1 Introduction
Picture an extravagant bouquet of white flowers, rich in luscious textures and shapes, very much like something you would see at a wedding. Expecting a sweet smell, you approach the bouquet, only to be met with the sweaty musty odour of Boar-mate—a commercial synthetic boar pheromone used in pig breeding. To people, the smell of porcine pheromones is unpleasant—ruining the pleasure of being near the beautiful flowers. By entering into this arranged situation you have experienced Naive Boar, an art installation by one of the authors of this chapter, Agata Kowalewska. Sprayed onto the flowers, synthetic boar pheromones symbolise the unabating human attempts at strict control over plant and animal sex and reproduction. As plants’ sex organs, flowers became powerful symbols of sexual desire and romance. Just as humans have been selectively breeding domestic pigs for more muscular bodies and numerous litters, some plants have been cultivated to grow enormous flowers. As part of the political and symbolic economy, such cultured plants and farmed pigs alike have their sexuality distilled, purified, and controlled in the service of human pleasure and profit. By juxtaposing botanical and porcine sexual cues that are harnessed for human aesthetic and culinary satisfaction, Naive Boar serves a grotesque sensorial clash. This shows how such “purified” sexual signals plucked from radically different domains of agriculture cancel each other out, thus exposing the limits of human control over nonhuman worlds. We provide this imaginative situation as the introduction to our chapter in order to bestow on you a multisensory impression of the modern factory farm. We hope through this simple exercise the lingering memory of Boar-mate as you have just imagined it will accompany you through this text, further marring the image of purity, hard stived-for by the industry.
…
According to Neel Ahuja “outbreak narratives obscure the important ways in which nonhuman animals are entangled in forms of government that attempt to manage bodily transition and risk” (2016, 10). Even before the incursion of the ASF to Europe, wild boars have been the target of eradication due to their recent geographical expansion and surge in population sizes. Their perceived overabundance across Europe is partially owed to climate change and patterns of crop production that affect the species’ fecundity and higher survival rates (Vetter et al. 2015). This metabolic connection implicates wild boars into the so-called “industrial grain-oilseed-livestock complex” (Weis 2013) as an outside intruder damaging crop fields and posing danger to the pork industry due to possible disease transmission. In the face of ASF, agribusiness considers the reproductive capacities of wild boars threatening because population density
Whereas most biopolitical analyses of meat production focus on the slaughterhouse and its deadly operations (Cronon 1991; Burt 2006; Lee 2008; Pachirat 2011), we propose to shift attention towards animal reproduction that sustains the agro-food system. At the same time, discussions of reproductive practices and technologies in wildlife management typically privilege endangered species conservation (Wildt and Wemmer 1999; Friese 2013; Comizzoli, Brown, and Holt 2019). But what about those wild animals who are not considered invasive species, yet became a source of conflict and thus mobilise the rhetoric of invasion (Subramaniam 2001), like the case of wild boars illustrates? What about pigs and wild boars belonging to the same species,2 while occupying radically different ecologies? In this sense, we recognise the close interconnections between sex and reproduction in animal breeding and wildlife management as biopolitical practices. Therefore, what we broadly term porcine sex constitutes the main avenue of inquiry for unravelling the discourses of purity and sterility mobilised in Poland for the sake of biosecurity and population control. In what follows, the embodied ethical implications of livestock breeding and managing wild populations are discussed in the context of fears over economic losses due to the ASF epidemic. For the sake of this analysis, we use the wide category of porcine sex that encompasses three levels: (1) intimate practices, (2) reproduction, and (3) species categorisation, with particular emphasis on control over animal bodies targeting both domestic pigs and wild boars. Mobilising the notion of sex, rather than just reproduction, enables us to explore this porous intraspecies boundary as a site of power relations that are central to the politics of purity at stake.
Analysed together, pigs and wild boars inform us about the economic, social, and ecological dimensions of politics of purity, an approach criticised by queerfeminist philosopher Alexis Shotwell. She identifies purism as “a common approach for anyone who attempts to meet and control a complex situation that is fundamentally outside our control,” and one that is bad “because it shuts precisely the field of possibility that might allow us to take better collective action against the destruction of the world in all its strange, delightful, impure frolic” (Shotwell 2016, 8–9). A large part of this chapter is concerned with control over farmed animals whose lives and embodied experiences become an “absent referent” in meat-eating because the linguistic
2 Growing Meat, Growing Apart
Domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus) and wild boars (Sus scrofa scrofa) are deeply entangled not only through the epizootic event, or an epidemic in nonhuman animals, discussed here in detail. Most pig breeds derive from a Eurasian wild boar ancestor. Given multiple domestication events and continued selective breeding, this process is not fully over yet. Taking into account that “for thousands of years prior to the agricultural revolution, Sus scrofa’s relationship to humans covered a spectrum of possibilities, including fully feral, semi-feral, and domesticated” (Fleischman 2020, 162), farmed pigs and wild boars are embroiled in messy histories of mutual genetic exchange. Centuries of selective breeding changed pig bodies. Longer torsos with bigger rumps and smaller heads with floppy ears (no need to stay alert in a piggery) give domestic pigs a distinctly different shape than that of the formidable wild boar. Some have even argued that they are already a separate species, not just a subspecies (Gentry and Groves 1996).
