Farms and Antibiotics
NY Times Ediorial
Published: July 23, 2009
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that 70 percent of the antibiotics used in this country are fed to farm animals. These animals do not receive these drugs the way humans do — as discrete short-term doses. Agricultural antibiotics are a regular feed supplement intended to increase growth and lessen the chance of infection in crowded, industrial farms.
These practices are putting both humans and animals increasingly at risk. In an environment where antibiotics are omnipresent, as they are in industrial agriculture, antibiotic-resistant strains of diseases quickly develop, reducing the effectiveness of common drugs like penicillin and tetracycline.
Despite that danger, the Food and Drug Administration had been reluctant to restrict routine agricultural use of antibiotics. The F.D.A.’s principal deputy commissioner, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, signaled a welcome change in direction recently, testifying on behalf of a new bill, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. It would allow veterinarians to prescribe antibiotics to treat individual animals or prevent disease, but it would sharply restrict the routine feeding of antibiotics to farm animals — the practice most closely associated with the development of drug-resistant pathogens.
The legislation is drawing strong opposition from the farm lobby since the restrictions would make it much harder for industrial farms to crowd thousands of animals together in confined, inhumane and unhealthy quarters. But the current practice is dangerously self-defeating: treating more and more animals with less and less effective drugs and in turn creating resistant strains of disease that persist in the soil and water. Congress should stop this now before an entire class of drugs becomes useless. Link
I sound like a broken record talking about antibiotic use on this blog, but we have a lot of educating to do on this issue. Trying to prevent livestock from getting sick is a basic and necessar animal husbandry skill. Trying to nurse livestock back to health after the fact will require the usage of not only more antibiotics, but more poserful ones as well. Please take the time to write a letter to the editor to the New York Times and tell them how this will affect the health of your livestock.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Senate Ag Cmte Talks Global Warming
Senate Ag Committee Hearing on Global Warming
07/22/2009
Hoosier Ag Today
With the words - our American way of buying and consuming energy is not only unsustainable but dangerous to our future - Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin opened the ag committee hearing on legislation addressing the role of agriculture and forestry in global warming. Harkin focused on the importation of about 70 percent of the oil we use, much of that from nations that are unfriendly or politically unstable, and our extraction and use of coal which permanently alters landscapes and pollutes too many of our lakes and streams.
Panel member Bob Stallman, President of the American Farm Bureau Federation asked the Senate Agriculture Committee to take an active and aggressive role in the climate change debate, but cautioned committee members that rushing to pass such sweeping legislation would be a fundamental mistake. Stallman encouraged members to analyze the issue closely, carefully and thoroughly. He also recommended that the committee improve climate change legislation so that it is as beneficial as possible for the agriculture industry.
Chambliss Wants More Hearings
Senator Saxby Chambliss, Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has asked committee chairman Tom Harkin to consider holding more hearings to better understand the climate change issue and its effects on agriculture, forestry and rural America. He also recommended careful review of the role of the Commodity futures Trading Commission under a cap and trade program.
During his opening statement, Senator Chambliss outlined several concerns he has with the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act and - the tremendous costs associated with its provisions. Chambliss said the cap and trade program will undoubtedly raise production costs for farmers and ranchers. USDA and Texas A&M University are conducting economic analyses of the Waxman-Markey and Boxer bills, with special attention to the effects at the farm gate level and to consumers. Chambliss says - what we have seen of preliminary study results is that no farm will escape the effect of this bill. Read More
The intent of this bill is pretty simple. The federal government wants to tell you how and when you will use energy and at what price. All in the name of what? Not a single natural disaster we have experienced in the past several years was some odd, never before seen event. Tree ring records paint a picture that we have actually been experiencing a very mild weather pattern lately. In our area it appears that we have finally emerged from seven years of extreme drought, but the tree rings show us that it wasn’t uncommon to have 20-30 year periods of drought. The fact is that climate change always has been and always will be occurring on this planet. There are certainly things we can do better, but to suggest that we can tax our way into changing the climate is insane.
07/22/2009
Hoosier Ag Today
With the words - our American way of buying and consuming energy is not only unsustainable but dangerous to our future - Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin opened the ag committee hearing on legislation addressing the role of agriculture and forestry in global warming. Harkin focused on the importation of about 70 percent of the oil we use, much of that from nations that are unfriendly or politically unstable, and our extraction and use of coal which permanently alters landscapes and pollutes too many of our lakes and streams.
Panel member Bob Stallman, President of the American Farm Bureau Federation asked the Senate Agriculture Committee to take an active and aggressive role in the climate change debate, but cautioned committee members that rushing to pass such sweeping legislation would be a fundamental mistake. Stallman encouraged members to analyze the issue closely, carefully and thoroughly. He also recommended that the committee improve climate change legislation so that it is as beneficial as possible for the agriculture industry.
Chambliss Wants More Hearings
Senator Saxby Chambliss, Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has asked committee chairman Tom Harkin to consider holding more hearings to better understand the climate change issue and its effects on agriculture, forestry and rural America. He also recommended careful review of the role of the Commodity futures Trading Commission under a cap and trade program.
During his opening statement, Senator Chambliss outlined several concerns he has with the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act and - the tremendous costs associated with its provisions. Chambliss said the cap and trade program will undoubtedly raise production costs for farmers and ranchers. USDA and Texas A&M University are conducting economic analyses of the Waxman-Markey and Boxer bills, with special attention to the effects at the farm gate level and to consumers. Chambliss says - what we have seen of preliminary study results is that no farm will escape the effect of this bill. Read More
The intent of this bill is pretty simple. The federal government wants to tell you how and when you will use energy and at what price. All in the name of what? Not a single natural disaster we have experienced in the past several years was some odd, never before seen event. Tree ring records paint a picture that we have actually been experiencing a very mild weather pattern lately. In our area it appears that we have finally emerged from seven years of extreme drought, but the tree rings show us that it wasn’t uncommon to have 20-30 year periods of drought. The fact is that climate change always has been and always will be occurring on this planet. There are certainly things we can do better, but to suggest that we can tax our way into changing the climate is insane.
Nevada Ranchers Permits in Jeopardy
County supports cattlemen's fight
By Christy Lattin
LVN Community News Editor
Churchill County Commissioners agreed to support the Nevada Cattlemen's Association's in its legal battle against an environmental group that is challenging Nevada grazing permits.
Ron Torell, an NCA board member, read a statement from NCA President Dan Gralian at the commission's recent meeting. In it, Gralian explained the Western Watersheds Project filed a lawsuit against the Department of Interior and Bureau of Land Management regarding grazing allotments in Idaho and Nevada.
“The protection of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat is Western Watershed's stated purpose behind this suit, but it is common knowledge that their primary agenda is to drive us ranchers off of our public lands,” Gralian's letter states.
He further claimed Western Watersheds Project “challenges the validity of almost all 10-year grazing permit renewals” in the Elko BLM district and estimated the suit affects more than 300 permits in Nevada.
The case is being heard by Idaho District court Judge Lynn Winmill, “a judge that has a history of being friendly to Western Watersheds and in most cases has ruled in their favor,” Gralian stated. Read More
The sage grouse issue is one that is starting to fester in the west. With so much public land in this half of the country, activist groups are going to do what they can to eliminate ranchers from that land in favor of letting it sit empty. The problem that ranchers face is that many people not familiar with grazing and land management wrongly believe that it damages the land. The truth of the matter is that when done properly, grazing will improve the quality and quantity of the forages on the range. It’s a win-win situation because when we utilize this resource, it also makes the resource better.
By Christy Lattin
LVN Community News Editor
Churchill County Commissioners agreed to support the Nevada Cattlemen's Association's in its legal battle against an environmental group that is challenging Nevada grazing permits.
Ron Torell, an NCA board member, read a statement from NCA President Dan Gralian at the commission's recent meeting. In it, Gralian explained the Western Watersheds Project filed a lawsuit against the Department of Interior and Bureau of Land Management regarding grazing allotments in Idaho and Nevada.
“The protection of sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat is Western Watershed's stated purpose behind this suit, but it is common knowledge that their primary agenda is to drive us ranchers off of our public lands,” Gralian's letter states.
He further claimed Western Watersheds Project “challenges the validity of almost all 10-year grazing permit renewals” in the Elko BLM district and estimated the suit affects more than 300 permits in Nevada.
The case is being heard by Idaho District court Judge Lynn Winmill, “a judge that has a history of being friendly to Western Watersheds and in most cases has ruled in their favor,” Gralian stated. Read More
The sage grouse issue is one that is starting to fester in the west. With so much public land in this half of the country, activist groups are going to do what they can to eliminate ranchers from that land in favor of letting it sit empty. The problem that ranchers face is that many people not familiar with grazing and land management wrongly believe that it damages the land. The truth of the matter is that when done properly, grazing will improve the quality and quantity of the forages on the range. It’s a win-win situation because when we utilize this resource, it also makes the resource better.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
PCRM Pushing for Hot Dog Warning Label
Hot dogs should carry a warning label, lawsuit says
Charlie Neibergall / Associated Press
The suit, by a group that promotes a meat-free diet, seeks to require cancer-risk labels on processed meats. Nutrition experts say foods that go along with the hot dog may be more dangerous.
