They ain’t shy

You’ve no doubt read on Brownfieldagnews.com or in other ag publications about the introduction of HR 4733, the pejoratively titled “Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act” by two Los Angeles area members of the House, Reps. Diane E. Watson (D, CA) and Elton Gallegly (R, CA). This bill, once you peel away all of the rhetoric, is the federal equivalent of 2008’s Proposition 2, thus far the Humane Society of the U.S.’s (HSUS) proudest moment. You’ve got to give the animal rights movement its due. It has no compunctions about waltzing into a member of Congress’ office, whipping out its videos and photos, and pleading for the good member’s help in – and I paraphrase here — “saving farm animals from lives of the most hideous abuses on this country’s factory farms.”

What a load of manure.

HR 4733 would bar the federal government from buying pork, veal or eggs for its myriad feeding programs – including school lunch and breakfast, nutrition programs, military or federal building cafeterias – if the pig was in a gestation stall, the veal calf raised in a stall or the eggs came from hens housed in cages. HSUS wants these animals to be able to “fully extend all limbs” without touching the sides of an enclosure, and in the case of laying hens, extending wings without touching an enclosure OR another egg laying hen. Oh, and they also must be able to “turn around freely,” meaning they apparently can spin like tops to their hearts’ content as long as they don’t touch the side of an enclosure.

The good news is no other member of Congress has joined the two Los Angelinos in pushing the bill; the bad news is that these two members probably didn’t do a lot of fact checking on the animal rights group’s allegations. I’m guessing they didn’t think it important enough to call and talk with California’s ag community before they introduced the bill. You’d think with all the publicity Prop 2 generated, at least a call to one of the affected farm or commodity groups would have been made so one or both of these elected officials might have learned the following:

• The California Department of Food & Agriculture still has not been able to write even the first regulation to implement the proposition because the language of the ballot item was so vague no one can define or agree on what “alternatives” to stalls and cages would qualify under the proposition, and

• States like Idaho are actively putting in place state legislation that will entice California’s 19 million egg laying hens to move East where the likelihood of a Prop 2 attack is pretty much slim and none. And you can’t fault them for putting out the lures given this is exactly what the United Egg Producers predicted during its battle over the proposition.

This is truly one of the most arrogant, elitist pieces of activist legislation in a long time. Arrogant because groups like HSUS, which immediately hailed the bill, don’t really care about the unintended consequences of their political agenda; elitist because the negative impact of this type of legislation never falls on the upper-middle class folks who can afford to shop organically, holistically or “locally.” The only folks who truly feel the pain of these attacks are those that can least afford to pay the increased price of food these initiatives inevitably bring.

The science establishing the welfare of stalls and cages is always ignored in these debates. What can’t be ignored is how unrealistic such legislation is. Less than 5% of U.S. farmers could likely meet the criteria in HR 4733, and since it’s well established such open systems cost a whole lot more to operate, you can figure only large, well-financed farming operations could afford to make a transition to the systems this bill would impose. So, I guess these House members are from the big-is-better school of farming. The biosecurity and animal health issues are obvious to us.

The costs to the federal government would be staggering given the millions of pounds of meat, milk and eggs our government buys. How would you verify a farmer was obeying the law? Would farmers have to sign affidavits to prove they’d followed the letter of the law and indemnify the processors? We certainly couldn’t afford to hire hundreds of inspectors to check on each farmer’s production practices.

Here’s an idea. Maybe we could deputize a group like HSUS to do those inspections for us?

Stop the madness!

But importantly, who pays? We all do – with our hard-earned tax dollars

Foliar fungicides–are they a wise investment?

The use of foliar fungicides in soybean production has increased sharply in recent years, although there is still some disagreement among researchers as to whether they are a wise investment.  Pioneer agronomy research scientist Jim Trybom tells Brownfield’s Ken Anderson that their research trials have shown consistent, positive yield response to foliar fungicide treatments.

