SAY NO to factory farmed cows...

Done and shared on facebook

Sorry. I don't agree with you on this one and won't be signing.

Interesting Ann - my reasoning is as much as not more on the quality of the food - Have done a lot of reading around nutrition this year and the diet of the cows would be inferior to the diet they would have otherwise. We are eating recycled corn through poultry & pigs (in US some of this is now GM corn) plus the use of antibiotics would be higher. I really believe that our health is directly related to what we eat and that the more natural food the better. Your opinion as a person and a scientist I really respect so would love to hear your thoughts :)

Yes, happily GM maize (corn) has been enormously successful in the US and around the world, boosting yields and reducing chemical inputs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/26/gmcrops.agriculture

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7426054.stm

Oh Viv. Please don't fall in with the nature=goodness nonsense brigade. All our crops (and farm animals btw) are the result of hundreds if not thousands of years of selective breeding, resulting in massive changes to the genetic architecture of the plants. GM technology offers a way to continue this process by the most efficient and safe method yet devised.

As far as this mega-dairy thing goes, I'm out of my territory (although the points made on the 23degrees site indicate a pitiful lack of knowledge about basic dairy farming on the part of the authors). Ann grew up on a multiple award-winning dairy farm, now no longer in business (not as the result of 'US-style' agriculture) and I'll try to get her to post some thoughts and experiences.

I don't agree with this petition for multiple reasons. So in no particular order:

1. The assumption that anything 'US-style' has to be bad, for the animals and for consumers is plain wrong. Some things about some US farms are not great, just as there are some small British farms that are not great. There is good practice and bad practice at both levels and there is no need to assume that only the bad will come through here, especially as there is so much attention and scrutiny for what I understand would be a UK first.

2. The assumption that welfare will suffer because it is proposed to be a large unit, is significantly flawed. If cows have poor welfare they will not produce milk so well. It is in the best interests of the company to ensure the welfare standards are as high as possible. The people behind this are probably not idiots, in fact I believe they are UK dairy farmers looking to do things in a different way. They will know well the welfare requirements for UK farm animals and they will know that they will be enforced. The facility designs are specifically for purpose, unlike the evolution process many small farms have gone through where the best is made of what you have to hand to do the job. Given the option of building from scratch I'm sure there are many things current, small dairy farmers would change about the way their farms are constructed and run (those that are left that is, their numbers have been dwindling for years now without any interference from Mega-dairies like the one proposed - you can thank supermarkets and the great British public for that). Farms have been doing more with less for so long now, the efficiencies of a purpose built structure will mean there is more time to focus on the animals themselves. While cows do love being out in the fields when it's nice, sunny and not too hot, when it's wet (which it often is) they can be pretty miserable. A less anthropomorphic version of that statement would be that, given that cows need to chew cud for a large part of their time, and tend to lie down to do this, when it's wet they get very muddy, and wet muddy cows are most susceptible to infections like mastitis (which I'm told is pretty painful for women, and so it's fair to assume not much fun for the cows either). There is also the danger of slipping over, which is really quite dangerous for cows (people who find the thought of 'cow-tipping' amusing should really take a long hard look at themselves). Anyway, I think I was getting at the point that being indoors most of the time (depending on the nature of the indoors) is not necessarily a bad thing.

3. The quality of the food. While I haven't read a great deal about nutrition recently I am aware there is a whole world of nonsense out there. The fact that anyone can call themselves a nutritionist does not mean they understand the science behind what they are talking about and so, innocently or otherwise, they can be misleading. They are also often selling something, Gillian McKeith is a good case in point. Without knowing what exactly you've been reading I'm not able to address specific points. I know you're not daft though and I know it doesn't help that the peer reviewed research papers are so often behind pretty steep paywalls, that and fact that the language of science reporting is not the easiest to read (the pressure to say as much as possible, as precisely as possible in the fewest possible words often doesn't make for the snappiest, most jargon-free report). However the 'research' most people get to read is often reported in a heavily slanted way and it's not always easy to tell what is what.

