'Out of the myriad of problems we are faced with, food ...
RETHINKING FOOD CHOICES AT MCGILL:
Creating Sustainability Criteria for Poultry and Greenhouse Tomatoes
Client: McGill Food Systems Project – Sustainable McGill
In conjunction with McGill Food and Dining Services
Supervising Professor: Sylvie De Blois
ENVR 401 Fall 2009
Group Members
Lianne Bélanger 260178887
Drew De Panicis 260286497
Nicholas Moreau 260224266
Jessica Pelland 260289713
Sophia Scott 260216842
Kaitlin Smith 260216851
Veronique Theriault 260216500
Kerri Westlake 260145700
Executive Summary
Introduction
Agriculture is a rapidly changing sector in Canada and worldwide, characterized by burgeoning farm size, consolidation of farmers and retailers, vertical integration, and a disconnect between consumers and the food they eat, particularly in the last three decades (Preibisch 2007; Pollen 2006; Draper 2002; Schlosser 2002). The past half century has also witnessed increased agricultural pollution, particularly the release of excess nitrates and phosphorus into water and soil, deforestation, and other environmental destruction in the name of increased production (Pollen 2006; Draper 2002). For better or worse, agriculture, and the common person’s relationship to the food they eat has drastically changed.
Food at McGill’s independent residence cafeterias is currently ordered based on price, quality and student preference (Glencross 2009). The impact of these products’ on the social and physical environment is given little, if any, consideration. Moreover, unlike price, the environmental and social costs of goods, often externalized from producer costs, are not stamped onto the product (Hawken 2005). But this cost does vary.
Client
Our client, the McGill Food System Project (MFSP) is a university endorsed, student run initiative, whose goal is to examine and revitalize the university’s relationship with the food it consumes. Our team was asked to participate in this process by investigating McGill’s food sources. We narrowed our focus to greenhouse tomatoes and chicken. In short, we choose these areas because throughout the year, MFDS orders more tomatoes than any other produce item (Oliver De Volpi, personal interview, September 2009). Meanwhile, chicken is the most commonly consumed protein source in McGill’s residence cafeterias (Oliver De Volpi, personal interview, September 2009).
Focus
Our project focuses on all the actors participating in the food supply chain: the companies; the products; the environment that cradles them; and the communities that make the links of this supply chain stronger.
Objective
Our goal was to investigate the relevant and realistic criteria that could be applied to source McGill’s food more sustainably.
Method
Based on literature review, industry meetings, and client consultation, a set of sustainability sourcing criteria was generated which will evaluate individual greenhouse producers, poultry producers, slaughterhouses and distributors.
Conclusion
The main purpose of these criteria will be to reveal the best and worst practices of the respective food industries (see Appendix A-C) and guide McGill towards the most sustainable sourcing options. These criteria will encourage dialogue between parties, including McGill’s food and dining services and its suppliers; They will help to estimate an individual source’s ‘environmental conscience’ and, rather than price, they will evaluate how environmentally economical a supplier is in practice. As consumers, we need to understand the production process in order to make ethical purchasing decisions. As for producers, they need to know our consumption values and demands. A leading university such as McGill has a responsibility to make the most informed decisions possible when it comes to the food it purchases, and our project seeks to provide a basis for such decisions.
Contents
Executive Summary 2
Introduction 2
Emergence of the Sustainability Discourse 2
Client Description 2
Focusing Our Project 2
Greenhouse Tomato Production 2
Poultry Production 2
Objective 2
Research Question 2
Research Methodology 2
Analysis 2
Part I: Greenhouse Tomatoes 2
Analysis 2
Conclusion 2
Part II: Poultry 2
Analysis 2
Conclusion 2
General conclusions and Recommendations 2
General conclusions 2
Recommendations for future research 2
References 2
Appendix A: Greenhouse Criteria 2
Appendix B: Poultry Criteria 2
Appendix C: Shorthand Criteria 2
Appendix D: Contact Lists 2
Appendix E: Company Profiles 2
"Out of the myriad of problems we are faced with, food sustainability stands out as having the widest and most tangible appeal to, and impact upon, individuals. It is universally relevant because regardless of ecological awareness, social group, and political orientation, everybody eats."
- McGill Food Systems Project
Introduction
Agriculture is a rapidly changing sector in Canada and worldwide, characterized by burgeoning farm size, consolidation of farmers and retailers, vertical integration, and a disconnect between consumers and the food they eat, particularly in the last three decades (Preibisch 2007; Pollen 2006; Draper 2002; Schlosser 2002). Vertical integration, wherein one company owns or otherwise controls all of the links in its supply chain, is seen as the most efficient way to achieve uniformity as well as economies of scale (Draper 2002). Today’s vertically integrated agri-businesses require high volume production of a small number of food crops and livestock species, contributing to increasing farm size and intensity of production (Schlosser 2002). Food chains, once being local or regional scale, have become increasingly global in scale and connection. As goes the common refrain, the North American family farm is disappearing, as agri-business conglomerates gain more market control (Schlosser 2002). The family owner-operator labour force is being replaced by contracted wage employees, an increasing proportion of which are recent immigrants, people without status, or temporary foreign workers (Preibisch 2007). This consolidated, vertically integrated food system has been associated with improved efficiency and vastly increased crop yield (Trewavas 2008). However, the past half century has also witnessed increased agricultural pollution, particularly the release of excess nitrates and phosphorus into water and soil, deforestation, and other environmental destruction in the name of increased production (Pollen 2006; Draper 2002). For better or worse, agriculture, and the common person’s relationship to the food they eat has drastically changed.
In recent literature regarding food and agriculture in North America, the forces of change are often presented as monolithic and insurmountable, but people are cognizant of the myriad of concerns such a food system presents and, as this introduction will discuss, there is a long history of alternative dialogue that seeks to mitigate social and environmental degradation associated with this system (Hawken 2005).
Emergence of the Sustainability Discourse
There has been a gradual and changing trajectory of thought concerned with examining the impact of Western lifestyle and modes of production on the environment. None of the elements in this story have remained static, including conceptions of the environment, humans’ place within it, or our scientific understanding of ecological processes.ù ‘Sustainability’ as a widely recognized concept, emerged in the 1980s, although it existed more disparately long before (Draper 2002). The first internationally recognized understanding of the term comes from the World Commission of Environment and Development’s publication Our Common Future (1987), wherein ‘sustainable development’ is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987). The term sustainable development has since been criticized as oxymoronic because development connotes linear, unidirectional growth that may contradict the concept of sustainability. More recently ‘sustainability’, which encompasses the interactions between ecological, social and economic ‘pillars’, has largely taken its place (Adams 2006). As climate change, and the complex processes driving it, are increasingly understood, current conceptions emphasize interconnectedness and interdependency of all aspects in the physical and social environments (Draper 2002). The goal of sustainability is to understand and support the complexity of natural systems to bolster resilience for the present and future generations.
Sustainability as it pertains to agriculture is often closely linked with discussions of organic crop and livestock production. This derives principally from a concern regarding the long term detrimental effects of chemicals related to the production and application of inorganic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides (Mäder et al. 2002). More recently, focus has shifted to the origin and distance that food travels from suppliers to users. Much North American theory and activism surrounding sustainable food proposes that food which travels the shortest distance from ‘farm to plate’ (‘local food’) will decrease fossil fuel emissions for transport, increase the ability of consumers to participate directly in the food production process, strengthen communication and social ties and preserve biodiversity (Weber and Matthews 2008; Pollan 2006). It is in this context that our research project is embedded.
Client Description
Our client, the McGill Food System Project (MFSP) is a university supported, student run initiative, whose goal is to examine and revitalize the university’s relationship with the food it consumes. In particular, the research group is working towards a food system with which the McGill community will be intimately integrated and have a clear understanding. Their past efforts involve decrypting and communicating the structure of McGill's food supply chain, observing and mapping current food sourcing decisions and establishing contacts and collaborating with many of the varied actors behind this process. They are currently working closely with McGill's Food and Dinning Services (MFDS) to evaluate their food ordering practices.
Our client asked us to analyze the sustainability of current food choices at McGill’s independently run cafeterias operated by MFDS. Our team was asked to create research- based recommendations and criteria to guide future food purchasing decisions. The purchasing guidelines set by our project will serve as a pilot in the independently run cafeterias throughout the Winter 2010 semester, and as a model for future ordering contracts.
Focusing Our Project
The challenge was clear from our first meeting: what exactly does sustainability mean to us, and how can we create criteria that both reflect this definition and are feasible in the McGill context? We found that while sustainability means many things to many people, in some senses it has become a buzz word devoid of meaning. Acknowledging the difficulty of defining a concept so fluid and context dependent, we began our project with the purpose of refining a definition that was specifically relevant to our areas of interest: food. We see an example from Yale University Sustainable Food Project’s definition in their recently released Sustainable Food Purchasing Guidelines as a working definition. It states that “a sustainable practice can continue indefinitely without degrading the systems upon which it depends” (Yale Sustainable Food Project 2008). But how can such a statement be quantitatively measured, especially considering that our environment is a dynamic and ever changing system? For the purpose of practicality, we have chosen to measure sustainability as a spectrum of practices ranging from those that have the least adverse social or environmental impact to those having the greatest adverse impact. In this context, agricultural practices doing the least environmental and social damage will be rewarded in our criteria.
Food at McGill’s independent residence cafeterias is currently ordered based on price, quality and student preference (Glencross 2009). The impact of these products’ on the social and physical environment is given little, if any, consideration. Moreover, unlike price, the environmental and social costs of goods, often externalized from producer costs, are not stamped onto the product (Hawken 2005). But this cost does vary. As our analysis will show, while the end products may be quite similar to each other, the means to get there can vary greatly. Generating sustainable sourcing criteria is an attempt to evaluate goods in a way that considers external costs in the form of degradation of water, soil and air, biodiversity loss, decrease in the quality of life of human and non-human organisms, and power imbalances in human social structure. Our project focuses on three main actors participating in the food supply chain; the producer, the transformer and the supplier.
Based on client meetings and literature review, we decided to narrow our focus to poultry and greenhouse tomato production. Throughout our research, we attempted to critically examine both the current modes of production and the ‘pastoral fantasy’ to come up with criteria which balance ideals and practicality, immediate action and long term change. The result is a set of criteria for poultry and greenhouse tomatoes which allocates points in an ascending scale from least to most sustainable practice in a number of relevant facets of production. Given the complexity of our criteria and the human resources required to apply it, we have also provided ‘shorthand’ criteria for immediate use. The distilled version of the full document can hopefully be used by current administrators, and where possible, incorporated in food provider contracts. Additionally, we have designed the criteria to require only information that could be accessible to the interviewee or student researcher to ensure no criterion would be left unanswered due to lack of information. The following sections will provide background information into both of our focus industries, elaborate on the important domains to evaluate within each, and provide justification for the ‘best and worst practices’. The points-based criteria can be found in Appendix A, and the 'shorthand' guidelines in Appendix B. As this project is part of a movement which will be expanded and built upon, we conclude with recommendations for future research.
Greenhouse Tomato Production
Any attempt to evaluate the environmental impact of produce ordering in Québec will have to consider the viability of winter ordering practices. Due to environmental conditions dictated by its geographical location, Québec residents have limited local options for unprocessed food during the winter. Because the climatic constraints inherent in Québec potentially conflict with any local food strategy, and because our project’s pilot will occur in the winter, our team felt it pertinent to evaluate whether or how greenhouses could fit into MFDS sustainable food purchasing strategy.
Throughout the year, MFDS orders more tomatoes than any other produce item (Oliver De Volpi, personal interview, September 2009). Moreover, outside of the province’s growing season, these tomatoes are ordered primarily from Québec-based greenhouses (specifically Savoura). We will provide an account of how greenhouse production works and the varying impacts of greenhouse tomato production. Understanding this is seminal to creating a criteria document which highlights the range of environmental and social impacts a greenhouse operation can have. This document can then be used to identify and rank operations based on best and worst practices.
All greenhouses consist of an enclosed structure, usually plastic, designed to trap more incoming solar radiation than it lets out, creating a warmer internal climate. However, the environmental impact of greenhouses can vary enormously depending on their scale, design, water usage and energy inputs (Olfosson et al. 2006). For instance, a small-scale greenhouse may use overhead irrigation, contain no artificial fertilizers and use solar heating, while maintaining average yield and high prices. Meanwhile, a large-scale greenhouse (some in Québec are as big as fifty football fields), may use natural gas as a heating source and rely on groundwater irrigation. The impact and degree of sustainability between such producers will vary, as will the associated costs and product prices (Papadopoulos 2002). Therefore, a method for evaluating the various practices and their environmental impact is needed to provide a broader picture to evaluate the most sustainable one and to be able to compare across scales. The study of greenhouse tomato production is only a start and much more research will need to be done in the future to build upon the research presented in this document and on other methods of production, such as imports, to compare best practices. These criteria need to be ever evolving and adaptive to ensure that the best practices are prioritized as new technologies and methods of production are put into practice.
Poultry Production
Chicken is the most commonly consumed protein source in McGill’s residence cafeterias (and in Canada as a whole), and as such, research into the industry is particularly compelling (Oliver De Volpi, personal interviews, September 2009; Chicken Farmers of Canada 2008). Since chicken product shows up on every menu at the independent residences at least once a day and consists of more than 85% of the meat protein served in an average month, it seemed a logical starting point to understand the meat industry supply chain. In addition, given that 80% of our current poultry orders consist of fresh products, we did not examine poultry processing industry in depth but focused our attention on fresh poultry production.
The majority of our research has concentrated on on-farm poultry production, but we have also included criteria evaluating the slaughterhouse, transformation and distribution phases of the chain. We focused on the farm level because the greatest potential for impact reduction exists there. The literature examining current poultry production points to many problems associated with trends in increasing farm size, mechanization, and density of poultry. With growing broiler houses and flock size, bird health and welfare has become a prominent concern, especially regarding feather pecking and cannibalism, access to food and water and air quality concerns. Within broiler house production, changes can be made which mitigate adverse effects on bird health. The large scale of production necessitates that new solutions and partnerships be made for litter removal to avoid eutrophication attributed to excess nitrate and phosphorus in agricultural run-off. The production methods which mitigate adverse effects on birds, humans and their surrounding environment are privileged in our criteria. In many cases, this means rewarding organic production, as regulations regarding bird health and waste treatment are more stringent than conventional production guidelines.
Objective
These criteria are meant to evaluate individual greenhouse producers, poultry producers, slaughterhouses, transformers and distributors and use their ranking as an indication of best and worst practices to guide McGill towards the most sustainable sourcing choices offered in the respective industry. Through this process, our database of most sustainable farms in proximity to McGill will widen. Greater knowledge of the available sourcing options will help guide the purchasing decisions of the Food and Dining Services of McGill for the upcoming years. Our goal in doing this is to increase the resilience and sustainability of our food chain. By sourcing from a larger variety of smaller farms we strengthen and create new supply networks within the food industry. Because these supply chains are modest in size and found on a local scale, they enable consumers, in this case McGill's student body, to connect with their producer and cultivate a greater appreciation of where our food comes from.
Research Question
What are the relevant and realistic criteria that can be applied to source McGill’s food more sustainably?
Client consultation and literature review led us to this question. As stated earlier, agricultural goods are understood to have a gradient of impacts depending on their production, and we have chosen to define sustainable agricultural goods as those having the least adverse impact on the environment.
Assumptions and Constraints
This research question does contain some assumptions. It implies that there is a variety of sourcing options available and that McGill can simply choose the most sustainable out of all of them. However, there are also logistical considerations that must not be neglected: food safety, delivery standards, capacity to provide, and clientele profile are important examples. Suppliers must offer liability and traceability of their foods in the event of food borne illnesses. Moreover, students need food that is affordable as well as meals that are generally healthy and practical for their busy schedules (Oliver De Volpi, personal interviews, September 2009). These logistical considerations can act as constraints to sourcing from the most sustainable producers.
Many assume that smaller producers have a smaller negative impact on the environment, thus making them more environmentally sustainable. In searching through the literature, we have not found opposition nor have we found support for this claim. Encouraging smaller enterprises increases the social sustainability of our communities and helps the local economy flourish. Conversely, the smaller the business, the harder it is to abide by the institutional demands of large clients such as McGill cafeterias. While our research explores the impact of our food choices, McGill's Food and Dining purchasers must balance this information along side a plethora of other important considerations.
Research Methodology
In order to satisfy our research question, we employed a multi-stakeholder approach (see Figure 1). We did this in order to ensure our criteria would be relevant and realistic for Québec and to the industries we are targeting, as well as to our clients.
Figure 1. A graphical representation of our criteria development process incorporating multiple stakeholders.
Our research began with the consultation of our client the MFSP and their partner MFDS. We consulted our clients to understand their motivations, intentions, and how they imagined these criteria to be developed and implemented in order to source McGill’s food more sustainability.
Once our team had an understanding of our client’s requests, we proceeded to consult the academic and technical literature on the poultry and greenhouse tomato industries. This served to form a concrete foundation of the relevant environmental issues in each respective industry. After we developed an understanding of the breadth of issues, we began to explore each issue in depth. Reaching a significant depth with each issue proved easier for some than others. Where challenges presented themselves in the form of insufficient knowledge in the literature, we developed those criteria with what was available and made note of where future inquiry was needed. After our initial review of the literature was complete we developed our first draft of criteria based on the best and worst practices. Best practices corresponded to what was consistent with our definition of sustainability, having the least adverse impacts on the environment. Once we understood the ideal situation we felt it necessary to understand how the reality of both industries relates to the ideal. Therefore, the next logical step in our methodology was to develop an understanding of the reality within each industry.