By Jerry Hirsch July 23, 2009
"Warning: Consuming hot dogs and other processed meats increases the risk of cancer."
That's the label that a vegan advocacy group wants a New Jersey court to order Oscar Mayer, Hebrew National and other food companies to slap on hot dog packages.
The nonprofit Cancer Project filed a lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of three New Jersey plaintiffs asking the Essex County Superior Court to compel the companies to place cancer-risk warning labels on hot dog packages sold in New Jersey.
"Just as tobacco causes lung cancer, processed meats are linked to colon cancer," said Neal Barnard, president of the Cancer Project and an adjunct professor at the George Washington University medical school in Washington, D.C.
"Companies that sell hot dogs are well aware of the danger, and their customers deserve the same information."
The defendants in the lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, include Nathan's Famous Inc., Oscar Mayer owner Kraft Foods Inc., Sara Lee Corp., Marathon Enterprises Inc. and ConAgra Foods Inc., which owns Hebrew National.
Efforts to put warning labels on hot dog packages are "crazy," said Josh Urdang, 27, as he stood in line to buy two franks at Pink's hot dog stand in Hollywood on Tuesday.
"It wouldn't change how many hot dogs I eat. Not at all," said Urdang, an information technology consultant from Hollywood.
His friend Joe Di Lauro, 31, called such a move "overpolicing. . . . At what point do you stop breaking things down? Unless we're going to put a warning label on every single food and say what's bad in it."
Other consumers were skeptical of the Cancer Project's agenda.
"Vegans complaining about hot dogs is like the Amish complaining about gas prices," said Susan Thatcher of Irvine. Read More
When the public just won’t believe you that hot dogs are poisonous and give you cancer then sue them into accepting your agenda. At least that is the methodology being used by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Does it sound responsible to compare hot dogs to cigarettes? And that’s the problem with their radical agenda aimed at deciding what you can and can’t eat. It obviously doesn’t resonate well with reasonable people who don’t wish to have their dietary choices being decided for the.
Charlie Neibergall / Associated Press
The suit, by a group that promotes a meat-free diet, seeks to require cancer-risk labels on processed meats. Nutrition experts say foods that go along with the hot dog may be more dangerous.
By Jerry Hirsch July 23, 2009
"Warning: Consuming hot dogs and other processed meats increases the risk of cancer."
That's the label that a vegan advocacy group wants a New Jersey court to order Oscar Mayer, Hebrew National and other food companies to slap on hot dog packages.
The nonprofit Cancer Project filed a lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of three New Jersey plaintiffs asking the Essex County Superior Court to compel the companies to place cancer-risk warning labels on hot dog packages sold in New Jersey.
"Just as tobacco causes lung cancer, processed meats are linked to colon cancer," said Neal Barnard, president of the Cancer Project and an adjunct professor at the George Washington University medical school in Washington, D.C.
"Companies that sell hot dogs are well aware of the danger, and their customers deserve the same information."
The defendants in the lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, include Nathan's Famous Inc., Oscar Mayer owner Kraft Foods Inc., Sara Lee Corp., Marathon Enterprises Inc. and ConAgra Foods Inc., which owns Hebrew National.
Efforts to put warning labels on hot dog packages are "crazy," said Josh Urdang, 27, as he stood in line to buy two franks at Pink's hot dog stand in Hollywood on Tuesday.
"It wouldn't change how many hot dogs I eat. Not at all," said Urdang, an information technology consultant from Hollywood.
His friend Joe Di Lauro, 31, called such a move "overpolicing. . . . At what point do you stop breaking things down? Unless we're going to put a warning label on every single food and say what's bad in it."
Other consumers were skeptical of the Cancer Project's agenda.
"Vegans complaining about hot dogs is like the Amish complaining about gas prices," said Susan Thatcher of Irvine. Read More
When the public just won’t believe you that hot dogs are poisonous and give you cancer then sue them into accepting your agenda. At least that is the methodology being used by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Does it sound responsible to compare hot dogs to cigarettes? And that’s the problem with their radical agenda aimed at deciding what you can and can’t eat. It obviously doesn’t resonate well with reasonable people who don’t wish to have their dietary choices being decided for the.
Article about Advocates for Agriculture
Cattle ranching couple speaks out for production agriculture
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
By Jeannine Otto
STURGIS, S.D. — Even in the constrained say-it-in-140-character environment of Twitter, Troy Hadrick can describe why he and wife Stacy travel the country speaking out on behalf of U.S. agriculture, farmers and ranchers.
“I think we just need to do a better job of showing people who we are and what we do,” he said.
Hadrick and his wife are the faces and voices behind Advocates for Ag.
The South Dakota couple, the product of farming and ranching families, are some of the newest voices speaking out on behalf of their chosen profession.
They are doing that with face-to-face presentations and by using the tools of their generation, a Web log and social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook to spread their message to thousands about farming and agriculture.
Under the Twitter name of TroyHadrick and on Facebook as Advocates for Agriculture, Troy addresses a variety of topics related to agriculture and farming and current topics.
He’s been doing the blog for 15 months and only recently started a Facebook fan page and using Twitter to get his message out.The success is in the numbers — He has more than 2,700 fans on the Facebook page and an ever-growing number of followers on Twitter, and on his blog, www.advocatesforag.com, the Hadricks’ message is getting out. Read More
I wanted to feature this article about Advocates for Agriculture because it’s all of you that made this possible. If we didn’t have such loyal readers on the blog and engaging fans on Facebook we couldn’t do what we are doing. It’s the passion for agriculture that all of you exhibit on a daily basis that keeps us striving to do a better job for you. There is no possible way that Stacy and I can tell the story of agriculture all by ourselves. It has to be a team effort that requires the hard work and dedication of all of us. Thanks for all that you do. We are making a difference.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
By Jeannine Otto
STURGIS, S.D. — Even in the constrained say-it-in-140-character environment of Twitter, Troy Hadrick can describe why he and wife Stacy travel the country speaking out on behalf of U.S. agriculture, farmers and ranchers.
“I think we just need to do a better job of showing people who we are and what we do,” he said.
Hadrick and his wife are the faces and voices behind Advocates for Ag.
The South Dakota couple, the product of farming and ranching families, are some of the newest voices speaking out on behalf of their chosen profession.
They are doing that with face-to-face presentations and by using the tools of their generation, a Web log and social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook to spread their message to thousands about farming and agriculture.
Under the Twitter name of TroyHadrick and on Facebook as Advocates for Agriculture, Troy addresses a variety of topics related to agriculture and farming and current topics.
He’s been doing the blog for 15 months and only recently started a Facebook fan page and using Twitter to get his message out.The success is in the numbers — He has more than 2,700 fans on the Facebook page and an ever-growing number of followers on Twitter, and on his blog, www.advocatesforag.com, the Hadricks’ message is getting out. Read More
I wanted to feature this article about Advocates for Agriculture because it’s all of you that made this possible. If we didn’t have such loyal readers on the blog and engaging fans on Facebook we couldn’t do what we are doing. It’s the passion for agriculture that all of you exhibit on a daily basis that keeps us striving to do a better job for you. There is no possible way that Stacy and I can tell the story of agriculture all by ourselves. It has to be a team effort that requires the hard work and dedication of all of us. Thanks for all that you do. We are making a difference.
Okla Poultry Case Development
Judge: Okla. can't seek damages in poultry suit
By JUSTIN JUOZAPAVICIUS – 14 hours ago
TULSA, Okla. — Oklahoma can't pursue monetary damages in its environmental lawsuit against a dozen Arkansas poultry companies because it didn't name the Cherokee Nation as a plaintiff, a federal judge ruled Wednesday in a major blow to the state.
Oklahoma had hoped to collect more than $611 million from companies it claims polluted the Illinois River watershed with bird waste.
But the 1-million-acre river valley lies in an area set aside by the federal government for the Cherokee Nation, and Oklahoma doesn't have the authority to seek damages on the nation's behalf, U.S. District Court Judge Gregory K. Frizzell ruled.
He said the state could continue to pursue the lawsuit to stop poultry companies from disposing of what Oklahoma claims are excessive amounts of chicken waste on farmland in the watershed.
Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who filed the lawsuit in 2005, said it was never about the money but protecting the watershed from pollution.
