Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-nx7b4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-02T09:54:14.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Niche pork: Comparing pig performance and understanding producer benefits, barriers and labeling interest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2017

Jamie A. Picardy ,
Silvana Pietrosemoli ,
Timothy S. Griffin  and
Christian J. Peters
Jamie A. Picardy*
Affiliation:
University of Southern Maine, Food Studies Program, 120 Bedford Street, Portland, Maine 04104, USA.
Silvana Pietrosemoli
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Center for Environmental Farming Systems, PO Box 7621, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
Timothy S. Griffin
Affiliation:
Tufts University, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, 150 Harrison Avenue, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
Christian J. Peters
Affiliation:
Tufts University, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, 150 Harrison Avenue, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: usm.foodstudies@maine.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Opportunities for alternative swine production and marketing are emerging across the value chain. Given the developing nature of the differentiated pork industry, measurements of niche performance and success are not yet fully known. For this reason, the objectives of this study were to determine performance metrics across all major life phases for niche pork production and compare such metrics with national averages of conventional commodity pork production. Additionally, this study aimed to quantify producers’ reasoning and barriers to successfully raising niche swine. Niche meat producers in the USA self-identified for this study (n = 176); their swine production had alternative characteristics that included small- to mid-sized farms, farrow-to-finish operations, heritage breeds, housing with bedding and outdoor or pasture access, no use of antibiotics (sub-therapeutic for growth promotion or no antibiotics ever), vegetarian feed, diverse agricultural enterprises and alternative marketing avenues. This study focused on the metric categories regarding reproduction, mortality, culling and growth characteristics. The niche system produced approximately 15% fewer weaned piglets per bred sow per year than the conventional system due to fewer breeding cycles, smaller litters and higher piglet mortality in alternative production. Similarly, niche production finished 12% fewer hogs per bred sow per year than conventional production. Regarding age benchmarks of finishing and breeding, the niche system averaged 18 additional days to finish hogs at a standardized market weight of 124 kg. Likewise, niche production gilts were first bred at 283 days, whereas conventional production breeds gilts at 225 days. All directly comparable metrics were found to be statistically significant with 95% confidence for the one-sample test of means. Regarding farmer attitudes toward niche pork, survey participants shared personal reasons for raising swine and barriers to successful niche production. Choosing niche over commodity swine, participants’ reasons were grouped into three intra-related categories: (1) farm and producer viability, (2) animal and environmental welfare, and (3) consumer preference and taste. Despite these benefits, participants were faced with numerous challenges, which were organized into four intra-related categories: (1) alternative production requirements, restrictions and knowledge; (2) access and affordability of credit and inputs; (3) alternative supply chain for processing, marketing and customers; and (4) non-niche production competition and governmental policies. In sum, the success of these niche pork operations equates to high welfare for the pigs, economic viability for the operation, personal enjoyment for the farmer, customer satisfaction with meat flavor and quality, and responsible environmental practices, inclusive of many components of an alternative food system.

