The abandoned or so called stray cattle are a problem in my state. We can't slaughter cattle in India. Apart from traffic hazard and potential for spread of infectious and zoonotic diseases these animals pose many other problems. We have some 32,000 such cattle in the state. There are a few shelters for these animals which are not sufficient to accommodate them. The sheltering of this large population involves a lot of capital plus recurrent expenditure on feeding and management. We are looking for some viable alternative for their rehabilitation.
in my humble opinion to use a rational science based method to solve a problem caused by a religious faith is leading to unsatisfactory results.
Having said that you may try first to identify (with absolute certainty: microchip, e-bolus) each of these 32000 cattle then pair each marked cattle with a family (or families or wealthy individuals) who is against cattle slaughter and ask them to take care of the expenses for feeding and management of that specific animal.
Would it be feasible or possible to use these cattle as a means of creating and redistributing fertilizer (manure) from inedible resources to soils with poor fertility. One might create a system for collecting and accumulating cellulosic and nitrogenous materials that the cows could consume, digest and excrete.The proposed feedstocks could be accumulated in multiple locations to limit transportation costs. These locations could be near or adjacent to fields that need more fertilizer. The cattle could be herded in modest-sized groups from place place to consume the feedstocks and then to defecate and urinate on the less fertile fields. This may sound foolish, but cattle can be trained to herd easily and their activity would not only move nutrients, but would also help "till" the fields. Rate of passage of feed through the GI tract is slowed with feeds that are less digestible, so with some experience, one might learn how to move nutrients more effectively from place to place. This is an interesting problem and I think there may be some reasonable solutions if you can get enough ideas.
Another option, if it would be permissible within the religious restrictions, would be to use the cattle to produce antibodies (antiserum) that might be used to treat certain diseases of livestock (cattle) worldwide. If the cattle are injected with an antigen, then they will produce serum antibodies. Antiserum can be harvested, packaged and distributed for use in other cattle. It can be injected to neutralize a developing disease or to protect cattle from some diseased during critical periods, such as rainy seasons. The injected cattle would generally remain healthy and would actually serve as producing "natural medicines" that could benefit other cattle worldwide. Under the right conditions, this could generate revenue that would help pay for maintaining these cattle. One would need to be careful in distributing such antiserum to ensure that it did not carry viruses or other diseases, but this could be controlled.
'in my humble opinion to use a rational science based method to solve a problem caused by a religious faith is leading to unsatisfactory results'
Why? You can act rationally within whatever parameters you want. I don't think there is a problem here - the point is that for the asker, the slaughter of the cattle would be unsatisfactory. So, the question is how can we solve the problem without violating that constraint?
Simon you forgot to take note of the words "science based". You can certainly act rationally in a "faith" context however, when "science" show that your "faith" is simply b......it often people following such faith refuse to accept what you suggest. This explain why you will have "unsatisfactory results" when suggesting solution to a "faith based" problem .
Countless example, for example this morning I read that Australia’s top body for medical research has concluded, after undertaking an extensive review of existing studies that homeopathy is not effective for treating ANY health condition. Care to suggest why millions of people still waste money on homeopathy?
Sure, but that isn't really my point. The question was:
How can I solve problem X, assuming constraint Y?
We can (and should) discuss constraint Y and why it needs to be there. But the question of how to solve problem X within that constraint is still pertinent. That's really all I'm saying.
Problem X : I will not slaughter cattle, Constraint Y: against my believes
Problem X: I will not reduce CO2 emissions, Constraint Y: I do not believe CO2 cause climate warming .
Problem X: I will not tolerate any critic to my religion Constraint Y: I believe my religion is the right one
You can certainly "discuss" Constraint Y but , as I said, it will be very often a frustrating unsatisfactory experience. That's is what I am saying
- Badges
- Science topic