by SUSAN MANN
Ontario Pork producers aren’t in favour of a mandatory ban on gestation stalls for the province but market forces may be steering them in that direction.
Quick service restaurant chain Tim Hortons affirmed in its 2012 Sustainability and Responsibility Report, released this week, that it will only source pork from suppliers that don’t use gestation stalls by 2022.
In a press release Wednesday, Tim Hortons says “we affirm our call for the pork industry to eliminate gestation stall practices for sows and by 2022 will source pork from the suppliers who have made the transition to alternative open housing.”
Tim Faveri, Tim Hortons director of sustainability and responsibility, says the company buys pork from both Canadian and American suppliers and says it is a major customer.The Tim Hortons website says it has 4,264 restaurants, including 3,436 in Canada, 804 in the United States and 24 in the Gulf Cooperation Council of arab states.
Faveri says Tim Hortons has worked on building a sustainable supply chain for the past three to five years using a farm to fork approach. “A lot of customers out there are becoming much more interested with respect to where their food comes from.”
In updating its animal welfare policy, Tim Hortons did internal and external benchmarking, along with consulting farmers, industry associations and government organizations. “It was our assessment the current practice of gestation stalls are on their way out.”
By consulting with the industry, “we’re confident in hearing from our suppliers and other stakeholders that 2022 is a sustainable, balanced date for our suppliers to achieve,” he says, noting Tim Hortons said previously it didn’t support the use of the stalls and requested suppliers provide plans to phase them out over time. After talking with suppliers, industry and government representatives last year, the restaurant chain reaffirmed its commitment to have the stalls phased out and “we were comfortable with a 2022 date.”
As for how Tim Hortons plans to ensure it is getting gestation stall-free pork after 2022, Faveri says currently traceability and verification in the value chain is limited. But “that’s going to be very important to develop in the next decade.”
In addition to funding research on verification and traceability, Faveri says Tim Hortons is also funding research at the University of Guelph on how transitions to more sustainable systems can be achieved. Those results will be presented at a restaurant industry summit this fall.
The American pork industry is quite polarized on the gestation stall issue, he says. But if the Canadian National Farm Animal Care Council moves towards some form of open sow housing in its updated Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs, due out June 1 for public comment, Faveri says his personal feeling is “Canadian pork is going to be that much more sought after on the open market.”
Pork producer Stewart Skinner, who farms with his father, Larry, near Listowel, says often these changes aren’t being driven by science or consumers but by animal rights activists buying shares in publicly-traded food companies and bringing resolutions and shareholder directives to the floor at annual meetings. “At the end of the day it’s going to impact the most vulnerable people in our society and those are the people that need food as cheaply as possible. But these are the things that are going to make their food cost more money.”
Crystal Mackay, executive director of Farm and Food Care Ontario, says the people targeting Tim Hortons about these issues are likely not Tim Hortons customers. Attitude studies by Farm and Food Care Ontario show that animal welfare is not high on the list of peoples’ concerns about sustainable food.
Skinner says they use loose sow housing on their farrow-to-finish farm with 375 sows and they started out their farm that way. But one of the reasons for using crates is to protect sows from themselves. Sows can be very violent especially when they’re establishing their pecking order. Early pregnancy is critical because the embryos aren’t attached to the uterine wall in the sow until after the fourth week.
“You see extreme reduction in performance if you’re not allowed to use the crate at least for that implantation period,” he says.
Faveri points out “there’s a balance between putting them in a crate that small for the entire gestation cycle or perhaps having them impregnated in a stall and then released into an open system.”
Canadian Pork Council chair Jean-Guy Vincent, a pork producer from Quebec,
says he uses gestation stalls on his farm. “It’s what was the best for our animals when we built our barns.” But if farmers must make changes, the focus should be on what’s the best way to raise the animals and for farmers to make a living.
“The question we have when the big companies want to drive changes is, how will they pay producers for those changes?” he asks. “They cannot just ask producers to spend a lot of money on their farms.”
Skinner says changing to loose sow housing hasn’t been proven to improve the welfare of sows. Twenty-five to 30 years ago, experts were encouraging farmers to change to gestation crates because “that was better for the sow.”
