I. Introduction
"Half the dogs in America will receive Christmas presents this year, yet few of us ever pause to consider the life of the pig-an animal easily as intelligent as a dog-that becomes the
Christmas ham." (Pollan 2006) From the moment a pig is born, its days are precisely numbered.
It will lead a short life where it will grow to an acceptable market size and then be deemed fit for slaughter. This chapter will focus on the journey of a pig from conception to distribution as pork in the food industry.
We first focus on the different stages of the life of a pig raised merely for slaughter in the food industry. It will detail the life of a pig beginning with the birth of a piglet in farrowing rooms, after which they are transferred to a nursery and ultimately sent to Confined Animal
Feeding Operations. There will be considerable data on the conditions endured by pigs in
CAFOs, those who own and run pig CAFOs and the need for regulation of these factory farms.
Pigs are fed a mixture that is primarily corn, but also includes other grains, soybean products, fats and oils, and animal by-products. Along with the feed and water, pigs are also given a variety of antibiotics, which serve as therapeutics, prophylactics, and growth promoters. These pigs, located primarily in the Midwest (near Iowa) or North Carolina, are then shipped to slaughterhouses. We detail the killing and the preservation of the pigs inside industrial plants, and the carcasses are sent to a pork processing plant. There, the options are divided into meat cutting and further processing. Processing distinguishes fresh meat products from those that have been physically altered and/or combined with additives. There are a variety of products from both categories that are designed to fit every appetite. These products are then shipped by truck to either the processor’s own distribution plants or a third-party distributer who bought the goods.
Then, the distribution plants send it off to New York with more trucks, which can be owned, leased, or contracted. There, it is finally placed on the shelves of our supermarkets and grocery stores.
II. Literature Review
A. Life of a Pig in a CAFO
1. Definition of a hog Confined Animal Feeding Operation
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a Confined Animal Feeding
Operation (CAFO), also commonly known as a factory farm, is a system of farming that involves the confinement of over 1,000 animal units within a small space. This livestock operation does not maintain its own crops or animal feed. (Starmer and Wise 2007)
Hog CAFOs are factory farms that are divided into two types depending on the size and weight of the hogs upon admittance. The cutoff point between the two types of hog CAFOs is 55 pounds. These two types of CAFOs are subdivided into three separate operations that differ based upon their size: Small, Medium, and Large CAFOs. In factory farms with swine weighing over 55 pounds, Small CAFOs consist of less than 750 hogs, Medium CAFOs include between
750 to 2,499 hogs, and Large CAFOs comprise of 2,500 or more hogs. Furthermore, in factory farms with swine weighing below 55 pounds, Small CAFOs consist of less than 3,000 hogs,
Medium CAFOs include between 3,000 to 9,999 hogs, and Large CAFOs comprise of 10,000 or more hogs. A small factory farm with less than 750 hogs may be classified as a CAFO trusting that it emits a considerable amount of pollutants into the air. (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency 2009)
2. Location of hog CAFOs within the United States
Hog CAFOs are ubiquitous in the United States. They are situated in 43 states with the exception of Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and
Vermont. The five leading hog-producing states are Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Illinois, and Indiana. Iowa is the chief hog-producing state, sustaining 3,876 hog CAFOs with a total number of 13,263,736 hogs. (Food & Water Watch 2007) This state has experienced the greatest increase in hogs per farm in comparison to the entire nation, with a hog inventory double the national average. (Flora 2007) North Carolina is the second leading hog-producing state, sustaining 1,404 hog CAFOs with a total number of 9,803,370 hogs. Interestingly, there are more pigs in North Carolina than there are people. (Tietz 2006) Although Minnesota contains more hog CAFOs than North
Carolina (1,624), it nurtures a lower number of hogs (5,534,015). Illinois, the fourth leading hog- producing state, maintains 970 hog CAFOs with a total number of 3,352,399 hogs. Moreover,
Indiana is the fifth leading hog-producing state, sustaining 788 hog CAFOs with a total number of 2,820,959 hogs. (Food & Water Watch 2007)
In New York, most CAFOs are located in the central and western parts of the state. There are some larger operations that can be found much further south, but there are no CAFOs in the southern areas surrounding New York City and its immediate suburbs. This map shows the amount of food consumed by New Yorkers that comes from right here in our own state. It is not only a big concern because we eat the pork produced here but also because these operations affect our economy and environment.
3. Owners of hog CAFOs
The pork industry is managed by a select group of corporations. There are currently four firms that govern 66 percent of the entire U.S. hog market. (Food & Water Watch 2008) These four firms include Smithfield, IBP, ConAgra, and Cargill (Excel). (Heffernan 1998) Smithfield Foods is the leading pork producer and processor, both nationally and internationally. In 1997, it was the seventh-largest pork producer in the United States, rising to the top by 1999, an exceptional growth of more than 1000 percent. (Tietz 2006) While in possession of more hogs than the following eight largest U.S. pork producers combined, Smithfield slaughters 27 million hogs yearly. (Food & Water Watch 2008)
The extent of Smithfield Foods influence is an ideal example of the notable structural change in animal production - vertical integration. Vertical integration in the pork industry refers to the consolidation of the control of all aspects of production and processing, “from breeding to slaughter and processing.” (Weeks 2007) Accordingly, Smithfield directs the lives of its hogs from birth to processing, confining them within hog CAFOs.
Hog CAFOs are owned by or under contract by large pork producing and processing firms. The farmers that work on these factory farms run the CAFOs from within. The corporations supply them with all the essentials in maintaining a successful farm, such as the animals, feed, and medications. The farmers are paid a specific sum for each animal that reaches market age. (Weeks 2007)
4. Age & Weight of pigs before entering a CAFO & after leaving a CAFO
Although a pig raised in a CAFO for the food industry has a very short life, there are still several stages in their development important for their health and production. In the pork industry, some female pigs are chosen to act as breeders. Their lives revolve around their pregnancies. After delivery, the sow is then impregnated again through artificial insemination. It will give birth to about four or five more litters until it is slaughtered, weighing around 400 to
460 pounds by that time. (Spellman and Whiting 2007)
A piglet is in gestation for three months, three weeks and three days before they are
“farrowed”, which is the term used for piglet birth. This farrowing occurs in a special room in the CAFO and typically about eight to twelve piglets are born at a time. Some of these rooms restrict the mother’s movement to reduce chances of her crushing her piglets and they spend most of their first few days in “creep spaces” surrounding the sow. When piglets are born, they have eight very sharp teeth, which are cut so that they will not injure the mother when nursing.
Also, their tails are clipped to prevent them from biting and possibly infecting themselves. At birth most piglets weigh about three pounds and they spend about two to three weeks weaning.
