**Written Testimony**

**of**

**Barbara Determan**

**Pork Producer**

**Early, Iowa**

**On behalf of**

**U.S. Pork Industry**

**To**

**United States House Committee on Agriculture**

**Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry**

**May 8, 2007**

**Washington, D.C.**

**[INTRODUCTION]{.underline}**

I am Barbara Determan, a pork producer from Early, Iowa. I am also past
president of the National Pork Producers Council, an association of 43
state pork producer organizations. NPPC is the voice in Washington for
the nation's pork producers.

I want to thank the Chairman and the Members of the Committee for
allowing me to speak to you about an issue that is very important to me
and to all pork producers in the United States -- the well-being of our
animals.

First, I want to make a clear, definitive statement to this committee
and the Congress: America's pork producers recognize their moral
obligation to provide for the well-being of their animals, and they
raise their pigs in a humane, compassionate and socially responsible
manner. Any production practice that falls short of this
high-performance standard is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by
our industry. In addition to that moral obligation, pork producers'
livelihoods depend on the well-being and performance of their pigs.

I am the fourth generation of my family to take up farming as my
calling. I am old enough to remember when pigs were raised as much for
their lard as for their pork chops and roasts. When I was a young girl,
it was common in my part of the country for farmers to have a few pigs
-- which were raised summer and winter in outdoor hog lots and pastures
-- some chickens, some cows and just enough land to grow feed for the
animals. I vividly recall that caring for our pigs involved a lot of mud
in the spring, sunburn in the summer and wind, snow and occasional
frostbite in the winter. I know people who still refer to that era as
the good old days and who wish we could turn back the clock. I am not
one of them.

I am also young enough to know that I must constantly adopt the new
ideas and new technologies that help make me a better farmer and a
better caretaker of my animals, as well as those ideas and technologies
that help keep me and my family competitive in an economy that is
increasingly global. That's what pork producers do: We listen to signals
from our customers; we determine what we can learn from the latest
veterinary science; we ask ourselves what is the right thing to do; and
we embrace those changes that make us more professional and more
competitive.

There is one more thing I would like this committee to know before I
address some specific issues concerning the care and well-being of pigs.
Through my own farm experiences and from the countless number of pork
producers I've had the privilege to meet during my work and travels as
an NPPC officer, I have learned there is one constant: It makes no
difference if they are big producers or small producers, or if they
raise pigs in the Midwest or the Southeast, virtually every hog farmer
and pork producer is in this business because at our core, deep down
inside, we love working with animals -- especially with pigs.

Pigs can be exceptionally friendly -- they'll nip playfully at your
ankles. They can be temperamental and territorial. Some sows (female
pigs that have had piglets) can be downright nasty, especially if other
sows and food are involved. They are, quite simply, fascinating animals.
None of us would do anything that we know to be harmful to their
well-being.

Today I will address how America's pork producers are addressing the
well-being of their pigs in four important areas: compassionate swine
care; humane sow housing; responsible use of antibiotics in swine
production; and safe transportation of pigs.

We are living and doing business in an emerging world of
interconnectedness filled with powerful shareholders and vocal
stakeholders who demand a higher level of accountability in the
marketplace. We see this new age of accountability emerging and
recognize that it is profitable to embrace and dangerous to ignore. It
is within this new emerging world that we are meeting our animal
well-being responsibilities.

**[COMPASSIONATE SWINE CARE]{.underline}**

America's pork producers have a long, proud history of implementing
progressive measures to care for their animals. The July 1999 Animal
Well-Being Issue Report by the United States Department of Agriculture
Interagency Working Group on Farm Animal Well-Being includes that
group's support for producer-developed and -implemented on-farm
practices and procedures that help ensure the well-being of animals.

A number of pork industry programs support the USDA group's finding. In
1989, pork producers established the Pork Quality Assurance (PQA)
food-safety program to ensure that all pork producers understand how to
avoid medication residues in the pigs they market. The major meat
packers require their suppliers to have PQA certification.

While individually and collectively swine producers have long used the
best management practices possible to ensure animal well-being, the
industry developed animal-care guidelines in the early 1990s. We have
revised them into standards as new knowledge about animal care has
become available.

