Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Abstract
Foie gras, which literally means fat liver in French, is a delicacy prepared from the liver of a duck that has been overly fattened. The fattening is achieved through a method referred to as gavage corn in French. In other parts of the world, this is done by using natural feeding methods. Ideally, a pie made of foie gras and bacon is fed to the birds hence the name foie gras. In England, this kind of meat is referred to as Strasbourg pie denoting the city, which was the main producer of foie gras in the West. With the recommendations made by various commissions over the years, it is now impossible to develop new breeding facilities, especially in the West. This makes it only possible to carry out the procedure in traditional areas of production. With the numerous restrictions laid down for this process, it is obvious that the cost of production is bound to increase, and the working conditions will become worse for handlers. This means that foie gras production will not be a profitable venture as it was in the past.
Ban on Foie Gras
Foie gras, which literally means fat liver in French, is a delicacy prepared from the liver of a duck that has been overly fattened. The fattening is achieved through a method referred to as gavage corn in French. In other parts of the world, this is done by using natural feeding methods. Ideally, a pie made of foie gras and bacon is fed to the birds hence the name foie gras. In England, this kind of meat is referred to as Strasbourg pie denoting the city, which was the main producer of foie gras in the West (Glass 30).
Actually, the gavage technique dates back to 2500 BC, when Egyptian natives began keeping birds for food and intentionally fattened the birds through force-feeding. It is generally accepted that geese were one of the first species of bird domesticated in antiquity (Guemene & Guy 211). The first indication of geese being force-fed comes from Saqqarah in Egypt, with representations of the practice in paintings found in a tomb dating back to 2500 BC. The details of these paintings show meal preparation and the force-feeding procedure. The operators are seated, hanging ducks and geese from their left hands and introducing food through the beak with the right hand. Cranes, which are migratory birds found in this area, are also represented while being force-fed but, as they are taller birds, the operator does this while standing. Egyptians were thus probably the first to perform force-feeding, a practice that lasted in this part of the world for more than 2000 years. A number of bas-reliefs show such scenes, clearly demonstrating that fatty meat of waterfowl and other species of birds was appreciated, whereas we have no direct evidence of any specific interest in foie gras consumption (Guemene & Guy 213).
Currently, France leads in the consumption and production of foie gras though the practice is still prevalent elsewhere. The major site of lipogenesis in birds is the liver, whereas, in mammals, it is the adipose tissue. Birds are consequently more likely to show non-pathological steatosis. However, although cranes were force-fed in ancient Egypt and turkeys reported to respond too, only a few species and hybrids of waterfowl are nowadays used for foie gras production (Chorush, 1564).
In many countries, there has been controversy over gavage-based foie gras production due to the feeding method used. Today, many countries and states around the world have set up laws to govern the production of foie gras. Around 1950, the composition of the diet used during the force-feeding period for foie gras production only consisted of moderately cooked non-ground corn grains. The need for an appropriate way to deliver the feed led to the development of a manual screw dispenser, which was later automated by the addition of a motor. This equipment has been constantly upgraded, and nowadays, a number of producers are using different models of this equipment, with some of them being very sophisticated. By the end of the 1980s, French producers brought a new concept from Israel, the pneumatic dispenser, a device that can deliver a corn mash diet mixed with water at a very high speed. This method was adopted within a short period, and drastic changes have been observed in field practice ever since (Guemene & Guy 215).
Rearing conditions were also modified over the same period, and ducks were placed in individual cages during the cramming period instead of in collective pens, the main advantages being that there is no risk of confusing the ducks, and they always remain in the right position. Together, these practical changes contributed to enhancing productivity, with up to 400 ducks being force-fed by one person per hour. However, new improvements were still to come. The general concept of food delivery was retained but improved by using a hydraulic dispenser, which is more powerful than the pneumatic dispenser. The advantage of this equipment was the opportunity to incorporate a certain amount of uncooked whole corn grain into the mixture. This was important for geese because, in contrast to the mule ducks, they are unable to obtain maximum value from corn when incorporated into the diet. Under mash form, one major criticism based on the excessive amount of food that the birds have to ingest daily during the force-feeding period was counteracted by the observations of geese spontaneously ingesting large amounts of grass or over 3kg of carrots per day. Likewise, spontaneous hyperphagia in ducks has been confirmed in that spontaneous daily intake (up to 750g) has been reported (Guemene & Guy 217).
