Revised Guidelines for Livestock Processing

Meat Inspectors Get Clout to Stop Inhumane Slaughter

BY DAN FLYNN | AUG 16, 2011

Meat inspectors at federally regulated plants that slaughter animals got new instructions for humane treatment of animals.

Announced Monday by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the instructions come in the form of a new 40-page directive. The rules go into effect on Sept. 15. 

The directive on enforcement of humane handling codifies changes made in the last few years to ensure that animals going to slaughter are treated properly.  It replaces FSIS policies published in 1998 and 2003.

The new version, which FSIS says is going to require additional training for meat inspectors, includes a definition for "egregious inhumane handling" of animals -- "any act or condition that results in severe harm to animals, which includes the excessive beating or prodding of disabled livestock, stunning animals and allowing them to regain consciousness, or any treatment causing unnecessary pain and suffering."

The directive also provides inspectors with "verification instructions" to ensure that treatment of livestock during handling and slaughter "minimizes the animals' amount of excitement, pain, injury or discomfort."

Read More

The goal of everyone in agriculture is to continue improving on our methods.  These guidelines are updated on a fairly regular basis because we keep finding better ways to handle issues that arise.  It’s vital that we learn from problems that have happened in the past and I think this proves that we do.  No one wants to see instances of livestock being mistreated. 

Repeal Prop B?

Lawmakers Support Repeal of Prop B

'Puppy Mill' Prevention Act's narrow 51.5% passage has Missouri lawmakers examining a repeal.

MissouriRuralist.com
Published: Nov 8, 2010

Missouri lawmakers, in both the House and Senate, said they would support efforts by dog breeders and agricultural groups to repeal or dilute Proposition B, the so-called "Puppy Mill Prevention Act," passed by voters Nov. 2.

"We will start working on that issue immediately," said Senator-elect Mike Parson, whose district includes more than 150 licensed breeding operations. The next legislative session begins Jan. 5.

Proposition B, which will put new restrictions on state dog breeders, passed by substantial margins in urban areas, but failed in 100 of the state's 114 counties. Overall, it got 51.6% of the vote. However, licensed breeders and virtually all of the state's agricultural groups strongly opposed it saying it will force legitimate breeders out of business while doing nothing about unlicensed breeders.

Ag groups also argued passage of the measure – strongly backed by the Humane Society of the United States and other animal rights groups --- was just the first step as these groups move on to try and regulate animal agriculture out of business.      Read More

This was way closer than Wayne and Co. would like to think about.  He regularly goes into states and tells ag groups that they can win any vote by a healthy margin.  It’s more apparent than ever that he’s blowing smoke yet again.  There’s no doubt that the HSUS will come uncorked if there’s any attempt to modify the law.  HSUS is losing their credibility piece by piece every single day and this vote confirms it.   

Background on the PETA Rally

Some parents question PETA protest at Pa. school

- The Associated Press
October 13, 2010 9:32am EDT

• PITTSBURGH — Some parents are questioning a protest by People for the Ethical Treatment for Animals outside a Pittsburgh public school.

A person in an elephant costume with a bloody forehead bandage handed out coloring books as students left Colfax Elementary School on Tuesday. The protest targets the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus coming to town next month.

Parent Sabrina Weihrauch says she generally supports PETA, but doesn't believe in demonstrating outside a school.

PETA spokeswoman Virginia Fort says the stunt "gently let children know" how circus animals are treated. The circus says its animals aren't mistreated.

Seventy-two-year-old Anne Myrick tried to shoo students away from the protest, telling the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, "They're hustling little kids."   Link

This is pretty standard fare for PETA but I thought I’d let all of you know a little more about Virginia Fort. She is PETA’s full time paid protester. She travels across the country setting up these demonstrations. I was able to visit with her when they were in Rapid City last November. At that protest they were trying to convince people that all dairy cows are abused by the farmers that own them. In part of our discussions with Ms. Fort we asked her what should be done with all of the pasture land that cows are grazing on since they want animal agriculture eliminated. Her response was that we should farm it. Another rancher standing nearby asked if she really thought ripping up native prairie in a semi-arid climate was a good idea. She said we might as well since the cows are out there pooping on it anyhow. WHAT?? I asked her if I could video her saying that response again and she refused. Obviously this wouldn’t be the best use of the land but her idea is that if anything is “pooping” on the land it is being destroyed. That’s PETA mentality for you.