What I do know though is when an animal eats corn (maize) or wheat, or barley, or peas, or whatever has gone into their food, it is chewed and swallowed and digested (regurgitated, chewed again, digested again somewhere else, etc...) and broken down into it's most basic units - sugars, amino acids, fats, minerals, water, and the like - which are the bits that get absorbed through the intestine into the animal. That's the important thing about digestion really, although our digestive tracts are contained within us, when we eat something it isn't really inside us until we have absorbed or actively transported it across some part of our vast internal membrane system, but I digress. So what I can't fathom is how your intestine knows the difference between an amino acid (say glycine for example) from a blade of grass and a glycine molecule derived from corn? They are the same. I know the makeup of sugars and proteins in grass and corn are different, but when it's all mashed up with digestive enzymes the nuts and bolts are the same. The dietary requirements of cows have been well studied and are well known. Feed a cow x and it will produce y. The nutritional content of milk is testable and was certainly tested regularly when my Dad was still milking. You got a better price at one time if you had a higher butterfat content for example (better price in the context of milk prices as a whole is still a pittance but there you go). Presumably the proposed will diet will supply the cows needs and be optimised for optimal milk production, otherwise what would be the point? So I don't understand how exactly the nutritional content of milk will be 'degraded' by a largely non-grass diet. If it's taste you are concerned about, well, yes milk taste can be affected by a cow's diet. It always used to be particularly noticeable for me in autumn when Dad's cows came in from the fields and started eating silage. The taste was quite distinctive and probably not something most people would appreciate if they were to find it on their cereal of a morning without knowing what it was. Once the milk has been collected from an individual farm however, mixed with that from other farms, filtered, homogenized, pasteurized (not necessarily in that order) and so on, the flavour will be balanced out pretty much. So while it might be preferable for a small cheese-producer, say, to use milk from one or two small dairies where a specific taste is called for, for the majority of milk destined for cups of tea, coffee, sauces, cooking, food factories etc. a mild tasting milk is probably for the best.

Incidentally, why exactly should GM-corn be a problem? I have yet to see any evidence that GM-corn is harmful to humans or to farm animals (ecological impacts of course are more dependent on how it is deployed and in weighing the possible risks to some insect and perhaps bird species with the benefits of reduced pesticide use, I could go on, but won't for now). I really wish the British attitude to GM were more based on facts and not media scaremongering and propaganda. Used properly the benefits could be huge, and not just for us. Frankly it's immoral that African nations are not permitted to use and experiment with GM technologies that could really, seriously improve their lot because of the fact that well-fed Europeans won't buy their cash crops anymore because there might be a 'risk' of 'contamination'. Oh dear, I am still ranting.

Where was I? Oh yes, back to nutrition.

I'm not sure I understand in what way the cows' proposed diet would be 'inferior'. Yes, cows, traditionally eat grass, and hay in the winter, now frequently silage, also I've seen cows that eat a large quantity of carrots as well as meal, cattle cake - they love mollasses, etc. Before my Dad packed it in, he was growing special mixes of grasses in his fields which contained high protein plants called lucerne (or something like that, not a grass anyway) in order to make better quality feed. At least now those fields are returning to mixes of more natural meadow grasses. What do we want from our environment people? Come on, we really do have to prioritise!

I'm not saying the diet of cows is not important - of course it is. But if a cow is not getting it's full dietary requirements met, it's not going to produce milk properly.


4. Antibiotics, specifically. Farmers will always keep antibiotic use in dairy cows to a minimum because if a cow is being treated with antibiotics her milk cannot enter the food chain. She is still milked, but separately from the rest so the milk will go to waste. Antibiotics, and anything to do with vets, are expensive so farmers put a lot of emphasis on prevention rather than the need for cure, and prevention is going to be far easier in a purpose built facility. See earlier point about indoor systems being potentially better for prevention of mastitis and also for better prevention of spread of infection within the herd.

5. Climate change
The 38 Degrees petition makes some vague statement that this will be worse for climate change. I don't see how exactly having 8000 cows in a single facility is worse than having the same 8000 cows spread out across, say, 80 small farms. Unless they are not comparing like with like. The proposed Nocton facility has plans for an anaerobic digester/biogas production thing which will reclaim some of this carbon for energy use - that won't happen on your 80 small farms with it scattered all over the fields.

6. Threat to smaller farms? I don't have all the answers on this one. The life of a small dairy farmer is incredibly hard and often for very little reward. That my own father, for as long as I can remember, has said to me "Whatever you do, don't become a farmer." should tell you something of that, and I'm sure you know plenty of farmers with similar stories. Some of whom will be against a mega-dairy, some will be for it. In the end it comes down to what the public wants. They say they want milk from happy cows, grazing in open fields in the sunshine (perhaps singing like the Anchor butter cows used to do), but they also emphatically don't want to pay for it. As an individual you can make your own choices. Traceability is a big thing and maybe that will be the way forward for small dairies and their supporters (me included, when in the US I made sure I supported the local Rhode Island dairies whenever possible).

