Ingen vill på allvar ägna sig åt att skatta vinsterna med svenska djurskyddsregler – inte bara konsumentförtroende utan faktiska vinster med friska djur och högre produktion. Ingen kan väl påstå att svenska djurskyddsregler har hindrat duktiga djurbönder att uppnå en produktion i världsklass.
Hur kommer det sig att Sverige har EU:s friskaste djur och lägsta antibiotikaförbrukning! Dessutom har vi nästan världens högsta tillväxt hos våra svenska grisar och våra mjölkkors avkastning ligger i topp. Det kan inte bara bero på en framgångsrik avel och att vi har lyckats hålla djursjukdomar utanför landets gränser. Vi är många som hävdar att svensk djurskyddslagstiftning, som sedan djurskyddslagen 1988, syftar till att skydda djur från lidande och sjukdom och ge djuren möjlighet att bete sig naturligt har bidragit till friska djur som utnyttjar sin produktionspotential.
Det var budskapet från femton tunga forskare när utredningen ”Stärkt konkurrenskraft för livsmedelsproducenter och ett starkt djurskydd, LI 2023:01” presenterades i februari förra året. Syftet med svensk djurskyddslagstiftning är att verka förebyggande d v s undvika dåliga djurmiljöer, felaktigt utformade djurstallar, olämplig utfodring och sjukdomsprovocerande uppfödningssystem. Sedan finns självfallet den etiska dimensionen. Ska vi använda djur för att producera mat, ska vi behandla djuren med respekt och ge möjlighet till ett drägligt liv. Och detta är inte bara ett svenskt synsätt utan EU-kommissionen har konstaterat att det finns ett mycket starkt medborgartryck att behandla våra livsmedelsproducerande djur, men även sällskapsdjur, bättre. Och det löser inte marknaden som jag skrivit om i tidigare blogg 5 december 2023. Varför skulle annars EU vilja skärpa regelverket. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority ) har också gjort ett stort antal genomgångar av djurskyddsproblem och förslag till åtgärder. EFSA har ju bl a föreslagit att kor bör ha tillgång till bete. Och glöm inte att vissa medlemsstater nu faktiskt går före med skärpta djurskyddsregler – över Sveriges nivå.
Jag minns ett sorglig uttalande från en regionsförbundsstämma i väst som tyckte det var dags att avsluta experimentet med svensk djurskyddslagstiftning. Jag lyckades i Land få in ett uttalande där jag skrev att det svenska experimentet bidragit till hög produktion men också till EU:s lägsta antibiotikaförbrukning. Svenskt djurskydd kostar pengar! Detta upprepas med en dåres envishet av vissa politiker och representanter för näringen och ingår i utredningens direktiv. Mycket har också hämtats från Konkurrenskraftutredningen från 2015 ( LRF:s inspel medförde att jag gick ur LRF samma år). Jag skulle hävda att påståendet bygger på dålig kunskap. Det finns inga aktuella beräkningar av kostnader och intäkter av svenskt djurskydd. Det är klart att det går att räkna på kostnaden för att använda halm i svinuppfödningen, bygga med större ytor eller bedöva i samband med operativa ingrepp. Men att bra djursmiljöer ger bättre produktion undviks i diskussionen. Det hävdas att det saknas forskning och det är ju sant. ”Den svenska modellen – hävstång eller ok för svensk svinproduktion” (Jonasson L et al 1997) visade att i jämförelse med dansk grisproduktion som tillämpade antibiotikatillsats i foder och EU:s djurskyddsregler, hävdade sig svensk uppfödning mycket väl med striktare djurskyddsregler och utan antibiotika generellt i foder. Kostnaden för den svenska modellen var marginell. Den visade också att man inte kan ta en enskild regel utan måste titta på samspel mellan regler. På ett seminarium som ordnades av regeringskansliet 1998 redovisades bl a resultaten och resonemang och argument för att EU skulle anta ett förbud mot antibiotika i förebyggande syfte. Vilket man så småningom gjorde. Förbudet infördes 2006. Dokumentet är en bra historiebeskrivning. Läs och begrunda utifrån dagens perspektiv
Swedish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries
Seminar in Stockholm, 3 – 4 September 1998
The Swedish Model of Animal Production
Economic Effects on Swedish Farming
Gunnela Ståhle, Economic Policy, Federation of Swedish Farmers (LRF)
Introduction
The aim of this presentation is to try to contribute to answer the question, whether it is possible to raise pigs and chickens without antimicrobial feed additives (AFA), i. e. continuous use of antibiotics, with a high efficiency and at a reasonable cost. The focus is on pig production.
