A performance review of the Australian Egg Corporation is currently underway as part of the requirements of the Statutory Funding Agreement (SFA) between AECL and the Australian Government. An independent performance review must be undertaken of AECL's strategies, plans, governance, investments, programs and consultation since 2007.
The Corporation (which is a private company) has appointed the services of AgEconPlus Pty Ltd to undertake the review. As part of this review the principle consultant, Michael Clarke, has been contacting egg producers to seek their views on the operations and results of AECL.
If any egg producers wish to make their views known on how they think AECLhas performed in recent years, speak to Michael on (02) 9817 5888 or email him on info@ageconplus.com.au
I have already had discussions with him - particularly about AECL's lack of representation of the free range sector, the proposed new 'free range' standard, and the need for the free range industry to receive funding directly from the chick levy for promotional purposes
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Friday, March 04, 2011
New flock of pullets
While we were unloading the young hens into the sheds it starting raining (of course) - so once we had finished, the delivery ute and trailer had to be towed out of the paddock by our trusty Chinese tractor. The grass was just too wet for the ute to get enough traction.
The youngsters will help to build up our business now that Anne has time to work on the farm full time. It will be more productive than beating her head against a wall, which is what she has been doing in the last year or so working for Trust for Nature.
The Trust was great in the early years, but it has lost its way in recent times and it's now anyone's guess if it will survive.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
A busy day on the farm
I think I'll have a coffee now and go to bed to watch some DVD's of the old Avengers TV series!
At least our egg production is holding up well and we don't have any problems meeting all the orders. We don't have a market this weekend so with a bit of luck I should be able to cruise for the next couple of days.
Anne retires from her part time job with Trust for Nature this week, so she will on the farm full time which will make things considerably easier and should mean that we can get our veggie garden back in shape. It has been sadly neglected for the past year or so.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Chooks and predators
When I was down in our bottom paddock collecting eggs this afternoon, the chooks kicked up a hellava commotion and I emerged from the laying shed to see what was going on. There was a young fox sneaking up to the electranet fence. It was only about 20 yards from Bella, the Maremma who protects that flock but she was busy cleaning herself and hadn't seen the potential intruder.
When I yelled, she jumped up and the fox shot off into the bush. She seemed to be ashamed that the fox had come so close.
But as I was going back to the grading room, I could hear one of our other flocks going berserk - and I thought 'Oh no, another fox'. But when I got close, I could see a brown falcon sitting on the roof of their shed. It was presumably waiting for mice as I moved that shed yesterday and I had noticed what appeared to be a mouse nest.
The falcon flew off slowly as I approached and swooped over me- so I believe it was probably one that we had raised in the wildife shelter and released last year.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Will this be another bodgy 'free range' deal?
It's not known what this project is being desinged to achieve but we hope it's not just another scam to con consumers.
"The Free Range Eggs project aims to develop an agribusiness framework, which will result in the establishment of a free range table egg production precinct within the Loddon Shire," said Deputy Premier the Hon Peter Ryan.
"The framework will allow broadacre farmers and former dairy farmers to branch out into egg production through an integrated supply chain and facilitate the investment of at least $7 million into the region," Mr Ryan added.
The Free Range Farmers Assocation and our national body, the Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia, would like to be involved in planning this project to ensure it results in genuine free range production and is not yet another promotion of intensive factory systems masquerading as free range. We have written to Loddon Shire and the Deputy Premier for more information.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Egg Corporation still pushing its 'free range' barrow
The Australian Egg Corporation Ltd (AECL) set a time bomb ticking when it revealed plans for new egg industry production definitions and standards in the middle of 2010.
Few egg farmers and no consumers, were aware of the implications of draft proposals which were first revealed in a series of industry workshops which started to trundle around the country in May.
The notification to AECL members simply referred to production systems and labelling workshops and read:
Based on results obtained from AECL’s recent consumer research, workshops will be held for Australian egg producers to discuss current challenges that are confronting our industry, potential resolutions to the misconceptions held by the general public and proactive measures that could be adopted by the egg industry.
The key issues to be discussed include:
· Awareness, and definitions of egg production methods, and how this relates to purchasing habits;
· Integrity & ethics of egg producers and egg production;
· Perceptions of on-pack labelling and production/brand statements made by egg producers;
· Attitudes toward bird husbandry practices (actual and perceived);
· Significance and value of a robust Quality Assurance scheme.
There was no mention in any of the notices sent out by by AECL that new draft standards had been prepared and would be presented at those meetings.
The standards revealed for cage and barn egg production showed little change and have caused no comment. But the draft standards drawn up for 'free range' production galvanised the industry into action and sparked a request to Federal Agriculture Minister Senator Joe Ludwig to establish a clear national definition for 'free range' egg production.
At the core of the proposed changes was a seemingly innocuous proposal. Allowing a stocking density of one to two chickens per hectare.
The reality was that the proposal took the current maximum allowed by The Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry version 4 from 1500 birds per hectare to a potential 20,000. At this figure, the nutrient load would be likely to have significant off-site impacts and would not be environmentally sustainable.
The Australian Egg Corporation claimed that it had conducted consumer research involving 5000 people which demonstrated that egg buyers were happy with the higher stocking density – but has refused to supply details of the questions and the methodology used in its survey.
From the limited information which AECL has revealed, it seems that selected consumers were provided with an electronic device which showed a patch of green, and by moving a cursor, were able to select the number of chickens which they felt was suitable as a stocking density on that patch of green.
There was no attempt to select consumers who were existing buyers of free range eggs, in fact there was a clear bias to ensure that free range egg purchasers were a small minority of the sample.
Since the Egg Corporation survey, the Free Range Farmers Association Inc. conducted its own survey of consumers who actually bought free range eggs. The results demonstrated complete opposition to the AECL proposal.
Information was sought from consumers on-line and face to face with customers at Farmers' Markets attended by members of the Free Range Farmers Association during July and August 2010.
The responses were to the statement:
The Australian Egg Corporation has revealed plans to change 'free range' standards to allow egg farms to beak trim their hens and to increase the maximum farm stocking density to 20,000 chickens per hectare. We believe that the maximum stocking density should remain at 1500 chickens per hectare and that beak trimming should be prohibited in free range flocks.
As sponsor of the on-line survey, FRFA also had the following statement on the survey site:
We are a group of free range egg farmers with strict standards - such as a stocking density of just 750 chickens per hectare, a maximum of 1000 birds per shed and de-beaking (or beak trimming) is prohibited.
All signatories disagreed that the draft standard reflected their views of the term 'free range' and believed that the proposal was unacceptable
Precise information was not gathered about all participants in the survey but the overwhelming majority were regular purchasers of free range eggs. More than 1000 responded to the survey at Farmers' Markets while they were purchasing eggs.
The results of the consumer survey were sent to the Egg Corporation and to Senator Joe Ludwig, to demonstrate clear opposition to the proposed labelling changes but there has been no indication that the Australian Egg Corporation is having second thoughts.
The latest comment on the issue from James Kellaway, Managing Director of the Egg Corporation was that he expected the new stocking density level to come into effect by January 2011. (Now he says April 2011)
He made the statement in November to UK publications Farmers Weekly and Poultry World.
In the same article, Mr Kellaway insulted existing free range farmers by suggesting that they were not commercial. He said that he “didn't believe producers working to the current stocking density could be commercially viable.
"The stocking rate needs to be high enough so it is achievable, but low enough that it is clearly differentiated from the other two standards,barn and cage. It needs to be obtainable on a commercial scale."
There are many existing commercial free range egg farmers in Australia who are perfectly happy with the stocking density limits imposed by the Model Code and restrictions on de-beaking or beak trimming birds.
It is true that some accredited free range farms are small operations with less than 1000 laying hens, but that doesn't mean they are not commercial. There are others throughout Australia with up to 80,000 birds, providing significant employment in their local communities. On any test they are commercial farms designed to operate as businesses.
There is no link between commercial egg production and the stocking levels being pursued by the Australian Egg Corporation. The only driver for this proposal is the demand by major cage egg producers who want to branch out into a form of 'free range' production which will enable them to capture higher prices from consumers without the additional costs of genuine free range production.
Supermarkets such as Coles have added to this clamour by announcing a phasing out of its home brand cage eggs and a cut in the price of its home brand 'free range' product.
The industry believes that consumers will be seriously misled if stocking density limits are raised significantly and have called for any intensive production system which does not meet the current standard to be labelled as 'cage free' or barn laid rather than misuse the term 'free range'.
In preparing its draft standard, AECL has ignored its own environmental guidelines for egg farms which were released two years ago.
The guidelines state:
6.3. Stocking Density
In accordance with the Egg Corp Assured Program and the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry 4th Edition, the egg industry has agreed maximum stocking densities for birds.
Management practices include:
Not stocking birds at densities exceeding those prescribed in the Code.
Not stocking birds at densities exceeding those prescribed in any relevant state regulations. This is a mandatory requirement.
Consider reducing stocking densities below the mandatory requirements if the specific conditions on the farm don’t allow the prescribed densities to be used without unacceptable impacts on bird health and welfare or the environment.
Sales of free range eggs have jumped from around 15% to 28% in just a couple of years demonstrating a huge consumer swing towards the free range sector.
The rapid increase in demand has already led to problems with the current system but the proposed changes will make it worse.
Revelations in August this year by the respected industry body, the Poultry Co-operative Research Centre, that the term 'free range' didn't mean what people thought, shocked some in the industry. But it merely confirmed what many of us had been complaining about for years.
A project about enriching the range area for free range birds showed that on average, only 9% of birds on free range farms actually used the range area. The rest simply stayed in their sheds. http://www.poultryhub.org/index.php/EChook_News/Enriching_the_range_to_reduce_feather_pecking
The CRC revelation sparked some debate, and was probably one of the reasons for Egg Corporation MD James Kellaway to tell The Land publication in December that allowing increased stocking densities on free range farms would 'improve' industry standards.
In the article Mr Kellaway revealed that some 'free range' egg producers currently have a stocking density of 50,000 birds per hectare. And he claimed that the majority of egg producers believed introducing the 20,000 cap early next year would improve industry standards, not make them worse.
"We need to moderate the whole process and take into account the science effectively clipping the wings of those producers who are currently running with inappropriate numbers” he said.
"We don’t want open slather, but we don’t want to disenfranchise producers who are being put under increasing pressure to produce eggs at lowest possible costs.”
The industry believes that if the Egg Corp is aware of any farms breaching the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry, to the extent claimed (the Code stipulates a maximum stocking density of 1500 birds per hectare) it has an obligation to report those farms to the ACCC and to the relevant State authorities.
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/stocking-rate-cap-for-freerange-hens/2016077.aspx
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/egg-fight-comes-to-boil/2022395.aspx
Push to re-allocate funding for free range promotion
The national Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia Inc. and the Victorian-based Free Range Farmers Association Inc. have both written to Federal Agriculture Minister Senator Joe Ludwig, asking him to change legislation to better promote free range egg production.
Currently a levy is collected from all egg farmers under the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 for industry promotion and the money is handed to the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd.
The free range bodies have asked the Minister to amend the Act to allow the portion of funds collected from free range producers to be allocated specifically for the promotion of free range eggs.
“We have no confidence that the AECL has any interest in representing the interests of the free range egg industry,” said Phil Westwood, President of the Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia.
“The AECL's preparation of a draft 'free range' standard ignores experience overseas and in this country. We have found nowhere in the world where a free range stocking density of more than 2000 laying hens per hectare is allowed, and the unacceptable proposal demonstrates that the AECL is out of touch with the industry.” he added.
Few egg farmers and no consumers, were aware of the implications of draft proposals which were first revealed in a series of industry workshops which started to trundle around the country in May.
The notification to AECL members simply referred to production systems and labelling workshops and read:
Based on results obtained from AECL’s recent consumer research, workshops will be held for Australian egg producers to discuss current challenges that are confronting our industry, potential resolutions to the misconceptions held by the general public and proactive measures that could be adopted by the egg industry.
The key issues to be discussed include:
· Awareness, and definitions of egg production methods, and how this relates to purchasing habits;
· Integrity & ethics of egg producers and egg production;
· Perceptions of on-pack labelling and production/brand statements made by egg producers;
· Attitudes toward bird husbandry practices (actual and perceived);
· Significance and value of a robust Quality Assurance scheme.
There was no mention in any of the notices sent out by by AECL that new draft standards had been prepared and would be presented at those meetings.
The standards revealed for cage and barn egg production showed little change and have caused no comment. But the draft standards drawn up for 'free range' production galvanised the industry into action and sparked a request to Federal Agriculture Minister Senator Joe Ludwig to establish a clear national definition for 'free range' egg production.
At the core of the proposed changes was a seemingly innocuous proposal. Allowing a stocking density of one to two chickens per hectare.
The reality was that the proposal took the current maximum allowed by The Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry version 4 from 1500 birds per hectare to a potential 20,000. At this figure, the nutrient load would be likely to have significant off-site impacts and would not be environmentally sustainable.
