American Pastured Poultry Producers Association News

APPPA Petitions FDA & USDA FSIS for Egg Standard Alignment

Ginger Shields — Mon, 09 Feb 2026 01:38:43 GMT

Why We’re Asking FDA to Align “Pasture Raised” Standards for Eggs

APPPA has submitted a dual petition with both the USDA FSIS and the FDA urging the FDA to align egg labeling requirements for the “pasture raised” claim with the existing USDA FSIS definition already used for meat and poultry.

This effort is not about creating new standards or debating production science. It is about regulatory consistency, fair competition, and protecting the integrity of real pasture-based farming.

Same Label, Very Different Systems

USDA already maintains a clear, enforceable definition for “pasture raised” when the claim is used on meat and poultry products. That definition reflects a majority of each animal's life on pasture and provides clarity for both producers and consumers.

Eggs, however, fall under dual jurisdiction. Because FDA does not currently apply the same definition to shell eggs, the “pasture raised” claim can be used far more loosely. This regulatory gap allows large egg companies to market eggs from industrial or “free-range” systems — where birds may spend most of their lives indoors with limited outdoor access — using language and imagery that implies a truly pastured model.

The result is widespread consumer confusion and an uneven playing field.

Why This Matters for Pastured Producers

For farmers who genuinely raise birds on pasture, this lack of clarity has real consequences:

Undermined price premiums: Consumers willing to pay more for real pasture-raised eggs cannot reliably distinguish them from industrial alternatives using similar claims.
Unfair competition: Large-scale operations benefit from marketing language that implies pasture-based practices without meeting the same expectations.
Eroded consumer trust: When labels don’t mean what shoppers think they mean, trust in all producers — including the ones doing it right suffers.

Our Ask: Apply an Existing Standard to Eggs

We are urging FDA to adopt or align with the existing USDA FSIS definition of “pasture raised” for egg labeling. This approach:

Uses a standard that already exists and is well understood
Improves consistency across agencies and product categories
Clarifies the difference between limited outdoor access and true pasture-based systems
Protects farmers who invest in genuine pasture management

This is a practical, achievable request focused on alignment — not expansion of regulation.

Why This Is a Win for the Pastured Poultry Community

Clear, consistent labeling helps ensure that when consumers choose “pasture raised,” they are supporting farms that actually raise birds on pasture. It reinforces the value of the production systems our members use and helps prevent industrial models from diluting the meaning of the term.

Ultimately, this effort supports:

Fair markets
Honest labeling
Consumer confidence
The long-term viability of pasture-based poultry farms

We encourage members to stay engaged, submit comments when possible, and help educate consumers about what truly pasture-raised production looks like.

USDA FSIS Petition Link:

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/petitions/petition-submitted-american-pastured-poultry-producers-association-apppa

Email comments to: fsispetitions@usda.gov

Subject: RE: Petition: 26-01

FDA Petition Link:

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2026-P-1156-0001

Use the Comment Box under the Petition title.

Keeping Tabs on Bird Flu

Wed, 12 Feb 2025 15:56:55 GMT

The USDA manages a public website listing current detections of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in poultry, livestock, and wild birds. You can find all the latest numbers here:

Poultry

Livestock

Wild Birds

Wondering what you should do as a pastured poultry producer?

We always start with the premise - if you have birds, you're at risk. Here is recommended approach to raising birds, which we think serves as the foundation to keeping your birds healthy.

Continue to pasture using sound principles, especially movement.
Keep winter housing and brooders dry and well ventilated.
Feed the highest quality feed you can source (least cost rationed feed and feed stuffed with fillers are never good)
Avoid unnecessary contact with waterfowl, but especially don't let your flock drink unfiltered water from sources frequented by waterfowl.
Maintain light stocking densities (1/2 as dense as commercial standards is a good starting point)
Implement the biosecurity plan that fits the risk tolerance of your farm

This, consequently, is the same advice we’d recommend for blackhead or any other poultry ailment that we can think of. Raise a bird that has a robust immune system.

Resources

Here are the articles we wrote in 2015. We still hold to this thinking.

Here are some webinars and interviews:

https://youtu.be/8NuR-vPB4Qs - with Dr. Chrislyn wood at USDA
https://youtu.be/lqNRO-Mb4M0
https://youtu.be/uWZkYdV5CdI

Here's some additional coverage in the APPPA Grit at https://apppa.org/Grit-Issues

Issue 129
Issue 128
Issue 132 - Director's Report

There have been APPPA members' who have had confirmed AI cases. It's heartbreaking, and it’s a serious issue.

Help Ensure Consumer Access to Pastured Poultry

Wed, 15 Jan 2025 14:55:18 GMT

The comment period for FSIS' Proposed Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry is set to close on January 17, but there's still time to post comments. We'd like to encourage you to share this alert with your customers to encourage comments.

Here is text you can share with your customers...

As a part of our participation with the American Pastured Poultry Producers Association, we have been notified of this Proposed Salmonella Framework on Raw Poultry from the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). The foundation of this proposal is that FSIS wants to declare certain levels and/or serotypes of Salmonella detected on raw poultry adulterants. “Adulterated” poultry could not be sold to consumers without first being turned into cooked products by the processors, even though thorough cooking by consumers would render them harmless. Very small fee-for-service processors that do not have access to cooking facilities would be left to condemn the “adulterated” poultry, regardless of ownership.

Why are we sharing this proposed change in the Code of Federal Regulations with you? It’s an important document that, if enacted, could grant government overreach in the name of food safety with no discernable public health benefits and creates greater hindrances to our access to small-scale pastured poultry.

FSIS is very interested in consumer input and gives their concerns great weight, perhaps even greater than farmers and processors, who FSIS perceives to have mostly financial concerns with this Proposed Rule. To read the Proposal, click here.

The deadline for commenting is Friday, January 17, 2025.

Potential Issues that can arise if the Proposed Rule is enacted::

Loss of Access to Local Poultry to Consumers: Increased Production Costs and Liability Insurance on the 30 remaining small scale fee-for-service slaughter facilities in the US could result in an estimated 40% of facilities closing. If farmers don’t have access to an inspected processor, they likely will have to discontinue their own poultry production for their customers as these facilities are few and far between.
Increased Pricing for Local Poultry Consumers: Processors that do continue operations after this Rule is enacted will definitely have increased costs due to increased testing by FSIS, holding of product, and product potentially being condemned that doesn’t pass the rigorous testing. These costs will, of course, need to be passed on down to consumers.
Loss of Private Ownership of Food: This Proposal gives the USDA the ability to declare “adulterated” birds that were destined for a homesteader’s own consumption if the birds were slaughtered at a very small fee-for-service USDA inspected plant. There is a Bill (H. R. 9251, “Increasing Small-Scale Poultry Processing Opportunities Act) recently introduced to Congress that would address this issue but the process can take years.
Reduced Access to Chemical-Free Poultry: In order to meet the requirements set forth in the Proposed Testing program, plants will need to add multiple chemical intervention steps to reduce and eliminate the natural biological bacteria load on the poultry carcasses.
Reduced National Food Security: Loss of both farms and processors will undoubtedly occur with the enactment of this Proposed Rule which is not in the benefit of our national security. Just four years ago, every American realized how vitally important every local farmer and processor was. They feed our nation every day, but especially in times of crises.

To comment, GO Here: Regulations.gov

You can write your own comment, or submit a variation of the following:

“ As a consumer of locally raised and slaughtered poultry I am against the Proposed Salmonella Framework on Raw Poultry. This proposed solution is not effective at addressing the concerns of consumers for safe or clean poultry. Please go back and listen to the stakeholder comments to draft a new solution that allows consumers to maintain private ownership of their poultry and ensures access to non-chemically sterilized poultry if desired.”

Pasture raised is not synonymous with free range

Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:20:32 GMT

Re: Petition 23-03

[APPPA Submitted these comments to USDA in response to a petition that sought to differentiate pasture raised chicken from free range chicken in FSIS' label guidelines]

American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA) appreciates the opportunity to agree with the petition by Perdue Farms LLC that pasture raised and free range label claims are not synonymous terms. APPPA represents independent pastured poultry farmers who primarily sell direct to consumer across the United States. We currently count more than 1,000 active member farms and have been the association of record for the growing pasture poultry movement.

Marketplace confusion and deception is something our members face every day as more poultry companies seize onto the economic opportunities created by the demand that has been grown by the grassroots efforts of independent pastured poultry farmers and their customers.

To understand the context of the confusion perpetuated by unclear labeling and the need for clarity with the pasture raised label, we need a high-level overview of the pasture raised poultry and egg marketplace.

It's no secret that historical poultry production took place outdoors, especially prior to the understanding of Vitamin D. Over the last century, however, most of the commercially produced chicken in the United Sates has moved to confinement in barns with a steadily increasing density of birds in the barn and on the farm. Pastured poultry farmers believe this to be a counter-intuitive way to raise a chicken that’s fraught with unnatural requirements, unhealthy fear of the environment, and unfortunate practices that place efficiency above all other metrics (such as health, welfare, nutrition, and quality).

In the 1990s, there was a counter-cultural method of raising chickens gaining popularity among the independent-farmer community – farmers who wanted to sell direct to consumers in their own neighborhoods while addressing the common problems inherent with contract poultry production in the U.S. That model was a revisioning of the historical poultry model in a way that integrated into a multi-species, multi-enterprise farm through rotational grazing. The model was drawn from the past while using the technological advancements of the day to create an alternative way for independent farmers to compete in a commodity market with a niche product.

The pioneers of the modern pasture raised poultry movement understood unequivocally that a pastured poultry model was predicated on two things. The chickens (or other poultry) lived ON pasture for a majority of their lives, and they MOVED through the pasture.

As the pasture raised model became more popular through the early 2010s, larger egg brands began to take note of the demand. Instead of innovating the existing pastured poultry model, these companies fell back to the confinement poultry model with access to the outside. Then they worked with national grocers and third-party certifications to create programs that fit their production model while allowing them to market to the pasture raised niche.

For poultry to be labeled free range, according to FSIS’ 2019 label guidance, producers must provide a written description of the housing environment and “demonstrate continuous, free access to the outside throughout their normal growing cycle.” The industry’s open secret about free range poultry production is that access is not the same as an open door and there is no requirement for the birds to go outside. If the chickens were to go outside, the outdoor access is not required to lead to pasture. It could be concrete porches or dirt.

The reality of free range, as Perdue shows in their consumer survey, compromises consumer expectations about what pasture raised means.

Highlighted in many of these recent third-party certifications is the premise that pasture raised chickens only require access to pasture. The movement component that integrates pasture raised chickens into a multi-species grazing plan is replaced with an artificial requirement of 108 sq. ft. per chicken. However, 108 sq. ft. is not a suitable substitution for the foundational premise of a pastured poultry model, which is movement on pasture. Regardless of the amount of total theoretical space, a non-movement-based system results in uneven pasture utilization; the pasture itself is degraded when hens are allowed continuous access to a pasture paddock, which ultimately has a negative effect on the health of the flock.

If the only perspective you have into pasture raised chickens is the through the lens of these recent third-party certifications that tout 108 sq. ft. access to pasture instead of movement, then drawing the conclusion that pasture raised is synonymous seems inevitable; however, based on the last 30 years of refinement by the pastured poultry community, that conclusion doesn’t fit.

