permaculture

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lfl@intrex.net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] Free Range Birds and Avian Flu
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 05:08:32 -0500
From: Lucy Goodman <goodows@INFINET.COM>
Reply-To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group 
<SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
To: SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU
References: <1ec.4702ba1f.30ba512f@aol.com>

I really worry about the Government's reaction to bird flu and pastured
flocks. I live in Ohio and already the ODA has stated that they think
the problem will come from pastured flocks, not confined flocks. Though
i agree with Alan that the pastured flocks tend to be far more healthy
and would likely be able to with stand this virus than birds that are
caged and drugged.

But the people in control who have the money and have the caged birds do
not agree with the thesis that the last place one will likely find avian
flu is in pastured flocks and they hold huge sway over how the depts of
Ag around the USA (and the world) will set policy.

And it looks like the confinement folks are winning this without the aid
of logic or defining the problem. Instead they are using the arguments
of fear. And if they win, they may or may not stem the potential of this
avian flu making headway with domestic flocks and than mutating so it
can now pass from human to human but they will succeed in greatly
lessening the numbers of pastured flocks around the country. Why?
because our government has been known to overreact to such events and I
predict if we get even one positive bird kept in pasture management in
Ohio all the known flocks will be tested, found "positive"and
dispatched. This will do great harm to many small diversified farms.

But the other thing that may happen (already is actually as I saw this
on the local news) is a whisper campaign occurs, suggesting that perhaps
pastured/free range birds are full of disease and should not be eaten at
all. This could, by next season, if done correctly, pretty much destroy
markets that us small diversified farmers have spend years, if not
decades, cultivating. This would be bad for the small farmers but great
for the corporations who think they would get their business back.

All this has me questioning whether or not I should invest in a laying
flock this coming spring. I have not had hens in over 3 years and now
that I have bought a farm I was thinking 2006 is the year to get things
restarted. A young gardener/sustainable ag activist in my area calls me
a cop-out for even thinking of not having pastured hens. But, than
again, she does not own her land nor have the responsibility of a
mortgage nor does she grow for a living (she says she will be there in a
few years...) so it is easy for her to say I am copping out in the face
of the ODA. She isn't thinking about the financial loss I would have if
the state took my flock (oh sure, they would reimburse but probably
would pay me what they would pay for conventionally raised battary hens
which is less than what the pastured hens are worth). It would likely
erode my customer base and do bad things to my bottom line but because
my farm is predominately a veggie farm it would not put me out of
business. But I have friends that would be badly hurt by the state
freaking out and using draconian measures to "stop" bird flu.

As Alan has stated there is a good way and a bad way to go about this
problem but I fear the governments are going to take the bad way.

Lucy Goodman
Boulder Belt Farm
Eaton, OH
Website
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/boulderbeltcsa
Farm Blog
http://www.boulerbelt.blogspot.com




Aquatfs@AOL.COM wrote:
> The problem of Avian Flu is an opportunity for us to stop and ask some 
> very basic questions. Firstly, why does the pathogenic virus manifest in 
> the first place? Little importance is given to the conditions that 
> result in the creation of the virus. A lot of attention is given to 
> exposure avoidance and eradication once the virus manifests. As many 
> have stated throughout history, it is not the virus that we should focus 
> on, but rather, the condition of the birds or people that manifest the 
> virus. What is it about these birds or humans that created a fertile 
> environment for the virus? This question must be explored not just from 
> an exposure avoidance perspective but from a health building perspective.
>  
> The crux of the matter is in defining pathogens as either endemic and 
> "naturally" occurring, or the result of corrupted husbandry 
> practices and an immunosuppresive environment. If you accept the first 
> model, it is easy to absolve anyone of being responsible for being the 
> source(s) of the pathogen. Also, it implies that battling the pathogen 
> is the right thing to do. A small fly in the ointment is the fact that 
> battling the pathogen at every turn results in an endless string of 
> mutations and new pathogens. Battles are supposedly won but the war 
> never ends. Out of profit motives and fear of exposure to the pathogens, 
> farm animals continue to be subjected to intensive husbandry practices 
> that are focused more on growth rates, feed conversions, and stocking 
> densities in an environment that is now akin to a P4 biohazard site. The 
> boogie man comes from outside so do everything possible to cut off the 
> animals from contact with the outside world. Of course, corrupted 
> husbandry practices are not exclusively the domain of intensive 
> operations as it is possible to rear only one animal in an unhealthy manner.
>  
> One of the biggest problems is in defining what a healthy bird or human 
> is. Does health come from within or without? Does disease come from 
> within or without? I would suggest that health is a natural outcome of 
> allowing a bird or human to grow in an environment and in a manner in 
> which health can be achieved without disease intervention (of course 
> this is an inevitable requirement until we get it right). This does not 
> involve isolation from the natural world.
>  
> Given the manner in which the government and industry have framed the 
> Avian flu problem, it would be easy to conclude that all birds should be 
> reared in a confined environment because the disease can only come from 
> external exposure. The extension to this is that all free range or 
> outdoor operations should be shut down because those birds will be 
> sitting ducks (pun intended) for bird flu. If exposure defines disease, 
> then the argument is easy to defend. If bird health defines 
> susceptibility to disease, the argument could fall apart if there is a 
> correlation between bird health (drug free that is) and husbandry methods.
>  
> We need to even the playing field and get a true assessment of the 
> health of birds grown intensively for maximum weight gain / growth rate 
> / stocking density and minimum feed conversion using chemicals and 
> therapeutants versus birds grown for optimal health without disease 
> fighting agents. Let's call a one year moratorium on the use of 
> chemicals, drugs, and therapeutants. Then let's take a bird from each 
> rearing method and expose them to the avian flu and see what happens. I 
> suspect that intensively reared birds will do poorly. I also suspect 
> that there is too broad a range of practices that fall into the category 
> of free range / organic and that some of these birds would do poorly as 
> well. However, I also suspect that birds that are truly reared for 
> optimal health will survive the test. Perhaps we can finally vindicate 
> Antoine Bechamp and focus more on rearing methods that focus on health 
> and less on battling "external" disease. 
>  
> Alan Ismond, P.Eng.
> Aqua-Terra Consultants