by Serena Sutka and Maureen Gallant

To Infinity and Beyond

People are fascinated with the idea of creating clones, and countless fiction books and movies have been made on this theme. With current advances in biotechnology, yesterday’s science fiction is starting to look a lot like today’s reality. Alongside these advances come just as many drawbacks, and many of the procedures bring up ethical questions that leave us wondering if advancing is actually possible.

In the Beginning

Dolly the sheep was the first mammal cloned from an adult cell, in March of 1997. She was cloned from the udder of a six-year old sheep (thus the name Dolly, after Dolly Parton) as part of a project whose goal was to create an animal with specific proteins in its milk; she was one of 227 attempts. The process by which Dolly was cloned is called nuclear transfer as explained by AnimalResearch info (1996) and shown in the photo of a new nucleus being put into a donor cell that has had the original nucleus and polar body removed (para. 5)

According to Stice (a Veterinary and Animal Science researcher from the University of Massachusetts Amherst) et al (1998), when Dolly was introduced to the public, many opposed her creation because of their perception of the power and capabilities of cloning (p. 1). As McKinnell and Di Bernardino pointed out, once Dolly appeared, the media jumped on the topic and immediately leaped to and then became obsessed with the idea of cloning humans (McKinnell and Di Bernardino, 1999).

Human Cloning

Is this jump from the cloning of animals to the cloning of humans valid? Motavalli (1999), writer for The Environmental Magazine, in “Me and My Shadow,” states that “few scientists doubt that human cloning is possible” (para. 5). However, whether or not it’s possible may not be the question at hand.

When interviewing Nancy Kieser (2010), a professor in the Animal Science department at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who spent a good deal of time working with a company that was cloning cattle, we asked her if she felt that animal cloning would lead to human cloning. She felt it to be impossible and explained that there is a limiting factor in terms of donors and recipients. This problem does not exist in animal cloning because there are plenty of eggs available from slaughterhouses that would go to waste if not used (personnel communication).

Kieser (2010) pointed out that as far as humans go, there is already a high demand for surrogate mothers so it will be hard to find people who will agree to be a recipient for a cloned baby. Not only that, but out of 250 embryos only 10% will survive long enough to reach the blastocyst stage, which introduces other limitations as the fetus develops. In addition, the public will never really be accepting of the idea because as Nancy points out, “At the end of the day it’s still going to be a human that’s born. It’s going to think, it’s going to have emotions” (personal communication). It is for these reasons that she believes it is not going to catch on.

Only the Good Die Young

In addition to the concerns regarding human cloning, there are also questions about whether the process by which Dolly was cloned results in a shortened lifespan. According to AnimalResearch.info (1996), most sheep live to be ten to twelve years old, and when Dolly died at the age of six and a half years, she suffered not only from arthritis but also from sheep pulmonary adenamatosis. This is a virus infected lung tumor that is typically found in older sheep (para. 7). According to Kimball (2010), a study showed that Dolly’s telomeres were only 80% as long as those of a normal sheep her age. Telomeres are located at the end of chromosomes and keep the ends of various chromosomes in the cell from bumping into each other. This is crucial to determining cells’ lifespans. The telomeres shrink throughout the life of an organism, giving cells a finite lifespan (p. 1).

Because of what happened with Dolly, studies were done to see if the process of nuclear transfer resulted in animals with shorter telomeres. Lanza et al (2000), who wrote an article about the studies conducted on telomeres, explains that the studies also tried to determine if nuclear transfer would be able to reverse cellular aging and restore somatic cells to a phenotypically youthful state (p. 665). The results of the study showed that their cloned animals actually had extended telomeres. The results found in this study differ greatly from those found in another study in which telomere erosion did not appear to be repaired and where telomere length was even decreased in some cases (p. 667). Research suggests that this may be because these animals were generated without germ-line development. Germ-line cells are those that give rise to non-sex cells. Dolly’s shorter telomeres may also be consistent with the time the donor cells spent in culture before nuclear transfer. The cells must have sufficient time for periods of arrest in the cell cycle in order for normal development to occur (p. 665). If it is true that nuclear transfer can restore telomeres that have been eroded, this opens up doors for the study of mammalian aging.

Pros and Cons of Cloning

Besides its potential to be used for scientific studies, cloning has been promoted for a number of other uses. However, all may not be as cut and dry as it seems. Cloning is promoted for being advantageous in modifying crops to make them more successful, but some argue that this may not be the case. In his article “Me and My Shadow,” Motavalli (1997) quotes Dr. Jane Rissler, deputy director of the Food & Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), as being concerned that cloning will weaken the genetic diversity of agricultural crops and animal species more so than they already are. According to Rissler, “Both crops and livestock have become very uniform and much more vulnerable to disease” (p. 1).

Butler (2009), a writer for Food and Drug Law Journal who wrote the article “Cloned Animal Products in the Human Food Chain,” seconds this statement by stating that cloning decreases the amount of genetic variation within our livestock and plant species (p. 6). This is not necessarily advantageous because diversity leads to hybrid vigor, a phenomenon that enhances a species’s ability to survive. For example, if a certain breed of cow is predisposed to a particular disease, then it would be more advantageous to cross that animal with another breed that is not subject to this problem. The resulting offspring will then have a decreased chance of contracting said disease.

Cloning is also promoted as a method of preserving endangered species, both plant and animal. However, counter arguments point out that although we can clone these animals we often do not have a habitat to return them to. Looking at it in that manner, it seems that scientists are not actually solving a problem but possibly creating a new one. In his article “Life After Death,” Hayhurst (1999), a writer for The Environmental Magazine, quotes Kostyack, a member of the NWF (National Wildlife Foundation), who says, “saving animals without saving their habitat is a futile effort” (p. 1).

Cloning is also promoted for creating an animal whose organs could be used for human transplants. While there is a great need for organs, and pigs would make good candidates, they also pose problems. Motavalli (1997) explains that pigs have a sugar coat on their organs that is not compatible with other mammals so problems with organ rejection are faced (p. 2). In addition, there is always the chance that diseases will cross over from the pigs to the humans along with the organ.

Ethical Dilemmas

In addition to the logistical disadvantages of cloning, ethical implications must also be faced. Lassen (1998) wrote about Dolly the Sheep that the biggest complaint against cloning was that it was unnatural. In accordance with this view, people who come from a religious background feel that cloning is akin to playing God. When we start playing with genetics we affect the life and possibly the lifespan of the animal, as seen with Dolly. Modifying genetics brings up questions that do not have readily available answers, such as how much modification is acceptable and what should be done with these modified animals. Is cloning simply a harmless exercise, or will it open Pandora’s box? There doesn’t appear to be any easy answers to these questions.

From Cloning to Transgenics

In part because of the ethical concerns, cloning has not taken off the way people thought it would so what else has been in the works in the meantime? One of the technologies that stemmed from cloning was transgenics. Erhenfeld (2005) explains a transgenic organism to be one that has had one or more genes transferred to it that originally came from another species (p. 724). The use of transgenics is intriguing and there have been many good ideas that stemmed from it (Ehrenfeld, 2005). For example, instead of worrying about crop damage from herbicides why not introduce an herbicide resistant gene into the plant? Transgenics have also been used to attempt to reduce rodent population by introducing a virus in their egg proteins that would render them sterile (p. 727). Another invention was “golden rice.” Many children in third world countries suffer from a vitamin A deficiency, which can result in blindness if not treated. b-carotene is made up of two vitamin A molecules linked together and can help fulfill the body’s vitamin A requirement, thus golden rice was engineered to contain extra beta carotene (p. 728). Similarly, a company in Texas engineered corn to produce drugs for diabetes and diarrhea (p. 726).