The other main point to take home from this is that there aren’t protests from local people taking place. PETA has to hire employees to do this for them. For the most part it’s the same few people at every PETA protest.

Livestock Board to Release Standards

Livestock board to approve standards in October


September 26, 2010
by Marc Kovac
Capital Bureau Chief

Columbus -- A statewide board created by voters last year to establish rules for livestock care hopes to sign off on its first standards in the next month.

The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board is reviewing rules on animal euthanasia, with plans to sign off on a final draft during one of the two scheduled sessions in October.

"The board is meeting on Oct. 5 and again on Oct. 19, hopefully the board will finalize its deliberations at one of those two meetings," said Michael D. Bailey, the board's executive director.

Bailey joined board members Sept. 21 during a listening session at the Farm Science Review, a large-scale agricultural research and trade show conducted annually about 20 minutes west of Columbus.   Read More

This board is certainly being watched very closely, especially now that their independence to make sound decisions was basically taken from them by the deal made in Ohio with the HSUS. Science was thrown out the window in that deal and now the livestock of the state will pay the ultimate price. All of us should be interested in making the best decisions for our livestock, not political ones.

Calgary Stampede Sponsors Targeted

Animal rights activists target Stampede sponsors
Updated: Sat Jul. 03 2010 15:21:25
ctvcalgary.ca

With the Calgary Stampede less than a week away, animal rights activists have launched their first protest. This time they have a different target: Stampede sponsors.

Around a dozen protestors gathered at Tompkins Park, along 17th Avenue Southwest
The protesters say they are now targeting major corporations that sponsor the rodeo, including Bell Canada which had been sponsoring the steer wrestling event.

The group, called the "The Calgary Animal Rights Meetup Group" is urging Canadians to boycott Bell.

Jeremy Thomas from the group says, "Every year animals are hurt and killed and scared out of their minds for the sake of entertainment, not to mention the ones that get killed in the practice sessions." Read More

The Calgary Stampede has been a target of anti-rodeo animal rights activists for some time now. This year’s strategy is to protest the supporters of the rodeo. Even though a dozen protesters will do little to stop an historic rodeo that draws thousands of visitors to their city every year, it’s important that rodeo and animal agriculture take advantage of events like these to educate the public about what it is we do.

E.Coli Illnesses Significantly Drop

Beef industry keeps focus on safety improvements
High Plains Journal

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of illness due to E. coli O157 significantly decreased in 2009. The 2009 E. coli illness rate is the lowest since 2004 and meets the Healthy People 2010 goal to cut the number of O157 illnesses in half.

"This is good news for beef producers and consumers alike," says Jeff Clausen, a beef producer from Carson, Iowa, and the beef industry's Beef Safety Committee chairman. "Anyone involved in the ongoing battle to improve food safety is gratified by the news that illnesses from E. coli O157 have declined. However, E. coli O157 is a tough, adaptable foe and our work is not done."

Through beef checkoff investments and widespread industry commitment, the beef industry continues to make strides toward reducing the incidence of E. coli O157 by implementing multiple interventions throughout the beef production chain.

For more information on the industry's beef safety efforts, visit BIFSCo.org. For more information about programs funded by your checkoff investment, visit MyBeefCheckoff.com.

Link

Every year, producers are committing their own money to learn more about e. Coli and how best to reduce the chances for contamination. While research is determining new and better ways to handle O157, the time-tested advice of avoiding cross contamination in the kitchen and properly cooking all meat will still eliminate any chance of ever getting sick. Food safety is a team effort that we all need to be part of. ~Troy

Anti-Anti-Puppy Mill Bill in MO

MO Senate works on anti-anti-puppy mill bill
by Bob Priddy on May 11, 2010

The effort by the legislature to make it harder to pass the puppy mill petition proposal is inching forward in the legislature. The proposed law would require any petition issue placing any controls on animal agriculture to get a two-thirds majority to pass. It sets animal agriculture apart from all other issues that might go to the voters through petition campaigns.

