Abstract
Sows housed in stalls are kept insuch extreme confinement that they are unableto turn around. In some sectors of the porkindustry, sows are subjected to this degree ofconfinement for almost their entire lives(apart from the brief periods associated withmating). While individual confinement isrecognized by farmers and animal welfarecommunity organizations alike, as a valuabletool in sow husbandry (to mitigate againstaggression), what remains questionable from ananimal welfare point of view is the necessityto confine sows in such small spaces.
In 2001, the Australian Journal ofAgricultural Research published a reviewarticle on the science associated with the useof the sow stall, and claimed that ``noscientific evidence to support therecommendation in the Code of Practice advisingagainst housing of sows in stalls followed byhousing in crates'' (Barnett et al., 2001, p. 21).If all the available scientific publications onthe animal welfare implications of sow stallsare consulted (many of which did not feature inthe above review), then one will indeed findscientific evidence to support recommendationsagainst the housing of sows in stalls. Becausethere is science on both sides of this policydivide, the argument to defend the use of sowstalls, therefore, is not one of science vspublic opinion, but one of ethics.
An analysis of the scientific argumentsagainst the use of the sow stall should be usedto encourage ethical debate on this issue. Asan ethical debate, the issue of the use of thesow stall can then focus on the degree ofsuffering we as a society are willing totolerate in agricultural practices, and theanimal welfare costs associated with extremeeconomies of scale in sow stocking rates,rather than get bogged down in red herringdebates over whether there is any suffering atall.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Barnett, J. L., P. H. Hemsworth, G. M. Cronin, E. C. Jongman, and G. D. Hutson, “A Review of the Welfare Issues for Sows and Piglets in Relation to Housing,” Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52 (2001), 1-28.
Beder, S., Global Spin. The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism (Scribe Publications, Melbourne, 2000).
Bird, A., Philosophy of Science (UCL Press, London, 1998).
Broom, D. M., “Indicators of Poor Welfare,” British Veterinary Journal 142 (1986), 524-526.
Brouns, F., S. A. Edwards, and P. R. English, “The Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Sugar-Beet Pulp on Feeding Behaviour of Dry Sows,” Animal Science 65 (1997), 129-133.
Brumm, M. C. “Effect of Space Allowance on Barrow Performance to 136 Kilograms Body Weight,” Journal of Animal Science 74 (1996), 745-749.
Burne, T. H. J., P. J. E. Murfitt, and A. N. B. Johnston, “PGF2a-Induced Nest Building and Choice Behaviour in Female Domestic Pigs,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73 (2001), 267-279.
Cronin, G. M, P. Wiepkema, and J. Van Ree, “Endogenous Opioids are Involved in Abnormal Stereotyped Behaviors of Tethered Sows,” Neuropeptides 6 (1985), 527-530.
Cronin, G. M., G. J. Simpson, and P. H. Hemsworth, “The Effects of the Gestation and Farrowing Environments on Sow and Piglet Behavior and Piglet Survival and Growth in Early Lactation,” Applied Animal Behavior Science (1996), 175-192.
CWF (Compassion in World Farming Trust), The Welfare of Europe's Sows in Close Confinement Stalls. A report prepared for the European Coalition for Farm Animals (2000).
Dawkins, M. S., Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare (Chapman and Hall, London, 1980).
Dawkins, M. S., Through Our Eyes Only? The Search for Animal Consciousness (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998).
Ewbank, R. and M. J. Bryant, “Aggressive Behavior Amongst Groups of Domesticated Pigs Kept at Various Stocking Rates,” Animal Behavior 20 (1972), 21-28.
Fisher, M., “Intersections between Ethics and Science in the Promotion of Animal Welfare,” in Ethical Approaches to Animal-Based Science, Proceedings of the Joint ANZCCART/NAEAC Conference, Auckland, September 1997 (1998).
Gehlbach, G. D., D. E. Becker, J. L. Cox, D. G. Harman, and A. H. Jensen, “Effects of Floor space Allowance and Number per Group on Performance of Growing-Finishing Swine,” Journal of Animal Science 25 (1966), 386-391.
Gregory, N. G. and C. D. Devine, “Survey of Sow Accommodation Systems Used in New Zealand,” New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 42 (1999), 187-194.
Griffin, D. R., Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2001).
Hemsworth, P. H., “The Human Factor: Influence on Livestock Performance and Welfare,” Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 60 (2000), 237-240.
Jarvis, S., B. J. Van der Vegt, A. B. Lawrence, K. A. McLean, L. A. Deans, J. Chirnside, and S. K. Calvert, “The Effect of Parity and Environmental Restriction on Behavioural and Physiological Responses of Pre-Parturient Pigs,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71 (2001), 203-216.
Kelly, H. R. C., J. M. Bruce, P. R. English, V. R. Fowler, and S. A. Edwards, “Behaviour of 3-Week Weaned Pigs in Straw-Flow®, Deep Straw and Flatdeck Housing Systems,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68 (2000), 269-280.
Lammers, G. J. and A. De Lange, “Pre-and Post-Farrowing Behavior in Primiparous Domesticated Pigs,” Applied Animal Behavior Science 15 (1986), 31-43.
