DOCSLIB.ORG

Resource Guide to Direct Marketing Livestock and Poultry TABLE of CONTENTS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Resource Guide to Direct Marketing Livestock and Poultry TABLE of CONTENTS Guide to Direct Marketing Livestock and Poultry Regulations Every Producer Should Know to Legally Sell Meat and Livestock in New York State By Martha Goodsell & Dr. tatiana Luisa Stanton, with contributions from many others 2019 revisions were made by the Food and Beverage Law Clinic, a part of John Jay Legal Services, Inc., a non-profit legal services organization housed at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. Research was performed, and revisions were made, by Clinic students Maria Baratta, Nick Sioufas, and Brian Winfield, and by Pace-NRDC Food Law Fellow Daniel Sugar, with guidance from Professor Jonathan Brown. We are very grateful to the law students who helped with this process, and to the following people who reviewed the latest version: Kathleen Harris, farmer, former head of NE Animal Livestock Processing Service Co / farmer Dr. tatiana Luisa Stanton, Cornell Animal Science / farmer Rebecca Thistlethwaite, Niche Meat Processors Association Cory Skier, NYS Dept of Ag and Markets Division of Food Safety and Inspection Peter Duryea, USDA Policy Development Staff Erica Frenay, Cornell Small Farms Program / farmer The Work Team and the December 2010 revisions were funded by the Cornell Small Farm Program. January 2010 revisions were funded in part by the Niche Meat Processors Assistance Network and the New York State Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative. The initial paper was funded in part by a Food and Industry Development Grant received from the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets and through the contributions of NY Farms!, Cornell University Department of Animal Science and Fallow Hollow Deer Farm. Many thanks are due Clarence Davis, former Supervising Food Inspector, New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Division of Food Safety and Inspection for meeting with us while he was still employed by NYSDAM on numerous occasions and answering our hundreds of questions. Members of New York Small Farm Work Team on Livestock Processing Issues 2010-2011 • Dr. tatiana Luisa Stanton, Cornell Animal • Tom Gallagher, CCE Albany County Science / farmer (TEAM CO-LEADER) • Michael Glos, King Bird Farm (farmer/ • Martha Goodsell, Fallow Hollow Deer processor) Farm (TEAM CO-LEADER) • Dr. James Hayes, Sapbush Hollow Farm • Debra Ball, Eagle Bridge Custom Meats (farmer/ processor) (processor) • Kathleen Harris, Northeast Livestock • Laura Biasillo, CCE Broome County Processing Service Company • Lynn Bliven, CCE Allegany County / • Betsy Hodge, CCE St. Lawrence County Wild Geese Farm • Matthew LeRoux, CCE Tompkins County • Marty Broccoli, CCE Oneida County • Audrey Reith, CCE Orange County • Eric Shelley, SUNY Cobleskill Meats Lab • Chris Harmon, CADE / Cowboy Custom Cutting (processor) • Jim McLaughlin, Cornerstone Farm • Heather Sandford, The Piggery (farmer/ Ventures processor) • Shannon Nichols, Heamour Farm (farmer) • Lindsay Wickham, NY Farm Bureau • Kirby Selkirk, Kirbside Gardens (farmer) 2 Resource Guide to Direct Marketing Livestock and Poultry TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents I. Introduction to Meat Regulation ....................................................................................... 10 A. Why We Decided to Undertake This Project ............................................................................ 10 B. Why Inspections Are Important and the History of Federal Inspection ................................ 10 C. Compliance Versus Circumventing ............................................................................................ 11 II. How Regulations Are Classified ........................................................................................ 12 A. Are the Animals or Birds Amenable or Non-Amenable? ......................................................... 13 B. Why Identifying a Market Channel Is Important .................................................................... 15 C. What Is Commerce? .................................................................................................................... 16 D. Intrastate or Interstate? .............................................................................................................. 16 E. Import or Export?........................................................................................................................ 17 F. Religious Exemptions, Certifications, and Cultural Practices ................................................. 20 1. Halal Requirements .................................................................................................................................. 20 2. Kosher Requirements ............................................................................................................................... 21 3. Federal Law Concerning Religious Slaughter .......................................................................................... 21 4. Humane Handling During Religious Slaughter ........................................................................................ 21 5. Halal and Kosher Labeling ....................................................................................................................... 22 a) New York’s Kosher Law Protection Act of 2004 ................................................................................ 22 b) New York’s Halal Foods Protection Act of 2005 ................................................................................ 