GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]No, it wasnt a typing error. it happened. Horrible innit? The eldest son ran away and told his dad (divorced from his mother) that his mom was burning them with the back of the spoon, cause of some small matter. The father, then, called police and went to the wife's place, to find that she was gone, and she left the kids with scars on the legs, torso and arms.

Awfull thing.[/QUOTE]

I'll have to dig for the article online sometime tonight or tomorrow...there was a case locally of a man found holding his infant daughter when police arrived. He'd stabbed her and she's gone through surgery. The puncture wound was from a large knife to her torso, so...given her size it tore apart most of her inner organs. I believe she's still in intensive care now.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Arc ... oduct=RDCB

Sorry, it was last year, they've gone to trial now and that's why I heard of it. This article has nothing on the daughter which I read at work though.

I heard on the radio today that Hugo Chavez kicked a Baptist church group from Sanford(suburb of Orlando), FL out of Venezuela because they were spying for the CIA and exploiting natives.

At first I thought this was rediculous considering they had been there for 30 years, but then I started thinking... With Bush in office, you never know what all he'll have church groups doing!

[QUOTE=jopperm2]I heard on the radio today that Hugo Chavez kicked a Baptist church group from Sanford(suburb of Orlando), FL out of Venezuela because they were spying for the CIA and exploiting natives.

At first I thought this was rediculous considering they had been there for 30 years, but then I started thinking... With Bush in office, you never know what all he'll have church groups doing! [/QUOTE]Fable started a thread on this subject, if you care to discuss further.

At Xmas time there was a fad here for giving charity things rather than presents. One of the most popular was an Oxfam scheme for giving goats to Africa. Today they are reporting that goats are a major problem in Africa, implicated in desertification amongst other things. It is alleged they contribute to poverty because of this, and that the idea is disastrous.

[QUOTE=Fiona]At Xmas time there was a fad here for giving charity things rather than presents. One of the most popular was an Oxfam scheme for giving goats to Africa. Today they are reporting that goats are a major problem in Africa, implicated in desertification amongst other things. It is alleged they contribute to poverty because of this, and that the idea is disastrous.[/QUOTE]

I know what you mean, but at my school, goats were considered sooo last year It was 'Donkey December' according to the head of geography (who I swear uses some sort of narcotic drug). And there was a nativity play with teachers pretending to be Jesus and it was very disturbing...

Anyway, the very reason they sent donkeys out is that they can eat almost anything - as they dont have big lips so can bite to the ground. This causes damage the plant cant recover from so it dies - desertification.

Sort of defeating the point wouldnt you say?

It seems we have screwed up Sub-saharan Africa up...

[QUOTE=GregtheSleeper]It seems we have screwed up Sub-saharan Africa up...[/QUOTE]It's a teensy-weensy bit more complex than that... and blatant misrule after decolonisation helped a lot to bring the current situation about.

As for the goats: yes they do more damage, but they are often also the only way or simplest way for poor rural households to save (think goaty bank instead of piggy bank).

What they were saying today was that the long term effects of more goats would be very bad. They acknowledge it is helpful to particular families in the short term. I have no way of knowing how to balance those things, but the people who launch these schemes can be reasonably expected to do all they can to foresee the whole range of consequences of a particular policy. Maybe they did do that but the report today suggested not and the defense from Oxfam did not seem impressive. Mainly they seemed to say the intention was not to relieve poverty; rather the goats were involved in "conflict resolution." I didn't quite follow what that meant bur that was not how the thing was sold here in the first place.

Ehm Fiona, in both your posts you mention "they". Who are "they"? And is it possible to provide a link to the relevant article or source?

[QUOTE=Lestat]Ehm Fiona, in both your posts you mention "they". Who are "they"? And is it possible to provide a link to the relevant article or source?[/QUOTE]

@ Lestat. It was on the PM programme on BBC radio 4, or the programme following it. I have tried to find the article on the BBC website, but I have very little success finding anything on that site. The report was today, so it may be in the papers tomorrow. If it is I'll try to find a link the (I'm slightly more successful with the papers sometimes)

Edit: If you go to listen again at PM, the item is around fortysix kbps on the scroll bar, if that helps. The criticism comes from an environmental charity called "The World Land Trust"

Double post, sorry. This seems to be the charity's home page. They seem to be quite respectable

http://www.worldlandtrust.org/

I just remembered you might not be able to "listen again" where you are. Maybe you can find the item on the page though: you seem to be quite good at that kind of thing

On BBC today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4715332.stm

Sugarcane fuel, worth taking a look.

