Humane Choice Blog

Egg Corporation Misuses Scientific Study

Tue, 01 May 2012 22:33:49 GMT

Australian Egg Corporation Purposely Misrepresents Study for Own Gain

Australian Egg Corporation (AECL) have based an increase in stocking densities for free range hens to 20,000 per hectare based on a study by the Avian Science Research Centre in Scotland.

The study, entitled “Behavioural responses to different floor space allowances in small groups of laying hens”, is just that; a study of space allowances for hens kept indoors, not in a free range environment.

The study does make reference to free range hens but only when it acknowledges that outdoor allowances in the EU is 40,000 cm2 per bird, an equivalent of 2,500 birds per hectare.

The Scottish Research Centre has confirmed to us that this study relates only to indoor hens and that conclusions about free range stocking densities cannot be drawn from this study without alteration and considerable research on what is acceptable outdoors to back it up.

What this study does tell us is that we should be reducing indoor stocking densities for Australian flocks from a currently allowable 15 to just 2 birds per square metre.

Unfortunately we don’t believe that AECL will be as keen to adopt the findings of this study to address stocking densities for intensively housed sheds as this would severely impact on the profits of the large cage and barn producers, the same producers in many instances that are behind the push to increase free range densities.

This is an embarrassing situation for AECL but signals just what lengths they will go to to secure the free range industry for their larger members without any regard for the consumer, the environment or the true free range farmer.

AECL have now attempted to reinvent the intent and meaning of not only the Model Code of Practice with their erroneous interpretations, but now they have done the same to science, the very foundation they claim to base the egg industry’s practices on.

Choice & RSPCA excluded from Egg Labelling Forum

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:02:20 GMT

No sunny side with free-range change

Alexandra Smith

April 24, 2012

Scrambled ... Choice and the RSPCA were excluded from formal talks on how free-range eggs should be labelled.

SHOPPERS are being kept in the dark over plans for a new definition for the term free-range, the consumer group Choice has warned after it was excluded from formal talks on resolving the dispute over how eggs should be labelled.

The RSPCA was also not invited to take part in the state government's truth-in-labelling reference group, which will meet for the final time today in an effort to bring an end to the inconsistent terms used on egg cartons in NSW.

Egg labelling has become a contentious issue after the Australian Egg Corporation, which represents most egg producers, devised a new standard that would allow a free-range egg farm to have as many as 20,000 chickens per hectare.

Free-range farmers and animal welfare groups are outraged by the new standard, which they say is unethical and will not give consumers any confidence in the free-range industry. The present model code allows 1500 chickens per hectare.

A spokeswoman for Choice, Ingrid Just, said it made a request to the office of the Minister for Primary Resources, Katrina Hodgkinson, and the NSW Food Authority to take part in the talks as observers but was denied access.

''Our main concern is that consumers' voices will not be heard and without any consumer representation at this forum, it will be very hard for the minister to get an idea of what consumers expect when purchasing free-range,'' Ms Just said.

The RSPCA, which endorses many free-range egg farms and allows them to use the organisation's logo on their packaging, was also excluded from the labelling forum, despite its extensive work in animal welfare.

''RSPCA Australia was not invited and is disappointed to have not been included in these discussions,'' an RSPCA spokeswoman said.

But a spokeswoman for the NSW Food Authority said the labelling forum was convened to facilitate an ''industry-supported resolution to egg labelling challenges''.

She said major industry representatives were involved in the forum but consumer advocates may become involved in the process ''further down the track, once the scope of the issue has been gauged''.

The Greens MP John Kaye said the forum was never intended to protect consumers and genuine free-range farmers.

''Its membership, timeline and internal processes were carefully crafted to guarantee an ineffective outcome that leaves the big industrial producers unconstrained by a legislated definition of free-range,'' Dr Kaye said.

A New Twist to The Free Range Debate

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:41:50 GMT

A New Twist to The Free Range Egg Debate

A new twist in the free range egg labelling debate. NSW Food Authority to weigh in on truth in labelling.

The NSW Minister for Primary Industries, Katrina Hodgkinson, has convened an Egg Labelling Forum to "facilitate industry in resolving its long standing difficulties with egg labelling, in particular the inconsistent use of terms on eggs to which a premium is applied."

While this sounds promising, dont get too excited because the terms of reference have already been changed and the word 'inconsistent' removed.

Another glitch is that the Food Authority cannot consider animal welfare, production systems, the environment or consumer rights when considering defining truth in labelling.

So what is there? What does this mean?

Food Authority are proposing to endorse Quality Assurance schemes that are displayed on eggs and will keep a register of those that meet their approval.

Does this mean we can now confidently buy free range eggs?

No! Nothing could be further from the truth. The Food Authority will endorse any scheme, 20,000 or 100,000 hens per hectare, it doesn't matter as long as you are part of a scheme and follow their rules.

This means we will then see an array of 'certification' marks and claims of accredited free range flood the supermarket shelves and compound the confusion over free range that already exists. These eggs could be from farms with even lower standards than the Code of Practice for Animal Welfare but as long as they make their standards available it will not be illegal.

It will be up to the consumer to research each QA scheme and find out what those standards are.

It seems the path has been cleared for Egg Corporation's new proposal of 20,000 birds per hectare but the scary thing is this could end up being the minimum standard as big producers develop their own QA schemes with much much higher stocking rates.

