HSUS and UEP egg deal

Frankly I don’t even have time to weigh in on this little chicken legislature bill endorsed by both HSUS and UEP. I know these notes are a couple weeks old, but I’ve been tied up in a lot of other stuff, including my project starting yesterday. I have a few thoughts to share, but they’re disjointed so plow through them, read the articles for yourself and make up your own mind.

Andy Vance wrote one of the more hostile articles of his that I’ve read in a while. I feel that hostility when I see deals like this go down after all the hard work that went into Issue 2 here in Ohio. We put a lot of effort, sweat and good faith into that bill and were in the perfect position to start a new trend. Instead, the new thing is deals. Everyone’s working out deals instead of standing up for what they really believed or claimed to believe was the best way to raise animals. If we felt so strongly about our methods, we shouldn’t be willing to compromise them regardless of what threatens. We should cling to them, fight for them and not give them up.

Here's some other links to read on the issue as well: 1, 2, and 3.

I’m not saying that this change to enriched pens is really that bad. Enriched housing is one of the best options there is right now, in my minimally educated opinion, for chicken housing and I hope that we will see it improved bird welfare over the next few decades. More importantly, I want us to stick to something that is truly right, to find the agricultural practices that are worth defending and that producers and their “representatives” will not back out on at the last minute. If I believed that this would be the last compromise or that these compromises were leading to a better working relationship between these lobbying interest groups, then I would be just fine with this decision because it promises to be a good alternative to barren housing.

And why should we even have to legislate this in the first place? It’s absurd to legislate for animals because this then assumes that these animals deserve rights. Are they able to vote or are they even think about what is truly best for them? Or is this legislation part of a business that requires the government to step in and control? If so, then by lobbying and legislating this protection of animals, the HSUS themselves is admitting that these animals are just a material possession instead of a life which deserves respect.

No honesty

I could've probably labeled this post "HSUS" since it would've been a synonymous title, but who really would've wanted to read a post with that title? Let's talk for a few minutes about the past couple of weeks worth of reports and commentary stemming from the ADSA e-newsletter I receive. Feedstuffs does a really great job of combining relevant articles and attracting attention to critical issues in their assistance to this e-newsletter and the last couple of weeks have been especially good so I'm just going to have time to share briefly the best of the lot, because I think that these all link together nicely.

It wasn't too long ago that HSUS released yet another video of a bunch of alleged poultry abuse and neglect on a farm in Texas. Well, the UEP invited reporters to visit this same farm on an unguarded tour of the whole facility. They were free to ask any question, take any picture and record any video. Of course, HSUS didn't solicit any of this media for their own benefit, but I think this reporter would argue that's because it all turned out to be a lie. (And in case you think it's possible to clean up a farm's act in that short of time, let me just say it can't happen. It would've been easier to just go out of business and restart than to clean up a bad act that fast).

I recommend you to read both parts of this farm visit, starting with an introduction and then more of the specific critiques in the second one. The reporter's best statement in the entire thing might be near the beginning when he says that he felt betrayed by HSUS for having been giving such faulty media for release and coverage. So it seems that nobody really likes being played, not even the media.

Of course, while we're in the habit of discrediting HSUS and their claims, we probably ought to also examine the new reports about foodborne illness incidence in the US. With new reports just released, indicating significantly lower illness occurrence than previously cited, that takes just one more bite out of the dog.

Finally, let's take a look at HSUS's past work. Prop 2 in California still sits as a relatively useless piece of legislation that is more of a legal excuse to neglect animals than it is a regulation for improved care of animals. And this is why a farm in California has petitioned for a true ruling on what this law means. If they'd have had a Care Standards Board, these things might've been more clearly defined by experts in the industry who care about animal care, rather than self-obsessed activists with little regard for the animals they steal money on behalf of. For a video feed on the chicken farm who petitioned for this clearer legialation, click here.

Egg farm visit blog

This blogging mother decided to talk about the opportunity she had to visit a modern egg farm and see how her food was made. Thanks to the Animal Agriculture Alliance for sharing this link. What a great way to tell people about agriculture! If you want to make a visit, ask, and it can be arranged for you. If you've made a visit, contact me because I'd love to share your story.

