Science, pigs, and politics: a New Zealand perspective on the phase-out of sow stalls

Sows housed in stalls are kept in such extreme confinement that they are unable to turn around. In some sectors of the pork industry, sows are subjected to this degree of confinement for almost their entire lives (apart from the brief periods associated with mating). While individual confinement is recognized by farmers and animal welfare community organizations alike, as a valuable tool in sow husbandry (to mitigate against aggression), what remains questionable from an animal welfare point of view is the necessity to confine sows in such small spaces. In 2001, the Australian Journal of Agricultural Research published a review article on the science associated with the use of the sow stall, and claimed that "no scientific evidence to support the recommendation in the Code of Practice advising against housing of sows in stalls followed by housing in crates" (Barnett et al., 2001, p. 21). If all the available scientific publications on the animal welfare implications of sow stalls are consulted (many of which did not feature in the above review), then one will indeed find scientific evidence to support recommendations against the housing of sows in stalls. Because there is science on both sides of this policy divide, the argument to defend the use of sow stalls, therefore, is not one of science vs public opinion, but one of ethics. An analysis of the scientific arguments against the use of the sow stall should be used to encourage ethical debate on this issue. As an ethical debate, the issue of the use of the sow stall can then focus on the degree of suffering we as a society are willing to tolerate in agricultural practices, and the animal welfare costs associated with extreme economies of scale in sow stocking rates, rather than get bogged down in red herring debates over whether there is any suffering at all. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]