Hi All,
Well, we're into it. The calves have started arriving and the cows have started milking. We are milking about 25 cows at the moment, but they are calving at about 2-3 per day at this stage. In another week or so, they'll calve at about 20-25 cows per day. It gets very busy taking care of all the new arrivals and making sure the cows are also looked after.
The flu is going around our house at the moment, making things really challenging. We'll cope though, because we have to. It's not like you can call in sick and there is no one to take your place, so you box on.
There is a nervous tension around Southland dairy farms this spring regarding bobby calves. Bobby calves are the newborn male calves. As you can't milk them and they are not beef breeds they are, in reality, a by product of dairy farming, just like the male chicks are a byproduct of the laying hen industry. With the male chicks, they are sent to be macerated and destroyed quickly and humanely as soon as possible after hatching. This is approved by the SPCA and considered normal practise.
Best on farm practise for the New Zealand dairy industry states that Bobby calves are to be fed sufficient milk, housed in a warm, dry, draught free environment and supplied with clean water at all times. When have reached four days old, their umbilical cord is dry, and their feet are hard and show wear, they are picked up by a truck or self delivered to a local abattoir. There, they are humanely killed and processed into, usually, baby food or other tinned food requiring very tender meat. We get paid about $10 per calf for the meat and hide. On this farm, there will be about 280 bobby calves born this spring and all will be sent to the abattoir.
This is the reality. If these animals were to kept alive, they would eat and drink food that is needed for the milking cows. Raise them for beef? It costs about $1500.00 to rear a dairy bred calf to the age of 2 years old. Currently, the approximate price a beef farmer gets for a 2 year old beef animal is about $1000 to $1200. These bobby calves are not bred for beef, and therefore are less efficient at gaining weight and will not have the same quality of meat as a beef animal. Besides, beef farmers, even rearing the best meat they can, still struggle to make it a viable business in some years.
The cost of feeding these little guys for the four days is about $4 plus the cost labour (normally a calf rearer is hired to care for all the newborns). It then costs about another $5 in freight to transport them to the abattoir. After costs this year, the balance will be zero. If the bobby is under the desired weight range, or has anything not quite right, the carcass is downgraded and the balance falls quickly into the negative.
Thankfully 99% of dairy farmers take the humane approach and realize this is just a cost we have to wear that comes with the responsibility of dairy farming. Killing the bobbies at four days old via an approved facility is the most humane way of dealing with these calves.
The reason Southland dairy farmers are nervous is the 1% of farms, usually corporately owned, or farms under extreme financial pressure, that only look at the bottom line. These guys may, again, end up giving us all a bad name by treating the bobby calves in a less then humane fashion. If the calves are not sent to abattoir because of cost issues, humane disposal of a bobby calf is either by shooting them or stunning them with a captive bolt and them bleeding them out. This must be done as quickly and as effectively as possible to minimize trauma and stress to the calf.
The consumer has signaled us, the producers, via their purchases, that they don't want male dairy bred animals for anything other then baby food or manufacturing beef. Economics forces farmers the unpleasant but necessary task of then, making life and death choices on behalf of the consumer. The unfortunate part is, the public then turns around and condemns us for having made these choices. We are between a rock and a very hard place. As stated earlier, 99% of us take our responsibility as food producers very seriously and make every effort to make ethical decisions. But when the public judges your decisions based on half truths or one or two poor operators it becomes a loose/loose situation for everyone involved.
We hope that even if the budget is looking impossible, that everyone will do the responsible thing and make sure the bobby calves are dealt with in a humane fashion. Farmers don't need any more bad press. They get enough rubbish fabricated about them in conventional media as it is.
As always, I would love discussion on this or any other agri-topic. Any questions or comments, good or bad, are always welcome. I may not be able to write for a little while because, after my kids, my calves are my first priority.
Take care, 4cowgirls
Monday, August 10, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Why Not Go Organic?
