Most read stories

New comments

  • Thanks for your insightful and educational articles. Farmers and producers who make a career out of working with animals have a much better understanding ...


  • The fact that the sows bite the crates shows they are in deep distress


  • 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 ...


Most recent stories

  • Translating Food Technology: Is organic's effect on climate change a lot of hot air?

    Organic and climate change: A lot of hot air?

    Farmer Goes to Market has cautioned before: Blindly following organic food companies onto thin marketing ice by repeating questionable health claims risks the grocer's reputation. In response, critics of modern food technology point to organic as a cure for the environmental pollution caused by modern agriculture, including increasing greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution.

    But how well does that claim stand up to scrutiny?

    University of Oregon environmental sociology doctoral student Julius McGee tested the relationship between the recent growth in organic agricultural production and greenhouse gas emission that could be traced specifically to agriculture. His study, in the June 2015 issue of the journal Agriculture and Human Values, is one of the first large-scale empirical analyses of certified organic farming and agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. In it, McGee offers the surprising and contrarian conclusion that not only has organic farming not helped reduce greenhouse gases and global warming, it has in fact increased climate change. He believes the rise of certified organic farming has increased both the total amount of greenhouse gas emitted from agriculture and the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per acre of farmland. In addition, he argues that some organic crops--tomatoes, for example--actually produce more greenhouse gases than their conventional counterparts when produced on a similar scale.

    How can this be?

    McGee calls it a classic example of the "displacement paradox." Rather than replace high-input consumer consumption that may contribute to global warming, organic production simply gives consumers another outlet for purchasing. Organic farming as an alternative to conventional agriculture does little to reduce the consequences of farming practices overall, and organic farming fails to earn its marketing claim as a ‘‘more sustainable’’ form of agricultural, because a link has yet to be established between organic farming and carbon banking that helps reduce levels of greenhouse gas.

    "What these findings ultimately suggest is that organic farming is not working as a counterforce to greenhouse gas emissions stimulated by agricultural production," McGee concludes.

    {jcomments on}

  • Navigating the New Food Movement: Do people really garden for better food? You may be surprised

    Why consumers really want to grow their own vegetables

    Omaha Sen. Burke Harr's LB544, introduced into the legislature in late January, would allow community organizations to establish community public vegetable gardens on vacant public land. Harr said the measure "would help address food insecurity in communities across the state."

    Tim Rinne, state coordinator for Nebraskans for Peace, told the legislature's Agriculture Committee it was the state's role to encourage citizens to grow more food locally in order to prevent hunger. “The farther we get away from our food supply, the more food insecure we are,” he said.

    But Harr and Rinne's conclusions assume a reality that may not necessarily hold true, according to study scheduled for publication in an upcoming issue of the journal Agriculture and Human Values. In it, French and Canadian social scientists conducted in-depth interviews of 25 gardeners in Paris and 14 in Montreal working in collective gardens across those cities. The aim of the  questionnaire was to assess how important actually producing food was to the gardeners.

    The found that of the 39 gardeners interviewed, 33 did mention the possibility of producing food as one of their motivations. However, only about one-third--14 of the 39--said growing enough food to eat at an affordable price was a motivating factor in working the public gardens. That handful of gardeners who said they considered the public garden economically beneficial said so for one of two reasons:

    • They ate only the produce they grew themselves and learned to live without fruit and vegetables they couldn't raise themselves.
    • They chose to produce the most expensive produce themselves and then to buy the cheaper products in supermarkets.

     More than half of the gardeners interviewed considered that the garden was not economically advantageous, the researchers reported. In fact, some gardeners considered that the vegetables produced at the garden ended up costing more than those bought in shops. It's also noteworthy that although "sharing" the bounty of the public garden with other people was one of the food-related reasons for participating, the check-box on the questionnaire for "food bank"--an option city officials advised the research team should be included because it was a common destination for public-garden produce--went unticked on every respondent's questionnaire.

    So why do they garden? In contrast to the production of food, users of the public space to garden cited these "multifunctions," according to the research:

    • It gives them a "social place," where they can meet and interact with people and foster a sense of community.
    • It improves their physical health through physical activity and their mental health by improving self-esteem.
    • It permits them a natural space that makes them feel free of the city's confines. "It’s a consolation for not having a house with a garden," in the words of one respondent.
    • It puts them in more direct contact with nature.
    • It allows them a formalized place to learn and teach.
    • It provides a leisure activity.
    • It improves the city and its landscape--a benefit mentioned only by the public garden's authorities but not by a single citizen who used the garden space.