@Luis. I heard this item on the radio yesteday and you are right it is very interesting. It said on the radio that many cars in Brazil are already fuelled by ethanol and also that the increased global interest was leading to a shortage which was driving up the price. Said this was good for the economy and for farmers but did not say what it was doing to the people who buy ethanol there. It may be in the body of your link, though (sorry I haven't time to read it all now)

@ Lestat. A very little more on the goats. I will keep looking. This is from the CEO of the World Land Trust, John Burton

More about goats
Wednesday, February 01, 2006

It was before Christmas that I first wrote to OXFAM about their programme to create herds of goats across Africa, as a solution to poverty. Since writing my blogs on this issue, I have had lots of people confirm my negative views on this, as anyone with even scant knowledge about environmental degradation in Africa, is aware that goats are one of the main causes.

Unfortunately OXFAM have been unable to come up with a spokesperson who can justify their activities. Despite reminders, the best I got was a message that some one would contact me in about three weeks time.

An issue I did not mention in my earlier blogs, is that very often animals such as goats and camels (also being 'sold' as Christmas gifts) are frequently used as status symbols, not as sources of food. Goat keepers often try to accumulate large herds, which are then used for trading, bride-money etc.

But the big issue is still what do goats feed on? They either feed on foodstuffs that could have been eaten by humans, or they graze (and usually over-graze)on what is left of the natural vegetation. And it is this latter which is the problem. As far as I am concerned, until OXFAM, and the other charities involved can answer these criticisms, we should consider goats a threat to the environment, and discourage any increase in their populations, which are already unsustainable in many parts of Africa.

Still much about Muhammed drawings and spin-off here in Denmark
But now also the possible finding of "Birdflu" (H5N1) near Denmark/Germany is in focus in the media.

@ Fiona: yeah I found that article and it got me enough in a anti-single-issue--lobby-group mood to search for other info, I'll try to post more comprehensively later today or tomorrow. In the comment on the article there is a link posted to a guardian article which gives a clearer idea of what oxfam and similar organisations are doing with the goats. But just a short reaction on the blog.

I have had lots of people confirm my negative views on this, as anyone with even scant knowledge about environmental degradation in Africa, is aware that goats are one of the main causes.
Belittling prick. Implied: if you dare to say the opposite or question this you don't even have scant knowledge of environmental degradation in Africa. Humans and human management of livestock are the main causes environmental degradation. There is a difference.

An issue I did not mention in my earlier blogs, is that very often animals such as goats and camels (also being 'sold' as Christmas gifts) are frequently used as status symbols, not as sources of food. Goat keepers often try to accumulate large herds, which are then used for trading, bride-money etc.
So? And what is wrong with using goats for trading or bride-money especially in cash poor economies? The goats'll end up in other family. At least they are more benificial than other statussymbols and if in need can be sold easily to pay for the school fees of a child or to finance its medical fees when ill (this contrary to most food crops (everyone grows them) or cash crops (not market but large buyers)). Blatant disregard for local culture and economy I call it.
There is a case to be made for reducing quantity and improving quality of livestock, but this is not the way and one has to go against ingrained habits. Moreover its seldom small ruminants as goats or sheep that are the subject of this status symbol issue, but rather cattle or camels. Goats are most often money on legs. With the added benifice of milk and, occasionally, meat. And since these oxfam goats go often to the poorest of the poor, I don't see what's wrong with a little bit of status improvement for these people.