The Australian Egg Corporation claimed that it had conducted consumer research involving 5000 people which demonstrated that egg buyers were happy with the higher stocking density – but has refused to supply details of the questions and the methodology used in its survey.
From the limited information which AECL has revealed, it seems that selected consumers were provided with an electronic device which showed a patch of green, and by moving a cursor, were able to select the number of chickens which they felt was suitable as a stocking density on that patch of green.
There was no attempt to select consumers who were existing buyers of free range eggs, in fact there was a clear bias to ensure that free range egg purchasers were a small minority of the sample.
Since the Egg Corporation survey, the Free Range Farmers Association Inc. conducted its own survey of consumers who actually bought free range eggs. The results demonstrated complete opposition to the AECL proposal.
Information was sought from consumers on-line and face to face with customers at Farmers' Markets attended by members of the Free Range Farmers Association during July and August 2010.
The responses were to the statement:
The Australian Egg Corporation has revealed plans to change 'free range' standards to allow egg farms to beak trim their hens and to increase the maximum farm stocking density to 20,000 chickens per hectare. We believe that the maximum stocking density should remain at 1500 chickens per hectare and that beak trimming should be prohibited in free range flocks.
As sponsor of the on-line survey, FRFA also had the following statement on the survey site:
We are a group of free range egg farmers with strict standards - such as a stocking density of just 750 chickens per hectare, a maximum of 1000 birds per shed and de-beaking (or beak trimming) is prohibited.
On-line and paper-based survey results
On-line survey signatories 2396
Paper survey signatories 1254
TOTAL 3650
All signatories disagreed that the draft standard reflected their views of the term 'free range' and believed that the proposal was unacceptable
Precise information was not gathered about all participants in the survey but the overwhelming majority were regular purchasers of free range eggs. More than 1000 responded to the survey at Farmers' Markets while they were purchasing eggs.
The results of the consumer survey were sent to the Egg Corporation and to Senator Joe Ludwig, to demonstrate clear opposition to the proposed labelling changes but there has been no indication that the Australian Egg Corporation is having second thoughts.
The latest comment on the issue from James Kellaway, Managing Director of the Egg Corporation was that he expected the new stocking density level to come into effect by January 2011. (Now he says April 2011)
He made the statement in November to UK publications Farmers Weekly and Poultry World.
In the same article, Mr Kellaway insulted existing free range farmers by suggesting that they were not commercial. He said that he “didn't believe producers working to the current stocking density could be commercially viable.
"The stocking rate needs to be high enough so it is achievable, but low enough that it is clearly differentiated from the other two standards,barn and cage. It needs to be obtainable on a commercial scale."
There are many existing commercial free range egg farmers in Australia who are perfectly happy with the stocking density limits imposed by the Model Code and restrictions on de-beaking or beak trimming birds.
It is true that some accredited free range farms are small operations with less than 1000 laying hens, but that doesn't mean they are not commercial. There are others throughout Australia with up to 80,000 birds, providing significant employment in their local communities. On any test they are commercial farms designed to operate as businesses.
There is no link between commercial egg production and the stocking levels being pursued by the Australian Egg Corporation. The only driver for this proposal is the demand by major cage egg producers who want to branch out into a form of 'free range' production which will enable them to capture higher prices from consumers without the additional costs of genuine free range production.
Supermarkets such as Coles have added to this clamour by announcing a phasing out of its home brand cage eggs and a cut in the price of its home brand 'free range' product.
The industry believes that consumers will be seriously misled if stocking density limits are raised significantly and have called for any intensive production system which does not meet the current standard to be labelled as 'cage free' or barn laid rather than misuse the term 'free range'.
In preparing its draft standard, AECL has ignored its own environmental guidelines for egg farms which were released two years ago.
The guidelines state:
6.3. Stocking Density
In accordance with the Egg Corp Assured Program and the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry 4th Edition, the egg industry has agreed maximum stocking densities for birds.
Management practices include:
Not stocking birds at densities exceeding those prescribed in the Code.
Not stocking birds at densities exceeding those prescribed in any relevant state regulations. This is a mandatory requirement.
Consider reducing stocking densities below the mandatory requirements if the specific conditions on the farm don’t allow the prescribed densities to be used without unacceptable impacts on bird health and welfare or the environment.
Sales of free range eggs have jumped from around 15% to 28% in just a couple of years demonstrating a huge consumer swing towards the free range sector.
The rapid increase in demand has already led to problems with the current system but the proposed changes will make it worse.
Revelations in August this year by the respected industry body, the Poultry Co-operative Research Centre, that the term 'free range' didn't mean what people thought, shocked some in the industry. But it merely confirmed what many of us had been complaining about for years.
A project about enriching the range area for free range birds showed that on average, only 9% of birds on free range farms actually used the range area. The rest simply stayed in their sheds. http://www.poultryhub.org/index.php/EChook_News/Enriching_the_range_to_reduce_feather_pecking
The CRC revelation sparked some debate, and was probably one of the reasons for Egg Corporation MD James Kellaway to tell The Land publication in December that allowing increased stocking densities on free range farms would 'improve' industry standards.
In the article Mr Kellaway revealed that some 'free range' egg producers currently have a stocking density of 50,000 birds per hectare. And he claimed that the majority of egg producers believed introducing the 20,000 cap early next year would improve industry standards, not make them worse.
"We need to moderate the whole process and take into account the science effectively clipping the wings of those producers who are currently running with inappropriate numbers” he said.
"We don’t want open slather, but we don’t want to disenfranchise producers who are being put under increasing pressure to produce eggs at lowest possible costs.”
The industry believes that if the Egg Corp is aware of any farms breaching the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry, to the extent claimed (the Code stipulates a maximum stocking density of 1500 birds per hectare) it has an obligation to report those farms to the ACCC and to the relevant State authorities.
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/stocking-rate-cap-for-freerange-hens/2016077.aspx
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/egg-fight-comes-to-boil/2022395.aspx
Push to re-allocate funding for free range promotion
The national Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia Inc. and the Victorian-based Free Range Farmers Association Inc. have both written to Federal Agriculture Minister Senator Joe Ludwig, asking him to change legislation to better promote free range egg production.
Currently a levy is collected from all egg farmers under the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 for industry promotion and the money is handed to the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd.
The free range bodies have asked the Minister to amend the Act to allow the portion of funds collected from free range producers to be allocated specifically for the promotion of free range eggs.
“We have no confidence that the AECL has any interest in representing the interests of the free range egg industry,” said Phil Westwood, President of the Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia.
“The AECL's preparation of a draft 'free range' standard ignores experience overseas and in this country. We have found nowhere in the world where a free range stocking density of more than 2000 laying hens per hectare is allowed, and the unacceptable proposal demonstrates that the AECL is out of touch with the industry.” he added.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Food Labelling Review calls for agreed 'free range' standards
The Food Labelling Law and Policy Review, headed by Dr Neil Blewett called for submissions in October 2009 to identify issues that the public would like to be considered as part of the Review, and people were asked to provide data, evidence and/or documentation to support their views.
The Results of the Review have just been published.
The desire to make food purchasing decisions based on ethical convictions and personal values by consumers has brought another dimension to the food labelling debate. The Review Panel recognised that consumers feel strongly about the origins of their food from the huge number of submissions that were received.
Consumer values issues such as animal welfare and the environment were raised in a large number of submissions. Issues such as free range and organic were categorized by the panel as specific consumer value issues. The very narrowness of these claims means that they lend themselves more easily to precise and agreed definitions.
The Panel has taken the view that where specific values issues are concerned, it may be advantageous to develop a prescriptive definitional framework to ensure a level playing field. However, self-regulatory measures may need to be introduced or escalated to ensure that the consumer is provided with consistent and accurate information and not polished positive claims made by unscrupulous suppliers and producers.
A range of regulatory mechanisms, in particular of the self- regulatory kind, can cater to the nature of the values issues and structures of the markets. These include voluntary codes of practice, certification, agreed standards or mandated requirements. All have differing levels of consumer acceptance. Governance conditions, compliance levels and effective enforcement also differ with each.
Voluntary Codes of Practice arise mainly though industry agreement but this will only work if there is a unified industry view. If adoption and compliance is variable it could undermine consumer confidence in voluntary codes.
Another option is Certification. Certification schemes involve the use of a values claim eg. Pasture raised, linked to an accreditation program. This is a particularly useful way of tackling generalised value issues. Certification can provide certain marketing advantages, but consumer confidence will depend on their trust in the endorsing organisation and its capacity to monitor and enforce the claims processes. The use, and misuse, of certification schemes is governed by existing consumer protection laws in terms of ‘misleading and deceptive conduct’ provisions. Their use is supported by litigation, if appropriate, where a trade-marks or claims are used contrary to, or in absence of a contract between the certifying body and the supplier.
A further method is setting an agreed standard to provide clarity for definitions where there has often been multiple definitions and consumer confusion. The approach is particularly relevant to specific values issues. (such as free range.) An agreed standard is based on extensive stakeholder consultation and has the advantage of being able to be called up in regulations or legislation.
In situations where the market is not capable of effective self-regulation, government intervention will be required to incorporate mandatory requirements within the code or in appropriate consumer protection legislation to ensure adoption and enforcement of clearly defined claims.
The Panel has made the following recommendations:
No. 36:
That Food Standards Australia New Zealand consider adopting, by reference in the Food Standards Code, values-based definitions and/or standards relating to specific food production methods and processes, if requested by industry, to achieve consistency of definitions.
No. 37:
That the relevant livestock industries consider the benefits of establishing agreed standards under the auspices of Standards Australia or Standards New Zealand for terms related to animal husbandry (e.g. ‘free range’, ‘barn laid’ and ‘caged’ in the case of poultry).
Hopefully the Australian Egg Corporation will take some notice of this report before it tries to implement its proposed standard.
The Results of the Review have just been published.
The desire to make food purchasing decisions based on ethical convictions and personal values by consumers has brought another dimension to the food labelling debate. The Review Panel recognised that consumers feel strongly about the origins of their food from the huge number of submissions that were received.
Consumer values issues such as animal welfare and the environment were raised in a large number of submissions. Issues such as free range and organic were categorized by the panel as specific consumer value issues. The very narrowness of these claims means that they lend themselves more easily to precise and agreed definitions.
The Panel has taken the view that where specific values issues are concerned, it may be advantageous to develop a prescriptive definitional framework to ensure a level playing field. However, self-regulatory measures may need to be introduced or escalated to ensure that the consumer is provided with consistent and accurate information and not polished positive claims made by unscrupulous suppliers and producers.
A range of regulatory mechanisms, in particular of the self- regulatory kind, can cater to the nature of the values issues and structures of the markets. These include voluntary codes of practice, certification, agreed standards or mandated requirements. All have differing levels of consumer acceptance. Governance conditions, compliance levels and effective enforcement also differ with each.
Voluntary Codes of Practice arise mainly though industry agreement but this will only work if there is a unified industry view. If adoption and compliance is variable it could undermine consumer confidence in voluntary codes.
Another option is Certification. Certification schemes involve the use of a values claim eg. Pasture raised, linked to an accreditation program. This is a particularly useful way of tackling generalised value issues. Certification can provide certain marketing advantages, but consumer confidence will depend on their trust in the endorsing organisation and its capacity to monitor and enforce the claims processes. The use, and misuse, of certification schemes is governed by existing consumer protection laws in terms of ‘misleading and deceptive conduct’ provisions. Their use is supported by litigation, if appropriate, where a trade-marks or claims are used contrary to, or in absence of a contract between the certifying body and the supplier.
A further method is setting an agreed standard to provide clarity for definitions where there has often been multiple definitions and consumer confusion. The approach is particularly relevant to specific values issues. (such as free range.) An agreed standard is based on extensive stakeholder consultation and has the advantage of being able to be called up in regulations or legislation.
In situations where the market is not capable of effective self-regulation, government intervention will be required to incorporate mandatory requirements within the code or in appropriate consumer protection legislation to ensure adoption and enforcement of clearly defined claims.
The Panel has made the following recommendations:
No. 36:
That Food Standards Australia New Zealand consider adopting, by reference in the Food Standards Code, values-based definitions and/or standards relating to specific food production methods and processes, if requested by industry, to achieve consistency of definitions.
No. 37:
That the relevant livestock industries consider the benefits of establishing agreed standards under the auspices of Standards Australia or Standards New Zealand for terms related to animal husbandry (e.g. ‘free range’, ‘barn laid’ and ‘caged’ in the case of poultry).
Hopefully the Australian Egg Corporation will take some notice of this report before it tries to implement its proposed standard.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Chicken manure is tops
An average chicken will produce around half a cubic metre of manure a year, much to the delight of those with veggie gardens.
