webglider
Dagobah Resident
The January 27, 2008 issue in The New York Times has the following two articles that have references to cloning: I found them notable because each presents in microcosm a situation that has global significance.
A Dying Breed, by Andrew Rice:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27cow-t.html?ex=1359003600&en=1e4183e2465539a0&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
and,
Rethinking the Meat Guzzler, by Mark Bittman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?ex=1359090000&en=a9d80925d175d1b2&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
The article, "A Dying Breed", details the replacement of the traditional Ugandan cow, the
longhorn Ankole by the Holstein, a breed which is commonly raised in the United States.
Unfortunately, the effort is motivated by profit and may have dire long term consequences.
"The world's food supply is increasingly dependent on a small and
narrowing list of highly engineered breeds: the Holstein, the Large
White pig and the Rhode Island Red and Leghorn chickens. There's
a risk that future diseases could ravage these homogeneous animal
populations".
Why replace the indigenous breed, the Ankole, which has adapted to survive in Uganda with one that hasn't? The Holsteins eat more grass, are more sickly, and are less tolerent of heat. The answer is that they produce much more milk than the Ankole. For this reason, many Ugandans are switching their herds from Ankoles to Holsteins.
Where exactly do these Holsteins that are replacing the Ankoles come from?
"The world market in cattle breeding is controlled by a handful of
companies, several of them based in the United States. The companies
maintain facilities where they extract semen from bulls, keep gentic
databases, publish rankings and cultivate a sort of bovine star system.
Two legendary Holsteins, Chief, born in California in 1962, and Elevation,
born in Virginia in 1965, fathered tens of thousands of offspring in
their lifetimes- and beyond, since their sperm was cryogeneically frozen
for future use."
This sperm is used to crossbreed Ankoles with Holsteins, thus weakening the genetic adaptations that have allowed the Ankoles to survive in Uganda. Another problem is that the sperm used to impregnate the Ankoles come from only two sires:
"...research suggests that every Holstein is descended from Chief
and Elevation, and that 30 percent of all the Holstein genes in the world
are traceable to those two bulls. That has created a serious problem with
inbreeding, which has adverse effects on fertilitly and mortality. But over-
seas markets like Africa are, so to speak, virgin territory. According to
industry figures, American companies exported 10 million "doses" of cattle
semen in 2006. In Uganda, a company called World-Wide Sires, the
international marketing arm of two American breeding cooperatives, is
working to increase dairy production."
I was struck by the words, "But overseas markets like Africa are, so to speak, virgin territory", which means that it is a market that has not yet been exploited so that the corporations can rush in whether the product or service being offered is a right fit for the country or not. Such seems to be the case with developing a dairy industry in Uganda. Ironically, with all this increase in milk production, selling it may be problematic. Lack of refrigeration, lack of delivery systems, and lack of the ability to digest lactose may cause supply to outpace demand.
But wait! It seems that in the past there had been a dairy industry in Uganda. What happened to it?
"There used to be a more sophisticated network of government-affiliated
dairy cooperatives, but most of these were dismantled in the 1990's, during
a World Bank push for market liberalization. The private sector was supposed
to fill the gap, but never did."
It seems to be filling it now, and decimating the indigenous cattle along with it. But there is a larger issue here: As giant companies manipulate the food supply, they are creating the possibility for widespread famine, as indigenous food sources are weakened and/or destroyed. Taking this situation beyond the scope of Uganda, the following solutions have been suggested:
"There are two possible approaches: putting the animals in cold storage,
or changing the economic equation. Proponents of the first option desire
something like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, a doomsday depository for
plant species that an international consortium is building in the Arctic Circle.
But storing sperm and embyos is far more expensive and technically difficult."
"The best hope for these Ankoles may reside at a modest, terraced complex
on a breezy hilside in Uganda overloking Lake Victoria in the old colonial town
of Entebbe. It was constructed by the British in 1960, at the height of the Green
Revolution, as an artificial-insemination center and a staging ground for
introducing new breeds - animals that mostly died off during the subsequent
wars and dictatorships. Now called The National Animal Genetic Resources
and Databank, the facility's new mission is to save indigenous animals like the
Ankoles. . . If it's successful, the program could offer a model to other
developing nations. If, on the other hand, the Ankole cattle can't be saved
even with such government support, it's difficult to imagine how any
threatened breed will survive."
Hmmmm. So first a problem is created. Then there a solution is proposed: "The National Animal Genetic Resources and Databank whose mission is to save indigenous animals "by resurrecting those that have already been destroyed." At the same time the push to degrade the genetic pool of the Ankoles goes on. Also notice that these solutions are ones that come from outside Uganda, so that the population becomes ever more dependent on outside forces.
