Bothar Sending Animals To Africa

mikefoxo

I see the ads Bothar are running for their annual appeal. I think they send cattle, goats and maybe chickens there too. I was wondering how suited Irish animals would be to the conditions in Africa? Specifically (dairy?) cattle that have been bred over many generations to thrive in a relatively cool, damp climate, eating lush grass. How well would those animals do in a hot, dry climate?

tomwaterford

Not all of Africa is a desert

Sam Kade

I've seen pictures of Irish dairy cows given to families in Africa, they usually have them in a makeshift hut eating green food and they always look fairly thin. Quality of feed wouldn't be great combined with holstien cows would be a disaster.

Sam Kade

tomwaterford wrote: »

Not all of Africa is a desert

True, but where the cows are going are the poorer drier regions.

Timmaay

I must have seen the same ad somewhere, because I somehow ended up on their website afew hours ago, where they have a photo of a much more local looking cow, and supposely a donation of 50euro bought ya one of them! I couldnt find anymore information though unfortunately ha!

Who2

I rear one every year for them. The cow is their life support so it will probably be better looked after than most cows here.

Timmaay

Who2 wrote: »

I rear one every year for them. The cow is their life support so it will probably be better looked after than most cows here.

Does this involve much? Do they specify the breed etc?

Who2

Timmaay wrote: »

Does this involve much? Do they specify the breed etc?

They bring a friesan heifer usually, I bring her to billing weight and ai her to a friesan in June. I ran mine with a limo bull then and once scanned she's taken away for a quarantine period and shipped out. They are often given beef bred weanlings which are fattened and the money is used to pay for shipping one of the friesan heifers. One animal isn't going to break any of us and I hope it gives some family a good start . Most of the heifers are kept indoors when out there and minded like babies.

yosemitesam1

mikefoxo wrote: »

I see the ads Bothar are running for their annual appeal. I think they send cattle, goats and maybe chickens there too. I was wondering how suited Irish animals would be to the conditions in Africa? Specifically (dairy?) cattle that have been bred over many generations to thrive in a relatively cool, damp climate, eating lush grass. How well would those animals do in a hot, dry climate?

The majority end up over around the high rainfall areas afaik, all zero grazed. Our breeds wouldn't be much good outside there between the heat and lack of parasite/disease resistance

Timmaay

Who2 wrote: »

They bring a friesan heifer usually, I bring her to billing weight and ai her to a friesan in June. I ran mine with a limo bull then and once scanned she's taken away for a quarantine period and shipped out. They are often given beef bred weanlings which are fattened and the money is used to pay for shipping one of the friesan heifers. One animal isn't going to break any of us and I hope it gives some family a good start . Most of the heifers are kept indoors when out there and minded like babies.

Sounds like it would be a very good present for my few nephews here ha, who have all the toys etc under the sun already!

Base price

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

The majority end up over around the high rainfall areas afaik, all zero grazed. Our breeds wouldn't be much good outside there between the heat and lack of parasite/disease resistance

When I was on holidays in Uganda I came across Bothar cows. Friesians stand out when you see the local Ankole cattle. Any cattle that I saw were in good shape and tended full time, there was always someone watching over them. Uganda is warm (not hot) with good rainfall and growth.

ganmo

In fairness they wouldn't be long spending 20 quid on getting a picture printed, frame bought and posted.
Money is given to charities to be spent making people's lives better not to be spent on printing.

Username John

First off - fair play to your ma for donating...

I can kinda understand where Bother are coming from though. They have to have a policy - otherwise where does it end. I know one framed photo shouldn't break the bank, esp after donating a heifer like this. But what if someone asked for 10 framed photos, and 10 framed photos of the heifer in her new home - should all requests be facilitated?

I appreciate your Ma did a great deed, but I can also appreciate that Bother may have a policy where they don't send framed photos. Your Ma got a photo emailed, so was able to put it up herself.

Username John

Sam Kade wrote: »

It would probably cut into the big boys wages :mad:

Whats this comment based on?