On the Flip Side

There have been problems with all of these ideas for beneficial uses of cloning. Ehrenfeld (2005) cites studies that claim introducing herbicide-resistant genes resulted in a huge increase in the use of herbicides in the United States between 1996 and 2003 (p. 726). The company in Texas ended up contaminating soybean fields in Nebraska and Iowa. Some of their modified corn ended up in a Nebraska grain elevator along with the soybeans, and all of it had to be destroyed along with 155 acres of contaminated fields in Iowa (p. 726). While the golden rice seems like a win-win solution, it has not yet proven to be the answer to the blindness related to the vitamin A deficiency in third world countries, despite the millions of dollars that have been spent on the project (p. 728).

The most worrying example is an attempt to reduce rodent infestation. The Cooperative Research Center (CRC) for the Biological Control of Pest Animals in Canberra as well as the John Curin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University produced a genetically altered mousepox virus. Scientists engineered the virus to be carried in the mouse’s egg protein.  Their goal was for the virus to reduce infestation of rodents by causing them to stimulate an antibody attack against their own egg proteins (p. 727). This process would render the animals sterile. Because the initial process was ineffective in one mouse strain, an immune booster was given (p. 727). No one expected the resulting outcome, which was that the modified virus completely wiped out all the experimental animals, even the ones that had been vaccinated against it. Bob Seamark, who was the CRC director, explained that they had proven that a commonly used technology could overwhelm resistance and render vaccination useless (p. 727).  Seamark also pointed out that there is a close relationship between the mousepox virus and the human smallpox virus. This raises the specter of their findings being used to create new bioweapons.

In regard to transgenics Ehrenfeld (2005) states “Biotechnologies should be judged not by their promises but by their likelihood of success, their cost, and their potential to cause unpredictable, irreversible harm to species, ecosystems, and human societies” (p. 731). He goes on to state, “The risks are real and serious – the benefits are exciting but hypothetical” (p. 730). Not only that, but we again face an ethical dimension and more questions that cannot be answered. Do we as humans have the right to manipulate genes and create new species? Is there a limit to how much we should be allowed to manipulate a genome? Could this lead to a super-race of humans, or human-animal hybrids? The possibilities are truly mind-boggling.

Rules and Regulations

One of the things that came up as a problem with the process of creating transgenic species was lack of following the rules. Ehrenfeld (2005) pointed out the disturbing fact that some people deliberately ignored the standards in order to save time and money (p. 726). Another consideration is human error. According to Ehrenfeld’s article, multiple “seed companies have made mistakes in field trials of genetically modified crops” (p. 726). This brings up questions of quality control, and seems to indicate that we might need to implement some kind of regulations before we can continue in the field of biotechnology with a good conscience.

Butler (2009) says that as of now, the FDA believes that products from cloned animals are safe to consume (p.1). Not only that but:

[The] FDA found it could not distinguish a healthy clone from a healthy conventionally bred animal. All of the blood values, overall health records, and behaviors were in the same range for clones and conventional animals of the same breed raised on the same farms. (p. 18)

However, many critics believe that cloned animals are new to the food chain in that they are different from food made from non-cloned animals and therefore need new regulations (p. 15). This may be true up to a certain point.  If the animal was transgenic and new genes were added to the animal to make it different from all others of its species, then studies need to be done to ensure this animal is safe to eat, regulations may need to be put in place, and consumers should be informed. On the other hand, if the animal is simply a clone it is no different from its mother or father who are not clones and it can and should be treated as any other food animal.

Something that seems imperative is education for the public about these processes. It is not uncommon for the general public to have misconceptions, which keep them from being able to see where the real issues lie, such as misunderstandings regarding logistics of cloning humans. Cloning has the potential to provide us with the tools to do studies that will help us find improved treatments for disease, if only for the reason that cloned animals make perfect study samples. We believe that the potential to research mammalian aging is also a worthwhile one. The potential benefits of transgenics are appealing, but these transgenic species cannot be allowed to escape into the wild and if we are going to continue to use this technology then this regulation, among others, must be enforced. We may also want to consider limiting the use of transgenics to specific situations that can be proven to be useful and safe so that we do not have to face the potential of a super- human race. According to Ehrenfeld (2005), “All new technologies carry risks – but that is hardly a valid reason to avoid change” (p. 726). The world we live in is rapidly changing and becomes more technologically based every day. While there is nothing wrong with this we need to keep our consciences in mind (no pun intended) and make sure that the work we do is for an ethical purpose that will not induce harm.

Keeping a Good Conscience

According to McKinnel and Di Bernardino (1999), writers for BioScience Magazine, “Knowledge itself isn’t amoral, but the choices for its applications reside in the ethical decision of humans” (p. 1). Cloning has a number of uses that can be used for good, but also have the potential to slide out of control via human cloning or over-modification and loss of genetic diversity. As people responsible for this process we have to chose what an acceptable use of cloning is, and make sure that it does not go too far in the wrong direction. The act itself is not where the issue lies, but rather what we use it for. As science fiction continues to become reality, we have to learn to use our newfound technologies in a safe and ethical way that is beneficial to all of the beings on our planet.

References

Butler, J. E.F. (2009). Cloned animal products in the human food chain: FDA should protect american consumers. Food and Drug Law Journal. Retrieved from GreenFILE

Ehrenfeld, D. (Oct. 2005). Transgenics and vertebrate cloning as tools for species conservation. Society for Conservation Biology, 20 (3), 723-732. Retrieved from GreenFILE

Hayhurst, C. (Nov/Dec 1999). Life after death. The Environmental Magazine, 10 (6), 23.  Retrieved from GreenFILE

Kimball, J. W. (2010). Telomeres. Kimball’s Biology Pages. Retrieved from users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/

Lanza, R.P., Cibelli, J.B., Blackwell, C., Cristofalo, V.J., Francis, M.K., Schertzer, M., Chavez, E. A., Sawyer, N. Lansdorp, P.M., West, M. D. (April 2000). Extension of cell life-span and telomere length in animals cloned from senescent somatic cells. Science, 288, 665-669. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.

Lassen, J., Gjerris, M., & Sandoe, P. (2006). After dolly–ethical limits to the use of biotechnology on farm animals [electronic resource]. Theriogenology, 65, 992-1004. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2005.09.012

McKinnell, G. DiBernordino, M. (Nov. 1999). The biology of cloning: history and rationale. Bioscience, 49 (11), 875. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.

Motavalli, J. (July/August 1997). Me and my shadow. The Environmental Magazine,  8 (4), 15. Retrieved from GreenFILE

Stice, S. L., Robl, J. M., de Leon, F. A. P., Jerry, J., Golueke, P. G., Cibelli, J. B., & Kane, J. J. (1998). Cloning: New breakthroughs leading to commercial opportunities. Theriogenology, 49(1), 129-138. doi: 10.1016/S0093-691X(97)00407-X

Animal Research.info. (1996). Cloning dolly the sheep. Retrieved from www.animalresearch.info/

By Daniela Kostova and KellyAnn Brown

Looking at the human-animal relationship through the years, we see how our understanding about the use of animals and their needs have changed. People first used animals for food, clothing, medicine and built shelters using animal materials and later on humans domesticated the animals. When people began to travel more, they discovered many different species of animals and started to use them throughout science, medicine, psychology and philosophy. Through many technical and psychological advancements, we see how animals have become an important part of our lives. With the current advanced science we are able to look at the animals and specifically examine how they benefit our lives in physical and mental ways. Today we are able to explore the connection between companion animals and people to see how this human-animal bond has changed people’s lives. Now when we see how strong our connection with animals is and we see how far we have gone to improve our relationship with these creatures, we look at the possible benefits that companion animals could offer people with different disabilities.

