Jul 31
Blog | Animal Welfare Approved
Putting Bison on Feedlots—Unnatural, Unnecessary, Unsafe
July 30, 2010 on 3:38 pm | By Andrew | In Agricultural Policy, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, Consumer Buying Power, Environment, Food Safety, Grass-Fed Beef, Home Feature, The Big Picture | No Comments
My family and I are traveling through the American West, and I am awed by its wild majesty and beauty. During a stop at Yellowstone, we paused by a river to watch six bison cross. Soon, we were treated to one of the most astonishing sights I’ve ever seen—something I feel grateful that my sons were able to witness. Those six bison were soon followed by their herd mates, and we were able to see something not many Americans have experienced since bison were hunted to near extinction in the 19th century: the awe-inspiring power of a bison herd on the move.
Probably 200 bison forded that stream as they moved to new grazing lands, and witnessing it was an unparalleled experience. Despite their powerful size, bison are graceful creatures and move almost daintily, but with speed and purpose. And they really do thunder.
In 1800, it was estimated that more than 40 million bison roamed the United States; by 1900, after an unprecedented and sustained massacre, fewer than 600 bison remained. Most of the bison you see today are descendents of a ragtag group of several dozen bison who had been saved by conservationists dedicated to their survival.
Historically, bison were the lifeblood of a number of Native American tribes, providing meat, skins, and other important supplies. Indeed, bison meat has fed humans for thousands of years. Six years ago was the first time I saw bison being farmed for meat. The animals were being raised on 13,000 acres in Texas and were roaming their homelands in family groups, just as nature intended. They were carefully overseen by skilled stockmen who knew that the best management for these magnificent creatures was to ensure that they had the space and freedom to utilize the land to their own advantage.
READ MORE AND COMMENT
With All Eyes on the Sherrod Story, Black Farmers Still Wait (and Wait) For Justice
July 23, 2010 on 2:51 pm | By Andrew | In Agricultural Policy, Family Farms, People, The Big Picture, Uncategorized | No Comments
The manipulation of the Shirley Sherrod video for partisan gain was not just an egregious injustice to Shirley Sherrod, it was an egregious injustice to all of America’s black farmers, to elderly black farmers in particular, to Dr. John Boyd, Jr. and the National Black Farmers Association (NBFA), and to the employees of the USDA and other governmental organizations who have worked to make amends for one of the most shameful periods in the history of American agriculture.
Injustice is injustice wherever and whenever it occurs. Righting an injustice can be a long and thorny process, as Dr. Boyd, President of the NBFA, can attest. He has fought for years to get justice for black farmers who were victims of widespread, decades-long discrimination by the USDA. Finally triumphant, in 1999 and again in 2008, he won settlements from the government that will provide legions of now mostly elderly black farmers, victims of the blatant racism formerly displayed by the USDA, with the money they are rightfully owed.
The Senate still won’t fund the 2008 settlement. The injustice continues. Animal Welfare Approved has long supported Dr. Boyd in his quest to see his fight brought to an end, especially since, as he often points out, the farmers for whom the settlement is intended are beginning to die. “I’m frustrated,” Boyd said Thursday in an NPR interview. “I’m frustrated that I’m still begging for votes in the Senate for something that should have been done years ago.”
READ MORE AND COMMENT
NFL Football Star Will Witherspoon’s Biggest Win is the AWA Seal
July 21, 2010 on 10:18 am | By Amy | In Family Farms, Featured Farmer, Grass-Fed Beef, People | No Comments
Shire Gate Farm of Owensville, Missouri, owned by Tennessee Titan middle linebacker Will Witherspoon, has earned the Animal Welfare Approved seal. Animal Welfare Approved certification is an assurance to consumers that the cattle at Shire Gate Farm have been treated according to the highest welfare standards. Witherspoon raises 100% grassfed White Park cattle on his 500-acre farm.
Witherspoon, who played college ball at the University of Georgia, has been playing in the NFL since 2002, when he was drafted in the third round by the Carolina Panthers. In 2006, he signed with the St. Louis Rams, where he was named Team MVP in 2007. He played the 2009 season for the Philadelphia Eagles before being signed by the Tennessee Titans in March of 2010.
