Cattle Feedlot: Behind The Scenes
by Ryan Andrews, June 23rd, 2010.
My trip to Magnum
My day at the cattle feedlot got off to a rough start. Maybe it’s because I wore my “Have You Hugged A Vegetarian Today Shirt.” Bad move on my part, I guess.
No, I’m just kidding. I didn’t wear my vegan shirt.
And my day at the Magnum Feedyard in Wiggins, Colorado got off to a great start.
It all began at a restaurant in Hudson, Colorado, called the Pepper Pod. That’s where I met two new friends: an animal science instructor and a student from Colorado State University, who escorted me up to Wiggins to get an exclusive tour of the Magnum Feedyard.
During the 75-minute drive, a lot was going through my mind.
For starters, this visit had been 6 months, and quite a few emails/phone calls, in the making.
You see, very few people in the nutrition world are ever allowed to visit feedlots. In fact, some of my favorite authors have written entire books about feedlots without ever being granted permission to see one in person. So I had to “work it” pretty hard to get this kind of access. And was really excited.
However, despite my enthusiasm for the opportunity, I was a little worried. I mean, everything I’d read about feedlots suggested that they’re horrible, dismal places where thousands of sick cows are crammed in tiny pens, being force-fed corn while standing in steaming piles of their own feces.
As someone concerned with animal welfare, what would I do if faced with this sight? Would I run for the gates, throw them open, and let those poor cows free? Was I man enough to do that? Would I just go home with my tail between my legs? Or would I see something totally different, totally unexpected? Read More
I saw this over the weekend and had several people sending me emails about this story. It’s certainly a testament as to what happens when share our story. The rhetoric from the anti-ag groups has gotten so ridiculous that when people actually get a chance to see it for themselves they are almost shocked at the truth. This author found well cared for, well fed cattle that were comfortable in their setting. Congratulations to the folks at Magnum Feedyard for telling their story.
Showing posts with label CAFO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CAFO. Show all posts
Monday, June 28, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Confusion Over CAFO's
This letter to the editor appeared in the Columbia Tribune, MO.
Independent family farms’ methods safe
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Editor, the Tribune: In light of Hank Waters’ confusion about chicken CAFOs and Cindy O’Laughlin’s confusion about family farmers, a lesson is in order.
Google “CAFO” or “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation,” and you’ll learn a CAFO, or “factory farm,” is an operation where livestock are mass-produced in confinement and are usually, and most important, owned by a corporation and not the farmer (i.e. Smithfield, Tyson). These absentee owners, headquartered in fancy offices miles away, call the shots yet seldom go near their factories while local dollars funnel out of Missouri.
Another confused term: “family farm.” These days it’s necessary to include the word “independent” when referring to family farms. Conversely, independent family farmers make daily decisions about their animals. Sadly, these independent farmers, despite their rich heritage, find it difficult to compete with factory farms on an unleveled playing field created by agribusiness corporations that have, through big money and political influence, duped the public and politicians into believing factory farms are the same as independent family farms, which they’re not. Corporate dollars and special interests at the federal level block independent family farmers’ access to an open and competitive marketplace and take away jobs from our once vibrant rural communities.
Independent family farmers must remain strongly independent. No livestock board, filled with a handful of pro-industry representatives, need dictate daily decisions on raising livestock as independent family farmers have done so for centuries.
Both conservatives and liberals support independent family farmers’ safe and sustainable methods over factory farms’ antiquated and unfair practices.
Julie Fisher
Link
I have said many times that if you want to know more about agriculture and food production you should ask farmer, not a search engine. This letter to the editor that appeared recently in a newspaper in Missouri proves my point. This lady Googled the term “CAFO” and she determined that it means a farm with mass produced, confined animals and owned by a corporation. Unfortunately, Google failed her in her quest to define the term.
At no time does a CAFO designation reflect who owns the livestock on the facility. As much as the anti-agriculture crowd would like to make people believe that, it’s just not true. It’s also a fabrication to say absentee owners make all the decisions. How could they? It would be impossible for these “absentee owners” to make any daily decisions about the health of an animal or to make ration determinations. These allegations fly in the face of reality and logic.
