Grassfarmer
Well-known member
Discussion on a prolapsed uterus in another thread got me thinking about this "doing things like in nature" analogy. I think it must be one of the most overused and untrue statements beef producers can make. Before I go any further I admit to using it myself on occasion.
So often we see producers use the expression to justify how they shape their choice of calving season, culling criteria or feeding system. However those of us involved in agriculture using any kind of domesticated animal are so far removed from how nature does things that I think it is a flawed analogy.
Nature doesn't cull animals for being open, getting to a certain age, being wild or aggressive. Nature doesn't confine animals in pastures or pens, doesn't vaccinate, de-worm, de-horn, castrate, brand or eartag animals. Nature never feeds supplements or supplies mechanically harvested feed in winter. Nature doesn't use chemical sprays, fertilisers, fly killers, antibiotics, fuels or machinery. Nature selects for survival not for the production standards man seeks.
Where am I going with this? don't know really but it got me thinking that when we talk about doing "as nature does" by helping an animal that we deem needs assistance then shipping her later because that's what nature would do isn't really true - nature would either let her live or die. I saw a sheep in Greece once going around with a totally dried up and shrunken prolapse - nature didn't decide to kill her.
Who says nature always gets it right anyway? I've seen plenty of late born wild animals and birds that would struggle to get through winter because they weren't born at the ideal time. I've seen the blossom on fruit trees frozen off so they wouldn't produce anything for a year. I've seen all kinds of wipe outs and natural and weather disasters affect plants and animals. Maybe all in nature isn't perfect? Certainly if it is worth emulating we would have a tough job truly following natures path with our domesticated cattle because we have changed so many of the variables.
So often we see producers use the expression to justify how they shape their choice of calving season, culling criteria or feeding system. However those of us involved in agriculture using any kind of domesticated animal are so far removed from how nature does things that I think it is a flawed analogy.
Nature doesn't cull animals for being open, getting to a certain age, being wild or aggressive. Nature doesn't confine animals in pastures or pens, doesn't vaccinate, de-worm, de-horn, castrate, brand or eartag animals. Nature never feeds supplements or supplies mechanically harvested feed in winter. Nature doesn't use chemical sprays, fertilisers, fly killers, antibiotics, fuels or machinery. Nature selects for survival not for the production standards man seeks.
Where am I going with this? don't know really but it got me thinking that when we talk about doing "as nature does" by helping an animal that we deem needs assistance then shipping her later because that's what nature would do isn't really true - nature would either let her live or die. I saw a sheep in Greece once going around with a totally dried up and shrunken prolapse - nature didn't decide to kill her.
Who says nature always gets it right anyway? I've seen plenty of late born wild animals and birds that would struggle to get through winter because they weren't born at the ideal time. I've seen the blossom on fruit trees frozen off so they wouldn't produce anything for a year. I've seen all kinds of wipe outs and natural and weather disasters affect plants and animals. Maybe all in nature isn't perfect? Certainly if it is worth emulating we would have a tough job truly following natures path with our domesticated cattle because we have changed so many of the variables.
