Mindless Extermination to
Combat Avian Influenza

- written in collaboration with Microsoft Copilot AI -

Skyrocketing Price of Eggs

Between August 30, 2023 and March 2, 2025, the average price of eggs in the United States quadrupled, rising from $2.04 per dozen to $8.16 per dozen — a 400% increase in a little over eighteen months. More often than not, news sources reporting on this topic have misled consumers into believing that avian influenza caused the deaths of multiple millions of egg-laying chickens, resulting in supply shortages that led to higher egg prices. Avian influenza (the disease itself), however, did not kill unprecedented numbers of egg-laying chickens. Rather, the people running industrial egg-producing farms killed the chickens in a gravely misguided effort to combat the disease.

The second chart above, showing the number of birds exterminated (“depopulated”), is from CoBank, in cooperation with USDA-APHIS, which stands for the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. CoBank, according to its website,

is one of the largest private providers of credit to the U.S. rural economy. The bank delivers loans, leases and other financial services to agribusiness, rural infrastructure and Farm Credit customers in all 50 states.

The blue-colored areas of the chart show death tolls for egg-laying chickens. The orange-colored areas show death tolls for broiler chickens. Broiler chickens experience far less death from extermination, because their life spans are so short (from birth to store shelf) that avian influenza is considerably less likely to pose the same threat.

Most Exterminated Chickens Appear to be Disease Free

When farmers who manage industrial, egg-producing farms detect or suspect an infection in their flocks, they typically contact a veterinarian who conducts tests and evaluates the symptoms to confirm the presence of a disease. If the veterinarian confirms or strongly suspects the disease, then the case is reported to state animal health officials or directly to the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). From there, state animal health officials coordinate with APHIS to determine the next steps, which might include slaughtering the entire affected flock. The mere detection of a suspected disease, thus, can result in killing every chicken on the farm to prevent the spread of the detected or suspected disease. APHIS also oversees the indemnity payment process to compensate egg-producing farms for their losses. This approach supposedly ensures that outbreaks are managed efficiently while minimizing the impact on the poultry industry.

According to this strategy, killing chickens that appear to be disease-free (the majority of the flock) along with apparently diseased chickens, constitutes efficient and effective disease management. Wiping out entire chicken populations by human means to prevent entire chicken populations from being wiped out by disease is deemed the standard of enlightened egg farming. One flock of egg-laying chickens is intentionally destroyed, only to be replaced by another virgin flock, and yet the conditions for disease emergence and the dynamics of disease-infection continue to be the same. Replacing one population with another population under the same conditions is expected to yield different results. The saying comes to mind:

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

The Legal Requirement to Exterminate

In most cases, once a veterinarian confirms avian influenza, which requires mandatory reporting, the disease must be reported to state or federal animal health officials, after which the producer is legally required to destroy the flock. This is part of the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA’s) disease control measures to prevent the spread of highly contagious diseases. Federal and state regulations usually mandate such mass exterminations, and the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) oversees the extermination process. APHIS compensates producers for the value of their exterminated birds through indemnity payments and, in some cases, for cleaning and disinfection costs. This ensures that producers comply with the law, while reducing their financial burden.

The funds for indemnity payments ultimately come from U. S. taxpayers. These funds are part of the federal budget, which is financed through various forms of taxation, such as income tax, corporate tax, and other revenue sources that the government collects. Taxpayer dollars, thus, enable the government to pay for disease-control programs and compensation programs that unintentionally incentivize agricultural producers to avoid long-term approaches, as they repeatedly destroy their flocks in the short term. Here are more details about how indemnity payments work:

1. Congressional Allocation: The U. S. Congress appropriates funds to the USDA as part of the federal budget. These funds are earmarked for various agricultural programs, including disease control and emergency response.

2. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS): APHIS is responsible for managing disease outbreaks and administering indemnity payments. Within APHIS, specific programs like the "Foreign Animal Disease Program" or "National Veterinary Services Laboratories" may oversee the funding process depending on the disease's nature.

3. Emergency Funding: For large-scale disease outbreaks, additional emergency funding may be requested from Congress or allocated from contingency funds within the USDA.

