Cattle Breeds: Cattle
breeding is a science practise of old in India. 150 years back the East India
Company was developing sturdy bulls for drawing their gun-carriages. Even now
we find in certain Government farms the same old and obsolete policy in vogue.
At about the same period Tipu Sultan had developed a fast running breed of
bullocks which served him in the Army. Lord Wellesley, who had used these in
his army, was so impressed by them that during his battle at Waterloo, he is
said to have exclaimed at one time when his tired horses failed to reach the goal,
"Alas ! had I those Mysore bullocks, they would not have failed me".
All over India we find different
breeds of cattle. Many of these have been intentionally and intelligently bred.
Now we ought to know the direction in which we are to proceed. There are a few
points which may be well kept in view when we want to breed our cattle.
Firstly, each locality has got its individual requirements according to the
type of work to be done and the climate and other conditions; over and above
this, even in the same locality all people will not require the same type of
bullocks. A farmer with a small holding, with work for lesser bullock power,
would need a smaller bullock which he can maintain on the fodder produced in
his small field; whereas a bigger farmer's requirement will be different. Thus
we shall have to provide in each locality various types of bullocks - small,
medium and big - according to the needs of the agriculturists. A mere dual
purpose cow will not do for all time. We should not sacrifice special qualities
for greeting an average. Specialization in bullocks is a felt need. For this
purpose we may not have at present a sufficient number of stud bull to develop
different types of bullocks. If we go on as we do with scrub bulls out stock is
bound to deteriorate. It may not be possible to wait till we get adequate
numbers of good bulls. Under the circumstances we may have to resort, for the
time being, to what is called artificial insemination. I hesitate to put these
suggestions before you. But I have stated the problem for your consideration.
Cow's Status: The cow touches all
our economic activities. This had been recognised even in ancient times. That
is why sentimental, religious and great importance had been attached to 'the
cow' Why Gandhiji took to he cow was for reasons deeper than this-To him 'cow'
symbolized all animal wealth. The service of the cow was to bring him nearer to
his goal of truth and non-violence. All this programme sprung from this root.
Man has utilized resources of
power other than manual labour for the production of his utility articles.
Prior to the discovery of coal, man in the West used horse as the main motive
power. Here in the East cow ruled - cow the mother of the bullock and its
progeny - the bullock. We find that as the so-called industrial era dawned the
economy of the West shifted from the horse to coal and thence to petroleum.
This shift meant greater and greater violence. Thus a stress on cow means
bringing back mankind to its former mooring.
Causes of War:
When we use the cow and cattle
wealth as helpers in our production there is a natural limit to the quantity of
production in comparison to the state of affairs that ensues when coal or other
such resources of power are utilized, on the expenditure of which there can be
no natural limit. Thus the self-sufficiency or the measures of it which is
attainable in a cow economy is distorted and disturbed when we depart from it.
When the quantity of produce increases, markets are to be sought for it.
Europe's hunt for the markets in the last two centuries was motivated by this
economic factor; thus as soon as man changed over from animal economy to power
economy violence became necessary. They fought with each other for markets. The
result was the first World War - when the countries depending upon the coal
economy fought with each other for the market areas.
Nature of Resources : The race
towards death did not stop here. It continued ahead. The resources of power
given by nature are of two categories, one type is perennial in nature
belonging to the vegetable and animal kingdoms. These may be called the
'current resources' and the other type is in short supply in nature like coal,
iron, petrol and the like belonging to the mineral kingdom. These are not being
manufactured under the bowels of the earth and their exhaustion means lessening
in the total quantity available. These limited resources may be called the
'reservoir' type. It is when man depends more and more upon the latter type of
resources that violence increases. Thus whereas from cow to the coal was one
stop towards violence, coal to petrol was a leap further towards the abyss. The
last conflagration got the whole world under its sway. The Second World War was
a natural corollary when exploiting countries fought not only for their
markets, but also to control the motive power-producing areas. These petrol
pockets distributed over a dozen countries of the world, became the bone of
contention over which the whole world fought. If we want to bring about a
change towards peace we should depend more and more on the current type of
resources for our motive power and 'the cow', which provides the bullocks
belonging to that type, stands for it. Hence the cow becomes symbolic of an
economy of Peace.
