Ham and Eggonomics

How college should be subsidized

2011-12-12T17:36:00.001-08:00

My 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.

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.

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.

My farm animal welfare book is ready for purchase!

2011-08-17T08:19:00.000-07:00

You may now buy Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare at Amazon and other publishers.

New Farm Animal Welfare Book

2010-07-29T06:16:00.001-07:00

My upcoming book on farm animal welfare, titled Compassion by the Pound, is not yet in print but is ready for sale: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199551163.do?keyword=lusk&sortby=bestMatches.

Who Makes Decisions About Animal Welfare?

2009-10-09T07:37:00.000-07:00

Consider this excellent musing 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?

Pleasant Comments About United Egg Producers

2009-10-09T06:55:00.000-07:00

Last week I attended a Media Field Day held by the United Egg Producers. The idea was to have the media tour cage and cage-free egg farms and then attend information sessions features speakers by UEP affiliates, such as economic consultants hired by the UEP and the UEP Scientific Panel.

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.

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 UEP affiliates were indeed lobbying for the UEP, they were honest and forthright. I applaud them for this, and I wonder how straightforward their opposition would be?

I am sincerely appreciative to the UEP, so in return, in this post I am going to make some pleasant comments about the UEP. These comments are statements that I sincerely believe, where I am purposely leaving out any comment that is in opposition to UEP. 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-UEP as he can be...

Bailey's Pleasant Comments Regarding the United Egg Producers

The United Egg Producers (UEP) 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). UEP 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 UEP 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 UEP and the setting they must operate.

It is also worth pointing out that the UEP has a number of very prestigious animal scientists, who tell the UEP 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.

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 UEP 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 UEP supposed to do anything other than argue that the animal advocacy groups "true" agenda is to rid the world of animal food production?

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 Ham and Eggonomics 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?

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.

Egg Farm Video

2009-10-06T12:44:00.000-07:00

I've been suggesting to the United Egg Producers 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 UEP 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 Feedstuffs Foodlink video below.

Egg Housing Transition Study

2009-10-06T08:30:00.001-07:00

Feedstuffs 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.

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.

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.

Excerpt from Promar Study...

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.

The Pollan-Singer Travesty

2009-10-06T06:23:00.000-07:00

If you keep up with food and agricultural news (and gossip) you will likely agree that Michael Pollan is everywhere. From The Omnivore's Dilemma to Food, Inc. 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.

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.

The book that I love is one no one is talking about: The Way We Eat by Peter Singer. Animal welfare is undoubtedly the most important issue in agriculture. In The Way We Eat, 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.

(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)

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?

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 The Way We Eat. 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 Ham and Eggonomics discussion on the state of farm animal welfare!

Broiler Production Background

2009-10-05T08:41:00.000-07:00

Hello AGEC 1114 Students! Below is a good video on the broiler industry.

Or, if you don't want to like the broiler industry, try this video.

Thoughtful Comments From A Reader

2009-10-02T08:53:00.000-07:00

I 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!

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.

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).

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).

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/).

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.

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.

Overview of Egg Industry for AGEC 1114 Students

2009-10-02T08:10:00.000-07:00

This blog entry contains an overview of the egg industry for my AGEC 1114, Introduction to Agricultural Economics, class.

Overview of the Egg Industry

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 here. 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. (Show videos of cage and cage-free production, the UEP would not let me post them online...video of free-range production available here).

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.

The welfare of hens has received much attention lately. Let us discuss the pros and cons of the various available egg production systems.

Cage System - 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.

Cage-Free System - 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.

Free-Range System - 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.

Economics, Efficiency, and the Environment - 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.

Public Debates - in the last ten years the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) 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 United Egg Producers (UEP) argues that cage egg production is humane and that the real agenda of the HSUS is to ban the eating of animal products. The directors of HSUS are typically vegan and can be considered animal rights activists. However, the HSUS membership is largely comprised of meat-eaters and the HSUS board is filled by both vegans and meat-eaters.

Cage-Free Egg Production - 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 UEP and HSUS 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 force consumers to consume cage-free eggs, not a battle for market share between cage and cage-free egg production.

The Selective Carnivore

2009-09-30T04:30:00.000-07:00

In this post, Tyler Cowen describes the relationship between animal welfare and shifting consumption among meat, dairy, and the like. His analysis is very similar to Chapter 8 of my upcoming book 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 could also reduce animal welfare. I believe I'm more optimistic about the lives of dairy cows than Tyler, despite the recent undercover PETA video.

Ag Economist in Locovre Movie

2009-09-28T11:37:00.000-07:00

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.

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<http://www.ingredientsfilm.com/>," 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.

"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.

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.

"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.'"

"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.

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.

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<http://www.ingredientsfilm.com/>.

HT: Henry Bahn

Feedstuffs Editorial

2009-09-28T07:13:00.001-07:00

In an editorial titled Animal Welfare Cannot Break Down the authors argue that violations of animal welfare standards has to stop (a phrase they repeat many times) immediately because, "it leaves the consuming public with a bad taste in its mouth for dairy, meat and poultry products."

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 average farm looks like, not the unusual farm that happens to get caught doing bad things on tape.

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.

But then, these videos may alter what consumers believe to be the "average" farm. The authors acknowledge this when they say, "breakdowns, to consumers now, represent standard operating procedure."

Happy Dairy Cows

2009-09-28T07:08:00.000-07:00

This nice video takes you on a tour of a dairy farm and the importance placed on farm animal welfare. 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.

Farewell To Gestation Stalls in Michigan

2009-09-28T06:43:00.001-07:00

My Feedstuffs 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Other people have some interesting views on gestation crates...

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.
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.
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.

About Foie Gras

2009-09-28T04:43:00.000-07:00

A recent article on the interesting blog Food & Think (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....

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 gavage period, and, from the evidence Caro presents, the force-feeding doesn’t seem to harm the birds or cause them terrible distress.

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?

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 :)

How Real Bloggers Work

2009-09-27T06:13:00.000-07:00

I'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.

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.

Ham and Eggonomics, by the way, is not a "real" blog, and I am no "real" blogger, but am amateur.

New Gary Francione Podcast

2009-09-26T18:29:00.000-07:00

Gary 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.

A podcast that occasionally addresses the farm animal welfare issue from a different perspective is Loos Tales for Feedstuffs by Trent Loos. Loos Tales 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.

All three podcasts are from knowledgeable individuals whose passion I'm sure will be felt by the listener. All podcasts are recommended.

The Term "Franchises" - A Silly Idea

2009-09-26T18:22:00.000-07:00

In 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!

Follow-Up on Hen Mortality Posting

2009-09-26T08:39:00.000-07:00

Sara Shields recently provided a superb post on the issue of mortality in cage and cage-free systems. I have argued 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. So, the question is, did Dr. Shields' posting, which showed low mortality rates are possible in a cage-free system, change my mind?

I have never doubted that cage-free systems can have low mortality if cost is of no concern. 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.

Stonegate Organic Columbian Blacktail Eggs - 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 previous post 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.

Other Farms - 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. Heaven's Farm 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.

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."

Use of Word "Franchise"

2009-09-26T07:36:00.001-07:00

I often refer to all movements within the farm animal welfare debate as a franchise. 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.

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 franchise. 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 Animal Welfare Approved label. They don't believe this (they just can't really believe this), they are protecting their franchise.

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.

Ham and Eggonomics 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 franchise.

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.

Establishing Animal Liberation

2009-09-26T07:31:00.000-07:00

A recent article 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.

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.”

From

Column: Are animals entitled to the same respect and rights as humans?

BY DAPHNE BRAMHAM, VANCOUVER SUN

Terminology in the Abolitionist Franchise

2009-09-25T08:25:00.001-07:00

The 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.

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.

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.

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.

Michigan Events

2009-09-24T11:26:00.000-07:00

The House in Michigan recently passed this bill, which basically says that livestock cannot (most of the time) be prevented from

(A) LYING DOWN, STANDING UP, OR FULLY EXTENDING ITS LIMBS.

(B) TURNING AROUND FREELY.

Isn't it amazing that these requirements are so controversial?

However, the Michigan House is pursuing this bill, 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.

Ohio State Animal Welfare Symposium

2009-09-24T11:23:00.001-07:00

If you are in Ohio on October 16 and want to here interesting people discuss farm animal welfare issues, you should check this out.

Comments on Dr. Lusk's Guest Post

2009-09-24T11:02:00.001-07:00

For readers who perused the guest post by Jayson Lusk, he is my colleague at OK State and the co-author of our upcoming book on farm animal welfare. I appreciate Jayson's thoughts, and have enjoyed out intellectual adventures sorting through the farm animal welfare debate.

One thing I like about Jayson's thoughts is that he views ethical dilemmas by the outcomes of various actions. People have different approaches to moral philosophy. Some like rights-based approaches that are heavy on terminology but weak on consequences, but I prefer the simple layout of utilitarianism. Perhaps it is my own intellectual defect, but I have trouble making ethical decisions using any method other than utilitarianism. When I deviate from utilitarianism, I generally find myself just trying to justify my prior beliefs.

Though my previous post regarding how I treat my dog and pigs was not related to ethics, the issue of whether it is "ethical" to eat certain meats is an interesting issue. The way I view the dilemma of whether to eat pork is as follows.

(1) If I eat factory farmed pork, a certain number of hogs will exist and will experience misery or merriment of the amount __________.

(2) If I eat pork produced under more humane means, a certain number of hogs will exist and will experience misery or merriment of the amount __________.

(3) If I don't eat pork, a certain number of hogs will not be brought into existence and will not experience misery or merriment of the amount __________.

Those are generally my only three options. Regardless of whether I use the phrase "moral community" within my thought process the outcomes are the same, so what should we fill in for the blanks? That, to me, is the great debate. If you look at Chapter 8 you will actually see a rarity for me: the expression of my beliefs and preferences. In this chapter I state that I think eating beef leads to the best outcome for animals but that refraining from pork leads to the best outcome, and these professions are based on my perception about the misery/merriment that cattle and hogs experience.

I would like to add to Jayson's post where he states...

What line of logic or code or ethics can reconcile the supposed “moral schizophrenia” Francione finds distasteful?Bailey does not expect the same thing from his dog and a pig. Does that make him a speciest? I do not expect to receive shoes from my baker or bread from my cobbler, but does that make me a speciest or an “occupationalist?” I expect and receive different things from different people. But I do not mandate people to give the fruits of their labor. In a market based economy, people freely trade the results of their productive abilities and we accept them because they satisfy our wants and needs.

...that those belonging to the Abolitionist Franchise also treat animals differently according to their species, but contend that their suffering should receive equal consideration.

Voluntary Exchange and Morality of Eating Meat

2009-09-24T10:58:00.000-07:00

Guest Post by Jayson Lusk

I read with great interest Bailey’s recent post, where he attempted to resolve the supposed contradiction present in the actions of pet owners and meat eaters. Bailey’s answer was that no contradiction exists because he uses his dog and a pig for two different purposes – because they supply different needs they are treated in different ways. Two commenters rapidly replied by indicating that Bailey was a speciesist and by pointing out that justifications for uses of beings based on their purposes could very well justify some gruesome activities that no one would condone.

I agree, in part, with the comments but see a glimmer of truth in what Bailey had to say. Here is my take.

What line of logic or code or ethics can reconcile the supposed “moral schizophrenia” Francione finds distasteful? Bailey does not expect the same thing from his dog and a pig. Does that make him a speciest? I do not expect to receive shoes from my baker or bread from my cobbler, but does that make me a speciest or an “occupationalist?” I expect and receive different things from different people. But I do not mandate people to give the fruits of their labor. In a market based economy, people freely trade the results of their productive abilities and we accept them because they satisfy our wants and needs.

Here is an ethical and moral rule: Each man (and animal) is entitled to their own life and to the results of their labor, and no other man may infringe upon those without consent.

I have no right to a baker’s bread and he has no right to my income. The baker gives me bread voluntarily because he expects something in return: part of my paycheck. The same goes for the cobbler. They satisfy different needs for me, but that is of no concern to them – only that I am willing to give them something they want in order to engaged in a mutually beneficial and voluntary exchange.

Now, Bailey engages in an exchange with his dog. His dog is provided with comfortable housing, ample food, and nightly walks. And, I hope Bailey doesn’t mind me saying, but his dog was also provided with four very expensive leg surgeries. What does the dog give in return? Companionship and entertainment. Bailey and his dog engage in mutually beneficial and voluntary exchanges that enhance both lives.

What about the pig? The pig is provided shelter, food, water, comfortable temperature, and protection from predators. What does Bailey get in return? Ultimately, the pig’s life – its meat. But, wait a minute – this is hardly a voluntary exchange – did the hog engage in a trade that was of its own free will of its own consent? Hard to say. The hog owed its very existence to the fact that Bailey, and others like him, want to eat pork. Is the hog willing to trade a short and uneventful existence for the sake of life itself? Would the hog trade ample food and shelter and a certain but short life in the factory farm for the random and capricious conditions of the wild?

We simply don’t know. The cognitive capacities of the hog prohibit a definitive answer to whether they are willing to engage in the exchange. But here is my presumption: that the hog is indeed willing – that if they could say, they would chose life in a factory farm to no life at all, and that they exchange this meager existence in return for their meat. No doubt an animal rights proponent would argue that I have no right to make this presumption, but the activist is simply exchanging my presumption for theirs: that the hog would rather willingly never exist than live on a factory farm. Both positions are based on presumptions that cannot be validated. But, the truth is this: farm animals can never be placed in a situation where their lives are solely determined by their own actions – their lives are invariably affected by the decisions of humans. Dealing with farm animals will always entail some degree of paternalism and presumption about what is in their interest.

Without schizophrenia or moral confusion, I eat meat and condone the keeping of pets. Such actions are morally defensible based on a conception of mutually beneficial trade, and on the presumption that farm animals would voluntarily exchange the product of their efforts (e.g. milk, eggs, and eventually their life) for what they are paid in return (e.g., ample feed and water, protection from predators and weather, and in all likelihood their very existence).

P.S. Such reasoning does not condone hunting. Many hunters have given nothing to a wild animal in exchange for their life, and thus the presumption of mutually beneficial exchange does not hold.

Thank You to United Egg Producers

2009-09-24T10:01:00.000-07:00

For over two years I have studied farm animal welfare issues in the egg industry intensely, but despite great efforts have never been given the opportunity to visit a cage and cage-free farm. Despite personal phone calls to a number of farms, they all turned me down.

However, the United Egg Producers (UEP) is recently holding an event for the media where they will provide them with tours of cage and cage-free facilities. They considered Ham and Eggonomics to be a type of media, and invited me.

I want to publicly thank UEP for this invitation. They are even allowing me to take videos and pictures, which I will post on the blog.

Thank you UEP, I promise to give you a fair hearing, and I promise not to be bias to sell more books or to increase my franchise in the animal welfare debate.

Rushing To Judge

2009-09-24T09:49:00.000-07:00

Readers interested in how easy it is for us to be quick to usher judgments should see the comments to the posting Francione on Moral Schizophrenia.

Suppose that I stated that the benefits of human slavery in the U.S. were largely delivered to the consumers of cotton products, and not slave-owning farms. That is a simple result of competitive markets explaining how the world works, but does not make any ethical judgments about slavery itself. Would readers then leave comments suggesting that I argued it is ethical to own slaves? Based on the comments to Francione on Moral Schizophrenia, yes, they would.

Can I not explain human behavior without being accused of condoning those behaviors? Come on people...if you stay in attack mode like that all the time how will you make new friends :)

Understanding Mortality Rates of Laying Hens

2009-09-22T12:43:00.000-07:00

by Sara Shields

The issue of hen mortality in cage-free egg production is a recurring theme in this blog and in the wider debate over the use of battery cage confinement systems for laying hens. High mortality is an obvious indicator of poor welfare. It is important to note, however, that mortality can vary substantially between hen flocks, and that some cage-free systems have very healthy flocks that do not suffer substantial death losses. These systems can serve as models for the rest of the industry, since mortality is not inherent to any particular system, cage or cage-free, but rather to how well the system is managed.

It is also important to put the problem into historical perspective. Prior to about 1930, flocks were small. Many diseases, such as coccidiosis, respiratory diseases, and salmonellosis[1,2] became more problematic with the commercialization of poultry production, when flock sizes increased and there was a growing effort to raise more birds on less land.[3,4] When the industrialization of poultry production began, the average mortality rate of chickens jumped from 5-6% to 20%.[5] Although high mortality rates were a significant problem, economic incentives led the industry to seek strategies for mitigating these losses.

For the egg industry, one remedy was to move laying hens into cages, where wire floors separated the chickens from their manure. While this may have helped reduce intestinal disease and parasites, intensive confinement restricted the hens to small, barren cages that offer no opportunity to display important natural behavior, impinging on physical health due to lack of exercise and resulting in a very poor quality of life (for more information, click here).

It is also critical to note that the improved flock health status seen today is not due solely to cage confinement, but also to vaccine development, better hygiene practices such as “all in, all out” policies,[6] disease eradication programs,[7] and genetic selection for disease resistance.[8] These factors will continue to be important as egg production systems evolve to meet societal animal welfare concerns.

Role of Hen Genetic Strain

Another key concept in understanding hen mortality rates is the interaction between the genetic background of the hen and her environment. Hens must be genetically adapted to their surroundings in order to thrive, and studies and practical experience are beginning to show that a large portion of mortality in cage-free production can be explained by differences in the genetic strain of hen used in the system.

Laying hens are bred almost entirely by a select few international companies. Until recently, since most egg production took place in battery cages, breeding goals were aimed at producing hens who could produce many eggs in cages. Since cage-free egg production is becoming an international trend (in part a result of legal reforms in the EU and California), however, breeding companies are beginning to select hens on the basis of their performance and survival in cage-free environments. [9]

To illustrate the importance of hen genetic background, we can look to the experience in Denmark, where hens were not moved into cages until 1980. When cages were first introduced to the country, one of the common breeds used was the Danish Skalborg hen. The Skalborg hen had been genetically adapted to the floor systems in use at the time, and this was reflected in the mortality rate when the housing environment changed. In breed comparison tests initiated during this time, it was discovered that the mortality of the Skalborg hen was five times higher in cages compared to floor pens. [10]

In 2005, the World’s Poultry Science Journal published a study in which the authors reviewed every English, French, and German study that reported hen mortality rates in aviary and cage housing systems since 1980. This study eliminated much of the previous bias in the scientific literature by including only studies that used the same hen strain, age, and beak trim status in both cages and aviaries. Only 14 studies met these criteria, a telling result in itself. When these factors were accounted for in the statistical analysis, the mortality rate did not differ between cages and aviaries (multi-tiered cage-free systems). This means that, in previous studies showing a higher mortality rate in aviary systems, the apparent difference was due to factors other than the housing system. [11] One very important factor was the choice of hen strain and, in some studies that report differences in mortality, the type of production system is confounded with the strain of hen used in that system.

