Last week RN's Bush Telegraph asked for its audience's opinion on a simple question—should we castrate Wilbur 101, a pig the program is following from farm to plate. Tammi Jonas runs the farm where Wilbur 101 lives, and is also a cultural theorist and PhD candidate. She explains why she plans to castrate Wilbur 101 despite strong opposition from animal liberation bloggers, and why kneejerk responses stop farmers debating animal welfare in the open.

Showing a vegan a photo of an adorable piglet and then asking them to help decide whether to castrate it is undoubtedly a red flag to a bull. But it wasn’t vegans we were asking, it was omnivores. What some will call ill-considered (I did briefly), I will here defend as a serious exercise in transparency by farmers who want to educate the public about the realities of food production, and especially the raising of animals for meat. The vitriolic attacks on those of us committed to transparency create a perverse incentive to retreat to secrecy and to obfuscate regular food production management practices.

We’ve been farming free-range rare breed Large Black pigs for a year and a half now. We came from Melbourne with a clear vision to contribute to what we consider ethical farming—raising pigs on the paddocks who are free to root and wallow at will, and basically express what Joel Salatin calls ‘the pigness of the pig’ until they have ‘one bad day’, which they don’t even know is coming.

All issues and concerns around the ethics of food production and consumption are worthy of discussion and open scrutiny, but when one group restricts itself to shouting the loudest abuse, or refuses to engage even marginally with the topic at hand (and makes it very unpleasant for those who do engage), there can be no winners—especially not farm animals. Tammi Jonas

We believe it’s morally right to eat meat, but not from animals who have suffered or been raised in close confinement their entire lives up until slaughter. Our views and farming practices are not especially controversial, and generally our efforts to raise animals for food humanely and with care and kindness are met with appreciation—both for our practices and for our openness.

So it seemed a great idea when Cameron Wilson of RN's Bush Telegraph asked whether we were willing for them to do a series tracking one of our animals from piglet to Christmas ham. Too many people don’t know where their food comes from or how it’s raised, though the tide is hopefully turning as information is now more readily accessible and people are realising there’s a lot that happens from paddock to plate.

The idea is a monthly radio interview where we update listeners on what’s been happening with the pig, who we’ve called Wilbur 101 (we call all the boys Wilbur and all the girls Charlotte unless they’re our breeding stock, in which case they have individual names, such as Borg, Big Mama, Keen, Pink and Prudence). Many people believe you shouldn’t name your food, but we take the view that we’d rather know the animal on our plate well than not at all.

Supplementary to each month’s interview, we agreed to allow a poll to be held to seek the public’s view on management decisions. It gives an opportunity to inform people of the multitude of issues and decisions farmers face daily, and we hoped that using a poll in addition to the podcast and information on the website would lead to more buy-in from the public, and in turn more care about the type of system animals are raised in. The first question we posited (as it’s the first management decision we face with newborn boars) was whether or not to castrate.

Unfortunately, while the omnivorous public might have wanted to discuss the practicalities and ethics of castrating boars, a significant number of those opposed to eating meat joined the discussion and turned it into a rant against us, farmers generally, and meat eaters specifically. We were called ‘sick freaks’, ‘Neanderthals’, and ‘animal abusers’, to name some of the milder insults.

All issues and concerns around the ethics of food production and consumption are worthy of discussion and open scrutiny, but when one group restricts itself to shouting the loudest abuse, or refuses to engage even marginally with the topic at hand (and makes it very unpleasant for those who do engage), there can be no winners—especially not farm animals.

Surely we can all agree that a farming community unwilling to share its practices with the public due to sustained, personal attacks by so-called ‘animal rights activists’ is a very bad outcome. We here at Jonai Farms won’t be frightened away from the challenge of transparency—we understand why people choose veganism or vegetarianism (I was a vegetarian for seven years, and write frequently on my blog about these very questions), and we quite simply disagree with that decision while respecting one’s right to make it.

Vegans have every right to disagree with our position, of course, but should think long and hard about what can happen to our food system when they so zealously shout farmers off the stage.

Cameron Wilson explains the outcome of the poll on Wilbur 101's castration: The poll on Wilbur 101's castration is in, and the 'no don't castrate' option gained the most votes, 356 votes against castration and 345 in favour. But it was the voting trends and online debate that provided the greatest insight into attitudes towards castrating a farm animal, and free range farming more generally. Initially the votes were polling at roughly three to one in favour of castration. Despite the strong 'yes' vote, there was a vigorous debate about the most humane castration method, the importance of anaesthetic, and the role laws and regulations should play in protecting farm animals. But the Facebook discussion soon shifted to one centred on the ethics of eating meat. Livestock farming was heavily criticised and numerous pro-vegan or pro-vegetarian comments were made. Image: Wilbur 101 will be reared with the input of RN listeners. This shift in voting coincided with a number of online posts encouraging people to vote against castrating Wilbur 101. Visitors to the Animals Australia Unleashed online forum were told in one post: 'Just read this article on ABC online. It is giving people the choice to decide whether this piglet (named Wilbur 101) is castrated or not. There is a link to the FB page in the article and I was astounded to find that there were double the amount of people who wanted the pig castrated compared to those that don't. The piglet only has by the end of the day for us to decide his fate, so please go to the FB page and vote 'no' to castrating him.' The initial question about the merits of castration ultimately became largely ignored, at which point RN Facebook contributor Lee McCosker summed the situation up like this, 'I think it should be noted that all rational discussion on the actual question asked has ceased and the voting has become about should we eat meat'. With all that considered, Tammi and her husband Stuart have decided to castrate Wilbur 101. This is so he can safely be raised amongst the rest of the farm pigs. Tammi and Stuart also believe it will also potentially prolong his life and reduce the risks of boar taint when he is killed and butchered. As we said at the time of the poll in the broadcast and online, Tammi and Stuart will endeavour to be guided by Bush Telegraph listeners but they maintain the right to veto the vote in the interests of the animal. But the debate has influenced their farm management. Stuart and Tammi had been considering the use of pain relief for some time. The Facebook feedback prompted them to book another meeting with their vet, and they have been able to source a suitable anaesthetic and intend to use pain relief when they castrate the newborn boars.

Tammi Jonas blogs at Tammi Jonas: Food Ethics and on the farm blog, The Hedonist Life. You can listen to her speak with Cameron Wilson on Bush Telegraph on 23 May at 11.00 am, or hear her initial appearance on the program last week here.

