Sierra Club Wages Water War With Growers Over Run of Carmel River
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - A long-running feud between growers and environmentalists in California is now centered at the base of the lush Santa Lucia Mountains, where the Carmel River winds through the Monterey Peninsula. Growers want water to alleviate the harsh days of drought and environmentalists are fighting to protect the flow needed by steelhead trout, whose numbers are dropping sharply.
In a federal lawsuit, the Sierra Club and the Carmel River Steelhead Association claim the California American Water Company's unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River is responsible for the steelhead's decline. The groups say that despite their fish-rescue efforts, they cannot "prevent the death of an unknown but presumably large number of juvenile steelhead that perish as flows decline."
Growers say that environmentalists are naïve to blame them for the decreased fish populations.
"Certain environmental groups argue that certain fish species are endangered and that requires a change in the water policy in our state. Their solution is to flush more water out to the ocean and all will be good," says Joel Nelson, president of California Citrus Mutual, a growers' association.
But restricted water flow leads to crop shortages, higher produce prices, fallow land and unemployment, said Nelson, who has been in the agriculture industry for 25 years.
"But most parties are unwilling from the environmental community to connect the dots. I have my biases, but we've always been able to work issues out before, until now. You can't stop watering certain parts of the state and expect the state to survive," he said. Read More
Arguments over water are nothing new. However, the arguments today normally pit farmers and their ability to grow food for people to eat against environmentalists that seem to value things other than people or food production. It’s important to remember that no one in agriculture is advocating letting any type of species go extinct. Obviously that’s not a good option. But neither is forcing farmers from their land and causing food shortages. People need to understand that we have a very limited supply of food on this planet. When land is taken out of production it can’t be replaced somewhere else. The world just has to get by with less available land. There is plenty of water on this planet, we just need to do a better job storing it and prioritizing how it’s used.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Dealing With Misinformation
Standing by your convictions in a world gone askew
By ERIN SLIVKA, Columnist
Monday, July 6, 2009 3:35 PM MDT
Everyone worries about their children’s futures, and I am no exception. I worry about the first time one of them drives away from the yard on their own. I pray that they will be wise when selecting a spouse. I hope that they will be hard workers and dependable friends.
One of the greatest challenges I foresee our children facing is standing firm in their convictions and learning to verify sources of information before evaluating its truth. In this age of information overload, too few people stop to consider the source before believing and reacting to a news report, a forwarded e-mail, or a sound byte.
A perfect opportunity to illustrate this phenomenon with my children was the day my second grader came home from school and said we had to stop eating bacon because we were all going to get the swine flu and die. Someone at school had shared that information with her, but she could not recall who it was or where they had heard it. I set her straight and also took the opportunity to teach all the kids that not all sources are valid and trustworthy. Even textbooks and kids’ news magazines have an evident bias from time to time, and instead of protesting their use at school, we teach the kids to recognize bias and evaluate their sources before coming to their own conclusions.
Sadly, I know that our kids will be a minority when they leave home as adults. I also realize that our expectation for them to stand firm in their convictions means that they will be swimming against the tide much of the time. Possibly the tide will turn them, and they will join the majority and abandon the way in which they were raised.
The reality is that most of their generation will be more concerned with the welfare of animals than with the welfare of people. They will believe propaganda like that set forth by letsactnow.org, a website devoted to saving the earth by convincing people to switch to a vegetarian diet. When I first arrived at that website, I immediately noticed the sources and supporters, which included Alec Baldwin, Al Gore, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Sierra Club. I realized two points right away: every “fact” on this website would be skewed, and because celebrities like Alec Baldwin and George Clooney were featured on the site, most visitors would believe every word on every page. Read More
As we travel around the country presenting our story and our ideas to promote agriculture, we always spend some time talking about the importance of using accurate sources of information and thinking critically. It’s important for ag producers to carefully listen to what is being said about agriculture in order to expose the faults in their arguments. This article also talks about something that I’m sure all of us parents think about from time to time. With so much negativity being directed toward food producers, what impact does this have on our children as they grow up? We obviously want them to be proud of their ag heritage but in today’s world they are going to run into people that are going to ridicule them for it. Hopefully they will hold their head up high and proudly tell their story.
By ERIN SLIVKA, Columnist
Monday, July 6, 2009 3:35 PM MDT
Everyone worries about their children’s futures, and I am no exception. I worry about the first time one of them drives away from the yard on their own. I pray that they will be wise when selecting a spouse. I hope that they will be hard workers and dependable friends.
One of the greatest challenges I foresee our children facing is standing firm in their convictions and learning to verify sources of information before evaluating its truth. In this age of information overload, too few people stop to consider the source before believing and reacting to a news report, a forwarded e-mail, or a sound byte.
A perfect opportunity to illustrate this phenomenon with my children was the day my second grader came home from school and said we had to stop eating bacon because we were all going to get the swine flu and die. Someone at school had shared that information with her, but she could not recall who it was or where they had heard it. I set her straight and also took the opportunity to teach all the kids that not all sources are valid and trustworthy. Even textbooks and kids’ news magazines have an evident bias from time to time, and instead of protesting their use at school, we teach the kids to recognize bias and evaluate their sources before coming to their own conclusions.
Sadly, I know that our kids will be a minority when they leave home as adults. I also realize that our expectation for them to stand firm in their convictions means that they will be swimming against the tide much of the time. Possibly the tide will turn them, and they will join the majority and abandon the way in which they were raised.
The reality is that most of their generation will be more concerned with the welfare of animals than with the welfare of people. They will believe propaganda like that set forth by letsactnow.org, a website devoted to saving the earth by convincing people to switch to a vegetarian diet. When I first arrived at that website, I immediately noticed the sources and supporters, which included Alec Baldwin, Al Gore, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Sierra Club. I realized two points right away: every “fact” on this website would be skewed, and because celebrities like Alec Baldwin and George Clooney were featured on the site, most visitors would believe every word on every page. Read More
As we travel around the country presenting our story and our ideas to promote agriculture, we always spend some time talking about the importance of using accurate sources of information and thinking critically. It’s important for ag producers to carefully listen to what is being said about agriculture in order to expose the faults in their arguments. This article also talks about something that I’m sure all of us parents think about from time to time. With so much negativity being directed toward food producers, what impact does this have on our children as they grow up? We obviously want them to be proud of their ag heritage but in today’s world they are going to run into people that are going to ridicule them for it. Hopefully they will hold their head up high and proudly tell their story.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
City Doctor Suing Farmer For Feeding Cows
Hagemann Case Headed for SD Supreme Court
Dispute over winter feedyard continues for small producer.
By: Lon Tonneson
Published: Jul 6, 2009
James Hagemann's case is going to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
Hagemann, Winfred, S.D., operates Hagemann Red Angus. He was sued because runoff from his winter feed yard allegedly ended up his one of his neighbors' ponds.
