Pigs Yield Clues to Cystic Fibrosis-Related Lung Disease
Infection appears to precede inflammation, researchers find
WEDNESDAY, April 28 (HealthDay News) -- Researchers say they have answered a long-standing question regarding lung disease caused by cystic fibrosis: Which comes first, infection or inflammation?
"Using our model, we are beginning to answer that question, and it looks like infection does precede inflammation," study author Dr. David Stoltz, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Iowa, said in a news release from the school. "The importance of that finding is that it could dictate what types of therapy we might use. Knowing that infection is first suggests that if we can prevent or fight infection, then that might delay or prevent the lung disease in people with CF."
Most of the deaths and disability in people with CF result from lung disease.
The findings also appear to suggest that lung infections in children with cystic fibrosis should be treated early and aggressively, Stoltz said.
The researchers reached their conclusions by studying pigs with a genetic mutation that causes cystic fibrosis.
"This is a really great example where the pig serves as a model for what happens in the human, and the pig reacts to this disease in nearly the same way," study co-author Randall Prather, distinguished professor of reproductive biotechnology at the University of Missouri, said in the news release. "In contrast, when you use mice, they don't get the lung disease that is common in patients with cystic fibrosis."
The study was published online April 28 in the journal Science Translational Medicine. Link
On a daily basis, we see medical advances from the use of animals in research. The people whose lives have been affected by CF certainly are complaining about the use of pigs in this study. Unfortunately there are elitists in our society that believe the gains in scientific knowledge about this crippling disease weren’t worth using a pig. They don’t place any more value on the life of sick child than they do a pig. Luckily, for all of us, these scientists continue working hard to find a cure.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Proactively Talking To Consumers
Study: consumers curious about food producers, production
April 28, 2010 by Tom Steever Brownfield Ag News
A new study indicates consumers think favorably of farmers, but they have questions about how food is produced. The study, referred to as SegmenTrak, was done by Demeter Communications. Demeter Senior Partner Claudine Wargel, who is based in Clinton, Illinois, says the survey explores what consumers want to know from farmers about food production.
“They have a real interest in knowing the potential impact of this on the end product from a health standpoint,” said Wargel, during an interview with Brownfield.
Demeter polled what Wargel calls indicator consumers, those likely to adapt perceptions ahead of the general public. Questions were asked in the survey about connecting on-farm practices with food safety.
The survey also explored how people react to terminology used to describe food production. For instance, says Wargel, words such as ‘industry’ are not well perceived. And the term ‘traditional farming’ is perceived more favorably than ‘contemporary farming’. It shows that in the discussion of agriculture, every word selected is important, says Wargel.
“Consumers are forming opinions really on an hourly basis as they are exposed to information from news reports and from their neighbors,” she says. “When we get involved in [discussing food production] we need to use the right language to help them understand what we do.”
More than three-quarters of respondents want to know more about measures used to produce safe food and more than two-thirds want to know how producers ensure animal care.
Respondents were males and females aged 23-55 from a cross-section of ethnic backgrounds.
Producers should consider shifting their communications from a defensive position to proactively talking to consumers about how their food is produced, says Wargel.
“The more we understand about consumers,” she says, “the more we can really get involved in those discussions and help lead them and interject factual and meaningful information.” Link
Farmers and ranchers carry a lot of influence with consumers but most of the time we are afraid to use that influence. Consumers don’t want to hear from animal rights groups about how livestock are handled, they want to hear from you! Become a source for the people in your community when they have questions about where their food comes from. We have something that the big budgets of the anti-ag groups can’t buy and that is our people and their stories.
April 28, 2010 by Tom Steever Brownfield Ag News
A new study indicates consumers think favorably of farmers, but they have questions about how food is produced. The study, referred to as SegmenTrak, was done by Demeter Communications. Demeter Senior Partner Claudine Wargel, who is based in Clinton, Illinois, says the survey explores what consumers want to know from farmers about food production.
“They have a real interest in knowing the potential impact of this on the end product from a health standpoint,” said Wargel, during an interview with Brownfield.
Demeter polled what Wargel calls indicator consumers, those likely to adapt perceptions ahead of the general public. Questions were asked in the survey about connecting on-farm practices with food safety.