Outraged as we are? Let Katrina Hodgkinson know that you will not stand for this and that you want government to support the NSW Egg Labelling Bill and legislation stocking densities for true free range hens at 1,500 per hectare.

office@hodgkinson.minister.nsw.gov.au

Lee McCosker from Humane Choice is a member of the Egg Labelling Forum and happy to answer any questions here.

Join Lee on 7th May at 7pm at Leichhardt Town Hall for the launch of the Egg Labelling Bill. See more details here book a place!

ACC Takes Action Against Rosies's Free Range Eggs

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:11:21 GMT

ACCC begins Federal Court proceedings against Rosie's Free Range Eggs

by: Verity Edwards
From: The Australian
March 09, 2012 12:00AM

FAMILY business Barossa Fine Foods has built its reputation on selling quality meats and smallgoods.

But it is worried after learning it has been distributing eggs from a company being prosecuted by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission.

The ACCC announced yesterday that it had begun Federal Court proceedings against Rosie's Free Range Eggs, alleging that "a substantial proportion of the eggs were not free-range but cage eggs".

The consumer watchdog alleges that between March 2007 and October 2010, Rosemary Bruhn represented that eggs she supplied to 117 retail outlets, including bakeries, cafes and restaurants, were free-range when many were not.

Ms Bruhn's Eudunda farm is 110km north of Adelaide. Her website and cartons show pictures of chickens in lavender fields.

She appeared in 2006 on the defunct ABC program The Cook and The Chef.

The company claims to be audited annually by Southern Eggs. Neither Southern Eggs nor Ms Bruhn returned calls yesterday. Barossa Fine Foods has been selling up to 300 dozen of Rosie's Free Range Eggs weekly for almost a decade at its eight South Australian stores.

General manager Stephan Knoll said yesterday it was a shock to hear of the ACCC allegations, given his company's long association with Ms Bruhn.

"We try to look after local businesses, but if she's found to be doing the wrong thing it makes it difficult" to support her, he said. "We'll wait for the findings, but if there's any truth to this we'll consider taking them off the shelves."

Barossa Fine Foods prided itself on integrity, he said, and an association with any allegedly misleading company would not reflect well on his business.

"It's not whether they're cage or free-range, it's the truth that we're concerned about."

Mr Knoll is on the committee of regional body Barossa Food, of which Rosie's Free Range Eggs is also a member.

He said Barossa Food would reconsider Ms Bruhn's membership if the court found against her.

A Federal Court directions hearing is listed for March 28.

McDonalds move towards an ed for sow stalls

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:50:24 GMT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

McDonald’s Takes Action Toward Ending Gestation Stall Use; Humane Society of the United States Supports Effort

(Feb. 13, 2012) undefined McDonald’s Corporation today announced that it will require its U.S. pork suppliers to outline their plans to phase out the use of sow gestation stalls, a move supported by The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

“McDonald’s believes gestation stalls are not a sustainable production system for the future. There are alternatives that we think are better for the welfare of sows,” said Dan Gorsky, senior vice president of McDonald’s North America Supply Chain Management. “McDonald’s wants to see the end of sow confinement in gestation stalls in our supply chain. We are beginning an assessment with our U.S. suppliers to determine how to build on the work already underway to reach that goal. In May, after receiving our suppliers’ plans, we’ll share results from the assessment and our next steps.”

“The HSUS has been a long-time advocate for ending the use of gestation crates, and McDonald’s announcement is important and promising,” said Wayne Pacelle, The HSUS’ president and CEO. “All animals deserve humane treatment, including farm animals, and it’s just wrong to immobilize animals for their whole lives in crates barely larger than their bodies.”

McDonald’s actions are backed by leading independent animal welfare experts, including renowned scientist Dr. Temple Grandin. “Moving from gestation stalls to better alternatives will improve the welfare of sows and I’m pleased to see McDonald’s working with its suppliers toward that end. It takes a thorough plan to address the training of animal handlers, proper feeding systems, and the significant financial investment and logistics involved with such a big change. I’m optimistic about this announcement,” said Dr. Grandin.

Gorsky added, “We are pleased to see a number of our U.S. suppliers adopting commercially-viable alternatives. For example, Smithfield Foods and Cargill have made significant progress in this area. We applaud these, and future, efforts.”

-30-

Media Contacts:

· Lisa McComb, McDonald’s, lisa.mccomb@us.mcd.com, 630-623-3707
· Anna West, HSUS, awest@humanesociety.org, 240-751-2669

The Humane Society of the United States is the nation's largest animal protection organization undefined backed by 11 million Americans, or one of every 28. For more than a half-century, The HSUS has been fighting for the protection of all animals through advocacy, education and hands-on programs. Celebrating animals and confronting cruelty undefined On the Web at humanesociety.org.

Just How Much Healthier are Pasture Raised Eggs?

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:45:21 GMT

Meet Real Free-Range Eggs

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Real-Food/2007-10-01/Tests-Reveal-Healthier-Eggs.aspx

By Cheryl Long and Tabitha Alterman

Rancho Cappuccino; Lawrence, Kan.

