Re: RSPB or BTO?
Ian
<karinnospa...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Where is my hard earned cash likely to do most good?
Better of having a bet on when aliens will land than wasting your
money on fat cat charities who preside over the largest species and
habitat decline the world has known. The top brass get fatter but the
wildlife gets thinner.
>Opinions and or reasons would be greatly appreciated.
See http://tinyurl.com/dlr4n for the truth about throwing your money
down the drain with CONservation hooligan charites.
The fattest cat in the RSPB needs in excess of ?100'000 in wages
before your donations goes anywhere else, then there is the 7million
pound junk mail advertising......ask yourself just how much has the
RSPB, BTO etc spent from their funds on wildlife and the figure is
pitiful but they wont want to discuss that.
Ian
DOMINATRIXES GIVE OFFICIALS A WHIPPING
Animal Aid dominatrixes are targeting a second big race meet as part
of our ongoing anti-whipping campaign. Two PVC-clad activists are
inviting race officials at the Vodafone Derby Festival to offer up
their own rumps to see how they like it.
Animal Aid has published a landmark report, called A Hiding to
Nothing,
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/racing/hiding.htm
which employs a wealth of statistics to demonstrate that, not only is
whipping cruel, but also that horses who are whipped perform less
well.
The Jockey Club's response has been to acknowledge that 'more races
are lost rather than won through use of the whip'. Click here to find
out more about our horse racing campaign.
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/racing/index.htm
HEARTBEAT VIDEO
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/racing/video.htm
Watch our 90 second made-for-the-web movie on horse racing.
GO CRUELTY-FREE!
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/shop/specials.htm
Boxes of truffles from just ?1 while stocks last in the online shop.
For more news from Animal Aid - including our new vivisection booklet
and the latest on the NIRAH project - see latest news.
www.animalaid.org.uk | site map | about us |
Animal Aid campaigns peacefully against all animal abuse, and
promotes a cruelty-free lifestyle. You can support our work by
joining, making a donation, or using our online shop. Contact Animal
Aid at The Old Chapel, Bradford Street, Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 1AW, UK,
tel +44 (0)1732 364546, fax +44 (0)1732 366533, email
in...@animalaid.org.uk
amacm...@aol.com
>Well I thought it was funny
Indeed so.
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
Miss Prudence Primm
"Ian" <cv...@000.com> wrote in message news:42a499d3$0$41892$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> DOMINATRIXES GIVE OFFICIALS A WHIPPING
> Boxes of truffles from just ?1 while stocks last in the online shop.
Aren't pigs used to find truffles? Sounds a bit cruel to me, I mean, there's this loyal pig, he finds something nice to eat and then some heartless bastard takes it off him and chucks him a bucket of swill instead.
> Animal Aid campaigns peacefully
apart from the dominatrixes that is.
Most of their reports consist of lies, half-truths, exaggerations, bias and any other old thing that makes them look good and those they oppose look bad - but of course everyone knows this.
I'm just off now for a bacon sandwich - it's a far better use of a pig than truffle hunting. I bet those dominatrixes like to get a bit of pork inside them too.
Ian
I doubt you have porked anyone for some time micheal?
Mark
RSPB were guilty of such atrocious behaviour.
==================================================
SCAPEGOATING THE ALIENS
A special report by Animal Aid director Andrew Tyler.
Animal Aid has long been concerned about the growing tendency among
what might be called 'top table conservationists' to scapegoat various
animal species for the environmental and commercial vices of human
beings.
A whole range of indigenous species are under threat as a result of
the burdens placed upon them by human population growth and by modern
manufacturing and waste disposal regimes. Yet certain 'experts' insist
on displacing the responsibility and pretending that ecological
harmony can be restored through the barrel of a gun or through the use
of body-crushing traps, snares and poisons.
WILDLIFE UNDER PRESSURE
The main sources of pressure upon native fauna and flora can be
summarised as follows:
Modern Farming Systems - involving loss of hedgerow, winter sowing,
prolific use of chemicals, the destruction of 'non-productive' plant
life, and the generation of vast quantities of methane, slurry and
silage. Birds, insects, fish and small mammals all suffer as a
consequence, either in terms of reduced numbers or increased
vulnerability to disease.
Industrial Pollution - Some chemical, pharmaceutical and other
large-scale producers are periodically fined nominal sums but they
continue with their discharges into the air, land and waterways. No
one's bothering to count how many animals have been killed outright,
or reduced in number through loss of viable habitat, but there are
sufficient pointers to indicate that this is happening on a
significant scale. There is also evidence of serious disruption to the
reproductive systems of several species, resulting in loss of
fertility and physical malformation in offspring.
Population Growth/Road Building/Developments on Green Field Sites and
Flood Plains - Animals of every description - plant life too - are
being displaced, or simply crushed under tarmac, bulldozers, cars and
lorries. The road carnage is all too visible to those of us who live
in the country and routinely see the bodies - whether maimed or
already lifeless - of foxes, hedgehogs, badgers, deer, squirrels,
rabbits and a variety of bird species.
The Pheasant Shooting Industry - In September 2000, Animal Aid
published a report, The Killing Fields, exposing the environmental
devastation caused by the pheasant shooting industry. The principal
author was a former head of investigations for the RSPB. Backed by
undercover film, the report details the staggering growth in recent
decades of what is now a major agribusiness. Each year this industry:
Breeds and releases around 35 million pheasants - half of whom soon
perish from disease, exposure, malnutrition or under the wheels of
motor vehicles. Of the roughly 16 million who are shot, it has been
estimated that just 8 million are actually eaten. Many of the shot
birds are wounded and never retrieved, or - according to reports in
pro-shooting magazines - are collected and then buried in specially
dug holes. This is because no market exists for them.
Dumps thousands of tonnes of toxic lead shot on the countryside.
Kills nearly five million wild birds and mammals with snares, poison
and traps in predator control programmes. Foxes, stoats and weasels
are among the species deliberately targeted by gamekeepers, simply
because the animals are attracted to such unnaturally large
concentrations of birds. But badgers, hedgehogs, sheep, cats and dogs
are among the victims of the non-discriminating traps and poison. Even
protected birds of prey, such as owls, kestrels, red kites, peregrine
falcons and hen harriers are eliminated. The latter now face
extinction in England as a result of these 'predator control'
programmes.
REMEDIES AND ALIBIS
The inconvenient remedy to the carnage outlined above is for human
society to curb its destructive impulses - to show restraints in terms
of 'development', consumption, 'sporting' activities and irresponsible
waste disposal. The convenient option - the one that has been embraced
- is to make nominal moves in these directions and shift the blame.
Hence the growing appetite for the blood of 'aliens'.
Before tackling some specifics relating to individual target species,
it is worth spelling out a fundamental truth.
RESHAPING THE ENVIRONMENT
Given that we human beings have comprehensively reshaped the natural
environment to suit our own ends, it is an absurdity to aspire to
environmental and/or genetic purity with regard to local fauna and
flora.
By reshaping of the environment, we refer not simply to the endless
'development' of woodlands, wetlands, riverbanks, grassland, wild
flower meadows, lakes, hills and even mountains. There is also the
impact of international trade and transportation - activities that
include the translocation every year, from continent to continent, of
billions of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians. They are
translocated either to be farmed for meat, milk and eggs; put on
display as exotic exhibits, or sold as pets. The impact that these
animals - and the systems that facilitate their use - have on local
eco-systems is often significant and sometimes significantly
disruptive. But where there is a perceived commercial advantage, such
trade is rarely resisted. And, of course, the suffering the animals
themselves endure is of virtually no concern to the sophisticates who
establish and oversee the regulatory framework.
While total solutions are not possible, if society is serious about
militating the damage outlined above, then governments and
conservation agencies must focus on curbing these animal trading
activities, and not simply by way of rhetoric and gesture - which is
what is on offer in the current proposals.
ANIMALS ON THE RUN
Now to the question of the 'alien' species already at large, e.g. the
ruddy duck, Canada goose, muntjac deer, grey squirrel, North American
mink, red swamp crayfish, New Zealand flatworm?
The 'debate' as to their fate has been dominated so far by the top
table conservationists referred to above. And their contribution, in
Animal Aid's view, has been characterised by self-serving hyperbole,
and a disregard for the welfare of individual animals. We know from
early trial culls of ruddy ducks that a significant proportion of
birds were not killed cleanly: some were wounded and never retrieved,
one took two hours to die and another was shot 13 times and was still
alive when pulled from the water. Killing the detested grey squirrel
involves smashing their dreys and stamping on the young.
The good, the bad and the anomaly
The conservation hooligans responsible for these acts take it upon
themselves to identify morally good and morally bad species; species
which are good for local ecosystems and those which are bad. They
presume to know the ideal population levels for each of the species
concerned.
A good species is a native species, even though, in the case of native
favourites such as the badger and red squirrel, their populations were
supplemented in Victorian times by foreign imports because of human
persecution on home ground - i.e. they are now genetically 'tainted'.
Thoroughly foreign imports are presumed bad, except where sentiment
gets the better of the supposedly fact-driven experts. The brown hare
and little owl are thoroughly foreign but are nonetheless welcome. And
so is the little egret (native of the Mediterranean and Middle East)
who has recently been colonising parts of Dorset. A spokesman for the
RSPB, which led calls for the 'cull' against the foreign ruddy duck;
said of the egret interlopers: 'This is a truly historic event. We
hope that through the protection and management of our estuaries and
wetlands, egrets will be encouraged to establish further breeding
colonies across southern England.'
No matter the consequences for any native bird the egret might
displace?
Myth of the golden age
The RSPB statement is indicative, pointing to a muddled and
hypocritical mindset. It indicates that 'the experts' who are
responsible for shaping government policy have neither the vision, the
intellectual consistency nor the competence to accomplish their
declared objective of restoring a supposed golden age of ecological
harmony.
There never was such an age. There is no clear divide between native
and alien species. When is the cut-off point? There is nothing so
English as the oak tree, yet many we see today are descendants brought
to this country from France, Germany and elsewhere in Europe. Nor is
there a clear understanding of the impact newly arrived species have
on local ecosystems into which they are cast - cast, for instance, by
bored pet owners or by bankrupt mink farmers.
A recent New Scientist article pointed to the folly of trying to
impose genetic purity upon a constantly shifting environment; an
environment that looks set to undergo accelerated change as a result
of global warming. In this new warmed-up, storm and drought-stricken
Britain, are we going to exterminate members of every species who
stray from their allotted territory?
"Populations can only be as pure as the habitat in which they evolve,'
the New Scientist article noted. 'Red deer in Britain, for example,
are threatened by the spread of Japanese sika deer genes into their
populations, which seem to do better in Britain's modern fragmented
and modified landscapes. So foreign genes influencing behaviour and
morphology may actually confer an advantage to native species living
in the habitats they now find themselves in."
(NS, Aug. 20, 1997, p.45. Jon Bridle, of the Department of Biology,
University of Leeds)
Darwinian adaptation
This gene mixing can be seen as a form of Darwinian adaptation - a
survival mechanism, rather than a sin against nature that must be
punished by extermination of the offending party. The mating of ruddy
and white headed ducks is another example of one species mating with a
close genetic kin and conferring an advantage. The white headed duck,
after all, clearly requires an input of robust genes (courtesy the
ruddy) to help it survive the attentions of its deadliest enemy -
humans beings. It is human beings who have hunted the white headed
duck and destroyed its habitat in the important winter breeding
grounds of Turkey and east Asia. Now the conservation hooligans offer
salvation by way of slaughtering the white headed's genetic kin and
latter-day breeding partner.
FURTHER THOUGHTS ON SOME OF THE ALIEN SPECIES UNDER FIRE
Glis (fat dormouse)
These are secretive nocturnal animals with a hibernation period of
nearly seven months and with the appearance of a small squirrel. The
date of their introduction to Britain is unknown but could have been
by the Romans 2000 years ago as a food source. A few scattered
colonies remain. Conservation zealots are currently making efforts to
eradicate them.
Sika deer
These were introduced from Asia at the turn of the century and, as
indicated above, there are plans to eradicate them in order to
preserve the genetic purity of the red deer. The absurdity is
compounded by the fact that other 'conservationists' want to curb red
deer numbers to protect recently planted commercial forests. It has
been suggested that red deer could be reintroduced from captivity once
the forests have grown - and that they would be specially bred with
'improved' antlers to satisfy trophy shooters.
Mink
In the summer of 1998 there were deliberate releases from mink farms
in Hampshire and Staffordshire - assumed to be by animal rights
campaigners. These releases unleashed a frenzied wave of anti-mink
sentiment that was at times breath-taking.
Animal Aid was dismayed but not surprised. We recognise that our
culture demonises those it exploits- whether vulnerable groups of
humans or animals. If the victim is defined as having no worth, no
true feelings and, where mink are concerned, an insatiable, mindless
bloodlust, then the exploitation is somehow legitimised.
Instead of concentrating on the minks' suffering within their cages -
their self-mutilation and desperate isolation - the victims became the
villains, together with the 'extremists' who set them free.
Far from the wild rampages of newspaper fantasy, many of the released
mink hung meekly about their cages, waiting to be fed - their
institutionalised existence having rendered them helpless in the wild.
Many others got run over, or wounded but not cleanly killed by local
idiots with air rifles. Hundreds were blasted by individuals whose
chief concern was to protect their own animal exploiting interests,
not least pheasant farmers, part of whose trade, as previously noted,
involves killing large numbers of indigenous animals, such as stoats
and weasels, who would otherwise prey upon 'their' pheasants .
Mink live a solitary life in the British countryside, marking out
territory a mile apart from each other. Argument has gone back and
forth in scientific journals about their effect upon other species. A
balanced view seems to be that they have caused no demonstrable impact
on other species, except to the water vole in certain areas where the
river is in an unhealthy state due to pollution, the clearance of
vegetation and where banks have been revetted. There has also been
high predation of ground nesting birds on some Scottish islands, as a
result of a defunct mink farmer releasing his captives.
In 1992 the BBC screened a programme in its Wildlife on One slot
called Invasion of the Killer Mink. Its producer told the Radio Times:
'On a healthy, well-stocked waterway, wildlife can co-exist with it.
There is a danger that mink becomes the scapegoat for man's own
damaging actions in the river habitat.'
The producer would rather we celebrate than demonise the mink. 'It's a
superb creature,' he noted, 'supremely agile and adaptable. It can get
by almost anywhere.'
Minks' declining numbers
Until recently there were approximately 110,000 breeding mink living
in the wild in the UK - a figure that had changed little for the last
50 years, ever since they were released by financially pressed
farmers. Recent research, however, (BBC Wildlife magazine, July 2000)
indicates an 'astonishingly high' decline in the mink population
during the last seven years. Most experts, the report notes, point to
its larger relative, the otter, as the cause.
"There is evidence that otters kill and eat mink and that they destroy
the sites used by mink to mark their territories. Ironically, mink
were once thought to have contributed to the otter population crash in
the 1950s but scientists believe that mink were only able to colonise
Britain so quickly because of the low numbers of otters - the results
of widespread use of organochlorine pesticides in agriculture at that
time."
The survey in question pointed to a mink population decline in the
West of England of 91 per cent, while even in the Thames region, which
has seen the smallest reductions, mink have disappeared from 27 per
cent of sites.
Whether or not this newest survey is correct, note how the certainties
of the 1950s have been turned on their head; and note that it was
farmers' use of pesticides, rather than mink, that is now identified
as the cause of the otter's problems. In fact, otters, at this time,
were also being mercilessly hunted for sport and persecuted by anglers
because they were perceived to be interfering with their hobby.
Red Squirrel
The cherished red squirrel was also, for many decades, persecuted by
foresters and game keepers. They used to be known as tree rats and
there was a price on their head. Just one so-called 'squirrel club' in
the highlands killed 85,000 reds in the first 30 years of the last
century.
As well as being hunted, the red was a victim of climate changes,
disease, woodland destruction and the cessation of hazel coppicing
since the Second World War. They were already in decline before the
grey was introduced 100 years ago as an ornamental species.
The greys have flourished because they have been better able to adapt
than the red. They are more sturdy, opportunistic and faster at
breeding.
So what is behind the grey squirrel pogrom? What is behind the lie
that the grey is responsible for the demise of the red and for
damaging Britain's forests? The answer, it seems, is an alliance of
powerful vested interests that includes the Country Landowners
Association, the Timber Growers Association and The Forestry
Commission.
Grey squirrels, the FC noted when announcing a new grey squirrel
'cull' in the early '90s, do better in broadleaved forests than in
conifers. Therefore, we in this country need to plant more conifers
and fewer broadleaf species, such as the much admired oak, beech and
sweet chestnut.
It so happens that the quick-growing soft-wooded conifers form the
basis of the commercial logging industry in this country. Many people
despise the gruesome mess caused by the regimented planting and
felling of the spindly commercial conifers. But now we know that, for
our own good, we need much more of the same. How else are we to
dispose of that most implacable and dangerous enemy: the grey
squirrel.
Ruddy Ducks
Bird-watchers and experts within the field have made some enlightening
comments in the media recently pointing to the futility and false
scientific premise of the ruddy duck extermination programme.
Here, for instance, are extracts from two statements by the
conservationists who first alerted the Spanish authorities to the
decline of the white-headed duck in Spain:
"For the last 28 years, I have studied birds and conservation in Spain
and I was the first to respond with action in the field to protect
White-Headed Ducks... Is the Ruddy guilty - or likely to become guilty
- of hybridisation on a scale which will endanger the population of
White-headed? I do not know of evidence which can lead to such a
guilty verdict. I know of only one case of hybridisation when a female
Ruddy was misidentified by Spanish authorities and left to the mercy
of a group of drake White Headeds after her male Ruddy companion had
been shot. What evidence is there that the few Ruddies seen are from
the feral UK population? Neighbouring France, with many Ruddy Ducks in
waterfowl collections, is a much more likely source."
Tom Gullick, Castilla-la-Mancha, in Bird Watching, April 1999
"With Tom Gullick, a well-known ornithologist living in Spain, I
carried out a survey of the lakes in southern Spain in the Seventies.
We alerted the Spanish authorities to the precarious position of their
white-headed ducks, then numbering 20 to 30 birds... Some experts,
including the late Ramon Coronado, conservador of the National Park of
Donana, and Mike Lubbock, a world respected aviculturist, believe that
the Spanish race of the white-headed duck is only a sub-species. They
are not only a darker bird in plumage but are often to be found in
Spain with black heads, something we never see in the birds we have in
captivity here. It may well be worth investigating in these days of
DNA whether the Spanish ducks are an entirely pure breed. They may be
the result of earlier hybridisation with the African Maccoa duck,
another species of Stifftail."
W.M. Makins, Director, Pensthorpe Waterfowl Trust, in The Times Feb 6,
1999
The Ruddy Duck cull is, inevitably, tied up with international
politics and the British government's keenness to be seen to be 'doing
something' for the environment. To quote British Birds, (92:222-224),
'when faced with a long list of biodiversity actions, many of which
are difficult, intangible, expensive and not necessarily in the
short-term interests of the economy, politicians and environmental
agencies will always tend to jump on easy targets'.
During the Department of the Environment-funded trials in 1993 and1994
shooting with shotguns and rifles, trapping and egg destruction were
all tried. The detailed report ultimately recommended shooting the
ducks on the basis of cost rather than effectiveness. It judged that
shooting was less effective than other methods and certainly inhumane.
It also noted that shooting caused more disturbance to other birds
than did visiting nests to trap ducks or oil eggs (dipping them in
paraffin), this latter method being 100% effective.
Animal Aid believes there is no moral or scientific case for
'controlling' ruddy ducks. We might reasonably have expected, however,
that the 'bird protection' groups advising government in the initial
trial period, would have insisted on the most humane method of control
- namely oiling eggs. This they failed to do.
And so the shooting goes on. Given that ruddy ducks are found in mixed
flocks of wildfowl, it is impossible to imagine how they could be shot
without also killing or injuring other species.
One final twist to this bitterly ironic saga: Some experts maintain
that since North American ruddy ducks were introduced to the UK in the
1950s, they have developed differences in DNA from their ancestors. If
this is the case, it makes them one of Europe's rarest ducks and
therefore, a conservation priority!
Canada Geese
These birds are accused of defecating on paths, harassing other birds,
pinching the behinds of children and spoiling the public amenities by
trampling and nibbling grass. They also cause an, as-yet unspecified,
disease problem (see below*).
In rural areas, where the complaint is that the Canada geese eat
pasture grass and clip the tops off cereal crops, farmers are busy
shooting them, notwithstanding their supposedly protected status.
(Where there's a will there's a legal loophole). Some experts say the
farmers' complaints of large-scale damage to crops - a significant
portion of which end up being dumped as surplus - are exaggerated. But
it does seem that Canada geese numbers have increased in the last few
decades. Not surprising really, given their history.
They were brought over from North America in 1678 by Charles 11 so
that they could be sportingly shot. Numbers were probably stable until
about 65 years ago when large chunks of the Home Counties were dug up
for road building. The resultant gravel pits filled with water and
vegetation, providing ideal breeding grounds for the geese. Come the
1950s and sporting types rounded-up large numbers of the adult birds
and dispersed them around the country so that the pleasure of blasting
them from the sky could be more widely enjoyed.
Now we're told there is a problem of over-abundance.
(*Because various pathogens can be isolated from an animal species,
that doesn't amount to proof that the animal constitutes a health risk
to the human population. All animals (humans included) carry a host of
endogenous and exogenous viruses and other disease organisms. The
chances of another party getting sick depends on the virulence of the
pathogen in question, the rate at which it is being replicated and
shed, and the relative health of the potential recipient.)
Muntjac Deer
A native of China and Taiwan, muntjac deer were brought to Britain at
the turn of the last century and first released, in 1901, from Woburn
Abbey by the Duke of Bedford. They too have developed a reputation as
a crazed despoiler of nature because of their fondness for bluebells,
primroses, orchids, young trees and shrubs. In fact, they are
secretive and solitary creatures, who are especially vulnerable to
road traffic, dogs, arthritis and snowy weather. Many die young.
Claims that they cause serious damage to agricultural crops are
unproven.
There are believed to be about 50,000 in Britain, mostly in central
and southern regions. While their population is believed to have
increased sharply in recent years, their numbers are self-limiting -
being dependent on available habitat and food sources. Various
strategies can be used to discourage them from entering off-limits
territory. These include electrical fencing.
CONCLUSION
Look around at the consequences of human beings' voracious appetite,
destructiveness and profligate breeding and there will be some hapless
animal or other taking the blame: mink, deer, rats, pigeons, moles,
gulls, seals, badgers, hedgehogs, pike, ruddy ducks, muntjac deer,
Canada geese... All are being curbed or killed. In fact, any animal
species is suitable for scapegoating as long as a commercial or
political interest is served, or the guilt of the majority over its
own actions can be assuaged.
More particularly, this hostility towards 'alien species' is a symptom
of a destructive mindset within the Neanderthal leadership of the top
table conservation bodies. They imagine they cherish nature and yet
their list of enemy species grows and grows. They claim they like the
world full of exotic animals. But they are reluctant to allow them the
space to nest or eat. Depressingly, these bodies - being able to
direct the public debate - are also able to blacken the name of the
'undesirables' and mute what would otherwise be a justifiable public
clamour for existing or planned pogroms to abandoned.
Their argument for wanting to decimate the aliens is usually couched
in conservation terms - the animal concerned is a marauding pest that
is placing other species in mortal danger.
In reality, these animal pogroms are usually motivated by the
self-interest of the participating parties, or by an obsessive and
irrational attachment to particular species, at the expense of any
other.
Our society needs to define and bring to life a new kind of
conservation, one that is fit for the new millennium. It will be a
conservation that respects the individual animal and has a broad
rather than rigidly myopic view of nature. We need a conservation that
dispenses with scapegoating and with trying to regulate species
numbers through large-scale destruction.
Above all, human beings must be ready to concede actual territory to
non-human animals. Too often, people pay lip service to bio-diversity
and yet insist that animals be exterminated if they so much as
exercise their most basic functions of eating and defecating. If we
are not prepared to grant animals even these limited freedoms, then
the world we construct will be one in which wild animals become things
of history. It will be a world in which only the domesticated and the
incarcerated are permitted to exist. Is this the world we want?
Top ^
Mark
Animal Aid challenges aid agencies to abolish animal donor schemes
As the G8 Summit (Gleneagles, July 6-8) prepares to tackle the issue
of global poverty, national campaigning group, Animal Aid, has issued
a stark challenge to three poverty relief agencies: stop providing
living animals to farmers in poorer countries.
Many 'developing' countries rely on aid agencies to help feed their
undernourished. Several, including Christian Aid, Oxfam and Send a
Cow, now supply living animals to serve as breeding stock for meat and
milk. But farming animals is an inefficient, unsustainable and
problematic way of producing food. Apart from those who feed on
pasture where it is difficult to grow crops, farmed animals use more
food calories than they produce in the form of meat. They also compete
directly with people for other precious resources, notably water.
Poorer countries do not need aid in the form of live animals - who
require feeding, bedding, shelter and veterinary care - but
sustainable, drought-resistant crops.
Despite the problems associated with animal farming, per capita
consumption of meat has doubled over the last decade in poorer
countries and it is predicted that 80% of the worldwide increase in
meat consumption will take place in the developing world. Aid
agencies, therefore, need to diminish the role of farmed animals in
their food aid policies.
Animal Aid has written to the heads of the leading 'animal donor'
agencies asking them to abandon their counter-productive initiatives.
Says Animal Aid Campaigner Kelly Slade:
"We acknowledge the important work carried out by international aid
agencies, and the fact that, without their help, the plight of people
in famine-stricken countries would be infinitely worse. We urge these
organisations most strongly, however, to recognise that livestock
farming is incredibly inefficient - in particular when grain and water
are in short supply - and that rearing animals for meat is far from
the best way of solving the food shortage problem. To compound the
problem, some of the grain grown in developing countries is being sold
to the west for animal feed instead of being used to feed their own
people. At the time of the 1984 famine when Bob Geldof led the call to
'feed the world', Ethiopia was exporting crops to the UK to feed our
livestock. It is not just drought that is killing people, the Western
meat habit is costing people in developing countries their lives."
.........................
Notes to Editors
The argument against the donation of farmed animals to poorer
countries is compelling.
Presently, up to 50% of the world's harvest is fed to farmed animals.
The UN World Food Council has estimated that transferring ten to
fifteen per cent of cereals fed to livestock would be enough to feed
the current world population.
Up to ten times as many people can be fed per hectare of land by
growing crops directly for human consumption rather than using the
land to graze livestock.
It takes 100,000 litres of water to produce 1 kilo of beef but only
900 litres of water to produce 1 kilo of wheat.
In times of drought, animal farming carries more risk than crop
production, and animals take much longer to restore to a productive
capacity.
Worldwide, animal manure is responsible for 10% of total greenhouse
gases that cause global warming - the greatest global environmental
threat and one that will affect the occurrence of droughts in the
developing world. To produce one calorie of protein from soyabeans
takes an estimated two calories of fossil fuel, compared with beef,
which takes 54 calories of fuel to make only one calorie of protein.
As stated in Compassion for World Farming's Report: The Global
Benefits of Eating Less Meat (2004), it is imperative that the human
population decreases its dependence upon animal products, whether on
the grounds of human health, animal welfare, sustainable use of
resources or environmental protection.
For more information contact Kelly Slade on 01732 364546 ext.27 or
Andrew Tyler on 01732 364546 ext.25.
For background on the impact of meat production and the benefits of a
vegetarian diet see our vegetarianism section, and our factfiles - eat
less meat feed the world and wrecking the planet.
We have an ISDN line for broadcast-quality interviews.
Mary
>Interesting post from the Animal Aid website. I never realised the
>RSPB were guilty of such atrocious behaviour.
>
They're not the only conservation freeloaders either. Whats the point
in giving to charity if we cant trust the scum?
Mary
Crazy world huh? Go veggie.
amacm...@aol.com
>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:40:43 GMT, Ma...@tiscali.com.uk (Mark) wrote:
>
>>Interesting post from the Animal Aid website. I never realised the
>>RSPB were guilty of such atrocious behaviour.
>>
>
>They're not the only conservation freeloaders either. Whats the point
>in giving to charity if we cant trust the scum?
Such behaviour by the conservation hooligans was described in BBC
Wildlife Magazine as "fascist"
The killing of members of one species to protect those of another has
close links with Hitler's nazi policy of killing jews and other
minorities to benefit the Aryans.
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
Phil Kyle
news:a5Cze.1572$WW5...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net:
IAWTP
--
Phil Kyle™
Uno
Dos
Tres
Cuatro
CINCO!!!!!!
