Researchers using pig tissue to help heal human wounds
One in 20 people will need some kind of tissue transplant in their lifetime. Some researchers believe pigs may be the key to faster healing from transplants.
Reporter: Maureen McFadden
One in 20 people will need some kind of tissue transplant in their lifetime. Some researchers believe pigs may be the key to faster healing from transplants.
From hernias to plastic surgery, pig tissue is helping humans get back in the game.
"I was having pain even standing for an extended period of time," says hernia patient Chris Nelson.
Chris had a hernia in his groin; the muscle had torn. Instead of using donor tissue, doctors repaired it with material made from the small intestines of pigs.
"It did seem almost weird science or something like that," Chris says.
"Pigs have been a very popular or common animal to use," says Dr. Samer Mattar, bariatric surgeon at Clarian Bariatrics in Indianapolis. "Believe it or not, their genetic makeup is pretty close to humans."
When placed on the torn tissue, the body uses the pig part as a scaffold or guide to remodel and repair itself. Over time, the pig's tissue is replaced by human tissue, providing a permanent repair. Read More
Our ability to utilize livestock as a resource has undoubtedly led to many improvements in the quality of human life. Many things that we use and take for granted every day are a co-product of livestock production. This is another great example of that. Using tissue from pigs to help heal humans may seem like a fairly insignificant breakthrough. However, it’s just one in a long line of uses for pigs in human medicine. Without livestock production we would have hungry people and more sick people. That isn’t the legacy we want to leave for our future generations.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
School Sheep Project Update
School row lamb sent to slaughter
BBC News
A school lamb that was hand-reared for meat by Kent pupils learning about the food chain has been slaughtered despite a national row over his fate.
Lydd Primary decided to send neutered male Marcus to slaughter earlier than planned, Kent County Council said.
TV host Paul O'Grady offered to buy him and a pupil's mother objected to his killing but head teacher Andrea Charman said the move had overwhelming support.
Animal welfare campaigners want the school to end its slaughter programme.
In a statement issued following Marcus's slaughter over the weekend, Ms Charman said: "The decision to send the Wether lamb for meat, which has the support of the school council and staff, the governing body and the majority of parents, has now been carried out.
"When we started the farm in spring 2009, the aim was to educate the children in all aspects of farming life and everything that implies. Read More
Here is an update on the sheep story that I shared with you yesterday. Of course PETA had to get involved and tried shaming the children into not harvesting their sheep. Unfortunately for them they were a little too late. The children of this school got their wish and will be able to continue learning about livestock from the funds generated through this project. We talk a lot about how consumers aren’t educated about farming and livestock production and this shows the PETA would really like to keep it that way. By not allowing these kids to understand that livestock are raised to produce food for us, they can further that disconnect and hopefully convince these uneducated people to support them. I think the disconnect goes further than just food production anymore though, it’s a disconnect from reality and the circle of life. I will continue to shout this out loud, the success of life depends on death. Every single living thing can only stay living by causing death to something else. That is a lesson that has been lost for most people.
BBC News
A school lamb that was hand-reared for meat by Kent pupils learning about the food chain has been slaughtered despite a national row over his fate.
Lydd Primary decided to send neutered male Marcus to slaughter earlier than planned, Kent County Council said.
TV host Paul O'Grady offered to buy him and a pupil's mother objected to his killing but head teacher Andrea Charman said the move had overwhelming support.
Animal welfare campaigners want the school to end its slaughter programme.
In a statement issued following Marcus's slaughter over the weekend, Ms Charman said: "The decision to send the Wether lamb for meat, which has the support of the school council and staff, the governing body and the majority of parents, has now been carried out.
"When we started the farm in spring 2009, the aim was to educate the children in all aspects of farming life and everything that implies. Read More
Here is an update on the sheep story that I shared with you yesterday. Of course PETA had to get involved and tried shaming the children into not harvesting their sheep. Unfortunately for them they were a little too late. The children of this school got their wish and will be able to continue learning about livestock from the funds generated through this project. We talk a lot about how consumers aren’t educated about farming and livestock production and this shows the PETA would really like to keep it that way. By not allowing these kids to understand that livestock are raised to produce food for us, they can further that disconnect and hopefully convince these uneducated people to support them. I think the disconnect goes further than just food production anymore though, it’s a disconnect from reality and the circle of life. I will continue to shout this out loud, the success of life depends on death. Every single living thing can only stay living by causing death to something else. That is a lesson that has been lost for most people.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Please Support H.R. 3524
In a capital intensive business like farming and ranching, estate taxes can be devastating to a family that is trying to pass their farm to the next generation. Please contact your Congressional representatives and let them know that you support H.R. 3524. The links below will help you do just that. Taking a few minutes today to do this might just keep a family farm in business.
