From the Poultry Editor: May 2014

The USDA definition of sustainability applies the following five principles to an integrated system of plant and animal production practices: human and fibre needs are satisfied, the environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agriculture economy depends is enhanced, nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources are used most efficiently, the economic viability of farm operations is sustained, and the quality of life for society as a whole is enhanced.  

Crystal McKay, executive director of Food and Farm Care, recently wrote an excellent opinion piece entitled “The Sustainable Food, Animal Welfare Balance” that appeared in the  Grimsby Lincoln News where she says, “when having a discussion or considering making changes to any food production or farm practices, all five principles need to be given fair and practical consideration.”

However, the average Canadian (who has limited, if any knowledge of farming practices) often tends to focus on the information provided by those not involved in the business of farming.  As McKay points out, “one of the biggest challenges with having a conversation with the average Canadian about farming is their perceptions or questions are often based on issues, what’s been in the media or what they’ve ‘heard’ somewhere.”

Although animal welfare is not mentioned directly in the USDA’s definition of sustainability, it is an integral part as it is related to the economic viability of a farm. Special interest anti-agriculture groups use strong, emotionally charged visuals to get their anti-confinement message instant news coverage.  Unfortunately, this is a great influence on consumers’ perception of farming and is in large part driving retailers to demand that rearing practices change.

But the big question that looms in the welfare-retail situation is are consumers willing to pay for the changes that they are driving indirectly?  Our cover story (page 12) details a University of Guelph study that tries to tackle this question and gain more understanding of consumer behavior.  

The results are very interesting.  Although respondents’ knowledge of animal production was limited, consumers “are sensitive to information about housing systems” and believe that scientific evidence should be used when determining how farm animals are raised.  While the respondents valued the presence of dust baths, nest boxes and perches, they are also sensitive to the word “cage”, indicating that this word should be avoided when explaining enriched colony housing, often referred to in the industry as “enriched cages”.  

As concluded in the study, it’s therefore important for egg producers (and industry) to communicate well with consumers.  Retailers need this information as well.  As McKay says, “it’s not normal practice for the animal welfare specialist to consult with the food affordability or food safety experts when making recommendations on what’s best for hen welfare. Individual companies make announcements or use one of the principles in the spectrum as a short-term marketing advantage.”

She concludes by emphasizing that such practice needs to change in order “to truly embrace sustainable food and farming in Canada.”

Sustainability is more than just a buzzword, and it’s important that one of its principles doesn’t take precedence over another. As McKay correctly points out, “it is important to emphasize that the five principles are all linked together and changing one can have either a positive or negative influence on the other four.”