View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Digital Repository @ Iowa State University

Economics Publications Economics

2015 The .SU . Gestation Stall Debate Lee L. Schulz Iowa State University, [email protected]

Glynn Tonsor Kansas State University

Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/econ_las_pubs Part of the Agricultural and Resource Economics Commons, and the Animal Sciences Commons The ompc lete bibliographic information for this item can be found at http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ econ_las_pubs/56. For information on how to cite this item, please visit http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ howtocite.html.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Economics at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Economics Publications by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The .SU . Gestation Stall Debate

Abstract One of the most contentious and emotional issues in livestock production is that of animal welfare. The welfare of livestock in commercial production systems has been, and continues to be, intensely debated by many groups, including, but not limited to, consumers, animal activists, scientists, legislators, and farmers. Perceptions or misconceptions of welfare issues can have a dramatic effect on livestock production if industries respond by changing certain production practices, if governments react by enacting laws dictating how livestock are produced, or if consumers respond by changing purchasing patterns. A major economic issue in this area spawns from the fact that existing markets may not be well suited for solving the animal welfare debate and imposition of regulatory requirements on production practices could result in significant costs to producers and, ultimately, consumers who pay higher prices for meat.

Keywords Animal Welfare, Economics of Legislation, Gestation Stalls, Pork, Swine

Disciplines Agricultural and Resource Economics | Animal Sciences

Comments This article is from Choices 30 (2015): 1.

Rights All rights reserved. Articles may be reproduced or electronically distributed as long as attribution to Choices and the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association is maintained.

This article is available at Iowa State University Digital Repository: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/econ_las_pubs/56 A publication of the Agricultural & Applied The magazine of food, farm, and resource issues Economics Association 1st Quarter 2015 • 30(1)

The U.S. Gestation Stall Debate Lee L. Schulz and Glynn T. Tonsor JEL Classifications: Q11, Q13, Q18 Keywords: Animal Welfare, Economics of Legislation, Gestation Stalls, Pork, Swine

One of the most contentious and emotional issues in the U.S. swine industry, the legal framework underlying livestock production is that of animal welfare. The welfare provisions of animal welfare in the United States, and ad- of livestock in commercial production systems has been, justments in livestock and meat markets regarding animal and continues to be, intensely debated by many groups, welfare claims and protocols. including, but not limited to, consumers, animal activists, scientists, legislators, and farmers. Perceptions or miscon- Changes in Swine Production ceptions of welfare issues can have a dramatic effect on live- The number of swine produced in the United States stock production if industries respond by changing certain during the last several decades has remained relatively con- production practices, if governments react by enacting laws stant. However, animal production practices have become dictating how livestock are produced, or if consumers re- increasingly concentrated with the major focus being on spond by changing purchasing patterns. A major economic improved economic efficiency (Fraser, Mench, and Mill- issue in this area spawns from the fact that existing markets man, 2001; and Mench, 2008). Once dominated by small may not be well suited for solving the animal welfare de- operations that practiced crop and swine production, the bate and imposition of regulatory requirements on produc- industry has become increasingly concentrated among tion practices could result in significant costs to producers large operations. According to the U.S. Department of and, ultimately, consumers who pay higher prices for meat. Agriculture’s (USDA) 2012 Census of Agriculture, 63,246 The concern for animal welfare has particularly tar- farms, about 3% of the 2.1 million farms in the United geted the use of gestation stalls—also known as gestation States, had a swine inventory in 2012 (USDA National Ag- crates—by swine producers. Gestation stalls are metal stalls ricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 2014). Most of these that house female breeding stock in individually confined were large operations. Over 95% of farms had a swine areas during an animal’s four-month pregnancy. Pork pro- inventory of more than 1,000 hogs, more than 90% had ducer organizations suggest that the use of gestation stalls more than 2,000 hogs, and over 67% had more than 5,000 may facilitate more efficient pork production resulting in hogs (USDA, NASS, 2014). lower prices for consumers. The use of the stalls is deemed As the industry has evolved, swine producers have had as an animal welfare issue by some because the stalls limit to adjust the size, organizational structure, and technologi- animal mobility (Tonsor, Olynk, and Wolf, 2009). This cal base of their operations, or cease production (Key and perception has led to regulatory pressures and agri-food McBride, 2007). Gestation stalls were an experimental sys- companies considering moving towards policies restricting tem in the 1950s and, as farms remodeled and were built, the use of gestation stalls. gestation stalls became more common amongst newer fa- To understand the economic aspects of this ongoing cilities in the 1970s (McGlone, 2013). In 2012, 75.8% of debate, it is helpful to review the structural evolution of all gestating breeding stock (38.9% of sites) in the United

