Posts
Katie Talking Drugs Man!
2 hours ago
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Katie Couric's Report on Antibiotic Use in Livestock
Watch CBS News Videos Online
Tonight will begin the two part series on CBS News about antibiotic use in livestock. Unfortunately by the looks of the preview, Katie is going to be more interested being an activist rather than a journalist. Just count how many times she uses the undefineable term "factory farm" in this preview.
I am very concerned about "superbugs" and antibiotic resistance, just like everyone else. However, attacking one area of usage, mostly the low hanging fruit, will not help. All of us use products that are designed to kill bacteria every single day. If we want to have a serious discussion about antibiotic resistance, we are going to need to evaluate everything. I will be disappointed if Katie doesn't address that.
This should open up many opportunities for family farmers and ranchers to explain how and why they use antibiotics. Their is a big misconception that all livestock are fed antibiotics all the time. The phrase most commonly used is "they are pumped full of antibiotics". They are just too expensive to do such a thing. I don't know who she refers to everytime she talks about a factory farm, but everyone that I know who raises livestock tries to give them the very best care possible.
That's the story I am looking forward to sharing with people.
Africa Needs Modern Farming
African Farmers Urged to Innovate to Offset Climate Change
February 09, 2010, 02:11 AM EST
Businessweek
By Sarah McGregor
Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Africa’s failure to embrace modern farming methods is a greater impediment to food production than global warming, according to the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Adopting this approach would help the continent offset possible temperature increases of as much as 3 degrees Celsius (37 degrees Fahrenheit), it said, citing conclusions made by computer modeling.
Africa emits less greenhouse gas than any other continent, though it will likely be the hardest hit by climate change because of its dependence on basic agriculture and a lack of funds to adapt to weather extremes.
“Even with a climate-change scenario, Africa could probably double food production with modern techniques,” Cooper said.
One key way the region can prepare for the future impact of climate change is by distributing government-subsidized fertilizer, said Cooper, a crop agronomist. Read More
In this country, we continue to hear from anti-agriculture groups and food elitists that modern farming practices are a horrible, evil thing. Of course they say this with a full stomach, which can’t be said for many of the residents in Africa. Without American farmers and ranchers investing in and embracing new technology for the last 100 years, we would look like Africa. This also highlights how ridiculous Michael Pollan’s theories are. He would like us to abandon our modern farming techniques in favor of farming how we did four generations ago. If you would like to see how well that would work for us, just look at Africa.
February 09, 2010, 02:11 AM EST
Businessweek
By Sarah McGregor
Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Africa’s failure to embrace modern farming methods is a greater impediment to food production than global warming, according to the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Adopting this approach would help the continent offset possible temperature increases of as much as 3 degrees Celsius (37 degrees Fahrenheit), it said, citing conclusions made by computer modeling.
Africa emits less greenhouse gas than any other continent, though it will likely be the hardest hit by climate change because of its dependence on basic agriculture and a lack of funds to adapt to weather extremes.
“Even with a climate-change scenario, Africa could probably double food production with modern techniques,” Cooper said.
One key way the region can prepare for the future impact of climate change is by distributing government-subsidized fertilizer, said Cooper, a crop agronomist. Read More
In this country, we continue to hear from anti-agriculture groups and food elitists that modern farming practices are a horrible, evil thing. Of course they say this with a full stomach, which can’t be said for many of the residents in Africa. Without American farmers and ranchers investing in and embracing new technology for the last 100 years, we would look like Africa. This also highlights how ridiculous Michael Pollan’s theories are. He would like us to abandon our modern farming techniques in favor of farming how we did four generations ago. If you would like to see how well that would work for us, just look at Africa.
Livestock Board Deserves A Chance
February 7, 2010
Livestock board deserves fair chance to set up
Zanesville Times Recorder Editorial
Ohio voters turned away the Humane Society of the United States in November, but the organization is back again.
A committee of the society, Ohioans for Humane Farms, filed a petition with the Ohio Attorney General's office last week to put an anti-cruelty measure on this November's ballot.
Farms rose up against the society last year when it wanted to mandate the care and well-being of livestock and poultry, and their organized efforts led to Issue 2. Voters then approved the issue, which created the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board that will look at and address the issues raised by the society. The time frame and membership of the board clearly were communicated before the November election: The board would form in the spring and its 13 members would be Ohioans, not people from another state who have no vested interest in our food, our farms or our economy.
Well, it's not spring yet, and the society already is starting to peck at the board. As Wayne Pacelle, the society's president and CEO, put it, it wants to help guide the work of the livestock board. If that truly is the case, the society would allow the board time to become operational.
The board could not be formed at the snap of a finger -- it requires legislative action, and the board members must be selected. Ten of the 13 members will be appointed by the governor, with the other appointments coming from the Ohio House and Senate and the Ohio Department of Agriculture. Although the wheels of government often turn slowly, it's in the best interest of every Ohioan to take time to find those individuals who have the required knowledge and dedication for such an undertaking.
The board deserves a fair shot here. It should be allowed an appropriate amount of time to tackle the issues placed before it. Until then, the society should cage itself. Link
The HSUS is so worried about the voter approved Livestock Standards Board that they are trying to control it’s ability to make decisions before it’s even officially formed. They realize that the decisions of mainstream people who are experts in the field of animal husbandry probably won’t match their vegan agenda. As this editorial says, Ohio residents need to reject this out of state effort and let the new board be formed and allow it to function as the voters intended.
~Troy
Livestock board deserves fair chance to set up
Zanesville Times Recorder Editorial
Ohio voters turned away the Humane Society of the United States in November, but the organization is back again.
A committee of the society, Ohioans for Humane Farms, filed a petition with the Ohio Attorney General's office last week to put an anti-cruelty measure on this November's ballot.
Farms rose up against the society last year when it wanted to mandate the care and well-being of livestock and poultry, and their organized efforts led to Issue 2. Voters then approved the issue, which created the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board that will look at and address the issues raised by the society. The time frame and membership of the board clearly were communicated before the November election: The board would form in the spring and its 13 members would be Ohioans, not people from another state who have no vested interest in our food, our farms or our economy.
Well, it's not spring yet, and the society already is starting to peck at the board. As Wayne Pacelle, the society's president and CEO, put it, it wants to help guide the work of the livestock board. If that truly is the case, the society would allow the board time to become operational.
The board could not be formed at the snap of a finger -- it requires legislative action, and the board members must be selected. Ten of the 13 members will be appointed by the governor, with the other appointments coming from the Ohio House and Senate and the Ohio Department of Agriculture. Although the wheels of government often turn slowly, it's in the best interest of every Ohioan to take time to find those individuals who have the required knowledge and dedication for such an undertaking.
The board deserves a fair shot here. It should be allowed an appropriate amount of time to tackle the issues placed before it. Until then, the society should cage itself. Link
The HSUS is so worried about the voter approved Livestock Standards Board that they are trying to control it’s ability to make decisions before it’s even officially formed. They realize that the decisions of mainstream people who are experts in the field of animal husbandry probably won’t match their vegan agenda. As this editorial says, Ohio residents need to reject this out of state effort and let the new board be formed and allow it to function as the voters intended.
~Troy
Making Beef Even Safer
New methods aim to keep E. coli in beef lower all year
By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
The dead of winter may not be the time when most people's thoughts turn toward the allure of a hamburger on the grill. But from a food safety standpoint, it's probably the safest time there is to eat ground beef.
"The theory is that animals are carrying higher levels of E. coli during the summer months, and sometimes they may overwhelm the systems in place to control pathogen contamination in (processing) plants," says James Marsden, a professor of food safety and security at Kansas State University.
Research has been focusing "on how to level out that curve," says Marsden, also senior science adviser to the North American Meat Processors Association.
So industry and researchers are turning their sights to new technologies being deployed on the farm, the feedlot and at the slaughterhouse to knock E. coli O157:H7 down to winter levels all year round.
