EU Animal Care Issues Tour Day-By-Day Report

Day 1, Monday, June 24 Chairperson: Brad Temple

Wren Davis, LLC

The group began its EU animal care study tour at Wren Davis Farm in High Wycombe. There we were graciously hosted by Virginia Davis, daughter of the founder. This farm family hosted IAA District Director Brad Temple 31 years ago as an FFA Work Experience Abroad student. Virginia provided the group with an overview of the farm operations and how they have changed.

The Davis family currently raises organic beef, turkeys, and heritage breeds of hogs. The farm also has a 148 hectare (365 acres) hay farm, and distributes milk to 8,000 customers in the area. It used to operate its own dairy, but discontinued that in 2002. Because of the lack of dairying in the area, Wren Davis sources milk from other areas for distribution. The farm also runs a catering business, brewery, conducts school visits, rents out storage space, etc.; whatever help keep the farm sustainable and profitable.

Each year, the farm hosts hundreds of school children and other visitors and provides educational materials as well as farm experiences (like grinding of ancient wheat varieties grown on the farm into flour for local product productions). The family remains concerned about the widening gap in people’s understanding and appreciation of agriculture and remains committed to trying to forge better understanding through the farm visits. This year, the farm will even offer children the opportunity to make ancient grain based pasta.

The family also maintains a 1904 steam engine (formerly used to haul steam-driven carnival rides all over England) as well as a number of restored farm tractors and other antique farm equipment. Like the U.S., England faced some weather challenges the last three years (cool and wet). This year, for example, England hasn’t had temperatures above 70 degrees F all spring.

Foreign Agricultural Service of USDA

Eugene Philhower, Agricultural Counselor for USDA’s Foreign Ag Service in London welcomed the group to England and gave participants an overview of the activities of his office in England.

Henry Plumb and the Plumb Foundation

Lord Henry Plumb, former President, European Parliament and former President, National Farmers Union (UK) and his wife Marjorie joined the group at its Welcome Dinner. Lord Plumb shared stories of changes in British farming, British integration into the EU, animal

1 welfare trends and impacts in England, and provided information on the Plumb Foundation. The Plumb Foundation is seeking to raise 2 million pounds to support applicants between the ages of 18 and 35 who wish to and can demonstrate in their proposal the potential ability to affect change in agriculture. The Foundation has a Board of Trustees that meets and has reviewed its initial set of applications. The EU Animal Care Study participants made a donation to the foundation on behalf of the group.

Day 2, Tuesday, June 25 Chairpersons: Deb Moore, Jim Fraley, and Brian Spannagel

Bert Mitchell, Robert Mitchell Farms

Peter Garbutt and Gary Ford of the National Farmers Union (NFU) arranged the Mitchell Farms visit. Bert Mitchell (Robert Mitchell’s nephew) was our host. The farm is 1,000 acres (400 hectares) and raises wheat, barley, oil seed rape beans, potatoes, forage maize, and grass for silage and hay. The farm soil ranges from sand to blue clay (heavy).

Bert Mitchell grows 75 acres of potatoes for fish and chip shops and raises fat cattle. He has 1,000 acres to raise wheat, barley, rapeseed, maize, grass silage and hay for horses. The farm has a 5 year rotation for potatoes. They can dig 10 acres of potatoes a day and then keep them in cold storage. "What we don't sell, we feed," said Bert.

Cattle are fed straw, potatoes, maize and syrup (like molasses) from whiskey distilleries. Bert also uses bread from bakeries (which is better than wheat or barley for putting weight on, he noted) and also feeds gray starch from the potato cuttings.

In terms of livestock, 600+ cattle are purchased as feeders at 12-18 months of age and finished at approximately 30-36 months of age. They are then sold into the supermarket retail trade; primarily to WM Morrison’s, a supermarket chain that also owns a beef processing facility. Bert’s primary cattle breeds are continental crosses (Charolais, Limousin, Blonde). Belgian Blue cattle do better inside a building while the Herefords do better on grass. Aberdeen Angus cattle receive a premium.

All of the cattle are ID-ed and every animal has a passport, a written record of every movement. Having the information is very helpful to the farm’s herd and herd health management. Pete Garbutt, Chief Livestock Advisor from the National Farmers Union also joined us at the farm to answer many questions about animal identification.

Because Bert’s uncle Robert needed more space at the farm property currently housing the cattle (for additional rented storage and for the vegetable business) Bert was in the process moving all of the cattle over to another property. Visiting that property next, the group was able to view some the new cattle buildings, the covered storage for feed, and a brand new manure pit.

In England, even the run off of water from the feed is regulated, so Bert had an underground storage tank built to hold the runoff from the feed storage. Permits were required to build

2 the livestock buildings and he said it was a challenge getting the required local permits. In England, all permits are issued by the local government.

Maintaining a good relationship with the local government is an important task for British farmers. For example, getting mud on the road is a major issue and farmers must clean the road if they bring mud onto it. If not, it causes conflict with city councils and local governments responding to the complaints of the thousands of drivers using country roads on a daily basis.

Precision farming is in its infancy in the UK. Farmers in the UK need at least 200 acres to pay for precision farming. Bert believes that satellite imagery would help him do a better job applying manure but feels it is cost prohibitive on his farm at this time.

Mick Sloyan, BPEX Director, Deputy CEO

BPEX is a levy-funded association, like the National Pork Board except that the levy (check off) is paid per pig when it goes to slaughter, as opposed the U.S., where it is done on a value basis. Similar to U.S. check-off programs, British law allows the collection of the funds from both producers (85 pence) and processors (20 pence). Together this 105p (~$1.50 USD) funds the program. As a statutory organization, BPEX cannot lobby, similar to U.S. check-off organizations. Therefore, BPEX is active in marketing, research, development, and market information. BPEX also works very hard to try to make pig production and the industry more efficient.

Most of the pig production is in the east, with the UK’s 410,000 sows producing about 10 million slaughter pigs. The British pig industry lost about one-half of the breeding herd in the last 10-12 years. The cost of production is a 10 pence/kg higher than other EU competitors; primarily due to the fact that about 40% of British pigs are finished outdoors. About 60% of the breeding herd is indoor conventional, and about 40% of the breeding herd is considered outdoor. Finishing is done indoors (>96%). Carcass weights of are about 175 pounds, and very few pigs are castrated, due to the animal welfare assurance scheme. Boar taint is not an issue, as pigs are less than six months old when slaughtered. In addition, peoples’ tastes have changed. British farmers find that you need to have an assurance scheme to successfully market your pigs.

