Salmonella is an unintended consequence of industrialized food production. No one set out to design a system that promotes disease; they just wanted to produce cheap food. However, it is a biological fact that if you keep animals in large numbers in a confined environment then pests and diseases will inevitably spread. Recent research has shown a direct correlation between flock size and confinement and the presence of salmonella. The bigger the flock and the more confined, the greater the risk of infection.

On the farm, salmonella generally passes from bird to bird through manure and dust. Because hens are so closely confined in cage systems the risk of cross-contamination is very high. And despite claims of high biosecurity and basic hygiene practices, scientists have also found extensive salmonella contamination on walls, feeders, drinkers, floors, and feed. Stress has been cited in many studies as a precursor to or promoter of disease and this is certainly the case for intensive production, where overcrowded and unhygienic conditions and poor air quality only heighten the risks of disease outbreaks.

If someone put a deadly bacterium in the water supply or if there were a flu outbreak that crossed state borders and imperiled millions of people, we’d see a massive response on every level. This recall now stands at 550 million eggs, most of them sold to consumers unaware of the owner of the egg operation’s (Jack DeCoster) history and without much chance of finding an alternative.

Part of the problem with the industrial farming model is that big agribusiness puts consumer safety in the hands of very small group of producers, leaving consumers vulnerable because of lack of alternative sources for products. The farms are owned by DeCoster “Family” Farms. One of the things I dislike is the imaginative use of the term “family farm/er.” Jack DeCoster definitely does not meet the Animal Welfare Approved definition of a family farmer. He owns multiple facilities in multiple states and his operations confine millions of hens. He’s been cited numerous times as a repeat violator of environmental laws; he’s been fined for violations in the workplace, and cited and fined for animal cruelty. Not the behavior of any family farmers we know.

You don’t allow rodents in your kitchen, but you are allowed to buy eggs from a producer who is on record as having them in his chicken houses. You wouldn’t go out and buy a nicely sealed package with a skull and cross bones on it, keep it in your refrigerator to give to your children, would you? Why on earth are we accepting this product into our homes when we could be using sustainable, traceable systems that work with nature rather than unsuccessfully fighting against it?

Science tells us to eat eggs as a source of nutrition. That same type of science tells us that eating eggs from flocks kept outside on true pasture-based systems – note I’m saying ”true pasture- based” and not necessarily organic–-massively reduces our risk of food borne illnesses. I’ve read the statements that in order to protect ourselves against salmonella and of course E coli O157 we should boil and bake our pathogen-laden food. These kinds of suggestions put the burden on consumers to take extra precautions against diseases that could otherwise be avoided by appropriately designed systems, operated by professional farmers with a focus on animal welfare, environmental sustainability and social responsibility. Profit has a much broader definition than simply percentage return to the business producing the eggs.

Am I saying all eggs have salmonella in them? Absolutely not. Many great farmers work to ensure safe food makes it to our tables. But, the system the vast majority of us rely on for our food is broken and it needs more than just a band aid – it needs major surgery. The reality is that, by their very nature, intensive farming systems are actually more likely to make animals and humans sick. Is there any other business that would be allowed to continue to play Russian roulette with people’s health and well-being?

Not sure if I’ll be having eggs with my bacon today unless I know they came from a truly pasture-based system.

More than 83% of the wild canola tested by researchers traveling through North Dakota tested positive for GM genes. But this is what’s really terrifying: some of the plants tested positive for resistance to both glyphosphate (Roundup) and glusfosinate (Liberty). Commercial GM canola is resistant to either Roundup or Liberty, not both. The dual resistance evolved in the wild, after the plants had escaped. The wild canola is doing what living things do—mutating and selecting for traits that will best ensure its survival.  And all without our help.

I’ve been blogging about the known and unknown risks of GM crops for awhile. But what we are now witnessing is true escape-from-the-test-tube science, and it could be devastating. The escaped GM canola, bred to be herbicide-resistant, is now in danger of transferring those genes to other wild plants. According to Scientific American there are eight species of wild weeds GM canola is most likely capable of hybridizing. According to an interview with Meredith Schafer, from the University of Arkansas, who presented the report, “We really don’t know what the consequences of the gene escape [are]. We don’t know what these plants are going to do.”

It’s not hard, though, to see the potential consequences. The consequences are that, sooner or later, as GM evolves and genes are swapped between GM and non-GM plants, GM and wild will be one in the same—there could be virtually no such thing as a non-GM food plant or food crop. There will be no more choice between eating GM and non-GM food crops. And if GM canola can establish itself in the wild, evolve and potentially cross-pollinate with other plants, what about the other experiments lying in wait at the lab?

According to Dr. Cynthia Sagers, associate professor at the University of Arkansas and one of the two researchers who discovered the wild GM canola, other GM traits could raise different concerns, including human health risks, she added. “There have been 1,100 plants approved for field trials and who knows what those are — pharmaceutical proteins, drought-resistant crops? Herbicide-resistances are very simple traits. Products in development are more complicated.”

