Mutations In Animals Shed New Light on The Process of Aging

Genetic changes – known as somatic mutations – occur in all cells throughout the lifespan of an organism. While most of these mutations are harmless, some of them can impair normal cell functioning or even start a cell on the path to cancer.

Since the 1950s, scientists have speculated that these mutations may also play a role in aging processes. However, due to technological limitations, they could not properly test this hypothesis.

Now, a research team led by the Wellcome Sanger Institute has analyzed the genomes of 16 mammal species – ranging from mice, rats, and rabbits to horses, tigers, and giraffes – in order to shed more light on the role of these genetic changes in ageing.

They found that, despite huge variations in lifespan and size, different animal species tend to end their natural life with surprisingly similar numbers of somatic mutations. However, the results suggest that the longer the lifespan of a species, the slower the rate at which the mutations occur, thus lending support to the hypothesis that somatic mutations may play a crucial role in ageing.

“To find a similar pattern of genetic changes in animals as different from one another as a mouse and a tiger was surprising. But the most exciting aspect of the study has to be finding that lifespan is inversely proportional to the somatic mutation rate,” said study lead author Alex Cagan, a postdoctoral researcher on somatic evolution at the Wellcome Institute.

“This suggests that somatic mutations may play a role in ageing, although alternative explanations may be possible. Over the next few years, it will be fascinating to extend these studies into even more diverse species, such as insects or plants.”

“Animals often live much longer in zoos than they do in the wild, so our vets’ time is often spent dealing with conditions related to old age. The genetic changes identified in this study suggest that diseases of old age will be similar across a wide range of mammals, whether old age begins at seven months or 70 years, and will help us keep these animals happy and healthy in their later years,” added study co-author Simon Spiro, a wildlife veterinary pathologist at the Zoological Society of London.

Nevertheless, understanding the exact causes of ageing remains an unsolved question. Although somatic mutations appear to play a fundamental role in ageing, other processes such as protein aggregation and epigenetic changes are also likely to contribute to the molecular damage in our cells and tissues that is a well-known marker of old age. Further research is needed to compare the rates of all of these processes across species with different lifespans.

By Andrei Ionescu

Source: Mutations in animals shed new light on the process of aging • Earth.com

Critics:

By Catherine Barnette

Mutations can occur during the life of an animal (acquired—affecting only a single cell) or can be inherited from a parent (present in all of the body’s cells). When a cell is affected by a mutation, all cells arising from that cell are likely to carry the mutation. In the case of an acquired mutation, this may be only a small number of cells. In the case of a reproductive cell, the mutation will affect all of the offspring’s cells.

The effects of mutations depend on the size and location of the mutation. Much of an animal’s genetic code consists of what is called non-coding DNA. These non-coding regions do not contain genes that code for protein production. Mutations in this area may have no effect on the animal or its offspring.

If an acquired mutation occurs in a coding region of DNA, the effects will vary depending on the mutation. Perhaps the most concerning effect of an acquired mutation is the formation of cancer. For example, solar radiation damage can lead to cell mutations that may result in squamous cell carcinoma or other cancers.

Inherited mutations are mutations that occurred in a parent animal’s reproductive cells. These mutations are part of the genetic code that is found in every one of the offspring’s cells. For this reason, inherited mutations can have significant effects if found in vital, coding regions of the DNA.

A marker is a specific segment of DNA with known characteristics. While the specific sequences may vary between individual, there is enough consistency in the genetic code at that particular site on the genome to allow comparison between individuals. Markers are often located in non-coding areas of the DNA where a specific base pattern repeats many times and these repeating segments are known and mapped.

When a mutation occurs in a marker region, the mutation can be easily identified because the normal pattern of the repeating segment is known. Even if the marker region is located in non-coding DNA and the mutation has no visible effects, analyzing the marker region will allow scientists to see that a mutation has occurred.

More Remote Working Apps:

How To Stroke a Cat, According to Science

1

Many of us will have experienced that super friendly cat who seems to love being stroked one minute, only to bite or swipe at us the next. It might be easy at this point to blame it on the cat, but what’s likely happening here is that we’re just not stroking them right.

To understand why this might be, we first need to know a bit more about kitty’s ancestry. It’s likely that the domestic cat’s ancestors (the African wildcat) were regarded as mere pest control, but modern day cats are often treated as our valued companions or even “fur babies.”

This social shift in the human-cat relationship is thought to have occurred around 4,000 years ago—a little later than “man’s best friend”—the domestic dog. Although this might seem like a sufficient amount of time for a species to fully adjust to increased social demands, this is unlikely to be the case for your feline friend. Domestic cats also display relatively modest genetic divergence from their ancestors, meaning their brains are probably still wired to think like a wildcat’s.

Wildcats live solitary lives and invest considerable time and effort communicating indirectly—via visual and chemical messages—just to avoid having to see each other. So it’s unlikely that domestic cats inherited many complex social skills from their relatives.

