Posts
Family Heritage
20 hours ago
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
MBA Commencement
We are in Denver today participating and presenting at the Masters of Beef Advocacy commencement being held in conjunction with the NCBA Summer Conference. It's gonna be a fun day.
Antibiotic Use Being Challenged Again
Administration Seeks to Restrict Antibiotics in Livestock
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: July 13, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration announced Monday that it would seek to ban many routine uses of antibiotics in farm animals in hopes of reducing the spread of dangerous bacteria in humans.
In written testimony to the House Rules Committee, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs, said feeding antibiotics to healthy chickens, pigs and cattle — done to encourage rapid growth — should cease. And Dr. Sharfstein said farmers should no longer be able to use antibiotics in animals without the supervision of a veterinarian.
Both practices lead to the development of bacteria that are immune to many treatments, he said.
The hearing was held to discuss a measure proposed by Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York and chairwoman of the Rules Committee. It would ban seven classes of antibiotics important to human health from being used in animals, and would restrict other antibiotics to therapeutic and some preventive uses. Read More
The use of antibiotics as a health tool in livestock continues to receive a lot of criticism. The problem is that no one seems to want to talk about the consequences of ending the practice. An ounce of cure is worth a pound of prevention. Countries that have banned the practice have found that they are now using more antibiotics than ever before. The health of our livestock shouldn’t be jeopardized.
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: July 13, 2009
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration announced Monday that it would seek to ban many routine uses of antibiotics in farm animals in hopes of reducing the spread of dangerous bacteria in humans.
In written testimony to the House Rules Committee, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs, said feeding antibiotics to healthy chickens, pigs and cattle — done to encourage rapid growth — should cease. And Dr. Sharfstein said farmers should no longer be able to use antibiotics in animals without the supervision of a veterinarian.
Both practices lead to the development of bacteria that are immune to many treatments, he said.
The hearing was held to discuss a measure proposed by Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York and chairwoman of the Rules Committee. It would ban seven classes of antibiotics important to human health from being used in animals, and would restrict other antibiotics to therapeutic and some preventive uses. Read More
The use of antibiotics as a health tool in livestock continues to receive a lot of criticism. The problem is that no one seems to want to talk about the consequences of ending the practice. An ounce of cure is worth a pound of prevention. Countries that have banned the practice have found that they are now using more antibiotics than ever before. The health of our livestock shouldn’t be jeopardized.
Anti-Terrorism Law Being Challenged
Federal judge weighs legal challenge to animal rights anti-terrorism law
By Howard Mintz
hmintz@mercurynews.com
Posted: 07/13/2009 04:23:11 PM PDT
Updated: 07/14/2009 03:41:30 AM PDT
A federal judge in San Jose on Monday sent mixed signals over the fate of a new law designed to target violent animal-rights protests, indicating he will rule later in the nation's first direct legal challenge to Congress' attempt to protect animal researchers and scientists from serious safety threats.
During an hourlong hearing, U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte suggested that the 2006 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act may be legally vulnerable, but he also left doubts about whether the current lawsuit is the right path to take on the law in its entirety.
Federal prosecutors invoked the law for the first time earlier this year, indicting four activists accused of threats and vandalism against University of California medical researchers in Santa Cruz and Berkeley.
Lawyers for the defendants, backed by civil liberties groups, argue that the animal terrorism law is unconstitutional. They say it's too broad, vague and tramples on the free speech rights of animal rights advocates who protest and boycott for their cause. In moving to dismiss the indictment, they maintain the law targets animal rights groups so broadly that it would criminalize a boycott or protest outside a fur store. Read More
This important legislation was designed to protect animal enterprises, specifically researchers that utilize animals. Attacks on these people because of their work is really no different than the hate crime laws that protect against attacking people for their race or religion. It is not free speech to firebomb someone’s house, that is terrorism.
By Howard Mintz
hmintz@mercurynews.com
Posted: 07/13/2009 04:23:11 PM PDT
Updated: 07/14/2009 03:41:30 AM PDT
A federal judge in San Jose on Monday sent mixed signals over the fate of a new law designed to target violent animal-rights protests, indicating he will rule later in the nation's first direct legal challenge to Congress' attempt to protect animal researchers and scientists from serious safety threats.
During an hourlong hearing, U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte suggested that the 2006 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act may be legally vulnerable, but he also left doubts about whether the current lawsuit is the right path to take on the law in its entirety.
Federal prosecutors invoked the law for the first time earlier this year, indicting four activists accused of threats and vandalism against University of California medical researchers in Santa Cruz and Berkeley.
Lawyers for the defendants, backed by civil liberties groups, argue that the animal terrorism law is unconstitutional. They say it's too broad, vague and tramples on the free speech rights of animal rights advocates who protest and boycott for their cause. In moving to dismiss the indictment, they maintain the law targets animal rights groups so broadly that it would criminalize a boycott or protest outside a fur store. Read More
This important legislation was designed to protect animal enterprises, specifically researchers that utilize animals. Attacks on these people because of their work is really no different than the hate crime laws that protect against attacking people for their race or religion. It is not free speech to firebomb someone’s house, that is terrorism.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Michigan Rejecting Animal Rights Agenda
Farmers, activists at odds over animal treatment
By DAVID EGGERT Associated Press Writer
12:00 AM CDT, July 12, 2009
LANSING, Mich. - Michigan farmers and animal rights advocates are fighting over the treatment of farm animals, a conflict that ultimately may be taken to voters.
The farm lobby is backing bipartisan legislation that would put into law the agriculture industry's guidelines for farm animals' health and welfare, and require audits of livestock farms. A 10-member council would review and possibly update animal care standards at least every five years and local governments would be pre-empted from setting their own rules.
Upset by what it calls the industry's "blatant power grab" in the debate, the Humane Society of the United States is threatening a 2010 ballot initiative to give farm animals in confined spaces more room. Voters passed similar proposals in Arizona, California and Florida. Governors and lawmakers also enacted measures in Colorado, Maine and Oregon.
Supporters of the Michigan bills say people want to know more about where their food comes from, particularly in the wake of food recalls. Workers at a since-closed California slaughterhouse were caught on videotape abusing weak cattle to force them to slaughter, leading to the country's biggest beef recall last year.
"It really is about consumer confidence, protecting the food chain and safety of the food chain," said House Agriculture Chairman Mike Simpson, D-Jackson, who wants his committee to approve the legislation by month's end. The first committee hearing on the bills held last month drew so many people wanting to speak that it was extended another day.
"This is Michigan, not California. We're not going to allow an outside group to come into Michigan and give chickens the right to drive cars," said Simpson, a sponsor of the House bills with Rep. Jeff Mayes, D-Bay City. Sens. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, and Gerald Van Woerkom, R-Norton Shores, have introduced identical Senate bills. Read More
Oddly, Paul Shapiro claims that HSUS is only trying to eliminate the most extreme forms of confinement but what he doesn’t tell you is that they consider all forms of confinement to be extreme. Nothing less than total animal liberation is their goal. There is nothing moderate about their proposals. And the fact that two states have stood up to them and declared that they were more than capable of taking care of their own livestock, has become an incredible threat. Mostly it has become a threat to their donations and their egos.
By DAVID EGGERT Associated Press Writer
12:00 AM CDT, July 12, 2009
LANSING, Mich. - Michigan farmers and animal rights advocates are fighting over the treatment of farm animals, a conflict that ultimately may be taken to voters.
The farm lobby is backing bipartisan legislation that would put into law the agriculture industry's guidelines for farm animals' health and welfare, and require audits of livestock farms. A 10-member council would review and possibly update animal care standards at least every five years and local governments would be pre-empted from setting their own rules.