Do we want them running wild, too? Can we be sure it can be prevented?

I guess the best we can hope is that we can trust the claims Big Ag has been making that GM crops, even those that escape into the wild, present little to no risk. Although with the timely reminder of Jeffery Smith’s recent Anniversary of a Whistleblowing Hero Huffington Post blog, I am not convinced.

It all started innocently enough. Meredith Schafer and her colleague, Dr. Cynthia Sagers, an associate professor at the University of Arkansas, spotted some pretty yellow flowers near a parking lot in North Dakota. They happened to have with them a test strip very similar to a pregnancy test. Using it, they were able to determine within minutes if the plant was carrying one or both of the two most commonly introduced genes in GM canola.  It was. “Immediately we knew we needed to investigate it further,” Sagers said.

They traveled throughout North Dakota, taking multiple samples, often from roadsides sprayed with herbicides where the only weed still surviving was wild canola. The duo speculated that a number of the plants were found on roads where they might have fallen off during transport. But some sites had no link to the transport routes at all, which points to the plants having established wild populations. According to Schafer, that’s not supposed to happen.

I am not someone who advocates turning our backs on science and returning to the 13^th century. Science has a crucial role to play as society progresses. What bothers me is the lack of oversight, caution and vigilance when science and business, in this case Big Ag, intersect. I’ve seen the damaging consequences over and over in farming—sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in farm animals leading to deadly antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. Industrial chicken production leading to polluted and dying waterways. Massive animal warehouse operations, leading to the decline of pastured farming and family farms and an acceptance of inhumane conditions. Monster GM farmed salmon.

These, however, are all circumstances that we can still control and are trying to reverse. But in our arrogance that we are masters of all we survey, it seems we’ve gone one step too far. In an interview with Discovery News, Sagers said, “I think the herbicide resistance is going to be a very serious problem for agronomists and farmers in the near future. I think it could be an environmental problem if we find we’ve created these herbicide-resistant weeds.”

We are playing Russian roulette with our future and our children’s future. We can no longer turn a blind eye to the consequences of trying to remake the natural world so it can turn a tidy profit for a privileged few. Nature has a way of showing us who’s really the boss.

On the face of it, the NRC’s report, “Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century,” might not seem like headline-grabbing stuff. But this report really is big news for anyone interested in a sustainable future for farming—and not just because its conclusions represent another damning indictment of industrialized farming.

You see, the NRC is a prestigious, independent U.S. scientific body, established in 1916 “to provide elected leaders, policy makers, and the public with expert advice based on sound scientific evidence.” And in publishing this report, the NRC joins a growing number of leading global scientific organizations in effectively throwing down the gauntlet to Big Ag, publicly criticizing the negative consequences of industrialized farming and calling for a more holistic approach to food production in the face of increasingly scarce natural resources and the growing threat of climate change.

In the past, government agricultural policy encouraged farmers to produce as much food as possible, as cheaply as possible. And we all know that the agricultural industry has been hugely successful in doing so. But while acknowledging that U.S. farm output in 2008 was 158 percent higher than it was in 1948, the NRC report contends that the drive to maximize farm productivity has brought with it significant unintended—and unaccounted for—costs.

“Many modern agricultural practices have unintended negative consequences, such as decreased water and air quality, and farmers have to consider these consequences while trying to increase production,” said Julia Kornegay, chair of the committee that wrote the report, and professor and head of the Department of Horticultural Science at North Carolina State University. “If farmers are going to meet future demands, the U.S. agriculture system has to evolve to become sustainable and think broadly – past the bottom line of producing the most possible.”

The authors cite the negative impact on water tables in some agricultural areas and the significant pollution problems associated with nitrogen and phosphorus in fertilizers and pesticides which “have infiltrated surface water and rivers, creating oxygen-starved zones in waterways.” The report also highlights the shameful fact that industrial agriculture is the largest contributor of nitrous oxide and methane, both greenhouse gasses, in the United States.

But it is not just the immense environmental costs that come under the spotlight. The report also recognizes growing consumer concern about farm animal welfare and food safety issues associated with our increasingly centralized food production systems. Similarly, the impact of rising production costs on farmers and rural communities—primarily associated with the ever-increasing prices charged by Big Ag for its seed, synthetic pesticides, and fertilizers—do not go unnoticed. “More than half of U.S. farm operators work off the farm to supplement their income and to obtain health care and retirement benefit plans,” according to the authors.

This report doesn’t come from the so-called partisan Organic Consumers Association or the National Family Farm Coalition: this is an official consensus report from a highly regarded and world-renowned scientific establishment. While I would be the first to agree that the NRC report doesn’t go far enough in its recommendations, we all have to remember that what this report might lack in radical zeal will be more than compensated for by the authority it will command among U.S. policy makers and Big Ag boardrooms alike.