"If we prevail ... at trial, we accomplish our goal of stopping these companies' reckless waste dumping practices," he said. Read More
Drew Edmondson keeps running into roadblocks in his quest to eliminate chicken production in Arkansas. Some speculated that his original intent was to make a name for himself so he could run for Governor anyhow. While he has made a name for himself, it’s not one that has necessarily been good. He seemed willing to put over 55,000 farmers out of business for his own personal gain. Not exactly the type of person you would want running a state. The fact of the matter is that these chicken houses follow the strict guidelines and regulations that go along with operating a chicken house. These measures are meant to protect the environment and the farmers themselves. Edmondson was simply looking for some low hanging fruit to munch down.
By JUSTIN JUOZAPAVICIUS – 14 hours ago
TULSA, Okla. — Oklahoma can't pursue monetary damages in its environmental lawsuit against a dozen Arkansas poultry companies because it didn't name the Cherokee Nation as a plaintiff, a federal judge ruled Wednesday in a major blow to the state.
Oklahoma had hoped to collect more than $611 million from companies it claims polluted the Illinois River watershed with bird waste.
But the 1-million-acre river valley lies in an area set aside by the federal government for the Cherokee Nation, and Oklahoma doesn't have the authority to seek damages on the nation's behalf, U.S. District Court Judge Gregory K. Frizzell ruled.
He said the state could continue to pursue the lawsuit to stop poultry companies from disposing of what Oklahoma claims are excessive amounts of chicken waste on farmland in the watershed.
Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who filed the lawsuit in 2005, said it was never about the money but protecting the watershed from pollution.
"If we prevail ... at trial, we accomplish our goal of stopping these companies' reckless waste dumping practices," he said. Read More
Drew Edmondson keeps running into roadblocks in his quest to eliminate chicken production in Arkansas. Some speculated that his original intent was to make a name for himself so he could run for Governor anyhow. While he has made a name for himself, it’s not one that has necessarily been good. He seemed willing to put over 55,000 farmers out of business for his own personal gain. Not exactly the type of person you would want running a state. The fact of the matter is that these chicken houses follow the strict guidelines and regulations that go along with operating a chicken house. These measures are meant to protect the environment and the farmers themselves. Edmondson was simply looking for some low hanging fruit to munch down.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
HSUS v. Family Farmers
Humane Society, farmers prepare for war
Battle lines are forming over proposal to change Ohio rules on methods of confining livestock
By Bob Downing Beacon Journal staff writer
Published on Sunday, Jul 19, 2009
Ohio farmers are fighting back against a proposal by the Humane Society of the United States to change how chickens, pigs and calves are confined.
The two sides already are scrapping over what is expected to become a heated, emotional and costly statewide ballot issue in November and perhaps again in 2010.
What's happening is ''tremendously scary to Ohio farmers . . . and what's happening will impact everyone in Ohio,'' Stark County farmer Frank Burkett III said.
The outcome could cost farm jobs in Ohio and affect prices, opponents contend.
In 2008, the Humane Society played a key role in a California vote that changed the way farmers there must care for and shelter farm animals. Ohio became its next target, largely because of the state's 30 million egg-laying hens.
Battle lines formed this February with the Humane Society pitted against the powerful Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Ohio Cattlemen's Association, Ohio Pork Producers Council and Ohio Poultry Association.
The message from the Humane Society was clear: Change your animal-husbandry practices or have them changed foryou at the ballot box. Read More
This article really does a nice job of summing up what has happened and what might unfold in the months to come in Ohio. Agriculture has definitely seen some success so far, but we can’t take our eye off the ball yet. As the livestock care board continues it’s journey onto the ballot this fall, it will need the support from people across the country. Pacelle and Shapiro’s goal is to convince Ohioans that farmers and ranchers don’t know how to take care of their livestock. The truth is that farmers and ranchers have knowledge of animal welfare that runs generations deep.
Battle lines are forming over proposal to change Ohio rules on methods of confining livestock
By Bob Downing Beacon Journal staff writer
Published on Sunday, Jul 19, 2009
Ohio farmers are fighting back against a proposal by the Humane Society of the United States to change how chickens, pigs and calves are confined.
The two sides already are scrapping over what is expected to become a heated, emotional and costly statewide ballot issue in November and perhaps again in 2010.
What's happening is ''tremendously scary to Ohio farmers . . . and what's happening will impact everyone in Ohio,'' Stark County farmer Frank Burkett III said.
The outcome could cost farm jobs in Ohio and affect prices, opponents contend.
In 2008, the Humane Society played a key role in a California vote that changed the way farmers there must care for and shelter farm animals. Ohio became its next target, largely because of the state's 30 million egg-laying hens.
Battle lines formed this February with the Humane Society pitted against the powerful Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Ohio Cattlemen's Association, Ohio Pork Producers Council and Ohio Poultry Association.
The message from the Humane Society was clear: Change your animal-husbandry practices or have them changed foryou at the ballot box. Read More
This article really does a nice job of summing up what has happened and what might unfold in the months to come in Ohio. Agriculture has definitely seen some success so far, but we can’t take our eye off the ball yet. As the livestock care board continues it’s journey onto the ballot this fall, it will need the support from people across the country. Pacelle and Shapiro’s goal is to convince Ohioans that farmers and ranchers don’t know how to take care of their livestock. The truth is that farmers and ranchers have knowledge of animal welfare that runs generations deep.
The Vegan Streaker
Vegan streaker 'planned to attack queen'
DutchNews.nl
Tuesday 21 July 2009
An animal rights activist known as the vegan streaker has been arrested on suspicion of planning to attack queen Beatrix, his lawyer Gerard Spong told the Volkskrant on Tuesday.
The public prosecution department said earlier that Peter Janssen is suspected of preparing an attack and possessing a gun. Two computers were taken from homes in Wissekerke and Vught, where the 24-year-old's mother lives.
Later the department said Janssen was suspected of planning to attack the queen because she regularly wears fur in public. The arrest followed 'extensive' testimony, the department said.
'We think the police took action on the basis of an anonymous, vague tip,' Spong told the paper.
He pointed out that no gun was found during the search of the properties.
Janssen will appear in court on Wednesday.
Headlines
Janssen, who was arrested earlier this year for releasing 2,500 mink on a fur farm, first hit the headlines a year ago when he disrupted filming of the Paul de Leeuw tv show, wearing only underpants.
He has also been caught streaking at the ABN Amro tennis tournament, a Champions Trophy hockey match and the Tilburg Ten Mile road race. Link
I’m sure that for most of you the burning question you have is where would a vegan streaker hide his gun? But the more important question is why do these vegan animal rights activists feel that violence against their fellow human beings will help their cause? Even though many of them continue to say that their movement is based on peace and valuing life, their actions continue to show their true violent tendencies.
DutchNews.nl
Tuesday 21 July 2009
An animal rights activist known as the vegan streaker has been arrested on suspicion of planning to attack queen Beatrix, his lawyer Gerard Spong told the Volkskrant on Tuesday.
The public prosecution department said earlier that Peter Janssen is suspected of preparing an attack and possessing a gun. Two computers were taken from homes in Wissekerke and Vught, where the 24-year-old's mother lives.
Later the department said Janssen was suspected of planning to attack the queen because she regularly wears fur in public. The arrest followed 'extensive' testimony, the department said.
'We think the police took action on the basis of an anonymous, vague tip,' Spong told the paper.
He pointed out that no gun was found during the search of the properties.
Janssen will appear in court on Wednesday.
Headlines
Janssen, who was arrested earlier this year for releasing 2,500 mink on a fur farm, first hit the headlines a year ago when he disrupted filming of the Paul de Leeuw tv show, wearing only underpants.
He has also been caught streaking at the ABN Amro tennis tournament, a Champions Trophy hockey match and the Tilburg Ten Mile road race. Link
I’m sure that for most of you the burning question you have is where would a vegan streaker hide his gun? But the more important question is why do these vegan animal rights activists feel that violence against their fellow human beings will help their cause? Even though many of them continue to say that their movement is based on peace and valuing life, their actions continue to show their true violent tendencies.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Sued by Nature
Sued by the forest
Should nature be able to take you to court?
(Boston Globe / Steve Wacksman)
By Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow
July 19, 2009
Last February, the town of Shapleigh, Maine, population 2,326, passed an unusual ordinance. Like nearby towns, Shapleigh sought to protect its aquifers from the Nestle Corporation, which draws heavily on the region for its Poland Spring bottled water. Some Maine towns had acquiesced, others had protested, and one was locked in a protracted legal battle.
Shapleigh tried something new - a move at once humble in its method and audacious in its ambition. At a town meeting, residents voted, 114-66, to endow all of the town’s natural assets with legal rights: “Natural communities and ecosystems possess inalienable and fundamental rights to exist, flourish and naturally evolve within the Town of Shapleigh.” It further decreed that any town resident had “standing” to seek relief for damages caused to nature - permitting, for example, a lawsuit on behalf of a stream.