The Alvine Family Limited Partnership, Sioux Falls, S.D., owns land across the township road from a feed yard that Hagemann rented. The partnership claimed that the runoff polluted the ponds on land it had bought and developed for hunting and recreation. The partnership wanted Hagemann to build a lagoon to contain the runoff or to remove the cattle from the site. It also wanted Hagemann to pay clean up costs.
Hagemann moved the cattle before the trial in March, but didn't agree to build a lagoon or pay the $20,000 that partnership sought. The case went to a jury in district court in Madison, S.D., and the Alvine Family Limited Partnership lost. But it recently filed an appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Mark Meierhenry, Hagemann's attorney, calls the case "stunning" and "kind of important for agriculture."
Hagemann runs just 110 cows on pasture. He doesn't operating a CAFO. He followed - even exceeded - state and county requirements for manure management. The land, Meierhenry says, was being used in its natural state. Read More
This case has been a classic example of someone moving out in the country and then being upset about life in the country. This case is a little different than some because this doesn’t involve a full time feeding operation. The Sioux Falls doctor is upset because there were 110 head of cows being wintered next to him. Cattle have always been wintered in this particular pasture prior to the Alvine Family buying the adjoining property. If the state Supreme Court would rule in favor of the moved in doctor, it could endanger the ability of ranchers to feed cows during the winter in any type of situation. I think this doctor forgot that the first requirement for a healthy body is a food source.
Dispute over winter feedyard continues for small producer.
By: Lon Tonneson
Published: Jul 6, 2009
James Hagemann's case is going to the South Dakota Supreme Court.
Hagemann, Winfred, S.D., operates Hagemann Red Angus. He was sued because runoff from his winter feed yard allegedly ended up his one of his neighbors' ponds.
The Alvine Family Limited Partnership, Sioux Falls, S.D., owns land across the township road from a feed yard that Hagemann rented. The partnership claimed that the runoff polluted the ponds on land it had bought and developed for hunting and recreation. The partnership wanted Hagemann to build a lagoon to contain the runoff or to remove the cattle from the site. It also wanted Hagemann to pay clean up costs.
Hagemann moved the cattle before the trial in March, but didn't agree to build a lagoon or pay the $20,000 that partnership sought. The case went to a jury in district court in Madison, S.D., and the Alvine Family Limited Partnership lost. But it recently filed an appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Mark Meierhenry, Hagemann's attorney, calls the case "stunning" and "kind of important for agriculture."
Hagemann runs just 110 cows on pasture. He doesn't operating a CAFO. He followed - even exceeded - state and county requirements for manure management. The land, Meierhenry says, was being used in its natural state. Read More
This case has been a classic example of someone moving out in the country and then being upset about life in the country. This case is a little different than some because this doesn’t involve a full time feeding operation. The Sioux Falls doctor is upset because there were 110 head of cows being wintered next to him. Cattle have always been wintered in this particular pasture prior to the Alvine Family buying the adjoining property. If the state Supreme Court would rule in favor of the moved in doctor, it could endanger the ability of ranchers to feed cows during the winter in any type of situation. I think this doctor forgot that the first requirement for a healthy body is a food source.
Sustainable Farm Uses Unsustainable Practices
Field-to-plate: VT college students try farming
By LISA RATHKE – 1 day ago
POULTNEY, Vt. (AP) — Devin Lyons typically starts his days this summer cooking fresh eggs for breakfast from the farm's chicken coop. Then, depending on the weather, he and a dozen other college students might cut hay in the field using a team of oxen, turn compost or weed vegetable beds.
While other college students are in stuffy classrooms, about a dozen are earning credit tending a Vermont farm. For 13 weeks, 12 credits and about $12,500, the Green Mountain College
students plow fields with oxen or horses, milk cows, weed crops and grow and make their own food, part of an intensive course in sustainable agriculture using the least amount of fossil fuels.
"Lots of schools study sustainable agriculture but I don't think any of them put it into practice," said spokesman Kevin Coburn.
There are no tractors on the 22 acres next to the brick campus of the small liberal arts college on the edge of the town — just two teams of oxen, and goats, pigs, two cows, and chickens. Read More
There have been several articles that I have read in the last six months that were similar to this. They normally highlight a small college that is offering what amounts to a gardening class. This one is trying to use very little fossil fuel. They seem to be accomplishing that by using livestock to pull equipment and a lot of human labor. On the surface, I’m sure it sounds romantic to some people, but is this the most efficient way to grow food? In my opinion I would say no. While they may be using less fuel, they are also practicing some soil damaging practices such as plowing which causes the release of vast amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere, lost soil moisture and soil erosion. Also, if they are relying on this as their sole source of food, they are one crop failure or natural disaster away from starvation. It’s great that people are learning about food production, but they need to realize this probably isn’t the best way to do it.
By LISA RATHKE – 1 day ago
POULTNEY, Vt. (AP) — Devin Lyons typically starts his days this summer cooking fresh eggs for breakfast from the farm's chicken coop. Then, depending on the weather, he and a dozen other college students might cut hay in the field using a team of oxen, turn compost or weed vegetable beds.
While other college students are in stuffy classrooms, about a dozen are earning credit tending a Vermont farm. For 13 weeks, 12 credits and about $12,500, the Green Mountain College
students plow fields with oxen or horses, milk cows, weed crops and grow and make their own food, part of an intensive course in sustainable agriculture using the least amount of fossil fuels.
"Lots of schools study sustainable agriculture but I don't think any of them put it into practice," said spokesman Kevin Coburn.
There are no tractors on the 22 acres next to the brick campus of the small liberal arts college on the edge of the town — just two teams of oxen, and goats, pigs, two cows, and chickens. Read More
There have been several articles that I have read in the last six months that were similar to this. They normally highlight a small college that is offering what amounts to a gardening class. This one is trying to use very little fossil fuel. They seem to be accomplishing that by using livestock to pull equipment and a lot of human labor. On the surface, I’m sure it sounds romantic to some people, but is this the most efficient way to grow food? In my opinion I would say no. While they may be using less fuel, they are also practicing some soil damaging practices such as plowing which causes the release of vast amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere, lost soil moisture and soil erosion. Also, if they are relying on this as their sole source of food, they are one crop failure or natural disaster away from starvation. It’s great that people are learning about food production, but they need to realize this probably isn’t the best way to do it.
Livestock Stewards Should Decide Welfare Standards
Column: Farmers responsible stewards of livestock
By Bill Bruins
At some point, we as farmers lost ownership of the issue of animal care, and now it’s time we get it back.
Providing good care to the animals on our farms is a second sense within us, because we each have lifetimes of experience doing so. Any good farmer knows that good care also equals profitability. That’s why for years we as farmers have been financing meaningful scientific research through our commodity associations to benefit animals’ behavioral and psychological needs.
Yet, today we find ourselves in a situation where unscrupulous activists want to tell us how to care for our animals. Their extremist mindset and fundraising goals blind them to what research (or common sense) says is actually best for animals.