Upset by what it calls the industry's "blatant power grab" in the debate, the Humane Society of the United States is threatening a 2010 ballot initiative to give farm animals in confined spaces more room. Voters passed similar proposals in Arizona, California and Florida. Governors and lawmakers also enacted measures in Colorado, Maine and Oregon.
Supporters of the Michigan bills say people want to know more about where their food comes from, particularly in the wake of food recalls. Workers at a since-closed California slaughterhouse were caught on videotape abusing weak cattle to force them to slaughter, leading to the country's biggest beef recall last year.
"It really is about consumer confidence, protecting the food chain and safety of the food chain," said House Agriculture Chairman Mike Simpson, D-Jackson, who wants his committee to approve the legislation by month's end. The first committee hearing on the bills held last month drew so many people wanting to speak that it was extended another day.
"This is Michigan, not California. We're not going to allow an outside group to come into Michigan and give chickens the right to drive cars," said Simpson, a sponsor of the House bills with Rep. Jeff Mayes, D-Bay City. Sens. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, and Gerald Van Woerkom, R-Norton Shores, have introduced identical Senate bills. Read More
Oddly, Paul Shapiro claims that HSUS is only trying to eliminate the most extreme forms of confinement but what he doesn’t tell you is that they consider all forms of confinement to be extreme. Nothing less than total animal liberation is their goal. There is nothing moderate about their proposals. And the fact that two states have stood up to them and declared that they were more than capable of taking care of their own livestock, has become an incredible threat. Mostly it has become a threat to their donations and their egos.
Cows Are Effecient Fuel Producers
Ag Engineer: Animal manure management could go 'green'
Manure has the potential to make dairies energy self-sufficient
July 10, 2009 Writer(s): Robert Burns, 903-834-6191,rd-burns@tamu.edu
COLLEGE STATION -- A recent Texas AgriLife Research survey of Texas and California dairies found that cows, like people, are big energy users.
That's the bad news. The good news is there's enough potential energy within the manure dairy cows produce to pay their electrical bill and more -- a lot more, according to Dr. Cady Engler, AgriLife Research agricultural engineer.
"Total energy usage ranged from as low as 464 kilowatt hour per year per animal for a pasture dairy in Northeast Texas to as high as 1,637 kilowatt hour for a hybrid facility in Central Texas," Engler said.
"The estimated daily potential energy availability from manure – 25 kilowatt hours per day per cow – is much greater than the average daily on-farm energy requirement of 3.2 kilowatt hours per day per cow," he said.
Engler will be presenting a paper, "Energy Usage Survey of Dairies in the Southwestern United States" at the upcoming Texas Animal Manure Management Issues, scheduled Sept. 29-30 at the Austin Marriott North in Round Rock. More information can be found at the conference's Web site at http://grovesite.com/tamu/tammi. Read More
One of the things that is very aggravating for me is to hear people refer to manure as waste. It’s far from it. This is not only a valuable nutrient that vastly improves the ability of plants to grow and produce, but it could also become a very valuable source of energy. This concept is nothing new. Dried manure was often used as heating fuel by our ancestors as they attempted to settle this country. It wasn’t considered a waste product then and it shouldn’t be now. The efficiencies of cattle and their ruminant digestive system have always been a marvel and they are proving it again to us.
Manure has the potential to make dairies energy self-sufficient
July 10, 2009 Writer(s): Robert Burns, 903-834-6191,rd-burns@tamu.edu
COLLEGE STATION -- A recent Texas AgriLife Research survey of Texas and California dairies found that cows, like people, are big energy users.
That's the bad news. The good news is there's enough potential energy within the manure dairy cows produce to pay their electrical bill and more -- a lot more, according to Dr. Cady Engler, AgriLife Research agricultural engineer.
"Total energy usage ranged from as low as 464 kilowatt hour per year per animal for a pasture dairy in Northeast Texas to as high as 1,637 kilowatt hour for a hybrid facility in Central Texas," Engler said.
"The estimated daily potential energy availability from manure – 25 kilowatt hours per day per cow – is much greater than the average daily on-farm energy requirement of 3.2 kilowatt hours per day per cow," he said.
Engler will be presenting a paper, "Energy Usage Survey of Dairies in the Southwestern United States" at the upcoming Texas Animal Manure Management Issues, scheduled Sept. 29-30 at the Austin Marriott North in Round Rock. More information can be found at the conference's Web site at http://grovesite.com/tamu/tammi. Read More
One of the things that is very aggravating for me is to hear people refer to manure as waste. It’s far from it. This is not only a valuable nutrient that vastly improves the ability of plants to grow and produce, but it could also become a very valuable source of energy. This concept is nothing new. Dried manure was often used as heating fuel by our ancestors as they attempted to settle this country. It wasn’t considered a waste product then and it shouldn’t be now. The efficiencies of cattle and their ruminant digestive system have always been a marvel and they are proving it again to us.
Promoting Healthy Meat At All Star Game
All-Star Game attendees encouragedto eat ‘Cured Meats for Healthy Heartbeat’
By Trent Loos
Medical research shows hot dogs and other cured meats offer health benefits
Nothing goes together like baseball and hot dogs, and with a growing body of medical evidence that suggests dietary nitrates - like those commonly found in hot dogs - are vital to the prevention of heart disease, attendees at the 2009 Major League Baseball All Star Game July 14 in St. Louis, MO, are being encouraged to enjoy both.
“Those attending this year’s All-Star game should enjoy a hot dog during the game knowing that it takes cured meats for healthy heartbeats,” said Trent Loos, a sixth generation farmer/rancher and founder of the Faces Of Agriculture.
For the past 10 years, Dr. Nathan Bryan, a medical researcher at the Brown Foundation Institute of Molecular Medicine, The University of Texas, Houston Health Sciences Center, has been working to determine the importance of dietary nitrite and nitrate consumption as a means to prevent and treat cardiovascular disease and other diseases associated with nitric oxide insufficiency in the diet. In the process, he also has examined long-standing claims that the compounds cause certain cancers and found that indeed those risks do not exist.
To tell the story of the health benefits associated with cured meats, Loos has hired a mobile media truck to drive around St. Louis on the day of the All-Star game with a billboard that simply reads, “Cured Meats for Healthy Heartbeats”. The mobile billboard will feature a young consumer enjoying a tasty and “healthy” hot dog, he said. Read More
Two of the things that make summer so great is baseball and grilling brats and hot dogs on the grill. This year’s midsummer classic is being played in St. Louis and our friend Trent Loos is taking this opportunity to show these baseball fans that cured meats are good for your heart. It’s unfortunate that consumers are normally showered with anti-meat messages by groups with hidden agendas. Livestock producers everywhere need to be educating themselves on the health benefits of a diet that includes meat and dairy products and then share it with everyone. Thanks for your hard work Trent.
By Trent Loos
Medical research shows hot dogs and other cured meats offer health benefits
Nothing goes together like baseball and hot dogs, and with a growing body of medical evidence that suggests dietary nitrates - like those commonly found in hot dogs - are vital to the prevention of heart disease, attendees at the 2009 Major League Baseball All Star Game July 14 in St. Louis, MO, are being encouraged to enjoy both.
“Those attending this year’s All-Star game should enjoy a hot dog during the game knowing that it takes cured meats for healthy heartbeats,” said Trent Loos, a sixth generation farmer/rancher and founder of the Faces Of Agriculture.
For the past 10 years, Dr. Nathan Bryan, a medical researcher at the Brown Foundation Institute of Molecular Medicine, The University of Texas, Houston Health Sciences Center, has been working to determine the importance of dietary nitrite and nitrate consumption as a means to prevent and treat cardiovascular disease and other diseases associated with nitric oxide insufficiency in the diet. In the process, he also has examined long-standing claims that the compounds cause certain cancers and found that indeed those risks do not exist.
