EPA to withdraw from Idaho feedlot agreements
Associated Press - March 8, 2009 4:14 PM ET
TWIN FALLS, Idaho (AP) - An official with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says the agency is withdrawing in April from two agreements with Idaho concerning the regulating of animal feed lots.
Ed Kowalski, head of EPA's regional enforcement group, says confined-animal feeding operations have become a national priority with the agency and it plans to play a more direct role in inspection and enforcement.
The agreements concerning the state's dairy and beef-cattle operations regulate such things as discharges of animal waste into state waters.
Attorneys for the EPA say the agreements with the Idaho Department of Agriculture and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality limit the federal agency's powers to monitor the industry. Link
The EPA apparently thinks they can better regulate agriculture in Idaho that those that live there. A great example of an intrusive federal government. When EPA was originally writing some of the rules concerning CAFO’s, I was in Washington, DC talking to one of their undersecretary’s and she didn’t realize that vegetation didn’t grow year round in northern climates. It’s never a good thing when Washington thinks they know more than those of us that live on the land.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
Headed for Indy
Stacy and I are back on the trail this weekend heading for Indianapolis. We will be presenting tomorrow at the Indiana Farm Bureau's Spring Conference. We are really excited about the chance to share our message there. So if you are reading this in Indiana, come to the conference this weekend and say hi.
Have a great weekend and I will be back on Monday.
Have a great weekend and I will be back on Monday.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Dylan Crabb
Last August, I posted an article about Dylan Crabb, a fifteen year old from Wisconsin that was battling leukemia. He was granted a wish because of his illness and his wish was for two dairy cows. You see, Dylan has always wanted to be a dairy farmer, so he used his wish to get closer to that goal. But his goal of being a dairy farmer continues to be interrupted by cancer.
Unfortunately, Dylan's treatements haven't gone as hoped. Twice now a bone marrow transplant has failed to take. However, he has been accepted for an experimental treatment at a facility in Maryland. Dylan's family and friends have been working hard to raise money to offset the expense of his family going with him.
Dylan has a Caring Bridge page and they have recently set up a website about the fundraisers they are holding. In particular, they are holding a walk this weekend for him. Please take a look and keep Dylan in your prayers.
Good Luck Dylan. I hope to see you milking cows again very soon.
Unfortunately, Dylan's treatements haven't gone as hoped. Twice now a bone marrow transplant has failed to take. However, he has been accepted for an experimental treatment at a facility in Maryland. Dylan's family and friends have been working hard to raise money to offset the expense of his family going with him.
Dylan has a Caring Bridge page and they have recently set up a website about the fundraisers they are holding. In particular, they are holding a walk this weekend for him. Please take a look and keep Dylan in your prayers.
Good Luck Dylan. I hope to see you milking cows again very soon.
OK's Food Production Protection Bill
State livestock bill has sweeping implications
POINT OF VIEW Agribusiness power grab
BY CYNTHIA ARMSTRONG
Published: March 2, 2009
When it comes to raising animals for food, there is a balancing of many compelling interests: food safety, environmental pollution, animal welfare and economics. But for too long in the state Capitol, industrial factory farms have fought to maintain their own special interests above those of Oklahomans.
In 2005 when Attorney General Drew Edmondson confronted poultry giants for their environmentally degrading practices, the agribusiness lobby used its influence with state legislators to introduce a bill to strip the attorney general of his independent authority to file lawsuits. Thankfully, that outrageous power grab failed.
Now they’re at it again, peddling their influence to convince Oklahoma lawmakers to give more power to industrial agribusiness and to strip decisions away from people in local communities about how they farm and raise animals. The state House recently voted 92-9 in favor of House Bill 2151, which would authorize the Legislature to pre-empt all local law regarding the care and handling of livestock. Read More
Obviously the animal rights groups aren’t very happy about the Oklahoma Legislature’s attempt to protect their livestock producers. Many of the concerns listed in this article have already been addressed by the legislature. With so many families struggling because of the economy, it seems cold-hearted that these radical groups continue to push for practices that will cause increased food prices.
POINT OF VIEW Agribusiness power grab
BY CYNTHIA ARMSTRONG
Published: March 2, 2009
When it comes to raising animals for food, there is a balancing of many compelling interests: food safety, environmental pollution, animal welfare and economics. But for too long in the state Capitol, industrial factory farms have fought to maintain their own special interests above those of Oklahomans.
In 2005 when Attorney General Drew Edmondson confronted poultry giants for their environmentally degrading practices, the agribusiness lobby used its influence with state legislators to introduce a bill to strip the attorney general of his independent authority to file lawsuits. Thankfully, that outrageous power grab failed.
Now they’re at it again, peddling their influence to convince Oklahoma lawmakers to give more power to industrial agribusiness and to strip decisions away from people in local communities about how they farm and raise animals. The state House recently voted 92-9 in favor of House Bill 2151, which would authorize the Legislature to pre-empt all local law regarding the care and handling of livestock. Read More
Obviously the animal rights groups aren’t very happy about the Oklahoma Legislature’s attempt to protect their livestock producers. Many of the concerns listed in this article have already been addressed by the legislature. With so many families struggling because of the economy, it seems cold-hearted that these radical groups continue to push for practices that will cause increased food prices.
The Meeting
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Humane society: Ohio, here we come
by Andrea Zippay
SALEM, Ohio — Ohio farmers, you’ve had your warning.
The Humane Society of the United States — the group who’s successfully outlawed hen cages, veal crates and gestation stalls in California, Arizona and Florida — has its eye on doing the same in the Buckeye State.
The organization sent representatives to Columbus in February to make sure the state’s livestock industry knows it’s watching.
They asked
The Feb. 17 meeting, which came at the request of the humane society, involved three of that organization’s staffers as well as representatives of Ohio’s poultry, beef, pork and veterinary medical associations, plus the Farm Bureau.