It is in this respect that I would
like you to view the cow and all it stands for Go Seva is a movement for world
peace. From the mad rush to exhaust the reservoir resources of nature we want
to bring humanity to realize its folly and take the help of the perennial
motive power available to man in the form of our friends, the cattle. We should
have a whole picture of the kind of world we want. Go Seva should help us to
bring it about. I wish and hope that you will have this all round attitude and
try to bring it into practice. You would do nothing which goes against 'the
cow'. The mills and all the economy which depends upon 'reservoir economy' are
an enemy of the cow economy and Go Sevaks will realize that Gandhiji's cow
embraces all his constructive programmes.[1]
II. The Cow
The Cow Conference, held at
Amritsar, in 1946 laid great stress on the place the cow holds in our rural
economy. Apart from the programme for the preservation of the cow, as an
animal, we have also to consider the steps to be taken to build up the economy
symbolised by the cow. We cannot take up isolated items and concentrate on
those without consolidating village life on all fronts.
From this broader approach any
encouragement given to the cultivation of long staple cotton for mills is
tantamount to the destruction of the cow as the seeds of long staple cotton are
not available as cattle feed because of the fuzzy short staple cotton being
left unlinted on the seed. Owing to this the bullocks are deprived of their oil
& protein diet. Our villages are dependent on animals for the satisfactory
working of their economy.
The opening of vanaspati 'Ghee'
mills again cuts across this economy. It deprives people of a wholesome article
of diet-vegetable oil and replaces it by indigestible hydrogenated oils and
sets up unfair competition with the 'tellis'.
The building of expensive roads,
surfaced with Asphalt, cement etc., while being wholly unnecessary for the
village economy, takes away from the cultivator the part-time occupation of
transport, and reduces the employment of the bullocks. Such roads encourage
draining the villages of their products. They are harmful to the unshod-animals
and dislocate the self-sufficient village economy.
It is not necessary to multiply
instances. The cow symbolises a way of economic life just as much as the
internal combustion engine and the lorry typifies another way of economic life.
The choice is before us. We may choose the one or the other but we cannot make
a hotchpotch of it. If we decide in favour of the cow we have to take up that
economy in all its aspects.
It is imperative that the
Provincial Governments, that are now seriously thinking of rural development,
should clear the issue and declare for a definite line of action. No haphazard
attack on this problem will solve it.[2]
III. Cow Protection
There is a good deal of talk
today about protecting the cow from the slaughter-house. It is good that people
are becoming conscious of the great evil that indiscriminate slaughter of
cattle has brought to our country. On the purely shortsighted view, the need
for milk in a vegetarian country being important, it gives a premier place to
the cow as a feeder of the nation. Apart from that it also provides the bullock
which is the motive power with which the farmer produces from the land. The
importance of this aspect of the question has been fully realised in conferring
divinity on the cow and raising cow-slaughter to the level of a religious
question. However, because of fanaticism, the very same zeal on the one side
has created cussedness on the other side and we often find conflict between
different sections of the population centered around cow slaughter. Therefore
it now becomes necessary to ascertain exactly the place of the cow in India and
give it a national approach.
With an artisan the tool that he
uses becomes almost an object of worship. In fact, in India we have a definite
festival 'Shastra Pooja' devoted to this ceremony. Man recognises his economic
dependence on the means of production. Just as an artisan depends on his tools,
similarly the farmer depends on the cow and if we extend the economic sphere,
we may say the cow, being the means of producing food, becomes the centre of
the economic organisation of man, especially in an agricultural country like
India.
Apart from this aspect, when we
look upon the cow as the producer of the bullock, the importance of the cow is
enhanced. She now represents the centre of our economy. We may call our
economic organisation, where the cow contributed towards motive power,
transport, food production, etc, as a 'Cow-centred economy' in the same manner
as England and other European countries were, not long ago, horse centred
economies.
During the last century England
drifted from being a horse-centred economy into a coal-centred economy and from
being a coal-centred economy she is fast moving into an oil-centred economy.
These stages are very important to notice as the fate of the world itself
depends on the source from which we obtain our power.