BRYAN WELCH

Most of the eggs currently sold in supermarkets are nutritionally inferior to eggs produced by hens raised on pasture. That’s the conclusion we have reached following completion of the 2007 Mother Earth News egg testing project. Our testing has found that, compared to official U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) nutrient data for commercial eggs, eggs from hens raised on pasture may contain:

• 1/3 less cholesterol
• 1/4 less saturated fat
• 2/3 more vitamin A
• 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids
• 3 times more vitamin E
• 7 times more beta carotene

These amazing results come from 14 flocks around the country that range freely on pasture or are housed in moveable pens that are rotated frequently to maximize access to fresh pasture and protect the birds from predators. We had six eggs from each of the 14 pastured flocks tested by an accredited laboratory in Portland, Ore. The chart at the end of this article shows the average nutrient content of the samples, compared with the official egg nutrient data from the USDA for “conventional” (i.e. from confined hens) eggs. The chart lists the individual results from each flock.

The 2007 results are similar to those from 2005, when we tested eggs from four flocks all managed as truly free range. But our tests are not the first to show that pastured eggs are more nutritious undefined see “Mounting Evidence” below for a summary of six studies that all indicated that pastured eggs are richer in nutrients than typical supermarket eggs.

We think these dramatically differing nutrient levels are most likely the result of the different diets of birds that produce these two types of eggs. True free-range birds eat a chicken’s natural diet undefined all kinds of seeds, green plants, insects and worms, usually along with grain or laying mash. Factory farm birds never even see the outdoors, let alone get to forage for their natural diet. Instead they are fed the cheapest possible mixture of corn, soy and/or cottonseed meals, with all kinds of additives undefined see “The Caged Hen’s Diet” below.

The conventional egg industry wants very much to deny that free-range/pastured eggs are better than eggs from birds kept in crowded, inhumane indoor conditions. A statement on the American Egg Board’s Web site says “True free-range eggs are those produced by hens raised outdoors or that have daily access to the outdoors.”

Baloney. They’re trying to duck the issue by incorrectly defining “true free-range.” And the USDA isn’t helping consumers learn the truth, either: “Allowed access to the outside” is how the USDA defines “free-range.” This inadequate definition means that producers can, and do, label their eggs as “free-range” even if all they do is leave little doors open on their giant sheds, regardless of whether the birds ever learn to go outside, and regardless of whether there is good pasture or just bare dirt or concrete outside those doors!

Both organizations need to come clean. True free-range eggs are those from hens that range outdoors on pasture, which means they can do what’s natural undefined forage for all manner of green plants and insects.

The Egg Board statement goes on to say: “The nutrient content of eggs is not affected by whether hens are raised free-range or in floor or cage operations.”

Again, that is hogwash. They think they can simply ignore the growing body of evidence that clearly shows that eggs are superior when the hens are allowed to eat their natural diet. Or maybe they think it’s OK to mislead the public to protect egg producers’ bottom line.

After we published our first report about the high nutrient levels in pastured eggs, the Egg Nutrition Council questioned our “suggestion” that pastured eggs were better in their Aug. 8, 2005, newsletter:

“Barring special diets or breeds, egg nutrients are most likely similar for egg-laying hens, no matter how they are raised.” There’s that double-speak, again: “Barring special diets ...” Since when are diets not a part of how chickens are raised? Come on, people, we’ve cited six studies (see "Mounting Evidence", below) showing that pastured eggs are better. The best you can say is “most likely” this evidence is wrong? Cite some science to support your assertions! The U.S. Poultry and Egg Association offers the same misleading statement on its Web site:

“What are free-range eggs? Free-range eggs are from hens that live outdoors or have access to the outdoors. The nutrient content of eggs from free-range hens is the same as those from hens housed in production facilities with cages.”

It’s amazing what a group can do with a $20 million annual budget. That’s what factory-farm egg producers pay to fund the AEB each year to convince the public to keep buying their eggs, which we now believe are substandard.

The Egg Board’s misleading claims about free-range/pastured eggs pervade the Internet, even though the Board has been aware of the evidence about the nutrient differences at least since our 2005 report. We found virtually the same (unsubstantiated) claim denying any difference in nutrient content on Web sites of the American Council on Science and Health (an industry-funded nonprofit), the Iowa Egg Council, the Georgia Egg Commission, the Alberta (Canada) Egg Producers, Hormel Foods, CalMaine Foods and NuCal Foods (“the largest distributor of shell eggs in the Western United States”).

But the most ridiculous online comments turned up at www.supermarketguru.com, a site maintained by a “food trends consultant.” It says:

“FREE RANGE: Probably the most misunderstood of all claims, it’s important to note that hens basically stay near their food, water and nests, and the idea of a happy-go-lucky bird scampering across a field is far from the natural way of life. The claim only means that the hens have access to the outdoors, not that they avail themselves of the opportunity. The hens produce fewer eggs so they are more expensive; higher product costs add to the price of the eggs. The nutrient content is the same as other eggs.”

If you’ve ever been around chickens, you know that whoever wrote that hasn’t. Chickens will spend almost their entire day ranging around a property scratching and searching for food. Even as tiny chicks, they are naturally curious and will begin eating grass and pecking curiously at any insects or even specks on the walls of their brooder box. “Scampering across a field,” looking for food, is precisely their natural way of life.

Supermarket Guru did get one thing right, though. Free-range/pastured eggs are likely to be more expensive because production costs are higher. As usual, you get what you pay for. If you buy the cheapest supermarket eggs, you are not only missing out on the valuable nutrients eggs should and can contain, you are also supporting an industrial production system that treats animals cruelly and makes more sustainable, small-scale egg production difficult.

