Traceability/aide
Cours gratuits > Forum > Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais || En basTraceability/aide
Message de asxcgy posté le 20-05-2018 à 12:50:50 (S | E | F)
Bonjour à tous,
j'aurais besoin d'une correction de mon texte; y aurait-il quelqu'un qui pourrait me donner un coup de mainsvp s'il vous plait ?
Merci d'avance pour vos réponses.
Voici le texte :
This document is an audio-recording presented by a woman. The purpose of this document is to explain the aim of FRID and to provide us with the opinion of farmers.
Is RFID really useful? / Is the use of RFID effective?
First of all, the audio-document deals with the story of a French Farmer named E.M.
E.M refused the application of RFID to his ewes during an inspection in April 2012.
In addition, the authors talk about the RFID which was launched in France in 2010 for sheep and goats.
Moreover, the aim of RFID, as stated in the text, is to improve traceability in the case of disease. However, In the coming years, its uses could further evolve
Thirdly, the document deals with electronic tags present in other countries, like in Germany and in Scotland.
Following this, the author presents the point of view of a sociologist at the National Institute for Agricultural Research named J.P.
The author also gives us the point of view of E.M, who talks about his animals: their living conditions, their utility for his farm and the contact that they have with E.M.
For E.M, the RFID is useless because the system does not know his animals as well as he does.
On the one hand, the new RFID system has many negative aspects.
First of all, many farmers are against the obligation to tag their animals, and this is for a plurality of reasons.
For example, in France we have more than 1000 biological farms and, like E.M, a large proportion of biological farmers are against the FRID. One of the main reasons for this is because they want to have animals that are 100% natural, without chemical nourishment or electronic tags
In addition, it is problematic for the farmers who are against RFID, because like E.M, they must pay a heavy fine. This is regrettable because it is a challenging profession, and a large number of them do not have the means to finance such a project.
Plus, the cost of RFID is exorbitant because it is an innovative and high-end technology.
Indeed, the price of RFID per animal is 1.5€, which could constitute a large aggregate sum for a farmer who has 30,000 animals.
Furthermore, RFID can has a negative effect on the natural link between the farmer and the animal because the requirements of the animal are transmitted via the RFID system.
(all of the animals’ needs are transmitted completely through the RFID system.)
Last but not least, RFID can have a negative impact on the health of animals because several studies have indicated that FRID may cause cancers.
On the other hand, RFID has many positive aspects.
Nowadays in Europe, more than 10 million animals have been equipped with these radio tags in approximately 20 countries.
Therefore, it may be concluded that, this technology is not really harmful.
Plus, RFID has a lot of benefits, on the one hand for farmer and on the other, for consumers. This is because FRID facilitates the collection of further information regarding the animal, such as its origin, name, birth date, the farmer’s name and a lot of supplementary information.
Moreover, nowadays a lot of slaughterhouses don’t respect all regulations and they are prone to lying about the origins of their animals in order to raise prices.
Indeed, there is no doubt that this is the main issue for consumers, but with RFID we can trace the origin of an animal and hence better quality meat.
Furthermore, with RFID, it is easier for farmers to count and to sort their animals, and to understand their needs.
Lastly, RFID could reduce the number of animal thefts. I would like to point out the fact that a lot of animals are stolen every year. However, with the geo-tracking of FRID, the farmer can track down their animals much more easily.
To conclude, FRID has a lot of positive points and a lot of negative points but, as far as I am concerned, farmers want the best for their animals. However, even if they receive financial assistance from the government, many of them would always be against such technology because they already understand their animals very well without the use of FRID.
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 20-05-2018 14:41
Message de asxcgy posté le 20-05-2018 à 12:50:50 (S | E | F)
Bonjour à tous,
j'aurais besoin d'une correction de mon texte; y aurait-il quelqu'un qui pourrait me donner un coup de main
Merci d'avance pour vos réponses.
