Lab-grown meat is seen by some as a way to meet rising global demand for protein while addressing concerns with modern livestock and poultry production methods. There will be questions about whether synthetic meat is healthy and safe – is fake meat good for us? A poll found that consumers want cultured meat to be clearly labeled. The concept also prompts societal and ethical questions.

We sought social and ethical perspectives from three experts:

• Candace Croney, professor in the departments of Comparative Pathobiology and Animal Sciences and Director of the Center for Animal Welfare Science at Purdue University, is the primary author of a paper titled, “Engineering Approaches to Animal Welfare,” currently under review at the Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics. One section of the study addresses the issue of using the tissue of live animals to produce a synthetic meat product.
• Gary Varner, a philosophy professor at Texas A&M University, lists animal welfare and environmental ethics as research interests.
• Raymond Anthony, philosophy professor at the University of Alaska Anchorage, has done research in the areas of environmental, food, animal and agricultural ethics.

What are the potential benefits of a synthetic meat product?

Dr. Croney: There is the idea that we could vastly mitigate any suffering that animals experience as a result of being raised for meat.  One thing to keep in mind is that we would still need live animals as progenitors of the tissue that would be used to culture meat. Their experiences, the conditions under which they are raised, handled and sampled for tissue biopsies, and their overall welfare needs would have to be addressed. But, significantly fewer animals would be needed and the thinking by proponents of the technology is that this would also result in a significant reduction in the environmental impacts of livestock production.

Dr. Varner: The main one is an improvement in animal welfare by removing sentient beings that are capable of suffering from the food system. People might also think that the process could potentially be made more cost-efficient and also avoid environmental impacts of contemporary meat systems. I don’t know if that’s realistic or not.

Dr. Anthony: The meat we consume and the way we farm it have been scrutinized more than ever in recent years. Synthetic meat production is potentially another way to create a sustainable food future. As we approach 2050, scientific and technological innovations such as precision farming and genetic engineering, and now synthetic meat production, are being tasked to feed the projected 9 billion people and to do so in ways that mitigate such issues as greenhouse gas emissions, overfishing and animal welfare concerns. We face an enormous challenge to produce more food and meet the projected future needs for animal protein using existing agricultural lands and current water and energy resources.

What are the societal and cultural implications?

Dr. Croney: Is growing meat in a laboratory socially acceptable to people? We don’t know that yet. People who lean toward “natural” products might have questions about growing meat in a laboratory instead of using more traditional practices. We know many people today are very sensitive about the technologies associated with food production – particularly anything that looks like genetic modification as people tend to be very risk averse. Will this technology be similarly worrisome to people? What information will be provided to the general public here and elsewhere in the world? When and by whom will that be offered so that people can make informed choices that align with their values and beliefs rather than feeling that technology is being foisted on them? To the extent that technology advances might make it difficult to economically and visually distinguish cultured meat from traditionally produced meat, will cultured meat products be labeled in such a manner as to facilitate consumer choice? If the products are nutritionally different or vary significantly in price, who will have access to them and how does this mitigate or worsen societal inequities?

What happens to rural communities and all the people who are directly or indirectly involved in animal agriculture? It’s a way of life that’s important to many people. Is it socially acceptable to do something that could disrupt or displace that way of life? As consumers have increasingly expressed a desire to know more about how food is produced and to feel connected to farming, will this type of meat production exacerbate existing tensions and areas of disconnect between those who produce food and those dependent on them as consumers?

Dr. Varner: Reduction in animal-based agriculture via synthetic meat, as well as through synthetic dairy products, reduces a traditional lifestyle and relationship with animals that pastoralists celebrate.

Dr. Anthony: I see three areas of concern:

1. Philosophically, how do synthetic meat production practices enhance our relationship to animals and the environment? Does “clean meat” production, which occurs in sterile laboratories, alienate us further from the natural world and strain human-animal relationships?
2. Sophisticated consumers and regulators want to know if they are getting what is being marketed by these companies. How start-up tech companies foraying into food production address trust and transparency as part of an accountable business model will be a central issue to watch.
3. The impact of synthetic meats on issues of justice, fairness and equity for all the stakeholders in the food chain (animal and the environment included) will also be of interest. For example, it will be important to understand just how the public perceives the extent to which this evolving technology will mitigate animal suffering and how new actors in the food system balance this ethical concern against other ethical expectations and risk considerations related to food norms and cultural practices about what is acceptable to do. Also, like any technological use, there will be tradeoffs. How will this technology, if it becomes a viable competitor to conventional production practices, impact farmers the world over who rely on animal protein production for their livelihoods, community and food security?

What is the feasibility of cultured meat – is the technology there yet?

Dr. Anthony: At the moment, there are only a handful of global start-ups working on high-tech meat alternatives. They include Memphis Meats, Hampton Creek, and Beyond Meat. Food safety concerns, accusations of manipulation and adulteration, labeling regulations, and the legacy of how GM foods were rolled out are among some of the hurdles that must be addressed and surpassed.

Dr. Varner: I don’t know how close the proponents of this technology are to being able to scale this up to commercial levels.