In many studies, brown egg-laying strains tended to experience higher mortality rates, primarily as a consequence of injurious pecking. [12,13,14] Because these birds have been popular in cage-free production, however, these studies can give the impression that the system itself is the cause of the increased mortality when, in fact, the hen strain or an interaction between the hen strain and her environment, is the major factor of importance.

In some segments of organic production, where brown hybrid hens have historically dominated, white hybrid hens are now becoming more popular, mainly due to their more agreeable temperament. A Swedish survey found that, where farmers have experienced severe outbreaks of cannibalism, they are changing the hens in their systems from brown to white hybrids. [15] To meet potential consumer demand for cage-free brown eggs, however, it is also possible to breed brown strain hens specifically for cage-free production (see the Stonegate example below). [16]

Role of Management

An important prerequisite to good management is the attitude of the producer. Scientists have noted that, “Attitudes of those in charge of management and husbandry are likely to be a major determinant of animal welfare.” [17] Alternative systems undoubtedly require more skills and experience, [18]and are thus more sensitive to poor management. [19] Currently, differences in management can contribute to inconsistency among cage-free farms, with some performing well and others experiencing difficulties. Thus, while mortality can be high, it is also highly variable between farms, [20,21,22] with some being highly successful. Where mortality is excessive, steps should be taken to correct the problem. Poultry producers have shown the ability to be innovative in the past, overcoming obstacles with the use of enhanced biosecurity measures and aided by advances in veterinary science and genetics, as previously mentioned. It seems likely that as demand for cage-free eggs increases, producers will once again need to show innovation.

In organic production, it has been demonstrated that, as farmers gain experience, feather pecking damage is reduced. One such study found that farmers who understood the behavioral biology of their chickens, including their origin in a forested environment, have adapted their management, provided enhanced outdoor areas and paid greater attention to the early rearing experience of their laying hens. Successful control of feather pecking in this study was dependent on the motivation and devotion of the farmer. In other words, the attitude of the producer matters. [23]

There are many important management steps that producers can take to control mortality rates. For example, some steps to reduce injurious pecking—in addition to choosing the right hen strain—include dimming the lights, [24] delaying the age at which hens lay their first egg, [25] providing early access to perches, [26,27] and providing attractive foraging substrates. [28,29,30] At stocking densities that provide more than 1000cm²/hen, the provision of additional space to facilitate the use of perches, nest boxes, foraging materials and access to feed and water may also reduce the likelihood of cannibalism. [31] The primary methods of controlling coccidiosis are with vaccine and coccidiostats added to feed. In barn systems, the use of raised slatted floors (as is common in breeding flocks, which are almost always housed on the floor), can prevent infection with parasites. [32] Small, free-range producers can use mobile housing to prevent the build-up of parasites around the hen house, [33] pasture rotation, and lowered stocking density. [34] A complete discussion of management factors is beyond the scope of this blog post, but interested readers can find additional information on keeping free-range flocks healthy and safe on the web sites of the Soil Association (www.soilassociation.org) or the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service (http://attra.ncat.org).

Low-Mortality Cage-Free Farms

Low-mortality cage-free farms can be found in instances where corporations and producers have worked together to find solutions. For example, Stonegate supplies eggs to Waitrose, a leading supermarket chain in the United Kingdom. Stonegate has developed its own line of hens, Columbian Blacktails, who are birds with hardy characteristics that make them more suitable to free-range production. Beak trimming is not permitted, yet the genetic background of these birds makes them “almost totally free of feather pecking and cannibalism.” [35] Stonegate is the United Kingdom’s second largest egg producer and packer, [36] demonstrating that welfare improvements can take place on a large scale. The Columbian Blacktails fit the environment—they are genetically adapted to free-range production.

There are many other examples of low-mortality cage-free egg production operations. For example, in Switzerland, the FiBL research institute uses a subdivided barn system with rotational access to four outdoor paddocks. One paddock is in use at a time, giving the other three a chance to rest, which reduces the parasite load. Overhead netting protects free-range hens from birds of prey. The flock, a mix of brown and white strains, is subdivided into groups of 500 birds. The environment is enriched with perches, dustbaths, nest boxes and plenty of space. The birds are not beak trimmed, yet they have a mortality rate of less than 2%.[37]

Himmelsfarm (Heaven's Farm) in The Netherlands has three barns with around 32,000 H&N Brown Nick birds. They use a Vencomatic aviary system. The mortality rate after 51 weeks was less than 2%.[38]

The Meyers farm in Lincolnshire, England is a free-range farm using Lohmann Tradition birds. After making adjustments to their refurbished barn, the mortality rate at 48 weeks was just 1.5% in their flock of over 4,000 birds. [39]

There are also examples of low-mortality cage-free production in the scientific literature spanning several decades. For example, in a 1986 study conducted by researchers at Scottish Farm Buildings Investigation Unit and the North of Scotland College of Agriculture, ISA Brown birds were used in a comparison between battery cages and a perchery system. The cumulative mortality in the perchery was 1.36% from 20-44 weeks while it was 2.47% in the comparison group housed in battery cages. [40]

A 2009 University of British Columbia study reported mortality rates of beak-trimmed Lohmann White, Lohmann Brown, and H&N White birds. Half of the birds of each strain were confined in cages and half were kept in floor pens with a perch and a nest box. Birds reared in floor pens were given access to perches beginning at two weeks of age and were vaccinated against coccidiosis. Mortality during the laying period was 3.33% for the Lohmann White birds in the floor pens and 10.8% in cages. Similarly, for the Lohmann Brown birds it was 1.67% in the floor pens and 15.8% in cages, and for the H&N White birds mortality figures were 5.71% on the floor and 13.3% in cages, although mortality was higher during the rearing period for Lohman Brown and H&N White strains on the floor. [41]

These examples show that mortality is not inherently high in cage-free egg production. Experienced producers who are truly committed to improving the welfare of their birds have found viable methods for controlling mortality.

The egg industry is not static. It continues to evolve and reinvent itself in response to consumer demand. Changing the face of egg production is not only a matter of consumer concern, however, as meeting the welfare needs of the animals is an ethical imperative. The cooperative efforts of producers working together with retailers, scientists, consumers, and advocacy groups could bring about needed improvements quickly. While it may take some time for North American producers to make cage-free systems perform optimally, the longer we wait to make the transition, the longer hens in battery cages suffer.

References

¹ Appleby MC, Mench JA, and Hughes BO. 2004. Poultry Behaviour and Welfare (Wallingford, U.K.: CABI International, pp.177-9).

² Van Roekel H. 1955. Respiratory disease of poultry. In: Brandly CA and Jungherr EL (eds.), Advances in Veterinary Science (New York, NY: Academic Press Inc., Publishers, pp. 64-105).

³ Smith P and Daniel C. 1975. The Chicken Book (Boston, MA: Little Brown and Company, p. 258).

⁴Hurd LM. 1930. Practical Poultry Farming (New York, NY: The Macmillan Company, p. 294).

⁵ Smith P and Daniel C. 1975. The Chicken Book (Boston, MA: Little Brown and Company, p. 258).

⁶ Appleby MC, Mench JA, and Hughes BO. 2004. Poultry Behaviour and Welfare (Wallingford, U.K.: CABI International, pp.177-9).

⁷ Hitchner SB. 2004. History of biological control of poultry diseases in the U.S.A. Avian Diseases 48:1-8.

⁸ Beaumont C, Dambrine G, Chaussé AM, and Flock D. 2003. Selection for disease resistance: conventional breeding for resistance to bacteria and viruses. In: Muir WM and Aggrey SE (eds.), Poultry Genetics, Breeding and Biotechnology (Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp. 357-84.

⁹ O’Sullivan NP. 2009. Genomics, physiology, and well-being: Layer industry

breeder’s perspective. In: Abstracts of the 98th Annual Meeting of the Poultry Science Association (Raleigh, North Carolina, p.2).

¹⁰ Sorensen P. 2001. Breeding strategies in poultry for genetic adaptation to the organic environment. In: Hovi M and Baars T (eds.), Breeding and feeding for animal health and welfare in organic livestock systems, Proceedings of the Fourth NAHWOA Workshop (Wageningen, The Netherlands: Network for Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture, pp 51-61).

¹¹ Aerni V, Brinkhof MWG, Wechsler B, Oester H, and Fröhlich E. 2005. Productivity and mortality of laying hens in aviaries: a systematic review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 61(1):130-42.

¹² Häne M, Huber-Eicher B, and Fröhlich E. 2000. Survey of laying hen husbandry in Switzerland. World’s Poultry Science Journal 56:22-31.

¹³ Blokhuis HJ, Niekerk TFv, Bessei W, et al. 2007. The LayWel project: welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens. World’s Poultry Science Journal 63(1):101-14.

¹⁴ Berg C. 2001. Health and Welfare in Organic Poultry Production. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica. Suppl. 95:37-45.

¹⁵ Berg C. 2001. Health and Welfare in Organic Poultry Production. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica. Suppl. 95:37-45.

¹⁶ Ova Achievement. Undated. Waitrose. www.waitrose.com/food/celebritiesandarticles/foodissues/0104050.aspx. Accessed September 17, 2009.

¹⁷ Appleby MC and Hughes BO. 1991. Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World’s Poultry Science Journal 47(2):109-28.

¹⁸ Häne M, Huber-Eicher B, and Fröhlich E. 2000. Survey of laying hen husbandry in Switzerland. World’s Poultry Science Journal 56:22-31.

¹⁹ Appleby MC and Hughes BO. 1991. Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World’s Poultry Science Journal 47(2):109-28.

²⁰ Tauson R. 2002. Furnished cages and aviaries: production and health. World’s Poultry Science Journal 58:49-63.

²¹ Whay RH, Main DCJ, Green LE, Heaven G, Howell H, Morgan M, Pearson A, and Webster AJF. 2007. Assessment of the behaviour and welfare of laying hens on free-range units. Veterinary Record 161:119-28.

²² Berg C. 2001. Health and Welfare in Organic Poultry Production. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica. Suppl. 95:37-45.

²³ Bestman MWP. 2001. The role of management and housing in the prevention of feather pecking in laying hens. In: Hovi M and Bouilhol M (eds.), Human Animal Relationship: Stockmanship and Housing in Organic Livestock Systems. Proceedings of the Third NAHWOA Workshop (Clermont-Ferrand, France: Network for Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture, University of Reading, pp.77-88). www.veeru.rdg.ac.uk/organic/ProceedingsFINAL.pdf. Accessed September 17, 2009.

²⁴ Kjaer JB and Vestergaard KS. 1999. Development of feather-pecking in relation to light intensity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62:243-54.

²⁵ Newberry RC. 2003. Cannibalism. In: Perry GC (ed.), Welfare of the Laying Hen, Poultry Science Symposium Series, 27 (Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp. 239-58).

²⁶ Gunnarsson S, Keeling LJ, Svedberg J. 1999. Effect of rearing factors on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal cannibalism and feather pecking in commercial flocks of loose housed laying hens. British Poultry Science 40:12-8.

²⁷ Newberry RC. 2003. Cannibalism. In: Perry GC (ed.), Welfare of the Laying Hen, Poultry Science Symposium Series, 27 (Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp. 239-58).

²⁸ Huber-Eicher and Sebo F. 2001. Reducing feather pecking when raising laying hen chicks in aviary systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 73:59-68.

²⁹ Johnsen PF, Vestergaard KS, Nørgaard-Nielsen.1998. Influence of early rearing conditions of the development of feather pecking and cannibalism in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60:25-41.

³⁰ Aerni V, Brinkhof MWG, Wechsler B, Oester H, and Fröhlich E. 2005. Productivity and mortality of laying hens in aviaries: a systematic review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 61(1):130-42.

³¹ Newberry RC. 2003. Cannibalism. In: Perry GC (ed.), Welfare of the Laying Hen, Poultry Science Symposium Series, 27 (Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, pp. 239-58).

³² Bermudez AJ and Stewart-Brown B. 2003. Disease prevention and diagnosis. In: Saif YM (Editor-in-Chief), Diseases of Poultry, 11th Edition (Ames, IA: Iowa State Press, pp.19-55).

³³ Bassler A, Ciszuk P, Sjelin K: Management of laying hens in mobile houses – a review of experiences. 1999. In: Hermansen JE, Lund V, and Thuen E (eds.), Proceedings NJF-seminar No 303, Ecological Animal Husbandry in the Nordic Countries (Horsens, Denmark: Danish Research Center for Organic Farming, pp. 45-50). www.foejo.dk/publikation/rapport/dar_2.pdf. Accessed September 17, 2009.

³⁴ Fanatico A. 2006. Alternative poultry production systems and outdoor access. National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service. http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/poultryoverview.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2009.

³⁵ Ova Achievement. Undated. Waitrose. www.waitrose.com/food/celebritiesandarticles/foodissues/0104050.aspx. Accessed September 17, 2009.

³⁶ Organic Columbian Blacktail eggs –the Stonegate/Waitrose supply chain. Report of an Elm Farm Research Centre Study. 2006. www.efrc.com/manage/authincludes/article_uploads/EGGS.pdf. Accessed September 17, 2009.

³⁷ Riddle J. Undated. Alpine Chicken Tour. http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/international/swiss_poultry/index.shtml. Accessed September 17, 2009.

³⁸ The Poultry Site. 2009. Layers Get Special Treatment at 'Heavenly' Farm. www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/1448/layers-get-special-treatment-at-heavenly-farm. Accessed September 17, 2009.

³⁹ Back to farming the traditional way. 2002. Lohmann Poultry News, July. www.ltz.de/content/pn7gbint.pdf. Accessed September 17, 2009.

⁴⁰ McLean KA, Baxter MR, and Michie W. 1986. A comparison of the welfare of laying hens in battery cages and in a perchery. Research and Development in Agriculture 3(2):93-8.

⁴¹ Singh R, Cheng KM, and Silversides FG. Production performance and egg quality of four strains of laying hens kept in conventional cages and floor pens. Poultry Science 88:256-64.

Crazy PETA

2009-09-15T16:58:00.000-07:00

Here's the latest crazy PETA activity

I have a theory about Ingrid Newkirk, the President of PETA. I think she is the world's greatest and most outrageous prankster. I bet she was making fun of kind-hearted animal rights activists one day and said to a friend, "I'll bet I can make animal rights activists [insert crazy thing here]". Then she actually got away with it. Not only did she pull her prank off, but people started sending her money.

She then made more bets. "I'll bet I can get women to strip naked and sit in cages...I'll bet I can ask Ben and Jerry's to make ice cream from women's breast milk and won't be fired..." She kept winning the bets, and kept making more money.

And a true prankster would never cease until others catch on...so she never has...just a theory :)

Francione on Moral Schizophrenia

2009-09-15T16:39:00.000-07:00

Gary Francione has written several interesting pieces on moral schizophrenia, the latest one here. I live this "moral schizophrenia" and most everyone I know does also, and I assure you there is nothing schizophrenic about it. I eat meat from a pig and have a dog as my best friend not because I am confused about anything nor because I am uneducated about the intelligience of pigs or factory farming. The motivation for valuing pigs for food and dogs for companionship stems not from confusion but is a simple, direct product of what the animals are used for.

I treat pigs one way because their "purpose" is to provide me with food and I treat my dog differently because her "purpose" is to provide me with companionship. One may say that I am immoral, but one cannot say that I am in anyway confused. I know exactly what I am doing. People largely base their decisions on how to treat animals not based on a moral philosophy or animals' IQs, but the purpose of the animal.

And regarding the deer and the hunter, if you don't understand why hunters would help a deer, you don't understand a single thing about hunters.

My comments are friendly...keep thinking and writing Gary....

About Cass Sunstein

2009-09-15T12:06:00.000-07:00

There has been so much talk lately about Cass Sunstein that I decided to read a few of his papers; namely, I read The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer and Animal Rights Without Controversy.

My overall assessment is that Sunstein should not be as controversial as he is, and that he is really more of a victim of circumstance than a victim of his own idealogy. Sunstein is correct that virtually everyone subscribes to some form of animal rights. Americans heartily support anti-cruelty laws, and disdain anyone who tortures animals without justification. While many may mock animal rights activists and scoff at the idea of eliminating the status of property for animals, for all practical purposes animals are not really even property now. You cannot do whatever you like with animals, even if you "own" it, and the anti-cruelty laws limiting your freedom over this "property" are very popular. To some degree, Sunstein argues and I concur, we are all animal rightists.

Sunstein does argue that anti-cruelty laws are not enforced as vigorously as he would like, and proposes that citizens should be able to bring forth lawsuits on behalf of animals to facilitate enforcement, but don't we do so already do so with the environment? Is asking that anti-cruetly statutes be enforced, and that the common exceptions to cruelty be eliminated, really all that extremist?

As Sunstein writes he reveals pieces of himself. Some of these pieces better resemble animal rightists and some better resemble regular Americans. He suggests a ban on hunting might be appropriate if hunting is conducted only for fun, which makes him a bit unusual to most men than I know (they would probably describe him as effiminate) but then he seems to have little problem with raising animals for food or animal experimentation in important areas. Sunstein seemingly dismisses those who feel domestic animals and certain livestock should be in control of their own destiny, as that destiny would often be greater suffering than they realize at the hands of humans, but unfortunately "suggests" that rats may not be justifiably expelled from a house. The subject of "animals as property" is raised but then dismissed as largely irrelevant; a point which I readily agree.

In summary, Sunstein is certainly more concerned with the suffering of animals than the average American, but the intensity of this concern is not extreme. His views appear liberal but a liberality consistent the administration that was elected. Unfortunately his open-mindedness is what exposes him to such scrutiny. A professor is supposed to be open-minded, but that leaves you susceptible to ideas that many in society are not ready for; and when you go to serve a President that open-mindnesses becomes a handicap.

Sunstein is liberal but not an extreme liberal. As conservatives and liberals continue their battle they will search for enemies on either side. Sunstein was just open-minded enough to qualify as a valid enemy of conservatives. If you believe Obama to be a true socialist you will probably feel that Sunstein is a true animal rightist who wants to take away your dog. But if you believe Obama to simply be a normal liberal, then you will find Sunstein to be likewise. Attacks on Sunstein may be unfortunate for him, but he was approved by Congress and has now made animal welfare a more prominent issue.