A CAFO is solely determined on the number of livestock that will be present on a farm or ranch and fed in a specific area for a certain amount of time. For example, on our ranch during the winter we feed our cattle in a designated area so we can provide them adequate protection from the weather and a balanced ration that matches their nutritional needs. Even though we didn’t have enough livestock to require us to do anything, we felt the right thing to do was create a more comprehensive nutrient management plan and become permitted.
So it’s interesting that since our family ranch took those steps to become better stewards of our livestock and land, people like Julie Fisher want to paint us in a negative light. It highlights the lack of understanding about animal agriculture and motivates me to do a better job telling my story.
Independent family farms’ methods safe
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Editor, the Tribune: In light of Hank Waters’ confusion about chicken CAFOs and Cindy O’Laughlin’s confusion about family farmers, a lesson is in order.
Google “CAFO” or “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation,” and you’ll learn a CAFO, or “factory farm,” is an operation where livestock are mass-produced in confinement and are usually, and most important, owned by a corporation and not the farmer (i.e. Smithfield, Tyson). These absentee owners, headquartered in fancy offices miles away, call the shots yet seldom go near their factories while local dollars funnel out of Missouri.
Another confused term: “family farm.” These days it’s necessary to include the word “independent” when referring to family farms. Conversely, independent family farmers make daily decisions about their animals. Sadly, these independent farmers, despite their rich heritage, find it difficult to compete with factory farms on an unleveled playing field created by agribusiness corporations that have, through big money and political influence, duped the public and politicians into believing factory farms are the same as independent family farms, which they’re not. Corporate dollars and special interests at the federal level block independent family farmers’ access to an open and competitive marketplace and take away jobs from our once vibrant rural communities.
Independent family farmers must remain strongly independent. No livestock board, filled with a handful of pro-industry representatives, need dictate daily decisions on raising livestock as independent family farmers have done so for centuries.
Both conservatives and liberals support independent family farmers’ safe and sustainable methods over factory farms’ antiquated and unfair practices.
Julie Fisher
Link
I have said many times that if you want to know more about agriculture and food production you should ask farmer, not a search engine. This letter to the editor that appeared recently in a newspaper in Missouri proves my point. This lady Googled the term “CAFO” and she determined that it means a farm with mass produced, confined animals and owned by a corporation. Unfortunately, Google failed her in her quest to define the term.
At no time does a CAFO designation reflect who owns the livestock on the facility. As much as the anti-agriculture crowd would like to make people believe that, it’s just not true. It’s also a fabrication to say absentee owners make all the decisions. How could they? It would be impossible for these “absentee owners” to make any daily decisions about the health of an animal or to make ration determinations. These allegations fly in the face of reality and logic.
A CAFO is solely determined on the number of livestock that will be present on a farm or ranch and fed in a specific area for a certain amount of time. For example, on our ranch during the winter we feed our cattle in a designated area so we can provide them adequate protection from the weather and a balanced ration that matches their nutritional needs. Even though we didn’t have enough livestock to require us to do anything, we felt the right thing to do was create a more comprehensive nutrient management plan and become permitted.
So it’s interesting that since our family ranch took those steps to become better stewards of our livestock and land, people like Julie Fisher want to paint us in a negative light. It highlights the lack of understanding about animal agriculture and motivates me to do a better job telling my story.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Showing Their Committment
December 17, 2009
GUEST COMMENTAY: Rosendale Dairy: It’s a commitment
By Jim Ostrom
When Rosendale Dairy’s three partners — John Vosters, Todd Willer and I — were boys on Wisconsin dairy farms, we imagined little beyond waking early, milking, feeding and caring for cows.
When my grandfather was 19, there were 140,000 Wisconsin dairy farms. Now there are 14,000.
The 20-to-50 cow farms of the past several generations disappeared as many children of dairy farms followed other careers. The 1.9 million dairy cows that at one time supplied milk in Wisconsin now number about 1.2 million.
