Guest guest Posted January 31, 2001 Report Share Posted January 31, 2001 > > > ISKCON Ministry of Cow Protection and Agriculture > > Proposal to Stop Breeding at Vrndavana & Mayapur Goshallas Nicely prepared proposal and I agree with content, but GBC meeting agenda has already been established and without you even having a sponser as of yet, it won't get far but will give your opponents a year to prepare rebuttal. But what can you do? Gotta try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2001 Report Share Posted January 31, 2001 Dear Madhava Gosh Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP. - "Mark Middle Mountain" <gourdmad (AT) ovnet (DOT) com> "Cow (Protection and related issues)" <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Wednesday, January 31, 2001 10:58 AM Re: PROPOSAL > > > > > > ISKCON Ministry of Cow Protection and Agriculture > > > > Proposal to Stop Breeding at Vrndavana & Mayapur Goshallas > > Nicely prepared proposal and I agree with content, Thank you. but GBC meeting agenda has > already been established and without you even having a sponser as of yet, it > won't get far but will give your opponents a year to prepare rebuttal. Our Sponsor is Anuttama prabhu from IC The proposal is scheduled to go to subcommittee Samba prabhu (from this conference) will present and discuss it at the subcommittee. It all happened quite fast. > > But what can you do? Gotta try. We are definitely trying and we'll see what Krsna has in mind. We have been advised that if GBC or devotees at the GBC meetings go into the subcommittee or members thereof and state their support, the more likely the proposal won't die. Does anyone know of any such persons who might be supportive of this proposal and we could contact? Your servant, Chayadevi > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2001 Report Share Posted February 3, 2001 > We have been advised that if GBC or devotees at the GBC meetings go into > the subcommittee or members thereof and state their support, the more > likely the proposal won't die. Does anyone know of any such persons who > might be supportive of this proposal and we could contact? > > Your servant, > Chayadevi You could try Bhakti Raghava Swami. I dont know if he will be there. YS Samba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 ISKCON Ministry of Cow Protection and Agriculture Name of Proposal: Proposal to Stop Breeding at Vrndavana & Mayapur Goshallas Date of Submission: 30 January 2001 ...... ISCOWP: and it is further alleged that the cow to bull ratio on these projects is greater than 2 to 1, although according to nature it should be 1 to 1, raising the question of what has happened to the mathematically missing dozens of bull calves, even though ISKCON Law 507, Section 2, Standard 9 designates as "not allowed": Procuring or breeding of a cow for the purpose of supplying milk without any plan for the care, training and engagement of offspring. Comment: If I am not mistaken the majority of these animals carry Zebu (Bos indicus) breeding; in these Indian breeds and those breeds with some Indian blood, there usually is not a balanced sex ratio. There is generally three male calves for every female. If both these farms, Vrndavana and Mayapura have a two to one ratio (female/male) these are missing more bull calves than you have alluded to. ISCOWP: Reasons Why This Proposal Should be Accepted; In light of the high profile PETA exposure of cow abuse in India (http://www.peta-online.org/news/800/800jackch.html) and to protect ISKCON from possible negative publicity due to cow abuse on ISKCON farms, it is necessary to uphold the Minimum Cow Protection Standards, ISKCON Law 507. Major projects such as Vrndavana and Mayapur must not be allowed to continue to breed cows until they can substantially demonstrate that they are supervised by GBC who are committed to insuring that proper ISKCON standards with regards to cow protection are being systematically maintained. Comment: It sounds as if there needs to be a proposal before the GBC to give teeth to the Justice Ministry so that they may enforce any of the laws on the books. If there was some way to enforce these laws, we could use the administration of the two centres as examples and publish this to show our hard stance in this matter. This would be good publicity for us and cause the other areas where these things are in their formative stages to correct their situations. ISCOWP: While in the short run, monetary intake by selling milk products may appear to be the answer to the problem of funding a goshalla, it has been repeatedly demonstrated in ISKCON that to rely principally on such a funding source is merely an illusory solution. In the long run, the expense of properly maintaining the resulting offspring throughout their life exceeds the income