After being weaned, piglets are brought to a nursery room until they are about six to ten weeks old. In these nurseries the best idea is to keep the piglets warm and comfortable. The best
CAFOs have well heated rooms that have elevated floors to prevent drafts and all aim to keep the piglets dry and warm. It is important that the temperature in a nursery is high, usually around eighty-five degrees, because if a piglet is cold they become sick easily and it raises the chance of early death significantly. As they grow stronger, this high temperature is slowly reduced to about seventy degrees. Some nurseries will be simply metal, which is often uncomfortable or painful for the piglet. (USDA 2009)
After reaching a weight of 50 to 60 pounds, the pigs that are not selected for breeding are sent to hog CAFOs. They enter the CAFOs at about 8 to 10 weeks of age. They remain under confinement for approximately 15 to 18 weeks until they reach a market weight that ranges between 240 to 280 pounds. Hogs are then ready to be slaughtered, having lived merely 26 weeks. (Spellman and Whiting 2007)
5. Conditions within a hog CAFO
When hogs are sent to CAFOs, they never see sunlight again. Instead, they are cramped within rows of wall-to-wall pens of large warehouse-like buildings. They have no room to turn around, remaining immobile. They sleep on metal or concrete floors, never being exposed to straw. They stand on metal planks that allow for the passage of excrements into contaminated tanks under the pens. Typically, forty 250-pound male hogs inhabit a pen the size of a studio apartment where they constantly stomp on each other. (Tietz 2006) “In factory farms, they [hogs] are forced to live in their own feces, urine and vomit and even amid the corpses of other pigs.”
(Farm Sanctuary 2009)
Generally, the temperature within hog CAFOs is over 90 degrees. The air is infested with the dust and toxic gases emitted by the manure of the hogs. Massive exhaust fans are necessary for ventilation. The moment an exhaust fan stops working, hundreds of pigs begin to die. (Tietz
2006) The exposure to this lethal air quality, the immobility, and the intense confinement greatly weaken the immune system of hogs. Consequently, hogs must take antibiotics and other drugs daily in order to survive the conditions within the CAFOs. (Cantrell, Perry and Sturtz 2001)
Since piglets are taken from their mother’s at a very early age, they are left with the desires to suck and chew. Within the factory farms, some pigs satisfy these desires by biting off the tail of another pig in front of them. As a result, the tail of each pig is cut off through the use of a pair of pliers and no anesthetic. (Pollan 2006)
B. The Stages of Growth and Inputs Received
Pigs in the industrial farming system go through three main stages, and receive different amounts and types of provisions in each stage. The first stage is the newborn or nursing stage, which lasts from the birth of the piglets until they are weaned off of their mother’s milk. After weaning, the pigs are referred to as starter pigs or nursery pigs until they reach a weight of about fifty to sixty pounds (ERS, 2009). Finally, the pigs enter the grower-finisher stage, which lasts from when they are six to ten weeks old until they are sent to market at five to six months old
(EPA, 2009). Sows and boars are put on different diets than the rest of the grow-finish pigs
(Hogberg et al., 1998). There are three main inputs that every pig in the industrial farming system receives. The first is feed. The feed provides the nutrients that the pigs need to grow at the desired rate. The amount and type of ingredients in the feed differ in each stage of the production process, and often vary depending on the living conditions and personal requirements of the pigs. The second input is water. Water makes up the largest portion of the pig’s body, and commonly contains a variety of minerals, including iron, sulfate, chloride, and magnesium. The last input given to the pigs is antibiotics. As with the feed, the types and amounts of antibiotics given to the pigs vary depending on their condition (Hogberg et al., 1998). The antibiotics are used as growth promoters, as therapeutics, and as prophylactics. They can be distributed via injection, in the feed, in the water, or orally (USDA, 2006).
1. Piglets
Newborn piglets grow very quickly. During the nursing stage, piglets usually double their body weight every week (Hogberg et al., 1998). Also, studies have shown that “[piglets] that grow well when quite young generally gain more weight per pound of feed consumed after weaning and have less carcass fat when they reach market weight”[5]. Thus, it is important that they receive adequate nutrition.
The piglets receive the majority of their inputs through the sow’s milk, which contains a variety of nutrients needed by the piglets, including protein, lactose, calcium, and phosphorus. Piglets are given supplements for everything that the sow’s milk does not provide enough of. Water, which makes up 90% of the piglet’s body, must be supplied separately in order to keep the piglets hydrated. Piglets are also given antibiotics and additional nutrients via injections.
Sometimes, the sows do not provide enough milk. In those cases, the piglets are provided with creep feed (Hogberg et al., 1998). Creep feed is supplemental solid feed that is provided to nursing animals in order to ensure that the animals are gaining enough nutrition and weight.
Creep feeds vary, but they are usually grain-based (Lusby, 1914).
2. Nursery or Starter Pigs
After they are weaned, piglets are moved to “nurseries”, where they stay until they are six to ten weeks old (EPA, 2009). Starter pigs can be separated into four stages: Early-Wean, Starter
1, Starter 2, and Starter 3. The stage that the pigs are in is determined by the weight of the pig.
With each progressive stage, the pigs are given more feed and gain more weight daily (Hogberg et al., 1998).
The feed given to the pigs is mostly grain-based. However, there are a variety of other ingredients that can be included in the diet. Starter pig feed often includes fish meal and spray- dried plasma protein derived from swine or cattle blood. The pigs also receive a variety of supplemental nutrients, which the feed does not contain enough of. The nutrients include protein, various amino acids, vitamins and minerals (Hogberg et al., 1998). Along with their food and water, Starter pigs are also given antibiotics. The antibiotics serve as therapeutics and as growth promoters (USDA, 2006).
3. Grow-Finish Pigs
The grow-finish stage lasts from when the pigs leave the starter stage until they are slaughtered. Grow-finish pigs are separated by sex. Barrows generally eat more and gain more weight daily. It is also recommended that gilts be given more supplementary proteins and amino acids. As with the starter pig diet, the grow-finish diet does not change. Rather, the pigs eat more as they get bigger (Hogberg et al., 1998).
However, the grow-finish feed is more varied than the starter feed. There is a wide range of ingredients legally used in animal feed. Some ingredients are plant-based or animal-based.
Others include vitamins, minerals, salts and acids, fats and oils, restaurant food waste, contaminated food, herbal byproducts, metal compounds, antibiotics, byproducts of drug manufacture, and plastics (Sapkota, 2007). Grow-finish pigs receive the most antibiotics (USDA,
2006).
Sows are gilts that were taken out from the grow-finish herd in order to be bred. Sows are given feed with extra nutrients in order to pass the nutrients on to the piglets. They are often injected with extra vitamins and minerals in order to give the piglets a head start (Hogberg et al., 1998). Boars are barrows that were not neutered. Mature boars are the largest and heaviest pigs in the industrial farming system. They receive the least amount of antibiotics (USDA, 2006).