Shapleigh is one of about a dozen US municipalities to have passed measures declaring that nature itself has rights under the law. And in 2008, when Ecuador adopted a new constitution, it recognized nature’s “right to exist, persist, maintain itself and regenerate its own vital cycles, structure, functions and its evolutionary processes.” A campaign is also underway in Europe for a UN Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights, which would attempt to enshrine such principles in international law, following the model of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
These developments are part of a small but growing movement that aims to reorient the relationship between the earth and the law. Advocates argue that natural objects should not be treated as mere property, vulnerable to exploitation or destruction as owners see fit, but as rights-bearing entities with intrinsic value. The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit, works with communities such as Shapleigh to protect local ecosystems, and more towns are considering ordinances in the same vein. The Center for Earth Jurisprudence, established in 2006, works with two Florida law schools, developing a legal philosophy based on respect for the planet, and seeking avenues in current law to advance that goal.
“Someone needs to be able to represent the rivers,” says Patricia Siemen, director of the Center for Earth Jurisprudence. “Someone needs to be able to represent the forests.”
Of course, the notion will strike skeptics as preposterous. Would we need to worry about offending litigious shrubs? With a boulder, or a swamp, as a witness in the proceedings? Critics dismiss the idea as grandstanding that could clog the courts with frivolous cases.
But proponents see it as part of an ongoing progression, an expansion of rights that slowly brings about an increasingly just society. After all, not so long ago, slaves and women were in some legal regimes deemed property, just as nature is today. Now we all accept universal human rights. The concept of animal rights has also become familiar, if much more contested. Advocates of this agenda see the extension of rights to ecosystems as the natural next step. And they believe it could spark a profound shift in our relations with nature, leading to more effective environmental protections.
“The language of rights has a great deal of currency. It’s the most powerful of our ethical terms,” says John Baird Callicott, a philosophy professor at the University of North Texas. “Rights shift the burden of proof from those who are defending nature to those who want to exploit it.”
Read More
So my question to this idea that nature has rights would be centered around the responsibilities that go with rights. The rights that humans have been granted also come with a responsibility. If nature can sue us, does nature also have a responsibility to us. Is Mother Nature going to pay us back for the damage she causes? I think it’s a fair question to ask. The next time a tornado tears up a town, maybe nature can reimburse those that were affected.
And did you also notice that they are trying to classify people into two categories now? You are either someone that will defend nature or you are someone who exploits it. What about our need to utilize what nature gives us?
Should nature be able to take you to court?
(Boston Globe / Steve Wacksman)
By Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow
July 19, 2009
Last February, the town of Shapleigh, Maine, population 2,326, passed an unusual ordinance. Like nearby towns, Shapleigh sought to protect its aquifers from the Nestle Corporation, which draws heavily on the region for its Poland Spring bottled water. Some Maine towns had acquiesced, others had protested, and one was locked in a protracted legal battle.
Shapleigh tried something new - a move at once humble in its method and audacious in its ambition. At a town meeting, residents voted, 114-66, to endow all of the town’s natural assets with legal rights: “Natural communities and ecosystems possess inalienable and fundamental rights to exist, flourish and naturally evolve within the Town of Shapleigh.” It further decreed that any town resident had “standing” to seek relief for damages caused to nature - permitting, for example, a lawsuit on behalf of a stream.
Shapleigh is one of about a dozen US municipalities to have passed measures declaring that nature itself has rights under the law. And in 2008, when Ecuador adopted a new constitution, it recognized nature’s “right to exist, persist, maintain itself and regenerate its own vital cycles, structure, functions and its evolutionary processes.” A campaign is also underway in Europe for a UN Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights, which would attempt to enshrine such principles in international law, following the model of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
These developments are part of a small but growing movement that aims to reorient the relationship between the earth and the law. Advocates argue that natural objects should not be treated as mere property, vulnerable to exploitation or destruction as owners see fit, but as rights-bearing entities with intrinsic value. The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit, works with communities such as Shapleigh to protect local ecosystems, and more towns are considering ordinances in the same vein. The Center for Earth Jurisprudence, established in 2006, works with two Florida law schools, developing a legal philosophy based on respect for the planet, and seeking avenues in current law to advance that goal.
“Someone needs to be able to represent the rivers,” says Patricia Siemen, director of the Center for Earth Jurisprudence. “Someone needs to be able to represent the forests.”
Of course, the notion will strike skeptics as preposterous. Would we need to worry about offending litigious shrubs? With a boulder, or a swamp, as a witness in the proceedings? Critics dismiss the idea as grandstanding that could clog the courts with frivolous cases.
But proponents see it as part of an ongoing progression, an expansion of rights that slowly brings about an increasingly just society. After all, not so long ago, slaves and women were in some legal regimes deemed property, just as nature is today. Now we all accept universal human rights. The concept of animal rights has also become familiar, if much more contested. Advocates of this agenda see the extension of rights to ecosystems as the natural next step. And they believe it could spark a profound shift in our relations with nature, leading to more effective environmental protections.
“The language of rights has a great deal of currency. It’s the most powerful of our ethical terms,” says John Baird Callicott, a philosophy professor at the University of North Texas. “Rights shift the burden of proof from those who are defending nature to those who want to exploit it.”
Read More
So my question to this idea that nature has rights would be centered around the responsibilities that go with rights. The rights that humans have been granted also come with a responsibility. If nature can sue us, does nature also have a responsibility to us. Is Mother Nature going to pay us back for the damage she causes? I think it’s a fair question to ask. The next time a tornado tears up a town, maybe nature can reimburse those that were affected.
And did you also notice that they are trying to classify people into two categories now? You are either someone that will defend nature or you are someone who exploits it. What about our need to utilize what nature gives us?
Oregon Tribes Looking At Horse Processing Facility
Groups push to slaughter horses for meat, possibly starting in Oregon
by Richard Cockle, The Oregonian
Saturday July 18, 2009, 3:00 PM
Ranchers, Native Americans and others are pushing for the renewed slaughter of horses in the U.S. -- possibly starting in Oregon -- and processing them into meat.
Groups are lobbying Congress to introduce a bill this summer to allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to resume inspecting horse meat for human consumption. That would reopen the door to foreign exports.
In addition, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs are considering building a slaughter and processing facility -- possibly for pet food -- on their reservation north of Madras, as recommended last spring by a coalition of Northwest tribes.
The success of either proposal is far from certain. A congressional spokesman said bills that favor slaughtering horses face a chilly reception, and a tribal spokesman said it's too early to say much about the Warm Springs idea.
Yet the efforts, in addition to riling animal-rights advocates, underscore a rural-urban divide and the desperate state of America's horse industry.
Supporters say they need a way to deal with tens of thousands of unwanted horses. The glut was caused by factors such as uncontrolled breeding, closure of the last U.S. horse-processing plants two years ago and an economy that has left many owners unable to pay for feed and care.
The situation has led to a steep decline in horse prices, overgrazing on Native American reservations, and incidents of horse abandonment and neglect, among other problems.
"We think it is very fair and accurate to say there are probably 100,000 horses that would go to processing today" if a plant were available, said Wyoming state Rep. Sue Wallis, a rancher emerging as a national leader in pushing to reinstate horse slaughtering.
Jenny Edwards, who runs the nonprofit Hope for Horses rescue outfit in Woodinville, Wash., dislikes slaughtering but says something must be done. "Everybody who has open land is getting horses dumped on it right now," she said.
Native Americans say herds of horses are trampling berries and roots -- an important part of Native feasts -- and damaging habitat for salmon and steelhead. An estimated 4,000 ownerless horses roam the 640,000-acre Warm Springs Reservation, for example, and 12,000 live on the 1.4 million-acre Yakama Reservation in Washington, said Arlen Washines, Yakama tribal spokesman, at a meeting of tribes in May. The problem remains even though both tribes corral and sterilize wild stallions.
Reports of abandoned, starving horses are increasing. Glenn tells of a Wyoming rancher he spoke with "who just acquired seven horses he didn't buy and didn't know he had until he went out and counted his horses." Malheur County Sheriff Andrew Bentz said a horse found abandoned in Nevada had its brand cut off so it couldn't be traced. Read More
This article contains a lot of good information in it as to the scope of this issue. There are an incredible amount of unwanted horses that are causing a lot of devastation to the land and costing land owners and taxpayers untold amounts of money. If the feral horse population continues to grow unchecked, disease or starvation will eventually correct the situation. There is no reason we shouldn’t be utilizing this resource rather than wasting it. We should be doing this in a US based plant.
by Richard Cockle, The Oregonian
Saturday July 18, 2009, 3:00 PM
Ranchers, Native Americans and others are pushing for the renewed slaughter of horses in the U.S. -- possibly starting in Oregon -- and processing them into meat.
