I know these pigs hadn’t seen death or had that kind of loss. Your idea here is important, but overplayed. It’s important because we have not given animals enough credit, but it’s overplayed because you’re giving them way too much human characteristics. For starters, they don’t have language, so their depth of thought and feeling are not similar. Imagine what they think about the origins of food. Hint: basically zero idea. Their thoughts on death and loss will be similarly weak.
That you seem to consider yourself sufficiently expert and authoritative to declare the idea "overplayed" -- and that you consider this declaration something that will further readers' understanding (which I at least view as the goal here) -- is... let's say, interesting.
In any case, no, I certainly would not attribute to pigs human-level cognition. But certainly, the notion that language is a prerequisite for thought (at least up through the level of "solving a Sudoku puzzle", per some research) has been largely discarded [0]. And certainly, as omnivores (who will kill and/or consume members of their own species, occasionally including even their own offspring, as well as members of other species) I think it's reasonable to suppose that pigs would have an inkling that one being's death is another's meal. And fundamentally, there is ample reason to suppose that pigs are closer to human-like cognition than the vast majority of species on earth. (Anecdata: they make for difficult pets owing to their need for stimulation, they can play video games [1], and -- as any reputable animal scientist will tell you -- once you get past certain bare-minimum things like ending the use of gestation crates, the most important things for pig welfare in industry are not group housing or (beyond a certain point) extra space, but rather giving them toys and a sense of cleanliness via clean bedding.)
But feel free to provide evidence that attests that "[t]heir thoughts on death and loss will be similarly weak." I would certainly take it into consideration.