There's an unconventional mix at the forefront of this fight: bacteria-eating viruses, a paper-bleaching chemical, vaccines and a kind of yogurt for cattle. Read More
I am proud of the fact that I am in involved in the first step of getting high quality beef to the consumer’s plate. Along with that, I am also concerned about keeping our food supply as safe as possible. No matter what type of food you are talking about, all of us need to take precautions to ensure it’s safe to eat. Farmers and ranchers who raise cattle have contributed tens of millions of dollars of their own money over that last several years to find even better ways to ensure beef is safe to eat. We have the safest food supply in the world, but that’s not good enough for us, we want to make it even better. I want to thank this reporter for providing a straight-forward, informational piece highlighting these efforts. It just goes to show that it is possible for reporters to educate people about agriculture and food production without having to scare them out of eating.
By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY
The dead of winter may not be the time when most people's thoughts turn toward the allure of a hamburger on the grill. But from a food safety standpoint, it's probably the safest time there is to eat ground beef.
"The theory is that animals are carrying higher levels of E. coli during the summer months, and sometimes they may overwhelm the systems in place to control pathogen contamination in (processing) plants," says James Marsden, a professor of food safety and security at Kansas State University.
Research has been focusing "on how to level out that curve," says Marsden, also senior science adviser to the North American Meat Processors Association.
So industry and researchers are turning their sights to new technologies being deployed on the farm, the feedlot and at the slaughterhouse to knock E. coli O157:H7 down to winter levels all year round.
There's an unconventional mix at the forefront of this fight: bacteria-eating viruses, a paper-bleaching chemical, vaccines and a kind of yogurt for cattle. Read More
I am proud of the fact that I am in involved in the first step of getting high quality beef to the consumer’s plate. Along with that, I am also concerned about keeping our food supply as safe as possible. No matter what type of food you are talking about, all of us need to take precautions to ensure it’s safe to eat. Farmers and ranchers who raise cattle have contributed tens of millions of dollars of their own money over that last several years to find even better ways to ensure beef is safe to eat. We have the safest food supply in the world, but that’s not good enough for us, we want to make it even better. I want to thank this reporter for providing a straight-forward, informational piece highlighting these efforts. It just goes to show that it is possible for reporters to educate people about agriculture and food production without having to scare them out of eating.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Keep the Advocacy Going!
Read my comments below on how to keep sharing your thoughts on the Yellow Tail donation to HSUS.
Jolley: Five Minutes With The Yellow Tail Fiasco
02/05/2010 10:06AM
Chuck Jolley
Question: After their recent poorly considered donation of $100,000 to HSUS, will Yellow Tail have to high tail it out of the American wine market?
Answer: If the merciless beating they took on social media has any impact, yes.
For those of you who haven’t been following this amazing marketing miscue, Yellow Tail, an Australian winery that’s been very successful in bringing nicely priced, mid-level wines to American consumers, made the colossal mistake of donating 100 large to the Human Society of the United States as part of a “tails for tails” P.R. effort. The idea was Yellow Tails would donate money to help rescue puppies and kittens and such. (Yellow) Tails for (puppy) tails – get it? Clever, huh?
Well, the whole thing went viral in a way they never expected. The ag community, long a target of HSUS, was immediately up in arms. Good red wines, after all, are best enjoyed with a good steak, not a marinated and grilled piece of tofu. Hundreds of people in the ag community or closely affiliated with it, went to Yellow Tail’s Facebook page and becoming fans of the company. They became fans, not to pat them on the back but to kick them a little lower down their anatomy. Within 24 hours hundreds of people had used their ‘fan’ status to ask YT what the hell they were thinking.
I spent an hour browsing through the comments. They have two Facebook pages, by the way, with 2,442 people on one and 1,657 on the other. Although not everyone commented, I found 7 people risking “attaboys” for the donation with the rest offering swift kicks to their Aussie posteriors. Comments like “Don’t drink the yellow water” and “Yellow belly” popped up with some consistency. One creative rancher took his last bottle of Yellow Tail wine out to his pasture, sat it on a fence post and used it for target practice. I saw a few pictures of the familiar YT bottle poised over a toilet, an interesting way to decant a liter of wine. Read More
It’s been an exciting couple of days watching the relentless efforts of farmers, ranchers, hunters, restaurant owners, pet owners and others in telling Yellow Tail that they are not happy about their decision to donate to the vegan animal rights group HSUS. This has been an epic failure and text book example of how NOT to handle social media and an upset customer base. Their apparent strategy now is to hunker down and wait for it to blow over. What they fail to see is that this won’t just blow over. Already this morning, liquor stores and restaurants that serve their products are being asked to stop. The negative impression of Yellow Tail has certainly reached hundreds of thousands of people through the viral nature of social media. A quick Google search of all things Yellow Tail tells the story loud and clear.
So where do we go from here? This is where we take our advocacy to the next level. Like I mentioned before, if you have eating establishments or wine stores in your area that carry their product, go talk to the manager and share with them what has happened and how the HSUS agenda will affect you. What affects you, affects them. That needs to be your message. But don’t stop there. Share with everyone else what you are doing in your local area so we can see the progress that’s being made across the country. There’s a couple of ways I want you to do this. Please share anything you do on the Yellow Tail Facebook page, on the newly formed facebook page Yellow Fail, and on the Advocates for Ag fan page.
All of you have made a difference on this issue. Keep up the good work!
Jolley: Five Minutes With The Yellow Tail Fiasco
02/05/2010 10:06AM
Chuck Jolley
Question: After their recent poorly considered donation of $100,000 to HSUS, will Yellow Tail have to high tail it out of the American wine market?
Answer: If the merciless beating they took on social media has any impact, yes.
For those of you who haven’t been following this amazing marketing miscue, Yellow Tail, an Australian winery that’s been very successful in bringing nicely priced, mid-level wines to American consumers, made the colossal mistake of donating 100 large to the Human Society of the United States as part of a “tails for tails” P.R. effort. The idea was Yellow Tails would donate money to help rescue puppies and kittens and such. (Yellow) Tails for (puppy) tails – get it? Clever, huh?
Well, the whole thing went viral in a way they never expected. The ag community, long a target of HSUS, was immediately up in arms. Good red wines, after all, are best enjoyed with a good steak, not a marinated and grilled piece of tofu. Hundreds of people in the ag community or closely affiliated with it, went to Yellow Tail’s Facebook page and becoming fans of the company. They became fans, not to pat them on the back but to kick them a little lower down their anatomy. Within 24 hours hundreds of people had used their ‘fan’ status to ask YT what the hell they were thinking.
I spent an hour browsing through the comments. They have two Facebook pages, by the way, with 2,442 people on one and 1,657 on the other. Although not everyone commented, I found 7 people risking “attaboys” for the donation with the rest offering swift kicks to their Aussie posteriors. Comments like “Don’t drink the yellow water” and “Yellow belly” popped up with some consistency. One creative rancher took his last bottle of Yellow Tail wine out to his pasture, sat it on a fence post and used it for target practice. I saw a few pictures of the familiar YT bottle poised over a toilet, an interesting way to decant a liter of wine. Read More
It’s been an exciting couple of days watching the relentless efforts of farmers, ranchers, hunters, restaurant owners, pet owners and others in telling Yellow Tail that they are not happy about their decision to donate to the vegan animal rights group HSUS. This has been an epic failure and text book example of how NOT to handle social media and an upset customer base. Their apparent strategy now is to hunker down and wait for it to blow over. What they fail to see is that this won’t just blow over. Already this morning, liquor stores and restaurants that serve their products are being asked to stop. The negative impression of Yellow Tail has certainly reached hundreds of thousands of people through the viral nature of social media. A quick Google search of all things Yellow Tail tells the story loud and clear.
So where do we go from here? This is where we take our advocacy to the next level. Like I mentioned before, if you have eating establishments or wine stores in your area that carry their product, go talk to the manager and share with them what has happened and how the HSUS agenda will affect you. What affects you, affects them. That needs to be your message. But don’t stop there. Share with everyone else what you are doing in your local area so we can see the progress that’s being made across the country. There’s a couple of ways I want you to do this. Please share anything you do on the Yellow Tail Facebook page, on the newly formed facebook page Yellow Fail, and on the Advocates for Ag fan page.
All of you have made a difference on this issue. Keep up the good work!
Judge Calls Animal Activist A Terrorist
Animal-rights activist gets 2 years in prison
By Nate Carlisle
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 02/04/2010 07:45:06 PM MST
Depending on who you believe, William James Viehl is either Harriet Beecher Stowe or a terrorist.
