Written Testimony
of
Barbara Determan
Pork Producer
Early, Iowa
On behalf of
To
Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and
Poultry
May 8, 2007
INTRODUCTION
I am Barbara Determan, a pork
producer from Early,
I want to thank the Chairman and
the Members of the Committee for allowing me to speak to you about an issue
that is very important to me and to all pork producers in the
First, I want to make a clear,
definitive statement to this committee and the Congress:
I am the fourth generation of my family to take up farming as my calling. I am old enough to remember when pigs were raised as much for their lard as for their pork chops and roasts. When I was a young girl, it was common in my part of the country for farmers to have a few pigs – which were raised summer and winter in outdoor hog lots and pastures – some chickens, some cows and just enough land to grow feed for the animals. I vividly recall that caring for our pigs involved a lot of mud in the spring, sunburn in the summer and wind, snow and occasional frostbite in the winter. I know people who still refer to that era as the good old days and who wish we could turn back the clock. I am not one of them.
I am also young enough to know that I must constantly adopt the new ideas and new technologies that help make me a better farmer and a better caretaker of my animals, as well as those ideas and technologies that help keep me and my family competitive in an economy that is increasingly global. That’s what pork producers do: We listen to signals from our customers; we determine what we can learn from the latest veterinary science; we ask ourselves what is the right thing to do; and we embrace those changes that make us more professional and more competitive.
There is one more thing I would like this committee to know before I address some specific issues concerning the care and well-being of pigs. Through my own farm experiences and from the countless number of pork producers I’ve had the privilege to meet during my work and travels as an NPPC officer, I have learned there is one constant: It makes no difference if they are big producers or small producers, or if they raise pigs in the Midwest or the Southeast, virtually every hog farmer and pork producer is in this business because at our core, deep down inside, we love working with animals – especially with pigs.
Pigs can be exceptionally friendly – they’ll nip playfully at your ankles. They can be temperamental and territorial. Some sows (female pigs that have had piglets) can be downright nasty, especially if other sows and food are involved. They are, quite simply, fascinating animals. None of us would do anything that we know to be harmful to their well-being.
Today I will address how
We are living and doing business in an emerging world of interconnectedness filled with powerful shareholders and vocal stakeholders who demand a higher level of accountability in the marketplace. We see this new age of accountability emerging and recognize that it is profitable to embrace and dangerous to ignore. It is within this new emerging world that we are meeting our animal well-being responsibilities.
COMPASSIONATE SWINE CARE
A number of pork industry programs support the USDA group’s finding. In 1989, pork producers established the Pork Quality Assurance (PQA) food-safety program to ensure that all pork producers understand how to avoid medication residues in the pigs they market. The major meat packers require their suppliers to have PQA certification.
While individually and collectively swine producers have long used the best management practices possible to ensure animal well-being, the industry developed animal-care guidelines in the early 1990s. We have revised them into standards as new knowledge about animal care has become available.
More recently, the industry developed an education and certification program for anyone who handles or transports market hogs. All three programs were among the first of their kind in the livestock industry. And all three programs were developed in cooperation with animal well-being experts from among land-grant universities, practicing veterinarians and other scientists.
By the time the USDA working group issued its report on animal well-being in the late 1990s, pork producers already had been at work combining veterinary science with their extensive and varied experiences in all types of production systems to address many of the animal well-being topics this committee is discussing today. We wanted a comprehensive, research-tested and science-based set of animal-care guidelines that would amplify producer experience in caring for our animals. There was no pressure to do this other than our belief in doing the right thing, and we did it.
In 2002, producers working through the National
The Code begins by noting that each pork producer’s professional judgment, experience and training are the key factors in providing animal care. It then endorses the following practices:
- Providing facilities to protect and shelter pigs from weather extremes while protecting air and water quality in the natural environment.
- Providing well-kept facilities to allow safe, humane and efficient movement of pigs.
- Providing personnel with training to properly care for and handle pigs at each stage of production for which they are responsible, with zero tolerance for mistreatment of swine in their care.
- Providing access to good-quality water and nutritionally balanced diets appropriate for each class of swine.
- Observing pigs to make sure basic needs for food and water are being met and to detect illness or injury.
- Developing herd-health programs with veterinary advice.
- Providing prompt veterinary medical care when required.
- Using humane methods to euthanize sick or injured swine not responding or not likely to respond to care and treatment in a timely manner.
- Maintaining appropriate biosecurity to protect the health of the herd.
- Providing transportation that avoids undue stress caused by overcrowding, excess time in transit or improper handling during loading and unloading.
