Most read stories

New comments

  • The more atheists tell me that pigs have more value than human babies (born or unborn), the more pigs I'm going to eat. Bring on the crates!! We've ...


  • The "hot air" is the paper by McGee, not in organic farming. Please see the response of IFOAM - Organics International at www.foam.bio.


  • I just ate a pork chop. Yummy. And i grew up on a farm and we put pigs in crates. Of course they can lie down in there. But lose sows often lie on their ...


Most recent stories

  • Translating Food Technology: Food poisoning perspective

    The food-safety headlines seem to never go away these days. With the potentially disastrous constant news stories about fast-food burrito giant Chipotle Mexican Grill being hit by first E. coli then Salmonella and then norovirus, consumers are on high radar alert for food poisoning news. No surprise listeria came in on one of Google's top food search terms for the year 2015.

    But is it all bad? Despite some recent food-borne illness outbreaks dominating the evening news, the untold story is that the food you carry is most likely safer now than it has been in history. Here is some perspective your customers may not have heard yet:

    ■ According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control's May 2015 annual report of foodborne disease outbreaks that occurred in 2013 — the latest year available — the number of food-borne disease outbreaks reported to the CDC was down slightly from the previous year. Year 2013's 818 total outbreaks were about 2 percent below 2012's. (CDC defines an outbreak as a disease occurrence that's traceable to a common food and agent that sickens at least two people.) Although the number of hospitalizations caused by a food outbreak increased between 2012 and 2013, the number of illnesses reported fell by nearly 11 percent and the number of people who died, at 16, was down by almost one-third.

    ■ The results reported for 2013 continued the pattern for previous years, showing 14 percent of those outbreaks occurred either in the home or in the grocery store. By far and away the most common location for outbreaks was a restaurant, which accounted for 60 percent of all outbreaks and 51 percent of illnesses.

    ■ Annual data from CDC released in May showed incidence rates of the seven most common food-borne disease remained stable or on the decline in 2014, with the exception of one infection. The incidence of Shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O157 and Salmonella enterica Typhimurium
    infections declined in 2014 compared with the baselines set by CDC in 2006–2008. All Salmonella infection rates, although slightly higher than the 2006-2008 baseline, remain stable. The incidence of infection with Listeria is also stable and under the baseline. The dark spot in the report, Vibrio, is up 52 percent since 2006-2008. It hospitalized 40 people in 2014, killing two.

    Relative food infection rates


     {jcomments on}

  • Navigating the New Food Movement: How's that 'food deserts' theory go again?

    Is the food dessert phenomenon real?

    The idea of “food deserts,"  low-income pockets with limited access to healthy foods that USDA says millions of Americans now live within, has an intuitive attraction, says University of Arkansas ag economist Di Zeng. With a supermarket difficult to get to in those areas, residents presumably obtain and consume more energy-dense, unhealthy foods from convenience stores and fast food restaurants, resulting in poorer diet quality and more obesity. It's a narrative that's become conventional wisdom in the new food movement.

    The one hole in this appealing story, Zeng will tell the annual meeting of the Allied Social Sciences Association in January in San Francisco, is that the numbers simply don't support it.

    Zeng's latest work helps disentangle all the "confounding mechanisms" that are over-simplified by the food deserts narrative. He reports that the widely held theory in the scientific literature that longer distance and thus more difficult access to the supermarket leads to obesity in nearby citizens is not generally true when individual preferences and travel costs are considered. This reality helps explain, at least in part, why researchers who actually measure the association between the food environment and obesity levels have found only mixed and contradictory results. 

    To really get at the question of food deserts, he writes, it is necessary to consider the particulars of individual cases which the food-desert generalization averages, including special food environments, extreme preferences, random supermarket travel, and income changes. For example, he points out:

    • Longer distances to a traditional supermarket may incentivize residents to walk, increasing exercise and health.
    • A closer store could allow a resident to make more frequent trips and facilitate her buying fresh items. Yet, the gas money she saves would also be available for additional food items, some of which may be less healthy.
    • In contrast, a nearer store for another might simply mean that unhealthy food items are available at lower time and monetary costs. Longer supermarket distance unambiguously reduces the weight of a person who already eats healthy, but is ambiguous for an unhealthy eater. Supermarket access alone does not determine the effect on weight regardless of the supermarket travel pattern, he says.

    Such "heterogeneities," or variability in how real people behave in theoretical settings, generally don't get considered in existing studies given data limitations. Important features are also missing on the supply side. For instance, supermarkets generally provide foods, including unhealthy foods, at lower prices than the alternative retail outlets, which could inadvertently increase food consumption and therefore result in weight gain.

