factory farming are well documented, free-range pigs often don't have it so well either: they're ringed, castrated spayed and more . . .

Iberico pigs actually spend the first nine months of their lives in confinement. Granted, it's not factory-farm confinement—they've got some room to move and all-natural feed to eat, nor are they docked or clipped. But the promoted benefits of free-range are absent—no sun, no freshly fallen acorns, no wallowing in big mud pits. While indoors, they're castrated, spayed, kept to a feeding schedule, administered antibiotics when sick, directed to eat and sleep in carefully chosen locations, and, just before the barn doors open to the freedom of la dehesa, mutilated with a nose ring.

[Chris Hennes]

So, they are treated basically the way most people treat their pet dogs? (OK, minus the nose ring, but some of those doggy sweaters are probably just as bad...) And this is cruel? Naturally, the upshot is that we should all be vegetarians.

[Fat Guy]

It's worth looking at the article. There is, for example, a discussion of the use (and non-use) of anesthesia in spaying/neutering.

[Dave the Cook]

Pain seems to be a constant:

The ring's effectiveness depends on pain—when the pig roots, the ring hurts its snout. Pigs must be forcibly restrained before their noses are bored into with iron tongs to set the ring, and the rings must be replaced frequently.

and

Castration is, well, castration. As with nose-ringing, it's not only endemic to Iberico production; it's characteristic of pig farming in general. The main reason free-range producers castrate is to ensure that an unpleasant taste ("boar taint," which comes with adolescence) doesn't pervade the meat. With anesthesia, castration causes minor pain from postoperative swelling. Without anesthesia, it's an excruciating experience. Iberico producers, as is the case with most free-range pig farmers in the United States (including Niman), castrate without painkillers.

So, they are treated basically the way most people treat their pet dogs? (OK, minus the nose ring, but some of those doggy sweaters are probably just as bad...) And this is cruel? Naturally, the upshot is that we should all be vegetarians.

←

Such thinking generates a typical McWilliams statement:

In this age of deeply convincing attacks on factory farms, consumers must be careful not to immediately assume that every alternative to factory farming is as "all natural" or humane as its advocates will inevitably declare. The alternatives might require still more alternatives.

[David Ross]

Maybe I missed something after I read, then re-read, McWilliams piece on Slate.

Are his opinions based in fact--er, having actually spent time on a farm and witnessing the actual castration of the hogs? Or, since there are skads of reports on the internet that he can quote regarding how free-range hogs are raised, did he simply paste together some of those reports? Finally, does it matter that he didn't visit the farms himself? Can his piece withstand challenges if he didn't witness the farming practices first-hand?

[weinoo]

I'm pretty sure Flying Pigs Farm doesn't treat their animals this way.

There are factory raised "free-range" chickens, factory raised "natural" beef, and so on. It doesn't change the fact that there are small, humane producers too.

[annecros]

Maybe I missed something after I read, then re-read, McWilliams piece on Slate.

Are his opinions based in fact--er, having actually spent time on a farm and witnessing the actual castration of the hogs?  Or, since there are skads of reports on the internet that he can quote regarding how free-range hogs are raised, did he simply paste together some of those reports?  Finally, does it matter that he didn't visit the farms himself? Can his piece withstand challenges if he didn't witness the farming practices first-hand?

←

Now see, this brings up the "farm to plate" disconnect that I was reading about the other day.

Here it is.

From the opinion piece:

Closing the farm-to-plate knowledge gap won’t be easy. With the earliest advances in agriculture resulting in food surpluses, people, no longer physically needed on the farm, moved to urban centers to pursue non-agricultural careers. As the years passed and the complexity of the food system increased, people came to rely, exclusively in most cases today, on food processors and retailers to provide for them. In effect, we traded knowledge for convenient, cheap food.

Does the consumer really want to know?

I spent my share of time on actual farms, where farmers are raising animals for meat. All of those practices have been common for decades. Nay centuries. Actually, probably millennia.

That's what goes on down on the farm.

Anyone that has eaten boar that has truly free ranged, and is past adolescence, understands the "Boar Taint" that Dave mentioned earlier. It literally tastes like what urine smells like.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to eat it.

I have three pet chickens that I treasure. They have names. I'm nursing one through an injury to her leg now that has required time and attention, and expense.

I still bought chicken feet for my stock last week.

