Students research organic chicken feed substitute

UC Davis students are in the process of building four chicken coops at the UC Davis Teaching and Research Animal Care Services facility in order to further a research project that studies the effects of an organic chicken feed for the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine.

The program aims to evaluate the effects of a new blend of organic chicken feed that contains the amino acid methionine has on black soldier larvae flies, according to Jacqueline Nguyen, a second-year civil engineering major and one of the engineers building the chicken coops. The fly larvae will then be fed to the chickens, and results will be noted.

“[The project is to] see the effects of feeding methionine to black [soldier] larvae flies, and then feeding them to the chickens,” Nguyen said. “This is part of an ongoing process to substitute regular feed for organic feed, without loss of nutrients.”

The coops are in the process of being constructed within the dimensions of the pastured poultry farm, which is a “living laboratory” for projects like this. The tentative completion date is set for June 2017, with the intention to finish before any of the student engineers on the project leave for summer vacation. The research project will continue for the rest of the year.

“The estimated completion date for the project concerning the chicken coops is the end of the quarter,” Nguyen said via email. “We are hoping to finish building and constructing all four coops before finals week, since the chickens need to be living in them by their 16th week of life. We are also trying to finish before summer vacation, as not all of our engineers will be in Davis. The overall project, concerning the research on black soldier larva flies and harvesting the chicken eggs, is year round.”

The 183 chickens that will be housed in the new coops are currently living in an indoor facility for protection. The coops themselves are being built with an emphasis on portability and protection.

“For this research project, there will be four coops,” Nguyen said via email. “Each coop will be built out of a lightweight, aluminum frame, making it easily portable around the pasture. Hardware cloth will be surrounding the frame, protecting the birds from any outside predators.”

Additionally, the design of the coops will allow for easy access to eggs that are laid during the duration of the project. The eggs themselves, according to the farm’s website, will be donated to the Yolo County Food Bank.

“In each nest box, there is a sloped bottom,” Nguyen said via email. “This design will help the husbandry team to retrieve the eggs that the hens lay, as the eggs will roll down to one side of the nest box, and the chickens will not be able to peck at them. The nest boxes are located on the two sides of the coops, and there will be a human access hand door behind the nest boxes […] This makes for quick egg harvesting, but it also does not disturb the hen’s process of egg laying.”

Students are intrigued by the idea of this project, as its goals seem to be leaning towards sustainability.

“While I don’t know very much about raising poultry, I am intrigued by this project,” said Ashley Lord, a first-year undeclared physical sciences major. “It seems to me that having a better food for the chickens will allow them to grow to be healthier, which would result in better eggs for us humans to consume.”

Other students, like Jazmin de Jesus, a first-year chemical engineering major, also like the idea of having more livestock on campus.

“I love the cows that are near Tercero, and the fact that we have chickens on campus is pretty cool,” De Jesus said. “It also seems like a great opportunity for engineering students to get hands-on experience, which is lucky for them.”

Written by: Emily Shintani — campus@theaggie.org

UC Davis secures position within the top ten, amongst four other UCs

UC Davis earned the ninth spot on Forbes’ annual Best Value College Ranking out of 300 national colleges. Forbes’ criteria for the ranking consisted of comparing “Quality (25%) + alumni earnings (20%) + median student debt (20%) + on-time graduation (15%) + drop-out risk (10%) + Pell Grant recipients (10%) / gross tuition and fees.” This data was drawn from the U.S. Department of Education College Scorecard and Payscale, the world’s largest salary database. UC Davis charges $13,896 per year for in-state tuition. US News and World Report, the premiere ranking publication, designated UC Davis as  #44 out of 310 schools in their 2017 National Universities ranking.  

Forbes approached the perennial college ranking criteria question from the standpoint of “whether a college will deliver a meaningful return on investment.” It illuminates how certain higher learning institutions, such as UC Davis, stand out among others nationwide in providing the greatest value.

“Knowing where you can get the most quality for each tuition dollar spent is the goal of this year’s Best Value ranking,” the Forbes press release stated.  

The Forbes press release showed a new trend toward Western public schools within the ranking, departing from the traditionally more prestigious private northeastern universities.

“We’ve tapped into something very interesting here,” the press release read. “Private Northeast institutions have lost their monopoly on the higher education marketplace. More than half of the top Best Value Colleges are clustered in the West and 5 of the 10 are public schools (four from the enviable U.C. system).”

Walter Robinson, the associate vice chancellor of Student Affairs, described the value of earning a degree at UC Davis, citing both the education and post-graduation success. Robinson explained how UC Davis has become the epitome of “what it means to be an engine of social mobility,” referencing UC Davis’ low-income and first generation college student advocacy.

“A high percentage of our students are the first in their families to attend and graduate from college,” Robinson said via email. “Many of our students come from low income backgrounds. We have earned the reputation of improving the quality of lives by moving our students three rungs up on the socioeconomic ladder which is transformative for them, their families and their communities.”