The bill is a reaction to the petition seeking a statewide vote on regulations for dog breeding operations. Agriculture interests say it adds almost nothing to the current state regulations and is a precursor to a later petition they say would kill animal farming.

Joplin Senator Gary Nodler says backers re relying on an inflammatory phrase to touch public emotion, namely “puppy mills,” when he says is a term that is intended to unfairly describe dog breeders. He likes the phrase to a racial slur.

Sponsor Bill Stouffer of Napton is confident his proposed anti-anti puppy mill amendment can get through the Senate, then the House and get on this year’s ballot. IT will need only a simple majority from voters to become law. Link

Many states are looking into ways they can protect farmers and ranchers from emotionally based initiatives that have nothing to do with the proper care of livestock and everything to do with control. This is certainly a unique idea and it will be interesting to see the debate on this plan. We’ll stay tuned for how this ends up.

Telling/Showing Consumers What We Do

CSUF speaker backs video at livestock operations
Posted at 09:07 PM on Monday, Apr. 12, 2010
By Robert Rodriguez / The Fresno Bee

Live video feeds of a livestock operation may seem like a far-fetched idea to gain the confidence of consumers and retailers.

But animal science expert Temple Grandin says that if that's what it takes, it's worth the effort.
Grandin, who spoke Monday at Fresno State to more than 500 students, community members and faculty, is a professor of animal science at Colorado State University who is recognized throughout the world as one of the leaders in humane animal handling practices.

She says animal welfare is of growing importance to retailers and major chain restaurants, such as McDonald's.

Animal rights activists are using the Internet to post videos of livestock animals being mistreated and abused. And while she finds those practices to be horrible, Grandin said farmers need to do a better job of communicating with the public about their animal handling practices.

Many in the audience agreed.

"We need to own up to anything that we do that is wrong," said Jon Dolieslager, an auctioneer at the Tulare County Stockyard in Dinuba. "But a lot of what we do is right, and people need to know that." Read More

So what are you doing to share the good things you do in agriculture with consumers? There are plenty of ways to do it, whether it’s in person or online, the most important thing is that everyone is doing something. The good news is that it can be a really simple thing to do as well. Make sure to put it on your chore list.

Pacelle Is Paranoid of "Paranoid" Agriculture

HSUS calls ag response “paranoid”
March 29, 2010 by Julie Harker
Brownfield Ag Network

Increasing efforts to restrict livestock industry practices by animal rights groups in the U.S. are defended by the head of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Wayne Pacelle recently spoke with Brownfield, “All of our campaigns related to food animal production are about humane production standards, humane transport and humane slaughter. I mean, I defy anyone to show me any statement where we say we want to eliminate animal agriculture.”

Pacelle says concerns in agriculture that HSUS campaigns to crack down on irresponsible dog breeders, like the one in Missouri, have anything to do with livestock agriculture are unfounded. Pacelle says, “It’s an irrational and paranoid response.”

Pacelle says the goal of HSUS is not to shut down livestock production but to improve the treatment of animals raised for food. Members of ag groups in states such as Ohio and Missouri continue to work toward stopping what they say are HSUS attempts to eventually shut down livestock production in their states.

Dale Ludwig is one of the leaders of the Missouri Animal Ag Coalition and is the Executive Director of the Missouri Soybean Association. He tells Brownfield one only need to look at the track record of HSUS in other states, where they often start with an issue that deals with pets, raise vast sums of money, then follow up with additonal regulations on animal agriculture. “I think they continue to misrepresent what the facts are and they can say things like we are paranoid,” says Ludwig. “All you have to do is look at what they have done in other places” and ” you could make the assumption that’s what they will do here.” Read More

You can always tell what the biggest threat is to an organization by what they are focusing their time on. In this case HSUS is losing supporters like rats off a sinking ship. That is why we have seen Wayne doing so many interviews with ag media as of late trying to portray him and the HSUS as the victims in this debate. He wouldn’t be playing this card if it weren’t for the impact that everyone is contributing to. They are quickly learning that no amount of slick advertising can compete with the individual stories and influence that farmers and ranchers can have.

Giving Human Rights to Animals In Court

National Review: Easy Boy, Your Dog Might Sue
by Wesley J. Smith

March 3, 2010

Should animals, like indigent criminal defendants, be provided with legal representation by the state? It could happen. As Time has reported, on March 7, voters in Switzerland will decide whether to give “domestic creatures . . . the constitutional right to be represented by (human) lawyers in court.”

What? Treating animals at law as if they were human? Don’t laugh. Lest we be tempted to dismiss the referendum as just the latest European post-modernistic folly, the effort to open our own courtrooms to animals is quietly advancing. Indeed, “animal standing,” as the issue is usually called, is at the very top of the animal-rights movement’s policy wish list.

But animals suing? For most people, the very idea is a surreal fantasy out of a Far Side cartoon. But from the viewpoint of animal-rights ideologues, nothing could be more logical. The dogma of animal liberation demands the obliteration of all animal industries and, eventually, the eradication by attrition of all domesticated animals. As Wayne Pacelle stated in 1993 before being appointed to his current post as head of the Humane Society of the United States, “One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are the product of human selective breeding.”

What could further the eradication goal more dramatically than allowing domesticated animals to sue their owners in court? The real litigants, of course, would be animal-rights activists — committed true believers who would use the raw power of litigation to force animal industries to their knees. Imagine the chaos: hundreds of animal lawyers, filing thousands of lawsuits, leading to hundreds of thousands of depositions, forcing industries to spend tens of millions of dollars on lawyers and legal costs defending their husbandry. No animal industry would be safe, and many would not survive. Read More

Giving animals legal standing in our courts is laughable and very scary. No one knows what an animal is thinking. For humans to represent animals in a court of law, which is based on rights granted to us by our creator, and claim to know what it wants is making a mockery of an incredible institution. With rights comes responsibility as well. So if human rights are going to be granted to animals, they must also bear human responsibility.

Farm Sanctuary Tries To Undermine Voters in Ohio

Farm animal care at issue
By JOSHUA S. FLESHER Tribune Chronicle
POSTED: February 5, 2010

Unsatisfied with last year's passage of Issue 2, a group of Ohioans hopes to place a new measure on the ballot in November that would create stricter guidelines on livestock care.

The Ohioans for Humane Farms submitted a petition to the Ohio Attorney General's Office that spells out what would be an anti-cruelty issue for the general election ballot.

''This measure is attempting to provide minimal standards,'' said Gene Baur, president and co-founder of Farm Sanctuary. ''It's to provide guidance to the Livestock Care Board.''

Last November, voters passed Issue 2 creating a Livestock Care Standards Board which essentially would prescribe standards for animal care.

''The ballot issue that was approved by the voters of Ohio have very specific points,'' Robert Boggs, director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture, said. ''They wanted livestock care standards that improved the safety of our food supply, that encouraged local food production and that helps keep the cost of food moderate.''

Although the issue was passed, some in the state remain unhappy with the way in which livestock is treated.

''We approached people in Ohio and said we were concerned about these problems,'' Baur said. ''They never responded. They rushed to the ballot with Issue 2, and we were surprised by that.

''We didn't care for it. We didn't think it was horrible. It all depends on what this board now does,'' he said. ''Our concern is that the board will be made up of individuals who are sympathetic to agri-business.'' Read More

The sting is still fresh for the HSUS and other animal rights groups that failed to stop Ohio residents from deciding they were capable of taking care of their own livestock. In a last ditch measure to keep the newly approved board from being able to operate and make the decisions for which they will be appointed, a petition has been filed for another vote. This time the vote will be on the very familiar language that became famous in California with Proposition 2. History would suggest that this will have a tougher time passing than it has in other states. Ohio residents have made their decision about this subject and normally when a state makes a decision like that, they don’t like spending time hashing it over again. However, everyone of us in agriculture needs to do our part to contribute to the defeat of this measure if it makes it on the ballot. The newly approved board is something the state of South Dakota has had in place for a couple of decades now. It has been very successful in it’s mission. The fact that these groups don’t want it to guide Ohio agriculture shows their complete disdain for the American farmer and rancher. It’s just too bad they can’t admit it verbally, their actions have been telling that story for years.

