The problem of Avian Flu is an opportunity for us to stop and ask some very basic questions. Firstly, why does the pathogenic virus manifest in the first place? Little importance is given to the conditions that result in the creation of the virus. A lot of attention is given to exposure avoidance and eradication once the virus manifests. As many have stated throughout history, it is not the virus that we should focus on, but rather, the condition of the birds or people that manifest the virus. What is it about these birds or humans that created a fertile environment for the virus? This question must be explored not just from an exposure avoidance perspective but from a health building perspective.
The crux of the matter is in defining pathogens as either endemic and "naturally" occurring, or the result of corrupted husbandry practices and an immunosuppresive environment. If you accept the first model, it is easy to absolve anyone of being responsible for being the source(s) of the pathogen. Also, it implies that battling the pathogen is the right thing to do. A small fly in the ointment is the fact that battling the pathogen at every turn results in an endless string of mutations and new pathogens. Battles are supposedly won but the war never ends. Out of profit motives and fear of exposure to the pathogens, farm animals continue to be subjected to intensive husbandry practices that are focused more on growth rates, feed conversions, and stocking densities in an environment that is now akin to a P4 biohazard site. The boogie man comes from outside so do everything possible to cut off the animals from contact with the outside world. Of course, corrupted husbandry practices are not exclusively the domain of intensive operations as it is possible to rear only one animal in an unhealthy manner.
One of the biggest problems is in defining what a healthy bird or human is. Does health come from within or without? Does disease come from within or without? I would suggest that health is a natural outcome of allowing a bird or human to grow in an environment and in a manner in which health can be achieved without disease intervention (of course this is an inevitable requirement until we get it right). This does not involve isolation from the natural world.
Given the manner in which the government and industry have framed the Avian flu problem, it would be easy to conclude that all birds should be reared in a confined environment because the disease can only come from external exposure. The extension to this is that all free range or outdoor operations should be shut down because those birds will be sitting ducks (pun intended) for bird flu. If exposure defines disease, then the argument is easy to defend. If bird health defines susceptibility to disease, the argument could fall apart if there is a correlation between bird health (drug free that is) and husbandry methods.
We need to even the playing field and get a true assessment of the health of birds grown intensively for maximum weight gain / growth rate / stocking density and minimum feed conversion using chemicals and therapeutants versus birds grown for optimal health without disease fighting agents. Let's call a one year moratorium on the use of chemicals, drugs, and therapeutants. Then let's take a bird from each rearing method and expose them to the avian flu and see what happens. I suspect that intensively reared birds will do poorly. I also suspect that there is too broad a range of practices that fall into the category of free range / organic and that some of these birds would do poorly as well. However, I also suspect that birds that are truly reared for optimal health will survive the test. Perhaps we can finally vindicate Antoine Bechamp and focus more on rearing methods that focus on health and less on battling "external" disease. Alan Ismond, P.Eng.
Aqua-Terra Consultants
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.