The survey also explored how people react to terminology used to describe food production. For instance, says Wargel, words such as ‘industry’ are not well perceived. And the term ‘traditional farming’ is perceived more favorably than ‘contemporary farming’. It shows that in the discussion of agriculture, every word selected is important, says Wargel.
“Consumers are forming opinions really on an hourly basis as they are exposed to information from news reports and from their neighbors,” she says. “When we get involved in [discussing food production] we need to use the right language to help them understand what we do.”
More than three-quarters of respondents want to know more about measures used to produce safe food and more than two-thirds want to know how producers ensure animal care.
Respondents were males and females aged 23-55 from a cross-section of ethnic backgrounds.
Producers should consider shifting their communications from a defensive position to proactively talking to consumers about how their food is produced, says Wargel.
“The more we understand about consumers,” she says, “the more we can really get involved in those discussions and help lead them and interject factual and meaningful information.” Link
Farmers and ranchers carry a lot of influence with consumers but most of the time we are afraid to use that influence. Consumers don’t want to hear from animal rights groups about how livestock are handled, they want to hear from you! Become a source for the people in your community when they have questions about where their food comes from. We have something that the big budgets of the anti-ag groups can’t buy and that is our people and their stories.
HSUS Meets with Domino's
HSUS will Address Domino's about Pork Suppliers
Pork news staff Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The Humane Society of the United States will address Domino’s Pizza executives at the pizza company's April 28 annual shareholder meeting in Ann Arbor, Mich.
Domino’s is the world's second-largest pizza company, reports Pizza Marketplace. The delivery-carryout chain is based in Ann Arbor, Mich., and has more than 8,726 units in 60 countries. Domino’s did approximately $6.9 billion in system-wide sales in 2008.
“We’re asking the company to implement some very basic but important animal welfare improvements, similar to what many top food companies have already done,” says Kristine Middleton, corporate outreach manager, who will be addressing the executives. HSUS is a shareholder of the pizza company.
Middleton’s speech will mainly target what she says is the company’s practice of using pork from suppliers that use gestation-sow crates. Middleton cites seven states, including Michigan, Domino's home state, have passed laws prohibiting the use of gestation crates.
Other quick-serve restaurant chains such Burger King, CKE Restaurants, Wendy’s, Chipotle, Panera Bread and Sonic have agreed to phase in purchases of pork from suppliers who do not use gestation crate. Middleton could not confirm any pizza chains that have committed to that same action.
“We’re in various states of communication with various chains, including pizza chains, but none that are ready to make announcements,” she says. Link
Using a page out of PETA’s playbook seems like an odd way for the HSUS to convince people they aren’t as radical. But here you have it! Just like PETA has done in the past, they are meeting with companies or buying shares in an attempt to force them to change where they buy their food. Unfortunately, intimidation from the HSUS has been more effective than science in influencing the decisions.
Pork news staff Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The Humane Society of the United States will address Domino’s Pizza executives at the pizza company's April 28 annual shareholder meeting in Ann Arbor, Mich.
Domino’s is the world's second-largest pizza company, reports Pizza Marketplace. The delivery-carryout chain is based in Ann Arbor, Mich., and has more than 8,726 units in 60 countries. Domino’s did approximately $6.9 billion in system-wide sales in 2008.
“We’re asking the company to implement some very basic but important animal welfare improvements, similar to what many top food companies have already done,” says Kristine Middleton, corporate outreach manager, who will be addressing the executives. HSUS is a shareholder of the pizza company.
Middleton’s speech will mainly target what she says is the company’s practice of using pork from suppliers that use gestation-sow crates. Middleton cites seven states, including Michigan, Domino's home state, have passed laws prohibiting the use of gestation crates.
Other quick-serve restaurant chains such Burger King, CKE Restaurants, Wendy’s, Chipotle, Panera Bread and Sonic have agreed to phase in purchases of pork from suppliers who do not use gestation crate. Middleton could not confirm any pizza chains that have committed to that same action.