Ontario pork producers voted 69-12 at their annual meeting last month against a mandatory sow stall ban. But Ontario Pork spokesman Keith Robbins says “the board has yet to make a decision on that approach.”
He says Ontario Pork is aware of Tim Hortons' request and the restaurant chain is one of several companies calling for gestation stalls in the pork industry to be phased out.
Ontario Pork has been consulting with Tim Hortons for a number of years and “Tim Hortons was clear that they wanted to move to a position where they felt the industry would be able to accommodate them,” says Robbins. “They wanted to make sure that their position could be doable.”
It isn’t known how many Canadian farmers currently can meet Tim Hortons’ requirements. In Ontario, Skinner says he’d guess 75 per cent of pork farmers use crated systems while 25 per cent have some sort of loose sow housing. The Canadian Pork Council is doing an economic analysis of the costs to switch from gestation stall systems to loose sow housing, says Gary Stordy, public relations manager.
Adding to the complexity of the situation is restaurant chains have different criteria for defining loose sow housing. Robbins says “the biggest thing is, what is the definition of loose sow housing?”
Once the recommended code of practice is finished, restaurant chains will be able to refer to it. The draft code is scheduled to be released for public comment June 1 and may be finalized later this year.
Skinner agrees that lack of detail from the companies makes it difficult for farmers. “We don’t know whether it’s completely loose housing or whether it will be similar to the European Union system” where sows can be crated for four weeks after breeding.
Faveri says Tim Hortons is waiting to see what’s in the updated code of the practice and is very supportive of that process.
Without knowing the details from Tim Hortons, Skinner says it’s hard to know how much it’s ultimately going to cost farmers to rework their operations to meet the new demand. He says one estimate has pegged the transition cost at $125 per sow but farmers generally say that’s way too low and a more realistic cost is $500 to $600 per sow.
If a farmer is starting from scratch, it’s cheaper to build a barn with loose sow housing compared to one with gestation stalls but sow productivity is lower in the loose systems because sows lose pregnancies more often due to fighting compared to if they were in crated systems, Skinner notes, adding there can be health benefits if a farmer manages a loose housing system correctly.
The transition costs to the industry will be substantial but Skinner says it's unlikely farmers will get any premiums for doing the switch because so many companies want to make that claim and it won’t be a niche market.
Robbins says some provinces, such as Manitoba, and several states in the United States have decided to phase out gestation stalls. Manitoba will phase them out by 2025. Ontario is in the process “of the board having to decide what the position will be.”
Increased production of eggs from loose housing is also a target for Tim Hortons. It is on track to source 10 per cent of its egg products form “more humane, alternative hen housing systems by the end of 2013.” That’s “significantly more than 10 million eggs,” Tim Hortons’ release says. BF (with files from Better Farming staff)
Comments
It will be a niche market for those who are willing to supply a Canadian company . Will Tim's be willing to source their pork from Canadian farmers who are willing to do what is needed to fill their want or will they go to the cheapest import ?
Think of it as pork SM !!
I understand that 3 P Conestoga plant supplies timmies.....they do have enough "stall free" sows in there group to supply them....the way its going by the 2022 time frame if we keep losing pork producers in Ontario at the same rate as the last 10 yrs. we will have maybe 100-150 producers left...just because they say they want stall free pork still doesn't mean its the humane way of raising pigs. k.g. kimball
I must disagree with Crystal Mackay. I AM a regular customer of Tim Hortons, and I care very much where my food comes from and how the animals are treated. I am also a vegetarian (for many different reasons). I think that what they are proposing is a good start. I would also really like to see the eggs come from cage-free hens.
Tim Horton's outlets went smoke-free before legislation in most jurisdictions required then to do so - and it made them appear to be a leader. They are making this proposal/request obviously because their market research told them it would be a business move for them, in the same way banning smoking also was a good business move for them. When it comes to this, and many other issues, farmers can either lead, follow, or get out of the way - the market is ALWAYS right even when/especially when, farmers think it's wrong.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
"When it comes to this, and many other issues, farmers can either lead, follow, or get out of the way"
You are exactly right!
While farmers in the US and Ontario are wasting time fighting this, the rest of the world is moving ahead with "what the customer wants"
Smithfield's, the biggest hog producer in the world has said "our customer's have told us this is what they want and we are going to try to give it to them".
