California’s Proposition 2

During the last 20 years, the poultry industry throughout the world has
been engaged in major changes in the management of its flocks. Much of
this is directed at how the flocks are housed and managed in respect to
so-called “humane treatment” goals with emphasis on flock behaviour as
a means of evaluating systems.

During the last 20 years, the poultry industry throughout the world has been engaged in major changes in the management of its flocks. Much of this is directed at how the flocks are housed and managed in respect to so-called “humane treatment” goals with emphasis on flock behaviour as a means of evaluating systems.

What’s the answer? Remedies to “assumed” problems with animal welfare  are often simplistic with no concern for related issues and outcomes. Advertisement

The European Union (EU), a political and economic union of 27 member states, located primarily in Europe, has been in the forefront in the establishment of regulations concerning the way flocks of chickens are managed. In the past 10 years or so, this issue has become one of the more controversial discussions in the United States and in other countries as well. So far, the majority of countries on the Asian, African, and South American continents is unaffected and has no formal animal welfare requirements – mandatory or voluntary.

It is uncertain as to how many of the world’s laying hens are affected by mandatory regulations, but the number probably represents far fewer than 25 per cent of the total. Mandated (enforced by the law) programs are broadly in use in the EU, Australia and Canada. The U.S egg industry has “voluntary” programs affecting some 85 per cent of the nation’s commercial layer flocks.

Animal welfare research and application has existed since the start of the commercial poultry industries – since the early 1900s. First, farmers are vitally concerned about the health and welfare of their flocks and they know that both of these are critical components to successful poultry farming. They understand that if their flocks are mistreated in any way, their performance will suffer and the farmer will have lower economic returns.

Since the cage form of housing was introduced in the 1930s, there has been continuous fine-tuning of all types of associated management programs as well as the design of housing and equipment. This has been done on the farm by the farmer as well as at various research institutions around the world. As a result of this 70 years of experience, today’s flocks are healthier, are more productive, and experience lower levels of mortality that at any time in history.

During this period, traditional programs have been challenged for contributing to the presumed “poor” welfare of today’s flocks. Assumptions may be based upon anecdotal observations, selective and biased reviews of published data, or the application of human values to animals. Remedies to these assumed “problems” are often simplistic with no concern for related issues and outcomes – especially flock health, food safety and economics.

We learn through experience – both positive and negative. Changes in national programs through the imposition (by law) of complex and often untested programs must be carefully studied and monitored to determine if results are truly beneficial to the welfare of our flocks and new problems are not encountered.

Change should only come about after our scientists and farmers have verified the facts associated with making the change. It is not sufficient to make changes based upon assumptive needs while dozens of other equally important issues may be adversely affected in the process. Much of the change being suggested means multi-billion-dollar expenditures for methods, which may result in poorer animal welfare for our flocks – a waste of resources without net benefit to our flocks, to our businesses, or to society as a whole.

Initiatives and Referendums
In November 2008, California voters were presented a proposition (initiative) on their election ballot, which was directed at defining confinement enclosures for swine, calves and laying chickens.

 An “initiative” is most commonly used and is a proposal of a new law or Constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by petition. Twenty-four states have initiatives for Constitutional amendments or for statutes. A “referendum” is a proposal to repeal a law placed on the ballot by petition. These are seldom used.

No provision for voter ballot propositions (initiatives or referendums) at the Federal level, but voter initiatives and referendums are available and commonly used in thousands of counties and cities across the nation.

All states are different in their application and requirements:

• 2 to 15 per cent signatures of voters required (California: 5 per cent)
• Major egg states with initiatives or referendums are Ohio and California
• Major egg states without are Iowa, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Texas.
• Animal rightists and welfarists and activists

These names are often used interchangeably in discussions of animal welfare. In reality they each have separate and distinct definitions, but they often overlap. They range in the intensity of their approaches to the issue into sub-groups:
Those that are:

• Sincerely interested in the welfare of animals in our society.
• Vegetarians who don’t eat meat.
• Vegetarians who don’t want you to eat meat either.
• Extremists who want their way at any cost.
• Terrorists who will destroy property or injure those they oppose.
• Animal activists ­– who are they?

A look on the “web” will find literally hundreds of organizations listed under “animal welfare” or “animal rights.” The larger organizations have hundreds of branches throughout the nation. Some of the more visible groups include:

• Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
• People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
• Compassion Over Killing (COK)
• Farm Sanctuary
• United Poultry Concerns (UPC)
• Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
• And hundreds of others – both animal welfare and animal rights

Two of the larger organizations are the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) (ten million members, $120 million income – 2007); People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) (two million members, $30+ million income).
To minimize terrorism problems:

• Adopt scientific industry animal care guidelines.
• Train and retrain your employees about the proper care for your animals.
• Provide good biosecurity.
• No admission policies.
• Locked fences, gates and doors.
• Monitor the application of your care programs.