©1999–2014 CHOICES. All rights reserved. Articles may be reproduced or electronically distributed as long as attribution to Choices and the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association is maintained. Choices subscriptions are free and can be obtained through http://www.choicesmagazine.org.

1 CHOICES 1st Quarter 2015 • 30(1) AAEA-0115-063 States was housed in individual stalls (USDA, Animal and Plant Health In- Figure 1. State-by-State Initiative and Referendum Provisions spection Service (APHIS), 2014). These changes in housing—com- bined with changes in nutrition, health, and genetics as well as the widespread adoption of new tech- nologies—have also led to significant changes in productivity. The efficien- cy of the U.S. swine breeding herd continues to increase with the average number of pigs per breeding animal continually on the rise. The average number of annual pigs per breeding herd animal (including sows, gilts, and boars) was 20.22 in 2012, up from 10.32 in 1963. This tremen- dous increase in the average number Source: Initiative & Referendum Institute (2013). of pigs per breeding animal is due to Note: This figure shows only the general initiative and referendum provisions for a particular state, not the increase in the number of litters those only specific to animal welfare regulations. Every state has some form of the legislative process which allows the government to place issues on the ballot and so, therefore, is not referenced in the per sow per year and the increase in map. litter rates. Overall, producers have been able to increase pig crops while decreasing breeding herd as a percent Hour Law, passed in 1873 (amend- animal activist groups to pressure in- of the total inventory. ed in 1994), requires that animals, dividual states to enact animal wel- while in the course of interstate trans- fare legislation (Mosel, 2001; Uralde, The pressure for increased pro- portation, may not be confined in 2001; and Mench, 2008). duction efficiency is driven by many a vehicle or vessel for more than 28 factors, among them the drive to ac- Proponents of state legislation hours without unloading the animals quire export markets; the availability claim that stalls (for gestating sows, for feeding, water, and rest (USDA, of competing imports; the low mar- veal, and other farm animals) or cages National Agriculture Library (NAL), gins paid to producers because of the (for laying hens) cause cruelty to ani- 2014a). The Humane Methods of increased cost of product packaging, mals, while the opponents argue that Slaughter Act, originally passed in distribution, and marketing; tech- they are merely engaging in normal 1958 (the law that is enforced today nological innovation; and the high animal production practices (Rum- was passed as the Humane Slaugh- cost of skilled farm labor (Appleby, ley, 2009). The debate is intensified ter Act of 1978), requires the proper 2005; Appleby, 2006; and Mench, by the fact that, while all 50 states treatment and humane handling of all 2008). To remain competitive, pro- have enacted some form of legislation food animals, excluding chickens and ducers must continuously maintain prohibiting cruelty to animals, about other birds, slaughtered in USDA- or improve production performance. 30 states exempt “common,” “nor- inspected slaughter plants (USDA, Swine producers are reluctant to mal,” or “customary” farm animal NAL, 2014b). change from well-established produc- production practices from coverage tion practices unless they increase There has been almost no change under the law (Wolfson and Sullivan, performance or at the very least do in U.S. federal legislation related to 2004). not decrease performance. Any pro- farm animals in the last several de- In addition to the typical legisla- duction system that has a negative cades, even though the treatment tive process, there are ballot measures impact on performance will not be of animals in research, exhibition, to enact new laws or constitutional widely adopted voluntarily. transport, and by dealers has been amendments or repeal existing laws extensively regulated since 1966 or constitutional amendments. An Legal Framework in Animal (amendments in 1970, 1976, 1985, initiative is a proposal of a new law Welfare 1990, 2002, 2007, and 2008) under or constitutional amendment that is the provisions of the Animal Wel- placed on the ballot by petition, that In the United States, there are two fare Act (USDA, NAL, 2014c). The is, by collecting signatures of a certain federal laws regulating the treatment lack of federal legislation governing number of citizens. A referendum is a of farm animals. The Twenty-Eight the housing of farm animals has lead

