Phil, It appears your post was about a very specific sector of agriculture and animal production. Indeed the article painted a bleek picture of animal agriculture and yes its sad. I can't really speak about research or laboratory animals and whether you or others are complicit, but as an ecologist, agricultural producer and employee of US dept of Ag I can say a few things about the relationship between or closeness of agriculture and ecology.
At your local USDA-NRCS office you'll discover agronomists, biologists, engineers and conservationists all working together with ranchers and farmers in an agricultural ecosystem. One cant have a successful cattle or whatever ranch without having basic understanding of phenology, plant biology, soil biology, nutrient/watercycling, nature's economics and how they are all interconnected. The animal being produced is part of this web. The goal of many resource professionals like myself is to support ranchers and farmers in movement towards mimicking nature and understanding how your ranch or farm is a functioning agri-ecosystem staring with your soil ecosystem on up. A successful rancher or farmer is essentially an amateur applied ecologist. So yes agriculture and ecology are close "today", very close, still. It was not uncommon to discuss farms and ranches as ecosystems while I was in college and I know that many Universities offer Agroecology degrees and other integrated ecology-animal science-business degrees, so I guess I dont see the disconnect, but I suppose I can imagine universities where the two departments are still miles away, literally and figuratively. Also, I would tend to agree that the public should definitely know how food is treated, produced and where it comes from. And of course we all hope humanely and ethically. And Hilit, According to your post-> by definition I abuse my cows. This is slightly offensive, speaking as a producer now- I can assure you they are very well taken care of. The closest thing to abuse at the ranches I work with would be something similar to myself going through security at the airport. This sort of thing is generally done to move them to another pasture or check their health etc. Furthermore, this blanket statement "Animal agriculture today is very far from ecology, sadly, and I hope that is what will starve its existence eventually" is bizarre and left me wondering what you mean. Being a rancher and an ecologist I'd like to think of myself as a active participant in an ecosystem. ?? and I certainly do not wish neighboring families to go out of business. One might assume, that you are talking of what some call industrialized / globalized animal production systems. But I do not know for sure. Until that is clear perhaps in the meantime I can make a recommendation to folks out there. Step outside of your office or laboratory or maybe jump out from behind the Ivory Tower, drive to the country and milk a goat in an old barn or watch some cattle graze on a hillside. JB On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Thomas J. Givnish < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > [email protected] > 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) > > -- >