23 6. Other Cultural Practices ............................................................................................................................ 24 G. Federal, State, or Custom: What Is the Difference? ................................................................. 24 1. USDA-Inspected Meat Processing Facilities ............................................................................................ 25 2. State or Locally Inspected “Custom Exempt” Slaughterhouses ............................................................... 26 3. DUAL LICENSES for Custom Exempt and 5-A Slaughtering ................................................................ 27 4. 5-A Non-Amenable Slaughtering and Processing Facilities ..................................................................... 28 a) Licensing ............................................................................................................................................. 28 b) Unlawful Acts ...................................................................................................................................... 29 5. 5-A Poultry Slaughtering and Processing Facilities ................................................................................. 30 a) 5-A Facility Design .............................................................................................................................. 30 b) 5-A Facility Location ........................................................................................................................... 30 6. 20-C Meat Processing Facilities ............................................................................................................... 31 a) Meat Lockers ....................................................................................................................................... 32 7. Retail-Exempt ........................................................................................................................................... 33 H. Other Types of Slaughterhouses Not Available in New York .................................................. 34 1. Talmadge-Aiken Meat Plants ................................................................................................................... 34 2. State-Licensed USDA-Equivalent Slaughterhouses ................................................................................. 34 III. Who Are the Responsible Parties of the Tiered System? ............................................ 38 A. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)....................................................................................... 38 1. Food Safety Modernization Act................................................................................................................ 39 B. USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) .................................................................... 40 C. Other Federal Agencies ............................................................................................................... 41 D. Other State and County Agencies .............................................................................................. 41 3 IV. Handling Slaughter Animals .......................................................................................... 43 A. Humane Handling ........................................................................................................................ 43 1. Systematic Approach ................................................................................................................................ 46 B. Humane Transport ...................................................................................................................... 48 C. Movement of Non-Ambulatory Animals to Slaughter .............................................................. 49 D. How Many Animals Can Be Loaded on a Trailer? ................................................................... 50 E. Acting as a Livestock Hauler .....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AP-42, CH 9.10.2.2: Peanut Processing
    9.10.2.2 Peanut Processing 9.10.2.2.1 General Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea), also known as groundnuts or goobers, are an annual leguminous herb native to South America. The peanut peduncle, or peg (the stalk that holds the flower), elongates after flower fertilization and bends down into the ground, where the peanut seed matures. Peanuts have a growing period of approximately 5 months. Seeding typically occurs mid-April to mid-May, and harvesting during August in the United States. Light, sandy loam soils are preferred for peanut production. Moderate rainfall of between 51 and 102 centimeters (cm) (20 and 40 inches [in.]) annually is also necessary. The leading peanut producing states are Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Florida, and Oklahoma. 9.10.2.2.2 Process Description The initial step in processing is harvesting, which typically begins with the mowing of mature peanut plants. Then the peanut plants are inverted by specialized machines, peanut inverters, that dig, shake, and place the peanut plants, with the peanut pods on top, into windrows for field curing. After open-air drying, mature peanuts are picked up from the windrow with combines that separate the peanut pods from the plant using various thrashing operations. The peanut plants are deposited back onto the fields and the pods are accumulated in hoppers. Some combines dig and separate the vines and stems from the peanut pods in 1 step, and peanuts harvested by this method are cured in storage. Some small producers still use traditional harvesting methods, plowing the plants from the ground and manually stacking them for field curing.
