Up with Down

We receive a number of questions about our down. Tech-savvy users want to know about the performance elements of our insulation materials. Values-driven customers often want to know the circumstances under which our down is harvested. Here to offer his always detailed eye to the discussion is our own Customer Service Gear Guru, Ken Larussa, with the skinny on down:

Despite the best efforts of chemists around the world, down continues to be the insulation of choice for those who require the best combination of warmth, weight and compressibility. The beauty of down—and what has proven so elusive for chemists to duplicate—is that down is a three-dimensional cluster which has the ability to trap a large volume of air within a very light structure. Down comes from the underbody of waterfowl, most often geese, ducks or swans. Since there aren’t many swans being raised commercially, and ducks provide an inferior grade of down (except perhaps for that elusive creature the Eider Duck). Patagonia—along with virtually every other manufacturer of quality down clothing—uses goose down exclusively. It is important t to note that these geese are raised for food, not down, and that all down is a byproduct of this food production. Almost all geese raised for commercial production come from either China or Eastern Europe. Because the best down comes from mature geese and because the Eastern Europeans prefer older and larger geese, the best down tends to come from Eastern Europe. The down is harvested and then separated into different grades depending on the quality of down.

Hit the jump for more details . . .

Down is graded according to fill power, which is defined as the volume of insulation (measured in cubic inches) produced by one ounce of down. The most commonly used fill-powers tend to start at about 550 and go up to somewhere to the 800-950 range. Personally, I’m a bit skeptical of the higher ratings. I remember back in the late 70s when the best down available was somewhere in the 600-650 range. All of a sudden the ratings seemed to jump up to 800 and beyond. Considering these geese are raised for food and not down I can’t help but wonder how we’re getting so much better down from the same geese.

One thing there is no controversy about is the cost of the upper end down. Because it is so expensive (high-end goose down being approx. 3X more expensive than low-grade counterparts), it is practical to use this down only in garments where weight is of primary concern. Here at Patagonia, we use 800-fill down in both the Down Sweater and the Down Parka, two pieces designed to give maximum warmth for minimum weight.

We use 700-fill down in the Down Jacket, and 650-fill in our sportswear and ski pieces, which are designed for the not-so-weight-conscious users. The important thing to remember is that a garment filled with high-fill-power down does not necessarily mean it is warmer than one using a lower fill power. For instance, M’s Down Sweater is filled with 3 ounces of 800-fill down, while the significantly more voluminous and puffy (and hence, warmer) M’s Down Jacket is filled with 6.77 ounces of 700-fill down.  Thus the down jacket with 4739 cubic inches of insulation (6.77 x 700) has nearly twice the insulation of the sweater which has 2400 cubic inches (3 x 800), even though the sweater uses higher-fill-power down.

    So, you may be asking yourself "If down is so great, what’s not to like?" And "why are companies like du Pont and Celanese Fortrel spending gazillions to find a polyester replacement for down?" The main reason to use synthetic insulation is because it absorbs far less water than down and hence dries much faster. Anyone who has ever hand washed a down sleeping bag or jacket can attest to the incredible amount of water down products can absorb. Polyester, on the other hand, absorbs almost none. Even so, the oft-repeated “Warm when wet” should probably be amended to: “keeps you alive but you still freeze your a@% off”. Hot tubs are warm when wet, jackets and sleeping bags aren’t, no matter what’s inside them. So whatever insulation you choose, the bottom line is: Keep It Dry. Don’t wear puffy stuff alone in the rain, seam seal your tent, use waterproof stuff sacks, use a pack cover, basically do whatever it takes to keep your stuff dry.

There are a few down-sides (so to speak) of synthetic fills. Down, as long as it’s treated with a modicum of respect, is much more durable than synthetic fills. My circa 1971 REI McKinley sleeping bag (containing over 2 lbs of  550 fill “prime northern silvergrey goose down”) with well over 1000 nights of use is still quite lofty and warm and still serves faithfully as my car camping  bag. The issue with synthetics is that they’re far less compressible than down, an important factor for both the expedition user whose pack is already overloaded with gear and food, and the fastpacker whose tiny pack means everything must be as small and light as possible. Most of us fall somewhere between the two extremes and if you’re a gear junkie like me and have most everything in both down and synthetic versions, the decision is made based upon where you’re headed. For me, if the trip involves being on the water (river rafting, sea kayaking), then synthetic it is. Ditto if the trip is anywhere in the Pacific Northwest. If, on the other hand, I’m heading into Nevada, the Sierra, or any other place that is mostly dry and might be cold, then I’m all about down. What you choose is of course up to you, but just keep it dry and you’ll stay warm.