from the sale of milk produced by the mother cow, at least in instances where lack of adequate pasturage and cropland necessitates the purchase of feed from outside sources. Srila Prabhupada himself specifically advised against developing a cow program which requires purchase of feed from outside. Thus dependence on outside feed purchases must be reduced by 1) limiting breeding, and 2) purchase of additional land for use by the cows: Comment: I feel that depending solely on donor support fits into the same category, but it is of the least offensive. We need to put in place a preaching machine that can hound the devotees into leaving the asuric mode they have espoused. To take up professions that are more in line with the Vedic precepts . . . more rural in nature. To buy from only devotees and in that way build a support system - a separate economic system - maybe not Vedic but closer to it than the one most are orientated toward at this time. Ys, Rohita dasa Brahmacari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2001 Report Share Posted February 9, 2001 > Comment from Rohita dasa Brahmacari. > I feel that depending solely on donor support fits > into the same category, > but it is of the least offensive. We need to put in > place a preaching > machine that can hound the devotees into leaving the > asuric mode they have > espoused. To take up professions that are more in > line with the Vedic > precepts . . . more rural in nature. To buy from > only devotees and in that > way build a support system - a separate economic > system - maybe not Vedic > but closer to it than the one most are orientated > toward at this time. I know I´m new to this conference, but I seem to be hearing the same thing over and over again. Rohita, here, has got it to the bone - a rural economic system needs devising, with charitable, private and public funding and regulations. The cow to ISKCON seems to have so much sentient value that it becomes sentimental as its utilitarian value is undervalued. The main problem, as we know, is reliance solely on milk, and not dually on milk and ox-powered crops. At least if the milk was cost-price valued then you could solve half the equation. Mark 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 10, 2001 Report Share Posted February 10, 2001 - mark chatburn <markjon11 > New Talavan <talavan (AT) fnbop (DOT) com>; Cow (Protection and related issues) <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Thursday, February 08, 2001 8:59 PM Re: PROPOSAL Ø > Comment from Rohita dasa Brahmacari. I feel that depending solely on donor support fits into the same category, but it is of the least offensive. We need to put in place a preaching machine that can hound the devotees into leaving the asuric mode they have espoused. To take up professions that are more in line with the Vedic precepts . . . more rural in nature. To buy from only devotees and in that way build a support system - a separate economic system - maybe not Vedic but closer to it than the one most are orientated toward at this time. > Mark: > I know I´m new to this conference, but I seem to be hearing the same thing over and over again. Rohita, here, has got it to the bone - a rural economic system needs devising, with charitable, private and public funding and regulations. > >The cow to ISKCON seems to have so much sentient value that it becomes sentimental as its utilitarian value is undervalued. Comment: Its utilitarian value is based on the surrendered nature of those who are protecting the cow. The blame needs to be put were it belongs, on three groups of people which according to their activities or the lack there of have in themselves become hindrances. 1. Those that advocated high milk production for two purposes; to feed their families or to sell to make profit. The present administration has had to taken the mercy of additional animals that no one will engage, so then we have to spend large sums to fulfill our obligation at its lowest level. We still have not taken care of the animal's spiritual welfare by engaging them in Krishna's service. The fulfillment of the bodily requirements are even minimized. 2. The oxen are there in great numbers as are the cows. Why do we not see devotees coming to the farms ready to work oxen? Because it is easier to pump gas, sell cookies, hats, or broker some painting. Most devotees are householders that need to support their families and the temple is unable to pay the amount the householders' feel they require to maintain themselves. 