A very quick google returns this page

The page says

We’ve calculated return on investment (money raised – money spent as a factor of money spent), and here are the most effective fundraisers we surveyed, based on 2014 figures, the most recent available.
Chernobyl Children International: Spent €29,252, took in €2,335,519. ROI: 78.8. The charity got €167,080 worth of free media, PR and advertising in 2014
Down Syndrome Ireland: Spent €191,725, took in €2,374,629. ROI: 11.4
Simon: Spent €57,230, took in €580,063. ROI: 9.1
Bóthar: Spent €534,352, took in €5,089,753. ROI: 8.5
The Peter McVerry Trust: Spent €410,417, took in €3,814,046. ROI: 6.7

Based on that article, it would suggest Bothar are a fairly good charity in terms of putting money where it should go...

So - again - why do you make the comment above about the big boys wages? Are you aware of something the rest of us arent?

In these days, of charities spending funds where they shouldn't - I think to make a statement like you did, is a terrible thing to do if its not based on facts...

Peregrinus

It's not about being stingy. It's about spending the money people give them on the things people gave it for. Which doesn't include supplying framed photographs to the donors of cattle.

Sam Kade

Username John wrote: »

Whats this comment based on?

A very quick google returns this page

The page says


Based on that article, it would suggest Bothar are a fairly good charity in terms of putting money where it should go...

So - again - why do you make the comment above about the big boys wages? Are you aware of something the rest of us arent?

In these days, of charities spending funds where they shouldn't - I think to make a statement like you did, is a terrible thing to do if its not based on facts...

Calm down, every charity need people to run it and they get well paid for the job. I doubt bothar is any different.

orm0nd

Sam Kade wrote: »

Calm down, every charity need people to run it and they get well paid for the job. I doubt bothar is any different.

Peter Ireton gets circa 85k pa. when you deduct exp. & consider the amount of time he puts in, I reckon his hourly rate would be quite small.

Glenster

mikefoxo wrote: »

I see the ads Bothar are running for their annual appeal. I think they send cattle, goats and maybe chickens there too. I was wondering how suited Irish animals would be to the conditions in Africa? Specifically (dairy?) cattle that have been bred over many generations to thrive in a relatively cool, damp climate, eating lush grass. How well would those animals do in a hot, dry climate?

Do you actually think they buy an Irish cow and ship that cow to Africa?

Rather than use the money to buy a local cow to give to the family.

Seriously?

Glenster

Glenster wrote: »

Do you actually think they buy an Irish cow and ship that cow to Africa?

Rather than use the money to buy a local cow to give to the family.

Seriously?

I've just looked it up and apparently that is what they do.

Bothar have made the assumption that the reason Africa gets into famine so much is that they are not using enough non-hardy and susceptible-to-drought irish cows.

The arrogance and stupidity and waste of money is shocking.

Phoebas

Glenster wrote: »

Do you actually think they buy an Irish cow and ship that cow to Africa?

Rather than use the money to buy a local cow to give to the family.

Seriously?

It seems like a very inefficient way of getting an animal to a family in Africa. I'd have thought that spending more of the money locally would be better all 'round, but I guess that wouldn't have the same emotional hook - and charities need to be innovative in their fundraising in order to get attention.

Maybe some of the farming folk here can explain the economics of it.

Peregrinus

I believe part of the rationale is to improve the breeding stock in Africa. As others have already pointed out, the cattle provided by Bothar are greatly prized, because they are more productive than the local stock, which doesn't really fit with the idea that they are non-hardy and susceptible to drought. Bothar sends out a cow-in-calf; part of the deal is that the calf, when delivered, is given to a second family and then both mother and (in time) calf are bred with local cattle to improve the diversity of the gene pool and to hopefully to introduce some of the more attractive characteristics (regarding beef/milk production) of the European breeds.

ganmo

Peregrinus wrote: »

I believe part of the rationale is to improve the breeding stock in Africa. As others have already pointed out, the cattle provided by Bothar are greatly prized, because they are more productive than the local stock, which doesn't really fit with the idea that they are non-hardy and susceptible to drought. Bothar sends out a cow-in-calf; part of the deal is that the calf, when delivered, is given to a second family and then both mother and (in time) calf are bred with local cattle to improve the diversity of the gene pool and to hopefully to introduce some of the more attractive characteristics (regarding beef/milk production) of the European breeds.

Spot on.

And as far as costs go, the stock are donated so then there's quarantine fees, plane chartaring which might be donated(there was an article about Jim gavin piloting one lot not too long ago) and educating the receivers how to care for their new animal.
I've no idea of the costs of the above but I'd imagine the education would be a considerable portion of the costs

Glenster

Sorry, maybe im missing the point completely,

Surely bigger, more productive animals need more regular water and food than a thinner less productive animal?