2 CHOICES 4th Quarter 2014 • 29(4) or other up-stream industry partici- Table 1. States with Bans on the Use of Gestation Stalls and Corresponding Breeding Invent pants) requests not cleanly matching Breeding inventory consumer signals for change in the Year form of observed food purchasing State passed Type Number Rank in U.S. Percent of U.S. behavior. Florida 2002 Ballot Initiative 3,509 30th 0.06% Arizona 2006 Ballot Initiative Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Oregon 2007 Legislation 2,801 32nd 0.05% Farm Level Costs of Transitioning Colorado 2008 Legislation 145,140 11th 2.54% from Gestation Stalls to Group California 2008 Ballot Initiative 8,322 28th 0.15% Housing Maine 2009 Legislation 1,596 37th 0.03% Michigan 2009 Legislation 111,983 13th 1.96% The transition from gestation stall Ohio 2010 Legislation 142,782 12th 2.50% housing to group housing is the most Rhode Island 2012 Legislation 578 44th 0.01% common adjustment being made or Source: States with bans on the use of gestation stalls compiled from Rumley (2009), Nation discussed within the industry. For HSUS (2014). Breeding operations and inventory are as of the end of December 2012; comp example, in 2007, Smithfield Foods, (USDA NASS 2014). Note: Any tabulated item that could potentially identify an individual producer or operation Inc., made a decision based on in- Census of Agriculture data and, thus, not available to be reported here. put from its customers to convert to group housing for pregnant sows on all company-owned U.S. farms. proposal to repeal a law that was pre- percentage of the U.S. breeding in- Smithfield remains on track to fin- viously enacted by the legislature, and ventory and breeding operations. For ish its conversion to group housing that is placed on the ballot by citizen example, the top three states ranked systems on all company-owned U.S. petition. Currently 24 states have the by breeding inventory represent over farms by 2017 and is asking contract initiative process and 24 states permit 41% of the breeding inventory and sow growers to convert by 2022 with a referendum (Initiative & Referen- over 13% of the breeding operations a sliding scale of incentives to acceler- dum Institute, 2013). Figure 1 shows in the United States - Iowa 917,567 ate that timetable (Smithfield, 2014). which states have the initiative and inventory (1,676 operations), North Gestation stall housing is well de- referendum process, and what type. Carolina 896,231 inventory (838 fined in the United States because a These states through the initiative operations), and Minnesota 572,545 prototypical system has been installed or referendum process have enacted inventory (1,133 operations) (USDA as the industry has modernized in the (or have the ability to enact) laws NASS, 2014). These states do not past 25 years. In contrast, no proto- that regulate farm animal production have initiative and referendum provi- typical gestation group housing sys- practices. There is no provision for sions and currently there is no farm tem has emerged, largely because of any sort of ballot proposition at the animal confinement legislation being its limited application at the commer- national level in the United States. considered in these states. cial level which has limited the evo- Several states have issued bans on Smithson et al. (2014) suggest lution of systems to fit commercial sow gestation stalls, veal calf stalls, a larger number of states may be scale. Group housing has been shown or conventional cage systems for lay- favorable to initiatives similar to to include large pen systems (greater ing hens. Oregon, Colorado, Maine, California’s Proposition 2. Proposi- than 50 sows in a pen) and small pen Michigan, Ohio, and Rhode Island tion 2 prohibits California livestock systems (six or fewer sows in a pen) have already passed legislation and producers from the “confinement of (Buhr, 2010). Edwards (2008) sug- Florida, Arizona, and California farm animals in a manner that does gests that the extent to which accept- have already passed animal confine- not allow them to turn around freely, able economic performance can be ment laws through a ballot initiative lie down, stand up, and fully extend realized in alternative housing sys- (National Agricultural Law Center, their limbs” (California Secretary of tems for gestating swine depends on 2014; and Humane Society of the State, 2008). The particular species the level of performance which can be United States (HSUS), 2014). The and production segments discussed achieved in a given system relative to states slated for elimination of gesta- in Proposition 2 were calves raised for the cost requirement. tion stalls represent a relatively small veal, laying hens, and gestating sows The first issue to consider relates percentage of the total U.S. breeding and gilts. Importantly, the authors to the fixed costs arising from the inventory (7.30%) and breeding op- identify a disconnect between these capital cost of system installation. erations (18.89%) (Table 1). How- states and the distribution of livestock Several studies have estimated the di- ever, future regulation in other states production highlighting tension that rect costs of switching from gestation could significantly impact a greater can arise from customer (retailers