The quiet and somewhat solitary lifestyle of farming can seem at odds with Witherspoon’s day job of being a linebacker, a position where the job description is, basically, put yourself in the path of a really big and powerful player while he tries to run right through you. However, it’s the transition from the thunderous, bone-crushing ferocity of football to the lush green peace of Shire Gate Farm that Witherspoon values. Shire Gate Farm is not just a business—it’s also a getaway for Witherspoon, his wife Rebecca and daughters Layne, Maya and Shaye. “Shire Gate is a total escape for us. It’s a place where my daughters and I can work with the animals and the land. I use the companionship of the animals and the beauty of the land to refocus myself after the demands of playing football. Shire Gate is our retreat from the world.”
READ MORE AND COMMENT
At Last! USDA No Longer Missing the Link Between Antibiotic Use by Big Ag and Human Health
July 19, 2010 on 10:41 am | By Andrew | In Agricultural Policy, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, Food Safety, People, The Big Picture | No Comments
At a hearing of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Wednesday, July 14, 2010, a representative of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) finally caught up with the rest of the world—and his peers at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—and admitted that the use of antibiotics in farm animal feed is contributing to the growing problem of deadly antibiotic resistance in America.
Dr. John Clifford, Deputy Administrator for Veterinary Services for the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) read from his previously submitted testimony that the USDA believes it is likely that U.S. use of antibiotics in animal agriculture does lead to some cases of resistance in humans and the animals.
Why is this news? Because the USDA has been continually playing the Three Wise Monkeys game—it sees no evil, hears no evil, and speaks no evil—when it comes to deadly consequences to humans of the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in farm animals. In fact, Dr. Clifford looked as he’d been given a choice between testifying or having his eye poked out with a stick and he lost the toss.
Others, though, readily stepped up to the plate. Despite the feeble nature of the recent FDA Guidance to Industry on farm animal antibiotics (read more about this in our blog), Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, Principle Deputy Commissioner of the FDA, was clear in his testimony that the overall weight of evidence supports the conclusion that using antibiotics for production purposes in livestock farming (as growth promoters and to prevent rather than treat illness) is not in the interest of protecting and promoting public health.Dr. Sharfstein also turned away a challenge from Representative John Shimkus (R-IL 19) about the soundness of the science upon which his findings rest. Mr. Shimkus, obviously unhappy with Dr. Sharfstein’s testimony, badgered him to come up with up a U.S. peer-reviewed study (which Dr. Sharfstein did—a 2003 Institute of Medicine study) and then questioned the veracity of the findings. Dr. Sharfstein assured Mr. Shimkus that the Institute has a peer-review process in place and reminded him that “the Institute is considered our nation’s leading scientific expert…”
READ MORE AND COMMENT
Humane? An Enriched Cage is Still a Cage
July 13, 2010 on 10:10 am | By Andrew | In Agricultural Policy, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, Factory Farms, The Big Picture, Uncategorized | 12 Comments
The American Humane Association’s (AHA) farm animal welfare certification program – American Humane Certified – announced in June that it will permit the use of so-called enriched battery cages for laying hens as an option for humane housing.
Humane? My first reaction on hearing this was, “Hey guys, you do realize this is still a cage, don’t you?” But let’s be evenhanded about this and look at the reasoning put forward by the American Humane Association.
The American Humane Association’s rationale for this decision is that these cages are “enriched” to allow hens to exhibit natural behaviors. In making this decision AHA states that it has carried out an extensive scientific review of the behavior and welfare of laying hens housed in such systems – mainly looking at research from Europe where conventional cages are soon to be totally banned.
Okay, so I might consider accepting that an “enriched” battery cage possibly offers better welfare opportunities than a standard battery cage. But AHA fails to recognize some key behavioral needs that hens are driven to perform. I am talking about providing the birds with space to run, stretch, flap their wings, and fly; litter and somewhere to dust bathe; and vegetated areas to peck at and forage in. AHA also significantly underestimates the ability of enriched cages to provide adequate nesting and perching. So what does the research really tell us about “enriched” battery cages? And are they really a humane option? I was pretty confident that a lot of research existed to say some of these behaviors are not wants but programmed driven behavioral needs.
