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.

Christmas wish

Merry Christmas!

A friend of mine shared a Christmas wish with me that bears repeating:

John wrote, “How great it would be if the urban voter could know that on Christmas Day – the day they are sitting by the fire with a pet in their lap or by their side – the day they have taken off work for this biggest holiday – you and hundreds like you will feed and care for your livestock before you take off to sit by the fire and enjoy the holiday.

Even on this the biggest holiday of the year you will take care of your animals first.

How great that message would be.

Hundreds of good people will feed and care for animals in shelters on Christmas day without any help from HSUS.

How great a message – if only it would get out – but that takes big money. Money we are not willing to spend.”

Neither my friend nor I am suggesting that any of you has $113 million in coffee cans buried in your back yard. (I use that figure because that is the amount of money HSUS spent in 2009 fighting against modern animal agriculture in this county.) Certainly agriculture organizations across this country are no longer ignoring threats to animal agriculture in this country made by “anti” groups like HSUS and PETA, but there is not yet a unified effort. We are fragmented and thus ineffective against the mega-dollars and army of HSUS volunteers.

My Christmas wish is that we reach across state lines and species, political parties and religious denominations to tell the true story of agriculture. Animal rights and environmental activists will tell your story for you if you fail to stand together and speak out.

Rise up, people. Work together.

That is my Christmas wish for you and for the next generation of family farmers in this country.

From my family to yours – Merry Christmas!

Anti-meat propoganda from ag school?

In addition to the expected news releases and meeting notices, as manager for Brownfield Ag News, I receive several opinion/editorial pieces and “pitches” from public relations agents every day. Weeding through the relevant and the political rantings and everything in between is usually an easy task. After doing this for so many years, it does not take long to recognize reliable sources for information and/or opinion that I will then assign to a reporter who will follow-up to see if indeed there is a story there that makes sense for us.

The phrase “never judge a book by its cover” rang true for me a couple of weeks ago when I received a release from a professor at a school of agriculture at a well-known state university. My expectation was that commentary sent from a school of agriculture in a region of the state known for livestock production would lean toward the positive when it comes to animal agriculture. My expectations were not met.

The gist of the release is that due to tough economic times, the state of the global climate, or an expanding waistline, you might want to consider ramping up the amount of beans in your diet.

OK, fine. The problem is, instead of simply promoting adding beans to a balanced diet, this professor suggests we give up meat – specifically beef – in our diet.

“Beans,” she wrote, “cost less while providing an equivalent amount of protein, and they have a lot more fiber – around half the recommended daily amount in one serving. Fiber is a dietary component sorely lacking in the average American’s diet.”

Until this point, I was still ok with her article. As a promoter of beans, I expect her to make some comparisons to other foods. However, in the next paragraph of her article, she made the leap from comparing proteins to promoting an anti-meat agenda. She wrote: “There is one other advantage to beans that isn’t always so obvious, and that is the acreage required to produce that protein, compared to that required for another major source of protein in our diets: meat.”

She almost redeemed herself by quoting Cornell University research pointing out that a vegetarian diet is not the most efficient in terms of land use. But she couldn’t quite get it done. She wrote, “Even in light of the Cornell research, one must recognize that beef production is a far greater consumer of energy than vegetables – using sixteen times as much gasoline to produce an equivalent amount of food, while generating 24 times the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. This does not account for the methane or nitrous oxide emitted by cows and their manure.”

According to whom?

If you choose vegetarianism, I am not going to judge you. It is your personal choice. But suggesting that ceasing to eat meat – especially considering all of the efficiencies of modern livestock production – would be better for the environment, is simply not true.

HSUS targets Missouri

Proposed Statutory Initiative Petitions – “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act” Versions 1 and 2 have been filed with the Missouri Secretary of State. What does that mean? The Missouri State Director of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) has filed two proposed initiative petitions cracking down on so-called “puppy mills” in the state. The petition proposes limiting to 50 the number of covered dogs a breeder can own and the offspring of which they could sell as pets. Provisions for each individual dog spelled out in the petition include specific area and air temperature requirements for indoor housing and constant unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area that meets certain specs.

I heard a collective sigh of relief when we learned that the paperwork filed late the day before Thanksgiving targets dog breeders. Whew, you dodged a bullet! HSUS is not going after dairy or beef cows, hogs or poultry!

Hold your horses. Those of you who believe animal agriculture doesn’t have a dog in this fight (pardon the pun – I just couldn’t help myself) are dead wrong.

By circulating the aforementioned petition among Missouri’s citizens, HSUS is just getting started.

We’ve all seen the horrible videos of dogs being rescued from “puppy mills.” Memories of these pictures evoke strong emotions in those of us who have pets. How is this different from what the consumer, far removed from animal agriculture, feels when he or she sees videos of the mistreatment of cows or pigs or chickens in a so-called “factory farm?”

I personally believe that segregating the commercial dog breeders as something “bad” or unacceptable to those of us involved in animal agriculture is a very poor judgment call. Just as there are a few sub-standard dog breeding kennels out there, there are also some sub-standard dairy, hog and poultry operations. The vast majority of kennel owners care deeply about the welfare of their dogs, much the same as those raising livestock care deeply about the welfare of their animals. Not only is implementing animal welfare practices the right thing to do, it is the economical thing to do! We couldn’t stay in business with poor management practices.