How did we get to this point? Read More
Mr. Bruins is absolutely right when he states that we need to retake our ownership of the livestock care issue. If we allow people from the HSUS, whose only interaction with farm animals is when there is a photo opportunity to be had, to determine standards of care rather than those of us with generations of experience, the welfare level of livestock will undoubtedly suffer. These groups continue to make their tired argument on an emotional level in order to keep moving towards their ultimate goal of an animal-free society. My six year old son knows more about livestock than all of the upper management at the HSUS combined. He understands the need to keep them protected, fed a nutritious diet and that life involves death. We need to remember that nothing less than the safety and security of our food supply is at stake.
By Bill Bruins
At some point, we as farmers lost ownership of the issue of animal care, and now it’s time we get it back.
Providing good care to the animals on our farms is a second sense within us, because we each have lifetimes of experience doing so. Any good farmer knows that good care also equals profitability. That’s why for years we as farmers have been financing meaningful scientific research through our commodity associations to benefit animals’ behavioral and psychological needs.
Yet, today we find ourselves in a situation where unscrupulous activists want to tell us how to care for our animals. Their extremist mindset and fundraising goals blind them to what research (or common sense) says is actually best for animals.
How did we get to this point? Read More
Mr. Bruins is absolutely right when he states that we need to retake our ownership of the livestock care issue. If we allow people from the HSUS, whose only interaction with farm animals is when there is a photo opportunity to be had, to determine standards of care rather than those of us with generations of experience, the welfare level of livestock will undoubtedly suffer. These groups continue to make their tired argument on an emotional level in order to keep moving towards their ultimate goal of an animal-free society. My six year old son knows more about livestock than all of the upper management at the HSUS combined. He understands the need to keep them protected, fed a nutritious diet and that life involves death. We need to remember that nothing less than the safety and security of our food supply is at stake.
Can Ag Afford Cap & Trade?
Climate Bill Long-Term Impacts Should be Brought to Light
By Tracy Taylor Grondine
Mainstream media and critics have recently struck a nerve with not only farmers and ranchers, but many people who serve and benefit from agriculture’s productivity. In a push to pass climate change legislation, the agriculture industry has been painted as greedy and selfish. Some journalists have even reverted to grade-school antics of name-calling and insults.
But, there is a legitimate reason the American Farm Bureau Federation and several other agricultural organizations are opposed to the climate legislation, already passed in the House and now pending in the Senate. Long-term costs of the bill will be substantial not only to agriculture, but the overall economy and will certainly hurt American families.
Most media outlets are only focused on the front-end effects of the climate bill, also known as Waxman-Markey after its sponsors Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.). The energy cost increases generated by the bill will cut farm income by around 5 percent a year by 2020. This economic loss on top of what are already razor-thin margins that many farmers and ranchers are living on today will hurt the industry. But, the effect on agriculture will be more crippling at the back-end of the deal, around 2050. Read More
Tracy says it best when she states that the devil is in the details. The most unfortunate part is that it seems the members of the House didn’t even care enough to read the bill before they voted on it. This bill will cost everyone a lot of money, there is no debating that. The debate should be whether or not spending this money will solve a problem that we aren’t even sure exists. The debate should also be about whether we are willing to sacrifice our domestic food supply during this process.
By Tracy Taylor Grondine
Mainstream media and critics have recently struck a nerve with not only farmers and ranchers, but many people who serve and benefit from agriculture’s productivity. In a push to pass climate change legislation, the agriculture industry has been painted as greedy and selfish. Some journalists have even reverted to grade-school antics of name-calling and insults.
But, there is a legitimate reason the American Farm Bureau Federation and several other agricultural organizations are opposed to the climate legislation, already passed in the House and now pending in the Senate. Long-term costs of the bill will be substantial not only to agriculture, but the overall economy and will certainly hurt American families.
Most media outlets are only focused on the front-end effects of the climate bill, also known as Waxman-Markey after its sponsors Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.). The energy cost increases generated by the bill will cut farm income by around 5 percent a year by 2020. This economic loss on top of what are already razor-thin margins that many farmers and ranchers are living on today will hurt the industry. But, the effect on agriculture will be more crippling at the back-end of the deal, around 2050. Read More
Tracy says it best when she states that the devil is in the details. The most unfortunate part is that it seems the members of the House didn’t even care enough to read the bill before they voted on it. This bill will cost everyone a lot of money, there is no debating that. The debate should be whether or not spending this money will solve a problem that we aren’t even sure exists. The debate should also be about whether we are willing to sacrifice our domestic food supply during this process.
Monday, July 6, 2009
On The Road
After celebrating a fantastic Independence Day with family and friends, we are back on the road this morning. Check back tomorrow when we get back on schedule bringing you daily updates about agriculture.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Explaining Production Systems
'Organic' label doesn't guarantee quality or taste
Just because it's organic doesn't mean it's the best. Let flavor dictate.
By RUSS PARSONS
July 1, 2009
I don't believe in organic. There, I've said it and I feel better. It's something that's been on my mind for years.
Now, don't get me wrong: I've got nothing against organic farmers. In fact, some of my favorite farmers are organic. I really admire them: Growing delicious food and doing it according to organic standards is adding a degree of difficulty that I wouldn't wish on anyone.
But a lot of my favorite farmers aren't organic, and therein lies the rub.
This may shock some people, and for that I guess I ought to apologize. But really, if I'm honest, I think the ones who need to do the apologizing are the often-well-meaning organic advocates who paint such a black-and-white picture of the way farming works that it seems there should be no choice at all.
Listening to them, you get the idea that if you aren't eating fruits and vegetables that were organically grown, you might as well be mainlining Agent Orange or handing your money straight to some giant industrial agricultural corporation. You're certainly not going to be getting anything with any flavor, they'd argue. Read More
This is one of the most balanced pieces about food production you will probably ever see. Congratulations to the author for practicing good journalism. All production methods have advantages and drawbacks. And not all of them will work in all situations. It’s trendy to buy organic right now, but most consumers don’t truly understand what that even means. Articles like this that truly show how both systems work will go a long ways toward educating consumers.
Just because it's organic doesn't mean it's the best. Let flavor dictate.
By RUSS PARSONS
July 1, 2009
I don't believe in organic. There, I've said it and I feel better. It's something that's been on my mind for years.
Now, don't get me wrong: I've got nothing against organic farmers. In fact, some of my favorite farmers are organic. I really admire them: Growing delicious food and doing it according to organic standards is adding a degree of difficulty that I wouldn't wish on anyone.
But a lot of my favorite farmers aren't organic, and therein lies the rub.
This may shock some people, and for that I guess I ought to apologize. But really, if I'm honest, I think the ones who need to do the apologizing are the often-well-meaning organic advocates who paint such a black-and-white picture of the way farming works that it seems there should be no choice at all.
Listening to them, you get the idea that if you aren't eating fruits and vegetables that were organically grown, you might as well be mainlining Agent Orange or handing your money straight to some giant industrial agricultural corporation. You're certainly not going to be getting anything with any flavor, they'd argue. Read More
This is one of the most balanced pieces about food production you will probably ever see. Congratulations to the author for practicing good journalism. All production methods have advantages and drawbacks. And not all of them will work in all situations. It’s trendy to buy organic right now, but most consumers don’t truly understand what that even means. Articles like this that truly show how both systems work will go a long ways toward educating consumers.
More Climate Bill Speculation
Differing views on climate bill's future
Dan Looker
Successful Farming magazine Business Editor
6/30/2009, 1:11 PM CDT
Expensive fuel and fertilizer, or the salvation of the biofuels industry?
In a nutshell, that's how two different agricultural leaders view a climate bill that heads to the U.S. Senate after narrow passage in the House of Representatives last week.
A lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau Federation thinks the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate.
"We don't anticipate that it will pass the Senate this year," Farm Bureau lobbyist Mary Kay Thatcher told Agriculture Online.
The Senate will soon begin to consider President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, as well as continue to work on health care reform. With an already full agenda, and opposition from rural areas, Thatcher thinks a vote on climate change legislation is unlikely this year.
Farm Bureau applauds the efforts by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson to get USDA, not the EPA, to run the trading of carbon credits that farmers might sell to industries that emit greenhouse gases. But the group still opposes climate change legislation, viewing its costs as higher than potential benefits.
Farm Bureau doesn't believe a carbon credit trading program would provide enough income to counter expected higher costs for fuel and fertilizer, even if the Senate makes improvements in the bill.
"It's hard for me to believe they could change it enough in the Senate to make agriculture a winner," Thatcher said. Read More
The cap and trade bill came in a package that exceeded 1000 pages. Even though this has the potential to drastically affect, it seems that not a single Representative that voted for it could claim that they had read the entire bill. Our entire society depends on a reliable source of energy and our elected officials can’t take the time to even read about what they are voting on? Now that the Senate will be taking up this matter, you may want to suggest that they at least read it before they cast their vote.
Dan Looker
Successful Farming magazine Business Editor
6/30/2009, 1:11 PM CDT
Expensive fuel and fertilizer, or the salvation of the biofuels industry?
In a nutshell, that's how two different agricultural leaders view a climate bill that heads to the U.S. Senate after narrow passage in the House of Representatives last week.
A lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau Federation thinks the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate.
"We don't anticipate that it will pass the Senate this year," Farm Bureau lobbyist Mary Kay Thatcher told Agriculture Online.
The Senate will soon begin to consider President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, as well as continue to work on health care reform. With an already full agenda, and opposition from rural areas, Thatcher thinks a vote on climate change legislation is unlikely this year.
Farm Bureau applauds the efforts by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson to get USDA, not the EPA, to run the trading of carbon credits that farmers might sell to industries that emit greenhouse gases. But the group still opposes climate change legislation, viewing its costs as higher than potential benefits.
Farm Bureau doesn't believe a carbon credit trading program would provide enough income to counter expected higher costs for fuel and fertilizer, even if the Senate makes improvements in the bill.
"It's hard for me to believe they could change it enough in the Senate to make agriculture a winner," Thatcher said. Read More
The cap and trade bill came in a package that exceeded 1000 pages. Even though this has the potential to drastically affect, it seems that not a single Representative that voted for it could claim that they had read the entire bill. Our entire society depends on a reliable source of energy and our elected officials can’t take the time to even read about what they are voting on? Now that the Senate will be taking up this matter, you may want to suggest that they at least read it before they cast their vote.
PETA Exploiting A Child
PETA: Feeding Kids Meat Is Child Abuse
Group Plans Billboard In Light Of 555-Pound Teen
Jennifer Phillips reporting
POSTED: 11:27 am EDT July 1, 2009
UPDATED: 11:48 am EDT July 1, 2009
GREENVILLE, S.C. -- An animal rights group is planning to post a billboard in the Greenville area that calls feeding meat to children abuse in light of recent news stories about a 555-pound South Carolina teenager.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals want to put up the billboard that features a picture of an overweight boy who is about to eat a hamburger with the tagline “Feeding kids meat is child abuse.”
The billboard also directs readers to the Web site goveg.com.
PETA campaign manager Lindsay Rajt said the group got the idea after hearing about Jerri Gray and her 14-year-old son Alexander Draper, who weighs 555 pounds.
Gray garnered national attention when deputies said she skipped town with her son after she learned the Department of Social Services was planning to remove him from her home.
An Upstate personal trainer said the billboard is exploiting the teen’s condition.
“There are a lot of average sized or small children who eat two or three hamburgers a week and they’re not having issues,” said personal trainer Cathy Frohnheiser. “Taking one heavy child and 'let’s exploit that' is really not the approach they need to be taking.” Read More
It would seem obvious to most reasonable people that this teenager’s weight problem was caused by more than what he was eating. This child is obviously battling some serious issues that will affect the rest of his life and it’s sad that PETA feels the need to contribute to this boy’s problems. A balanced diet that includes meat and dairy products, coupled with regular exercise will always be the foundation for a healthy lifestyle. This is a truly shameful action on PETA’s part.
Group Plans Billboard In Light Of 555-Pound Teen
Jennifer Phillips reporting
POSTED: 11:27 am EDT July 1, 2009
UPDATED: 11:48 am EDT July 1, 2009
GREENVILLE, S.C. -- An animal rights group is planning to post a billboard in the Greenville area that calls feeding meat to children abuse in light of recent news stories about a 555-pound South Carolina teenager.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals want to put up the billboard that features a picture of an overweight boy who is about to eat a hamburger with the tagline “Feeding kids meat is child abuse.”
The billboard also directs readers to the Web site goveg.com.
PETA campaign manager Lindsay Rajt said the group got the idea after hearing about Jerri Gray and her 14-year-old son Alexander Draper, who weighs 555 pounds.
Gray garnered national attention when deputies said she skipped town with her son after she learned the Department of Social Services was planning to remove him from her home.
An Upstate personal trainer said the billboard is exploiting the teen’s condition.
“There are a lot of average sized or small children who eat two or three hamburgers a week and they’re not having issues,” said personal trainer Cathy Frohnheiser. “Taking one heavy child and 'let’s exploit that' is really not the approach they need to be taking.” Read More
It would seem obvious to most reasonable people that this teenager’s weight problem was caused by more than what he was eating. This child is obviously battling some serious issues that will affect the rest of his life and it’s sad that PETA feels the need to contribute to this boy’s problems. A balanced diet that includes meat and dairy products, coupled with regular exercise will always be the foundation for a healthy lifestyle. This is a truly shameful action on PETA’s part.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Teaching Teachers About Ag
Teachers learn ways to bring agriculture to the classroom
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:53 AM CDT
STEPHENVILLE, TEXAS - A group of elementary school teachers from across Texas recently spent a week on Tarleton State University’s campus participating in the 15th annual Summer Agricultural Institute.
The Texas Farm Bureau sponsors the event in which educators attend workshops and participate in activities learning ways to take agriculture back to their classrooms. The teachers receive continuing education credits to help satisfy the requirements of their local school districts and three hours of graduate credit from Tarleton.