Hi All,
We're getting all geared up for calving season. A couple of the girls are getting a bit uncomfortable. Making sure the calf sheds are all clean, tidy, warm and comfortable for the new arrivals is priority number one for me at the moment. As nasty as it sounds, we do take the calves away from the cows every 24hours as they are being born. The calves are born outside, usually in the early morning. As they are little and a bit clumsy, they often can't find their mothers milk soon enough after they hit the ground. To get good immunity, they need fresh warm colostrum six to twelve hours after birth. If they were to be left to their own devises, about a quarter of the calves born would die of exposure. Collecting them up and me feeding them their mothers milk ensures they get a good feed of fresh, warm colostrum soon after birth. They are protected from the elements in the shed and survive much better. The mums also, need to get "relief" as soon as possible and they usually have far too much milk for just one calf. Hence, milking them out helps take the pressure off the mammary glands and makes them more comfortable.
Someone asked me the other day why we don't farm our animals organically. They were of the belief we would most certainly get a premium for our milk and that our input costs would be considerably lower. They had read somewhere that you get the same level of production from organic farming as you do conventional farming.
We have actually looked into organic farming quite extensively and after giving significant consideration, decided against it for a number of reasons.
The big number one, animal health and welfare. In an certified organic situation, the use of antibiotic is not allowed except in extreme circumstances. If they are used, the animal must be removed from the farm and can not return. Therefore, practically speaking, you really need to have two farms, one organic and one conventional.
I'm sure people think I'm a bit strange. Even though we are quite large scale farmers, I call all the calves I look after "my baby's" and the cows are all "my girls". Out of 590 of the "girls", about 100 or so of them have names. In other words, this is not a factory and the cows are not viewed as milk machines. I can not stand to see any of these lady's suffering because of what I believe or don't believe. It isn't fair to them. I have worked on farms where animals have been left "lingering" while the operator tried different homeopathic treatments. After considerable time and stress, the animal was either destroyed or treated conventionally anyway. After witnessing this, I have a strong desire to treat animals as quickly and effectively as possible so they suffer the bare minimum. If your child had an infection, you would take them to the doctor and they would most likely receive an antibiotic for the infection and an analgesic for the pain. Organics allow neither without consequences.
The second reason is practicality. We sell our milk to Fonterra. Fonterra do have organic milk suppliers, but they are all in the North Islands province of Waikato, about 1000kms and a ferry ride from here. There are two organic dairy farms in our province of Southland. As far as I know, one sells some milk via a mobile milk truck to farmers markets and private customers and the remaining milk to Fonterra, and the other sells to a company that has just started, Dairy Trust. To my knowledge, except for the milk that goes through the truck, neither one receives a premium because there are not enough organic farmers down here to warrant separating the milk.
Our third reason is waste. Waste? Yes waste. Currently, I think the World Health Organization has the total amount of food in the world at about enough for 50 to 60 days. About ten years ago this figure was about 150 days. I'm not sure of the exact figures, but I think these are pretty ball park. Anyway, you get the idea. Without having a detrimental effect on the environment, I believe that agriculture should use fertile land as efficiently as possible to produce as much food as possible to feed as many people as possible. Unfortunately, organic farming requires a larger land mass to produce less food. I know there are people who will argue this point and that's OK, I welcome debate. However, no one can deny that there are currently people starving, even with surplus food. As the world population grows and productive farm land either gets swallowed up by suburbia or tangled up in red tape and bureaucracy, the simple fact is a greater proportion of people will starve.
There is no easy answer, but why not use the best ideas from all types of agriculture? I think we should use modern technology as tools, not band aids.