In 2003, producers unveiled an
updated Swine Care Handbook based on the
Code of Practice. That handbook is the foundation for the Swine Welfare
Assurance Program, an educational and assessment
program that helps producers assess their own performance in 10 specific areas
of animal care, ranging from proper record-keeping, to accepted methods of
euthanasia for seriously ill or injured pigs, to very specific facility and
animal assessments and measurements. The program was developed by a producer-led
committee that included
While we have well-established care principles, there still is no scientific consensus about the ideal tool to measure animal well-being. It is generally accepted that there are three indicators of well-being that should be measured together. They are:
- Animal performance and health.
- Behavior.
- Physiology (for example, immune function and hormonal status and response).
There is strong scientific consensus that using any one of those factors as a sole indication of well-being can be misleading. In addition, addressing animal well-being in isolation – without consideration of animal health, food safety and the environment – is unwise and can lead to unintended consequences. Each of these other areas must be addressed simultaneously in a way that ensures an effective balance.
Advance the clock to 2007. The care
and well-being principles from the Swine Welfare Assurance Program are now part
of the industry’s groundbreaking Pork Quality Assurance Plus™ (PQA Plus)
certification, assessment and audit program. In addition to a certification
requirement dealing with production practices that ensure food safety, farms now
must have a supervised assessment of their care and well-being practices. An
independent third-party audit ensures the program is achieving its goals of
continuous improvement. Just as they have since the PQA program was introduced
in 1989, most
The audit provisions of PQA Plus have
been reviewed and approved by an independent panel of nationally and
internationally recognized experts on animal care and well-being. Dr. Temple
Grandin of
Pork producers are, by nature, progressive. If there’s a better way to do something, we’ll find it and do it. PQA Plus is just the latest example of identifying an issue that is important to our customers – in this case, animal care and well-being – developing a solution and taking it to all producers for implementation. I’ve been around agriculture all my life, and I don’t know of another commodity group that does it better.
HUMANE SOW HOUSING
The pork industry supports the right of all producers to choose housing
that ensures the well-being of their animals and that is appropriate for their
operations. With regard to sow housing, the industry agrees with the position
of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Association of
Swine Veterinarians and other organizations, which recognize gestation stalls
and group-housing systems as appropriate for providing for the well-being of
sows during pregnancy.
There are two basic types of housing systems for pregnant sows: individual housing and group housing. Sow housing has attracted considerable public attention since Smithfield Foods, the nation’s largest pork producer, announced in January that the company would begin phasing out individual gestation stalls at its company-owned farms, replacing them with pens or group housing over the next 10 years. Subsequently, Maple Leaf, a large Canadian producer announced a similar decision. (Note: Market hogs are raised in group housing.)
Lost in the news coverage and activist hype surrounding the Smithfield announcement was the company’s statement that “our decision acknowledges that extensive research into sow housing has concluded both gestation stalls and group pens provide for the well-being of pregnant sows and work equally well from a production standpoint.” The company also noted that “there is no scientific consensus on which system is superior.”
Also lost in the often heated rhetoric of critics of modern pork production have been several university-supervised studies that indicate that sows do just fine in individual housing.1 A measurement of hormone secretions in one study shows that sows in stalls do not show levels indicative of stress. In another study, sows given a choice of moving about freely or remaining in a stall clearly chose the stall.
I mention these studies only to make the point again that there is no scientific evidence that any one sow-housing system is superior. The American Veterinary Medical Association is on record that, given the number of variables and large variations in performance within both systems for pregnant sows, no one system is clearly better than the others under all conditions and according to all criteria of animal welfare.2
Science and practice suggest that both individual and group housing types have advantages and disadvantages. It is important to understand pigs to be able to provide the best possible housing environment. Pork producers understand pigs. Pigs are by nature competitive animals – especially when it comes to competing for food. When pigs are introduced into a group setting, they will establish an order of dominance among the group. At times, especially among sows, this will be accomplished in an aggressive manner. Pigs also use their sight and smell to socialize and communicate. They want the security of food and water and security from aggression. They want the security of freedom from injury.
Each year, we conduct research to better understand the impact on sows of individual housing and group housing. The group-housing research includes a focus on ways to decrease the amount of aggression that occurs during the initial social introduction in a group-housing setting.
Once the dominance order is established in a group-housing scenario, aggressive behavior may continue. Pigs higher in the order will typically fight for first access to feed and water resources, as well as access to the “preferred” loafing locations within the pen. It is only after the dominant pigs have eaten that the more submissive pigs are allowed to eat and drink. There is the chance even then that there will be aggressive encounters.
This is one of the reasons we emphasize the importance of the skills of anyone taking care of pigs. They must manage these food and water resources appropriately to minimize aggression. Without proper management, these aggressive encounters can result in injuries, increased stress and sometimes death to the pigs. Animal caretakers also are at greater risk of injury.
