New endowment aims to protect public-lands grazing
By Drovers news source
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
After many long conversations between representatives of the Public Lands Council (PLC), the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and Ruby Pipeline, an agreement has been reached, in principle, which seeks to ensure that the nearly 100-year relationship between the livestock industry and El Paso Corp. continues far into the future. While details of the agreement are still being finalized, it establishes a significant endowment with the mission to “protect, enhance and preserve the public lands grazing industry.” The concept was formally adopted earlier today after a unanimous vote by the board of directors of the Public Lands Council, whose board members represent 13 western states, NCBA, the American Sheep Industry Association, and the Association of National Grasslands.
“While we are concerned about the potential impacts of Ruby’s recent settlement agreement with the Western Watersheds Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association, we are satisfied that this endowment provides us a tool with which to mitigate many of our concerns,” said Skye Krebs, president of the Public Lands Council. “As the organization which has represented public lands ranchers in the West for over four decades, we are confident that our industry will benefit from this endowment for many years to come.”
The $15 million endowment, $7.5 million to be contributed later this year and $750,000 to be added into the endowment annually for the following 10 years, will be governed by one representative from the PLC and one representative from El Paso Corp. While the principal amount will not be used, the endowment’s earnings will go toward meeting PLC’s mission to serve the public lands livestock industry. Specific projects may include scientific research, education, range monitoring, fire restoration, media, and community outreach for the benefit of the public lands grazing industry. It is important to note that funds from the endowment will not be used for litigation. Read More
It’s fantastic to see El Paso Corporation realize the importance of agriculture and public lands grazing. You will remember that they donated over $20 million to a couple of radical environmental groups that were going to use the money to force ranchers off their land. When the news broke about this, many of us in ag contacted El Paso to voice our disappointment in their decision. Like many other corporations that we’ve seen mistakenly give money to radical anti-ag groups, they’ve seemingly realized their error. So I say thank you to El Paso for taking the time to study this issue more closely and supporting hard working ranching families who rely on public lands to help feed this nation.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
It's Moving Time
Some people have heard and some probably haven't yet but our family is making a move. After Stacy and I graduated from South Dakota State (Go Jacks!) we moved out to the western part of the state and we have been living there ever since. But 12 years and 3 kids later, it's time to start a new chapter in our lives. We will be moving to north central South Dakota where I grew up by the end of summer.
While moving is certainly a big challenge and a lot of work, we are excited about it. I'm going to be back working on my family's diversified farming and ranching operation and Stacy will be able to continue on in her job as well from here.
Since we are making other changes in our lives, I've also been thinking about new ideas for this blog as well as with our other social media outlets. I've been fortunate to hear that many people have really enjoyed following us online so I don't want to move to far away from what people have come to expect from us but a little change is usually good. So stay tuned, I'm looking forward to sharing more and different information on my blog. And if anyone enjoys doing some heavy lifting, I've got just the project for you!
While moving is certainly a big challenge and a lot of work, we are excited about it. I'm going to be back working on my family's diversified farming and ranching operation and Stacy will be able to continue on in her job as well from here.
Since we are making other changes in our lives, I've also been thinking about new ideas for this blog as well as with our other social media outlets. I've been fortunate to hear that many people have really enjoyed following us online so I don't want to move to far away from what people have come to expect from us but a little change is usually good. So stay tuned, I'm looking forward to sharing more and different information on my blog. And if anyone enjoys doing some heavy lifting, I've got just the project for you!
Michael Pollan's $8 Eggs
Michael Pollan Thinks $8 For a Dozen Eggs Is a Bargain
• 8/5/10 at 11:40 AM
Sustainable food guru Michael Pollan continues his quest to convince us today that spending twice as much for stuff at the farmers' market should really be the new norm. He tells the Journal, "My little rule, 'Pay more, eat less,' is followed by a lot of people in the Bay Area," even though for most everyone we know it's still pretty much "pay more, eat more." He also argues, "Eight dollars for a dozen eggs sounds outrageous, but when you think that you can make a delicious meal from two eggs, that's $1.50." OK, sure, and we'll admit those Frog Hollow peaches are damn delicious, even at $3.90 apiece, but we still choke up as we hand over the cash. Link
Only Michael Pollan would think that paying $8 for a dozen eggs is a good thing for families in this country. While paying $1.50 for a meal of two eggs sounds reasonable for one person, think about what a family would have to pay just for eggs. Our family has five people in it. That would add up to $7.50 for a family meal of just two eggs per person. Anyone with growing children knows that a meal of just two eggs isn’t going to keep them full for long. Nor is it a complete meal. The problem is that if you base food costs off $8/dozen eggs, a complete meal could easily cost $10 per person. That would make our family’s daily meals cost around $150 per day. I suppose that sounds reasonable to Pollan as well and with the salary he makes going around the country scaring people about their food he can probably afford that. But most working families in this country cannot. Safe, affordable, nutritious food is something this country has done better than any other in the history of the world. Advocating for $8 eggs show exactly how out of touch with reality Michael Pollan is. ~Troy
• 8/5/10 at 11:40 AM
Sustainable food guru Michael Pollan continues his quest to convince us today that spending twice as much for stuff at the farmers' market should really be the new norm. He tells the Journal, "My little rule, 'Pay more, eat less,' is followed by a lot of people in the Bay Area," even though for most everyone we know it's still pretty much "pay more, eat more." He also argues, "Eight dollars for a dozen eggs sounds outrageous, but when you think that you can make a delicious meal from two eggs, that's $1.50." OK, sure, and we'll admit those Frog Hollow peaches are damn delicious, even at $3.90 apiece, but we still choke up as we hand over the cash. Link
Only Michael Pollan would think that paying $8 for a dozen eggs is a good thing for families in this country. While paying $1.50 for a meal of two eggs sounds reasonable for one person, think about what a family would have to pay just for eggs. Our family has five people in it. That would add up to $7.50 for a family meal of just two eggs per person. Anyone with growing children knows that a meal of just two eggs isn’t going to keep them full for long. Nor is it a complete meal. The problem is that if you base food costs off $8/dozen eggs, a complete meal could easily cost $10 per person. That would make our family’s daily meals cost around $150 per day. I suppose that sounds reasonable to Pollan as well and with the salary he makes going around the country scaring people about their food he can probably afford that. But most working families in this country cannot. Safe, affordable, nutritious food is something this country has done better than any other in the history of the world. Advocating for $8 eggs show exactly how out of touch with reality Michael Pollan is. ~Troy
McDonalds Rejects HSUS
McDonald's shareholders vote down 'cage free' proposal
AVMA.org
Aug 4, 2010
Shareholders for McDonald's voted against a proposal this spring to buy at least 5 percent of the restaurant chain's eggs from cage-free facilities.
The Humane Society of the United States, which owns 101 shares in the company and sponsored the resolution, similarly proposed at the 2009 annual shareholders meeting that McDonald's start transitioning to purchasing eggs produced in cage-free facilities.
In the recent proposal, the HSUS argued that cages provide for inadequate animal welfare and that McDonald's Corp.'s U.S. operations had fallen behind competitors and the company's own European operations in transitioning toward purchases of eggs from cage-free hens.
McDonald's board of directors recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal. The board argued that there is no agreement in the scientific community on how to balance advantages and disadvantages of hen housing systems and noted that the company is part of a coalition involved in an ongoing study of hen housing. Link
This has to be really infuriating for the HSUS. They are used to marching in to the meet with heads of restaurants and having their demands met, regardless of whether or not it actually makes sense. McDonalds has decided to actually investigate this issue and use science to determine the best methods. Of course this becomes a problem for the HSUS because they rely on emotion rather than science to force their agenda’s on people.
AVMA.org
Aug 4, 2010
Shareholders for McDonald's voted against a proposal this spring to buy at least 5 percent of the restaurant chain's eggs from cage-free facilities.
The Humane Society of the United States, which owns 101 shares in the company and sponsored the resolution, similarly proposed at the 2009 annual shareholders meeting that McDonald's start transitioning to purchasing eggs produced in cage-free facilities.
In the recent proposal, the HSUS argued that cages provide for inadequate animal welfare and that McDonald's Corp.'s U.S. operations had fallen behind competitors and the company's own European operations in transitioning toward purchases of eggs from cage-free hens.
McDonald's board of directors recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal. The board argued that there is no agreement in the scientific community on how to balance advantages and disadvantages of hen housing systems and noted that the company is part of a coalition involved in an ongoing study of hen housing. Link
This has to be really infuriating for the HSUS. They are used to marching in to the meet with heads of restaurants and having their demands met, regardless of whether or not it actually makes sense. McDonalds has decided to actually investigate this issue and use science to determine the best methods. Of course this becomes a problem for the HSUS because they rely on emotion rather than science to force their agenda’s on people.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Animal Rights Activists Protest 4-H Auction
Activists Protest Animal Auction
4H Club says it's not animal cruelty, it's farming
By SUSAN RIVERA
Updated 9:00 AM CDT, Tue, Aug 3, 2010
Protesters targeted an animal auction at the Lake County fair this weekend.
Several protestors showed up to this at the Wagner Farm in Glenview during a pig auction to draw attention to what they say is animal cruelty, reports the Chicago Tribune.
Since it was established in 2002 the 4H Clovers club – which on its Website boasts membership of “57 children from the ages of 8 to 18" – has generated some controversy. In part because the livestock sold are raised on Glenview Park District Land. But also because most animals sold at the auction are headed to the slaughterhouse.
One of the animals on the auction block was a pig named Buddy raised in part by 11-year-old Mata Stilp and her brother Hans, reported the Chicago Tribune. Read More
Animal rights activists have been targeting 4-H more as of late. Any type of program that teaches young people about the how’s and why’s of raising livestock is certainly a threat to their misinformation campaign. Supporting programs like 4-H is more important than ever before. For many children, 4-H is their only exposure to agriculture. Taking advantage of these teaching opportunities is something we have to continue doing.
4H Club says it's not animal cruelty, it's farming
By SUSAN RIVERA
Updated 9:00 AM CDT, Tue, Aug 3, 2010
Protesters targeted an animal auction at the Lake County fair this weekend.
Several protestors showed up to this at the Wagner Farm in Glenview during a pig auction to draw attention to what they say is animal cruelty, reports the Chicago Tribune.
Since it was established in 2002 the 4H Clovers club – which on its Website boasts membership of “57 children from the ages of 8 to 18" – has generated some controversy. In part because the livestock sold are raised on Glenview Park District Land. But also because most animals sold at the auction are headed to the slaughterhouse.
One of the animals on the auction block was a pig named Buddy raised in part by 11-year-old Mata Stilp and her brother Hans, reported the Chicago Tribune. Read More
Animal rights activists have been targeting 4-H more as of late. Any type of program that teaches young people about the how’s and why’s of raising livestock is certainly a threat to their misinformation campaign. Supporting programs like 4-H is more important than ever before. For many children, 4-H is their only exposure to agriculture. Taking advantage of these teaching opportunities is something we have to continue doing.
College Aggies Online
College students - Agriculture needs your voice!
Drovers news source
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
The Animal Agriculture Alliance is excited to announce the re-launch of College Aggies Online, a program developed in partnership with the American National CattleWomen, Inc. to help today's college students become confident advocates for the agriculture industry.
"Last year, 350 students representing 50 universities shared their stories on the College Aggies Online network," said Alliance Executive Vice President Kay Johnson Smith. "Students who participate in the program do more than just build their resume - they help ensure the future of American agriculture."
Students with a passion for agriculture are encouraged to sign up at http://aggiesonline.ning.com. After creating a personal profile on the network, members will gain access to a private forum where they can discuss current and emerging issues facing farmers and ranchers with other young agriculturists from across the country. Read More
It was a lot of fun watching agriculture advocates in college tell their story and do it well. We are fortunate to work with college ag groups from time to time and it never ceases to amaze me how passionate they are about agriculture. Their efforts have made a big difference on our nation’s campuses. This year’s College Aggies Online effort will no doubt be just enthusiastic.
Drovers news source
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
The Animal Agriculture Alliance is excited to announce the re-launch of College Aggies Online, a program developed in partnership with the American National CattleWomen, Inc. to help today's college students become confident advocates for the agriculture industry.
"Last year, 350 students representing 50 universities shared their stories on the College Aggies Online network," said Alliance Executive Vice President Kay Johnson Smith. "Students who participate in the program do more than just build their resume - they help ensure the future of American agriculture."
Students with a passion for agriculture are encouraged to sign up at http://aggiesonline.ning.com. After creating a personal profile on the network, members will gain access to a private forum where they can discuss current and emerging issues facing farmers and ranchers with other young agriculturists from across the country. Read More
It was a lot of fun watching agriculture advocates in college tell their story and do it well. We are fortunate to work with college ag groups from time to time and it never ceases to amaze me how passionate they are about agriculture. Their efforts have made a big difference on our nation’s campuses. This year’s College Aggies Online effort will no doubt be just enthusiastic.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Another Radical Lines Up At The El Paso Trough
El Paso's 678-Mile Pipeline Would Create `Path of Destruction,' Suit Says
By Joel Rosenblatt - Jul 30, 2010 5:30 PM MDT Fri Jul 30 23:30:36 UTC 2010
Federal approval of El Paso Corp.’s biggest expansion project, a 678 mile-long natural-gas pipeline spanning four western U.S. states, should be reviewed by an appeals court, the Center for Biological Diversity said today.
A lawsuit filed today in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco seeks a review of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the Ruby Pipeline, which will cut across Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Oregon and California, the center said in a statement today.
“The Ruby Pipeline will cause severe damage to rivers and streams, sensitive habitats for a host of fish and wildlife species and some of the most pristine lands in western North America,” Noah Greenwald, program director at the center, said in the statement. “Instead of creating an entirely new path of destruction, an existing pipeline route should have been utilized.” Read More
Imagine that, other radical environmental groups find out that El Paso has paid off the opposition and they line up to get their share. This is a great example of what happens when legitimate science is abandoned and replaced with something like the “El Paso Payoff”. There are too many money-hungry anti-everything groups that will line up to take your money if your strategy is paying them to go away. El Paso’s pockets won’t be deep enough to satisfy them all. In the end, they will end up in litigation anyhow, but this time they will have $20 million less in the bank.
By Joel Rosenblatt - Jul 30, 2010 5:30 PM MDT Fri Jul 30 23:30:36 UTC 2010
Federal approval of El Paso Corp.’s biggest expansion project, a 678 mile-long natural-gas pipeline spanning four western U.S. states, should be reviewed by an appeals court, the Center for Biological Diversity said today.
A lawsuit filed today in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco seeks a review of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s approval of the Ruby Pipeline, which will cut across Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Oregon and California, the center said in a statement today.
“The Ruby Pipeline will cause severe damage to rivers and streams, sensitive habitats for a host of fish and wildlife species and some of the most pristine lands in western North America,” Noah Greenwald, program director at the center, said in the statement. “Instead of creating an entirely new path of destruction, an existing pipeline route should have been utilized.” Read More
Imagine that, other radical environmental groups find out that El Paso has paid off the opposition and they line up to get their share. This is a great example of what happens when legitimate science is abandoned and replaced with something like the “El Paso Payoff”. There are too many money-hungry anti-everything groups that will line up to take your money if your strategy is paying them to go away. El Paso’s pockets won’t be deep enough to satisfy them all. In the end, they will end up in litigation anyhow, but this time they will have $20 million less in the bank.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
A Busy Week
It's been a whirlwind week so far here. The end of last week found us in Montgomery, AL speaking to their Young Farmers Summer Conference. As always, the young farmer groups that we get to speak to are a lot of fun. The passion for raising food and families in Alabama was very strong in that group and there's no doubt in my mind that we have some great new advocates telling the story of agriculture down there.
From there I got to present at the Agricultural Media Summit on my use of social media in telling my story. Getting to meet so many of the people behind the articles I regularly read was certainly a treat. There were lots of fans of Advocates for Ag there. It was humbling to hear that so many of these professionals in ag communication were appreciative of our work.
This morning I had the distinct pleasure of speaking to our local Kiwanis club. It's always a treat when you get to speak to the hometown folks. I shared some of my story with them as well as highlight the agenda of anti-agriculture groups like the HSUS and others. I'm glad to know that everytime I get the chance to do this that there are a few less people in the world that will ever donate to them.
I have to quickly pack a bag and then head for Mitchell, SD. This evening we are presenting at a beef production workshop. It will be great to see some good friends of ours in the cattle business there.