But the big issue is still what do goats feed on? They either feed on foodstuffs that could have been eaten by humans, or they graze (and usually over-graze)on what is left of the natural vegetation.
This is a load of horse manure. Typical misleading either ... or ... argument that blatantly ignores other possibilities: sustainable foraging by humans for feeding penned livestock, use of crop remains to feed livestock, feeding on fodder crops where no food crops can be grown (or where its more economically sensible to grow fodder crops), etc... Yes overgrazing can be a problem but the way this is presented is untruthful.

And the other veganistic type of comments of it takes x acres to raise one cow make little of the fact that:
- in marginal lands often the only way of making use of plant resources is through livestock.
- nutritional balance is a bit less easy to arrive at when nearest health shop is located 1000 miles away and dairy can play an important role in achieving this nutritional balance.
- we only eat small parts of the crops we grow. Though mulching is one way of using this having livestock "graze" on the cropremains and drop manure is another way or feeding it to penned animals and use the manure on the fields is another way.

It is typical of these people to start from these big world saving ideas but when you get on the field you need to work with people, for whom a few goats can mean the difference between healthy children and sickly children, educated children and uneducated children. Convince them of your environmental principles, even better try to find a way of giving them a stake in protecting the environment that is as good as the goat scheme of oxfam of alleviating poverty and you might have found one of the best programmes ever in development.

That was the short angry reaction, more to come.

Fact 1: US Vice President Cheney shot someone in a hunting accident on 11-Feb-06.
Fact 2: Cheney didn't disclose this information until 12-Feb-06.
Fact 3: Cheney didn't discuss it with anyone in the media until 15-Feb-06.

The importance of these three facts, in the media's eye at least, is #2 then #3 and finally #1. More time has been spent talking about the fact that he waited a day to announce it than in talking about the shooting itself or the status of the victim (who is stable in the hospital and recovering from his mild heart attack).

@Lestat. I am interested in all you say. Certainly I had not envisaged the goats as direct food stuff, although I did think the milk would matter. And I have no problem if they are a medium of exchange.

I did not think about how the argument was couched because what I found is a blog, not a policy statement. Though I accept what you say about the tone etc

The problem for someone like me is that I have too little understanding to judge such a scheme. I have to decide who to trust, and I know there have been environmentally disastrous errors made for the best of reasons in the past. (rabbits and cane toads in Australia, for example). People here are not wicked, and plausible sounding schemes which resonate with their own values can produce a very big charitable response. If it were true that this would cause more harm than good that would be very serious.

It is really hard to understand these things, and if the criticism is totally without foundation then the irresponsibility is breathtaking. While people like to help, it is very easy to foster cynicism; and charities can lose a lot of support that way. There was a lot in the papers a few years ago about the admin costs of some charities and they all suffered for a time. I confess I am not a fan of charity, and I may notice such scandals more than most. But the effect was quite big, I believe.

So for me either there is the kind of problem he points to and I lose some faith in Oxfam; or there isn't and Mr Burton needs to be properly refuted. As I said, the oxfam spokesperson did not do a good job of the latter and that is a problem too.

I am not entirely naive about the dangers of making the best the enemy of the good. We have to take those things into account in my work too. It doesn't matter how super your wheeze is objectively, if people won't accept it it is worthless. And people reject good ideas for lots of reasons and for none. So I am very well aware you have to start from the people not from the science or the ideology (well that may be a bit strong, but I hope you know what I am trying to say)

I am sorry if you are angry about this. I did not mean to do that. I am glad to learn a bit more, and I was not really trying to say that one side or the other was right. I truly do not know.

[QUOTE=Darzog]Fact 1: US Vice President Cheney shot someone in a hunting accident on 11-Feb-06.
Fact 2: Cheney didn't disclose this information until 12-Feb-06.
Fact 3: Cheney didn't discuss it with anyone in the media until 15-Feb-06.

The importance of these three facts, in the media's eye at least, is #2 then #3 and finally #1. More time has been spent talking about the fact that he waited a day to announce it than in talking about the shooting itself or the status of the victim (who is stable in the hospital and recovering from his mild heart attack).[/QUOTE]

Well it seems the approval ratings skyrocketed from 40-some% to 87% when it was discovered the victim was a lawyer.