Over the years, there have been studies seeking to establish the behavioral response of geese and ducks from their traditional rearing place to a feeding pen. After a certain training period, a fraction of the birds were introduced to the gavage technique, with the amount of consumed food being adjusted to the amount impulsively ingested by control birds. Ducks exhibited only partial avoidance of force-feeding, and no sign of aversion was observed in geese. Moreover, it was observed in a subsequent experiment (Chorush 1564) that the flight distance of ducks was greater when faced with an unknown person than with the caretaker. During this study, no significant changes were observed in the behavior of ducks save for increased panting by the completion of the force-feeding procedure, with the increase being greater for ducks housed in individual cages. This could indicate a defect in the thermoregulatory process. On the other hand, individual cages were not associated with the expression of stereotypy, passive behavior, or any indication of frustration. Ducks housed in these cages were even found to be more active than those raised in collective cages. Animal activists often maintain that this procedure is painful for the birds (Chorush 1564).
Local inflammatory processes resulting in extravasation responses, revealed by a specific marker, were very intensive in treated control ducks but were not observed in force-fed ducks at the beginning or in the middle of the force-feeding period. Nevertheless, slight symptoms were observed in a few ducks by the end of the force-feeding period, probably due to moderate inflammation. In similar experimental conditions, observations of peripheral and central neuronal activation showed indications of pain signaling in the medulla and brains of chemically treated birds but not in force-fed ducks (Glass 31).
Grammont’s law, passed in France in 1850 at the instigation of the founders of the French Society for Animal Protection (SPA), was one of the first laws devoted to animal protection in the world. Under this law, mistreatment of domestic animals was subject to punishment, but only if performed in public. Since then, concern about animal welfare has sharply increased, and European legislators have now introduced specific welfare regulations. In Europe, two independent organizations are in charge of the legislation concerning domestic animal welfare: these are the Council of Europe and the European Union. A general convention covering all domestic species (1976) and a similar directive have been adopted by the standing committee of the European Convention and the European Union, respectively. Both of these texts apply to all domestic species and, therefore, to waterfowl. Furthermore, the standing committee of the European Council adopted three specific recommendations concerning domestic ducks in 1999 (Glass 32).
With the passage of time, there have been major recommendations made by different commissions concerning domestic ducks. The 1999 convention stated that the recommendations were to come into force in December of that year and were supposed to be reviewed on 31st December 2004. The committee further deliberated that all husbandry systems were required to meet the requirements of the recommendations from 31st December 2010. One of the major recommendations that were made forbade the use of slated floors and individual battery cages. Additionally, the production of foie gras was only supposed to be carried out in places where it was already under practice and then only in agreement with the already existing legislation in the member states concerned. Under the recommendations, feed restriction strategies, ahemeral rhythms, and split photoperiods were to be banned. Additionally, the use of pipette-type watering systems was prohibited, as was the mutilation of ducks. This means that beak and claw trimming is illegal for domestic ducks and only tolerated under severe restrictions for Muscovy and mule ducks (Guemene & Guy 220).
Conclusion
That the future of foie gras production is uncertain is without a doubt. With the recommendations made by various commissions over the years, it is now impossible to develop new breeding facilities. This makes it only possible to carry out the procedure in traditional areas of production. With the numerous restrictions laid down for this process, it is obvious that the cost of production is bound to increase, and the working conditions will become worse for handlers. This means that foie gras production will not be a profitable venture as it was in the past. Currently, a number of European states have decided to ban foie gras production, something that makes the future of this venture even more uncertain.
Works Cited
Chorush, Benedict. “Opposes AVMA Position on Gestation Stalls, Forced Molting.” J Am Vet Med Association 223.11 (2003): 1564. Print.
Glass, Juliet. “Foie Gras Makers Struggle to Please Critics and Chefs.” New York Times 2007: 30-32. Print.
Guemene, Daniel & Guy, Gregory. The Past, Present and Future of Force-feeding and “Foie Gras” Production.” World’s Poultry science Journal 60.2 (2004): 211-221. Print.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.