Comments

[CM]

Great rundown of down. Wait a minute, that last sentence is kind of funny. I once made the mistake of wearing a down coat snowboarding in wet conditions. Never made that mistake ever again. Ooh it was chilly on those lifts.

[Jason]

Although I have no reason to doubt Patagonia's practices, does the harvesting/washing/production of down used in its products involve any chemicals that are detrimental to the environment? If so, are there any alternatives? Also, are the geese the Patagonia gets its down from humanely (and preferably organically) raised?

Thanks!

[Nick]

"Also, are the geese the Patagonia gets its down from humanely (and preferably organically) raised?"

Interesting question, but given that the article says:

"It is important to note that these geese are raised for food, not down, and that all down is a byproduct of this food production. Almost all geese raised for commercial production come from either China or Eastern Europe."

Probably not. Goose doesn't show up in most supermarkets in the states except around the winter holidays, which means there's not a large domestic market, which probably means there's not therefore a smaller niche market for organic/humane/etc. It's possible that Kosher geese are more humanely treated, but they have to be plucked by hand, which makes them several times more expensive.

Unless there's a large-scale European market for organic/humane goose meat, it seems very unlikely that you could reliably get down (which is admittedly a by-product anyway) that met those standards on the scale necessary for industrial garment production. Not that I know for sure, it just seems unlikely given the situation described.

[localcrew]

Jason/Nick, great questions regarding our down. I don't have the answers for you, but I'll see if our sourcing folks have any information about the Eastern European down sources. What I do know is that true accountabity is only possible if materials are provided by a single supplier.

Feathers, like many agricultural products, are often sold by individual farmers into an open market. It's not unlike buying your milk from a cooperative (pretty normal in the dairy world) and trying to find out how the cow who produced it was treated. Sorting out "your" milk from the thousands of gallons of it that are mixed and transported in tankers before being bottled/blended/etc. . . . you get the idea.

Another factor to consider is the interesting filter that our own domestic dysfunctional markets have created. In the U.S., humane, organic, sustainably produced products are increasingly available as a reaction to the hyper-industrialization of our agribusiness system. In countries where aggressive industrialization has not taken hold, humane, sustainable production methods are the only ones that have ever been used.

Going back to the example of milk, Switzerland provides an excellent example of circumstances that challenge the skewed U.S. understanding of agricultural production. It's difficult, if not impossible, to find organic dairy products in Switzerland--particularly organic milk. This isn't because Switzerland is "behind" in any way; rather, it's because they never bought into the CAFO template for handling livestock. Instead, their cows range freely in rolling pastures of naturally growing green grass. To label Swiss dairy products "free range" and "organic" would be simply meaningless because, well, that's how all dairy is produced. It would be like labelling bottled water as "wet."

lc

[Nick]

lc--that's a pretty great answer. It does seem like Eastern Europe would fit that argument a lot better than China--I feel like the Chinese are a lot quicker about integrating industrial methodology into agriculture, particularly into the poultry system given their issues with avian flu in the last few years. I think finding a legacy (pre-post-industrial?) poultry farming setup in China on a scale that could produce down for export in meaningful quantities would be next to impossible these days.

Awesome book that sort of speaks to your point--'Seeing Like a State', by James C. Scott. It's mostly about issues like formal vs. informal production setups, and how top down control changes systems like architecture and agriculture. It doesn't specifically use Europe before and after the new EU ag rules, but the arguments in the book are completely applicable to that situation. One of my favorite books, right up there with 'Liberation Ecologies' and 'Conservation Through Cultural Survival'.

[localcrew]

Nick, you made my day! Thanks for all of those great book suggestions. New titles to add to the "To Read" list are always welcome with open arms. I particularly can't wait to check out _Seeing Like a State_.

thanks,
lc

[xxx]

Ken...Thanks for another well-written article. You have piqued two lines of inquiry for me: Has Patagonia looked at the different footprints of down production based on country of origin? My second question would be along the lines of whether or not there's any chance you'll be going to one of the geese farms to give us the first person skinny on that part of the process.