U.S. District Court Judge Dee Benson voted for the latter and on Thursday sentenced Viehl to two years in prison for releasing hundreds of minks from a South Jordan farm.
"I don't know any better word for it than 'terror,'" Benson said during a long explanation of his decision. "It's a form of terrorism."
Viehl last year pleaded guilty to one count of damaging and interfering with animal enterprises. On Aug. 19, 2008, Viehl helped release about 425 female and 225 male minks from the farm.
Vehicles hit and killed seven, seven died of stress and 20 were never recovered, said the farm's owner, Lindsey McMullin. Viehl and his co-defendant also are accused of removing pedigree tags, forcing the McMullins to sell the females for their pelts rather than breeding them.
The bandits also spray painted "ALF," for Animal Liberation Front, on a barn and the words, "We are watching." Read More
The judge in this case made it very clear that this type of behavior is pure and simple terrorism. He also made it clear that his goal is to make sure the punishment is painful enough to discourage this type of terrorism from happening in the future. Unfortunately, there will probably be more of these terrorist acts in the future waged against family farmers and ranchers. Groups like the Animal Liberation Front actively recruit young people and brainwash them into thinking that it’s alright to kill people if you have to do it in order to save an animal. It’s the standard practice of terrorist groups around the world. The only thing that changes is who or what they are trying to “save”. If you have to wear a ski mask to carry out the activities of your group, then you are probably a terrorist. And so are those that support these organizations.
By Nate Carlisle
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 02/04/2010 07:45:06 PM MST
Depending on who you believe, William James Viehl is either Harriet Beecher Stowe or a terrorist.
U.S. District Court Judge Dee Benson voted for the latter and on Thursday sentenced Viehl to two years in prison for releasing hundreds of minks from a South Jordan farm.
"I don't know any better word for it than 'terror,'" Benson said during a long explanation of his decision. "It's a form of terrorism."
Viehl last year pleaded guilty to one count of damaging and interfering with animal enterprises. On Aug. 19, 2008, Viehl helped release about 425 female and 225 male minks from the farm.
Vehicles hit and killed seven, seven died of stress and 20 were never recovered, said the farm's owner, Lindsey McMullin. Viehl and his co-defendant also are accused of removing pedigree tags, forcing the McMullins to sell the females for their pelts rather than breeding them.
The bandits also spray painted "ALF," for Animal Liberation Front, on a barn and the words, "We are watching." Read More
The judge in this case made it very clear that this type of behavior is pure and simple terrorism. He also made it clear that his goal is to make sure the punishment is painful enough to discourage this type of terrorism from happening in the future. Unfortunately, there will probably be more of these terrorist acts in the future waged against family farmers and ranchers. Groups like the Animal Liberation Front actively recruit young people and brainwash them into thinking that it’s alright to kill people if you have to do it in order to save an animal. It’s the standard practice of terrorist groups around the world. The only thing that changes is who or what they are trying to “save”. If you have to wear a ski mask to carry out the activities of your group, then you are probably a terrorist. And so are those that support these organizations.
Farm Sanctuary Tries To Undermine Voters in Ohio
Farm animal care at issue
By JOSHUA S. FLESHER Tribune Chronicle
POSTED: February 5, 2010
Unsatisfied with last year's passage of Issue 2, a group of Ohioans hopes to place a new measure on the ballot in November that would create stricter guidelines on livestock care.
The Ohioans for Humane Farms submitted a petition to the Ohio Attorney General's Office that spells out what would be an anti-cruelty issue for the general election ballot.
''This measure is attempting to provide minimal standards,'' said Gene Baur, president and co-founder of Farm Sanctuary. ''It's to provide guidance to the Livestock Care Board.''
Last November, voters passed Issue 2 creating a Livestock Care Standards Board which essentially would prescribe standards for animal care.
''The ballot issue that was approved by the voters of Ohio have very specific points,'' Robert Boggs, director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture, said. ''They wanted livestock care standards that improved the safety of our food supply, that encouraged local food production and that helps keep the cost of food moderate.''
Although the issue was passed, some in the state remain unhappy with the way in which livestock is treated.
''We approached people in Ohio and said we were concerned about these problems,'' Baur said. ''They never responded. They rushed to the ballot with Issue 2, and we were surprised by that.
''We didn't care for it. We didn't think it was horrible. It all depends on what this board now does,'' he said. ''Our concern is that the board will be made up of individuals who are sympathetic to agri-business.'' Read More
The sting is still fresh for the HSUS and other animal rights groups that failed to stop Ohio residents from deciding they were capable of taking care of their own livestock. In a last ditch measure to keep the newly approved board from being able to operate and make the decisions for which they will be appointed, a petition has been filed for another vote. This time the vote will be on the very familiar language that became famous in California with Proposition 2. History would suggest that this will have a tougher time passing than it has in other states. Ohio residents have made their decision about this subject and normally when a state makes a decision like that, they don’t like spending time hashing it over again. However, everyone of us in agriculture needs to do our part to contribute to the defeat of this measure if it makes it on the ballot. The newly approved board is something the state of South Dakota has had in place for a couple of decades now. It has been very successful in it’s mission. The fact that these groups don’t want it to guide Ohio agriculture shows their complete disdain for the American farmer and rancher. It’s just too bad they can’t admit it verbally, their actions have been telling that story for years.
By JOSHUA S. FLESHER Tribune Chronicle
POSTED: February 5, 2010
Unsatisfied with last year's passage of Issue 2, a group of Ohioans hopes to place a new measure on the ballot in November that would create stricter guidelines on livestock care.
The Ohioans for Humane Farms submitted a petition to the Ohio Attorney General's Office that spells out what would be an anti-cruelty issue for the general election ballot.
''This measure is attempting to provide minimal standards,'' said Gene Baur, president and co-founder of Farm Sanctuary. ''It's to provide guidance to the Livestock Care Board.''
Last November, voters passed Issue 2 creating a Livestock Care Standards Board which essentially would prescribe standards for animal care.
''The ballot issue that was approved by the voters of Ohio have very specific points,'' Robert Boggs, director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture, said. ''They wanted livestock care standards that improved the safety of our food supply, that encouraged local food production and that helps keep the cost of food moderate.''
Although the issue was passed, some in the state remain unhappy with the way in which livestock is treated.
''We approached people in Ohio and said we were concerned about these problems,'' Baur said. ''They never responded. They rushed to the ballot with Issue 2, and we were surprised by that.
''We didn't care for it. We didn't think it was horrible. It all depends on what this board now does,'' he said. ''Our concern is that the board will be made up of individuals who are sympathetic to agri-business.'' Read More
The sting is still fresh for the HSUS and other animal rights groups that failed to stop Ohio residents from deciding they were capable of taking care of their own livestock. In a last ditch measure to keep the newly approved board from being able to operate and make the decisions for which they will be appointed, a petition has been filed for another vote. This time the vote will be on the very familiar language that became famous in California with Proposition 2. History would suggest that this will have a tougher time passing than it has in other states. Ohio residents have made their decision about this subject and normally when a state makes a decision like that, they don’t like spending time hashing it over again. However, everyone of us in agriculture needs to do our part to contribute to the defeat of this measure if it makes it on the ballot. The newly approved board is something the state of South Dakota has had in place for a couple of decades now. It has been very successful in it’s mission. The fact that these groups don’t want it to guide Ohio agriculture shows their complete disdain for the American farmer and rancher. It’s just too bad they can’t admit it verbally, their actions have been telling that story for years.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Yellow Tail Donates To HSUS
Yellow Tail Wine Gives Money to HSUS
Sportsmen Urged to Voice Protest
From US Sportsmen's Alliance
The Australian maker of Yellow Tail Wine has pledged $100,000 to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation’s largest anti-hunting organization. This partnership offers further proof of HSUS’ work to spin its animal rights message in a way as to seem mainstream.
As HSUS states on its website:
“… the HSUS has paired with [yellow tail] for the "tails for tails" program. Through the end of March, you'll see special [yellow tail] displays bearing The HSUS name and logo in stores across the country.
Through "tails for tails," [yellow tail] is donating $100,000 to support us and our programs to help animals, including our Spay Day Online Pet Photo Contest.”
Alerted to this relationship, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) immediately contacted the American distributor of the wine, W.J. Deutsch and Sons Ltd., and urged them to ask Yellow Tail to sever its relationship with HSUS.