I will get my Dad's opinion for you if you want it next time I speak with him. He's in the South Kesteven area, so I know he's aware of the proposals. You'll have had more than enough of me by now, but wait, there's more! :)

7. Nimbyism.
Anything supported by the CPRE usually gets my attention as probably being something to do with nimbyism. You know, everyone wants to use electricity but no-one wants a powerline in their line of sight. Everyone wants to travel but no-one wants a railway or a new road built near them. Also, everyone wants to live somewhere but no-one wants a new housing estate in their back yard. Well, this is right up their street and it's a not a street I want to be associated with.

I should say I am neither for nor against the Nocton Dairy proposal, but I don't think the objection of the 38 degrees petition is based on a rational discussion of the facts. This is a real shame as I have signed other petitions they have run and thought they knew what they were talking about. If you want something to sign that is worth fighting for they have an ongoing petition to stop the government selling off the national forests. Surely that has to be wrong. save-our-forests petition

If anyone is still reading this, I'll be amazed. I could go on, but I think I'll stop for now. Thank you for your time.

OMG, I love that woman.

Ok I read it all :)

I will learn not to make assumptions and read more before I jump on a band wagon. I definitely had some misinformation on this and should have checked the Nocton Farms info which does make lots of your points.

As to GM I promise to read the information on this site and beyond
http://www.geneticallymodifiedfoods.co.uk/

I think a major problem is change is so rapid and it is hard to evaluate information and in the end we have to decide who's opinions we trust.

In my nutrition learning I try to look at both sides of any argument, but I am looking from the viewpoint of a diabetic trying to optimise my health and minimise my intake of insulin. I have also had reason to look at it from a cancer sufferer's point of view and there are a lot of basic threads

this sums it up
http://moblog.net/view/926298/some-recent-food

Thanks both of you and yes she is a very special lady Crickson, in fact you are a pretty special couple :)

Read both the articles Crickson

I think that the mistrust of firms like Monsanto is a massive factor.

It is parallelled in the mistrust of 'Big Pharma' to use the americanism. We know that big business and politicians lie to us at times and get things very wrong.(Avandia to cite a recent case) So when to trust and who to believe etc is hard to know.

It's an unfortunate consequence of the rabid opposition to GM crops that only very large corporations can afford to put crops through the testing required to secure approval. But I think you are right to try to distinguish between criticism of the technology and criticism of the businesses deploying it. It's very sad to see not-for-profit and university research get tarred with the same brush, the Golden Rice fiasco being a good example:

http://goldenrice.org/

ah this I need to concentrate for :)
Will return later

It is very hard to know what to think a lot of the time. I find the science stuff easier to get a handle on, but really struggle with financial and political and legal things. I know I subscribe too often to the Bill Bailey "Relaxed Empiricism" way of thinking - where if someone I know and respect holds a view I will automatically give that view more weight than perhaps I should without checking it first. How would we get through the day otherwise? :)

Very best of luck navigating the nutritional information minefield. Just having a look at your other place now and it looks like your doing really well. Are you getting any support from your local doctors or dietitians? I don't know how well the system actually works for getting people the right information when they need it. There's a lot to be said for a well balanced diet and moderation in all things, as you know and I'll bet it's far easier said than done too.

You're pretty special yourself :)

My G.. Since a few days I know much more about GM and that monster like Monsanto, I'm with all one's heart with Viv. This is really tragic situation how unconscious people are :( Have no intention nobody to convince that I'm right. Simply I know what I saw and heard ..

Well I'd like to know what you saw and heard...

Me too. Monsanto isn't the only GM in the world. There's a lot of potential for good out there that frankly is not being given a chance.

I have been saying for years that our approach to GM in this country is wrong. I actually think that GM could enable more localized production of food, and therefore smaller farming units, but this kind of model would mean we would have to do without a lot of foods we like. Not to say the hardship that would be a consequence for many smaller nations that rely on food exports.

People love quick and easy answers and instant authority to make decisions, threads like this help people understand that many of the big problems we face in the world, are big because there are no easy answers.