"Be very aware that my willingness
to continue to criticise your sig
is infinite." -- Neil Barker
Phil Kyle
David
Wholeheartedly.
David
I agree. Throw the conmen charities in jail, thats about the best
conservation measure for them.
Phil Kyle
news:TDwBe.3120$BN5....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net:
Wholesale.
Phil Kyle
Yes and release the political prisoners, such as Maurice.
David
Phil Kyle
Wholeinone.
GryphonCat
David
Wholebutton
Rosyposey
"GryphonCat" <gryphonN...@laranica.com> wrote in message
news:db8qhp$k2$1...@usenet02.sei.cmu.edu...
whole-ear thanthou (couldn' resist)
David
Desist
Phil Kyle
news:db8qhp$k2$1...@usenet02.sei.cmu.edu:
Better call an engineer about that.
Phil Kyle
David
Rosyposey
"Phil Kyle" <philky...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dbba07$d3c$7...@m3t00.databasix.com...
Come on guys, where's your sense of humour? :-)
Rosyposey
....Ok, I'll go back to the chickens now (I'll get my coat).
> --
> Phil KyleT
Phil Kyle
Diseased
Phil Kyle
news:dbc4ng$9g3$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
It broke.
David
Phil Kyle
I'm getting a new one, just waiting for the post.
John
>Everyone engaged in this discussion might be interested in the topical
>opinions of one opinionated and informed charity donor: the Charity
>Blogger - http://charityblogger.blogspot.com/ - feel free to add your
>comments!
The figures are a little out. The RSPB alone rake in £50million PLUS
PA, with an advertising budget of £7million that would put many
companies to shame. The RSPB, Woodland Trust and other CONservation
hooligan charities have certainly made many of us question where our
donations are going. Most of us in the past would have given to
charity without question, but these crooks have destroyed charity
status just as they are destroying their claimed goals. Charity is
becoming a filthy word in the UK and you can blame the fat cat
charities like the RSPB for the demise.
They don't care they still get their fat cat salaries before the goals
are even considered, so they never lose.
Try questioning these crooks, writing letters and asking probing
questions. The RSPB employed a dirty tricks campaign on these very
groups led by one Malcolm Ogilvie to destroy any opposition or
questioning of their strategy. It failed, the guy and his friends are
now bums but the intention was still there, they will do anything to
maintain the cloak of secrecy that puts the masons to shame.
I certainly wouldn't donate anything to charity again unless they were
open and honest about what they do with OUR money.
Oz
Oz
Jim Webster
wrote:
Charity is just a lottery without any winnings!
Oz
http://tinyurl.com/36gwl4
PRESS RELEASE 03/29/2007 (version 2)
Categories: Press Releases 2007 | Downloads and other links
Three new European research projects have just revealed that organic
tomatoes, peaches and processed apples all have higher nutritional
quality than non-organic, supporting the results of research from
America on kiwi fruit reported 26 March 2007. [1]
Researchers found that organic tomatoes "contained more dry matter,
total and reducing sugars, vitamin C, B-carotene and flavonoids in
comparison to the conventional ones", while conventional tomatoes in
this study were richer in lycopene and organic acids. [2]
Previous research has found organic tomatoes have higher levels of
vitamin C, vitamin A and lycopene.
In the latest research, the scientists conclude "organic cherry and
standard tomatoes can be recommended as part of a healthy diet
including plant products which have shown to be of value in cancer
prevention" [3]
A French study has found that organic peaches "have a higher
polyphenol content at harvest" and concludes that organic production
has "positive effects ... on nutritional quality and taste" [4]
In a further study just published, organic apple puree was found to
contain "more bio-active substances - total phenols, flavonoids and
vitamin C - in comparison to conventional apple preserves" and the
researchers conclude "organic apple preserves can be recommended as
valuable fruit products, which can contribute to a healthy diet" [5]
Ends
Note to editors:
All 3 studies are published on this webpage:
http://orgprints.org/view/projects/int_conf_2007qlif_2_food_quality_and_safety.html
[1] New research by Dr Maria Amodio and Dr Adel Kader, from the
University of California Davies discovered that organically grown
kiwis had significantly higher levels of vitamin C and polyphenols.
The researchers said: "All the main mineral constituents were more
concentrated in the organic kiwi fruit, which also had higher asorbic
acid (vitamin C) and total polyphenol content, resulting in higher
antioxidant activity. It is possible that conventional growing
practices utilise levels of pesticides that can result in a disruption
to phenolic metabolites in the plant that have a protective role in
plant defence mechanisms."
Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, says, "This
is a very rigorous study. There is clear evidence that a range of
organic foods contain more beneficial nutrients and vitamins and less
of things known to have a detrimental health effect such as saturated
fats and nitrates."
[2] and [3] Hollmann, E, Rembialkowska, E,; Comparison of the
Nutrative Quality of Tomato Fruits from Organic and Conventional
Production in Poland; Improving Sustainability in Organic and Low
Input Food Production Systems; Proceedings of the 3rd International
Congress of European Integrated Project Quality Low Input Food; March
2007; University of Hohenheim, Germany
[4] Fauriel, J, Bellon, S, Plenet, D, Amiot, M-J; On-Farm Influence of
Production Patterns on Total Polyphenol Content in Peach; Improving
Sustainability in Organic and Low Input Food Production Systems;
Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress of European Integrated
Project Quality Low Input Food; March 2007; University of Hohenheim,
Germany
[5] Rembialkowska, E, Hollmann, E, Rusakzonek, A; INFLUENCING A
PROCESS ON BIO-ACTVIE SUBSTANCES CONTENT AND ANTI-OXIDANT PROPERTIES
OF APPLE PUREE FROM ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTION IN POLAND;
Improving Sustainability in Organic and Low Input Food Production
Systems; Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress of European
Integrated Project Quality Low Input Food; March 2007; University of
Hohenheim, Germany
Oz
Association investigation confirms further gaps in testing regime
http://tinyurl.com/2s4azk
PRESS RELEASE 01/19/2007 (version 2)
Categories: Press Releases 2007 | Downloads and other links
Yesterday, the Soil Association revealed that the Government's testing
regime for identifying illegal and toxic drug residues in imported
food was underfunded, inadequate and, following industry pressure, due
to be weakened further. [1]
Today the Soil Association can confirm that the supermarkets, where
contaminated imported produce has been found on sale, do not conduct
their own routine testing to protect consumers' health – but rely
mostly on the government's inadequate testing regime as exposed by the
Soil Association yesterday.
In November last year, the Soil Association wrote to all the major
supermarkets asking for information about the extent of their drug
residue testing programmes. To date only Waitrose and the Co-operative
Group (the Co-op) have responded to our request. The Co-op stated that
they 'do not operate a routine veterinary testing programme for animal
derived raw material'. Whilst welcoming the Co-op's openness in
answering our enquiries, we are concerned that a similar situation is
likely to exist with most supermarkets.
The Co-op's response goes on to say that instead of carrying out
routine checking for veterinary drug residues themselves they 'link to
the MAVIS statutory testing programme where any issues are highlighted
[and] investigated with our supply base'.
Waitrose refused to answer our question directly, but indicated that
it relies mainly on its suppliers to undertake drug residue testing,
stating,
'Retailers are only part of the food industry and the request for
shared informantion is also directed at importers and manufacturers
where the majority of such residue data exists in reality'.
Richard Young, Soil Association Policy Advisor said, 'It is becoming
clear that the supermarkets rely on their suppliers, who in turn rely
heavily on government testing to identify problem areas. We do not
doubt that once problems have been identified that the food industry
takes them seriously and carries out further testing. What concerns us
is that the government scheme is so underfunded that is not checking a
full range of foods for the most likely residues and as a result a lot
of food is simply not being tested properly if at all.'
'We feel that both British consumers and British farmers will be
appalled to learn that most imported animal products are not being
checked for residues of potentially dangerous drug residues'.
In the case of food derived from UK producers, the Soil Association
has confidence that the situation is much better, as the scheme to
test UK-produced food for drug residues is funded to the tune of £4
million a year by British farmers. While there are some persistent
residue problems we know the extent of these and the industry and the
regulators are working together in an attempt to resolve them.
In response to a press release also published yesterday by the Soil
Association, but shown to DEFRA representatives on Monday, the
Government claimed that the amount of money it makes available to test
for residues in imported food 'is sufficient to cover all of the areas
that the VRC considers priorities under its Matrix Ranking System for
rating veterinary medicines and other substances.' However, in 2006
there was no testing of imported beef, lamb, pork, bacon, eggs, milk
or offal. The statement from DEFRA also admits that instead of the
£900,000 made available in 2006 to test imported food £1.75 million is
required in reality 'to look for possible emerging issues - not just
banned substances.'
For further information contact:
Richard Young and Cóilín Nunan on 01386 859099/853621 or 079 1919 4235
Email: ryo...@soilassociation.org
Soil Association press office on 0117 9874580 or
pr...@soilassociation.org.
Notes to Editors
[1] A press release was issued yesterday and Richard Young was
interviewed by John Humphreys on the BBC Today programme at 6.50am
this morning. The press release was headed 'Government regulators
under mounting pressure to remove key safeguard protecting consumers
from dangerous drugs in imported food ' and included an urgent plea
from the Soil Association to government regulators not to go ahead
with plans that will weaken our defences against residues of illegal
and other toxic drugs in imported food.
At a meeting tomorrow, the Veterinary Residues Committee (VRC) is
expected to bow to pressure from the food industry and agree to
publish its food-testing plans for imported produce in advance,
despite several committee members previously expressing doubts about
the wisdom of such action. The Soil Association has good reason to
believe this would allow producers in exporting countries to switch
between drugs and send food to Britain which could contain dangerous
drug residues, without this being detected.
Oz
http://www.vegaresearch.org/foodnut.asp
We analyse results from last year's analysis and tests.
MAVIS (Medicines Act Veterinary Information Service) has just released
the data, which exemplify the constant need for detection and
traceability to set beside the problems with Sudan Red.
The Veterinary Medicine Directorate (VMD) produces quarterly reports
for the Medicines Act Veterinary Information Services (MAVIS), the
latest of which, for the end of 2004, is to hand.
The VMD operates two complementary surveillance programmes for
residues of veterinary medicines and other substances. The larger
programme, the National Surveillance Scheme (NSS), implements EU
legislation and therefore has a statutory basis. The programme covers
the points set out below, and is funded by the industry sectors, in
accordance with EU legislation.
The second programme is smaller and non statutory. It focuses more on
surveillance of imports of certain products where the presence of
banned substances is most likely to be found. The programme is funded
by DEFRA. The independent Veterinary Residues Committee scrutinizes
and advises on the content of the VMDs (and FSA's) surveillance work.
The VMD invites representatives of various active organisations such
as VEGA to its open meetings and sends them detailed reports, from
which we have abstracted material to give our readers an indication of
the interactions between government bodies and agencies on the one
hand and on the other informed NGOs and charities whose concerns range
over many aspects of farming, food, health and the environment. There
are some dilemmas: reluctance to treat animals with drugs to lessen
risks of residues in meat, broilers, milk, eggs, and honey may entail
avoidable suffering for the non-human animal.
Materials analysed in the course of investigations reported for the
last quarter of 2004
Cows Milk
Eggs
Feed
Kidney*
Liver*
Muscle
Plasma*
Serum*
Urine*
*Some materials were found to contain substances above action levels
Other products intended for human consumption that were tested and
analysed in the course of investigations reported for the last quarter
of 2004
Eggs
*Caged
*Free range
Honey
Cow's Milk
*Residues were found in some samples of these products
Species from which products were tested and analysed in the course of
investigations reported for the last quarter of 2004
*Broilers
Calves
Cattle
Deer
Duck
Goats
*Hens
Horses
Partridges
Pheasants
Pigs
Quail
Salmon
Sheep
Trout
*Turkeys
*Residues exceeding Action Levels were found in some products
originating in these species
Compounds Tested for in the course of investigations reported for the
last quarter of 2004
Annex IV*
Chloramphenicol
Dimetridazole
Nitrofurans**
Anthelmintics (Wormers)
Avermectins**
Benzimidazoles
Levamisole
Antimicrobial Screen**
Cephalosporins
Quinolones
Tetracyclines
Beta Agonists
Carbadox
Coccidiostats
Ionophores**
Nicarbazin**
Gestagens
Altrenogest
Glucocorticoids
Heavy Metals
Cadmium
Lead
Hormones*
Estradiol
Methyltestosternone
Nortestosterone
Progesterone
Stilbenes
Testosterone
Trenbolone
Zeranol
Malachite Green*
Leukomalachite Green
Mycotoxins
NSAIDS
Phenylbutazone**
Pesticides, including PCBs
OC/PCBs
Organophosphates
Pyrethroids/Carbamates
Pyrethroids
Sedatives
Carazol
Sulfonamides**
Thyrostats
* These are compounds banned or with very restricted use in European
farming and fishing.
** Residues of these compounds were found at above Action Levels in
some products.
Enforcement. Naming, Blaming, and Shaming
Mr William Beckett, a dairy farmer of Brookfield Farm,
Bellbroughton, West Midlands, was found to have administered 12
different medicines, including antimicrobials, vaccines and NSAIDs,
which had been imported from the Republic of Ireland.These medicines
were administered without the appropriate guidance from a veterinary
surgeon. On 25th October 2004, at Redditch Magistrates Court, Mr
Beckett pleaded guilty to 17 charges of importation and administration
of medical products contrary regulations in the Medicines (Restriction
on the Administration of Veterinary Medical Products) Regulations
1994. Mr Becket was ordered to pay fines totalling Ł 10, 200 and to
contribute Ł 5, 600 to costs.
Mr Edward Gay, a farmer of Drakes Farm, Musbury, Devon, was found to
have administered unauthorized veterinary medicines to his animals
intended for human consumption. On 6 October 2004, Mr Gay pleaded
guilty at Honiton Magistrates Court to 2 charges of administrating
unauthorized veterinary medicines, antimicrobials contrary to the
regulations that Mr Beckett had infringed, as well as on one count of
administering an unauthorised antimicrobial without the appropriate
guidance from a vet. Mr Gay was given a 12-month conditional charge
and ordered to pay Ł 1, 500 towards costs.
Mr Morris Grose, a dairy farmer of Helston, Cornwall, was found to
have administered unauthorized veterinary medicines, including
antimicrobials and NSAIDs, to his animals intended for human
consumption. On 30th August 2004 he pleaded guilty to 4 charges of
administering these products, contrary to the aforesaid 1994
Regulations. He was given an 18-month conditional discharge and
ordered to pay Ł 1,000 towards costs.
Mrs Gwendoline Morris, a dairy farmer of Trewern Farm, Pontfaen,
Pembrokshire, was found to have administered veterinary medicines
including antimicrobials that had been imported illegally from the
Republic of Ireland. These medicines were administered without the
appropriate guidance from a veterinary surgeon. Mrs Morris pleaded
guilty at North Pembrokshire Magistrates Court to 6 charges of
importation and administration of these products contrary to the 1994
Regulations. Additional charges were withdrawn by the prosecution. The
court imposed a 12- month conditional discharge and ordered Mrs Morris
to pay Ł 500 towards costs.
Mr Stuart Ridley, a dog breeder from Crumpsall, Manchester, was found
to have imported and administered unauthorised veterinary medicines,
including vaccines and antimicrobials, to his animals. He pleaded
guilty on 25th August2004 at Manchester Magistrates Court to one
charge of importation of veterinary medicines contrary to section 45
(2) of the Medicines Act and 2 charges of administration of
unauthorized veterinary medicines contrary to section 45 (2) of the
Medicines Act. Mr Ridley was ordered to pay a fine of Ł500 plus Ł500
towards costs.
Mr Malcolm Trevor-Jones, a dairy-farmer of Oswestry, Shropshire, was
found to have in his possession, an unauthorised veterinary medicine,
and an antimicrobial, which had been illegally imported to the UK. Mr
Trevor-Jones pleaded guilty on 16 September 2004 at Oswestry
Magistrates Court to one charge of having in his possession, an
unauthorised veterinary medicine, an antimicrobial, which had been
illegally imported to the UK contrary to section 45 (2) The Medicines
Act 1968. He was ordered to pay a fine of Ł1,500 plus Ł 1,000 towards
costs.
Mr Owen Vaughan, a dairy-farmer of Tynewydd, Boncastle, Pembrookshire,
was found to have administered unauthorized antimicrobial veterinary
medicines, which had been imported illegally from the Republic of
Ireland. Mr Vaughan pleaded guilty at North Pembrokeshire Magistrates
Court on 23 November 2004, to seven charges of importation and
administration of these products contrary to Regulation 3 of the
Medicines (Restriction on the Administration of Veterinary Medicinal
Products) Regulations 1994. He was fined Ł150 for each offence,
totaling Ł1,050, and ordered to contribute Ł750 towards costs.
Mr John Matten, a cattle farmer of Newsham, North Yorkshire, pleaded
guilty on 20 December 2004 to six charges at Northallerton Magistrates
Court. Four of the charges were for the importation of veterinary
medicines, antimicrobials and a NSAID, contrary to Regulation 3 of the
Medicines (Restrictions on the Administration of Veterinary Medicinal
Products) Regulations 1994. A fifth charge was for the administration
of a NSAID under the same Regulations. The final charge was for the
administration of an antimicrobial Prescription Only Medicine (POM)
contrary to Section 58(2) (b) of the Medicines Act. Mr Matten was
ordered to pay fines totaling Ł3,000 and to contribute Ł2,800 towards
costs.
Mr Peter Willes, a Director of Willes Farming Ltd, was found to have
administered veterinary medicines, antimicrobials, which had been
imported illegally from the Republic of Ireland. On 6 January 2005 at
Barnstaple Magistrates Court, he pleaded guilty to four charges of
administration of a veterinary medicinal product contrary to
Regulations 3 and 7 of the Medicines (Restriction on the
Administration of Veterinary Medicinal Products) Regulations 1994. Mr
Willes was given a 12 month conditional discharge and ordered to pay
Ł4,000 towards costs.
Mr James Rogerson, a dairy farmer of Game Farm, Fylde, Lancashire, was
found to have administered veterinary medicines, anti-inflammatories
and antimicrobials, which had been imported illegally from the
Republic of Ireland. These medicines were administered without the
appropriate guidance from a veterinary surgeon. Mr Rogerson pleaded
guilty at Blackpool Magistrates Court on the 12th January 2005 to nine
charges of administration of a veterinary medicinal product contrary
to Section 58(2) (b) of the Medicines Act 1968. The court imposed a
12-month conditional discharge and ordered Mr Rogerson to pay Ł500
towards costs. When sentencing, the court considered mitigating
circumstances presented by the defence.
Summary of Results on Specific Items
Red Meat
In the year 2004 16, 513 analysis had been completed, of which 34
contained veterinary medicines in excess of the MRLs.
Synthetic Steroids, Beta-Agonists, and Natural Hormones
Progesterone, three samples of cattle serum out of 328 analysed
contained residues of progesterone at concentrations of 1 mcg/kg (2
samples) and 2mcg/ kg. The State Veterinary Service will be carrying
out on-farm investigations into the cause of these residues, including
collections of further samples. The investigation continues.
Nortestosterone, three samples of sheep urine out of 131 analysed were
found to contain residues of nortestosterone at concentrations of 0.5
mcg/l, 2 mcg/l, and 3 mcg/l. Investigations have been carried out at
the farms submitting these animals for slaughter, but no
contraventions were found. The animal providing one of the dubious
samples was an entire male (uncastrated) and the residues detected
could be a natural concentration. In 2 of the other cases incomplete
castration might account for the presence of the residues.
Zeranol, three samples of cattle urine out of a total of 236 tested
have confirmed positive for residues of zeranol at concentrations of 1
mcg/l, and 30 mcg/l. Four samples of sheep urine out of 145 analysed
have also confirmed positive at concentrations of 1mcg/l (2 samples),
2mcg/l, and 7 mcg/l. The samples also contained residues of the fungal
mycotoxin zearalenone and its metabolites. The residues detected in 6
of these samples are likely to be the result of feed contamination
with ingested toxins from the Fusarium fungus, rather than abuse of
zeranol. The farmers will be given advice on avoidance of these
residues and the SVS will carry out further investigations.
Nitrofurazone (as the semicarbazide metabolite), six samples out of
176 sheep kidneys analysed revealed residue levels between0.5mcg/l and
0.7 mcg/l. All these results are below the Minimum Required
Performance Level of 1 mcg/kg set by the EU Commission. Details of
feed and on-farm practices are being collated in attempts at
identifying the cause of the residues. Investigations so far have
revealed no faults in the storage administration, use of illegal
supplies, marking of animals and periods of withdrawal before
slaughter. The investigating veterinarians considered
cross-contamination from feed or "contamination from some other
source". The standard of husbandry on an organic farm in the
investigation was rated "very good"; there was no obvious source of
nitrofurans on the farm and the record-keeping of movements and
medicines was "meticulous
Antimicrobial Screening, a sample of a calf's kidney has been found to
contain a residue of oxytetracycline at a concentration of 9,900
mcg/kg (MRL 600 mcg/kg). This case has been referred to DEFRA's
Investigation Branch. Toxicologists see no risk to human health from
this residue, but there may be some minor disturbance to the gut
flora". A further sample of a pig's kidney out of 657 analysed has
confirmed positive for a residue of chlortetracycline at 1170 mcg/kg.
Results from a follow-up investigation are awaited.
Sulfonamides, one sample of pig's kidney out of 586 analysed has
confirmed positive for a residue of sulfadiazine at 2,300 mcg/kg (MRL
100 mcg/kg). It has been referred to the DEFRA Investigation Branch.
Available toxicological evidence for sulfadimidine, a similar
sulfur-drug, with an ADI (Acceptable Dairy Intake) of 0.05 mcg/kg
bodyweight allows a calculation that " a person eating a standard 50g
portion of kidney containing the excessive residue would receive a
one-off dose of 115 mcg compared with an ADI of 3,000 mcg for a person
weighing 60 kg A follow-up investigation of a pig- kidney containing a
residual level of sulfonamide at 214 mcg/kg traced the contamination
to accidental feeding medicated feed to a finisher pig. The farmer
"has issued instructions to all farm workers to ensure that this kind
of incident does not recur".
Poultry
Out of a total of 7527 analyses, 41 confirmed positive for residues of
drugs.
Nicarbazin, eight further examples of broiler liver has tested
positive above the JECFA MRL at concentrations between200 mcg/kg and
2, 410 mcg/kg. The Veterinary Residues Committee has advised "that
investigations should concentrate on residues in excess of 1000
mcg/kg". This decision was based on data from investigation undertaken
over a number of years. Where residues are confirmed below 1,000mcg/kg
the Veterinary Medicines Directive is writing to farmers reminding
them of the need " to ensure that these residues are not present in
their produce and of the opportunity to attend workshops on how to
avoid such residues run by Elanco". (Elanco is the firm supplying
nicarbazin). Six farmers have been sent these advisory letters.
Investigations into residues above 1,000mcg/kg are being undertaken by
the SVS. These residues are "a food contaminant rather than a food
safety issue: a person eating a standard 100g [portion of liver
containing 3,414 mcg/kg of nicarbazin would receive a one-off dose of
342 mcg compared to an ADI of 24, 000 mcg/kg for a 60 kg person."
The table below gives results of analyses of feed samples undertaken
as part of the follow-up investigations.
Analyte Species Matrix Numbers of samples below
LOQ Numbers of samples positive
Nicarbazine Broilers Feed 35 2
Investigations by the SVS into positive residues have found that the
use of single bin system is the likeliest cause of positive residues.
Monesin, a further sample of broiler liver has confirmed positive for
a residue of monensin at a level of 8mcg/kg. The SVS are carrying out
an on-farm investigation into the cause of this residue. This includes
further on-farm sampling.
Lasalocid, an on-farm investigation as a result of a residue of 415
mcg/kg in a broiler liver has established the likeliest cause of this
contamination was early collection of the birds before withdrawal
period had been completed. After the Veterinary Officer's visit the
company carried out an investigation. They have reviewed procedures
and taken steps to improve controls to ensure this incident is not
repeated.
Heavy Metals, a further sample of hen's liver was confirmed positive
for a residue of cadmium at 560 mcg/kg. The SVS will be following this
up. Cadmium detected earlier in turkey liver as positive is likely to
have a nutritional origin: the presence of fishmeal and limestone in
the feed are likely sources. In one case (residue 769 mcg/kg) the
birds were from a breeding farm and were 55 weeks of age when sent for
slaughter, "which would have given considerable time for dietary
cadmium to accumulate."
Farmed Fish
In 2004 1,352 analyses had been completed by the laboratory on 1, 333
samples.
Tetracyclines, two samples of salmon muscle out of 97 analysed proved
positive for residues of this antibiotic at 165 and 300 mcg/kg
respectively. The fish had been sampled in error before the withdrawal
period was completed and were not due to enter the food chain
Malachite/Leukomalachite green, a total of 77 scheduled samples of
trout have been analysed for residues of malachite green, none was
proven positive. In addition to the scheduled sampling 45 samples have
been collected as part of follow-up investigations into three farms
where trout tested positive in 2002/ 2003. The results are tabulated
below:
Analyte Species Matrix Number of samples tested Number of samples
positive
Malachite green Trout Muscle 45 2*
Leukomalachite green Trout Muscle 45 14*
Malachite green Salmon Muscle 36 5**
Leukomalachite green Salmon Muscle 36 7**
*A total of 14 samples were confirmed as containing residues. Two
contained residues of malachite green and the leuko-form and 12
contained residues of the latter only.
**A total of 7 samples were confirmed as containing residues. Two had
residues of both malachite green and its leuko-form, and 2 had
residues of the latter only.
A report by the Environment Agency of a contamination incident
involving malachite green on a trout farm prompted a fish health
inspector to collect 2 samples of fish from the affected site. Both
samples contained residues of malachite green and its leuko-form. Most
of the fish on the site died as a result of the incident and the farm
has since ceased commercial operations.
A previously-reported follow-up of samples of salmon were taken from
four sites, two of which tested positive in 2003 and two in 2004 "
following intelligence on the possible use of malachite green", The
Government " recognizes that there are continuing concerns about the
potential effect of malachite green and leukomalachite green on human
health.
The Department of Health's Committees on Mutagenicity and
Carcinogenicity have recently looked at data from studies carried out
in the USA. They have advised that both compounds should be considered
in vivo mutagens and that leukomalachite green should also be regarded
as a genotoxic carcinogen. Their advice will be taken into account to
ensure that the interests and the health of consumers remain fully
protected".
Milk
The laboratory completed 2369 analyses on 752 samples. None proved
positive.
Eggs
The laboratory completed 1, 098 analyses on 448 samples. Since the
last report one further sample from caged production and 2 from
free-range birds have confirmed positive for the presence of lasalocid
at concentrations of 300, 200 and 110 mcg/kg respectively. A follow-up
investigation of eggs from a caged system with lasalocid residues at
67 mcg/kg suggested that contamination of the feed either at the mill
or during transport had occurred. There was no evidence of the use of
lasalocid on the farm. A follow-up of lasalocid residues at 200 mcg/kg
in free-range eggs established that the farmer concerned kept
pheasants in fields next to one of the hen's paddocks. These were
given feed containing lasalocid and "it was likely that the hens
gained access to the pheasants' fields and had eaten some of this
feed. The farmer no longer keeps game on this farm".
Game
No positives were proven from 182 completed analyses on 141 samples of
wild and farmed game.