-Troy
Please take a moment to support family farmers and ranchers by telling your story or showing your support for H.R. 3524 the Family Farm Preservation Estate Tax Act (Mike Thompson, D-CA).
Take action to urge your Congressional Representative to sign on as a cosponsor of H.R. 3524. Please do this by clicking one of the links below. That link will provide you with an opportunity to write your own story or send a form letter to your congressman.
This legislation improves the business climate while ensuring farms and ranches can be passed on to future generations. If passed, H.R. 3524 will:
* Exempt farm and ranch assets from federal estate taxes as long as the operation remains as a family agricultural operation.
* Exclude land enrolled in a qualified conservation easement from federal estate taxes.
Considering the tax-reform legislation that was approved in 2001 will phase out the estate tax entirely in 2010, Congress will likely be taking up this item this fall.
Your personal stories are needed to help lawmakers understand how farming and ranching operations differ from other businesses. Help keep farming operations viable, urge your Representative to sign on as a cosponsor of H.R. 3524.
If you live in California, use this link:
http://bit.ly/1Xj8p
If you live outside of California use this link:
http://www.capwiz.com/cfbf/issues/alert/?alertid=14009876&type=cu
Thanks for your attention and please pass this on to any farmer or farm supporter you know.
-Troy
Please take a moment to support family farmers and ranchers by telling your story or showing your support for H.R. 3524 the Family Farm Preservation Estate Tax Act (Mike Thompson, D-CA).
Take action to urge your Congressional Representative to sign on as a cosponsor of H.R. 3524. Please do this by clicking one of the links below. That link will provide you with an opportunity to write your own story or send a form letter to your congressman.
This legislation improves the business climate while ensuring farms and ranches can be passed on to future generations. If passed, H.R. 3524 will:
* Exempt farm and ranch assets from federal estate taxes as long as the operation remains as a family agricultural operation.
* Exclude land enrolled in a qualified conservation easement from federal estate taxes.
Considering the tax-reform legislation that was approved in 2001 will phase out the estate tax entirely in 2010, Congress will likely be taking up this item this fall.
Your personal stories are needed to help lawmakers understand how farming and ranching operations differ from other businesses. Help keep farming operations viable, urge your Representative to sign on as a cosponsor of H.R. 3524.
If you live in California, use this link:
http://bit.ly/1Xj8p
If you live outside of California use this link:
http://www.capwiz.com/cfbf/issues/alert/?alertid=14009876&type=cu
Thanks for your attention and please pass this on to any farmer or farm supporter you know.
The Passing of Norman Borlaug
The Father Of the Green Revolution
By Joe Holley and J.Y. Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 14, 2009
Norman E. Borlaug, 95, an American plant pathologist who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for starting the "Green Revolution" that dramatically increased food production in developing nations and saved countless people from starvation, died Saturday at his home in Dallas.
"More than any other single person of this age, he has helped provide bread for a hungry world," the Nobel committee said in honoring him. "Dr. Borlaug has introduced a dynamic factor into our assessment of the future and its potential."
Edwin Price, director of the Norman Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture at Texas A&M University, said his mentor died of cancer. Since 1984, Dr. Borlaug had been a distinguished professor of international agriculture there.
From the 1970s until his death, he increasingly took the politically incorrect view that environmentalists were hampering world food production by indiscriminately attacking the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
"They claim that the consumer is being poisoned out of existence by the current high-yielding systems of agricultural production and recommend we revert back to lower-yielding, so-called sustainable technologies," he said in a speech in New Orleans in 1993.
Unfortunately, he said, it is not possible to turn the clock back to the 1930s, when the population of the world was 2.2 billion. It was estimated at 5.6 billion in 1995 and was projected to rise to 8.3 billion by 2025. Read More
One of the great heroes in the history of agriculture, Norman Borlaug passed away this weekend at the age of 95. During his career, Borlaug always believed in using modern technology to end hunger. He believed in the proper use of fertilizers and chemicals as well. Those beliefs and his determination and hard work led to saving millions, if not billions, of people from starvation. He moved us away from the type of agriculture that many people like Michael Pollan and others want us to go back to. With a growing world population we have to continue moving forward with our ability to grow food, not backwards.