“We’re in various states of communication with various chains, including pizza chains, but none that are ready to make announcements,” she says. Link
Using a page out of PETA’s playbook seems like an odd way for the HSUS to convince people they aren’t as radical. But here you have it! Just like PETA has done in the past, they are meeting with companies or buying shares in an attempt to force them to change where they buy their food. Unfortunately, intimidation from the HSUS has been more effective than science in influencing the decisions.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Spring is Here
It's been a few days since I posted on here. It seems that spring work with the cows has kept me busy for the past couple of days. It reminds me of the FFA t-shirt I saw today. It said "Bustin' ours to feed yours".
Feeding the world isn't an easy job. It's made even more difficult when we have armchair farmers and ranchers spreading misinformation about the incredible job we do in agriculture. Even though it can get discouraging, there are always reasons to be excited about the future of agriculture.
We are fortunate to have the truth on our side. Just this week, Celeste Settrini, president of the CA Women for Ag, saw something being said about meat production that wasn't right. EarthBound Farms, an organic vegetable growing operation, produced a youtube video that claimed eating meat was destroying the environment. Knowing that wasn't right, Celeste contacted EarthBound and asked if she could visit with them about the video. After her conversation with them, they decided to pull down the video.
Some people in our industry would have walked away after seeing the video thinking there's nothing they could do about it. The real leaders in the business of farming and ranching see things like that as an opportunity to share the truth and it's making a difference.
I hope everyone of you will take opportunities like this.
Feeding the world isn't an easy job. It's made even more difficult when we have armchair farmers and ranchers spreading misinformation about the incredible job we do in agriculture. Even though it can get discouraging, there are always reasons to be excited about the future of agriculture.
We are fortunate to have the truth on our side. Just this week, Celeste Settrini, president of the CA Women for Ag, saw something being said about meat production that wasn't right. EarthBound Farms, an organic vegetable growing operation, produced a youtube video that claimed eating meat was destroying the environment. Knowing that wasn't right, Celeste contacted EarthBound and asked if she could visit with them about the video. After her conversation with them, they decided to pull down the video.
Some people in our industry would have walked away after seeing the video thinking there's nothing they could do about it. The real leaders in the business of farming and ranching see things like that as an opportunity to share the truth and it's making a difference.
I hope everyone of you will take opportunities like this.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Senate Prepares to Debate Cap & Tax
Cap and trade bill hurts Midwestern farmers
By U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, Special to The Kansas City Star
The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill passed through the House of Representatives with minimal consideration of its effects on agriculture.
In written and spoken testimony before the House Agriculture Committee, it appears cap and trade will increase food prices, decrease the amount of U.S. acreage under cultivation, decrease agricultural exports, decrease farm employment, transfer significant wealth from the U.S. to other countries, and may increase the net amount of carbon dioxide emitted worldwide.
Agricultural production relies heavily on carbon-based products, like fuel and fertilizer. For example, they account for 61 percent of sorghum and 49 percent of rice producers’ operating costs. Under cap and trade, the price of these inputs will increase significantly.
By capping and taxing carbon emissions, cap and trade is effectively a tax on energy, an $894 billion energy tax according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The left-of-center Brookings Institution estimates that petroleum prices will increase by 25% under Waxman-Markey.
This transfer of wealth overseas will be further exacerbated as cap and trade induces U.S. food production to move overseas. Read More
The Senate is planning to unveil their version of the cap and tax system that will affect all forms of carbon based resources. Everything that we currently depend on in our daily lives will increase in cost if the Senate version is anything like the House version. And what will we gain from this near trillion dollar tax? Chances are not much. Is the climate changing? Absolutely. The climate is always changing. When it stops changing is when we should really be worried because it would be the first time in the history of the planet. The reality is that there is plenty of disagreement on this issue and it’s ridiculous to throw that much money into a solution that might not work for a problem that might not exist.
By U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, Special to The Kansas City Star
The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill passed through the House of Representatives with minimal consideration of its effects on agriculture.
In written and spoken testimony before the House Agriculture Committee, it appears cap and trade will increase food prices, decrease the amount of U.S. acreage under cultivation, decrease agricultural exports, decrease farm employment, transfer significant wealth from the U.S. to other countries, and may increase the net amount of carbon dioxide emitted worldwide.
