Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
- Are JPMorgan's Losses a Canary in a Coal Mine?
Popular content
Today's Top News
12.10.09 - 11:25 AM
Give A Goat, Give A Well, Give A Loan, Give Hope
Before heading to the mall to buy more baubles and trinkets, please check out some of the organizations working so that others may live. Our favorites here: Heifer, Kiva, Blue Dragon.
World Vision:
http://donate.worldvision.org/OA_HTML/xxwv2ibeCCtpSctDspRte.jsp?section=...
Kiva:
http://www.kiva.org/app.php?page=businesses
Blue Dragon Foundation:
http://www.streetkidsinvietnam.com/
Heifer:
http://www.heifer.org/site/c.edJRKQNiFiG/b.204586/?msource=kw2687&gclid=...
Giving It Back to Kids:
http://www.givingitbacktokids.org/
Aid For Kids:
Comments are closed
9 Comments so far
Show AllHOPE? Get some AUDACITY! Call Uncle 'Bomb!
i have made a number of micro loans through kiva, but i don't condone giving a gift of an animal who will be slaughtered...you won't find me in a mall or even a local store...give on the off season and don't buy into this 'holiday gift giving'......
OK, after much debate on whether I should comment on donating animals or not (after all, it's still a gift and this is the season of giving), I thought I should share my thoughts here. In fact, I noticed this item (tucked on the left column, at the bottom on the front page of CD :) after I commented on a different story about the spreading of desert in China, possibly due to climate change.
Many aid agencies specialize in, or have as an important component, the donation of livestock animals to poor farmers in Africa and elsewhere. While livestock animals clearly have formed part of traditional farming in many countries, what's promoted now is the raising of animals as a sort of "value added product". Meat in many countries (and also milk) clearly fetches higher price in the market compared to vegetables. And this is as it should be, because raising animals needs much more input in terms fodder, water, veterinary care, etc. And there lies the problem. Let me reproduce a part of a column by Andrew Tyler that appeared three years ago - in 2006:
*********************************************************
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_veggie/ALL/1426/
"Sceptical readers might, at this point, accuse me of dressing up a concern about animal welfare as a concern for the world's poor. Let's be clear that there are major animal welfare issues involved in sending animals to, for instance, the Horn of Africa where, earlier this year, up to 80 per cent of cattle perished in a drought and many of the remainder were washed away in the floods that followed. But this is not about cows taking precedence over people.
The reality is that animal gift schemes are, in the words of the conservation charity World Land Trust (WLT), "environmentally unsound and economically disastrous". In a statement last week, WLT declared: "Now that the grave consequences of introducing large numbers of goats and other domestic animals into fragile, arid environments is well documented, WLT considers it grossly irresponsible ... to continue with the schemes ... as a means of raising quick money for charities over the Christmas season".
It is incontestable that desertification and further human impoverishment will follow the introduction of goats into already degraded areas. But if goats are environmentally disastrous, cows are extraordinarily burdensome economically. A newly lactating animal requires up to 90 litres of water a day, a lot of food and veterinary treatment to cover endemic problems such as scours, mastitis and lameness.
But where do the vets come from? EU dairy farmers receive $2 a day per cow to remain financially viable. For many years, British sheep farmers have received more than 40 per cent of their income from the taxpayer. If such feather-bedding is needed in the comparatively benign agricultural environment of the West, how can we expect the poorest people on earth to cope with their animal "gifts"? It is many times more efficient to use the available agricultural resources - land, labour, water - to feed people direct, rather than devoting those resources to fattening animals.
Some donor agencies try to confront the inherent inefficiencies of animal farming by setting up "zero-grazing" regimes. In other words, the animals get permanently banged up in sheds. But they still need water and food - and, in such deprived environments, suffer high levels of economically punishing disease, early infertility and premature death.