A copy of the letter the USSA sent to management can be found by clicking here. Thus far, the USSA has not heard from W.J. Deutsch regarding our request.
“This wine maker has fallen into the same trap as other companies who donate money to HSUS,” said Bud Pidgeon, president of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. “They believe they are helping animals in shelters when in fact they are funding an agenda from an animal rights group that is largely divergent from the vast majority of Americans.” Link
Yesterday morning I became aware of Yellow Tail Wines plan to donate $100,000 to HSUS. As an amateur wine enthusiast, I was very familiar with the Yellow Tail name. They are an Australian wine company that sells many different varieties of wine at a very reasonable price. The good value you get with this wine has made it quite popular in the United States and readily available almost anywhere. Unfortunately they were somehow convinced that donating money to the HSUS would be a great way to help needy dogs and cats. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m sure their heart was in the right place, but their money is headed to the wrong one.
According to the HSUS tax returns, chances are that if Yellow Tail does give them the full $100,000, only $500 would end up going to a hands-on pet shelter. Historically, only one-half of one percent of their $200,000,000 budget does.
In order to let Yellow Tail know how I felt about this, I looked up their Facebook fan page and left a comment. In addition to that, I put it out on Twitter and our Advocates for Ag Facebook fan page, and asked everyone else to do the same. And boy did they ever! In the last 24 hours, several hundred comments have been left by people from all over the country voicing their frustrations. This same scene is being played out on their Twitter page. So far, one single response has been offered by Yellow Tail, only stating that they will be announcing something soon. That’s PR speak for “Uh oh, what do we do now?”
By not doing the necessary research and having an entire industry, one of which they are part of, calling them out, Yellow Tail is now in a near no-win situation. The high paid lawyers from HSUS will no doubt put the pressure on them to fulfill their previous commitment, but if they do, it will be at the expense of thousands of upset customers. It’s not impossible for them save face though. My guess is that not many of the executives over at HSUS (where more than 40 of them make greater than $100,000) drink much Yellow Tail. I’m sure it’s beneath their standards. However, Yellow Tail has become wine that hard working Americans, many of whom are involved in agriculture, do enjoy. If they care about their customers, they will stop this from happening.
If you haven’t left your comments on Yellow Tail’s Facebook page, please do so. You can also contact them through Twitter at @YellowTail_USA . Thanks for everyone’s help. Yesterday was a great example of what can happen when Team Agriculture suits up together to make it’s voice be heard! ~Troy
Sportsmen Urged to Voice Protest
From US Sportsmen's Alliance
The Australian maker of Yellow Tail Wine has pledged $100,000 to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation’s largest anti-hunting organization. This partnership offers further proof of HSUS’ work to spin its animal rights message in a way as to seem mainstream.
As HSUS states on its website:
“… the HSUS has paired with [yellow tail] for the "tails for tails" program. Through the end of March, you'll see special [yellow tail] displays bearing The HSUS name and logo in stores across the country.
Through "tails for tails," [yellow tail] is donating $100,000 to support us and our programs to help animals, including our Spay Day Online Pet Photo Contest.”
Alerted to this relationship, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) immediately contacted the American distributor of the wine, W.J. Deutsch and Sons Ltd., and urged them to ask Yellow Tail to sever its relationship with HSUS.
A copy of the letter the USSA sent to management can be found by clicking here. Thus far, the USSA has not heard from W.J. Deutsch regarding our request.
“This wine maker has fallen into the same trap as other companies who donate money to HSUS,” said Bud Pidgeon, president of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. “They believe they are helping animals in shelters when in fact they are funding an agenda from an animal rights group that is largely divergent from the vast majority of Americans.” Link
Yesterday morning I became aware of Yellow Tail Wines plan to donate $100,000 to HSUS. As an amateur wine enthusiast, I was very familiar with the Yellow Tail name. They are an Australian wine company that sells many different varieties of wine at a very reasonable price. The good value you get with this wine has made it quite popular in the United States and readily available almost anywhere. Unfortunately they were somehow convinced that donating money to the HSUS would be a great way to help needy dogs and cats. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m sure their heart was in the right place, but their money is headed to the wrong one.
According to the HSUS tax returns, chances are that if Yellow Tail does give them the full $100,000, only $500 would end up going to a hands-on pet shelter. Historically, only one-half of one percent of their $200,000,000 budget does.
In order to let Yellow Tail know how I felt about this, I looked up their Facebook fan page and left a comment. In addition to that, I put it out on Twitter and our Advocates for Ag Facebook fan page, and asked everyone else to do the same. And boy did they ever! In the last 24 hours, several hundred comments have been left by people from all over the country voicing their frustrations. This same scene is being played out on their Twitter page. So far, one single response has been offered by Yellow Tail, only stating that they will be announcing something soon. That’s PR speak for “Uh oh, what do we do now?”
By not doing the necessary research and having an entire industry, one of which they are part of, calling them out, Yellow Tail is now in a near no-win situation. The high paid lawyers from HSUS will no doubt put the pressure on them to fulfill their previous commitment, but if they do, it will be at the expense of thousands of upset customers. It’s not impossible for them save face though. My guess is that not many of the executives over at HSUS (where more than 40 of them make greater than $100,000) drink much Yellow Tail. I’m sure it’s beneath their standards. However, Yellow Tail has become wine that hard working Americans, many of whom are involved in agriculture, do enjoy. If they care about their customers, they will stop this from happening.
If you haven’t left your comments on Yellow Tail’s Facebook page, please do so. You can also contact them through Twitter at @YellowTail_USA . Thanks for everyone’s help. Yesterday was a great example of what can happen when Team Agriculture suits up together to make it’s voice be heard! ~Troy
Vegan Dog Food From HSUS
HSUS Enters Pet Food Market With ‘Humane Choice’
Posted: Wednesday, February 3, 2010, 6:04 p.m., EST
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has entered the pet food market with the launch of its Humane Choice dog food. The non-profit organization is marketing the product as a cruelty-free, all-natural dog food that does not contain animal-based proteins or support the factory farming industry.
“Americans are concerned about the food we eat, and it just makes sense that we’d be concerned about the food we provide to our pets,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the HSUS.
“Humane Choice is a nutritious, environmentally friendly and ethically responsible food for our best friends. Every bag of Humane Choice helps us celebrate the pets we love, and provides us with additional resources to help animals through our programs.”
HSUS is targeting pet supply and natural grocer channels. The product is currently available at Petco.com, select Whole Foods grocery stores in New York and New Jersey and independent pet supply stores throughout the U.S. HSUS anticipates more Petco and Whole Foods locations to carry Humane Choice in the spring.
HSUS will receive 6 percent of the wholesale price of each 6.6-pound bag sold. The organization plans to use the funds to support programs that provide spaying and neutering and other veterinary care for animals, to rescue animals from natural disasters and cruelty cases, and to conduct undercover investigations of animal abuse.
Humane Choice is produced by a certified organic grower and manufacturer in Uruguay, according to HSUS. Link
There’s a couple of things that need to be addressed with what HSUS is doing. First, HSUS likes to make a lot of noise about how animal agriculture doesn’t allow it’s livestock to behave “naturally”. So what is natural about feeding dogs and cats a plant based diet. The natural behavior of a dog would have it chewing on dead animals and certainly not living in a house. So it’s a bit odd that HSUS would try forcing a very unnatural diet on pets. Also, you might be interested to learn that the pet food comes from Uraguay. Seriously? They couldn’t find anywhere in America to make this stuff? They aren’t exactly doing their part to help out the economy are they. But then again, they are trying to put family farmers and ranchers out of business, so why would they be concerned about any other American jobs.
Posted: Wednesday, February 3, 2010, 6:04 p.m., EST
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has entered the pet food market with the launch of its Humane Choice dog food. The non-profit organization is marketing the product as a cruelty-free, all-natural dog food that does not contain animal-based proteins or support the factory farming industry.
“Americans are concerned about the food we eat, and it just makes sense that we’d be concerned about the food we provide to our pets,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the HSUS.
“Humane Choice is a nutritious, environmentally friendly and ethically responsible food for our best friends. Every bag of Humane Choice helps us celebrate the pets we love, and provides us with additional resources to help animals through our programs.”