While Perdue’s petition focused on meat chickens, everything they say is applicable to eggs marketed as pasture raised. The labeling problem being addressed by Perdue is exponentially worse in the current egg market, and it represents the destination of the meat chicken market if FSIS’ labeling guidelines are not refined. That destination, for clarity’s sake, is consumer confusion from a market of deceitful claims leveraged off the backs of a pioneering community who made the market possible in the first place.

Here’s the heart of Perdue’s ask. “This request includes removing ‘pasture-raised’ from claims considered synonymous with ‘free range’ because those two claims are not synonymous. Additionally, Perdue requests that FSIS amend its current Compliance Guideline such that ‘pasture-raised’ is separately and specifically defined. Given that all animal raising claims on labels must be evaluated by FSIS on a case-by-case basis, each advertiser must show that its raising claim meets consumer perception (that all chickens spend the majority of their lives on pasture for “pasture raised” claims) so that consumers are not deceived or otherwise misled by the advertising claim.”

APPPA supports Perdue’s position that pasture raised is not synonymous with free range.

American Grassfed Association (AGA) in close consultation with APPPA will be releasing a pasture raised meat bird and pasture raised layer certification in 2023 that properly reflects the differentiation of pastured poultry from other production methods. It sets a high bar because that’s the original intent of the model. Definitions and certifications naturally create a line that separates one approach from another. FSIS should lean into that basic reality and define a label that stands for something.

In a nutshell, the AGA standards will require that hens must be raised on pasture in mobile coops throughout the entire grazing season for a majority of the hens’ lives. Meat birds must spend a majority of their lives, from birth to harvest, on pasture in mobile coops. All pasture shall consist of land covered with greater than 50% rooted vegetation.

This voluntary pasture raised certification represents the spirit of the pastured poultry model, which seeks to improve the health of the birds, the health of the pasture, and the health of the communities. These standards also align with consumer expectations, as highlighted by Perdue’s survey data.

It’s important to note that poultry of all breeds and varieties are successfully pasture raised. When raised under good management, a life on pasture increases the welfare of any bird; Our community of growers prove this out every day. APPPA does not support restrictions on breed, growth rate, space, or feed to creep into a pasture raised label definition. In line with the forthcoming AGA standards, pasture raised describes a production model that puts chickens and other poultry on fresh pasture often, which is accomplished through mobile shelters. Remove one of those foundations (on pasture or movement), and you don’t have a pasture raised product to market—it’s free range instead.

Sincerely,

American Pastured Poultry Producers Association

Proposed Framework for Controlling Salmonella in Poultry

Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:24:33 GMT

The American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA) respectfully submits these comments about the Proposed Regulatory Framework for an enforceable Salmonella PRODUCT Standard. As an organization that represents several small, and very small USDA poultry plants, APPPA finds the proposed framework to be a significant barrier to member business viability. It discriminates against small producers and processors who do not have the resources to handle additional regulatory compliance costs. At a time when the USDA has pledged to enhance and secure local and state level processing to promote a resilient supply chain, this proposal is especially onerous.

Under this proposed regulatory framework for reducing human infections from poultry by the USDA, we have some questions in reference to the Targeted Infection Rate (TIR), the Current Infection Rate (CIR), and the calculations for each as it pertains to the scope of the issue.

According to the proposed document:

The TIR is ≤11.5 cases per 100,000 per year (≤11.5/100K),
In order to reach the TIR, it’s necessary to reduce the CIR by 25%.
CIR is currently 15.3/100K laboratory-diagnosed infections per year(1).

If we estimate that the total number of U.S. poultry consumers is 330 million, that means we have 50,500 cases/infections annually from any and all causes. The data shows that <23% of all cases are due to poultry, which gives us an estimated 12,500 cases per year due to poultry.

If our goal is to reduce the CIR by 25%, we are looking at approximately 3,000 cases total. It seems like a great deal of effort to reduce a very small number of cases. We believe safe handling education would be more effective at making these reductions.

Our question, however, lies in the “Proposed Framework for Controlling Salmonella in Poultry” where FSIS indicates that the number of cases has not changed and has remained at 1.35 million estimated infections per year according to Centers for Disease Control estimates (2). The infection per year has remained unchanged despite a 50% reduction in the rate of salmonella detected by FSIS over the last two decades.

In order to clearly understand the true scope of the situation, we ask for clarification on the discrepant data presented:

The Healthy People Initiative shows 50,500 all-cause illnesses from Salmonella per year, vs.
The CDC data shows 1,350,000 all-cause illnesses from Salmonella per year.

The CDC’s estimate is 26 times greater than the Healthy People Initiative's estimate of Salmonella illnesses by all causes per year in the United States. The discrepancy is clearly significant. As we look at the scope of the changes proposed, and the potential ramifications it will have on the USDA inspection processes, poultry producers, poultry, the industry, and consumers, we respectfully request that the Salmonella-related illness data be resolved between the CDC and the Healthy People Initiative prior to any decision making and/or establishment of quantitative illness-reduction goals.

Please read below for specific comments for each component of the framework.

Component 1 - Requiring incoming flocks to be tested for Salmonella before entering the establishment

Salmonella is a naturally occurring microbe in our environment and in all poultry. The zero-tolerance standard previously proposed by FSIS has never been viable given that we do not live in a sterile world. Even a quantitative standard asks farmers and establishments to adhere to limits that are not reasonably attainable without toxic chemical interventions that have their own human health implications. Testing flocks before they enter an establishment adds delays and costs that small operators cannot afford. Will FSIS be testing hatcheries for Salmonella so that chicks that are sent to operations be certified Salmonella free? Studies have found that the most pathogenic serotypes of Salmonella originate at the hatchery in nearly all cases(3). If a flock has Salmonella present, will that lead FSIS to condemn flocks that are over a certain limit? Because Salmonella is a naturally occurring organism that can easily be controlled by appropriate cooking, APPPA members believe that the significant funds set aside for this initiative could be better spent educating the public on how to cook poultry to a safe temperature.

Component 2 - Enhancing establishment process control monitoring and FSIS verification

APPPA member establishments already spend a great deal of time and money on monitoring and all of us have verified that our process is under control according to regulations (or we would not be operating!). Part of that control includes the safe handling standards printed on every label. Since Salmonella is a non-regulatory organism (see Supreme Beef v. USDA case), it is particularly difficult to justify the time and expense to enhance monitoring. Most small and very small plants are operating on very small margins with ever increasing labor and supply costs. This framework will have the unintended consequence of putting many small operators out of business, especially if the farms they serve also have to meet a Salmonella standard as well. Given that the framework goal is to reduce poultry related infections nationally by 3000 cases per year, we feel this is a great deal of effort on a national scale to reduce infections by 0.22% of the total US infections per year. Again, a focus on safe handling education would make up for more than this reduction.

Given that the USDA has reduced Salmonella by 50% over the last decade, but and resulting infections have not changed, it simply does not follow that further Salmonella reduction efforts will have any effect on human health. Is there data on safe handling use after poultry leaves the plant? Is there education and outreach that can be done to make sure that restaurants, stores, and institutions are using safe handling techniques effectively?"

Component 3 - Enforceable Final Product Standard

APPPA maintains that Salmonella cannot be considered an adulterant in poultry because it is a naturally occurring organism in all poultry. As stated previously, it can easily be controlled by cooking and does not present a significant threat to human health if used properly. This is settled law (see Supreme Beef case). Even though the USDA has no legal standing to require Salmonella control, USDA inspectors still require plants to do testing of young chicken as a way to show process control. To enforce a final product standard is clearly beyond the legal mandate of the Food Safety and Inspection Service. We ask that the USDA remove this from the proposal.

References

“Reduce infections caused by Salmonella — FS‑04,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/foodborne-illness/reduce-infections-caused-salmonella-fs-04.

“Salmonella,” Centers for Disease Control, https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/index.html.

Russell, Scott M. Controlling Salmonella in Poultry Production and Processing. (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2012).

Investments and Opportunities for Meat and Poultry Processing Infrastructure

Wed, 01 Sep 2021 15:12:53 GMT

American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA) respectfully submits these comments regarding the opportunity to invest in poultry processing infrastructure. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed critical capacity and logistical failures in our country’s processing infrastructure that has resulted from industry consolidation. APPPA’s comments will focus exclusively on poultry.

Inspected processors who are members of APPPA have expressed a concern about the long-term feasibility of very small plants. They cite inflationary pressure on labor, utilities, and supplies, in addition to regulatory pressure. Labor shortages represent the primary concern among very small plant operators. These concerns will still be present after USDA awards these funds. We ask that these funds simultaneously help very small plants, like those represented by APPPA, while making generational impacts by adding processing capacity in every state in the union.

What seasonal throughput issues (e.g., under- and over-utilization during parts of the year) or regional challenges need to be considered for plant expansion or development?

All 50 states and U.S. territories have unmet demand for poultry processing for independent farmers. In much of the country, local poultry processing demand tends to be seasonal and distributed across rural areas. Retaining labor is a primary challenge for seasonal plants.

Employee turnover increases training costs and decreases efficiency. The people who want to work tend to want to work every day and year-round. APPPA members who operate inspected processing facilities say that investments in automation and other infrastructure are required to help offset the labor shortages that have affected them year-after-year.

Working with plants to develop 12-month solutions for their seasonal plants should be a priority for USDA.

What constitutes sufficient actual demand for small and very small processing facilities to keep a business operational with appropriate cash flow?

We believe that on-farm poultry processing can cash flow with less than 20,000 birds per year when that processing is done on farm under a PL 90-492 exemption. Based on processor feedback, a cooperative poultry processing facility would likely need to process greater than 100,000 birds per year.

Consider a small plant operator, and member of APPPA, who defines the gap between 20,000 birds processed under exemption and the level required to make a USDA inspected plant viable as “no man’s land.” At 20,000 birds, the on-farm processing added value to the farm and represented a volume that could be direct marketed by the farm.

The plant ultimately scaled up to 120,000 birds through an inspected plant, which changed the business model to focus on wholesale business. However, 120,000 birds in a wholesale market are not a competitive volume. To get the wholesale price down to a competitive number, the plant would need to operate five days a week, eight hours a day. The volume increase would need to coincide with an investment to further automate the plant to reduce labor shortage concerns.

This underscores an important consideration in terms of the very small plants operated by APPPA members. These processing plants are owned by farmers who need the processing to get the value out of the poultry they raise. They need processing solutions that fit into their business model and the regional food models they serve.

At any given time, approximately ten very small poultry processing plants are members of APPPA. USDA could grant each of these plants up to $1,000,000 to help upgrade their plants to deal with automation, cold storage, and other upgrades and have an immediate impact on their competitiveness. These inspected processors are often hubs for other members of the pastured poultry community. When they go out of business, their processing customers (i.e., independent family farmers) go with them; most often, there are no other processing options available to cover the loss in capacity.

How can USDA support access to processing services for smaller-scale producers? Are there opportunities for producers to engage in cooperative or collaborative arrangements with each other or other facilities to both ensure access and provide a sufficient supply for a plant to operate?

The answer to food security and competitive agricultural markets is more processing options. We understand that not all safe and legal processing needs to occur under USDA inspection. Not all markets require a USDA small or very small plant to meet regional marketing demands. We have two ideas that could increase processing capacity and ease cash flow challenges that commonly face very small plants.

In our first consideration, we ask USDA to consider that they’ve had part of their answer codified in the Poultry Processing Inspection Act since August 17, 1968. In our second consideration, we outline an idea using regional inspected plants with distributed Retail exempt facilities.

