Why is apparent pig abuse OK? Veterinary group explains

Anyone who watches the Mercy for Animals video shot at Iowa Select Farms, one of the nation's largest pork producers, is unlikely to forget it anytime soon. 

Among the indelible images: workers castrate baby pigs with no painkillers, cutting open their abdomens and digging in with bare fingers; they pound piglets to death on the floor; they keep sows tightly confined in narrow metal crates on bare concrete.

Many viewers come away with the impression that the owners, managers, and/or workers must be crazed sadists who deserve prosecution.

But that’s probably not going to happen. None of the pig handling practices depicted in the video shot at Iowa Select Farms are illegal. And most of the practices fall within standards approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV), the two groups upon whom the state’s pork industry relies for animal care recommendations, according to Iowa Pork Producers Association Communications Director Ron Birkenholz.

Animal Policy Examiner (APE) asked AVMA to explain those standards. Dr. Gail Golab responded via email to APE’s original questions with the answers below.

In lieu of replies to APE’s subsequent follow-up questions, AVMA Media Relations Manager David Kirkpatrick repeatedly said, “We have concluded that we have contributed all we can on this topic.”

The unanswered follow-up questions are included in the interview below.

Q&A WITH DR. GAIL GOLAB, AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

ANIMAL POLICY EXAMINER (APE): Is it correct that AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) provides recommendations on swine care that the National Pork Board then uses in turn to set policies for producers to follow?

If so, how does AVMA generate and decide on those recommendations? Who at AVMA makes those decisions?  Is there a certain committee or group of individuals? 

DR. GAIL GOLAB: Topics that appear appropriate for development of AVMA policy are identified on an ongoing basis via environmental scanning reviews of scientific publications and federal and state legislative and regulatory proposals, reports of practice experiences from our members, by AVMA entity members (Councils, Committees and Task Forces), etc.

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Define “environmental scanning,” please?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

GOLAB: The topic is then directed to the appropriate expert group (e.g., AVMA Councils, Committees, Task Forces) for consideration. Councils/Committees/Task Forces, which are composed of volunteers, consider the topic and evaluate its relevance and importance to the veterinary profession and the AVMA.

They seek opinions from experts; review and evaluate the relevant scientific literature; gather input from colleagues; and determine the issue's impacts on animals, veterinary professionals, and clients.

If after their deliberations, they believe it appropriate, they will send a policy recommendation to the Executive Board.  Resolutions that establish policy can also be submitted to the AVMA House of Delegates by veterinary associations represented in the House or via petition of AVMA members.

The Executive Board/House of Delegates discuss the recommendations/resolutions, evaluate the facts and reasoning used to develop the recommendations/resolutions, and vote on the recommendation/resolution.

A majority vote is generally required for adoption. Recommendations/resolutions can be approved, disapproved, or referred back to the original source or another AVMA entity for consideration and input.

A diagram of how AVMA policy is created can be found here: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/policy_flow_chart.pdf

APE: Is castration of piglets with no painkillers approved by the AVMA?

GOLAB:  AVMA's policy on castration of swine (see: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/tail_docking_swine.asp) states "..The AVMA recommends the use of procedures and practices that reduce or eliminate pain, including the use of approved or AMDUCA-permissible clinically effective medications whenever possible. The AVMA encourages development and implementation of practical analgesic and anesthetic protocols for, and alternatives to, swine castration."

Good pain management is not limited to administration of drugs. It also includes attention to the technique and timing (how old the animal is) of surgical procedures, as well as consideration of handling stress (the negatives of the latter can compete with the benefits obtained by administration of anesthetics and analgesics).

[FROM WEBSITE: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/tail_docking_swine.asp>:

Castration of swine can help control aggressive behavior and improve the palatability of pork. Current U.S. swine markets do not allow for mass marketing of uncastrated male pigs.

Castration is a painful surgical procedure and should be performed as early as possible, preferably by 14 days of age. Surgical wounds should be healed prior to weaning.