More recently, the industry developed an education and certification
program for anyone who handles or transports market hogs. All three
programs were among the first of their kind in the livestock industry.
And all three programs were developed in cooperation with animal
well-being experts from among land-grant universities, practicing
veterinarians and other scientists.

By the time the USDA working group issued its report on animal
well-being in the late 1990s, pork producers already had been at work
combining veterinary science with their extensive and varied experiences
in all types of production systems to address many of the animal
well-being topics this committee is discussing today. We wanted a
comprehensive, research-tested and science-based set of animal-care
guidelines that would amplify producer experience in caring for our
animals. There was no pressure to do this other than our belief in doing
the right thing, and we did it.

In 2002, producers working through the National Pork Board's Animal
Welfare Committee endorsed an updated U.S. Producer Code of Practice,
which was developed almost a decade earlier. The Code, developed with
the help of nationally and internationally recognized animal well-being
experts, outlines the management and husbandry practices that constitute
good swine care.

The Code begins by noting that each pork producer's professional
judgment, experience and training are the key factors in providing
animal care. It then endorses the following practices:

-   Providing facilities to protect and shelter pigs from weather
    extremes while protecting air and water quality in the natural
    environment.

-   Providing well-kept facilities to allow safe, humane and efficient
    movement of pigs.

-   Providing personnel with training to properly care for and handle
    pigs at each stage of production for which they are responsible,
    with zero tolerance for mistreatment of swine in their care.

-   Providing access to good-quality water and nutritionally balanced
    diets appropriate for each class of swine.

-   Observing pigs to make sure basic needs for food and water are being
    met and to detect illness or injury.

-   Developing herd-health programs with veterinary advice.

-   Providing prompt veterinary medical care when required.

-   Using humane methods to euthanize sick or injured swine not
    responding or not likely to respond to care and treatment in a
    timely manner.

-   Maintaining appropriate biosecurity to protect the health of the
    herd.

-   Providing transportation that avoids undue stress caused by
    overcrowding, excess time in transit or improper handling during
    loading and unloading.

In 2003, producers unveiled an updated *Swine Care Handbook* based on
the Code of Practice. That handbook is the foundation for the Swine
Welfare Assurance Program, an educational and assessment program that
helps producers assess their own performance in 10 specific areas of
animal care, ranging from proper record-keeping, to accepted methods of
euthanasia for seriously ill or injured pigs, to very specific facility
and animal assessments and measurements. The program was developed by a
producer-led committee that included U.S. and international experts in
animal care and well-being from academia and industry. It was the first
work of its kind in the livestock industry.

While we have well-established care principles, there still is no
scientific consensus about the ideal tool to measure animal well-being.
It is generally accepted that there are three indicators of well-being
that should be measured together. They are:

-   Animal performance and health.

-   Behavior.

-   Physiology (for example, immune function and hormonal status and
    response).

There is strong scientific consensus that using any one of those factors
as a sole indication of well-being can be misleading. In addition,
addressing animal well-being in isolation -- without consideration of
animal health, food safety and the environment -- is unwise and can lead
to unintended consequences. Each of these other areas must be addressed
simultaneously in a way that ensures an effective balance.

Advance the clock to 2007. The care and well-being principles from the
Swine Welfare Assurance Program are now part of the industry's
groundbreaking Pork Quality Assurance Plus™ (PQA Plus) certification,
assessment and audit program. In addition to a certification requirement
dealing with production practices that ensure food safety, farms now
must have a supervised assessment of their care and well-being
practices. An independent third-party audit ensures the program is
achieving its goals of continuous improvement. Just as they have since
the PQA program was introduced in 1989, most U.S. packers continue to
require proof of PQA certification from their producer suppliers.

The audit provisions of PQA Plus have been reviewed and approved by an
independent panel of nationally and internationally recognized experts
on animal care and well-being. Dr. Temple Grandin of Colorado State
University, an internationally recognized animal care expert who also is
an adviser to the National Pork Board's Animal Welfare Committee,
recently said she is using PQA Plus with other groups as an example of a
program that provides clear-cut guidelines on animal care and
well-being.