Dr. Croney: There has been proof of concept. Tissue-cultured meat has actually been produced and there have been “tastings.” What is not known is whether it can be produced in a way that meets consumer expectations of what meat should look like and how it tastes. The logistics of doing it on a large scale and affordably has not been demonstrated yet.

Do you think laboratory meat production is realistic?

Dr. Croney: There’s a lot of promise. In terms of doing it on a large-scale basis at this point in time, I’m not sure. The economics need to be fundamentally addressed and who would invest in it? Do I see this realistically happening in the next 20 years? No, but we will see efforts to improve the technology and I think there could be benefit from that.

How would you summarize this issue?

Dr. Anthony: Beyond issues of taste, safety, healthfulness and cost, consumers are increasingly interested in flexing their citizenship muscles to co-shape a global sustainable food future. Public attitudes toward the ethical acceptability of synthetic meats will depend heavily on the extent to which the potential of this innovation can live up to the marketing hype and the technology and its applications do not result in worse-off outcomes for people, the planet and animals. When framing questions about the morality of synthetic meats, empirical studies gauging public concern and expectations will be key. Fundamentally, will this technological innovation enhance human-animal-environmental relationships or harm them? Will there be an improvement over conventional practices?

Dr. Croney: We know that global demand for meat is increasing as income levels rise in developing countries. Tissue-grown meat has the potential to help satisfy demand while addressing environmental concerns associated with the additional land and natural resources that would be required to increase conventional livestock production. In short, the base technology needed to produce laboratory meat is there and appears promising, but the logistics and economics of doing it on a large scale while meeting consumer expectations for taste, naturalness, and healthfulness need to be better understood.

Dr. Varner: One thing that isn’t raised by your questions is that as sentient animals are removed from the meat sector then, other things equal, there are fewer animals living on earth. And, if the lives of the animals that are not living would have been good, there is less aggregate happiness in the world.

Lab-grown meat produced from tissues is being researched and tested, but there are still many questions to be answered, including if consumers will accept the new product.

Originally published August 23, 2017.

The post Is Cultured Meat in Our Future? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

When given the opportunity to see veal farming up close and personal, she jumped at it. After touring veal farms and processing facilities in Indiana and Pennsylvania, she chronicled her learnings at her Mom at the Meat Counter blog. We visited with Dr. Yancey to learn more about what she learned.

What, exactly, is veal?

Veal is meat from a calf as opposed to beef that comes from older animals. Most veal calves come from dairy farms. Dairy cows must give birth to continue producing milk. The male calves, since they don’t produce milk, are raised for meat. Some of these calves are raised for beef. Others are raised for veal.

How do you think the average person in the U.S. or Canada views veal?

I think most consumers just don’t have much experience with veal. It is not offered on many menus or available in very large quantities in stores, so I don’t think they know much about it as a protein. I’m sure that some consumers had seen negative coverage about veal. I think that there’s negative misinformation out there about most proteins, but it’s probably more prominent for veal.

Did you have any preconceived notions about veal?

I tried not to. The few people I knew in the veal industry were good people, and I couldn’t imagine that they would be condoning poor treatment of animals. I like to think I went in with an open mind.

What are some of your key learnings from the tour?

Milk-fed veal calves are raised much like all dairy calves. They live in separate pens for a few weeks to protect their health, then they live in group housing. It’s called ‘milk-fed veal,’ but the calves are fed milk and grain. The calves are about 5 months old and 500 pounds when they go to harvest. The processing side was largely what I expected from the meat industry – clean and efficient.

Some people may be aware of criticism that has been leveled at the veal industry because of the way calves are housed. Some states have even adopted ballot issues that govern the way these animals can be housed. What’s your perspective?

The method of housing that those ballot issues addressed is practically non-existent in the U.S. The veal industry committed to a 10-year transition to group housing back in 2007 and it’s virtually complete. I found that the calves were housed according to their needs. When they are young, they need to be housed individually to protect their health and welfare. When they get old enough, they are transitioned into group housing. Even the calves that are housed individually can see, hear and touch their neighbors. The barns were quiet, which is a sign of content calves.

Anything you’d like to add?

After my trip, I was  more excited to search out veal on menus and try cooking it at home. I hope my readers feel the same way after reading my posts.

You can read Dr. Yancey’s full account of her veal tour.

The post Scientist Seeks the Real Story on Veal appeared first on Best Food Facts.

Click on the infographic below to open a PDF.

chicken_housing_infographic_v2_cs5

CONVENTIONAL CAGE

CAGE-FREE AVIARY

ENRICHED COLONY

_{“Chicken Butts” by Cody and Maureen is licensed under CC BY.}

The post Hen Housing: Cage-Free, Enriched Colony and Conventional Cages Explained appeared first on Best Food Facts.

In light of a recent undercover video investigation involving treatment of chickens both on the farm and in a processing plant, we went to three poultry industry experts for insight – Dr. Patricia Hester of Purdue University, Dr. Charles Hofacre of the University of Georgia and Dr. S.F. Bilgili of Auburn University.

In a recent undercover video, farm employees are seen, among other things, grabbing birds by their wings and tossing them roughly into cages. Is this common treatment in poultry production?