READ MORE AND COMMENT
Announcing 2011 Good Husbandry Grants
July 13, 2010 on 10:10 am | By Emily | In Family Farms, Grants for Farmers, The Big Picture | No Comments
Animal Welfare Approved is pleased to announce that it will offer a third year of Good Husbandry Grants. AWA is seeking proposals for projects to improve farm animal welfare with a concentration on three areas: increased outdoor access, improved genetics and improved slaughter facilities. “We have awarded funding for 65 projects in 25 states and are delighted to be able to continue these grants for 2011,” said Andrew Gunther, AWA Program Director. “The impact of these grants has been extraordinary—the finished projects prove that there is an inextricable link between high-welfare, pasture- and range-based husbandry and successful farms.” Current Animal Welfare Approved farmers and those who have applied to join the program are eligible for grants of up to $5,000.
Jeremy Vargo of AWA-certified Vargo Farms in Bullock, North Carolina, raises hogs and received a 2010 grant to improve his mobile housing system. “The huts have greatly benefited my hogs,” he explained, “by improving herd health and expanding our ability to rotate pastures while providing shelter from the elements. This grant program, like AWA, is a win-win for the whole farm.”
READ MORE AND COMMENT
Is the FDA Guidance on Farm Animal Antibiotics Meaningful or Meaningless?
July 8, 2010 on 2:00 pm | By Andrew | In Agricultural Policy, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, Food Safety, Nutrition, The Big Picture | No Comments
On June 28, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a draft Guidance to Industry document for the use of antibiotics in farm animals. It’s the first time in over 30 years the FDA—the agency charged with regulating drugs in the U.S.—appears to be taking steps to limit the use of important antibiotics in food animal production.
Good news? Sadly, the draft guidance contains only two recommendations, both so weakly worded they would allow the agricultural industry to carry on just as it is has. Even more distressing, once the document is finalized, it only represents the FDA’s current thinking on the topic; it doesn’t carry any regulatory power whatsoever.
In what appears to be a saving grace, the guidance summarizes many reports dating back to 1968 showing the link between antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance. In fact the best part of 10 of the 19 pages is used to demonstrate this very point. In fact the FDA press release announcing the release of this guidance states “that the overall weight of evidence available to date supports the conclusion that using medically important antimicrobial drugs for production or growth enhancing purposes (i.e., non-therapeutic or sub-therapeutic uses) in food-producing animals is not in the interest of protecting and promoting the public health.”
However, the rest of the world has already acknowledged this link and has acted to reduce the very real risk of indiscriminate antibiotic use in the livestock industry. In the U.S. we have listened to Big Ag, allowed the powerful agricultural and pharmaceutical lobbies to have their way, and continued to put tons of antibiotics into farm animal feed and water. There are estimates that as much as 70 percent of the antibiotics used in the U.S. are used to promote growth in farm animals, not to treat animals that are sick or ailing.
READ MORE AND COMMENT
The New, Bright Reality-We CAN Feed the World Sustainably, Humanely
June 29, 2010 on 11:20 am | By Andrew | In Agricultural Policy, Environment, Home Feature, The Big Picture | No Comments
Over the past few weeks I have been busy commenting on pretty negative news— genetically modified salmon is a step closer to being on the market; the Supreme Court overturned an injunction that would stop the USDA from allowing a partial deregulation of Monsanto genetically modified alfalfa; a study was released, based on highly questionable science, that grassfed beef isn’t any healthier than grainfed beef; GMs are being driven to market even though 53 percent of Americans object; and Smithfield is being given control of environmental comities —but rays of light are shining through the darkness.
