Sep 112012
 

Debell 171x250 4 H and Peta’s ideas about animal agricultureWhen I was 6 years old, I entered 4-H with my first project – a bunny named Patches, who was irresistible with her cute twitching nose, tickling whiskers and soft fur.

Patches was the first animal for whom I was solely responsible, and I took the responsibility so seriously that I considered the bunny my best friend.

When I finished the 4-H youth development program at the age of 19, I had completed 20 different projects. It turns out that Patches was the initial spark that would fuel my interest in animal science as a career.

It’s not surprising, then, that I’m among the millions of people nationwide who appreciate the values, knowledge and skills that 4-H promotes among its members.

This youth organization, supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, guides kids five to 19 to independently learn about topics of interest. Project categories include livestock, crops, healthy living, sciences, engineering, citizenship, leadership, and technology.

4-H helps instill an important work ethic, and values in its young members. These are summarized in the 4-H pledge: “I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart to greater loyalty, my hands to larger service, and my health to better living — for my club, my community, my country, and my world.”

The 4-H logo is a four-leaf clover, and each leaf represents an “H” word from the pledge – head, heart, hands, health – to remind 4-H members about the proper way to complete projects and daily activities.

Ultimately, these four “H” words are a reminder about how to live our lives–thoughtfully, compassionately and mindful of our broad responsibilities as citizens. I’m sure we’d all agree that these ideals are relevant, and they are definitely meaningful people in the 4-H community.

So you can understand why I felt sick to my stomach when I recently visited the Colorado State Fair in Pueblo. No, a fried Twinkie was not to blame.

I saw a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals display that turned the 4-H motto on its head and bastardized the 4-H ideals to suit the organization’s radical agenda.

PETA’s display suggested that the four “H” words were: “hell for animals; heart attack inducing; hazardous to the environment; and hypocritical to care about some animals and not others.”

To be clear, I definitely think diversity of ideas and freedom of speech are what make America beautiful.

I also understand that some people believe in using animals for food, and some do not.

Vegans and vegetarians have moral reasons for opposing animal agriculture, and I think living true to your beliefs is noble.

Yet I also know there are right ways and wrong ways to go about animal agriculture. It’s important to understand that 4-H advocates the proper way to raise food animals for people who believe that livestock provide a useful and healthy source of protein for people around the world.

If you’re on the fence with this issue, I’ll explain. For starters, 4-H teaches humane guidelines for animal agriculture; this is summarized with the four “H” words.

Head: Young livestock producers learn to think about what they’re doing, are expected to gain contemporary science-based knowledge, and to manage their food animals using USDA guidelines.

Heart: 4-Hers with livestock projects learn to care for their animals and treat them humanely. It’s telling that Temple Grandin, Colorado State University’s renowned expert in animal welfare, supports 4-H programs.

Hands: Through daily work, 4-Hers provide animals with proper and humane care.

Health: 4-Hers must keep detailed project records to prove that they are fulfilling project requirements and keeping their animals healthy.

Animal agriculture has a significant role in a world that will require agriculture to feed over 9 billion people in the next 40 years.

Our main goal is to humanely, professionally, responsibly and efficiently raise food animals to provide the world with important protein source.

Animal agriculture is vital as a food source because livestock convert forage that cannot be used by humans into high-quality protein for human consumption.

Animal agriculture is a key part of the solution to feeding the world.

At CSU animal agriculture is taught ethically. In fact, many of us learn from Dr. Grandin, a pioneering expert in animal agriculture who is probably our university’s most famous professor.

She has written the following to explain animal welfare: “People feed, shelter, and breed cattle and hogs, and in return the animals provide food and clothing. We must never abuse them, because that would break an ancient contract. We owe it to animals to give them decent living conditions and a painless death.”

This concept is fundamental to 4-H teachings, and demonstrates why those of us in
animal agriculture respect the “H” words and the values they reflect.

Malinda DeBell is a sophomore animal science major. Her column appears every other Tuesday in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com.

 4 H and Peta’s ideas about animal agriculture
82.thumbnail 4 H and Peta’s ideas about animal agriculture

About Malinda DeBell

At CSU Malinda is an enthusiastic member of the Collegiate Cattlewomen’s Club. She is also an Ag Ambassador and on the Ag Council for CSU. Recently, Malinda, helped create and educate for CSU’s Ag Adventure exhibit at the 2012 and 2013 National Western Stock Show. She also worked for Temple Grandin and learned how to handle animals by using their behavior. As a column writer for The Rocky Mountain Collegian she wishes to communicate the importance of agriculture to CSU students. Outside of school she dedicates her time volunteering at the ice rink where she utilizes her 12 years of expertise and teaches people of all ages the basics of ice-skating.