4. USDA Disbursement: Once funds are approved and the indemnity claims are processed, the USDA facilitates payments to producers through electronic transfers.

Even though a deliberate intent to incentivize might not be there, the consequence of making indemnity payments has been the same — to actively discourage proactive, long-term solutions. In other words, actively discouraging assumes the same force as deliberate intent, since actions based on knowledge of a better way are being actively avoided. People who regulate and run the poultry industry, thus, are being both negligent and complicit in operating a system that shows clear signs of failing. By repeatedly claiming, It's not our intent, while neglecting to adjust policies or practices, those in power foster and sustain the very conditions they claim to oppose. Their inaction itself becomes the active mechanism by which they perpetuate the negative impact.

Admitting the Underlying Cause of Disease

Exterminating and compensating fail to achieve the intended result of controlling avian influenza. Instead, these responses merely perpetuate an endless cycle of flock destruction and replacement. New flocks ultimately endure the same living conditions as the exterminated flocks. The living conditions themselves do not change. These very living conditions, however, are the problem.

The design and operation of industrial production facilities, particularly in the poultry and livestock industries, involve dense crowding to maximize efficiency and output. These environments can create perfect breeding grounds for the rapid spread of infectious diseases like avian influenza. In crowded spaces, birds are in constant close contact, which facilitates the transmission of viruses and bacteria. Stress levels among animals also tend to increase in such environments, weakening their immune systems and making them more susceptible to diseases. Additionally, managing hygiene and biosecurity becomes significantly more challenging when dealing with large populations in confined spaces.

The current approach to managing avian influenza assumes that the fundamental design of industrial production facilities is fixed and unchangeable, which constrains solutions to the question, How can we direct resources to combat a disease within this fixed and unchangeable design? A deeper reckoning with economics and ethics of food production, on the other hand, elicits the more profound question, How can we redirect resources toward a more sustainable and humane system?  

Making a Paradigm Shift

Reforming industrial egg farming requires far less technological innovation than, for example, overhauling the energy-production system of modern civilization. Reforming this sector primarily requires a shift in operational methods, resource allocation, and mindset. Reform here does not require a technological revolution, but instead a shift in priorities and support from policymakers who provide incentives for change. Reform in the egg-production industry is arguably a more achievable goal with fewer logistical barriers than exist in the current climate-conscious drive to run the world with windmills and amplified sunshine. The comparison between these two sectors (energy sector and egg sector) stands out, because it highlights how funding and resources can be misdirected towards goals that are unachievable according to the laws of physics as humans are currently able to implement them.

The cornerstone of such massive reform in egg farming is massive cooperation. Truly transformational change requires producers, consumers, policymakers, environmentalists, and public health experts to develop their interests and align their resources around a common goal. Governments can lead by offering subsidies or tax incentives for facility upgrades and better practices. Producers need to embrace a forward-thinking mindset, recognizing the long-term benefits of reforms over the immediate comfort of the status quo. Consumers need to play their part by continuing to show willingness to pay for ethically produced goods and holding companies accountable. All of this requires strong leadership and clear messaging to unify these different parties. More specifically: 

1. Government and Policy Initiatives:

• Governments can launch public-awareness campaigns highlighting the connection between improved farming practices, food safety, and public health. 

• Schools and agricultural colleges can include modules on sustainable farming to educate future producers. 

2. Industry Leadership:

• Large food companies and supermarkets can take the lead by supporting and promoting producers who adopt sustainable practices. 

• Certifications for humane and sustainable poultry practices can be expanded and marketed, giving consumers confidence in their choices. 

3. Community Engagement:

• Nonprofits and grassroots organizations can run workshops, create digital content, and engage local communities to raise awareness about the benefits of reform. 

• Influencers in health, food, and sustainability spaces can champion the cause to reach broader audiences. 

4. Consumer Empowerment:

• Educational resources like documentaries, books, and social media campaigns can shed light on the realities of poultry farming and its impact on health and the environment. 

• Clear labeling on food packaging can help consumers make informed choices, reinforcing demand for more ethical production.    

This multi-pronged approach ensures that education and promotion reach different audiences.