We, Daniela Kostova and KellyAnn Brown, are college students studying Animal Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. As animal lovers, we  want to learn more about our pets’ behavior and needs. We spend a lot of time around animals and we soon realized that they silently changed our lives. We read about the benefits that companion animals could have for pet owners and people with disabilities, and we experienced these benefits first hand.  This made us look forward to understanding and to expanding our knowledge so we could help to educate more people about this positive human-animal relationship. After visiting patients in a few facilities for a few months, we decided that we wanted to tell more pet owners about the programs that are available.

While KellyAnn Brown’s new puppy was sleeping sprawled on her lap, she realized that she wanted to share the way that her puppy made her feel with other people. “That’s when I decided to go through the rigorous training and testing program in order to get my puppy, Hudson, Canine Good Citizen certified.” The Canine Good Citizen program is run through the American Kennel Club (AKC) and recognizes “responsible pet ownership for owners and basic good manners for dogs” (AKC, 2010). With this training completed, many facilities will gladly open their doors to teams of dogs and their owners. “After visiting patients in a few facilities for a few months,” KellyAnn related, “I decided that I wanted to tell more pet owners about the program. That’s when I started my own program, Paws for a Visit, to prepare owners and their dogs for the test to become Canine Good Citizen certified” (Brown, personal communication, 2010) We think that more pet owners need to know the benefits that their animals could offer, not only to them, but also patients at a variety of facilities.

One of the life changing experiences that KellyAnn witnessed was, “During the months that I visited patients at a nursing home and adult day care center with Hudson, I noticed huge changes in some of the patients there. For instance, one of the patients, Doris, was non verbal and just sat in a chair all day. The nurses told me to not even bother spending time with her. I thought this was horrible, so every time that Hudson and I went, we would spend about 10 minutes talking to her and I would place her hand on Hudson’s head. After about 6 weeks the nurses said that she was awake more often and trying to talk. After another 3 weeks or so, I would have her brush Hudson in order to gain some muscle tone. That is when she said her first word in over 2 years, according to the nurses. As Doris was brushing Hudson’s fur, she called him pretty. That is when I realized that what I was doing with Hudson was actually making a difference to people.”

Roberta Collins, one of the participants in Paws for a Visit, keeps up with the program because she, “knew deep down how much having a pet has meant to me, so I was positive that the experience of doing pet therapy would help me to be able to bring a little bit of happiness in another person’s life. Each time that I leave a facility, I walk away with a feeling of awe at just how much our short time helped another person to have a better day” (Collins, personal communication, March 31, 2010).

Many veterinarians and doctors participating in the animal-assisted therapy believe that using animals will improve people’s education and will open new doors to different research and will benefit the connection between animals and humans. Different veterinary and humane organizations wanted to create special programs that could use companion animals to meet different needs of people with disabilities. One veterinary organization, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) developed many programs that educate and help people through animal interaction. This organization has different criteria of choosing and training animals to insure the safety of the patients and doctors participating in each program. The programs use animals that are “1)[healthy, so as to reduce the bi-directional risk of transmission of zoonooses; 2) behaviorally appropriate for the program, and 3) protected from being harmed by participation in the program” (AVMA, March 2007). Some of the programs include animal assisted activities that provide education and motivation to improve “[q]uality of life” using well trained animals and professionals. Animal assisted therapy uses animals that will improve the health of people with different physical and mental disabilities. Resident animals live with facility full time and participate in different programs after proper screening and training. A specially trained person closely evaluates the animal’s participation, improvement, health and welfare (AVMA, March 2007).

Benefits to Dog Owners

Many researchers have shown that there is a strong emotional and physical relationship between humans and their pets. Different experiments using pet owners have proven that companion animals benefit human life, reflect human’s health, and improve everyday activity level. By petting the dog, the owner benefits, according to Dr. Rosenbaum and Alexandra Andrews, in their online article, Animal Assisted Therapy for Cancer Supportive Care, by decreasing “blood pressure, cholesterol levels…feelings of loneliness…and anxiety” (2009, para. 1). They also note that “[s]tudies have shown owning and walking a dog daily promotes better physical activity in children, adults, and seniors” (2009, para. 9). Also, by taking the dog out for walks, the owner will increase their socialization when strangers ask about their dog.

Research done by Sandra Barker, Ph.D. in 1999 proves the positive aspect of companion animals as written in “Therapeutic Aspects of the Human-Companion Animal Interaction.” Barker cited different information from other research to show her readers how one relationship between animal and a human changes their lives. Pet owners and people without a pet participated in this experiment and their physical and mental status was measured. Using different techniques the scientists found that “more than one-third of the dog owners in their study were actually closer to their dogs than to any human family member” (1999, para. 1). This shows us that the bond between a human and their pet is very strong. This animal gives something to its owner more than family members or friends can. According to Barker’s article in Psychiatric Times, other experiments that have been done with pets and their owners indicate that people having a companion animal have lower blood pressure, lower blood sugar and cholesterol levels (para. 2). In general, the researchers found that pet owners have better health, they are happier and more emotionally stable compared to people who have no pet (Barker, 1999, para. 3).

Benefits to Patients

When the dog owners bring their dog into a facility, whether it is a hospital, nursing home, or rehabilitation center, the patients will benefit in a wide range of ways. According to Deborah Linder in her article “Benefits of Animal-Assisted Therapy at a Veterinary School,” animal assisted therapy “has also been shown to alleviate stress, agitation and aggressive behaviors in dementia patients, particularly Alzheimer’s patients” (N.D., para. 5). This could be due to neurochemicals and other hormones being released during the pet visit. For instance, Deborah Linder wrote that “[o]ne particular study found that positive neurochemicals (including beta-endorphin, oxytocin, prolactin, and dopamine) significantly increased in both humans and dogs after a positive interaction…. It was also found that cortisol levels decreased in both humans and dogs” (N.D., para. 5). According the Linder, like the dog owner, the patients, especially the elderly, have “been shown to increase socialization and decrease loneliness in elders living in long-term care facilities” through the use of animal-assisted therapy (N.D., para. 5).

Benefits to Children

Barker wrote about other studies done with children and animals that show how pets improve children’s health. A child with a pet has a better sense of trust, good self-esteem, more affection, compassion and patience. A child’s aggression is lower when they grow up with an animal in the house (Barker, 1999, para. 4).

Daniela Kostova has experience working with children with verbal disabilities. “The children we worked with were coming from an abuse situation and they were not able to communicate with other people. We gave different books to the kids so they could read them to their new friends, the dogs. While we were playing different songs, the children began dancing with the dogs and had a lot of fun, more than they did with other children. After a couple of months of introducing different dogs to these children and letting them play with them, the kids were able to speak more and became less aggressive towards other children and elderly people. This experience made me look for different ways of helping children with different physical and mental disabilities using companion animals” (personal communication, 2010).

Conclusion

After spending a lot of time in adult day care centers, nursing homes and foster homes with many people with different disabilities who either had pets or were introduced to companion animals, we saw how much joy these animals brought to their lives. Besides the pure happiness, we, Kostova and Brown, also saw how the patient’s health improved and how they were more capable of communication after animal assisted therapy. Looking at these patients and then looking at our best friends, our dogs, we realize that a pet is not just an animal that stays in the house and looks pretty. It is a companion which benefits our lives in many different ways. We think that more pet owners and people who do not like animals need to know the benefits that these pets could offer, not only to them, but also to patients at a variety of institutions.

References

American Hippotherapy Association. (2007). Hippotherapy as a treatment strategy. Retrieved from www.americanhippotherapyassociation.org.

AKC, American Kennel Club. (2010). AKC’s Canine Good Citizen® (CGC) program. Retrieved from www.akc.org.

AVMA, American Veterinary Medical Association. (March 2007). Wellness guide for animal-assisted therapy, and resident animal program. Retrieved from www.avma.org.