After this week is over though the real work will start. Spring wheat harvest should get rolling next week and that will be the priority for me. Food production should be a priority for every human being but unfortunately that's not the case. That's why it is so important that those of us in agriculture are not only growing food but also telling people where it comes from.
From there I got to present at the Agricultural Media Summit on my use of social media in telling my story. Getting to meet so many of the people behind the articles I regularly read was certainly a treat. There were lots of fans of Advocates for Ag there. It was humbling to hear that so many of these professionals in ag communication were appreciative of our work.
This morning I had the distinct pleasure of speaking to our local Kiwanis club. It's always a treat when you get to speak to the hometown folks. I shared some of my story with them as well as highlight the agenda of anti-agriculture groups like the HSUS and others. I'm glad to know that everytime I get the chance to do this that there are a few less people in the world that will ever donate to them.
I have to quickly pack a bag and then head for Mitchell, SD. This evening we are presenting at a beef production workshop. It will be great to see some good friends of ours in the cattle business there.
After this week is over though the real work will start. Spring wheat harvest should get rolling next week and that will be the priority for me. Food production should be a priority for every human being but unfortunately that's not the case. That's why it is so important that those of us in agriculture are not only growing food but also telling people where it comes from.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Western Ranchers Need Your Help
Let's call it the El Paso Payoff. Last week I found out the El Paso Corporation paid $20 million to the Western Wateshed Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association. In return, both of these environmental groups agreed to drop all opposition to El Paso's plan for running a natural gas pipeline from Wyoming to Oregon. I immediately called the company to get their side of the story. They called me back later that day and I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to visit with a Mr. Robert Wheatley, El Paso's media relations guy.
I had characterized this whole situation as nothing more than a bribe given to the last big opponents of their pipeline. After all, $20 million made a problem go away. While Mr. Wheatley certainly disagreed with my evaluation, his explanation of what happened did little to change my mind.
It's admirable that El Paso wanted to do what they could to lessen the impact to the environment that their pipeline will create, however, dealing with a radical environmental group that has the stated goal of getting ranchers off federal land was about the worst way to go about it. I asked Mr Wheatley why they didn't give it to a group that wasn't anti-ranching or give some money to a ag group as well as the WWP. He didn't have an answer but if he was honest the real answer is that the squeaky wheel got the grease.
So ranching families are now facing an already wealthy environmental group, with a stated goal of getting ranchers off the land, that's just recieved a large cash infusion.
This part of the ag community will now need your help and support even more. After my visit with El Paso I was apparent that they were feeling some heat from this deal. It's important that the entire ag community stand together on this issue and let El Paso know that this isn't acceptable. Please leave a comment on the El Paso Facebook page or phone them with your thoughts. It's a quick and simple thing you can do to be an advocate for agriculture.
I had characterized this whole situation as nothing more than a bribe given to the last big opponents of their pipeline. After all, $20 million made a problem go away. While Mr. Wheatley certainly disagreed with my evaluation, his explanation of what happened did little to change my mind.
It's admirable that El Paso wanted to do what they could to lessen the impact to the environment that their pipeline will create, however, dealing with a radical environmental group that has the stated goal of getting ranchers off federal land was about the worst way to go about it. I asked Mr Wheatley why they didn't give it to a group that wasn't anti-ranching or give some money to a ag group as well as the WWP. He didn't have an answer but if he was honest the real answer is that the squeaky wheel got the grease.
So ranching families are now facing an already wealthy environmental group, with a stated goal of getting ranchers off the land, that's just recieved a large cash infusion.
This part of the ag community will now need your help and support even more. After my visit with El Paso I was apparent that they were feeling some heat from this deal. It's important that the entire ag community stand together on this issue and let El Paso know that this isn't acceptable. Please leave a comment on the El Paso Facebook page or phone them with your thoughts. It's a quick and simple thing you can do to be an advocate for agriculture.
Modern Beef Is "Green"
Beef Production More Sustainable Now, WSU Expert Says
EPOnline.com
Jul 26, 2010
Advances in productivity over the past 30 years have reduced the carbon footprint and overall environmental impact of U.S. beef production, according to a new study presented by a Washington State University researcher.
In “Comparing the environmental impact of the US beef industry in 1977 to 2007,” assistant professor of animal science Jude L. Capper revealed that improvements in nutrition, management, growth rate and slaughter weights, have significantly reduced the environmental impact of modern beef production and improved its sustainability.
“These findings challenge the common misconception that historical methods of livestock production are more environmentally sustainable than modern beef production,” said Capper in a presentation on July 14 at the American Society of Animal Science meeting in Denver. Read More
There are plenty of people trying to eliminate animal agriculture by spreading misinformation about it’s impact on the environment. The truth of the matter is that animal agriculture has greatly reduced the environmental impact over the last few decades. But it doesn’t stop there. The improvement that we have seen is continuing into the future. We depend on a healthy environment to raise healthy livestock which is why farmers and ranchers are some the greenest people around. ~Troy
EPOnline.com
Jul 26, 2010
Advances in productivity over the past 30 years have reduced the carbon footprint and overall environmental impact of U.S. beef production, according to a new study presented by a Washington State University researcher.
In “Comparing the environmental impact of the US beef industry in 1977 to 2007,” assistant professor of animal science Jude L. Capper revealed that improvements in nutrition, management, growth rate and slaughter weights, have significantly reduced the environmental impact of modern beef production and improved its sustainability.
“These findings challenge the common misconception that historical methods of livestock production are more environmentally sustainable than modern beef production,” said Capper in a presentation on July 14 at the American Society of Animal Science meeting in Denver. Read More
There are plenty of people trying to eliminate animal agriculture by spreading misinformation about it’s impact on the environment. The truth of the matter is that animal agriculture has greatly reduced the environmental impact over the last few decades. But it doesn’t stop there. The improvement that we have seen is continuing into the future. We depend on a healthy environment to raise healthy livestock which is why farmers and ranchers are some the greenest people around. ~Troy
Thursday, July 22, 2010
El Paso Corp Helping End Public Grazing
El Paso cuts deal with Western Watersheds
ADELLA HARDING Free Press Staff Writer
Posted: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:11 pm
ELKO — El Paso Corp. has reached a precedent-setting, $20 million arrangement for habitat protection with two environmental organizations that protested the company’s planned Ruby Pipeline that will extend from Wyoming to Oregon.
The company will set up conservation funds with the Western Watersheds Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association, and the organizations in turn are dropping objections to the natural gas pipeline.
“It’s something we didn’t have to do. We chose to do it,” El Paso spokesman Richard Wheatley said Friday. “The bottom line is we think it’s a preferable approach than being involved in litigation.”
Establishment of the funds also is in line with the company’s outreach efforts to be good stewards of the land, he said.
“There is the potential to do really good work,” Wheatley said.
“We agreed not to try to delay or litigate Ruby Pipeline,” confirmed Western Watersheds Project Executive Director Jon Marvel.
He said El Paso will set up a $15 million conservation fund for Idaho-based Western Watersheds and a $5 million fund with the Oregon organization.
“The money also can be used to purchase private property or conservation easements, but our priority is grazing permits,” he said. “It’s time to end public lands grazing.” Read More
After learning more about this deal yesterday it becomes a very scary thing. Basically El Paso bribed their opposition to the pipeline with $20 million dollars so they could go after ranchers rather than the energy company. Also keep in mind that most of the pipeline in question is going through ranchland with the permission of the very ranchers who could now be put out of business. This just goes to show that neither El Paso or Western Watersheds have anyone with principals involved in their groups. Ending public grazing will negatively affect the rangeland that has been meticulously cared for by generations of ranching families. Stay tuned to this story because I’m not convinced it’s over yet.
ADELLA HARDING Free Press Staff Writer
Posted: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:11 pm
ELKO — El Paso Corp. has reached a precedent-setting, $20 million arrangement for habitat protection with two environmental organizations that protested the company’s planned Ruby Pipeline that will extend from Wyoming to Oregon.
The company will set up conservation funds with the Western Watersheds Project and the Oregon Natural Desert Association, and the organizations in turn are dropping objections to the natural gas pipeline.
“It’s something we didn’t have to do. We chose to do it,” El Paso spokesman Richard Wheatley said Friday. “The bottom line is we think it’s a preferable approach than being involved in litigation.”
Establishment of the funds also is in line with the company’s outreach efforts to be good stewards of the land, he said.
“There is the potential to do really good work,” Wheatley said.
“We agreed not to try to delay or litigate Ruby Pipeline,” confirmed Western Watersheds Project Executive Director Jon Marvel.
He said El Paso will set up a $15 million conservation fund for Idaho-based Western Watersheds and a $5 million fund with the Oregon organization.
“The money also can be used to purchase private property or conservation easements, but our priority is grazing permits,” he said. “It’s time to end public lands grazing.” Read More
After learning more about this deal yesterday it becomes a very scary thing. Basically El Paso bribed their opposition to the pipeline with $20 million dollars so they could go after ranchers rather than the energy company. Also keep in mind that most of the pipeline in question is going through ranchland with the permission of the very ranchers who could now be put out of business. This just goes to show that neither El Paso or Western Watersheds have anyone with principals involved in their groups. Ending public grazing will negatively affect the rangeland that has been meticulously cared for by generations of ranching families. Stay tuned to this story because I’m not convinced it’s over yet.
HSUS Says No Cages Are Acceptable
HSUS issues statement on cages for hens
(7/21/2010)
Rod Smith
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other activist groups in the U.S. and Europe that are focused on the treatment of farm animals issued a statement today that they are opposed to any form of cage housing, including colony-type enriched, or furnished, cages, for egg-laying hens.
Despite modifications that colony housing provides over traditional cage housing, modified cages still fail to meet the hens' behavioral and physical needs, according to the statement.
They have "unacceptably restrictive" space for the birds, which restricts the hens' ability for "running, flying and wing flapping, as well as dust bathing and perching," the statement argues. Such a "severe restriction" of their ability to exercise "is likely to lead to frustration, bone weakness and osteoporosis -- clear indicators of poor welfare," the statement says.
The statement calls for egg producers, food companies and others within the food industry to "do the right thing and end the use of cages to confine" egg-laying hens. Read More
Just in case you were still in denial about what HSUS is trying to accomplish here, they have made it very clear that any livestock kept in any type of pen is unacceptable in their mind. The reason for this is that they have a stated goal to get everyone to become vegan. Piece by piece they must keep making it increasingly difficult for people to afford food produced by livestock. ~Troy
(7/21/2010)
Rod Smith
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other activist groups in the U.S. and Europe that are focused on the treatment of farm animals issued a statement today that they are opposed to any form of cage housing, including colony-type enriched, or furnished, cages, for egg-laying hens.
Despite modifications that colony housing provides over traditional cage housing, modified cages still fail to meet the hens' behavioral and physical needs, according to the statement.
They have "unacceptably restrictive" space for the birds, which restricts the hens' ability for "running, flying and wing flapping, as well as dust bathing and perching," the statement argues. Such a "severe restriction" of their ability to exercise "is likely to lead to frustration, bone weakness and osteoporosis -- clear indicators of poor welfare," the statement says.
The statement calls for egg producers, food companies and others within the food industry to "do the right thing and end the use of cages to confine" egg-laying hens. Read More
Just in case you were still in denial about what HSUS is trying to accomplish here, they have made it very clear that any livestock kept in any type of pen is unacceptable in their mind. The reason for this is that they have a stated goal to get everyone to become vegan. Piece by piece they must keep making it increasingly difficult for people to afford food produced by livestock. ~Troy
Media Overhyping Organics
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
STUDY FINDS MEDIA MAY BE OVERHYPING BENEFITS OF ORGANIC FOOD, AGRICULTURE
Kansas State University
MANHATTAN -- News accounts of organic agriculture and organic food are more likely to be positive than negative and inaccurately claim organic food is safer, according to Kansas State University's Doug Powell.
Powell, an associate professor of food safety, is the co-author of "Coverage of organic agriculture in North American newspapers: Media -- linking food safety, the environment, human health and organic agriculture," just published in the British Food Journal.
The paper is based on a study Powell conducted from 1999-2004 with two colleagues at the University of Guelph in Canada, Stacey Cahill and Katija Morley. Cahill was one of Powell's students at the time.
The team explored how topics of organic food and agriculture were discussed in five North American newspapers. Using the content analysis technique, the 618 articles collected were analyzed for topic, tone and theme regarding food safety, environmental concerns and human health.
The prominent topics of the articles were genetic engineering, pesticides and organic farming, Powell said.
The analysis found 41.4 percent of the articles had a neutral tone toward organic agriculture and food, 36.9 percent had a positive tone, 15.5 percent were mixed and 6.1 percent were negative, Powell said.
"We concluded that articles about organic production in the selected time period were seldom negative," he said. "Organic agriculture was often portrayed in the media as an alternative to allegedly unsafe and environmentally damaging modern agriculture practices. That means organic was being defined by what it isn't, rather than what it is." Read More
This is an interesting look at how the media rarely uses objectivity in their reporting any more. They have been more than happy to just jump on a bandwagon of untruths about modern agriculture. There is no doubt that all production systems have a place in agriculture, that’s not the point of this discussion. The point is that the media is failing their clientele with their preference to unobjectively follow trends rather than inform their readers. ~Troy
STUDY FINDS MEDIA MAY BE OVERHYPING BENEFITS OF ORGANIC FOOD, AGRICULTURE
Kansas State University
MANHATTAN -- News accounts of organic agriculture and organic food are more likely to be positive than negative and inaccurately claim organic food is safer, according to Kansas State University's Doug Powell.
Powell, an associate professor of food safety, is the co-author of "Coverage of organic agriculture in North American newspapers: Media -- linking food safety, the environment, human health and organic agriculture," just published in the British Food Journal.
The paper is based on a study Powell conducted from 1999-2004 with two colleagues at the University of Guelph in Canada, Stacey Cahill and Katija Morley. Cahill was one of Powell's students at the time.
The team explored how topics of organic food and agriculture were discussed in five North American newspapers. Using the content analysis technique, the 618 articles collected were analyzed for topic, tone and theme regarding food safety, environmental concerns and human health.
The prominent topics of the articles were genetic engineering, pesticides and organic farming, Powell said.
The analysis found 41.4 percent of the articles had a neutral tone toward organic agriculture and food, 36.9 percent had a positive tone, 15.5 percent were mixed and 6.1 percent were negative, Powell said.
"We concluded that articles about organic production in the selected time period were seldom negative," he said. "Organic agriculture was often portrayed in the media as an alternative to allegedly unsafe and environmentally damaging modern agriculture practices. That means organic was being defined by what it isn't, rather than what it is." Read More
This is an interesting look at how the media rarely uses objectivity in their reporting any more. They have been more than happy to just jump on a bandwagon of untruths about modern agriculture. There is no doubt that all production systems have a place in agriculture, that’s not the point of this discussion. The point is that the media is failing their clientele with their preference to unobjectively follow trends rather than inform their readers. ~Troy
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Safe Fruits and Veggies
I'm sure many of you have heard of the "Dirty Dozen". This was put together by some anti-agriculture groups that tried to scare people about the fruits and vegetables they eat. Unfortunately it's all to easy to scare consumers about the food they eat these days and the truth ends up taking a back seat to a slick marketing campaign. But now there's a new website available that addresses this very issue.
Please check out www.safefruitsandveggies.com to learn the truth about the food we eat.
Please check out www.safefruitsandveggies.com to learn the truth about the food we eat.
Possible Tax Credit for Beginning Aggies
Senate Considers Beginning Farmer and Rancher Tax Credit
July 20, 2010
ROUNDUP, Mont. - Start a small farm or ranch, or open a new small business in Montana, and get a tax credit worth up to $10,000. That's what's on the table for the U.S. Senate as a "jobs bill" is being debated.
Executive director Chuck Hassebrook of the Center for Rural Affairs says spurring micro-enterprises and entrepreneurship make a lot of sense for job creation, since those kinds of small businesses are credited as being the new job incubators.
"It's for people who create their own job by starting a small business, or get started in farming and ranching. That's the way we've created a lot of opportunity in rural America for over a century."
Hassebrook says the proposal is the first one he's seen that focuses on micro-businesses for rural areas. Read More
There’s no doubt that it’s very difficult for young farmers and ranchers to get started in agriculture. I get asked quite often if I know of any programs that can help so I thought I would pass this on. While the idea has a long ways to go before reaching fruition, it’s good to hear that there are some people who still put value on small rural businesses. ~Troy
July 20, 2010
ROUNDUP, Mont. - Start a small farm or ranch, or open a new small business in Montana, and get a tax credit worth up to $10,000. That's what's on the table for the U.S. Senate as a "jobs bill" is being debated.