C. The Slaughtering Process
Smithfield Foods, the world's largest producer and processor of pork, is also a leader in turkey production. They produce more than “50 brands of pork and turkey products and more than 200 gourmet foods and they employ more than 52,400 individuals globally, with revenues exceeding $12 billion in fiscal 2009.” (Morell 2009)
Smithfield Foods reports to “expect the Pork Group restructuring plan to yield pretax cost savings, after applicable restructuring expenses, of approximately $55 million in fiscal 2010 and
$125 million in fiscal 2011.” (Morell 2009) The company goes on to report “pretax margins on packaged meats expanded to $0.11 a pound, a 34 percent increase compared with a year ago. In addition, we are estimating $80 million, or approximately $0.02 a pound, in incremental improvement in packaged meats due to the restructuring plan,” (Morell 2009) which shows growth for the company. It can be concluded that the swine market is growing by observing their growth globally.
In one journal article we found, the slaughtering process was incorporated:
“Slaughter plant and process samples were drawn from a plant processing approximately
1000 locally sourced pigs per day. Animals were held in lairage, stunned using carbon dioxide, transferred into the ‘wet’ room, and immediately exsanguinated by severing of the carotid arteries and jugular vein. Exsanguinated animals were scalded for approximately 8 min using a linear ‘scald tank’ (61 F 1 jC). Scalded carcasses were dehaired using a rotating drum with scrapers that flailed the carcass surface, dislodging hair and skin debris. Dehaired carcasses were secured to an overhead conveyor rail by insertion of a gambrel hook into the hind leg tendons. Carcasses were then passed through a singer operating at approximately 1200 jC for 15 s. Singed carcasses were polished by passage through a series of horizontal and vertical flails in a process that lasted approximately 5 min. Polished carcasses were moved into a separate evisceration area. Carcasses were ‘debunged’ by cutting around the rectum with a knife, which had been immersed in water heated to 82 jC before use. The detached rectum was sealed with a plastic bag to prevent fecal contamination of carcasses during sub- sequent processing.
The belly was opened, and the diaphragm, heart, lungs, trachea, and the digestive tract, were removed. Carcasses were manually split along the midline, from the hind to the fore using a splitting saw, the heads were removed, and the spinal cord excised. Carcasses were then trimmed, weighed and graded, before spray washing for approximately 10 s with cold potable water containing between 0.8 and 1.2 ppm chlorine (to remove bone dust and blood clots). Washed carcasses were chilled to between 2 and 4 jC overnight.” (Borch 1996)
D. Meat Processing System
The pork industry can be differentiated into three categories, slaughtering, meat cutting and further processing (Hyfoma 2009). During the slaughtering process, each hog is beheaded; split down the spine into two halves, and then each side is cut into three pieces, the fore-end, middle and hind leg. Each piece is cut further to separate unnecessary fat and organs, thereafter the distinction between fresh meat and processed meat is made (Hyfoma 2009). Fresh meat is the meat that has only been chilled or frozen upon its separation from the pig, whereas processed meat is meat that has been combined with additives and or that has lost the structural composition of fresh meat (Bridgend County Borough Council Directorate of Environmental and
Planning Services 2007). Approximately 70% of each carcass is sold as processed meat, generally in the form of bacon, ham, and sausage; the remainder: the shoulders, ribs, hocks and loin, are sold as fresh meat (Johnson and Geisler 2009). Fresh meat is refrigerated for distribution or is combined with other food.
In addition to the primary purpose of processing, preservation, it is also used to engineer specific tastes and characteristics in meat. The most typical forms of taste-altering meat preservation are: fermentation, smoking, and curing. Structurally altered processed meat can be categorized as coarse-ground products and muscle products; the latter keeps the original tissues intact in the manufactured goods (Hyfoma 2009). Fermentation, seen in coarse-ground products such as sausage, lowers the pH of the processed meat below the tolerable levels for many pathogens. Fermentation is accomplished through the addition of specific harmless acid producing bacteria (Lotha, Rogers, et al. 2009). The meat smoking process, seen more commonly in muscle products (though also in some coarse-ground products) uses the chemicals found in wood smoke, namely formaldehyde and certain alcohols, to achieve a bacteriostatic effect. The smoke and heat also serve to dry the meat, further preventing the growth of harmful bacteria. The most common smoked products are hams and bacon bellies, however, artificial smoking, the process of coating the surfaces of the meat with the aforementioned chemicals without smoke, shortens the production time and enables almost any product to achieve a
“smoked” effect (Albert and Anderson 2009). Curing, the oldest food preservation technique, involves the addition of a pickling agent, generally a mixture of powerful ionic compounds such as Sodium Nitrate, Sodium Nitrite, and Sodium Chloride. The salt mixtures can be added by hand, as in dry curing, or the product can be submerged in a mixture, as in brine curing. Each form of curing requires two to four days of exposure per pound of meat product (Bolzon and
Bosco 2009). In commercial curing of cooked meat, multi-needle injectors are used to spread the additives throughout the meat, which is then spun and massaged in a refrigerated vacuum to ensure a standardized spread. Even at the commercial level, dry curing is required for particular products such as uncooked ham, bacon and Capicola or coppa, a cold cut similar to Prosciutto
(Hyfoma 2009).
Two characteristic-altering processing techniques widely used today are the emulsifying process and the grinding process. The emulsifying process, necessary for sausage, is the mixing of fat particles with water and proteins to form a uniform matrix that can be added to foods. The goal of grinding is to obtain a uniform chemical composition of meat. This can be seen in coarse- ground products such as smoked or dry sausage, as well as other products that have had their parts reduced in size to be restructured into different physical forms (Hyfoma 2009).
Fresh meat is divided further into four standard cuts, known as the primal cuts, prior to retail. These cuts are the shoulder, loin, side and leg (USDA 2009). From these standardized pieces, almost all popular retail cuts and products of pork are made. Pork is commonly sold in the form of chops and roasts. Pork chops are small slices of meat, generally including a portion of a bone, taken from various areas of a pig. Pork roasts are various regions of pork separated with the intention of preparing by exposure to heat and or fire (Oxford English Dictionary 1989).
Both butchers as well as commercial agricultural corporations reduce the primal cuts into a wide- range of portions and products meant for retail.
E. The Distributers There are a number of different companies that distribute pork from the processing plants to New York City. The food distribution industry is full of these pork distributors: some who only pack pork, some who pack many different types of food. This section will observe the different distributers that make up the industry and how they affect the process as a whole.