Interestingly, domestic pigs that escape captivity often grow coarse fur and their appearance becomes much more similar to that of their wild cousins in just one generation: “if a young pig is exposed to hardship shortly after birth, and a series of transformations take hold—its skull and legs will grow longer, its ears will stand erect, and bristly hair and spiked mane will burst from the crest of its skull to its tail” (Fleischman 2020, 163). Such feral pigs seem
Though they may share genetic material with wild boars, domestic pigs have been denied their cultures, practices and expertise accumulated over generations. In the industrial farm setting, the pigs’ ability to pass on any newly formed knowledge or practices is often blocked by strict limitations on contact between animals from different age groups. Wild boars live in multigenerational matrilineal sounders, led by an older matriarch, consisting mostly of females accompanied by their offspring. Adult males are usually solitary. The reproductive cycles of sows in a sounder are often synchronised, and piglets are nursed communally (Canu et al. 2015). Wild boars can live well over 10 years and older individuals can pass on their experience. The ones living in Poland usually only reach 2–3 years of age due to high hunting rates. Intensive hunting can lead to disruptions in the transfer of experiences and practices because, unlike in the case of animal predators, human hunters often target older individuals. As long as some mature sows remain alive, however, these social skills can rebound because sounders often merge and accept new individuals, e.g., survivors of a harsh winter or hunting. Farmed hogs usually go to slaughter between the ages of 5 and 9 months. Whatever practices they accumulate disappear along with the hogs, as they do not get a chance to teach the younger generation. Kept in separate pens, farmed pigs cannot form multigenerational social groups. Even the intimate setting of birth-giving is stripped from porcine customs. The sows kept in small gestation and farrowing crates cannot build nests because most large farms do not provide them with straw. Similarly, farmed sows do not help piglets free from the membranes and often do not eat the placenta, and so this aspect of their reproduction—the immediate post-birth care—is also taken over by human workers (Powell 2003, 279). Industrial pigs and wild boars inhabit radically different worlds. However, as exceptionally adaptable animals, once pigs escape captivity, they form groups and sometimes join wild boar sounders, creating hybrid cultures (Iacolina et al. 2009).
A few decades ago, before a number of factors which are discussed below came into play, a wild boar sow in Eastern Europe would typically have one litter per year with 4–8 piglets. For comparison, a modern farmed sow gives birth to around 30 piglets a year, with at least two pregnancies on average. The source of this bodily and behavioural discord between the two most wide-spread swine is human activity. On the one hand, intensive factory farming with captive breeding radically alters the pigs’ bodies (and narrows
This contrast illustrates how the logic of the Capitalocene (Haraway 2015; Moore 2017)6 inscribes itself differently onto the bodies of nonhuman animals categorised as “livestock” and “wildlife.” The biomass of all mammalian bodies consists in 96% of combined humans and livestock (dominated by cattle and pigs), and only 4% of wildlife (Bar-On, Phillips, and Milo 2018). At the same time, not all species that belong to livestock or wildlife share the same environmental history or visibility within the critical studies of the planetary transformations summed under the new epoch of the Anthropocene. Considering growing concerns over the rapid rate of biodiversity loss and declining wildlife populations, wild boars are categorised as being of least concern for conservation. Thanks to their incredible adaptability, omnivorous diet, and high intelligence, they became one of the most cosmopolitan species, which in evolutionary terms benefits from human-induced changes in the environment.
3 Porcine Sex
A forty-millilitre bottle of Hog Mate Boar Odor Spray, mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, can be used to effectively train up to fifty naive boars with a dummy sow. Another similar product named Boar-mate™ “creates the ideal insemination moment” (“MS Schippers: Boar-Mate” n.d.). These descriptions come from online stores supplying pig breeders with these and other similar merchandise essential for increasing and stimulating animal fecundity. The spray contains artificial pig pheromones that replicate the characteristic odours of a boar. Many animals secrete chemical substances as means of intra- and inter-species communication to serve various purposes, an important one of which is sex. Pheromones present in boar saliva accelerate and intensify heat in sows. In the case of Hog Mate and similar products available on the agro-market, androstenone is synthesised in a laboratory to be utilised in artificial insemination procedures such as heat detection in gilts and sows, and training selected boar studs for the collection of semen. For the latter process, another piece of breeding equipment is needed: a “dummy sow”, which is a simple rubber-covered metal construction designed to harvest sperm. The so-called “naive boars,” or young studs with poor interest, need to be tricked into mounting this abridged mating partner. This is when the boar odour spray comes in handy. The directions for use advise applying 2–3 sprays directly onto the boar’s snout for proven effects, including heightened attentiveness, vocalisation, and increased semen volume.
This swine aphrodisiac, along with its applications, brings attention to the practices and materials employed in human control over porcine sex. They rest on the commodification of one aspect of animal physiology through breeding as a form of genetic governance. In this case, animal sexual instinct is harnessed for the industrial mode of reproducing porcine bodies for meat
However, as queer and feminist scholars show, matters of nonhuman sex extend far beyond the reproductive drive. Sex is crucial for the scientific definition of species as a way of classifying different forms of life, but also for the gendered and racialised economies of difference that permeate the species boundaries themselves. Sexual acts understood as breeding in livestock management involve the selection of individual animals deemed fit for reproduction. Breeders are always careful about pedigree. These breeding practices are often expressed through the non-innocent categories of “good” and “bad” blood (Ritvo 1992; Derry 2003). When breeding boils down to managing bloodlines, such distinctions between “purebreds” and “mongrels” or “razorbacks” inevitably mobilise discourses on purity. As Donna Haraway reminds us in her discussion on vampire cultures embedded in biological kinship categories of Western modern medicine, “where race and sex were, worries about hygiene, decadence, health, and organic efficiency” abounded (2004, 251). Is this the case for veterinary science and animal husbandry? Tracing exactly those moments when porcine and human racial discourses overlapped in the North American pig business in the early twentieth century, historian Gabriel Rosenberg argues that “hog breeding functioned as a popular laboratory of racial knowledge and biopolitical management” (2016, 51). The disturbing confluence between the categories of race and breed that easily crossed the species barrier allowed for spelling out and exercising popular discourses on racial decline and contamination in the arena of livestock breeding. In this context, “compulsory reproduction determined the lives and deaths of millions of swine and was embedded at the very core of the food system” (Rosenberg 2016, 50). From this perspective, the history of control over
Nonhuman sex is not obscene as long as it serves the capital. In his later work on the modern history of antibestiality laws and animal husbandry in the United States, Rosenberg points to “the agricultural exemption” in the laws criminalising human-animal sexual contact that grants an exceptional status to meat animals to ensure the continuation of meat production. He argues that “it is this underlying reproductive economy that begs for critique precisely because it is the space in which humans and meat animals are still entangled and viscerally bound as life not yet irrevocably marked for annihilation” (Rosenberg 2017, 499). The same is true for dairy animals. This reproductive economy of the factory farm dictates how and when sows and boars meet, or even separates them completely.