Agricultural production relies heavily on carbon-based products, like fuel and fertilizer. For example, they account for 61 percent of sorghum and 49 percent of rice producers’ operating costs. Under cap and trade, the price of these inputs will increase significantly.
By capping and taxing carbon emissions, cap and trade is effectively a tax on energy, an $894 billion energy tax according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The left-of-center Brookings Institution estimates that petroleum prices will increase by 25% under Waxman-Markey.
This transfer of wealth overseas will be further exacerbated as cap and trade induces U.S. food production to move overseas. Read More
The Senate is planning to unveil their version of the cap and tax system that will affect all forms of carbon based resources. Everything that we currently depend on in our daily lives will increase in cost if the Senate version is anything like the House version. And what will we gain from this near trillion dollar tax? Chances are not much. Is the climate changing? Absolutely. The climate is always changing. When it stops changing is when we should really be worried because it would be the first time in the history of the planet. The reality is that there is plenty of disagreement on this issue and it’s ridiculous to throw that much money into a solution that might not work for a problem that might not exist.
Activists Attack Modern Ag With Misinformation
Friday, Apr. 23, 2010
The Problem With Factory Farms
By Claire Suddath
If you eat meat, the odds are high that you've enjoyed a meal made from an animal raised on a factory farm (also known as a CAFO). According to the USDA, two percent of U.S. livestock facilities raise an estimated 40 percent of all farm animals. This means that pigs, chickens and cows are concentrated in a small number of very large farms. But even if you're vegetarian, the health and environmental repercussions of these facilities may affect you. In his book Animal Factory, journalist David Kirby explores the problem of factory farms, from untreated animal waste to polluted waterways. Kirby talks to TIME about large-scale industrial farming, the lack of government oversight, and the terrible fate of a North Carolina river.
What exactly is a factory farm?
The industrial model for animal food production first started with the poultry industry. In the 1930s and 40s, large companies got into the farming business. The companies hire farmers to grow the animals for them. The farmers typically don't own the animals, the companies do. It's almost like a sharecropping system. The company tells them exactly how to build the farm, what to grow and what to feed. They manage everything right down to what temperature the barn should be and what day the animals are going to be picked up for slaughter. The farmer can't even eat his or her own animals. People who grow chickens for Purdue in Maryland have to go down to the market and buy Purdue at the store.
We collectively refer to these facilities as factory farms, but that's not an official name. The government designation is CAFO, which stands for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. Basically it's any farm that has 1,000 "animal units" or more. A beef cow is an animal unit. These animals are kept in pens their entire lives. They're never outside. They never breathe fresh air. They never see the sun.
And the fact that there are thousands of animals packed into one farm is also a problem.
Oh, definitely. There are simply too many animals in too small of a place. In a traditional farm, a sustainable farm, you grow both crops and animals. There is a pasture and you have a certain number of animals per acre. But when you have 2,000 cows per acre instead of two, you have a problem. You can't fit them in a pasture, you fit them in a building. You can't grow enough crops to feed them; you have to ship in their feed. You don't have enough land to absorb their waste. It has nowhere to go. Read More
I would think that true journalists would have a hard time calling this an interview. Usually in an interview, the journalist would ask questions to be answered. In this case, there was an activist that actually made several statements of her own belief and then let the author of the book comment on them. In fact, it’s obvious that the person who posed as a journalist for this article didn’t do any research at all because she didn’t challenge the false claims made by Kirby. His description of a CAFO isn’t right, nor are his statements about how the animals are fed or handled. A journalist would have uncovered that, an activist helps spread the misinformation.
The Problem With Factory Farms
By Claire Suddath
If you eat meat, the odds are high that you've enjoyed a meal made from an animal raised on a factory farm (also known as a CAFO). According to the USDA, two percent of U.S. livestock facilities raise an estimated 40 percent of all farm animals. This means that pigs, chickens and cows are concentrated in a small number of very large farms. But even if you're vegetarian, the health and environmental repercussions of these facilities may affect you. In his book Animal Factory, journalist David Kirby explores the problem of factory farms, from untreated animal waste to polluted waterways. Kirby talks to TIME about large-scale industrial farming, the lack of government oversight, and the terrible fate of a North Carolina river.