UC Davis resided at 125 on the Forbes 2016 list, climbing into the top 10 this year.

“We are in perpetual pursuit of comprehensive excellence in all that we do,” Robinson said via email. “We have world class faculty who engage with outstanding students, who participate in cutting edge research, high impact service and practical and applicable educational experiences. On average, our students graduate with one of the lowest amounts of loan debt when compared to other top universities.”

Claire Doan, a media specialist for the UC Office of the President, spoke about UC Davis’ cost-to-benefit ratio in terms of supplying a competitive college degree.

“The rankings confirm what we already know: University of California students are getting an extraordinary education and a great deal,” Doan said via email. “UC Davis is a prime example of groundbreaking research, excellent instruction and a high graduation success rate — for students paying only a fraction of what they would elsewhere for the same overall quality.”

Josh Dalavai, ASUCD president and a third-year political science and economics double major, hedged his appreciation of the ranking with a comment about out-of-state and international student advocacy, amidst proposed enrollment caps.  

“While it is wonderful that we are ranked so highly, we also have a long ways to go in ensuring that that ‘value’ also includes our out of state and international students in terms of accessibility,” Dalavai said via email.

Written by: Aaron Liss — campus@theaggie.org

Law enforcement, scholars discuss legal definition of hate speech in American constitutional jurisprudence with regard to college campuses

“Hate Speech, Free Speech, More Speech or Less Speech: The Quad as Free Expression Zone or Safe Space?” took place on May 1 in the Multipurpose Room of the Student Community Center. The event, organized by Interim Chancellor Ralph J. Hexter, was in collaboration with UC Davis School of Law and moderated by Madhavi Sunder, the senior associate dean and a professor in the School of Law.

Panelists included Alan E. Brownstein, an emeritus professor at UC Davis School of Law with a focus on constitutional and church and state law; Carlton F.W. Larson, a scholar of American constitutional law and Anglo-American history; and California Highway Patrol safety sergeant Steven White, assigned to the state capitol protection section. Among the attendants was Interim Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Ken Burtis.

Sunder set the theme for the discussion by expressing how public university campuses, particularly UC campuses, became “focal points for public activism” against the Vietnam War and gradually made their way to becoming “a sight for contested speech in the culture wars.”

In light of the UC Berkeley protests against the presence of Ann Coulter and resistance at both UC Davis and UC Berkeley against former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos, administration expressed that an open discussion regarding hate speech was especially relevant.

Notable cases that questioned the presence of free speech include a letter to the editor written by Jeff Weiner, a UC Davis professor of comparative literature. Weiner’s letter addressed the cancellation of Yiannopoulos’ talk by stating that “free speech is dead on college campuses” and went on to express that “the protesters think they triumphed, but they only succeeded in taking us one step closer to the death of the university.”

Additionally, the unanimously passed ASUCD Senate Resolution #5 demonstrated ASUCD’s resistance to associate with the presence of Yiannopolous at UC Davis. The Senate Resolution quotes the ASUCD Student Bill of Rights, stating that students “have the right to be free from discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, gender, sex, ethnicity, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, status within or outside the university, or political belief in all activities sponsored or conducted by the University, its affiliates, ASUCD, or campus student groups as addressed in the UC Davis Principles of Community.” The bill also stated that the Davis College Republicans inviting Milo Yiannopoulos “has brought about the marginalization and harassment of minority groups, such as transgender and minority students, on other university campuses[.]”

The event led off with Sunder discussing what the future direction of free speech will be in the face of violence occurring on university campuses, places that have been historically dedicated to open dialogue and debate.

“How does the univeristy balance its commitment to guarantee the rights and safety of all students and in particular its principle commitment to [the diversity of] students in an increasingly inclusive university,” Sunder said. “What is the role of law enforcement in securing free speech?”

Larson emphasized that the United States is “distinct” in that it protects free speech more than any other western country. He drew analogies between educational institutions restricting speakers’ entrance to private property owners barring visitors from entering their property.

It was then discussed that, while it is justifiable for people who own property to impede someone from their home, if that person is going on a political tirade that is unaligned with the property owner’s values, that right does not apply to public educational institutions.

Larson went on to quote the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Tinker v Moines about the freedom of expression of student opinions on college campuses.

“It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate […] during authorized hours he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects […] if he does so without ‘materially and substantially interfer[ing] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school’ and without colliding with the rights of others,” reads the ruling Larson mentioned.

Brownstein addressed the extent to which the First Amendment protects various categories of speech and distinguished between speech and conduct, noting that speech is protected by the First Amendment while conduct is not.

“Hate speech is simply another kind of speech that is protected as speech […] [it] has no legal significance,” Brownstein said. “Obstructing access to a room or activity is not protected speech, it’s prescribable conduct.”

