One can hardly pick up a book or magazine on agriculture today without reading about the various new discoveries in animal science and the trends in breeding and husbandry that these will spark. For example, there is a definite trend toward more intensive housing and management of food-producing animals. Dairy cattle are now monitored and fed by computer; hormone injections are given to boost milk production and feed consumption and conversion efficiency, so that the super cows of today produce, even after the government's buyout program, more milk than the country really wants. (See any issues of Hoard's Dairyman, Dairy and Dairy Herd.) Sheep have long been selected and bred for rapid growth and large carcass size; the crossbred monsters of today are large enough to be saddled and ridden! Intensive housing for sheep is on the market. (Sheep! magazine, Sheep Breeder and Sheepman and The Shepherd carry such advertising.) Beef cattle likewise are ever-larger in size; so selective has breeding been that difficult births are now routine in many cattle breeds. In fact, there are organizations that try to combat the excesses in this type of animal husbandry which they perceive as various degrees of cruelty. But cruelty is only one concern with the directions contemporary agriculture is taking. Long before we had the technology in place for the maintenance of intensively-reared animals and the treatment of diseases that multiply in such environments, we were busily engaged in selective breeding for qualities that we desired. The origin of selective breeding is lost in the mists of antiquity; but throughout history, and to a great extent today, we have had no guidelines or 'blueprints' of the effects of selection except by observations of the phenotype--the visible results. We knew nothing about genetic linkages and what was happening 'inside' the animals; we only knew what changes we could observe as a result of our efforts. Eventually, probably within the lifetimes of many of us, the genetic 'blueprints' we have long sought will be found; and manipulation--genetic engineering—will produce 'animals to order.' Indeed, the first steps in that direction are being taken now. Until that time, though, the art of breeding will continue much as it has for eons.

Man's accomplishments in breeding are remarkable; one only need consider the number and variety of breeds of dogs and sheep existing today, which have been developed from a handful of wild ancestors. However, with the exponential growth in the human population, the increasing takeover of habitats for human use, and the gradual 'Westernization' and urbanization of the world's societies, a number of pressures have evolved and been applied, some intentionally, some accidentally, to animal breeding; and an increasingly large perspective is required to gain any degree of understanding of what is happening to man-modified animal populations, and to assess the merits and demerits of these trends.

The age-old and honorable profession of shepherding is dying out, as Westernization spreads to other countries and the young generations increasingly are attracted by the glitter of technological gadgetry that requires living in cities for access, and employment to procure. The dreams of the young man of 1890 included having his own goat cart and two wether goats to pull it, which today appears pretty tame, if not actually laughingly rustic, to the contemporary youth dreaming of his own auto or motorcycle.

Megacorporations in America operating giant farms with the latest high-tech equipment produce surpluses of products (of questionable nutritional merit) that drive prices down to the point that the average smaller-scale family farmer cannot compete, and eventually, many are forced off the farm. Such megafarms include in their cadre of technology the super-producing specialized breeds of animals that thrive, and in some cases even exist, only when intensively managed. Through artificial insemination and embryo transfers, vast populations of animals all the progeny of a few select sires are built up, lacking the genetic diversity to assure that these populations will not be devastated by the outbreak of an epizootic or a radical or prolonged change in the climate. The older breeds that were developed for less intensive management conditions as well as for markets that have declined or that no longer exist are ignored by the agribusiness complex and, but for rescue efforts by individuals and organizations like the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy, would eventually die out.

Westernization brings other pressures to bear, as well. Many books are written about the desires and impulses of this creature called Man. A competitive spirit seems deeply in-grained in much of the population, which in modern society is served by a variety of diversions, including shows and showing. So fierce is this spirit that across most breeds of animals, breeders select and breed for the characteristics that win in shows, with little or no regard for the welfare of the breeds or even their practical utility. Thus, judges become the generators of tremendous influence on breeding. Other things being equal, for instance, the larger animals usually win their classes at shows; and where breed standards have been set up primarily based on esthetics and imaginary concepts of idealized animals, even-tually show-winning animals may come to exhibit health, production and longevity problems. Increasingly, these effects are the subject of articles in the periodicals that serve all breeds of livestock. One very interesting article on the subject is Performance Testing: Do We Need It? by Donald Torell, in Sheep Breeder and Sheepman, June, 1987, and I especially refer readers also to a most thought-provoking one, Beyond Wonderland by Greg Phil in The Shepherd, February, 1987. This writer can report that the trend today is such that the word 'dairy' may as well be struck from the name of a class of milk-producing goats, as due to show ring pressures, adherence to an idealized concept of animal conformation has taken precedence over the characteristics one would think would be obvious—i.e. milk production. Milk production is not even included in the judges' scorecards for dairy goat breeds; it is obliquely addressed by the optional provision for milkouts to take place preceding the show . As Greg Phil states in his article, "Another step in the right direction would be a major overhaul of the status quo in the show ring. Insist that judges place animals on economically relevant traits. Judging criteria such as 'tall,' 'stylish,' 'pretty,' 'modern,' and even 'big' should be permanently stricken from the judging vocabulary."