Here is another nugget to mull over:
Earlier this year the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization released its
first-ever global assessment of biodiversity in livestock. While data on
breeds are scant, the report found that over the last six years, an average
of one breed a month has gone extinct."
"The report found that over the last SIX YEARS, an average of one breed a month has gone extinct." These extinct breeds are the very ones most adapted to the environments of their native habitats, and are food sources for the people living there.
This reminds me of another report by another UN agency: On December 10, 1974 The UN's National Security Council's NSSM 200 "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests" was introduced as"Classified", and "Confidential".
The document states that "...if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970s and 1980s....(Financial) assistance will be given to other countries, considering such factors as population growth....Food and agricultural assistance is vital for any population sensitive development strategy....Allocation of scarce resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control....There is an alternative view that mandatory programs may be needed...."
What is "Food and agricultural assistance"? Why link "Allocation of scarce resources" to the "steps a country is taking in population countrol?
And here is a sentence to ponder: "There is an alternative view that mandatory programs may be needed..."
What kind of "mandatory programs"? Ones that destroy whole agricultural systems and indigenous animals? If so, it naturally follows that its goal can be nothing less than to control the populations that live from the agricultural systems and animals.
A quote from, "Rethinking the Meat Guzzler," whose theme is how to cut down on the waste produced by raising livestock, states that
The aim " is not so much about building up the beef industry as trimming it down: "The days of eating 200 pounds of meat a year may be on the way out." the article proclaims. It continues with a number of interesting facts such as "A 1,100 pound beef cow produces 14.6 tons of manure annually, hogs 16.7 tons, in fact U.S. livestock as a whole produces three pounds of manure for each American every year!
In addition to filling the country with poop, the factory farmed meat industry also uses up natural resources:
"These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy,
pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases, and require
ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that
has led to the destruction of the world's tropical rain forests."
It gets even worse:
". . .according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth
of the world's greenhouse gases - more than transportation."
Who runs these factory farms? Corporations. Of course these profit motive driven corporations care only about cutting costs and not at all about protecting the environment.
Now, I'd like to go back to the Holsteins in Uganda who are overgrazing the land because they need so much energy to produce milk that is difficult to transport, digest, and market and compare it to the the article about meat consumption in the United States which focuses on its negative effects: greenhouse gases, grains, and the destruction of rain forests.
Only at the end of the article is there any mention of the fact that Ankoles produce excellent meat. "Some studies suggest that Ankole beef is unusually lean and low in chloresterol." They also consume less grass, less water, resist heat and are altogether hardier.
If people insist on eating meat, wouldn't it make more sense to raise animals that ate less grass, drank less water, needed less care didn't create such a burden on the environment?
Okay, that is never going to happen as long as "...farmers are making decisions that are informed not by science..., but by sales pitches devised by multinational concerns." ("A
Dying Breed, by Andrew Rice).
So what can we look forward to? I predict that the Holsteins will eventually destroy the land and economy in Uganda, that people will be forced to turn increasingly to corporations for sources of food, and that corporations will find new markets in the United States by eliminating the huge factory foodlots, (I'm all for that),and replacing them with -fewer animals grazing on pastures of grass? This sounds good, but will it ever happen? I doubt it: grass is what cattle, have evolved to eat - no money in that. So here's the question: How can corporations consolidate the food supply even more, make money, and continue to reduce the world's population?
Here's the solution that industry has come up with:
"...it no longer seems lunacy to believe in the possibility of "meat without feet" -
meat produced in vitro, by growing animal cells in a super-rich nutrient environment
before further manipulated into burgers and steaks." (Rethinking the Meat Guzzler,
by Mark Bittman.)
With this technology there is no waste, no greenhouse gases, no independent herders, no cattle. Just "...animal cells in a super-rich environment before (they are) manipulated into
burgers and steaks." No money need be expended to feed, remove wastes, immunize, slaughter and process animals. No money need be expended to pay workers. Just factories growing animal cells and profit.
And one day, when all the suicide seeds are planted, all the traitor seeds fail to sprout, all the factories making "in vitro animal cells" close down, and all the genetic material is stored in the Arctic Circle, the National Security Council's 1974 resolution NSSM 200 "Implications Of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests" will finally have come to pass.
Thus with all food sources under corporate control, there is the possibility that the entire world population will be at the mercy of whomever controls - not the animals themselves which may have been severely decimated along with their environments - but the basic building blocks - the DNA - of both plants and animals.
