规模化畜禽养殖产污系数研究

随着畜禽养殖逐渐走向规模化,畜禽养殖污染已成为农村污染的重要来源。以规模化畜禽养殖产生的废水和固体废弃物为监测对象,对规模化畜禽养殖产污系数进行研究,给出单位畜禽从出生到出栏的产污系数计算方法。以四川省内江市为实例,计算了不同季节、不同规模的规模化养猪场产污系数,并与第一次污染源普查数据进行比较。     

Animal Killing and Postdomestic Meat Production

The act of animal killing affects the human psyche in manners that are culturally contingent. Throughout history, societal attitudes towards the taking of animal lives have mostly been based on deference and/or dominion. Postdomestic societies have evolved in fundamentally different ways. Meat production is abundant yet concealed, animals are categorized and stereotyped, and slaughter has become a highly disquieting activity. Increased awareness of postdomestic meat production systems raises a moral polemic and provokes disgust in some consumer segments. Overall, a heterogeneous set of solutions has emerged to deal with the societal upset and cognitive dissonance caused by animal slaughter. This includes the so-called carnism approach, a rise in animal welfare programs, a market demand for reassuring narratives (“story meat”), a rehabilitation of the metier of farmers and butchers, crowd butchering, neo-ritualism and home slaughter, the biotechnological exploration of “cultured meat” and “pain-free meat”, entomophagy, “meatless meat”, and the increasing proliferation of vegan and vegetarian lifestyles.     

Farm tourism in England's peak national park

Summary The careful integration of tourism/leisure activities with agriculture is proving of increasing economic value to farming communities whilst providing also the means to safeguard and conserve rural environments and landscapes. The recognition of this value is reflected in the number of grants available in Europe to assist and encourage farmers to diversify their farming activities to embrace tourism and leisure. This paper describes a number of schemes which have been promoted in the Peak National Park (UK) to encourage farmers to attempt such diversification. Their value in conserving a valuable and valued landscape is discussed.Haydon Morris was until recently Senior Planner at the Peak National Park, and is currently Development Manager for the Cumbria Tourist Board. He may be contacted at the Board's Offices; Ashleigh, Windermere, LA23 2AQ, UK.Dr Michael Romeril is Conservation Officer for the Island of Jersey. His address is; Planning Office, South Hill, St. Helier, Jersey, G.B.     

Government Regulations of Shechita (Jewish Religious Slaughter) in the Twenty-First Century: Are They Ethical?

Human beings have engaged in animal husbandry and have slaughtered animals for food for thousands of years. During the majority of that time most societies had no animal welfare regulations that governed the care or slaughter of animals. Judaism is a notable exception in that from its earliest days it has included such rules. Among the Jewish dietary laws is a prohibition to consume meat from an animal that dies in any manner other than through the rigorously defined method of slaughter known as shechita. In recent decades more and more attempts have been initiated by governments around the world to either outright ban or to control and modify the practice of shechita. This paper presents the requisite background about shechita and then analyzes the ethics of some of the recent legislation. The analysis includes a rebuttal of the assertion that shechita is an inhumane method of slaughter. It further presents the consequences on the Jewish community of legislation to impose pre-slaughter stunning and explains why such legislation is unethical. The actual effect of labeling laws is discussed and it is shown why such laws are also un-ethical.     

Joint submissions,output related payments and environmental co-operatives: Can the Dutch experience innovate UK agri-environment policy?