3 CHOICES 4th Quarter 2014 • 29(4) stalls to group pen housing (Lammers demographic and a ban on gestation Consumer demand for gestation- et al., 2007; Buhr, 2010; and Seibert stalls could affect producers of differ- stall-free pork, or the elimination of and Norwood, 2011). While there is ent sizes, cost structures, and manage- gestation stalls, is difficult to identify. general agreement of increasing costs ment styles in various ways. With the elimination, one cannot at the farm level, the magnitude of in- simply say that demand for pork will crease is highly debated. Buhr (2010) Changes in the Market Place increase. Previous research has shown defines several factors that will deter- Consumers are increasingly sen- that consumers, when directly asked, mine transition costs. These include: sitive to food production processes. on average prefer pork produced “(1) the feasibility and cost of retrofit- Livestock products in particular without gestation stalls. What is un- ting existing stall facilities into group arouse consumer sentiment regard- clear is how providing information housed facilities compared to com- ing livestock treatment and animal on gestation stall use would impact plete construction of new facilities, welfare (Frewer et al., 2005). The ac- aggregate pork demand. For example, (2) the remaining useful life of the tions of companies that have commit- consumers may prefer that gestation existing facilities and the useful life of ted to sourcing pork from producers stalls not be used but, after learning renovating these facilities compared who do not use gestation stalls or are that gestation stalls were used in the to constructing new facilities, (3) the phasing them out of their own facili- first place, may begin to further ques- amount of time available to make the ties indicate that activism has led to tion animal welfare or other issues in transition if there is a time limitation, strong market forces to discontinue the production of pork which could (4) any subsequent differences in op- gestation stall use in the United States reduce demand. On the other hand, eration and production net profits (HSUS, 2014). Furthermore, the the ban may appease those consumers after the refurbishment, (5) space al- Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and concerned about animal welfare and location requirements for pens versus the National Council of Chain Res- pork demand may increase. stall facilities which will determine if taurants (NCCR) support enhanced new buildings must be constructed pork industry guidelines regarding State of Change, Vote versus Buy to accommodate existing production gestation housing systems (FMI and Difference levels, and (6) the learning curve of NCCR, 2002). management and labor in achieving It is important to note that gesta- production results in a new system.” An argument is typically made tion stalls continue to be voluntarily that gestation-stall-free pork is de- used on roughly three-fourths of the The second issue relates to the lev- manded by consumers and they will inventory (roughly two-fifths of op- el of reproductive performance which compensate producers by paying erations). This suggests that actual can be achieved in a given system rel- higher prices. A number of recent WTP for stall-free pork products is ative to the variable cost requirement. studies have assessed consumer will- likely lower when summed across all A review of available scientific litera- ingness to pay (WTP) for animal pork products than what is needed ture on swine breeding stock housing welfare attributes in meat products, to cover adjustment costs. If this showed that well managed gestation including gestation-stall-free pork were not the case, one would expect stalls and group housing produced (Grannis and Thilmany, 2002; Ton- more apparent and voluntary adjust- similar outcomes for gestating swine sor, Olynk, and Wolf, 2009; Tonsor, ment towards alternative production in terms of physiology, behavior, per- Wolf, and Olynk, 2009; Olynk, Ton- practices given favorable benefit-cost formance, and health (McGlone et sor, and Wolf, 2010a; Olynk, Tonsor, relationships. This is consistent with al., 2004). Likewise, a similar scien- and Wolf, 2010b; Tonsor and Wolf, points made by McKendree et al. tific literature review concluded that 2010; Prickett, Norwood, and Lusk (2013) highlighting the need to eval- neither stall nor group housing is 2010; and Tonsor and Wolf, 2011). uate the total premium of stall-free clearly superior to the other and that However, a general consensus has not production across the full set of pork each system has advantages and dis- been found regarding the magnitude products as the cost of producing advantages (Rhodes et al., 2005). The of consumers WTP or if WTP would the entire carcass—not just typically literature suggests that the method be large enough to offset a cost in- examined pork chops—is impacted of gestation housing plays an impor- crease at the farm level. Buhr (2010) given the adjustment occurs dur- tant but not exclusive role in breed- estimates that to fully compensate ing the live-animal segment of pork ing herd productivity. Many factors pork producers would require an production. are shown to influence productiv- additional 25% increase in con- The situation underpins the con- ity such as genetics, health, environ- sumer WTP for U.S. pork products ment, geographic location, worker troversial setting of animal welfare from gestating swine raised in group discussions in the United States as skill, and management. In reality, housing. swine producers are a heterogeneous producers are meeting the consumer