After 14 days of age, swine should be castrated using analgesia and/or anesthesia. The AVMA recommends the use of procedures and practices that reduce or eliminate pain, including the use of approved or AMDUCA-permissible clinically effective medications whenever possible.

The AVMA encourages development and implementation of practical analgesic and anesthetic protocols for, and alternatives to, swine castration.]

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: How old do the piglets in the Iowa Select Farms video appear to be?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: In the video scenes of castrations, a worker is shown digging with bare fingers into a piglet’s abdomen with remove the testicles – no glove.  Also it seems that perhaps there’s no disinfectant swabbed onto the skin. All in all, the scenes of those procedures and other veterinary-type procedures in the video give the impression of being done without much attention to hygiene protocols. What was your impression of whether or not the procedures were in accordance with proper protocols for hygiene?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Could this type of method in general—workers castrating the piglets in a seemingly rapid fashion—lead to higher incidence of infection or other complications?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE:  Is tail-docking with no painkillers approved by AVMA?

GOLAB:  AVMA's policy on Tail Docking and Teeth Clipping of Swine (see: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/tail_docking_teeth_clip...) states "...The AVMA recommends the use of procedures and practices that reduce or eliminate pain, including the use of approved or AMDUCA-permissible clinically effective medications whenever possible."

Again, good pain management is not limited to administration of drugs. It includes attention to appropriate handling and the performance and timing of surgical procedures.

APE: Is tossing of piglets from one person to another, or onto the floor, approved by AVMA?

GOLAB:  AVMA does not have a specific policy regarding "tossing of piglets." The AVMA Animal Welfare Principles, however apply to this practice (see: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/principles.asp) which state, "...Animals must be provided proper handling… Animals should be cared for in ways that minimize fear, pain, stress, and suffering. Procedures related to animal housing, management, care, and use should be continuously evaluated, and when indicated, refined or replaced...Animals shall be treated with respect and dignity throughout their lives..."

As per our Principles, tossing of piglets from one person to another or onto the floor is not good handling practice.

APE: Why are those three procedures done—castration, tail docking, and tossing?

GOLAB: Information is available in our two related policies (http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/tail_docking_swine.asp and http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/tail_docking_teeth_clip...). 

More detailed information is available in these policies' supporting reference document Backgrounder: Welfare Implications of Practices Performed on Piglets (see: http://www.avma.org/reference/backgrounders/practices_piglets_bgnd.asp)

APE: I understand that there is a law(s) that restricts the sale of meat from animals who have received anesthetics and other medications?  If so, could you clarify that for us? Which law mandates that, etc.?

GOLAB: The Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act (AMDUCA) limits drug use outside of labeled indications (extra-label drug use [ELDU]) for food producing animals.  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has enforcement responsibility for this Act.

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Would use of analgesic or anesthetic drugs given to piglets for castration/tail-docking need to be extra-label as opposed to use within labeled indications?

If so, why?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

GOLAB: The AMDUCA requires the following conditions be met for drugs to be used outside of label recommendations:

• ELDU is permitted only by or under the supervision of a veterinarian.

• ELDU is allowed only for FDA-approved animal and human drugs.

• A valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship is a prerequisite for all ELDU.

• ELDU applies to therapeutic purposes only (animal's health is suffering or threatened).

APE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION:  How about for pain relief?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

GOLAB: It does not apply to drugs used solely to improve production. 

• Rules apply to drugs administered directly to animals (e.g., via injection) as well as drugs administered in their water. ELDU in feed is prohibited.

• ELDU is not permitted if it results in a food residue that may present a risk to public health.

There are also specific label and record-keeping requirements that must be met by the prescribing veterinarian. 

