On chickens...

Fluffy two-week old Buff Orpington.

I don't eat chicken. Yes, I have been introducing meat back into my diet from a mostly-vegan standpoint. I am very excited to say that, after much hassling, the local health food/organic store is now carrying grass finished ground beef. While I still have to do some research into how the cattle that that beef comes from are treated and eventually slaughtered (my guess is that this will still not be beef that I feel comfortable eating), I believe the expansion of more humane niche markets is a good sign. I'm also happy to see that it sells fast. There are also tentative plans to support some local farmers and get larger portions of humane pasture-raised meats for freezing, but I doubt my diet will contain that much meat. Eating meat is always less sustainable than eating a diet wholly of plant matter. Of course, the best thing you can do for the environment is to not have children… But I'm not going to beat that particular bush today. Besides, I already have that covered!

So, I don’t I won't eat chicken. There is simply NO way to get humanely raised (in my mind, this means they are pastured) poultry from a store. There are essentially no legal protections for chickens. They aren't even covered under federal welfare or anti-cruelty laws. When you see "free-range" as a label, all that means is they are not in cages. Don’t be fooled by any labels when it comes to marketing animal products – when in doubt, look up the labeling standard. Chickens, by and large, still live in overcrowded filthy spaces, and most of them will never feel the fresh air. Eggs are the same – cage-free or free range gives you the impression these are healthier and happier chickens, but the difference is tiny.

These are some of the reasons my partner and I are diving into chicken ownership. Not for meat, but for eggs. And also to better understand chickens themselves. I spent several weeks at UC Davis working with cattle, for example. And several weeks tending to goats and sheep and other animals. I've spent several years with rodents and other lab animals. With respect to animals that are used (and abused) by humanity, I have little experience with poultry.

The Girls at four weeks: their first time outside!

Portland allows three backyard “hens”, so that’s what we got after some lucky guesswork into their sexes (hey, my animal science education is good for something). Our backyard is big enough, and wild enough, to give three hens foraging space. Given my summer job situation, our hens will have most of the day free to roam and eat grass and insects. My partner has built a large coop which allows them access to the ground without putting them in danger of predators (hopefully). Our neighborhood has raccoons, cats, hawks, and a substantial coyote population, so having a safe indoor space for them to roost in at night is essential. Chickens don’t do well in darkness.

Even though I have a farmer in me, fighting to get out, I am surprised by chickens. I'm used to horses, of course, so when I see herd behaviors in the chickens I get interested. For example, there is a definite alpha female in our flock-of-three.

Ena, sleepy pullet in the garden

In fact, at three weeks old they all had distinct personalities. This is another reason I refuse to eat store-bought poultry. I'm fine with eating animal-people if they live their lives naturally, in a way that lets them be themselves (i.e. exhibit a full range of natural behaviors), but this does not happen with mass-produced livestock. It just doesn’t. Now they are six weeks old and spending their first semi-supervised time out grazing in our lush (or overgrown) back yard.

Our little dark girl (Silver Laced Wyandotte), Ena, is curious and quite intelligent. She masters physical obstacles without trial and error (which the others use) by examining something in depth before tackling it. I look forward to seeing how she tackles free-range life in our back yard. She is always the hardest to catch, but she is calm when we hold her. Ena observes the world through her bright dark eyes with fascination rather than fear. She is also the most fastidious and cleans herself more than the others. Our pretty, smart, girl, I’m really looking forward to Ena’s eventual adult plumage. She already has a silver cape of feathers falling from her head.  She is also the best at flying and seems to enjoy bouncing from place to place without noticeable effort.

Orla, at six weeks.

Britta at seven weeks old - she flew up there herself!

Orla, who comes from a more dual-purpose breed (Buff Orpingtons are intended to be used as egg- and meat-birds), is significantly larger than the other two. She has loads of fabulous amber feathers, and more grow every day. These feathers are noticeably softer than our other two chickens, so, given her temperament, she’s the one you will find us petting the most. She is literally a friendly yellow-orange poof ball. She is our happy-go-lucky chick – she chills out when you're holding her and doesn’t get as excited when something new goes down. When she sleeps, even now, she sprawls. It took her longer to learn to perch than the other two, but when she learns something it sticks.  While she is a follower and not usually the first to investigate something new, when she does investigate, her bulk allows her to push her two fellows around. In these early days of free-range foraging, we have also found that she is quick to catch on that the world is edible. And an edible world is a good world! If you want a chicken to pet, she’s your girl. But if you have food, watch out! She is a food-pecking machine.

 Britta, our Mottled Java, is the bossy one. When Ena goes to investigate something new, Britta is keenly aware. Is it something she wants? If so, she pushes Ena aside. Her feathering is speckled such that she currently has one white wing and one black wing. Her feet and legs are also bright yellow with black freckles – which is very striking! She is more easily excited, but is more independent than the other two, such that she doesn’t scream as readily when separated. Of our girls, she is also the one who had the most issues with pasty bum when she was younger, which we chalk up to the fact that she had much longer downy chick-feathers around her vent than the other two. Possibly because of the extra handling she got then, I’d say she is the most human-aware of our flock. She will come up and sit on you, or hang out on your shoulder. When I tap a perch she hops up for a mealworm treat. She’s not as laid-back as Orla, or as generally observant as Ena; as she gets older, we have found that she is also the slowest to mature physically, with the adult plumage around her head only now beginning replacing her down.