For example, take fertilizer. We rely heavily on the land and if we don't take care of it, it won't take care of us. Therefore, we monitor our land very closely. We do what is called a nutrient budget. This is just like a financial budget only instead of money, it is with nutrients. The basic ones,pH, Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Potassium, some of the sort of mid range ones, Magnesium, Sodium, Calcium and a few of what they call micro or trace elements, copper, zinc, molybdenum. We do test for others as well, but its late and my brain is a bit mush. Anyway, you get the idea. We monitor these very closely and the budget must balance. What goes out must come in and, based on soil and herbage tests, we try to maintain optimum levels for both stock health and pasture health. What is toxic to the environment is also toxic to the stock. So, over use of fertilizer is just plain dumb. You end up with sick animals (which is costly) and wasted money (because most of your fertilizer has washed down the ditch). The golden rule for us is little and often and monitor, monitor, monitor.
Another good example is pesticides. Yes, pesticides can be a good thing when used responsibly. Here in New Zealand there are several introduced pest plants that have devastated large tracts of land causing native flora and fauna to all but disappear from some areas. We have several patches of native bush on the farm where some of these pest plants have taken over. One of our long term projects is to tidy up the weeds so the natives can find their feet again. We are doing this in a number of ways. Because this is a working farm, no one has the time to spend 24/7 in these patches of bush to sort them out. So, we've got a couple of our "girls" boyfriends (the bulls)doing it for us. Some of the weeds invading our native bush are Old Mans Beard, Gorse, and Broom. While our ten big surly bulls are on holiday from the cows, they are doing a lovely job knocking down, scratching, digging and eating all those nasty weeds. When they come out of the bush, any regrowth will be dealt to with, yes, weed killer. We also use sprays to keep Ragwort (which causes liver failure in cattle), Thistles, and Deadly Nightshade (as the name suggests) under control. Though we are vigilant to use only a licensed spraying contractor under optimal conditions, others are not so careful. Those that use less then best practise, again, give us all a bad name. Believe me, those guys are few and far between. If you think they are disliked by the general public, they are absolutely dispised by their peers.
Hopefully this has given you an insight into an alternative but sustainable form of agriculture. Again, I welcome comments and would love to answer any questions anyone may have.
Take Care, 4cowgirls
We're getting all geared up for calving season. A couple of the girls are getting a bit uncomfortable. Making sure the calf sheds are all clean, tidy, warm and comfortable for the new arrivals is priority number one for me at the moment. As nasty as it sounds, we do take the calves away from the cows every 24hours as they are being born. The calves are born outside, usually in the early morning. As they are little and a bit clumsy, they often can't find their mothers milk soon enough after they hit the ground. To get good immunity, they need fresh warm colostrum six to twelve hours after birth. If they were to be left to their own devises, about a quarter of the calves born would die of exposure. Collecting them up and me feeding them their mothers milk ensures they get a good feed of fresh, warm colostrum soon after birth. They are protected from the elements in the shed and survive much better. The mums also, need to get "relief" as soon as possible and they usually have far too much milk for just one calf. Hence, milking them out helps take the pressure off the mammary glands and makes them more comfortable.
Someone asked me the other day why we don't farm our animals organically. They were of the belief we would most certainly get a premium for our milk and that our input costs would be considerably lower. They had read somewhere that you get the same level of production from organic farming as you do conventional farming.
We have actually looked into organic farming quite extensively and after giving significant consideration, decided against it for a number of reasons.
The big number one, animal health and welfare. In an certified organic situation, the use of antibiotic is not allowed except in extreme circumstances. If they are used, the animal must be removed from the farm and can not return. Therefore, practically speaking, you really need to have two farms, one organic and one conventional.
I'm sure people think I'm a bit strange. Even though we are quite large scale farmers, I call all the calves I look after "my baby's" and the cows are all "my girls". Out of 590 of the "girls", about 100 or so of them have names. In other words, this is not a factory and the cows are not viewed as milk machines. I can not stand to see any of these lady's suffering because of what I believe or don't believe. It isn't fair to them. I have worked on farms where animals have been left "lingering" while the operator tried different homeopathic treatments. After considerable time and stress, the animal was either destroyed or treated conventionally anyway. After witnessing this, I have a strong desire to treat animals as quickly and effectively as possible so they suffer the bare minimum. If your child had an infection, you would take them to the doctor and they would most likely receive an antibiotic for the infection and an analgesic for the pain. Organics allow neither without consequences.