Lawrence, A. B. and E. M. C. Terlouw, “A Review of Behavioural Factors Involved in the Development and Continued Performance of Stereotypic Behaviours in Pigs,” Journal of Animal Science 71 (1993), 2815-2825.
Marchant, J. N. and D. M. Broom, “The Effects of Dry Sow Housing Conditions on Responses to Farrowing,” Proceedings of the 107th Meeting of the British Society of Animal Production (1993), 475-467.
Marchant, J. N., A. R. Rudd, and D. M. Broom, “The Effects of Housing on Heart Rate of Gestating Sows During Specific Behaviours,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55 (1997), 67-78.
Matthews, L. R. and J. Ladewig, “Environmental Requirements of Pigs Measured by Behavioral Demand Functions,” Animal Behavior 47 (1994), 713-719.
Patterson, D. C. “A Note on the Effect of Individual Penning on the Performance of Fattening Pigs,” Animal Production 40 (1985), 185-188.
Petherick, J. C., A. W. Beattie, and D. A. V. Bodero, “The Effect of Group Size on the Performance of Growing Pigs,” Animal Production 49 (1989), 497-502.
Phillips, P. A., D. Fraser, and B. K. Thompson, “Sow Preference for Farrowing Crate Width,” Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72 (1992), 745-750.
Rampton, S. and J. Stauber, Trust Us We're Experts (Penguin Putnam Inc., New York, 2001).
RNZSPCA, “AnimalWelfare (Pigs) Code ofWelfare,” Submission to the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, December 2001.
Schrøder-Petersen, D. and H. B. Simonsen, “Tail Biting in Pigs,” The Veterinary Journal 162 (2001), 196-210.
Singer, P. S. Animal Liberation: New Revised Edition (Avon Books, New York, 1990).
Sneddon, I. A., V. E. Beattie, L. Dunne, and W. Neil, “The Effect of Environmental Enrichment on Learning in Pigs,” Animal Welfare 4 (2000), 373-383.
Sober, E. Philosophy of Biology, 2nd edn. (Westview, Boulder, 2000).
Spedding, C. Animal Welfare (Earthscan, London, 2000).
Spoolder, H. A. M., J. A. Burbidge, S. A. Edwards, P. H. Simmins, and A. B. Lawrence, “Provision of Straw as a Foraging Substrate Reduces the Development of Excessive Chain and Bar Manipulation in Food Restricted Sows,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43 (1995), 249-262.
Spoolder, H. A. M., Edwards, S. A. and S. Corning, “Legislative Methods for Specifying Stocking Density and Consequences for the Welfare of Finishing Pigs,” Livestock Production Science 64 (2000), 167-173.
Stolba, A. and D. G. M. Wood-Gush, “The Behaviour of Pigs in a Semi-Natural Environment,” Animal Production 48 (1989), 419-425.
SVC (Scientific Veterinary Committee), The Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs. Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee, European Commission (1997).
Thodberg, K., K. H. Jensen, M. S. Herskin, and E. Jorgensen, “Influence of Environmental Stimuli on Nest Building and Farrowing Behaviour in Domestic Sows,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63 (1999), 131-144.
Turner, S. P., G.W. Horgan, and S. A. Edwards, “Effect of Social Group Size on Aggressive Behaviour between Unacquainted Domestic Pigs,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74 (2001), 203-215.
Varner, G. E. In Nature' Interests? Interests, Animal Rights and Environmental Ethics (Oxford University Press, New York, 1999).
Weary, D. M., E. A. Pajor, M. Bonenfant, S. K. Ross, D. Fraser, and D. L. Kramer, “Alternative Housing for Sows and Litters. 2. Effects of a Communal Piglet Area on Preand Post-Weaning Behaviour and Performance,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65 (1999), 123-135.
Webster, J. Animal Welfare: A Cool Eye Towards Eden (Blackwell, Oxford, 1995).
Weng, R. C., S. A. Edwards, and P. R. English, “Behaviour, Social Interactions and Lesion Scores of Group-Housed Sows in Relation to Floor Space Allowance,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 59 (1998), 307-316.
Whittaker, X., H. A. M. Spoolder, S. A. Edwards, A. B. Lawrence, and S. Corning, “The Influence of Dietary Fibre and the Provision of Straw on the Development of Stereotypic Behaviour in Food Restricted Pregnant Sows,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 61 (1998), 89-102.
Whittaker, X., S. A. Edwards, H. A.M. Spoolder, A. B. Lawrence, and S. Corning, “Effects of Straw Bedding and High Fibre Diets on the Behaviour of Floor Fed Group-Housed Sows,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 63 (1999), 25-39.
Wiepkema, P. and J. Koolhaas, “Stress and Animal Welfare,” Animal Welfare 2 (1993), 195-218.
Wood-Gush, D. G. M., P. Jensen, and B. Algers, “Behaviour of Pigs in a Novel Semi-Natural Environment,” Biology of Behaviour 15 (1990), 62-73.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weaver, S., Morris, M. Science, Pigs, and Politics: A New Zealand Perspective on the Phase-Out of Sow Stalls. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17, 51–66 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAGE.0000010844.52041.32
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAGE.0000010844.52041.32