Groups are lobbying Congress to introduce a bill this summer to allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to resume inspecting horse meat for human consumption. That would reopen the door to foreign exports.
In addition, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs are considering building a slaughter and processing facility -- possibly for pet food -- on their reservation north of Madras, as recommended last spring by a coalition of Northwest tribes.
The success of either proposal is far from certain. A congressional spokesman said bills that favor slaughtering horses face a chilly reception, and a tribal spokesman said it's too early to say much about the Warm Springs idea.
Yet the efforts, in addition to riling animal-rights advocates, underscore a rural-urban divide and the desperate state of America's horse industry.
Supporters say they need a way to deal with tens of thousands of unwanted horses. The glut was caused by factors such as uncontrolled breeding, closure of the last U.S. horse-processing plants two years ago and an economy that has left many owners unable to pay for feed and care.
The situation has led to a steep decline in horse prices, overgrazing on Native American reservations, and incidents of horse abandonment and neglect, among other problems.
"We think it is very fair and accurate to say there are probably 100,000 horses that would go to processing today" if a plant were available, said Wyoming state Rep. Sue Wallis, a rancher emerging as a national leader in pushing to reinstate horse slaughtering.
Jenny Edwards, who runs the nonprofit Hope for Horses rescue outfit in Woodinville, Wash., dislikes slaughtering but says something must be done. "Everybody who has open land is getting horses dumped on it right now," she said.
Native Americans say herds of horses are trampling berries and roots -- an important part of Native feasts -- and damaging habitat for salmon and steelhead. An estimated 4,000 ownerless horses roam the 640,000-acre Warm Springs Reservation, for example, and 12,000 live on the 1.4 million-acre Yakama Reservation in Washington, said Arlen Washines, Yakama tribal spokesman, at a meeting of tribes in May. The problem remains even though both tribes corral and sterilize wild stallions.
Reports of abandoned, starving horses are increasing. Glenn tells of a Wyoming rancher he spoke with "who just acquired seven horses he didn't buy and didn't know he had until he went out and counted his horses." Malheur County Sheriff Andrew Bentz said a horse found abandoned in Nevada had its brand cut off so it couldn't be traced. Read More
This article contains a lot of good information in it as to the scope of this issue. There are an incredible amount of unwanted horses that are causing a lot of devastation to the land and costing land owners and taxpayers untold amounts of money. If the feral horse population continues to grow unchecked, disease or starvation will eventually correct the situation. There is no reason we shouldn’t be utilizing this resource rather than wasting it. We should be doing this in a US based plant.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Chicago
Stacy and I got into Chicago last night for a meeting that will keep us here until next Tuesday. As we arrived at our hotel, it's pretty much impossible not to notice how many people live and work in the relatively small area of downtown. I couldn't help but think to myself that it is only because of the hard work that farmers and ranchers do in raising a safe, affordable, abundant food supply that make this city life possible. The very existence of large cities depends on the rural America to sustain it.
There are basics in life that can't be ignored but are largely forgotten by many. The very foundation of our society hinges on our ability to grow food, and that is thanks to you.
Have a great weekend.
There are basics in life that can't be ignored but are largely forgotten by many. The very foundation of our society hinges on our ability to grow food, and that is thanks to you.
Have a great weekend.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Anti-Animal Rights Billboards
Animal rights, writ too large?
The nuances of the issues involved in the spaying and neutering of pets just don't fit on a billboard.
Meghan Daum July 16, 2009
Have you seen the billboards around town that say "Protect Your Right to Own a Pet"? They show a child hugging a puppy and provide a website, exposeanimalrights.com, flanked by international "no" symbols(a circle with a slash though it) containing the initials PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and HSUS (Humane Society of the United States).
When I first passed one a couple of weeks ago, I was confused. Are we supposed to imagine that a PETA activist is about to snatch the puppy from the boy's hands because it's his "pet" and not his "animal companion"? Or -- and I admit this reaction is the result of living in a neighborhood with, shall we say, "conflicting" philosophies about pet care -- was something else afoot? Was "protect your right to own a pet" code for "protect your sleazy right to keep your dog chained up in the yard all day"?
Admittedly, I can be a ridiculous softy when it comes to animals. Nothing riles me up more than the thought of animal abuse, and I personally don't think it's everyone's "right" to own a pet. But I'm no radical either. I eat meat, I wear leather and I occasionally pay to let my dog herd sheep, which I have a feeling PETA wouldn't appreciate (for the sheep's sake).
So although I was pretty sure I wasn't for this sign, was I necessarily against it? To find out, I had to call Kathy Grayson, a professional dog handler in Riverside County who is behind the signs. She said she was fed up with what she considers unfair legislation -- primarily mandatory spay and neutering laws -- furthered by what are in her view manipulative messages from PETA, the Humane Society and others. Spay and neutering laws punish those who responsibly breed and show dogs, she said. True, you can pay for exemptions, but Grayson maintains that it's too easy for exemptions to be revoked. "I'd drive home from dog shows and pass all these empty billboards on the interstate," she said. "I started to think how great it would be to put a sign in the middle of Hollywood telling people the truth about extremist groups." Read More
I would say that the questions and knowledge of this columnist is pretty typical of many consumers. They think they understand an issue until they are forced to think about it. And even then, they struggle to see the big picture. It’s great that she see thru PETA’s game, but it’s usually harder for them to do that with HSUS. For example, when she called Pacelle to ask their position on pet ownership, he’s not going to tell her what they really want to accomplish there. He claims to support responsible breeders, but he never says what one of those is. Does he think there are any responsible breeders out there? I have talked to animal rights people before that say there is no such thing. It’s important for consumers to look at the actions of HSUS and PETA rather than their words. Congratulations to Patti Strand and her group for helping make these billboards a reality. She runs a great group and is a fantastic friend of animal agriculture.
The nuances of the issues involved in the spaying and neutering of pets just don't fit on a billboard.
Meghan Daum July 16, 2009
Have you seen the billboards around town that say "Protect Your Right to Own a Pet"? They show a child hugging a puppy and provide a website, exposeanimalrights.com, flanked by international "no" symbols(a circle with a slash though it) containing the initials PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and HSUS (Humane Society of the United States).
When I first passed one a couple of weeks ago, I was confused. Are we supposed to imagine that a PETA activist is about to snatch the puppy from the boy's hands because it's his "pet" and not his "animal companion"? Or -- and I admit this reaction is the result of living in a neighborhood with, shall we say, "conflicting" philosophies about pet care -- was something else afoot? Was "protect your right to own a pet" code for "protect your sleazy right to keep your dog chained up in the yard all day"?
Admittedly, I can be a ridiculous softy when it comes to animals. Nothing riles me up more than the thought of animal abuse, and I personally don't think it's everyone's "right" to own a pet. But I'm no radical either. I eat meat, I wear leather and I occasionally pay to let my dog herd sheep, which I have a feeling PETA wouldn't appreciate (for the sheep's sake).
So although I was pretty sure I wasn't for this sign, was I necessarily against it? To find out, I had to call Kathy Grayson, a professional dog handler in Riverside County who is behind the signs. She said she was fed up with what she considers unfair legislation -- primarily mandatory spay and neutering laws -- furthered by what are in her view manipulative messages from PETA, the Humane Society and others. Spay and neutering laws punish those who responsibly breed and show dogs, she said. True, you can pay for exemptions, but Grayson maintains that it's too easy for exemptions to be revoked. "I'd drive home from dog shows and pass all these empty billboards on the interstate," she said. "I started to think how great it would be to put a sign in the middle of Hollywood telling people the truth about extremist groups." Read More
I would say that the questions and knowledge of this columnist is pretty typical of many consumers. They think they understand an issue until they are forced to think about it. And even then, they struggle to see the big picture. It’s great that she see thru PETA’s game, but it’s usually harder for them to do that with HSUS. For example, when she called Pacelle to ask their position on pet ownership, he’s not going to tell her what they really want to accomplish there. He claims to support responsible breeders, but he never says what one of those is. Does he think there are any responsible breeders out there? I have talked to animal rights people before that say there is no such thing. It’s important for consumers to look at the actions of HSUS and PETA rather than their words. Congratulations to Patti Strand and her group for helping make these billboards a reality. She runs a great group and is a fantastic friend of animal agriculture.
CEO's See Value of Ag Education
Indiana's Agricultural Competitiveness Built and Dependent on Quality Education
By: Inside INdiana Business
Agriculture's value to all of us is undeniable. It is an industry that satisfies our most basic needs for human life and further enhances our quality of living. At no other time in history has agriculture been charged with so many additional responsibilities. It is the industry the world looks to when faced with extreme hunger, searching for new sources of energy, developing new foods to improve human health, and addressing climate change, among others.