HSUS is targeting pet supply and natural grocer channels. The product is currently available at Petco.com, select Whole Foods grocery stores in New York and New Jersey and independent pet supply stores throughout the U.S. HSUS anticipates more Petco and Whole Foods locations to carry Humane Choice in the spring.
HSUS will receive 6 percent of the wholesale price of each 6.6-pound bag sold. The organization plans to use the funds to support programs that provide spaying and neutering and other veterinary care for animals, to rescue animals from natural disasters and cruelty cases, and to conduct undercover investigations of animal abuse.
Humane Choice is produced by a certified organic grower and manufacturer in Uruguay, according to HSUS. Link
There’s a couple of things that need to be addressed with what HSUS is doing. First, HSUS likes to make a lot of noise about how animal agriculture doesn’t allow it’s livestock to behave “naturally”. So what is natural about feeding dogs and cats a plant based diet. The natural behavior of a dog would have it chewing on dead animals and certainly not living in a house. So it’s a bit odd that HSUS would try forcing a very unnatural diet on pets. Also, you might be interested to learn that the pet food comes from Uraguay. Seriously? They couldn’t find anywhere in America to make this stuff? They aren’t exactly doing their part to help out the economy are they. But then again, they are trying to put family farmers and ranchers out of business, so why would they be concerned about any other American jobs.
Farming Not Fighting
Afghans want to be farmers, not fighters, says U.S.
Wed, Feb 3 2010
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Afghans would rather be farmers than fighters, the U.S. agriculture secretary said on Wednesday, highlighting a U.S. focus on farming jobs to lure people from the battlefield and curtail the opium trade.
Separate from the Afghan-led re-integration plan announced by President Hamid Karzai at a conference in London last week, Washington sees its agriculture program as a way of impeding the Taliban, said the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke.
"This is going to really hurt the Taliban, no question about it," said Holbrooke. "Unlike, say, re-integration, which they can attack, it's harder to attack this one because the country is an agricultural country."
U.S. agriculture chief Tom Vilsack visited Afghanistan last month, meeting farmers and looking at ways of reviving a sector that is the main income source for eight in 10 Afghans.
"From my discussions with regular Afghans, they would much rather be farmers than fighters," said Vilsack. "This is an economic issue." Read More
Agriculture is the foundation upon which every society has ever been built. Without a strong agricultural base, failure will soon follow. It is THE industry that provides the essentials for life. Our military leaders recognize this more than most which is why they have worked hard to teach more about agriculture in that country. And, with so many of our soldiers coming from rural America, they are uniquely qualified to help with this process. Agriculture and the military are the two things our country can’t live without.
Wed, Feb 3 2010
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Afghans would rather be farmers than fighters, the U.S. agriculture secretary said on Wednesday, highlighting a U.S. focus on farming jobs to lure people from the battlefield and curtail the opium trade.
Separate from the Afghan-led re-integration plan announced by President Hamid Karzai at a conference in London last week, Washington sees its agriculture program as a way of impeding the Taliban, said the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke.
"This is going to really hurt the Taliban, no question about it," said Holbrooke. "Unlike, say, re-integration, which they can attack, it's harder to attack this one because the country is an agricultural country."
U.S. agriculture chief Tom Vilsack visited Afghanistan last month, meeting farmers and looking at ways of reviving a sector that is the main income source for eight in 10 Afghans.
"From my discussions with regular Afghans, they would much rather be farmers than fighters," said Vilsack. "This is an economic issue." Read More
Agriculture is the foundation upon which every society has ever been built. Without a strong agricultural base, failure will soon follow. It is THE industry that provides the essentials for life. Our military leaders recognize this more than most which is why they have worked hard to teach more about agriculture in that country. And, with so many of our soldiers coming from rural America, they are uniquely qualified to help with this process. Agriculture and the military are the two things our country can’t live without.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Hungry Americans
One in Eight Americans Used Food Banks in 2009
By SCOTT KILMAN
CHICAGO—A charitable organization estimated Tuesday that 37 million Americans—or one in eight people—turned to food pantries and soup kitchens during the 2009 recession, forcing some sites to cut meal portions and turn away people.
Feeding America, a Chicago-based network of 200 food banks, said in its quadrennial hunger study that 46% more people visited a hunger-relief charity at least once in 2009 than did in 2005. The estimate was based on a survey of officials at 37,000 local feeding agencies nationwide.
President Barack Obama has a stated goal of ending childhood hunger in the U.S. by 2015. But the Feeding America study indicated that high unemployment and growing health-care costs were undermining increases in federal spending on nutrition programs.
As part of the hunger study, the group also interviewed 61,000 patrons at emergency feeding sites from February through June of last year. Among other things, the Feeding America study estimated that 13.9 million children were served by an emergency feeding center in 2009 compared with 9.23 million children in 2005.
Feeding America, which changed its name in 2008 from America's Second Harvest, said its survey showed that 76% of the adults who used a food pantry in 2009 were unemployed, including 3.2 million who had lost their jobs within the past 12 months. Read More
At the same time we are seeing an increase of people who are struggling to afford food for their families, we have food elitists who continue to advocate for a higher priced food supply. I can guarantee you that hungry people aren’t concerned about “food miles” or the technology used to grow it. The people that are worried about those types of things are the ones with full stomachs. So who should we be catering to in this country? Should we use the Pollan plan and turn our backs on the last century of progress in food production and have no regard for how many people we can feed? Or should we concentrate on making food more accessible by keeping it as affordable as possible? I, for one, am much more concerned about the empty stomachs than the full ones.
By SCOTT KILMAN
CHICAGO—A charitable organization estimated Tuesday that 37 million Americans—or one in eight people—turned to food pantries and soup kitchens during the 2009 recession, forcing some sites to cut meal portions and turn away people.
Feeding America, a Chicago-based network of 200 food banks, said in its quadrennial hunger study that 46% more people visited a hunger-relief charity at least once in 2009 than did in 2005. The estimate was based on a survey of officials at 37,000 local feeding agencies nationwide.
President Barack Obama has a stated goal of ending childhood hunger in the U.S. by 2015. But the Feeding America study indicated that high unemployment and growing health-care costs were undermining increases in federal spending on nutrition programs.
As part of the hunger study, the group also interviewed 61,000 patrons at emergency feeding sites from February through June of last year. Among other things, the Feeding America study estimated that 13.9 million children were served by an emergency feeding center in 2009 compared with 9.23 million children in 2005.
Feeding America, which changed its name in 2008 from America's Second Harvest, said its survey showed that 76% of the adults who used a food pantry in 2009 were unemployed, including 3.2 million who had lost their jobs within the past 12 months. Read More
At the same time we are seeing an increase of people who are struggling to afford food for their families, we have food elitists who continue to advocate for a higher priced food supply. I can guarantee you that hungry people aren’t concerned about “food miles” or the technology used to grow it. The people that are worried about those types of things are the ones with full stomachs. So who should we be catering to in this country? Should we use the Pollan plan and turn our backs on the last century of progress in food production and have no regard for how many people we can feed? Or should we concentrate on making food more accessible by keeping it as affordable as possible? I, for one, am much more concerned about the empty stomachs than the full ones.
HSUS Now Denies Involvement in S.D. Raid
HSUS Reacts To Turner County Decision
Keloland.com
Turner Co, SD
Feb 2, 2010
The case against a Hurley dog breeder is in limbo now that the raid on his property was ruled illegal. A Yankton judge ruled that 172 dogs were taken illegally from Dan Christensen's property because Second Chance Rescue Center of Sioux Falls didn't tell the judge the dogs appeared to be okay just days earlier.
The Humane Society of the United States was also involved in seizing the dogs from Christensen's property. The HSUS was actually sitting at the Turner County Fairgrounds the day Rosey Quinn of Second Chance Rescue Center went to ask a judge to issue the warrant to raid Dan Christensen's property.
Ben Dunsmoor (reporter): Were you aware Second Chance didn't have a warrant when you showed up that day?
"The request that was made to us was specifically for handling animals and so that is what we come in under was that an actual request for physically handling those animals, and not developing the case," Senior Director of the HSUS Puppy Mills campaign Stephanie Shain said.