Gateway to Animal Welfare Updates

Quite the busy day in my inbox for Animal Welfare updates as I had 2 weeks worth of "Gateway to Animal Welfare" articles to sort through. I'll start today with some continuations of previous discussions, including the well-being of cage-free birds and their feet.

Of course, Wayne Pacelle and his cronies continue to push cage-free systems as the only way to go for the future of egg production. As you recall, this included Kraft moving to 1,000,000 of its eggs being produced by cage-free chickens. Before you praise them though, go ahead and figure that that's really only 3,000 chickens. The big question here though is whether or not these 3,000 chickens will really receive any better lifestyle in their future environment. One thing to definitely consider is this new research stating that 40% of cage-free hens will suffer from foot diseases, which are much more readily prevented in a caged system. Things to ponder...

Also, of interest, the arrival of a new mega-dairy on the scene. I can understand that people think that animals lose the personal attention on a large farm, but if handled correctly, a large farm really just means ability to pay for more experienced and well-trained employees who can responsibly give even better care for their animals.

And finally some beginning research on hen-pecking from my Erasmus school in the Netherlands.

Combating obesity and the red meat myth

First off, props to Mayor Bloomberg of New York City for his efforts to have sugar drinks banned from the acceptable list of food stamp purchases. It's not that I'm looking for those people on food stamps to suffer the lack of those luxury foods/drinks that most of us crave at some point or another. This represents a great opportunity for a step towards taking back the obesity issue from its current status of out-of-control. The government has itself in a hole where it provides food stamps to citizens who then purchase unhealthy foods with the stamps, thereby leading a higher number back into the necessity for increased government sponsored healthcare. This idea of using food stamps to provide healthier food products should be accompanied by educational tools for people on how to balance their diets for nutritional optimization but limiting the procurement of unhealthy sugar drinks is certainly a start in the right direction. Personally, I can say I lost weight just when I stopped drinking pop every day. It's good for me and can be good for you too.

Hand in hand with this is the topic of red meat consumption which always comes up in nutritional debates and is my main justification for this blog today. Red meat is always catching flak from its opponents ranging from PETA to registered dieticians to talk show hosts. The link I included above is just one example of an article designed to convince consumers to eat less red meat. Well, I'll let someone more qualified than myself justify the truth of the article and its "research" but I can tell you that I am skeptical of this study just like I am skeptical of so many others. People are voluntarily recruited for this study, are expected to actually be honest in their questionaires, and are expected to accurately keep records of their eating habits. This is not a controlled study and so much can go wrong. You should also be careful to note that although they blame red meat in the report, the study actually lumped both red meat and processed meat in the same bin. Of course, if I'm eating bologna or McDonald's every day of my life, I'm probably not expected to survive as long as someone who is cooking meat in their own home. Red meat wasn't killing people who made wholesome meals in their home and shared them with family and friends.


This isn't about shoving an agenda about the lack of family values or a pro-carnivore attitude down your throat. This is about making sure you consider the facts, and the factors and variables that can impact the value of a research study that claims you should limit your red meat consumption. I can bet you that the people in the study might have eaten at least 4 oz of red meat or processed meat a day, but it doesn't say whether they also maybe had days of 15 and 20 oz of red and processed meats packed in there too.

If you're a big eater like me, you'll be depressed the first, second and third time that you measure out how much you're eating, but take my word for it that portion sizing can make the biggest difference for you. Red meat is still fine for you; there's no true proof out there that it is bad for most people. Yet, there is definitely proof out there though that if you eat 3x as much as you should (including red and processed meats) that you will become overweight and possibly obese, and increase your risks for a lot of different diseases. The same holds true for you if you have already existing risk conditions and then try to eat red and processed meats every day - bad idea.

Simple take-home message here. Portion sizes will do wonders. Butter used to be "bad" for us, but now it's much better than most alternatives. Eggs used to be bad for us, but if you can manage your cholesterol, the eggs are a proven brain boost. Claims that red meat itself is bad for you are difficult to prove. I'm not going to stop eating it anytime soon.