To tell the story of the health benefits associated with cured meats, Loos has hired a mobile media truck to drive around St. Louis on the day of the All-Star game with a billboard that simply reads, “Cured Meats for Healthy Heartbeats”. The mobile billboard will feature a young consumer enjoying a tasty and “healthy” hot dog, he said. Read More
Two of the things that make summer so great is baseball and grilling brats and hot dogs on the grill. This year’s midsummer classic is being played in St. Louis and our friend Trent Loos is taking this opportunity to show these baseball fans that cured meats are good for your heart. It’s unfortunate that consumers are normally showered with anti-meat messages by groups with hidden agendas. Livestock producers everywhere need to be educating themselves on the health benefits of a diet that includes meat and dairy products and then share it with everyone. Thanks for your hard work Trent.
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Six Principles of Animal Rights
New animal rights book on its way
July 8, 12:31 PM
While I was promising one free affectionate jab to the chin every hour for one person using the "#vegansgetiton" tag on Twitter, animal rights law professor Gary L. Francione not only started a long-awaited twitter account but announced the release of his newest book, "The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation". Click the above image to retweet on Twitter.
Professor Francione is best known for pioneering the Abolitionist Approach which is best explained by the six principles of the animal rights movement:
The Six Principles of the Animal Rights Position
1. The animal rights position maintains that all sentient beings, humans or nonhumans, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others.
2. Our recognition of the one basic right means that we must abolish, and not merely regulate, institutionalized animal exploitation—because it assumes that animals are the property of humans.
3. Just as we reject racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism, we reject speciesism. The species of a sentient being is no more reason to deny the protection of this basic right than race, sex, age, or sexual orientation is a reason to deny membership in the human moral community to other humans.
4. We recognize that we will not abolish overnight the property status of nonhumans, but we will support only those campaigns and positions that explicitly promote the abolitionist agenda. We will not support positions that call for supposedly “improved” regulation of animal exploitation. We reject any campaign that promotes sexism, racism, heterosexism or other forms of discrimination against humans.
5. We recognize that the most important step that any of us can take toward abolition is to adopt the vegan lifestyle and to educate others about veganism. Veganism is the principle of abolition applied to one’s personal life and the consumption of any meat, fowl, fish, or dairy product, or the wearing or use of animal products, is inconsistent with the abolitionist perspective.
6. We recognize the principle of nonviolence as the guiding principle of the animal rights movement.
Read More
This pattern of thinking is the same one that suggests that the life of your child is of no more value than that of an ant. Francione advocates that just as our society should look past gender and race, we should also look past what type of species something is. Not only is this completely ridiculous, but it is also very sad that Francione values humans so little. If he was forced to decide whether to save a mouse or a child from a burning building, it’s scary to think what he might choose.
July 8, 12:31 PM
While I was promising one free affectionate jab to the chin every hour for one person using the "#vegansgetiton" tag on Twitter, animal rights law professor Gary L. Francione not only started a long-awaited twitter account but announced the release of his newest book, "The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation". Click the above image to retweet on Twitter.
Professor Francione is best known for pioneering the Abolitionist Approach which is best explained by the six principles of the animal rights movement:
The Six Principles of the Animal Rights Position
1. The animal rights position maintains that all sentient beings, humans or nonhumans, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others.
2. Our recognition of the one basic right means that we must abolish, and not merely regulate, institutionalized animal exploitation—because it assumes that animals are the property of humans.
3. Just as we reject racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism, we reject speciesism. The species of a sentient being is no more reason to deny the protection of this basic right than race, sex, age, or sexual orientation is a reason to deny membership in the human moral community to other humans.
4. We recognize that we will not abolish overnight the property status of nonhumans, but we will support only those campaigns and positions that explicitly promote the abolitionist agenda. We will not support positions that call for supposedly “improved” regulation of animal exploitation. We reject any campaign that promotes sexism, racism, heterosexism or other forms of discrimination against humans.
5. We recognize that the most important step that any of us can take toward abolition is to adopt the vegan lifestyle and to educate others about veganism. Veganism is the principle of abolition applied to one’s personal life and the consumption of any meat, fowl, fish, or dairy product, or the wearing or use of animal products, is inconsistent with the abolitionist perspective.
6. We recognize the principle of nonviolence as the guiding principle of the animal rights movement.
Read More
This pattern of thinking is the same one that suggests that the life of your child is of no more value than that of an ant. Francione advocates that just as our society should look past gender and race, we should also look past what type of species something is. Not only is this completely ridiculous, but it is also very sad that Francione values humans so little. If he was forced to decide whether to save a mouse or a child from a burning building, it’s scary to think what he might choose.
Sierra Club's War On Affordable Electricity
Utah coal plant scuttled, 100th in U.S. since 2002
Thu Jul 9, 2009 11:23am EDT
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Intermountain Power Agency said on Thursday it will not continue efforts to seek an air permit for a third 900-megawatt coal-fired power unit at its plant in Utah.
The Sierra Club said the once-proposed Unit 3 at the Intermountain power station 120 miles southwest of Salt Lake City is the 100th coal-fired power plant to be scuttled since 2002.
IPA spokesman John Ward said allowing an application for an air permit to expire was a formality as plans for the plant have not been viable since 2007 when the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) pulled out of the project.
There are no plans to stop production of the existing two units at Intermountain, which produce 1,800 MW of power.
"More than 400 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution, a main cause of global warming, have been kept out of the air annually as a result of stopping these 100 plants," said a Sierra Club statement issued Thursday. Read More
The Sierra Club continues their war on affordable electricity. It’s interesting that they endlessly brag about stopping coal plants from being built, but I never see the progress they are making to replace them. Where is our electricity going to come from? With their plans, electricity may very well become a luxury that only the wealthy can afford. They continue to say they want renewable energy, but that’s as far as it goes. It must be a hard way to go through life being against everything. The sad part is that hard working families will be the ones that suffer for the Sierra Club’s actions. Remember, a tree doesn't think CO2 is a poison.
Thu Jul 9, 2009 11:23am EDT
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Intermountain Power Agency said on Thursday it will not continue efforts to seek an air permit for a third 900-megawatt coal-fired power unit at its plant in Utah.
The Sierra Club said the once-proposed Unit 3 at the Intermountain power station 120 miles southwest of Salt Lake City is the 100th coal-fired power plant to be scuttled since 2002.
IPA spokesman John Ward said allowing an application for an air permit to expire was a formality as plans for the plant have not been viable since 2007 when the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) pulled out of the project.
There are no plans to stop production of the existing two units at Intermountain, which produce 1,800 MW of power.
"More than 400 million tons of carbon dioxide pollution, a main cause of global warming, have been kept out of the air annually as a result of stopping these 100 plants," said a Sierra Club statement issued Thursday. Read More
The Sierra Club continues their war on affordable electricity. It’s interesting that they endlessly brag about stopping coal plants from being built, but I never see the progress they are making to replace them. Where is our electricity going to come from? With their plans, electricity may very well become a luxury that only the wealthy can afford. They continue to say they want renewable energy, but that’s as far as it goes. It must be a hard way to go through life being against everything. The sad part is that hard working families will be the ones that suffer for the Sierra Club’s actions. Remember, a tree doesn't think CO2 is a poison.
Hunting is Green
HOW GREEN IS HUNTING?
Thursday, July 09, 2009
By Jason Gurskis
Killing wild animals doesn't seem so eco-friendly at first.
History shows us that hunters were the ones who decimated the bison population across North America and made the passenger pigeon extinct. Lead ammunition left behind after a hunt can cause waterfowl to become sick.
