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?

Let consumer choose

Last week’s USDA annual outlook conference in Washington, D.C. was a bit of an eye-opener for some in attendance. Tim Burrack who chairs the Iowa Corn Promotion Board expressed concern about what he heard at the conference, but told Ken Anderson from Brownfield Ag News that he is not really surprised.

Burrack’s concern? USDA’s shift in emphasis toward locally grown and organic foods.

Now hold on, he didn’t say that he is opposed to farmers choosing to grow organic or consumers buying locally grown foods. The Arlington, Iowa farmer says modern agriculture came under attack from many conference speakers and attendees. He explained that the direction from USDA is different than what has taken place in the first 36 years of his farming career.

Tim Burrack is a man of action, so he shared his concerns. “I just got up and told them, this is not the USDA that the people in the Midwest are familiar with.” Specifically, he told Deputy Agriculture Secretary Kathleen Merrigan, who is leading the USDA’s “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” program, what he thought.

Merrigan assured Burrack that USDA is big; there’s room for everybody. Burrack said he understands that that is the new reality that everyone needs to work under. His concern is that under this new reality, traditional production agriculture which has provided a safe and low-cost food supply will suffer.

At this time, the move toward locally produced food continues to grow. According to new research from food and grocery analysts IGD, almost a third of shoppers say they have specifically purchased locally produced food over the last month, double the number in 2006.

So then what becomes of that safe and low-cost food supply? I believe Burrack is on target when he says moving away from traditional agriculture will likely mean higher prices for food.

Tim Burrack was amazed at number of people – some who work for USDA and others who were just attending the USDA conference like he was – who said, “Thank you for saying what a lot of us are thinking.” At the same, Burrack says it’s apparent that those opposed to modern agriculture are feeling very emboldened by the Obama administration’s policies.

When researching cost-share opportunities through a USDA program, you’ll find that if you grow 100% organic or agree to be 100% organic in the next 3 years, your share for the cost of a high tunnel is much less than if you are a non-organic (traditional) grower.

What I find to be very interesting and somewhat disturbing is the use of key words or phrases that make people feel good about their “locally produced” food purchases and guilty about “traditional” purchases. IGD uses phrases like “ethically produced foods” and “thinking morally and buying locally.”

Does that mean a consumer who does not choose to buy locally produced foods is unethical and immoral? You can bet that there are some who believe this to be true.

When asked about food they have specifically purchased over the last month, IGD reports that shoppers responded:

• 30% said locally produced food (up from 15% in 2006)

• 27% Fair-trade products (up from 9%)

• 18% products with high animal welfare standards (up from 11%)

According to IGD research, many consumers purchase locally produced food not only to obtain the freshest produce, but because they have a strong desire to support local jobs, farms and stores. Perhaps “traditional agriculture” should do a better job of educating consumers about the positive impact farms of all shapes and sizes have in their local communities.

Tell your story and let the consumer choose.

Not of words but of deeds

In 1980, in her first year of high school, a farmer’s daughter from a rural Missouri community signed up for an agriculture education class and joined the FFA. Instead of following in her brother’s footsteps and raising hogs, this young lady chose to raise dogs for her supervised occupational education project.

Flash forward 3 decades and we find that young FFA member all grown up with a family of her own, living on a farm in the agricultural community where she was raised. She owns her own business. She pays taxes and spends money in her local community. She bought into that which so many of us who grew up on family farms bought into: there is opportunity if you are willing to work hard, maintain the good ethics with which you were raised, practice animal welfare and contribute to your community. This woman, like you and me, studied agriculture in high school and thrived in the organization that teaches leadership and citizenship and encourages us to believe in the future of the agriculture industry “with a faith born not of words but of deeds”

What began as a project in FFA became her life’s work. It allowed her to be a “stay-at-home” mom. It also gave her own mother a place to work, not far from the home farm.

In my universe, we celebrate this woman.

She was a high school student during the farm crisis of the 1980’s, witnessing the exodus of many families from their farms. She watched as fellow FFA members who headed off to college struggled with the decision, but ultimately had to choose a life and career outside of production agriculture because the opportunity dreamed of in the 70’s had shriveled up and died with the farm crisis.

It couldn’t have been easy for her. I don’t have to tell you about the input costs for raising animals – from housing to bedding, and from feed to veterinary services. She had to keep her pencil sharp, her facilities in ship-shape and the health and welfare of the animals she raised have always been a top concern.