But above all, this report is further evidence that the world’s scientific establishment is at last recognizing that we have been speaking the truth. For years Animal Welfare Approved has been calling for truly sustainable farming systems which protect our environment and natural resources, which promote the highest standards of animal welfare, and which improve the quality of life for farmers, farm workers and society as a whole. And now, the scientific consensus is with us.

One can no longer dismiss or belittle the sustainable farming community as unscientific or claim that we don’t have sound science on our side. And this report further strengthens our resolve to expose peddlers of bad science masquerading as real science in the arena of sustainable farming and our demands for a more holistic approach to agricultural research.

Industrialized agriculture is on the ropes and the NRC’s report represents yet another embarrassing body blow for the likes of Monsanto and Cargill. This report isn’t something that Big Ag’s PR machine can simply brush under the carpet, and I can promise you that we certainly haven’t heard the last of it. But the real question is: when will our political leaders take heed and stop turning a blind eye to the havoc Big Ag is wreaking.

Probably 200 bison forded that stream as they moved to new grazing lands, and witnessing it was an unparalleled experience. Despite their powerful size, bison are graceful creatures and move almost daintily, but with speed and purpose. And they really do thunder.

In 1800, it was estimated that more than 40 million bison roamed the United States; by 1900, after an unprecedented and sustained massacre, fewer than 600 bison remained. Most of the bison you see today are descendents of a ragtag group of several dozen bison who had been saved by conservationists dedicated to their survival.

Historically, bison were the lifeblood of a number of Native American tribes, providing meat, skins, and other important supplies.  Indeed, bison meat has fed humans for thousands of years.  Six years ago was the first time I saw bison being farmed for meat. The animals were being raised on 13,000 acres in Texas and were roaming their homelands in family groups, just as nature intended. They were carefully overseen by skilled stockmen who knew that the best management for these magnificent creatures was to ensure that they had the space and freedom to utilize the land to their own advantage. The animals had no parasites and were totally in harmony with their environment – their only feed was grass and forage, the true and proper diet of a ruminant. At slaughter, selected animals, carefully chosen to be the least disruptive to herd structure, were taken for meat with a single, immediately fatal shot delivered under the supervision of the USDA inspector.

Shortly thereafter I saw the antithesis of that thoughtful, holistic system as I walked among bison on feedlots. Bison are wild animals; they have not been domesticated by man like cattle and sheep. That day, I saw thousands of these undomesticated animals react as their natural behavior dictated they should to any threat. They stood unmoving in defensive circles. When they did move, only to eat and drink, the closely packed feedlot left them unable to fight off any parasitic challenges and many required pharmaceutical treatments. They were fed an unnatural corn- and grain-based diet that is not only alien to them but which leads to unbalanced conditions in their digestive systems, which then acts as a haven for E. Coli O157:H7.  They looked neither strong nor majestic, but confused and defeated.

Must we continue to dominate and control and force our will on everything we see and touch? Must we now subject bison—wild animals—to a system that has already proven inhumane and unsafe?

Given the documented problems with the feedlot system, I wasn’t surprised to read about the recall of bison meat due to E. Coli that has caused the illness of five people in Colorado and one in New York. Although Rocky Mountain Natural Meat (the processor) and the retailers who stocked the product (including some well-known ones)seem to want you to believe their bison is a ”natural” product, in fact, what consumers were buying was feedlot meat with the inherent risks that such production has been shown to  generate.

Bison meat has often been promoted as the healthy alternative to beef. It has a far lower fat content than beef – 5 to 7 percent for bison compared with 25 to 30 percent for beef – and higher protein content. Before this recall most people would have thought of bison as a safe, healthy meat from animals roaming the ranges of the West. We can now see all too well that this isn’t the case.

The only reason to force these stately animals into confinement is to try to speed up their growth so a few greedy ranchers can profit. But by their very nature these kings of the prairie need space to roam in order to fulfill their natural behaviors and keep them healthy. Why on earth would we want to change that? Big Ag’s “improvements” in genetics for chicken and pigs have done little but shorten the lives of the animals, weaken their skeletons, remove maternal traits that have led to cages, and breed the flavor out of them.

Knowing what we know now about our failed attempts to force domesticated animals into unnatural industrialized farming systems, do we seriously need to do the same to a wild animal?  Why on earth do we want to put bison in feedlots just to make it more like beef, particularly when one of the attributes of bison is its lean, light meaty flavor? Why would you want your bison burger to taste like a beef burger?

Aside from the inexplicable need to force feed bison to make them more like cattle, feedlot confinement has the same ill-effects on bison as it can have on cattle.  Which means the revolting acid-resistant E Coli O157:H7 has been found in bison meat. At least six people have fallen ill and one person has instigated proceedings against Rocky Mountain Natural Meats, the bison meat processor. As we have highlighted in previous blogs, the cause of this particularly virulent E. Coli is related to the inappropriate grain feeding of ruminants, creating an unnatural environment in their digestive systems that allows E. Coli to flourish. Bison fed on pasture or range and raised slowly produce lean, healthy meat, free from acid-resistant E. Coli.

