New Naturalists hit by recession?

I happened to look at Collins' New Naturalists on sale on ebay, and it seems that they have been hit by the recession, as prices seem to be in free fall. The market for this remarkable series has seen incrdible prices paid for the rarer editions, but it has also seen many of the volumes changing hands among 'collectors' who are not actaully that interested in the contents, buit more interested in the condition of the dust-wrapper.m The advantage of this (to my mind, silly) market, is that it has enabled HarperCollins to publish many more volumes in the series than would otherwise have been possible. It is a great pity that a similar collectors' market did not develop for the World Naturalist series of Weidenfield and Nicolson. An equally important series in my vbiew, never surpassed, but alas, no longer being published.

Environmentally disastrous public transport

I have just been looking at the local railway service's website. There's an amazing array of special offers encouraging people to travel by train. And very environmentally friendly one might think. But is it? The answer is a resounding NO. Most of the journeys being made using these astounding special offers are undoubtedly not essential. An in many cases it is not a case of going by train instead of by car. It is simply encouraging people to travel more and more. And if the trains from Norwich are only half full with people making essential journeys, it makes economic sense to fill the rest of the train with cheap travellers. And that way the rail service is not only profitable, but it can justify itself.

Unfortunately this has been taken to new limits in London. Here, travel cards allow a cap to be put on the cost of traveling each day on the London Underground. However many journeys you make, it gets no more expensive. The upshot of this is almost certainly many people use their card for journeys of one or two stops, making the underground even more unpleasantly overcrowded, but at the same time allowing the operators to claim that public transport is incredibly popular.

I think a fact that most environmentalists promoting public transport have failed to grasp, is that public transport can only really be environmentally friendly, in a centrally controlled political system, such as once operated in the Communist world. I recall visiting Czechoslovakia in the 1960s when train travel was dirt cheap, car travel only for a few, bus travel more expensive than trains, and air travel too expensive for most people. With central controls, then all fares can be regulated to ensure the right balance is achieved. But with the type of free-for-all we now have, with subsidised fuel for air travellers, and all travel actually responsible to shareholders (which means there is a legal obligation to maximise profit above all other considerations), there is virtually no prospect of an environmentally friendly public transport system. And while I am at it, I will remind everyone, that air travel is now de facto part of public transport, and often much more fuel efficient than the average rural bus service. But of course there is a difference, in that most air travel is non essential. {Having written that, I realse that many rural bus services are now packed with pensioners swanning around on their passes, making them most of free travel.

More people travelling more and more. That's the real problem. And everyone wanting more of everything, and wanting it cheaper than before. Thereby driving the manufacture of goods overseas where environmental controls are less stringent, the production of food overseas where welfare standards are lower etc etc etc. Depressing. Perhaps a positive aspect of the economic downturn is that we are all realizing how much 'stuff' we all buy that we don't really need. Perhaps some politicians may even realise that continued economic growth is simply not sustainable if it is dependent on constantly expanding human populations.

Wildlife, rainforests and vegetarianism

A few of WLT's supporters have suggested that being vegetarian is a way of saving wildlife and rainforests. As is so often the case, the answers are never that simple.

I was brought up a vegetarian (unusual in the 1940s and 50s), but changed in the 1960s to an omnivore diet. The fact is that while there is no question that we do not need to eat the vast quantities of meat that 'developed' (i.e. rich) societies eat, an omnivore diet actually makes as much sense as a vegetarian diet. Grazing sheep on upland pastures can be an efficient way of maintaining interesting habitats, and even in vegetarian areas of India cows are kept to provide manures.

More controversial is the fact that huge areas of rainforest have been devastated for the production of soya beans, which are among the mainstays of vegetarian and vegan foods. The more responsible soya producers only use organic soya, but even those do often get it from areas that were historically rainforest.

My personal belief is that the answer does not lie in vegetarianism per se, but in eating very limited amounts of high quality (organic, pesticide free, locally produced, cruelty free) meat, and locally produced vegetables when ever possible. But international trade is also important to benefit the poorer parts of the world, so ethically and environmentally friendly rice and other cereals etc should not be ignored.

Unfortunately there is no simple answer, other than simply reducing the size of the human population and its aspirations to ever increasing material wealth.

