In recent years, with the changes in the rural economic and social environment, the rural revitalization strategy has gradually emerged and has become the leading ideology of rural development in mainland China. In this context, the emergence of "agricultural management" as a new policy has also attracted widespread attention. For the sake of people's food safety, some local "agricultural management" new policies stipulate that it is forbidden to hold running water mats and prohibit the slaughter of pigs that they feed.
Forbidden water seat
Flowing water feasts refer to the various gatherings held in the countryside, which usually involve the provision of various snacks and dishes. This was a common form of social activity in rural life in the past, and it was also an annual festival gathering for farmers. However, with the deepening of the urbanization process in the mainland, some flowing water mat activities have also produced certain social problems.
Some of the flowing water banquets are too erosive and wasteful. In some places, for the sake of "face engineering", excessive procurement of rich dishes wastes food resources. Secondly, some flowing water dishes are risky in terms of shelf life and hygienic management, which may lead to the spread of foodborne diseases. In addition, in some places, the activities of flowing water mats are becoming more and more commercialized, which deviates from the original intention of traditional gatherings in rural areas, and even has a negative social impact.
In view of this, the restriction of the flow of mats is due to food safety and resource conservation considerations. However, this policy has also been questioned by many farmers and villagers, believing that it has affected traditional rural customs. In fact, banning certain forms of flowing water is not the same as banning traditional gatherings, and the focus should be on the quality and methods of food management, rather than a blanket ban.
Forbidden Pig
Livestock farming has always played an important role in the rural economy. However, with the rise of large-scale farming models, some small-scale self-raising livestock have also caused certain problems. The policy of "prohibiting the slaughter of self-fed pigs" also comes from some practical considerations.
Hygiene. When some villagers slaughter their own pigs, it is difficult to ensure the hygiene of pig killing tools and sites, which may bring the risk of microbial contamination.
Prevention and control of avian influenza and other diseases. If an outbreak occurs, it will naturally be difficult to trace the source, increasing the risk of transmission.
Animal welfare. Some villagers slaughtered pigs unprofessionally, causing unnecessary torture to pigs.
Industrial upgrading. The promotion of large-scale slaughtering can improve efficiency, reduce costs, and promote the adjustment of the industrial structure of aquaculture.
But at the same time, this policy needs to be refined, and the traditional way of peasant self-sufficiency should not be completely blocked. Small-scale self-slaughtering can be considered, but slaughtering standards and regulatory requirements should be strengthened to promote the prevention and control of human and poultry infectious diseases. On the contrary, a total ban may harm the interests of the masses.
Agricultural management
Restricting the form of some flowing water mats and standardizing family breeding are the beginning of the idea of "agricultural management". To a certain extent, this reflects some of the original intentions behind the introduction of the new policy: to adjust the mode of rural development, promote the upgrading of the agricultural industry, and ensure the people's living standards and food safety.
However, at the same time, the new policy of "agricultural management" also needs to take into account the actual situation of farmers and local governments in the implementation process, implement classified guidance, and not make a one-size-fits-all approach. The scope of restrictions should be refined, and striking a balance is the key to policy success. In the future, more detailed regulations may be introduced one after another, and whether the real implementation can protect the vital interests of the masses still needs to be observed and verified.
Conclusion
As an important rural revitalization initiative, these two policies and regulations of "agricultural management" have indeed brought a lot of discussion to the first test of the water. From the perspective of ensuring the sustainable and healthy development of the rural economy and society, this kind of adjustment is necessary, but it is also necessary to give sufficient guidance and a respite period in the process of detailed implementation, so as not to bring unnecessary impact on the interests of the masses.
At the same time, "agricultural management" should not stay at a single policy level, but more importantly, continue to deepen the construction of rural grassroots governance capacity and public service system. Only by promoting the continuous improvement of the rural governance system, solving the real needs of the masses with a realistic attitude, and truly realizing a high degree of compatibility between the interests of the government and the people, can we achieve the good results that "agricultural management" should have.
Looking forward to the future, with the continuous enrichment of "agricultural management" measures, relevant departments and local governments need to pay attention to the effectiveness of policy implementation, accumulate lessons and lessons in combination with the actual situation, and continuously adjust and optimize in the direction of "refinement" and "detailed implementation". Only in this way can the new "agricultural management" policy truly promote the healthy and sustainable development of rural economy and society, and strive to build beautiful villages.