In the cow and the horse-centered
economies we have unlimited sources as we could breed as many bullocks and
horses as we needed and, therefore, there being no restriction on the amount
available, it does not arouse anybody's greed or jealousy; but coal and petrol
being limited in their supply and quantity, uses of such sources of power lead
to friction amongst nations as the source dries up. It is now well recognised
that these global wars are in no small measure due to different nations seeking
to get control over oil fields. Hence the coal and oil economies lead to conflict
amongst nations. Unlike these two, the cow and horse economies are,
comparatively, peaceful economies. Therefore, in a wider sense we may say that
when we break through a cow-centered economy we are really causing cow
slaughter, i.e. in other words when our actions are inimical to the existence
of the cow-centered economy, we are not in the company of the protectors of the
cow. For example, when we use coal and oil as our source of motive power we are
really banning the cow from our economy. When we are making asphalted roads,
which are not in the interests of animal traction, we are also guilty of
breaking through the cow-centered organisation. This aspect of the question is
much more vital to us than the mere slaughter of the four-legged and two-horned
animal.
We wonder how many of our friends
who stand up against cow slaughter can show their hands clean of bovine blood
from this higher interpretation of cow protection. The 'Cow' like Khadi, is
symbolic of a way of life. 'Cow Slaughter,' therefore, would signify making
impossible that way of life. We hope that those who stand for cow protection
will realise the extensiveness of the cause which they stand for, and will
whole-heartedly support this wider application of the principle.[3]
IV
Tractor Cultivation
For about a week I have been here
at Pannai Ashram. Ever since I arrived here I have been distressed to hear the
buzz of the tractor. I understand that some landlords of Sindi, who own lands
at Seldoh, have hired Government tractors to plough their lands. I fear these
friends have not considered the consequences of their acts. I have previously
pointed out the damage caused by big industries and centralisation. I shall now
speak about the tractor in particular.
I hear this tractor is one of 50
horse-power i.e. it is equivalent to 50 pairs of bullocks and the charges are
Rs. 60/- per day. This means that every day it works, it takes away about one
khandy of jawar and leaves behind smoke. We are already poor, how can we afford
to pay such charges ? On the other hand, if we used bullocks we would get rich
manure with the urine and dung of these animals. This method would involve
keeping cows also to breed bullocks. The cow will yield milk which is a very
wholesome form of food. This is our economy. By breaking into it we impoverish
ourselves.
Besides, as the tractors plough
more deeply than the bullocks, unless we have more manure and more water we
cannot benefit from them.
These machines such as plough,
hoes and harvesters. Mostly these come from the U.S.A. to which place we have
to export our raw materials in payment. Export of raw material causes
unemployment in our own land. If we send out groundnuts the teli loses his work
and the Ghani Industry dies. Thus using tractors involves not only unemployment
of bullocks but also causes unemployment of our fellowmen. We cannot slaughter
these useless animals and men. Hence, they become a drain on the country.
The money spent on the tractor is
not of use all the year round. It serves only during seasons of ploughing,
harvesting etc. while bullocks can be used always for drawing water, transport
of goods, people etc. Thus it leads to a huge amount of capital being locked
up.
When war or other disturbance
occurs we cannot get diesel oil, which comes from foreign lands, as this oil
will be used mainly as fuel for war machines. At such a time we cannot plough
our fields as the bullocks being of no use will have become extinct by then.
Don't be carried away by the fact
that part of the charges are paid by the Government. The Government itself has
no money of its own, but what it gets from taxing the people. So part of the
charges paid by the Government only means that the country bears the burden as
a whole. So we are not receiving the service any cheaper, and we, who do not
use the tractor, are also made to pay for the services rendered to the rich
farmers who are the ones who use the tractions. Thus the burden falls on the
poor people, also. If you do not approve of paying for rich people, you should
actively oppose the Government using public money for supporting tractor
cultivation.
There are many more evils which I
have not the time to elaborate, but I have said enough to indicate the dangers
underlying the seemingly innocent 'Help' rendered by tractor cultivation. So
villagers should be warned against such dangers being imposed on them unawares,
and work towards making themselves self-sufficient.[4]
V
Bullock Plough Vs. Tractor
(By Om Prakash Sharma M.Sc.)
and the tractor and it has been
found that the time honored implement-the country plough-is still a good
tillage implement and in many cases superior to the tractor.
Sri A.R.Khan, the Agronomy
Specialist of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, conducted
experiments from 1942 to 1947 with the object of studying the effect of
seed-bed preparation with alternative forms of tillage implements on the yield
of wheat, by the treatment and comparison of bullock and tractor cultivation on
an irrigated piece of land at Karnal sub-station of the Institute.