This paper describes three relatively recent innovations in the Dutch agri-environment programme which have helped nature management to be contiguous with natural features allowing the landscape to be managed whole rather than piecemeal—and thus generate higher quality and greater scope in environmental management. The first two, joint submissions by neighbouring farmers and payments related to the level of environmental output delivered, are scheme innovations. The third, Environmental Co-operatives (EC)—clubs of neighbouring farmers that inter alia co-ordinate and help manage the scheme innovations—is an institutional innovation. None has an equivalent in the UK. Evidence from interviews with farmer and non-farmer members, policy makers, academics and other interested parties show the role EC play in overcoming some of the postulated problems of the two scheme innovations. Not all the problems have been overcome, and cost-benefit analyses have not been conducted, nevertheless there is sufficient evidence to suggest that these innovations have benefited all actors involved: farmers, the government, the environment and the rural economy. Analysis of UK agri-environment policy using actor network theory (ANT) suggests the UK government will need to show similar levels of trust in and commitment to the farming community before these innovations could be introduced in the UK.     

Why slaughter? The cultural dimensions of Britain's foot and mouth disease control policy, 1892–2001

In 1892, the British agricultural authorities introduced a policy of slaughtering animals infected with foot and mouth disease (FMD). This measure endured throughout the 20th century and formed a base line upon which officials superimposed the controversial "contiguous cull" policy during the devastating 2001 epidemic. Proponents of the slaughter frequently emphasized its capacity to eliminate FMD from Britain, and claimed that it was both cheaper and more effective than the alternative policies of isolation and vaccination. However, their discussions reveal that a less obvious but nonetheless important reason for maintaining the slaughter policy was the conviction that in its manner of operation and its outcomes, it benefited the state and status of the British nation. To its supporters, slaughter was far more than a method of disease control; it acted also as a moralizing and civilizing force, an indicator of veterinary ability and a "virility symbol" of British international leadership. This "cultural" rationale for FMD control by slaughter declined during the late 20th century and was wholly undermined by the 2001 epidemic, when extensive culling failed to convey the intended image of an organized, enlightened Britain.     

Animal Welfare and Organic Aquaculture in Open Systems

The principles of organic farming espouse a holistic approach to agriculture that promotes sustainable and harmonious relationships amongst the natural environment, plants, and animals, as well as regard for animals’ physiological and behavioral needs. However, open aquaculture systems—both organic and conventional—present unresolved and significant challenges to the welfare of farmed and wild fish, as well as other wildlife, and to environmental integrity, due to water quality issues, escapes, parasites, predator control, and feed-source sustainability. Without addressing these issues, it is unlikely that open net-pen aquaculture production can be compatible with the principles inherent to organic farming.     

Carcass disposal and siting controversy: Risk,dialogue and confrontation in the 2001 foot-and-mouth Outbreak

Abstract

This paper examines controversy during the 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak after mass carcass burial sites were selected at two sites in northeast England, and focuses on shortcomings in public consultation surrounding the carcass disposal policy. The slaughter of six million animals necessitated a national disposal strategy on a hitherto unknown scale. The belated decision to concentrate carcass disposal in a small number of mass burial sites provoked more opposition in the two ex-mining localities selected in the northeast than anywhere else. In both cases local liaison committees were established to manage dialogue between residents and public authorities. We argue that, although seen by the authorities primarily as a vehicle for risk communication and public reassurance, for residents these functioned chiefly as a vehicle for holding public authorities to account. These divergent purposes were overshadowed by the chaotic circumstances in which the early stages of the mass burial policy were implemented, and the way in which the carcass disposal policy was dictated by the operation of the slaughter policy, whose draconian form precluded any but the most cursory public consultation.     

Sustainable Agriculture is Humane,Humane Agriculture is Sustainable

Procedures that increase the sustainability of agriculture often result in animals being treated more humanely:both livestock in animal and mixed farming and wildlife in arable farming. Equally, procedures ensuring humane treatment of farm animals often increase sustainability, for example in disease control and manure management. This overlap between sustainability and humaneness is not coincidental. Both approaches can be said to be animal centered, to be based on the fact that animal production is primarily a biological process. Proponents of both will gain from recognition of commonality and development of cooperation. A collaborative approach to humane sustainable agriculture will benefit animals, people, and the environment.     