Free Market economics

As everyone probably knows, understanding economics is not my strong point. However, having survived being self-employed for over 40 years, and created a relatively successful organisation from next to nothing, I have learned a few things along the way. The first thing I would observe is that the idea that a totally free market is a good way of letting the world run its affairs is probably daft. It is difficult to pinpoint any period in history where it has actually worked. And the reality is that the current so-called 'free markets' like the 12th century in England, are actually far from free -- they are heavily skewed in favour of a select few, who make vast profits.



The second observation I would make, is that small may not be always beautiful, but huge is certainly disastrous. To me it is blindingly obvious that there are limits to growth, and that when corporations get absolutely huge, they are bound, at some point to collapse. The only reason for them getting so big appears to be in order to justify vast salaries for the people who run these behemoths. Does anyone think to ask how 'efficient' or sensible it is to have to spend vast millions sorting out the trail of problems left behind when these huge companies collapse? Surely the only huge corporations that should exist have to be state owned? That way vast profits cannot be creamed off into private pockets, but can be reinvested for the public good? And when the mega-corporations get so big, the whole argument about competition collapses anyway -- they become de-facto monopolies. There were very good reasons for nationalising railways, water companies and power companies with monopolies. And very flimsy, selfish reasons for privatising them. And not good for the environment either. Perhaps if capitalism is to survive, a limit to capital needs to be imposed. That way when collapses occur, then they will not bring down whole economies.



In the course of developing the World Land Trust, I have seen that there are important economies of scale. But as we grow, I also see a loss of flexibility, a loss of dexterity and innovation. The trick is to keep a balance. But I am certain that there is a limit to growth, beyond which the organisation loses sight of its original vision. A point at which the number-crunchers take over. As I have mentioned elsewhere, business methods are introduced, and 'efficiency' is measured in purely financial terms. Despite the spectacular growth of the World Land Trust in the past few years, so far we are keeping our enthusiasm and our vision. But stopping it becoming another 'corporate conservation organisation' is the challenge ahead.

Going Corporate

According to the annual report of WWF, in 2006 and again in 2007 the organisation spent £7.5 million on raising £12.3 million of unrestricted donations from individuals. Put another way, that for every £10 donated to WWF they will have spent £6.00 on raising that money. Of course not all the ratios are so bad. Overall they only (yes only) spent £11.5 million to raise £41 million, of which over £11 million came as legacies, and nearly £5 million as government grants, which only cost £0.75million to raise. The average salary paid was £34,800 p.a. and three members of staff earned between £80,000 and £120,000 a year in 2006. The figures for 2007 are much the same. And of course there are any number of interpretations that can be made of such figures.

I mention these figures, not to criticise WWF -- my readers can look at the Annual Reports of any NGO and draw their own conclusions -- positive or negative. I mention them to illustrate a more important point. That is that Conservationists and charities are often told to look to business for guidance, and to model their modus operandi on business models. I think that in general, this is bad advice. And business is a bad model for a conservation charity to copy. And I think WWF follows it too closely. And the danger here is that the public become distrustful of charities that spend a huge percentage of their income on raising those funds.

Having worked in and around both the charity sector and the business (publishing) sector for around 40 years, I feel confident in asserting that business has more to learn from the Charity sector than the other way round. At the WLT we take a 15% overhead, to cover non-project related management and fund-raising costs. Put it another way, we are making a 85% 'profit' to spend on our objectives. Not many businesses can claim that level of efficiency. Salaries in the charity sector (despite the above quoted figures) are generally significantly lower than business --but, research has shown, the employees are generally much happier, more loyal, have less time off for sickness etc etc etc. But realistically it is just as daft to say business should learn from charities as the other way round.

Both sectors should be using the models and methods that work best for achieving their objectives. Some charities (such as the Royal Opera House**) have used the business model, and pay huge salaries to senior staff, claiming they need to do this to attract the right people. I disagree. The right people will not be motivated by huge salaries, they will be motivated by a belief in the work of the charity. Even in the business world not everyone is obsessed by money. This is not to say that any staff should be underpaid, but once the salary becomes the main reason a person takes a job, it is increasingly difficult to assess their real worth. I am a critic of conservation bodies that become too 'corporate'. Large reception areas, all chrome and glass. It may be how big business operates, but it should not be how a conservation charity operates. Charities rely on voluntary donations, and donors do not like to think their well intentioned gifts are being spent on maintaining flashy offices, or funding an extravagant lifestyle for the staff.