Can the consumer handle the truth?

[vice]

I recently visited a friend who is apprenticing at a farm that certainly falls under the category of "free-range, humanely-raised livestock producer". My stay happened to fall on piglet castration day. If done correctly, castration is a very quick process involving a small incision that does not require surgical closure. That said, it is not "pretty" nor easily reconciled with an idyllic vision of bucolic serenity. The piglets can feel it - they make you more than aware of that fact. However, I don't know how much of a difference anaesthesia would make. Yes, less pain would be incurred from the incision, but there would still be soreness afterwards. Moreover, I suspect (as evidenced by the pre-incision squealing) that simply handling the piglets causes as much or more stress than the incision itself. I think it needs to be realized that rearing livestock in any manner requires a certain degree of handling that may, at times, be stressful to the animal.

[nickrey]

Maybe I missed something after I read, then re-read, McWilliams piece on Slate.

Are his opinions based in fact--er, having actually spent time on a farm and witnessing the actual castration of the hogs?  Or, since there are skads of reports on the internet that he can quote regarding how free-range hogs are raised, did he simply paste together some of those reports?  Finally, does it matter that he didn't visit the farms himself? Can his piece withstand challenges if he didn't witness the farming practices first-hand?

←

I'd agree. Historians typically try to consider both sides of an argument. In this case, all the quoted sources seem to be right out of the PETA catalogue of emotive arguments to sway opinions.

Where is the balance?

Are any producers doing things differently or will all be swept away in the same emotive argument?

Can the consumer handle the truth?

←

I think Anne has hit the nail on the head as to why such opinion pieces draw attention. In today's world the disconnect in the consumer's mind between where their food comes from and where it actually comes from is vast. People think food comes from plastic packages in supermarkets. It doesn't. It comes from living breathing animals, most of whom would not have existed at all were it not for our desire to consume their flesh.

There may be some merit in elements of the piece. I'd just like to see the other side of the argument as well.

Thanks for pointing the article out Fat Guy, this should lead to some interesting discussion.

But does anyone have verified facts so we can add some balance?

[Chris Hennes]

It should also be pointed out that it is quite likely that "free-range" hog farms run the gamut from "hog factories where the hogs get a window" to "hogs roaming free in the forest." In particular, the two hog farmers I work with in OK have quite different standards for raising their "free range" hogs.

[Dave the Cook]

. . . Historians typically try to consider both sides of an argument. In this case, all the quoted sources seem to be right out of the PETA catalogue of emotive arguments to sway opinions.

Where is the balance?

Are any producers doing things differently or will all be swept away in the same emotive argument?

. . . .

There may be some merit in elements of the piece. I'd just like to see the other side of the argument as well.

Thanks for pointing the article out Fat Guy, this should lead to some interesting discussion.

But does anyone have verified facts so we can add some balance?

←

McWilliams' credentials are described here, among other places in that topic.

I'd also point out that when Michael Pollan wrote similar things about "free range" chickens in Omnivore's Dilemma, no one so much as peeped. Does a master's degree in English trump a doctorate in history and a Harvard fellowship?

Back to the Slate column: discount the single PETA quote in the piece -- I did -- and McWilliams cites the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Copenhagen Post reporting on a decree from the Danish government, a blog post by someone witnessing a castration at Stone Barns, a German veterinary magazine, and a book published by an organization that promotes third-world agricutural production -- none of which are apologists for the vegetarian-or-die PETA agenda. I'd also submit that they're all pretty reliable sources -- as in, they present facts.

[annecros]

It should also be pointed out that it is quite likely that "free-range" hog farms run the gamut from "hog factories where the hogs get a window" to "hogs roaming free in the forest." In particular, the two hog farmers I work with in OK have quite different standards for raising their "free range" hogs.

←

Absolutely. Every farmer, consumer and factory will give you their definition of organic, sustainable or free range. That's what happens when somebody on the outside (industry, govt., pick your poison) arbitrarily places a label upon something they don't understand, then wriggles through the loopholes.

I don't think McWilliam's credentials are being questioned.

The passionate responses to these opinion pieces are the result of people not speaking the same language when using the words "organic" and "free range" and "natural" and etc.

Also, these animals are domesticated. They are certainly not tame.

[Fat Guy]

I'm pretty sure Flying Pigs Farm doesn't treat their animals this way.