@ Fiona: I'm collecting articles and such which give a more nuanced image, but I want to make them into a coherent narrative.
The criticism is not without ground, but that makes it all the more devilish. Halftruths are more damaging than whole lies.
I'm certainly not angry with you, my reaction is uniquely to the blog article. I think it's an important subject to raise. but I feel in general that there is a lot of feeling on the left wing type of environmental/animal welfare/vegan type of organisations that are almost antihuman and rather see a lot of people die than a tree cut down (exageration I know, but that is how it feels). Well, left wing is actually not a good term to describe them. Ecofascist comes closer to what I think of them.

And sorry I'm now somewhat pished... farewell party

[QUOTE=Lestat]

And sorry I'm now somewhat pished... farewell party [/QUOTE]

I'm glad to hear it. Hope you had fun

Okay, let's see what I can squeeze into one post.

First on Goats:

From NRI – In the field (a collaboration of the National Resources Institute (Greenwich University, UK) with BBC world service)

[url="http://www.nri.org/InTheField/india_goat.htm"]Goats in India.[/url]
Especially the two last paragraphs are of interest:
Global relevance
Goats have a bad reputation for doing environmental damage round the world. They are, literally, regarded as scapegoats for poor environments. This is unfair, says Conroy. They live on bad lands because they can survive them better than cows or buffaloes. Goats follow environmental degradation, rather than causing it.

But they are a vital resource for many poor villagers, who must also often suffer being shunted onto the poorest land. Far from shunning such people and their animals, says Conroy, there is a need to help them do better in their hostile environments.

Thinking points
* Goats are not environmental pariahs, and they are often vital to the livelihoods of the poorest people.
* Don't disregard "weeds" -- even weeds from foreign lands. They could be a new resource rather than a menace.
* Farmers are often as good at innovation as researchers. Collaboration in the village often works best.

From the [url="http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/dec/toolbox/Index.htm"]Livestock & environment toolbox[/url], LEAD, a cooperation between NRI and other institutions, supported by the EU & the FAO.
The full page can be found [url="http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/dec/toolbox/Mixed1/FeedChar.htm"]here[/url].
Goats are often “scapegoats”, considered to be responsible for environmental degradation. Goats do reduce the regeneration of bush and tree vegetation through browsing seedlings. However, under free grazing they will not eliminate adult shrubs and trees. If degradation appears, then it is often due to a combination of deforestation, crop cultivation and inapropriate grazing practices. Goats are often still around when degradation appears and are as a result blamed for it. Efforts in Namibia to reduce a standing shrub vegetation on a pasture for cattle by intensive browsing by goats failed. It only stopped further bush encroachment. Similar results were obtained in trials in Tanzania. In this example, in a block of savannah that had been “grazed” by goats for five years, mature shrubs and trees had survived but no further encroachment had taken place.
In the case of reforestation reforestation and tree planting, goats can cause considerable damage and measures are required to keep goats under control (i.e. tethering) or to protect the seedlings against browsing (i.e. branches of thorn bushes). A ban on goat or other livestock is often counter-productive. Farmers’ participation in reforestation or tree planting in general requires short-term returns. One of the most feasible options is to pass on to them well regulated rights to harvest tree leaves and cover vegetation for their goats or other livestock. On farm research in Indonesia on the island of Bali so resulted in a successful land rehabilitation system based on three strata of plant-shrub-tree vegetation on the boarder of fields in combination with the keeping of goats (smaller farms) or Bali cattle (larger farms). Shrubs and trees protect the soil against erosion and provide fodder for animals producing manure for crop cultivation and income through sales. Branches are firewood for home consumption and sales. In many other agro forestry, alley and mixed farming systems, shrubs and trees play similar roles in combination with livestock.

And from a goatlovers' ( ) site: [url="http://www.kountrylife.com/articles/about_goats.htm"]All about goats[/url]

What follows now are quotes & articles from the sites of a group of research institutes known as CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research). It is a group of 15 research institutes maily specialised in Tropical & Subtropical Agriculture, supported by a majority of countries of the world and several UN agencies. Part of my work on my MSc's thesis involved working as an intern at one of them (the IITA).