Food distributers that specialize in only packing and shipping are separated into three types: broadline, product specialists, and market specialists. Broadline distributors sell different products to various customers, product specialists sell limited amount of products, and market specialists sell to a particular type of customer. Food distributers often only distribute regionally, although some may receive products at a national level. Regional warehouses house the products, which are delivered to clients daily by a fleet of trucks that could be owned, leased, or contracted by the distributer, manufacturer, or retailer (Hoover’s 2009).
Many groceries and supermarkets are also expanding into the distribution business. These retailers are often huge, vertically integrated companies. Vertical integration is the acquisition of parts along a process, therefore controlling the “assembly line” of a process. These vertically integrated giants can bypass the contracting of a third-party distributer, and instead distribute the products themselves (Reimer 2006). Because of this, many of the food distributers are facing stiff competition and are starting to conglomerate into larger companies. The manufacturers try to get into the distribution as well through direct-store-delivery
(DSD) programs (Hoover’s 2009). Some manufacturers believe that DSD actually saves them money by footing distribution expenses themselves, instead of paying a distribution company.
The distribution companies have to overcome these competitive pressures by using new strategies. SYSCO, the leading food distributer, keeps its expenses low through fluctuation in food prices. SYSCO tries to look for ways to decrease costs in all areas of its operations. High fuel prices means the company has to try to cut fuel usage. According to Value Line, they have implemented rules by decreasing idling time of trucks and better routing (Niemond 2009).
Morningstar reports that SYSCO has had a 7% decrease in diesel fuel usage, but 2% increase in cases it delivered per trip (Swanson 2009). That is a tremendous difference in efficiency.
Conversely, there are many obstacles that SYSCO still has to overcome. Food distribution, according to Morningstar, is predicted to decline 2-4% annually (Chang 2009). SYSCO’s annual reports points out another risk in their industry: product liability claims, which include meat recalls, adversely affect business (SYSCO 2008). SYSCO distributes food that contains bacteria; the responsibility falls on SYSCO and its customers because it is too difficult to track the meat once it has already been distributed. III. Research Design (Data and Methods)
A. In order to obtain the essential information for this chapter, in-depth research was conducted that involved the use of a variety of sources.
1. Statistics (Graphs and Map)
The National Agricultural Statistics Service of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the non-government organization Food & Water Watch provided the statistics.
2. Books
The books: The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael
Pollan, The Environmental Management of Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) by
Frank R. Spellman and Nancy E. Whiting as well as Food Safety and Toxicity by John DeVries provided meticulous explanations of the course taken by each pig from birth to slaughtering and processing. Information from Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser supplemented the explanation of the slaughtering process.
3. Reports
Several reports were studied in the course of the researching process. Notably reports by:
Smithfield Foods by Food & Water Watch on industry power, the Global Development and
Environment Institute on CAFOs, the Iowa Policy Project on hog growth in CAFOs, CQ Researcher on vertical integration, and reports by the University of Nebraska Lincoln on Animal
Science.
4. Research Publications and Articles
Morningstar and Value Line contributed the Analyst’s reports and industry overviews referenced in this chapter. The American Journal of Agricultural Economics, the Agricultural
Research Magazine, Livestock Production Science, Meat Science, Feedstuffs, the International
Journal of Food Microbiology and Environmental Health Perspectives, all respected journals, each offered useful articles. Two magazine articles were referenced for this paper. An article from the politics section of “Rolling Stone” magazine on the harsh conditions within hog CAFOs and an article from “In Motion Magazine” that described the use of pharmaceuticals within hog
CAFOs.
5. Web Pages
The Internet was the most commonly used resource during the course of the researching process due to its facilitation of advanced searches and the prevalence of online databases. This chapter makes use of a variety of web pages, notably: GREENR, Hyfoma, Farm Sanctuary, The
New York Times Archives, Ask The Meat Man, and Practically Edible, in addition to scholarly search engines such as JSTOR. The United States Department of Agriculture website and database provided statistics and fact sheets that dealt with everything from the number of pigs or piglets in CAFOs to the definitions and distribution of pork products. The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Services, and Economic Research Services listed additional statistics and information. Finally, the
Environmental Protection Agency website and database, contributed many maps and charts, such as the map of CAFOs in New York State.
It is important to note that two assumptions were made within the Distribution portion of the chapter. Firstly, pork is processed within the same area that is produced, and secondly, that the transportation of pork within New York State boundaries travelled at an average speed of 65 miles per hour.
IV. RESULTS and FINDINGS
Pigs are entirely edible. Other popular pork products meant for consumption include: pork feet, pork intestines, hog jowl, pork skin, pork head, as well as the whole of the pig. Pork feet, known as trotters, are sold either attached to shanks or separately. They are generally pickled, but can be cooked in a variety of ways (Smith 2009). Pork intestines, known as chitterlings, are primarily used in soups and stews (Oulton 2009). Hog jowl, the lower jaw of a hog, is a fatty dish used most commonly to produce jowl bacon, where it is smoked and cured (Oulton 2009). Pork skin, or pork rinds, is processed to produce a potato chip‐esque snack, frequently by smoking the skin, followed by deep frying it in lard (Oulton
2009.) The head of pigs is used to make brawn, a meat jelly. To produce brawn, the head is simmered in a saltwater gelatin until the meat falls off the bone and the liquid has solidified. Pork brains and ears are also sold (Oulton 2009). A whole pork carcass can also purchased, as in suckling pig, a 30‐45 day old pig that is slaughtered before it is weaned.
In 1984, there were around 420,000 hog operations. By 2008, there were 73,150 hog operations, a decline of over 80 percent. (National Agricultural Statistics Service 2008)
Conversely, the graph “ “U.S. Quarterly Hogs and Pigs Inventory – September 1” (See Figure
1.3) reveals a significant increase in the hog inventory from 2000 to 2009. In 2000, there were approximately 59 million hogs in the U.S. As of 2009, there are almost 67 million hogs in this country. (National Agricultural Statistics Service 2009)
CAFOs are actually quite wasteful in terms of animal lives. An incredible number of piglets die just in their first week as a result of preventable sickness and injury. “Piglet survival and growth are the keystones of pork profitability. Currently, 12 to 15 percent of piglets die before they are weaned. It’s been calculated that saving one piglet per litter born in the United
States is worth $350 million annually.”(Cooke 1997, 2002) If you look to Figure 1.3, you can see that 12 to 15 percent of a CAFO’s piglet population is quite a significant number. (Smith 2001) Temperature is one of the most impressive factors in the life of a piglet, they need constant heat, if not they die very quickly. In an article by Linda Cooke, found in the USDA website, there is a study cited that discusses how the pituitary gland is heavily influenced by temperature. One can find this very important gland at the center of a piglet’s skull, underneath their brain. The Pituitary gland excretes special hormones, which help to control biological responses to stresses. This can help show when the piglet is uncomfortable or stressed as a result of low temperatures, etc. (Cooke 1997, 2002)
Also, Cooke discusses how a piglet will not react to disease like most other animals, especially adults. They will not get fevers but actually will experience their body temperatures dropping significantly. This is important because it shows that piglet survival is extremely dependent on the prevention of body heat loss. If you prevent a piglet’s body temperature from decreasing then it will increase their chance of survival significantly.(Cooke 1997, 2002).