Pork producers are, by nature, progressive. If there's a better way to
do something, we'll find it and do it. PQA Plus is just the latest
example of identifying an issue that is important to our customers -- in
this case, animal care and well-being -- developing a solution and
taking it to all producers for implementation. I've been around
agriculture all my life, and I don't know of another commodity group
that does it better.

**[HUMANE SOW HOUSING]{.underline}**

The pork industry supports the right of all producers to choose housing
that ensures the well-being of their animals and that is appropriate for
their operations. With regard to sow housing, the industry agrees with
the position of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the
American Association of Swine Veterinarians and other organizations,
which recognize gestation stalls and group-housing systems as
appropriate for providing for the well-being of sows during pregnancy.

There are two basic types of housing systems for pregnant sows:
individual housing and group housing. Sow housing has attracted
considerable public attention since Smithfield Foods, the nation's
largest pork producer, announced in January that the company would begin
phasing out individual gestation stalls at its company-owned farms,
replacing them with pens or group housing over the next 10 years.
Subsequently, Maple Leaf, a large Canadian producer announced a similar
decision. (Note: Market hogs are raised in group housing.)

Lost in the news coverage and activist hype surrounding the Smithfield
announcement was the company's statement that "our decision acknowledges
that extensive research into sow housing has concluded both gestation
stalls and group pens provide for the well-being of pregnant sows and
work equally well from a production standpoint." The company also noted
that "there is no scientific consensus on which system is superior."

Also lost in the often heated rhetoric of critics of modern pork
production have been several university-supervised studies that indicate
that sows do just fine in individual housing.^1^ A measurement of
hormone secretions in one study shows that sows in stalls do not show
levels indicative of stress. In another study, sows given a choice of
moving about freely or remaining in a stall clearly chose the stall.

I mention these studies only to make the point again that there is no
scientific evidence that any one sow-housing system is superior. The
American Veterinary Medical Association is on record that, given the
number of variables and large variations in performance within both
systems for pregnant sows, no one system is clearly better than the
others under all conditions and according to all criteria of animal
welfare.^2^

Science and practice suggest that both individual and group housing
types have advantages and disadvantages. It is important to understand
pigs to be able to provide the best possible housing environment. Pork
producers understand pigs. Pigs are by nature competitive animals --
especially when it comes to competing for food. When pigs are introduced
into a group setting, they will establish an order of dominance among
the group. At times, especially among sows, this will be accomplished in
an aggressive manner. Pigs also use their sight and smell to socialize
and communicate. They want the security of food and water and security
from aggression. They want the security of freedom from injury.

Each year, we conduct research to better understand the impact on sows
of individual housing and group housing. The group-housing research
includes a focus on ways to decrease the amount of aggression that
occurs during the initial social introduction in a group-housing
setting.

Once the dominance order is established in a group-housing scenario,
aggressive behavior may continue. Pigs higher in the order will
typically fight for first access to feed and water resources, as well as
access to the "preferred" loafing locations within the pen. It is only
after the dominant pigs have eaten that the more submissive pigs are
allowed to eat and drink. There is the chance even then that there will
be aggressive encounters.

This is one of the reasons we emphasize the importance of the skills of
anyone taking care of pigs. They must manage these food and water
resources appropriately to minimize aggression. Without proper
management, these aggressive encounters can result in injuries,
increased stress and sometimes death to the pigs. Animal caretakers also
are at greater risk of injury.

With individual housing, there is some variance in designs. Gestation
stalls come in a variety of widths; some allow the sow to turn around,
while others do not. In general, these individual-housing systems allow
for individual feeding and control of body condition so sows do not
become too thin or too fat. While there is a limitation on movement and
exercise, individual housing allows for closer examination of individual
pigs and for better decision-making about animal care by producers.

We firmly believe the skill of the individual taking care of the pigs is
the ultimate determining factor in the well-being of both sows and
market hogs. Pork producers, through their industry associations,
continue to research ways to improve equipment, facilities and
management for both individual- and group-housing systems to improve the
well-being of the pig. It is part of our commitment to continuous
improvement. And as I mentioned earlier, PQA Plus is a program that
teaches, measures and audits continuous improvement on farms of animal
care and well-being.