The Public Makes the Laws!
Our U.S. government has a method (the U.S. Constitution) by which we elect representatives to propose, research, and enact needed laws by which we are governed. Twenty-four states, though, allow the voters to place on the ballot propositions (initiatives) for new legislation with relatively little study or understanding of their repercussions to society.

When the HSUS and other groups placed Proposition 2 on the California ballot two independent organizations conducted intensive studies to evaluate the outcome of the passage of the proposal on the economy of the state, consumers and the egg production industry. These organizations were Promar International and the University of California Agricultural Issues Center. In general, they found that:
Promar International

• 95 per cent of current output and employment will be lost by 2015.
• There will be widespread negative impact on consumers and local economies and state tax base.

University of California Agricultural Issues Center
California egg production will almost completely shut down prior to 2015 because of inability to compete, thus the impact of the initiative would not affect how eggs are produced, only where they’re produced.

California’s Proposition No. 2
Another name for this proposition is “The Treatment of Farm Animals Statute.” It is a very short change in wording of an existing statute on the Ballot itself, with additional definitions buried in a 140-page document mailed to each voter. Within these definitions were statements such as:

• “Full wing spreading without touching enclosure walls or another chicken”

Just what does this mean?

• “Without touching enclosure walls”

As a measurement, it doesn’t say (28 inches or ?) Is this 5.4 square feet? (Ten times more than any recommendation in the world?) Never touching the walls (during incidental movement?) In cages or house (enclosure)?

• “Without touching another chicken”

Chickens are social animals and may prefer to touch one another. No cage less than 28 x 28 inches won’t qualify?

Most careful readers of the proposition feel that it is very difficult to interpret the meaning of what was written and may prove to be unenforceable.

Results of California election – Nov. 4, 2008

After campaign expenditures of $10+ million, a total of 10.7 million voters voted in this general election. A vote of “yes” on Proposition 2 was a vote to implement new spatial requirements for laying hens. It received 6.4 million votes (63 per cent) versus 4.3 million in opposition. The urban centers of San Francisco and Los Angeles voted 72.3 per cent and 66.8 per cent respectively for the proposition. The strongly rural regions of Stanislaus and Merced counties voted against the proposal 56.9 per cent and 58.1 per cent respectively. Because the urban counts were much larger, the proposition passed by a two-million-vote majority.

The California Proposition will effectively put the California egg industry out of business by the year 2015 (the deadline date) unless the courts rule it unconstitutional!

2009 to 2015 is a period of uncertainty for California and the U.S.

• Will the new law be a model for the U.S.?
• What does it mean in terms of housing?
• Will California be able to compete with other states?
• What will the new law mean in terms of total costs? Who will interpret it?
• Who will enforce it?
• Is it constitutional?
• Can it be modified or eliminated?

Comments from individuals about the passage of Proposition 2:

“Passing this measure will provide additional momentum to our efforts at the federal level.” Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of HSUS

“The best thing that people can do to help animals is to stop eating them altogether.” Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

Humane Society chief seeks animal-rights focus in D.C. – Sacramento Bee – Nov. 28, 2008

HSUS is turning its focus to Washington: “We have the potential to be one of the most powerful forces in politics.”

HSUS has doubled its assets to nearly $225 million:

“Were not telling people to become vegetarians we’re urging them to exhibit greater decency.” – Wayne Pacelle

Post-election statements from Gene Gregory, president, UEP:

• “Regardless of what is acceptable, we know that most California egg farmers will not survive if forced to produce only non-caged eggs.”

• “I see no way California egg farmers can compete with out-of-state or out-of-country eggs unless the state legislature puts forth a law that prohibits cage eggs from being sold in the state.”

• “California currently has approximately 19 million laying hens. It is my opinion that by 2015 we could see no more than five million hens – meaning that most egg farmers were forced out of business and their investment and business they enjoyed gone forever.”

• “It is time for them (grocery stores, restaurants, hotels, etc.) to understand that these vegan activists want an ultimate elimination of animal products.”

Egg Production System Choices

• Cage systems (batteries)
• Traditional
• Enhanced (furnished)
• Nests, perches, dust-bath boxes
• Non-cage systems (alternative?)
• Barn: Deep litter, aviary, perchery
• Organic: Nutritional, management, etc.
• Free range: Low density, medium density

“Free range” mean different things to different people. For example, access to the outdoors with relatively small dirt runs; 400 birds/A of lush green pastures and shade trees.

