Talk:Heifer International

Untitled

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.

Any criticism?

If there is any criticism of the organization, could someone please post it.

They've declined to evaluate themselves using randomized controlled trials, as is becoming more common for large charities. This would help understand what benefits in the form of nutrition or earnings recipients experience, relative to a control group. It would also reveal the true cost: for example, how much does it cost Heifer to deliver $100 of livestock? How does this all compare to just delivering recipients cash? MaxGhenis (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

Djomac (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC): One criticism that seems to hold weight is that most of the areas where these animals go have a large lactose intolerance percentage, something to the order of 85-95% of the population. See the wiki on lactose intolerance [1] for some backup statistics. Just to list the arguments I've seen, valid or not (sorry to repeat some of the above):

1) High lactose intolerance in many third world countries

2) Since plants are more efficient sources of food in terms of land/cost/resources, spending money on plant agriculture would probably provide more food

3) Animals need lots of water, some medical attention, food, etc., that may put a strain on a communities limited resources and actually worsen their situation in the long run

4) Environmental impacts in general with raising food animals (waste runoff, methane, transportation) see [2]

5) Animal cruelty concerns, notable voiced by vegetarian and animal rights groups.Djomac (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lactose intolerance varies widely in severity, though. It's not as if 80%+ people can't eat dairy products at all. Many "lactose intolerant" people have no symptoms worse than flatulence, which seems like a distinct improvement over starvation. That should probably be mentioned along with number one, but other than that it seems like a reasonable list of the five concerns I've seen raised most often (I've been researching them).

They're also not as transparent as some would like. Some wonder how much of the "to services" money is actually going to the museum et al in Little Rock instead of to overseas aid. This is not unusual for charities, though. Very few are transparent enough to satisfy stern organizations like Givewell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.250.178 (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm the author of the essay "What's Wrong with the Heifer Project?" mentioned above. Here are links to a couple of online versions, http://yruuer.livejournal.com/95588.html, http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-s-Wrong-With-the-Heif-by-Rev-Gary-Kowalski-091204-421.html. My criticisms include several points: a) Countries around the world that have switched from an essentially plant based diet to one high in animal proteins have generally fallen from a position of food self-sufficiency to dependence on foreign food imports; thus by promoting the overall idea that "more animals" are the solution to global hunger, Heifer is misleading the public and mis-directing resources, b) The vast majority of the world's population is lactose intolerant, a condition whose symptoms include diarrhea and nausea; a Heifer spokesperson I talked with offered a defense that more goats than cows were sent to Africa--but goat's milk of course is equally indigestible by most of the people on that continent, as well as those in Asia, c) Heifer's selective breeding programs and the importation of foreign animal stocks can undermine indigenous species diversity. Please read the complete article, of which this is just a brief summary. For the record, I did not claim that families provided with livestock by Heifer would simply eat a dairy cow (although a conversation with Rev. Jack Bremer, a Presbyterian friend who is a staunch supporter of Heifer, alerted me to the fact is that families he visited in Mexico who were provided with pigs often preferred feeding the pigs--a source of ready cash when fattened--rather than feeding their own children). Thanks. Revolutionaryspirits (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever one thinks of the arguments about animal- v. plant-based diets, a summary of this criticism should appear in the article.

I've also heard that the high-yield dairy cows being given to some Africans are driving out the landrace animals able to thrive on local crops. Because of interbreeding, the species is under threat.

These issues—as well as the question of Heifer Intl's ratings—are complex, and that complexity needs to be better reflected in the article. E.g., Heifer's response to the low rating should at least be summarized.

Would the original author be willing to do so? KC 16:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC) KC 16:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

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)

I would like to add that the tone of the article does not make it obvious that it was written by a supporter of the organization. I am a supporter of this organization and assure you that my writing would have bee much more favorable when discussing just how much Heifer International gives in not just SUSTAINABLE manner, but in a manner that acknowledges that it takes small steps (like a few livestock) to get individuals and and areas to learn to become sustainable. This continues with the requirement that each recipient gives back to their community. Additionally, I give HI the ability to know what animals are most successful in different areas. If their is a milk intolerance in an area, there are many other options, such as providing bees for the honey to providing the ability education for girls where none exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.115.44 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Accountability Section

It should be easy enough to post those glowing reports on how efficient and wonderful Heifer International is and provide links. As it is, these claims are completely unsubstantiated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.188.168 (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference to the cited BBB report. I'm not doing any more citation hunting than that. 76.208.15.111 (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Heifer Foundation material

I would support this proposal, with Heifer Foundation then redirecting to this article. The two organisations do appear to be intimitely related. Heifer Foundation appears just to be a wing of Heifer International. Making it a Section of this article would, IMHO, seem appropriate. TheAMmollusc (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No negativity

It may be true that Heifer International is exactly what they say they are. On the other hand, their promotional pamphlet shows idealized animals that would never survive shipment to distant areas of the world as they claim. Everything is too good to be true, and not explained in detail. But this is only my own opinion, backed up only by one web page that protests against Heifer International, published by United Poultry Concerns, Inc., which is run by Karen Davis and located in Machipongo, VA. UPC does not give references for any of their negative statements. Added: another negative article 1 another negative article 2 David Spector (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heifer International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224113754/http://www.peggyreiffmiller.com/documents/the_maryland_story.pdf to http://www.peggyreiffmiller.com/documents/the_maryland_story.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Needs "evaluation" section

Has Heifer undergone randomized controlled trials or other evaluations? If not, what's their stance on evaluation? Is there data on how many recipients sell the livestock for cash? How much does it cost for them to deliver an animal?

Some relevant links:

• https://www.poverty-action.org/blog/cash-or-cows (2013)
• https://blog.givewell.org/2009/12/27/gifts-of-livestock-eg-heifer-international/
• https://www.heifer.org/join-the-conversation/blog/2015/May/study-shows-livestock-and-training-has-lasting-effect-on-poverty-eradication.html mentioning RCTs (no update: https://twitter.com/MaxGhenis/status/946169958794346497)

MaxGhenis (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)