  • Scott Armstrong

    “We must never abuse them, because that would break an ancient contract. We owe it to animals to give them decent living conditions and a painless death.”
    Funny, I’ve never seen a cow, pig, goat, chicken or rabbit sign such a contract to be confined and exploited like so much lawn furniture until they reach the ripe old age of a few months, where they will experience an excruciatingly painful death. If you really want to understand the ethical implications, consider John Rawls’ contractarianism applied to nonhuman animals, which immediately makes the wrongs of the egregious abuses and the animals indescribable suffering obvious, even to those with vested interests.

    • http://beaelliott.blogspot.com/ Bea Elliott

      Thank you Scott Armstrong for eloquently pointing out the error in the concept of nonhumans entering into a contractual “agreement”… I often think of this when hearing hunters tout the “fair” chase ethic regarding their “competition”. What lies some humans tell themselves in order to continue the bloodshed!

  • Cam

    Scott, great use of big words and fancy references to defend your animal rights position. If you want to argue the ethical implications of a rational agent entering into a ‘contract’ with a non-rational being, maybe you should understand that there is just as much validity to modern agriculture’s ethics as there is for yours.
    Scott, I encourage you to read this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-5930.00060/pdf
    And though I fully expect you to disagree with every word that is written, perhaps you can understand that just because you whole-heatedly believe you are right does not make it so.

  • http://beaelliott.blogspot.com/ Bea Elliott

    Poor Patches and every other victim of 4-H initiatives and animal agriculture as a whole. What a betrayal made out to be some sort of saintly practice.

    Sure – IF it was ever necessary to “use” nonhumans than yes, we’d owe them some sort of compassion. But to deliberately breed them – To manipulate their bodies and their babies just for profit and gluttony can’t ever be viewed as responsible let alone compassionate.

    It’s vicious and violent to take a life of another… No matter how many times users and harmers want to claim it’s justifiable – In our modern world with thousands of other choices it just isn’t so. No tradition that perpetuated misery should look for respect or admiration. It’s just a crime to devalue the lives of sentient others for frivolous personal gain. Just a crime!

    • Ted Nugent

      I’m sure as you sit at Whole Foods eating something organic
      and vegan; you look down at all those barbaric omnivores that lead such
      ignorant and disgusting lives. Being an animal lover and vegan are not mutually
      exclusive, a fact that obviously eludes you. Animal agriculture has played a
      pivotal role in societies dating back to Mesopotamia. Long has it been
      understood that a controlled source of a high quality protein in necessary to
      sustain a large population. In our modern world we breed, raise, and process
      animals for a specific purpose. In ethical terms, we never violate their autonomy,
      but simply just define it. Thinking that the world should shift to a vegetarian
      diet is a purely a first world point of view. Great thing about this country is
      that we have an agriculture system that provides both food security and sovereignty
      for our population, guaranteeing you the freedom of food choice. So enjoy your
      veggie burger and leave your misplaced judgments to yourself.

      • http://beaelliott.blogspot.com/ Bea Elliott

        No… Sorry Ted – No Whole Foods — Not even many organic veggie burgers… Just plants – Most that I grow myself or that come from the farmer a few miles away.

        Of course I realize that other some other nations can’t opt for a plant based diet – Frankly since we’re conversing on a forum based in (high) technology – I don’t know why it would be presumed that I’d be talking to anyone else other than “first world” listeners…

        That said it is more relevant than ever to restate: “In our modern world with thousands of other choices” breeding and killing sentient beings goes beyond need or necessity – The practice becomes excessive. It’s just unwarranted desire for the life and flesh of an innocent life. In ethical terms: You steal their lives for momentary pleasure. There’s nothing in their anatomy that can’t be replaced with plant based foods. In the now: With today’s knowledge and choices – None of it is justified.

        • Ted Nugent

          You seem more like character from Portlandia than a real
          person. An argument about the undernourished is invalid because they don’t have
          high speed internet? A Very valid point! Then you state that eating meat is
          just momentary pleasure? And here I thought eating was necessary for life (Save
          your keyboard some stress, I know you’ll say meat is not necessary for life). Please
          understand, as awesome as your blog is, and as may high fives as PETA and HSUS
          give you for being such an enlightened champion of the animal rights cause, you
          will never sway the properly informed. Misinformation has been too prominent in
          this argument; reliance on the undercover videos to scare the public can only
          work when Ag doesn’t defend its practices.

          Take what I say with a grain of salt, I am just an
          under-developed meat eater.