Humans on the other hand, are an inherently social species—favoring proximity and touch during displays of affection. We are also drawn to infantile looking features—large eyes and forehead, a small nose and round face—this is why most of us find the faces of cats so cute. It’s not surprising, then, that our initial reaction when we see a cat or kitten is to want to stroke, cuddle, and smush all over them. Though it should also come as no surprise that many cats can find this type of interaction a little overwhelming.

Cat affections

Although a lot of cats do like being stroked, and in certain contexts will choose us over food, human interaction is something they have to learn to enjoy during their comparatively short sensitive period—between two and seven weeks old.

When it comes to human-cat interactions, the characteristics of humans are also important. Our personalities and gender, the regions of the cat’s body we touch, and how we generally handle cats, may all play an important role in how the cat responds to our affections.

And while some cats may react aggressively to unwanted physical attention, others may merely tolerate our social advances in exchange for the good stuff (food and lodgings). That said, a tolerant cat is not necessarily a happy cat. Higher stress levels are reported in cats that are described by their owners as tolerating rather than actively disliking petting.

How to stroke a cat

The key to success is to focus on providing the cat with as much choice and control during interactions as possible. For example, the choice to indicate whether they want to be petted or not, and control over where we touch them, and how long for.

Due to our tactile nature and love of cute things, this approach may not come instinctively to many of us. And it will likely require a little self-restraint. But it could well pay off, as research shows interactions with cats are likely to last longer when the cat, rather than the human, initiates them.

It’s also really important to pay close attention to the cat’s behavior and posture during interactions, to ensure they are comfortable. When it comes to touch, less is often more. This is not only true during veterinary handling, but also during more relaxed encounters with people.

As a general guide, most friendly cats will enjoy being touched around the regions where their facial glands are located, including the base of their ears, under their chin, and around their cheeks. These places are usually preferred over areas such as their tummy, back and base of their tail.

Signs of cat enjoyment:

• Tail held upright and choosing to initiate contact.

• Purring and kneading you with their front paws.

• Gently waving their tail from side to side while held in the air.

• A relaxed posture and facial expression, ears pricked and pointed forwards.

• Giving you a gentle nudge if you pause while you’re stroking them.

Signs of dislike or tension:

• Shifting, moving, or turning their head away from you.

• Remaining passive (no purring or rubbing)

• Exaggerated blinking, shaking their head or body, or licking their nose

• Rapid, short bursts of grooming.

• Rippling or twitching skin, usually along their back.

• Swishing, thrashing, or thumping tail.

• Ears flattening to the sides or rotating backwards.

• A sharp sudden turn of their head to face you or your hand.

• Biting, swiping, or batting your hand away with their paw.

Whether cats make good “fur babies,” then, is very debatable. Lots of cats do like being touched, but lots probably don’t—and many tolerate it at best. Ultimately though, when it comes to cats, it’s important to respect their boundaries—and the wildcat within—even if that means admiring their cuteness from afar.

By Lauren Robin Finka

GM-980x120-BIT-ENG-Banner

728x90-1-1-1-1

Part of the International Cat Care and Ceva cat handling video series (owner)

Puppy Personality Tests: Helping You Find Your Perfect Puppy

Nothing is more exciting than the prospect of becoming a brand new dog parent. You run out and buy more dog toys than your pup will ever need and a dog bed the size of a full grown Great Dane. Your puppy deserves only the best, and you’re going to do everything you can to make that dream a reality.

It can be tempting to purchase or rescue the first puppy you lay your eyes on, the one that makes you squeal with excitement over “how cute he is!” Rushing to scoop up a puppy, any puppy, without prior research can lead to headaches down the road.

Puppies may all look cute and like a one-size fits all package, but puppies, like any dog, have their own set of personality traits that will develop and grow as they age into adulthood. Especially if your puppy will be joining your family as the new kid sister or brother to another dog or puppy already settled into your household, it is necessary to do some homework on what kind of puppy you may be bringing home.

Will your puppy be hyper and overly interactive? Will your puppy be anxious and clingy or an alpha personality with a need to dominate other pets you may own? One method for predicting your potential puppies disposition and character traits are puppy personality tests. Personality tests, also called temperament tests, are utilized by breeders and shelters for a number of purposes, and can be a helpful tool for you when looking for a puppy that fits your personality, lifestyle, and your family.

This article will summarize and discuss the purpose and idea behind puppy personality tests. We will also cover in detail the Volhard Aptitude Test puppy personality and also share simple tests that you can do yourself to help give you an idea of what kind of puppy you may be bringing home.

Puppies, like babies, are born with a set of innate traits that manifest themselves during their early development. Some puppies may bound into a new environment without fear, while others will hesitantly follow the group. Puppies may nip and jump on other puppies in the litter to assert dominance. Other puppies may hunker down in a corner or roll over immediately when their assertive brother tries to tackle them. All of these scenarios may happen in a litter of puppies, and each puppy may be different from the other. How can you judge which puppy is right for you? Maybe you already know that your dog back home is easily frightened and is always attached to your hip. If this is the case, then you probably do not want to take home an assertive dominant puppy.