Yellow Tail Donates To HSUS

Yellow Tail Wine Gives Money to HSUS
Sportsmen Urged to Voice Protest
From US Sportsmen's Alliance

The Australian maker of Yellow Tail Wine has pledged $100,000 to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the nation’s largest anti-hunting organization. This partnership offers further proof of HSUS’ work to spin its animal rights message in a way as to seem mainstream.

As HSUS states on its website:

“… the HSUS has paired with [yellow tail] for the "tails for tails" program. Through the end of March, you'll see special [yellow tail] displays bearing The HSUS name and logo in stores across the country.

Through "tails for tails," [yellow tail] is donating $100,000 to support us and our programs to help animals, including our Spay Day Online Pet Photo Contest.”

Alerted to this relationship, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) immediately contacted the American distributor of the wine, W.J. Deutsch and Sons Ltd., and urged them to ask Yellow Tail to sever its relationship with HSUS.

A copy of the letter the USSA sent to management can be found by clicking here. Thus far, the USSA has not heard from W.J. Deutsch regarding our request.

“This wine maker has fallen into the same trap as other companies who donate money to HSUS,” said Bud Pidgeon, president of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. “They believe they are helping animals in shelters when in fact they are funding an agenda from an animal rights group that is largely divergent from the vast majority of Americans.” Link

Yesterday morning I became aware of Yellow Tail Wines plan to donate $100,000 to HSUS. As an amateur wine enthusiast, I was very familiar with the Yellow Tail name. They are an Australian wine company that sells many different varieties of wine at a very reasonable price. The good value you get with this wine has made it quite popular in the United States and readily available almost anywhere. Unfortunately they were somehow convinced that donating money to the HSUS would be a great way to help needy dogs and cats. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m sure their heart was in the right place, but their money is headed to the wrong one.

According to the HSUS tax returns, chances are that if Yellow Tail does give them the full $100,000, only $500 would end up going to a hands-on pet shelter. Historically, only one-half of one percent of their $200,000,000 budget does.

In order to let Yellow Tail know how I felt about this, I looked up their Facebook fan page and left a comment. In addition to that, I put it out on Twitter and our Advocates for Ag Facebook fan page, and asked everyone else to do the same. And boy did they ever! In the last 24 hours, several hundred comments have been left by people from all over the country voicing their frustrations. This same scene is being played out on their Twitter page. So far, one single response has been offered by Yellow Tail, only stating that they will be announcing something soon. That’s PR speak for “Uh oh, what do we do now?”

By not doing the necessary research and having an entire industry, one of which they are part of, calling them out, Yellow Tail is now in a near no-win situation. The high paid lawyers from HSUS will no doubt put the pressure on them to fulfill their previous commitment, but if they do, it will be at the expense of thousands of upset customers. It’s not impossible for them save face though. My guess is that not many of the executives over at HSUS (where more than 40 of them make greater than $100,000) drink much Yellow Tail. I’m sure it’s beneath their standards. However, Yellow Tail has become wine that hard working Americans, many of whom are involved in agriculture, do enjoy. If they care about their customers, they will stop this from happening.

If you haven’t left your comments on Yellow Tail’s Facebook page, please do so. You can also contact them through Twitter at @YellowTail_USA . Thanks for everyone’s help. Yesterday was a great example of what can happen when Team Agriculture suits up together to make it’s voice be heard! ~Troy

Farmers Know Best

Farmers, not bureaucrats, know best (Rep. Steve King)
By Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) - 01/26/10 11:43 AM ET

Chances are you may have heard about antibiotic resistance and the “threat” it poses to public health. Antibiotic resistance is a serious issue. However, finger pointing and meritless attacks on America’s farmers as the culprit for declining human health is misguided at best, and at worst, a travesty.

During a recent briefing on Capitol Hill, old misconceptions and half-truths were resurrected about production agriculture and the use of antibiotics used to keep farm animals healthy. Under the guise of protecting human health, the briefing was billed as a discussion about the economics and public health effects of antibiotics in food animal production.