Keywords

alternative swineproducer challengesniche meat

Information

Type
Research Paper
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 7 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abrams, K., Meyers, C., and Irani, T. 2010. Naturally confused: Consumers’ perceptions of all-natural and organic pork products. Agriculture and Human Values 27:365–374.Google Scholar
Babbie, E. 2007. The Practice of Social Research. 11th ed. Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, California.Google Scholar
Bardot Lewis, C. and Peters, C.J. 2011. A capacity assessment of New England's large animal slaughter facilities as relative to meat production for the regional food system. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 27(3):192–199.Google Scholar
Barham, J., Tropp, D., Enterline, K., Farbman, J., Fisk, J., and Kiraly, S. 2012. Regional Food Hub Resource Guide. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Marketing Service. Available at Web site https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Regional%20Food%20Hub%20Resource%20Guide.pdf (verified 25 January 2017).Google Scholar
Bell, M. 2004. Farming for Us All. Practical Agriculture and the Cultivation of Sustainability. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bounds, D. 2013. According to personal communication with Doug Bounds at the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service on April 10, 2013.Google Scholar
Brooks, K. and Ellison, B. 2014. Which livestock production methods matter most to consumers? Selected paper prepared for presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association's 2014 AAEA Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, July 27–29, 2014. Available at Web site http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/173517/2/production%20methods%20best%20worst%20draft2.pdf (verified 25 January  2017).Google Scholar
Carolan, M. 2006. Do you see what I see? Examining the epistemic barriers to sustainable agriculture. Rural Sociology 71(2):232–260.Google Scholar
Conner, D.S., Campbell-Arvai, V., and Hamm, M.W. 2008. Value in the values: Pasture-raised livestock products offer opportunities for reconnecting producers and consumers. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(1):62–69.Google Scholar
Darnhofer, I., Schneeberger, W., and Freyer, B. 2005. Converting or not converting to organic farming in Austria: Farmer types and their rationale. Agriculture and Human Values 22(1):39–52.Google Scholar
DeVries, S. 2011. According to personal communication with Stewart DeVries, General Manager of Total Swine Genetics Inc. in Tillsonburg, Ontario Canada, on October 13, 2011.Google Scholar
Diamond, A. and Barham, J. 2012. Moving food along the value chain: innovations in regional food distribution. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. March 2012. Available at Web site https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Moving%20Food%20Along%20the%20Value%20Chain%20Innovations%20in%20Regional%20Food%20Distribution.pdf (verified 25 January 2017).Google Scholar
Dickinson, D.L. and Bailey, D.V. 2002. Meat traceability: Are U.S. consumers willing to pay for it? Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 27(2):348–364.Google Scholar
Dimitri, C., Effland, A., and Conklin, N. 2005. The 20th century transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Economic Information Bulletin Number 3. June 2005. Available at Web site https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/eib3/13566_eib3_1_.pdf?v=41055 (verified 25 January 2017).Google Scholar
Dunning, R., Blacklin, S., and McKissick, C. 2013. North Carolina Niche Meat Producers Survey 2013. Center for Environmental Farming Systems, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Available at Web site http://www.cefs.ncsu.edu/ncgt/niche-meat-survey.pdf (verified 2 September 2016).Google Scholar
Fade, S.A. and Swift, J.A. 2010. Qualitative research in nutrition and dietetics: Data analysis issues. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 24:106–114.Google Scholar
Gentry, J.G., McGlone, J.J., Miller, M.F., and Blanton, J.R. Jr 2004. Environmental effects on pig performance, meat quality, and muscle characteristics. Journal of Animal Science 82:209–217.Google Scholar
Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J., Crute, I., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S., and Toulmin, C. 2010. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327:812–818.Google Scholar
Gracia, A., de Magistris, T., and Nayga, R. 2012. Importance of social influence in consumers’ willingness to pay for local food: Are there gender differences. Agribusiness An International Journal 23(3):361–371.Google Scholar
Greene, C. 2013. Growth Patterns in the U.S. Organic Industry. Amber Waves. U.S.D.A. Economic Research Service. Published October 24, 2013. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2013-october/growth-patterns-in-the-us-organic-industry.aspx#.VHZYnPnF9OI (verified 2 September 2016).Google Scholar
Guthman, J. 2004. Back to the land: The paradox of organic food standards. Environment and Planning A 36:511–528.Google Scholar
Gwin, L. and Hardesty, S. 2008. Northern California Niche Meat Market Demand Study. University of California, Cooperative Extension. Available at Web site http://sfp.ucdavis.edu/files/144451.pdf (verified 25 January 2017).Google Scholar