A Dying Breed, by Andrew Rice:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27cow-t.html?ex=1359003600&en=1e4183e2465539a0&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
and,
Rethinking the Meat Guzzler, by Mark Bittman:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?ex=1359090000&en=a9d80925d175d1b2&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
The article, "A Dying Breed", details the replacement of the traditional Ugandan cow, the
longhorn Ankole by the Holstein, a breed which is commonly raised in the United States.
Unfortunately, the effort is motivated by profit and may have dire long term consequences.
"The world's food supply is increasingly dependent on a small and
narrowing list of highly engineered breeds: the Holstein, the Large
White pig and the Rhode Island Red and Leghorn chickens. There's
a risk that future diseases could ravage these homogeneous animal
populations".
Why replace the indigenous breed, the Ankole, which has adapted to survive in Uganda with one that hasn't? The Holsteins eat more grass, are more sickly, and are less tolerent of heat. The answer is that they produce much more milk than the Ankole. For this reason, many Ugandans are switching their herds from Ankoles to Holsteins.
Where exactly do these Holsteins that are replacing the Ankoles come from?
"The world market in cattle breeding is controlled by a handful of
companies, several of them based in the United States. The companies
maintain facilities where they extract semen from bulls, keep gentic
databases, publish rankings and cultivate a sort of bovine star system.
Two legendary Holsteins, Chief, born in California in 1962, and Elevation,
born in Virginia in 1965, fathered tens of thousands of offspring in
their lifetimes- and beyond, since their sperm was cryogeneically frozen
for future use."
This sperm is used to crossbreed Ankoles with Holsteins, thus weakening the genetic adaptations that have allowed the Ankoles to survive in Uganda. Another problem is that the sperm used to impregnate the Ankoles come from only two sires:
"...research suggests that every Holstein is descended from Chief
and Elevation, and that 30 percent of all the Holstein genes in the world
are traceable to those two bulls. That has created a serious problem with
inbreeding, which has adverse effects on fertilitly and mortality. But over-
seas markets like Africa are, so to speak, virgin territory. According to
industry figures, American companies exported 10 million "doses" of cattle
semen in 2006. In Uganda, a company called World-Wide Sires, the
international marketing arm of two American breeding cooperatives, is
working to increase dairy production."
I was struck by the words, "But overseas markets like Africa are, so to speak, virgin territory", which means that it is a market that has not yet been exploited so that the corporations can rush in whether the product or service being offered is a right fit for the country or not. Such seems to be the case with developing a dairy industry in Uganda. Ironically, with all this increase in milk production, selling it may be problematic. Lack of refrigeration, lack of delivery systems, and lack of the ability to digest lactose may cause supply to outpace demand.
But wait! It seems that in the past there had been a dairy industry in Uganda. What happened to it?
"There used to be a more sophisticated network of government-affiliated
dairy cooperatives, but most of these were dismantled in the 1990's, during
a World Bank push for market liberalization. The private sector was supposed
to fill the gap, but never did."
It seems to be filling it now, and decimating the indigenous cattle along with it. But there is a larger issue here: As giant companies manipulate the food supply, they are creating the possibility for widespread famine, as indigenous food sources are weakened and/or destroyed. Taking this situation beyond the scope of Uganda, the following solutions have been suggested:
"There are two possible approaches: putting the animals in cold storage,
or changing the economic equation. Proponents of the first option desire
something like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, a doomsday depository for
plant species that an international consortium is building in the Arctic Circle.
But storing sperm and embyos is far more expensive and technically difficult."
"The best hope for these Ankoles may reside at a modest, terraced complex
on a breezy hilside in Uganda overloking Lake Victoria in the old colonial town
of Entebbe. It was constructed by the British in 1960, at the height of the Green
Revolution, as an artificial-insemination center and a staging ground for
introducing new breeds - animals that mostly died off during the subsequent
wars and dictatorships. Now called The National Animal Genetic Resources
and Databank, the facility's new mission is to save indigenous animals like the
Ankoles. . . If it's successful, the program could offer a model to other
developing nations. If, on the other hand, the Ankole cattle can't be saved
even with such government support, it's difficult to imagine how any
threatened breed will survive."
Hmmmm. So first a problem is created. Then there a solution is proposed: "The National Animal Genetic Resources and Databank whose mission is to save indigenous animals "by resurrecting those that have already been destroyed." At the same time the push to degrade the genetic pool of the Ankoles goes on. Also notice that these solutions are ones that come from outside Uganda, so that the population becomes ever more dependent on outside forces.