With individual housing, there is some variance in designs. Gestation stalls come in a variety of widths; some allow the sow to turn around, while others do not. In general, these individual-housing systems allow for individual feeding and control of body condition so sows do not become too thin or too fat. While there is a limitation on movement and exercise, individual housing allows for closer examination of individual pigs and for better decision-making about animal care by producers.
We firmly believe the skill of the individual taking care of the pigs is the ultimate determining factor in the well-being of both sows and market hogs. Pork producers, through their industry associations, continue to research ways to improve equipment, facilities and management for both individual- and group-housing systems to improve the well-being of the pig. It is part of our commitment to continuous improvement. And as I mentioned earlier, PQA Plus is a program that teaches, measures and audits continuous improvement on farms of animal care and well-being.
Science and farmer experience tell us that mandating any one type of sow housing or changing simply for the sake of change is not necessarily in the best interest of the pig. Trading the security of one type of housing for the ability to turn around in another type of housing is just that – a trade. If there is a change to be made, it is our ethical responsibility to ensure that we are trading for something that raises the level of our animals’ well-being.
There is no one, single, “right” way to raise a pig. A producer raising 100 pigs a year in a hoop barn in one part of the country operates very differently from a producer raising 50,000 pigs a year in swine barns in another part of the country. That’s why, as an industry, we use the PQA Plus program and its standards to ensure the well-being of the animals instead of proscribing one production method or one housing system over another. Healthy, well-cared-for animals are raised in almost any system as long as the care of the animal is the top priority.
Our industry organizations represent producers of all sizes and production styles and from all parts of the country. There is great sensitivity both inside and outside our industry about forces that make it harder for small, independent producers to compete. There are producers who have sows in group housing and there are producers who have sows in individual housing. Any sudden mandate that forces change makes it more difficult for producers of any size or style of production to stay in business.
So, we oppose legislation that would mandate on-farm food-animal production practices, including banning the use of individual sow housing. We oppose a bill sponsored by Reps. Peter DeFazio and Christopher Shays (H.R. 1726) that would require the federal government to purchase meat only from producers who do not use individual housing for sows. The measure would have a particularly devastating impact on small producers due to costs of retrofitting existing barns and housing and would raise the federal government’s food purchasing costs. The legislation puts at risk the annual sale of nearly 33 million pounds of pork valued at more than $42 million.
We do not believe Congress has the understanding or the expertise to decide which on-farm animal production practices are best for our animals.
The marketplace may ultimately determine what sow-housing system producers will use. Recent developments would indicate the market is beginning to speak, and we can accept those free-market forces. We cannot accept top-down federal mandates on production practices. Let the marketplace work.
RESPONSIBLE ANTIBIOTIC USE
Pork producers recognize their moral obligation to provide for the well-being of their animals and use antibiotics in a responsible manner to provide safe, nutritious, and healthful meat products to consumers globally. Producers use antibiotics, in consultation with their veterinarians, to treat injured and sick pigs and prevent wound infections and unnecessary animal pain and suffering.
The Pork Quality Assurance Plus program3 lays out clear guidelines for appropriate use of antibiotics by pork producers. The guidelines urge pork producers to work closely with their veterinarians when making medication decisions.
To further demonstrate its commitment to protecting public health by using antibiotics responsibly, the industry has created the Take Care – Use Antibiotics Responsibly program4 to enhance producers’ awareness of antibiotic use beyond what they learn through the Pork Quality Assurance program. The Take Care program educates producers about the responsible use of antibiotics; it raises their awareness of the importance of using antibiotics responsibly and the impact of antibiotic use on animal and public health; and it demonstrates to customers and consumers pork producers’ commitment to preserving public health, animal health and animal well-being through the responsible use of antibiotics. To date, producers who raise more than 50 million pigs annually have endorsed this proactive program.
Pork producers are very aware of the public debate over antibiotic resistance. I include it in my testimony about care and well-being to underscore the benefits of responsible antibiotic use in food-animal production. In addition to the debate about human resistance, the use of antibiotics also is an animal well-being issue. We have an ethical responsibility to keep our animals healthy. Our animals, like some people, live in groups. Without the availability of antibiotics, infections and disease would be much more prevalent, spread quicker and negatively affect the health and well-being of livestock.