You can raise pastured chickens easily right in your back yard undefined see our recent articles about how to do it here. Or you can find pastured eggs at local farmstands and farmers markets, or sometimes at the supermarket. Tell the store manager you want eggs from pastured hens, and encourage the manager to contact local producers. To find pastured producers near you, check out Where to Buy

Free range eggs to end civilization as we know it??

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:53:41 GMT

Free range eggs to end civilization as we know it??

In what can only be described as in a haze of hysteria, Australian Egg Corporation has printed an article in their latest Newsletter prophesying the 'end of civilization as we know it' should we spurn their propaganda on the labelling of free range eggs.

Humane Choice brings a reasoned response to the article.

High Politics and Low Blows - A Rebuttal
Australian Egg Corp Progegganda

Lee McCosker gives a Humane Choice perspective on the Australian Egg Corp article entitled 'High Politics and Low Blows in NSW' by Kai Ianssen. Read the article here ....

Press Release from Free Range Egg and Poultry Association

Tue, 02 Aug 2011 05:03:31 GMT

The argument for a national

definition for 'free range' eggs

There is now a broad agreement in the egg industry that clear, legal definitions need to be established for different methods of production.

A national definition for free range egg production is firmly on the agenda and submissions are being made to the Federal Government to implement a standard.

The Free Range Farmers Association in Victoria and the national industry body, Free Range Egg and Poultry Association have been pushing for many years that a national definition should be established for free range production systems which meets consumer expectations.

These arguments have been boosted by the Australian Egg Corporation's managing director, James Kellaway, who has said: “We have definitions that are enforced by the industry but we want to make such definitions more robust and definitive … what we'd like to see is a definition that is clearly enunciated and enforced”

The Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia Inc. welcomes that announcement and has again written to the Minister for Agriculture, Senator Joe Ludwig, re-opening the debate for the development of a clear definition for free range egg production.

The Association has argued that the starting point should be the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry. The definition should require a maximum outdoor stocking density of 1500 hens per hectare and prohibit the beak trimming or de-beaking of birds.

Currently, many producers who label their eggs as 'free range' run stocking densities well above the 1500 bird limit. AECL has revealed that some farms run as many as 40,000 chickens per hectare.

The Model Code requires producers to find alternative measures to combat feather pecking and cannibalism before resorting to beak trimming – but most farms (even those which claim to be free range) make no attempt to find alternatives. Their birds are beaked trimmed at day old or soon after.

The Australian Egg Corporation is currently trying to implement a new standard for a version of free range production that will allow a stocking density of up to 20,000 birds per hectare and will allow beak trimming as a matter of course.

Industry practice has shown that beak trimming is totally unnecessary for hens on a free range farm – unless the farm is over stocked.

More details

Phil Westwood

President

Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia Inc

0402070531

Westpork case for animal cruelty goes to court today

Wed, 22 Jun 2011 02:59:54 GMT

Westpork case for animal cruelty goes to court today.

Wednesday, 22 June 2011

The charges against Westpork Pty Ltd’s piggery in Gingin, Western Australia, will be heard in court today.

The Westpork piggery has been charged with animal cruelty offences resulting from a breach of the Animal Welfare Act 2002, Mr. Ferguson is the general manager of Westpork and an Australian Pork Limited (APL) director.

The Western Australian Department of Local Government has confirmed that more than thirty charges under the Animal Welfare Act 2002 have been placed against the Westpork piggery, which has been under investigation by the courts since January 2009. Further charges have been laid after a secondary investigation was conducted. The proponents have been specifically charged relating to animals suffering harm under the charge of a person(s) which could be alleviated by taking of reasonable steps (Sections 19(1) and 19(3)(h) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002).

“As general manager for Westpork, Mr. Ferguson holds a highly accountable role in the current charges against the piggery,” states HSI director, Verna Simpson. “It is wholly inappropriate for a person who has been charged with an animal cruelty offence to continue to be a representative on the board of the industry body. HSI has asked the APL that Mr. Ferguson be removed from his position and hopes that today’s charges will influence this.”

“The charges laid against Westpork are now the second time Mr. Ferguson has been involved in breaches against animal welfare legislation within two years,” Simpson explains. “Now, with even more charges to be laid against Westpork and Neil Ferguson, HSI is keen to see justice served”.

Contact: Verna Simpson, Director, PH: (02) 9973 1728

Humane Society Scholarship for Farm Animal Welfare

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 22:19:13 GMT

University of Queensland Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics

and

Humane Society International

Roz Dixon Memorial Scholarship

for Farm Animal Welfare Research

The scholarship will be provided for research that addresses issues in intensive farming that would have the potential to eliminate practices that impact on an animal’s ability to express natural behaviours such as:

· nurturing their young,

· interacting with their herd or flock,

· freedom for movement and exercise,

· minimizing stress in their environment and handling,

· alternatives to surgical procedures.

For further information tel. +61 7 5460 1158; mobile 0406340133 or email c.phillips@uq.edu.au

Applications for the 2011 Scholarships close on Tuesday 30th August 2011.

Mini, Micro, Teacup Pigs

Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:38:44 GMT

Micro pigs, mini pigs….. it’s a very disturbing trend that has almost turned pigs into a fashion accessory. Paris Hilton started this current porcine craze when she purchased her mini pig, Miss Piglette.

