Jump to content

Talk:Intensive pig farming

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


initial discussion

[edit]

A definition of a hog lot at the beginning of the article would help Danny

"Hog Lot" is a term specific to some US-states rather then describing a farming system and outside of the US may be thought to mean backyard piggeries etc (which have a seperate page on wikipida). I think that this page would be better called "intensive piggeries" or "intensive pig production systems" or "intensive pig farming"... I am new to wiki and do not know how to move a page??

While not a fan of reverting anything other than blatant vandalism, I have recently reverted some edits that stuck me as a)POV b)sarcastic. Sorry. They contain some information that probably should be incorporated somewhere, but in more neutral, encyclopedic language. Sadly I don't have time. 57.66.51.165 09:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have revereted edits by the IP address.

  • If you want to claim that certain breeds you list produce 'higher quality' meat (in terms of what? lean meat yeild, fat percentage, consumer taste surveys - and where? a worldwide perspective - maybe a link from where you found this out (rahter than just an opinion that it tastes better) and a caveat that meat preferences vary worldwide). Most markets value consistency in product, which would arguably make intensive product 'higer quality'
  • the comment regarding that wallows are "unlikely except with an extremely inexperienced farmer who had done no research into pigs" - the provision of wallow is dependent on soil conditions and weather conditions - rather then the farmers election. Providing a wallow requires a particular type of soil condition, and that is not even considering issues of atrophication or contamination of water systems etc (i.e. environmental consequences). Again, please consider that UK soil profiles are not representative of soil conditions worldwide.

Generally, I just think claims should be based on science. Any claim that you have 'been to a pig farm' is meaningless - it is not a world wide experience - encyclop. claims should be based on science and at least attempt to present a worldwide perspective.

When I have a chance I plan to work on this page and add some references to this section, please feel free to do the same if you revert again. Alternatively, it might be an idea to create a new 'outdoor pig farming' page which details that pig production system.

Also, please don't delete referenced information without providing an explanation, particularly when you have a history of deleting information claiming it was unsourced. -Mb99 08:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Various factors at work here.

1) I don't necessarily believe that these breed produce 'higher quality' meat, however it is the market for perceived 'higher quality' meat that drives people to buy products advertised as being a specific breed. The same general trend which leads people to buy organic and free range products leads them to buy 'specific breed' products. But a source is most likely needed for that.

2) I got a bit silly in my last edit. This is because I was reverting certain edits that I felt were rather sarcastically POV ("rationalising" the UK market, etc), and pushing a POV (which I consider unsustainable) that outdoor pig farming is deeply unpleasant for the pigs. If you are running a pig farm, you're not going to keep the pigs outdoors unless you can provide wallowing, surely? You might be in a country where wallowing is not an option, but then you're not going to be keeping an outdoor pig farm. And as that part of the article seemed to be specifically about the changes to the UK laws, it made sense to note that the problems supplied as a counter to the change didn't actually apply to the UK.

3) Basically, it looks like the article started off as 'Intensive pig farms' and 'opposition to intensive pig farms'. It then looked like it was 'Intensive pig farms' and 'opposition to intensive pig farms by stupid hippies who don't understand anything'. But that's just how I perceived it. I removed some sarcastic edits that had been added, but had a silly-fit and added POV in frustration. I'm now going to make the changes I should have made at the time.

Peace.

57.66.51.165 15:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (Skittle) (I would save space with 5 tildes, but you strike me as being in the mood to add a unsigned comment by and slap me down.)[reply]

Oh, and the 'been to a pig farm' thing was just because some of the edits seemed to be moving towards outdoor pig farms being hellholes of arid soil and ignorance, which they certainly aren't in the UK (which is what was being discussed, since it is the place that has banned pens). 15:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, OK. I have made some changes to structure, I haven't removed anything, but you might like to review. The experience with outdoor farms in the UK has been mixed, even if the one you visited was a 'good' one to look at.
Please don't read ill intent where none is intended. 'Rationalisation' was not 'euphemistic and sarcastic' and I was quite surprised by that dramatic interpretation. If I choose the wrong word, please give me the benefit of the doubt.
However, regarding this:
If you are running a pig farm, you're not going to keep the pigs outdoors unless you can provide wallowing, surely? You might be in a country where wallowing is not an option, but then you're not going to be keeping an outdoor pig farm.
Yes, but if you are in an area (not country) where outdoor pig farming is not suitable that might be a reason why you think criticism of indoor farming is unjustified as there is no alternative and 'people have to have pork' (if you are vegan, you might dispute this, but the criticism is more fundamental then a welfare-based concern). My rearrangements to the article should show that there is two grounds of criticisms: one of pigs being indoors at all; and one to the use of stalls.
You might like to look at 1, for UK-relevant information on the limitations of outdoor systems.
I think maybe we need some information on stall-free indoor alternatives, such as straw sheds or batch penning? Increasingly, I am thinking of maybe breaking of 'criticism of pig production systems' as a separate page. Any opinion?
Cheers, Mb99 09:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"if it is forcibly introduced by regulation" I removed this sentence, because I believe the transition from intensive farming to more open farming raises these problems even if done voluntarily. Feel free to add it back.

