tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49730693567755285352024-03-13T23:57:52.776-07:00Ham and EggonomicsPosting related to the welfare of farm animals, written for the general public.Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comBlogger134125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-42327604142838603362011-12-12T17:36:00.001-08:002011-12-12T17:36:38.898-08:00How college should be subsidizedMy experience on a committee to review general education has taught me one thing: instead of giving government subsidies to the university, it should be given directly to students in the form of vouchers.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, when designing general education, we will ask what we know and what we like, and wish the student to follow our footsteps. If I am a math professor, students should learn to "purify their soul by studying Euclidean geometry" (actual statement). If I study ethics, students should take more ethics courses.<br />
<br />
In the beginning (long, long time ago) university classes depended almost exclusively on what the students wanted to learn. After 12 years of school, students have probably earned that opportunity. Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comStillwater Stillwater36.09688 -97.089823tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-76923694829554624522011-08-17T08:19:00.000-07:002011-08-17T08:19:39.925-07:00My farm animal welfare book is ready for purchase!You may now buy <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Compassion-Pound-Economics-Animal-Welfare/dp/0199551162/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1313594289&sr=8-2"><i>Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare</i> </a>at Amazon and other publishers.Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-33781630969777871582010-07-29T06:16:00.001-07:002010-07-29T06:17:02.659-07:00New Farm Animal Welfare BookMy upcoming book on farm animal welfare, titled <i>Compassion by the Pound</i>, is not yet in print but is ready for sale: <a href="http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199551163.do?keyword=lusk&sortby=bestMatches">http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199551163.do?keyword=lusk&sortby=bestMatches</a>.Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-84633186783861107392009-10-09T07:37:00.000-07:002009-10-09T07:39:32.346-07:00Who Makes Decisions About Animal Welfare?<a href="http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_13501105">Consider this excellent musing</a> on the formation of public policy, and try to think about it in terms of animal welfare. Who decides how eggs or pork will be produced? Who decides whether cattle will enter a feedlot? Who decides whether animals will be raised at all for food?Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-37260444821102012592009-10-09T06:55:00.000-07:002009-10-09T07:21:40.868-07:00Pleasant Comments About United Egg ProducersLast week I attended a Media Field Day held by the <i>United Egg Producers</i>. The idea was to have the media tour cage and cage-free egg farms and then attend information sessions features speakers by <i>UEP affiliates</i>, such as economic consultants hired by the <i>UEP</i> and the <i>UEP Scientific Panel</i>.<div><br /></div><div>I have been studying egg production for over two years intensely, so I was excited at the prospect of being able to actually see the farms. I had been trying all summer but no farm would let me visit. Both the cage and cage-free facilities were almost exactly what I expected, with the cage-free being more impressive than I thought it would be.</div><div><br /></div><div>The information sessions were straight-forward and honest. When describing and defending the cage system, one of the scientists blatantly described the disadvantages, describing how the cage restricts behavioral needs of the animal. The point is that while the <i>UEP affiliates</i> were indeed lobbying for the <i>UEP</i>, they were honest and forthright. I applaud them for this, and I wonder how straightforward their opposition would be?</div><div><br /></div><div>I am sincerely appreciative to the <i>UEP</i>, so in return, in this post I am going to make some pleasant comments about the <i>UEP</i>. These comments are statements that I sincerely believe, where I am purposely leaving out any comment that is in opposition to <i>UEP</i>. For readers who think I am being too soft, I urge you to remember that the purpose of this posting was to be honest but soft. Here goes...this is Bailey being as pro-<i>UEP</i> as he can be...</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">Bailey's Pleasant Comments Regarding the <i>United Egg Producers</i></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">The </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">United Egg Producers (UEP) </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">are truly placed in a difficult position. They have been producing cage eggs for decades, and there is little doubt that cage eggs are what consumer prefer (at the currently prices in which they are sold). </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">UEP</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"> producers sell both cage and cage-free eggs, and cage eggs dominate the market with cage-free being little more than an interesting novelty. While the </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">UEP</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"> has a customer base that clearly prefer cage eggs, they are being placed under considerable pressure by certain groups to cease cage egg production, and convert fully to cage-free eggs. In short, they are being forced by interest groups that represent a small minority of consumers to cease selling the very product that their consumers desire. I do not envy the </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">UEP</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"> and the setting they must operate.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">It is also worth pointing out that the </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">UEP</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"> has a number of very prestigious animal scientists, who tell the </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">UEP</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"> that cage production is humane. Let me repeat this. Although powerful animal groups are seeking to ban cage egg production, some of the most prestigious and knowledgeable people in the world in the area of farm animal welfare blatantly assert that cage production is humane.