People in Africa have been farming for thousands of years, instinctively it feels like arrogance to turn up with a European cow that is more productive in a European context and explain to the Africans how its better.

Is there not an argument that there should be an African solution to an African problem?

Wildsurfer

Well you do know that Fresian, Charolais, Limosuine, Hereford, Angus etc are not native to Ireland too right? That someone with foresight imported them for their respective milk or beef properties? And no disrespect to African farmers, climate is not their friend I know, but they are hardly world leaders in keeping their continent fully fed...

Mooooo

I think it's as much about spreading the cows to more families in order to provide them with food and income. Have an aunt in Nigeria and she says the more nomadic people own most of the cattle and have often killed farmers growing crops who try to stop the cattle from destroying them. One cow per family at the moment would do more for people. She more or less is involved in getting locals to.grow their own food, chickens and goats may be as far as livestock go in her area

ganmo

Glenster wrote: »

Sorry, maybe im missing the point completely,

Surely bigger, more productive animals need more regular water and food than a thinner less productive animal?

People in Africa have been farming for thousands of years, instinctively it feels like arrogance to turn up with a European cow that is more productive in a European context and explain to the Africans how its better.

Is there not an argument that there should be an African solution to an African problem?

Yes they require more attention and feeding but to put figures on it they'd require 20% more feeding but they'd be 50% more productive.

I remember something about Teagasc been asked to advise about potatoe production somewhere in Africa so Teagasc went out had a look tried different spud breeds and worked out which ones worked best and developed a specific one for widespread use in Africa.

Glenster

Wildsurfer wrote: »

Well you do know that Fresian, Charolais, Limosuine, Hereford, Angus etc are not native to Ireland too right? That someone with foresight imported them for their respective milk or beef properties? And no disrespect to African farmers, climate is not their friend I know, but they are hardly world leaders in keeping their continent fully fed...

The difference in climate between Ireland and Northern Europe is pretty minimal. The risk of drought in both regions is minimal, All I'm saying is that introducing an breed of animal that has not been bred to resist drought, at great cost, to a region that suffers from drought doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I think it's as much about spreading the cows to more families in order to provide them with food and income. Have an aunt in Nigeria and she says the more nomadic people own most of the cattle and have often killed farmers growing crops who try to stop the cattle from destroying them. One cow per family at the moment would do more for people. She more or less is involved in getting locals to.grow their own food, chickens and goats may be as far as livestock go in her area

I'm all for that, but why not just buy cows from the nomadic people and give to the settled people, surely much cheaper and suited to the climate and concentrates the wealth in the country where the development is needed.

If I were a more cynical man I'd question if the whole organisation is geared towards helping Irish farming by buying inferior cattle stock from Irish farmers and sending it to Africa. I have no basis for saying that, but it is something I'd be interested in being investigated. Is our best breeding stock going out to Africa?

Mooooo

Glenster wrote: »

The difference in climate between Ireland and Northern Europe is pretty minimal. The risk of drought in both regions is minimal, All I'm saying is that introducing an breed of animal that has not been bred to resist drought, at great cost, to a region that suffers from drought doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


I'm all for that, but why not just buy cows from the nomadic people and give to the settled people, surely much cheaper and suited to the climate and concentrates the wealth in the country where the development is needed.

If I were a more cynical man I'd question if the whole organisation is geared towards helping Irish farming by buying inferior cattle stock from Irish farmers and sending it to Africa. I have no basis for saying that, but it is sormething I'd be interested in being investigated. Is our best breeding stock going out to Africa?

I thought the cattle here are donated?

Glenster

ganmo wrote: »

Yes they require more attention and feeding but to put figures on it they'd require 20% more feeding but they'd be 50% more productive.

I remember something about Teagasc been asked to advise about potatoe production somewhere in Africa so Teagasc went out had a look tried different spud breeds and worked out which ones worked best and developed a specific one for widespread use in Africa.

And that makes sense, that's why in northern Europe they've been bred to be like that, little bit more in, lot more out.

But what is their reaction to extreme heat, water-borne diseases, reduced feed and water in difficult seasons? Maybe the scientists have all already sorted this out.

