Snips from the article:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200803190016
In January an outbreak was confirmed on poultry farms in West Bengal, the Indian state that abuts Bangladesh's western border. Over the following weeks nearly all the chickens, ducks and geese in the state - more than 3.4 million birds - were culled. Most of the slaughtered poultry belonged to poor farmers who were rearing local breeds of chicken in backyards.
Understandably, many farmers were unwilling to hand over perfectly healthy birds that were essential to the household economy, and they often resisted, claiming the compensation being offered was inadequate. Some of the culling was shambolic; there were reports of teams leaving sacks of dead birds to rot in fields.
Over the following weeks the impact of the culling rippled through the state. Thousands of shuttlecock makers in the town of Uluberia were left in dire straits as the supply of raw material - goose feathers - dwindled to nothing. It was even reported that the Badminton Association of India temporarily had to cancel all training sessions ahead of the Olympic selection process because of a shortage of shuttlecocks.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation commended the Indian government's successful efforts to contain the outbreak, but local people question the huge environmental and social cost of the culling. The culling may well have eliminated local breeds, many of which are uniquely adapted to local conditions.
According to the Indian online magazine Frontline, there were reports in October 2007 that inadequate action was being taken to stop bird flu crossing from Bangladesh, where 140 outbreaks were reported last year. It might have been possible, says the magazine, to have set up a "ring of immunity", two to three kilometres wide, along the frontier; by vaccinating all the poultry in this area, the virus's entry could have been barred.
Instead, the government opted for wholesale slaughter.
Those likely to emerge stronger from the carnage are the big integrated poultry companies, which have been growing very rapidly in India in recent years and can recover quickly from the culling. One such, Arambagh Hatcheries, is poised to sign a deal with Japan's Marubeni Corporation to supply 1,000 tonnes of chicken a month. The export market does not accept meat from vaccinated chickens. It seems clear that a decision has been taken to safeguard the interests of the export companies at the expense of small-scale farmers.
Yet in the longer term such a strategy is dangerous; and not just for India. Global production of poultry has increased tenfold in the past 40 years, as people in both the developed and the richer developing countries have acquired tastes for roast chicken and chicken nuggets. But all over the world the big poultry companies purchase the genetic material for their chickens from just four livestock genetics companies. There is a good reason for this, as these companies have selectively bred chickens that grow very quickly, and provide the tender, white meat that the export market craves.
This process is, however, inexorably eliminating local breeds. In contrast to chickens bred intensively, which require special industrialised feed and are vulnerable to disease, local breeds eat scraps of food and are hardy. These qualities might be in urgent demand one day if a pandemic were to wipe out the factory-farmed chickens. Apart from destroying the livelihoods of thousands of peasant families, the decision to cull millions of chickens in West Bengal has diminished the precious pool of avian biodiversity.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200803190016
In January an outbreak was confirmed on poultry farms in West Bengal, the Indian state that abuts Bangladesh's western border. Over the following weeks nearly all the chickens, ducks and geese in the state - more than 3.4 million birds - were culled. Most of the slaughtered poultry belonged to poor farmers who were rearing local breeds of chicken in backyards.
Understandably, many farmers were unwilling to hand over perfectly healthy birds that were essential to the household economy, and they often resisted, claiming the compensation being offered was inadequate. Some of the culling was shambolic; there were reports of teams leaving sacks of dead birds to rot in fields.
Over the following weeks the impact of the culling rippled through the state. Thousands of shuttlecock makers in the town of Uluberia were left in dire straits as the supply of raw material - goose feathers - dwindled to nothing. It was even reported that the Badminton Association of India temporarily had to cancel all training sessions ahead of the Olympic selection process because of a shortage of shuttlecocks.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation commended the Indian government's successful efforts to contain the outbreak, but local people question the huge environmental and social cost of the culling. The culling may well have eliminated local breeds, many of which are uniquely adapted to local conditions.
According to the Indian online magazine Frontline, there were reports in October 2007 that inadequate action was being taken to stop bird flu crossing from Bangladesh, where 140 outbreaks were reported last year. It might have been possible, says the magazine, to have set up a "ring of immunity", two to three kilometres wide, along the frontier; by vaccinating all the poultry in this area, the virus's entry could have been barred.
Instead, the government opted for wholesale slaughter.
Those likely to emerge stronger from the carnage are the big integrated poultry companies, which have been growing very rapidly in India in recent years and can recover quickly from the culling. One such, Arambagh Hatcheries, is poised to sign a deal with Japan's Marubeni Corporation to supply 1,000 tonnes of chicken a month. The export market does not accept meat from vaccinated chickens. It seems clear that a decision has been taken to safeguard the interests of the export companies at the expense of small-scale farmers.
Yet in the longer term such a strategy is dangerous; and not just for India. Global production of poultry has increased tenfold in the past 40 years, as people in both the developed and the richer developing countries have acquired tastes for roast chicken and chicken nuggets. But all over the world the big poultry companies purchase the genetic material for their chickens from just four livestock genetics companies. There is a good reason for this, as these companies have selectively bred chickens that grow very quickly, and provide the tender, white meat that the export market craves.
This process is, however, inexorably eliminating local breeds. In contrast to chickens bred intensively, which require special industrialised feed and are vulnerable to disease, local breeds eat scraps of food and are hardy. These qualities might be in urgent demand one day if a pandemic were to wipe out the factory-farmed chickens. Apart from destroying the livelihoods of thousands of peasant families, the decision to cull millions of chickens in West Bengal has diminished the precious pool of avian biodiversity.