You couldn't make it up. One of Britain's largest livestock companies - Midland Pig Producers (MPP) - are planning to imprison 2,500 sows on a massive factory farm in Derbyshire right next door to a women's prison. We need your help to stop it.

The pictures above are from a previous investigation of a farm connected to Midland Pig Producers back in 2003 (we also investigated one of their farms in 2006). MPP may have said they have improved welfare marginally, but given the dreadful conditions above can we really believe what they say? The bottom line is that it will be impossible to have good animal welfare on a factory farm the size of the one proposed in Foston. Please help us stop this pig prison from going ahead.

Consultation period now closed: an amazing 1,700+ people objected. Thank you! The consultation closed on the 30 June 2010, and we await the outcome. However, see our suggested pre-prepared email for an overview of the issues.

Foston Pig Prison

Surrounded by barbed wire fences, the massive complex would imprison sows that would never go outside. An uncomfortable comparison with the neighbouring women's prison only a stone's throw away. [click here to see the plans for this massive complex]

Foston pig farm is due to be situated right next to the historic village of the same name (on a beautiful Greenfield site) and will produce a thousand pigs a week, which will be transported off-site to slaughter. That's 48,000 pigs a year. At any one time the farm will house around 26,000 animals trapped on a slow conveyor belt towards the abattoir. As far as we know, these plans are for the biggest factory farm of pigs so far in Britain. Unbelievably, there will be a picnic site overlooking it.

The man behind this venture has been voted Pig Farmer of the year 2009. His company going so far as to say that the countryside will be stripped of its animals within a decade - with MPP seemingly at the forefront of this move. They even say their factory farms are preferable to animals being outside!

MPP also claim to have been working with animal welfare and animal rights groups - rest assured it was most certainly not Viva! - in designing potentially Britain's largest pig factory farm. Yes, they have made some improvements - farrowing crates where sows can now actually turn around - but it is impossible to provide high welfare on a farm this size. Pigs are rooting animals that can roam miles in the wild and enjoy total freedom in their interaction with their young. Today's factory farms deny almost all that is natural to these sensitive and intelligent animals.

Then there's the impact on humans. Have we learnt nothing from swine flu, bird flu, SARS etc in the way we treat animals? Situating a massive intensive farm this close to people (the nearest house is just 20 metres away from the perimeter fence) is asking for trouble. Not least the use of a huge anaerobic digester to process around 15 million litres of slurry a year. These digesters are designed to produce energy and reduce smell, but can actually be a source of smell, noise and - in the worst case scenario - toxic gases and even fire and explosions.

If Foston Pig Prison goes ahead this - like the proposed move to zero-grazing dairy cows in Lincolnshire - could be the thin end of the wedge. If the company gets its way, there will be no more animals left in the British countryside. We must stop this.
 

What can I do?

Object!: now closed - thanks to everyone who did!

Stop eating meat: these places only exist because of our demand for meat. If you want to stop them, stop feeding them your custom. Go vegetarian or even better go vegan.

Join Viva!: we are completely donations run. If you agree with what we do and want to fight the disease that is factory farming from spreading any further across this country please join us or donate to our campaigns.
 

Foston Pig Prison would be built on this beautiful Greenfield site

Suggested objection:

"Dear Sir/Madam

Planning Application 9/2010/0311 – Foston pig farm

I am writing to lodge a formal objection to the proposed intensive pig farm at Foston, South Derbyshire (by Midland Pig Producers (MPP)). The reasons for my objection are below.

Animal welfare: I know this isn't taken into account when deciding the outcome of planning meetings, but I strongly believe it should be - and, despite welfare improvements MPP have suggested they will make, I do not believe that it is possible to provide high welfare for 26,000 pigs on an indoor farm this size.

Risk to human health: keeping large numbers of animals near residential dwellings (Foston prison and the village itself - where the nearest inhabited dwelling is only 20m from the perimeter) is a disease risk to humans. In light of the recent swine flu outbreak this should be of particular concern.

Environmental impact: this farm will not be green, as MPP have suggested. In fact, it is my understanding that the methane from the pigs themselves will produce over twice as much carbon equivalent gases as the neighbouring village of Foston itself.