Related Story : https://thepettown.com

Puppy Personality Tests: Their Purpose

Puppy personality tests, or temperament tests, use various techniques to predict personality elements in puppies. Breeders often use these tests to match puppies with owners who fit the puppies test results. Breeders test each puppy and come up with a summarized prediction of the puppies temperament. Generally, breeders who utilize personality tests will also poll the potential owner to get an idea of what that person’s lifestyle is like, what they’re looking for in a puppy, and what puppies in the litter jive with that person’s own personality.

Shelters also use these tests to match puppies with potential adopters, while also testing for aggressiveness and other dangerous or at-risk behaviors. Puppies that express aggression or behaviors of concern may require extra training before putting them on the adoption list, or might narrow down the list of potential adopters to only well-experienced pet owners.

Puppy personality tests are a fun and interesting way to get into the psyche of man’s best friend. It’s like taking one of those addictive online quizzes that promises to predict your future based on what color you like, except puppy personality tests are backed by research and have been around for decades. The main goal of using puppy personality tests is to ensure that puppies go to warm and loving homes where they are more likely to spend their entire lives.

Unfortunately, it is common for inexperienced pet owners to make a rushed decision and take home puppies that is the complete opposite of what they are looking for. Unable to train or deal with the temperament and behavior of their new puppy, they may decide to take the puppy to an animal shelter or find them a new family. By using puppy personality tests, we raise the chances of building cohesive relationships between pet owners and new puppies.

Volhard Aptitude Test

The Volhard Puppy Aptitude Test, or PAT, was built off of puppy aptitude tests from as early as the 1930s. Early puppy tests were used to measure the learning capacity of puppies. Now, the Volhard Aptitude Test uses a six point system that consists of ten tests to measure personality traits. According to the creators of the Volhard Aptitude Test, the ideal age to begin a personality test is around 49 days after birth. Performing the test any earlier or much later may affect the results of the test and the ability to provide better training intervention. The Volhard Aptitude Test sounds overly scientific, but it’s not a difficult test to understand. It’s a great example of how puppy personality tests can get into the weeds and help you figure out what puppy is your perfect math.

The following section will discuss in greater detail the specifics of each personality element and what that means for your puppy’s future.

Test Descriptions: What Are They Actually Testing For?

The Volhard Aptitude Test uses ten tests to determine and score a puppy based on personality specific behavior. These traits include the following: Social attraction; following; restraint; social dominance; elevation; retrieving, touch, sound, and sight sensitivity; and stability. Each of these elements are tested separately.

Social Attraction, Following, and Restraint

Social Attraction measures a puppy’s sociability and attachment. In other words, does your puppy bounce with excitement over making new friends or prefer to keep to themselves? Unsocial puppies are not bad or out of the ordinary, but they may require more socializing during their early months of development to ensure that they do not behave aggressively towards strangers.

Following is relatively straight forward. Following measures a puppy’s tendency to follow a person rather than stray independently. A puppy that follows is more likely to have greater attachment to its owner and will have a better tendency to follow commands. If you don’t have a great deal of time to train your puppy, then you may want a puppy that is more attentive to following and listening.

Restraint determines a puppy’s submissiveness, as well as a puppy’s acceptance of restraint by a person. Restraint is important when considering trainability of a puppy. Puppies with low restraint will be more stubborn and may fight you when on a leash or if you need to subdue them. This may also be important if you’re interested in getting a large breed dog and need to make sure you can keep it under control.

Social and Elevation Dominance, Retrieving, and Stability

Social dominance is similar to restraint and measures a puppy’s acceptance of human dominance. It helps to predict the degree that a puppy will follow commands. Puppies with high social dominance are generally more easy to train and are more eager to please. Service dogs generally score well on the social dominance spectrum.

Elevation examines of a puppy’s willingness to submit during times of stress and lack of control. An example might be a puppy sitting for an examination by a veterinarian or during a grooming session. Will the puppy stand calmly or panic when a stranger attempts to control them in a strange and new environment? If you are wanting a puppy that will need frequent grooming, then having a puppy with a good score for elevation dominance is key.

Retrieving tests a puppy’s need to please others by performing a set of actions, such as bringing back a toy. Retrieving is another personality trait that may indicate the ease of trainability, as well as how eager your puppy will be to please you and immediately follow commands. Hunting dogs, service dogs, and other working dogs normally have excellent retrieving scores.

Stability measures a puppy’s response to foreign stimuli, such as a new item in the home or a new environment. Frequent moving or changes in household family members might stress a puppy who has a low score for stability. If you are in the military or are in-between jobs or homes, then finding a puppy with a level stability score is important.