As consumers we can vote with our dollar and end the bison feedlot industry before it destroys this noble species. We can refuse to buy bison from feedlots which may in fact be bad for our health as well as for the health and well being of the animals. If you want to play Russian roulette with E. Coli, buy feedlot beef.

If you feel as I do, buy bison only from herds that live and forage on pasture or range. Demand that your retailer stops selling meats that can kill.  If there is no market for feedlot bison then bison will stop being subjected to feedlots. Let’s not make another mistake that will imperil this magnificent beast.

Injustice is injustice wherever and whenever it occurs. Righting an injustice can be a long and thorny process, as Dr. Boyd, President of the NBFA, can attest. He has fought for years to get justice for black farmers who were victims of widespread, decades-long discrimination by the USDA. Finally triumphant, in 1999 and again in 2008, he won settlements from the government that will provide legions of now mostly elderly black farmers, victims of the blatant racism formerly displayed by the USDA, with the money they are rightfully owed.

The Senate still won’t fund the 2008 settlement. The injustice continues. Animal Welfare Approved has long supported Dr. Boyd in his quest to see his fight brought to an end, especially since, as he often points out, the farmers for whom the settlement is intended are beginning to die. “I’m frustrated,” Boyd said Thursday in an NPR interview. “I’m frustrated that I’m still begging for votes in the Senate for something that should have been done years ago.”

Dr. Boyd didn’t win settlements based on a few minutes of edited video and some carefully crafted, specious and inflammatory rhetoric. He won his case for black farmers because he had the evidence, the testimonies and the facts to back up his claim.  He took his fight to the halls of Congress and to the courts, where his evidence and testimonies and facts were weighed and considered by those we entrust to make decisions that are honorable and unbiased, and to decide what is owed those who have been wronged. He is still fighting to get the money owed to the farmers he represents.  But how many of you have heard of him?

Animal Welfare Approved is a welcoming home to all farmers who are finding that sustainable, pasture-based farming is providing them with opportunities to improve on-farm income and maintain the integrity of their land and heritage. We’re proud of our farmers and I can tell you from personal experience that they are a community, helping each other out, forming marketing cooperatives, sharing resources and passing on knowledge. Our program hasn’t grown tenfold in a few years because we engage in provocative, groundless rhetoric and shameless publicity stunts. We’ve grown because we’ve proven our worth to farmers and consumers, with humane standards based on published, practical science. But how many people have heard of us?

And yet…a short video and some commentary posted on a website well known for its bias gets not just attention but action at the highest levels within hours.

By all accounts, Shirley Sherrod has been a tireless champion for farmers from all walks of life, without bias. The attack on her was a straw man attack with a motive of petty revenge. The amazingly short-sighted rush to judgment not only up-ended the life of Ms. Sherrod, it has diverted hard-fought-for attention away from issues that truly are of vital importance—the fact that the money from the 2008 settlement for black farmers still has not been paid out by Congress, issues with the nation’s food supply and safety, and the fact that family farmers who choose to farm humanely, sustainably and safely are struggling against industrialized agriculture and the agricultural policy designed to support it.

If I were fond of conspiracy theories, I would begin to wonder…

Dr. John Clifford, Deputy Administrator for Veterinary Services for the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) read from his previously submitted testimony that the USDA believes it is likely that U.S. use of antibiotics in animal agriculture does lead to some cases of resistance in humans and the animals.

Why is this news? Because the USDA has been continually playing the Three Wise Monkeys game—it sees no evil, hears no evil, and speaks no evil—when it comes to deadly consequences to humans of the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in farm animals.  In fact, Dr. Clifford looked as he’d been given a choice between testifying or having his eye poked out with a stick and he lost the toss.

Others, though, readily stepped up to the plate. Despite the feeble nature of the recent FDA Guidance to Industry on farm animal antibiotics (read more about this in our blog), Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, Principle Deputy Commissioner of the FDA, was clear in his testimony that the overall weight of evidence supports the conclusion that using antibiotics for production purposes in livestock farming (as growth promoters and to prevent rather than treat illness) is not in the interest of protecting and promoting public health.

Dr. Sharfstein also turned away a challenge from Representative John Shimkus (R-IL 19) about the soundness of the science upon which his findings rest. Mr. Shimkus, obviously unhappy with Dr. Sharfstein’s testimony, badgered him to come up with up a U.S. peer-reviewed study (which Dr. Sharfstein did—a 2003 Institute of Medicine study) and then questioned the veracity of the findings. Dr. Sharfstein assured Mr. Shimkus that the Institute has a peer-review process in place and reminded him that “the Institute is considered our nation’s leading scientific expert…”

Dr. Ali Khan, Assistant Surgeon General and the Deputy Director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Center for Disease Control and Prevention, testified that there is unequivocal and compelling evidence that the use of antibiotics in farm animals leads to drug resistance that has an adverse impact on public health. He also faced questions from a visibly agitated Mr. Shimkus, who kept dismissing studies by the World Health Organization and others to request “real science,” which, from his posturing, is evidently only that which supports Big Ag.

