Pastured Poultry News

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

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:

1. The Healthy People Initiative shows 50,500 all-cause illnesses from Salmonella per year, vs.
2. 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.