Executive director Chuck Hassebrook of the Center for Rural Affairs says spurring micro-enterprises and entrepreneurship make a lot of sense for job creation, since those kinds of small businesses are credited as being the new job incubators.
"It's for people who create their own job by starting a small business, or get started in farming and ranching. That's the way we've created a lot of opportunity in rural America for over a century."
Hassebrook says the proposal is the first one he's seen that focuses on micro-businesses for rural areas. Read More
There’s no doubt that it’s very difficult for young farmers and ranchers to get started in agriculture. I get asked quite often if I know of any programs that can help so I thought I would pass this on. While the idea has a long ways to go before reaching fruition, it’s good to hear that there are some people who still put value on small rural businesses. ~Troy
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Armed Guards Required For NM Officials Visiting Ranches
Armed Escorts to Accompany New Mexico Livestock Inspectors By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published July 16, 2010
FoxNews.com
When inspectors in New Mexico begin surveying 32 livestock scales along the increasingly dangerous Mexican border later this month, they'll have armed escorts at their sides.
It will mark the first time armed deputies will travel with New Mexico Department of Agriculture inspectors, who certify the scales used to weigh livestock, Luna County Sheriff Raymond Cobos said.
"These scales that the ranchers use to ship their cattle are in isolated areas," Cobos told FoxNews.com. "And the administration decided since those inspectors and personnel are not armed, they wanted to be able to concentrate on their work without worrying about their security."
Cobos said that beginning on July 26, deputies will accompany inspectors to the scales in a corridor that stretches southwest from Interstate 10 at Las Cruces to the New Mexico-Arizona border, along Luna, Hidalgo and Grant counties.
"It also helps the deputies become more familiar with the ranches and their particular layouts," Cobos said. "It's a benefit to all of us."
"It's a safe way of providing their personnel with protection so they don't encounter a situation that would imperil the equipment or their lives," Cobos said. "It's a relatively small cost to prevent a tragedy." Read More
So it’s too dangerous for the NM Dept of Ag officials to go to these ranches without armed guards yet the government is telling us the border is safer than ever? Why do we have United States citizens living inside our borders that are being forced to live in fear? These ranches should not be the first line of defense for our country.
Published July 16, 2010
FoxNews.com
When inspectors in New Mexico begin surveying 32 livestock scales along the increasingly dangerous Mexican border later this month, they'll have armed escorts at their sides.
It will mark the first time armed deputies will travel with New Mexico Department of Agriculture inspectors, who certify the scales used to weigh livestock, Luna County Sheriff Raymond Cobos said.
"These scales that the ranchers use to ship their cattle are in isolated areas," Cobos told FoxNews.com. "And the administration decided since those inspectors and personnel are not armed, they wanted to be able to concentrate on their work without worrying about their security."
Cobos said that beginning on July 26, deputies will accompany inspectors to the scales in a corridor that stretches southwest from Interstate 10 at Las Cruces to the New Mexico-Arizona border, along Luna, Hidalgo and Grant counties.
"It also helps the deputies become more familiar with the ranches and their particular layouts," Cobos said. "It's a benefit to all of us."
"It's a safe way of providing their personnel with protection so they don't encounter a situation that would imperil the equipment or their lives," Cobos said. "It's a relatively small cost to prevent a tragedy." Read More
So it’s too dangerous for the NM Dept of Ag officials to go to these ranches without armed guards yet the government is telling us the border is safer than ever? Why do we have United States citizens living inside our borders that are being forced to live in fear? These ranches should not be the first line of defense for our country.
Tour Teaches Consumers About Water
Ag tour helps residents understand the world of water in northern Colorado
Meagan Birely
TheFencePost.com
Drip irrigation. Those words might not mean a lot to someone living in the city, but to a farmer in Weld County, those words have become a big deal.
On Friday, the Chamber of Commerce Agricultural Committee brought farmers and city folks together to learn about the process, product, procedures and problems of sharing water.
The tour, “From Desert to Oasis: The story of how irrigation transformed the plains of eastern Colorado” took a busload of people around Weld to look at different places impacted by and using different irrigation systems.
Stephan Andrade of Evergreen said he was looking for the best ways to keep farmers farming and cities drinking water.
“We just want to see what everyone is doing in terms of best practices and how to share this limited resource we call water,” Andrade said. “You get to see firsthand what people are doing that is always helpful as opposed to just reading about it.” Read More
I just wanted to share another example of farmers and ranchers hosting tours on their places to help educate their neighbors. These types of tours are probably the best way to tell our story. The impact can be tremendous when you can stand there and physically show a consumer what you do and why you do it.
Meagan Birely
TheFencePost.com
Drip irrigation. Those words might not mean a lot to someone living in the city, but to a farmer in Weld County, those words have become a big deal.
On Friday, the Chamber of Commerce Agricultural Committee brought farmers and city folks together to learn about the process, product, procedures and problems of sharing water.
The tour, “From Desert to Oasis: The story of how irrigation transformed the plains of eastern Colorado” took a busload of people around Weld to look at different places impacted by and using different irrigation systems.
Stephan Andrade of Evergreen said he was looking for the best ways to keep farmers farming and cities drinking water.
“We just want to see what everyone is doing in terms of best practices and how to share this limited resource we call water,” Andrade said. “You get to see firsthand what people are doing that is always helpful as opposed to just reading about it.” Read More
I just wanted to share another example of farmers and ranchers hosting tours on their places to help educate their neighbors. These types of tours are probably the best way to tell our story. The impact can be tremendous when you can stand there and physically show a consumer what you do and why you do it.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Putting All Our Eggs in the Social Media Basket
I wanted to highlight this well written blog post from Will Gilmer of Gilmer Dairy Farm. Like Will, I have used social media as a way to share my story about agriculture. But, we must remember that these are just someof the tools we have to educate consumers about where their food comes from. I've always said that tweets and status updates will never replace the handshake and looking another person in the eye while you share your story. Follow this link to see what Will had to say.
Tech Essential To Feeding The World
Croplife America Conference: Feeding A Hungry And Growing
07/18/2010
Matt Kaye
Agriculture and food safety experts agreed at a Washington, DC policy conference that technology is key to feeding a hungry and growing world, but there are other issues that may keep that from happening. Julie Borlaug, whose Nobel laureate grandfather Norman is credited with saving a billion people from starvation through plant genetics, defended GMO technology against those who argue food distribution and equity is the problem, “It is a production problem…if they cannot produce the food, if we cannot get the food to where it needs to be…it’s not just global justice, it’s global production. If they don’t have the inputs, if there’s no infrastructure, they don’t have any technology, you can’t say it’s an equity problem-it’s a production problem for the people, where they are.”
Experts at the Croplife American National Policy Conference pointed to estimates that world population will soar to 9-billion by 2050 and will require a doubling of food production on the same acreage.
Former Purdue University Ag Dean Bob Thompson says activists continue to stand in the way of GMO technology in developing nations and that regional ecosystem differences hinder transfer of the technology, “The tools of modern science are freely mobile…but then, you’ve got to make the local adaptation investments, in order to optimize those varieties for the local agro-ecological environment.” Thompson says it takes adaptation investments to get those varieties to thrive in areas and also to adapt to changing climates…all of which will take money in budget-starved countries and help from the US. Link
The only people that I see complaining about new technological advancements in the world of agriculture are the ones with full stomachs. When you are hungry your priorities change quite a bit and they have nothing to do with protesting about how food is grown.
07/18/2010
Matt Kaye
Agriculture and food safety experts agreed at a Washington, DC policy conference that technology is key to feeding a hungry and growing world, but there are other issues that may keep that from happening. Julie Borlaug, whose Nobel laureate grandfather Norman is credited with saving a billion people from starvation through plant genetics, defended GMO technology against those who argue food distribution and equity is the problem, “It is a production problem…if they cannot produce the food, if we cannot get the food to where it needs to be…it’s not just global justice, it’s global production. If they don’t have the inputs, if there’s no infrastructure, they don’t have any technology, you can’t say it’s an equity problem-it’s a production problem for the people, where they are.”
Experts at the Croplife American National Policy Conference pointed to estimates that world population will soar to 9-billion by 2050 and will require a doubling of food production on the same acreage.
Former Purdue University Ag Dean Bob Thompson says activists continue to stand in the way of GMO technology in developing nations and that regional ecosystem differences hinder transfer of the technology, “The tools of modern science are freely mobile…but then, you’ve got to make the local adaptation investments, in order to optimize those varieties for the local agro-ecological environment.” Thompson says it takes adaptation investments to get those varieties to thrive in areas and also to adapt to changing climates…all of which will take money in budget-starved countries and help from the US. Link
The only people that I see complaining about new technological advancements in the world of agriculture are the ones with full stomachs. When you are hungry your priorities change quite a bit and they have nothing to do with protesting about how food is grown.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Antibiotics In Ag Essential
Antibiotics in agriculture are essential for animal and human health
By Peter Silley, professor of applied microbiology at the University of Bradford - 07/13/10 02:06 PM ET
Antibiotic resistance is a significant global public-health challenge that has created an emotional public response among critics, public-health experts, and animal-health advocates. It involves debate over antibiotic use in both humans and animals, and demands improved monitoring and surveillance, more research and, ultimately, the development of a range of tools that will help reduce reliance on antibiotics. This week’s Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, “Antibiotic Resistance and the Use of Antibiotics in Animal Agriculture,” will further examine how these products are used in agriculture and their impact on human health.
The emotional rhetoric surrounding this issue has resulted in knee-jerk legislative proposals to ban certain uses of antibiotics. Blunt policy instruments could be harmful when dealing with such a critical and complicated issue. It is easy to point fingers and suggest that eliminating some uses in animals would reduce antibiotic resistance in humans. But it is important to act on specific, data-driven evidence. Simple widespread bans on certain uses — including those in animals — would be detrimental to animal health and, more importantly, human health.
If we are to contain the spread of antibiotic resistance, we need careful, data-driven understanding of the sources and causes of that spread. Antibiotic resistance is a collection of specific problems, or specific pathogens resistant to particular drugs. Specific bacterial/drug combinations, or “bug-drug combos,” must be considered separately from other combinations.
Scientific risk assessments conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or by private researchers demonstrate that none of these three bacterial/drug combinations are related to the use of antibiotics in animals. Read More
Healthy livestock are essential for safe and healthy food. But as usual, the anti-animal agriculture groups are using this debate to further their agenda. It’s clear that in order to make any meaningful reform of antibiotic use, the human side must be addressed first. A perfect example would be how antibiotics are distributed in other parts of the world. In some countries you can buy them right over the counter without a doctor’s prescription. They are greatly misused in the US as well by the over-prescribing doctors and the careless patients who fail to follow directions. In the livestock industry you will never see them being used incorrectly. It costs too much money and is too important to the health of the livestock for that to happen. No one who is advocating for antibiotic use changes in livestock only can be taken seriously. ~Troy
By Peter Silley, professor of applied microbiology at the University of Bradford - 07/13/10 02:06 PM ET
Antibiotic resistance is a significant global public-health challenge that has created an emotional public response among critics, public-health experts, and animal-health advocates. It involves debate over antibiotic use in both humans and animals, and demands improved monitoring and surveillance, more research and, ultimately, the development of a range of tools that will help reduce reliance on antibiotics. This week’s Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, “Antibiotic Resistance and the Use of Antibiotics in Animal Agriculture,” will further examine how these products are used in agriculture and their impact on human health.
The emotional rhetoric surrounding this issue has resulted in knee-jerk legislative proposals to ban certain uses of antibiotics. Blunt policy instruments could be harmful when dealing with such a critical and complicated issue. It is easy to point fingers and suggest that eliminating some uses in animals would reduce antibiotic resistance in humans. But it is important to act on specific, data-driven evidence. Simple widespread bans on certain uses — including those in animals — would be detrimental to animal health and, more importantly, human health.
If we are to contain the spread of antibiotic resistance, we need careful, data-driven understanding of the sources and causes of that spread. Antibiotic resistance is a collection of specific problems, or specific pathogens resistant to particular drugs. Specific bacterial/drug combinations, or “bug-drug combos,” must be considered separately from other combinations.
Scientific risk assessments conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or by private researchers demonstrate that none of these three bacterial/drug combinations are related to the use of antibiotics in animals. Read More
Healthy livestock are essential for safe and healthy food. But as usual, the anti-animal agriculture groups are using this debate to further their agenda. It’s clear that in order to make any meaningful reform of antibiotic use, the human side must be addressed first. A perfect example would be how antibiotics are distributed in other parts of the world. In some countries you can buy them right over the counter without a doctor’s prescription. They are greatly misused in the US as well by the over-prescribing doctors and the careless patients who fail to follow directions. In the livestock industry you will never see them being used incorrectly. It costs too much money and is too important to the health of the livestock for that to happen. No one who is advocating for antibiotic use changes in livestock only can be taken seriously. ~Troy
Moms On The Farm
Moms Day Out On The Farm
By Alex Hoffman
Published: July 13, 2010, 5:02 PM
Keloland.com
HARTFORD, SD - Whether you are shopping for yourself or feeding a family, people are spending more time studying food labels.
On Tuesday, a group of moms went beyond the packaging and got a firsthand look at where it all comes from.
Surrounded by miles of rolling hills, the farm is normally a quiet oasis. But Tuesday, this land north of Hartford became an outdoor classroom.
Women are taking a break from work and families to find out exactly what it takes to get food from the field to the fridge.
"I think it'd be fun for them to see where it all starts from instead of just going to the grocery store and saying, 'Well, that’s where chicken comes from,' or 'That’s where pork comes from,'” hog farmer Dennis Steineke said.
Most of these women have very little experience being on a farm and say they're excited to learn what it's all about.
"It's good to learn about how farming works and how we get our meat and how the animals are taken from the farm to how we get them in the grocery store,” participant Jackie Studenski said.
Read More
This is a terrific program sponsored by Ag United. I’ve mentioned on this blog many times the importance of showing consumers what we do. There are those in our industry that talk about being advocates and there are those that actually do something. If you ever get the chance to host a tour of your farm or ranch jump on it. Thanks to Ag United and these South Dakota producers for hosting this tour.
By Alex Hoffman
Published: July 13, 2010, 5:02 PM
Keloland.com
HARTFORD, SD - Whether you are shopping for yourself or feeding a family, people are spending more time studying food labels.
On Tuesday, a group of moms went beyond the packaging and got a firsthand look at where it all comes from.
Surrounded by miles of rolling hills, the farm is normally a quiet oasis. But Tuesday, this land north of Hartford became an outdoor classroom.
Women are taking a break from work and families to find out exactly what it takes to get food from the field to the fridge.
"I think it'd be fun for them to see where it all starts from instead of just going to the grocery store and saying, 'Well, that’s where chicken comes from,' or 'That’s where pork comes from,'” hog farmer Dennis Steineke said.
Most of these women have very little experience being on a farm and say they're excited to learn what it's all about.
"It's good to learn about how farming works and how we get our meat and how the animals are taken from the farm to how we get them in the grocery store,” participant Jackie Studenski said.
Read More
This is a terrific program sponsored by Ag United. I’ve mentioned on this blog many times the importance of showing consumers what we do. There are those in our industry that talk about being advocates and there are those that actually do something. If you ever get the chance to host a tour of your farm or ranch jump on it. Thanks to Ag United and these South Dakota producers for hosting this tour.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Too Much Milk?
Too much milk?
By Chris Woolston Special to the Los Angeles Times
July 12, 2010
Few things in life look as pure and simple as a glass of milk. The ingredient list on the carton is refreshingly short too. All it says is "milk," perhaps along with some added vitamin A and vitamin D. No preservatives, no artificial colors, no high-fructose anything. Just milk.
But like many things that appear simple from the outside, there's a lot going on beneath milk's surface. That glass is swirling with natural cow hormones, which isn't surprising considering the source. Milk contains sugars found nowhere else in nature, and it offers a particular blend of nutrients — including protein, calcium, magnesium and potassium — that you can't get anywhere else.
Yet, almost 8,000 years after nomadic herders realized they could tug at the udders of slow-moving livestock, we still aren't sure how much of the stuff we should be drinking. The USDA recommends three cups of dairy a day for all adults, but the science behind milk hasn't been settled. "This is one of the most complicated and interesting areas of nutrition," says Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, "and we don't have all of the answers."