Diseases in meat are still prevalent due to the fact that meat-slaughtering companies have increased the speed at which meat is being processed so they can provide for more people, and faster. Today’s society is all about the speed and the amount being produced, not the quality.
“Twenty years ago, meatpacking plants slaughtered about 175 cattle an hour, but, due to increased line speeds, today plants can slaughter as many as 400 cattle per hour.” (Schlosser
2001). It is imperative to clean the houses properly as seen here: “The objective of cleaning pig housing is to remove bacteria, viruses and other parasites left behind by the previous batch of pigs. Most diseases transmitted by microorganisms are dose-dependent, meaning that the more pathogens present the more animals will become sick and the sicker they will be. So the aim of cleaning is simple - to kill as many pathogens as possible.” (Livestock 2009). However, when the priority of the slaughterhouse is to produce and process meat as fast as possible, the care for utilizing disinfectant is not as emphasized. The willingness to take time out to clean properly is the problem. “To remove organisms you must first remove organic soiling, as it provides a refuge for pathogens and also you cannot disinfect dirt. The commonest approaches to cleaning are high-pressure systems, sometimes using hot water or steam cleaning. The problem is these systems are often used without detergents, which are more effective at removing grease and breaking down organic matter. Once soiling is removed the unit can be disinfected. But, again, many farmers do not thoroughly disinfect. It has been shown that while washing reduces bacterial counts by about 60%, washing and disinfecting increases effectiveness of the kill to
99%." (Livestock 2009).
In addition to cleaning problems within the slaughterhouse sites or where the livestock is being held, another problem is the healthiness of the animal being slaughtered. This refers to the term “downed animals” in which sick animals are being used for our meat. On March 4, 1998,
Farm Sanctuary and Michael Baur, a meat consumer, petitioned the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to stop allowing meat from animals too sick to stand, so-called “downed” animals, to be used for human food. The petition points out that downed animals are defined as
“diseased” by the USDA and that the law explicitly precludes the use of meat from diseased animals in the human food supply. But on March 25, 1999, the USDA sent a letter formally denying the downed animal petition, stating, ‘The [law], regulations, and past practices clearly provide for the slaughter and processing of diseased animals for human food.’” ((Sanctuary, F.
October, 2001). This is a shocking piece of information that reveals that the USDA allowed the use of “downed” animals being used as one source our food. What’s even more disturbing is that
Farm Sanctuary continued to try for the ban but wound up with nothing: After receiving the
USDA’s denial letter, Farm Sanctuary continued to correspond with the Agency, urging a ban on downed animal slaughter. Some within USDA agreed with Farm Sanctuary, and in the summer of 2000, the USDA instituted a policy precluding the purchase of beef from downed cows for federal food programs, including the National School Lunch Program. However, despite this policy and in spite of industry efforts to remedy the problem, USDA continues to approve downed animal meat in the human food supply, providing an economic incentive for this irresponsible activity to continue.” (Sanctuary, F. October, 2001). Furthermore, the use of
“suspect cards” were instituted to try and decipher which slaughterhouses utilized “downed animals” but to no avail: In the summer of 2001, Farm Sanctuary filed a Freedom of Information Act for all USDA “Suspect Cards,” which describe Ante-Mortem and Post-Mortem Inspections of downed animals, for all USDA establishments in District 65 for 1999, 2000, and 2001. There are a total of 938 facilities listed in U.S. District 65 which encompasses the states of Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
As of the end of October, the USDA has provided Farm Sanctuary with Suspect Cards for three establishments, while Farm Sanctuary awaits the remainder. This suggests that either a very small percentage of the 938 slaughterhouses in U.S. District 65 slaughter downed animals, or more likely, that slaughterhouses who slaughtered downed animals did not fill out Suspect
Cards.” (Sanctuary, F. October, 2001)
In addition, to “downed” animals being used for our food, there is also a predicament of how the livestock are actually brought up. “At the urging of farmers in Sweden, that nation in
1986 banned the routine use of antibiotics in raising animals for food. In 1988, it required that all animals used for food be allowed to behave naturally. Small metal stalls that restrict the movement of sows about to give birth were banned. Minimum space requirements for sows and boars were established for hog buildings. If pigs were housed inside, straw bedding was required, to absorb manure, to keep pigs clean and dry, and to give pigs a place to root, a natural behavior.
In the United States, the Animal Welfare Institute, founded in 1951, has worked with farmers to set up voluntary use of Swedish pig-raising methods.” (Looker, D. 2003). This emphasizes that livestock should be raised naturally rather than aided with certain supplements.
Lastly, raising livestock also brings about an environmental hazard sometimes, because in order to raise livestock normally, their excretions are also dealt with in a normal manner.
However, because there is such a large number of livestock, (in order to take care of the large demand from the farmers), the feces piles up, which becomes an environmental problem. “Straw bedding must periodically be moved onto farm fields to keep pig buildings clean. This requires labor that larger intensive farms may not have. Large farms flush manure with water into lagoons or tanks. That manure is also spread onto farmland as fertilizer. But critics charge that current environmental standards in the United States do not require the manure to be spread over a wide enough area and allow it to eventually build up excessive amounts of nutrients in soils that can wash into streams or contaminate groundwater. Spills of manure have already caused fish kills and stream pollution in Midwestern states. In 1999 a large hog-producing company in Missouri
Premium Standard Farms, agreed to pay $25 million to settle a lawsuit accusing it of violating the state's Clean Water Act.” (Looker, D. 2003).
In Figure 1.1, the USDA’s chart of the top 5 pork producing states are linked with the amount of pork they produce (USDA 2007-2009). In the charts, Iowa is the clear top leading state, producing more pork heads than the #2 (North Carolina) and #3 (Minnesota) states combined. In fact, four of the five states are in Iowa’s vicinity, with North Carolina being the only state far away from it. The concentration of where the pigs are produced is further illustrated in Figure 1.2. Figure 1.2 shows the overall density of pork production in the US, and most of the pork production inside the United States comes from Iowa and the states nearby.
Because of this divide in region, it will be assumed that pork inside New York City mainly comes from Iowa and North Carolina. To represent them, their two capitals will be used (Des
Moines, Iowa and Raleigh, North Carolina).