3. The administrators of the individual farms and their superiors who do not take the time to educate themselves on what the cows require and work that into the long-range plans of the communities they govern. Who have often qualified personal in their projects, but do not take their advise or minimize the energy put into the cow portion of the project. Mark: The main problem, as we know, is reliance solely on milk, and not dually on milk and ox-powered crops. At least if the milk was cost-price valued then you could solve half the equation. Comment: There is no market for farm produced milk, unless that milk meets all the requirements that the USA Health Department places on it. We cannot put out the capital that would be required to meet all these health requirements. I was producing thirty gallons (113.6 litres) of milk per day, bottling and delivering, daily raw milk. The price was varied according to the amount they could afford. Some paid two dollars a gallon (7.57 litres) others as much as four. No one would pay over four dollars a gallon. There were twenty-seven families, but between those families in one week I could only sell eighteen gallons ($3.00/gallon = $54.00). I had to feed out 86 pounds of grain per day at a cost of 0.08 per pound (6.88/day x 7= 48.16). Everyone went to town every day it cost only 1.19 in the store just five minutes down the road. In the 1956 there were close to sixty farmers shipping milk to a dairy processing plant in a twenty-mile radius of where the farm is now. Most had small milking herds of about five to ten animals. In 1958 Health Codes were pasted and enforced. By 1965 the number of farms shipping milk had dropped to three in that same area, those three had to invest a lot of capital and increase their milking herd to more than 80 cows and ship more than 2,000 pounds of milk every other day. There where heavy fines for not meeting their quota. Most cows could not maintain the production levels required for more than four years. Most of the income on these farms came from the sale of one third of the milking herd, all bull calves and three quarters of all female calves; every year. For those with a mathematical bent (27 cows, 40 bullocks and 30 heifers= 97), they had to purchase replacement stock at the rate of ten per year. Beef production under the guise of dairy farming. Back to my dilemma, that is without paying for the bottles, no pay for me or any other workers, cost of pasture, cost of haying, cost of building and fence maintenance, cost of utilities. This $54 worth of milk sold could just barely pay the cost of the grain those four cows consumed. At the end of the week I also had to spend time processing the rest of the milk I could not sell ([30/day x 7]- 18= 192 (726.7968 litres), this some of which I sent to the city temple which could not pay for it because it was operating in the red. Some of that just spoiled. That was my experience. I had to spend most of my time in the kitchen, animals health was ignored, fencing, pasture, calves all did not have as much time as I need to devote to them. Result I closed up the sale routine, did not put the energy into high production and now our project operates on a shoe string of 12,000 a year (donations and business subsidies) for 130 animals and 1250 acres of land. Our machinery does not receive maintenance and come hay season (or any other work load) it is operated, only by the ingenuity of the driver. We had one tractor that only I could start, because I knew where and how to tap the ignition cables to make a good connection, along with a few well chosen remarks and some additional jimmy-rigging (barbwire and bubblegum technology). Oh by the way, there was no time for gardenwork or any other kind of work, to get in my prescribed number of rounds I was sleeping four hours (eating on the run) and working as much as eighteen. Now at 52, I am ready to retire and I have to a degree compared to what I did then. Additional Comments: You have missed the point. In the Vedic economic system the driving force is not the acquisition of funds, you produce for the needs of the local community. There is exchange of produce and service. The sale of surplus in kind with other localized communities. You are not growing crops or breeding livestock with the intent to sell. Vaisya means farmer not merchant, merchant means propaganda that will play on the senses of the materially conditioned. To be merchant means, you have to be duplicitous, able to convince (at any means), the prospective buyer that he needs what you have. Utility is the principle, purity is the force, books are the basis and preaching is the essence. Every entity must have a definite purpose or function. Just as grhastha may engage in sex (under restriction), when he does he becomes obligated to provide for all the needs (bodily, emotional and spiritual) of that new corporal entity (SB 5.5.18). "Everyone should be very responsible and take charge of his dependents just as a spiritual master takes charge of his disciple or a father takes charge of his son. All these responsibilities cannot