Ultimately, my objection is to the commercial forces that are seeking to persuade people of the poor world that their best nutritional interests are served by buying into modern, high-throughput farmed animal production processes. With that comes an addiction to high capital input systems, additional stresses on precious water supplies, environmental destruction, a loss of control over the means of production, bad health, a nightmare animal welfare scenario and more human poverty and malnourishment."
*********************************************************
From another blog posting by Colleen Patrick-Goudreau, also three years ago:
http://www.compassionatecooks.com/blog/2006/12/dont-give-cow.html
"The claim – that animal advocates are anti-human ... leaves animal advocates reluctant to publicly object to such groups as Heifer Project International, lest they be accused of caring more about humans than animals. Heifer’s mission is “to end hunger and poverty and to care for the earth.” Their mission statement does not say that they give animals to people around the globe to use, breed, sell, and consume their milk, eggs, flesh, hair, fur, feathers, and skin. Instead, Heifer, whose $75 million revenue increases every holiday season, dupes individuals and seemingly progressive celebrities, such as Susan Sarandon, Frances Moore Lappe, and Jimmy Carter, into supporting what is essentially an animal slave trade.
Aside from the obvious problems this model creates: such as environmental problems economic problems, (raising animals for human consumption is expensive and inefficient) health problems (globalizing our preventable diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes hardly seems charitable; and despite the fact that two-thirds of non-Caucasians on the planet are lactose intolerant and cannot digest dairy, Heifer is spending millions on dairy programs in countries like Zimbabwe. The last thing a hungry child in Africa needs is the milk of a cow. Aside from these problems, and I’m skimming over only a few, Heifer perpetuates a speciesist paradigm, viewing animals as mere commodities with no regard for their own inherent value."
*********************************************************
I think many people just look at the cute pictures of animals in the gift catalogs and this is the season that makes many people kind of sentimental about a lot of things. But it's important to understand the implications of introducing more grazing animals in regions that are already experiencing drought conditions, despite the fact that these animals would be of benefit to the receiving family in the short run.
I think the argument for refraining from massive livestock grazing in regions prone to drought is important. And desertification in general is a serious issue. But that's where the reason ends.
Andrew Taylor makes several mistakes in his argument. One of which is trying to argue the aid groups (as listed above) are responsible for the massive sedentary cattle operations, but also an absence of traditional grazing systems of the pastoral family. He doesn't express these symptoms exactly, because he'd rather employ a slippery slope argument in favor of a boycott.
It is not logical to blame Heifer, et al for the entire Horn of Africa and failures of sedentary cattle production in areas traditionally sustained by the mobile unit.
He also fails to understand the failed economics behind UK subsidy of its sheep industry. It is not because sheep production is particularly unprofitable and costly. That's silly reasoning. New Zealand is a better model to use. The sheep industry, in general, collapsed under cheap synthetic fiber and a decline for wool. New Zealand quit subsidizing agriculture nearly two decades ago, and is a model of success.
The second point postulated by compassionatecooks is even less reasoned. Heifer clearly states in their brochures potential meat production as a form of capital for the impoverished family. There is no obstruction on their part. And least we forget, the great majority of the work is focused on the individual family in the community, to either subsidize their basic food needs, and/or create a source of income. This not an example of massive integrations of 2000 head of Texas longhorn per 2000 acres and it is unfair to present it as such.
And frankly, if meat production becomes a source of capital, of course you will see the need for other parts of the economic model, ie vets, butchers, consumers, taxidermists, bankers. Is this a bad thing? Of course the economic model must support itself. Eventually, the small economic model could eventually support other craft production as well, creating a larger market system. Perhaps at first, the vet is paid in milk, or given a calf, or rabbit meat.
Additionally, not all locations in the world or where care from the above agencies go are drought prone. Outside of your specific examples, there are other needy locations where the introduction of a milk goat or a breeding pair of rabbits or ducks could be very helpful. Poland, Peru, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Vietnam, Laos., or Kenya* to name a few. (*a Kenyan women's project [#21-0856-01] is specific to dairy production in high pop. and overused soil)
If animal production is the primary concern, so be it, state the claim clearly. But trying to introduce blanket arguments against the models presented by the above agencies doesn't seem reasonable, even if Taylor himself says people would be skeptical of his arguments. Actually, I'm only skeptical of fallacious reasoning postulated as a legitimate argument to turn one's nose up at the above groups.
