If you order a pork chop, a side of bacon or tacos al pastor anywhere in the U.S., there’s a decent chance the meat in your meal was raised in Minnesota.
As a state, Minnesota is second only to Iowa in pork production. There are roughly 9.3 million hogs in Minnesota at the time of a 2020 U.S. Department of Agriculture survey.
Most of Minnesota’s pork is exported outside the state’s borders, and a lot of it is sold in California, the most populous state in the nation. But California’s rules about what kind of pork can be sold to its supermarkets and restaurants are scheduled to change, requiring that breeding sows be given more space than is typical in the hog industry today. For Minnesota pork producers who want to keep access to the big California market, the new rules may require expensive barn remodeling or new construction — and the need to earn a higher price for their hogs in order to pay for it.
Prop 12
In 2018, California voters passed Proposition 12 by ballot initiative, with 63 percent of voters favoring the measure. The measure sets requirements for veal, eggs and pork sold in California.
The initiative requires pork sold in California to have been birthed of sows that have at least 24 square feet of space, with enclosures large enough for sows to turn around and extend their limbs in. Those requirements are scheduled to take effect January 1, 2022. (For hens that lay eggs, the measure required at least one square foot of floor space per bird by 2020 and cage-free operations by 2022; veal calves must have 43 square feet of space.)
Animal rights activists say the reforms are an important step in making sure animals raised for food are raised in more humane conditions.
“California’s Proposition 12 ensures that an egg-laying chicken, mother pig or baby veal calf isn’t confined in a cage where they can barely move an inch their entire life,” said Josh Balk, vice president of farm animal protection at the Humane Society of the United States. “The cramming of farm animals in tiny, barren cages leads to tremendous suffering, increases food safety risks, and brings the threat of diseases that could be transmitted to people. Providing animals more space means that they are at least able to walk around, extend their limbs and engage in basic natural behaviors. It’s a big step in the right direction in addressing the misery animals face in the meat and egg industries.”
Not everyone agrees that the new rules would make life better for pigs.
A report on the economic impact of Prop 12 by Barry Goodwin, a professor at North Carolina State University specializing in agricultural economics, describes the new space requirements as not backed by animal science.
“Mixing animals together, as would be common in many of the conversion scenarios, will induce stress as animals compete for dominance and feed. Animals are likely to fight, therefore causing increases in morbidity and mortality. This in turn will also negatively impact fertility and embryo survival rates,” he writes.
David Preisler, the CEO of the Minnesota Pork Board, agreed that the new rules could actually make things worse for pigs and the people who work with them.
Preisler said sows are kept in a breeding stall for about three weeks after being bred to increase the likelihood of pregnancy and lower the risk of injury.
“With the rules that are proposed here we wouldn’t be able to use those stalls,” he said. He also said if tasks like breeding and vaccination are moved to more open space, people working with the pigs are at more risk of injury.
People who work in and study the pork industry say the measure will have economic effects for both farmers and consumers.
California consumes an estimated 15 percent of the pork produced in the U.S., per industry groups, and produces far less — an estimated 0.12 percent, Goodwin’s analysis found.
The National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation are fighting Prop 12 in court, alleging it unconstitutionally “imposes burdens on interstate commerce that far outweigh any of its benefits.”
Courts have so-far ruled in favor of Prop 12 proponents, including in an affirmation by a Ninth Circuit panel of judges this week.
Because California makes up such a big share of the country’s market for pork, there is pressure on the pork industry to comply with Prop 12. Pork producers have asked California to delay the implementation of Prop 12 to give them time to come into compliance. The National Pork Producers Council has also asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture for help in bringing farms into compliance.
Minnesota farmers plan changes
Randy Spronk says part of Spronk Brothers, his family’s Edgerton, Minnesota hog farm, is being outfitted to comply with California’s Prop 12 rules.
It was financially viable, Spronk said, because a fire took out part of the facility that’s being rebuilt to comply with the rules. Building new, as opposed to retrofitting an old barn or reducing the number of sows in a pen, is less expensive. The area that’s being rebuilt had 21 square foot pens previously, Spronk said. Goodwin’s report says the industry average for pens is between 18 and 20 square feet, and Spronk said some farms keep sows in individual pens that measure 14 square feet and would not comply with Prop 12.