Many high-profile nutritionists — often working with large research grants from the dairy industry — say that milk in great quantities is an essential part of the daily diet that can help prevent osteoporosis, heart disease, cancer and other illnesses. "Anything less than three glasses a day, and you won't get all of the nutrients that you need," says Connie Weaver, head of food and nutrition at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. Most of Weaver's funding comes from the National Institutes of Health, but she's also supported by the National Dairy Council.
On the other side, groups promoting animal rights and veganism — including PETA and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine — say that cow's milk is a nutritional nightmare that doesn't belong in the human diet. "It's gross," says Dr. Neil Barnard, author and founder of the PCRM. "Milk is nutritionally perfect for one purpose: feeding a calf," he says. "The idea that we should be drinking milk from a cow is just bizarre."
Willett, one of the world's most prominent nutrition experts, doesn't belong to either camp. From his viewpoint, one or two cups of milk each day is a safe, reasonable and nutritious goal. "But beyond that," he says, "the benefits are unclear, and there may be some risk."
The PCRM website says that milk raises the risk of breast cancer, but even Barnard isn't convinced. " Breast cancer is unclear," he says, adding that he doesn't often look at the organization's website. A 2005 report from a researcher with the Australian equivalent of the Dairy Council combined results of 52 previous studies examining the issue. When put together, the studies didn't show any connection between dairy and breast cancer.
Read More
With all of the studies mentioned in this article that may suggest this or that, we do know that no single food has ever been proven to cause cancer. That is undeniable fact. So with that in mind we need to go back to common sense. When it comes to food it’s important that we eat a balanced diet that includes meat and diary products. And just to show you how radical groups like the PCRM are, Dr. Barnard (founder of the PCRM) even admits that he doesn’t agree with everything they are saying about milk on their website. You would think that they’d at least try to get their story straight while trying to mislead the public.
By Chris Woolston Special to the Los Angeles Times
July 12, 2010
Few things in life look as pure and simple as a glass of milk. The ingredient list on the carton is refreshingly short too. All it says is "milk," perhaps along with some added vitamin A and vitamin D. No preservatives, no artificial colors, no high-fructose anything. Just milk.
But like many things that appear simple from the outside, there's a lot going on beneath milk's surface. That glass is swirling with natural cow hormones, which isn't surprising considering the source. Milk contains sugars found nowhere else in nature, and it offers a particular blend of nutrients — including protein, calcium, magnesium and potassium — that you can't get anywhere else.
Yet, almost 8,000 years after nomadic herders realized they could tug at the udders of slow-moving livestock, we still aren't sure how much of the stuff we should be drinking. The USDA recommends three cups of dairy a day for all adults, but the science behind milk hasn't been settled. "This is one of the most complicated and interesting areas of nutrition," says Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, "and we don't have all of the answers."
Many high-profile nutritionists — often working with large research grants from the dairy industry — say that milk in great quantities is an essential part of the daily diet that can help prevent osteoporosis, heart disease, cancer and other illnesses. "Anything less than three glasses a day, and you won't get all of the nutrients that you need," says Connie Weaver, head of food and nutrition at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. Most of Weaver's funding comes from the National Institutes of Health, but she's also supported by the National Dairy Council.
On the other side, groups promoting animal rights and veganism — including PETA and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine — say that cow's milk is a nutritional nightmare that doesn't belong in the human diet. "It's gross," says Dr. Neil Barnard, author and founder of the PCRM. "Milk is nutritionally perfect for one purpose: feeding a calf," he says. "The idea that we should be drinking milk from a cow is just bizarre."
Willett, one of the world's most prominent nutrition experts, doesn't belong to either camp. From his viewpoint, one or two cups of milk each day is a safe, reasonable and nutritious goal. "But beyond that," he says, "the benefits are unclear, and there may be some risk."
The PCRM website says that milk raises the risk of breast cancer, but even Barnard isn't convinced. " Breast cancer is unclear," he says, adding that he doesn't often look at the organization's website. A 2005 report from a researcher with the Australian equivalent of the Dairy Council combined results of 52 previous studies examining the issue. When put together, the studies didn't show any connection between dairy and breast cancer.
Read More
With all of the studies mentioned in this article that may suggest this or that, we do know that no single food has ever been proven to cause cancer. That is undeniable fact. So with that in mind we need to go back to common sense. When it comes to food it’s important that we eat a balanced diet that includes meat and diary products. And just to show you how radical groups like the PCRM are, Dr. Barnard (founder of the PCRM) even admits that he doesn’t agree with everything they are saying about milk on their website. You would think that they’d at least try to get their story straight while trying to mislead the public.
Reporter Finds Different Story at Stampede
Opinion: What's the beef with Stampede roping, anyway?
By Jen Gerson, Calgary Herald July 11, 2010 Comments (5)
As they were setting up for the Calgary Stampede a few weeks ago, I got a taste of an annual Stampede event of a more sombre variety.
Signs and PETA pamphlets in hand, eight protesters lined a park on 17th Avenue S.W. in their attempt to ban the rodeo practice of calf roping. As I asked one about the basis of his beliefs, he looked at me and asked: "Has anyone ever told you you look just like Maria Sharapova?"
I dropped my pen, arched my eyebrow and looked in the activist's doe-like eyes, noting his long hair and hand-stitched linen vest.
Filed under the things thought, but not said: "Oh buddy, there are right trees and there are wrong trees. Right now, you're barking up one of the wrong ones."
Whether you agree with the man's stance or not, you have to respect someone who has cultivated such a diehard passion for un-winnable fights and impossible pursuits.
However, I took a decidedly less sympathetic view of the Vancouver Humane Society, which has again launched an anti-calf-roping tirade without having bothered to actually visit Stampede or talk to the calf ropers or cattle ranchers. Instead, they've told me they're basing their opinions on the reports of activists. Reliable. Read More
Unlike most animal rights activists and vegan promoters this reporter actually went to the Calgary Stampede to see for herself if the calf-roping seemed as cruel as the protesters were claiming. Unfortunately for the animal rights crowd, their crazy claims didn’t match up with reality again. This is a case study for all of us in animal agriculture. A positive outcome is almost always achieved when we are able to actually show the public what we do and why we do it. That’s why it’s so important that we are out there telling our story, we can’t let others do it for us. This is also why I always tell consumers that if they have a question about agriculture that they should ask a farmer, not Google. We are the most direct and trusted source of information about food production so we need to be available to answer the questions and show consumers first hand what we do.
By Jen Gerson, Calgary Herald July 11, 2010 Comments (5)
As they were setting up for the Calgary Stampede a few weeks ago, I got a taste of an annual Stampede event of a more sombre variety.
Signs and PETA pamphlets in hand, eight protesters lined a park on 17th Avenue S.W. in their attempt to ban the rodeo practice of calf roping. As I asked one about the basis of his beliefs, he looked at me and asked: "Has anyone ever told you you look just like Maria Sharapova?"
I dropped my pen, arched my eyebrow and looked in the activist's doe-like eyes, noting his long hair and hand-stitched linen vest.
Filed under the things thought, but not said: "Oh buddy, there are right trees and there are wrong trees. Right now, you're barking up one of the wrong ones."
Whether you agree with the man's stance or not, you have to respect someone who has cultivated such a diehard passion for un-winnable fights and impossible pursuits.
However, I took a decidedly less sympathetic view of the Vancouver Humane Society, which has again launched an anti-calf-roping tirade without having bothered to actually visit Stampede or talk to the calf ropers or cattle ranchers. Instead, they've told me they're basing their opinions on the reports of activists. Reliable. Read More
Unlike most animal rights activists and vegan promoters this reporter actually went to the Calgary Stampede to see for herself if the calf-roping seemed as cruel as the protesters were claiming. Unfortunately for the animal rights crowd, their crazy claims didn’t match up with reality again. This is a case study for all of us in animal agriculture. A positive outcome is almost always achieved when we are able to actually show the public what we do and why we do it. That’s why it’s so important that we are out there telling our story, we can’t let others do it for us. This is also why I always tell consumers that if they have a question about agriculture that they should ask a farmer, not Google. We are the most direct and trusted source of information about food production so we need to be available to answer the questions and show consumers first hand what we do.
Beef Burgers, It's What's for Dinner
Appetite for "better burgers" shows no satiety
By MATTHEW BARAKAT (AP) – 21 hours ago
FALLS CHURCH, Va. — With a drive-through seemingly on every corner, you might think the market for burgers long ago reached saturation. But the fastest-growing restaurant chain in America last year was Five Guys, which specializes in double-pattied behemoths the size of a softball.
And that's just the tip of the arugula. So-called "better burger" joints are one of the fastest-growing parts the restaurant industry. Celebrity chef Bobby Flay launched Bobby's Burger Palace in the Northeast. Elevation Burger is expanding into Kuwait. Mooyah Burgers & Fries, Meatheads and the Shake Shack are looking to expand.
Higher-grade beef, fresher or more creative toppings, and better buns are bringing customers in the door.
It's a market that has room to grow. Such chains represent only about 2 percent of the $65 billion burger market, said Darren Tristano, executive vice president of Chicago-based restaurant consultant Technomic. Read More
People love burgers! Even with so much misinformation about beef production being put out there by vegan animal rights activists, consumers love what we produce. However, we need to maintain that relationship by continually sharing with them how that beef gets on their plate. They want to know and there are a lot of groups that jump at the chance to tell them their version and make it harder for the truth to get out. Education and promotion are essential items that should be on every producer’s daily chore list.
By MATTHEW BARAKAT (AP) – 21 hours ago
FALLS CHURCH, Va. — With a drive-through seemingly on every corner, you might think the market for burgers long ago reached saturation. But the fastest-growing restaurant chain in America last year was Five Guys, which specializes in double-pattied behemoths the size of a softball.
And that's just the tip of the arugula. So-called "better burger" joints are one of the fastest-growing parts the restaurant industry. Celebrity chef Bobby Flay launched Bobby's Burger Palace in the Northeast. Elevation Burger is expanding into Kuwait. Mooyah Burgers & Fries, Meatheads and the Shake Shack are looking to expand.
Higher-grade beef, fresher or more creative toppings, and better buns are bringing customers in the door.
It's a market that has room to grow. Such chains represent only about 2 percent of the $65 billion burger market, said Darren Tristano, executive vice president of Chicago-based restaurant consultant Technomic. Read More
People love burgers! Even with so much misinformation about beef production being put out there by vegan animal rights activists, consumers love what we produce. However, we need to maintain that relationship by continually sharing with them how that beef gets on their plate. They want to know and there are a lot of groups that jump at the chance to tell them their version and make it harder for the truth to get out. Education and promotion are essential items that should be on every producer’s daily chore list.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Prop 2 Forces Cage-Free Only Eggs in CA
California cage law will apply to out-of-state eggs
Associated Press
Posted: 07/08/2010 04:31:12 AM PDT
SACRAMENTO — California's two-year-old law to protect egg-laying hens has been extended to out-of-state egg suppliers who hope to sell their products in the state's grocery stores.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday signed AB1437 into law, calling it a positive step for California egg producers and animal welfare.
The measure requires that all eggs imported to California come from farms complying with Proposition 2, which was approved by voters in 2008. Violators could face up to 180 days in jail or a $1,000 fine.
Proposition 2 says cages for egg-laying hens must be large enough for the animals to stand up, lie down and extend their wings.
Both laws will take effect in 2015. Link
Let's look at what has happended here. Because of HSUS getting Prop 2 passed, consumers have less choices available to them at the grocery store in California. The choices that are left will be more expensive. This is exactly what their mission is, to force people to eat the food they decide is best. So the next time you hear Wayne and Co. claiming that they don't have a vegan agenda just remember what has now happened in California. This should be an incredible wake-up call for anyone who thinks HSUS is just a humane society.
Associated Press
Posted: 07/08/2010 04:31:12 AM PDT
SACRAMENTO — California's two-year-old law to protect egg-laying hens has been extended to out-of-state egg suppliers who hope to sell their products in the state's grocery stores.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday signed AB1437 into law, calling it a positive step for California egg producers and animal welfare.
The measure requires that all eggs imported to California come from farms complying with Proposition 2, which was approved by voters in 2008. Violators could face up to 180 days in jail or a $1,000 fine.
Proposition 2 says cages for egg-laying hens must be large enough for the animals to stand up, lie down and extend their wings.
Both laws will take effect in 2015. Link
Let's look at what has happended here. Because of HSUS getting Prop 2 passed, consumers have less choices available to them at the grocery store in California. The choices that are left will be more expensive. This is exactly what their mission is, to force people to eat the food they decide is best. So the next time you hear Wayne and Co. claiming that they don't have a vegan agenda just remember what has now happened in California. This should be an incredible wake-up call for anyone who thinks HSUS is just a humane society.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
HSUS Has Ohio On Leash After Deal Reached
State's deal with HSUS might not be end of conflict
JULY 3, 2010
Chillicothe Gazette
For months, the spectre of a fall statewide issue related to animal cruelty promised to create a showdown between animal activists and the farming community in Ohio.
But a last minute deal brokered by Gov. Ted Strickland brought together the animal rights and farm groups for a deal that boosts both sides.
The deal calls for Strickland, the Humane Society, the Ohio Farm Bureau and their partners to join forces in favor of tougher laws governing farm animals, including provisions that ban certain crates and cages and the use of strangulation as a form of euthanasia.
It also calls for setting felony-level penalties for cock fighting, cracking down on puppy mills and promoting a ban on future exotic pet purchases.
The farming community took a hit recently when a video from a Plain City farm showed brutal treatment of cows there.
Animal rights groups, including the Humane Society of the United States, were accused of harassing and dishonest practices to get the signatures needed on petitions.
As Strickland said in a Wednesday press conference, the still-unsigned deal was necessary to avoid a bitter campaign war.
But a closer look reveals Ohio isn't out of the woods just yet.
Provisions in the agreement keep the state on a proverbial leash when it comes to HSUS getting what they want.
For example, if HSUS isn't pleased with the progress on rules regarding wild and dangerous animals (big cats, bears, primates, alligators, venomous snakes, etc.) by Dec. 31, all bets could be off. The same thing goes for 2014, 2017 and beyond -- if HSUS isn't happy with the progress, then a ballot issue could be forthcoming.
As California is learning, HSUS only stays happy for a fleeting moment, then it moves on to the next item on its agenda. The safe money is that the same thing will happen here in the Buckeye State.
So, enjoy it while it lasts, Ohio. You might not have to hear the cacophony of dueling political ads this year, but that doesn't mean it won't be coming in the future. Read More
There’s plenty of discussion happening about last week’s announcement of the deal that was reached in Ohio. One of the things that I continually remind people when it comes to making deals with the HSUS is that it’s only temporary. They can always change their mind and come back anytime. That’s exactly what this article discusses. When you make deals with the devil you are going to get burned every time. ~Troy
JULY 3, 2010
Chillicothe Gazette
For months, the spectre of a fall statewide issue related to animal cruelty promised to create a showdown between animal activists and the farming community in Ohio.
But a last minute deal brokered by Gov. Ted Strickland brought together the animal rights and farm groups for a deal that boosts both sides.
The deal calls for Strickland, the Humane Society, the Ohio Farm Bureau and their partners to join forces in favor of tougher laws governing farm animals, including provisions that ban certain crates and cages and the use of strangulation as a form of euthanasia.
It also calls for setting felony-level penalties for cock fighting, cracking down on puppy mills and promoting a ban on future exotic pet purchases.
The farming community took a hit recently when a video from a Plain City farm showed brutal treatment of cows there.
Animal rights groups, including the Humane Society of the United States, were accused of harassing and dishonest practices to get the signatures needed on petitions.
As Strickland said in a Wednesday press conference, the still-unsigned deal was necessary to avoid a bitter campaign war.
But a closer look reveals Ohio isn't out of the woods just yet.
Provisions in the agreement keep the state on a proverbial leash when it comes to HSUS getting what they want.
For example, if HSUS isn't pleased with the progress on rules regarding wild and dangerous animals (big cats, bears, primates, alligators, venomous snakes, etc.) by Dec. 31, all bets could be off. The same thing goes for 2014, 2017 and beyond -- if HSUS isn't happy with the progress, then a ballot issue could be forthcoming.
As California is learning, HSUS only stays happy for a fleeting moment, then it moves on to the next item on its agenda. The safe money is that the same thing will happen here in the Buckeye State.