    Although production of food is often rooted within those other functions, the research team noted, in the relatively affluent northern hemisphere, self-production of food doesn't typically have a subsistence function, as it does in the relatively less affluent southern hemisphere, "where food-producing urban agriculture has a very important role in the food supply.’’

    {jcomments on}

  • Foresight on Food Politics: What's the matter with California?

    Why Californias voted against their own pocketbooks

    In the 2005 book What's the Matter with Kansas, liberal political pundit Thomas Frank mocked the propensity of mostly blue-collar Kansans to consistently vote politically against their own vested economic interests. Now, Oklahoma Ag Economist Jayson Lusk has surveyed shoppers to point out a similar contradiction for California egg consumers.

    Lusk asked a sample of consumers, “In 2008, 63 percent of voters in California voted to ban the use of small cages for egg-laying hens. However, at the time around 90 percent to 95 percent of the eggs Californians purchased came from small cages, and only 5 percent to 10 percent were cage free. So, a majority of voters voted to ban a product that a majority of shoppers routinely bought. Why do you think there is such a gap between how people voted and how they shopped for different types of eggs?”
    Here's how Lusk categorized the open-ended responses he received:

    • 46 percent said they didn't know, mentioned a food safety or health issue that didn't precisely translate into explaining the vote-vs.-buy gap, or gave some other nonsensical answer.
    • 27 percent said they thought people simply didn't know they were buying eggs from hens kept in smaller cages.
    • 14 percent said people will buy the cheapest food available, regardless of how they vote.
    • 8 percent said people split themselves into two personas that behave differently: the public citizen who wants to "do the right thing" and does so when voting, and the smart shopper, who buys according to price and value.
    • 5 percent said consumers couldn't choose to buy the "more ethical" choice because it wasn't widely available before regulation forced its appearance.
    • 4 percent said people don't care enough to shop their conscience, but they might be convinced to vote for it if confronted by a ballot measure.
    • 2 percent said a relative minority was able to enact a ban even though a majority of shoppers buy caged-hen eggs, because the minority is more passionate and drives its members to vote at a disproportionately higher rate.
    • 2 percent said shoppers may want to buy more "welfare-friendly" eggs, but they need the presence of regulation to nudge them into paying the higher price.
    • Nobody mentioned two of the academic economist's pet theories: That people rationalize that their individual purchase won't make an impact but their vote might, and the "commitment hypothesis," that people really want to buy cage-free eggs but they continually backslide without a regulatory ban in place.

     {jcomments on}



  • Competitive Commodity Information: Will avian influenza give poultry prices a cold?

    Avian influenza threatening poultry prices?

    A highly contagious strain of avian influenza found so far in at least 60 commercial poultry flocks, according to USDA reports, has some market watchers spooked. Most of the affected flocks are turkey operations in the midwest, and the state of Minnesota, the nation’s top turkey producer, has suffered worst, losing an estimated 2.6 million birds, and prompting the state's governor to declare a state of emergency. At risk is the approximately $4.8 billion value of some 200 million turkeys this country grows annually. But with detection of the virus in wild birds along the Mississippi and Pacific Flyways indicating the virus is active in migratory bird populations, the deeper fear is the virus could approach the chicken-producing centers of the eastern U.S.

    Several European and Asian have placed some restrictions on imports of U.S. poultry as a result of the outbreak. As of its mid-April report, USDA was reporting 2015 turkey exports would fall 10.5 percent, to 720 million pounds, due to trade restrictions in China and Korea, the strength of the dollar against most currencies, and restrictions on U.S. exports due to the outbreaks. U.S. turkey meat production in first quarter 2015 is now estimated at 1.4 billion pounds, 25 million pounds less than the previous estimate but 7 percent higher than a year earlier. Turkey cold storage holdings at the end of February were 323 million pounds, an increase of 4 percent from a year earlier.