Gwin, L., Thiboumery, A., and Stillman, R. 2013. Local meat and poultry processing: the importance of business commitments for long-term viability, ERR-150, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, June 2013. Available at Web site http://ers.usda.gov/media/1131316/err-150.pdf (verified 2 September 2016).Google Scholar
Haley, M. 2014. Hogs: Background. USDA ERS Briefing Rooms, June 27, 2014. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/hogs-pork/background.aspx (verified 2 September 2016).Google Scholar
Hamlin, R., Knight, J., and Cuthbert, R. 2015. Niche marketing and farm diversification processes: Insights from New Zealand and Canada. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 31(1):86–98.Google Scholar
Hayenga, M., Schroeder, T., Lawrence, J., Hayes, D., Vukina, T., Ward, C., and Purcell, W. 2000. Meat packer vertical integration and contract linkages in the beef and pork industries: An economic perspective. Available at Web site http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/hayenga/AMIfullreport.pdf (verified 25 January 2017).Google Scholar
Hendrickson, M. and Heffernan, W. 2002. Concentration of agricultural markets. February 2002. Available at Web site http://www.foodcircles.missouri.edu/CRJanuary02.pdf (verified 2 September 2016).Google Scholar
Hendrickson, M. and Heffernan, W. 2007. Concentration of agricultural markets. April 2007. Available at Web site http://www.foodcircles.missouri.edu/07contable.pdf (verified 25 January 2017).Google Scholar
Honeyman, M.S. 2005. Extensive bedded indoor and outdoor pig production systems in USA: Current trends and effects on animal care and product quality. Livestock Production Science 94:15–24.Google Scholar
Honeyman, M.S. and Harmon, J.D. 2003. Performance of finishing pigs in hoop structures and confinement during winter and summer. Journal of Animal Science 81:1663–1670.Google Scholar
Honeyman, M.S., Pirog, R.S., Huber, G.H., Lammers, P.J., and Hermann, J.R. 2006. The United States pork niche market phenomenon. Journal of Animal Science 84:2269–2275.Google Scholar
Howard, P. 2005. Connect four: The percentage of sale controlled by the top companies in specific food sectors. Graphic based on data from Hendrickson and Hefferman (2005) and available at Web site https://www.msu.edu/~howardp/foodsystem.html (verified 2 September 2016).Google Scholar
Innes, B. and Cranfield, J. 2009. Consumer preference for production-derived quality: Analyzing perceptions of premium chicken production methods. Agribusiness 25(3):395–411.Google Scholar
Key, N. and McBride, W. 2007. The changing economics of U.S. Hog Production, ERR-52, December 2007. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err52.aspx (verified 2 September 2016).Google Scholar
Lammers, P.J., Honeyman, M.S., Mabry, J.W., and Harmon, J.D. 2007. Performance of gestating sows in bedded hoop barns and confinement stalls. Journal of Animal Science 85:1311–1317.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J.D. and Ellis, S. 2008. Returns from farrowing and finishing hogs file B1–30. Published by Iowa State University Extension. Ag Decision Maker August 2008. Available at Web site http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/livestock/pdf/b1-30.pdf (verified 11 September 2016).Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Nilsson, T., and Foster, K. 2007. Public preferences and private choices: Effect of altruism and free riding on demand for environmentally certified pork. Environmental & Resource Economics 36:499–521.Google Scholar
Martinez, S. 2010. Varied interests drive growing popularity of local foods. Amber Waves. U.S.D.A. Economic Research Service. Published December 1, 2010. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2010-december/varied-interests-drive-growing-popularity-of-local-foods.aspx#.VHZiF_nF9OI (verified 2 September 2016).Google Scholar
McBride, W. and Key, N. 2003. Economic and structural relationships in U.S. hog production, AER-818. February 2003. Available at Web site http://ers.usda.gov/publications/aer-agricultural-economic-report/aer818.aspx (verified 2 September 2016).Google Scholar
McBride, W. and Key, N. 2013. U.S. hog production from 1992 to 2009: Technology, restructuring, and productivity growth. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Economic Research Report Number 158. Available at Web site https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/err158/40364_err158.pdf?v=42016 (verified 25 January 2017).Google Scholar
McKendree, M.G., Olynk Widmar, N., Ortega, D.L., and Foster, K.A. 2013. Consumer preferences for verified pork-rearing practices in the production of ham products. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 38(3):397–417.Google Scholar
Mench, J. 2008. Farm animal welfare in the U.S.A.: Farming practices, research, education, regulation, and assurance programs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113:298–312.Google Scholar
Morrison, R.S., Johnston, L.J., and Hilbrands, A.M. 2007. The behaviour, welfare, growth performance and meat quality of pigs housed in a deep-litter, large group housing system compared to a conventional confinement system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103:12–24.Google Scholar
Morse, J. 2008. Confusing categories and themes. Qualitative Health Research 18(6):727–728.Google Scholar
National Pork Board. 2017. Niche definition. Available at Web site https://www.pork.org/programs-and-events/niche-pork/niche-definition/ (verified 25 January 2017).Google Scholar