PL 90-492 Creates Competitive Processing Capacity

9 CFR 381.10 defines multiple exemptions from inspection in the Poultry Processing Inspection Act. There are three underutilized exemptions that should be part of this conversation on restoring competition through processing capacity.

The Producer Grower exemptions, of which there are two, allow farmers to raise and grow up to 1,000 or up to 20,000 birds and process them on farm.

The Custom exemption allows a processor to process an unlimited number of birds for an unlimited number of individuals; however, those processed birds are for personal consumption purposes only.

The Small Enterprise exemption makes provisions for a processor to buy up to 20,000 birds from multiple farmers, process those birds, and then sell them back to the farmers for distribution.

The problem with these exemptions is that individual states can determine whether they will accept the exemptions and ultimately determine what compliance looks like. State regulatory personnel often lack the training and the knowledge required to make these exemptions an effective solution for farmers across the country. The result is unequal access and ambiguity that inhibits farmers from accessing one of the easiest ways to increase competitive access to processing.

In some states, such as Indiana, efforts to clarify PL 90-492 exempt processing regulations were successful; in other states, such as California, those efforts are met with resistance by a commercial poultry lobby. Lobbyists often argue their case under the guise of food safety, but food safety fears have not been realized with exempt processed poultry. Opposing exempt processing by the commercial poultry lobby does prevent competitive market access by smaller scale producers.

USDA should use this opportunity and some of these funds to make the PL 90-492 exemptions a viable processing path for everyone. Remove the ambiguity that occurs at the state level and enable producers access to these federally approved processing options.

Alternatively, USDA could develop a new plant definition that is scale appropriate for areas of the country that have difficulty in staffing a profitable USDA plant. These micro plants could be limited in annual processing volume (e.g., 40,000 birds per year) to offset the regulatory burdens commonly placed on very small plants.

Both approaches (exempt and micro plants) would open the opportunities for entrepreneurial farms to add processing value without funding from USDA and have an immediate increase in processing capacity. The longer-term benefit is that as markets for locally produced poultry increases and regions experience stable processing options, some of those plants will organically grow into very small USDA plants, thereby increasing capacity. In this way, the market dictates whether a very small plant is feasible instead of the industry trying to force a common approach across all processing scales.

Retail Exempt Facilities

Considering the seasonality limitations, volume requirements, and cash flow challenges of operating a small or very small plant, several APPPA members suggest a model that creates regional processing capacity with smaller satellite Retail exempt facilities that would further process the poultry prior to sale.

The regional plants could be operated as either non-profit processors or as dedicated for-hire facilities, assuming seasonal demand makes it possible. USDA could provide funds to help these plants upgrade existing facilities or to establish themselves. Some land grant universities, such as Alabama A&M, have existing processing capacity that would fit this model.

After slaughter at the regional plant, the poultry could be distributed back to the farmer to further process in several Retail exempt processing facilities. USDA could use funds to support this operation by funding a reefer truck to distribute product from the regional plant to the Retail exempt facilities.

This collaborative approach can allow the regional plant to specialize in slaughter without worrying about accommodating all the individual demands a producer may have for further processing.

APPPA Announces 2021 Board

Wed, 24 Mar 2021 12:12:25 GMT

The following individuals have been elected by members to serve a three-year board term beginning March 2021: Caitlin Caserta (New Hampshire), Mark Harrison (Georgia), and Joe Koopsen (Michigan).

All three of these individuals have been active in APPPA for years, and have been active participants in our annual conference. They will join Bruce Hennessey (Vermont), Pat McNiff (Rhode Island), Ginger Shields (Florida), Daniel Salatin (Virginia), Rosanna Bauman (Kansas), and Christian Alexandre (California) as the board of directors.

At the March 16, 2021, board meeting, the new members began their three-year term. At the March meeting, the new board nominated and elected a new executive committee, which consists of Bruce Hennessey, President; Daniel Salatin, Vice President; Rosanna Bauman, Treasurer; and Ginger Shields, Secretary. The executive committee serves a one year term.

Every time we enthusiastically welcome new board members, we must simultaneously bid farewell. Susan Beal and David Hale step aside after serving APPPA for six years. Paul Greive leaves after three years in service to APPPA.

Let Us Show You Real Pasture Raised Eggs

Fri, 31 Jul 2020 13:43:20 GMT

The video “Let us show you real pasture raised eggs” clears up the label confusion common in the grocery store aisle by setting a clear expectation of what pasture-raised means. Pasture raised hens move to fresh pasture often. They live a majority of their lives on pasture and not in a barn that only gives access to pasture. Movement to fresh pasture ensures that the benefits of the pastured poultry farming model come together into an egg that is documented to be more nutrient dense in important vitamins and fats when compared to non-pasture raised eggs.

The key to perceiving the difference between real pasture raised eggs, as it’s been done for the last 30 years, and other egg labels is understanding the difference between the words “on” and “access.”

Pastured poultry live on rooted-in-soil vegetation and actively growing pasture.

The use of the term “access to pasture” in egg marketing is a sign that management behind those eggs may not live up to the decades of historical principles used by the pastured poultry community.

In this video, Ginger Shields of Pastured Life Farm in Florida sums up the problem. “We have to do a fair amount of de-education for our customers because so many of them are misled by grocery store labels. They assume that a free-range chicken would the same [pasture raised] product that we're selling. It's not.”

The legal definition for Free Range poultry regulates “access” to the outdoors, but it’s an open secret in the poultry industry that the doors on a free-range barn may never open. If the barn doors do open, there’s no enforced standard that requires there to be vegetation outside the doors or that the birds step through the door. Likewise, when you see certifications that market 108 square feet of pasture per hen, it’s a warning that you may not be getting what you expect. In these systems, the 108 square feet replaces the core principle of movement to fresh, rooted in-soil vegetation by providing “access” to a large amount of space that the hens cannot properly utilize.

How do you get what you expect?

In “Let us show you real pasture raised eggs,” Grady Phelan from Heritage Valley Farm in Texas, says is succinctly, “Know the first name of your farmer.” APPPA helps consumers know the first name of their farmer by maintaining a searchable directory of pastured poultry farms at https://getrealchicken.com. Get Real Chicken is a project of APPPA.

Get Real Chicken Website Helps Consumers Source Pasture Raised Poultry

Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:13:58 GMT

The American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA) launches the Get Real Chicken website to make it easier for consumers to shop for local pasture raised poultry. Get Real Chicken (getrealchicken.com) features over 500 independent pastured poultry farms that can be discovered through an interactive search.

The “Find a Local Farmer” directory enables visitors to search by location, type of poultry, type of feed (e.g., certified organic, soy-free, non-gmo) and product availability. Customers looking for farm-to-door delivery will find a growing list of farmers who ship to your doorstep by filtering the “Availability” options to include “Home Delivery.”

In addition to the farmer directory, Get Real Chicken features educational resources, such as a consumer buying guide and the Real Pastured Poultry video series. This website answers the question, “What is pasture raised poultry?”

Pasture raised chickens, turkeys, and other poultry live a majority of their lives on fresh, rooted-in soil pasture. This is accomplished through movable shelters (coops). That’s different from living in a confinement barn that only provides access to pasture. Living on fresh green grass makes pasture raised poultry the preferred choice over every other label, including free range, cage-free, organic, all-natural, and antibiotic free.

Get Real Chicken (getrealchicken.com) is a project of APPPA. APPPA is a member-based organization that has been providing the pastured poultry community with training, research, insights, and networking opportunities since 1997. Get Real Chicken provides a friendly way to learn about and source real pasture raised poultry, including chicken, eggs, and turkey.

Calling All Heritage Poultry Breeders

Wed, 17 Jun 2020 17:00:00 GMT

American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA) will unite with Heritage Poultry Breeders (HPB). The two organizations are voluntarily merging their assets under the APPPA organization, so that the educational goals and resources for poultry breeders can be realized through APPPA’s reach.

APPPA and HPB agree that assimilating HPB resources into the APPPA organization provides a strategic advantage for heritage poultry, poultry breeding in general, and for the broader pastured poultry community. APPPA’s inclusion of poultry breeding will fall in line with its broader mission of advocating for pastured poultry as a profitable business model.

HPB was formed to organize a community of passionate Heritage Poultry breeders – enabling sharing, educating, and developing the knowledge base needed to improve and restore standard breeds to their original purposes. APPPA encourages the production, processing, marketing, and purchasing of poultry raised on pasture through education and networking opportunities for both producers and consumers. This announcement formally declares breeding as a topical area of interest for APPPA and APPPA members.

While we understand that many heritage poultry enthusiasts breed for exhibition and show, APPPA’s focus will remain on pastured models, integrating breeding for breed-specific productivity and profitability of standard-bred poultry into our other resources. By incorporating heritage poultry breeding resources into APPPA, there are opportunities to expand heritage poultry adoption, forge marketing relationships between breeders and growers, and build a more resilient pastured poultry community.

What’s this mean for existing APPPA members?

APPPA remains focused on pastured poultry as a for-profit business model. This focus creates the necessary for diversity within the community in terms of breed, feed, markets, and production scales.

The most obvious change is that you will start to see breeder-specific topics covered in articles, trainings, and networking. The creation of a breeder specific discussion group will be the first tangible change, the discussion list is open to any APPPA member.

Stay tuned for announcements and updates and remember this caveat:: We are staking the claim that no other association advocates for pastured poultry like APPPA does, and we believe that developing profitable models for breeding heritage poultry is a critical part of the long-term health of pastured poultry.

As we settle in and incorporate changes designed to include breeders, you will hear a lot about breeding as we setup those resources. Know that APPPA will continue to hold open a large umbrella that makes room for all pastured poultry producers.

APPPA believes that incorporating passionate breeders with the most knowledgeable pastured poultry community in the world will lead to strategic partnerships and opportunities that we’ve not yet begun to imagine.

MAKING NUTRIENT DENSE CHICKEN AND EGGS: THE MOVEMENT MATTERS

Tue, 07 Apr 2020 10:17:09 GMT

Healthier Way Forward is the latest video release in the Real Pastured Poultry video marketing campaign from American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA). Healthier Way Forward showcases pasture raised poultry through farmer stories, stunning visuals, and human nutrition.

Healthier Way Forward presents results that show pasture raised chicken and eggs are more nutritionally dense than non-pasture raised. The nutritional values summarized throughout the video are the result of independent laboratory testing conducted on real-world pastured poultry products. That means the chickens were raised using pastured poultry best practices regarding movement, feed, and husbandry.

The nutritional results summarized in Healthier Way Forward were originally published in the APPPA Grit, the pastured poultry community’s journal of record since 1997. Peer reviewed research trials and independent farmer nutritional testing corroborate the findings published by APPPA.

The evidence is overwhelmingly clear. How we raise chickens and what we feed them matters to the health of the people who eat the chickens and eggs.

Healthier Way Forward features the stories of farmers from across the United States, including Matt Cadman of Shady Grove Ranch in Texas. In the video, Matt’s provides a dietary wake-up call. “I was on $700 of medication a month. My wife

and I said, this has got to be diet related." Matt and his family included pastured poultry in total pursuit of better health. "I’m the poster child for what a total lifestyle change can accomplish. I haven’t taken a pill in eight years,” he says.