National Surveillance Scheme for Residues in Red Meat Results of
Targeted Sampling in Great Britain Year 2004
Type of Compound/
Substance
Species Age and Sex Matrix Numbers of Analyses Number above Action
Level
Nortestosterone Sheep ------- Urine 131 5
Progesterone Cattle Male Serum 328 4
Zeranol Cattle
Sheep
<24 months Urine
Urine
236
145
4
4
Sulfonamides Pigs ------- Kidney
586 2
Antimicrobial Screen Calves
Pigs <6 months Kidney
Kidney
179
657 4
2
Nitrofurans Sheep ------- Kidney 176 6
Avermectins Sheep ------- Liver 534 1
Benzimidazoles Sheep ------- Liver 520 1
Phenybutazone Horses ------- Plasma 181 1
National Surveillance Scheme for Residues in Poultry Meat Results of
Targeted Sampling in Great Britain Year 2004
Type of Compound/
Substance
Species Matrix Number of Analyses Number above Action Level
Cadmium Hens
Turkeys
Liver
Liver
8
16
4
3
Inonophores (Monensin, Lasalocid)
Broilers Liver 240 3
Micarbazin Broilers Liver 233 31
National Surveillance Scheme for Residues, Results of Targeted
Sampling in Great Britain, year 2004
Type of Compound/
Substance
Farmed Fish
Species Age and Sex Matrix Number of Analyses Number above
Action Level
Tetracyclines
Salmon Market Muscle 97 2
Leukomalachite green ( detected under multi-residue analysis for
malachite green)/ leukomalachite green Salmon Young Muscle 131 1
Eggs
Ionophores:
Species:
Hens
Matrix Number of Analysis Number above Action Level
Caged Eggs 101 4
Free Range Eggs 97 2
Non- Statutory Surveillance Results: 1 April 2004 to 22 December 2004
Matrix Analyte Number of Samples Analysed Number of Samples above
Action Level
Imported Farmed Fish Malachite green/Leukomalachite green 286 13
Imported Honey Nitrofurans
Streptomycin
98
98
11
3
Quail Eggs Lasalocid
Nicarbazin
29
29
10
4
Warm Water Prawns Nitrofurans 279 19
Non-Statutory Surveillance 2004
Port health inspectors and shoppers from a market survey collected
1,350 samples during the period April-December. The Central Science
Laboratory has completed 4846 of the
5, 311 analyses due on these samples. Since the last quarterly MAVIS
report residues above the MRL or Action Level have been detected in 28
samples. A summary of these results is given below.
Nitrofurans, a sample of honey purchased from a retail outlet and
imported from Argentina was found to contain residues of the
nitrofurazone metabolite semicarbazide (SEM) at a concentration of 1.5
mcg/kg. The supplier provided testing and traceability data to the
Food Standards Agency, which showed that the SEM contamination is
likely to have derived from the jar gaskets and was unlikely to have
arisen due to the unauthorised use of nitrofurans. No further action
was taken.
Seven samples of warm water prawns imported from India (2) Bangladesh
(4) and the United Arab Emirates (1) contained residues of nitrofuran
metabolites. Five of these were collected by Port Health officials at
Border Inspection Posts (BIPs) and two were purchased from retail
outlets. Six of the samples contained residues of SEM at
concentrations between 1.1 and 5.6 mcg/kg. The sample from the UAE
contained residues of the furazolidone metabolite AOZ at a
concentration of 71 mcg/ kg. Use of nitrofurans in food-producing
species in the EU, and in produce exported to the EU, is prohibited.
The Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) has written to her opposite numbers
in the countries of origin asking them to investigate these residues
and report their findings. The results have also been reported to the
FSA, who will ask the European Commission to issue Rapid Alerts.
Malachite Green/ Leukomalachite Green, four samples of farmed fish
imported from Vietnam (3) and Indonesia (1) have been found to contain
residues of both malachite green at concentrations of 1.7 and 2.6
mcg/kg and the leuko-form at concentrations between 9.9 and 120
mcg/kg. A further four samples imported from Vietnam (3) and Indonesia
(1) was found to contain residues of leukomalachite green at
concentrations between 3.4 and 9.3 mcg/kg. All of these samples were
collected by Port Health Officials at BIPs and included samples of
tilapia (2), black tilapia (1), red tilapia (1), milk fish (2), black
catfish (1) and cream dory (1). Malachite green has never been
authorised as a veterinary medicine in the EU and should not be
present in fish imported for human consumption. The CVO has written to
her opposite numbers in the countries of origin asking them to
investigate these residues and report their findings. The results have
also been reported to the FSA, who will ask the European Commission to
issue Rapid Alerts.
Following the findings of residues of malachite green and
leukomalachite green in samples of imported fish from Indonesia and
Vietnam, FSA officials have met with Embassy representatives from each
of these countries, Malachite green is not permitted for use in
aquaculture in Indonesia or Vietnam. In Japan its use is being phased
out; only fish eggs and fry may be treated with malachite green. The
MAVIS report states that "the problem is being treated very seriously
by all concerned, and investigations have been initiated into the
source of the problem in each country. These have, so fare proved
inconclusive in Indonesia and Japan. In Vietnam two fish farms have
been implicated in the supply of contaminated fish. The plants that
had possessed the contaminants are currently suspended from exporting
fish to the EU market, and more rigorous monitoring has been put in
place until the problem has been resolved.
Lasalocid, six samples of quail eggs were found to contain residues of
lasalocid at concentrations between 53 and 2,340 mcg/kg. It is likely
that 2 of these samples are duplicates from the same batch of eggs,
because their Best Before dates were within 2 days of each other. A
further sample of quail eggs were found to contain residues of both
lasalocid and nicarbazin at concentrations of 240 mcg/kg and 32 mcg/kg
and 170 mcg and 35 mcg/ kg respectively. It is likely that these too
are duplicates, their BEST Before dates being within a day of each
other. All the samples were produced in the UK and purchased from
retail outlets. The retailers and suppliers have been informed and
have provided details of the feed suppliers. The sample found to
contain residues of lasalocid at 2,340 mcg/ kg came from a supplier
who keeps appropriately16 free-range quail and sells their eggs
locally. The FSA advised that this residue was a potential health
risk. The supplier has since confirmed in writing that in future he
would be much more vigilant about reading feed labels and he had no
intention of selling the eggs from these birds again. The
concentrations of lasalocid and nicarbazin found in the remaining
samples are a cause for concern because they should not be present
"even though it is unlikely that, at the concentrations found, there
would be any risk to consumers".
Nicarbazin, a further two samples of quail eggs produced in the UK and
purchased from retail outlets were found to contain residues of
nicarbazin at concentrations of 38mcg/kg and 39 mcg/kg. These were
purchased from different locations. The retailers and suppliers have
been notified "Toxicological advice is that at these concentrations
the residue is not a significant risk to consumers".
Did you know?
New research shows that strict veggies might enjoy a reduced risk of
prostate cancer. Find out more in Diet, Dairy, Prostate and Bowel.
Lacto-ovo vegetarian women are more likely to give birth to baby girls
according to research at the University of Nottingham. See What are
Little Girls and Boys made of?
Oz
http://www.vegaresearch.org/news_item.asp?NewsID=403
Watch for More Defence for Industrialised Killing - 01 May 2007
Bleak countryside truths charting the farmer’s ruin have elicited
attempts at redressing rural disasters. The electorate’s concern over
activities and topics such as intensified high-input production,
pesticides, diseases (some zoonotic), killing and cullings of
livestock in slaughtering of massacring enormity, and of belated and
misapplied farming subsidies intended for environmental purposes, are
receiving PR dollops of free ranging and premium VAT (Virtue Adding
Tricks) misinformation lulling an electorate into disremembrance of
disasters, especially from stubble burning on, that blemish our green
and pleasant land. A miasma of cruelty and rapacity hangs over the
countryside. We reiterate the need for “green” campaigners to thrust
their views and solutions into the political arena. We call attention
now to a Channel 4 programme beginning at 21.00 on Thursday, 3rd May
2007. It’s entitled The Lie of the Land.
The producer of the programme, Molly Dineen, declares at the outset
her anger that “our countryside” is being destroyed and that so many
of our farmers and their way of life are suffering too. While
admitting that some farmers are “doing very nicely”, she concentrates
on the strugglers, “like Ian Williams from Cornwall, who earns his
living from killing animals for farmers and then selling them,
sometimes for just £2 a cow, to the local hunt for the dogs to eat.
It’s a practice known as the flesh run”. The agents rejoice in names
such as knackers, fellmongers, renderers and kennelmen salvaging
fallen stock – casualties, poor doers, and sick animals). “It is a
gruesome but increasingly common practice”.
In brief, we can cite statements from our database that give the lie
to Molly Dineen’s presumptions. They reiterate much material contained
in our output since the launch in 1976 of our Green Plan for farming,
food, health, and the environment. “The real problem in the milk
market is overproduction. Dairy farmers’ woes can’t be pinned on
supermarkets or global commodity prices”, proclaims John Lingard in a
Response in the Guardian this weekend (27/04/07) to a big article
entitled Why British dairy farming is in crisis (24/04/07). Dr John
Lingard is a senior lecturer in the School of Agriculture, Food and
Rural Development at Newcastle University. Dr Esslemont, an
agricultural expert at Reading University, has sounded similar
warnings and corrections and he has upbraided animal welfarists for
failing adequately to expose the shortcomings of the dire
dairy/beef/veal industry. (It has been hard for VEGA to have to agree
with such admonitions, although our history, website, and database
give some idea of our efforts at education and action).
Molly Dineen was initially thinking about making a documentary on
hunting after the ban. As she began filming the hunts she became more
interested in the way farm animals are shot as meat for the hounds and
the wider consequences impressed her as destruction of the farmers’
way of life (We wonder if similar concerns had obsessed her over
communities who mined for coal and built ships or motor vehicles and
are now joining the list of casualties or beneficiaries of reform and
the consequence of change, such as workers in the fishing industry).
Consumer or Supermarket to Blame?
She therefore approaches the completion of a trite rant on the
supermarkets and the government that spent 700 parliamentary hours on
a foxhunting ban that in her view clearly does not work. “That
legislation was about class and what Labour thought their supporters
regarded as a feudal and cruel system”, Molly Dineen states; “or a
countryside which is just a place where townies can come for
paintballing days”. As a self-confessed townie she approaches her film
with a complaint that a government worshipping the supermarkets has
brought prices of food down. So she “hates supermarkets; they have
destroyed British farms”. (We might murmur that the countryside was
rid of some or illegalized pursuits such as bull-, badger- and
bear-baiting and cock-fighting as such spectacles became as
objectionable as public hangings; and the continuing riddance of
countryside atrocities sets an example to campaigners elsewhere to act
likewise in activities on their patch, such as bull-fighting).
As a “full-on townie” and a “bit of a hypocrite who does not live
entirely by my principles”, Molly Dineen says that “in a way it’s
quite hard to make the walk or drive to a butcher’s or greengrocer’s
to get what you really want.” In a lament for the past, Molly Dineen
claims a common loss as a nation. Would that her documentary deals
more informatively and critically with this pressing topic! At least
this film and the trailers for it will alert campaigners to challenges
that must entertain and then overcome without the facilities for an
individual and already acclaimed documentary; at best, we hope our
website and database will furnish viewers and people stimulated to
write to their councillors, MPs, MEPs and candidates, as well as the
press, program makers and phone-in debates, to present worthy
reactions to Molly Dineen’s testimony.
BSE and the Upshot – Blame Somebody Else
This weekend saw VEGA in action in a meeting in Newcastle on Food
Issues – Production, Safety, and Welfare, attended and addressed by
officials of the Food Standards Agency, DEFRA, the State Veterinary
Service and vets from various countries and representatives of the
pig, beef, cattle, and sheep industries. Treatment of casualty animals
and suitability of their meat for “humane” slaughter and human
consumption of for consignment to knackers’ yards and hunt kennels
raised issues of welfare and the decline in vets’ farm practices for
more congenial work caring for the townies’ pets.
The pig industry’s representative (of the “unsupported sector of
agriculture”) reported a 40% decline in production in the UK since
1997, “due to a multitude of factors including the introduction of
unilateral welfare legislation, exotic disease outbreaks, increasing
global trade in pigmeat products and a highly sophisticated and
aggressive retailing environment.”
“The British beef industry is under huge economic and disease cost
pressure. It is difficult to exaggerate the chasm between costs of
production and market income”. The speaker bemoaned the “battering the
industry is getting from bovine TB and the residual cost hangover of
the BSE crisis which continues to strangle margins in the processing
sector – which then results in inspection charges and the devaluation
of the fifth quarter products being passed back to producers who
cannot possibly stay in business unless incomes rise.” These concerns
connote efforts at relaxing control on the welfare and transport of
unwanted dairy calves and culls (averaging an estimated 150,000 a year
from the UK), development of feed-lot farming along the East coast
(near to ports that bring in the feed), with herds of up to 10,000
animals), threats of new diseases (blue tongue and Johne’s for
instance), and of appropriation of land to grow biofuels instead of
feedstuffs.
The vets cheered a questioner at the meeting who suggested that
British farmers have grown complacent over subsidization, especially
after the BSE epidemic, and they should indemnify themselves for the
consequences of breakdowns, recalls, culling and damages due to poor
husbandry. A topical contrast sets the treatment of the outbreak of
suspected avian flu at Bernard Matthews’ turkey factory with the
“culling” of stocks recalled as a result of an outbreak of
contamination with salmonella (over which further litigation is
expected) in Cadbury’s chocolate.
Little account was taken of consumers’ reluctance to pay more for
less, in the manner of Ben Bradshaw’s advice to reduce consumption of
meat and milk for various reasons, although the cattle expert
dismissed many environmental and dietary concerns over commercial
production (Ben Bradshaw MP is a Minister at DEFRA).
Programs and articles such as The Lie of the Land offer and alert
citizens to redouble their efforts and opportunities to register their
interpretations to farmers and retailers in proving their feelings by
choice, purchase, and testimony at the cash-point and in their cogent
responses to the media. Go for it on Green on Thursday!
Oz
years, bleating on about farming killing wildlife, yet they still
haven't actually done any real research into it, and are actually
asking the very same questions as thirty years ago!
So just where have our donations to protect wildlife been going? RSPB
CEO fat cat salaries for a start, £100k plus pa.
http://tinyurl.com/3bhezj
European farmland bird numbers decline by 44%
08/06/2007 10:20:00
FWi
A recent European survey has found that the numbers of farmland birds
across Europe, has declined by 44%.
Nineteen of the 33 birds surveyed were found in the UK, with
widespread declines of corn bunting, grey partridge, and the turtle
dove.
Bird organisations, such as Bird Life International and the RSPB,
blame widespread agricultural intensification throughout Europe, and
have called for a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.
“These results show how urgently we need a complete reform of the
Common Agriculture Policy to support farmers in delivering
environmental improvements throughout the countryside,” said Ariel
Brunner, BirdLife’s EU Agriculture Policy Officer, based in Brussels.
The organisations were also concerned that new EU-accession states
that hold some of Europe’s greatest concentrations of farmland birds
were showing similar declines.
Mr Brunner said: “We are working to an outdated policy that still
encourages unsustainable intensive farming, while failing to support
those extensive farming systems that are vital for biodiversity.”
The study also showed forest birds had declined by 9%, which was
concerning because forest environments take longer to react.
RSPB’s Richard Gregory commented: “We have the data and the knowledge
to help farmland and forest birds, but we need urgently to look deeper
into the reasons behind these declines-and to design effective
policies that will ensure further loses do not occur."
Oz
too many cars. People starve while the world turns to Bio fuels,
instead of food.
About time we were made to pay the real cost of vehicle ownership,
especially in this age of tubbies, the exercise will do us good.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1909827.ece
Top scientist says biofuels are scam
Jonathan Leake and Steven Swinford
THE government’s policy of promoting biofuels for transport will come
under harsh attack this week from one of its senior science advisers.
Roland Clift will tell a seminar of the Royal Academy of Engineering
that the plan to promote bioethanol and biodiesel produced from plants
is a “scam”.
Clift, professor of environmental technology at Surrey University,
sits on the scientific advisory council of Defra, David Miliband’s
environment department.
He will tell the seminar that promoting the use of biofuels is likely
to increase greenhouse gas emissions.
Clift’s comments will amount to a direct challenge to Miliband, who
has published a strategy promoting biofuels. It coincides with a surge
of anger among environmentalists over the weak pledges on climate
change that emerged from last week’s G8 summit.
The audience on Thursday will also include Howard Dalton, Miliband’s
chief scientist at Defra, who is expected to speak in defence of
biofuels.
Clift said: “Biodiesel is a complete scam because in the tropics the
growing demand is causing forests to be burnt to make way for palm oil
and similar crops.
“We calculate that the land will need to grow biodiesel crops for
70-300 years to compensate for the CO2 emitted in forest destruction.”
Clift will also condemn plans to produce British biodiesel from
rapeseed, pointing to research showing the crop generates copious
amounts of nitrous oxide – an even more powerful global warming gas
than CO2 The attack comes as the government increases its support for
biofuels. Next year it will introduce a requirement for 3% of all fuel
sold on UK forecourts to come from a renewable source.
Across the EU the renewable transport fuels obligation will increase
this to 5% by 2010, with the British government pushing for a target
of 10%.
Miliband wants British farming to diversify into biofuels. “It is an
important part of our vision for a diversified farming sector,” he
said in a recent speech.
The UK Biomass Strategy published last month is, however, also
critical of turning crops into transport fuels, pointing out that this
is the least efficient way of using them. It says that it is most
efficient simply to burn them.
Clift is not the only government science adviser calling for a rethink
on biofuels. Roger Kemp, who advises the Department for Transport on
energy use in transport, told a conference last week that using
biofuels in transport would have no impact on cutting emissions.
In his submission to the Institute of Engineering and Technology’s
climate change committee he warned that Britain produced 200m tonnes
of CO2 a year in transport emissions.
On current trends that will double by 2045 – whereas the government
has pledged to reduce transport emissions to around 90m tonnes by that
date.
“We would need to plant a land area twice the size of Britain to get
enough biofuel crops to halve our emissions,” said Kemp, professor of
engineering at Lancaster University. “The numbers simply do not add
up.”
Kemp and Clift point out that the surging global interest in biofuels
derives from a “false belief” among politicians that there must be a
technical solution to climate change.
Kemp said: ”Underlying all this is the assumption that we have to
preserve the mobility and freedom to travel that we now enjoy at all
costs.
“However, when you look at the science of climate change it is clear
there are no such simple solutions. Humanity has to accept that.”
A similar message was this weekend emerging from environmentalists as
they denounced the G8 industrialised nations for failing to take
action on climate change at last week’s summit.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, accused the G8 of
being little more than a “talking shop”. He said: “The G8 has a record
of putting the short term interests of rich countries before those of
the environment and developing countries and this year was no
exception.”
FACTS OF ‘GREEN’ FUEL
What are biofuels?
Biofuels come from plants: bioethanol from sugars and starches,
biodiesel mainly from rapeseed and palm oil. They are blended with
normal fuels, making up about 5% of the product.
What are the benefits?
The carbon in biofuels comes from the atmosphere so when they burn
that carbon is simply rereleased and there is no increase.
What are the concerns?
Biofuel crops take land from growing food and create pressure for
deforestation. Burning forests generates vast amounts of CO2.
Oz
Jack Grimston
THE chances of swimmers catching stomach bugs are up to one in seven
every time they go into the sea at more than 100 British beaches.
The level of pollution is so high from sewage and farm effluent in
popular resorts around the country – including Scarborough, Hastings,
Ilfra-combe and Hunstanton – that the water fails to come up to
standards of cleanliness recommended by the European Union.
The continuing pollution of bathing water comes despite a 30-year
clean-up by water companies costing £10 billion that has brought big
improvements.
The state of Britain’s polluted and dying seas is assessed in detail
in Sea Change, a new book by Richard Girling, a Sunday Times Magazine
journalist, which will be published next month by Eden Project Books.
According to the latest figures, based on tests last summer, 427 out
of 561 beaches achieved the standard recommended by the EU –
equivalent to a swimmer having a 5% (one in 20) risk of contracting an
illness every time he or she enters the water.
Two beaches – Staithes in North Yorkshire and Aberavon in south Wales
– failed even to reach the legally binding minimum, which is far lower
at roughly 14%.
This means that if bathers swim seven times in the sea, they are
likely to catch a bug.
More than 130 beaches fell into the category where swimmers face a
chance of between 5% and 14% of infection.
Water in the nose or ears can be enough to cause infection – it does
not have to be swallowed.
Campaigners fear that new rules on which the government will begin
consultations later this year, and which will be introduced from next
year, will fail to curb pollution adequately.
“The proposals were a political fix and a compromise under pressure
from southern European countries,” said Thomas Bell, a campaigner with
the Marine Conservation Society.
The society, which publishes the Good Beach Guide, says that there are
still 73 beaches in Britain where raw or semi-filtered human sewage is
pumped into the sea.
Even if the effluent does not drop onto the beach, it can pollute
waters further out used by surfers and scuba divers.
All the sewage produced by the 250,000 inhabitants in and around
Brighton pours straight out of a pipe about a mile out to sea, washing
ashore in some weathers.
In addition, the Environment Agency estimates that one in five homes
is not connected to mains sewers. The waste either goes into septic
tanks or into rain-water run-offs that often flow into rivers and out
into the sea.
The cleanliness of bathing water is measured by taking water samples
throughout the summer swimming season from every beach.
These are then tested for fecal coliforms, organisms that live in
sewage and can cause stomach, eye, ear and nose infections.
The new system is likely to highlight just how much has to be done.
The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) expects
34 to fail to make the new statutory minimum rating – a level of
coliforms roughly equivalent to an 8% risk of contracting a stomach
illness.
Defra said: “The UK is fully committed to implementing the revised
Bathing Water Directive and is currently on course to do so in the
specified time scale.”
For further details
How beaches perform under current system
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/coastwaters/download/xls/cwtb03.xls
How beaches are forecast by government to perform under new system
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/bathing/pdf/bathingwaterqualitypredictions.pdf
Marine Conservation Society's Good Beach Guide
http://www.goodbeachguide.co.uk/
Beaches winning Blue Flag awards
Surfers Against Sewage
Oz
By Paul James, The Journal
Environment chiefs yesterday stepped up their fight against
fly-tipping by crushing a truck owned by a man who was paid just £30
to dump some carpets and a fridge-freezer.
Click play to see a video of the fly-tipper's van being crushed or
click here to view the video in your own Media Player.
http://tinyurl.com/38y35u
And they warned they would come down just as hard on anyone else found
guilty of dumping rubbish illegally in a fresh crackdown on
environmental crime.
George Rogerson left the rubbish at North Seaton Colliery near
Ashington, Northumberland, claiming he didn't have time to go to the
tip in November last year.
The 41-year-old, of Alexandra Road, Ashington, was fined £250 at
Bedlington Magistrates in March and ordered to pay £280 costs after
the Environment Agency traced him and prosecuted.
Magistrates also ordered him to give up his pick-up truck to the
agency, who yesterday crushed it as a warning to other fly-tippers.
Bosses, who have set up a new public database of licensed companies,
also warned householders and businesses who employ bogus dealers that
they may be personally liable to a £5,000 fine if it is found dumped.
They estimate that the 22,500 incidents of fly-tipping in the
North-East last year cost taxpayers £6.5m to clean up. The pick-up
truck was destroyed yesterday at Backworth Metal & Auto Dismantlers,
in West Holywell, North Tyneside, which Ged Lee, Environment Agency
project manager, said it would not be the last to be crushed.
He said: "We have powers to seize vehicles where we believe they are
being used for illegal activities like fly-tipping.
"We'll continue down this path, and we're retraining courts at the
moment in terms of the legislation and making them aware of the powers
on offer.
"Hopefully we'll be seeing more of these vehicles being taken off the
road.
"If people fly-tip it's going to have a heavy environmental impact on
them. Nationally it happens every 30 seconds every day.
"Within our area it costs taxpayers £6.5m to get this waste shifted.
When you equate that in terms of hospitals and schools that's a
substantial amount of money that could be spent elsewhere."
The aim of the new campaign is to stamp out criminals posing as
legitimate waste collection businesses, and to encourage people to use
waste carriers that are registered with the Environment Agency.
Bill Brooks, Northumberland County Council's executive member for the
environment, said: "This is a Draconian method of taking payment, but
nonetheless fly-tipping deserves to be severely punished. It's
blighting urban and rural areas and also costs local authorities an
awful lot of money to remove. We would definitely back the Environment
Agency taking strong action. That's what's needed to deter people."
John Devon, leader of Wansbeck Council, added: "They're taking a hard
line to improve the environment and you have to do that otherwise
there would be fly-tipping all over the place.
"But catching the perpetrators is the difficulty. If you don't catch
them it costs the local authority and local people's council tax to
clean it up."
Mr Lee added: "This is a clear and simple message to those that are
flouting the law at the expense of legitimate businesses.
"Don't do it, because if you do, and get caught the penalties could be
high resulting in a fine and the loss of your vehicle."
Journal Comment
---------------------------------------------------------
Recent fly-tipping incidents
May 2007: David Curtis, 28, of Widdrington, near Morpeth, is ordered
to pay fines and costs totalling £475 for leaving a bag of rubbish and
some cardboard packaging next to farmland near Ashington.
May: The busy Mandela Way, near the MetroCentre in Gateshead, was
closed for two hours after a fly-tipper dumped a massive pile of
rubbish across the carriageway.
May: Fly-tippers dumped three tonnes of waste across a road off the
A696 between Ponteland and Belsay, which was blocked by steel girders,
bricks, an old bath, a hand basin, and nail-studded wood and glass.
April: Vandals dump rubbish in Northumberland Wildlife Trust's nature
reserve at St Nicholas Park, Gosforth, Newcastle.
March: George Rogerson, 41, of Ashington is fined £250 and his truck
confiscated by Bedlington magistrates after admitting fly-tipping.
February: Parents are appalled after used syringes and needles are
dumped near a popular Riverside Walk off Keelman's Way, Gateshead.
February: Council workers take hours to remove nine tonnes of rubbish
dumped on allotments in Cresswell, Northumberland.
January: Rubbish is fly-tipped in Kenton shopping centre, Newcastle.
November 2006: Calls for stiffer penalties for offenders after 24
tonnes of fly-tipped waste is removed in a month from land near
Newcastle Town Moor.
October: Castle Morpeth Council is forced to shut its bottle recycling
bank in Ponteland after people persistently dump general refuse.
---------------------------------------------------------
How to avoid a fine
Warnings that individual householders and businesses can be liable to
fines of up to £5,000 were issued yesterday by the Environment Agency.
Bosses are urging people to steer clear of rogue traders and to use
the public register at www.environment-agency.gov.uk/publicregisters
to find a legitimate company that will dispose of their waste
properly.
If people and firms do use unlicensed truckers who then dump the
rubbish, and have not recorded who is taking it and what it contains,
they could be fined.
To avoid that happening the Environment Agency advises people to
record the vehicle registration, name and telephone number of the
person who removes any waste from your property or businesses.
The Journal: Today's Voice of the NorthJun 2 2007
By The Journal
We all have responsibility on rubbish
Rubbish is big business these days - but an increasingly murky one
thanks to a combination of increasing environmental awareness and
fiscal opportunism.
The former comes from a stark realisation that we are running out of
old quarries and opencast mines in which we used to simply dump our
waste.
The Government is using financial penalties to force councils to
recycle more - but it has also raised concerns that this is also a way
of boosting the Treasury coffers.
That is a debate which has already begun - and will doubtless
continue.
What is not up for debate, however, is that there are a number of
people who are prepared to cash in illegally.
They take a few pounds from a householder, load up the van, and take
it away - simply dumping it at the side of the road somewhere and
leaving it for the Environment Agency or local council to pick up.
Yesterday, the EA demonstrated just how robustly it is prepared to be
in such cases when it crushed a van used by a fly-tipper.
At the same time, it took the opportunity to warn otherwise
law-abiding citizens that their responsibilities do not end when they
hand over the cash to the "man with the van".
Anyone who employs a bogus operator to get rid of their waste has to
make sure it will be done properly - or face the prospect of a £5,000
fine if it is later found dumped.
That might seem draconian but this is a problem which is already
costing taxpayers in the North-East £6.5m a year to clean up.
It is also a problem which is turning many of our country roads into
rubbish dumps.
It is having a major impact - financially and environmentally - and
the problem is growing.
Cracking down on those prepared to despoil the countryside in pursuit
of a quick buck is to be welcomed. But let us not allow ourselves to
believe that such robust action will solve the problem. Illegal
dumping is one end-product of an issue which involves a raft of
interconnected factors.
These include the amount of packaging on goods, effective recycling
measures, the cost of landfill and, crucially, the general public's
appetite to take the issue seriously.
The days are gone when our responsibility ended with putting rubbish
in bins and expecting the council to take it away.
Oz
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2007/06/12/newsstory9844575t0.asp
By Stefan Morkis
THERE WERE 40 incidents of hare coursing reported to Tayside Police
last year—a third less than the season before.
The force’s wildlife liaison officer Alan Stewart said he was pleased
the crackdown on the blood sport was getting results.
Hare coursing involves using dogs to chase and catch hares and occurs
in both Angus and Perth and Kinross. If the hare is caught by the dogs
then it is torn apart.
“Sometimes people are hare coursing for sport, others will bet on it,
but it is a pretty horrible death for the hare,” said Mr Stewart.
The Scottish Parliament banned hare coursing in February 2002 and,
since then, anyone found guilty of the offence can face a fine of up
to £5000 and up to six months in jail.
Traditionally the hare coursing season runs from September to the end
of May and every year Tayside Police run Operation Lepus to try to
snare as many hare coursers as possible.