4 CHOICES 4th Quarter 2014 • 29(4) outside the usual marketplace: in the Regardless of why this behavior Frewer, L.J., A. Kole, S.A.A. Van de voting booth. The list of examples occurs, when voters require practices Kroon, and C. de Lauwere. 2005. where voting residents send signals that shoppers will not fully fund, it “Consumer Attitudes Towards the inconsistent with observed con- has an adverse effect on agricultural Development of Animal-Friendly sumption behavior is growing and producers which, of course, leads Husbandry Systems.” Journal of increasing political tension between to the observed added contention Agricultural & Environmental Eth- producers and consumers. Perhaps regarding requested production ics 18:345–67. the clearest demonstrative and high- changes that arrive from sources not Fraser, D., J. Mench, S. Millman. profile example is that cage-free eggs fully paying premiums to cover ad- 2001. Farm animals and their hold less than 5% market share in the justment costs. welfare in 2000. Rowan, A. and United States, yet the majority of resi- Salem, D. (Eds.) State of the Ani- dents who have voted on related bal- For More Information mals 2000. Humane Society of lots have supported restricting use of Allender, W.J. and T.J. Richards. the United States Press, Washing- laying hen cages (Norwood and Lusk, 2010. “Consumer Impact of ton, DC. 2011). Allender and Richards (2010) Animal Welfare Regulation in Food Marketing Institute and Na- also note: “Somewhat paradoxically, a the California Poultry Industry.” majority of California voters elected tional Council of Chain Restau- Journal of Agricultural and Re- rants. FMI-NCCR Animal Wel- to regulate cage-free production, even source Economics. 35:424-442. though almost three-quarters of egg fare Program. June 2002 Report. consumers are not willing to pay the Appleby, M.C., 2005. “The Relation- Available online: http://www.fmi. price difference required” (p. 436). ship Between Food Prices and An- org/docs/animal-welfare/awnews- This example is shared as the existing imal Welfare.” Journal of Animal advisory62702.pdf?sfvrsn=0. literature is richer in terms of egg re- Science. 83(Supplement):E9-E12. Grannis, J. and D.D. Thilmany. 2002 search applying scanner data but the Appleby, M.C., 2006. “Animal Sen- “Marketing Natural Pork: An same general point holds in the de- tience in US Farming.” In: Turn- Empirical Analysis of Consumers bate of gestation stalls. er, J., D’Silva, J. (Eds.), Animals, in the Mountain Range.” Agri- Some recent research applied to Ethics and Trade: The Challenge business. 18(4):476-489. animal welfare issues suggest several of Animal Sentience. Earthscan, Harvey, D. and C. Hubbard. 2013. reasons citizens may be more likely to London, pp. 159-165. “Reconsidering the political econ- vote to ban practices than they are to Buhr, B.L. 2010. “Economic Impact omy of farm animal welfare: An regularly buy resulting products in the of Transitioning from Gestion anatomy of market failure.” Food grocery store. Harvey and Hubbard Stalls to Group Pen Housing in Policy. 38:105-114. (2013) outline six reasons including: the U.S. Pork Industry.” Staff pa- Humane Society of the United States. 1) cheap talk of voting (the costs may per P10-4. College of Food, Ag- 2014. “Timeline of Major Farm be more salient in retail than ballot ricultural and Natural Resources, Animal Protection Advance- settings); 2) some people are willing University of Minnesota, St. Paul. ments.” Available online: http:// to pay retail premiums only if they California Secretary of State. 2008. www.humanesociety.org/issues/ are assured of actual improvements Proposition 2: Standards for Con- confinement_farm/timelines/ in the underlying issue (highlighting fining Farm Animals. Available timeline_farm_animal_protec- the role of group vs. individual deci- online: http://www.sos.ca.gov/ tion.html. sion-making); 3) product labels are elections/elections_j_103008. Initiative & Referendum Institute. not sufficient or reliable to influence htm. 2013. State-by-State List of Initia- purchasing; 4) overall information tive and Referendum Provisions. available to consumers is inadequate Edwards, S.A. 2008. “Balancing Sow University of Southern California. or confusing, leading to reduced pur- and Piglet Welfare with Produc- Available online: http://www.ian- chases; 5) the costs of checking in- tion Efficiency.” Paper presented drinstitute.org/statewide_i%26r. formation are too high; and 6) other at the London Swine Conference. htm. things besides the issue of focus in a April 1-2. voting setting are more important in Key, N. and W. McBride. December purchasing environments (for exam- 2007. The Changing Economics of ple, safety may trump animal welfare U.S. Hog Production. U.S. De- at the retail shelf but not be consid- partment of Agriculture Econom- ered in a voting booth). ic Research Report Number 52.