Agriculture is poised to offer new solutions to these modern-day challenges, simultaneously creating enormous opportunities for the industry. It will be forced, however, to rely even more heavily on the ingenuity of its producers and businesses and the development of more groundbreaking technologies.
The third Indiana CEO Survey, conducted and presented by Inside INdiana Business, Ice Miller LLP and Butler University, captures the opinions of over 350 Indiana chief executives from all areas of the state and from a wide range of manufacturing, service, and not-for-profit organizations. Asked about the strength of education in Indiana focused on specific industries, agriculture rated highest – ahead of life sciences, advanced manufacturing, information technology and alternative energy sources. Read More
It’s always nice to read some encouraging articles in the news. Like the article says, agriculture continues to have more responsibilities thrust upon us, and the importance of this has not been missed by the CEO’s that took this survey. Without a solid agricultural foundation, many other industries, along with the sovereignty of our nation, are in jeopardy. So even though this looks like some great news for us, we still have a lot of work to do in educating our consumers on the importance of modern agriculture.
Beef Checkoff Study Results
Beef Checkoff Posting Return Of $5.55
By Cattle Network
The Beef Checkoff Program returned about $5.55 in value to beef producers for every dollar they invested into it between 2003 and 2008. That’s the overall conclusion of a new economic study completed by Dr. Ron Ward, professor emeritus for the Food and Resource Economics Department of the University of Florida.
“Is the beef checkoff a demand driver? This was the most fundamental question of the entire study, and the answer is an overwhelming ‘yes,’ the generic promotion of beef has shifted beef demand,” Ward noted in his research conclusions. “The marginal rate-of-return is large enough to provide overwhelming evidence that the programs are achieving positive impacts (on) the U.S. demand for beef,” he said.
“The Beef Checkoff Programs and Their Impact on U.S. Beef Demand” evaluates the effectiveness of checkoff-funded programs in reaching their overarching goal of growing beef demand. To complete this, Ward employs statistical models that measure the effects of major beef demand drivers overall, then specifically, of the Beef Checkoff Program itself as a demand driver. It is a comprehensive study that is peer-reviewed by respected economists versed in commodity promotions and the beef industry, and is a follow-up to similar beef checkoff evaluations conducted regularly since 1989. Read More
While it’s always great to hear that the beef checkoff is returning a healthy margin, I think we also have to look at one of the other benefits it has. In today’s world, there aren’t a line of people breaking down our industry’s doors looking for opportunities to show consumers that eating beef is good for you. We have many vocal critics of meat in general that are trying to tell the public that they should be vegetarians, and then list a variety of misleading reasons. There a wide margin of our consumers that just want to be reassured that beef is a safe, wholesome and nutritious product. And that is something that the beef checkoff does very well.
By Cattle Network
The Beef Checkoff Program returned about $5.55 in value to beef producers for every dollar they invested into it between 2003 and 2008. That’s the overall conclusion of a new economic study completed by Dr. Ron Ward, professor emeritus for the Food and Resource Economics Department of the University of Florida.
“Is the beef checkoff a demand driver? This was the most fundamental question of the entire study, and the answer is an overwhelming ‘yes,’ the generic promotion of beef has shifted beef demand,” Ward noted in his research conclusions. “The marginal rate-of-return is large enough to provide overwhelming evidence that the programs are achieving positive impacts (on) the U.S. demand for beef,” he said.
“The Beef Checkoff Programs and Their Impact on U.S. Beef Demand” evaluates the effectiveness of checkoff-funded programs in reaching their overarching goal of growing beef demand. To complete this, Ward employs statistical models that measure the effects of major beef demand drivers overall, then specifically, of the Beef Checkoff Program itself as a demand driver. It is a comprehensive study that is peer-reviewed by respected economists versed in commodity promotions and the beef industry, and is a follow-up to similar beef checkoff evaluations conducted regularly since 1989. Read More
While it’s always great to hear that the beef checkoff is returning a healthy margin, I think we also have to look at one of the other benefits it has. In today’s world, there aren’t a line of people breaking down our industry’s doors looking for opportunities to show consumers that eating beef is good for you. We have many vocal critics of meat in general that are trying to tell the public that they should be vegetarians, and then list a variety of misleading reasons. There a wide margin of our consumers that just want to be reassured that beef is a safe, wholesome and nutritious product. And that is something that the beef checkoff does very well.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Heading Home
I'm sitting in the Denver International Airport right now about to get on a plane back to South Dakota. We had a great time yesterday at the Masters of Beef Advocacy commencement. There was a fanstatic and enthusiastic group of beef industry advocates that are now even more excited about telling their story and the story of beef production.
Since I'm about to get on a plane, this will be the only post on my blog this morning, but hopefully this afternoon I can get back on and post some stories that I think you might be interested in. Until then, have a great day.
Since I'm about to get on a plane, this will be the only post on my blog this morning, but hopefully this afternoon I can get back on and post some stories that I think you might be interested in. Until then, have a great day.
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.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Explaining Production Systems
'Organic' label doesn't guarantee quality or taste
Just because it's organic doesn't mean it's the best. Let flavor dictate.
By RUSS PARSONS
July 1, 2009
I don't believe in organic. There, I've said it and I feel better. It's something that's been on my mind for years.
Now, don't get me wrong: I've got nothing against organic farmers. In fact, some of my favorite farmers are organic. I really admire them: Growing delicious food and doing it according to organic standards is adding a degree of difficulty that I wouldn't wish on anyone.
But a lot of my favorite farmers aren't organic, and therein lies the rub.
This may shock some people, and for that I guess I ought to apologize. But really, if I'm honest, I think the ones who need to do the apologizing are the often-well-meaning organic advocates who paint such a black-and-white picture of the way farming works that it seems there should be no choice at all.
Listening to them, you get the idea that if you aren't eating fruits and vegetables that were organically grown, you might as well be mainlining Agent Orange or handing your money straight to some giant industrial agricultural corporation. You're certainly not going to be getting anything with any flavor, they'd argue. Read More
This is one of the most balanced pieces about food production you will probably ever see. Congratulations to the author for practicing good journalism. All production methods have advantages and drawbacks. And not all of them will work in all situations. It’s trendy to buy organic right now, but most consumers don’t truly understand what that even means. Articles like this that truly show how both systems work will go a long ways toward educating consumers.
Just because it's organic doesn't mean it's the best. Let flavor dictate.
By RUSS PARSONS
July 1, 2009
I don't believe in organic. There, I've said it and I feel better. It's something that's been on my mind for years.
Now, don't get me wrong: I've got nothing against organic farmers. In fact, some of my favorite farmers are organic. I really admire them: Growing delicious food and doing it according to organic standards is adding a degree of difficulty that I wouldn't wish on anyone.
But a lot of my favorite farmers aren't organic, and therein lies the rub.
This may shock some people, and for that I guess I ought to apologize. But really, if I'm honest, I think the ones who need to do the apologizing are the often-well-meaning organic advocates who paint such a black-and-white picture of the way farming works that it seems there should be no choice at all.
Listening to them, you get the idea that if you aren't eating fruits and vegetables that were organically grown, you might as well be mainlining Agent Orange or handing your money straight to some giant industrial agricultural corporation. You're certainly not going to be getting anything with any flavor, they'd argue. Read More
This is one of the most balanced pieces about food production you will probably ever see. Congratulations to the author for practicing good journalism. All production methods have advantages and drawbacks. And not all of them will work in all situations. It’s trendy to buy organic right now, but most consumers don’t truly understand what that even means. Articles like this that truly show how both systems work will go a long ways toward educating consumers.
More Climate Bill Speculation
Differing views on climate bill's future
Dan Looker
Successful Farming magazine Business Editor
6/30/2009, 1:11 PM CDT
Expensive fuel and fertilizer, or the salvation of the biofuels industry?
In a nutshell, that's how two different agricultural leaders view a climate bill that heads to the U.S. Senate after narrow passage in the House of Representatives last week.
A lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau Federation thinks the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate.
"We don't anticipate that it will pass the Senate this year," Farm Bureau lobbyist Mary Kay Thatcher told Agriculture Online.
The Senate will soon begin to consider President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, as well as continue to work on health care reform. With an already full agenda, and opposition from rural areas, Thatcher thinks a vote on climate change legislation is unlikely this year.
Farm Bureau applauds the efforts by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson to get USDA, not the EPA, to run the trading of carbon credits that farmers might sell to industries that emit greenhouse gases. But the group still opposes climate change legislation, viewing its costs as higher than potential benefits.
Farm Bureau doesn't believe a carbon credit trading program would provide enough income to counter expected higher costs for fuel and fertilizer, even if the Senate makes improvements in the bill.
"It's hard for me to believe they could change it enough in the Senate to make agriculture a winner," Thatcher said. Read More
The cap and trade bill came in a package that exceeded 1000 pages. Even though this has the potential to drastically affect, it seems that not a single Representative that voted for it could claim that they had read the entire bill. Our entire society depends on a reliable source of energy and our elected officials can’t take the time to even read about what they are voting on? Now that the Senate will be taking up this matter, you may want to suggest that they at least read it before they cast their vote.
