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.

Lactose Intollerance
http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/lactose.html
"All human races' babies can tolerate lactose. In fact human milk has a very high concentration of lactose compared to cows' milk and that of other mammals." - "Some races, such as Asian, African, Australian Aboriginal and Hispanic populations have a greater tendency to adult lactose intolerance."

The project http://www.heifer.org/site/c.edJRKQNiFiG/b.3955647/
http://www.nextbillion.net/newsroom/2008/01/28/gates-and-heifer-to-raise-profitability-of-dairy-farmers

An interesting point from one of the write ups "To improve cow breeds and production, the project will rely on artificial insemination using high quality bull semen to impregnate local cows"

Is there really live shipping involved?

An alternate view of the project http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_13556.cfm by Martha Rosenberg which seems to be widely distributed.

Some other stuff on Gates foundation work on agricultural development http://appablog.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/gates-africa-306-million-commitment-to-agricultural-development/

A comment on another article
"Farmers with incomes of a few hundred dollars a year can hardly afford to buy cows or goats, but Heifer's projects provide the cows or goats and then ask the farmers to pay for them by "Passing on the Gift" of offspring of the livestock to others. That multiplies and spreads the benefits, and it makes it possible for farmers, with training in integrated agriculture, to begin developing environmentally sound farms that can double or triple their previous output. Since Heifer started in 1944, this approach has helped more than 48 million people become more self-reliant." http://www.pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=8158

R0bert

Dear Nicky,

I suggest that you look up this website:

http://www.heifer.org/site/c.edJRKQNiFiG/b.3955647/

entitled: "Help & Hope for 1 million people in East Africa."

It gives a totally different slant to the one your
giving us. And I quote:

"The $42.8 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
to Heifer International, which includes $2.5 million
matching grant. Combined the grant and Heifer-raised matching
donations will secure a total of $45.3 million for the
East Africa Dairy Development (EADD) project, which will help
farmers in Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda achieve better livelihoods
through dairy farming - significantly increasing household
income through profits generated from the production and
marketing of high-quality milk."

In eastern Africa as the article points out its almost impossible for
subsistence-level farmers with few cows to participate in the
dairy industry or make real economic progress because even if the
family's cows could produce more milk than needed for household
consumption, they would have to sell it immediately because of lack
of refrigeration for storage. So more than 90% of milk in Africa was
sold at that farm gate or to peddlers.

The article tells us:

"Heifer's EADD project solves this problem by placing refrigerated
chilling plants located where farmers can bring their milk for
storage and pick up by commercial trucks. Then even a very poor
farmer with a single cow can take part in the dairy industry."

But there's more... the farmer's will recieve training in Heifer's
small community groups.

I won't go into all the details here - you can read them for yourself
on the website.

However, as the article says: "it was Heifer's proposal to generate higher quality milk
from improved cows and a collection system that accommodates poor
farmers that struck the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as a
succefful way to help people in East Africa improve their
income and nutrition, which will lead to better education,
housing, health care and quality of life."

Providing help and hope for 1 million people in East Africa
is a worthwhile venture not only for Bill Gates, but for
anyone.

I'm sure you'll agree.

I listed some info I located on this project last night but ddn't make much in the way of comment.

The lactose intollerance issue may impact on the economic viability of the proposal but on the other hand it's improving an important food source usable by almost all children if I understand the material from the breastfeeding site correctly.

The chillers are distributed but still are common collection points. It's not a matter of farmers getting a cow, a chiller and a generator, rather it seems that communities will get the chillers and necessary supplies.

Likewise it seems from my reading that the AI process will be managed so that storage of the genetic material is not an on farm issue.

If local cows are used along with AI to improve the breed then it seems unlikely that much live shipping of livestock will be required. None of the material I saw about the proposal gave me the impression that this project involved live transport of animals.

Almost all the criticism of the project that I could find seemed to be based on Martha Rosenburg's piece. I did find a small amount of other material criticising Heifer and it appeared to be vegan in origin. Martha's piece is written in the sarcastic, distorted style which raises alarm bells with me.
106 of Martha's pieces are listed at
http://www.opednews.com/author/author1353.html

R0bert

I suspect, Nicky, that if your agenda is to turn the population of the entire African continent into Vegans, there may be some substance to your concerns.

However, as desirable a goal as you may feel this to be, I don't see anyone producing any concrete plans to achieve the Veganization of Africa. And it would definitely take a great deal more than the $42.8 million that Bill and Melinda Gates have put on the table.

Do you, in fact, have any notion of how much money you would need in order to transform the eating habits of the entire continent? Or how long it would take? Or how many millions would die along the way?

I suspect not.

On the other hand, rather than sit on their hands and wail at the moon, the B&MG Foundation has put in place a plan to alleviate some immediate suffering.

I find the fact that you place the lives of cattle - most of whom will survive and be well cared for - ahead of humans, a touch distateful.

They may be African, and a long way away from your cosy PC and your cup-a-soup, but they are also people.

Hi all

Please read the following links, and then tell me that you think sending more animals to this region is the answer:

http://desertification.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/kenya-pastoralists-face-looming-drought-google-ea-standard/

http://www.aswa.org.uk/Articles/therealityofsend.html

Those are just two.

Pericles, it is not a matter of overlooking human suffering; I just think that aid dollars would be far better spent on population control and sustainable agriculture, which, in these regions in particular, does not include "livestock". This is just far too simplistic.

Cheers
Nicky

Nicky, the thing thats difficult without a genuinely independant coverage with article like that is to tell how straight they are being. Are they evenb talking about the Heifer program? Is the area described the same type of area that Heifer is doing the work in?

The impression I got from the other articles on the work to be done with Bill and Melinda's donation was that it was improvingt the strain of livestock used by AI rather than shipping in livestock and it was providing infrastructure to make that work.