The briefing also was held to support H.R. 1549, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009, introduced by Rep. Louise Slaughter on March 17, 2009. Rep. Slaughter’s bill would prevent farmers from introducing antibiotics to livestock for purposes of disease prevention.

When Europe decided to ban one use of antibiotics, more animal deaths and disease outbreaks that required additional use of antibiotics to treat diseases ensued. At the same time, no evidence has been produced showing benefits to human health in the form of reduced antibiotic resistance.

The American Veterinary Medical Association said that Denmark’s voluntary ban on the use of antibiotics for growth promotion “has not resulted in a significant reduction of antibiotic resistance in humans,” while disease and death in hogs increased. Ultimately, animals suffered and humans did not benefit. Growth promotion is a benefit of disease prevention, proving again the American axiom that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Read More

Rep. Steve King has always impressed me with his common sense and his uncommon understanding of agriculture. When it comes to the issue of antibiotics, we shouldn’t rely on knee-jerk reactions to make good decisions. Almost every single one of us uses a product that is designed to kill bacteria everyday. Everyone would agree that we don’t want to eliminate the effectiveness of antibiotics, but I would hope that all of us could also agree that we need to develop strategies that accomplish that goal rather than picking the low-hanging fruit.

Vegetarians Enjoying Meat Week

Carnivores, Delight: It's Meat Week

Barbecue Lovers from 16 Cities across the Country Settle in for 8 Straight Nights of Smoked Meat



(CBS) The organizers of Meat Week know what you are thinking.



Eight straight days of eating barbecue?



Could this be real?



Yes, yes it is.



"We know it is stupid," said Derek Atkinson, the organizer of the New York City chapter of Meat Week. "It's eight nights of barbecue. It's unhealthy - it's horrible for you. But it's delicious. But it's about getting together with your friends and eating the hell out some smoked meat - and sometimes potato salad."



Meat Week was conceived by two bored coworkers in Tallahassee, Fla. Back in 2005, Erni Walker and Chris Cantey were using a word generator on Cantey's Web site that came up with the "holy combination" of "meat" and "week." "From the day we sat down and wrote 'Meat Week' in our planners, that was the day we decided to do this weird thing, and we decided that every year for the rest of our lives we'd do Meat Week now," said Walker, who now works with Cantey for a production company in Los Angeles.



"Our normal meat volume throughout the year makes meat week more special," Cantey said of his diet which includes - gasp! - tofu, tempeh and other meat substitutes.



In fact, many participants at Meat Week are vegetarians. The draw for many is the communal, family-style environment that is the hallmark of many Southern-style barbecue restaurants.



Read More



Does it seem odd to anyone else that these vegetarians are taking the week off from their dietary convictions in order to enjoy Meat Week? I think it really goes to show you how much of vegetarianism is really just an act that some people think makes them look more “stylish”. While Meat Week may be a little over the top, the fact of the matter is that a healthy balanced diet will always include meat and dairy products, eaten in the proper amounts everyday.

HSUS Launches Attack on Ohio's Family Farmers, Voters

Ohioans for Humane Farms Petitions to Put Measure on November Ballot Protecting Animal Welfare, Food Safety, Family Farmers and the Environment

-HSUS Press Release - Feb 1, 2010

Ohioans for Humane Farms submitted a petition—including signatures from Ohio voters in 48 counties, demonstrating broad and regionally diverse support—to Ohio's Secretary of State in support of placing an anti-cruelty measure on the statewide November ballot. The proposed measure would allow voters to require the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to adopt certain minimum standards that will prevent the cruel and inhumane treatment of farm animals, enhance food safety, protect the environment and strengthen Ohio family farms.