There is a voluntary code of practice for labeling meat products covering country of origin labeling, defining “locally-grown,” traceability, and pig production methods. British famers are very supportive of animal identification in the form of group or lot ID. British consumers want to know where their meat comes from. The horsemeat scandal that just occurred has reinforced this. If the UK had an outbreak of PEDV (like the US is currently experiencing) they could do an epidemiology report fairly quickly from a central location to see where pig movements have been to help control a disease outbreak.

Regarding Country of Origin Labelling and other labels, their philosophy is that the label says what it means. If it has a British flag on it that means it is completely produced in Britain. The idea is to provide honest answers to the consumer. On animal ID, most producers buy

3 into it because they see it as essential from an animal disease perspective. They don’t ID each animal for hogs and chickens, just in groups. The animal ID makes life easier for the entire industry because it is all electronic and all the farmer has to do is log the numbers to start the process.

When asked for what other reasons farmers should ID animals, the consumer was the stated reason. Consumers expect that someone out there knows where the meat came from. The consumer invests trust in the farmer and the store he/she buys the product from. The consumer thereby abdicates his/her own trust to the people and industry the consumer buys from. In the view of British and European farmers, the U.S. is in a very very weak position when it is only able to say that the product came from this humongous packer who buys animals from this 5 state area.

Dr. Zöe Davies, National Pig Association (NPA)

The National Pig Association is the representative organization for commercial pig producers and the lobbying organization for the industry. NPA represents about 800 farmer members, about 70% of the pig industry. Producers pay on a per-sow or pig-space basis. NPA works with NFU, BPEX, and BPA (rare and pedigree pigs). Feed prices are coming down now and profitability is returning.

The recent horsemeat scandal or “horsegate” turned British consumers more towards UK- verified meats. Much of the meat in British supermarkets is labeled with the British flag.

On animal housing, while UK farmers have used group-housing schemes since 1999, the EU pig welfare directive became effective in January 1, 2013. Other EU countries are way behind in terms of compliance, with only ten of the 18-member states in compliance. The non-compliant countries are still exporting pork to the UK. For its part, NPA is pushing the EU Commission to enforce the directive.

It is tempting for some nations to try to reward or incentivize those that are non-compliant into compliance. However, providing incentives to farmers who haven’t changed isn’t the best in NPA’s view, since the efforts of early adopters like the UK aren’t recognized. The EU and member states have taken a soft approach to enforcement as they don’t want to inadvertently damage the industry.

To help protect the British pork sector from the uneven EU playing field, NPA talked to all levels of production and invited companies to make a “pork pledge” to certify British producers. This pledge helps ensure that any pork sold in the UK comes from certified farms.

The EU animal welfare directive also has provisions on slat and slot width, minimum pen length, and enrichment. You can’t routinely clip or grind needle teeth, or tail dock. Although routine tail docking is prohibited, many farmers have to do it anyway because it is a good management practice and helps prevent tail biting later in life. They just nip off the

4 tip of the tail, which helps reduce tail biting, but have to constantly prove the need to do so.

Consumer perception is that pigs like to roll around in the straw, so many UK farmers use straw for bedding.

Some of the diseases NPA is working to keep out of the UK include African Swine Fever, MRSA, and CSF (which are all circulating Europe). Feral pigs are under control, but there are places where they can be a problem. “Teacup” pigs are an absolute nightmare. Many of the owners of these animals don’t understand that these pigs have the same rules that a farm- raised pig may have and that they certainly can spread disease like a farm pig. Finally, the environmental groups are becoming more active in fighting any expansion or new facilities. There are “nitrate vulnerable zones” which dictate when, and how much, nitrogen can be applied.

Peter Garbutt, Beef and Sheep Welfare, National Farmers Union (NFU)

NFU has about 50,000 farmer members and covers all member agricultural issues. There are about 4.2 million breeding cattle in the UK and the average herd size is between 18 to 50 cows. Cattle are currently at record prices due to the worldwide beef shortage. Half of the beef in the UK comes from dairy cattle (32% of which are black and white). The UK also has about 15 million breeding sheep (about 14.5 million are harvested each year). There are about 60 million movements in the sheep industry each year. All sheep must be RFID tagged and cattle have “passports” (with cattle farmers very supportive of this concept). TB, BVD, Scab, Fluke, and Schmallenberg are some of the disease issues they face. If a farmer has a TB-positive animal, it has to go directly to slaughter. As is recognized in the States, both wildlife and cattle controls are needed to effectively control disease.

The Common Agricultural Policy or CAP is a vital part of livestock farmers’ income. Thirty percent of the farmer’s payment will be linked to some type of conservation program from 2015 on. There is a single payment scheme for farmers. If there is a breach of the required compliance, the farmer can be fined a minimum of 3% per infraction with a maximum of 100% of the payment for serious or repeated breaches.

Chris Dickinson, Poultry Welfare, NFU

There are about 34 million birds in the UK and the egg market is about 45% enriched cages and 45% free-range, with the balance being organic and smaller producers.

Free-range production went from being a 5% niche product to the current 45%, obviously with a huge impact. A free-range shed can house up to 32,000 birds and works well for a mixed operation (e.g., people who had livestock, but were adversely affected by FMD or BSE and so got into layers). With many livestock farmers going into layers, production expanded significantly. The market went into complete oversupply that coincided with the economic crisis. Consequently, consumers didn’t want to pay the price for free-range.

5 A ban on battery cages went into effect on January 1, 2012, in an EU directive. Farmers spent 400 million pounds ($520 million) to invest in new equipment to do the transition to colony. UK farmers have had good success with the enriched colony cage system and find it promotes more socialization. Major countries are compliant, but Italy and Greece still are not compliant and neither country has the financial wherewithal to move forward with the changes. Poland says its producers are compliant, but they are not.

On the animal care side, a routine ban on beak trimming for laying hens was supposed to come into force in 2011. However, the ban has been moved to review in 2015 with an in effect date of 2016. In the UK, just the very tip of the beak is tipped off to prevent them from pecking each other. There is no hierarchy in a free range system, the birds peck each other.

Last year the EU was very short on eggs and now there is a flood of eggs, dropping prices by a pound. Feed costs are up about six percent over last year and have cut into profits.

The UK is about 85% self-sufficient in broiler production, but there is a carcass imbalance due to consumer demand for breast meat. Therefore, the UK imports some white meat to meet this demand. Overall, there is strong demand for British chicken. In recent years, the tendency towards increasing sales of organic chicken showed a marked decrease. The turkey industry is really targeted toward Christmas consumption. There are only two major producers of turkey in the UK today. The UK consumer doesn’t even eat turkey at other times of the year. For the holiday, consumers may pay 100 pounds ($150 USD) for one turkey.

