To get updates on new site content, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.

Pigs

From JFA Wiki
This is the latest revision of this page; it has no approved revision.

This article provides summarized information about pigs that should prove useful to those advocating for animal rights, as well as to those exploring the rationale for veganism.

It covers various aspects of farmed pigs in the context of animal rights, including injustices and suffering, humane labels and certifications, pig sentience and cognition, the environmental consequences of farming pigs, the health risks of pig meat, and impacts to communities and workers.

General Information

Lineage

Pigs were domesticated approximately 9000 years ago from various subspecies of the Eurasian wild boar.[1] Domestication occurred separately in Europe and Asia, though there is evidence that interbreeding later took place.[2] Pigs were brought to North America by Spanish explorers in the 16th century.[3]

Numbers

Worldwide, over two billion pigs are slaughtered for meat each year. In the United States alone, over 121 million are killed annually.

Using data from the USDA Census of Agriculture and the EPA's definitions of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, the Sentience Institute estimates that 98.3 percent of pigs in the USA are factory-farmed.[4] The figures for other industrialized nations are likely to be similar.

Injustices and Suffering

The injustices inherent in exploiting pigs and other non-human animals stem from seeing them as commodities having only instrumental value, lacking any inherent worth apart from their usefulness to humans.

As Tom Regan put it, the animals we use "have a life of their own that is of importance to them, apart from their utility to us. They are not only in the world, they are aware of it and also of what happens to them. And what happens to them matters to them. Each has a life that fares experientially better or worse for the one whose life it is."

As shown in the section on sentience and cognition, pigs not only have a will to live and value their lives, just as humans do, but also have desires, preferences, emotions, families, social communities, natural behaviors, a sense of themselves, and a sense of the future.

The injustices discussed below—all arising from a failure to recognize the inherent worth of other sentient beings—are either standard practice or not unusual. And, as shown in the section below on humane labels and certifications, this is true even for products with a humane label or certification. To omit a significant number of these injustices would likely render the cost of such products unaffordable by all but the most affluent, and we would still have to slaughter them.

Loss of Life

We have no nutritional need for pork, so denying pigs their lives is unnecessary, as are the other forms of suffering enumerated here. Not only are we taking their lives—we are doing so after allowing them to live only about three percent of their natural life spans. Pigs are slaughtered after living only 5 to 6 weeks of a 10 to 12-year natural lifespan.

To take the life of any sentient being is to harm that being by depriving them of opportunities for fulfillment, even if it is done suddenly and painlessly (which it is not, as explained below).

Slaughter

Boiling Alive

Many slaughterhouses kill 1000 pigs or more per hour, and the USDA is attempting to remove limits on slaughter line speeds.[5] Legally, pigs are required to be rendered unconscious by stunning before slaughter. However, lines run so quickly that mistakes are inevitable. Many pigs are not properly stunned, and investigations show that as a consequence they are still conscious when they reach the scalding tanks which removes their hair.[6] This means they are effectively boiled alive.

Gas Chambers

Increasingly, pigs are slaughtered in carbon dioxide gas chambers rather than conventional slaughterhouses.[7] This is considered the most humane method of slaughter, but undercover footage shows pigs panicking, gasping for air, and trying to escape.[8] Studies show that this form of slaughter causes both anxiety and pain in pigs.[9]

Mutilations

Teeth Clipping

Piglets may also have their sharp “needle teeth” clipped to prevent them from injuring each other when fighting over teats, inducing severe pain in pigs as it would in humans.[10] Teeth clipping can also result in lasting damage. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, "clipping has been shown to increase longer-term behaviors suggestive of discomfort such as chomping. Piglets whose teeth have been clipped may experience more gum and tongue injuries, and potentially painful inflammation or abscesses of the teeth."[11]

Castration

Male piglets are castrated, primarily because their flesh can otherwise develop an unpleasant taste and smell. This is generally done by making an incision in the scrotum and pulling out the testes, before cutting the spermatic cord. In most countries, it is legal to carry out this procedure without anesthetic in the piglet's first week of life, despite the fact that this is known to be painful. Carrying out castration at this age is also risky as the testes are very small, which can lead to incomplete castration and increase the risk of prolapse of the intestine.[12]

Tail Docking

Pigs sometimes bite each other's tails when stressed, so some farmers cut off pigs' tails to prevent this. However, studies suggest that this can cause acute and possibly chronic pain.[13] Though tail docking is thought to reduce the incidence of serious injuries, it does not eliminate them. In Ireland, where 99 percent of pigs have docked tails, 72.5 percent were still found to have tail lesions at slaughter.[14]

Ear Notching and Tattooing

Most piglets undergo painful routine procedures when they are less than a week old so they can be identified.

Ear notching is painful.[15] Tattooing involves some degree of pain, but perhaps, more importantly, it is stressful.[16] Unlike humans, when pigs are tattooed they are not consenting and don't understand what's happening to them.

