Be Aware of the Chicken You Eat! Part 2: Malpractices.

Agriculture in Zambia issue 7: Greed and/or ignorance by suppliers of inputs, broiler producers, distributors and consumers alike account for the bulk of malpractices in the broiler industry; a situation aggravated by excessively lenient legislation or regulation and non-compliance with whatever regulation there might be.

The common commercial broiler at 6 weeks.

The first issue of this series of three posts on broiler chickens outlined some dangers and drawbacks of eating broiler chickens. This posts lists malpractices of input suppliers, growers and consumers. The final posts is about remedial action resulting in responsible behaviour of all players in the broiler business.

Input suppliers mostly are companies offering packages of growth enhancers and vitamins, pharmaceuticals and medication, and stock feed. Input suppliers, directly or indirectly, also are farmers growing the grains for feed and the soya bean for protein; producers of fish (meal), bone meal and salt; and any other ingredient that may be part of the composition of stock feed for broilers.

Typical malpractices of input suppliers are/might be:

1. Inclusion of growth hormones and antibiotics in “growth enhancer” packages or in feed.
2. Production of “growth enhancer” packages without specified content. This might be done in countries with lack of legislation as regards permitted enhancers and hence contain harmful materials.
3. Lack of specification of content of stock feed, including of the “additives.” Quality control of animal stock feed should be as good as that of food for human consumption – after all we are at the end of the food chain.
4. Lack of information to the grower about the period of time that each feed maximally or minimally should be given.
5. Careless sale by agro shops in cases when customers (farmers) should be properly informed about usage of the materials purchased.
6. Sale of materials in agro shops that should not be sold at all; opportunistic use of lack of regulation and implementation as regards hazardous feed supplements.

The Zambian broiler farmer roughly can be divided into three types:

1. The backyard chicken farmer. This farmer keeps chickens as a source of extra income, numbers ranging from 100 to a few hundred, kept in one or a few runs in the garden. The neighbourhood (individuals and usually small businesses) is the market, the outlet is at home.
2. The smallholder farmer having a number of runs continuously producing chickens in numbers ranging of a few hundred to a few thousand monthly. The smallholder depends mostly on a market composed of retailers (marketers, groceries, supermarkets) and larger consumers such as hotels, restaurants, snack bars and guesthouses. The small holder usually has packaging facilities and deep freezers for storage. Some smallholders make their own feed, by growing most of the ingredients and purchasing the supplements.
3. The industrial or large scale producer producing up to ten thousands of packaged chickens for retailers, retail chains and other customers buying in bulk. An industrial producer such as Zambeef also produces feed for the small scale and backyard farmer and retails frozen chickens in its own shops.

Zambia may have a few thousand backyard chicken farmers and these supply a considerable part of the local market. This farmer offers usually a competitive price  by being both producer and retailer, non-payment of turnover tax or VAT and low labour costs. They often have poor understanding of technical management. Small holders, unlike the backyard grower, are genuine farmers; and like the industrial producers, usually know what they are doing and why they do what they do. The bottom line is production for profit, and that may be by farming methods that may be unfriendly for both chicken and consumer.

Typical malpractices of growers are:

1. Over dosage of “growth enhancers” by providing these when already added to the feed by the stock feed company.
2. Usage of harmful growth enhancers such as growth hormones and “pre-therapeutic” antibiotics.
3. Excessive usage of “stress pack,” i.e., vitamin packages. Only excess vitamins B and C leave the body in urine, the others are stored.
4. Non-observance of the withdrawal period before slaughter following treatment with antibiotics.
5. Skipping of the “finisher phase” in rearing chickens that are slaughtered when 3 to 4.5 weeks (the typical supermarket chicken), resulting in chickens possibly containing undesirable “growth enhancers.”
6. Resorting to inferior feed. Feed is by far the main cost in raising chicks and very expensive.
7. Keeping birds in poor conditions (overcrowded, unhygienic, lack of ventilation, wrong temperature) resulting in need for medication, high mortality rate and the slaughter of unhealthy birds.
8. Unsuited housing affecting temperature, ventilation, hygiene and pest control (mosquitoes, flies, rats and mice).
9. Non-observance of cleaning, disinfecting and resting procedures prior to re-usage of the chicken house.
10. Poor slaughtering.
11. No rapid cooling of the carcass after slaughter, cleaning and packaging.
12. No proper storage: insufficient capacity of deep freezers, wrong packing inside the freezers resulting in (too) slow decrease of temperature.
13. Lack of interest in and understanding of proper technical management. This may apply especially to the backyard farmer.
14. Unwillingness to invest in proper infrastructure: the farmer wants to make money without making the necessary investments.
15. Cash flow problems inhibiting the timely purchase of feed. The capital layout until point of sale of broiler chickens is considerable (about ¾ of the sales price). Cash flow problems are common and result in premature sales, wrong feeding, and other undesirable “short cuts.”
16. Poor and/or irresponsible waste disposal. Chicken litter is a desirable fertiliser but slaughter waist is not and must be disposed of responsibly.