Nina Wainwright, Animal Welfare Project Coordinator, BPEX

BPEX looks at animal welfare outcomes on the basis of what the pigs actually need, not what humans think they need. Five animal welfare measures that can be assessed in about an hour form the basis for the assessment. It is also important that these measures can be measured in a standardized format. The measures are: pigs that should be in hospital pens, lameness, body marks, tail lesions, and enrichment use. For a unit to qualify under the “red tractor” scheme, a veterinarian must conduct an animal welfare assessment using these measures. Via this work, BPEX has been able to build a database and work with the outliers to help move their operation to a more acceptable level. BPEX very much supports the concept that science should decide how animals should be raised.

Elizabeth Berry, DVM, Ph.D., DairyCo Welfare, NFU

The dairy animal welfare assurance program is run by the dairy processors. The animal welfare assessors are paid by the milk buyers and assessments are conducted every 18 months. The assessor will look at 20 cows out of the farm, placed into a database, and are analyzed for trend data. They assess lameness, swelling, caking of manure, mastitis, culling rates, and calf/heifer survival. One of the Organization for International Epizootics (OIE)

6 issues we discussed was free-stall populations. A proposal was issued that outlined a one- cow, one-stall concept. North Americans successfully turned back this effort, as many of these dairies routinely overstock their free-stalls.

Mike Sheldon, A Former Pork Producer’s Viewpoint

Mike transitioned from being a manager for PIC International (pig breeding stock company) into farming. His philosophy has always been that he is in the business to make money and if he can’t make money, he will exit the business.

Mike transitioned into group sow housing right away and believes group housing works just fine, provided you give them enough room. He gave them 40 ft2. Sow performance was fine. It took financial resources to do this and the nursery and finishing part of the business suffered as a result.

Mike was a very progressive and successful producer. His long-term and last year’s data was quite impressive: 31.7 born alive per sow, 26.6 reared per sow per year. His cost of production (excluding feed costs) has remained very steady. He was able to pay bills, but was not able to generate enough cash to reinvest in equipment and buildings.

Mike had an alternative in that he had farmland that he could sell and develop. Unlike the U.S., the UK does not have a depopulated rural countryside. Instead, people are willing to pay a lot of money for homes that are in the beautiful English countryside – and they don’t tolerate any livestock production

He sees several risks in the industry: trade barriers that may come down to let foreign exports in, resistance to construction of new facilities, and opposition to medicines used in livestock production. He also noted that other concepts touted for better value (country of origin labeling, different animal welfare schemes, animal ID) may or may not help farmers, with the definite exception of animal ID and having an audit trail. Even in the recent horse meat scandal it paid benefits.

Mike feels that the livestock industry needs to put its house in order to make sure what we buy is what it said it is and what we sell is what we say it is.

Day 3, Wednesday, June 26 Chairpersons: Abe Trone and Mitzi Sharer

Brian and James Greenfield, Harris Bridge Dairy Farm

On Wednesday we visited a dairy and sheep farm run by Brian Greenfield. Brian, his brother, and son James milk 140 dairy cows and run about 450 head of breeding ewes. They rent 250 acres and have another 250 acres under grazing contract. The dairy cows are primarily Holstein with about 15 head of Jersey cows (which James brought into the herd through sexed semen). The farm calves year round unlike some of the more seasonal calvers in the area. His herd gives 9000 kg (19,800 pounds) on average with about 4% fat and 3.2% protein (standard for the milk plant in Ashby where his milk is shipped). Anything below

7 those numbers results in a penalty for the farmer. Ashby is about 10 miles away and then the milk ends up bottled and on local shelves at ASDA (Wal-Mart’s UK store).

British dairy farmers can use government grants to make animal welfare-related improvements. Grants can cover up to 40% of the project cost. On Harris Bridge Farm, Brian used the grants to help fund a Heat Time heat detection system, rubber mats in the parlor and holding areas, and a variable speed pump for milking.

The dairy undergoes TB testing once every 12 months and also vaccinates for Johne’s disease which complicates testing. Not many dairies in the area have a high enough incidence of Johne’s to warrant vaccination. As a control step, the dairy only feeds colostrum to calves and then switches to milk replacer instead of milk.

The cows are milked in a fairly modern double 12 swing parlor with rubber mats throughout. The water from the plate cooler is recycled for parlor cleanup use. Most of the feedstuffs are contracted and the dairy maintains a nutrition program through Agri-King consisting of wheat, maize, soya/rape mix and sugar beet pulp. The bull calves are sold off the farm locally. Brian dehorns the heifers himself at 4-6 weeks of age using local anesthetic.

Brian manages the dairy while his brother manages the sheep side of the farm. The commercial breeding ewes lamb in April. The farm also has a 60-70 pedigree Charolais sheep that is sold for breeding. The sheep have electronic ID. The farm may tail dock sheep, but only to a certain length, but may not dock the cows.

Philip Crawley, Sunrise Eggs

Sunrise Eggs was started in 1971 by Philip Crawley’s parents. He became a managing director in 2001 and undertook significant expansion of the farm. Sunrise Eggs produces 2- 3% of the UK’s eggs from 550,000 laying hens. Of those, 300,000 are enriched colony birds and 250,000 are free range. The farm used to produce organic eggs as well but stopped when the premium between free range and organic became minimal. Since 1993, approximately 85% of the farms eggs go to supermarkets. The farm produces about 80% of its own eggs and only brings in 20% from other farms.

One of the Sunrise Egg’s top competitors is Noble Egg which produces only 10% of its eggs and brings in the remaining 90%. Nobel, however, created a marketing concept whereby it promotes its “Happy Egg.” The company spends a significant amount of time and money marketing this concept that its chickens are happy, using cartoons, and other methods. While it is totally annoying because there isn’t any real difference between “Happy Eggs” and Sunrise Eggs, the campaign makes consumers thing there is. The branding is quite successful, though a bit ridiculous to the common sense egg farmer.

The UK is about 80-85% self-sufficient in egg production and does not export very many eggs. As was noted at NFU, the market is broken down into 45% cage free, 45% colony, and the rest are barn, organic, or other. This is in contrast to Denmark’s egg industry which consists of more barns and aviaries. When the UK initially changed from conventional cages to

8 enriched colony, production declined. This was followed by a production increase that led to a significant decrease in price. Enriched colony production provides 750 cm²/bird. Two changes that Crawley observed after switching was that feather cover on birds increased and the number of damaged eggs went up.