By Joe Holley and J.Y. Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 14, 2009
Norman E. Borlaug, 95, an American plant pathologist who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for starting the "Green Revolution" that dramatically increased food production in developing nations and saved countless people from starvation, died Saturday at his home in Dallas.
"More than any other single person of this age, he has helped provide bread for a hungry world," the Nobel committee said in honoring him. "Dr. Borlaug has introduced a dynamic factor into our assessment of the future and its potential."
Edwin Price, director of the Norman Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture at Texas A&M University, said his mentor died of cancer. Since 1984, Dr. Borlaug had been a distinguished professor of international agriculture there.
From the 1970s until his death, he increasingly took the politically incorrect view that environmentalists were hampering world food production by indiscriminately attacking the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
"They claim that the consumer is being poisoned out of existence by the current high-yielding systems of agricultural production and recommend we revert back to lower-yielding, so-called sustainable technologies," he said in a speech in New Orleans in 1993.
Unfortunately, he said, it is not possible to turn the clock back to the 1930s, when the population of the world was 2.2 billion. It was estimated at 5.6 billion in 1995 and was projected to rise to 8.3 billion by 2025. Read More
One of the great heroes in the history of agriculture, Norman Borlaug passed away this weekend at the age of 95. During his career, Borlaug always believed in using modern technology to end hunger. He believed in the proper use of fertilizers and chemicals as well. Those beliefs and his determination and hard work led to saving millions, if not billions, of people from starvation. He moved us away from the type of agriculture that many people like Michael Pollan and others want us to go back to. With a growing world population we have to continue moving forward with our ability to grow food, not backwards.
School Sheep Project
Anger over school sheep slaughter
(From the U.K.) Parents at a Kent primary school are angry that a sheep hand-reared by pupils is to be slaughtered for meat.
Meat from neutered male Marcus, one of three sheep cared for at a farm set up in the spring at Lydd Primary School, is to be raffled to buy more animals. Mother Jo Davis said it was a disgrace that the sheep fed by hand by her eight-year-old daughter Megan was to be slaughtered and sold.
Head teacher Andrea Charman said the school council voted for the slaughter.
Ms Charman started the farm, which also has rabbits, guinea pigs, cockerels and ducks, after she joined Lydd Primary in January.
The lambs were bottle-fed by the children and taken into assembly.
Last term the school council, made up of 14 seven to 11-year-olds, voted 13 to one in favour of sending Marcus to slaughter rather than keeping him. Read More
We all know that there is a disconnect between consumers and food producers, but this article is a good example of that. In this situation in the U.K., there are some parents that don’t want their kids to learn about the cycle of life. Trying to block the raffle of the meat that came from the sheep they raised is an effort to only let the kids learn half the story. Let’s remember that the kids weren’t going to have to witness the harvest of the animal, they just want to raffle off the meat to help fund their program. The success of life depends on death and when are kids are shielded from this law of nature, we do them a disservice.
(From the U.K.) Parents at a Kent primary school are angry that a sheep hand-reared by pupils is to be slaughtered for meat.
Meat from neutered male Marcus, one of three sheep cared for at a farm set up in the spring at Lydd Primary School, is to be raffled to buy more animals. Mother Jo Davis said it was a disgrace that the sheep fed by hand by her eight-year-old daughter Megan was to be slaughtered and sold.
Head teacher Andrea Charman said the school council voted for the slaughter.
Ms Charman started the farm, which also has rabbits, guinea pigs, cockerels and ducks, after she joined Lydd Primary in January.
The lambs were bottle-fed by the children and taken into assembly.
Last term the school council, made up of 14 seven to 11-year-olds, voted 13 to one in favour of sending Marcus to slaughter rather than keeping him. Read More
We all know that there is a disconnect between consumers and food producers, but this article is a good example of that. In this situation in the U.K., there are some parents that don’t want their kids to learn about the cycle of life. Trying to block the raffle of the meat that came from the sheep they raised is an effort to only let the kids learn half the story. Let’s remember that the kids weren’t going to have to witness the harvest of the animal, they just want to raffle off the meat to help fund their program. The success of life depends on death and when are kids are shielded from this law of nature, we do them a disservice.
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.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Innovation & Technology Helping To Feed The World
White Paper Examines Role of Agricultural Innovations in Meeting World Food Crisis
Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:06pm EDT
Agricultural Innovations Can Ensure Affordability, Supply, Safety and Sustainability
GREENFIELD, Ind.--(Business Wire)— Does agriculture need technology to help meet the growing worldwide demand for safe, nutritious and affordable food? The answer is a resounding "yes," according to Jeff Simmons, author of a white paper titled "Technology's Role in the 21st Century: Food Economics and Consumer Choice." In his paper, Simmons provides a comprehensive review of the growing challenge of feeding the world's population, including both historical data and projections that underscore the absolute necessity for new and existing technologies in food production.
