With a long, proud history as the agricultural school of the state of Michigan, and a tradition of being the land grant university with a duty to the citizens of the state of Michigan, it is time to reconsider the university’s focus on confinement animal agriculture. Although the direction of the agricultural community for the past 20 years has been toward the creation of industrial, confinement agriculture, that era is coming to an end and a new vision for the future is on the horizon.
Americans are in the midst of a debate about the acceptability of confinement agriculture. The arguments focus upon a broad spectrum of issues: Is the meat of confinement agriculture healthy for humans to consume? What about the negative consequences to the environment from concentrated animal activities? What about the welfare of the animals that find themselves imprisoned in the cages and bars of the industrial facilities?
Questions are being raised about food chains dependent on corn and the consumption of large amounts of petroleum products. Each of these topics is a book or two by themselves and cannot be discussed in detail here. In sum, there are increasing questions about the wisdom of the contemporary confinement food system.
MSU has extensive programs in animal science and agribusiness management, but the vast majority of them are based upon the premise that confinement agriculture is the vision for the future. I suggest that this is no longer the case. For example, this fall the state of California has a ballot initiative that will outlaw the use of confinement facilities for pigs and chickens. Recent polling suggests it has the necessary support from the public to pass. Change is coming. Is MSU going to be stuck with dead-end technologies and research no one wants to read?
If we want to help the people, environment and animals of Michigan, we should focus much more on the small farmer, the family farm and on pasture-based sustainable agriculture, rather than supporting the profit profile of the mega-corporations. Students should at least be exposed to both systems and learn about the benefits and costs of each strategy for raising food animals. Rather than focusing just on making feedlots more productive, how about studying how to run a profitable, nonintensive cattle operation? Rather than trying to mitigate the negative condition arising out of forcing hens to spend a lifetime in a small cage, why not investigate into low density, free-range commercial operations?
Admittedly, I am a lifelong advocate for enhancing the welfare of agricultural animals, but I think any objective view of the social landscape will suggest change is coming. Confinement industrial agriculture is going to be limited in the future and people want animals raised where they can see them and be assured of the quality of their lives. I hope and urge policymakers at MSU to provide leadership toward this new vision. Their reconsideration should include the scope of courses offered, the investment of capital in alternative production systems and tenure track positions for professors to support research in these alternative systems.
David Favre
College of Law professor
Editor-in-Chief of Animal Legal & Historical Web Center
Support student media!
Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
Discussion
Share and discuss “Small farmer deserves attention from MSU agriculture programs” on social media.