be discharged honestly unless one can save the dependent from repeated birth and death." The cow is also a dependant you can free it from repeated birth and death by allowing each one of them to render service and to hear the holy name. Some will take birth in Vaisnava family; some will go back home directly, depending on circumstances of karma, mercy of devotee and consciousness at the time of death. You are not to breed with the sole purpose of marketing the milk. That milk is there to feed her new offspring, first and foremost. After the calf, half of what is left is given to the deity (via the brahmana, the deities servant). The brahmana then is to distribute the remnants of the Deity to those who are unfortunate not having milk or its by-products. The other half you can use for your family needs, if there is surplus this you can use to trade for other things you need or you may sell. You do not keep more cows than what you can nicely maintain on your land and engage in the service of Krishna. If you are unable to engage the animal then it is nothing more than a pet and as soon as a pet becomes inconvenient to have you get rid of it. That is what is now happening with many animals in ISKCON, that they have become a burden, an inconvenience, just because someone wanted to sell milk or consume it with out giving engagement. ys, Rohita dasa Brahmacari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2001 Report Share Posted February 12, 2001 - "Pancaratna ACBSP" <Pancaratna.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net> "mark chatburn" <markjon11 >; "Cow (Protection and related issues)" <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Tuesday, February 13, 2001 10:43 PM Re: PROPOSAL > > I have heard various figures quoted for calculating the real cost of > protected cow milk. Can onyone give us a list of all the factors that have > to be calculated so we can do it using local figures? 1) Feed For each calf that is born, you will need to feed that animal, productive or not, for an average of 15 to 18 years. 2) shelter, 3) medical, 4) water, 5) fencing, 6) Bottling 7) Delivery, transportation 8) Office accounting equipment for business 9) land taxes 10) office labor 11) Land purchase 12) Equipment 13) 10% for cow social security 14) Etc. When Srila Prabhupada visited Gita Nagari, Parmananda asked him about commerical milk production. Parmananda had already done the basic math for number of cows milking to carrying capacity of the land and how many years would it take to reach the carrying capacity at Gita Nagari. Parmananda told me that Srila Prabhupada told him the milk belongs to the cows, it is their milk not ours. Srila Prabhupada instructed Parmananda to put a percentage of the milk sale money (not profit) aside in trust so when the cows get old or are in need, they will have this money available to them for buying more land for their retirement and care. I have never seen this done in any equation which has been formulated. Also the percentage must be fair, not that you can say 1 to 2 per cent. I feel that minimum 10 per cent would be fair. When my wife was principal of the Gita Nagari School and trying to keep the school "afloat", she found from her research that no school survives on tuition alone. Public school is supported by the government through taxes paid by all citizens; private schools by tuition, grants, endowments, donations, and fund raising. Similarly, diaries stay "afloat" by the elimination of the non productive animals, i.e., males, old cows,retired cows, non-productive cows. This is done by slaughter, or unfortunately in some of our ISKCON Farms by "giving away" these animals. If you have to feed and care for these animals you do not make a profit and it is even difficult to contnue to function. Any commercial dairy scheme, if it is to stand on its own without any outside donations or endowments must be kept extremely small. I feel this means 1 farmer supplying milk and milk by products such as yogurt, ghee, dung for methane and fertilizer to only several families in his immeadiate vicinity. I think it is more possible to even consider successful agri business only if ox-power is considered as carrying the lion share of the economic equation. Milk should be greatly minimized as an economic development factor. The cow is considered the mother and the bull is considered the father. Just as in the human family, the mother takes care of the children and the father works to provide the basic necessities. If the father is unemployed then there is scarcity and poverty. If the father and mother can not control their sex life and more and more children are born into their family, it compounds the scarcity and poverty.But do they give the unwanted children away and still continue to produce progeny? Wouldn't this