Dr. Hofacre:

I visit a lot of farms and have been working with poultry producers for 30 years and I’ve never seen that kind of thing. It’s reprehensible. There’s no excuse. There’s no way any poultry company I’m familiar with would tolerate that type of behavior. It’s not appropriate treatment of animals, plus it would result in bruises and injuries that would result in a loss of money for the producer.

It’s been reported today’s chickens are bred to produce breasts so large it’s difficult for them to support themselves and that they wind up laying in their own waste. What’s your view of this?

Dr. Hester:

It’s true that chickens (or broilers as they’re called in the poultry industry) are being bred to produce more white meat because that’s what consumers want. Geneticists have also increased the rate of gain for broilers in order to improve production efficiency.

Heavier broilers generally have poorer walking ability, which can be measured using a scoring system. Studies have developed a “gait score” of 0 to 5 with 0 representing no impairment in walking and 5 representing severe lameness. Research shows four commercial cross breeds of male broilers had gait scores averaging from 1.5 to 2.0. This means that a broiler has an “identifiable abnormality that has little impact on overall function.” Gait scores for female broilers are generally better than males. So, contrary to allegations that these birds have difficulty supporting themselves, scientific study shows the majority of today’s broilers do not have major mobility problems.

Those broilers that do have severe lameness should be culled as soon as it’s noticed by the animal caretaker. National Chicken Council (NCC) welfare guidelines explicitly state that broilers that cannot access feed and water for normal growth and development must be humanely euthanized. Commercial flocks are monitored twice daily and with active culling as described in the NCC welfare guidelines, broilers should not be laying on the floor.

Are older breeds of chickens (slower-growing) healthier? What are the pros and cons of raising older breeds of chicken compared to today’s breeds?

Dr. Hester:

The pros of slow-growing genetic lines of broilers is that they have lower mortality, are more active, and have fewer leg problems than fast-growing genotypes. The cons of slow-growing chickens are that they require more feed to gain weight, produce a smaller amount of breast meat, and can take twice as long to reach market weight. It costs the farmer more to raise these types of broilers; therefore, the meat is more expensive at the grocery store. Although more science is needed, it is also suspected that the carbon footprint or impact on the environment would be less favorable for the slower-growing chickens.

What are the conditions like for the chickens on modern indoor farms? Do they need access to natural light and environmental enrichment?

Dr. Hester:

Broilers are raised on floors covered with a plant-based bedding material called “litter” and have access to clean water and fresh feed that is precisely formulated to meet their energy, protein, vitamin, and mineral requirements. The litter protects the chicken’s feet and provides a cushion when they rest. The litter can also be used as an enrichment (i.e., scratching, dust bathing, pecking, etc.). Wood shavings or rice hulls are common sources of bedding materials that provide opportunities for chickens to dust bathe (a process during which they cower close to the ground and flap their wings). Sprinkling corn into the litter encourages foraging activity.

Broiler houses are ventilated to provide fresh air and keep ammonia levels low. Many have curtained sides. When the curtains are open, the broilers have access to natural light. For broilers grown in totally enclosed houses with solid walls and no curtains, which is more typical of colder climates, artificial light provides the light spectrum that natural light normally provides to allow for appropriate broiler welfare.

Dr. Hofacre:

The birds don’t necessarily need access to natural light. On most poultry farms, they have artificial light. It wouldn’t be any different than somebody who works in an office with overhead lighting. The birds are given night time rest and day time light. When you see photos or video of a lot of broilers inside one of these barns, it may look like there’s not much space. But the birds are given sufficient space to move around and have unlimited access to food and water.

When I began my career as a poultry veterinarian 30 years ago, a lot of turkeys were still raised outdoors. Every fall in Minnesota, which was the largest turkey-producing state back then, we would have an outbreak of avian influenza. It was always linked to migratory water fowl that stopped to eat with the turkeys and infected the flock with flu. Turkeys today are healthier, have fewer diseases and are not left outdoors to be killed by foxes or other predators.

What’s your view of transporting chickens in open-air cages? Some say chickens suffer because of heat in the summer and cold in the winter.

Dr. Hofacre:

A significant percentage of poultry production is in the southeast, so the biggest issue is dealing with heat. If the cages were enclosed it would be difficult to keep the birds cool. Open-air cages allow for plenty of ventilation. When it’s colder, Plexiglas or wooden sides are placed on the front and sides of the trailer to provide protection.

Transport is usually brief – an hour more or less to get from the farm to the processing plant. If birds were allowed to get too cold or hot, you’d have excessive bird death or loss of body weight that would cost the producer money. So, not only is treating these animals humanely the right thing to do, it’s an economic incentive for farmers to make sure healthy birds make it to market.

It’s been reported that a million birds a year are scalded alive because of methods used at processing plants. Can you shed some light on this, please?

Dr. Bilgili:

First of all, it’s unacceptable from an animal well-being standpoint to have broilers scalded alive. We process about nine billion broilers annually in the U.S. The most recent data I’ve seen indicates that about 0.008%, or around 720,000 carcasses, are condemned by USDA inspectors as cadavers or birds that die from causes other than slaughter.