So far their crackdown is proving to be successful.
“Incidents of hare coursing are down in Tayside,” added Mr Stewart.
“The detection rate has increased as well. Last year, 2005 to 2006,
there were 63 incidents and a detection rate of 30%.
“This year there were 40 incidents and a detection rate of 37.5%.”
Many farmers say they have been threatened by hare coursing gangs to
keep silent about their activities.
Although Mr Stewart acknowledges some incidents may go unreported, he
believes more farmers are willing to report any incidents they
witness.
“The farmers are far better about reporting and they should know that
even if the people leave their land before police arrive we will
follow it up. A higher percentage of incidents are now being
reported.”
Mr Stewart added that an offence was committed as soon as people began
looking for a hare and they can be convicted even if they do not find
one for their dogs to chase
Oz
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/hares-are-under-threat-696950.html
THE conviction of a Westmeath-based coursing club of trapping hares
without a license (Irish Independent, June 9) serves as yet another
reminder that our hare population is threatened by a practise that
involves netting and baiting these gentle creatures for "sport".
It is not long since another coursing club was fined for similar
breaches of the Wildlife Act involving hares and a number of other
prosecutions for illegal netting are in the pipeline.
Apart from such obvious breaches of the rules governing hare coursing,
there is absolutely no excuse for this barbaric cruelty. It is not a
form of pest control - the hare is utterly harmless - and the sport
has no conservation value whatsoever. Its sole purpose is to entertain
at the expense of extreme and unnecessary animal suffering.
While opposition to hare coursing is based mainly on animal welfare
concerns, there is another reason why this practise should be outlawed
immediately. The Parks and Wildlife Service and Ireland's Red Data
Book on wildlife both warn that the Irish hare is now an endangered
species.
It was the proven scarcity of hares in Northern Ireland that prompted
the authorities up there to suspend all coursing activities two years
ago.
As hare density is uniform throughout the island - the border being
totally irrelevant in this instance - it is reasonable to expect our
own incoming Minister for the Environment to enact a Hare Preservation
Order similar to that in force up north.
Only then will the humble hare be afforded the protection it deserves
as a part of precious wildlife heritage.
John Fitzgerald
Lower Coyne Street
Callan
Co Kilkenny
Oz
http://tinyurl.com/33eou8
Native American birds are visiting Britain increasingly after straying
across the Atlantic - and some even try to raise families.
Pectoral sandpiper: It is very likely that breeding occured at a site
in northern Scotland
The normal nesting territories of pectoral sandpiper, green-winged
teal and ring-necked duck are thousands of miles from the UK, yet for
the first time all three figure in the latest report of the country's
Rare Breeding Birds Panel (RBBP).
Of particular note was the performance of the sandpipers - scientific
name Calidris melanotos - which are related to the dunlin, one of
Britain's most numerous waders during winter months, although only
comparatively small numbers nest here.
The report published in the journal British Birds says that a pair was
present in a secret location in northern Scotland from early June,
then a month later an adult was seen with a "fresh juvenile" at this
site and they remained there until October.
Meanwhile on three separate islands in the Outer Hebrides, another
pair was recorded "displaying and holding territory", two possibly
paired birds were seen in June and a single male was noted with a
dunlin.
Mark Holling, the RBBP secretary, says in the report that it seems
"very likely" that breeding did occur at the mainland site and that
this and the efforts of the Hebridean pair amounted to the first
nesting attempts by this species in the Western Palearctic.
That is the region of the world covering Europe and North Africa
eastwards to the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea and Russia's Ural
Mountains and the eastern Atlantic from Svalbard, Franz Josef Land and
Iceland south to the Cape Verde Islands off Senegal.
Green-winged teal, Anas carolinensis, features in a RBBP report for
the first time because a male was recorded as paired to a female
Eurasian teal, Anas crecca (although the females of the two species
are so similar, there is a possibility it might have been green-winged
too).
A male ring-necked duck, Aythya collaris, made history because, after
it paired with a female tufted duck, Aythya fuligula, on the Outer
Hebrides, two young hatched although neither is known to have fledged.
This was not entirely unprecedented as in two previous years - 1977
and 1998 - ring-necked ducks were known to have paired with pochards,
Aythya ferina, in Britain but on those occasions no young were
reported to have resulted.
Commenting on the report, Mr Holling said: "It seems unlikely to have
been just coincidence that this series of reports followed all three
species making significant arrivals in Britain, particularly in the
case of pectoral sandpiper."
The previous year 170 reached Britain, mostly during August and
September - more than in any previous year, more than twice the annual
average number for the previous two decades and over four times the
annual average for 1968-79.
Only 13 green-winged teal had been recorded in Britain before 1958
while ring-necked duck was unknown here until one appeared in 1955.
The occurrence rate increased subsequently and arrivals further
accelerated from the late 1990s.
Mr Holling added: "Obviously it is far too early to consider the
occurrences mentioned in our report as possibly the start of
colonisation. However, it will be interesting to see whether future
large scale arrivals are followed by further breeding attempts."
However, it wasn't just wetland birds from the west that showed an
interest in nesting in Britain. The report also reveals interest shown
by smew - small, elegant diving ducks that normally nest in northern
Scandinavia, Finland and Russia.
Sandpipers are related to the dunlin, one of Britain's most numerous
waders during winter months
A pair was reported mating at an inland loch in Scotland's Clyde
region. Mr Holling comments that occasional birds have been reported
during the summer months in the past but this new record "hints that
breeding may yet occur."
Great northern divers - Iceland is their nearest nesting location -
possibly nested in Scotland in 1997 when a pair was seen with a
juvenile in July.
The report tells of more recent evidence - a pair displaying, also on
a July date, near a potential breeding site in the Outer Hebrides.
The only colonisation in recent times is by the little egret, a small
white heron which has spread northwards from southern Europe since the
1950s by which time the species had only been actually seen in Britain
on 12 occasions.
Nesting occurred for the first time - in Dorset - in 1996 and has
since mushroomed, with the latest available data showing more than 350
pairs. The report says new colonies were reported in the southern and
eastern England core range. Also, three more counties -
Buckinghamshire, Ceredigion and Gloucestershire - recorded nesting for
the first time.
Another heron-like bird that might yet follow this lead is the
spoonbill, the first successful breeding in Britain since the early
17th century occurring in 1999. The report says that while this has
not since been repeated, birds have since been present in likely
locations, with nest-building noted in two of them.
Climate change, as well as habitat availability, can influence species
to expand their range and this is one factor that is thought to be
behind increased UK sightings of serins - small yellow and green
finches that occur widely across mainland Europe - in recent times.
A pair nested in Kent in 1996 and the report tells of the first
confirmed breeding since then, with a pair raising at least two young
at Holkham on the north Norfolk coast in 2003. Nest building has also
been reported near Norwich and a male sang in Essex.
Meanwhile another widespread European songbird that has certainly
become established in Britain is the firecrest. The report gives
details of up to 283 pairs in at least 50 sites in mainly southern
England. "The totals presented here are much higher than ever reported
before."
However, another songbird "gain" is feared to be in reverse. After
numbers rose in East Anglia in the late 1980s and early 1990s, golden
orioles - the males of which are noted for their striking yellow and
black plumage - have since declined to around 10 pairs.
The report says that after nesting in mainly commercial poplar
plantations in fenland "there is now a real prospect that this species
will be lost as a regular breeding bird in Britain.
"There is no longer a strong market for the timber, so some of the
larger plantations have now gone and not been replanted. Although
there are still suitable poplar plantations in the area, they are not
occupied by orioles, for reasons which are not clear."
Oz
http://tinyurl.com/2ucrml
Three rare white ravens have been rescued after they were found
starving to death in a churchyard.
It is thought the birds, which have snow white plumage and blue eyes,
had been abandoned by their parents.
The fledgelings, which have been named Tic, Tac and Toe, are
recovering well on a diet of mince and parrot food.
Wildlife experts said the appearance of three white ravens was
"unprecedented".
White ravens: Their unusual plummage could have caused their parents
to reject them
Manager of the Weardale Animal Sanctuary Sally Rowley said she thought
the birds had been attacked by other crows.
She said: "They were found in All Saints' churchyard at All Saints
church in Bishop Auckland, County Durham.
"Locals had seen them hopping about. They looked like they were
starving and one had damaged feathers, as if it had been attacked.
"They were skin and bone and were just sitting, not moving.
"They just sat in a bush and you could pick them off like an apple,
which is not normal behaviour for wild birds.
"They are starting to feed from me now and could stand a good chance
of survival."
Found starving in a churchyard but now on the mend
Ravens are a type of crow. They are large birds, which are usually jet
black, and are very intelligent.
Even though it is extremely rare to see a white crow, the Weardale
birds are not the first white ravens from that churchyard.
Two years ago, a young white raven was found starving in the
churchyard and was taken in by Sally.
The white raven was christened Branwen and settled down at the
sanctuary.
But she was killed in a freak storm last year. Sally said: "I never
thought I'd see another white raven in my lifetime.
"But now we have three and all from the same churchyard. It's spooky."
British Trust for Ornithology spokesman Tom Cadwallender said: "To
have one white raven is extremely unusual, but for it to happen again
in the same place and to have three white birds this time is
unprecedented.
"It is too much of a coincidence and the same parent birds must be
involved.
"It looks like something is amiss with their genes."
Mr Cadwallender said it was likely the white ravens would have been
rejected by their own kind.
Oz
http://tinyurl.com/2polzo
Thousands of trees are getting the chop in an ancient Staffordshire
woodland - but local wildlife should reap the benefits.Part of the
Churnet Valley is classed as a Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI), with the largest concentration of ancient and native woodland
in Staffordshire.
Some of the area, near Consall Forge in the Staffordshire Moorlands,
is a wildlife haven enjoyed by both walkers and anglers, who use a
designated lake.
But the SSSI has become overgrown by sycamores, and the non-native
trees are casting a dense shade which is holding back native flora and
fauna.
The Forestry Commission has been granted £2 million by the government
to improve woodland SSSIs around the UK, including the one in the
Churnet Valley - part of which it owns.
John Winterbourne, woodland officer for the Forestry Commission, said:
"There are targets for how many non-natives you can tolerate in a
wood, and the condition of this SSSI is regarded as unfavourable
because of all the sycamores.
"But to remove it all would take away the mature canopy birds need, so
we have to be selective."
He added that public footpaths through the wood had not been fenced
off, and the contractors carrying out the work had reported a positive
reaction from walkers.
The Churnet Valley SSSI covers more than 820 acres and includes nature
reserves managed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
(RSPB) and Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, and a Country Park belonging
to Staffordshire County Council.
Lying to the north of Cheadle, the site includes the steep-sided main
valley of the River Churnet and a number of tributary valleys.
The Forestry Commission also helps other landowners secure grants to
carry out felling.
The two biggest landowners in the area, Staffordshire County Council
and the RSPB, are spending £20,000 over two years on the project.
Around nine thousand sycamores were felled in the first three months
of the year, by the RSPB in their areas of Crowgutter Wood and Booths
Wood, and by the county council in Consall Wood.
The project is currently on hold during the nesting season, with
another nine thousand trees expected to go in the autumn.
The Churnet Valley is considered an important habitat for flowers such
as wood anenomes and early purple orchids, and birds including pied
flycatchers, redstarts and wood warblers.
Jarrod Sneyd, RSPB site manager, said: "Although on the surface this
operation may appear destructive, it will prove beneficial to a wide
variety of wildlife both in the short-term and the long-term.
"The principle aim of the project's first year has been met, as the
percentage of the woodland canopy occupied by sycamore has been
reduced.
"As sycamore has been removed from the canopy, gaps have been created.
This has meant more light is now able to reach the ground, which will
improve the woodland's ground flora; a benefit to many woodland
invertebrates and consequently birds.
"Also, as young native trees start to refill these gaps, this
clearance will have added a valuable mosaic of different aged trees to
the woodland.
"These will provide habitats for a wider spectrum of wildlife.
"Any branches that are left on the floor will also become habitats for
invertebrates and their larvae as they start to rot."
Oz
http://tinyurl.com/2u96ap
The government should ban patio heaters, say environmental campaigners
Friends of the Earth. According to a new survey by British Gas there
could be a massive increase in the use of patio heaters following the
introduction of the smoking ban this summer.
In April Friends of the Earth revealed that leading garden chain
Wyevale is to stop selling patio heaters following concerns about the
impact that these products have on climate change. Subsequently garden
centre chain Notcutts told the environmental campaign group that they
will follow suit and "have now elected to sell through current stocks
of Gas and Electric Patio heaters and not to stock in the future".
Estimates of the impact that patio heaters have on climate change
vary. The Energy Saving Trust has worked out that a propane patio
heater with a heat output of 12.5kW will produce around 34.8kg of CO2
before the fuel runs out (after approximately 13 hours). This is
equivalent to the energy required to produce approximately 5,200 cups
of tea (or 400 cups for every hour of operation)
According to other calculations, a single heater releases more carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere each year than the average fuel hungry
"Chelsea tractor" - or any large 4x4 car. The estimates are based on
Government findings that a typical commercial patio heater is used for
around five hours a day, 237 days a year.
British Gas's survey, which studied the impact of pub patio heaters as
part of its energy saving campaign, found that half of all pubs in
Scotland bought at least one patio heater after the smoking ban in
March 2006. Many bought several.
With a single heater releasing almost four tons of greenhouse gases a
year, the patio heaters installed in Scotland produced up to 10,000
tons of carbon dioxide in their first year.
British Gas estimates a minimum of 40,000 heaters will be bought for
the July 1 deadline by English pubs. That would produce around 160,000
additional tons of carbon. If pubs buy two, the emissions would rise
to 320,000.
This equates to a "substantial chunk" - as much as 10 percent of the
annual reduction in greenhouse gases needed to meet Britain's Kyoto
targets and close to the carbon emissions from every home in a city
the size of Bath.
Friends of the Earth Director Tony Juniper said: "Patio heaters waste
energy and inflict unnecessary damage on the environment. This is why
some garden centres are banning their sale. UK carbon dioxide
emissions are rising, despite Government promises of substantial cuts.
Ministers must do more to get their climate strategy back on track.
It's time to ban the sale of these metal monstrosities. Getting tough
on planet wrecking products will send a powerful message on the urgent
need to save energy and cut pollution."
"The Government must also strengthen its plans for a new climate
change law by ensuring that UK carbon dioxide emissions are cut by at
least three per cent every year."
Green Building Press
Oz
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_veggie/ALL/1606//
With a major new scientific report expected to present strong links
between meat eating and cancer, the meat industry’s leading
representative body has revealed that a propaganda offensive is being
aimed at doctors to discourage them from giving out advice based on
the new evidence.
Richard Lowe, Chief Executive of the Meat and Livestock Commission
(MLC) - funded in part by British and European taxpayers - warned a
recent conference of meat processors about the likely content of the
report by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), due to be published
in November. ‘Our guess,’ he declared, ‘is that meat and meat products
will be presented as having convincing evidence of links to cancer.
Meat bodies now are lobbying on a combined response and targeting the
healthcare profession because the danger is from doctors giving advice
based on this.’
The November WCRF report appears to be a follow-up to its highly
influential 600-page dossier* published 10 years ago. The 1997 report
was itself bad news for meat’s public image and the MLC’s judgement is
that the update is likely to prove even more of a problem for meat
producers.
In 1997, the WCRF reported that ‘diets containing substantial amounts
of red meat probably increase the risk of colorectal cancer’. It
added: ‘The panel also notes that such diets possibly increase the
risk of pancreatic, breast, prostate and renal cancers.’ Diets that
were ‘high in eggs possibly increase the risk of colorectal cancer’,
while diets high in milk and dairy products ‘possibly increase the
risk of prostate and kidney cancer’. By contrast, ‘varied vegetarian
diets may decrease the risk of oral, nasopharyngeal, stomach,
pancreatic, colorectal, breast, ovarian and bladder cancer’.
Says Animal Aid Director Andrew Tyler:
‘The tobacco industry fought for years to suppress the evidence that
smoking causes cancer. They put their profits before public health
and, as a result, are responsible for the sickness and deaths of
millions of people. And now, the meat industry - when faced with
accumulating evidence of serious human disease caused by their
products - is resorting to the same dirty tricks. It seems that their
message to doctors and health workers is 'don't save lives - our
profits come first!’ This is self-serving cynicism of the most ugly
kind.’
* The 1997 report was jointly conducted by the WCRF and the American
Institute for Cancer Research. It was called Food Nutrition and the
Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective.
Oz
http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~pennenv/greentimes/spring97/nomeat.html
by Noam Mohr
If you care about the environment, you had better be a vegetarian.
Why? Because meat consumption is one of the primary causes of
environmental devastation, including the misuse of natural resources,
the polluting of water and air, and the destruction of rainforests.
All this comes in addition to the immense cruelty to animals and the
contribution to the world hunger problem caused by the modern meat
industry. In short, a carnivorous environmentalist is a hypocrite.
Strong words? take a look at meat industry and judge for yourself.
Modern meat production is both wasteful and destructive. Each
pound of steak from feedlot-raised steers that you eat comes at the
cost of 5 pounds of grain, 2,500 gallons of water, the energy
equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about twenty-five pounds of
eroded topsoil. Indeed, over a third of the North American continent
is devoted to grazing, and over a half of this country's cropland is
dedicated to growing feed for livestock. What is more, the livestock
industry consumes over half of the water used in the US.
In every one of these ways, as discussed below, a vegetarian diet
exerts less strain on our resources that does a carnivorous one. First
let us compare the energy efficiency of plant foods to meat. Among
plant foods, oats are the most energy efficient. For every calorie of
fossil fuel used to grow oats in the United States, 2.5 calories of
food are yielded. Similarly, potatoes yield just over 2 calories of
food per calorie of fossil fuel input, and for wheat and soybeans the
number is 1.5. On the other hand, the most energy efficient meat
produced, range-land beef, produces only one-third of a calorie of
food per calorie of fossil fuel expended. Feedlot beef, the most
inefficient meat, produces one calorie of food every 33 calories of
fossil fuel consumed! The numbers for poultry, lamb, eggs, and milk
production each fall somewhere between the numbers for range-land and
feedlot. In general, this means that growing crops is at least five
times more energy-efficient than grazing cattle, 20 times more
efficient than raising chickens, and over 50 times more efficient than
raising feedlot cattle! In this way, the meat industry wastes energy
resources such as fossil fuels that were naturally formed over
millions of years, and in the process spews pollution into the
environment through burning vast amounts of fossil fuels.
The modern meat industry also wastes a huge quantity of water. The
amount of water needed to produce a pound of meat is fifty times that
necessary to produce a pound of wheat. As Newsweek put it, "The water
that goes into a 1000 pound steer would float a destroyer." As a
result, underground pools of water around the world are drying up.
Animal production is the major cause of falling water tables and
drying wells across cattle country from western Texas to Nebraska, as
the Ogalalla Aquifier, a huge underground lake that took fossil fuels
millions of years to create, is consumed.
Meat production around the globe not only wastes the water it
uses, it also pollutes the water it does not use. According to
statistics from the British Water Authorities Association, in 1985
there were 3500 incidents of water pollution from British farms. In
one example, 110,000 fish were killed when a tank at a pig unit burst,
releasing a quarter of a million pounds of pig feces into the River
Perry. Most charges of serious river pollution made recently by water
authorities in Britain are now directed against farmers. This water
pollution can be explained by the fact that animal farms produce an
enormous amount of waste material. A modest 60,000-bird egg-factory
creates 82 tons of manure each week, and a typical unit of 2,000 pigs
creates 27 tons of manure and 32 tons of urine in a week. In the
Netherlands, so much more manure is produced than can be safely
absorbed by the land that the excess, some 44 million tons of manure a
year, would fill a freight train stretching from Amsterdam to the
farthest shores of Canada! Of course, this manure is not shipped to
Canada, but instead sits at home and wreaks havoc on the local Dutch
vegetation.
In the United States, farm animals produce 2 billion tons of
manure each year, or ten times the amount produced by the entire
global human population. Half of this is produced by animals raised in
factory farms, and does not return to the land. As one pig farmer put
it, "until fertilizer gets more expensive than labor, the waste has
very little value to me." With less meat in demand on a global scale,
we could put an end to the problems of excess manure, urine, feces or
other waste material from a massive livestock population.
Perhaps the most devastating environmental impact of America's
appetite for meat is deforestation. The primary reason for the
destruction of rainforests in countries like Costa Rica, Colombia,
Brazil, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia, is to provide grazing land
for cattle, virtually all of which goes not to the poor in these third
world nations, but rather is exported to wealthy countries like the
United States.
In fact, in the past 25 years almost half of the tropical
rainforests of Central America have been razed, mostly in providing
beef to North America. The impact is enormous. It is estimated that
90% of the plant and animal species on earth live in the tropics, many
still unrecorded by scientists. Every day more of these species are
pushed to extinction as a result of Americans' meat-centered diet. The
clearing of these forests also leads to a great deal of erosion,
increases runoff which causes flooding, takes away the wood peasants
often rely upon for fuel, and has been blamed for decreased rainfall.
In addition, the earth relies upon these rainforests to cycle carbon
dioxide out of the atmosphere. It is the destruction of these forests
and the resultant buildup of greenhouse gasses that is the cause of
global warming. By destroying these forests, we cause climactic
changes which can kill off countless species, cause widespread
droughts, and flood large areas of land my melting polar ice caps.
Meat production is not only damaging to the environment, but in
more immediate ways to the global human population as well. Land that
could be used to grow food to feed hungry people is instead used to
grow food for the animals we eat. In the process most of the nutrition
from land crops is lost. It takes 21 pounds of plant protein to
produce one pound of calf protein. Indeed, whereas one acre of land
planted with peas or beans yields 300 to 500 pounds of protein, this
same acre fed to animals yields meat with only 40 to 55 pounds of
protein. According to most estimates, plant foods provide about ten
times as much protein per acre as meat. And it is not just protein
being wasted. Broccoli, for instance, produces 5 times as much calcium
per acre as milk, and 24 times as much iron per acre as beef. Oats
yield 6 times as many calories per acre as pork, the most
calorie-efficient meat, and 25 times as many as beef.
Indeed, it has been pointed out that if Americans alone reduced
their consumption of meat by half, they would free enough food to make
up the world's calorie deficit four times over. In a world where
people are starving to death by the tens of millions, suffering from
malnutrition at even greater numbers, and driven to farming practices
that desert their land in order to eke out a subsistence, America's
meat consumption not only wastes land, but wastes desperately needed
food.
It goes without saying that meat eating is cruel. Literally
billions of animals are killed every year to feed Americans alone.
These animals do not spend their life roaming free in the barnyard, as
they once did. Today, virtually all of the meat we eat comes from
factory farms in which animals spend their lives suffering atrocious
conditions. Eating meat is cruelty towards animals. If we care about
human beings, about animals, as well as about the environment that we
all share, then there exists only one reasonable course: to become
vegetarian. Meat is a gross waste of our natural resources, a major
source of pollution, and the main cause of the destruction of the
earth's rainforests. Only a vegetarian diet is consistent with a
sincere concern for the environment. If you care about the world we
live in, recycling aluminum cans is not enough. A vegetarian diet is
not only good for your health, it is good for the planet.
Oz
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/660S
Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the
environment1,2,3
David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel
1 From the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY.
2 Presented at the Fourth International Congress on Vegetarian
Nutrition, held in Loma Linda, CA, April 8–11, 2002. Published
proceedings edited by Joan Sabaté and Sujatha Rajaram, Loma Linda
University, Loma Linda, CA.
Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a
meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a
plant-based diet. The US food production system uses about 50% of the
total US land area, 80% of the fresh water, and 17% of the fossil
energy used in the country. The heavy dependence on fossil energy
suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based,
is not sustainable. The use of land and energy resources devoted to an
average meat-based diet compared with a lactoovovegetarian
(plant-based) diet is analyzed in this report. In both diets, the
daily quantity of calories consumed are kept constant at about 3533
kcal per person. The meat-based food system requires more energy,
land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this
limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than
the average American meat-based diet.
Key Words: Meat-based diet • plant-based diet • environment • natural
resources • fossil • energy • fuel
Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a
meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a
plant-based diet. The shortages of cropland, fresh water, and energy
resources require most of the 4 billion people to live on a
plant-based diet. The World Health Organization recently reported that
more than 3 billion people are malnourished (1, 2). This is the
largest number and proportion of malnourished people ever recorded in
history. In large measure, the food shortage and malnourishment
problem is primarily related to rapid population growth in the world
plus the declining per capita availability of land, water, and energy
resources (3).
Like the world population, the US population continues to grow
rapidly. The US population doubled in the past 60 y and is projected
to double again in the next 70 y (4) (Figure 1). The US food
production system uses about 50% of the total US land area,
approximately 80% of the fresh water, and 17% of the fossil energy
used in the country (3). The heavy dependence on fossil energy
suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based,
is not sustainable. The use of land and energy resources devoted to an
average meat-based diet compared with a lactoovovegetarian
(plant-based) diet is analyzed in this report. In both diets, the
daily quantity of calories consumed was kept constant at about 3533
kcal per person.
The lactoovovegetarian diet was selected for this analysis because
most vegetarians are on this or some modified version of this diet. In
addition, the American Heart Association reported that the
lactoovovegetarian diet enables individuals to meet basic nutrient
needs (5).
A comparison of the calorie and food consumption of a
lactoovovegetarian diet and a meat-based diet is provided in Table 1.
In the lactoovovegetarian diet, the meat and fish calories were
replaced by proportionately increasing most other foods consumed in
Table 1 in the vegetarian diet except sugar and sweeteners, fats, and
vegetable oils. The total weight of food consumed was slightly higher
(1002 kg per year) in the lactoovovegetarian diet than in the
meat-based diet (995 kg per year). The most food calories consumed in
both diets were associated with food grains, and the second largest
amount of calories consumed was from sugar and sweeteners.
The amount of feed grains used to produce the animal products (milk
and eggs) consumed in the lactoovovegetarian diet was about half (450
kg) the amount of feed grains fed to the livestock (816 kg) to produce
the animal products consumed in the meat-based diet (Table 1). This is
expected because of the relatively large amount of animal products
consumed in the meat-based diet (7). Less than 0.4 ha of cropland was
used to produce the food for the vegetarian-based diet, whereas about
0.5 ha of cropland was used in the meat-based diet (8). This reflects
the larger amount of land needed to produce the meat-based diet (Table
1).
The major fossil energy inputs for grain, vegetable, and forage
production include fertilizers, agricultural machinery, fuel,
irrigation, and pesticides (8, 9). The energy inputs vary according to
the crops being grown (10). When these inputs are balanced against
their energy and protein content, grains and some legumes, such as
soybeans, are produced more efficiently in terms of energy inputs than
vegetables, fruits, and animal products (8). In the United States, the
average protein yield from a grain crop such as corn is 720 kg/ha
(10). To produce 1 kcal of plant protein requires an input of about
2.2 kcal of fossil energy (10).
The meat-based diet differs from the vegetarian diet in that 124 kg of
meat and 20.3 kg of fish are consumed per year (Table 1). Note that
the number of calories is the same for both diets because the
vegetarian foods consumed were proportionately increased to make sure
that both diets contained the same number of calories. The total
calories in the meat and fish consumed per day was 480 kcal. The foods
in the meat-based diet providing the most calories were food grains
and sugar and sweeteners—similar to the lactoovovegetarian diet.
In the United States, more than 9 billion livestock are maintained to
supply the animal protein consumed each year (11). This livestock
population on average outweighs the US human population by about 5
times. Some livestock, such as poultry and hogs, consume only grains,
whereas dairy cattle, beef cattle, and lambs consume both grains and
forage. At present, the US livestock population consumes more than 7
times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American
population (11). The amount of grains fed to US livestock is
sufficient to feed about 840 million people who follow a plant-based
diet (7). From the US livestock population, a total of about 8 million
tons (metric) of animal protein is produced annually. With an average
distribution assumed, this protein is sufficient to supply about 77 g
of animal protein daily per American. With the addition of about 35 g
of available plant protein consumed per person, a total of 112 g of
protein is available per capita in the United States per day (11).
Note that the recommended daily allowance (RDA) for adults per day is
56 g of protein from a mixed diet. Therefore, based on these data,
each American consumes about twice the RDA for protein. Americans on
average are eating too much and are consuming about 1000 kcal in
excess per day per capita (12, 13). The protein consumed per day on
the lactoovovegetarian diet is 89 g per day. This is significantly
lower than the 112 g for the meat-based diet but still much higher
than the RDA of 56 g per day.