be considered irresponsible? Your servant, Balabhadra das > I am working on a scheme to engage local dairymen in producing for the > Calcutta rich vegetarian market as I am confident we can get a workable > price there. They would have to contract not to sell the old animals or bull > calves and to engage the bulls in varous kinds of work. > > But in the US it seems to me that the only way to make protected farm milk > work is to concentrate on cheese, ghee, etc. as the health dept restrictions > on raw milk appear to be too costly. > > Your servant, > Pancaratna das > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2001 Report Share Posted February 13, 2001 --- mark chatburn <markjon11 > wrote: > Rohita, loved your comments. But, - why is there > always a but?, but, whilst the purity of the Vedic > wisdom comes through, the ability to compromise to > meet the needs of the asuric-minded devotees does > not. > As you first mentioned: > > We need to put in > > place a preaching > > machine that can hound the devotees into leaving > the > > asuric mode they have > > espoused. To take up professions that are more in > > line with the Vedic > > precepts . . . more rural in nature. To buy from > > only devotees and in that > > way build a support system - a separate economic > > system - maybe not Vedic > > but closer to it than the one most are orientated > > toward at this time. > > There is a lot in what you wrote, but I want to > concentrate on one thing - I am one of those > asuric-type devotees / ex-devotees, and I want to > buy > milk, veg, leather, etc., from protected farm > animals > - I am not after the perfect Vedic way, I´m after a > compromise. I am on this conference to express my > views that ISKCON is too puritanical for me and > should > run on two or more engines to adequately engage me > in > some service. Prabhupada compromised by letting > women > be trained in the temple with men; time, place and > circumstance were the driving factors in this. I am > asking that the cow conference devotees who read my > comments take what I am saying seriously. I have > been > to vegetarian and animal rights societies, and took > my > proposals to their charities board of trustees, but > to > little avail at the moment. I still want to form > VEDA > - the Vegetarian Environmental Development > Association > - to push forward farm animal protection for the > vegetarian consumer. I am coming to the devotees to > beg for their help. To the limits of my being I > understand the Vedic way, but we live in > asura-ville. > The Vedic way could be A, but we live in Z, and I > want > P, P for Protection. > > I have been banging my head against the ISKCON wall > for years now, and now on this conference for a few > weeks. There are some out there who say "yes, let´s > compromise" and others "stick to the principles". > Why > exclude, what is wrong with running on two engines. > > I was talking to some karmi, or whatever, today, and > he was saying that before if people had to cross a > river to get form A to B they would build a bridge > for > that purpose, but today the only purpose to build a > bridge is for profit, regardless if it gets one from > A > to B. > Well, I want to get from A to B. I want a farming > system where they don´t kill animals, and by the way > in todays world for it to succeed (unless you are a > wonderfully pure person) you need to do business, to > get the resources, to work the farm, and this means > that a profit is better than a loss. That is what I > mean by profit orientated, ´cause if it doesn´t make > a > profit it´ll make a loss, and that aint good for > nobody. > > I see from your figures that you were selling milk > at > $0.30 a litre, for me it should be valued at five to > ten times that amount, because that´s what it costs. > Yet what I am saying seems to go by the way, again, > ´cause I´m touching the sacred cow, "and in the > Vedas > it says..." > > I do care what the Vedas say, but also on the way I > want a compromise. > > I see by your figures that you have worked your back > of for Krsna and the cows. But, would it not have > been > better for you and the cows if the devotees around > you > had been educated in the true $price-value of the > produce they were consuming. If, with the milk you > were selling, you had received 5-10 times the price, > would not your life have been a lot easier, to even > give you the time to relax and chant in peace. > > I find it very dificult to argue this to devotees > though as they have the capacity to buy and sell all > sorts of things but not direct cow-things, just > indirect, like pictures. > > I am going to keep banging away about this until I > get > cut off from this conference or until someone > convinces me I am wrong, which no-one has done as > yet. > > All sorts of