Utilizing a large volunteer base, the group will seek to collect more than 600,000 signatures of registered Ohio voters upon approval of the petition forms by the Secretary of State. The ballot measure is backed by The Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, Ohio SPCA, Toledo Area Humane Society, Geauga Humane Society, Ohio League of Humane Voters, Center for Food Safety, United Farm Workers, Consumer Federation of America, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and a growing list of organizations. Read More

We all knew it was probably coming. The HSUS, run by a man with a history major, thinks he and his organization know more about animal husbandry than Ohio’s family farmers and ranchers do. Not only that, but they also think they know more than all of the citizens of Ohio that overwhelmingly decided just a few months ago that they wanted their own citizens to handle this issue through a Livestock Standards Care Board. As if we needed any more proof, this cements the fact that they aren’t concerned about the welfare of animals. If they did, they would be willing to at least let this board be appointed and become functional. No, their main concern is money and power. Remember that HSUS has a stated goal of forcing veganism on society. Pacelle himself has even written, and bragged, about this policy. So, once again, the Humane Society of the United States launches an attack on family farmers. ~Troy

Cattle Blood To Save Soldiers Lives

Cattle blood used in treatment experiments
By Jeff Martin - (Sioux Falls, S.D.) Argus Leader via Gannett News Service
Posted : Sunday Jan 31, 2010 14:14:52 EST

A South Dakota bio-tech firm is using blood byproducts from cattle to develop new ways of treating injured soldiers on the battlefield.

The technology could also save lives after natural disasters such as the Jan. 12 earthquake in Haiti, company executives say.

"It could help a lot of people in mass casualty situations where blood loss and wounds that need to get healed are a problem," says Steve Tye, vice president of operations for IKOR Inc. "This is a drug that can be stored for years so it can be delivered on the first flights out there."

IKOR aims to use hemoglobin from cattle as its raw material to develop blood replacement products for injured soldiers, Tye says. The goal is to heal their wounds more quickly and effectively, partly because the products can help deliver oxygen to the wound. Read More

I always enjoy sharing stories such as these that show just how much animal agriculture continues to improve the human condition. The edible product we get is just part of benefit we receive. Pharmaceuticals derived from livestock play a very important role in improving human health. Especially when it comes to providing our soldiers with the very best medical care, we need to utilize resources such as this. I would much rather see cattle being used to feed and heal people than seeing those same people die. Unfortunately, the life of an animal is more important to some than the life of an American soldier. ~Troy

Red Meat Production Proven Efficient and Safe

Red meat production proven efficient and safe
ROD SMITH
31 Jan, 2010 04:00 AM

ANIMALS need to be produced in a smarter manner - not in fewer numbers - to address environmental issues related to climate change, according to Frank Mitloehner, an associate professor and air quality specialist at the University of California-Davis.

Decreasing meat and milk production will only result in more hunger in poor countries - not a cleaner or cooler environment, he said in response to critics of meat and milk production who blame livestock for significant global warming.

Mitloehner said these critics fail to understand the relationship among animal and food production, animal digestion, human activities and atmospheric chemistry.

He traced much of this lack of understanding to two sentences in a 2006 United Nations report, Livestock's Long Shadow, which stated that the "livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in carbon dioxide equivalents. This is higher than transport."

He said findings in the US show that livestock production accounts for only 2.8pc of emissions in the US, while transportation accounts for 26pc.

In addition to being efficiently produced, environmentally sustainable and safe, meat might well be behind the reason people live longer lives than any other primate, according to biologist Caleb Finch at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, Cal.

Apes and chimpanzees are genetically similar to humans but rarely live more than 50 years, and it is possible that genetic changes that allow people to live longer are attributable to eating a more carnivorous diet than apes and chimps, he told the LiveScience program on TechMediaNetwork. Read More

When we look at the facts concerning meat production, the undeniable benefits become quite clear. Whether it’s human nutrition or the environment, livestock play an important role that can’t be replaced. Our task as producers of this essential product is to share this information with consumers. Not only does this give you a chance to introduce yourself and give the consumer a chance to meet a farmer, but it also gives them exactly what they want and that is to hear a real farmer or rancher explain what they do and show them how much they care about their livestock. I love sharing information like this because every time you do, you see the lightbulb flip on in the minds of consumers. It suddenly makes sense and they can really gain an appreciation for where their food comes from. ~Troy

More Anti-Pollans Telling Their Story

Anti-Pollan eager to speak
Rancher provides view to people who are far from the land
Analysis
By CARL SAMPSON
Capital Press

Agriculture is engaged in a battle to fill a void.