One of the above plots was
ploughed seven inches deep by the tractor implement i.e. by the soil inverting
plough followed by the cultivator and the harrow. Another similar plot was
ploughed to a depth of four to five inches with the bullock plough called
'Victory' and supplemented with the local country plough. The above experiments
were continued for a period of six years with these implements. It was found
that with the tractor implements i.e. with plough, cultivator and disc, the
average yield of wheat throughout this period was 10.98 maunds per acre, while
with the 'Victory' cum country plough the corresponding average yield was 12.65
maunds per acre. In these experiments the manuring and other cultural
treatments were the same for all the plots. This experiment clearly brought out
that the deep ploughing of the tractor is harmful for wheat cultivation. The
tractor cultivation tends to pulverise the soil too much. This encourages its
packing after irrigation or a shower of rains. The air moisture relationship is
thus disturbed with the result that the crop suffers.
These findings have been
confirmed by numerous research investigators. Keen and his co-workers at
Rothemstead have demonstrated that there was no advantage in ploughing deeper
than four inches. Stameric reported in the 'Dominion Expert Station Progress
Report' on the basis of over 14 year of trials, that deep ploughing was not
necessary. Messrs Low and Nizamuddin in 'Agricultural Journal of India', and
then Mr. Allen, in his 'Remarks on Primary Cultivation Under Indian
Conditions', have shown the superiority of soil inversion by bullock ploughs in
trials conducted over many years.
After establishing the
superiority of bullock-drawn implements over the tractor ones under normal
cultivation practice, Sri A.O.Khan along with Sri B.P.Mathur carried on some
investigations with the object of obtaining experimental evidence on the moot
question of the depth of cultivating as to whether there is any difference in
the yields when tillage is carried out of the same depths with the bullock
ploughs and the tractor discs. These experiments were conducted at the Indian
Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi for a period of two years (1950 and
1951).
Similar plots were taken. One of the
plots was ploughed 9-10 inches deep with tractor soil inversion plough in the
first instance and followed by normal cultivation with tractor implements to
achieve a suitable seed bed for two crops, (1) Maize in kharif and (2) Wheat in
Rabi. The Second plot was ploughed five inches deep with soil inverting plough
drawn by bullocks followed by normal cultivation with the local country plough.
A third plot was ploughed upto
4-5 inches deep with the local country plough without inversion throughout the
season and the fourth plot was ploughed by tractor discs to depth of about four
inches. It was found that the deep ploughing with tractor gave an average yield
of 37.44 maunds per acre of wheat while the shallow ploughing with tractor gave
an average yield of 37.16 mds. per acre of wheat. The highest yield was 40.23
mds. per acre when only the country plough was used. The use of bullock soil
inverting plough followed by local country. plough gave a yield of 39.97 mds.
per acre. All the four plots were treated in the same way as regards manures
and other things. Thus we note that the deep as well as shallow ploughing with
tractor gives comparatively low yields while the highest yield is given by the
country plough.
With the recent advances in soil
science it is becoming increasingly clear that good physical condition of the
soil is as important, if not more so, in regard to its chemical constitution.
The structural pattern of the seed bed or tilth was the best under shallow
cultivation with country plough in the above experiments. This rendered an easy
flow of nutrition to the plants and that is the reason of higher yield of wheat
obtained under this treatment. Shallow cultivation with tractor disc, however,
did not produce the same effect due to great pulverisation of soil, making it
fluffy and single grained, which is not conductive to good yields.
The inferences from the above
experiments to be drawn are that the time-honoured implement-country plough-is
still the best for ploughing. Mechanised cultivation with tractor permits speed
in work and enable a larger area to be cropped in absence of man power, but
does not ensure any bigger yield.[5]
VI
Milk Supply
The supply of milk in our country
has suffered greatly because of the war. Great many animals of good extraction
have been slaughtered to supply the military needs and others still are being
destroyed by one or other requirements of the military. We have, therefore, to
increase the milk supply of the country. For this it is necessary to increase
both the number of milk yielding animals as well as improve the breed of out
cattle. Up to now, in many places, the Government has been developing the breed
with a view to supplying the needs of the military. For this they have been
breeding bull which would give large-sized bullocks for draught purposes. These
large bullocks, however useful they may be to the military who count no cost,
they are beyond the means of the millions of small farmers who cannot afford to
feed these huge animals. The farmer needs compact and strong bullocks for his
work. Now to increase the milk supply the Government has been providing stud
bulls from cattle farms, which have been working for a different purpose, with
the result that the milk yielding quality of the progeny in the countryside has
been much decreased in favour of producing large bullocks. This again discloses
an ill-conceived plan of action. The Government should immediately take
necessary steps to make their cattle breeding farms to breed animals which will
meet the requirements of the people.