A micro pig, or tea cup pig as they are called overseas, is a very different animal to the mini pigs available in Australia. Micro pigs are bred from an array of smaller breeds including the Kune Kune and the Potbelly pig, breeds that are just not available in this country.

So how do we breed mini pigs in Australia? Our genetics are very limited and those that we do have are for the larger breeds of pigs – Landrace, Large White, Large Black, Duroc and a couple of others. These are very large animals weighing in at between 200 and 300 kilos at maturity. There is one type of pig here that is relatively small at that is the feral pig.

Unfortunately there is no such thing as a true mini pig in Australia. These tiny oinkers are bred from the runts of litters and then malnourished to prevent them from reaching their full growth potential.

The rigid diet set out by the breeders of these mini pigs is severely lacking in nutrition and is basically designed for maintenance of body condition with nothing left over for growth. The only way to keep a mini pig mini is to stunt its growth. You have to virtually starve it otherwise it will grow into quite a large animal. Even the must-have micro pigs sold overseas are subjected to this kind of dietary madness.

But the cruelty to these tiny creatures doesn’t end there. Breeders sell them complete with nose rings to prevent them digging up their new owner’s lawns. Rooting is the most basic of instincts for the pig and these so called pig lovers will prevent them from doing so by inflicting pain each time they attempt to dig.

Some mini pigs end up at the vet and their owners are very surprised to hear that their pet is suffering from malnutrition and needs immediate intervention to save it. Some owners can’t resist feeding their mini pigs forbidden treats and before they know it they have a 120 kg pig on their hands and seeking to re-home it. Most owners have no knowledge of pig behaviour or needs and unintentionally cause these animals great suffering. Unwanted pig pets could possibly increase the feral pig populations should they be dumped in bushland by their disappointed owners.

For such a large animal, it is incredible how small the pig starts out in life only weighing a couple of kilos. This is a fact that is being taken advantage of when ‘mini’ pig breeders post photo’s of their tiny merchandise on the web. Pigs are always born small but have an amazing potential for very fast growth.

There is no such thing as a true mini pig.

Farmed Fined For False Egg Labelling

Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:45:21 GMT

Farm fined for false egg labelling

Tuesday, 08/02/2011

A Western Australia egg farmer has become the first farmer in Australia to be financially penalised for misleading consumers.

It's the first such penalty under the new Australian consumer laws, which allow the ACCC to seek monetary penalties for misconduct.

The Pisano family of WA has been ordered to pay $50,000 by the Federal Court for labelling its eggs as free range, when they were not.

The judge involved said the case warranted a heavy penalty and said it was a 'blatant case of dishonesty'.

Chairman Graham Samuel says the ACCC's new powers make it easier to take action against businesses misleading consumers.

"The ACCC now has the power to obtain financial penalties up wards of well over a million dollars if necessary," he said.

"The Federal Court is showing its determination to penalise this sort of conduct because I think it realises financial penalties are the only way to stamp it out.

Westpork Piggery charged with animal cruelty, Again!

Mon, 07 Feb 2011 15:57:19 GMT

The Department of Local Government in Western Australia today confirmed that thirty charges under the Animal Welfare Act 2002 have been laid in relation to the Westpork piggery in Gingin, stemming from an investigation commencing in January 2009. The thirty charges involve Westpork Pty Ltd and two of it's staff members.

The charges relate to Sections 19(1) and 19(3)(h) of the Animal Welfare Act 2002, which the Department administers and enforces. The State Solicitor’s Office is handling the case on behalf of the Department. A first mention has been listed for Wednesday, 16 March 2011 at the Perth Magistrates Court.

This is not the first time Westpork has faced animal cruelty charges. They were previously charged in 2009 (HSI media release http://www.hsi.org.au/index.php?catID=494) for animal cruelty but the Department discontinued the case on a technicality.

Westpork is operated by Neil Ferguson, a board member of Australian Pork Limited, chair on the WA Agriculture Produce Commission (Pork Committee), and a Pork Training WA Committee member.

HSI has today written to the boards requesting that Mr. Ferguson stand aside from these positions until the case has been heard. When the previous case was being investigated we made the same request of both Boards, but they declined. Given the new charges are unrelated to the original case it would be prudent of both Boards to stand him down till the case concludes.

“The fact that any person charged with animal cruelty offences can remain in such a prominent position within the industry is inconceivable,” says Verna Simpson, HSI Director. “What makes the situation so shocking is that this is now the second time Mr. Ferguson has been charged. Such irresponsible behaviour should not be permitted to represent and guide industry best practice.”

HSI Director, Verna Simpson further stated, “Considering past and current charges, HSI believes Mr. Ferguson should stand aside till the case concludes. The Australian pork industry has been at the centre of the national animal welfare debate thanks to consumer and retailer demand for welfare friendly pork. With such scrutiny on the industry this is no time to play the ‘mates’ card as this will only hurt the many other producers who are trying hard to meet consumer expectations.”

Submission - TOF Bobby Calves

Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:27:57 GMT

1^st February 2011

Bobby Calf TOF RIS Submissions
Animal Health Australia
Suite 15 26-28 Napier Close
DEAKIN ACT 2600

Dear Sir/Madam,

This submission is presented by Lee McCosker on behalf of Humane Choice. Humane Choice is an accreditation body for free range animal production systems.

We wish to address the amendments to the Land Transport of Livestock Standard – Bobby Calves Time Off Feed.