Least we forget, the primary issue is hunger as a direct result of impoverished environment.Give a milk goat and rabbits, guinea pigs, teach basic economics. Give a small loan to the matriarch to create and sustain a business to sell milk, pr rabbits for profit.
>>>chuk-it-levi-strauss wrote: It is not logical to blame Heifer, et al for the entire Horn of Africa and failures of sedentary cattle production in areas traditionally sustained by the mobile unit.
No, that's not what I understood from that article. The Horn of Africa is already facing severe drought conditions. Introducing more livestock will only reduce whatever little vegetative cover there is, delay or prevent regrowth, and possibly cause desertification. Also, the "traditional" mobile mode of cattle raising is no more practical in many parts of Africa due to shortage of land availability and restrictions on movement of herds and herdsmen.
>>>New Zealand is a better model to use.
Really? A country that has a relatively small population, dominated by white settlers, and having one of the largest ecological footprints per capita in the world (5th & 6th according to two different estimates) is a model for poor farmers in Africa? I'm not sure.
>>>Of course the economic model must support itself. Eventually, the small economic model could eventually support other craft production as well, creating a larger market system.
It seems like you are assuming that lack of capital to buy cattle or sheep is the primary problem in Africa. No - lack of capital, maybe. If the farmers are going to be following a "sedentary" mode of production, then raising cattle and sheep for meat is clearly not sustainable beyond the short-term. Keep in mind that the days of nomadic herding are over in many (not all) parts of Africa. There is greater competition for land and restrictions on movement. Cattle could form part of a small family farm as a secondary source of income from milk - only if there is a synergy in the form of surplus or waste products from the farm that can be used as cattle feed. I don't think these aid agencies go into that kind of an assessment in each case.
>>>Perhaps at first, the vet is paid in milk, or given a calf, or rabbit meat.
That sounds very patronizing to me. You give a calf to the vet, and how long do you think it'll take for the cow to produce the next calf? A cow produces only ONE calf in a year - on average - if it is inseminated soon after yielding a calf. Beef is one of the most inefficient forms of food production - requiring lots of input per pound of beef. It is not practical on any kind of large scale, and certainly not for a family farm in Africa. The traditional "sedentary" model is that the bulls would be used as beasts of burden and the cows for milk. Of course, eventually they'll be eaten and their hides would be used for leather-making. But the number of cattle that can be sustained in a small farm (WITHOUT sustained external input in the form of cattle-feed produced elsewhere using fossil-fuel based fertilizers, and without vast tracts of ranches) is limited by how much SURPLUS crops or crop residue is available as cattle feed. No more.
>>>Additionally, not all locations in the world or where care from the above agencies go are drought prone.
No matter where you send these cattle, they are going to need the SAME amount of input per cow - in the form of cattle feed and water. And they are also going to produce only about one calf per year on average. So, unless the family has a farmland where they have surplus growth for cattle-feed, they will have to buy fodder from outside, or take the livestock to graze on public lands. Meat production by small farmers is generally not sustainable in the long run.
>>>If animal production is the primary concern, so be it, state the claim clearly.
Meat production as a primary activity is not sustainable in many parts of the world where there is a shortage of land for the average small farmer. Large scale meat production - especially beef production - is economically viable ONLY in countries that have vast tracts of land (including Brazil - where they still keep clearing the forests), access to cattle feed that are grown using fossil-fuel based fertilizers, and, in most cases, some kind of a subsidy - direct and indirect, like cheap rates for water. If you look at countries that can produce enough meat to export, they are all settler countries, and there is an uneven distribution of land between the settlers and the native population. That's what makes industrial scale meat production viable. Meat is reserved for special occasions in most parts of the world - for the simple reason that it's not available on a large scale - not due to a shortage of capital, but due to limited availability of real inputs needed for meat production - water, cattle feed and land for grazing.