While it is true that the extent to
which antibiotic use in animals affects human health is extremely difficult to
measure, one panel of experts estimates that 96 percent of antibiotic
resistance in humans is due to human use of antibiotics and not from the
consumption of meat products. Anyone using antibiotics, be they a farmer or a
pediatrician treating an ear infection, has a responsibility to use them only
when necessary. It also is clear that antibiotic resistance in humans would not
end if antibiotic use on farms were eliminated. A recent
Experience with a farm-animal
antibiotics ban in
One interesting finding of the AGPs
ban is that use of therapeutic antibiotics – those used to treat diseases after
the fact – has risen significantly. While total antibiotic use has decreased
somewhat in
(Animal Antibiotic Use in
Also of note is that there have
been no proven human health benefits from
Pork producers believe that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s rigorous, science-based approval process for antibiotics continues to be the best way to address human health concerns and to ensure producers’ access to animal health products that promote animal health and well-being. The FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine uses a risk-assessment approach to determine human health risks of antibiotic use in food animals on a case-by-case basis. FDA’s Guidance #152 uses a scientific framework to assess the human health effects of veterinary use of antibiotics. The Guidance requires antibiotic manufacturers to provide information to the FDA showing that a proposed animal drug will not harm human health. The system works.
Additionally, the FDA has mandated a withdrawal time for each antibiotic used. Specifically, food or milk from animals that have been treated with an antibiotic may not enter the food supply until a safe, scientifically determined amount of time has elapsed since the animals’ last dosage. The withdrawal period is specified for each drug. USDA’s Food Safety & Inspection Service conducts monitoring and surveillance programs at packing plants to ensure adherence to the residue standards that are defined by the FDA.
We oppose efforts to require animal health companies to submit annual data on the amount of antibiotics used to keep food animals healthy and to make the data public. Manufacturers already are required to provide production data to FDA, which treats it as confidential business information.
The focus of my remarks has been on
the well-being of our animals. But the committee should know that whether
intended or not, there often are significant financial consequences for farmers
from regulatory actions. For example, should there be a ban on antibiotics
similar to the one in
Over 10 years, the total projected
cost of such a ban would exceed $700 million. Consumers could expect to pay
about 2 percent more for pork products.8 These additional costs
reduce competitiveness relative to pork-exporting countries in Europe and South
America and ultimately impact negatively the
SAFE ANIMAL TRANSIT
To ensure the well-being of pigs going to market, the pork industry developed the Trucker Quality Assurance (TQA) education and certification program for anyone involved in handling and transporting animals.
The TQA program was launched in February 2002, and since that date has
certified more than 12,000 animal handlers. TQA encourages dedication to
transporting and delivering the highest quality, safest product possible to
remain competitive in
The training session with a certified trainer focuses on driver or handler attitude and behavior; pig handling; fitness of the hog; facilities and equipment; conditions of the truck and the environment; transporting; bio-security; laws and regulations, and emergency response plans of action. At the end of the training, the driver or handler is required to pass a written test on the materials covered.
This innovative program has since been copied by the Canadian swine industry. Again, most packers ask to see the trucker’s TQA certification card before they allow the truck on site. And we know from studies by USDA’s Food Safety & Inspection Service and packers that the program has reduced pig deaths and injuries related to transit.
CONCLUSION
I am proud to be part of a progressive industry that provides hundreds of thousands of jobs and helps feed the world.
The
I am even prouder to be part of an industry that – on its own – has developed and implemented world-class programs that help pork producers raise and care for their animals in a humane, compassionate and socially responsible manner.
Pork producers are in the business
of producing food for
On behalf of the National Pork Producers Council and the many pork producers we represent and support, we ask for your continued and focused attention on the matters we have brought to you today. The pork industry has been a long-standing leader on these ethical issues and is committed to developing animal-care standards that hold producers accountable. I hope the comments I have shared with you today give you an understanding of how the pork industry raises it pigs in a way that gives them the best care possible.
Again, the nation’s pork producers are most grateful for
your continued leadership on these and other issues critical to
END NOTES
1 (Salak-Johnson
et al., 2007; Rhodes et al., 2005; McGlone et al., 2004; Barnett et al., 2001;
Harris et al., 2001; Sorrells et al., 2001).
2 (http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/pregnant_sow_housing.asp)
3 PQA Plus Manual, pages 26-50, ©2007 National
4 (www.pork.org/producers/takecare)
5 Institute of Food
Technologists, www.ift.org.
Antimicrobial Resistance: Implications for the Food System, July 14, 2006
6 Gabreyes, Thakur and Morrow. Comparison of
prevalence, antimicrobial resistance and occurrence of multi-drug resistant
Salmonella and anti-microbial free and conventional pig production. J.Food
Prot, 69:743-748, 2006
7 World Health Organization Impacts
of antimicrobial growth promoter termination in
8 Hayes, Jensen, Backstrom.
National