** Much as I like opera, I cannot really see the justification for it being considered a charity.

Credit Crunch and the bad news

Overall the WLT has been very successful in 2008, and has been able to help its partners buy lots of land, with over $2 million sent for this purpose (and more sent from the USA). However, suddenly we are noticing a big dip in donations from individuals. Compared with last year fewer individuals are supporting conservation. This is a great pity, as the environmental crisis is probably even greater than the economic crisis.

Never has there been a greater need for protecting land. And while land prices are unlikely to crash in the way stocks and shares have, there is little doubt that it will generally be much cheaper over the coming months.

So please, if you can spare it make a donation, however small to the WLT's Action Fund, where the money can be used for any important opportunity as it arises. At the meeting of the WLT's Trustees last week exciting new initiatives in Venezuela, Guatemala and India were all given the go ahead. Our vital work in Paraguay continues with a project that could ultimately benefit around 10 million acres. The land the WLT helps buy and save for ever, but even more important is the knock-on effect of making governments and others aware of the international importance of local heritage.

Help make this a greener Christmas.

How to stop overfishing

I read a short item in The Ecologist this month (October issue) about Greenpeace dumping 3 tonne blocks of granite in the German North Sea to foul the fishing tackle of bottom trawlers. It struck me as a very neat way of enforcing fishing controls, and one that governments could do well to endorse. Dumping large objects in the sea could be a very simple way of enforcing no fishing zones -- at least as far as the highly destructive bottom trawlers are concerned. It reminds me of the proposal to decontaminate the decommissioned North Sea oil platforms, and sink them. This would have been far cheaper for the oil companies than towing them back to land for dismantling, but was unfortunately opposed by Greenpeace and other environmentalists at the time.

Fuel and food myths

There is a panic in the press about rising fuel prices and rising food prices. This is misleading the public, because the reality is that for the past 40 years we have been living in a blip in history. We are now getting back to normality.

Historically, the basic necessities of life have consumed most of an average family's income. For hundreds of years, most of the income a family generated went on feeding, clothing and housing. But for the past 40 years, in Britain and Europe, all these commodities have been getting progressively cheaper and cheaper. But this reduction in cost was based on unsustainable premises.

I could argue that a lot of the western economy, based as it is on extreme capitalism, is under threat. Crocodile tears have been shed at the collapse, or near collapse, of financial institutions, but why should we care? What do they really contribute? When capitalism is taken to the extremes of globalisation, there are huge numbers of people making money out of doing absolutely nothing productive -- simply shifting money around (but of course somewhere, someone is almost certainly being exploited, as any old fashioned socialist can explain to you). I can't get too upset about this, except it does have a major impact on wildlife. It leads to ever more rapacious attacks on natural resources. Agriculture expands, to provide more and more, cheaper and cheaper food, for our wasteful societies. I recall a recent statistic that stated around 40% of food in the UK was wasted. No wonder the rainforests are being cut for soya plantations.

What's the answer? Forget switching off the TV, we need to be far less wasteful in many other really big ways. Forget the idea of constant economic growth. Forget the idea that everything should be as cheap as possible, and thrown away in a few months. And bring population growth to the top of the political agenda. More and more people are going to put more and more pressure on resources; resources such as healthcare and transport.

I will repeat myself (and continue to do so whenever possible): Governments are using climate change and all environmental issues to obfuscate the real issue, and that is human population growth. And they are also ignoring the fact that any increase in population in a developed country, has significantly more environmental impacts than in a very poor country.

New Naturalists

The Collins New Naturalist series has in recent years been the subject of a hyper inflationary price rise. Collectors have been snapping them up, and there has appeared a group of obsessive collectors, who must have first editions, complete with mint dust wrappers. Now to a naturalist such as myself, this is plain daft. In some cases the second editions are of course more use, because any typos and other errors have been dealt with. And a dust wrapper (very attractive in the case of most New Nat's) is only a piece of easily reproduced paper. In fact I am sure there are a significant number of fakes floating around, since modern photocopies make it very easy, and there are plenty of suckers who will pay a huge premium for one of the rarer volumes if it has a near mint dust-wrapper. And one of the rarer volumes is also the one on Ants, which was actually withdrawn by the publishers (making it rare). Therefore, it is a collectors market, not a naturalists demand that has pushed the prices up. So it was with great delight I noticed that the market appears to be becoming saturated, and confidence is declining. One can now go on to eBay and buy many of the titles at significantly less than their apparent "market value". And even at these greatly reduced prices, they are not actually selling -- perhaps because the dealers are not snapping them up any more. This can only be a good thing for the book buying naturalists. The New Naturalist books are without question some of the finest publications available, but they need to be used. Not put in some collectors cabinet to form a set.