In addition to the above requirements for use, there are some drugs that are prohibited for use in animals used to produce food.  They include:

.      Chloramphenicol

.      Clenbuterol

.      Diethylstilbestrol (DES)

.      Dimetridazole

.      Ipronidazole

.      Other Nitroimidazoles

.      Furazolidone, Nitrofurazone, Other Nitrofurans

.      Sulfonamide drugs in lactating dairy cows (except approved use of sulfadimethoxine, sulfabromomethazine, and sulfaethoxypyridazine)

.      Fluoroquinolones

.      Glycopeptides (example: vancomycin)

.      Phenybutazone in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older

.      Adamantane and neuraminidase inhibitor classes of drugs that are approved for treating or preventing influenza A are prohibited therapy in chickens, turkeys, and ducks.

Those using acceptable drugs in food-producing animals also must adhere to "withdrawal times," meaning that they need to allow sufficient time for a drug to be cleared from the animal's system before it or its products can be used for food.

APE: Would it apply even in the case of local anesthetic (for castration or tail-docking, perhaps) given to small piglets who won't go to market for months?

GOLAB: Using the AVMA's Algorithm for Extra-Label Drug Use (see: http://www.avma.org/reference/amduca/amduca2.asp a prescribing veterinarian with a valid veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR) would be able to utilize pain control for piglet castration.

It is important to understand that in many cases, piglet castrations are performed by farm owners and farm staff and not by veterinarians. No one besides a veterinarian with a VCPR with that farm can prescribe and use extra-label drugs for pain control.

APE’s FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Are there within-label drugs that could be used for pain control?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE’s FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: In intensive pork production facilities, are sutures typically used to close up castration incisions? Should they be?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE’s FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Is it acceptable to AVMA for farm owners and staff to be performing such surgeries?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE: Is it correct that sometimes the castrations are 'botched' and cause intestines to come out as well?

GOLAB: Castrations do not necessarily have to be "botched" for prolapse of the intestine to occur. Performing castrations after the first three days of life can make it easier to detect inguinal hernias in piglets that can lead to prolapse of the intestines.

The occurrence of herniation can also be reduced by proper training of staff, including how to identify a scrotal hernia prior to the castration procedure, and then using a castration method that reduces the risk of herniation.

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: To your knowledge is such proper training typically provided?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE: How common is herniation?

GOLAB: It's been reported in the literature that hernias in growing pigs occur at a frequency of about 1 to 7 %. The existence of a hernia, however, is not equivalent to evisceration of the intestines. If the hernia is in the scrotum and the intestines are present in the scrotum at the time of castration, the intestines can eviscerate. It's also possible for intestines to migrate to the scrotum after castration.

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: A frequency of 1 to 7% means that between one and seven out of every 100 growing pigs have hernias. Is this considered a relatively high frequency?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: If so, what might account for this frequency? For example, is it a genetic trait? Presumably the pig breed or breeds used for pork production are pretty specialized? Could this trait have been inadvertently bred in?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: My understanding is that in humans, hernias can be excruciatingly painful.  Given that pig physiology and anatomy seem to be in some ways similar or analogous to that of humans (e.g. pigs are often used in medical research, etc.), can the extrapolation be made that these hernias and related conditions cause pigs significant pain?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE: In the video, did it seem to you that those allegedly 'botched' cases were being properly treated?

GOLAB: In the video it appears that farm staff were attempting a non-surgical repair using tape. This process is lower cost, faster and some believe it is more successful than surgical repair.  A surgical repair of the hernia requires that the inguinal rings be closed with suture.  Monitoring of these herniated piglets is important.  If it becomes apparent that this method of repair is not working then a new plan should be made, either immediate surgical repair (if attempting to tape) or euthanasia of the piglet. Advanced hernia cases are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to surgically repair on a practical basis.

APE: How about the use of blunt force trauma such as slamming piglets onto floor to kill the sick or injured?  Is this approved?