Utilizing Space in a Cage-Free System

2009-09-15T11:14:00.000-07:00

I have seen a few recent narratives in favor of cage systems that argue hens should not be given greater space allotments because, when it is given to them, they do not use it. I recently cited one of these narratives as stating...

While there were no cages, many of the hens were huddled together at one end of the hen

house; so while they had more open space, in practical terms they weren’t using any more

space than the hens in cages.

I once visited a pastured poultry broiler farm and saw the same thing. The little broiler chicks were given lots of room but didn't want the extra room. They all huddled together almost all the time, leaving most of the pasture-tent space empty. Is the same true for layers?

To assess this claim I re-visited some videos of cage-free facilities the UEP kindly sent me. Watching the videos left two impressions on me. First, there were so many hens on the floor of the facilities that there was hardly any extra space that even existed. Second, the hens were mostly uniformly scattered about the space. They did not huddle in a corner, but were comfortably walking around. Thus, these videos counter the aforementioned claim that hens do not want extra space. But then, the UEP is unlikely to film and distribute a video of cage-free hens suffocating each other in the corner of a building :) So while I am dubious of the claim that hens do not welcome and utilize extra space when given to them, I remain open-minded.

Does anyone know of a scientifically documented study of how hens use their time and space in a cage-free system? This issue interests me, and seems important.

One Study Favors Cage Eggs

2009-09-15T09:07:00.000-07:00

I have been searching for a study that compares and ranks egg production systems that puts the cage system equivalent or ahead of cage-free. All the rankings thus far favor cage-free systems, so I have been on the lookout for one that doesn't.

A study in New Zealand may or may not be this contrary study supporting cage egg production.

This study compared cage systems, cage-free systems, and free-range systems, finding that all birds in every system were adapted to the production system and had acceptable welfare standards. The cage system was not considered to be inferior or superior to other systems. This could be considered an important finding, as it is the first real study that did not conclude cage-free systems are superior to cage systems.

However, if you look at how the study was conducted it was perhaps a foregone conclusion. The various sytems were evaluated by mortality rates, feather loss, injuries, physical performance, stress-hormone levels, and the like, and it was already known that cage systems do well on these factors (that is my perception, at least).

What this study did differently was not not assign any credit to cage-free and free-range systems for allowing birds room to walk and express normal behaviors like foraging. Previous studies did give cage-free/free-range systems credit for this, and was largely the deciding factor in determining cage-free was better.

The study indirectly admits this, saying that laying hens have said to suffer in cage conditions by other people because they are unable to perform almost any natural behavior or even walk, and that, "These perceptions of conventional cages will probably not be dispelled by the results of this survey. Nevertheless, a high level of adaptation is, at the very least, a necessary condition for good bird welfare, and the behavioral results of this study show that birds in cages appear as well adapted to their environment as free range and barn hens are to theirs."

It should also be noted that, according to a personal source who is an expert in animal welfare and intimately involved in the welfare issue, that the findings of reports like the Laywel Report were also a foregone conclusion. This person told me that the people involved with the Laywel Report were going to rank cage-free ahead of cage systems regardless of what the mortality rate in the cage-free system was. When the report was written they made it seem as if the mortality rate realized was "acceptable" in return for the freedom it provides the birds, but in reality, almost any rate would have been acceptable. I may be wrong, but that is what I was told.

I believe that there is no bottom-line in the cage-free vs cage egg debate. I give cage-free systems credit for allowing birds the room to walk and such, and that is why I prefer cage-free, but other people don't. And if you do give credit for this feature, how much? The answers to these questions depends on perceptions, and I have mine, but other people have theirs as well.

Morality, Rationality, and Emotion

2009-09-15T08:20:00.000-07:00

I am currently reading the excellent book How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer, which describes the pscyhology of decision-making. Chapter 6 regards morality, and asserts that neuroscience proves that decisions regarding what is ethical or unethical virtually ignores the part of the brain associated with rationality. Instead, morality judgments are made the same way aesthetic judgments are formed, such as whether you like a song or painting. The ethical justifications people surmise have more to do with justifying their moral intuition than forming ethical verdicts. Lehrer states, "When it comes to making ethical decisions, human rationality isn't a scientist, it's a lawyer."

Such a finding has implications for the animal welfare issue, and helps me understand the behavior of various groups. People who oppose and support animal rights are not doing so based intensive research and dispassionate logic. Their mind takes their genetics and their life experiences thus far and forms snaps judgments about, say, whether an animal should be allowed to express normal behaviors or whether it is "ethical" to raise animals for food. This explains why so few people change their mind about how farm animals should be treated as they accumulate more experience in the topic and why the topic (like most moral topics, abortion for instance) brings forth intensive emotions. Asking whether a sow should be allowed room to turn around is like asking whether Beethoven is more talented than John Lennon--it is a matter of intuition, much like tastes in music. Since these "tastes" regarding morality are simply presented to the individuals' consciousness, they are unlikely to welcome others questioning their morality. That would imply their mysterious intuition regarding morality is defunct, which would be a problem the individual would be unable to repair.

My experience with people of various views suggests that people with animal rights tendencies tend to be squimish and extremely sensitive to pain and the concept of death. People who have no trouble raising animals for meat are much less squimish, for instance, they are much more likely to be hunters. They are more accepting of pain and death as a natural part of life. These "tendencies" will indeed carry over to their thoughts on raising animals for food. Because intuition dislikes uncertainty, it will tend to paint a black-and-white picture of the issue. You either sympathize with animal rights activists or you don't. If you eat meat you should not support any HSUS initiatives. That kind of thing.

It also suggests that ALL writers on the topic (including me) that express an ethical opinion are doing more to justify their "feelings" to others than to actually arrive at a verdict themselves. That is something I have implicitly believed but never asserted because I had no source to back me. Animal rights authors and industry defenders alike are not basing their differences so much on different sets of information, but different intuitions.

Like Alexander Pope stated,

The monk's humility,

The hereo's price,

All, all alike,

have reason on their side.

Peter Singer: have your writings been objective research or a pursuit to justify your intuition?

Trent Loos: is your careful scrutiny of animal industry issues sought to inform the public and yourself, or to better justify those mysterious instincts underneath that black hat?

Reader: are your views of the issue at all swayed by new information, or are you simply a stubborn soldier under the command of your intuition?

About Cage-Free Egg Production

2009-09-14T19:49:00.000-07:00

I recently contacted an egg producer who raises both cage and cage-free eggs. I offerred three perceptions I had about cage-free egg production and asked them to respond. My perceptions were...

(1) Brown birds are used in cage-free egg production because they lay brown eggs and consumers want cage-free eggs to be brown

(2) Brown birds are calmer in an open system around people, which makes them preferred in a cage-free system.

(3) Brown birds are also more aggressive towards one another, which is a reason mortality rates are higher in cage-free systems.

Those were my three perceptions, and the farmers' response is below (I omitted parts that would reveal the farm's identity)...

My observations of brown vs. white birds are somewhat along the same lines yours but I would like to point out a few other things that go along with this. I have found in my tenure here at xxxx that our brown birds do tend to be a little more docile in a cage free environment, but they also tend to be more docile in the cage as well. White birds can be trained through good management practices to do well in a cage free environment but as you say, the consumer has repeatedly shown that they want a cage free egg to be brown. As to the heightened mortality in a cage free system, I think it has little to do with the aggression of the birds but more to do with the fact that the birds have more room to pile on one another causing suffocation and the fact that cage free environments create a breeding ground for parasites detrimental to the birds. Hence the fact that coccidiosis tends to be a problem in a cage free system and not cage systems.

Tail Docking in CA

2009-09-14T19:44:00.000-07:00

A reader referred me to a paper suggesting tail docking is uncommon in CA.

Docking Tails

2009-09-08T11:01:00.000-07:00

The California legislature recently passed a bill to ban the docking of dairy cattle tails. I was surprised when I read that over 80% of dairy farms in a study used tail docking, as I had worked on two dairies when I was young and was completely unaware that anyone did this.

A few months ago I spent time trying to find out why people were docking tails, and I could not identify any reason other than the nuisance of dealing with tails when milking. I could not find any health reason for doing so.

Fraud in Free-Range Eggs?

2009-09-08T09:25:00.000-07:00

A news article suggesting some people may be selling eggs as free-range eggs, when they in reality are not.

I once talked with a free-range egg farmer who told me he had to sell brown eggs at Farmers Market because his consumers will be skeptical of whether his eggs were free-range if they were white eggs.

Tomorrow's Livestock Agriculture

2009-09-08T09:08:00.000-07:00

Recent news reports describe Michigan agricultural leaders meeting with the HSUS to try and avoid a ballot initiative. Receiving attention is the fact that cage-free eggs are more costly and that large-scale changes can cause disruptions to the egg industry. I have three points to make which suggests producers should not be as opposed to such changes as they are, and there may be an alternative motive for opposing cage-free production for some producers.

First, the HSUS is fortunately giving producers 7+ years to convert to cage-free or gestation-stall-free systems. These changes are then long-run changes. I applaud HSUS for this. If they had tried to make these changes within five years I would publicly denounce them as unreasonable.

Second, in the long-run the benefits of a less expensive production system are received almost exclusively by consumers, not producers. Competition ensures that egg producers utilizing cage systems do not benefit from its low cost, because prices are always driven down to costs. In the long-run, then, it is consumers who will bear the burden of higher egg prices, not producers. I believe a smart producers would attempt to be one of the first adopters and gain considerable human capital in cage-free production, and then support laws that force others to adopt this system that she has already mastered.

Third, it may be that some producers are fighting cage-free systems because the systems are new and some producers are receiving benefits of being early-adopters. The premiums charged for cage-free eggs are huge, huge, huge, relative to the costs. Someone is making lots of money, and I am a little bit suspicious when I talk to producers who grow cage-free eggs and publicly denounce efforts to encourage cage-free egg production. During a phone call with an egg producer I tried to ascertain what portion of the high cage-free egg premiums are received by the farmer and the grocery store, but could not get an answer. His evasiveness suggests he may be profiting handsomely, and opposes laws promoting cage-free production because he does not want competition. Maybe not, but the high premiums on cage-free egg production relative to the cost premium suggests my suspicions are not unwarranted.

Note: I know this posting seems anti-egg-industry, but I am only going where the economics lies, I promise :)

Cows that don't feel pain

2009-09-08T09:03:00.000-07:00

A recent article in Neuroethics discusses the possibility of breeding animals who do not feel pain. I think it is interesting that, in society today, many people familiar with intensive livestock production have no doubts that layers and hogs lead miserable lives. For people who search for meaning in their lives as an activist, and given what has already been accomplished in regards to civil rights, it is not suprising that animal welfare/rights has become a topic to rally around.

Do You Really Care About Farm Animals?

2009-09-04T12:49:00.000-07:00

My colleague and friend, Jayson Lusk, recently wrote a guest blog posting about some of our animal welfare survey work.

Notre Dame Prefers Cage Eggs

2009-09-03T11:43:00.000-07:00

Interesting article explaining why Notre Dame considered cage and cage-free egg production and chose cage eggs.

I don't know if you agree, but something about the way the article is written seems strange...

Also available online here...

NOTRE DAME FOODSERVICE EXPLAINS HOW AND WHY IT DECIDED TO

STAY WITH CONVENTIONAL CAGE PRODUCTION EGGS

Note: Through the UEP Certified Public Relations program, UEP Certified was a

sponsor at the National Association of College and University Foodservice

(NACUFS) annual conference. The following is a report of a presentation made at

the conference by University of Notre Dame Foodservice executives explaining how

and why they chose to continue using UEP Certified conventional cage production

eggs in spite of student and activist pressure in favor of non-cage production eggs.

July 27, 2006 – University of Notre Dame Foodservice executives today outlined some of

the issues facing many college and university foodservice directors today in a

presentation to the National Association of College and University Foodservices

(NACUFS) annual convention entitled “Issues Surrounding Cage vs. Cage-Free Eggs.”

The presentation by Jocie Antonelli, R.D., manager of nutrition and food safety, and Dan

Crimmins, director of purchasing for Notre Dame documented the campaign waged by

some students at the university to get Notre Dame to only purchase cage free eggs. It also

showcased the efforts that the university’s foodservice department made to investigate

the issue and make their decision, which was to continue to serve only conventional cage

production eggs.

Jocie is a registered dietitian with a B.S. in dietetics from Indiana University. She has

been with Notre Dame for ten years and is responsible for nutrition and food safety.

Notre Dame has 11,200 students, 7,800 of whom are undergraduates. Unlike many other

universities, 80% of the students live in on-campus residence halls all four years. 6,800

students purchase on-campus meal contracts from the university. 80% of the students are

Catholic, and the university has a strong history and commitment to campus life and

social causes.

The foodservice department formed a Social Responsibility Committee in 2005

consisting of Jocie, Dan, their executive chef and their senior associate director. Some of

the issues that the committee has worked on include organics, local purchasing,

sustainable seafood, pandemic planning and other societal and environmental issues.

STUDENT ACTIVISTS’ CAMPAIGN

Jocie explained that a few students formed a group called ND For Animals and provided

the university’s foodservice department with a 15-minute video purporting to show

cruelty, filth and disease in egg laying hen houses. The students asked that the university

switch to cage free eggs.

The student group presented a 5-point document outlining arguments for Notre Dame to

use only cage free eggs. These arguments included claims that cage free eggs are higher

quality (they are not) and that the Better Business Bureau has ruled that the UEP

Certified label is misleading (it has not).

The students also claimed a moral, ethical and religious basis for the university to be

opposed to cage production eggs, even claiming a Papal quote on the topic to support

their position. The students also were advocating one specific cage free egg

supplier/brand that they wanted the university to utilize. The activists also published a

full page ad in the campus newspaper featuring the Papal quote, and one of the activists

wrote a letter to the editor with their views.

NOTRE DAME INVESTIGATES

Rather than relying strictly on the video, which was produced by the national activist

group Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Jocie and her committee decided to

visit their current egg supplier as well as two cage free suppliers. They invited two of the

students to come along. Jocie indicated that, based on the video, she was not looking

forward to the farm tours. However, she was pleasantly surprised by what she saw on her

visits to the university’s egg supplier, Creighton Brothers in Northern Indiana.

“We saw four to six hens per cage, with each hen provided 67 to 72 square inches of

space, with 24 hour access to food and water, protection from predators, cages which

were stair-stepped to prevent any manure pass-thru from one cage onto the next, plenty of

bright lighting which mimicked normal daytime/nighttime patterns,” Jocie said.

Creighton Brothers participates in the United Egg Producers Certified program

(www.uepcertified.com) which requires producers to provide scientifically-accepted

allowances for cage space, air, water, feed, lighting and other animal husbandry and

welfare criteria. Inspections for UEP Certified producers are conducted annually by

USDA personnel or the independent testing company Validus. Jocie showed the

NACUFS group several photos taken at Creighton Brothers farms, which she said

differed greatly from the images she had expected to see based on the HSUS video.

The Notre Dame group also visited two cage free egg suppliers, each of which had

20,000 hens. “What many people think of when they envision a cage free farm is a red

barn, blue sky and green grass,” Jocie said. “But in reality their environment is not that

much different than the ones we had seen at the conventional cage production facility.

While there were no cages, many of the hens were huddled together at one end of the hen

house; so while they had more open space, in practical terms they weren’t using any more

space than the hens in cages. And unlike the cage system where the manure drops into an

underground pit, these hens were walking around in what is called a ‘deep litter system’

which allowed them to be in constant contact with their feces. And we saw firsthand what

the phrase ‘pecking order’ means. It means that some of the hens actually peck or attack

other hens. This is why their beaks are trimmed (not cut off) just after birth, both in

conventional cage and cage free production systems. There was no natural light, just

artificial; the air quality seemed worse to us, because the hens are walking around and

kick up a lot of dust. In fact, many of the workers were wearing masks. The ammonia

smell also seemed stronger to us than in the conventional cage production, perhaps

because of the deep litter system.”

Jocie said that the cage free system did allow for more opportunity for the hens to

demonstrate some natural chicken behaviors like scratching or dust bathing.

ND Foodservice also spent a lot of time discussing the moral, ethical and religious claims

made by the student activists, Jocie said.

“We found out that the quote the students were attributing to Pope Benedict XVI came

when he was a Cardinal, so its relevance should be relegated to a personal opinion rather

than a Catholic doctrine,” Jocie explained. “And we thought his negative connotation of

animals used in production agriculture could be equally applied to hens living in the cage

free environments that we visited.”

The Foodservice Committee also found clarification and guidance from the Catholic

Catechism which reads in part:

“God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom He created in his own

image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing…Medical and

scientific experimentation on animals, if it remains within reasonable limits, is a morally

acceptable practice since it contributes to caring for or saving human lives…It is contrary

to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to

spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can

love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.”

“We decided that the religious issue was a neutral point in our review,” Jocie explained.

The university had their chef test both varieties of eggs and he found no difference in

their culinary performance. There also is no difference from a nutritional standpoint.

“We then looked up the definition of humane in the dictionary, and discussed the quality

of life issues for hens,” Jocie said. “While we believed that the quality of life might be

slightly better in the cage free system, there was no real way of asking a chicken that

question. And more importantly we believe that neither the cage production system nor

the cage free system treats chickens inhumanely.”

Jocie said there were a number of food safety issues that they also were concerned about

including salmonella, egg contact with feces and the freshness of the eggs. The university

provides food for a children’s center on campus, a retirement home for priests, and

pregnant women. In addition, they considered the logistical issues of their egg deliveries

as well as cost factors. Many cage free eggs cost twice or three times the price of

conventional cage production eggs, though this was less of an issue than many of the

other considerations, she said.

Jocie said they considered the notion of offering students a choice, but that was not an

efficient option for them to implement at this time. A representative from Cornell

University indicated that they were test piloting a program where they would provide

students a cage free choice of a meal such as an omelet, but they would charge more for it

and see if there was sufficient interest to sustain that offering in the future.

The university’s review took several months and will periodically be reviewed, Jocie

said. For other universities and colleges facing this or similar issues, Jocie had this

advice: “Do your own homework and investigation, check out your suppliers, and

understand all aspects of the issue of products in your supply chain. See for yourself;

don’t just take other people’s words for it.”