Touch, Sound, and Sight Sensitivity 

Touch sensitivity provides information for how accepting your puppy is to outside touch or pressure. Puppies will low touch sensitivity may have eventual issues with their pads and will avoid rough terrain. If you are an outdoor runner and are adopting or purchasing a puppy to be your new running partner, then you’ll want a puppy with a positive score for touch sensitivity, since they will be more likely to tolerate the outdoors.

In addition, sound sensitivity is a great predictor for preventing fear of fireworks, thunder, or other loud noises. Puppies who score with a high tolerance to sound will be unfazed by sudden sharp noises or distractions. For example, if a breeder specifically trains dogs for police or military use, then sound sensitivity would be one of the more important elements of the overall test due to the chaotic sounds that occur during their line of work.

Read more…

Source: Puppy Personality Tests: Helping You Find Your Perfect Puppy | Your Dog Advisor

Please follow my instagram: http://instagram.com/arminhamidian67

This ‘Force of Nature’ and Her $132 Million Company Are Why You Eat Organic Meat

“It’s the hallway of death!” Ariane Daguin is cheerfully leading a strange parade through a barn’s dim back corridor. Normally, this passage conveys fattened ducks from their feeding pens to the slaughterhouse; today, it marks the end of a sales tour.

This duck farm, nestled in the foothills of New York’s Catskill Mountains, is where it all began for Daguin, a blunt and unfussy Frenchwoman who keeps geese and chickens as pets, and who has spent a lifetime selling slaughtered poultry. D’Artagnan, the gourmet meat distributor she co-founded in 1985, took in more than $130 million last year from organic chicken, grass-fed beef, pasture-raised lamb, and other, more exotic animal proteins. But her business started here, with the ducks of Hudson Valley Foie Gras–and the controversial, luxurious livers that give the farm its name.

And it’s here where Daguin now shepherds her salespeople and chef clients past the oblivious animals, greeting them with her usual mixture of familiar delight and wry unsentimentality. “Tomorrow!” she sing-shouts, playful at a formidable six feet. “Foie gras tomorrow!”The founding pride of D’Artagnan, foie gras has also landed Daguin back in the middle of a familiar, and fierce, regulatory fight–but in the 35 years since she started her company, she’s expanded far beyond that niche delicacy. Today, D’Artagnan operates a nearly nationwide network of small farmers who raise chickens, ducks, cows, and other animals by Daguin’s exacting organic, free-range standards.

The company then buys this meat from the farmers and sells it to high-end restaurants; around 7,500 mainstream grocery stores; and, increasingly, directly to the growing numbers of home cooks who care about where their meat comes from and are willing to pay a premium for it.Daguin, 61, has established a high-profile circle of famous friends and clients: fellow French-born chef-entrepreneur Daniel Boulud; New York restaurateur and Shake Shack founder Danny Meyer; the late Anthony Bourdain, who featured Daguin on No Reservations and named his daughter Ariane. She’s less of a household name than these men, but she’s quietly just as influential. Since the early 1980s, her company has been changing how Americans eat meat, by selling sustainably raised, non-factory-farmed animal products long before terms like sustainable or factory farm went mainstream.

 

“She knows every aspect of what it takes to raise an animal, but also what it takes to transform the animal, and how it should taste,” says Boulud, the chef-owner of Manhattan’s Daniel and several other restaurants, who’s served D’Artagnan meat and game for 30 years. “She has definitely helped many chefs–and many Americans–have access to better meat.”Along the way, Daguin overcame several near-catastrophes, including a wrenching co-founder breakup. Through it all, her relentless drive allowed her to maintain control–and sole ownership–of her company, even as fellow boutique-meat pioneers like Niman Ranch and Applegate Farms sold out to industry giants; to return it to profitability despite her massive post-breakup debts and the Great Recession, which decimated many of her customers; and even, in the past decade, to expand oper­ations to a near-national footprint. Within five years, she declares, D’Artagnan’s sales will reach $250 million.

She’s also food royalty. Ariane is the oldest child

Daguin, with a Barred Rock chicken–which will soon be one of the 18,000 chickens her company sells each week.Sarah Wilmer. Yet the same determination that’s bent the world to her will has at times blinded Daguin to looming problems–or exacerbated them. Take foie gras: Lawmakers and animal-rights activists keep trying to ban the stuff, claiming there’s “immense cruelty” in force-feeding ducks to enlarge their livers. But for Daguin, selling foie gras is a point of tremendous personal and cultural pride. She’s fought threats to it across the country­–including the one under way on her home turf of New York City. But defending this much-contested niche product complicates the tightrope she must walk, owing to the peculiar paradox behind D’Artagnan: Ariane Daguin built a business from slaughtering animals–but she really built it by caring about how they live.

But more on all that unpleasantness in a bit. First, as with all good French meals, let’s have some wine.

“Champagne?”

Non! Shots!”