A third thought: When you write "eastern Europe" where exactly does that mean? That's a pretty vague geographical term (and, for that matter, using "China" as a locale is pretty vague as well). I ask, not to be pedantic, but because I imagine that there are different standards of animal treatment between countries in Eastern Europe (and, indeed, between EU countries and non-EU countries) as well as differing regulations on feed and allowable chemicals.

Keep up the great work, Ken. Patagonia is lucky to have you!

[xxx]

One more thing: the Gear Guru should get his own tag so that it is easy to pull up all of the entries he has written (as should all of the regular contributors to the blog).

[localcrew]

TripX, that's a good suggestion on the ID tag for GG posts. Don't know off the top of my head if we've got a limit on the # of authors we can have on TCL, but I'm off to check it out . . . happy monday.
lc -> out

[virginia darby]

I am writing from Stockholm Sweden, and we have just seen that a program called "Kalla Fakta" or in English, Cold Facts, has proven that with hidden cameras, the down from China, and Hungary, and Poland, are very much mixed with already dead geese, and very much live ones. The geese are tied wing and foot, and stripped of their feather on the breast, as well as the back. They scream out and fight and if cut, are sewn up on the spot. They then are let go of, running or just lay there.
It seems that the tv team with cameras showed that all companies in Sweden even if they had sighned a contract only to receive down from already dead geese, this was ignored by the Chinese, among other countries. The Chinese had 8000 farms coming in with live plucked birds, or both.
Swedish people could see the birds fighting in the pain, and one animal vet on tv said this was like pulling hair from a human. Torture.
These companies that sell down, just ignore the problem we have of it in the west.
I don´t know what is the checking ability of your company, but I don´t think you are aware of the way the Chinese or Hungary, and Poland fool the west when they come to make demands. IKEA is one of the companies fooled. THey have now offered to take back all products if we would like to return them. I am hoping they take all down products off the shelf.
Most other companies have done just that.
If you trust the word of these companies, you will not get to the bottom of this.
They show the farm, but not the 8000 farms that pluck live. Each bird is live plucked 4 times, and even forced fed with tubes to sell fat goose liver to the west.
If you want to see it in action, I suggest you go into TV4,se and see the show.
Hope this is not true, but the blogg discussions missed the boat.

[localcrew]

Hello Virginia,

Many thanks for sharing this information. As you recommended, we've been getting to the bottom of this. You can probably guess this is not the easiest thing to do. Here's what we can tell you so far - a quick history behind our decision to use down, followed by a short summary of what we're doing to sort through this latest news.

As our customers are likely aware, we use down insulation in some of our products because of its excellent performance: down has a higher warmth-to-weight ratio than synthetic insulation, and it is also more compressible. High grades of down offer the most substantial benefits, and are the superior option for certain high-performance applications. We offer both synthetic and down options, in different weights, grades, and styles, so that customers can buy the jacket that meets their needs.

By offering down insulation in our product line, we have become a consumer of an agricultural by-product, and must support the humane and environmentally-sound treatment of geese. In the past, environmental and animal-rights groups have exposed inhumane treatment within the global industry of raising birds for food. Examples of some of the more disturbing practices are caging, de-beaking, force-feeding, and pollution of the air and water. Citing these concerns, we have demanded greater detail from our down suppliers, and they have complied. To confirm their information, we visited rural farmland in Hungary to perform on-site assessments of the goose farms that supply our down. During these visits, we failed to find evidence of inhumane treatment. While it is important to take into account the reality that many farms "fool the West when they come to make demands," it is equally important to recognize and support those farmers who use humane farming techniques. These farmers do exist, and all can agree that thoughtful farmers with ethical practices should not suffer from the bad practices of some of their peers.

The results of our visits are summarized in the Patagonia Audit Report for Down Insulation. Our Footprint Chronicles series also offers a complete impact analysis of making a Patagonia Down Sweater (http://www.patagonia.com/web/us/footprint/index.jsp). This analysis is offered using multiple formats, including video, interviews, and slide shows.

These recent questions concerning the treatment of geese for collecting down have helped us see the need for more comprehensive research into the supply of down and specifically how it is collected. We will continue to investigate the conditions of the geese and try to influence the down industry to follow best practices and cause no unnecessary harm to the animals or the environment.