Oliver de Volpi, MFDS executive chef, was able to setup the initial meetings and provide us with important company names and contact information to facilitate more efficient communication. Our initial contacts within the industry served to develop an understanding of the supply chains and how the food arrived at McGill from the farm to the plate. This first step was crucial because we were able to understand and later develop criteria for each stage in the supply chain. In addition, we were able to assess to what depth we could go into each supply chain given the time constraints. From here we proceeded to contact each stage in the supply chain in order to find out what changes we could effect at each level. With each additional contact, we developed a greater understanding of the supply chains and why the systems exist in their current state. Industry contacts also included regulatory bodies at the provincial and national levels that helped us understand what environmental regulations were already mandatory (see Appendix D for a complete list of our contacts and company profiles). This enabled us to develop our criteria above the minimum standard of the industry. We took all the advice and consultations of these meetings into consideration when forming our criteria to best illustrate the reality of each industry while still trying to incorporate the ideal scenario. For instance, the reality is that few greenhouses operate completely on renewable energy, but ideally they would. Once we were able to understand the ideal and the reality, we were confident that the criteria we developed would encourage change at all levels of the supply chain and strive towards environmental sustainability.
In the shorter term, we consulted with Oliver in order to understand what flexibility the cafeterias possessed to commence new supplier partnerships with smaller producers that scored highest on our criteria; as well as sourcing larger amounts of products from the higher scoring current suppliers. These novel arrangements are to be tested during the Winter 2010 term and, if successful, written explicitly into the contracts for future food purchases.
Finally, we returned to our clients, MFSP, our primary stakeholders, MFDS, with our detailed criteria as well as a ‘shorthand’ version -for practical consultation- that would be used for future evaluations of the supply chains to ensure that the final product was in line with the goals of the project (see Appendix A -C). The MFSP and the representatives of MFDS warmly received both documents. They acknowledged that these criteria were in fact a good start to ranking producers and that the next step would be to start evaluating any such suppliers. As this project caries on and more is learned about the greenhouse and poultry production industry, the criteria will be refined to increase its on-the-field applicability.
Analysis
We have organized our analysis section in reference to our criteria, as seen in Appendix B, in order to facilitate practical use of the criteria. Each section and sub-section is numbered, allowing for easy referral between the two documents. We decided to include them separately, rather than integrated, so that in future the criteria mark chart can be printed with minimal paper use but the corresponding justifications could still be included in the PDF printable version.
Part I: Greenhouse Tomatoes
Analysis
When orders are being placed during the Québec tomato harvesting season, late July to late September, orders should preferentially be placed from local field operations that minimize environmental impacts However, during the off-season, when tomatoes are being purchased from greenhouses, the best practice criteria should be followed.
1.0 Distributors
The criteria for distributors apply to both the poultry and greenhouse tomatoes section and, as such, can be referenced to this section from both criteria evaluations. These criteria will favour those suppliers trying to minimize their environmental impact through more efficient transportation, packaging, and environmental consultation. Remaining consistent with the goals of this project, these criteria are also encouraging sufficient knowledge of source farms and their practices.
1.1 Knowledge
Knowledge of source farm is essential to maintain transparency and promote accessibility through out the food supply chain. A distributor, or in the case of poultry, a transformer or slaughterhouse that has good knowledge about the source and the conditions in which the chickens were raised is deemed most valued in our criteria as it illustrates several points. First it speaks about the relationship the company has with the producer and the interest they have in the product they handle. It then contributes to the overall transparency of the food supply chain, as slaughterhouses are able to provide an informed answer to distributors and consumers who question the source of their foods. Transparency is a good indication that these companies have nothing to hide and that they are confident in their product.
1.2 Environmental Consultation
Criteria in this section encourage active engagement with external bodies to improve the operations of the distributor with respect to environmental sustainability. In the future, research should identify what is available for environmental consultation for distributors and share this resource with others.
1.3 Environmental Sourcing Criteria
This criterion serves to reward distributors that already give consideration for environmental issues (such as those outlined in these criteria) when sourcing from farms. In most cases, distributors will consider economic considerations such as price, quality of product, and reliability of supply. This criterion rewards those going beyond the aforementioned sourcing criteria.
1.4 Transport
Criteria based on transportation are complicated and require further research. This issue is complicated as it considers: (i) Transportation accountability among the different steps (including distributor, transformer, slaughter, producer), which may complicate valuation; (ii) debate regarding the most sustainable fuel supply (i.e. diesel in transport trucks vs. petroleum in conventional vehicles, etc); (iii) difficulty in evaluating fuel economy of different vehicles; (iv) confounding factor of transporting other food items along with the food being evaluated; and (v) issues in calculating food miles and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per unit of food being evaluated. Future research should attempt to improve knowledge on these aspects. Nevertheless, encouragements of anti-idling and eco-efficient driving policies are awarded points as they serve to reduce greenhouse gas emissions regardless of the aforementioned complications.
1.5 Packaging
The section on packaging has been included to curb the use of packaging that may degrade to the detriment of the environment or not degrade at all. This criteria section will be applicable to different food items at different degrees of relevance. Where packaging is required for the food items being evaluated, these criteria will favour products using biodegradable packaging that are decomposed into natural elements by microorganisms in biological processes, without leaving any persistent or toxic residue (Unmar and Mohee 2008). Degradable products are less favoured as they may leave toxic or persistent residues along with recyclable products which often require fossil energy to breakdown and degrade to a lesser quality product. No points will be rewarded if packaging is neither biodegradable nor recyclable.
2.0 Producers
1. Greenhouse Structure
When considering the sustainability of a greenhouse itself, we must determine the efficiency of both the building and the glazing (windows).
2.1.1 Building
For the building, there are two options, detached and connected, and for reasons stated below the connected houses are much more efficient at preventing heat-loss. For glazing, we ranked the materials based on both lifespan and heat transfer coefficient.
During the winter months, detached greenhouses require more energy to heat as they have more surfaces exposed to winter winds (Nelson 2003). Connected houses prevent heat loss because there is an absence of sidewalls and fewer exposed surfaces (Nelson 2003). For these reasons we have given connected greenhouses a higher rating than detached.
2.1.2 Glazing
In terms of glazing, glass, although most expensive, is most efficient. Glass has the highest light transmission and the highest heat transfer coefficient. It lasts 30+ years, the longest of any material (Both 2009). Greenhouse-caliber glass is strong enough to withstand harsh Québec winters and there is little expansion and contraction with varying temperatures (Smith 2000). It is also non-combustible, unlike many of the plastics described below (Smith 2000).
Glass fiber-reinforced polyester (or fiberglass) has the next longest life span, at 15 years (Nelson 2003). It is suitable for extremely cold temperatures, and as with glass, it has a low amount of expansion and contraction with varying temperatures (Smith 2000).
Rigid plastics such as polycarbonate have a life span of 10 to 15 years (Smith 2000). Polycarbonate is energy efficient when it is installed with two or three layers. Due to the fact that most manufacturers treat the surfaces with chemicals to minimize visible condensation, it is low in ranking (Smith 2000). Acrylic is another rigid plastic that must be installed as a double walled material (Smith 2000). It expands and contracts with temperature, which makes it unsuitable for Québec winters, where night lows and day highs are extremes (Smith 2000).
Plastic films such as polyethylene are less suitable for Québec winters (however they are quite common) and have a life of around 3 years maximum (Both 2009). They are easily torn and their light transmittance decreases over time as the material yellows. However, they are frequently installed in a double layer which gives them a very high R-value.
The R-value of a material represents its resistance to heat flow. High R-values indicate less heat flow, which means that the high moisture and temperature inside the greenhouse will flow out through the material in lower amounts (Worley 2009). The R-value is an important component of the heat loss equation Q= A (Ti-To)/R, where Q is heat loss in BTU/hr[1], A is the area of the greenhouse in square feet, and (Ti-To) is the air temperature differences between the inside and outside (Worley 2009).
The following table was assembled to rank the glazing materials used in greenhouses. Life span of the material, light transmission (important for the growth of the plants) and the R-value were determined to rate the best-to-worst choice of materials.
|Material |Years |Light Transmission (%) |R-Value |
|Double-layered glass |30+ |70-75 |2.0 |
|Single layer glass |30+ |85-90 |0.91 |
|Fiberglass |15 |85-90 |0.83 |
|Double layer polyethylene |3-4 |60-80 |1.43 |
|Single layer polyethylene |3-4 |80-90 |0.83 |
|Twin-wall polycarbonate |10 |83 |2.0 |
|Twin-wall acrylic |20 |87 |2.0 |
Table 1. Rank of various glazing materials used in greenhouses. (Bellows 2008, Both 2009, Nelson 2003)
2.1.3 Use of Thermal Curtains
A final area to examine with greenhouse structure is the use of thermal screens or curtains. Heat loss at night occurs by conduction through walls and roofs, radiation loss and infiltration (Worley 2009). The performance of curtains in the greenhouse is dependent on the following properties: thermal, mechanical (including strength and ability to compact during storage) and ability to drain condensing water (Worley 2009). Studies have found that aluminum-plastic laminate film curtains wrapped around tomato plants can increase heat reduction rate up to 55% (Okada and Hayashi 1978). PVC curtains were found to increase the heat reduction rate by 32%, and clear polyethylene curtains by 32%.
2.2.1 – 2.2.2 Energy Source and Transparency
It is common for Greenhouse operations to utilize multiple energy sources due to their great energy demands. Here an example to understand how points have been compiled in this section; for a producer using a combination of propane (80%) and hydro-electricity (20%), the percentage of each energy source used (80% Hydro, 20% propane) shall be multiplied by its corresponding point value (3pts for Hydro, 2pts for propane). Hence (0.8 X 3pts = 2.4pts) + (0.2 X 2pts= .4pts) = 2.8pts.
Compiling the points in such a way allows for a more personalized evaluation of each company. Factors that affect the choice of energy source are (1) cost, (2) availability, (3) reliability (available at same or low cost during peek hours) (4) geographical endowment (5) environmental concerns (Hydro-Québec 2003).
The highest number of points is attributed to the energy source emitting the least amount of greenhouse gases. Alternative renewable energies score the highest, as they represent the most environmental friendly technologies. Hydro-electricity is ranked second. Keeping in mind that dam construction to produce this renewable energy is controversial because it destroys natural habitats and traditional lifestyles of surrounding inhabitants, electricity created by hydro dams already constructed is one of the cleanest energy in terms of greenhouse gases (Gagnon 2003). In third place comes propane, which is derived from natural gas but is known as the "green" fossil fuel (Leitman 2007) because the quantity of GHG it emits is small compared to that of natural gas, petroleum, coal, or wood (Dyer 2006). Natural gas scores fourth because it emits an important quantity of methane (CH4) during combustion, a GHG known to cause 25 times more damage than CO2 (Environment Canada 2008). When considering a life cycle assessment of natural gas, extraction methods and transportation of gas through underground pipelines make it a very costly option for the environment (Spath 2000).
Possible limitation related to energy sourcing
• Alternative renewable energy technologies are costly
o Growth of company is reliant on availability of energy
o Seasonality is constraining (increases energy demands in winter, weather itself may be an obstacle to energy source for solar or wind power)
• Increasing consumer demand for poultry and economic sustainability drives industry towards the cheapest available energy source. Even if readily available, Hydro-electricity is substituted by propane in operations requiring intensive energy usage like heating and refrigeration.
Other non-renewable fossil fuel energies such as coal or wood are to be avoided because of their great contribution to greenhouse gases and the scarcity of their availability. Nuclear power was included in this category as radioactive waste has tremendous consequences on human health and the environment even if it emits negligible amounts of GHG (ASME international 1998).
3. Lighting
In Québec’s winter greenhouse production, the limiting factor in plant growth is light. Although the sun provides natural lighting for greenhouse tomatoes all summer, it is insufficient to promote plant growth in the winter months. The ideal photoperiod for tomatoes is 14 hours per day (Demers and Gosselin 1998) so supplementary lighting is used to maximize crop yield by increasing the photosynthetic rate, as well as to eliminate the variation in lighting in different seasons (Demers and Gosselin 1998; McAvoy 1984)
The types of lamps that are used in greenhouses include: LED, high-intensity discharge (HID) which include, high-pressure sodium and metal halide, cool-white fluorescent and incandescent. Light-emitting diode (LED) lights are not as common in Québec, but are a very sustainable option as they have a long bulb life of 7 to 10 years (Klaassen et al. 2005). They also use only about 20% to 30% of the amount of energy that HID lamps use and do not produce heat, unlike the other bulbs. They are efficient at growing plants as they produce both red and blue spectra light, which is used for plant photosynthesis (Klaassen et al. 2005). A study done at the University of Minnesota on Capsicum annuum and Bellis perennis growth under natural light and LED indicates that LEDS lamps could be a more efficient lighting alternative to typical greenhouse lighting lamps (Klaassen et al 2005).
High-intensity discharge (HID) lamps are the most preferred among greenhouse growers (Klaassen et al. 2005). High-pressure sodium lamps convert 25% of electricity into energy but have short-lived bulbs (Klaassen et al. 2005). High- pressure sodium light bulbs emit a red light and are used for seedlings and plants during low light periods. Their efficiency in Lumens/Watt is 107 while metal halide lamps have an efficiency of 83 lumens/watt (CNS 2009). High-pressure sodium lamps also have a longer life than metal halide (24,000 hours and 10,000, respectively). For this reason we rank high-pressure sodium above metal halide (CNS 2009).
Fluorescent lights have very low wattage, which increases the number of lights that are required in the greenhouse. Their light emission is primarily blue and their efficiency is about 20% (Klaassen et al. 2005). Incandescent lamps, which are high in far-red light, have low efficiency; only converting 7% of electricity into light energy (Klaassen et al. 2005).
Energy efficiency and efficiency at promoting plant growth were the criteria used to rank lighting bulbs. LED lamps were found to be most efficient, followed by high-pressure sodium, metal halide, fluorescent and finally incandescent.
4. Greenhouse Irrigation
Being enclosed structures, all greenhouses require some sort of irrigation system. Within these systems however, water usage and efficiency can vary greatly (Hanan 1998). Based on water efficiency, irrigation systems can be broadly divided into two categories: direct to root (drip irrigation, ebb and flow and capillary mat systems) and overhead systems (Neal and Henley 1992). According to Neal and Henley (1992), water savings of up to 88% were achieved with direct to root systems in comparison to overhead sprinklers (Neal and Henley 1992).
It is often the largest producers who achieve large enough economies of scale to invest in the equipment necessary for automated systems; this generally leads to the most efficient use of water per unit output. This is particularly relevant considering the recent move towards expensive soil recirculation systems to increase plant yields (Hanan 1998). A downside to recirculation systems however is the dependence on chlorination to purify the water between cycles (Netafim 2009). From the perspective of environmental impact, the gains from reduced water usage are offset by increased chemical usage.
Finally, techniques specifically geared towards water reduction also exist (for examples see Kirda et al. 2004). For irrigation systems, it seems the most efficient systems in terms of crop yield also conserve the most water since the water is applied only at specific times, to specific parts of the plant, in specific dosages (Savoura representative, personal interview, October 2009).
5. Growing media (2.5.1-2.5.6)
Greenhouse tomatoes can grow in a variety of media as long as they are supplied with the appropriate nutrients. The range of these growing substrates is vast and includes, but is not limited to waste products from agricultural ventures such as olive mill, grape marc (Reis et al. 2000), processed rice hulls, coconut coir (Rippy et al. 2004) as well as composted wood chips, sawdust, and bark litter which are waste products of the forestry industry (Wright and Browder 2005). Other biosolids from various industries can also be used, such as compost derived from many different sources (Rippy et al. 2004). Even waste products from car manufacturing industries (padding foam) or recycled plastics can be used.
Growing substrates are usually not homogeneous and often include several different materials to increase the structural integrity of the medium. Perlite, hydrated obsidian, and vermiculite are many common additives in horticultural potting media. They are added to ensure good pore space, aeration and drainage. These two inorganic substances are mined, with the largest deposits of perlite and vermiculite in Greece and South Africa respectively (Brown et al. 2009). Although the additives themselves are light weight, greenhouse gases are released when these products are shipped over such long distances.
Rockwool is one of the most common growing substrates in the horticulture industry. It is tremendously energy intensive and is produced when granite rock is melted and spun into a wool-like substance (Nichols 2007). There is also a problem with disposal of rockwool after it is used and approximately 2 ton/ha is disposed each year (De Pascale and Maggio 2005). Peat moss is also a commonly used growing media and is very popular. Although it is an organic material it is a non-renewable resource with diminishing reserves and therefore is a less sustainable option (Barkham 1993).
Soil is the traditional growing media for plant growth and can be reused over and over again in container growth if pasteurized. Studies have shown that using organic substrates decreases the amount of environmental pollution and is therefore a more sustainable option for growing media in tomato greenhouse production (Martinez et al. 2005). There is not a lot of research conducted about the environmental impacts of different growing media in greenhouse context (Nichols 2007)[2].
6. Fertilizer and Pesticides (including 2.6.1-2.6.3)
The agriculture sector is infamous for its large contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, and consequently for its role in global warming (Duxbury 2004). This stems from the widespread use of synthetic fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides which, at 37%, makes up the largest energy source in conventional agricultural systems (Ziesemer 2007). Compared to conventional agricultural systems, organic agriculture contributes far less greenhouse gas emissions since they do not utilize synthetic fertilizers or pesticides in their systems (Ziesemer 2007).
Producing synthetic fertilizers, especially nitrogen fertilizer, requires large amount of fossil energy inputs. For example, to produce 1 ton of nitrogen fertilizer it takes 1-1.5 tons of gasoline and depending on the growing system the nitrogen fertilizer can account for 25-68% of the total energy used (Ziesemer 2007). Also the transport distance of such fertilizers can be vast (there are commonly imported from China) which also contributes to the environmental impact of synthetic fertilizers. In addition pollution from synthetic fertilizers can result in severe ecological damage, such as the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
In contrast, organic agricultural systems have many beneficial impacts such as increased soil organic matter and improved soil structure. Higher microbial populations in organic agricultural soils result in more plant available nutrients and improved soil chemistry (Garbeva 2004). Organic fertilizers do not require a large input of energy to create and have a natural origin. Use of such fertilizers increases environmental sustainability by decreasing the amount of foreign chemicals released into the surrounding ecosystems.
Organic agriculture principles do not allow the use of synthetic control of weeds, insects, fungus, or other detrimental organisms. These herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides harm the environment when they are created (with the input of fossil fuels) (Borjesson 1996) and when they are released in the environment (during their application) (Pimentel et al. 1993).