The market has been volatile lately, but Spronk estimated a good farmer might need to make $130 to $140 to break even on a pig, and he estimated pigs will have to sell for an additional $8 to $20 a head to make up for the cost of building, plus the additional heating and cooling that a larger facility will require.
Another complication for the pork industry is the supply chain: pigs go to processors to become meat, which is shipped around the country. With Prop 12 in effect, pork from California-standards compliant pigs would need to be separated from non-compliant pork and be sent to the state.
Spronk said he wouldn’t have gone forward with the new barn if he didn’t have a processor committed to buying the pigs at a price that hopefully makes it doable. He’s also hoping that retailers, and in turn, consumers, will be willing to pay higher prices.
If the rule goes into effect as intended on January 1, Goodwin’s report predicts prices for pork products will rise in California, as there won’t be enough supply that meets California’s new requirements to meet demand.
“I think it would be too early to say exactly what it would end up being,” Preisler said, adding he’s seen estimates of between 30 percent and 50 percent price increases.
Currently, Rabobank estimates less than 4 percent of the pork produced in the U.S. complies with California’s new standard.
Goodwin predicts pork prices in the rest of the country could fall in the short run, as non-compliant pork that would have gone to California is sold elsewhere. In the longer term, Goodwin’s report projects costly conversions for farmers that could prompt wide-ranging impacts on the pork industry.
If three priorities in raising food are ethics, environment and economics, Spronk said he thinks the California rules put too much emphasis on the ethical concerns at the expense of the environmental and economic concerns, given the need to build, heat and cool the new, larger facilities.
“In my mind, everybody talks about sustainability [but] we’re heading the wrong way,” under California’s new rules, he said.
And many will choose not to provide for the California market.
They will have the price advantage over the firms that will want to supply the California market.
Californians will have significant price increases for pork. You get what you vote for.
Of course, the easy fix for those “significant price increases for pork” is to do what consumers have been doing for several decades, eat less pork. It actually isn’t inconvenient at all.
Actually no 2019 and 2020 have been the largest consumption in 2 decades
Precisely, Thank you.
Yup, curse those wacky Californians thinking a breeding sow should have room in its cage to actually turn around and stretch its legs. What kind of person wants to pay more for a pork chop just to insure that animals are being raise humanely? Certainly not Conservatives! Amirite?
I think it’s doubtful many will “choose” not to provide for the California market. As an individual state, California is the fifth largest economy in the world.
Indeed. And we will get what we didn’t vote for – lower pork prices! Short term, farmers who don’t retrofit for the CA market will likely have a lot of competition for the non-CA market, driving prices down in states that aren’t california. The risk is that lowered prices drive some of those producers out of business. It seems like being an early adopter of the CA rules might be the safer bet. Prices for CA compliant pork will be higher initially, until supply & demand stabilize. That presents an opportunity to pay off improvements while prices are higher. Staying in then non-CA-compliant market seems riskier, with the downward price pressure.
Very thoughtful analysis. Thank you.
A life sentence for each sow, of 24 square feet of space on a concrete floor, and some factory farm folk are whining that that is too much. Get a life, folks. Reduce your herd, your sewage lagoons, your threat to our aquifers, and the stench you inflict on your neighbors.
Good for the Humane Society and Prop 12. The abuse of meat animals is a disgrace and this is a step in the right direction….
Amen !
I think this is impractical but it’s the free market. I’m going to look for the language on the ballot. I can’t believe 63% voted for this. It’s disappointing one state can interfere with interstate commerce.
Federalism is cool until it interferes with your sense of what people should be doing, right?
Since Chinese corporations are heavy investors in Minnesota’s pork production business (they don’t what all of that crap in their water supply), it’s hard to care much about any hardship the pork business might experience. Characters like North Carolina State University’s Barry Goodwin has, apparently, never visited a confinement feedlot. They are torture chambers for both pigs and workers and gross air and water polluters that wouldn’t be allowed near anywhere rich people live. Poor rural people can “eat cake” and breathe stench and drink water that would choke a hog, though. Like corn subsidies, large scale pork production could vanish from the earth and we’d all be better for it. Pork consumption has been declining in the US for decades and the fact that 63% of the taxpayers of the largest economy in the US are willing to make a small sacrifice in their food economy to force moderately human and slightly ecologically sustainable conditions on to this industry is encouraging.