When it comes to making a more nutrient dense chicken and egg, the movement matters. There are companies who try to market pasture raised eggs based on access to 108 square feet of space per hen from an immovable barn with chickens that may never go outside. That’s a historically inaccurate understanding of pasture-raised because it removes the critical foundation of movement to fresh forage. APPPA asserts that birds that only have access to the outdoors, the free range reality, are different from birds raised on pasture. The peer reviewed research provides support for this assertion. When independent laboratory testing or university research incorporates a movement-based pasture model, the nutritional differences are clearly noticeable. When the nutritional composition of free range birds are tested, the results are less predictable.

When you watch Healthier Way Forward, you see real pastured poultry farms incorporating moveable shelters that enable the farmer to provide a steady supply of fresh rooted in soil vegetation to the flock. The steady access to fresh forage is the foundation for the health of the chicken and the nutrient density of the eggs and meat produced from a pastured system.

You can’t identify real pastured poultry by certifications and labels. You identify real pastured poultry based on movement. The best way to find a pastured poultry farmer is to visit apppa.org/directory.

For more information, contact grit@apppa.org or (888) 662-7772 or download the media kit for Healthier Way Forward.

Farmers, You Are Critical: Keep Perspective on Supply and Demand

Fri, 03 Apr 2020 15:01:52 GMT

Seeing lots of questions about the availability of feed, chicks, processing and other essential services that pastured poultry farms need.

The Department of Homeland Security publishes a list of critically essential jobs, and as you might expect, agricultural supply chains are in that list. You can review it here:

https://www.cisa.gov/…/guidance-essential-critical-infrastr…

In terms of access to inputs (feed and chicks), please understand this is a high demand time of year. It's spring and the entire country is now coming online to raise meat birds. It's a recurring, high seasonal demand.

There's an extra pressure on the supply right now. As consumers push a higher demand for pasture-raised chickens, farms are blowing through stockpiled inventory. It's an expected outcome that they will be trying to add capacity to meet the demand and replace inventory.

That extra demand gobbles up all the available inventory and before you know it, your hatchery can't meet your needs for 1 month. It's not the end of the world. Don't panic. It's an increase in demand causing a 1 month window in next availability dates. That's a fairly normal result for this time of year.

When you go to a big box store and you see the shelves picked clean of feed bags when normally they wouldn't be, understand that is panicked buying in much the same way bulk toilet paper purchases are. Please give your supply chains time to work. If you have doubts, talk to them. The pastured poultry community is built on relationships throughout the supply chain and your relationship with your feed and chick supplier should be prominent.

Please don't hoard feed that you can't use within 30 days. If you do stockpile feed, you'll realize the cost of that decision in a couple months when your chickens develop growth problems and illnesses from nutritionally deficient feeds that you've stockpiled in the shed for three months.

Remember Relief for Local Food Systems: APPPA Signs Letter to Secretary Perdue

Thu, 02 Apr 2020 12:27:35 GMT

Congress recently approved The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (H.R.748), which provides $9.5 billion in support for “agricultural producers impacted by coronavirus, including producers of specialty crops, producers that supply local food systems, including farmers markets, restaurants, and schools, and livestock producers, including dairy producers.”

The economic impact of social distancing and shutting down society is uneven within the local food economy. Many APPPA members have been able to shift their distribution models to focus on online sales and direct delivery to families. They are seeing unprecedented demand. However, farms who rely heavily on other direct markets, such as restaurants, specialty retailer stores, and institutions, have seen devastating reductions in sales. They are left scrambling to shift sales models on-the-fly.

The National Sustainable Agricultural Coalition (NSAC) organized a letter to Secretary Perdue to remind the Secretary that local, direct-market farms are expected to incur a loss estimated at more than $1 billion dollars. APPPA eagerly agreed to sign onto that letter with 11 other organizations.

The letter reads, in part:

As you work through these challenging times to swiftly implement this provision of the CARES Act, we urge you to ensure that farmers and ranchers who have lost local and regional markets due to the pandemic receive financial relief, especially direct assistance, that is commensurate with their expected losses of over $1 billion.

Read the full letter.

APPPA Announces 2020 Board

Wed, 01 Apr 2020 14:37:28 GMT

APPPA welcomes Christian Alexandre (Crescent City, California) and Rosanna Bauman (Garnett, Kansas) to the board of directors, where they will be serving three-year terms. Voting for the 2020 board election closed on March 1, after a competitive election.

Christian and Rosanna replace Craig Haney and Grady Phelan. Words are inadequate to acknowledge the work and effort Craig and Grady put into APPPA, but their influence is visible in so many ways, including our conference planning and implementation.

Craig initiated the Poultry School at Stone Barns in New York, which included APPPA as a collaborator. The Stone Barns event gave the APPPA conference momentum and provided us with early insights into the need for a pastured poultry specific event. Grady was a critical resource and host for launching the first APPPA conference in Hillsboro, Texas.

New Leadership

The Board, at the March 2020 APPPA board meeting, welcomed Christian and Rosanna and elected a new executive committee. Here are your officers for this year:

‪· Susan Beal, DVM, President

· Paul Greive, Vice President

· David Hale, Treasurer

· Ginger Shields, Secretary

Five additional board members join the executive committee to help serve you - the APPPA membership: Pat McNiff, Bruce Hennessey, Daniel Salatin, Rosanna Bauman, and Christian Alexandre.

APPPA Responds to FSIS: Pasture Raised Is not Synonymous with Free Range

Tue, 24 Mar 2020 14:56:05 GMT

The American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA), on behalf of our members, submits these comments relevant to the clarification of the label claim of “free range” for poultry products [Docket Number FSIS-2016-0021].

Based on consultation with the AMS, FSIS currently deems the terms “Free Range,” “Free Roaming,” “Pasture Fed,” “Pasture Grown,” “Pasture Raised,” and “Meadow Raised” to be synonymous. By treating all these potentially different management scenarios as synonymous, the proposed directive opens the door for confusion on the part of the producer as well as the consumer.

In their discussion about how the specific claims around these terms are to be made, the proposed FSIS directive states that the documentation “must describe the housing condition for the birds” and “must demonstrate continuous, free access to the outside throughout [the birds’] normal growing cycle.”

However, FSIS has also been clear that it does not want to engage in a definition of these terms, nor in prescribing and auditing specific husbandry practices.

The wording of the proposed directive allows poultry products to be labeled as “pastured raised,” even if the birds have never been outside on pasture in their lives. Additionally, being “outside” is not synonymous with being “on pasture.” Pasture implies vegetation rooted in soil, which is either actively growing or that has been stockpiled for use in the non-growing season.

Access to the Outside / Being Outside Should be Defined more Clearly

Poultry group dynamics ensures that birds who have “access to the outside” may never actually leave their social groups and their area of the house to walk to – and then venture through – the (typically very small) access doors to gain access to open outdoor air.

Additionally, the FSIS directive states, “During winter months in northern climate, birds are not free range if they stay in poultry housing or coops all winter.” While APPPA and our members commend FSIS for clarifying the difference between winter and other seasonal housing, this part of the directive does not offer enough clarity.

In this situation, FSIS deems birds are not free range if they stay in the coops and housing all winter, but does not differentiate this situation from the birds who, by virtue of their normal social behaviors and / or relative lack of access to suitable doors (size, number and location), do not move outside using the pop doors in other seasons. This seems incongruous.

Pasture Raised Eggs and Chicken are Nutritionally Different

There is evidence to support that poultry raised on viable, rooted-in-soil pasture display a nutritional profile that is different than poultry raised in confinement and / or in dirt-lot situations. Multiple research papers, supported by privately funded nutritional testing of poultry raised on growing pastures in a management system that incorporates movement across those pastures, show that there are differences in the nutritional profiles of the pastured birds.

Because of this evidence and because there is additional research currently in progress, APPPA requests that FSIS reconsider their opinions. This research compares the nutritional components in the meat and eggs of pasture-raised birds compared to that of birds raised in other circumstances, including free range.

Logic and laboratory work indicate that claiming “Free Range” as equivalent to “Pastured Raised” would construe and support misleading and untruthful claims.

This lack of clarity and specificity is misleading to consumers and contributes to labels that are not truthful and misleading. The consumer who is seeking out pastured poultry products specifically because of the differences in nutritional value has expectations about the way the label on the poultry accurately reflects the product contained within the packaging. Continuing to consider these different management practices as equivalent could result in products that are negligently misbranded using fundamentally incorrect labels.

APPPA proposes that FSIS continue to collate and study the available data and make an empirical assessment of the differences in nutritional content among the meat and eggs from birds raised in different husbandry models, including but not only, pasture-raised and free range. Further APPPA proposes that the final rule be delayed until such time as the research is more fully completed.

Pasture Raised Not Synonymous with Free Range

Since the mission of FSIS includes “ensuring the nation's commercial supply of poultry is correctly labeled and packaged,” it seems self-evident that the guidance offered regarding “Free Range” and “Pasture Raised” should include a clear definition of the claims being made on the labels.

The current definition of free range is inherently accurate: poultry are “Free to Range,” meaning they can stay indoors or go outdoors as they so choose. In the Free Range system, a bird can stay indoors its entire life and still be accurately labeled as free range. That would be an accurate and correct use of the Free-Range label, but it would not represent a Pasture-Raised bird.

We also realize that most poultry must spend their first weeks in a very controlled environment (the brooder) in order to survive. (This is similar to the weaning period for ruminants.). It is unreasonable to propose that requirements for poultry that are “pasture-raised” include the provision that they “[must] demonstrate continuous, free access to the outside through [the birds’] normal growing cycle.”

An accurate description of “pasture raised” is that each bird lives more than 50% of its life on pasture that is covered by rooted-in-soil vegetative cover, which is typically achieved by flock movement to fresh pasture.

APPPA recommends that FSIS does not consider “Pasture Raised” synonymous with “Free Range” based on a growing body of research and fundamental differences in the approach of each system. APPPA proposes further discussion and collaboration with FSIS to more accurately define pasture raised poultry and eggs as a product that is inherently different than free range.

Pastured Poultry Response to COVID 19 Social Distancing

Sun, 22 Mar 2020 11:28:43 GMT

The APPPA member response to the COVID 19 outbreak has been filled with grace, compassion, and strength in community. I (Mike Badger) have been checking in with people throughout this last week and everyone is busy serving their communities with access to locally produced food.

Farms are literally shifting sales models on the fly from wholesale to direct sales with delivery routes, shipping, and running hard to meet an increased demand. They are forming collaborative sales groups quickly and sorting out the details as they go. Farms are holding prices stable despite high demand.

It's too early to know what the new normal will look like for pastured poultry farms after this outbreak subsides.

Here is something I do know.

Farmers, you are essential.

Communities are rediscovering how essential you are.

When the store shelves are bare, it is APPPA members and farmers like them who are stepping in and bringing a reassuring face to their food.

I am not surprised. I am thankful.

This is the type of rapid, personal, food secure approach a local and regional economy promises. While you're running and shipping, you should know people notice your actions, and we appreciate them.

--Mike Badger

Dr. Michael Fisher to Help Pastured Poultry Processors Avoid and Solve FSIS Problems

Mike Badger — Fri, 01 Nov 2019 14:44:53 GMT

Jacksonville, FL—APPPA welcomes Dr. Michael Fisher, retired United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS) veterinarian, to the Professional Pastured Poultry Conference from January 21-22, 2020. Dr. Fisher will be available to help small family operations avoid regulatory problems with FSIS.

Dr. Fisher will lead a discussion on getting the hazard analysis right by focusing on the most common and significant problems he has encountered. “Get the hazard analysis right and life can be good. Get it wrong, and life is an unending series of regulatory problems for which there is no solution,” says Dr. Fisher.