Deterioration of environment and ecosystem health due to the use of synthetic pesticides is well documented (van der Werf 1996). That said, indoor propagation is much different from field grown crops. The nature of greenhouses creates a sterile environment where many of the unwanted pests and diseases are excluded; however even under the strictest management, some pests do enter the system. To fight this, synthetic pesticides are not often utilized, especially with tomato production. Bees are needed for the pollination process and since synthetic pesticides are not selective, they will wipe out all insects, including the beneficial bees. Biological control is an excellent alternative to conventional pesticides. This is a system of using natural predators or parasitoids that are host specific. These insects prey or parasitize specific insects and decrease their populations to economical levels. This way, the use of synthetic pesticides is decreased and only used in emergency situations or, as in the case of organic greenhouses, never used.
Although tomato greenhouse production does not use a significant amount of insecticides, fungicides are often used since fungi cause several tomato diseases, including powdery mildew. Fungicides have been known to cause environmental and ecosystem harm (Pimentel et al. 1993). Field studies have shown that fungicides cause harm to soil microorganisms (Cernohlavkova et al. 2009; Yen et al. 2009). Experiments have shown that some fungicides disrupt the reproductive systems of some mammals (Gray et al. 1994; Ostby et al. 1999). Some are toxic to vertebrates (Juergensen et al. 2000), others are known carcinogens (Woodrow et al. 1995). Although use of fungicides in greenhouses will not directly cause this type of harm since they are applied within a contained area, residual fungicides on plant biomass make their way into the surrounding environment when plant matter is periodically removed from the greenhouse. Additionally, greenhouse workers will be at higher risk for adverse health effects, given their disproportionate exposure.
Based on this information we can come to the conclusion that organic greenhouse systems are more environmentally sustainable than their conventional counterparts. From this information gathered from literary sources we can now determine the criteria for greenhouse fertilizer and pesticide use.
Organic fertilizer is the best practice because it minimizes the carbon footprint of the greenhouse, thus improving its sustainability. Under the umbrella of organic fertilizers it is best to use types that are most local. This lessens the environmental impact of transportation and its related greenhouse gas emissions.
No insecticide is the best practice because negative environmental impacts (from the production and use of insecticides) are lessened. Limited insecticide use is defined as using insecticide only as a last resort, which under well-managed greenhouse can be as low as a single application every few years. These applications are usually limited to the infected area.
When introduced to the environment, fungicide can have harmful effects on ecosystem health. Production of such chemicals also uses a lot of fossil fuel energy. Therefore the best practice is the one that does not employ the use of fungicides.
2.7 Waste Management – Recycling and Composting (including 2.7.1-2.7.2)
Greenhouse tomato production creates both biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste products. The best management practice for biomass waste products is composting. Composting organic plant residues used growing substrate, etc., enhances the speed at which organic material breaks down and is the most sustainable method of disposal. It also produces a desirable end product: a nutrient-rich fertilizer.
There are many non-biodegradable waste products associated with greenhouse production including plastics (containers), glazing materials, tomato support implements (plastic twine and fruit supports), fertilizer and substrate bags, etc (van Os 1991). As with all industries, proper recycling of these waste products results in a more sustainable practice.
8. Labour
A common criticism of 'environmentalist' work is that it neglects the social ‘pillar’ of sustainability; in particular it does not examine the ways in which certain groups are marginalized by, or may not have access to 'sustainable' culture or products. We have attempted to avoid reproducing this problematic stereotype by examining labour conditions for greenhouse tomato and poultry industry workers. That said, our research is preliminary and we have identified particular areas of concern that should be elaborated upon in future research.
Currently, provincial and federal standards exist to govern employment conditions in the agricultural sector. In Québec, the Commission des normes du travail (CNT) enforces the Act regarding labour standards, part of its mission being to “promote fair and balanced labour relations between employers and employees”. The CNT works in tandem with the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, which oversees employer compliance with workplace health and safety regulations. Both organizations provide inspections upon receipt of a worker complaint.
While the agricultural sector is provincially regulated, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) oversees the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program and the Temporary Foreign Worker Programs, which are discussed below as they relate to agriculture. The majority of the following discussion on labour addresses issues relating to temporary foreign workers because the conditions under which they are employed are of particular concern regarding breaches in the regulations. That said, our criteria favour employers with conditions most beneficial to all workers.
Temporary Foreign Workers (TFW)
Although data are scarce, it is clear that a significant proportion of farm workers come into Canada through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (SAWP) and the Temporary Foreign Workers Program (TFWP) (Banks et al. 2002). Preibisch (2007) argues that TFW are replacing agricultural works that are Canadian residents or citizens, with the number of the latter decreasing from 20,380 in 1983 to 14,778 in 2000 in the Ontario and Québec horticultural industry alone, while the number of SAWP workers increased from 4,564 to 16,269 over the same period. Because a requirement of these programs is that the employer must attempt to fill any position with Canadian residents before TFW, TFW often fill the most dangerous, least desirable jobs in agriculture, such as chicken catchers (rounding up 1000s of chickens and putting them in boxes for transport), and pickers and pesticide appliers (Preibisch 2007; Basok 2003). The design of these programs has workers contracted by specific farms; once in Canada, it is very difficult for a TFW to seek employment at another farm for any reason, including workplace health and safety concerns (Human Resources and Skills Development Canada 2009; Banks et al. 2002). If the contract is broken by either the employer or employee, the worker is repatriated to their country of origin. Opportunities for worker resistance, to voice concerns, or to report abuses are restricted due to the power structure in which the employer can terminate and repatriate the worker (Encalada et al. 2008; Preibisch 2007). Despite this, there has been a number of reports of abuse, breech of contract, or poor living and working conditions throughout Québec and Canadian agricultural sector (Basok 2003; Banks et al. 2002). While it is often argued that these programs should be supported because they provide jobs to people from “developing countries”, this is no reason for abuses to go undocumented, unregulated, or unpunished. There is no organization that verifies the validity of the terms of termination, nor is there an organization that routinely inspects the farms for compliance with workplace health and safety.
2.8.1 Employee Complaints
Although there are no mandatory inspection services, both Québec’s CNT and Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail carry out inspections in the event of a complaint to determine compliance with workplace health and safety and labour regulations. While the results of these inspections are available online at the Société québécoise d’information juridique, they are combined with inspection results from all sectors as well as all court proceedings. It was not within the scope of our project to determine the feasibility of incorporating inspection results in our criteria, but further work should be done in this direction. In the interim, our criteria rely on producer self-reporting complaints.
2.8.2 HRSDC Monitoring Initiative
HRSDC began their Monitoring Initiative for farms participating in SAWP in April 2009. Although the goals of the initiative are to determine the need for temporary migrant labour in Canada, rather than to inspect living and working conditions, the HRSDC can report suspected failure to adhere to relevant employment legislation to provincial authorities (HRSDC 2009). As such, agreement to participate in the initiative is rewarded in these criteria.
These inspections will serve to verify working conditions for all on-farm employees, including TFW, workers without status, and workers who are Canadian residents and citizens. Given the many labour related concerns in the agricultural sector, and the limited availability of Québec specific research, especially regarding TFW and non-status farm workers, we recommend that this section be prioritized for expansion.
2.8.3 Access to Information (including 2.8.3.1 – 2.8.3.2)
Barriers for employees to lodge workplace health and safety complaints are well documented (Preibisch 2007; Basok 2003). As such, these criteria privilege those employers who make government documentation regarding employee rights and the procedures for making complaints easily accessible. Those employers who provide this information in French and English are rewarded with the greatest number of points.
Conclusion
As outlined above, there are many factors that determine the sustainability of greenhouse production in Québec. Although we have created criteria to evaluate greenhouses, progress cannot be made without the cooperation of greenhouse owners and managers and their willingness to share information about their practices.
Since most producers want their greenhouses to maximize energy conservation in terms of building design and materials, the two main sources of energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions are in the form of heating methods and synthetic fertilizers. For example, when we visited Savoura, the greenhouse had efficient building materials and irrigation techniques, but was not sustainable in terms fertilizer and energy use. (Even though the Portneuf greenhouse used methane from an adjacent landfill, it was only a portion of the energy utilize, and only at one of their 18 greenhouses.) Therefore our short hand criteria favour renewable energy sources and organic fertilizers among other ideal situations in greenhouse production.
The aim of our research was to determine the factors affecting sustainability of greenhouse production and those ideal practices that result in the best practice scenarios. However, we reiterate that when orders are being placed during the Québec tomato harvesting season, late July to late September, orders should preferentially be placed from local field operations that minimize environmental impacts
Part II: Poultry
Analysis
1.0 Distributor [1.1-1.5]
Please refer to section 1.0 in Part I: Greenhouse tomato production (for 1.1 Knowledge, 1.2 Environmental Consultation, 1.3 Environmental Sourcing Criteria, 1.4 Transport, 1.5 Packaging).
2.0 Transformation and Slaughter
The ideal transformer or slaughterhouse knows the farms from which it sources and is willing to reduce its impact on the environment while favouring employee and bird wellbeing.
2.1 Knowledge
See section 1.1 in Part I: Greenhouse tomato production
2.2 Environmental Consultation
Clubs Conseils en agroenvironement are associations of producers that care to increase the sustainability of their operations by following respectful environmental practices. The agro-environmental support Plan (Plan d'accompagnement agroenvironmental -PAA), is the environmental assessment tool used by Club Conseil members which treats issues relating to water management, waste disposal, air quality, soil health and biodiversity. Its implementation is the result of a joint effort from the poultry company (producer, slaughter or transformer) and the eco-advisor, where both parties identify sets of issues to improve and goals to achieve and work together towards these objectives.
Although the poultry industry has access to eco-advisors outside the realm of Club Conseil, the long-term commitment and ideological values that characterize Club Conseil is our guaranty that any member company holds environmental health at the center of its priorities. In addition to the qualitative long-term relationship that is built with the advisor, members have access to a large database of tools and references. Club Conseil creates a common ground where agri-buisnesses can exchange with one another and spark more community cooperation. Seeking advice from an environmental consultant outside of this association's framework also reflects some degree of environmental awareness. The lack of long term collaboration involving both the poultry producer and the advisor, as well as the implementation of environmental plans not adequately adapted to the specificities of each company may decrease the success of the environmental consultation and is allocated fewer points for this reason.
Our goal would be to put every producer, slaughter and transformer of the McGill supply chain in contact with its nearest Club Conseil association and eventually make this criterion mandatory.
2.3 Transport
See Part I, section 1.3
2.4 Packaging
See Part I, section 1.4
2.5 Energy (including 2.5.1-2.5.2)
The energy demand in slaughterhouses comes mostly from refrigeration, heating, water usage and lighting while poultry production houses are intensive in ventilation and heating. According to a Québec energy audit of the overall poultry industry - production and slaughters combined - conducted by CRAAC (2007) propane satisfies 43% of the overall energy needs while electricity satisfies 38%. Diesel and gasoline satisfy 9 and 6% respectively. Fuel requirements are low because poultry production, slaughtering and transforming operations require very few transport machinery and the amount of cultivated land in this industry is low. Natural gas is practically absent throughout the province's poultry industry. Exceptionally, geographical proximity to a natural gas pipeline can act as a sufficient incentive for producers to switch from propane to natural gas due to cost differences (CRAAQ 2007, Ferme Voltigeur; personal communication).
See Part I section 2.2.1-2.2.2 for explanation regarding energy criteria.
2.6 Building Structure
Animal production is the main emission-generating activity in Canada’s agricultural sector (Environment Canada 2008; CRAAQ 2007). Improving the energy efficiency of buildings is thus a good way to lessen both the demand for energy and emissions associated with its use. LEED certified Existing Building Operations and Maintenance (EBMO) was privileged in this section because it is adapted to industrial buildings. It tackles energy efficiency of the building structure as well as the heating, refrigeration, ventilation systems. This certification also includes a focus on water efficiency, which is especially relevant for slaughterhouses due to large amounts of water used during the slaughtering and eviscerating process (Enermodal Engineering 2008).
Companies that have consulted an energy efficiency specialist, through services offered by Hydro-Québec or other energy efficiency advisor are attributed greater points because it demonstrates their interest in reducing their energy use. Other smaller energy saving initiatives can also improve the buildings energy efficiency. Changing from conventional to energy efficient light bulbs or adding temporary plastic sealers on windows for the winter can help prevent energy loss.
2.7 Refrigeration Techniques
Carcass temperatures must be quickly lowered after poultry is slaughtered to prevent growth of bacterial pathogens that may cause food-borne illness when consumed. Water immersion techniques for cooling poultry carcasses require an average of seven gallons of water to process one chicken. Switching to air chilling can save a minimum of one-half gallon per bird. Whereby air chilling has been proven to lead to better quality breast fillets and provide higher cooked-meat yields than immersion chilling (The Poultry Site 2008; Northcutt 2006) and because it greatly reduces the need for water, we have favoured air-chilling to water chilling. However more research is needed to evaluate whether air chilling uses less energy than water chilling considering that the former takes three times longer to reach a deep breast muscle temperature of 40(F than the latter.
2.8 Human Health
Companies must follow workplace health and safety regulations as outlined by the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail. It should be noted that these regulations are not specific to the poultry industry, and as such may not encompass all specific health and safety concerns, such as ergonomically designed slaughterhouse facilities to minimize chronic muscle problems. Further research should be conducted in order to favour slaughterers which go beyond provincial regulations with regards to improving health conditions for workers.
2.9 Labour
See section 2.8 in Part I: Greenhouse tomato production
2.10 Bird Health
The codes of practice are nationally developed guidelines for the care and handling of the different species of farm animals. Although the codes are voluntary and intended as an educational tool in the promotion of sound management and welfare practices, they have been accepted as a standard of practice and have been recognized as such by the courts. These standards were built in cooperation with the Canadian Federation of Human Societies and were funded by the Canadian Agri-Food Research Council (CARC 2006).
2.11 Slaughter Technique
Slaughter techniques are to follow the approved methods by the Meat Inspection Regulations and the CARC codes of practice.
3.0 Producer
3.1 Distance from Farm to McGill
Research privileging ‘food miles’ as the main indicator of sustainability has recently been questioned on the basis that the impact of the distance a food item travels may be less significant relative to other aspects of the food chain. The logic of the food miles argument maintains that the greater the distance from ‘farm to fork’, the greater to energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions involved. Webers and Matthew (2008) have shown that in the US, although food is generally transported an average of 6 760 km, production of the food item accounts for 83% of the total GHG emissions while transportation represents 11%, and as such claim that production rather than transportation should be focused on in evaluations of sustainability. These percentages vary with the type of food and production method; red meat has the most energy intensive production stage and produces the highest levels of GHG emissions compared to non-red meat proteins, dairy, or fruits and vegetables (Weber and Matthew 2008). Despite these recent criticisms of the food miles indicator, it remains relevant to the poultry industry, as the poultry production stage is significantly less energy intensive than red meat production and thus transport reflects a larger proportion of the industry’s total impacts (Weber and Matthew 2008).
Additionally, energy expenditure and GHG emissions are not the only issues that proponents of local food seek to address. It is argued that buying local food strengthens local economies, increases the ability of consumers to participate directly in the food production process, and strengthen communication and social ties between consumers and producers of food (Glencross 2009; Pollen 2006). As the poultry industry is currently organized, buying local necessarily means shortening the supply chain, given the difficulty that large, vertically integrated supply chains have tracing their products back to the farm. For us to ensure a local product, or even to identify the farm where the product was coming from, we had to seek out supply chains with fewer intermediaries. A supply chain which is shorter, and where each step is accessible and transparent, means that the consumer can feasibly make change within it and that each intermediary is more accountable to its actions. Finally, a farm which is close in distance more easily permits McGill consumers and researchers to visit, evaluate, and build a relationship with its workers.
For these reasons, we have chosen to include distance from the farm to McGill as part of our criteria document despite the recent criticisms of food miles as an indicator of sustainability.
3.2 Feed Stock
Feed production is one of the most important aspects in poultry production since it represents approximately half of the total solar energy requirements of poultry production (Castellini et al. 2005). The type of feed used in a poultry production system can greatly affect its environmental sustainability in terms of its method of production, the ingredients used, and the location of production.
3.2.1 Location of Feed Production
Organic farming systems aim to create an integrated system where renewable and recyclable resources can be produced and used on the farm for optimal use. The majority of the feed inputs should thus be produced on the farm so that the farmer has full control over the mixing formula and avoids the extra costs of transporting from elsewhere (Blair 2008). We have chosen to favour poultry farms which grow their feed on site in order to promote farms as self-sustaining ecosystems. Additionally, on farm feed growth will reduce the energy needed for its transport.
3.2.2 Grain Production Method
The production of grain for conventional feed is done in intensive monocultures and uses pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides which have a negative impact on surrounding biodiversity and water quality. Synthetic amino acids, vitamins, minerals and solvent-extracted soybeans are common inputs requiring large energy costs (Horrigan et al. 2002). In contrast, organic feed production does not utilize these chemical inputs and high energy ingredients, reducing the total energy requirements of feed production by 60% as compared to conventional feed production (Castellini et al.2005). Additionally, organic feed production supports high levels of soil fertility and biodiversity of weed flora and microbial communities due to the lack of these inputs, which indicates a healthy and efficient ecosystem (Mäder et al. 2002). It is thus recommended that organic feed is used in order to eliminate environmental concerns associated with the heavy chemical use in conventional production.
3.2.3 Presence of Animal By-Products
The standard conventional diet for chickens in Canada consists of mostly grain and grain by-products, with a small amount of animal by-products and vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent nutrient deficiencies (Chicken Farmers of Canada 2003). Proteins from animal by-products have been identified as a major source of Salmonella contamination in conventional feed (Maciorowski 2000). In addition, the production of animal by-products contributes 6.5-18.5 times more to impacts relating to energy use, global warming, ozone depletion, acidification, and eutrophication than crop production (Pelletier 2008). Organic diets prohibit the use of mammalian and avian by-products and consist mainly of grain products, natural sources of enzymes, probiotics, vitamins and minerals, with a restricted use of synthetic vitamins and minerals to ensure a proper nutritional balance. In some provinces such as Québec, pure amino acids such as methionine are added to the feed (Blair 2008).
