This study speculates on forthcoming global trends in pig farming, beginning from the position that as human population grows, so too will “pork” production. The author considers issues of sustainability, defined broadly in terms of environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, and animal welfare. Looking at three animal welfare issues in particular — “indoor” vs. “outdoor” production, gestation crating vs. pens, and male pig castration, the author outlines what he believes to be important ethical and economic considerations within each. The author takes exponential human population growth as a given, and a clear indicator that our “need” for pork will continue to rise, and always from the bottom line that “if a farming system is not economically competitive, it cannot survive.”

As human population worldwide continues to grow, many take it as a given that animal production necessarily grows with it. In the case of pig farming (“pork production”), it seems almost inevitable: by weight, pig meat is the most highly consumed meat on the planet, account for about 37% of meat consumption worldwide, and as countries develop, pig consumption tends to increase as well. Looking at the growing demand for pork in China in particular, the author estimates that pig farming in coming decades made increase up to 100%, from about 1 billion pigs raised per year, to about 2 billion. With that context as a backdrop, the author considers what “sustainability” means for pig farming in the coming years, but keeping economic sustainability as a primary focus because “if a farming system is not economically competitive, it cannot survive.”

With the ideas of increasing production and economic efficiency as baselines, the author then considers three animal welfare practices and attempts to place them in an “ethical matrix for sustainability.” Considering issues of “indoor (industrialized) vs. outdoor (grazing) production,” “gestation crating vs. pens,” and “male pig castration,” the author places each practice in his ethical sustainability matrix and evaluates what might be sustainable solutions for each issue. It’s an interesting exercise, though the author rates all of the “industrial” practices as neutral, but gives all of the practices tilted towards animal welfare a positive rating for ethics, and negative ratings for economics. Since the author’s baselines are about efficiency and economics, animal welfare concerns are inevitably placed third, and the author consistently concludes that “economics and perceived welfare are at cross purposes.”

The final section of the article (“Conflicts of Interest”) is particularly illuminating. Though it states that “no agency or body funded the writing of this paper, nor did they review any draft,” it also notes that “the author has many perceived conflicts of interest with the pig industry.” This includes receiving past research funding and consulting fees from “National Pork Board (USA primary commercial pig organization), pig farms, pork processors, retail food companies, agricultural manufacturing companies and pharmaceutical companies that sell products for pig production and pork processing.”

Original Abstract:
Among land animals, more pork is eaten in the world than any other meat. The earth holds about one billion pigs who deliver over 100 mmt of pork to people for consumption. Systems of pork production changed from a forest-based to pasture-based to dirt lots and finally into specially-designed buildings. The world pork industry is variable and complex not just in production methods but in economics and cultural value. A systematic analysis of pork industry sustainability was performed. Sustainable production methods are considered at three levels using three examples in this paper: production system, penning system and for a production practice. A sustainability matrix was provided for each example. In a comparison of indoor vs. outdoor systems, the food safety/zoonoses concerns make current outdoor systems unsustainable. The choice of keeping pregnant sows in group pens or individual crates is complex in that the outcome of a sustainability assessment leads to the conclusion that group penning is more sustainable in the EU and certain USA states, but the individual crate is currently more sustainable in other USA states, Asia and Latin America. A comparison of conventional physical castration with immunological castration shows that the less-common immunological castration method is more sustainable (for a number of reasons). This paper provides a method to assess the sustainability of production systems and practices that take into account the best available science, human perception and culture, animal welfare, the environment, food safety, worker health and safety, and economics (including the cost of production and solving world hunger). This tool can be used in countries and regions where the table values of a sustainability matrix change based on local conditions. The sustainability matrix can be used to assess current systems and predict improved systems of the future.