Again the Milk Sub-Committee of
the Policy Committee on Agriculture are recommending the establishment of milk
collecting and processing centres and special cold storage and railway
transport facilities. This may imply scouring the countryside for the benefit
of the town. Many of the cities today depend on such milk, taken away from the
mouths of children of the milk-producers. Any collection of milk must take care
that the milk obtained is a definite surplus over and above the dietary needs of
the producers and their families. Otherwise this programme will affect
adversely the health of the people in the country.
Plans and schemes got up
haphazardly are likely to do more harm than good and our second state of
affairs may be worse than the first.[6]
VII
Why Gandhiji fusses over the Cow?
(By Bharatan Kumarappa)
Once Smt. Aruna Asaf Ali raised a
question which no doubt evoked sympathy in the minds of many. It was as to why
we should trouble ourselves about the cow, when we have enough problems to tackle
relating to man. Gandhiji's brief reply was that if he bothered about the cow,
it was because he saw that many problems relating to man in our country could
not be solved except with reference to the cow. This answer deserve to be
expanded and explained, if we are gain an understanding of the issue involve.
India is an agricultural country,
with about 300 millions of its population depending on agriculture for their
livelihood. For them the cow is more than their right hand, since without the
aid of bullocks which the cow provides, ploughing, irrigating, weeding,
harvesting, threshing, carting and marketing will be next to impossible.
Bullocks are necessary for carrying on village industries like oil-pressing, At
present these animals, which provide the motive power in agriculture and
village industries, are weak, starved and diseased. How can people in our
villages become prosperous so long as they have to depend on such a feeble
instrument for eking out a livelihood ? The bullock is the villager's machine.
If a man is struggling with an inefficient machine which requires repairing and
overhauling, who would say, "Why bother with the machine ? Help the
man". The best way of helping him is to provide him with an efficient
machine.
To this our city-educated youth
may reply- "If the bullock is inefficient, scrap it, and use the tractor
and other modern devices." The only difficulty about accepting this advice
is that it is impracticable under present conditions. It is of no use telling
us what should be done at some future date. We have to face the problems of our
people today, and suggest means of improving their condition under present
circumstance and within the resources now available to them. Which villager can
afford a tractor and other modern agricultural machinery ? The bulk of them can
hardly obtain a meal a day. It is like asking a clerk earning Rs.25/- a month
to go to his office in a Rolls Royce. Marvelous idea, only it is unworkable.
But it may be thought that though the average cultivator in India cannot afford
tractors, a Zamindar can, and the peasant can use the Zamindar's tractors.
This, however, would mean, so far as the peasant goes, a condition ten times
worse than at present, for at least now he is to a limited extent independent
to till the soil as best as he can. But if he has to do away with his bullocks
and use the Zamindar's tractor he can do so only by becoming even more
dependent than at present on the Zamindar for his instruments of production,
and this means for him a step nearer to slavery. If, on the other hand, it is
thought that peasants can pool their financial resources and by modern
agricultural machinery co-operatively and use them co-operatively, then the
difficulty is that today the co-operative movement is not being run by the
villagers themselves, and the people have neither the capacity nor only in
regard to the needed capital, but also in order to pool their land resources
together, for their land is at present in tiny fragments, which are far too
small for a tractor. Modern agricultural machinery is useful where there are hundreds
of acres to be cultivated at a stretch. The peasant has very often only one or
two acres in his ownership or control. To pool all these fragments together and
to work them co-operatively is beyond his powers today.
Even later, it may not be wise
for him to adopt tractors and mechanical devices in agriculture. They are
useful in countries with a small population and vast areas to be cultivated.