Friends, if HSUS can persuade the public to limit the number of dogs a person can own, what will stop them from trying to persuade the public to limit the number of chickens, sheep, cattle, hogs, goats, or horses you can own? If HSUS gets enough signatures on these petitions and a ballot initiative is presented to the population and actually passes, the animal rights activists will come after you.

HSUS doesn’t care if you raise hogs for a large corporation or you have a small, purebred operation. HSUS is an animal rights organization.

Let’s catch our collective breath and dig our heels in. . .together. Build alliances across state lines and include all species. It’s Missouri today. It could be Indiana, Illinois or Iowa tomorrow. It’s dog kennels today. It could be any species of livestock tomorrow.

Reach out to your agronomist, your seed sales rep, and your banker. Talk to the clerk at the grocery store, the waiter at the restaurant and the cousin who left your rural community half a century ago for a life in the city.

If, for one second, HSUS sees you nod in agreement with the actions it has taken against kennel owners in Missouri or any other state, you put yourself and our entire industry in a precarious position.

Phone message purgatory

Why, if the United States Senate is doing business that will forever impact my life and the lives of every citizen in this country, are they doing it in the middle of the night? And if they are doing business that will forever impact my life and the lives of every citizen in this country, why am I not able to reach someone in their office instead of finding myself twelve pound-signs deep in phone message purgatory?

Hold on, because I have one more question: What’s the rush? Why is Congress, known for moving at glacial speed, in such a mad rush to pass some form of life-changing legislation for – take your pick – food safety, climate change, health care reform, etc.?

It is troubling to me that any congressional discussion or debate, let alone a vote, would take place in the middle of the night when lawmakers are functioning on little sleep and apparently (see first paragraph) little if any recent contact with constituents “back home.”

These are the questions I will be asking those who represent me in Washington, D.C. next time they hit the campaign trail and ask for my vote. I think if they truly cared what I think, they would have someone on staff checking voicemail messages and email so they feel confident that the will of their constituency is represented.

It is amazing to me how many of our elected officials, when running for office, shoot television commercials in cornfields or pastures with black cattle grazing nearby. Being “in touch with agriculture” makes a more marketable candidate. However, those same people, once elected, can jump into D.C. politics without looking back, until of course the next election rolls around.

I believe we have some solid folks representing our interests in Congress, but I also know for a fact that we have some who don’t seem to care that pork, beef and dairy producers here in the Midwest are going out of business every day. Unless there are significant changes made – and soon – the food insecurity everyone in the media has been talking about during these tough economic times will be but a blip on a screen compared to the masses of starving people who will inhabit this earth in 40 years. If the United Nations prediction is correct and there are 40% more people on this earth in the year 2050, how exactly are farmers going to raise the crops and livestock to feed them if you all are expected to sell local and organic and fresh to the consumer? Never mind that in doing so, the price of food while skyrocket while the profit you would have made will be eaten up by taxes and regulations.

Pay attention to how those representing you in Washington, at the statehouse and in county government vote. If you don’t like it, you have the power to keep them from getting back in office where they would be allowed to do more of the same.

The future of rural America

Each year, the National Association of Farm Broadcasting (NAFB) Foundation presents scholarships with a combined value of $13,000 to three deserving college students in pursuit of careers in agricultural communications. We were honored to have United States Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack speak during the luncheon last week honoring those scholarship recipients.

Secretary Vilsack told NAFB scholarship winners that rural America is an extraordinary place to live, work and raise a family. He spoke about the “disturbing trend” in which young people see opportunities elsewhere and leave the rural communities in which they were raised for cities far away.

The Obama administration’s ag chief said, “Rural America is on the cusp of a new day. The most exciting, most profitable days ahead might not be in the cities.”

Speaking directly to the three college students, Secretary Vilsack said, “Your future is in Cap & Trade, broadband expansion, preserving and protecting the climate. People are interested in getting a closer connection to the food supply. That’s the rural America that you can help create.”

As Vice President of the NAFB Foundation, I was seated at the head table between two of the scholarship winners. I didn’t have the opportunity to do so, but what I would have liked to do was pull them aside individually after the presentation and ask them if that is the rural America they want to create.

What about the rural America that exists today? I’ve seen tremendous improvements in farming practices over these past many years. In my opinion, a rural America that preserves and protects the climate already exists and is in a constant state of improvement. Of course there are some bad apples, but what industry does not have a few who? Most of the farmers I know are committed to caring for and improving the land, air, water, livestock, their families and their communities.

It appears to me that those of you who till the land and grow the corn, soybeans, and wheat and those who raise the beef cattle, hogs, goats and sheep, and those always-important dairy farmers have taken a backseat to the so-called “new” green movement of community gardening and farmer’s markets.

Most of the farmers I talk with do not want climate legislation that means higher fuel, fertilizer and energy costs. Most farmers do not want handouts. They do not want to “farm for the government.” They do not want or need more regulations! As good stewards of the earth, and ultimately the climate, they have the ability to grow a safe, affordable and abundant supply of food and fiber while strengthening the rural economies across this great country.

They want the freedom to be prosperous.

The secretary went on to say that rural America needs the values, strength and passion of these young people. I agree wholeheartedly. It is what the secretary failed to say that bothers me.

AUDIO

Next Page »