Tuesday, the HSUS told KELOLAND News it was simply asked by Second Chance to help with the removal of Christensen's 172 dogs and did not have any involvement in the case, obtaining the warrant or making sure what they were doing that day was legal. But back in September, they said they were playing a role in the case.
"We're collecting evidence; we're safely and humanely removing them. Some animals may be fractious. We're providing the animals with all the necessary medical care and the sheltering personnel. Sheltering personnel for 172 dogs is dozens and dozens of people scheduled on a regular daily basis," Scotlund Haisley of the HSUS said on September 3, 2009. Read More
It’s almost comical how HSUS is literally tripping over itself in an effort to distance their name from this fiasco. The fact that these perfectly healthy dogs were confiscated because of an over-zealous humane officer being backed by a publicity hungry animal rights group should be a warning to everyone owns an animal. In the eyes of HSUS and those who support it, if you own animals, you are guilty until proven innocent of somehow mistreating them. It’s unfortunate that this story will probably taint the good work that most of our local dog and cat shelters do, but that’s not really something that HSUS is concerned about.
Keloland.com
Turner Co, SD
Feb 2, 2010
The case against a Hurley dog breeder is in limbo now that the raid on his property was ruled illegal. A Yankton judge ruled that 172 dogs were taken illegally from Dan Christensen's property because Second Chance Rescue Center of Sioux Falls didn't tell the judge the dogs appeared to be okay just days earlier.
The Humane Society of the United States was also involved in seizing the dogs from Christensen's property. The HSUS was actually sitting at the Turner County Fairgrounds the day Rosey Quinn of Second Chance Rescue Center went to ask a judge to issue the warrant to raid Dan Christensen's property.
Ben Dunsmoor (reporter): Were you aware Second Chance didn't have a warrant when you showed up that day?
"The request that was made to us was specifically for handling animals and so that is what we come in under was that an actual request for physically handling those animals, and not developing the case," Senior Director of the HSUS Puppy Mills campaign Stephanie Shain said.
Tuesday, the HSUS told KELOLAND News it was simply asked by Second Chance to help with the removal of Christensen's 172 dogs and did not have any involvement in the case, obtaining the warrant or making sure what they were doing that day was legal. But back in September, they said they were playing a role in the case.
"We're collecting evidence; we're safely and humanely removing them. Some animals may be fractious. We're providing the animals with all the necessary medical care and the sheltering personnel. Sheltering personnel for 172 dogs is dozens and dozens of people scheduled on a regular daily basis," Scotlund Haisley of the HSUS said on September 3, 2009. Read More
It’s almost comical how HSUS is literally tripping over itself in an effort to distance their name from this fiasco. The fact that these perfectly healthy dogs were confiscated because of an over-zealous humane officer being backed by a publicity hungry animal rights group should be a warning to everyone owns an animal. In the eyes of HSUS and those who support it, if you own animals, you are guilty until proven innocent of somehow mistreating them. It’s unfortunate that this story will probably taint the good work that most of our local dog and cat shelters do, but that’s not really something that HSUS is concerned about.
Red Meat Doesn't Cause Cancer
Red Meat Carcinogenicity Examined
2/2/2010 10:10:00 AM
Food Product Design
No association between red or processed meat consumption and cancer has been found according to a new, comprehensive assessment of the scientific evidence.
The report, funded by the Beef and Pork Checkoff program, examines the hypothesis that meat consumption may contribute to human carcinogenesis.
Randomized double-blind controlled clinical trials, the “gold standard” in testing, are not typically conducted on the relationship of meat and cancer and certain other studies can be subject to bias. Published epidemiological studies have often found associations between red meat and processed meat and certain cancers, such as colorectal, esophageal, lung and stomach. However the report points out the following:
Most associations are weak in magnitude
Many associations are null or inverse
Most associations are not statistically significant
Patterns of associations vary by gender and anatomic location of the tumor
Red and processed meat definitions vary across studies
Measures of meat intake and the analytical comparisons are variable
Because researchers believe cancer development is related to a number of genetic, lifestyle, infectious and environmental factors, and usually develops over a long period of time, it makes it difficult to identify the underlying factors of carcinogenesis, according to report author and leading epidemiologist, Dr. Dominik Alexander, PhD, MSPH. Still, he says, “…no mechanism for red meat has been established as being responsible for increasing the risk of cancer in human studies and …the totality of available scientific evidence is not supportive of an independent association between red meat and processed meat and cancer.” Read More
No single food has ever been found to cause cancer. It’s as simple as that. Some people who practice a vegan diet will go to almost any length to convince people otherwise, but the best science available would certainly disagree. It’s important that consumers know the truth about the safety of their food, which is why farmers and ranchers need to help share information such as this.
2/2/2010 10:10:00 AM
Food Product Design
No association between red or processed meat consumption and cancer has been found according to a new, comprehensive assessment of the scientific evidence.
The report, funded by the Beef and Pork Checkoff program, examines the hypothesis that meat consumption may contribute to human carcinogenesis.
Randomized double-blind controlled clinical trials, the “gold standard” in testing, are not typically conducted on the relationship of meat and cancer and certain other studies can be subject to bias. Published epidemiological studies have often found associations between red meat and processed meat and certain cancers, such as colorectal, esophageal, lung and stomach. However the report points out the following:
Most associations are weak in magnitude
Many associations are null or inverse
Most associations are not statistically significant
Patterns of associations vary by gender and anatomic location of the tumor
Red and processed meat definitions vary across studies
Measures of meat intake and the analytical comparisons are variable
Because researchers believe cancer development is related to a number of genetic, lifestyle, infectious and environmental factors, and usually develops over a long period of time, it makes it difficult to identify the underlying factors of carcinogenesis, according to report author and leading epidemiologist, Dr. Dominik Alexander, PhD, MSPH. Still, he says, “…no mechanism for red meat has been established as being responsible for increasing the risk of cancer in human studies and …the totality of available scientific evidence is not supportive of an independent association between red meat and processed meat and cancer.” Read More
No single food has ever been found to cause cancer. It’s as simple as that. Some people who practice a vegan diet will go to almost any length to convince people otherwise, but the best science available would certainly disagree. It’s important that consumers know the truth about the safety of their food, which is why farmers and ranchers need to help share information such as this.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
AR Groups Says Majority of Farmers Abuse Livestock
Animal rights group says a majority of farmers treat animals poorly
By Debra J. Groom / The Post-Standard
January 27, 2010, 8:50PM
Syracuse, NY -- An official with animal rights group Mercy for Animals said Wednesday morning the dairy industry is known for treating cattle cruelly and abuse scenes shown in an undercover video shot by a group member are scenes that exist at farms across the country.
Matt Rice, the New York campaign coordinator for Mercy for Animals, showed a video the group says was shot at Willet Dairy in Genoa, Cayuga County, to bolster its claims that cows are routinely abused at dairy farms. The video was shown during a news conference at the Renaissance Hotel in Syracuse.
The video shows cows with open sores, calves and heifers getting their horns burned off and tails docked (cut short) without painkillers, calves being dragged away from their mothers shortly after birth and cows being beaten, kicked and hit by employees.
Rice said the goal of the Willet Dairy video campaign is to "expose the public to abuses at a modern dairy" and push for laws to protect the animals. He said once people see what is happening at dairy farms, they will see "the best thing anyone can do is remove dairy from their diets."
Jessica Ziehm, speaking for the state Department of Agriculture and Markets, said it is outrageous to say a majority of dairy farmers treat their cows poorly.
"Cows are their livelihood and they do all they can to make their cows comfortable, happy and healthy," she said. Read More
To claim that a majority of farmers abuse their livestock shows a complete lack of understanding about animal welfare and performance. I have previously heard claims by uneducated people that claim abuse and poor management can be covered up with modern production methods. The fact of the matter is that the laws of nature can’t be superseded. If the comfort and care needs for an animal aren’t being met, they will not be productive. Year after year, we see our ability to produce food increase while using fewer natural resources. The real story here is that no matter how many livestock live on a farm, they have to be properly cared for so the farm can continue to be profitable.
By Debra J. Groom / The Post-Standard
January 27, 2010, 8:50PM
Syracuse, NY -- An official with animal rights group Mercy for Animals said Wednesday morning the dairy industry is known for treating cattle cruelly and abuse scenes shown in an undercover video shot by a group member are scenes that exist at farms across the country.