But we remain committed to the dairy industry and to producing wholesome food for our nation. We are also committed to the environment and to our Wisconsin roots. We are committed to doing what is right — and taking pride in it.
Complete and detailed project plans were submitted and county and state statutory approvals were obtained. The dairy has received more than 30 permits and approvals and invested millions of dollars to ensure the health and comfort of its herd, using technology and personal herd management practices maximizing the well-being of the cows and the environment.
Two people who spoke against the modification at the DNR hearing called the morning after and asked for a dairy tour before heading home to Illinois. After the tour, one told operations manager Bill Eberle, “Someone asked me if there are any good CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations). Now I can tell them there is one.”
The other visitor e-mailed Eberlee after getting home to Illinois, writing, “Thanks for guiding (us) through Rosendale Dairy yesterday. You clearly are professional in what you do, and in the operations of the farm. While it’s difficult to see small family farms being replaced by CAFOs, clearly you run your operation efficiently, and successfully.” Read More
This article mirrors my experiences. When given the chance to really show and tell about how our farms and ranches operate, people become very comfortable with the great job we do in raising food in this country. It seems easy for consumers to hate the farm down the road that they think is doing bad things, even though they don’t know who lives there or what exactly they do. Taking the initiative to introduce yourself and build a relationship with consumers is absolutely what we need to be doing in agriculture.
GUEST COMMENTAY: Rosendale Dairy: It’s a commitment
By Jim Ostrom
When Rosendale Dairy’s three partners — John Vosters, Todd Willer and I — were boys on Wisconsin dairy farms, we imagined little beyond waking early, milking, feeding and caring for cows.
When my grandfather was 19, there were 140,000 Wisconsin dairy farms. Now there are 14,000.
The 20-to-50 cow farms of the past several generations disappeared as many children of dairy farms followed other careers. The 1.9 million dairy cows that at one time supplied milk in Wisconsin now number about 1.2 million.
But we remain committed to the dairy industry and to producing wholesome food for our nation. We are also committed to the environment and to our Wisconsin roots. We are committed to doing what is right — and taking pride in it.
Complete and detailed project plans were submitted and county and state statutory approvals were obtained. The dairy has received more than 30 permits and approvals and invested millions of dollars to ensure the health and comfort of its herd, using technology and personal herd management practices maximizing the well-being of the cows and the environment.
Two people who spoke against the modification at the DNR hearing called the morning after and asked for a dairy tour before heading home to Illinois. After the tour, one told operations manager Bill Eberle, “Someone asked me if there are any good CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations). Now I can tell them there is one.”
The other visitor e-mailed Eberlee after getting home to Illinois, writing, “Thanks for guiding (us) through Rosendale Dairy yesterday. You clearly are professional in what you do, and in the operations of the farm. While it’s difficult to see small family farms being replaced by CAFOs, clearly you run your operation efficiently, and successfully.” Read More
This article mirrors my experiences. When given the chance to really show and tell about how our farms and ranches operate, people become very comfortable with the great job we do in raising food in this country. It seems easy for consumers to hate the farm down the road that they think is doing bad things, even though they don’t know who lives there or what exactly they do. Taking the initiative to introduce yourself and build a relationship with consumers is absolutely what we need to be doing in agriculture.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Benefits of Modern Ag For Pigs
Study shows moving pigs inside has huge benefits
Nov 23, 2009 12:09 PM MST
COLUMBIA, MO(MU release) – A study by University of Missouri Extension swine experts shows that moving pigs indoors has led to improved health for pigs and higher-quality product for consumers.
Since the shift to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), veterinarians have seen a significant decline in parasites, said Beth Young, swine veterinarian with the University of Missouri Commercial Agriculture Program. Young spoke at the 2009 Swine Institute in Columbia, Nov. 10.
The Commercial Agriculture Swine Focus Team looked at changes in the swine industry since 1945.