3.3 Antibiotics
In conventional poultry production, antibiotics are used to prevent disease and digestive problems (Chicken Farmers of Canada 2003). In such a high-density environment, chickens are susceptible to a number of infectious diseases including coccidiosis and necrotic enteritis, and prevention through the use of antibiotics is the most economical way to control infection and reduce morbidity in flocks (Boulianne 1999). Antibiotic drugs such as ionophores and sulfonamides as well as antimicrobials used for growth promotion are usually administered through the feed or water (Health Canada 2002). Organic poultry production in Québec prohibits the use of antibiotics in slaughter animals as well as any addition of growth promoters and synthetics appetite enhancers. Instead, alternative disease prevention methods are emphasized such as pasture management, fecal monitoring, healthy feed, exercise, outdoor access, and limiting production density (Québec Organic Reference Standard 2006). In addition, studies have shown that some natural substances including probiotics, prebiotics, organic acids and plant extracts all have potential in aiding eliminate harmful bacteria from the intestines of poultry and may play a useful role in infection prevention where synthetic antibiotics are prohibited (Griggs 2005). The only case in which antibiotics may be administered in organic production is as a last resort in order to save the animal and prevent the needless suffering, which would result in a loss of organic status (Québec Organic Reference Standard 2006).
There is some evidence to affirm that the use of antibiotics in livestock is potentially harmful to environmental and human health. In a study by Campagnolo (2002), high levels of antimicrobial compounds were prevalent in environmental water samples proximal to poultry farms, due to the application of animal waste as fertilizer on agricultural fields. Luangtongkum et al. (2006) compared levels of antibiotic resistance of Campylobacter isolates from conventionally and organically raised broilers. They discovered significant differences in resistance rates among isolates of Campylobactor, with conventionally raised broilers exhibiting greater levels of anti-microbiant resistant strains. Several potential links between antibiotic use in agriculture and human health impacts have been made, but the significance of this contribution remains controversial due to the lack of direct, quantifiable data on the subject (Lipsitch 2002). Criteria for the use of antibiotics is based on the assumption that organic production eliminates these potential and uncertain environmental and health impacts, and encourages the use of more natural and holistic preventative and treatment methods such as those methods described above.
The use of steroid hormones in poultry production is banned in the United States and Canada (U.S Food and Drug Administration 2002; Chicken Farmers of Canada 2003) and so is not included in our criteria list. Further research could inform impacts of natural hormone sources on environment and bird health.
3.4 Air Quality
Air quality in broiler houses is measured by the concentration of aerosolized particulate matter, as well as its contents, which can include “dried fecal matter and urine, skin flakes, ammonia, carbon dioxide, pollens, feed and litter particles, feathers (which produce allergen dandruff), grain mites, fungi, spores, bacteria, viruses and their constituents, peptidoglycan, β-glucan, mycotoxin and endotoxin” (Just et al. 2009). Aerosolized particulate content and concentration is determined by complex interactions between bird density, litter type, feed type, ventilation, use of misting, relative humidity, and air temperature (Just et al. 2009). Both bird and human health are affected by high concentrations of aerosolized particulate matter; respiratory illness has a higher prevalence among workers in the poultry industry as compared to workers from other animal confinement buildings, including cage housed poultry (for egg production), and bird health has been shown to be adversely effected (Just et al. 2009; Attapatu et al. 2008; Choi and Moore 2008). Of particular significance for the health of human workers are endotoxin and ammonia, while ammonia has been shown to have the greatest adverse effect on bird health (Just et al. 2009; Attapatu et al. 2008; Choi and Moore 2008; Donham et al. 2000; American Thoracic Society 1998). Human workers in floor-housed poultry facilities, including producers, catchers and cleaners, are susceptible to both chronic and acute upper and lower respiratory ailments (Just et al. 2009; Donham et al. 2000; Morris et al 1991). Poultry suffer from reduced growth rates, damage to respiratory damage, skin sores, and increased susceptibility to avian infectious diseases with chronic exposure to ammonia and other aerosolized particulate (Attapatu et al. 2008). Ammonia volatilization is also associated with atmospheric nitrogen pollution, eutrophication, soil acidification, and thus a decreased value of litter as fertilizer (Attapatu et al. 2008). Environmental and human health concerns to do with land application of poultry litter are further elaborated in the Litter Section.
Air quality concerns for non-conventional production are considerably different. According to the Canadian Organic Standards, poultry must have access to fresh air and outdoor spaces as long as weather conditions permit. Moisture and dust content is regulated to ensure the maintenance of bird wellbeing, and indoor spaces are to have maximum concentrations of ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and carbon dioxide at 20, 5, and 50 ppm (parts per million) respectively (Québec Organic Reference Standard 2006).
The use of outdoor spaces may lower impacts relating to air quality such as reducing total indoor stocking densities (Knierim 2006). Furthermore, raising birds with outdoor access allows them to avoid risks of respiratory illnesses associated with high levels of dust, ammonia, excrement and skin and feathers as seen in highly confined broiler houses (USDA Sustainable Agriculture Network 2006). They have the freedom to choose between environments of different ammonia concentrations and have been shown to prefer reduced concentration levels and fresh air spaces (Jones et al 2005).
The following criteria seek to favour farms with the best practices for ameliorating air quality that both humans and birds are exposed to.
3.4.1 Ammonia Content
Ammonia, the top contributor to ill-health among birds, and contributing significantly to human respiratory ailments, has been determined to have negligible impact at 25 ppm. While amounts as low as 10 ppm have been recommended in scientific literature, 25 ppm has become a Canadian industry standard as outlined in the Codes of Practice (CARC 2006). Organic standards stipulate that ammonia must not exceed 20 ppm (Québec Organic Reference Standard 2006). When given the choice between atmospheres of different concentrations of ammonia, broilers have shown aversion by high ammonia levels, indicating that they have a natural tendency to seek fresh air when possible and avoid ammoniated environments.
3.4.2 Light Cycles [3.4.2.1 – 3.4.2.2]
Light cycles have been shown to both improve bird health and decrease the amount of aerosolized particulate due to decrease animal movement (Just et al. 2009; CARC 2006). Continuous lighting has been found to increase ‘sudden death syndrome’ among poultry, as well as increase the total exposure of human worker and poultry to aerosolized particulate matter (CARC 2006; Ononiwu 1979).
Organic regulations in Québec state that natural daylight is required for poultry production. Supplementation with artificial lighting is permitted as long as it does not exceed a total duration of 16 hours. It is commonly stated that natural lighting is preferential to artificial lighting due to the evolution of the birds' visual system to a natural light source (Olanrewaju et al. 2006). However, the studies examining the relationship between the type of lighting used and bird well-being are limited and definite conclusions are lacking. Some available studies have provided evidence that the use of natural lighting has potentially beneficial impacts on visual development and overall bird welfare (Zeltner and Maurer 2009; Prescott et al. 2003). Natural lighting has also been shown to encourage natural behaviors such as sunbathing (Zeltner and Maurer 2009). In addition, the use of photocell controllers to alter light intensities combined with the effect of natural light through windows has the potential to save energy costs in production (Clarke and Ward 2006).
3.4.3 Litter Type
Although in Canada litter is typically changed between flocks, as compared to 3-4 usages in the US, litter still contributes significantly to aerosolized particulate, but is necessary for bird health (Roumeliotis and Heyst 2008). Common litter materials in broiler houses include wood shavings, sawdust, rice husks, straw, recycled paper, and sand, which vary in amount of aerosolizable material and satisfaction to birds (Attapatu et al. 2008; Chaoi and Moore 2008; Sheilds et al. 2004; Sanotra et al. 1995). Our chosen criteria attempt to balance the birds’ needs for pecking, scratching and dust-bathing with air quality, although it must be noted that research examining these concerns is limited.
3.4.4 Litter Amendments
The use of litter amendments has been shown to decrease ammonia volatilization by increasing soil pH, thereby inhibiting ammonia production (Choi et al. 2008; Roumeliotis and Heyst 2008). That said, no studies have been consulted which examine the environmental or human health impacts of these amendments (Choi et al. 2008; Shah et al. 2006).
3.4.5 Misting of Litter
Misting of litter is a common practice that has been shown to decrease aerosolized particulate but is also associated with respiratory illness for human mist appliers (Just et al. 2009; American Thoracic Society 1998). Mechanization of misting reduces the human health hazards associated with this task.
3.4.6 Addition of Oil to Feed
The addition of small amounts of oil in poultry feed can effectively reduce dust (AMA 1998). It is notable that little research has been done as to the effects of this dietary addition on poultry; as such this set of criteria should be subject to revision.
3.4.7 Bird Density
Although Dawkins et al. (2004) have found that bird density has less impact on overall bird health than temperature, humidity, litter, and air quality, bird density has also been shown to affect air quality, with density being inversely related to air quality (CARC 2006). As such, lowering density ameliorates air quality in broiler houses.
Organic standards require that poultry have access to outdoor areas, with a maximum outdoor density of 4 chickens per square meter. In Québec, temporary confinement of flocks is permitted only during the inclement weather periods in order to maintain the security and wellbeing of birds. (Québec Organic Reference Standard 2006). Access to outdoor environments allow the broilers to choose the environment that suits them best and exposure to fresh air, natural daylight and space helps reduce stress (Fanatico 2006). It allows them to forage which is associated with reduced feather pecking behaviours (Knierim 2006). The birds can consume various pasture crops and feed on macroinvertebrates living in the soil such as beetles and earthworms which provide a potentially significant source of nutrients and proteins. Additionally, the birds ingest nitrates in the foliage of forages which have anti-microbial effects when converted to nitrite in the gastrointestinal tract (Walker 2003). Other natural behaviours expressed by birds when outdoors besides foraging include sunbathing and locomotion (Knierim 2006). Lower stocking densities and exercise have also been shown to positively affect bird health by contributing to stronger bones in birds reared outdoors (Fanatico 2005). Although birds may be more vulnerable to predation when outdoors, the risk can be reduced by placing bushes or an electric fence around the outdoor range (Berg 2001). There are therefore a number of beneficial impacts associated with outdoor access and it should be incorporated into the management of poultry as much as possible.
3.4.8 Cleaning Between Flocks
While full cleaning between flocks significantly improves indoor air quality, the American Thoracic Society (ATS) (1998), in an extensive review of respiratory health in agriculture, identifies cleaning between flocks (specifically tilling and removing the soiled litter) as a ‘high-hazard farm task’ associated with “some of the most clinically significant bioaerosol-induced respiratory disease risks”.
3.5 Bird Health
The majority of industry standards regarding bird health have been developed by CARC in conjunction with Canadian Federation of Humane Society. As the CARC opens their Codes of Practice with, “domestication and selective breeding have made farm animals dependent on humans. Consequently, according to ethical principles, humans must accept this domestication as a commitment for humane conduct toward chickens for their ultimate well-being” (CARC 2006). Bird health encompasses nutrition, prevention of pain and disease, and the psychological and physical environments. One of the main concerns for bird welfare is injury caused by feather pecking, but because pecking is the predominant way poultry maintain within-flock social hierarchy, a certain degree of it is unavoidable (CARC 2006). If pecking escalates to the extent of cannibalism or serious injury to birds, control measures such as beak trimming are often considered acceptable (see 3.5.7). Preventative measures such as decreasing density and providing access to adequate resources have also been shown to decrease aggression and injurious pecking (CARC 2006). Given that the best practices with regard to poultry living conditions serve multiple purposes, including mitigating aerosolized particulate and that excess feather pecking is attributable to high stress levels, the following criteria privileges producers who use living condition alterations as a strategy to mitigate pecking.
3.5.1 Mortality Rate
Mortality rate is commonly used as an indicator of overall bird health.
3.5.2- 3.5.3
These three criteria are based on the CARC Codes of Practice, which outline the industry standard for bird density and access to food and water (CARC 2006). Decreasing bird density and increasing access to food and water are shown to decrease stress and aggression, thereby decreasing the prevalence of injurious feather pecking (Just et al. 2009; Cooper et al. 2007; CARC 2006).
3.5.4 Temperature [3.5.4.1 – 3.5.4.2]
Temperature requirements are based on the thermoregulatory ability of birds to maintain a balance between metabolic heat production and heat loss to the environment. The thermoneutral, or comfort zone, of birds is somewhere between 20(C-35(C (Appleby et al. 2004). Early in life, birds require a higher temperature due to their low body mass to surface ratio, metabolic rate and inferior insulation from feathers. As they age, heat production is increased through increased body weight, activity levels and food intake, and so, recommended temperatures are lower for adult birds. Regulation of temperature is crucial for thermoregulation, although risks of heat stress or cold stress are influenced by additional factors such as ventilation system, aspect, ambient temperature, relative humidity, and stocking density (European Commission 2000).
3.5.5 Stress Control
Poultry raised in broiler houses display sensitivity to light, bright colors and rapid movement, and as such, CARC recommends that producers or employees which work in the broiler house should wear uniform dark colors and maintain a consistent feeding and visit schedule (CARC 2006).
3.5.6 Morphological Alterations - Beak Trimming
Debeaking of poultry flocks may be performed in the poultry industry to minimize aggressive pecking and cannibalism (Kuenzel 2007). The conventional hot blade method has been criticized for causing acute and chronic pain in birds and the infrared laser treatment performed at the hatchery has been proposed as a less painful alternative method reducing open wounds (Dennis et al. 2009). Depending on the method used, the practice may bring up several welfare related concerns. The resulting loss of senses may alter normal function related to food and water intake and birds may experience short-term pain, tongue damage, neuromas, scar tissue and long-term pain (Kuenzel 2007). Despite these consequences, beak trimming is a highly effective method to reduce aggressive activity commonly seen in laying birds. In meat birds, housing situations are different from laying birds and aggression levels are not as high, and therefore the practice of beak trimming in broilers is rare (Chicken Farmers of Canada representative, personal interview, October 2009) in conventional or organic production. Québec organic regulations (2006) normally do not permit physical alteration of birds such as beak trimming except in instances where it is necessary to maintain the security and health of the animal. When performed, it is required that an authorized and trained operator perform the procedure in the presence of a veterinarian.
3.6 Labour conditions
See section 2.8 in Part I: Greenhouse Tomato Production
3.7 Waste and Litter Management
Official documents regulating poultry wastes in Québec are listed as mandatory criteria for this section. There are two points of concern in poultry waste management including (i) litter (including manure) and (ii) dead birds.
Litter will consist of the bedding used during the production cycle such as wood chips, straw, etc, and manure in the case of conventional bird housing techniques. However, in production of Organic and Free-Range systems, litter could also include up to 25% soil if it’s removed from the land. This combination is composed mainly of water and carbon, less of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium, and can also contain antibiotics, and other by-products depending on the feedstock. The composition of manure and litter will vary based on the genotype of the broilers as well as the feed quantity and composition. Litter can be applied to land (73% of litter in the US is applied back to land), turned into animal feed, used in energy generation, or combined with other fertilizers (Edwards, 1997). The storage and handling of this litter can have potentially detrimental affects to the environment. Environmental degradation occurs in the form of nitrogen and phosphorus contamination of groundwater and streams either as a result of improper litter storage or excessive land application, defined as that beyond the uptake capacity of the soils and crops, which will result in excess run-off. It follows that this section on waste management addresses the major concerns of water quality on and around poultry farms (Sokolowicz, 2009). Proper waste management practices are instrumental in preventing environmental problems (Sims, 1994).
3.7.1-3.7.3 Litter Management and Composting
In an ideal situation a farm would be able to apply all their litter to their own land. So, the soil and crops located on the farm are on average, able to efficiently uptake the average amount of litter produced by a given flock. Concerns have been raised about over-application of manure, which can result in run-off or byproducts (nitrogen, phosphorus, and other organic chemicals) into the water table. Therefore, satisfying these criteria will require adequate knowledge of the demands by both the crops and soil on the farm. Markets exist for collection of litter, which is beneficial for farmers, but these criteria will encourage closing nutrient cycles and minimizing the export of nutrients from the farm. As such, these criteria will favour those farms with adequate knowledge of proper land application and thus crop production on the farm. If this is not done, the criteria will favour those farms that actively seek an outlet to channel wastes in a local area (defined as within 100 kms) and discourage the export of nutrients beyond the local level.
Conclusion
Although there are currently many barriers to evaluating the sustainability of poultry providers, our criteria aim to improve the system by valuing transparency and requiring that the distribution and transformation levels obtain detailed information about the source of the products they receive. This is a crucial step in developing sustainable sourcing guidelines for poultry. As such, we recommend that a student coordinator be hired to work with the McGill Food administration and all of the contacts along the supply chain to trace back current poultry providers and evaluate them based on our criteria, and to facilitate sourcing from those farms which score highest. This coordinator will also be responsible for seeking out potential alternative food providers through research and contact with industry specialists. As such an endeavor would require a significant amount of time to accomplish, our shorthand criteria will be used during the negotiation process for next semester's food purchasing contracts (see Appendix C). This list of the "most ideal" qualities of suppliers retrieved from each category can be used to inform decisions made in selecting companies that McGill will be dealing with in the future.
The existing supply chain involves numerous large companies dealing with separate aspects of the chain in a vertically integrated system, hindering the creation of client-producer relationships. One of the local food day providers, Ferme des Voltigeurs, proved to be an accessible alternative to McGill's current poultry providers. Our visit to the broiler houses and on-site slaughterhouse enabled us to examine and obtain sufficient information about the production methods. Their distributor, Pascal Dufour at La Petite Campagne is willing to work with McGill in providing poultry from Voltigeur in order to encourage a long-term relationship with McGill while supporting production of smaller-scale providers. As such, we suggest that McGill increase orders from Voltigeur to a realistic amount ( 10-25%) of the total portion of poultry orders, and continue to work with Pascal to support a more diverse and smaller supply chain. It is our intention that this process will bring McGill closer to the farms and help create a demand for sustainable practices through continued dialogue with these farms. In the long run, such relationships will also help develop the reliability and volume to the scale that McGill requires.
Our criteria highlight the importance of incorporating overall environmental awareness in each link of the supply chain by encouraging practices such as recycling, ecological packaging, transport and production methods. In the slaughter and production stages, priorities included environmentally sustainable practices as well as bird and human welfare issues. As informed by our research, we felt that more stringent standards than the CARC Codes of Practice were necessary. Slaughterhouses and producers can continually improve their practices by joining environmental organizations such as Club Conseil, in order to have access to informed advice from research specialists and experts interested in ecological agricultural practices.