5 CHOICES 4th Quarter 2014 • 29(4) Lammers, P., M. Honeyman, J. Kli- National Agricultural Law Cen- Smithfield, 2014. Smithfield Foods ebenstein, J. Harmon. “Impact ter. 2014. States’ Farm Animal Recommends Its Contract Grow- of Gestation Housing System on Confinement Statutes. Uni- ers Convert to Group Housing for Weaned Pig Production Cost.” versity of Arkansas. Available Pregnant Sows. January 2, 2014. A.S. Leaflet R2235. Iowa State online: http://nationalaglaw- Available online: http://investors. University Animal Industry Re- center.org/state-compilations/ smithfieldfoods.com/releasede- port 2007. Available online: farm-animal-welfare/. tail.cfm?releaseid=817511. http://www.ans.iastate.edu/re- Norwood, F.B. and J.L. Lusk. 2011. Smithson, K., M. Corbin, J.L. Lusk, port/air/2007pdf/R2235.pdf. Compassion by the Pound: The and F.B. Norwood. 2014. “Pre- McGlone, J.J., E.H. von Borell, J. Economics of Farm Animal Wel- dicting State-Wide Votes on Bal- Deen, A.K. Johnson, D.G. Levis, fare. Oxford, U.K: Oxford Uni- lot Initiatives to Ban Battery Cag- M. Meunier-Salaun, j. Morrow, versity Press, 2011. es and Gestation Crates.” Journal D. Reeves, J.L. Salak-Johnson, Olynk, N.J., G.T. Tonsor, and C.A. of Agricultural and Applied Eco- and P.L. Sundberg. 2004. “Re- Wolf. 2010a. “Consumer Will- nomics. 46:107-124. view: Compilation of the Scientif- ingness to Pay for Livestock Cre- Tonsor, G.T., N. Olynk, and C.A. ic Literature Comparing Housing dence Attribute Claims.” Journal Wolf. 2009. “Consumer Pref- Systems for Gestating Sows and of Agricultural and Resource Eco- erences for Animal Welfare Gilts Using Measures of Physiol- nomics. 35(2):261-280. Attributes: The Case of Ges- ogy, Performance and Health.” Olynk, N.J., G.T. Tonsor, and C.A. tation Crates.” Journal of Agri- The Professional Animal Scientist. cultural and Applied Economics. 20: 105-117. Wolf. 2010b. “Verifying Cre- dence Attributes in Livestock 41(3):713-730. McGlone, J.J. 2013. Sow Stalls – A Production.” Journal of Agri- Tonsor, G.T., C. Wolf, and N. Olynk. Brief History. Pig Progress, De- cultural and Applied Economics. 2009. “Consumer Voting and De- cember 9, 2013. Available on- 42(3):439-452. mand Behavior Regarding Swine line: http://www.pigprogress. Prickett, R.W., F.B. Norwood, and Gestation Crates.” Food Policy. net/Home/General/2013/12/ 34:492-498. Sow-stalls--a-brief-history- J.L. Lusk. 2010. “Consumer pref- 1388603W/. erences for farm animal welfare: Tonsor, G.T. and C. Wolf. 2010. results from a telephone survey of “Drivers of Resident Support McKendree, M.G.S., N. Olynk US households.” Animal Welfare. for Animal Care Oriented Bal- Widmar, D.L. Ortega, and K.A. 19:335-347. lot Initiatives.” Journal of Agri- Foster. 2013. “Consumer Prefer- Rhodes, R.T., M.C. Appleby, K. cultural and Applied Economics. ences for Verified Pork-Rearing 42(3):419-428. Practices in the Production of Chinn, L. Douglas, L.D. Firkins, Ham Products.” Journal of Agri- K.A. Houpt, C. Irwin, J.J. Mc- Tonsor, G.T. and C.A. Wolf. 2011. cultural and Resource Economics. Glone, P. Sundberg, L. Tokach, “On Mandatory Labeling of Ani- 38:397-417. and R.W. Wills. 