Anaerobic digester: I understand that this is being used to strip the slurry of methane and to stop smell. However, it is also my understanding that anaerobic digesters can actually be responsible for producing smells and toxic gases, and in the worst case scenario can provide a fire or explosion risk. Good practice dictates that these should not be built next to residential areas (especially one of this size) - and to do so would potentially put lives at risk. It will also use huge amounts of water - as will the farm itself - and would potentially pollute surrounding land.

Noise: the developers say that the noise will be minimal. This is hard to take seriously, as noise will be generated by machinery and from the animals themselves as they are taken to slaughter (a thousand a week). MPP say that the nearby road will drown the noise out, but it is my understanding that the noise level from the road is not consistent and some residential units are closer to the farm itself than they are to the road.

Impact on wildlife: the development will obliterate a productive Greenfield site, whilst Brownfield sites are nearby. Bat roosts have been potentially identified, and building work - and the farm itself - whilst perhaps not encroaching directly onto it, will still have a negative effect on wildlife.

HM Foston: it is wrong to build such a development next to a group of people who have no rights to play a part in deciding whether it should be built or not. It is also my understanding that MPP have declared that the women's prison could be powered by energy produced on the farm, but no agreement - formal or even informal - has been entered into. In fact, the energy produced will not power any part of the village - and is therefore of no direct benefit to the local area.

Increased traffic: the A50 through Foston is already a busy road. The pig farm will bring more traffic - especially heavy goods vehicles - that will increase congestion. As the road outside of Foston has been the scene of several road traffic accidents recently, this could make the situation worse.

Jobs for local people: MPP have said the development will provide jobs for local people. However, the acquisition of residential properties from the women's prison suggests that workers from outside the area will be brought in - further increasing traffic.

Precedence against the development at Foston: it is my understanding that, in the past, a neighbouring property had its planning application turned down because of its potential effect on the view (Maidensley Farm - where the erection of a chimney was refused) . The pig farm development at Foston will change the local view incalculably more and should not be allowed. 

South Derbyshire District Council Environmental Policy: it is my understanding that this development may contravene the council's own environment policy, by polluting, increasing traffic, being noisy and generally disruptive.

To sum up: the proposal has no discernable benefits for the local community whatsoever. Housing on site is surely to attract workers from outside the area. The women's prison has denied that it has entered into any agreement with MPP – and as any energy produced will go to the national grid it will have no direct relevance to Foston itself. No amount of ‘environmental enhancement’ from MPP will disguise the fact that a massive industrial agricultural unit has obliterated a Greenfield site and forever altered the landscape around this ancient village. It will also unquestionably increase traffic on a road (A50) that has suffered traffic accidents recently. It will also bring an unreasonable increase in noise levels for adjoining residents from machinery, traffic and the animals themselves. Finally, the potential health and environmental consequences of placing what could be Britain's largest ever pig farm next to an inhabited area should not be underestimated. South Derbyshire may be going against its own Environmental Policy by doing so.

MPP's plans to develop land at Foston for intensive pig farming must not be given approval.

Yours faithfully"
 

Below is Viva!'s official objection to South Derbyshire County Council. Please feel free to use any information here to add to you objection:

"South Derbyshire District Council 
Planning Services 
Civic Offices 
Civic Way 
Swadlincote 
Derbyshire 
DE11 0AH

15 June 2010

Dear Sir/Madam

Planning Application 9/2010/0311 – Foston pig farm

I am writing to you from the campaign group Viva! to lodge a formal objection to the proposed intensive pig farm at Foston, South Derbyshire (by Midland Pig Producers (MPP)). We are representing the concerns of what we believe is the majority of local people within the Foston area – as well as representing the concerns of the public at large.

We believe that the proposed development at Foston is ill thought out and potentially hazardous to those living near by. An industrial agricultural development of this size and nature – which may possibly be the largest pig farm so far in the UK with between 26,000 - 30,000 pigs on site at any one time – is wholly inappropriate to be situated near a populated area. It is also wholly inappropriate to situate it on a Greenfield site – which the Fisher German Design and Access Statement admits is currently “… productive arable land”, whilst brown field sites lay languishing in South Derbyshire.

Please take the following comments into account when judging the suitability of the proposal.
 