For the production stage, our research and criteria development has revealed that organic production scores higher across a range of different categories. Organically produced poultry is strictly regulated and its overarching goal is maintaining bird welfare and minimizing environmental impact rather than maximizing production (Blair 2008). Our final recommendation is that McGill orders at least 10% of poultry through their current distributor Gordon Food Services from organic farms, helping to encourage the organic food providers currently in existence and to create a demand for production based on environmentally sound practices.
Taken together, our guidelines and recommendations aim to promote progress for sustainable poultry purchasing and to serve as a model for future work on sustainable sourcing in other industries.
General conclusions and Recommendations
General conclusions
Above all else, our research wants to reiterate this senior principle: our criteria are meant to be recommendations, not regulations. The main purpose of these criteria is to encourage dialogue between parties, including McGill’s food and dining services and its suppliers. Of course, every case and every farm is unique. The criteria are meant to be used as an estimator of a source’s ‘environmental conscience’. That is, rather than price, how environmentally economical is a particular supplier? However, the best estimators of these values are the providers themselves – the information they have and the philosophy that governs their practice. Moreover, the best way to find out about providers is to talk to them!
To sum, our goal is to see these criteria be used as a means to promote dialogue. We want to estimate our supplier’s environmental impact by working intimately with them. As consumers, we need to understand the production process in order to make ethical purchasing decisions. As for producers, they need to know our consumption values and demands. By demanding sustainable food options, we hope to increase the market incentive for sustainable practices.
The process of food production used to be extremely intimate. For many, it still is. However, in the urban setting especially, this is no longer true. For the most part, we have no idea where are food comes from or what goes into its production. Ironically, the people who supply our food often don’t know either[3]. The human food chain has evolved many steps in its history. In fact, this food chain would more adequately be described as a web, which spans much of the globe. A leading university such as McGill has a responsibility to make the most informed decisions possible when it comes to the food it purchases. The first step towards taking responsibility is becoming informed, which has been the goal of this project. The final result is the capacity and ability to become more sustainable in our food decisions at McGill.
Recommendations for future research
Evaluating the impact of Québec Greenhouses and Poultry is just the first step in the long process of considering all of McGill’s food ordering practices. To optimize the effects of our research on tomato greenhouse, it may to beneficial for future ENVR 401 groups or a collection of interested students to expand on our research and locate additional tomato greenhouse producers to increase the ordering options. It would also be interesting to look into the possibility of supplying tomatoes from a number of smaller producers.
Future research should also be done evaluating the environmental effects of importing tomatoes instead of ordering tomatoes from greenhouses. This would help determine which option, imported or greenhouse grown tomatoes, is environmentally friendlier.
Changes to our ordering practices will have to be considered in the coming semesters. Meanwhile, short term adjustments in whom we order from is a great first step, but real change lies in considering what we order in the first place. For instance, while ordering our poultry from more sustainable farms reduces our impact, future work will have to consider how truly sustainable the amount of poultry we consume is in the first place. This is even more relevant for larger mammals such as cows and pigs, whose energy input to caloric output is extremely poor. Also, instead of ordering large amounts of tomatoes during Québec’s non-growing season, a shift to seasonal produce could be done. In the end however, it is the students who eat in the independently run cafeterias that make choices on what they eat and therefore what food MFDS orders. For this reason it is important to educate the students on food choices and the effects they have on the environment and to do research on the students’ willingness to pay for more sustainable food options and their willingness to change their eating habits to improve sustainability.
While changing what we order will involve many parties (such as nutritionists, administration, student bodies, etc.), this is where the greatest potential for reducing our environmental impact lies.
References
Adams, WM. 2006. “The Future of Sustainability: Re-Thinking Environment and Development in the Twenty-First Century”. The World Conservation Union.
Altieri, M.A. and C.I. Nicholls. 2003. Soil fertility management and insect pests: harmonizaing soil and plant health in agroecosystems. Soil and Tillage Research. 72: 203-211.
American Thoracic Society. 1998. Respiratory Health Hazards in Agriculture. Am. J. Respiratory Critical Care Med. 158 (5):S1-76.
American Society of Mechanical Engineering international (ASME). 1999. Technology implications for the OS of the Kyoto protocol carbon emission goals. Global climate change task force. P. 1- 16
Appleby, M.C., Mench, J.A., and B.O. Hughes. 2004. Poultry Behaviour and Welfare. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Asselina, M. P. Droguia, H. Benmoussaa, J.F. Blais. 2008. Effectiveness of electrocoagulation process in removing organic compounds from slaughterhouse wastewater using monopolar and bipolar electrolytic cells Chemosphere. Vol. 72 (11) 1727-1733, August 2008
Atapattu, N. S. B. M., D. Senaratna, and U. D. Belpagodagamage. 2008. Comparison of Ammonia Emission Rates from Three Types of Broiler Litters. Poult Sci 87 (12):2436-2440.
Banks, K, T Brooks, M Saint- Arnaud, and EL Twarog. 2002. Protection of Migrant Agriculture Workers in Canada, Mexico and the United States. Washington: Commission for Labor Cooperation.
Barkham, J.P. 1993. For peat’s sake: conversation or exploitation? Biodiversity and Conservation, 2: 255-566.
Basok, T. 2003. Tortillas and tomatoes: transmigrant Mexican harvesters in Canada. Quebec City: McGill Queens University Press.
Bellows, B. 2008. Solar Greenhouse Resources: Hosticulture Resource List. National Sustainalbe Agriculture Information Service. ATTRA Publication #IP142. [Accessed on November 13, 2009.] Available from
Berg, C. 2001. Health and welfare in organic poultry production. Acta veterinaria Scandinavica 95: 37-45.
Blair, Robert. 2008. Nutrition and Feeding of Organic Poultry. Wallingford: Cromwell Press.
Borjesson, P.I.I. 1996. Energy analysis of biomass production and transportation. Biomass and Bioenergy. 11: 305-318.
Both, A.J. 2009. Greenhouse Glazing. Rutgers University Department of Biology and Pathology. New Brunswick, NJ. [Accessed on Nov. 13, 2009.] Available from
Boulianne, Martine. 1999. Can We Farm Poultry Without Antimicrobials? [accessed November 2009] Available from .
Brown, T.J., L.E. Hetherington, S.D. Hannis, T. Bide, A.J. Benham, N.E. Idoine, and P.A.J. Lusty. 2009. World mineral production 2003-07. British Geological Survey. Keyworth Nottingham, England.
Brundtland, GH. 1987. “Our Common Future”. World Commission on Environment and Development.
Campagnolo, E. R., K. R. Johnson, A. Karpati, C. S. Rubin, D. W. Kolpin, M. T. Meyer, J. Emilio Esteban, et al. 2002. Antimicrobial residues in animal waste water resources proximal to large-scale swine and poultry feeding operations. Science of the Total Environment 299 (1-3): 89-95.
Canadian Agri-Food Research Council. 2006. Recommended code of practice for the care and handling of farm animals: Chickens, turkeys, and breeders from the hatchery to the processing plant. Ottawa.
Castellini, C., S. Bastianoni, C. Granai, A. D. Bosco, and M. Brunetti. 2006. Sustainability of poultry production using the emergy approach: Comparison of conventional and organic rearing systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114 (2-4): 343-350.
Centre de Reference en Agriculture et Agroalimentaire du Québec (CRAAQ). Audit energétique sommaire en aviculture: initiative d'apuie aux conseillers agricole, fiches 2007
Cernohlavkova, J., J. Jarkovsky, J. Hofman. 2009. Effects of fungicides mancozeb and dinocap on carbon and nitrogen mineralization in soils. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 72: 80-85.
Chicken Farmers of Canada. 2003. Antibiotics: Your questions answered [accessed November 2009]. Available from .
Chickens Farmers of Canada. 2003. What Chickens Eat [accessed November 2009]. Available from .
Choi, I. H., and P. A. Moore, Jr. 2008. Effect of Various Litter Amendments on Ammonia Volatilization and Nitrogen Content of Poultry Litter. J APPL POULT RES 17 (4):454-462.
Clean Nova Scotia (CNS). 2004. Small and medium business energy efficiency. [Accessed on November 28, 2009.] Available from
Commision sur l'Avenir de l'Agriculture et de l'Agroalimentaire Québécois (CAAAQ). 2007. Mémoire des Éleveurs de volailles du Québec
.
Conseil des appellations agroalimentaires du Québec (CAAQ). 2006. Quebec Organic Reference Standard [accessed November 2009]. Available from
Cooper, J, U Niggli, C Leifert, and WP Ltd. 2007. Handbook of organic food safety and quality: Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.
Dawkins, MS, CA Donnelly, and TA Jones. 2004. Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density. NATURE-LONDON-:342-343.
Demers, D.A and A. Gosselin. 2002. Growing Greenhouse Tomato and Sweet Pepper under Supplemental ighting: Optimal Photoperiod, Negative Effects of Long Photoperiod and Their Causes. Acta Horticultre.
Dennis, R. L., A. G. Fahey, and H. W. Cheng. 2009. Infrared beak treatment method compared with conventional hot-blade trimming in laying hens. Poultry science 88 (1): 38-43.
De Pascale, S. and A. Maggio. 2005. Sustainable protected cultivation at a Mediterranean climate. Perspectives and challenges. Acta Hort., 691: 29-40.
Dona, A., Arvanitoyannis, I.S.. 2009. Health Risks of Gentically Modified Foods. Critial Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 49 (2):12.
Donham, KJ, D Cumro, SJ Reynolds, and JA Merchant. 2000. Dose-Response Relationships Between Occupational Aerosol Exposures and Cross-Shift Declines of Lung Function in Poultry Workers:: Recommendations for Exposure Limits. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 42 (3):260.
Draper, D. 2002. “Our Environment: A Canadian Perspective”. Nelson/Thomson Learning, Scarborough, Ont.
Duxbury, J.M. 2004. The significance of agricultural sources of greenhouse gases. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 38:151-163.
Dyer, J. A., R.L. Desjardins. 2006. An intergrated index of electrical energy use in Canadian agriculture with implications for greenhouse gases. Biosystem Engineering, 95;3 pages 449-460
Edwards, D. R., and T. C. Daniel. 1992. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ON-FARM POULTRY WASTE-DISPOSAL - A REVIEW. Bioresource Technology 41 (1):9-33.
Encalada, E, EC Fuchs, and A Paz. 2008. Migrant Workers Under Harper: 'guests', servants, criminals. In The Harper Record, edited by T. Healy. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Environment Canada. 2008. Canada's Green House Emissions: Understanding the trends 1990-2006, GHG inventory, report summary. [accessed November 2009] Available from:
Environment Canada. Canada’s Energy & GHG Emissions Projections March 2008 [accessed November 2009]
European Commission. 2000. Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare: The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat [accessed November 2009]. Available from .
Fanatico, A. C., P. B. Pillai, L. C. Cavitt, C. M. Owens, and J. L. Emmert. 2005. Evaluation of slower-growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: Growth performance and carcass yield. Poultry science 84 (8): 1321-1327.
Fanatico, Anne. 2006. Alternative Poultry Production Systems and Outdoor Access [Accessed November 2009]. Available from .
Flock, DK, KF Laughlin, and J Bentley. 2005. Minimizing losses in poultry breeding and production: how breeding companies contribute to poultry welfare. World's Poultry Science Journal 61 (02):227-237.
Friedman, I., R.L. Smith, and W.D. Long. 1966. Hydration of natural glass and formation of perlite. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 77: 323-328.
Gagnon, L. 2003. Comparing power generation option. Hydro-Quebec, Direction Environment. [accessed on November 2, 2009.] Available from:
.
Garbeva, P., J.A. van Veen, and J.D. van Elsas. 2004. Microbial diversity in soil: Selection of microbial populations by plant and soil type and implications for disease suppressiveness. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 42: 243-270.
Gray, L.E., Jr., J.S. Ostby, W.R. Kelce. 1994. Developmental effects of an environmental antiandrogen: The fungicide vinclozolin alters sex differentiation of the male rat. Toxicoloy and Applied Pharmacology. 129:46-52.
Griggs, J.P., Jacob. J.P. 2005. Alternatives to antibiotics for organic poultry production. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 14 (4): 750-756.
Groupe AGÉCO. 2006. Profil de consommation d'énergie à la ferme dans les six principaux secteurs de production agricole du Québec, rapport No 1.
Haken, P. 1993. The Ecology of Commerce. Harper Collins Press.
Health Canada. 2002. Uses of microbial drugs in food animals [accessed November 2009]. Available from mps/pubs/vet/amr-ram_final_report-rapport_06-27_5-eng.php.
Heeb, A. et al. 2006. Impact of organic and inorganic fertilizers on yield, taste, and nutrional quality of tomatoes. J. Plant. Nutr. Soil Sci. (169):7.
Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R. S., Walker, P. 2002. How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives 110 (5): 445-456.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. 2009a. Monitoring Initiative [accessed November 2009]. Available from .
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. 2009b. Hiring Foreign Agricultural Workers in Canada. [accessed November 2009]. Available from .
Immigration Quebec. 2009. Temporary Workers [Accessed December 2009]. Available from
Jones, E. K. M., C. M. Wathes, and A. J. F. Webster. 2005. Avoidance of Atmospheric Ammonia by Domestic Fowl and the Effect of Early Experience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 90 (3-4): 293-308.
Juergensen, L., J. Busnarda, P.Y. Caux, and R.A. Kent. 2000. Fate, behavior, and aquatic toxicity of the fungicide DDAC in the Canadian Environment. Environmental Toxicology. 15: 174-200.
Just, N, C Duchaine, and B Singh. 2009. An aerobiological perspective of dust in cage-housed and floor-housed poultry operations. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 4 (1):13.
Klassen G., R. McGregor, J. Ximmerman, N. Anderson. 2005. LED’s: New Lighting Alternatives for Greenhouses. Department of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota.
Knierim, U. 2006. Animal welfare aspects of outdoor runs for laying hens: A review. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54 (2): 133-145.
Kuenzel, W. J. 2007. Neurobiological basis of sensory perception: Welfare implications of beak trimming. Poultry science 86 (6): 1273-1282.
Lee, B-W. and J-H. Shin. 1998. Optimal Irrigation Management System of Greenhouse Tomatoes based on Stem Diameter and Transpiration Monitoring. Agricultural Information Technology in Asia and Oceania.1:87-90.
Lefsrud, Mark. 2009. Personal Communications with Dr. Lefsrud. October 8. Montreal, Quebec.
Leitman, M, G. Kerr, P. Squair. 2007. Propane Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A comparative analysis. Propane Education and Research Counsil (PERC); National propane gas association
Lipsitch, M., Singer, R.S., Levin, B.R. 2002. Antibiotics in Agriculture: When is it time to close the barn door? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99 (9): 5752-5754.
Luangtongkum, T., Morishita, T.Y., Ison, A.J., Huang, S., McDermott, P.F., Zhang, Q. 2006. Effect of Conventional and Organic Production Practices on the Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Campylobacter spp. in Poultry. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72 (5): 3600-3607.
Mäder, P, A Fliessbach, D Dubois, L Gunst, P Fried, and U Niggli. 2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296 (5573):1694.
Martinez, G.A., M. Urrestarazu, and M.C. Salas. 2005. Emission of pollution to the environment using substrates almond shell and rockwool in soilless culture. Acta Hort., 697: 159-163.
McAvoy, R.J. and H.W. James. 1984. The Use of High Presure Sodium Lights in Greenhouse Tomato Crop Production. Acta Horticulture 148.
Mississippi State University. 2009. Growing Substrates [Accessed November 2009]. Available from
Morris, PD, SW Lenhart, and WS Service. 1991. Respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function in chicken catchers in poultry confinement units. American journal of industrial medicine 19 (2).
Neal, C.A., R.W. Henley. 1992. Water Use Comparisons of Greenhouse Irrigation Systems. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 105:191-194
Nelson, P.V. 2003. Greenhouse Operation and Management 6th Edition. Upper Saddle River, N.J. Prentice Hall.
Netafim Greenhouses. 2009. Growing Soiless Substrates [Accessed November 2009]. Available from
Nichols, M.A. 2007. A XXIst century growing media. Acta Hort., 747: 91-96.
Northcutt, J.K. 2006. Cooling of Poultry Using Immersion or air chilling. Poultry Waste Management Symposium Proceedings. p. 102-108.
Okada, M. and Hayashi, M. 1978. REDUCING GREENHOUSE HEAT CONSUMPTION BY CURTAIN INSULATION SYSTEMS. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 87:103-110. [Accessed on Nov 25, 2009.] Available from
Olanrewaju, H. A., J. P. Thaxton, W. A. Dozier III, J. Purswell, W. B. Roush, and S. L. Branton. 2006. A review of lighting programs for broiler production. International Journal of Poultry Science 5 (4): 301-308.
Ononiwu, JC, RG Thomson, HC Carlson, and RJ Julian. 1979. Studies on effect of lighting on “sudden death syndrome” in broiler chickens. The Canadian Veterinary Journal 20 (3):74.
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs. 2006. Energy Efficient Poultry Lighting [Accessed November 2009]. Available from .
Ostby, J. W., W.R. Kelce, C. Lambright, C.J. Wolf, P. Mann, and L.E. Gray Jr. 1999. The fungicide procymidone alters sexual differentiation in the male rat by acting as an androgen-receptor antagonist in vivo and in vitro. Toxicology and Industrial Health. 15:80-90.
Papafotious, M. G. Kargas, and I. Lytra. 2005. Olive-mill waste compost as a growth medium component for foliage potted plants. HortScience, 40: 1746-1750.
Pimentel, D. L. McLaughlin, A. Zepp, B. Lakitan, T. Kraus, P. Kleinman, F. Vancini, W.J. Roach, E. Grapp, W.S. Keeton and G. Selig. 1993. Environmental and economic impacts of reducing U.S. agricultural pesticide use. The Pesticide Question. Ed. Pimentel, D. and H. Lehman. Springer US Publisher.
Preibisch, KL. 2007. Local Produce, Foreign Labor: Labor Mobility Programs and Global Trade Competitiveness in Canada. Rural Sociology 72 (3):418-449.