The purpose of their visit? “To get all the industry reps to go back to their individual groups and gain the authority to negotiate with the humane society on legislation in Ohio,” according to Farm Bureau’s Joe Cornely. Read More
These meetings have been being held in several states. HSUS meets with leaders of the agricultural groups in the state and tells them to either negotiate with them or they will force the changes at the ballot box. The problem is that it does us no good to negotiate with them. In order to have a good faith negotiation each side must be able to offer something that the other wants. HSUS has nothing that agriculture wants, but they have everything to gain from us. Being active in your communities, telling the story of agriculture, is how the push toward a vegan society can be stopped. It just requires the efforts of everyone in agriculture to accomplish it.
Humane society: Ohio, here we come
by Andrea Zippay
SALEM, Ohio — Ohio farmers, you’ve had your warning.
The Humane Society of the United States — the group who’s successfully outlawed hen cages, veal crates and gestation stalls in California, Arizona and Florida — has its eye on doing the same in the Buckeye State.
The organization sent representatives to Columbus in February to make sure the state’s livestock industry knows it’s watching.
They asked
The Feb. 17 meeting, which came at the request of the humane society, involved three of that organization’s staffers as well as representatives of Ohio’s poultry, beef, pork and veterinary medical associations, plus the Farm Bureau.
The purpose of their visit? “To get all the industry reps to go back to their individual groups and gain the authority to negotiate with the humane society on legislation in Ohio,” according to Farm Bureau’s Joe Cornely. Read More
These meetings have been being held in several states. HSUS meets with leaders of the agricultural groups in the state and tells them to either negotiate with them or they will force the changes at the ballot box. The problem is that it does us no good to negotiate with them. In order to have a good faith negotiation each side must be able to offer something that the other wants. HSUS has nothing that agriculture wants, but they have everything to gain from us. Being active in your communities, telling the story of agriculture, is how the push toward a vegan society can be stopped. It just requires the efforts of everyone in agriculture to accomplish it.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Producer's Records Becoming Public
Md. court rules nutrient plans can be made public
The Associated Press 2009-03-04
SALISBURY, Md. -
Nutrient management plans detailing how farmers handle animal waste will be made available to the public, a court has ruled.
Anne Arundel County Circuit Court ruled on Tuesday that the plans, which describe pollution discharge practices of farming operations, will be made available for public scrutiny.
The ruling affects the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations that create, store or discharge animal waste.
The court ruling comes soon after a federal permitting deadline concerning the plans. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said many Eastern Shore farmers missed the Friday deadline to apply for the newly required Environmental Protection Agency permit.
The permit called for more stringent nutrient management plans. It concerned many in the chicken industry because the application for the permit would make the plans publicly available.
Read More
While this may not appear to be a big issue on the surface, this could have far reaching consequences for operations that have nutrient management plans. Imagine the process of trying to pass every management plan on a popularity vote. Science will not win the day in our society, which is a sad commentary for our country. Everything has to make people feel good in order to garner their support. Keep an eye on this issue.
The Associated Press 2009-03-04
SALISBURY, Md. -
Nutrient management plans detailing how farmers handle animal waste will be made available to the public, a court has ruled.
Anne Arundel County Circuit Court ruled on Tuesday that the plans, which describe pollution discharge practices of farming operations, will be made available for public scrutiny.
The ruling affects the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations that create, store or discharge animal waste.
The court ruling comes soon after a federal permitting deadline concerning the plans. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said many Eastern Shore farmers missed the Friday deadline to apply for the newly required Environmental Protection Agency permit.
The permit called for more stringent nutrient management plans. It concerned many in the chicken industry because the application for the permit would make the plans publicly available.
Read More
While this may not appear to be a big issue on the surface, this could have far reaching consequences for operations that have nutrient management plans. Imagine the process of trying to pass every management plan on a popularity vote. Science will not win the day in our society, which is a sad commentary for our country. Everything has to make people feel good in order to garner their support. Keep an eye on this issue.
Implementing a Nutrient Mgmt Plan
Dairy environmental accountability
EXTENSION UPDATE
By Mary Sowerby, UF Regional Dairy Extension
The largest loose-leaf notebook I have ever seen sat in front of Trenton dairy producer Ron St. John at the Feb. 12 meeting of the Manatee and Fanning Springs working group. Its spine was 5.5 inches wide and another 3-inch notebook sat on top of it. The reams of paper found within those two notebooks represented documentation of nutrient (think primarily manure) management of one herd — Alliance Dairy, for one year — 2008.
Every dairy farm in Florida that has 700 or more mature dairy cows is considered a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation). All Florida CAFOs are required to have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to operate legally under the Clean Water Act of 1972.
Dairies with less than 700 cows are generally considered AFOs (Animal Feeding Operations) and are not required to have a NPDES permit. However, a new set of Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) rules are currently being written for AFOs.
The price tag to assemble the information needed to obtain a NPDES permit is generally over $60,000. It usually takes an environmental engineer to write it and it is required to have an engineer sign off on it. Then the never-ending record keeping begins. Read More
Just about anything you read that is negative toward modern livestock production tries to key on the idea that producers don’t care about the environment. They also say the regulations and science behind the nutrient management plans don’t work. While most of the people complaining probably have never studied a plan nor are they educated enough on environmental studies to give an expert opinion on whether a plan will work, they continue to spread falsehoods about animal agriculture. This article give a good brief run down of what most producers have to go through in order to comply with regulations.
EXTENSION UPDATE
By Mary Sowerby, UF Regional Dairy Extension
The largest loose-leaf notebook I have ever seen sat in front of Trenton dairy producer Ron St. John at the Feb. 12 meeting of the Manatee and Fanning Springs working group. Its spine was 5.5 inches wide and another 3-inch notebook sat on top of it. The reams of paper found within those two notebooks represented documentation of nutrient (think primarily manure) management of one herd — Alliance Dairy, for one year — 2008.
Every dairy farm in Florida that has 700 or more mature dairy cows is considered a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation). All Florida CAFOs are required to have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to operate legally under the Clean Water Act of 1972.