Almost all Zambian love eating chicken. Most of the chickens consumed are broilers, especially in municipal and urban areas.

Typical malpractices of the consumer are:

1. Buy cheaply without consideration for quality.
2. Ignorance about the product and its production.
3. Ignorance of and lack of interest in the ecology of the chicken business.

The next and last issue on broilers is about Remedial Action addressing malpractices in the industry. 

Be Aware of the Chicken You Eat! Part 1: Hazards.

Agriculture in Zambia no 6. Broiler chickens: Cheap meat at what price? This first issue of three lists potential dangers of eating broiler chickens and describes briefly how these birds are reared.

Note: The sequel to this post is about malpractices of input suppliers, growers and consumers. Part 3 is about remedial action.

Photo 1. The 6 week old broiler in characteristic posture: sitting next to feeder.

The so-called broiler (or broiler chicken) is by far the main source of chicken meat worldwide. The broiler comes in two types. The minority type is a chicken that needs about 12 weeks to grow to its optimum weight. This type is suited for free range or organic chicken rearing. The majority type, and an overwhelming majority it is, is the regular white broiler sold in a dressed weight range of 0.9 to 2.5 kg. Its life is short: about 3½ week to 7 weeks at the most. That broiler is the subject of this post.

The broiler is produced in many different ways: small scale or large scale; animal friendly or with utter disregard for the wellbeing of the bird; with competent and responsible technical management or without it; by abiding regulations and proper procedure or by flouting and ignoring them; in a sophisticated high tech fashion or simply and manual; for maximum profit or optimum profit; eco friendly or totally unfriendly; in respect of the health of the consumer or in disregard of it.

I shall approach the broiler chicken business firstly from the viewpoint of the consumer, and highlight the dangers of irresponsible growing and consumption. What are the dangers and drawbacks of eating broilers?

1.      Eating broilers may constitute a health hazard.

1.1.  You are eating what has been fed into the bird and a number of these materials are pertinently not meant for you. Industrially produced broiler feed contains “growth enhancers” of usually unspecified composition. Growth enhancers are or may be composed of antibiotics, growth hormones, minerals, vitamins, plant and herbal extracts. Some growth enhancers are residual and/or present in excessive quantities in the chicken, meaning that you eat them with the chicken.

1.2.   The maize (in Zambia about 65% of the feed) or other grain or organic matter that is a constituent of the feed may be contaminated with insecticides or other poison.

1.3.  There is in the bio-industry a tendency to feed “waste” of one form of animal husbandry into another line. Who guarantees you that the bone meal fed to your chicks comes from healthy animals? It might even be that the slaughtering waist of the very chickens themselves is “recycled” back into the chicken feed.

2. Danger of food poisoning by eating chickens that are slaughtered improperly (notably by exposing the carcases to flies, lack of hygiene generally); or by eating dressed chickens that have been stored wrongly (taking too long to cool or freeze, or that have been refrozen after defrosting, or simply been stored too long).

3.   You may (unknowingly) be supporting forms of chicken farming that are “chicken unfriendly” and possibly downright cruel. Examples are overcrowding of the chicken house, poor feeding (e.i., farmers saving on the cost of feed by supplying the chickens with inferior food), poor hygiene, poor slaughtering.

4. You may be supporting forms of chicken farming that pose environmental hazards. A chicken house, for example, is a perfect brooding place for flies and mosquitoes, attracts rats and mice; may develop into a transmitting station of diseases to neighbouring chicken growers and may be the source of foul odours.

Some observations about the life of the broiler

Major problematic issues in broiler production are a direct consequence of the very reasons for which these birds were engineered. Broilers are hybrid birds, bread in the first place for their ability to produce much meat tissue in a short time. The weight gain of these chickens indeed is spectacular. According to one Zambian breeder the broiler should have a live weight of 2.626 kg at the end of week six when ready for slaughter. That means an average weight gain of over 60 gram/day. Other factors also inform the genetic design: the chicks should be docile, suited for the artificial living environment they grow up in and have a favourable feed-meat conversion rate. The chicks are produced on an industrial scale; here in Zambia by Hybrid, Ross and Panda breeders. Chicken farmers need to purchase the chicks from these suppliers or their agents. The chicks are raised in flocks ranging from as small as 50 to as large as several thousands. The mini-birds live under fully artificial conditions; at night light is switched on to entice the chicks to go on eating. Industrial producers have houses with automated temperature, ventilation, feed and water control: the chicks have been incorporated in a mechanical system of manufacture. The broilers live in closed and crowded rooms (up to 10 birds to 1 square meter is accepted practice), constantly excrete, and produce especially after week three a great deal of body heat in an increasingly humid atmosphere.