APPPA will solicit questions from registered attendees prior to the conference, so that Dr. Fisher can come to Jacksonville with answers prepared for those questions. While in Jacksonville, Dr. Fisher will be available for one-on-one consultation and discussion.

Dr. Fisher writes a blog series sharing his expertise with FSIS regulatory issues on the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund website. This will be the second APPPA conference he has attended as an expert resource.

American Pastured Poultry Producers Association is a member-based trade organization advocating for pastured poultry through farmer specific resources and consumer education.

Learn more about the Professional Pastured Poultry Conference.

Contact Mike Badger at grit@apppa.org or 888-662-7772.

Conference Attendees Will Learn How to Apply Lean Management to Their Pastured Poultry Farms

Mike Badger — Tue, 22 Oct 2019 17:47:43 GMT

Jacksonville, FL—Nathan Bonds, Lean Management expert will provide in-depth training at the Professional Pastured Poultry Conference in Jacksonville, FL on January 20-21, 2020. By leveraging the principles of Lean, Nathan will help farmers become more efficient, reduce waste, and improve quality across all phases of the farm.

The systematic approach of Lean will provide customers the three things they want: quality, cost, and service. Nathan says, “As farmers, we want to meet what our customers want, but we also want to lead them to what they need. Lean is about people. We’re going to focus on the people who focus on the process. It’s about our relationships.”

Nathan will teach workshops on how to get started improving your processes and strategies for managing your labor force (employees) on the farm. He will also lead breakout discussions and be available as an expert resource on both days of the conference.

Pat McNiff, Owner of Pat’s Pastured, says, “In only three days, Nathan helped us cut our daily labor moving chicken shelters by half when everyone thought it couldn’t be done.” Nathan’s consultation, methodical approach, and endless passion has been instrumental in the continuous and steadfast improvement of Pat’s Pastured, Maple Wind Farms, and other pastured poultry farms in New England.

Nathan is a Project Manager with Polaris MEP, a Rhode Island organization that helps companies refine processes, build talent pipelines, and break into new markets. An article summarizing Nathan’s 2019 conference presentation can be read at this link. You can watch Nathan Bonds deliver his “Lean Tip of the Week” on YouTube.

American Pastured Poultry Producers Association is a member-based trade organization advocating for pastured poultry through farmer specific resources and consumer education. Learn more about the 2020 Professional Pastured Poultry Conference.

Direct questions to Mike Badger at grit@apppa.org or 888-662-7772.

APPPA Announces Conference “Partner Sponsor”

Wed, 09 Oct 2019 10:30:00 GMT

Jacksonville, FL—American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA) welcomes Resaca Sun Feeds as the “Partner Sponsor” for the 2020 Professional Pastured Poultry Conference in Jacksonville, Florida, on January 19-21, 2020. Resaca Sun Feeds specializes in the production of high quality, pastured-raised poultry feeds using Non-GMO Project Verified ingredients. They are a family-owned feed mill located in Resaca, Georgia.

Sponsors play a vital role in the Professional Pastured Poultry Conference by helping to create robust conference experiences at affordable registration prices and by providing attendees personal access to industry leaders. APPPA encourages all our sponsors to be involved with the conference programming as participants and contributors. The flexible and spontaneous nature of the conference facilitates a more natural engagement between supporting businesses and the farmer attendees.

Andrew Moore, third generation farmer and feed mill manager will lead a session on sourcing feed ingredients and working with feed mills in the “Profitable Pastured Poultry” pre-conference course (January 19, 2020).

American Pastured Poultry Producers Association is a member-based trade organization advocating for pastured poultry through farmer specific resources and consumer education. For more information about the Professional Pastured Poultry Conference can be found at apppa.org/Conference.

Additional sponsor and exhibitor opportunities remain open through December 1, 2019. Contact Mike Badger at grit@apppa.org or 888-662-7772 for additional information.

American Pastured Poultry Producers Association Invites Pastured Poultry Farmers to Network, Problem Solve, and Build Relationships

Tue, 08 Oct 2019 11:41:58 GMT

Jacksonville, FL—APPPA expects international attendance by pastured poultry farmers at the Professional Pastured Poultry Conference, scheduled for January 19-21, 2020, at the Lexington Hotel and Conference Center in Jacksonville, FL. The conference brings independent, family-owned pastured poultry farms together for three days of peer-to-peer learning opportunities. Conference organizers encourage attendees to bring their struggles and their success stories because there’s someone in the room who has solved your problem or needs your help.

American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA) has been providing farmer education and networking opportunities to the community since 1997. As the pastured poultry community grew more experienced in the production, marketing, and processing segments, APPPA identified an unfilled need. Experienced community members needed advanced conference programming that went beyond the basic startup and the how-to information provided by the typical conference workshops. The Professional Pastured Poultry Conference fills that need.

In 2017, the Professional Pastured Poultry Conference was launched in a rodeo arena in Hillsboro, Texas. Those two days flipped the conference script and made the attendees the keynote speakers as several dozen farmers discussed issues in real-time without a single PowerPoint. In 2020, the conference format is expanding to be welcoming and relevant to farmers at all scales and experience; however, spontaneous, attendee-led discussion remains the event’s signature attraction.

American Pastured Poultry Producers Association is a member-based trade organization advocating for pastured poultry through farmer resources and consumer education. More information about the Professional Pastured Poultry Conference can be found at apppa.org/Conference.

Contact Mike Badger at grit@apppa.org or 888-662-7772.

Washington State Signs Cage-Free Egg Law

Mon, 01 Jul 2019 11:38:35 GMT

Washington joins California and Massachusetts by signing legislation that prohibits eggs from caged hens to be sold within the state. While the Washington law won't be fully enacted until 2023, American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA) would like to remind everyone that pasture-raised hens always lay cage-free eggs.

Cage-free pasture-raised eggs are available now throughout the United States using our find-a-farmer directory.

The clear message for egg producers is that as consumers become educated about industry practices, they reject many of the practices the industry markets as necessary.

(H/T Feedstuffs)

Access to pasture is not enough to make pasture-raised chicken

Fri, 22 Mar 2019 18:28:49 GMT

A recent news release announced the formation of a chicken company that claims to be the only company at scale to raise slower growing heirloom chickens in an integrated pasture-raised model. The American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA) would like to offer the poultry community a better understanding of what the current pastured poultry community looks like and what it really means to be pasture-raised.

Pasture-Raised Chicken Is Movement Based

To provide clarity, pasture-raised poultry describes a farming method that builds on the core idea of outdoor production and flock movement. The simplified version is that the chickens or turkeys are raised outside in portable shelters; the shelters and the flock are moved to fresh pasture regularly, allowing the previously grazed area to rest and regenerate.

In modern chicken company marketing (and some third-party certifications), you will see terms like “outdoor access” or “access to pasture.” These phrases warn the consumer of a non-pasture raised method of production. Visual inspection provides the verification. If you see a fixed location confinement animal feeding operation (CAFO) style house with a few doors around the building opening into a small fenced in area, you’re not looking at a pastured poultry model. Those types of facilities meet the USDA definition of free range (read more about the difference).

The distinction among the models must be swift and clear for consumers because it is the movement-based model that puts the birds outside on the grass in the sunshine. This builds nutrition in the chicken and eggs. Movement-based pastured poultry ensures healthy chicken that can be raised without coccidiostats or other antibiotics. The model of regular movement followed by a period of rest regenerates the land by building soil and improving fertility.

In other words, the difference that consumers expect are a result of the farming model. When chicken and egg companies short-circuit the pasture raised model by not incorporating flock movement or real outdoor production, they short circuit difference. Consumers are left paying the price.

A Diverse Pasture-Raised Poultry Community

In January 2019, independent pastured poultry farmers from 36 states, two Canadian provinces, and Haiti attended the APPPA Professional Pastured Poultry Conference in Greenville, TX. At that meeting, you could find farmers who were raising broilers, layers, turkeys, heritage birds and commercial birds. You could find producers at a variety of scales including farmers raising 1,000 birds or 300,000 or any number in between. There were farmers, feed manufacturers, breeders, processors, marketers, and distributors.

Inside the diverse APPPA membership, we have farmers raising slower growing broilers in a pasture raised model for processing in an on-farm USDA facility. There are on-farm processors working in exempt facilities. Some APPPA members have been refining nationwide mail order shipping as significant sales channels.

There are APPPA member farms raising fast growing hybrids, heritage breeds, and the slower growing hybrids in between. The diverse configuration of farms that comprise the pasture raised chicken and egg community is too difficult to name inclusively. That diverse community of APPPA farmers, however, is firmly rooted in the movement-based pasture raised model of farming.

Access to Pasture Does Not Equal Pasture-Raised

Pastured poultry farmers and members of APPPA have worked hard to cultivate the pasture raised chicken and egg difference over the last 20+ years as an association. The farmers who spend a lifetime perfecting their craft demand that pasture-raised chicken and eggs means more than “access to pasture.” Access alone is not good enough to capitalize on the decades of innovation inside the community.

American Pastured Poultry Producers Association has been advocating for pastured poultry production, processing, and consumption since its founding in 1997. We encourage farmers to keep the model movement based. We encourage consumers to watch the “Pastured Poultry: Better Way Forward” and view the Pastured Poultry Consumer Buyers Guide.

For questions, contact Mike Badger, grit@apppa.org or 888-662-7772.

APPPA to SBA: Contract Poultry Growers are Affiliates

Fri, 01 Mar 2019 02:21:46 GMT

In March 2018, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a report detailing $1.8 billion in ineligible loans that the Small Business Administration (SBA) guaranteed for contract poultry growers to build barns. Specifically, the OIG reviewed loans to determine if they were compliant with regulatory, statutory, and SBA requirements for eligibility.

The bottom-line result, as stated in the report, was that the “loans made to growers did not meet regulatory and SBA requirements for eligibility. The large chicken companies (integrators) exercised such comprehensive control over the growers that SBA Office of Inspector General believes the concerns appear affiliative under SBA regulations.”

SBA loans can be made for up to $5 million to fund startup costs, expansion, equipment purchases, and other uses. The SBA guarantees the loans, which means U.S. taxpayers are ensuring that the lenders will have loan repayment. It’s a subsidy by U.S. taxpayers to fund a production model that primarily benefits the integrator by offloading the risky grow out portion of production to the farmer and to the public through the subsidy.

At the heart of this discussion is the determination of affiliation. SBA in it’s public recommendations to update the loan program, is proposing that small businesses must meet an affiliation test. If more than 85% of a small business’ revenue comes from another business, then that small business would be affiliated with the other company and not an independent small business. Note that this has nothing to do with legal structures of the business. Instead, this is assessing the relationship between the contract poultry grower and the integrator.

If you want further reading of the OIG’s report, look up the report titled “Evaluation of SBA 7(A) Loans Made to Poultry Farmers.”

As you might imagine, this affiliation test is deeply opposed by the large chicken companies because funding the grower houses is expensive and high risk (that’s why they need to be guaranteed by the federal government).

APPPA submitted comments in support of the affiliation test being proposed by SBA in the Federal Register on Friday, September 28, 2018. APPPA responded to these parts:

SBA proposes to expand the principle of affiliation arising from “identity of interest” to include common investments and economic dependence through contractual or other relationships between any two or more individuals or businesses, reinstate the “newly organized concern” rule, reinstate the “totality of the circumstances” analysis when determining affiliation between an Applicant for financial assistance and other entities, and clarify affiliation based on a franchise or license agreement.