The week’s events included a field trip with destinations such as Veldhuizen Cheese Shoppe, Callaway Rope Company, Dublin Dr Pepper, Sierra Dairy and more.At the end of their visit, the teachers were treated to a catered dinner at Tarleton’s dining hall.
Keynote speaker Dr. George Austin, retired agronomist from Texas AgriLife Research, reiterated the week’s message of the importance of agriculture in the classroom. Read More
I believe that it is critical for agriculture to have a presence in our classrooms. Either through programs like this that educate the teachers about agriculture, or else using projects like Ag In The Classroom. The other option that is the best in my opinion is for farmers and ranchers to go into some local classrooms themselves to talk to the kids. My wife and I have done this a few times and it’s always a great experience. The kids are so excited to have someone else besides their teacher in the room and are eager to hear what you have to say.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:53 AM CDT
STEPHENVILLE, TEXAS - A group of elementary school teachers from across Texas recently spent a week on Tarleton State University’s campus participating in the 15th annual Summer Agricultural Institute.
The Texas Farm Bureau sponsors the event in which educators attend workshops and participate in activities learning ways to take agriculture back to their classrooms. The teachers receive continuing education credits to help satisfy the requirements of their local school districts and three hours of graduate credit from Tarleton.
The week’s events included a field trip with destinations such as Veldhuizen Cheese Shoppe, Callaway Rope Company, Dublin Dr Pepper, Sierra Dairy and more.At the end of their visit, the teachers were treated to a catered dinner at Tarleton’s dining hall.
Keynote speaker Dr. George Austin, retired agronomist from Texas AgriLife Research, reiterated the week’s message of the importance of agriculture in the classroom. Read More
I believe that it is critical for agriculture to have a presence in our classrooms. Either through programs like this that educate the teachers about agriculture, or else using projects like Ag In The Classroom. The other option that is the best in my opinion is for farmers and ranchers to go into some local classrooms themselves to talk to the kids. My wife and I have done this a few times and it’s always a great experience. The kids are so excited to have someone else besides their teacher in the room and are eager to hear what you have to say.
CA Antibiotic Bill Hearing Today
Florez's Antibiotic Bill Up For Hearing Wednesday Before Assembly Ag Committee
Sen. Dean Florez's (D-Shafter) latest attempt to limit the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture. will be heard Wednesday before the Assembly Agriculture Committee.
Florez has turned to a tried and true tactic known as "gut and amend" whereby he took an existing bill, SB 562 that dealt with the citrus industry, and amended it so that it now mandates a warning on the label of any animal product derived from an animal that was administered a non-therapeutic dosage of an antibiotic. Many legislative observers believe that this new attempt at antibiotic labeling faces a rough road ahead as federal labeling laws preempt any attempts by state governments to label products.
The Assembly Ag Committee hearing begins at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 1 in Room 126 of the Capitol. Link
Sen. Dean Florez is still trying to limit the ability of animal agriculture to keep their livestock healthy in California. Antibiotics are a great tool that is used to ensure our livestock don’t suffer needlessly through a preventable disease. Remember the saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Apparently Florez would rather see us use the pound of cure. Seems like a strange way to reduce antibiotic use.
Sen. Dean Florez's (D-Shafter) latest attempt to limit the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture. will be heard Wednesday before the Assembly Agriculture Committee.
Florez has turned to a tried and true tactic known as "gut and amend" whereby he took an existing bill, SB 562 that dealt with the citrus industry, and amended it so that it now mandates a warning on the label of any animal product derived from an animal that was administered a non-therapeutic dosage of an antibiotic. Many legislative observers believe that this new attempt at antibiotic labeling faces a rough road ahead as federal labeling laws preempt any attempts by state governments to label products.
The Assembly Ag Committee hearing begins at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 1 in Room 126 of the Capitol. Link
Sen. Dean Florez is still trying to limit the ability of animal agriculture to keep their livestock healthy in California. Antibiotics are a great tool that is used to ensure our livestock don’t suffer needlessly through a preventable disease. Remember the saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Apparently Florez would rather see us use the pound of cure. Seems like a strange way to reduce antibiotic use.
Calgary Papers Reject Ad
Calgary papers reject ad opposing Stampede event, group says
Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:59pm EDT
By Nina Lex
TORONTO, June 29 (Reuters) - Two daily newspapers in Calgary, Alberta, are under fire from an animal rights group after they refused to publish an advertisement calling for a ban on the calf-roping event at the city's world famous Stampede rodeo.
The Vancouver Humane Society said on Monday the Calgary Herald and the Calgary Sun, the two daily newspapers published in the Western Canadian city, declined to run an ad that showed a photo of a cowboy about to throw a roped calf to the ground. The calf is labeled "baby" and the cowboy is labeled "bully."
The society accused the papers of behaving unethically and denying its right to free speech.
Read More
It’s nice to see that newspapers are capapble of using common sense. Calf roping, along with most of the rodeo events, gets accused of being cruel to animals. They like to set the stage against calf roping by saying that they are only a few months old. They are young calves, but they also weigh several hundred pounds and can in no way be compared to a human at that same age.
Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:59pm EDT
By Nina Lex
TORONTO, June 29 (Reuters) - Two daily newspapers in Calgary, Alberta, are under fire from an animal rights group after they refused to publish an advertisement calling for a ban on the calf-roping event at the city's world famous Stampede rodeo.
The Vancouver Humane Society said on Monday the Calgary Herald and the Calgary Sun, the two daily newspapers published in the Western Canadian city, declined to run an ad that showed a photo of a cowboy about to throw a roped calf to the ground. The calf is labeled "baby" and the cowboy is labeled "bully."
The society accused the papers of behaving unethically and denying its right to free speech.
Read More
It’s nice to see that newspapers are capapble of using common sense. Calf roping, along with most of the rodeo events, gets accused of being cruel to animals. They like to set the stage against calf roping by saying that they are only a few months old. They are young calves, but they also weigh several hundred pounds and can in no way be compared to a human at that same age.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Anti's Attack Advocates for Ag
I'm trying not to chuckle as I type this. If you read yesterday's blog posts, you saw that I shared a story about the American Indian Tribes voting to support domestic horse processing. It has become an issue for them and they have gotten involved to make their voice heard. Apparently the mere fact that I shared this with you has made me the target of an emotionally driven, over-zealous crowd of people that disagree.
Thomas Lee Trevino from Illinois, along with a few others, took it upon themselves to lead an attack on me yesterday for posting my opinion on the subject. Apparently it's ok for him to do so, but not for people that disagree with him.
Rather than talk about the issue, the folks on this forum have decided to attack me personally. For starters, they began by linking my integrity to the quality of my website. Then they started to attack the sponsor of an event that we talke at three years ago. This was the first time that Stacy and I had ever presented in this fashion. It was a 25 minute talk that focused on teaching farmers and ranchers how and why it's important that people know where their food comes from. Never once did we talk about the issue of horse processing at that meeting.