I agree with your comment. But your comment and the comment of lee wick suggests some of us are not aware of US agricultural policy on pork production in particular and agricultural policy in general. It’s not just China wanting to shift the externalities of pork production (like water pollution and contamination) to the US. The US ag. policy of promoting overproduction of feed ( like genetically modified corn, which is virtually all there is today) to be either exported or used in feed for animals like chickens, hogs, cattle and dairy cows) is to place all Americans on a government mandated diet that is unhealthy for humans as it is for the animals which are fed this overproduced and genetically modified feed. US policy since WWII has been to move people off the farms and, belying some pathetically underfunded programs to the contrary, to discourage small family farms and people living on the land as stewards. The concentration of ownership of agricultural land, like the concentration of animals in feedlots, wreaks a terrible destruction and damage to the ecosystem- the water, their air, the environment- in which we all live.
Yes, I agree, it’s very encouraging that 63% of Californians are saying “no” to force sustainable and more humane conditions in the pork industry. But more people in Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and other states where pork production also retains considerable political clout also need to be informed and aware of the political ramifications of their food choices and their political power to also say “no” to these unsustainable agricultural policies and practices.
Well said, T.W. Thank you !
We have been buying our pork locally from farmers who raise their animals on pasture and in healthy circumstances. The meat is more expensive, but the quality is great. The meat is also processed at a local locker plant. It feels good to support your neighbor. Confinement agriculture is a pretty brutal way to produce meat.
I buy the whole hog at once, and it’s very price competitive.
Another interesting story from Greta Kaul.
Pork producers should not comply with California’s Proposition 12. The next thing Californians will want is more square fee for corn to grow, and to anesthetize the plants before they are harvested so they avoid pain.
While many of California’s humane laws meet with my agreement and satisfaction, the cost of remodeling farms and the lack of conclusive and qualitative data on how pigs feel (let’s talk to their therapists), leaves this concern up for continued debate.
I am aware that animals of all species have personalities, intelligence and feelings. However, these animals’ comfort does not contribute to their creativity, productivity, or prominence in the world. They are raised to die so that humans can enjoy both nutrition and pleasure while dining. Some people are adamantly against animal suffering, as I am in most instances. However, the extra square foot or two that California legislators want for livestock is not something that I consider rational — nor based on industry experts who have noted their concerns for the probable damage done to both livestock and breeders, as noted in this report.
The family of a friend of my mom, who was director of the Minnesota Public Research Group (MPIRG) in the 1970s, had a large pig ranch in New Ulm, MN. The pigs which I witnessed appeared to be happy in their pens, and were quite social and excited to see us when we arrived one day in October.
Being humane to our pets and service animals, and to one another, is a reasonable and considerate expectation. Adding a couple more square feet to a breeding pen is likely to create more problems for everyone and everything of concern.
My suggestion is that farmers around the U.S. ignore this demand by some Californians. As prices outside of California are likely to go down, I am not immediately concerned about my pocketbook — nor do I consume much, if any, pork. The price of other meat has nearly doubled in the past year, except due to occasional sales markets have on the kind of meat that I enjoy. Hence, I am not buying as much beef, nor will I until I see prices come down for the long-run or at least during sales.
Vegans and vegetarians have had their say in a very public way for several years. Some concerns, such as the environmental costs to raise certain livestock, are worth considering when we make choices about our food.
I read in a 2017 Bloomberg News article that University of Michigan was working on sanitizing common flies to breed for their larvae (otherwise known as maggots), given its richness in protein. I read in The Africa Report, another journal out of Africa, which similarly discussed how insect larvae is both cooked as is, and is also made into flour to reap the benefits of nutrients found in that material. However, it is likely that Californians, the Humane Society and PETA would object to these dietary breeding practices, also.
Having made a life of developing a very humane and considerate attitude about how we must treat one another and our pets and service animals, I also have a limit on how far we bow to make life more comfortable for animals. Creating comfort is important. So is looking at the problems associated with being humane. As I will not run for public office, I do not care what over-sensitive members of PETA and the Animal Humane Society may think of me for this considered response to raising livestock, as the results of doing as the Californians desire will have a negligible impact on the comfort of animals which are raised to be slaughtered and consumed — and may likely create greater problems of discomfort and disease. It will also put many breeders out of business and out of work and without a traditional income.
As I am not an animal scientist, however, this is just an opinion from a man who is interested in seeing to it that humans are fed and are healthy, and get their daily recommended value of iron, protein and fat.