Animal welfare

We are very much aware that animal welfare is not taken into account when planning proposals are considered.  However, we feel that this is unfair and the law should be changed in this regard (although, obviously, we recognise this is not your remit). Places of this size are largely untested in the UK and therefore legislation is playing catch up in this regard. Further to this, we feel that this is not a farm as such and, by its very scale, should be considered an industrial unit and as such we believe that other criteria should be taken into account.

Despite MPP’s assertion that animal welfare will be improved on this farm (and certainly the suggested 360° farrowing crates are an improvement on traditional farrowing crates), we believe that it will be impossible to maintain good animal welfare overall on an enterprise of this size. The proposed development in Foston is designed to maximise profit, not necessarily improve animal welfare. Further to this, MPP have publicly stated they believe no livestock will be outside within a decade (http://www.mppfoston.com/The%20Next%20Agricultural%20Revolution.pdf). They have also made the ludicrous declaration that welfare on their farm (where no animal will even see the outside), is preferable to outdoor bred pigs (see link above). We firmly believe that the development in Foston will be a benchmark in the further intensification of the pig industry in this country, and we doubt that South Derbyshire would want to be associated with a dedicated campaign to strip the fields of the countryside of all farmed animals.

We also note that the development does not have a slaughterhouse on site. Slaughter itself is bad enough, but as the plans suggest that around a thousand pigs a week could be leaving the factory we are gravely concerned about the welfare of animals travelling distances to slaughter who have previously only known the four walls of the factory.
 

Risk to human health

Intensive farming is a breeding ground for disease. Having tens of thousands of pigs in close proximity to residential areas – and especially the prison – is a potential health hazard. There is evidence that the relatively recent ‘swine flu’ pandemic originated in an intensive pig farm. Intense scrutiny should be given to the wisdom of citing what could be Britain’s largest ever pig unit so close to where people live. We firmly believe that the risk is too great to take and that approval for this development  should be refused. For more reading on this see: http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/qa_on_swine_flu_050209.html.
 

Environmental impact

The proposal pig farm in Foston is being promoted as a ‘green venture’. However, the developers have not taken into account significant issues which make it anything but. In fact, despite measures to reduce pollution, figures below show that the development will produce over twice as much global warming equivalent gases annually as the village of Foston itself! Therefore, this contravenes South Derbyshire’s own environmental policy for new developments.

Methane from breath and flatus

Whilst the proposal talks about stripping methane from slurry through anaerobic digestion, we did not see any indication that methane excreted in the form of gas from the animals themselves would be controlled.

Amount of methane produced by pigs through breath and flatus: “About 1 litre CH, was excreted per day at 2&25 kg LW increasing to a maximum of 12 litres at 120 kg LW, which corresponded to no more than 1.2% of dietary gross energy.”  http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=861712&jid=BJN&volumeId=57&issueId=03&aid=861704

By our calculations (based on number of pigs at Foston of running at full potential) it could produce 18,980,000 l of Methane per year:

18,980,000 l =18,980 m3 of CH4 produced per year

* 0.68kg/m3 = 12906.4kg is the mass of that CH4.

* 21 CDE = 271,034.4 kg equivalent amount CO2

If we take into account the differing sizes of the pigs (due to live weight differences) a median figure could be around 169,000 l. With this figure the CO2 equivalent output would be 880861.8kg.

An average household is about 6 tonnes per year (http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/319282.pdf) so by our calculations that’s equivalent to the global warming gases emitted by 148.8 houses: over double the number of house in the immediate Foston area (60-70), and so therefore producing twice as much pollution as the village itself.
 

Anaerobic digester

Whilst anaerobic digesters are potentially useful in general terms, we strongly do not believe that it is wise to situate one so close to habituated areas. Biogas can produce trace gases that are toxic and dangerous to human health (hydrogen sulphide and ammonia). The use of one at Foston is hugely inappropriate – and should not be allowed to go ahead.

“AD produces certain emissions and effluents, to air, ground and water, which need treatment to avoid damage to human health and the environment.” (Anaerobic Digestion Of farm and food Processing residues, Good Practice Guidelines, (for British Biogen, 2000). http://www.mrec.org/biogas/adgpg.pdf). This report also says, “Anaerobic digestion projects, as with any development, will create some risks and have some potential negative environmental impact”. It also says, “There may be some risk to human health from the pathogenic content of the feedstock and digestate.” Most worryingly, the report states that “There may also be some risk of fire and explosion, although no greater than with systems using natural gas.” The report also cites increased traffic and visual impact as possible concerns.