They also don't appreciate it when I expose HSUS and PETA for what they are doing. Along with that they claim that I am anti-organic, that I have launched a negative PR campaign against the movie Food Inc, and care more about money than the health of the American public. I'm not anti-organic, but I have tried to educate people that this method of production isn't a viable way to feed and clothe 9 billion people. If people want to raise and buy organic products, I don't have a problem with that.
The fun doesn't end there though. As with most people that lack a good argument, they resort to name calling in order to make themselves feel better. Mr. Trevino says that I am a circus act and that anyone that would listen to me is also probably a member of the Jeffrey Dahmer fan club. He continues by claiming that I once told him I was from Montana and had that listed on our website, but have since changed our story and now claim to be from South Dakota. This "lie", he claims also shows my integrity. Mr. Trevino, I have never claimed to be from Montana. I am proud to say that I was born in South Dakota, went to school here and have lived my entire life in this great state. I don't recall ever having a conversation with this man, and besides that, what would I have to gain by claiming I was from Montana?
To wrap it up (so far) he goes on to suggest that I am probably cheating on my taxes and hopes that someday he can hit me in the gut without me seeing it coming. In order to do this, he suggests that everyone study me, learn my patterns and then expose my tactics.
Here's the good news. We are all lucky to live in a country that we can talk like this. There are many people in this world that don't have that luxury. I think it's also a telling insight into the mentality of these folks that would like to outlaw horse processing, at least some of them. If they would like to discuss the issue more, I am happy to do that. But it appears they would rather claim to know what I say when I present to groups and call me an evil liar. It's unfortunate that Mr. Trevino and the others would rather make up stuff about me than discuss this important matter. If you'd like to know more about me, you could just ask.
I'm a rancher with an opinion. I'm sorry that offends you.
UPDATE: Sometime this afternoon, Mr. Trevino decided to delete his original post where he stated that he wanted to punch me when I wouldn't see it coming. I doubt he had a sudden change of heart, but it's been deleted nonetheless. So in case you haven't seen it, here is the orginal post.
Tommy Lee (Trevino17)
With BIG mouths and anyone ignorant enough to listen and believe them.
Speakers like Troy and his Wife.. Hit the road flapping there lips to people who think these people really care. Please review and get familiar with there website and the actions we must counteract. You will see just how much they charge for there mouths to flap..
The have also increase there blogs to welcome horse plants.
While spreading the same lies that the Dover article that was recently printed.
Theres no need to contact them because there minds are made up.. They are all on a mission to support horse slaughter what ever the cost..
The best thing for us to do is monitor and learn there patterns to counteract and expose there tactics.
Im cutting my own foot here, but also to expose the subs and tax breaks they get in Ag.
livestock property breaks, Tractor licenses, Taxes, Titles, Insurance for road usage, CRP spendings etc. I have a ton load of uncollected taxes we can hurt the Ag and Farm Bureau..
I know there are spies on here but only release this to people you trust.
I would love to hit them in the Gut.. and them not see it coming..
Reckless Promotion of Veganism
Animal Rights Prof Says No Way to Consume Meat in Humane Way
By Gary L. Francione , Rutgers University School of Law - June 28, 2009
I never fail to be amazed when I hear people—including well-known promoters of animal welfare—claim quite remarkably that animals do not have an interest in continued life; they just have an interest in not suffering. They do not care that we use them; they care only about how we use them.
As long as they have a reasonably painless life and a relatively painless death, they do not care if we consume them or products made from them. I have discussed this issue in a number of essays on this site (see, e.g., 1; 2; 3) and in my books and articles. It will be a central topic in my forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which I have co-authored with Professor Robert Garner and that will be published by Columbia University Press this fall.
On our video page, we have two videos from slaughterhouses. A significant number of visitors have viewed these videos and have written to us about them, particularly the video that does not show any slaughter. That video has obviously made an impact on many people and so I wanted to highlight it in a blog post. Read More
Recklessly promoting veganism as the only way to eat is foolish and dangerous. We could not sustain human life at it’s current levels, let alone with projected growth, if everyone switched to a vegan diet. Not only that, but it’s irresponsible to promote a diet that doesn’t include meat and dairy products. A balanced diet which contains food from all food groups is important for good health.
By Gary L. Francione , Rutgers University School of Law - June 28, 2009
I never fail to be amazed when I hear people—including well-known promoters of animal welfare—claim quite remarkably that animals do not have an interest in continued life; they just have an interest in not suffering. They do not care that we use them; they care only about how we use them.
As long as they have a reasonably painless life and a relatively painless death, they do not care if we consume them or products made from them. I have discussed this issue in a number of essays on this site (see, e.g., 1; 2; 3) and in my books and articles. It will be a central topic in my forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which I have co-authored with Professor Robert Garner and that will be published by Columbia University Press this fall.
On our video page, we have two videos from slaughterhouses. A significant number of visitors have viewed these videos and have written to us about them, particularly the video that does not show any slaughter. That video has obviously made an impact on many people and so I wanted to highlight it in a blog post. Read More
Recklessly promoting veganism as the only way to eat is foolish and dangerous. We could not sustain human life at it’s current levels, let alone with projected growth, if everyone switched to a vegan diet. Not only that, but it’s irresponsible to promote a diet that doesn’t include meat and dairy products. A balanced diet which contains food from all food groups is important for good health.
Florez Proposal Bad for Ag and Consumers
Fresh produce industry opposes California senator’s threat to cut California agriculture department
Published on 06/29/2009 11:59am By Don Schrack
In the wake of a June 16 Senate Food and Agriculture hearing — chaired by California state senator Dean Florez — the list of grower-shippers displeased with the senator appears to be growing. The hearing focused on the senator’s proposal to consolidate or eliminate the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
“It would make absolutely no sense to destroy the agency that oversees diseases — everything from cow pox to anthrax, from the West Nile virus to some of the most dangerous pests that can destroy agriculture and our landscape,” said Manuel Cunha, president of the Fresno-based Nisei Farmers League. “Who does he represent? What constituency?”
The proposal is designed to provide a more streamlined, more efficient government entity, Florez said, and to reduce the cost of the department for taxpayers. His proposal includes — among other things — moving oversight of fertilizer, chemical and pest control to the Department of Pesticide Regulation, giving the tasks of health and animal inspection to other agencies and eliminating the department’s marketing efforts by converting to private, non-profit corporations the state’s roughly four dozen marketing commissions.
“By breaking up CDFA, it certainly doesn’t look as if it would increase efficiencies,” said Barry Bedwell, president of the California Grape & Tree Fruit League, Fresno. “You’d probably be going the other direction, and I doubt it would save money.”
California taxpayers foot the bill for less than 30% of the agency’s budget, said Mike Jarvis, the department’s deputy secretary of public affairs. State tax dollars in the agency’s budget amount to $3.67 for each California resident, he said, but combined grower fees and federal funds in the budget make up more than $15 per resident.