Living Conditions

Gestation Crates

Pregnant sows are often kept in metal stalls called gestation crates. The crates typically measure just 6.5 ft x 2.0 ft, meaning sows are not able to turn around.[17] Some larger sows are not even able to lie on their sides (the way pigs normally sleep) in the crates. The stalls typically do not contain bedding material, instead having metal, plastic, or concrete floors. Sows often chew on the bars, a sign of boredom and frustration.[18] Pigs prefer to relieve themselves a long way from where they eat and sleep, which is impossible when they are confined to crates.[19]

Farrowing Crates

A few days before they are due to give birth, sows are moved to farrowing crates. These are slightly larger to allow the sow to lie on her side and nurse her piglets. They also have an additional enclosure attached to prevent piglets from being accidentally crushed by the sow. The crates are said to reduce piglet mortality compared to keeping sows loose, but there is no convincing evidence that this is the case.[20] Sows remain in farrowing crates for about a month, before being impregnated again and returned to the gestation crates. Gestation crates have been banned in nine US states, but farrowing crates remain legal across the country. Use of the crates has also been banned or restricted in many other regions, such as the EU and Canada.[21]

Crowded Pens

After being removed from their mothers, piglets are crowded into pens where they barely have room to move until they reach slaughter weight. Pigs may also develop arthritis from lack of exercise and be injured when their feet are caught in the floor slats. The stress of confinement can lead pigs to exhibit unnatural cannibalistic behavior.[22]

Disease and High Mortality

African Swine Fever

African swine fever is one example of pigs susceptibility to disease because of crowded filthy conditions. It has an extremely high mortality rate of 95-100 percent in pigs. There is no known treatment for the disease.[23] An outbreak in China in mid-2019 resulted in the deaths of millions of pigs.[24]

Pneumonia and Mange

Pneumonia and mange are other examples.[25] Mortality rates are high, and investigations have found that their bodies are sometimes left in the pens for extended periods.[26]

Reproduction and Selective Breeding

Large Litters

Modern sows have been bred to produce significantly larger litters than their wild counterparts. A study done on wild boars in Portugal found that litter sizes ranged from 2 to 8 piglets.[27] Farmed sows produce far larger litters. Between 1986 and 2006, the average number of live piglets per litter increased from 10.5 to 12.7. The time between litters also decreased from 155.8 days to 148.7 days. Suckling so many piglets can put immense strain on the sow and cause her to lose body weight.[28]

Weight Gain

Like factory-farmed chickens, pigs have been bred to gain weight so rapidly that they sometimes struggle to support their own body weight. On average, pigs who are being fattened now gain 770g a day, compared to 670g two decades ago. This rapid weight gain can lead to joint and leg problems.[28] In 1997, a study showed that pigs more closely related to wild boar gained 47g less per day.[29]

Pigs' increased muscle mass means their hearts and lungs are proportionally smaller than those of their ancestors, which can cause strain. As a result, even young pigs sometimes die from heart attacks.[30] Selective breeding for lean muscle has led to the prevalence of a gene which makes pigs very sensitive to stress.[28]

Artificial Insemination

The use of artificial insemination rather than natural breeding is common,[31] as it gives farmers more control over the characteristics of the piglets. Artificial insemination is a stressful procedure[32] that sows cannot consent to, making it a violation of their rights.

Cruel Handling

Prior to slaughter, many pigs become nonambulatory. This is thought to be due to the stress of transport and handling combined with the change of environment.[33] Pigs who are unable to move may be beaten, dragged, or shocked with electric prods to move them through the killing line.[6]

It's not just in the slaughterhouse that such abuses occur. Undercover investigations have shown that pigs on factory farms endure cruel, rough handling. Multiple investigations conducted by Mercy for Animals and others have recorded pigs being:[34]

  • punched
  • kicked
  • beaten
  • shouted at
  • having their hair pulled out
  • violently shaken
  • poked in the eyes
  • hit with wooden boards.

Sick piglets were denied veterinary care and thrown into piles and left to die slowly.[34]

Transportation

Pigs are often transported hundreds of miles in extreme temperatures to be slaughtered. This can lead to deaths due to frostbite or heat stress.[35] Legally, pigs can be transported for up to 28 hours at a time with no rest, food, or water. This has been shown to be very stressful.[36]

Being transported is also stressful for pigs. In particular, they find vibration very uncomfortable and often suffer from travel sickness.[37]

Pigs Left to Die after Natural Disasters

In the USA, factory-farmed pigs have been left to die in the floods following major hurricanes. For example, an estimated 5500 pigs drowned following Hurricane Florence,[38] and thousands more were killed by Hurricane Floyd.[39]

Humane Labels and Certifications

Investigations by Consumer Reports and the Open Philanthropy Project (and others) reveal that humane-sounding labels and certifications are largely meaningless, as shown below. In general, these investigations reveal that the standards are weak and unenforced, audits and inspections are rarely done, and if they are done and violations are found, which is infrequent, no one gets fined.[40][41]

North American Meat Guidelines

Many certifications rely on the North American Meat Institute slaughter guidelines. These allow pigs to be slaughtered in carbon dioxide gas chambers or conventional slaughterhouses. When gas chambers are used, it is considered acceptable for pigs to gasp for breath or exhibit “strange vocalization and sudden, involuntary reflexes including muscle jerks or twitches.”[44] Evidence shows that in conventional slaughterhouses, pigs are often improperly stunned.[45]

Global Animal Partnership 5-Step Certification

This certification has five different levels, with certain practices permitted at some stages but not others. As a result, it is difficult for consumers to work out exactly how the animals have been treated.