Daguin is standing at the front of a large black bus, of the sort rented out for wine tours and bachelorette parties, pouring generous splashes of sinus-stripping white Armagnac into plastic cups. “You drink this, and all the calories disappear,” she jokes, an unlikely party animal in a duck-printed scarf and mom jeans. “Okaaay, bottoms up!”

This is her “Cassoulet Crawl”–a gut-busting Manhattan restaurant tour tied to a competition over the hearty French stew that’s largely made from several kinds of D’Artagnan-endorsed fatty meats. It’s February, and Daguin’s fifth year organizing and judging the showdown, one overseen by an official French body called the Great Brotherhood of the Cassoulet. (Really. Because France.)

 

The Great Brothers on hand, in red velvet robes accented with yellow trim and cassole-shaped hats, resemble an order of Harry Potter wizards devoted to duck fat and slow-cooked white beans–especially when they bestow an honorary membership upon John Lithgow, who’s come straight from rehearsing a new Broadway play, and who accepts this silly honor with a sincere speech in decent French. If he’s charmingly bemused by the whole thing, he’s also unstinting in admiring his friend, its organizer. “Ariane,” he says, “is a force of nature.”

of André Daguin, a renowned chef in France’s Gascony region, who earned two Michelin stars for the family restaurant-hotel he’d inherited. He became internationally known as “the undisputed leader” of Gascon cuisine, especially for foie gras, as The New York Times declared in 1982. All his offspring followed some version of the family vocation–but Ariane, who knew that her gender meant she wouldn’t be heir to the restaurant, moved to New York City in the late 1970s to study at Columbia University. There she met George Faison, an MBA candidate from Texas who shared her love for French food and humanely raised meat.

Daguin and Faison became friends, and then colleagues at Les Trois Petits Cochons, a New York City charcuterie company that now competes with D’Artagnan. There, Daguin first met Izzy Yanay, an Israeli immigrant and entrepreneur who was trying desperately to find buyers for his products. Yanay was raising ducks at his farm 100 miles northwest of Manhattan, to produce foie gras–which was then largely unknown to Americans, and not an easy sell.

Unless you were dealing with the daughter of André Daguin. As soon as Yanay started his pitch, Ariane exclaimed, “Of course–foie gras!” Still, Les Trois Petits Cochons passed, so she and Faison formed their own company in late 1984, to sell Yanay’s foie and the ducks that created it. “I owe her everything,” Yanay says today. “She saved my life.”

Daguin and Faison named their company after another Gascon–the 17th-century musketeer who inspired Alexandre Dumas’s fictional hero–and adopted the motto made famous by Dumas: All for one, one for all. The co-founders knew the rising chefs at the forefront of what would become the locavore movement, who wanted great-tasting, transparently raised ingredients and would pay a premium for them.

“My interest at D’Artagnan became: How do we change the way Americans eat?” Faison says.Gradually, they built up a network of small farmers who provided those ingredients and followed D’Artag­nan’s specifications for feeding, housing, aging, and slaughtering animals. Soon, the partners started selling other meat and game–rabbit, quail, Berkshire pork, bison–and finding suppliers who made high-quality terrines, sausages, and other European-style charcuterie. Within two years, D’Artagnan was profitable; within 14, its revenue neared $20 million.

 

It was also beginning to live up to Faison’s vision. In 1993, before the USDA finalized its recognition of “organic” as an official designation, D’Artagnan became one of the first companies to sell free-range organic chickens in the U.S., ones that “taste the way your grand­mother says chickens used to taste,” according to the Times in 1994. It wasn’t the only high-end meat company: Applegate Farms was founded in 1987, while Bill Niman was building Niman Ranch into a national brand. But those companies have since been sold–to Spam maker Hormel Foods and poultry giant Perdue, respectively–while Daguin still owns D’Artagnan. And industry experts say her company was and remains unique in the breadth of products it offers and its role in introducing Americans to truffles, venison, wild boar, and the like.

 

“Other organic suppliers are out there, but D’Artagnan takes it to the next level for game meats,” says Mike LoBiondo, who oversees meat and seafood for Rochester, New York-based grocery chain Wegmans. He also praises D’Artagnan’s salesforce for teaching Wegmans, and its customers, how to cook and enjoy these more exotic proteins: “Nobody provides the same level of education.”

But as the company grew, internal tensions mounted. When Daguin had a daughter in 1988 and then brought her infant to the office, Faison felt she was distracted from the business. A listeria outbreak in 1999 sickened customers, triggering a voluntary recall of 70,000 pounds of meat during the all-important holiday season. Then, in 2001, D’Artagnan opened a well-reviewed but doomed Manhattan restaurant–weeks before the September 11 terrorist attacks upended the local economy. The restaurant–one of Daguin’s passions, and another source of friction with Faison–closed in early 2004.