National Research Council. 2010. Toward sustainable agricultural systems in the 21st century. Committee on Twenty-First Century Systems Agriculture. Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources. Division on Earth and Life Studies. Published by the National Academies Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
National Restaurant Association. 2015. 2015 culinary forecast. Available at Web site http://www.restaurant.org/Downloads/PDFs/News-Research/WhatsHot2015-Results.pdf (verified 2 September 2016).Google Scholar
O'Donovan, P. and McCarthy, M. 2002. Irish consumer preference for organic meat. British Food Journal 104(3/4/5):353–370.Google Scholar
Picardy, J., Pietrosemoli, S., Parmenter, B.M., Griffin, T.S., and Peters, C.J. Forthcoming. Sizing up when scaling down: The land trade-off with niche pork production. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems.Google Scholar
Plain, R., Lawrence, J., and Grimes, G. 2001. The Structure of the U.S. Pork Industry. Published by the Pork Information Gateway. Available at Web site http://old.pork.org/filelibrary/factsheets/pigfactsheets/newfactsheets/15-01-01g.pdf (verified 2 September 2016).Google Scholar
Stevenson, G.W. and Pirog, R. 2008. Values-Based Supply Chains: Strategies for Agrifood Enterprises of the Middle. In Lyson, T.A., Stevenson, G.W., and Welsh, R. (eds). Food and the Mid-Level Farm: Renewing an Agricultural of the Middle. The MIT Press, Cambridge. p. 119–143.Google Scholar
Stock, P. 2007. ‘Good farmers’ as reflexive producers: An examination of family organic farmers in the US Midwest. European Society for Rural Sociology 47(2):83–102.Google Scholar
Trochim, W.M.K. and Donnelly, J.P. 2008. The Research Methods Knowledge Base. 3rd ed. Cengage Learning, Mason, Ohio.Google Scholar
Umberger, W.J., Thilmany-McFadden, D.D., and Smith, A.R. 2009. Does altruism play a role in determining U.S. consumer preferences and willingness to pay for natural and regionally produced beef? Agribusiness 25(2):268–285.Google Scholar
USDA. 2012. Sustainable Agricultural Systems Science White Paper. United States Department of Agriculture. Research, Education and Economics. Office of the Chief Scientist. Available at Web site https://www.usda.gov/documents/sustainable-agriculture-science-white-paper.pdf (verified 25 January 2017).Google Scholar
USDA 2014. Census of Agriculture. United States Summary and State Data. Volume 1. Geographic Area Series Part 51. AC-12-A-51. Available at Web site https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/ (verified 25 January 2017).Google Scholar
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service National Animal Health Monitoring System, APHIS NAHMS. 2015. Swine 2012 Part I: Baseline Reference of Swine Health and Management in the United States, 2012. Available at Web site http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/swine/downloads/swine2012/Swine2012_dr_PartI.pdf (verified 2 September 2016).Google Scholar
USDA Economic Research Service ERS. 2015. U.S.organicfoodsales by category, 2005-14E. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/248848/fruitsandvegetables_d.html (verified 2 September 2016).Google Scholar
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service FSIS. 2007. A Guide to Federal Food Labeling Requirements for Meat, Poultry, and Egg Products. In R. Post, C. Budak, J. Canavan, T. Duncan-Harrington, B. Jones, S. Jones, R. Murphy-Jenkins, T. Myrick, M. Wheeler, P. White, L. Yoder, and M. Kegley. The Labeling and Consumer Protection Staff. Office of Policy, Program, and Employee Development. Food Safety and Inspection Service. Available at Web site https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/f4af7c74-2b9f-4484-bb16-fd8f9820012d/Labeling_Requirements_Guide.pdf?MOD=AJPERES (verified 25 January 2017).Google Scholar
USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, GIPSA. 2008. Assessment of the Livestock and Poultry Industries Fiscal Year 2007 Report. Available at Web site http://www.gipsa.usda.gov/psp/publication/asses/07assessment.pdf (verified 2 September 2016).Google Scholar
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service NASS. 2014. Livestock slaughter. Published by the Agricultural Statistics Board, December 24, 2014. Available at Web site http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1096 (verified 11 September 2016).Google Scholar
van Amstel, M., de Brauw, C., Driessen, P., and Glasbergen, P. 2007. The reliability of product-specific eco-labels as an agrobiodiversity management instrument. Biodiversity Conservation 16: 4109–4129.Google Scholar
Wheatley, W.P. 2003. The natural and organic pork market: A sustainable niche for small-scale producers? A review and analysis of the evidence. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18:18–26.Google Scholar
White, R. and Brady, M. 2014. Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact reducing technologies in meat animal production? Food Policy 49:41–49.Google Scholar
Yiridoe, E., Bonti-Ankomah, S., and Martin, R. 2005. Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: A review and update of the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20:193–205.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Picardy supplementary material

Picardy supplementary material 1

Download Picardy supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 243.9 KB