So, enjoy it while it lasts, Ohio. You might not have to hear the cacophony of dueling political ads this year, but that doesn't mean it won't be coming in the future. Read More
There’s plenty of discussion happening about last week’s announcement of the deal that was reached in Ohio. One of the things that I continually remind people when it comes to making deals with the HSUS is that it’s only temporary. They can always change their mind and come back anytime. That’s exactly what this article discusses. When you make deals with the devil you are going to get burned every time. ~Troy
Calgary Stampede Sponsors Targeted
Animal rights activists target Stampede sponsors
Updated: Sat Jul. 03 2010 15:21:25
ctvcalgary.ca
With the Calgary Stampede less than a week away, animal rights activists have launched their first protest. This time they have a different target: Stampede sponsors.
Around a dozen protestors gathered at Tompkins Park, along 17th Avenue Southwest
The protesters say they are now targeting major corporations that sponsor the rodeo, including Bell Canada which had been sponsoring the steer wrestling event.
The group, called the "The Calgary Animal Rights Meetup Group" is urging Canadians to boycott Bell.
Jeremy Thomas from the group says, "Every year animals are hurt and killed and scared out of their minds for the sake of entertainment, not to mention the ones that get killed in the practice sessions." Read More
The Calgary Stampede has been a target of anti-rodeo animal rights activists for some time now. This year’s strategy is to protest the supporters of the rodeo. Even though a dozen protesters will do little to stop an historic rodeo that draws thousands of visitors to their city every year, it’s important that rodeo and animal agriculture take advantage of events like these to educate the public about what it is we do.
Updated: Sat Jul. 03 2010 15:21:25
ctvcalgary.ca
With the Calgary Stampede less than a week away, animal rights activists have launched their first protest. This time they have a different target: Stampede sponsors.
Around a dozen protestors gathered at Tompkins Park, along 17th Avenue Southwest
The protesters say they are now targeting major corporations that sponsor the rodeo, including Bell Canada which had been sponsoring the steer wrestling event.
The group, called the "The Calgary Animal Rights Meetup Group" is urging Canadians to boycott Bell.
Jeremy Thomas from the group says, "Every year animals are hurt and killed and scared out of their minds for the sake of entertainment, not to mention the ones that get killed in the practice sessions." Read More
The Calgary Stampede has been a target of anti-rodeo animal rights activists for some time now. This year’s strategy is to protest the supporters of the rodeo. Even though a dozen protesters will do little to stop an historic rodeo that draws thousands of visitors to their city every year, it’s important that rodeo and animal agriculture take advantage of events like these to educate the public about what it is we do.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Livestock Care Issue Won't Be On Ohio Ballot
Livestock care amendment won't be on ballot
July 1, 2010
By MARC KOVAC
Dix Capital Bureau
COLUMBUS -- The Humane Society of the United States has abandoned its drive to place an animal care-related constitutional amendment on the November ballot.
The decision came late Wednesday afternoon, the day the group was supposed to turn in petitions to the Secretary of State, after negotiating with Gov. Ted Strickland and the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation.
The resulting agreement included five proposed livestock standard changes: phasing out veal crates in 2017; phasing out new hog gestation crate use this year with a 15-year phase-out on existing equipment; implementing a "timeout" on battery cage permits used to confine egg-laying hens; and instituting standards for both downer livestock and euthanasia practices.
Those changes will be forwarded to the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, the voter-approved body that will have to sign off on them. Read More
Only time will tell if this “agreement” was a good idea or not, but after 12 hours of thinking about it, here’s my early take on things. It would seem to me that this agreement has effectively stripped the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board of it’s constitutional duty. The citizens of Ohio decided that they wanted this board to make the decisions about livestock welfare based on scientific reasoning, not emotional arguments made by out-of-state animal rights groups. Unfortunately they are now in the position of being forced to accept this agreement based on politics rather than what’s best for the livestock.
There’s no doubt that the ballot issue would have been risky, but Ohio’s agriculture leadership seemed ready to fight for their industry right up until yesterday.
July 1, 2010
By MARC KOVAC
Dix Capital Bureau
COLUMBUS -- The Humane Society of the United States has abandoned its drive to place an animal care-related constitutional amendment on the November ballot.
The decision came late Wednesday afternoon, the day the group was supposed to turn in petitions to the Secretary of State, after negotiating with Gov. Ted Strickland and the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation.
The resulting agreement included five proposed livestock standard changes: phasing out veal crates in 2017; phasing out new hog gestation crate use this year with a 15-year phase-out on existing equipment; implementing a "timeout" on battery cage permits used to confine egg-laying hens; and instituting standards for both downer livestock and euthanasia practices.
Those changes will be forwarded to the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, the voter-approved body that will have to sign off on them. Read More
Only time will tell if this “agreement” was a good idea or not, but after 12 hours of thinking about it, here’s my early take on things. It would seem to me that this agreement has effectively stripped the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board of it’s constitutional duty. The citizens of Ohio decided that they wanted this board to make the decisions about livestock welfare based on scientific reasoning, not emotional arguments made by out-of-state animal rights groups. Unfortunately they are now in the position of being forced to accept this agreement based on politics rather than what’s best for the livestock.
There’s no doubt that the ballot issue would have been risky, but Ohio’s agriculture leadership seemed ready to fight for their industry right up until yesterday.
Report Backs Non-Conventional Practices
National council report backs sustainable food
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
(06-30) 04:00 PDT Washington - -- The prestigious National Research Council threw its considerable heft behind the sustainable food movement Tuesday with a 570-page report that endorses the new food and farm practices that began in the Bay Area and have taken the nation by storm.
There are now twice as many farmers - 30,000 to 40,000 - selling local meat and produce in farmers' markets than there are growing cotton, a major industrial crop, said August Schumacher, an author of the report and a former undersecretary of agriculture in the George H.W. Bush administration.
"This is not just San Francisco, Boston and New York," Schumacher said of what has been called alternative agriculture but is fast going mainstream - everything from the locavore, organic and "slow food" movements to animal welfare advocacy. "It's Kansas City. It's Boise, Idaho. It's Abingdon, Va."
External costs
While the industrial farm model has generated astonishing efficiency gains and lowered the cost of food, the report found, it has imposed enormous external costs on the environment, human health, animal welfare and workers that are not included in the price of food.
Julia Kornegay, the chair of the committee that wrote the report and chair of the department of horticulture science at North Carolina State University, said the industrial farm system has become increasingly fragile and prone to outside shocks such as a sudden increase in oil or feed prices, water shortages or concerns about food safety.
Produced by a dozen academic and industry leaders and funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the report squares off against a growing backlash by proponents of industrial agriculture to what they see as a utopian and romanticized vision of pastoral life that would take food production back to the 19th century and starve the world.
"A post-materialist fantasy," is what Robert Paarlberg, a member of the Board of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the National Research Council and a leading food policy academic, has called the new food movement.
Paarlberg says the new food movement is playing out on Africa's small, impoverished farms, where most of the continent's people earn $1 a day, where 80 percent of the labor is done by women and children, where animals forage, insecticides and herbicides are unaffordable and food imports are the only barrier to starvation. Read More
Here is what this article says, America’s farmers and ranchers had done an incredible job of feeding our country and others at the most affordable price in the world, BUT, that needs to be changed. Their claims that food production is too vulnerable to things like high oil prices are an extremely narrow point of view. That doesn’t justify families having to pay much higher food prices all the time. When inputs go up, so do prices. No type of farming will prevent that.
Here’s another thing that seems apparent. The people that were studying this issue went into it with the pre-conceived bias that the current food production system is bad and needs changed. You can tell this by the broad statements made such as the environment needs to be protected. I don’t know anyone that’s involved in agriculture that doesn’t care about the soil and water that generate their livelihood. I get tired of hearing people say that I don’t care about things like that. I don’t care what type of production system you use, if you don’t care about things like that you will be out of business very quickly.
A well-fed society neglects it’s agriculture. Those words have never been more true than they are today.
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
(06-30) 04:00 PDT Washington - -- The prestigious National Research Council threw its considerable heft behind the sustainable food movement Tuesday with a 570-page report that endorses the new food and farm practices that began in the Bay Area and have taken the nation by storm.
There are now twice as many farmers - 30,000 to 40,000 - selling local meat and produce in farmers' markets than there are growing cotton, a major industrial crop, said August Schumacher, an author of the report and a former undersecretary of agriculture in the George H.W. Bush administration.
"This is not just San Francisco, Boston and New York," Schumacher said of what has been called alternative agriculture but is fast going mainstream - everything from the locavore, organic and "slow food" movements to animal welfare advocacy. "It's Kansas City. It's Boise, Idaho. It's Abingdon, Va."
External costs
While the industrial farm model has generated astonishing efficiency gains and lowered the cost of food, the report found, it has imposed enormous external costs on the environment, human health, animal welfare and workers that are not included in the price of food.
Julia Kornegay, the chair of the committee that wrote the report and chair of the department of horticulture science at North Carolina State University, said the industrial farm system has become increasingly fragile and prone to outside shocks such as a sudden increase in oil or feed prices, water shortages or concerns about food safety.
Produced by a dozen academic and industry leaders and funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the report squares off against a growing backlash by proponents of industrial agriculture to what they see as a utopian and romanticized vision of pastoral life that would take food production back to the 19th century and starve the world.
"A post-materialist fantasy," is what Robert Paarlberg, a member of the Board of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the National Research Council and a leading food policy academic, has called the new food movement.
Paarlberg says the new food movement is playing out on Africa's small, impoverished farms, where most of the continent's people earn $1 a day, where 80 percent of the labor is done by women and children, where animals forage, insecticides and herbicides are unaffordable and food imports are the only barrier to starvation. Read More
Here is what this article says, America’s farmers and ranchers had done an incredible job of feeding our country and others at the most affordable price in the world, BUT, that needs to be changed. Their claims that food production is too vulnerable to things like high oil prices are an extremely narrow point of view. That doesn’t justify families having to pay much higher food prices all the time. When inputs go up, so do prices. No type of farming will prevent that.
Here’s another thing that seems apparent. The people that were studying this issue went into it with the pre-conceived bias that the current food production system is bad and needs changed. You can tell this by the broad statements made such as the environment needs to be protected. I don’t know anyone that’s involved in agriculture that doesn’t care about the soil and water that generate their livelihood. I get tired of hearing people say that I don’t care about things like that. I don’t care what type of production system you use, if you don’t care about things like that you will be out of business very quickly.
A well-fed society neglects it’s agriculture. Those words have never been more true than they are today.
Editors Encourage Avoiding HSUS Donations
Give to the local Humane Society
• Journal Editorial Board Posted: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:00 am
• Rapid City Journal
The Humane Society of the United States is cheating abused, neglected and abandoned animals out of the help they need with misleading ads that don't disclose the way donations actually are spent. (See related article on this page.)
The national organization uses gut-wrenching ads filled with pitiful animals in an emotional appeal to raise money. The problem is, only a very small fraction of that money filters down to local shelters, with those in many states, including South Dakota, receiving no money at all.
According to the financial report posted on HSUS's website, the agency raised nearly $100 million in donations and bequests last year. It spent nearly $31 million of that on fundraising alone while only $11.6 million was dispersed to animal care facilities.
Most of the money not used for administrative costs is spent on educational campaigns.
Don't make the mistake of confusing the national organization with the local Humane Society that does so much to help animals in need.
The next time you see one of those gut-wrenching ads of abused animals, and feel inclined to help, be sure to give to the local Humane Society. Read More
The editorial board of our regional newspaper in western South Dakota took note of the harm being caused by the Humane Society of the United States. The local humane societies lose when donations are made to the HSUS. If they are so confident in their mission, they should at least be honest in their commercials and advertise where the money is going to be spent. A little honesty from a humane society shouldn’t be asking too much.
• Journal Editorial Board Posted: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:00 am
• Rapid City Journal
The Humane Society of the United States is cheating abused, neglected and abandoned animals out of the help they need with misleading ads that don't disclose the way donations actually are spent. (See related article on this page.)
The national organization uses gut-wrenching ads filled with pitiful animals in an emotional appeal to raise money. The problem is, only a very small fraction of that money filters down to local shelters, with those in many states, including South Dakota, receiving no money at all.
According to the financial report posted on HSUS's website, the agency raised nearly $100 million in donations and bequests last year. It spent nearly $31 million of that on fundraising alone while only $11.6 million was dispersed to animal care facilities.
Most of the money not used for administrative costs is spent on educational campaigns.
Don't make the mistake of confusing the national organization with the local Humane Society that does so much to help animals in need.
The next time you see one of those gut-wrenching ads of abused animals, and feel inclined to help, be sure to give to the local Humane Society. Read More
The editorial board of our regional newspaper in western South Dakota took note of the harm being caused by the Humane Society of the United States. The local humane societies lose when donations are made to the HSUS. If they are so confident in their mission, they should at least be honest in their commercials and advertise where the money is going to be spent. A little honesty from a humane society shouldn’t be asking too much.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Trent Loos Interviews Dr. Scott Hurd
To learn more about antibiotic use in livestock let's hear from an expert on the subject, Dr. Scott Hurd.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
FDA Wants Antibiotic Use in Livestock Limited
FDA seeks less use of antibiotics in animals to keep them effective for humans
By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 29, 2010; A04
The Food and Drug Administration urged farmers on Monday to stop giving antibiotics to cattle, poultry, hogs and other animals to spur their growth, citing concern that drug overuse is helping to create dangerous bacteria that do not respond to medical treatment and endanger human lives.
Joshua M. Sharfstein, the FDA's principal deputy commissioner, said antibiotics should be used only to protect the health of an animal and not to help it grow or improve the way it digests its feed.
"This is an urgent public health issue," Sharfstein said during a conference call with reporters. "To preserve the effectiveness [of antibiotics], we simply must use them as judiciously as possible."
The FDA issued a draft of its guidance, and the public has 60 days to comment on the draft.
Sharfstein said that the guidance was a first step, and the agency would issue new regulations if the industry does not comply voluntarily.
"We have the regulatory mechanisms, and industry knows that," he said. "We also think things can be done voluntarily. We're not handcuffed to the steering wheel of a particular strategy, but I'm not ruling out anything that we can do to establish these important public-health goals."
Read More
Human health is certainly a top priority but one of the things that has helped us avoid any large health disasters is the fact that we have kept our livestock very healthy as well. Along with that, there isn’t any good scientific data to suggest that this will make a difference. After all, livestock producers would have to treat disease after the fact rather than prevent it. The last thing to consider is the fact that until human usage is of antibiotics is better controlled any changes to livestock use would be pointless. The very same drugs that require a prescription here can be bought over the counter in other countries. We definitely need to protect the efficacy of antibiotics but only focusing on livestock use is a lazy solution to a difficult problem.
By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 29, 2010; A04
The Food and Drug Administration urged farmers on Monday to stop giving antibiotics to cattle, poultry, hogs and other animals to spur their growth, citing concern that drug overuse is helping to create dangerous bacteria that do not respond to medical treatment and endanger human lives.
Joshua M. Sharfstein, the FDA's principal deputy commissioner, said antibiotics should be used only to protect the health of an animal and not to help it grow or improve the way it digests its feed.
"This is an urgent public health issue," Sharfstein said during a conference call with reporters. "To preserve the effectiveness [of antibiotics], we simply must use them as judiciously as possible."
The FDA issued a draft of its guidance, and the public has 60 days to comment on the draft.
Sharfstein said that the guidance was a first step, and the agency would issue new regulations if the industry does not comply voluntarily.
"We have the regulatory mechanisms, and industry knows that," he said. "We also think things can be done voluntarily. We're not handcuffed to the steering wheel of a particular strategy, but I'm not ruling out anything that we can do to establish these important public-health goals."
Read More
Human health is certainly a top priority but one of the things that has helped us avoid any large health disasters is the fact that we have kept our livestock very healthy as well. Along with that, there isn’t any good scientific data to suggest that this will make a difference. After all, livestock producers would have to treat disease after the fact rather than prevent it. The last thing to consider is the fact that until human usage is of antibiotics is better controlled any changes to livestock use would be pointless. The very same drugs that require a prescription here can be bought over the counter in other countries. We definitely need to protect the efficacy of antibiotics but only focusing on livestock use is a lazy solution to a difficult problem.
HSUS Livestock Measure Heads for Ohio Ballot
HSUS Livestock Measure Heads for Ohio Ballot
By Pork news source Monday, June 28, 2010
Ohioans for Humane Farms, an affiliate of the Humane Society of the United States, said it has more than enough signatures to put an animal-housing initiative to state voters in the fall, reports Meatingplace.com.