About 124 kg of meat is eaten per American per year (6). Of the meat
eaten, beef amounts to 44 kg, pork 31 kg, poultry 48 kg, and other
meats 1 kg. Additional animal protein is obtained from the consumption
of milk, eggs, and fish. For every 1 kg of high-quality animal protein
produced, livestock are fed about 6 kg of plant protein. In the
conversion of plant protein to animal protein, there are 2 principal
inputs or costs: 1) the direct costs of production of the harvest
animal, including its feed; and 2) the indirect costs for maintaining
the breeding herds.
Fossil energy is expended in livestock production systems (Table 2).
For example, broiler chicken production is the most efficient, with an
input of 4 kcal of fossil energy for each 1 kcal of broiler protein
produced. The broiler system is primarily dependent on grain. Turkey,
also a grain-fed system, is next in efficiency, with a ratio of 10:1.
Milk production, based on a mixture of two-thirds grain and one-third
forage, is relatively efficient, with a ratio of 14:1. Both pork and
egg production also depend on grain. Pork production has a ratio of
14:1, whereas egg production has a 39:1 ratio.
TABLE 2 Animal production in the United States and the fossil energy
required to produce 1 kcal of animal protein
The 2 livestock systems depending most heavily on forage but also
using significant amounts of grain are the beef and lamb production
systems (Table 3). The beef system has a ratio of 40:1, while the lamb
has the highest, with a ratio of 57:1 (Table 2). If these animals were
fed on only good-quality pasture, the energy inputs could be reduced
by about half.
TABLE 3 Grain and forage inputs per kilogram of animal product
produced
The average fossil energy input for all the animal protein production
systems studied is 25 kcal fossil energy input per 1 kcal of protein
produced (Table 2). This energy input is more than 11 times greater
than that for grain protein production, which is about 2.2 kcal of
fossil energy input per 1 kcal of plant protein produced (Table 4).
This is for corn and assumes 9% protein in the corn. Animal protein is
a complete protein based on its amino acid profile and has about 1.4
times the biological value of grain protein (8).
TABLE 4 Energy inputs and costs of corn production per hectare in the
United States
More than 99.2% of US food is produced on land, while < 0.8% comes
from oceans and other aquatic ecosystems. The continued use and
productivity of the land is a growing concern because of the rapid
rate of soil erosion and degradation throughout the United States and
the world. Each year about 90% of US cropland loses soil at a rate 13
times above the sustainable rate of 1 ton/ha/y (28). Also, US pastures
and rangelands are losing soil at an average of 6 tons/ha/y. About 60%
of United States pastureland is being overgrazed and is subject to
accelerated erosion.
The concern about high rates of soil erosion in the United States and
the world is evident when it is understood that it takes approximately
500 y to replace 25 mm (1 in) of lost soil (28). Clearly, a farmer
cannot wait for the replacement of 25 mm of soil. Commercial
fertilizers can replace some nutrient loss resulting from soil
erosion, but this requires large inputs of fossil energy.
Agricultural production, including livestock production, consumes more
fresh water than any other activity in the United States. Western
agricultural irrigation accounts for 85% of the fresh water consumed
(29). The water required to produce various foods and forage crops
ranges from 500 to 2000 L of water per kilogram of crop produced. For
instance, a hectare of US corn transpires more than 5 million L of
water during the 3-mo growing season. If irrigation is required, more
than 10 million L of water must be applied. Even with 800–1000 mm of
annual rainfall in the US Corn Belt, corn usually suffers from lack of
water in late July, when the corn is growing the most.
Producing 1 kg of animal protein requires about 100 times more water
than producing 1 kg of grain protein (8). Livestock directly uses only
1.3% of the total water used in agriculture. However, when the water
required for forage and grain production is included, the water
requirements for livestock production dramatically increase. For
example, producing 1 kg of fresh beef may require about 13 kg of grain
and 30 kg of hay (17). This much forage and grain requires about 100
000 L of water to produce the 100 kg of hay, and 5400 L for the 4 kg
of grain. On rangeland for forage production, more than 200 000 L of
water are needed to produce 1 kg of beef (30). Animals vary in the
amounts of water required for their production. In contrast to beef, 1
kg of broiler can be produced with about 2.3 kg of grain requiring
approximately 3500 L of water.
Both the meat-based average American diet and the lactoovovegetarian
diet require significant quantities of nonrenewable fossil energy to
produce. Thus, both food systems are not sustainable in the long term
based on heavy fossil energy requirements. However, the meat-based
diet requires more energy, land, and water resources than the
lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian
diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet.
The major threat to future survival and to US natural resources is
rapid population growth. The US population of 285 million is projected
to double to 570 million in the next 70 y, which will place greater
stress on the already-limited supply of energy, land, and water
resources. These vital resources will have to be divided among ever
greater numbers of people.
World Health Organization. Micronutrient malnutrition—half of the
world’s population affected. World Health Organization 1996;78:1–4.
World Health Organization. Malnutrition worldwide. 2000. Internet:
http://www.who.int/nut/malnutrition_worldwide.htm (accessed 27 July
2000).
Pimentel D, Pimentel M. World population, food, natural resources, and
survival. World Futures 2003;59:145–67.
US Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of the United States.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2001.
American Heart Association. American Heart Association: home page.
2001. Internet: http://www.americanheart.org (accessed 22 December
2001).
FAOSTAT. Food balance sheets. Internet:
http://armanncorn:98iv...@faostat.fao.org/lim...ap.pl?FoodBalanceSheet&Domain
(accessed 22 December 2001).
Pimentel D. Livestock production and energy use. In: Cleveland CJ, ed.
Encyclopedia of energy (in press).
Pimentel D, Pimentel M. Food, energy and society. Niwot, CO: Colorado
University Press, 1996.
Pimentel D. Livestock production: energy inputs and the environment.
In: Scott SL, Zhao X, eds. Canadian Society of Animal Science,
proceedings. Vol 47. Montreal, Canada: Canadian Society of Animal
Science, 1997:17–26.
Pimentel D, Doughty R, Carothers C, Lamberson S, Bora N, Lee K. Energy
use in developing and developed crop production. In: Lal R, Hansen D,
Uphoff N, Slack S, eds. Food security and environmental quality in the
developing world. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2002:129–51.
US Department of Agriculture. Agricultural statistics. Washington, DC:
US Department of Agriculture, 2001.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Obesity and overweight.
2002. Internet: http://www.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/index.htm
(accessed 22 January 2002).
Surgeon General. The virtual office of the Surgeon General. 2002.
Internet:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:oQexukpqAwC:www.surgeongeneral.gov/
(accessed 22 January 2002).
Morrison FB. Feeds and feeding. Ithaca, NY: Morrison Publishing
Company, 1956.
Heitschmidt RK, Short RE, Grings EE. Ecosystems, sustainability, and
animal agriculture. J Anim Sci 1996;74:1395–405.[Abstract]
US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Agricultural prices, 1998 summary. Washington, DC: US
Department of Agriculture, 1999.
Pimentel D. Handbook of energy utilization in agriculture. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press, 1980.
Hoffman TR, Warnock WD, Hinman HR. Crop enterprise budgets,
Timothy-legume and alfalfa hay, Sudan grass, sweet corn and spring
wheat under rill irrigation. Farm Business Reports EB 1173, Kittitas
County, Washington. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, 1994.
National Agricultural Statistics Service. Farm labor. Internet:
http//usda.mannlib.cornell.edu. (accessed 22 December 1999).
US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economics and
Statistics System. Corn-state: costs of production. Washington, DC: US
Department of Agriculture, 1991. (Stock #94018.)
Hinman H, Pelter G, Kulp E, Sorensen E, Ford W. Enterprise budgets for
fall potatoes, winter wheat, dry beans, and seed peas under rill
irrigation. Farm Business Management Reports. Pullman, WA: Washington
State University, 1992.
US Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service, 1997.
Food and Agricultural Organization. Agricultural statistics. 1999.
Internet: http://apps.fao.org/cgi-bin/nph-db.pl?subset-agriculture
(accessed 22 November 1999).
US Department of Agriculture. Farm business briefing room, 1998.
Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, 1998.
McGuckin JT, Gollehon N, Ghosh S. Water conservation in irrigated
agriculture: a stochastic production frontier model. Water Resour Res
1992;28:305–12.
US Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of the United States,
2000. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1998.
US Department of Agriculture. Agricultural statistics. Washington, DC:
US Department of Agriculture, 1998.
Pimentel D, Kounang N. Ecology of soil erosion in ecosystems.
Ecosystems 1998;1:416–26.
Pimentel D, Houser J, Preiss E, et al. Water resources: agriculture,
the environment, and Society. BioScience 1997;47:97–106.
Thomas GW. Water: critical and evasive resource on semi-arid lands.
In: Jordan WR, ed. Water and water policy in world food supplies.
College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1987:83–90.
Oz
Franco Contaldo and Fabrizio Pasanisi
Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine
University of Naples
Via Pansini 5 80131 Napoli
Italy
Dear Sir:
Weigle et al (1) raise the intriguing question of whether high-protein
diets are useful in preventing and treating excess body fat—a clinical
issue that affects more than one billion people. They showed that a
high protein intake reduces body weight by increasing satiety. Their
study, together with the editorial by Astrup (2), raises the question
of whether high-protein diets should be promoted in large numbers of
people, particularly given the high protein intake typical of Western
diets. Suffice it to note that the current estimated protein intake in
the United States is already more than double the recommended amount
(3). As a matter of fact, the human species is omnivorous and has
developed very efficient adaptive physiologic mechanisms for fuel
utilization, notwithstanding the feast or famine pendulum and that
meat constituted the staple diet of our pre-Neolithic ancestors (4).
However, a meat-based diet—which has a high protein content—is largely
less environmentally sustainable than is a vegetarian-based diet
nowadays (5). A meat-based diet had little effect when the world's
population numbered only a few million, unlike today when more than 6
billion individuals are competing for resources. Furthermore, a
high-protein diet may have untoward effects, for example, on calcium
and bone metabolism (6, 7).
In conclusion, the findings reported by Weigle et al confirm some
basic physiologic concepts of human nutrition; a high-protein diet can
have untoward effects, may be difficult to adhere to, and, most
importantly, is not environmentally sustainable. Thus, caution should
be exercised in applying the findings of Weigle et al in the clinical
setting.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Neither author had a conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
Weigle DS, Breen PA, Matthys CC, et al. A high-protein diet induces
sustained reductions in appetite, ad libitum caloric intake, and body
weight despite compensatory changes in diurnal plasma leptin and
ghrelin concentrations. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 82: 41–8.[Abstract/Free
Full Text]
Astrup A. The satiating power of protein—a key to obesity prevention?
Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 82: 1–2.[Free Full Text]
US Department of Agriculture. Agricultural statistics. Washington, DC:
US Department of Agriculture, 2001.
Diamond J. The double puzzle of diabetes. Nature 2003; 423:
599–602.[Medline]
Pimentel D, Pimentel M. Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based
diets and the environment. Am J Clin Nutr 2003; 78(suppl):
660S–3S.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Eaton SB, Konner M. Paleolithic nutrition. A consideration of its
nature and current implications. N Engl J Med 1985; 312:
283–9.[Medline]
Kerstetter JE, O'Brien KO, Insogna KL. Low protein intake: the impact
on calcium and bone homeostasis in humans. J Nutr 2003; 133(suppl):
855S–61S.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Oz
from genuine conservation, into their own pockets that we are still
seeing huge declines in all species? Millions has been wasted
slaughtering wildlife, ruddy duck, grey squirrels, deer, rats etc and
theme park CONservation where people are encouraged to visit precious
wildlife habitats in their millions, are finally having their toll on
wildlife?
Isn't it about time we got rid of the CONservation hooligans?
Numbers Of Woodland Birds On The Decline
Wednesday, 13th June 2007, 01:12
Some of Britain's best loved woodland birds are declining at an
alarming rate, ornithologists have warned.
Long haul migrant species in particular - such as the Spotted
Flycatcher, the Willow Warbler and the Tree Pipit - are disappearing
from the dappled glades and airy canopies that cover the country.
But in contrast to those that travel between Africa and the more
temperate latitudes of Europe, resident breeding birds and short hop
migrants have either declined at a slower rate or not at all.
Overall, more species breeding in woodland have increased than
decreased between the 1980s and 2003/04 but patterns of population
change differ across groups of species, according to the British Trust
for Ornithology's Repeat Woodland Bird Survey.
All long distance migrants have declined with the five worst hit
identified as the Garden Warbler (25.6%), the Wood Warbler (64%), the
Tree Pipit (69.7%), the Spotted Flycatcher (70.4%), and the Willow
Warbler (74.2%).
BTO spokesman Paul Stancliffe said: "It is interesting that Spotted
Flycatcher was late returning to the UK this year and so far numbers
appear to be low.
"Its conservation status is Red, high conservation concern and the
decline seems to be continuing. It is suggested that there are
problems in the winter quarters of these species coupled with changes
in woodland management in the UK."
In all, 11 out of the 34 species monitored showed large national
increases in numbers - greater than 25% - while eight showed large
decreases of more than 25%.
Mr Stancliffe added: "The worrying decline for long distance birds was
confirmed for the first time by this survey. Birds such as Tree Pipit
and Spotted Flycatcher showed declines of up to 70% in some areas."
On the other hand, the two medium distance migrants, the Blackcap and
the Chiffchaff, have increased strongly - by 57.2% and 154.8%
respectively.
Common species, such as the Blue Tit and Great Spotted Woodpecker,
appear to have fared better than scarcer species like the Willow Tit
and the Lesser Spotted Woodpecker.
The report said changes to the structure of woodlands as produced by
reductions in coppicing or intensified deer grazing, for example, may
have contributed to the decline of many woodland species.
Deer are voracious feeders, and can strip out bushes and young trees
from woodland very rapidly. Other scientists blame the modern woodland
management practice of removing dead wood in which the bark beetles
live and the birds in turn feed on.
Also, because of climate change trees and other plants are in leaf
earlier and so caterpillars are emerging earlier to feed on them.
Resident birds such as Blue tits and Great tits are able to take
advantage of this before migrant woodland birds such as flycatchers
arrive, so there is less food for them.
The Lesser Redpoll has undergone the worst decline over the past
twenty odd years of 88.9%. The lack of suitable young forest growth
may be a contributing factor, added the research.
Report co-author Rob Fuller, of the BTO, said: "We were not surprised
the study confirmed large declines have
occurred in certain resident species, notably Willow Tit, Lesser
Spotted Woodpecker and Hawfinch.
"But the declines in those summer visitors that spend the winter in
Africa were more serious than we were expecting.
"At the same time it has been reassuring to see that several species
are thriving in woodlands, such as Chiffchaffs, Blackcaps, Great Tits
and Coal Tits."
The survey was funded by Defra, the Forestry Commission, Natural
England, the RSPB, BTO and the Woodland Trust
amacm...@aol.com
>Could it be the CONservation hooligans have diverted so much money
>from genuine conservation, into their own pockets that we are still
>seeing huge declines in all species? Millions has been wasted
>slaughtering wildlife, ruddy duck, grey squirrels, deer, rats etc and
>theme park CONservation where people are encouraged to visit precious
>wildlife habitats in their millions, are finally having their toll on
>wildlife?
Absolutely!
>
>Isn't it about time we got rid of the CONservation hooligans?
In a word, yes.
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Jim Webster
I bet it was. Pleading for more money in grants, yet no intention on
spending the money on genuine conservation.
Robert Seago
<amacm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >Isn't it about time we got rid of the CONservation hooligans?
> In a word, yes.
Who are they then Angus?
> >Numbers Of Woodland Birds On The Decline
> >Wednesday, 13th June 2007, 01:12
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/3c85qs
> >
> >Some of Britain's best loved woodland birds are declining at an
> >alarming rate, ornithologists have warned.
> >
> >Long haul migrant species in particular - such as the Spotted
> >Flycatcher, the Willow Warbler and the Tree Pipit - are disappearing
> >from the dappled glades and airy canopies that cover the country.
> >But in contrast to those that travel between Africa and the more
> >temperate latitudes of Europe, resident breeding birds and short hop
> >migrants have either declined at a slower rate or not at all.
So does that not suggest that much of the problem is likely not to be in
the UK
> >
> >Overall, more species breeding in woodland have increased than
> >decreased between the 1980s and 2003/04 but patterns of population
> >change differ across groups of species, according to the British Trust
> >for Ornithology's Repeat Woodland Bird Survey.
So do you still agree with Pete that the problem is likely to be these
mythical conservation hooligans?
> >
> >All long distance migrants have declined with the five worst hit
> >identified as the Garden Warbler (25.6%), the Wood Warbler (64%), the
> >Tree Pipit (69.7%), the Spotted Flycatcher (70.4%), and the Willow
> >Warbler (74.2%).
> >BTO spokesman Paul Stancliffe said: "It is interesting that Spotted
> >Flycatcher was late returning to the UK this year and so far numbers
> >appear to be low.
> >
> >"Its conservation status is Red, high conservation concern and the
> >decline seems to be continuing. It is suggested that there are
> >problems in the winter quarters of these species coupled with changes
> >in woodland management in the UK."
So who are these villains?
> >
> >In all, 11 out of the 34 species monitored showed large national
> >increases in numbers - greater than 25% - while eight showed large
> >decreases of more than 25%.
So someone must be doing some good around here then.
> >
> >Mr Stancliffe added: "The worrying decline for long distance birds was
> >confirmed for the first time by this survey. Birds such as Tree Pipit
> >and Spotted Flycatcher showed declines of up to 70% in some areas."
> >
> >On the other hand, the two medium distance migrants, the Blackcap and
> >the Chiffchaff, have increased strongly - by 57.2% and 154.8%
> >respectively.
I certainly have good numbers of these.
> >
> >Common species, such as the Blue Tit and Great Spotted Woodpecker,
> >appear to have fared better than scarcer species like the Willow Tit
> >and the Lesser Spotted Woodpecker.
That is certainly true- far more of them.
> >
> >The report said changes to the structure of woodlands as produced by
> >reductions in coppicing or intensified deer grazing, for example, may
> >have contributed to the decline of many woodland species.
Not what you like to hear then Angus. Read on the next bit!
> >Deer are voracious feeders, and can strip out bushes and young trees
> >from woodland very rapidly. Other scientists blame the modern woodland
> >management practice of removing dead wood in which the bark beetles
> >live and the birds in turn feed on.
> >
> >Also, because of climate change trees and other plants are in leaf
> >earlier and so caterpillars are emerging earlier to feed on them.
> >
> >Resident birds such as Blue tits and Great tits are able to take
> >advantage of this before migrant woodland birds such as flycatchers
> >arrive, so there is less food for them.
Makes sense
> >
> >"At the same time it has been reassuring to see that several species
> >are thriving in woodlands, such as Chiffchaffs, Blackcaps, Great Tits
> >and Coal Tits."
> >
The fact that most of this posting goes wildly in the opposite direction
to that of your usual contentions, mean that you just picked up on another
of Pete's mindless postings without reading it yourself.
Am I surprised.
--
Regards from Bob Seago: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago/
amacm...@aol.com
<rjs...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <9u5273tddd3aim04f...@4ax.com>,
> <amacm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >Isn't it about time we got rid of the CONservation hooligans?
>
>> In a word, yes.
>Who are they then Angus?
The fakes who kill wildlife
>
>
>> >Numbers Of Woodland Birds On The Decline
>> >Wednesday, 13th June 2007, 01:12
>> >
>> >http://tinyurl.com/3c85qs
>> >
>> >Some of Britain's best loved woodland birds are declining at an
>> >alarming rate, ornithologists have warned.
>> >
>> >Long haul migrant species in particular - such as the Spotted
>> >Flycatcher, the Willow Warbler and the Tree Pipit - are disappearing
>> >from the dappled glades and airy canopies that cover the country.
Due to the policies of the CON-servation hooligans who treat woodlands
as theme parks
>
>> >But in contrast to those that travel between Africa and the more
>> >temperate latitudes of Europe, resident breeding birds and short hop
>> >migrants have either declined at a slower rate or not at all.
>
>So does that not suggest that much of the problem is likely not to be in
>the UK
It suggests that some are declining but none are increasing - despite
the millions of pounds being spent of fake conservation. Little
wonder.
>> >
>> >Overall, more species breeding in woodland have increased than
>> >decreased between the 1980s and 2003/04 but patterns of population
>> >change differ across groups of species, according to the British Trust
>> >for Ornithology's Repeat Woodland Bird Survey.
>So do you still agree with Pete that the problem is likely to be these
>mythical conservation hooligans?
If the long haul ones are the most affected and the resident breeding
birds and short hop migrants have either declined at a slower rate or
not at all, what other birds are increasing? Sounds like another
case of Con-servation.
BTW. Who's Pete?
>> >
>> >All long distance migrants have declined with the five worst hit
>> >identified as the Garden Warbler (25.6%), the Wood Warbler (64%), the
>> >Tree Pipit (69.7%), the Spotted Flycatcher (70.4%), and the Willow
>> >Warbler (74.2%).
>
>> >BTO spokesman Paul Stancliffe said: "It is interesting that Spotted
>> >Flycatcher was late returning to the UK this year and so far numbers
>> >appear to be low.
>> >
>> >"Its conservation status is Red, high conservation concern and the
>> >decline seems to be continuing. It is suggested that there are
>> >problems in the winter quarters of these species coupled with changes
>> >in woodland management in the UK."
>So who are these villains?
CON-servation woodland managers who turn woodlands into theme parks in
the UK seems largely to blame.
>> >
>> >In all, 11 out of the 34 species monitored showed large national
>> >increases in numbers - greater than 25% - while eight showed large
>> >decreases of more than 25%.
>So someone must be doing some good around here then.
>> >
>> >Mr Stancliffe added: "The worrying decline for long distance birds was
>> >confirmed for the first time by this survey. Birds such as Tree Pipit
>> >and Spotted Flycatcher showed declines of up to 70% in some areas."
>> >
>> >On the other hand, the two medium distance migrants, the Blackcap and
>> >the Chiffchaff, have increased strongly - by 57.2% and 154.8%
>> >respectively.
>I certainly have good numbers of these.
>> >
>> >Common species, such as the Blue Tit and Great Spotted Woodpecker,
>> >appear to have fared better than scarcer species like the Willow Tit
>> >and the Lesser Spotted Woodpecker.
>That is certainly true- far more of them.
>> >
>> >The report said changes to the structure of woodlands as produced by
>> >reductions in coppicing or intensified deer grazing, for example, may
>> >have contributed to the decline of many woodland species.
>
"may have contributed" means they don't know and therefore means
nothing.
>Not what you like to hear then Angus. Read on the next bit!
>
Usual waffle from the bird charities.
>> >Deer are voracious feeders, and can strip out bushes and young trees
>> >from woodland very rapidly. Other scientists blame the modern woodland
>> >management practice of removing dead wood in which the bark beetles
>> >live and the birds in turn feed on.
>> >
>> >Also, because of climate change trees and other plants are in leaf
>> >earlier and so caterpillars are emerging earlier to feed on them.
>> >
>> >Resident birds such as Blue tits and Great tits are able to take
>> >advantage of this before migrant woodland birds such as flycatchers
>> >arrive, so there is less food for them.
>Makes sense
>
The deer do no more than we do; feed ourselves and shouldn't be shot
for it. If the fake conservationists want to protect trees they
should fence them.
>> >
>> >"At the same time it has been reassuring to see that several species
>> >are thriving in woodlands, such as Chiffchaffs, Blackcaps, Great Tits
>> >and Coal Tits."
>> >
>The fact that most of this posting goes wildly in the opposite direction
>to that of your usual contentions, mean that you just picked up on another
>of Pete's mindless postings without reading it yourself.
>
>Am I surprised.
So what you're saying is that there's no problem with declining birds
and it's all down to the excellent work of those who call themselves
conservationists.
I would suggest it's the very opposite and that there is a definite
decline in birds nationally but there has to be some show of success
to keep the money rolling in to the fakes' coffers.
I'd also be interested to know what measures are taken to guarantee
the accuracy of these surveys. If it's purely people counting
sightings of birds the results could be garbage.
Malcolm Ogilvie counts birds, I believe, but he spends so much time
on his computer I'm sure he misses some.:-))
But don't bother to go into it too deeply, just tell me how they
arrived at an increase of 154.8% of chiffchaffs? Are they sure that
figure is correct?
Jim Webster
<rjs...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
You seem to have missed the point once again, but as your one of those
CONservation hooligan wankers is it any wonder?
Most species over the whole of the UK are in decline, yet pricks like
you keep flapping for more money to save these species, and when given
it you don't even spend it on the required areas. Whilst we know your
just a dickhead running a penny farthing operation cooking the books,
groups like the RSPB are coining in millions and doing nothing!
Prat.
Jim Webster
Well I suppose that's one way to describe a scorched earth policy.
Hitler would have been proud of the spin the CONservation hooligans
put on things.
Can you imagine if a housing developer used the same bullshit spin?
Jim Webster
"Jim Webster" <Jim.W...@pagehaveawankfarm.com> wrote in message
no he didn't
It is just pete, wannabe animal rights activist and granny reburier who is
so ashamed and embarassed by what he posts he will not put his own name to
it
Oz
A North Yorkshire farmer has been convicted under animal welfare
legislation for causing considerable distress to an injured sheep by
transporting it to an abattoir when it was patently unfit to travel.
Donald Lowther of Stank Hall Farm in North Yorkshire was fined £300,
with £269 costs, for allowing a sheep to be transported from
Northallerton to an abattoir in Gateshead in spite of it being in pain
from a severely damaged foot.
Magistrates at Blaydon Magistrates’ Court heard how the injured and
distressed animal was spotted last September by the vet on duty at the
Coast and County abattoir in Felling. The vet investigated the matter
with Gateshead Council’s Animal Health Officer and found that the
sheep was lame and seemed unable to bear any weight on its foot.
The animal was slaughtered and samples taken for examination by the
Veterinary Laboratories Agency, which concluded that the damage
present in the sheep’s leg would have been evident for several days
prior to slaughter and that the animal would have experienced
considerable discomfort due to the condition of its left foot.
The foot was so badly damaged by infection and maggots that the animal
was deemed unfit to travel. Photographs were taken of the injuries,
which were shown to the Magistrates.
Mr Lowther was prosecuted by Gateshead Council under the provisions of
Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 for failing to spot the
injury and making sure the animal was treated before it was loaded for
travel.
“This is a very important prosecution,” says Richard Ferry, Gateshead
Council’s Team Leader for Trading Standards. “The animal health
officer and the Vet at the abattoir found a serious animal welfare
problem. “
“The photographs of this animal’ injuries are shocking and the animal
must have been in considerable pain.
“It is very important that farmers maintain high health and welfare
standards for their animals. The abattoir is a food factory and it is
vital that all meat in the food chain is safe and not liable to
contaminate other products.’
Oz
Oz
A man who attacked a hunt monitor who was filming a hunt has been
given a suspended jail sentence.
Livestock farmer Christopher Marles, 45, was convicted of actual
bodily harm at Exeter Crown Court.
He punched Kevin Hill from Dorset, a monitor with the International
Fund for Animal Welfare, at a Devon & Somerset Staghounds hunt on
Exmoor.
Marles, of Farringdon, was ordered to pay £2,500 compensation and
jailed for nine months, suspended for two years.
The trial heard that Mr Hill, from Beaminster, Dorset, suffered a cut
face and black eye as result of the attack.
Sixteen-stone Marles had denied carrying out the attack on 27 October
2005.
Mr Hill was filming the hunt to ensure it was complying with the law
against hunting with hounds which was introduced in February 2005.
The jury saw 17 minutes of video footage, which showed Marles
confronting Mr Hill and then someone trying to take the camera from
him, although at this stage the lens was pointing to the road and did
not show the attacker.
Tom Yandle, chairman of the Devon & Somerset Staghounds, said after
the trial that the hunt did not condone any violence against hunt
monitors.
He added that Marles was not a member of the hunt.
After the sentencing, victim Kevin Hill said: "The sentence, in all,
was sufficiently harsh to send a warning out to anybody else that this
sort of behaviour is just not acceptable."
Oz
The State Veterinary Service and Devon County Council Trading
Standards Service will continue their zero tolerance stance against
animal cruelty and breaches of legislation designed to prevent animal
disease and to protect the food chain, following the change in
direction of the sentence given to Piers Brendon at Exeter Crown Court
today.
Judge John Leligan replaced the custodial sentence of 84 days with
fines totalling £19,000, with costs of £3,000. The disqualification
preventing Mr Brendon from having 'custody' of livestock for 10 years
still stands.