This is compounded by the fact that, because of laws prohibiting the sale of raw milk, one generally can't make a living today running a goat dairy, so dairy goat-keeping in America is mainly a hobby. Consequently there is no pressure to breed dairy goats that are hardy, efficient foragers, disease-resistant and long-lived, and happy with a sparse diet. But there is tremendous pressure to breed animals that win shows. Also, since plastics in manufacture have replaced many traditional and natural materials, if there is no market for goat, sheep or cattle horns for any craft or trade, then they become superfluous and a nuisance, so we make it mandatory that they be non-existent via. disbudding or dehorning, for entry at shows. (Curiously, the size and spread of horns are the features by which hunting trophies in wild sheep, goats and other horned ruminants are compared; and large horns are the rationale for the vast sums hunters expend in their pursuit of their quarries.)

Prospects for goat dairying diminish daily, thanks in part to the state and federal governments, that issue warnings and regulations against the sale and consumption of raw goat milk, which, despite these, is nonetheless among the most perfect and safest of foods. The goat cannot compete with the cow on an economic basis for milk production in America today; goat milk and cheeses are specialty products, and goat milk is of greatest benefit when drunk raw (unpasteurized.) Goats are immune to the serious human disease of TB, therefore pasteurization is not really required; and does immeasurable harm to the quality of milk as a food for human or animal use. But the government in its hypocritical zeal to protect us from ourselves is now issuing warnings against raw milks as possible carriers of other zoonotic diseases, none of which are serious, and all of which have been with us for probably as long as the goat has. It is already illegal to ship raw milk across state lines, for example. The inanity of this is pointed up by any number of examples; one concerns Toxoplasmosis. Toxo can cause a temporary flu-like illness in Man; many cases of the 'flu' are actually Toxo. The only danger is that a woman who had never been exposed to Toxo and therefore had no titer against it in her blood, could be infected during pregnancy; and the possibility of fetal damage exists. While in theory Toxo can be transmitted via. milk, most authorities agree that the organism would probably be killed by the digestive juices in the human stomach, and milk-borne transmission is very rare. However, cats are the non-dead-end host for Toxo; anyone owning a cat, and/or working in the soil (gardening) is quite likely to acquire the infection—this is the usual route of transmission. How many millions of cats are there in this country, versus goats? But Toxo is one reason that the government 'experts' cite as a warning against raw milk consumption.

It is impossible to make life 100% risk-free. All benefits introduced into society come with some percentages of risk, and the chances of a female getting Toxo at the strategically critical period during pregnancy when harm might be possible are infinitely smaller than the chances of, say, having a serious allergic reaction to a common over-the-counter medicine. Then why the furor? There are no single, clear-cut reasons for the persecution of raw milks; but rather, a complex network of interactions involving opinionated bureaucrats, uninformed legislators, the emotional residues from misapplied lawsuits and investigations mounted in the glare of the biased media, the actions of well-intentioned but misinformed and shortsighted persons, the efforts of producers and manufacturers to stifle all competition, no matter how small, and the reluctance of doctors, scientists, researchers, and legislators to consider that there is any value to simple practices and/or those from the past—the 'progress at any price' syndrome. The inevitable result is that dairy goats will probably have no utility here but for showing, so that utilitarian traits such as milk production, long life and feed-conversion efficiency are of decreasing importance. (The pampered darlings of the show ring are fed super-nutritious, over-optimal diets—rapid and maximum growth, which is also and unquestionably correlated with short life, being desired.)