Prescott, N. B., C. M. Wathes, and J. R. Jarvis. 2003. Light, vision and the welfare of poultry. Animal Welfare 12 (2): 269-288.
Pollan, M. 2006. The omnivore's dilemma: a natural history of four meals. New York: University California Press.
Règlement sur les exploitations Agricoles (REA). "Regulations o the Farm: Act on Environmental Quality." Quebec Government.[accessed November 2009.] Available from:
Reis, M., H. Inacio, A. Rosa, J. Caccedillo, and A. Monteiro. 2000. Grape marc compost as an alternative growing media for greenhouse tomato. Acta Hort., 554.
Rippy, J.F.M., M.M. Peet, F.J. Louws, P.V. Nelson, D.B. Orr, and K.A. Sorensen. 2004. Plant development and harvest yields of greenhouse tomatoes in six organic growing systems. HortScience, 39: 1-7.
Roumeliotis, T. S., and B. J. Van Heyst. 2008. Summary of Ammonia and Particulate Matter Emission Factors for Poultry Operations. J APPL POULT RES 17 (2):305-314.
Salminen E, E. J. Rintala. 2002. Anaerobic digestion of organic solid poultry slauE. ghterhouse waste – a review.
Bioresource Technology, 83 (1):13-2
Sanotra, G. S., K. S. Vestergaard, J. F. Agger, and L. G. Lawson. 1995. The relative preferences for feathers, straw, wood-shavings and sand for dustbathing, pecking and scratching in domestic chicks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 43 (4):263-277.
Saxifrage B. 2007. Electric Vs. Propane; Who Wins? The Gumboot,
Schlosser, E. 2002. Fast Food Nation. New York: Harper Collins.
Shah, S, P Westerman, and J Parsons. 2006. Poultry Litter Amendments. North Carolina State University.
Shields, Sara J., Joseph P. Garner, and Joy A. Mench. 2004. Dustbathing by broiler chickens: a comparison of preference for four different substrates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 87 (1-2):69-82.
Sims, J. T., and D. C. Wolf. 1994. POULTRY WASTE MANAGEMENT - AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL-ISSUES. In Advances in Agronomy, Vol 52. San Diego: Academic Press Inc.
Smith, S. 2000. Greenhouse Gardener’s Companion, Revised: Growing Food and Flowers in Your Greenhouse or Sunspace. Fulcrum Publishing.
Société québécoise d’information juridique. Trouver une décision 2009 [accessed December 2009]. Available from .
Sokolowicz, Z., E. Herbut, and J. Krawczyk. 2009. POULTRY PRODUCTION AND STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL AREAS. Annals of Animal Science 9 (2):107-117.
Spath, P L. M.K. Mann. 2000. Life Cycle Assessment of a Natural Gas Combined-cycle Power Generation system. National Renewable energy laboratory /TP-570-27715
Strapatsa, A.V., G.D., Nanos, C.A. Tsatsarelis. 2006. Energy flow for integrated apple production in Greece. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 116: 176-180.
Szabo, RL, RG Radwin, and CJ Henderson. 2001. The influence of knife dullness on poultry processing operator exertions and the effectiveness of periodic knife steeling. AIHAJ 62 (4):428-433.
ThePoultrySite. 2008. Chilling chicken: immersion or Dry-Air? [accessed November 2009.] Available from:
Trewavas, A. 2008. The cult of the amateur in agriculture threatens food security. Trends in Biotechnology 26 (9):475-478.
Unmar, G., and R. Mohee. 2008. Assessing the effect of biodegradable and degradable plastics on the composting of green wastes and compost quality. Bioresource Technology 99 (15):6738-6744.
US Green Building Council (USGBC). LEED for Exisiting Buildings: Operation and Maintenance. [accessed December 2009.] Available from:
van der Werf, H.M.G. 1996. Assessing the impact of pesticides on the environment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 60: 81-96.
van Os, E.A, N.A. Ruijs, and P.A. van Weel. 1991. Closed business systems for less pollution from greenhouses. Acta Hort., 294: 49-57
Verdonck, O. R. Penninck, M. De Boodt. 1984. The physical properties of different horticultural substrates. Acta Hort, 150: 155-160.
Walker, A., and S. Gordon. 2003. Symposium on 'nutrition of farm animals outdoors' intake of nutrients from pasture by poultry. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 62 (2): 253-256.
Weber, CL, and HS Matthews. 2008. Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol 42 (10):3508-3513.
Woodrow, J.E., J.N. Seiber, and D. Fitzell. 1995. Analytical method for the dithiocarbamate fungicide Ziram and Mancozeb in air: Preliminary field results. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry. 43: 1524-1529.
Worley, J. 2009. Greenhouses: Heating, Cooling and Ventilation. The University of Georgia School of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences & Family and Consumer Sciences. Bulletin 732.
Wright, R.D. and J.F. Browder. 2005. Chipped pine logs: A potential substrate for greenhouse and nursery crops. HortScience 40: 1513-1515.
Yen, J.H., J.S. Chang, P.J. Huang, Y.S. Wang. 2009. Effects of fungicides triadimenfon and propiconazole on soil bacteria communities. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B. 44: 681-689.
Zeltner, E., and Maurer, V. 2009. Welfare of organic poultry. Poultry Welfare Symposium Cervia, Italy 18-22: 104-111.
Ziesemer, Jodi. 2007. Energy Use in Organic Food Systems. Natural Resources Management and Environment Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unite Nations, Rome.
Appendix A: Greenhouse Criteria
Using the Sustainable Sourcing Criteria
These criteria function on a point based system and total values are calculated based on percentages within each criteria section. Sections that are evaluated on a sliding scale (such as 1.1. and 1.2) will only satisfy one of the criteria within each section and be allotted the score indicated in bold next to the satisfied criteria. Entering the points in the column marked PTS will indicate what the score is out of the potential full points that could have been allotted. Record that percentage in the adjacent column and, then record to the percentage column in the row marked TOTAL.
Space provided for comments in each section are there to make notes of reasons for scoring, potential amendments that need to be made, and more. Any comment that might be particularly relevant should be included in the first page Comment Summary section as a quick reference for further evaluation.
For sections that include sub-sections (Such as 1.4) you must record each PTS score and each % (percentage) score for the sub-sections. Once the percentages are completed the row labeled TOTAL will report the average percentage of the combined subsections. In this case of 1.4, if the distributor scores does not receive points in 1.4.1 but receives a point in 1.4.2, the percentage score recorded in the row labeled TOTAL will be 50%. For reference throughout the evaluation process, sections where the rows marked total correspond to multiple sub-sections will indicate where calculations must be made (see section 2.5 in poultry for an example).
After completing all of the section totals, all of the final percentage totals for each section must be entered into the FINAL SCORE TABULATION chart. The row marked TOTAL at the bottom of this chart will be the final score for the farm-to-plate supply chain being evaluated. This score should be entered in the first page of the document along with any additional comments beyond what has been recorded in the individual criteria sections.
RETHINKING FOOD CHOICES AT MCGILL
Sustainable Sourcing Criteria for Greenhouse Tomatoes and Supply Chains
Revised December 14, 2009
|PARTICIPANTS |NAMES AND INFORMATION |SCORE |
| | |% |
|Distributor | | |
|Contact Information: | | |
|Producer: | | |
|Contact Information: | | |
|Name of Evaluator(s): | |
|Date of Evaluation: | |
|Expected Review Date: | |
SUMMARY COMMENTS:
1.0 Distribution
|1.1 Knowledge PTS % |
|Has information about farm locations, farmers, proportion of chicken sourced from each farm, farm practices| | |
|(3) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/3 | |
|Has information about farm locations, farmers, proportion of chicken sourced from each farm (2) | | |
|Has information about farm locations and contact information (1) | | |
|Has no information about farms they source from (0) | | |
|1.1 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|1.2 Environmental consultation PTS % |
|Has a long term relationship with an eco-advisor (3) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/3 | |
|Has had environmental consultation with recognized eco-advisor (2) | | |
|Environmental consultation in process/planned for future date (1) | | |
|Not willing to have environmental consultation (0) | | |
|1.2 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|1.3 Environmental Sourcing Consideration PTS % |
|Has sustainable sourcing criteria (1) |/1 | |
|1.3 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|1.4 Transport PTS % |
|1.4.1 Anti Idling policy enforced (1) |/1 | |
|1.4.2 Eco driving policy enforced (1) |/1 | |
|1.4 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
|1.5 Packaging PTS % |
|Fully biodegradable packaging (2) | | |
| | | |
| |/2 | |
|Degradable or recyclable packaging (1) | | |
|Is not recyclable or biodegradable (0) | | |
|1.5 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
2.0 Producer
|2.1 Greenhouse Structure PTS % |
|2.1.1 Building |
|Connected (1) | | |
| |/1 | |
|Detached (0) | | |
|2.1.1 TOTAL | | |
|2.1.2 Glazing | | |
|Glass (4) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/4 | |
|Rigid Plastics (polycarbonate and acrylic) (3) | | |
|Double-layered polyethylene (2) | | |
|Fibreglass (1) | | |
|Single-layered polyethylene (0) | | |
|2.1.2 TOTAL | | |
|2.1.3 Use of Thermal Curtains | | |
|Aluminium-plastic laminate film | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/3 | |
|PVC | | |
|Clear polyethylene | | |
|None | | |
|2.1.3 TOTAL | | |
|2.1 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|2.2 Energy PTS % |
| |
|2.2.1 Energy source |
|Alternative renewable other than hydroelectricity | | |
|(wind, solar, biogas, etc) (4) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/4 | |
|Hydroelectricity (3) | | |
|Propane (2) | | |
|Natural Gas (1) | | |
|Other non renewable fossil fuel or Nuclear energy (0) | | |
|2.2.1 TOTAL | | |
| |
|2.2.2 Energy use Knowledge (Transparency) |
|Able to report their energy usage accurately (2) | | |
| |/2 | |
|Has rough idea of proportions of energy source (1) | | |
|Unable/Unwilling to report source of energy (0) | | |
|2.2.2 TOTAL | | |
| | | |
|2.2 TOTAL (Average of 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 percentages) | | |
|COMMENTS: inscribe use percentages of each energy source in the checkmark box for compiling points . (percentage of use X |
|corresponding point value) |
| |
| |
|2.3 Lighting PTS % |
|Light-emitting diode (LED) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/4 | |
|High-pressure sodium | | |
|Metal halide (2) | | |
|Fluorescent (1) | | |
|Incandescent (0) | | |
|2.2 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|2.4 Greenhouse Irrigation PTS % |
| |
|2.4.1 Water Recirculation |
|Yes (1) | | |
| |/1 | |
|No (0) | | |
|2.4.1 TOTAL | | |
| |
|2.4.2 Irrigation System |
|Direct to Root (1) | | |
| |/2 | |
|Overhead system (0) | | |
|2.4.2 TOTAL | | |
| | | |
|2.4 TOTAL (Average of 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 percentages) | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|2.5 Growing Media PTS % |
| |
|2.5.1 Substrate |
|Predominantly soil substrate (1) |/1 | |
|2.5.1 TOTAL | | |
| |
|2.5.2 Organic Material Use PTS % |
|> 75% organic material (3) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/3 | |
|> 50% organic material (2) | | |
|> 25% organic material (1) | | |
|< 25% organic material (0) | | |
|2.5.2 TOTAL | | |
| |
|2.5.3 Energy Use |
|Low Energy Use in Production (1) | | |
| |/1 | |
|Energy Intensive Production (0) | | |
|2.5.3 TOTAL | | |
| |
|2.5.4 Renewable Resources PTS % |
|Renewable resources (1) | | |
| |/1 | |
|Non-renewable resources (0) | | |
|2.5.4 TOTAL | | |
| |
|2.5.5 Reusability PTS % |
|Reusable (1) | | |
| |/1 | |
|Non-reusable (0) | | |
|2.5.5 TOTAL | | |
| |
|2.5.6 Proximity to producer PTS % |
|Onsite (ie. soil, compost, sand) (3) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/3 | |
|< 100 km (2) | | |
|< 500 km (1) | | |
|> 500 km (0) | | |
|2.5.6 TOTAL | | |
|2.5 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
|2.6 Fertilizers and Pesticides |
| |
|2.6.1 Fertilizer PTS % |
|Organic fertilizers created on-site (4) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/4 | |
|Organic fertilizers from source 5 employee complaints investigated in the past year (2) | | |
| | | |
| |/2 | |
|1-5 employee complaints investigated in the past year (1) | | |
|No employee complaints investigated in the past year (0) | | |
|2.8.1 TOTAL | | |
| |
|2.8.2 Monitoring Initiatives PTS % |
|Participates in the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada Monitoring Initiative (1) | | |
| | | |
| |/1 | |
|Does not participate (0) | | |
|2.8.2 TOTAL | | |
| |
|2.8.3 Access to Information PTS % |
|2.8.3.1 Health and safety |
|Workers have access to government published workplace health and safety general information (1) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/1 | |
|Workers have access to government published information regarding how to submit a Health and Safety | | |
|Complaint (0) | | |
|2.8.3.1 TOTAL | | |
|2.8.3.2 Language accessibility |
|Information provided in French | | |
|Information provided in French and English | | |
|Information provided in French, English, and Spanish | | |
|2.8.3.2 TOTAL | | |
|2.8.3 TOTAL (Average of 2.8.3.1 and 2.8.3.2 percentages) | | |
|2.8 TOTAL (Average of 2.8.1 through 2.8.3 total percentages) | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
FINAL SCORE TABULATION
|CRITERIA SECTION |TOTAL % |
|1.1 Knowledge | |
|1.2 Environmental Consultation | |
|1.3 Environmental Sourcing Consideration | |
|1.4 Transport | |
|1.5 Packaging | |
|TOTAL Score for Distributor | |
|2.1 Greenhouse structure | |
|2.2 Energy | |
|2.3 Lighting | |
|2.4 Greenhouse Irrigation | |
|2.5 Growing Media | |
|2.6 Fertilizers and Pesticides | |
|2.7 Waste Management | |
|2.8 Labour | |
|TOTAL Score for Producer | |
|TOTAL: Average percentage across all Criteria Sections | |
Appendix B: Poultry Criteria
RETHINKING FOOD CHOICES AT MCGILL
Sustainable Sourcing Criteria for Poultry Farms and Supply Chains
Revised December 14, 2009
|PARTICIPANTS |NAMES AND INFORMATION |SCORE |
| | |% |
|Distributor | | |
|Contact Information: | | |
|Transformer/Slaughter: | | |
|Contact Information: | | |
|Producer: | | |
|Contact Information: | | |
|Name of Evaluator(s): | |
|Date of Evaluation: | |
|Expected Review Date: | |
SUMMARY COMMENTS:
1.0 Distribution
|1.1 Knowledge PTS % |
|Has information about farm locations, farmers, proportion of chicken sourced from each farm, farm practices| | |
|(3) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/3 | |
|Has information about farm locations, farmers, proportion of chicken sourced from each farm (2) | | |
|Has information about farm locations and contact information (1) | | |
|Has no information about farms they source from (0) | | |
|1.1 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|1.2 Environmental consultation PTS % |
|Has a long term relationship with an eco-advisor (3) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/3 | |
|Has had environmental consultation with recognized eco-advisor (2) | | |
|Environmental consultation in process/planned for future date (1) | | |
|Not willing to have environmental consultation (0) | | |
|1.2 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|1.3 Environmental Sourcing Consideration PTS % |
|Has sustainable sourcing criteria (1) |/1 | |
|1.3 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|1.4 Transport PTS % |
|1.4.1 Anti Idling policy enforced (1) |/1 | |
|1.4.2 Eco driving policy enforced (1) |/1 | |
|1.4 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
|1.5 Packaging PTS % |
|Fully biodegradable packaging (2) | | |
| | | |
| |/2 | |
|Degradable or recyclable packaging (1) | | |
|Is not recyclable or biodegradable (0) | | |
|1.5 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
2.0 Transformation and Slaughter
|2.1 Knowledge PTS % |
|Has information about farm locations, farmers, proportion of chicken sourced from each farm, farm practices| | |
|(3) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/3 | |
|Has information about farm locations, farmers, proportion of chicken sourced from each farm (2) | | |
|Has information about farm locations and contact information (1) | | |
|Has no information about farms they source from (0) | | |
|2.1 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|2.2 Environmental Consulatation PTS % |
|Is a member of Club Conseil and has a long term relationship with an eco-advisor (3) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/3 | |
|Has had environmental consultation with recognized eco-advisor (2) | | |
|Environmental consultation in process/planned for future date (1) | | |
|Not willing to have environmental consultation (0) | | |
|2.2 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|2.3 Transport PTS % |
|2.3.1 Anti Idling policy enforced (1) |/1 | |
|2.3.2 Eco driving policy enforced (1) |/1 | |
|2.3 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|2.4 Packaging PTS % |
|Fully biodegradable packaging (2) | | |
| | | |
| |/2 | |
|Degradable or recyclable packaging (1) | | |
|Is not recyclable or biodegradable (0) | | |
|2.4 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|2.5 Energy PTS % |
| |
|2.5.1 Energy source |
|Alternative renewable other than hydroelectricity | | |
|(wind, solar, biogas, etc) (4) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/4 | |
|Hydroelectricity (3) | | |