Science and farmer experience tell us that mandating any one type of sow
housing or changing simply for the sake of change is not necessarily in
the best interest of the pig. Trading the security of one type of
housing for the ability to turn around in another type of housing is
just that -- a trade. If there is a change to be made, it is our ethical
responsibility to ensure that we are trading for something that raises
the level of our animals' well-being.

There is no one, single, "right" way to raise a pig. A producer raising
100 pigs a year in a hoop barn in one part of the country operates very
differently from a producer raising 50,000 pigs a year in swine barns in
another part of the country. That's why, as an industry, we use the PQA
Plus program and its standards to ensure the well-being of the animals
instead of proscribing one production method or one housing system over
another. Healthy, well-cared-for animals are raised in almost any system
as long as the care of the animal is the top priority.

Our industry organizations represent producers of all sizes and
production styles and from all parts of the country. There is great
sensitivity both inside and outside our industry about forces that make
it harder for small, independent producers to compete. There are
producers who have sows in group housing and there are producers who
have sows in individual housing. Any sudden mandate that forces change
makes it more difficult for producers of any size or style of production
to stay in business.

So, we oppose legislation that would mandate on-farm food-animal
production practices, including banning the use of individual sow
housing. We oppose a bill sponsored by Reps. Peter DeFazio and
Christopher Shays (H.R. 1726) that would require the federal government
to purchase meat only from producers who do not use individual housing
for sows. The measure would have a particularly devastating impact on
small producers due to costs of retrofitting existing barns and housing
and would raise the federal government's food purchasing costs. The
legislation puts at risk the annual sale of nearly 33 million pounds of
pork valued at more than \$42 million.

We do not believe Congress has the understanding or the expertise to
decide which on-farm animal production practices are best for *our*
animals.

The marketplace may ultimately determine what sow-housing system
producers will use. Recent developments would indicate the market is
beginning to speak, and we can accept those free-market forces. We
cannot accept top-down federal mandates on production practices. Let the
marketplace work.

**[RESPONSIBLE ANTIBIOTIC USE]{.underline}**

Pork producers recognize their moral obligation to provide for the
well-being of their animals and use antibiotics in a responsible manner
to provide safe, nutritious, and healthful meat products to consumers
globally. Producers use antibiotics, in consultation with their
veterinarians, to treat injured and sick pigs and prevent wound
infections and unnecessary animal pain and suffering.

The Pork Quality Assurance Plus program^3^ lays out clear guidelines for
appropriate use of antibiotics by pork producers. The guidelines urge
pork producers to work closely with their veterinarians when making
medication decisions.

To further demonstrate its commitment to protecting public health by
using antibiotics responsibly, the industry has created the *Take Care
-- Use Antibiotics Responsibly* program^4^ to enhance producers'
awareness of antibiotic use beyond what they learn through the Pork
Quality Assurance program. The *Take Care* program educates producers
about the responsible use of antibiotics; it raises their awareness of
the importance of using antibiotics responsibly and the impact of
antibiotic use on animal and public health; and it demonstrates to
customers and consumers pork producers' commitment to preserving public
health, animal health and animal well-being through the responsible use
of antibiotics. To date, producers who raise more than 50 million pigs
annually have endorsed this proactive program.

Pork producers are very aware of the public debate over antibiotic
resistance. I include it in my testimony about care and well-being to
underscore the benefits of responsible antibiotic use in food-animal
production. In addition to the debate about human resistance, the use of
antibiotics also is an animal well-being issue. We have an ethical
responsibility to keep our animals healthy. Our animals, like some
people, live in groups. Without the availability of antibiotics,
infections and disease would be much more prevalent, spread quicker and
negatively affect the health and well-being of livestock.

