Oregon Public Broadcasting

1st congressional district 2012 election 2012 session agriculture art arts author beer births books budget business central oregon college congress crime culture death penalty eastern oregon economy education employment energy environment eugene fishing food gangs gay rights health health care high school history homeless housing jobs law legislature literature living media mental health military movies music native americans obama occupy portland occupy wall street onthejob oregon our town outdoors parenting police politics portland portland business journal portland mayor pregnancy prison public health race rebroadcast recess recession religion republicans rural schools science shooting sports supreme court talking business technology teen theater unemployment union university of oregon washington water weekend women youth

A hen's loudest clucking is roughly 60 decibels.  Human conversation is also roughly 60 decibels.  A barking dog ranges from 80-110 decibels.  While it's unfortunate that the second neighbor couldn't/wouldn't move the coop, it seems surprising that "nochickens" found a few hens loud enough to be disturbing.  Having grown up around hens I can attest that they are quieter by far than lawn mowers, kids playing, leaf blowers, and certainly quieter than "nochickens" barking dogs.   The chicken owners would probably argue that at 80-110 decibels "nochickens'"  barking dogs were the greater nuisance.

--L. Clark-Burnell

posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context

Actually, even organic so-called free-range eggs from the grocery store are inferior to eggs from backyard hens who have an opportunity to scratch around in the grass or in grass clippings for bugs.  According to scientific tests, eggs from hens with access to grass have:

• 1/3 less cholesterol
• 1/4 less saturated fat
• 2/3 more vitamin A
• 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids
• 3 times more vitamin E
• 7 times more beta carotene

than commercially raised eggs.

(Here's the link to that study and more details:  http://www.motherearthnews.com/Real-Food/2007-10-01/Tests-Reveal-Healthier-Eggs.aspx)

Eggs labeled free-range from the store don't really have access to the outdoors.  Commericially raised hens live in a giant building that has a a tiny door to a dirt pad, but the birds would have to squeeze pass thousands of other birds to get outside.  Also, those birds are all nearly genetically the same, making them more vulnerable to disease, thus increasing the need for antibiotics.

Finally, eggs from a backyard hen are much cheaper than comparable organic eggs from a farmer's market.  I've done the calculations:  feed and hen costs for non-organic eggs in the backyard are less than an dollar per dozen.  For organic feed, one can raise a dozen eggs for less than $2.00.   That's assuming one isn't feeding ones chickens any yard/garden waste which reduces the feed costs even more.  And one doesn't need to build a palace for the hens.  Coops can be built inexpensively.

There is a sustainable claim in addition to this:  chickens reduce yard waste-- they eat it, they reduce the need for pesticides in the garden since they eat bugs, and their waste can be composted reducing the need to buy compost that's shipped across the state.  Chickens are a terrific part of a sustainable mini-ecosystem in ones yard.

posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context

Why do cities such as Salem reject well-reasoned proposals to allow backyard hens?  After supporters of urban hens refuted common  myths about odor, flies, rodents, noise, and avian flu the opposing Councilors Mayor were left with objections rooted in a disheartening distrust of the the citizens' ability to act responsibly and a lack of understanding of the sustainable lifestyle that motivates many urban flock owners.  

For example, Councilor Bennett talked about dog problems and worried  that chickens would increase conflict between neighbors.  This is a frustratingly paternalistic argument, treating citizens like children who can't be trusted to take care of their pets.  Indeed the logical extension of his argument is to further reduce citizen's freedoms by banning dogs.  

Likewise, Mayor Taylor justified switching her vote to a "nay" by erroneously arguing that chickens might be dangerous to their owners' health.  This false assertion begs the question: shouldn't people be able to reasonably decide for themselves if they let their children hold a chicken?  Turtles are not banned and they carrie samonella.  Dogs aren't illegal and they regularly bite kids and can transmit pathogens dangerous to humans in their feces.  Eating junk food can lead to obesity and a host of related health problems therefore will Salem ban Twinkies and donuts because citizens can't be trusted to make healthy food choices?

Finally, Councilors Clem and Rogers asserted that chickens simply don't belong in an urban or suburban environment--the "if you want chickens, move to the country" argument.  But this ignores the fact that many Salem-ites choose to live close to where we work and shop so we can bike or walk.  Indeed, my family seriously considered moving to the country to raise more of our own food, but we decided instead to plant an edible landscape because we didn't want to give up our tightknit neighborhood or the one mile bike commute to work.  Chickens would be a natural extension of our attempt to live more sustainably.   This is a values choice that the some of the councilors just don't get.  Salem pays lipservice to sustainablity -- in fact the very word came up about five times in the very council meeting in which the chicken ordinances were killed-- but hasn't learned yet to walk the talk.

-Lisa Clark-Burnell

posted 2 years, 6 months ago
view in context