    [Show full text]
  • Confounding Castle Pages 27-28
    As you enter the next room, you hear a rustling in the dark, followed by a hiss. Four eyes peer out of the shadows, watching you. You stand perfectly still, making sure not to move, as a creature steps out into the light and looks you over. At first, it just seems like an odd looking, out of place chicken – perhaps a little bit bigger than other chickens you might have seen, but other than that, just a regular bird. But something about it seems off, and after a moment, you realize what it is – this bird doesn’t have a tail. Then, you realize that you’re wrong. It does have a tail, but its tail is a living snake, a second pair of eyes that stare at you. “What are you doing in my larder?” the creature squawks at you. You explain that you’re just trying to find your way to the Griffin’s tower, and it calms down considerably. “Oh, okay then. I don’t like people poking around in here, but if you’re just passing through it’s no problem. The ladder up into the Clock tower is right over there.” You are ready to leave, but curiosity overtakes you, and you ask the creature what it is. “I shall answer your question,” it hisses, “with a song.” Then, it throws back its bird head and begins to crow. I am the mighty cockatrice I like to eat up grains of rice But I also enjoy munching mice I do not like the cold or ice I’ve said it once and I will say it thrice I am the Cockactrice! I am the Cockatrice! “Myself, along with the Griffin, the Dragon, and a few others, all came to live here with the Wizard.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Meat Regulations
    Extract from Government Gazette No. 26779, 2004 09 17, Regulation Gazette No. 8056 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE No. 1072 17 September 2004 MEAT SAFETY ACT, 2000 (ACT No. 40 OF 2000) RED MEAT REGULATIONS The Minister of Agriculture has, in terms of section 22 of the Meat Safety Act, 2000 (Act No. 40 of 2000), made the regulations set out in the Schedule. SCHEDULE ARRANGEMENT OF CONTENTS OF RED MEAT REGULATIONS PART Subject Section Regulation Page I General: Definitions 1 2 Applications for registration [8(1)(a)] 2 3 Serving of instruction [10(2)(b)] 3 3 II Requirements for registration of red meat abattoirs [11(1)(a)] A. Throughput and other requirements for grades 4 – 7 4 B. Structural requirements (1) for all abattoirs 8 – 18 10 (2) for low and high throughput 19 – 29 14 C. Hygiene management practices and related matters: (1) Offal handling 30 – 32 17 (2) Cutting and processing 33 – 38 18 (3) Chilling and freezing 39 – 44 20 (4) Loading meat products for transport 45 21 (5) Sanitation 46 – 48 22 III Hygiene management and evaluation systems [11(1)(e)] 49 – 55 23 IV Hygiene requirements for persons entering abattoirs [11(1)(f)] 56 – 63 29 V Humane treatment of animals and slaughter process [11(1)(h)] 64 – 78 30 VI Meat inspections [11(1)] 79 – 111 35 VII Marks and marking [11(1)(m)] 112 – 117 45 VIII Treatment of condemned material, etc. [11(1)(r)] 118 – 124 47 IX Export-regulations [22(1)(h)] 125 49 X Import-regulations [22(1)(h)] 126 50 XI Exemptions (all species): [22(1)(c)] Own use 127 51 Religious purposes 128 – 129 51 Religious slaughter in abattoirs 130 52 XII Final provisions: Appeals [18(2)] 131 52 Short title 132 52 Table 1 53 Extract from Government Gazette No.