Whilst MPP may have taken steps to minimize the risk to local people have all of these been undertaken and what happens if something goes wrong? The risks outweigh the benefits. Even the small potential for fire or explosion if something goes wrong should automatically mean that this should not be built near residential areas – even more so near ones where people are incarcerated (HM Foston) and there may be difficulties evacuating large numbers of people.

There is also an irony that whilst MPP makes great effort to point out that the farm will produce minimal smells (a claim that is difficult to believe), experts have insisted that anaerobic digesters themselves have been known to produce smells. So much so that researchers at Kansas State University said, “From a public relations perspective, people generally accept biodigesters.  However they should still be constructed far from residential areas for reasons of biosecurity to minimize odor problems” (National Agricultural Biosecurity Center, Kansas State University 2004 Ch. 7 p. 15. Section 5. Implications to the Environment).

A study by Northampton County Council states that anaerobic digestors are not suitable for urban areas and says: “Where possible, facilities should be located at least 250 metres from sensitive properties." [sensitive properties include housing] (http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/councilservices/Environ/planning/mwdf/Documents/PDF%20Documents/421%20Info%20Sheets%20Combined.pdf). Note: Maidensley Farm is around 150m from the Bio-gas plant according to the map provided by MPP.

Research from Iowa University found that whilst it helped, “[anaerobic digestion] …does not totally eliminate the offensiveness of the swine manure odor” (Viability of Methane Production by Anaerobic Digestion on Iowa Swine Farms http://www.agmrc.org/media/cms/asl1693_C1B3959140EF2.pdf). In fact, anaerobic digestion removes 80 per cent of the smell (http://www.mrec.org/biogas/adgpg.pdf) – a sizeable amount – but 20 per cent of the smell from a farm which will have slurry of around 26,000 pigs could still be considerable. Because the development is so close to residences, this could mean that odour could still be a problem for local people in Foston.

Anaerobic odours can originate with the incoming feedstocks or bulking agents, which may have been stored prior to anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic Digestion Of farm and food Processing residues, Good Practice Guidelines says “… odour from the feedstock will be released as it is stored, and especially whenever it is moved or mixed, and this odour needs to be carefully managed.” How is this to be managed?

The disadvantages of anaerobic digestion are as follows:

• Sludge disposal is a problem in some locations
• Difficulty of storage of gas (corrosive)
• Significant consumption of water
• Storage of fertilizer is difficult
• Problem of management of the sludge
• Does not destroy all pathogens
• Prions (eg mad cows disease, chronic wasting disease)
• Thermo resistant bacteria (eg. Bacillus cereus)

The use of antibiotics has been found to make anaerobic digesters less effective (Michigan Biomass Energy Program September 2005 p. 2). The use of antibiotics in intensive farming is widespread, especially on pig farms of this size, to ensure that disease does not spread through animals kept in close quarters. It is an almost certainty that the pig farm at Foston will use antibiotics, and this must lead to questions about the efficiency of the anaerobic digesters and the knock on effect to the local community.

Finally, the Anaerobic Digestion Of farm and food Processing residues, Good Practice Guidelines cites “Impacts on neighbours” as an issue. It says, “CAD plants may be best sited in areas designated for industrial development in the development plan of the local planning authority. All plants need to consider noise, smell and traffic impacts on local residents.” Waste Aware Scotland states: “Large-scale plants resemble standard industrial buildings and would be more suited to areas allocated for commercial/industrial areas.” (http://www.wasteawarescotland.org.uk/aboutWasteTech.asp)

To locate a large anaerobic digestion unit so near to populated areas goes against good practice and, in theory, could put local residents at risk.
 

Water use and pollution

Anaerobic digesters use a huge amount of water and can pollute water tables and the local environment. Pig farms of this size will also use massive amounts of water for the animals, cleaning and other uses. There is also concern that antibiotic residues and other pollutants may end up in the surrounding ground, and we believe that this will be extremely difficult to eradicate this risk entirely.
 

Noise

MPP claim: “Any noise will be minimal and will not be heard over the constant background noise generated by the A50.” This is hard to take seriously, as 26,000-30,000 pigs will make a level of noise that is likely to be heard from the farm’s immediate neighbours (Maidensley Farm and Foston Prison – both of which are nearer in parts to the development than they are to the road).

