The classic work by Muir and colleagues – in which group selection was used to increase population rate of egg production by caged chickens while reducing aggressive interactions to the point where beak trimming was no longer needed – was, I believe, instituted in a university agricultural program, and at least partly designed to increase the humaneness of production conditions.
Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 03/27/13, "Ganter, Philip" wrote: > Ecologgers: > > Two items caught my attention today. One was a NPR interview program on the > recent internet buzz over the Chinese government's supposed eugenics program > (specifically, plans to breed for increased intelligence). The other was a > story read on the Atlantic website: > http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/how-state-ag-gag-laws-could-stop-animal-cruelty-whistleblowers/273962/ > > concerning legislative efforts to gag those who would inform the public about > currently common livestock practices. What tied the two together for me were > these two interlinked questions: > > How many of the problematic production techniques (mass rearing facilities, > hormone manipulation, beak trimming, etc.) referred to in the Atlantic > article were developed in university agronomy facilities and to what degree > are research agronomists ethically responsible for the effect that the > techniques they develop do not violate the animal welfare standards we must > apply to research animals? > > Is there a connection here? Do research animals deserve better welfare than > farm animals? If so, why so? The answer can't be that farm animals are > destined for the slaughterhouse in any case. Many research animals are > "sacrificed". > > I ask these questions in a sincere desire for both information and others > thoughts. I don't know who develops these techniques or how schools of > agriculture treat the ethical question and would love to hear from someone > who does. > > Why on ecolog? I am an ecologist and know that, before the rise of ecology > departments, the connection between agriculture and ecology was much closer > than today. Even though many ecologists are found at schools with no > agriculture, I still feel connected and perhaps other ecologists do as well. > The circle will be completed. It's already happening (think of the LME > movement in Fishery Science). > > In any case, I was disturbed by the thought that university research may be > behind common livestock practices that are so abhorrent to the public that > the agriculture industry seeks to deprive the public of its right to know > about them. Are we complicit? > > Phil Ganter > Dept. of Biological Sciences > Tennessee State University > (a 1890 Land Grant HBCU) --