Humans don’t need meat, period. We’re all better off without livestock. It is unjustifiable from every aspect, including our crisis du jour, global warming.
“My suggestion is that farmers around the U.S. ignore this demand by some Californians.”
Which means they can’t sell their product in California.
Incidentally, “some Californians” were sufficiently numerous to express their opinions at the ballot box.
“Vegans and vegetarians have had their say in a very public way for several years.”
Their opinions are heard, and they are not burned at the stake for heresy. That’s kind of what free speech is about, isn’t it?
Mr. Holbrook,
It is not a matter of not selling non-compliant pork in California. It is a matter of cutting their access to pork raised in the U.S. if they intend to take the industry hostage for practices which will have a negligible effect on the outcome. While 63% of Californians voted for Proposition 12, how many of them actually know anything about farming and raising animals. Please see my later post in response to comments like yours.
Animals in the wild also have a very difficult time with survival. Life on earth for any animal, including humans, is rarely heavenly. If you do not desire to consume meat produced at farms with two or three fewer square feet of pen-space for animals, that is your prerogative.
My interest in the well-being of animals has been so important to me that I thought of going to work for Chipotle, as they free-range raise their animals. However, I am one who recognizes the financial pressures of both business owners in the farming industry, as well as with consumers’ ability and desire to purchase dietary products at a huge mark-up.
I invite you to take your financial and intellectual resources, and your organizational skills, to the marketplace and go to work providing the ideal environment for animals as you see fit. Idealism can lead to many fine outcomes. However, refitting billions of dollars worth of property around the nation for livestock to have a little extra room is not something which I find absolutely necessary, though I will defer to Dr. Temple Grandin, a savant in the area of animal and livestock breeding and management for her thoughts and expert opinion.
“While 63% of Californians voted for Proposition 12, how many of them actually know anything about farming and raising animals.”
That should have been made clear to them in the campaign for the proposition.
It’s a little late to raise these arguments. Perhaps when Californians see how the law works in the real world they will change their minds. In any event, if it passed on the basis of misinformation, the blame lies at the feet of the pork industry that failed to explain its case clearly enough.
Modern hog production is highly specialized.
Some farms are set up to produce sperm for artificial insemination, reducing the need to keep boars and subject staff and females to dangerous and powerful males. Keeping boars requires special crates for females that allow the boar to identify females in estrus.
Sows that are gestating need feed formulas and a certain amount of protection from each other. When farrowing time draws near, she is moved a different crate, one in which she can give birth, piglets can be processed and kept warm and safe from her laying or stepping on them.
After weaning, piglets are moved out of “hot nurseries” specialized pens with a feed formula supplemented with milk product, and then into grower units, .
At this stage, 40 pounds or so, pens accommodate a number of animals, but animals that have been together before, or have been introduced to “strange” animals in a deliberate way that helps stop tail-biting and fighting.
As these growing pigs gain weight and size, they are moved again, and feed rations and pens are designed for that stage of growth.
At any given stage of growth, on their way to 225 pounds or so, the pens, crates, barns and staff are different in any large scale operation.
I wonder how closely the CA law fits the actual process.
Outdoor hogs are exposed to diseases spread by wild animals and can be easily injured. Confinement hogs are cleaner, healthier and protected from the most common threats.
This magnificent animal is smart, she can produce a litter of 20 in 115 days and will be a major source of protein for a long time to come.
Pigs are also being used in medicine, providing precious body parts to save human lives.
African Swine Fever is a world wide threat, and humane farmers will take great pains first, to keep their livestock healthy by quarantine.
just FYI
“Outdoor hogs are exposed to diseases spread by wild animals and can be easily injured. Confinement hogs are cleaner, healthier and protected from the most common threats.”
This is hilarious. Yes by all means lets keep pigs confined, in tight spaces, standing, or lying, in their own feces, because everyone knows this is healthier and being indoors is how God intended for them to live.
“This magnificent animal is smart…”
This kind of negates all the BS in the rest of your comment. Smart animals do not do well in Confined spaces or with the tightly regulated regime your lengthy post describes. Let pigs be pigs, that means raised outdoors in the sunlight with the grass under they hooves, as God truly intended.
Lets be honest, the pork you buy in the chain stores is tough and tasteless. Pasture raised pork is much more flavorful.
Well said, Henk. Thank you.