Unfortunately, the cadaver statistics are erroneously interpreted as the total number of birds being scalded alive. This is NOT the case. The number of live birds entering the scalding tank alive should be nil if the National Chicken Council’s welfare guidelines are adhered to. NCC guidelines state that allowing this to happen is a “major animal welfare non-conformance.” Backup personnel are used in all plants to catch any birds not properly killed by the automated equipment before they reach the scalding tank.

Some animal welfare groups are calling for plants to use Controlled Atmosphere Killing (CAK). What is this and what are the benefits or drawbacks?

Dr. Bilgili:

CAK basically involves using a combination of two or three gases (carbon dioxide, argon, nitrogen) to actually kill the birds before slaughter. The reason there’s growing interest in this system is that the birds would be dead before being shackled, which would eliminate some of the welfare issues associated with handling and electrical stunning systems. CAK has become somewhat popular in Europe, although only about 30 percent of the plants there are using it.

We’re seeing some interest in it here in the U.S., especially with turkeys because they’re so much larger than chickens and therefore more difficult for a person to handle. CAK is a more expensive system to install and operate than the electrical stunners. It would require a major investment by a plant to adopt a CAK system and increase the final product cost without much benefit to the processor or the consumer.

Are processing plant line speeds too fast?

Dr. Bilgili:

At plants in Europe and South America they’re processing over 200 birds per minute. Here in the U.S. it’s kept at 140 per minute. We’re all processing the same birds and using the same technology and equipment. Under the new poultry inspection system we were going to increase it to 175 per minute but in the end it was decided to keep it where it is currently. This puts us at a bit of an economic disadvantage with some of our global competitors.

How are chicken processing plants regulated by the federal government?

Dr. Bilgili:

A poultry processing plant in the United States cannot operate without federal government oversight. They must be federally inspected and in compliance with all meat and poultry inspection laws. Each plant has a veterinary medical officer who is in charge of a team of trained inspectors who perform a number of important tasks, including pre- and post-mortem inspection, monitoring the implementation of Good Manufacturing Practices, verifying proper implementation of food safety programs including facility and personnel hygiene and sanitation protocols, and confirming compliance with USDA Performance Standards. It’s a highly regulated business. You don’t see this type of oversight in many other industries.

Why are chickens not included under the federal Humane Slaughter Act?

Dr. Bilgili:

The Humane Slaughter Act was enacted in 1958 and amended in the 1970s. Back then, the poultry industry in the U.S. was rudimentary and basically consisted of small backyard flocks. But, even though poultry is not specifically named in the Act, it does not mean they are ignored from a humane slaughter standpoint. There are many directives and regulations issued by the USDA on humane slaughter that involves poultry and then monitored and enforced by the USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service on-site inspectors. These inspectors can issue citations or even shut down a plant if they see animal welfare issues.

Should American consumers be concerned that the chicken they’re eating is being raised and processed safely and humanely?

Dr. Bilgili:

Absolutely not. We have good food safety and animal welfare systems in place. When new science and/or technologies become available to improve product quality and safety, the poultry industry is very good about readily incorporating them. We’ve been working hard over the last 10 years in the U.S. to implement a science-based and objective animal welfare program that can be independently verified on a regular basis. Such programs are not common around the world, including Europe.

The poultry industry has come a long way during the last six decades. Can it be better? Of course! That’s our job as poultry scientists to research, assess and apply science-based technology to make things better. I have every confidence that poultry produced in the U.S. is on solid ground from both animal welfare and food safety perspectives.

The post Are Chickens Processed Humanely? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

Is it true that most farm animals in today’s food system are confined in factory farms? How many head of cattle, chickens or pigs are housed together on the typical farm?

Dr. Amy Schmidt: “First of all, let’s talk about the term ‘factory farm.’ I think it is a very misused and inaccurate term, and I will tell you why after I tell you this story.

I recently asked a member of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to explain the term ‘factory farm’ to me. (FYI, she had no idea who I was.) She began by telling me that, ‘First, these huge corporations come in and start buying all of the land where they want to raise animals. And the local farmers can’t afford to compete with the corporation, so they sell them their land and have to quit farming and that’s really sad.’ (And I would agree…if that were true.) She then went on to say, ‘And, so once the corporations have taken all this land from family farmers, they build these huge buildings and then they shove all the animals in there and the owner just pushes a button to deliver feed and water…and there is no human interaction at all. And when you drive down the highway and smell something awful, it’s them. It’s factory farms and it’s horrible.’ Oh, my! That does sound horrible! Why is anyone allowed to raise animals that way just to produce hamburgers and eggs and bacon?!