Eggs again

As the news keeps hitting the egg topic, I just figured I would include a few links to make you a more educated reader.

HSUS is making a loud claim that this Salmonella outbreak in Iowa is because the farm is a caged system, citing their top source (this sometimes takes 2 attempts to load) as a paper which could be more accurately described as a summary of many reasons why Salmonella can be elevated on any farm. As always, it takes only a surface scrape to get attention, but digging deeper always brings out more of the truth. So don't take my word for it, but read the 2 links above as well as Feedstuffs' take on it.

Also, the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board is not expected by Director Boggs to specifically adhere to the deal brokered by Gov. Strickland with HSUS to prevent a ballot initiative this fall. Instead, we can expect more of a balanced approach considering each issue within the deal singly.

Happy Sunday

Today, just like any day there are farmers out working the fields, repairing machinery, fretting about the weather and caring for their livestock. I encourage you to think about this as you go out for breakfast, sit at home with your family, or contribute to the American economy through weekend work. Regardless of your food preferences, American farmers are working hard today to feed you and your family, your friends and your neighbors.

Gene Baur's blog has again captured my attention through his criticism of farmers on "factory farms" for feeding "the bare minimum" to egg-laying chickens. On the contrary, farmers even in large systems still follow through on their responsibility to provide the adequate nutrition necessary for their hens to not only produce eggs (this is after all a means of income) but also to live healthy lives.

Since I doubt Gene's screeners will ever publish a comment from me, I have included it below. Thanks and have a great week!

"Gene,

You discuss feeding the "bare minimum". While that is an obvious misquote from the article and stands in stark contrast to the practice which exists in reality of feeding hens the amount that they need, I would like to pose a question to you.

Are you instead implying that you endorse the feeding ad libitum of hens on farms? Look at the American public for a great example of why this is such a bad idea. The American public is suffering from what the media prefers to call an "obesity epidemic" and this is not because they eat meat products. No, this is because the American consumer on average is over-consuming. They intake far more calories than they need for maintenance and other life functions and then suffer through an obesity struggle that could be avoided by consuming the amount they should've eaten in the first place. This is the exact reason why animals on farms are not fed beyond what they need because as the farmer we have a responsibility to provide a healthy existence to the animal and this includes controlling their diet to be balanced and wholesome. The feed given to chickens is scientifically proven to be precisely what the hens need on the farm in order to serve the purpose that they were raised for: laying eggs. "

Salmonella

Like always, there's another outbreak cause by a food safety error. Someone like Pollan might tell you that's why you should buy locally, but I still adhere to it all being situational. Sure, this is on a much larger basis than if it had been a local grower causing the outbreak, but still with the larger producer there is also a more consistent supply available and an easier solution to the problem. And there's no way that you can convince me that a small producer is any less or more likely to have a disease problem than a large producer. Again, all situational, but this is my opinion. Feel free to weigh in the comments...

I am definitely glad that Dean Armstrong is willing to stand up and voice his opinion about how unscientifically based the HSUS's claims about egg production and hen housing truly are.

Also, just in case you haven't been watching, the cattle prices have skyrocketed.

Mid-July Heat and Conklin Update

Boy this heat sure has been bad this week. After driving to Denver and back, I can safely say that there are a) a lot of flat lands between here and there, b) I don't plan to drive there again soon, c) there is thankfully still farmland in the blessed country, d) I have seen all of the heat you're all suffering. Good luck keeping the crops growing and healthy.

My trip to Denver was pretty awesome. It was great to visit with and meet so many people in the past week and I greatly enjoyed giving my talk on tail docking in dairy cattle. I also had the opportunity to listen to many research projects and read various posters, including welfare and nutrition topics.

On that note I will turn back to the grind mill with ARS reports related to ongoing research.

First, check out the article outlining different egg production practices and the fact that they found no significant difference in egg quality between the different practices.

Also, some cool engineering research on how to make levees last longer.

I don't know about you, but I get nervous every time we talk about bringing in a pest to change an ecosystem.

And I will close with an update via Humane Watch about the Conklin Farm legal case and prosecution of that scummy Billy Jo Gregg, Jr.