Welfare issues of waterfowl for the production of Foie Gras

Foie gras, a French term for “fat liver,” is the product of processed livers of force-fed waterfowl such as ducks and geese (Duncan, 2009). Although there are always compliments about how good foie gras tastes, such a delicious dish has very controversial issues with regards to the production process, confinement, and other animal welfare concerns. Common issues include the force-feeding procedure, the unnatural feeding regime, barren and confining housing, mortality and disease (Duncan, 2009). This paper is going to review the force-feeding procedure, which is the key to the production of foie gras, and its subsequent effects to ducks and geese that usually draws the most attention in terms of animal welfare.

Every year, the number of ducks and geese raised for production of foie gras is over 20 million in the world (Duncan, 2009). France, which is famous for foie gras, has continuously been the biggest producer of foie gras on earth (Duncan, 2009). In 2007, this very country contributed 18 million ducks and geese for the production of foie gras (Duncan, 2009). Around 80% of world production and consumption of foie gras is in France (Guémené and Guy, 2004). Quebec is the only province known to be producing foie gras in Canada, with approximately hundreds of thousands of ducks and geese raised for the product every year (Duncan, 2009).

Force-feeding is a very old technique, which can be traced back to ancient Egypt (Guémené and Guy, 2004). The earliest force-feeding procedure was found in paintings in a tomb 2500 BC which illustrate seated workers with ducks and geese hanging from their left hands, and feed for force stuffing waterfowl through the beak on right hands (Guémené and Guy, 2004). In addition, geese were the first species used to perform this procedure (Guémené and Guy, 2004). Although this old practice had been used for almost 5000 years (Guémené and Guy, 2004), the production of foie gras never got publicly questioned until 1950’s, when the equipment and the overall management changed tremendously in response to increasing demand of foie gras (Strang, 2007). This is where mass production began and consequently led to ascending awareness and concerns about waterfowl welfare.

                                    http://www.sentience.co.za/downloads/foie_gras.jpg

Geese were the only dominant species for foie gras production before twentieth century, while mule duck, and Muscovy duck are the dominant ones in this industry today (Guémené and Guy, 2004). In order to be qualified as “foie gras,” the liver of ducks and geese should weigh more than 300g (Guémené and Guy, 2004), which is six to 10 times heavier than the size of a normal duck or goose liver (Duncan, 2009). The force-feeding management can be divided into three phases, the starting period, growing period, and pre-force-feeding period (Guémené and Guy, 2004). Hourly feed restriction and quantitative feed restriction are applied for latter two periods which enhance the digestive secretions for enormous amount of food and stimulation of steatosis in the liver (Guémené and Guy, 2004). Rearing conditions are also changed in order to meet more efficient production of foie gras. Ducks and geese are confined in individual cages today, rather than kept in collective pens before (Guémené and Guy, 2004). The advantage of doing this is to avoid confusion among ducks and to ensure that they do not move (Guémené and Guy, 2004). No movement means no energy utilized therefore accelerate the rate of production. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be an advantage for ducks and geese in terms of animal welfare.

The procedures depicted above are quite stressful. In a study, based on previous finding that “stress induces a decrease in productivity,” Guémené and colleagues observed a significant decrease in body weight for all groups in their study (Guémené et al, 2001). They attributed this result to the use of individual cages, which was considered to be chronic stress for ducks and geese (Guémené et al, 2001). Corticosterone, one of avian stress hormones produced by the adrenal gland under stressful condition, is another indicator (Heath and Meneley, 2010). It is found that level of corticosterone in blood was high following a waterfowl’s initiation to being force fed and returned to normal when the waterfowl got used to the procedure (Heath and Meneley, 2010). It might be due to habituation of the procedure that make the level of corticosterone went down eventually, but it did not change the fact that ducks and geese are actually under stressful condition during force-feeding management.

Force-feeding procedure is extremely aversive experience for ducks and geese. Other than stress, force-feeding also leads to intensive resistance to the procedure, four to 20 times higher mortality rates caused by throat injuries and liver failure, as well as lack of chance to express normal behavior in individual cages (Duncan, 2009). Some recommendations are listed in Duncan’s report, which are worth mentioning. First, any feeding method should not cause stress to waterfowl. Second, any method of increasing liver size should not affect liver function and cause pain to waterfowl. Third, the housing system should be roomy enough so that it allows waterfowl to express normal behavior (Duncan, 2009). If above three conditions can be met, production of foie gras should be tolerable.