Well, here’s the deal: that’s not at all what happens in real life. Corporations aren’t buying up all the farmland and pushing farm families off the land. If anything, they are providing a way for families who love living on the farm and raising livestock to continue doing this on a large enough scale to make a living at it. Say you grew up in a family that raised pigs, cattle, and crops. Maybe Mom and Dad farmed and when you and your siblings grew up, you wanted to keep farming but it wasn’t profitable for you all to just work for your parents. You needed to start a farm of your own. So, together, you all decided that Mom and Dad will just keep sows on their farm, but they’ll buy more sows so they can produce more piglets. And then you and your siblings could each build farms where you take those piglets and raise them to market weight. And since we’re all working together, we should create a business that ties our operations together, an LLC, perhaps. This is how a lot of ‘corporate’ farms were created. Does that make them bad? Or does it just make common sense? How is that different from kids starting their own grocery stores and creating a ‘chain’ by opening their own stores under the business structure that their parents started 30 years ago? Farms and ranches shouldn’t be thought of any differently than other types of businesses. They have to diversify ag opportunities to be able to generate a profit so that they can continue to produce food, fiber, and fuel. If they are not able to generate a profit, it is no longer feasible to stay in business. This may mean selling to someone who will use the land, equipment, livestock, etc. to grow their own existing business, or it may mean adding to their operation to expand and remain profitable.

We really need to get away from the idea of pitting ‘factory farmers’ against ‘family farmers’ because a family that builds a profitable farming business to support multiple generations is eventually going to be labeled a ‘factory farm’ just because of their size. Every aspect of our economy grows based on scales of production. We don’t all have a desire to raise our own food. But, thankfully, there are people who enjoy this and because they are able to scale their operation up to produce more food in a way that is profitable, we all benefit from that. And according to the American Farm Bureau, 97% of farms are family owned!

[Tweet ‘And according to the American Farm Bureau, 97% of farms are family owned!’]

Now, for the real answer to the question!

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that there are 450,000 AFOs in the U.S. and about 15% of these are CAFOs.

So, what is a ‘CAFO’ versus an ‘AFO?’ The acronym CAFO stands for ‘concentrated animal feeding operation.’ To be a CAFO, an operation must first be an AFO, or an ‘animal feeding operation.’ An AFO is simply defined as an agricultural operation where animals are confined for at least 45 days in a 12-month period to an area where vegetation is not sustained during the normal growing season. So, by this definition, a backyard chicken coop with a few hens housed inside a structure is technically an AFO. Now, for an AFO to be a small CAFO, the operation needs to confine at least 300 ‘animal units,’ which equates to 300 beef cattle or about 200 mature dairy cows or 750 mature pigs, etc. So, it doesn’t take very many animals to go from being an AFO to a small CAFO!

When raising animals in confinement (inside structures or fenced areas where the stocking density does not allow for vegetation to grow on the soil surface), science-based engineering design standards dictate how much space must be allotted for each animal. In terms of the number of animals housed together on larger-scale farms, it is common for swine buildings to house 1,000 to 2,400 animals in a single structure, typically in pens of about 20 animals each. Broiler chicken houses can house up to around 50,000 birds in a single structure. Dairy cattle housed in freestall barns may number up to 1,000 cows in a single barn, while open lot dairy operations (common in arid regions) may contain a few thousand animals on a site. In all of these settings, a farm may contain multiple buildings. With beef cattle, feedlots are typically used for ‘finishing’ the cattle, or growing the animals to market weight. Pens of feedlot cattle typically contain anywhere from 20 to 100 cattle per pen, depending upon the size of the whole feedlot operation. Again, larger feedlots can contain a few hundred to several thousand animals.

One important thing to remember is that, as the size of the operation increases, the number of people working on the farm also increases. While it is easy to assume that larger facilities result in less intense management of the animals, this simply is not the case. On the contrary, larger operations usually result in more specialized animal husbandry skills by employees and less of the ‘jack-of-all-trades’ type management scenario typical of smaller operations. Neither model is less acceptable than the other, and each has their unique benefits.”

Is housing animals in CAFOs really in the animal’s best interest? Do the animals receive proper care?

Dr. Amy Schmidt: “Regardless of the size of the operation, confining animals inside a facility or in a feedlot situation has the advantage of allowing the animals’ caretaker(s) to closely monitor animal health and well-being. As I mentioned in my earlier discussion of the HSUS member’s definition of ‘factory farms,’ there is a misconception that animals housed in buildings have no human interaction and that feed is delivered by ‘pushing a button.’ While it is true that feed is delivered automatically via mechanical conveyance, it is untrue that animal caretakers rarely enter the facilities to monitor the health and well-being of their animals. Animals are monitored by caretakers multiple times per day, ill or at-risk animals are moved to ‘hospital’ pens for up-close monitoring and treatment, and aggressive animals are separated to prevent injury to other animals and the human caregivers. These are all benefits of livestock housing systems or feedlots for cattle. While free-range or pastured livestock production is certainly an acceptable practice, it does have some disadvantages. One distinct disadvantage of pasture livestock is that animals may be poorly protected from heat, cold, and other inclement weather. Swine, poultry, and dairy animals raised inside structures enjoy a regulated environment free from bitter cold, extreme heat, sunburn, predatory animals, and other hazards – as well as some soil-borne diseases.