In January 2006 at Exeter Magistrates, Mr Brendon pleaded guilty to
four charges and was found guilty on an additional 17 charges for a
series of offences including causing unnecessary suffering to animals,
breaching animal disease control measures, failing to produce
veterinary medical records and failing to comply with carcass disposal
regulations. Mr Brendon appealed against his sentence and this appeal
was concluded today.
The offences were uncovered by Veterinary Inspectors from the State
Veterinary Service (SVS) and Officers from Devon County Council
Trading Standards Service who visited Luxmoor Farm at Lydford and
Great Bidlake Farm at Bridestowe, both in West Devon.
SVS veterinary officer, Anna Harrison, said: "Mr Brendon's previous
offences for animal cruelty go back to 1993. The outcome of today's
hearing still sends a clear message to farmers that neglecting their
animals causing them to suffer will not be tolerated. A prosecution
such as this, against a single farmer, runs the risk of unfairly
bringing the whole industry into disrepute. Failing to keep proper
veterinary medicine records and incorrect disposal of animal carcasses
are also very serious issues and the regulations are there to protect
public health as well."
Ken Endacott, Food Standards Manager for Devon County Council Trading
Standards Service, which led the prosecution, said: "We are pleased
with the outcome of this investigation and the result of this court
hearing, which only goes to show that the actions of irresponsible
livestock keepers are regarded very seriously by the Courts. Mr
Brendon failed to follow fundamental elements of basic farm animal
health and welfare practice despite the provision of advice to him."
NOTES TO EDITORS:
1. Piers Brendon was originally sentenced at Exeter
Magistrates at a hearing on 18 January 2006.
ISSUED ON BEHALF OF STATE VETERINARY SERVICE BY THE GOVERNMENT NEWS
NETWORK SOUTH WEST. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT ANNIE
HARRIS ON 0117 900 3568 OR KEN ENDACOTT ON 01392 382728.
Advice on farm animal health and welfare is available from Devon
County Council's Trading Standards Service Livestock Regulations
helpline on 0845 1551 999
Oz
fined €300
A FARMER and chairman of a well-known hare-coursing club has been
found guilty of trapping endangered hares without a licence.
Brendan Farrelly, who holds hare coursing meetings on his land, was
found guilty yesterday of hunting 18 hares without a Department of
Environment licence.
Farrelly's club, the Westmeath United Coursing Club, was convicted and
fined for the same offence at Killucan District Court, Co Westmeath.
Farrelly (58) and the coursing club were acquitted of a separate
charge of injuring a young hare that was captured without a licence.
The court heard how rangers from the National Parks and Wildlife
Service (NPWS) called to Farrelly's farm on August 31, 2006, and found
two compounds containing a number of hares.
Ranger John Mathews told Judge John Neilan that one of the hares was
in such a poor state that it was unable to move and had to be removed
and destroyed by a vet.
The court heard how the Westmeath club's licence to hunt wild hares
was not due to come into effect until the following day, September 1.
When questioned by rangers at his home at Riverdale, Raharney, Co
Westmeath, Farrelly said he did not have a licence and insisted that
the hares had only been caught the previous day.
Wildlife ranger Triana Finnen told Judge Neilan that in her experience
the hares at Mr Farrelly's farm appeared to have been in the pen
longer than one day and that it was unlikely that such an amount of
hares could have been trapped in a single day.
Injury
Defending counsel for Farrelly and for the coursing club, Stephen
Byrne, said there was not sufficient evidence to show that either of
his clients had caused injury to the hare.
Judge Neilan dismissed the second charge against both defendants but
upheld the charges of hunting without a licence under the Wildlife Act
of 1976.
He fined the Westmeath United Coursing Club €300 and ordered them to
pay €175 expenses to the NPWS.
Farrelly was found guilty of the offence of hunting hares without a
licence but the judge took the offence into consideration, having
fined the club.
- Dara de Faoite
Oz
By Jill Crooks
Sheep farmer Lance Beale is appealing against his conviction for 14
animal welfare offences.
If granted this would be the second appeal brought by Mr Beale, of
Wyatts Lake Farm, Westbrook .
He was convicted of 14 of 19 charges brought by Wiltshire County
Council Trading Standards by a district judge on June 1 2004.
An appeal against this was upheld by a judge and two magistrates at
Salisbury Crown Court on December 29 2005.
The charges relate to a period from November 2000 to the end of
January 2001.
The conclusion of the second appeal had brought the total costs of the
case, for both prosecution and defence, to more than £250,000.
Judge Keith Cutler sentenced Mr Beale to a conditional discharge for
two years, banned him from keeping livestock for ten years and ordered
him to pay £10,000 towards the prosecution costs.
The charges Mr Beale was convicted of included causing unnecessary
suffering to sheep and lambs.
The prosecution said he did not treat or destroy them after some were
attacked by dogs.
The injured sheep included a lamb whose leg was almost torn off.
Mr Beale said he had destroyed the sheep he considered to be the worst
cases and said he intended to review the others when he returned to
the farm later in the day.
Mr Beale has appealed against the conviction and sentence and a High
Court judge is due to rule soon whether the appeal can go ahead.
Mr Beale said he could not talk about the details of the appeal but
said he was determined to clear his name.
He said: "It was an erroneous prosecution. It's wrong and I need to
see it to the end.
"I want someone else to look at the facts and if they come to the same
conclusion I will have to take it on the chin.
"At the moment I don't feel guilty, I feel hard done by."
Mr Beale will seek legal aid if the matter goes to appeal. He said
legal aid was not covering preliminary hearings.
He also said: "I'm not proud of the costs but this has to be done."
Mr Beale said a judge in the High Court had agreed to hold over the
£10,000 costs order but he had not sought to lift the ban on keeping
livestock.
Mr Beale's farm is now producing strawberries, raspberries and
asparagus.
Oz
By Paul Eccleston
Last Updated: 6:01pm BST 13/06/2007
A moth that can cause severe allergic reactions in people - and even
kill in rare cases - is spreading across parts of London.
The caterpillars can cause severe skin irritation, breathing
difficulties and even anaphylactic shock
Caterpillars of the Oak procession moth (Thaumetopoea processionea)
have been emerging from nests at different sites in the west of the
capital.
The caterpillar has long, white silky hairs which cover thousands of
smaller hairs that contain a toxin.
Touching or breathing in the hairs can cause severe skin irritation,
breathing difficulties and even anaphylactic shock.
The moth, which feeds on the leaves of oak trees, was found in several
locations last year including the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew.
Workmen clad in protective clothing have been scooping up the
caterpillars and destroying them in a bid to halt their spread.
A Kew spokesman said: " About 30-35 oak trees had been affected and we
have been exterminating the caterpillars as fast as they emerge but I
am afraid this is not a problem that is going to disappear quickly."
"Our oaks have resisted many other diseases and we hope they are
strong enough to resist this."
The moth is widely distributed in central and southern Europe, but it
has been expanding its range northward because of climate change and
it is now established in north France and The Netherlands.It is
thought to have got into Britain on imported trees.
The moth's caterpillars are found from April to June. Newly hatched
they have a uniformly brown body and dark head but older larvae have a
single dark stripe running down the middle of the back and a whitish
line along each side.
The larvae feed together in groups and, when not feeding, they
congregate in communal nests made of tennis-ball sized white silk
nests spun under a branch or on the trunk.
The larvae typically follow one another head-to-tail in long
'processions' to and from the nest and from one feeding position to
another, which gives the moth its name.
They are voracious feeders and can easily defoliate a tree. They are
also extremely difficult to eradicate once they take hold.
Christine Tilbury, of the Forestry Commission's agency, Forest
Research, said: "We are obviously concerned about it. The caterpillars
stimulate a severe allergenic reaction in susceptible people.
"Where it has occurred on the Continent it has caused a severe skin
rash and respiratory tract irritation. We would advise anyone in
contact with it to get immediate medical advice."
She added: "It could fly in or come in as eggs on plants. I do not
know how you keep it out."
Oz
The official behind the annual count of swans on part of the River
Thames claims the number of injuries caused by fishing tackle is on
the rise.
David Barber, the Queen's Swan Marker, has announced this year's Swan
Upping - the traditional count of cygnets - will take place from 16
July until 20 July.
The Upping, which takes place from Sunbury to Abingdon, sees swans
weighed and ringed and checked for injuries.
Mr Barber said the number of injuries already known about was
"regrettable".
Oil impregnation
Mr Barber said: "Although the reported incidence of vandalism has
decreased in the last year, it is regrettable that the number of
injuries caused to mute swans by fishing tackle continue to rise.
"There has also been an increase in treatment required for incidents
involving diesel oil.
"Birds whose feathers are impregnated with oil require washing and
further treatment if they have ingested any of the oil."
The ceremony itself dates from the 12th Century when the Crown claimed
all unowned mute swans in Britain to ensure a ready supply for
banquets and feasts.
Nowadays, the Queen retains the right to ownership on some stretches
of the River Thames and tributaries.
Local schoolchildren are being invited to join the "uppers" at various
locations during the week to learn more about the count.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6748041.stm
Oz
Tony Juniper
June 14, 2007 12:00 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tony_juniper/2007/06/the_npower_to_lay_waste.html
Vanishing oasis: Thrupp Lake in September 2006, before RWE npower
contractors started cutting down trees. Photograph: CPRE Oxfordshire.
More than 30 years ago, I used to visit an area of disused gravel
workings a few miles outside Oxford, near a place called Radley.
Even by the early 1970s, the lakes had matured over the years to
become rich in wildlife, the nearby rough areas of grassland, ponds
and scrub woodland abounding with plants and insects. Looking back,
that place was like a great outdoor classroom where as a child I
learned about wildlife, ecosystems and ecology.
TV nature programmes have given millions an opportunity to have
knowledge of wildlife and have undoubtedly shaped public attitudes in
a positive ways. TV is, however, no alternative to direct experience.
More and more of us now live in cities and have less contact than any
previous generation with the natural systems that sustain life on this
planet. I think this makes rough areas that teem with wildlife, that
are also near to cities, of great importance: not just because of the
animals and plants they harbour, but because of the inspiration they
can bring to our more and more urbanised population.
Radley lakes and the lands surrounding are not protected as some
important national site, such as a National Nature Reserve or National
Park, but they are very special. Indeed, the mosaic of habitats found
there is one of the most biologically diverse areas in Oxfordshire.
Without looking very hard during my short visit this week, I saw some
wonderful wildlife: I came across bee orchids and early marsh orchids;
Cetti's warblers called from the dense willow scrub; terns dived into
the water. A local naturalist told me that, the day before, he had
heard an otter whistling. This is an amazing amenity for the locals to
have on their doorstep.
All is not well at this little oasis, however.
Visible over the treetops one can glimpse the sickly yellow emissions
spewing from the exhaust tower of the nearby Didcot power station.
Fumes and carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere are not the only
waste products created from the combustion of coal in that plant,
however: another comes in the form of pulverised fuel ash (PVA). The
millions of tonnes of this material produced by coal burning needs to
be disposed of, and RWE npower, the company that runs the Didcot
electricity business, plans to dump some of it into one of the last
lakes left at Radley.
Some years ago, RWE npower started to fill in the lakes with PVA,
killing the wildlife and transforming a thriving ecosystem to a
polluted wasteland. I saw this progressive strangulation of nature
take place as I passed by on the train on journeys between Oxford and
London. The lakes gradually disappeared to be replaced by toxic
deserts dotted with a few hardy weeds.
Only a couple of the original dozen or so lakes now remain. One of
them, Thrupp Lake, is set soon to suffer the same fate as the others,
as RWE npower pipes in its waste from Didcot. The terns, the otters
and everything will disappear from there, and not only will the land
around Oxford have less wildlife, but people will also have been
robbed of a source of inspiration as well. No wonder an active local
campaign has sprung up in an attempt to stop this ecological
vandalism.
It is not as if there is no alternative. PVA is produced in power
stations right across the country and is used as a source material in
the manufacture of cement and bricks, for example. RWE npower chose
the cheaper and, for them, easier option of dumping it into a
wonderful lake habitat. This German-owned company would not be allowed
to get away with kind of behaviour back home. With the approval of the
Conservative-controlled county council, they plan to ride over local
opinion and trash a site of great importance to local people. So much
for voting blue and going green!
The power company has used the usual range of corporate tactics to get
its way, ranging from slapping injunctions on local protesters,
through to running a slick PR operation. They have also chosen to
replace the names of the lakes with letters. Thrupp Lake is now known
as "Lake F". Deindividualising this thriving ecosystem, taking away
its meaning and identity, is part of the plan to make the indefensible
promotion of profit over value look acceptable.
If I still bought electricity from one of the big power firms (instead
of Good Energy, which provides me with 100% renewable power), I'd
certainly be changing companies.
Being a responsible environmental corporate citizen is an increasingly
important part of successful modern business. I fear that RWE npower
has badly misjudged this one. In taking a short-term business decision
that has cut some immediate costs, it is in the process putting in
place damage to its reputation that will last a very long time indeed.
That damage is likely to cost a lot more than the firm will save by
filling Thrupp Lake with its waste ash.
They can still, of course, simply not do it, and make some bricks
instead.
Robert Seago
<amacm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:53:38 +0100, Robert Seago
> <rjs...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <9u5273tddd3aim04f...@4ax.com>,
> > <amacm...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >Isn't it about time we got rid of the CONservation hooligans?
> >
> >> In a word, yes.
> >Who are they then Angus?
> The fakes who kill wildlife
> >
> >
> >> >Numbers Of Woodland Birds On The Decline
> >> >Wednesday, 13th June 2007, 01:12
> >> >
> >> >http://tinyurl.com/3c85qs
> >> >
> >> >Some of Britain's best loved woodland birds are declining at an
> >> >alarming rate, ornithologists have warned.
> >> >
> >> >Long haul migrant species in particular - such as the Spotted
> >> >Flycatcher, the Willow Warbler and the Tree Pipit - are disappearing
> >> >from the dappled glades and airy canopies that cover the country.
> Due to the policies of the CON-servation hooligans who treat woodlands
> as theme parks
Read it again.
> >
> >> >But in contrast to those that travel between Africa and the more
> >> >temperate latitudes of Europe, resident breeding birds and short hop
> >> >migrants have either declined at a slower rate or not at all.
> >
> >So does that not suggest that much of the problem is likely not to be in
> >the UK
No reply here!
> It suggests that some are declining but none are increasing - despite
> the millions of pounds being spent of fake conservation. Little
> wonder.
Read it again.
> >> >
> >> >Overall, more species breeding in woodland have increased than
> >> >decreased between the 1980s and 2003/04 but patterns of population
> >> >change differ across groups of species, according to the British
> >> >Trust for Ornithology's Repeat Woodland Bird Survey.
> >So do you still agree with Pete that the problem is likely to be these
> >mythical conservation hooligans?
No reply here.
> If the long haul ones are the most affected and the resident breeding
> birds and short hop migrants have either declined at a slower rate or
> not at all, what other birds are increasing? Sounds like another
> case of Con-servation.
You had better explain that logic to the rest of us. Perhaps you think
these villains that haunt you are abroad.
> BTW. Who's Pete?
Ho ho.
> >> >
> >> >All long distance migrants have declined with the five worst hit
> >> >identified as the Garden Warbler (25.6%), the Wood Warbler (64%), the
> >> >Tree Pipit (69.7%), the Spotted Flycatcher (70.4%), and the Willow
> >> >Warbler (74.2%).
> >
> >> >BTO spokesman Paul Stancliffe said: "It is interesting that Spotted
> >> >Flycatcher was late returning to the UK this year and so far numbers
> >> >appear to be low.
> >> >
> >> >"Its conservation status is Red, high conservation concern and the
> >> >decline seems to be continuing. It is suggested that there are
> >> >problems in the winter quarters of these species coupled with changes
> >> >in woodland management in the UK."
> >So who are these villains?
> CON-servation woodland managers who turn woodlands into theme parks in
> the UK seems largely to blame.
Well woodland managers don't seem to have done nmuch to harm these
resident species which live here all the time, at least most of them
> >> >
> >> >In all, 11 out of the 34 species monitored showed large national
> >> >increases in numbers - greater than 25% - while eight showed large
> >> >decreases of more than 25%.
> >So someone must be doing some good around here then.
> >> >
> >> >Mr Stancliffe added: "The worrying decline for long distance birds was
> >> >confirmed for the first time by this survey. Birds such as Tree Pipit
> >> >and Spotted Flycatcher showed declines of up to 70% in some areas."
> >> >
> >> >On the other hand, the two medium distance migrants, the Blackcap and
> >> >the Chiffchaff, have increased strongly - by 57.2% and 154.8%
> >> >respectively.
> >I certainly have good numbers of these.
> >> >
> >> >Common species, such as the Blue Tit and Great Spotted Woodpecker,
> >> >appear to have fared better than scarcer species like the Willow Tit
> >> >and the Lesser Spotted Woodpecker.
> >That is certainly true- far more of them.
> >> >
> >> >The report said changes to the structure of woodlands as produced by
> >> >reductions in coppicing or intensified deer grazing, for example, may
> >> >have contributed to the decline of many woodland species.
> >
> "may have contributed" means they don't know and therefore means
> nothing.
> >Not what you like to hear then Angus. Read on the next bit!
> >
> Usual waffle from the bird charities.
Sorry that does not make any sense to anyone else, except possibly Pete.
> >> >Deer are voracious feeders, and can strip out bushes and young trees
> >> >from woodland very rapidly. Other scientists blame the modern woodland
> >> >management practice of removing dead wood in which the bark beetles
> >> >live and the birds in turn feed on.
> >> >
> >> >Also, because of climate change trees and other plants are in leaf
> >> >earlier and so caterpillars are emerging earlier to feed on them.
> >> >
> >> >Resident birds such as Blue tits and Great tits are able to take
> >> >advantage of this before migrant woodland birds such as flycatchers
> >> >arrive, so there is less food for them.
> >Makes sense
> >
> The deer do no more than we do; feed ourselves and shouldn't be shot
> for it.
You are permitted to hold those views, but if your views were to prevail
we should expect certain results some of them negative for other animals.
> If the fake conservationists want to protect trees they
> should fence them.
Why?
> >> >
> >> >"At the same time it has been reassuring to see that several species
> >> >are thriving in woodlands, such as Chiffchaffs, Blackcaps, Great Tits
> >> >and Coal Tits."
> >> >
> >The fact that most of this posting goes wildly in the opposite direction
> >to that of your usual contentions, mean that you just picked up on another
> >of Pete's mindless postings without reading it yourself.
> >
> >Am I surprised.
> So what you're saying is that there's no problem with declining birds
> and it's all down to the excellent work of those who call themselves
> conservationists.
Read it all again
> I would suggest it's the very opposite and that there is a definite
> decline in birds nationally but there has to be some show of success
> to keep the money rolling in to the fakes' coffers.
So do you disagree with all of Pete's original posting that apparently
neither he or you even bothered to read, telling of increases in a bigger
proportion of our resident birds than those which are declining.
If so prey tell us on what evidence.
> I'd also be interested to know what measures are taken to guarantee
> the accuracy of these surveys. If it's purely people counting
> sightings of birds the results could be garbage.
Anyone whon has spent much time in the countryside around here, could not
help miss the much larger numbers of Green and Great Spotted Woodpeckers,
and the decline of the Lesser Spotted for example. We also could not help
to notice the decline of Linnets 20 years ago and the much more recent
decline of Willow Warblers in the last 4 years. I agree that surveys have
to be done scientifically. While surveys could always be made more
rigorous I have no reason to fundamentally doubt the original posting you
clearly did not read.
> Malcolm Ogilvie counts birds, I believe, but he spends so much time
> on his computer I'm sure he misses some.:-))
What do you do that makes you think your grizzling contentions should be
considered any more worthwhile.
> But don't bother to go into it too deeply, just tell me how they
> arrived at an increase of 154.8% of chiffchaffs? Are they sure that
> figure is correct?
Well there are certainly more around here and we even get a few of them in
the winter these days, along with Blackcaps.
The 154.8 is just an observation, this is thh direct reflection of the
data. Actual inferences would be drawn from this within certain
confidence limits.
amacm...@aol.com
<rjs...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <ggc373dgj3a5umh85...@4ax.com>,
> <amacm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:53:38 +0100, Robert Seago
>> <rjs...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >In article <9u5273tddd3aim04f...@4ax.com>,
>> > <amacm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Isn't it about time we got rid of the CONservation hooligans?
>> >
>> >> In a word, yes.
>> >Who are they then Angus?
>
>> The fakes who kill wildlife
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> >Numbers Of Woodland Birds On The Decline
>> >> >Wednesday, 13th June 2007, 01:12
>> >> >
>> >> >http://tinyurl.com/3c85qs
>> >> >
>> >> >Some of Britain's best loved woodland birds are declining at an
>> >> >alarming rate, ornithologists have warned.
>> >> >
>> >> >Long haul migrant species in particular - such as the Spotted
>> >> >Flycatcher, the Willow Warbler and the Tree Pipit - are disappearing
>> >> >from the dappled glades and airy canopies that cover the country.
>
>> Due to the policies of the CON-servation hooligans who treat woodlands
>> as theme parks
>Read it again.
I don't need to.
>> >
>> >> >But in contrast to those that travel between Africa and the more
>> >> >temperate latitudes of Europe, resident breeding birds and short hop
>> >> >migrants have either declined at a slower rate or not at all.
>> >
>> >So does that not suggest that much of the problem is likely not to be in
>> >the UK
>No reply here!
>> It suggests that some are declining but none are increasing - despite
>> the millions of pounds being spent of fake conservation. Little
>> wonder.
>Read it again.
I don't need to.
>> >> >
>> >> >Overall, more species breeding in woodland have increased than
>> >> >decreased between the 1980s and 2003/04 but patterns of population
>> >> >change differ across groups of species, according to the British
>> >> >Trust for Ornithology's Repeat Woodland Bird Survey.
>> >So do you still agree with Pete that the problem is likely to be these
>> >mythical conservation hooligans?
>No reply here.
I think it was obvious.
>> If the long haul ones are the most affected and the resident breeding
>> birds and short hop migrants have either declined at a slower rate or
>> not at all, what other birds are increasing? Sounds like another
>> case of Con-servation.
>You had better explain that logic to the rest of us. Perhaps you think
>these villains that haunt you are abroad.
>> BTW. Who's Pete?
>Ho ho.
Well?
>> >> >
>> >> >All long distance migrants have declined with the five worst hit
>> >> >identified as the Garden Warbler (25.6%), the Wood Warbler (64%), the
>> >> >Tree Pipit (69.7%), the Spotted Flycatcher (70.4%), and the Willow
>> >> >Warbler (74.2%).
>> >
>> >> >BTO spokesman Paul Stancliffe said: "It is interesting that Spotted
>> >> >Flycatcher was late returning to the UK this year and so far numbers
>> >> >appear to be low.
>> >> >
>> >> >"Its conservation status is Red, high conservation concern and the
>> >> >decline seems to be continuing. It is suggested that there are
>> >> >problems in the winter quarters of these species coupled with changes
>> >> >in woodland management in the UK."
>
>> >So who are these villains?
>
>> CON-servation woodland managers who turn woodlands into theme parks in
>> the UK seems largely to blame.
>Well woodland managers don't seem to have done nmuch to harm these
>resident species which live here all the time, at least most of them
>
"resident breeding birds and short hop migrants have either declined
at a slower rate or not at all".
That suggests the contrary.
>> >> >
>> >> >In all, 11 out of the 34 species monitored showed large national
>> >> >increases in numbers - greater than 25% - while eight showed large
>> >> >decreases of more than 25%.
>> >So someone must be doing some good around here then.
>> >> >
>> >> >Mr Stancliffe added: "The worrying decline for long distance birds was
>> >> >confirmed for the first time by this survey. Birds such as Tree Pipit
>> >> >and Spotted Flycatcher showed declines of up to 70% in some areas."
>> >> >
>> >> >On the other hand, the two medium distance migrants, the Blackcap and
>> >> >the Chiffchaff, have increased strongly - by 57.2% and 154.8%
>> >> >respectively.
>> >I certainly have good numbers of these.
>> >> >
>> >> >Common species, such as the Blue Tit and Great Spotted Woodpecker,
>> >> >appear to have fared better than scarcer species like the Willow Tit
>> >> >and the Lesser Spotted Woodpecker.
>> >That is certainly true- far more of them.
>> >> >
>> >> >The report said changes to the structure of woodlands as produced by
>> >> >reductions in coppicing or intensified deer grazing, for example, may
>> >> >have contributed to the decline of many woodland species.
>> >
>
>> "may have contributed" means they don't know and therefore means
>> nothing.
>
No answer.
>> >Not what you like to hear then Angus. Read on the next bit!
>> >
>
>> Usual waffle from the bird charities.
>Sorry that does not make any sense to anyone else, except possibly Pete.
>
Anyone else?
You're the king of generalities :-))
>> >> >Deer are voracious feeders, and can strip out bushes and young trees
>> >> >from woodland very rapidly. Other scientists blame the modern woodland
>> >> >management practice of removing dead wood in which the bark beetles
>> >> >live and the birds in turn feed on.
>> >> >
>> >> >Also, because of climate change trees and other plants are in leaf
>> >> >earlier and so caterpillars are emerging earlier to feed on them.
>> >> >
>> >> >Resident birds such as Blue tits and Great tits are able to take
>> >> >advantage of this before migrant woodland birds such as flycatchers
>> >> >arrive, so there is less food for them.
>> >Makes sense
>> >
>
>> The deer do no more than we do; feed ourselves and shouldn't be shot
>> for it.
>You are permitted to hold those views, but if your views were to prevail
>we should expect certain results some of them negative for other animals.
I suppose Hitler and his thugs thought that about the Jews.
>> If the fake conservationists want to protect trees they
>> should fence them.
>Why?
Why not? Most businesses protect their assets with fencing and
security.
>> >> >
>> >> >"At the same time it has been reassuring to see that several species
>> >> >are thriving in woodlands, such as Chiffchaffs, Blackcaps, Great Tits
>> >> >and Coal Tits."
>> >> >
>> >The fact that most of this posting goes wildly in the opposite direction
>> >to that of your usual contentions, mean that you just picked up on another
>> >of Pete's mindless postings without reading it yourself.
>> >
>> >Am I surprised.
>
>> So what you're saying is that there's no problem with declining birds
>> and it's all down to the excellent work of those who call themselves
>> conservationists.
>Read it all again
>
I have.
>> I would suggest it's the very opposite and that there is a definite
>> decline in birds nationally but there has to be some show of success
>> to keep the money rolling in to the fakes' coffers.
>So do you disagree with all of Pete's original posting that apparently
>neither he or you even bothered to read, telling of increases in a bigger
>proportion of our resident birds than those which are declining.
They contradict themselves and haven't the intelligence to see it.
>
>If so prey tell us on what evidence.
>
See above.
>> I'd also be interested to know what measures are taken to guarantee
>> the accuracy of these surveys. If it's purely people counting
>> sightings of birds the results could be garbage.
>
>Anyone whon has spent much time in the countryside around here, could not
>help miss the much larger numbers of Green and Great Spotted Woodpeckers,
>and the decline of the Lesser Spotted for example. We also could not help
>to notice the decline of Linnets 20 years ago and the much more recent
>decline of Willow Warblers in the last 4 years.
"Around here" doesn't mean nationally. Really, you're grasp of
reality is appalling
>I agree that surveys have
>to be done scientifically.
And how would you do that to cover the whole country?
>While surveys could always be made more
>rigorous I have no reason to fundamentally doubt the original posting you
>clearly did not read.
The title is: "Numbers Of Woodland Birds On The Decline" which I have
no doubt is true.
>
>> Malcolm Ogilvie counts birds, I believe, but he spends so much time
>> on his computer I'm sure he misses some.:-))
>What do you do that makes you think your grizzling contentions should be
>considered any more worthwhile.
It's logical that if he's on his computer he's missing some birds :-))
>> But don't bother to go into it too deeply, just tell me how they
>> arrived at an increase of 154.8% of chiffchaffs? Are they sure that
>> figure is correct?
>Well there are certainly more around here and we even get a few of them in
>the winter these days, along with Blackcaps.
I didn't ask you if there certainly "more around here". Try answering
the question.
>
>The 154.8 is just an observation, this is thh direct reflection of the
>data. Actual inferences would be drawn from this within certain
>confidence limits.
So it's about as accurate as a blind man sticking a pin in a map to
show where he lives.
Lets have some evidence of increases of birds rather than the nonsense
you're spouting.
It's clear to most people that birds are in decline.
Oz
practices resulting in widespread Bovine TB, on the innocent badger
population, science has told them where to shove it!