# # #

Amazing Baby Chick Videos

2009-09-02T14:14:00.000-07:00

I have always wanted to see the machines that kill baby male chicks and trim chick beaks. Not from a sadistic point-of-view, but a curiosity. This video shows it. The most amazing thing is how fast the "sexers" can tell the difference between male and female chicks.

HSUS and Meat Eaters

2009-08-26T07:12:00.000-07:00

In response to my previous post, I received an email informing me that the majority of HSUS's Board of Directors are meat-eaters, and they can fire and hire the CEO Wayne Pacelle. Moreover, this Board is democratically elected by HSUS members. Furthermore, the HSUS building is occupied by some staff who are vegans, some who are vegetarians, and some who eat meat. The email also informed me that HSUS does promote pet ownership.

This is an important point, and one that needs to be understood by those debating the farm animal welfare issue. Yes, the CEO and many other positions of power within HSUS are filled by vegans who have a history of subscribing to certain animal rights. However, these individuals were elected to run HSUS by a membership that includes many, many meat-eaters. It is probable that the majority of HSUS members are meat-eaters and pet owners, though I do not have the stats to prove it.

The idea that the farm animal welfare debate is a struggle between ordinary people and extremists who have hijacked an organization with a fortunate name may be good propaganda but is not good logic. There is a large base of meat-eating, pet owning Americans who voluntarily elected Wayne Pacelle to improve the lives of farm animals. Those who dismiss animal advocacy groups on the basis of conspiracy theories are insulting the millions of ordinary Americans who simply want farm animals to have a better life.

Note: These posts are not made with the intention of promoting any animal advocacy group. I am not a member of any group, and I have friends on both sides of the issue. The posts are only intended to clarify the farm animal welfare debate so that consumers can better educate themselves.

Is there a "reasonable" group?

2009-08-26T04:48:00.001-07:00

I have a number of friends who began following the farm animal welfare debate once they found out I was writing a book on it. Lately, they have all been asking me the same thing: is there an animal welfare group led by "reasonable" people. By "reasonable" people they are referring to meat-eaters who do not believe in bestowing animals with any "rights," but giving them a good life nevertheless.

Indeed, it is difficult to talk to anyone in the livestock industry about the animal welfare issues because they are so opposed to animal rightists that they refuse to acknowledge that the rightists may be right on some issues. "Better not treat chickens better," they say, "or we will start on a slippery slope towards veganism and the abolition of pets."

First, let me say that I know a few people in these groups, and while some may not view them as "reasonable", they are very nice people who I enjoy talking to. It does not surprise me that the most ardent supporters of better animal care also happen to be vegans and animal rightists. The leaders of Mother's Against Drunk Driving also similarly most likely to have extreme views on alcohol, probably in support of a complete prohibition. Moreover, some are not as opposed to farming as you might think. I had a pleasant conversation with Jennifer Fearing once, who was one of the most important promoters and organizers of Prop 2 in California, and she seemed sincerely interested in helping California egg producers comply and prosper under Prop 2.

Frequently I am asked whether there is any group promoting better care for farm animals who are also meat-eaters and who also do not support "rights." The Animal Welfare Institute comes to mind, but I have heard from a good source the leader is a vegan--which is an immediate turn-off to some people. I suppose the American Humane Association might be viewed as a "reasonable" group. The AHA certainly promotes the institution of pets, which animal rightists seem to oppose.

However, one must wonder why, if HSUS is not in the "reasonable" group, why it receives more donations than any other group? Livestock industries like to claim that they raise so much money largely because of their name, which makes people think they support local animal shelters.

If I was HSUS I would actively promote a meat-eater and perhaps a farmer within the organization. Even if it were a facade, I would make it clearly visible that meat-eaters are an important part of HSUS. That would help remove an obstacle to talking about farm animal welfare. Maybe then we could have a legitimate conversation on a large-scale about how farm animals should be treated, instead of allowing conspiracy theories to divide us into two enemy camps.

Streamed Videos Not Panacea

2009-08-19T05:47:00.000-07:00

Feedstuffs recently ran a nice story about an interview with Temple Grandin, where Temple argues for live-stream videos of farms to mitigate concerns about farm animal cruelty.

However, most of the concerns about farm animal welfare regard matters that such videos will not address. People are concerned about outright cruelty, such as throwing baby pigs around and kicking chickens, but such behavior is rare and people know it. The support for HSUS's recent intiatives have to do with animal housing, and videos of the typical farm would only garner MORE opposition to conventional housing.

My own research shows that when you show people how layers and hogs are raised they are not pleased. When I show pictures of the typical confinement farm, the majority of Americans express disapproval. Showing videos in addition to pictures will only make this disapproval worse.

The pursuit of public approval is not going to be achieved by bringing Americans into the typical confinement facility. All they will see are animals confined to cramped cages in an unenriched environment, and my survey and experimental work reveals that Americans are strongly opposed to such conditions.

Instead, if PR is all that matters, I would encourage farms to run videos and stories concentrating on the improvements they are making. Americans understand tradeoffs, and they respect efforts to improve animals' lot. Even if these improvements are made on a very small scale, it will make a much better impression on the consumer than showing them videos of layers and hogs in a cage just slightly larger than the animal itself. Then communicate to the consumer that these improvements will require their help (in the form of higher prices, but you don't need to say that, consumers know it). This makes the consumer an accessory to the current system, and consequently, more accepting to the system. Again, this is assuming only PR matters and animal industries do not want to improve animal welfare.

But if you start running videos of layer and hog facilities, you might as well send donations to HSUS as well.

The Great Egg Debate - The Question of Mortality Rates

2009-08-16T08:39:00.000-07:00

Consider a thought, which I am unsure of myself. We typically think that lower mortality rates in cage-egg production is good. But if cage-egg production is as horrible for the birds as some people claim, is it better that a bird lives a longer or shorter life if it is suffering? Is it better for one bird to live a year in a cage, or two birds live one-half of a year in a cage? It depends on how suffering in a system relates to time, a question which I have no answer.

...just wondering!

The Great Egg Debate - What Each Side Needs To Admit

2009-08-16T08:20:00.000-07:00

My job provides me the luxury of being able to thoroughly research topics which interest me, including the egg debate. Some of my time is spent talking on the phone with animal advocacy groups, some of my time is spent talking with egg farmers, and as anyone who has read my research knows, a very large portion of my time is spent with consumers.

This time doesn't make my views superior to others, but hopefully, helpful to others. Here are some items that both sides of The Great Egg Debate need to understand and admit, in order for this to be a real debate, as opposed to a contest between propaganda machines.

Farmers - Farmers tend to act a bit like the rambunctious attendees of townhall meetings. Knowing that I am an ag professor, they treat me like one of their own. Four out of five egg farmers who have conversed with claim that the animal advocacy groups know nothing about animals, do not care about animals, if I clean up the language. They claim the case for cage-eggs is a slum-dunk-deal. What these farmers are not admitting is that animals do have behavioral needs. Almost all of them contend that a chicken does not want room to walk, dirt to scratch, perches to stand on, and nests to lay eggs. This claim is absurd to anyone who has given the topic a fair and thorough treatment. Farmers need to acknowledge that layers do have behavioral needs, even if those needs sometimes do not serve a practical purpose, and that cage-free egg production meets some of these needs. Now, I understand why they try to ignore these needs (and they do evade the question of these needs, whenever I try to challenge them kindly on the subject they quickly change the subject), once you throw behavioral needs out the window cage-egg production looks much more desirable.

Animal Advocacy Groups - They know perfectly well that mortality and injury rates are higher in cage-free production but are reluctant to admit it. The rates may be higher due to the breed of bird used, the system, or other factors, but it is unambiguously higher in cage-free production. Yes, these rates will fall once farmers develop better cage-free systems and bird genetics more conductive to cage-free production, but currently more layers are going to be hurt and killed in a cage-free system. They too evade this question if I challenge them on it. Of course, whenever I talk to either side I don't challenge them too hard, in fear of alienating them--but I should not have to anger them by raising the topic.

The debate between cage and cage-free production is more than a debate between higher and lower food prices. There is a tradeoff for the birds as well, and this tradeoff needs to be publicly acknowledged. Hopefully Ham and Eggonomics is serving this need. Fortunately, when consumers are informed of the issue, they do recognize this tradeoff, as revealed in my research.

Finally, each side needs to understand that no one person or group has a monopoly of knowledge. Likewise, Ham and Eggonomics has no monopoly of knowledge. Developing a system of social goals for layers requires the participation of farmers, animal advocacy groups, scientists, consumers, and the like.

Climate Change and Food Prices

2009-08-16T06:58:00.000-07:00

Readers are becoming increasingly aware that fighting climate change will raise food prices (see below). If we "should" try to curb emissions (which I personally am not so sure), then two things need to happen...

(1) Yes, overall food prices must rise. In the U.S., this would probably be more of a benefit than a cost. We eat too much, and would benefit from a reduction in calories. Emitting less gases does require us to be a little poorer.

(2) But more importantly, the relative prices of goods should change in a manner such that goods which emit more greenhouse gases cost relatively more, and those that emit less emissions cost relatively less.

The fact that food companies are remarking that food prices will rise only indicates that the proposed climate change bill is doing its job. If it did not alter our food consumption behavior through a change in prices, it would not be fighting global warming.

Food Firms Fret Over Potential Impact of Climate Bill

Coalition, Including Agricultural Giants, Plans to Draw Attention to Concerns That Legislation Could Lead to Higher Food Prices

By LAUREN ETTER

Some of the nation's biggest food and agriculture companies are planning to release a flurry of studies in coming weeks that scrutinize the potential impact of climate-change legislation, warning that it could lead to higher food prices.

A group of agriculture giants including Cargill Inc., along with meat company Tyson Foods Inc. and food maker General Mills Inc., is concerned the companies might bear a disproportionate share of the costs of such legislation, according to a memo reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Government, Health Care, and Food

2009-08-16T06:38:00.000-07:00

As the country debates health care, many commentators have criticized claims that Americans have a right to health care by asking: do Americans have a right to a certain quantity and quality of food? We allow capitalism to provide our food needs, why not our health care? If we minimize the role of government in food, shouldn't we do the same for health care?

Those are useful comments, but one should keep in mind that if EVER food was inadequately provided by capitalism, government would immediately begin taking a larger role in food production.

Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of externalities in food production. These externalities include environmental pollution and animal welfare. They are increasingly calling on government to address these externalities, and if government begins responding, poor government regulations could begin to interfere with capitalism's ability to provide food, which would in turn spur government to take a larger role in food provision to fix the problems that they made.

This is exactly what has happened in health care. For example, government regulations require insurance companies to provide a certain standard of care. Those standards keep rising, which keep insurance premiums rising, pricing the millions of people without health care out of the market. Then we have people without health care, which leads people to call on government to fix that problem. Government involvement leads to problems which leads to government fixes, and the process repeats.

So, before we begin to allow government to have a larger role in food production, we should seriously consider this possible, perhaps probable, outcomes. I'm not saying government should not address these externalities, only that we should be cognizant about how regulation might play-out.

Ask An Egg Farmer

2009-08-13T17:41:00.000-07:00

I have recently formed a friendship with an egg producing family that raises hens in both a cage and cage-free environment. They have graciously agreed to answer any questions readers may have.

So if you have any questions you wish to ask an egg farmers who intimately knows cage and cage-free production, please email me or list them in the comment section.

Please phrase the questions nicely.

Arguments for Veganism Are Not New

2009-08-13T07:15:00.000-07:00

As society increasingly reevaluates its reliance on meat, a number of individuals have proposed that we should give up meat. One acre of cropland can feed more people when used to produce plant foods than when used to produce animal foods. Of course, some land is only fit for grass production, as this article by Dennis Avery illustrates.

As groups increasingly plea that we can feed the world if only we would stop producing so much meat, this will undoubtedly cause at least a few individuals to go vegan.

What is interesting about this debate is that it is not new. Even in the late 1700's and early 1800's some were arguing likewise. Also existing in the 18th Century were arguments that the slaughtering of meat degraded human character and that vegetarianism was a healthier diet. A historian on the matter has written...

"not only did the slaughter of animals have a brutalizing effect upon the human character, but the consumption of meat was bad for health; ... By the end of the [18th] century these arguments had been supplanted by an economic one: stockbreeding was a wasteful form of agriculture compared with arable farming, which produced far more food per acre."

Source: Colin Spencer, Vegetarianism: A History

As the Bible says...there is nothing new under the sun!

The Great Egg Debate - Science, Not Emotion, Shows that Caged Laying Hens have Poor Welfare

2009-08-11T16:49:00.000-07:00

Thank you to Sara Shields for providing the following contribution to Ham and Eggonomics.

Science, Not Emotion, Shows that Caged Laying Hens have Poor Welfare

By Sara Shields, PhD

Previous blog posts on Ham and Eggonomics have addressed the often-touted claim that concerns about the welfare of animals in intensive production facilities are based on emotion rather than science. However, the basis for opposition to the confinement of hens in battery cages is deeply rooted in objective scientific inquiry, and research on the topic is almost as old as the use of the battery cage itself.¹

From the beginning of the debate, ethology (the study of animal behavior) has advanced understanding of the effects of cage confinement on the well-being of laying hens and, without a doubt, shown that there are very serious welfare consequences. Studies have demonstrated that there are two basic reasons for this: 1) the animals are deprived of the opportunity to express important natural behavior; and 2) the constraints of the cage prevent exercise, which has profound physical consequences for the health of the birds.

There seems to be a general lack of appreciation for the importance of behavioral expression as a component of animal well-being. Historically, it has been easier to comprehend the role of health, for example, in ensuring good welfare, while it’s sometimes been more challenging to see how behavioral restriction can reduce welfare. The science, however, tells a very compelling story.

One of the most important behavior patterns that hens are prevented from performing in a conventional cage is nesting. Observational studies of feral hens and wild Jungle Fowl (the progenitor of today’s domesticated chickens) have shown that hens will seek out a secretive, sheltered nesting site when they are about to lay an egg.^2,3,4 Ethologists have investigated this behavior further in laboratory studies. They have shown that when hens do not have a nest box—as is the case when confined inside a typical battery cage—they express frustration with stereotyped, repetitive pacing movements just prior to oviposition (egg-laying),⁵ and make “gakel-calls,” the same types of behavior expressed in experiments with hungry hens who are able to see an expected food reward but are prevented from access by a clear Plexiglas-like cover.^6,7

Using a methodology borrowed from psychology, ethologists have also investigated the “motivation” or “drive” that compels a hen to seek a suitable nesting site. By requiring an animal to “work” for access to a resource (in this case, a nest box), motivational level can be quantified. A common work task now used in animal welfare research is to require animals to push through a weighted door. Weight can be added to the door to determine how hard an animal will push to gain access to something they want, feed, a social companion or more space, for example, thereby giving an objective measure of motivational strength. It has been found that hens will push at a rate greater than 3000 Newtons/second to access a nest box 20 minutes prior to oviposition, harder than they will work to gain access to feed after several hours of food deprivation.^8,9

The behavioral evidence is complemented by physiological studies. The internal drive to display nesting behavior is under hormonal control. Progesterone and estrogen released from the postovulatory follicle initiate pre-laying behavior 24 hours later, when the egg is nearly ready to be laid.¹⁰ In other words, the hen seeks a nest because her hormones tell her to do so when she is about to lay an egg. These hormonal signals are present no matter what the environment, whether the hen is in a backyard flock, a barn, or a cage.

While any one of these experiments alone would be highly suggestive, together they support a solid, scientifically-based argument that a hen is frustrated when she does not have access to an appropriate nest site. I could write much more (and, in fact, have done so here, with my co-author Dr. Ian Duncan) on the strong scientific evidence suggesting that hens also need to forage, perch, and explore, and that they enjoy dustbathing. Given the plethora of scientific research in the field of ethology and complementary scientific disciplines, it is disconcerting when the behavioral needs of hens are brushed aside in favor of arguing that concerns about the well-being of caged hens are based on emotion rather than science. There is a long history of scientific work demonstrating that animals have behavioral needs and that when these needs are not met in invariant, deprived, captive environments, there are real consequences for the animals.

If the aforementioned psychological impacts weren’t enough, there are also physical consequences when movement is severely restricted. For all hens, osteoporosis is a concern because calcium needed for shell formation is diverted from bone.¹¹ Studies have demonstrated that restriction of movement, especially the thwarting of normal behavior such as stepping and wing-flapping, are a primary cause of bone fragility for laying hens^12,13 and that exercise improves bone strength.¹⁴ Along with high-energy diets, restriction of movement and lack of exercise are also factors that predispose hens to fatty liver hemorrhagic syndrome,^15,16,17,18 a disease in which excessive fat is deposited in the hen’s liver and abdomen.^19,20

Cage layer fatigue was first identified when laying hen flocks were moved into cages during the advent of intensive farming in the 1950s and continues to be a “major issue.”²¹ The disease is “virtually unheard of” in birds who are not raised in cages.²² The skeletal system of hens suffering from cage layer fatigue can become so weak that hens become paralyzed.²³ However, if they are removed from their cages and allowed to walk normally on the floor (that is, if they are allowed to exercise) and are given food and water, some may recover spontaneously.^24,25,26 Unattended birds die from dehydration and starvation in their cages.^27,28

Proponents of cage confinement will point to infectious disease concerns in cage-free housing, especially those that are transmitted by contact with manure. Yet cage-free barn eggs can be produced using slatted or perforated plastic mesh flooring, which just as effectively separate the hens from their manure. These types of solutions have always been used in breeding flocks (the parent birds of hens used in egg production), who are not confined in cages in commercial production enterprises. Disease concerns have been minimized in breeding flocks to levels these producers find acceptable. Many free-range egg producers also practice pasture rotation and often reduce stocking density, both of which are effective management techniques. These examples demonstrate that there are ways in which to appropriately address any potential disease concerns in cage-free systems. In contrast, severe restriction of movement is inherent to cages and thus will always be a problem for hens in intensive confinement.

While reduction of disease and predation are indeed important, the way that we choose to address those concerns should not be at the expense of other important welfare components. The price hens have paid as a result of caging them is far too high. They have lost all opportunity to display their rich, species-typical behavioral repertoire, and they are so intensively confined that they suffer severe physical consequences. The opportunity for a hen to have a good quality of life is completely denied to her in a battery cage.

Many animal protection organizations advocate for a housing system in which not just one or two of the welfare needs of the hen are met, but one in which hens are healthy and safe and in which they can express natural behavior that is important to them. That can be achieved in a well-managed cage-free environment, but, in a cage it is impossible to provide enough space for hens to express the behavior they want and need to express for their physical and psychological health.

