Brazil is the fourth-largest pig producer in the world, and pig product production and consumption have been increasing there since 2021. In 2020, the country established guidelines to improve animal welfare on pig farms, including bans on ear notching, teeth clipping, and gestation crates for mother pigs. However, the regulations have a long lead time, with gestation crate bans not taking effect until 2045.

To hold Brazilian companies accountable on their animal welfare progress, Alianima releases an annual “Pig Watch” report. For this edition, they emailed questionnaires to 29 Brazilian companies (including seven pig product suppliers and 22 retailers) that had publicly committed to abolishing gestation crates by the first half of 2023. All companies were given a month to respond. 

The report covers four topics: response rates, gestation housing, piglet handling, and antimicrobial use.

Response Rates

Response rates are important because they show companies’ willingness to participate in a transparent monitoring process. The overall response rate for this report was 55% (16 out of 29 companies), which was 15% less than 2022. 71% of suppliers and 50% of retailers who were contacted ended up responding to the questionnaire. 

According to Alianima, the number of companies invited to complete questionnaires tripled from 2020–2023, suggesting that more companies are making public commitments to ban gestation crates. However, the fact that almost half of these companies failed to respond to the 2023 questionnaire demonstrates that there’s a widespread lack of transparency about whether companies actually fulfill their animal welfare commitments.

Gestation Housing

The report suggests that there’s been some progress toward housing mother pigs in group pens during gestation. For example, all five suppliers that responded to the questionnaire substantially decreased their use of gestation crates from 2020–2023. Among those suppliers, the percentage of mother pigs housed in group pens varied from 92% to 46%. One ongoing problem is that all of the suppliers used gestation crates for at least seven days at the beginning of a mother pig’s gestation.

Suppliers reported many difficulties in transitioning from gestation crates to group pens including financing, pricing of the end product, facility planning, logistics, employee training, and technical support.

For retailers, one challenge was knowing whether pig products came from farms without gestation crates: over one-third of retailers reported that their suppliers didn’t provide information about how they housed pigs. 

Other difficulties for retailers included high product costs from suppliers and lack of supplier availability. Nevertheless, the report suggests that eight out of 11 retailers obtained at least 50% of their pig product supply from farms without gestation crates, while two retailers obtained 100% of their supply from crate-free farms.

Piglet Handling

The report covers four harmful piglet handling practices — castrating male pigs without anesthesia, grinding their teeth (so they don’t bite their mother’s teats), ear notching, and tail docking. 

None of these practices were banned by all five suppliers who responded to the survey, although four companies had banned castration without anesthesia, four had ended teeth grinding, one had ended ear notching, and three companies intended to ban tail docking (although none had followed through).

In addition, only one retailer said it requires its suppliers to ban all four of these harmful piglet handling practices. Seven retailers do not require their suppliers to ban any of them. The report doesn’t indicate if piglet handling has changed from previous years. However, it suggests the need to improve piglet welfare and retailers’ understanding of piglet handling.

Antimicrobial Use

The report found that suppliers used antimicrobials in non-therapeutic ways that could contribute to the growing global problem of antimicrobial resistance and “superbugs.” However, three suppliers had banned the use of antimicrobials to promote growth, while one company had banned the practice of treating all disease-free pigs at a  high risk of infection (e.g., because they live in crowded conditions).

Meanwhile, four suppliers intended to end the practice of treating disease-free pigs who have been close to other animals showing signs of disease. However, none had stopped doing it at the time of the report. 

On the promising side, all supplier companies reported that they were using antimicrobial alternatives such as essential oils, plant extracts, minerals, and vitamin complexes. However, only 36% of retailers required their suppliers to end the non-therapeutic use of antimicrobials.

Advocacy Takeaways

The report shows that animal welfare improvements are happening for some companies in Brazil’s pig farming industry, but it’s slow and mixed with challenges. While more companies appear to have made public commitments to pig welfare, the progress varies. What’s more, Alianima could only evaluate the companies who responded to their questionnaires, meaning that it’s unclear how the other suppliers and retailers are faring. In other words, transparency in the sector remains an ongoing issue. 

Animal advocates can help suppliers find practical solutions to some of the challenges they face when switching from gestation crates to group or communal housing. Similarly, they can educate retailers about the importance of working with suppliers who prioritize animal welfare and prohibit reckless antimicrobial use and cruel piglet handling practices. Finally, advocates should continue to pressure Brazilian companies to be transparent about their promises, perhaps by publicizing their results to Brazilian consumers and encouraging these consumers to support companies that take animal welfare seriously.