    Neither limited supermarket access nor low income has any clearly established effect on weight, Zeng concludes. Until the conflicting forces he identifies are formally analyzed, the concept of food deserts does little to guide policy-makers in preventing increasing obesity rates.

    {jcomments on}

  • Foresight on Food Politics: What the end of GMOs would really cost

    What would the end of GMOs cost?

    You've heard the accusation: Companies that market genetically modified crops talk a good game about the need to increase farm productivity in order to feed the world, but when all things are considered, their high-tech products really do nothing to feed the hungry. Typical runs the line from Environmental Working Group, for example: "Given that creating just one genetically engineered crop variety can cost upwards of $130 million, you’d think Big Ag companies would invest in strategies that have been proven to work and less on GMOs that may not even increase crop yields. But what corporations really care about is increasing their profits, not feeding a hungry world."

    But now a study, presented at this year's annual meeting of the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association by Purdue ag economics professor Wallace Tyner, makes the first real attempt to tally the economic and environmental consequences of losing the GMO traits for the major U.S. crops of corn, soybeans and cotton.

    Tyner's study first collected from published scientific studies the best predictions for how much U.S. farmers would lose in productivity if they moved completely away from GMO traits. Then, Tyner and his study co-authors plugged those yield losses into a complex mathematical economic model. That model used actual economic data to model--as realistically as possible--how those productivity losses would impact the entire economy.

    Their results showed losing the ability to plant GMO crops in those crop categories would cost in several ways:

    ■ A significant amount of land would need to be converted from other crops, cropland, pasture and forest in order to meet the global demand for food that would not go away simply because farm production declined.

    ■ The amount of land drawn into producing those three major crops would likely surpass that drawn into use by the entire U.S. ethanol program.

    ■ Environmental emissions caused by agriculture would increase by between 7 percent and 17 percent.

    ■ Crop prices would increase. Price changes for corn were as high as 28 percent and for soybeans as high as 22 percent under Tyner’s modeling. Those predicted price increases, again, were on average higher than those actually observed by ethanol mandates.

    ■ Food costs for consumers would increase by an estimated $14 billion to $24 billion per year.

    {jcomments on}

  • Competitive Commodity Insights: Did pink slime really hurt beef demand?

    Did pink slime really hurt beef demand?

    As a potential billion-dollar defamation lawsuit quietly moves forward against ABC News over its March 2012 broadcasts that labeled ground-beef products by South Dakota-based Beef Products Inc. "pink slime," expert concensus contends the public-relations bruising to both that company and the beef industry as a whole cost a great deal in lost demand. Ad Age, for example, quoted celebrity supermarket know-it-all Phil Lempert's opinion that the media coverage had left the industry scrambling to get control of the message. "From a PR/advertising standpoint, this is the perfect storm," Lempert told Ad Age, "From a PR standpoint, very little can be done."  Brandchannel was nearly gloating in reporting the effect it believed the scandal had played on the entire beef-promotion structure.  "It’s been a rough couple years for the marketing initiative, which was established as part of the 1985 US Farm Bill," it said. "Between [the] ‘pink slime’ standoff and recalls for listeria contamination, selling a red meat patty these days isn’t as easy as it looks."

    But how bad was the damage, really?

    Purdue research published in the journal Food Policy now challenges the common notion of those like Lempert that bad press always necessarily hurts demand for food products. The researchers looked at overall demand for pork, chicken and turkey and for individual beef products in the USDA choice, prime and select grades, as well as ground beef, immediately after the pink-slime news broke. They plugged price and consumption patterns into a mathemetical model that accounted for the consumer's tendancy to switch product categories in response to changes in their preferences, and tested the theory that negative news coverage affected not only ground beef demand, but demand for other beef and aggregate meat categories, as well.

    There's no question the negative word about lean finely textured beef got out, the researchers concluded. They constructed a weighted news media index that not only summed up the number of news articles from news transcripts, newspapers, magazines and journals, web news, video and radio per week, but went on to calculate an expected importance index, based on the percent of consumer readership for each of those news channels. Using the week of March 24, 2012, the week the pink-slime story first broke, they then created a news-impact index comparing the news that followed to that most-heated week using a range of zero to one.