Dan Looker
Successful Farming magazine Business Editor
6/30/2009, 1:11 PM CDT
Expensive fuel and fertilizer, or the salvation of the biofuels industry?
In a nutshell, that's how two different agricultural leaders view a climate bill that heads to the U.S. Senate after narrow passage in the House of Representatives last week.
A lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau Federation thinks the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate.
"We don't anticipate that it will pass the Senate this year," Farm Bureau lobbyist Mary Kay Thatcher told Agriculture Online.
The Senate will soon begin to consider President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, as well as continue to work on health care reform. With an already full agenda, and opposition from rural areas, Thatcher thinks a vote on climate change legislation is unlikely this year.
Farm Bureau applauds the efforts by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson to get USDA, not the EPA, to run the trading of carbon credits that farmers might sell to industries that emit greenhouse gases. But the group still opposes climate change legislation, viewing its costs as higher than potential benefits.
Farm Bureau doesn't believe a carbon credit trading program would provide enough income to counter expected higher costs for fuel and fertilizer, even if the Senate makes improvements in the bill.
"It's hard for me to believe they could change it enough in the Senate to make agriculture a winner," Thatcher said. Read More
The cap and trade bill came in a package that exceeded 1000 pages. Even though this has the potential to drastically affect, it seems that not a single Representative that voted for it could claim that they had read the entire bill. Our entire society depends on a reliable source of energy and our elected officials can’t take the time to even read about what they are voting on? Now that the Senate will be taking up this matter, you may want to suggest that they at least read it before they cast their vote.
PETA Exploiting A Child
PETA: Feeding Kids Meat Is Child Abuse
Group Plans Billboard In Light Of 555-Pound Teen
Jennifer Phillips reporting
POSTED: 11:27 am EDT July 1, 2009
UPDATED: 11:48 am EDT July 1, 2009
GREENVILLE, S.C. -- An animal rights group is planning to post a billboard in the Greenville area that calls feeding meat to children abuse in light of recent news stories about a 555-pound South Carolina teenager.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals want to put up the billboard that features a picture of an overweight boy who is about to eat a hamburger with the tagline “Feeding kids meat is child abuse.”
The billboard also directs readers to the Web site goveg.com.
PETA campaign manager Lindsay Rajt said the group got the idea after hearing about Jerri Gray and her 14-year-old son Alexander Draper, who weighs 555 pounds.
Gray garnered national attention when deputies said she skipped town with her son after she learned the Department of Social Services was planning to remove him from her home.
An Upstate personal trainer said the billboard is exploiting the teen’s condition.
“There are a lot of average sized or small children who eat two or three hamburgers a week and they’re not having issues,” said personal trainer Cathy Frohnheiser. “Taking one heavy child and 'let’s exploit that' is really not the approach they need to be taking.” Read More
It would seem obvious to most reasonable people that this teenager’s weight problem was caused by more than what he was eating. This child is obviously battling some serious issues that will affect the rest of his life and it’s sad that PETA feels the need to contribute to this boy’s problems. A balanced diet that includes meat and dairy products, coupled with regular exercise will always be the foundation for a healthy lifestyle. This is a truly shameful action on PETA’s part.
Group Plans Billboard In Light Of 555-Pound Teen
Jennifer Phillips reporting
POSTED: 11:27 am EDT July 1, 2009
UPDATED: 11:48 am EDT July 1, 2009
GREENVILLE, S.C. -- An animal rights group is planning to post a billboard in the Greenville area that calls feeding meat to children abuse in light of recent news stories about a 555-pound South Carolina teenager.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals want to put up the billboard that features a picture of an overweight boy who is about to eat a hamburger with the tagline “Feeding kids meat is child abuse.”
The billboard also directs readers to the Web site goveg.com.
PETA campaign manager Lindsay Rajt said the group got the idea after hearing about Jerri Gray and her 14-year-old son Alexander Draper, who weighs 555 pounds.
Gray garnered national attention when deputies said she skipped town with her son after she learned the Department of Social Services was planning to remove him from her home.
An Upstate personal trainer said the billboard is exploiting the teen’s condition.
“There are a lot of average sized or small children who eat two or three hamburgers a week and they’re not having issues,” said personal trainer Cathy Frohnheiser. “Taking one heavy child and 'let’s exploit that' is really not the approach they need to be taking.” Read More
It would seem obvious to most reasonable people that this teenager’s weight problem was caused by more than what he was eating. This child is obviously battling some serious issues that will affect the rest of his life and it’s sad that PETA feels the need to contribute to this boy’s problems. A balanced diet that includes meat and dairy products, coupled with regular exercise will always be the foundation for a healthy lifestyle. This is a truly shameful action on PETA’s part.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Teaching Teachers About Ag
Teachers learn ways to bring agriculture to the classroom
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:53 AM CDT
STEPHENVILLE, TEXAS - A group of elementary school teachers from across Texas recently spent a week on Tarleton State University’s campus participating in the 15th annual Summer Agricultural Institute.
The Texas Farm Bureau sponsors the event in which educators attend workshops and participate in activities learning ways to take agriculture back to their classrooms. The teachers receive continuing education credits to help satisfy the requirements of their local school districts and three hours of graduate credit from Tarleton.
The week’s events included a field trip with destinations such as Veldhuizen Cheese Shoppe, Callaway Rope Company, Dublin Dr Pepper, Sierra Dairy and more.At the end of their visit, the teachers were treated to a catered dinner at Tarleton’s dining hall.
Keynote speaker Dr. George Austin, retired agronomist from Texas AgriLife Research, reiterated the week’s message of the importance of agriculture in the classroom. Read More
I believe that it is critical for agriculture to have a presence in our classrooms. Either through programs like this that educate the teachers about agriculture, or else using projects like Ag In The Classroom. The other option that is the best in my opinion is for farmers and ranchers to go into some local classrooms themselves to talk to the kids. My wife and I have done this a few times and it’s always a great experience. The kids are so excited to have someone else besides their teacher in the room and are eager to hear what you have to say.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:53 AM CDT
STEPHENVILLE, TEXAS - A group of elementary school teachers from across Texas recently spent a week on Tarleton State University’s campus participating in the 15th annual Summer Agricultural Institute.
The Texas Farm Bureau sponsors the event in which educators attend workshops and participate in activities learning ways to take agriculture back to their classrooms. The teachers receive continuing education credits to help satisfy the requirements of their local school districts and three hours of graduate credit from Tarleton.
The week’s events included a field trip with destinations such as Veldhuizen Cheese Shoppe, Callaway Rope Company, Dublin Dr Pepper, Sierra Dairy and more.At the end of their visit, the teachers were treated to a catered dinner at Tarleton’s dining hall.
Keynote speaker Dr. George Austin, retired agronomist from Texas AgriLife Research, reiterated the week’s message of the importance of agriculture in the classroom. Read More
I believe that it is critical for agriculture to have a presence in our classrooms. Either through programs like this that educate the teachers about agriculture, or else using projects like Ag In The Classroom. The other option that is the best in my opinion is for farmers and ranchers to go into some local classrooms themselves to talk to the kids. My wife and I have done this a few times and it’s always a great experience. The kids are so excited to have someone else besides their teacher in the room and are eager to hear what you have to say.
CA Antibiotic Bill Hearing Today
Florez's Antibiotic Bill Up For Hearing Wednesday Before Assembly Ag Committee
Sen. Dean Florez's (D-Shafter) latest attempt to limit the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture. will be heard Wednesday before the Assembly Agriculture Committee.
Florez has turned to a tried and true tactic known as "gut and amend" whereby he took an existing bill, SB 562 that dealt with the citrus industry, and amended it so that it now mandates a warning on the label of any animal product derived from an animal that was administered a non-therapeutic dosage of an antibiotic. Many legislative observers believe that this new attempt at antibiotic labeling faces a rough road ahead as federal labeling laws preempt any attempts by state governments to label products.
The Assembly Ag Committee hearing begins at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 1 in Room 126 of the Capitol. Link
Sen. Dean Florez is still trying to limit the ability of animal agriculture to keep their livestock healthy in California. Antibiotics are a great tool that is used to ensure our livestock don’t suffer needlessly through a preventable disease. Remember the saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Apparently Florez would rather see us use the pound of cure. Seems like a strange way to reduce antibiotic use.
Sen. Dean Florez's (D-Shafter) latest attempt to limit the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture. will be heard Wednesday before the Assembly Agriculture Committee.
