Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 mark chatburn wrote: > > My point was that the farmer should not depend on > > the commercial market. The > > farms should work economically without it. The > > profit from the commercial > > market would be used for non-essentials only. The > > cows and bulls should > > never be at the mercy of the global economy. > > Have you not noticed that at the moment they are > completely at the mercy of the global economy? A few > self sufficient communities are not, at the moment, > going to blow a hole in that. Yet a commercial model > of farm animal protection could do. How much will the > farmer and cows be at the mercy of commerce? That all > depends on the system in place, but commercial it will > be. If you are so convinced, then go get the necessary education to create your business plan and do it. But don't hold some theorectical model out and use it to bash people who have observed and been deeply involved with such affairs and ask them to set aside their common sense just because you wish it to be so. The only business model for cow protection that will work is one where there is a subsidy involved. Better to spend your energy figuring out how to get that subsidy actualized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2001 Report Share Posted February 13, 2001 Dear Mark, PAMHO. AGTSP. I have been the organizer of this conference since 1993 when I first started it. It was my decision to put you on the conference because I thought you would benefit and I thought your proposal would stimulate discussions on important topics. I think that we have accomplished the latter but not the prior. I Have always felt that none of us have the whole answer to any of the problems involved with cowprotection, but that by working together by listening, learning, compromising on details, we can come to common ground. We did this when the members of this conference created the Minimum Cow Protection Standards Law 507. I am thinking from your writting that you have not read these at all. My observatioin is that you're attitude is, "your way or the highway." While some of the members are considering parts of what you are saying, you are pushing the whole package exactly as you say it and expect it be accepted as it is. If you wish to remain on the conference please start listening to others in a way that you could possibly learn something from those who have knowledge and experience. In the real world, when someone makes a proposal or applies for a job, they have to present their credentials like experience, education in the field, past accomplishments. Often one doesn't even get a chance to speak if their credentials do not qualify them. In this light I think we have been quite generous in giving you a platform. So, now I request that you approach the forum of devotees with more sensitivity. It is you who is polarizing the discussion by the attitude in which you have approached the discussion. This conference was begun to provide a forum for learning and finding solutions. This can only be done with mature interaction. It is not a platform to push or force one's ideas on others, bu t to share and interchange ideas for the common good. In the last 7 years I have only removed 1 person from this conference. So please accept the advise. Thank you very much. Your servant, Chayadevi - "mark chatburn" <markjon11 > "New Talavan" <talavan (AT) fnbop (DOT) com>; "Cow (Protection and related issues)" <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Wednesday, February 14, 2001 12:25 PM Protection Farms > Just a quicky, will get back with time. > > > Mark: > > Farm animal protection has the ability to become a > multi-billion > dollar > worldwide industry - just pay the price (derived from > charitable, > private > and public means). In other terms it means that there > could be in 20 > years > time thousands or millions of (truly) > protected farm animals. In addition, on the face of > this there could be > thousands of truly self-sufficient farming communities > running > alongside its > more commercial brother. What is wrong with this? > > Comment: > Nothing is wrong, the bait is offered now we will see > your > determination. > How can I help you, what do you want me to do? > ys, Rohita dasa > > How can you help > > 1) Sort out some of the polemics that we hear on this > conference - those against, those for. > > I obviously have hit a raw nerve, though I new I > would, which is causing violent reactions from some, > excuberance for Happy Cow products from others, and > from others, like yourself, an understanding that > compromise is necessary - 'cause at the end of the day > a demon like myself is going to do this, whether > devotees like it or not, so it's better to get on > board. > > Prabhupada would have taught a meat eater the best way > to kill a chicken, though not physically, as a > compropmise - according to a swami I know. So I often > wonder who knows him, though as an outsider I will > make no claims here. > > 2) For me the most urgent requirement is to get a > fully costed business model. I know the questions to > ask - I need the answers. > > I am very close to getting some venture capitalist > involved in this, but I lack the numbers, though they > don't know that - you see businessmen can lie! > > And this business is for Argentina, of all places, as > that's where I live now. Here, they consume the most > beef in the world produced on free range grasslands. > > That is all for now. > > > > Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail./ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2001 Report Share Posted February 15, 2001 > > I obviously have hit a raw nerve, though I new I > would, which is causing violent reactions from some, > excuberance for Happy Cow products from others, and > from others, like yourself, an understanding that > compromise is necessary - 'cause at the end of the day > a demon like myself is going to do this, whether > devotees like it or not, so it's better to get on > board. > Did you notice the letter about the 6 oxen being dumped by yet another failed commercial attempt? That is your future if you don't start putting more weight behind objective reality than the fantasy that you are the most brilliant agricultural theoratician on the planet who will be able to do what no one else has done, what there is no example of, and of which even you yourself are unable to generate a model for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2001 Report Share Posted February 15, 2001 >From Mark Middle Mountain > Did you notice the letter about the 6 oxen being > dumped by yet another > failed commercial attempt? That is your future if > you