The group is asking voters to support a constitutional amendment that would require new animal housing standards giving egg-laying hens, pregnant sows and veal calves more room to move around in their enclosures.
Karen Minton, campaign manager for Ohioans for Humane Farms, told Meatingplace the group currently has well over 450,000 signatures in hand and expects to turn in more than 500,000 on the June 30 deadline. The minimum is 402,275.
"We're heartened to have had so many Ohioans sign the petition to implement modest, common sense minimum standards for Ohio's livestock," she said in an e-mail. Link
Media reports continue to claim that the world’s richest vegan animal rights groups, the HSUS, has paid enough people to gather enough signatures to get their issue on the ballot. Many of the media and first hand reports are also reporting that the signature gatherers have been much less than truthful with potential signers. It’s certainly telling when you have to lie to people in order to get them to sign a petition but deception is how the bread is buttered at the HSUS.
By Pork news source Monday, June 28, 2010
Ohioans for Humane Farms, an affiliate of the Humane Society of the United States, said it has more than enough signatures to put an animal-housing initiative to state voters in the fall, reports Meatingplace.com.
The group is asking voters to support a constitutional amendment that would require new animal housing standards giving egg-laying hens, pregnant sows and veal calves more room to move around in their enclosures.
Karen Minton, campaign manager for Ohioans for Humane Farms, told Meatingplace the group currently has well over 450,000 signatures in hand and expects to turn in more than 500,000 on the June 30 deadline. The minimum is 402,275.
"We're heartened to have had so many Ohioans sign the petition to implement modest, common sense minimum standards for Ohio's livestock," she said in an e-mail. Link
Media reports continue to claim that the world’s richest vegan animal rights groups, the HSUS, has paid enough people to gather enough signatures to get their issue on the ballot. Many of the media and first hand reports are also reporting that the signature gatherers have been much less than truthful with potential signers. It’s certainly telling when you have to lie to people in order to get them to sign a petition but deception is how the bread is buttered at the HSUS.
Breakfast on the Farm
Horning family hosts Breakfast on the Farm
Published: Monday, June 28, 2010
By Randi Shaffer, Heritage Newspapers
Have you ever wondered how your food makes it from raw elements to a meal on your plate?
For those who attended Breakfast on the Farm at Horning Farms, the process is no longer a mystery.
Horning Farms, located at 11834 E. Pleasant Lake Road near Manchester, hosted one of three Breakfast-on-the-Farm events in Michigan Saturday.
"It's important to show people that their food comes from someplace besides the grocery store," said Earl Horning, a fifth-generation owner of Horning Farms.
Earl Horning and his wife, Diana, are winners of the 2010 MSU Dairy Farmer of the Year award, presented by the MSU Department of Animal Science. The duo, along with their son, Jeff, and daughter-in-law, Lynda, hosted the event.
More than 3,700 tickets were given away for Breakfast on the Farm.
Horning said the point of the event was to expose the general public to modern-day farming operations.
Breakfast on the Farm featured 10 different educational stations. Tour participants had a chance to stop by each station to learn about a variety of topics, including dairy feeds, the health of animals, calf care, cropping and conservation practices, and manure nutrients. Read More
If a picture is worth a thousand words then a farm tour must be worth millions. What better way to tell our story to our non-aggie friends than to let them see if for themselves. There are lots of ways to educate people about agriculture and it’s important that we use all of them. With so much misinformation being spread about where food comes from, every little effort will make a difference. Congratulations to Horning Farms and all the other farms that hosted a breakfast recently.
Published: Monday, June 28, 2010
By Randi Shaffer, Heritage Newspapers
Have you ever wondered how your food makes it from raw elements to a meal on your plate?
For those who attended Breakfast on the Farm at Horning Farms, the process is no longer a mystery.
Horning Farms, located at 11834 E. Pleasant Lake Road near Manchester, hosted one of three Breakfast-on-the-Farm events in Michigan Saturday.
"It's important to show people that their food comes from someplace besides the grocery store," said Earl Horning, a fifth-generation owner of Horning Farms.
Earl Horning and his wife, Diana, are winners of the 2010 MSU Dairy Farmer of the Year award, presented by the MSU Department of Animal Science. The duo, along with their son, Jeff, and daughter-in-law, Lynda, hosted the event.
More than 3,700 tickets were given away for Breakfast on the Farm.
Horning said the point of the event was to expose the general public to modern-day farming operations.
Breakfast on the Farm featured 10 different educational stations. Tour participants had a chance to stop by each station to learn about a variety of topics, including dairy feeds, the health of animals, calf care, cropping and conservation practices, and manure nutrients. Read More
If a picture is worth a thousand words then a farm tour must be worth millions. What better way to tell our story to our non-aggie friends than to let them see if for themselves. There are lots of ways to educate people about agriculture and it’s important that we use all of them. With so much misinformation being spread about where food comes from, every little effort will make a difference. Congratulations to Horning Farms and all the other farms that hosted a breakfast recently.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Vegetarian Visits a Feedlot
Cattle Feedlot: Behind The Scenes
by Ryan Andrews, June 23rd, 2010.
My trip to Magnum
My day at the cattle feedlot got off to a rough start. Maybe it’s because I wore my “Have You Hugged A Vegetarian Today Shirt.” Bad move on my part, I guess.
No, I’m just kidding. I didn’t wear my vegan shirt.
And my day at the Magnum Feedyard in Wiggins, Colorado got off to a great start.
It all began at a restaurant in Hudson, Colorado, called the Pepper Pod. That’s where I met two new friends: an animal science instructor and a student from Colorado State University, who escorted me up to Wiggins to get an exclusive tour of the Magnum Feedyard.
During the 75-minute drive, a lot was going through my mind.
For starters, this visit had been 6 months, and quite a few emails/phone calls, in the making.
You see, very few people in the nutrition world are ever allowed to visit feedlots. In fact, some of my favorite authors have written entire books about feedlots without ever being granted permission to see one in person. So I had to “work it” pretty hard to get this kind of access. And was really excited.
However, despite my enthusiasm for the opportunity, I was a little worried. I mean, everything I’d read about feedlots suggested that they’re horrible, dismal places where thousands of sick cows are crammed in tiny pens, being force-fed corn while standing in steaming piles of their own feces.
As someone concerned with animal welfare, what would I do if faced with this sight? Would I run for the gates, throw them open, and let those poor cows free? Was I man enough to do that? Would I just go home with my tail between my legs? Or would I see something totally different, totally unexpected? Read More
I saw this over the weekend and had several people sending me emails about this story. It’s certainly a testament as to what happens when share our story. The rhetoric from the anti-ag groups has gotten so ridiculous that when people actually get a chance to see it for themselves they are almost shocked at the truth. This author found well cared for, well fed cattle that were comfortable in their setting. Congratulations to the folks at Magnum Feedyard for telling their story.
by Ryan Andrews, June 23rd, 2010.
My trip to Magnum
My day at the cattle feedlot got off to a rough start. Maybe it’s because I wore my “Have You Hugged A Vegetarian Today Shirt.” Bad move on my part, I guess.
No, I’m just kidding. I didn’t wear my vegan shirt.
And my day at the Magnum Feedyard in Wiggins, Colorado got off to a great start.
It all began at a restaurant in Hudson, Colorado, called the Pepper Pod. That’s where I met two new friends: an animal science instructor and a student from Colorado State University, who escorted me up to Wiggins to get an exclusive tour of the Magnum Feedyard.
During the 75-minute drive, a lot was going through my mind.
For starters, this visit had been 6 months, and quite a few emails/phone calls, in the making.
You see, very few people in the nutrition world are ever allowed to visit feedlots. In fact, some of my favorite authors have written entire books about feedlots without ever being granted permission to see one in person. So I had to “work it” pretty hard to get this kind of access. And was really excited.
However, despite my enthusiasm for the opportunity, I was a little worried. I mean, everything I’d read about feedlots suggested that they’re horrible, dismal places where thousands of sick cows are crammed in tiny pens, being force-fed corn while standing in steaming piles of their own feces.
As someone concerned with animal welfare, what would I do if faced with this sight? Would I run for the gates, throw them open, and let those poor cows free? Was I man enough to do that? Would I just go home with my tail between my legs? Or would I see something totally different, totally unexpected? Read More
I saw this over the weekend and had several people sending me emails about this story. It’s certainly a testament as to what happens when share our story. The rhetoric from the anti-ag groups has gotten so ridiculous that when people actually get a chance to see it for themselves they are almost shocked at the truth. This author found well cared for, well fed cattle that were comfortable in their setting. Congratulations to the folks at Magnum Feedyard for telling their story.
How To Be A Force For Truth
Animal Agriculture Under Siege – How To Be A Force For Truth
06/28/2010 09:48AM
CattleNetwork.com
Manhattan, Kans. (AgPR) -- According to polls, approximately 83% of Americans approve of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS), a speaker reported at the recent American Agri-Women (AAW) Symposium held in Washington, D.C. and titled “Animal Agriculture under Siege –How to be a Force for Truth.” The symposium , sponsored by the Past Presidents Council, was part of AAW’s annual Fly-In.
David Martosko, director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, believes most people mistakenly think that the money they donate to HSUS will go to local animal shelters. But in reality HSUS is promoting conflict between urban and rural cultures with the end goal being to eliminate meat from the diet. To combat the HSUS agenda and reveal the truth, Martosko has founded a website—www.humanewatch.org-- which shadows HSUS and other animal rights groups. By going to the website, an individual can see how much of the HSUS budget goes to animal protection compared to salaries, advertising and fundraising expenses.
Martosko and Steve Kopperud of Policy Directions, Inc., agreed that the animal rights organizations are coalition building and animal agriculture should do the same. Kopperud suggested that agriculture should develop alliances that perhaps were not thought of before, such as unions, churches, educators, and less radical humane groups.
A longtime friend of AAW, Kopperud reminisced about a referendum that was defeated in Massachusetts in 1988 with the help of Boston labor unions. He urged the women “to talk to people you’ve never talked to before.” Read More
Being active in promoting agriculture is a not an option in today’s world, it’s a necessity. The mind set that we need to get into is that every little thing we do to tell our story makes a difference. Nothing you do should be thought of as insignificant. Every day there are opportunities to make a difference, we just need to be willing to take advantage of them. Get started today!
06/28/2010 09:48AM
CattleNetwork.com
Manhattan, Kans. (AgPR) -- According to polls, approximately 83% of Americans approve of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS), a speaker reported at the recent American Agri-Women (AAW) Symposium held in Washington, D.C. and titled “Animal Agriculture under Siege –How to be a Force for Truth.” The symposium , sponsored by the Past Presidents Council, was part of AAW’s annual Fly-In.
David Martosko, director of the Center for Consumer Freedom, believes most people mistakenly think that the money they donate to HSUS will go to local animal shelters. But in reality HSUS is promoting conflict between urban and rural cultures with the end goal being to eliminate meat from the diet. To combat the HSUS agenda and reveal the truth, Martosko has founded a website—www.humanewatch.org-- which shadows HSUS and other animal rights groups. By going to the website, an individual can see how much of the HSUS budget goes to animal protection compared to salaries, advertising and fundraising expenses.
Martosko and Steve Kopperud of Policy Directions, Inc., agreed that the animal rights organizations are coalition building and animal agriculture should do the same. Kopperud suggested that agriculture should develop alliances that perhaps were not thought of before, such as unions, churches, educators, and less radical humane groups.
A longtime friend of AAW, Kopperud reminisced about a referendum that was defeated in Massachusetts in 1988 with the help of Boston labor unions. He urged the women “to talk to people you’ve never talked to before.” Read More
Being active in promoting agriculture is a not an option in today’s world, it’s a necessity. The mind set that we need to get into is that every little thing we do to tell our story makes a difference. Nothing you do should be thought of as insignificant. Every day there are opportunities to make a difference, we just need to be willing to take advantage of them. Get started today!
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Farmers Fight Bay Polluter Image
Farmers fight bay polluter image
'Everyone's in this ballgame, not just farmers'
By PAMELA WOOD, Staff Writer
Published 06/21/10
More than 200 farmers have penned a letter to Gov. Martin O'Malley, urging him to work with them - and not against them - when it comes to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay.
"We want everyone to realize everyone's in this ballgame, not just farmers," said Maryland Farm Bureau President Patricia Langenfelder of Kent County.
The farm bureau organized the petition effort, which grew from farmers' frustration at constantly being blamed for the bay's unhealthy state. The petition was delivered on Wednesday.
Shaun Adamec, an O'Malley spokesman, said the governor acknowledges the contributions farmers have made toward reducing pollution.
"There's nobody more appreciative of farmers than the governor when it comes to cleaning up the bay," Adamec said.
The petition was intended mainly to counteract negative attention that has been cast on farmers, Langenfelder said.
Farmers have built manure storage structures, planted buffers along streams, grown winter cover crops and instituted other "best management practices" to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution, Langenfelder said.
She noted that nutrient and sediment pollution from farms has decreased over the years due to such practices. Meanwhile, other sources of pollution - particularly urban and suburban stormwater runoff - are increasing.
Farming contributes just 7 percent of nitrogen in the Lower Western Shore. The top polluter locally is stormwater runoff - rainwater that rushes across roofs, parking lots and streets, carrying pollution into waterways. That contributes nearly 44 percent. Read More
It’s undeserved, but agriculture gets the blame for many things that they shouldn’t when it comes to pollution. The main reason is that they are the easiest target. Even though ag is the foundation of our entire society, since so few people are involved it makes it easy for the majority to attack. The top polluter for the bay is runoff from urban areas. If they really want to make a difference, they should start there.
'Everyone's in this ballgame, not just farmers'
By PAMELA WOOD, Staff Writer
Published 06/21/10
More than 200 farmers have penned a letter to Gov. Martin O'Malley, urging him to work with them - and not against them - when it comes to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay.
"We want everyone to realize everyone's in this ballgame, not just farmers," said Maryland Farm Bureau President Patricia Langenfelder of Kent County.
The farm bureau organized the petition effort, which grew from farmers' frustration at constantly being blamed for the bay's unhealthy state. The petition was delivered on Wednesday.
Shaun Adamec, an O'Malley spokesman, said the governor acknowledges the contributions farmers have made toward reducing pollution.
"There's nobody more appreciative of farmers than the governor when it comes to cleaning up the bay," Adamec said.
The petition was intended mainly to counteract negative attention that has been cast on farmers, Langenfelder said.
Farmers have built manure storage structures, planted buffers along streams, grown winter cover crops and instituted other "best management practices" to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution, Langenfelder said.
She noted that nutrient and sediment pollution from farms has decreased over the years due to such practices. Meanwhile, other sources of pollution - particularly urban and suburban stormwater runoff - are increasing.
Farming contributes just 7 percent of nitrogen in the Lower Western Shore. The top polluter locally is stormwater runoff - rainwater that rushes across roofs, parking lots and streets, carrying pollution into waterways. That contributes nearly 44 percent. Read More
It’s undeserved, but agriculture gets the blame for many things that they shouldn’t when it comes to pollution. The main reason is that they are the easiest target. Even though ag is the foundation of our entire society, since so few people are involved it makes it easy for the majority to attack. The top polluter for the bay is runoff from urban areas. If they really want to make a difference, they should start there.
CA Producer Reveals New Hen House
Modesto's J.S. West debuts roomier new hen house
By John HollandModesto Bee
Published: Tuesday, Jun. 22, 2010 - 12:00 am Page 6B
LIVINGSTON – J.S. West & Cos. on Monday unveiled new housing for egg-laying hens that aims to meet the space standards approved by state voters in 2008.
The Modesto-based company completed the $3.2 million project in the face of criticism from the Humane Society of the United States, which argues that it falls short of what Proposition 2 will require as of 2015.
The barn, the first built in California since the measure was approved, will house about 132,000 hens, 8 percent of J.S. West's total flock. The company hopes to convert all of the barns on its three farms over the next five years.
"It's not without risk, but we decided we wanted to be committed to our state and to our family farms in the Central Valley," said Jill Benson, a vice president at the 101-year-old company.
The new enclosures provide an average of 116 square inches of floor space per hen. The industry standard is 67 square inches, which defenders say is a humane way to keep birds that tend to crowd together even in spacious quarters.
The Humane Society contends that hens need at least 216 square inches each to meet the measure's requirement for enough room to stand up, turn around and flap their wings freely.
"Giving each hen a paltry legal sheet of paper's worth of space is simply not compliant with California law, and it's ridiculous for J.S. West to spend millions of dollars to build a facility that will be obviously illegal in a few years," said Jennifer Fearing, senior state director for the group.
