Food for Thought

One occupation hazard in journalism is seeing old research figures being used by campaigning bodies to prove a point. But it seems to be getting out of hand.

First we had the Soil Association publishing a press release at the end of January claiming that new DEFRA-funded research revealed that salmonella levels are over five times higher in intensive eggs than those from organic flocks.

But on closer inspection, the claims were based on a paper published in Vet Record back in October 2007 from a survey carried out in 2004-2005.

A lot has happened since 2005 practically making the findings void. One notable change is that the egg sector is actively testing and monitoring flocks for the presence of salmonella under new zoonoses rules that came into effect on Feb 1. If found, producers face having to heat treat eggs before they can enter the food chain, resulting in intensive producers going to even greater lengths to eliminate salmonella.

And then BBC was at it on 6 February on its "BBC Ten O'Clock News" programme. The second item focused on “new” research findings that show that more than one-quarter of broiler chickens have difficulty walking as result of their high growth rates.

The egg sector is only five years away from the 2012 EU cage ban, which will see 280 million hens re-housed in alternative systems such as free range and enriched cages.

So it was surprising to receive a press release today from a group of European research institutes outlining a new £3.1m (€4.6m) EU project looking into whether eggs produced in alternative systems have a lower hygienic quality. It will also develop new approaches to improve microbial safety in these alternative production systems.

This is because the move to alternative systems has raised fears of a resurgence of food-borne infections because of possible contact between eggs and litter, which can contain pathogens.

It is due to report in three years time, which only leaves two years to implement any measures if needed. So does this mean the new cage rules are not based on science, as many in the industry have for long suspected?

Surely this work should have been carried out years ago. New rules that aim to improve bird welfare could in fact have an impact on egg quality.

A magazine for members of the trade union Prospect has just come across my desk and includes a rather funny story about government vets.

The article explains that Animal Health, the government agency which used to be called the State Veterinary Service, has banned staff from taking their dogs with them while working. The agency claims to be acting in the interests of animal welfare, after an incident in one of its car parks when a dog was spotted locked up on a hot day.

This has left vets like Teresa Excell with a huge problem. She's been taking her dog Muffin in the car with her for the past 11 years, but now she has to find someone to look after him during the day.

Prospect reports that the ban has so incensed some vets that they are on the verge of resigning and I can see why. If you can't trust a vet to look after an animal, who can you trust?

Fed up of stock being able to find any hole in the fence or hedge? Well how about a virtual barrier? I’ve picked up this interesting snippet which suggest that wireless fences could be the way forward. Fence boundaries are defined using a GPS system and a specially designed collar alerts the animal to the fact that it has reached the “fence”. A prototype of the system has now been successfully demonstrated on a herd of cattle in Australia.

Shambo, that steer (that's right it's not a bull) held as a sacred animal by some Hindus in wales, that tested positive for bovine TB has his own webcam, click here to see, as you'll see it's only marginally more interesting than watching the cheese cam.

Watchers will note how clean Shambo is, but also that he must be bored stiff (if farmyard animals ever get bored that is).

If there is one subject that gets farmers going it tends to be the issue of vegetarianism.

Wales had a vegetarian farm minister called Christine Gwyther a while back and there was absolute uproar.

So I can't see a new report called, Why it is Green to go Vegetarian, going down too well.

Produced by the Vegetarian Society, it suggests:

The digestive systems of farmed cows and sheep are responsible for 37% of the total methane generated by human activity; this gas has 23 times the global warming impact of CO2.

Livestock production is responsible for 70% of the Amazon deforestation in Latin America

I also can't see the fact that the NFU has a plug for National Vegetarian Week on its website going down too well either...

An agreement by EU farm ministers to set new welfare rules for broiler hens, including a maximum stocking density of 39kg live birds/m sq, has triggered a predictably mixed response.
EU food safety commissioner Markos Kyprianou, who initiated the Directive, said it would "result in better animal welfare across Europe".
But Peter Stevenson of Compassion in World Farming said it did nothing to prevent intensive poultry production which caused unnecessary suffering to billions of chickens every year.
Junior DEFRA minister Ben Bradshaw, who voted in favour of the Directive, said it "sends a strong message that we care about animal welfare".
But Conservative MEP Neil Parish, who chairs the European parliament's agriculture committee, said it was "a missed opportunity" to impose even tougher standards.
Whatever one's welfare perspective or political starting point, there can be no doubting that having a pan-European set of rules is better than having no Directive at all.
That's not to suggest there were no rules before. Directives governing the treatment of farm animals, their transport and their slaughter already apply to EU broiler production. But this new Directive serves to bring them all together and add the conditions on stocking density.
For UK broiler producers it will make little difference. As the British Poultry Council points out, most UK producers already operate at 38kg/m sq under existing farm assurance schemes.
It's also true to say that stocking rates are just one part of the equation. Feeding, watering, handling, ventilation, temperature control and litter proviosion are all equally important - and these are all covered by the new Directive.
There are real reasons to be concerned, however.
First, the new Directive does not apply to imports. There is every likelihood that processors in particular will turn to suppliers from South America and South-east Asia, who can produce poultry meat at a fraction of the cost, without the welfare guarantees.
Second, the UK government may chose to "goldplate" the EU legislation. The fact it is a Directive rather than a regulation means there is plenty of scope for DEFRA to apply its own interpretation.
Third, the major retailers may also impose tougher conditions on their contracted suppliers, pushing up costs for no extra margin.
Once again UK producers could find themselves disadvantaged, despite the EU Commission's best attempt to harmonise the business environment.