AUDIO: Jim Trybom (3 min MP3)

Addressing the antibiotics and animal welfare issues

We continue our conversation with Cozad, Nebraska cattle feeder Anne Burkholder.  As we discussed yesterday, Anne brings a unique perspective to the cattle industry, having grown up in urban Palm Beach County, Florida.  We asked Anne, a former recipient of NCBA’s Beef Quality Assurance Award, for her thoughts on the hot issues of antibiotics use and animal welfare.

AUDIO: Anne Burkholder (3 min MP3)

Research before you donate

There is nothing I love more than to hear from readers and listeners. I especially like to hear from readers and listeners who have stepped away from the sidelines and engaged in the grassroots effort to tell the true story of agriculture. I hear from people every day who are taking simple yet meaningful steps to educate neighbors and friends about agriculture. Just because the first and second grade Sunday school teacher at church grew up on a farm doesn’t mean she has a complete understanding about modern agriculture practices. It’s been 15 years since she was raising pigs in dirt lots and showing those pigs at the county fair. Dirt lots might be fine for some, but there are modern housing options that have proven to provide a cleaner, healthier and safer environment for pigs and the people working with the pigs.

Technology has had an impact on every aspect of our lives, from the vehicles we drive to the appliances with which we do laundry and cook food for our families, to the medical and dental treatments we receive.

Maybe technology isn’t the best fit for everybody, but I sure prefer my energy efficient washing machine to the big old machine that used a lot more water, electricity and detergent and did a happy dance all over the laundry room when it was spinning the water out of my towels.

Last week, I heard from a reader who got in the game by doing a little research on his own. I wish I could tell you that I am the one who made the call, but I did not. This is the note I received from a farmer from Illinois:

“One program I watch is sponsored at least once per day by HSUS with the dreadful pictures of animals in wretched conditions and a message that suggests you can stop such treatment of animals for $19 per month. A toll free phone number is included. I called the number. The first exchange consisted of a request for my phone number which was denied by me. I requested information and stated that I was interested in participating by volunteering at the nearest shelter. The answer was that my $19 would help 3500 shelters. Being a hands-on type I insisted upon helping in person and where is a shelter. The answer was they helped 3500 shelters and she could not remember 3500 shelters. My request again was for just one shelter. The response was that she could not remember the name and location of 3500 shelters but for $19 per month I would be helping all of them and if not that a one-time donation of $25 could be made. That concluded the call and confirmed what you have been telling us and confirmed the suspicions I had on my own, not a whole lot different from the e-mail from Africa asking me for my bank account number so millions of dollars can be deposited from a dead man’s account there being no known heirs so the banker and I can share it as soon as I supply him with my bank account numbers. Judging from the e-mail I get there must not be a man left alive in Africa and they all died with no heirs to inherit the millions in their estates. Thought you’d like to know that someone pays attention to your column.”

What are you going to do this week to make a difference? To learn, to share, to educate? Get back to me on that, will you?

Passionate about Beef Quality Assurance

Cattle feeder Anne Burkholder of Cozad, Nebraska is considered one of the rising stars in the cattle industry.  Anne’s only been in the feeding business for 13 years—she grew in urban Florida—but in that time she has become a strong advocate and spokesperson for the beef industry.  In 2009, Ann received the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) Award from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.  Brownfield’s Ken Anderson caught up with Anne at the recent Cattle Industry Convention in San Antonio and visited with her about her unique background and her passion for the BQA.

AUDIO: Anne Burkholder (3 min MP3)

California dairy industry launches animal welfare effort

A coalition of California dairy groups has launched a campaign to get all of the state’s dairy farms to participate in the National Dairy FARM Program designed to assist farmers in demonstrating and verifying the ethical treatment of their dairy animals.

Michael Boccorodo with Dairy Cares says the four major dairy processors have signed-on with the effort which will start with a series of educational workshops to educate producers on best management practices.