Rethinking the Current Biosecurity Paradigm

The prevailing approach to managing avian influenza has been to frame the disease as a biosecurity issue. This means that public-health administrators and poultry farmers who follow the recommendations of these administrators view avian influenza as an external threat to a stable industrial farming system. They consider the disease an invading enemy against which they must wage a war. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), for instance, has implemented a five-pronged strategy to combat highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), with a strong focus on strengthening biosecurity measures to prevent outbreaks. Similarly, the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) highlights biosecurity as a key component in its global strategy for controlling HPAI, aiming to minimize transmission and outbreaks.

To combat this perceived enemy, policymakers and farmers rely on militarized strategies, deploying advanced surveillance systems, constructing containment zones, and enforcing strict quarantines as if fortifying a battlefield. This biosecurity-focused approach imposes significant burdens on poultry farmers, who must adhere to stringent preventive measures, while policymakers channel resources into defensive technology and enforcement rather than into transforming the industrial farming system itself.

Even worse, a war-like mentality, which policy makers mistakenly represent as effective, often achieves its aims through methods that paradoxically replicate the very devastation they seek to prevent — sacrificing entire domestic flocks to avoid outbreaks that might do the same. By framing avian influenza primarily as an external enemy, policymakers, thus, overlook critical internal factors, like overcrowding in farms and the monoculture of poultry breeds, which create ideal conditions for the spread of disease. This externalized war-like approach reinforces the flawed foundations of the industrial system, which limits investments to containment and surveillance rather than aiming investments towards addressing root causes, such as the unsustainable scale of production. A shift in focus from external threats to internal vulnerabilities could pave the way for systemic reforms, such as improving animal welfare, diversifying poultry populations, and reducing dependency on intensive farming.

Particularly troublesome is a war-like mentality that also treats wild birds as an enemy, which fosters a disturbing fragmented view of humans’ relationship with the rest of nature. Such a mindset forces people to overlook deeper issues with an industrial farming system that often prioritizes productivity over ecological harmony and long-term sustainability. This practice not only strengthens disease dynamics but also creates conditions where wild birds and their natural behaviors are categorized as biological threats rather than integral parts of shared ecosystems.

A Truly Transformative Approach

Rethinking the fundamentals of poultry farming requires measures such as:

• Raising smaller, well-spaced flocks to reduce stress on birds, improve overall welfare, and minimize disease transmission pathways. 

• Incorporating outdoor access, rotational grazing, and integrated farming systems that combine multiple species or crops to create healthier birds and more resilient ecosystems. 

• Redirecting government funding from compensating outbreaks to incentivizing humane and sustainable farming practices, such as through targeted grants or subsidies. 

These changes demand significant adjustments in land management, physical structures, production methods, operational procedures, and regulatory oversight. For example, repurposing land to accommodate rotational grazing systems and redesigning facilities to provide adequate outdoor access for poultry are foundational shifts to achieve these goals.

Building on these principles, real-world farms from across the globe demonstrate the practical application and success of humane and sustainable poultry farming. The following farms, for example, not only uphold animal welfare and ecological balance but also offer valuable models for scaling up to meet society's growing demand for poultry products:

1. Kipster Farm (Netherlands): Innovatively feeds chickens with surplus human food, reducing waste while prioritizing animal welfare and sustainability. 

2. Øvre Lier Gård (Norway): Combines free-range poultry farming with grass-fed beef production and sustainable land management, creating a holistic agricultural system. 

3. Polyface Farm (USA): Uses rotational grazing and integrates chickens into broader sustainable systems, enriching soil with manure and managing pests naturally. 

4. Regenerative Agriculture Alliance (USA): Supports farms raising chickens among trees and woody perennials, mimicking ecosystems to enhance biodiversity and soil health. 

5. Carnivore Snax Initiative (Global): Promotes poultry farming practices like rotational grazing and holistic management, rejuvenating ecosystems while raising birds. 

6. Vital Farms (USA): Focuses on pasture-raised poultry, providing abundant outdoor space and rotational grazing for healthier birds and high-quality egg production. 

7. Happy Hen Farms (India): Integrates free-range poultry with diversified systems combining crops and livestock, supporting ecological balance. 