If a small business Applicant derived more than 85% of its revenue from another business over the previous three fiscal years, SBA would find that the small business Applicant is economically dependent on the other business and, therefore, that the two businesses are affiliated.

Our comments follow.

The American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA) welcomes the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) attempt to establish and enforce an affiliation test for contract poultry farmers. Recognizing affiliations in the 7(A) loan applications protects the farmers, the public, and a fair marketplace.

APPPA is a non-profit membership-based organization that provides educational resources to pastured poultry farmers who are operating small businesses in rural America. The association represents approximately 1,000 member farms. APPPA was formed in 1997 to support a renewed interest in pastured poultry.

The growing pastured poultry industry does not rely on single grower contracts to produce chicken, eggs, turkey and other poultry; it instead relies on regional, decentralized, and direct-to-consumer markets. The pastured poultry business model stands in stark contrast to the consolidated and disconnected model of the contract poultry farmer.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) report “Evaluation of SBA7(A) Loans Made to Poultry Farmers” (report number 18-13) from March 6, 2018, is clear in its finding that “7(a) loans made to growers did not meet regulatory and SBA requirements for eligibility” because the poultry integrators exercised complete control over how and when contract growers raised poultry.

The OIG details $1.8 billion in guaranteed funds that were loaned to pay for single use facilities designed for the needs of one “customer.” In a contract poultry environment, the farmer doesn’t even own the birds. The contract grower makes the facility available to house flocks from the integrator through short-term contracts and often with no contractual assurances that the grower will have flocks to pay for the facility in the future. While poultry integrators may be able to find contract growers to hold up as successful examples, the aggregate findings of the OIG paint a bleak economic picture and business model.

Based on the OIG reporting, APPPA has the position that by approving 7(A) loans for contract poultry, SBA is:

Allowing the American taxpayers to assume substantial risk and cost to raise the poultry while allowing the poultry integrators to become the primary beneficiary of a tightly integrated business model.
Perpetuating a decline in the rural American economy by encouraging high risk business practices through the approval of 7(A) loans for contract poultry growers.
Facilitating a competitively disadvantaged marketplace in favor of poultry integrators who can keep costs low by shifting the riskiest part of poultry production onto family farms. Those risks are guaranteed by the public.

Affiliation Rules

Regarding the Summary of Proposed Changes to Affiliation Principles for the Business Loan, Business Disaster Loan, and Surety Bond Guarantee Programs (Section II B), APPPA supports the proposed affiliation principles outlined in Section 121.30.

This is an opportunity to make SBA aware of commercially viable poultry farming businesses that do not follow the contract grower model. Pastured poultry businesses, as a guiding principle, rely on a diverse number of customers to reduce risk from the loss of any single source of revenue. In addition, pastured poultry farms build infrastructure to be as multi-purpose as possible, so that the farm can be responsive to growth opportunities and market changes while proactively leveraging previous investments.

The very nature of the poultry contract model is one of continued consolidation with farms growing larger in terms of animal concentrations and loan requirements (Figure 6: Growth in Annual Average 7(A) Poultry Loan Size, FY 2012-2016 of OIG Report). This consolidation of ineligible loans ultimately reduces the availability of SBA loans to competing businesses, such as pastured poultry farms, thereby enabling an unnatural competitive advantage in favor of the poultry integrators.

Regarding proposed affiliation principles in Section 121.30, APPPA recommends:

SBA determine that two businesses are affiliated if one business (e.g., contract poultry grower) receives more than 85% of its revenue from the other business (e.g., poultry integrator).
SBA provide clarity to lenders by stating that the relationship between a poultry contract grower and an integrator is an affiliation, and that the poultry contract grower is not acting as an independent small business when applying for loans to build a single purpose facility to receive revenue from one source. According to the OIG’s report, the contract grower’s facility loses between 62% and 94% of its value without a contract from the Integrator (Table 1 from Office of Inspector General (OIG) report “Evaluation of SBA7(A) Loans Made to Poultry Farmers”).

Summary

APPPA encourages the SBA to enact the affiliation thresholds and clearly define the relationship between poultry grower and poultry integrator as a dependent business relationship. In so doing, APPPA believes the SBA will do its part to remove unequitable subsidies that create unfair pricing advantages for the consumer while unburdening the taxpayers from guaranteeing these poultry contract grower loans.

Give me scale or give me experience

Thu, 07 Dec 2017 18:59:31 GMT

Of all the things I like about the pastured poultry community, the diversity of business models is perhaps one of my favorites.

In 2017, APPPA assembled a group of producers to have a meeting about pastured poultry. We primarily sought people who were “scaled up” or in the process of scaling up.

Two things struck me coming out of that meeting. First, the idea of scale is ambiguous. Every person will have a different idea or a caveat.

Second, was the diversity of business models, and this is my favorite thing. We had a producer in his retirement years cranking out a total of 3,000 broilers a year and loving life. His claims were more profit, better lifestyle, and an off-season, to name a few.

He was turning each chicken into $30-$40 through a value-added product approach. He had been raising and selling poultry for something like 30 years. He did the scaled-up numbers thing through wholesale and retail outlets. Now, I guess you could say he was scaled up in experience.

What I want you to see is the contrast. There are people plugging away with larger numbers, hiring people, creating generational businesses, and making the vision work.

We admire larger farms because they’re unmistakably entrepreneurial, and they’re often driving necessary change in the marketplace.

But in our community, these larger producers are operating alongside the people who are intentionally and deliberately finding ways to be make pastured poultry a successful part of a farm business with modest scales.

At any pastured poultry conference where we’re tackling the issues of the day, I want both groups of people; experienced and scaled up. The challenge is speaking to people in a way that gets experience and volume in the same room. Often, those two characteristics end up being inversely related.

That’s why I think in terms of “professional” pastured poultry producers. That’s not a term I derived. I think Grady Phelan used it to describe the meeting we held in 2017.

When we start thinking in terms of “professional,” some of these things come to mind:

You have a livelihood at stake.
You associate with peers because those relationships enhance your business.
You consistently invest in your education, your business, and your community.

That’s the heart of who we want to attend the Professional Pastured Poultry Conference in Fayetteville, AR, in January. We'll have producers with experience, producers with scale, and producers who have both.

At any rate, now is the time to register for the Professional Pastured Poultry Producers Conference in January.

Regenerative Agriculture with Pastured Poultry: Better Way Forward

Wed, 01 Nov 2017 03:10:19 GMT

Pastured poultry goes beyond labels; it’s a community and a movement of farmers and eaters who intentionally choose to support a better way of raising chicken, eggs, and turkey.

American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA) is pleased to release “Pastured Poultry: Better Way Forward,” a short film documenting pasture-raised poultry as a better method of production for everything involved. The land. The chickens. The people.

The problem with poultry production today (aside from the actual production) is that the claims of free range, organic, antibiotic-free, cage free, and natural are nearly indistinguishable from the commodity options consumers are trying to avoid in the first place.

The “Better Way Forward” video and companion Buyers’ Guide equip consumers with much needed information that will help them find and purchase the truly unique poultry products they seek.

Pastured poultry farmers have long ago learned to embrace the positive animal welfare and nutritional benefits of sunshine, fresh air, and green grass. The constant movement under the sun and through the grass creates a dynamic, regenerative system that builds soil and protects the environment while creating uniquely nutritious and great tasting products.

Compared to the static alternatives, the movement-based approach of pastured poultry inherently creates a difference you can taste. There’s more flavor and a firmer texture to the meat and eggs. The birds are healthier and don’t rely on antibiotics and coccidiostats.

If you want to know the farmer who raises your poultry and eggs, the best option is to seek out local pasture-raised options. The “Better Way Forward” video and buyers guide is available at http://www.apppa.org/Consumers.

The pastured poultry method of production was brought into modern agriculture in the early 1990’s by pioneering farmer Joel Salatin as a way to describe a more natural farming method that incorporated technological innovations. APPPA launched in 1997, as a non-profit trade association that encourages the production, processing, marketing, and purchasing of poultry raised on pasture.

Pastured Poultry: Better Way Forward

Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:52:50 GMT

In a world where organic birds stay confined to the barn and free range chickens never see sunshine or grass, figuring out what pastured poultry means can challenge a conscientious eater's best intentions.

Terrell Spencer, APPPA President and farmer at Across the Creek Farms sums up the challenge nicely, "Other people portray themselves as us. We don’t do a good job of marketing who we are. The ones who don’t do what we do, do a good job of marketing that they do it like us."

The American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA) hears the challenge and sees the larger poultry industry putting on their sheep's clothing. But we see the wolf clearly.

As a first step in taking our message mainstream, we're publishing a short film with supporting web content that will help consumers understand what pastured poultry is and then help them find it.

We call it "Better Way Forward" and the full film is coming in early November 2017.

Here are some ways you can get involved and help spread a positive message about pastured poultry.

Like our Facebook to see updates or better yet, subscribe to our free email list.
Share this trailer and then the final film when published.
Become an APPPA member and join forces with a growing community of farmers who see pastured poultry as a better way forward.

Stay tuned.

Contact Mike Badger, grit@apppa.org with questions.

APPPA Comments on National Organic Program: Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices

Wed, 12 Jul 2017 12:27:19 GMT

The American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA) recognizes the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service’s (AMS) effort to make the organic label address consumers’ expectations with regard to animal welfare and husbandry practices. While the proposed “National Organic Program: Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices” rule makes some beneficial strides toward improving the animal welfare of organically certified poultry, it stops short in several critical ways.

APPPA is a non-profit membership-based organization that provides educational resources to pastured poultry farmers and represents approximately 1,000 active member farms. APPPA was formed in 1997 as a clearing house of ideas to support a renewed interest in pastured poultry.

Pastured poultry embodies a few key tenets of production: the birds live a significant portion of their lives outside on vegetated pasture; the birds are rotated to fresh vegetation often in a managed way; flocks are housed in lower stocking densities to ensure the birds can express their natural behaviors without stress and injury to themselves or other birds; in addition to the forage offered via pasture, the birds eat a nutritionally balanced feed that is appropriate for the species and age of the flock; slaughter is typically done in small-scale or exempt facilities by hand in a way that respects the life of the animal.

In practice, pastured poultry farmers employ different production models typically identified as daily move, day-range, and free range systems. In a daily move system, poultry are confined inside a movable shelter that typically accommodate groups of 50 to 600 birds per shelter; however, the birds have direct access to the soil and pasture while inside these well ventilated shelters.

In day range systems, the birds are allowed to access an outdoor area independent of the housing area. Birds typically range inside temporary paddocks created by portable electric fencing and the housing, if left stationary, will have bedding and may have flooring and roosts. At regular intervals, the house and the paddock are rotated to areas of fresh vegetated pasture.

A free-range model places birds on range without fences and relies on longer distance pasture rotations to keep the birds on fresh pasture; though this free-range concept offers the most idyllic view of outdoor poultry production, it offers the least amount of predator protection and is difficult to make work on small acreages.

A majority of pastured poultry producers will use either daily move or day range systems. Producers typically favor day range for laying flocks, waterfowl, and finishing turkeys. The daily move system is often used for broilers, young turkeys, and maximum predator protection for laying hens.

Ranging out of a fixed building is not commonly done on a pastured poultry farm because it’s difficult to manage the outdoor area in a way that does not result in degradation of the quality of soil, pasture, and forages. If the producer is stocking the fixed house paddock in a way that does not degrade the pasture, then the birds are not efficiently utilizing the range. This is the conundrum AMS has with trying to fit the intent of organic poultry production into the confined animal feeding operation model. The current proposal fails to solve the conundrum.

