Responding to requests from metro municipalities, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the University of Minnesota (UM) have conducted a goose removal and relocation program since 1982. This program involves the capture of goslings and adult geese during early summer (the flightless period for geese) and relocating the birds elsewhere in Minnesota and other states.
The UM traps and removes the geese for delivery to a DNR holding facility. The DNR, which is responsible for relocating the geese, has been able to release most of the captured goslings elsewhere within Minnesota. Because goslings return to and nest near where they first learned to fly, they rarely return to the metro region. However, the adult geese have to be released in other states so that they don't simply fly back to the metro region, which they would if released elsewhere in Minnesota. Adults relocated in other states are held and wing clipped to prevent flight until the next summer's molt, though some (10% to 20%) still return to the metro region anyway.
Local units of government or private landowners contract with the UM to pay for removal costs. Payments vary from $700 to $1000 per site. The local unit of government must conduct a public meeting and approve the plan for removing the geese. Removal efforts have grown from 456 geese captured from one site in 1982 to 6,858 geese captured from 95 sites in 1995 (Fig. 2).
The program is conducted only in urban areas where traditional harvest management (hunting) is not an option for population control. The DNR has instituted special September and December hunting seasons in areas of the metro region where hunting is permitted. The special hunts have successfully reduced the goose population growth in these areas. Without control, the metro region goose population was projected to reach nearly 100,000 birds by 1994 (based on growth from 1968 to 1984). Surveys in 1994 showed that the control program combined with special hunting seasons helped keep the goose population at 24,000 (Fig. 1).
Non-hunting alternatives to relocation such as egg oiling or shaking, chemical lawn repellents, and goose sterilization continue to be studied as alternative techniques for nuisance goose management in the metro region. Fig. 3 lists the costs of goose control methods under study. The wide diversity and large number of wetlands serving as Canada goose nesting sites make alternatives dealing with nesting logistically difficult and costly. Repellents have also proved costly and ineffective for long-term control.
The capture and relocation program remains the most cost-effective method for controlling local goose populations in the metro region where hunting is not a management option. In addition, the relocation of these geese has enhanced Canada goose populations in areas within Minnesota and in other states. However, the new and enhanced populations have now grown to where most of these areas no longer need or want additional birds. As a result, the DNR expects to run out of relocation sites for adults in 1996 and for goslings within the next few years.
PROBLEM
If the Twin Cities metro Canada goose removal program is to be continued,
other alternatives to relocation will be needed for adults by 1996 and for
goslings in a few years after that.
2. Determine the public acceptability of processing a public wildlife resource for human consumption.
3. Determine the acceptability and interest in consuming goose meat products by food shelf clientele.
4. Determine the operational needs and funding necessary to support a processing program that would meet the needs of the current removal program.
The DNR used 22 of the geese to test the processing equipment and procedures. Then 75 geese were processed in the summer and 103 in early fall into various goose meat products. The goose meat was donated to two local food shelves and a survey of food shelf clientele was conducted to determine interest and acceptability. Weight gain and feed consumption by these geese were monitored during confinement before processing.
An additional 125 adult geese were processed in January 1996. These geese had originally been designated for relocation to Kansas, but that state later declined to take them and alternative sites could not be found. The DNR then decided to process the birds and donate them to food shelves. Although these geese were not part of the initial study, they did provide additional processing information that is included in this report.
The DNR developed and carried out a communications plan to gain informed consent by the public for the study. Media and public contacts were monitored and reviewed.
The DNR contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and received a special-purpose permit to take up to 200 Canada geese for the study (permit # PRT-799683). This permit was later amended to 325 geese to handle the additional 125 geese the DNR had been unable to send to other states.
The DNR also contacted the Minnesota departments of Agriculture and Health to review the study. These agencies provided comments and found the proposal acceptable within the context of a memorandum of understanding between the departments entitled "Use of Protected Species for Human Consumption."
Potential contaminant concerns were reviewed and reported on by Dr. James Cooper of the UM in a report entitled "The Potential Health Hazards of Consuming Metropolitan Twin Cities Canada Geese." This report found the potential health hazards to be low. The Minnesota Department of Health, Environmental Health Services Division, reviewed potential contaminant concerns and concurred that the health risk was low.