Castration is allowed for levels 1-4. Castration of piglets is permitted before 10 days of age in levels 1-4, but banned entirely at level 5. The use of anesthetic is “strongly encouraged” but not required.

Painful ear notching is permitted at levels 1-4.[46]

Artificial insemination is permitted at all 5 levels. This is a stressful procedure, as discussed above. Restraining sows in stalls for as long as 4 hours while carrying out the procedure is allowed. Additionally, feed can be withheld from pigs for up to 8 hours before they are transported at all levels.[46]

Gas chambers are permitted. The standard does not have its own slaughter guidelines, but instead requires that producers adhere to the American Meat Institute guidelines, mentioned above.

Audits are infrequent and unannounced. On-farm audits are only carried out once every 15 months.[47] This makes it impossible to know whether farmers are complying with the standards the majority of the time.

Certified Humane

One might think a standard named Certified Humane would not permit the pigs to suffer cruelties. But no.

Painful mutilations are allowed, including:

  • Teeth cutting
  • Castration without anesthetic
  • Tattooing

Artificial insemination is allowed.[48]

Cruel transportation is acceptable. The standard allows pigs to be transported for up to 8 hours at a time. They are usually not given any food during transport, as this could cause vomiting. For this reason, food may also be withheld for several hours prior to transport. In total, the standard states that pigs can be deprived of food for up to 18 hours at a time.[48]

Slaughter is not humane by any standard of justice, but like GAP, the Certified Humane standard relies on the North American Meat Institute slaughter guidelines,[48] discussed above.

Inspections are infrequent and unannounced. Inspections are only carried out once a year, and they are not unannounced.[49] With little or no chance of being caught, it seems likely that some farmers may cut corners to save time or money.

Animal Welfare Approved Standard

The standard allows:

  • Artificial insemination
  • Surgical castration
  • Tattooing
  • Ear notching.[50]

Killing by a blow to the head is allowed. The AWS standard states that piglets lighter than 12 lbs can be euthanized using a blow to the head with a blunt instrument.[50]

Painful carbon dioxide gassing is recommended.[50] As mentioned previously, this is extremely painful and distressing.

Audits are infrequent. As with the Certified Humane standard, audits are usually only carried out once a year.[51]

American Humane Certified

This standard, created by the American Humane Farm program, is perhaps the weakest on the list. It allows for:[45]

  • Cutting off piglets' teeth
  • Tail docking
  • Castration

Pain relief is not required.[45]

If pigs need to be euthanized, it must be done according to the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. These standards allow suckling piglets to be killed by:[52]

  • Blunt force trauma to the head
  • Electrocution
  • Gassing
  • Gunshots

Even confining sows in breeding stalls is permitted under this standard. After being impregnated, sows can be kept in the stalls for up to 10 days. There is no requirement for these stalls to be large enough to allow sows to turn around.[45]

Food may be withheld from pigs for up to 18 hours before they are slaughtered. Slaughter is required to be carried out according to the North American Meat Institute guidelines, mentioned above.[45]

Unannounced audits are not required. Audits are required only once a year. The program reserves the right to carry out unannounced audits, but it is unclear whether it ever exercises this right.[53]

Sentience and Cognition

While we are not suggesting that the degree of moral consideration given to an animal be based on their cognitive capacity, it seems that most people are not fully aware of the rich cognitive, emotional, and psychological lives that pigs experience.

Object Recognition and Long-Term Memory

Studies have shown that pigs can distinguish between objects and remember objects for at least five days. This shows that they have long-term memory. They are also able to think abstractly, learning the meaning of symbols representing actions and objects. In one experiment, pigs were able to understand and respond to combinations of symbols that represented phrases such as “fetch the ball.”[54] They have also been recorded using tools.[55]

Anticipation of the Future

Few studies have been done on time perception in pigs, but there is evidence that they can anticipate the future. For example, one study found that pigs reacted negatively with high-pitched vocalizations when they knew a negative event was coming.[54]

Cognitive Complexity

Dr. Donald Broom of the University of Cambridge has been quoted as saying that pigs are cognitively capable of being more sophisticated than three-year-olds.[56]

Pigs also engage in play, considered to be an indication of cognitive complexity. When raised without enough stimulation, they can develop behavioral abnormalities. They have been shown to make more positive decisions when given more stimulation, which is evidence that environmental enrichment can make them more optimistic.[54] They are also skilled at using spatial information — navigating mazes, for example.[54]

Awareness of Self and Others

Studies show that pigs can discriminate between individuals, whether human or other pigs. Pigs in some studies have been able to find food that was only visible in a mirror. They have also been taught to play video games, controlling the joysticks with their mouths or snouts. This provides some evidence of self-awareness, as the pigs understood that their actions were causing the cursor to move. Many animals, such as dogs, do not show these capabilities.[54]

Emotional Lives and Personality Traits

In one study, some pigs were trained to anticipate negative events when a certain piece of music was played. Others were not trained, but exhibited similar stress responses to the nearby trained pigs when the music was played. This provides evidence that pigs can recognize and pick up on each other's emotions, which may mean they experience empathy. It also shows that they have a sense of the future. Additionally, pigs show a range of personality traits such as sociability, exploration, and aggression.[54]

Environmental Consequences

The breeding, confinement, and slaughter of pigs have a profoundly negative impact on the environment.