We understand that the Primary Industries Ministerial Council (PIMC) resolved to develop a science based standard for the management of bobby calves to be included in the above transport standard.

The first area of concern that we would like to discuss is the accuracy and the credibility of the science used to base a recommendation of 30 hours time off feed be adopted. The Fisher Report, upon which this recommendation is based, appears to be flawed and somewhat biased.

I shall address our concerns in point form:

· The report is yet unpublished and therefore has not been peer reviewed.
· The study was undertaken at just one location.
· The study only represented a minute portion of the industry. (only 60 calves were used in the entire study)
· The study did not accurately reflect the diverse range of conditions calves are farmed under.
· The study did not take into consideration the varying levels of health that the average very vulnerable bobby calf may experience.
· The study did not take into consideration varying climatic conditions as it was carried out around Spring.
· The study is quoted as saying that a ‘normal’ feeding ration of milk is 5 litres when this is generally not the norm at all. Industry recommends each heifer replacement calf should drink 4L of milk (or 500g of milk solids) per day, which is equal to about 10.12% of its birth weight.[1]Replacement heifers are far more valuable to the producer so one can only assume that the milk fed to an unwanted bobby calf may be significantly less.

To summarize our concerns about the Fisher Study;

We believe that the study is inadequate and not appropriate to base any recommendations on in regard to allowable times off feed for bobby calves. The study must be published and peer reviewed before it can be used to make such an important decision. One study on its own does not give credible insight into the subject nor do we feel that this study has allowed an unbiased outcome.

This study surmises that 100% of calves will be in a ‘healthy’ condition and that they will be fed 5 litres of milk per day. How different would the outcome of this study have been if the calves were fed 4 litres per day instead as prescribed by Dairy Australia? I quote this section from the Fisher Report:

In terms of energy status, plasma glucose concentrations were the most altered variable. These increased after feeding, declined slowly for some hours, and then declined more steadily after about 18 h off feed, which is consistent with the expected pattern of a typical daily feeding cycle. Mean glucose at 30 h was close to, but not below published reference values for dairy calves less that 2 weeks of age. A proportion of calves (~12%) were below the lower reference value at this time point, and this proportion was slightly greater than would be assumed by chance. [2]

The results would have been very different if the calves had been fed the ‘normal’ amount of 4 litres instead of 5 and it would appear that their plasma glucose concentrations would have declined rapidly after about 18 hours off feed. Even in the unbalanced Fisher Report, a percentage of calves fed the 5 litres of milk were below the lower reference value at this time point.

We therefore refute the claim being made that ‘there is no science-based evidence of improvements to bobby calf welfare under 24 hours and 18 hours TOF as compared to 30 hours’ and that it is inappropriate that the research be used to set an outer legal limit for time off feed for bobby calves at 30 hours.

Option D

We believe that the available science already points to 18 hours off feed as being the most appropriate option for bobby calves.

It is my own personal experience (after many years of buying bobby calves and rearing them) that it is normal practice, when calves are sold at saleyards, for the farmer to deliver them after milking on the morning of the sale. The calves are usually fed before they leave. It is common practice for calf sales to be held at midday and they are then permitted to be removed from the yards as they are sold to expedite their transport to the abattoir if they have not been purchased to raise as beef. The Draft Consultation documentations confirms that this is a widely accepted practice. (page 25 ) This does in fact allow the calves to be processed well within the 18 hours time off feed.

Another practice on larger dairy farms is to deliver their calves directly to the abattoir either the night before processing or on the morning of. Again, well within the 18 hours time off feed.

Another common practice, but not mentioned, is the sale of calves directly to other farms for the purpose of being grown on for veal or beef. This practice keeps the time off feed well below 18 hours.

Because of my personal experience in the bobby calf industry, I am concerned that some of the information presented in the draft documentations is a little misleading. For example, there are many calf sales held in dairying regions, especially in coastal areas, and bobby calves are sought after by both processors and producers wishing to grow them on to heavier veal or beef. There are also several domestic abattoirs that process calves on the same, or the morning after livestock sales.

Expected economic costs (Criterion II) seem to be somewhat exaggerated and definitely biased towards Option B to merely allow the continuation of existing industry practice.

A shift in the market structure will probably occur if Option D were to be adopted and producers could well look at other viable options rather than just claiming that thousands of calves will ‘become unavailable’. For example, farm gate sales of bobby calves direct to producers enabling the dairy farmer to increase the income he gets from calves and reducing other costs such as transport and agent’s fees and even cutting the cost for the dairy beef grower.

Male calves are part and parcel of the dairy industry and a responsibility that cannot just be shirked simply based on cost. No farmer goes into a dairy operation with his eyes shut and the welfare of his animals should be part of his management strategy. The ‘emotional cost’ of disposing of bobby calves cannot just be measured in dollars and cents to the farmer, today’s concerned consumer will want to see the needs of the animals addressed also and we cannot ignore this fact.

We support Option D - a standard amendment of 18 hours time off feed for bobby calves.

Yours sincerely,

Lee McCosker

[1] Dairy Australia – Dairy Welfare, Calf Management, Rearing Dairy Heifer Calves

[2] Dairy Australia - Determining a suitable time off feed for bobby calf transport under Australian conditions

Do We Want Anti-Biotics in Feed?

Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:56:38 GMT

Author: Dick Ziggers

If we look at the world from a medicated feed perspective then two blocks stand out: the European Union and the United States of America. In the EU the use of antibiotics for growth promoting reasons is already banned since January 2006. And now there is also a call for withdrawal of therapeutic use of drugs in animal feeds.

The Dutch organisation for the animal feed industry (Nevedi), for example, would like to stop the use of therapeutic antibiotics in feed as soon as possible, in cooperation with livestock producers and veterinarians. The idea behind this is that Nevedi hopes to contribute in finding a solution to the problem of antibiotic resistance in both humans and animals.

Next to that, the manufacturing of medicated feeds is a burden to the feed millers, because of chances of cross contamination. Current detection methods can trace the tiniest particle in feeds and in animal products.

Different approach

How different is the approach in the US, where just this week the Food and Drug Administration approved florfenicol for use in a so-called ‘Type B Medicated Feed’ for swine. It already had its Type A Medicated Feed approval, meaning it may be mixed in licensed feed mills.

The Type B qualification means it now can be used as a premix in all feed mills, including those found on-farm. This might provide ground for a situation of over-use, since the product is considered to be effective to many respiratory diseases in pigs. “Now, producers can control swine respiratory disease with an easy-to-use formulation,” the manufacturer of the drug states.

I am not questioning the effectiveness of the drug – this A, B, and C typing is applicable to all drugs used in medicated feeds – but more the relative ease with which the drug can be administered. Not to forget that also pigs that are not sick will get the drug in their feed without factual needing it.

Trade issues

These different approaches to antibiotic use also create trade barriers. "We do not have the access to the EU that we could and [antibiotic use] I think is at least one of the issues that is keeping our exports to the EU down," said a spokesman for the US National Pork Producers Council.

Minimizing antibiotics could protect public health (fewer antibiotic resistant bugs) while helping better position US producers in the global marketplace. In Europe animal production is changing towards better management and fewer antibiotics.

I am afraid that if producers in the US shut their eyes for these developments they might go the same way as the US auto industry.

Curious to hear other opinions. Original Article here ..

Why Is Pasture Raised Different?

Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:03:26 GMT

Humane Choice certified producers allow their animals to graze on open paddocks. This includes pigs and poultry.

Consumer concerns for animal welfare, as well as their own health and welfare, have driven the meat and egg industries into this current scramble for the right to use the term ‘free range’. Consumer research has shown that free range to most people means that the animals spend their lives on pastures.

With big industry calling for free range standards that fit in with their commercial reality, we will begin to witness the intensification of free range production systems. How do you intensify free range? By using small areas of land that are denuded very quickly by large numbers of grazing animals transforming the area into dirt lots with not one blade of grass to be seen. While we would like to assume the pigs will be happier in these conditions as opposed to being kept indoors in stalls and pens, intensified free range raises concerns about animal health and environmental sustainability. It also makes any claims of a better flavoured meat questionable as the animals are unable to forage or graze.

Pasture raised animals are able to obtain a lot of their nutrition from grazing. Just how much will depend of the type of pastured provided. Farm animal dietary needs will also differ. While sheep and cattle may gain all their needs from pasture, pigs and poultry are omnivores (single stomach just like us) and grubs, worms, small animals and insects form a natural part of their diet. Vitamins, minerals, trace elements and amino acids can be obtained by all grazing animals from a diet that includes pasture.

Green forage and pasture is rich in Omega-3 fatty acids, along with the insects and grubs that may be consumed, therefore the meat and eggs from pasture raised animals may provide Omega-3 in your diet.

Pigs and chickens on pasture also benefit from spending their days in the sunshine! Being able to exercise naturally and extensively means that, pigs in particular, will develop muscle without the need for hormones and growth promoters.

Disease is minimal in well managed pastured raised systems so this means there is little need for the use of antibiotics. Overuse of these drugs in the intensive farming industry is a major human health concern.

Finally, but most importantly, well managed, pasture raised animals live a happier life without the stress that is induced by overcrowding and the inability to carry out natural behaviours. Combined with a more natural diet and environment, this translates to a superior quality product.

So if you imagine pigs and poultry roaming in grassed paddocks when you picture free range, think pasture raised and seek out a Humane Choice true free range producer or supplier.

Humane Choice has a new Logo!

Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:36:20 GMT

As free range becomes a much more familiar word in the consumer's vocabulary it is becoming harder to to work out just what is and isn't genuine free range. With the lack of a legal definition that leads to misleading labelling, we wanted to make sure there was no mistake about products carrying the Humane Choice logo.

Our standards are clear and precise and available to all. Our audits are carried out by an independent, registered audit provider. You can be sure its true free range when you see our logo.