Barker, S., PhD. (February 1999). Therapeutic aspects of the human-companion animal interaction. Psychiatric Times, 16(2). Retrieved from www.psychiatrictimes.com.

Linder, D. (n.d). Benefits of animal-assisted therapy at veterinary school. Retrieved from www.deltasociety.org.

Rosenbaum, E., MD & Andrews, A. (September 14^th, 2009). Animal assisted therapy for cancer supportive care. Retrieved from www.cancerlynx.com.

by Andrew McFarland

Infant mortality rates are extremely polarized between developed and developing countries, and one of the most important factors affecting infant survival is access to clean water and proper sanitation. Reports done by the World Health Organization point out that 99.8 percent of water, sanitation, and hygiene related deaths occur in developing countries, and that of those deaths approximately 90 percent are children (World Health Organization, 2002). The main cause of is drinking water or eating food contaminated with human waste. Unlike most developed nations, most rural areas of developing nations lack any sort of central waste collection.  Waste is often spread on to crops as a method of fertilization. That practice, in combination with an inability to wash food products creates a perfect environment for infectious and non-infectious diseases to thrive. The problem is worsened in places like Sub-Saharan Africa due to poverty, lack of infrastructure, and widespread corruption of political officials.

Confronted with how to obtain clean water and promote better sanitation practices in developing nations, I looked for treatment methods that were low cost and easy to implement. One of the main problems with achieving adequate water quality and sanitation in the developing world is the lack of access to electricity, so the systems had to be able to operate using natural forces. Two novel ways of disinfecting water and improving sanitation that were explored include SODIS, which uses plastic bottles and the power of the sun to destroy bacteria, and Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems that decompose contaminants using aerobic bacteria aided by plants.

Diarrhoeal diseases are the leading cause of death for children in developing countries (Parashar, Bresee, Glass 2003). One of the easiest ways to check if a water source is contaminated by sewage is to test for the presence of Escherichia coliform bacteria (E. Coli), which is naturally present in the digestive system of all warm blooded mammals and some reptiles. E. Coli play a necessary role in the digestion and processing of food; without them life as we know it would be impossible. However, certain strains of the bacteria can also cause severe diarrhea in immunocompromised individuals like elderly people and children who drink contaminated water or eat contaminated food. In areas where there is limited access to antibiotics and clean drinking water, contracting diarrhea can be a death sentence. Despite its danger, E. Coli is useful as an indicator species because it is relatively easy to test for, and can give a rough estimate of the level of contamination of a particular water source (Edber, Rice, Karlin, Allen, 2000). High levels of E. Coli bacteria would indicate that a water source is heavily contaminated with sewage, and with sewage comes disease. Salmonella typhi which causes typhoid, and Vibrio Cholerae, the bacteria responsible for Cholera are notorious for causing disease and death throughout Africa (Ashbolt, 2004).

SODIS is a small scale simple treatment method that uses sunlight to destroy potentially disease causing bacteria. The process is simple, easy to teach, and inexpensive to implement. The only materials needed for solar disinfection are a clear container, a flat reflective surface, and sunlight. A clear PET plastic bottle is washed using soap and the label is removed to allow for maximum sunlight exposure, the bottle is then filled with the contaminated drinking water, capped, and placed in direct sunlight for at least six hours to kill the bacteria in the water. The disinfected water is then stored in the same bottle that it was originally decontaminated in. Solar disinfection works using a combination of ultraviolet radiation and heat to destroy bacteria and parasites. The ultraviolet radiation breaks down the cell walls of bacteria and parasites and the heat caused by the sun diminishes the cells repair mechanisms (Caslake et al. 2004). The SODIS method has been been studied extensively in the laboratory and in the field by the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin, Ireland. One particular study that speaks to the effectiveness of SODIS is a field study titled “Solar Disinfection of Drinking Water and Diarrhoea in Maasai Children: A Controlled Field Trial” conducted in 1996 by the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin. Conroy, Elmore-Meegan, Joyce, McGuigan, and Barnes (1996) studied a group of children aged five to sixteen in Kenya that had a drinking water source contaminated with fecal coliform bacteria. Conroy et al. (1996) distributed plastic water bottles to 206 children and instructed half of the children to place the bottles filled with contaminated water on the roof of their house in the sun for at least 7 hours and asked the other half to keep bottles inside in the shade as a control group. The Royal College scientists then checked back every 2 weeks for 12 weeks to monitor the frequency of serious diarrhea in both the control and the test group. Their data showed that the SODIS solar disinfection method reduced the occurrence of diarrhea by approximately 25% in the test group (Conroy et al., 1996). Some may argue that 25% is not a large enough decrease to advocate the use of solar disinfection as a water treatment method. Water quality problems in developing nations are going to take a lot of resources a very long time to remedy. SODIS is not a magic bullet, but it could be used as part of a multifaceted approach to reduce waterborne diseases in developing nations. It is hard for a society to advance when it is plagued by illness and any reduction in the rate of disease occurrence is a step in the right direction. In addition to drinking water purification, steps can be taken to reduce the incidence of water source contamination by improving sanitation.

Two years ago during my junior year at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, I had the opportunity to travel to Ecuador with one of my professors to participate in the design and building of a Constructed Wetland Treatment System. The system was built for a Woarani tribe that operated a small ecotourism business in the Amazon River Basin. Our journey to the remote location required a five hour motorboat ride and an additional 3 hours paddling in dugout canoes. All of the materials necessary to build the wetland were procured near the site, the only exception was PVC pipe that had been brought in a few weeks earlier in preparation for the build. All of the construction was done by hand, and after three long days, a crew of 8 men had completed the artificial wetland. Earlier this year (2010) I received an update on the system, it was said to be operating smoothly and has required no major repairs since its construction.

Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems could be used to improve sanitation practices in the developing world by providing centralized waste collection, which would reduce the number of waterborne diseases that could contaminate drinking water sources. The system relies on the power of gravity to move waste water though a series of planted filtration beds that use sand, gravel, and PVC distribution and collection pipes. Each system is different and must be built according to the geography of the landscape. Contaminants are removed using physical and chemical processes. The physical processes include sedimentation and filtration and the chemical processes rely on exposure to UV radiation and microbial decomposition of contaminants (Vymazel, 2005). The microbial decomposition of the contaminants is aided by the use of wetland plants. The plants are used to pump oxygen down into the soil so that the microbes can participate in aerobic decomposition, rather than the slower aerobic decomposition. A literature survey done by Jan Vymazal (2005) of the ENKI Institute analyzed the effectiveness of constructed wetland treatment systems to remove biological contaminants by looking at data from 60 different treatment wetlands. Vymazal (2005) used E. Coli and fecal coliforms as an indicator species to measure the overall biological contamination of the water before and after treatment. She found that on average the artificial wetland treatment systems she reviewed were successful at reducing the amount of coliform bacteria present by 90-99% (Vymazal 2005). Although the effluent may not be drinking water quality, it is suitable for use as crop irrigation and is a huge improvement over the unpurified waste water widely used today. As with SODIS, Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems are not an ultimate solution for water contamination in developing nations, but a piece in a much larger plan reduce mortality from waterborne diseases and improve the lives of people living in those parts of the globe.

It is unfortunate that such large disparities exist between the quality of life for people in places like Sub-Saharan Africa and in America. Improving water quality in developing nations is not going to be easy and it is not going to fast. It is going to take a lot of work and the populations in parts of the developing world do not have the money or resources to do it on their own. The global community has to increase it’s role in helping out countries with high rates of poverty, disease, and death. SODIS and Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems are not a permanent solution to water quality issues, however, they are better than little or no treatment at all. Even the slightest reduction in child mortality rates in developing countries would be a step in the right direction.  Every life counts.

References

Ashbolt, N. J. (2004). Microbial contamination of drinking water and disease outcomes in developing regions. Journal of Toxicology, 198(1), 229-238.

Caslake, L. F., Connoly, D. J., Menon, V., Duncanson, C. M., Rojas, R., Tavakoli, J. (2004). Disinfection of contaminated water by using solar irradiation. Journal of Applied Environmental Microbiology, 70(2), 1145-1150.

Conroy, R. M., Meegan-Elmore, M., Joyce, T., McGuigan, K., Barnes, J. (2004). Solar disinfection of drinking water and diarrhoea in Maasai children: a controlled field trial [Electronic version]. The Lancet, 348, 1695-1697.

Edberg, S.C., Rice, E.W., Karlin, R.J., Allen, M.J. (2000). Escherichia coli: the best biological drinking water indicator for public health protection [Electronic version]. Symposium Series (Society for Applied Microbiology), 29, 106S-116S.

Parashar, U. D., Bresee, J.S,. Glass, R. I. (2003) The global burden of diarrhoeal disease in children [Electronic version]. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81(4), 236-236 .

Vymazal, J. (2005). Removal of enteric bacteria in constructed treatment wetlands with emergent macrophytes: a review. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 40(6), 1355.

Quantifying Selected Major Risks to Health (2003a),World Health Organization. 2002. The World Health Report 2002.(Chapter 4). Geneva.

by John Rodgers and Danielle Silverberg

Introduction

The feral horse has become something more than meets the eye of the normal bystander. Most populations of  feral horses roam the western United States. Over the years they have caused a significant amount of erosion and damage to the earth’s surface. Adverse impacts of over populated herds include soil compaction, decreased plant diversity, and less land for livestock to graze on. Also, dense herds of horses are likely to become unhealthy and become conduits of disease. It is possible for diseases that begin in horses to be transferred to domesticated livestock, with potentially devastating financial effects on ranchers (Beever, E., & Brussard, P).   There have been multiple laws passed to manage feral horse populations to keep destruction to a minimum and manage the overall population in the most humane manner possible.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the government agency charged with monitoring and controlling wild horses in the United States. There are 33,000 horses roaming on BLM land, and the BLM’s stated goal is to reach 27,000. Monitoring, capturing, and caring for feral horses accounted for 74% of the BLM’s budget in 2008 (Chereb, S) .

Background

Throughout the 1950s a Nevada woman named Velma B. Johnson (eventually known as Wild Horse Annie), became aware that horses were being collected in a merciless and undiscerning manner. Professionals such as ranchers and hunters were the main perpetrators of such acts. Wild Horse Annie directed a political campaign involving children to capture the hearts of the public. In 1959 Nevada congressman Walter Baring introduced what is now known as the “Wild Horse Annie Act”. This bill became a public law on September 8th 1959, prohibiting the hunting of horses and burrows with any motorized vehicles. Having only this single specific regulation in the act proved to Congress that the more thorough program advocated by Annie to protect, manage and control  wild horses and burros was greatly needed. This resulted in the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burros Act (WHBA). Five years later The Federal Land Policy and Management Act improved the WHBA, now allowing the appointed Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to use motorized vehicles such as helicopters, circumventing the Wild Horse Annie Act (“The Wild Horse Annie Act”).

The Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (WHBA) states that  wild free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death; and to accomplish this they are to be considered in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands. The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for management of the ranges, ecological balance of objectives assigned, scientific regulations and forage allocation adjustments. The Secretary determines whether any old, sick or lame animals are to be destroyed or to be humanely captured and removed for private maintenance and care, for which he will determine an adoption demand (WHBA, 1971).

Possible Management Technique

Currently, the BLM’s predominant management method is to round up excess horses and place them in short-term holding facilities. If these horses are not found new homes through adoption they are sent to long-term holding facilities to live out the rest of their lives.  In addition to the 33,000 horses on BLM land, there are already 30,000 horses in long-term storage facilities.

In addition to adoption the BLM has also experimented with fertility control and relocation as management techniques. Unfortunately, the best available form of fertility control is a one year vaccine that must be re-administered annually. For this reason, fertility control is not cost effective, and very seldom used.  Also, rounding up and relocating horses causes stress to the herd, and therefore is not an optimal technique. The roundup process also requires the use of helicopters, which are another added expense.

Finally, the last management technique that is sometimes used is simply making barriers to prevent horses from grazing on land designated for another use (usually cattle). The method often fails because the horses are capable of breaking through these fences, rendering them useless. Also, it does not financially make sense to pay for something that may be destroyed in a short matter of time (U.S Department of the Interior).

BLM Position

Horses that are culled, regardless if that means killing, adoption, or die a natural death, from BLM lands are no longer considered as falling within the range of the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. The Bureau of Land Management has seen a doubling in the wild horse population approximately every 4 to 5 years. The constant growth of the horse population is due to the fact that there are no natural predators for horses. The program’s goals have expanded by setting appropriate management level (AML) for individual herd to include achieving and maintaining viable, vigorous and stable populations. Unfortunately these horses have become their own worst enemies because of their over abundant population, causing them to destroy their habitat, which can lead to starvation and disease, which then cause individual horse populations to become extinct (Sharp, T., & Saunders, G, 2010).

In October of 2009 the current secretary of the interior Ken Salazar, wrote a letter to the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, proposing a national solution to restore the overall health of America’s wild horse herds and the rangelands that support them. He has suggested three main points: to manage sustainable herds on the Western rangelands through aggressive fertility control; to establish wild horse preserves in the Midwest and East, for horses that must be culled from the western rangelands; and providing specific designations for the selected treasured herds in the west. This will assumingly reach appropriate management levels for the western herds with the acceptation of Obama’s Fiscal Year 2011 Bureau of Land Management budget proposal.

The budgets were not adequate to manage the excessive numbers of horses and, additionally, burros at an appropriate management level. Obama is requesting a budget proposal of $75.7 million for the wild horse and burro program, a nearly $12 million increase over the fiscal year 2010 level of $63.9 million. This budget increase is expected to fulfill the suggested management requests (Bureau of Land Management Secretary’s Initiative).

Proposal

We believe that the BLM should utilize euthanasia programs more effectively to cut down the costs of caring for wild horse. Under the law, the BLM can use euthanasia, but is extremely reluctant to do so because the public is largely against is.  Also, slaughtering excess horses would not only save money, but could potentially bring money back into the BLM.  While eating horse meat is illegal in the United States, there are numerous countries around the world with a market for the product, including Mexico, China, and Brazil. In addition to making money from the sale of horsemeat, this action would help feed countless people in areas were food is not always easy to access.  Today, over one billion people, or 16% of the world’s populations, eat horse meat (Lenz, 2010). We propose that this method be used on horses that are being held in the long term storage facilities, and therefore have no chance of being adopted. These individuals already have a poor quality of life, and we believe we should make money off of them instead of spending money on them.

Conclusion

The Problem of excessive horse populations in the western United States is one of the most pressing land management issues of our time. These herds of horses are destroying the land, endangering other species. People argue that the wild horse is part of our natural heritage, and that culling them should be out of the question. In fact, horses are not native to the Americas, and are actually destroying habitat for some species that are. Many management techniques have been tried in order to control  ever increasing populations of horses. Unfortunately, each technique currently used by the BLM has its own particular flaw. Many people would argue that our proposal, using euthanasia to decrease number of captive horses the BLM has to care for, is unethical.  However, if our plan is put into action it would help feed hungry people in many countries. Also, money freed up from caretaking could be used to help other species that have been negatively impacted by the horses’ domination of the region.  If alternative management methods are not found for these feral horse populations they will continue to grow and have increasingly negative impacts on the ecosystem around them.

References

Beever, E., & Brussard, P. ( 2000). Examing ecological consequences of feral horse grazing using exclosures. Western North American Naturalist. 60 (3). Retrieved from ojs.lib.byu.edu.

BLM National Wild Horse and Burro Program – Legislative History. (n.d.). BLM National Wild Horse and Burro Program. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from www.wildhorseandburro.blm.gov.

BLM Secretary’s Initiative. (n.d.). BLM. Retrieved April 28, 2010, from www.blm.gov.

Chereb, S. (2008, November 16). Howls over BLM’s euthanasia option for horses. SFgate. Retrieved from articles.sfgate.com.

Lenz, T. (2010, February 5). The unwanted horse in the United States—international implications. Horsetalk. Retrieved from www.horsetalk.co.nz.

Sharp, T., & Saunders, G. (n.d.). Model Code of Practice for the Humane Control of Feral Horses. Invasive Animals. Retrieved April 20, 2010, from www.invasiveanimals.com.

The Wild Horse Annie Act. (n.d.). American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign. Retrieved April 25, 2010, from www.wildhorsepreservation.com.

U.S Department of the Interior. (2010). Wild horse and Burro quick facts. Retrieved from www.blm.gov.

Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Management on Public Land Administered by BLM. (n.d.). Public Lands Foundation. Retrieved April 28, 2010, from www.publicland.org.

by Molly Kohler and Katheryn Kuchyt

Introduction

2007 legislation changed the equine industry in the United States, resulting in various negative impacts. This legislation banned the slaughter of horses because horses are seen more as companion animals than as livestock.  As a result, international horse slaughter has increased, resulting in longer, exhausting, and more expensive journeys for horses, and decreased regulation over humane treatment. The US once exported horse meat, a good source of nutrition for a world that cannot feed its population.  This business  has now been curtailed, while the government now needs to subsidize sanctuaries for unwanted horses, whose numbers have not decreased. Equine neglect, abuse and illegal slaughter has increased. The legislation has created  adverse effects on the industry, on animals and on society.  It needs to be reformed.

Legislation

Congressman Sweeny (2009) supports  Congressional Bill H.R. 503, which was first presented in 2006 and passed the House of Representatives in 2007.  The bill was to amend the Horse Protection Act, which protects horses from soring (which alters a horse’s gait) due to participation in exhibitions, sales, shows, and auctions.  The Horse Slaughter Prohibition Bill “…prohibit[s] the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes” (The Horse Slaughter Prohibition Bill, par. 1).  A bill passed in 2009 already protects wild horses and burros from slaughter or transport with the intent to slaughter and further bills have been presented trying to protect all horses (Sweeny, 2009).  As a result of public pressure due to bills before congress, states have been passing local laws banning horse slaughterhouses, which has driven them out of the U.S. and resulted in longer transport to international slaughterhouses.

Researching “[e]ffects of density and water availability on behavior, physiology, and weight loss of slaughter horses during transport,” Lacono (2007) found that prolonged transportation of horses has the potential to increase stress and stress responses on an individual basis in horses. In a study of three levels of stocking density, she found no significant difference in aggression due to water or density. Of 30 horses in a well stocked group there was no significant change (p>0.21, and p must be greater than 0.05 to be significant) in dehydration, cortisol levels, or overall blood chemistry. Overall aggression did not differ between the first and second half of their transportation time in experiment which totaled 8 hours with a one hour break in the middle. But stress was indicated in morbidity: “two horses went down in the high density treatment, indicating that factors in high density could lead to increased morbidity or death” (p.355).

Another researcher, Gibbs (2000) found that horses being transported to slaughterhouses over long distances are at high risk for dehydration. The amount of water that horses have consumed prior to transport cannot be determined, therefore adequate water should be provide en route to slaughterhouses. When transport trailers are loaded with more horses than they have  adequate water capacity to provide for, dehydration increases. In one of Gibbs’s experiments 3 of 19 horses were totally blocked from access to water and in a second experiment 5 of 20 horses were physically blocked by the presence of other horses from the water sources. He later argues that the placement and amount of water troughs has an effect on dehydration in transported horses. In the same experiments he shows that when the amount of water troughs was doubled from two to four and they were staggered on either side of the trailer or in corners, no horse went without water. Without the option of slaughtering within the US, owners are transporting their horses ever longer distances in more tightly-packed trailers, putting the horses at increased risk of stress and dehydration.

International Slaughter

Horses from the US are currently sent to three  countries for slaughter: Canada, Mexico, and Japan. American horses slaughtered in Japan are not shipped specifically for slaughter. Most are top race horse stallions  are sent overseas for higher stud fees and more races. Once they stop making money however, they are sent to slaughter. In the Japanese slaughterhouses, the horses are hosed down before being processed for meat. However, some of the horses are uncomfortable with this and some slip on the wet concrete (Velez-Mitchell 2010). The slaughter laws in Canada are extremely strict because they send meat to the European Union and must meet its standards. Starting in July 2010, horses must be held for six months before being shipped to slaughter if they do not already have a specific medical history. Many anticipate that this will greatly lower the number of American horses shipped to Canada for slaughter, but there has been little consensus on what will happen to those horses instead (Larkin 2010).

There are two main slaughterhouses in Mexico, one of which adheres to  European Union standards for slaughter and processing. There are many vets present during the slaughter process.  The other slaughterhouse is far less regulated and only has vets come in once a week to check  carcass characteristics for any diseases.  The slaughter houses were toured by the AVMA, but had over a year to prepare for one day of inspection.  When the AVMA went to the houses they did not find much wrong with them. However videos from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have some very disturbing undercover videos and photos of what might actually happen at these houses.  One such picture, featured in this paper, shows a Mexican slaughter house worker stabbing  horses in the back of the head with a knife until their spinal cords were severed (Nolen 2007).

Economics

Maryland alone exported three million dollars worth of horse meat to the South Korean market in 1997, and in the US, 6.9 million horses were exported at a total value of $25.3 billion that same year. “…[T]he horse industry’s contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) is greater than the textile and apparel industry, the lumber and wood sector and the tobacco product industry” (Joseph, 1998). The Animal Welfare Council (2006) estimates the value of horse meat for human consumption as an export value of $26 million annually.

Lenz (2009) argues that the industry as a whole will suffer from more economic strain as a result of not having resources to dispose of unwanted horses. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) used over half of its budget ($21.9 million) in 2007 to house wild horses and burros in short and long term facilities. Horses are long-lived, a steady annual rate of 3-4% of them are unwanted, and they have few natural predators.  112,000 horses were slaughtered in 2005 in the United States, but it is now expected that 100,000 horses will have to be euthanized and disposed of, which will cost upwards of $38.5 million.

BLM horses and unwanted horses will be competing for adoption. A 2005 estimate of the cost of caring for all the unwanted horse in the US from 2005 surpasses $220 million.  If all the unwanted horses from the year 2000 on were still alive in 2005, the cost of caring for those horses would accumulate to more than $513 million (Animal Welfare Council, 2006).

Nutrition

Horse meat is fairly common  in Europe and Asia. It tends to cost less than beef and has less fat and cholesterol, as well as higher levels of iron. In general its levels of vitamins and minerals are similar to those of beef. Cholesterol continues to be a big deal with the current rise in obesity. A more nutritious meat may help to cut down on the incidence of cholesterol-related deaths. Horse meat is the meat of choice for many zoos due to its nutritional benefits to animals, however, some zoos are cutting it out of their animals’ diets because of its stigma.  However they then have to then supplement their animals basis diets with many extra nutrients (Juarez, M. 2009, Znamirowska, A. 2005).

Neglect and Abuse

The incidence of neglect and abuse of horses in the United States is on the rise, however the cause is not as clear as it may seem. In his article, “The Unwanted Horses in the United States”, Lenz states that the recent rise in abuse and neglect maybe linked to the banning of horse slaughter in the US. Lenz’s rival Dr. Nicolas Dodman DVM, a professor of veterinary medicine at Tufts University, countered this statement. According to personal communication with Dodman, the rise in the incidence of neglect and abuse rises and falls with the economy and has no correlation with the ban of horse slaughter in the US. Both theories are right due to the fact that the profits of horse meat are being exported to Europe which causes the equine industry to have more economic strain then it previously had. However the economics of the country is a major piece of the puzzle as well. The incidence of horses being slaughtered is very close to what it was before the ban, except that now the horses are now shipped longer distances and vulnerable to further abuse.

There are several extreme cases are connected to the slaughter ban. The two major cases are the South Florida slaughter and the New Jersey underground slaughter ring. Both of these stories are horrific. In the South Florida case people had broken in to various area farms taking horses out of there stalls and slaughtering them on site. They would then sell chunks of meat out of Rubbermaid containers on the streets of South Florida. Most sales were to ethnic markets and illegal immigrants (Segal 2009). The New Jersey case is in many ways far more horrific than the Florida case. In New Jersey, a man was raising horses that he bought at auction. He would starve them so they would have lean muscling. He would then sell the meat he harvested to exotic cat breeders and owners in the area (Sunbeam 2010). These are just a few of the horrific cases that have occurred since the passing of the bill, but there have been several more.

Conclusion

The US horse slaughter ban has been a detriment to the industry as a whole.  Great suffering can be seen in economics and equine welfare.  The issue is very complex and counter arguments can be made regarding the welfare of the horses being shipped, but they cannot outweigh the consequences of the alternative.  Legislation is supposed to move us a step forward as a nation, but in this case it has moved the animal industry a step backward.

References

Animal Welfare Council (2006, May). The unintended consequences of a ban on the humane slaughter (processing) of horses in the United States. Retrieved from www.animalwelfarecouncil.org

Gibbs, A.E., & Friend, T.H. (2000). Effect of animal density and trough placement on drinking behavior and dehydration in slaughter horses. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 20(10), 643-650. Retrieved from Agricola Database.

Joseph, P. (1998). Wranglers round up equine exports. Ag Exporter. Retrieved from ffas.usda.gov.

Juarez, M., Romero, F., Valera, M., Alcalde, M., Polvillo, O., & Gomez, M. (2009). Breed effect on carcass and meat quality of foals slaughtered at 24 months of age. Meat science, 83(2), 224-228. Retrieved from Agricola database.

Lacono, C., Friend, T., Keen, H., Martin, T., & Krawczel, P. (2007). Effects of density and water availability on behavior, physiology, and weight loss of slaughter horses during transport. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 27(8), 355-361. Retrieved from Agricola Database

Larkin, M. (2010, March 15). Canada steps up enforcement of horse slaughter guidelines. American Veterinary Medical Association. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from www.avma.org

Lenz, T. (2009). The unwanted horses in the United States. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 29(5), 253-258. Retrieved from Agricola Database.

Nolen, S. (2007, December 27). U.S. horse slaughter exports to Mexico increase 312%. American Veterinary Medical Association. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from www.avma.org

Segal, K., & CNN, J. Z. (2009, September 10). Horses being killed in South Florida—for their meat? CNN.com. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from cnn.com

Sunbeam, T. (2010, January 8). Salem County Freeholder Bruce Bobbitt is released from hospital after being treated for heart attack. NJ.com. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from www.nj.com

Sweeny, J. (2009). H. R. 503: Horse Salughter Prohibition Bill. Retreived from govtrack.us.

Velez-Mitchell, J. (2010, January 8). End horror of horses led to slaughter. CNN.com. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from www.cnn.com

Znamirowska, A. (2005). Prediction of horse carcass composition using linear measurements. Meat science, 69,567-570. Retrieved from Agricola database.

Further Reading

ESPN Features PETA’s Undercover Investigation of Horse Slaughter in Japan. (n.d.). The PETA Files. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from blog.peta.org

May, K. (2008, September 5). Issues – Unwanted horses and the AVMA’s policy on horse slaughter FAQ. American Veterinary Medical Association. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from www.avma.org

Nolen, S. (2006, September 1). Congress holds hearings on horse slaughter ban. American Veterinary Medical Association. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from www.avma.org

Key Facts: Humane Slaughter. (n.d.). USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service Home. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from www.fsis.usda.gov

by Olivia Holston with Nicole Ames

Kangaroos are quite graceful hoppers and a beautiful sight—until one ends up hopping around your living room.  In his article in The Huffington Post, McGuirk (2009) mentions an Australian family who experienced just that.  The animal frantically jumped through a bedroom window and hopped around the house in a frenzy until it was shooed out the front door (¶ 4).  It is clear that this is not normal behavior for a wild animal, but rather the result of excessive numbers of kangaroos, but in New South Wales, Australia, kangaroos increasingly crowd areas not typically occupied by wild animals.  As an Animal Science major at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, I have consulted the relevant literature concerning this issue.  Here I will argue that if Australia manages its kangaroo population properly, it can also dramatically decrease its greenhouse gas emissions while helping to keep humans safe and ensuring a sustainable environment, for kangaroos and other animals.

Breeding Machines

Kangaroos are impressive animals; not only do they use hopping as their main source of movement, but they also reproduce very rapidly.  Marsupials in general have mastered the art of efficient reproduction and kangaroos are no exception.  A baby kangaroo, known as a joey, “emerges after only 33 days” inside its mother’s womb (“Kangaroo,” 2010, ¶ 24).  Only the size of a lima bean, it climbs into its mother’s pouch and attaches to a teat.  Once there, the joey continues to develop and “eventually, after ca. 235 days, it leaves the pouch for the last time” (“Kangaroo,” 2010, ¶ 24).  While one joey is developing in the pouch, the mother can have a fetus growing in her womb, along with another embryo ready and waiting inside of her.  Thus, female kangaroos can theoretically be – and usually are – constantly pregnant, which greatly contributes to the massive populations.  In support of this, the webpage of the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) states that “because they are such prolific breeders, a kangaroo population can increase fourfold in five years if it has continuous access to plentiful food and water” (DFAT, 2010, ¶ 7).

The kangaroo, Australia’s beloved national emblem, seems to be taking over the continent.  An article in Australian Geographic (2004) sited “[a] 1995 survey of…Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve in the Australian Capital Territory [which] revealed…the reserve’s density of grey kangaroos had reached a staggering 357 animals per square kilometer” (Reardon, ¶ 1).  A 2007 article by the Associated Press on MSNBC online stated the population “on the outskirts of Canberra…[reached] 1,100 kangaroos per square mile – the densest population ever measured in the region” (Associated Press, 2007, ¶ 2).

As populations reach such high levels, the kangaroos themselves are affected along with other innocent bystanders.  According to an article on The Huffington Post, kangaroos pose an immediate and obvious threat to humans.  In addition to occasionally hopping through residential homes, kangaroos also cause massive amounts of traffic accidents according to McGuirk (2009).  In areas of gross overpopulation, kangaroos also pose a threat to sheep and cattle farmers.  A kangaroo’s diet consists mainly of grasses, therefore, they seriously deplete the pastures originally intended to feed the sheep and cattle raised by farmers.  As cited in an Australian Geographic (2004) article, when “[a]sked to reckon kangaroo-induced losses, 906 farmers and graziers across five pastoral zones arrived at a figure of $113 million — half of it due to lost forage” (Reardon, ¶ 26).  Not only does this uncontrolled grazing have a great effect on the biodiversity of grasslands, but it also has long term effects on endangered insects and lizards in the area.  McGuirk (2009) explains that many rare insects and lizards rely on tall, brushy grasses for food and shelter and once the kangaroos deplete these grasses, the endangered species’ struggle for survival will become even more difficult.  Reardon (2004) describes the idea that unmanaged kangaroo populations pose a threat to the kangaroos themselves.  Juvenile kangaroos typically become emaciated because they cannot compete with the elders for food.  So as kangaroo populations increase, not only are kangaroos starving themselves, but they are also causing damage to pastures, endangered species’ habitats, and grassland biodiversity.

Population Management

Something must be done about this situation for the protection of humans, endangered species, and kangaroos themselves.  Fortunately, as detailed on the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) NSW webpage (2006), the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage approved the New South Wales Commercial Kangaroo Harvest Management Plan as an official Wildlife Trade Management Plan on December 19, 2006.

The Kangaroo Management Plan (KMP) is an extensive, well thought-out plan aimed at controlling the vast kangaroo populations in the area of New South Wales, Australia.  The DEC webpage (2006) contains an electronic copy of the  plan, which can be viewed by the public.  The KMP is valid from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2011 and allows the commercial harvest of four kangaroo species under certain restrictions.  The DEC (2006) states the primary goal of the KMP is:

[T]o ensure that the commercial harvest of kangaroos is ecologically sustainable.  This will be achieved through the application of the best available scientific knowledge, best practice   management and monitoring of outcomes to ensure the viability of kangaroo populations is not compromised by any action undertaken in accordance with this plan. (p.6)

The KMP also details the extensive limitations that are put on kangaroo harvest in this area.  Kangaroo culling is only permitted in designated zones, which do not include reservation areas.  Also, in order to harvest the kangaroos in these areas, people must obtain a variety of licenses which permit them to harvest a limited number of kangaroos in a designated zone and sell them only to licensed dealers.  Extensive attention is given to these licenses and each license holder is subject to the rules and regulations set forth by the KMP (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2006).

The KMP is so well thought out and sustainable that kangaroo populations remain at the same levels as they did four years ago.  According to the commercial take reports published by the Department of Environment, Climate Change, and Water (2010), the total populations of all four kangaroo species totaled over five and a half million in 2006 and more than eight hundred thousand kangaroos were culled just that year.  By the end of 2009, three full years into the management plan, the population remained just as high (Department of Environment, Climate Change, and Water, 2010).  I think it is fair to say that the KMP is certainly staying true to its ecological sustainability clause; however, farmers are most likely still losing their pastures due to kangaroo grazing and humans are still being plagued by the high levels of kangaroos in their communities.  Not to mention the extreme effect kangaroos are having on the biodiversity of grasslands and the lives of endangered species.  Thus, I believe the KMP is going to be needed long past December 31, 2011 in order to prevent kangaroo populations from rising again.

Kangaroos’ Good Side

Although kangaroos are presently causing several problems in Australia, they do have many redeeming qualities, one of which being their digestive systems.   Kreuder (2004), a faculty member of Iowa State University, wrote an essay comparing the digestive anatomy of ruminants and marsupials.  In this essay, she details the kangaroo digestive system, which consists of a large stomach with multiple sacs, allowing them to consume a wide variety of forages and utilize the energy from them (¶ 15).  Kangaroos, similar to the sheep and cattle I have learned about in my studies, ferment the foods they eat, meaning microorganisms living in their stomachs break down foodstuffs that would otherwise be unavailable for the animal’s nutrition.

Therefore, animals that ferment food in their stomach can consume primarily forages that would otherwise provide no nutrition.  Kreuder (2004) explains that sheep and cattle have unique microbes in their stomachs that produce large amounts of methane gas through the process of fermentation, which is primarily released into the atmosphere when the animal belches (¶ 18).  According to Kreuder (2004), “methane production is an unnecessary waste product and leads to decreased feed efficiency and loss of metabolizable energy” (¶ 21).  Not only does methane create an energy loss for ruminant animals, but it also wreaks havoc on the environment.  A New Scientist article in 2004 stated methane “gas is a potent source of global warming because, volume for volume, it traps 23 times as much heat as the more plentiful carbon dioxide” (¶ 2).  So while sheep, cattle, and other ruminants seem harmless, they are major contributors to global warming due to the large release of methane, an end product of fermentation.

A Science Daily article titled “Fry Me Kangaroo Brown, Sport” (2008) stated “[k]angaroos emit one-third as much methane as ruminant animals, such as cattle, sheep and goats, which are responsible for 60 percent of global methane emissions” (¶ 7).  According to Kreuder (2004), the stomachs of kangaroos contain a different variety of microorganisms, some of which convert methane into acetate which can then be used for further energy (¶ 21).  Thus, kangaroos are very useful creatures; they consume inexpensive and otherwise useless foods and they play a limited role in global warming compared to other agricultural animals.

The Solution

On the whole, kangaroos are extremely efficient breeders and their impact on the atmosphere is much less than that of other agricultural animals.  Why not use these two qualities of the kangaroo to slow global warming?  The solution is simple to me, abandon the sheep and cattle farming and switch to a primarily kangaroo meat market.  The Australian Government DFAT (2008) recognizes that kangaroo meat is not only popular with Australian natives, but it is also exported to an estimated fifty-five countries worldwide (¶ 19).  The Australian Government DFAT (2008) webpage also explains that, kangaroo meat’s “growing appeal stems from its well-flavoured, slightly gamey taste…[k]angaroo meat contains very little saturated fat relative to other meat and is high in protein, zinc, and iron” (¶ 19).  As kangaroo meat gains popularity it will become increasing accessible and, until then, it can be purchased from websites such as exoticmeats.com or adventureinfood.com based in the United States.  If people knew they could simply eat kangaroo instead of beef in order to help fight global warming, I believe kangaroo meat would become an extremely popular menu item.

Ideally, Australian farmers would be given incentives to shut down their sheep and cattle productions and focus on kangaroos.  The farmers would not own the kangaroos, nor would they be held captive, as I believe this would cause ethical concern and would detract from the kangaroos’ quality of life.  Instead, farmers should cultivate lands to support the kangaroo populations and then harvest them in the same way the Kangaroo Management Plan currently does.

Overall, I think Australians should use their natural resources, such as the kangaroo, to help fight global warming.  “Fry me Kangaroo Brown, Sport” (2008) supports the idea of a switch to kangaroo markets and states that, if that switch is made, Australia “would lower greenhouse gas emissions by [at least] 16 megatonnes, or 3 percent of Australia’s total emissions” (¶ 1).  So I say buy some kangaroo meat, fire up the grill, and get ready to enjoy a healthy and delicious meal – the planet will thank you later.

References

Associated Press. (2007, May 14). Australia officials want to kill 3,000 kangaroos. MSNBC. Retrieved from msnbc.msn.com

Australian Government DFAT (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade). (2008). About Australia: Kangaroos. Retrieved from http://www.dfat.gov.au

Department of Environment and Conservation NSW. (2006). New South Wales commercial kangaroo harvest management plan 2007-2011 [Government Document]. Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from www.environment.nsw.gov.au

Department of Environment, Climate Change, and Water NSW. (2010). Tag allocations and commercial take reports. Retrieved from www.environment.nsw.gov.au

“Fry Me Kangaroo Brown, Sport.” (2008, August 11). Science Daily. Retrieved from www.sciencedaily.com

Kangaroo. (2010). Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org

Kreuder, A. (2004, April 14). Comparison of digestive system adaptations of placental ruminants and the herbivorous marsupials of Australia. Iowa State University. Retrieved from www.biology.iastate.edu

McGuirk, R. (2009, March 17). Kangaroos in the firing line in Australia. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.com

Reardon, M. (2004). Too many roos? Australian Geographic, (73), 86-97.

Saving earth from sheep burps. (2004). New Scientist, 183(2466), 18.