Waste

Factory farms raise thousands of pigs at a time, and each one produces 2-4 times as much waste as a human. The production of such huge quantities of waste in a relatively small area makes it difficult to manage effectively. Usually, waste from industrial pig farms is dumped untreated into vast lagoons that may leak or overflow.[57]

Untreated pig waste is often spread over nearby fields in an attempt to dispose of it. These excessive amounts of manure can pollute the soil. When the soil becomes saturated, manure may run off the fields and into waterways. This, along with overflow from lagoons, can contaminate water and kill fish. Pollutants from pig slaughterhouses may also be released into waterways.[57]

Waste lagoons and the spraying of manure pollute the air with toxins and greenhouse gases such as hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ammonia.[57] Nitrogen in the waste may also contribute to acid rain.[58]

Eutrophication

After flowing into rivers, nitrogen from manure can reach lakes and oceans, where it causes algae to bloom and use up much of the oxygen in the water. This process is known as eutrophication, and it makes it difficult or impossible for other aquatic species to survive.[57]

Feed Production

Factory-farmed pigs are fed largely on grains, which also causes environmental problems. Huge areas of land are needed to grow this grain, leading to deforestation and habitat destruction. According to the FAO, 47 percent of emissions from pig-rearing are caused by feed production. Another 13 percent is related to land use change due to the growing of crops.[59] Large quantities of water, fertilizers, and fossil fuels are also used in this process.[60] Farmed pigs are also sometimes fed on fishmeal,[61] contributing to overfishing.

Human Health and Nutrition

Food Safety

Though USDA inspectors must legally be present at slaughterhouses, some inspectors complain that the design of plants makes it impossible for them to see the slaughter area. Because of the speed of the lines, it is also very difficult for inspectors to spot abnormalities or diseases in the carcasses.[62]

Diseases

Cardiovascular Disease

Pig meat contains saturated fat, cholesterol, and heme iron, which contribute to an increased risk of heart disease.[63][64][65][66] In 2012, a meta-analysis concluded that both red and processed meat are linked to an increased risk of stroke.[67] A Finnish study carried out between 1972 and 1992 found that heart disease rates in the country dropped dramatically when the intake of saturated fat and cholesterol decreased.[68]

Cancer

In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) evaluated 800 studies and concluded that processed meat (such as sausages, bacon, and ham) is a Group 1 carcinogen, meaning it definitely causes cancer. The processing and cooking of meat was found to form various carcinogenic chemicals.[69] Other Group 1 carcinogens include tobacco and asbestos.[70]

The report also concluded that unprocessed red meat (including pig meat) is Group 2A carcinogen, meaning it is a probable cause of cancer. It has been linked to colorectal, prostate, and pancreatic cancer.[69]

Type 2 Diabetes

Red meat is associated with an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, especially if it is processed. This is thought to be because it contains high levels of fat, heme iron, nitrites, and other harmful substances.[71]

Animal Protein Risks

All animal protein, pig meat or otherwise, carries risks that are not associated with plant protein. A review by Dr. Sofia Ochoa cites 42 studies showing that animal protein:[72]

  • elevates hormone-insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which stimulates cell division and growth in both healthy and cancer cells and "has been consistently associated with increased cancer risk, proliferation, and malignancy"
  • "results in us having higher circulating levels of trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO)," which "injures the lining of our vessels, creates inflammation, and facilitates the formation of cholesterol plaques in our blood vessels"
  • causes the overproduction of the hormone fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23), which damages our blood vessels, can "lead to enlargement of the cardiac ventricle, and is associated with heart attacks, sudden death, and heart failure"
  • can result in the overabsorption of heme iron, causing the conversion of other oxidants into highly reactive free radicals that "can damage different cell structures like proteins, membranes, and DNA" (heme iron "has also been associated with many kinds of gastrointestinal cancers")
  • can result in a higher incidence of bone fractures because of animal protein's high concentrations of sulfur
  • contributes to atherosclerosis—plaques of cholesterol that accumulate in the lining of our vessels; this condition is far less common on a vegan diet because absorbable cholesterol is not found in plants

Social Consequences of Pig Production

The vast majority of pigs in industrialized nations are raised on factory farms. This has profound consequences for those who live nearby. The farms are disproportionately located in low-income communities inhabited largely by ethnic minorities.[73]

Foul Odors

One of the most studied cases is North Carolina, the second-largest hog-producing state. Those who live near factory farms complain of foul odors that invade their homes and force them to cover their mouths and noses when they step outside. Some even spend nights in motels to escape it if they can afford to do so. The smell can permeate clothes and upholstery, making it difficult to remove.[74]