I just remember when the Soviet union planted wheat in the Ural Steppes and in the first few years the crop was great but then the top soil all blew away and its basically desert now, the traditional crops don't grow anymore.

Glenster

Mooooo wrote: »

I thought the cattle here are donated?

What are they valued at for tax purposes?

ganmo

Glenster wrote: »

The difference in climate between Ireland and Northern Europe is pretty minimal. The risk of drought in both regions is minimal, All I'm saying is that introducing an breed of animal that has not been bred to resist drought, at great cost, to a region that suffers from drought doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


I'm all for that, but why not just buy cows from the nomadic people and give to the settled people, surely much cheaper and suited to the climate and concentrates the wealth in the country where the development is needed.

If I were a more cynical man I'd question if the whole organisation is geared towards helping Irish farming by buying inferior cattle stock from Irish farmers and sending it to Africa. I have no basis for saying that, but it is something I'd be interested in being investigated. Is our best breeding stock going out to Africa?

From what I know of the nomadic ppl of Africa they don't care for money. Cattle are how they measure their wealth so they are unlikely to sell them for paper.

How many animals are sent to Africa? 100? It'll have no impact on the Irish market

Glenster

ganmo wrote: »

From what I know of the nomadic ppl of Africa they don't care for money. Cattle are how they measure their wealth so they are unlikely to sell them for paper.

How many animals are sent to Africa? 100? It'll have no impact on the Irish market

They're not cavemen. They know what money is.

ganmo

Glenster wrote: »

And that makes sense, that's why in northern Europe they've been bred to be like that, little bit more in, lot more out.

But what is their reaction to extreme heat, water-borne diseases, reduced feed and water in difficult seasons? Maybe the scientists have all already sorted this out.

I just remember when the Soviet union planted wheat in the Ural Steppes and in the first few years the crop was great but then the top soil all blew away and its basically desert now, the traditional crops don't grow anymore.

Same with the middle of America too.
As with any disease immunity is aquired when exposed to it, the same with the heat the body with adapt up to a point

often the ppl who make the decisions won't listen to the info, for example a few Irish Agri experts were brought out to china so that they could tell them how to produce milk from grass...the Chinese didn't like what the Irish experts told them

ganmo

Glenster wrote: »

They're not cavemen. They know what money is.

Yes but they care more about having cattle than cash money like it once was in Ireland ( think of the story of meave queen of Ulster and the brown bull of Cooley)

Glenster

ganmo wrote: »

Yes but they care more about having cattle than cash money like it once was in Ireland ( think of the story of meave queen of Ulster and the brown bull of Cooley)

That might have been true 30 years ago. Not anymore.

ganmo

Glenster wrote: »

That might have been true 30 years ago. Not anymore.

I hope so but the issue still stands that those cattle are nowhere near as productive as the cattle bothar are sending over.

But it isn't a single generation project. As they move to less suitable areas interbreeding with the African type cattle will happen...but I'm nearly certain the African type(the ones with the hump on their neck) are a different species so the next generation won't be able to breed.

yosemitesam1

Glenster wrote: »

And that makes sense, that's why in northern Europe they've been bred to be like that, little bit more in, lot more out.

But what is their reaction to extreme heat, water-borne diseases, reduced feed and water in difficult seasons? Maybe the scientists have all already sorted this out.

I just remember when the Soviet union planted wheat in the Ural Steppes and in the first few years the crop was great but then the top soil all blew away and its basically desert now, the traditional crops don't grow anymore.

The nomadic people with cattle in Africa are mainly based around the very arid parts where crop production is not viable, as they've been gradually pushed back from the better land as the population has grown over the last 50 years. The biggest problem this creates is that it removes a large part of the flexibility that all nomadic grazing systems everywhere in the world rely on this so as not to do long term damage to the land in bad years. When land you previously grazed becomes fragmented or taken over you're fairly fcuked in a bad year and this is where most desertification in Africa and Asia stems from.
Bothar doesn't seem to work in any of these areas but instead focuses on the tropical to temperate climates down there. These areas have high rainfall so that shouldn't really be an issue but they do have very high disease, parasite and insect pressure as well as heat which is why Irish cattle wouldn't be productive if outside grazing. I don't know whether it is good to be sending these cattle there as it could be wiping out the genetics that could be needed in the future. When communism collapsed the Mongolian farmers faired much better with their native stock that was suited to the area than the Russians which were left with high producing animals and couldn't run them in the high input system that was needed and they couldn't be ran outside either because they were too soft.

pedigree 6

Glenster wrote: »

If I were a more cynical man I'd question if the whole organisation is geared towards helping Irish farming by buying inferior cattle stock from Irish farmers and sending it to Africa. I have no basis for saying that, but it is something I'd be interested in being investigated. Is our best breeding stock going out to Africa?