The position taken by Swedish Farmers already in 1981 stated that the farmers wanted a restrictive and controlled use of antibiotics in animal production. LRF was prepared to refrain from the use of antibiotics as growth-promoters. The motives were the importance of consumers´ confidence and the old knowledge, that any use of antibacterials could lead to development of resistant strains of pathogen bacteria. The farmers policy on antibiotics was revised in 1995.
” Swedens farmers are aiming at a sustainable animal production, which as far as possible is independent of the use of drugs”. By sustainable we mean ecological and economical sustainability.
Consensus
It is important to state that after more than 10 years of experience, there is a broad consensus among pig- and poultry-producers that, even if there has been a lot of problems, the decision taken in the middle of the eighties was right. The benefits of AFA do not outweigh the risks. The change in 1986 is an advantage for the future competitiveness.
The importance of healthy animals on profitability
The most important effect of the Swedish ban on AFA, is the understanding of the importance of animal health on productivity and prosperity. Healthy and unstressed animals are profitable animals. This statement might be concidered to be self-evident. But it was not in Sweden in the sixties or seventies. Large scale-production with low building costs and a minimum of working hours was supposed to be the solution to profitability. Losses from infectous diseases were not included in the calculation. Even if AFA were used routinely the morbidity and mortality was high. After the ban it was also obvious that AFA had a preventive effect in many herds and therefore concealed bad management and environment.
Now there is awareness among producers, that investments in a good animal-environment and mangement is necessary for an economical and ecological sound production. Then it is of utmost importance to know how to minimize the risk for introduction and spreading of contagieous diseases and how to avoid provoking factors, for example bad climate or negative stress on the animals. Negative stress has an impact on the animals immune-system. Infectious diseases and stress means that we do not fully exploit the genetic potential of the animal.
Different housing-systems have different effects on animal health-status and production-level, which means that you can compare production-costs in SEK per kg pig-meat between production-strategies and housing-systems depending on, not only building- and labour costs, but also on production-level, transport-costs etc. Below is an example, built on controlled comparisons and practical experiences.
Production costs SEK per kg pigmeat, 330 sows
Ove Olsson, Swedish Animal Health Service,1998
Trad = traditional Swedish pig production (from farrow to finish or separated weaner- and finish-production)
SPF = Specific Pathogene Free-pigs, in Sweden called Sero-pigs
Multisite = Separated farrowing, weaners and fatteners
Alt 1 Piglets moved after weaning (4 – 6 weeks of age)
Alt 2 Piglets moved at 25 – 30 kg live weight (11 – 12 weeks of age)
Alt 3 From birth to slaughter in the same pen (whole litter)
Alt 4 From birth to slaughter in the same pen (8 pigs per pen)
The conclusions are that the SPF-strategy, freedom from important diseases, and pigs kept from birth to slaughter in the same pen, are superior to other strategies and housing -system. Healthy and unstressed pigs are competitive, even if the building costs are higher.
The costs of the Swedish model
Beside effects of different housing-systems and strategies, the stockman and his management have a great influence on health-status och productivity. Within the same production-system there is a great variation in productivity and profitability.
