Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Drought, fire, water and livestock

A deepening drought is threatening one third of the U.S. And that includes a lot of livestock country.


Wildfires are starting up all over, and I'm especially sensitive to these fires when they affect the livestock. In Colorado, three new wildfires started last week that burned more than 11,000 acres, forcing thousands of people and livestock to evacuate and hundreds of firefighters to respond.

A fire of more than 1,600 acres in Douglas County forced the evacuation of more than 8,500 people between Parker and Franktown on Thursday afternoon. Residents were allowed home a little after 8 p.m., when the fire was 50 percent contained.  Evacuated livestock, however, were not allowed to return immediately.

Farther out on the plains, near where I grew up, a 5,100-acre fire briefly drove all 90 residents of the town of Karval and fire consumed two county bridges and burned a barn.

Thankfully, no homes were lost in any of the blazes, and there were no reported injuries.

It is important to remind people during this dry time of year to be cautious of their activities - especially what they throw out of a car window strolling down the highway. As I-70 cuts through my family's ranch, there is a constant concern of a careless passerby throwing out a cigarette - or even a spark from a vehicle - that will start the ranch on fire.

Also during a period of drought, you have to be concerned about water issues. There is no doubt that water use issues are among the biggest challenges facing agricultural producers nationwide, but particularly in states where water is at a premium.

Corn growers are getting more pro-active Texas with a new public information campaign to share the message that water conservation goals can be achieved without severe restrictions on irrigation that would damage the economy of Texas High Plains. Plus, I am loving the color scheme of their new logo.


The campaign includes televised public service announcements, a 10 minute video and a new website, http://www.watergrowsjobs.org/, with the slogan “Water grows our economy; let’s make it last.”
Watch the video here:

Sunday, March 13, 2011

The 9-billion people question? It's not space we need.

Last week, The Economist Magazine published an extensive series of articles with the summary title of “The 9-billion people question: A special report on feeding the world.” The articles examine what is going to be required to feed more than two billion additional people by 2050, a question being looked at by more than just the people in agriculture producing the food.

The Beyond the Rows blog pulled a few selected quotes from the report’s introduction:
  • “At the start of 2011 the food industry is in crisis. World food prices have risen above the peak they reached in early 2008.”
  • “The end of the era of cheap food has coincided with growing concern about the prospects of feeding the world. Around the turn of 2011-12 the global population is forecast to rise to 7 billion, stirring Malthusian fears. The price rises have once again plunged into poverty millions of people who spend more than half their income on food.”
  • “Because food is so important, agriculture—more than any other form of economic activity—is expected to achieve a series of competing and overlapping goals that change over time and from place to place. The world looks to farmers to do more than just produce food. Agriculture is also central to reducing hunger (which is not quite the same thing) and provides many people’s main route out of poverty.”
  • “It (this report) points out that although the concerns of the critics of modern agriculture may be understandable, the reaction against intensive farming is a luxury of the rich. Traditional and organic farming could feed Europeans and Americans well. It cannot feed the world.”
The article also includes some great reports and sources (that you can view without a subscription to the Economist) on meeting calories and nutrients for people, how much is enough food, how simply using more of everything to produce more food will not work, and more. Check out here for more on this topic.

Also, National Geographic looked at this topic as well, but it's interesting to see it from a non-ag view. We don't take up as much space as you'd think....If all 7 billion people in the world stood shoulder-to-shoulder, we'd take up the space of the city of Los Angeles.
So it's not space we need...it's food, clean water, resources, energy....balance.

Monday, March 7, 2011

Beef Industry Carves a Course: Featuring a Colorado-ranch girl

I'm proud to pass on a great article about a fellow friend and Colorado-ranch girl, Jen Johnson, who was featured in the Wall Street Journal today:  Beef Industry Carves a Course  I've gotten my Master of Beef Advocacy and it is a great program!

The Johnson family
Colorado native Jen Johnson loved raising cattle and eating steak, a lifestyle some of her friends at Princeton University found a bit hard to swallow.

Ms. Johnson tried winning them over with sheer enthusiasm. But she soon realized she needed help persuading her salad-nibbling sorority sisters to order steaks. So she went back to school to get her MBA—Masters of Beef Advocacy.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which represents beef producers, launched the MBA two years ago. The course trains ranchers, feedlot operators, butchers, chefs—anyone, really, who loves a good, thick rib-eye—in the fine art of promoting and defending red meat.

Nearly 2,000 graduates have completed the program. The cattlemen aim to train at least 20,000 more, in the hope of building a forceful counterweight to the animal-rights advocates who denounce beef production as inhumane, and the vegetarian activists who reject beef consumption as unhealthy.

The advocacy effort comes at a tough time for the beef industry. Beef consumption in the U.S. plunged from a high of 94 pounds a person in 1976 to less than 62 pounds in 2009, according to the American Meat Institute, a trade group representing beef processors.

School districts across the country have adopted "Meatless Mondays" and are dishing out bean burritos in lieu of burgers. And this winter, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued new dietary guidelines advising consumers to replace some of the meat in their diet with seafood.

Meanwhile, veggie evangelists at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have turned heads with ever-more-racy campaigns, including sending models clad only in strategically placed leaves of lettuce to hand out tofu hot dogs on street corners nationwide.