When they are not busy scrounging for food or sleeping, the Girls play. They run around and “bounce” and even do “chicken jousting” where they run head-on at each other either to crash or dodge at the last moment. It’s also hilarious to see one of them (usually Ena) pick up a leaf or stick, triggering the others to chase her and play keep-away. They love exploring, too. It’s enormously relaxing watching our chickens – only seven weeks old now – forage in the yard.

We have yet to see our first egg, but our chickens are already part of the family. Here’s hoping they have long peaceful lives doing what comes naturally to them!

Salmon vs. Salmon

The market for salmon in the U.S. and around the world is increasing despite drastic declines in run numbers. The economic value of wild Pacific salmon alone is enormous, but as noted in NOAA’s 2009 report to Congress “…the combined value of the West Coast (California, Oregon, and Washington) recreational and commercial ocean fisheries dropped 46 percent in 2007 to about $39 million, from the 2002–2006 annual average of $71 million.”  

Aquaculture operations take a species of salmon that does well in the crowded conditions (usually Atlantic salmon) and puts them in large stationary nets in the ocean. The fish are then fed until they reach a harvestable size, allowing producers to have a ready supply of easily-caught fish to meet market demand year round. Despite apparent economic advantages, this ocean aquaculture does present some problems for the environment and local salmon populations. For one, these “fish farms” cause significant water pollution because the fish waste and everything that goes into the fish pens (including antibiotics) is concentrated in one area of the ocean. Farmed fish are also more susceptible to disease and parasites, which then spread to the wild fisheries if they come into contact with each other.  Despite the intention to prevent fish escaping, some inevitably escape and intermingle with wild populations. Possible interbreeding between the two physically-similar groups will change the genetics and potentially the fitness of wild salmon which are already threatened by over fishing and habitat destruction. Additionally, although farmed fish are generally considered less genetically “fit” for surviving in the wild, the reality is that they often have a competitive advantage over wild populations because their growth rate has been accelerated artificially to the point that they compete for food and nesting sites.

Of course, many of the Pacific salmon populations in the United States are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which leads to interesting legal questions. Since these species are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, it is illegal to harm them in poarticular ways. There is no doubt that wild populations are being harmed by the aquaculture business. Since fish farms are private businesses, the consultation requirements of Section 7 in the ESA do not apply, but the Section 9 prohibition against “takes” of listed species does apply to private citizens. A “take” is defined broadly to prohibit both killing and more indirect harm to a listed species; because Pacific salmon are being killed by parasites like sea lice, or harmed by the impacts of escapees from the net pens, it seems clear that fish farms cause direct harm and are are therefore in violation of the ESA. 

Since at least some of the deleterious impacts on Pacific salmon are well-proved, aquaculture operations are required to obtain an “incidental take permit” pursuant to regulations promulgated under Section 10 of the ESA. These incidental take permits will protect the business from liability when their otherwise lawful activity might accidently kill or otherwise “take” a listed species. To be approved for a permit the business must create habitat conservation plans (HCPs) pursuant to in Section 10(a) of the ESA. The primary purpose of an HCP is to discuss any potential effects of the proposed taking and a plan on o those effects will be minimized or mitigated. These plans and their permits are enforceable through the ESA controls, meaning the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the State, or even citizens through Section 11(g), can bring suit against a non-complying permit holder. Monitoring is also one of the requirements of HCPs, with the Services being allowed to delegate that task to the State or another agency as long as they report their findings regularly.

Unfortunately the current system of regulation on Pacific aquaculture is too lax. Despite the creation of HCPs, scientific evidence shows us that aquaculture operations continue to have a deleterious impact on wild salmon. The ESA mandates control this problem, but without interest in the harm cause by fish farming, the overburdened Services are unlikely to act against the industry. With the realities of today’s political climate, the best move towards change would be to bring suit under the ESA against States who permit operations in their coastal zone and monitor aquaculture pursuant to HCPs. States have broad authority over their coastal waters through the Coastal Zone Management Act even without HCP monitoring being delegated to state agencies. Future pressure on States will hopefully lead to increased accountability among existing fish farms and more analysis stateside before new operations are permitted. Additionally, financial pressure on States could lead to them investing and permitting only the most environmentally sustainable technologies and operations.