Initially I didn't read ill-intent into the 'rationalisation' thing. I assumed you had got into a silly mood, as happens to us all, and added it. It was only when you were reverting to it that I got cross. Rationalisation, like downsizing, is a euphemism in this context, and read as rather sarcastic. I apologise if that was not your intent. "if you are in an area (not country) where outdoor pig farming is not suitable that might be a reason why you think criticism of indoor farming is unjustified as there is no alternative" The alternative is to keep your pigs elsewhere, or get into a different product that is suitable for your area. I don't think you have to be vegan to disagree with 'people have to have pork'; that seems rather an odd thing to say. You could simply feel that pork is not essential to human life :-)

You've added some good information, and some strong rearranging. Just be careful of POV! We all do it; that's why you need more than one editor on an article. And just to be clear; the farms I have seen were not wonderlands of pigs dancing to pipes and reading books, but they weren't hellholes either.

Go ahead with the stall-free info. You've got some good knowledge, and strong writing skills. I don't think the article, or the section, are long enough to justify a split at the moment. It may be that this becomes necessary in time, although I can't imagine the article being that much longer. 57.66.51.165 13:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page is sorely remised in not including a full section on environmental information and additional controversies. I believe that first section should at least address those issues as on par with animal welfare issues, similiar to the CAFO page.

Historical Context Missing

[edit]

Reading this, one comes away with the impression that these practices evolved only recently. But descriptions of pig farming from Roman times and before make it clear that confining of sows in extremely close quarters during pregnancy and farrowing, prevention of commingling with the young, and other practices mentioned here date from thousands of years ago.

This is pretty much common knowledge in agricultural history circles, making me think that this article was solely based on animal rights organization sources.

Columella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columella), for one, wrote in detail on Roman pig farming practices, sketching out pen dimensions in detail, detailing the whole process of breeding, giving sow and boar ratios, number of pregnancies, etc.

If I add this sort of information, is it welcome, or will it just be deleted?

Well I wouldn't: needs more history stuff in it: everyone has a right to contribute good content.. And there does seem to be a push to reduce anything in agriculture down to just the world as animal liberation proponents see it. So be aware of that. Just make sure you've got some references so it's not OR (that's experienced wikipedia game play terminology for "original research"). I'd also suggest creating a user name to give things a bit more credibility and be aware there's a policy called 3RR that means if someone disagrees with you they'll often revert your work rather than adding to it and if you do it more than 3 times they can block you.. Reverting should not generally be used (as per policies) although there are people who use it as a primary form of "contributing". NathanLee 12:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Paragraph

[edit]

Overall, I consider this paragraph to be supportive of intensive farming practices and consequently should not be in a section called criticism.

However in detail:

  • "All pig systems have advantages and disadvantages" - meaningless verbage
  • " and in many cases research may be equivocal." - Again unreferenced, meaningless verbage
  • "On the one hand," - Not appropriate for an encyclopedia
  • "outdoor systems are less economically productive due to increased space requirements and higher morbidity." - correct but stated previously
  • "They also have a range of environmental impacts (e.g. denitrification of soil, erosion) and welfare impacts (e.g. sunburn, heat stress, piglet squashing, increased worms and parasites)." - Again unreferenced and possibly misleading, if this implies that intensive farms are more beneficial from environmental and welfare perspectives.
  • "Depending on local conditions - such as geography, climate, and availability of skilled staff - these problems may be manageable." - more unreferenced verbage

80.189.225.114 10:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining.

This article is about a particular system of pork production. I think it is a shame that over ½ the article is criticism rather than information that accurately explains how pork is actually produced in the West (e.g. pig diets, pig life cycles, how pigs are bred).

However, if the ‘controversy’ is to dominate, an article about intensive pig farming must include information about the controversy (the debate) rather than just present one side (as in “criticisms”). I have changed the heading of this section accordingly.

From your dot points, I think your major concerns seem to be the referencing. I have added some references, which I have intended to do for some time.

This article contains a lot of information criticising intensive pig farming. I do not see the harm in letting readers read some information that says "yes, but alternatives have disadvantages to". Who knows, might make them become vegetarian rather then eat "cruelty-free" meat.