”The problem is there’s an assumption that if you just move things, it’s going to be cheaper, and it doesn’t work that way,” Jarvis said. Read More
It’s interesting that many times politicians feel that departments of agriculture are expendable. They apparently think they will appear to be some sort of fiscal hero by eliminating an entire department. However, to me it is a sign of complete ignorance as to the importance of our food supply. Anyone who is willing to risk the safety and dependability of our country’s food supply should first go hungry and naked for a few days to see how they like it.
Published on 06/29/2009 11:59am By Don Schrack
In the wake of a June 16 Senate Food and Agriculture hearing — chaired by California state senator Dean Florez — the list of grower-shippers displeased with the senator appears to be growing. The hearing focused on the senator’s proposal to consolidate or eliminate the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
“It would make absolutely no sense to destroy the agency that oversees diseases — everything from cow pox to anthrax, from the West Nile virus to some of the most dangerous pests that can destroy agriculture and our landscape,” said Manuel Cunha, president of the Fresno-based Nisei Farmers League. “Who does he represent? What constituency?”
The proposal is designed to provide a more streamlined, more efficient government entity, Florez said, and to reduce the cost of the department for taxpayers. His proposal includes — among other things — moving oversight of fertilizer, chemical and pest control to the Department of Pesticide Regulation, giving the tasks of health and animal inspection to other agencies and eliminating the department’s marketing efforts by converting to private, non-profit corporations the state’s roughly four dozen marketing commissions.
“By breaking up CDFA, it certainly doesn’t look as if it would increase efficiencies,” said Barry Bedwell, president of the California Grape & Tree Fruit League, Fresno. “You’d probably be going the other direction, and I doubt it would save money.”
California taxpayers foot the bill for less than 30% of the agency’s budget, said Mike Jarvis, the department’s deputy secretary of public affairs. State tax dollars in the agency’s budget amount to $3.67 for each California resident, he said, but combined grower fees and federal funds in the budget make up more than $15 per resident.
”The problem is there’s an assumption that if you just move things, it’s going to be cheaper, and it doesn’t work that way,” Jarvis said. Read More
It’s interesting that many times politicians feel that departments of agriculture are expendable. They apparently think they will appear to be some sort of fiscal hero by eliminating an entire department. However, to me it is a sign of complete ignorance as to the importance of our food supply. Anyone who is willing to risk the safety and dependability of our country’s food supply should first go hungry and naked for a few days to see how they like it.
Heat Takes Toll on Livestock
6/29/2009 2:09:00 PM
Nearly 2,000 Nebraska Cattle Died In Last Week's Heat
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - State officials say nearly 2,000 cattle died last week as Nebraska's temperatures and humidity soared.
The Farm Service Agency's Tim Reimer said Monday that at least 1,800 cattle deaths had been reported in seven counties. That total could grow as all of Nebraska's 93 counties check in.
Once all reports are in, the FSA will likely issue a disaster declaration that will allow cattle producers in affected counties to obtain low-interest loans. Before the heat struck, many livestock producers were already struggling with high feed costs.
Most of the dead cattle were reported in east-central Nebraska. Reimer says some producers took substantial financial hits because of the deaths. Mature cattle nearing slaughter are worth roughly $1,000 apiece. Link
Miserable hot, humid weather was responsible for the growing number of cattle deaths in Nebraska last week. Producers do everything they can to protect their livestock from the weather, but in the end there is only so much that can be done. Mother Nature can be cruel, as evidenced by the blizzards we fought just a couple months ago in the Dakota’s that caused the deaths of thousands of head of livestock. These are harsh reminders that of who is really in charge.
Nearly 2,000 Nebraska Cattle Died In Last Week's Heat
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - State officials say nearly 2,000 cattle died last week as Nebraska's temperatures and humidity soared.
The Farm Service Agency's Tim Reimer said Monday that at least 1,800 cattle deaths had been reported in seven counties. That total could grow as all of Nebraska's 93 counties check in.
Once all reports are in, the FSA will likely issue a disaster declaration that will allow cattle producers in affected counties to obtain low-interest loans. Before the heat struck, many livestock producers were already struggling with high feed costs.
Most of the dead cattle were reported in east-central Nebraska. Reimer says some producers took substantial financial hits because of the deaths. Mature cattle nearing slaughter are worth roughly $1,000 apiece. Link
Miserable hot, humid weather was responsible for the growing number of cattle deaths in Nebraska last week. Producers do everything they can to protect their livestock from the weather, but in the end there is only so much that can be done. Mother Nature can be cruel, as evidenced by the blizzards we fought just a couple months ago in the Dakota’s that caused the deaths of thousands of head of livestock. These are harsh reminders that of who is really in charge.
Monday, June 29, 2009
The Reality of Local Food
A bitter reality
Choose local food for the taste? Sure. But if you’re convinced you’re saving the world, think again.
By Tom Keane
June 28, 2009
“Local food’’ is all the rage, touted by adherents as offering better food, an environmentally responsible lifestyle, and self-sufficient communities. The first of those claims is sometimes true. Local tomatoes and corn may well taste better than those from afar. Beyond that, though, the local food movement is an affectation based on bad logic and bad economics, one that, widely adopted, would actually harm the environment and potentially impoverish millions. Particularly here in New England, it would also turn mealtimes into dull, pallid affairs.
Luckily, chances are slim that most of us will become ardent “locavores” (the most extreme of whom will eat only foods sourced within 100 miles of their homes). We like bananas and pineapples, want fresh vegetables year round, and enjoy olive oil and balsamic vinegar on our salads. Principles have their limits, and even as we might pay homage to the wonders of local foods, most of us are not about to give up those or the myriad other things we eat and drink that have to travel a distance.
And that’s not a problem, because local food is not greener food. Locavores’ green claims rest on the seemingly obvious assumption that transporting foods a long distance is environmentally taxing. But, in fact, shipping is a small portion of the total carbon footprint of any foodstuff, averaging just 4 percent, according to a 2008 Carnegie Mellon University analysis. It’s the production of the food itself that is far more damaging, and it’s here that the mega-farms some decry have an edge. They produce more with fewer people, can effectively use machinery, are located in places where conditions are ideal for growing, and have the skills and know-how to maximize food production per acre. That’s the reason local tomatoes are so much more expensive than those shipped from California and Florida: They are more resource-intensive to produce. Read More
The local food movement has benefitted mostly from the romanticized idea rather than reality. This article does a fantastic job of exposing the consequences of the movement. There are so many people that refuse to look at the big picture when it comes to producing food. All food is local to someone and not all food can be raised everywhere. The local food movement, if taken fully to fruition, could very well wipe out rural America. Due to consumer’s misunderstandings, more harm than good can occur. There are benefits and drawbacks to every type of production system.
Choose local food for the taste? Sure. But if you’re convinced you’re saving the world, think again.
By Tom Keane
June 28, 2009
“Local food’’ is all the rage, touted by adherents as offering better food, an environmentally responsible lifestyle, and self-sufficient communities. The first of those claims is sometimes true. Local tomatoes and corn may well taste better than those from afar. Beyond that, though, the local food movement is an affectation based on bad logic and bad economics, one that, widely adopted, would actually harm the environment and potentially impoverish millions. Particularly here in New England, it would also turn mealtimes into dull, pallid affairs.