The recent draft aquaculture policy speaks to the continuance of sustainable aquaculture, with NOAA defining “sustainable” to include economic, social and environmental concerns. While this policy draft acknowledges the problems aquaculture causes wild fish, it does not go far enough in developing a definite plan for conservation of wild fisheries and management of aquaculture operations. Despite this problem, there are many ways that the salmon aquaculture industry could become more sustainable with respect to wild stock without destroying their economic viability. Studies show that the only way to stop disease and parasite spread with confidence is to make sure water isn’t shared between the farmed and wild fish. Management practices like stocking and culling the farmed fish frequently or placing the net pens away from wild fish migration routes could also help. New technologies offer the most help – in particular, having closed containment pens would prevent the problem of water-sharing while containing localized pollution. There is concern among the industry that they will have increased costs if they have to deal directly with their fish waste because the closed pens will collect it, but there are sustainable options for that as well: using the salmon refuse as fertilizer, fuel or food for other aquatic species. The non-profit Ocean Conservancy encourages lucrative solutions to the pollution caused by the net pens by farming deposit feeders like lobster, suspension feeders and seaweed in conjunction with the fish farms. Practices like this, along with locating production nets away from wild fish migration routes to decrease the possibility disease and parasite passage to wild stock, will potentially keep the whole system healthy. Although genetically modified salmon are a heated topic, farming sterilized salmon and salmon that are unlikely to survive even a short time in the wild may be another solution.

Whatever route we choose in the future, states need to be held accountable for the choices they make when permitting aquaculture operations off their coasts. There are alternatives to the current practices that would not destroy the industry and further incentives to pursue new and better technologies will only help preserve threatened wild salmon as the ESA mandates.

Or, consumers could educate themselves and choose to eat wild salmon over farmed salmon, and let the market be the force of conservation. But I won't hold my breath in reliance on that anytime soon, despite the fact that wild salmon is far better for you and the environment. Assuming, of course, the wild stock you are getting the fish from is healthy and no in danger of being over-fished or cut off from necessary river habitat with dams! But that's a topic for another day.

Tugging the Teat

I got in the milk argument today.

Dairy cows often have better lives than cattle destined for slaughter. The picturesque scene of cows eating green grass under a bright blue Californian sun is a myth, but they do at least get fed more naturally than feedlot cattle, and get to spend more time being bovines. I am always going to be in favor of situations that allow a production animal to live a life that allows for all of their natural behaviors. Dairy cows come closer to this ideal than feedlot cattle – which I have always been against. In my animal science studies at University of California Davis I got to spend several months at the dairy barn learning the ins and outs of the milk production process. It was interesting. And it was fun. And it was disturbing. Humans are addicted to their milk, but very few have any idea of how it is processed before it gets into that carton they pull off their superstore shelf.

I don't drink milk. If I could say I don't drink milk purely on principle, I would, but the honest truth is that I was allergic to milk as a child. I would break out in a rash every time I ate dairy products and so I avoided dairy products. Milk is something that you have to acquire a taste for – as a child who never drank milk, the taste of dairy products like milk and ice cream are repulsive to me. I do like cheese, though my tastes run towards the well-aged salty cheeses or sheep and goat milk cheeses. Ironically I could eat cheese as a child because it has already been partially digested by the bacteria and I reacted less to it. I have a strong suspicion that it wasn't the milk itself I was allergic to, but the chemicals and additives put in milk to pasteurize and clean it. Because I grew up in such an organic home-grown type of household my digestive system cannot tolerate foreign chemicals and hormones in my food. Feedlot meat makes me ill. But I can eat a huge beef hamburger of high-quality grass-fed free-range meat and feet great. It disturbs me that people not only acquire a taste for these artificial additives to their milk and meat, but that they sometimes prefer it. Like MSG (something else that makes me sick), to some people it just tastes good, even though it is an awful thing to put in your body.

When it comes to dairy milk I am baffled by people's need to drink it. There is no proof that it helps children grow faster or stronger (I have never broken a bone), and quite a bit of proof that milk is not easily digested or used by the human body. Could people be confusing the importance of a child getting his mother's milk with continuing to drink milk through childhood?

Some that are against the use of dairy cows will also mention that their calves often go to slaughter (veal is a popular option). Sometimes the female calves are kept as replacements on a dairy farm of course, but by in large this is true. I always loved spending time with the calves at the dairy barn. Had I known that they were going to meat, but in the meantime they would get to live as bovines should with room to move and ruminate and be free from chemicals I would not have been sad at their parting. The knowledge that they might be put into a feedlot type setting disgusted me. Luckily most of the UCD calves were kept in fields on the periphery of the university where they could live decent bovine lives until slaughtered. No animal should have to live in conditions like those found in a feedlot. And I certainly don't want to eat an animal that has lived in those conditions!

My general argument is this: eat what you will, but know where it comes from. Know that your food choices may be polluting the environment and your body. Know that your choices contribute to the suffering of another sentient being. If you know where it comes from and it is someplace like a feedlot or an industrialized dairy farm, then ask yourself why it's okay to make these animals suffer so that you can have a luxury (we don't need beef or milk).

And if you don't care because you feel that animals are less important than you as a human being, then I recommend you open your eyes. The cattle we eat and the milk we drink comes from beings as emotionally complicated as any human.