GOLAB: The use of manually applied blunt force trauma to the head is a conditionally acceptable method of euthanasia in the current edition of the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia (see: http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf <http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanasia.pdf>  )  "A blow to the head can be a humane method of euthanasia for neonatal animals with thin craniums, such as young pigs, if a single sharp blow delivered to the central skull bones with sufficient force can produce immediate depression of the central nervous system and destruction of brain tissue. When properly performed, loss of consciousness is rapid..."

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Did the piglet undergoing this method in the video seem to be within the acceptable size and age limits for it?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

GOLAB: While this method is less aesthetically acceptable than some alternatives, when performed with the proper training and application of technique, death is rapid.

Poor training and monitoring, as well as fatigue in personnel performing it, however, can lead to inconsistency in application, creating humane concerns about its efficacious application to large numbers of animals. 

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Do you have any opinions or information on whether or not the “poor training and monitoring, as well as fatigue in personnel” you’ve mentioned are common or rare in pork producing facilities?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE: Why isn't another, presumably less painful or traumatic method used?

GOLAB: As noted in the above answer, manually applied blunt force trauma to the head when properly performed produces rapid loss of consciousness. Research to identify effective alternative methods for euthanasia of piglets is ongoing.

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Where is this research being done?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE: I understand there is a new part of the AVMA oath to uphold animal welfare.  If blunt force trauma is an approved form of euthanasia, many observers might question whether or not that squares with that new part of that oath. What would be your response? 

GOLAB: Blunt force trauma is not an aesthetically pleasing form of euthanasia.  However, if performed properly, it is rapid, effective and humane. It is important for people to learn to separate the aesthetics of a method as seen from their perspective with the actual effect of the method on the animal.

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Could you define “aesthetics” in this case?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: I think you’re right that many people do have a hard time accepting that castration with no pain killers isn’t acutely painful.  Or that the bashing-skull-on-floor method of euthanasia is free of distress and pain.  Certainly such practices would not be acceptable or even legal, probably, for companion animals such as dogs and cats. Are the anatomy and physiology of pigs sufficiently different from those of dogs and cats to make such methods humane for pigs but not for companion animals?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Along the same lines, it probably would not be acceptable or even legal for non-veterinarians to perform surgeries such as spay/neuter on dogs and cats.  Is the anatomy/physiology of pigs sufficiently different from those of dogs and cats to make it acceptable for non-veterinarians to perform such surgeries as castration on pigs?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE: How common are prolapsed uteruses in sows in pork production settings?

GOLAB: Uterine prolapses are uncommon but usually occur in old sows with large litters or where large piglets have been born.

APE: What causes those?

GOLAB: Causes include:

• The supporting structures of the uterus become weak or the uterine wall becomes flaccid.

• Faulty farrowing mechanisms.

• Previous damage to the uterus

APE: Do intensive, concentrated. high-volume pork production settings such as at Iowa Select in any way contribute to causing prolapsed uteruses?

GOLAB: The major contributor to prolapse is age. As the sow ages the supporting structures of the uterus become weaker and the likelihood that some type of uterine damage has occurred with a previous pregnancy increases. 

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Does the AVMA have recommended age limits for sows to be used?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE: What is the recommended procedure for dealing with such cases?

GOLAB: Treating a uterine prolapse involves replacing the uterus inside the sow. This is often impossible or the sow dies from internal hemorrhage.  Therefore, in most cases on welfare grounds the sow should be euthanized.

APE: Did anything in the video seem to be out of line with recommended procedures for dealing with prolapsed uteruses?

GOLAB: There is no evidence from what was shown in the video that recommended procedures were not followed. It is unclear on the video whether the sow was euthanized by personnel or died on her own. 

Because of the hemorrhage risk associated with uterine prolapse sows may decline and die rapidly after their occurrence. Onset of uterine prolapse can range from during the birthing process to 24 hours after parturition.

APE: Is the use of gestation and farrowing crates/stalls approved by AVMA?

GOLAB: AVMA currently considers the use of both gestation stalls and farrowing crates to be acceptable (see: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/pregnant_sow_housing.asp) AVMA recognizes there are animal welfare trade-offs associated with all types of housing systems (see additional comments in response to subsequent questions).