Anaerobic digesters are also known to make noise: “AD projects can generate noise. Consideration needs to be given to potential noise from deliveries, pumps, compressors, the power plant and the overall scheme.” (http://www.mrec.org/biogas/adgpg.pdf)

This noise level will be exacerbated by the removal of around a thousand animals a week to slaughter (both animal noise of frightened and disturbed pigs and noise from HGVs). Local residents have also told us that the noise from the A50 is not consistent (with it dropping down at off-peak times), so noise from the pig farm may dominate and be a persistent nuisance to the properties neighbouring it at certain times of the day.

Impact on wildlife

The Fisher German report plays down the impact of the proposed development, but does acknowledge potential bat roosts nearby. It dismisses any impact on bats and other local wildlife. However, the area where the development is to be cited be obliterated – destroying Greenfield land – the land around will also be severely disturbed. Wildlife is bound to be affected by not only the farm (and the waste management utilities) but also by its lengthy construction period.
 

Involvement of HM Foston

Much has been made by the developers and the local press about power generated by the factory farm being beneficial to the local area – and specifically the neighbouring HM Foston Prison. However, a letter to a local resident (dating from 28 May 2010) from Elisabeth Goulden (Strategy and Programme Development Unit) shows that no formal or informal agreement between MPP and the Ministry of Justice has been entered into.

She states that:

“Nor is there any commitment to receive power, energy, or any other product at this prison that may be produced from this proposed site.”

The letter also says:

“Every prison establishment has in place contingency plans to cover a range of potential operating emergencies. As yet there is no risk assessment carried out regarding the potential pig rearing unit and biomass plant.... We would not look to make detailed contingencies until we have a clear idea of the exact layout of the development, and the exact nature of the work and processes to be undertaken on site. In addition the local planning authority (LPA) will carry out due diligence exercise with regard to any potential Health and Safety and / or public health issues from the proposed development. We are maintaining close contact with the LPA on this matter.”

This suggests that they have specific issues with the development, and shows that it cannot go ahead at least until these have been addressed.

Regardless, it is wholly inappropriate to situate an industrial agricultural unit that will be handling highly toxic waste materials next to an institution which houses around 283 fully captive individuals. Finally, the site itself is of architectural interest (dating from the 14^th century originally – with the current main building dating from the 1800’s), and the position of the development immediately next to Foston prison is unquestionably, and negatively, going to affect its appearance.

There is also a moral question that, as the prisoners have lost their ‘civil rights’, should a development of this kind be situated next a group of people who are not able to voice their opinion for or against it?

 

Increased traffic

The developers appear to think that they have accounted for an increase in traffic. However, we believe that they have significantly underestimated this. By their own admission (http://www.mppfoston.com/), around a thousand adult (6 month old) pigs will be leaving the site each week to slaughter (= 4,000 a month and around 52,000 a year). As slaughtering is taking place off site, this will mean numerous large animal transporters visiting the site each week (at least 10 HGV). There is also the bringing in of organic matter (The Fisher German document has this at 45,000 tonnes but does not give a timescale). Biofertilser will also need to removed from the development and animal feed brought in. There is also the increase of traffic for workers at the site (MPP quote 18 new jobs – though don’t promise these will be for local people). This all brings a substantial increase in traffic to the Foston area.

In fact, as already noted, good practice suggests that anaerobic digesters should be located away from residential units: “… developers should be encouraged to site plants in areas already served by appropriate infrastructure such as industrial estates, which may also have the benefit of being away from residential areas, in order to avoid the need to upgrade roads, with all the cost and environmental impacts that would create.” (http://www.mrec.org/biogas/adgpg.pdf). The proposed development at Foston clearly goes against this advice.

Also, the A50 around Foston has been the scene of recent traffic accidents (8 March 2010: http://www.dlraa.co.uk/news/road-traffic-accident-a50-nr-foston-eastsbound-derbyshire /  (24 April 2010: http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Woman-taken-hospital-A50-crash/article-2065950-detail/article.html)) and an increase in traffic – especially the use of HGV – is only likely to make the situation worse.

