Bill Gates has made the most egregious, misguided blunder.

Mr Gates has joined the international trade in live animals. He is sending live animals to Africa, yes animals, to feed people. It is reported that he is providing USD42 million to set up dairies in rural Africa with no electricity, refrigeration, vet care and where 90% of the people are lactose intolerant.

While he will get some nice photo opportunities of kids cuddling little calves, imagine how much good he would have done if he put the funds into developing sustainable plant based food programs? Sustainable population programs?

Mr Gates and his charitable foundation could be a tremendous force for good, but not with a misguided scheme like this. It may be a cynical attempts at reaching for a Nobel Peace Prize, but he won't deserve it unless he researches better what is to happen to the money he is giving away.

The press is onto it too.

"Using cherubic, 4-H/Unicef style advertising-- kids hugging the animal "gifts" they will also dispatch- -Heifer pledges to stamp out world hunger in poor countries using the grain, water and grazing land they don't have to raise animals.

"To get around the lack of rural electricity for the proposed dairy operations in Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda, Heifer will create "chilling plants" with their own backup power generators according to a press release where the milk will be stored for pickup by "refrigerated commercial dairy delivery trucks"-- both of them.

"Farmers will artificially inseminate cows, perhaps by candlelight, with "high-production dairy animal semen"--more backup generators required to keep it frozen?--and increase milk quality through providing "improved animal nutrition" to the cows with the food they don't have".

As well, he makes an ongoing contribution to the cruelty of long-distance animal transport.

This scheme is entrenching cruelty, environmental carnage and ill health in poor communities.

Organizations which fund live animals "for poor people" are either profoundly ignorant - or deeply cynical.

This is simply a disgrace, and Mr Gates is supposed to be smarter than this.

Nicky, it is difficult to comment unless you provide some references, and some specifics.

The fact sheet at the Heifer site seems to set out some pretty reasonable objectives, together with a plan to achieve them.

http://www.heifer.org/site/c.edJRKQNiFiG/b.3842753/

What exactly are you concerned about?

Since television was invented we've watched famine victims slowly starving to death on a massive scale in such regions, but been unable as individuals to do much about it. Along comes a wealthy individual in a position to do something about it, and some very comfortable individuals with the ability to accumulate optional body mass are upset because it might upset some domesticated dairy animals.

Go figure.

Pericles, I haven't got a direct reference to those comments, unfortunately. My objections have to do with:

a) ADDING to the unnecessary long-distance transport of animals when the world should be looking at the suffering of these animals in the process and putting a stop to it

b) Exporting live animals from the US to a region that has no infrastructure or expertise to achieve anything meaningful from it.

c) Exporting dairy cattle to a population that is 90+% lactose intolerant, to most people, would seem ill-considered, to say the least.

Chainsmoker, the welfare of the animals should be considered in this, no matter how pretty the pictures look. The money would be better spent on limiting population growth in these countries, and on medication.

Cheers
Nicky

Nicky, I do find it difficult to believe such a large project is indeed as impractical as you say it is.

If this is indeed the case, can you provide backing for this, which doesn't come from a source which has an obvious agenda which may be in conflict with this project?
I understand and support some aspects of animal welfare, whilst I think others are misguided. I'd need to see a whole lot more to be convinced that this project is indeed a mistake, given that it's a charitable purpose.

Pericles, when Nicky says that "the press" is "onto it", what she means is that opinionated blogger/columnist Martha Rosenberg is "onto it".

'nuff said.