The annual reports (Figures 2.1 and 2.2) of two of the largest distributors in the country,
SYSCO and SUPERVALU, show that some distribution centers are far from New York City
(SYSCO 2009) (SUPERVALU 2009). SUPERVALU, for example, has no retail stores in the
NYC area, and therefore, also has few distribution centers inside New York. The closest distribution center that serves New York City is located in Pennsylvania, causing a change from a simple shipping method to a more indirect one. Since there is no indication of where the center is located in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (the capital) will be used as the representative city.
SYSCO has 3 distribution centers in New York (R.D.C), but also has a large northeast regional redistribution center in Front Royal, Virginia. In Figure 3.1, the link (red line) between the redistribution center and the meat distribution center near New York can be seen. SYSCO describes the RDC as a tool that sends products to places that demand more, and therefore, increases efficiency by distributing the products at the proper proportion (SYSCO 2009). In conclusion, two sets of data will be given: the distance and time it takes for pork to get from processor to retailer directly, and the distance and time it takes for pork to go from processor to distributer to retailer.
Using MapQuest, we found the distances between the slaughterhouses, distribution, and
NYC. Figure 4.1 shows the distance/time it takes for pork to go directly from processing to
NYC, while Figure 4.2 shows the distance/time when it passes through a distribution plant. The distance and time increased as the distribution plant moved farther away from New York City.
The maps in Figure 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 illustrates the route the trucks take (Mapquest 2009). The time that was estimated is only the amount of time spent on the road, and does not necessarily represent the amount of time it takes between the pork leaving the processing plant and getting shelved. Packaging the pork into containers, loading/unloading trucks, and the time it spends in warehouses are other variables that will affect the time difference.
As can be seen in Figure 5.1, the types of materials that can be legally used as ingredients are wide ranged (Sapkota, 2007). Along with the plant by-products, fats, and nutrients, the animals are also fed some arsenicals, metal compounds, plastics, and animal by-products.
It is important to note that Figure 5.1 does not indicate that any of the ingredients listed are animal-specific. In the case of animal by-products, it is difficult to obtain data because the rendering industry does not routinely collect or report how much animal protein was used. Also, the ingredients are often listed as “animal protein products”, so it is difficult to determine which products are used in which feeds (Sapkota, 2007). Pigs can legally be fed rendered feather meal, hair, skin, hooves, blood, intestines, bone marrow, road-kill, and other pigs (UCS, 2006)
(Sapkota, 2007).
Animal by-products also include manure. The Association of American Feed Control
Officials (AAFCO) advised that animal waste in feed “should not contain pathogenic microorganisms, pesticide residues, or drug residues that could harm animals or eventually be detected in animal based food products intended for human consumption” (Sapkota, 2007).
However, very frequently, the materials that enter the pig also exit through its waste. Smithfield
Foods, a large and profitable pork producer, produces six billion pounds of pork every year.
Along with the pork products, Smithfield releases tons of manure that contains toxic substances such as ammonia, methane, cyanide, heavy metals, and more than 100 microbial pathogens and bacteria (Tietz, 2006). Swine manure in general also accounts for approximately 47% of all antibiotics in animal waste (Florini, 2005). Since pig waste is sometimes recycled and fed back to pigs, it is possible that the pigs may end up being fed toxic waste (Hatfield et al., 2001).
Pigs are fed a variety of antibiotics in different amounts. Figure 5.2 shows a list of the antibiotics approved by the USDA to be used on hogs. Figures 6.1 and 6.2 show the increasing regularity of antibiotic use in pigs (Akkina, 1999). Figure 6.1 shows the percentage of pigs that received antibiotics in 1990, and the methods through which the antibiotics were distributed.
Figure 6.2 shows the same information gathered five years later. The amount of piglets (in this case, this probably refers to starter pigs) receiving antibiotics showed the greatest amount of change. In 1990, 32.7% of them received antibiotics via injection, and 18.8% orally. By 1995, antibiotics were no longer given orally, but the 16% of the pigs were getting antibiotics in their water, and 70.2% were getting them in food (Akkina, 1999). In 2001, the Union of Concerned
Scientists estimated that 10.3 million pounds of antibiotics are used on pigs at non-therapeutic levels in order to promote growth and improve feed efficiency. That means that as much as 60–
80% of antibiotics produced in the United States are administered in feed to healthy livestock.
When added to the amount of antibiotics that must be used for therapeutic reasons, the amount of antibiotics is enormous (Mellon, 2001)(Sapkota, 2007).
In 1999, the ARS Animal Physiology Research Unit conducted research in an attempt to use hormone injections to improve the growth of nursery pigs. One branch of the ARS researched a hormone called leptin, which affects the appetite of pigs. Another branch focused on orexin. After testing orexin on rats, the scientists gave a group of pigs an injection of the hormone. The result was an increased feed intake of 18 percent for a short period of time. Later research involved cloning the DNA that directs orexin production and injecting the new
“designer DNA” into the pigs (ARS, 1999).
In 2008, groups of researchers from Universities across the U.S. and Canada studied possible alternatives for some nursery pig ingredients. The researchers attempted using synthetic amino acids to replace fish meal, steeping high-moisture corn in phytase to provide a better source of phosphorus, using rice bran to replace corn, using field peas to replace corn and soybean meal, and experimenting with different levels of distillers dried grains with solubles
(DDGS) in the feed (Lundeen, 2008). DDGS is a co-product of the ethanol production system that is a good source of protein, phosphorus, and amino acids. In the right amounts, it can be used as a high nutrient feed for pigs (Thaler, 2002). All of the research concluded that the changes had potential to either lower the production cost or raise the efficiency of the pig’s growth (Lundeen, 2008)(Goihl, 2004).
V. Discussion
The 123 percent decrease in hog operations from 1984 to 2008 in comparison to the considerable increase in hog inventory from 2000 to 2009 indicates that hogs are progressively crowded within CAFOs. The harsh conditions inside CAFOs worsen as the number of hogs rises.
Firms have created larger farms, finding it easier to enlarge herd size than land base. In a CAFO where the herd size is increasing rather than the land base, hogs must endure significant suffering as they become more cramped. They are obese and feel intense physical pains. Some piglets raised for the food industry are rushed to the highest weight possible so that they can be sent to slaughter unnaturally quickly. They are given drugs, like Ivermectin, which increase their chances of surviving the first weeks of their lives, but many CAFOs continue to pump these animals full of antibiotics to rush them to market weight. These antibiotics are given en masse to healthy animals, which causes antibiotic-resistant bacteria to develop in the animals.