I've not seen anything by way of critism of this project yet that looks the least bit objective. It all seems to have the tone and style that suggests a deep philosophical dislike for the nature of the aid rather than an objective analysis of the practicalities of whats being done. I'd be much more likely to be convinced by an article that looked more even handed.

R0bert

Nicky: << I just think that aid dollars would be far better spent on population control and sustainable agriculture, which, in these regions in particular, does not include "livestock". This is just far too simplistic. >>

With respect, I think that it is you who is being "far too simplistic" in this case. The areas targeted by this project have been home to pastoralist peoples for centuries, if not millennia. Groups like the Maasai and Samburu in Kenya and the Tutsi and Hima in Uganda and Rwanda have cultures that are intimately dependent upon cattle herding, so any claims of lactose intolerance among these people would have to be unfounded.

The problems in these areas emanate from postcolonial sedentization and industrialisation, and competition between ethnic groups who have latterly found themselves sharing the same bounded land and resources. Given that their former subsistence strategy of transhumant pastoralism is incompatible with modern notions of statehood and individually owned private property, the Heifer project seems to be a quite well-thought out effort to provide an economic basis for these pastoral people to adapt to life in 21st century Africa.

While I appreciate your concern for animal welfare, in this case I think you've picked the wrong target.

Nicky, I think you are being unrealistic. While no doubt your heart is in the right place, you need to engage a little closer with reality in order to get your message across.

>>Pericles, it is not a matter of overlooking human suffering; I just think that aid dollars would be far better spent on population control and sustainable agriculture, which, in these regions in particular, does not include "livestock". This is just far too simplistic.<<

You opened this thread by calling the Foundation's contribution to Heifer "ill-considered", but apart from your visceral objection to live cattle transport (which, by the way, has not yet been shown to be part of this particular programme), you have not explained how the money might be better directed.

If you think that aid dollars may be better spent on population control and sustainable agriculture, by all means explain to us how this might be brought about.

Incidentally, neither of the articles you cite provides any useful additional information.

The second piece is about goats.

The first piece looks at part of Kenya's north-east, while a quick look at the map shows that Heifer's activity concentrates on the west of that country.

Emotion is fine, but won't win an argument based on reality. Especially when you are arguing against the alleviation of starvation in Africa.

For those who may not have followed the links I posted yesterday the last of them was coverage of the work done from B&MG's donations to improve agriculture in the developing world. http://appablog.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/gates-africa-306-million-commitment-to-agricultural-development/

It's a press release for $306million in donations of which the Heifer project is a small part.

It includes soil improvement, use of high yield varieties of local crops, water infrastructure, supply chain etc.

Worth a read. It's publicity and is probably biased but still impressive.

R0bert

Bill Gates, world's greatest monopolist dressed up as a philanthropist.

The best thing he could do for under-developed countries and the Blunt household is lower the price of his software.

His African charity seems to be misplaced. Once people have been weaned they don't need to drink milk. Plus drinking the milk of another species doesn't do most people, particulaly infant children a great deal of good.

Just lower the price of the software Bill.

Interestingly, I had the rare privilege of being in a room with Bill several years ago and found him to be a genuinely intelligent and considerate bloke. However, I am doubtful, like most Billionaire's whether they have any idea how to direct Philanthropic funds in the most efficient and effective manner. Personally, I think there's no substitute for getting down to grass-root's level if you are going to be charitable, ie get out there and assess the problem first hand. If you're helping the homeless, dress down and actually listen to what they're saying and don't treat it like a 9-5 job. I've done it and I do it in my spare time, there's no substitute.

Dear Nicky,

I know that your heart's in the right place.
But, I too think that you've made a rather
rash judgement in this case.
What Pericles, Robert, CJ, and others, have to say makes
a lot of sense.

I don't think that Bill Gates has made a mistake.

East Africa can use all the help it can get.

African nations, ravaged by drought, will be thankful for Gates assistance with their agricultural requirements such as seed and sustainable crop production.

However, how Gates is going to solve the “creeping desert” problem and water shortages in these countries by supplying more livestock, is anyone’s guess.

Some African nations such as Swaziland are almost entirely located on degraded soil. Have any environmental impact assessments been performed on these recipient nations?

The Heifer Project is not new. It was a Church of Brethren agent, Dan West of Goshen, who conceived of the Heifer Project in 1944, aimed at reestablishing herds in war-ravaged countries. For years, he collected donated livestock - cows, bulls, goats, sheep, hogs, and rabbits and had them exported.

An article in the NY Times Magazine during January 2008, mentioned the Heifer Project. It seems that now the Holstein cattle gifts have crowded out native African species, which although better adapted to the environment, don’t produce as much milk.

Of course now they’re finding out that the Holsteins impact the environment much more. Want more milk = need more fodder = need more water.

Lactating cows require up to 115 litres of water per day. One goat can desecrate a landscape in a week - I had one!

But if you insist ladeez un gennilmen, do get your cheapest 'eifers 'ere...

”- Eight cows for the price of one! Get your heifers for £70 at Help the Age and save a packet. You'll wonder what World Vision are playing at charging £574 for theirs.

”- Why pay more for your goats? At World Vision it's two-for-one time as they're selling them off for £14! Never pay £24 for a goat at Oxfam ever again.

”- Chickens: Fed up paying £5 a chicken at Help the Aged? Get five - with a coop thrown in - for £20 at Good Gifts.

”- Farms: Don't get ripped off by Good Gifts' £25,000 version! Get one on the cheap at Send a Cow - a bargain at twice the price at £2,000! “

Errr....I'll go for the fruit trees thanks!

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23376556-details/Why+giving+a+goat+for+Christmas+'hinders+those+in+poverty'/article.do

dickie, we really didn't need yet another link to an article about those bleedin' goats.