Some may argue that disease is more prevalent in confined animal systems than ‘free-range’ or ‘pastured’ systems. A concern with pastured pigs, in particular, is the potential for exposure to parasites and microorganisms that confined pigs are protected from. For instance, the incidence of trichinosis in pigs has seen a significant decline in the past few decades as swine production has moved indoors. However, with the increased popularity of pastured swine production in recent years, sporadic cases of trichinosis have been reported due to these animals being exposed to wild reservoir hosts. Is this a reason to stop producing pigs on pastures? Not necessarily, since proper preparation of pork during cooking is key to preventing human illness from this parasite. But it is clear that each system has its distinct advantages and disadvantages and no single system is perfect.”

Does housing animals in CAFOs result in animal abuse?

Dr. Amy Schmidt: “Abuse is a terrible thing; whether it’s abuse of a helpless animal or a helpless person, it’s simply unacceptable. Just as the vast majority of people don’t abuse their children or spouses, the majority of livestock producers don’t abuse their animals. We need to realize that there are people in all facets of society that don’t fit the social norm; people who do things that mainstream society finds completely unacceptable. I feel like it is very inappropriate to suggest that confining animals on CAFOs leads to animal abuse. Just as providing proper care and nutrition to plants helps them grow and produce to their greatest potential, proper care and nutrition of animals produces the most profitable and highest quality product. Therefore, it is in the best interest of all agricultural producers – livestock or crop, confinement or pasture-based – to provide the highest quality care possible to maximize the productivity and profitability of their operation. Livestock producers quickly disapprove of acts of abuse by other livestock producers; it is a matter of right and wrong, and the acts of a select few are not relevant to an entire industry.”

Does housing animals in CAFOs contribute to environmental degradation?

Dr. Amy Schmidt: “One might argue that collecting the manure from livestock in a centralized location – like a deep pit or lagoon – results in environmental degradation because eventually that manure must be hauled to fields for land application. While it is true that this concentrated manure source is a potential environmental risk if not properly contained and utilized, strict environmental and engineering standards are designed to ensure proper containment and utilization of this manure product. Human error – not inadequate design – is the most likely culprit when a manure discharge occurs on an animal feeding operation. And human error occurs on all sizes of operations!

On the contrary, pastured livestock operations are typically not regulated, which means that there is no regulatory restriction on allowing animals to stand in streams or other water bodies that can be contaminated with the animals’ manure. And there is no regulatory requirement for maintaining records of nutrient management planning, soil nutrient monitoring, ground and surface water quality monitoring, etc. on these operations that are not regulated by a permit. Again, I am of the opinion that size is not the issue when it comes to debating the impact of livestock production systems on the environment. Personal responsibility, appropriate use of design standards and recommended management practices, as well as diligent management and record-keeping practices, are important components of managing potential environmental risks from livestock production systems, regardless of operation size.”

Does housing animals in CAFOs harm the people who live in and around the facilities?

Dr. Amy Schmidt: “This a tough question to answer. A lot of the data we have is very objective or based on observational studies rather than designed experiments. In other words, people who live near CAFOs are asked about their health status, or community health data is compared to CAFO proximity and used to draw conclusions. While this data can show results that appear concerning, they do not necessarily provide proof of cause and effect. The problem is, it’s not really possible to design a statistically sound study where one group of people is required to live within a specified distance of a CAFO for their whole life and another group is kept completely free of exposure to CAFOs or any other potential environmental contaminant source, so that after a lifetime of living under these two scenarios, the health status of the two groups can be compared and results can be attributed only to CAFO exposure. I would argue this goes for a waste treatment plant, a nuclear power plant, or any other large ‘facility‘ – there may be risk associated with all of them over a long time period.

What we do know is that some people report a greater incidence of respiratory issues, headaches, and other ailments because they live near a livestock operation. On the contrary, there are a lot of people living near these types of operations who report no ill effects. We also know that shallow ground water near agricultural production land can be higher in nitrates and other contaminants due to manure, commercial fertilizer, and chemical uses. But changes to agricultural management practices over the past couple of decades have begun to improve surface and ground water quality. And, as mentioned earlier, containing the waste products from confined animal systems and following strict regulatory and science-based management recommendations when applying these manure products to land is key to ensuring that environmental and social risks are minimized.

We also know that some people simply do not want to live where they can see or smell a livestock facility. And that’s easy to understand. I personally don’t want to live where I can see or smell smog from a major city. I’ll take the smell of a pig farm or feedlot over the exhaust from city buses any day of the week! But, it’s very difficult to conclude whether the effects reported by people living near livestock farms are a result of exposure to contaminants or an artifact of predisposed opposition to the facility. This is definitely an area where research needs remain.”

Are CAFOs necessary? What would our food system look like if we didn’t have them?

Dr. Amy Schmidt: “Several factors have helped move agricultural production towards a larger scale over time. The increase in equipment size and capability (tractors, for instance), relatively inexpensive electricity and other power sources, and standard semi trailer sizes capable of hauling a specific number of animals or gallons of milk all have driven agriculture’s growth and economies of scale, and will continue to do so.