|Propane (2) | | |
|Natural Gas (1) | | |
|Other non renewable fossil fuel or Nuclear energy (0) | | |
|2.5.1 TOTAL | | |
| |
|2.5.2 Energy use Knowledge (Transparency) |
|Able to report their energy usage accurately (2) | | |
| |/2 | |
|Has rough idea of proportions of energy source (1) | | |
|Unable/Unwilling to report source of energy (0) | | |
|2.5.2 TOTAL | | |
| | | |
|2.5 TOTAL (Average of 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 percentages) | | |
|COMMENTS: inscribe use percentages of each energy source in the checkmark box for compiling points . (percentage of use X |
|corresponding point value) |
| |
| |
|2.6 Building Structure PTS % |
|LEED building certification (2) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/2 | |
|Past or present renovations to prevent energy loses (1) | | |
|Energy loses valuated by third party (Hydro Qc., eco-advisor) (0) | | |
|2.6 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|2.7 Refrigeration Techniques PTS % |
|Air Chilled (1) |/1 | |
|Water immersion basin (0) | | |
|2.7 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|2.8 Human Health PTS % |
|2.8.1 Follows Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail regulations |/1 | |
|2.8 TOTAL |/4 | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|2.9 Labour Conditions PTS % |
| | | |
|2.9.1 Labour Complaints | | |
|>5 employee complaints investigated in the past year (2) | | |
| | | |
| |/2 | |
|1-5 employee complaints investigated in the past year (1) | | |
|No employee complaints investigated in the past year (0) | | |
|2.9.1 TOTAL | | |
|Participates in the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada Monitoring Initiative (1) | | |
| | | |
| |/1 | |
|Does not participate (0) | | |
|2.9.2 TOTAL | | |
| | | |
|2.9.3 Access to Information PTS % | | |
|2.9.3.1 Health and safety | | |
|Workers have access to government published workplace health and safety general information (1) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/1 | |
|Workers have access to government published information regarding how to submit a Health and Safety | | |
|Complaint (0) | | |
|2.9.3.1 TOTAL | | |
|2.9.3.2 Language accessibility | | |
|Information provided in French | | |
|Information provided in French and English | | |
|Information provided in French, English, and Spanish | | |
|2.9.3.2 TOTAL | | |
|2.9.3 TOTAL (Average of 3.6.3.1 and 3.6.3.2 percentages) | | |
|2.10 Bird Health PTS % |
|Handling of Live Chickens (CARC codes of practice) |
|2.10.1 Protected against adverse weather conditions while waiting for unloading of transport vehicle (1) | | |
| |/1 | |
|2.10.2 Crates with live birds should be moved horizontally (1) |/1 | |
|2.10.3 Birds should not be lifted by head, neck or wings (1) |/1 | |
|2.10.4 Mechanical devices used for unloading birds from transportation crates must be proven to be humane | | |
|before they are installed (1) | | |
| |/1 | |
|2.10 TOTAL |/4 | |
|2.11 Slaughter Technique (one of following must be satisfied) PTS % |
|2.11.1 Electrical current causing immediate loss of consciousness and ensure no regain of consciousness | | |
|before death (1) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/1 | |
|2.11.2 Electrocution (1) | | |
|2.11.3 Decapitation (1) | | |
|2.11.4 Ritual slaughter in accordance with Jewish or Islamic law (1) | | |
|2.11.5 Gas stunning (1) | | |
|2.11 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
3.0 Producers
|3.1 Distance From McGill PTS % |
|< 150 km from McGill (2) | | |
| | | |
| |/2 | |
|150- 500km from McGill (1) | | |
|500km from McGill (0) | | |
|3.1 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|3.2 Feed Stock PTS % |
| |
|3.2.1 Imported or Grown on Farm |
|Percentage produced on farm >75% (4) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/4 | |
|50-75% (3) | | |
|25- 50% (2) | | |
|0 to 25% (1) | | |
|All imported (0) | | |
|3.2.1 TOTAL | | |
| |
|3.2.2 Grain Production Method PTS % |
|Organic (organic grain, natural sources of vitamins & minerals) (1) | | |
| | | |
| |/1 | |
|Conventional (0) | | |
|3.2.2TOTAL | | |
| |
|3.2.3 Presence of Animal By-product PTS % |
|All Vegetable (2) | | |
| | | |
| |/2 | |
|Less than 10% animal by-product (1) | | |
|Great than 10% animal by-product (0) | | |
|3.2.3 TOTAL | | |
| | | |
|3.2 TOTAL (Average of 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 percentages) | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|3.3 Antibiotics PTS % |
|Antibiotics not used (3) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/3 | |
|Antibiotics are used only as a last resort to treat a sick animal whose life is threatened (2) | | |
|Transitioning to antibiotics-free flocks (1) | | |
|Antibiotics are routinely administered in the feed or water (0) | | |
|3.3 TOTAL | | |
|COMMENTS: |
| |
| |
| |
|3.4 Air Quality PTS % |
| |
|3.4.1 Ammonia content |
|Ammonia concentrations less than 20 ppm (2) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |/2 | |
|Ammonia concentrations less than 25ppm (industry standard- mandatory) (1) | | |
|Ammonia concentration >25ppm is unacceptable (0) | | |
|3.4.1 TOTAL | | |
| |
|3.4.2 Imported or Grown on farm PTS % |
|3.4.2.1 Light Cycles |
|8 hours of darkness per day (2) | | |
| | | |
| |/2 | |
|6-8 hours of darkness per day (1) | | |
| 20 ppm)
• Misting of litter and adding oil to the feed to reduce dust particles
• Provision of power air purifying respirator to employees during litter removal
Bird health
• Light cycles: 8 hrs darkness/day
• Litter type: construction grade sand
• Bird density: > 31 to 38 kg/square meter
• Poultry houses emptied of litter, washed and disinfected between flocks
• Less than 3.6% mortality rate
• Access to feed: 70 birds/pan and potable water access at all times
• No debeaking
Labour conditions
• Access to health and safety general information and knowledge on how to submit a complaint
• Information provided in the language of the worker (ex: spanish for immigrant labour)
DISTRIBUTOR
Knowledge of source farms
• Farm locations, proportion of chicken sourced from each farms and farm practices
Environmental Stewardship
• Has an environmental advisor (helping to reduce transport/packaging/energy efficiency issues)
Packaging
• Limits the amount of packaging
• materials are biodegradable (eco-logo certified or equivalent)
• Materials are reusable and recyclable
Appendix D: Contact Lists
Poultry Specific Contact list
Distributors
Current contacts
Company: La Petite Campagne
Category: Distributor, producer
Contact: Pascal Dufour
Title: Owner
Address: 108 chemin du Rang-Double, Rimouski, Québec G5L 9C8
Telephone: 1-418-732-5927
E-mail: fermepetitecampagne@
Information: Contacted and interested in working with MFSP
Company: Distal (Gordon Food Services)
Category: Distributor
Contact: Francois Savard
Title: Montreal area representative and distributor
Address: 550 Louis-Pasteur, Boucherville, Québec J4B 7Z1
Telephone: 514 962 5504
E-mail: FSavard@
Information: Contacted. MFDS’ current food & goods supplier. Awaiting reply from Francois about the possibility of distributing organic poultry
Future contact
Company: Milibec
Category: Distributer
Address: 48 rue Duquette, Repentigny, Québec J5Y 3S8
Telephone: 1 450 654-6568
E-mail: milibec@yahoo.ca
Information: Voltigeur's main distributor in Montreal
Company: Groupe Lauzon
Address: 2715 rue de Reading, Montreal, Québec H3K 1P7
Telephone: 514 937-8571
Website: groupelauzon.ca
Information: Currently supplies all types of meats to Chef Oliver
Slaughter/Transformer
Current contact
Company: Ferme Les Voltigeurs
--See producer section—
Company: Olymel/Flamingo
Category: Slaughter/transformer/distribution
Contact: Claude Alain
Title: représentant
Address: 1580 Rue Eiffel, Boucherville, Québec, J4B 5Y1 (distribution center)
Telephone: 514 858.9000
E-mail: info@
Website:
Company: Desco Inc.
Category: Tranformer
Contact: Joe Ambrosino
Title: Factory Director
Address: 97 rue Prévost, Boisbriand, Québec, J7G 3A1
Telephone: 1 450.437.7182
E-mail: desco@qc. (general)
Website:
Information: Imports all chickens from USA.
Future Contacts
Company: Abattoir Agri-Bio Inc.
Category: Slaughter; organic poultry
Address: 999 rue Industrielle, St-Agapit, Québec G0S 1Z0
Telephone: 1 418 888-4554
information: Organic. Ask who their producer and distributor are.
Company: Giannone Poultry Inc.(Exceldor and Olymel Acquisition)
Category: Slaughter certified Ecocert
Address: 2320 Rue Principale St-Cuthbert, Québec J0K 2C0:
Telephone: 1 450 836-3063
E-mail: giannone@pendore.qc.ca
Information Eco-cert
Company: Volailles Grenville Inc. (Exceldor acquisition)
Category: Slaughter, transformer
Address: 33 Rue Elm, Grenville, Québec J0V 1J0
Telephone: 1 819 242-1300
Company: Avico Max
Category: Slaughter; kosher chickens
Address: 500 rue Labonté, Drummondville, Québec J2C 6X9
Telephone: 1 819 471-5000
Informaiton: President: Bruno Ducharm.
Labour rights issue in the company.
Company: Marvid Poultry (also known as Allstate Kosher Poultry or Québec Inc.)
Category: Slaughter wholesaler
Address: 5671 Boul. Industriel, Montreal Nord, Québec H1G 3Z9
Telephone: 514 321-8376
E-mail: marvid@
Company: Boucherie Bio
Category: Butcher, processor & distributor Certified Ecocert
Name: Frank Andrasi
Address: 10210 LaJeunesse, Montreal, Québec H3L 2E2
Fax: 514 374-8093
E-mail: frank@biomobil.ca
Information: Ask where he gets his meat
Producers
Current contacts
Contact: Junior Martel and Bernard Martel
Title: Owners, Slaughter and Poultry house administrators respectively
Company: Ferme les Voltigeurs
Category: Producer, slaughter
Address: 2350 Blv. Foucault, Drummondville (St-Charles-de-Drummond), Québec J2B7T5
Telephone: 1-819-478-7495
E-mail: jr@ferme-des-voltigeurs.ca (Junior's e-mail)
Status: Contacted. Supplied "Local Food Days". Contact again to discuss ability to supply 25% of poultry orders from them. Visited the slaughter and broiler houses.
Future Contacts
Company: Ferme des Pres
Category: Poultry & grain producer, organic, free range, eco-cert
Address: 840 chemin des Prés, Ste-Marie-Salomé, Québec J0K 2Z0
Telephone: 1 450 754-3307
Fax: 1 450 754-3948
E-mail: info@
Status: Not contacted. Interested in seeing how big they are
Company: Les Fermes Saint-Vincent
Category: Producer organic poultry
Address: 1171 Rand de la rivière Chicot, Saint-Cuthbert, Québec J0K 2C0
Telephone: 1 450 836-2590 or 514-937-4269
Status: Not contacted. Organic = interesting. Ask about quantities, slaughters and distributors
Company: Ferme Ancestrale Martin
Category: Producer certified Ecocert, organic poultry
Address: Rang 36, Riviere St-Esprit, Québec J0K 2L0
Fax: 1 450 839-7941
E-mail: agregoir@
Status: Not contacted. Eco-cert = interesting
Company: Ferme d'Amour
Category: Producer
Address: 190 Rang Fort Georges, Ste-Angèle-de-Monnoir, Québec, J0L 1P0
Telephone: 450 460-4040 or 450 460-4114
E-mail: info@fermedamours.ca
Status: Not contacted. Supplies to Ferme La Petite Campagne
Egg producer/ hatchery
Name: Serge Poulin
Company: Oeufs Blais-Breton
Category: Egg producer certified Ecocert, Hatchery?
Address: 1312 rue St-Georges, St-Bernard-de-Beauce, Québec G0S 2G0
E-mail: Spoulin@
Fax: 1 418 475-4433
Status: Not contacted, don't know if they are a hatchery
Producer Associations (Agriculture & Agri-food)
Association: Chicken Farmers of Canada
Name: Marty Brett
Title: Senior Communications Officer
Telephone: General 1 613 241-2800 or Marty Brett ext 5926
Status: Contacted by phone numerous times, very patient and willing to answer questions. Sent us codes of practice by email
Association: Canadian Organic Growers
Name: Laura Telford
Telephone: 613-216-0741 Toll-free: 1-888-375-7383
Status: Spoke by phone, was willing to answer questions but did not have specific answers to all questions. Sent us organic standards with COG Interpretations by email
Association: Agri-tracabilite Québec
Purpose: Tracing red meat from farm to plate, soon expanding to poultry
Telephone: Toll free 1 866.270.4319
Web site:
Status: Not contacted.
Association: Club Conseil en Agroenvironnement
Category: Clubs-Conseils coordination team
Address: 555 Blv. Roland-Therrien, bureau 110 Longueuil, Québec J4H 4E7
Telephone: 1 450 679-0540 Ext. 8733
Name: Michel Dupuis
Title: Conseiller en développement organisationnel
Number: 1 450 679-0540 Ext. 8738
E-mail: mdupuis@
Status: Contacted. Awaiting contact list of members closest to Montreal. Need to write back to Michel Dupuis to ensure proper follow up.
Conducted a phone interview in November with the communication's director who informed us about the club's structure. Should contact the Montreal Branch for local information: "Ferme en Ville; Montreal, Laval, Laurentide" 450 967 1700
Greenhouse Specific Contact list
Distributors
Current contacts
[pic]
Contact: Daniel Trudel
Title: Buyer
Company: Hector Larivée Inc.
Address: 1755, rue Bercy, Montréal, QC H2K 2T9
Telephone: Main Office - 514-521-8331
E-mail: dtrudel@
Producers
Current contacts
[pic]
Contact: Audrey Boulianne, agr.
Title: Directrice de production
Category: Tomatoes
Company: Savoura Tomates de Serres
Address: 700, rue Lucien Thibodeau, Portneuf QC G0A 2Y0
Telephone: 418 286-6681
E-mail: aboulianne@
Information: Met and interviewed Audrey concerning the practices of Savoura. Went on a tour
of the 5.2 ha greenhouse in Portneuf.
Contact: Mohamed Hage
Title: CEO
Company: Lufa Farms
Category: Producer
Address: 4200 St-Laurent, suite 1010, H2X 3V8
Telephone: 514 898-9090
E-mail: m.hage@
Information: Lufa Farms is in the process of planning and designing a greenhouse of roughly 27,000 sqft in size. Very interested in meeting with MFSP and working with MFDS in the future.
Future Contacts
[pic]
Company: Symbiosis
Category: Greenhouse Tomato Producer
Address: 200, Boul. Perron Est, New Richmond, Gaspésie, Québec G0C 2B0
Telephone: 418 392-2000
E-mail: infos@jardinsnature.ca
Information: Organic tomato producer.
Tried to contact them but no success.
Contact: Mr Daigneault or Mrs Roy
Title: Owner/Operator
Company: Jardiniers du Chef
Category: Sprouts and Micro lettuce
Telephone: 450 433-8789
E-mail: info@
Company: Vertigo
Category: Sprouts and Micro Lettuce
Telephone: 1-877-823-9913
Contact: Ms Jessie
Company: Aquafushia
Category: Sprouts
Telephone: 450 451-1232
Contact: Ms Daniele
Company: Hydro Serre
Category: Boston and Fine Lettuce grower
Telephone: 450 475-4755 ext 246
Contact: Mr Jean Leblond
Company: Grower
Category: Le Jardin des Chefs
Telephone: 418 635-2333
Information: Mr Leblond is a friend and partner for Hector Larivée Inc.
Contact: Mr Lino Birri
Title: Owner
Company: Birri Brothers
Category: Fine produce grower in greenhouse and in the fields from spring to fall
Telephone: 514 276-5253
Contact: Mrs Tessier
Company: Serre Demers
Category: Tomato growers in greenhouse and ber
ries grower in the fields
Telephone: 418 953-5156
Contact: Ms Katie
Company: Serre Sagami
Category: Tomato Grower
Telephone: 450 431-6343
Contact: Mr Gilles
Company: Serre Royale
Category: Tomato Grower
Telephone: 450-543-3011
Contact: Mr Paul Legault
Title: Grower
Category: Greenhouse strawberry grower during spring time
Telephone: 450 454-3516
Contact: Mrs Guylaine Martin an her sister Mrs Caron
Title: Growers
Category: Edible flowers and vegetables grower in greenhouse and fields
Telephone: 1-819-353-2000
McGill Resources
Current contacts
[pic]
Contact: Robert McEwen
Title: Poultry complex operator
Company: Donald McQueen Shaver Poultry Complex
Address: 21111 Lakeshore Road, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Québec H9X 3V9
Telephone: 514 398-7656
E-mail: robert.mcewen@mcgill.ca
Information: Was willing to meet and have us visit the center and explain how it works. Had scheduled a meeting time however it fell through. We never heard back from him again.
Interesting to get an academic opinion on the poultry industry. Can refer us to other professors in the poultry industry at Macdonald Campus.
Contact: David Wees
Title: Lecturer, Greenhouse Management instructor
Compamy: McGill University, Department of Plant Science
Address: Harrison House, 21111 Lakeshore Road, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Québec H9X 3V9
Telephone: 514 398-7756
E-mail: david.wees@mcgill.ca
Information: Met and discussed sustainability issues relating to greenhouse management. Provided us with valuable itinerary resources and information on sustainable heating options for greenhouses. Can refer us to industry professionals as well as other Macdonald Campus faculty working with greenhouses.
Contact: Richard Smith
Title: Greenhouse Technician
Company: McGill University Macdonald Campus Greenhouse
Address: Raymond Greenhouse, 21111 Lakeshore Road, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Québec H9X 3V9
Telephone: 514 398-7851 x7568
E-mail: richard.smith@mcgill.ca
Information: Met and Richard provided us with our initial contacts in the greenhouse industry.
Contact: Dr. Mark Lefsrud
Title: Bioresource Engineer Professor
Company: McGill University
Address: MS-1096, 21111 Lakeshore Road, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Québec H9X 3V9
Telephone: 514 398-7967
E-mail: mark.lefsrud@mcgill.ca
Information: Provided information on new research using biofuels in greenhouses.
Contact: Dr. Don Smith
Title: Chair of Department of Plant Science
Company: McGill University, Department of Plant Science
Address: Raymond Building, 21111 Lakeshore Road, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Québec H9X 3V9
Telephone: 514 398-7866
E-mail: donald.smith@mcgill.ca
Information: Met with Dr. Smith and Savoura executives at Macdonald Campus. He provided us with their contact information and encouraged Savoura to work with us. He is very willing to work with MFSP in the future. Also conducts research on biofuels as an alternative heating source for greenhouses.