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">Thus, we have a situation where egg customers primarily desire cage eggs, and some of the foremost experts believe that cage egg production is humane. How is the </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">UEP</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"> expected to do anything other than fight animal advocacy groups who attempt to ban cage egg production? When animal scientists are telling them that cage egg production is humane, how is </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">UEP</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"> supposed to do anything other than argue that the animal advocacy groups "true" agenda is to rid the world of animal food production?</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">Finally, given the fact that the vast majority of consumers want cage eggs and the fact that many animal scientists assert that cage egg production is humane, should cage eggs be banned based on the research of two agricultural economists named Bailey Norwood and Jayson Lusk? If one book called <i>Ham and Eggonomics</i> argues that "educated" consumers actually desire cage eggs over cage-free eggs and argues that cage-free eggs are "more humane", is one book enough to outweigh all these other considerations?</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">I can honestly say that while I hope our upcoming book does well, I do not desire for it to receive the undeserved acclaim and allegiance that certain books about food today receive.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"><br /></span></div><div><br /></div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-14998207652618335402009-10-06T12:44:00.000-07:002009-10-06T12:50:40.008-07:00Egg Farm VideoI've been suggesting to the <i>United Egg Producers</i> that they upload videos of cage and cage-free production for some time. They have arrived! They have some very nice videos showing clearly what the farms look like so that readers can contrast <i>UEP</i> videos, which will show the best side of egg production, to videos from animal rights groups, which will show worst side of egg production. Those videos are injected in parts of the <i>Feedstuffs Foodlink</i> video below.<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: -webkit-xxx-large; white-space: pre;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Georgia, serif;font-size:130%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; white-space: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></span></div><div><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/m1h7G9wNKw4&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m1h7G9wNKw4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /></div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-23461476621130596402009-10-06T08:30:00.001-07:002009-10-06T08:39:55.053-07:00Egg Housing Transition Study<i>Feedstuffs</i> recently ran a story about an economic study detailing the impacts of a nationwide shift from cage to cage-free egg production. Last week I attended a presentation by the economic firm conducting the study, and can say that they generally did a good job with the analysis. A narrative of the results is shown below.<div><br /></div><div>However, there is one area in which the analysis could be improved. The study, conducted by Promar International, detailed the costs of a nationwide switch to cage-free production, but they ignored the benefits. My research (detailed in an academic working paper and a forthcoming book) provides a good deal of evidence suggesting that consumers as a whole prefer cage-free egg production, and when educated about egg production, the value they place on cage-free eggs over cage eggs is greater than the cost premium. Put differently, we find that although cage-free eggs do cost more to produce, educated consumers are more than willing to pay this cost.</div><div><br /></div><div>There are many more complicated issues to consider, and I am not trying to persuade readers to support a nationwide ban (I do not support/oppose anything). What I am saying is that a study that analyzes the cost of a policy without considering the benefits will always be somewhat misleading.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Excerpt from Promar Study...</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">Such a transition would increase the cost of eggs for consumers 25% or more, would increase the cost of eggs for government nutrition programs $169 million per year and could increase egg imports from virtually zero now to 7 billion eggs per year, according to the study, commissioned by the United Egg Producers (UEP) and conducted by Promar International, an economic consulting firm in Washington, D.C.</span></span></div></div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-47349979973484442292009-10-06T06:23:00.000-07:002009-10-06T11:22:04.058-07:00The Pollan-Singer TravestyIf you keep up with food and agricultural news (and gossip) you will likely agree that Michael Pollan is everywhere. From <i>The Omnivore's Dilemma </i>to <i>Food, Inc.</i> he is providing fodder for debates about how food is produced. Some worship him as the prophet who discovered a capitalistic conspiracy, and some consider him an enemy to truth. Like him or not, we all know him, and his books and movies are talked about by large numbers of people.<div><br /></div><div>As an economist I am not a Pollan fan because he exploits the natural tendencies of some people to oppose capitalism for false reasons. Although the U.S. provides people with the potential to have the most healthy, inexpensive, and delicious diet of any human society, some people choose to neglect the healthy part. A business can only produce what the consumer wants, so businesses provide unhealthy food for people who want unhealthy food. Pollan then blames our health problems on the companies, not the consumer. I have tried to read Pollan's books but find the narratives either illogical or sensationalized. Because I feel one can only become less informed by reading Pollan, I have not finished any of his books and do not allow my students to read his books for Honors credit.</div><div><br /></div><div>The book that I love is one no one is talking about: <i>The Way We Eat</i> by Peter Singer. Animal welfare is undoubtedly the most important issue in agriculture. In <i>The Way We Eat,</i> Singer provides an accurate, logical, and thorough depiction of how animals are raised for food. He dwells on the bad parts, failing to mention the many ways in which animals like cattle are raised humanely, but that is not his job. His job is to bring attention to problems in livestock agriculture, and he does it without logical fallacies, sensationalizing, or by misleading the reader. As someone who has worked on farms and studied the issue, I can say that his book is factual enough to be the centerpiece of a debate.