Talk:Heifer International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Arkansas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arkansas.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

Two different anons have removed the link around Darcy Kiefel. I've re-added it both times, but is there any rational reason they were removed? Is it vandalism? Howabout1 Talk to me! 01:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added information-- I added some new information about 7 M animals (clarified an old point about how people might use the new resources) and added info about the learning centers. If its not well written, I can change it with suggestions but I know a lot about the organization and can add helpful info to the page.

[edit] any critiscm?

If there is any critiscm of the orginzation, could someone please post it.

The only potential criticism I'm aware of is that, while Heifer International permits donors to pick out the animal of their choice, they reserve the right to reallocate money according to need - and they did so after the tsunami. So you might pick out a flock of ducklings for a Chinese family, but Heifer might choose to buy geese for a Thai family instead. I don't believe that many donors would have a problem with this policy, so I won't add it to the Criticism section unless more people think it's noteworthy. 209.234.66.97 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Heifer does meet all the BBB's criteria for accountability. 209.234.66.97 03:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, donors don't get to pick where the animal is sent to anyway. You can pick a flock of chicks, but I don't think you can pick a flock of chicks for a Chinese family. (I assume if you pick a pig, it won't be sent to a Muslim family though!) User:Angr 05:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

PETA has criticized the organization for promoting animal exploitation, though this external article is quite biased and doesn't really talk about many of PETA's objections specifically. 68.40.45.110 22:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The central theme behind the organization is coming under criticism based on animal farming economies making inefficient use of land. I've just read a ~1000 word essay by a Unitarian minister (and apparently somewhat of an animal rights activist) that makes elaborate arguments concerning problems with Heifer's main thrust. The numbers that were floated mention that the resources needed to support one cow would feed 20 people through crops. The source didn't explicitly claim a 20:1 ratio in regards to people fed by the cow, but did say the land that would produce 250 pounds of beef could produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes as an example. I'm not sure how easy it would be to produce hard evidence to support these numbers, but I think it is a generally accepted concept that diets based on animal protein are a great deal more consumptive of land than pure plant agriculture. Essentially his point is that, for a charity claiming to help feed impoverished people around the world, an animal-based strategy is at best sketchy, and at worst ultimately destructive to those developing cultures and economies. I'm not aware of the essay actually being published anywhere... Jkwala 10:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, not to debate the criticism, but it doesn't really seem to be on point. It would be idiotic to eat a cow you got from Heifer International, the obvious point of the cow is to provide protein through dairy (milk and cheese, etc), not through beef. Similarly I doubt anyone is eating their chickens, the point is to eat the eggs. 75.183.86.60 16:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition, milk is a fairly complete source of nutrition (thus replacing a variety of plants). And there are animals in their program (such as goats) which can graze in areas that are not particularly suitable for plant agriculture, and animals (sheep and buffalo) which provide benefits other than food (cloth and labor). But, yeah, you don't go eating a perfectly good heifer. Doesn't really make sense. 72.231.148.111 (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Plus to add something here, I doubt the animals being sent are eating grain crops as they do in industrial-agricultural systems. They are eating naturally grown, uncultivated vegitation, thus turning things people can't eat into things they can. I can see the point if the animals were being feed rice or wheat or even hay, but I seriously doubt this is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.50.78 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tone of Article

The tone makes it fairly obvious it was written by a supporter or member of the organization. It probably needs to be rewritten, particularly the "accountability" section. 75.183.86.60 16:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)