This strange bird, even if provided with the opportunity to walk about on pasture around the chicken house is usually not keen to do so; hence the notion of a free range commercial broiler of this type is non-sense. The chick, actually, as it gets older is increasingly reluctant to walk. Its muscular development is at odds with the rate of increase in weight. As of the age of four weeks this eating machine prefers to sit close to a feeder to eat in that position. It does not require much imagination to understand that this animal is prone to diseases and stress.

In order to grow at maximum speed the broiler needs special food for each of the three feeding phases of its live. The chick starts with starter, moves on to grower and finishes with finisher. How long (and therefore how much of each type of feed) depends on the desired end product; be it a spring chicken of less than 1 kg to a fully developed bird of some 2.5 kg dressed weight, or anything in between. The three types of feed differ mostly in the amount of protein (starter having most and finisher less) and in the so-called “food supplements” or “growth enhancers.” The composition of the supplements and enhancers is not specified on the bags containing the commercial stock feed. These are or might be vitamins, minerals, growth hormones, prophylactic medication (including antibiotics), and plant and herbal extracts. The “growth enhancer” speeds up the weight gain of the broiler, meaning that the grower needs less time to arrive at a target weight; reduces chances of disease and generally cuts the cost of production.

A responsible chicken stock feed producer eliminates those elements of the “growth enhancers” out of the finisher feed composition that are harmful to the human consumer. Finisher should, for example, not contain antibiotics. The broiler at finisher stage should have ten days to flush out substances which should not be consumed by humans. And a better feed producer would not introduce any antibiotics or growth hormones at all in any of the feeding stages of the bird.

Broilers, for reasons mentioned above, are vulnerable to a range of diseases. The day-old-chicks as supplied by the breeder may or should be vaccinated and the chicken farmer should treat the chickens with lasota and gumboro vaccines. An industrial feed producer such as Tiger Feed routinely adds anti-coccidials to the feed. Chicken farmers have unrestrained access to chicken medication (vaccines and antibiotics) as well as factory made packages of growth enhancers without specified content. It appears that in Zambia there is no regulation in place concerning “permitted” growth enhancers, or the usage and sale of antibiotics. All these things are sold over the counter to anybody wanting to buy them. A withdrawal period, usually of five days, should be observed following the application of antibiotics – only then may the bird be slaughtered for consumption. Such responsible observance is very costly when antibiotics are applied to 5 or 6 week old birds ready for slaughter. At this stage a chicken eats some 200 gr / day costing about K 600 (10 E-cent). For a flock of 200 this amounts to K 600,000 (E 100) in a 5 period and that reduces the profit significantly.  

The drive towards cheap production by chicken farmers and the desire by the consumer to buy cheaply create a situation in which abuses and malpractices can thrive. These are the subject of the next post on broiler chickens.

Italian Reactions: It Takes Two to Tango

Art Historical Reflections no 3. The celebrated Rosa di Pomplona argues eloquently that innovation in Italian art springs from the fortuitous combination of ingenious engineering and an excellent cuisine.  Great art arises from the union of opposites, ultimately the physical and the metaphysical, she says, as is exemplified in Les Mademoiselles d’Avignon by Picasso. The act of its painting metaphorically is a form of cooking and practically of engineering: this act transforms the raw model into an object of culture. The painting itself is a sublime union of opposites inaugurating and epitomising a new style in art.

Initiated: 3 September 2012
Written by: Bert Witkamp

Rosa di Pomplona is, as one might expect of the leading Florence based Instutio della Bella Artes, a renowned specialist of the Italian renaissance. She knows, however, also her way in the tempera painting that preceded oil painting.

Figure 1. Rosa di Pomplona, celebrated art historian and great granddaughter of a model that posed for Picasso when he painted his classic Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.

"The problem of what brings about innovation in art is a fundamental one," she affirms, "and I have pleasure in voicing my appreciation for professor Heinrich Von Schwaben and professor Craigh Cleavens for bringing this topic up in international popular and academic fora. In my contribution to this debate I shall scrutinise innovation in Italian art and that what brought it about. First, let me comment briefly on what my colleagues have put forth. Cleavens attributes innovation in British painting to rationalism and empiricism as grounded in the British philosophical tradition and in the British way of life. Unfortunately, both painters who he presents as illustration for his contention hardly, if at all, can be considered rational in a philosophical sense; though indeed one must concede that they were empiricists in that they learned from experience." 