And in many cases, the hunting of predator species such as grizzly bears and wolves has left prey species dangerously overpopulated.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there were more than 12.5 million active hunters over the age of 16 in the United States as of 2006. They definitely have to have a large impact on the environment -- but that is not necessarily a bad thing.
"Hunters are the most conservation-friendly people out there. They are good stewards of the environment," said Joe Hosmer, vice president of the Safari Club International, a foundation recognized as a worldwide leader in wildlife-conservation and education programs.
And some environmentalists agree.
"Done properly, with proper regulation and wildlife management, hunting can be very 'green,'" says Douglas Inkley, a wildlife biologist who holds the position of senior scientist at the National Wildlife Federation. Read More
Hunting and proper wildlife management is the reason that wildlife populations continue to stay healthy. To advocate for the end of hunting, like PETA and HSUS do, is to advocate for disease and starvation as a management tool. That’s what happens to species that become overpopulated. For life to be successful on this planet, it requires death to occur.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
By Jason Gurskis
Killing wild animals doesn't seem so eco-friendly at first.
History shows us that hunters were the ones who decimated the bison population across North America and made the passenger pigeon extinct. Lead ammunition left behind after a hunt can cause waterfowl to become sick.
And in many cases, the hunting of predator species such as grizzly bears and wolves has left prey species dangerously overpopulated.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there were more than 12.5 million active hunters over the age of 16 in the United States as of 2006. They definitely have to have a large impact on the environment -- but that is not necessarily a bad thing.
"Hunters are the most conservation-friendly people out there. They are good stewards of the environment," said Joe Hosmer, vice president of the Safari Club International, a foundation recognized as a worldwide leader in wildlife-conservation and education programs.
And some environmentalists agree.
"Done properly, with proper regulation and wildlife management, hunting can be very 'green,'" says Douglas Inkley, a wildlife biologist who holds the position of senior scientist at the National Wildlife Federation. Read More
Hunting and proper wildlife management is the reason that wildlife populations continue to stay healthy. To advocate for the end of hunting, like PETA and HSUS do, is to advocate for disease and starvation as a management tool. That’s what happens to species that become overpopulated. For life to be successful on this planet, it requires death to occur.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Chemicals Improve Sweet Corn's Nutrition
First Evidence That Weed Killers Improve Nutritional Value Of A Key Food Crop
ScienceDaily (July 9, 2009) — Scientists are reporting for the first time that the use of weed killers in farmers' fields boosts the nutritional value of an important food a crop. Application of two common herbicides to several varieties of sweet corn significantly increased the amount of key nutrients termed carotenoids in the corn kernels, according to a new study.
In the new study, Dean Kopsell and colleagues note that farmers grow about 240,000 acres of sweet corn in the United States each year, making it an important food crop. Corn is among only a few vegetable crops that are good sources of zeaxanthin carotenoids. Consuming carotenoid-rich vegetables may reduce the risk of age-related macular degeneration (a leading cause of vision loss among older people), heart disease, and cancer, the study notes.
The scientists exposed several varieties of sweet corn plants to the herbicide mesotrione or a combination of mesotrione and atrazine, another commonly used weed killer, and harvested mature corn 45 days later. Herbicide applications made the corn an even-better source of carotenoids, boosting levels in the mature kernels of some varieties by up to 15 percent. It specifically increased levels of lutein and zeaxanthin, the major carotenoids in sweet corn kernels, which studies have linked to a reduced risk of age-related macular degeneration.
Link
Journal reference:
Kopsell et al. Increase in Nutritionally Important Sweet Corn Kernel Carotenoids following Mesotrione and Atrazine Applications. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2009; 090619124509017 DOI: 10.1021/jf9013313
We are constantly told by detractors of modern agriculture that the use of chemicals is dangerous to our health and the environment. While it may be fun for some people to spread doom and gloom, the truth is a much different story. Chemicals have been an extremely safe and useful tool for producing food. Now it appears that it can also improve the nutrition of the food we are eating. Sweet corn is everyone's favorite food and now thanks to these weed killing chemicals, it's even better for you too.
ScienceDaily (July 9, 2009) — Scientists are reporting for the first time that the use of weed killers in farmers' fields boosts the nutritional value of an important food a crop. Application of two common herbicides to several varieties of sweet corn significantly increased the amount of key nutrients termed carotenoids in the corn kernels, according to a new study.
In the new study, Dean Kopsell and colleagues note that farmers grow about 240,000 acres of sweet corn in the United States each year, making it an important food crop. Corn is among only a few vegetable crops that are good sources of zeaxanthin carotenoids. Consuming carotenoid-rich vegetables may reduce the risk of age-related macular degeneration (a leading cause of vision loss among older people), heart disease, and cancer, the study notes.
The scientists exposed several varieties of sweet corn plants to the herbicide mesotrione or a combination of mesotrione and atrazine, another commonly used weed killer, and harvested mature corn 45 days later. Herbicide applications made the corn an even-better source of carotenoids, boosting levels in the mature kernels of some varieties by up to 15 percent. It specifically increased levels of lutein and zeaxanthin, the major carotenoids in sweet corn kernels, which studies have linked to a reduced risk of age-related macular degeneration.
Link
Journal reference:
Kopsell et al. Increase in Nutritionally Important Sweet Corn Kernel Carotenoids following Mesotrione and Atrazine Applications. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2009; 090619124509017 DOI: 10.1021/jf9013313
We are constantly told by detractors of modern agriculture that the use of chemicals is dangerous to our health and the environment. While it may be fun for some people to spread doom and gloom, the truth is a much different story. Chemicals have been an extremely safe and useful tool for producing food. Now it appears that it can also improve the nutrition of the food we are eating. Sweet corn is everyone's favorite food and now thanks to these weed killing chemicals, it's even better for you too.
Prop 2 Clarification Bill Dropped
Lawmaker to drop California bill on hen cages
By Jim Downing jdowning@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Jul. 9, 2009 - 12:00 am Page 6B
A legislative attempt to make peace in the state's chicken-house wars is fizzling, meaning the dispute between California egg farmers and the Humane Society of the United States over the interpretation of Proposition 2 is unlikely to be resolved this year.
This week, both sides announced their opposition to Assembly Bill 1437, which would assign the state Department of Public Health to write rules specifying what living quarters are acceptable for the state's egg-laying hens.
"It appears that I have found the sour spot that both sides don't like," said Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, the bill's author. Huffman's district includes large egg producers as well as an electorate that overwhelmingly supported Proposition 2.
The measure passed by a 27-point margin in November, making California the first state to guarantee its hens enough space to spread their wings.
The measure, which takes effect in 2015, likely prohibits today's standard housing practices, in which eight birds share a cage with roughly 4 square feet of floor space. But it doesn't explicitly ban all hen cages, and egg farmers have been pushing for legislation that would give them the right to use larger enclosures, such as the roughly 60-square-foot structures used on some European farms. Read More
The debacle that is Prop 2 in California continues. The voters passed this proposition without knowing what it says. No one can agree on what the language requires farmers to do. If you think this happened by accident, think again. The language was very intentional on the part of HSUS. The uncertainty will force these family farmers to exit the business, which is exactly what they want. Their ultimate goal of eliminating animal agriculture is being achieved in California.
By Jim Downing jdowning@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Jul. 9, 2009 - 12:00 am Page 6B
A legislative attempt to make peace in the state's chicken-house wars is fizzling, meaning the dispute between California egg farmers and the Humane Society of the United States over the interpretation of Proposition 2 is unlikely to be resolved this year.
This week, both sides announced their opposition to Assembly Bill 1437, which would assign the state Department of Public Health to write rules specifying what living quarters are acceptable for the state's egg-laying hens.