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>(Note: I'm not saying I agree completely with Singer on everything or that I support any particular animal rights or animal welfare agenda...I'm merely saying that Singer's book is logical and researched enough to serve as a narrative to debate around, and that the implications of farm animal welfare are important enough that the topic deserves much attention)</i></div><div><br /></div><div>If animal welfarists and animal rightists are correct, we are imposing incredibly cruelty upon farm animals daily. Are they correct? That is what we should be debating--not whether corporate agriculture is making us sick. So why does Pollan get all the attention while Singer is relegated to the small minority of animal rightists readers?</div><div><br /></div><div>The reason is simple: people care largely about themselves (e.g. obesity) and they like blaming other people for their troubles, and Pollan delivers this need. Singer wants us to consider the suffering of other sentient beings and to take responsibility for our role in whatever suffering exists. If our society desires to become a more compassionate and ethical people the first step is to cast aside all works by Michael Pollan and begin studying and reading <i>The Way We Eat</i>. That, at least, is my plea to every American who cares about ethics and who cares about food. Farm animal welfare is the most pressing agriculture issue, and we have only begun to have a real dialogue. Put down Pollan, pick up Singer, and join the <i>Ham and Eggonomics</i> discussion on the state of farm animal welfare!</div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-52749615955537667672009-10-05T08:41:00.000-07:002009-10-05T08:56:03.967-07:00Broiler Production Background<i>Hello AGEC 1114 Students! Below is a good video on the broiler industry.</i><div><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/glFySsTDsjo&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/glFySsTDsjo&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></div><div><br /></div><div>Or, if you don't want to like the broiler industry, try this video.</div><div><br /></div><div><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rpbtBgLfl90&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rpbtBgLfl90&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-6205798926927729842009-10-02T08:53:00.000-07:002009-10-02T08:57:13.303-07:00Thoughtful Comments From A ReaderI often make analogies between the rearing of animals and rearing of children, arguing that just as we do not prohibit the rearing of children despite the fact that some will be abused, we should not eliminate animal food production based on the fact there are producers who abuse their animals. One reader left a very thoughtful response which I thought was worth considering, so I pasted it below. Enjoy!<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">With any analogy there are maybe 2 or 3 likes and 41 differences. I don’t want to be the pesky commenter that picks out every difference, but I want to comment on your child-raising/animal-rearing comparison to make a point about your conclusion here and in other postings.<br /><br />You’re probably correct that most consumers who watch investigatory farm footage assume that the spotlighted farms are bad apples (if for no other reason than to absolve their consumption choices). But that is a faulty assumption. I think you would agree that the great majority of animal suffering in animal agriculture – particularly in CAFOs, but also in smaller operations – results not from callousness or careless management, but simply from built-in production models designed to minimize cost and maximize productivity (e.g., chickens cannot be optimally grown without selective breeding that causes extensive welfare issues). Most welfare issues thus emerge from production systems and are often irremovable without systematic reform (e.g., no matter how well a battery-cage facility is managed, hens will lack the space to engage in many natural behaviors).<br /><br />So unless a CAFO investigation video depicts problems that can be directly linked to individual actions independent of system-wide features, it is only fair to assume that the problems are (roughly) representative of operations of comparable magnitude and design (which as Anthony clarifies are not the majority of farms, but account for the majority of animal production).<br /><br />But then can we say that CAFOs are the bad apples and are exceptional to smaller operations? They are indeed extreme examples, but even smaller farms generally commodify animals into sellable products, in the sense that farming practices are designed to optimize efficiency of animal production within certain parameters. For instance, in this pig operation, which is idyllic as they come, farmers still cut corners that hurt animal welfare: http://www.slate.com/id/2221754/).<br /><br />Child raising, in contrast, is not an economic institution and children are victims of individual abusers not systems of production. With child abuse, culpability lies squarely with the parents. By contrast, in the face of systematic mistreatment of farm animals, consumers must accept that such systems are driven by their demand and must accept personal responsibility. That is why, while it makes little sense to swear off child-bearing in reaction to child abuse, it is reasonable to swear off animal products in reaction to the intrinsic economy of raising animals for food, at least in non-subsistence agriculture.<br /><br />Generally, I am a huge fan of your writings for your thoroughness, nuance, and impatience with bias. That said, I think you are too quick to dismiss veganism as extreme or unreasonable without closely examining its merits.</span></span></div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-59137357917426349402009-10-02T08:10:00.000-07:002009-10-06T08:05:23.438-07:00Overview of Egg Industry for AGEC 1114 StudentsThis blog entry contains an overview of the egg industry for my AGEC 1114, Introduction to Agricultural Economics, class.