    But next, they matched price and consumption patterns against that media coverage index, to estimate the effects of media portrayal of LFTB on consumer demand. They found that media portrayal of LFTB did lead to significant changes in consumer demand across meats or within the beef category immediately. Consumer purchases of pork, turkey and USDA prime beef--which you might expect shoppers to choose over suspect ground beef--were affected for two weeks or greater after news reports of LFTB surfaced. Nevertheless, those effects were temporary and waned or disappeared shortly after. Even more surprising, they found media coverage did not significantly impact consumer demand for ground beef, which consists of LFTB. Consumers may have responded quickly and initially to the food scare by making changes to their meat and beef consumption, but their response didn't last long.

    The Purdue work notes a similar pattern occurred in response to negative publicity regarding BSE, which the press called "mad cow disease." For example, a USDA report used food purchase records from the Nielsen Homescan panel and showed that while beef purchases declined initially, there was no evidence of response beyond two weeks after the BSE announcements. Other studies from that period confirmed the same: Consumers react quickly in response to media announcements of food scares, but those reactions are short-lived.

    The lesson to be learned? Pay attention to your "industry infrastructure," says Kevin Murphy, founder of Food-Chain Communications, a Missouri company specializing in communicating up and down the food chain. The industry infrastructure is composed of all influencers who can potentially impact your brand by telling others about it. ABC's negative coverage of LFTB may not have hurt overall beef demand, but it nearly devastated the product's inventor, costing the company an estimated $1.2 billion and 700 jobs. During March 2012, 70 percent of ground beef included LFTB. However, that number dropped to 5 percent by March 2013.

    That damage occurred because a handfull of key customers succumbed to panic and abandoned BPI, Murphy notes--even as consumers were apparently absorbing the news and dealing with it. Had preventive communication been applied to help those key customers communicate a reassuring story to their customers within the infrastructure, BPI may have succeeded in riding out the only temporary impact on demand the Purdue researchers confirmed was only fleeting.

    {jcomments on}

  • Meet your Farmers: Preserving wetlands by productively using them

    Fairfield's Shaw Family Farms protects fragile wetlands on their fifth-generation farm even as they keep them in agriculture production through a well-planned management plan that keeps them out of row-corp production but in intensively managed irrigated pasture and cattle grazing. Listen as they describe their award-winning plan.

    {jcomments on}
  • On the Lighter Side: Merry Me?

    This creative photo subject modeler used the occasion of the annual Christmas group photo to quite cleverly disguise his big question. Can you spot it before she did?

Translating Food Technology: Why Would Pig Farmers Insist on Using 'Gestation Crates?'

Why do pig farmers use gestation crates?The last 45 days have seen a line of announcements by food retailers and quick-service restaurant chains that they would soon begin to deman their pork suppliers phase out the use of "gestation crates," individual stalls in which pregnant and newly delivered sows are housed. Spurred by criticism from animal rights groups that the practice is cruel, Smithfield Foods, the country's largest pork farm, first announced in 2007 it would gradually abandon the practice over a 10-year period. Animal-rights groups have lobbied heavily against the practice, often successfully. Ballot initiatives banning sow stalls have passed in many states, and threat of action has led to voluntary agreements to cease their use in other states and Canada. Although Smithfield had earlier backed off on its promise because it was facing financial hardship, Smithfield President and CEO Larry Pope said the company’s hog operations had converted housing for 30 percent of its sow herd and was now back on track to meet the 2017 goal.

Since March, Wendy's, Burger King, Safeway, Sonic, Denny's, McDonalds, Cracker Barrel and Kroger have all released statements in conjunction with the Washington-based animal-rights group Humane Society of the United States announcing they plan to pressure pork suppliers to abandon the practice.

“Kroger believes that a gestation crate-free environment is more humane and that the pork industry should work toward gestation crate-free housing,” said that company in a press release co-authored in early June with HSUS.

“Kroger’s has taken a very important step for animal welfare in declaring that the pork industry must find an exit strategy for its use of gestation crates,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of  HSUS.

Faced with the continual barrage of negative media fanned by HSUS and other animal-rights advocates, grocers and their customers may rightly ask, if so many people believe the practice of crating pigs is inhumane, why do most farmers still use them?

1. It makes indoor housing practical. First, many critics are correct when they say sow stalls are a result of the indoor housing pig farmers evolved toward in the 1970s and 1980s. However, their criticism doesn’t necessarily mean indoor housing is a bad thing—most farmers moved their pigs indoors because they believed it benefited the animals, as well as the caretakers. Indoor housing made sense because it protected both animals and farmers from weather, predators, parasites, and also because it made animal performance both better and more predictable (Pigs left outdoors typically use about a quarter of the feed they eat just to keep warm in winter, for example.)