-Mb99 06:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Mb99, going through my dot points:

1) Unreferenced, so deleted. 2) Again unreferenced, so deleted. 3) Verbage, so deleted. 4) Deleted later sentence that repeated this. 5) Referenced, so OK. 6) Your rewording is fine.

80.189.213.44 12:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, having a section called "criticism" is a common feature to many wiki articles. 80.189.196.18 13:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I don't like this article. It seems a bit POV to me, and there is literally nothing about what goes inside the farm, how the categories of pigs are reared, how it is done and why. The only thing that permeates the article is critisism and animal welfare concern.

Yeah, there are problems with that, no dispute. But, if it was so bad, this way of rearing pigs would dissapear. But it won't, not only because it saves a lot of money, but because it protects the pigs from infections, that can easily kill hundreds of animals in a short time and there is little anyone can do when it hits. --89.24.4.68 09:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Bodlina, from Czech Wikipedia[reply]

Absence of an article of pig farming

[edit]

Why does "hog farm" redirect to "intensive pig farming"? --Jav43 17:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, is there no general article on pig farming? I just linked to it and found nothing. Surely there are non-intensive forms of farming pigs that can be written about? Richard001 00:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm.. Bit of a strange one there's no pig farming. I'd suggest the start structure of it might have:
  • intro of the term
  • history
    • early pig farming (maybe talk little bit about domestication)
    • early extensive/free range pig pens
    • modern industrialisation of the process/intensive pig farming (reference this article here)
  • Techniques
    • Extensive/free range
    • Intensive (perhaps just direct to this one)
  • References
  • See also
What you think? NathanLee 07:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. It might also mention genetic engineering (I heard there were plans to try to get omega fatty acids into their genes?) and savaging of young by mothers, as well as summarize this article of course. Richard001 07:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible ad

[edit]

Anyone else think this is just an ad? Seems to fail any sort of real "why is this here":

A new development spearheaded by a company called Nature's Bounty Ceylon,<www.ecopeat.com> has proven that using a blend of coconut pith & husk chips, greatly reduces waste smell by entrapping the ammonia gases from intensive farming areas. There are many benefits as the condition of air is far better when compared with traditional farming methods and the animals are far healthier requiring almost 60% less antibiotics and other skin care products. The waste, in this instance makes excellent farmyard compost with a much lower level of dangerous runoff into waterways.

Thoughts? NathanLee 14:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am troubled by the use of the sow gestation crates picture. I was raised on a pig farm and have never seen anything like this. While my family does use gestation crates they are substantially larger. I might recommend putting in a gestation crate picture that is more accurate to what is typically used and limit the use of the apparent 'Smithfield Farms' picture to that article.Mfeldkamp (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

User:Beirne to 69.3.72.249 (originally on user talk): I see that you have added links for hog farm so that it points to intensive pig farming, and every place I looked hog farming was referred to in a neutral sense. Intensive pig farming is not appropriate to describe these. This was done on a large number of articles and violates the Wikipedia principle of maintaining a neutral point of view. Please stop this and undo the changes you have made. Some more recent changes pointed to pig farming, which is better. --Beirne (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

69.3.72.249 to User:Beirne: You think Intensive pig farming has neutrality issues and therefore rather than fix the article you refrain from linking to it? That is a "different" way to write an encyclopedia. If you cannot decide what kind of hog farm, then I recommend you link to the disambiguation page Hog farm and use the {{dn}} tag on the link. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all: anyone who feels like re-linking the unlinked phrase "hog farm" please see my contributions with edit summary "link" and "fix link" in the 24 hours prior to the date of this comment. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that the Intensive pig farming article has neutrality issues. I only read enough to see that it covers factory farming, which is a valid topic, which may or may not be covered fairly in the article. My problem is when a mention of hog farming is directed to the intensive pig farming article when the article getting the link only speaks of hog farming in the general sense and does not imply factory farming. For example, one of the places where a link to intensive pig farming was made was in the Biltmore article, which says this: "Intending that the estate could be self-supporting, Vanderbilt set up scientific forestry programs, poultry farms, cattle farms, hog farms and a dairy." This does not say that factory farming was practiced, and linking to intensive pig farming besmirches Biltmore. --Beirne (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I didn't see anything against this article specifically or that it had neutrality problems, the issue is that simple "hog farming" shouldn't be wikilinked to this article since, while the two are related, they are quite different. Piping the title of this article through "hog farming" presents an inaccurate and misleading view in whatever articles "hog farming" appears, provided "hog farming" is the simple, non-industrial way. The POV problems Beirne is talking about are the edits that linked to this article, not this article itself. Only the exact term ("Intensive pig farming") or a very similar term (like "factory farming") should be linked here. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only the exact term ... or a very similar term ... should be linked is a rather absurd argument. Whether or not the term "hog farm" should be linked to intensive pig farming depends on the actual practices in use on the farm in question. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the article linking to Intensive pig farming (IPF), the link should make it clear that this is what it is refering the user to. IPF could (is? perhaps should) be configured as a sub page of Pig farming, along with any pages describing other pig farming systems. Trev M  ~  19:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article says that IPF or some other similar form of factory farming is practiced, then the link is valid. As you say, 69.3.72.249, it depends on the actual practices at the farm in question. The problem is that in statements like this: "Jason Ringenberg was born in Kewanee, Illinois and raised in nearby Sheffield, Illinois, where his parents ran a hog farm.", where this is the only mention of hog farming in the whole article, there is no indication at all of the farming techniques used, therefore no reason to link his parents' farm to IPF practices as was done yesterday. --Beirne (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And actually IP, what I said is not an "absurd statement"; it comes from the Manual of Style: "The article linked to should correspond to the term showing as the link as closely as possible given the context..." Check WP:LINK to understand more about what should be linked, when, how, and why. In particular, read link clarity and link specificity. Mass linking all instances of "hog farming" to this article is neither accurate nor helpful which is what Beirne is saying. Each one must be taken on a case by case basis and many will not have enough info available to accurately link to this article. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible change to first sentence

