Alberta Pork Urging Response
Alberta Pork is urging producers to write responses to the proposed update of the Swine Code of Practice, released for public review on June 1.
In her presentations during producer meetings just days before the draft revision was to be released, animal care and quality assurance co-ordinator Audrey Cameron identified five issues that should be of concern to producers within Alberta and across the country.
Those issues include proposed changes in animal housing requirements, including gestation stalls and space allowances for other animals; pain management for procedures such as castration, clipping and tail docking; enrichments or enhancements of the animals' environment, and methods for euthanasia.
Most contentious for producers is the anticipated change in sow housing, which will limit the amount of time an animal can be held in an individual stall after breeding and includes new requirements for stall size.
Cameron said Alberta Pork supports good animal care practices, but questions whether mandatory group housing, for example, fits the definition.
"We used to keep sows in groups and were told, years ago, the sows were better off in stalls. Now, we are getting a different message," said Cameron.
A straw poll from among the producers gathered for the Red Deer meeting indicated that a small number of farms are already using group housing for their sows, but that most are still using individual crates. The issue is whether those farmers should be forced, by 2024, to convert their farms and, if so, who will bear the costs.
Renovating to meet the proposed changes in sow stalls alone would force producers to cut their herds by up to 30 per cent to fit them into their existing facilities, said Cameron
Numerous people attending the Red Deer meeting rose to address the concerns she raised, commenting that similar changes decimated the swine industry in the United Kingdom.
Alberta Pork director at large Martin Bowman rose to share concerns expressed by Ben Woolley, vice-president of Sunterra Foods and former vice-chair of the pork board.
The impetus for change is not being driven from within the industry or by consumer demand, but by people whose ultimate goal is to put an end to livestock production altogether, said Woolley.
He drew parallels between what is happening in North America now with what has already happened in Europe and the United Kingdom, noting that the United States is not making similar, wholesale changes in livestock welfare legislation.
"Some of us from the UK saw this happen in the UK. The UK made decisions about their industry . . . through all of these welfare points that we're looking at here when the rest of Europe didn't, and they lost half of their industry," said Woolley.
"That is a case study for us to look at, as to what can happen in our industry if we go down this path.
"This is a slippery slope. If we take this step, we're going to take a slide that's going to keep us going down, because . . . this is not what they (the Humane Society of the United States) are asking for. They're asking for everybody to stop producing pork."
Woolley said the HSUS and similar groups will continue chipping at the livestock industry until they meet that goal.
Also from the UK, Bowman said he knows of no producers there who do not wish they had fought harder to protect their industry.
"Not one of them wanted what happened, and they fought it, but they never fought hard enough, so it's in our hands," said Bowman.
Woolley also pointed out that, where producers have a choice in how they manage their barns, there is potential to attract premium prices from buyers who are willing to pay premium prices for certain features, such as group housing for sows.
However, where those methods are legislated, there is no potential for such premiums, said Woolley.
Other board leaders, past and present, urged producers attending the meeting to download the draft plan, study it thoroughly, and then write a well-considered response to the National Farm Animal Care Council, describing what the impact would be on their own farms.
"We're basically saying, we can't do this and somebody's going to have to pay the price," said Alberta Pork Chair Frank Novak.
"We all know, at the end of the day, that somebody's going to have to pay and it ain't going to be us, because we've got nothing to pay with."
Executive director Darcy Fitzgerald said the board is drafting a response to the NFACC, but that it would be on much firmer ground with support from individual producers.
Fitzgerald asked that producers send their letters to NFACC and provide copies to Alberta Pork.
He cautioned people at the meeting to stay away from an emotional response and deal with the facts to ensure that their comments are well received by the committee that will review them.
It's important that the comments come from people who know what they're talking about, said Novak.
The proposed update to the Swine Code is not a done deal until all of the interests involved have signed off, and that includes animal welfare people as well as the producers, scientists and other stakeholders who have been involved in creating this draft, said Cameron.
The public comment period remains open until Aug. 3, after which the two committees involved in writing the draft will review the input they have received and discuss further revisions, with the final result to be released late this year.
Copies of the draft can be downloaded from the NFACC website at www.nfacc.ca Alberta Pork is also putting together an information package that will be available to help producers understand the proposed changes and craft their responses. •
— By Brenda Kossowan