BEEF Magazine
Home > Business > Industry Structure > McDonald’s Moves To End Use Of Gestation Stalls

McDonald’s Moves To End Use Of Gestation Stalls

Feb. 14, 2012 McDonald's

Changing the way bacon is produced, phasing out gestation crates is next step for McDonald’s chain.

More About:

McDonald’s Corporation has announced that it will require its U.S. pork suppliers to outline their plans to phase out the use of sow gestation stalls, a move supported by the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS).

“McDonald’s believes gestation stalls are not a sustainable production system for the future. There are alternatives that we think are better for the welfare of sows,” says Dan Gorsky, senior vice president of McDonald’s North America supply chain management. “McDonald’s wants to see the end of sow confinement in gestation stalls in our supply chain. We are beginning an assessment with our U.S. suppliers to determine how to build on the work already underway to reach that goal. In May, after receiving our suppliers’ plans, we’ll share results from the assessment and our next steps.”

“HSUS has been a longtime advocate for ending the use of gestation crates, and McDonald’s announcement is important and promising,” says Wayne Pacelle, HSUS president and CEO. “All animals deserve humane treatment, including farm animals, and it’s just wrong to immobilize animals for their whole lives in crates barely larger than their bodies.”

To see the full article, click here.

Discuss this Article 13

Anonymous (not verified)
on Feb 14, 2012

Has anyone explained to McDonalds that a sow not in a crate will mash her pigs and/or eat them. I guess that is better for the baby pigs, right?

Bernie Fehringer (not verified)
on Feb 15, 2012

Gestation crates are used while the sow is gestating. Farrowing crates are used when the sow is giving birth to keep her from laying on her piglets.

We raise pigs and find no need to use either type of crate.

I don't like HSUS - they are a scam with over 99% of their donations going for salaries, etc. See www.humanewatch.org for a breakdown of how they spend their money.

I have seen sows confined in gestation crates - they even look sad. I don't see how it can be healthy for an animal not to get any exercise.

Our animals are kept in large pens and allowed to farrow in straw bedding. Yes, we lose a piglet to crushing once in a while but the quality of meat we produce from "free range" pigs far exceeds anything the factory farms produce.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Feb 15, 2012

It is wonderful you are able to raise "free range" pigs. However, there is no way our country could produce enough pork to satisfy demand if that was the only method of raising hogs. There are dozens of scientific studies that prove hogs are just as well if not better cared for when they are raised in climate controlled environments. Furthermore, the "quality" of meat produced is mainly determined by genetics and has absolutely nothing to do with the type of housing the sow is subjected to. Once again I'm happy you are able to raise "free range" pigs successfully, but please remember you are serving a niche market. We in agriculture need to be united and not run down various production practices unless the science proves one is superior.

Bernie Fehringer (not verified)
on Feb 15, 2012

I knew I would get a comment like this. "We in agriculture" - what do you think I do? I have a 2000 acre farm and raise hogs, cattle and chickens for eggs. Yes, genetics has a lot to do with the quality of the meat but after you have good genetics, you can improve on quality with living conditions and the feed. Incidentally, most of our hogs are Berkshire background so we have excellent genetics.

Our animals run in large pens and get exercise and sunshine. We need to use very little antibiotics or medicines and they get no medicated feed because of the conditions in which they live.

There is quite a bit of difference between "controlled climate conditions" - i.e. closed buildings with a good environment and being cramped up in a gestation cage where they can get no exercise and no interaction with other hogs.

We, in agriculture, need to be united behind the best production practices and against production practices which can not be justified. Farrowing stalls - yes: gestation cages - not justified.