Mr. Shimkus played his role as Big Ag’s Mouthpiece admirably. He questioned every statistic, slide, study, expert, institution, report or person cited that didn’t agree with an antibiotic free-for-all in the farmyard.  “So far there’s nothing that links use in animals to a buildup of resistance in humans,” he stated, recklessly ignoring all published science since 1968 and the testimony of the doctors his government has charged with protecting health, while making sure he gave Big Ag a clear, concise statement around which it can issue an indignant press release.

So let’s recap—the USDA, however grudgingly, is finally admitting the link between the use of subtherapeutic antibiotics in farm animal feed and human drug resistance; the FDA is impressed enough with the “weight of the evidence” to begin calling for changes in how antibiotics are used in farm animal production; and the CDC feels the evidence is “unequivocal and compelling,” yet there are still those calling for “real science”?

Well how about the March 22, 2010, report from the Duke Infection Control Outreach Network that a superbug call C. difficile is multi-drug resistant and on the rise? Is that real science or should we conduct more studies and perhaps hold a few more hearings?

We don’t need more hearings, we need action. H.R. 1549, Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, continues to languish in committee while a few elected officials spend the taxpayer’s time and money to pretend the science they are calling for doesn’t already exist in mountains.

In the coming days, I expect that Big Ag will marshal their forces and come out with its own brand of science and experts to refute all testimony that threatens its profit margin. Of course, what I’m really waiting for is the day the Subcommittee calls on one of the dozens and dozens of AWA farmers to relate how changing from confined to pasture-based farming has eliminated the need for subtherapuetic and most therapeutic antibiotics because their animals and their farms are safe and healthy to begin with.

Humane? My first reaction on hearing this was, “Hey guys, you do realize this is still a cage, don’t you?” But let’s be evenhanded about this and look at the reasoning put forward by the American Humane Association.

The  American Humane Association’s  rationale for this decision is that these cages are “enriched” to allow hens to exhibit natural behaviors. In making this decision AHA states that it has carried out an extensive scientific review of the behavior and welfare of laying hens housed in such systems – mainly looking at research from Europe where conventional cages are soon to be totally banned.

Okay, so I might consider accepting that an “enriched” battery cage possibly offers better welfare opportunities than a standard battery cage. But AHA fails to recognize some key behavioral needs that hens are driven to perform. I am talking about providing the birds with space to run, stretch, flap their wings, and fly; litter and somewhere to dust bathe; and vegetated areas to peck at and forage in. AHA also significantly underestimates the ability of enriched cages to provide adequate nesting and perching.  So what does the research really tell us about “enriched” battery cages? And are they really a humane option? I was pretty confident that a lot of research existed to say some of these behaviors are not wants but programmed driven behavioral needs.

AHA is quite correct in turning to Europe where the bulk of the research has been carried out on enriched cages. In 2012, standard battery cages will be prohibited across the whole of the EU, following legislation first introduced in 1999. In order to facilitate the transfer of egg production from standard battery cages to other systems the EU funded the LayWel project, which examined welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens, with a particular emphasis on what the project described as “furnished”  or enriched cages. It may seem like wordplay to insist on this term rather than “enriched,” but the LayWel project makes the valid point that adding a perch or a nest area to a cage can be factually described as furnishing it but that it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not it “enriches” the cage. The LayWel project terms “furnished cage” the more accurate description and it’s the term I will use going forward.

In Europe, legislation lays down specific provisions that must be met by furnished cages. It is not clear whether AHA will require cages to meet the EU legislative requirements or if they will draw up their own standards for cages. The EU legislation requires at least 116 sq. inches of total space per hen. In March 2010, U.S. manufacturer Chore-Time Egg Production Systems unveiled its furnished cage at the Midwest Poultry Convention which only provides 68 sq. inches per bird – less than the current legal minimum for a standard cage in the EU, which requires 85 sq. inches per bird. Even taking the legislation into account, there are a multitude of options for cage design, some of which the LayWel project found can severely restrict the ability of the birds to gain a welfare benefit. For example, furnished cages in the EU must provide 6 inches of perch space per bird, but if the perches are arranged in a crosswise manner to fit them into the cage it may be difficult for the birds to actually use them.