AUDIO: Michael Boccodoro talks about the initiative

Missouri action seeks to preempt HSUS action

A proposed constitutional amendment has moved forward in the Missouri legislature that would protect livestock care practices in Missouri. A resolution passed the Missouri House last week. If it passes the senate, the measure would go before Missouri voters in the November general election.

AUDIO: Leslie Holloway, Missouri Farm Bureau (3 min., MP3)

Pressure mounts to complete Free Trade Agreements

Agricultural interests continue to express frustration with the lack of progress on pending free trade agreements (FTAs) with Columbia, Panama and South Korea.  Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, for one, has criticized the administration’s “apparent lack of urgency” in resolving outstanding issues with those countries.  An official of USDA’s Foreign Ag Service, deputy undersecretary Darci Vetter, spoke at an ag conference in Nebraska last week.  Vetter agrees the FTAs would be very beneficial to agriculture.  But in each case, she says there are other issues involved.

AUDIO: Darci Vetter (3 min MP3)

Sound marketing plan means confident lender

The three gentlemen at the podium in Anaheim are close. Ohio grain farmer Bret Davis; his banker, Kent Kramer and Davis’s paid market advisor, Mike Hogan, discussed for an hour at Commodity Classic the importance of communication, confidence and discipline among these entities. In this case, the producer who’s willing to listen to market advice, his lender who knows Davis’s farm operation and the advisor with insight into the market, makes for a profitable relationship and success for all three.

AUDIO: Bret Davis, Kent Kramer and Mike Hogan (3 min. MP3)

Trust but verify

A buddy of mine who used to write about ag and agribusiness for the Chicago Tribune told me once he never reported on “studies” of any kind because there’s always another study that disputes the first study, and the readers just get confused. There may be some truth in that.

This week, two “studies” came out. I place the word in quotation marks to emphasize my skepticism of both, and my hopes that other work emerges to dispute the first.

The first “study” is entitled “Health-Related Costs from Foodborne Illness in the United States,” and it’s from our friends at the Pew Charitable Trusts. The good news is Pew didn’t do the study — it was apparently contracted to Georgetown University as part of the so-called “Produce Safety Project” — but the bottom line is we’re paying $152 billion a year.

The reason I say it was a good thing to see Georgetown attached to this study, is that my experience with Pew and its various “commissions” is not good. The Pew Commission on Industrial Farming was so negative to modern agriculture, so provincial/naive in its thinking and conclusions, and so totally oblivious to the science and the prooffered input of mainstream agriculture that I’d double check anyone else’s watch if Pew told me what time it is.

Unfortunately, the media mob does not share the same skepticism of Pew that I do, and the “study” has been widely reported. Tis a pity; unless you’ve read the following “study.”

Harris Poll this week reported on a survey of 2,010 adults, 40% of whom are absolutely convinced they had some form of foodborne illness over the last two years. Now, Harris didn’t judge the opinions of its respondents, but brought up an excellent point: Food manufacturers and suppliers should pay attention, because this response is based on the public’s perception of what made them sick.

It’s scary to think someone may have a touch of the flu or a stomach virus and immediately attributed it to something he or she ate. The scarier thing is that more than a quarter of those who got sick from whatever they think they ate — and 70% of the sickies say they know what caused their probelm — removed that food item from their diet entirely. Harris didn’t ask if folks knew the basics of food purchasing, handling, storage and cooking.

Foods of concern most often cited by respondents, in order of frequency: Fresh meats; fresh poultry, fresh fish, and fresh vegetables. Now compare that to the last few major recalls, and only one of those pops into the top three.

Harris speculates such feelings lead to “heightened media scrutiny,” but I’m going out on a limb here and speculate this is kind of a vicious circle, as in a food recall leads to a flood of media coverage, which leads to folks becoming hypersensitive to a particular food, which leads to complaints that food made them sick, which leads to another media tsnuami. Forgive the pun, but it seems they feed off each other.

These two “studies” remind me of some basic rules I learned early on: Trust, but verify; all things in moderation, and when in doubt, throw it out.

Next Page »