As 2015 approaches, Fearing said, the Humane Society "will indeed do everything in our power to make sure the law is not broken." Read More
The frustration from the HSUS over this new barn is the fact that their main goal was to eliminate animal agriculture in California, particularly chicken producers. So for this farm to re-commit to raising chickens is really irritating to them. The unfortunate part of everything is that now it’s not up to the HSUS or anyone else to decide how chickens can be raised in California, it will be up to a bunch of lawyers in a courtroom.
By John HollandModesto Bee
Published: Tuesday, Jun. 22, 2010 - 12:00 am Page 6B
LIVINGSTON – J.S. West & Cos. on Monday unveiled new housing for egg-laying hens that aims to meet the space standards approved by state voters in 2008.
The Modesto-based company completed the $3.2 million project in the face of criticism from the Humane Society of the United States, which argues that it falls short of what Proposition 2 will require as of 2015.
The barn, the first built in California since the measure was approved, will house about 132,000 hens, 8 percent of J.S. West's total flock. The company hopes to convert all of the barns on its three farms over the next five years.
"It's not without risk, but we decided we wanted to be committed to our state and to our family farms in the Central Valley," said Jill Benson, a vice president at the 101-year-old company.
The new enclosures provide an average of 116 square inches of floor space per hen. The industry standard is 67 square inches, which defenders say is a humane way to keep birds that tend to crowd together even in spacious quarters.
The Humane Society contends that hens need at least 216 square inches each to meet the measure's requirement for enough room to stand up, turn around and flap their wings freely.
"Giving each hen a paltry legal sheet of paper's worth of space is simply not compliant with California law, and it's ridiculous for J.S. West to spend millions of dollars to build a facility that will be obviously illegal in a few years," said Jennifer Fearing, senior state director for the group.
As 2015 approaches, Fearing said, the Humane Society "will indeed do everything in our power to make sure the law is not broken." Read More
The frustration from the HSUS over this new barn is the fact that their main goal was to eliminate animal agriculture in California, particularly chicken producers. So for this farm to re-commit to raising chickens is really irritating to them. The unfortunate part of everything is that now it’s not up to the HSUS or anyone else to decide how chickens can be raised in California, it will be up to a bunch of lawyers in a courtroom.
SCOTUS Overturns GM Alfalfa Ban
Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Planting GM Alfalfa
By JENNIFER KOONS of Greenwire
Published: June 21, 2010
In its first ruling on genetically engineered crops, the Supreme Court today overturned a lower court's decision prohibiting Monsanto Co. from selling pesticide-resistant alfalfa seeds until the government completes an environmental impact study.
"An injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of course," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the 7-1 majority.
A U.S. District Court in San Francisco "abused its discretion" in 2007 when it ruled that the government needed to examine the modified breed's environmental impact, Alito wrote.
"The District Court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS [the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service] from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the possibility of planting in accordance with the terms of such a deregulation," the justice argued. Read More
The Supreme Court was pretty adamant in overturning the 9th Circuit Court decision. With all decisions like this, we need to get it out of the hands of the lawyers and put it in the hands of competent scientists and researchers so the facts can guide our actions. Genetically enhancing our crops and livestock has allowed human beings to prevent mass starvation due to a lack of resources. This technology will become even more critical as we move forward.
By JENNIFER KOONS of Greenwire
Published: June 21, 2010
In its first ruling on genetically engineered crops, the Supreme Court today overturned a lower court's decision prohibiting Monsanto Co. from selling pesticide-resistant alfalfa seeds until the government completes an environmental impact study.
"An injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of course," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the 7-1 majority.
A U.S. District Court in San Francisco "abused its discretion" in 2007 when it ruled that the government needed to examine the modified breed's environmental impact, Alito wrote.
"The District Court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS [the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service] from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the possibility of planting in accordance with the terms of such a deregulation," the justice argued. Read More
The Supreme Court was pretty adamant in overturning the 9th Circuit Court decision. With all decisions like this, we need to get it out of the hands of the lawyers and put it in the hands of competent scientists and researchers so the facts can guide our actions. Genetically enhancing our crops and livestock has allowed human beings to prevent mass starvation due to a lack of resources. This technology will become even more critical as we move forward.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Reporting the Hype, Not the Facts
Chefs now offering low-carbon diets to help save the planet
In the effort to save the planet from carbon emissions, chefs are saying eat less feedlot beef. That's because feedlot beef is by far the biggest creator of carbon gases. Fed on corn instead of the grass it was meant to eat, cows simply belch and pass wind a lot, creating much of the CO2 that's harming the earth. Bon Appétit Management Co. and other corporate food-service operators are turning to lower-carbon foods like chicken in an effort to change eating habits while reducing their carbon footprints.
By Paula Bock
SO YOU THINK trading in your gas guzzler for a hybrid will save the planet?
Try cutting back on cheeseburgers! And mangos! And fish flown in "fresh" from the southern hemisphere!
Old millennium: Low-carb diets. The new cool: Low-carbon diets. As in eat green. As in healthy for the environment. As in reduce global warming by minding what you swallow.
Just ask the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. A few years ago, it released a study showing that livestock cause more harm to the environment than all global transportation systems combined. Numero Uno emission emitter? Beef.
If Americans reduced meat consumption by just 20 percent, a University of Chicago study found, it'd be like all of us switching from a standard sedan to an ultraefficient Prius. A Japanese study estimated that raising 2.2 pounds of beef creates the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide as driving an average European car for 155 miles or burning a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
Producing a pound of feedlot beef creates the equivalent of 14.8 pounds of CO2. By comparison, a pound of pork creates the equivalent of 3.8 pounds of CO2; chicken, the equivalent of 1.1 pounds.
Why do cattle have such a huge carbon hoof print? Surprisingly, it's not so much because of transport from feedlot to fast-food joint or land cleared for grazing or even the chemical fertilizers used to grow the feed, though all that also adds up.
It's largely because cornfed cattle pass a lot of gas. Read More
Here’s another example of activism as compared to journalism. If this reporter had done some actual research as opposed to regurgitating common misconceptions, they would have learned there’s a different story to be told. For example, the writer seems to think that cattle will only produce methane if they are being fed a grain based diet. Methane is a byproduct of rumination, not the diet. There is also evidence that suggests grain fed beef actually produce less emissions over their lifetime compared to other production methods. Along with that, even though rumination produces methane, that is the process that allows us to convert indigestible forages into human consumable protein. It allows us to utilize the vast majority of land on this planet that doesn’t allow for farming. The University of Chicago study that is cited is the same one that Michael Pollan used to cite as well until the authors of that study clarified that that wasn’t true. It’s another example of the sad state of journalism today.
In the effort to save the planet from carbon emissions, chefs are saying eat less feedlot beef. That's because feedlot beef is by far the biggest creator of carbon gases. Fed on corn instead of the grass it was meant to eat, cows simply belch and pass wind a lot, creating much of the CO2 that's harming the earth. Bon Appétit Management Co. and other corporate food-service operators are turning to lower-carbon foods like chicken in an effort to change eating habits while reducing their carbon footprints.
By Paula Bock
SO YOU THINK trading in your gas guzzler for a hybrid will save the planet?
Try cutting back on cheeseburgers! And mangos! And fish flown in "fresh" from the southern hemisphere!
Old millennium: Low-carb diets. The new cool: Low-carbon diets. As in eat green. As in healthy for the environment. As in reduce global warming by minding what you swallow.
Just ask the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. A few years ago, it released a study showing that livestock cause more harm to the environment than all global transportation systems combined. Numero Uno emission emitter? Beef.
If Americans reduced meat consumption by just 20 percent, a University of Chicago study found, it'd be like all of us switching from a standard sedan to an ultraefficient Prius. A Japanese study estimated that raising 2.2 pounds of beef creates the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide as driving an average European car for 155 miles or burning a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
Producing a pound of feedlot beef creates the equivalent of 14.8 pounds of CO2. By comparison, a pound of pork creates the equivalent of 3.8 pounds of CO2; chicken, the equivalent of 1.1 pounds.
Why do cattle have such a huge carbon hoof print? Surprisingly, it's not so much because of transport from feedlot to fast-food joint or land cleared for grazing or even the chemical fertilizers used to grow the feed, though all that also adds up.
It's largely because cornfed cattle pass a lot of gas. Read More
Here’s another example of activism as compared to journalism. If this reporter had done some actual research as opposed to regurgitating common misconceptions, they would have learned there’s a different story to be told. For example, the writer seems to think that cattle will only produce methane if they are being fed a grain based diet. Methane is a byproduct of rumination, not the diet. There is also evidence that suggests grain fed beef actually produce less emissions over their lifetime compared to other production methods. Along with that, even though rumination produces methane, that is the process that allows us to convert indigestible forages into human consumable protein. It allows us to utilize the vast majority of land on this planet that doesn’t allow for farming. The University of Chicago study that is cited is the same one that Michael Pollan used to cite as well until the authors of that study clarified that that wasn’t true. It’s another example of the sad state of journalism today.
Alleged Horse Shocking at CNFR
Group targets CNFR
By TOM MORTON - Star-Tribune staff writer Posted: Saturday, June 19, 2010 1:30 am
An animal rights group posted a video on YouTube on Thursday showing three scenes of a man covertly shocking what appears to be two different horses to force them to buck during Thursday's performance of the College National Finals Rodeo in Casper.
"They claim [horses] are born to buck," said Steve Hindi, president of Showing Animals Respect and Kindness, or SHARK.
"They are not," Hindi said.
The video appears to show a young man wearing blue jeans, a long-sleeve tan shirt and black hat with his hands on the horses' necks and pulling them quickly away.
In all scenes, he immediately tucks a device under his unbuttoned sleeve.
In the first and second scenes, the slow-motion versions show the man holding in his left hand what Hindi says is a Miller Manufacturing Hot-Shot Power-mite electric prod. Read More
If you watch the video it’s pretty clear that the guy is holding a handheld electric prod. What is not clear is whether or not he is actually using it. SHARK is claiming that the prod is being used on the horses, but there is no evidence of that. Those things don’t work on contact, the button has to be pushed and we can’t tell from the video if that is happening. So unless this animal rights group can provide evidence that it is actually being used rather than just having it available then they shouldn’t be accusing anyone of anything.
By TOM MORTON - Star-Tribune staff writer Posted: Saturday, June 19, 2010 1:30 am
An animal rights group posted a video on YouTube on Thursday showing three scenes of a man covertly shocking what appears to be two different horses to force them to buck during Thursday's performance of the College National Finals Rodeo in Casper.
"They claim [horses] are born to buck," said Steve Hindi, president of Showing Animals Respect and Kindness, or SHARK.
"They are not," Hindi said.
The video appears to show a young man wearing blue jeans, a long-sleeve tan shirt and black hat with his hands on the horses' necks and pulling them quickly away.
In all scenes, he immediately tucks a device under his unbuttoned sleeve.
In the first and second scenes, the slow-motion versions show the man holding in his left hand what Hindi says is a Miller Manufacturing Hot-Shot Power-mite electric prod. Read More
If you watch the video it’s pretty clear that the guy is holding a handheld electric prod. What is not clear is whether or not he is actually using it. SHARK is claiming that the prod is being used on the horses, but there is no evidence of that. Those things don’t work on contact, the button has to be pushed and we can’t tell from the video if that is happening. So unless this animal rights group can provide evidence that it is actually being used rather than just having it available then they shouldn’t be accusing anyone of anything.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Pork Youth Ambassadors
Youth Ambassadors active at World Pork Expo
By By Jean Caspers-Simmetsimmet@agrinews.com
Date Modified: 06/17/2010 9:25 AM
DES MOINES — Pork Youth Ambassadors Jason Welter and Sarah Pakala wear navy blue polo shirts that say "We Care" with the Pork Checkoff logo on the sleeve, and they invite people to ask them questions.
Welter just graduated from South Central College in Mankato with a degree in agricultural business. He is returning home to Stewartville, Minn., to help with his family's hog operation and to work for a neighbor.
Pakala is an Iowa State University senior majoring in ag studies from Dike.They joined other ambassadors from around the country for training and helped with National Pork Board activities at World Pork Expo.
Welter grew up on his parents, Myrna and Randy,'s farrow-to-finish operation. They now farrow 125 sows and raise 600 acres of corn, soybeans and alfalfa. His father works full-time at Mayo Clinic. Welter has six brothers and sisters.
Pakala is new to the pork industry. Her interest developed when she began working for Ed Juhl, who has a hog operation near Hudson.Both won a competition to be their state's pork ambassador.
Pakala helps with World Pork Expo, the Iowa Pork Congress, the Iowa State Fair and she also works with middle school students and 4-H members.
"I'm educating the public on the good story of the pork industry," she said. Read More
We have the great pleasure of working with many groups of young adults interested in agriculture every year. The enthusiasm for promoting agriculture and the passion for making sure every consumer is receiving correct information about how food gets on their plates is incredible. With all of the energy ready to go to work, we just need to help them find the opportunities to use it. Programs like the Pork Youth Ambassadors do just that. These young people are some of our greatest advocates and they deserve all the support we can give them. ~Troy
By By Jean Caspers-Simmetsimmet@agrinews.com
Date Modified: 06/17/2010 9:25 AM
DES MOINES — Pork Youth Ambassadors Jason Welter and Sarah Pakala wear navy blue polo shirts that say "We Care" with the Pork Checkoff logo on the sleeve, and they invite people to ask them questions.
Welter just graduated from South Central College in Mankato with a degree in agricultural business. He is returning home to Stewartville, Minn., to help with his family's hog operation and to work for a neighbor.
Pakala is an Iowa State University senior majoring in ag studies from Dike.They joined other ambassadors from around the country for training and helped with National Pork Board activities at World Pork Expo.
Welter grew up on his parents, Myrna and Randy,'s farrow-to-finish operation. They now farrow 125 sows and raise 600 acres of corn, soybeans and alfalfa. His father works full-time at Mayo Clinic. Welter has six brothers and sisters.
Pakala is new to the pork industry. Her interest developed when she began working for Ed Juhl, who has a hog operation near Hudson.Both won a competition to be their state's pork ambassador.
Pakala helps with World Pork Expo, the Iowa Pork Congress, the Iowa State Fair and she also works with middle school students and 4-H members.
"I'm educating the public on the good story of the pork industry," she said. Read More
We have the great pleasure of working with many groups of young adults interested in agriculture every year. The enthusiasm for promoting agriculture and the passion for making sure every consumer is receiving correct information about how food gets on their plates is incredible. With all of the energy ready to go to work, we just need to help them find the opportunities to use it. Programs like the Pork Youth Ambassadors do just that. These young people are some of our greatest advocates and they deserve all the support we can give them. ~Troy
HSUS Sues Farm
HSUS seeks stop to Rose Acre claims
(6/17/2010)
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) filed a complaint this week with the Federal Trade Commission asking it to order Rose Acre Farms to stop making "false and misleading animal welfare claims."
The complaint accuses Rose Acre, through its promotions, web sites and spokespeople, of falsely stating that the company, the second-largest commercial egg producer in the U.S., provides a "humane and friendly environment" for its hens. HSUS said this is "grossly misleading."
HSUS referred to clandestinely filmed video at three of the company's hen houses in Iowa that "found conditions starkly at odds with the cheerful claims of the company" (Feedstuffs, April 12).
Rose Acre attorney Joe Miller said the company has not yet seen the complaint but stands behind its animal welfare program "and the humane way that we treat our animals."
HSUS is an industrial activist and lobbying organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. Link
So it appears that the HSUS is now in the business of suing farms if they don’t raise livestock in a HSUS-approved way. While that’s the way it appears on the surface, the reality is that this is another tactic to shut down animal agriculture completely. They will continue to harass livestock farmers until their vegan agenda is accomplished. During that time, they will be telling consumers anything they can think of that might scare them away from consuming animal products. If farmers and ranchers aren’t out there telling their own story, this is who will be doing it for you. ~Troy
(6/17/2010)
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) filed a complaint this week with the Federal Trade Commission asking it to order Rose Acre Farms to stop making "false and misleading animal welfare claims."
The complaint accuses Rose Acre, through its promotions, web sites and spokespeople, of falsely stating that the company, the second-largest commercial egg producer in the U.S., provides a "humane and friendly environment" for its hens. HSUS said this is "grossly misleading."