In the 1940s, 55-70 percent of pigs were infected with lungworms. By the 1970s lungworm outbreaks only affected about 11 percent of farms. "In the past decade, lungworms are rarely seen," Young said.
"Likewise, 78-94 percent of pigs were infected with kidney worms in the 1940s, and now infestations are rarely seen," she said. Read More
It’s more than annoying to hear the anti-agriculture crowd try claiming that modern livestock housing is unhealthy for our animals. Even without these scientific studies, farmers and ranchers can easily see what methods for raising livestock allow them to be more comfortable. But it’s studies like these that we need to combine with our own stories to share with our consumers.
Nov 23, 2009 12:09 PM MST
COLUMBIA, MO(MU release) – A study by University of Missouri Extension swine experts shows that moving pigs indoors has led to improved health for pigs and higher-quality product for consumers.
Since the shift to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), veterinarians have seen a significant decline in parasites, said Beth Young, swine veterinarian with the University of Missouri Commercial Agriculture Program. Young spoke at the 2009 Swine Institute in Columbia, Nov. 10.
The Commercial Agriculture Swine Focus Team looked at changes in the swine industry since 1945.
In the 1940s, 55-70 percent of pigs were infected with lungworms. By the 1970s lungworm outbreaks only affected about 11 percent of farms. "In the past decade, lungworms are rarely seen," Young said.
"Likewise, 78-94 percent of pigs were infected with kidney worms in the 1940s, and now infestations are rarely seen," she said. Read More
It’s more than annoying to hear the anti-agriculture crowd try claiming that modern livestock housing is unhealthy for our animals. Even without these scientific studies, farmers and ranchers can easily see what methods for raising livestock allow them to be more comfortable. But it’s studies like these that we need to combine with our own stories to share with our consumers.
Monday, September 28, 2009
MO Attorney General Weighs CAFO Options
Attorney general weighs CAFO options
September 26, 2009 11:20 pm—
JoplinGlobe.com
A decision could come at any time on an appeal of the state permit that allowed construction of a 65,600-chicken CAFO within a mile or so of Roaring River State Park.At the same time, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster is weighing whether to continue an appeal of a circuit judge’s decision that would prohibit construction of CAFOs, or confined animal feeding operations, within two miles of state parks and historic sites. That appeal is pending before the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals at Kansas City.
The two cases are connected. When Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce ruled last year that a 4,800-head hog CAFO could not be located within two miles of the historic village of Arrow Rock, she cited the permit problems associated with the chicken CAFO near Roaring River as evidence that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources lacked the ability to protect state parks and historic sites from the detrimental effects of CAFOs.
Koster has asked for more time to weigh the options over whether he will continue the appeal of the two-mile buffer that was started under Gov. Matt Blunt’s administration. He was given that time last week when the Court of Appeals granted a 30-day extension. The next hearing date on the appeal of the two-mile buffer is set for Oct. 28. In the meantime, Koster is getting hit from all sides.
Ag interests
State agricultural interests, including the Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missouri Agribusiness Association, are encouraging Koster to continue the appeal, arguing that Joyce had only half the facts when she issued her decision. Read More
There always seems to be some confusion on the part of those who are opposed to CAFO’s about what these operations are. Most of the time they are simply a family farm. They are run by people who have lived their entire lives in these areas. Many times, they are built by families that are trying to provide an opportunity for the next generation of their family to become involved in agriculture. They are not the faceless, uncaring business that some try to paint a picture of. The only thing that a CAFO means is that the farm is of a size that it needs to have an approved nutrient management plan. Having situations like the one in Missouri, leaves many family farms in a limbo as to what they will be allowed to do in their future.
September 26, 2009 11:20 pm—
JoplinGlobe.com
A decision could come at any time on an appeal of the state permit that allowed construction of a 65,600-chicken CAFO within a mile or so of Roaring River State Park.At the same time, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster is weighing whether to continue an appeal of a circuit judge’s decision that would prohibit construction of CAFOs, or confined animal feeding operations, within two miles of state parks and historic sites. That appeal is pending before the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals at Kansas City.