Commercially, for many years the supply of chicken manure was only available to intensive agriculture such as viticulture or vegetable production. But as the poultry industry has expanded, chicken manure has become more available to broad acre farmers.
Chicken manure has been used for years to improve soils and increase yields. Some cropping farms and vegetable growers use it as a soil conditioner, applying it once every three or four years at two tonnes to the hectare. It can increase protein and yields in cereal crops and there have been reports of up to 3% oil increase in Canola.
It is a sustainable substitute for chemical fertiliser as chicken manure is a complete fertiliser containing many trace elements and a good percentage of organic carbon. It conditions poor soils and over ten years or so can transform them into rich loams, high in phosphorous, enabling them to hold more nutrients and moisture.
Freight costs can be a problem (because chemical fertilisers are lighter) but the benefits are enormous.
Manure that has been composted has been shown to be most beneficial.
We use most of our manure on the property as part of our sustainable farming practices, but we do occasionally supply some to other people.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Legal battle over GM contamination
A big legal battle over contamination by genetically modified crops is brewing in Western Australia, following organic farmer Steve Marsh's loss of his organic certification because of GM contamination.
For the first time in Australia, an organic farmer has lost his organic status because of contamination by GM canola. Kojonup farmer, Steve Marsh, confirmed that his oat and wheat crops have been downgraded to conventional crops because 70 per cent of his property has been contaminated with Monsanto's Roundup Ready Canola.
Considering that organic wheat sells for $500 to $800 a tonne more than conventional wheat and GM seeds can remain viable for a number of years, Mr Marsh is facing massive financial losses. He has confirmed he will take legal action. In response, Monsanto has announced that it will bank-roll it's GM farmers legal defence - the sort of move expected from this global corporate bully.
Meanwhile, the Western Australian Government has done nothing to assist Mr Marsh. Agriculture Minister Terry Redman simply repeats Monsanto's position. Minister Redman wrote to Mr Marsh, putting the blame on organic standards for not allowing GM contamination. "The threshold for accidental presence in organic crops is an important issue which needs to be addressed to enable coexistence," Minister Redman wrote, stating that zero tolerance for GM in organic crops is "unrealistic".
More details at:
http://www.truefood.org.au/newsandevents/?news=119
and
http://www.nasaa-wa.com.au/NASAA_WA/Home.html
For the first time in Australia, an organic farmer has lost his organic status because of contamination by GM canola. Kojonup farmer, Steve Marsh, confirmed that his oat and wheat crops have been downgraded to conventional crops because 70 per cent of his property has been contaminated with Monsanto's Roundup Ready Canola.
Considering that organic wheat sells for $500 to $800 a tonne more than conventional wheat and GM seeds can remain viable for a number of years, Mr Marsh is facing massive financial losses. He has confirmed he will take legal action. In response, Monsanto has announced that it will bank-roll it's GM farmers legal defence - the sort of move expected from this global corporate bully.
Meanwhile, the Western Australian Government has done nothing to assist Mr Marsh. Agriculture Minister Terry Redman simply repeats Monsanto's position. Minister Redman wrote to Mr Marsh, putting the blame on organic standards for not allowing GM contamination. "The threshold for accidental presence in organic crops is an important issue which needs to be addressed to enable coexistence," Minister Redman wrote, stating that zero tolerance for GM in organic crops is "unrealistic".
More details at:
http://www.truefood.org.au/newsandevents/?news=119
and
http://www.nasaa-wa.com.au/NASAA_WA/Home.html
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Floods have caused massive losses for chook farms
It's way too early to pull all the information together, but it looks as though the floods in Queensland, NSW, Victoria and Western Australia have caused major losses on poultry farms.
There have been reports of over 300,000 birds drowning in the Victorian floods and probably more than twice that number in Queensland.
There's no doubt that whatever the final outcome, it will have a huge impact on the industry. Even for farms not affected by floods, there is likely to be a massive lift in feed prices which will send some companies to the wall. The price of feed is the biggestcost for egg farmers.
There have been reports of over 300,000 birds drowning in the Victorian floods and probably more than twice that number in Queensland.
There's no doubt that whatever the final outcome, it will have a huge impact on the industry. Even for farms not affected by floods, there is likely to be a massive lift in feed prices which will send some companies to the wall. The price of feed is the biggestcost for egg farmers.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
New van expected to arrive on Tuesday
We saved over $3000 on the list price - and the van is being delivered to us!
The size is ideal for us and given our good experience with our first Combo, it was a natural choice to gofor another one. We thought about buying a VW Caddy but the price difference was a bit daunting! I just wish that Holden imported the diesel version of the Combo which has been available in Europe for years.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Heavy rains causing probems for chook farms
Widespread flooding throughout many parts of Australia are impacting on chook farms as well as everyone else in various communities. Farms in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia have been affected - some have been virtually wiped out while others have been isolated, preventing deliveries of feed etc and transport of eggs to markets.
Here in South Gippsland, everything is pretty soggy, but so far we have not been directly affected by roads being cut - and I hope that doesn't happen.
The weather may have a serious impact on our sales at markets by reducing the numbers of customers - but that is a very minor problem compared with the devastion which has been caused for some farms.
There's not much of a let-up on the immediate horizon but hopefully the worst is over.
Here in South Gippsland, everything is pretty soggy, but so far we have not been directly affected by roads being cut - and I hope that doesn't happen.
The weather may have a serious impact on our sales at markets by reducing the numbers of customers - but that is a very minor problem compared with the devastion which has been caused for some farms.
There's not much of a let-up on the immediate horizon but hopefully the worst is over.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Canberra Times joins the fight
An article in today's Canberra Sunday Times highlights the greed and stupidity of the Australian Egg Corporation's plans to change egg farming standards that will turn barn systems into "free range".
The article by Frances Stewart says : 'The current voluntary standards allow free-range egg farmers to keep up to 1500 chickens per hectare, but the industry body wants to increase this to 20,000 laying hens per hectare.
Australian Egg Corporation Limited proposed that free-range hens should be locked inside sheds for the first 25 weeks of their lives, despite the fact that they begin to lay at around 18 weeks. Currently they are able to access the outdoors from around six weeks of age. It says eggs produced under these intensive conditions should be called "free range" to attract premium prices.
And since only the ACT has laws regulating the labelling of eggs, the majority of Australians would be none the wiser.
There is no uniform mandatory labelling scheme for eggs in Australia, which means that there is no national, legally enforceable definition for "free range" eggs.
Producers can engage in practices such as de-beaking and still call their eggs "free range", while others use terms such as "fresh", "vegetarian fed", "environmentally friendly", "omega 3" or "especially for kids" to confuse consumers.'
It's great to see this sort of artice featured in a major newspaper and we need more of it to send the message home to the Federal Minister for Agriculture, the Hon Joe Ludwig that he must step in to stop the AECL from destroying the free range egg industry and deliberately misleading consumers.
The article by Frances Stewart says : 'The current voluntary standards allow free-range egg farmers to keep up to 1500 chickens per hectare, but the industry body wants to increase this to 20,000 laying hens per hectare.
Australian Egg Corporation Limited proposed that free-range hens should be locked inside sheds for the first 25 weeks of their lives, despite the fact that they begin to lay at around 18 weeks. Currently they are able to access the outdoors from around six weeks of age. It says eggs produced under these intensive conditions should be called "free range" to attract premium prices.
And since only the ACT has laws regulating the labelling of eggs, the majority of Australians would be none the wiser.
There is no uniform mandatory labelling scheme for eggs in Australia, which means that there is no national, legally enforceable definition for "free range" eggs.
Producers can engage in practices such as de-beaking and still call their eggs "free range", while others use terms such as "fresh", "vegetarian fed", "environmentally friendly", "omega 3" or "especially for kids" to confuse consumers.'
It's great to see this sort of artice featured in a major newspaper and we need more of it to send the message home to the Federal Minister for Agriculture, the Hon Joe Ludwig that he must step in to stop the AECL from destroying the free range egg industry and deliberately misleading consumers.
Friday, January 07, 2011
Bees in trouble - and so are we
Silently, billions of bees seem to be dying off which means that our entire food chain is in danger. Bees don't just make honey, they are a giant workforce, pollinating 90% of the plants we grow.
Many scientific studies blame one group of toxic pesticides for their rapid demise, and bee populations have soared in four European countries that have banned these chemicals. But, of course, the chemical companies are lobbying hard to keep selling their poisons.
One of the big killers is reported to be Bayer with its insecticidal seed treatment Gaucho based on the ingredient imidacloprid.
Gaucho has been used in Australia on broadleaf crops, but in 2010 its on-label use was extended to include field peas, faba beans and lentils.
In recent years there has been a steep decline in bee numbers with some bee species now extinct and large populations diminishing. Scientists have been looking for answers and research has produced strong evidence blaming neonicotinoid pesticides (which includes Gaucho).
Without bees, we can expect massive food shortages.
One of the big killers is reported to be Bayer with its insecticidal seed treatment Gaucho based on the ingredient imidacloprid.
Gaucho has been used in Australia on broadleaf crops, but in 2010 its on-label use was extended to include field peas, faba beans and lentils.
In recent years there has been a steep decline in bee numbers with some bee species now extinct and large populations diminishing. Scientists have been looking for answers and research has produced strong evidence blaming neonicotinoid pesticides (which includes Gaucho).
Without bees, we can expect massive food shortages.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Proposed Aussie egg standard ridiculed in UK
The British Free Range Egg Producers Association says that the Australian Egg Corporation's plans to introduce new intensive standards for so-called 'free range' egg production will be good for them because it will show the world just how high the UK standards are.
'But I can't see how it can be good for their birds or their industry to stock birds at these levels and try to call it "free range" said John Retson, Chairman of BFREPA.
We can't see that either! The Australian Egg Corporation appears hell-bent on destroying consumer confidence in our industry. And they expect that their new standard will receive ISO certification. Dream on!
Here's a copy of the BFREPA Chair's letter published in the latest Poultry World magazine.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Opposition to new 'free range' standard is about more than just stocking density
The Australian Egg Corporation's proposed standards for 'free range' egg production have met a barrage of opposition from the industry and consumers.
The absurd proposal is more than just a question of the stocking density being raised from a maximum of 1500 birds per hectare to 10,000 – 20,000 per hectare.
Under the standards (if they are adopted) the young hens will be kept in semi-darkness within electric hot-wired sheds to prevent free roaming and to force them to lay eggs in nests on conveyor belts.
They will be locked in the sheds for the first 26 weeks of their lives to ensure they are set in their habits and are less likely to ever venture outside to forage.
As they can start laying at around 16 – 17 weeks, those eggs should certainly be called barn-laid, but they will be labelled as free range.
They will be beak trimmed at one day old or soon after, which contravenes the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry.
If the weather is too hot, too cold, too wet or windy then the hens will be locked in the sheds because these conditions may cause extra work; for example, mud from dirty feet might clog the belt egg collection system, or having the doors open may interfere with air conditioning.
The proposed standards minimise human contact with the hens and are likely to have adverse effects on good animal husbandry practices and hen welfare.
If the factory farms do let their birds out, it will only be after the hens have finished laying – in the heat of the day. So why would a hen want to go out? They prefer the cool of the early morning and evening.
These standards are being proposed, not for the 'improvement of standards' as claimed by James Kellaway of the AECL, it is simply to facilitate the conversion of free-range egg production into a factory system.
Members of the Free Range Farmers Association Inc. have a maximum stocking density of 750 birds per hectare and beak trimming is prohibited. There is no need for de-beaking or beak trimming on a real free range farm.
The absurd proposal is more than just a question of the stocking density being raised from a maximum of 1500 birds per hectare to 10,000 – 20,000 per hectare.
Under the standards (if they are adopted) the young hens will be kept in semi-darkness within electric hot-wired sheds to prevent free roaming and to force them to lay eggs in nests on conveyor belts.
They will be locked in the sheds for the first 26 weeks of their lives to ensure they are set in their habits and are less likely to ever venture outside to forage.
As they can start laying at around 16 – 17 weeks, those eggs should certainly be called barn-laid, but they will be labelled as free range.
They will be beak trimmed at one day old or soon after, which contravenes the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry.
If the weather is too hot, too cold, too wet or windy then the hens will be locked in the sheds because these conditions may cause extra work; for example, mud from dirty feet might clog the belt egg collection system, or having the doors open may interfere with air conditioning.
The proposed standards minimise human contact with the hens and are likely to have adverse effects on good animal husbandry practices and hen welfare.
If the factory farms do let their birds out, it will only be after the hens have finished laying – in the heat of the day. So why would a hen want to go out? They prefer the cool of the early morning and evening.
These standards are being proposed, not for the 'improvement of standards' as claimed by James Kellaway of the AECL, it is simply to facilitate the conversion of free-range egg production into a factory system.