I guess Smithfield will be able to supply Tim Horton's.
Tim Hortons will only be a leader if they pay the increased cost of raising pork that comes with banning gestation stalls. They could very easily make a statement like this then continue to source their pork from countries that have not banned gestation stalls because it is cheaper and more cost effective then pork raised gestation stall free. There was a study done where they asked shoppers going into a store their postion on free range vs. battery cage hens. The majority supported free range hens however when the same shoppers came out they had bought conventional or battery cage eggs because the were cheaper. In the EU, which banned battery cages, they are importing more eggs from countries which have not implemanted the ban because they are cheaper then the ones raised free range. The "market" is not always right because the "market" is made up of conflicting views, perceptions and needs depending on where you are in it.
Adrian Straathof Westmeath ON
The market is always right, even if it doesn't make sense to farmers. All that conflicting views do is provide is a niche which may expand, contract, and/or disappear completely. In addition, the market doesn't care about anyone's cost-of-production, nor should it, because, except in the fairy-tale world of supply management, it simply doesn't matter, and all it's done there is priced those products to the point of absurdity.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
How long will it be before the poorest group of consumers can not afford to eat pork or eat at Tim's because of TIM's own wants ?
And they aren't even talking SM for TIM's pork products . Hhhmmmmm
Hmm a vegetarian at Timmies must be tough as what products there do not contain meat proteins or eggs. Curtiss Littlejohn penned it best when he said " we are being ruled by the vocal minority". Having been loose housing for gestation sows until 1978 I can irrevocably say stalls for dry sows was the best and most humane thing that ever happened for a sow . Stephen Thompson had it right about humane society buying shares and there agenda which is really no "meat" .Heinz,fast food joints,ect. have been hoodwinked. k.g. kimball
I like that tims takes a stand against these things.
I want to know that the food comes from cruelty free practices
if tims truly cared that the pork they buy was from hogs raised with out crates or stall they could start buying pork that way today.
there is a processor in quebec who buy lots of hogs raised that way from many farms in ontario, mostly mennonite.
people when are you going to understand that tims doesn't really care since they are not prepared to make the switch today when the pork is readily available. this is purely a financial decision. the fact is they are not willing to pay the premium for this pork due to the many extra costs to raise pigs this way says volumes about how this is not an ethical decision for them but purely financial.
surely the economist who posts on here regularly can verify that it is a pure financial decision because if he has many mennonite clients some of them may raise hogs on this program.
we need to stop putting tims on this pedestal when they are only willing to make the change when it suits them financially. once again they can buy pork raised without stalls and crates today but choose not to.
One may not like what he/she sees to be the purchasing protocols used by Tim Hortons, but they are the customer, and, by defintion, they are always right.
We, in agriculture, have been brainwashed for so long by our own propaganda,especially supply management propaganda, that the farmer is always right, that we take foolishly take issue with our customers instead of meeting their needs.
It doesn't matter whether the customer's decision making processes are based on ethics, or on finances, or both, or even neither - how, and/or why, they make their purchase decisions is none of our business.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Mind games,the phoney preception that somehow the Pork at Tim Horton's will be better without sow crates , l didn't know they even made anything with pork in it !! We see it in all the fast food places and it will only progress to something else a few years down the road.
Meanwhile,children in some parts of Central America as young as 6 and 8 years old harvest coffee beans for next to poverty wages...think Tim Horton's cares, not a chance!
Your post sparked me to explore into Tim Hortons, Humane Welfare Policy. They have committed to buying 10,000 million cage free eggs a year and will expand that as supply grows, they also wanted crate free pork and wanted to continue to work with current supply chains as to not pull the rug out from under the farmers until they can change their systems over a period of time. Which is the right thing to do.
I would say they are putting their money where their mouth is they are even funding a position at U of G focused on Farm Animal Welfare and they also buy all 3rd party audited fair trade coffee> so it seems your comments are are uninformed and not in touch with what consumers are demanding. Raising pork in the industrial farm system hasn't really proven to be all that profitable, the farmers who are doing the extra things, organic, humane, free from, ect are the ones meeting the meet demand and making the additional money that might be the difference between a profit and a loss.