Matt Rice, the New York campaign coordinator for Mercy for Animals, showed a video the group says was shot at Willet Dairy in Genoa, Cayuga County, to bolster its claims that cows are routinely abused at dairy farms. The video was shown during a news conference at the Renaissance Hotel in Syracuse.
The video shows cows with open sores, calves and heifers getting their horns burned off and tails docked (cut short) without painkillers, calves being dragged away from their mothers shortly after birth and cows being beaten, kicked and hit by employees.
Rice said the goal of the Willet Dairy video campaign is to "expose the public to abuses at a modern dairy" and push for laws to protect the animals. He said once people see what is happening at dairy farms, they will see "the best thing anyone can do is remove dairy from their diets."
Jessica Ziehm, speaking for the state Department of Agriculture and Markets, said it is outrageous to say a majority of dairy farmers treat their cows poorly.
"Cows are their livelihood and they do all they can to make their cows comfortable, happy and healthy," she said. Read More
To claim that a majority of farmers abuse their livestock shows a complete lack of understanding about animal welfare and performance. I have previously heard claims by uneducated people that claim abuse and poor management can be covered up with modern production methods. The fact of the matter is that the laws of nature can’t be superseded. If the comfort and care needs for an animal aren’t being met, they will not be productive. Year after year, we see our ability to produce food increase while using fewer natural resources. The real story here is that no matter how many livestock live on a farm, they have to be properly cared for so the farm can continue to be profitable.
Farmers Know Best
Farmers, not bureaucrats, know best (Rep. Steve King)
By Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) - 01/26/10 11:43 AM ET
Chances are you may have heard about antibiotic resistance and the “threat” it poses to public health. Antibiotic resistance is a serious issue. However, finger pointing and meritless attacks on America’s farmers as the culprit for declining human health is misguided at best, and at worst, a travesty.
During a recent briefing on Capitol Hill, old misconceptions and half-truths were resurrected about production agriculture and the use of antibiotics used to keep farm animals healthy. Under the guise of protecting human health, the briefing was billed as a discussion about the economics and public health effects of antibiotics in food animal production.
The briefing also was held to support H.R. 1549, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009, introduced by Rep. Louise Slaughter on March 17, 2009. Rep. Slaughter’s bill would prevent farmers from introducing antibiotics to livestock for purposes of disease prevention.
When Europe decided to ban one use of antibiotics, more animal deaths and disease outbreaks that required additional use of antibiotics to treat diseases ensued. At the same time, no evidence has been produced showing benefits to human health in the form of reduced antibiotic resistance.
The American Veterinary Medical Association said that Denmark’s voluntary ban on the use of antibiotics for growth promotion “has not resulted in a significant reduction of antibiotic resistance in humans,” while disease and death in hogs increased. Ultimately, animals suffered and humans did not benefit. Growth promotion is a benefit of disease prevention, proving again the American axiom that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Read More
Rep. Steve King has always impressed me with his common sense and his uncommon understanding of agriculture. When it comes to the issue of antibiotics, we shouldn’t rely on knee-jerk reactions to make good decisions. Almost every single one of us uses a product that is designed to kill bacteria everyday. Everyone would agree that we don’t want to eliminate the effectiveness of antibiotics, but I would hope that all of us could also agree that we need to develop strategies that accomplish that goal rather than picking the low-hanging fruit.
By Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) - 01/26/10 11:43 AM ET
Chances are you may have heard about antibiotic resistance and the “threat” it poses to public health. Antibiotic resistance is a serious issue. However, finger pointing and meritless attacks on America’s farmers as the culprit for declining human health is misguided at best, and at worst, a travesty.
During a recent briefing on Capitol Hill, old misconceptions and half-truths were resurrected about production agriculture and the use of antibiotics used to keep farm animals healthy. Under the guise of protecting human health, the briefing was billed as a discussion about the economics and public health effects of antibiotics in food animal production.
The briefing also was held to support H.R. 1549, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009, introduced by Rep. Louise Slaughter on March 17, 2009. Rep. Slaughter’s bill would prevent farmers from introducing antibiotics to livestock for purposes of disease prevention.
When Europe decided to ban one use of antibiotics, more animal deaths and disease outbreaks that required additional use of antibiotics to treat diseases ensued. At the same time, no evidence has been produced showing benefits to human health in the form of reduced antibiotic resistance.
The American Veterinary Medical Association said that Denmark’s voluntary ban on the use of antibiotics for growth promotion “has not resulted in a significant reduction of antibiotic resistance in humans,” while disease and death in hogs increased. Ultimately, animals suffered and humans did not benefit. Growth promotion is a benefit of disease prevention, proving again the American axiom that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Read More
Rep. Steve King has always impressed me with his common sense and his uncommon understanding of agriculture. When it comes to the issue of antibiotics, we shouldn’t rely on knee-jerk reactions to make good decisions. Almost every single one of us uses a product that is designed to kill bacteria everyday. Everyone would agree that we don’t want to eliminate the effectiveness of antibiotics, but I would hope that all of us could also agree that we need to develop strategies that accomplish that goal rather than picking the low-hanging fruit.
Vegetarians Enjoying Meat Week
Carnivores, Delight: It's Meat Week
Barbecue Lovers from 16 Cities across the Country Settle in for 8 Straight Nights of Smoked Meat
(CBS) The organizers of Meat Week know what you are thinking.
Eight straight days of eating barbecue?
Could this be real?
Yes, yes it is.
"We know it is stupid," said Derek Atkinson, the organizer of the New York City chapter of Meat Week. "It's eight nights of barbecue. It's unhealthy - it's horrible for you. But it's delicious. But it's about getting together with your friends and eating the hell out some smoked meat - and sometimes potato salad."
Meat Week was conceived by two bored coworkers in Tallahassee, Fla. Back in 2005, Erni Walker and Chris Cantey were using a word generator on Cantey's Web site that came up with the "holy combination" of "meat" and "week." "From the day we sat down and wrote 'Meat Week' in our planners, that was the day we decided to do this weird thing, and we decided that every year for the rest of our lives we'd do Meat Week now," said Walker, who now works with Cantey for a production company in Los Angeles.
"Our normal meat volume throughout the year makes meat week more special," Cantey said of his diet which includes - gasp! - tofu, tempeh and other meat substitutes.
In fact, many participants at Meat Week are vegetarians. The draw for many is the communal, family-style environment that is the hallmark of many Southern-style barbecue restaurants.
Read More
Does it seem odd to anyone else that these vegetarians are taking the week off from their dietary convictions in order to enjoy Meat Week? I think it really goes to show you how much of vegetarianism is really just an act that some people think makes them look more “stylish”. While Meat Week may be a little over the top, the fact of the matter is that a healthy balanced diet will always include meat and dairy products, eaten in the proper amounts everyday.
Barbecue Lovers from 16 Cities across the Country Settle in for 8 Straight Nights of Smoked Meat
(CBS) The organizers of Meat Week know what you are thinking.
Eight straight days of eating barbecue?
Could this be real?
Yes, yes it is.
"We know it is stupid," said Derek Atkinson, the organizer of the New York City chapter of Meat Week. "It's eight nights of barbecue. It's unhealthy - it's horrible for you. But it's delicious. But it's about getting together with your friends and eating the hell out some smoked meat - and sometimes potato salad."
Meat Week was conceived by two bored coworkers in Tallahassee, Fla. Back in 2005, Erni Walker and Chris Cantey were using a word generator on Cantey's Web site that came up with the "holy combination" of "meat" and "week." "From the day we sat down and wrote 'Meat Week' in our planners, that was the day we decided to do this weird thing, and we decided that every year for the rest of our lives we'd do Meat Week now," said Walker, who now works with Cantey for a production company in Los Angeles.
"Our normal meat volume throughout the year makes meat week more special," Cantey said of his diet which includes - gasp! - tofu, tempeh and other meat substitutes.
In fact, many participants at Meat Week are vegetarians. The draw for many is the communal, family-style environment that is the hallmark of many Southern-style barbecue restaurants.