Members of the Free Range Farmers Association Inc. have a maximum stocking density of 750 birds per hectare and beak trimming is prohibited. There is no need for de-beaking or beak trimming on a real free range farm.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Cage farmer slams AECL 'free range' proposal
Opposition to the Egg Corporation's insane 'free range' plan comes from some strange places. NSW egg producer, Bede Burke (who is President of the Egg Group of NSW Farmers Federation) has now voiced his concerns.
Until recently his comments suggested that he fully supported the plan to allow a massive increase in stocking densities for 'free range' flocks. But at last he has recognised that the change is likely to have drastic implications for the whole industry.
In an article in The Land he said free-range hens were increasingly housed in congested sheds with minimal room to range outside.
Pressure for the industry to produce more free-range eggs, and the high costs associated with running free-range operations, had encouraged some intensive and "Mickey Mouse" operations.
He feared all farmers and retailers were at risk of being tarnished by a sales boom backlash if common sense did not prevail among opportunistic producers, and supermarket executives who were championing free-range ahead of caged eggs without acknowledging the production facts.
Bede, has 110,000 layers on his cage farm near Tamworth.
He said the free-range egg sales rise was a great result for his industry, but consumers should not be pressured into thinking it was the only way to ethically produce eggs.
"My hens don't die in heatwaves or cannibalise each other, or sit on eggs for days. We don't have flies, dust or parasites in our sheds; we don't need to secondary beak trim, and we have no problems getting labour to work here.
"Australia is lucky to have affluent consumers who can choose to pay extra if they don't want eggs from caged hens, but that doesn't mean alternative production methods aren't just as ethical or carbon emission friendly - or more so."
It's great to get some recognition from a major player in the industry that the Australian Egg Corporation draft 'free range' standard could damage the whole industry if it is implemented.
Until recently his comments suggested that he fully supported the plan to allow a massive increase in stocking densities for 'free range' flocks. But at last he has recognised that the change is likely to have drastic implications for the whole industry.
In an article in The Land he said free-range hens were increasingly housed in congested sheds with minimal room to range outside.
Pressure for the industry to produce more free-range eggs, and the high costs associated with running free-range operations, had encouraged some intensive and "Mickey Mouse" operations.
He feared all farmers and retailers were at risk of being tarnished by a sales boom backlash if common sense did not prevail among opportunistic producers, and supermarket executives who were championing free-range ahead of caged eggs without acknowledging the production facts.
Bede, has 110,000 layers on his cage farm near Tamworth.
He said the free-range egg sales rise was a great result for his industry, but consumers should not be pressured into thinking it was the only way to ethically produce eggs.
"My hens don't die in heatwaves or cannibalise each other, or sit on eggs for days. We don't have flies, dust or parasites in our sheds; we don't need to secondary beak trim, and we have no problems getting labour to work here.
"Australia is lucky to have affluent consumers who can choose to pay extra if they don't want eggs from caged hens, but that doesn't mean alternative production methods aren't just as ethical or carbon emission friendly - or more so."
It's great to get some recognition from a major player in the industry that the Australian Egg Corporation draft 'free range' standard could damage the whole industry if it is implemented.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Survey of egg farmers to see what they think
Completed forms are starting to flow in from all over the country.
Undoubtedly many of the big producers will want the allowed stocking density to increase significantly, but there are many farmers (including some cage ones) who think that the proposed AECL standards are nonsense and will be a marketing disaster.
The brief survey only has two questions:
Do you believe the maximum free range stocking density should remain at 1500 birds per hectare?
If you believe permitted stocking densities should be increased what number do you suggest per hectare?
Participants are encouraged to make any additional comments.
Interestingly, Bede Burke, President of the NSW Farmers Federation egg group seems to have backed away from his support for the AECL draft standard following the Coles supermarkets announcement on pricing for its home brand 'free range' label. He said: "free-range producers expect the move will only drive down profitability, leading to free-range farms becoming intensive open-air factories.
Mr Burke said: "It looks all nice and populist for the consumer, but in reality it is encouraging cowboy operations."
"It’s already happening, Coles demand for free-range eggs is encouraging Mickey Mouse operations run with too many birds, in bad facilities.
"As a result, egg quality, freshness and food safety standards are being and will be compromised," Mr Burke said.
I agree totally with Bede Burke (there's a first).
When the ramifications of the AECL proposal sink in, there probably won't be too many egg producers supporting it - apart from Pace, Farm Pride, Sunny Queen etc.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Egg Corp hatchet job on its own members
It seems that Australian Egg Corporation boss James Kellaway is going all out to destroy what little confidence consumers have in the egg industry. And he's also doing a pretty good hatchet job on his own members.
In his latest revelations about the Egg Corp's plans to allow increased stocking densities on free range farms he actually said the proposals would 'improve' industry standards.
In an article published in The Land and Queensland Country Life newspapers, Mr Kellaway revealed that some 'free range' egg producers currently have a stocking density of 50,000 birds per hectare. And he claimed that the majority of egg producers believed introducing the 20,000 cap early next year would improve industry standards, not make them worse.
"We need to moderate the whole process and take into account the science effectively clipping the wings of those producers who are currently running with inappropriate numbers” he said.
"We don’t want open slather, but we don’t want to disenfranchise producers who are being put under increasing pressure to produce eggs at lowest possible costs.”
If the Egg Corp is aware of any farms breaching the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry, to the extent claimed (the Code stipulates a maximum stocking density of 1500 birds per hectare) we believe it has an obligation to report those farms to the ACCC and to the relevant State authorities.
It seems more likely that this is a smokescreen and the Egg Corporation is trying desperately to defend its indefensible position.
Less than a month ago Mr Kellway insulted many of his members by saying he didn't believe they could be commercially viable at current stocking densities.
And he is supposed to represent us!!!
In his latest revelations about the Egg Corp's plans to allow increased stocking densities on free range farms he actually said the proposals would 'improve' industry standards.
In an article published in The Land and Queensland Country Life newspapers, Mr Kellaway revealed that some 'free range' egg producers currently have a stocking density of 50,000 birds per hectare. And he claimed that the majority of egg producers believed introducing the 20,000 cap early next year would improve industry standards, not make them worse.
"We need to moderate the whole process and take into account the science effectively clipping the wings of those producers who are currently running with inappropriate numbers” he said.
"We don’t want open slather, but we don’t want to disenfranchise producers who are being put under increasing pressure to produce eggs at lowest possible costs.”
If the Egg Corp is aware of any farms breaching the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals – Domestic Poultry, to the extent claimed (the Code stipulates a maximum stocking density of 1500 birds per hectare) we believe it has an obligation to report those farms to the ACCC and to the relevant State authorities.
It seems more likely that this is a smokescreen and the Egg Corporation is trying desperately to defend its indefensible position.
Less than a month ago Mr Kellway insulted many of his members by saying he didn't believe they could be commercially viable at current stocking densities.
And he is supposed to represent us!!!
Monday, November 29, 2010
Hens foraging in native pasture
Thursday, November 25, 2010
AECL comments an 'insult' to egg farmers
The Burnie Advocate in Tasmania published this article yesterday:
NATIONAL egg associations had a fiery exchange recently.
Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia president Phil Westwood said comments made by the Australian Egg Corporation were an insult to operators.
"Recent comments in UK publications by the Egg Corp’s managing director, James Kellaway, that an increase in stocking densities from 1500 to at least 10,000 hens per hectare was essential for free-range farms to be commercial’ is an insult to the operators of existing commercial farms who meet all current standards" Mr Westwood said.
"AECL’s position is hardly credible, as free range egg farms have been operating comfortably in Australia for many years, meeting a maximum stocking density of 1500 hens per hectare.
"It seems that AECL wants the commercial imperative to override consumer choice, farm sustainability and animal welfare requirements." However, Australian Egg Corporation managing director James Kellaway said the statement was "out of context".
"Some egg producers have said to be commercial they need to run that number," he said.
"Some egg producers said they are very productive at 1500." Mr Kellaway said other egg producers said they were not commercially productive at this number.
He said that in the statements made he had been conveying what some egg producers told him.
Sunnyside free-range chicken farmer Ross Hingston said when it came to producing eggs, bigger wasn’t necessarily better.
"The more (hens) you have, the more trouble you have as far as pasture goes," he said.
"I sell a fair bit of feed, and don’t rely entirely on eggs.
"If you relied entirely on eggs you might need to expand." At last count Mr Hingston had 600 laying birds, and supplies eggs to about a dozen shops around the Devonport and Latrobe area.
He was told at the last audit he had room for expansion, but he has no plans to expand just yet.
Mr Hingston said expanding meant employing people and he is currently a one man operation.
I leave it to your imagination to figure out why some operators are telling Mr Kellaway that they are not commercially viable at a stocking density of 1500 birds per hectare. I wonder what the reason could possibly be? Wouldn't be greed would it? No surely not, after all we are talking about ethical business people aren't we?
Oh dear, there goes the phone again!!!!
NATIONAL egg associations had a fiery exchange recently.
Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia president Phil Westwood said comments made by the Australian Egg Corporation were an insult to operators.
"Recent comments in UK publications by the Egg Corp’s managing director, James Kellaway, that an increase in stocking densities from 1500 to at least 10,000 hens per hectare was essential for free-range farms to be commercial’ is an insult to the operators of existing commercial farms who meet all current standards" Mr Westwood said.
"AECL’s position is hardly credible, as free range egg farms have been operating comfortably in Australia for many years, meeting a maximum stocking density of 1500 hens per hectare.
"It seems that AECL wants the commercial imperative to override consumer choice, farm sustainability and animal welfare requirements." However, Australian Egg Corporation managing director James Kellaway said the statement was "out of context".
"Some egg producers have said to be commercial they need to run that number," he said.
"Some egg producers said they are very productive at 1500." Mr Kellaway said other egg producers said they were not commercially productive at this number.
He said that in the statements made he had been conveying what some egg producers told him.
Sunnyside free-range chicken farmer Ross Hingston said when it came to producing eggs, bigger wasn’t necessarily better.
"The more (hens) you have, the more trouble you have as far as pasture goes," he said.
"I sell a fair bit of feed, and don’t rely entirely on eggs.
"If you relied entirely on eggs you might need to expand." At last count Mr Hingston had 600 laying birds, and supplies eggs to about a dozen shops around the Devonport and Latrobe area.
He was told at the last audit he had room for expansion, but he has no plans to expand just yet.
Mr Hingston said expanding meant employing people and he is currently a one man operation.
I leave it to your imagination to figure out why some operators are telling Mr Kellaway that they are not commercially viable at a stocking density of 1500 birds per hectare. I wonder what the reason could possibly be? Wouldn't be greed would it? No surely not, after all we are talking about ethical business people aren't we?
Oh dear, there goes the phone again!!!!
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Pressure is building on AECL
With Coles' announcement about dumping cage eggs from its Home Brand range, and stocking only 'free range' in its Home Brand category, it must by now be dawning on the Australian Egg Corporation that they are not properly representing egg producers.
They've been playing games with the supermarkets giants - but they lost sight of the fact that they are supposed to represent the interests of the whole egg industry. And that's all of us. Cage, Barn and Free Range producers.
The stupid decision to try to change the standards for 'free range' production demonstrates how out of touch AECL staff are. They haven't only annoyed free range farmers - even the cage boys acknowledge that the draft is bull____ !
Anyway, the Australian Egg Corporation is making itself a laughing stock around the world - have a look at this UK website:
http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/281010/australia___free_range_poultry_.aspx
They've been playing games with the supermarkets giants - but they lost sight of the fact that they are supposed to represent the interests of the whole egg industry. And that's all of us. Cage, Barn and Free Range producers.
The stupid decision to try to change the standards for 'free range' production demonstrates how out of touch AECL staff are. They haven't only annoyed free range farmers - even the cage boys acknowledge that the draft is bull____ !
Anyway, the Australian Egg Corporation is making itself a laughing stock around the world - have a look at this UK website:
http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/281010/australia___free_range_poultry_.aspx
Monday, November 22, 2010
AECL squeals at Coles
The Australian Corporation has its knickers in a knot after Coles announced its decision to phase out its home brand cage eggs and reduce the price of its home brand 'free range' eggs. Don't know why they are pretending to be upset because this was always planned once AECL tried to water down 'free range' standards.
Here's the press release AECL sent out:
Egg industry supports consumer choice
Coles Supermarkets have announced that they will lower the price of their free-range eggs to encourage consumers to buy eggs that are more “ethically produced”. In addition to this, Coles plans to remove Coles brand of cage produced eggs by 2013, thereby removing the most cost effective egg category available to Australian households in their stores. Coles have entered into this decision without consultation with industry representatives or their own suppliers of eggs, leaving egg farmers disappointed and concerned for the future of their businesses.
“Australian egg farmers are passionate about producing accessible, sustainable and affordable food for Australian families and have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years to ensure the welfare, health and safety of egg laying hens, across all recognized egg production systems” declared AECL’s Managing Director James Kellaway.