A bit more on awards

This is the time of the year when the nominations for charity awards are trawled. I have already had a gripe about the charity awards (see UK Charity Awards 2007 and Ripping off Charities with awards?) and that moan got quite a lot of positive feedback, from a wide range of sources, not just on the WLT website, but was picked up on other sites.

Coincidentally with this years Charity Awards, I also got notification of the Annual Whitley Awards for Conservation. Now I am considerably more ambivalent about these awards -- not surprisingly because anything that helps conserve wildlife must, per se, be a good thing. However, even here I do have serious reservations. The awards are given to individuals, on the grounds that charismatic leaders are what really move conservation forward. But is this true? In the short term, it probably is true, but in the long term, I think it is certainly rarely so, except in the case of world shattering leaders. Clearly people like Sir David Attenborough, Sir Peter Scott, Aldo Leopold, Julian Huxley, Max Nicolson, Jacques Cousteau -- to name but a few -- had massive and long-lasting impacts. But they certainly didn't need awards to tell them or the rest of the world so. But when I look at the list of the winners of the Whitley Awards, past and present, it is a pretty random selection.

Unfortunately awards will also always tend to operate under Darwinian rules of 'natural selection', in that those with access to publicity media will come to the forefront, those with big egos will float to the top, and those who cultivate a wide network of contacts will gravitate to the centre.

Now I have supported applicants to the Whitley Awards in the past, and will no doubt do so in the future -- there's cash in it for conservation. But giving the prize to individuals simply feeds the all pervasive cult of the celeb'. We have already seen wildlife films debased by gung-ho figures such as Steve Irwin. And the argument is that it brings it to a wider audience - am not particularly anti even those presentations. And last summer a string of 'celebs' were flown around the world for the BBC's Saving Planet Earth series, again, justified on the grounds that it brought the issues to a wider audience. But is this all worth the sell-out? I am not taking a particular stance, but I do have concerns. Inside knowledge is potentially a dangerous thing -- I know many of the persons involved at all levels -- from selections committees to winners. And I know that a few of the winners represent totally unsustainable projects, that are dependent on one or two individuals. But does this negate the benefits of such awards?

Who thinks what?

Putting the Con in Conservation.

Marwell Zoo, in Hampshire England, is the most recent in a long line of perpetrators of a myth.

A folder used by their Markettng and Education Departments, is beautifully produced, and contains the following quotation:

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from great loneliness of spirit, for whatever happens to the beast also happens to man." Chief Seattle, 1855.

As anyone who knows anything about North American Indians, this is one of the great 20th century frauds. The speech was actually written by a scripwriter who worked for Disney, in the 1950s. There never was a "Chief Seattle". But it sounds plausible, perpetrates the myth of the noble savage, and Friends of the Earth are also among the numerous conservation bodies who have been conned by it.

If you don't believe me, try typing "Chief Seattle fraud" into google.....

Green Consumerism -- an oxymoron

I get pretty fed up with the sort of environmentalist who thinks that switching of a light bulb or two is going to save the planet. While I do agree that the individual could do a lot more to make the world a better place, unfortunately the real action has to come from higher up the food chain. Switching off a light bulb is where I started, so I will carry on. All over the world, visible from outer space, lights are illuminating the night sky. Flying anywhere in the world, from 40,000 feet above the earth, street lights are visible. Thousands of megawatts of energy are pumped into the night sky. And if we aren't worried about this enormous waste of energy, then we should worry about the impact on biodiversity.

Fifty years ago, I remember moths and other night-flying insects being a real problem if a window was left open at night in suburban London where I grew up. Insects flew around street lights, which were generally switched off around midnight.

Now there are tens of thousands more street lights, every little village seems to have them, and intercity motorways even have them, and they burn continuously throughout the hours of darkness. Why? After about midnight, in most places there are few if any pedestrians. Is it a primeval fear of darkness asserting itself in the 21st century? Is it really so dangerous to walk in darkness? Is the world so much more dangerous than it was in 1890?