"It appears that I have found the sour spot that both sides don't like," said Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, the bill's author. Huffman's district includes large egg producers as well as an electorate that overwhelmingly supported Proposition 2.
The measure passed by a 27-point margin in November, making California the first state to guarantee its hens enough space to spread their wings.
The measure, which takes effect in 2015, likely prohibits today's standard housing practices, in which eight birds share a cage with roughly 4 square feet of floor space. But it doesn't explicitly ban all hen cages, and egg farmers have been pushing for legislation that would give them the right to use larger enclosures, such as the roughly 60-square-foot structures used on some European farms. Read More
The debacle that is Prop 2 in California continues. The voters passed this proposition without knowing what it says. No one can agree on what the language requires farmers to do. If you think this happened by accident, think again. The language was very intentional on the part of HSUS. The uncertainty will force these family farmers to exit the business, which is exactly what they want. Their ultimate goal of eliminating animal agriculture is being achieved in California.
Chef Claims Knowledge of Beef Production
Flip for a new American burger
by Channon Mondoux Special to BE Healthy
Wednesday July 08, 2009, 10:00 AM
The hamburger has become, unquestionably, the icon of American food. But is our icon today the delicious, fresh beef burger that got the tradition started?
If we could go back to the birth of the burger in 1885, we'd find beef from cattle raised on grass, most likely living in a pasture. In the 1950s the advent of chemical fertilizer began a significant change in the way cattle were raised. Surplus grain made it more economical to raise cattle in feedlots than on a pasture. In large Confined Animal Feeding Operations, crowded cattle often stand in their own waste, are fed antibiotics to fend off infection and eat mainly a grain-based diet that compromises their ability to fight illness.
Today, one pound of beef can contain meat from hundreds of different carcasses. Concern is spreading not only for the health and well-being of the cattle, but also for the people who ingest their meat. It's time to reclaim our right to a delicious and healthy burger! Read More
It’s very apparent that for today’s critics of modern agriculture, they are only interested in regurgitating someone else’s words rather than do their own research. This article is a perfect example of that. Obviously the author has just tried to repeat someone else’s unresearched information. She states that a cattle on a mainly grain based diet have their ability to fight illness compromised. I would like to see her cite a source for this. Their diet is not causing their immune system to fail. Also, if the beef industry went back to the 1950’s production methods, we would need an additional 165 million acres of land. Finally, to suggest that beef from a grass-fed system is more delicious and healthy would only be an opinion, and one that I would disagree with. She claims that concern for the well-being of the cattle is growing. Maybe so for her, but my family has been concerned with their well-being for the past five generations.
by Channon Mondoux Special to BE Healthy
Wednesday July 08, 2009, 10:00 AM
The hamburger has become, unquestionably, the icon of American food. But is our icon today the delicious, fresh beef burger that got the tradition started?
If we could go back to the birth of the burger in 1885, we'd find beef from cattle raised on grass, most likely living in a pasture. In the 1950s the advent of chemical fertilizer began a significant change in the way cattle were raised. Surplus grain made it more economical to raise cattle in feedlots than on a pasture. In large Confined Animal Feeding Operations, crowded cattle often stand in their own waste, are fed antibiotics to fend off infection and eat mainly a grain-based diet that compromises their ability to fight illness.
Today, one pound of beef can contain meat from hundreds of different carcasses. Concern is spreading not only for the health and well-being of the cattle, but also for the people who ingest their meat. It's time to reclaim our right to a delicious and healthy burger! Read More
It’s very apparent that for today’s critics of modern agriculture, they are only interested in regurgitating someone else’s words rather than do their own research. This article is a perfect example of that. Obviously the author has just tried to repeat someone else’s unresearched information. She states that a cattle on a mainly grain based diet have their ability to fight illness compromised. I would like to see her cite a source for this. Their diet is not causing their immune system to fail. Also, if the beef industry went back to the 1950’s production methods, we would need an additional 165 million acres of land. Finally, to suggest that beef from a grass-fed system is more delicious and healthy would only be an opinion, and one that I would disagree with. She claims that concern for the well-being of the cattle is growing. Maybe so for her, but my family has been concerned with their well-being for the past five generations.
More Cap & Tax Discussion
Agriculture lobby blew it on cap and trade
Mark Hillman, guest editorial
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Once climate-change regulators strangle the economy and carbon-counters turn gas, oil and electricity into expensive luxuries, perhaps American farmers will recognize how “our friends” in Washington, D.C., sold us out in the name of political compromise.
Recently, Capitol Hill’s agriculture lobby had a choice: withhold support from the Waxman-Markey climate control bill or agree to a compromise that provides cover to rural district Democrats who support it.
Without those rural votes, Waxman-Markey was bound for the shredder. With those votes, it garnered just one more vote than the bare minimum needed for passage.
However, the economic illiteracy of agriculture lobby is embarrassing. Waxman-Markey’s threat to farmers and ranchers isn’t limited to the carbon emissions of trucks, tractors and flatulent livestock.
In March, a dozen ag lobbying organizations — including National Association of Wheat Growers and National Farmers Union — agreed on nine “Principles for Greenhouse Gas Legislation.”
Not one of those principles addressed fuel or energy costs. Yet Waxman-Markey will increase electricity rates by an estimated 90 percent and fuel prices by 58 percent, according to Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. The analysis projects cap-and-trade will reduce net farm income by 28 percent by 2012 and 94 percent by 2035, That’s in addition to $1,241 per year that cap-and-tax will add to the average household’s energy bill. Read More
It’s nearly treasonous that the House of Representatives would pass a bill that will affect every aspect of our society without even reading what it says. There are times to compromise and then there are times when we need to stand by our convictions and try preventing this ruinous bill from being passed. Nobody even knows what the goal of the bill is? Are we trying to stop climate change or global warming? Can either of them be stopped? Are people causing either to occur? Leave it to Congress to pass a bill that attempts to fix a problem that might not exist. Just because people like me are urging the Senate to vote no on this bill, doesn’t mean we aren’t at the table on this process.
Mark Hillman, guest editorial
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Once climate-change regulators strangle the economy and carbon-counters turn gas, oil and electricity into expensive luxuries, perhaps American farmers will recognize how “our friends” in Washington, D.C., sold us out in the name of political compromise.
Recently, Capitol Hill’s agriculture lobby had a choice: withhold support from the Waxman-Markey climate control bill or agree to a compromise that provides cover to rural district Democrats who support it.
Without those rural votes, Waxman-Markey was bound for the shredder. With those votes, it garnered just one more vote than the bare minimum needed for passage.
However, the economic illiteracy of agriculture lobby is embarrassing. Waxman-Markey’s threat to farmers and ranchers isn’t limited to the carbon emissions of trucks, tractors and flatulent livestock.
In March, a dozen ag lobbying organizations — including National Association of Wheat Growers and National Farmers Union — agreed on nine “Principles for Greenhouse Gas Legislation.”
Not one of those principles addressed fuel or energy costs. Yet Waxman-Markey will increase electricity rates by an estimated 90 percent and fuel prices by 58 percent, according to Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. The analysis projects cap-and-trade will reduce net farm income by 28 percent by 2012 and 94 percent by 2035, That’s in addition to $1,241 per year that cap-and-tax will add to the average household’s energy bill. Read More
It’s nearly treasonous that the House of Representatives would pass a bill that will affect every aspect of our society without even reading what it says. There are times to compromise and then there are times when we need to stand by our convictions and try preventing this ruinous bill from being passed. Nobody even knows what the goal of the bill is? Are we trying to stop climate change or global warming? Can either of them be stopped? Are people causing either to occur? Leave it to Congress to pass a bill that attempts to fix a problem that might not exist. Just because people like me are urging the Senate to vote no on this bill, doesn’t mean we aren’t at the table on this process.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Defining Sustainable Agriculture
Defining ‘Sustainable Agriculture’
By Jared Flesher
Bloomberg News
Agreeing on a definition of “sustainable agriculture” is easier said than done.