←

I think I've actually visited that place, but not on castration day and I can't remember whether the pigs had nose rings. I wonder how we could find out. More to the point, it's not like you ever see on packaging a checklist like "__ nose rings, __ castration without anesthesia, __ spaying without anesthesia, __ confinement for __ months." I think the salient point of the article is that a "free range" claim doesn't begin to end the discussion of humane treatment. Me, if I'm going to pay a lot more for meat in order to guarantee humane treatment, I'd rather only do that with the knowledge that I'm actually paying for humane treatment.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Flying Pigs comes to the Union Square Greenmarket regularly, so I suppose you could ask them.

[nickrey]

McWilliams' credentials are described here, among other places in that topic.

←

My concern was not with his credentials but rather with the way this piece was written. The last thing I would want to do is play the person. It is, however, a logical fallacy to expect that someone who is an expert in one area will necessarily be an expert in all areas they express an opinion on.

Back to the Slate column: discount the single PETA quote in the piece -- I did -- and McWilliams cites the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Copenhagen Post reporting on a decree from the Danish government, a blog post by someone witnessing a castration at Stone Barns, a German veterinary magazine, and a book published by an organization that promotes third-world agricutural production -- none of which are apologists for the vegetarian-or-die PETA agenda. I'd also submit that they're all pretty reliable sources -- as in, they present facts.

←

That is not disputed but what is missing is the documented prevalence of these practices. The piece makes it seems like the practices are not only widespread but almost mandatory.

Do all farms use them? Let's start off with a baseline, work out what is actually going on and work from there. I am sure I used the word "balanced" earlier. Even the quoting of facts can be used in an unbalanced manner if they are selectively reported, as is possibly the case here.

That being said, he may be quite right in his conclusions but let's test the alternatives through reasoned discussion based on a comprehensive assessment of the facts.

[Dave the Cook]

Slate is owned by the Washington Post, arguably the second or third most respected newspaper in the United States. I am pretty sure, though don't know for an absolute fact, that they employ rigorous fact-checking. Maybe we can stipulate that point? And if we can, what facts in McWilliams's piece do you dispute?

eta: clarity

[nickrey]

Slate is owned by the Washington Post, arguably the second or third most respected newspaper in the United States. I am pretty sure, though don't know for an absolute fact, that they employ rigorous fact-checking. Maybe we can stipulate that point? And if we can, what facts in McWilliams's piece do you dispute?

eta: clarity

←

Let's look at some of the sources quoted in the article, for example, the RSPCA states that "the majority of male pigs on the continent are routinely castrated without anaesthetic (approximately 80 per cent)."

Conversely, this means 20% are castrated with anaesthetic. One can ask to what extent the free-range pigs under consideration are represented in this 20%.

Similarly, his source for spaying being conducted without anaesthesia was "animal welfare activist Temple Grandin." Again I'd just like some more information on how widespread this practice is.

My reading since this topic arose of the Denominaciónes de Origen accreditation suggests that the most important determinant of quality is the type and amount of feed to which the pigs are exposed during the montanera, or intensive feeding period during winter when feed becomes more plentiful. That some producers may subject the pigs to commercially intensive practices in the periods leading up to this is quite possible but once again I'd like some more information on actual practices.

It could be that many of the producers involved have addressed these issues. It could equally be the case that only a minority have.

Due to space limitations in production, many articles tend to be reduced to what the editors consider the most salient points. It is what is omitted that will give us better information to make reasoned judgements, particularly in such a potentially emotive area.

As a thought-provoking piece, I think we'd have to say that the article is already being very successful.

[Rob Babcock]

I can remember when I was a child watching my Dad help my Grandpa castrating cattle (not pigs). There certainly was no anaethesia; a mention of it would probably get you a blank look of disbelief. Humane or not (by current standards) I'm unaware of that being done anywhere. Of course I'm 40 years old and the events I recall were over three decades ago, but my impression is that raising animals for food will always require actions that are by their very nature cruel- at least to modern sensibilities.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Similarly, his source for spaying being conducted without anaesthesia was "animal welfare activist Temple Grandin." Again I'd just like some more information on how widespread this practice is.

I would regard Temple Grandin as a very reliable source on this sort of issue with very solid credentials in academia and the livestock industry. "Animal welfare activist" is a bit misleading without a little more context. She has designed systems that are in wide use for handling livestock on feed lots and in slaughterhouses.