Once farmers moved pregnant sows indoors, though, they found the traditional group housing for pregnant sows that sufficed in mud barnyards didn’t work well indoors. So they turned to individual housing as the practical solution.

2. It protects individuals from the animal's natural aggression. Why didn't that group housing work for sows housed indoors? Like people who push and crowd to get on a bus where only a few seats are empty, yet will be relaxed and courteous when they know seats are available, sows will fight, wound, and even kill one another when they think their access to feed is at risk. When farmers move 350- to 550-pound bred sows--which are only normally fed a set amount of feed once daily to control their weight--into indoor group pens, sows begin to anticipate the feed delivery, understand there will only be a set amount to go around, and begin to fight for the lion’s share of it. As a result, weaker sows will be injured, as well as be starved of their allotted feed portion. At the same time, the "boss" sows will eat too much, making them overly fat, which will eventually harm their ability to give birth to and feed a healthy set of baby pigs.

By instead training sows to eat in individual stalls before putting them into groups, farmers are in effect training them that fighting doesn’t earn them any additional feed. Each individual is ensured the correct amount of feed and the ability to eat it in peace and safety.

3. It improves the farmer's ability to manage individual animals. It would be disingenuous not to recognize that individually confining animals does also improve the farmer’s ability to manage them, by making it easier and quicker to give them medications, check their condition, and perform other tasks. However, the additional expense of crating sows (it is more expensive to build individual crates than group-housing pens) likely couldn’t justify those management concerns; the predominant reason is to prevent group fighting. Stalling is a trade-off between full mobility and reassurance of feed.

It works, but is it right?

So the question becomes, is it right or wrong to force these trade-offs on an animal? The late Dr. Stan Curtis, who spent his career at University of Illinois studying questions of how animals think and the effect of modern envorinments on them, believed it was. Before his death last year, Curtis was vocally critical of today’s animal behaviorists who conclude that assessing an animal’s well-being based on the animal’s “feelings” was a valid method of assessing the cruelty of practices like gestation crates.

“As long as we can’t yet measure how a pig feels, let alone measure the depth of any such feeling—which everyone agrees we can’t do—we can only speculate, surmise, analogize and anthropomorphize,” Curtis said. In other words, according to Curtis, what humans feel when they see a sow in a crate speaks only to how that human would feel were that human confined in a crate. It says nothing about how the sow feels. Farming decisions can’t be based on those human feelings. “What we cannot do is know, set thresholds, define limits or draw lines. How then is it reasonable to expect producers to manage pigs on that basis?”

To Curtis and those who follow his thinking, the only accurate measure we have of whether the animal is suffering in a crate is what he called the “Performance Axiom:” The best single set of measurable—and manageable—indicators of an animal’s state of being will be how well it produces and reproduces compared to its predicted potential. “When bodily resources become limited because a pig is in a situation requiring extraordinary adaptation, productive processes will be the first to decrease. We can measure that. Reproductive functions will be next. We can measure that. Maintenance processes, which ensure survival, last. These observed reductions in measurable performance traits are the earliest, most sensitive indicators that a pig’s well-being has been disturbed—much more sensitive than behavioral patterns that may indirectly signify some emotional reaction,” he said.

And the research shows that although both group housing and individual crating have advantages and disadvantages, sows peform as well or better in crates than they do in stalls, as long as both systems are managed well. Paul Sundberg, a veterinarian and vice-president of science and research for the National Pork Board, summed it up well in a Washington Post article. “The key to sow welfare isn't whether they are kept in individual crates or group housing,” he said, “but whether the system used is well managed. "[S]cience tells us that [a sow] doesn't even seem to know that she can't turn ... She wants to eat and feel safe, and she can do that very well in individual stalls."

What do you think about the issue? Leave a comment and get some discussion started with your fellow grocers.


-3 #23 Harry 2015-12-05 17:46
The more atheists tell me that pigs have more value than human babies (born or unborn), the more pigs I'm going to eat. Bring on the crates!! We've become a sick German 1939esque culture when we value hotdogs over human babies.
-2 #22 I. M. Carnivore 2015-07-26 02:53
I just ate a pork chop. Yummy. And i grew up on a farm and we put pigs in crates. Of course they can lie down in there. But lose sows often lie on their piglets, crushing or sufficating them. A nasty way to die. The sow is only in there unti the piglets are weaned. We used to raise em in fields. They would be sick and eat other sows babies and fight and injure each other and in a bad winter freeze to death once in a while. So we felt like we were treating them much better when we got em inside. We liked our pigs and treated em well. But one thing we couldnt abide was to watch someone cut a head of lettuce of at the neck, chop it up and eat it raw. Now that is cruel!
+3 #21 Max 2015-04-01 23:08
No, dismissing animal feelings because we "do not know" is unjust. But just for the record, surmounting evidence illustrates that animals have feelings. Our instincts allow us to feel sorry for animals when we see that pain is inflicted upon them. Precautions must be made if we are unsure.