In the UK, the Red Lion is the official quality control scheme for the egg industry. It is widely recognized by retailers and consumers. The scheme dictates what processes may be used by farmers such as no forced molting, minimal space requirements, etc. Debeaking is currently a hot button issue. Sunrise Eggs is conducting an internal study of 4500 debeaked vs. 4500 non debeaked chickens to evaluate differences. The hens are debeaked using infrared treatment that just burns the very tip of the beak and causes no pain. So far, the results from this minimal debeaking are very promising, but it is always questionable as to whether or not the actual regulation will allow such a common sense response. Consumers seem to always want their “perceived” animal welfare, rather than what is actually less pain or better for the animal.

It is important to note that even though the UK egg industry has moved to nearly 50% enriched colony, consumers are still not 100% happy. Now people want more free range production, not realizing that 80% of that type of production is done in a barn and not necessarily outside. In the store colony eggs are bringing about 1.30 £/dozen, free range 2- 2.50 £/dozen, while organic go for 3.8-4 £/ dozen.

David and Victoria Morgan, Pokthorpe Hall, Sainsbury Concept Farm

The Morgans manage Pokthorpe Hall farm (purchased it in 1996). Their farm is the only Sainsbury Concept farm in England, an attempt to expand the British brand of pigs with a more animal friendly environment. The farm has 1700 sows. Sainsbury buys the farm’s gilts and the piglets are finished at another site. David’s other daughter Kate and her husband manage the 25 other finishing sites (serve as the field representatives).

In addition to 216 standard farrowing crates, the farm boasts 72 “freedom farrowing” stalls or about one-fourth of the total. The freedom stalls are much larger (at 2 meters wide by 3.5 deep) than the standard stalls and their building was twice the size of the conventional farrowing house. The piglets and sow are deeply bedded in straw for the first week and then it tapers off so that by the time the piglets are weaned at 27 days there is very little straw left. The freedom stalls had room for the piglets in the corner with a heat lamp where they could get away from the sow. It had taken about two years for the farm to get the preweaning mortality to an acceptable level of 14% (versus 10% in the standard farrowing area). When asked whether or not farm tours informed consumers that more piglets died in the freedom stalls, the managers said that they did, “but that the consumers didn’t care, they felt the pigs looked happier in the freedom stalls”.

Once bred, the sows are placed in groups of 60 and new ones are not introduced (although sows that are having a problem are sometimes removed). The gestation area consisted of a mixture of sows and gilts in larger straw bedded pens. It looked as though some aggression occurred for several days after the animals were introduced to the pens as was evidenced by

9 fighting and body marks. After a few days, the sows seemed to form a pecking order and confrontation was less.

The farm uses straw extensively, both in gestation and farrowing areas. Approximately 4000 large square bales of straw are used per week for bedding. The straw is changed twice in the gilt area, and 3 times a week in the training area, sow area, and farrowing area. When our group visited, the pigs were pretty dirty, so the straw hadn’t been cleaned out for at least a day. As regards the waste straw and manure or “muck pile”, the farm had to dispose of 100 tons of waste a week and faced regulation on the size and shape of the muck piles on the farm. Muck piles moved off the farm could be seen at the edges of neighboring fields.

The farm uses electronic feeding and training the sows to reach the feeding stalls takes a long time. During our visit, we could see the series of marks used on the backs of the sows (safe paint color marks) to indicate what level of “knowledge” the sow had reached. Some sows never learn and must be removed from the system. The feed is liquid feed, very similar to that used in the U.S.

Even having the hogs on straw did not do away with the problem of tail biting. The tails were definitely longer than in the U.S. (the minimum length is an inch or more). In the freedom stalls, the tails are not trimmed at all and they haven’t had a tail biting problem. However, they tried not trimming the tails in the conventional stalls and categorized it as “a train wreck”.

Interestingly, they still trim the needle teeth, while in the U.S. we haven’t trimmed needle teeth for years. We stopped here due to the risk of infection versus the few pigs that might get scarred up from biting.

As far as applying this type of production method in the U.S., it appeared this production method would be difficult to sustain due to cost and availability of straw, the amount of labor required, the increased space requirements per animal, the size of building required, and increased death loss in the piglets.

Like our egg visit, the perception of what seems best for the sow versus what may truly be best for the piglets/farmer/farm appears to be winning with regulators. The Sainsbury Concept farm is on the extreme side of what consumers here would like (although other farmers feared once systems went this direction, the consumer would decide the sows were better off outside). We wondered how the farm could function without a specific premium from Sainsbury’s for the enhanced production methods. The farm did have a contract with Sainsbury’s to raise the pigs, but we did not learn at what price the piglets and finished hogs were sold.

Day 4, Thursday, June 27 Chairperson: Kate Hagenbuch

Before we left England, a number of participants visited the very trendy supermarkets near our hotel in downtown London: Waitrose, Sainsbury’s, and Tesco. It was not surprising that prices for meat, eggs, and milk were very high given that the supermarkets are located in

10 one of the most expensive areas of London. What was surprising was the amount of labelling and the number of different “quality” schemes from Red Tractor to British origin to Red Lion, to “welfare assured”.

Sebastien Ley, GAEC Ley Hog Farm

Our first and only visit in France was to the GAEC LEY Hog Farm in Socx, France. Socx is 9 miles from Dunkirk on the coast and 15 miles from the Belgian border.

The local hog producer association for the north of France (Nord/Pas de Calais), called GAEC, provided an overview of the region and the impact of the animal welfare regulations. This region boasts about 43,000 sows on 350 farms. This is down from more than 6,000 farms in 1975; although they were only very small breeding farms. The region now can be characterized by intensive family farming on small-scale farms. While hog production has grown in this region, there are less and less regional slaughterhouses.

GAEC was candid regarding the impact of the ban on sow stalls, saying that:  Approximately 39% of farmers in the region implemented the ban by November 2012  About 25% were ready by January 1, 2013  Another 15% will be ready mid-way through 2013  And about 20% will not change or will go out of business

However, the number of pigs is expected to stay about the same, why? Because implementing the welfare scheme is expensive, all of the farmers making the change are increasing the size of their operation (number of sows) in order to spread the cost of adopting the new animal welfare rules across more animals.

The age of the farmer was an important factor in which ones decided to exit pig production. Farmers surveyed about their departure cited the following reasons for going out of pigs: poor perception of pig production by the public, the lack of a successor in the farm operation, the constant pressure by environmentalists, burdensome regulations in general, the idea that regulations from Brussels would just continue to increase, and the fear of continuing to spend money or invest in animal welfare changes. The ability to make money growing field crops (and make the wife happier at the same time) was also cited.

