Minimum Space When Transporting Pigs: Where Is the “Good” Law?

TL;DR

The paper discusses challenges in setting a clear legal standard for pig crowding during transport, highlighting the need for numerical clarity to balance animal welfare and commercial interests.

Contribution

The paper introduces the concept of LP50 as a potential global benchmark for enforcing pig transport regulations.

Findings

There is no consensus on pig transport crowding standards across regions.

Numeracy issues in scientific communication hinder regulatory agreement.

LP50 is proposed as a measurable and enforceable standard for pig transport.

Abstract

One may think that the number of pigs that can fit on a truck is a simple scientific question. It is not. It is vitally important that scientists can describe their work simply and concisely to the public, especially when that work is providing the basis for regulation in the public interest. Successful regulation of human behavior requires the regulated to agree with the rule. Commercial livestock transporters have an interest in loading a livestock compartment to the maximum to minimize costs. Livestock production academics, veterinarians, and animal welfare activists have been working for decades to determine the level of livestock crowding in transport containers that would be an appropriate threshold for regulatory enforcement. To date, there is no real consensus on this issue across species or animal size within a species. The EU countries agreed to a maximum floor pressure for market pigs of around 110 kg body weight to be 235 kgm−2 in 2005, while North American regulators have no legal standard. Current practice in North America allows for significant crowding of pigs in excess of the EU standard. Using the pig as an example, this paper examines the practical barriers that have for decades prevented emergence of a consensus on the “Is this truck full?” question.

This paper focuses on the problem of numeracy when writing regulations, specifically how to describe a threshold for crowding of pigs during transport, considering transported pigs range in body mass from 5 to 500 kg. When scientific findings provide the basis for regulation in the public interest, those findings must be communicated in a consistent way to regulators and policymaking bodies. Numeracy is the ability to understand, reason with, and apply appropriate numerical concepts to real-world questions. Scientific understanding is almost always based on rational understanding of numerical information, numeracy. The threshold of administrative offenses is often a numerical description. Commercial livestock transporters have an interest in loading livestock compartments to the maximum to achieve the largest payload allowed by axle weight laws, as is the case in all bulk commodity transport. Maximizing payload minimizes costs and environmental hazards of fuel exhaust and can benefit the public with lower pork prices, but has a serious animal welfare risk. Livestock production academics, veterinarians, and animal welfare activists have been working for decades to determine the level of livestock crowding in transport containers that would be appropriate for regulatory enforcement. The scientific discourse has been plagued by a lack of numerical standardization when describing results of trials and forming recommendations. Exceeding specific numerical thresholds is the core to implementing enforcement actions. This paper examines the communication and other barriers that have prevented emergence of a consensus on this question and provides a direction toward resolution. Further confirmation of effects of crowding livestock in transit is needed. This paper suggests that articulating an enforceable standard in pig transport is possible. In inspection for compliance, discovering the LP50 (lethal pressure—50) for slaughter-weight pigs is an initial global benchmark goal. The LP50 is the loading floor pressure in a commercial transport compartment, under field conditions, that would result in the death of at least one pig in the group 50% of the time.

Figures