The second reason is practicality. We sell our milk to Fonterra. Fonterra do have organic milk suppliers, but they are all in the North Islands province of Waikato, about 1000kms and a ferry ride from here. There are two organic dairy farms in our province of Southland. As far as I know, one sells some milk via a mobile milk truck to farmers markets and private customers and the remaining milk to Fonterra, and the other sells to a company that has just started, Dairy Trust. To my knowledge, except for the milk that goes through the truck, neither one receives a premium because there are not enough organic farmers down here to warrant separating the milk.
Our third reason is waste. Waste? Yes waste. Currently, I think the World Health Organization has the total amount of food in the world at about enough for 50 to 60 days. About ten years ago this figure was about 150 days. I'm not sure of the exact figures, but I think these are pretty ball park. Anyway, you get the idea. Without having a detrimental effect on the environment, I believe that agriculture should use fertile land as efficiently as possible to produce as much food as possible to feed as many people as possible. Unfortunately, organic farming requires a larger land mass to produce less food. I know there are people who will argue this point and that's OK, I welcome debate. However, no one can deny that there are currently people starving, even with surplus food. As the world population grows and productive farm land either gets swallowed up by suburbia or tangled up in red tape and bureaucracy, the simple fact is a greater proportion of people will starve.
There is no easy answer, but why not use the best ideas from all types of agriculture? I think we should use modern technology as tools, not band aids.
For example, take fertilizer. We rely heavily on the land and if we don't take care of it, it won't take care of us. Therefore, we monitor our land very closely. We do what is called a nutrient budget. This is just like a financial budget only instead of money, it is with nutrients. The basic ones,pH, Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Potassium, some of the sort of mid range ones, Magnesium, Sodium, Calcium and a few of what they call micro or trace elements, copper, zinc, molybdenum. We do test for others as well, but its late and my brain is a bit mush. Anyway, you get the idea. We monitor these very closely and the budget must balance. What goes out must come in and, based on soil and herbage tests, we try to maintain optimum levels for both stock health and pasture health. What is toxic to the environment is also toxic to the stock. So, over use of fertilizer is just plain dumb. You end up with sick animals (which is costly) and wasted money (because most of your fertilizer has washed down the ditch). The golden rule for us is little and often and monitor, monitor, monitor.
Another good example is pesticides. Yes, pesticides can be a good thing when used responsibly. Here in New Zealand there are several introduced pest plants that have devastated large tracts of land causing native flora and fauna to all but disappear from some areas. We have several patches of native bush on the farm where some of these pest plants have taken over. One of our long term projects is to tidy up the weeds so the natives can find their feet again. We are doing this in a number of ways. Because this is a working farm, no one has the time to spend 24/7 in these patches of bush to sort them out. So, we've got a couple of our "girls" boyfriends (the bulls)doing it for us. Some of the weeds invading our native bush are Old Mans Beard, Gorse, and Broom. While our ten big surly bulls are on holiday from the cows, they are doing a lovely job knocking down, scratching, digging and eating all those nasty weeds. When they come out of the bush, any regrowth will be dealt to with, yes, weed killer. We also use sprays to keep Ragwort (which causes liver failure in cattle), Thistles, and Deadly Nightshade (as the name suggests) under control. Though we are vigilant to use only a licensed spraying contractor under optimal conditions, others are not so careful. Those that use less then best practise, again, give us all a bad name. Believe me, those guys are few and far between. If you think they are disliked by the general public, they are absolutely dispised by their peers.
Hopefully this has given you an insight into an alternative but sustainable form of agriculture. Again, I welcome comments and would love to answer any questions anyone may have.
Take Care, 4cowgirls
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Organic Verses Whatever
Hi all,
Do we take care of ourselves all the time or only when its convenient or only when its fashionable? And do we really know what is good for us and what isn't?