Conventional farmers, organic farmers, giant agribusiness companies, environmentalists — all have varying views on what “sustainable agriculture” really means.
Perhaps not for long.
The Leonardo Academy, an environmental think tank in Madison, Wis., is busy refereeing a debate over a new “National Sustainable Agriculture Standard,” under the guidelines of the American National Standards Institute.
One outcome of this effort could be a new “sustainable agriculture” label stamped on food — similar to the way some food is now marketed as organic. It could also create a system that rewards farmers for doing things like reducing the amount of nitrogen fertilizer they use.
In late May, members of the 58-member standards committee met in St. Charles, Ill., to make the first decisions about the scope of the voluntary standards they hope to create. The committee includes a variety of stakeholders like the National Corn Growers Association, General Mills, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and American Farmland Trust.
One early point of contention has been genetically modified crops. Read More
The word sustainable is defined as using a resource in a way so that the resource isn’t depleted. So if the resource in question is food, then it shouldn’t matter if the crop in question has been genetically modified. Sustainable agriculture should be defined as the ability to grow enough food to feed everyone and to make enough profit so the farmer can continue in business. Putting the emphasis on anything less becomes insignificant.
By Jared Flesher
Bloomberg News
Agreeing on a definition of “sustainable agriculture” is easier said than done.
Conventional farmers, organic farmers, giant agribusiness companies, environmentalists — all have varying views on what “sustainable agriculture” really means.
Perhaps not for long.
The Leonardo Academy, an environmental think tank in Madison, Wis., is busy refereeing a debate over a new “National Sustainable Agriculture Standard,” under the guidelines of the American National Standards Institute.
One outcome of this effort could be a new “sustainable agriculture” label stamped on food — similar to the way some food is now marketed as organic. It could also create a system that rewards farmers for doing things like reducing the amount of nitrogen fertilizer they use.
In late May, members of the 58-member standards committee met in St. Charles, Ill., to make the first decisions about the scope of the voluntary standards they hope to create. The committee includes a variety of stakeholders like the National Corn Growers Association, General Mills, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and American Farmland Trust.
One early point of contention has been genetically modified crops. Read More
The word sustainable is defined as using a resource in a way so that the resource isn’t depleted. So if the resource in question is food, then it shouldn’t matter if the crop in question has been genetically modified. Sustainable agriculture should be defined as the ability to grow enough food to feed everyone and to make enough profit so the farmer can continue in business. Putting the emphasis on anything less becomes insignificant.
More CA Water Wars
Sierra Club Wages Water War With Growers Over Run of Carmel River
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - A long-running feud between growers and environmentalists in California is now centered at the base of the lush Santa Lucia Mountains, where the Carmel River winds through the Monterey Peninsula. Growers want water to alleviate the harsh days of drought and environmentalists are fighting to protect the flow needed by steelhead trout, whose numbers are dropping sharply.
In a federal lawsuit, the Sierra Club and the Carmel River Steelhead Association claim the California American Water Company's unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River is responsible for the steelhead's decline. The groups say that despite their fish-rescue efforts, they cannot "prevent the death of an unknown but presumably large number of juvenile steelhead that perish as flows decline."
Growers say that environmentalists are naïve to blame them for the decreased fish populations.
"Certain environmental groups argue that certain fish species are endangered and that requires a change in the water policy in our state. Their solution is to flush more water out to the ocean and all will be good," says Joel Nelson, president of California Citrus Mutual, a growers' association.
But restricted water flow leads to crop shortages, higher produce prices, fallow land and unemployment, said Nelson, who has been in the agriculture industry for 25 years.
"But most parties are unwilling from the environmental community to connect the dots. I have my biases, but we've always been able to work issues out before, until now. You can't stop watering certain parts of the state and expect the state to survive," he said. Read More
Arguments over water are nothing new. However, the arguments today normally pit farmers and their ability to grow food for people to eat against environmentalists that seem to value things other than people or food production. It’s important to remember that no one in agriculture is advocating letting any type of species go extinct. Obviously that’s not a good option. But neither is forcing farmers from their land and causing food shortages. People need to understand that we have a very limited supply of food on this planet. When land is taken out of production it can’t be replaced somewhere else. The world just has to get by with less available land. There is plenty of water on this planet, we just need to do a better job storing it and prioritizing how it’s used.
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - A long-running feud between growers and environmentalists in California is now centered at the base of the lush Santa Lucia Mountains, where the Carmel River winds through the Monterey Peninsula. Growers want water to alleviate the harsh days of drought and environmentalists are fighting to protect the flow needed by steelhead trout, whose numbers are dropping sharply.
In a federal lawsuit, the Sierra Club and the Carmel River Steelhead Association claim the California American Water Company's unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River is responsible for the steelhead's decline. The groups say that despite their fish-rescue efforts, they cannot "prevent the death of an unknown but presumably large number of juvenile steelhead that perish as flows decline."
Growers say that environmentalists are naïve to blame them for the decreased fish populations.
"Certain environmental groups argue that certain fish species are endangered and that requires a change in the water policy in our state. Their solution is to flush more water out to the ocean and all will be good," says Joel Nelson, president of California Citrus Mutual, a growers' association.
But restricted water flow leads to crop shortages, higher produce prices, fallow land and unemployment, said Nelson, who has been in the agriculture industry for 25 years.
"But most parties are unwilling from the environmental community to connect the dots. I have my biases, but we've always been able to work issues out before, until now. You can't stop watering certain parts of the state and expect the state to survive," he said. Read More
Arguments over water are nothing new. However, the arguments today normally pit farmers and their ability to grow food for people to eat against environmentalists that seem to value things other than people or food production. It’s important to remember that no one in agriculture is advocating letting any type of species go extinct. Obviously that’s not a good option. But neither is forcing farmers from their land and causing food shortages. People need to understand that we have a very limited supply of food on this planet. When land is taken out of production it can’t be replaced somewhere else. The world just has to get by with less available land. There is plenty of water on this planet, we just need to do a better job storing it and prioritizing how it’s used.
Dealing With Misinformation
Standing by your convictions in a world gone askew
By ERIN SLIVKA, Columnist
Monday, July 6, 2009 3:35 PM MDT
Everyone worries about their children’s futures, and I am no exception. I worry about the first time one of them drives away from the yard on their own. I pray that they will be wise when selecting a spouse. I hope that they will be hard workers and dependable friends.
One of the greatest challenges I foresee our children facing is standing firm in their convictions and learning to verify sources of information before evaluating its truth. In this age of information overload, too few people stop to consider the source before believing and reacting to a news report, a forwarded e-mail, or a sound byte.
A perfect opportunity to illustrate this phenomenon with my children was the day my second grader came home from school and said we had to stop eating bacon because we were all going to get the swine flu and die. Someone at school had shared that information with her, but she could not recall who it was or where they had heard it. I set her straight and also took the opportunity to teach all the kids that not all sources are valid and trustworthy. Even textbooks and kids’ news magazines have an evident bias from time to time, and instead of protesting their use at school, we teach the kids to recognize bias and evaluate their sources before coming to their own conclusions.
Sadly, I know that our kids will be a minority when they leave home as adults. I also realize that our expectation for them to stand firm in their convictions means that they will be swimming against the tide much of the time. Possibly the tide will turn them, and they will join the majority and abandon the way in which they were raised.