 

Months later, Faison decided that their differences were irreconcilable and that he wanted out. Or, rather, that he wanted Daguin out. As chronicled in a 2006 Inc. feature, Faison stunned Daguin in June 2005 with an offer to buy her D’Artagnan shares for several million dollars. A shotgun clause in their partnership agreement gave her 30 days to accept his offer, or to buy him out for the same price.

Daguin started cold-calling banks, and eventually scraped together enough from a French lender and some savings to buy out Faison. He went on to help run another high-end meat purveyor–DeBragga and Spitler. Daguin was left with sole control–but was deeply in debt and overseeing a staff with sharply divided loyalties, not long before the global economy collapsed.

“It was–oof,” she says, with Gallic understatement. Today, asking the former co-founders about each other is a bit like talking to parents who went through a nasty split but still see each other at functions for their adult child. “Sometimes, divorce is the best thing. It was for Ariane and me,” says Faison. “We are cordial.” Daguin, who retains a sense of betrayal, is less diplomatic. The breakup “was all his fault,” she says. They have done their best “to avoid each other” at industry events for years. Will they ever be friends again? She snorts: “Friends? Non.

Last year, Faison co-founded the Great American Turkey Company, a startup selling humanely raised, antibiotic-free turkey products to supermarkets and online customers. Perhaps coincidentally, D’Artagnan is expanding its turkey offerings later this year.

That first year on her own was terrifying. Taking on another partner or giving up control was out of the question–“I learned my lesson,” she says–but she knew she needed someone to take over Faison’s operational and financial duties.

 

“We were iconic, but we were a little close to the cliff,” is how Andy Wertheim, a consumer­-products veteran who became D’Artagnan’s president, describes what he found when he came on board in 2006. “Our margins were very low. We were in debt. And while we were ubiquitous in an East Coast/chef world, we were largely unknown everywhere else.” Daguin and Wertheim raised prices and slashed their product line, from 2,500 SKUs to 800. They also stopped selling to other distributors, to cut down on the inventory they were freezing instead of selling fresh. To broaden the customer base, Wertheim stepped up marketing, and launched an e-commerce line to ship meat directly to the well-heeled food obsessives who’d absorbed factory-­farming exposés like Fast Food Nation and Super Size Me and The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Some were adopting the reduced-but-deliberate meat consumption habits endorsed by the likes of Omnivore’s Michael Pollan.

 

“We agree with the vegan people, up to a point,” says the ever-droll Daguin. “And that point is when I kill my animals.” By 2009, D’Artagnan had climbed back into the black, overcoming new setbacks from the ongoing recession. (Spending $20 on an uncooked organic chicken is tough to justify if you’ve just lost your job or home.) Still, by 2011 Daguin had paid off her loan–and was mulling what she could do with her company’s returning profit. Half goes to annual employee bonuses, which Wertheim says “virtually everyone” gets–and which can help with retention in a company that’s as intense as its founder. (“The hours are crazy; the chefs are crazier,” one former employee recalls.) The rest has helped fuel expansion. To get beyond those East Coast/fancy-chef confines, D’Artagnan needs farmers and slaughterhouses and warehouses across the country: The company can overnight whatever a chef in California needs for dinner service, but if it wants to become a staple in West Coast shops, it needs to supply such stores with chickens or ducks that were raised a couple of hours away, so that days of shelf life are not wasted as they get schlepped across the country.

D’Artagnan notched $132 million for the year that ended in June, $11 million more than it did the previous year, and triple what it made the year Faison left. Since 2011, it’s set up warehouses in Chicago, Houston, and Atlanta, expanding its network of farms and suppliers along the way. Daguin won’t disclose profit, but there was enough to buy a distribution center in Denver last year–and enough for her to start shopping for another in California, to give D’Artagnan a truly national footprint. The company continues to diversify its sources of revenue: Its third-largest line of business, direct-to-consumer online sales, brought in $13 million last year. (Sixty-five percent of revenue comes from restaurant sales, and 25 percent from grocers and other retailers.) To commemorate all this, Daguin plans to fly all 280 employees to New York for an elaborate 35th-anniversary party in early 2020. Which won’t be for the faint of heart: “In addition to being a fantastic entrepreneur and businesswoman, Ariane wants to have fun,” says Boulud, ruefully recalling Parisian bar crawls he barely survived. “And she wants to drag everyone with her.”

 

This April, Daguin talked expansion plans with her new banker, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, over lunch in his executive dining room. Yet while being courted by one of the world’s most powerful CEOs, Daguin was characteristically uncowed. JPMorgan’s corporate caterer isn’t a big D’Artagnan client, so Daguin ate the fish “to make a point,” she recounts, grinning about her “smart-aleck” order. “I said, ‘Oh, when I don’t know the provenance, I try to avoid factory-farmed chicken.’ “She’s a long way from begging banks to bail her out. (And JPMorgan Chase executives seem unruffled by their client’s sense of humor: “Ariane’s leadership and drive is inspiring,” commercial-bank executive Maria Lucas says.) But not all of D’Artagnan’s problems have stayed in the past. Today, Daguin is facing a resurgent threat, aimed straight at the heart of her company.