I think that if every person who chooses to eat meat, dairy, and eggs would commit to raising their own meat animals, dairy cow(s), and poultry, we could eliminate all CAFOs from the U.S. But, how realistic is that? I personally don’t have the time, land, or above all, the desire, to raise a pig, a steer, a dairy cow, and a handful of chickens! But I love to eat meat, dairy, and egg products, so I’m thankful that there are people willing to produce more than their fair share of these products so that I have access to the products without having to grow them myself. My personal opinion is that as long as people like me exist, CAFOs will continue to be a valuable component of our food production system worldwide. On top of that, a growing world population that is becoming more affluent, and therefore more able to afford meat animal protein sources, will continue to make large-scale animal production profitable and essential!”

_{“20130712-AMS-LSC-0475” by USDA is licensed by CC BY} 

The post Why Do Animals Live on Factory Farms? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

Dr. Doyle, what is the connection between antibiotics in animal health and the problem of antibiotic resistance illnesses in humans?

Dr. Michael Doyle:

We know that when we use antibiotics, whether it be in feeding animals, treating animals or treating humans, that antimicrobial bacteria can develop. We have monitored this for years. The public health community is very concerned that if we continue to do this we are going to develop strains of bacteria that are no longer treatable with antibiotics. The idea is that if we were to use less antibiotics not in just animals but also in people, we would continue to have useful antibiotics in human therapy.

That’s got to be difficult because if a human is sick you want to treat them to get them better. If an animal is sick, you want to treat them. How are antibiotics used in food and animal production?

Dr. Michael Doyle:

Traditionally, farmers and animal producers have used antibiotics as a sub-therapeutic treatment – that is to prevent illness from occurring. Some of the antibiotics can also help promote the growth of the animals. What we are finding is that if we do this, we can develop antibiotic resistant bacteria. The focus now is to reduce the use for growth promotion reasons and just focus on treating these animals if they get sick.

How should we feel right now about the safety of feeding beef or chicken or pork to our families? Are there antibiotic residues in the meat we are buying?

Dr. Michael Doyle: 

There is no concern for the antibiotic residue. The antibiotics are typically not coming through the animal or the meat.  That is something that can happen, but it’s monitored and typically does not happen, at least in food produced here in the United States. The concern is the development of antibiotic resistant microbes that are not going to be treatable long term.

So, is there anything we do at home to make sure foods of animal origins are prepared properly and safely?

Dr. Michael Doyle:

Good food handling practices will go a long way to controlling harmful microbes.  We, as consumers, should always think of foods of animal origins as potentially having harmful microbes and treat them with respect by following good food handling practices.

• CLEAN: Wash hands and surfaces often
• SEPARATE: Don’t cross-contaminate!
• COOK: Cook to proper temperature
• CHILL: Refrigerate promptly

Learn more about good food handling practices here.

_{Image: “A Veterinarian in Field with Cattle” by U.S. Department of Agriculture is licensed under CC BY 2.0.}

The post Do Antibiotics Do More Harm Than Good? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

“Can anything be done on how we raise our chickens? The breasts are huge. Way too big. Then they put some solution in them which leaks out white goo while they’re cooking. On top, they have no taste. We can’t afford to buy Bell and Evens. There’s got to be a better way.”

To answer the question, we talked with Dr. Casey Owens – Associate Professor in the Department of Food Science and member of the Center of Excellence for Poultry Science at the University of Arkansas, and Dr. Don Conner – Professor and Head of the Department of Poultry Science, Auburn University. Here’s what they had to say.

This reader feels today’s chicken breasts are simply too large. Are they bigger than they used to be? Why?

Dr. Conner:

Yes. The reason the breasts are larger is because consumers want products that are easier to prepare, which means products that are cut up, trimmed and ready to cook (meat case items) or those that are processed a bit more – like nuggets and strips (oftentimes freezer items). In fact, 90 percent of the chicken sold is cut up into pieces or goes into further processed products. Because of this, only about 10 percent of birds raised are sold as whole chickens. And if it wasn’t for the reemergence of rotisserie chicken at supermarkets, that 10 percent would probably be lower.

Dr. Owens:

It may seem that boneless, skinless chicken breasts are large. In fact, they are larger than those you’d find on a rotisserie-style chicken. The larger amount of breast meat allows for portioning to increase the usability of the product. When you purchase a whole chicken, there won’t be as much breast meat, because consumers typically want a smaller bird (3 to 4 pounds is pretty typical). When you consider all chickens in the U.S., more than 30 percent of birds are more than 7.5 pounds. This larger bird provides more meat for all the various products that we consume – from filets and cutlets to wings and nuggets, or formed meat. In terms of raising larger birds, extensive research goes into ensuring birds will remain healthy and productive, no matter their size.

Are there welfare concerns for these birds that are growing larger breasts?

Dr. Conner:

I understand the concern with growing larger birds. What the larger breasts have done, actually, is just change the shape of the bird over time. I actually have a poster that compares chickens from 30 years ago to today’s chickens and it’s interesting to look at the difference in the body – that the space between their legs has increased over time – thus stabilizing their weight. They do have a little different gait because of that, but that doesn’t translate into difficulty, just a difference.

Our reader mentioned “white goo” that surfaces on chicken while cooking it. We’ve noticed it too – what is it?