    Meanwhile, although broiler meat production in January was 5 percent higher than the previous year, production in February was down 1 percent to 3 billion pounds; however, the estimate for first-quarter 2015 remained at 9.7 billion pounds, an increase of 5 percent from a year earlier. Current data point toward a strong increase in broiler meat production in March based on one additional slaughter day, leading to a higher number of birds slaughtered, in addition to continued increases in average liveweights. In February the number of birds slaughtered fell by 2 percent, but that decline was partially offset by a 1-percent increase in average liveweights at slaughter. This pattern of moderate growth in the number of birds slaughtered and higher liveweights is expected to continue throughout most of 2015. The increases are expected to push forecast broiler meat production in 2015 to 40 billion pounds, 4 percent higher than in 2014.

    Although this outbreak of avian influenza, the worst in years, does pose significant risk to the industry and can be devastating to individual flocks, it's prudent to remember the world's strongest surveillance program for the disease. Federal and state animal health agencies along with industry has responded to try to contain and control the outbreak through several measures:

    * Restricting movement of poultry and poultry-moving equipment into and out of specific quarantine areas

    * Euthanizing affected flocks to prevent spread

    * Testing wild and domestic birds in a broad area around the quarantine area

    * Disinfecting affected flock locations to kill remaining virus

    * Retesting to confirm affected farms remain virus-free. USDA also is working with its partners to actively look and test for the disease in commercial poultry operations, live bird markets and in migratory wild bird populations.

    Farmer Goes to Market will keep you updated on important developments. Use the comment section to leave us your questions.

    {jcomments on}

  • Meet your farmers: The new appearance of Nebraska pig farming

    Friend, Neb., family farmers Paul and Deb Segner have used a relatively new--but not always popular--form of hog farming known as contract production in order to keep the third-generation Nebraska farm in operation. By reducing some of pig-farming's inherent risk, contract production has allowed them to expand the farm enough to welcome son Jared back into the family business. Listen as they explain how this arrangement works.

  • On the lighter side: Is that a banana, or are you just happy to filigree?

    Pen, ink and banana?

    Artist Stephan Brusche combines ballpoint pen and razor knife to turn the pedestrian banana into some surprisingly inventive artwork.

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.


-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."
+1 #18 Jessica Howe 2015-01-21 00:00
The fact that the sows bite the crates shows they are in deep distress
+2 #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'?
-2 #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.
-1 #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.
+1 #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.
+1 #13 Lemony Crickets 2014-11-21 00:00
Ah yes, how can any of us fools know better than a farmer about how to raise his animals for breeding or slaughter. We should have no say whatsoever and farmers should be able to do whatever they want with their livestock. I notice that there are no pictures or videos of pigs in these crates. I have seen video of these things and my common sense tells me that they are inhumane. The pig cannot lay down or turn around, and it cannot tell you just how bad it is. This goes on for most of the gestation period. All you need to do is look at video of pigs in these things and unless you have no sense of decency it becomes clear just how awful it is.
+4 #12 HS 2014-11-20 00:00
Don't the dividers just need to be larger to allow the pigs to move and stretch and turn? Or perhaps separate the pigs into small manageable groups of 3 or 8 or whatever. Regardless, jamming them in a small box is just horrible.
0 #11 BobC 2014-11-12 05:02
This is a very informative article with interesting comments. My reactions are: 1) Pigs, especially pregnant and nursing sows, are aggressive and potentially dangerous animals; dangerous to their handlers as well as to other pigs, including their piglets; 2) Pigs may be sentient but how much and in what ways is not known and has not been measured to date, so the assumption of sentience is largely faith not science; 3) Sows kept in crates meeting accepted standards show no objective adverse effects; confinment in gestation crates is primarily to protect the sow; benefits to farmers and consumers is secondary; 4) those advocating interdiction of gestation crate confinement need to present reproducible scientific data to support their position; I'm not aware of any such data, and emotional appeals won't do.
+6 #10 Sabrina 2014-11-06 00:14
Every argument basically explains how crates benefit the farmers.... If pigs are better off on this confinement (which anyone with any sense, knows is untrue) then why can't these farmers simply allow the sows enough room to turn around?!? Carnivores and vegetarians alike believe this is a cruel and inhumane practice. I applaud everyone who sees the truth of the situation and is lending their voice to this issue!!!

Add comment

Security code