Next, Brownstein recounted a case of abortion clinics that were subject to protests by individuals opposed to abortion who expressed their opinions by denying women and staff access to the clinic buildings. In this case, Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which challenged the First Amendment by conveying that the protestors were not engaging in speech but rather performing conduct, which can be prohibited by law.

It was clarified that these laws could not be implemented on the grounds of respecting an individual’s sensibilities and sensitivity, nor on the basis of having caused emotional distress, regardless of how vile the relayed messages were. Brownstein listed several cases during which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the side demonstrating speech. Cases included Nazi supporters marching through a town with a high population of Holocaust survivors and Westboro Baptist Church members displaying signs with “thank God your son is dead” at the funeral of Iraq veterans on the grounds that “God is punishing the U.S. because we are too protective of homosexuality.”

White echoed the same notions as Brownstein with regard to protection of speech. He mentioned that reservation permits for the state capitol are given regardless of the message that is being relayed to the public. The safety of citizens is their primary concern.

Larson added that prohibiting the speech of the invited individual is not a disadvantage to the group that was excluded, but rather “the harm is to everybody else that was deprived of the normal functioning marketplace of ideas that you would expect to have.”

Written by: Kimia Akbari  — campus@theaggie.org

Picnic Day generates enough revenue to cover expenses; ASUCD Controller, Picnic Day staff differ in sponsorship totals

During the drafting of last year’s budget, it was decided that Picnic Day, an ASUCD unit, would no longer receive a subsidy and would instead have to generate revenue for the association.

Now, a year later, Picnic Day is nearly hitting the mark toward generating the allocated revenue. According to ASUCD Controller Jin Zhang, ASUCD budgeted for Picnic Day to garner $30,000 in business sponsorships. Picnic Day advocated for $17,500, but the unit actually raised $33,500.

However, the numbers given by Picnic Day chair Chelsea Hernandez and Picnic Day business manager Nick Lee contradict those from Zhang.

“In terms of sponsorship, we got $26,550, so it’s obviously not the 30 [thousand dollars] we were expected to have and it’s just because there were just a lot of changes this year,” Hernandez said. “One of our typical sponsors, one that we’ve had for the past few years, Amazon, decided not to be a sponsor this year.”

Both Hernandez and Lee spoke about the difficulties of finding sponsors for Picnic Day.

“Ever since the change of being a subsidy-receiving unit to a revenue-generating unit, the search for sponsorships hasn’t changed too significantly,” Lee said via email. “Because my team and I had a higher goal for how much money we had to raise, we reached out to more than 200 companies, ranging from smaller and local companies and larger corporations. Even though we reached out to over 200 companies, only maybe 25% of them responded and maybe about 5 companies responded with a yes, which is a mere 2.5% rate of acceptance of sponsoring Picnic Day this year.”

Above meeting the revenue goal from ASUCD, Hernandez focused on making sure that, at the very least, all programming for Picnic Day was paid for.

“Thankfully we were fortunate enough to at least be able to afford Picnic Day,” Hernandez said. “For me, it was just seeing the stress being put on the business director,  especially as we got closer to it, and then just myself being really concerned. There was a point where we weren’t sure we would be able to afford everything and we were a little behind. It was a little frightening and there was a lot of pressure. […] Our focus was just to pay for Picnic Day, that is our main focus to put on this day.”

Zhang explained that Picnic Day is doing quite well for itself with its current budget.

“Picnic Day is doing really, really well in terms of the revenue they were expected, what was proposed,” Zhang said. “Some numbers haven’t come in yet and they aren’t going to be able to give you a direct number either unless there is some new information […] Honestly, we budgeted $47,000 in terms of what they could make, and currently they are at 43 [thousand dollars] without food sales. Picnic Day is doing particularly well for itself.”

Hernandez views Zhang as very understanding of the reality of running a unit and working within a budget.

“The controller this year seems very understanding of the issue,” Hernandez said. “Last year during budget hearings it seemed like we were expected to support other units, which I of course understand, I mean I am involved in a former unit, but it’s just a lot of pressure to put on that one person to support everyone else. It’s not easy and it’s especially hard tabling next to ASUCD and hearing, ‘Oh, we have this $13 million budget,’ and then working in a unit where it’s like you’re having to pay back to ASUCD.”

When it comes to next year’s budget, Lee has a few recommendations.

“Recommendations I would make toward the Picnic Day budget for next year is to think through where we’ll want to spend money, and reallocate funds in the correct subaccounts to accurately reflect what the Picnic Day Board intends to spend next year,” Lee said via email.

Zhang is also receptive to what the unit director thinks they can achieve within reason.

“We are hoping that they can make as much as they did last year, minimum, but that’s what we’re hoping for,” Zhang said. “I think it is very important, however, to take into consideration what the unit director wants and what they project, what they think they can do.”

Written by: Kenton Goldsby — campus@theaggie.org