The two cases are connected. When Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce ruled last year that a 4,800-head hog CAFO could not be located within two miles of the historic village of Arrow Rock, she cited the permit problems associated with the chicken CAFO near Roaring River as evidence that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources lacked the ability to protect state parks and historic sites from the detrimental effects of CAFOs.
Koster has asked for more time to weigh the options over whether he will continue the appeal of the two-mile buffer that was started under Gov. Matt Blunt’s administration. He was given that time last week when the Court of Appeals granted a 30-day extension. The next hearing date on the appeal of the two-mile buffer is set for Oct. 28. In the meantime, Koster is getting hit from all sides.
Ag interests
State agricultural interests, including the Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missouri Agribusiness Association, are encouraging Koster to continue the appeal, arguing that Joyce had only half the facts when she issued her decision. Read More
There always seems to be some confusion on the part of those who are opposed to CAFO’s about what these operations are. Most of the time they are simply a family farm. They are run by people who have lived their entire lives in these areas. Many times, they are built by families that are trying to provide an opportunity for the next generation of their family to become involved in agriculture. They are not the faceless, uncaring business that some try to paint a picture of. The only thing that a CAFO means is that the farm is of a size that it needs to have an approved nutrient management plan. Having situations like the one in Missouri, leaves many family farms in a limbo as to what they will be allowed to do in their future.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
HSUS Asks EPA To Regulate Livestock Feeders
Activists petition EPA to regulate CAFO air emissions
(9/22/2009)
Sally Schuff
A coalition of activist organizations filed a formal petition with the Environmental Protection Agency on Sept. 21 seeking to add confined animal feeding operations to the list of operations regulated under the Clean Air Act’s endangerment standard. The coalition, which includes the Humane Society of the United States, the Waterkeepers Alliance, and Friends of the Earth, seeks to add CAFOs to the list of stationary sources which produce air pollution "which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The EPA Administrator is required to keep such a list under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
The petition points out that Section 111 "defines a 'stationary source' as 'any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit an air pollutant.'" It notes EPA uses the word "facility" in its regulatory definition of CAFOs.
The petition charges that CAFOs emit air pollutants, specifically,
Greenhouse gases that cause or contribute to climate change;
Hydrogen sulfide that cause or contribute to hydrogen sulfide exposure, localized odors, acid rain, and haze;
Ammonia that causes or contributes odors, ecosystem acidification and eutrophication, and haze;
Particulate matter and small particulates that cause or contribute to particle pollution, acid rain, and haze;
And certain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that cause or contribute to localized odors, ground-level ozone, and haze.
The petition is online at: www.foe.org/sites/default/files/HSUS_et_al_v_EPA_CAFO_CAA_Petition.pdf.
Article Link
The HSUS continues their assault on family farmers by suing the Environmental Protection Agency in order to force them to place burdensome and unaffordable regulations on them. This country needs to wake up and realize that if groups like the HSUS are allowed to put family farmers out of business in this country, then we will begin to rely on food that is produced in foreign countries. If that would happen, it would be the absolute end of our nation’s sovereignty.
(9/22/2009)
Sally Schuff
A coalition of activist organizations filed a formal petition with the Environmental Protection Agency on Sept. 21 seeking to add confined animal feeding operations to the list of operations regulated under the Clean Air Act’s endangerment standard. The coalition, which includes the Humane Society of the United States, the Waterkeepers Alliance, and Friends of the Earth, seeks to add CAFOs to the list of stationary sources which produce air pollution "which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The EPA Administrator is required to keep such a list under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
The petition points out that Section 111 "defines a 'stationary source' as 'any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit an air pollutant.'" It notes EPA uses the word "facility" in its regulatory definition of CAFOs.