There has been a huge amount published about the effects of street lighting on wildlife, and I have blogged about it before. My point here is that we should all be doing more to force government, at every level from the parish, city, borough, district, county, state, national level -- wherever appropriate -- to tackle the real issues. A 10p tax on plastic bags; realistic public transport fares, that don't simply encourage pointless journeys, penalise retailers that encourage overpackaging (why is it that organic food is among the most overpackaged, and often comes with airmiles as well?).

Then we should tackle green consumerism. An oxymoron if ever there was one.

Sir David Attenborough in Netherlands

James Randi, the indeftigable exposer of fakers and frauds has an excellent website, and a supporter of the WLT in Belgium, brough to my attentions an article about Sir David Attenborough.

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-08/080307conjuror.html

I cannot believe that Sir David will be very pleased, and the BBC are currently investigating.

Waste and more waste

Our IT consultants (locally produced), sent me this:



We have been told it is illegal for us to take cardboard etc to the local tip for recycling (at our expense) as it is trade waste.

Thinking that we would like to continue being environmentally friendly, I rang Suffolk coastal and asked if we could have a trade waste bin for rubbish and another one for cardboard recycling. They say that we they won't do this and we will have to put our cardboard in with our general rubbish

You would have thought rather than wasting time on putting hundreds of bins on the street they would concentrate on businesses that generate far more recyclable rubbish!

Our new web site

We need feed back.

The new donations pages appears to be giving donors a lot of problems. In our quest to make things simpler, we appear to have made donating more complex.

So feedback please. Part of the problem appears to involve the need to register -- but this is a process common to most shopping sites. But if anyone dwelling in cyberspace has ideas of how we could simplify our donation process, please let us know. And conversely, if anyone likes the new donation pages, let us know as well.

We always try to be responsive, and listen to our supporters needs. But to do this we need feedback. So over to you, in the big blue yonder.

The Rape of East Anglia

The weekend before last was one of glorious sunshine, with evenings almost as warm as June. But I and thousands of others could not really totally enjoy it without resorting to drugs.

This is because East Anglia (and many other parts of the UK for all I know) is awash with oilseed rape. And this gives me severe respiratory problesms, as I am a chronic hayfever sufferer. So I have to take expensive, prescription drugs. So what is the real cost of this subsidised crop?

The Government is encouraging and subsidising farmers to grow huge quantities, in order to promote 'renewable' sources of energy -- biodiesel. But what are the true energy costs of growing and processing oilseed rape? The huge quantities of pesticides, and herbicides associated with growing the vast monocultures that now sweep across the landscape. The loss of biodiversity, already reduced to less than that of a supermerket car park; both are relatively easy to measure. And should be.

But what are the health costs? And is it right that I, and thousands of others, should have to resort to taking drugs, in order to be able to carry out a normal day's work, so that agri-business can ruin even more of the countryside?

It is claimed that rape does not actually cause hayfever, but only affects those with multiple sensitivity. Like me. But whereas normally I suffer from hayfever in a relatively mild form, come the season of the rape flowering, I am suffering from breathing difficulties and streaming eyes, and have to dose myself with steroids in order to work.

I have seen papers demonstrating that biofuels, such as biodiesel from rape, are energy efficient -- but these never take into account the fact that in order to grow them, land has to be taken out of food production, and that the food then has to be produced in other parts of the world and imported, with all the associated energy costs.

Any other thoughts?

What have Jam doughnuts, Global Warming and Tourists got in Common?

"Ich bin ein Berliner" was famously said by President Kennedy during the cold War, while visiting the then divided city. Which of course really meant he identified with the people of Berlin. But was much the same as saying "I am a sausage" (Frankfurter) or "I'm a Big Mac" (Hamburger). Because to a German, a Berliner is also a jam doughnut. Tricky thing language, you have to be so careful with these fine nuances.

IUCN -- the International Union for Conservation of Nature is, as its name suggests international, and works in many languages. Always a problem. And no doubt some of these problems arise from the fact that many people are not working in their first language. And this does give rise to some humour. I recently received a CD entitled "Climate Change Resource Kit". Innocuous enough, though not too clear what it was for. But the sub-text made it quite clear it was an "Information pack for planners and practitioners of Climate Change". Ho, ho, ho. For those of you reading this who are not native English speakers, I should explain that this implies it is aimed at people intending to make climate change happen, and those who are actually making it happen. An even more entertaining title was "Hunting Tourists in Tanzania"; a title which came to mind when our web manager brought back the attached snap from Barcelona last week.