Oh and many people who claim they have a simple answer are actually just after your money.


Thats my 2ps worth.

:) I certainly agree on no simple answers and beware the people who are just after your money
people with good intentions are not necessarily right
it really is very difficult to reach any conclusions you can trust

I would like to see a free market of well-labelled foods that would allow anyone to make buying decisions that reflect their opinions. In the US I can choose to buy GM food. In Europe I can't. I have always strongly resented this restriction to my freedom and the societal attitudes in Europe that have brought it about.

Dear friends, this is not polemic with your opinions!
Science beside art is the most important in my life.
.. My partner is too scientist. So whole life I heard don't eat this don't buy that .. Now I know why and I'm not happy that I know so much.
So this knowledge at "first hand". Only want to say, if you care of your life and health please be careful and try to find more in network . Everybody has own way to knowledge. Nothing in force. And hope that my beloved science still will be help us supporting by wise and competent people and not dangerous and ruthless ignorants.
Ah dreams ..

Being logical and simple because I don't have the science

I can see that genetically modifying food is one step on from grafting etc

and that making new strains/hybrids through genetic engineering - that are resistant to disease/drought etc has to be better than spraying or losing harvests

and certainly I can see that in poor countries this would be extremely beneficial

but I can also see that it threatens variety/ecology

and I can certainly see that the 'intellectual property' aspect is a concern (and my suspicious mind says that the political lobbying in America is why they accepted GM crops - which doesn't affect whether they were right or wrong just means people don't believe what they are told)

I think the fear of what can be done with animals and genetic engineering, by companies we don't trust, for their financial gain is very worrying

wheras the medical advances that might be gained ...

Certainly I agree on clear food labelling and choice

Unfortunately money, greed and politics muddy the science.

Oh and SB I will come back to doctors and the nutritional minefield another time but as you said above Crickson
'It's very sad to see not-for-profit and university research get tarred with the same brush' - this is the same in the nutritional field only there the evidence is in favour of the natural remedies that governments now wish to deny people the freedom to purchase in the quantities they wish.

I think the masses of knowledge from 'not-for-profit and university research' needs to find a 'political voice' and that things move so quickly - what is for certain is that the practice of pharmacutical companies being trusted to test their own products is insane!

This article in The Guardian updates the Kesteven Diary issue:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/13/super-dairy-cows-lincolnshire-objections

Quite a balanced article I thought. Hopefully some of the people who instinctively opposed the farm will read it and change their minds. In the UK I think people are always negative about new ideas and new ways of doing things. To the average Brit 'change' always equals 'getting worse'. It's something I can't stand about the place and a big reason why I am keen to avoid moving back.

Viv: Not sure what you mean by "this is the same in the nutritional field only there the evidence is in favour of the natural remedies that governments now wish to deny people the freedom to purchase in the quantities they wish." Providing remedies stand up to scientific scrutiny, double-blind medical trials being the gold-standard, I can think of no reason why a government would deny access. If you have examples I'd be interested to hear about them.

OK hadn't forgotten this and really I meant alternative health/nutrition as they are inextricably linked.

Perhaps cancer is the area where this has been the most noticable. If you look online there are endless numbers of books and endless sites on cancer cures and prevention. Many of these written by people with medical and scientific backgrounds who started to look into the subject because someone close had cancer.
When I read 'The Rainbow Diet'
http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=2027
he said that once he had set up his website people from all over the world started sending him the results of their studies - clinics, universities etc
(NB his site is non profit making and the proceeds from his book go to help fund the site and projects to do with it)

It appears that some information has been around a long time but very little has been truly evaluated by governments because the treatments are not profitable and therefore there is no sponsorship. Natural cures are of no interest to the pharmaceutical industry. This applies to major problems like cancer and to he effectiveness of herbal remedies for diabetics - the products cannot be patented and therefore big money is not interested.

Specific case in the cancer field I found on a site today
http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=2027
The summary they give on the history of this protocol is very straightforward and factual and I have seen lots of these sort of instances quoted on alternative healing sites.

Then there's the new EU laws to control of alternative medicine
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/sep/14/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth
http://www.thenaturalrecoveryplan.com/articles/Supplement-Regulations.html
https://mail.google.com/mail/h/1wrwj6qyrttkp/?v=c&s;=q&q;=EU&th;=12b9c2cf947fd738

Ok enough :)