Scientific articles often have long, complicated titles full of technical terms. Not so with the article, “Happy pigs are dirty!”
Danish researchers interviewed consumers about animal welfare, particularly the difference between the quality of life of pigs raised in intensive confinement (i.e., factory farms) and those raised outside. The study found that, “In the lay perspective, living a natural life is an important part of animal welfare.” A ‘natural life’ involved allowing behaviours such as mud bathing and rooting in soil.
Many of the people interviewed valued quality of life even if it increased the risk of death. For example, some felt it was better to risk having a sow crush a couple of piglets rather than keep all sows in restrictive confinement pens.
The study concludes that “there is systematic disagreement between lay and expert views about what a good animal life is.” Part of the evidence for this claim is the issue of tail docking. While consumers initially were opposed to tail docking, they changed their views after the so-called ‘experts’ explained that without tail docking, pigs would chew off their own and other pigs’ tails. The experts failed to explain that tail biting is often considered a consequence of intensive confinement.
Source: Happy pigs are dirty! – conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. J. Lassen et al. Livestock Science. Vol. 103. No. 3. pp. 221-230.
- Janet Wallace