Here is another nugget to mull over:
Earlier this year the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization released its
first-ever global assessment of biodiversity in livestock. While data on
breeds are scant, the report found that over the last six years, an average
of one breed a month has gone extinct."
"The report found that over the last SIX YEARS, an average of one breed a month has gone extinct." These extinct breeds are the very ones most adapted to the environments of their native habitats, and are food sources for the people living there.
This reminds me of another report by another UN agency: On December 10, 1974 The UN's National Security Council's NSSM 200 "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests" was introduced as"Classified", and "Confidential".
The document states that "...if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970s and 1980s....(Financial) assistance will be given to other countries, considering such factors as population growth....Food and agricultural assistance is vital for any population sensitive development strategy....Allocation of scarce resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control....There is an alternative view that mandatory programs may be needed...."
What is "Food and agricultural assistance"? Why link "Allocation of scarce resources" to the "steps a country is taking in population countrol?
And here is a sentence to ponder: "There is an alternative view that mandatory programs may be needed..."
What kind of "mandatory programs"? Ones that destroy whole agricultural systems and indigenous animals? If so, it naturally follows that its goal can be nothing less than to control the populations that live from the agricultural systems and animals.
A quote from, "Rethinking the Meat Guzzler," whose theme is how to cut down on the waste produced by raising livestock, states that
The aim " is not so much about building up the beef industry as trimming it down: "The days of eating 200 pounds of meat a year may be on the way out." the article proclaims. It continues with a number of interesting facts such as "A 1,100 pound beef cow produces 14.6 tons of manure annually, hogs 16.7 tons, in fact U.S. livestock as a whole produces three pounds of manure for each American every year!
In addition to filling the country with poop, the factory farmed meat industry also uses up natural resources:
"These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy,
pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases, and require
ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that
has led to the destruction of the world's tropical rain forests."
It gets even worse:
". . .according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth
of the world's greenhouse gases - more than transportation."
Who runs these factory farms? Corporations. Of course these profit motive driven corporations care only about cutting costs and not at all about protecting the environment.
Now, I'd like to go back to the Holsteins in Uganda who are overgrazing the land because they need so much energy to produce milk that is difficult to transport, digest, and market and compare it to the the article about meat consumption in the United States which focuses on its negative effects: greenhouse gases, grains, and the destruction of rain forests.
Only at the end of the article is there any mention of the fact that Ankoles produce excellent meat. "Some studies suggest that Ankole beef is unusually lean and low in chloresterol." They also consume less grass, less water, resist heat and are altogether hardier.
If people insist on eating meat, wouldn't it make more sense to raise animals that ate less grass, drank less water, needed less care didn't create such a burden on the environment?
Okay, that is never going to happen as long as "...farmers are making decisions that are informed not by science..., but by sales pitches devised by multinational concerns." ("A
Dying Breed, by Andrew Rice).
So what can we look forward to? I predict that the Holsteins will eventually destroy the land and economy in Uganda, that people will be forced to turn increasingly to corporations for sources of food, and that corporations will find new markets in the United States by eliminating the huge factory foodlots, (I'm all for that),and replacing them with -fewer animals grazing on pastures of grass? This sounds good, but will it ever happen? I doubt it: grass is what cattle, have evolved to eat - no money in that. So here's the question: How can corporations consolidate the food supply even more, make money, and continue to reduce the world's population?
Here's the solution that industry has come up with:
"...it no longer seems lunacy to believe in the possibility of "meat without feet" -
meat produced in vitro, by growing animal cells in a super-rich nutrient environment
before further manipulated into burgers and steaks." (Rethinking the Meat Guzzler,
by Mark Bittman.)
With this technology there is no waste, no greenhouse gases, no independent herders, no cattle. Just "...animal cells in a super-rich environment before (they are) manipulated into
burgers and steaks." No money need be expended to feed, remove wastes, immunize, slaughter and process animals. No money need be expended to pay workers. Just factories growing animal cells and profit.
And one day, when all the suicide seeds are planted, all the traitor seeds fail to sprout, all the factories making "in vitro animal cells" close down, and all the genetic material is stored in the Arctic Circle, the National Security Council's 1974 resolution NSSM 200 "Implications Of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests" will finally have come to pass.
Thus with all food sources under corporate control, there is the possibility that the entire world population will be at the mercy of whomever controls - not the animals themselves which may have been severely decimated along with their environments - but the basic building blocks - the DNA - of both plants and animals.
