Producers call pig code 'unrealistic'

Thursday, June 27, 2013

by BETTER FARMING STAFF

Pork producers attending a Thursday meeting in London are concerned a draft national code of practice that might dictate how they care for and handle pigs is unrealistic.

Ontario Pork says about 65 producers and industry representatives listened to an explanation of the new code by Florian Possberg, chair of the National Farm Animal Council’s (NFACC’s) 18-member multi-stakeholder pig code development committee.

Producers grilled Possberg on the details of the draft code, the first update since 1993, and its implications. Twice, Ontario Pork chair Amy Cronin interjected to encourage producers to allow Possberg to proceed with his presentation. Another Ontario Pork sponsored meeting about the code took place in Guelph on Tuesday.

Producers have until Aug. 3 to comment on the public document, which has not been finalized.

Possberg told farmers that the draft code was the consensus of committee stakeholders, who ranged from veterinarians and scientists to animal welfare organization representatives. A final code will be implemented through the animal care assessment component of the Canadian Pork Council’s Canadian Quality Assurance program. The CQA program accounts for more than 95 per cent of pig production in Canada, he said.

Neither Ontario Pork nor the Canadian Pork Council has taken a position on the code. If the Canadian Pork Council does not agree with the terms in the code, Possberg said it could come up with its own to use in its animal care assessment component.

Because the NFACC effort involved many different stakeholders, its perceived legitimacy with the broader public would be greater than an industry-developed code, he said.

“This code protects me as a producer,” said Possberg, who is also CEO of Big Sky Farms Inc. in Humboldt, Saskatchewan. “We want to provide rationale for practice. It is a response for customers; it’s not meant to be a response to activists.”

One major area of concern has been the requirement the industry shift to loose housing for mated gilts and sows by 2024. Possberg noted that costing studies by the Prairie Swine Centre indicate newly built group housing with electronic sow feeders might be slightly less costly than erecting a conventional facility. However, renovating existing facilities is more expensive. For example, it could cost more than $500 per sow stall space in renovations to meet the requirements for a 600-sow operation. If an electronic feeder is added, the cost could jump to about $840 per sow space.

Possberg would like to see the committee address the possibility of grandfathering existing operations and he and Cronin urged farmers to discuss how the costs of conversion would affect their business when submitting written comments. When the code revision started three years ago, producers thought, “loose housing was a done deal,” Possberg noted. But there is the possibility it could recede as an issue. “Moods change,” he said, and urged farmers to negotiate for as long a transition period as possible.

Producers were also cautioned to pay close attention to their animals’ genetics and breeding traits when designing a group housing system.

Concerns raised by producers included:

• The inclusion of animal welfare organization representatives on the committee;
• The lack of up front consultation with hog farmers. “Everybody and his dog has jumped the gun already on this code of practice,” said one producer, referring to retailers announcing plans to stop buying pork generated from sow-stall production. “We are the last to be brought in the group and we are being negotiated now with a gun against our head. And that’s what people don’t like;”
• The lack of worker’s safety representation on the committee. “Pigs can be aggressive,” said Oxford producer John Van Dorp. He said he has scars on his hands and legs from pig bites from his early years of pig farming when he had loose housing and noted that workers may face greater risks;
• Whether the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would be involved in policing the code;
• And whether retailers and processors would hold imported pork to the same standard.

Possberg noted NFACC had received 900 comments to date on the draft code; some committee members received nearly 5,500 emails before it was released.

Producers have until Aug. 3 to submit comments to the National Farm Animal Care website. Cronin warned on Tuesday that the process might take a couple of hours.

On Wed. July 3 from 12 to 1p.m., Ontario Pork will host a producer telephone town hall to gather feedback on the subject. BF