This thread is about cows. That's what the initial charge sheet read - Bill and Melinda are delinquent in their philanthropy because they are now exporting cattle.

To be fair, you did earlier in your post refer to an article that was in fact about cows.

>>An article in the NY Times Magazine during January 2008, mentioned the Heifer Project. It seems that now the Holstein cattle gifts have crowded out native African species, which although better adapted to the environment, don’t produce as much milk.<<

But why did you not link to it?

http://tinyurl.com/5jbwy6

It is actually a very balanced article. There are obvious concerns at the possibilities of losing local cattle strains in the next fifty years. (It doesn't say "Holsteins have crowded out native species", by the way.)

But there are also some shorter term issues that have a somewhat different flavour.

"But the foreigners [Holsteins] possessed arguably the single most important adaptive trait for livestock: they made money. Holsteins are lactating behemoths. In an African setting, a good one can produce 20 or 30 times as much milk as an [localbreed] Ankole."

Which, I would suggest, from a business point of view, makes immediate sense.

"Before he received the cow, Sezibwa said, he was hungry and destitute. All he owned were some banana trees and a one-room house roofed with thatch. Then he and his wife were given Kevina [a Holstein] by a charity called Heifer International."

"Kevina churned out around six and a half gallons of milk a day. (A typical Ankole would have given him between a quarter and a half gallon.) His family drank some of the milk, and he sold the rest, netting around $100 a month after expenses. In a country where an estimated 85 percent of the population lives on less than $1 a day, that’s substantial income. The money finances school for Sezibwa’s six children."

Isn't it nice to get a more rounded picture, all the better to discuss the pros and cons?

Pericles

You state: "dickie, we really didn't need yet another link to an article about those bleedin' goats." To which links do you refer?

Heifer are avid promoters of gifting goats, therefore, goats are very relevant.

"But why did you not link to it?

"http://tinyurl.com/5jbwy6"

Simple Pericles and please cease jumping to conclusions. I have not read that link until now.

"Isn't it nice to get a more rounded picture, all the better to discuss the pros and cons?"

Indeed yes Pericles and the "rounded picture," according to reputable, international environmental and health authorities is that the world must drastically reduce its livestock or suffer the consequences which we are already witnessing in Australia, which happens to have 6 times more livestock than humans.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming

You apparently are not interested in ecological matters but the state governments here are already purchasing pastoral properties and tying them up for conservation. Parts of WA are listed as one of the planet's most threatened ecological communities.

Yet these words of wisdom are ignored by the corporate West who are instigating a Livestock Revolution here and in developing countries since they believe, the more livestock, the better the profits.

"Which, I would suggest, from a business point of view, makes immediate sense."

Ah yes Pericles - "the business point," of course. In the meantime, perhaps you'd like to ponder the stark realities of Africa and I trust that Sezibwa, whom we in the West have made dependent on a resource depleting cow, has an alternative source of income for his survival when the cow succumbs to disease, starvation, thirst or banditry.

In the meantime, Africa must receive assistance in soil remediation, sustainable agriculture, clean water, ethical pest an insect control, education and health.

So whilst we proudly "buy" a cow, goat or a donkey for a poor person, time is running out for the other millions and despite the gifting of this livestock for more than half a century, these people are now reduced to begging and are in a diabolical situation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/killer-drought-threatens-east-africa-467259.html

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=79374

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=79079

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WFP/6c6b60c4f1dd3c8177d857c54e6502ae.htm

My my, dickie, you do jump about a bit, don't you?

>>You state: "dickie, we really didn't need yet another link to an article about those bleedin' goats." To which links do you refer?<<

The ones you provided at the end of your last post, dickie. Which ones did you think I meant?

>>But why did you not link to [the New York Times Magazine article]? Simple Pericles and please cease jumping to conclusions. I have not read that link until now.<<

But dickie, it was a key theme to your post, was it not? You wrote:

>>An article in the NY Times Magazine during January 2008, mentioned the Heifer Project. It seems that now the Holstein cattle gifts have crowded out native African species, which although better adapted to the environment, don’t produce as much milk.<<

Now you tell me you hadn't actually read the article? You presumably just copied the soundbite from someone else's blog, complete with errors. Poor show.

>>...and the "rounded picture," according to reputable, international environmental and health authorities yada yada yada<<

Hey, pal, you quoted the article, not me. If it wasn't the one that supports your argument, that's hardly my fault, is it?

And in that article - the one that you referred me to, may I remind you - it clearly describes a situation where a family who would otherwise have starved to death actually has a life, and something to look forward to with his six kids - at school, even.

That is what the charity is providing. Life. Hope. What is it about you that allows you to begrudge them this?

Look, you obviously enjoy sitting back in judgement over the efforts that other people make to bring hope to the needy in Africa. But as far as I can tell, they are doing their level best to bring some hope to people where there currently is none.

Incidentally, you may like to check again the last four links you provided.

None is at all relevant to the topic here.

I hope your armchair is warm and comfortable.

Hi all

To take this back to the simple basics ... there is no infrastructure to manage the "produce" of these animals, just what do they plan to feed them to ensure the "high yield", veterinary care is all but non-existent, (most likely doctors too, to deal with the lactose intolerant) and, as Dickie points out - we're talking about lands already substantially degraded. I think before philanthropists leap into "feel good" little numbers like this, Ben Horin is absolutely right - get "down and dirty" and look at what will REALLY work (health, education, and sustainable plant-based operations make more sense). I can't imagine the life expectancy of these unfortunate animals would be that great either - what then?

Cheers
Nicky

Hi Nicky

You touched on artificial insemination in your original post. I thought you may be interested in the following scientific papers I came across:

'The familiar black and white Holstein cow, which has spread around the globe as they replace the local breeds of farm animals kept in the tropics, pose a black and white plague, a genetic monopoly threatening our ability to adapt to future, unpredictable change.