Dairies with less than 700 cows are generally considered AFOs (Animal Feeding Operations) and are not required to have a NPDES permit. However, a new set of Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) rules are currently being written for AFOs.
The price tag to assemble the information needed to obtain a NPDES permit is generally over $60,000. It usually takes an environmental engineer to write it and it is required to have an engineer sign off on it. Then the never-ending record keeping begins. Read More
Just about anything you read that is negative toward modern livestock production tries to key on the idea that producers don’t care about the environment. They also say the regulations and science behind the nutrient management plans don’t work. While most of the people complaining probably have never studied a plan nor are they educated enough on environmental studies to give an expert opinion on whether a plan will work, they continue to spread falsehoods about animal agriculture. This article give a good brief run down of what most producers have to go through in order to comply with regulations.
Banning Antibiotic Use in CA
Animal Health: Bill Would Restrict Antibiotic Use
A powerful state legislator in California has introduced legislation to restrict the use of antibiotics in raising livestock. As introduced, SB 416 would:
Prohibit, commencing Jan. 1, 2012, a school or school district from serving poultry and meat products treated with antibiotics to pupils.
Prohibit, commencing Jan. 1, 2015, a person from using antibiotics for non-therapeutic and prophylactic use in any animal raised for the production of any human food product.
Require state and local governments, when purchasing meat supplies, to prefer meat supplies produced without the use of medically important antibiotics as feed additives.
The legislator, Senate Majority Leader and Chair of the Food and Agriculture Committee Dean Florez, made news recently for introducing a measure that would ban tail-docking. He has often been a thorn in the side of production agriculture.
“We’re curious to see where Florez is going with this legislation. The majority of what he’s proposing is unconstitutional,” says Michael Marsh, chief executive officer for Western United Dairymen. Marsh said that a school in Berkeley, Calif., tried to offer only organic food to students, but the program failed because students could not afford to purchase the food.
An informational hearing to address this bill will take place on March 17.
To see a copy of the bill, click here.
Link to Article
There seems to be a theme today of throwing science under the bus. So any animal that even one time in its life receives antibiotics will not be allowed into the school lunch program. This will drastically increase the expense for providing meals to children. It also encourages producers to use “hope” as a treatment for a sick animal rather than antibiotics. Obviously, there hasn’t been a lot of thought put into this bill and hopefully common sense will prevail. It’s interesting that these types of people want to give rights to animals, and at the same time, they are trying to limit producer’s options for keeping them healthy.
A powerful state legislator in California has introduced legislation to restrict the use of antibiotics in raising livestock. As introduced, SB 416 would:
Prohibit, commencing Jan. 1, 2012, a school or school district from serving poultry and meat products treated with antibiotics to pupils.
Prohibit, commencing Jan. 1, 2015, a person from using antibiotics for non-therapeutic and prophylactic use in any animal raised for the production of any human food product.
Require state and local governments, when purchasing meat supplies, to prefer meat supplies produced without the use of medically important antibiotics as feed additives.
The legislator, Senate Majority Leader and Chair of the Food and Agriculture Committee Dean Florez, made news recently for introducing a measure that would ban tail-docking. He has often been a thorn in the side of production agriculture.
“We’re curious to see where Florez is going with this legislation. The majority of what he’s proposing is unconstitutional,” says Michael Marsh, chief executive officer for Western United Dairymen. Marsh said that a school in Berkeley, Calif., tried to offer only organic food to students, but the program failed because students could not afford to purchase the food.
An informational hearing to address this bill will take place on March 17.
To see a copy of the bill, click here.
Link to Article
There seems to be a theme today of throwing science under the bus. So any animal that even one time in its life receives antibiotics will not be allowed into the school lunch program. This will drastically increase the expense for providing meals to children. It also encourages producers to use “hope” as a treatment for a sick animal rather than antibiotics. Obviously, there hasn’t been a lot of thought put into this bill and hopefully common sense will prevail. It’s interesting that these types of people want to give rights to animals, and at the same time, they are trying to limit producer’s options for keeping them healthy.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Soybean Growers Take On HSUS
Nebraska soybean leader ready to take on HSUS
Monday, March 2, 2009, 4:28 PM
by Ken Anderson
Debbie Borg says it’s time to fight fire with fire in dealing with the Humane Society of the United States and other animal rights groups.
Borg is the president of the Nebraska Soybean Association. She has been asked by American Soybean Association leaders to coordinate the group’s efforts to battle the growing animal rights movement. Borg says it’s time to expose HSUS for what it really is.
“Their goal, and all their documents tell us, that they are out to eliminate animal agriculture,” says Borg. “That means that they want us to be a vegan society—no leather shoes, no leather boots and, obviously, no steaks on the table.”
Borg believes a high percentage of those who contribute to HSUS have no idea their dollars are being used to attack animal agriculture.
“And I think when people start understanding what they’re about, the funding we hope will slow down,” says Borg, “because we’ve also done surveying that when people understand what they’re about, they’re not going to support them because they’ve been lied to.”
Borg says it’s crucial that the ag and commodity groups come together in the battle against HSUS. Link
In order to expose HSUS for the radical animal rights groups that they really are, it’s going to require the efforts of farmers and ranchers across the country. It’s also going to require more than just the livestock industry telling the story. Congratulations to Debbie Borg and soybean growers everywhere for realizing that we are all in this together. An attack on livestock producers is an attack on everyone involved in agriculture and it will require a response from everyone if we are to survive.
Monday, March 2, 2009, 4:28 PM
by Ken Anderson
Debbie Borg says it’s time to fight fire with fire in dealing with the Humane Society of the United States and other animal rights groups.
Borg is the president of the Nebraska Soybean Association. She has been asked by American Soybean Association leaders to coordinate the group’s efforts to battle the growing animal rights movement. Borg says it’s time to expose HSUS for what it really is.