Coles Merchandise Director, John Durkan stated, “This is part of our ongoing campaign to offer all customers quality fresh food, ethically produced and at affordable prices.” Yet Coles pick and choose what is “ethical” according to their own agenda, rather than relying on fact and scientific reality. Eggs from cage systems offer welfare, food safety and environmental advantages that cannot be found in alternative systems, and by restricting the variety available to consumers, Coles strips shoppers of the freedom to make their own ethical choices at the supermarket checkout.
With nearly 65% of eggs sold at retail, coming from cage systems in Australia (and around 85% worldwide), Coles are dictating to their customers what products they can and cannot purchase. With a growing population expected to reach 36 million by 2050, and 12% of Australian children currently living in poverty, now is not the time to take away one of the most affordable, versatile and nutrient dense foods available.
Australian egg farmers are committed to farming for the future nutrition of all Australians, by offering the freedom for consumers to choose what variety of egg production suits their needs. “Farmers face countless challenges to produce the food we eat, with drought, flood, pests and competition from imported goods, it is disappointing that one of the major retailers in Australia chooses to create further impediments to egg farming families, thereby challenging the viability and sustainability of local food production” added Mr. Kellaway.
Beating up on Coles for listening to its customers doesn't strike me as a very good idea and I can't imagine what James Kellaway is thinking. He's obviously getting some very poor advice particularly as he has spent the past six months trying to push through an intensive 'free range' stocking density standard which will be essential if Coles is to meet its stated objectives.
It seems that AECL agrees with Con Tamvakis and doesn't care what consumers want.
Here's the press release AECL sent out:
Egg industry supports consumer choice
Coles Supermarkets have announced that they will lower the price of their free-range eggs to encourage consumers to buy eggs that are more “ethically produced”. In addition to this, Coles plans to remove Coles brand of cage produced eggs by 2013, thereby removing the most cost effective egg category available to Australian households in their stores. Coles have entered into this decision without consultation with industry representatives or their own suppliers of eggs, leaving egg farmers disappointed and concerned for the future of their businesses.
“Australian egg farmers are passionate about producing accessible, sustainable and affordable food for Australian families and have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in recent years to ensure the welfare, health and safety of egg laying hens, across all recognized egg production systems” declared AECL’s Managing Director James Kellaway.
Coles Merchandise Director, John Durkan stated, “This is part of our ongoing campaign to offer all customers quality fresh food, ethically produced and at affordable prices.” Yet Coles pick and choose what is “ethical” according to their own agenda, rather than relying on fact and scientific reality. Eggs from cage systems offer welfare, food safety and environmental advantages that cannot be found in alternative systems, and by restricting the variety available to consumers, Coles strips shoppers of the freedom to make their own ethical choices at the supermarket checkout.
With nearly 65% of eggs sold at retail, coming from cage systems in Australia (and around 85% worldwide), Coles are dictating to their customers what products they can and cannot purchase. With a growing population expected to reach 36 million by 2050, and 12% of Australian children currently living in poverty, now is not the time to take away one of the most affordable, versatile and nutrient dense foods available.
Australian egg farmers are committed to farming for the future nutrition of all Australians, by offering the freedom for consumers to choose what variety of egg production suits their needs. “Farmers face countless challenges to produce the food we eat, with drought, flood, pests and competition from imported goods, it is disappointing that one of the major retailers in Australia chooses to create further impediments to egg farming families, thereby challenging the viability and sustainability of local food production” added Mr. Kellaway.
Beating up on Coles for listening to its customers doesn't strike me as a very good idea and I can't imagine what James Kellaway is thinking. He's obviously getting some very poor advice particularly as he has spent the past six months trying to push through an intensive 'free range' stocking density standard which will be essential if Coles is to meet its stated objectives.
It seems that AECL agrees with Con Tamvakis and doesn't care what consumers want.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Density increase shocks Australian free-range farmers
The following article appears in the latest issues of UK magazines. Farmers Weekly and Poultry World.
Scott Casey Thursday 11 November 2010
Free-range egg farmers in Australia could be facing an increase in the stocking density permitted on farms to improve commercial viability.
Levy body, the Australian Egg Corporation Limited (AECL), which represents the entire egg sector, has been researching changes that could see the current maximum of 1500 birds/ha expanded to anywhere up to 10,000 birds/ha or beyond. UK limits are just 2000 birds/ha.
Philip Westwood from the Free-Range Farmers Association said he believed the new stocking density would be closer to 20,000 birds/ha and that calling such farms "free-range" would mislead consumers.
"Obviously, the stocking densities they are proposing, no sane person would consider to be free range," Mr Westwood said. "If they do go ahead with this, it's going to destroy consumer confidence."
But AECL executive director James Kellaway told Farmers Weekly that an online survey of 5000 people had shown the average consumer was happy with a stocking density for free range of 10,000 birds/ha.
Mr Kellaway added that he didn't believe producers working to the current stocking density could be commercially viable.
"The stocking rate needs to be high enough so it is achievable, but low enough that it is clearly differentiated from the other two standards [barn and cage]. It needs to be obtainable on a commercial scale," Mr Kellaway said.
Mr Kellaway's comments are an insult to all those operators of commercial free range egg farms who have been supplying customers for many years and who have met all current standards. Presumabably what Mr Kellaway means is that the big farms want to make extra profits by pretending they are producing free range eggs.
The guidelines have not yet been set, but Mr Kellaway said he expected the new stocking density would come into effect in December or early January next year.
Scott Casey Thursday 11 November 2010
Free-range egg farmers in Australia could be facing an increase in the stocking density permitted on farms to improve commercial viability.
Levy body, the Australian Egg Corporation Limited (AECL), which represents the entire egg sector, has been researching changes that could see the current maximum of 1500 birds/ha expanded to anywhere up to 10,000 birds/ha or beyond. UK limits are just 2000 birds/ha.
Philip Westwood from the Free-Range Farmers Association said he believed the new stocking density would be closer to 20,000 birds/ha and that calling such farms "free-range" would mislead consumers.
"Obviously, the stocking densities they are proposing, no sane person would consider to be free range," Mr Westwood said. "If they do go ahead with this, it's going to destroy consumer confidence."
But AECL executive director James Kellaway told Farmers Weekly that an online survey of 5000 people had shown the average consumer was happy with a stocking density for free range of 10,000 birds/ha.
Mr Kellaway added that he didn't believe producers working to the current stocking density could be commercially viable.
"The stocking rate needs to be high enough so it is achievable, but low enough that it is clearly differentiated from the other two standards [barn and cage]. It needs to be obtainable on a commercial scale," Mr Kellaway said.
Mr Kellaway's comments are an insult to all those operators of commercial free range egg farms who have been supplying customers for many years and who have met all current standards. Presumabably what Mr Kellaway means is that the big farms want to make extra profits by pretending they are producing free range eggs.
The guidelines have not yet been set, but Mr Kellaway said he expected the new stocking density would come into effect in December or early January next year.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Steady rain dampens demand at Coal Creek
Steady rain all morning (which continued for the rest of the day) dampened demand from customers at the second Coal Creek Farmers' Market on Saturday.
It reinforced the need to have other outlets for egg sales rather than simply rely on the markets. The slack sales meant that once I was back on the farm, we were able to fill our delivery orders which need to go out on Sunday.
Coal Creek is now accredited by the Victorian Farmers Markets Association so it is one of the genuine Farmers' Markets held around the state.
Many so-called 'Farmers' Markets' have bodgey stallholders who don't grow or make the stuff they sell - so VFMA accreditation means that customers are not being conned.
It's the same with accredited egg farms. Unless the farm is accredited by the Free Range Farmers Association Inc., the farm probably doesn't meet consumer expectations about stocking densities and whether or not the birds are de-beaked.
It reinforced the need to have other outlets for egg sales rather than simply rely on the markets. The slack sales meant that once I was back on the farm, we were able to fill our delivery orders which need to go out on Sunday.
Coal Creek is now accredited by the Victorian Farmers Markets Association so it is one of the genuine Farmers' Markets held around the state.
Many so-called 'Farmers' Markets' have bodgey stallholders who don't grow or make the stuff they sell - so VFMA accreditation means that customers are not being conned.
It's the same with accredited egg farms. Unless the farm is accredited by the Free Range Farmers Association Inc., the farm probably doesn't meet consumer expectations about stocking densities and whether or not the birds are de-beaked.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
More fuss from an egg farmer
I had a very interesting phone call yesterday from a 'free range' egg farmer who wasn't happy with all the noise the Free Range Farmers Association and the Free Range Egg Poultry Association of Australia have been making about the current standards for free range eggs and the proposals put up by the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd.
He was one of those turkeys who says 'you'd better be careful my friend' - as if I would want to be his friend!!!!
He wouldn't tell me what specifically he was in a spin about but he described our members as 'hobby farmers' and said I had used information that I had obtained as an Egg Corp Assured Auditor to attack his business.
From his comments I gathered that I can expect a solicitor's letter or a writ for defamation - but I have no idea what he thinks I have said that is not true.
It probably centres around de-beaked (or beak trimmed) birds - but that is factual because those are the hens he buys.
Why he regards us as 'hobby farmers' is another mystery. A number of our members are significantly larger than his operation - and they don't de-beak their hens. There is no need for beak trimming on a real free range farm.
He was one of those turkeys who says 'you'd better be careful my friend' - as if I would want to be his friend!!!!
He wouldn't tell me what specifically he was in a spin about but he described our members as 'hobby farmers' and said I had used information that I had obtained as an Egg Corp Assured Auditor to attack his business.
From his comments I gathered that I can expect a solicitor's letter or a writ for defamation - but I have no idea what he thinks I have said that is not true.
It probably centres around de-beaked (or beak trimmed) birds - but that is factual because those are the hens he buys.
Why he regards us as 'hobby farmers' is another mystery. A number of our members are significantly larger than his operation - and they don't de-beak their hens. There is no need for beak trimming on a real free range farm.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Goodbye Spotswood Farmers' Market
We had an interesting experiment with the Spotswood Farmers' Market - to see if it was worthwhile adjusting our food miles policy to supply our eggs to people in the city.
Almost everyone was telling us we were mad not to be selling in Melbourne - so we thought we would give it a go!
The Spotswood Farmers' Market (on the first Saturday of the month) started in September. The weather was foul so there little wonder that no-one came. The second market was the same day at the replay of the pathetic AFL Grand Final (so again there was an excuse for the non-performance of the market).
Yesterday was the third market at Spotswood and although we sold out (because we had very few eggs to take) most of the stallholders I spoke to were not happy with their sales.
So unfortunately we won't be back there in December and we will continue to concentrate on our core area - within one hour of the farm.
Next Saturday will be the second Farmers' Market at Coal Creek, Korumburra and we hope to be able to build our customer base there to equal Inverloch and Phillip Island.
Almost everyone was telling us we were mad not to be selling in Melbourne - so we thought we would give it a go!
The Spotswood Farmers' Market (on the first Saturday of the month) started in September. The weather was foul so there little wonder that no-one came. The second market was the same day at the replay of the pathetic AFL Grand Final (so again there was an excuse for the non-performance of the market).
Yesterday was the third market at Spotswood and although we sold out (because we had very few eggs to take) most of the stallholders I spoke to were not happy with their sales.
So unfortunately we won't be back there in December and we will continue to concentrate on our core area - within one hour of the farm.
Next Saturday will be the second Farmers' Market at Coal Creek, Korumburra and we hope to be able to build our customer base there to equal Inverloch and Phillip Island.
Monday, November 01, 2010
Methionine in chook food
The absence of feathers on hens can be caused by several things and can be separated into two groups: 1) birds that don't grow feathers and 2) birds that pull them out or break them off. Either problem can be managed by correcting the cause.
The most common reason that feathers do not develop is a deficiency of a critical amino acid (methionine) from the diet of the birds. The feathers of birds contain high levels of methionine which is one of only a few amino acids that contain sulfur, an essential component of feathers. An adequate level of methionine is required in the diet. It occur naturally in many grains but a deficiency results in reduced growth and feather development. A methionine deficient bird will tend to eat feathers in an attempt to satisfy a craving for this amino acid. A bird may even pull them from its own body or from other birds.
Feed rations that are high in plant proteins, such as soybean meal, will contain natural levels of amino acids, including methionine - eliminating the need to add supplements to the ration. But take care not to raise protein levels too much as high-protein diets are not healthy for poultry or the environment. If the hens really have access to pasture (which often has a protein content of 30%) it can be counter-productive to feed a supplementary ration with a protein level of more than 17 - 18%.
Methionine is used extensively as a dietary supplement by human body builders (to enhance muscle bulk). And is is one of the major reasons that commercial meat poultry growers are able to grow their birds so quickly that they are ready for slaughter in just six weeks.
For egg production, if the grains used in making poultry rations contain inadequate levels of methionine, some suppliers add synthetic methionine (DL methionine) to the dietary mix to ensure that the birds receive sufficient amounts. All quality poultry feeds are formulated to contain adequate methionine to maintain growth and feather development. However, if additional grains (such as corn) are fed with the complete feed, then the amount of methionine consumed by the bird can be inadequate for their development. Feeding of additional grains with complete poultry feeds is not recommended.