At this summer’s Poultry Science conference, attendees learned that cage-free systems are being extensively adopted. While I attended the Keynote Symposium, Tomorrow’s Poultry: Genomics, Physiology, and Well-being, professors and breeders repeatedly asserted that we can incorporate welfare-friendly traits into selection indexes by, for example, breeding hens who are not predisposed to engaging in injurious pecking behavior. This conference only reiterated the successful studies that are already in the scientific literature.^{29,30,31,32,33}

The scientific evidence is clear that battery cages reduce welfare and that cage-free egg production is a viable alternative. Although the reaction of large U.S. egg producers to cage-free systems has thus far been tepid, I trust that we all share the common goal of wanting to provide the best possible welfare for hens. The way to do that is to move forward, using innovation to address the needs of the hen. Working together, producers with more experience and know-how in cage-free production could lead the way in a transition to more welfare-friendly egg production systems, leaning on the scientific community to facilitate this much-needed shift. All the tools are available, leaving only the need for collective will within the industry.

Biographical sketch

Sara Shields earned her B.S. in Zoology from Colorado State University and her Ph.D. in Animal Behavior from the University of California, Davis, where she studied the welfare of chickens, and subsequently served in a post-doctoral capacity in the Animal Science department of the University of Nebraska. There, she was engaged in scientific research focused on laying hens and teaching courses on companion animals as well as animal welfare. Presently, Dr. Shields serves on the animal welfare advisory committee for Safeway stores and as a consultant for the Humane Society of the United States, among other organizations.

References

¹ Brambell FWR. 1965. Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. London: HMSO Cmnd. 2836.

² McBride G, Parer IP, Foenander F. 1969. The social organization and behavior of the feral domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour Monographs 2:125-81.

³ Duncan IJH, Savory CJ, and Wood-Gush DGM. 1978. Observations on the reproductive behaviour of domestic fowl in the wild. Applied Animal Ethology 4:29-42.

⁴ Collian NE and Collias EC. 1967. A field study of the red jungle fowl in north-central India. The Condor 69:360-86.

⁵ Yue S and Duncan IJH. 2003. Frustrated nesting behaviour: relation to extra-cuticular shell calcium and bone strength in White leghorns. British Poultry Science 44(2):175-81.

⁶ Duncan IJH and Wood-Gush DGM. 1972. Thwarting of feeding behaviour in the domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour 20:444-51.

⁷ Zimmerman PH, Koene P, and Hooff JARAM. 2000. Thwarting of behaviour in different contexts and the gakel-call in the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69:255-64.

⁸ Follensbee ME, Duncan IJH, and Widowski TM. 1992. Quantifying nesting motivation of domestic hens. Journal of Animal Science 70(Suppl.1):164.

⁹ Cooper JJ and Appleby MC. 2003. The value of environmental resources to domestic hens: a comparison of the work-rate for food and for nests as a function of time. Animal Welfare 12(1):39-52.

¹⁰ Wood-Gush DGM and Gilbert AB. 1973. Some hormones involved in the nesting behaviour of hens. Animal Behaviour 21:98-103.

¹¹ Riddell C. 1992. Non-infectious skeletal disorders of poultry: an overview. In: Whitehead CC (ed.), Bone Biology and Skeletal Disorders in Poultry. Poultry Science Symposium Number Twenty-three (Oxfordshire, U.K.: Carfax Publishing Company, pp. 137-8).

¹² Knowles TG and Broom DM. 1990. Limb bone strength and movement in laying hens from different housing systems. Veterinary Record 126(15):354-6.

¹³ Nightingale TE, Littlefield LH, Merkley JW, and Richardi JC. 1974. Immobilization-induced bone alterations in chickens. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 52(5):916-9.

¹⁴ Meyer WA and Sunde ML. 1974. Bone breakage as affected by type housing or an exercise machine for layers. Poultry Science 53(3):878-85.

¹⁵ Mississippi State University Cooperative Extension Service. Miscellaneous management related diseases. www.msstate.edu/dept/poultry/dismisc.htm. Accessed March 25, 2008.

¹⁶ European Food Safety Authority, Animal Health and Animal Welfare. 2005. Scientific report on the welfare aspects of various systems for keeping laying hens. EFSA-Q-2003-92, p. 28. Annex to The EFSA Journal 197, 1-23. www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/lh_scirep_final1.pdf. Accessed March 25, 2008.

¹⁷ Crespo R and Shivaprasad HL. 2003. Developmental, metabolic, and other noninfectious disorders. In: Saif YM, Barnes HJ, Glisson JR, Fadly AM, McDougald LR, and Swayne DE (eds.), Diseases of Poultry, 11th Edition (Ames, IA: Iowa State Press, pp. 1082-3).

¹⁸ Squires EJ and Leeson S. 1988. Aetiology of fatty liver syndrome in laying hens. British Veterinary Journal 144(6):602-9.

¹⁹ Merck Veterinary Manual. 2003. Fatty liver syndrome: introduction, Merck Veterinary Manual Online, 8th Edition. www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/202400.htm. Accessed March 25, 2008.

²⁰ McMullin P. 2004. A Pocket Guide to Poultry Health and Disease (Sheffield, U.K.: 5M Enterprises Ltd., p. 123).

²¹ Leeson S. 2007. Metabolic challenges: past, present, and future. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 16:121-5.

²² Leeson S. 2007. Metabolic challenges: past, present, and future. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 16:121-5.

²³ Riddell C, Helmboldt CF, Singsen EP, and Matterson LD. 1968. Bone pathology of birds affected with cage layer fatigue. Avian Diseases 12(2):285-97.

²⁴ Mississippi State University Cooperative Extension Service. Miscellaneous management related diseases. www.msstate.edu/dept/poultry/dismisc.htm. Accessed March 25, 2008.

²⁵ Webster AB. 2004. Welfare implications of avian osteoporosis. Poultry Science 83:184-92.

²⁶ Riddell C. 1992. Non-infectious skeletal disorders of poultry: an overview. In: Whitehead CC (ed.), Bone Biology and Skeletal Disorders in Poultry, Poultry Science Symposium Number Twenty-three (Oxfordshire, U.K.: Carfax Publishing Company).

²⁷ Riddell C, Helmboldt CF, Singsen EP, and Matterson LD. 1968. Bone pathology of birds affected with cage layer fatigue. Avian Diseases 12(2):285-97.

²⁸ Riddell C. 1992. Non-infectious skeletal disorders of poultry: an overview. In: Whitehead CC (ed.), Bone Biology and Skeletal Disorders in Poultry. Poultry Science Symposium Number Twenty-three (Oxfordshire, U.K.: Carfax Publishing Company, pp. 137-8).

²⁹ Appleby MC and Hughes BO. 1991. Welfare of laying hens in cages and alternative systems: environmental, physical and behavioural aspects. World’s Poultry Science Journal 47(2):109-28.

³⁰ Appleby MC, Hughes BO, and Hogarth GS. 1989. Behaviour of laying hens in a deep litter house. British Poultry Science 30(3):545-53.

³¹ European Food Safety Authority, Animal Health and Animal Welfare. 2005. Scientific report on the welfare aspects of various systems for keeping laying hens. EFSA-Q-2003-92, p. 80. Annex to The EFSA Journal 197, 1-23. www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/lh_scirep_final1.pdf. Accessed March 25, 2008.

³² Flock DK, Laughlin KF, and Bentley J. 2005. Minimizing losses in poultry breeding and production: how breeding companies contribute to poultry welfare. World’s Poultry Science Journal 61(2):227-37.

³³ Ellen ED, Visscher J, van Arendonk JA, and Bijma P. 2008. Survival of laying hens: genetic parameters for direct and associative effects in three purebred layer lines. Poultry Science 87(2):233-9.

The Great Egg Debate - Talking To Egg Farmers

2009-08-11T12:50:00.000-07:00

This afternoon I had the pleasure of talking with an energetic producer of both cage and cage-free eggs. This entry describes this conversation, and I omit his name in fear that I might misrepresent his views. This farmer and his daughter have indicated they might contribute to Ham and Eggonomics, so hopefully you will get to meet them soon!

I make it a habit to call egg farmers periodically to make sure my thoughts are grounded. Like every farmer I have talked to that raises cage and cage-free eggs, he has nothing but disdain for cage-free eggs, and believes anyone who shuns cage eggs in favor of cage-free eggs is misinformed.

His reasons are as follows. First, mortality is significantly higher in cage-free systems, largely due to pecking and injury by other birds. There is no debate regarding this fact. To favor cage-free implies that one must gain something that outweighs the damage inflicted by higher mortality.

Perhaps birds gain in the fact that they can now have enough room to walk? He argues that there is plenty of room in the cage for the birds to walk. But don't they have a lot more room to walk in a cage-free system? Yes, but they do not use it. When you watch the chickens in a cage-free system they always huddle together, leaving lots of empty space. So although you give the birds more space in a cage-free system, they don't use it. They don't want it!

What about perches and the ability to dust-bathe and foraging? Perches are used by birds to flee bully birds, a problem mitigated in cage systems. Dust-bathing and foraging were needed when birds lived in the wild, had to dust-bathe to fight parasites, and had to forage to eat. Inside egg facilities they no longer require these amenities, so being denied the opportunity to perform these acts is not a bid deal. But don't they still enjoy perches, foraging, and dust-bathing, even if they no longer need it? "I don't know," he says, it doesn't seem very evident to him.

Thus, to him, a cage-free system results in higher mortality rates with no offsetting advantage.

What do you think? If one was to be devil's advocate, one would argue that chickens really do like room to walk and act like a chicken. This video of free-range chickens suggests they do not just huddle together when given more room, and that they enjoy the greater room, but perhaps these breeds of birds are just different. One could argue that birds really do enjoy being able to act naturally by standing on perches and scratching. That is certainly what scientists believe who construct animal welfare ratings.

Regardless of whether you agree with my new friend, you must give his arguments some respect. This good person lives with birds in both cage and cage-free systems, and he deserves to be taken seriously. That is what the Great Egg Debate is about, offering your own views, listening to others, and forming your own opinion while maintain respect for those who disagree.

One final word: this farmer is absolutely right that moving to a cage-free system will entail a higher mortality rate.* The question is whether enough positive features exist to offset it.

*I know there are studies showing there is no statistical difference in mortality rates between cage and cage-free systems, when holding the breed of bird constant. One should not hold the bird breed constant when comparing cage and cage-free systems though, as they both use different birds.

Understanding The Agricultural College

2009-08-10T18:04:00.000-07:00

Today my department (the Department of Agricultural Economics at OK State University) held a retreat to help identify goals for the upcoming year. The retreat hosted a mix of teachers, researchers, and extension agents, though everyone is a mix of at least two of these. While listening to the various discussions, it made me think of a feature of ag colleges many in the animal advocacy community might not understand.

I am a teacher and researcher. My goal as a researcher is generally to discover knowledge. I hold no allegiance to any group or industry, which I hope is evident in my writings. Within the farm animal welfare debate, I am charged with addressing the important questions and seeking answers, regardless of who benefits or is harmed by the answer.

Those in extension, however, are very different. They are charged with acting as consultants to specific industry and groups. It is within their culture to treat those certain individuals as clients, acting careful not to offend or anger their clients.

Many in agricultural colleges hold research & extension appointments, or hold one of the positions and work closely with the other. It is for this reason agricultural colleges sometimes appear biased, but often they are merely performing the job they are assigned. Besides, these relationships often result in fruitful outcomes. Working with industry can often create an environment of mutual trust, encouraging industry to consider a point-of-view that they would not normally consider when provoked by an "objective" researcher. One could make the case that the improvements made by the United Egg Producers were the result of these close partnerships.

It has been rumored that some agricultural colleges have responded to the farm animal welfare debate by acting in their clients' interest. That is, some faculty have been told to adhere a set of industry talking points. I am unsure of the extent to which this is true, but if it is, I would like some readers to understand that this might not be as bad as it seems. By having these slightly slanted parties working with industries, they may make more progress than their more objective counterparts ever could.

The Great Egg Debate - Are Cage Eggs Better?

2009-08-10T15:50:00.001-07:00

Most of the research on hen welfare contends that layers possess a higher state of welfare when raised on cage-free versus cage egg farms. However, in my upcoming book I provide some evidence as to why someone might prefer cage eggs even if they believe birds suffer less in cage-free egg production.

In Chapter 8, titled Your Eating Ethics, I create a farm animal welfare model which describes the consequences of various food choices in terms of farm animal welfare using a mathematical model. The model allows me to consider the welfare impacts of consuming cage or cage-free eggs. My research indicates that it requires more laying hens to produce an egg in a cage-free system than a cage system. The breed of bird used is less efficient, they suffer higher mortality rates, and they burn more energy walking. This simple fact has important implications for whether cage or cage-free eggs are more ethical.

Suppose that you must describe the overall welfare of laying hens on a scale of -10 to 10. A negative number indicates that the bird experiences more negative than positive emotions, and would be better off if it had never existed. A positive number indicates that its life was worth living, and the higher the welfare score the happier (or less miserable) is the bird.

Suppose that you assign birds in a cage egg facility a welfare score of -8 (negative eight, that is), and birds in a cage-free facility receive a welfare score of -6. You believe hens to be better off on a cage-free farm, but only slightly, and you believe both systems to provide miserable standards of care.

When I crunch the numbers, I find that you shoul prefer that people consume cage eggs. The reason is that each cage-free hen suffers less than their caged counterparts, but each egg produced requires more cage-free hens than a cage eggs, leading to a greater number of birds that suffer.

Consider an example. We start with 200 million hens in a cage system. Pretend that all of the U.S. converts to cage-free eggs and consumes the same amount of eggs. My calculations suggest it would require 324 million hens to produce the same amount of eggs. While the 200 million initial hens are given a better life, there are 124 million extra hens that lead miserable lives. The mathematics of my welfare model suggests the bad outweighs the good, and that cage eggs are more ethical, if eggs are going to be consumed.

Which is better: 200 million hens living in a cage system or 324 million hens living in a cage-free facility? See the tradeoff? Of course, if I alter the welfare score for cage-free hens to equal -4, cage-free eggs then become the ethical choice. The morality of cage versus cage-free eggs depends on the productivity of the birds and perceptions about bird welfare under each system.

I am not writing this in order to promote cage eggs, but to articulate the complexity of farm animal welfare. The morality of various food items depends on more than the welfare of each animal in the food system. I know that this added complexity may frustrate some readers who wish to discover an ethical diet but find the task daunting.

Better to accept the truth of complexity than a simple but false notion.

The Great Egg Debate - Introduction

2009-08-10T15:38:00.000-07:00

In a series of subsequent postings, Ham and Eggonomics will provide a forum on egg production, specifically, what the science about egg production implies about how we should raise layers for eggs. A wealth of research has already aimed at the welfare implications of cage, cage-free, and other production methods. What these postings will provide are alternative commentaries, hoping to provide curious readers with the additional information they must be seeking if they are reading Ham and Eggonomics.

Soon Sarah Shields, a Ph.D. animal scientist, will provide a narrative on the science of layer welfare. I am grateful to her willingness to help me disseminate knowledge. Other contributions will follow as I elicit help, including egg farmers. Stay tuned, and feel free to provide suggestions for contributors.

All entries related to this topic will go under the heading The Great Egg Debate- ???.

New Friends To Ham and Eggonomics

2009-08-10T06:24:00.000-07:00

The purpose of Ham and Eggonomics is to provide a friendly forum for farm animal welfare issues. It has always been my intent to include individuals in addition to myself from both sides of the debate. I would be heartened to see individuals express a diversity of views in an amicable matter, rather than throw insults at each other from different corners of the internet.

Soon there will be new contributors to the blog. A few consultants at HSUS have elected to contribute, and even Peter Singer has suggested he might contribute a few entries. However, I am still looking for some friends in the livestock industry to become part of the process.

I am hoping some individuals become co-administrators of the blog, but understand some people may only want to contribute a few pieces and that's it.

So get ready to hear from some new people, and if anyone out there is interested in becoming a partner with me, please let me know. And understand that I am not looking for a group of contributors with a common mission. If all contributors disagree, that is fine. So long as the discussion is friendly, the blog has achieved its mission.

Profitability of Free-Range Egg Production

2009-08-06T10:47:00.000-07:00

This posting provides a brief economic analysis of the free-range egg production farm I described earlier.

In the first six months of 2009 their revenues were $1906 revenues from about 525 dozen eggs and their variable expenses (not including fixed costs) equaled $976. The corresponding profits of $930 is a pittance compared to the labor involved.

One of the sons spends at least 2-3 hours per day with the birds and spends the majority of each Saturday at the Farmers' Market. Assume that his opportunity cost of labor is $10, and let us only count his eight hours of labor at the Farmers' Market. Over six months, four Saturdays in each month, eight hours per Saturday, at $10 per hour, and his opportunity cost amounts to 6*4*8*$10 = $1,920. Remember this does not count his non-Saturday labor, which over one week is greater than his Saturday labor.

These calculations suggest that the free-range egg production system is a failure in terms of ability to generate profits. One would only want to engage in this type of production if they found a particularly high personal reward working with the chickens. This person and his family belongs to a Mennonite-like family, and they probably place a large value on being able to work as a family and not inside traditional society.

Moreover, the manager of the eggs really knew his stuff. He could calculate costs for various components of the farm like he had a computer in his head, and he seemed to know every chicken personally. He was smart and focused on trying to make a profit. If he can't make a profit, I doubt many others could either.

These quick calculations, and my mulling over the details of my visit, leave me dubious as to whether anyone could make a reasonable profit in free-range egg production.

Feeding the World, Treating Animals Kindly

2009-08-06T10:17:00.000-07:00

In the farm animal welfare debate, traditional production methods are often criticized on the grounds that alternative methods cannot feed the world the same way as factory farming. In a previous post I described a free-range egg farm. If we compare cage and free-range egg production according to which can produce the most eggs using the fewest inputs, cage eggs will demolish free-range eggs.

Free-range egg production does not generate desirable profits, as I described previously. It is inefficient in the sense that few eggs are produced from each bird, and the number of farms in which free-range egg production can take place is limited. There must be a farmers' market close by, or another marketing outlet. The farm must have the right type of pasture for production to take place. Now, with the right premium there could be a large volume of free-range egg production taking place, but it will not rival cage production.