APPPA clearly differentiates between certified organic production and pastured poultry production. They are not equivalent, even though some pastured poultry producers are certified organic. In publishing standards, in marketing, in education, and in discussions AMS should take care to ensure that they clearly communicate that the organic certification does not necessarily mean the birds have been pasture-raised. In the final rule, we would like AMS to acknowledge that while some locally available organic chicken may be pasture-raised, organic certification does not mean the birds have been raised on pasture.

The proposed rule falls short of the typical animal welfare measures provided in the management of commercial pastured poultry flocks in terms of low stocking densities, living outdoors for significant portions of life, and managed and planned pasture rotation.

Based on a 2014 APPPA survey of pastured poultry producers, the number of certified organic layer flocks (as self-reported) was 8% certified organic and 7% Animal Welfare Approved (AWA). The number of certified organic broilers was 9% and 7% AWA.

The relatively low incidence of pastured poultry producers seeking organic certification has two primary causes.

First, most pastured poultry producers serve direct markets where trust is earned through direct contact with the consumer–the epitome of “know your farmer.”

Second, the organic poultry and egg standards, as currently enforced, place confinement organic poultry and organic pastured poultry operations as equals in the marketplace; in reality, however, they are different. Producers know it and more consumers are realizing it. Pastured poultry answers the consumer calls that the commercial (as defined by USDA) organic poultry industry ignores: local production, less densely stocked flocks, husbandry practices that leverage the birds’ natural behaviors, and beneficial impacts to soil health and fertility.

With regard to distinguishing pastured poultry from organic poultry production, APPPA recommends:

AMS clearly state that certified organic poultry does not imply pasture-raised and organic certification does not connote the principles of pasture-raised poultry as outlined by the American Pastured Poultry Producers Association in this response.
AMS acknowledge that pasture housing (daily move, day range and free range) are acceptable production models with regard to the organic regulations, as long as those housing models meet the minimum standards as published in the final rule.

Outdoor Access and Stocking Density

The recognition that porches do not constitute outdoor access is obvious, and AMS should follow through on its proposal to disallow porches. The allowance of porches skirts the existing outdoor access requirement in organic poultry production by providing a thinly veiled appearance of compliance.

The natural bird response to being confined in large numbers on the floor prevents all birds from moving around as freely as expected and therefore prevents many of them from accessing the door. The birds’ response in these houses is to gather in groups that stay in one area; the birds do not circulate and move freely around the entire floor. That means the birds don’t use the porch and other outdoor access areas in any meaningful way. Commercial poultry producers see this hierarchy at play each day when a negligible number of birds take advantage of their outdoor access.

When the government has to define the meanings of “soil” and “the outdoors,” it’s clear that the intent of organic poultry production has become adulterated. APPPA feels strongly that outdoor access requires provision of areas with 90 to 100% vegetative cover. Such vegetative cover requires soil, sun, and planned rest from grazing to grow. This access to vegetative cover in the outdoor area is a principled point of differentiation between pastured poultry production and the AMS’s organic standards. Consumer feedback to pastured poultry producers repeatedly indicates that they expect organically raised poultry to live a significant portion of their lives outside on pasture; compliance with the proposed rule will not meet that expectation.

Specifying outdoor stocking densities without consideration of pasture rotation, including planning for forage regeneration, creates an incomplete understanding for producers. This represents another major differentiation between pastured poultry and the proposed organic standard. A key to successfully producing poultry on vegetative pasture is the managed rotation of the birds to fresh vegetation at frequent intervals, sometimes multiple times a day. Disconnecting the flock rotation from outdoor stocking density runs the risk of denuded outdoor paddocks, which leads to health risks to the flock and decreased soil health. The size of the outdoor area is predicated on the pasture management plan, which includes consideration of the quantity and quality of the vegetation in the pasture, as well as the amount of time the birds will be on the ground. The size of the outdoor area cannot be accurately predetermined without consideration of those and other unique factors, such as geography and seasonal variations.

The movement of the birds away from their own waste, via regular movement and rotation of housing areas, creates the healthy environment needed to rear flocks without the reliance on antibiotics. The proposed standards do not clearly articulate the relationship between stocking densities and pasture rotation.

With regard to outdoor access and stocking density, APPPA requests that the final rule:

Disallow covered porches as the only outdoor access area.
Provision for outdoor areas to have 90 to 100% vegetative cover.
Ensure producers plan for the appropriate pasture space, stocking density, and rotation to ensure the health and natural behavior of the birds while not resulting in the degradation of the soil, pasture, and forages. Outdoor area must minimize the spread of parasites and diseases and the build-up of excess nutrients.

Indoor Stocking Density

The proposed indoor stocking densities as set forth in the proposed rule set a low standard. The indoor housing recommendation of 4.5 pounds per square foot (1 square foot per laying hen) for a pasture housing type will only work if the birds are also ranging on pasture. In a winter, or indoor, housing environment, that stocking density will create a stressful environment.

There is a simple test to ensure that stocking densities are correct. If debeaking or beak trimming is required to keep the flock from pecking each other, then the stocking density is too high and, consequently, the animal welfare is too low. One common cause of pecking is caused by environmental stressors, such as crowding.

The proposed indoor stocking densities continue to enable producers to violate consumer expectations by permitting multi-story aviary production models for laying hens. Multi-story laying houses should not be permitted in organic production. The rule is going to create a clear double standard in organic production based on housing type and more production will move to the multi-story houses, creating economies of scale that further water down the organic egg market and further violate consumer expectations and reduce animal welfare. Houses that encourage birds defecating on each other are not a vision most consumers have of organic egg production. It’s also not a healthy way to raise laying hens.

Indoor stocking densities also need to make considerations for the season, the weather and the access to the outdoors. In a pastured housing model, a laying hen may be content with 1.5 to 2.0 square feet of indoor space if allowed access to a rotated pasture. However, when a laying hen is confined in the winter, lower stocking densities provide less stress and less ammonia build up.

With regard to indoor stocking density, APPPA recommends:

The use of multi-story houses is discontinued in organic production.
Indoor stocking densities are lowered. When birds are withheld from outdoor areas or when birds are housed in a daily move pasture shelter, APPPA recommends the following stocking densities across all housing types: 3 sq. ft. per laying hen (1.5 lbs. per sq. ft.); 1.5 sq. ft. per broiler (4 lbs. per sq. ft.); 7 sq. ft. per turkey (4 lbs. per sq. ft.).
Organic production disallows beak trimming and debeaking as defined in the proposed rule. The burden of managing the physical behaviors should revert to the producer employing husbandry practices that complement the natural bird behaviors.

Indoor Confinement

APPPA feels strongly that organic poultry producers are permitted, by the current and proposed rules, to overreact and confine flocks too easily. The organic confinement model poultry industry continues to use the fallacious threat of disease for denying outdoor access.

When organic producers are allowed to repeatedly and continually confine the flock based on the threat of a disease, it further erodes the confidence of the organic label. We point to the recent Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) outbreaks in the United States as evidence. At the time of comments (June 2016), many organic flocks are still permitted to be confined and have been confined since the beginning of 2015 based on the perceived threat of HPAI and a risk assessment that does not match the observed data from prior outbreaks.

To illustrate, we’ll cite the USDA’s own assessment of the risk of HPAI as published in Docket ID: APHIS-2015-0061. Conditions for Payment of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Indemnity Claims. This excerpt is taken from the proposed biosecurity exemption for smaller facilities (less than 100,000 broilers annually, 30,000 turkeys annually, and commercial table egg facilities with less than 75,000 birds): "[T]he smaller facilities that we are exempting from the requirement are less likely to have HPAI outbreaks than are the non-exempt ones. On smaller facilities, birds density tends to be less which minimizes overall viral load. Additionally, if a smaller facility was identified with HPAI the disease is less likely to spread outward to other premises because there are fewer birds, vehicles, pieces of equipment, and employees moving onto and off of the smaller, exempted facilities when compared to the larger, non-exempted ones."

In light of APHIS’ stated correlation between stocking density and viral load to HPAI, APPPA believes strongly that both indoor and outdoor stocking densities play an important role in the health and management of the flock. AMS should decrease the stocking densities for both indoor and outdoor access and recognize that appropriate stocking density is a key factor in healthy poultry husbandry.

With regard to HPAI, the evidence is also clear that the virus is susceptible to heat and sunlight. Yet, current organic production regulations – and hence practices - support continued disregard of that data.

More and more consumers see through the shortcomings of the organic label, which propels them to pasture-raised poultry, a craft production system that focuses on managing symbiotic relationships, working with the natural tendencies of the poultry, and ensuring animal welfare.

In the information we’ve gathered, neither a well-managed pastured flock nor a certified organic flock has been infected with HPAI. That’s different than saying there is no risk; we can never eliminate the risk of HPAI in a poultry flock, but we can manage it. 49.7 million birds were affected by HPAI in the 2014/15 outbreak in the U.S.

The HPAI 2014/15 Confirmed Detection report by APHIS shows that less than 4,000 of the birds affected were spread across 20 backyard flocks; APHIS reports an additional game bird flock of 5,830 pheasants that it counts as a backyard flock. That means that more than 49.6 million intensely confined birds were killed either by the virus or destroyed by regulators as a part of the outbreak response.

Of the effected backyard flocks, we do not know the husbandry practices of those flocks (at least not publicly). Backyard poultry is also not synonymous with pastured poultry, even though the current categorization by the USDA equates these practices, not differentiating between backyard flocks, hobby flocks, poultry ranging and pastured poultry.

The indoor stocking densities tie into the proposed change in measuring ammonia levels in the house. APPPA and its board routinely cite 10ppm and 25ppm as the warning levels of ammonia exposure. At ammonia levels of less than 10ppm the birds’ ciliary function and immune system are negatively affected and at 25ppm, the level at which the human nose can detect ammonia, there is already damage being done to humans and animals - creating welfare problems for the poultry and the people. Ammonia exposure is non-existent in a well-managed pasture rotation.

Stocking density will affect the ability to keep the bedding dry and keep ammonia levels down. For example, market age Cornish cross broilers stocked at approximately one square feet per bird (5 pounds per square foot) will require constant bedding management in order to keep the ammonia levels under dangerous levels. Decreasing the stocking densities for all the poultry species will not only provide a low stress living environment that doesn’t require beak trimming, it will provide a way for all producers to manage ammonia levels.

With regard to indoor confinement, APPPA recommends:

Organic production requires natural sunlight to enter the indoor living space.
The final rule promotes lower stocking densities as a means to lower the viral load in the house and thereby reduce the risk of disease as stated by the USDA.
AMS should maintain the proposed ammonia standards and further clarify the standards by requiring ongoing measurement of the ammonia levels (e.g., ammonia test strips). The human nose is not sufficient to reliably detect dangerous ammonia levels.

Slaughter

In terms of slaughter, APPPA believes strongly that the PPIA poultry processing exemptions need to be maintained for all poultry producers, including pastured and organic flocks. USDA should remove obstacles to make exempt processing more accessible to more producers. Many beginning farmers turn to pastured poultry production as their inaugural farming venture, but access to adequate processing is an obstacle that needs to be addressed. There is a lack of accessible inspected processing facilities throughout the United States; the poultry processing exemptions allow farmers to test poultry markets and businesses and to serve direct markets in a way that wouldn’t be possible without the exemptions.