Land and Water Contamination

Contaminationn from airborne manure: Excess manure from factory farms is spread over nearby fields. In some areas, manure is spread so close to communities that a mist of it covers houses, cars, and laundry left out to dry.[74]

Contimination of water supply: Other waste is stored in lagoons, which can leak or overflow and contaminate the local water supply.[57]

Health problems from manure: Factory-farmed pig manure often contains pathogens, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, toxic chemicals, and heavy metals, which can cause illness if inhaled or ingested.[57] Studies show that these substances can contribute to decreased quality of life, higher blood pressure,[75] respiratory problems, and mental stress. The odors can also lead to headaches, nausea, and vomiting, among other symptoms.[76] Factory farm workers may also have an increased risk of health problems, such as asthma.[77]

Exploitation of Slaughterhouse Workers

Slaughterhouse workers have some of the highest injury rates of any industry, as lines move at unsafe speeds and workers handle very sharp knives. Several workers have even been killed in US slaughterhouses. Workers are also prone to repetitive strain injuries from repeating the same movements for hours on end. They are often dismissed when they become injured, leading many to hide their injuries and continue working.[78]

Those who work in slaughterhouses are often undocumented immigrants who speak little English. They may not be aware of their rights and often fear deportation if they try to improve their conditions. Workers may be forced to work excessively long shifts and threatened with dismissal if they refuse. Some are expected to work as much as twelve hours a day, six days a week. This can lead to fatigue and depression.[78]

Violence in Slaughterhouse Communities

Committing violent acts against animals leads many workers to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).[79] It may also lead them to commit violence against humans. Rates of violent crime, including domestic abuse and rape, are higher in communities located near a slaughterhouse.[80]