    [Show full text]
  • Good Manufacturing Practices and Industry Best Practices for Peanut
    GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICES AND INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES FOR PEANUT PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS Revised October 2009 The American Peanut Council 1500 King Street, Suite 301 Alexandria, Virginia _____________________________________________________________ Any reproduction of the information contained in this document requires the express written consent of the American Peanut Council, 1500 King Street, Suite 301, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Contents DEFINITION OF TERMS .............................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 5 GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICES ................................................................................................... 7 Personnel Practices ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Establishing a Training Program .............................................................................................................. 8 Educate workers on the importance of proper hand washing techniques ................................................. 8 Building and Facilities ................................................................................................................................. 9 Plants and Grounds ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT SHI, XIAOLEI. Effects of Different
    ABSTRACT SHI, XIAOLEI. Effects of Different Roasting Conditions on Peanut Quality. (Under the direction of Dr. Lisa L. Dean and Dr. K.P. Sandeep). In the U.S., a major portion of the peanut crop is converted from whole seed into value-added products. For such purposes, the peanut seeds are processed using a thermal operation as the first step in the manufacture of the final products, to achieve specific flavors, colors, and textures. Peanuts are typically processed by dry roasting or oil roasting (deep frying and blister frying). Comparisons among different dry roasting conditions and different roasting methods were made in this work regarding their effects on the quality-related properties of roasted peanuts. On an industrial scale, peanuts are typically roasted to a specific color for quality control. Recent lab scale experiments demonstrated that peanuts roasted to equivalent surface colors at different time/temperature combinations could vary substantially in chemical and physical properties related to product quality. This study expanded that approach to a pilot plant scale roaster. Jumbo-size runner-type peanuts were systematically roasted at 5 temperatures (149-204 °C) to three Hunter L-values of 53.0, 48.5, and 43.0 using the same peanut bed depth and air flow. The flavor of medium dry roasted peanuts was superior to light and dark roasts, with higher roasted peanutty and sweet aromatic flavor notes. Total tocopherols of oil extracted from the roasted peanuts was greatest in peanuts roasted to darker colors, with the medium and dark oil showing no significant differences from the raw oil.
    [Show full text]
  • The Roasted and the Boiled: Food Composition and Heat Treatment with Special Emphasis on Pit-Hearth Cooking
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Anthropology Faculty Publications Anthropology, Department of 1-1997 The Roasted and the Boiled: Food Composition and Heat Treatment with Special Emphasis on Pit-Hearth Cooking LuAnn Wandsnider University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/anthropologyfacpub Part of the Anthropology Commons Wandsnider, LuAnn, "The Roasted and the Boiled: Food Composition and Heat Treatment with Special Emphasis on Pit-Hearth Cooking" (1997). Anthropology Faculty Publications. 28. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/anthropologyfacpub/28 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16 (1997) , pp. 1–48. Copyright © 1997 Academic Press. Used by permission. http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa Submitted March 1, 1996; revised October 17, 1996; accepted October 20, 1996. The Roasted and the Boiled: Food Composition and Heat Treatment with Special Emphasis on Pit-Hearth Cooking LuAnn Wandsnider Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0368 Abstract Heat treatment is one of the major ways humans change the composition and chemistry of food tis- sues, making them more digestible, less toxic, and more durable. This paper reviews salient features of food chemistry and food composition and how heat treatment, especially pit-hearth cooking, af- fects that composition. Ethnographic accounts of cooking indicate that traditional populations relied on pit-hearth cooking especially to alter the composition of foods high in either lipids or complex carbohydrates.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater China Beef & Sheepmeat Market Snapshot
    MARKET SNAPSHOT l BEEF & SHEEPMEAT Despite being the most populous country in the world, the proportion of Chinese consumers who can regularly afford to buy Greater China high quality imported meat is relatively small in comparison to more developed markets such as the US and Japan. However, (China, Hong Kong and Taiwan) continued strong import demand for premium red meat will be driven by a significant increase in the number of wealthy households. Focusing on targeted opportunities with a differentiated product will help to build preference in what is a large, complex and competitive market. Taiwan and Hong Kong are smaller by comparison but still important markets for Australian red meat, underpinned by a high proportion of affluent households. China meat consumption 1 2 Population Household number by disposable income per capita3 US$35,000+ US$75,000+ 1,444 13% million 94.3 23% 8% 50 kg 56% 44.8 China grocery spend4 10.6 24.2 3.3 5.9 million million 333 26 3.0 51 16.1 Australia A$ Australia Korea China Korea Australia China US US China US Korea 1,573 per person 1,455 million by 2024 5% of total households 0.7% of total households (+1% from 2021) (9% by 2024) (1% by 2024) Australian beef exports to China have grown rapidly, increasing 70-fold over the past 10 years, with the country becoming Australia’s largest market in 2019. Australian beef Australian beef Australia’s share of Australian beef/veal exports – volume5 exports – value6 direct beef imports7 offal cuts exports8 4% 3% 6% 6% 3% Tripe 21% 16% Chilled grass Heart 9% A$ Chilled grain Chilled Australia Tendon Other Frozen grass Frozen 10% 65 71% Tail 17% countries million Frozen grain 84% Kidney 67% Other Total 303,283 tonnes swt Total A$2.83 billion Total 29,687 tonnes swt China has rapidly become Australia’s single largest export destination for both lamb and mutton.