Many goat-breeders traveling abroad return to report that the American dairy goats are greatly 'improved' over their counterparts in their countries of origin, and thus give the nod to American breeding practices. Thus with typical western arrogance, Americans busily set about exporting 'improved' dairy goats to 'upgrade' the native breeds of other nations. This idea sounds great in theory, but won't bear close scrutiny. As Dr. James DeVries wrote in the Heifer Project Exchange, 'there appears to be an exponential curve of fragility of an animal vs. production level.' The purchaser of a high-production goat is buying into a 'technology package' and has an animal that is stressed, in a foreign environment where the quantity and quality of foodstuffs and the availability of veterinary care are at quite low or nonexistent levels. The question must also be asked as to what we mean by 'improved?' If we mean that our goats are 'larger' and 'produce more' than native breeds, to what avail, if they are less disease-resistant, less able to forage over long distances and survive and produce on lower-quality feeds, and shorter-lived, thus spreading their already high unit cost over a smaller number of productive years? It is quite arrogant of the world's richest and most technologically-advanced nation to produce for export animals that are quite inappropriate for the receiving nations, especially in the third world. We have the knowledge, skills and resources to develop breeds suitable for any climate and flora. However, we have no yardstick at present by which to measure animal quality except by show-ring wins and to a lesser extent, DHI-corroborated milk production; but more important, there is no will to change this state of affairs to the long-term benefit of both animals and Man.

ADGA, the dominant goat registry organization, also gives recognition for goat milk pro-duction by having a 'Top Ten' category for each breed. In efforts to achieve this status, super-volume producers are bred; large-uddered goats that give 4,000 pounds or more of milk in one 305-day lactation. Such animals walk a thin line between milk fever and ketosis; they are highly stressed, quite subject to disease, and their maintenance and feeding is an art. They are usually short-lived. The kids of such goats, as well as of show goats, are removed at birth, lest they 'damage' their dams' udders by nursing--an incredible commentary on the artificiality that Western civilization accepts in its animal 'improvement' schemes, and on a par with the show-winning Pygmy goats whose conformation with an artificial 'square' and blocky ideal has resulted in animals that must have their kids by C-section! The dairy goats that existed in America 40-50 years ago, and that still exist in some other countries (though fast disappearing) were smaller, hardier animals capable of raising their own kids, foraging for much of their diet, and still producing a modest surplus for their owners; over longer lives, their total production of kids and milk equaled or exceeded that of the 'superdoes' of today, yet at much lower overall total maintenance costs.

In England during the second World War, animal feeds were severely rationed, and as usual, goats, considered a minor species, came out on the shortest end of the rationing stick. An interesting thing happened as a result—being not so distanced from their Swiss ancestors, English dairy breeds adapted to wartime rations and produced extremely well, and became quite popular; their milk was badly needed. For a few years they ceased being the despised animal of the backwaters of civilization. But then came peacetime again, and their contributions to the country's food supply were quickly forgotten. Should such a series of events happen here for whatever reason, I wonder how well our high-producing and show-winning American dairy breeds would adapt? I fear they would do very poorly.

Where are we going? There are professionals in the sciences and food-producing enterprises whose crystal balls show them visions of genetic engineering first applied to turning out mindless living organisms that are simply stationary organic digestive systems, that convert food to milk or meat or eggs; these to be eventually supplanted by the elimination of the animal as an intermediary step altogether, by direct chemical conversion of raw materials to meat, milk, eggs, and fibers. Like it or not, this is one direction science is taking us. To the degree that these efforts meet with such success that the world's population can be fed, Man will doubtless still want animals around as companions and curiosities as well as artifacts to compete with in shows. Until such a time comes, and our present systems of food and fiber production are completely transformed, are we breeding animals to be used as just another class of artifacts with which to feed our own egos by the winning of shows, and the accumulation of trophies and ribbons, useless dust-catchers, quickly forgotten, packed up or thrown away, while we advertise these animals, selling them to others who will perpetuate this cycle endlessly? Or are we breeding animals that make modest but continuous gains in health, longevity, foraging ability, kidding ease, and production, no one of these qualities being sacrificed on the altar of another, so that we produce stock that can go anywhere and thrive, and pass its qualities along to its herd mates; a legacy that we leave to subsequent generations of animal owners and breeders? Is the world of animals going to be a better place because of your efforts, or is your legacy going to be nothing but boxes of ribbons and trophies, tossed out by your descendants, souvenirs of events as forgotten as a politician's promises? Or are you patiently and quietly working in the barns and pastures year after year, making contributions to animal health, welfare and survivability, out of a love for them, rather than what they can win for you?