Work Cited

Duncan, I. 2009. The scientific case against foie gras. BCSPCA. http://www.spca.bc.ca/assets/documents/welfare/foie-gras/foie-gras-scientific-report.pdf

Guémené, D., G. Guy. 2004. The past, present and future of force-feeding and "foie gras" production. Worlds Poultry Science Journal. 60:210-222.

Guémené, D., G. Guy, J. Noirault, M. Garreau-Mills, P. Gouraud, J. M. Faure. 2001. Force-feeding procedure and physiological indicators of stress in male mule ducks. British Poultry Science. 42:650-657.

Heath, D., A. Meneley. 2010. The Naturecultures of Foie Gras. Food, Culture & Society. 13:421-452.

Strang, J. 2007. "Foie Gras": As Seen from Southwest France. Gastronomica. 7:64-69.

Stand up for the welfare of pregnant sows

In North America, due to high land values, environmental problems, and efficiency in handling and managing the swine breeding hers, most sows (female pigs for breeding) are kept in gestation crates during pregnancies, sometimes for life time (Hollis et al, 2010; BCSPCA, 2009). The confinement provides convenient control for producers yet raises animal welfare issues at the same time (BCSPCA, 2009). Physical injuries and mental stress are common (Karlen et al, 2007). Stillborns of piglets is another welfare issue of using gestation stalls (Oliviero et al, 2010).

Every year in Canada, there are more than 1 million sows being confined in gestation stalls throughout their pregnancies (Humane Society International/Canada, 2009). For easy management purpose, gestation crates are designed to limit movement of sows. The dimensions of the confinement are 26-28 inches in width and 7 feet in length with slight variation, which means sows are entirely restrained in the crate (BCSPCA, 2009). Sows in the confinement are able to stand, sit, and lie down; however, walking and turning around is impossible in this environment (BCSPCA, 2009). Each confined sow is able to access food and water freely without competition which happens in the group housing situation (Ontario Pork, 2011). Plus, gestation stalls help maintain relatively clean and dry environment (Ontario Pork, 2011). Individual gestation stalls are preferred to solve aggression, labor and human safety issues raised under group gestation housing conditions (Ontario Pork, 2011).

Many natural behaviors of sows such as roaming, rooting, building nests, and communications with other pigs are restricted in the gestation crate environment (BCSPCA, 2009). With restrictions of movement, health problems are common. The welfare challenges for sows confined in gestation stalls mainly occurs in later gestation period (Karlen et al, 2007). A study indicates that high incidences of lameness are always associated with the use of gestation stalls (Karlen et al, 2007). Sows in this confinement spend more time lying rather than standing, probably because of the increasing amount of injuries on feet and legs (Karlen et al, 2007). These injuries could be the result of long time standing without moving around. Due to the increasing weight of pregnant sows during gestation, as well as the difficulties of changing position in the gestation stalls, sows’ limbs are not capable of holding the body for a long time without any movement. Abrasion is another common injury to sows in the confinement (Karlen et al, 2007). This makes sense because due to the restriction of the stall, any attempts to stand up or lie down is more likely to cause physical contact with the metal bars and floor slats, which makes sows more susceptible to the injuries.

The study also indicates that the neutrophil: lymphocyte ratio increases among sows confined in stalls, which is an indicator that animals may have been under stress (Karlen et al, 2007). This is not a good sign because stress and food safety are related (Morrow, 2010). Stressful sows that are kept in modern housing have higher opportunity shedding pathogens like Salmonella and Campylobatcter species into the environment (Morrow, 2010). In the context of sows kept in gestation sows, they have chance shedding pathogens and pass them on to piglets after farrowing. This increases the risk of causing a food safety issue later, because the infected piglets are raised for meat for humans to consume.

Gestation stalls also affect the duration of farrowing for sows. Compared to farrowing pens which have average time of 212±152 minutes, gestation stalls (described as farrowing crates in the study, but in fact gestation stalls judging by dimensions of the confinement) average 301±165 minutes on duration of farrowing (Oliviero et al, 2010). According to the same study, a short duration of farrowing is crucial for piglet survival, because longer the farrowing time, higher the chance of stillborn would occur (Oliviero et al, 2010). This could be the result of the design of gestation stalls which offer very limited space so that sows are not even able to move when they are farrowing. Without movement, piglets are not stimulated to move along inside the sows’ body, so stillborn might occur due to lack of oxygen.

Some European countries such as United Kingdom, Sweden, and The Netherlands have already forbidden the use of gestation stalls for confining pregnant sows at any stage or partial period of sow reproduction (CCFA, 2011). In the United States, there are also seven states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan and Oregon) have already agreed to progressively phase out the use of gestation crates (CCFA, 2011). At the same time, a European Union-wide legislative ban on use of gestation stalls will be in effect in 2013 (CCFA, 2011). There is an increasing awareness of sow welfare and an increasing trend of protecting them globally. Canada is also in action. A campaign with regards to phase out the use of sow stalls has been recently launched by Canadians for Ethical Treatment of Food Animals (CETFA) and the Canadian Coalition for Farm Animals (CCFA) in Manitoba, requesting to phase out the use of such confinement (CCFA, 2011).