Aggression can be easily managed in small group housing. Isolation is cruel. Extreme confinement is cruel. You cannot justify forcing an animal into a space in which he/she is unable to turn around or walk forward or backward.

That is agony for any animal that is even slightly sentient. And pigs are very intelligent.

"Farming decisions can’t be based on those human feelings. “What we cannot do is know... or draw lines. How then is it reasonable to expect producers to manage pigs on that basis?” It is quite reasonable to expect producers to manage pigs as beings with feelings.
-3 #20 Justin 2015-03-10 05:21
>>The fact that the sows bite the crates shows they are in deep distress

You are correct. The fact that they are biting the crates does show distress. However, it is not mental distress, it is dietary distress. Biting metal bars is a common habit among pigs who are deficient in key nutrients. In their mind, they think they can make up for that deficiency by getting minerals, such as iron which they can taste, out of the metal. Any knowledgeable farmer knows that that habit is a sign of a nutritional deficiency. So by properly managing the diet of the sows, the action of biting the crates can be eliminated.
-6 #19 Larry Elias 2015-01-23 16:37
Thanks for your insightful and educational articles. Farmers and producers who make a career out of working with animals have a much better understanding of the animals than those who think of animals as "morally significant individuals with rights."
0 #18 Jessica Howe 2015-01-21 00:00
The fact that the sows bite the crates shows they are in deep distress
+1 #17 Nancy Poznak 2015-01-13 18:10
The problem starts with making an animal a commodity; it's worth is reduced to its' financial worth. The entire system of animal agriculture is based upon making animals into commodities. The moment and animal becomes a commodity it loses its freedom and is ultimately put into harm's way. Methods of raising pigs which allow them some freedom of movement do exist, and can be cost-effective. However, atrocities are still committed against pigs (an all commercial animals): castration, tail docking, ear punctures - all with no pain relief. Piglets not performing well are brutally killed. How do you get a pig out of the gestation crate when sending to slaughter? Do you tickle her belly? Do you gently find ways to hoist her up because she cannot walk after being imprisoned for months, or years? For those who consider it "normal and acceptable' to kill animals for food, would YOU be able to slit the animal's throat, watch the blood and life leave their body, look into its eyes and still feel this process 'normal and acceptable'?
0 #16 Jean 2015-01-08 18:09
my parents in law fed pigs in their village many years ago. It's not a big room, but definitely they can turn and walk for a few steps. Look at the environment now, to make more money, what did people do to pig, chickens,cows. A lot of people talked about food safety, but the root of all the the problem is human's moral standard dropped so quickly in this few decades, it's not only the problems of the farmer. That is the issue of the whole world I believe. eve rybody need to improve yourself from the inner, that the way to change the world.
+6 #15 M. Graham 2014-12-25 13:28
Gestation crates are unbelievably inhumane. Imagine yourself living in a crate so small that you cannot even turn around, and being continually impregnated. Pigs are incredibly smart and sensitive animals. These are LIVING BEINGS we are talking about here. This is about nothing but profit. Period. Factory "farm" pig "farmers" can spin all the narratives they want to try to excuse this abomination against creation, but the bottom line is that this treatment of God's creatures is nothing but evil. And for those of you who support this abomination against innocent creatures, and believe in God, you're really kidding yourselves if you think you are not going to pay for this. If Americans had even the smallest bit of a conscience, they would simply boycott the entire industry. But we are a nation of people so bereft of any moral compass, and so sold to the god of profit, that we will lie ourselves into the inferno rather than face the truth of our own complicity in this inconceivable violence against living beings, whose cries in the vacuum of our collective deafness go unheard.
+6 #14 Nancy S Poznak 2014-12-03 03:04
The intelligence of pigs is well-documented by scientists who study them. They are now known to be among the top four most intelligent nonhuman species. Read this article: http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/pigheaded-smart-swine/ - not that you need to as you are most likely aware of how smart they are. I have seen many pictures and videos of sows in gestation crates. They obviously suffer. One does not have to be a veterinarian or farmer to see this. Only an idiot would deny the fact they suffer. The reason sows' aggression becomes a problem is because they have been placed into a completely unnatural environment. Pig farming must change and become far more kind to the pigs if it wants to stay in business.

Add comment

Security code