The fact that the bacteria may become resistant to antibiotics that are also used by humans, means that our normal medicines would not be able to treat any diseases that we may get from eating the contaminated meat. Some hog producers go even further, “sometimes shoot[ing] it up with as many drugs as necessary to get [the pig] to the slaughterhouse under its own power”
(Tietz, 2006). The farmers are only concerned with highest possible amount of oversized piglets being raised for slaughter and this leads to needless animal cruelty and death. (Smith 2001)
(EPA 2007)
The use of downed pigs as food for other pigs or human consumption is another disturbing trend. Most farmers don’t efficiently clean the houses that their animals are being held, and many of the carcasses come into contact with fecal matter. Nevertheless, some of these carcasses are sent for slaughtering, even if there is a higher potential for disease in those carcasses than in pigs that were alive at the time of slaughter.
Even more dangerously, the processing of pork splits different parts of a pig in order to make different products. The distribution of pork products is furthermore extensive and complicated involving many transfers between warehouses. Not only does it increase the likelihood of diseases spreading, but any contaminated product becomes extremely hard to trace back to its source. Without traceability, the offending CAFOs are allowed to continue to operate.
With such low standards for producers, one must really start to worry about the safety of the meat being sold and how it may affect those that eat it.
VI. Conclusion
Pork production is an intricate process that involves many different types of machine and labor. The vertical integration of companies has given more control to huge conglomerates, allowing larger operations that span across different states. Each stage is carefully monitored and standardized in order to create the most amount of pork possible. However, these standards are not high enough, contributing to a variety of diseases. In order to change the system, there needs to be a plan to slowly evolve industrial pork production into becoming more efficient and safe, yet maintaining a high enough level of production to keep food prices down. The cooperation or destruction of the enormous corporations are necessary to move these agendas forward toward better meat quality.
VII. Appendix Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.3
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 3.1
Figure 4.1
Distance to NYC (Direct) Time to NYC (Direct)
Des Moines 1107 Miles 17.03 Hours Raleigh 497 Miles 7.65
Figure 4.2
Distance to Time to NYC Distance to Time to NYC NYC (stop at (stop at NYC (stop at (stop at Front Philadelphia) Philadelphia) Front Royal) Royal) Des Moines 1171 Miles 18.02 Hours 1291 Miles 19.86 Hours Raleigh 505 Miles 7.77 Hours 586 Miles 9.02 Hours
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 5.1: Animal feed ingredients legally used in U.S. animal feeds
Figure 5.2: Antibiotics approved by the FDA for hogs
Figures 6.1 and 6.2: Antibiotic use in swine in the US in 1990 and 1995
Bibliography
(1989). Chop. Oxford English Dictionary Oxford University Press
(1989). Roast Oxford English Dictionary Oxford University Press
(2008). Help: Glossary Terms “B”. Agriculture, USDA.
(2008). Safety of Fresh Pork...From Farm to Table. Agriculture, USDA.
(2009). "Agricultural Baseline Projections: Baseline Presentation, 2009-2018." from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Baseline/present2009.htm.
(2009). "Ask The Meatman ". from http://www.askthemeatman.com.
(2009). Changes in Fees for Meat, Poultry and Egg Products Inspection Services. 74.
Akkina, J. E. & R. Johnson 1999. Antibiotic Use in U.S. Livestock Production. In Antimicrobial resistance issues in animal agriculture, 17-29. Washington, D.C.: USDA/APHIS.
Albert, M., M. J. Anderson, et al. (2009). Smoking. Encyclopædia Britannica. M. G. Abdullah.
Alexandra P. Newman, E. R., Jeanne Beinemann, Timothy M. Uyeki, Amanda Balish, Bo Shu, Stephen Lindstrom, Jenna Achenbach, Catherine Smith, and Jeffrey P. Davis (2008) Human Case of Swine Influenza A (H1N1) Triple Reassortant Virus Infection, Wisconsin. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 14, 1470-1472.
Antle, J. M. (1996) Efficient food safety regulation in the food manufacturing sector. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78, 1242.
ARS (1999) Helping Piglets Survive and Thrive. Agricultural Research Magazine, 47.
Bolzon, H., S. Bosco, et al. (2009). Dry Curing Encyclopædia Britannica. M. G. Abdullah.
Borch, E., T. Nesbakken & H. Christensen (1996) Hazard identification in swine slaughter with respect to foodborne bacteria. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 30, 9-25.
Buckley, D. J., P. A. Morrissey & J. I. Gray (1995) Influence of dietary vitamin E on the oxidative stability and quality of pig meat. J. Anim Sci., 73, 3122-3130.
Cantrell, P., R. Perry & P. Sturtz. 2001. Hog Wars: The Corporate Grab for Control of the Hog Industry and How Citizens are Fighting Back. In In Motion Magazine.
Chang, M. (2009) SUPERVALU Report. Morningstar.
Clark, B. K. a. E. (2009). "State of the Pork Industry " Agri Marketing 47(5).
Conservation, N. Y. S. D. o. E. (2009). Map of New York State CAFO Sites.
Cooke, L. (1997, 2002). Piglets, Pituitaries and Chilly Temperatures, USDA, University of Missouri.
Department, P. P. (2007). Food Safety - Useful Definitions Within The Application Form For An Approval E. A. P. S. Directorate. Bridgend Bridgend Country Borough Council
De Vries, J. (1997). Food Safety and Toxicity Boca Raton CRC Press.
EPA (2007). New Animal Drugs For Use in Animal Feeds; Ivermectin
EPA (2009, March 23, 2009). "Animal Feeding Operations." Retrieved October 2, 2009, 2009, from http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=7.
EPA (2009, September 10, 2009). "Pork Glossary." Retrieved October 6, 2009, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/porkglossary.html.
EPA. 2009. Pork Production Phases. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ERS. 2009. Hogs: Background. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.
Farm Sanctuary. 2009. Factory Pork Production. Farm Sanctuary. http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/pork/
Fisher, J. 1956). Pork And Pork Products Practical Press Ltd. .
Flora, J. L. 2007. Hog CAFOs and Sustainability. The Iowa Policy Project.
Florini, K. et al. 2005. Resistant Bugs and Antibiotic Drugs. Environmental Defense.
Food & Water Watch. 2007. Factory Farm Pollution in the United States. Food & Water Watch. http://www.factoryfarmmap.org/
---. 2008. The Trouble With Smithfield: A Corporate Profile. Food & Water Watch
Goihl, J. H. 2004. Field peas evaluated as possible substitute in growing pig diets. In Feedstuffs, 11-12. Miller Publishing Company, Inc.
Good, K. A. (1994). A Comparative Study of Swine Production Costs by Geographic Region and Size of Operation Science Purdue Master of Science
Hatfield, J. L. et al. 1998. Swine Manure Management (Chapter 4). United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.