On the topic of perches, you might wonder how it is possible for a bird to get up on a perch in a cage. Your picture of a bird roosting is probably similar to mine – a bird way up in a tree or high up in the rafters of a barn. High perches make birds feel safe from predators and other threats, but in a furnished cage the perch is likely to be less than 3 inches off the floor – and the wire top of the cage will be just 15 inches above that. You might argue that there are no predators that can get into cages but this misses the point. Chickens originate from jungle fowl of southern Asia and, regardless of the cross breeding and hybridization of the species, their behavior remains pretty much the same. For the chicken to be free from fear and distress it needs to be able to get up on a perch where it feels safe (Olssen and Keeling 2000; Cooper and Albentosa 2003). The EU Animal Health and Welfare Panel states, “Resting and perching are important aspects of birds’ welfare. Roosting at night on an elevated perch is a behavioral priority” (AHAW, 2005a). At just a couple of inches off the floor, the perch in a furnished cage will be seen by the hen as part of the floor and not as a perch (Tauson, 1984).

Let’s move on to one of the other supposed benefits of a furnished cage – the fact that it has a nest area. It is well established that hens place a high value on a secluded nest site. Research has shown that hens will move weighted doors and squeeze through gaps to get to what they consider a suitable site.

The reduced space in cages in general and the small area set aside for nesting in furnished cages in particular is a problem. Hens naturally lay at the same time each day – early in the morning – so there could be a queue of hens waiting their turn to get into the nest area. Early work on furnished cages (Guesdon and Faure, 2004) showed that the number of eggs laid in the nest area varied between 43 percent and 68 percent in a trial comparing four designs of furnished cages with standard cages. This suggests that the nest areas were not always satisfactory for the hens. While LayWel project research showed a higher percentage of use of the nest area in furnished cages versus standard cages, the fact that a nest is provided is not the point; hens must find it acceptable or they will not lay eggs in it. This is not an issue for non-cage systems which provide far more space and more numerous nest boxes.

Space to “turn around, spread their wings and lie down” is quoted as being a benefit of a furnished cage. Let’s take the EU space per hen of 116 sq. inches per bird in a furnished cage. Is this really enough? Well, the bird can definitely stand in this space and it can probably lie down. But can it really spread its wings and turn round with ease? How much space does this take?

Dawkins and Hardie (1989) looked at the average space required by a hen to carry out basic needs: turning around requires an average space of 198 sq. inches, stretching her wings requires 138 sq. inches, and flapping her wings requires 290 sq. inches. These figures are all far greater than the space provided per bird in a furnished cage. Of course, each furnished cage holds multiple hens so total space will be more than one hen needs; so you could argue that within the cage there is more than enough room for a particular hen to flap her wings at any given time. Of course, she’d have to count on the cooperation of all the other hens to be out of her way and not trying to stretch their own wings at the same time. And, we’re not even considering the need of the bird to run, fly, dustbathe and forage.

In natural conditions, hens spend 50–90 percent of their waking time foraging, making up to 15,000 pecks a day (Webster, 2002; Picard et al, 2002). No wonder feather pecking is an issue in cages – imagine the frustration of being deprived of doing what could take up to 90 percent of your day? That natural drive and energy must be directed somewhere and, sadly, the only option is to peck at the other hens you are trapped with. Furnished cages fail to meet the need for foraging behavior and making only the most minimal of accommodations for pecking.

Dustbathing is another key natural behavior (Lindberg and Nicol, 1997) that the furnished cage is supposed to facilitate. True dustbathing involves the hens lying down and throwing litter or other loose material over the feathers of their backs and wings, rubbing it in, and then shaking it out. When hens do not have a suitable area and litter in which to dustbathe, they still go through the motions of dustbathing. This is known as “sham dustbathing” and research suggests that it does not properly satisfy the motivation of hens to dustbathe. In furnished cages, sham dustbathing on the wire cage floor takes place far more frequently than in the littered area (Lindberg and Nicol 1997) with two thirds of dustbathing taking place outside of the designated area. At first it was thought that competition for space was contributing to this, as well as the fact that, like egg laying, dustbathing tends to take place at the same time each day. But further research (Olsson and Keeling 2002) shows that there was no relationship between sham dustbathing and competition for use of the litter area, suggesting that the area, the type of litter provided, and the depth of litter in furnished cages just does not meet the hens’ requirements, and so they treat all areas as equal when dustbathing. Like the nest box, it’s not just the provision of a designated area that is important; it’s whether the hens see it as acceptable. In non-cage systems where there is appropriate litter on the floor and/or access to outdoor areas there is no evidence of sham dustbathing (AHAW, 2005b).

From the points raised above it is clear that furnished or enriched cages provide very few potential benefits compared to standard cages – and in no way compare with the kind of high-welfare pasture based systems supported by Animal Welfare Approved (AWA). No wonder then that European welfare groups such as Compassion in World Farming are calling for a ban on “enriched” cages, and that in Germany all cage systems – including furnished cages – will be prohibited beginning in 2012. While AWA can agree that almost anything is better than a standard barren battery cage, let’s not kid ourselves that the enriched cage is anything other than an inhumane confinement system.