Which, of course, is its liver.

 

The New York City Council, in mid-June, debated a bill banning foie gras. No vote had been scheduled by presstime, but if it passes, the result could be especially damaging, particularly for Hudson Valley and the few other small U.S. farms that focus on producing foie gras, because it would prohibit restaurants from “the provision of foie gras in any manner.” (Chefs have protested other bans by giving away foie for free.)

The newest proposal is a significant threat to Hudson Valley Foie Gras; at least a third of its sales come from the city. Daguin estimates she stands to lose about 10 percent of her business–$15 million in sales of livers and the ducks that produce them. While the hit to her business seems survivable, her pride is another matter. For the daughter of the Gascon chef who made foie gras famous, such a ban is an attack on her identity and heritage. “Culturally, not just for our company but for the whole world of gastronomy,” Daguin says, “it would be a huge, huge loss–the beginning of the end.”

 

This summer, Daguin and Yanay and other farmers mobilized to counter the passionate editorials and protests of the foie gras foes. It’s a tricky issue for the woman who proclaims that she cares just as much about animal welfare as “vegan activists” do, even if she sometimes expresses this in a decidedly Daguin-esque way. “We agree with the vegan people, up to a point,” she says. “And that point is when I kill my animals.”

Such talk, of course, won’t charm her opponents. “The costly French delicacy involves force-feeding ducks and geese several times a day by shoving metal pipes down their throats and swelling their livers to 10 times a healthy size,” proclaimed, somewhat inaccurately, an op-ed written by the executive director of Nyclass, a controversial lobbying group that backed the New York bill. (See “Duck, Duck, Foe,” below.) “It is a disgusting practice and it must end.”

 

Yet foie gras is, at most, an asterisk to the meat industry’s substantial systemic issues, which have the United Nations and international coalitions of scientists sounding alarms. “I can’t believe we’re going through this again,” says Marion Nestle, the author and nutrition expert. “Other issues in meat-raising are much more critical.”

 

Barred Rocks and Brune Landaises at a D’Artagnan farm.Sarah Wilmer. It’s a generally weird time for the meat industry, which claims $1 trillion in U.S. “economic impact.” Americans are eating record amounts of animal protein. Only around 5 percent identify as vegetarian. Yet we’re increasingly aware of all of the downsides of how meat is produced, and seeking plant-based alternatives from the fast-growing likes of Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat, which raised $240 million in a May IPO.

Large factory farms have been widely criticized for releasing immense amounts of waste and pollutants into our air and water; for juicing their livestock with so many antibiotics that bacteria become resistant to their effects, causing potential health crises for humans; and for raising their animals in cramped, filthy, torturous conditions. And while Yanay processes maybe 500,000 ducks per year, factory farming churns through about nine billion chickens in the U.S. annually, and roughly 32 million cows.

Those are the horrific processes that Daguin has dedicated her life and her company to countering, and for which she provides her widely praised alternatives. But her fierce allegiance to foie gras–and the production process that sounds so inhumane, for what’s essentially a food for the 1 percent–puts her company in the cross hairs of the animal activists with whom she otherwise claims common ground. “My animals have one bad day,” she insists while driving to the farm, her long frame folded into the red Mini Cooper her daughter decorated with duck decals.

Such determination built Daguin’s company, rescued it from the wreckage of her breakup with Faison, and kept it independent when fellow organic-meat pioneers sold out. But it also has generated other obstacles for D’Artagnan–including the question of its future.

Daguin ducks this question as much as possible, perhaps because it’s a rare example of her plans getting thwarted. In her oft-told gospel of How Ariane Kept D’Artagnan, her daughter is Angel Gabriel, the herald who encouraged her mother to fight for the company. Alix, then 17, was visiting her grandparents in France when Ariane called to tell her that Faison might force her out. “And then she says to me, ‘Are you going to let George do that? What if, one day, I want to join the company?’ ” Daguin recounts, proud and wistful. “That’s the one thing–that one little sentence–that made me really fight hard for this.”

Today, Alix is an architect, with her own design firm and no plans to take over the company she inspired her mother to fight for. “My mom has raised me to think for myself,” she says. “At this point, I have my own path.”

At 61, Daguin does not seem to have retirement in her vocabulary, and she admits she’s not doing much planning for an Ariane-less D’Artagnan. Maybe she’ll sell some of it to her employees, through an ESOP–“as long as I can keep some control,” she muses.

 

But for now, there are foie gras battles to fight, a property in California to find, and sales to double. She’s also looking for a farm in upstate New York, planning to turn it into a D’Artagnan foundation and self-sustaining restaurant–one where people can milk the cows or learn how to make cheese and bread before dining at the sure-to-be-spectacular farm-to-table restaurant, which Alix will design. If it comes to fruition, the nonprofit could slyly accomplish goals that have long eluded Daguin: work with her daughter, resurrect her doomed restaurant–even, finally, become her father’s heir.