What a welcome to the beginning of the week when I can read a report that focuses on a real solution. Big Ag isn’t going to like the recent report issued by the United Nations one bit because it threatens its very existence. Big Ag wants you to believe that unsustainable farming practices that lock animals in barren cages and feedlots are the only way to provide enough meat, dairy and eggs. That arable systems only work if you spray the fields three or four times with poisons. That fruit farms require nerve gas linked to autism to produce a crop. That leaving mountains of poisonous manure and contaminated water that sickens our children is just the cost of doing business. That this abhorrent failing system that takes profit from farms and diverts it to corporate monoliths with no conscience or morality is just the way it has to be.
Yes, Big Ag really needs you to believe that this massive failed experiment called modern mono-agriculture is our only chance to stave off worldwide hunger. But, it turns out, it’s not.
The new U.N. report, “Dead Planet, Living Planet: Biodiversity and ecosystem restoration for sustainable development,” made me smile. The report documents over 30 successful reforestation case studies and proudly proclaims, “Restoration is not only possible, but can prove highly profitable …” In one region alone, known as the “Desert of Tanzania,” agroforestry (planting trees and crops on the same parcel) increased household income by up to $500 U.S. a year. The average yearly household income for Tanzania is under $500 U.S. per year.
READ MORE AND COMMENT
Salmon: The First GM Farmed Animal?
June 28, 2010 on 11:40 am | By Andrew | In Agricultural Policy, Featured Farmer, The Big Picture | 6 Comments
News that an “efficient and environmentally sustainable” genetically modified (GM) salmon may be a step closer to commercial release had me reaching for a large pinch of salt—and not, I might add, to help season the dish.
As some of you will know from my previous blogs, I am extremely skeptical about the real benefits that GM technology offers us all. Indeed, I have grave concerns about GM—not only about the potential environmental and health risks associated with the technology, but also the potential control that GM gives “Big Ag” over global food production. These concerns are just as relevant to GM fish production as they are to GM soy, cotton or corn. The difference, of course, is that, with fish, we are dealing with a living creature, where welfare is also an issue.
On June 15, 2010, Massachusetts-based biotech company AquaBounty announced that it had moved a step closer to gaining formal U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approval of its AquAdvantage® Salmon. According to the AquaBounty website, the AquaAdvantage Salmon is genetically modified to “include a growth hormone gene from Chinook salmon that provides the fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon.” This enables “shorter production cycles and increased efficiency of production.”
READ MORE AND COMMENT
Jul 2
Animal Welfare Approved Weirauch Small Farm Project on National News
AWA Weirauch Small Farm Project (www.weirauchfarms.com) out of Petaluma, California gets national coverage on Fox News regarding their land partnership with CA Farmlink (www.californiafarmlink.org) & the Tully Dulci Organic Farm.
Jun 29
AWA farmer Dan Gibson of Grazin' Angus Acres on the Today Show Monday June 28, 2010
<p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy</p>
AWA farmer Dan Gibson of Grazin' Angus Acres talks about raising animals humanely and sustainably and the value of organic.
May 12
Animal Welfare Approved Stuart Family Farm in the News Today! Stuart to maintain Happy Landings property. See video from last year to learn about the farm!
The Brookfield Board of Selectmen voted Monday, May 3, to approve an agreement for Bill Stuart, Jr., of Stuart Family Farm in Bridgewater to maintain Happy Landings. The vote to approve a licensed agreement is subject to final review by the town's attorneys, David Grogins and Neil Marcus.
The deteriorating property has remained unkempt for about three years, according to Alice Dew of the Brookfield Conservation Commission (BCC). Happy Landings had a local farmer taking care of it for the last three years, "but it hasn't been very consistent," Dew said. "We had to pay someone to bush-hog it at the end of the season because of all the weeds."
When the town attorneys have approved the agreement, Stuart may begin soil remediation, as long as it falls within the guidelines as set forth by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Stuart said they have a five-year agreement with the town. They will be using Crop Production Services out of Armenia, NY, to begin soil remediation and remove the overgrown weeds. Stuart assured that "the land won't change at all." They will leave the windmills in place, and walkers, runners and dogs can still use the land as they are getting it ready for haying. The areas will be clearly marked when they begin work.