When it comes to infrastructures of breeding, they rest on various types of enclosures. Those include “breeding crates” or “mating boxes” designed to restrict the sow’s movement during the act of forced copulation. These devices have been developed because in selective breeding boars often grow much bigger and heavier than the sows and can injure them during sex. In intensive factory farming, a sow that gives birth is often kept in a “gestation” or “farrowing” crate that gives piglets access to her teats, while keeping her immobilised to prevent crushing the piglets.8 This horrific system of crates restricts the sow’s movements and removes her volition, but also isolates reproductive and maternal behaviours into dedicated phases (and spaces) of meat production. In their ethnographic study of the Danish pig industry, Inger Anneberg and Mette Vaarst observed that “being confined as farrowing sows without the ability to turn around and then being brought back into heat as fast as possible to produce more piglets carries the price of a very short, often painful life, a life full of frustrations” (2018, 110).
Porcine sex and reproduction become compartmentalised. With new technologies, a sexual encounter between animals becomes obsolete for reproduction. Artificial insemination, which removes the risk of injury during sex, entered the pig breeding industry in the 1970s, but became prominent only
In order to maintain the growing productivity of farmed pigs, both in terms of herd numbers and their body size, porcine bodies have been pushed to their limits through selective breeding, farm management, feeding, and medication. Paradoxically, this overstretching results in increasing fragility of pig bodies that are becoming more vulnerable to disease and stress. This, in turn, threatens the profit margins. In order to navigate this precarious balance, all the aspects of porcine lives on industrial farms are carefully controlled. But it is not just the animal lives that industrial farming governs, but also the lives of human workers (Porcher 2011; Blanchette 2020). They are targets of increased control, particularly with heightened biosecurity measures dictating what the workers can and cannot do when at the farm, as well as what they do outside working hours. Alex Blanchette, in his anthropology of U.S. hog farming, argues that “these interventions into human spheres are premised on reproducing the reproductive capacities of boars and sows. […] People are coming to form kinship ties with the hogs they touch, as the state of hogs’ immune systems is conjoined to the everyday lives of individuals going about their daily routines” (2020, 49). He uses the figure of the machine to write about the industrial pig not to deny its status as a living being, but rather to frame the relationship of labour between human and animal bodies. It is not only the porcine body that is trained into submission as described earlier, but also the human worker who has to adapt to the body of the pig, to its rhythms and the logic of (re)production dictated by the profit-oriented pork industry. Such intimate choreography between human and porcine bodies, one worked out in the setting of captive breeding, forms the main avenue through which biosecurity enters into a wider array of human-animal relations.
4 Biosecurity as a Purification Practice
Radical control over porcine bodies requires them to be separated from the outside world to minimise uncontrollable factors and prevent disease. This means limiting access to pigs for both people and other animals, disinfecting
As we are writing this in early 2021, governmental requirements10 for everyday biosecurity measures against ASF in the regions that do not have active ASF cases include a strict separation of swine fodder from the pigs themselves, and away from any other animals, domestic or not. Similarly, pigs cannot be fed food waste because the ASF virus can survive for months or even years in contaminated pork products. Giving food scraps to pigs is commonplace, especially on the many thousands of Polish farms that only keep a few animals for sustenance, so breaking this food chain further separates these farmed animals from humans. Additionally, farmers need to keep track of people coming in and out of the piggery, making it a zone of high surveillance. Only authorised persons can come into contact with the pigs on a given farm, and the workers must wear protective clothing and sterilise it along with all the equipment they use before and after contact with the animals. Moreover, disinfecting mats need to be placed at all entrances. People who go wild boar hunting cannot come into contact with farmed pigs for 72 hours afterwards, and dogs that participate in
Along with several other similar rules, the main message behind biosecurity in farming is to totally separate pigs from the rest of the living and non-living world and introduce strict control of those who come into contact with them. In areas of the country marked as yellow or red zones designating the risk of ASF, added restrictions further tighten this separation and are mostly related to the conditions of transporting pigs. Animals need to be tested by a veterinarian not more than 24 hours before they are moved, they cannot come into contact with other animals, and if they are to leave the higher-risk zone, they also need to be quarantined for thirty days. As mentioned in the introduction, there was also a plan to ban outdoor pens in red zones, but the measure was rejected. Many other European countries, where the disease is active, have introduced the ban on outdoor pens, in an attempt to seal the pigs entirely inside sterile buildings, filtering and controlling everything that comes in and out. As cultural anthropologist Bettina Stoetzer sums up such practices: “[i]ronically, further industrialization was thus deemed to be the cure for the disease” (Stoetzer 2020). Along with control over sex in breeding practices, biosecuritisation encompasses almost all aspects of porcine life and death.
