No Chickens Were Harmed In The Making Of This Coop

By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger

In 1955 my parents, having decided that their five children should experience a bit of what farm life is about, purchased a house with forty acres in a canyon near Alamogordo, New Mexico, a fairly short commute to my father’s job at Holloman Air Force Base. A previous owner had operated a commercial orchard on the property, and it still had a number of fruit bearing peach and apple trees. In the course of the following year we acquired a registered brand, two calves, two pigs, three horses, a half dozen turkeys-and a hundred New Hampshire Red chicks ordered through the Sears Roebuck farm catalog. My father built a chicken coop with roosts and brooding nests and enclosed an open area with a wire fence, although we quickly learned that the wings on chickens are fully operational. The wire fence was soon removed and the chickens wandered at will.

New Hampshires are great egg producers, and we regularly collected more than we could possibly eat. So my father bought generic egg cartons and began selling the surplus to the people he worked with. My parents were obviously pleased with their egg-selling experiment because my father announced at dinner one night that he was going to build another coop, this one large enough to house five hundred hens. We were going into commercial egg production.

Over the next few months my father and I worked evenings and weekends building the new structure. It was long and high-ceilinged, with windows all along the side walls. The original coop now looked like a tool shed by comparison. And then, one day, they arrived, not the five hundred New Hampshire Reds I had envisioned, but hundreds of shiny metal cages. They would be hung from the rafters. Troughs attached to the cages would provide food and water and the eggs would roll out the front of the cages for daily collection.

My little sister Carol, who was seven at the time, was the first to react. She was horrified. It was mean and cruel, she said. Animals cannot live in cages. In short order the rest of us voiced similar outrage. Even my mother was sympathetic to our feelings on the issue. It was hopeless, and my father knew it. There would be no chicken gulag. When my father was transferred and sold the property two years later, the cages still sat on the ground in the new coop, a mute testament to compassion over economics.

But if I were to share this story with Rep. Steve King, he would likely respond that my little sister was an incipient animal rights radical and my father a fool.

Rep. King, you see, has had it with what he terms “the vegan lobby” and “radical animal rights groups.”  The focus of his anger is the State of California.  In 2008, 63% of the voters in that state approved Proposition 2, a law requiring that cages for veal calves, pregnant sows and laying hens must be large enough to permit their occupants to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs (or wings, in the case of chickens) and turn around freely. The law is scheduled to take effect in 2015. To make matters worse, the California legislature, anticipating efforts by adjoining states to lure California egg producers to relocate, enacted a statute prohibiting the sale of eggs from out-of-state producers that fail to meet California cage standards.

Rep. King, as it turns out, represents the largest egg producing district in the largest egg producing state in the country. Iowa produces almost 15 billion eggs per year, dwarfing second place Ohio’s 7.7 billion. So he has convinced the House to tack on to the pending farm bill what he calls the Protect Interstate Commerce Act. His amendment reads as follows: “The government of a state or locality therein shall not impose a standard or condition on the production of any agricultural product sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce if (1) such production or manufacture occurs in another state; and (2) the standard or condition is in addition to the standards and conditions applicable to such production or manufacture pursuant to (A) federal law; and (B) the laws of the state and locality in which such production or manufacture occurs.”

The amendment should be renamed the Lowest Common Denominator Act, because that is precisely what it will accomplish if the Senate accepts it during upcoming conference committee negotiations over the farm bill. And the prospects for passage have alarmed states and animal welfare groups around the country. A number of law professors have questioned the amendment’s constitutionality and various state agencies have argued that the amendment would result in the de facto repeal of numerous state and local laws and regulations governing everything from pesticide restrictions to horse slaughter operations. And what about Rep. King’s Tea Party commitment to federalism?  Apparently, states’ rights end at the California border. “Their law happens to be unconstitutional,” he says. “They have zero right to regulate the producers in other states.”

Of course, California cannot “regulate” Iowa egg producers who prefer battery cages for hens any more than it can “regulate” hog farmers who believe that pregnant sows have no need to be able to stand up. But he also knows that California has 38 million people who consume a lot of eggs, and its standards will undoubtedly influence farmers who want to participate in that market. However, the same argument can be made about California’s emission standards for automobiles, or Texas’ adoption of high school biology texts that treat creationism as science.

The truth is that in Rep. King’s worldview the notion of humane treatment of animals intended for human consumption makes no more sense than that nonsense about climate change. It is simply a matter of economic efficiency and farm profits. And he despises those who espouse a different view. In a statement issued to the Drovers Cattle Network in June of this year, he stated that the Protect Interstate Commerce Act “will also deliver a large setback to the Humane Society of the United States and other radical animal rights organizations.”

Yet he does have a compassionate side. According to the Sioux City (Iowa) Journal, Rep. King has allowed that he might agree to a compromise in which he drops his amendment in return for larger cuts in food stamps.

32 thoughts on “No Chickens Were Harmed In The Making Of This Coop”

  1. Mike Appleton:

    Personally, I think animals raised without stress provide healthier products.

    The way to stop these practices is for people to stop eating factory farm products. If we demanded free range eggs we would have them. Same for grass fed beef.