The reality is that most of their generation will be more concerned with the welfare of animals than with the welfare of people. They will believe propaganda like that set forth by letsactnow.org, a website devoted to saving the earth by convincing people to switch to a vegetarian diet. When I first arrived at that website, I immediately noticed the sources and supporters, which included Alec Baldwin, Al Gore, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Sierra Club. I realized two points right away: every “fact” on this website would be skewed, and because celebrities like Alec Baldwin and George Clooney were featured on the site, most visitors would believe every word on every page. Read More
As we travel around the country presenting our story and our ideas to promote agriculture, we always spend some time talking about the importance of using accurate sources of information and thinking critically. It’s important for ag producers to carefully listen to what is being said about agriculture in order to expose the faults in their arguments. This article also talks about something that I’m sure all of us parents think about from time to time. With so much negativity being directed toward food producers, what impact does this have on our children as they grow up? We obviously want them to be proud of their ag heritage but in today’s world they are going to run into people that are going to ridicule them for it. Hopefully they will hold their head up high and proudly tell their story.
By ERIN SLIVKA, Columnist
Monday, July 6, 2009 3:35 PM MDT
Everyone worries about their children’s futures, and I am no exception. I worry about the first time one of them drives away from the yard on their own. I pray that they will be wise when selecting a spouse. I hope that they will be hard workers and dependable friends.
One of the greatest challenges I foresee our children facing is standing firm in their convictions and learning to verify sources of information before evaluating its truth. In this age of information overload, too few people stop to consider the source before believing and reacting to a news report, a forwarded e-mail, or a sound byte.
A perfect opportunity to illustrate this phenomenon with my children was the day my second grader came home from school and said we had to stop eating bacon because we were all going to get the swine flu and die. Someone at school had shared that information with her, but she could not recall who it was or where they had heard it. I set her straight and also took the opportunity to teach all the kids that not all sources are valid and trustworthy. Even textbooks and kids’ news magazines have an evident bias from time to time, and instead of protesting their use at school, we teach the kids to recognize bias and evaluate their sources before coming to their own conclusions.
Sadly, I know that our kids will be a minority when they leave home as adults. I also realize that our expectation for them to stand firm in their convictions means that they will be swimming against the tide much of the time. Possibly the tide will turn them, and they will join the majority and abandon the way in which they were raised.
The reality is that most of their generation will be more concerned with the welfare of animals than with the welfare of people. They will believe propaganda like that set forth by letsactnow.org, a website devoted to saving the earth by convincing people to switch to a vegetarian diet. When I first arrived at that website, I immediately noticed the sources and supporters, which included Alec Baldwin, Al Gore, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Sierra Club. I realized two points right away: every “fact” on this website would be skewed, and because celebrities like Alec Baldwin and George Clooney were featured on the site, most visitors would believe every word on every page. Read More
As we travel around the country presenting our story and our ideas to promote agriculture, we always spend some time talking about the importance of using accurate sources of information and thinking critically. It’s important for ag producers to carefully listen to what is being said about agriculture in order to expose the faults in their arguments. This article also talks about something that I’m sure all of us parents think about from time to time. With so much negativity being directed toward food producers, what impact does this have on our children as they grow up? We obviously want them to be proud of their ag heritage but in today’s world they are going to run into people that are going to ridicule them for it. Hopefully they will hold their head up high and proudly tell their story.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
City Doctor Suing Farmer For Feeding Cows
Hagemann Case Headed for SD Supreme Court
Dispute over winter feedyard continues for small producer.
By: Lon Tonneson
Published: Jul 6, 2009
James Hagemann's case is going to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
Hagemann, Winfred, S.D., operates Hagemann Red Angus. He was sued because runoff from his winter feed yard allegedly ended up his one of his neighbors' ponds.
The Alvine Family Limited Partnership, Sioux Falls, S.D., owns land across the township road from a feed yard that Hagemann rented. The partnership claimed that the runoff polluted the ponds on land it had bought and developed for hunting and recreation. The partnership wanted Hagemann to build a lagoon to contain the runoff or to remove the cattle from the site. It also wanted Hagemann to pay clean up costs.
Hagemann moved the cattle before the trial in March, but didn't agree to build a lagoon or pay the $20,000 that partnership sought. The case went to a jury in district court in Madison, S.D., and the Alvine Family Limited Partnership lost. But it recently filed an appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Mark Meierhenry, Hagemann's attorney, calls the case "stunning" and "kind of important for agriculture."
Hagemann runs just 110 cows on pasture. He doesn't operating a CAFO. He followed - even exceeded - state and county requirements for manure management. The land, Meierhenry says, was being used in its natural state. Read More
This case has been a classic example of someone moving out in the country and then being upset about life in the country. This case is a little different than some because this doesn’t involve a full time feeding operation. The Sioux Falls doctor is upset because there were 110 head of cows being wintered next to him. Cattle have always been wintered in this particular pasture prior to the Alvine Family buying the adjoining property. If the state Supreme Court would rule in favor of the moved in doctor, it could endanger the ability of ranchers to feed cows during the winter in any type of situation. I think this doctor forgot that the first requirement for a healthy body is a food source.
Dispute over winter feedyard continues for small producer.
By: Lon Tonneson
Published: Jul 6, 2009
James Hagemann's case is going to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
Hagemann, Winfred, S.D., operates Hagemann Red Angus. He was sued because runoff from his winter feed yard allegedly ended up his one of his neighbors' ponds.
The Alvine Family Limited Partnership, Sioux Falls, S.D., owns land across the township road from a feed yard that Hagemann rented. The partnership claimed that the runoff polluted the ponds on land it had bought and developed for hunting and recreation. The partnership wanted Hagemann to build a lagoon to contain the runoff or to remove the cattle from the site. It also wanted Hagemann to pay clean up costs.
Hagemann moved the cattle before the trial in March, but didn't agree to build a lagoon or pay the $20,000 that partnership sought. The case went to a jury in district court in Madison, S.D., and the Alvine Family Limited Partnership lost. But it recently filed an appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Mark Meierhenry, Hagemann's attorney, calls the case "stunning" and "kind of important for agriculture."
Hagemann runs just 110 cows on pasture. He doesn't operating a CAFO. He followed - even exceeded - state and county requirements for manure management. The land, Meierhenry says, was being used in its natural state. Read More
This case has been a classic example of someone moving out in the country and then being upset about life in the country. This case is a little different than some because this doesn’t involve a full time feeding operation. The Sioux Falls doctor is upset because there were 110 head of cows being wintered next to him. Cattle have always been wintered in this particular pasture prior to the Alvine Family buying the adjoining property. If the state Supreme Court would rule in favor of the moved in doctor, it could endanger the ability of ranchers to feed cows during the winter in any type of situation. I think this doctor forgot that the first requirement for a healthy body is a food source.
Sustainable Farm Uses Unsustainable Practices
Field-to-plate: VT college students try farming
By LISA RATHKE – 1 day ago
POULTNEY, Vt. (AP) — Devin Lyons typically starts his days this summer cooking fresh eggs for breakfast from the farm's chicken coop. Then, depending on the weather, he and a dozen other college students might cut hay in the field using a team of oxen, turn compost or weed vegetable beds.
While other college students are in stuffy classrooms, about a dozen are earning credit tending a Vermont farm. For 13 weeks, 12 credits and about $12,500, the Green Mountain College
students plow fields with oxen or horses, milk cows, weed crops and grow and make their own food, part of an intensive course in sustainable agriculture using the least amount of fossil fuels.
"Lots of schools study sustainable agriculture but I don't think any of them put it into practice," said spokesman Kevin Coburn.