Sweden has a long experience of stricter rules for animal protection. In 1988 a new animal protection act was passed in the parliament. The aim with the legislation is to prevent animal disease, by a good management and environment. Since 1994 almost all rules for pigs have come into practice i. e. group-housing for sows, new space-requirements, straw or litter to all pigs and maximum weaning-age 4 weeks. Since 1986 the use of AFA as growth-promoters are banned. It is very important to observe, that you can´t separate the effect of the ban of growth-promoters from rules concerning animal welfare. As most rules for animal welfare promotes good health they are a prerequisite for rasing pigs without the constant use of antibiotics (AFA).
In 1997 Swedish Farmers Meat Marketing Association, Swedish Farmers, Lantmännen, Feed Development and Swedish Pig Producers authorised a study made by the Swedish University of Agriculture. The calculations consist of three parts. The increase and decrease in costs are calculated separately for each rule. This is followed by a comparison of production costs between a Swedish production system and a fictive Danish production system operating in Sweden. A final analysis compares the estimated results of this Danish system with those of actual herds in Denmark. Denmark was chosen because of the knowledge of production results, calculated in the same way as in Sweden and because animal protection rules in 1997 was almost according to EC-directives.The analysis applies throughout to newly-constructed facilities with good production results. Results can therefore differ considerably from the actual effects noted in the short run, in existing production. The producers price was 13.25 SEK and the price of a weaner pig, live weight 22.8 kg was 528 SEK.
Table 1 Rules, which were examined and costs SEK per kg pig meat
Weaner production Slaughter-pigs Total Not considered
Space-requirement (+10%) – 0,001 -0,039 -0.040 Sow health
Ban on stall tethering – 0,081 – 0.081 More labour-intensive ?
Straw/litter
+ 0,117 – 0,024 + 0.093 More piglets
Weaning age (13 days) + 0.140 + 0,140
Ban on slatted floors – 0.020 – 0.190 – 0.210 Smaller area
Sectioning demand +0.09 +0.09 Decreased capacity
Ban on antibacterial
growth promot. + 0,053 + 0, 046 + 0.099 Reduced antibiotic resistance
Windows demand +0.030 + 0.030 + 0.060
Ban on tail docking -0.005 + 0.004 – 0.001
A Danish production system in Sweden
A model calculation examining how a herd following Danish regulations would manage in Sweden was carried out. Two different conceivable systems for larger herds with integrated production were compared, one according to Danish regulations and the other by Swedish rules. The Swedish system assumes the production results achieved at present by the most competent Swedish farmers (the top 20 % producers in RASP, Result Analysis Swine Production). The estimated production results in the Danish system are based on Swedish results, adjusted for conditions dictated by the Danish animal protection regulations as indicated by the results from the first part of the analysis.
Table 2. Increased costs with Swedish animal protection regulations compared with Danish regulations (Skr per kilo pig meat)
Variable costs
Sow +0.18
Weaner +0.03
Slaughter pig -0.13
Fixed costs (buildings)
Weaner production +0.24
Slaughter pig +0.19
Sum of added costs for Swedish model +0.51
The building cost per integrated sow was 9400 SEK higher due to the Swedish model. A third of this cost was due to higher ceilings and wider walkways in Sweden than in Denmark. The higher costs for sows and weaners depend on higher labour costs, the use of straw and longer lactation. Some costs are compensated by an lower mortality and increased rate of gain. In slaughter pig production the Swedish model will bear the fruit. Despite the ban on growth promoters, the growth rate is expected to be higher in the Swedish model, resulting in lower feed costs. The mortality is also lower in the Swedish model compared to Danish system.
Danish production results
As a final step in the study the expected production results of the Danish system in Sweden with actual results from Denmark were compared. The fundamental aspects of the analysis above are confirmed and reinforced by this comparison. The Swedish model holds its own well in finish-feeding but not so well in weaner operations (table 3). The most important differences are mortality and growth rates for both weaners and slaughter pigs.