The situation in India is just the reverse. If we adopt machines to replace
human beings in agriculture, where shall our people go for employment ? As it
is, large scale industries are not able to absorb more than about two million
and people are therefore even more increasingly being driven to agriculture for
a live hood. But if agriculture also is mechanised, it too will not be able to
provide work except for a few millions, and what is to happen to the rest of
our 400 million people ?
Besides, mechanization involves
fuel, of which we have only a limited supply in our country.
Further, it is said that
artificial, manures like Chemicals, which we shall have to resort to, if in the
place of bullocks we took to tractors and other machinery, are definitely
injurious to the soil. They stimulate the soil and make it produce much for the
time being, but only to leave it in the end exhausted and impoverished. They
are also said to cause disease in crops and in animals. This is the experience
of Sir Albert Howard, formerly Economic Botanist to the Govt. of India. He is
definitely of the opinion, elaborated in his book called As Agricultural
Testament that the only manure which can permanently enrich the soil and help
healthy growth in plants and animals is organic, i.e. the cattle dung and
urine, human excreta, and waste vegetable matter. If this is so, then cattle
will be required in agriculture, not only for labour but also for the valuable
manure they provide.
For these reasons, then it would
seem best for us not to be allured into following the way of mechanised
agriculture but to fall back on the bullock for motive power. If we do so, the
cow which provides the bullock must occupy a central place in our national
economy.
Consider further, many of us,
whether for religious other reasons, are vegetarians, and do not wish to be a
party slaughter of animals for food. Being vegetarians, we require milk and
milk products to supplement the deficiencies of an exclusively vegetarian diet.
We must therefore have some animals which will provide us milk. What is better
than the cow, the mother of the bullock which we need for our agriculture? If
we look after it well, it will provide us milk for our sustenance and bullocks
for doing our work.
Instead of this, the modern
tendency in India is to depend on the buffalo for milk. But the he-buffalo is
comparatively useless for work in the fields. So it is slaughtered. Similarly,
since the cow is wanted only for the sake of its bullocks, it is sent off to
the slaughter-house no sooner then it has calved, and the calf has been weaned,
for it is too expensive to feed the cow till its next calving. Thus under this
method both the buffalo and the cow are slaughtered.
This can be avoided if we
maintain only the cow, and obtain both our milk and our bullock from it. To do
this will also be cheaper from the national view point, for we shall then have
to maintain only one animal for both the purposes instead of two as at present.
Further, the bullock which we
want from the cow will be stronger and of a better quality, for the cow will be
better looked after and fed when we depend on it for milk.
Other reasons which may be given
in favour of the cow for supply of milk as against the buffalo are(a) that
cow's milk is more conducive to health than buffalo's as it has more vitamin B,
and has in addition vitamin E which is absent in buffalo milk, (b) that the
Carotene (vitamin A) value of cow's ghee is ten times as high as that of
buffalo ghee, (c) that the cow is less liable to disease than the buffalo, (d)
that it matures a year earlier, (e) that its dry period, i.e. from the time it
ceases to give milk to the time it calves again, is three times shorter than
that of the buffalo, (f) that its milk yield is not affected adversely by heat
and cold as the buffalo's and (g) that the cow does not require as much grazing
ground, feeding and water as the buffalo.
The deterioration in the cow and
its bullock is precisely because we have departed from the old practice of
looking to the cow as giver of plenty. Even with all its deterioration, the
Indian cow, through centuries of careful breeding, is any day superior to its
Western counterpart. The fat content of the milk of the Indian cow is rarely
less than 4.5 per cent while British cows yield milk of 3.5 per cent fat
content only. Besides, the Indian cow can live on lithe meager fodder locally
available, can resist disease and withstand the tropical heat much better than
the British cow. The solution therefore to the question of improving the
present condition of our cattle is not to cross the local cow with foreign
breeds which, as a matter of fact, has proved disastrous, for the mixed breeds
cannot stand the poor feeding and the climate, nor can they provide us bullocks
capable of doing hard work -but to restore the cow to the central place it once
held, as the giver of milk and the mother of the bullock.
It is calculated that through its
milk, bullocks, manure, hide and bone, the contribution of the cow to the
wealth of India is over Rs. 1,000/- crores annually, an amount which no other
industry in India except agriculture can be equal. Gandhiji has therefore established
the Go Seva Sangh (association for looking after the cow ) to devote its
attention on a countrywide scale to the improvement of the condition of cattle
in India. Is Gandhiji wrong then to draw our attention to this most important
national industry, and to show us the way to make it yield better results ?[7]
VIII
The Case for the Bullock
(By V.G.D.)