don't start > putting more weight behind objective reality than > the fantasy that you > are the most brilliant agricultural theoratician on > the planet who will > be able to do what no one else has done, what there > is no example of, > and of which even you yourself are unable to > generate a model for. > Let's not make this into a personality bashing thing. I do not think I am what you say below, I'm just making a point or two. I think there is a window of oportinity for a fully-costed quality-controlled business model to work. There is an example of what I am writing about, the Bhaktivedanta Cow Protecton Project. Unfortunately, as it is charitably funded, there is little data on its true cost. Also there is little production in the ox crop department. But they continue to breed and use 4 year extended lactations. I do feel with the lack of a costed system that this will lead to more oxen being dumped than not. Therefore, according to this logic, it would be a safer system than people protecting farm animals with a lesser understanding of its economic costs. Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2001 Report Share Posted February 16, 2001 Below is my original discussion document in full for those who are interested in my proposals. There is also a prettier version in the attachment. Devotees, please understand this is written for the secular audience. I am sure you will find some of this to you rliking and other parts not. I present this in the firm belief that there is a potential for this to work, modifications are inevitable and welcom. Ultimately the pioneer will take the biscuit. The Vegetarian Environmental Development Association presents Protection Farms in a discussion paper on the future of farming systems with lifetime-protected farm animals. The purpose of this discussion paper is to inform and stimulate discussion, with the ultimate goal of aiding research and the formation of the Protection Farming System. VEDA is looking for any related charities and consultancies to take an active interest in pursuing this project further with its approval. We are also interested in donations and grants, which can be forthcoming as soon as charitable and business registration is finalised. Heading this endeavour is the founder and co-ordinator of VEDA & Protection Farms - Mark John Chatburn BSc (Hons) Agroforestry. Any correspondence should be made via Email to - protection_farms Vegetarian Environmental Development Association The Vegetarian Environmental Development Association (VEDA) is committed to research, inform, certify and aid in the formation of systems of environmental management pertinent to the needs of people whose dietary preference is vegetarian. The main focus of Veda’s work concentrates on the Vegetarian Farm, as outlined in the Vegetarian Society’s summer 1999 issue of ‘The Vegetarian’. VEDA has decided to re-invent the concept of the Vegetarian Farm to make it more accessible to people of any dietary preference. VEDA will now refer to Vegetarian Farms as Protection Farms, and to the Vegetarian Farming System as the Protection Farming System. Protection Farms Protected Farm Animals - Food Without Cruelty The Protection Farming System is a mixed, draft-powered, organic farming system in which farm animals are protected for life. Protection Farms is the name given to farms that follow the standards set by the Protection Farms Standards Body. Protection Farms offer to the consumer a diversified range of organic goods, such as milk and dairy produce, eggs, wool, leather and pet meat (upon natural death), grains and horticultural produce. Such goods are produced without cruelty, conforming to the highest animal welfare standards, obtained from, and using, farm animals that will not be slaughtered, but protected throughout their natural lives. Protection Farms also offer services, such as farm tourism, which will be enhanced due to the farms’ environmental and animal welfare credentials. Protection Farms are set to occupy a niche market with enormous potential, ideally suited to meet the needs of the target consumer, the vegetarian and ethical ‘green’ consumer. Protection Farms present to the target consumer a new choice between food produced with cruelty or food produced without cruelty. To choose Protection Farms’ produce will end an uncomfortable situation faced by many people who want a cruelty-free diet. Presently, animal-derived products such as milk, eggs, wool and leather come from a farming system that slaughters all of its animals. With Protection Farms, at the beginning of the 21st century, it will soon be possible to buy produce derived from protected farm animals. As Protection Farms are unique compared to conventional and organic farms, so are the values and the necessary premium prices that support the farm. The target consumer should prefer Protection Farms’ produce as long as price, quality, distribution and availability of the farms’ products and services are within acceptable margins. The Protection Farming System is a new and unique farming system for the West, but it is an ancient principle; the best known form being the “sacred cow” of India. The same principles of non-violence and respect for nature still apply today. If the Western consumer were to embrace a farming system with protected farm animals it would be a truly revolutionary movement. At Protection Farms we aim to show that the protection of farm animals is a viable alternative to the present mass slaughter of farm animals. VEDA & Protection Farms - Proposed Legal Status VEDA’s principle hypothesis is that Westerners’ values can now appreciate the value of farms with lifetime-protected animals. This is especially true for the UK and parts of the US. It can be envisaged that with current ethical and dietary trends it will not be very long into the first few decades of the millennium until Protection Farms, or its equivalent, will be as accepted as organic farming is today. Presently the work of VEDA is pioneering work and much work is needed to realise the vision: A fully costed pricing structure and business plan. A certifying standards body. A clear understanding of the benefits of the system and information and advice for consumers and potential producers to make an informed choice. A wide availability of farm produce. To this extent VEDA is in the process of being formed as a registered charity and certifying body and Protection Farms as a business. The aims of VEDA are: To research the environmental, sociological and economic aspects of Protection Farms. To inform the general public about different farming systems, especially in regards to the slaughter or non-slaughter of farm animals. To certify farms that convert