Chooks that grow feathers well, but which are later pulled out or broken off, the cause is usually management related.
If methionine is added to poultry feed, egg producers should ensure that it is the natural version and not the synthetic DL methionine which is widely available (and cheaper). Laying hens that consume 100 g of feed per day should ideally have 0.30% methionine in their diet - not hard to achieve with a properly balanced grain-based mix.
The most common reason that feathers do not develop is a deficiency of a critical amino acid (methionine) from the diet of the birds. The feathers of birds contain high levels of methionine which is one of only a few amino acids that contain sulfur, an essential component of feathers. An adequate level of methionine is required in the diet. It occur naturally in many grains but a deficiency results in reduced growth and feather development. A methionine deficient bird will tend to eat feathers in an attempt to satisfy a craving for this amino acid. A bird may even pull them from its own body or from other birds.
Feed rations that are high in plant proteins, such as soybean meal, will contain natural levels of amino acids, including methionine - eliminating the need to add supplements to the ration. But take care not to raise protein levels too much as high-protein diets are not healthy for poultry or the environment. If the hens really have access to pasture (which often has a protein content of 30%) it can be counter-productive to feed a supplementary ration with a protein level of more than 17 - 18%.
Methionine is used extensively as a dietary supplement by human body builders (to enhance muscle bulk). And is is one of the major reasons that commercial meat poultry growers are able to grow their birds so quickly that they are ready for slaughter in just six weeks.
For egg production, if the grains used in making poultry rations contain inadequate levels of methionine, some suppliers add synthetic methionine (DL methionine) to the dietary mix to ensure that the birds receive sufficient amounts. All quality poultry feeds are formulated to contain adequate methionine to maintain growth and feather development. However, if additional grains (such as corn) are fed with the complete feed, then the amount of methionine consumed by the bird can be inadequate for their development. Feeding of additional grains with complete poultry feeds is not recommended.
Chooks that grow feathers well, but which are later pulled out or broken off, the cause is usually management related.
If methionine is added to poultry feed, egg producers should ensure that it is the natural version and not the synthetic DL methionine which is widely available (and cheaper). Laying hens that consume 100 g of feed per day should ideally have 0.30% methionine in their diet - not hard to achieve with a properly balanced grain-based mix.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The nutritional benefits of eggs
In 1974, the British Journal of Nutrition found that pastured eggs had 50 percent more folic acid and 70 percent more vitamin B12 than eggs from factory farm hens.
In 1988, Artemis Simopoulos, co-author of The Omega Diet, found pastured eggs in Greece contained 13 times more Omega 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids than U.S. commercial eggs. A 1998 study in Animal Feed Science and Technology found that pastured eggs had higher Omega 3 and vitamin E than eggs from caged hens.
A 1999 study by Barb Gorski at Pennsylvania State University found that eggs from pastured birds had 10 percent less fat, 34 percent less cholesterol, 40 percent more vitamin A, and four times the Omega 3 compared to the standard USDA data.
In 2003, Heather Karsten at Pennsylvania State University found that pastured eggs had three times more Omega 3, 220 percent more vitamin E and 62 percent more vitamin A than eggs from caged hens.
In 2007, the US magazine Mother Earth News analysed eggs from 14 free range flocks and compared the results to nutritional data available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for commercial eggs, the kind found in most supermarkets.
The free range eggs had:
- 1⁄3 less cholesterol
- 1⁄4 less saturated fat
- 2⁄3 more vitamin A
- 2 times more Omega 3 fatty acids
- 3 times more vitamin E
- 7 times more beta carotene
But be careful when buying 'free-range' eggs. As long as hens have 'access to an outdoor run' producers are able call their eggs free-range. What this usually means is that there is a small opening where hens could go outside, regardless of whether or not they ever do. In most cases a better description would be 'non-cage eggs'.
Often you can visibly tell the difference, but yolk colour is not always a good guide. Pastured yolks are a rich orange color from the beta-carotene in the plants (as long as there is plenty of green feed in the paddocks). Eggs from a genuine free range farm will vary in yolk colour – depending on the time of year and the amount of green feed available. If the yolk colour is always the same, you can be sure that colouring additives are included in the hens' feed.
It's up to you as the consumer to find out how the chickens are being raised and what they're being fed. One way is to look for the logo of the Free Range Farmers Association which gives you a guarantee that the hens are not de-beaked and that the farm meets hen welfare and strict stocking density requirements. Talk to producers at farmers' markets and find out how they manage their flocks and make sure you are comfortable with the way your eggs are produced.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
'Free Range' research
The egg industry is still in turmoil over proposals by big producers to push the Australian Egg Corporation into changing the standards for 'free range' egg production. The chairman of the Australian Egg Corporation, Jeff Ironside, said in a letter to the Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia Inc. that the draft standard had been prepared after 'reviewing 13 international standards and benchmarking current practice in Australia'.
What he failed to add was that none of the standards reviewed by AECL reflected the ludicrous stocking density of up to 20,000 chickens per hectare which it proposed. So, in effect, AECL ignored all the international standards and came up with a scheme which the corporate players wanted.
Make no mistake, eggs are big business and the big end of town wants to make a killing. They can see huge profits in being able to label their eggs as 'free range' without having to do the work associated with running free range flocks.
Mr Ironside also had comments to make on the validity of the consumer survey conducted by the Free Range Farmers Association. He said that AECL's market research consultants found that the research undertaken by FRFA 'cannot be considered as an accurate research exercise'.
Funny that. Free Range Farmers don't think that the survey conducted for the AECL is accurate either.
The difference is that we asked people who actually buy free range eggs what they thought, whereas AECL pulled in anyone to get the result they wanted.
And even worse than that. We gave AECL our research data so they could analyse it. AECL undertook to give us their data – but we are still waiting four months after it was promised. They obviously have a great deal to hide and don't want any scrutiny of their research.
What he failed to add was that none of the standards reviewed by AECL reflected the ludicrous stocking density of up to 20,000 chickens per hectare which it proposed. So, in effect, AECL ignored all the international standards and came up with a scheme which the corporate players wanted.
Make no mistake, eggs are big business and the big end of town wants to make a killing. They can see huge profits in being able to label their eggs as 'free range' without having to do the work associated with running free range flocks.
Mr Ironside also had comments to make on the validity of the consumer survey conducted by the Free Range Farmers Association. He said that AECL's market research consultants found that the research undertaken by FRFA 'cannot be considered as an accurate research exercise'.
Funny that. Free Range Farmers don't think that the survey conducted for the AECL is accurate either.
The difference is that we asked people who actually buy free range eggs what they thought, whereas AECL pulled in anyone to get the result they wanted.
And even worse than that. We gave AECL our research data so they could analyse it. AECL undertook to give us their data – but we are still waiting four months after it was promised. They obviously have a great deal to hide and don't want any scrutiny of their research.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Consumers beware
' I don't care whether the consumer considers that free range birds are not debeaked.
They aren't farmers and have no clue as to what us farmers have to endure.' - Con Tamvakis Victorian egg farmer. Member of the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd
It's hard to believe but I received an email this morning (with the above quote) from a Victorian egg farmer who clearly thinks that customers don't count and should just shut up and hand over their money!!!!
Any businessman who ignores what his customers want is heading for trouble - and unfortunately the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd is leading some of its members down that path as we have no indication that the draft 'free range' egg production standard will be significantly modified prior to its launch before the AECL annual meeting in Adelaide at the end of November.
They aren't farmers and have no clue as to what us farmers have to endure.' - Con Tamvakis Victorian egg farmer. Member of the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd
It's hard to believe but I received an email this morning (with the above quote) from a Victorian egg farmer who clearly thinks that customers don't count and should just shut up and hand over their money!!!!
Any businessman who ignores what his customers want is heading for trouble - and unfortunately the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd is leading some of its members down that path as we have no indication that the draft 'free range' egg production standard will be significantly modified prior to its launch before the AECL annual meeting in Adelaide at the end of November.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Egg Corp AGM and Industry Forum
The Australian Egg Corporation's Industry Forum and Annual Meeting will be held in Adelaide this year, on November 24 and 25.
AECL staff have been keen to ensure there will be no debate on proposed changes for 'free range' standards. But that might not succeed as I have challenged James Kellaway (AECL Managing Director) to list statements made by people opposed to the draft standard which he alleges are 'half truths'.
In his column in the industry newsletter Eggstra Eggstra Mr Kellaway made the following assertions:
"Given the research undertaken to date, AECL continues to liaise with industry and consult with egg producers over the draft minimum standards in order to be more objective and measurable on key production parameters for each of the three recognised production systems. AECL is seeking to build industry credibility, accountability and transparency for all Australian egg producers during this process, not diminish it. It has been unfortunate that some egg producers, during this industry consultative phase, have decided to react and 'attack' the draft minimum standards by approaching the media for their own ends and political means by telling half truths and colourful language."
Those assertions have not been substantiated and I challenged his allegations in an email which was copied to many people in the egg industry. There has been significant support from producers all over Australia and others in all sectors of the industry. Some of them I have worked with, but most of them I have never met.
The ball is now in Mr Kellaway's court.
It's sad that the AECL has taken the approach of only focussing on the needs of big business. It's actions demonstrate that it ignores small producers, environmental issues and the views of consumers.
An example of its attitude to the environment is there for all to see on the front of its AGM leaflet. Emblazened across the bottom is the quote:
'We can't impede progress in the name of environmental action that yields little for the environment and even less for our people.. and we should look at the environment as an economic opportunity.' from Meg Whitman who plans to run as governor of California for the Republican Party.
I don't quibble about 'little for the environment and even less for people' ... that is clearly what she sees as a legitimate view. BUT 'looking at the environment as an economic opportunity' shows a total lack of understanding about the world in which we all live.
We all breath air, we all drink water (well most of us) and it's hard to understand that some of our 'leaders' don't care about future generations. Maybe Meg Whitman and James Kellaway should read Soylent Green.
AECL staff have been keen to ensure there will be no debate on proposed changes for 'free range' standards. But that might not succeed as I have challenged James Kellaway (AECL Managing Director) to list statements made by people opposed to the draft standard which he alleges are 'half truths'.
In his column in the industry newsletter Eggstra Eggstra Mr Kellaway made the following assertions:
"Given the research undertaken to date, AECL continues to liaise with industry and consult with egg producers over the draft minimum standards in order to be more objective and measurable on key production parameters for each of the three recognised production systems. AECL is seeking to build industry credibility, accountability and transparency for all Australian egg producers during this process, not diminish it. It has been unfortunate that some egg producers, during this industry consultative phase, have decided to react and 'attack' the draft minimum standards by approaching the media for their own ends and political means by telling half truths and colourful language."
Those assertions have not been substantiated and I challenged his allegations in an email which was copied to many people in the egg industry. There has been significant support from producers all over Australia and others in all sectors of the industry. Some of them I have worked with, but most of them I have never met.
The ball is now in Mr Kellaway's court.
It's sad that the AECL has taken the approach of only focussing on the needs of big business. It's actions demonstrate that it ignores small producers, environmental issues and the views of consumers.
An example of its attitude to the environment is there for all to see on the front of its AGM leaflet. Emblazened across the bottom is the quote:
'We can't impede progress in the name of environmental action that yields little for the environment and even less for our people.. and we should look at the environment as an economic opportunity.' from Meg Whitman who plans to run as governor of California for the Republican Party.
I don't quibble about 'little for the environment and even less for people' ... that is clearly what she sees as a legitimate view. BUT 'looking at the environment as an economic opportunity' shows a total lack of understanding about the world in which we all live.
We all breath air, we all drink water (well most of us) and it's hard to understand that some of our 'leaders' don't care about future generations. Maybe Meg Whitman and James Kellaway should read Soylent Green.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
FREAL - is it real free range?
We have no idea what standards or inspection criteria will be used by the Free Range Egg Association Ltd as details have not been released.
The logo on the left has been registered as a trade mark by two businesses closely associated with the Victorian Farmers Federation. One of the businesses is an established cage farm and the other is a consulting firm run by a former senior executive of a major egg packaging and processing company.
It will be interesting to read their standards when they are available so we can all judge how 'real' they are.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
ACCC takes no action against AECL
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has replied to the complaint lodged against the 'mislabelling' of free range eggs approved by the Australian Egg Corporation.
Here's part of the response:
I understand from your email that you are concerned by a study that has found that only 9% of ‘free range’ chickens actually use the range area and that the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd are trying to change the amount of chickens allowed per hectare in free range farming.
The ACCC is an independent statutory authority responsible for ensuring compliance with the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA). The main purpose of the TPA is to promote competition and efficiency in markets within Australia, and to protect consumers and businesses from unlawful anti-competitive conduct or misleading and deceptive practices. The ACCC's role includes fostering fair and informed markets by seeking compliance with the TPA.