"Already, an estimated 963 million people do not have enough to eat, and by 2050, we will need to produce 100 percent more food than we do now," says Simmons. "We can't achieve that by merely adding farmland or increasing crop intensity. But, we can use technology-such as advances in nutrition, disease and pest control, and livestock management-to increase productivity. Having said that, it's imperative that we use only those innovations that have a neutral or positive effect on the environment; to do otherwise is to sacrifice our long-term survival in favor of short-term gains."
Simmons concludes that technology is an important key to meeting the global demand for food and consumer choice for three reasons. First, technology enables food producers to provide more high-quality grains and protein sources using fewer resources. For example, a combination of best-management feeding practices and efficiency-enhancing feed ingredients enables today's cattle growers to use two-thirds less land to produce a pound of beef than it takes to produce a pound of beef from "all-natural," grass-fed cattle.
Second, technological innovation can help keep food affordable while ensuring maximum consumer choice - especially in developing nations. While some countries' well-designed organic systems can provide better yields and profits than traditional systems, on a global scale, organic foods come with a premium that many consumers can't afford.
Finally, technology can help minimize the global environmental impact of increased food production. For instance, modern beef-production techniques actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef by 38 percent compared with "all-natural" production methods, according to a 2007 study by the Hudson Institute. Moreover, technologies such as livestock feed ingredients can help significantly reduce animal waste production that threaten vital water resources, particularly in developing nations where modern pollution-control standards are not in use. Read More
Most of our consumers don’t realize the huge gains in efficiency that agriculture has made over the last 100 years. We are producing incredible amounts of food with a fraction of the inputs. It’s trendy today to blast conventional agriculture and make wild claims about how it’s not sustainable but the reality is much different. Because of the accomplishments we’ve made in increasing our food production capabilities, America enjoys the safest, most affordable food supply.
Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:06pm EDT
Agricultural Innovations Can Ensure Affordability, Supply, Safety and Sustainability
GREENFIELD, Ind.--(Business Wire)— Does agriculture need technology to help meet the growing worldwide demand for safe, nutritious and affordable food? The answer is a resounding "yes," according to Jeff Simmons, author of a white paper titled "Technology's Role in the 21st Century: Food Economics and Consumer Choice." In his paper, Simmons provides a comprehensive review of the growing challenge of feeding the world's population, including both historical data and projections that underscore the absolute necessity for new and existing technologies in food production.
"Already, an estimated 963 million people do not have enough to eat, and by 2050, we will need to produce 100 percent more food than we do now," says Simmons. "We can't achieve that by merely adding farmland or increasing crop intensity. But, we can use technology-such as advances in nutrition, disease and pest control, and livestock management-to increase productivity. Having said that, it's imperative that we use only those innovations that have a neutral or positive effect on the environment; to do otherwise is to sacrifice our long-term survival in favor of short-term gains."
Simmons concludes that technology is an important key to meeting the global demand for food and consumer choice for three reasons. First, technology enables food producers to provide more high-quality grains and protein sources using fewer resources. For example, a combination of best-management feeding practices and efficiency-enhancing feed ingredients enables today's cattle growers to use two-thirds less land to produce a pound of beef than it takes to produce a pound of beef from "all-natural," grass-fed cattle.
Second, technological innovation can help keep food affordable while ensuring maximum consumer choice - especially in developing nations. While some countries' well-designed organic systems can provide better yields and profits than traditional systems, on a global scale, organic foods come with a premium that many consumers can't afford.
Finally, technology can help minimize the global environmental impact of increased food production. For instance, modern beef-production techniques actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef by 38 percent compared with "all-natural" production methods, according to a 2007 study by the Hudson Institute. Moreover, technologies such as livestock feed ingredients can help significantly reduce animal waste production that threaten vital water resources, particularly in developing nations where modern pollution-control standards are not in use. Read More
Most of our consumers don’t realize the huge gains in efficiency that agriculture has made over the last 100 years. We are producing incredible amounts of food with a fraction of the inputs. It’s trendy today to blast conventional agriculture and make wild claims about how it’s not sustainable but the reality is much different. Because of the accomplishments we’ve made in increasing our food production capabilities, America enjoys the safest, most affordable food supply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)