Footnotes

  1. Giuffra, E., J. M. Kijas, V. Amarger, O. Carlborg, J. T. Jeon, and L. Andersson. “The Origin of the Domestic Pig: Independent Domestication and Subsequent Introgression.” Genetics 154, no. 4 (April 2000): 1785–91.
  2. Larson, G. “Worldwide Phylogeography of Wild Boar Reveals Multiple Centers of Pig Domestication.” Science 307, no. 5715 (March 11, 2005): 1618–21. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1106927.
  3. Singer, Francis J. “Wild Pig Populations in the National Parks.” Environmental Management 5, no. 3 (May 1981): 263–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01873285.
  4. “US Factory Farming Estimates.” Sentience Institute. Accessed October 22, 2019. http://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates.
  5. Animal Legal Defense Fund. “Stopping Cruel High-Speed Pig Slaughter.” Accessed November 2, 2019. https://aldf.org/article/stopping-cruel-high-speed-pig-slaughter/.
  6. 6.0 6.1 Compassion Over Killing. “Hormel.” Accessed November 2, 2019. https://cok.net/investigations/hormel/.
  7. “Carbon Dioxide Stunning and Killing of Pigs .” Humane Slaughter Association, May 2007. https://www.hsa.org.uk/downloads/technical-notes/TN19-carbon-dioxide-pigs-HSA.pdf.
  8. “WORLD FIRST: So-Called ‘humane’ Pig Slaughter Filmed. If This Is the ‘Best’ – What Is the Worst?” Accessed November 2, 2019. http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/not-so-humane-slaughter/.
  9. Llonch, P, A Dalmau, P Rodríguez, X Manteca, and A Velarde. “Aversion to Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide Mixtures for Stunning Pigs.” Animal Welfare 21, no. 1 (February 1, 2012): 33–39. https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812799129475.
  10. Hay, M. “Long-Term Detrimental Effects of Tooth Clipping or Grinding in Piglets: A Histological Approach.” Animal Welfare 13 (2004). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Armelle_Prunier/publication/233501058_Long-term_detrimental_effects_of_tooth_clipping_or_grinding_in_piglets_A_histological_approach/links/5576797f08ae75363751ad32/Long-term-detrimental-effects-of-tooth-clipping-or-grinding-in-piglets-A-histological-approach.pdf.
  11. "Welfare Implications of Teeth Clipping, Tail Docking and Permanent Identification of Piglets." Accessed November 6, 2019. https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/Welfare-implications-of-practices-performed-on-piglets.aspx.
  12. Prunier, A. “A Review of the Welfare Consequences of Surgical Castration in Piglets and the Evaluation of Non-Surgical Methods.” Animal Welfare, no. 15 (2006): 277–89.
  13. Herskin, M. S., K. Thodberg, and H. E. Jensen. “Effects of Tail Docking and Docking Length on Neuroanatomical Changes in Healed Tail Tips of Pigs.” Animal 9, no. 4 (April 2015): 677–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114002857.
  14. Harley, S, La Boyle, Ne O’Connell, Sj More, Dl Teixeira, and A Hanlon. “Docking the Value of Pigmeat? Prevalence and Financial Implications of Welfare Lesions in Irish Slaughter Pigs.” Animal Welfare 23, no. 3 (August 1, 2014): 275–85. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.23.3.275.
  15. Torrey, S., N. Devillers, M. Lessard, C. Farmer, and T. Widowski. “Effect of Age on the Behavioral and Physiological Responses of Piglets to Tail Docking and Ear Notching1.” Journal of Animal Science 87, no. 5 (May 1, 2009): 1778–86. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1354.
  16. Brach, E.J., B.S. Scobie, and D.P. Raymond. “Hog Tattooing Techniques.” Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 41, no. 4 (December 1988): 339–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8634(88)90218-1.
  17. “Welfare Implications of Gestation Sow Housing.” Accessed November 1, 2019. https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/Welfare-Implications-of-Gestation-Sow-Housing.aspx.
  18. Cronin, G. M., P. R. Wiepkema, and J. M. van Ree. “Andorphins Implicated in Stereotypies of Tethred Sows.” Experientia 42, no. 2 (February 1986): 198–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01952467.
  19. “Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) on a Request from the Commission Related to Welfare of Weaners and Rearing Pigs: Effects of Different Space Allowances and Floor.” The EFSA Journal 268 (October 28, 2005): 1–19.
  20. Aland, Andres, and Thomas Banhazi, eds. Livestock Housing: Modern Management to Ensure Optimal Health and Welfare of Farm Animals. The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2013. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-771-4.
  21. Humane Society International. “Canada Bans Lifelong Confinement for Pigs in Controversial Gestation Crates,” March 6, 2014. https://www.hsi.org/news-media/canada-gestation-crates-ban-30614/.
  22. Fox, Michael. “Factory Farming.” The Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy, 1980. https://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=sturep.
  23. Štukelj, Marina, and Jan Plut. “A Review of African Swine Fever – Disease That Is Now a Big Concern in Europe.” Contemporary Agriculture 67, no. 2 (July 1, 2018): 110–18. https://doi.org/10.2478/contagri-2018-0016.
  24. Gale, Jason, Hannah Dormido, and Adrian Leung. “Why Eliminating African Swine Fever Could Take Decades.” Bloomberg.Com. Accessed November 2, 2019. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-eliminating-african-swine-fever/.
  25. Mercy, Ashley. “The Western Australian Pig Health Monitoring Scheme.” Journal of the Department of Agriculture, Western Australia 31, no. 3 (January 1, 1990). https://researchlibrary.agric.wa.gov.au/journal_agriculture4/vol31/iss3/7
  26. “Viva! Campaigns’ 2019 Investigation into Hogwood Pig Farm.” Text. Viva!, August 14, 2019. https://www.viva.org.uk/hogwood/2019.
  27. Fonseca, Carlos, António Alves da Silva, Joana Alves, José Vingada, and Amadeu M. V. M. Soares. “Reproductive Performance of Wild Boar Females in Portugal.” European Journal of Wildlife Research 57, no. 2 (April 2011): 363–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-010-0441-6.
  28. 28.0 28.1 28.2 Prunier, A., M. Heinonen, and H. Quesnel. “High Physiological Demands in Intensively Raised Pigs: Impact on Health and Welfare.” Animal 4, no. 6 (June 2010): 886–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173111000008X.