    Stop eating animals unless they are treated well, large farms would fall all overthemselves to prove their animals were pampered. And paying a few more bucks in the process would probably make us eat more vegetables.

  2. Voters in California also voted for a high speed train that will cut farms in the central valley in half and voted to elect a community organizer and 2 year senator to run the United States. Politicians in California have past legislation that has driven more business out of California than any other state.

  3. Rep. King is one of those pro impeachment guys on the House Judiciary Committee that wants to impeach Obama over favorable treatment of immigrants. He is the author of the “Anchor Baby” immigration legislation so it is not surprising he is for the inhumane treatment of animals as well as humans

  4. If a schmuck like King would learn some basics then the nation would be in a better posture. If you ask King, which comes first, the chicken or the egg, he will tell you the chicken. If you ask him where the eggs come from he will tell you the grocery store. When I lived in New York for a brief time at Turdy Turd Street and a Turd Avenue, there was a schmuck named King who lived next door. One day a bird nest showed up on the window sill of my apartment. The window was at street level, just above one’s head. King used the nest as an ashtray. The next day the same schmuck was out there waiting for his ride and a bird pooped on him. Dumb schmuck told the cab driver that it was starting to rain. Went in dumb, come out dumb too.

  5. Dr. Escher Ben-Jacob (video on JT’s “How To Work Out Your Corgi” post today) indicates that improper food production affects the human brain.

    We are what we eat, and if we eat the products of tortured animals and plants, we will pay a severe penalty.

    Wait … we already are paying a severe penalty for it as shown by the cognition of Rep. King.

    Mike A and his family have both wisdom and sound scientific sentiments.

  6. “hog farmers who believe that pregnant sows have no need to be able to stand up.”

    Stating the following for clarity, as I am not in support of the crates at all.

    In a gestation crate they are able to stand up, just not turn around (at least as I have seen it). These crates are banned in some states, like CA, but not in IA. Then when the sows are ready to farrow, they are moved to a farrowing crate which is not much bigger; this is done to prevent the sow from rolling onto the piglets once they’re born.

    The hogs also stand on heavy wire mesh and concrete and their droppings fall into a pit below. The animals only see daylight through ventilation screens. Due to the crowding, confinement, and standing above their own excrement all day, there is a problem with tail-biting (even if they have been cropped), hoof and leg problems, and diseases like PRRS (porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome).

    Farmers have been told that raising hogs in confinement is more humane in many ways than on pasture because the animals are kept warm and out of the elements and that they’ll lose fewer piglets since sows will not roll on them, sows won’t give birth out in the elements, and owls and other predators can’t get at them.

    Rep. King also comes from a major hog-producing state where most hogs are produced in confinement.

  7. Thanks for your childhood memories…. Sounds like you grew up with rational folks….

    Thie king must be dethroned….. I’ll drop the amendment maybe for a larger cut in benefits…. Crazy is as crazy does….

    I hear the GOP is going back to school for sensitivity training….

  8. Great story. Nice to see that your family was so concerned about your animals. I always say that animals are people, too, except that they only have one selection in the wardrobe closet. Standard GOP method of fighting for the corporate welfare state and against the will of the people. King is an inhumane, ‘Christian’ beast with little regard for animal or citizen rights. These guys will always fight for the rights of the soulless corporations and against the rights of their God’s creatures.

  9. thanks for this, Mike. Though I am in California, and have access to humanely raised laying hens eggs (for a premium, of course), this the exact issue that led me to start raising my own hens, along with some khaki campbell ducks, which are prodigious egg layers. Californians are indeed sensitive to animal rights, and right in my block alone, I can count 4 different families raising chicken for eggs and growing, to the point where the city itself has now approved the practice.

  10. What an interesting childhood you enjoyed and your parents must have been two very energetic people. I wish I’d known them.

    All I know about hens and egg layers was through my grandparents who had a huge hen house with a relatively small number of hens, given the size of the hen house, but the hens were not allowed to “peck” around in the dirt and we cleaned that house daily. It was a hard chore but my grandmother insisted on clean chickens. I never asked why … simply donned my apron and gloves and followed directions. I wasn’t allowed near the pig pen but there was very little smell from that enclosure so I figure the pigs were kept as clean as the chickens. I did have to help in preparing the slop buckets.

    After reading your column and recognizing the problem Rep. King has created, I wrote my Congresswoman noting my objections to King’s amendment and using your “Lowest Common Denominator Act” wording.

    That’s about all I can do.

  11. Representative King has no respect for humans. It is not surprising he has no respect for the ethical treatment of animals. The only entities that matter to him are corporate entities that can make sure he gets millions in is campaign coffers.

  12. Thanks Mike A, nice.

    I raise chickens here humanly.

    I didn’t realize chickens have some sort of low level emotional sense, but they do.

    Rep King is a chicken sheeet on this issue. I’d love to see him stopped somehow.

  13. Representative King needs to spend a year in one of his bovine cages….. But shoot out his knees first!

  14. Mike,

    Interesting post. Hooray for California! it would be nice if other states followed its lead with regard to the humane treatment of animals.

  15. Excellent job. It s amazing to me that Rep. King just sells out federalism, all in the name of big agribusiness. As usual, big money owns Rep. King’s beliefs and actions.

Comments are closed.