A chance meeting with another mother, we'll call her Kim (not her real name), at the local dairy got me thinking about this.
First, a bit of background.
I hadn't seen her since our kids were in the same class at primary school. She was always one of those perfect mums. Her husband is successful enough at what ever it is he does that he can take his weekends off, has a newish boat, and she doesn't need to even contemplate working. Two beautiful daughters exactly 3.3 years apart. She is a regular volunteer as a teachers aid, and coaches both her daughters sports teams. She is always smiling and chatty and never seems to snub anyone.
We both chaperoned on our kids school camp and this is where I got to know a little more about her.
One evening, while preparing dinner for the kids, one of the other mothers asked for a general opinion as to peel the carrots and potatoes or not. Kim said she never peeled anything as that was where all the nutrients were. I made no comment as I am not a nutritionist. I have cooked for kids and I know they don't like peels on some things and on other things, they don't really care.
The next comment came when one of the other mothers was describing how she, very successfully, made a particular sauce in the microwave. Kim spoke up to say she made the same sauce on the stove at all times as she didn't trust the microwave and had decided using it was unhealthy. Again, I didn't say anything because I feel I am not qualified.
Kim and I shared a room in the hostel where we were staying. In the evening, as we were both getting ready for bed, I couldn't help notice her beauty routine. Mine consists of a splash of water in the face or a shower (depending on how grubby I am), brush the teeth and hair, jammies and bed. I know, as a female, I should probably take much better care of myself but the whole cleanse, exfoliate, tone blah blah blah, well, I can't really be bothered. Not to mention, the cost.
Kim, however, could be very bothered. Using several bottles and tubes, she proceeded to do whatever it is your supposed to do, and more I'm sure, to her skin.
Now, I think we're similar in age and neither one of us are super models. Nor do we only have faces for radio. You know just middle of the road ordinary people. But with Kim's intense desire for all things healthy and natural, I had to wonder about the concoctions being liberally applied to her skin.
When I caught up with Kim at the local dairy, she was purchasing milk. An ordinary task yes, but for her, no. Kim normally buys certified organic milk direct from a not so local farmer, again, because her strong belief in all things healthy. She was buying her milk from the shop only because her husband had run out of milk for his coffee. The farmer they normally bought milk from had dried his cows off for the winter and had non available. She commented that her husband loved the creamy taste of the organic whole unpasteurised milk which I heartily agreed with. There really is nothing nicer in a cup of coffee then fresh whole milk.
On my way home, I contemplated whether it was the organic milk she preferred or was it the knowledge of where her milk had come from that she really liked? If it was the organic thing, then why didn't she buy organic from the local supermarket that was also open at the time and probably cheaper then the ordinary blue top at the corner dairy. Conversely, if it was the traceability thing, then why not buy milk from a much closer conventional farmer.
Don't get me wrong. Kim is a really lovely person with a generous soul. It only makes me wonder about society in general. We are constantly bombarded with all the things we should be doing to stay healthy. From skin care to organic milk to peeling your veges to using the microwave, society has taught us to question the safety of everything. Why do we have such little faith in some things and total trust in others? Is it because of the way society/popular media has "packaged" things to bend our perception, or is it the way certain things have "come out of the wash" and trickled out of the cacophony of noise that is modern media? Almost sort of like an urban legend that people accept as true?
I mean, there has been documented scientific trials comparing organic fruits and veges to conventionally grown produce. In all cases, there was little difference in actual nutrient, mineral and vitamin content between the two groups of food. When the fruits and veges were given to a number of people to try to tell which tasted better, the results were again, negligible. So why is it seen as so much better then? Fashion? Or perhaps the "feel good" factor, that traceability thing again?
I don't see myself as correct in all things. On the contrary, I have more to learn then anyone I know. So as far as what is the right or wrong way to do things, well, I sort of bumble my way through and depend heavily on my gut instinct. If there is legitimate scientifically researched material available on whatever it is I want to know about, then I'll go with it. Otherwise, I shrug and don't tend to worry too much about it.