The economic dimensions of integrating flood management and agri-environment through washland creation: a case from Somerset, England

In many river floodplains in the UK, there has been a long history of flood defence, land reclamation and water regime management for farming. In recent years, however, changing European and national policies with respect to farming, environment and flood management are encouraging a re-appraisal of land use in rural areas. In particular, there is scope to develop, through the use of appropriate promotional mechanisms, washland areas, which will simultaneously accommodate winter inundation, support extensive farming methods, deliver environmental benefits, and do this in a way which can underpin the rural economy. This paper explores the likely economic impacts of the development of flood storage and washland creation. In doing so, consideration is given to feasibility of this type of development, the environmental implications for a variety of habitats and species, and the financial and institutional mechanisms required to achieve implementation.     

Ethical Veganism,Virtue, and Greatness of the Soul

Many moral philosophers have criticized intensive animal farming because it can be harmful to the environment, it causes pain and misery to a large number of animals, and furthermore eating meat and animal-based products can be unhealthful. The issue of industrially farmed animals has become one of the most pressing ethical questions of our time. On the one hand, utilitarians have argued that we should become vegetarians or vegans because the practices of raising animals for food are immoral since they minimize the overall happiness. Deontologists, on the other hand, have argued that the practices of raising animals for food are immoral because animals have certain rights and we have duties toward them. Some virtue ethicists remain unconvinced of deontic and consequentialist arguments against the exploitation of animals and suggest that a virtue-based approach is better equipped to show what is immoral about raising and using animals for food, and what is virtuous about ethical veganism.     

Industrial Farming is Not Cruel to Animals

Critics of industrial animal agriculture (also known as “factory” farming) have argued that its practices are cruel, inhumane, or otherwise degrading to animals. These arguments sometimes form the basis of a larger case for the complete abolition of animal agriculture, while others argue for more modest welfare-based reforms that allow for certain types of industrial farming. This paper defends industrial farming against the charge of cruelty. As upsetting as certain practices may seem, I argue that they need not be construed as cruel or inhumane. Any link between industrial farming and cruelty or inhumanity is contingent on certain cultural, behavioral, and psychological facts that are person-dependent. For many people working in animal agriculture, these facts do not obtain. To be sure, industrial animal agriculture has real moral hazards that must be carefully avoided, but all that this shows is that working with animals is not for everyone.     

What's wrong with animalby-products?

Without looking beyond the conditions under which laying hens typically live in the contemporary U.S. egg industry, we can understand why the production and consumption of factory farmed eggs could be judged immoral. However, the question, What (if anything) is wrong with animal by-products? cannot always be adequately answered by looking at the conditions under which animals live out their productive lives. For the dairy industry looks benign in those terms, but if we look beyond the conditions under which milk cows live, we can better understand some animal rights activists' reasons for objecting to dairy products. The contemporary U.S. dairy industry requires a slaughter industry between one-seventh and one-third the size of the contemporary beef industry. Today, beef slaughter is vastly more humane than poultry slaughter, but if today's beef slaughter industry is judged emmoral, the contemporary dairy industry should be judged similarly immoral, because the two are wedded. This is the deep reason for moral suspicion of the dairy industry.     

Social Acceptance of Dairy Farming: The Ambivalence Between the Two Faces of Modernity

Society’s relationship with modern animal farming is an ambivalent one: on the one hand there is rising criticism about modern animal farming; on the other hand people appreciate certain aspects of it, such as increased food safety and low food prices. This ambivalence reflects the two faces of modernity: the negative (exploitation of nature and loss of traditions) and the positive (progress, convenience, and efficiency). This article draws on a national survey carried out in the Netherlands that aimed at gaining a deeper understanding about the acceptance of modern dairy farming in Dutch society. People take two dimensions into account when evaluating different aspects of modern dairy farming: (1) the way living beings are used for production and (2) the way a dairy farm functions as a business. In both these dimensions people appeared to adopt cautious opinions: most people preferred relatively traditional and natural farms and were concerned about the use of nature and treatment of animals in modern production—although this did not imply an outright rejection of modern animal farming. The study also looked for (and sought to explain) differences of opinion between social groups. Besides socio-demographic factors such as age and gender, farming experience and value-orientation (such as socially minded and professional) appeared to be important variables. The values and convictions within modern society can help to explain why some people are greatly concerned about animal welfare while some show less concern. This diversity also helps to explain why general information campaigns are quite ineffective in allaying concerns about modern animal farming.     