Badger cull abandoned after TB report
Ministers are expected to abandon plans to license a widespread cull
of badgers after a decade-long study by independent scientists
concluded that a cull would only increase the spread of bovine
tuberculosis.
Culling would have no noticeable effect on TB in cattle, report said
The findings of the independent scientists, to be published on Monday,
were branded "unacceptable" last night by farmers who wanted Tony
Blair and David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, to lift the
10-year-old ban on badger culling to help stop the spread of the
disease.
The final report of the Independent Scientific Group, described by its
chairman, Prof Sir John Bourne, as the "comprehensive picture" of TB
in cattle and badgers, rules out badger culling on any scale as a way
of controlling the outbreaks.
The scientists' report says that while badgers are "clearly a source"
of TB in cattle, badger culling can make "no meaningful contribution"
to the control of the disease in Britain.
This is because badger culling trials, conducted over the past ten
years, have shown that badgers disturbed by a cull would move around
spreading the disease to both cattle and other badgers.
There were 1551 outbreaks of the disease in Britain last year -
affecting about 5 per cent of all herds - and 7000 herds were under
movement restrictions.
The disease cost £80 million last year in compensation to farmers and
it is estimated that because outbreaks are likely to increase it will
cost £2 billion by the end of the decade.
The report, results of which have been seen by The Daily Telegraph,
says culling around outbreaks of the disease in cattle would be
"likely to make matters worse rather than better."
The overall benefits of pro-active culling were modest, with an
estimated reduction of 14 outbreaks in an area of 1000 square
kilometres.
Where culling was carried out, the beneficial effect on outbreaks in
cattle was offset by an increased incidence in surrounding un-culled
areas.
The second key finding of the report, which has been submitted to Mr
Miliband, is that weaknesses in the present regime of cattle testing
means that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the spread of
the disease - because the full number of cattle with TB is not picked
up.
In some parts of Britain, it says, cattle movements are likely to be
the main source of infection.
The scientists' findings lead them to conclude that the rising
incidence of bovine TB and its spread can be contained "by the rigid
application of cattle-based control measures alone."
Ministers are expected simply to welcome the report and say they will
consider a response in due course but a well-placed source close to
the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the
"definitively anti-culling" conclusions of the report meant a cull was
off.
Report said the overall benefits of pro-active culling were modest
Mr Miliband is known to believe that any decision to cull must be
backed by the science or it would be open to judicial review.
The scientists' report does considers the case of Ireland where badger
culling has been going on for 20 years. It says the incidence of TB in
cattle in Ireland, despite badger culling, is twice what it is in
Britain.
Ireland, which stopped pre-movement testing of cattle in 1996, found
that the number of cattle with the disease rose from 27,000 in 1996 to
45,000 in 1999, despite badger culling going on throughout that
period.
Sir John says that there needs to be a far more rigorous approach to
pre-movement testing of cattle and the use of gamma interferon tests
which detect the disease earlier - though they are also known to give
false positives.
Sir John's report was expected to leave a chink of light for those who
believe that the eradication of the disease requires both pre-and
post-movement testing of cattle and the control of badgers. It does
not.
Instead, it creates a huge quandary for the Treasury, for more
rigorous pre-movement testing of cattle would not only be more
expensive, but would be likely to find far more cases of bovine TB,
pushing up the compensation bill.
It would also be disastrous for farmers because they would lose income
from the presently undetected cattle.
Trevor Lawson of the Badger Trust said: "The new science will give
ministers the sound basis they need to formulate policy and get TB
under control - without a badger cull.
"The political challenge is to get farmers and vets together so they
buy into the science."
Oz
June 15 2007 at 03:57PM
By Veselin Toshkov
Sofia - Bulgaria's last three dancing bears are being sent to a
mountain sanctuary after activists bought their freedom on Friday in
an effort to stamp out the centuries-old tradition which has survived
in the Balkans despite being outlawed.
The trio - eight-year-old Mima, Misho, 19, and Svetla, 17 - will join
another 20 brown bears in their new home on Mount Rila, a 12-hectare
sanctuary 180 kilometres south of Sofia partly funded by a foundation
run by former French actress Brigitte Bardot.
"Our aim is to make their life more bearable in their remaining
years," Ioana Tomescu from the Austria-based Four Paws Foundation told
The Associated Press.
Throughout the Balkans, families - mostly among the Gypsy or Roma
community - have long earned a living through performing bears. But
the brutal techniques used to train them led the practice to be
banned.
The bears are captured while still young. Their nose or lips are
pierced, and a metal ring attached to a chain is inserted; the pain
ensures instant submission.
The cubs are forced to walk on burning embers or a hot sheet of metal,
and hop from one hind leg to the other in order to escape the burning,
while their trainer beats a drum. The process is repeated until the
bear learns to connect the drum to the pain.
As dancing bears are illegal, authorities could simply have taken
Mima, Misho and Svelta away from their owners, in the eastern village
of Getsovo.
Instead, the Four Paws Foundation decided to pay for the their freedom
by giving their owners small grants to set up new businesses.
It did not reveal how much was paid. In return, the owners signed
declarations pledging never to take up the bear dancing business
again. - Sapa-AP
Jim Webster
This is great news. Not sure paying gypsies off will ever work, their
word is about as worthless as a farmers!
Still at least these were saved.
Jim Webster
>After years of the farming community blaming their filthy, bad
>practices resulting in widespread Bovine TB, on the innocent badger
>population, science has told them where to shove it!
>
Stop the unnecessary movement of cattle all over Europe, from one
cattle market to the other and you stop much of the disease. Mind you
at least it exposes just how unhealthy the meat is in the food chain,
and vegetarianism should be a serious consideration these days.
Jim Webster
Graham
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 10:15:28 +0100, Oz <O...@farmdirectacon.con> wrote:
>
>>After years of the farming community blaming their filthy, bad
>>practices resulting in widespread Bovine TB, on the innocent badger
>>population, science has told them where to shove it!
>>
>
> Stop the unnecessary movement of cattle all over Europe, from one
> cattle market to the other and you stop much of the disease. Mind you
> at least it exposes just how unhealthy the meat is in the food chain,
> and vegetarianism should be a serious consideration these days.
This would probably save significant amounts of money in transport costs
(not to say energy use), and is a philosophy that could be applied much more
widely than to meat ...
-- Graham
Jim Webster
Quite true. Sadly UK farmers don't seem to want to supply what the
public wants, being quite happy to hang on to whatever will gain the
biggest subsidies. Very few fruit farms left in the UK, so we source
from outside which is crazy.
As an island we should be supporting ourselves before we start
thinking about supporting other countries, it should be compulsory. If
UK farmers, usually those who had the farms handed to them on a plate
through inheritance, are not prepared to meet supply and demand, we
should take the farms off them and put some young blood in who will.
Jim Webster
"Graham" <gra...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f5314p$hjt$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Jim Webster" <Jim.W...@pagehaveawankfarm.com> wrote
no he didn't
it was just pete, sad troll, wannabee animal rights activist and granny
reburier who has so few friends he has to have sock puppets
amacm...@aol.com
Well done FPF.
Jim Webster
Are you the bully Webster?
Jim Webster,Barrow-in-Furness farmer,troll & president of Cumbria CLA.
Would you let your children near this person? see
http://tinyurl.com/kgbnf
Now in the sixth year of raving,defaming,bullying and libeling Pat
Gardiner, and
still no result.
Need to complain about employees bringing Country Land and Business
Association
into disrepute? Why not contact us at
Country Land and Business Association
16 Belgrave Square
London
SW1X 8PQ
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7235 0511
Fax: +44 (0)20 7235 4696
E-mail: m...@cla.org.uk
David Fursdon – President
Phone: 020 7235 0511
FAX: 020 7235 4696
Email david.furs...@cla.org.uk
Henry Aubrey-Fletcher – Deputy President
Phone: 020 7235 0511
FAX: 020 7235 4696
Email henry.aubrey-fletc...@cla.org.uk
William Worsley – Vice President
Phone: 020 7235 0511
FAX: 020 7235 4696
Email william.wors...@cla.org.uk
Mr Webster is now being carefully to not post his bullying on UBA and
continues to harass animal welfare groups. I have on file 131
incidents of bullying, harassment, libel and defamation against
myself, and others on the farming and animal welfare groups, against
both men and women.
I have made formal complaints to his ISP and British Telecom in order
to have his phone line removed under the telecommunications act terms
and conditions of use.
I am also writing to CLA for background on him, and to make them
aware, as follows.
David Fursdon – President
Country Land and Business Association
16 Belgrave Square
London
SW1X 8PQ
Dear Sir,
I am following up complaints of bullying,harassment, racism, and
threats of violence against persons and or property by one pro hunt
extremist, Jim Webster.He conducts this campaign on farming and animal
welfare newsgroups, via email and via post. He
Jim Webster
Page Bank Farm
Rampside
Barrow in
Furness
Cumbria
LA13 0QR Tel: 01229 821561
Who claims to be President of CLA has now got so out of hand people
have asked me to deal with the matter.
He claims as president of the CLA no one can touch him, and we would
be laughed out of town. Is this true? He is doing a great disservice
to the farming community, and frankly we have had enough.
Could you please confirm his status with yourselves?
Yours sincerely
Jim Webster
<j...@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote:
Oops just noticed Webster the bully had slipped his own group from his
trolling, so I reinstated it here as they also like to see what he is
trolling.
Oz
>Interesting news this week on Cyber Bullying. It occurred to me we are
>cursed in these groups with a few of our own, and they should be named
>and shamed. Not just on Usenet, but in local papers and out in their
>local communities. Should their neighbors and communities not be
>informed?
>
>Surely this would stop them in their tracks?
>
>I hereby propose to name and shame, please add names to the list. If
>they cant take a hint, we shall add home addresses, then company
>address, then local rags etc. What do we think?
>
>Known bullies in no particular order and initially using their screen
>names only, without email addresses.
>
>Please only put current bullies, not reformed characters.
>Jim Webster
>Malcolm Ogilvie
>Steve Firth
>Derek Moody
>Malcolm Kane
>Andy Mabbett
>Old Codger
>Jill Bowis
>Greymaus
You could add your name to that Oz.
>
>
>Look familiar? Read on...........
>
>http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm
>
>The serial bully
>
>How to spot signs and symptoms of serial bullies, sociopath's and
>psychopaths
>including the sociopathic behaviour of the industrial psychopath and
>the corporate psychopath
>Types of serial bully: The Attention-Seeker, The Wannabe, The Guru and
>The Sociopath
>
>"All cruelty springs from weakness."
>(Seneca, 4BC-AD65)
>
>"Most organisations have a serial bully. It never ceases to amaze me
>how one person's divisive, disordered, dysfunctional behaviour can
>permeate the entire organisation like a cancer."
>Tim Field
>
>"The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance my
>deride it, but in the end, there it is."
>Winston Churchill
>
>"Lack of knowledge of, or unwillingness to recognise, or outright
>denial of the existence of the serial bully is the most common reason
>for an unsatisfactory outcome of a bullying case for both the employee
>and employer"
>Tim Field
>
>I estimate one person in thirty, male or female, is a serial bully.
>Who does the following profile describe in your life?
>
>The serial bully:
>
>is a convincing, practised liar and when called to account, will make
>up anything spontaneously to fit their needs at that moment
>has a Jekyll and Hyde nature - is vile, vicious and vindictive in
>private, but innocent and charming in front of witnesses; no-one can
>(or wants to) believe this individual has a vindictive nature - only
>the current target of the serial bully's aggression sees both sides;
>whilst the Jekyll side is described as "charming" and convincing
>enough to deceive personnel, management and a tribunal, the Hyde side
>is frequently described as "evil"; Hyde is the real person, Jekyll is
>an act
>excels at deception and should never be underestimated in their
>capacity to deceive
>uses excessive charm and is always plausible and convincing when
>peers, superiors or others are present (charm can be used to deceive
>as well as to cover for lack of empathy)
>is glib, shallow and superficial with plenty of fine words and lots of
>form - but there's no substance
>is possessed of an exceptional verbal facility and will outmanoeuvre
>most people in verbal interaction, especially at times of conflict
>is often described as smooth, slippery, slimy, ingratiating, fawning,
>toadying, obsequious, sycophantic
>relies on mimicry, repetition and regurgitation to convince others
>that he or she is both a "normal" human being and a tough dynamic
>manager, as in extolling the virtues of the latest management fads and
>pouring forth the accompanying jargon
>is unusually skilled in being able to anticipate what people want to
>hear and then saying it plausibly
>cannot be trusted or relied upon
>fails to fulfil commitments
>is emotionally retarded with an arrested level of emotional
>development; whilst language and intellect may appear to be that of an
>adult, the bully displays the emotional age of a five-year-old
>is emotionally immature and emotionally untrustworthy
>exhibits unusual and inappropriate attitudes to sexual matters, sexual
>behaviour and bodily functions; underneath the charming exterior there
>are often suspicions or hints of sex discrimination and sexual
>harassment, perhaps also sexual dysfunction, sexual inadequacy, sexual
>perversion, sexual violence or sexual abuse
>in a relationship, is incapable of initiating or sustaining intimacy
>holds deep prejudices (eg against the opposite gender, people of a
>different sexual orientation, other cultures and religious beliefs,
>foreigners, etc - prejudiced people are unvaryingly unimaginative) but
>goes to great lengths to keep this prejudicial aspect of their
>personality secret
>is self-opinionated and displays arrogance, audacity, a superior sense
>of entitlement and sense of invulnerability and untouchability
>has a deep-seated contempt of clients in contrast to his or her
>professed compassion
>is a control freak and has a compulsive need to control everyone and
>everything you say, do, think and believe; for example, will launch an
>immediate personal attack attempting to restrict what you are
>permitted to say if you start talking knowledgeably about psychopathic
>personality or antisocial personality disorder in their presence - but
>aggressively maintains the right to talk (usually unknowledgeably)
>about anything they choose; serial bullies despise anyone who enables
>others to see through their deception and their mask of sanity
>displays a compulsive need to criticise whilst simultaneously refusing
>to value, praise and acknowledge others, their achievements, or their
>existence
>shows a lack of joined-up thinking with conversation that doesn't flow
>and arguments that don't hold water
>flits from topic to topic so that you come away feeling you've never
>had a proper conversation
>refuses to be specific and never gives a straight answer
>is evasive and has a Houdini-like ability to escape accountability
>undermines and destroys anyone who the bully perceives to be an
>adversary, a potential threat, or who can see through the bully's mask
>is adept at creating conflict between those who would otherwise
>collate incriminating information about them
>is quick to discredit and neutralise anyone who can talk knowledgeably
>about antisocial or sociopathic behaviors
>may pursue a vindictive vendetta against anyone who dares to held them
>accountable, perhaps using others' resources and contemptuous of the
>damage caused to other people and organisations in pursuance of the
>vendetta
>is also quick to belittle, undermine, denigrate and discredit anyone
>who calls, attempts to call, or might call the bully to account
>gains gratification from denying people what they are entitled to
>is highly manipulative, especially of people's perceptions and
>emotions (eg guilt)
>poisons peoples' minds by manipulating their perceptions
>when called upon to share or address the needs and concerns of others,
>responds with impatience, irritability and aggression
>is arrogant, haughty, high-handed, and a know-all
>often has an overwhelming, unhealthy and narcissistic
>attention-seeking need to portray themselves as a wonderful, kind,
>caring and compassionate person, in contrast to their behaviour and
>treatment of others; the bully sees nothing wrong with their behavior
>and chooses to remain oblivious to the discrepancy between how they
>like to be seen and how they are seen by others
>is spiritually dead although may loudly profess some religious belief
>or affiliation
>is mean-spirited, officious, and often unbelievably petty
>is mean, stingy, and financially untrustworthy
>is greedy, selfish, a parasite and an emotional vampire
>is always a taker and never a giver
>is convinced of their superiority and has an overbearing belief in
>their qualities of leadership but cannot distinguish between
>leadership (maturity, decisiveness, assertiveness, co-operation,
>trust, integrity) and bullying (immaturity, impulsiveness, aggression,
>manipulation, distrust, deceitfulness)
>often fraudulently claims qualifications, experience, titles,
>entitlements or affiliations which are ambiguous, misleading, or bogus
>often misses the semantic meaning of language, misinterprets what is
>said, sometimes wrongly thinking that comments of a satirical, ironic
>or general negative nature apply to him or herself
>knows the words but not the song
>is constantly imposing on others a false reality made up of distortion
>and fabrication
>sometimes displays a seemingly limitless demonic energy especially
>when engaged in attention-seeking activities or evasion of
>accountability and is often a committeeaholic or apparent workaholic
>Responsibility
>
>The serial bully appears to lack insight into his or her behaviour and
>seems to be oblivious to the crassness and inappropriateness thereof;
>however, it is more likely that the bully knows what they are doing
>but elects to switch off the moral and ethical considerations by which
>normal people are bound. If the bully knows what they are doing, they
>are responsible for their behaviour and thus liable for its
>consequences to other people. If the bully doesn't know what they are
>doing, they should be suspended from duty on the grounds of diminished
>responsibility and the provisions of the Mental Health Act should
>apply.
Lenny <Lenny >
<Jim.W...@pagehaveawankfarm.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:00:20 +0100, "Jim Webster"
><j...@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Graham" <gra...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:f5314p$hjt$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "Jim Webster" <Jim.W...@pagehaveawankfarm.com> wrote
>>
>>no he didn't
>>it was just pete, sad troll, wannabee animal rights activist and granny
>>reburier who has so few friends he has to have sock puppets
>>
>
>
>Oops just noticed Webster the bully had slipped his own group from his
>trolling, so I reinstated it here as they also like to see what he is
>trolling.
>
>Are you the bully Webster?
He is. Cant we gas him like he does with his rabbits?
Lenny <Lenny >
>On 16 Jan 2007 16:57:04 +0100, Oz <O...@farmeroz.port995.com> wrote:
>
>>Interesting news this week on Cyber Bullying. It occurred to me we are
>>cursed in these groups with a few of our own, and they should be named
>>and shamed. Not just on Usenet, but in local papers and out in their
>>local communities. Should their neighbors and communities not be
>>informed?
>>
>>Surely this would stop them in their tracks?
>>
>>I hereby propose to name and shame, please add names to the list. If
>>they cant take a hint, we shall add home addresses, then company
>>address, then local rags etc. What do we think?
>>
>>Known bullies in no particular order and initially using their screen
>>names only, without email addresses.
>>
>>Please only put current bullies, not reformed characters.
>
>>Jim Webster
>>Malcolm Ogilvie
>>Steve Firth
>>Derek Moody
>>Malcolm Kane
>>Andy Mabbett
>>Old Codger
>>Jill Bowis
>>Greymaus
>
>You could add your name to that Oz.
Isn't there an age limit?
Jim Webster
"Lenny >" <Lenny <nu...@void.com> wrote in message
hi pete
still got no friends and have to resort to sock puppets
poor pete
Jim Webster
Oops just noticed Webster the bully had slipped his own group from his
trolling, so I reinstated it here as they also like to see what he is
trolling.
Are you the bully Webster? Time we told the church group, maybe they
would pray for you?
David Fursdon – President
Henry Aubrey-Fletcher – Deputy President
William Worsley – Vice President
Dear Sir,
Yours sincerely
<farmingfa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:05:13 +0100, "Jim Webster"
><j...@websterpagebank.freeswerve.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Elaine Jones" <ela...@cae-coed.zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:5347ea...@cae-coed.zetnet.co.uk...
>>> Quoting from message <58jkfjF2go6b...@mid.individual.net>
>>> posted on 17 Apr 2007 by Jim Webster
>>> I would like to add:
>>>> Hi everyone
>>>> Two bits of news for you,
>>> Hit the wrong button Jim??
>>yes and no, struggling with soft ware, ISP has been doing strange things so
>>in a desperate attempt to get things to work tried it through a different
>>reader, which helped me diagnose the problem, but of course it ended up on a
>>newsgroup, so I just posted the cancel in case it bothered anyone.
>>fortunately got the problem mastered now, sorry for the confusion it caused
>>anyone
>>Jim Webster
>No bother at all Jim, in fact quite interesting.
>Course, it could be trouble if it ever found it's way into the wrong
>hands, but I am sure you don't make enemies so you should be ok.
>Just out of curiosity, what prayers do you and Brenda say Jim, as you
>have often mocked Christianity in the past, it could be quite
>revealing?
>Maybe it's providence, your mistake, as it would allow the Christians
>amongst us to honour the prayer request?
>Message-ID: <58jkfjF2go6b...@mid.individual.net>
>" Hi everyone
>Two bits of news for you, first from Georgina, who emailed us after
>visiting
>her mother, Yvonne, in Hospital
>"I have been to visit this evening and just to update you. Mum's op
>went ok
>and whilst everything appears fine, they are waiting on some results
>to
>confirm that. In herself she is ok but tired. I am still concerned
>that she
>is putting strain now on her right side and so this is adding to her
>discomfort. At the moment she has some physio, they are looking at
>rehab in
>Abbey View (at the hosp) to give her more intense physio. But like we
>said
>today nothing is happening very quickly for her and as for pulling
>more
>muscles it's becoming like chasing eggs!
>Thank you everyone for your prayers. I contacted the chaplain and he
>was
>free today to visit with communion which i know mum appreciated as she
>has
>been unable to get to church for some time.
>Please would you pray as well for the children. Daniel is coping
>tremendously well as it can be unsettling for him any change in
>routine. He
>carries a sense of calm, and I just thank the Lord for this. Also for
>Owen
>and Elysia. Grandma is such a big part of there life they miss her not
>being
>at home.
>I will keep you posted, Love In Christ Georgina."
>And an update from Margaret Tate
>"Many thanks for your prayers for Jonathon and Claire and baby Adrian.
>They
>were walking along the pavement when a car came out of nowhere and ran
>into
>them. Adrian was sent flying out of his pushchair.
>Jonathon and Claire are now out of hospital and recovering from their
>injuries. They are now able to spend time with Adrian, who is
>improving but
>still quite poorly. He needs an operation but cannot have it because
>he has a chest infection.
>Prayers please for continued healing for them all and that the chest
>infection clears quickly so that Adrian can have his much needed
>operation.
>Love and hugs
>Margaret"
>Finally prayers please for Scotland #53, April 16th - 22nd. Jenny
>Mossop is
>giving the Piety Rollo
>Love and Prayers
>Jim and Brenda "
Oz
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1477625.0.0.php
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
THE NUMBER of birds of prey poisoned illegally in Scotland rose to a
record high last year after an eight-year campaign by Labour and
LibDem ministers to crack down on wildlife crime.
A report to be published this week will reveal there were 39 confirmed
cases of pesticide abuse in 2006 involving eagles, red kites, hawks,
falcons, owls, buzzards and ravens. That is double the number in 2005
and the highest for 12 years.
The figures have been condemned by wildlife campaigners, who warned
that people could end up being killed. The Scottish Executive,
however, suggested they showed the success of efforts to detect crimes
against nature.
advertisementThe report, compiled by the
Executive'sScottishAgriculturalScience AgencyinEdinburgh,istheofficial
barometer of wildlife crime. In 2006, they investigated 177 alleged
incidents. In 39 cases they found clear evidence that pesticides had
been abused, with a further three cases classified as "misuse". Many
other cases were defined as "unknown" or "unspecified" for lack of
evidence.
The bird of prey most often poisoned was the buzzard, more than 30 of
which were involved in investigations. Ten red kites were also
contaminated, as well as five owls, three sparrowhawks, three
peregrine falcons and two golden eagles.
Not only birds suffered. At least five foxes, three dogs and three
cats died after being contaminated with pesticides.
Incidents came from all over the country, though the highest numbers
were in Highland and Borders regions. Several investigations were
pursued by the police and the commonest pesticide detected was
carbofuran, which is not approved for use in the UK.
According to Logan Steele of the Scottish Raptor Study Groups, it was
"abhorrent in this day and age" to have gamekeepers laying out
poisoned bait to kill birds and pets. "How long will it be until this
practice brings its first human victim?" he asked.
"A tiny amount of poison absorbed through the skin can cause very
serious effects. The authorities need to waken up before we have a
human fatality. Existing penalties are obviously insufficient and we
must now ask sentencing authorities to hand down custodial sentences."
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) pointed out that
many incidentswerelikelytohavebeen undetected because they happened in
remoteareas."Illegalpoisoningis damaging the populations of some of
our most vulnerable bird species as well as robbing the public and
tourists," said Duncan Orr-Ewing of RSPB Scotland.
Michael Taylor, head of chemistry at the Scottish Agricultural Science
Agency, said the 39 confirmed cases of deliberate
pesticideabusein2006wereonly equalled by the number in 1994.
"Thesharpincreaseindeliberate abuse incidents over recent years is
difficult to attribute to a specific reason," he said. "However,
intensive investigations carried out by Scottish Wildlife Crime
Officers and partner agencies have had a significant impact on the
discovery of suspected poisonings of wildlife."
EnvironmentministerMichael Russell argued that the increase was due to
better detection and reporting. "These statistics reflect the very
positive actions of police and countryside agencies in tracking down
and dealing with the perpetrators," he said.
"Whilst there is an increase, we must stress that the figures reflect
a growing awareness of the problems and the willingness of individual
members of the public to report these crimes."
It was reported yesterday that police are investigating the suspected
poisoningofaredkitefounddeadnear Tomintoul in the Cairngorms last
month. A post-mortem examination suggested it had been killed by
carbofuran.
Oz
Proposals for a widespread cull of badgers to limit the spread of
bovine tuberculosis have been ruled out by the government's
Independent Scientific Group, which argues that culling cannot make
any meaningful contribution.
Environment Secretary David Miliband is expected to accept the
recommendations, and make it clear that culling will not be
reintroduced into Britain. Culling was banned in 1998 after doubts
about its effectiveness. Animal protection groups which have
campaigned against the measure say that it is cruel and unnecessary.
The National Farmers' Union, however, is expected to challenge the
decision.
The ISG's findings, based on trials over a 10-year period, show that
when badgers are disturbed by a cull the survivors move farther
afield, spreading the disease to cattle and to other badgers. Bovine
TB costs around £80million a year, in compensation paid to farmers
whose herds have to be put under movement restrictions. It says
farmers can do more to detect the disease early in cattle, by using a
new blood test.
Oz
http://environment.independent.co.uk/lifestyle/article2666422.ece
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 17 June 2007
"Zombie" GM crops - so called because farmers will have to pay biotech
companies to bring seeds back from the dead - are being developed with
British taxpayers' money.
The highly controversial development - part of a £3.4m EU research
project - is bound to increase concerns about the modified crops and
the devastating effect they could have on Third World farmers.
Environmentalists charge that it appears to be an attempt to get round
a worldwide ban on a GM technology so abhorred that even Monsanto has
said it will not use it.
The ban is on the so-called "terminator technology", which was
designed to modify crops so that they produce only sterile seeds. This
would force the 1.4 billion poor farmers who traditionally save seeds
from one year's harvest to sow for the following one instead to buy
new ones from biotech firms, swelling their profits but increasing
poverty and hunger.
Since the ban was agreed under a UN treaty seven years ago, companies
and pro-GM countries - including the United States and Britain - have
pressed to have it overturned, so far without success. But the new
technology promises to offer companies an even more profitable way of
achieving dominance.
Zombie crops would also be engineered to produce sterile seed that
could be brought back to life with the right treatment - almost
certainly with a chemical sold by the company that markets the seed.
Farmers would therefore have to pay out, not for new seeds, but to
make the ones they saved viable.
A report published last week by ETC - the Canada-based Action Group on
Erosion Technology and Concentration that led the campaign against
terminator technology - calls this "a dream scenario for the Gene
Giants".
It says it will be cheaper for them to sell farmers the chemicals to
revive saved seeds than to pay the costs of storing and distributing
new ones. It adds: "They will initially keep prices low. But once
farmers are on the platform, and the competition has been destroyed,
the companies can start pricing the chemical that restores seed
viability as high as they like. The key point is that the viability of
the crop would be controlled by the corporation that sells the seed."
The three-year EU research programme, called Transcontainer, which
involves 13 universities and research institutes and is partially
funded by taxpayers in Britain and other EU countries, says that it is
developing the technology to try to "reduce significantly" the spread
of GM genes to conventional and organic crops.
Such contamination - long denied and downplayed by the industry and
its supporters - is now accepted to be one of the main obstacles to
the advance of modified crops.
ETC's report also says that if the new technology is developed,
governments and regulators will insist that all GM crops will have to
be engineered to be "zombies" to try to prevent contamination and in
the process deliver farmers into complete dependence on the biotech
companies.
It adds, however, that no containment strategy is foolproof and that
the genes will inevitably spread anyway through pollen.