APE: If so, why are they used?

GOLAB: The industry moved toward gestation stall housing, because gestation stalls increase caregiver productivity, require lower capital investment, and are easier to manage than some indoor group housing systems.

APE: To many observers, that type of confinement would seem unimaginably cruel because it appears to limit movement to such a narrow range.  What would be your response to that perception?

GOLAB: Given the number of variables and large variation in performance within both group and stall systems for pregnant sows, no one system is clearly better than others under all conditions and according to all criteria of animal welfare.

Sow housing systems should:

• Minimize aggression and competition among sows;

• Protect sows from detrimental effects associated with environmental extremes, particularly temperature extremes;

• Reduce exposure to hazards that result in injuries, pain, or disease;

• Provide every animal with daily access to appropriate food and water;

• Facilitate observation of individual sow appetite, respiratory rate, urination and defecation, and reproductive status by caregivers; and

• Allow sows to express most normal patterns of behavior

All systems have advantages and disadvantages for welfare. Current group systems allow freedom of movement and social interaction. However, these same systems, when they fail to work well, lead to problems, especially in the areas of aggression, injury, and uneven body condition. When they lack manipulable material, sows in group systems are also unable to forage.

Current stall systems minimize aggression and injury, reduce competition, allow individual feeding, and assist in control of body condition. Stalls, however, also restrict movement, exercise, foraging behavior and social interaction.

Because the advantages and disadvantages of housing systems are qualitatively different, there is no simple or objective way to rank systems for "overall" welfare. Those who attempt to do so are usually using a narrow frame of reference that reflects a bias either toward physical health or toward behavioral health. Overall good welfare requires that attention be paid to both physical and behavioral health.

APE: How about the hard-surface flooring?  The discomfort presumably associated with that?

GOLAB: Some research has shown that pigs housed indoors have a higher prevalence of bruising, calluses, adventitious bursae and abnormal locomotion on hard floors with little bedding, particularly slatted floors. Floors that may protect against physical injury in pigs are soft, non-slip and non-abrasive.

APE: Also, does the hard-surface flooring cause pressure sores and other ailments?

GOLAB: Yes it can, see comments above.

APE: Are you familiar with standard practices at Iowa Select Farms?  Do the incidents in the video seem to be in accordance with their policies?

GOLAB: We have no direct knowledge of practices at Iowa Select Farms.

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: You mentioned that possible personnel fatigue might cause the blunt force trauma method of euthanasia to be less effective and humane.  Are you concerned that possible personnel fatigue, and/or a low personnel-to-animal ratio might contribute to sub-standard care in other operations of such facilities as well?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Does the AVMA offer guidelines for personnel-to-animal ratios?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: Or maximum hours employees should work?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: How about guidelines for adequate animal care training in such facilities?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: In some people’s eyes, the driving force behind animal care decisions and policies in such facilities seem to be financial factors of the type you mentioned in this interview: caregiver productivity, lower capital investment, ease of management, etc. What would be your opinion about that assumption?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: In general, many of the swine care issues we’ve discussed in this interview seem to require pretty significant investments of money, time, and skill.  To some observers, it might seem nearly impossible to provide enough care to keep thousands of animals comfortable and free of suffering in large-scale, intensive pork production facilities.

[AVMA declined to answer.]

APE’S FOLLOW-UP QUESTION: I think a main question on many people’s minds, then, is whether or not such facilities can be truly humane.  Do you or does the AVMA have opinions or positions on that question?

[AVMA declined to answer.]

Have questions of your own about pig handling practices approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association? Contact AVMA.

SUBSCRIBE to Animal Policy Examiner for continuing coverage of this animal issue and more. It's anonymous and free. Your email address is given to no one else. Click on the ‘subscribe’ button above to receive an email letting you know whenever there's a new article. Thanks for reading!