Rosa notes, in reference to Bacon, that we may indeed say that for a man who has no money it makes sense rationally to steal a loaf of bread as that action, if successful, shall satisfy his hunger. Similarly, it was rational for Turner to paint for the wealthy as they could pay for his work, and they did it well. Whether the wealthy would have paid for pictures of starving children, emaciated mothers or exploited labourers is doubtful. It is not clear, she states,  whether such opportunistic rationalism gives rise to creative innovation.

In philosophy rationalism and empiricism must be guided by moral principles which are not necessarily rational themselves; or may be rational for some but not for others. “Craig,” she concludes, “does not go deep enough.”

"As far as Von Schwaben is concerned," she continues, "his theory of physical determinism, has certain merits and demerits. Surely, the demerits are the most obvious. How could one hold seriously, for example, that a physically large painter would become a great painter; or is likely to develop an appetite for large paintings, or would be inclined towards the painting of grandiose scenes? If, however, we incorporate the self-perception of the artist in this theory we might arrive at something more sensible. The artist who perceives of himself as small might be inclined to compensate for this by huge paintings; or obey his self-perception by the painting of miniatures; or develop a predilection for grand imagery or grand subjects." She notes, however, that if a theory keeps giving you multiple options in similar situations a label such as “determinism” is a misfit. "I should say," she observes, "that Von Schaben’s theory should be expanded to include the mental aspect of the body and subsequently more aptly be labelled the Psychosomatic Theory of Innovation in Art."

Italians, according to Di Pomplona, generally attribute innovation in art, and actually, of all spheres of human endeavour, to two factors. The first factor is technical. It is a question of technique, of engineering, that opens up new ways of artistic construction and hence of expression and perception. Rome could not have been built without its engineers, she argues convincingly. Rembrandt could do what he did because he did it in oil paint. And, she admonishes, he could do that because he had good eyesight and not, as Von Schwaben suggests, because he lacked good eyesight! Oil painting is painting in layers; and these layers may have substantial thickness causing unique kinds of reflection of light and perception of reflected light by the observer. He could not have created these perceptions in tempera, she emphasized, though tempera also is applied in layers; but those are thin and lack the body of an oil paint paste. This gets us to the second factor. The second factor is the national cuisine, and more precisely that what the artist eats and drinks. It is well known that the Italian cuisine is excellent and that is a fundamental reason why our artists produce such appetizing art. It’s our pasta, olive oil, chianti, not to mention the cheeses and meats. The idea that great art is produced on an empty stomach is pure non-sense. Good food is the basis for our physical, sensory and intellectual well being; and our personal well-being is a precondition for our ability to do good for others, i.e., our social well-being.

“If there were an art of the gods” Rosa proclaims powerfully, “it would be the art of cooking, as in it all things are combined that sustain life and make it worthwhile. It is technical, it is sensory, it is a skill, it requires good taste, it is social; it is culture sprung from  agriculture and hence ultimately from the land, the seasons and the cosmos.”

Readers, it is clear indeed that Rosa speaks with the wisdom and authority of what chronologically was Europe’s second great civilisation, the Roman Empire, and arguably its greatest state ever. And she has more to say. The fate of Italy, she says, as of its earliest days, has always been determined by the balance between the arts of engineering and of cooking; of the technical and the sensory. Too much engineering is exemplified in the philosophy of amoral political expediency named Machiavellian; too much cooking in gluttony, debauchery and hedonism. A poor state of cooking usually leads to excessive engineering; and a poor state of engineering leads to overcooking. Present society has too much of both; as demonstrated by excessively engineered food and its massive consumption. The technical and the cooking need to be in harmony. It takes two to tango. Heaven and earth, male and female, life and death, light and darkness, saints and sinners, movement and immobility, determinism and the random, ruler and ruled, the wise and the ignorant: one can’t do without the other.

"Lastly," she confides, "let me tell you a funny anecdote to illustrate the fundamental importance of multiple coinciding inspiring forces to bring about innovation; be these contrary, supplementary or complementary. My great grandmother was a model who posed for Picasso when he did his trailblazing work “Les Mademoiselles d’Avignon.” She, the great grandmother, had said: “Pablo was cooked when he painted that thing and I was raw. He was cooked to the point of double vision, and I was raw to the point of being in my natural state. The painting is the combination of the raw and the cooked; a sublime union of opposites inaugurating and epitomising a new style in painting.”