In terms of the farm itself, Frederic Ley manages the crop production on 190 hectares (456 acres) that is in in potatoes, wheat, corn, flax, and sugar beets. Brother Sebastien Ley manages the animal production, including 450 sows and a farrow to finish operation with annual production of 12,000 head. The farm splits the sows into 7 groups of between 65-70 sows farrowing every 3 weeks with 3 weeks for weaning. The gilts are purchased from outside of the company, from Groupe Gene Plus. Almost all of the feed is produced on site.

The Ley farm began to implement the animal welfare requirements of the sow stall ban in 2012 and increased its number of sows from 240 to 460 to spread out the cost. The actual cost per sow was about 1,000 Euro ($1,300 US) and the Leys received 200 Euro ($260 US) per sow to make the change.

11 As regards the welfare regulations, the Ley farm and GAEC has respect for the regulations. To date the farm has not had much of an issue with competition among the animals and has had better experience in minimizing slippage on the floors. The customized feeding system works well and it takes a perfect blend of proper feeding and housing to manage in this system. What the Leys tried to do was take their existing buildings and make only the necessary changes to meet the stipulations of the regulations. (The “perfect can be the enemy of the good” in their view).

That is, the EU options for sows between 28 and 105 days gestation are: 1. Straw bedding and automatic feeders or individual stalls for feeding and straw bedding behind them for free movement. 2. Individual stalls for feeding with slatted floors and space behind for free movement. 3. Slatted floors everywhere with an automatic feeder. 4. Slatted floors everywhere with the distribution of wet feed with a pipe.

The Ley farm chose the 4th option. The farm had been using a liquid feeding system on the farm for 25 years and was happy with it. In addition, 6 years earlier, the farm had a very disappointing experience with large group feeding. Mixing pigs by parity/rank and also by size (fattening state) has made it easier as has better supervision of the animals during their meals. In addition, they must be sure to very quickly detect sick sows. All in all, it is a very robust system that is easy to conduct by all of the farm workers. In terms of labor, the Leys only have 5 total employees, including Frederic and Sebastien.

Perhaps the biggest surprise in implementing the new animal welfare requirements was the lack of any real problems, in fact the feeding option works well and their technical measurements have stayed the same. Of course, there were additional costs and charges, not to mention that pig prices were too low while feed costs were increasing during the change. In addition, labor costs and pressure by environmentalists continue to increase. The farmers wonder what Brussels will want next in terms of animal welfare. The rumor is free suckling sows will be the next request.

Day 5, Friday, June 28 Chairpersons: Stacy Schutz and Al Lyman

Dr. Andrea Gavinelli, Head of the Animal Welfare Unit, European Union Commission

Dr. Gavinelli works in the unit of the EU Commission that works on animal welfare policies. Most of the policies actually come from the EU’s scientific center. By way of background, Dr. Gavinelli suggested the EU should be viewed as an area for common exchange of goods. Today, the EU as a trading area has one system of controls, rather than 28 separate ones. The Common Agricultural Policy or CAP is implemented through either a direct payment or an incentive payment for doing specific things.

It is clear that the EU and the U.S. have consumers that are very similar – both have opinions on how animals should be raised. To illustrate the EU Commission’s role, consider that some of the member states had a practice (ban on sow stalls) in the late 1990s. The EU

12 Commission assigned a committee to conduct a scientific review and develop a scientific point of view on the issue. Next, there was an economic analysis of the issue, followed by a social review of the issue. When those steps are completed, a report is issued, and the EU Commission could propose a ban on sow stalls, for example. It is then brought forward to the entire EU Commission to be considered and signed off on.

The EU Commission recognizes the Organization for International Epizootics (OIE) definition of animal welfare adopted by 172 OIE member countries in May 2008. The Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) calls animals “sentient beings” – that is, beings they can experience or feel pleasure and pain. As such, certain classes of animals (livestock, research, circus, etc.) fall under the EU Commission scope. However, companion animals are not under the Commission’s scope, nor are horses (until they are moved to slaughter).

In order to put the EU’s actions on animal care into perspective, Gavinelli provided a timeline of various events and activities that occurred in the EU and impacted consumers view of animal production and food safety. The 1986 identification of BSE initially raised the level of European consumer interest in food safety. Later, incidences of FMD, dioxin (from recycled motor oil) in poultry feed, and other events led to the development of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA originates concepts that may ultimately be developed into policy.

The EU spends the most money of any government body on animal welfare research – about $50 million last year. The EU’s Animal Welfare Quality research project has the highest profile. Recently, a “reference center” concept was proposed: a centralized place to obtain scientific research and information on animal welfare.

The EU also has common regulations that cover transport and harvesting of livestock. The

Commission’s efforts allow incorporation of new technologies (e.g., CO2 stunning).

As of January 1, 2013, the EU banned individual sow stalls while they are pregnant. By allowing the sows to be in social groups, farmers have improved welfare as well as profitability according to the Commission. The ban was adopted in 2001 and had a 12 year implementation period for compliance. According to Gavinelli, over the past six months, the EU experienced a very high rate of compliance with only 4% of the EU producers are not in compliance. [NOTE: this is not what we heard from the farmers and industry].

Gavinelli believes you can influence consumers with science and measurable indicators (e.g., you have to transport animals to process them into food). Future efforts by his unit include:  Having usable indicators to measure welfare  Providing transparency to consumers  Seeking equivalency for the products imported into the EU

John Brook, U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF)

The IFB is a member of the U.S. Meat Export Federation. John Brook, EU Manager for the USMEF joined the group for several visits. USMEF has a very strong presence in Asia, where

13 the large majority of its foreign staff works. John is responsible for Europe, Russia and the Middle East and is assisted by a marketing consultant in the EU, two staff in Russia and two consultants in the Middle East, one in Cairo and one in Beirut.

In order to help put agriculture in perspective, John provided the following overview of the region. Following WWI and WWII, the UK was the last country to stop food rationing in the 1950s. With the creation of the European Community and its Common Agricultural Policy, minimum prices for farm commodities were introduced in order to encourage production, guarantee self-sufficiency and avoid the food shortages that had marked so many people throughout and after the war. When prices fell below the minimum price, the government stepped in to purchase surplus product. However in order to dispose of these surpluses the EU had to put into place export subsidies which resulted in large volumes of agricultural products being “dumped” on the world market. By the 1970s, Europe had huge “wine lakes” and “butter mountains” from over production and was paying out ever higher amounts of government support to farmers. In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher insisted that the ever increasing expenditure on agriculture had to be brought under control. This eventually lead to policies which phased out these subsidies, and moved toward indirect payments (tier two), and “green” payments. These are payments that are made to incentivize environmental or animal welfare improvements. In the past decade, the EU has significantly lowered payments to the ag sector as a percentage of the overall EU budget. From a high point of around 70% of total EU spending, subsidies to agriculture are now below 50% of total expenditure. That said much remains to be done.