'The consequence is that livestock keepers in Africa are rapidly changing the genotypes of their animals by adopting exotic types that are perceived to be more productive.

'This has the possible consequence of eroding adaptive genotypes that are equally useful in establishing a livestock sector that is robust to the conditions of life - especially climate change and the associated change of disease burdens.

'The combination of intensive selection and the use of techniques like artificial insemination have made it possible to produce large populations of genetically similar, high-performing animals of the same breed, but at the expense of their genetic diversity.

'European breeds are now facing extinction.

'The intensive selection of Boran and Tuli cattle from Zambia and Zimbabwe in Australia is just one example of genetic manipulation. In this case embryos from these African cattle were taken for cross-breeding into Australian breeds without permission. The commercial gain for Australia has been estimated at $800 million per annum.

'Australia has been selling the crossbreeds and embryos on the international market, in particular to Argentina but Zimbabwe and Zambia have received nothing in return.'

I'd say that's pretty typical Nicky.

I shall provide you with the links in another "thread." This will assist towards keeping Pericles occupied while he frenetically googles for hours in a bid to add to his ad hominems. I sincerely trust he's on medication for his stratospheric cholesterol.

And it appears that intensive farming (The Livestock Revolution) of gifted animals has also taken off in Africa:

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_veggie/ALL/660/

Toodle pip.

Hi all

Dickie, there is ample evidence of the damage importing "exotic" animals does to delicate eco-systems, even in Australia, who delicate balance was actually ideal for marsupials and the wildlife we have - until along came farmers and multitudes of cloven hooved animals, which have all but destroyed any number of natural habitats.

And why am I not surprised about the Holstein cattle (or the story about the embryos of the African cattle and where the money went (or in this case didn't go).

Poor Pericles. I still don't think you can get around the sheer illogicality of importing countless "gift" animals when there is no feed, infrastructure of veterinary care for them. What will happen to "Kevina" as her milk productivity wanes? She'll be hacked to death with machetes, I guess. But so what.

Send in proper, sustainable plant based food, medical supplies, and contraception.

Nicky

Hi all

Dickie, there is ample evidence of the damage importing "exotic" animals does to delicate eco-systems, even in Australia, whose delicate balance was actually ideal for marsupials and the wildlife we have - until along came farmers and multitudes of cloven hooved animals, which have all but destroyed any number of natural habitats.

And why am I not surprised about the Holstein cattle (or the story about the embryos of the African cattle and where the money went (or in this case didn't go).

Poor Pericles. I still don't think you can get around the sheer illogicality of importing countless "gift" animals when there is no feed, infrastructure of veterinary care for them. What will happen to "Kevina" as her milk productivity wanes? She'll be hacked to death with machetes, I guess. But so what.

Send in proper, sustainable plant based food, medical supplies, and contraception.

Nicky

What a patronizing pair of SIFs you are, Nicky and dickie, to be sure.

>>Poor Pericles. I still don't think you can get around the sheer illogicality of importing countless "gift" animals when there is no feed, infrastructure of veterinary care for them. What will happen to "Kevina" as her milk productivity wanes? She'll be hacked to death with machetes, I guess. But so what.<<

What I can't get my head around is the sheer illogicality of objecting to a charity donation that a) saves lives and b) provides a livelihood for starving Africans.

There is indeed sufficient feed, infrastructure and veterinary care, otherwise there wouldn't be sufficient profit in the venture to educate the guy's six kids.

There is also, if you care to look, a - local - programme of IVF that ensures continuity of the business.

And I am not naive enough to assume that Kevina will spend her twilight years in some kind of moo-cow old folks home. Far from being "hacked to death with machetes" though, I suspect that she will be humanely put to death, and provide the family with wholesome beefy substances for a good few meals.

You do your idealistic cause to turn the world into vegans no good at all, by leaning back in your comfy armchairs and poking complaints at a programme that i) alleviates hunger and ii) provides a livelihood for destitute Africans.

I suggest that instead of dealing in fatuous generalities like "proper, sustainable plant based food, medical supplies, and contraception.", you devise a plan that is as practical, useful and effective as this one.

Complaining about somebody else actually making an effort, simply because it offends your idealistic soul, is not convincing.

And if Bill puts his money into this programme, you can bet your last red cent that he has weighed up the pros and cons as carefully as any human being on the planet.

Trust me on this.

Pericles

Be it Bill or Daisy Africa Australia or ME the point is there is no need send send animals alive!

If you want to help these people then first inforce contraception and if they show enough resonsibilty to use it then give a voucher for FROZEN meat that has been slaughtered as close as possible to its place of origen and veggies.

The point you always seem to miss is animals suffer and feel pain as much as people and often far more.

There is no need for Bill or anybody else to be so cruel and insular.

Did you say Africa have proper vet care and conditions?
Perdon me while I cough.

We followed the sheep from the cormo. They had sercurity block the area for three miles sounding.

Even then people walking to work held their hands over their noses.

Bill is simply cashing in on the big bucks made from baqrbaric treatement of Animals which is totally unnessary.

Shame on anybody who supports intensive farming or live exports wherever they are and who ever they are.

We are not veggies but fully support the rSPCAs demands for the cruel insensive farms to be replaced with free range and live exports to be faxed to chilled exports only.

I can certainly applaud your motives, PALE&IF, there is indeed suffering involved. Some human. Some animal.

In this particular case however, I think you have picked on a reasonably defensible target.

>>If you want to help these people then first inforce contraception<<

That's silly. Procreation was, last time I looked, legal. Especially in areas where life can be, as Thomas Hobbes put it so elegantly, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Their daily survival is often pretty much a lottery, you know.

>>give a voucher for FROZEN meat that has been slaughtered as close as possible to its place of origen<<

In these days of worrying about carbon footprints, transporting long distances is very much frowned upon. You also need to look at the raw transport costs - sea freight prices have escalated significantly in the last few months, and are unlikely to come down again any time soon.

Economically, it has to make sense to transport the live, productive animal, in a manner that allows her to be of more-than-carcass value to its destination family.

>>Did you say Africa have proper vet care and conditions? Perdon me while I cough<<

No, I said "sufficient feed, infrastructure and veterinary care". My rationale, because I haven't actually seen it first hand, is that these would be a prerequisite for our friend Sezibwa to have made a sufficient living from the production and sale of Kevina's milk, to send six children to school.

>>Bill is simply cashing in on the big bucks made from baqrbaric treatement of Animals<<

Of all the people to accuse of "cashing in", Bill Gates has to be a long way down the list of suspects.

Has anybody seen any evidence which shows that live transport of animals is involved in this project?

The stuff I saw talked about AI on local cows. Unless the bulls are shipped to Africa that approach should not need any live transport. My assumption would be that you could ship a lot of chilled/frozen sperm for the same cost as shipping the bull. Bringing the sperm from other locations would provide access to a far greater range of genetic material than shipping a number of bulls as well.

Am I missing something here?

R0bert

Pericles, may I suggest that you read the report "Livestock's Long Shadow"?

Nicky

Pericles
Your comments are always worth a read and you have made some points as usual.
Regarding breeding of people it may not be illegal but somebody should do something- sensible.
World wide there are millions starving yet all we do is talk about sending some more milk or meat etc.
Thats stupid and a five year old could work out its useless.

With Global warming we must actually do something about the worlds situation.
I am personally very anti anybody having children if they cant afford to feed and educate them and somebody should have the guts to make it law.
( That includes unmarried Aussies with five kids to five different Dads as well.

I know you will all moan when I again point out that surley our church leaders of the world should get with it and promote birth control.

Regardless its discusting that people think animals should suffer just to feed them. kindness should be for all Gods Creatures.
Use them for meat and materials but at least have some common deceny and trust me live exports are one of the most barbic trades that has ever been dreamt up.
Did you know Frazor brought in the army when people even back them protesyed the cruelty of the live trade.

Robert

I dont have anything at all on that because I have been away.
Took it on face and to be really honest with you I am sick of reading reports.
Practile suggestions such as the one you made almost three years ago are of more benefit to the animals TBO .

Pedicles

Just a foot note before I am off to feed the horses. I was reading your comment again and thinking to myself. I wondered why you thought live exports a defensible target. I guessed it’s because like most you don’t have all the facts. That’s because the Australian Government has always kept the facts and figures hidden from the public and the barbaric cruelty as much as possible. Every feedlot that the Government assists in setting up via the foreign aid program is another diversion of jobs and value adding from the Australian economy and community. Its assistance that could have been used towards in many better and fairer ways.
Its not up to farmers, its up to consumers and if this Government and passed were not so corrupt and in bed with the industry that offers donations and votes to their gutless parties live animal exports would not continue.

The Red Beef Association paint a different story of live exports and our Governments have all but destroyed them along with this country quite apart from the unacceptable cruelty. It’s important to remember that when farmers protested about the cruelty of live exports in the beginning Keating called in the army and they got little support from the city folk who were off to the theatre and high tea parties.

The farmers are not to blame for live exports= We are = The people who turned their backs on the farmers and the animals a long time ago.
If you want to help animals then help the farmers by creating some compertition. Support the Australian Red beef Assoication.
Do not however tell people not to eat meat etc... that backfires terribly for the animals.

PALEIF, welcome back. I'm not certain on the live export angle. When the thread was first published I did a scan of web info about the project because the criticism didn't gel with what I've seen of other work by B&M's chrity donations. Almost all the criticsm seemed to come back to the one article referenced earlier in this thread and the author seems to link into vegan causes a bit as well.

My impression is that the livestock component is just a small part of a much larger program which tries to address many of the concerns (soil replenishment, distribution mechanisms etc). I didn't see any mention of live transport in the material describing the project components and no one seems to have offered any evidence here.

What did I suggest three years ago?

R0bert

Hi Robert
Just quickly and just for the record, I am not a member of any animal rights/welfare/conservation/vegan organization. I simply oppose long distance transport of animals (especially) for slaughter, and, in this case, where more effective means of aid could have been used with the Gates millions. Given that the veterinary care and infrastructure available to properly care for "gift" animals, I think this is a ridiculous notion ion anyone's language.

Cheers
Nicky
BTW, the last two posts from PALE look like they have been written by totally different people! And encouraging people to eat less meat obviously benefits the animals because there are less slaughtered, livestock farming is deleterious to the environment (as we know), and an excessively meat-based diet is carcinogenic (as we also know).

Nicky, I've still not seen anything credible that says that the program Bill and Melinda are sponsering will involve transporting animals. Much of your opposition seems to be on that point but you've not clarified how you know that will occur.

My impression of the overall body of work covered by this block of donations was that they were trying to cover all bases. What that means in terms of veterinary care and infrastructure to care for the animals I'm not certain. It appears to include elements of that stuff but I don't know how good it will be.

This aspect of the program seems to be mainly aimed at increasing the milk production of the poorest of farmers who currently get very little milk from existing cows and have no means to store it. Cross breeding using AI to give more productive livestock, facilities to store the milk for distribution (off farm but close enough to get the milk to the facilities). There is another program for soil replenshment and various other grants. I do think that they have taken plenty of steps to minimise the harm and the potential benefits to ease suffering are massive.

R0bert

Robert

Thanks

I admit I am a bid out of touch as to this thread. I just made comment as I always do on live exports.

Your impression of the program would be pretty correct, however don’t forget they are hardly going to make a big deal about live exports in ‘any report’ given the world wide criticism of the cruelty involved in live exports either.

Make no mistake these animals would be a huge part of the deal. That is the problem because we can’t treat animals as just another supply of goods like cars tiers.

The whole thing needs to go to the UN with some high profile people supporting it.
You see Robert live exports don’t help Australia it actually hurts it in economical terms and by reputation. Given that Australia are the largest exporters of live animals its up to us to lead the way to make those changes.

The Minister for Immigration and Kevin Rudd have a perfect opportunity right now to do just that with Rudd’s new Asians in regional areas policy. After all we can’t have all these new migrants on welfare for ever.


* What you suggested three years ago when posting to Celiva was very good.*

It’s a bit long to put here. Basically you said for everybody who cared about Animals to write down all the places you could shop in your local area where animals are treated in a humane manner- i.e. Free Range Eggs Chicken beef and so forth and get it out to the locals and encourage others Australian wide to do so…. There was more.

Also I assure you I wrote the last few posts.

The difference between pale and the others is very little really.

We are all shocked and appalled by the way the Australian Government allows our Animals to be treated and outraged by the lengths they go to hide it.
We think its best to reopen abattoirs which the veggies quietly oppose.
That’s pretty much it.

I hope you continue to take an interest in sensible suggestions to improve animal welfare.

This is pure conspiracy theory, PALE&IF.

>>Your impression of the program would be pretty correct, however don’t forget they are hardly going to make a big deal about live exports in ‘any report’ given the world wide criticism of the cruelty involved in live exports either. Make no mistake these animals would be a huge part of the deal.<<

You appear to be suggesting that the absence of an admission that live animals are involved, is proof that they must be.

Your assertion that "these animals would be a huge part of the deal" is not only unsupported, but flies in the face of the information that we do have about the programme.

As R0bert so patiently pointed out, there is an entire support infrastructure that would, in financial terms, outweigh any element of transportation.

Given this, I have to point out, it is also very much in the interests of the programme as a whole that the live animals - should there indeed be any - would be extremely well cared for in transit.

So as an afterthought, this is probably not at all comparable with the "live export" that involves packing them in intolerably cruel conditions.

All appearances are that it is a humane and life-saving programme, carefully thought-out, that is a great deal more than just sending bags of flour. On that basis, I feel it is extremely defensible.

Incidentally...

>>World wide there are millions starving yet all we do is talk about sending some more milk or meat etc. Thats stupid and a five year old could work out its useless.<<

A five-year-old might also be able to work out that providing someone with the means to a livelihood is a far more powerful anti-poverty action than sending food alone, as implied by your "sending some more milk or meat etc" comment.

They might also think that interfering with their right to raise a family is just a step too far. Would you be prepared to support similar dictatorial intervention in your life?

#This is pure conspiracy theory, PALE&IF.#

*Is it really?. BTW we get a lot of requests for live cattle for milk but that’s another story. The answer is always the same. “NO” The reason there is a world wide shortage of milk is obvious. I don’t think breeding more and more animals is the answer.

Pls excuse me if I go on past experience. I recall spending ages trying to convince Mark Pearson and AA that AWB were live exporters.

*Its clear you did not read my post to Robert fully where by I said this=*

*Robert

I don’t have anything at all on this because I have been away.
Took it on face and to be really honest with you I am sick of reading reports.

Our Australian dairy farmers have been screwed to the wall.

Incidentally... do you know how many have committed suicide since they deregulated milk. ?

Now isn’t that kind of weird when you think of it really isn’t it. I mean here we are in the middle of a world wide milk shortage but good old USA leads the way as always.

The fact is USA and the UN have bled this country dry while our Governments said Yes sir no sir.

*Well you may say we should save the world but who will save Australia? Our country is just about stuffed now sending our work off shore for years. Country towns have closed by the hundreds and farmers and their familes have been destroyed. Or don’t Aussies count to you.*

#
They might also think that interfering with their right to raise a family is just a step too far. Would you be prepared to support similar dictatorial intervention in your life?#

Uneducated people require wise rulers and control of births.

Its time some of these good Christian leaders realized that and took action.
I do not see one life as being superior of another.

We share this earth with many creatures and we are just one of them.

There are some fairly outlandish and irrelevant statements here. There was, as I understand it, some time elapsed in the AWB matter, and the bottom line is that Mark Pearson particularly, and AA, are very good strategists who probably saw the level of public apathy about this and realized it was going nowhere (and it did go nowhere).

Also, what is the basis for the statements about dairy farmers committing suicide and a world wide shortage of milk? Are there statistics to support that, or is it just high drama? It is apparently documented that about 90% of the people to whom these dairy cattle are being directed are lactose intolerant, so does this program really meet anyone's fundamental needs? Sorry, Pericles, you have cited one family, who may have got lucky.

"Gift" animals from various charities are sent to countries where there is no infrastructure to properly care for them, and THAT is the animal welfare issue, along with transport. Pericles, the Australian live export industry, which "cares" for those animals, regards 40,000+ dead animals (just on the ships and the figure is rising every year despite lower numbers being exported as "collateral damage", so what makes this any different? Particularly in view of the treatment they will receive, even those bred by AI.

It is extraordinarily paternalistic to say that "uneducated persons require wise rulers and birth control", too. This is not something that should be enforced, particularly by the corrupt and despotic regimes in these countries; look what goes on in China in that context.

Nicky

Nicky, you might be attacking the wrong program. The charity implementing this program does also do the gift animal thing but in this case nobody has shown any evidence that animals are being shipped in. I've also pointed out that this is only a small part of a much larger program which is addressing many of the other problems such as infrastructure, soil degredation etc.

If you want to attack the gift animal programs go for it but it seems unreasonable to attack what Bill and Melinda are doing without showing any evidence that your concerns apply to their philanthropy.

I put up material early on lactose intollerance which claims that most infants are not intollerant, it's something which generally develops later in life.