          • http://beaelliott.blogspot.com/ Bea Elliott

            Wrong again Ted… Nowhere near Oregon!
            If you’ll recall – It was you who first made mention of “the modern world” – Wherein I disagree that meat consumption is necessary. It certainly isn’t a matter of eat flesh or “die”. Therefore, it is either done without conscious thought or done for flippant desire.

            Again, I’ll have to restate that I’m not affiliated with peta, hsus or any other “organization” that the meat, dairy, egg industries want to elect as whipping-boys. I am a 57 year old independent individual who has made the effort to think about justice issues and have come to the conclusion that killing sentient life without necessity shouldn’t be condoned or encouraged.

            As far as swaying the properly informed – Those are the only ones who will be enlightened! It is those who refuse to acknowledge new ways, new information, new ideology that will remain fossilized in the “Mesopotamia” mindset. Honestly Ted… The more we know (and evolve) the less defensible animal-use/abuse will become. Imagine how ingrained the notion of “owning” humans was once… And in a matter of a few years that indoctrination was turned on it’s ugly head. The only thing certain – Is change. And surely a future with less blood shed rather than more – Is an admirable goal to aspire to.

          • Ted Nugent

            You are just compartmentalizing the issue to solely our
            country. You must realize that a plant based diet is only feasible in developed
            countries, so you only argue that. Apply your logic to the starving 2/5 of
            our world and you’ll see the huge flaw in it. But that doesn’t matter right? It’s
            much easier to argue that animals’ consciousness is on par with humans! You are
            absurd to argue that evolving as a species means becoming herbivores. When did
            humans stop being part of the natural world? When did we become the exception
            to nature? Apply you logic to any predator and it falls apart, for example:
            lions (as they evolve) will eventually start eating plants only, because the
            guilt of killing a gazelles will overwhelm their moral center. If you are
            saying to yourself “you can’t compare lions and humans, we have more intelligence
            and logic than animals”, then your right! Humans should never be compared to
            animals regarding the level of consciousness, morals, ethics, ect. Animals are
            subservient to humans by the simple fact of our higher developed mental
            capacity. But then again you have no problem making the casual and very
            insulting comparison to the housing of sows and slaves ships. What a lazy and feeble
            tactic to try and associate one of the worse continuous acts of evil in human
            history with the housing of a pig. Be concerned that you have no moral qualms
            about that. Perhaps after 57 years of ‘independent thinking’ have made you numb
            to the world beyond your backyard garden. Human suffering will never be on par
            with animal suffering.

          • http://beaelliott.blogspot.com/ Bea Elliott

            Hi Ted – Of course our choices are much broader than those in other countries that don’t have the same options as we have. That’s not my audience – We in the developed countries (behind computer screens) are!

            Furthermore, it’s only a third of “developed” nations that consume animal products like we do in the West. The other populace survives on plant based foods – That is what stands between them and starvation: grains and other vegetation. And when world markets out-bid for those resources (to feed American and European) livestock — Guess who suffers from the lack of their basic food for other “wealthier” nation’s hunger for meat? It is said we can feed about a billion people on the grain we fatten animals with. So please… It’s the flesh eaters who are far more responsible for world starvation than any “veg” person is.

            Nonhumans are controlled, manipulated and tricked by our wit and might. But it doesn’t make it rational (or kind) to do these things to others simply because we can. My neighbor is old and feeble… I could easily overpower them for their car or other possessions – Aside from the law based in justice that prevent me from doing so – It would also be ethically wrong to take advantage of someone because of their “weakness”. Those who do overpower other weaker ones are called “bullies”. I simply apply that generosity to nonhumans as well. We do all suffer the same.

            If I place my own hand over hot coals – And if a dog or pig does the same with their flesh — The pain is equal. I do not suffer more or less than them! Of course human pain is the same as nonhumans — Why do you think so many “scientists” use nonhumans in their comparative studies? It’s those who wish to continue to dominate and use others that choose to blindly ignore the similarities – Because if you didn’t deny it would mean you’d have to face your own moral dissonance. Being able to harm does not give anyone the “right” to do so.

            So I still contend that animals forced to live in captivity and die by the knife for human benefit are “slaves” to our desires.

  • Johanna Knorr

    Thanks for the great article about 4H and the lessons it teaches! I have been in 4H since I was in kindergarten and can say that it has played a big role in who I am today. I am especially involved in the Dairy project, since my family dairy farms. I am proud to be a 4H member and a passionate advocate for animal agriculture. Thanks 4H!!

  • Pro-animal, anti-peta

    Let’s face it, peta doesn’t care how many farms conform to their romanticized imaginative rosy idyllic stereotypical not-nice image of animal agriculture!
    People Eating Tasty Animals: Stupid rotten cowards for animals since 1980