The irish farmer donates/gives the animal to the charity. Something the farmer doesn't have to do. Why the fire? I haven't heard the recipients complain about receiving animals for milk, fodder, beef. The truth is an animal is the best gift. Better than money as you know the matriarch of the family will look after it and benefit the family whereas if it was money the patriarch would more than likely spend the money down at the pub. Sad but could be true.

Have a look at this and can anyone tell me that this charity makes no difference?

tractorporn

Glenster wrote:

I'm all for that, but why not just buy cows from the nomadic people and give to the settled people, surely much cheaper and suited to the climate and concentrates the wealth in the country where the development is needed.

The reason Bohar use Irish cows is because the local cows produce 1 Litre of milk per day, the Irish cow can produce up to 10 litres. This allows the family who gets the cow to feed themselves and have surplus left over to sell. This allows the families to climb out of the poverty that they are in. My famliy are quite involved in the local bohar and I have spoken to people from both Kosovo and Uganda who have recieved cows and it has transformed their lives, children have been sent to university on the back of bohar cows.

Who2

There's a lot of scepticism going on with this charity on here, i know theres a lot of trouble with other charities but i really do think its a genuine one. the wrong type cow, messing with genetics etc etc. i know my first cow wouldnt fit in with what i have now, but it got me started.. if people on here think they can do better, then go out and do better and quit b*tching about the ones who are trying.

pedigree 6

Who2 wrote: »

There's a lot of scepticism going on with this charity on here, i know theres a lot of trouble with other charities but i really do think its a genuine one. the wrong type cow, messing with genetics etc etc. i know my first cow wouldnt fit in with what i have now, but it got me started.. if people on here think they can do better, then go out and do better and quit b*tching about the ones who are trying.

I wouldn't pay no attention to some posters here.
Unfortunately there's a snobbery attached to some people who always think they know better yet have never done a charitable thing in their lives.
Oxfam used to think that way too and were publicly scoffing at what Bothar were doing. They soon changed their tune when their officials saw the work on the ground.
This is not a new idea. Just look at Heifer International. But it works.
Farmers helping farmers. Terrible ain't it. The Boards joe duffy show goes on.

I really can't understand some people.

bogman_bass

Glenster wrote: »

I've just looked it up and apparently that is what they do.

Bothar have made the assumption that the reason Africa gets into famine so much is that they are not using enough non-hardy and susceptible-to-drought irish cows.

The arrogance and stupidity and waste of money is shocking.

I think you have shown that you know very little about the ins and outs of the matter but still your arrogance is astounding

bogman_bass

Glenster wrote: »

Sorry, maybe im missing the point completely,

Surely bigger, more productive animals need more regular water and food than a thinner less productive animal?

People in Africa have been farming for thousands of years, instinctively it feels like arrogance to turn up with a European cow that is more productive in a European context and explain to the Africans how its better.

Is there not an argument that there should be an African solution to an African problem?

A cow producing 8gallons of milk a day eats and drinks less than 2 cows producing 4 gallons.

Going by your logic Irish people should only have horse and carts because we don't have any car factories here. It would be arrogant for Germans to sell me a VW golf :rolleyes:

greysides

Mod: Let's tone down the rhetoric a little folks.

whisky_galore

Wonder how many of these countries' could well afford to support their own farmers?

Uganda for one got a slap down over embezzlement of aid funds not so long ago.
One of Africa's poorest countries, but no problems buying new fighter planes.

Peregrinus

whisky_galore wrote: »

Wonder how many of these countries' could well afford to support their own farmers?

Uganda for one got a slap down over embezzlement of aid funds not so long ago.
One of Africa's poorest countries, but no problems buying new fighter planes.

I'm not sure what your point is. Irish individuals shouldn't help somebody if think his own government could help him, but doesn't? That's a bizarre notion.