to the standards proposed by VEDA & Protection Farms. To design solutions to aid in the implementation of Protection Farms. To provide subsidised consultation services and training to farmers interested in conversion to Protection Farms. To own land and provide cheap land rents to farmers who follow the principles of Protection Farms. The aims of the Protection Farms businesses are to supply the consumer with products and services from a farming system with lifetime protected animals: To form a milk and dairy business. To form a draft-powered horticultural and grain business. To form an array of added-value appendages to the agricultural business, including food processing, cafe, restaurant, arts & crafts centre, B&B, hotel, etc. The Protection Farming System - Principles and Practices At Protection Farms, farm animals have value as sentient beings as well as utilitarian value. Farm animals are domesticated sentient beings and are to be protected throughout their natural lives. Farm animals have a use in many ways that can be exploited to meet human needs. Protection Farms have devised PFAWS - Protection Farms Animal Welfare Standards as the minimum standard for the exploitation of the farm animal. PFAWS- Protection Farms Animal Welfare Standards 1) The selection of animal species and breeds must take into account the constraints imposed by Protection Farms Animal Welfare Standards (PFAWS). 2) Livestock population is to be controlled through breeding not slaughter. Therefore, in a hypothetical, mature, closed system the number of animals that can be born must equate to the number that will die of natural causes. 3) Animals may only be sold or donated to other farmers complying with PFAWS. Such exchanges are essential to prevent in-breeding, thereby maintaining breed purity. 4) Adequate organic feed must be available throughout the year to keep the animals in the best possible form. 5) Appropriate housing conditions are needed to ensure dry shelter for the animals. 6) Stocking rates are to be sufficiently low so as to maintain the personal domain of the animals, free from the stressful pressures that can exist with high stocking rates. 7) Animals should not be poled. 8) Artificial insemination (AI) is not acceptable except in the initial stages of the farm’s formation in the absence of suitable fertile males. 9) Milk for human consumption must be obtained by hand milking. 10) The animal’s progeny must be able to suckle from its mother until weaning. Weaning time is dependent upon species and breed i.e. 6-10 months in cattle. 11) Fertile male progeny must have sufficient engagement in their role as progenitors. 12) The castration of male progeny is acceptable and necessary to control population dynamics and ensure overall human and animal welfare. 13) Draft-power is essential for cultivation in this farming system. Protection Farms - An Overview of Market Demand and Supply The true market prices for Protection Farms’ products are still unclear as there is as yet no working commercial model in the West. Protection Farms ideally need to function with a mix of private, public and charitable finance; thereby altering the true market price, but maximising income. Protection Farms target market is the vegetarian and ‘green’ ethical consumer. The UK has a 7% (4 million people) mostly middle-class vegetarian population as well as a large spectrum of ethical consumers. In general they have adequate expendable income and are prepared to spend their money on goods and services that are in accordance with their values and lifestyles. Organic food and vegetarian processed food products are examples of the latter; both niche growth industries in which the demand for such goods often exceeds supply. For Protection Farms to work the target consumer must be willing to substitute conventional and organic produce for Protection Farms organic produce; and to pay the necessary price to enable each farm unit to be a profitable venture. VEDA believes that the demand is there, though little formal research has been done to prove this. Informal hearings have led to the hypothesis that there is within the target audience a desire for a healthier, more environmentally sound, sustainable and animal-friendly form of farming. VEDA believes that Protection Farms is the solution to fulfil all the latter criteria. VEDA believes that the societal values to enable Protection Farms to work are there, and with further information these values could produce the necessary demand from the target consumer. It will then be up to the producers to make the goods and services available for consumption and to set the new market prices. Consumer demand is based on many factors - time, place, the values and choices of the consumer; plus the quality, availability and price of the products and services. 50 years ago the values of the Western population did not appreciate farms with protected animals; the time, place and values relating to the quality of Protection Farms’ produce did not form the demand to produce an available supply at any price other than the same as the conventional competition. As it costs more to maintain animals than to kill them then Protection Farms was a non-starter. In the last few decades Westerners’ values have changed as part of a natural progression, and due to the hard work of campaigning groups within the environmental movement. The Vegetarian Society and Compassion In World Farming (CIWF) have led the way towards a vegetarian diet and more ethical farming systems respectively. The vegetarian diet and animal-welfare movement in the West has been moving forward for the last few decades, and it is now challenging the accepted paradigm of meat by slaughter. But a part of the jigsaw piece for the vegetarian diet and animal welfare standards is missing. This missing piece is Protection Farms. Protection Farms - Price & Quality Price is a function of demand and supply. Even with a valued appreciation of the quality of the farming system espoused by Protection Farms and an abundance of supply, price can be a limiting factor. How many consumers from the target market are really going to pay double or triple the price for dairy produce, when in the competitive market place virtually the same quality product is so much cheaper? For there ‘may be’ a higher quality in the produce but most of the quality lies in the system of production and this is unseen unless you know the details of the farming system and, ultimately, visit the farm. VEDA believes that the products and services from Protection Farms are of a higher quality across the board - in environmental, sociological and economic terms. Examples are given below: In environmental terms Protection Farms’ produce is organic, from an agroforestal setting, with the highest animal welfare standards. In sociological terms Protection Farms offers enhanced rural employment opportunities, health benefits, and the fulfilment of social and religious criteria that are presently unmet. In economic terms Protection Farms offers a more vibrant rural economy, accommodating to the niche preferences of a more discerning consumer. The prices may be higher but they only reflect the costs of the preferred farming system. Environmental, Social and Economic Protection Farms believes, to quote Ghandi, “the standards of a society can be judged by the way they treat their animals”. Others argue that with so many problems in the world farm animal welfare should take second place to other issues like the starving masses in less developed countries. As Protection Farms is a farming system designed to meet the needs of the vegetarian diet, it should be noted that a vegetarian diet is said to need 5% of the land than a meat-based diet does. By supporting Protection Farms the consumer is acting locally whilst thinking globally, for any movement towards lessening the environmental footprint on the Earth will feed its way through the system, potentially allowing more resources to be available to more people. Yet even here, as many people know, starvation and over-population is presently little to do with a global scarcity of resources, but to do with poor resource distribution, with the rich often benefiting at the expense of the poor. It has been quoted that during Live Aid in 1984, with the Western world mobilised by the media’s reporting of starvation in Ethiopia, much of the best farmland in Ethiopia was being used to produce grains for export to the West. Much of this grain went to feed livestock for human consumption. In cattle 16 kilos of that grain would produce 1 kilo of meat, yet all 16 kilos could be used to feed humans. The difference is lost in the animals' metabolism throughout its growing period. Social - Health Protection Farms believes its milk may offer human health benefits. At Protection Farms milk is extracted by hand milking from “happy cows”, safe in their family herds of all ages from 0 to 20 or more. This milk comes from animals that clearly have lower stress levels than both conventional and organic dairy herds. Stress is known to increase disease, milk from Protection Farms should not contain the stressful properties that would be present in the alternative systems. VEDA is currently researching this hypothesis to provide useful data to support it. Social - Religious Beliefs Hindus present another hypothesis, which is becoming more accepted in the West, that milk from protected animals would be “karma free”. Their belief system states that any unnecessary violence will yield an equal and opposite action to the perpetrator. To this extent human violence and wars are seen as a direct response to the unnecessary mass slaughter of animals. Whilst this hypothesis is very difficult to prove it is still worth mentioning. Economic and Social - Rural Employment With the end of production subsidies ever closer, farms in the West will either consolidate or diversify into niche players. Consolidation will empty out the working countryside, diversification could maintain or increase rural employment. Protection Farms offers a unique farming system, a niche market in the Western farming world. Once the target consumer realises that they can no longer support cruelty in farming they should put their money where their values lie. If a pint of beer costs £2 then why not pay similar prices for milk produce that comes from a sentient being, not just a brewing vat? Protection Farms has the potential to diversify into an array of added-value businesses using tourism and theme centres. It is far more attractive for any tourist to be close to farm animals in the knowledge that they will live out their lives to a natural end, than to know they will be slaughtered at the end of their optimal economic efficiency. A ‘Socially’ Healthy Environment Not only does Protection Farms offer lifetime protection to its farm animals, it also does this following organic standards certified by organic standards bodies; this offers a healthy environment. A ‘socially’ healthy environment is also offered - when passing through the countryside one sees hundreds and thousands of farm animals, all destined for the slaughterhouse. To some people it becomes difficult to really enjoy the sight of young prancing lambs or endearing calves for their fate is known; that fact and image cannot so easily be separated from the present ‘care-free’ life of the animals in view. The visual environment at Protection Farms would not pose this dilemma. Protection Farms - Comparing Farming System Models Farming systems can be defined in many ways. VEDA has defined three different farming systems according to the diet the farming system feeds - a meat-based diet, a vegetarian diet and a vegan diet; though overlap between the diets does exist. 1. The rearing of animals for slaughter provides for a milk and meat-based diet. This meat-based farming system is the presently accepted norm in most of the world, with India as a notable exception. 2. The rearing of animals for useful products and services without slaughtering the animals provides for a vegetarian diet. This farming system is that followed by Protection Farms. 3. Farm animals need not be used at all, leaving a vegan, plant-based diet. This system is presently being developed according to vegan standards. Protection Farms utilises all domesticated farm animals, though the main farm animal, as in most farming systems, is the cow. Presented below are comparisons between the three farming systems outlined, using the cow as the exemplar. A Meat-based Farming System In a conventional dairy unit in the UK dairy cows are impregnated in their second year for a 300-day lactation in their third year. Their calves are separated from their mothers within the first 48 hours; unwanted calves are used for veal production or slaughtered as they are seen to be of no economic value. The dairy cow will yield an average of 20 litres/day for a 6,000-litre lactation. During this period they are impregnated again ready to give birth and another 300-day lactation, with only 2 months between drying off and birth. At an average age of 7 years old, after 5 or more lactations, yielding in its lifetime over 30,000 litres of milk, the dairy cow is sent to slaughter; usually for low-grade meat for pet food. In conventional beef suckler systems beef steers suffer another fate to the dairy cow. After castration and intensive feeding for 3 years they are then slaughtered for meat for human consumption. The feed that is used in conventional systems is in a concentrated form to increase growth rate and milk yield. Before the BSE crisis concentrates even contained the dried powdered remains of animals, including the cow. These concentrates increase metabolic disorders, which, along with intensive stocking, leads to infirmity; this is counteracted via the proliferate use of antibiotics. The organic dairy system differs from the conventional system in a lower intensity of the system in regards to (organic) feeding and stocking. Still, all organic farms slaughter their livestock at the end of their optimal economic efficiency, though a few very fortunate farm animals may be kept as pets. A Vegan Farming System The vegan farming system is a livestock-less system, therefore no animals would be farmed. If the vegan system were taken to its extremes, i.e. the world ate a vegan diet, then there would be no domesticated animals, including pets. The relationship with the natural world and its animals would be one of minimal interference. The land would revert to its natural climax vegetation, e.g. forest, and the vegan diet would come from an agro-ecology of tree-based fruits and nuts, as well as field-based crops of grains and horticulture. Unless farm animals were made extinct and there was no other invasive wildlife, then competition from feral farm animals and wildlife could intensify, leading to the necessity to cull. Notable vegan writers like Kathleen Jannaway have lent their support to a farming system with protected farm animals as a halfway house between the present system and the vegan ideal. Other vegans are more militant in their approach to Protection Farms. There are valid arguments from vegan writers concerning the need to keep animals at all, which are highly complex and polemic. One detail that will be mentioned is the need for the castration of animals. Whilst Protection Farms markets its products as “food without cruelty”, it must be understood that nature itself is inherently cruel. Drawing on the Hindu concept of ahimsa, which is often quoted as non-violence but actually means minimal violence, as it is understood that non-violence is not feasible, then castration is seen as a minimalist form of violence. Castration of male offspring in farm animals is seen as essential to Protection Farms as too many fertile males would bring havoc to the farming system. In the above extreme vegan scenario, the fact that the necessity to cull may arise raises its own dilemma. A ‘fortress vegan’ farming system would need to be in place and the wildlife on the other side left to its own devises. A contemporary analogy would be with the elephants in parts of Africa, where great effort is made to keep them out of farmed land, and culling is a yearly norm. In the vegan system although the animals are not domesticated and managed by humans, they would need to be managed by culling or fenced out of human cropland. To vegans this may represent minimised violence. To the vegetarian, farm animal protection may represent minimised violence. Either one has its own dilemma as nature is inherently cruel. In India the predominantly vegan Jains support Hindu cow protection in many ways. VEDA believes the Western vegan should also support Protection Farms. The vegan diet should have its own live-stockless agriculture, but in the long run the meat-eating diet will continue to take the lives of millions of animals each year. With Protection Farms people following the vegan diet will have one form to aid the plight of the farm animal. Too many animal welfare groups are re-active to the meat and milk industry, Protection Farms offer a pro-active stance via which animal welfare standards will be pushed ever higher; Protection Farms will offer the best-practice for animal welfare, raising the benchmark for animal welfare standards. A Vegetarian Farming System - Protection Farms At Protection Farms multi-purpose cattle breeds are used exploiting characteristics of the cow that other farming systems miss - extended lactations and the appropriate use of animal (draft) power. Cows & Milk Production A cow will give milk for many years from just one pregnancy. Therefore, in a system where population control is limited by breeding, as slaughter is prohibited, extended lactations can increase milk yield per lactation. At Protection Farms cows give birth at around the age of 3, their calves are allowed to suckle until weaning, and the cow gives milk until the age of 7, equating to a 4 year lactation, at an average of 8 litres/day, for a total lactation of 11,500 litres. Following the latter system a cow would give birth 3 or 4 times in its life, giving milk for up to 15 years. Therefore, in its lifetime a cow could give an average of 40,000 litres of milk. As cows live an average of 20 years, it can be seen that the cow would be productive for most of its life. Oxen & Crops VEDA envisages that the target consumers’ main interest in Protection Farms is for milk and dairy produce, thus the cow is seen to have use and deemed worthy of protection. With oxen, as with the cow, there is a stark choice to be made, you either protect them or you kill them. The latter leads to a meat-based diet, the former is the logical consequence of a compassionate society and a vegetarian diet. Working oxen are a requirement so as to enable the animals to have a utilitarian use as well as the protection afforded to sentient beings. At Protection Farms the male calf is castrated at around 2 years old, unless it is kept whole for reproductive purposes. The oxen are trained to work - to plough fields and to haul loads. This can enable the oxen to become assets and not losses; which will in turn lower the costs of the whole system. The exact requirements for the use of oxen are still poorly researched. The high labour costs in the West would, at first sight, make draft-powered agriculture seem prohibitive. Protection Farms is in no way trying to return to a pre-industrial agriculture. There are ecological, social and economic benefits in detractorisation, where niche opportunities can be sought using appropriate draft-powered technologies as a substitute to the varied forms of combustion-powered machinery. As well as agricultural use oxen can give ox and cart rides on festive days in the community, and to farm visitors who should be attracted to Protection Farms because of its niche position in the market place. Whilst the Protection Farming System stipulates that all production should comply with organic standards, it is recommended that the cropping system should integrate agroforestry practices. In an intensive organic cropping system a tractor can often be surplus to