The petition charges that CAFOs emit air pollutants, specifically,
Greenhouse gases that cause or contribute to climate change;
Hydrogen sulfide that cause or contribute to hydrogen sulfide exposure, localized odors, acid rain, and haze;
Ammonia that causes or contributes odors, ecosystem acidification and eutrophication, and haze;
Particulate matter and small particulates that cause or contribute to particle pollution, acid rain, and haze;
And certain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that cause or contribute to localized odors, ground-level ozone, and haze.
The petition is online at: www.foe.org/sites/default/files/HSUS_et_al_v_EPA_CAFO_CAA_Petition.pdf.
Article Link
The HSUS continues their assault on family farmers by suing the Environmental Protection Agency in order to force them to place burdensome and unaffordable regulations on them. This country needs to wake up and realize that if groups like the HSUS are allowed to put family farmers out of business in this country, then we will begin to rely on food that is produced in foreign countries. If that would happen, it would be the absolute end of our nation’s sovereignty.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Hog Farmer Entitled to Damages
Rochester hog farmer entitled to damages because of lawsuit, court rules
By DEBRA LANDIS
THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
Posted Sep 11, 2009 @ 11:30 PM
ROCHESTER, IL —
A Rochester hog farmer is entitled to damages stemming from a lawsuit filed by opponents of his large-scale hog operation that delayed its construction, the Illinois 4th District Appellate Court decided this week.
Robert Young had appealed a ruling of Sangamon Circuit Judge Leslie Graves that he was not entitled to damages. Young previously successfully challenged an injunction request by the Rochester-Buckhart Action Group, which wanted to block expansion of his hog farm.
“The court ruled that we were right, and RBAG was wrong. Now, we will be asking RBAG to pay for the harm that was done,” Tom Immel, Young’s attorney, said Friday.
A hearing in Sangamon County court regarding the amount of damages will be scheduled later. Immel said Young will seek more than $300,000, including legal expenses and income Young and his wife, Sandra, lost while fighting the lawsuit.
The appellate court, in a ruling Tuesday, said Young was “engaged in a lawful business, and the planned expansion of his hog farm was put on hold at plaintiff’s (RBAG’s) behest. Read More
It seems that many times, a lawsuit is filed with the intention to stifle a time sensitive project. And in many of those instances there are very few consequences to the suing party. We see it a lot when it comes to logging, especially after forest fires. There is a very limited amount of time to harvest the burnt timber and some will tie up projects in court long enough for the wood to go to waste. In this case, it appears that this farming family will be able to recoup some of the losses they incurred when the building of their new hog barn was delayed in court. It’s important that there are consequences for filing a lawsuit and losing.
By DEBRA LANDIS
THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
Posted Sep 11, 2009 @ 11:30 PM
ROCHESTER, IL —
A Rochester hog farmer is entitled to damages stemming from a lawsuit filed by opponents of his large-scale hog operation that delayed its construction, the Illinois 4th District Appellate Court decided this week.
Robert Young had appealed a ruling of Sangamon Circuit Judge Leslie Graves that he was not entitled to damages. Young previously successfully challenged an injunction request by the Rochester-Buckhart Action Group, which wanted to block expansion of his hog farm.
“The court ruled that we were right, and RBAG was wrong. Now, we will be asking RBAG to pay for the harm that was done,” Tom Immel, Young’s attorney, said Friday.
A hearing in Sangamon County court regarding the amount of damages will be scheduled later. Immel said Young will seek more than $300,000, including legal expenses and income Young and his wife, Sandra, lost while fighting the lawsuit.
The appellate court, in a ruling Tuesday, said Young was “engaged in a lawful business, and the planned expansion of his hog farm was put on hold at plaintiff’s (RBAG’s) behest. Read More
It seems that many times, a lawsuit is filed with the intention to stifle a time sensitive project. And in many of those instances there are very few consequences to the suing party. We see it a lot when it comes to logging, especially after forest fires. There is a very limited amount of time to harvest the burnt timber and some will tie up projects in court long enough for the wood to go to waste. In this case, it appears that this farming family will be able to recoup some of the losses they incurred when the building of their new hog barn was delayed in court. It’s important that there are consequences for filing a lawsuit and losing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)