One of the areas in which the U.S. has huge potential in the EU is in quality beef. For a backdrop on that issue, Brook explained that in 1989, consumers in the EU experienced some problems due to farmers incorrectly overusing hormones in livestock production. At that time, the EU placed a ban on meat given growth promotants and subsequently banned all U.S. beef. The U.S. filed a WTO case against the EU and was awarded the right to impose tariffs on EU products to collect up to $120 million in damages. The U.S. has been collecting a part of these tariffs (the biggest effect of the extra import duties simply stopped the flow of the goods), but the money raised went to the US Treasury, not to the U.S. agriculture sector.

In order to continue to be able to sell some beef to the EU the US set up the NHTC (non- hormone treated cattle) scheme. Using this scheme some beef was able to enter the EU under what is known as the Hilton quota, an import quota allowing the import of high quality beef paying a 20% duty. In 2007, the US Government and the EU began negotiations to partially resolve the hormone dispute. In 2009 the EU opened a new quota for high quality beef with zero import duty and in exchange the US withdrew the extra import tariffs it was applying to EU products. This quota now stands at 48.200 MT and the USA shipped approximately 16.000 MT of beef for a value of around $ 200 million during the last quota year. Demand for this beef is strong, there is no equivalent in the EU to the marbled and tender US beef and there is good potential to grow this business. Part of John’s job is to educate HRI purchasers how to purchase and cook higher-quality meat. U.S. beef currently has a 60 to 70% price premium to EU beef.

14 Day 6, Saturday, June 29 Chairpersons: Carrie Pollard and Pat Bane Willy Derks, Rondeel Egg Farm and Peter Groot Koerkamp, University of Wageningen

Dr. Koerkamp, a professor of Biosystems Engineering at the University of Wageningen, is also a specialist in the Animal Sciences Group for Livestock Research at the university. He accompanied the visit and provided some background on research and work with consumers on their attitudes towards egg production. The round design for the Rondeel facilities came from consumers according to Dr. Koerkamp, when consumers were asked to draw their image of what a layer hen facility or barn should look like, they drew a round facility with access to light, outdoors, and perch and nesting areas. The facility we visited was indeed round and had those amenities.

Rondeel is a branded egg production unit, operated like a franchise. The “Rondeel” brand is managed such that it only grants a certain number of farmers the right to build the facility design and sell eggs under the Rondeel label. This business model should guarantee the farmer a profit by providing only enough eggs to satisfy consumer demand. Right now there are only three Rondeel houses in Holland and two farmers in California have inquired about the franchise.

Rondeel eggs are sold in 7 egg round packages to connect consumers with “an egg a day” marketing, as well as the round actual hen housing. Farmers would never think of this as “commodity” egg housing, only as a niche product market. In the supermarket, the price of the Rondeel eggs is a little cheaper than organic (0.40 Euro or $0.52 per egg for free range versus 0.29 Euro or $0.38 per egg for Rondeel.

Rondeel eggs are sold in 7 egg round packages to connect consumers with “an egg a day” marketing, as well as the round actual hen housing. Farmers would never think of this as “commodity” egg housing, only as a niche product market. Supermarket egg prices place Rondeel eggs just under organic eggs: Rondeel are .29 Euro (38 cents/egg), organic are .43 Euro (56 cents/egg), free range are .40 Euro (52 cents/egg).

The objective of the Rondeel house is to provide “perfect welfare” for the birds, achieve societal acceptance for layer production, and to create a facility that is not only ideal for workers who are in close contact to the birds but is also an economically beneficial system. Consumer research dictated the housing that was eventually franchised and includes both a round shape, and lots of glass/viewing areas.

The unit itself is built in a round shape, allowing for pie-shaped pens of birds (5 pens, each with a dark/inside and light/outside section) with 6,000 hens per pen or 30,000 hens per Rondeel facility. Each pen has access to perching/feeding areas in the darker area, with the goal of having them lay their eggs in the darker/nesting areas early in the morning after lights are put on at night, with access to the outdoors during the day. The outside pens have long-grass artificial AstroTurf, mulch areas, and tree limbs to perch on. Hens are exposed to outside air via chicken wire walls on two sides. The roof has a tarp (hoop barn-like) structure. The farm can cover the outside mulch areas with a retractable roof in times of

15 concern of avian influenza (with risk resulting from feces from infected ducks and other birds). The cover option is in place to keep wild birds from defecating in the bird’s pen

The birds were in immaculate condition with excellent feathering and hardly any skin, injury, or issues, especially for a flock that had not been debeaked. Even cracked or broken beaks were minimal. Raising birds in this type of housing required attention to genetics and allowing access to light during the pullet/rearing stage so that birds are not aggressive during the daylight. The entire facility is managed by 1 ½ employees (Mr. and Mrs. Derks and their son manage the facility with only Mr. Derks working full time).

The farm has achieved increased production per hen (310-320 eggs/hen for cages vs. 340-350 eggs/hen for Rondeel) but obviously the cost to construct and operate the facility with so much more space per hen (about 2 times more) is much higher. The Derks’ farm has a fairly typical 3% mortality level and attention to details (light, rearing, and genetics) are extremely important to maintain that number.

While managing such a clean, well-run facility is appealing, it would be difficult to do anywhere in the U.S. except for in a very temperate state like California. Environmentally, that might also be the only place where the farmer could wash the outside areas once a month and dry the manure for sale to others as fertilizer.

The marketing of the Rondeel system is phenomenal – however, the franchise owners do not intend this to be a commodity egg-raising system. They understand that it is too costly, and they will only “franchise” as many units as the demand for the eggs can match, so that they know they can keep it as a niche item.

As further evidence of application of the lessons learned through the Rondeel system, Rondeel system farmers and the supplier of the Rondeel aviary system are sharing their experience with other egg farmers in Holland. Those farmers are endeavoring to keep non- debeaked hens on their own farm (i.e., not in a Rondeel system). This unique effort us underway as Holland officials have indicated that debeaking may be banned in 2016, 4 years earlier than the voluntary agreement by the egg sector.

Eric Douma Hog Farm

Eric is not a farmer born and raised; his father purchased the farm when he was 18. His son is also studying agriculture as well (to become a hog farmer). One of the concerns Eric’s wife had is that the study program has only taken the students to dairy farms.