What exactly is a factory farm?
The industrial model for animal food production first started with the poultry industry. In the 1930s and 40s, large companies got into the farming business. The companies hire farmers to grow the animals for them. The farmers typically don't own the animals, the companies do. It's almost like a sharecropping system. The company tells them exactly how to build the farm, what to grow and what to feed. They manage everything right down to what temperature the barn should be and what day the animals are going to be picked up for slaughter. The farmer can't even eat his or her own animals. People who grow chickens for Purdue in Maryland have to go down to the market and buy Purdue at the store.
We collectively refer to these facilities as factory farms, but that's not an official name. The government designation is CAFO, which stands for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation. Basically it's any farm that has 1,000 "animal units" or more. A beef cow is an animal unit. These animals are kept in pens their entire lives. They're never outside. They never breathe fresh air. They never see the sun.
And the fact that there are thousands of animals packed into one farm is also a problem.
Oh, definitely. There are simply too many animals in too small of a place. In a traditional farm, a sustainable farm, you grow both crops and animals. There is a pasture and you have a certain number of animals per acre. But when you have 2,000 cows per acre instead of two, you have a problem. You can't fit them in a pasture, you fit them in a building. You can't grow enough crops to feed them; you have to ship in their feed. You don't have enough land to absorb their waste. It has nowhere to go. Read More
I would think that true journalists would have a hard time calling this an interview. Usually in an interview, the journalist would ask questions to be answered. In this case, there was an activist that actually made several statements of her own belief and then let the author of the book comment on them. In fact, it’s obvious that the person who posed as a journalist for this article didn’t do any research at all because she didn’t challenge the false claims made by Kirby. His description of a CAFO isn’t right, nor are his statements about how the animals are fed or handled. A journalist would have uncovered that, an activist helps spread the misinformation.
PETA Allegations Disproved
Feds find only minor infractions at U. animal labs
PETA probe » USDA and NIH follow-up inspection of operations give good grades.
By Christopher Smart
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 04/22/2010 09:13:13 PM MDT
Despite a list of cruelty allegations compiled by an animal rights group, federal officials have found, for the most part, that University of Utah biomedical laboratories operate ethically and in accordance with U.S. regulations.
An official inspection of the university's animal research laboratories earlier this year did turn up some infractions, the most egregious of which was a kitten that died after an improper injection.
Other notable deviations from protocol included a primate near the end of life that was not afforded a companion, and "intermittent overcrowding" of rodent breeding cages.
But overall, inspectors from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found the university's animal research programs to be "in good order."
That's a stark contrast to a complaint filed last fall with the USDA by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Read More
In an effort to get a big splash in the media, groups like PETA have to make wild accusations that generate headlines. Unfortunately for them, when the sensationalism stops and the investigation begins the story is usually different. In this case, there were a few things that weren’t done correctly but for the most part they were doing everything right. I have no doubt that the university will quickly correct their mistakes and continue on with their vital research. It certainly isn’t a reason to stop all animal research like PETA suggested.
PETA probe » USDA and NIH follow-up inspection of operations give good grades.
By Christopher Smart
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 04/22/2010 09:13:13 PM MDT
Despite a list of cruelty allegations compiled by an animal rights group, federal officials have found, for the most part, that University of Utah biomedical laboratories operate ethically and in accordance with U.S. regulations.
An official inspection of the university's animal research laboratories earlier this year did turn up some infractions, the most egregious of which was a kitten that died after an improper injection.
Other notable deviations from protocol included a primate near the end of life that was not afforded a companion, and "intermittent overcrowding" of rodent breeding cages.
But overall, inspectors from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found the university's animal research programs to be "in good order."
That's a stark contrast to a complaint filed last fall with the USDA by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Read More
In an effort to get a big splash in the media, groups like PETA have to make wild accusations that generate headlines. Unfortunately for them, when the sensationalism stops and the investigation begins the story is usually different. In this case, there were a few things that weren’t done correctly but for the most part they were doing everything right. I have no doubt that the university will quickly correct their mistakes and continue on with their vital research. It certainly isn’t a reason to stop all animal research like PETA suggested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)