At this point it is natural to deem free-range egg production a failure in its ability to feed the country. I disagree with the thought experiment from which such conclusions are drawn. It is true that if cage eggs were banned and only free-range production was allowed (whether by government or consumer decree), prices would be higher and quantity consumed would be less. However, this may not be as bad as it initially sounds. As price rises consumers will voluntarily purchase less and food processors will be motivated to produce viable egg substitutes. These substitutes already exist, but if the profitability of the industry increased better products would inevitably result. Consumers would also substitute for egg in other ways. They might consume more yogurt in place of eggs.

The point is that consumers do not lose by an amount equal to the value of the foregone eggs. The lose by an amount equal to the difference between the value of the foregone eggs and the value of the next best substitute.

The point is that a higher price and smaller quantity does not mean that consumers are walking around their house complaining about the lack of eggs. They substitute towards other products, taking care to use eggs when its value is greatest. For example, there are many substitutes for scrambled eggs (e.g. yogurt, bacon, cereal) but there are few substitutes for eggs when making whole wheat bread. Thus, eggs will be utilized proportionally less in direct egg consumption and proportionally more in indirect consumption.

What do consumers get in return for having to find slightly less desirable substitutes for eggs? The satisfaction from knowing that chickens are happier. This could be a trade consumers are willing to make.

When judging alternative egg production systems, we should not judge the alternative by its ability to generate the same production level as cage eggs. It should be judged by (a) the reduction in egg consumption that will take place (b) the desirability of the substitutes used to make up for less eggs and (c) the value consumers place on hen welfare.

Friends at the Dinner Table

2009-08-06T10:12:00.000-07:00

My experience and survey work suggests that most people have similar views regarding what constitutes the worst practices at farms. This goes for animal advocates and hunters, as this pleasant story shows. Even if people and groups do disagree, they should do so with dignity. It saddens me to read the blogs demonizing Trent Loos, as I know him personally and believe him to be a perfectly decent person. It saddens me to hear certain people in industry demonize animal advocates as well.

That is why the story in the above link brought me so much pleasure. More of it, I say!

(Thanks to Jennifer Fearing for recommending the article)

Subsidies For Animal Welfare

2009-08-06T07:22:00.001-07:00

A recent news story describes how the Irish government is subsidizing farmer to help them make the investments necessary to comply with new egg welfare standards (thanks to Paul Shapiro for the reference).

In one sense these subsidies are good. Egg producers have been producing the exact egg that consumers have been demanding. Then comes a government regulation forcing them to completely change how they raise eggs (partially due to a new consumer preference profile). This requires taking a million dollar building and spending thousands more to convert it to an enriched cage facility (why not cage-free, I wonder?). I have strong empathy for these farmers. For government to provide assistance in this conversion seems fair, and some of my survey work suggests that the financial welfare of farmers is twice as important as animal welfare, so it should be viewed favorably by citizens as well.

However, there is a long history of such subsidies becoming permanent welfare. After the conversion has taken place, I have no doubt that Irish farmers will devise a long list of alternative reasons for the subsidies. Perhaps farmers in another country receive more subsidies, allowing them to produce at a lower price. Perhaps corn prices rise, which increases the cost premium of producing enriched-cage eggs (as the birds in an enriched-cage system probably convert grain to meat less efficiently). Furthermore, if they remove the subsidies farmers will scream, but if they keep the subsidies in place no one will be screaming at the tax dollars used because it is almost invisible and a small sum to any one citizen, so why would a politician ever remove the subsidies? Remember the U.S. in 1996, when we thought farm subsidies would be dead in ten years? Of course, there has been instances when government boldly discontinued agricultural subsidies. New Zealand is an excellent example.

The subsidies might not even help the farmers. These subsidies encourage more production of enriched-cage eggs, lowering prices and profits to all farmers. Whereas if farmers were forced to pay for the conversion themselves, it would discourage other farmers from making the conversion, leaving them in a market with less eggs and higher prices. It is possible that the subsidies will actually decrease the profits received by farmers over a long horizon. It depends on the competitiveness of the Irish market with international markets.

From a social perspective, if subsidies are used, it is best that the legislation make clear they are temporary, and pose significant obstacles to their continuation. I would bet $50 it doesn't happen. Any takers?

Free-Range Egg Production

2009-08-04T12:09:00.000-07:00

Last week I had the opportunity to visit a free-range egg farm located a few miles from my house. The farm is run by a religious family, not Mennonites, but close. Many aspects of the farm were appealing. The hens roost on perches inside a converted sileage hopper during the night, carefully secured (mostly) from predators, mainly raccoons. The hens have ample room such that no fighting occurs and no beak trimming is necessary. They are let outside in the morning where they quickly begin foraging for bugs, grass, and the family's leftovers.

The day I visited the leftovers were squash.

The hens were busy little animals, with roosters scanning the skies to check for predators and occasionally bringing a hen the gift of a bug it had caught. Bugs and grass were but supplements; the hen-house provided all the grain they cared to eat. The hens would come back to the hen-house during the day and lay eggs in the individual straw-ladden nests. The farm simply had every single thing a chicken could ask for in terms of animal welfare. They had plenty of room, desirable nests, ability to behave naturally, etc.

Except one: predator protection. Last summer the farmer was carrying for 250 hens, but lost 50 of the hens to hawks. When I asked him what they did with spent hens, the answer was that they never had spent hens. A predator would always kill the hen before she matured into the unproductive portion of her life.

This farm exemplifies the same tradeoff involved in cage and cage-free egg production. A hen has freedom to walk and behave naturally in a cage-free system, but is frequently injured by other hens. In the free-range system she is afforded even more room and allowed a more natural life, but suffers 25% mortality rates due to predators.

So where does Bailey buy his eggs? I still purchase from this free-range farm, well aware of its drawbacks. Moreover, I would not blame someone for shunning eggs from this farm due to the predator problem. Though that person has different preferences from mine, their preferences are understandable and I would not seek to force free-range eggs upon them. Studies have found that hens are more stressed in a free-range environment, probably due to the constant threat of predators, but I must say these hens did not seem stressed. Many would wander far, far away from the hen-house (as you can see in the video below).

I simply enjoyed being on the farm, and I guess that makes it more appealing to me. It was also nice that I could visit the farm. I tried hard to visit a large-scale egg production facility this summer but no one would allow me to visit. Perhaps if I did visit I would change my mind.

There is probably some reader who has considered free-range egg production but wanted to see it for themselves and learn more about it. Hopefully, this short posting, the pictures, and the video provides them with the information they sought. The people who purchase these free-range eggs at the farmers' market are probably unaware that so many hens die from hawks. I wonder how many would purchase eggs from the grocery store instead if they knew?

(See video of farm below)

Superstition and Organic Food

2009-08-03T08:03:00.000-07:00

A recent survey found that not even butchers understood the difference between organic and regular beef. Some even thought the organic beef was certified by the RSPCA.

Truth is, when it comes to food safety and health, no one is supposed to understand organic food. No one understands ghosts, no one understands angels, no one understands why consumers pay more for a good with a pretty label, no one understands why placebos work, and no one understands why the mystical properties of organic food is supposed to make it healthier.

No one really understands supertitions and marketing ploys, which is what organic food really is.

Except for farm animal welfare. Most of the time, organic food is more humane. That I understand completely.

Correcting Science

2009-08-03T07:49:00.000-07:00

Researchers who claimed to find a link between red meat and colorectal cancer have now admitted that their study contained flaws and are writing a letter to the USDA stating so.

We will never know whether it was an honest mistake. What is known is that there is a small but vocal group who are determined to make meat a villian, or any other food produced from animals. If these groups become continually exposed as liars, they will soon become insignificant in the public's eye.

I have been a scientist for a few years and have learned that science is more about being honest than following the scientific method. The manner in which 90% of researchers and concerned citizens approach the issue of animal food production is embarrasing, because idealogy trumps honesty over and over and over.

But not at Ham and Eggonomics. Never, never, never.

Benefits of Organic Food

2009-08-02T08:02:00.000-07:00

Good discussion of organic food the its lack of health benefits. What seems to busy missing in this and other discussion is that, although organic food does not provide health benefits, it does contain some provisions that result in higher animal welfare. You may not be any happier eating organic fooods, but the animals generally will.

Food Debates

2009-08-01T18:07:00.000-07:00

An excellent food discussion is being held at Reason Hit & Run. I personally have enjoyed society's recent interest in food, and have learned not only more about food but how people think about food.

I love and respect the diversity of food preferences, and part of me can understand certain romances and superstitions about certain foods (e.g. organic food). I wanted to be a hog farmer until I spent time working in a factory farm, and decided I did not want anything to do with that. Likewise, I would only work on a farm resembling the small, family, organic farm, even though I think organic food is silly.

My only concern is that we have a tendency to believe that our preferences should be reflected in government policy. For example, I disagree with Michael Pollan on almost everything, but have no desire to publicly oppose him until he calls for things like government regulations requiring a certain amount of food to be grown locally.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when government has an extraordinary amount of money to dole and a perpetual tendency to subsidize one group's preferences with money earned by other groups.

I purchase eggs from a local freee-range farm, with the understanding that they have serious predator problems. There is something about their old-style farming that I just love. There is not one bone in me that wishes to impose my preferences on you though. I wasn't always like this. It took years of economic study.

I urge you. Learn more about food. Tell me what you learned. Have fun. But be humble. Don't try and get your politicians to force my dinner table to look like yours.

Ag Subsidies Are Bad

2009-07-31T10:46:00.000-07:00

A new survey indicates that a majority of people believe that subsidizing farmers is important to ensure a safe food supply. The results could have been affected by the wording of the question, as all survey results are, but let us suppose the finding is correct.

If the result is correct, we have a lot of educating to do. In a free capitalistic market, buyers and sellers are free to strike deals whenever the exchange benefits both parties. That is the beauty of a capitalistic system: all market transactions benefit both the buyer and the seller, and free markets allow buyers and the sellers to make as many of these mutually beneficial transactions as physically possible.

Subsidies essentially trick consumers into buying products they do not want. Suppose you purchase five bananas per week at the price of $0.50 per banana. You do not purchase six bananas, because you value the banana less than $0.50. Now the government subsidizes bananas, lowering the price to $0.40. You now consume six bananas per week, but you are still paying $0.50 per banana because the government subisides are paid for by tax dollars. You pay $0.40 per banana at the grocery store and an extra $0.10 in taxes.

Hence, subsidies make us pay for things we do not want. This is not an intuitive notion, why is why economics education is so important. After seeing this study, I have incorporated the need for education on subsidies into my course objectives for the next semester.

Excellent, Excellent Essay By Missouri Farmer

2009-07-31T10:24:00.001-07:00

I highly encourage everyone to read this superb essay written by a Missouri farmer in response to critics of modern agriculture.

The Omnivore's Delusion: Against the Agri-Intellectuals

I really do like this essay. The arguments are clever, simple, honest, and precise. The author is also a very talented writer.

I would like to add a few comments to the essay.

But now we have to listen to self-appointed experts on airplanes frightening their seatmates about the profession I have practiced for more than 30 years. I’d had enough. I turned around and politely told the lecturer that he ought not believe everything he reads. He quieted and asked me what kind of farming I do. I told him, and when he asked if I used organic farming, I said no, and left it at that. I didn’t answer with the first thought that came to mind, which is simply this: I deal in the real world, not superstitions, and unless the consumer absolutely forces my hand, I am about as likely to adopt organic methods as the Wall Street Journal is to publish their next edition by setting the type by hand.

The farmer is absolutely correct that people are superstitious, and this superstition does drive niche markets like the organic market. However, I am afraid there is little you can do about this. Despite our rational, scientific world most people still believes in an imaginary people who love you but will also send you to hell if you profess certain beliefs, most people still believe in angels, and most people still believe in ghosts. Agriculture needs to know that in a world of imperfect information and superstition, everything farmers do sends a signal about its character. Using hormones in beef is perfectly safe and has many advantages, but to uninformed, superstitious people it conjures the image of a greedy corporation who will poison the masses for a few dollars.

Agriculture must also deal with the fact that some individuals will exploit this superstition to sell books. People will believe anything, and using certain technologies that are harmless but "sound bad" gives people like Michael Pollan ammunition to mislead gullible readers for book sales (and now movie tickets).

Lynn Niemann was a neighbor of my family’s, a farmer with a vision. He began raising turkeys on a field near his house around 1956. They were, I suppose, what we would now call “free range” turkeys. Turkeys raised in a natural manner, with no roof over their heads, just gamboling around in the pasture, as God surely intended. Free to eat grasshoppers, and grass, and scratch for grubs and worms. And also free to serve as prey for weasels, who kill turkeys by slitting their necks and practicing exsanguination. Weasels were a problem, but not as much a threat as one of our typically violent early summer thunderstorms. It seems that turkeys, at least young ones, are not smart enough to come in out of the rain, and will stand outside in a downpour, with beaks open and eyes skyward, until they drown. One night Niemann lost 4,000 turkeys to drowning, along with his dream, and his farm.

Now, turkeys are raised in large open sheds. Chickens and turkeys raised for meat are not grown in cages. As the critics of "industrial farming" like to point out, the sheds get quite crowded by the time Thanksgiving rolls around and the turkeys are fully grown. And yes, the birds are bedded in sawdust, so the turkeys do walk around in their own waste. Although the turkeys don't seem to mind, this quite clearly disgusts the various authors I've read whom have actually visited a turkey farm. But none of those authors, whose descriptions of the horrors of modern poultry production have a certain sameness, were there when Neimann picked up those 4,000 dead turkeys. Sheds are expensive, and it was easier to raise turkeys in open, inexpensive pastures. But that type of production really was hard on the turkeys. Protected from the weather and predators, today's turkeys may not be aware that they are a part of a morally reprehensible system.

This is interesting information, and relevant, but no one is saying that high animal welfare standards should be achieved by leaving animals outside in pasture with no shelter and with no management. Animal advocacy groups are pressuring farmers to provide shelter with opportunities to behave naturally and shelter with reasonable space requirements. We do not have to choose between a factory farm and throwing animals out into the wild. There are thousands of reasonable balances between allowing animals to act naturally and acting on behalf of the animals' best interest.

Like most young people in my part of the world, I was a 4-H member. Raising cattle and hogs, showing them at the county fair, and then sending to slaughter those animals that we had spent the summer feeding, washing, and training. We would then tour the packing house, where our friend was hung on a rail, with his loin eye measured and his carcass evaluated. We farm kids got an early start on dulling our moral sensibilities. I'm still proud of my win in the Atchison County Carcass competition of 1969, as it is the only trophy I have ever received. We raised the hogs in a shed, or farrowing (birthing) house. On one side were eight crates of the kind that the good citizens of California have outlawed. On the other were the kind of wooden pens that our critics would have us use, where the sow could turn around, lie down, and presumably act in a natural way. Which included lying down on my 4-H project, killing several piglets, and forcing me to clean up the mess when I did my chores before school. The crates protect the piglets from their mothers. Farmers do not cage their hogs because of sadism, but because dead pigs are a drag on the profit margin, and because being crushed by your mother really is an awful way to go. As is being eaten by your mother, which I've seen sows do to newborn pigs as well.

The author is correct that farrowing crates do prevent a number of deaths compared to a system where the sow makes her own nest wherever she wishes. But again, there are compromises. Beeler Farms in Iowa use a farrowing room with crushing bars to prevent crushing. These types of rooms with special attention to selecting good mothers can prevent a large number of deaths. Moreover, even if one does elect to use farrowing crates to prevent crushing does not imply they must use gestation crates as well. Sows will spend two-thirds of her life in gestation crates, and it is these crates that elicit the most criticism.

Finally, the author does a superb job with the fertilizer issue. Quixotic agricultural crusaders are obsessed with the fertilizer issue, but though agriculture does have some environmental and animal welfare issues to tend to, there is no fertilizer issue. Commercial fertilizer is good. If you drive a car, you should support commercial fertilizer, and the fact that organic producers cannot utilize commercial fertilizer is absurd, and testifies to the organic movement's detachment from reality.

Public Education Is A Messy Process

2009-07-30T08:02:00.000-07:00

(Readers should first note that I am not publicly in favor or in opposition to any animal welfare measure. I am only seeking to help consumer preferences for food be translated accurately into markets and policy)

As HSUS ventures into Ohio, seeking to carry with it remnants from their California victory, the same sorts of discussions are emerging. Recently, James Kinder, the chair of the Ohio State University Animal Science department has stated ...

James Kinder, chair of Ohio State University's Department of Animal Sciences, says that the approach taken by the Humane Society of the United States to push for animal welfare legislation in Ohio is not an effective means of change.

"They are looking at it from the wrong perspective," Kinder says. "Improvements in animal welfare have to be done through education instead of regulation. It's changing the attitudes and behaviors of the producers and the animal handlers that, at the end of the day, will have the greatest impact on animal wellbeing in agricultural production."

However, the type of controversy caused by HSUS efforts do in fact motivate education. This is not a statement supporting HSUS measures, buta statement proclaiming that the controversy helps educate. It was the controversy surrounding the California Prop 2 initiative that caused Oprah Winfrey to host a show dedicated to farm animal welfare. Who ever thought Oprah would host a show like that? This show demonstrated to many consumers for the first time what a gestation crate and battery cage look like. Players on both sides of the debate stated that the show was informative and balanced.

Public debate induces consumers to conduct their own research. Without lobbying and political fighting, the topic of farm animal welfare would never even cross the average consumers' mind.

You Will Not Believe This

2009-07-28T18:01:00.000-07:00

Supposedly, these are Islam rules for bestiality. I have a hard time believing it, but these rules are supposedly present in an Islam Holy book. If anyone can attest to the legitimacy of this, I'd be interested in knowing.

yuck, yuck, yuck :(

BTW: this is the last time Ham and Eggonomics will post anything about bestiality!

Animal Welfare Is Not That Complex

2009-07-28T17:44:00.000-07:00

A speaker at the recent conference of the Animal Agriculture Alliance set about explaining the rise of the farm animal welfare debate by saying...

Pet owners have to find a way to deal with a certain cognitive dissonance in their lives: they live with some kinds of animals as pets/companions, while they eat other kinds.

The guilt involved in treating pets one way and food animals another way goes to one of the activists’ core messages; people donate money to alleviate that guilt.

The speaker seems to imply that the actions of a compassionate carnivore are, in a sense, irrational. People, the speaker explains, give money to HSUS because they are mentally confused. The comments are akin to those in the mid 1900's when some believed that animal rights activists had a mental problem.