other religions or ¨groups¨ create > their > own internal economy - the Jews, mormons, Amish, > etc. > Yet the Krishnas don´t. > > If all devotees were pressured by logic and devotion > to consume Protection Farms produce at the cost > price > + profit (as insurance) there would be a huge market > with thousands of protected animals giving milk, > crops, leather, as well as sentient (life) values. > > Why is it that the majority of responses to my > proposals are negative when to me what I am saying > seems to have such logic that to defy it defies > reality - all be it the reality of living in this > world, where compromised necessity is a by-law. > > Please, can those in favour (and against) look at my > proposals. > > Farm animal protection has the ability to become a > multi-billion dollar world-wide 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. Also, 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? > > > > Get personalized email addresses from Mail - > only $35 > a year! http://personal.mail./ > 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 13, 2001 Report Share Posted February 13, 2001 --- mark chatburn <markjon11 > wrote: > Some more comments in reply form Mark: > > > 1. Those that advocated high milk production for > two > > purposes; to feed their > > families or to sell to make profit. > > > > The present administration has had to taken the > > mercy of additional animals > > that no one will engage, so then we have to spend > > large sums to fulfill our > > obligation at its lowest level. We still have not > > taken care of the animal's > > spiritual welfare by engaging them in Krishna's > > service. The fulfillment of > > the bodily requirements are even minimized. > > Why will no-one engage them? > Could it be that most devotees in household life > want > a basic middle class existence, meaning a minimum of > $25,000 a year per family? > > Why is the spending of large amounts of money > undesired? > Is it because you don't have the money because your > under-selling your production and managing a > loss-making enterprise? > > > > 2. The oxen are there in great numbers as are the > > cows. Why do we not see > > devotees coming to the farms ready to work oxen? > > Because it is easier to > > pump gas, sell cookies, hats, or broker some > > painting. Most devotees are > > householders that need to support their families > and > > the temple is unable to > > pay the amount the householders' feel they require > > to maintain themselves. > > Again, as above, if the farming activity was > economically worthwile according to our middle class > standards then there could be a group of farmer-type > devoees more inclined to pursue this. > > > 3. The administrators of the individual farms and > > their superiors who do not > > take the time to educate themselves on what the > cows > > require and work that > > into the long-range plans of the communities they > > govern. Who have often > > qualified personal in their projects, but do not > > take their advise or > > minimize the energy put into the cow portion of > the > > project. > > After talking to a swami, who I will comment more > about in another mail, he basically agrees with my > approach, as do many others. His answer, as mine, is > that the cow projects failed due to poor management, > and very little else. > Just because a business was managed poorly does not > mean it is a bad business. > > > Comment: > > There is no market for farm produced milk, unless > > that milk meets all the > > requirements that the USA Health Department places > > on it. We cannot put out > > the capital that would be required to meet all > these > > health requirements. > > Why is there no market? > Is it because the demand side management - meaning > stimulating demand and linking producers to > consumers > -was very poor to non-existent? > > I > > was producing thirty gallons (113.6 litres) of > milk > > per day, bottling and > > delivering, daily raw milk. The price was varied > > according to the amount > > they could afford. Some paid two dollars a gallon > > (7.57 litres) others as > > much as four. No one would pay over four dollars a > > gallon. There were > > twenty-seven families, but between those families > in > > one week I could only > > sell eighteen gallons ($3.00/gallon = $54.00). I > had > > to feed out 86 pounds > > of grain per day at a cost of 0.08 per pound > > (6.88/day x 7= 48.16). Everyone > > went to town every day it cost only 1.19 in the > > store just five minutes down > > the road. > > Again, your demand was ignorant of your niche > premium > products and services. Their was no philosophical > force pushing the value of what was on offer to its > right $price. We hear Oh! Govinda Gopal, and value > it > as an idea, but when it comes to paying for the > implementation of it, most devotees, and secular > vegetarians, remain ignorant to its cost price and > therefore its purcahsing price. > > > In the 1956 there were close to sixty farmers > > shipping milk to a dairy > > processing plant in a twenty-mile radius of where > > the farm is now. Most had > > small milking herds of about five to ten animals. > In > > 1958 Health Codes were > > pasted and enforced. By 1965 the number of farms > > shipping milk had dropped > > to three in that same area, those three had to > > invest a lot of capital and > > increase their milking herd to more than 80 cows > and > > ship more than 2,000 > > pounds of milk every other day. There where heavy > > fines for not meeting > > their quota. Most cows could not maintain the > > production levels required for > > more than four years. Most of the income on these > > farms came from the sale > > of one third of the milking herd, all bull calves > > and three quarters of all > > female calves; every year. For those with a > > mathematical bent (27 cows, 40 > > bullocks and 30 heifers= 97), they had to purchase > > replacement stock at the > > rate of ten per year. Beef production under the > > guise of dairy farming. > > That is why vegans hold the moral ground, as milk > prodution is totally in cohorts with beef > production. > Yet, what we have to offer is another system with > another environmental, social and economic model. It > can and must stand alone. It just requires producers > to follow The Model and for consumers to pay the > price. > > > > Back to my dilemma, that is without paying for the > > bottles, no pay for me or > > any other workers, cost of pasture, cost of > haying, > > cost of building and > > fence maintenance, cost of utilities. This $54 > worth > > of milk sold could just > > barely pay the cost of the grain those four cows > > consumed. At the end of the > > week I also had to spend time processing the rest > of > > the milk I could not > > sell ([30/day x 7]- 18= 192 (726.7968 litres), > this > > some of which I sent to > > the city temple which could not pay for it because > > it was operating in the > > red. Some of that just spoiled. That was my > > experience. I had to spend most > > of my time in the kitchen, animals health was > > ignored, fencing, pasture, > > calves all did not have as much time as I need to > > devote to them. Result I > > closed up the sale routine, did not put the energy > > into high production and > > now our project operates on a shoe string of > 12,000 > > a year (donations and > > business subsidies) for 130 animals and 1250 acres > > of land. Our machinery > > does not receive maintenance and come hay season > (or > > any other work load) it > > is operated, only by the ingenuity of the driver. > We > > had one tractor that > > only I could start, because I knew where and how > to > > tap the ignition cables > > to make a good connection, along with a few well > > chosen remarks and some > > additional jimmy-rigging (barbwire and bubblegum > > technology). Oh by the way, > > there was no time for gardenwork or any other kind > > of work, to get in my > === message truncated === 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 14, 2001 Report Share Posted February 14, 2001 > > > they could afford. Some paid two dollars a gallon > > > (7.57 litres) others as My calculation is 3.785 liters per US Gallon. At $2 per gallon this comes to about $.53 per liter. In india this would come to Rs. 24 per liter whereas we calculate the real cost is about Rs. 20 per liter (the market price which is supported by cow slaughter is Rs. 12 per liter). What is it, aside from labor, that is so much more costly in the US? I have heard various figures quoted for calculating the real cost of protected cow milk. Can onyone give us a list of all the factors that have to be calculated so we can do it using local figures? I am working on a scheme to engage local dairymen in producing for the Calcutta rich vegetarian market as I am confident we can get a workable price there. They would have to contract not to sell the old animals or bull calves and to engage the bulls in varous kinds of work. But in the US it seems to me that the only way to make protected farm milk work is to concentrate on cheese, ghee, etc. as the health dept restrictions on raw milk appear to be too costly. Your servant, Pancaratna das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2001 Report Share Posted February 14, 2001 Pancaratna ACBSP wrote: > > > > they could afford. Some paid two dollars a gallon > > > > (7.57 litres) others as > > My calculation is 3.785 liters per US Gallon. At $2 per gallon this comes to > about $.53 per liter. In india this would come to Rs. 24 per liter whereas > we calculate the real cost is about Rs. 20 per liter (the market