[edit]

I would like to change one phrase in the first sentence as follows:

  • Existing: "Intensive piggeries (or hog lots) are a type of factory farm (also known as an AFO or CAFO in the U.S.) specialized in the raising of domestic pigs up to slaughter weight."
  • Change to: "Intensive piggeries (or hog lots) are a type of animal husbandry which are also known as an AFO or CAFO in the U.S. specialized in the raising of domestic pigs up to slaughter weight."

My thinking is that, since "factory farm" is a pejorative term used only by opponents of large-scale animal agriculture (at least in the US), the term would therefore be in violation of WP:WTW. While this article does fit into the scope of the Animal Rights project, it also is currently listed as part of the Agriculture portal, and therefore needs to be a little more neutral. The use of "factory farm" seems to me to muddy the issue for those without an opinion either way. Other thoughts? Adv4Ag (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a couple weeks since I first made the above suggestion with no comments, so I went ahead and made the change, though with a slightly different wording. (I didn't feel my original wording flowed very well.)
I also added a few words to complete the last sentence in the second paragraph, since the sentence appeared incomplete. I added "...California) have banned their use." I hope this maintains the intended content of the original writer. If anyone knows of other states to add, please feel free; I just couldn't remember any others off the top of my head.
Further comments are still welcome. Adv4Ag (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piggery [pie]

[edit]

This article should not be a redirect from "Piggery", just a disambiguation. There should be a "Piggery" page proper, for general and non-intensive piggeries; Europe has had piggeries since long before there was an intensive anything. And there should be a section or full article on Piggery Pie (which is an obvious variation on Cottage or Shepherds Pie). 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links content to be put into article prose?

[edit]
Government regulation
Proponent, neutral, and industry-related
Criticism of intensive pig farming

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Staceydolxx (talk • contribs) 26 December 2015 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Intensive pig farming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy

[edit]

Hi Y'all,

People come here primarily to learn about technical details, so the controversy section should only be 10% of the article. Instead, 90% of the article is about the animal rights movement, and 90% of the media are snuff films/pictures of pig slaughtering. Also, I strongly suspect that those who posted the videos are connected to an animal advocacy party. One should not post his or her own research (recordings of pig slaughtering) to Wikipedia.

Best regards, Steve RealIK17 (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imagery does not qualify as original research under WP:OI. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 05:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article now contains roughly the same amount of length for description and criticism. I therefore just removed the neutrality hatnote. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 05:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated removal inappropriate here

[edit]

Hi @Alsee: can you explain this edit [2]? It looks like this page got caught up in an unrelated dispute. The user in question never edited this page, just the IP number that is behaving the same way. In this case this {{wikiquote}} looks entirely appropriate here. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Invasive Spices. The IP editor acknowledges (elsewhere) that they are the same person as User:Risto_hot_sir. They have been subject to indefinite blocks from five wikis (including EnWiki) for assorted warring behavior and personal attacks, they and they have been using a series of additional account-names and IP-addresses for WP:BLOCKEVASION. That policy page states Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, which is the grounds for my revert.
I have no opinion on the specific usage of the {{wikiquote}} on that page, and the policy page says anyone is allowed to re-instate that edit if they wish to take responsibility for it. Although I wouldn't encourage it. The user has a long term pattern of abuse and every successful edit just encourages them to continue their disruptive behavior. Alsee (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and they are subject to global account locks on Meta, for all identified sock accounts. Alsee (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intensive_pig_farming&oldid=1235784081"