Practicing animal welfare was from the very beginning an integral part of the business. It wasn’t something she had to think about. It was and is an inherent part of who she is.

My question to you is this: In what way is this woman so different from those of you who have called and written to me, suggesting that I am some kind of monster because I believe women like this have the right to raise and sell dogs?

This woman does not operate a “puppy mill,” yet if enough people n the state of Missouri sign a petition to get the proposal on the November ballot, she will be forced out of business. The petition was introduced in the state of Missouri by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

Yes, there are bad actors who raise and sell dogs in less-than-desirable conditions. There are bad actors in every industry, in every community, and in every walk of life. There are laws currently on the books that if enforced, will put bad actors out of business.

Most of you reading this column do not live in Missouri and might think this has nothing at all to do with you. It has everything to do with you

I am forever telling those who read this column or listen to my commentary on the radio to work together and arm yourself with knowledge. This woman is one of you. Before you shun her, perhaps you should take some initiative and learn about her business and about other dog breeders’ kennels.

While a Washington, D.C.- based animal rights group infiltrates your rural communities with anti-”puppy mill” messages, you should know two things:

First, if you raise livestock, you are next. Secondly, and most importantly, if we all stand together we will be stronger.

Since when did agriculture become the enemy?

Visiting with some old friends at Illinois Pork Expo last week, one of them asked me, “Since when did agriculture become the enemy?”

It did catch many of us off guard. It was just a few years ago when all of that research was released that showed consumers rank farmers very high in the “most trusted” category? Unfortunately, the people who enjoy the fruits of our labor aren’t so sure of us anymore. I wrote a column 3 years ago that addressed this very question. As I read through it, I realize that instead of improving our relationship with consumers, we’ve found ourselves more disconnected with each passing year. Three years ago I wrote:

“Every day we hear and see anti-agriculture messages coming from every walk of society. And it seems that it is your fault that parents let their kids sit on the couch all day, eating too much while failing to get up and move around. You’ve made it much too easy and affordable for consumers to enjoy a good meal.

Aren’t you ashamed of yourselves for being so productive and efficient?

That’s enough tongue-in-cheek talk for today’s column. It is time to get serious about the anti-agriculture movement in this country. My friends, the animal rights activists are gearing up and you are at the top of their hit list. They oppose many of your animal husbandry practices because they (the activists) are ignorant of the reasons behind those practices. From docking tails to halter breaking cattle, livestock production and handling practices are being targeted by anti-agriculture activists as cruel and unnecessary.

If we fail to stand up together and fight back, we will lose the right to raise livestock for food in this country. Are you willing to give up? What are you willing to give up? What is the animal going to give up?

Herd health, cost of production, animal and human safety, product quality, safe and affordable food – all benefits associated with livestock production practices in place on many farms today. We have to tell our story!

Wouldn’t it be great if we started a grassroots effort to let the animal rights activists know that they are not welcome in our communities? Imagine “We support animal agriculture” signs scattered throughout your town and your community. The 4-H Clubs, FFA Chapter, the local women’s club, Home Extension groups and Chamber of Commerce members wearing t-shirts supporting livestock production. Be proud. Have a voice. Tell your story.

Agriculture does matter to the local banks, the car dealership, the grocery store, shoe store and the churches. Rural America thrives when agriculture thrives. These anti-agriculture groups are spreading lies and half-truths to pit neighbor against neighbor.

What is it going to take? How much are you willing to give up before you stand up to them? Don’t tell me you are too young, too old, too tired or too poor. Don’t tell me that you don’t care anymore because I don’t believe you.

Friends, the people fighting for animal rights know nothing about animal production. They do not eat meat and they do not think you should have the right to produce or eat meat, either. If you sit still and keep your mouth shut, they will win. Are you willing to let that happen? I’m not.”

Over these past several years, I have heard from so many of you who are stepping up and telling your story. Thank you and keep up your good work. The extremists will only gain more credibility if we allow them to tell our story for us.

Who is in your corner?

It was a little over a year ago when the National AgriMarketing Association (NAMA) awarded Leon Westbrock, Executive Vice President and COO, Energy, CHS, Inc. the distinction of 2009 Agribusiness Leader of the Year. Upon receiving the award, Mr. Westbrock told those of us in attendance that like the wireless telephone network (the one with all the people following its customers wherever they go) he has a network of people that are the foundation of his success.

I was moved by Mr. Westbrock’s sincerity and appreciation for those who had influenced him and helped him throughout his life. The correlation Mr. Westbrock drew between his “people” and his success gave me cause to pause and remember some of those who have had a role in my success. I would encourage you to do the same.