Eric’s large barn contained a series of different rooms, so the sows have different places they can go. His system is completely an open pen for 440 sows (he used the same building he had and just pulled the stalls out). He uses the “4 day” rule: he gets the sows cycled and then they go right into the big pen. The gilts do not get beat up by the old sows and Eric believes this is because the gilts learn the hierarchy right away. If the gilt doesn’t have the leg strength to move around to the various feeding areas, he weeds it out.

16 In Holland, he has to pay 8 Euros ($10.50) per cubic meter to get rid of the manure and his pit holds 1,000 cubic meters. When he went to group housing, his PSY declined from 29 to 27.2 and they are working to get that back up. Other than that, he believes the system works fine. Because of all the walking the sows have to do to get to the feed, he has had some feet and leg issues. Off all the systems our Illinois farmers had seen so far, his operation looked the most like home – with the exception that the remaining stalls were at the diagonal like the French stalls.

The welfare changes to his farm cost about 200,000 Euros ($260,000 U.S.) or about $600 per sow. Unlike the French farmers, Dutch farmers did not get any money from the federal government.

Eric noted that he does not have his sows on straw due to cost and the amount of labor that would be required. He has toys in all three areas of the barn and seeks to provide 2.5 meters of space per sow (although he has enough room for 2.8 square meters per sow). In the EU, for groups of more than 500 sows, the farmers can provide just 2.2 square meters per animal

As regards training the sows to go through the feeder, his barn has a divider fence so that he can see if the sows are learning to go through the feeder. His feeding system has 12 feeders total in 2 banks of 6 and he feeds pelletized feed. His computer monitors the feeding system so that he can see if a hog has lost a tag, for example. On average, he loses 1-2 tags/week. He sells his feeder pigs via contract for about 40 Euros per pig.

Eric definitely wasn’t a fan of Holland’s 4 days requirement (EU requirement is 4-28 days). It seems as though the 28 days is one thing we would want to hold on to in the U.S. Also, he noted that it is hard to treat the lame animals because the farmer can’t use antibiotics. And, with so little circulation down by the hoof, it’s hard to get the pigs to heal. Fortunately, Eric did not have to worry about not being able to use antibiotics in the finishing pigs the way the French farm did.

In general, Eric felt as though most farmers are willing to make changes to meet consumer desires, but that those consumers need to buy the concept first before farmers should be asked to change it. If farmers can’t make a living with the change, it’s not sustainable. He feels as though the middleman is getting a bigger cut of the money than the farmer, but the farmer was the one who had to pay for the change.

Day 7, Sunday, June 30 Chairperson: Pam Janssen

Claus Jorgensen Farm

Like Eric Douma, Claus Jorgensen was not born and raised on a hog farm. He purchased the farm in 1994 and and began with about 110 sows. He currently has 1,000 sows in group housing.

17 Claus changed his herd over to group housing in 2004. Initially his production fell, but now his production is back up to nearly 30 pigs per sow per year. Many farmers in the Denmark had to deal with the same production challenges. In addition, it is not easy to get credit for additional investments in production systems, so many farmers are expanding in phases.

He keeps the pigs until they are approximately 30 kilograms (66 pounds) and sells them to German producers who finish the pigs out.

It is important to Claus to have good relations with his neighbors, and routinely donates hogs for roasting and pork to the community.

Claus weans his piglets at 28 days and his sows farrow approximately 2.15 times per year.

As was seen in other hog operations throughout Europe, in Denmark, both the size of operations and the number of hogs increased after additional EU regulations on animal housing. Farmers are responding to increased requirements and costs by trying to spread the total cost across more hogs.

Jorgensen plans to add about 550 sows to his operation in the next few years. Jorgensen has two sons and a daughter that help with the operation (most often with the AI). He wasn’t sure whether or not any of his children would take over the farm. Jorgensen also brings in workers through an agency that locates labor in former East European nations. He and his family have had good success with the program. He noted that he does not look for laborers with livestock experience, but rather prefers to train the workers himself.

Hans Aarestrup Association of Danish Pig Producers

The Association of Danish Pig Producers was founded about 40 years ago when the industry wanted farmers to only use the Danish Landrace breed. The association had observed what crossbreeding allowed farmers to do and it provided the organization a starting point for future breeding improvements. The check-off paid by Danish producers is about $1 USD per head and goes to pay for research and global marketing efforts.

Northern Europe produces about 32% of EU hogs and is the most pig-dense area of Europe. Hog finishing primarily takes place in northern Germany, while Denmark and Holland provide the piglets. Denmark’s farmers produce more than 27.6 million pigs a year and sell them into a global market. They also sell a large number to Germany and to Poland for finishing. Dutch farmers often have several farms that are run by other people.

Most Danish sow herds have between 1,000-4,000 sows while less than 5% of the farmers have fewer than 500 sows. The goal for most farmers is to make 500 pigs a week in order to fill a truckload. Danish pork producers will break the 30 pigs per sow per year barrier this year. The UK average is 22.7 pigs per sow per year and farmers there must improve or they will get beat out by the Dutch and Danes. Danish producers are now about 99% compliant with group sow housing.

18 While EU farmers must abide by the same regulations, Danish producers embrace new building technology and are always educating their employees. Danish farmers can wean piglets at three-weeks if they can move them to a clean and warm environment. Four-week weaning is the law. They now look at pigs alive at five days as a better indicator of sow productivity. Danish producers use Large White (Yorkshire), Danish Landrace, and Duroc boars. Their production costs are about 1.6 – 2.0 €/kg ($0.94/lb - $1.18/lb).

On the issue of antibiotic use, if a farmer uses too many antibiotics, he is issued a “yellow card.” The producer then has to work closely with a veterinarian to get himself off the yellow card and corresponding internet listing him as a heavy user of antibiotics. Whereas Danish pork farmers use about .05 g per kilogram of meat produced, the U.S. farmer uses nearly 0.25 g per kg of meat produced.

A typical piglet layout requires farmers to provide materials that the pigs can manipulate as well as toys. This is another regulation that the legislators passed and the pork producers fought.

On a practical level, the changes have been expensive and the herd sizes have definitely grown larger. From an economic standpoint, certain countries are specializing on breeding and piglet production while others are focusing on finishing. Financially, investment in the ag sector is frozen and land prices fell by nearly 50% since the 2008 economic crisis. The value lost to farmers is about equal to farm income for the past 25 years. On a political level, environmental challenges are causing severe problems for production of pigs for slaughter, animal welfare discussions continue, and there are major issues with labor and wages. In a few words, it will be extremely difficult for northern EU hog farmers to remain competitive in this environment.