The goal of the communications plan was "to gain public acceptance of the food shelf program as a viable option for goose population management in the Twin Cities metro area." Through the communications plan, the DNR outlined the problem, explained the difficulty with various alternatives, and presented the study as a reasonable way to explore possible alternatives to relocation.
The plan identified specific audiences in need of information about the proposed study. Key to the success of the communications plan was to get information to the various targeted audiences early in the project planning stage and keep them informed of the project's intent and progress.
When the study was announced in March 1995 it received widespread local coverage and even some national media attention. Television, radio, and newspapers carried the announcement as a lead story. The UM held a "media day" during the roundup so that local media could get film footage of a goose roundup and talk to wildlife managers about the proposed study. Additional media coverage came when the goose meat was delivered to local food shelves.
As a result of the positive media coverage and proactive, targeted communications to various audiences before and during the study, there was virtually no public opposition to the study. The DNR received approximately 15 phone calls and 5 letters. About one-third of the callers were against the program, another one-third supported it, and the rest were interested in more information on the program and where they might get a processed goose.
The widespread and positive media coverage, small public response, and lack of political or legal actions (lawsuits) indicate that the communications plan goal was met.
The feed consumption was monitored from mid-August to mid-September to determine rates and cost. The geese were fed approximately equal portions of shelled corn and a commercial goose ration. The DNR estimated feed consumption at 18 lbs. of feed per month per goose. This represents a feed cost of $1.59 per goose per month. The feed estimates were calculated by dividing the feed consumption by the number of geese present in the holding pen. The feeders were checked three times a week, requiring about 1.5 hours per week of labor.
The feed cost to hold the geese for three months (August-October) was approximately $5 per goose. Adding labor costs brings the estimated costs to about $6 per goose.
Commercial domestic geese growers utilize grazing pastures and wetlands or water troughs for holding geese. The geese are held on grass until early fall, when they are fed feed grains. A future operation holding 1000+ geese on suitable pasture could use less-expensive feed and could pasture the geese until fall, reducing the cost per bird.
Weights of the geese were taken on July 10 and September 25. They showed a small average increase for males of approximately 0.15 lb. with an average weight of 10.75 lbs in July and 10.9 lbs in September. The females gained an average of 0.85 lb. The females averaged 8.9 lbs. in July and 9.75 lbs in September. DNR wildlife mangers expected a larger weight gain in both males and females. Canada geese are at their lowest weights in summer due to nesting and brood-rearing. Geese normally gain back their body weight in the fall and winter. The weight gain should be studied in more detail to determine if holding geese in larger pens or on pasture, and for a longer time (until October or November), would increase weight gain and reduce feed costs.
The 125 extra geese that were processed on January 10 were not weighed before processing, but the processed whole goose yielded an average of 9 lbs. This would indicate that the geese gained significant additional weight from early fall.
It was difficult to find USDA-approved poultry processing plants capable of and willing to process geese. Processing large numbers of geese requires more equipment and labor than is used for most poultry processing. Kadejan, Inc. of Glenwood, Minnesota and Schiltz, Foods Inc. of Sisseton, South Dakota were willing to process the geese. Kadejan Inc. is a poultry processor that primarily handles chickens. Schiltz Foods., a major domestic goose processor, processes more than 100,000 geese each year and is a major supplier of domestic geese to retail markets. Schiltz Foods processes only in the fall (September to early December), which is the primary season for retail goose sales.
An additional 125 geese were processed in January, 1996 at Wild Acres, Inc. of Pequot Lakes, Minnesota, a state-certified processor which does not have USDA inspection. The DNR had by then received approval to conduct the processing at a state-certified plant from the food shelf operators. Recent contacts with food shelf operators indicate that the need for USDA inspection may not be a requirement in the future, though state-certified plants would still be needed. This change could increase the number of potential processors.
A total of 103 geese were processed at Schiltz Foods on September 28. These geese were processed into "whole breast and legs" packages instead of as whole geese. This change was made to avoid the extra processing cost to remove the many pin feathers remaining on the backs of the geese after the plucking process. Packing the geese as "whole breast and legs" eliminated the problem, since backs were not used. This type of packing recovered 80% of the meat and provided a marketable package that was more cost-effective for processing and distribution than a whole goose would have been.