Makes a change from my usual rants.....

But there is a more serious aspect to getting language absolutely correct. Anyone who is familiar with the history of CITES will know the problems of the translations of "bred in captivity", which was translated into the equivalent of "raised in captivity" in the French version (elevé) -- this had profound effects on the interpretation as to whether or not turtle eggs could be gathered in the wild.

Why force democracy on the world?

It is not normal for wildlife conservationists to get involved in politics, but deep down, many of us are probably actually highly political. Of course there are the green politicians, but even these often have widely diverging approaches to politics, being united only in their concern for environmental issues.

My political concerns at present centre around the world's obsession with so-called democracy, and the west's enthusiasm for ramming it down the throats of all and sundry. The USA (aided and abetted by Britain) is forcing countries that have manged to govern themselves for many centuries, to adopt American-style democracy. In reality this is of course currently a plutocracy, a country run by the excessively rich for the benefit of the rich, with scant regard for environmental issues, particularly if environmental issues stand in the path of profit. I have seen first hand the devastation caused by the American bombing by proxy of southern Lebanon. And I have seen the results of the support of right wing governments in many parts of Central and South America. The problem is that there is democracy and there is democracy. Swedish, French, and New Zealand democracies are all very different to each other and to US democracy. The US likes democracies, such as the Mexican democracy, that bow to America, but tries to topple those of Venezuela, that don't like America. And none of this is good for the environment.

Unlike bar-politicians, I don't have a ready solution. But I do know that US style democracy will not help the solve the problems of the world. And certainly will not help the natural environment or biodiversity.

Pheasants, poultry and Bird Flu

Last year there was a furore in the British Press when it was discovered that pop singer Madonna was importing pheasants from France, to release for shooting on her estate on the Wiltshire/Dorset border in southern England. In addition to the 1000 pheasants imported from France, she and her husband had also imported another 31,000 from Wales. But this is nothing to the 39 million chicks of various poultry imported into Britain in 1999, or the 11 million adult birds imported in 1998 (Hansard June 2000). And, in answer to a Parliamentary Question from Roger Williams MP, in 2003, 2004, 2005 the imports were around 1 million a year from France alone(figures from Hansard March 2006). But unfortunately the UK government does not actually distinguish between 'poultry' such as pheasants and partridges which are destined for release into the countryside, and those designed for batteries and sheds. A quick check of the government website for trade statistics seems to suggest that trade statics for live poultry are currently being suppressed.

With birds being imported and deliberately released into the countryside, to me the surprise is not that Avian flu is a threat, but that there are not far more diseases in our wild birds and poultry flocks. Local livestock markets have mostly closed, and slaughterhouses have been 'rationalised'. All this means more and more animals are being shipped around the countryside. Combine that with imports, add it to the factory farm conditions many of them are kept under, plus the cocktails of antibiotics and food supplements they are fed (including ground up animal protein), and it is no wonder that we have problems with bovine TB, bird flu, BSE etc etc etc.

Time to take stock and re-evaluate.

Bird 'flu and turkey factories

The World Land Trust has its HQ in Halesworth, which is walking distance from the airfield at Upper Holton, where the Bernard Matthews turkey factory is situated. It does annoy me how the TV and press keep describing it as a Turkey FARM. That is an insult to farmers. The site is completely enclosed, which makes it quite outrageous how DEFRA and the media immediately started implicate wild birds. While they should not be ruled out, it seem quite incomprehensible as to why everyone jumps to the conclusion it must be wild birds. If the outbreak was in the DEFRA HQ or the Houses of Parliament there would probably me a greater liklihood of contact with wild birds, than there ever would be in the highly controlled environment of a turkey factory.

Perhaps we should be looking at the way poultry are kept. These intensive batteries, barns and so forth are hothouses for disease. And even so-called organic and 'free-range' eggs and chickens often come from 'farms' almost as intensive as batteries. Intensive animal husbandry has a lot to answer for, both in terms of animal welfare and also environmental damage. Hormones are pumped into the animals, together with a nauseous cocktail of antibiotics and other drugs, many of which end up in the environment. And, as WLT supporter Simon Barnes, of The Times, has pointed out they don't even taste good.