Luckily, chances are slim that most of us will become ardent “locavores” (the most extreme of whom will eat only foods sourced within 100 miles of their homes). We like bananas and pineapples, want fresh vegetables year round, and enjoy olive oil and balsamic vinegar on our salads. Principles have their limits, and even as we might pay homage to the wonders of local foods, most of us are not about to give up those or the myriad other things we eat and drink that have to travel a distance.
And that’s not a problem, because local food is not greener food. Locavores’ green claims rest on the seemingly obvious assumption that transporting foods a long distance is environmentally taxing. But, in fact, shipping is a small portion of the total carbon footprint of any foodstuff, averaging just 4 percent, according to a 2008 Carnegie Mellon University analysis. It’s the production of the food itself that is far more damaging, and it’s here that the mega-farms some decry have an edge. They produce more with fewer people, can effectively use machinery, are located in places where conditions are ideal for growing, and have the skills and know-how to maximize food production per acre. That’s the reason local tomatoes are so much more expensive than those shipped from California and Florida: They are more resource-intensive to produce. Read More
The local food movement has benefitted mostly from the romanticized idea rather than reality. This article does a fantastic job of exposing the consequences of the movement. There are so many people that refuse to look at the big picture when it comes to producing food. All food is local to someone and not all food can be raised everywhere. The local food movement, if taken fully to fruition, could very well wipe out rural America. Due to consumer’s misunderstandings, more harm than good can occur. There are benefits and drawbacks to every type of production system.
Chambliss Blocks Animal Rights Extremist Susntein
Chambliss blocks regulatory pick over animal lawsuits
By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 06/28/09
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) has blocked President Obama’s candidate for regulation czar, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, because Sunstein has argued that animals should have the right to sue humans in court.
Obama has picked Sunstein, his adviser and longtime friend, to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an office that has power to review and assess all draft regulations proposed within the administration.
But Chambliss worries that Sunstein’s innovative legal views may someday lead to a farmer having to defend himself in court against a lawsuit filed on behalf of his chickens or pigs.
Chambliss told The Hill that he has blocked Sunstein’s nomination because the law professor “has said that animals ought to have the right to sue folks.”
Indeed, in his 2004 book, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, Sunstein wrote: “I will suggest that animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law.” Read More
Here is an update on the Cass Sunstein nomination for regulatory czar. As is noted in the article, he has said some pretty incredible stuff which gives us some insight on his views over animal rights. This is a pretty powerful position that he has nominated for and it’s important that we not have someone in there that will be more concerned over how to get the use of animals in our society stopped.
By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 06/28/09
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) has blocked President Obama’s candidate for regulation czar, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, because Sunstein has argued that animals should have the right to sue humans in court.
Obama has picked Sunstein, his adviser and longtime friend, to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an office that has power to review and assess all draft regulations proposed within the administration.
But Chambliss worries that Sunstein’s innovative legal views may someday lead to a farmer having to defend himself in court against a lawsuit filed on behalf of his chickens or pigs.
Chambliss told The Hill that he has blocked Sunstein’s nomination because the law professor “has said that animals ought to have the right to sue folks.”
Indeed, in his 2004 book, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, Sunstein wrote: “I will suggest that animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law.” Read More
Here is an update on the Cass Sunstein nomination for regulatory czar. As is noted in the article, he has said some pretty incredible stuff which gives us some insight on his views over animal rights. This is a pretty powerful position that he has nominated for and it’s important that we not have someone in there that will be more concerned over how to get the use of animals in our society stopped.
Developers Try Pushing Ag Out in SD
Zoning commission considers livestock ordinance
By Tim Velder, Lawrence County Journal staff
DEADWOOD, SD -- The Lawrence County Planning and Zoning Commission went back to the drawing board after a January proposal to regulate livestock operations in the county was deemed unsuitable.
The new document has some changes from a January version that was pulled by the Planning & Zoning Commission. It includes a new chapter regulating concentrated animal feeding operations.
Planning and Zoning Commission chairman Rick Tysdal of Spearfish said the new version is a conglomeration of other similar ordinances taken from South Dakota counties that have large numbers of feedlots.
Tysdal said there is no language in the draft ordinance allowing for existing operations to be "grandfathered in." However, the county recognizes that the ordinance would create a new class of nonconforming properties. Those existing operations are not in the county's crosshairs, Tysdal said.
Eric Jennings is a member of the citizen committee that met regularly with the zoning officials this spring. He said the proposal will not be popular.
"I can't believe there is going to be a lot of people in favor of it," he said. "It affects a whole lot of people with only one horse." Read More
Many times it’s easy to feel insulated from some of the challenges that animal agriculture faces when you live in a rural area. Unfortunately the insulation is beginning to wear thin as evidenced by this draconian zoning ordinance. This winter a group of local ranchers worked together to develop a zoning ordinance that would mutually protect agriculture and the growth of housing developments in the county. That however wasn’t good enough for the planning and zoning commission which is entirely made up of real estate agents and land developers. They have made it quite clear that they wish to usher the families that farm and ranch in their county out the door. Tonight at St. Onge Livestock, a meeting will be held for all concerned landowners. If you own one head of livestock you will be affected. So come join us to find out how you can help.
By Tim Velder, Lawrence County Journal staff
DEADWOOD, SD -- The Lawrence County Planning and Zoning Commission went back to the drawing board after a January proposal to regulate livestock operations in the county was deemed unsuitable.
The new document has some changes from a January version that was pulled by the Planning & Zoning Commission. It includes a new chapter regulating concentrated animal feeding operations.
Planning and Zoning Commission chairman Rick Tysdal of Spearfish said the new version is a conglomeration of other similar ordinances taken from South Dakota counties that have large numbers of feedlots.
Tysdal said there is no language in the draft ordinance allowing for existing operations to be "grandfathered in." However, the county recognizes that the ordinance would create a new class of nonconforming properties. Those existing operations are not in the county's crosshairs, Tysdal said.
Eric Jennings is a member of the citizen committee that met regularly with the zoning officials this spring. He said the proposal will not be popular.
"I can't believe there is going to be a lot of people in favor of it," he said. "It affects a whole lot of people with only one horse." Read More
Many times it’s easy to feel insulated from some of the challenges that animal agriculture faces when you live in a rural area. Unfortunately the insulation is beginning to wear thin as evidenced by this draconian zoning ordinance. This winter a group of local ranchers worked together to develop a zoning ordinance that would mutually protect agriculture and the growth of housing developments in the county. That however wasn’t good enough for the planning and zoning commission which is entirely made up of real estate agents and land developers. They have made it quite clear that they wish to usher the families that farm and ranch in their county out the door. Tonight at St. Onge Livestock, a meeting will be held for all concerned landowners. If you own one head of livestock you will be affected. So come join us to find out how you can help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)