Despite multiple regulations aimed at sealing the farmed pigs from the outside world and its dangers, the disease continues to slowly spread across Poland and Europe (Schulz et al. 2019). This is believed to be due to both human and nonhuman factors of transmission (Pepin et al. 2020). Biosecurity was recognised as a crucial tool for fighting the ASF epidemic because the virus is extremely resilient and survives in porcine excretions, blood, and other tissues for prolonged periods of time. Given the high tenacity of the virus, human mobility becomes the primary factor of its transmission, as it is often carried on boots or tires contaminated with swine blood or faeces, or in cured meat in uneaten sandwiches. According to the Polish Supreme Audit Office’s report from 2017, the implementation of biosecurity measures was inadequate at 74% of the audited farms, and only 6% of the farms met the highest standards (Najwyższa Izba Kontroli 2017). The national biosecurity program failed to stop the spread of the disease, which by November 2019 reached the western part of the country. The report indicates that the programme also failed to meet its second goal, which was to limit pig keeping only to farms that fulfil all the biosecurity regulations. As part of the programme, compensation was offered to those farmers who would resign from keeping pigs because of being unable to introduce the biosecurity measures. It had been anticipated that the cost of their implementation would be prohibitively high for many. However,
In Poland, the discourse around the current ASF outbreak is perhaps equally marred by racism as it is by classism. While the disease itself is framed as the “beast from the East” penetrating the frontier of the EU, the Polish pork industry largely depends on the labour of migrant workers, mostly from Ukraine (Rabizo 2018, 68). Classism also plays out in othering Polish farmers in the bourgeois narrative claiming their backwardness and incompetence. The ASF epidemic and methods of dealing with it fall on entrenched divisions in society, where inhabitants of large cities are pitted against people from rural areas. In the media and on social media platforms, more liberal-leaning city dwellers, who are largely against mass culling of wild boars, argue that the responsibility of protecting farmed pigs from ASF lies with the farmers who should follow biosecurity measures. Paradoxically, arguing for greater freedom of wild boars, they call for stricter control of farmed pigs and human farm workers. This is another instance of how different the perceived ontologies of “wild” versus “domesticated” animals are, this time rehearsed in the liberal discourse.
Such complex social tensions and the ways in which politics of purification play out in the Polish context have been analysed by a feminist scholar, Olga Cielemęcka, in her study of the conflict over logging in the Białowieża Primeval Forest. She demonstrates how “purity discourses form an elaborate and entangled web which helps to delineate and fortify such classed and racialized boundaries” (Cielemęcka 2020, 67), that further exacerbate internal political divisions between environmentalist protesters and Polish authorities positioning themselves as the representatives of the normative national majority. In the case of the ASF epidemic in Poland, biosecurity forms a purification practice not only in the technical sense of enforcing stricter hygiene rules on the farm and outside of it, but also as a way of controlling human and porcine bodies. The everyday biosecurity practices that have already become standard in industrialised pig farming are now heightened and extended to all forms of human-porcine contact. The politics of purity rest on a critical tension between proximity that makes domestic pigs and wild boars vulnerable to the
5 Sanitary Hunting and the Invasion Narrative
Wild boars are the most commonly hunted animals and their meat is the second most popular kind of “game” consumed in Poland. Boars, therefore, play a double role in the context of food—they are both a source of meat themselves and a threat to pork production, although the scales of these two meat sourcing strategies differ by orders of magnitude. Since the report outlining poor results of the biosecurity programme came out, the attention of officials responsible for slowing down ASF focused on wild boars as the main suspects of disease spread. Mass culling of wild boar populations perceived as the reservoir of ASF have been introduced. Already considered to be agricultural pests because of raiding crops and transmitting other diseases, wild boars quickly became the number one enemy, portrayed as the main culprits of the new epidemic (Szczygielska 2019). With the government unable to force farmers to tightly seal their pigs from the outer world, strong emphasis has been placed on preventing potentially infected boars from coming anywhere near the pigs by creating buffer zones, where attempts are made to eradicate the boars entirely by indiscriminate and intensified hunting. The Chief Veterinary Officer commented on the national programme combating ASF: “[it] is not about putting out a bonfire, our task is to stop a wildfire. We must also think about prevention to stop the spread of the disease. […] We want to protect the national economy” (“Wojewódzki Zespół Zarządzania Kryzysowego o ASF” 2020).11 These so-called “sanitary culls” (in Polish odstrzał sanitarny) in the fight with ASF represent the same “cleansing with fire” approach towards unruly nonhumans that was adopted in the Białowieża Forest, as described by Cielemęcka, when the sanitary logging of trees attacked by bark beetles was employed to eradicate the “pest”. In some respects, the wild boar shares the fate of the beetle as “a politically charged animal body, a body trapped between its discursive, biopolitical, and material registers. The ‘cleansing of’ the Forest from the pest is entangled with an ideological cleansing. In it, social anxieties around groups considered unwanted or alien spill into existing conceptions of nature” (Cielemęcka 2020, 65–66). In the case of porcine bodies endangered
As Haraway points out, “histories are complex and dynamic in the human-nonhuman animal relations called hunting and do not lend themselves to typological reduction, except for purposes of hostile polemic, dogmatic purity, and hackneyed origin stories, usually of the Man-the-Hunter genre” (2007, 296). Nevertheless, the discourse of hunting as a sanitary practice, mobilised in Poland in the face of the deadly virus decimating porcine populations, forms a distinct type of animal killing, representing yet another facet of purity politics. This is not just wildlife population management—hunting becomes sanitisation when more than just wild boars are at stake. In this sense, killing off wild boars en masse for their potential transmission of the ASF virus is an extension of biosecurity measures applied to protect farmed pigs from infection. This is while noting that hunters are also required to follow strict biosecurity regulations because they can easily become mechanical vectors for the spread of the disease. As opposed to the times when wild boars are hunted for sport, these sanitary culls permit hunting with no restrictions, including shooting pregnant sows, and for a hefty fee. Additionally, the use of silencing and night-vision devices is granted to allow for hunting at night and closer to urban areas. Since the first ASF outbreak in Poland, hunting legislation has been modified multiple times to facilitate the large-scale eradication of wild boar populations. Significantly, a special act from 2019 allowed the possibility of mobilising the military and police to cull boars (Mikos 2019). With a goal of killing up to 200 thousand animals, these mass hunts have been heavily contested by environmental activists who organised protests and direct actions to disturb the hunts. This lasted until another law imposed high penalties for such disturbances. Between January and September 2020, hunters killed 84.5 thousand boars out of which only 458 tested positive for ASFV (Ptak-Iglewska 2020).