HSUS referred to clandestinely filmed video at three of the company's hen houses in Iowa that "found conditions starkly at odds with the cheerful claims of the company" (Feedstuffs, April 12).
Rose Acre attorney Joe Miller said the company has not yet seen the complaint but stands behind its animal welfare program "and the humane way that we treat our animals."
HSUS is an industrial activist and lobbying organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. Link
So it appears that the HSUS is now in the business of suing farms if they don’t raise livestock in a HSUS-approved way. While that’s the way it appears on the surface, the reality is that this is another tactic to shut down animal agriculture completely. They will continue to harass livestock farmers until their vegan agenda is accomplished. During that time, they will be telling consumers anything they can think of that might scare them away from consuming animal products. If farmers and ranchers aren’t out there telling their own story, this is who will be doing it for you. ~Troy
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Beef Industry Fights Hunger
Beef industry helps in the fight against hunger
by Tommy Noel
POCATELLO - Idaho's beef industry is helping in the fight against hunger.
Over 3,000 pounds of beef were donated to the Idaho Foodbank, courtesy of Beef Counts.
This will help feed the 116,000 people who depend on free emergency food each month.
The cattle industry-food bank partnership is the only one of its kind in the country.
"Protein is one of the things the Foodbank lacks in a big way. Today, the Foodbank can only give about five pounds a month to every family that they service. This is going to go a long ways to increase that in a significant way, and this is just the beginning," says Rick Stott of Agri Beef Co.
In addition to the beef, a $50,000 check was donated by Agri Beef Company.
The meat will now be distributed to the Foodbank's 78 partner agencies, such as the Salvation Army and various senior citizen centers. Link
The headline says it all. The beef industry is helping fight hunger, just like the farmers and ranchers that produce every other type of commodity that the human existence relies on. I’ve been proud to be involved in volunteering at food banks across the United States and there is no doubt that they serve an important need. It was especially apparent when the economy started to fall a few years ago. Many folks who lost their jobs needed some temporary help to put food on their table. Every time you volunteer at one of these food banks it’s a great reminder about what’s truly important and where our priorities should be.
by Tommy Noel
POCATELLO - Idaho's beef industry is helping in the fight against hunger.
Over 3,000 pounds of beef were donated to the Idaho Foodbank, courtesy of Beef Counts.
This will help feed the 116,000 people who depend on free emergency food each month.
The cattle industry-food bank partnership is the only one of its kind in the country.
"Protein is one of the things the Foodbank lacks in a big way. Today, the Foodbank can only give about five pounds a month to every family that they service. This is going to go a long ways to increase that in a significant way, and this is just the beginning," says Rick Stott of Agri Beef Co.
In addition to the beef, a $50,000 check was donated by Agri Beef Company.
The meat will now be distributed to the Foodbank's 78 partner agencies, such as the Salvation Army and various senior citizen centers. Link
The headline says it all. The beef industry is helping fight hunger, just like the farmers and ranchers that produce every other type of commodity that the human existence relies on. I’ve been proud to be involved in volunteering at food banks across the United States and there is no doubt that they serve an important need. It was especially apparent when the economy started to fall a few years ago. Many folks who lost their jobs needed some temporary help to put food on their table. Every time you volunteer at one of these food banks it’s a great reminder about what’s truly important and where our priorities should be.
Animal Rights Activists Destroy Denver Business
Jun 15, 2010 9:48 pm US/Mountain
Police: Animal Rights Activist Implicated In Fire
DENVER (AP) ― Police investigating a fire that destroyed a Denver-area business say they're seriously considering a claim by an animal rights activist who takes credit for it.
Police have said a fire that destroyed the Sheepskin factory in April was suspicious. Glendale Police Chief Victor Ross says his department is looking closely at a claim on a website associated with the Animal Liberation Front.
The posting by "ALF Lone Wolf" says the business was torched in retaliation for "innocent animals" killed by people.
The Animal Liberation Front is aligned with the Earth Liberation Front, whose members were convicted in a 1998 fire at the Vail ski resort that did $12 million in damage.
The Sheepskin Factory has reopened at a temporary storefront. It sells pet toys and sheepskin seat covers. Link
It’s amazing how tough these cowards think they are when they are using aliases. Yet they aren’t committed enough to their cause to use their real name. Farmers and ranchers are proud to share their names and how they feed the world because they are committed to the cause. Hopefully these arsonists are caught soon before they endanger any more human lives.
Police: Animal Rights Activist Implicated In Fire
DENVER (AP) ― Police investigating a fire that destroyed a Denver-area business say they're seriously considering a claim by an animal rights activist who takes credit for it.
Police have said a fire that destroyed the Sheepskin factory in April was suspicious. Glendale Police Chief Victor Ross says his department is looking closely at a claim on a website associated with the Animal Liberation Front.
The posting by "ALF Lone Wolf" says the business was torched in retaliation for "innocent animals" killed by people.
The Animal Liberation Front is aligned with the Earth Liberation Front, whose members were convicted in a 1998 fire at the Vail ski resort that did $12 million in damage.
The Sheepskin Factory has reopened at a temporary storefront. It sells pet toys and sheepskin seat covers. Link
It’s amazing how tough these cowards think they are when they are using aliases. Yet they aren’t committed enough to their cause to use their real name. Farmers and ranchers are proud to share their names and how they feed the world because they are committed to the cause. Hopefully these arsonists are caught soon before they endanger any more human lives.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Modern Ag Feeding The World, Benefitting The Environment
High-yield agriculture slows pace of global warming, say FSE researchers
Louis Bergeron - Stanford News Service
Advances in high-yield agriculture over the latter part of the 20th century have prevented massive amounts of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere - the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide - according to a new study led by two Stanford Earth scientists.
The yield improvements reduced the need to convert forests to farmland, a process that typically involves burning of trees and other plants, which generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The researchers estimate that if not for increased yields, additional greenhouse gas emissions from clearing land for farming would have been equal to as much as a third of the world's total output of greenhouse gases since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in 1850.
The researchers also calculated that for every dollar spent on agricultural research and development since 1961, emissions of the three principal greenhouse gases - methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide - were reduced by the equivalent of about a quarter of a ton of carbon dioxide - a high rate of financial return compared to other approaches to reducing the gases.
"Our results dispel the notion that modern intensive agriculture is inherently worse for the environment than a more 'old-fashioned' way of doing things," said Jennifer Burney, lead author of a paper describing the study that will be published online by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Read More
This study is pretty clear. Modern agriculture has saved billions of tons of greenhouse gasses from escaping into the atmosphere. When we invest in agriculture and implement modern practices, not only do we keep mass starvation from occurring, but it’s also beneficial for the environment. When we see people like Michael Pollan urging us to support an agricultural system that denounces modern technology, you need to realize everything they are asking for. What sounds romantic on the surface doesn’t hold water in reality.
Louis Bergeron - Stanford News Service
Advances in high-yield agriculture over the latter part of the 20th century have prevented massive amounts of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere - the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide - according to a new study led by two Stanford Earth scientists.
The yield improvements reduced the need to convert forests to farmland, a process that typically involves burning of trees and other plants, which generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The researchers estimate that if not for increased yields, additional greenhouse gas emissions from clearing land for farming would have been equal to as much as a third of the world's total output of greenhouse gases since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in 1850.
The researchers also calculated that for every dollar spent on agricultural research and development since 1961, emissions of the three principal greenhouse gases - methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide - were reduced by the equivalent of about a quarter of a ton of carbon dioxide - a high rate of financial return compared to other approaches to reducing the gases.
"Our results dispel the notion that modern intensive agriculture is inherently worse for the environment than a more 'old-fashioned' way of doing things," said Jennifer Burney, lead author of a paper describing the study that will be published online by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Read More
This study is pretty clear. Modern agriculture has saved billions of tons of greenhouse gasses from escaping into the atmosphere. When we invest in agriculture and implement modern practices, not only do we keep mass starvation from occurring, but it’s also beneficial for the environment. When we see people like Michael Pollan urging us to support an agricultural system that denounces modern technology, you need to realize everything they are asking for. What sounds romantic on the surface doesn’t hold water in reality.
A Failed Food System??
Amanda Hitt: Our food system is failing us
Amanda Hitt food integrity campaign director of the Government Accountability Project Posted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 4:30 am 1 Comment
In May, E. coli-laden romaine lettuce sickened dozens of Americans in five states, and a food-related listeria outbreak has killed at least two Texans. An endless deluge of foodborne illness outbreaks demands re-evaluation of our current food system.
Americans must broaden their evaluation of food safety, however, beyond the finished product, and take the quality of the overall production cycle into account. While outbreaks and hospitalizations grab headlines, there are unseen costs to our production system. We must start putting a premium on food integrity and re-evaluate the entire process -- from soil to plate.
Foodborne illness sickens over 76 million Americans every year, causing 725,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths. One recent Georgetown University study showed that the related costs of these illnesses (medical bills, lost wages, decreased productivity) totals over $152 billion a year.
But the true cost of foodborne illness is far greater. The societal and environmental impacts of food production are themselves a type of “foodborne illness” that sickens habitats and communities. These costs must be accounted for. Read More
I find it insulting to everyone who produces food and fiber in this country when people claim that our food system has failed. One of the first numbers they like to bring up is that 76 million cases of food poisoning happens every year. This is certainly a large number and no one in our industry will be happy until it’s zero but let’s put it in perspective. There are about one billion meals consumed every day in this country alone. That means that 99.98% of the meals consumed in this country happen without incident. Is that worthy of being called a failure? Today’s farmers and ranchers are producing more food and fiber with fewer inputs than at any point in the history of the world. Is that a failure? Our livestock are healthier than ever before thus producing a consistent product. Along with that the world has never before seen a safer, more affordable, more abundant food supply. Is that a failure? There is no doubt that we can continue to improve upon our practices but the abundant supplies of food and clothing in this country seems to make it overly easy for our detractors to be critical of our industry.
Amanda Hitt food integrity campaign director of the Government Accountability Project Posted: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 4:30 am 1 Comment
In May, E. coli-laden romaine lettuce sickened dozens of Americans in five states, and a food-related listeria outbreak has killed at least two Texans. An endless deluge of foodborne illness outbreaks demands re-evaluation of our current food system.
Americans must broaden their evaluation of food safety, however, beyond the finished product, and take the quality of the overall production cycle into account. While outbreaks and hospitalizations grab headlines, there are unseen costs to our production system. We must start putting a premium on food integrity and re-evaluate the entire process -- from soil to plate.
Foodborne illness sickens over 76 million Americans every year, causing 725,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths. One recent Georgetown University study showed that the related costs of these illnesses (medical bills, lost wages, decreased productivity) totals over $152 billion a year.
But the true cost of foodborne illness is far greater. The societal and environmental impacts of food production are themselves a type of “foodborne illness” that sickens habitats and communities. These costs must be accounted for. Read More
I find it insulting to everyone who produces food and fiber in this country when people claim that our food system has failed. One of the first numbers they like to bring up is that 76 million cases of food poisoning happens every year. This is certainly a large number and no one in our industry will be happy until it’s zero but let’s put it in perspective. There are about one billion meals consumed every day in this country alone. That means that 99.98% of the meals consumed in this country happen without incident. Is that worthy of being called a failure? Today’s farmers and ranchers are producing more food and fiber with fewer inputs than at any point in the history of the world. Is that a failure? Our livestock are healthier than ever before thus producing a consistent product. Along with that the world has never before seen a safer, more affordable, more abundant food supply. Is that a failure? There is no doubt that we can continue to improve upon our practices but the abundant supplies of food and clothing in this country seems to make it overly easy for our detractors to be critical of our industry.
Ag Student's Livestock Abused, Tortured
Jun 9, 2010 10:26 pm US/Pacific
Dozens Of Animals Brutally Attacked At High School
WINTERS, Calif. (CBS13) ― An unknown number of suspects savagely hurt and killed dozens of animals in an attack on a high school agriculture department, stunning students and staff and sparking a search for the people responsible.
Officials said students at Winters High School discovered the horrific scene Wednesday morning after vandals opened up all the pens and began killing and torturing many of the animals.
All of the department's steers were let out into the field and all the other corrals were opened up, said high school junior Prestlie Pearce.
At least 25 chickens were killed, many with their necks snapped and wings broken, and five pigs were shoved into a sewage pit. The pigs were forced to stand on their hind legs to keep their snouts above the sewage and fought each other all night while trying to get out.
"I don't know how you could shove five pigs into a three-by-three sewer hole that's five feet deep," Pearce said.
Staff member Eliott Hererra helped rescue the pigs and said he was surprised to see they survived the ordeal."They were stacked on top of each other," Hererra said. "The gut feeling of seeing those pigs struggle made me want to throw up." Read More
This was a horrible event that happened last week. While there are some of the fringe in our society that think feeding livestock in a pen or using them for a food source is abuse, I think most everyone could agree that the people who did this are the ones that we should truly be concerned with.
Dozens Of Animals Brutally Attacked At High School
WINTERS, Calif. (CBS13) ― An unknown number of suspects savagely hurt and killed dozens of animals in an attack on a high school agriculture department, stunning students and staff and sparking a search for the people responsible.
Officials said students at Winters High School discovered the horrific scene Wednesday morning after vandals opened up all the pens and began killing and torturing many of the animals.
All of the department's steers were let out into the field and all the other corrals were opened up, said high school junior Prestlie Pearce.
At least 25 chickens were killed, many with their necks snapped and wings broken, and five pigs were shoved into a sewage pit. The pigs were forced to stand on their hind legs to keep their snouts above the sewage and fought each other all night while trying to get out.
"I don't know how you could shove five pigs into a three-by-three sewer hole that's five feet deep," Pearce said.
Staff member Eliott Hererra helped rescue the pigs and said he was surprised to see they survived the ordeal."They were stacked on top of each other," Hererra said. "The gut feeling of seeing those pigs struggle made me want to throw up." Read More
This was a horrible event that happened last week. While there are some of the fringe in our society that think feeding livestock in a pen or using them for a food source is abuse, I think most everyone could agree that the people who did this are the ones that we should truly be concerned with.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
EPA Disapproval Vote Tomorrow
Rockefeller Backs Murkowski's EPA Resolution in Senate
By ROBIN BRAVENDER of ClimateWire
Published: June 9, 2010
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) will vote for a resolution to hamstring U.S. EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, he said yesterday.
"I intend to vote for Senator Murkowski's Resolution of Disapproval because I believe we must send a strong message that the fate of West Virginia's economy, our manufacturing industries, and our workers should not be solely in the hands of EPA," Rockefeller said in a statement.
The Senate will vote tomorrow on a disapproval resolution (S.J.Res. 26 (pdf)) from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would essentially veto EPA's "endangerment" finding, a scientific determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. The finding is the basis for EPA's greenhouse gas regulations, which are set to take effect next year.
Asked yesterday whether she thought she could muster the votes needed for passage, Murkowski said, "It really is dependent on many of our colleagues on the other side, who have said they agree that the EPA moving forward is the worst option. So now they've got an opportunity to really back that statement by supporting this resolution of disapproval."
Read More
This vote is still on schedule for tomorrow. Please contact your Senators and urge their support for this resolution. The endangerment finding by the unelected officials at the EPA will drive up the cost of everything from food to energy with no foreseeable benefits. In order to get this done though everyone need to let their opinion be heard. Take a couple minutes right now to do it.
By ROBIN BRAVENDER of ClimateWire
Published: June 9, 2010
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) will vote for a resolution to hamstring U.S. EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, he said yesterday.
"I intend to vote for Senator Murkowski's Resolution of Disapproval because I believe we must send a strong message that the fate of West Virginia's economy, our manufacturing industries, and our workers should not be solely in the hands of EPA," Rockefeller said in a statement.
The Senate will vote tomorrow on a disapproval resolution (S.J.Res. 26 (pdf)) from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would essentially veto EPA's "endangerment" finding, a scientific determination that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. The finding is the basis for EPA's greenhouse gas regulations, which are set to take effect next year.
Asked yesterday whether she thought she could muster the votes needed for passage, Murkowski said, "It really is dependent on many of our colleagues on the other side, who have said they agree that the EPA moving forward is the worst option. So now they've got an opportunity to really back that statement by supporting this resolution of disapproval."
Read More
This vote is still on schedule for tomorrow. Please contact your Senators and urge their support for this resolution. The endangerment finding by the unelected officials at the EPA will drive up the cost of everything from food to energy with no foreseeable benefits. In order to get this done though everyone need to let their opinion be heard. Take a couple minutes right now to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)