“Their goal, and all their documents tell us, that they are out to eliminate animal agriculture,” says Borg. “That means that they want us to be a vegan society—no leather shoes, no leather boots and, obviously, no steaks on the table.”
Borg believes a high percentage of those who contribute to HSUS have no idea their dollars are being used to attack animal agriculture.
“And I think when people start understanding what they’re about, the funding we hope will slow down,” says Borg, “because we’ve also done surveying that when people understand what they’re about, they’re not going to support them because they’ve been lied to.”
Borg says it’s crucial that the ag and commodity groups come together in the battle against HSUS. Link
In order to expose HSUS for the radical animal rights groups that they really are, it’s going to require the efforts of farmers and ranchers across the country. It’s also going to require more than just the livestock industry telling the story. Congratulations to Debbie Borg and soybean growers everywhere for realizing that we are all in this together. An attack on livestock producers is an attack on everyone involved in agriculture and it will require a response from everyone if we are to survive.
Attacking Animal Husbandry
Cruelty laws apply to livestock, lawsuit says
Animal rights group seeks more specific oversight
By LEVI PULKKINEN, P-I REPORTER
In an attempt to expand animal cruelty criminal laws to cover the treatment of livestock, a Seattle-based animal rights group has filed a lawsuit arguing that existing laws give industry undue control over how animals are housed and slaughtered.
In the suit filed earlier this month by the Northwest Animal Rights Network, the activists aim, at a minimum, to limit the manner in which meat and dairy producers treat their livestock, said Adam Karp, a Bellingham attorney representing NARN.
Under state law, animal cruelty can be charged as a felony. But the law exempts livestock handlers from prosecution so long as their actions are in line with "customary animal husbandry practices."
That standard, Karp argued, gives the industry far too great a role in determining what is and isn't humane treatment. Karp alleged that many practices considered "customary" by meat, milk and egg producers are unduly and unnecessarily cruel. Read More
This is tactic that animal rights groups are employing; tie the image of livestock and pets together in the consumer’s mind. To suggest that livestock should live in our house with us is not exactly a workable deal. Besides, isn’t HSUS trying to make it illegal to house livestock indoors?
Animal rights group seeks more specific oversight
By LEVI PULKKINEN, P-I REPORTER
In an attempt to expand animal cruelty criminal laws to cover the treatment of livestock, a Seattle-based animal rights group has filed a lawsuit arguing that existing laws give industry undue control over how animals are housed and slaughtered.
In the suit filed earlier this month by the Northwest Animal Rights Network, the activists aim, at a minimum, to limit the manner in which meat and dairy producers treat their livestock, said Adam Karp, a Bellingham attorney representing NARN.
Under state law, animal cruelty can be charged as a felony. But the law exempts livestock handlers from prosecution so long as their actions are in line with "customary animal husbandry practices."
That standard, Karp argued, gives the industry far too great a role in determining what is and isn't humane treatment. Karp alleged that many practices considered "customary" by meat, milk and egg producers are unduly and unnecessarily cruel. Read More
This is tactic that animal rights groups are employing; tie the image of livestock and pets together in the consumer’s mind. To suggest that livestock should live in our house with us is not exactly a workable deal. Besides, isn’t HSUS trying to make it illegal to house livestock indoors?
ALF Infiltrated
Animal Liberation Front mole tells all
Published: March 2, 2009 at 1:23 AM
LONDON, March 2 (UPI) -- A police informant who infiltrated a British animal liberation group says he sympathizes with people who are "genuinely concerned at the plight of animals."
Adrian Radford, a former soldier and intelligence services instructor, went public last week about the three years he spent inside the Animal Liberation Front, Britain's Sunday Times reported.
Radford said he provided police handlers with information on the group's activities between 2004 and 2007, including details of operations in which he said ALF members terrorized scientists and companies linked to animal laboratories. At times. he said, he disrupted or prevented the group's plans. Read More
This is an interesting glimpse into the inner workings of a terrorist organization. ALF is a dangerous group that would rather see people die than animals. Somehow they continue to gather donations, mostly by lying to their prospective donors apparently. Maybe if you have to lie to your donors and you are considered a terrorist organization by international authorities, you should probably reconsider your tactics.
Published: March 2, 2009 at 1:23 AM
LONDON, March 2 (UPI) -- A police informant who infiltrated a British animal liberation group says he sympathizes with people who are "genuinely concerned at the plight of animals."
Adrian Radford, a former soldier and intelligence services instructor, went public last week about the three years he spent inside the Animal Liberation Front, Britain's Sunday Times reported.
Radford said he provided police handlers with information on the group's activities between 2004 and 2007, including details of operations in which he said ALF members terrorized scientists and companies linked to animal laboratories. At times. he said, he disrupted or prevented the group's plans. Read More
This is an interesting glimpse into the inner workings of a terrorist organization. ALF is a dangerous group that would rather see people die than animals. Somehow they continue to gather donations, mostly by lying to their prospective donors apparently. Maybe if you have to lie to your donors and you are considered a terrorist organization by international authorities, you should probably reconsider your tactics.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Diagnosing Orthorexia
What’s Eating Our Kids? Fears About ‘Bad’ Foods
By ABBY ELLIN
SODIUM — that’s what worries Greye Dunn. He thinks about calories, too, and whether he’s getting enough vitamins. But it’s the sodium that really scares him.
“Sodium makes your heart beat faster, so it can create something really serious,” said Greye, who is 8 years old and lives in Mays Landing, N.J.
Greye’s mother, Beth Dunn, the president of a multimedia company, is proud of her son’s nutritional awareness and encourages it by serving organic food and helping Greye read labels on cereal boxes and cans.
“He wants to be healthy,” she says.
Dr. Steven Bratman of Denver has come up with a term to describe people obsessed with health food: orthorexia. Orthorexic patients, he says, are fixated on “righteous eating” (the word stems from the Greek word ortho, meaning straight and correct).
“I would tell them, ‘You’re addicted to health food.’ It was my way of having them not take themselves so seriously,” said Dr. Bratman, who published a book on the subject, “Health Food Junkies,” in 2001. Read More
The idea of ‘orthorexia’ seems to be right on. There are a lot of people that seem to fear certain foods because of what they think they know. There’s nothing sensible about a diet where you fear foods to the point that is nearly controls your life. Regardless of any scientific report you will ever read, the best diet will always be on that includes everything in moderation.
By ABBY ELLIN
SODIUM — that’s what worries Greye Dunn. He thinks about calories, too, and whether he’s getting enough vitamins. But it’s the sodium that really scares him.
“Sodium makes your heart beat faster, so it can create something really serious,” said Greye, who is 8 years old and lives in Mays Landing, N.J.
Greye’s mother, Beth Dunn, the president of a multimedia company, is proud of her son’s nutritional awareness and encourages it by serving organic food and helping Greye read labels on cereal boxes and cans.
“He wants to be healthy,” she says.
Dr. Steven Bratman of Denver has come up with a term to describe people obsessed with health food: orthorexia. Orthorexic patients, he says, are fixated on “righteous eating” (the word stems from the Greek word ortho, meaning straight and correct).
“I would tell them, ‘You’re addicted to health food.’ It was my way of having them not take themselves so seriously,” said Dr. Bratman, who published a book on the subject, “Health Food Junkies,” in 2001. Read More
The idea of ‘orthorexia’ seems to be right on. There are a lot of people that seem to fear certain foods because of what they think they know. There’s nothing sensible about a diet where you fear foods to the point that is nearly controls your life. Regardless of any scientific report you will ever read, the best diet will always be on that includes everything in moderation.
Ingrid's Will
PETA plan: Use human feet for umbrella stands
Founder of animal rights group posts online 'will'
Posted: February 28, 200912:25 am Eastern© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Some of the following may be objectionable to readers.
PETA, the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, is known for pushing the envelope
on acceptability: Its proposed vegetarian ad for the Super Bowl this year was sexually suggestive, and it periodically stages nude models in various poses saying they'd rather wear nothing than fur.
But a new feature of the organization's website takes its campaign to a new level: a will posted by founder Ingrid Newkirk that, among other things, calls for her flesh to be used for a barbecue and her feet for umbrella stands.
Newkirk's posting on the site explains:
As someone who has dedicated a part of my life to the alleviation of animal suffering in various parts of the world, it is my wish that upon my death, my body be used to further that same goal. … To accomplish this, I direct that my body be donated to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 501 Front Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510, to be used in whatever manner it chooses in order to accomplish the specified purpose, with the hope that most of my body will be put to use in the United States, with parts also dispatched to awaken the public consciousness of governments and citizens in the United Kingdom, where I was born, in India, my beloved childhood home, and in Canada, Germany, and France. Read More
Just in case you were wondering where PETA’s thought processes originate from, this should answer your question. Newkirk, PETA’s founder, seems certifiable some days, and other days she seems stupid like a fox. Either way, common sense and science will never see the light of day there.
Founder of animal rights group posts online 'will'
Posted: February 28, 200912:25 am Eastern© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Some of the following may be objectionable to readers.
PETA, the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, is known for pushing the envelope
on acceptability: Its proposed vegetarian ad for the Super Bowl this year was sexually suggestive, and it periodically stages nude models in various poses saying they'd rather wear nothing than fur.
But a new feature of the organization's website takes its campaign to a new level: a will posted by founder Ingrid Newkirk that, among other things, calls for her flesh to be used for a barbecue and her feet for umbrella stands.
Newkirk's posting on the site explains:
As someone who has dedicated a part of my life to the alleviation of animal suffering in various parts of the world, it is my wish that upon my death, my body be used to further that same goal. … To accomplish this, I direct that my body be donated to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 501 Front Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510, to be used in whatever manner it chooses in order to accomplish the specified purpose, with the hope that most of my body will be put to use in the United States, with parts also dispatched to awaken the public consciousness of governments and citizens in the United Kingdom, where I was born, in India, my beloved childhood home, and in Canada, Germany, and France. Read More
Just in case you were wondering where PETA’s thought processes originate from, this should answer your question. Newkirk, PETA’s founder, seems certifiable some days, and other days she seems stupid like a fox. Either way, common sense and science will never see the light of day there.
Livestock Protection Legislation Gains More Support
Farm Bureau supports livestock preemption legislation
Oklahoma
The state's largest farm organization is throwing its support behind legislation that will protect animal agriculture in Oklahoma.
Representative Don Armes and Senator Mike Schulz have authored companion bills referred to as livestock preemption legislation.
The bills, HB 2151 and SB 452, are aimed at avoiding a ballot initiative such as what happened last November in California with Proposition 2. That legislation outlaws the confinement of certain production livestock. The proposition was strongly supported by animal rights activists.
"It (HB 2151) is focused on setting a standard for the care and handling of livestock in Oklahoma," said Rep. Armes. Read More
Oklahoma’s bill to protect it’s livestock industry and food production industry from the Humane Society of the United States continues to work it’s way through the legislature. It is essential that we protect our ability to produce a home-grown food supply. While HSUS would rather our food come from a foreign country, the majority of Americans realize that only America’s farmers and ranchers can produce the safest, most affordable food supply in the world.
Oklahoma
The state's largest farm organization is throwing its support behind legislation that will protect animal agriculture in Oklahoma.
Representative Don Armes and Senator Mike Schulz have authored companion bills referred to as livestock preemption legislation.
The bills, HB 2151 and SB 452, are aimed at avoiding a ballot initiative such as what happened last November in California with Proposition 2. That legislation outlaws the confinement of certain production livestock. The proposition was strongly supported by animal rights activists.
"It (HB 2151) is focused on setting a standard for the care and handling of livestock in Oklahoma," said Rep. Armes. Read More
Oklahoma’s bill to protect it’s livestock industry and food production industry from the Humane Society of the United States continues to work it’s way through the legislature. It is essential that we protect our ability to produce a home-grown food supply. While HSUS would rather our food come from a foreign country, the majority of Americans realize that only America’s farmers and ranchers can produce the safest, most affordable food supply in the world.
Manure Pots
From Tons of Manure, a Growth Industry
By GERRI HIRSHEY
IN almost-spring, as itchy gardeners drag out grow lights and seed-starting flats, it seems a fitting moment to trace the germ of a new and very green gardening idea. It first took root beside a reeking, unspeakable lagoon in the northwest corner of Connecticut and is blossoming sweetly nationwide. Kindly summon a gardener’s tolerance for earthy subject matter as this gritty tale unfolds:
More than a decade ago — she thinks it was in 1998 — Jane Slupecki, a marketing representative for the Connecticut Department of Agriculture, took a group of Litchfield County dairy farmers to a brainstorming dinner at a lovely lakeside inn there. Her agency had a small grant to try to find possible solutions to a big, stinky problem.
“Cow manure,” Ms. Slupecki recalls. “Endless tons of it. We were concerned about how farmers returned manure nutrients to their fields, and how we could prevent runoff of excess nitrogen and phosphorus into watersheds.” Since farms in riparian areas were of particular concern, most of the dairymen invited to dinner were grazing cows near the Blackberry River, which in turn feeds the mighty Housatonic. Their hostess remembers it as “just a lovely dinner,” but we will spare the reader the technical points of the conversation.
“Cow poop is cow poop,” admits Ms. Slupecki, who was feeling some frustration at the paucity of workable suggestions by the time they reached dessert and coffee. Half in jest, she blurted, “Can’t you guys do something with this stuff — make a flowerpot or something?” Read More
Manure should never be regarded as waste. It is a necessary part of the cycle of life. The nutrients contained in manure are required for plant growth. It’s a fantastic cycle that most people seem to have forgotten.
By GERRI HIRSHEY
IN almost-spring, as itchy gardeners drag out grow lights and seed-starting flats, it seems a fitting moment to trace the germ of a new and very green gardening idea. It first took root beside a reeking, unspeakable lagoon in the northwest corner of Connecticut and is blossoming sweetly nationwide. Kindly summon a gardener’s tolerance for earthy subject matter as this gritty tale unfolds:
More than a decade ago — she thinks it was in 1998 — Jane Slupecki, a marketing representative for the Connecticut Department of Agriculture, took a group of Litchfield County dairy farmers to a brainstorming dinner at a lovely lakeside inn there. Her agency had a small grant to try to find possible solutions to a big, stinky problem.
“Cow manure,” Ms. Slupecki recalls. “Endless tons of it. We were concerned about how farmers returned manure nutrients to their fields, and how we could prevent runoff of excess nitrogen and phosphorus into watersheds.” Since farms in riparian areas were of particular concern, most of the dairymen invited to dinner were grazing cows near the Blackberry River, which in turn feeds the mighty Housatonic. Their hostess remembers it as “just a lovely dinner,” but we will spare the reader the technical points of the conversation.
“Cow poop is cow poop,” admits Ms. Slupecki, who was feeling some frustration at the paucity of workable suggestions by the time they reached dessert and coffee. Half in jest, she blurted, “Can’t you guys do something with this stuff — make a flowerpot or something?” Read More
Manure should never be regarded as waste. It is a necessary part of the cycle of life. The nutrients contained in manure are required for plant growth. It’s a fantastic cycle that most people seem to have forgotten.
Friday, February 27, 2009
States Brace For HSUS
California chicken proposition draws criticism from ISU dean
Thursday, February 26, 2009, 8:55 AM
By O.Kay Henderson
The dean of Iowa State University's College of Agriculture is critical of a new California proposition which requires larger cages for chickens that are laying eggs in a confinement setting. I.S.U.'s Wendy Wintersteen testified before the Ag Committees in the Iowa House and Senate on Wednesday.
"The difficulty with the Humane Society of the United States is that they really are not about helping people understand the science of the issue. They are about, really, building to the rhetoric involved and so you have a set of people in California that are very uninformed about the issue that voted to make a decision that will, in fact, have tremendous consequences across the United States," Wintersteen said.
"We will end up, if we're not careful, having more restrictive regulations than Europe does related to animals." Wintersteen suggests an "uninformed electorate" can be convinced of anything. "For us, the issue is that the Humane Society of the United States has effectively convinced the public that there are a set of problems, when in fact that argument is not based on science," Wintersteen said. Read More
Many states are trying to prepare themselves from an attack by HSUS. Some are rewriting the rules so that HSUS can’t use ballot initiatives, and others are just trying to educate their lawmakers so when the day comes, they are informed. Whatever the strategy, everyone in agriculture should be involved in doing something to prepare. It’s time to stop being reactive and go on the offensive for a change.
Thursday, February 26, 2009, 8:55 AM
By O.Kay Henderson
The dean of Iowa State University's College of Agriculture is critical of a new California proposition which requires larger cages for chickens that are laying eggs in a confinement setting. I.S.U.'s Wendy Wintersteen testified before the Ag Committees in the Iowa House and Senate on Wednesday.
"The difficulty with the Humane Society of the United States is that they really are not about helping people understand the science of the issue. They are about, really, building to the rhetoric involved and so you have a set of people in California that are very uninformed about the issue that voted to make a decision that will, in fact, have tremendous consequences across the United States," Wintersteen said.
"We will end up, if we're not careful, having more restrictive regulations than Europe does related to animals." Wintersteen suggests an "uninformed electorate" can be convinced of anything. "For us, the issue is that the Humane Society of the United States has effectively convinced the public that there are a set of problems, when in fact that argument is not based on science," Wintersteen said. Read More
Many states are trying to prepare themselves from an attack by HSUS. Some are rewriting the rules so that HSUS can’t use ballot initiatives, and others are just trying to educate their lawmakers so when the day comes, they are informed. Whatever the strategy, everyone in agriculture should be involved in doing something to prepare. It’s time to stop being reactive and go on the offensive for a change.
Raising Vegetarians on MisInformation
Daddy Eats Dead Cows
Can a meat-loving father raise vegetarian children?
By Mark Oppenheimer Posted Thursday, Feb. 26, 2009, at 6:46 AM ET
My wife, Cyd, is an unlikely vegetarian. Her mother is a genius with a chicken or a pot roast, and their small apartment in New York remains a kosher carnivore's delight. For nights out, her family could walk to temples of meat like Sammy's Roumanian Steak House and the Second Avenue Deli. But as a young girl, Cyd decided that eating meat was unethical, and she resolved that someday she would become a vegetarian. The summer before college, she worked to acquire a taste for eggplant, chickpeas, and other staples of the meat-free diet. She became a fine vegetarian cook; today she can do indescribable things with lentils.
From the time we met, I admired Cyd's commitment to vegetarianism. I had taken baby-steps toward vegetarianism myself: After reading Peter Singer's Animal Liberation in my mid-20s, I had given up chicken, which seemed to me the most cruelly abused of all the factory-farmed animals. Yet when, during our courtship, Cyd said that having a vegetarian household, and doing our best to raise vegetarian children, was important to her, I hesitated (or, rather, picked a long, loud fight). I didn't object to the meat-free household, and she was not asking me to abstain from meat in restaurants or at friends' houses. But trying to raise vegetarian children seemed to be buying trouble. I immediately generated a list of potential problems: Would it be healthy? What would our parents think when we asked them not to serve the grandchildren tuna fish? Would our children feel left out, abstaining from hot dogs at ballgames and birthday parties? Most important: Would they seem like freaks? Read More
There are several things about this article that are upsetting to me. First, when the author talks about factory farms, he doesn’t tell us what one is and makes a blanket inference that all meat comes from a horrible place where they were abused during their lifetime. Second, it seems as though the information off which they made their decision to be vegetarians was based off a book written by a radical animal rights activist in the 1970’s. If they want to learn about where their food comes from, maybe they should talk to someone who grows it. And finally, the terminology used is quite juvenile and really does a disservice to readers. Animals aren’t murdered, they are harvested in a respectful manner so that humans may live.
Can a meat-loving father raise vegetarian children?
By Mark Oppenheimer Posted Thursday, Feb. 26, 2009, at 6:46 AM ET
My wife, Cyd, is an unlikely vegetarian. Her mother is a genius with a chicken or a pot roast, and their small apartment in New York remains a kosher carnivore's delight. For nights out, her family could walk to temples of meat like Sammy's Roumanian Steak House and the Second Avenue Deli. But as a young girl, Cyd decided that eating meat was unethical, and she resolved that someday she would become a vegetarian. The summer before college, she worked to acquire a taste for eggplant, chickpeas, and other staples of the meat-free diet. She became a fine vegetarian cook; today she can do indescribable things with lentils.
From the time we met, I admired Cyd's commitment to vegetarianism. I had taken baby-steps toward vegetarianism myself: After reading Peter Singer's Animal Liberation in my mid-20s, I had given up chicken, which seemed to me the most cruelly abused of all the factory-farmed animals. Yet when, during our courtship, Cyd said that having a vegetarian household, and doing our best to raise vegetarian children, was important to her, I hesitated (or, rather, picked a long, loud fight). I didn't object to the meat-free household, and she was not asking me to abstain from meat in restaurants or at friends' houses. But trying to raise vegetarian children seemed to be buying trouble. I immediately generated a list of potential problems: Would it be healthy? What would our parents think when we asked them not to serve the grandchildren tuna fish? Would our children feel left out, abstaining from hot dogs at ballgames and birthday parties? Most important: Would they seem like freaks? Read More
There are several things about this article that are upsetting to me. First, when the author talks about factory farms, he doesn’t tell us what one is and makes a blanket inference that all meat comes from a horrible place where they were abused during their lifetime. Second, it seems as though the information off which they made their decision to be vegetarians was based off a book written by a radical animal rights activist in the 1970’s. If they want to learn about where their food comes from, maybe they should talk to someone who grows it. And finally, the terminology used is quite juvenile and really does a disservice to readers. Animals aren’t murdered, they are harvested in a respectful manner so that humans may live.
Pickens Spreads Lies
OSU veterinary students: Cruelty allegations by Pickens are erroneous
By Bridget Nash, Staff Writer
A Waukomis graduate at-tending Oklahoma State University’s Center for Veterinary Health Sciences is defending her school from allegations its research methods are cruel to animals.
Madeleine Pickens, wife of billionaire T. Boone Pickens, had said she was planning to give $5 million to the center but has changed her mind. She said she received information from a student OSU’s veterinary school practices “barbaric” methods, according to an article in the student newspaper, The Daily O’Collegian.
“Right now, when they buy these dogs, they bring them in and they do a surgery, put them to sleep, do the surgery, wake them up, next day, put them to sleep again, maybe take out a kidney, wake them up again, put them to sleep again, maybe break a leg, fix it, wake them up again and then they kill them,” Pickens said.
Shana Watkins, an OSU veterinary student and Waukomis High School graduate, said that’s not true.“We get into this profession because of our love for animals,” she said.
Watkins said if claims of barbarism were true, vet students would be the first to protest.
“The biggest deal to us is the quote Ms. Pickens said about breaking legs and removing kidneys,” said Matt Woodington, a fourth-year vet student. “None of that is true.” Read More
By Bridget Nash, Staff Writer
A Waukomis graduate at-tending Oklahoma State University’s Center for Veterinary Health Sciences is defending her school from allegations its research methods are cruel to animals.
Madeleine Pickens, wife of billionaire T. Boone Pickens, had said she was planning to give $5 million to the center but has changed her mind. She said she received information from a student OSU’s veterinary school practices “barbaric” methods, according to an article in the student newspaper, The Daily O’Collegian.