Florez has turned to a tried and true tactic known as "gut and amend" whereby he took an existing bill, SB 562 that dealt with the citrus industry, and amended it so that it now mandates a warning on the label of any animal product derived from an animal that was administered a non-therapeutic dosage of an antibiotic. Many legislative observers believe that this new attempt at antibiotic labeling faces a rough road ahead as federal labeling laws preempt any attempts by state governments to label products.
The Assembly Ag Committee hearing begins at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 1 in Room 126 of the Capitol. Link
Sen. Dean Florez is still trying to limit the ability of animal agriculture to keep their livestock healthy in California. Antibiotics are a great tool that is used to ensure our livestock don’t suffer needlessly through a preventable disease. Remember the saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Apparently Florez would rather see us use the pound of cure. Seems like a strange way to reduce antibiotic use.
Calgary Papers Reject Ad
Calgary papers reject ad opposing Stampede event, group says
Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:59pm EDT
By Nina Lex
TORONTO, June 29 (Reuters) - Two daily newspapers in Calgary, Alberta, are under fire from an animal rights group after they refused to publish an advertisement calling for a ban on the calf-roping event at the city's world famous Stampede rodeo.
The Vancouver Humane Society said on Monday the Calgary Herald and the Calgary Sun, the two daily newspapers published in the Western Canadian city, declined to run an ad that showed a photo of a cowboy about to throw a roped calf to the ground. The calf is labeled "baby" and the cowboy is labeled "bully."
The society accused the papers of behaving unethically and denying its right to free speech.
Read More
It’s nice to see that newspapers are capapble of using common sense. Calf roping, along with most of the rodeo events, gets accused of being cruel to animals. They like to set the stage against calf roping by saying that they are only a few months old. They are young calves, but they also weigh several hundred pounds and can in no way be compared to a human at that same age.
Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:59pm EDT
By Nina Lex
TORONTO, June 29 (Reuters) - Two daily newspapers in Calgary, Alberta, are under fire from an animal rights group after they refused to publish an advertisement calling for a ban on the calf-roping event at the city's world famous Stampede rodeo.
The Vancouver Humane Society said on Monday the Calgary Herald and the Calgary Sun, the two daily newspapers published in the Western Canadian city, declined to run an ad that showed a photo of a cowboy about to throw a roped calf to the ground. The calf is labeled "baby" and the cowboy is labeled "bully."
The society accused the papers of behaving unethically and denying its right to free speech.
Read More
It’s nice to see that newspapers are capapble of using common sense. Calf roping, along with most of the rodeo events, gets accused of being cruel to animals. They like to set the stage against calf roping by saying that they are only a few months old. They are young calves, but they also weigh several hundred pounds and can in no way be compared to a human at that same age.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Anti's Attack Advocates for Ag
I'm trying not to chuckle as I type this. If you read yesterday's blog posts, you saw that I shared a story about the American Indian Tribes voting to support domestic horse processing. It has become an issue for them and they have gotten involved to make their voice heard. Apparently the mere fact that I shared this with you has made me the target of an emotionally driven, over-zealous crowd of people that disagree.
Thomas Lee Trevino from Illinois, along with a few others, took it upon themselves to lead an attack on me yesterday for posting my opinion on the subject. Apparently it's ok for him to do so, but not for people that disagree with him.
Rather than talk about the issue, the folks on this forum have decided to attack me personally. For starters, they began by linking my integrity to the quality of my website. Then they started to attack the sponsor of an event that we talke at three years ago. This was the first time that Stacy and I had ever presented in this fashion. It was a 25 minute talk that focused on teaching farmers and ranchers how and why it's important that people know where their food comes from. Never once did we talk about the issue of horse processing at that meeting.
They also don't appreciate it when I expose HSUS and PETA for what they are doing. Along with that they claim that I am anti-organic, that I have launched a negative PR campaign against the movie Food Inc, and care more about money than the health of the American public. I'm not anti-organic, but I have tried to educate people that this method of production isn't a viable way to feed and clothe 9 billion people. If people want to raise and buy organic products, I don't have a problem with that.
The fun doesn't end there though. As with most people that lack a good argument, they resort to name calling in order to make themselves feel better. Mr. Trevino says that I am a circus act and that anyone that would listen to me is also probably a member of the Jeffrey Dahmer fan club. He continues by claiming that I once told him I was from Montana and had that listed on our website, but have since changed our story and now claim to be from South Dakota. This "lie", he claims also shows my integrity. Mr. Trevino, I have never claimed to be from Montana. I am proud to say that I was born in South Dakota, went to school here and have lived my entire life in this great state. I don't recall ever having a conversation with this man, and besides that, what would I have to gain by claiming I was from Montana?
To wrap it up (so far) he goes on to suggest that I am probably cheating on my taxes and hopes that someday he can hit me in the gut without me seeing it coming. In order to do this, he suggests that everyone study me, learn my patterns and then expose my tactics.
Here's the good news. We are all lucky to live in a country that we can talk like this. There are many people in this world that don't have that luxury. I think it's also a telling insight into the mentality of these folks that would like to outlaw horse processing, at least some of them. If they would like to discuss the issue more, I am happy to do that. But it appears they would rather claim to know what I say when I present to groups and call me an evil liar. It's unfortunate that Mr. Trevino and the others would rather make up stuff about me than discuss this important matter. If you'd like to know more about me, you could just ask.
I'm a rancher with an opinion. I'm sorry that offends you.
UPDATE: Sometime this afternoon, Mr. Trevino decided to delete his original post where he stated that he wanted to punch me when I wouldn't see it coming. I doubt he had a sudden change of heart, but it's been deleted nonetheless. So in case you haven't seen it, here is the orginal post.
Tommy Lee (Trevino17)
With BIG mouths and anyone ignorant enough to listen and believe them.
Speakers like Troy and his Wife.. Hit the road flapping there lips to people who think these people really care. Please review and get familiar with there website and the actions we must counteract. You will see just how much they charge for there mouths to flap..
The have also increase there blogs to welcome horse plants.
While spreading the same lies that the Dover article that was recently printed.
Theres no need to contact them because there minds are made up.. They are all on a mission to support horse slaughter what ever the cost..
The best thing for us to do is monitor and learn there patterns to counteract and expose there tactics.
Im cutting my own foot here, but also to expose the subs and tax breaks they get in Ag.
livestock property breaks, Tractor licenses, Taxes, Titles, Insurance for road usage, CRP spendings etc. I have a ton load of uncollected taxes we can hurt the Ag and Farm Bureau..
I know there are spies on here but only release this to people you trust.
I would love to hit them in the Gut.. and them not see it coming..
Reckless Promotion of Veganism
Animal Rights Prof Says No Way to Consume Meat in Humane Way
By Gary L. Francione , Rutgers University School of Law - June 28, 2009
I never fail to be amazed when I hear people—including well-known promoters of animal welfare—claim quite remarkably that animals do not have an interest in continued life; they just have an interest in not suffering. They do not care that we use them; they care only about how we use them.
As long as they have a reasonably painless life and a relatively painless death, they do not care if we consume them or products made from them. I have discussed this issue in a number of essays on this site (see, e.g., 1; 2; 3) and in my books and articles. It will be a central topic in my forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which I have co-authored with Professor Robert Garner and that will be published by Columbia University Press this fall.
On our video page, we have two videos from slaughterhouses. A significant number of visitors have viewed these videos and have written to us about them, particularly the video that does not show any slaughter. That video has obviously made an impact on many people and so I wanted to highlight it in a blog post. Read More
Recklessly promoting veganism as the only way to eat is foolish and dangerous. We could not sustain human life at it’s current levels, let alone with projected growth, if everyone switched to a vegan diet. Not only that, but it’s irresponsible to promote a diet that doesn’t include meat and dairy products. A balanced diet which contains food from all food groups is important for good health.
By Gary L. Francione , Rutgers University School of Law - June 28, 2009
I never fail to be amazed when I hear people—including well-known promoters of animal welfare—claim quite remarkably that animals do not have an interest in continued life; they just have an interest in not suffering. They do not care that we use them; they care only about how we use them.
As long as they have a reasonably painless life and a relatively painless death, they do not care if we consume them or products made from them. I have discussed this issue in a number of essays on this site (see, e.g., 1; 2; 3) and in my books and articles. It will be a central topic in my forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which I have co-authored with Professor Robert Garner and that will be published by Columbia University Press this fall.
On our video page, we have two videos from slaughterhouses. A significant number of visitors have viewed these videos and have written to us about them, particularly the video that does not show any slaughter. That video has obviously made an impact on many people and so I wanted to highlight it in a blog post. Read More
Recklessly promoting veganism as the only way to eat is foolish and dangerous. We could not sustain human life at it’s current levels, let alone with projected growth, if everyone switched to a vegan diet. Not only that, but it’s irresponsible to promote a diet that doesn’t include meat and dairy products. A balanced diet which contains food from all food groups is important for good health.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)