ICARDA (International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas)
[url="http://www.icarda.org/Publications/Caravan/caravan16/focus/goats.htm"]Goats, or Scapegoats for Desertification[/url] (in Peru). Gives a specific case were goats are being used as scapegoats for desertification. Important reflection on the link to social status of the goatkeepers.

From [url="http://www.icarda.cgiar.org/publications/caravan/caravan22/focus%5F3.htm"]this article[/url]:
The WANA [Western Asia & Northern Africa] region is endowed with a rich genetic diversity of small ruminants. This consists of various breeds of sheep and goats which are adapted to a range of arid and semi-arid environmental conditions. Other than camels, sheep and goats are the only domestic species whose produce currently makes an important economic contribution under the marginal conditions of the dry areas of WANA and, as a result, offers farmers opportunities to enhance their diet and generate income. This region is subject to water scarcity and fluctuations in rainfall, which often lead to severe, recurring droughts. Under these marginal conditions, sheep and goats are the most important domestic species and are an integral component of the area's agricultural production systems. Because of this, small ruminant production has been part of ICARDA's research agenda for more than 20 years.

Concerning animal fodder in dry areas: [url="http://www.icarda.cgiar.org/mmproject/st%5Ffeedblock.htm"]Feed blocks[/url]

ICARDA's [url="http://www.icarda.cgiar.org/mmproject/foreword.htm"]foreword[/url] to one of its projects does not deny the fact that there is overgrazing but it's all in the details: location, who causes the overstocking, what system is used etc. One needs to find creative solutions that help the rural poor while maintaining a sustainable level of exploitation, and preferable give them a stake in maintaining a environmental balance.

Some interesting links from ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute)
[url="http://www.ilri.cgiar.org/data/Newshilight/FromPoorToWell-Off.asp"]Livestock & poverty[/url]
[url="http://www.ilri.cgiar.org/research/Index.asp?SID=6"]People, livestock and the environment[/url]
[url="http://ilrinet.ilri.cgiar.org/inrm/InvestingFeb2006.pdf"]Study on integrated water-crop-livestock production[/url]

And to show that They either feed on foodstuffs that could have been eaten by humans, or they graze (and usually over-graze)on what is left of the natural vegetation. is a misleading statement the following quotes

From ICRISAT (International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics)
[url="http://www.icrisat.org/gt-aes/ResearchBreifs12.htm"]Crop livestock interactive systems[/url]
Of all the farming systems in the WCA [West & Central Africa] region, crop-livestock integrated systems are believed to have the highest potential for increasing productivity in a sustainable manner. Crop and livestock enterprises are closely related, and with increasing agricultural intensification, higher productivity from these systems, without jeopardizing the natural base, is essential. As no crop or livestock species is treated in isolation from other components of the system, it was recognized that component research on crops, livestock and soils have to be integrated so as to understand and address the needs of farmers within the “whole farming system”.

From IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture)
[url="http://www.iita.org/crop/farmsys.htm"]Crop-livestock systems[/url]
Successful crop-livestock systems provide fodder for animals as a byproduct of the harvest or from the cover crop, while the animals provide much needed organic inputs for the soil, in the form of manure. IITA collaborates with the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) on research to improve these systems in sub-Saharan Africa. An example of this collaborative work is the development of "dual-purpose" cowpea varieties, that provide nutritious grain for humans as well as good quality fodder, while at the same time improving the soil and suppressing weeds. Another recent finding is improved strip cropping of cereals and cowpea, where 2 rows cereal : 4 rows cowpea gave up to 300% better returns than the traditional 1 row : 1 row system. This was found ideal for crop-livestock integration, and feeding of residues from the improved system resulted in higher weight gain in sheep.

And lastly on desertification:
[url="http://www.cgiar.org/desertification/index.html"]CGIAR[/url]
[url="http://www.ciesin.org/docs/002-193/002-193.html"]A study on desertification[/url] I stumbled on.
[url="http://www.unccd.int/"]UNCCD[/url] (United Nations - Convention to Combat Desertification)
I didn't go in depth in these sites but it is clear that desertification is caused by a complex range of factors and that "goats" is not mentioned as such.