References:

AHAW (2005a) Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens (Question EFSA-Q-2003-092), adopted by the AHAW Panel on 10th and 11th November 2004. The EFSA Journal, 197: 1-23.

AHAW (2005b) Report of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens (Question EFSA-Q-2003-092), accepted by the AHAW Panel on 14th and 15th September 2004. Annex to The EFSA Journal, 197: 1-23.

Cooper, J. J. and Albentosa, M. J. (2003) Behavioural priorities of laying hens. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews, 14: 127-149.

Dawkins, M. S. and Hardie, S. (1989) Space needs of laying hens. British Poultry Science, 30: 413-416.

Guedson, V. and Faure, J. M. (2004) Laying performance and egg quality in hens kept in standard or furnished cages. Animal Research, 53: 45-57.

Lindberg, A. C. and Nicol, C. J. (1997) Dust-bathing in modified battery cages: Is sham dust-bathing an adequatesubstitute? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 55: 113-128.

Olsson, I. A. S. and Keeling, L. J. (2000) Night-time roosting in laying hens and the effect of thwarting access to perches. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 68: 243-256.

Olsson, I. A. S. and Keeling, L. J. (2002) No effect of social competition on sham dustbathing in furnished cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science, 52: 253-256.

Picard et al (2002) Visual and tactile cues perceived by chickens. In J. M. McNab and K. N. Boorman (eds.), Poultry Feedstuffs: Supply, Composition and Nutritive Value. CAB International.

Tauson, R. (1984) Effect of a perch in conventional cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, 74: 193-209.

Webster, A. B. (2002) Behaviour of chickens. In D. D. Bell and W. D. Weaver (eds.), Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production. Kluwer Academic Publishing.

Jeremy Vargo of AWA-certified Vargo Farms in Bullock, North Carolina, raises hogs and received a 2010 grant to improve his mobile housing system. “The huts have greatly benefited my hogs,” he explained, “by improving herd health and expanding our ability to rotate pastures while providing shelter from the elements. This grant program, like AWA, is a win-win for the whole farm.” Organic Pastures Dairy Company, LLC in Fresno, California – the largest retail-approved raw and organic dairy in the United States (California allows sales of raw milk in retail outlets) – used a Good Husbandry Grant to improve its shelters and allow for greater pasture access.  Farmer Aaron McAfee reported positive feedback: “Our nutritionist has noticed an overall improvement in the health of our calves.” He went on to say, “This project was very beneficial to our herd and overall AWA standing.”

Slaughter plants working with AWA farms are also eligible to apply but should contact Grants Coordinator Emily Lancaster to discuss proposed projects before submitting a proposal. The deadline for proposals is October 1, 2010. Guidelines, FAQ’s, project profiles and an application form are available on the AWA Grants for Farmers page or by contacting Emily Lancaster at 919.428.1641 or Emily@AnimalWelfareApproved.org.

Good news? Sadly, the draft guidance contains only two recommendations, both so weakly worded they would allow the agricultural industry to carry on just as it is has. Even more distressing, once the document is finalized, it only represents the FDA’s current thinking on the topic; it doesn’t carry any regulatory power whatsoever.

In what appears to be a saving grace, the guidance summarizes many reports dating back to 1968 showing the link between antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance. In fact the best part of 10 of the 19 pages is used to demonstrate this very point. In fact the FDA press release announcing the release of this guidance states “that the overall weight of evidence available to date supports the conclusion that using medically important antimicrobial drugs for production or growth enhancing purposes (i.e., non-therapeutic or sub-therapeutic uses) in food-producing animals is not in the interest of protecting and promoting the public health.”

However, the rest of the world has already acknowledged this link and has acted to reduce the very real risk of indiscriminate antibiotic use in the livestock industry. In the U.S. we have listened to Big Ag, allowed the powerful agricultural and pharmaceutical lobbies to have their way, and continued to put tons of antibiotics into farm animal feed and water. There are estimates that as much as 70 percent of the antibiotics used in the U.S. are used to promote growth in farm animals, not to treat animals that are sick or ailing.

Dr. Joshua M. Sharfstein, the agency’s principal deputy commissioner, won’t say if the FDA will eventually move toward enforcement of antibiotic use in farm animals. Right now, they are just making “recommendations.”

So here is what the draft guidance doesn’t do:

• It doesn’t ban the profit driven use of antibiotics for growth promotion
• It doesn’t ban the use of antibiotics that are critical for human health
• It doesn’t control the indiscriminate feeding of antibiotics
• It doesn’t make control of the use of antibiotics mandatory
• It doesn’t require a diagnosis before or after any antibiotic is administered

Here is what it does do:

• It delays or avoids a critically important step in protecting human health—which is controlling the use of drugs that we need to treat our families and friends so we can live without fear of deadly, antibiotic resistant infections.