The void is a lack of understanding about agriculture among many members of the public. Farming and ranching is so far removed from most people that they don't seem to know one end of a cow from the other.

Into that void walks folks like Michael Pollan, a best-selling author who has made a name for himself as an "expert" on farming and ranching. In his presentations, for which he is paid $20,000 to $45,000, he offers all sorts of ideas about how to "improve" agriculture and, consequently, the world.

He says he wants to get the public to think about food and where it comes from, which is a good thing. The problem is that, because the public knows so little about agriculture, they tend to take his opinions at face value.

He gave a presentation earlier this month at Washington State University. Last fall, he spoke at Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo. No doubt the audiences at those agricultural schools were able to assimilate Pollan's remarks along with what they already knew about agriculture and gain added perspective.

Other audiences that Pollan speaks to, like those at his appearance this week on the Oprah Winfrey Show, do not have an agricultural background. When he speaks, he is starting with a blank slate, or close to it. Whatever he says about growing genetically modified crops, using pesticides or anything else, the audience has no background to serve as a reality check.

Enter Bill Hoyt. He's the new president of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association. The Cottage Grove, Ore., rancher's goal is talking with as many people as he can about ranching and agriculture.

Call him the anti-Pollan.

He plans to speak to any and every civic group and club -- anyone who will let him talk about ranching and its successes and challenges. Read More


One of the things that we focus on in our presentations to producer groups is the importance of starting local in your efforts to promote and educate about agriculture. Many times people think that they need to get to the “big city folks” in order to have an impact. Nothing could be further from the truth. We take for granted that our friends and neighbors know about production agriculture but that’s probably not the case. Congratulations to Bill Hoyt for seeing this local need and filling that role. I know it’s not easy and it takes precious time from your day, but it’s important work. The things we do off the farm and ranch can and will have just as big of an impact on our ability to grow food as the things we do on the farm and ranch.

Cattlemen's Challenges Discussed

Cattlemen Confront Challenges
01/28/2010
by Gary Truitt
Hoosier Ag Today

A group of Indiana Cattlemen have joined their colleagues in San Antonio, TX this week for the National Cattleman’s Beef Association convention. The cattle business is a much different business than it was just a year ago when the group met in Phoenix, AZ. Attacks on animal agriculture have intensified, and beef demand has declined due to poor economic conditions. Cattleman’s Beef Board President Lucinda Williams told the convention that the industry must confront these challenges head on, “We must be more proactive and more aggressive as we deal with changes taking place in our country.” She said changes taking place today will forever change the way cattle producers do business and could eliminate their ability to make a profit. Williams said cattlemen must reconnect with their customers, people who eat beef, “We must make our customers understand that our abundant supply of protein will not continue if we remain on the current path.” It is up to cattlemen, according to Williams, to educate consumers that those consumers are funding groups whose primary purpose is to abolish animal agriculture and decrease the availability of meat, which will ultimately drive up the cost of food.

CBA President Gary Voogt said another challenge facing producers is excessive and burdensome regulations from Washington, “There are politicians who do not know where food comes from, and some seem not to care where food comes from.” He called on the cattle industry to unite to confront these challenges. He said cattlemen have their work cut out for them this week. He urged support for the governance task force that will change the organization and provide a simpler and more unified structure, “We all have to live in one house.”

The event is the largest of its kind in the cattle industry, attracting nearly 6000 people this week. The meeting includes the annual meetings of NCBA, the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, American National CattleWomen, Cattle-Fax, and the National Cattlemen’s Foundation. The 2010 Cattle Industry Convention wraps up Saturday, January 30, when the annual meetings of the NCBA and the Cattlemen’s Beef Board are conducted. Link

There are certainly no lack of challenges that need discussing at this years Cattle Industry Convention. As I walked through the crowds, you heard discussions about everything from range management to international trade. The one topic that continues to be near the top of everyone’s list is about the attacks being launched on American agriculture. I had the pleasure of making a couple different presentations in San Antonio and that was my focus. I am very encouraged at the level of enthusiasm from the cattle producers who want to become better spokespeople for their industry. It’s hard to believe that we need to work so hard to defend the one occupation that sustains life on this planet, but that’s where we are.

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.