Much like with the Białowieża Forest bark beetles, the anti-ASF hunts turned out to be an ineffective and often counterproductive strategy. This is because the highly contagious blood and other body parts of shot boars would often contaminate the hunters’ vehicles, clothes and equipment, thus posing
The militarised defence strategy against a disease that brings economic losses to meat production is also realised through erecting physical barriers.12 Denmark famously built a fence on its border with Germany to stop the spread of ASF. Polish authorities planned to do the same along the eastern border with Belarus and Ukraine, but the plan did not come to fruition.13 Meanwhile, with the disease moving from East to West, Germany erected 300 kilometres of fence on the border with Poland, thus marking the moving frontier of viral danger
6 Conclusions
In this chapter we have focused on the epidemic of ASF in Poland that marshalled discourses on purity via biosecurity measures implemented inside and outside of pig farms, thus implicating free-ranging wild boars as possible vectors of the lethal disease. The politics of purity is understood in this chapter not only as the sum of sanitary and cleansing practices, but also more broadly, as an ideological stance attempting to impose order, police borders, and sort out the messy intra- and interspecies relations. Despite such high concern over keeping things neatly separated, discourses on purity harbour gendered, classed, and racialised divisions that, ironically, cross the species barrier easily, implicating human and nonhuman animals alike. In his Bioinsecurities, Ahuja argues “for the need to account for orders of representation that cross the subject through the affective, that shape the forms of interface available to humans, animals, and viruses, and that subtly vest governmental force into the lifeworlds of interspecies contact” (2016, 15). Our analysis of the changing human-swine relations during the ASF epidemic in Poland demonstrates that control over porcine sex plays a pivotal role in the mediation of space, labour, embodiment, and risk. Optimised sexuality of pig bodies on farms, their life-cycles divided into manageable, quantifiable units of protein content, coupled with ever-tightening biosecurity, are all manifestations of the broader attempts by the capitalist production mechanisms to subdue sex and life (nonhuman and human alike) to its own logic of perpetual growth and accumulation.
Such immense control over porcine bodies renders them increasingly more fragile as they reach beyond-production limits. The increased risk of viral outbreaks seems to be the logical consequence of the industrial animal farm. With higher vulnerability to diseases, biosecurity becomes a necessity in everyday operations of factory farming. From surveillance zones, through “sanitary” culling, to anti-ASF fences, these biosecurity measures frame wild boars as invaders from the East, while domestic pigs as an endangered food resource, protected only to be slaughtered. In this context, biosecurity could be easily framed as one of the mechanisms for ensuring food security (Lougheed and Hird 2017), but we show that a lot more is at stake when purification practices and border policing are enforced on a large scale. Porcine bodies become a manifestation of ideological purity, even though the differences between wild boars and domestic pigs result from centuries of human intervention. The idea that wild boars and domestic pigs remain strictly separated from one another is merely a fantasy of purity and an illusion of control over nonhuman animals. Although they seem set apart by industrialised agriculture—with farmed pigs subjected to increasing forms of captivity and wild boars expanding their territories and becoming more present in urban and suburban areas—their ecologies still overlap. The main concern behind biosecurity measures mobilised in the face of the ASF epidemic relates to the spatial proximity between these animals. However, as of yet, the attempts to fully separate indoor pig farms from the outside world have failed. The impossibility of purity is manifested not only in the imperfections of human actions, but also as a result of the resilience of the ASF virus, livestock vulnerability in factory farming, and the agency of wild boars crossing national borders (or farmed pigs escaping captivity, becoming feral and joining wild boar sounders!).
Marianna Szczygielska’s work on this chapter is part of a project that has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program (Grant agreement no. 866350). The content developed in this writing reflects only the authors’ views.
This research was funded in part by the National Science Centre, Poland, grant number 2021/41/N/HS2/04332, awarded to Agata Kowalewska.
In Europe, ASF was first detected in 1957 in Portugal and spread to Spain. In 2007, it was introduced into Georgia in Eurasia, reaching the EU member states in 2014. There is no vaccine available against ASF, unlike the classical swine fever (‘Hog Cholera’) which is caused by a different virus (OIE 2020).
Domestic pig (Sus scrofa domesticus) is considered a subspecies of the wild boar (Sus scrofa scrofa).
For a further problematisation of Carol Adams’ ecofeminist perspective on meat-eating practices and factory farming vis-à-vis trans-feminist theory, see Kuura Irni in this volume.
During World War II, lard was used in the manufacturing of explosives and as an industrial lubricant.
Some researchers report that a mycotoxin from a common kind of fungus growing on corn impacts the wild boars’ hormonal balance, causing sows to faster reach sexual maturity and ovulate for a longer time and more frequently (Pałubicki and Grajewski 2010) although there is no consensus on the exact mechanism and effects on wild boar fertility (Nicpoń, Sławuta, and Nicpoń 2016).
Capitalocene is an alternative concept to the Anthropocene, or the geological epoch defined by human impact on Earth’s natural systems. The concept of the Capitalocene is mobilised to draw attention to the role of capitalist economy in catalysing environmental destruction, biodiversity loss, and anthropogenic climate change.
Thanatopolitics, or a politics of death is a philosophical term that describes the power to “let die” for the sake of life within the biopolitical framework (Foucault 2003).
Since 2013, the use of gestation crates has been forbidden in the EU, with the exception of the first four weeks of a sow’s pregnancy and one week before farrowing. This means that for the majority of her pregnancy (114 days gestation period on average), sows are kept in group pens, to then be closed again for farrowing and lactation until the piglets are weaned, usually at around 3–4 weeks of age (Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 (Codified Version) 2009).