One of the major reasons s pork production moved indoors was to improve health and separate pigs from hostile environmental conditions
It is extremely difficult to protect outdoor raised animals from disease.
Pseudorabies and Brucellosis are endemic in feral hogs.
Prrs Pedv and a host of other diseases lurk as well
Your ignorance doesn’t change reality
Basic meat science fatter pork is more flavorful
“Pork producers should not comply with California’s Proposition 12. The next thing Californians will want is more square fee for corn to grow, and to anesthetize the plants before they are harvested so they avoid pain.”
Nice straw man you’ve got there. Here’s mine:
Next thing you know, hog farmers will have industrial sized operations that pollute the water for everyone.
Oh wait, unfortunately that’s not a straw man.
It’s always interesting to see how anthropomorphism gains adherents without any real evidence whether it makes a difference or not. So it is for pigs; if we can’t stand to be cooped up then how could pigs stand it?
Pork industry put 39Billion into USA GDP 2019, it is a big business, especially for Minnesota farmers. Californians can ask their hogs have a special suite with room service and drive up prices for their pork, good for them. I am sure some hog farmers are licking their chops planning on giving Californians pork chops at 5x the price of normal pork. Bottom line is processing hogs, cows, chickens, deer, grouse, pheasants, ducks or any animal for its meat is messy. Folks who have never done any processing think their chickens come in plastic wrapped packages, they actually come with heads, feet, wings, feathers and guts. I just hope Minnesotans are smart enough not to follow California (we seem to feel more hip here in the heartland when we site and follow stupid Cali edicts) and drive up our pork prices.
Ever since I read an article about factory farming of pigs in the September 2004 issue of The Atlantic, I have limited my purchases of pork products to the pasture-raised pork available at local food co-ops. It would be a useful perspective for MinnPost to interview the suppliers of this humanely raised pork to see if they are dealing with any of the problems that industrial farmers claim would result from giving the pigs are more kind and gentle lifestyle. Are their pigs attacking one another?
In this case, as in many others, there is no reason to take an industry spokesperson’s claims at face value, nor should we necessarily respect those who say, “Change is difficult.” We should know that by now.
A few people had a very adverse response to my intentionally pointed and satiric response to California’s Proposition 12 and the 63% of Californians who voted in favor of adding a couple more square feet to pig pens. I am unmoved by their comments, though I have been a proponent of treating animals well.
Many people grow up with pets and watch Disney and Hallmark films which humanize the personality of animals — which I contend are often extremely smart. One writer said that humans do not need animal meat. I cast that comment and thought aside as I know from reading and conferring with physicians that both fat and protein from animals are needed for healthy human brains and bodies.
We can continue to debate on how we will treat livestock intended for slaughter, and how emotionally involved we will get with livestock.
Temple Grandin, who, like me, is on the autism spectrum, is an animal scientist who advocates the humane treatment of animals. She is a savant in this field, and was featured on one of Time Magazine’s covers. Her thoughts are interesting and a valuable read for anyone interested in caring for livestock. I am also interested in humanely caring for livestock, but I am not interested in developing such a passion for their well-being that I forget that humans do, in fact, need the kind of protein and fat from other animals to remain healthy. I will also note that I get my protein from from beans and other sources, and am not a huge consumer of livestock protein or fat.
There is a line which I draw in the sand which keeps me from having strong and burdening emotions for livestock. I had to coach my adoptive daughter in Ankaase, Ghana, West Africa, to not become emoti0nally involved with her pigs and lambs, as they would be slaughtered at age two-years. I counseled her to be kind to the animals and to keep their quarters clean, and to keep them away from the well that I had drilled on her property in an effort to protect the water from germs that would make her and her animals sick.
Please continue to watch your G-Rated Disney and Hallmark films, if this is what brings you comfort. However, do not over assess my thoughts to believe that I care to be cruel to animals. I treat animals with kindness and have enjoyed feeding and talking to both my pets and to wild squirrels at Northrop Mall at University of Minnesota during my years on campus, having the squirrels climb on my lap and shoulders.
Kindness to livestock is one thing. Presenting them with luxury quarters for a little extra comfort which will have a negligible effect on their well-being is quite another. There is a point where people have to draw the line and recognize that no amount of care for livestock will negate the fact that they are being raised as commodities to be slaughtered and consumed. If you do not want to consume animal protein and fat, that is up to you.