We aren't organic farmers. I don't judge those who are because that is their choice. If one of my animals gets sick, it gets treated according to its symptoms. If that animal requires an antibiotic, I do not hesitate giving it. But I will not use antibiotics if they are unnecessary. I believe most farmers would agree on this point. Antibiotics are expensive and when used incorrectly, resistance can build up in your stock and then you have serious problems when an animal becomes really sick.
Trials at Massey University have shown little difference between homeopathic treatments and doing nothing at all. Homeopathy is way cheaper. If the treatments had been effective, it would have saved the agricultural community millions of dollars in pharmaceuticals. However, the trial proved that they are not effective. The only reason I found out about the trial was by stumbling across it one day in an obscure dairying pamphlet. This was a major trial, with extensive monitoring and clear results. Yet, I have not read anything about it since, nor have I seen it in any mainstream publications. Why?
Here's what I think. It isn't trendy for homeopathic stuff to not work, it isn't what people want to hear. They want to hear that it is so much better and that 100 plus years of scientific trial and even more error is not to be trusted. When a drug company gets caught being naughty, front page news. The millions of lives that are saved each day because of modern practices, not a mention. OK, OK, I agree that the drug companies make an absolute killing on selling there wares and they certainly hold the world to ransom.
But it can't all be as bad as what we perceive. Perhaps, for a change, we humans are actually on the right road, sort of, when it come to how our food is being produced. No one should be starving, the Green Revolution saw to that. There is enough food for everyone. It is just the distribution that's all cocked up.
Once again, I'd love discussion so please leave a comment.
Take care, 4cowgirlz
Do we take care of ourselves all the time or only when its convenient or only when its fashionable? And do we really know what is good for us and what isn't?
A chance meeting with another mother, we'll call her Kim (not her real name), at the local dairy got me thinking about this.
First, a bit of background.
I hadn't seen her since our kids were in the same class at primary school. She was always one of those perfect mums. Her husband is successful enough at what ever it is he does that he can take his weekends off, has a newish boat, and she doesn't need to even contemplate working. Two beautiful daughters exactly 3.3 years apart. She is a regular volunteer as a teachers aid, and coaches both her daughters sports teams. She is always smiling and chatty and never seems to snub anyone.
We both chaperoned on our kids school camp and this is where I got to know a little more about her.
One evening, while preparing dinner for the kids, one of the other mothers asked for a general opinion as to peel the carrots and potatoes or not. Kim said she never peeled anything as that was where all the nutrients were. I made no comment as I am not a nutritionist. I have cooked for kids and I know they don't like peels on some things and on other things, they don't really care.
The next comment came when one of the other mothers was describing how she, very successfully, made a particular sauce in the microwave. Kim spoke up to say she made the same sauce on the stove at all times as she didn't trust the microwave and had decided using it was unhealthy. Again, I didn't say anything because I feel I am not qualified.
Kim and I shared a room in the hostel where we were staying. In the evening, as we were both getting ready for bed, I couldn't help notice her beauty routine. Mine consists of a splash of water in the face or a shower (depending on how grubby I am), brush the teeth and hair, jammies and bed. I know, as a female, I should probably take much better care of myself but the whole cleanse, exfoliate, tone blah blah blah, well, I can't really be bothered. Not to mention, the cost.
Kim, however, could be very bothered. Using several bottles and tubes, she proceeded to do whatever it is your supposed to do, and more I'm sure, to her skin.
Now, I think we're similar in age and neither one of us are super models. Nor do we only have faces for radio. You know just middle of the road ordinary people. But with Kim's intense desire for all things healthy and natural, I had to wonder about the concoctions being liberally applied to her skin.