“Right now, when they buy these dogs, they bring them in and they do a surgery, put them to sleep, do the surgery, wake them up, next day, put them to sleep again, maybe take out a kidney, wake them up again, put them to sleep again, maybe break a leg, fix it, wake them up again and then they kill them,” Pickens said.
Shana Watkins, an OSU veterinary student and Waukomis High School graduate, said that’s not true.“We get into this profession because of our love for animals,” she said.
Watkins said if claims of barbarism were true, vet students would be the first to protest.
“The biggest deal to us is the quote Ms. Pickens said about breaking legs and removing kidneys,” said Matt Woodington, a fourth-year vet student. “None of that is true.” Read More
Attacks on the Rise
Report Quantifies Animal Agriculture Attacks
02/25/2009
The Arlington, Virginia-based Animal Agriculture Alliance reports that during 2008, attacks on the global food chain from animal rights and environmental extremists jumped 42% - from 155 in 2007 to 220 last year. Much of the increase came from the Animal Liberation Front. Those attacks exploded 377 percent. Information compiled by the Alliance indicated there were 640 acts of sabotage, vandalism and arson in 2008, up from 467 the previous year.
The overall level of animal rights extremist attacks in the USA on businesses that use animals - including medical research, consumer product safety, pets, circuses, rodeos, fur shops, hunting stores, farmers, ranchers, food retailers - surged nearly 40%. Destruction or defacement of property were the most frequently used techniques in their attempts to intimidate food chain businesses to shut down.
Also, extremists claimed responsibility for the "liberation" of thousands of animals during the year, and millions of dollars in damage. Still, Mexico appears to be an emerging center for animal rights terrorism. In 2008, extremist groups in Mexico claimed more than double the number of attacks than were claimed in the USA. Link
Attacks from animal rights extremists is a very real and scary problem that happens all over the country and world. It seems as though their attacks have stepped up because their successes have diminished. More and more people are seeing them for what they really are, domestic terrorists. The FBI has also been more successful at catching and convicting these criminals. I guess when your message doesn’t resonate with people, you have to turn to violence and bully the public into believing you, but it’s not working.
02/25/2009
The Arlington, Virginia-based Animal Agriculture Alliance reports that during 2008, attacks on the global food chain from animal rights and environmental extremists jumped 42% - from 155 in 2007 to 220 last year. Much of the increase came from the Animal Liberation Front. Those attacks exploded 377 percent. Information compiled by the Alliance indicated there were 640 acts of sabotage, vandalism and arson in 2008, up from 467 the previous year.
The overall level of animal rights extremist attacks in the USA on businesses that use animals - including medical research, consumer product safety, pets, circuses, rodeos, fur shops, hunting stores, farmers, ranchers, food retailers - surged nearly 40%. Destruction or defacement of property were the most frequently used techniques in their attempts to intimidate food chain businesses to shut down.
Also, extremists claimed responsibility for the "liberation" of thousands of animals during the year, and millions of dollars in damage. Still, Mexico appears to be an emerging center for animal rights terrorism. In 2008, extremist groups in Mexico claimed more than double the number of attacks than were claimed in the USA. Link
Attacks from animal rights extremists is a very real and scary problem that happens all over the country and world. It seems as though their attacks have stepped up because their successes have diminished. More and more people are seeing them for what they really are, domestic terrorists. The FBI has also been more successful at catching and convicting these criminals. I guess when your message doesn’t resonate with people, you have to turn to violence and bully the public into believing you, but it’s not working.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Livestock Legislation in Indiana
Livestock bills move to Senate
Efforts to regulate concentrated animal feeding operations get bipartisan support in House
BY PAM THARP CORRESPONDENT
Two bills that will regulate concentrated animal feeding operations have passed the Indiana House with bipartisan support and advance to the Indiana Senate.
House Bill 1075, which restricts the location of new CAFOs and confined feeding operations to two miles from state park and reservoir boundaries, passed on its third reading Tuesday morning by a 51-47 vote.
Area state representatives Phil Pflum, a Democrat, and Republicans Tom Saunders and Tom Knollman supported the setback bill. The bill was amended to allow existing livestock operations within the two-mile perimeter to expand, which was an issue for some representatives, Saunders said.
"If they are good neighbors, there's no reason not to allow expansion," Saunders said. Read More
I wrote an article about this subject last fall called “Peak Ag”. I talked about how agriculture is continually being told where they are no longer welcome. And this new bill in Indiana is a great example. Regardless of the science, soil type, topography, etc, if this bill passes you couldn’t build a modern livestock facility within two miles of a state park. The biggest problem with this is that society has decided that science is not good enough to make these decisions anymore, but rather we should make them with our emotions. That’s find and dandy, but think about what state your emotions will be in when we can no longer produce enough food in this country to feed ourselves. Food has to be grown somewhere.
Efforts to regulate concentrated animal feeding operations get bipartisan support in House
BY PAM THARP CORRESPONDENT
Two bills that will regulate concentrated animal feeding operations have passed the Indiana House with bipartisan support and advance to the Indiana Senate.
House Bill 1075, which restricts the location of new CAFOs and confined feeding operations to two miles from state park and reservoir boundaries, passed on its third reading Tuesday morning by a 51-47 vote.
Area state representatives Phil Pflum, a Democrat, and Republicans Tom Saunders and Tom Knollman supported the setback bill. The bill was amended to allow existing livestock operations within the two-mile perimeter to expand, which was an issue for some representatives, Saunders said.
"If they are good neighbors, there's no reason not to allow expansion," Saunders said. Read More
I wrote an article about this subject last fall called “Peak Ag”. I talked about how agriculture is continually being told where they are no longer welcome. And this new bill in Indiana is a great example. Regardless of the science, soil type, topography, etc, if this bill passes you couldn’t build a modern livestock facility within two miles of a state park. The biggest problem with this is that society has decided that science is not good enough to make these decisions anymore, but rather we should make them with our emotions. That’s find and dandy, but think about what state your emotions will be in when we can no longer produce enough food in this country to feed ourselves. Food has to be grown somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)