price which > is supported by cow slaughter is Rs. 12 per liter). > > What is it, aside from labor, that is so much more costly in the US? Maintaining unproductive oxen for 10-20 years -- providing adequate feed, grazing, housing, health care and a cow herd to look after them. Whenever the problem of maintaining all the bull calves produced for a lifespan of 20 years is chopped out of the equation -- the price becomes very feasible indeed. But this is a cheating way to establish a business. your servant, Hare Krsna dasi > > I have heard various figures quoted for calculating the real cost of > protected cow milk. Can onyone give us a list of all the factors that have > to be calculated so we can do it using local figures? > > I am working on a scheme to engage local dairymen in producing for the > Calcutta rich vegetarian market as I am confident we can get a workable > price there. They would have to contract not to sell the old animals or bull > calves and to engage the bulls in varous kinds of work. > > But in the US it seems to me that the only way to make protected farm milk > work is to concentrate on cheese, ghee, etc. as the health dept restrictions > on raw milk appear to be too costly. > > Your servant, > Pancaratna das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2001 Report Share Posted February 15, 2001 - Pancaratna ACBSP <Pancaratna.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net> mark chatburn <markjon11 >; Cow (Protection and related issues) <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Tuesday, February 13, 2001 9:43 PM Re: PROPOSAL > > > > they could afford. Some paid two dollars a gallon > > > > (7.57 litres) others as > Pancaratna das > My calculation is 3.785 liters per US Gallon. At $2 per gallon this comes to about $.53 per liter. In india this would come to Rs. 24 per liter whereas we calculate the real cost is about Rs. 20 per liter (the market price which is supported by cow slaughter is Rs. 12 per liter). Comment: This is the lowest I can sell at; this pays for the cost of the grain these milker cows consume, it considers no other costs, and is giving away milk. The devotee consumers can purchase pasteurized milk for $1.03/litre from the local store just three miles (4.8 km) down the road. They are conditioned, by seeing advertizements; to take this pasteurized milk before raw milk. > Pancaratna das > What is it, aside from labor, that is so much more costly in the US? Comment: Meeting the cost involved with the health standards, transportation and the middlemen that become involved because of the preceding. > Pancaratna das I have heard various figures quoted for calculating the real cost of protected cow milk. Can onyone give us a list of all the factors that have to be calculated so we can do it using local figures? Comment: Hare Krsna dasi has covered this in previous posting. > Pancaratna das I am working on a scheme to engage local dairymen in producing for the Calcutta rich vegetarian market as I am confident we can get a workable price there. They would have to contract not to sell the old animals or bull calves and to engage the bulls in varous kinds of work. Comment: That would probably work as you have the skilled labour force and the need for that type of power source in the local economy. In addition, a market in place that deals by the old barter system that is slightly modified by some western advertizing in an Indian flavour. In America there is problem from the health department for sale of milk and there is no interest 'in turning back time' even amongst the devotee population (hayseed syndrome). Most Americans prefer packages, cleaned and partially prepared things. > Pancaratna das > But in the US it seems to me that the only way to make protected farm milk work is to concentrate on cheese, ghee, etc. as the health dept restrictions on raw milk appear to be too costly. Comment: The biggest restriction is milking by hand; they want a closed system where the milk is not exposed to man. The setup requires milking machines, with direct line to bulk milk storage tank (refrigerated), cannot sell unless you have contract with dairy. If you do cheese or ghee you also have to meet certain standards, all these things require a large capital outlay and have to be tailored to health codes as the produce is to be consumed by the public. At present, we can only sell to our temple devotees and a few select congregational members. Originally New Talavan was started with the idea of selling ice-cream (our first 11 cows were Jerseys), this was quickly dropped when the details became known as to what must be done to meet the health codes, with accompanying expenses. We have never milked by machine (27 years), always by hand. Ys, Rohita dasa > 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.