There may be problems with this program but to continue to repeat the same claims without supporting evidence in the face of material which suggests those claims are wrong does not help focus attention on any problems which may exist.

R0bert

Roert

Thats a fair comment. I said three times now I only came to read the last few comments and the title which I assumed the author had researched.


To move onto the above post from Nicky. It is a clear example of what she 'doesnt know'.
I really dont like doing this to fellow animal lovers but here are the facts from one to three .
1
If Nicky had the 'slightest idea' whats going on in the industry world wide she would know there is a critical shortage of milk supply.

Its shameful that she doesnt know the plight of Aussie dairy farmers. They are fORCED to sell their milk overseas to make a living thanks to our Governments.

You have GOT to understand the farmers positions to help animals.

2Mark Pearson particularly, who is a top bloke didnt have a clue about AWB being live exports when I rang him- neither did AA.

The difference between Mark and the others is that hes a straight up guy who said Hell Wendy I didnt know that can you send us some docs or something.( We were discussing holding a joint rally outside AWB to protest live exports)

We sent the doc and also to AA l and Kevin Rudd the then shadow Minister who headed for the hills big time.

One minute Nicky says the public demand live exports to be banned but now suddenly she says AA did nothing because they saw the level of public apathy about this and realized it was going nowhere (and it did go nowhere). ? Strewth.

Actually it was because they were already well into a intensive piggery protest and being overnight like that was too much for them to handle both

I am not critising them simply making an honest statement.

I am pointing out why many eyes ears and hands working together is vital.

I am sure they know heaps of things that we dont in other areas.

3 Its clear the UN need to look at birth control to save millions from suffering.

PALEIF, " said three times now I only came to read the last few comments and the title which I assumed the author had researched."

Just in case there is confusion my repeated requests for some evidence that live shipping is involved are directed to Nicki (or anybody else who has that evidence). I'm not hassling you. I've gone into discussions before assuming that the initiator had some proof of the claims made and discussing the issue on that basis later to find that the initial claims were not supported.

I don't think Nicki is trying to mislead but maybe needs to look further into this than the article by Martha Rosenberg article which seems to be at the heart of all the objections to the program. If the Gates were shipping significant numbers of animals to Africa, if there was no program to put infrastucture in place, if there was no work being done on soil replenishment, if african children were as lactose intollerant as african adults adults then I'd take a different view.

Each of those objections seems to have been met (although I don't know how effective the programs will be) so this looks like a great initiative rather than "Bill Gates ill-considered philanthropy; becoming a live exporter".

R0bert

Hi Robert

Nicky is correct. Heifer International have always exported animals to the recipient country though Heifer now appear reluctant to advertise this practice.

More recently, they’ve been flying in stock from South Africa. These animals are then quarantined for several weeks. Heifer Int. also source animals in-country but there remains an arrangement with other charities including the Irish charity (Bothar) too where animals are sourced from Ireland and presented to the recipients in other nations.

http://www.heifer.org/site/c.edJRKQNiFiG/b.3856653/

http://www.heifer.org/site/c.edJRKQNiFiG/b.201779/#

In addition, during the 70s, the Heifer Project International signed an agreement with the Cameroon government and the importation of Jersey cattle, Holstein Friesian cattle and semen started and continues to the present time.

The number of livestock in Africa often exceeds grasslands capacity by half or more. Some 230 million cattle, 246 million sheep and 175 million goats on the continent are supported almost entirely by grazing, The annual loss of rangeland productivity has cost Africa over seven billion dollars.

And yet the West continues to gift live animals to Africa and other developing countries despite the environmental degradation already caused by the huge numbers of livestock.

As a result and most unfortunately, these charities are also promoting intensive farming where the gifted animals spend their lives in huts with metal roofs.

The Heifer organisation is training dairy farmers to practice a zero grazing system with Holstein Friesian cows imported from Ireland since 1994.

Additionally, agricultural scientists are expressing concern due to the risk to Africa's gene diversity by the "innovative" practice to artifically inseminate the Holstein and Jersey cattle with indigenous stock and the disease susceptibility of exotic species:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2168113

http://www.catholicireland.net/pages/index.php?nd=47&art=626

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79724

Heifer Int.et al has its critics too, who view these projects with a degree of skepticism – particularly by the vigorous push into Africa with GM and seed crop technology.

http://africanagriculture.blogspot.com/2007/06/african-green-revolution-aid-project.html

http://community.livejournal.com/yruuer/95588.html

Hi all

Robert, my apologies for not addressing your questions earlier, and Dickie - thanks heaps for the research. Been a little snowed under lately!

Cheers
Nicky

What we've got here is a classic legerdemaine - fleece most of the people for their software and give some of the people a few cows.

No doubt this gives Bill Gates a warm feeling in his pants but it doesn't detract from the fact that he's one of the worlds most successful ever monopolists dressed up in philanthropists clothing.

*Some 230 million cattle, 246 million sheep and 175 million goats on the continent are supported almost entirely by grazing,*

which kind of makes my point, that if the Arabs and their petrodollars
want so source live animals, there are plenty around for them.

The thing that has to be remembered is that if you want to use
high production genetics in Africa, you also need good nutrition,
as the Chinese have found out. Genetics is just one thing. If
the right nutrition is not going in the front, it won't come
out the back either.

*he's one of the worlds most successful ever monopolists dressed up in philanthropists clothing.*

Well his real claim to fame is breaking the Apple monopoly and selling
his software to anyone cheaply. Hundreds of millions bought it.
Today he is also the world's most generous man, giving away more
money then any other person. He's just trying to do it wisely, so
is devoting his time to that. Fact is Frank that without Gates,
you would now not be sitting in front of a dirt cheap computer,
having fun. You clearly like his product, or you would have bought
an Apple at a much higher price.

