Apr 19, 2014
Home| Tools| Events| Blogs| Discussions| Sign UpLogin


November 2008 Archive for Out to Pasture

RSS By: Steve Cornett, Beef Today

Read the latest blog from Steve Cornett.

An incomplete "sentience"

Nov 25, 2008
 
 
 
           
             
By Steve Cornett
 
This animal rights thing has been on my mind since Proposition 2 passed in California. I’m not sure you can go to the bank with the thoughts of Peter Seeger (http://www.newsweek.com/id/169881), who is a longtime animal rights icon.
            However, he was awful pleased to see so many Californiacs vote his way on confinement. It is not insignificant that, in that same election, the same voters passed a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages. So this was not a particularly liberal electorate on social matters.
            Proposition 2 does not directly affect the beef business. The initial impact is on pigs and poultry, so our more myopic peers in the cattle industry might be pleased to see roadblocks thrown in the path of efficient production practices employed by the competition.
            But if you read Mr. Seeger’s thoughts, you’ll notice he sees these no-crate laws as the first few steps in the long journey toward a future in which animals are no longer “property.”
            He and his fellow thinkers see animal agriculture as the moral equivalent of slavery.
            Those of us with a more traditional view of things, disagree strongly, of course. Certainly we have the bible on our sides, but one doubts Mr. Seeger looks to the bible for his moral guidance.
            These folks have developed, from whole cloth, a new ethic that attempts to create some sort of moral equivalency with anything they regard as “sentient.”
            They define “sentient” as the ability to feel pain. But sentience without sapience—the ability to reason at least a bit—is an incomplete “sentience.” A cow walking up the slaughter line is no more stressed than she would be loading into a trailer to be hauled to greener pastures.
            Because she has a human—a sapient human smart enough to outwit wolves and set hay aside for the winter--the cow has lived a darned pleasant life, given her level of sentience. She has plenty to eat. She and her calves are protected from predators. It’s a good life; and then, with a thump, it ends.
Much more painlessly, it must be noted, than nature ends the lives of prey species in its care. Take the cow out of the pasture and replace her with a wild creature which will starve or die with his belly ripped out by a pack of predators and how have you improved the world? How have you lessened the suffering of the beasts of the field?
I would measure sentience the same way the joke says to measure true love: Lock your dog and your wife in the barn for a day and see which one is really happy to see you when you return. See which one holds a grudge. That is sapience and it is what allows humans to know there is no free lunch. Cows don’t know that. They don’t know we’re seeing to their every whim because we want to eat their children. They just know life is good.
            Seems to me that the whole business of morals and ethics—religion aside—is based on a mutual compact between equals. I agree not to take human life and covet your ass because you agree not to take human life and covet my ass. There’s not, if you don’t count religion, much other reason for me not to thump you atop the head and take your stuff and your wife, if she’s a good one. And make your kids slaves that I can send out to feed cattle on cold days.
            But we’ve got a set of ethics that says we won’t do that stuff. It holds because it is mutually beneficial.
            I don’t see how you carry that over to animals. They can’t make any such contract beyond what we—we humans—teach them..
            Let’s say, for instance, that I take my gun and tell you, “Come here. I want to give you a cookie and shoot you in the head.” You’ll say, “Well, gosh, no thanks.” That’s because you are not only sentient but sapient.
            But offer my dog the same deal and here he comes, all happy and stuff. Don’t tell me he’s sentient. He’s dumb as a dog. He doesn’t know not to chase trucks on the highway. He’s got no sapience, and we shouldn’t treat him as if he does. Not for our sake nor his.
            The argument made, the fact is that Mr. Seeger is right. His side is winning, and the boundaries of what constitutes “animal cruelty” in the modern ethic are constantly expanding. I can’t, personally, find any moral bedrock for those changes to build upon.
            But that doesn’t seem to matter to the many urbanites who no longer have a dog in the fight over animal welfare and who seem to believe dogs shouldn’t fight to begin with.

Let them eat Spam?

Nov 20, 2008

By Steve Cornett


Here’s the scariest news yet about the economy: The only meat product in short supply in the U.S. is Spam. Spam!

I was in college once, for quite a while in fact, so I know how broke you have to be to eat Spam. If you’ve got to eat Spam, you are a poor prospect for the purveyor of even hamburger. Much less beef steak.

In an earlier column we talked about my theory that the major grocers’ decision to begin accepting credit cards may have had more positive effect on beef demand than all the improvement we’ve made in beef quality in the last 30 years.

My theory centers on the fact that folks using credit cards are more likely to buy upscale. I mean, if you can sell working folks $1,300 steroes and $800 leather seats in cars just because it’s all paid on time,  charging a T-bone over flaccid white chicken is easy..
 
I’ve not seen any proof I was right, but as I noted before, the rise in beef demand that started a few years ago seemed to coincide with when I noticed you could charge-card food at Walmart.

Now it seems our customers, like some of our children, have charged all they can. A friend in the furniture wholesale business tells me that his dealers claim that 60% of the people who agree to buy furniture nowadays fail to qualify for credit.
 
And, sure enough, beef demand is trending down. Demand for the middle meats is much weaker than demand for ground beef. And, apparently weaker than demand for Spam. Spam! You shouldn’t even be able to “demand” and “Spam” in the same sentence.    
 
I refuse to be negative about things, but if I were inclined to be, a world in which people, American people, yet, have to eat Spam would be something I could be negative about.

I’m not going to do any market predicting. But between commodity deflation, which seems to be all around us, and an increasingly frugal population—a population that may be learning, enmasse, what I learned years ago about credit card abuse—I could get a little bearish on the near term future for cow creatures.
 
Not long term, mind you. We’ve still got a hungry world to feed and there are more people every day. Assuming, and we must, that the tide of globalization will continue to lift millions of boats, a lot of them will want to eat beef.
 
But, for a while here, you’ve got to figure domestic demand may leave a nasty taste in our mouths. So, if you now and then notice a slightly greasy, fatty, taste, with just a hint of what might be possum, lingering in your palate, it might not just be the Spam.  
 


Steve Cornett is editor emeritus at Beef Today. You can reach him via e-mail at scornett@farmjournal.com.

This column is part of the Beef Today's Cattle Drive E-Newsletter, which is delivered to subscribers biweekly and includes beef industry analysis, production information as well as the latest beef headline news. Click here to subscribe.

 

Log In or Sign Up to comment

COMMENTS

Hot Links & Cool Tools

    •  
    •  
    •  
    •  
    •  
    •  

facebook twitter youtube View More>>
 
 
 
 
The Home Page of Agriculture
© 2014 Farm Journal, Inc. All Rights Reserved|Web site design and development by AmericanEagle.com|Site Map|Privacy Policy|Terms & Conditions