David Jones Happy to Deceive Customers

Sun, 25 Apr 2010 19:17:17 GMT

Over the past 2 years HSI has been corresponding with David Jones over the misrepresentation of pork products sold through their flagship Sydney store. David Jones is continuing to brand pork as ‘free range’ knowing full well that they are misrepresenting production method.
Although we have repeatedly approached David Jones and sought intervention by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) for false and misleading representation of products, they continue to deceive consumers. David Jones is taking advantage of the growing number of consumers who are seeking welfare friendly food and are prepared to pay extra. They have obviously identified that consumers are looking for free range product, but rather than finding the real McCoy, they are just mislabelling existing non free range product and charging the extra.
In a surprising response to media enquiries about the mislabelling of it’s ‘free range’ pork in their flagship Sydney store, David Jones has responded with the following:
"As there is no law or standard governing the use of the terms "free range" or "bred free range", David Jones is fully compliant with its legal obligations. This is a matter for the regulators."
Best wishes,
(name withheld)
General Manager - Public Relations
David Jones

This is certainly an eye opener for their customers! David Jones acknowledges that as there is no law governing terms used for meat production they can and will continue to deceive. And they are certainly not shy at charging premium prices with pork costing up to twice as much as the local supermarket.
“Consumers want and have the right to make informed decisions about the animal-derived food products that they are purchasing,” said HSI Director, Verna Simpson. “However, instead they are met with a suite of confusing, poorly defined and unregulated terms which producers and retailers are able to use and misuse at will.”
A labelling overhaul is overdue. HSI is calling for a national and mandatory labelling scheme for the method of production of all meat, eggs and dairy products, that only permits the use of a limited number of legally defined and regulated animal-welfare descriptors.
The Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council, comprising Ministers responsible for food and health issues are currently reviewing food labelling laws and policy. They have already had over 6000 written submissions and a series of public consultations, and the message is loud and clear. The Australian public has the right and the desire to know what they are buying. They are intelligent enough to decide their own ethics and make purchasing decisions on that basis.
Without Truth in Labelling it is not possible to make these informed purchasing decisions and it is time for Government and industry to catch up.

Contact: Verna Simpson, HSI Director, 02 9973 1728

Action Alert

(Past member) — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:46:36 GMT

Humane Society International Extinction Denied Program

Action Alert

Demand the suspension of pork industry executive charged with animal cruelty

Sydney, 3 June 2009

Act as soon as possible

The manager of Western Australia’s largest piggery, Neil Ferguson, is still on the board of the pork industry’s peak body despite being charged with an animal cruelty offence.

In yet another disturbing case of animal cruelty on a pig farm, an investigation and raid were first carried out at the Westpork facility at Gingin in 2007 following the release of footage showing it was so full of waste and excrement that the pigs were struggling to walk. It has also been alleged that pigs were left to die lingering deaths once they had succumbed to illnesses, and that some pigs had eaten others that had died and were left in the pens.

The explicit footage taken at the Gingin piggery can be viewed online at:

http://ara.org.au/index.php/News/westpork-pty-ltd-charged-with-cruelty-at-gingin-pig-farm.html

The treatment of pigs at the Westpork Gingin piggery is unacceptable, yet despite the animal cruelty charge against him, Mr Ferguson has maintained his position on the APL (Australia Pork Limited) Board. In fact, it is not the only executive position in the pork industry maintained by Mr Ferguson – he is also involved in the training of pork producers through his position on the Pork Industry Training Committee in WA, and is the Chair of the WA Agriculture Produce Commission’s Pork Committee.

It is wholly inappropriate for a person charged with an animal cruelty offense to continue to hold a Board position with APL. Likewise, he should not be permitted a role in the training of pork producers.

It is essential that the APL, the Pork Industry Training Committee in WA, and the WA Agriculture Produce Commission revoke the positions held by Mr Ferguson until the case is resolved in court, and suspend him permanently if he is convicted. The hearing is scheduled to take place on the 1^st July 2009.

Action:

Write to each member of the APL Board, urging them to immediately suspend Mr Ferguson from his position on the Board until the animal cruelty charge is heard in court, and that he is removed permanently if found guilty. Ask that APL also makes a recommendation to the WA Pork Industry Training Committee and the WA Agricultural Produce Commission that his position is reviewed in light of the animal cruelty charge, and that further action is taken to revoke these positions if Mr Ferguson is convicted.

The members of the APL Board are: Mr Enzo Allara (Chairman), Mr Aeger Kingma, Mr Kenneth Cameron, Mr Paul Pattison, Mrs Kathy Grigg, Mrs Kay Carey, and Mrs Christine Quick.

Send your letters for each member to:

Australian Pork Limited

PO Box 148

Deakin West ACT 2600

Write to the West Australian Pork Producers’ Association who facilitates the Pork Industry Training (WA) committee, noting that Mr Ferguson has been charged with an animal cruelty offence and should therefore not be allowed a training role in the pork industry until the case is heard in court. Highlight your concern about Mr Ferguson’s involvement in the development and facilitation of training courses on stockpersonship and production given the charge against him.

Contact:

Mr Russell Cox

Executive Officer

West Australian Pork Producers’ Association

277 Great Eastern Highway

Belmont WA 6104

Email: russell@wappa.com.au

Write to the Agricultural Produce Commission, stressing that a person charged with an animal cruelty offense must not be permitted to continue to be on the Board of a government committee supporting the pork industry until the case is resolved.

Contact:

Ingrid Smith

Executive Officer

Agricultural Produce Commission

3 Baron-Hay Court

South Perth WA 6151

Email: apc@agric.wa.gov.au

Please send us copies of any responses you receive.

Further information at www.hsi.org.au

HSI concentrates on the preservation of endangered animals and ecosystems and works to ensure quality of life for all animals, both domestic and wild. HSI is the largest animal protection not-for-profit organisation in the world, with over 10 million supporters globally and has been established in Australia since 1994.

Humane Society International Inc - Australian Office

PO Box 439 Avalon NSW 2107 Australia

Ph: 02 9973 1728 Fax: 02 9973 1729 www.hsi.org.au