Sean McGivern
I have worked in barns with sow crates,l didn't like them but how many people that walk into a Tim Horton's,Sub shop or even order ham on their Pizza think for a second about sow crates ? It is a small number of people exerting their will on a Company that is all too willing to get some added media coverage and favorable press clippings.Really, who is going to oppose banning the crates except a few Pork producers and even they may be small in numbers.
l am just saying that the Animal welfare organizations that initiate these bans have far greater goals than just banning sow crates or layer cages and the fast food chains will be more than happy to oblige them if it means looking favorable in the media.
Except those hogs are already going to a select market so I guess Tim's can't buy them. Look around the world...stalls will be a thing of the past sooner rather than later and customers want what they want...supply it or look for other customers or chose to get into another business.
As a farmer, I see Organizations such as Food and Farm Care, simply as propaganda machines, trying to cover up the out dated and inhumane practices, that our industry must move away from. As a livestock farmer I believe both the farmer and the animals we raise are entitled to a good quality of life, and this has been instilled in me from Christian faith and values. I have raised hogs for more then 20 years and never used stalls or crates some years shipping as many as a 1000 market hogs, I know that pigs can be raised with out stalls and they can be raised safely my sows are never all scared up or beaten up they are use to living in groups and they always did very well.
Sean McGivern
It's understandable that Tim Horton's is developing a conscience where their products are concerned but Timmy is forgetting that their anchor product is coffee that is served in non-recycable cups.
Timmy appears to be selective in regards to principles.
Maybe if all the outfits that want to ban pork from stalls just closed there drive up windows we could save the environment,fuel,get some excercise and even think before we stop for that coffee and donut that we really don't need..guess I'll stop now ........k g kimball
Banning drive-through windows does make sense.
The government banned all hand-held units while a person drives. Why should a hand-held hot liquid unit be exempt?
The drive-through windows encourage people to stay in the car so they can "drink and drive". Holding a steaming HOT coffee while driving is a dangerous distraction. Driver safety takes a back seat to profits.
If Timmies won't take driver safety into account when selling hot coffee at drive though windows, then the government should ban those windows. The phrase "drinking and driving" should not be limited to alcohol use.
This is Canada - banning drive-thru coffee sales would even be harder, and a whole-lot less necessary, than trying to get rid of supply management. In addition, there are already far-too many morbidly obese people inside coffee shops already - why force even more inside than there already are?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Can go in and see and talk to them . I am sure you would love to tell every obese person they are fat and you are correct , proper and as an economist it is your duty to tell them so and save them from themselves .
A tax on fat people would serve the same purpose - and, unfortunately, a lot of farmers are morbidly obese, so we're part of the problem.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
i have been reading this forum for the last few months and I tend to think Mr Thompson feels that he controls the postings. I do not see the value in the personal attacks on farmers...( their shape, their way of farming or what sector they work in ).....i'm so glad spring has arrived in my area and that i'm too busy to waste time reading his hurtful commnets.......i'm sure if i happen to drop in for a peak in june or july he will still be commenting
The truth hurts, some people can't handle it, especially, it seems, farmers, and especially those farmers who hide behind anonymity. And, go figure, for every "shoot the messenger" comment posted on this site, I regularly get about ten private postings and/or phone calls telling me that not only am I right, but that, if anything, I don't go far enough in my criticisms of complacency, double-standards, and lack of critical thought, in primary agriculture. I have every right to point out the double-standards of the farming community, whether it be our tendency to morbid obesity (take a look around at any gathering of farmers) our shameless defense of the double-standards of supply management, and/or our woeful lack of understanding of any basic macro-economic principles, as well as our enthusiasm for criticizing the business practices of everyone except ourselves. As for personal attacks, Eugene Whelan, the idol of the farm community, knew of no other way to respond to critics of his policies, than to launch scathing personal attacks against them - that's another double standard of the farm community, selectively idolizing (and demonizing) people on the basis of what/who, and why, they are "attacking".
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Was that what you called the tax that your friend and former MP Steckle wanted to bring forth ?
Former MP, Paul Steckle, opined on a number of occasions, that we needed a food tax - unfortunately, he did not realize that regressive consumption taxes, especially on food, were net negative economic and social policy, and were of only short-term benefit to farmers.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Post new comment