Health and Socioeconomic Impacts of Contract Poultry Growing on - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Health and Socioeconomic Impacts of Contract Poultry Growing on Rural Communities

A review of the US experience

Jessica Leibler Tuchmann

Johns Hopkins University November 6, 2007

• Contract poultry growing is central to the industrial model of

poultry production and is rapidly expanding in developing nations

• Contract growing allows firms to “outsource” the negative

byproducts of production

• The US experience may provide insight into implications of the

global expansion of contract growing

• 15,000-75,000

chickens per house

• 9 billion chickens

produced each year

• $21 billion industry
• Global expansion

• Firms contract out the raising of chickens from

hatchling to market weight to independent farmers (“growers”)

• Growers provide: land, labor, facilities, utilities,
• perating and maintenance costs
• Firms retain ownership of birds, provide feed
• Growers responsible for waste management,

implementation of biosecurity plans

• Start-up costs: more than $600,000
• Contracts

– Short term – Integrator may require continual upgrades

• Grower payments

– Relative to feed conversion ratio of other growers that week

!

• Negative externality: Harmful byproducts or impacts of

production (i.e. pollution or health risks) that are borne by groups who do not make production decisions

• For contract growing:

– Waste disposal – Exposure to zoonotic pathogens – Biosecurity – Socioeconomic decline

"

• 14.6 million tons of poultry waste

produced annually

Source: http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/2005/7-25/manure.html

• Growers bear the costs

associated with waste disposal, removal, disposal of dead birds

• Public bears costs of

environmental contamination

#!$ #!%&

• Infectious pathogens persist in animal manure, confinement

houses, surrounding environment – E.g. Campylobacter jejuni, e.coli, avian influenza

• Evolution of drug resistant bacteria from antibiotics used in feed

at subtherapeutic levels

• High density: viral mutation, amplification of AIVs
• Occupational, family and community pathways
• No health care benefits from the integrator

• Growers assume costs

associated with biosecurity measures

• Excluded from

compensation schemes for flock loss because do not

• wn the birds
• Disincentive to report illness

and die-offs

Who pays and who benefits?

• Contracting associated with economic and social

decline in rural communities

– 70% of growers in the US earn incomes below the federal poverty line – Decreased municipal tax revenue and property values

• Facilities located in poor, minority communities

– Equity of burdens vs. benefits

• Increased social discord between contract growers

and independent farmers

!

• Waste management is a key issue

– Focus on reducing health and environmental impacts

• f manure

– Waste treatment and regulation are required

• Highlight pathogens, as well as nutrients
• Available, affordable treatment technology critical
• Health care and disease surveillance of growers

– Front line population – Encourage prevention, early identification of zoonotic infection

#!

• Cost sharing arrangement between grower and

integrator for implementation of biosecurity plans

• Compensation schemes must explicitly include

payment to growers in event of flock loss

– Recognize shared investment in flock – Encourage early identification and containment of

• utbreaks
• Laws to protect contract growers

– Fair contract and negotiation terms

'&

• Dr. Ellen Silbergeld

– Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

• Dr. Joachim Otte

– Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, FAO

Special thanks to:

• Jay Graham, Carol Resnick, Rhonda Jackson, and Ruth Faden

(Johns Hopkins University)

• Jackie Nowell (United Food and Commercial Workers)
• Carole Morison (Delmarva Poultry Justice Alliance)
• Brother Dave Andrews (National Catholic Rural Life Alliance)