Is it really that complex of a problem? I don't think so, and I don't think the majority of Americans feel any guilt from eating meat while raising pets at the same time.

The issue is so very simple. People want to eat meat, but they do not want the animals they eat to be treated inhumanely. That does not sound irrational. It sounds perfectly reasonable.

Often I feel comments like these are meant to placate livestock producers who feel their morality is questioned by animal advocates. By telling producers that the average American is mentally confused in some way, it belittles consumers' efforts to increase the welfare of animals on animal farms, and justifies the conventional factory farm.

If this is the case, it is unnecessary. Farmers are not doing anything wrong; farmers are producing the exact food item that consumers are demanding. This is the sole economic, social, and ethical duty of farmers. It is up to consumers to demand and pay premiums for more humane food, and the modern animal welfare movement is the market and political process for doing just that.

Again, let me repeat the simplicity of the animal welfare movement. Most Americans want to eat meat, dairy products, and eggs. They also want the animals to be free of suffering. What is so odd about that?

Corrupt Agricultural Economists?

2009-07-27T06:50:00.000-07:00

A recent Feedstuffs article, Panelists discuss beef industry past, future (July 20, 2009) made the statement, "He said areas where the academic community might help enhance the image of animal agriculture..."

The statement was made by a former professor, and what a shame it was. The journalist also paraphrased this former professor as saying, "Owens believes the academic community needs to deepen public knowledge and appreciation of animal agriculture."

What this former professor is talking about is corruption. Not illegal corruption, but corruption nevertheless. Should any professor feel obliged to act as a spokesperson for any industry? Is it the duty of a land grant university researcher to promote any private industry? I think the average consumer would be horrified at the thought of a university professor being at the beck and call of private firms producing food. I am horrified at the thought. I am a public servant, not a servant of any industry. I work for consumers and private producers.

Fortunately, my status as a tenured professor allows me to conduct my affairs with dignity. Should anyone question the value of this institution called tenure, they should ask themselves whether I should be allowed to pursue my job with dignity, or if I should misrepresent my occuption as an objective researcher to promote the interests of a private industry.

The Capital Punishment Farce

2009-07-23T06:42:00.000-07:00

(The following is a farce regarding the stances of certain of animal rights groups such as Animal Abolitionists and Vegans Against PETA. The narrative does not necessarily represent my true preferences. Because it is a farce, one should not attempt to develop arguments for and against the conjectures within the farce. The narrative is intended to promote discussion and encourage personal deliberation regarding the farm animal welfare debate)

It is disturbing that the government possesses the legal power to take a person's life, and more disturbing that the government employs this power with brio. Though incarceration is a necessary institution in an orderly society, capital punishment is an embarrassment.

Death sentences in the past were implemented by methods such as hanging and stoning. These methods were cruel and painful. Our modern society employs a more "humane" procedure for implementing death sentences. Whether it be lethal injection or electrocution, the criminal is thought to feel little or no pain. In the past, I supported these humane procedures for capital punishment, but writings from the animal rights movement have convinced me otherwise.

Many animals lead miserable lives on farms that cram animals into small spaces with no environmental enrichment. Besides food, water, and shelter, these animals possess no means to discover contentment. The farms in which they reside are referred to as factory farms. A number of animal rights activists oppose the raising of animals in these conditions. They also oppose the raising of animals for human purposes such as food, clothing, or health care. Recent activity by animal advocacy organizations have sought to improve the conditions of animals on factory farms; examples include giving laying hens room to walk and sows room to turn around. These groups pursue these improvements while at the same time promoting veganism.

What animal rights activist would oppose improving the lives of animals while promoting veganism? A large number, in fact. A group has been formed titled Vegans Against PETA to oppose PETA's efforts to force slaughter houses to install more humane methods of killing animals. The ambitious Gary Francione urged his disciples to oppose Prop 2 in California, which scientific studies content will improve the lives of laying hens.

The reason for these confusing stances by animal rights activists are in many ways legitimate. By making the killing of animals and the raising of hens more humane, consumers who formerly avoided animal food products may be more inclined to purchase food derived from animals. These animal rights disciples are vehemently opposed to the raising of animals for food, even if the animals lived a happy life, so any action that may encourage the eating of animal foods are opposed. Logic suggests they would even support measures that would make livestock production methods more cruel.

This is why I oppose humane methods of implementing capital punishment. The public sees a procedure that bestows little physical pain, and thus makes the public more inclined to support capital punishment. Anything that increases public support of capital punishment should be opposed to the fullest extent.

I heartily propose that, if we are to sentence criminals to death, we implement the sentence in the most cruel fashion possible. Reverting back to public hangings would be a start. Not only is hanging more painful, but public witnesses will be horrified of the activity and opponents of capital punishment will grow in number. That is not enough though. Because I so love every human, criminal and non-criminal, I support that we implement biblical procedures. Every death sentence should be carried out through stoning, and citizens should be recruited to participate in the stoning just as they are recruited to participate in courtroom juries. The horrors of stoning, and their direct participation in the stoning, would encourage opposition to death sentencing.

The animal rights movement has taught me that, because I oppose capital punishment, I must also oppose humane treatment of prisoners on death row. I encourage all readers to contact their political representatives and urge them to replace lethal injection and electrocution with public stoning. For those readers who are also emotionally moved by the discussion of factory farming and oppose the raising of animals for food, they should also oppose the human treatment of animals, and should even support any and all measures that would further degrade the quality of life within the walls of factory farms.

Veganism Versus Non-Veganism: In Terms of Health

2009-07-22T10:51:00.000-07:00

Individuals motivated to eliminate livestock agriculture are quick to assert that vegan diets are healthier. Bill Maher often seems to suggest that meat and dairy is the root of our health problems in the U.S.

But is it true? Are vegan diets healthier than non-vegan diets? One who regularly peruses the news might be confused. Studies find one type of cancer higher in vegetarians, another cancer more prevalent in meat eaters. Animal fats obviously can lead to cholesterol problems, but recent evidence suggests that the animal fat - cholesterol link may be exaggerated. Vitamin D deficiency is widespread, but so is obesity.

The answer, I believe, is that it is impossible to legitimately claim that a "vegan diet" is healthier than "non-vegan diets" or vice-versa. The reason is that there is no one single definition of vegan and non-vegan diets. A vegan who does not make a concerted effort to take vitamin D and B supplements is risking their health. A non-vegan who consumes nothing but fried chicken and french fries is doing likewise.

Both vegan and non-vegan diets can be healthy. For the sake of truth, it is necessary to note that a non-vegan who consumes meat and dairy in moderation and large amounts of plant foods is very likely to be healthier than a vegan, because this particular non-vegan diet is ensured to capture all essential nutrients. It is also necessary to note that a smart vegan diet (with supplements) will indeed provide all essential nutrients. It is not a battle for which is better, both win when implemented smartly.

It is difficult to find a good publication on the issue, even in scientific journals. The best article I have encountered is by Joan Sabate, who properly acknowledges the positive and negative aspects of both diets, stating, "Diets largely based on plant foods, such as well-balanced vegetarian diets, could best prevent nutrient deficiencies as well as diet-related chronic diseases. However, restrictive or unbalanced vegetarian diets may lead to nutritional deficiencies, particularly in situations of high metabolic demand."

This author does argue that vegetarian diets are slightly healthier, but what I like is the acknowledgement that meat and dairy based diets have their advantages, and can be healthy. Below is a statistical bell-curve articulating the risk of nutrient deficiency. In the author's view, the vegetarian diet has a lower likelihood of health harm, but harm stemming from a non-vegetarian diet is far from certain. If vegetarian/vegan diets are healthier (and there is an "if"), the improvement is marginal, when both diets are implemented smartly.

Vegan and animal rights groups should temper their claims as to the health harms associated with meat and dairy based diets, lest they be exposed as quixotic crusaders with no personal commitment to honestly.

References

Sabate, Joan. 2003. "The Contribution Of Vegetarian Diets To Health And Disease: A Paradigm Shift." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 78(3): 502S-507S.

The Value of Talking-Points

2009-07-10T10:47:00.000-07:00

Some of my recent posts have been hard on people who rely extensively on talking points when discussing the farm animal welfare issue. To show that Ham and Eggonomics loves everyone, allow me to articulate why talking points are used.

I have criticized talking points because people use them without thinking, but that is precisely the value of talking points. Express a talking point without questioning its validity helps others feel inclined to join the cause, and communicates the cohesiveness of the group to facilitate political patronage.

The purpose of making public statements is about more than simply communicating information. Often, the information is of little value. When people write blog posting, letters to the editor, and the like, they are writing for its therapeutic value, to helpe reinforce social norms, and to express to politicians the cohesiveness and power of one's interest group.

Almost every time someone defends livestock agriculture they include the argument that farmers always provide high welfare for the animals because it is in their own self-interest. Animals who have a low state of welfare also have a low productivity, so the argument goes. This argument is false, there is no question of that, yet even those who know better make the statement. Why?

This argument, even if false, provides justification for using current production practices, and places the farmer in a desirable state (which they deserve to be, by the way, as any welfare problems are up to the consumer to rectify). By repeating this mantra, the agricultural community acts to reinforce its social norms. It seeks to reassure farmers that they are good people, that other farmers are good people, and that the community is a moral community. Just as families use presents and celebrations to reinforce their family bonds, repeating the mantra of a group reinforces the cohesiveness and dedication of the group. Talking points reminds listeners of the group's cause and reassures the listener that they are one among many like-minded.

A repeating slogan also signals to politicians that the group is solidify and strong. Politicians exist for the sole purpose of pandering for votes. Whenever politicians can identify a group with a well-defined wish list and large numbers behind that group, you can be guaranteed that this group will get its way. Rallying behind talking points shows politicians that the group is disciplines and knows that it wants. If the politician delivers, the politician will be rewarded.

The same forces are at play for animal welfare and rights groups. The HSUS in particular is very well disciplined. They have a few targets and reasons for those targets and they never deviate. There is little doubt that there are some disagreements within HSUS about matters, but you would never know of them. They cannot afford to allow disagreements to be known. Without their discipline and focused objectives, they would not be able to reinforce its constituents behind a common goal and would not be as politically efficient.

Interview With Paul Shapiro

2009-07-10T09:37:00.000-07:00

Paul Shapiro leads the factory farming campaign at HSUS. Here is a recent interview with Paul.

By the way, I've talked to Paul on the phone and exchange emails with him. He is a good guy. Whether or not you agree with him, most everyone would like him if they got to meet him.

I've previously argued, from an objective viewpoint, that livestock agriculture is losing the intellectual battle with HSUS and the battle for public support. Paul's quote below is a great response to those who think the large HSUS is just one vegan-conspiracy machine.

Just think about it — we’re the largest animal welfare charity not only in the country, but in the world. Do you think that an organization that didn’t take mainstream views would be so influential? Just about two-thirds of Californians voted for the proposal we put on the ballot ... If you look at the breakdown of the vote, we won the majority of virtually every demographic ... even some of the largest ag counties.

This interview is also the first time I have seen discussion of Feedstuffs' role in the farm animal welfare debate. I love Feedstuffs, and frequently publish in it. By like any other media, it has its biases, and has a huge, huge bias towards factory farming. There are some advantages of factory farming, and someone has to stand up and fight to ensure those advantages are understood. Feedstuffs has assumed this role. While it provides a slanted-viewpoint, that bias often provides valuable information you would not receive if they tried to be objective.

LF: Who has been promoting this caricature?
PS: Feedstuffs plays a big role in it, as do other publications. (That publication) regularly engages in vilifying tactics. It (recently) published an article comparing our president, Wayne Pacelle, to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. When you have the largest agribusiness trade journal in the country comparing the HSUS’s president to Hitler and Mussolini, does anybody think that’s really appropriate?

Talking Points

2009-07-09T10:52:00.000-07:00

Regarding a previous post, lest you think that only livestock agriculture regurgitates talking points, see this awful article criticizing the beef industry.

Beef Is Humane, Even Beef From Feedlots

2009-07-09T10:11:00.000-07:00

Recent anti-food sources have attacked beef on the grounds that steers and heifers are "finished" in a feedlot prior to slaughter. Though they were raised for the first year of their life in pasture, their last few months are spent in a small pen on top of their own manure, and fed a feed ration that is not consistent with how their digestion system evolved, leading to sickness.

These criticisms have some points. Cattle do prefer pasture than pens filled with their own feces, but consider this...

(1) Cattle abolutely love the feed they are given, more than the grass. Though they do not receive the grass, they get something better.

(2) I estimate that the body of a feedlot cow consumes about 24 square feet of ground space, while the animals are given 250 square feet of space. That is a lot of space. This is not a factory farm in the sense that hog farms are factory farms. Cows receive 250/24 = 10 times more space than their body consumes, whereas pigs receive only 8/5 = 1.6. The reason is that the cattle are outside, not inside expensive buildings, so the cost of space is lower and thus there is no need to cram animals inside a small space.

(3) When cattle are given both feedlot feed (consisting of hay, corn, and the like) and grass, they mostly use the pasture for a clean spot to rest. Clean grass is better than manure for lying.

(4) The feedlot feed does produce more sickness than grass, but the frequency and intensity of this sickness is often exaggerated. Only about 2% of cattle experience any problem with the feed provide in feedlots, and the mortality rate due to this feed is only 0.69%. The "unnatural" cattle feed in feedlots has a very, very small effect on animal welfare.

(5) However, most feedlots are located in dry, moderate-temperature regions. The reason is that productivity plummets when it is cold and wet or hot and wet. Consequently, cattle manure dries quickly, and is more like dirt than manure. Yes, they lie in their own manure, but it is very dry, like dirt. Not so bad. Furthermore, there is an approximately 0% chance any of this manure gets into the beef when the animal is harvested.

Given feedlot cattle receive a delicious feed they love and ample space, it is not unreasonable to believe that cattle in feedlot might be quite happy.

As a friend of ag, allow me to weigh in...

2009-07-09T08:36:00.000-07:00

Livestock agriculture and animal advocacy groups are in an important battle over how farm animals should be raised. A few years ago, I focused my research efforts upon the farm animal welfare issue because I considered myself a friend of livestock, and I did not like the manner in which agriculture engaged the animal welfare issue. I wanted agriculture to do better, so I have offerred my time. This blog entry is part of this commitment.

Whether the current strategy of livestock agriculture will win in the public perception and the political arena I do no pretend to know. I have enough difficulties being a good economist, that I cannot afford to try and be a good political scientist as well. What I do know is the livestock agricultural agenda is not winning in the intellectual arena.

Consider the recent editorial: Farmers responsible stewards of livestock. Letters like these are getting old and do not reflect the level of enlightenement which I know the authors possess. Livestock agriculture needs to stop repeating its talking points, which are largely designed to make farmers feel better about themselves. Farmers have nothing to feel ashamed about. They are producing the exact commodity the consumer [currently] desires. If animal welfare needs to be increased then it is the consumer who is responsible for demand more humane products and paying the associated premium. Farmers are only doing what every good business is morally charged to perform: producing the good consumers desire.

That said, let us explore why this editorial is an epitome of livestock agriculture's intellectual failings.

Providing good care to the animals on our farms is a second sense within us, because we each have lifetimes of experience doing so. Any good farmer knows that good care also equals profitability. That’s why for years we as farmers have been financing meaningful scientific research through our commodity associations to benefit animals’ behavioral and psychological needs.

When the farm animal welfare debate first appeared back in 1965 Britain, the hypothesis that animal welfare can be measured by productivity and profits was offerred and quickly dismissed in the Brambell Report. Nothing has changed since 1965. Animal welfare is only partially related to animal productivity, and animal agriculture needs to stop pretending it to be otherwise. Moreover, it is arguable that many farmers do not actually understand their hogs needs, and I will offer myself as an example. In my youth I spent considerable time working on confinement hog farms, and it formed a particular impression in my mind about what hogs desire. That impression was later proved wrong when I visited a hog farm that operated under the Animal Welfare Institute guidelines. For the first time in my life, after years of working on hog farms, I saw a hog run. I saw a hog merrily playing in mud even in cold temperatures. At that visit, I realized that I knew how to run a factory farm, but I knew very little about the animals on that farm.

It seems what started with Walt Disney’s personification of animals with Mickey Mouse has evolved into a segment of society that puts the supposed needs of animals above humans. Some people seem to care more about what they call mistreatment of animals than a rash of other societal ills.

These same people are leading the charge across our nation to eliminate livestock agriculture, hunting and even pet ownership. Too often they deliver their deceptive messages as self-appointed experts on animal care. When farmers shrug them off in the face of assault, then the public only hears their exaggerated side of the issue. As they say on the farm, you reap what you sow.

The issue of whether animal welfare should be improved does not depend on whether Wayne Pacelle (CEO of HSUS) is a vegan. I imagine many social workers, after witnessing case after case of child abuse and neglect, wish people would stop having so many children. It would be absurd to suggest that we should not do anything about child abuse because some social workers yearn for a world where parents have fewer (or maybe no) children. It is absurd to suggest that we should not improve animal welfare simply because it will appease those who want us to become vegans. It is equally absurd to assert that giving animals a better life immediately locks us in to subsequent veganism. We can have government without becoming communists, and we can treat animals well without being vegans.

Earlier this spring, when the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) announced it was holding lobbying efforts at over 40 state capitols, including Wisconsin, the Farm Bureau decided it wasn’t going to sit on its hands.

Good. It is important for society that both sides of the issue engage in battle. I am not being sarcastic, this is how real democracy works.

Instead, the HSUS is a slicker version of their friends over at PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). As the new, multi-million dollar player of the professional protest industry, HSUS’s playbook is well known. They have successfully passed referendums in other states that ban certain livestock housing practices. Exhibit A of this is California’s passage of Proposition 2 last November. Voters there banned gestation stalls for sows, pens of veal calves, and wire pens for laying hens. It was an example of exaggerated emotionalism winning out over rational thought. Never mind scientific research or economic fallout, HSUS met its goal when emotions ruled the day.

The author is asserting that replacing cage eggs with cage-free eggs or eliminating gestation creates is an example of "exaggerated emotionalism winning out over rational thought." It is here, especially, where my agricultural community is losing the intellectual ground. This statement is made because it has been a talking point used by others, and makes authors feel good about themselves. It is a blatantly false statement! There are scientific studies that show both switching from cage to cage-free eggs and eliminating gestation crates is better for the animals (see here and here), and absolutely zero studies (that I know of) showing otherwise.