Dr. Conner:

The white goo is primarily water and protein. Protein from poultry meat is easily digested, which means it’s denatured quickly through the cooking process, so it leaches out water, bringing out soluble protein. These are more noticeable with a larger breast, and white proteins tend to show these easier than dark proteins. Some processors will put some solution to add flavor or stability to the product, but this is always labeled, so consumers should pay attention if they don’t want a product that has an added solution.

Dr. Owens:

It’s actually protein. In some cases, when chicken is processed, a low-salt solution (less than 1 percent salt) is added to the meat to retain moisture and tenderness, and avoid the possible negative effects of overcooking. Sometimes, proteins are dissolved into this salt solution, and end up cooking out. That is what you are seeing when the white matter surfaces. The white matter is actually protein that is cooked, just like a chicken breast turns white in appearance upon cooking.

Our reader mentioned the lack of flavor – is there any validity to this?

Dr. Conner:

Flavor could be different than chicken from yesteryear. Some see this as an advantage because it allows consumers to take a blank slate and flavor it exactly as they wish. Chicken today may be less flavorful than chickens that would have been raised by our grandparents. For example, those chickens took a longer time to raise, so there was a different connective tissue structure and it aged the meat differently (giving it a more gamey flavor which was great for chicken stock). Along with that, the diet of our grandparents’ chickens was very different than what chickens eat today. This also contributes to the difference in flavor.

_{“Roasted Chicken” by Marjan Lazarevskimizo is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0.}

The post White Goo on Chicken – What Is It? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

A recent article in the Huffington Post asked, “Are We Feeding a Health Crisis and Squandering the Cure?” In the article, the author, Laurie David – an environmentalist and producer and author of The Family Dinner: Great Ways to Connect with Your Kids, One Meal at a Time – states:

• Eighty percent of antibiotics go to food animals and much of them are used to make animals grow faster, not to treat them for infections.
• Today’s farmers are using antibiotics to compensate for crowded, unclean living conditions.
• Some scientists claim the misuse of antibiotics in food animals is a major contributor to global antibiotic resistance.
• The World Health Organization says we are headed into a “post-antibiotic era in which many common infections will no longer have a cure.”

Given the importance of this topic, we wanted to learn more. So we contacted Dr. Scott Hurd, former USDA deputy undersecretary for food safety and a veterinary professor at Iowa State University, for his thoughts.

On the subject of antibiotic use in food production, Dr. Scott Hurd provided these conclusions:

• Antibiotic resistance is a legitimate concern but studies do not back up the contention that antibiotic use in food animal production contributes to human health risk.
• We do not have strong data on human use to compare but it appears that possibly 75% of antibiotics are used in animals. However, only 13% are used for reasons other than the treatment of infections.
• It is not true that antibiotics are used to compensate for unclean conditions on today’s farms. The assumption is that if we went back to the way grandpa raised animals, we would not have a problem. Antibiotics were created for that time period and plenty of them were used back then.
• Antibiotics have been used on the farm for 50 or 60 years and they are still useful for the purposes they were created. This shows we have not created so-called “superbugs” on the farm.
• If we restrict the use of antibiotics on the farm, do we create the risk of unhealthy animals coming into the food supply? We have to be careful to not cause unintended consequences.
• Regarding the claim from the director-general of the World Health Organization: while it is possible that certain pathogens will require antibiotics that we currently don’t have, such a broad generalization across all antibiotics and all bacterial types borders on scare-mongering.

In Summary:

Although in total, animals use significantly more antibiotics than humans, that amount may not be excessive given that it is used to produce 135 billion pounds of nutritious and wholesome meat products. Animal agriculture recognizes that antibiotic resistance is a serious public health issue.  Everybody involved in raising animals needs to take responsibility for their role. As scientists studying antibiotic use in food animals have seen, this is being done by establishing and following appropriate responsible use protocols.

Dr. Hurd concluded that if the responsible use of antibiotics is limited, it will result in food animal production having a greater environmental impact, reduced productivity, diminished animal health, and potentially higher food prices.

What are your thoughts? Do you think about or buy your meat based on whether antibiotics were used?

We would like to extend our sincere condolences to the family and friends of Dr. Scott Hurd, who passed away on Thursday, March 27, 2014.

_{Image: “Tim, Bella and Amy” by Steve Bates is licensed under CC BY 2.0.}

The post Antibiotics: Are They being Over-Used in Food Animals? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

Small and large farms present different challenges, but both require skilled and conscientious management to promote good animal care. While there are fewer animals on a small operation, time spent caring for the animals must be juggled with various tasks. On larger operations, employees are often trained in specialized skills and a larger staff might allow for more personalized animal care.

The reason farms have gotten larger has more to do with maintaining income levels than increasing profits. One study provides this example: In the 1970s an operation producing 2,000 pigs a year would generate a profit of $42,000. In the 1990s the profit from such a farm would have been about $8,000. Taking inflation into account, the size of the farm would have to be roughly ten times larger in the 1990s to result in a similar income.

True or Not? “The well-being of farm animals on larger operations is disregarded in the pursuit of higher profits.”

_{“Crowded” by Dirk Heine is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0.}

The post “The well-being of farm animals on larger operations is disregarded in the pursuit of higher profits.” appeared first on Best Food Facts.