Flock Health Issues
Old diseases on the return:

• Coccidiosis
• SE (food safety issues)
• Internal and external parasites
• Hi-risk diseases – Hi-path END, AI
• Biosecurity and sanitation

Food Safety Issues

• Exposure to micro-organisms
• In the feces
• In the environment
• Contaminated eggs
• Dirty eggs
• Checked eggs
• Ease and thoroughness of sanitation programs

Economic Issues
Added costs due to:

• Increased feed usage
• High labour requirements
• Added investments:
• Renovations
• New housing as a result of reduced densities
• More land requirements for some systems
• Higher egg prices to the consumer

A partial list of scientific organizations opposing Proposition 2:

• American Association of Avian Pathologists
• American College of Poultry Veterinarians
• CA chapter of American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists
• Poultry Science Association

A partial list of major California newspapers opposing Proposition 2:

• San Francisco Chronicle
• Los Angeles Times
• Sacramento Bee
• Orange County Register
• Long Beach Press-Telegram
• Fresno Bee

For a variety of reasons: “not needed”, “wrong way to go about making changes in CA constitution”, “economic effect on industry and society”, etc.

The Uncertainty of the Issue
Which U.S. state or country will be next? Can I afford to update my farm in light of possible new legislation? Is there any hope that we can bring “science” back into this question? Will this legislation place the nation’s egg industry on hold for the next six years? Can California egg producers risk an investment in any new cage housing? Is there a chance that modern non-cage systems may also be unacceptable? Are other states facing similar legislation and therefore possible holds too?

Any system we select must be science-based (based on facts) to be justified. The scientific system must be the pathway to determine what’s acceptable, and recommendations or mandated practices. The separation of emotion and anecdotal experiences from scientific fact is essential.

The scientific basis for supporting the continued use of cages:

Cage research dates back more than 60 years with demonstrated benefits to the flock, to the producer, and to the consumer. During this period, the system has been fine-tuned by the manufacturer and by the user. Shapes and sizes have been modified to enhance flock welfare, product quality, feeding efficiencies and overall flock performance and management. The arbitrary abandonment of the system at the whims of the animal welfare lobby is unjustified, wasteful of resources, and will ultimately lessen the welfare of the flocks for which it was intended.

• Continue to build upon a science-based system.
• Don’t make the same mistakes as other countries have.
• The strengths of the cage system far outweigh its weaknesses – welfare and economically!

Lessons to Learn

• The general public is not as concerned about the scientific issues as they are about the emotional side of the question.
• Stay out of the public “debate” arena – the other side has a head start on you, a lots more money and lawyers, and no hesitation to distort facts or to speak in half-truths.
• Work with other agricultural commodities to remove the use of the initiative procedures from complex issues of this type that affect so many of us. Farmers are always outnumbered in this game.

References
Promar International, 1737 King St, Alexandria, VA 22314
University of California Agricultural Issues Center, UC Davis, CA 95616
Initiative and Referendum website
Humane Society and PETA websites
California Ballot – State of California website
United Egg Producer’s Voices, 1720 Windward Concourse, Suite 230 Alpharetta, GA 30005

Don Bell: Honours and experience Don Bell has more than 50 years of experience in the poultry industry specializing in egg layer management, pullet rearing, economics, flock recycling, housing and equipment design, egg quality, waste management and computer applications. He was University of California’s statewide poultry specialist from 1983 until 2000 and is now the state poultry specialist emeritus. He became the economic advisor to United Egg Producers in 2001 and continues in that position. He was co-editor in chief of the Journal of Applied Poultry Research from 2001 to 2003. Bell’s research has included: studying cages for replacement pullets and laying hens looking at density, management and cage design. He also researched replacement pullet rearing carrying out economic studies and looking into labour efficiencies. His economics research includes price forecasting, cost studies and flock performance studies. He produces a monthly newsletter for the general poultry industry in addition to other writings and publications. Bell also attends and contributes to industry meetings in the U.S. and other countries. He has won a host of awards. These include: being named to the American Poultry Historical Society’s Hall of Fame in 2007, the University of California’s Distinguished Service Award in 1991and the Pacific Egg and Poultry Association Poultry Scientist of the Year Award in 1994. Bell was president of the Poultry Science Association in 1999 and has been a vice-president and director of that association. He has also served on the board of directors of the Pacific Egg and Poultry Association.