What we need is mandatory control of antibiotic use in food animal production. Any antibiotic treatment must be just that—a treatment for a particular health problem. Antibiotic use must be overseen and tightly regulated. If it isn’t we will continue to see increased drug-resistant and untreatable infections.

Animal Welfare Approved is not alone in its belief that this “action” by the FDA is totally inadequate. It’s  a well-known fact that politicians, drug companies and Big Ag are very cozy, a point well illustrated by David Kirby’s recent piece in the Huffington Post. But, as the New York Times notes, the guidance could lay the groundwork for regulation. Since Rep. Louise Slaughter’s (D-NY28) bill, H.R. 1549, Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, continues to languish in committee, the FDA is currently our best hope.

As Rep. Slaughter said her statement, released on June 28, “The FDA has proposed good steps, but they have not gone far enough or moved fast enough. We cannot wait any longer. Scientists and public health experts have known for many years that these drugs were being overused…”

We will be working alongside interested partners to garner as many comments as possible.

Submit your comments on the draft guidance (Docket ID FDA-2010-D-0094).

Submit written comments on the draft guidance to:

Division of Dockets Management (HFA–305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061
Rockville, MD 20852.

The 60-day comment period is open until the end of August.

What a welcome to the beginning of the week when I can read a report that focuses on a real solution. Big Ag isn’t going to like the recent report issued by the United Nations one bit because it threatens its very existence. Big Ag wants you to believe that unsustainable farming practices that lock animals in barren cages and feedlots are the only way to provide enough meat, dairy and eggs. That arable systems only work if you spray the fields three or four times with poisons. That fruit farms require nerve gas linked to autism to produce a crop. That leaving mountains of poisonous manure and contaminated water that sickens our children is just the cost of doing business. That this abhorrent failing system that takes profit from farms and diverts it to corporate monoliths with no conscience or morality is just the way it has to be.

Yes, Big Ag really needs you to believe that this massive failed experiment called modern mono-agriculture is our only chance to stave off worldwide hunger. But, it turns out, it’s not.

The new U.N. report, “Dead Planet, Living Planet: Biodiversity and ecosystem restoration for sustainable development,” made me smile. The report documents over 30 successful reforestation case studies and proudly proclaims, “Restoration is not only possible, but can prove highly profitable …” In one region alone, known as the “Desert of Tanzania,” agroforestry (planting trees and crops on the same parcel) increased household income by up to $500 U.S. a year. The average yearly household income for Tanzania is under $500 U.S. per year.

The approach recommended was a blend of the new and the old: pest management using natural predators, intercropping agroforestry, silviculture and green manure. The Animal Welfare Approved program has routinely held the position that scientifically sound humane and sustainable systems are the alternative to the failed experiment of Big Ag,and are the way to feed and water the world. Corporations manipulate science and the truth for corporate gain, so it’s refreshing then that the models profiled in the U.N. report are easy to implement, readily available proven successes.

A recent meeting on agroecology organized under the auspices of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, and featuring many world experts on the subject, also brought a smile to my face. Reporting on their findings, De Schutter said that governments and development agencies can help to promote fairer, more inclusive business models that support local small farmers and others in their relations with governments and investors.

The committee concluded that, “Agroecological farming, which improves food production and farmers’ incomes while at the same time protecting the soil, water and climate, could feed an estimated world population of nine billion people by 2050 and go a long way to save the climate, if implemented now.” This comes on the heels of, “Telling Porkies: The big fat lie about doubling food production,” the recent report published in the U.S. jointly by AWA and the Soil Association showing that the previous estimates of food needs of the world were exaggerated by Big Ag by as much as 30 percent.

There is an overwhelming feeling among big thinkers, like the ones that make up De Schutter’s committee, that a new model of food production is the solution. It is time governments truly invest in the future and put money into sustainable systems that are better for the environment, better for the animals, better for the farmers and so much better for our children. It will be interesting to see how Big Ag reacts to this announcement. We can expect that in the coming months “scientists” will be publishing findings that attempt to refute the agroecology concept; you might look to see who is paying their wages directly or indirectly.

We’ve known for decades that we must stop building and exporting replicas of our own failing systems to fragile and impoverished areas of the world. Exporting U.S. agricultural models is modern-day colonialism at its worst. It rips profits from ever fewer local farmers who can ill afford it, disrupts local access to clean, fresh water and degrades crop land over the long term. In the most vulnerable regions of the world, agricultural monoliths are re-creating a cultural structure we have spent years dismantling. This time we can stop the spread of a dangerous system that uses money instead of guns to grab land and dominate the people.

In the words of Professor De Schutter “With more than a billion hungry people on the planet, and the climate disruptions ahead of us, we must rapidly scale up these sustainable techniques.” Even if it makes the task more complex, we have to find a way of addressing global hunger, climate change, and the depletion of natural resources, all at the same time. Anything short of this would be an exercise in futility.