Limited access to legal processing options that enable farmers to move their products in open commerce is a competitive disadvantage. Ambiguity and misinterpretation of the poultry processing exemptions at the federal, state, and local levels of government suppresses the growth of small businesses that want to raise pastured poultry, which also affects independent producers who want to be organically certified.

Some of the proposed slaughter requirements make sense and should be obvious. Specifically, not scalding live birds or shackling lame birds is sound welfare guidance. However, APPPA would like to state emphatically that humane poultry slaughter is not synonymous with stunning or controlled environmental suffocation. Stunning, especially when automated at high speeds, has the potential to be one of the most inhumane actions possible. Otherwise, AMS would not need to codify common sense welfare positions, such as only scald dead birds and don’t hang lame birds by their legs on high speed shackle lines.

The proposed standard mentions that small producers are permitted to use killing cones and non-stunning exsanguination. The use of killing cones and exsanguination should be allowed in all poultry slaughter operations, including organic and at all size operations. APPPA would like to see the organic standards unequivocally reflect an acceptance of the use of killing cones and exsanguination without stunning regardless of facility size.

With regard to poultry slaughter, APPPA recommends:

The federally regulated poultry processing regulations remain as a legal and acceptable option to put birds into commerce for all types of poultry producers, including pastured and organic.
Slaughter not be limited to stunning and include other methods, such as the hand slaughter of birds in killing cones by way of exsanguination.

Summary

In closing, APPPA applauds this effort and strongly emphasizes the need to clarify the distinctions of pastured poultry. As the welfare realities of pastured poultry production and the minimum standards of organic poultry production draws closer, we are confident that more pastured poultry producers will find value in organic certification, especially in lieu of lesser known, competing third-party welfare programs. We are available to help provide a pastured perspective, as needed (grit@apppa.org or 888-662-7772).

Fake Organic in Imported Corn and Soybeans Fails to Deliver Customer and Farmer Expectations

Tue, 16 May 2017 12:19:41 GMT

by Mike Badger

The Washington Post, in a story "The labels said organic.' But these massive imports of corn and soybeans weren't," uncovered fraudulent soybeans coming from Eastern Europe. These were conventional soybeans when they left the port in Ukraine. By the time the shipment rounded Turkey and landed in the U.S., the beans underwent a miraculous certification.They had become organic.

This is scary stuff for those of us who buy organic feed and who do not have the luxury of personally knowing their feed suppliers and how they source their grain. Pastured poultry is different in many ways in that we have small regional suppliers who do control their source; however, it's not ubiquitous.

If you're buying organic chicken from a national brand, chances are good the major ingredients in that feed, especially soy is coming from somewhere with less rigorous organic standards.

Do you and your customers understand this nuance in the supply chain?

If you're feeding organic feed, have you asked your supplier where the corn and soy come from? They should be happy to answer this question in a transparent way.

Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Summary Presentation for Lancaster Panel Discussion - 2015

Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:12:00 GMT

by Mike Badger

On October 15, 2015, APPPA and PASA co-hosted a highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) panel discussion for pastured poultry producers in Lancaster, PA. The panel included; Mike Badger, executive director of APPPA; Susan Beal, holistic DVM; and Patty Dunn, avian pathologist at Penn State University and DVM; Craig Shultz, State Veterinarian at Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

This is the summary presentation provided by Dr. Shultz. If you want to understand the fear associated with this virus, pay attention to the costs outlined in this presentation. Also relevant is the definition of the control and surveillance zones.

The historical, observed data as reported by the USDA indicates that HPAI favors intensely confined flocks. As of October 14, 2015, 21 of 219 HPAI detections were labeled as backyard. In terms of numbers, the individual backyard birds totaled 9,673 of the more than 48 million infected total birds. We should understand that USDA's classification of backyard doesn't assume outdoor flocks. Backyard is a catch-all categorization.

When we dig deeper, we see that 5,830 of the backyard birds belong to two individual flocks (one mixed game fowl and one pheasant flock). We also know, as it was reported during the panel discussion that some of the employees on the infected commercial barns also had personal flocks at home that became infected with HPAI.

All the numbers are there to demonstrate the risk or relatively minimal risk to pastured flocks. The fear is unfounded.

View presentation: shared with permission of Craig Shultz.

Pastured Poultry Producers Do Not Accept Mass Depopulation and Suffocation as Humane

Sat, 25 Jul 2015 20:14:00 GMT

The USDA's “Fall 2015 HPAI Influenza Preparedness and Response Plan” requires all surviving birds in a highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) infected flock be killed within 24 hours of a confirmed positive. The American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA) does not condone mass depopulation by any method, and believes strongly that the pastured model reduces the need and opportunity for mass depopulation.

To date, the USDA HPAI reports show that less than 10% of the confirmed cases are backyard flocks. In terms of overall bird mortality, backyard flocks have only accounted for approximately 10,000 of the 48 million deaths that have been attributed to HPAI. The USDA catch-all backyard flock category would include commercial pastured poultry farms if a pastured operation were to become infected with HPAI. However, there is often a difference in flock management between backyard and pastured flocks, primarily as it relates to housing and pasture management.

To achieve the 24 hour depopulation goal, the USDA now endorses ventilation shutdown for depopulation, in addition to foam and carbon dioxide. Shutting down the ventilation in a large concentrated animal feeding operation induces suffocation by heat stress on the flock. Using firefighting foam also suffocates the birds. In neither case is the death fast. Foaming may take several minutes. Shutting down the ventilation system is estimated to take 30 to 40 minutes to kill the flock.

In the USDA's “Stamping-Out and Depopulation Policy,” the department acknowledges that ventilation shutdown is “considered by some to be less humane than other methods, but it can spare the lives of potentially thousands of other birds by halting the infection as soon as it is detected.” The fall and winter of 2015 will likely provide insights into the USDA's theory that the complete, rapid killing of HPAI survivor stock, by any means necessary, inhibits the spread of HPAI. However, we do not have a clear expectation of what constitutes success with this practice.

APPPA sympathizes with the emotional and financial burdens placed on the farmers who are confronted with the loss of flocks to HPAI and the torturous suffocating response to the survivors. No farmer who respects the lives of their animals and looks them in their eyes each day wants to condemn them to die by a virulent disease or by mass killing. However, the fearful days to reconcile those realities are upon us.

There's no pointing fingers or laying blame. We've already arrived at this point, and we should acknowledge our unpleasant realities.

The relevant focus should be in addressing the root cause of an epidemic, such as HPAI. APPPA asserts that the root cause is not a lack of confinement, biosecurity failures, lack of vaccinations, or untimely mass flock depopulation; those are reactions to a problem.

It's time we collectively seek to identify the problem, so we can name it; so we can solve it.

APPPA encourages researchers to invest in understanding the scale possible and the science inherent in raising flocks in natural settings in accordance with the land's capacity and under principled pastured poultry production methods. Pastured poultry relies on outdoor production with access to forage, managed pasture rotation, nutritionally balanced feed, stocking densities that eliminate stress, and humane slaughter that honors the connection between farmer and bird.

The American Pastured Poultry Producers Association provides education and producer resources for pastured poultry farmers.

Pasture-Raised Poultry is Best

Sat, 20 Jun 2015 14:00:00 GMT

There's a new website called Buyingpoultry.com (a Farm Forward initiative) that is promoting a poultry labeling graphic that lists three categories of poultry classifications for consumers: avoid, better, and best. In the avoid category, Buying Poultry places "pasture-raised." This graphic was subsequently posted by Slow Food USA on their blog.

APPPA took issue with the classification of pasture-raised while plant-based alternatives (e.g., laboratory produced chicken substitutes) were listed in the best category along with several closely related animal welfare certifications.

APPPA sent the following letter to Slow Food USA, Farm Forward, and Buying Poultry.

--begin letter---

We have been truly saddened to find that you have lumped all “Pasture Raised” poultry into an avoid category and that you consider this category not satisfactory for consumers to purchase. Poultry produced in a pastured environment stand in an enlightened, high welfare contrast to their factory farmed cousins. We strongly feel that a consumer should know their meat producers and verify that the poultry they are buying is raised in a manner acceptable to the consumers. Direct consumer relationships supersede all certification programs. (emphasis added)

For nearly 20 years, the American Pastured Poultry Producers Association (APPPA) has been educating, coaching, mentoring and providing other assistance to exceptional quality poultry producers. APPPA was started as a grass roots organization with the assistance of Heifer Project International. The inception vision was to provide high quality poultry in local food sheds. APPPA believes that all types of poultry should be raised on pasture using the time tested farming technique that utilizes constant movement onto fresh grass as the basis for a healthy, delicious, and happy bird. Our vision has always been to promote an opportunity for families to work together and to manage small non-threatening animals. This type of farming is a fabulous way to get children interested in animals, nature, and growing good local food.

Our producers believe that all types of poultry will be raised on pasture. Pasture is a rich environment full of fresh vegetation, insects, direct contact with soil, fresh air, direct exposure to sunlight, and the opportunity for the poultry to express their natural behaviors in an optimum environment. APPPA members will manage their poultry on pasture for at least half of the poultry’s’ lifetime.

With all due respect, please reconsider your categorization of all “Pasture Raised.” This type of stereotyping will have severe direct financial effects to thousands of small, local, high integrity pastured poultry producers! You really should visit some of our members before condemning all of us.

Pasture Raised Eggs Meet Space Requirements of California's Proposition 2

Wed, 31 Dec 2014 19:06:00 GMT

California's new egg law incrementally improves the living conditions for caged hens causing prices to rise for the same quality egg. All eggs sold in the state must be produced from hens that can turn around and stretch their wings inside cage confinement. Pasture-raised hens are raised in environments that allow the birds the ability to express a full-range of natural behaviors, such as flying, roosting, and foraging while improving egg quality.

Hens raised on pasture produce eggs that comply with California's new law, which requires all eggs to be laid from hens with more spacious cages. Pasture-raised hens are not raised in cages, and their eggs are commonly available at farmers markets and directly from local, small-flock farmers.

Even before Californians voted to ban battery cages for hens in the state, pasture-raised hens were living outside in spacious housing on range. The living environment provided to the typical pasture-raised hen allows her to express a full range of natural behaviors, such as flying, roosting, and foraging.

Proposition2, California’s Egg Law, has been interpreted to mean caged hens require at least 116 square inches of space in order to express the most basic of natural motions, such as turning around and extending its wings. To demonstrate the approximate area needed to achieve 116 square inches, draw a square that is 10-3/4” x 10-3/4”.

The California egg law in effect as of January 1, 2015, doesn’t eliminate cages from production, and it doesn’t require the birds to be outside on range. A pasture-raised hen, by comparison, spends a significant portion of its life outside foraging on vegetation and insects.

The California law will ultimately increase the cost of eggs for consumers, but the quality will remain the same. In order to comply with the law, the large economies of scale afforded to producers in a battery cage system will decrease as a necessity to complying with the law.

The quality of pasture-raised eggs compared to confinement eggs can be demonstrated in taste, texture, and nutritional improvements. Various studies have shown that pasture-raised eggs tend to have beneficial nutritional qualities in terms of lower omega 6:3 ratios and increased levels of vitamins A, D, and E.

Eating pasture-raised eggs remains the best way to vote against the modern-alternative of producing eggs in confined environments. Consumers who care about high animal welfare, high quality, and high nutrition already have a choice in the marketplace. That choice is to eat locally produced pastured-raised eggs from smaller flocks.