There are plenty of good reasons to improve and to not improve animal welfare. The decision is ultimately up to the consumer. It is true that animal advocacy groups are seeking to impose choices on consumers, but when it comes to public goods like animal welfare, that is not necessarily bad, if these animal advocacy groups accurately represent the preferences of their constituents. The suffering of a hog affects compassionate humans irregardless of who consumes the food from that sow. Animal welfare is like the environment, it belongs to everyone and cannot be parsed out like corn.

I beg of you, my livestock agriculture family, who I identify with so strongly, stop using talking points. Start reading. Start listening. Start thinking for yourself. Yes, it does present the danger that you may change your mind. That is the cost of possessing an open mind.

Discussion of Feedstuffs Commentary

2009-07-06T07:22:00.000-07:00

Friendly Discussion of Animal Welfare, Animal Care, and Ballot Initiatives: What's The Solution?

In regard to animal care and welfare, animal agriculture’s message is that current animal production systems produce safe, nutritious, affordable food by means of state-of-the-art technology based on sound science. Moreover, that animal production must be protected from special interest groups having vegetarian and other ethical agendas whose legislative efforts are simply attempts to stymie modern animal agriculture.

However, "sound science" has also showed that the methods HSUS is pursuing is superior to the status quo (see here and here)

Results of studies on the behavior and function of closely confined farm animals consistently indicate chronic stress. And behaviors suggestive of negative emotions are often observed.

For the record, however, similar problems can be found to varying degrees in animals kept in the alternative accommodations promoted by humane organizations.

Still, although stress is counterproductive in producing human foods of animal origin, contemporary animal agriculture has prioritized animal health and productive and reproductive performance over freedom to express a wide range of normal behavior patterns.

Conversely, HSUS’s rhetoric has focused primarily on animal behavior. Their message is simple and apparently reasonable: An animal should be able to stand up, lie down and turn around comfortably and easily. Unfortunately, to honor such a dictum would create a financial and logistical nightmare for contemporary U.S. animal agriculture. Furthermore, it would not sufficiently consider other aspects of animal welfare.

Thank you for acknowleding the fact that traditional egg and pork systems have flaws, and thank you for pointing out the other systems have drawbacks for animal welfare as well. However, let us first acknowledge the fact that wanting an animal to be able to lie down comfortably and turn around is not naive. Second, if the alternative system one is considering is comparable in terms of animal welfare to systems where an animal cannot turn around, one should reconsider what that alternative is.

First, the conventional stalls, crates and cages used for much of the country’s livestock and poultry production would have to be either altered or abandoned. The cost of this alone would put many farmers out of business.

Any time one does anything that raises the cost of production, there will be some economic harm. But since those who are put out of business or lose their jobs can always find work elsewhere (unfortunately, this job-hunt can be difficult), people who are opposed to factory farming on ethical grounds will not accept this as an argument. One should not condone unethical behavior just because it makes money.

With that said, it is disingenuous to suggest that the only options for Ohio are either: (1) to make minimal or no changes to livestock and poultry production practices — in other words, to simply defend the status quo, or (2) to risk having food produced that is actually unsafe and unwholesome or so expensive that some Ohioans will starve.

Well said!

The respective parties could instead work together to maintain our safe, affordable food supply and better protect animals and people in the process. This, however, would require each party to state what they are willing to give up as well as to vow to act in good faith to ensure a positive outcome for all stakeholders: win-win-win for animals, consumers and farmers alike. This would require a couple of intentional actions by everyone.

The first would be proactive, sincere consideration of the values held by all stakeholders.

Second, it would require fuller use of current knowledge in animal-welfare and animal-production science, veterinary medicine and agricultural economic

The question facing citizens across the nation nowadays is this: Do we engage in an expensive and protracted battle of faulty referenda or can we put aside personal agendas and create a feasible plan that makes a meaningful difference in the lives of farmed animals and people?

No, it can't work like that. It probably shouldn't. This is a battle for how farm animals are raised. The industry and HSUS have different opinions on what farms should look like. It is pollyannism to think they can compromise, because there is no compromise to be made. This is how a democratic world works; both parties lobby, fight, smear, and persuade for their cause. Both are backed by money representing different desires of the public. People love pork and eggs, and prefer them cheap, hence the industry's political power. People want animals to be treated humanely, hence HSUS's power. The winner will be determined largely by the power of these two constituent groups, by the intensity of these two societal desires. While a bit ugly to watch, allowing this uncoordinated political process to battle is much better than a committee of animal welfare czars.

Thank you Dr. Croney and Dr. Curtis for your thoughts.

Organic Food Is Silly

2009-07-04T18:40:00.000-07:00

So why worry about fraud in organic labeling?

Daily Show Interview of Robert Kenner

2009-07-03T09:24:00.000-07:00

Daily Show Interview of Robert Kenner (producer of Food, Inc.), on July 2, 2009

I'm summarizing...and comment in green

Jon Stewart: what's wrong with food today?

Robert: food isn't raised on open pastured, instead cows are stuffed into feedlots...

Where every day they receive large portions of a food they absolutely love, and greatly, greatly prefer to grass

Jon: how they raise animals is like the Abu Ghraib of food animals...the animals are stuffed one on top of one
another in the dark, climbing around in their own feces
That is true for many animals, and I see how people can have a big problem with that

Robert: our tax dollars subsidize this by subdiziding corn
That is true to some extent, but no one likes the subsidizies except the farmers and companies, but the payments
to the farmers are to a large extent independent of how much they produce...except for ethanol subsidies,
which are ridiculous but came about because of liberal concerns about fossil fuels
...the price of corn is mostly determined by supply and demand, not subsidies

Robert: food today is basically there to produce salt, sugar, and fat
I know he is intentionally using hyperbole, but even so that statement is a bit ridiculous. Every grocery store has
plenty of nutritious food, but consumers simply don't want much of it, so don't blame the companies.

Jon: if our food is so bad, why are we not dying earlier?
Robert: we will start dying earlier, soon...when I was a kid we spent 18% on food and 5% on health care,
now we spend 9% on food and 18% on health care, so in aggregate food our food is really more expensive.
So first, if the data are not in your favor you simply assert the data will soon change. Second, are you really
prepared to say that ALL of our increases in health care costs are due to a poorer diet? Really? The invention
of better medical technologies and new methods of treatment have NOTHING to do with it? I'll say it, he knows better
than this. Anyone smart enough to write books and produce movies knows better than this.

Jon: don't we have to mass-produce food on some level, given our busy lifestyle and large population and stuff?
Robert: but the system we have now is not sustainable because it relies on gasoline and pollutes the earth...plus 6
billion go to bed hungry right now
So, everything that relies on gasoline and creates any pollution needs to be phased out? Doesn't that mean
we need to stop producing everything? Plus, because North Korean dictators intentionally starve their citizens, and
other countries do the same, that means our food system is broken?...I'm telling you, he is smarter than this, just not
honest

Jon: so what do we do?
Robert: ag cooperations wouldn't talk to us
That is because you are dishonest. I talk to these people all the time. If they think you will be honest and fair, they will
talk to you.I guess you can't make money like that though.

Robert: consumers have more power than they think...Wal-Mart took out milk because it contained rBST and
consumers didn't want it
And consumers didn't want it because people like you lied to them about its safety.

Animals are not helping

2009-07-02T11:44:00.000-07:00

Animals should be doing more for the animal rights movement.

Wayne Pacelle on AgriTalk

2009-07-02T08:37:00.000-07:00

Wayne Pacelle was recently interviewed on the agricultural talk show AgriTalk (listen here). One lady who is an animal abolitionist provides some escerpts here, and for those who are not aware of how abolitionists think, her comments are educational. The entire transcript is here.

A few of my comments are below.

First, regardless of what you think of animal rights activists, you have to say that Wayne Pacelle does a good job as the CEO of his organization. He must manage the millions of dollars of donations from people with disparate views. The common thread of those views is extending more compassion to animals, and Wayne manages to capture this thread while not exposing the disagreements many HSUS members have by not using words like "animal welfare" or "animal rights". He replaces these words with "human responsibility." Brilliant management.

I was glad to see that they were able to discuss "science". Hopefully the listeners understood that "science" does not in any way support the use of gestation crates or battery cages.

The discussion about hunting was interesting, because Pacelle said that HSUS is not opposed to hunting. He said they only focus on worst abuses in hunting. In my research for my book, however, I found out that as a college student Pacelle would enter the woods where individuals were hunting and make a commotion to scare the wildlife away. This demonstrates that what Pacelle believes and what the HSUS policy is are often two different things.

Interesting Facts From The Interview

Most of the HSUS board of directors are not vegetarians.
I had always heard HSUS has a vegan cafeteria, but Pacelle claims they do not have a cageteria.

Last thought: Am I the only one sick of asking whether Pacelle and HSUS managers are vegans are not? Does that have anything to do with the actions of HSUS?

Life in the Wild, and Alan Dawrst

2009-07-02T08:00:00.000-07:00

For many, especially those who raise livestock, the notion of animal liberation may seem a farce. These animals can either be raised as livestock (humanely or not) or will not exist (save for a few pets). The idea that they can be set is the wild just seems absurd, as this piece in The Onion illustrates.

What many people fail to consider is the possibility that animals in the wild suffer. From what I have seen in my own experience, and every wildlife documentary I have watched, life in the wild is not pleasant.

Which brings me to this brilliant young thinker, Alan Dawrst, who runs the Reducing Suffering blog. What is best are his essays , one of which concerns suffering in the wild.

Anyone who considers the natural wild the only place in which animals can live without suffering should be reading Alan Dawrst's work first.

Command and Control - Animal Welfare Style

2009-06-29T07:15:00.000-07:00

Two states, Michigan and Ohio, are considering legislation to keep animal care and well-being in the hands of the two states rather than the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

The legislation has bipartisan support.

In Michigan, the legislation would establish the Michigan Agriculture Commission and Michigan Agriculture Department the sole authority for regulation of livestock and poultry health and welfare; it would also establish science-based standards for animal care that producers must implement by 2020, establish an animal care advisory council to keep the standards updated and establish a third-party auditing system to make sure the standards are in place.

Consumers Need Ham and Eggonomics!

2009-06-28T13:32:00.001-07:00

Oh! That was such a vain statement!

A recent study shows that organic and animal advocates dominate the online food debate. When consumers hit the web to search for info, they information they tend to encounter is that from organic and animal rights/welfare people.

There is an increasing presence of the animal industry, much needed, thanks to Trent Loos and Feedstuffs Foodlink.

Yet there is also a need for voices like mine, who sympathize and criticize both sides, and possess no monetary allegiance to anyone except my own conscious.

Hooray for Ham and Eggonomics!.

Broiler Production Video

2009-06-28T13:22:00.000-07:00

For those unaware of how chickens destined for meat production are raised, this video is excellent. While egg farms have obstacles to overcome before they can be said to provide their birds with a pleasant life, broiler farms I believe provide high standards of care.

Broiler farms could improve the genetic profile of the birds so that there are less leg injuries, and the feed restrictions of the broiler breeders should be addressed. However, there are simply no financial incentives to do so. Consumers must exert a willingness to pay more for these improvements! If they could just overcome these two problems, I would give the broiler industry very high marks.

Chipotle, more good than bad

2009-06-28T13:13:00.000-07:00

Chipotle has long touted its food with integrity slogan, bragging about how their hogs are raised in a more humane environment than factory farms. Trent Loos recently wrote a thought-provoking rebuttal, noting that hogs allowed access to pasture will drink their own urine and those of other pigs, and that chickens with pasture will feed on the carcasses of dead animals.

Trent is right in these regards, but I still prefer the Chipotle philosophy of hog production. I had working on several hog farms before I visited a farm that supplied Chipotle. Before this visit, I had never seen a hog run. I had never seen a hog play in the mud. I had never seen a hog seem to enjoy its life.

There are some drawbacks to giving animals access to outdoors, especially in the case of chickens where predators can easily kill half of the animals. Yet when it comes to hogs, I still prefer Chipotle to modern factory hog farms. I don't think that I am mislead or naive to believe that hogs should be allowed to turn around, walk, and play in the mud. If we are to raise animals for food, at the very least they should be given a life where they experience some positive emotions.

Ham and Eggonomics Combo

2009-06-24T13:42:00.001-07:00

Ham and Eggonomics Combo

(1) The more we explore the more similarities we find in ourselves and animals. About 3-10% of humans are at least partially gay, and it turns out that almost all animal species exhibit same-sex behavior. Nine-spined stickleback, who we would initially think operates by instinct alone, actually have a sophisticated method of learning, based on their observations of their peers relative to their own experience. In short, sometimes, they are rather intelligent.

(2) We aren't doing well enough. One-sixth of humans are undernourished.

(3) It is sad that so many in the world are undernourished, while in the U.S. we have such large surpluses of nutrients that the amount of nitrogen leaving our fields and entering the Gulf of Mexico is the among the largest ever measured.

(4) In my upcoming book on farm animal welfare, I argue that one piece of evidence that animals are sentient is that they communicate in a social setting. It turns out that sagebrush plants communicate in this manner. They warn their peers of danger, and have a sense of self-recognition. Yet, this is not really relevant to the farm animal welfare issue. Protons, neutrons, and electrons also communicate, and so do atoms on opposite sides of the universe. Without a nervous system and a brain, communication is not related to sentience.

(5) Studies keep trying to link obesity to proximity to fast food outlets, while others argue the link is not present. I argue it does not matter. Committees or governments should never attempt to decide where people should live and where McDonalds should locate. Those are decision that should be left to the consumers and the food retailers.

(6) Having a higher purpose in life lowers one's risk of death. What constitutes a higher purpose than growing food? What constitutes a higher purpose than making sure animals raised for food are treated kindly?

Science Behind Hen Welfare

2009-06-23T09:49:00.000-07:00

Agricultural industries keep claiming that animal rights groups do not base their ideas on "science". Groups like HSUS, it is said, prefer cage-free egg production due to emotion, but the "science" says cage production is best.

Not so fast, says Ham and Eggonomics. The table below comes from a "scientific" study that ranks cage production last in terms of animal welfare, and cage-free better than cage production. We raise eggs in cages because it is cheaper, not because science shows cages to be better for the hen. Let's argue. Debate is good, but let's be honest.

Source: De Mol, R.M., W.G.P. Schouten, E. Evers, H. Drost, H.W.J. Houwers and A.C. Smits. 2006. “A Computer Model for Welfare Assessment of Poultry Production Systems for Laying Hens.” Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science. 54:157-168.

HSUS University: Being Squimish 101

2009-06-23T09:42:00.000-07:00

The Humane Society of the United States is now offerring bachelor degrees? Yes, they are. Who saw that coming? Is there a class on being squimish at the site of meat?

Over at Advocates for Agriculture, Troy Hadrick comments, Normally, in order to receive a Bachelor of Science degree, you have to learn and utilize real scientific methodology during your studies. This doesn’t really jive with the normal operating procedures of the HSUS. Their emotion filled arguments contain more feeling than fact. I can only imagine what they will teach their students about livestock and food production.

Actually, Troy, "science" tends to lend more support for the agricultural practices HSUS pursues than the practices U.S. industries prefer. See here and here.

Hari Krishnas, Saving Cows, in Virginia

2009-06-23T09:34:00.000-07:00

Our world is a diverse place. We kill billions of animals for food each year, and in Virginia a clan of Hari Krishnas are asking for money to run a sanctuary to keep a few cattle alive. Read more.

Vegetarianism: automatically ethical?

2009-06-23T09:27:00.001-07:00

The Freakonomics blog is perhaps the most popular blog in the world. This entry discusses vegetarianism as, automatically, an ethical decision, from an environmental standpoint, that we should strive for. The author actually discusses ways for people to commit to being a partial vegetarian, it is apparently that important.

Perhaps vegetarianism is good for the environment. I recognize studies have shown that meat production results in large amounts of greenhouse gases, but that alone tells me nothing. The production of almost anything in large quantities produces greenhouse gases. I have not seen a study that shows greenhouse gases emitted from meat on a per dollar basis is larger than that from other goods. Neither have I seen a study that shows the "other stuff" vegetarians purchase from their smaller food bill and the greenhouse gases it creates does not offset the reduction in emissions from reduced meat consumption.

Until those studies arrive (which they probably won't), it seems to be the maintained assumption that meat is bad for the environment.

Farm Animal Welfare Quote

2009-06-22T12:16:00.000-07:00

From Vigrinia Anderson's Creatures of Empire, when discussing the management of livestockin Colonial America...

The management of domestic animals, like the suppression of sin, was too important to be left to the discretion of hard-pressed farmers. As a result, the community assumed responsibility for keeping order on farms just as it did for encouraging good behavior within farmhouses.

Prop 2, the cage-free question, and colony cages

2009-06-22T11:38:00.000-07:00

This article provides a discussion of whether Prop 2 in California requires that hens live in a cage-free environment. It is unclear why, if cage-free was the intention of Prop 2, why it wasn't written in the proposition.

The most interesting part of the discussion was a hybrid colony system that Petaluma Sunrise Farms is considering. I found a discussion of this system on the internet as follows.

Colony cages

An interesting modification of the cage system has been developed in Vietnam. These are large colony cages on stilts/legs and made from bamboo with external feeders and drinkers. They hold about 12 or more layers. The eggs roll out of the cages as in battery cages as the floor is on a slope of about 1 cm in 8 cm. The manure can be collected underneath the raised split-bamboo floor. The large cages are in a barn or house. Such a system may be successful in other countries and is a good compromise between the barn and the battery cage system.\

Another source described the system in more detail. This source described a colony cage system as providing only 67 square inches per bird, the same as a battery cage. The difference is that the colony cage holds 26 birds, provides dustbathes and nest boxes, and perches. The "space per bird" does not include the dustbathe and nest box, I hope. Using this description, a colony cage is life a furnished cage, but worse in that the hens have less space per bird. Not surprising, the colony cage is good in some ways, bad in others (e.g. cannibalism).

If the description above adequately describes these "colony cages", I can understand why HSUS is upset. One could easily believe that the hens in colony cages fare only little better than those in battery cages, and due to the larger flock size, maybe worse.

The reason Petaluma Farms is pursuing colony cages is simple: costs.

But Riebli, a partner in Petaluma’s Sunrise Farms, producer of a million eggs a day, estimated that a hybrid colony system would boost his expenses by only 5 to 12 cents a dozen, an amount he maintains he could reasonably expect to recoup from consumers. But he estimated that conversion to a cage-free operation would increase his expenses by 40 to 50 cents a dozen.