Read More
Does it seem odd to anyone else that these vegetarians are taking the week off from their dietary convictions in order to enjoy Meat Week? I think it really goes to show you how much of vegetarianism is really just an act that some people think makes them look more “stylish”. While Meat Week may be a little over the top, the fact of the matter is that a healthy balanced diet will always include meat and dairy products, eaten in the proper amounts everyday.
Monday, February 1, 2010
HSUS Launches Attack on Ohio's Family Farmers, Voters
Ohioans for Humane Farms Petitions to Put Measure on November Ballot Protecting Animal Welfare, Food Safety, Family Farmers and the Environment
-HSUS Press Release - Feb 1, 2010
Ohioans for Humane Farms submitted a petition—including signatures from Ohio voters in 48 counties, demonstrating broad and regionally diverse support—to Ohio's Secretary of State in support of placing an anti-cruelty measure on the statewide November ballot. The proposed measure would allow voters to require the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to adopt certain minimum standards that will prevent the cruel and inhumane treatment of farm animals, enhance food safety, protect the environment and strengthen Ohio family farms.
Utilizing a large volunteer base, the group will seek to collect more than 600,000 signatures of registered Ohio voters upon approval of the petition forms by the Secretary of State. The ballot measure is backed by The Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, Ohio SPCA, Toledo Area Humane Society, Geauga Humane Society, Ohio League of Humane Voters, Center for Food Safety, United Farm Workers, Consumer Federation of America, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and a growing list of organizations. Read More
We all knew it was probably coming. The HSUS, run by a man with a history major, thinks he and his organization know more about animal husbandry than Ohio’s family farmers and ranchers do. Not only that, but they also think they know more than all of the citizens of Ohio that overwhelmingly decided just a few months ago that they wanted their own citizens to handle this issue through a Livestock Standards Care Board. As if we needed any more proof, this cements the fact that they aren’t concerned about the welfare of animals. If they did, they would be willing to at least let this board be appointed and become functional. No, their main concern is money and power. Remember that HSUS has a stated goal of forcing veganism on society. Pacelle himself has even written, and bragged, about this policy. So, once again, the Humane Society of the United States launches an attack on family farmers. ~Troy
Cattle Blood To Save Soldiers Lives
Cattle blood used in treatment experiments
By Jeff Martin - (Sioux Falls, S.D.) Argus Leader via Gannett News Service
Posted : Sunday Jan 31, 2010 14:14:52 EST
A South Dakota bio-tech firm is using blood byproducts from cattle to develop new ways of treating injured soldiers on the battlefield.
The technology could also save lives after natural disasters such as the Jan. 12 earthquake in Haiti, company executives say.
"It could help a lot of people in mass casualty situations where blood loss and wounds that need to get healed are a problem," says Steve Tye, vice president of operations for IKOR Inc. "This is a drug that can be stored for years so it can be delivered on the first flights out there."
IKOR aims to use hemoglobin from cattle as its raw material to develop blood replacement products for injured soldiers, Tye says. The goal is to heal their wounds more quickly and effectively, partly because the products can help deliver oxygen to the wound. Read More
I always enjoy sharing stories such as these that show just how much animal agriculture continues to improve the human condition. The edible product we get is just part of benefit we receive. Pharmaceuticals derived from livestock play a very important role in improving human health. Especially when it comes to providing our soldiers with the very best medical care, we need to utilize resources such as this. I would much rather see cattle being used to feed and heal people than seeing those same people die. Unfortunately, the life of an animal is more important to some than the life of an American soldier. ~Troy
By Jeff Martin - (Sioux Falls, S.D.) Argus Leader via Gannett News Service
Posted : Sunday Jan 31, 2010 14:14:52 EST
A South Dakota bio-tech firm is using blood byproducts from cattle to develop new ways of treating injured soldiers on the battlefield.
The technology could also save lives after natural disasters such as the Jan. 12 earthquake in Haiti, company executives say.
"It could help a lot of people in mass casualty situations where blood loss and wounds that need to get healed are a problem," says Steve Tye, vice president of operations for IKOR Inc. "This is a drug that can be stored for years so it can be delivered on the first flights out there."
IKOR aims to use hemoglobin from cattle as its raw material to develop blood replacement products for injured soldiers, Tye says. The goal is to heal their wounds more quickly and effectively, partly because the products can help deliver oxygen to the wound. Read More
I always enjoy sharing stories such as these that show just how much animal agriculture continues to improve the human condition. The edible product we get is just part of benefit we receive. Pharmaceuticals derived from livestock play a very important role in improving human health. Especially when it comes to providing our soldiers with the very best medical care, we need to utilize resources such as this. I would much rather see cattle being used to feed and heal people than seeing those same people die. Unfortunately, the life of an animal is more important to some than the life of an American soldier. ~Troy
Red Meat Production Proven Efficient and Safe
Red meat production proven efficient and safe
ROD SMITH
31 Jan, 2010 04:00 AM
ANIMALS need to be produced in a smarter manner - not in fewer numbers - to address environmental issues related to climate change, according to Frank Mitloehner, an associate professor and air quality specialist at the University of California-Davis.
Decreasing meat and milk production will only result in more hunger in poor countries - not a cleaner or cooler environment, he said in response to critics of meat and milk production who blame livestock for significant global warming.
Mitloehner said these critics fail to understand the relationship among animal and food production, animal digestion, human activities and atmospheric chemistry.
He traced much of this lack of understanding to two sentences in a 2006 United Nations report, Livestock's Long Shadow, which stated that the "livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in carbon dioxide equivalents. This is higher than transport."
He said findings in the US show that livestock production accounts for only 2.8pc of emissions in the US, while transportation accounts for 26pc.
In addition to being efficiently produced, environmentally sustainable and safe, meat might well be behind the reason people live longer lives than any other primate, according to biologist Caleb Finch at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, Cal.
Apes and chimpanzees are genetically similar to humans but rarely live more than 50 years, and it is possible that genetic changes that allow people to live longer are attributable to eating a more carnivorous diet than apes and chimps, he told the LiveScience program on TechMediaNetwork. Read More
When we look at the facts concerning meat production, the undeniable benefits become quite clear. Whether it’s human nutrition or the environment, livestock play an important role that can’t be replaced. Our task as producers of this essential product is to share this information with consumers. Not only does this give you a chance to introduce yourself and give the consumer a chance to meet a farmer, but it also gives them exactly what they want and that is to hear a real farmer or rancher explain what they do and show them how much they care about their livestock. I love sharing information like this because every time you do, you see the lightbulb flip on in the minds of consumers. It suddenly makes sense and they can really gain an appreciation for where their food comes from. ~Troy
ROD SMITH
31 Jan, 2010 04:00 AM
ANIMALS need to be produced in a smarter manner - not in fewer numbers - to address environmental issues related to climate change, according to Frank Mitloehner, an associate professor and air quality specialist at the University of California-Davis.
Decreasing meat and milk production will only result in more hunger in poor countries - not a cleaner or cooler environment, he said in response to critics of meat and milk production who blame livestock for significant global warming.
Mitloehner said these critics fail to understand the relationship among animal and food production, animal digestion, human activities and atmospheric chemistry.
He traced much of this lack of understanding to two sentences in a 2006 United Nations report, Livestock's Long Shadow, which stated that the "livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in carbon dioxide equivalents. This is higher than transport."
He said findings in the US show that livestock production accounts for only 2.8pc of emissions in the US, while transportation accounts for 26pc.
In addition to being efficiently produced, environmentally sustainable and safe, meat might well be behind the reason people live longer lives than any other primate, according to biologist Caleb Finch at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, Cal.
Apes and chimpanzees are genetically similar to humans but rarely live more than 50 years, and it is possible that genetic changes that allow people to live longer are attributable to eating a more carnivorous diet than apes and chimps, he told the LiveScience program on TechMediaNetwork. Read More
When we look at the facts concerning meat production, the undeniable benefits become quite clear. Whether it’s human nutrition or the environment, livestock play an important role that can’t be replaced. Our task as producers of this essential product is to share this information with consumers. Not only does this give you a chance to introduce yourself and give the consumer a chance to meet a farmer, but it also gives them exactly what they want and that is to hear a real farmer or rancher explain what they do and show them how much they care about their livestock. I love sharing information like this because every time you do, you see the lightbulb flip on in the minds of consumers. It suddenly makes sense and they can really gain an appreciation for where their food comes from. ~Troy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)