Producer Associations
Company: Syndicat des producteurs en serre du Québec
Fédération Interdisciplinaire de l’Horticulture Ornementale du Québec
Address: 3230, rue Sicotte, local E-300, ouest, St-Hyacinthe, (Québec) J2S 7B3
Telephone: 450 774-2228
E-mail: fihoq@fihoq.qc.ca
Labour issues
Association: The Immigrant Workers Centre (IWC or CTI in french)
Telephone: 1514 342-2111
Email: iwc_cti@
Address: 6420 ave. Victoria, suite #9, Montréal, Québec H3W 2S7
Status: Spoke to someone by phone, directed me to McGill professor Gill Hanley
Name: Michael Freeman
Title: McGill Social Work student, works with Immigrant Workers Centre
Status: Spoke to in person regarding development of criteria for temporary foreign workers in poultry and greenhouses
E-mail: michael.freeman@mail.mcgill.ca
Name: Dr. Jill Hanley
Department: McGill School of Social Work
“Her research focuses on community organizing and social policy as they intersect with people's immigration status, and she is pleased to be involved in several research teams around this broad topic. She remains active in Montreal-based community organizations, particularly the Immigrant Workers' Centre. Jill is interested in working with students who are interested in bridging the community-university divide. She is the cofounder of Immigrant Workers Centre.”
E-mail: jill.hanley@mcgill.ca
Website:
Status: Contacted by email, no response but should be contacted in future
General Contact List
McGill resources
Contact: Oliver De Volpi
Title: Executive Chef, McGill food and Dining Service
E-mail: oliver.devolpi@mcgill.ca
Telephone: Office: 514 398-5743 Cell: 514 436-0085
Status: Oliver is of tremendous help and his collaboration and good rapport with suppliers facilitates the advancement of this project. We met and discussed needs of the residence cafeterias and feasibility of implementing our recommendations. He was present during the meeting with Distal, took team members to visit Savoura's greenhouses, and often called representatives himself to ensure we got all the answers we needed.
Other Food System Projects
UBC FOOD SYSTEM PROJECT
Name: Alexandre Rojos, PhD
Title: Principal investigator UBC Food System Project and AGRI 450, Land, Food & Community III in collaboration with the Office of Campus Sustainability at UBC and Social, Ecological, Economic Development Studies (SEEDS)
Status: Forwarded us to Liska Richter, Contacted with no response
Name: Liska Richter
Title: Coordinator UBC Food Systems Project
E-mail: liska.richer@ubc.ca
Status: Contacted, said she would be willing to have phone interview but busy schedule (could not be coordinated)
YALE SUSTAINABLE FOOD PROJECT
Name: Jacqueline P. Lewin
Title: Special Assistant to the Director
Project: Yale Sustainable Food Project
Address: PO Box 208270 New Haven, CT 06520
Telephone: 1 203.432.2084
E-mail: jacqueline.lewin@yale.edu or sustainablefoodproject@yale.edu
Status: Contacted by geog 302 group in November 2009
Name: Ian T. Pocock
Title: Forager Coordinator
E-Mail: iantpocock@ NOTE: At the time he was very recently hired and he didn't have an @yale.edu address, he probably has one now. Jackie (above) can put you in contact with him if that e-mail doesn't work.
SHERBROOKE; CAFÉ CAUS COOPERATIVE DE SOLIDARITÉ
Name: Café CAUS, Coopérative de solidarité
Address: 2500 Blv. Université, Sherbrooke, Québec J1K 2R1, local 111
Telephone: 1 819 821-8000 Ext. 63644
Status: Not contacted. Good student model of project proposal, grants submission..
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKLEY
Instiution: University of California at Berkeley
Contact: Charles (Chuck) Davies
Title: Associate Director Residential Dining (been passed across sustainability and dining offices, all roads of sustainable food lead to him)
Telephone: 1 510 642-8810
E-mail: cdavies@berkeley.edu
Status: Provided information about how UC Berkeley's system's structure and operations, the collaboration with Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF)-- he also relays information between executive chefs and CAFF, and sustainable efforts on campus. Suggested looking into REAL food guidelines.
Association: Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF)
Contact: Allyse Hartwell
Title: Coordinator of Local Food Systems
Telephone: 1 510 832-4625
E-mail: allyse@
Status: She provided basic information about CAFF's organization and operations before directing me to Josh Edge to discuss further details about UC Berkeley.
Contact: Josh Edge
Title: Coordinator of Local Food Systems
Association: CAFF
Telephone: 1 510 832-4625
E-mail: josh@
Status: Spoke about the food and farms that provide food to Berkeley through their organization. He can get access to statistics and specific data.
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
Contact: Anne Macdonald
Title: Ancillary Service Director
Institution: University of Toronto
Telephone: 1 416 978-7830
E-mail: Anne.Macdonald@utonronto.ca
Status: She provided information about University of Toronto's sustainabity efforts and details about their cooperation with Local Food Plus (LFP).
Contact: David Berliner
Title: Sustainability and Food Security Coordinator -- Hart House
Institution: University of Toronto
Telephone: 1 416 978-7830
E-mail: David.Berliner@utoronto.ca
Status: He provided information about student sustainability efforts, highlighting their forum, which brings together students, admin, chefs, etc to discuss food policy. Also suggested looking into
Contact: Jaco Lokker
Title: Executive Chef
Institution: University of Toronto
Telephone: 1 416 581-8186
E-mail: Jaco.Lokker@utoronto.ca
Status: Connected via e-mail. He gave his phone number, but I was never able to reach him. Major driving force behind bringing sustainable food on campus.
Relevant Links
URL: and-recommendations/en/item//icode/1/?no_cache=1
Information: Very detailed website about animal welfare supported by documentation and official governmental regulations
URL:Eleveur de volaille du Quebec; intervenants et lien
ébec.qc.ca/6_4.htm
Information: Useful links to several actors involved in the agricultural and meat production industry. Perfect starting point to understanding the big players of food industries
URL:
Information: A non-exclusive list of environmental advisors on the Island of Montreal. Could be interesting to see how they operate and what their standards are. This may come in handy when searching for consultants that meet or exceed our criteria.
URL:
Information: Energy efficiency of slaughterhouses in Queensland; gives an idea of what we could achieve here in Québec.
URL:
Information: Directory of Organic Agriculture Research and Development Experts in Québec.
URL:
Information: From : "A Guide to developing a sustainable food purchasing policy"
E-mail: Foodsystemrevolution@
Information: E-mail us for access to dozens of PDF, background research, interview questions and more relating to building sustainable sourcing criteria as well as random knowledge about the poultry and greenhouse industry.
Appendix E: Company Profiles
Poultry
Distal - A Gordon Food Services (GFS) company
Gordon Food Service (GFS) is a national company with operations in every province in Canada. Distal is the Montreal branch of GFS and is the main distributor at the present moment for poultry products to independently run residence cafeterias. Distal alone has more than 300 employees and a fleet of 45 trucks that deliver 6 days a week in Montreal. The company distributes approximately 50,000 kg of poultry per week in the Montreal market. They distribute 15 different chicken-based products, which includes fresh and value-added. McGill orders standard unprocessed chicken parts and randomly will order value added products. Distal also offers beef (including certified Angus Beef brand), pork, fresh and frozen fish and seafood, as well as other value added products (precooked, portioned ready-to-use foods). The company also distributes large varieties of grocery and frozen products, beverages, and dairy product. They include in their list of non-food-products a line of sustainable cups, cutlery, cleaning products, some of which are EcoLogo certified.
Their website include information on the Good for You line of products which includes categories for nutritional health as well as environmental health. The environmental health criteria include organic, fair trade, biodegradable, and "Environmental Choice" products. The "Environmental Choice" label is a third party labeling system through the Global Eco-labeling Network and the EcoLogo program in cooperation with the International Organization for Standardization. These products are available to McGill although they are more costly than the standard products.
The main reason for McGill's continued service with Distal relates to Distal's capacity. The company is known to offer rapid and flexible service as they ensures same day delivery or can stop by twice in one day if need be. Other primary reasons for dealing with this company include quality assurance of their products, dependability, business hours and price. Even if McGill's purchasing power represents less than 1% of Distal's orders, the distributor has always maintained the quality of their service.
At this level of the supply chain, McGill Food System Project will attempt to affect change in two ways. As seen in the criteria, demanding that our distributor have knowledge of the farms and transformers from which they source from is a start. Then, because distal orders poultry from Olymel, Flamingo and Desco, we can affect change by asking them to source from the slaughter/transformer that score highest on our criteria.
Olymel
Olymel employs more than 10, 000 people and is the biggest slaughter company in Québec with 45% of the market share. 50 percent of its revenue comes from international sales to USA, Japan, Australia as well as some 60 other countries. In 2008, they slaughtered 1.7 million poultry per week, coming from 638 different poultry houses, and reached a total sale figure of 2.5 billion dollars. The poultry houses they deal with range in size from 20,000 to 45,000 heads. It markets products under the names Olymel, Flamingo, Lafleur, Prince and Galgo. With a mission to remain Canada's leader in the field of slaughtering and processing of meats, they values putting profitability and respect for its partners first and foremost. When asked if it was possible for them to choose poultry suppliers within their 638 farms according to best practices (based on McGill's criteria for example) they said no but assured us that all farms in Canada are regulated by On-Farm Food Safety (OFFS) programs that standardize all poultry productions steps, which include bird health, litter management, flock growth periods and more. OFFS standards still need to be looked into to see how they relate to McGill Food Systems Project's values. Olymel deals directly with their poultry farmers so there are no intermediaries. However, delivery of chickens from the poultry farms to Olymel slaughterhouses is done by 5 major companies specialized in animal transportation. Communications with Olymel are still in process and should be updated with time.
La Petite Campagne
Pascal helped supply poultry for Fall 2009 local food days. He is a poultry producer and distributor for smaller farms of various regions in Québec. He currently delivers to Montreal twice a week and is very enthusiastic at the possibility of working with McGill on a regular basis. His products range from fresh poultry cuts to transformed local goods such as meat pies and pâtés. He needs to be contacted in the near future to confirm the feasibility of ordering up to 25% more chicken from Ferme les Voltigueurs.
Ferme des Voltigeurs
Ferme des Voltiguers is a family run farm that has been in operation for over 50 years. The farm includes 140,000 sq/ft. of hen houses, on-farm slaughterhouse that slaughters 25,000 birds two days per week. They also have on site transformation facilities as well as a feed milling house where the feed is balanced and mixed on site. A fraction of the feed is grown on the premises. The birds are all grain-fed. To maximize its utility, the slaughterhouse slaughters chickens from other poultry producers. Voltigeur chickens, which are all grain fed with no animal by-products, are sold in most IGA's, specialty grocery stores, farmers markets and specialty shops. The farm is currently working towards anti-biotic free chickens.
Voltigueur products were a recommendation of Pascal, a distributor McGill deals with on special occasions. The quality of their products and the certitude that all chickens come from Drummondville were part of the reasons they were selected for local food days. Contact with Voltigueur has been very cooperative; we were given a visit of the poultry barns, where the chickens are raised, as well as a fully guided tour in the slaughterhouses. They remain open, transparent and willing to answer anymore questions we may have.
AvicoMax
Avicomax has never been contacted. One of 12 federally certified slaughterhouses in Québec. Chickens are sold to distributors and wholesalers that cater to Muslim communities in Québec and Ontario because their poultry is slaughtered according to Islamic and Muslim law. Cost of production is slightly higher because of manual handling, but large slaughterhouses do not provide for such markets, so they have less competitors. The company's biggest challenge is finding live chickens because they must compete with large transformers (an interesting point to look into). They invested in new machineries and rearranged the slaughterhouse in 2008 enabling them to increase their production from 50 000 to 100 000 chickens slaughtered per week and expanding their sale territory to Toronto. This Drummondville company, born in 2001 now hires 65 employees. In an online article published in the 'Journal l'Express' about the company there was one comment from an ex-employee highlighting the bad labour conditions inside the slaughterhouse. He mentions how workers are exploited and that a union was created to remedy to the problem.
Service Alimentaire Desco Inc
Desco is one of Distal’s transformers for poultry products. According to their website, the company is renown for its rapid and hygienic production chain. They were first established as a food distributor in 1980 but have since built two poultry processing plants, one of which was the first plant in Québec to be HAACP certified. Poultry is brought in from HAACP-certified slaughterhouses in Canada and the US (this is from their website, but Mr. Ambrosino told us they source poultry only from the states) and then transformed and packaged at their plant. Desco does not have information about the source farms since the US slaughterhouses they deal with are primarly owned by Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, one of the largest poultry processing companies in the U.S and Mexico. The company owns 29 chicken processing plants, eight prepared foods plants, and manufactures more than 155, 000 tons of livestock feed per year.
Greenhouse Tomatoes
Les Serres du St Laurent Inc. - Savoura
Les Serres du St Laurent Inc. is the producer of Savoura tomatoes. It is a private Québec Corporation owned by Marie Gosselin, Jacques Gosselin and Yvan Gauvin’s families. Savoura tomatoes were first grown in 1989 in Portneuf greenhouses. Since then it has acquired 4 more greenhouses in different areas of Québec due to increasing demand of their product. In 2007, Savoura built a new, state-of-the-art experimental greenhouse in Saint-Etienne-des-Gres that is heated with biogas from adjacent landfill sites. They use this facility to test out new environmentally friendly technologies. The complex is 18 hectares large (35 football fields).
Savoura produces non-GMO tomatoes, use integrated pest management instead of pesticides, bees to pollinate the plants and the culture media they use is organic.
Savoura is known for their good quality tomatoes and it is the only greenhouse tomato producer in Québec that Hector Larivee orders from during the winter months since it is the only one opened all year long.
Two group members went on a tour of the 5.2 ha greenhouse in St-Etienne-des-Grès, QC. General conclusions were that although Savoura is efficient at every conservation and efficiency of water use and lighting, they rely heavily upon synthetic fertilizers from China, growing substrate from Sri Lanka which is not reusable and have an overall poor recycling program.
Portneuf (Head Office)
700, rue Lucien-Thibodeau
Portneuf, Québec
G0A 2Y0
Phone: 418-286-6681
Fax: 418-286-4275
Email : portneuf@
Production
• 31,000 m2 (37,000 yd2) = 6 football fields
• 94,000 tomato plants
• 40,000 kg (77,000 lb.) of tomatoes per week
• 210,000 tomatoes per week (4 semi-trailers)
Dainville I
858, route 255
Danville, Québec
J0A 1A0
Phone: 819-839-2752
Fax: 819-839-3772
Email : danville@
Production
• 27,000 m2 (32,000 yd2) = 5 football fields
• 81,000 tomato plants
• 33,000 kg (68,000 lb.) of tomatoes per week
• 175,000 tomatoes per week (3 semi-trailers)
Dainville II
302, rue Water
Danville, Québec
J0A 1A0
Phone: 819-839-1119
Fax: 819-839-1073
Email : danville@
Production
• 28,000 m2 (37,000 yd2) = 5 football fields
• 90,000 tomato plants
• 35,000 kg (77,000 lb.) of tomatoes per week
• 185,000 tomatoes per week (4 semi-trailers)
Sainte-Marte
335, chemin Sainte-Marie
Sainte-Marthe, Québec
J0P 1W0
Phone: 450-459-4236
Fax: 450-459-4669
Email : stemarthe@
Production
• 21,000 m2 (25,000 yd2) = 4 football fields
• 63,000 tomato plants
• 17,000 kg (37,000 lb.) of tomatoes per week
• 2 semi-trailers of tomatoes
Saint-Javier
12 800, chemin Bélanger
St-Janvier-de-Mirabel, Québec
J7J 2N8
Phone: 450-971-0050
Fax: 450-971-0051
Email : stjanvier@
Production
• 22,000 m2 (26,000 yd2) = 4 football fields
• 70,000 tomato plants
• 35,000 kg (62,000 lb.) of tomatoes per week
• 185,000 tomatoes per week (3 semi-trailers)
St-Etienne-des-Grès
360 boul. Gabelle
St-Etienne-des-Grès, Québec
G0X 2P0
Phone: 819-694-6944
Fax: 819-694-6198
Production
• 52,000 m2 (61,000 yd2) = 10 football fields
• 126,000 tomato plants
• 60,000 kg (132,000 lb.) of tomatoes per week
• 6 semi-trailers of tomatoes
Serres Jardin-Nature
Serres Jardin-Nature was founded in 2000 and is Canada’s largest producer of organic tomatoes. They produce beefsteak tomatoes and tomatoes on a vine. It markets its tomatoes under Symbiosis that is certified organic by Ecocert Canada. Serres Jardin Nature owns 12 000m2, harvesting and marketing from March to December and has the longest production schedule for organic tomatoes in Québec. The tomatoes they produce are distributed across the 5 eastern Canadian provinces and the north-eastern ad mid-western United States.
Serre Jardin-Nature prioritizes development and innovation and undertakes various experiments to increase productivity and develop knowledge in organic greenhouse production. It will be the first Canadian producer to offer certified organic tomatoes all year round.
Hector Larivée
Hector Larivée is the distributor of fresh product for MFDS. They already source greenhouse tomatoes from Savoura however they do not source from les Serres Jardin-Nature. They are well known for their good service and variety of produce available. For more information about how Hector Larivée operates, see the 'Farm to Plate' report at .
-----------------------
[1] 1 BTU (British Thermal Unit)= 1.06 kilojoules
[2] A professor at the University of Guelph, Dr. Zheng, is currently investigating the sustainability of greenhouse production so future contact or collaboration should be conducted to ensure proper criteria ranking.
[3] For instance, many farms send their chickens to slaughter houses where they are grouped together and then sold to distributers who then sell to customers. In this case, the slaughter house would know where its chickens come from but the distributor would not.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- bator group home
- iceland submarine cable fuqua school of business
- cast in place concrete hawaii
- out of the myriad of problems we are faced with food
- state of washington
- feasibility study of micro hydro power on the yurok nation
- chapter 17 energy some basics
- ch 11 industry
- protocol for great lakes marsh sampling
- lighting power and branch wiring
Related searches
- make words out of the following letters
- words out of the letters
- what comes out of the mouth
- out of the mouth the heart speak
- out of the heart flows scripture
- retiring out of the us
- out of the heart scripture
- out of the money options
- buying out of the money calls
- out of the abundance kjv
- out of the abundance the mouth speaks
- for out of the heart kjv