It is quite often that very same support network that has a hand in guiding us to determine what our goals will be. For me, as is quite probably the case for all of you, the network changes as our life experiences change. Although I remember them well, early influencers like Mrs. Ash, who taught me to read and Mrs. King, who taught me to tell time, are not part of my “active” network today.

The existence of a support network is crucial when we set out to achieve our goals individually as well as when we are working together toward a common goal. In agriculture today, that support network not only includes family, friends, banker/lenders, crop input and seed representatives and companies, your county extension office and others whose advice, encouragement and support upon which you rely, but also the consumer whose mouths we feed and backs we clothe. Nameless and faceless as they may be, the consumers of that which we grow ultimately decide our success or failure.

There are others who fit into the “anti-support” network category. I’m not talking about challenging weather conditions or market volatility. Those are variables that farmers and ranchers have lived with for years. I’m talking about the well-known anti-agriculture groups like Humane Society of the United States, PETA, Farm Sanctuary, and Waterkeepers Alliance. I’m talking about the environmentally misinformed who would have you farm without the use of herbicides, pesticides and other important crop inputs.

There are individuals and organizations, businesses, foundations and even churches out there that unintentionally empower your anti-support network.

Do you know how the money that you put in the collection plate on Sunday morning is spent once it leaves your local community? Do you know that the $19.95 you sent to join that organization that promises to rescue animals is truly being spent to bring an end to animal agriculture in this country?

Do you really know who is in your corner and who is not?

All I am asking is that you do a little digging. Many religious denominations have websites listing their social and political principles. One church lists among its “Environmental Ministries” Issues:

Vegetarian and vegan diets make more and more sense for the body and the planet. Meatrix (www.themeatrix.com) is a telling and wonderful animated presentation about factory farming and the myth of where our food comes from and how to eat better . Also it is well known that a lot of grain that could feed people feeds animals.

Holy cow! Where do they GET this information? You guessed it. The anti-support network I mentioned earlier feeds misinformation sprinkled with just enough truth to get it into church doctrine. (I’m very happy to say that a few years ago my little country church voted to break away from this very denomination.)

Are you sharing your ideas, your concerns, and your successes with your peers and others who have a stake in the Ag industry? Are you reaching out to communicate with and educate those who are not as close to the industry and might not understand why you put anhydrous on a field (when it is a key ingredient in the production of methamphetamine, the scourge of rural America) or why your hogs are safer in a building than in a muddy lot?

Are you telling your own story or are you allowing someone who doesn’t believe in nor understand food production to tell your story? Get in the game. Make sure you join the others who are the foundation of your success.

Weathering weather extremes

As we gathered with family and close friends just before Christmas, the rain was relentless. The branch that runs in front of our house and into Howards Creek rushed with such intensity that we had to blow up air mattresses so everyone that could not leave due to what looked and sounded like the Mississippi River roaring through our front yard, had a place to sleep.

(Okay, maybe the branch was not THAT big, but no one dared try to cross the unyielding current!)

Once the rains stopped, the temperature began to drop, the puddles turned to ice, and it began to snow. The temperatures hovered in the teens and twenties for several days before plummeting. A powdery snow accompanied by strong winds created drifts that made some of our county roads and state highways impassable. The danger of frostbite became a reality as the wind howled throughout the days and nights. With real temperatures from -6 to 6 above zero for several days, we experienced wind chills that reached down into the minus 30’s.

When the air temperatures finally began to rise, the fog set in. Dense fog early in the morning and at night made driving the winding and steep roads in my “neck of the woods” very dangerous. And again, the rains came.

As I write this column, I’m looking out my office window at what our meteorologist calls a “dank” day. It’s a gloomy afternoon as my part of the world gets a 12-hour break between rains.

Weather in the Midwest is fickle. It is as though Mother Nature just can’t seem to make up her mind!

2009 was a year whose weather we’ll not soon forget. As we shake the newness off of 2010, let’s pray for more farmer-friendly weather days this year. For those of us with livestock, 2010 hasn’t exactly been what we’d call stellar, but we’re hopeful the weather extremes will even out a bit, with spring just weeks away.

I’ve dedicated quite a bit of space and a whole lot of words painting a picture about the weather extremes I’ve seen in the past 4 weeks or so. The bottom line is that there is a not a darned thing any of can do to change the weather we’re going to get, unless of course we want to move to another part of the world.