Processors indicated that Canada geese should only be processed "in the whole" after mid-October to ensure that pin feathers are not a problem. They said it takes cold weather (hard frost) for the pin feathers to emerge from under the skin.
On January 11, 1996 the DNR processed 125 geese in the whole at Wild Acres. These processed geese showed high levels of body fat and picked very clean.
Kadejan Inc. processed, bagged, and delivered the geese products to the food shelves at a cost of approximately $6 per goose for a 1.5-lb. product, or $4 per lb. of processed meat.
Schiltz Foods processed, bagged, and delivered the geese to St. Paul at a cost of $8 per goose for a 3.5-lb. product, or $2.30 per lb. of processed meat.
Wild Acres processed and bagged the geese at a cost of $6.50 per goose for a 9-lb. product, or $.75 per lb. of processed meat.
Table 1 compares the costs of the three types of processing. The table also lists the wholesale cost for similar domestic goose meat products.
The cost of goose meat is higher than other poultry products because of the high processing costs and higher costs of raising the birds. Although the nuisance goose processing costs are high compared to other poultry products, they were one-half to one-third the cost of similar domestic goose products.
However, it is important to note that both Kajedan and Schiltz indicated that their processing price quotes were at or below their actual costs to process these geese. They found that "wild" Canada geese were more difficult to handle and required some changes in processing equipment due to the bird's smaller size.
Second Harvest Food Bank of St. Paul distributes to more than 300 nonprofit agencies across Minnesota. Emergency FoodShelf Network serves the Minneapolis area. These food shelves were able to market and distribute the goose products to local and statewide food shelves and to hot meal programs.
Food shelf operators indicated that they served people in need almost 1.5 million times in 1993 and that 1 in 16 Minnesotans used a food shelf that year. Based on these figures and the high need for meat protein at food shelves, the operators said they could use thousands of geese. Due to the media stories about the study, food shelf operators received numerous calls from people in need asking for the goose products.
A two-page questionnaire was distributed with the goose meat products to food shelf clientele. A self-addressed, stamped envelope was provided with the questionnaire. Table 2 is a summary of the responses from the summer and fall processing questionnaire. The information from the winter questionnaire was unavailable when this report was written.
The questionnaire results and clientele comments indicate that the food shelf clients are interested in and able to use these products. Based on this information, the high number of food shelf clientele, and the interest by food shelf operators, the demand for the goose meat products will meet or exceed the supply.
The cost of processing ($6-$8) and holding ($2-$7) geese will add $8 to $15 per goose to the current capture and removal costs of $10, bringing the total cost to $18-$25 per goose.
The public response to this alternative has been supportive (or at least not negative) and food shelf clientele and operators have shown high interest in the processed goose meat products. Public health and interagency concerns have been addressed.
1. The cost of processing and holding 2000 adult geese from the 1996 goose roundup will be approximately $25,000. These costs should be viewed as disposal costs for the adult geese and charged back to those receiving the benefits (municipalities, airports, etc. requesting goose removal). The most efficient way to obtain this funding is to charge it to the contractor that requests goose removal as part of the removal contract.
2. To determine the most efficient and cost-effective method to produce goose meat products, there needs to be additional study on summer and fall processing. Although adults could be slaughtered in the summer, processing in the fall would likely provide a better product, although this will require additional testing.
3. Contracts for processing need to be completed before beginning the goose roundup. Contracting with processors willing to do geese has proven difficult and will require additional work. The majority of poultry processors are unable to handle large numbers of waterfowl. The limited market for waterfowl and the extra work in processing waterfowl limit the number of vendors.
4. Contractors or state facilities will be needed to hold geese from summer to late fall for the following reasons: 1. Some adults will need to be pastured or fed for fall processing; 2. if goslings are to be processed, they will also need to be fed until fall; and 3. locating a processor to handle 2000 geese will be easier in the fall, because domestic goose processors only process then.
5. Holding 2000 geese should be closely monitored to provide information on goose husbandry for future operations.
6. Use a metal detector to determine the presence of shot in geese. Steel shot was found in a few geese during processing. The metal detector could be used to reduce the potential dental hazard to consumers from shot in a goose meat product.