Stuart said they are "trying to get it back, to get rid of all the weeds and let the grass take over. It will be nicer than it has been in years." He said the soil is very acidic and will need a lot of lime, which they get from a limestone quarry in Canaan. It will take about three to four days to prep the land.
He has big plans for making Happy Landings a place that can benefit Brookfield and other areas as well. "We're very involved with the Connecticut Farm to Chef Program," Stuart said. The program encourages chefs to use local farm for their suppliers.
They are also involved with "Plow to Play" in conjunction with New Milford Hospital. This organization is all about promoting healthy, fresh food in the hospital instead of pre-packaged items. Stuart noted that "it is ironic that hospitals should have the best food and instead serve food from a box." The program promotes serving local produce and local meats.
Stuart has 150 grass-fed cattle at his farm and plans on using the hay Happy Landings produces to feed them. The farm is Animal Welfare Approved, which means his farm "promotes the well-being of animals and the sustainability of humane family farms." Their cattle eat only grass, there are no grains used.
Happy Landings is one of three Brookfield properties that are hayed every year; Williams Park and Burr Farm are the other two and are maintained by local farmers.
Dew said the "idea is to keep the [open space] as farmland. It helps maintain the rural character they have," which she said is what Brookfielders want. "Part of what they want is a variety of open space, some wooded and some open fields," Dew said. "We try to maintain the character of that parcel of land and the natural habitats, wildlife and plant life that's there."
Stuart, who lives in Roxbury with his wife Deb and two sons, said he is "looking forward to getting the property back to how it should be, like a piece of farmland."
May 11
Check this Video: Nicolette Hahn Niman Champions Seismic Change of Our Industrial Food System
via blip.tv
Nicolette Hahn Niman recently participated in an AWA panel on the Future of Farming with David Kirby, author of Animal Factory, Carole Morison, featured in the film, Food Inc., and Dr. Patricia Whisnant, Pres. of American Grassfed Association. A great little film about Nicolette's views on knowing where your food comes from and the perils of industrial farming.
Apr 15
One of These Things Is Not Like the Others | An analysis of AWA & Humane Labels
April 1, 2010 Certification-->
One of These Things Is Not Like the Others
As I described in Humane Seals of Approval, there are three national third-party food certification programs that focus on the humane treatment of farm animals:
- American Humane Certified (The American Humane Association)
- Certified Humane (Humane Farm Animal Care)
- Animal Welfare Approved (Animal Welfare Approved)
In recent weeks, Michael has done copious research on all of them, focusing on finding local products with their seals. He’s nothing if not determined, and sometimes I can practically smell his steely resolve wafting out of our home office. It seems I’ve created a monster.
Prior to Michael’s research, we hadn’t really distinguished between the three programs. And given the reality of factory farming, it seems silly to perseverate over the differences between three organizations that are all on the “good” side, with animal welfare as their priority. They each have a different approach, and maybe that’s necessary to meet the needs of as many consumers, farmers, and animals as possible.
That being said, Animal Welfare Approved is very different from the other two programs: in addition to having far stricter animal welfare standards, they’re the only certifier that charges nothing and that limits its focus to independent family farms. From this and other information Michael has found, it’s clear that the other two certifiers are targeting larger, more corporate producers (their looser standards, in particular, fit this conclusion1). As Michael says, this might be about money, it might reflect differences in vision or strategy, or it might be about something we don’t yet understand.
In any case, while we will continue to buy products certified by any of the three programs, AWA has won our hearts.
- Some examples: AWA is the only program that prohibits confining sows in crates or cows in feedlots, and it’s the only program that requires animals to have access to natural light and pasture. To learn more, see AWA’s A Comparison of Industry Guidelines and Independent Labels. ↩
| More
We appreciate this kind of in depth analysis. Thanks for your insights!
Apr 15
Eat Humane PSA with Tiffani Thiessen: Look for Animal Welfare Approved label
via youtube.com
Animal Welfare Approved was called the best of the best in WSPA's review of humane food labels. "The most stringent" animal welfare standards can be viewed at http://www.AnimalWelfareApproved.org. Also, see online database for where to find AWA products!