[docsconz]

I'm pretty sure Flying Pigs Farm doesn't treat their animals this way.

←

I think I've actually visited that place, but not on castration day and I can't remember whether the pigs had nose rings. I wonder how we could find out. More to the point, it's not like you ever see on packaging a checklist like "__ nose rings, __ castration without anesthesia, __ spaying without anesthesia, __ confinement for __ months." I think the salient point of the article is that a "free range" claim doesn't begin to end the discussion of humane treatment. Me, if I'm going to pay a lot more for meat in order to guarantee humane treatment, I'd rather only do that with the knowledge that I'm actually paying for humane treatment.

←

You have been there. I took you a number of years ago. It so happens that I recently republished a photo on my blog of Jen Small at Flying Pigs Farm taken several years ago. She is with some of her pigs with not a nose ring in sight. You can see it here..

McWilliams has become more subtle since his other recent attack on non-factory farmed meat production. While he does not defend factory farming here, he indirectly does by saying how bad the touted alternatives to factory farming are in their own right potentially narrowing the distance in the minds of consumers. Of course, even though it appears that he has a very strong bias and may be prone to exaggeration, his main point is a good one. Though free-range is significantly better than factory farming, it could in many instances be better yet. The problem is that rather than emphasize those farms that do adhere to more humane practices, he paints them all with a very broad brush.

[annecros]

I'm pretty sure Flying Pigs Farm doesn't treat their animals this way.

←

I think I've actually visited that place, but not on castration day and I can't remember whether the pigs had nose rings. I wonder how we could find out. More to the point, it's not like you ever see on packaging a checklist like "__ nose rings, __ castration without anesthesia, __ spaying without anesthesia, __ confinement for __ months." I think the salient point of the article is that a "free range" claim doesn't begin to end the discussion of humane treatment. Me, if I'm going to pay a lot more for meat in order to guarantee humane treatment, I'd rather only do that with the knowledge that I'm actually paying for humane treatment.

←

You have been there. I took you a number of years ago. It so happens that I recently republished a photo on my blog of Jen Small at Flying Pigs Farm taken several years ago. She is with some of her pigs with not a nose ring in sight. You can see it here..

McWilliams has become more subtle since his other recent attack on non-factory farmed meat production. While he does not defend factory farming here, he indirectly does by saying how bad the touted alternatives to factory farming are in their own right potentially narrowing the distance in the minds of consumers. Of course, even though it appears that he has a very strong bias and may be prone to exaggeration, his main point is a good one. Though free-range is significantly better than factory farming, it could in many instances be better yet. The problem is that rather than emphasize those farms that do adhere to more humane practices, he paints them all with a very broad brush.

←

Another question I have is what yard stick McWilliams is using?

There is no doubt that free range results in a significantly better quality of life than factory farming.

What's the alternative to free range? Feral?

Pigs and chickens are particularly adept at going feral. So, is the uncastrated pig struggling every day to scrounge up enough food in the Florida scrub better off than the free range brother? Wild pigs regularly rip one another apart and eat each other, literally. No anesthesia or medical attention out there. Just try to keep moving ahead of the scavengers and predators until you have time to heal. Oh, and if you walk up on one, he will happily tear you to bits and eat you as well. Even domestic pigs have murder in their eyes, and would love to munch on Anne.

Those happy chickens wandering around Key West are Game Bird decedents. Lovely eye candy, but the roosters are literally out there killing one another. Behavior very similar to Red Jungle Fowl in Asia, who were the predecessors to all our domestic chickens. If you had a stroke on Duval Street, they would pick the flesh off your bones.

Now, I believe we have a responsibility to responsibly care for those animals that we have domesticated in order for us to eat in a more efficient manner. In fact, many of the practices common in farming meat are actually our adjustments to their nature and way of life.

Factory animals are born, live and die in an unsanitary prison - treated cruelly.

I think cleaning up the factory farms might be a better place to start.

[JAZ]

While he does not defend factory farming here, he indirectly does by saying how bad the touted alternatives to factory farming are in their own right potentially narrowing the distance in the minds of consumers. Of course, even though it appears that he has a very strong bias and may be prone to exaggeration, his main point is a good one. Though free-range is significantly better than factory farming, it could in many instances be better yet.