Now that machinery threatens to
overrun our agriculture and transport as a part of so-called planning, it is
necessary to sum up the case for the bullock which is doomed to destruction if
that threat materialized.
We must have milk, more and still
more milk. We must therefore have cows, and if we have cows, the bullocks will
be always with us, for these we have to provide and can provide full employment
only if we yoke them to the plough, to the cart and to the ghani. If we fail to
do this, we shall be reduced to the same plight as the Western nations who
slaughter all bull-calves except a few which are reared as stud bulls.
The tractor is a machine; the
bullock also is a machine though not so powerful as the tractor. But the
bullock is a living machine, and contact with such harmless animals has been a
potent factor in the onward march of human civilization. I am not sure that the
eliminery in the Western countries has not something to do with the
brutalization of human nature to which frequent and fierce wars bear witness in
common with other evils peculiar to the West.
This is the humanitarian
argument, which must be reinforced by the economic argument. We shall now deal
with this latter, and in doing so make free use of a chapter in Shri N.G.Apte's
Thoughts and Work about Villages entitled, "Economics of the
Bullocks". (Publisher : Shri Sardesai Samarth Bharat Press, Poona -2).
The bullock is not only a living tractor;
it is also a living fertilizer factory and gives us farmyard manure which
supplies nitrogen and improves the porosity of the soil, thus helping to
increase the moisture content of the soil as well as proper aeration. These
three factors are essential to plant growth. 'No amount of concentrated manure
would help if the porosity of the soil and consequent aeration of the soil are
not improved'.
Artificial manures are an
unmitigated curse. Then there is green manuring with sun hemp and other
leguminous plants, but that too compares unfavourably with farmyard manure.
For, the green manure occupies the soil for a season from the time of planting
till it is sufficiently decayed, but cannot be fed to the animals. On the other
hand if we grow a fodder crop instead of the season we would get fodder enough
for two animals. These animals would work for us the whole year and give us the
fodder back in the form of manure better adapted for assimilation by the soil,
with probably some additional nitrogen derived from metabolic processes in the
animal's body.
Most of the nitrogen taken from
the soil will be returned in the dung as the bullock requires only
carbohydrates for work. These carbohydrates are no good as a manure as most of
the carbohydrate material in the crop is fixed from the atmosphere during the
process of metabolism in the plant and is not drawn from the soil. Thus the
bullock utilizes the energy which is wasted when a green manure is ploughed
into the soil. Then again farmyard manure feeds the soil better than the green
manure, having passed through the animal system and thus having been acted upon
by decomposing agents present in that system.
The bullock's function as the
manufacturer of a first class fertilizer is not the only point where is scores over
the machine. For, no machine ever invented can perform the various duties that
the bullock discharges. The bullock can work fast as well as slow. It cannot
only be yoked to the plough, but also it can be used in crushing the ear heads
as well as in carting the grain to the market. All this it does, while
subsisting on the straw or the cake left after the grain and the oil have been
utilized for human consumption. This oil too is extracted by the same animal. A
pair of bullocks costs a few hundred rupees, but if it is supplanted by
machinery, the farmer must go in for an oil-engine, a motor truck, a tractor,
small motor driven harrows and what not, which would cost him goodness knows
how many times as much. Then again he must purchase fuel in the shape of oil,
which cannot be produced on his own field or even in his own country.
The main agricultural operations
of ploughing, harrowing, sowing and inter-culturing keep the bullocks busy for
only three or four months in the year. During the rest of the year they can be
and should be used for carrying goods as well as passengers, for crushing
oilseeds and so on. The bullocks are capable of doing all this, while the
specialized machinery would remain idle during the long dull season.
Extraction of oil by machinery is
profitable on the face of it, but the profits reappear on the debit side of the
cultivator's account, with nothing on the credit side to counterbalance the
debit.
We shall close with a final
quotation from Shri Apte's valuable study :
"Machinery may be introduced
when the existing man and animal power is fully occupied. At present this power
is not fully utilized, and therefore there is no occasion for the introduction
of machinery."
14th April, 1946.
"Harijan"
IX
Pasteurisation of Milk Vs.
