Animal Agriculture: Symbiosis, Culture, or Ethical Conflict?

Several writers on animal ethics defend the abolition of most or all animal agriculture, which they consider an unethical exploitation of sentient non-human animals. However, animal agriculture can also be seen as a co-evolution over thousands of years, that has affected biology and behavior on the one hand, and quality of life of humans and domestic animals on the other. Furthermore, animals are important in sustainable agriculture. They can increase efficiency by their ability to transform materials unsuitable for human consumption and by grazing areas that would be difficult to harvest otherwise. Grazing of natural pastures is essential for the pastoral landscape, an important habitat for wild flora and fauna and much valued by humans for its aesthetic value. Thus it seems that the environment gains substantially when animals are included in sustainable agricultural systems. But what about the animals themselves? Objections against animal agriculture often refer to the disrespect for animals’ lives, integrity, and welfare in present intensive animal production systems. Of the three issues at stake, neither integrity nor animal welfare need in principle be violated in carefully designed animal husbandry systems. The main ethical conflict seems to lie in the killing of animals, which is inevitable if the system is to deliver animal products. In this paper, we present the benefits and costs to humans and animals of including animals in sustainable agriculture, and discuss how to address some of the ethical issues involved.     

Zoo Animal Welfare

The continuing existence of zoos and their good purposes such as conservation, science, education, and recreation, can be ethically justified only if zoos guarantee the welfare of their animals. The usual criteria for measuring animal welfare in zoos are physical health, long life, and reproduction. This paper looks at these criteria and finds them insufficient. Additional criteria are submitted to expand the range of welfare considerations: natural and abnormal behavior; freedom and choice; and dignity. All these criteria should play a role in analyzing zoo animal welfare and interests but dignity has the overriding part because it impacts on both animal and human interests.     

The use and abuse of scientific studies

In response to Evelyn Pluhar'sWho Can Be Morally Obligated to Be a Vegetarian? in this journal issue, the author has read all of Pluhar's citations for the accuracy of her claims and had these read by an independent nutritionist. Detailed analysis of Pluhar's argument shows that she attempts to make her case by consistent misappropriation of the findings and conclusions of the studies she cites. Pluhar makes sweeping generalizations from scanty data, ignores causal explanations given by scientists, equates hypothesis with fact, draws false cause conclusions from studies, and in one case claims a conclusion opposite of what the scientist published. Such poor reasoning cannot be the basis of an argument for moral vegetarianism. A broader search of the literature and attention to reviews and textbooks in nutrition shows that each of Pluhar's claims is suspect or incorrect. Pluhar has not undermined my central claims: even if animals have certain rights and well-planned vegetarian diets are safe in complex industrialized societies, these diets cannot be so regarded if the presuppositions of high levels of wealth, education, and medical care do not exist; and, women, children, the aged and some ill persons are at greater risk on restrictive vegan diets. Thus, any duty of moral vegetarianism is not categorical but provisional in nature.     

CLUSTER ANALYSIS AND WATER PROJECT EVALUATION1

Large-scale water projects have long been undertaken for the benefit of people. Information appears to be needed as to who benefits as a result of these projects. The hypothesis was tested that regional income and employment benefits would be closely related to areas where water projects were located. The analytical procedure centered on cluster analysis used to delineate counties in the Tennessee River Watershed on the basis of changes in selected variables over different periods. The hypothesis was rejected. It was concluded that benefits of water projects were not necessarily confined to isolated areas near projects but were regional.     

Ecological tax reforms and environmental benefits in Italy and Sweden

The paper calculates the implications of including monetary measurements of environmental emission changes for the welfare impacts of ecological tax reforms in Italy and Sweden. Taxes on emissions of SO₂, NO_x and CO₂ are investigated. Country-specific computable equilibrium models are used for estimating net welfare changes of the introduction of these taxes, the incomes of which are used for reducing distorting labour taxes. The results indicate that the inclusion of environmental benefits reduces the costs of ecological tax reforms considerably for both countries, and may even turn into net welfare gains.     