The ACCC does not have a definition of what constitutes ‘free range’ eggs under the TPA. These definitions are generally set by certification bodies. You may wish to seek further information from Free Range Egg & Poultry Australia.
However food and beverage labelling may potentially breach the consumer protection provisions of the TPA if the label conveys a misleading or deceptive impression or representation (through words, pictures or other means) or a claim can not be substantiated. Section 52 of the TPA is a broad provision which prohibits a corporation, in trade or commerce, engaging in conduct which is misleading or deceptive, or which is likely to mislead or deceive. Whether particular conduct is misleading or deceptive is a question of fact to be determined in the context of the evidence as to the alleged conduct and to the relevant surrounding facts and circumstances.
The AECL version of 'free range' egg production does not meet the standards of the Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia Inc. or of Free Range Egg and Poultry Australia Ltd - so I have no idea why the ACCC would suggest contacting them (anyway as I am spokesman for FREPAA Inc I am already well aware of the standards).
It seems that the ACCC will only consider taking action if it gets a flood of complaints from consumers - so log on to the ACCC website and complain away!!! http://www.accc.gov.au/
Here's part of the response:
I understand from your email that you are concerned by a study that has found that only 9% of ‘free range’ chickens actually use the range area and that the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd are trying to change the amount of chickens allowed per hectare in free range farming.
The ACCC is an independent statutory authority responsible for ensuring compliance with the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA). The main purpose of the TPA is to promote competition and efficiency in markets within Australia, and to protect consumers and businesses from unlawful anti-competitive conduct or misleading and deceptive practices. The ACCC's role includes fostering fair and informed markets by seeking compliance with the TPA.
The ACCC does not have a definition of what constitutes ‘free range’ eggs under the TPA. These definitions are generally set by certification bodies. You may wish to seek further information from Free Range Egg & Poultry Australia.
However food and beverage labelling may potentially breach the consumer protection provisions of the TPA if the label conveys a misleading or deceptive impression or representation (through words, pictures or other means) or a claim can not be substantiated. Section 52 of the TPA is a broad provision which prohibits a corporation, in trade or commerce, engaging in conduct which is misleading or deceptive, or which is likely to mislead or deceive. Whether particular conduct is misleading or deceptive is a question of fact to be determined in the context of the evidence as to the alleged conduct and to the relevant surrounding facts and circumstances.
The AECL version of 'free range' egg production does not meet the standards of the Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia Inc. or of Free Range Egg and Poultry Australia Ltd - so I have no idea why the ACCC would suggest contacting them (anyway as I am spokesman for FREPAA Inc I am already well aware of the standards).
It seems that the ACCC will only consider taking action if it gets a flood of complaints from consumers - so log on to the ACCC website and complain away!!! http://www.accc.gov.au/
Monday, October 11, 2010
'Free range' complaint lodged with Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
After discussions with a number of free range and cage egg producers, today I lodged a complaint against the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd with the ACCC over its endorsement of 'free range' egg production standards.
Research which is publicly available on the website of the Poultry CRC (which is funded from a levy paid by all egg producers) shows that only 9% of 'free range' egg laying hens actually use an outdoor range area. The details can be seen at http://www.poultryhub.org/index.php/EChook_News/Enriching_the_range_to_reduce_feather_pecking
In our view, this clearly demonstrates that consumers are being mislead and deceived by a system that is endorsed and approved by the Australian Egg Corporation.
And the industry recognises that things will become even more deceptive if the AECL goes ahead with its draft 'free range' standard. The Egg Corporation tries to pretend that's it's only a small number of 'troublemakers' who are voicing concerns - but the reality is that even big cage farmers recognise that the AECL's proposed definition for 'free range' is a crock which will harm the reputation of the whole industry.
The AECL seems hell-bent on sending the message to consumers that 'You can't trust labels on eggs'
Research which is publicly available on the website of the Poultry CRC (which is funded from a levy paid by all egg producers) shows that only 9% of 'free range' egg laying hens actually use an outdoor range area. The details can be seen at http://www.poultryhub.org/index.php/EChook_News/Enriching_the_range_to_reduce_feather_pecking
In our view, this clearly demonstrates that consumers are being mislead and deceived by a system that is endorsed and approved by the Australian Egg Corporation.
And the industry recognises that things will become even more deceptive if the AECL goes ahead with its draft 'free range' standard. The Egg Corporation tries to pretend that's it's only a small number of 'troublemakers' who are voicing concerns - but the reality is that even big cage farmers recognise that the AECL's proposed definition for 'free range' is a crock which will harm the reputation of the whole industry.
The AECL seems hell-bent on sending the message to consumers that 'You can't trust labels on eggs'
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Getting 'free range' on the political agenda
With the Victorian State Election fast approaching, we hope to get 'truth in labelling' and a meaningful definition of the term 'free range' on the political agenda.
Both are substantially Federal issues but our State Minister for Agriculture can play an active role at Ministerial council level.
Queensland has introduced regulations limiting stocking densities on farms claiming to be free range to 1500 hens per hectare – and there's no reason our State Government can't do the same.
Both are substantially Federal issues but our State Minister for Agriculture can play an active role at Ministerial council level.
Queensland has introduced regulations limiting stocking densities on farms claiming to be free range to 1500 hens per hectare – and there's no reason our State Government can't do the same.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Food Inc screening
I will be taking part in a panel discussion following the screening of the film Food Inc in Williamstown (Melbourne) on Tuesday night.
Food Inc is an eye-opening expose of the modern food industry, and is essential viewing for any health-conscious citizen.
‘The industry doesn’t want you to know the truth about what you are eating, because if you did, you might not want to eat it,’’ is a key message in the film
Food, inc. has been described as 'The Inconvenient Truth' of food. This shockumentary graphically and disturbingly reveals the unintended consequences of the concentration of food production to just a handful of massive companies, with processed genetically modified corn and soy as the basis of the national diet.
THIS is an important film. It’s a warning. Don’t follow the US down the path of food self-regulation.
The details are:
Tuesday October 5, 2010
7.15 pm
Williamstown Mechanics Institute
Cnr Melbourne Rd & Electra St.
Williamstown.
The screening is fully booked but there is a waiting list in case of cancellations.
TO BOOK Go to http://www.hobsonsbaytickets.com.au/
Food Inc is an eye-opening expose of the modern food industry, and is essential viewing for any health-conscious citizen.
‘The industry doesn’t want you to know the truth about what you are eating, because if you did, you might not want to eat it,’’ is a key message in the film
Food, inc. has been described as 'The Inconvenient Truth' of food. This shockumentary graphically and disturbingly reveals the unintended consequences of the concentration of food production to just a handful of massive companies, with processed genetically modified corn and soy as the basis of the national diet.
THIS is an important film. It’s a warning. Don’t follow the US down the path of food self-regulation.
The details are:
Tuesday October 5, 2010
7.15 pm
Williamstown Mechanics Institute
Cnr Melbourne Rd & Electra St.
Williamstown.
The screening is fully booked but there is a waiting list in case of cancellations.
TO BOOK Go to http://www.hobsonsbaytickets.com.au/
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The Freeranger farm is more than carbon neutral
At Freeranger Eggs, we limit the farm's carbon footprint by imposing a food miles policy for deliveries, using recycled materials and equipment whenever we can, using solar power and mechanical processes - such as collecting eggs by hand and hand cultivation of the farm vegetable garden - as well as an effective waste reduction programme.
As a result, the farm generates only about 60 tonnes of CO2 each year.
But we are better than carbon neutral, we are carbon positive. Our average organic matter in soil tests was 4.1 per cent in 2004, in 2006 it was 6.0 per cent, and in 2009 it was 7.9 per cent. Calculations based on 2-inch deep samples, show that over five years we have sequestered about 14 tons of CO2 per acre or four tonnes of carbon per acre on the grasslands on our property.
We apply no chemical fertilisers, herbicides, or pesticides on our land and we believe this policy increases the biological life in the soil and increases the rate of carbon sequestration. All manure is spread on the pastures and in our vegetable garden, minimising methane emissions. We practice rotational grazing on our pastures which has a variable effect with each rotation – taking advantage of photosynthesis to pull CO2 into the plants and then into the roots from where it transfers to the soil.
In addition, over that five year period at least another 5 tonnes of CO2 per acre has been sequestered by the regular growth and replacement of Kangaroo Apples in our main paddocks.
As we have protected native vegetation on approximately 100 acres of the property, regeneration over the five year period has sequestered a further 5 tonnes of CO2 per acre.
This brings a grand total of 1500 tonnes of CO2 sequestered on our property over the five years from 2004 to 2009 – an average rate of 300 tonnes per year compared with the farm's carbon output of around 60 tonnes.
How's that for being carbon positive! A net carbon benefit of 240 tonnes of CO2 per year and no-one pays us a dollar for doing it..
As a result, the farm generates only about 60 tonnes of CO2 each year.
But we are better than carbon neutral, we are carbon positive. Our average organic matter in soil tests was 4.1 per cent in 2004, in 2006 it was 6.0 per cent, and in 2009 it was 7.9 per cent. Calculations based on 2-inch deep samples, show that over five years we have sequestered about 14 tons of CO2 per acre or four tonnes of carbon per acre on the grasslands on our property.
We apply no chemical fertilisers, herbicides, or pesticides on our land and we believe this policy increases the biological life in the soil and increases the rate of carbon sequestration. All manure is spread on the pastures and in our vegetable garden, minimising methane emissions. We practice rotational grazing on our pastures which has a variable effect with each rotation – taking advantage of photosynthesis to pull CO2 into the plants and then into the roots from where it transfers to the soil.
In addition, over that five year period at least another 5 tonnes of CO2 per acre has been sequestered by the regular growth and replacement of Kangaroo Apples in our main paddocks.
As we have protected native vegetation on approximately 100 acres of the property, regeneration over the five year period has sequestered a further 5 tonnes of CO2 per acre.
This brings a grand total of 1500 tonnes of CO2 sequestered on our property over the five years from 2004 to 2009 – an average rate of 300 tonnes per year compared with the farm's carbon output of around 60 tonnes.
How's that for being carbon positive! A net carbon benefit of 240 tonnes of CO2 per year and no-one pays us a dollar for doing it..
Sunday, September 26, 2010
This is what the Australian Egg Corporation calls 'free range'
The Australian Egg Corporation currently allows beak trimming on all its Egg Corp Assured farms - even if they are called 'free range'. The hens in this photo are on an ECA accredited free range farm and they show the extent of the beak trimming undertaken.
The industry tries to argue that it is now normal practice for a light laser tipping of the upper beak - but this shot, and others, show that claim to be untrue. Consumer research shows clearly that beak trimmng is not acceptable on farms which claim to be 'free range'.
If the Egg Corporation gets away with its plan to change standards for 'free range' egg production, de-beaking will become even more common. Currently, according to the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals - Domestic Poultry, farms are required to find alternative methods to beak trimming which is designed to limit feather-picking and cannibalism in flocks. But the Egg Corporation does nothing to ensure that the Model Code is enforced and allows beak-trimming of hens as a first option. The hens are usually beak-trimmed at day old or soon after.
Beak trimming is completely unnecessary on a genuine free range farm and is prohibited by the Free Range Farmers Association.
This is what real 'free range' is all about
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
John Brumby and his locust eradication campaign
The Thorax
(with compliments to Dr Seuss and his magnificent book 'The Lorax' (c) 1971 http://www.seussville.com/)
Here is a story we’ll long recall,
Of a poisonous campaign that was forced on us all,
And the wise old Thorax who warned everyone,
Because he realised why it shouldn’t be done.
He said "I’m the Thorax, I speak for the insects.
And all the wild creatures throughout country districts
I speak for the insects, for they have no tongues,
And I'm asking you, Grumby, at the top of my lungs,
What's that stuff you are spraying on our National Parks?"
And Grumby replied "There's no cause for alarm,
This stuff is organic, I’m doing no harm.
I’m being quite useful, I think you will see,
This stuff kills plague locusts. It's alright by me."
"I repeat" cried the Thorax "I speak for the insects."
"I'm busy" said Grumby "so have some respect."
He rushed 'cross the room and in no time at all,
He picked up the phone and he made a quick call.
He called all his friends in the chemical plants,
And he said "Listen here! Here's a wonderful chance,
For all chemical companies to get mighty rich,
To get rid of that stuff you thought you had to ditch.
We'll offload it on farmers. There won't be a hitch."
And in no time at all, in the chemical plants,
all the chemical companies were grabbing this chance.
Then...
Oh! Baby! Oh!
How their business did grow!
Some farmers were buying,
But now there'd be more,
All must spray this stuff now,
Grumby made a new law.
Yet again said the Thorax, “I speak for the insects,
And I am concerned about all of these districts
Which you want to spray just as much as you please,
With no thought for how it will kill native bees!