Boiling
(By Om Prakash)
There is a race going on at
present in India to copy blindly all the methods and processes which are used
in Western countries. Pasteurisation of milk is part of it. Time and again
voices have been raised against this craze of mechanisation of the industries
which affect a great many of our masses. A scientific study of the process of
pasteurisation of milk has been made and it has been found that there are more
viable bacteria left in the pasteurised milk than are found in the fresh sample
in the milking pot due to the tropical climate of India.
In Western countries
pasteurisation and immediate refrigeration is the legal standard of preliminary
treatment of milk. The presence of bacteria in milk in large quantities is the
cause of many diseases. Hence methods have been developed to check the growth
of bacteria in milk and pasteurisation is one such. This practice is also
adopted in the military and civil dairy farms in India. In all the big cities
pasteurised milk is supplied by some Government and public agencies.
Drs. Rangappa and KT.Acharya of
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore had studied this problem. They found
that at the time of milking the number of bacteria per c.c. in the milking pot
was 6,300. If left over for two hours after the milking, the number of bacteria
becomes 2,25,000. If the milk is pasteurised within a period of 21/2 hours
after milking, which is also a general practice in all the dairy farms, the
number of bacteria per c.c. comes down to 9,400. In a well knit organisation
the pasteurised milk is bottled within half an hour after pasteurisation. When
after this period i.e. 3 hours after milking, the bottled milk was tested for
its bacteria count, the number per c.c. was found to be 15,000. Pasteurised
milk 18 hours after milking, was found to contain 1,21,000 bacteria per cubic
centimeter. Hence, it is evident that in spite of the elaborate process of
pasteurisation and subsequent cooling of milk, the number of bacteria is more
that in the fresh milk. Besides, the quick multiplication of these bacteria
under ordinary conditions of preservation shorten the life of milk.
That this method of treatment and
preservation in cold storage is not commendable to the Indian farmer, not only
from the point of view of economy but also from its unsuitability under
tropical conditions, has been emphasised by Write in his 'Report of marketing
of Milk in India and Burma, 1943, P. 213' on the development of the Indian
Dairy Industry. The expensive and the elaborate nature of the equipment are
obvious drawbacks, while its sterilising efficiency is questionable.
In contrast to this method of
processing the simple boiling is best suited for Indian rural conditions. Sris
Srinivasan and Banerjee have investigated the bacterial destruction after
pasteurising the milk and have compared it with the methods of steaming for one
hour in an autoclave at atmospheric pressure and boiling. When a sample of raw
milk containing 120,000 bacteria per c.c. is steamed for one hour the number of
bacteria reduces to 100 per c.c., when a sample of raw milk containing 1,50,000
bacteria per c.c. is boiled for 5 and 10 minutes its bacteria count is reduced
to 5,000 and 30 respectively and when it is boiled for such a time so that its
volume is reduced to 23 in both the cases. When a sample of the milk boiled for
10 minutes is cooled and kept at room temperature for about 8 1/2 hours the
number of bacteria is only 3200 per c.c.
Hence, the method of boiling milk
for 10 minutes is evidently more efficient than pasteurisation. It has also
been found that fresh milk so processed keeps for more than 24 hours at room
temperature when cooled in a closed vessel and then stored. This method is
perfectly suitable to Indian conditions where the farmer and the housewife have
to store a small amount of milk. It needs no special equipment and demands but
little skill.
Not only this, the quality of
boiled milk is comparable to that of pasteurised milk though variations take
place in the composition of milk, physical nature of its constituents and its
digestibility when milk is pasteurised or boiled. Yet the protein, fat, lactose
and mineral constituents remain practically the same in both the cases. While
vitamin A of the milk is not destroyed by boiling, about 22% of vitamin C is
lost at the first boil and 66% after 10 minutes of boiling. Exposure to light
of the raw milk also causes the loss of vitamin C. Vitamin B1 (thiamine) and
vitamin B2 (Rib oflavin) are very little affected by this type of processing or
preservation of milk. All the enzymes of milk, which alter the rate of chemical
reactions, are all destroyed when milk is pasteurised or boiled. As regards the
digestibility of milk it increases in the order raw, pasteurised and boiled.
Thus we see that our centuries
old method of boiling the milk is not only safe, easy to handle but scientific
too.[8]