Carcass disposal and siting controversy: Risk, dialogue and confrontation in the 2001 foot-and-mouth Outbreak

This paper examines controversy during the 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak after mass carcass burial sites were selected at two sites in northeast England, and focuses on shortcomings in public consultation surrounding the carcass disposal policy. The slaughter of six million animals necessitated a national disposal strategy on a hitherto unknown scale. The belated decision to concentrate carcass disposal in a small number of mass burial sites provoked more opposition in the two ex-mining localities selected in the northeast than anywhere else. In both cases local liaison committees were established to manage dialogue between residents and public authorities. We argue that, although seen by the authorities primarily as a vehicle for risk communication and public reassurance, for residents these functioned chiefly as a vehicle for holding public authorities to account. These divergent purposes were overshadowed by the chaotic circumstances in which the early stages of the mass burial policy were implemented, and the way in which the carcass disposal policy was dictated by the operation of the slaughter policy, whose draconian form precluded any but the most cursory public consultation.     

Does Organic Farming Face Distinctive Livestock Welfare Issues? – A Conceptual Analysis

The recent development and growth oforganic livestock farming and the relateddevelopment of national and internationalregulations has fueled discussions amongscientists and philosophers concerning theproper conceptualization of animal welfare.These discussions on livestock welfare inorganic farming draw on the conventionaldiscussions and disputes on animal welfare thatinvolve issues such as different definitions ofwelfare (clinical health, absence of suffering,sum of positive and negative experiences,etc.), the possibility for objective measuresof animal welfare, and the acceptable level ofwelfare. It seems clear that livestock welfareis a value-laden concept and that animalwelfare science cannot be made independent ofquestions of values and ethics. The questioninvestigated here is whether those values thatunderpin organic farming, in particular, alsoaffect the interpretation of livestock welfare,and, if so, how. While some of the issuesraised in connection with organic farming arerelatively uncontroversial, others are not. Theintroduction of organic farming values seems tointroduce new criteria for what counts as goodanimal welfare, as well as a different ethicalbasis for making moral decisions on welfare.Organic farming embodies distinctive systemicor communitarian ethical ideas and the organicvalues are connected to a systemic conceptionof nature, of agriculture, of the farm, and ofthe animal. The new criteria of welfare arerelated to concepts such as naturalness,harmony, integrity, and care. While the organicvalues overlap with those involved in theconventional discussion of animal welfare, someof them suggest a need to set new prioritiesand to re-conceptualize animal welfare – forexample, with respect to ``naturalness,' inrelation to the possibilities for expression ofnatural behavior and in relation to animalintegrity as a concept for organismic harmony.The organic perspective also seems to suggest awider range of solutions to welfare problemsthan changes in farm routines or operations onthe animals. The systemic solutions include thechoice and reproduction of suitable breeds,changes in the farm structure, and changes inthe larger production and consumption system – including consumer perceptions andpreferences. But the organic values may alsocall for sacrifices of individual welfare in aconventional sense in order to advance welfarefrom the perspective of organic farming.Whether this is good or bad cannot be decidedwithout entering into an inquiry and discussionof the values and ethics involved.     