But I'm also in charge of the fat-tailed dunnarts,
Who live in the grasslands on farms, roads and parks,
And happily lived eating insects at ease.
Now...thanks to your spraying all over the ground,
There are no un-poisoned insects left to be found.
And the fat-tailed dunnarts are getting the crummies,
Because they have poison, not food, in their tummies."
Well, Grumby thought this was a sad thing to know,
But....
His friends are in chemicals and their business must grow,
Regardless of crummies in tummies you know.
Grumby was draining the North with big pipes,
When that old nuisance Thorax came back with more gripes.
"I am the Thorax" he coughed and he whiffed,
He sneezed and he snuffled, he snarggled and sniffed.
"Grumby" he said, with his best Grumby glare,
"Grumby! You're making such poisonous air.
The poor grassland birds...why, they're dropping like flies.
And the health of our farmers has been compromised."
"What's more" he snapped, his dander was up,
"Let me say a few words about this fungus stuff.
Metharizium can mutate, some scientists noticed,
And it will kill far more than just the plague locust.
It can kill fish, frogs and other grasshoppers,
So please take away your planes and your choppers.
This fungus is not safe, to spray near the water.
So why are you telling the people they oughta?"
Grumby said "Look here Thorax, we have our rights too,
We intend to go on doing just what we do.
And, for your information, you Thorax, we're figgering
on staying in government
and biggering
and BIGGERING!
Spraying more land with chemicals and fungus,
And there’s no one on earth with power to stop us!"
And at that very moment, there came a small sound,
A Plains-wanderer fell on the ground.
This bird was endangered, how could we let it fall?
The very last Plains-wanderer of them all.
No more birds. No more insects. No more monitoring to be done.
So Grumby and his cohorts went off, every one.
All went back to parliament, to their everyday lives,
Unconcerned for the damage they'd caused with their lies.
That was long, long ago.
And as years have gone by,
We see the results now and all wonder why,
This locust campaign was allowed to go on,
When the Thorax was warning of what could go wrong.
Through the years, the environment's fallen apart,
We've worried about it, with all of our hearts,
Our health's been effected, our children's health too,
And the fat-tailed dunnart’s only found in the zoo.
Unless someone like YOU cares a whole awful lot,
Nothing is going to get better, it's not.
Love your environment,
Treat it with care,
Maintain its clean water,
Guard its fresh air.
Protect it from chemicals and fungus sprays,
So you can enjoy it for the rest of your days.
For a real perspective on locusts, have a look at http://www.savethelocust.com/
(with compliments to Dr Seuss and his magnificent book 'The Lorax' (c) 1971 http://www.seussville.com/)
Here is a story we’ll long recall,
Of a poisonous campaign that was forced on us all,
And the wise old Thorax who warned everyone,
Because he realised why it shouldn’t be done.
He said "I’m the Thorax, I speak for the insects.
And all the wild creatures throughout country districts
I speak for the insects, for they have no tongues,
And I'm asking you, Grumby, at the top of my lungs,
What's that stuff you are spraying on our National Parks?"
And Grumby replied "There's no cause for alarm,
This stuff is organic, I’m doing no harm.
I’m being quite useful, I think you will see,
This stuff kills plague locusts. It's alright by me."
"I repeat" cried the Thorax "I speak for the insects."
"I'm busy" said Grumby "so have some respect."
He rushed 'cross the room and in no time at all,
He picked up the phone and he made a quick call.
He called all his friends in the chemical plants,
And he said "Listen here! Here's a wonderful chance,
For all chemical companies to get mighty rich,
To get rid of that stuff you thought you had to ditch.
We'll offload it on farmers. There won't be a hitch."
And in no time at all, in the chemical plants,
all the chemical companies were grabbing this chance.
Then...
Oh! Baby! Oh!
How their business did grow!
Some farmers were buying,
But now there'd be more,
All must spray this stuff now,
Grumby made a new law.
Yet again said the Thorax, “I speak for the insects,
And I am concerned about all of these districts
Which you want to spray just as much as you please,
With no thought for how it will kill native bees!
But I'm also in charge of the fat-tailed dunnarts,
Who live in the grasslands on farms, roads and parks,
And happily lived eating insects at ease.
Now...thanks to your spraying all over the ground,
There are no un-poisoned insects left to be found.
And the fat-tailed dunnarts are getting the crummies,
Because they have poison, not food, in their tummies."
Well, Grumby thought this was a sad thing to know,
But....
His friends are in chemicals and their business must grow,
Regardless of crummies in tummies you know.
Grumby was draining the North with big pipes,
When that old nuisance Thorax came back with more gripes.
"I am the Thorax" he coughed and he whiffed,
He sneezed and he snuffled, he snarggled and sniffed.
"Grumby" he said, with his best Grumby glare,
"Grumby! You're making such poisonous air.
The poor grassland birds...why, they're dropping like flies.
And the health of our farmers has been compromised."
"What's more" he snapped, his dander was up,
"Let me say a few words about this fungus stuff.
Metharizium can mutate, some scientists noticed,
And it will kill far more than just the plague locust.
It can kill fish, frogs and other grasshoppers,
So please take away your planes and your choppers.
This fungus is not safe, to spray near the water.
So why are you telling the people they oughta?"
Grumby said "Look here Thorax, we have our rights too,
We intend to go on doing just what we do.
And, for your information, you Thorax, we're figgering
on staying in government
and biggering
and BIGGERING!
Spraying more land with chemicals and fungus,
And there’s no one on earth with power to stop us!"
And at that very moment, there came a small sound,
A Plains-wanderer fell on the ground.
This bird was endangered, how could we let it fall?
The very last Plains-wanderer of them all.
No more birds. No more insects. No more monitoring to be done.
So Grumby and his cohorts went off, every one.
All went back to parliament, to their everyday lives,
Unconcerned for the damage they'd caused with their lies.
That was long, long ago.
And as years have gone by,
We see the results now and all wonder why,
This locust campaign was allowed to go on,
When the Thorax was warning of what could go wrong.
Through the years, the environment's fallen apart,
We've worried about it, with all of our hearts,
Our health's been effected, our children's health too,
And the fat-tailed dunnart’s only found in the zoo.
Unless someone like YOU cares a whole awful lot,
Nothing is going to get better, it's not.
Love your environment,
Treat it with care,
Maintain its clean water,
Guard its fresh air.
Protect it from chemicals and fungus sprays,
So you can enjoy it for the rest of your days.
For a real perspective on locusts, have a look at http://www.savethelocust.com/
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Egg Corp stumbles on
A report by Les White in today's Weekly Times says:
THE Australian Egg Corporation has reneged on an agreement to release consumer research paid for with farmer levies, free range egg producers claim.
The research forms the basis of the AEC’s controversial new proposed standards, which allow "beak trimming" and stocking densities of 20,000 hens a hectare.
The Free Range Farmers Association plans to ask newly-elected Greens MP Adam Bandt to present a petition bearing 3500 signatures to parliament in an attempt to keep standards the same. The Greens have pledged to create a legal definition of "free range", which the major parties have failed to do.
It has already written to new Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig asking him to redirect levies from freerange eggs to free-range associations rather than to the AEC.
The AEC said in June: "Cage production systems offer greater safety to hens from disease, parasites, cannibalism and predator attack than free-range did".
AEC spokeswoman Jacqueline Baptista said the corporation would not comply with the FRFA’s request until it received "the final report on the research’’.
Asked why it had released proposed standards without having received the final report, she said: "We don’t want to sit on our hands".
Ms Baptista said some free-range producers were "very supportive" of the changes in the proposed new standards, but could not name them as opinions had been collected anonymously.
"The data I have is that the free-range producers who have been very vocal represent about 0.075 per cent of the (egg) industry," Ms Baptista said.
The Egg Corp figures are very rubbery because many egg producers cannot be bothered to join the AECL or send them any data - however, there is no doubt that genuine free range producers are a tiny minority. Which demonstrates that even with AECL's current standards, most consumers are not getting what they think they are paying for. The only way buyers in Victoria can be sure that the eggs they buy really are free range is to look for the logo of the Free Range Farmers Association.
We have sent the results of our consumer suvey to the Egg Corporation and to the New Minister for Agriculture, Senator Joe Ludwig and advised him that the Egg Corportation plans would mislead consumers.
THE Australian Egg Corporation has reneged on an agreement to release consumer research paid for with farmer levies, free range egg producers claim.
The research forms the basis of the AEC’s controversial new proposed standards, which allow "beak trimming" and stocking densities of 20,000 hens a hectare.
The Free Range Farmers Association plans to ask newly-elected Greens MP Adam Bandt to present a petition bearing 3500 signatures to parliament in an attempt to keep standards the same. The Greens have pledged to create a legal definition of "free range", which the major parties have failed to do.
It has already written to new Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig asking him to redirect levies from freerange eggs to free-range associations rather than to the AEC.
The AEC said in June: "Cage production systems offer greater safety to hens from disease, parasites, cannibalism and predator attack than free-range did".
AEC spokeswoman Jacqueline Baptista said the corporation would not comply with the FRFA’s request until it received "the final report on the research’’.
Asked why it had released proposed standards without having received the final report, she said: "We don’t want to sit on our hands".
Ms Baptista said some free-range producers were "very supportive" of the changes in the proposed new standards, but could not name them as opinions had been collected anonymously.
"The data I have is that the free-range producers who have been very vocal represent about 0.075 per cent of the (egg) industry," Ms Baptista said.
We have sent the results of our consumer suvey to the Egg Corporation and to the New Minister for Agriculture, Senator Joe Ludwig and advised him that the Egg Corportation plans would mislead consumers.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Results of Free Range Consumer Survey
Here's the results of the Free Range Farmers Association consumer survey on 'What Does Free Range Mean' in response to the Australian Egg Corporation's outrageous attempt to introduce a new standard to define 'free range' egg production which would approve highly intensive and unsustainable farming techniques.
Information was sought from consumers on-line and face to face with customers at Farmers' Markets attended by members of the Free Range Farmers Association Inc. during July and August 2010.
The responses were to the statement:
The Australian Egg Corporation has revealed plans to change 'free range' standards to allow egg farms to beak trim their hens and to increase the maximum farm stocking density to 20,000 chickens per hectare. We believe that the maximum stocking density should remain at 1500 chickens per hectare and that beak trimming should be prohibited in free range flocks.
As sponsor of the on-line survey, FRFA also had the following statement on the survey site:
Free Range Farmers Association Inc. We are a group of free range egg farmers with strict standards - such as a stocking density of just 750 chickens per hectare, a maximum of 1000 birds per shed and de-beaking (or beak trimming) is prohibited.
On-line and paper-based survey results
On-line survey signatories 2396
Paper survey signatories 1141
TOTAL 3537
All signatories agreed that the AECL draft standard did not reflect their views of the term 'free range' and believed that the proposal was unacceptable
We do not have precise information about all participants in the survey but the overwhelming majority are regular purchasers of free range eggs. More than 1000 responded to the survey at Farmers' Markets while they were purchasing eggs.
Approx 36 are believed to be involved in the egg industry and about 90 of the signatories in the online survey appeared to be from overseas.
The results of the consumer survey have been sent to the new Federal Minister for Agriculture, Senator Joe Ludwig.
Consolidated Consumer Survey statistics What Does Free Range Mean?
July/August 2010
Views on draft 'Free Range' egg production standard presented by
the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd.
Survey conducted by Free Range Farmers Association Inc.
Information was sought from consumers on-line and face to face with customers at Farmers' Markets attended by members of the Free Range Farmers Association Inc. during July and August 2010.
The responses were to the statement:
The Australian Egg Corporation has revealed plans to change 'free range' standards to allow egg farms to beak trim their hens and to increase the maximum farm stocking density to 20,000 chickens per hectare. We believe that the maximum stocking density should remain at 1500 chickens per hectare and that beak trimming should be prohibited in free range flocks.
As sponsor of the on-line survey, FRFA also had the following statement on the survey site:
Free Range Farmers Association Inc. We are a group of free range egg farmers with strict standards - such as a stocking density of just 750 chickens per hectare, a maximum of 1000 birds per shed and de-beaking (or beak trimming) is prohibited.
On-line and paper-based survey results
On-line survey signatories 2396
Paper survey signatories 1141
TOTAL 3537
All signatories agreed that the AECL draft standard did not reflect their views of the term 'free range' and believed that the proposal was unacceptable
We do not have precise information about all participants in the survey but the overwhelming majority are regular purchasers of free range eggs. More than 1000 responded to the survey at Farmers' Markets while they were purchasing eggs.
Approx 36 are believed to be involved in the egg industry and about 90 of the signatories in the online survey appeared to be from overseas.
The results of the consumer survey have been sent to the new Federal Minister for Agriculture, Senator Joe Ludwig.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Chickens in Choppers
For anyone who hasn't seen the Cows With Guns video produced from the Dana Lyons song, here it is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