<div><br /></div><div><b>Overview of the Egg Industry</b></div><div><br /></div><div>The breed of chickens used for egg production is an entirely different breed used for egg production. The egg production process starts at the hatchery, where hens and roosters breed naturally in a cage-free environment. Male chicks cannot lay eggs and they are not profitable to grow for meat, so they are killed soon after birth. The slaughter process can be viewed <a href="http://www.mercyforanimals.org/hatchery/">here</a>. The female chicks are then sent to an egg farm, where 95% will be raised in a cage facility and the remainder are raised in a cage-free or free-range setting<i>. (Show videos of cage and cage-free production, the UEP would not let me post them online...video of free-range production available <a href="http://hamandeggonomics.blogspot.com/2009/08/free-range-egg-production.html">here</a>). </i></div><div><br /></div><div>Before the 1950's egg production took place on rather small, free-range farms. The hens were given access to the outside partially because the feed formulations in those days (animal nutrition was a nascent science at the time) were lacking in certain nutrients. The hens had to have sunlight for Vitamin D and to forage for nutrients lacking in the feed. Over time scientists learned how to formulate feed containing all the hens' nutritional needs. They also learned that it was less expensive to raise hens permanently indoors. By providing a constant, comfortable temperature, protecting the animal from predators, reducing the animals' movements so that they don't burn much energy, and and other technological advancements the industry reduced the cost of production. Between 1950-today those who did not transition to these factory farms had to go out-of-business because their costs were too high. The low production cost also led to a greater supply of eggs, and lower prices. These hens are egg factories; they will start laying at 17 weeks of age and until they are spent (slaughtered, harvested, whatever word you like) at 115 weeks of age. During this period she will lay more than 500 eggs.</div><div><br /></div><div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tYXCVxw2ygk/SsYa81EFPTI/AAAAAAAAATM/5bOlc3gBUTo/s1600-h/Nov10.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 284px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tYXCVxw2ygk/SsYa81EFPTI/AAAAAAAAATM/5bOlc3gBUTo/s400/Nov10.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5388023636534050098" /></a><br /><br /></div><div>The welfare of hens has received much attention lately. Let us discuss the pros and cons of the various available egg production systems.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Cage System - </b>the hens are housed in a small, barren cage with five other hens for their entire lives. Their biological needs are met in that the house provides them with a comfortable environment, protects them from predators, and the cage protects them from aggression by other birds. Still, they must have their beaks trimmed at an early age to reduce aggression and injury from fighting birds (the trimming causes significant pain, but when done properly the pain is not permanent). The disadvantage is that birds undeniably have biological needs. They strongly desire to walk and move around. Yet the cage only provides 67 square inches per bird when the bird needs 75 square inches just to stand comfortably (and much, much more to flap their wings). The hens desire to utilize perches, forage for food, dustbathe, scratch in the dirt, and lay eggs in nests, but all of these needs are denied in the cage system.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Cage-Free System - </b>the hens are housed in a large flock (greater than 20,000 birds) without a cage. The birds have two to three times the space per hen than in a cage system. To meet their biological needs they are given an area to scratch in the dirt for food, perches, and nests. The disadvantage of the cage system is that the large flock size encourages aggression. Birds regularly injure and cannibalize one another. For example, the mortality rate in a cage-free environment is 7-15% compared to 3% in a cage system. Beak trimming is performed to reduce injury and mortality, but mortality is still higher in the cage-free system compared to the cage system.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Free-Range System - </b>birds in a free-range system typically have all of their needs met and are happy birds, were it not for predators. Some farms have lose 25% of their birds or more to predators.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Economics, Efficiency, and the Environment - </b>the cage system is the less expensive system because it requires less inputs for each egg produced. This means that less water, pesticides, corn, and the like are used to produce an egg. Those who are concerned about the environment sometimes tout the efficiency of the cage system because it produces less environmental pollution than cage-free eggs.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Public Debates - </b>in the last ten years the <i>Humane Society of the United States</i> (<i>HSUS</i>) has begun a campaign to ban cage egg production. For example, they arranged a petition to allow a ballot initiative in California which essentially asked taxpayers if they wanted to ban cage egg production. It passed with a large majority of Californians. A similar effort may pass in Michigan, but through the legislature and without a referendum. The HSUS is undoubtedly trying to ban cage egg production everywhere they can. The egg industry, represented by the <i>United Egg Producers (UEP)</i> argues that cage egg production is humane and that the real agenda of the <i>HSUS</i> is to ban the eating of animal products. The directors of <i>HSUS</i> are typically vegan and can be considered animal rights activists. However, the <i>HSUS </i>membership is largely comprised of meat-eaters and the HSUS board is filled by both vegans and meat-eaters.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Cage-Free Egg Production - </b>a market for cage-free egg production does exist, but only comprises 5% of egg production. Part of the reason is that the premiums charged to consumers at the grocery store is often three times more than the higher cost of cage-free production. If grocery stores charged a price more consistent with the cost of production the market for cage-free production would be much larger. The current environment is one where the <i>UEP</i> and <i>HSUS</i> are battling over whether cage egg production is banned, but one in which there is very little effort on anyone's part to actively promote cage-free production. That is, the battle is being waged on whether we <i>force</i> consumers to consume cage-free eggs, not a battle for market share between cage and cage-free egg production.</div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-1170904395344951632009-09-30T04:30:00.000-07:002009-09-30T04:35:51.687-07:00The Selective CarnivoreIn <a href="http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/03/proposals_to_im.html">this post</a>, Tyler Cowen describes the relationship between animal welfare and shifting consumption among meat, dairy, and the like. His analysis is very similar to <a href="http://asp.okstate.edu/baileynorwood/Survey4/Default.aspx?name=BookDraft">Chapter 8 of my upcoming book</a> where I model the link between dairy, poultry, beef, veal, and egg consumption and animal welfare. My model agrees with Cowen in that replacing beef with milk and cheese may lead to a reduction in animal welfare. I even find that replacing cage eggs with cage-free eggs <i>could</i> also reduce animal welfare. I believe I'm more optimistic about the lives of dairy cows than Tyler, despite the recent undercover <i>PETA</i> video.Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-7805560272572515432009-09-28T11:37:00.000-07:002009-09-29T06:06:56.587-07:00Ag Economist in Locovre Movie<div>Below is an article describing the appearance of an agricultural economist in a movie describing the local food movement. Discussion of local foods should be grouped according to whether it occurs because people like the local food better or because they think they are providing benefits to their local community. The former simply represents a shift in preferences, while the latter represents a subsidy that can only make the community as a whole poorer.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" border-collapse: collapse; font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><br />CORVALLIS, Ore. - An agricultural economist at Oregon State University has hit the silver screen in a new documentary that examines and promotes the local food movement and that will show in Portland starting on Friday. In the film "Ingredients<<a href="http://www.ingredientsfilm.com/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 204); ">http://www.<wbr>ingredientsfilm.com/</a>>," Larry Lev discusses the benefits and costs of buying food from local producers. He says that although some local products may cost more than food transported from large-scale commercial operations, the extra expense can be worth it. The taste can be superior, and the money shoppers spend stays in the area and contributes to the vitality of the community, he says. By shopping locally, people are also keeping agricultural land from being developed and they're establishing close relationships with farmers and fellow consumers, he adds.<br /><br />"In the end, it comes down to choices. Price is one aspect that consumers take into account, but it's not the only one and often not the most important one," says Lev, who was filmed on campus.<br /><br />Lev, who has worked at OSU for 25 years, specializes in agricultural marketing and alternative food systems. He also works with colleagues in the OSU Extension Service's Small Farms Program to develop and strengthen farmers' markets. He was asked to appear in the documentary because he had worked with one of the members of the film crew on various projects, including workshops to match chefs with farmers.<br /><br />"Larry gave us a lot of great information to work with," said the film's producer and cinematographer, Brian Kimmel, who lives in Portland. "The most important thing he did was describe how this whole economics system works with the local food movement. A lot of the people are looking at this and saying, 'Yes, this is something we want but it's too expensive.' Larry's experience shows otherwise. It was great to have Larry to fall back on and say, 'This does make sense and here's how.'"<br /><br />"Ingredients," which premiered in Germany and won a Silver Sierra Award in the documentary category at this year's Yosemite Film Festival, shows the farmers and chefs around the country who are revitalizing the connection between food and the land. It features diversified farms of the Willamette and Hudson River valleys, the urban food deserts of Harlem, and the kitchen of Alice Waters.<br /><br />In addition to Lev, other Oregonians featured in the film include: Portland chefs Greg Higgins and Pascal Sauton; Anthony and Carol Boutard of Ayers Creek Farm in Gaston; John Eveland of Gathering Together Farm in Philomath; Frank Morton of Wild Garden Seed, also in Philomath; farmer Laura Masterson of 47th Avenue Farm in Portland; John Neumeister of Cattail Creek Lamb in Junction City; farmers Sheldon Marcuvitz and Carole Laity of Your Kitchen Garden in Canby; Shari Sirkin of Dancing Roots Farm in Troutdale; and former Lake Oswego Mayor Judie Hammerstad.<br /><br />To buy a DVD or find out how to organize a screening of the film in your community, go to the "Ingredients: A Documentary Film" Web site<<a href="http://www.ingredientsfilm.com/" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 204); ">http://www.<wbr>ingredientsfilm.com/</a>>.<br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-size:13px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:100%;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; font-size:13px;">HT: Henry Bahn</span></span></div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-55031967007592415012009-09-28T07:13:00.001-07:002009-09-28T07:20:18.080-07:00Feedstuffs EditorialIn an editorial titled <i>Animal Welfare Cannot Break Down</i> the authors argue that violations of animal welfare standards <i>has to stop</i> (a phrase they repeat many times) immediately because, "<i>it leaves the consuming public with a bad taste in its mouth for dairy, meat and poultry products."</i><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps, but I think the average person is a bit more sophisticated that this, and will make their decisions based on what they think the <i>average</i> farm looks like, not the unusual farm that happens to get caught doing bad things on tape.</div><div><br /></div><div>Every day thousands of children are abused in myriad ways by evil parents, friends, family members, and such. Yet we do not prohibit the raising of children for these reasons. We know that if we allow people to have children that some will be abused, just as we know that if we raise animals for food (or keep animals as pets) some will be abused.</div><div><br /></div><div>But then, these videos may alter what consumers believe to be the "average" farm. The authors acknowledge this when they say, <i>"breakdowns, to consumers now, represent standard operating procedure</i>."</div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-26613771124986010102009-09-28T07:08:00.000-07:002009-09-28T08:44:33.779-07:00Happy Dairy Cows<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z86bu8hSygI">This nice video takes you on a tour of a dairy farm and the importance placed on farm animal welfare</a>. I don't believe the profit-motive is a necessary condition for humane animal production, but that it depends on the particular animal species. Dairy, beef, and chicken production are, in my opinion, industries that generally provide acceptable animal welfare. My definition of "acceptable" is that the animals have a life worth living, even if their lives could be improved. Because their lives are mostly pleasant, one could consider it ethical to consume beef, dairy, and chicken products. But don't take it from me. Research the farms yourself.Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-86792013089795504322009-09-28T06:43:00.001-07:002009-09-29T06:06:37.336-07:00Farewell To Gestation Stalls in MichiganMy <i>Feedstuffs</i> news alerts told me that Michigan is expected to pass a law banning gestation crates. The events leading up to this are similar to the Colorado story: HSUS threatens a referendum, livestock producers don't want the negative publicity that would bring, both groups negotiate a long time horizon (10 years) to implement the ban in order to minimize the economic burden, and legislation banning the crates ensues. Battery cages and veal crates will also be banned.<div><br /></div><div>What is the impact of the ban? My research suggests that the cost of pork production will rise $0.0533 per lb of retail pork. The demand side of the ban is more difficult to identify, and ultimately ambiguous. Jayson Lusk and I have conducted hundreds of real-pork auctions across the country and have found that consumers, on average, will pay up to $0.14 more for each lb of retail pork that is raised in group pens, which is the alternative to gestation crates. Thus, at first glance, the ban would provide a net benefit of $0.0867 for society as a whole.</div><div><br /></div><div>However, one cannot simply say that demand for pork will increase. The gestation crate ban could change consumers' perceptions of pork, and ultimately decrease the total ban for pork. It is true that consumers on average prefer pork produced without gestation crates, but the information that a ban provides could produce a pork demand that is lower or higher than the current demand. That is, consumers prefer that gestation crates not be used, but after learning that gestation crates were used in the first place may begin to think hog production is inhumane. Or, they may conclude that hog production is humane and becoming even more humane. We simply don't know.</div><div><br /></div><div>The ultimate impact of the gestation crate ban is thus ambiguous. However, my best guess is that, with this type of legislation, pork demand will be unaltered, consumers will be largely unaware of the improvement, and, and hog producers will make less money.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, that analysis pretends that Michigan is a closed economy. In reality the gestation stall ban allows the importation of pork produced under any means. Consumers will undoubtedly choose the cheaper pork produced in other states, and so the impact of the legislation on farm animals will depend on whether the Michigan farmers can stay in business. If they remain in business, then the animals will be raised on what is presumably a more humane farm. Michigan farmers will pay the higher production costs themselves. Consumers will not pay a dime more. If they go out of business, roughly the same amount of pork will be produced, but out-of-state; and the only impact the law will have is to drive Michigan farmers out-of-business.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Other people have some interesting views on gestation crates...</i></div><div><ul><li><i>Trent Loos and other producers and animal scientists (I only use Loos' name because he is rather famous) believe that banning gestation crates will not improve animal welfare, and may lower welfare.</i></li><li><i>Gary Francione (just Google the name if you don't know him) often asserts that every time you improve animal welfare the farmers' costs actually go down. In this case, hog producers would be surprised to find that their costs are lower than when they used the crates.</i></li><li><i>The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) would probably argue that banning gestation crates is fine, but we should really be going much further and producing more pork under the Animal Welfare Approved label. Personally, I concur with the AWI.</i></li></ul></div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-18373745629183696902009-09-28T04:43:00.000-07:002009-09-28T04:53:12.815-07:00About Foie GrasA <a href="http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/food/2009/09/08/the-flap-over-foie-gras/">recent article</a> on the interesting blog <i><a href="http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/food/">Food & Think</a></i> (a blog worth adding to your reader, by the way) concerned Foie-Gras and a book being written about the issue. I had always assumed Foie-Gras to be a pretty cruel food, but the author states....<div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse; ">Unlike on some Canadian and French farms, the ducks in this country are kept in group pens rather than individual cages during the 3- to 4-week <em>gavage</em> period, and, from the evidence Caro presents, the force-feeding doesn’t seem to harm the birds or cause them terrible distress.</span></div><div><br /></div><div>surprised me. Force-feeding not causing the birds distress? Sounds a bit suspect, but I'm open to the idea. I know that I have heard people claim other industries (e.g. cattle) to be a cruel production process, but from my extensive experience and research in the area find it to be otherwise, so perhaps Foie-Gras is better than its reputation? Is it better than hog production, for example?</div><div><br /></div><div>Which would an animal prefer, living in a group pen but being force-fed or leaving in an individual cage barely larger than the animals' body and not being force-fed? I know what you're thinking -you'd rather have better choices than these two! Understandable :)</div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-28889268455505519122009-09-27T06:13:00.000-07:002009-09-27T06:17:16.474-07:00How Real Bloggers WorkI've always wondered how "real" bloggers stay on top of everything so well. For example, Troy Hardick at Advocates for Agriculture seems to find every single article related to agriculture that exists, and finds it before anyone else can.<div><br /></div><div>I was curious, so I asked Troy how he does it. In addition to establishing a network of followers who forward him articles, he has up to 50 Google Alerts established. Staying on top of 50 Google Alerts is much work, so be sure not to take your favorite blogs for granted.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Ham and Eggonomics</i>, by the way, is not a "real" blog, and I am no "real" blogger, but am amateur.</div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-81579289200466751362009-09-26T18:29:00.000-07:002009-09-26T18:33:27.127-07:00New Gary Francione PodcastGary Francione now has a podcast that has issued several shows already. Another podcast that I have not listened to but looks interesting is NZ Vegan. Both are podcasts from the abolitionist movement.