←

His main point, I think, is to get consumers to realize that blithely assuming that meat with a label of "free-range" comes from happy animals who are allowed to roam at will with no "cruelty" is mistaken.

It's the same thing (as Dave mentioned above) that Pollan did when he talked about the Rocky and Rosie chickens from Petaluma CA. Are those chickens treated better than factory farm chickens? Certainly. Are they allowed to roam free and feed on bugs (which is, I think, what many people think of when they hear the terms "free-range" or "cage-free")? No way.

Most people, if asked, would say that ideally, they'd like a reliable source of meat that tastes good and doesn't harm animals. What writers like McWilliams and Pollan have done is to point out that the issue is much more complex than placing "factory farms" on the evil side and "free-range" on the righteous side. How is that a bad thing?

[Dave the Cook]

McWilliams has become more subtle since his other recent attack on non-factory farmed meat production. While he does not defend factory farming here, he indirectly does by saying how bad the touted alternatives to factory farming are in their own right potentially narrowing the distance in the minds of consumers. Of course, even though it appears that he has a very strong bias and may be prone to exaggeration, his main point is a good one. Though free-range is significantly better than factory farming, it could in many instances be better yet. The problem is that rather than emphasize those farms that do adhere to more humane practices, he paints them all with a very broad brush.

←

McWilliams isn't subtle; I'd call him unsentimental. I'd also not characterize his piece on disease among free-range swine with the word "attack," a perjorative that indicates, um, bias. He is a (his words) "concerned consumer trying to get to the bottom of what we eat." I don't understand why McWilliams is obligated to highlight farms that adhere to explemplary standards. Would we be better off not having the information he presents?

More to the point, if he's succeeded in "narrowing the distance in the minds of consumers" between factory farming and free-range, that's a service, because the distance in a significant number of cases is narrower than most people think.

[annecros]

His main point, I think, is to get consumers to realize that blithely assuming that meat with a label of "free-range" comes from happy animals who are allowed to roam at will with no "cruelty" is mistaken.

It's the same thing (as Dave mentioned above) that Pollan did when he talked about the Rocky and Rosie chickens from Petaluma CA. Are those chickens treated better than factory farm chickens? Certainly. Are they allowed to roam free and feed on bugs (which is, I think, what many people think of when they hear the terms "free-range" or "cage-free")? No way.

Most people, if asked, would say that ideally, they'd like a reliable source of meat that tastes good and doesn't harm animals. What writers like McWilliams and Pollan have done is to point out that the issue is much more complex than placing "factory farms" on the evil side and "free-range" on the righteous side. How is that a bad thing?

←

That is where the disconnect is happening I think. A reliable source of meat that tastes good and doesn't harm animals. I agree that both the farmer and the consumer want that.

I think McWilliams and Pollan are missing another level of complexity.

In the case of chickens, "Broilers" and "Meaties" cannot be allowed to roam free because they would, in fact, come to harm. The consumer demands a product that comes from a broiler or meaty chicken, because it tastes good and delivers value in the meat vs bone ratio. Those chickens require a very managed diet and exercise regimen, or else they will die of a heart attack, or outgrow their bones (breaking them.) If a chicken of this breed were allowed to range and eat at will, they would die before attaining a meat to bone ratio that the consumer would find "acceptable."

Even with our little pets, it was a big "what if" to decide whether to allow them free range in my little backyard, because of the predator concerns. Chicken is quite literally on everyone's menu. So, a secure coop and run where they get some daylight and a bug or two when they get lucky? Or frolicking in the grass?

We opted for the frolicking, because, well, it makes them happy. And we don't depend upon their eggs as a primary source of protein, nor for our livlihood. We are also emotionally prepared to lose them, should a predator decide they want lunch.

And, well, factory farms are evil.

[HungryC]

My goodness, I hope McWilliams never visits a sheep farm where castration is achieved by banding...simply squeeze an elastic around the superfluous parts, cutting off the blood flow. Eventually, they'll dry up and drop off.

We vaccinate animals without anesthesia, just like we vaccinate our kids without anesthesia (and they're not mentally developed enough to give informed consent, same as the hogs or my neighbor's declawed cat). The relative benefits outweight the short-term pain. Is the definition of humane a pain-free existence? Please, that's not a realistic goal for meat-eaters.