PETA says its tactics work. Last year, the nonprofit fielded 850,000 requests for "vegetarian starter kits" packed with recipes like Tofu Tamale Pie and testimonials from celebrity supporters like actress Natalie Portman.

"We're winning," said Bruce Friedrich, a PETA vice president.

Not so fast, the MBAs respond.

Beef has its own celebrity backers—actor Matthew McConaughey has done radio spots—but industry strategists decided that the best way to promote the product was to put the men and women who produce beef front and center.

Their goal: convince skeptical consumers that the shrink-wrapped sirloin tips in the supermarket aren't artery-clogging commodities mass-produced on factory farms, but wholesome meals turned out with great care by hard-working families. To that end, MBA students are encouraged to strike up conversations with strangers.

Ranchers are urged to talk about the hours they spend caring for cattle—all those trips to the pasture at 3 a.m. to help a laboring cow give birth. Retailers could mention nutritional facts—that a three-ounce serving of eye-round roast has just slightly more fat than a skinless chicken breast, for example.

Ms. Johnson, 26 years old, has taken to sending email blasts to her friends from Princeton, describing a morning she spent artificially inseminating cows or explaining how grazing helps ranch land thrive. The majority of beef cattle in the U.S. are raised on grass on family-owned ranches before they are sent to feedlots for fattening and then on to the slaughterhouse for processing.

"We can change the dynamic of the discussion going on with the consumer with two phrases: We care and we're capable," Daren Williams, an executive at the cattleman's association, told a recent MBA class in Denver.

But critics of the industry say true transparency about how burgers come to be may backfire.

Constant reminders that a juicy quarter-pounder was once a wobbly-legged, big-eyed calf may put some people "in the mood to have a steak," said Michael Pollan, who has written several books critical of modern beef production. "For others," he said, "it puts them in the mood to become a vegan."

To get their degrees, MBA students must listen to six online lectures on beef production and do homework assignments such as writing a pro-beef letter to the local paper. Most also attend a daylong in-person training that serves up tips on taking beef boosterism online through blogs, tweets, Facebook campaigns and YouTube videos.

At the Denver training, South Dakota rancher Troy Hadrick—one of the first MBA graduates—told students about one of his recent triumphs.

It came about after Mr. Hadrick learned Yellow Tail wine had donated $100,000 and pledged $200,000 more to the Humane Society of the U.S., an animal-rights group that has embarrassed the cattle industry with undercover videos of slaughterhouse abuses.

Mr. Hadrick, outraged, set a video camera on a fence post and filmed himself dumping a bottle of Yellow Tail onto his snowy pasture while blasting the donations as an affront to ranching families.

Mr. Hadrick's video went viral on YouTube—at least among fellow cattlemen, who bombarded Yellow Tail with protest emails. Chagrined, the winery withdrew its $200,000 pledge to the animal-rights group.

MBA graduate Suzanne Strassburger, who sells steaks to high-end New York City restaurants, hasn't tried YouTube advocacy yet, but she says the course has helped her pump up her sales pitches. "It gives me more confidence" to talk about how the meat was produced, she said. And talk she does: Beef "is my love and my passion," Ms. Strassburger said. "This is what I get up for."

Go online to comment, or write to Stephanie Simon at stephanie.simon@wsj.com.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Vets Recognize Animal 'Welfare' in Oath

An article in the Daily Yonder,  caught my attention when it stated, "Veterinarians now must take an oath that they will attempt to prevent "animal suffering"."

In the article, found here, it talks about the rising battle between the nation’s agriculture sector and animal rights activists, and how common livestock production practices — in particular, large confined animal farms — are coming under more public scrutiny.

Thus, in January, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) published an article that announced a change in the language of the Veterinarian’s Oath to emphasize a commitment not just to animal health but to animal welfare. This would include the “prevention of animal suffering.”

The author then goes to pull in all of the legislation and issues that HSUS has arose in recent years to put certain animal production practices out of use. I think she went a little overboard. First of all, I think that vets getting ready to go into practice after years of school truly want to prevent animal suffering - this does include cats, dogs, snakes, parakeets - not just farm animals, which are brought into the limelight. I don't know a vet that wants their patients to suffer.

So the addition of the wording does not need to make people think that the AVMA are going to change all of their policies on farm animal production practices.

Since it brings up HSUS a lot in the article, I do find it funny that the article says: "Confinement practices, in particular, have become the target of the HSUS' latest campaign for reform that many in the ag industry feel is a direct attack upon farming." The problem, according to HSUS, is the mistreatment of animals in livestock production agriculture for the sake of doing business. We hear this so much, that those of us in agriculture are just doing this to make money!

I've heard two answers for this that I agree with:
  • Those in ag "don't do it for the money".
    • Most all people in agriculture have a passion for it, and thus, continue to raise crops and livestock because they love what they do! If they wanted to go out and get a 6-figure job they probably could - because farmers and ranchers have to be smart - but they prefer to do what they love and thus, don't get paid that much.


  • We aren't ashamed to say we make money raising food because we are raising a safe, cheap, food supply; and it's our livelihood.
    • Obviously, farmers and ranchers have to make some money raising food because they too have to feed their families as agriculture is their livelihood. But then this goes back to my first point: they do it because they love it and they happen to make money doing it to support themselves. Just because they are making money, doesn't mean they are not treating their animal inhumanely. Just the opposite occurs - when you take care of your livestock, they take care of you.
Enough of my ranting today - let me know if you read this article and what you think...