Healy, J. (2009). Stocks Drop Amid Market Concerns Over Swine Flu The New York Times New York The New York Times
Heffernan, W. D. 1998. Societal Concerns Raised by CAFOs. University of Missouri. http://www.p2pays.org/ref/21/20524/ManureMgmt/85.html
Hendrickson, M. & W. Heffernan. 2007. Concentration of Agricuultural Markets. Columbia: University of Missouri.
Hogberg, M., et al. 1998. Tri-State Swine Nutrition Guide. The Ohio State University.
Hoover’s. 2009. First Research Food Distributers Industry Profile.
Huffman, R. D. (2002) Current and future technologies for the decontamination of carcasses and fresh meat. Meat Science, 62, 285-294.
Hurt, C. (1994). "Industrialization in the Pork Industry " Choices (Fourth Quarter ): 9-13.
Johnson, A. S. and M. Geisler (2009). Pork Processing Profile Agricultural Marketing Resource Center
Lazear, E. P. (1986). "Salaries and Piece Rates " Journal of Business 59: 405-431.
Looker, D. (2003). Encyclopedia of Food and Culture S. H. Katz. New York Charles Scribner's Sons 3.
Looker, D. (2003). Obesity to Zoroastrianism, 3, 74-81.
Lotha, G., K. Rogers, et al. (2009). Fermentation Encyclopædia Britannica. M. G. Abdullah.
Lundeen, T. 2008. Novel ingredients get attention in pig diets. In Feedstuffs, 10-11. Miller Publishing Company, Inc.
Lusby, K. S. G., Donald R. (1986) Beef Cattle Handbook.
Mapquest, I. 2009. Mapquest.
Marvin L. Hayenga, D. S., John Lawrence, and Roxanne Clemens (1998 ). The United States Pork Industry: Factors Influencing Export Market Competitive Position Economics Iowa State.
Martin, L. L. (1997). "Production Contracts, Risk Shifting, and Relative Performance Payments in the Pork Industry " Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 29: 267-278.
Martinez, S. W. & K. Zering. 2004. Pork Quality and the Role of Market Organization. In Agricultural Economic Report. USDA.
Martinez, S. W. (2004). "Price and Quality of Pork and Broiler Products " Current Issues in Economics of Food Markets (February 2000 ): 6.
Mellon, M. (2001) Hogging It - Estimates of Antimicrobial Abuse in Livestock.
Miller, M. (1998). "Changing The Way You Do Business " Pork'98 (Oct. 1998): 38-42.
John Morrell, F., Butterball, Smithfield Foods. 2009. About Our Company (http://www.smithfieldfoods.com/our_company/about_us.aspx)
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2008. Number of Hog Operations - United States. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Hogs_and_Pigs/hgoper_e.asp
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2009. U.S. Quarterly Hogs and Pigs Inventory - September 1. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Hogs_and_Pigs/qtr_e.asp
Ollinger, J. M. M. a. M. E. (2000). "Consolidation in Meatpacking: Causes and Concerns." Agricultural Outlook 1-4.
Oulton, R. (2009). "Practically Edible: The Web's Biggest Food Encyclopedia". From http://www.practicallyedible.com/.
Pollan, M. 2006. The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin Books.
Reimer, J. J. (2006) Vertical Integration in the Pork Industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88, 234-248.
Rhodes, V. J. (1995). "The Industrialization of Hog Production " Review of Agricultural Economics 17(2): 107-118
Sapkota, A. R. (2007) What Do We Feed to Food-Production Animals? A Review of Animal Feed Ingredients and Their Potential Impacts on Human Health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115. Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation. New York : Houghton Mifflin Company. 2001, p173.
Service, A. R. (2009). Composition of Foods. Raw-Processed-Prepared. Beltsville, Maryland U.S. Department of Agriculture 10: 53.
Service, E. R. (2003-2018). USDA Agricultural Baseline Projections U.S. Department of Agriculture
Smith, S. E. (2009, August 1, 2009). "wiseGEEK." What Are Pork Trotters from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-pork-trotters.htm
Service, N. A. S. (2009 ). Hogs and Pigs U.S. Department of Agriculture
Smith, L. W. (2001). "Observing Swine Behavior to Lower Piglet Mortality." Agricultural Research.
Smith, R. (1999). "Producers First Must Understand Pricing Process To Use Price Reporting " Feedstuffs(August 23rd, 1999).
Spellman, F. R. & N. E. Whiting. 2007. Environmental Management of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Starmer, E. & T. A. Wise. 2007. Living High on the Hog: Factory Farms, Federal Policy, and the Structural Transformation of Swine Production. Global Development and Environment Institute.
SUPERVALU. 2007. Fiscal 2007 Annual Report. Minneapolis.
---. 2008. Fiscal 2008 Annual Report. Minneapolis.
SYSCO. 2008. Fiscal 2008 Annual Report. Houston.
Taylor, D. A. (2008) Does One Size Fit All? Small Farm and U.S. Meat Regulations. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116, 528-531.
Thacker, C. (2009). Pork Producer Ache From Swine Flu. The Wall Street Journal New York City The Wall Street Journal
Thaler, B. (2002) Use of Distillers Dried Grains With Solubles (DDGS) in Swine Diets. Extension Extra, 2035.
Tietz, J. 2006. Pork’s dirty secret: The nation’s top hog producer is also one of America’s worst polluters. In Rolling Stone.
Tonsor, G. T. (2005). Comparing Heterogeneous Consumption in US and Japanese Meat and Fish Demand 2005 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Annual Meeting, July 24-27. Providence, RI.
UCS (2006) They Eat What? The Reality of Feed at Animal Factories.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, http://animalscience.unl.edu/meats/id/porkcuts/Smokrump.htm
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, http://animalscience.unl.edu/meats/id/porkcuts/Hamcntr.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Regulatory Definitions of Large CAFOs, Medium CAFO, and Small CAFOs
USDA (2009) Fresh Pork...from Farm to Table.
USDA (2007 – 2009). Hogs and Pigs Statistics.
USDA (2009). "Hogs: Background." Briefing Room. Retrieved October 2, 2009, fromhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Hogs/Background.htm.
USDA (2009). Hogs: Number of Operations by Year, US, USDA.
USDA, E. R. S. (2008-2009) Hogs Overview.
USDA (2009). Hogs: Pigs per Litter by Size Group, US, USDA.
Weeks, J. 2007. Factory Farms. In CQ Researcher, 25-48. http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2007011200
Wong, L. F., T. Hald, P. J. v. d. Wolf & M. Swanenburg (2002) Epidemiology and Control Measures for Salmonella in Pigs and Pork. Livestock Production Science, 76, 215-222.