MPP have stated that as another Midland Pig Producers’ farm will be closed within the Parish boundaries, it is expected that the overall traffic impact will be reduced in the area. This cannot be true, as the site in Foston is many times the size of the existing pig farm. This will actually increase traffic significantly. Also, the site of the existing farm will undoubtedly be sold to another business, and this in turn will add to the level of traffic in the immediate area.
 

Jobs for local people

MPP ostensibly appears to be suggesting this development will create jobs for local people. However, eight semi detached, two storey residential properties have been sold to the developers by the prison for private occupation. This does not suggest jobs for people already located within the Foston area, rather it suggests an influx of workers from outside of the area which will put an added load on local services.

Also, we understand that MPP have actually closed down two of their farms in the local area. Large scale farms of the size of the one proposed at Foston actually employ fewer people than the total equivalent number of smaller ones, so MPP are actually planning to strip the area of work opportunities not increase it.
 

Precedence against the development at Foston

It is our understanding that previous building alterations immediately adjacent to the proposed development at Foston (adding a brick chimney to a development at Maidensley Farm and Buildings) has been refused in the past. Whilst we wait confirmation, we understand that this was with regards to affecting the view of the local area. Maidensley Farm – which currently overlooks a Greenfield site between it and HM Prison Foston – will, if the development goes ahead, be within 25 metres of farm buildings. It is therefore ironic that development there was turned down when the view under current proposals will be obliterated – quite literally – by an industrial factory farm complex on a massive scale. The proposed use of Bio-landscaping to presumably ‘hide’ the development will still hugely alter the existing view and landscape. Therefore, the criteria that stopped the minor development at Maidensley Farm surely means that a development of the size suggested by MPP cannot be built at that location.
 

Building on a Greenfield site

The situation of the development is wholly inappropriate, especially destroying a potentially productive Greenfield site. Local people have told us that there are numerous Brownfield sites nearby that lie unused or underutilised (including ‘Merlin Business Park’ and the ‘Dove Valley Business Park’). We have been told that there is suspicion that the wishes of larger businesses is taking precedent over that of local people (by placing this development near homes rather than near other large businesses). We reiterate our opposition to building this farm anywhere, but the current proposed location is especially wrong-headed. Local people have told us that they feel victimised and that the area around Foston has already had more than its fair share and is already over-developed (including the aforementioned business parks, a travellers’ camp, another pig farm, a turkey farm and numerous smaller developments). The proposed site at Foston would make this imbalance of the needs of local people even more pronounced.
 

South Derbyshire District Council Environmental Policy

The document (http://www.south-derbys.gov.uk/Images/EnvironmentalPolicy_tcm21-83988.pdf) signed by Frank McArdle, Chief Executive Officer of South Derbyshire County Council states the following: “Reduce our impact on identified activities on global environmental issues such as climate change, resource depletion, ecological damage, as well as on locally disruptive factors such as noise, traffic and maintenance.”

We believe that this objection shows that the proposed development at Foston contravenes a number of these declarations, and is therefore against the spirit of the county’s Environmental Policy. This means that the development should not be given approval as it will potentially break the guidelines set out in the policy.

To sum up: the proposal has no discernable benefits for the local community what-so-ever. Housing on site is surely to attract workers from outside the area. The prison has denied that it has entered into any agreement with MPP – and as any energy produced with go to the national grid it will have no direct relevance to Foston itself. No matter how much ‘environmental enhancement’ will disguise the fact that a massive industrial agricultural unit has obliterated a Greenfield site and forever altered the landscape around this ancient village. It will also unquestionably increase traffic on a road (A50) that has suffered traffic accidents recently. It will also bring an unreasonable increase in noise levels for adjoining residents from machinery, traffic and the animals themselves. Finally, the potential health and environmental consequences of placing Britain’s largest ever pig farm next to an inhabited area should not be underestimated. South Derbyshire may be going against its own Environmental Policy by doing so.

MPP plans to develop land at Foston for intensive pig farming must not be given approval.

Yours sincerely

Justin Kerswell
Viva! campaigns manager
8 York Court
Wilder St
Bristol
BS2 8QH
 

Click here to read about Viva!'s latest undercover investigation in British pig farming.

Viva! is entirely funded by your donations. Please consider donating to fund our work.

Click below to find out more about Viva! campaigns to end the factory farming of pigs.