The Transcontainer project insists that it is "specifically targeted
at European agriculture and European crops". But it admits that such
technologies "may become a problem for farmers in developing
countries."
ETC warns that if the technology is commercialised it will "ultimately
be adopted indiscriminately" everywhere. It concludes: "A scenario in
which farmers have to pay for a chemical to restore seed viability
creates a new perpetual monopoly for the seed industry."
Oz
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Published: 15 June 2007
http://environment.independent.co.uk/lifestyle/article2659724.ece
Some of the world's most powerful food and drink manufacturers have
pro-mised to reduce packaging on a large range of everyday products,
including Oxo, Hovis and Coca-Cola.
In the biggest success so far for The Independent's Campaign Against
Waste, Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Mars and other multinational companies have
committed to halt the relentless rise in packaging by next year and to
reverse it by 2010. The backing of nine major grocery suppliers for
the Courtauld Commitment, the Government's voluntary agreement on
packaging, should mean saving thousands of tonnes of plastic and paper
from landfill in the next three years.
Thirteen major retailers including Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda and Boots
signed the commitment after a ministerial summit at the Courtauld
Gallery in London in March 2005, followed a year later by agreement
with Heinz, Northern Foods and Unilever. Today, those 16 signatories
are joined by multinational manufacturers including the world's
biggest food company, Nestlé, Coca-Cola Enterprises Ltd, the British
arm of the world's biggest soft drinks maker, the country's two
biggest confectioners, Mars and Cadbury Schweppes, and Premier Foods
whose brands range from Quorn to Mr Kipling.
The other four are the soft drinks company Britvic, the chilled food
retailer Dairy Crest, the own-brand household products maker McBride,
and Duchy Originals, the Prince of Wales's organic brand .
Duchy Originals was responsible for one of the most overpackaged
Easter eggs in a survey by The Independent, which launched the
Campaign Against Waste on 22 January. Since then, 169 MPs have signed
a Commons motion backing our campaign, and demanded action from
manufacturers and retailers.
Each year an estimated 6.3 million tonnes of packaging reaches British
homes, costing the average family more than £400. By 2008, the
Courtauld Commitment aims to "design out" the rise in packaging and,
by 2010, to cut packaging by 340,000 tonnes, 5 per cent, though
signatories have individual targets as high as 25 per cent.
The Waste & Resources Action Programme (Wrap) said the influx of
manufacturers would ensure the 340,000-tonne target was reached
"easier and quicker." Liz Goodwin, Wrap's chief executive, said:
"These are the manufacturers that have the biggest brands that are
sold in all kinds of places from the major retailers to the corner
shops."
Asked what had motivated the companies, Dr Goodwin said: "I think they
genuinely realise it's no longer acceptable to have so much packaging.
Consumers don't want it and they are responding to public pressure.
Environmental issues have never been higher on the agenda."
Companies will use a range of methods from "lightweighting" - slimming
down materials such as bottles or cans - to "de-layering", removing
unnecessary wrapping.
Cadbury Schweppes, whose brands range from Dairy Milk chocolate and
Crème Eggs to the 7Up fizzy drink, has committed to using wholly
recoverable or biodegradable packaging by 2010. "We have set a target
of a 10 per cent total reduction in packaging and 25 per cent in
seasonal gifting," said Alex Cole, corporate responsibility director.
Alastair Sykes, chairman and chief executive of Nestlé UK & Ireland,
said: "This partnership will benefit the environment, reduce waste and
improve efficiency, so it creates shared value for our business and
the wider community."
Although many food companies have agreed to the Courtauld Commitment a
few have not, such as Pepsico, the owner of Walkers and Tropicana, and
the Associated British Foods, which owns British Sugar, Allied
Bakeries (maker of Kingsmill and Sunblest breads) and Primark.
Wrap said it expects more companies to sign the commitment in the next
few months. In the meantime, it is planning a campaign to highlight
the 6.7 million tonnes of food thrown away every year.
Big business gets the message
Nine companies with a combined annual turnover of £9bn have taken the
campaign onboard:
Britvic
Drinks such as Tango, R Whites lemonade and Robinsons cordials,
including FruitShoot. Bottles Pepsi in UK
Cadbury Schweppes
Cadbury chocolate as well as Butterkist, Maynards, Trebor and Trident.
Soft drinks business include Snapple.
Coca-Cola Enterprises Ltd
British arm of world's biggest fizzy drink company, making Coca-Cola,
Fanta, Lilt, Powerade, Capri-Sun and Sprite.
Dairy Crest
Portfolio includes Cathedral City, Country Life, Clover, St Ivel,
Utterly Butterly and Vitalite
Duchy Originals
The Prince of Wales's organic brand which markets premium biscuits,
yoghurts, puddings, sweets and soups, among others.
Mars UK (formerly Masterfoods)
Major confectionery business responsible for Mars bars, Milky Way,
Snickers, Twix as well as substantial pet food business, owning
Whiskas and Pedigree
McBride
Makes own brand household and personal products for the likes of
supermarkets including Asda
Nestlé UK
The world's biggest food multinational. Breakfast cereals Shredded
Wheat, coffee brand Nescafe, KitKat and Smarties confectionery,
Nesquik and Vittel and Perrier mineral waters.
Premier Foods
Food giant behind many traditional products, such as Ambrosia, Angel
Delight, Bird's, Bisto, Branston, Crosse & Blackwell, Gale's Hovis,
Mothers Pride, Mr Kipling, Oxo, Sarsons, and Sharwood's.
Oz
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2105037,00.html
Robin McKie
Sunday June 17, 2007
The Observer
It is one of the strangest-sounding ideas for saving the planet:
convert the world's reservoirs of fossil fuel into their main chemical
components, carbon dioxide and non-polluting hydrogen. Burn the latter
to make electricity while burying the carbon dioxide underground.
Millions, possibly billions, of tonnes of climate-changing carbon
could be stored in old oil fields and sediment layers deep below the
seabed. Homes and factories could then continue to burn oil and gas
with impunity.
Article continues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And lest you think the idea is cranky, take note: Carbon Capture and
Storage, as it is known, is backed by many scientists. The technology
is straightforward, yet could ward off the worst effects of greenhouse
warming. Even politicians, including Gordon Brown, have given support.
Carbon storage could not only help the world, it could aid Great
Britain plc. Develop expertise and hardware and we could sell them to
China, India and other developing nations, and so make money while
saving the world.
That's the theory. Sadly, the practice is proving trickier. The UK's
only carbon storage project has just been axed by BP, which says the
government reneged on key support for it. Now fears are growing that
Britain - which has abandoned leads in nuclear and wind energy
technology - is about to follow suit with other renewable energy
schemes, including wave power and tidal energy. A golden opportunity -
to develop technologies that will be desperately needed in our
overheating world - is being lost.
BP and its partners had planned to extract carbon dioxide from natural
gas used in a power station to be built at Peterhead then pump it
under the North Sea into its Miller oil field. Production there is due
to come to an end this year, but by forcing in carbon dioxide, extra
oil reserves could be squeezed out. More importantly, two million
tonnes of carbon dioxide a year could be pumped down there and stored
for 10,000 years.
'It was ideal,' says Edinburgh University's Professor Stuart
Haszeldine. 'Miller production was ending and its pipes and valves are
carbon dioxide resistant because Miller oil is rich in the gas. You
only had to convert natural gas into hydrogen, burn it at Peterhead's
power station and pump leftover carbon dioxide into the Miller field.'
By spring, BP had spent £50m on the £500m project. Then the government
decided that all carbon storage schemes had to compete for funding and
tax relief, the winner to be picked around 2010. The reasoning behind
this pronouncement is unclear, but the effect was immediate. Asked to
maintain pumps, pipes and platforms for three years in a dead oil
field, BP promptly dropped the Miller project and is now looking to
the US and Australia to launch such schemes.
It is a thoroughly dispiriting development. Plans for all other UK
carbon projects - a total of 11 have been proposed, including schemes
at Tilbury, Blyth and Teesside - are far less advanced than the one at
Miller. None has specific sites for storing their carbon, for example.
'It will be about 2015 by the time we get one of these schemes fully
under way,' adds Haszeldine. 'Yet the Miller project could have been
in full swing by 2010. The lessons learnt from it would have given us
a huge start in this technology,'
Of course, our mandarins' lack of technological nous in energy matters
is not new. Britain built the world's first civil atomic reactor, but
so bungled subsequent nuclear plans that it will be forced to import
US and French technology to build the half dozen new reactors the
government wants to build in the next decade. More recently, Britain
let Germany and Denmark take major leads in the development of modern
wind turbines, despite being a windswept island ideally suited to this
technology.
Of course, with our North Sea oil expertise and reliance on fossil
fuels, we are also perfectly placed to exploit carbon storage schemes
- but seem bent on frittering away that lead (though there is still
time to rescue the Miller project if civil servants act quickly
enough). The issue is particularly vexed in Scotland, which has most
to gain from new energy schemes but is being constrained by decisions
made in England.
That leaves wave and tidal power, where is the news is not too gloomy.
'We have a number of very promising projects and a reasonably amount
of government money - about £60m - to develop the best schemes,' says
renewable energy expert Professor Ian Bryden of Edinburgh University.
'It's enough, provided we don't fritter it away on poor projects - and
I worry we might do that.'
If we let Miller go, we will leave ourselves with one last hope in
developing a key new carbon-free means of generating power: the power
of the waves and tides. How can we be sure we won't fumble the pass
once more?
Jim Webster
>Britain's lost opportunity to protect the planet
>
>http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2105037,00.html
>Robin McKie
>Sunday June 17, 2007
>The Observer
>
>
>It is one of the strangest-sounding ideas for saving the planet:
>convert the world's reservoirs of fossil fuel into their main chemical
>components, carbon dioxide and non-polluting hydrogen. Burn the latter
>to make electricity while burying the carbon dioxide underground.
>Millions, possibly billions, of tonnes of climate-changing carbon
>could be stored in old oil fields and sediment layers deep below the
>seabed. Homes and factories could then continue to burn oil and gas
>with impunity.
>
>And lest you think the idea is cranky, take note: Carbon Capture and
>Storage, as it is known, is backed by many scientists. The technology
>is straightforward, yet could ward off the worst effects of greenhouse
>warming. Even politicians, including Gordon Brown, have given support.
>Carbon storage could not only help the world, it could aid Great
>Britain plc. Develop expertise and hardware and we could sell them to
>China, India and other developing nations, and so make money while
>saving the world.
>That's the theory. Sadly, the practice is proving trickier. The UK's
>only carbon storage project has just been axed by BP, which says the
>government reneged on key support for it. Now fears are growing that
>Britain - which has abandoned leads in nuclear and wind energy
>technology - is about to follow suit with other renewable energy
>schemes, including wave power and tidal energy. A golden opportunity -
>to develop technologies that will be desperately needed in our
>overheating world - is being lost.
>
>BP and its partners had planned to extract carbon dioxide from natural
>gas used in a power station to be built at Peterhead then pump it
>under the North Sea into its Miller oil field. Production there is due
>to come to an end this year, but by forcing in carbon dioxide, extra
>oil reserves could be squeezed out. More importantly, two million
>tonnes of carbon dioxide a year could be pumped down there and stored
>for 10,000 years.
What a great idea! Could it work? Don't see why not, but how long
would it stay there I wonder.
Oz
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_farming/ALL/1610//
A new report* by the government’s official advisory body on farm
animal welfare presents a picture of dramatically declining
‘stockmanship’ skills, with less than 1% of farm workers taking up
training and certification opportunities. It is an apathy matched by
the government and the livestock industry itself, whose support for
training has ‘weakened considerably in recent years’.
The result, according to the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), is a
‘lack of formal training, and poor quality training’. And the
instruction that is on offer often produces mere paper qualifications
that do ‘not equate with competence in the work place’.
Given this dismal background, it is unsurprising that, as the FAWC
report notes, there is no legal requirement for farm operators to
produce ‘evidence regarding the competence of livestock keepers’.
The latest figures show that there are 292,000 stockmen employed in
Great Britain. Some 60% of farm businesses are run by a single
operator, says FAWC, with the average age of such farmers increasing.
In 2005, for example, 18% of dairy farmers were aged over 65, while
only 4% were younger than 35. There is an inability to attract and
retain ‘good stockmen’ - a problem, according to FAWC, that ‘some
pundits’ link to farming’s negative image caused by ‘major disease
outbreaks and a disconnection between the producer and the
marketplace’. Campaign groups that highlight and try to remedy animal
suffering were also blamed for farming’s self-inflicted wounds.
Among the report’s recommendations are that the government take a
positive message about farming to schoolchildren, which should include
educational visits to livestock farms as part of the national
curriculum.
Says Animal Aid Director Andrew Tyler:
‘Anyone who has a companion animal knows about the time, care and
commitment that each of them demands. Farm animals have equivalent
needs. Each is an individual, capable of feeling pain and stress just
like a dog or a rabbit. Animal Aid promotes an animal-free diet but,
given that some 1000 million animals are currently mass produced for
slaughter every year in Britain, the picture painted by FAWC of farm
worker incompetence, and government and industry apathy, is truly
disturbing. The public is repeatedly told that British farm animal
welfare standards are the best in the world. This new report by the
government’s own official advisory body demonstrates that such claims
are self-serving propaganda.’
*FAWC Report on Stockmanship and Farm Animal Welfare, June 2007
http://www.fawc.co.uk/pdf/stockmanship-report0607.pdf
Oz
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_racing/ALL/1609//
Animal Aid and the Daily Express have forced the Ascot horse sales to
change its rules. The move follows a joint undercover investigation -
as a result of which, a race horse who was destined for the abattoir
was given a secure future at the Midland Racehorse Care Centre. The
Ascot horse sales, shocked by the public exposure, have tightened
their regulations so that any horses sold in future will be “used for
equine disciplines and not for slaughter” .This represents one more
important step in an ongoing Animal Aid campaign to end the
exploitation of Thoroughbred horses by the racing industry.
Read the full article
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/images/news/Express0615.png
amacm...@aol.com
>Scientists rule out return to badger culls
All except duff scientists like Malcolm :-))
I hope the idea of culling badgers will now be buried for good.
Oz
Monday 18 June 2007
Ref: 2007/0695
The Food Standards Agency has developed a new guide for cereal farmers
on codes of practice that will help reduce the levels of mycotoxins in
cereals through changes to cultivation and storage practices. The
Agency will this week distribute the guide to over 43,000 cereal
farmers in England, with separate distributions across Wales, Scotland
and Northern Ireland.
Mycotoxins are toxic substances produced by fungi and can be hazardous
to human and animal health, even at low concentrations. Mycotoxins can
get into the human food supply as a result of the growth of specific
fungi on food crops, either in the field or in storage.
Two codes of practice have been developed in response to a new
European Union (EU) recommendation. As the regulatory body for food
safety in the UK, the Food Standards Agency is responsible for the
implementation and application of EU legislation. The first code of
practice deals with the reduction of fusarium mycotoxins in the field,
while the second provides advice on practices to minimise the
formation of ochratoxin A in stored grain.
Wendy Matthews, Head of the Agency's Mycotoxin Branch, said: 'It's
important that farmers control the production of any mycotoxins in
their cereals, as their presence in food can be harmful to human
health. This new guide is designed to be informative and practical for
farmers and will help reduce the risks to consumers. But farmers will
also benefit by producing good-quality cereals and minimising any
wastage from unfit crops – so it’s good news for consumers and
farmers.'
The guide has been informed by Agency research looking at mycotoxin
formation.
Jim Webster
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:12:08 +0100, Oz <O...@farmdirectacon.con> wrote:
>
>>Scientists rule out return to badger culls
>
>All except duff scientists like Malcolm :-))
>
>>
>>Proposals for a widespread cull of badgers to limit the spread of
>>bovine tuberculosis have been ruled out by the government's
>>Independent Scientific Group, which argues that culling cannot make
>>any meaningful contribution.
>>
>>Environment Secretary David Miliband is expected to accept the
>>recommendations, and make it clear that culling will not be
>>reintroduced into Britain. Culling was banned in 1998 after doubts
>>about its effectiveness. Animal protection groups which have
>>campaigned against the measure say that it is cruel and unnecessary.
>>The National Farmers' Union, however, is expected to challenge the
>>decision.
>>
>>The ISG's findings, based on trials over a 10-year period, show that
>>when badgers are disturbed by a cull the survivors move farther
>>afield, spreading the disease to cattle and to other badgers. Bovine
>>TB costs around £80million a year, in compensation paid to farmers
>>whose herds have to be put under movement restrictions. It says
>>farmers can do more to detect the disease early in cattle, by using a
>>new blood test.
>>
>
>
>I hope the idea of culling badgers will now be buried for good.
>
The farming community will quickly latch on to something else to
scapegoat. I think if the culls had gone ahead it would in effect have
paid the farmers to do what they like doing anyway, killing animals!
Oz
Almost all of us grew up eating meat, wearing leather, and going to
circuses and zoos. Many of us bought our beloved “pets” at pet shops,
had guinea pigs, and kept beautiful birds in cages. We wore wool and
silk, ate McDonald’s burgers, and fished. We never considered the
impact of these actions on the animals involved. For whatever reason,
you are now asking the question: Why should animals have rights?
In his book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer states that the basic
principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment;
it requires equal consideration. This is an important distinction when
talking about animal rights. People often ask if animals should have
rights, and quite simply, the answer is “Yes!” Animals surely deserve
to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. Jeremy
Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral
philosophy, stated that when deciding on a being’s rights, “The
question is not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they
suffer?’” In that passage, Bentham points to the capacity for
suffering as the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to
equal consideration. The capacity for suffering is not just another
characteristic like the capacity for language or higher mathematics.
All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same
degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration,
loneliness, and motherly love. Whenever we consider doing something
that would interfere with their needs, we are morally obligated to
take them into account.
Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent
worth—a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We
believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live
free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a
philosophy—it is a social movement that challenges society’s
traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use.
As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love,
joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one
values his or her life and fights the knife.”
Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to
have for ourselves. Whether it’s based on race, gender, sexual
orientation, or species, prejudice is morally unacceptable. If you
wouldn’t eat a dog, why eat a pig? Dogs and pigs have the same
capacity to feel pain, but it is prejudice based on species that
allows us to think of one animal as a companion and the other as
dinner.
What Is Animal Liberation? Excerpts From Philosopher Peter Singer's
Groundbreaking Work
“Animal Liberation” may sound more like a parody of other liberation
movements than a serious objective. The idea of “The Rights of
Animals” actually was once used to parody the case for women's rights.
When Mary Wollstonecraft published her Vindication of the Rights of
Women in 1792, her views were widely regarded as absurd, and before
long, an anonymous publication appeared entitled A Vindication of the
Rights of Brutes. The author of this satirical work (now known to have
been Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher) tried to
refute Mary Wollstonecraft's arguments by showing that they could be
carried one stage further. If the argument for equality was sound when
applied to women, why should it not be applied to dogs, cats, and
horses? …
When we say that all human beings, whatever their race, creed, or sex,
are equal, what is it that we are asserting? Like it or not, we must
face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they
come with different moral capacities, different intellectual
abilities, different amounts of benevolent feeling and sensitivity to
the needs of others, different abilities to communicate effectively,
and different capacities to experience pleasure and pain. In short, if
the demand for equality were based on the actual equality of all human
beings, we would have to stop demanding equality. …
The existence of individual variations that cut across the lines of
race or sex, however, provides us with no defense at all against a
more sophisticated opponent of equality, one who proposes that, say,
the interests of all those with IQ scores below 100 be given less
consideration than the interests of those with ratings over 100.
Perhaps those scoring below the mark would, in this society, be made
the slaves of those scoring higher. Would a hierarchical society of
this sort really be so much better than one based on race or sex? I
think not. But if we tie the moral principle of equality to the
factual equality of the different races or sexes, taken as a whole,
our opposition to racism and sexism does not provide us with any basis
for objecting to this kind of inegalitarianism. …
Fortunately, there is no need to pin the case for equality to one
particular outcome of a scientific investigation. … There is no
logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in
ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of
consideration we give to their needs and interests. The principle of
the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual
equality among humans: It is a prescription of how we should treat
human beings.
Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of
moral philosophy, incorporated the essential basis of moral equality
into his system of ethics by means of the formula: “Each to count for
one and none for more than one.” In other words, the interests of
every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and
given the same weight as the like interests of any other being. …
It is an implication of this principle of equality that our concern
for others and our readiness to consider their interests ought not to
depend on what they are like or on what abilities they may possess.
Precisely what our concern or consideration requires us to do may vary
according to the characteristics of those affected by what we do:
concern for the well-being of children growing up in America would
require that we teach them to read; concern for the well-being of pigs
may require no more than that we leave them with other pigs in a place
where there is adequate food and room to run freely. But the basic
element—the taking into account of the interests of the being,
whatever those interests may be—must, according to the principle of
equality, be extended to all beings, black or white, masculine or
feminine, human or nonhuman.
Thomas Jefferson, who was responsible for writing the principle of the
equality of men into the American Declaration of Independence, saw
this point. It led him to oppose slavery even though he was unable to
free himself fully from his slaveholding background. He wrote in a
letter to the author of a book that emphasized the notable
intellectual achievements of Negroes in order to refute the then
common view that they have limited intellectual capacities: “Be
assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see
a complete refutation of the doubts I myself have entertained and
expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature,
and to find that they are on a par with ourselves … but whatever be
their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir
Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not
therefore lord of the property or person of others.”
Similarly, when in the 1850s the call for women's rights was raised in
the United States, a remarkable black feminist named Sojourner Truth
made the same point in more robust terms at a feminist convention:
“They talk about this thing in the head; what do they call it?
[“Intellect,” whispered someone nearby.] That's it. What's that got to
do with women's rights or Negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a
pint and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have
my little half-measure full?”
It is on this basis that the case against racism and the case against
sexism must both ultimately rest; and it is in accordance with this
principle that the attitude that we may call “speciesism,” by analogy
with racism, must also be condemned. Speciesism—the word is not an
attractive one, but I can think of no better term—is a prejudice or
attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own
species and against those of members of other species. It should be
obvious that the fundamental objections to racism and sexism made by
Thomas Jefferson and Sojourner Truth apply equally to speciesism. If
possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human
to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to
exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?
Many philosophers and other writers have proposed the principle of
equal consideration of interests, in some form or other, as a basic
moral principle; but not many of them have recognized that this
principle applies to members of other species as well as to our own.
Jeremy Bentham was one of the few who did realize this. In a
forward-looking passage written at a time when black slaves had been
freed by the French but in the British dominions were still being
treated in the way we now treat animals, Bentham wrote:
“The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire
those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by
the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the
blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be
abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one
day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity
of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally
insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What
else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty
of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse
or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more
conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week or even a
month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The
question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they
suffer?”
In this passage, Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as the
vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal
consideration. … If a being suffers, there can be no moral
justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration.
No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality
requires that [his or her] suffering be counted equally with the like
suffering—insofar as rough comparisons can be made—of any other being.
…
Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to
the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash
between their interests and the interests of those of another race.
Sexists violate the principle of equality by favoring the interests of
their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own
species to override the greater interests of members of other species.
The pattern is identical in each case.
Most human beings are speciesists. … [O]rdinary human beings—not a few
exceptionally cruel or heartless humans, but the overwhelming majority
of humans—take an active part in, acquiesce in, and allow their taxes
to pay for practices that require the sacrifice of the most important
interests of members of other species in order to promote the most
trivial interests of our own species.…
Even if we were to prevent the infliction of suffering on animals only
when it is quite certain that the interests of humans will not be
affected to anything like the extent that animals are affected, we
would be forced to make radical changes in our treatment of animals
that would involve our diet, the farming methods we use, experimental
procedures in many fields of science, our approach to wildlife and to
hunting, trapping and the wearing of furs, and areas of entertainment
like circuses, rodeos, and zoos. As a result, a vast amount of
suffering would be avoided.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To order a copy of Animal Liberation for yourself or friends, please
visit PETACatalog.org.
Please forward this essay to your friends and family members.
Oz
http://www.peta.org/about/victoryItem.asp?Victoryid=496
In 2001, PETA ended its "Murder King" campaign against fast-food giant
Burger King after the company agreed to adopt a series of animal
welfare guidelines. Since then, PETA has continued to hold
behind-the-scenes discussions with Burger King about how the company
could further improve its animal welfare requirements. In March 2007,
after nearly six years of discussions with PETA, Burger King announced
a groundbreaking new plan, placing it at the forefront of the
fast-food industry with regard to animal welfare.
Learn more about PETA's ongoing work with Burger King to reduce some
of the worst abuses suffered by chickens, pigs, and cows in factory
farms and slaughterhouses.
"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) claimed victory
last June after more than [800] 'Murder King' protest rallies spread
over five months prompted Burger King, the world's second-largest
fast-food chain, to announce new guidelines for its meat and egg
suppliers, including extra water, wing room, and fresh air for
egg-laying hens and mandatory stunning of pigs and cattle prior to
slaughter. Surprise inspections by Burger King auditors will help to
ensure that suppliers treat animals humanely right up to the end.
McDonald's established similar guidelines a year earlier, following a
PETA campaign that included distribution of 'Unhappy Meals' with
['wounded,'] ['bloody'] farm-animal toys."
—Discover Magazine, Jan. 2002
Victory: PETA Wins 'Murder King' Campaign!
On June 28, 2001, PETA called off its "Murder King" campaign, which
involved provocative ads; celebrity support from Alec Baldwin, James
Cromwell, and Richard Pryor; and—with the help of activists—more than
800 protests at Burger King restaurants worldwide. Since the campaign
ended, Burger King has continued to lead the fast-food industry toward
improving animal welfare.
PETA called off its "Murder King" campaign when the company agreed to
do the following things:
Conduct announced and unannounced inspections of its slaughterhouses,
including chicken slaughterhouses, and take action against facilities
that fail inspections
Establish animal-handling verification guidelines for all the
slaughterhouses of its suppliers
Confine no more than five hens in each battery cage, require that the
birds be able to stand fully upright, and require the presence of two
water drinkers per cage (although confining five hens to a tiny cage
is still horribly cruel, this number is two less than the industry
standard and represents a marked improvement for animals)
Stop purchasing from suppliers who force-molt hens (i.e., starve them
for up to two weeks in order to force them to lay more eggs)
Develop auditing procedures for the handling of "broiler" chickens
Institute humane handling procedures for chickens at slaughterhouses
Begin purchasing pork from farms that do not confine sows to stalls
Burger King also petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
enforce the Humane Slaughter Act.
Update: Burger King Adopts New Industry-Leading Animal Welfare
Policies in 2007
In the years following PETA´s successful “Murder King” campaign, PETA
continued to hold behind-the-scenes discussions with Burger King about
how the company could further improve its animal welfare guidelines.
In March 2007, Burger King announced a groundbreaking new plan,
placing it at the forefront of the fast-food industry with regard to
animal welfare. The company committed to the following:
Immediately begin purchasing some pig flesh from suppliers that do not
use cruel gestation crates—metal enclosures that confine mother pigs
and are so restrictive that the animals cannot even stretch a limb or
take a step—and double that amount by the end of 2007
Immediately begin purchasing some eggs laid by hens who are not
confined to tiny wire “battery cages,” and more than double that
amount by the end of 2007
Issue a statement to its egg suppliers stating that it will give
purchasing preference to those that do not use battery cages
Issue a statement to its chicken flesh suppliers stating that it will
give purchasing preference to those that use or switch to
“controlled-atmosphere killing” (CAK), the least cruel method of
chicken and turkey slaughter in existence
PETA applauds Burger King for this groundbreaking step and will
continue to work with the company to improve its animal welfare
requirements.
Tragically, some of the biggest fast-food companies, like KFC, have
refused to make even minimal animal welfare changes. For information
about PETA’s current campaign against KFC—urging it to eliminate the
worst abuses suffered by the more than 850 million chickens killed for
its buckets each year—visit www.KentuckyFriedCruelty.com.
Dutch
> Even if we were to prevent the infliction of suffering on animals only
> when it is quite certain that the interests of humans will not be
> affected to anything like the extent that animals are affected, we
> would be forced to make radical changes in our treatment of animals
> that would involve our diet, the farming methods we use, experimental
> procedures in many fields of science, our approach to wildlife and to
> hunting, trapping and the wearing of furs, and areas of entertainment
> like circuses, rodeos, and zoos. As a result, a vast amount of
> suffering would be avoided.
Fallacy, the vast majority of animal death and suffering is indirect,
collateral. The chemicals alone used to fertilize, protect from pests and
weeds cause far more harm to animals and far more painfully than the animals
we actually directly kill to be used.