Glenster

No-one here thinks that charity itself is wrong,

But I think it is counter productive to assume that just because a charity is doing any work at all then its good.

Id love to see a proper breakdown of what the donations are spent on in Bothar, where the money goes, how much is direct provision and how much is training , innoculations, etc. If the animals are donated, what the controls are on the quality of the animals, what is the tax on importing an animal to a third world country, the survival rates of the animals, etc.

You can see all of this granular information on concern and goal and a lot of other charity websites, not so much on bother website.

It just doesn't reassure me that they are operating with our money efficiently, when their business model is a little unusual, shipping animals from Ireland across the world.

Peregrinus

I take your point.

On the other hand, part of the reason why Bothar is a low-cost operation with a high return on investment, as shown in the figures quoted in post #14, is presumably that they don't spend their resources in explaining, justifying, promoting etc what they do; they just spend their resources doing it. We've already seen in this thread that they wouldn't gratify a donor by providing her with a framed photograph of herself with the beast she had donated; obviously they have a culture in which spending money to justify themselves to donors and potential donors is not something they are keen on, and the rather sparse annual report they produce is a reflection of that.

You can't have it both ways. They get to be a lean mean machine by producing the accounts and reports that the law requires, and not going much beyond that. If that leaves you uncertain that what they do is all that worth doing, well, you can choose not to donate to them. If enough people agree with you, then they'll have to start devoting more of their resources to producing and disseminating the kind of information that you (and enough other people) like to see.

Glenster

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can't have it both ways. They get to be a lean mean machine by producing the accounts and reports that the law requires, and not going much beyond that. If that leaves you uncertain that what they do is all that worth doing, well, you can choose not to donate to them. If enough people agree with you, then they'll have to start devoting more of their resources to producing and disseminating the kind of information that you (and enough other people) like to see.

I get your point, but I would expect that a decently-run, responsible organisation would have figures like that to hand.

You would hope that, at a board level, the finance committee is asking questions like that and receiving appropriate answers.

I'm not sure my gran would ask the same sorts of questions, she sees the CEO stating that 91.25% of donations go to people in need and thinks all of that is used to pay for cows.

The argument that if we refuse to donate we can change the system that way doesn't wash, there should be regulations mandating transparency in charities and the fact that there isn't allows scandals to happen and hurts the sector as a whole. In the absence of regulation responsible companies are self regulating to increase donor confidence in the market as a whole and I think its a little fishy that bothar doesn't.

Sure we cant even agree if the cows are quality that are being sent or if they are donated by farmers or not!

pedigree 6

I really don't see the conspiracy here. I think you're trying to make something out of nothing.

Why is so difficult to believe that an irish farmer would donate livestock to a charity that flies them off to Africa to help a family get on their feet and put food on the table.

There was people in this country complaining that handing over money directly did nothing. But in this case the money is in the form of an animal who the family keep and profit from and then when the first heifer is born it has to be given to another family to spread out the wealth in the region and so on.
It's easy for farmers here to relate to this as most of us have been through tough times (not as extreme as the people receiving the livestock) and know the importance that livestock can make to a farm.

I really think if you think this is wrong that you contact Bothar directly and air your greivences. There's not much point in doing it here.:rolleyes:

Glenster

pedigree 6 wrote: »

I really don't see the conspiracy here. I think you're trying to make something out of nothing.

Why is so difficult to believe that an irish farmer would donate livestock to a charity that flies them off to Africa to help a family get on their feet and put food on the table.

There was people in this country complaining that handing over money directly did nothing. But in this case the money is in the form of an animal who the family keep and profit from and then when the first heifer is born it has to be given to another family to spread out the wealth in the region and so on.
It's easy for farmers here to relate to this as most of us have been through tough times (not as extreme as the people receiving the livestock) and know the importance that livestock can make to a farm.

I really think if you think this is wrong that you contact Bothar directly and air your greivences. There's not much point in doing it here.:rolleyes:

I dont think its unreasonable to ask if i give 100 euro to bothar, where does that money go?

I dont think its unreasonable to ask whether all the cows that go abroad are donated by farmers, and if so what is the quality of the cows?

And I think a thread on the appropriateness of sending irish cows to africa is exactly the right place to ask these questions.

People going mad at others for asking whether a charity is spending its money appropriately is what stops people asking questions like that and allows charities to do whatever they want with your money.