>>>Least we forget, the primary issue is hunger as a direct result of impoverished environment.
If that is the case, meat production is the wrong way to solve this problem. Unless used in a synergistic manner (cows provide milk, bulls are used for ploughing and pulling carts, both eat surplus crop or crop residue, provide manure, also meat and leather at the end of their "useful" life) in a farm (which assumes that those who receive the livestock have a farm), raising livestock as a primary activity is not sustainable. As for the environment, it will only get degraded further. There are better and more efficient means of tackling hunger.
1)I brought up New Zealand sheep industry to counter Tyler's use of the UK subsidizes of sheep. Sheep production minus subsidizes works. Tyler was trying to argue it was costly and unproductive hence his "look at the UK, that model doesn't work, ergo it won't work in Africa". Dismissing the NZ model as ineffective because of "white settlers" is as confusing as saying sheep production in Africa can't work because UK subsidizes their industry.
2)The simple example of paying a vet with the products you make was intended to challenge Tyler's argument livestock would require a vet, etc., and that those added issues aren't accounted for. Cows give birth once a year. Yes. It was an example to show there are ways to pay for additional services when there is a lack of money. Other forms of capital are available such as a milk, rabbit, labor. One is not limited to the calf as the only tool for negotiating trade where money may be nonexistent.
3)Cattle fixation noted. I also mentioned ducks, rabbits, guinea pigs. And where a cow won't work, perhaps breeding rabbits or a goat is a good answer. And there are geographic locations outside of the "Horn of Africa Scenario", as well as areas where a cow doesn't fit the model. Presenting everything the groups above carry out as effectively massive cattle production in the Horn of Africa is too narrow in scope.
I also think you contradict yourself. You say meat production isn't sustainable, then give an example where it can work. Synergy.
There are various approaches to teaching agroecology, and in the case of Heifer International, I have yet to be convinced their various models are negative and wrong headed.
1) Mentioning NZ as a poor role model for Africa and most developing countries is perfectly reasonable. It will ONLY work when each farmer has access to large tracts of productive land/pasture, etc. That is true in most, if not all, settler countries.
2) You are arguing as if lack of capital is the main problem. I am saying that limited availability of real resources - such as land and water (and the resultant cattle feed) - as the primary problem in many countries. And this is getting worse due to globalization, because even these limited resources are being disproportionately used for and by the elite - such as for crops for export, for dairy and meat production, etc. Such activities, while they may pay some wages to a poor worker, are not going to help with tackling hunger and malnutrition. Limited resources need to be used efficiently, and meat production is not the way to go when resources are limited.
I don't contradict myself - let me repeat what I wrote, and I think I have qualified my statement sufficiently so that you can see I was talking about WHERE and FOR WHOM it is not sustainable:
"Unless used in a synergistic manner (cows provide milk, bulls are used for ploughing and pulling carts, both eat surplus crop or crop residue, provide manure, also meat and leather at the end of their "useful" life) in a farm (which assumes that those who receive the livestock have a farm), raising livestock as a primary activity is not sustainable."
Those farmers who are lucky enough to have a small farm, may already be owning a limited number of livestock, and meat production is NOT the PRIMARY activity for them. They'll probably slaughter these for their own use, for special occasions, etc. Such farmers are not considered poor by the aid agencies. The people who'll receive the donations are more likely to be landless people who may have to rely on public land for grazing, or keep their livestock sedentary and find feed from elsewhere. In both cases, meat production as a PRIMARY activity is not sustainable. I am not against giving aid. I just want to point out that what works in an affluent country (due to historical reasons, more land per farmer) may not work in a poor country.
I will never donate to an organization which treats nonhuman animals as things to be given to humans. Surely, there must be other humanitarian organizations which do worthy work. I shall seek them out. No Heifer International for me.
a