8. Justerhof (Germany): Employs organic methods, minimizing chemical inputs while providing birds access to lush outdoor environments. 

9. Bennington Poultry Farm (UK): Combines holistic water management with rotational grazing to ensure sustainable land use and healthier birds. 

10. Treviño Ranch (Mexico): Applies farming practices that align with nature to support diverse plant and animal life while maintaining a self-sustaining system.

Each of these farms exemplifies how ethical and ecological practices can coexist with productivity. They illustrate how such practices can align with modern agricultural needs. Policymakers play a crucial role in adopting these transitions, encouraging farmers to pursue them, and supporting their implementation. Market incentives, as tools designed to influence behavior, also contribute to enabling these shifts. Scaling up these methods might involve expanding land use for pasture-raised systems, redesigning facilities to offer outdoor access, repurposing land for rotational grazing, and investing in training to help more farmers adopt nature-friendly methods. Encouraging these shifts through progressive policies and market incentives can make such approaches the foundation of poultry farming, thereby fostering a future where humane farming practices become a central pillar of food production.

Challenging But Not Impossible

Meeting current real-world demand with a transformative approach to poultry farming is a challenging but not impossible goal. It requires significant shifts in production methods, infrastructure, and consumer behavior. Specifically, the following considerations have to come into play:

1. Production Capacity: Alternative systems, such as pasture-based or rotational grazing setups, typically produce fewer eggs or poultry per unit area compared to intensive farming. Scaling these systems to meet current demand requires more land and resources, which further involves land management and systemic planning that extends well beyond individual production facilities.

2. Efficiency Improvements: Innovations in technology, such as AI-driven monitoring systems, precision feeding, and optimized farm layouts, could help these farms increase efficiency and output while maintaining sustainable practices.

3. Consumer Demand: Meeting demand also depends on consumer willingness to adapt. The approach to farming being discussed here often results in higher production costs, which can lead to higher prices for eggs and poultry. Educating consumers about the benefits of sustainable farming and encouraging shifts in purchasing habits is crucial. 

4. Policy Support: Government incentives and subsidies can play a key role in helping producers transition to more enlightened systems while maintaining output levels. Investments in research and infrastructure will be necessary to scale these practices effectively.

Shifting to a more intelligent production paradigm requires a cooperative, multi-level approach, involving stakeholders ranging from local municipalities to federal governments. Such a shift might unfold as follows:

1. Integrated Land-Use Planning: Transitioning to more sustainable farming practices could be integrated into broader land-use strategies. This might involve designating areas specifically for innovative farming systems, integrating agricultural practices into urban planning, and optimizing land use on the outskirts of cities to achieve greater efficiency.

2. Collaborative Governance: Cooperation across municipalities, planning boards, environmental agencies, and agricultural departments would be of key importance. Policies that align urban development, conservation goals, and agricultural needs could help ensure that land would be used strategically while maintaining ecological balance.

3. Rewilding and Restoration: As part of holistic land management, some areas could be reserved for restoring natural ecosystems or promoting wildlife habitats. This could reduce potential conflicts between wildlife and farming, cutting down the need for reactionary measures like biosecurity barriers.

4. Zoning and Incentives: Governments could introduce zoning laws or tax incentives to encourage the establishment of sustainable farms. For example, they might prioritize sustainable farms near urban centers to reduce delivery distances and improve the reliability and efficiency of local food networks.

5. Public-Private Partnerships: Collaboration with private sectors, non-profits, and community organizations could provide additional funding and resources to scale these practices, making efficient use of land while fostering innovation.

By operating from the perspective of a land-use challenge, rather than from the limited perspective of an agricultural challenge, this transformation becomes a matter of integrated planning and community collaboration.

The Promise of Open Pastures

Farming practices that enable chickens to graze in open pastures often focus on creating a natural and sustainable environment for the birds. Some of the elements of these practices are:

1. Rotational Grazing: Chickens are moved between different pasture areas to prevent overgrazing and allow vegetation to recover. This method also helps distribute manure evenly, enriching the soil.