Yabby
I have been waiting on the others to reply but I will have my two bobs worth.
I dont care how he made his money or how much he is giving away- sorry.
Each and everyone of us have a moral obligation to do something about the terrible animal cruelty in this world.

Can you tell me what he has done in this area- Do you know?

I am not saying he hasnt. I am just saying I dont know.

Perhaps he has given to try to help the bears being milked- I wonder?

Anybody, I mean anybody who thinks its ok to send animals alive off shore to benefit humans is missing something.

Animals are earth bound creatures and should be milked or slaughtered as close to their origen as possible.

We need a Bill of rights presnted to the UN FOR ANIMAL WELFARE.

Another thing and I have seen you post thhis yourself.
We need people with the sense of sensibilty to demand birth control before we give these countries one more thing.

Just being rich and giving money away doesnt make you a god bloke either.
Which reminds me i dont suppose you would know how much Elders give by way of political donations to the Governments to uphold their evil trade - do you?

dickie, I saw early on that Heifer does do gift animal programs but I've not seen anything in this program which suggests thats involved here.

It's this particular program which has been attacked and so far I've not seen any evidence that the things it's been attacked about apply.

The impacts of introducing exotic genetic strains may be relevant as may be the possibility that the farming practices are unsustainable. I'm not managing to get the links to open at the moment (not sure whats happening there) so I can't comment on them yet.

If Heifer does live exporting elsewhere and Gates is funding a program which does not involve that then that aspect should be a good thing.

R0bert

I hope you're correct RObert.

Heifer, with the benefit of the Gates contribution, will train some 10,000 farmers to become growers of animal fodder to sell to dairy farmers. I strongly suspect the fodder will be genetically modified.

Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto and Syngenta appear to be a team.

I certainly trust they know what they're doing RObert. The previous "Green Revolution" overall was, according to the following author, a multiple of failures.

http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1506

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529

dickie, I'm not absolutely sure that they will get it right. Thats sometimes hard to tell up front with limited access to information.

They do appear to be trying to do more than others, the description of the overall program suggests that it is broad and has tried to address a lot of the normal failures.

Your comments and concerns are worth considering, sometimes the best intentions go horribly astray. I don't think that Bill's philanthropy is ill considered but that does not mean all elements are correct.

Honest and fair discussion of the pitfalls is a far more likely to see any weaknesses addressed than sensational and unsubstantiated claims.

R0bert

Hi R0bert
I suspect that PALE hit the nail on the head insofar as de-emphasising the transport issue (or concealing it, if you wish). But one would have to wonder how they would be planning to get Friesian-Holstein cattle there WITHOUT transporting them (can't all be done by AI).

It is worth noting that these breeds of cattle (mostly bred in the southern areas of Australia) are not supposed to be exported from the Australian winter to the Middle Eastern summer (i.e between May and November) because of the heat stress risks involved. These cattle will no doubt thrive in this climate to which they are being sent thanks to the intervention of farmer training programs (perhaps air conditioning as well?).

And Dickie is absolutely right, these countries - and no doubt donors - have no hesitation with regard to GM crops. It looks more and more ill-considered to me the more I look at it, particularly since there is not exactly a surplus in these countries of universities to train veterinarians (or veterinarians either). Farmers there may one day be able to deal with healthy animals, but what happens to them when they get sick? What happens to the massive proportion of the population who are lactose intolerant (children AND adults)? More suffering. Short sighted, to put it kindly.

Nicky

Nicky fyi
http://www.getfarming.com.au/pages/farming/articles_view.php?fId=9200020080513104901

ABA asks Meat and Livestock Australia and Cattle Council: Where the bloody hell are you?

ABA Chairman, Brad Bellinger has issued a missing persons alert for both Meat and Livestock Australia and Cattle Council of Australia.

The ACCC Inquiry into grocery pricing and the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee investigation into meat marketing, are the two most important Inquiries into the meat industry, in more than a decade.

MLA and CCA have failed to present any submissions to the ACCC and CCA has advised the Senate Committee that it will not be making a submission on behalf of beef producers.

ABA has made a number of submissions to the ACCC including a detailed analysis that showed supermarkets mark-up mince more than 100%. They have a long submission with the Senate Committee.

Meat and Livestock Australia and Cattle Council of Australia are apparently both happy with the unsustainable and currently record low prices, that the producers (who fund them) receive.
Yo
I watched Landline Yabby. So it showed Tony visting ' old friends" on a first visit to a farm- How nice.
He was met with a bottle of bubbly for christ sake.

At least as much as I dissaproved of them Mark Vaile and the Howard government he had ministers that were off the land!. My god this new Government is not only a disgrace but completely making themselves look stupid!
Well if the cap fits!. They raved about peta who are a US group but forgot to mention ALL Australian groups especially RSPCA reject that its not barbarically cruel.
More on Tony Burke and Rudds crap later.
Shame on that live exporter family and in my next few posts we will take a close look at them.

Hi all

R0bert, I hope you can get to Dickie's links, they should provide you with the background. PALE is quite right in saying that throwing money at a "cause" does not necessarily make one a good person, particularly when you have it amassed as Gates does (BTW, would you describe his software as "cheap"? I'd put it more in the category of exploiting the masses. Some would say it is an inferior system, as well). This project does not appear to be remotely sustainable to me, I'm afraid - the solution to world poverty and/or starvation is not to be found in simply sending live animals there to deplete already over-stretched resources further without real thought to the future. It is a short-term panacea that no doubt makes Gates feel good though. It might even help sell more of the dreaded Windows Vista, which will make him a few more bucks too.

PALE, I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevance of your last link to this thread. That's a domestic issue.

Nicky

Nicky

I only put it up because you mentioned MLA and I thought it might interest you.


I am sure Kevin would have said something like this.
Doesnt matter if you dont know anything about livestock Tony.
Just do as MLA tell you- Mate!