Industry data (Knecht and Jankowska-Mąkosa 2019). This means some 40–45% of pigs are kept on farms with at least 1000 of these animals. This number has grown significantly in recent years, as in 2000 only 16% of Polish pigs were kept at farms with at least 200 of these animals (data for farms of 1000 and more unavailable) (Blicharski and Hammermeister 2013). To put this into perspective, in Denmark, which has one of the highest concentrations of industrial farms in the world, around 97% of pigs are kept on farms with 1000 pigs or more, see (Augère-Granier 2020), in the US, according to the 2010 census it was 93.5% of all pigs, see (McBride and Key 2013), the number is likely higher now.
As posted by the Polish General Veterinary Inspectorate (“Główny Inspektorat Weterynarii” n.d.).
All translations from Polish to English are by the authors, unless indicated otherwise.
For more intersectional perspectives on border securitisation, militaristic logics and nonhuman animals see (Khazaal and Almiron 2021).
Internal barriers are being put up, with a 40-kilometre fence on the border between Mazowieckie and Świętokrzyskie voivodeships. Information from a local government website (‘Świętokrzyskie odgrodzi się od Mazowsza 40-kilometrowym płotem z powodu ASF’ 2020).
References
Acevedo, Pelayo, Simon Croft, Graham Smith, Jose Antonio Blanco‐Aguiar, Javier Fernández‐López, Massimo Scandura, Marco Apollonio, et al. 2020. “Update of Occurrence and Hunting Yield-Based Data Models for Wild Boar at European Scale: New Approach to Handle the Bioregion Effect.” EFSA Supporting Publications 17 (5): 1871E.
Adams, Carol J. 2015. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. Anniversary edition. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Ahmed, Sara. 2000. Strange Encounters: Embodied Others in Post-Coloniality. London; New York: Routledge.
Ahuja, Neel. 2016. Bioinsecurities: Disease Interventions, Empire, and the Government of Species. Durham: Duke University Press.
Anneberg, Inger, and Mette Vaarst. 2018. “Farm Animals in a Welfare State. Commercial Pigs in Denmark.” In Domestication Gone Wild: Politics and Practices of Multispecies Relations, edited by Swanson, Lien, and Ween, 94–116. Durham: Duke University Press.
Augère-Granier, Marie-Laure. 2020. “EPRS: The EU Pig Meat Sector.” Briefing PE 652.044. European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/652044/EPRS_BRI(2020)652044_EN.pdf
Aykan, Nuri Faruk. 2015. “Red Meat and Colorectal Cancer.” Oncology Reviews 9 (1): 288.
Bar-On, Yinon M., Rob Phillips, and Ron Milo. 2018. “The Biomass Distribution on Earth.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (25): 6506.
Blanchette, Alex. 2020. Porkopolis: American Animality, Standardized Life, and the Factory Farm. Durham: Duke University Press Books.
Blicharski, Tadeusz, and Anna Hammermeister. 2013. “Strategia odbudowy i rozwoju produkcji trzody chlewnej w Polsce do roku 2030.” http://www.kzp-ptch.pl/publikacje/42-struktura-stad-srednie-wielkosci-i-liczba-gospodarstw-produkujacych-trzode
Burt, Jonathan. 2006. “Conflicts around Slaughter in Modernity.” In Killing Animals, edited by Animal Studies Group, 120–44. Urbana; Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Calvert, Scout. 2013. “Certified Angus, Certified Patriot: Breeding, Bodies, and Pedigree Practices.” Science as Culture 22 (3): 291–313.
Canu, Antonio, Massimo Scandura, Enrico Merli, Roberta Chirichella, Elisa Bottero, Francesco Chianucci, Andrea Cutini, and Marco Apollonio. 2015. “Reproductive Phenology and Conception Synchrony in a Natural Wild Boar Population.” Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 26 (2): 77–84.
Cielemęcka, Olga. 2020. “Forest Futures: Biopolitics, Purity, and Extinction in Europe’s Last ‘Pristine’ Forest.” Journal of Gender Studies 29 (1): 63–75.
Comizzoli, Pierre, Janine L. Brown, and William V. Holt, eds. 2019. Reproductive Sciences in Animal Conservation. 2nd ed. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 Laying down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Pigs (Codified Version). 2009. 047. Vol. OJ L. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/120/oj/eng
Cronon, William. 1991. Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Derry, Margaret. 2003. Bred for Perfection: Shorthorn Cattle, Collies, and Arabian Horses Since 1800. Baltimore and London: The Jon Hopkins University Press.
Derry, Margaret. 2015. Masterminding Nature: The Breeding of Animals, 1750–2010. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Derry, Margaret, Donna Haraway, Donna Landry, Harriet Ritvo, Sandra Swart, Kristen Guest, and Monica Mattfeld. 2018. “Humanimalia Roundtable on Breed.” Humanimalia: A Journal of Human-Animal Interface Studies 10 (1): 1–26.
Dutkiewicz, Jan. 2019. “Uncertain Hog Futures: Life, Death, and Arbitrage on the Factory Farm.” Journal of Cultural Economy 13 (3): 278–89.
Eriksson, Camilla, and Andrea Petitt. 2020. “Designing Cattle: The Social Practice of Constructing Breeds.” Anthrozoös 33 (March): 175–90.
Fernandez‐Lopez, Javier, Pelayo Acevedo, José Antonio Blanco‐Aguiar, and Joaquín Vicente. 2020. “Analysis of Wild Boar-Domestic Pig Interface in Europe: Preliminary Analysis.” EFSA Supporting Publications 17 (4): 1834E.
Fleischman, Thomas. 2020. Communist Pigs: An Animal History of East Germany’s Rise and Fall. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
“Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.” n.d. Accessed February 3, 2021. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/empres/ASF/index.html
Foucault, Michel. 2003. “Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–1976. Translated by David Macey. First edition. New York: Picador.
Frantz, Alain C., Frank E. Zachos, Julia Kirschning, Sandra Cellina, Sabine Bertouille, Zissis Mamuris, Evagelia A. Koutsogiannouli, and Terry Burke. 2013. “Genetic Evidence for Introgression between Domestic Pigs and Wild Boars (Sus Scrofa) in Belgium and Luxembourg: A Comparative Approach with Multiple Marker Systems.” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 110 (1): 104–15.