2005. “A Com- mal Welfare Attributes.” Food Pol- prehensive Review of Housing icy. 36(3):430-437 Mench, J.A. 2008. “Farm Animal for Pregnant Sows.” Journal of the Welfare in the U.S.A.: Farming U.S. Department of Agriculture, American Veterinary Medical Asso- Animal and Plant Health Inspec- Practices, Research, Education, ciation. 227(10):1580-1590. Regulation, and Assurance Pro- tion Service. 2014. Swine 2012, grams.” Applied Animal Behaviour Rumley, E.R. 2009. “A Proposal to Part I: Baseline Reference of Swine Science. 113:298-312. Regulate Farm Animal Confine- Health and Management, 2012. ment and Overview of Current National Animal Health Moni- Mosel, A. 2001. “What About Wil- and Proposed Laws.” Drake Jour- toring System. Fort Collins, CO bur? Proposing a Federal Statute nal of Agricultural Law 14:437. #663.0814. to Provide Minimum Humane Living Conditions for Farm Ani- Seibert, L. and F.B. Norwood. 2011. U.S. Department of Agriculture, mals Raised for Food Produc- “Production Costs and Animal National Agriculture Library. tion.” University of Dayton Law Welfare for Four Stylized Hog 2014a. Twenty-Eight Hour Law. School. 27:133-186. Production Systems.” Journal of Available online: http://awic.nal. Applied Animal Welfare Science usda.gov/government-and-pro- 14(1):1-17. fessional-resources/federal-laws/ twenty-eight-hour-law.

6 CHOICES 4th Quarter 2014 • 29(4) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Na- tional Agriculture Library. 2014b. Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Available online: http://awic.nal. usda.gov/government-and-pro- fessional-resources/federal-laws/ humane-methods-slaughter-act. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Library. 2014c. Animal Welfare Act. Avail- able online: http://awic.nal. usda.gov/government-and-pro- fessional-resources/federal-laws/ animal-welfare-act. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statis- tics Service. 2014. Census of Agriculture. Available online: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/ Publications/2012/#full_report. Uralde, J. 2001. “Congress’ Failure to Enact Animal Welfare Legislation for the Rearing of Farm Animals: What is Truly at Stake.” University of Miami Business Law Review. 9:193-214 Wolfson, D.J. and M. Sullivan. 2004. Foxes in the hen house. In Cass R. Sunstein and Martha Craven Nussbaum (eds.), Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Direc- tions. Oxford University Press. 205--228.

Lee L. Schulz ([email protected]) is an Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames. Glynn T. Tonsor (gtonsor@ksu. edu; Twitter: @TonsorGlynn) is an As- sociate Professor, Department of Agri- cultural Economics, Kansas State Uni- versity, Manhattan.

7 CHOICES 4th Quarter 2014 • 29(4)