WELFARE EFFECTS OF ALTERNATWE WATER RATIONING SCHEMES: A CASE STUDY1

ABSTRACT: Four alternate schemes often used to deal with a water shortage are: physical rationing, lifeline with increasing block rates, rationing with resale, and pure price rationing. Each of these are analyzed using a supply-demand framework. The theoretical results are applied to a representative California water district and the welfare loss is calculated for a hypothetical 20 percent reduction in water supply for six different income classes. We find that reliance on schemes using the price mechanism in one form or another is clearly superior, in terms of welfare loss, as a means of dealing with a water shortage.     

森林资源经济利用的政策模拟模型应用研究

林业政策在对森林资源的培育、保护和利用方面起相当大的作用.在市场机制作用的框架下林业政策的作用更多的是通过影响市场机制传递的产品和生产要素的价格信号,进而影响生产经营主体的收益成本预期及其决策行为,最终影响到对森林资源的培育、保护和利用的效果,因此分析和认清林业政策对林业发展的作用机制和影响效果有重要的意义.本文基于市场机制.以林业经济福利为目标,把森林资源培育的第一产业环节和以森林资源为原料的第二产业发展结合一起作为完整的产业链,构建一个林业的政策模拟模型.利用该模型,对木材价格、林业税费、信贷利率和采伐限额等林业经济政策的影响进行了定量分析,着重比较了林业产权制度改革前后政策变化所产生的效应,以及所具有的激励效果,从而认识林业政策的变动和调整如何影响政策目标,为政策的制定和对合理政策进行选择提供参考的依据.     

Effect of Monitoring Technique on Quality of Conservation Science

Monitoring free‐ranging animals in their natural habitat is a keystone of ecosystem conservation and increasingly important in the context of current rates of loss of biological diversity. Data collected from individuals of endangered species inform conservation policies. Conservation professionals assume that these data are reliable—that the animals from whom data are collected are representative of the species in their physiology, ecology, and behavior and of the populations from which they are drawn. In the last few decades, there has been an enthusiastic adoption of invasive techniques for gathering ecological and conservation data. Although these can provide impressive quantities of data, and apparent insights into animal ranges and distributions, there is increasing evidence that these techniques can result in animal welfare problems, through the wide‐ranging physiological effects of acute and chronic stress and through direct or indirect injuries or compromised movement. Much less commonly, however, do conservation scientists consider the issue of how these effects may alter the behavior of individuals to the extent that the data they collect could be unreliable. The emerging literature on the immediate and longer‐term effects of capture and handling indicate it can no longer be assumed that a wild animal's survival of the process implies the safety of the procedure, that the procedure is ethical, or the scientific validity of the resulting data. I argue that conservation professionals should routinely assess study populations for negative effects of their monitoring techniques and adopt noninvasive approaches for best outcomes not only for the animals, but also for conservation science. Efecto de la Técnica de Monitoreo en la Calidad de la Ciencia de la Conservación     

Minimizing Harm in Agricultural Animal Experiments in New Zealand

Intrusive agricultural experimentspublished in New Zealand in the last five yearsare reviewed in terms of the degree of animalsuffering involved, and the necessity for thissuffering in relation to research findings.When measured against animal welfare criteriaof the Ministry of Agriculture, thirty-sixstudies inflicted ``severe' or ``very severe'suffering. Many of these experiments hadquestionable short-term applications, had anapplication restricted to agriculturalproduction or economic growth, or could havebeen modified to prevent or reduce suffering.     

An Assessment of the Valuation Methods Used to Calculate the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW), Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), and Sustainable Net Benefit Index (SNBI)

For some time now, ecological economists have been putting forward a ‘threshold hypothesis’ – the notion that when macroeconomic systems expand beyond a certain size, the additional cost of growth exceeds the flow of additional benefits. In order to support their belief, ecological economists have developed a number of similar indexes to measure and compare the benefits and costs of growth (e.g., the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare and the Genuine Progress Indicator). In virtually every instance where an index of this type has been calculated for a particular country, the movement of the index appears to reinforce the existence of the threshold hypothesis. Of late, a number of observers have expressed concerns about whether these alternative indexes reflect concrete reality or the prejudices of ecological economists. In view of these concerns, this paper closely examines the valuation methods used in the calculation the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, the Genuine Progress Indicator, and the Sustainable Net Benefit Index. It is argued that a consistent and more robust set of valuation techniques is required in order for these alternative indexes to gain broad acceptability.*Readers should send their comments on this paper to: BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of publication of this issue.