Chicken coops plans

Almost a year after Proposition 2, the Farm Animal Cruelty Act,was passed in California banning so-called “battery pages” forhousing chickens, the battle continues over how to implement thesomewhat vague legislation.

Last November, voters overwhelmingly supported the bill, whichasked that a farm animal have enough room to “stand up, lie downand extend its limbs” without touching another animal. The billimpacted egg producers most specifically because the battery cagesthe industry has used for decades no longer meet the standards ofProposition 2.

In the months since November, egg farmers have protested thatthe legislation is vague because it does not spell out in inchesand centimeters what type of confinement is allowable under the newlaw. The Humane Society of America, which sponsored Proposition 2,said that the language of the bill was specifically written basedon other animal-welfare legislation.

“We wrote the language in the very manner of how all animalcruelty laws are written,” said Jennifer Fearing, a spokeswoman forthe Humane Society. “You don’t write specific engineering standardsinto law, it just doesn’t happen.”

But the egg industry disagrees. Farmers have said that withoutspecific standards in place to follow, egg producers will liveunder the threat of being cited for not complying with Proposition2, which carries the penalty of a $1,000 fine or up to six monthsin jail.

“It’s a criminal penalty. For the farmer and any of hisemployees,” said Arnie Riebli, a Valley resident and proprietor ofSunrise Farms, which owns a million egg-laying hens. Riebli took anactive role in the fight against Proposition 2 and recentlyresigned from the Sonoma Valley Health Care District Board torefocus his efforts on dealing with the changes to his businesscreated by the bill. He likened not setting production standardswith not setting a speed limit on a road. “Someone could getticketed without even knowing they were speeding. We’re caughtbetween the devil and the deep blue sea.”

In response to that problem, Assemblymember Jared Huffman, D-SanRafael, has created a piece of legislation aimed at solving thelingering issues created by Proposition 2. One of the farmers’major complaints was that Proposition 2 put an unfair burden onCalifornia egg producers, who will have to pay to overhaul theirfacilities, forcing them to raise egg prices, while out-of-stateproducers would not be hampered with the increased costs thus wouldbe able to sell eggs more cheaply. Huffman’s bill, AB 1437,initially sought to ensure all eggs sold in California come fromfarms that meet the production standards of Proposition 2, whichboth sides supported.

But that led to the question, what are the production standardsthat out-of-state farmers must meet to sell eggs in California? Theegg industry asked Huffman to amend the bill to allow theCalifornia Department of Food and Agriculture and the CaliforniaDepartment of Public Health to define confinement standards, whichthe Humane Society called unlawful.

“They (the egg industry) sought, in our opinion, tounconstitutionally amend Proposition 2. Proposition 2 does notallow those bodies to make those decisions,” Fearing said. “Theycan’t modify the provisions of Proposition 2 in the legislature,that’s not how it works.”

The stakeholders worked with Huffman’s office to find aresolution but ultimately both sides publicly opposed the bill. Inturn, Huffman’s office decided to hold off on moving forward withthe legislation until next year.

“The Humane Society contends that Proposition 2 is clear enough.They say it provides room for innovation,” said Paige Brokaw,legislative assistant to Huffman. “He (Huffman) tried to find amiddle ground. But we needed more time to talk with them. He’llrevisit the bill when the new session begins in January. Untilthen, we’ll continue working with both stakeholders to try to finda consensus.”

For now, Riebli said, that leaves farmers in the same unclearposition they’ve been in since November: exactly how can egg-layinghens be confined? Fearing said the farmers are attempting to findways around the law, which she said clearly calls for cage-freeproduction.

“It’s not that they (egg producers) don’t know how to comply;they don’t want to comply,” Fearing said. “They want to dosomething less than cage free and that’s not acceptable. If theysquander the next five years trying to get out from underProposition 2 they only have themselves to blame.”

Riebli said the legislation does not specifically call for cagefree, but even if it did, cage free is not the best option for theanimals. In cage-free systems, the chickens are confined to a largeroom where they face attacks from other birds and respiratoryillness from poor ventilation as more debris is kicked up by thebirds.

“Prop. 2 never addressed the health of the animal, it just gavethem space,” Riebli said, adding that a European study on animalwelfare “says cage-free is not the answer.”

Riebli said the study suggests egg farmers utilized an EnrichedColony System, which has been implemented across Europe.

The system boils down to a sort of multi-level chicken condowhere the birds are kept together in a four-room cage that providesthe animals with their own space while still allowing the birds tomove around. Riebli is implementing an experimental prototype ofthis system on one of his 15 farms and has consulted animal welfareexperts at UC Davis to study the health and welfare of the animalsas compared to other farming systems. He said similar legislationto Proposition 2 is being slowly introduced across the country andother states will look to California to set the standards.

“I think the entire country will adopt these standards overtime,” Riebli said, adding that he still needs the legislature todefine confinement standards. “The clock’s running, this needs tobe in place by Jan. 1, 2015 (under Proposition 2).”