Instead of spending too much time fretting about it, let’s look back at some of the lessons we learned and those successes – however negligible they seemed at the time – we enjoyed. Granted, we have to spend at least SOME time fretting because we are human and because the weather is a variable those of us involved in agriculture must consider and deal with.

For me, there are few sights more breathtaking than 2-week old calves running and jumping and romping and playing with one another in fresh snow. As cotton ball flakes float from the sky like confetti on New Year’s Eve, a cow heavy with milk voices her concern in the long, low sound that lets her offspring know she’s not fooling around.

As I crossed the no-longer-overflowing branch this morning, despite the specs of mud on my windshield and the fog that encased my car, I could see the bird as it broke free from a limb on the huge old Sycamore tree. As it glided through the sky, just a few feet above my car, I knew before I saw the white head and tail that it was a bald eagle. I see her a few times a week, often accompanied by a juvenile bald eagle. The weather extremes do not seem to faze her.

Weather is key to making us, and to breaking us, but it doesn’t have to break our spirit unless we give it the power to do so.

Focus on all consumers, not just those in cities

The USDA ‘Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food’ initiative emphasizes the need for a fundamental and critical reconnection between producers and consumers. I believe that reconnection is critical to the future of agriculture in the United States of America. USDA’s initiative focuses on local and regional food systems – which I believe to be limiting, considering the size and scope of modern agriculture and the sheer numbers of people to be fed – but it is a good start.

There is an underlying assumption that the consumers with whom farmers should be reconnected live in Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C. and other cities across America. It is my belief that farmers need to cover home base first. You must reconnect with neighbors in those towns and communities outside of metropolitan areas. Many people in agricultural areas have a misperception about what is being done on farms in their own communities.

I recently penned a column suggesting that it is unacceptable for an animal rights organization (specifically Humane Society of the United States) to propose standards for the care of animals when the organization does not own or operate a single animal shelter or pet adoption facility. I suggested that it is a violation of our Constitution to interfere in a person’s right to run a business, specifically forbidding an American citizen ownership of a set amount of legal property. I was referring to dogs, which apparently did not set well with a whole lot of people. I expected that. I didn’t expect to hear from so many women raised on farms, married to farmers, with children and grandchildren farming, to voice – quite angrily in some cases – such disagreement with me.

One woman wrote, “There needs to be a group that monitors and helps these animals. I applaud their efforts. Yes, there are some small groups that are radical, but I bet if you took the time and made an effort to learn about all the good things they accomplish, your negative views might change”

This woman lives on a farm where livestock is raised, yet she is telling me that she believes HSUS accomplishes good things. She also thought my column should not have been approved for placement in this paper.

I received another letter this week in response to a radio commentary program. This woman wrote:

“While I am not a farmer or rancher, nor do I work in agriculture, I am a consumer. I have to disagree with the thought that livestock producers know best about raising and taking care of animals.”

She referenced video she had seen of animal abuse on both dairy and poultry farms and told me that she no longer eats eggs or chicken and that her daughters and grandchildren are following in her footsteps.

This woman does not live in a big city, she lives in a town in central Illinois in a county well-known for corn and soybean production and processing.

I am grateful to both of these women and the numerous others who email me everyday, voicing concern and asking questions. By writing to me, they open the door for dialogue. I have the opportunity to present facts to them and explain that although there are bad actors in agriculture, most of us are pretty good stewards of the land, air, water and livestock under our care.

Friends, I’m asking you to step up the plate and reconnect with a consumer in your local community. Strike up a conversation when you are in the waiting room at the dentist’s office, waiting in line for a prescription at the drug store or dropping off mail at the post office. Talk to your friends and ask them to do the same. And if you are one of those bad actors, you need to change your ways or get out of the industry.

The future of agriculture in this country is in your hands.

Teachable moments from hate mail

I love getting feedback from the articles I write. Whether or not you agree with what I have written is beside the point. If we were all in agreement on everything, it would certainly be a boring world. I can’t think of a single person with whom I agree one hundred percent of the time, and I think that is a good thing.

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to send an email or a letter to let me know what you think about the opinion presented in this weekly column.

If you respond to what I have written, I assume that I have touched on a subject for which you have great passion. And so, I expect the feedback I receive from you to be fueled by that passion. I do not, however, expect grown men (older than my father) to send emails rife with personal attacks against me.

Disagree with me. I respect that. But behave like a 10-year-old bully who needs his mouth washed out with soap and I will disregard your words – as would any intelligent being.