2. Mobile Housing: Structures like "chicken tractors" or mobile coops allow chickens to access fresh pasture while providing shelter. These are easy to move and protect chickens from predators.

3. Diverse Vegetation: Pastures are planted with a mix of grasses, legumes, and forbs to provide a varied diet for the chickens, enhancing their health and egg quality.

4. Predator Protection: Fencing, guardian animals, and secure shelters are essential to keep chickens safe while they roam freely.

Natural Pest Control: Chickens grazing in open pastures consume insects and larvae, reducing pest populations and supporting a balanced ecosystem.

A particularly noteworthy feature here is how these farming systems leverage nature’s processes to manage manure and urine effectively:

1. Natural Fertilization: The manure and urine from chickens are spread across the pasture as they graze. These act as natural fertilizers, enriching the soil with nitrogen and other nutrients. Rotational grazing ensures that the land has time to recover and absorb these nutrients.

2. Dilution and Microbial Action: The open pasture and natural processes allow for dilution of waste by rain and dewdrops. Soil microbes also play a role in breaking down manure, converting it into nutrients that plants can use.

3. Diverse Vegetation: Farmers often encourage a variety of plants in their pastures, such as grasses and legumes, which can quickly absorb the nutrients from chicken waste and prevent nutrient overload.

4. Rotational Grazing Practices: By frequently moving chickens to new areas, the waste is evenly distributed, preventing buildup in one spot and allowing time for previous areas to regenerate.

5. Integrating Animals: Some farmers pair chickens with other livestock, such as cows or sheep, to create complementary grazing systems. Chickens follow larger animals, scratching through manure for insects, further dispersing waste while keeping fly populations in check.

This approach incorporates a deep understanding of the land’s capacity, ensuring that the timing of flock movements aligns with nature’s ability to work efficiently. Experienced farmers have honed this balance through observation, trial and error, and a detailed knowledge of their local ecosystems. Their successes are testaments to the synergy that can exist between farming practices and environmental stewardship when done thoughtfully.

The Scaling Challenge

To repeat, applying such practices at the scale needed to meet society’s current demand for eggs and other poultry products is a complex but not insurmountable task. Here, again, are the key requirements for expanding these farming practices to meet real-world demand:

1. Land Availability: This approach to farming requires more land per bird compared to intensive industrial systems in use today. Meeting current demand calls for significant land allocation, which is a limiting factor in already densely populated regions or regions already saturated with agricultural operations.

2. Rotational Grazing Efficiency: Increasing the scale of this system to meet current demand requires meticulous planning and farmer expertise to ensure that waste remains a resource rather than a pollutant.

3. Consumer Demand and Pricing: Higher production costs could lead to higher egg prices, which consumers have amply demonstrated that they are willing to pay to compensate farmers for killing their entire flocks. A shift in consumer behavior toward valuing sustainably produced eggs, thus, could support this model at scale, since the higher egg prices would go towards improving the system instead of for continually destroying and replacing its key component (the chickens).

4. Technological Innovations: Advances in waste management, such as bio-digesters or composting systems, could enhance the efficiency of these innovative farms, allowing them to meet consumer demand without overwhelming nature's processing capacity to do so.

5. Policy and Support: Government incentives, subsidies, and education programs can play a crucial role in helping farmers transition to more enlightened practices at a scale that satisfies consumer demand, while maintaining environmental balance.

No doubt, scaling for consumer demand requires a revolutionary scale of cooperation. Many minds in many different domains must operate together with a shared purpose to improve the well-being of civilization itself. That purpose is to create resilient ecosystems that thrive more naturally. By prioritizing methods such as crop rotation, organic amendments, cover cropping, and minimal soil disturbance, farmers can enrich the earth, reduce reliance on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and other manufactured agricultural products, and empower nature's essential cycles.

Equally important are strategies to conserve water, reduce runoff, and optimize water retention in the soil. These practices, alongside efforts to build habitats for beneficial organisms, support healthier food systems, where nutrient-rich produce benefits both individuals and communities.

Through careful, intentional stewardship, this approach honors the life-sustaining elements of our world and offers a future where humanity and nature flourish together.

END

pdf copy of this article

<< BACK TO MAIN PAGE