Frantz, Alain C., Giovanna Massei, and Terry Burke. 2012. “Genetic Evidence for Past Hybridisation between Domestic Pigs and English Wild Boars.” Conservation Genetics 13 (5): 1355–64.
Friese, Carrie. 2013. Cloning Wild Life: Zoos, Captivity, and the Future of Endangered Animals. New York: NYU Press.
Gallardo, Carmina, Jovita Fernández-Pinero, Virginia Pelayo, Ismail Gazaev, Iwona Markowska-Daniel, Gediminas Pridotkas, Raquel Nieto, et al. 2014. “Genetic Variation among African Swine Fever Genotype II Viruses, Eastern and Central Europe.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 20 (9): 1544–47.
Gentry, Anthea, and Colin P. Groves. 1996. “Proposed Conservation of Usage of 15 Mammal Specific Names Based on Wild Species Which Are Antedated by or Contemporary with those Based on Domestic Animals.” The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 53: 28–37.
“Główny Inspektorat Weterynarii.” n.d. Accessed November 1, 2020. http://www.wetgiw.gov.pl
Godfray, H. Charles J., Paul Aveyard, Tara Garnett, Jim W. Hall, Timothy J. Key, Jamie Lorimer, Ray T. Pierrehumbert, Peter Scarborough, Marco Springmann, and Susan A. Jebb. 2018. “Meat Consumption, Health, and the Environment.” Science 361 (6399).
Haraway, Donna. 2004. “Race: Universal Donors in a Vampire Culture. It’s All in the Family: Biological Kinship Categories in the Twentieth-Century United States.” In The Haraway Reader, edited by Donna Haraway, 251–94. New York: Routledge.
Haraway, Donna. 2007. When Species Meet. 1 edition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Haraway, Donna. 2015. “Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin.” Environmental Humanities 6 (May): 159–65.
Iacolina, Laura, Massimo Scandura, Paolo Bongi, and Marco Apollonio. 2009. “Nonkin Associations in Wild Boar Social Units.” Journal of Mammalogy 90 (3): 666–74.
Khazaal, Natalie, and Núria Almiron, eds. 2021. Like an Animal: Critical Animal Studies Approaches to Borders, Displacement, and Othering. Leiden: Brill.
Knecht, Damian, and Anna Jankowska-Mąkosa. 2019. “Słabości sektora trzodowego są niestety stabilne,” agroFakt.pl, November 30, 2019. https://www.agrofakt.pl/gospodarstwa-trzodowe/
Komosińska, Halina, and Elżbieta Podsiadło. 2002. Ssaki kopytne. Przewodnik. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Kowalewska, Agata. 2019. “Feral Urban Wild Boars: Managing Spaces of Conflict with Care and Attention.” Przegląd Kulturoznawczy 42: 524–38.
Lee, Paula Young. 2008. Meat, Modernity, and the Rise of the Slaughterhouse. Hanover, London: University Press of New England.
Lo, Jamie J., Yong-Moon Mark Park, Rashmi Sinha, and Dale P. Sandler. 2020. “Association between Meat Consumption and Risk of Breast Cancer: Findings from the Sister Study.” International Journal of Cancer 146 (8): 2156–65.
Lougheed, Scott Cameron, and Myra J. Hird. 2017. “Food Security and Secure Food in the Anthropocene.” Crime, Law and Social Change 68 (5): 499–514.
Lubelski, Urząd Wojewódzki. 2020. „Wojewódzki Zespół Zarządzania Kryzysowego o ASF.” https://www.lublin.uw.gov.pl/aktualnosci/wojew%C3%B3dzki-zesp%C3%B3%C5%82-zarz%C4%85dzania-kryzysowego-o-asf
Marvin, Garry. 2006. “Wild Killing: Contesting the Animal in Hunting.” In Killing Animals, edited by Animal Studies Group, 10–29. Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
McBride, William D, and Nigel Key. 2013. “USDA: U.S. Hog Production From 1992 to 2009: Technology, Restructuring, and Productivity Growth.” https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45148/40364_err158.pdf?v=9188.9
Mikos, Paweł. 2019. “Specustawa o ASF – odstrzał dzików przez wojsko i zakaz blokowania polowań.” TPR-Tygodnik Poradnik Rolniczy, December 18, 2019. https://www.tygodnik-rolniczy.pl/articles/aktualnosci_/specustawa-o-asf-odstrzal-dzikow-przez-wojsko-i-zakaz-blokowania-polowan/
Moore, Jason W. 2017. “The Capitalocene, Part I: On the Nature and Origins of Our Ecological Crisis.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 44 (3): 594–630.
“MS Schippers: Boar-Mate.” n.d. Accessed February 3, 2021. https://www.msschippers.com/boar-mate-80-ml-4505675.html
Murphy, Michelle. 2012. Seizing the Means of Reproduction: Entanglements of Feminism, Health, and Technoscience. Illustrated edition. Durham: Duke University Press Books.
Najwyższa Izba Kontroli. 2017. “Realizacja programu bioasekuracji jako element zwalczania afrykańskiego pomoru świń. Informacja o wynikach kotroli.” 184/2017/P/17/046/KRR. Warszawa. https://www.nik.gov.pl/kontrole/P/17/046/
Nicole, Wendee. 2013. “CAFO s and Environmental Justice: The Case of North Carolina.” Environmental Health Perspectives 121 (6): a182–89.
Nicpoń, Józef, Piotr Sławuta, and Jakub Nicpoń. 2016. “Wpływ toksykozy zearalenonowej na wyniki badania morfologicznego i biochemicznego krwi dzików.” Medycyna Weterynaryjna 72 (4): 250–54.