When I caught up with Kim at the local dairy, she was purchasing milk. An ordinary task yes, but for her, no. Kim normally buys certified organic milk direct from a not so local farmer, again, because her strong belief in all things healthy. She was buying her milk from the shop only because her husband had run out of milk for his coffee. The farmer they normally bought milk from had dried his cows off for the winter and had non available. She commented that her husband loved the creamy taste of the organic whole unpasteurised milk which I heartily agreed with. There really is nothing nicer in a cup of coffee then fresh whole milk.
On my way home, I contemplated whether it was the organic milk she preferred or was it the knowledge of where her milk had come from that she really liked? If it was the organic thing, then why didn't she buy organic from the local supermarket that was also open at the time and probably cheaper then the ordinary blue top at the corner dairy. Conversely, if it was the traceability thing, then why not buy milk from a much closer conventional farmer.
Don't get me wrong. Kim is a really lovely person with a generous soul. It only makes me wonder about society in general. We are constantly bombarded with all the things we should be doing to stay healthy. From skin care to organic milk to peeling your veges to using the microwave, society has taught us to question the safety of everything. Why do we have such little faith in some things and total trust in others? Is it because of the way society/popular media has "packaged" things to bend our perception, or is it the way certain things have "come out of the wash" and trickled out of the cacophony of noise that is modern media? Almost sort of like an urban legend that people accept as true?
I mean, there has been documented scientific trials comparing organic fruits and veges to conventionally grown produce. In all cases, there was little difference in actual nutrient, mineral and vitamin content between the two groups of food. When the fruits and veges were given to a number of people to try to tell which tasted better, the results were again, negligible. So why is it seen as so much better then? Fashion? Or perhaps the "feel good" factor, that traceability thing again?
I don't see myself as correct in all things. On the contrary, I have more to learn then anyone I know. So as far as what is the right or wrong way to do things, well, I sort of bumble my way through and depend heavily on my gut instinct. If there is legitimate scientifically researched material available on whatever it is I want to know about, then I'll go with it. Otherwise, I shrug and don't tend to worry too much about it.
We aren't organic farmers. I don't judge those who are because that is their choice. If one of my animals gets sick, it gets treated according to its symptoms. If that animal requires an antibiotic, I do not hesitate giving it. But I will not use antibiotics if they are unnecessary. I believe most farmers would agree on this point. Antibiotics are expensive and when used incorrectly, resistance can build up in your stock and then you have serious problems when an animal becomes really sick.
Trials at Massey University have shown little difference between homeopathic treatments and doing nothing at all. Homeopathy is way cheaper. If the treatments had been effective, it would have saved the agricultural community millions of dollars in pharmaceuticals. However, the trial proved that they are not effective. The only reason I found out about the trial was by stumbling across it one day in an obscure dairying pamphlet. This was a major trial, with extensive monitoring and clear results. Yet, I have not read anything about it since, nor have I seen it in any mainstream publications. Why?
Here's what I think. It isn't trendy for homeopathic stuff to not work, it isn't what people want to hear. They want to hear that it is so much better and that 100 plus years of scientific trial and even more error is not to be trusted. When a drug company gets caught being naughty, front page news. The millions of lives that are saved each day because of modern practices, not a mention. OK, OK, I agree that the drug companies make an absolute killing on selling there wares and they certainly hold the world to ransom.
But it can't all be as bad as what we perceive. Perhaps, for a change, we humans are actually on the right road, sort of, when it come to how our food is being produced. No one should be starving, the Green Revolution saw to that. There is enough food for everyone. It is just the distribution that's all cocked up.
Once again, I'd love discussion so please leave a comment.
Take care, 4cowgirlz
Friday, July 3, 2009
Kyoto Craziness
Well it is winter down here at the bottom of the world. We've got all the girls (cows) out on winter grazing. At the moment, they're on kale but they'll get shifted to swedes in another couple of weeks. For you Northern Hemisphere people, I know this is weird for you because you milk all year around. We milk seasonally here because our main food source for the cows is grass and it only grows in the spring, summer and autumn. Hence we calve in the spring and dry off in the autumn.