Gestation crates provide very limited space for pregnant sows. The confinement is popular because they provide producers good control of each individual sow (BCSPCA, 2009). However, it raises animal welfare issue such as physical injuries, mental stress, as well as stillborns of piglets (Oliviero et al, 2010). Some European countries have already banned the use of gestation stalls (CCFA, 2011). Unfortunately, most producers in North America are still using this confinement for their sows (Humane Society International/Canada, 2009).

if humans can bear with keeping this position for months during the pregnancy, I guess sows wouldn't mind doing the same thing then...

Work Cited

BCSPCA. 2009. The Welfare of Pigs in Canada. The British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. http://cfhs.ca/files/bc_spca_factsheet_pig_welfare.pdf

CCFA. 2011. Sow stalls – a mother’s dismal hell: Farm animal welfare groups call for an end to sow stalls in Manitoba . http://www.humanefood.ca/news_end_sow_stalls.html

Hollis, G. R., L. B. Driggers, A. J. Muehling, G. R. Carlisle. 2010. Condinement sow gestation and boar housing. Pork industry handbook. 2:94-98.

Humane Society International/Canada. 2009. Gestation crates in Canada. http://www.hsi.org/issues/farm_animal_confinement/facts/gestation_crates_020509.html

Karlen, G. A. M., P. H. Hemsworth, H. W. Gonyou, E. Fabrega, A. D. Strom, R. J. Smits. 2007. The welfare of gestating sows in conventional stalls and large groups on deep litter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 105:87-101.

Morrow, J. 2010. Swine stress and pathogen shedding. Pork industry handbook. 1:393-395.

Oliviero, C., M. Heinonen, A. Valros, O. Peltoniemi. 2010. Environmental and sow-related factors affecting the duration of farrowing. Animal reproduction science. 119:85-91.

Ontario pork. White paper on sow housing. 2011. http://www.ontariopork.on.ca/Portals/0/Docs/Communications/Presentations/sowhousing_whitepaper_2011webFINAL.pdf



Food, Inc.: care for food?

Food, Inc.

The film's first segment examines the industrial production of meat (chicken, beef, and pork), calling it inhumane and economically and environmentally unsustainable. The second segment looks at the industrial production of grains and vegetables (primarily corn and soy beans), again labeling this economically and environmentally unsustainable. The film's third and final segment is about the economic and legal power, such as food libel laws of the major food companies, the profits of which are based on supplying cheap but contaminated food, the heavy use of petroleum-based chemicals (largely pesticides and fertilizers), and the promotion of unhealthy food consumption habits by the American public. It shows companies like Wal-Mart transitioning towards organic foods as that industry is booming in the recent health movement.                                                              –Wikipedia

Wow, wow, wow, are we in danger by consuming products from the supermarket? If that’s true, I don’t see any chance that we can change it, because bread is the staff of life. Without food, people cannot survive. If food is truly not safe, then I guess we ARE in danger, and each of us is committing chronic suicide.
When I was watching the trailer of the film, I realized what this film was about after I hear a producer saying “smells like money to me.” Yes, it is about an unbalanced market between money and human health. I believe this is due to the supply and demand issue in the market. The supply and demand are originally in equilibrium in the food market. However, since the population is increasing every year, the demand for food is increasing accordingly. The market cannot stay in unbalanced situation for too long. Producers have to react to the situation. I believe they love to increase the supply, because more demands means more profits. Therefore products that are easier and faster to grow have emerged. The market has finally been balanced again, but what we are consuming has changed a lot since then.

However, the question about this film is, to what extent, does this film reveal the truth? Is this film all about criticizing the food market? Does this film reveal anything good about the food market? Although I want to believe everything in this film, if it’s all talking about downside of the food market and nothing good about it, it’s hard for me to buy it completely. I still believe there is something good about food market. It’s like with the existence of the Joker, we always have Batman; but with the existence of Superman, we also have kryptonite.

The last thing I want to talk about is the food industry back in my country, China. I have no idea how threatening the “Food, Inc.” is going to be in terms of unhealthy matters to humans, but I can assure you the food problem in China, which I’m very worried about, is way worse than the situation in North America. Have you heard of toxic milk powder, fake eggs, and swill-cooked dirty oil? They are chilling!!