    [Show full text]
  • Information on How to Buy Lamb
    LAMB Lamb is produced from animals less than a year old. Since the quality of lamb varies according to the age of the animal, it is advisable to buy lamb that has been USDA-graded. USDA Prime: Prime grade lamb is very high in tenderness, juiciness, and flavor. It has moderate marbling, which enhances both flavor and juiciness. Prime chops and roasts are excellent for dry-heat cooking (broiling and roasting). USDA Choice: Choice grade lamb has slightly less marbling than Prime, but still is of very high quality. Choice chops and roasts also are very tender, juicy, and flavorful and suited to dry-heat cooking. Lower grades of lamb and mutton (USDA Good, Utility, and Cull) are seldom marked with the grade if sold at retail. Most cuts of USDA Prime and Choice lamb - including shoulder cuts - are tender and can be oven roasted, broiled, or pan broiled. A leg of lamb graded Choice or Prime, for example, is delectable when oven roasted. The less tender cuts - the breast, riblets, neck, and shank - can be braised slowly to make excellent (and tender) lamb dishes. Meat from older sheep is called yearling mutton or mutton and, if it is graded, these words will be stamped on the meat along with the shield-shaped grade mark. Grades for yearling mutton and mutton are the same as for lamb, except that mutton does not qualify for the Prime grade and the Cull grade applies only to mutton. The best way to identify lamb cuts is with the lamb carcass chart shown above.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Standards for Grades of Lamb, Yearling Mutton, and Mutton Carcasses
    United States Department of Agriculture United States Standards Agricultural Marketing for Grades of Service Livestock Lamb, Yearling Mutton, and and Seed Division Mutton Carcasses Effective date July 6, 1992 United States Standards for Grades of Lamb, Yearling Mutton, and Mutton Carcasses The following is a reprint of the Official United States Standards for the Grades of Lamb, Yearling Mutton, and Mutton Carcasses promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 1087; 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) as amended and related authority in the annual appropriation acts for the Department of Agriculture. The standards are reprinted with amendments effective July 6, 1992. Development of the Standards The official standards for grades of lamb and mutton carcasses were initially promulgated and made effective on February 16, 1931. The standards were amended in October 1940 (Amendment No. 1 to S.R.A. 123) so as to change the grade designations Medium and common to Commercial and Utility, respectively. In April 1951, the official standards were again amended (Amendment No. 2 to S.R.A. 123). By this amendment, Prime and Choice grades were combined and designated as Prime. The Good grade was renamed Choice, which also became the highest grade for carcasses of mutton older than yearlings. The top two-thirds of the Commercial grade was combined with the top two-third of the Utility grade and designated as Utility, thereby eliminating the Commercial grade name. The lower one-third of the Utility grade was combined with the Cull grade and designated as Cull. This amendment also provided for reflecting the minimum requirements for each grade, specified the grade requirements for varying degrees of maturity, and clarified the method for differentiating between lamb, yearling mutton, and mutton carcasses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams
    THE SEXUAL POLITICS OF MEAT A FEMINISTVEGETARIAN CRITICAL THEORY Praise for The Sexual Politics of Meat and Carol J. Adams “A clearheaded scholar joins the ideas of two movements—vegetari- anism and feminism—and turns them into a single coherent and moral theory. Her argument is rational and persuasive. New ground—whole acres of it—is broken by Adams.” —Colman McCarthy, Washington Post Book World “Th e Sexual Politics of Meat examines the historical, gender, race, and class implications of meat culture, and makes the links between the prac tice of butchering/eating animals and the maintenance of male domi nance. Read this powerful new book and you may well become a vegetarian.” —Ms. “Adams’s work will almost surely become a ‘bible’ for feminist and pro gressive animal rights activists. Depiction of animal exploita- tion as one manifestation of a brutal patriarchal culture has been explored in two [of her] books, Th e Sexual Politics of Meat and Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. Adams argues that factory farming is part of a whole culture of oppression and insti- tutionalized violence. Th e treatment of animals as objects is parallel to and associated with patriarchal society’s objectifi cation of women, blacks, and other minorities in order to routinely exploit them. Adams excels in constructing unexpected juxtapositions by using the language of one kind of relationship to illuminate another. Employing poetic rather than rhetorical techniques, Adams makes powerful connec- tions that encourage readers to draw their own conclusions.” —Choice “A dynamic contribution toward creating a feminist/animal rights theory.” —Animals’ Agenda “A cohesive, passionate case linking meat-eating to the oppression of animals and women .
    [Show full text]
  • Ing Items Have Been Registered
    ACCEPTANCES Page 1 of 27 August 2017 LoAR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN REGISTERED: ÆTHELMEARC Ceara Cháomhanach. Device. Purpure, a triquetra Or between three natural tiger’s heads cabossed argent marked sable. There is a step from period practice for the use of natural tiger’s heads. Serena Milani. Name change from Eydís Vígdísardóttir (see RETURNS for device). The submitter’s previous name, Eydís Vígdísardóttir, is retained as an alternate name. Valgerðr inn rosti. Device. Argent, three sheep passant to sinister sable, each charged with an Elder Futhark fehu rune argent, a bordure gules. AN TIR Ailionóra inghean Tighearnaigh. Device change. Argent, a polypus per pale gules and sable within a bordure embattled per pale sable and gules. The submitter’s previous device, Argent, on a bend engrailed azure between a brown horse rampant and a tree eradicated proper three gouttes argent, is retained as a badge. Aline de Seez. Badge. (Fieldless) A hedgehog rampant azure maintaining an arrow inverted Or flighted sable. Nice badge! Alrikr Ivarsson. Name (see RETURNS for device). The submitter requested authenticity for an unspecified language or culture. Both name elements are in the same language, Old East Norse, but we cannot say for sure whether they are close enough in time to be authentic for a specific era. Anna Gheleyns. Badge (see RETURNS for device). Or, a rabbit rampant sable within a chaplet of ivy vert. Annaliese von Himmelreich. Name and device. Gules, a nautilus shell argent and on a chief Or three crows regardant sable. Annora of River Haven. Name. River Haven is the registered name of an SCA branch.
    [Show full text]
  • Very Important Poultry
    Very Important Poultry Great, Sacred and Tragic Chickens of History and Literature John Ashdown-Hill 1 dedicated to Thea, Yoyo and Duchess (long may they scranit), and to the memory of Barbie and Buffy. 2 3 Contents Introduction Chickens in Ancient Egypt Greek Chickens The Roman Chicken Chinese Chickens Chickens and Religion The Medieval Chicken The Gallic Cockerel Fighting Cocks Chickens of Music and Literature, Stage and Screen Proverbial and Record-Breaking Chickens Tailpiece 4 5 Introduction Domestic chickens have long been among our most useful animal companions, providing supplies of eggs and — for the carnivorous — meat. In the past, fighting cocks were also a source of entertainment. Sadly, in some parts of the world, they still are. The poet William Blake (1757-1827) expressed his high opinion of chickens in the words: Wondrous the gods, more wondrous are the men, More wondrous, wondrous still the cock and hen. Nevertheless, the chicken has not generally been much respected by mankind. Often chickens have been (and are to this day) treated cruelly. The horror of battery farming is a disgrace which is still very much with us today. At the same time, England has recently witnessed a great upsurge of interest in poultry keeping. Both bantams and large fowl have become popular as pets with useful side products. They are, indeed, ideal pets. Friendly, undemanding, inexpensive, consuming relatively little in the way of food, and giving eggs as well as affection in return. As pets they have distinct advantages over the more traditional (but totally unproductive) dogs, cats, guinea pigs and rabbits.
    [Show full text]