Currently, I'm researching the implications the Kyoto Protocol will have on us as primary producers. My findings so far are a little alarming. Right, here goes:
We milk about 600 cows (in round figures). We will need to pay about $40 000+ per year in "carbon tax" to offset our emissions. The fact our cows graze grass and we don't use any diesel for them to eat is irrelevant. Not to mention that grass converts greenhouse gases as well. Ok, never mind. So, I asked myself, can we avoid the tax by planting trees?
The "tree alternative" is to drop cow number by 200 and plant 200 acres out in trees. In ten years time, I have to drop cow numbers again by 1/3 and plant more trees and so on until, one hundred years from now, we'll have 600 acres of trees and no cows.
We try to be as green as the next guy. In fact, probably greener as we consider ourselves stewards of the land. Surely there must some sort of balance we can achieve between agriculture, feeding the world and environmental awareness.
I would welcome some open discussion on this. As I stated in my earlier blog, the media are reluctant to have balanced debate on the subject. I think this is a hugely important issue as affects everyone.
Until next time, Take care.
Currently, I'm researching the implications the Kyoto Protocol will have on us as primary producers. My findings so far are a little alarming. Right, here goes:
We milk about 600 cows (in round figures). We will need to pay about $40 000+ per year in "carbon tax" to offset our emissions. The fact our cows graze grass and we don't use any diesel for them to eat is irrelevant. Not to mention that grass converts greenhouse gases as well. Ok, never mind. So, I asked myself, can we avoid the tax by planting trees?
The "tree alternative" is to drop cow number by 200 and plant 200 acres out in trees. In ten years time, I have to drop cow numbers again by 1/3 and plant more trees and so on until, one hundred years from now, we'll have 600 acres of trees and no cows.
We try to be as green as the next guy. In fact, probably greener as we consider ourselves stewards of the land. Surely there must some sort of balance we can achieve between agriculture, feeding the world and environmental awareness.
I would welcome some open discussion on this. As I stated in my earlier blog, the media are reluctant to have balanced debate on the subject. I think this is a hugely important issue as affects everyone.
Until next time, Take care.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Hi All,
Well, this is my first attempt at blogging. So you'll have to be patient.
A little bit about us, you know, so we're not complete strangers.
Living on a dairy farm way down here in a little place just outside Invercargill, New Zealand. We milk about 580 cows from August to around the end of May. Then we dry the girls off and they get to go off on holiday for two months.
Right now, there seems to be a real negative attitude towards Dairy Farmers and, quite frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of it.
Now don't get me wrong. I hate complaining, or conflict or anything like that. But when an 8 year old yells at me while I'm dropping my kids off at the bus "I hate you bloody dairy cockies!". Or when I open our local newspaper looking for balanced reporting and fair, objective news, the majority of articles are of the minority of us, that is, people who abuse their responsibility as farmers. This publication never seems to print articles about the Dairy guys out there who are actually doing way more then their urban counterparts. When I or my counterparts try to send letters to the editor to rectify some blatant inaccuracies or misconceptions, they are "filtered".
Really annoying.
Especially for us.
You see, When we converted our farm from sheep and beef to dairy cows two years ago, it was so we could carry on the 5th generation family farm and actually do better by the environment. By milking cows, we can now afford to fence off waterways, manage nutrients, and generally, monitor just about everything on the farm including water usage and nutrients in the soil.
So, I guess the reason for this blogg is to dish out the real dirt about modern farms in New Zealand. I don't know how frequently I can update this, hopefully weekly at the longest. Feed back would be fantastic and I'll do my best to answer any questions as openly and honestly as I can.
Our aim is to produce really good food in a way that is humane, environmentally friendly and, because we have to eat too, profitable.
So, hopefully this is a start and we can get some dialog going about this. Unlike newspapers or magazines, I don't have to sell papers, so, even though some of it is probably a bit boring, it is the truth.
Untill next time, take care, from 4cowgirlz.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