There are no tractors on the 22 acres next to the brick campus of the small liberal arts college on the edge of the town — just two teams of oxen, and goats, pigs, two cows, and chickens. Read More
There have been several articles that I have read in the last six months that were similar to this. They normally highlight a small college that is offering what amounts to a gardening class. This one is trying to use very little fossil fuel. They seem to be accomplishing that by using livestock to pull equipment and a lot of human labor. On the surface, I’m sure it sounds romantic to some people, but is this the most efficient way to grow food? In my opinion I would say no. While they may be using less fuel, they are also practicing some soil damaging practices such as plowing which causes the release of vast amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere, lost soil moisture and soil erosion. Also, if they are relying on this as their sole source of food, they are one crop failure or natural disaster away from starvation. It’s great that people are learning about food production, but they need to realize this probably isn’t the best way to do it.
By LISA RATHKE – 1 day ago
POULTNEY, Vt. (AP) — Devin Lyons typically starts his days this summer cooking fresh eggs for breakfast from the farm's chicken coop. Then, depending on the weather, he and a dozen other college students might cut hay in the field using a team of oxen, turn compost or weed vegetable beds.
While other college students are in stuffy classrooms, about a dozen are earning credit tending a Vermont farm. For 13 weeks, 12 credits and about $12,500, the Green Mountain College
students plow fields with oxen or horses, milk cows, weed crops and grow and make their own food, part of an intensive course in sustainable agriculture using the least amount of fossil fuels.
"Lots of schools study sustainable agriculture but I don't think any of them put it into practice," said spokesman Kevin Coburn.
There are no tractors on the 22 acres next to the brick campus of the small liberal arts college on the edge of the town — just two teams of oxen, and goats, pigs, two cows, and chickens. Read More
There have been several articles that I have read in the last six months that were similar to this. They normally highlight a small college that is offering what amounts to a gardening class. This one is trying to use very little fossil fuel. They seem to be accomplishing that by using livestock to pull equipment and a lot of human labor. On the surface, I’m sure it sounds romantic to some people, but is this the most efficient way to grow food? In my opinion I would say no. While they may be using less fuel, they are also practicing some soil damaging practices such as plowing which causes the release of vast amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere, lost soil moisture and soil erosion. Also, if they are relying on this as their sole source of food, they are one crop failure or natural disaster away from starvation. It’s great that people are learning about food production, but they need to realize this probably isn’t the best way to do it.
Livestock Stewards Should Decide Welfare Standards
Column: Farmers responsible stewards of livestock
By Bill Bruins
At some point, we as farmers lost ownership of the issue of animal care, and now it’s time we get it back.
Providing good care to the animals on our farms is a second sense within us, because we each have lifetimes of experience doing so. Any good farmer knows that good care also equals profitability. That’s why for years we as farmers have been financing meaningful scientific research through our commodity associations to benefit animals’ behavioral and psychological needs.
Yet, today we find ourselves in a situation where unscrupulous activists want to tell us how to care for our animals. Their extremist mindset and fundraising goals blind them to what research (or common sense) says is actually best for animals.
How did we get to this point? Read More
Mr. Bruins is absolutely right when he states that we need to retake our ownership of the livestock care issue. If we allow people from the HSUS, whose only interaction with farm animals is when there is a photo opportunity to be had, to determine standards of care rather than those of us with generations of experience, the welfare level of livestock will undoubtedly suffer. These groups continue to make their tired argument on an emotional level in order to keep moving towards their ultimate goal of an animal-free society. My six year old son knows more about livestock than all of the upper management at the HSUS combined. He understands the need to keep them protected, fed a nutritious diet and that life involves death. We need to remember that nothing less than the safety and security of our food supply is at stake.
By Bill Bruins
At some point, we as farmers lost ownership of the issue of animal care, and now it’s time we get it back.
Providing good care to the animals on our farms is a second sense within us, because we each have lifetimes of experience doing so. Any good farmer knows that good care also equals profitability. That’s why for years we as farmers have been financing meaningful scientific research through our commodity associations to benefit animals’ behavioral and psychological needs.
Yet, today we find ourselves in a situation where unscrupulous activists want to tell us how to care for our animals. Their extremist mindset and fundraising goals blind them to what research (or common sense) says is actually best for animals.
How did we get to this point? Read More
Mr. Bruins is absolutely right when he states that we need to retake our ownership of the livestock care issue. If we allow people from the HSUS, whose only interaction with farm animals is when there is a photo opportunity to be had, to determine standards of care rather than those of us with generations of experience, the welfare level of livestock will undoubtedly suffer. These groups continue to make their tired argument on an emotional level in order to keep moving towards their ultimate goal of an animal-free society. My six year old son knows more about livestock than all of the upper management at the HSUS combined. He understands the need to keep them protected, fed a nutritious diet and that life involves death. We need to remember that nothing less than the safety and security of our food supply is at stake.
Can Ag Afford Cap & Trade?
Climate Bill Long-Term Impacts Should be Brought to Light
By Tracy Taylor Grondine
Mainstream media and critics have recently struck a nerve with not only farmers and ranchers, but many people who serve and benefit from agriculture’s productivity. In a push to pass climate change legislation, the agriculture industry has been painted as greedy and selfish. Some journalists have even reverted to grade-school antics of name-calling and insults.
But, there is a legitimate reason the American Farm Bureau Federation and several other agricultural organizations are opposed to the climate legislation, already passed in the House and now pending in the Senate. Long-term costs of the bill will be substantial not only to agriculture, but the overall economy and will certainly hurt American families.
Most media outlets are only focused on the front-end effects of the climate bill, also known as Waxman-Markey after its sponsors Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.). The energy cost increases generated by the bill will cut farm income by around 5 percent a year by 2020. This economic loss on top of what are already razor-thin margins that many farmers and ranchers are living on today will hurt the industry. But, the effect on agriculture will be more crippling at the back-end of the deal, around 2050. Read More
Tracy says it best when she states that the devil is in the details. The most unfortunate part is that it seems the members of the House didn’t even care enough to read the bill before they voted on it. This bill will cost everyone a lot of money, there is no debating that. The debate should be whether or not spending this money will solve a problem that we aren’t even sure exists. The debate should also be about whether we are willing to sacrifice our domestic food supply during this process.
By Tracy Taylor Grondine
Mainstream media and critics have recently struck a nerve with not only farmers and ranchers, but many people who serve and benefit from agriculture’s productivity. In a push to pass climate change legislation, the agriculture industry has been painted as greedy and selfish. Some journalists have even reverted to grade-school antics of name-calling and insults.
But, there is a legitimate reason the American Farm Bureau Federation and several other agricultural organizations are opposed to the climate legislation, already passed in the House and now pending in the Senate. Long-term costs of the bill will be substantial not only to agriculture, but the overall economy and will certainly hurt American families.
Most media outlets are only focused on the front-end effects of the climate bill, also known as Waxman-Markey after its sponsors Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.). The energy cost increases generated by the bill will cut farm income by around 5 percent a year by 2020. This economic loss on top of what are already razor-thin margins that many farmers and ranchers are living on today will hurt the industry. But, the effect on agriculture will be more crippling at the back-end of the deal, around 2050. Read More
Tracy says it best when she states that the devil is in the details. The most unfortunate part is that it seems the members of the House didn’t even care enough to read the bill before they voted on it. This bill will cost everyone a lot of money, there is no debating that. The debate should be whether or not spending this money will solve a problem that we aren’t even sure exists. The debate should also be about whether we are willing to sacrifice our domestic food supply during this process.
Monday, July 6, 2009
On The Road
After celebrating a fantastic Independence Day with family and friends, we are back on the road this morning. Check back tomorrow when we get back on schedule bringing you daily updates about agriculture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)