<div><br /></div><div>A podcast that occasionally addresses the farm animal welfare issue from a different perspective is<i> Loos Tales for Feedstuffs </i>by Trent Loos. <i>Loos Tales</i> may sound like it is an industry construct but Mr. Loos is perfectly sincere and would be doing the exact same thing without his sponsors. I know Mr. Loos, and he has already spent a personal fortune spreading his message.</div><div><br /></div><div>All three podcasts are from knowledgeable individuals whose passion I'm sure will be felt by the listener. All podcasts are recommended.</div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-36074963511756418422009-09-26T18:22:00.000-07:002009-09-26T18:25:40.624-07:00The Term "Franchises" - A Silly IdeaIn previous posts I have labeled movements on all side of the farm animal welfare issue as franchises, in an attempt to articulate the public choice theory aspect of any movement, but have now decided it was silly. As a researcher I like to experiment, which means you cannot pay attention to everything I say!Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-39265295624740763612009-09-26T08:39:00.000-07:002009-09-26T09:10:50.728-07:00Follow-Up on Hen Mortality PostingSara Shields recently provided a superb <a href="http://hamandeggonomics.blogspot.com/2009/09/understanding-mortality-rates-of-laying.html">post</a> on the issue of mortality in cage and cage-free systems. I <a href="http://hamandeggonomics.blogspot.com/2009/08/great-egg-debate-what-each-side-needs.html">have argued</a> that cage-free systems have higher mortality rates which pose a significant welfare problem. My take is that cage-free systems are better for the bird, but the mortality problem causes me to sympathize with those who argue otherwise. <i>So, the question is, did Dr. Shields' posting, which showed low mortality rates are possible in a cage-free system, change my mind?</i><div><i><br /></i></div><div>I have never doubted that cage-free systems can have low mortality <i>if cost is of no concern</i>. One could take a cage-free facility, reduce the flock size to five birds, and would have the highest animal welfare possible, but the eggs would be thousands of dollars each. The question concerns whether low mortality is possible in a cage-free system that produces eggs at a reasonable cost. Note that I am not requiring that the cost of production be equivalent to cage eggs or even the current cage-free egg price. Let us say that my definition of "reasonable" is $5 per dozen or lower. I sought the references Dr. Shields cited to determine if any of those met this criteria.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Stonegate Organic Columbian Blacktail Eggs</i> - At current exchange rates their free-range eggs sell for $2.91 per dozen, which is actually quite inexpensive. We know from Sara's sources that cannibalism and pecking is not a problem on the farm, but they are free-range birds and we don't know if mortality rates are affected by predators. Readers of a <a href="http://hamandeggonomics.blogspot.com/2009/08/free-range-egg-production.html">previous post</a> will note that in the presence of predators mortality rates can be as high as 25%. Can mortality rates and costs be simultaneously held to a reasonably low level? The verdict for these eggs are ambiguous.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Other Farms </i>- the other sources did list the overall mortality rate, and it was very low. However they did not list their costs or prices, so it could be they are achieving low mortality but only at very high costs. <i>H</i><i>eaven's Farm</i> have a mortality rate under 2% while only providing the birds with 86 square inches of housing area per hen and 172 square inches of "liveable" area (which I think includes the housing area). Compared to 67 square inches per bird in a cage system and 200 square inches for bird in some cage-free systems, that's a good deal of space but not a far stretch from traditional cage-free methods. </div><div><br /></div><div>My verdict is as follows. Dr. Shield's posting gave me greater confidence that mortality can be low in a cage-free system, especially once technology begins to address the mortality problem with greater intensity. I also have greater confidence that humane egg production is possible while keeping the price of eggs under $5.00 per dozen. However, I still have a number of questions, and do not consider my "confidence" to be "certainty."<br /></div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-2539038079294526782009-09-26T07:36:00.001-07:002009-09-26T08:10:18.426-07:00Use of Word "Franchise"I often refer to all movements within the farm animal welfare debate as a <i>franchise</i>. I hope it does not offend anyone, as that is not the intent. Being an economist I am always searching for economic principles underlying behavior, including behavior of individuals within an idealogical movement.<div><br /></div><div>Livestock farmers find a sincere meaning in life through their work, which is why many farm despite its unprofitability. Their social network consists of other farmers, and when they are attacked by groups they will ban together and reinforce their social norms to preserve the meaning they find in life. So when they discuss farm animal welfare they are doing more than just stating their perceptions. They are protecting an institution that is important personally and financially to them. They are protecting their <i>franchise</i>. This is they will sometimes make statements they know to be false, like when they assert that sows in confinement facilities have pleasant lives and have no desire to be raised under the <i>Animal Welfare Approved </i>label. They don't believe this (they just can't really believe this), they are protecting their franchise.</div><div><br /></div><div>The same goes for animal advocacy groups. These are individuals dedicated to improving the lives of farm animals, and for many it is their life-calling. Just as a business franchise must be in tune with its consumers' attitudes animal advocacy groups must take into account how its members will react to something and must protect the movement at all costs. This is why you hear so few animal advocates speak out against the ban on horse slaughter, despite the fact that there must be many, many, who understand it has led to horrible consequences for horses.<br /><div><br /></div><div><i>Ham and Eggonomics</i> is also a franchise. I know that I am susceptible to influences other than truth. I extract much meaning in life by believing that I am providing consumers with the objective information they need to understand the farm animal welfare debate. Yet I belong to a college that sees itself as a consultant to the livestock industry, and I also know that only animal advocates read my blog. Despite my sincere efforts, I know that this affects what I say. Because I cannot honestly eliminate the influence, I try to be open about it. Because I know every other group is also influenced by these forces, I often refer to movements as a <i>franchise</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div>When I refer to a movement as a franchise, do not consider it an insult. It is only an assertion that a movements consists of people, and people can only be human.</div></div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-77202864648033760962009-09-26T07:31:00.000-07:002009-09-26T07:36:11.473-07:00Establishing Animal Liberation<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, verdana, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(70, 70, 70); line-height: 22px; "><div>A <a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Column+animals+entitled+same+respect+rights+humans/2033959/story.html">recent article</a> helps clarify what is meant by "animal liberation." The lives of wild and domestic animals are directly affected by the choice humans make, so they can't be "liberated" from human decisions. However, as the quote from article below shows, some do interpret animal rights and liberation to imply that humans must purposely design an environment so that it appears to be absent of human influence.</div><div><br /></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">The American Legal Defense Fund wants the right of wild animals to natural habitat and a self-sustaining population enshrined as well as the right of farm animals to an environment that “satisfies their basic physical and psychological needs” and, the right of all animals to “have their interests represented in court and safeguarded by the law of the land.”</span></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial, verdana, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;font-size:130%;color:#FF0000;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial, verdana, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif;font-size:130%;color:#FF0000;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;">From </span></span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, verdana, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 11px; "><div class="headline" style="font-family: arial, verdana, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 11px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 0px; "><h1 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-family: georgia; font-size: 26px; font-weight: normal; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">Column: Are animals entitled to the same respect and rights as humans?</span></h1></div><div class="clear" style="font-family: arial, verdana, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 1px; clear: both; height: 1px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; margin-top: -1px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"> </span></div><div class="subheadline" style="font-family: arial, verdana, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 11px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 0px; "><h2 style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-family: georgia; font-size: 20px; font-weight: normal; "></h2></div><div class="clear" style="font-family: arial, verdana, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 1px; clear: both; height: 1px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; margin-top: -1px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;"> </span></div><div class="byline" style="font-family: arial, verdana, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 11px; "><span class="name" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 11px; text-transform: uppercase; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 15px; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 0px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#FF0000;">BY DAPHNE BRAMHAM, VANCOUVER SUN</span></span></div></span>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-21550951454851606682009-09-25T08:25:00.001-07:002009-09-25T08:36:25.580-07:00Terminology in the Abolitionist FranchiseThe Abolitionist Franchise (AF) within the farm animal welfare debate frequently uses the analogy between slavery and farming. It is common for the AF to argue that all arguments in favor of meat-eating can be extended to supporting slavery also.<div><br /></div><div>My question is: does the fact that farm animals are largely dependent upon their property status for existence matter? When the slaves were freed, being equal to whites, they were truly liberated and were able to thrive as a population and a culture. If the property status of animals is banned, we will go from a world where large numbers of animals are raised on farms to a world where a few number of animals are raised as pets. In the case of farming, "liberation" is virtual extinction. This virtual-extinction be good or bad, depending on your perceptions of on-farm suffering of animals.</div><div><br /></div><div>I prefer it when animal advocates who favor abolition clearly state that they have no problem with the virtual-extinction of all farm animals because I understand their argument. If one believes that it is impossible to simultaneously own an animal and treat it well, then the AF has a strong ethical argument. Even if one does not agree with that belief, the argument is coherent and understandable.</div><div><br /></div><div>But when people ignore the virtual-extinction factor when arguing for abolition, I become confused about exactly what they are arguing. This blog has recently made some new friends who appear to be from the Abolitionist Franchise. I invite these new friends to offer their thoughts.</div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4973069356775528535.post-1619533721354327942009-09-24T11:26:00.000-07:002009-09-24T11:34:48.770-07:00Michigan EventsThe House in Michigan recently passed <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billengrossed/House/pdf/2009-HEBH-5127.pdf">this bill</a>, which basically says that livestock cannot (most of the time) be prevented from <div><br /></div><div><div>(A) LYING DOWN, STANDING UP, OR FULLY EXTENDING ITS LIMBS.</div><div>(B) TURNING AROUND FREELY.</div><div><br /></div><div>Isn't it amazing that these requirements are so controversial? </div><div><br /></div><div>However, the Michigan House is pursuing <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billintroduced/House/pdf/2009-HIB-5128.pdf">this bill</a>, which would create an Animal Care Advisory Council consisting of two vets, two farmers, one researcher, one animal advocate, one food industry representative, one retail industry representative, and one restaurant lobby representative. Their job is to make animal care recommendations to be used in a certification process, though I don't see anything about it being mandatory.</div></div>Bailey Norwoodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01605821503991180053noreply@blogger.com