requirements, whilst a rotavator may not be sufficient. Well-trained oxen can bridge this gap. With the introduction of trees into the field system tractors become too large and burdensome, whereas oxen fit well into a more heterogeneous system. Protection Farms - 1 Farm Unit - 12:60 model VEDA has devised the Protection Farms 12:60 model as the basis for all other models; taking milk production from the cow and the ability of one experienced hand-milker as the denominator to define 1 farm unit. At the maturity of this closed system model after 20 years there should be 12 milking cows out of a population of 60 head of cattle - 30 cows and 30 oxen. As with most models it should be noted that a theoretical model will only partially reflect the true reality as many other factors will distort the system. On a 4 year lactation (including the allowance for a 6 month suckling calf) a cow will give an average of 8 litres per day over the 4-year period, equating to a lactation of 11,500 litres. The figures will vary according to breed, skill of the milker and other environmental conditions. The mathematics of the system are shown below: Year 1 - 14 litres/day Year 2 - 8 litres/day 14+8+6+4=32 Year 3 - 6 litres/day 32/4=8 Year 4 - 4 litres/day = 8 litres/day over 4 years Using the above system one experienced worker can hand-milk an optimum number of 12 cows two times a day. Of the 12 cows being milked there would be 3 cows in each of the 4 milking years. This regime would yield a maximum of about 100 litres/day of niche market milk from protected farm animals - “Happy Cow Milk.” 12 cows * 8 litre/day average = 96 litre/day The life expectancy of a cow is about 20 years, though this figure will depend on breed and environmental conditions. Using the above figures it is then possible to calculate a cattle population model, as described below and illustrated in Figure 1 on the next page. 3 calves are born each year allowing 3 cows to give milk in year 1 of the 4-year lactation. In a mature system these 3 cows will replace the other 3 cows from the year 4 lactation, which will have dried off awaiting retirement or a subsequent rest before further pregnancy and lactation. In this way a continuous loop will be formed with the 3 incoming milking cows replacing the 3 outgoing cows and the whole system shunting up through the 4-year cycle. Thus, a continuous supply of 12 milking cows will be maintained with a maximum production of 100 litres of milk/day. As well as a continuous milking loop, there is also a continuous population loop over a 20-year cycle. In a closed system with 3 calves born each year, after 20 years of population growth the population would then remain the same at 60 head of cattle as the oldest cattle die of natural causes. From then on the cattle population will remain at 60 with 3 calves born at year 1 and 3 cows dying at year 20. Figure.1 Summary Compartmentalisation of the Farm Unit The 12:60 model states that on maturity of the closed system after 20 years there will be 30 cows and 30 oxen (with bulls excluded for the moment), with 12 milking cows giving 100 litres/day. Of this 60 head of cattle there will be 3 head of cattle of each age from 0 to 20, forming a closed system loop that could maintain itself at 60 head of cattle indefinitely. This system can be compartmentalised to aid in a greater understanding of the complexities of the system, and to aid in the allocation of financial and labour resources. Milking cow compartment - Of the 30 cow total there would be 12 milking cows, equating to 40% of the cowherd, giving a total of 100 litres milk/day. Working oxen compartment - Of the 30 oxen up to 10 ox teams (2 oxen per team) would be available for draft-powered labour, with the other 10 oxen being either too young and in training or too old and in retirement. Calf component - At Protection Farms a calf is defined as a cow under the age of 2 years old. Their upkeep should be costed into the running costs of the business. Calves offer a competitive advantage over their maturer brothers and sisters in terms of pulling in tourism, especially via children. Retired cattle component - At the age of 15 it is suggested that the cattle be put into retirement. Their upkeep could be through an insurance policy paid throughout their productive life, through charitable support, or costed into the running costs of the business. It should be noted that full system milk production could be met at year 4 of the 20-year cycle, whilst full maturity of the system would not be reached until year 20. This brings in the full milk income at year 4, but expenditure will continue to increase. When setting a price for the milk future expenditure must be discounted into the price. Depending on the price set this could yield greater income in the first decade of the system, which could be used to shore up initial problems, invest in training, or in the service sector on the farm; or purchase land of the land-holding trust within a pre-arranged financing system. Also to be noted is that 10 ox teams would only be possible between the 10th and 12th years of the system, when enough oxen have been born and trained. This can be altered if beef steers are brought into the system from outside and trained. VEDA has estimated that 1 farm unit would need 5 to 10 farm employees on maturity of the system. This in itself is not unreasonable if seasonality, part timing and work-share with non-farm activities in the whole system are taken into account. This may actually be low, but this depends on the intensity of the system and the service component. Amongst them would be the manager, section managers, systems designers and agricultural specialists. Other considerations of the 12:60 model So far only the cow has been modelled, other animals (horses, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens etc.) have not as yet been considered. At Protection Farms they would have their own niche in the system. Also the above model only takes into account agricultural production whilst the whole system would involve both products and services. Cafes, bars, restaurants, arts and crafts centre, children’s adventure playgrounds, educational centres, workshops, processed foods, etc., are appendages to the backbone of Protection Farms agricultural production. As is usual in a modern developed society the latter businesses will no doubt be the most profitable and whilst they add value to the whole system, the agricultural backbone adds value to them through association. The 12:60 model is a closed system model, whilst PFAWS recommends an open system amongst different farms complying with Protection Farms standards. In an open system animals can be sold or gifted, and purchased or accepted as a donation. This would alter the perfect model conditions. The 12:60 model assumes the reaching of a mature system but in favourable conditions with plentiful demand, supply could be expanded, with farm units bifurcating, acting like cells and splitting into two; though there are inherent limits to excessive bifurcation. Bifurcation can only go so far before the capacity of milking cows versus non-milking cows is met, with no more cows left, from the closed system, to impregnate. Bifurcation is also, in many respects, like a pyramid system that must eventually have an end when demand is finally satiated. New blood must also be brought in to the system to maintain biological diversity, as well as to satisfy the target consumer that Protection Farms is saving farm animals not just breeding the fortunate ‘saved’. If the 12:60 model were to mature as the perfect model there would be 12 milking cows for every 18 non-milking cows. With farm unit bifurcation and population loss, due to sale or donation, included this could be minimalised to as low as 6 non-productive cows to 12 milking cows (here oxen are separate from the equation). By further reducing the overheads in the first decade profits would be greater than in a mature system. There is as yet no fully costed business plan, nor any commercial model in the Western world, to substantiate the material provided in this discussion document. There is no doubt that if people choose a vegetarian diet then they need a farming system suited to their diet. Farms with lifetime-protected animals will provide the animal-derived part of the vegetarian diet. The exact mechanisms to achieve this and the expected market price are still in the research stage, much of which has just been presented. In order to take this further VEDA, upon acceptance and registration with the Charities Commission, will be looking for funding to further this research, to disseminate its findings and to aide in the formation of the first Protection Farms. VEDA has estimated that a budget of £500,000 would fulfil the latter criteria with a 4-year initial research project on an experimental farm. Only then will the ‘true’ costs be known and the ‘true’ market demand realised. Protection Farms - Meeting Expected Market Demand VEDA estimates there to be a potential target market of over 4 million vegetarians and ethical consumers in the UK. This figure is taken from the latest surveys on UK dietary habits. As 1 farm unit will provide 100 litres of milk per day, and assuming that each person consumes on average an equivalent of 0.5 litres per day, then 1 farm unit will provide 200 people with their daily milk. The figures below are to give a rough idea of the potential market. They are in many respects erroneous, as mentioned earlier, due to the duplication factor of farms splitting in two, thereby increasing production and efficiency, but preventing closed system maturity to be reached as in the 12:60 model. Also as the present trend in vegetarianism and ethical consumption is persistently growing it can be expected that the potential market will also grow. By the time Protection Farms could meet the present market demand, that future date would yield an estimated doubling of current potential demand. 4 million target consumers would need over 21,000 farm units to provide their milk needs. 21,000 mature farm units at 60 head of cattle each would equal 1.26 million head of cattle. 1.26 million head of cattle would need about 3 million acres for maintenance requirements, presuming 2 acres of standard quality land per cow. 21,000 farm units of the 12:60 model would also need a lot of land to fulfil the ox/crop requirements of Protection Farms. The cow/milk model is relatively easy to quantify. The ox/crop compartment has many loose variables depending on the design of the farming system especially in regards to woodland and agroforestry, land quality and suitability, intensity and type of production, and the training and efficiency of ox-men and farm hands. VEDA has researched historical records to find the average land needed per team of oxen and labour requirements; though this in itself will not yield very useful figures as present organic systems, and especially agroforestal systems, with appropriate ox-powered technologies, will increase land use efficiency dramatically. VEDA has therefore made a tentative estimate that for each ox team 10 acres would provide useful work for the oxen; though this figure is open to many variables that can widely alter this value. 800,000 oxen (half of the estimated 1.26 million head of cattle) would be oxen, 67% of them should be working, equating to about 600,000 oxen or 300,000 ox teams. 3 million acres of land (300,000 teams times 10 acres per team) would be given to Protection Farms crop production. A total of 6 million acres would be needed for maintenance of the whole Protection Farm herd plus horticultural production. Get personalized email addresses from Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2001 Report Share Posted March 1, 2001 --- Pancaratna ACBSP <Pancaratna.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote: > Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a truly > sustainable system of cow > protection that was also commercially viable in the > modern economic system. > It's just that there are so many things working > against you. YOu really need > to make sure you understand it all. OK, as you are one of the few devotees on this conference taking my message seriously, let's get into the (soya) meat of this issue. I'm glad you would love to see a truly sustainable, commercially viable system for the lifetime protection of farm animals in the modern economic system - I believe this is a very intelligent approach, far better than waiting for the world's economy to collapse or natural disasters, and far more realistic than expecting thousands of devotees to go and live on self sufficient farm communities now that the initial shakti of the movement has been dissipated. Either way, you realise that the economic, social ad environmental conditions are moving in this direction, both in Europe, the US and in India (where you said you had an interest in this type of market for the Calcutta rich). The things working against us are many, but there is no need for a reactive approach to the present meat and milk industry, there are many groups doing that. I am interested in a purely pro-active approach - building upon the opportunities and strengths of the business, whilst side stepping the threats (by not inciting them) and finding ways to turn weaknesses into strengths. As you see this is a typical SWOT analysis in any business plan. The