Finally, if you do disagree with something I have written, perhaps you should read the entire column before hastily sending an email berating me for writing something that you have taken out of context.

I share the above paragraphs with you because I believe this is one of those “teachable moments” for those of us who are trying to “tell our story” to those generations removed from the farm. Groups and individuals whose aim it is to bring an end to production agriculture in this country will not be derailed if we resort to childish bullying and name calling.

The majority of the people in this country who would side against America’s farmers are intelligent but simply misinformed individuals. Activist groups are well-funded, passionate, committed and smart. Many people – even in our rural communities – have an unrealistic perception of agriculture.

People are afraid of what they do not know. Trying to break through the wall of misinformation these people have been fed can be frustrating. Be patient. Be transparent. Be clear. And, above all, although there are times when you want to throw up your hands and question their intelligence, be respectful.

When the name-calling begins, my ears quit working. Most grown-ups are the same way. Those who would resort to childish behavior to get their point across will only distance themselves from an intelligent society.

HSUS and ASPCA working together in Missouri

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) ballot initiative placing numerous restrictions on dog breeders in Missouri has been approved for circulation by the Missouri Secretary of State’s office. The proposal, among other restrictions, would limit operators to 50 or fewer female breeding dogs and set specific area and air temperature requirements for indoor housing and constant unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area that meets certain specifications.

Just under 100,000 certified signatures are needed by May 2, 2010 on the so-called “Puppy Mill Cruelty Protection Act” proposal to get it on the ballot for Missouri voters next November. A group called Missouri for the Protection of Dogs – supported by HSUS and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) is collecting signatures.

There are so many things wrong with this situation that I don’t know where to begin and I certainly do not have the time or space in this column to include all of the questions I have, so here are a few:

Isn’t it a violation of the constitution to interfere in a person’s right to run a business, specifically forbidding an American citizen ownership of a set amount of legal property? Would you tell a shoe store owner that he can only own 50 pairs of shoes in his store at a time?

What happens to the economy of Missouri when the $2 billion the pet industry brings into the state disappears?

Why is it acceptable for an animal rights organization to propose standards for the care of animals when this organization does not own or operate a single animal shelter or pet adoption facility? How practical is that?

What will you do when an HSUS proposal becomes law in your state and the government comes for your 51st cow, pig or goat?

Get back to me on that, will you?

Regulate. Tax. Spend

Many of you are probably happy to say goodbye to 2009. It was a year fraught with challenges for many. Hang on to your hat, my friends, because the signs we’ve seen in these final days of ‘09 portend an over-regulated, over-taxed future for you and me.

Quoting a release from the Illinois Corn Growers Association on December 18, 2009, “Are you sitting down? US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in climate talks in Copenhagen, indicated that the US is willing to raise $100 Billion a year to give to developing nations to offset the costs of restricting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Some estimate that about 20% of that will come from US coffers. Mind you, a small pittance of that amount would, say, upgrade locks and dams, a measure that we know would reduce GHG, as well as better position us in the world economy.”

What could we do domestically with $100 Billion a year? (Let’s be realistic, 20% from the U.S. will quickly turn into 100%.)

Perhaps we could lower the amount American citizens pay for inheritance tax, gasoline tax, self-employment tax, accounts receivable tax, property tax, CDL license tax, building permit tax, federal income tax, state income tax, sales tax, payroll taxes, social security tax, Medicare tax, liquor tax, real estate tax, personal property tax, state and local telephone tax, cigarette tax, park tax, school tax, police and local fire district tax (let me catch my breath) hunting license tax, marriage license tax, fishing license tax, food license tax, fuel permit tax, excise tax, road usage tax, utility tax, workers compensation tax, well permit tax, elevator permit tax, capital gains tax, watercraft registration tax, vehicle registration tax, and a whole bunch of others.

The government could cut at least $333.33 of taxes paid by every single tax-paying American, if we had an extra $100 Billion to spend here in the U.S.

The problem is, we DO NOT have an extra $100 Billion to spend. We do not have any extra money to spend. We’re in debt up to our eyeballs. Actually, we’re in debt up to the eyeballs of the next 2 or 3 generations of Americans.

Regulate. Tax. Spend. Regulate. Tax. Spend.

The total national debt is somewhere around 12.1 trillion dollars. The estimated population of the United States is a little over 3 million, so each citizen’s share of this debt is around $39,375.00.

Money is not a band-aid and it is not an olive branch.

Give us the freedom to be productive and this nation will thrive. Capitalism works.

Next Page »