While it is true that the extent to which antibiotic use in animals
affects human health is extremely difficult to measure, one panel of
experts estimates that 96 percent of antibiotic resistance in humans is
due to human use of antibiotics and not from the consumption of meat
products. Anyone using antibiotics, be they a farmer or a pediatrician
treating an ear infection, has a responsibility to use them only when
necessary. It also is clear that antibiotic resistance in humans would
not end if antibiotic use on farms were eliminated. A recent Institute
of Food Technologists expert panel report found that
antibiotic-resistant bacteria develop from many factors, including human
use of antibiotics and routine household use of disinfectants such as
antibacterial soap. ^6^

Experience with a farm-animal antibiotics ban in Denmark provides
additional evidence of the lack of efficacy of a pork-production
antibiotics ban as a way to combat human antibiotic resistance. In 1998,
the Danish government instituted a voluntary ban on the use of
antibiotic growth promotants (AGPs), during the finishing stage of pork
production. The use of AGPs was withdrawn for all swine in 2000.

One interesting finding of the AGPs ban is that use of therapeutic
antibiotics -- those used to treat diseases after the fact -- has risen
significantly. While total antibiotic use has decreased somewhat in
Denmark, therapeutic use of antibiotics has surpassed the level of AGP
use prior to the ban.

![](media/image1.wmf)

(Animal Antibiotic Use in Denmark. Source: Danmap.)

Also of note is that there have been no proven human health benefits
from Denmark's ban on AGPs in pork production. One potential negative
consequence is that resistance to tetracyclines in *Salmonella* causing
human infection has actually increased since the ban.^7^

Pork producers believe that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's
rigorous, science-based approval process for antibiotics continues to be
the best way to address human health concerns and to ensure producers'
access to animal health products that promote animal health and
well-being. The FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine uses a
risk-assessment approach to determine human health risks of antibiotic
use in food animals on a case-by-case basis. FDA's Guidance #152 uses a
scientific framework to assess the human health effects of veterinary
use of antibiotics. The Guidance requires antibiotic manufacturers to
provide information to the FDA showing that a proposed animal drug will
not harm human health. The system works.

Additionally, the FDA has mandated a withdrawal time for each antibiotic
used. Specifically, food or milk from animals that have been treated
with an antibiotic may not enter the food supply until a safe,
scientifically determined amount of time has elapsed since the animals'
last dosage. The withdrawal period is specified for each drug. USDA's
Food Safety & Inspection Service conducts monitoring and surveillance
programs at packing plants to ensure adherence to the residue standards
that are defined by the FDA.

We oppose efforts to require animal health companies to submit annual
data on the amount of antibiotics used to keep food animals healthy and
to make the data public. Manufacturers already are required to provide
production data to FDA, which treats it as confidential business
information.

The focus of my remarks has been on the well-being of our animals. But
the committee should know that whether intended or not, there often are
significant financial consequences for farmers from regulatory actions.
For example, should there be a ban on antibiotics similar to the one in
Denmark, an Iowa State University economist estimates production costs
could increase by up to \$4.50 an animal for the first year following a
ban. Those costs are related to an increase in disease -- as
demonstrated in the Danish experience -- and that is very much an animal
well-being issue.

Over 10 years, the total projected cost of such a ban would exceed \$700
million. Consumers could expect to pay about 2 percent more for pork
products.^8^ These additional costs reduce competitiveness relative to
pork-exporting countries in Europe and South America and ultimately
impact negatively the United States' balance of trade.

**[SAFE ANIMAL TRANSIT]{.underline}**

To ensure the well-being of pigs going to market, the pork industry
developed the Trucker Quality Assurance (TQA) education and
certification program for anyone involved in handling and transporting
animals.

The TQA program was launched in February 2002, and since that date has
certified more than 12,000 animal handlers. TQA encourages dedication to
transporting and delivering the highest quality, safest product possible
to remain competitive in United States and world markets. By completing
this program, truckers and handlers demonstrate their commitment to
"quality-assured" pork transportation and delivery.

The training session with a certified trainer focuses on driver or
handler attitude and behavior; pig handling; fitness of the hog;
facilities and equipment; conditions of the truck and the environment;
transporting; bio-security; laws and regulations, and emergency response
plans of action. At the end of the training, the driver or handler is
required to pass a written test on the materials covered.