Day 8, Monday, July 1 Chairperson: Brian Spannagel

Peter Jensen, Jensen Farms and Jørgen Nyberg Larsen, Manager Danish Egg Association

Jensen’s farm was founded in 1986 and is a member of the Danish Egg Association. The size of his farm has grown from 72 to 400 hectares (172 to 960 acres). In 2008, Peter added 2 new buildings and now has 49,000 hens. He brings in birds around 17 weeks of age and keeps them in production until 79 weeks. At 80 weeks, birds are euthanized via CO2 chamber and milled into mink feed.

All of the farm’s eggs are marketing through a cooperative. His operation consists just of Peter and his wife, and one employee

The new designs to meet EU animal care rules must include a nest, place to perch, and opportunities for a sand bath. Jensen believes that the new mandated designs are a mistake. In 1989, layer cages allowed 400 cm² per hen, now they must allow for 600 cm² per hen. In addition, no more than 10 hens can be in each larger cage and an initiative was

19 just passed that hens may have their beaks trimmed. These regulations have increased the price of eggs two and a half times over traditional caged hens. There are some smaller grants available to help farmers meet the new requirements, but they are funded by taxes on eggs.

The Jensen family has had other challenges to their farm. In 2006 members of the community wanted to gain eminent domain in order to build a golf course where their farm sits. With the help of even activists that the Jensens never met, 4500 people signed a petition to support the farm remaining on its current location.

Regarding disease control, one of the biggest threats is salmonella and Denmark has strict rules. Peter cannot vaccinate for salmonella because you can’t differentiate between the disease and the vaccine. Currently, the farm has to test every 9 weeks. Testing begins at 24 weeks of age and in addition to the bird itself, manure and eggs have to be tested. There is currently proposed legislation to change the testing frequency from every 9 weeks to every 2 weeks. The farmer has to pay the testing cost.

In the area of manure management, the amount farmers may apply varies based off of nitrogen and sulfur. The target nitrogen is 100 kg. Application rates vary from 1.6-2 animal units per hectare with 167 layers equaling 1 animal unit.

With regard to inspection visits by authorities, the visits can be both scheduled and random. Farmers have to have a nutrient management plan. On expansion or building new buildings, there is a permitting process with a 2-3 year timeline. The local community is extensively involved in process, so it is important to build and maintain that relationship.

Erik Kam Danish Agriculture and Food Council

DAFC is a merger of several organizations, and was established in June 2009. The membership is very broad, farmers, industry members, cooperatives; all are members of the DAFC. The organizations that make up the DAFC primarily deal with the pig meat industry.

The DAFC represents farmers in the political arena, on market access issues, provides advisory services, and disseminates knowledge and innovation. The Council also does research and promotion. A fee is charged by the DAFC for some of the farmer advisory services. When asked about this and whether the DAFC worries about incurring any liability by this effort, staff noted that: 1) the Danish people are not very litigious, 2) the organization does not feel large amounts of money would be put at risk or benefit due to the type of advice given, and 3) that because all farmers are members, it wouldn’t benefit them to sue the organization that represents them.

Much of the work the Council is doing is in Brussels, because that is where many of the regulatory decisions are made. DAFC has staff working there full time. The DAFC is working with the U.S. on several trade-related issues including those related to tariff barriers on meat/livestock trade.

20 Agriculture and related industries are Denmark’s largest economic sector. Two-thirds of Danish agricultural production is exported. Sugar beet production has decreased dramatically, due to reductions in subsidies. Pig meat and milk are two of the largest agricultural sectors. In the last 100 years, there continues to be a consolidation of dairy co- ops, co-op slaughter houses, and grain processors. Germany is Denmark’s largest trading partner, followed by the UK, Hong Kong, Sweden, and Japan. The U.S. imports about 2.4 billion DKK ($ 418 million USD) in Danish agricultural products. The Danish ag sector is looking to increase pig finishing.

Denmark produces 30 million pigs per year and exports about 9 million live pigs to Germany, Poland, and other nations. Every decade, the number of pig producers in Denmark falls by 50%, while production continues to go up. But then, the live piglets are exported rather than finished in Denmark; this has to do with environmental and other legislation adverse to finishing hogs in Denmark.

Denmark is very efficient at producing piglets, but only average on waning. Even within the EU, different nations have different regulations that affect livestock production. Denmark is about 65% self-sufficient on feed production, but the agricultural policy supports livestock producers raising a portion of their feed themselves.

Asger Kjær Nielsen Pig Research Center

The Pig Research Center or PRC is a cooperative research effort that helps farmers “beyond the farm gate.” The PRC works to improve relationships between farmers and the slaughterhouses, on joint research projects, and to assimilate quality incentives back to the producer. Approximately $20 million per year is spent on research. To raise money for the center, there is a levy or fee on piglets going to slaughter and on piglets born. The farmer pays 5.6 DKK ($1 USD) for pigs less than 110 kg while for pigs larger than 110 kg the check- off is 11 DKK ($2 USD). You cannot do lobbying with this levy, but producers can contribute additional funds that may be used for lobbying. The average weaned piglet per sow per year is 29.6, and 13.1 weaned piglets per litter. Danish producers have a 1.82 feed to gain ratio.

For the research, the PRC does trials on 200 commercial farms and then can copy, cut and paste and apply to other farms via the advisory service.

Denmark did research on group housed sows early in the 1980s. In January 2013, the EU mandated group housing systems in member countries. Denmark is nearly 100% compliant and is one of the nations (after the UK) furthest along. Other nations are not in compliance or not fully implemented. DAFC staff members are very skeptical of the all but 4% compliance figure reported by the EU commission. As was noted by staff at the NFU and BPA in England, the slaughter pig from a non-compliant operation is not illegal; the production practice that does not keep the sow in group housing is illegal.

21 Loose farrowing looks better on paper, but the pigs are dirtier, and there is higher piglet mortality. It would increase the number of parities for the sow, which may be an indicator of improved welfare. The piglets do have more milk intake and a greater weaning weight. A pen needs to be developed that allows her to be confined for a few days, and then lets her move around. This may decrease piglet mortality. The Danish goal is to have 10 percent loose-housed lactating souse by 2020.

Danish regulations also include:  Materials that may be manipulated– straw, PVC pipes, toys, etc.  One-third slats and two-thirds concrete  One-half of the pens (every-other pen) must be segregated with panels.

Two major food safety efforts are salmonella testing and antibiotic monitoring.

Today, a Danish producer can produce two pigs with the same environmental impact as one pig in 1985.

In closing, the DAFC staff noted that a comprehensive survey was just conducted with Danish consumers (after the consumer had already purchased his/her pork) and when they were asked what the most important factors were in making their purchase, they said they cared about: price and food safety only. No mention was made of animal care.

22