In total the production costs between Sweden and Denmark differ by 1.13 SEK (table 4) per kilo pig meat, of which less than half is due to the Swedish model. If the analysis were to consider the differences in price for investment funds and national grants (investment assistance, etc.) the cost disadvantage would
undoubtedly be greater
A calculation made by LRF in 1997, estimated that for instance the higher taxes on production in Sweden (energy, fuel, fertiliser and pesticides etc) compared to Denmark increases the production costs for feed grain with 240 SEK per ha and with 0.25 SEK per kilo pigmeat.
Table 3: Comparison of production results in the three systems as well as the cost differences between the actual and estimated production results in the Danish systems
Production results Cost difference (actual minus
Sweden
(RASP, best 20%) Danish rules
in Sweden
(estimated results) Denmark
(E-control,
best 25%) estimated result, SEK/kg
Weaner production
Replacement litter % 20.8 28.2 19.1 -0.09
Litters/year 2.24 2.38 2.35 +0.05
Live at birth/litter 11.5 11.5 11.4 +0.04
Mortality % 14.0 14.3 10.0 -0.21
Kg feed/pig 95.8 93.8 87.7 -0.08
Age at 25 kg (days) 79.2 79.9 67.5 -0.19
Sum Weaner -0.48
Slaughter pigs
Mortality % 1.9 2.8 1.9 -0.06
Rate of gain 87.1 84.4 87.7 -0.06
Kg feed/kg gain 2.68 2.72 2.72 0
Sum slaughter pigs +0.08
Total -0.40
.
Table 4. Observed cost differences between Sweden and Denmark (SEK per kilo pork)
Weaner Slaughter pigs Total
Swedish model +0.45 +0.05 +0.51
Building tradition +0.13 +0.09 +0.22
Unexplained difference in
production result +0.48 -0.08 +0.40
Total +1.06 +0.07 +1.13
Summary
• The calculations compare the production results for the most competent producers in Sweden with their colleagues in Denmark. Production costs in connection with new investment are slightly more than one SEK higher in Sweden. Almost half of that, about 0.50 SEK per kilo of pigmeat, is due to the Swedish model. Differences in taxes, fees, grants and financial costs are not included.
• Most of the cost difference occurs in weaner production. Slaughter pig production tend to compensate for the higher costs ensuing from animal protection by a better rate of gain.
• The ban on growth-promoters is the key issue. Given that ban, many improvements in animal environment are profitable
• Difference in building tradition causes increased costs 0.22 SEK per kg pigmeat
The Swedish pig production results are improving for every year
Production results in piglet production 1993 – 1997
Mortality between birth and weaning has decreased from 15.2 % 1993 to 14.2 % in 1997. Mortality after weaning in the best herds is as low as 1.9 %.
Daily gain, g per day, slaughter pig production 1991 – 1997
Starter weight is between 26 – 29 kg. The daily gain in the best herds (25 %, the last staple) in 1997 was 929 g per day. The slaughter weight has increased from 77.7 kg in 1991 to 81.8 kg 1997. Mortality lies steadily around 1.4 – 1.6 %.
Future opportunities
Since 1997 Denmark has decided to put a stop to the use of growth promoters to slaughter pigs and broilers.
The cost disadvantage arising from the Swedish model can be expected to decrease as the skill and knowledge among producers are improving. The rebuilding of stables and investments in improved animal environment will mean that the effect of AFA will be more or less marginal. As earlier mentioned the full potential of healthy animals is still not exploited. A sero-pig production shows a growth rate exceeding the best herds by 30 % as weaners and 10 % as slaughter pigs. This corresponds to about 1.50 SEK per kilo pig-meat in decreased costs.
Swedish farmers are convinced that the ban on antimicrobial feed additives is an advantage for future competitiveness. The benefits of using antibiotics generally in feed do not outweigh the risks.