 

All of this is on her mind as she drives her tiny car across the George Washington Bridge, en route to Hudson Valley, a summer morning sky and the Hudson River stretched out endlessly on either side. “It’s good to get out of the office,” Daguin sighs, brightening as she contemplates her planned nonprofit. She’s just found the right farmland, she confides, and is waiting to hear if her offer is accepted. She lifts both hands, fingers crossed for her latest hope and dream. Letting go of the wheel, if only for a moment.

Duck, Duck, Foe

The process known as gavage is hard to describe in a way that doesn’t sound unpleasant, though what I observed at Hudson Valley Foie Gras in July did not seem to unduly distress the birds. Three times a day, a worker enters the in-barn but open-air pens holding about 10 ducks each, checks every duck’s gullet to make sure it’s fully digested its last feed, inserts a thin rubber tube down the duck’s throat, and dispenses liquid feed. Then the tube is removed and it’s on to the next duck. The feeding takes about five seconds per bird.

Animal-rights activists and foie gras foes call this process torturous. Foie gras producers, and some outside observers, however, argue that duck physiology is made for this; unlike humans, the birds have thick esophagi and livers that enlarge without showing signs of disease. “This has become an issue that people get angry over because it’s an easy target,” says Michaela DeSoucey, a North Carolina State associate professor and the author of Contested Tastes: Foie Gras and the Politics of Food. “People are nuts–on both sides.”

Many foie gras bans have been proposed around the country. The biggest so far was in California: In 2004, state law­makers passed a ban that went into effect in 2012, which has since ping-ponged through the appeals courts. (Current status: Upheld.) In 2006, Chicago aldermen passed a short-lived, much-mocked ban, which Mayor Richard M. Daley called “the silliest law that they’ve ever passed.” (It was repealed in 2008.) The bill New York City Councilwoman Carlina Rivera introduced in January would ban the sale of foie gras in the city by restaurants and vendors–which would affect businesses outside of the city, too. At presstime, the bill hadn’t been voted on, and producers were in limbo. “For us,” Daguin sighs, “it’s a big cloud over our heads.”

Source: This ‘Force of Nature’ and Her $132 Million Company Are Why You Eat Organic Meat

UN Experts Report 1 Million Species Now Threatened With Extinction

Life on our planet is under serious threat, with biodiversity declining at rates never before seen in human history, according to a United Nations-backed report compiled by 145 experts from across the globe.

The dire outlook comes via the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), established by the UN in 2012, and a panel of over 300 authors who scientifically assessed the state of life on Earth over the last three years. A summary of their findings was presented in Paris on May 6, drawing on over 15,000 sources to deliver a systematic global assessment of our impacts on the natural world — and how this affects the future of humanity.

“The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide,” said IPBES Chair Robert Watson, in a media release.

The collapse of Earth’s biodiversity and ecosystems is not altogether new information, after decades of reporting has shown we’re living through the planet’s sixth major extinction event. That has prompted conservationists and scientists to use terms like “biological annihilation” and “extinction tsunami” to describe the carnage. The new report backs up those claims, showing:

  • Humans have significantly altered 75% of the land and 66% of marine environments.
  • Up to 1 million plant and animal species are threatened with extinction within decades.
  • 680 species, at least, were driven to extinction by humans since the 16th century.
  • 40% of amphibian species, 33% of reef-forming corals and more than 33% of all marine mammals are threatened.
  • A tentative estimate for insects suggests 10% are threatened.

Writing in open-access journal Science Advances on Monday, famed conservation biologist Thomas E. Lovejoy summed the report up with elegant melancholy.

“Eden is gone. While the planetary garden still exists, it is in deep disrepair, frayed and fragmented almost beyond recognition.”

The report finds that the key drivers underlying the destruction are rapid changes in human use of land and sea and the exploitation of natural resources. Similarly, climate change, pollution and introduction of invasive species have directly impacted nature.

Without change, we will continue to drive biodiversity down. The IPBES report shows current goals for protecting the planet and preventing or reversing the effects may only be achieved through a “system-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values.” The prognosis is grim.

It’s the equivalent of Doctor Strange in Infinity War, contemplating all of the possible futures and finding very few where biodiversity recovers and nature flourishes once again. The challenge is immense and it begins with changing attitudes.

We know that even the deepest point in Earth’s oceans is filled with plastic, that human-induced climate change has already caused species to go extinct and that bee populations are in significant danger, but never have those threads been pulled together before. By highlighting the myriad ways we’re harming the planet, the report is a plea for things to change and yet another stark reminder of the course we currently find ourselves on.

By:

 

Source: UN experts report 1 million species now threatened with extinction

%d bloggers like this: