(Part One of Six)

An entertaining poem of the old South written long ago by Benjamin Batchelder Valentine (1862-1919) was The King Corn Man.  It was about a rascal who went from one end of Virginia to the other stealing the best ears of corn from the best cornfields to enter in the big fair.  Proud of his entry, the hoaxer laid his superior ears of corn in triumph before the officials at the show.

The punch line came when he was told his entry didn’t count:  The corn had already been judged in the field!

Yes, they used to judge corn in the field.  There was a reason:  Farmers who bought seed corn from show winners would get better crops themselves.

But what if seed corn growers had won shows on the basis of a few hand-picked odd ears out of a field of bug-prone, drought-martyr, disease-friendly, bitter-tasting nubbins?

Shows might then hurt local grain growers by falsely implying seed corn sold by prizewinners was good.  Worse, if winning cornfields had the above faults, plus were crossed with pollen from a neighbor’s field, then expected yields and quality would be even more dubious.

Old-time corn contests really got going when Dr. Seaman A. Knapp (1833-1911)—originally a Merino sheepman—convinced politicians of the public and societal importance of better crops.  Knapp’s breeding stock selection methods raised yields, added quality and cut costs.

Those advantages made rural living easier, in the end making city people richer, too.  In a few short years his ag clubs and competitions hugely raised crop yields, mostly via selection based on conformation and on-farm testing.  Nearly all the increase was profit—5-fold gains in take-home pay for growers.

Extra income from improved yields allowed more trade, which meant more public revenues without tax hikes.

More tax money meant better roads, schools and public safety.  Happier citizens re-elected politicians far-sighted enough to support Knapp’s public ag shows and demos, which:

• Awarded prizes for the biggest, most profitable crops—judged at the farm
• Held shows with further prizes for top specimens from winners’ farms
• Publicized prizewinners’ husbandry methods

“Animal Procedures Are Cruel”

Mankind has come a long way over many millennia in the arena of humaneness, most recently in the work of the famous Dr. Temple Grandin.  Her discoveries and research have helped slaughter facilities everywhere reduce animal discomfort in the slaughter process.  Even kosher and halal slaughter (which use no stunning) now take place without significant animal suffering.  See more at Dr. Grandin’s web page, which covers animal transport, handling, slaughter and facilities design.

      Now imagine if no one ate meat, how many and how big fences would have to be built to keep wandering, overpopulating, starving farm animals out of gardens and fields!  “Mercy killing” would be inevitable.  Vegans very often will kill animals they think are suffering, but for reasons known only to themselves will not use the meat.  It goes to waste or is fed to animals like cats and dogs, which have no self-inhibitions to kill.

      A veterinarian castrates an animal for pay; a pet-lover does it to prevent overpopulation; a farmer does it to increase meat quality; a sicko does it to get his “jollies.”  But you know, the animal may feel the same no matter the motive.  So is it one’s motive that makes it cruel or humane?  Is mercy killing always merciful?

      It can be argued that cruelty to animals sometimes averts greater evils.  King Solomon noted 3000 years ago, “The righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” (Proverbs 12:10)  Cruel behavior, though not approved, was a valuable way to see of whom to beware.  Cruelty can be accidental, negligent or intentional.  When staged for publicity purposes, it’s the latter.  When its remedy is delayed in order to get camera footage, it’s the second and third—really hard to excuse.  Yet they’re the bread and butter of the professional animal sympathist industry.  Even so, let’s be wary of the assumptio non probata, lest we lose our moral high ground to money-grubbing activists whose tender mercies are cruel, and thus lose the opportunity to please the real customers, who just want to look out for “the life of their beast.”

“Livestock Wastes Fresh Water & Corn That Could Feed Poor?”

This has been the cry of Fund for Animals, Friends of Animals, Animal Protection Institute, HSUS, PETA and others for years.  They imply world hunger would be ended if no animals were raised.

      But only a small percentage of grain is of #1 Grade—fit for human use.  Most corn for example has fungal damage, insect damage and animal or bird defilement.  We still see this in most corn cribs.  Low-grade corn can be fed to animals; some can be made into fuel or other products.  One thing is certain:  Not enough is fit for human consumption to stop world hunger.  In “hungry” places around the world, livestock is the only buffer against off seasons.  Crops are grown until unfavorable weather, and then the animals are butchered as needed until crops start growing again.

Corn weavils damage a large percent of each year's crop: Who'd want to eat it? (Livestock would!)

A similar argument is “It takes a football field of water 6 feet deep to raise just one steer.”  That’s just about an acre, and just about 5 sheep.  Two years of rain, say 36 inches, will make enough grass to raise those livestock in most rich grass regions.  The water falls on that acre whether the animals are there or not, so it’s a bit misleading to imply they are wasting water.  In fact, most grassland isn’t fit for growing other crops—too steep, too rocky, soil too shallow, etc.—but it can grow grass.  People can’t live on grass, but we can eat the sheep that graze it.  So in fact, sheep make it possible for poor nations to grow more food, not less.

      Moral:  Always look for the activist’s unproven assumption and then follow the money.