It’s been a long time since I did work in a “developing” nation, but I read today about mini cattle (cows under 42 inches at the shoulder) and wondered if they could be or are used in development programs for families with little land. Apparently, you can raise two mini-cows on one acres (one cow will provide 6 mos of meet for four people (not sure who’s standard of eating that is, but anyway two cows provide a lot of meat) and get more meat per “hoof” than you can with a regular-sized cow (in part becuase the smaller hooves are less damaging to the ground they feed on). At Starbucks a mini-cow is a tall, however, so be careful when ordering…anyway…the mini cows are apparently more expensive due to rarity, but it seems that with time this could be an interesting avenue for small-farm families or collectives, in poor and/or eco-damaged nations.
So, my question: Any ideas on if this has been tried?
(The article I read was on AOl, so I don’t think linking to it here would help non-AOL people, but you can get an idea of these critters at http://www.minicattle.com/ (a somewhat awkward website, but informative).)
I live near a gentleman that is considered one of the leaders in mini cow breeding. He names the new breeds for the area that we live so there is the Auburnshire, Covingtonshire, Kentshire, Burienshire, and the Kingshire, look at a map of south King County, Washington. The cost is what is keeping him from selling more. He has to produce 2 different lineages just to get one breeding pair, inbreeding of hybrid cattle has some disasterous results. With so few actually will to take the time to develop breed of cattle such as this, it is highly unlikely they will ever be seriously considered as a food source. And thier so cute, I couldn’t imagine butchering one for the freezer.
Cute or not, starving people need food. I think the small lines is a problem for these new hybrids, but there appear to be some “older” bloodlines that are now “true” breeds. Although maybe not as small.
Of course there are other forms of small livestock. Goats for example. Goats obviously require less land since they are smaller, but you trade milk volume and meat production. On the other hand I think goats may be better browsers (eating the tender bits of things other than grass) than cattle, and they are more agile. I think this may account for why goat is a staple in the arid and rocky regions of the middle east.
They donate animals to families in developing countries and they gift cattle, goats, sheep, rabbits and chickens depending on the area and needs of the family. Chickens are a great small scale animal to raise. They forage for insects and vegetation anywhere, even among homes/yards on in undercanopy/wooded environs and you get a steady supply of protien (eggs) without butchering the animal.
And either of these small livestock options has the benefit of thousands of years of breed development so they require less intensive line management to avoid the inbreeding consequences.
I just heard about these on this morning’s news. Interesting and odd, because I also just read about miniature cattle used 1000 years ago.
It’s in Jared Diamond’s Collapse, and the mini-cattle were used in Norse Greenland from about 1000 to 1400 AD. Apparently mini-cattle were better because they didn’t need as much pasture (important in Greenland) and because after they spent the winter in their protected barns eating whatever stuff they could store away (including seaweed), the farmers would carry the cows out, because they couldn’t walk.
I’m not sure exactly where Diamond found that bit of trivia, but if I was carrying a cow, I’d certainly want it to be a mini.