OIE. 2020. “Global Situation of African Swine Fever: 2016 – 2020.” 47. African Swine Fever (ASF) Report No 47: 2016 – 2020. World Animal Health Information Department. https://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_Health_in_the_World/docs/pdf/Disease_cards/ASF/Report_47_Global_situation_ASF.pdf
Pachirat, Timothy. 2011. Every Twelve Seconds: Industrialized Slaughter and the Politics of Sight. New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
Pałubicki, Jakub, and Jan Grajewski. 2010. “Wpływ zasiewów kukurydzy na wzmożoną rozrodczość dziczych populacji, a problem odszkodowań łowieckich.” Zarządzanie Ochroną Przyrody w Lasach 04: 111–19.
Pepin, Kim M., Andrew J. Golnar, Zaid Abdo, and Tomasz Podgórski. 2020. “Ecological Drivers of African Swine Fever Virus Persistence in Wild Boar Populations: Insight for Control.” Ecology and Evolution 10 (6): 2846–59.
Podgórski, Tomasz, and Krzysztof Śmietanka. 2018. “Do Wild Boar Movements Drive the Spread of African Swine Fever?” Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 65(6): 1588–1596.
Porcher, Jocelyne. 2011. “The Relationship Between Workers and Animals in the Pork Industry: A Shared Suffering.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (1): 3–17.
Powell, David M. 2003. “Pigs (Suidae).” In Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia, edited by Michael Hutchins, Devra G. Kleiman, and Valerius Geist, 2nd ed., 12–16:275–90. Farmington Hills: Gale Group.
Ptak-Iglewska, Aleksandra. 2020. “Polowanie na ASF skończyło się pudłem.” Rzeczpospolita. September 22, 2020. https://www.rp.pl/Rolnictwo/309229868-Polowanie-na-ASF-skonczylo-sie-pudlem.html
Rabizo, Ilona. 2018. W kieracie ubojni. Zwierzęta i ludzie w przemyśle mięsnym. Poznań: Oficyna Wydawnicza Bractwa Trojka.
Ritvo, Harriet. 1992. “Race, Breed, and Myths of Origin: Chillingham Cattle as Ancient Britons.” Representations, no. 39: 1–22.
Rosenberg, Gabriel. 2016. “A Race Suicide among the Hogs: The Biopolitics of Pork in the United States, 1865–1930.” American Quarterly 68 (1): 49–73.
Rosenberg, Gabriel. 2017. “How Meat Changed Sex: The Law of Interspecies Intimacy after Industrial Reproduction.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 23 (4): 473–507.
Schulz, Katja, Franz Conraths, Sandra Blome, Christoph Staubach, and Carola Sauter-Louis. 2019. “African Swine Fever: Fast and Furious or Slow and Steady?” Viruses 11(9): 866.
Shotwell, Alexis. 2016. Against Purity: Living Ethically in Compromised Times. Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press.
Stoetzer, Bettina. 2020. “Pigs, Viruses and Humans Co-Evolve in a Deadly Dance.” In Feral Atlas: The More-Than-Human Anthropocene, edited by Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing, Jennifer Deger, Alder Saxena Keleman, and Feifei Zhou, digital. Stanford: Stanford University Press. https://feralatlas.supdigital.org/poster/pigs-viruses-and-humans-co-evolve-in-a-deadly-dance
Subramaniam, Banu. 2001. “The Aliens Have Landed! Reflections on the Rhetoric of Biological Invasions.” Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism 2 (1): 26–40.
„Świętokrzyskie odgrodzi się od Mazowsza 40-kilometrowym płotem z powodu ASF.” Portal Samorz ądzowy, October 28, 2020. https://www.portalsamorzadowy.pl/wydarzenia-lokalne/swietokrzyskie-odgrodzi-sie-od-mazowsza-40-kilometrowym-plotem-z-powodu-asf,225805.html
“Swine Health Information Center.” n.d. Accessed February 3, 2021. https://www.swinehealth.org/global-disease-surveillance-reports/
Szczygielska, Marianna. 2019. “Poland’s Wild Boar Targeted in Pointless Cull That Could Actually Spread Swine Fever.” The Conversation. January 18, 2019. http://theconversation.com/polands-wild-boar-targeted-in-pointless-cull-that-could-actually-spread-swine-fever-109917
Tack, Jurgen. 2018. “Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) Populations in Europe: A Scientific Review of Population Trends and Implications for Management.” Brussels: European Landowners’ Organization. https://www.europeanlandowners.org/images/Wild_Boar_Report_2018/122193_WILD_BOAR_GB.pdf
Taylor, Rachel A., Tomasz Podgórski, Robin R. L. Simons, Sophie Ip, Paul Gale, Louise A. Kelly, and Emma L. Snary. 2020. “Predicting Spread and Effective Control Measures for African Swine Fever—Should We Blame the Boars?” Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 68: 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13690
Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt, Nils Bubandt, Elaine Gan, and Heather Anne Swanson, eds. 2017. Arts of Living on a Damaged Planet: Ghosts and Monsters of the Anthropocene. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt, Jennifer Deger, Alder Saxena Keleman, and Feifei Zhou, eds. 2020. Feral Atlas: The More-Than-Human Anthropocene. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
Vetter, Sebastian G., Thomas Ruf, Claudia Bieber, and Walter Arnold. 2015. “What Is a Mild Winter? Regional Differences in Within-Species Responses to Climate Change.” PLOS ONE 10 (7): e0132178.
Weis, Tony. 2013. The Ecological Hoofprint: The Global Burden of Industrial Livestock. Illustrated Edition. London: Zed Books.
Wildt, David E., and Christen Wemmer. 1999. “Sex and Wildlife: The Role of Reproductive Science in Conservation.” Biodiversity & Conservation 8 (7): 965–76.
You, Wenpeng, and Maciej Henneberg. 2016. “Meat Consumption Providing a Surplus Energy in Modern Diet Contributes to Obesity Prevalence: An Ecological Analysis.” BMC Nutrition 2 (1): 22.