  29. Casas-Carrillo, E, A Prill-Adams, S G Price, A C Clutter, and B W Kirkpatrick. “Mapping Genomic Regions Associated with Growth Rate in Pigs.” Journal of Animal Science 75, no. 8 (1997): 2047. https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.7582047x.
  30. Broom, Donald. “THE ROLES OF INDUSTRY AND SCIENCE, INCLUDING GENETIC SELECTION, IN IMPROVING ANIMAL WELFARE.” Animal Science and Biotechnologies 42, no. 2 (2009): 532–46.
  31. National Hog Farmer. “Proper AI Techniques, Semen Handling,” October 15, 2007. https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/genetics-reproduction/artificial-insemination/proper-ai-techniques.
  32. Grandin, Temple. “Reduce Stress of Handling to Improve Productivity of Livestock.” Veterinary Medicine, June 1984.
  33. Ritter, M.J., M. Ellis, N.L. Berry, S.E. Curtis, L. Anil, E. Berg, M. Benjamin, et al. “Review:Transport Losses in Market Weight Pigs: I. A Review of Definitions, Incidence, and Economic Impact.” The Professional Animal Scientist 25, no. 4 (August 2009): 404–14. https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30735-X.
  34. 34.0 34.1 WalmartTorturesAnimals.com. “VIDEO: Pigs Punched and Beaten for Walmart.” Accessed November 4, 2019. http://www.walmarttorturesanimals.com/.
  35. Grandin, T. “The Welfare of Pigs during Transport and Slaughter.” Pig News and Information 24, no. 3 (2003): 83–90.
  36. Garcia, Arlene, Glenna Pirner, Guilherme Picinin, Matthew May, Kimberly Guay, Brittany Backus, Mhairi Sutherland, and John McGlone. “Effect of Provision of Feed and Water during Transport on the Welfare of Weaned Pigs.” Animals 5, no. 2 (June 4, 2015): 407–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani5020363.
  37. Bradshaw, R. H., R. F. Parrott, M. L. Forsling, J. A. Goode, D. M. Lloyd, R. G. Rodway, and D. M. Broom. “Stress and Travel Sickness in Pigs: Effects of Road Transport on Plasma Concentrations of Cortisol, Beta-Endorphin and Lysine Vasopressin.” Animal Science 63, no. 3 (December 1996): 507–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135772980001540X.
  38. “NCDA&CS Moving into Communities to Assess Damage & Assist in Recovery.” Accessed October 25, 2019. http://www.ncagr.gov/paffairs/release/2018/NCDACSmovingintocommunitiestoassessdamageassistinrecovery.htm.
  39. “Pork’s Dirty Secret: The Nation’s Top Hog Producer Is Also One of America’s Worst Polluters - Global ResearchGlobal Research.” Accessed November 2, 2019. https://www.globalresearch.ca/pork-s-dirty-secret-the-nation-s-top-hog-producer-is-also-one-of-america-s-worst-polluters/13479?print=1.
  40. Consumer Reports “Labels.” Greener Choices (blog). Accessed July 6, 2019. http://greenerchoices.org/labels/
  41. Global Animal Partnership.” Open Philanthropy Project, March 26, 2016. https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/us-policy/farm-animal-welfare/global-animal-partnership-general-support
  42. Consumer Reports “Labels.” Greener Choices (blog). Accessed July 6, 2019. http://greenerchoices.org/labels/
  43. Global Animal Partnership.” Open Philanthropy Project, March 26, 2016. https://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/us-policy/farm-animal-welfare/global-animal-partnership-general-support
  44. Grandin, Temple. “Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines.” North American Meat Association, September 2019. https://www.animalhandling.org/sites/default/files/forms/Animal_Handling_Guide091719.pdf.
  45. 45.0 45.1 45.2 45.3 45.4 “Animal Welfare Standards for Swine.” American Humane Farm Program, April 2017.
  46. 46.0 46.1 “Global Animal Partnership’s 5‐Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards for Pigs.” Global Animal Partnership, July 9, 2018. https://globalanimalpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/5-Step-Animal-Welfare-Rating-Standards-for-Pigs-v2.3-20180712.pdf.
  47. Global Animal Partnership. “G.A.P. Certification.” Accessed November 2, 2019. https://globalanimalpartnership.org/certification/.
  48. 48.0 48.1 48.2 “Humane Farm Animal Care Standards - Pigs.” Humane Farm Animal Care, January 2018. https://certifiedhumane.org/wp-content/uploads/Std19.Pigs_.2H-1.pdf.
  49. Certified Humane. “Program/Policy Manual in English.” Accessed November 2, 2019. https://certifiedhumane.org/how-we-work/program-policy-manual/.
  50. 50.0 50.1 50.2 “Animal Welfare Approved Standards for Pigs.” A Greener World, n.d. https://agreenerworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/AWA-Pig-Standards-2018-v3.pdf.
  51. A Greener World. “Certified Animal Welfare Approved by AGW.” Accessed November 2, 2019. https://agreenerworld.org/certifications/animal-welfare-approved/.
  52. “AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition.” American Veterinary Medical Association, 2013. https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdf.
  53. “American Humane CertifiedTM.” Accessed November 2, 2019. http://humaneheartland.org/our-farm-programs/american-humane-certified.
  54. 54.0 54.1 54.2 54.3 54.4 54.5 Marino, Lori, and Christina M. Colvin. “Thinking Pigs: A Comparative Review of Cognition, Emotion, and Personality in Sus Domesticus.” International Journal of Comparative Psychology, no. 28 (2015). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8sx4s79c.
  55. Root-Bernstein, Meredith, Trupthi Narayan, Lucile Cornier, and Aude Bourgeois. “Context-Specific Tool Use by Sus Cebifrons.” Mammalian Biology 98 (September 2019): 102–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2019.08.003.
  56. Cambridge Daily News, “New Slant on Chump Chops,” Cambridge Daily News, 29 Mar. 2002. Quoted in Curado, Manuel, and Steven S Gouveia. Automata’s Inner Movie: Science and Philosophy of Mind, 2019, 301.
  57. 57.0 57.1 57.2 57.3 57.4 57.5 Marks, Robbin. “CESSPOOLS OF SHAME: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health.” Natural Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network, July 2001. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cesspools.pdf.