Just my opinion (not verified)
on Feb 17, 2012

When "anonymous" said "we", he meant you too. You are both basically correct, and the industry has always reserved the right to change as conditions dictate. Group housing has no scientific proof that it's better for the sow than gestation crates, but frankly that's beside the point. Consumers don't want it and we can't sell it.
Therefore we have to find alternatives. If it causes costs to rise, than so be it. The market will eventually pass those costs on and folks will feel the pain at the grocery store. The transition will be tough, and many of us won't be able to make it, but that's the world in which we live.
Remember folks, right or wrong, the consumer is speaking. We have to listen.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Feb 14, 2012

Gestation crates, not farrowing crates.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Feb 14, 2012

MdDonalds doesn't serve that much pork in the first place and to dictate to producers not to use farrowing crates is stemming from PETA and other organizations that don't have a clue as to how sows are treated. The only reason the McRib was first introduced is because a lot of Pork check off money was sent to McDonalds to get it on the market. Once the check off money was used up, the McRib went away. I suppose the NPPA funnelled some more money to them, I did see the McRib offered again.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Feb 15, 2012

bacon, sausage, ham in the breakfast sandwiches all come from pork,,,,,

Anonymous (not verified)
on Feb 14, 2012

A sugestion: Put PETA memders in crates along with the sows

Anonymous (not verified)
on Feb 14, 2012

McDonalds is really listening to HSUS? I don't think so

Anonymous (not verified)
on Feb 15, 2012

McDonalds uses plenty of pork with it's breakfast sandwiches.....bacon and ham and sausages. It's not just the McRib.

I don't like gestation crates. Farrowing crates are useful if the animal is kept in there only for farrowing and a few days after to keep an eye on mom and babies.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Feb 16, 2012

I think we should put all political preferences aside and listen to what the science tells us.
I think keeping a watchful eye on a new mom (of any breed or animal type) is important. NOT all momma's are good mothers. Sorry to say but it's true.
I don't believe in penning an animal for the full duration of a life cycle but, monitoring a new mother and the babies is important. More important, I think, than watching a mother tread a new born to death.
There have been many studies by some big name colleges like Cornell University and the University of California on best practices for animal welfare. Maybe instead of listening to animal rights fanatics, we should listen to what research explains as the best practice.
Controlled environments eliminate risks to animals and the human handlers. Nothing is ever perfect but eliminating risks are very important.
To read more on some of the research, just do a google search, make sure you find an accredited college or other research facility and just read. Here is a good example:
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-SW_CarePrax.html

Anonymous (not verified)
on Feb 22, 2012

The question regarding the use gestation crates or not is not a new discussion. The choice to switch to pen gestation is not just a matter of replacing the crates with pens. It requires a change in genetics to adapt a female to pen housing (temperament as well as conformation) not unlike changing from outside pens to inside pens. The animal must adapt to concrete and that requires a change in conformation. Granted it is simply a matter of selecting those that adapt..which becomes a change in genetics. The challenge is to make that change without a loss of product quality.
It is difficult to discount the efficiency benefits of gestation crate rearing ranging from environmental control to individual feeding to prevent over-feeding. Likewise, the benefits of farrowing crates are numerous including not only the increased ease of caring for the female as well as the litter which results in lower mortality rates of the piglets but also the increased efficiency of health and nutrition of the female and the litter.
I agree that the purveyor as well as the consumer can influence agricultural practices. The validity of these influences must be scientifically based and not emotionally based or agenda based changes. A serious red flag appears when HSUS and PETA are supporting a change in practices. We changed from gestation crates to gestation pens. The change was not due to outside influences but rather the cost of maintaining pens vs. the cost of replacing crates. We will not be changing from farrowing crates to pens due to the lower mortality rates of the piglets in crates. Changes that we make are based on profitability and sustainability. A diversity of agricultural practices is not only inevitable but also healthy for an industry. The direction of practices by accusation is never healthy.

Post new comment
Sign In or register to use your BEEF Magazine ID
(optional)
Related Articles
Editor's Picks
  1. Readers Show The Love For Their Ranch Sweethearts  

BEEF Newsletter Sign Up

equipmentone.com

Search 2.5+ million listings
prev next
BeefMagazine.com
Related Penton Websites

Copyright © 2013 Penton Media, Inc