A 2013 report in Scientific American reported that humans are becoming more carnivorous and that the processing of livestock is creating a stated amount of greenhouse gasses. Bloomberg Magazine, as I earlier reported, published a story in 2017 which discussed the use of fly larvae (maggots) which have been controlled in a hygienic manner for eventual human consumption in the U.S. The Africa Report noted in July 2021 that animal larvae is a popular source of protein on that continent in fried foods and as have been processed to make flour to add to bread, wafers, and other food products. Insects are also consumed in Latin America, Asia, and elsewhere.
Sharing emotional tirades about the cruelty of breeding livestock is one thing. Actually having ideas on how to provide healthy alternatives, and doing so in a considerate and intelligent manner is yet another.
The NPPC is very strong on this thread. I don’t recall ever seeing so many, lengthy posts by industry insiders before and its dawned on my what the problem is: As prices for their tasteless pork rises, humanely raised local pork prices will be more attractive to shoppers and we all know the last thing a Capitalist wants is competition from a superior product.
And no one has answered my question. Do producers of humanely raised pork encounter the kinds of problems that factory farmers claim will occur if procedures are changed?
I’m reluctant to try to bring more reality to this discussion, as my comments have not been well received. Insults make it harder to post informative comments.
But I do have experience in this industry from a software point of view, which includes solving the problems of identification of individual animals, their history and their matings; death losses and causes; feed formulations at each stage of growth, and facilities design and functionality; biosecurity and many other pieces of data that make producers smarter and make better farms.
The U of M developed a program, PIGCHAMP, that opened the field to many farms who were able to collect and make available for analysis good data.
That said, I also have a friend who raises an older European breed outdoors here in MN all year round. He farrowed one of his first litters in January in an old dairy barn with grass bedding. His customers include fancy TC restaurants and word-of-mouth buyers. The pork is of a high quality, and is different than the long, lean breeds favored by packing houses that are set up for a certain size and shape animal. The efficiency and profitability of this method is probably non-viable without a truly dedicated staff willing to do hard manual work of cleaning pens, doing basic animal care including moving big animals and delivering piglets and the processing of births, even sewing up cuts and administering medicines.
Hog producers got smarter faster learning the husbandry than other farmers, because historically hog herds would be commonly wiped out by disease every few years. Today’s farmers can’t afford that and still stay in the business.
Today’s units are bio-secure. Showering in and wearing farm clothes that are laundered and stay inside are the rule.
Outdoors, hogs get worms, parasites, and a number of diseases that can be carried by racoons, skunks and other critters, and they can be injured by others fighting or accidental trampling. These outdoor animals root the ground for grubs and will eat the quackgrass roots leaving a nice place to plant a garden without perennial weeds. It is not possible to grow forage that will survive, and rain makes it a muddy mess to try to (for example) move a pasture sow to a safe farrowing place inside.
Americans are lucky to have plentiful clean healthy pork. Not much of it can come from boutique growers, but it is fun to know those who do it.
In Texas, especially, outdoor raised hogs that escaped and became feral (just a few generations does it) are forced to try shooting, trapping poisoning these highly destructive animals that in one night can rip up a huge patch of any vegetation or crop.
I want to point out that 24 sq ft is less than a sheet of plywood, In fact you could cut 12 inches off the side of a sheet of plywood and still comply with Prop 12 space requirements .
I milked a small herd of dairy cattle for 37 years doing a lot of grazing so I know something about taking care of cattle. I read most of the Goodwin report. I think a lot of it is BS, especially the economic modeling and the claims that the sows will be under more stress and less productive with more room to live in.
That is just BS, or rather PS.
I agree with you Ken, that some of this is not presented fairly or accurately.
To wit: The farrowing crate is only used for about 3 weeks, then she is moved and the weaned piglets go to a nursery. The Prop 12 says no animal should be forced to spend their life in such a cage. I think they specified no more than 75 days a year would be allowed. I can’t believe there are some farms so cruel and backward (why kill her or maim her when she is giving you so many pigs?)
I think there is some hyperbole going on in describing these awful places (IDK)
As for “lying in feces”, it might be good for some to know the floors are slatted to allow cleaning. Penned animals can be kept on clean floors as they will use one area the herdsman can regularly clean. Most barns are all-in all-out with pressure washing done in between.
This is yet another example of the problems with California’s referendum system. There may be some merit but to this, but the idea that it was enacted by ballot measure is nuts.