a term of a cow share agreement ought to address genetics

[Guest guest]

Agreements can be written any way that suits both parties, as long

as a term is not illegal.

these days, white people in America are so proud and obese, we won't

(can't) stoop to doing the labour necessary to feed ourselves.

We're used to contracting it all out. The biggest problem around

here ( lower Fraser Valley of British Columbia) is finding milkers.

They don't last because Canada's Stalinist supply management system

does not make it worth their while.

That changes where REAL MILK is allowed to be produced because those

who produce it can get what it's worth. This wrangle about Raw

Dairy is about restraint of trade ; the health issue is only

a smokescreen, easily resolved.

In this situation of greater demand than supply for REAL MILK, the

farmer is the one calling the shots. Thus a contract for boarding

a dairy cow, or herd, has to be written so as to make it worthwhile

for him or her. If that means the farmer gets the calf, so be it.

In light of what's going on with genetic engineering in all

species, I urge anyone who's involved in micro-dairying to contract

so that the genetic materials of the offspring of your asset ( that

would be the cow) are owned by the shareholders, not the farmer. An

animal from a " heritage herd " provably pure in all its generations

= free from genetic tampering with its DNA = will be appreciated by

the free market.

I hate the income tax racketeers, but I know how they think. If

something can be wrapped around with information so as to be

quantified in 'dollars', they love it. The property in genetics is

well-understood = talk to Monsanto about that!

_______________________________________________

-- In RawDairy , " & Debbie Chikousky "

wrote:

>

> I was meaning that if they are entitled to a share of the milk

wouldn't that mean that they would also be entitled to a share of

the offspring of that animal? I have never seen this mentioned.

> Debbie Chikousky

>