Integrated Land and Water Management in the United Kingdom: Narrowing the Implementation Gap

Riparian buffer zones have been incorporated in land and water management policy for England since 1994, when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food introduced a Water Fringe Option (WFO) as part of a broader habitat conservation scheme. Whilst natural scientists have examined the functioning of riparian buffer zones, understanding of farmers' decision making regarding the adoption or non-adoption of voluntary buffer zone policies is very limited. This paper examines the factors influencing the decision making of farmers who were eligible to join the WFO in three river catchments. Quantitative and qualitative information was collected from farmers using semi-structured interviews and was supplemented with in-depth interviews with representatives of public agencies, agricultural groups and independent experts. Data analysis was completed using the 'Framework' analytical approach and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 8.0 computer software. The research revealed that decisions to participate in the WFO were influenced by a mix of situational, psychological and sociological characteristics, which suggests that policy makers must attach greater importance to implementation conditions and farmers decision making if riparian buffer zones are to play a more prominent role in the management of land and water in rural catchments. Tightly structured schemes will only appeal to a narrow segment of the farming population and will not lead to widespread re-creation of riparian habitats. A more flexible and collaborative style of policy development is needed in order for riparian buffer zone policies to meet the circumstances and needs of the diverse UK farming community.     

Attitudes of Dutch Pig Farmers Towards Tail Biting and Tail Docking

The Dutch policy objective of a fully sustainable livestock sector without mutilations by 2023 is not compatible with the routine practice of tail docking to minimize the risk of tail biting. To examine farmer attitudes towards docking, a telephone survey was conducted among 487 conventional and 33 organic Dutch pig farmers. “Biting” (of tails, ears, or limbs) was identified by the farmers as a main welfare problem in pig farming. About half of the farmers reported to have no tail biting problems in their own herd. When farmers did report problems, they most often reported figures between 1 and 5 % of the animals. High incidences of tail biting were anticipated when trying to keep undocked pigs. Enrichment materials used in the conventional sector included mainly chains (52–63 % of the farms) and hanging rubber or plastic balls (22–30 %). Straw, sawdust, or wood shavings was hardly provided in conventional pig farming (2–3 %), in contrast to organic farming (88–100 % of farms). Conventional pig farmers feel a curly tail is not very important for sustainable pig farming. They consider enrichment to be less effective and tail docking to be less stressful for them and their piglets than their organic colleagues do. Pig farmers identified climate as a main risk factor for tail biting as opposed to enrichment. The objective of reducing routine tail docking requires solutions for dealing with tail biting problems at the farm level. In this process, transfer of scientific knowledge about enrichment materials and other measures to prevent and cure tail biting is critical, as is a change in farmer attitudes and awareness of the moral issues involved.     

A “Practical” Ethic for Animals

Drawing on the features of “practical philosophy” described by Toulmin (1990), a “practical” ethic for animals would be rooted in knowledge of how people affect animals, and would provide guidance on the diverse ethical concerns that arise. Human activities affect animals in four broad ways: (1) keeping animals, for example, on farms and as companions, (2) causing intentional harm to animals, for example through slaughter and hunting, (3) causing direct but unintended harm to animals, for example by cropping practices and vehicle collisions, and (4) harming animals indirectly by disturbing life-sustaining processes and balances of nature, for example by habitat destruction and climate change. The four types of activities raise different ethical concerns including suffering, injury, deprivation, and death (of individuals), decline of populations, disruption of ecological systems containing animals, and extinction of species. They also vary in features relevant to moral evaluation and decision-making; these include the number of animals affected, the duration of the effects, the likelihood of irreversible effects, and the degree to which the effects can be controlled. In some cases human actions can also provide benefits to animals such as shelter and health care. Four mid-level principles are proposed to make a plausible fit to the features of the four types of human activities and to address the major ethical concerns that arise. The principles are: (1) to provide good lives for the animals in our care, (2) to treat suffering with compassion, (3) to be mindful of unseen harm, and (4) to protect the life-sustaining processes and balances of nature. This “practical” approach arguably makes a better fit to the complex, real-life problems of animal ethics than the single foundational principles that have dominated much recent animal ethics philosophy.