  58. Steeves, Michael. “The EPA’s Proposed CAFO Regulations Fall Short of Ensuring the Integrity of Our Nation’s Waters.” JOURNAL OF LAND, RESOURCES, AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 22 (2002). https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/bibarticles/steeves_cafo.pdf.
  59. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Pig and Chicken Supply Chains: A Global Life Cycle Assessment.” FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, 2013. http://www.fao.org/3/i3460e/i3460e.pdf.
  60. Steinfeld, Henning, Pierre Gerber, T. D. Wassenaar, Vincent Castel, Mauricio Rosales M. , and Cees de Haan. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006.
  61. Dórea, José G. “Fish Meal in Animal Feed and Human Exposure to Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic Substances.” Journal of Food Protection 69, no. 11 (November 2006): 2777–85. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-69.11.2777.
  62. Foer, Jonathan Safran. Eating Animals. 1st Back Bay pbk. ed. New York: Back Bay Books/Little, Brown and Co, 2010, 151.
  63. Hu, Frank B., Meir J. Stampfer, JoAnn E. Manson, Eric Rimm, Graham A. Colditz, Bernard A. Rosner, Charles H. Hennekens, and Walter C. Willett. “Dietary Fat Intake and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Women.” New England Journal of Medicine 337, no. 21 (November 20, 1997): 1491–99. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199711203372102.
  64. Kannel, William B. “Serum Cholesterol, Lipoproteins, and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: The Framingham Study.” Annals of Internal Medicine 74, no. 1 (January 1, 1971): 1. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-74-1-1.
  65. A, Daphne L. van der, Petra H. M. Peeters, Diederick E. Grobbee, Joannes J. M. Marx, and Yvonne T. van der Schouw. “Dietary Haem Iron and Coronary Heart Disease in Women.” European Heart Journal 26, no. 3 (February 2005): 257–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi027.
  66. Tzonou, A., P. Lagiou, A. Trichopoulou, V. Tsoutsos, and D. Trichopoulos. “Dietary Iron and Coronary Heart Disease Risk: A Study from Greece.” American Journal of Epidemiology 147, no. 2 (January 15, 1998): 161–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009429.
  67. Kaluza, Joanna, Alicja Wolk, and Susanna C. Larsson. “Red Meat Consumption and Risk of Stroke: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies.” Stroke 43, no. 10 (October 2012): 2556–60. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.663286.
  68. Pietinen, Pirjo, Erkki Vartiainen, Ritva Seppänen, Antti Aro, and Pekka Puska. “Changes in Diet in Finland from 1972 to 1992: Impact on Coronary Heart Disease Risk.” Preventive Medicine 25, no. 3 (May 1996): 243–50. https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1996.0053.
  69. 69.0 69.1 Bouvard, Véronique, Dana Loomis, Kathryn Z. Guyton, Yann Grosse, Fatiha El Ghissassi, Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa, Neela Guha, Heidi Mattock, and Kurt Straif. “Carcinogenicity of Consumption of Red and Processed Meat.” The Lancet Oncology 16, no. 16 (December 1, 2015): 1599–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1.
  70. “Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.” Accessed November 1, 2019. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html.
  71. Pan, An, Qi Sun, Adam M Bernstein, Matthias B Schulze, JoAnn E Manson, Walter C Willett, and Frank B Hu. “Red Meat Consumption and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: 3 Cohorts of US Adults and an Updated Meta-Analysis.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 94, no. 4 (October 1, 2011): 1088–96. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.111.018978.
  72. Ochoa, MD, Sofia Pineda. “7 Ways Animal Protein Is Damaging Your Health.” Forks Over Knives, December 31, 2016. Accessed October 22, 2019. https://www.forksoverknives.com/animalproteindangers/.
  73. Edwards, Bob, and Anthony Ladd. “Race, Poverty, Political Capacity and the Spatial Distribution of Swine Waste in North Carolina, 1982-1997.” The North Carolina Geographer 9 (2001): 51–70.
  74. 74.0 74.1 Wing Steve. “Social Responsibility and Research Ethics in Community-Driven Studies of Industrialized Hog Production.” Environmental Health Perspectives 110, no. 5 (May 1, 2002): 437–44. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.02110437.
  75. Wing, Steve, Rachel Avery Horton, and Kathryn M. Rose. “Air Pollution from Industrial Swine Operations and Blood Pressure of Neighboring Residents.” Environmental Health Perspectives 121, no. 1 (January 2013): 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1205109.
  76. Wing, Steve, Rachel Avery Horton, Stephen W. Marshall, Kendall Thu, Mansoureh Tajik, Leah Schinasi, and Susan S. Schiffman. “Air Pollution and Odor in Communities Near Industrial Swine Operations.” Environmental Health Perspectives 116, no. 10 (October 2008): 1362–68. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11250.
  77. Dosman, J. A., J. A. Lawson, S. P. Kirychuk, Y. Cormier, J. Biem, and N. Koehncke. “Occupational Asthma in Newly Employed Workers in Intensive Swine Confinement Facilities.” The European Respiratory Journal 24, no. 4 (October 2004): 698–702. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.04.00112102.
  78. 78.0 78.1 “Blood, Sweat, and Fear | Workers’ Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry Plants.” Human Rights Watch, January 24, 2005. https://www.hrw.org/report/2005/01/24/blood-sweat-and-fear/workers-rights-us-meat-and-poultry-plants.
  79. Dillard, Jennifer. “A Slaughterhouse Nightmare:  Psychological Harm Suffered by Slaughterhouse Employees  and the Possibility of Redress through Legal Reform .” Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy XV, no. 2 (Summer 2008).
  80. Fitzgerald, Amy J., Linda Kalof, and Thomas Dietz. “Slaughterhouses and Increased Crime Rates: An Empirical Analysis of the Spillover From ‘The Jungle’ Into the Surrounding Community.” Organization & Environment 22, no. 2 (June 2009): 158–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026609338164.

Meta

This article was originally authored by Bethany Chester with contributions by Greg Fuller . The contents may have been edited since that time by others.