opportunities are immense - millions of farm animals, hectares, dollars, workers, consumers - all to be engaged in a unique farming system, that could over time challenge the present system for market dominance (again, not to challenge directly for now, but to come through the back door). The strengths are the attraction of such a system that conforms to present day secular wishes and conceptions. To have ISO 9001 - Ouality Management Systems, ISO 14001 - Environmental Management Systems, to apply for funding from Agenda 21 as part of Sustainable Development (SD) projects, to tap Agricultural subsidies now even more in the pipeline that disasters such as BSE and Foot and Mouth are scaring the consumer to demand organic or low-intensity farming. There are so many secular bodies to network with, that are virtually looking for projects that fulfill SD criteria to give money to, as well as private environmental "Green" investment banks, etc,. The weaknesses - no focal point - an organisation like VEDA would be needed to focus secular support, to become the nucleus around what the ideas, solutions, problems, etc., can be focussed. In the internet we find farm animal sanctuaries, but none of them are active farms only sanctuaries - they do not breed and produce goods and services from the farm. Only ISKCON and ISCOWP exist for this issue, I have yet to find Hindu groups that go into it in such depths. And ISKCON at the moment is so divided that we even see here on this conference the endless bitter acromony and cynisism that kills any idea in the bud. So this is the weekness - lack of focus, vision and abilities to take a 1,2,3 step to take idea to reality. To turn weeknesses into strengths we need a business plan, fully costed with various methods to enter the market and to stimulate consumption. We need producers to understand responsibilities, to take up a ¿franchise? for example, to be trained, to have back up support from central nexus. And much more. > One other thing, is that to develop your business > plan, the main thing is > the market research. Your project assumes there is a > market willing to pay > whatever the cost is for protection farm products. > This is an untested > assumption and experience with thedevotee community > has not yet supported > this assumption. Thus, it is natural for many to be > sceptical. No, there is no assumption. My project simply states that IF consumers are willing to pay the market price for a niche product then there is a market. I do not assume there is already a market, just that the likelihood of there being one is increasing. What is needed is the market price, then market research can be done to see IF consumers would be willing. The devotee community generally have no money, so even with a philosophical basis behind it they are not the best market. The karmi-devotees are the best market as they have money and a loose philosophy to support this. After the disasters of ISKCON cow protection it is only natural to expect people to be sceptical. Yet, I would say the failures are almost entirely to do with the failure of the management, often due to sticking to a philosophy that sees profit, business and money as bad. Even though Prabhupada said to live of the land simply, nearly all cow protectors work there back off to the detriment of everything, all to support a farm that looses money as a raison d'etre - because profit is frowned upon. Whilst condoning self sufficiency they have a one-foot-in, one-foot-out approach, and the out foot looses money in the heavily capitalised nations of the first world. > It seems that much more education on the basics of > cow protection is needed > in the devotee community, what to speak of the > vegetarian community. > > Also, the 10% vegetarian community you refer to > includes a very large number > of health-based vegetarians who might not be such a > good market if the price > of your product is high. Are there any figures on > the number of ethical > vegetarians? HOw many of them are already vegan? > Getting vegans to become > protected farm milk consumers (at a large premium in > price) might be a large > uphill marketing challenge. I have talked to many vegans and many say they would be interested in this market, both to consume and to help as a better alternative to the present system. Still, there are others who would like to never see the light of day on this issue. I am working with the UK Veg Society to find out about ethical vegies - whom are much more in the UK than the states. My last article in their magazine attracted a lot of attention, with people wanting to buy the products now. Typically this was in a middle-class setting, with one woman saying she would like the cheese to eat on crackers in front of the fire with a glass of whisky. Nothing wrong here for me - mine is a secular approach. The production is where the quality is for me, what people do with the product once they have bought it is their business. I envisage the best way to get this started is to stick to core consumers and producers and to build up 1 farm unit. Sysmasundar (at the Manor, UK) and myself derived the farm unit from the optimum capabilities of one milk hand. S/He would be able to milk 12 cows by hand twice a day (this is in the system of 3 cows milking in different stages of a 4-year lactation) yeilding 100 litres per day. I have already described this in my discussion document. This would lead to a mature herd of 60 cows after 20 years, which would not expand any more as the three calves born per year would be cancelled out by the three 20-year-old cows who would die of natural causes. 100 litres of milk would feed between 200 and 400 people, or 50 to 100 families. If such families could become assured consumers, and also take on the land mortgage by becoming investors, then the consumption base can be assured. If the land is held in a cooperative investment scheme, the cows are covered by a charitable covenant in a Quality Management System, then that only leaves the workings of the farm plus capital expenditure (which could be in the investment part) to cover. That is why I say different models need to be worked out according to the situation present. The greater the strength of the management then the easier it will be to convince core consumers and investers of the ability of producers to fulfill their end of the bargain. It is not an easy sell. But with such a lack of essential figures and system procedures in place it is nigh impossible to do this work.... This is why we need help from the devotees, who are the experts on this subject. Yours Mark. Get email at your own domain with Mail. http://personal.mail./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.