This innovative program has since been copied by the Canadian swine
industry. Again, most packers ask to see the trucker's TQA certification
card before they allow the truck on site. And we know from studies by
USDA's Food Safety & Inspection Service and packers that the program has
reduced pig deaths and injuries related to transit.

**[CONCLUSION]{.underline}**

I am proud to be part of a progressive industry that provides hundreds
of thousands of jobs and helps feed the world.

The U.S. pork industry represents a significant value-added activity in
the agriculture economy and the overall U.S. economy. Nationwide, more
than 67,000 pork producers marketed more than 103 million hogs in 2005,
and those animals provided total gross receipts of \$15 billion.
Overall, an estimated \$20.7 billion of personal income and \$34.5
billion of gross national product are supported by the U.S. hog
industry. Economists Dan Otto and John Lawrence at Iowa State University
estimate that the U.S. pork industry is directly responsible for the
creation of 34,720 full-time equivalent jobs and generates 127,492 jobs
in the rest of agriculture. It is responsible for 110,665 jobs in the
manufacturing sector, mostly in the packing industry, and 65,224 jobs in
professional services such as veterinarians, real estate agents and
bankers. All told, the U.S. pork industry is responsible for 550,221
mostly rural jobs in the U.S.

I am even prouder to be part of an industry that -- on its own -- has
developed and implemented world-class programs that help pork producers
raise and care for their animals in a humane, compassionate and socially
responsible manner.

Pork producers are in the business of producing food for America and the
world. We recognize we must do what is right and live up to our
responsibilities. The U.S. swine industry has a long history of
anticipating issues and developing solutions before they become
problems. We believe in the power of the free marketplace. And we have
the track record to prove we act responsibly toward our customers and
for our animals.

On behalf of the National Pork Producers Council and the many pork
producers we represent and support, we ask for your continued and
focused attention on the matters we have brought to you today. The pork
industry has been a long-standing leader on these ethical issues and is
committed to developing animal-care standards that hold producers
accountable. I hope the comments I have shared with you today give you
an understanding of how the pork industry raises it pigs in a way that
gives them the best care possible.

Again, the nation's pork producers are most grateful for your continued
leadership on these and other issues critical to U.S. pork producers and
the overall U.S. pork industry, and we look forward to our continued
strong working relationship with you and this committee.

**[END NOTES]{.underline}**

^1\ (Salak-Johnson\ et\ al.,\ 2007;\ Rhodes\ et\ al.,\ 2005;\ McGlone\ et\ al.,\ 2004;\ Barnett\ et\ al.,\ 2001;\ Harris\ et\ al.,\ 2001;\ Sorrells\ et\ al.,\ 2001).^

^2\ (http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/pregnant_sow_housing.asp)^

^3\ PQA\ Plus\ Manual,\ pages\ 26-50,\ ©2007\ National\ Pork\ Board^

^4\ ([www.pork.org/producers/takecare](http://www.pork.org/producers/takecare))^

^5\ Institute\ of\ Food\ Technologists,\ [www.ift.org](http://www.ift.org/).\ Antimicrobial\ Resistance:\ Implications\ for\ the\ Food\ System,\ July\ 14,\ 2006^

^6\ Gabreyes,\ Thakur\ and\ Morrow.\ Comparison\ of\ prevalence,\ antimicrobial\ resistance\ and\ occurrence\ of\ multi-drug\ resistant\ Salmonella\ and\ anti-microbial\ free\ and\ conventional\ pig\ production.\ [J.Food\ Prot]{.underline},\ 69:743-748,\ 2006^

^7\ World\ Health\ Organization\ Impacts\ of\ antimicrobial\ growth\ promoter\ termination\ in\ Denmark.\ Online.\ 2002\ <http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2003/WHO_CDS_CPE_AFK_2003.1.pdf>^

^8\ Hayes,\ Jensen,\ Backstrom.\ National\ Pork\ Board\ Final\ Research\ Grant\ report\ --\ analysis\ of\ a\ More\ Restricted\ Antimicrobial\ Access\ Policy\ in\ Pork\ Production,\ Funded\ Research\ Project\ #02-104^