Voici le texte :
This document is an audio-recording presented by a woman. The purpose of this document is to explain the aim of FRID and to provide us with the opinion of farmers.
Is RFID really useful? / Is the use of RFID effective?
First of all, the audio-document deals with the story of a French Farmer named E.M.
E.M refused the application of RFID to his ewes during an inspection in April 2012.
In addition, the authors talk about the RFID which was launched in France in 2010 for sheep and goats.
Moreover, the aim of RFID, as stated in the text, is to improve traceability in the case of disease. However, In the coming years, its uses could further evolve
Thirdly, the document deals with electronic tags present in other countries, like in Germany and in Scotland.
Following this, the author presents the point of view of a sociologist at the National Institute for Agricultural Research named J.P.
The author also gives us the point of view of E.M, who talks about his animals: their living conditions, their utility for his farm and the contact that they have with E.M.
For E.M, the RFID is useless because the system does not know his animals as well as he does.
On the one hand, the new RFID system has many negative aspects.
First of all, many farmers are against the obligation to tag their animals, and this is for a plurality of reasons.
For example, in France we have more than 1000 biological farms and, like E.M, a large proportion of biological farmers are against the FRID. One of the main reasons for this is because they want to have animals that are 100% natural, without chemical nourishment or electronic tags
In addition, it is problematic for the farmers who are against RFID, because like E.M, they must pay a heavy fine. This is regrettable because it is a challenging profession, and a large number of them do not have the means to finance such a project.
Plus, the cost of RFID is exorbitant because it is an innovative and high-end technology.
Indeed, the price of RFID per animal is 1.5€, which could constitute a large aggregate sum for a farmer who has 30,000 animals.
Furthermore, RFID can has a negative effect on the natural link between the farmer and the animal because the requirements of the animal are transmitted via the RFID system.
(all of the animals’ needs are transmitted completely through the RFID system.)
Last but not least, RFID can have a negative impact on the health of animals because several studies have indicated that FRID may cause cancers.
On the other hand, RFID has many positive aspects.
Nowadays in Europe, more than 10 million animals have been equipped with these radio tags in approximately 20 countries.
Therefore, it may be concluded that, this technology is not really harmful.
Plus, RFID has a lot of benefits, on the one hand for farmer and on the other, for consumers. This is because FRID facilitates the collection of further information regarding the animal, such as its origin, name, birth date, the farmer’s name and a lot of supplementary information.
Moreover, nowadays a lot of slaughterhouses don’t respect all regulations and they are prone to lying about the origins of their animals in order to raise prices.
Indeed, there is no doubt that this is the main issue for consumers, but with RFID we can trace the origin of an animal and hence better quality meat.
Furthermore, with RFID, it is easier for farmers to count and to sort their animals, and to understand their needs.
Lastly, RFID could reduce the number of animal thefts. I would like to point out the fact that a lot of animals are stolen every year. However, with the geo-tracking of FRID, the farmer can track down their animals much more easily.
To conclude, FRID has a lot of positive points and a lot of negative points but, as far as I am concerned, farmers want the best for their animals. However, even if they receive financial assistance from the government, many of them would always be against such technology because they already understand their animals very well without the use of FRID.
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 20-05-2018 14:41
Réponse : Traceability/aide de asxcgy, postée le 21-05-2018 à 14:13:13 (S | E)
S'il vous plaît c'est assez urgent.
Merci
Réponse : Traceability/aide de asxcgy, postée le 21-05-2018 à 18:29:03 (S | E)
S'il vous plaît c'est assez urgent.
Merci
Réponse : Traceability/aide de bluestar, postée le 21-05-2018 à 21:43:49 (S | E)
hello..
A very good standard of English...I can't see any serious errors...Occasionally you use a 'majuscule' where it is not required, and RFID and FRID seem to be used interchangeably.(I have no idea if this is correct)..Other members may have more useful opinions of your text..
Cours gratuits > Forum > Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais
