Common Sense Agriculture

Blog Has Moved

2011-01-06T00:32:00.000-08:00

This site will remain up for another month.

I have started self hosting and have moved my blog to http://commonsenseagriculture.com/

Social Media Prep for #CAFB10

2010-12-03T22:44:00.000-08:00

First, I want to thank Dan Toland, from the Ohio Farm Bureau, for having the idea and providing the basis for the information that I am about to share.

I am looking forward to meeting as many of you as possible at the 92nd California Farm Bureau’s annual meeting this week in Monterey. There is an amazing agenda planned, with outstanding speakers, activities and policy discussion.

If you are reading this, you are one of the few individuals who have taken the initiative to engage in social media. The CFBF annual meeting is a wonderful opportunity for you to share insightful quotes, things learned and people met. It is an opportunity for you to share agriculture’s story from the perspective of a grassroots member of CFBF. It is an opportunity for you to share with other members the wonderful experience of utilizing social media to share their story.

Here is a quick run-down of some Facebook and Twitter tips and strategies to help make this annual meeting a social media success. With the theme “New Horizons…No Fences” I challenge you to utilize the social media tools at your disposal, embrace the new horizons and help breakdown the fences, increase understanding, build bridges and grow communities.

FACEBOOK

Update your status throughout the meeting.

Mobile photo uploads are a great way to share and remember who you meet.

Share the experience that makes Farm Bureau unique in how policy starts at the local level and travels through the process.

TWITTER

The official hashtag for the annual meeting is #CAFB10.

Include the hashtag in all of your tweets from the meeting & activities.

Follow the hashtag to see what is happing.

Mobile photo uploads are excellent way to share.

Some other common hashtags to utilize: #farm, #ag, #agchat, #food, #agvocate, #environment, #quote, #CA, #Monterey

DON’T KNOW WHAT TO POST?

Play “reporter”: Post quotes, thoughts, facts and information.

Share photos: Be sure to include a short description of photo and a hashtag.

Retweet, Like and Share posts from other participants.

OTHER TIPS

• Carry power cords with you. If you get active, you’ll need a re-charge! 

• Always read your post twice, before hitting “send.” It becomes public instantly.

ALSO….

Look for the Know A California Farmer / AgChat Foundation table at the meeting. We would be happy to answer any questions you might have and if you are not already, get you signed up for #KACF.

I look forward to seeing and meeting you all!

Travel safe.

Farm American & #Foodthanks

2010-11-24T08:49:00.000-08:00

Project Farm American: a mobile agricultural education unit traveling to schools, shopping centers and sporting events that will reach over 62 million people every year. This project is an opportunity to build bridges between rural and urban America. For years, those in agriculture have been ‘searching’ to find a way to reconnect with consumers, particularly those in urban areas. Project Farm American fits that goal in a unique way.

Every agricultural organization understands the importance of policy development; however, with bridge building to the urban interface, we have the opportunity to garner even more support, outside our own community. We in agriculture clearly understand that the pressures we are facing from regulatory and legislative actions, drafted by individuals without a clear understanding of that which they are wanting to govern. This project will lead to a more informed public and more common sense legislation.
Would it not be advantageous to reach out to the public, educate them on what, why and how we do what we do? The Farm American project will reach over 62 million people, covering all demographics, each year. The potential impact that will be gained through this effort is astronomical.

Further, it is important to note that this project promotes the importance and value of all agricultural enterprises. It will fit hand-in-hand with the multiple social media projects, spread throughout the country, that are already building bridges and growing communities of understanding. The opportunity for consumers to meet local farmers and ranchers, enjoy the product of their toil, and learn how that commodity was grown and harvested will be personal. This is a package that will put the face of the American farmer back on the plate.

This is an effort that all Americans can participate in. Our objective is raise the recognition of the American farmer, so that we are able to continue to produce all of the food that our country needs and not have to rely upon foreign imports to feed our own people. It is fitting that this week is also #world #foodthanks week. Show your support for American farmers and ranchers by supporting the Farm American Project and by visiting http://foodthanks.com/, and make some posts utilizing the #foodthanks hashtag.

Together, Troy and Stacey Hadrick, Ray Prock and I are undertaking an effort to raise $1 million dollars to go towards getting the mobile, interactive agricultural education unit on the road. We are asking for pledges for four years at the following minimums, feel free to challenge others for more; individuals, farms and ranches - $50, County Farm Bureaus, Cattlemen and Cattlewomen Associations - $250, State Farm Bureaus, Cattlemen, Cattlewomen and Beef Councils - $2,500. We are counting on agvocates across the US to help us reach these organizations and many more.

To show your support of this endeavor, we simply ask that you post your interest as a comment to this blog and send an quick email to FarmAmerican@gmail.com One of us will contact you for the appropriate information. Also, feel free to contact any of us with questions you may have.

My #foodthanks

2010-11-21T20:42:00.000-08:00

For many of us this time of the year, giving thanks for food on the table is a time-honored tradition. It may strike some as odd, being as I am a rancher, but I am thankful for the 100’s of farmers and ranchers I have met this past year in person and the 100’s I have met through various social media platforms.

I am thankful for the farmers who grew the corn, almonds, barley, cotton, and soybeans that make up the grain ration I feed to our bulls.

I am thankful for the farmers who grow the fresh fruits and vegetables that we are able to buy at the grocery store.

I am thankful for the farmers who grow the pork, lamb and yes, even poultry, which we are able to buy at the grocery store.

I am thankful for the farmers who care for the cows at the dairies and provide us with a steady supply of refreshing milk at the grocery store.

I am thankful for the farmers who grow the herbs, grains and other essentials that are so readily available at the grocery store.

I am thankful for the multitude of people who are responsible for getting the products from the farm to the store.

Join the AgChat Foundation in sharing your thanks this Wednesday, November 24, in a tweet, a Facebook post, video or blog. Our goal with the #foodthanks campaign is to provide tools and inspiration for spreading personal expressions of gratitude beyond the family table to that extended circle of friends and family in our social media networks.Use the hashtag #foodthanks & use the image.

What are you thankful for?

Visit: http://foodthanks.com/

An 'Aggie' Experience at an Innovation Summit

2010-11-15T10:09:00.000-08:00

This past Friday night and Saturday morning I was fortunate to be invited to attend & speak at the 2010 Innovation Summit, presented by Partners for Growth and Innovation. Thank you very much to Marla Schulman and Tanya Noel for allowing me to take part in this enjoyable experience.

Friday evening, in a small group setting, we engaged in a very informative discussion, led by Nilofer Merchant (http://twitter.com/Nilofer), on applying strategic thinking and innovation. An insightful presentation and discussion. I then thoroughly enjoyed meeting and talking social media strategy, blogging and marketing with Christian Gammill (http://twitter.com/Gammill), and Liz Strauss (http://twitter.com/lizstrauss).

Saturday morning, Naeem Zafar (Professor, Hass Business School, U.C. Berkeley, http://twitter.com/naeem ) , delivered a keynote on Creating an Ecosystem of Innovation: Lessons from Silicon Valley. It was an enjoyable discussion with question and answer that followed.

I then participated as a panelist discussing Strategic Innovative Problem Definition – from where we are to where we have to be, with Sussan Thomas (President, Trainer Communications), Mark Kithcart, (Marketing Director, Democrasoft), Karolina Caran, (Motivational Researcher and Author), Omar Ahmad, (Co-Founder & CEO, SynCHEnergy Corporation) and Rooley Eliezerov, (Co-founder & President, Gigya), as the moderator.

It was interesting to see the correlations that agriculture shares with corporate America, yet still maintains its unique ability to stay grounded in family and inter-personal relationships with our customers.

A common theme among the panelists was the idea of “failing forward fast” and how society has come to view “failure” positively, since we have the ability to learn from our mistakes. Omar helped me to realize again how thankful I am that we have corporations in agriculture that are able to engage in this philosophy in order for family farmers and ranchers to take advantage and incorporate the resulting innovations.

Following the panel, a great presentation was delivered by Jeremiah Owyang, a partner at Altimeter Group(http://twitter.com/jowyang) , on how corporations connect with their customer using web technologies. It was interesting to recognize that AgChat Foundation and efforts within agriculture are ahead of the curve in this arena by utilizing a combination of the ‘Dandelion’ and ‘Holistic’ strategy model. http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2010/04/15/framework-and-matrix-the-five-ways-companies-organize-for-social-business/

Sadly, I had to head home early. The cattle and horses were eagerly awaiting their feed and my neighbors were celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary.

I look forward to continuing discussions with those that I met at the summit. It was a tremendous learning experience and I eagerly await the next.

Farm American, Time For Team Work

2010-11-01T03:14:00.000-07:00

Three weekends ago, Ray Prock, Troy and Stacy Hadrick and I were invited to attend the Fontana NASCAR race as a guest of the Furniture Row Racing Team. Team owner, Barney Visser, also graciously ran the Farm American paint scheme on the 78 at three races this season. Mr. Visser has first hand experience with the outsourcing of American jobs and does not want to see same happen to agriculture. His passion for American agriculture is obvious and I am excited to work with Furniture Row racing, Ray, Troy and Stacy on his dream to promote American agriculture.

It is time for all of agriculture to step up and come together to support an endeavor that will reach over 60% of population, 36 weeks each year through televised coverage, live races and retail store promotion. After catching 'Undercover Boss' this week, with NASCAR's SVP Steve Phelps and Chief Marketing Officer, and witnessing first hand in Fontana, the similarities between NASCAR and American Agriculture are very apparent. Both NASCAR and American Agriculture place strong emphasis on family values, patriotism and efficiency. The team and partnership are there for the making. Lead by crew chief Pete Rondeau, the #78 team exhibited passion, top skills and professionalism as they performed in the pits, shared attributes of American family farmers and ranchers.

Just as dedicated, to keeping American agriculture viable, was the young, promising and truly dedicated driver of the #78, Regan Smith. Regan is from an agricultural background in New York and shared with us his commitment to doing what he can to further promote American agriculture and keep it viable. Having followed NASCAR for sometime, I can verify that Regan Smith has the perfect attitude, personality and dedication to be the driver of the Farm American car.

Hang on! I am just getting to the real exciting part of the vision, as shared with us by Pat Driscoll, Corporate Relations Director and Shawn Martini, Communications Director. This endeavor is more than an outstanding team, a competitive car, a talented driver and a beautiful paint scheme every race day. The goal is to also have a traveling, interactive, educational mobile tour, that will be at every track and make stops between races. This mobile tour will educate the public about American agriculture & promote products grown regionally, based on the track location. Local family farmers and ranchers will interact with the public, build new bridges and grow bigger communities of understanding.Stops for the mobile tour will include tracks, schools, shopping malls, shows and state fairs.

The photo above is a prime example of the attraction by the public to the #78 Farm American car. This father and his son and daughter we just walking down pit road, looking at the cars, saw the #78, stopped and asked if we would take their picture with it. A neat conversation about farming and ranching ensued.

We need agribusiness, industry organizations, farmers and ranchers to come together on this team of opportunity. Barney Visser, owner of Furniture Row, a man with no ties to agriculture, other than a passion for eating healthy, wholesome, nutritious American grown food, has already invested nearly $2 million of his own to launch the effort. This race season is nearly over and the time is now to step forward and become a member of this winning team for American agriculture.

We have been looking for opportunities to reach out to more people, greater diversity and gain positive air time on major networks. How often does agriculture have someone volunteer to help promote our industry at a national level, in a way that reaches over 160 million people? This is it! It is time to become a part of Team Farm American.

I would like to personally express a heartfelt thank you to Barney Visser, Pete Rondeau, Joe Garone, Pat Driscoll, Shawn Martini and Charlie Krauch for inviting us to Fontana and including us in this important journey. Excited anticipation for the future of Farm American and Furniture Row Racing is an understatement.

To learn more about the team, driver and program, check out:

Recent post by Troy Hadrick on Advocates for Agriculture: http://advocatesforag.blogspot.com/2010/10/farm-american.html

Recent post by Ray Prock:
http://raylindairy.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/disappointing-end-to-a-wonderful-weekend/

Twitter - http://twitter.com/#!/Regan_Smith_ (Regan Smith)

Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/FarmAmerican

Website - http://www.farmamerican.com/index.asp?LT=about

Or, send me an email. jefffowle96027@gmail.com and I would be happy to discuss the program with you and get you in touch with appropriate people to become a part of the team.

Thoughts On 2010 California Election

2010-10-27T15:25:00.000-07:00

A number of folks have asked my position on a number of races, propositions & measures in California, Siskiyou County and Scott Valley; so here are my personal, "Ag Friendly" recomendations.

Senator - Carly Fiorina

Boxer has been worthless. Period. Carly has pledged to work with Senator Feinstein on the Central Valley Water issues, the Klamath Water issues and understands that smaller government, less onerous regulations and lower taxes stimulate job creation.

Governor - Meg Whitman

Simply put, California cannot afford another term of Brown. Much of the regulatory nightmare we are confronted with today is a result of his previous term. Meg has the complete opposite philosophy and supports growing agriculture in all of its diversity.

Lieutenant Governor - Abel Maldanado

Attorney General - Steve Cooley

State Senate, District 4 - Doug LaMalfa

I have the utmost respect for Doug. He was an outstanding Assemblyman, has a first hand understanding of farming, ranching and the water issues facing our district.

Proposition 19 – No, Would legalize marijauna

Proposition 20 – Yes, Allows Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw congressional districts, not legislature.

Proposition 21 – No, Would impose another new fee

Proposition 22 – Yes, Prevents state from borrowing or taking funds from local government

Proposition 23 – Yes, Will suspend AB 32

Proposition 24 – No, Would repeal Business tax credits

Proposition 25 – No, Would change budget vote from 2/3 to majority

Proposition 26 – Yes, Increases vote requirement from simple majority to 2/3 to impose fees, levies and charges & requires voters to approve local fees or charges.

Proposition 27 – No, Would take job of drawing district boundaries from CRC and give it back to the legislature.

Measure G (Klamath Dam Removal) – No, Would support removal of Iron Gate, Copco 1 and Copco 2 dams, eliminating local, green power and put Scott Valley and Shasta Valley farmers and ranchers water rights in jeopardy.

Measure E (School Bond) – No, Would impose unfair taxes on farms and ranches, taxing all property, including equipment and machinery.

Example of Out-Of-Control Government Impacting Animal Welfare

2010-10-18T09:55:00.000-07:00

Seven days ago I returned home from attending the NASCAR race in Fontana CA. I was invited by the Furniture Row Racing team to meet with their owner, driver and team to discuss the future plans of the Farm American car and an interactive, educational, traveling van that will be at all of the NASCAR races as well as stop at various locations during off weeks, educating the public about American Agriculture and promoting local farmers and ranchers and their food at each of the venues. I will talk about this more in another post.

Upon returning home, late in the afternoon, the ranch looked to be in good shape. The cattle and horses were all in their respective pastures and looked to be content. The following morning I took a quick drive on the ATV and checked all the critters out before heading to a meeting in Yreka. They looked healthy and happy. I returned that night well after dark for chores. When I awoke on Wednesday morning and glanced out on the fields, I noticed that there was only one field with cows in it, there should have been three, and we were short a few to boot. I also noticed that our stud horse was not in his pasture, but up the lane next to the mares and foals. This was not a good start to the day.

I quickly hopped on the ATV and proceeded down the lane. After returning the stud to his field I proceeded to try and locate the missing cows and calves. Following their trail, through three downed fences, I found most of them in the river bed and realized the irrigation ditch, which they water from, was completely dry. I immediately called my neighbor, who shares the ditch with us to find out if he had a plug in the ditch. The reply was a negative and further, that upon checking the ditch the morning before, it had been flowing full. Something did not seem to be adding up.

After getting the majority of the pairs back into the bottom field, I did a quick splice on the fence to hold them for a bit, returned to the barn and jumped in the truck to go check the ditch at the point of diversion. We have had issue with several pairs of beavers, in the past, and was expecting to see a dam across our ditch. However, when I reached the fish screen, to prevent fish from entering the ditch, I noticed that the screens and brushes had been removed, the flow regulating headgate had been closed and the bypass had been opened.

I proceeded to the point of diversion and discovered that the headgate there had also been closed. I promptly called our watermaster, an employee of the California Department of Water Resources, who acts under the order of the court and enforces our adjudicated water rights. He informed me that neither he nor the other watermaster, had even been in the area for the past week. A call to the California Department of Fish and Game screen shop revealed that they had removed the screens on Tuesday, around noon, without notifying either my neighbor or myself, but “had not touched the headgates.” However, CDFG claimed the ditch was “dry” and that is why they had pulled the screens. Problem, my neighbor had seen the ditch running full Tuesday morning around 9 am and it takes nearly 8 hours for the ditch to “go dry.”

This is the fourth time in five years that the CDFG has pulled the screens and opened the bypass without landowner contact. The previous three times they had also closed the diversion headgate. Something smells real fishy, and it is not fish!

1. Our diversion is an adjudicated water right, with irrigation rights from April 15th through October 15th and livestock watering rights year round.

2. Legally, the only two entities that may adjust the diversion headgate are the landowner and the watermaster, from CDWR.

3. Legally, the CDFG may not trespass, unless in pursuit of a violator, and it may only be a Game Warden.

4. Legally, the CDFG may not touch a privately owned headgate on a diversion.

5. By contract, CDFG must inform the landowner before visiting, repairing, or adjusting any fish screen.

Due to the suspected actions of the CDFG, cattle and horses were left without water for nearly 48 hrs, since it took 18 for the water to reach them again after turning it back on. I had three breeding groups separated that were mixed again on their search for water. I had a bull get injured, four fences destroyed and stud horse cut up. All of this could have been avoided if 1) CDFG had not shut off the diversion; and 2) if CDFG had contacted the landowners about removing the screens, if indeed the ditch had been dry, as they claim.

This is yet another attempt by a government agency to trample private property rights and display their utter disregard for their actions. Government has become too big and too bold. It must stop and must change.

Response to PETA Article in Sacramento Bee

2010-10-12T18:32:00.000-07:00

I am writing in response to the opinion piece that was published in your Lifestyle section on October 11, 2010. It is sad that you would publish an article by an animal rights activist that paints every farm, ranch and animal facility with one broad brush of inaccuracy and fallacy. The vast majority of farmers and ranchers treat their animals humanely and respectfully. As a rancher and an active animal welfarist, I would like to share the following thoughts.

First, this is a personal issue for family farmers and ranchers like me. We consider our animals a part of our family and often spend more time caring for our animals than we spend with our families. We make sure our animals have the highest quality food, water and veterinary care; health is paramount. We also do our best to protect our animals from disease, competition, injury and predators.

Second, the writer makes it sound as though these practices are typical. Those of us involved in farming and ranching know that is not so. Without healthy, content animals, farmers and ranchers could not stay in business. We understand the importance of animal care in assuring safe and high-quality meat, milk and eggs for our communities. Some of us personally know our consumers, others do not, but we always make it a priority to ensure that the food we are raising is the best cared for and of the highest quality.

Third, farmers and ranchers are as disgusted as anyone by the abuse alleged in this opinion piece. If people are abusing animals, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. One incident of mishandling is one too many. There must be zero tolerance for inhumane animal treatment, period.

There are a lot of dedicated people who specialize in animal care, people like veterinarians, animal scientists and experts on animal well-being. Farmers and ranchers have been actively working with them to create quality-assurance programs that set guidelines for animal handling to eliminate stress, decrease risk of injury (to both animal and human) and ensure the highest quality of animal products for American consumers.

In closing, as a family rancher, I thank you for the opportunity to respond as an individual who depends on ensuring the health and welfare of the livestock I raise to be able to continue to provide a high quality, safe, wholesome and nutritious product.

Farmers and ranchers across the United States are telling their stories through videos, blogging and photos. Consumers can connect with them to see how they care for their animals and raise the safest food possible at http://www.agchat.org http://www.knowacaliforniafarmer.com. Readers may also contact me directly at http://www.twitter.com/jefffowle

#140conf: Building Bridges & Growing Communities

2010-10-04T09:46:00.001-07:00

I'm off to the #140conf in LA, filled with excitement and anticipation of the opportunities that await.

Being a part of the #140conf in SFO was an eye opening experience and I am truly grateful for Jeff Pulver (@jeffpulver) inviting both Ray Prock (@RayLinDairy) and myself to also be a part of the Los Angeles event.

Many of my friends and acquaintances within the agriculture community have asked me why I want to travel to LA and participate in a conference filled with "non-aggies."

The answer is simple. Everyone eats and if we in agriculture do not re-connect with our customers, what they eat will not be from here, but imported.

Consumers today are so far removed from the farm and ranch that they have lost a true understanding of how their food, fiber, fuel and shelter are grown.

I believe it is essential for farmers and ranchers to stop relying on others to communicate their with consumers. Yes, it is helpful, but having the actual growers share their personal story is what builds strong bridges and communities of shared understanding.

I look forward to events that have diverse interests in attendance. Agriculture has relied primarily upon industry organizations to spread its message for to long. It is high time for family farmers and ranchers to tell their own story.

Here in LA, I am going to share my story, make new friends, build new bridges and expand the ever growing and caring community of farmers, ranchers and consumers.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.2

Whitman, Illegals & Desperate Measures

2010-10-04T07:36:00.001-07:00

The recent headline of California Governor Candidate Meg Whitman has me fuming.

Why is there no discussion about the employment agency that provided the Whitmans with employee?

Employers often utilize employment agencies or guest worker programs to find employees so they do not have to deal with hassle of background checks.

With the recommendation of an employment agency, copy of a social security card and a drivers license, the Whitmans had no reasonable reason to question the legality of the employee.

Did the Whitmans pay the respective taxes and social security payments based on the provided documentation? Yes.

Did the Whitmans terminate the employee when they discovered the status of her citizenship? Yes.

Unless you have employees and have had to do back ground checks, zip it!

The fact that the employee was recomended, had forged documentation and had resided in California, drawing a paycheck for as long as she did, demonstrates the complete failure of our current immigration system.

I support a strengthened border to eliminate the entry of illegal aliens. It is a National Security matter and the safety of our citizens demands it.

I support a functional and reliable guest worker program. The American economy, especially agriculture, depends on it.

Finally, I honestly believe this story hit the news for one single purpose, political gain through negative publicity, when the other candidate, Gerry Brown, realized that the good folks of California were not buying his bag of goods.

Do not allow this desparate attempt to discredit Meg Whitman influence your opinion. Look at the substance of her position on the issues.

California needs a governor who understands the importance of a healthy and viable agricultural community, can cut spending and not tax and regulate business out of the state.

I have met Meg Whitman. I trust Meg Whitman. I believe Meg Whitman is the only choice for California governor.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.2

One of Those Days

2010-09-27T15:52:00.001-07:00

Ever had one of those days when try as you might, you just can't finish anything on your plan of work?

I started my morning working on writing a white paper for local control of natural resources. My son awoke, I fixed him breakfast and settled back in. No sooner had I sat down, I received a call from a gentleman with unbelievable scientific knowledge. Needless to say, the call lasted an hour and fourty three minutes. I got my son dressed and dropped off at his grandparents. The white paper was stalled.

When I got home, I fired up the chainsaw and dropped three dead oak trees for winter fire wood. Before I could finish getting them de-limbed, I had gone through three chains. I took the chains in to be sharpened and bought a fourth chain. Shortly after re-starting my woodcutting I blew a hole in the diaphragm of the carb of the chainsaw. Wood cutting stalled.

I called to see where the swather was to pick it up to finish cutting third cutting here at home. Left to pick it up and got a call that it won't be ready until tomorrow. Hay cutting stalled.

I went to pick up the trailer at my parents to haul weaned heifer calves to the scale and get weaning weights. After hooking up to the trailer I realized it had a flat and the spare was flat. Weighing calves stalled.

I've resolved to go back to fixing fence. I have plenty of clips, wire and posts.

I'm certain their is a song that can be written about this experience, perhaps even a rap, but I'm to tired to think about it. LOL

Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.9

Thoughts On My Son's First Day Of School

2010-08-26T09:01:00.000-07:00

As I walked my son to his first day of school, pre-school, I couldn’t help but contemplate the state of our educational system and the potential impacts it is and will have on society.

During my short 40 years, I have seen the transition from a focus on cursive handwriting, to printing, from typing to keyboarding, from writing out mathematical solutions to graphing calculators and party lines with rotary dial phones, to digital phones with answering machines, to cell phones, to smart phones that are used more for texting, tweeting, posting and emailing than talking.

These transitions of focus included a transition away critical thinking and in my humble opinion have resulted in the following:

1. People rarely write thank you cards or letters anymore. Instead, the cards are pre-printed, digital or email is utilized. People no longer have to think about how to say what they feel and then legibly put those words to paper. Humanity is lost. Let us return to the days when a “rough draft” for an essay meant writing it on paper. Would this not improve critical thinking and reduce the temptation to “cut & paste” from an electronic file?

2. People are unable to compute mathematical problems without a calculator or computer, let alone run a proof to determine if the given answer is truly correct. “Experts” working for regulatory agencies rely entirely upon computer models without any regard for the quality of the data entering, whether the data was entered correctly, whether the data was utilized properly and are unable to “prove” the outcome is accurate without utilizing multiple runs on another computer, using the same files and same model. Start putting it back on paper people!

3. People become agitated when responses to questions are not answered in a timely manner via social media or email, when a phone call could give an immediate reply. I fear cell phones, if not already, will soon be utilized more for digital communication than speaking. Will this lead to the inability of individuals to communicate effectively vocally and introduce classes on texting instead of speech?

Do not take this the wrong way, I appreciate technology and utilize all forms that help me to be more efficient. However, I do think that we need to re-introduce some of the basics back into schools. Teach students how to write again, legibly and grammatically correct. Require students to show ALL of their work in math, not just answers and bring back speech and debate classes.

While I am looking forward to my son’s future experiences in his educational endeavors, he can rest assured that what he does not receive in school, will be waiting for him at home. Until then, it is back to changing water and ranch work alone, two days a week. At least I get to be weaned from him in phases. :-)

A Cowboy & A Dairyman Experience SFO

2010-08-21T19:59:00.000-07:00

I recently had the opportunity to attend the San Francisco #140 Conference with Ray Prock (@RayLinDairy) through the gracious invitation of Jeff Pulver (@jeffpulver). This was the second twitter conference Ray and I have attended, the first being a #140tc in Seattle, Washington, hosted by Parnasus Group. Both events were extremely well organized, very informative and everyone was gracious, receptive and a bit intrigued by a cowboy and a dairyman in attendance.

There are a couple of points I would like to make in reflection of my experience attending these conferences. First, I would highly encourage anyone who has the opportunity to attend, to do so. There is something of value for everyone to gain through the presentations, speakers and panels. Listen to what is being said; forget what sector you may be from. Value can be found in every presentation. Nuggets that can be utilized and interwoven into your use of social media, no matter what who is doing the sharing.

Second, the networking opportunity is truly amazing. Ray and I have met some folks that I am certain will be friends for ever; individuals who I would never have believed meeting a year ago. Everyone attending these conferences is there for at least one common purpose: how to communicate more effectively and build communities by maintaining the humanity of the interaction.

Finally, there is much for agriculture to learn from sectors that have been utilizing social media since the beginning. There is also much for other sectors to learn from agriculture as I have discovered. It is important for people from all walks of life to connect, communicate and learn from each other. Bridges are being built that will last generations.

In closing, thank you very much to Jeff Pulver for the opportunity to speak and a very gracious thank you to all of those Ray and I met and talked to in San Francisco. It was especially nice to finally meet Frank Plughoff (@Earthnik) whom I have been tweeting with for the past year. It is always fun to meet tweeple in person.

Time - Focus On Children

2010-07-18T13:43:00.000-07:00

The past three weeks has caused me to contemplate the matter of time and how I budget time. Like finances, time can be budgeted and I highly recommend that folks do, for many of the same reasons. Like money, time can be wasted. However, unlike money, more time cannot be earned. We are here on this planet for a finite period and it is important we invest our time wisely.

Begin your Time Budget by establishing what is most important to you, budget your time accordingly and then write it down and stick to your budget. Similar to money, time has an ROI (Return On Investment) value. It is important that the time you spend is quality time, especially when it comes to time invested with our children.

Spending time with a child is valuable, but make it quality time. Give your undivided attention to your son/daughter, eliminate the distractions and let them set the pace. Think about it. Do you simply reply in short responses (“I see,” “that’s nice,” “interesting,” etc.) or do you engage in dialogue? When going for a walk or ride, do you go ahead or let them set the speed and travel with them, seeing what they see, when they see it and in the manner which they see it?

Having the opportunity to be a single parent for a month has caused me to realize the importance in spending quality time with a child. It requires me to slow down my pace, have patience and listen. Does it require time? Certainly! But my son is a high priority and I have modified my Time Budget to be able to spend more quality time with him. Approaching time in a different frame of mind has opened the door to a vast world of opportunity to teach; making those drives in the pickup, rides in the swather, changing water on the ATV and evening walks down the lane all the more special and valuable.

How do you budget your time?

My budget says it is time to take my son fishing, at the neighbor’s reservoir, before we get into the routine of 2nd cutting.

Single Dad For A Month

2010-07-11T21:34:00.000-07:00

Single Dad For A Month

It’s been a while since I made the time to make a post. Hay season is upon us, changing water two and three times a day, the usual chores with cattle and horses and my wife is taking a class in Colorado for a month; which means I have our son to myself for some quality time.

Certainly, having both sets of grandparents nearby is a tremendous help for those nights when we are baling from 9 pm until 4:30 am, taking a two hour nap and continuing at 6:30 until noon. They are also very helpful on those nights that I have meetings to attend, County Farm Bureau, Department of Water Resources, Department of Fish and Game, etc.

Forget keeping regular sleeping hours without mom around. He is a trooper! Cutting in the swather, raking in the tractor and day baling in the tug are some of his favorite things to do, as long as he has his books to read when he gets bored. A fanatic about changing water as well; quite the hand helping move swing line, dragging hose and carrying clamps for his ol’ man, he gets upset on the mornings he sleeps in and I’ve changed the water before he rises. I’ve come to realize how important it is to start education children at an early age; their minds are sponges.

Already, at the age of three, he is setting timers on the pumps, starting the pumps, connecting and disconnecting handline, controlling the throttle for the balers in the tugs and starting the ATV to move it to the next riser. We are even sharing the chores: he waters the lawn and feeds the dogs, I water the dogs and mow the lawn; he hays the horses in the barn while I hay the bulls on the hill; I cook the meals while he sets the table and I wash the dishes while he dries. For entertainment, he gets to choose 1 hr of television per week, has an hour each day to play with his toys & ride his bike and we have 30 minutes of story time each night.

Reflecting on the past two weeks I cannot help but wonder if our country would still have a childhood obesity problem if more parents would simply take responsibility for teaching their children proper work ethic, eating and sleeping habits and shut off the computers and televisions. Stop blaming everything else for problems and look within yourself.

Despite our both missing mom, we are both looking forward to another two weeks of father son time. Taking advantage of the time and opportunities that we have to spend with our children should not be ignored nor passed by.

Guest Post: Undercover Agendas

2010-05-26T21:41:00.000-07:00

Mike Haley is a fifth generation farmer in Ohio. Together with his wife and father he manages a small herd of purebred Simmental cattle, in addition to raising corn, soybeans, and wheat. Mike is active in social media and agriculture advocacy and can be found on twitter @farmerhaley

Tuesday night I watched a horrendous video of a farm employee blatantly and purposely beating dairy cows and calves. It is hard to describe everything that I was feeling; I was enraged, mad, speechless, and in the end I could barely keep from crying. That video in no way depicts the way I treat my cows, or the way in which the vast majority of farmers would treat their livestock. I personally can guarantee that it is the worst thing I ever seen or heard of happening on a farm in Ohio, or anywhere else around the country.

The video never left my mind today as I took care of my livestock and tended to my hay. I don’t know who the individual was that was in the video. I don't know if he was employed by Mercy for Animals, or if he was just that sadistic. I do know he deserves to be punished and am glad to hear that he has been charged with 12 counts of animal abuse with investigators looking into more.

With that said I would also like to share my thoughts about Mercy For Animals, their agenda, and how poorly they handled this whole situation. First, I am appalled by the fact that they were documenting the same abuse week after week, for almost a month, before handing the evidence over to authorities. A representative from Mercy For Animals made the excuse that they needed “enough time to document the cruelty and that it was an ongoing pattern of abuse, and that the owner had knowledge.” To me this is a weak statement. I feel that they needed enough time to get enough video footage to further their agenda, and taking it to the authorities right away would have meant that they received less attention.

Secondly, I am appalled by not only Mercy For Animals, but statements by PETA and other animal rights groups. These organizations stated that this is common practice on farms across the U.S. and suggested, as put in the end of the video, that we “ditch milk”. Now, I may be a farmer, but it seems that it would be common sense to anyone that the images on this video are acts from a deranged individual and would not be commonplace on any farm. In fact, acts like these will put a farm out of business quickly, as stressed out cows will not produce milk very well. I am not the first to admit that there are some whacko’s that don’t take care of their animals. There are also parents that abuse children and that don’t mean all parents are child abusers.

My third point about Mercy For Animals' handling of this case is the way they released it. It screams of a group trying to push an agenda, not making an effort to stop the abuse on the farm. Any investigator would know not to simultaneously release undercover footage until after investigators had a chance to gather enough evidence to convict. As of right now the farm owner has not been charged. Part of me wonders if he will be as investigators may not have enough evidence from one scene of video that is black and white and hard to make out. For the record, if the farm owner was abusing his animals, I hope he gets his punishment as well.

Living and farming in Ohio, animal abuse has become a touchy subject for the past few years, mainly because groups like Mercy For Animals lobbying to pass laws that would micro-manage how we operate. I am frustrated about how these groups are using this to further their agenda and the legislation they are trying to pass in Ohio this fall. Their proposed legislation, as Ohio Director of Agriculture Boggs pointed out "their ballot initiative would not have prevented this action from taking place at all." Don’t worry though; Mercy For Animals and the Humane Society of the United States are already working this video into their campaign – which also makes me curious about the motive for the undercover sting in the first place.

I encourage everyone to take the correct course of action. First, treat your animals with respect, take care of them as if you were on a reality TV show that everyone can tune in to watch. Second, if you hear of, see, or suspect animal abuse, report it. Third, stand behind the Ohio Livestock Care Board that was voted in last year as a way to create new standards for how livestock are treated in Ohio as well as enforcing, investigating, and creating stiffer penalties to those that do participate in these horrendous acts. We can’t turn our back on abuse. It's wrong, immoral, and anyone participating in it will meet their fate sooner or later (hopefully both). Glad to get that off my chest, I feel a little better now, but I am still mad and upset. Funny thing is I am also kind of relieved that the undercover sting happened. Even though Mercy For Animals may have done this for the wrong reasons, personally I am glad that those cows are no longer being abused.

AgChat Foundation Appreciation

2010-04-05T10:45:00.000-07:00

As one of the founders and directors of the AgChat Foundation, I would like to take this opportunity to share a couple of observations that may escape some people.

First, it is truly awe-inspiring how the agricultural family and industry is able to come together for a common cause and work together. I do not know of another industry that has this respect and ability. We have small, medium, large, conventional, natural, organic, single family, multiple family and family corporations talking, reaching agreement and taking an idea into fruition. This respect and professionalism that is shared and the acknowledgment that it will take all of us, working together, to keep America’s food supply safe, healthy and affordable is to be commended.

Second, the agricultural family extends beyond the farm and ranch. Many agribusinesses, throughout the country recognize the importance of consumers learning about where their food comes from, how it is produced and why farmers do what they do. It is this realization that has brought forth a tremendous willingness to share resources, skills and time to help the AgChat Foundation in its endeavor. This friendship and feeling of family is what makes American agriculture unique. Certainly, the tremendous diversity presents a multitude of approaches and philosophies. However, it is widely understood and agreed upon what the objective is: communicate and reconnect with the consumer. Farmers voices are invaluable and need to be heard.

Through professionalism and respect, I expect great things to evolve through the unique nature of the AgChat Foundation. I would also like to personally thank all of the individuals who have been involved in the creation of the Foundation, those who have volunteered to serve on the Advisory Board and the businesses that have so graciously volunteered personnel, time and resources. This is definitely the dawning of a wonderful creation.

To see what a positive collaboration of farmers and ranchers results in visit http://agchat.org/.

My Thoughts On HSUS

2010-02-26T11:13:00.000-08:00

As a participant in SM, specifically with Twitter & Facebook, I am encountering more questions from folks asking “Why is the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) so bad?” and “What do you have against HSUS?”

This has especially come to the forefront following the successful grassroots effort that resulted in Yellow Tail Wines withdrawing their support of HSUS, re-evaluating their donation policy and the current effort directed towards Pilot Travel Centers and their corporate sponsorship of HSUS. It is my opinion that many of these companies and the public have been mislead by the HSUS and do not fully understand the intent and motivation of this organization.

I fully support companies supporting animal shelters, we all know they are in need of financial assistance, but let’s make sure those dollars are really going to help animals and not working against caring, hard working farmers and ranchers.

In an attempt to make clear my concerns, I have put together a few key issues that I have with HSUS.

1. HSUS considers livestock to be companion animals & often places animals as equals to humans.

The vast majority of farmers and ranchers take extremely good care of their livestock. Note, I said livestock, not companion animal or human equivalent, which is how they are viewed by HSUS & other animal rights groups. Farmers and ranchers understand the important relationship between stress & health and strive to keep their livestock under low stress & healthy. It is this attention to making sure livestock are happy & healthy that leads to feelings from spouses, at times, that the critters are getting more attention than they are. I care deeply for all of the livestock our family raises. My dog is definitely a dependable (most of the time) helper on the ranch. However, if my son were in danger at the same time as my dog and a calf, my son gets my attention first and foremost EVERY time. There is NO hesitation!

2. HSUS strategy is to implement laws and regulations that incrementally work towards the abolishment of animal agriculture and promote a vegan lifestyle for both humans & canines.

Farmers and ranchers live and breathe animal care, day in and day out. They have learned best management practices, and are constantly adapting those practices through firsthand experience and new scientifically supported methods so that livestock are handled in as stress free an environment as possible. On the other hand, the HSUS is constantly trying to implement laws and regulations on farms and ranches that are not based on science or practical experience, serving only to hinder the efforts of caring farmers and ranchers and place the producer and animal in jeopardy, both in terms of safety and health. It is and has been the HSUS practice to “dictate” management practices on animal agriculture without basis, instead of trying to understand current practices and working with industry to make improvements where necessary. The bottom line, from personal observation and experience, is that the HSUS wants to regulate farms & ranches out of business.

3. HSUS goes undercover to expose bad apples.

For the record, I do not have a problem with “bad apples” being exposed and held accountable for their actions. Anyone who intentionally abuses animals should not be allowed to own animals. It is wrong. Having said that, here are the issues I have with HSUS tactics. First, undercover reporting for political gain, in my opinion, is deceptive and wrong on several levels. HSUS’s practice is to record violations & then hold the video for opportune periods of time in which to air the videos so that they can gain financially & politically. If someone is undercover, and they truly care about welfare of the animals, they should address questionable actions immediately, not wait a month or several months to “reveal” the practices at a politically advantageous moment. As a rancher, when I see someone mistreating an animal I don’t wait; I address the issue at the time it happens so it doesn’t continue. Why? Simple, I truly care about the welfare of animals, want to help teach and share better methods with fellow livestock producers and don’t have an agenda to make money, gain political points or get prime time exposure.

4. HSUS advertisements are misleading.

We have all seen the commercials that play on people’s emotions, requesting money to help these “poor animals.” In fact, based upon the HSUS’s own tax returns, they spend less than 1% of their annual budget of over $100 million on direct ground level animal care and assistance. The remaining 99.5% of their budget is spent on lobbying, implementing ballot initiatives, publicity campaigns and lining the pockets of HSUS employees. Unfortunately, by association of name similarity, many people believe that the HSUS is related to the hard working, underfunded local Humane Societies and animal shelters, which is NOT the case. If you want to see your money go directly to helping care for pets that have been abandoned, mis-treated or need medical attention, and not into someone’s pocket, keep your donation local.

In conclusion, I applaud folks like Temple Grandin, who see opportunities to improve management practices and work with industry to make positive changes. I am grateful to the university system which is constantly testing and evaluating industry practices and equipment, looking for new and better ways to raise livestock in safer, healthier and less stressful ways and then sharing that information with students & industry through outreach. I appreciate the underfunded local humane societies and animal shelters and promote their efforts in order to bring them more financial support. And, I encourage fellow farmers and ranchers to evaluate each other’s practices and call into question those that are not appropriate, so that changes can be made for the benefit of the animals.

Why I Support Food Check Out Week

2010-02-21T12:42:00.000-08:00

I was reminded again today at church the importance of letting the Holy Spirit flow through us, and guiding us in our decisions and actions. One of the scriptures hit me in an "Ah Ha!" moment that was the reason behind my publicly recognizing and promoting Food Check Out Week.

Over the past several weeks, family farmers, ranchers, outdoorsmen, pet owners and people in general have voiced their displeasure with the factory fundraising machine, known as the Humane Society of the United States, which collects millions of dollars in the name of “saving pets,” when in actuality, less than 1 percent goes to actual animal care. What about the rest? It finds itself going into pockets of people and working to end animal agriculture in the United States through legislation and ballot initiatives and the conversion of carnivorous canines to vegetarians. This gross use of playing on people’s emotions and mis-representation of their true agenda brings to light the importance of making donations locally.

What, you make ask; does this have to do with Food Check Out Week? First and foremost, I care about the health and well being of the livestock I raise, but I also put people first. It saddens me to see organizations such as the HSUS raising millions of dollars in the name of animal welfare, just to take that money and use it to end the production of food, when we have so many people who are homeless, and hungry. I was raised to be compassionate, caring and loving towards humanity, and when I see those who are most unfortunate and in need, the children and our seniors, I do what I can to help them.

This is the reason I chose to promote Food Check Out Week by donating beef to our local senior meals program. A program that is short on funding, but always manages to provide one hot, healthy meal to senior citizens in our community every Thursday who are alone, unable to provide for themselves or are restricted to home care.

As a family ranching family we are not cash rich by any means, but we do have a resource readily available that can provide nourishment and sustenance to those who are hungry. I ask you to join me, and look around your homes to see what you have, that you too can donate to a local program and help those less fortunate, not just this week, but make it a personal goal to help locally, on a regular basis. If you are uncertain what you can do, ask God, he will speak to you. Perhaps it is offering your time to hold, play with and read to orphans, cook or deliver meals for programs.

It is not important what you do. What is important, is that you do something. I feel so much more satisfied when I know that donations I make, stay local, help local people, help my local community and did not get spent lining someone’s pocket or worse yet, were spent to stop what I do, providing food, care and love for people.

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. 1 John 4 v7-8

Response to de Vendômois et. al's Report on GMO's & Organ Damage

2010-01-15T11:41:00.000-08:00

After reading a recently sited report on the relationship between GMO’s and organ damage by de Vendômois et. al., (http://is.gd/6k7mz) I did a little research on the study and came to the following conclusions.

1. de Vendômois et. al. did not use traditional statistical methodology to reassess their toxicology data resulting from their studies with the three varieties studied.

2. de Vendômois et. al's conclusions appear to be unsubstantiated.

    a. The HCB (French High Council on Biotechnology) stated that de Vendômois et. al's study did not contribute to the safety assessment of GMO’s.

    b. The FSANZ claims that de Vendômois et. al “distorted” the significance of the toxicology by failing to account for “other” relevant factors and overly “emphasized” the statistical treatment of the data.
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/educationalmaterial/factsheets/factsheets2009/fsanzresponsetoseral4647.cfm

3. de Vendômois et. al failed to considered the following:

    a. Reproducibility

    b. Dose-related trends;

    c. Relationship to other findings;

    d. Variance of delta and relationship to findings in the norm; and

    e. Rate of occurrence when findings varied between sexes.

4. At first glance, de Vendômois et. al's findings demonstrate no negative effects with the three varieties used, especially when considering normal/traditional statistical analysis.

5. Put simply: de Vendômois et. al's study was designed to reach a pre-determined outcome and thus, utilized statistical methodology that would support that outcome.

Certainly, I’m just a farmer and rancher, but I do have a college education with ample background in statistics and science. I would be interested if anyone with a doctorate in science finds any flaws in my Common Sense approach to analyzing this study while feeding hay in the field.

Back to feeding now, I certainly am enjoying this air card for the laptop.

AFBF 2010 Convention Demonstrates Open Arms, Appreciation & Values

2010-01-13T08:08:00.000-08:00

At the 2010 American Farm Bureau Convention, President Bob Stallman opened the activities with an inspiring address and was commended through a standing ovation by a very diverse crowd of family farmers and ranchers. Farmers and ranchers representing every commodity, every state, including Puerto Rico and every method of production were joined together for one objective; to work together to ensure “Passage to Success” for all American Agriculture. It is the ability for this diverse community to come together and discuss sensitive issues in a professional and civil manner and coming to agreement for the benefit of agriculture that makes the American Farm Bureau Federation so special.

The American Farm Bureau Federation opened the doors to the media, including representatives from publications of opposition. It was and is the intent of the American Farm Bureau to welcome individuals with open arms to engage in positive dialogue and demonstrate the tremendous grass root foundation that exemplifies Farm Bureau’s purpose to make progress based on freedom and dignity of the individual, sustained by basic moral and religious concepts.

Certainly, it was disappointing to see several articles published that portrayed the American Farm Bureau Federation in a negative light. However, family farmers and ranchers will continue to encourage positive dialogue, even with those who are in opposition, in the hope that understanding can be reached in an effort to share the positive message that farmers and ranchers have with the public. Family farmers and ranchers are and always shall be optimistic, welcoming and looking for opportunities to engage the public in a civil manner with the hope for beneficial outcomes.

As Terry Bradshaw stated in his address to the delegation, “Life is too short not to smile and be appreciative for the bountiful blessings bestowed upon us by our creator.” We should all be thankful for the work of America’s farmers and ranchers for providing the country and the world with a bountiful supply of safe and healthy food. Thank a farmer!

Cookie Recipe's

2009-12-22T11:25:00.000-08:00

Chocolate Lady Fingers

½ c flour
2 Tbsp unsweetened cocoa powder
Dash of salt
2 eggs, separated
4 Tbsp sugar

Preheat oven to 350.
Grease 2 cookie sheets and line with parchment paper, grease parchment.
In a small bowl, sift together flour, cocoa and salt; set aside.
In a medium bowl, beat egg yolks and 1 Tbsp sugar with an electric mixer on high speed until light and pale colored.
In a large bowl, beat egg whites and remaining 3 Tbsp sugar with clean beaters on high speed until stiff, but not dry (2 -3 minutes).
Fold egg yolks into egg whites, then fold in reserved flour mixture.
Using a rubber spatula, transfer batter into a large pastry bag fitted with a large ½ inch round decorating tip, filling the bag half full at a time.
Pipe batter into 18 to 22 strips, each about 2 inches long and 1 inch wide, spaced 1 ½ inch apart onto prepared cookie sheets.
Bake 12 to 15 minutes.
Transfer to a rack and let cool.

Yield = 18 to 22

Recipe form Natalie Haughton

Mom’s Molasses Ginger Cookies

2 c flour
1 ¼ c white sugar, divided
2 tsp baking soda
½ c soft butter
½ tsp salt
¼ c shortening
½ tsp ginger
1 lg egg
½ tsp cinnamon
¼ c molasses
¼ tsp cloves

Preheat oven to 350.
Beat 1 cup sugar, butter and shortening together.
Add egg and molasses; beat until smooth.
Add the dry ingredients and mix well.
Refrigerate the dough at least 30 minutes.
Roll dough into 1” balls and roll in the remaining ¼ cup of sugar.
Place on ungreased cookie sheet and bake 10 minutes.

Yield = about 4 dozen

Recipe from Lyle Koons, Andover, KS

Honey Drops

1 c sugar
1 c honey
1 c shortening
½ tsp cinnamon
½ tsp almond flavoring
½ c chopped walnuts
2 tsp baking powder
1 tsp salt
1 egg
¼ c chopped orange peel
~ 3 c flour

Preheat oven to 325.
Mix all ingredients, except the flour.
Add enough flour so that the mixture can be rolled into balls and place on a cookie sheet without running.
After placing rolled balls on cookie sheet, bake for 12 to 14 minutes.
Test bake 1 or 2 cookies to check for consistency.

Yield = about 12 dozen drops

Recipe from FDR, Jr. who raised Hereford cattle in the 50’s.

Saddle Snaps

1 c white sugar
¾ c butter, softened
1 lrg egg, beaten
4-6 Tbls molasses
2 c flour
2 tsp baking soda
2 tsp cinnamon
1 ½ tsp ginger
2 Tbls Crown Royal
½ tsp salt

Preheat oven to 350.
Cream together sugar and butter.
Beat in egg, molasses & Crown Royal; mix well.
Thoroughly blend all dry ingredients.
Beat into creamed mixture.
Mold into walnut-sized balls.
Roll in granulated sugar, but DO NOT flatten.
Bake for 10-12 minutes.

Yield = 60 cookies.

My favorite for throwing in the saddle bags when checking cows and riding in the mountain range.

Original Snap Recipe from Eva Ping, Paris, IL.

Keeping Hamburger Interesting

2009-12-22T11:10:00.000-08:00

The following are recipe's for ground beef. Ground beef can be used for a host of delicious dishes and appetizers. Go beyond the burger and the helper. All of these recipe's are from people I have met through my travels across this great country and they are all (or were) directly involved in the cattle industry. They are family farmers and ranchers just I am; people who know beef!

Mexican Casserole

1 ½ lb ground beef
1 medium onion
1 can cream of mushroom soup
1 c evaporated milk
1 small can chopped green chilies
10 – 12 tortillas
1 ½ tsp salt
Dash of pepper
Dash of garlic salt
1 ½ c American cheese

Preheat oven at 400.
Brown meat with salt, pepper, garlic salt and chopped onion.
Drain fat from meat.
Mix soup with milk and chilies in saucepan.
Place tortillas on cookie sheet in warm oven, just long enough to warm, then dip in soup mixture.
Line 9 x 13 inch baking dish with tortillas.
Mix soup and meat mixtures.
Alternate meat mixture with the tortillas.
Top with meat mixture, then grated cheese.
Bake about 30 minutes.

Recipe from Frances Henard, New Mexico.

Meat Pie

Pie Shell/Crust

1 lb ground beef
½ c bread crumbs
½ (8 oz) can tomato sauce
½ c onion, chopped
¼ c green pepper, chopped

Mix and pat into pie shell.

Filling

1 ½ c minute rice
1 c water
1 ½ cans tomato sauce
1 c grated cheddar cheese
½ tsp salt

Preheat oven to 350.
Mix all but ½ cup of the cheese.
Spoon the mixture into the shell.
Bake for 25 minutes covered with foil.
Remove foil and add ½ cup cheese.
Bake for 10 to 15 minutes more.

Recipe from Sherry Colyer, Idaho

Lanea’s Favorite Skillet Dish

3 strips bacon
1 lb ground beef
1 c sliced onion
1 (1lb) can stewed tomatoes
½ c water
1 tsp salt
¼ tsp pepper
1 Tbsp Worcestershire sauce
2 medium potatoes, diced
1 c green pepper strips
2 c coarsely chopped cabbage
1 c chopped celery

Fry bacon in a skillet until crisp.
Remove and drain on paper towels; crumble.
Saute beef and onion in 2 Tbsp bacon fat until meat is well browned.
Add tomatoes, water, salt, pepper, Worcestershire sauce, potatoes, green pepper, cabbage, celery and bacon.
Bring to a boil; reduce heat.
Cover and simmer 20 minutes, until vegetable are tender.

Recipe from Lanea Gunderson, Montana.

Meat-Potato Quiche

3 Tbsp vegetable oil
3 c coarsely shredded raw potatoes
1 c grated Swiss or Cheddar cheese
¾ to 1 ½ c browned hamburger
¼ c chopped onion
1 c evaporated milk
2 eggs
½ tsp salt
1/8 tsp pepper
1 Tbsp parsley flakes

Preheat oven to 425.
In 9 inch pie pan, stir together vegetable oil and potatoes.
Press evenly into pie crust shape.
Bake for 15 minutes, just until brown.
Remove from oven.

Layer on cheese, hamburger and onion.
In bowl, beat milk, salt, eggs and pepper.
Pour over other ingredients.
Sprinkle with parsley flakes.
Return to oven and bake about 30 minutes or until lightly browned.
Inserted knife blade, 1 inch from edge, should come out clean.
Allow to cool 5 minutes before cutting into wedges.

Recipe from Lanea Gunderson, Montana.

Zesty Cocktail Meatballs

Meatballs

1 lb ground beef
1 egg, beaten
1 c soft bread crumbs (about 2 slices)
¼ c milk
3 Tbsp finely chopped onion
½ tsp salt

Preheat oven to 375.
In large mixing bowl, combine beaten egg, bread crumbs, milk, chopped onion and salt.
Add meat and mix well.
Shape into 8 dozen 1 inch balls.
Place the meatballs in a 15 ½ x 10 ½ x 2 ¼ inch baking pan.
Bake for 20 to 25 minutes.

Sauce

1 (10 oz) jar grape jelly
1 (12 oz) bottle chili sauce

Melt grape jelly and chili sauce in a saucepan.
Add meatballs and simmer 15 to 20 minutes, until meatballs are heated through (if you stored for later.)
• Only simmer for 5 – 10 minutes if meatballs were prepared at the same time.

Recipe from Jerry Nicholson, Washington

Hot Hamburger Dip

1 lb hamburger
½ c chopped onion
1/3 tsp garlic powder
1 (8 oz) can tomato sauce
¼ c catsup
¾ tsp oregano
1 (8 oz) pkg cream cheese
1/3 c Parmesan cheese

Brown the ground beef, onion and garlic powder.
Drain off the extra fat.
Stir in remaining ingredients.
Cover and simmer 15 minutes.
Serve with choice of dipping agents.
Yields approximately 24 servings.

Recipe from Buell Jackson, Iowa.

Bread Recipe's

2009-12-22T10:02:00.000-08:00

Banana Nut Bread

1 c shortening
2 c sugar
4 eggs
2 ½ c flour
1 tsp salt
2 tsp baking soda
5 medium bananas, mashed
3 tsp buttermilk
1 tsp vanilla
1 c chopped pecans or walnuts

Preheat oven to 325.
Mix shortening and sugar until creamy.
Add eggs, 2 at a time, mixing well.
Sift flour, salt and baking soda together.
Combine creamed mixture, dry ingredients, bananas and buttermilk, using 1/3 at a time.
Add vanilla and nuts; mix well.
Bake in 2 greased 9 x 5 loaf pans for approximately 1 to 1 ¼ hours.

Recipe from Carlitta Harvey, New Mexico.

Cake & Pie Recipes

2009-12-14T17:50:00.000-08:00

Having traveled the country as a National Director for the American Junior Hereford Association and also through opportunities in Farm Bureau, I have had the pleasure of sampling a multitude of food. I felt it was time to take a break from the regular blog posts and share some of my favorite recipes for a variety of foods. Since it is closing in on Christmas, I always find myself in the kitchen periodically dabbling with desserts, so as I whip up my favorites, I'll try to share them with y'all to enjoy as well. Feel free to let me know how you like them.

WARNING: These should NOT be utilized in any weight loss program!

CAKES

Chocolate Ice Water Cake

¾ c butter
2 ¼ c sugar
1 ½ tsp vanilla
3 eggs
3 (1 oz) sq unsweetened chocolate, melted
3 c sifted cake flour
1 ½ tsp baking soda
¾ tsp salt
1 ½ c ice water

Preheat oven to 350.
Cream thoroughly butter, sugar and vanilla.
Add eggs; mix well.
Add melted chocolate.
Sift flour, baking soda and salt.
Add dry ingredients alternately with ice water.
Bake in three 8 inch round baking pans and bake for 30 to 35 minutes.
Cool 10 to 15 minutes before removing from pans.
Frost with Chocolate Cream Cheese Icing.

Chocolate Cream Cheese Icing

2 sq unsweetened chocolate
1 (3 oz) pkg softened cream cheese
2 Tbsp milk
2 c powdered sugar
2 Tbsp milk
1 ½ tsp vanilla
2 ½ to 2 ¾ c powdered sugar

Melt chocolate; cool.
Beat together cream cheese and 2 Tbsp milk.
Add powdered sugar; mix well.
Beat in melted chocolate, another 2 Tbsp milk and vanilla.
Add enough additional powdered sugar (2 ½ to 2 ¾ cups total) to make spread consistent.
Will frost center and sides of two cake layers.

Recipe from Lois Schlickau, Kansas

This recipe won the Hershey Chocolate Award and Sweepstakes at the Kansas State Fair in the open division years ago.

Applesauce Cake

1 c butter
2 c sugar
2 c applesauce
1 c pecans, broken
1 c raisins
3 c flour
1 tsp cinnamon
1 tsp nutmeg
1 tsp ground cloves
1 ¾ tsp baking soda
1 tsp vanilla
¼ tsp salt
½ sm jar apricot jelly
2 Tblsp vinegar

Preheat oven to 325.
Cream butter and sugar until light and fluffy.
Add applesauce, raisins and pecans which have been dredged in ¼ cup measured flour.
Sift all dry ingredients together; add to mixture.
Pour into a loaf pan and bake for 2 hours.

For icing, empty ½ small jar of apricot jelly into a saucepan.
Add vinegar.
Heat until just hot.
After poking holes in the top of the cake, pour the hot apricot jelly over the cake.

Recipe from Donna Huizenga, Henderson, IL.

Choco-Scotch Marble Cake

1 pkg yellow cake mix
1 pkg instant butterscotch pudding
4 eggs
1 c sour cream
1/3 c vegetable oil
½ c butterscotch chips
1 (1 oz) sq unsweetened chocolate, melted

FROSTING

1 ½ c butterscotch chips, melted
1 sq unsweetened chocolate, melted
5-6 Tblsp half & half
2 Tblsp finely chopped pecans

Preheat oven to 350.
Combine cake mix, pudding, eggs, sour cream and oil; beat on low speed for 2 minutes.
Divide batter in half.
Stir butterscotch chips into half and chocolate into other half.
Spoon half of butterscotch batter into greased 10 inch fluted tube pan and top with half of chocolate batter.
Repeat layers.
Cut through batter with knife to swirl.
Bake for 40 to 45 minutes.

Frosting
Combine butterscotch chips and chocolate.
Beat in enough cream until smooth.
Spread over top of cake.
Sprinkle over top with pecans.

Recipe from Sara Watson Pfeiffer, Peoria, AZ.

Rum Cake

1 c butter
2 c sugar
4 eggs
1 c milk
3 ½ c sugar
3 tsp baking powder
¼ tsp salt
1 tsp rum flavoring or 2 Tbsp dark rum
1 cup chopped nuts

Preheat oven to 325.
Mix butter, sugar and 4 eggs thoroughly.
Add flour (that has been sifted with salt and baking powder) alternately with milk.
Mix well.
Add rum.
Pour into a greased and floured Bundt pan.
Bake for 1 hour.

Icing

1 c brown sugar
1 c white sugar
½ c water
Pinch of salt
2 Tbsp dark rum or 1 tsp rum flavoring

Mix brown and white sugar with water and salt; boil well.
Add rum and pour ½ of the icing over the hot cake in the pan.
Let cake cool and remove from the pan.
Turn cake upside down on a plate and pour the other ½ of the icing over the cake.

Recipe from Carlitta Harvey, New Mexico.

Misunderstandings By #profood Part 2

2009-12-03T13:43:00.000-08:00

Let me start by appologizing for not getting this posted sooner. Fall is a crazy time on the ranch and the calendar is filled with meetings. The livestock and previous commitments come before blogging. Sorry

This part pertains to an area that I feel is not realized or truly understood by many in the #profood community. It involves the relationship between geographic location and the ability to produce commodities. I shall preface this part by saying I fully support those that are growing organic and natural products, it will take a variety of production methods to meet the growing consumption needs of the world.

First, the ability to grow crops and livestock is dependant upon geographic location. Most crops are limited in the areas that they will grow. Elevation, length of growing season, soil type and availability of water are just some of the limiting factors. For example: peanuts grow very well in Georgia, but are not found in Montana; Pears grow extremely well in portions of Oregon, but do not do well Arizona. Similarly, there are certain breeds of livestock that perform better in particular areas of the country; Brahman thrive in Texas, but not in North Dakota; Angus perform well in Michigan, but not in Florida.

Second, geographic region also is a major factor in determining the success of raising organic crops. Recently, a report has been tweeted that makes the statement that organic crops are equal to conventional and in some cases, greater in terms of yield. Some in the #profood community would have you believe that this report pertains to “all” types of crops being grown. It should be pointed out, however, that the study this report cites was on corn and soybeans. It should also be noted that the author also made the following points: 1) equal to and/or greater yields were not realized until after year 4 or 5 and 2) he noted that other crops (ie row crops) probably would not share the same results due to the higher susceptibility to insects and fungus. It should also be noted that this study was done in a specific region and should not be applied across the country. There are definitely areas of the country that favor organic production for some specific varieties. However, to assume that all crops can be grown organically, in all locations, at a level that will meet demand is in error.

Finally, the recent promotion of eating local, and the concept of eating food within a 100 mile radius is noble, but in the case of metropolitan areas, unreasonable. Variety of food is limited by geography, as is the ability to produce an organic crop. In addition, the amount of acres necessary to produce enough “local” food, for city of 100,000 for 12 months is simply unreasonable. Further, it must be taken into consideration that at least half of the United States has a growing season of 120-150 days or less. Production in these areas would need to be doubled at a minimum in order to have enough produce to preserve for the rest of the year.

In conclusion, it is wonderful for people to support local producers of fruits, vegetables, milk and meat. The more direct sales that occur, increase the profitability for the farmer, and certainly provide a “farm fresh” product for the consumer. Consumers have a wonderful opportunity to actually see the face that grows their food, and it is not the person at the check out counter, as well as learn how their food was grown. However, the ability of our country to supply our own people with enough locally grown, organic food is impractical at best, let alone be able to profitably produce organically in all regions of the country. The environment simply places too many restrictions upon production naturally, and this does not take into account the economic factors, but that is the next part to be addressed.

Why I Support Michele Payn-Knoper for Twitter User of the Year

2009-11-01T14:31:00.000-08:00

This post is a break from the norm for me, but probably one of the most important.

I would like to recognize Michele Payn-Knoper for her stellar achievement of showing family farmers and ranchers, across the country, how to share their story with the public. She had a vision to create a forum to connect food producers with food consumers and has seen it blossom and grow into something wonderful, #agchat.

I personally would like to thank Michele for her efforts, knowledge and guidance. She is an inspiration to all of us in agriculture. Please join me in showing support for Michele by voting @mpaynknoper for “Twitter User of the Year.” Of all of those being nominated, I feel Michelle is especially deserving for giving a powerful voice to ag, and engaging conversations that are positive and productive.

It is not often that we encounter individuals that have such passion and desire to see a community of people succeed. Under her guidance, the agricultural community has learned how to effectively voice their stories, tell what they do, how they do it and why with sincerity and openness. Thank you Michele, for opening a door for us and showing us a tremendous opportunity; we are very appreciative of your effort and energy.

Please help us make Michele Payn-Knoper Mashable’s Twitter User of the Year. This award is based on the viral nature of social media and requires daily voting through November 15th to win the nomination.

Catalysts of Misunderstanding by Profood?

2009-10-26T15:04:00.000-07:00

Part 1 of a series.

Recent conversations on twitter among #profood people have brought to attention several issues which seem to escape their understanding or ability to understand from a production ag perspective. I use the term production ag very generally. In my opinion someone is production ag if they derive more than 75% of their annual income from ag production and includes all management styles: conventional, traditional, organic, natural, grass fed, etc. Posts over the past week seem to be trying to portray that #agchat people are “against change,” “anti-environment,” “big ag,” “corporate ag” and a multitude of other labels inferring a lack interest in food safety and sustainability. I hope to take a shot at explaining what I believe are some of the issues that are being misunderstood by the #profood community and why when some issues are brought up, it leads to those in the #agchat community becoming cautious and protective.

1. Understanding the importance of economic sustainability

First, many of the farms and ranches in the United States are multi-generational, some currently in their 5th, 6th, and 7th generation of ownership and management. It is critical that the current generation be able to maintain the productive viability and economic viability in order to keep these farms and ranches in a condition to pass on to future generations. Farms and ranches are continuously adopting new management techniques and technology to maintain the health and longevity of their land. Also, the vast majority of family farmers and ranchers derive their entire income from their operations. However, over the past 30 years the trend is showing more that at least one spouse is working “off farm” in order to “keep the farm.”

Second, few farmers and ranchers have retirement plans, IRA’s or 401K’s, let alone extensive health insurance plans. Their land, cattle, equipment and other assets are what they depend on to carry them through to the end. Any net income at the end of an operating year is typically used to pay off operation loans and whatever is left is reinvested in the operation through repairs, improvements and upgrades. This is predominately why those of us in production ag are so concerned over Estate Taxes. Considering land and asset values we are “rich,” but when it comes to dollars in the bank, most of us are just getting by. Being presented with the scenario of having to split off portions of our farms and ranches in order to pay inheritance taxes makes us sick to our stomachs. Our farms and ranches are living entities and part of us, and we want to be able to keep the body whole for future generations.

It should be understandable that anytime new legislation, regulation or change is brought up that potentially threatens the economic sustainability of a farm or ranch is sparks emotional response. Our farms and ranches, crops and livestock are our lives, often times seeing more personal attention than our actual families. Therefore, comments and accusations pertaining to our livelihood are taken personally.

The bottom line is that we all manage our farms and ranches to promote sustainability of production and economic viability. These two concepts are inseparable. We are continuing to learn and adapt our management practices to positively influence the health of the land as well as provide for our families and future generations. In an ideal world we would like to guarantee that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will still be able to make a living doing what we do, on the same land.

Part 2: Understanding “skepticism” on transitioning food supply to entirely organic and/or locally produced

(Coming as soon as I have another break in the ranch work.)

Harris Ranch vs. Cal Poly - The Rest of the Story

2009-10-20T12:42:00.000-07:00

To borrow the phrase from my distant relative, here is the “rest of the story,” regarding Harris Ranch, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and Michael Pollan.

Recent posts on twitter and in the media have demonstrated an obvious misunderstanding and inaccurate portrayal of the circumstances surrounding Michael Pollans visit to Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.

Some members of the “profood” movement and writers in the media are accusing Harris Ranch of being “Big Ag” controlling what is taught at Cal Poly through the threat of withdrawing funding to protect its own interest. Further, they are taking the position that colleges and universities should not accept financial contributions from industry as it “contaminates” or “slants” the education of the students.

First, the letter from David Woods and Mike Smith, from Harris Ranch (both Cal Poly alumni) was not the only letter sent Cal Poly in regards to Michael Pollan. There were a multitude of others, including myself, all Cal Poly alumni, that wrote to the school voicing our concern over the quality of education being offered, recent actions by the school to close and reduce agriculture units and the trend of abandoning courses in traditional ag. The invitation to Michael Pollan, to lecture without any alternative views being offered was the “final straw.” Those of us that are alumni of Cal Poly share a genuine concern for the direction the school is moving in terms of its agricultural education and Michael Pollan’s visit was the action that triggered the energetic response. Pollan’s visit was the “icing on the cake” that represents a trend in the educational direction of agricultural education at Cal Poly; it was the correlation of what Pollan represents and changes in what is being taught that served as the catalyst.

Cal Poly at San Luis Obispo has removed many ag units from the central campus and placed them off campus, eliminated them completely or greatly reduced them in their size. The feedlot, feedmill and meat processing unit were leveled and dorms were built in their place. The sheep unit was leveled for a baseball field. The swine unit has been reduced to three pigs and is now housing turtles, yes, turtles. And, the state of the art dairy unit has been reduced to a mere thirty cows. A campus store that once offered campus grown products, products grown and produced by students on campus facilities, now only offers popular brands and labels. Additionally, courses at Cal Poly have steadily been trending away from teaching traditional and conventional agriculture to focus on organic and “sustainable” ag, a common message of traditional ag is “bad” and access to the respective units related to animals and crop production has been diminished if not entirely eliminated.

As an alumnus, I fully support the school offering a diverse cross section of view points and do find value in teaching alternative methods of production agriculture. However, our ability to provide enough food for our country and world that is safe, wholesome, high in quality and affordable is dependent upon traditional agriculture. Recent models of “sustainable,” organic and urban farms cannot provide a supply that meets current, let alone future food demand. Recent erroneous claims in the media, movies and journals claiming that modern agriculture is responsible for everything from global warming, soil sterilization, poisoning of people and causing obesity only make it more imperative that colleges and universities teach fact and science and demonstrate class room methodology practically in the field.

It is because of healthy ag programs and research at colleges and universities that we are able to expand our understanding of how to produce food more efficiently and environmentally friendly. To simply abandon traditional practices is absurd. The face of production agriculture has entirely transformed over the past 20 years and to the benefit of the environment and the consumer. References, by the ignorant, are outdated and unfounded. Modern production agriculture utilizes conservation tillage, alternative biological compounds, plants and insects to reduce the use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides where the geographic location allows and has taken food safety to all time highs. To reject scientific and technological progress and embrace only organic production, hobby farms and urban gardens is irresponsible and short-sighted.

Further, as a past high school ag teacher, I saw several years worth of new ag teachers entering the field lacking sufficient hands-on experience to help them in effectively educating students. In speaking to them, they shared that the lack of experience was directly tied to their limited access to production agriculture while attending college. All of them wished that they had time in college to implement and practice what they learned in class out in the “field.” That is the value of having units on college campuses that are in working order and accurately reflect operations in the real world.

Additionally, many graduates from colleges and universities, seeking employment in production agriculture, are ill-prepared for the tasks and responsibilities that they face. This is due in large part to the lack and/or reduction of applied application that the students receive at the institutions of higher learning. More colleges are restricting students in the number of credits they may take during their educational stay, in order to move more students through the system more quickly. Ironic that production agriculture has shifted from quantity produced to focus on quality of product and the institutions supplying the workforce have gone from quality of education to quantity of students graduated. This transition has limited the ability of students to pursue the education that they need in order to be successful in whatever field they choose to engage. Simply put, degrees in agricultural fields cannot be successfully achieved without being able to apply classroom knowledge in the field. Ag units on campuses are the equivalent to science and writing labs for science and language majors.

Secondly, the suggestion that colleges and universities should not accept donations from private industry is ludicrous at best, especially given the current economic situation. It is through industry that Cal Poly was able to build a state of the art Dairy Unit, Poultry Unit and Feedmill. Harris Ranch is planning on being the major contributor in the construction of a new Processing Facility. Without private donations and contributions, from alumni and industry, these facilities would never have been constructed and studies in the field on agriculture would never be conducted.

Finally, Harris Ranch is a family owned business, a large and successful business yes, but family owned just the same. It is irritating to see the condemnation of successful family businesses in agriculture by elitist, self-serving, egotists that only bring shame on the “pro-food” movement. I know many of the individuals that are “pro-food” and self labeled “foodies” that understand the importance of having a diverse agricultural landscape that includes traditional, organic and niche market production in order to meet the demands of our country and our world.

Harris Ranch should be praised for their efforts in creatively addressing air and water quality issues; creating a marketing program that allows other family ranchers the opportunity to have a reliable market for their cattle and receive a premium; developing one of the first branded products available to consumers; creating one of the first traceability programs; successfully marketing their product directly to a self owned restaurant; and continuing to financially support higher education.

Just as it is important for parents to be involved in parent associations and school boards at the elementary and high school level, it is essential for the alumni of colleges and universities, involved in their fields of study, to give back and provide input, insight and financial support. Education thrives and succeeds with vibrant grass root involvement, but withers and dies when it is overrun by the government and self-serving activist movements. It is well past time for people to embrace common sense and recognize the importance of a diversified, quality education to the continued production of a readily available, safe, healthy and affordable food supply.

Klamath Dam Situation Is All Wet

2009-10-06T01:05:00.000-07:00

Seeing as the Klamath Dam situation has been running in nearly news publication, I felt it was important to give my perspective as an actual resident that lives in a watershed that is part of the Klamath Basin. Our farm and ranch are in the Scott River Watershed which is a tributary to the Klamath, downstream of the dams. We were not invited to participate in the negotiations, even though we know that water from the Scott River will be included in the mitigation process resulting from the final decision. The Klamath Basin Total Maximum Daily Load that is currently being written by the North Coast Water Quality Control Board includes the Scott, Shasta and Trinity and clearly indicates that water from these rivers will be used to mitigate water quality issues in the Klamath.

Before the dams were built, the Klamath River flooded in the winter and spring and ran hot and low, dry in some years, during the summer and fall months. It originates in volcanic soils, with naturally occurring phosphorus content and higher water temperatures. As it flowed towards the Pacific Ocean, the Shasta, Scott and Trinity rivers entered the system and provided colder and cleaner water. However, during the summer months, these rivers also ran low and warm and sometimes, in summer months, dried up. Historical journals from the 1800's indicate that the water in the Klamath was not even fit for survey parties horses to drink during the summer months.

Once the four dams were built, flows were managed, providing clean, green power to more than 75,000 people in Southern Oregon and Northern California. The Klamath began to run for the entire year, although lower in the late summer and fall, it has not “dried up.” Irrigation water was provided to family farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Basin who were promised that water in Federal contracts tied to the land that they homesteaded. Additionally, new enterprises were started along the Klamath, including rafting, fishing and rental cabins, not to mention an increase in property values due to the water front advantage.

Now, with the listing of the Coho salmon as threatened, several groups have pushed to have the dams removed to allow for fish passage and sued to have Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL’s) established and mitigated for on the Klamath.

The current situation looks like this:

1. Upper basin farmers and ranchers are split in their support of dam removal, as some have received “guarantees” post removal and others, who are not project irrigators, have not received any guarantees.

2. Mid basin farmers and ranchers are opposed to dam removal, fearing their water rights will be threatened in an effort to mitigate the poor water quality resulting in removal.

3. Tribes are split in their support of dam removal. Some are focusing only returning the river to its original state, while others recognize that the river is actually healthier now, than it was pre-dams.

4. Fishermen are split in their support for dam removal as well. Ultimately, and understandably, they want fish populations to improve to allow them to earn a living.

5. PacifiCorp needed to relicense their operating permits for running the power generation plants, which opened up the utility to demands from a multitude of interests. Under coercion, PacifiCorp decided that removing dams would be cheaper for them and their ratepayers than trying to engineer projects that would be more fish friendly, and allow passage.

6. Power consumers in Northern California have seen a 30% + increase in their rates since Pacific Corp began preparing to pay for removal. This has been especially felt by the agricultural community that utilizes pumps for irrigation in a year that has seen the value of all commodities drop.

Complete removal of the four dams in the Klamath River is a case of radical environmental groups using the Endangered Species Act, along with the Clean Water Act, to extort and coerce in order to undue progress. It will send a dangerous message and potentially set a dangerous precedent, threatening infrastructure, private property rights and affordable power. We are in a time where more water storage is needed, green power is preferred and cost effective power is needed.

It is estimated that it will cost $300 million dollars to mitigate water quality issues up to the time that the dams are removed. It is also estimated that it will cost $750 million dollars to remove the dams, followed by an estimated $500 million dollars to mitigate quality issues after the dams have been removed. This adds up to an estimated $1.5 Billion dollar price tag, not including losses to property values, agricultural production, loss in tourism and county tax revenue.

Common sense would direct us to modify the dams to allow for fish passage, maintain green power generation capabilities, and provide water to farmers and ranchers. What has happened to balance and moderation?

If the direction that extreme environmental groups and agencies at the State and Federal level are headed, unchecked by any sense of reason or oversight, is not changed, we shall surely find ourselves in a hole we are unable to climb out of.

Endangered Species Act: Are We In Need Of Protection Now?

2009-09-21T17:18:00.000-07:00

The Endangered Species Act is in dire need of reform. Hopefully, the recent coverage by Fox News and Sean Hannity, of the Water Crisis in California’s Central Valley will bring about the attention needed to wake up Washington and bring about necessary change.

Being from Siskiyou County, located on the northern border with Oregon, I have seen the devastation resulting from an antiquated act. Regulations resulting from the listing of species, without consideration of social and economic impacts have been devastating to rural economies and California business. Resulting listings also trigger additional regulations through various state resource agencies. Even though environmental impact studies are required to be conducted prior to regulations and restrictions being imposed, socio-economic impacts are rarely addressed and beneficial uses are regularly weighted towards single species. Failure to adequately address the socio-economic impacts of regulations and assessing all beneficial uses then results in economic hardship on land owners and rural economies and often has negative impacts on other species due to a lack of foresight and holistic approaches.

There was the listing of the Northern Spotted Owl that all but eliminated the logging industry and resulted in mass closure of mills throughout Northern California. This resulted in the loss of revenue for rural counties and schools that received funds from the receipts of timber sales, a loss of local jobs, and a reduction in family owned businesses in rural towns. The irony behind the listing was that the scientists that conducted the population surveys looked for the owls in “old growth forest” where the “literature” said they would be found. In reality, the owls also reside in new growth pine forests, non-conifer forests and structures, such as barns. Subsequent surveys in the owl’s actual habitat indicate a healthy population, but delisting has not occurred.

Then there was the listing of the fall run Chinook salmon and Coho salmon. Further restrictions and regulations were placed upon forest management, farming and ranching. Most of the mitigation measures, to minimize negative impact on salmonids, were reasonable: fish screens, permanent rock weir dams, creation of cold water pools, bank stabilization and riparian habitat enhancement. However, the encroachment on water rights and private property rights is inexcusable. With the listing of salmonids, came an assumption of guilt on all private land owners. Failure to recognize the impacts of natural precipitation, predation and ocean conditions placed all responsibility for recovery on the private sector with little to no mitigation for impacts not associated with private landowners.

Now we are seeing the impact of the listing of the Delta smelt, water being taken from farmers in the Central Valley. Pumps at the Jone’s Pumping Station and the Federal Fish Collection facility are operating, sending a nearly full canal flowing through the very area that has lost use of the water. Ironically, there are few, if any, Delta smelt even being collected at the Federal Facility, as they are not in the south Delta, and several municipalities are still being allowed to send their minimally treated sewage directly into the Delta. Further, the “two-gate” project, which would minimize the smelt’s ability to enter the take-out to the pumps, has been stalled by the government yet again, why?

Certainly, some past practices from the early 1900’s through the 1970’s were not exactly “environmentally friendly.” However, science and technology have changed practices and management styles to be beneficial to both resource managers and the environment. It is in the best interest of resource managers to ensure that the land is healthier and able to support future generations. Yet, the Endangered Species Act and a host of state agencies are now ignoring the benefits of modern resource management and the symbiotic relationship and dependency that exist between forest managers, famers, ranchers and the environment. Short sighted implementation of regulations that place onerous financial burden, force public policy on private land, tread on liberty, take private property, encourage development and negatively impact habitat and unintended species continue to plague the west. Is it any wonder that species do not recover and that California has become a business killer?

Curtailing logging has led to the highest density of forests in the history of the Pacific Northwest, resulting in elevated evapo-transpiration rates. Couple that with low snow pack and drought level precipitation and you have less available total surface flow available for fish, wildlife, municipalities and agriculture. Additionally, we have seen a higher number of catastrophic wildfires costing states and the federal government (tax payers) millions upon millions of dollars. Would it not be beneficial to harvest timber, generate local revenue, increase potential flows and save money from fighting fires?

Current recovery strategies are at odds with each other. One plan calls for creating Coho habitat which negatively impacts Chinook. Another plan calls for all banks to be stabilized and eliminate erosion, which negatively impacts the habitat for bank swallows. Yet another plan only allows for prescribed burning during the time of year with the highest risk of fire. Short sighted planning must be stopped. The government and agencies are only causing more problems than they are solving. Environmental extremists have pushed the envelope too far. It is time for reason to return to regulation.

Common sense tells us there is a need for balance. Allow logging to resume utilizing modern practices, increase available surface flows, improve available habitat and provide the necessary water to farmers and ranchers. Build more water storage facilities, do not remove them. Modify existing structures to accommodate for fishery needs, green power and irrigation, do not take them out. Acknowledge that agriculture, including timber, is potentially the biggest positive contributor and enhancer to salmon and wildlife habitat when allowed to operate with modern technology and management practices. Continued regulation and restriction will only exacerbate the existing problems. The Endangered Species Act must be reformed to recognize the value of timber operations, farms, ranches and local economies in BALANCE with nature.

Responsibility: Producer & Consumer

2009-09-08T14:04:00.000-07:00

This post is in response to a blog posted by @zacharyadamcohen

http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#2KBScV/www.zacharyadamcohen.com/farmtotable/blogging/the-exercise-meme-american-farmers-cant-escape-responsibility//.

We have had several civil discussions over the past few months finding areas that we agree and other areas which we agree to disagree. This post is in no way an attack on him, nor do I want any of my followers to be rude or attack him because you may disagree with his statements. I post this response with respect and in answer for his request for farmers and ranchers to respond.

Zachary,

I respectfully disagree with your assessment that farmers are to blame for the publics decisions on what to eat, how much to eat and what type of lifestyle to lead that leads to obesity. It is a philosophical difference between your ideology and mine.

I believe that as individuals we are responsible for all of our actions and the decisions that we make on that which we have control. We have control (minus the good Lord above, Mother Nature and government interference) over what happens on our farms, ranches, homes and personal lives, not the farm next door, the chef at the restaurant in town, or the consumer living across the state or country.

I am responsible for producing a safe product for the next person in the food chain, whether that is the horse owner, cattleman or dairy that buys my hay or grain, the commercial cattleman that buys my replacement heifers or bulls, or the people down the road that buy a steer to put in their freezer.

If that horse owner feeds a ration that leads to their horse colicing, or the dairy feeds an imbalanced ration that causes their cows to bloat, that is their responsibility, not mine. If the commercial cattleman, that bought replacement heifers from me, breeds them to a bull with excessive birth weight EPD’s, thus ending up having to pull the calves, that was his decision, and his responsibility, not mine. If the cattleman that bought a bull from me takes him home and puts him in a pen with other bulls, he runs the risk of getting him hurt. If that bull gets injured, that is his responsibility, not mine. Once the family that bought the steer from me to eat, they decide how to cook it, what seasoning to use, what portions to eat, not me. All of the “consumers” listed above make decisions based on their own knowledge and the information that they chose to access and are responsible for the resulting outcomes of their actions.

As a farmer I made an educated decision on what crops to grow based on the region that I live in. That includes my elevation, the length of the growing season and availability of water. I then take annual soil samples each spring to assess the nutrient levels of the soil and determine if any nutrients need to be added for the upcoming year. Moisture meters help me determine how often and how much water to apply. All my decisions are made using the best available information in order to produce a healthy crop that is safe to consume and keeps the soil healthy.

As a rancher, I made an educated decision on what type of cattle operation to run and what breeds to utilize, based on region as well. Having irrigated pasture, and limited acres, I decided to be a seed stock producer and optimize my production by producing a product for commercial cattlemen, bulls and heifers. I also elected to raise Angus and Hereford cattle, as we live at a higher elevation, with cold winters and both tend to be more efficient in those climates than European breeds. Pasture rotation is based on quality and condition of forage and helps increase the health of the pastures and enhances habitat for native wildlife. Regular conversations with our local veterinarian determine the health and nutritional plans that I utilize. Supplements of minerals, protein and carbohydrates are provided as needed by the cattle, depending upon the stage of the production. Once again, I make educated decisions that allow me to provide a safe and healthy product that is also beneficial to the environment.

Every decision that I make is based on my knowledge and research that I do so as to arrive at an outcome that is desired. If the outcome is not positive, I gather more knowledge and do more research to modify my management to arrive at an outcome that yields a high quality, safe product at a profit.

The public is just as responsible for gathering their own information to guide their own decisions and actions and are just as accountable for their own respective outcomes and modifying their behavior to change outcomes that are not desirable.

We live in a country that is based upon personal Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Sadly, some people make choices that do not result in positive outcomes and so they “blame” someone else for their misfortune without accepting any personal responsibility, but they had the Freedom to make that choice as an individual.

I do not have the right, or the ability to control how you live your life, what you buy at the store, how much you eat or how much you exercise. You have that right, you have that ability, and you have that responsibility. That is what makes living in the United States of America so special, we are FREE to choose.

Do I think it is unwise for people to smoke? Yes, but I support their right to make that choice.

Do I think it is unwise for parents to let their children watch TV and play video and computer games for hours on end? Yes, but I support their right to make that choice.

Do I think it is unwise for parents to feed their children regularly at fast food establishments and reward with candy bars? Yes, but I support their right to make that choice.

The bottom line is that some people make poor decisions. That is life. Thank God we live in a country where we can still make our own decisions, whether they are good or bad. However, people must stop blaming others for their own misfortune and start looking inside to resolve their own issues. My grandfather told me to look at my hand when I pointed at someone to pass blame and see that three fingers were still pointing at me. Responsibility and change starts with self. And, as President Ronald Reagan said, “All great change in America starts at the dinner table.”

Are there areas within the existing food system that can be improved? Certainly, but until we as a society start accepting responsibility for own choices, our own actions, the outcomes resulting from those actions and modify our own behaviors, those changes will never occur.

Help Keep the Family Together

2009-09-04T19:20:00.000-07:00

The link at the end of this blog will now work for everyone, not just Californians. Thank you for your support.

America’s family farms, ranches and businesses face a serious ultimatum upon the death of a parent or grandparent whose name is on the title. When we lose that loved one, we then have to make some very difficult decisions, particularly on how to meet the estate or inheritance tax for the property that is to be handed down to the next generation. This is not just an agricultural issue; this directly affects rural economies, environmental sustainability and food production.

H.R. 3524, The Family Farm Preservation Tax Act, would allow families to pass the farm or ranch, and assets, to the next generation, exempt from estate taxes. This bill was introduced by Representative Mike Thompson and Representative John Salazar and would also exclude land that is enrolled in a qualified conservation easement.

Some would suggest doing proper estate planning and securing ample life insurance would alleviate this problem, however, what they do not understand is the following. The tens of thousands of dollars, spent on legal bills and insurance could be spent reinvesting in the farm or ranch. Reinvestments that would make the land more efficient, beneficial to wildlife, and have the potential to expand and benefit the local economies by hiring employees and generating demand at local businesses.

Being able to keep the family farm or ranch in the family is also a major benefit for the environment. When farms and ranches are split up and sold off, often times it goes under development, eliminating valuable habitat and placing even more regulatory pressure on the portions of the ag land that remain in production.

Furthermore, as more and more agriculturally productive land is split off and sold to cover estate and inheritance taxes, less and less land is available to produce food. Couples the reduction in productive land, with regulatory restrictions and Mother Nature and you have a recipe for potential food shortages and higher food prices.

Please voice your support for agriculture, and family farmers and ranchers by going to the following link http://bit.ly/11ClwB , join Farm Team and send your support and or estate tax story to Washington D.C. Voice your support for H.R. 3524 and the American farmer and rancher.

A Rancher's Perspective On Health Care

2009-08-26T13:53:00.000-07:00

Why am I writing about Health Care? How does it relate to agriculture? Easy, farmers and ranchers need insurance, we pay into the existing system through taxes, our commodities are consumed and in some corners of the media, blamed for current health issues. Plus, I was listening to Bill Crystal on XM this morning while coming home from working cows. He gave and interesting analogy that I would like to expand upon in reference to our country’s current economic situation.

If you have a $250,000 mortgage on your home, only one wage earner, two children, payments on a car, and all of your water pipes beneath your home break what do you do? You tighten your belt, call a plumber and get your pipes fixed. Do you also remodel the living room, kitchen, master bath and garage? No. You wait on those other projects, and reduce your monthly expenses.

Now, the US deficit is projected to reach over $9 TRILLION in ten years. Why is there a rush to pass the Health Care Bill and Cap and Trade, or remodel the living room, kitchen, master bath and garage? Let us just fix the broken pipes, please, and reduce our spending.

Meaningful reform can certainly be accomplished in Health Care, and without adding to the National Debt. Here are five suggestions this farmer/rancher has for the folks in D.C. that could be dealt with one at a time and each under 10 pages in length. Heck, even Senator Conyers could handle that without staff and lawyers. Call me crazy, but to me it seems like Common Sense.

CURRENT HEALTH CARE PROPOSALS

Collect all copies and shred them. Erase all electronic copies. Start over.

Cost: None, in fact paper is recyclable and money could be made. Also, think of the memory that would be freed up in servers, computers and memory sticks.

INTERSTATE COMPETITION PLUS

A state-regulated national market for health insurance would increase competition, offer more choices, and lower costs. People should be able to purchase policies across state lines, not be limited to buying within their own state. Additionally, eliminate denial of coverage to people that have preexisting medical conditions and/or have reached a “coverage cap.”

Cost: None

MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS

People should be able to invest in Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs). These MSAs should be allowed to roll over from year to year and grow over time, just like and IRA. MSAs should also be added as a permanent part of tax law, and offered to all employees without restriction. Further, all deposits into MSAs should be tax deductable and all withdrawals from these accounts, for medical expenses, should be tax free.

Cost: None

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

A reasonable cap must be placed on medical malpractice lawsuits. Limitless damage awards increase insurance costs for doctors, who then pass them on to the patients. Today, physicians are practicing “defensive medicine,” which drives up health care costs through unnecessary treatments and in some cases, tests.

Cost: None

UTILIZE COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY

Modernizing hospital recordkeeping will lead to quicker, more accurate treatments, a reduction in medical errors, and lower overall costs. Eliminating patient information gaps would reduce “under-utilization” and “over-utilization.” For example, the patient who patient who forgets to refill a prescription in order to stay on treatment (“under-utilization”) and the patient who goes from doctor to doctor to get the same prescription for devious intent or the patient who has retest after retest due to lack of doctor communication (“over-utilization”).

Cost: None

PREVENTION AND WELLNESS PROGRAM

The demand for medical care can be greatly reduced by promoting personal responsibility and education within a culture of wellness. All school districts should implement a tiered course of study beginning in the elementary and culminating at the high school level that includes child development, health, nutrition, food safety, and budgeting. Furthermore, in order to reduce the incidence of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and stroke, all students, throughout their school career, should be required to take a physical education class that includes regular physical exercise. Physical education classes should not be optional. Additionally, access to preventive services, including improved nutrition and breakthrough medications that keep people healthy must be increased to keep people out of the clinics and hospitals.

Cost: None

These five reforms would not cost a trillion dollars. They would increase competition, and lower cost of coverage. They would improve the wellness of our youth and reduce medical needs. Granted, I am just a farmer growing hay and pasture and a rancher raising cows and horses, but it seems pretty obvious to me.

MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON: Put your politics aside, wake up and start running the government like a business. Fix the broken pipes and get your finances in order. You do not have the option of declaring bankruptcy, or is that bill in committee?

I guess the way I see it can be summed up like this. If I have to haul my horse to a neighbor’s ranch to help move cows, and the trailer has a flat tire……I put on the spare. I do not go out and buy a new trailer.

So if you agree with what I have said, feel free to pass this on to your elected representatives.

Time is running short, the “Cash For Clunkers” has expired and we can no longer get $4,500 for the trailer on trade in….oh that’s right, trailers weren’t included. Guess the neighbor is just going to have to move those cows without me this time.

Personal Comments on the Klamath TMDL

2009-08-25T21:25:00.000-07:00

2824 South Highway 3

Etna, CA 96027

Katharine Carter
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
5550 Skylane Blvd, Suite A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

RE: Comments Klamath River Total Maximum Daily Loads and Action Plan

8/17/09

Having worked on fish and water issues, plans and permits since 1992 I can honestly say this is the poorest compilation of relevant science, lacks clear objectives with purpose and has timelines that are unreasonable. There are too many individual areas of concern to address them all, so I shall limit this response to five general points.

First, the Klamath TMDL has gone from river specific to watershed. The Scott & Shasta already have working and approved TMDLs in place. Attributing additional limiting factors to these watersheds and incorporating them into the Klamath TMDL is simply wrong. We do not need another layer of permits, regulations and restrictions.

Second, the entire Klamath TMDL is unreasonable in nature. Per the North Coast Water Quality Control Boards own policy, you are to evaluate ALL beneficial uses and develop a plan than assesses and meets the needs of all uses, with out negatively impacting others. The Klamath TMDL clearly places its emphasis on cold water fisheries and ignores the impacts to agriculture and other beneficial uses.

Third, a full assessment on the economic impact of the Klamath TMDL was missing. In this case, it should be a cumulative economic impact, including the effect of all TMDLs and the Department of Fish and Games ITP. This will be the third and in some cases, the fourth or fifth permit or plan than private landowners will have to endure. Especially in the current economic situation, it must be noted that agriculture and timber can not sustain any more additional cost, whether it be in capital or in time.

Fourth, as written, the Klamath TMDL assumes that the dams will remain in place. However, the tone of the TMDL lends credence to removal. Therefore, the Klamath TMDL must also include the potential scenario of the dams being removed.

Fifth, the Boards additions to what qualifies as an acceptable Ranch Management Plan are unacceptable. Farmers and ranchers do not have the resources, or the time to meet the new criteria. The surveys, studies and monitoring described are unreasonable.

Overall, the Klamath TMDL presents the tone that the farmers, ranchers and timber managers are guilty before proven innocent. We are good stewards of the land and are benefiting the environment for both aquatic and terrestrial species. We have implemented conservation practices and are efficiently utilizing our resources in order to provide healthy and productive farms and ranches for future generations. Local agriculture and business cannot endure any more regulations, restrictions or limitations.

In conclusion, I have three suggestions.

1. The NCWQCB needs to remove all portions of the plan that involve any tributary that already has an approved TMDL in place.

2. The NCWQCB needs to sit down at the table with the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors and discuss in earnest, the entire Klamath TMDL, until the county is satisfied.

3. The NCWQCB must meet with the CDFG and come up with the desired ratio of spawners to out migrants that will indicate a healthy fishery.

The bottom line is that we all want a healthy fishery. Farmers and ranchers are experts at growing things. Tell us the ratio you want for the system we manage. We can directly effect what happens inland and we have over the past 15+ years, in a positive way. We cannot be held responsible for low numbers returning when we have spawned them and sent them out alive. Adding regulation upon permit upon restriction on the private land owner will not bring back more fish. Instead it will lead to more economic hardship, higher unemployment and more conversion of valuable habitat.

Thank you for the opportunity to present comments on this document.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey N. Fowle

Rancher, Farmer, Agriculturist, Environmentalist

Letter to Time Magazine on Bryan Walsh Food Article

2009-08-22T15:13:00.000-07:00

The following was sent to the editor of Time Magazine at: letters@time.com

To Time Magazine,

The recent article by Bryan Walsh, “Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food,” August 20th, was a poor choice to serve as the cover article. Covers should be objective, factually based and lead to an educated and productive discussion to solve an issue or simply inform in an unbiased manner. Bryan Walsh’s article was none of these.

His attempt at journalism was obviously slanted, utilized biased science, and lacked truthful, well researched information. If he was attempting to mislead the public through misinformation and scare tactics, he was successful.

As it was written, it served no productive purpose in aiding in the growing and successful dialogue between family farmers and ranchers and the consumers, taking place in social media. Attempts by Walsh and others sharing his agenda and motives to paint American Agriculture with wide brush strokes of assumptions and accusations only hinder a productive outcome.

Family farmers and ranchers across the country encourage honest dialogue to educate the public and have them share in the process of solving challenges with an end objective being able to continue to provide the world with the safest and healthiest food supply.

I look forward to seeing another article by Mr. Walsh that points out, item by item, the misinformation that was printed and enlightens the public as to the facts and returns responsibility to the individual. If he needs help locating unbiased, real-life, real farm & ranch conditions and information, I would encourage him to contact one of the family famers and ranchers from across the nation on this list: http://www.dataforag.com/followfarmer.a5w. We will tell it as it is, what works and what does not. We utilize science and modern technology every day to provide you with an affordable, safe and wholesome product. Our only motive is to keep the environment clean and healthy, enhance wildlife habitat, encourage conservation, provide for future generations and feed people.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey N. Fowle
Family Farmer & Rancher from CA

Time Article Gets It Wrong.....Again!

2009-08-22T11:27:00.000-07:00

The recent Time article titled “Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food” should have been called “More Mis-Information About American Agriculture,” by a one sided writer who was either too lazy to research his information or is another activist masquerading as a so-called journalist.

Here are 13 quick points to reflect on as they were inaccurate in the article at best.

Antibiotics are no longer fed as a mainstay of rations. Antibiotics are used to treat sick animals and maintain their health and welfare.

In 95% of cases, the farms and ranches were built before communities. Farm and ranch “aromas” are far from being “air pollution.” If you don’t like the smell, don’t build or move near a farm or ranch. Personally, when I smell a swine farm, dairy or beef feedlot, I am thankful that there is a business that is employing workers and feeding the world. Also, be forewarned, farms and ranches operate machinery at all hours of the day and night and might interupt your precious sleep.

Typical liberal journalism blaming agriculture for America’s obesity problem. Stop already! People are free to choose. People choose to eat what they do and choose to not exercise. Take personal responsibility for your own situation, stop passing the blame.

Farmers and ranchers apply the amount of fertilizer that will be utilized by the crop. Excess fertilizer application is not common practice. First it is not economically beneficial, and second, it is not environmentally friendly. Farmers and ranchers work very hard to manage the soil health so that future generations are able to utilize the land.

Modern technology and management practices implemented by American Agriculture have reduced erosion across the country. In fact, public policy that has removed livestock grazing from public lands has actually led to more catastrophic wildfires, leading to sterile ground and massive erosion events.

The attempt to link disease resistant bacteria in humans to antibiotic use in livestock is unfounded. No studies have directly linked this accusation.

Doug Gurian-Sherman’s quote is either out of context, or he shows that he needs to get back in the field. Modern farming techniques are more water and power efficient, reduce erosion, and are increasing the fertility. Farmers and ranchers are soil builders.

Back to fertilizer: Farmers and ranchers regularly test the soil for nutrient balance. It would be unethical to not replenish the soil with the necessary nutrients to maintain its health.

Government subsidies do need to be addressed. Once again, an example of government involvement resulting in inefficiency. However, those that are so adamantly against farm subsidies should also be just a strongly opposed to the current administrations involvement in banking, insurance, car companies and proposed health care program. Is it not ironic that Time / CNN support these other subsidies?

Saying that livestock production is “dependent” upon “cheap grain” is also inaccurate. Livestock production depends on affordable commodities. If consumers were willing and able to pay more for their food, producers could afford to pay more for commodities. It’s basic economics.

“It simply costs too much to be thin.” A grossly exaggerated statement at best. How much does it cost to get off your bottom side, put on a pair of shoes or boots and go for a run, bicycle ride or hike? How much does it cost to NOT buy junk food? Answer? NOTHING…..ITS FREE, HEALTHY and COMMON SENSE!!

News Flash to Robert Martin of the Pew Commission, antibiotics are not the “cornerstone” to production. They are not “widespread” or “overused.” Commonsense would indicate that humans need to stop over using antibiotics. It is ok to get sick once in while and recover WITHOUT the use of drugs. Your immune system will be stronger and you will be healthier.

“Sustainable” should NOT be confused with “Organic.” Sustainability encompasses many factors of production. Conventional and organic farms and ranches can be sustainable. Likewise, they can also both be unsustainable. Going “natural” or “organic” is not a magic bullet to instantly be “sustainable.”

Siskiyou County Continues Williamson Act

2009-08-14T23:43:00.000-07:00

By Dale Andreasen
Daily News
Thu Aug 13, 2009, 09:45 AM PDT

Yreka, Calif. -

Followed by resounding applause from the crowded chambers, board chair Michael Kobseff said. “As long as I’m a board member in Siskiyou County, I’m going to support the Williamson Act.”The remark was made during a spirited discussion at Tuesday’s board of supervisors meeting. Supervisors and others discussed what the county should do in face of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s veto last month of $28 million to fund the act that has helped preserve agricultural lands and open spaces in California since 1965.

Land owners who sign a Williamson Act contract get substantial breaks on their property taxes by agreeing to keep the land in agricultural production or as open space. The state has been subsidizing the counties for the loss in property tax through a subvention program.Siskiyou County had been receiving about $780,000 per year in subvention payments.

Last year it was cut to $700,000. This budget year it will be zero unless the program is restored by a lawsuit, by the Legislature, or by the governor. Farmers, ranchers and environmental groups support the program. Public Health and Community Development Department Director Terry Barber pointed out that seven contract applications are currently “in the pipeline” and she needed guidance as to how to move forward. Two of the applications are for amendments to existing contracts and five are new applications for an additional 1,446 acres to be put into the program.She informed the board that there are currently 419,000 acres, over 10 percent of the county, involved with Williamson Act contracts.

The supervisors unanimously voted to accept the new applications and give the applicants the option to withdraw or continue at a later date pending what happens to the Williamson Act funding. If an application were withdrawn, the unused portion of their $600 fee would be returned.After much discussion, the supervisors also voted unanimously to continue with the Williamson Act program whether it is funded or not.

The vote was remarkable since both Barber and county counsel Tom Guarino pointed out that the current contracts are self-renewing and that a vote was not necessary.The only way the existing contracts would not be renewed would be if a vote were taken to discontinue the program, explained Barber.Senior county assessor Lauri Foster said there are about 400 Williamson Act contracts currently in effect.“In a nutshell, if we are looking at non-renewal, the tax liability of these property owners could double. Some would quadruple and some could be 10 times as much. It’s not simple, each parcel would have to be assessed separately,” she said.Planning Director Greg Plucker spoke during the discussion also.During a public comment period, Jim Morris of the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau asked the supervisors to honor the existing Williamson Act contracts. Otherwise, he said, the increased taxes would be burdensome.“But if these people were forced to subdivide their land, it could be worse for the county,” he added.

Lifelong Scott Valley property owner Mike Bryan also spoke in favor of honoring the contracts. Otherwise, he said he could make more money by subdividing his land. He asked the board to “do everything in your power to preserve open space.”

Jack Cowley, of the Siskiyou County and California Cattlemen’s Association, said he’s been involved with the Williamson Act for years. He said California is expecting a population increase of one million people.“Agricultural land is necessary to feed the people,” he said. “We have to have land to produce food.”

Supervisor Marcia Armstrong said it is important to recognize that Siskiyou County’s economy is agricultural, which, she said, generates twice as much revenue as tourism.“It’s really important that we support agriculture,” she said in an emotional statement.“I would like to believe that the funding will come back,” said Supervisor Ed Valenzuela, “but if it doesn’t, where do we get the $700,000 that we will miss out on?”All five supervisors voted to support agriculture and open spaces in the county and continue with the Williamson Act contracts whether the subvention money comes in from the state or not.

County Administrative Officer Brian McDermott had lunch with Assemblyman Jim Nielson Wednesday. McDermott said Nielson understands the position of the county and said “he will do everything he can to help restore [Williamson Act] funding.”

The Wooden Bowl

2009-08-09T14:50:00.000-07:00

The following was sent to me today, Sunday, by Barbara Saville and I felt it was appropriate to share. It is especially relevant to me with an observant and watchful 2 1/2 year old son.

I guarantee you will remember the tale of the Wooden Bowl tomorrow, a week from now, a month from now, a year from now.

A frail old man went to live with his son, daughter-in-law, and four-year-old grandson. The old man's hands trembled, his eyesight was blurred, and his step faltered.

The family ate together at the table. But the elderly grandfather's shaky hands and failing sight made eating difficult. Peas rolled off his spoon onto the floor. When he grasped the glass, milk spilled on the tablecloth.

The son and daughter-in-law became irritated with the mess. "We must do something about father," said the son. "I've had enough of his spilled milk, noisy eating, and food on the floor."

So the husband and wife set a small table in the corner. There, Grandfather ate alone while the rest of the family enjoyed dinner. Since Grandfather had broken a dish or two, his food was served in a wooden bowl.

When the family glanced in Grandfather's direction, sometimes he had a tear in his eye as he sat alone. Still, the only words the couple had for him were sharp admonitions when he dropped a fork or spilled food.

The four-year-old watched it all in silence.

One evening before supper, the father noticed his son playing with wood scraps on the floor. He asked the child sweetly, "What are you making?"

Just as sweetly, the boy responded, "Oh, I am making a little bowl for you and Mama to eat your food in when I grow up." The four-year-old smiled and went back to work.

The words so struck the parents so that they were speechless. Then tears started to stream down their cheeks. Though no word was spoken, both knew what must be done.

That evening the husband took Grandfather's hand and gently led him back to the family table. For the remainder of his days he ate every meal with the family. And for some reason, neither husband nor wife seemed to care any longer when a fork was dropped, milk spilled, or the tablecloth soiled.

On a positive note, I've learned that, no matter what happens, how bad it seems today, life does go on, and it will be better tomorrow.

I've learned that you can tell a lot about a person by the way he/she handles four things: a rainy day, the elderly, lost luggage, and tangled Christmas tree lights.

I've learned that making a 'living' is not the same thing as making a 'life..'

I've learned that life sometimes gives you a second chance.

I've learned that you shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on both hands.You nee d to be able to throw something back sometimes.

I've learned that if you pursue happiness, it will elude you But, if you focus on your family, your friends, the needs of others, your work and doing the very best you can, happiness will find you

I've learned that whenever I decide something with an open heart, I usually make the right decision.

I've learned that even when I have pains, I don't have to be one.

I've learned that every day, you should reach out and touch someone.

People love that human touch -- holding hands, a warm hug, or just a friendly pat on the back.

I've learned that I still have a lot to learn.

Williamson Act, What Is The Future?

2009-08-03T17:22:00.000-07:00

The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, allows local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments which are lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. Local governments have received annual subvention of forgone property tax revenues from the state via the Open Space Subvention Act of 1971, until now.

The Williamson Act was named for John Williamson, a 1960s-era assemblyman from Kern County that gives farmers a property tax subsidy if they pledge to keep their land in agriculture for periods of 10 to 20 years. It currently protects 16.4 million acres of farm and ranch land from development, or 17% of the total acreage of California.

Now it will now be up to cash-strapped counties to decide whether to continue Williamson Act contracts or cancel them. Many rural counties depend on the subvention funds for 10% or more of their annual budgets.

Cancellation would not mean immediate subdivision of farm and ranch lands, because current contracts would have to run their course before farmers could sell land to developers or do it themselves. On the sixth year of the contract, landowners may begin the paper filing process at their respective counties, with ground breaking and subdivision sales occurring in year nine.

Many farmers and ranchers have said the Williamson Act subsidy is the only thing that prevented them from subdividing and developing long ago, and with the current economic situation, with a particularly soft commodity market, it is likely many will sell out and either move to another state or keep their home with a couple acres to live out their lives.

If counties choose to non-renew, land owners may file a protest to lock in their current tax rate for at least three additional years. After that, taxes will be increased each year, based on an incremental scale, until the final year, at which time the taxes will be based on potential use value.

The governors actions could result in a devastating change to the agricultural landscape of the state, destroy the worlds 5th largest provider of food and agricultural commodities, and virtually eliminate an environmentally friendly industry….turning green into brown or black top.

While the governor did leave $1000 in the account for subventions, it is paramount that the California legislators restore funding to the program when they return to session. California agriculture and rural counties are facing literal collapse without immediate action.

Work, Urine Tests, Taxes & Welfare

2009-07-29T22:16:00.000-07:00

A friend passed this along to me. Thank you Jen Gilbert.

Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem). What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.

So, here is my Question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass - doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'.

Government Legislation and Impact on Agriculture

2009-07-24T10:52:00.001-07:00

Recently I have been pondering how government legislation and regulation has impacted and will continue to impact production agriculture. It seems as though every day a new regulation, permit or fee is proposed at the state and federal level without proper insight, and understanding. It is well past time to put on the breaks and take a serious look at the role of government and its relationship with the individuals of this great country.

The role of government is to create equal opportunity for individuals to be successful, NOT create equal outcomes. Individuals and businesses should be rewarded for their individual effort, sweat, blood and tears. There will be those that succeed and those that fail, that is a fact of life. Those that are successful should not be penalized nor forced to aid those who are less fortunate. Individuals and businesses that have clear objectives, plan their work and then work their plan, tend to see successful outcomes. However, over the past 15 years or so we have seen a growing trend of the government, both state and federal, to change the rules and regulate production and management so as to try and ensure equal outcomes. This is wrong!

The individuals that are behind regulatory legislation and policy often may have book knowledge, but rarely have practical, commonsense, and production wisdom. They lack the insight to how regulations will actually impact individuals and businesses. Often, legislation and regulation is proposed and passed to achieve personal agendas, from narrow minded, self centered, egotists, focused on reshaping the face of American Agriculture and rural America to meet their own needs. Yes, the HSUS, PETA, Greenpeace and Earth First come to mind.

Without a major change in the current legislative and regulatory trend, OUR country faces some serious trouble. Increased regulatory burden on agricultural production will result in decreased domestic production with increased imports and decreased wildlife habitat with increased urban development. Production agriculture in the United States operates under the strictest regulations in the world and provides the people with the safest food. Do consumers really want to place their trust in food safety in a foreign country like Mexico or China? Additionally, American farmers and ranchers are in many cases the only real defense wildlife has between natural habitat and continuing urban sprawl. Where is the logic in imposing more regulations and fees on farmers and ranchers that are already voluntarily improving the environment, yet result in more ag land being sold off due to economic and regulatory hardship?

Regulations passed by state and federal governments should follow these principles:

1. Recognition of private property rights as the foundation for resource production;

2. Regulations are based on sound science which has been subject to replication and peer review;

3. A risk assessment analysis should be conducted prior to the promulgation of regulation;

4. An estimate of the costs and benefits associated with public and private sector compliance with the regulation must be conducted;

5. Regulations should allow for flexibility of rules and regulations to fit varying conditions;

6. Regulations should be subject to independent analysis and public review;

7. Alternatives to regulations must be considered, especially the provision of market-based incentives;

8. Regulations respect the practicalities of doing business in the industry being regulated;

9. The presumption of innocence as opposed to the current presumption of guilt should be strengthened;

10. Adoption of tools that measure the cumulative impact of regulations affecting production agriculture;

11. Measurement of cumulative impacts should be completed prior to regulation implementation.

Today it is common for legislation and regulations to be passed with a focus on one specie, or one issue, with blinders on, and results in negative impacts that could easily have been avoided if only cumulative impacts had been properly assessed. It’s time to put the brakes on and stop passing and implementing new legislation and regulations. Take a close look at those already in existence. What works and what does not? Eliminate those that are detrimental and negatively impacting production agriculture. Learn from the mistakes and follow the eleven principles before enacting more.

Regulations and legislation should start at the grass roots, local level, involving those that have the practical knowledge. Our forefathers created a constitution that limited the power of the federal government and empowered the people for a reason.

The government needs to STOP trying to ensure equal outcomes and get back to the basics. STOP enabling an already welfare dependant society. Put America first and guarantee the equal opportunity for individuals to succeed or fail based on their individual merits. Failure is healthy. The wise will learn from their mistakes and push on.

Obamagic - by Emory Hanlon

2009-07-22T14:34:00.000-07:00

The following is a letter to the editor from a friend of mine to our local paper. It relates food production to the proposed Health Care Reform very effectively.

Obamagic

Pioneer Press
Fort Jones, CA
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
page 7 col 1
pioneerp@sisqtel.net

To the Editor:

If the government suddenly decided that no one should go without food and passed a law that those who buy their own food must also buy for those who do not, or for those who have come into the country illegally, there would obviously be a shortage created. The increased need would require the production of more food.

But suppose that farmers and ranchers had price controls on what they could charge for their production. And that the government mandated that their prices were already too high and passed laws forcing them to sell for still less.

Now, imagine that those farmers and ranchers had a $500,000 debt for education and equipment on the first day they planted their acreage or bought their first feeder calves. Consider, also, that they had to carry enormous insurance policies for anyone getting ill from eating their products and then suing for all they're worth.

In such a hostile atmosphere the established food producers might hang on until they could sell out and retire, but there would be little incentive for anyone new to go into that line of work. Gradually, what food was produced wouldn't be enough to meet the needs of everyone and consumers would have to search for, and wait for, produce and meat to eat. Often it wouldn't be obtained in time to prevent starvation.

The government, in all its wisdom would then make rules as to who gets priority for the food that is available. For instance, less food would go to geezers and geezerettes, especially if they're already past the biblical "three score and ten" years of life. It is not "cost effective" to provide much food for older people, since they don't work hard and are soon going to move from the topside of the grass to the underside. Food would simply have to be rationed to those who contribute the most to society. When people who are in their sunset years check out earlier than expected because of food shortages, it relieves the pressure on social Security and Medicare, and even reduces carbon dioxide "pollution" from their breathing. So, for the government, it's a win-win situation. But for seniors, and anyone who ever expects to become one, it would be a lose-lose matter.

Now, where you see "farmer" and "rancher" substitute "doctor" or health care provider." And replace "food" with "health care," and you have the medical health plan illusion of Barack Hussein Obamagic.

Emory Hanlon,
Lake Shastina

Ag Related California Legislation

2009-07-20T08:44:00.000-07:00

The following bills are of sigificant importance to California Agriculture.

AB 243 (Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara) passed out of the Senate Public Safety Committee 7–0 on Tuesday.

This bill would require the courts to prohibit anyone convicted of certain crimes against animals from owning an animal for five or ten years, depending on the severity of the crime. Assembly Member Nava took amendments in the committee allowing livestock or poultry owners the ability to petition the court for an exemption from this prohibition as long as they can show that the prohibition would impose an economic hardship on their livelihood and that they can properly care for the animals they own. The amendments also place the burden of proving that livestock or poultry owners do not meet the standards set forth for an exemption on the prosecutor. These amendments provide the proper protections for livestock and poultry owners convicted of minor crimes against animals, to prevent them from losing their businesses. Certainly, the amendments make the bill more ag friendly, but many questions still remain as to the overall impact. The bill now moves to the Senate Appropriations Committee. This bill requires close monitoring.

The Assembly Appropriations Committee placed SB 250 (Dean Florez, D-Shafter) on its suspense file this week.

Senator Florez did not present on the bill, however the committee gave opponents the opportunity to provide testimony against the bill, prior to its being placed on suspense. Senator Florez has still not amended the bill to exempt dogs used by hunters, farmers, and ranchers, despite his promise to Senator Wolk. This bill currently requires all dogs and cats in California to be spayed or neutered, unless the owner obtains an “intact” permit for the dog, or keeps the cat indoors at all times. If the dog owner has been cited for certain pet related violations, they are ineligible to obtain an intact permit. Included in the list of violations, is allowing a dog to run at large. Oppose this bill until an exemption for working dogs used on California’s farms and ranches is included. The Assembly Appropriations Committee will likely take up its suspense file the week of August 24th.

The Assembly Appropriations Committee passed SB 448 (Fran Pavley, D-Santa Monica) out of committee with a unanimous vote of 16–0 on Wednesday.

This bill would create a California Safe Harbor Agreement program providing landowners, who choose to participate, incidental take coverage for species listed under the California Endangered Species Act when they expand or improve habitat for these species. The bill was amended last week to add language protecting the confidentiality of proprietary business information of participants and protecting participants from potential liability if individuals are injured on the property while completing surveys or other requirements of the program. These amendments allow for support of SB 448. The bill now moves to the Assembly Floor.

U.S. in Tight Spot on Trade - WSJ.com

2009-07-17T10:36:00.000-07:00

U.S. in Tight Spot on Trade - WSJ.com:

JULY 17, 2009

By BOB DAVIS and GREG HITT

WASHINGTON -- In a bid to revive support for free trade within the U.S., the Obama administration plans to press foreign nations to increase imports of U.S. agriculture and manufacturing -- but not to push so hard as to ignite a protectionist backlash.
Bloomberg News Ron Kirk

'In order to save trade, we've got to deal more honestly with those who feel like [trade's] benefits haven't been manifested for them,' U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said in an interview Tuesday. 'We've got to be serious about enforcement."

Thursday, Mr. Kirk plans to travel to Mon Valley Works, a steelmaking complex in Braddock, Pa., to tell steelworkers that the U.S. will begin regular reviews of countries whose regulations and other practices limit American exports of agriculture and manufactured goods. In agriculture, for instance, the U.S. would target health-based import restrictions that Washington considers bogus -- such as bans of American pork products by Russia, China and other nations in reaction to the outbreak of H1N1 influenza.

The U.S. effort would rely largely on trying to embarrass countries into changing policies, rather than directly threatening tariffs or other commercial penalties. The U.S. could decide to refer some of the disputes to the World Trade Organization, but getting cases decided there can take years.

"One of the legitimate complaints levied against our trade policy is people feel like we just let our partners run roughshod over us," Mr. Kirk said, at the cost of U.S. jobs. "I don't think it's too much to ask of our trading partners that you live by the rules that you agreed to."

Complete article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124771359831849441.html

The administration needs to get its head screwed on right and work towards FAIR TRADE, especially for US agricultural products. Domestic producers are struggling to compete with imported goods that can be produced with fewer restrictions, cheaper labor, and more subsidies.

Add on top of the confusing administration trade policy is the lurking Food Safety bill that will potentially place more unecessary financial burden on family farmers and ranchers, further placing them at a disadvantage to foreign products.

Communicate your concerns to Washington D.C. Request a clear & fair trade policy that benefits US family farmers and ranchers. It's time to stop bending to foreign pressure and stand up for America first.

Economics 101

2009-07-14T08:31:00.000-07:00

A good friend of mine posted the following story on FB. It's so simple & true! Everyone in the country needs to read this. Welfare dependent societies, as ours is, are destined to fail. We need MAJOR government reform! Thanks Ned, for posting it.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

Return Letter to Parelli, Regarding HSUS Partnership

2009-07-08T14:19:00.000-07:00

With all due respect, I have been to their offices in Washington, D.C. and have personally met with Paul Schapiro, Director of Factory Farming Campaign, at both his office and the National Press Club. I have PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

The HSUS has gone beyond simply working for the humane treatment of animals, and has become an animal rights organization that is vigorously working to pass legislation that is detrimental to family ranchers in California and across the nation. Their efforts to pass Proposition 2 in California is a prime example. I am one of those family ranchers that is also a Parelli student.

HSUS's campaign against livestock production threatens family ranchers across the nation and encourages society to choose a vegetarian life style.

Direct From HSUS:

"Each one of us can help prevent animals from suffering in factory farms simply by choosing vegetarian options. It's never been easier to replace animal products with readily available vegetarian alternatives." HSUS.org

"Visit the HSUS Guide to Vegetarian Eating for more information on how you can help farm animals when you eat, including delicious recipes, tips on incorporating more animal-free meals into your diet, shopping list suggestions, and much more. And for more information on the lives of farm animals and other ways you can help them, visit www.FarmAnimalWelfare.org." HSUS.org

"The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration."-Michael W. Fox, HSUS Senior Scholar"We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."-Wayne Pacelle, HSUS President & CEO"My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture."-J.P. Goodwin, HSUS Grassroots Coordinator

While HSUS may use the term "factory farming," to gain support, their impact is and has been tremendously detrimental to family ranchers and farmers.

Certainly, Keith Dane, Director of Equine Protection, may be a Parelli student. However, instead of working to improve the conditions of horse processing, he worked to abolish it, and is now actively engaged to make it illegal to transport horses to processing facilities, rather than work to ensure improved transportation techniques.

Here in the west, horse rescue facilities are overcrowded, people are turning their horses loose in the dessert, and even turning them out in strangers fields. I have been personally aware of this. Without a horse market, there is no place for horse owners to get rid of their horses, whether it is because of finances or age.

Is it really more humane to have domestic horses starve in the wild, get hit by vehicles on remote highways, and place pressure on wild herds. How would you feel if someone dumped their horse on your private property and your horses were injured or incurred a disease?

I am VERY aware of what HSUS has done, is doing and is planning on doing. I am not "influenced" by propaganda, or rumor. I have experienced personally, the aftermath of HSUS and am working to fight their agenda on a daily basis, while trying to earn a living to provide for my family.

Yes, I do care about the future of Parelli and am deeply troubled by the partnership with HSUS.

However, I care more for the future of family farmers and ranchers that are feeding the world, conserving natural resources, enhancing the environment and continually being challenged and attacked by the HSUS.

I would strongly encourage you to look beyond your relationship with Mr. Dane, and discover how HSUS is effecting livestock and family farmers and ranchers.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Jeff Fowle

Response from Parelli, Regarding HSUS Partnership

2009-07-08T14:17:00.000-07:00

I received the following on July 8, 2009 via email, from Elizabeth Andriot .

Thank you for your concern, however we do not share those same concerns as you. We have had many personal meetings with the HSUS and visited their offices and we have known the Director of Equine Protection for some years now. He is an avid Parelli student and has dedicated his life to protecting the dignity of horses from birth to the end of their life. Any 'rumors' we hear are taken straight to him to get the facts.

We fear you are being influenced by anti-HSUS propaganda which tends to make accusations based on rumors and opinions rather than facts, much the same as what happens to us! Perhaps you should take the time to visit personally with them at their offices so you have the opportunity to base your opinions on first hand experience.

I'm sure you wrote to us because you care about Parelli and for that we are most appreciative.

Yours naturally,

Linda and Pat Parelli

PEW Charitable Trust - Discussion On Antibiotics

2009-06-22T15:23:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine asked me to review the PEW Charitable Trust claims regarding antibiotics. This organization was referenced by the movie Food Inc. PEW statements are in italics. My responses are in bold and are compiled by data, statistics and information through the CDC, FDA and the USDA.

Up to 70 percent of U.S. antibiotics go to animals raised on industrial farms that aren't sick, to offset crowding and poor sanitation. This practice promotes the development of deadly strains of drug-resistant bacteria that can spread to humans.

The closest figure I can locate to the 70% figure is from 1978 FDA data, and that number is actually 68% and is based on volume of antibiotic administered in total, in relation to body weight. This seems fairly accurate as a 1000 pound steer will require a higher dose than a 150 pound human. I addressed the administering to “non sick” animals in my post, however, antibiotics are used on cattle that are not “back grounded” (cattle that are not current on their vaccinations prior to shipping) when first arriving to feedlots for a period of 2-3 days. A majority of cattle producers today though are utilizing and enrolled in the Beef Quality Assurance Program, which instructs how to properly background and prepare cattle for shipping, thus eliminating the need for administering antibiotics at all, upon arrival. Recent data also shows that these “back grounded” cattle are also 97% less likely to require doctoring at all during their stay at the feedlot. This a an example of a proactive step taken by family ranchers to provide a safe and high quality product to the consumer.

Penicillins, tetracyclines, macrolides, sulfonamides and other antibiotic intended for humans are typically pre-mixed in poultry and livestock feed or added to drinking water, often giving food animals constant low doses of antibiotics over much of their entire lives.

From my knowledge and experience, antibiotics are only administered when there is a disease outbreak. In the 1960’s and 1970’s it was more common to administer antibiotics through much of the life cycle of many food animals. However, due to modern science, it was discovered that this was unnecessary and the practice was abandoned. Further, the FDA has very specific limitations on the dosage, and length of time any specie (including humans) may receive treatments of antibiotics. Any alteration of the recommendations must be through an individual prescription from a licensed doctor or veterinarian. Additionally, all antibiotics have their own specific “withdrawl period.” That is the length of time an animal must go without treatment to insure there is no residual component in the product. Meat products are inspected for traces and if found, that product is not allowed to enter the food chain.

Ninety percent of hogs and 97 percent of poultry are grown on factory farms in the United States.

I will not attempt to address this statement. The discussion of the definition of “factory farm” will probably continue long after I am residing in a pine box. I can say that many poultry and pork producers are family owned and family managed. I also know that many suppliers of poultry and pork to non-family corporations are also family owned and operated. I will not, though, attempt to go into detail, as I am not as knowledgeable in those industries as I am in cattle, hay, horses, dairy and specialty crops. However, I would invite fellow farmers who are knowledgable in these industries to share this information.

Food-borne illnesses are becoming more difficult to treat due to the increase in antibiotic-resistant strains and the decreased effectiveness of antibiotics used as a first-line defense.

I have not, to this day, seen a reputable study that has been reproduced and peer reviewed that proves this statement to be correct. I concur that humans are encountering challenges with the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment. However, I would also suggest that our society has become to dependant upon drugs to cure all of their ills, and that much of this challenge has resulted from an overuse of drugs in humans, in order to “get healthy quicker.” I believe that unless an individual’s life is at stake, drugs should be a last resort. Human immune systems are miraculous, and almost always, do not need outside help. My doctor always told me to “let it run its course, get plenty of sleep, stay hydrated, and eat what you can.” As a result, in 39 years I have taken antibiotics once, for 7 days, for a severe case of strep throat.

Consumers are exposed to resistant bacteria through the handling and consumption of contaminated meat, through produce that has been exposed to resistant bacteria in soil and water, or through direct contact with the bacteria in the environment.

Everyone is exposed to bacteria, in all of these manners and more, period. Are some resistant? Probably. I fail to find the study or reference that is reputable, reproducible and peer reviewed to make the link between that and livestock. See answer given previously.

Food-borne bacteria are more dangerous in their antibiotic-resistant forms, because they are harder to treat and may require multiple antibiotic treatments, longer hospital stays and other interventions before finally being eliminated.

With my knowledge and understanding of the issue, I believe this is a correct statement. However, where is the connection to livestock and the support that livestock production is the cause? See previous answers.

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cost the U.S. health care system an estimated $4 to $5 billion per year.

Lacks reference, but may be true.

Each year 300,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths are caused by food contaminated by dangerous pathogens and bacteria such as Salmonella and E. Coli, which are increasingly becoming antibiotic resistant.

According to the CDC, since 1993, only 30 deaths have been attributed to ecoli infections. They also state that the vast majority of ecoli and salmonella infections are entirely avoidable, with the proper handling of food, including proper cooking, washing of fruits and vegetables and washing of hands. I found numbers close to those stated by PEW, but they were a WORLD count, not in the United States.

According to the CDC, in 2005, a total of 16,614 laboratory-confirmed cases of infections in FoodNet surveillance areas were identified, as follows: Salmonella (6,471 cases), Campylobacter (5,655), Shigella (2,078), Cryptosporidium (1,313), STEC O157 (473), Yersinia (159), STEC non-O157 (146), Listeria (135), Vibrio (119), and Cyclospora (65). Overall incidence per 100,000 population was 14.55 for Salmonella, 12.72 for Campylobacter, 4.67 for Shigella, 2.95 for Cryptosporidium, 1.06 for STEC O157, 0.36 for Yersinia, 0.33 for STEC non-O157, 0.30 for Listeria, 0.27 for Vibrio, and 0.15 for Cyclospora. Also, according to the CDC, there are approximately 70,000 cases of ecoli infection each year, this number includes both EC 0157 and STEC.

There are around 2.4 million Campylobacter infections in the U.S. and about half of these are resistant to at least one antibiotic. Nearly 14 percent of these infections are resistant to at least two drugs.

This may be a correct statement, however, once again, where is the reference and connection with livestock production?

Food Inc. Correction #1 - Antibiotics

2009-06-22T08:43:00.000-07:00

Food Inc. Correction #1 – Antibiotic Use

While researching statistics, data and information used in Food Inc. pertaining to antibiotic use, the only information I could locate, was from 1978. Therefore I have provided a more recent assessment for consumers, from the year 2000.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that more than 50 million pounds of antibiotics are produced in the United States each year.

According to the most recent (2000) AHI survey, 31.5 million pounds are used in humans, 63%, 17.8 million pounds, 36%, are used in animals, and around 700 thousand pounds, 1%, in plants.

Of the total used in animals, 14.7 million pounds, 83%, are used for prevention and treatment of disease.

Of all antibiotic uses, only 3.1 million pounds, 6.1%, are used for growth promotion. It should be noted that the term “growth promotion” is refers to decrease in weight loss due to disease that may occur due to stress at the result of transportation and arrival at the feeding location. Antibiotics are sometimes fed in the first rations to prevent disease until animal acclimates to their new environment.

Antibiotics may be approved for use in both companion and farm animals.

All antibiotics have a “withdrawl” period or period of time that the animal must be not be fed or injected prior to processing, so as to insure that no residual antibiotic is in the final product.

Meat for consumption is tested for residual drugs and other contaminates prior to entering the food chain. Any meat testing positive is not allowed for consumption.

There are more than 7.5 billion chickens, 292 million turkeys, 115 million cats and dogs, 109 million cattle, 92 million pigs, 7 million sheep and 6.9 million horses in the United States.

Finishing rations in the United States have NOT been allowed to contain any antibiotics since the 1990’s.

Cattle that get sick are separated from the group and kept in “sick pens” for treatment and then returned when they are healthy; this to ensure the health of the rest of the pen/herd, and reduce the number of animals that may need to receive antibiotics.

In addition to protecting the health of America's pets, antibiotics help farmers maintain healthier animals, which helps make America's food supply the worlds safest.

All information is data provided through the CDC, FDA, & USDA.

Twitter Chat on Food Inc

2009-06-19T22:01:00.000-07:00

Following a lengthy discussion with many individuals, from all aspects and opinions, while changing water on the ranch, I was struck by the following epiphany.

Individuals that believe Food Inc is an accurate portrayal of “all” modern agriculture in the United States are perhaps the individuals that brought us to this point of discontent.

It seems that the biggest concern that these individuals have is with “big agriculture,” “industrial farms”, and “factory farming.” These terms were heavily used as the description of today’s production agriculture. So I pose the following question: How did we end up with these non-family owned corporations in the first place?

Certainly, there are some issues that need to be addressed regarding “non-family owned corporate agriculture.” We in the beef industry have been struggling for years, with the consolidation of feeders and packers and the impact felt in the market place due to their actions. Understandably, similar challenges exist in the poultry, pork and dairy industries as well. However, I propose that it is because of the actions of the suburban and urban population that we have arrived at our current destination. Whether or not is our final destination is yet to be seen.

Urban sprawl is continuing to encroach, surround and swallow productive land and is forcing the small farmer and rancher to sell their land. Complaints about noise at night, noise during the day, tractors and cows on the highway, odor, dust and other aspects of farming and ranching have resulted in ordinances and legislation that place restrictions on agriculture that financially force the small farmer and rancher to sell. The “NIMBY” (not in my back yard) attitude has forced family owned feedlots, dairies, hog and poultry farms, slaughter houses, and rendering facilities to close up, never to reopen.

This has resulted in larger dairy, swine and poultry farms, and fewer, but larger, feedlots, slaughter houses and rendering facilities, located predominately in the mid west. Small farmers and ranchers and related businesses that once were rural did not have the resources to survive the fight against urban sprawl, and those that were located farther from the major population areas were able to grow, due to a reduction in competition, but continuing increase in supply .

Today, those non-family owned corporations rely on the family farms and ranches for their product and the family farms and ranches rely on them for a market. Is it a system that we like, not always, but it was not a system created by family farmers and ranchers. It was created by the consumer. However, the struggle continues. Family farms and ranches continue to be threatened by new legislative regulations, and new agency permitting programs pertaining to the environment and animal welfare, brought about by activists focused on a few “bad apples”, the minority, and economically devastating the majority. Without major change, we are headed to even larger agri-business and more consolidation, exactly what the Food Inc supporters do not want.

Additionally, these corporations are often criticized for “monopolizing” technology that they create. What is not admitted, or realized, is that the typical family farm and ranch does not have the time, money or resources to devote to innovation and technology development, and that without these corporations, much of the progress we have seen in efficiency and yield would not exist, and likely, we would be a net food importer instead of an exporter. Further, it is these corporations that so generously support FFA and 4-H programs and agriculture programs at universities and community colleges. Without their financial support, most of these programs would not have the success that they currently have, let alone exist.

It is time to face the facts. While local grown is a wonderful idea, it is far from practical to feed a country, let alone the world. Common sense tells us that New York City, Los Angeles, Boston, Miami, etc., will never be able to sustain their food needs by buying local. Can it be done in rural areas? Certainly, however, unless the plethora of permits, regulations and legislation are curbed, that too will soon be a memory. Society needs to allow the affordable construction of new slaughter houses, rendering facilities and packing houses. Society needs to place the value of the human being above species and allow family farmers and ranchers to stay in business, enhance the environment and continue to serve as the carbon basin for the general population.

Movies such as Food Inc., directed at the urban consumers, that paint agriculture with generalizations, misinformation, and emotionally driven propaganda, will only exacerbate the “problem” that they are trying to solve.

Ironic, in my humble opinion, that the “enemy” which they are fighting, was ultimately created by themselves.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Mathew 7, verses 1-5

Food Safety

2009-06-18T10:16:00.000-07:00

Discussion on #agchat Tuesday night highlighted on Food Safety. One of the questions was "What can and should be done to improve food safety?" I would like to offer this forum for producers through consumers (field to plate so to speak) to continue that discussion. Many great ideas were floated, but time limited discussion. In my opinion, progress is always better when ideas are generated at the ground level, rather than by the government.

1. Post if you are a PRODUCER, PROCESSOR, PACKER, RETAILER or CONSUMER and your question or response.

2. Feel free to comment on posts.

3. KEEP IT CIVIL.

GMO Discussion

2009-06-11T09:12:00.000-07:00

Recently, there have been many tweets regarding GMO's. I would like to offer an opportunity for both sides to post their arguments with scientific support. This is intended to be a civil discussion.

Fact 1: The world population is growing.

Fact 2: Production farm land is disappearing urban sprawl, development and environmental buffers.

Fact 3: We have a social responsibility to feed people.

Fact 4: GMO plants and livestock provide the opportunity to grow more on less acres, using less herbicides and insecticides and having longer shelf life.

Question: What is your strongest argument PRO or CON regarding GMO's?

Directions:

1. Lead your post with either "PRO GMO" of "CON GMO.

2. State your argument.

3. Post a link to your arguments SCIENTIFIC support.

4. You may also ask (polite) questions of the posters.

** ANY POST THAT DOES NOT HAVE SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT WILL BE DELETED. **

** ANY POST THAT IS A PERSONAL ATTACK ON ANOTHER POSTER WILL BE DELETED. **

"Ribbon To Our Troops

2009-06-08T09:27:00.000-07:00

Another non-ag post. This was just sent to me by a friend. I know my Christian followers and friends will appreciate this.

VERY INTERESTING-

1... The Garden of Eden was in Iraq

2. Mesopotamia, which is now Iraq, was the cradle of civilization!

3. Noah built the ark in Iraq

4. The Tower of Babel was in Iraq

5. Abraham was from Ur, which is in Southern Iraq

6. Isaac's wife Rebekah is from Nahor, which is in Iraq

7. Jacob met Rachel in Iraq

8. Jonah preached in Nineveh - which is in Iraq

9... Assyria, which is in Iraq, conquered the ten tribes of Israel

10. Amos cried out in Iraq

11 Babylon, which is in Iraq, destroyed Jerusalem

12. Daniel was in the lion's den in Iraq

13. The three Hebrew children were in the fire in Iraq (Jesus had been in Iraq also as the fourth person in the Fiery Furnace!)

14. Belshazzar, the King of Babylon saw the 'writing on the wall' in Iraq

15. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, carried the Jews captive into Iraq

16. Ezekiel preached in Iraq

17. The wise men were from Iraq

18. Peter preached in Iraq

19. The 'Empire of Man' described in Revelation is called Babylon --which was a city in Iraq

And you have probably seen this one: Israel is the nation most often mentioned in the Bible. But do you know which nation is second? It is Iraq! However, that is not the name that is used in the Bible. The names used in the Bible are Babylon , Land of Shinar, and Mesopotamia. The word Mesopotamia means between the two rivers, more exactly between the Tigris And Euphrates Rivers.

The name Iraq means country with deep roots.

Indeed Iraq is a country with deep roots and is a very significant country in the Bible. No other nation, except Israel , has more history and prophecy associated with it than Iraq.

And also, this is something to think about.

Since America is typically represented by an eagle. Saddam should have read up on his Muslim passages. The following verse is from the Koran, (the Islamic Bible)

Koran ( 9:11 ) - "For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle.. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; And there was peace."

(Note the verse number!) Hmmmmmmm?!

This is a ribbon for soldiers fighting in Iraq .

Letter to President Obama

2009-06-06T17:47:00.000-07:00

Typically, I only write or post items that are related to agriculture. However, after listening to and reading speeches delivered by President Obama, while driving tactor, truck, cleaning horse stalls, and working in the shop, I had to put my thoughts to paper (so to speak).

June 6, 2009

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington , DC 20500

Mr. President:

Allow me to introduce myself. I am a fifth generation, Christian, family farmer and rancher, married, with a 2 year old son. I own and operate my own business, and help manage my parents.

I have always had the utmost respect for the office of the President of the United States. I have always respected the individual that held the office of the President, regardless of their party affiliation, unless they acted in a way that tarnished that position or acted in a manner unbecoming of a person who represents all citizens of the United States of America. While I have not agreed with most of the changes that have taken place over the past several months, I accept that your policy positions are different than mine. However, some of your actions and actions that you have allowed your administration to pursue go beyond simple policy changes and threaten the very fabric which this great country was formed.

Most recently, your trip abroad has been disgraceful. Your responsibility lies with the people of the United States, not Saudi Arabia, Egypt, France, Germany, etc. Speeches you have delivered overseas have been heavily apologetic and appeasing. This is disgraceful. We in the United States have NOTHING to apologize for and should NOT be trying to appease countries that do not hold in high regard the same value for the human rights and freedoms that were so valiantly earned with the blood, sweat and tears of our forefathers and maintained and protected by those currently serving so honorably in our armed services.

What were you thinking when you told the Muslims that we are not a Christian country and further that we are “one of the largest Muslim countries.” You need to fire your speech writer for feeding you lies and/or you need to go back and re-read your American history so that you can recognize the errors and misstatements before you repeat them. Surely you cannot believe what you have said. The United States of America was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics, principles and values and believed so strongly that our forefathers included language stating our beliefs in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of these United States.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them . . .”

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (not Allah or Buddha) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

- Declaration of Independence

“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

- The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7

For your information, Christians account for 78% of the population of the United States, Muslims 0.6%, that is LESS than 1% of our population. That 0.6% equates to 2.3 million Muslims. Let us compare that to say India (156 million), or Pakistan (150 million). Using whose math is 2.3 million even close to 150 million?

Your speech in Cairo, Egypt, was also filled with inaccuracies, apparently an attempt to appease. For your information, the compass traces back to the Aztecs and Chinese, algebra was developed by an Babylonian, Rome was the home to architecture, and Johannes Gutenburg, a German, developed the movable type and please, to credit Islam with religious and racial tolerance. Have you not read the history of the Middle East?

Additionally, you fail to show deserved respect to one of our oldest allies, Great Britain, and yet, you bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, (thank you at least for not doing so during your last visit) and give kudos to the president of Venezuela. Further, you take the time to visit a mosque in Turkey, but fail to visit the graves of our departed veterans in Germany. Your actions are offensive, giving the Germans more respect than the Americans who fought and died to save the Germans from themselves. Where are your loyalties?

Your domestic actions are of great concern as well. Bank executives and company CEO’s are having limits set on their pay and bonuses. What about the blatantly corrupt government officials. Namely, Senator Dodd, Senator Frank Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic and the bonuses that paid in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

GM has also now been taken over by the government. (I say government and not people because I truly feel the majority of elected and appointed officials in Washington D.C. no longer represent the PEOPLE.) We only need to look to Amtrak, which goes ~$400 in the red, per person traveling from the west coast to the east, to see how well the government manages companies. Data indicates that GM is losing $3,000 per vehicle and owes us, the PEOPLE, how many billions of dollars? How can you seriously believe that WE the PEOPLE will ever see a return on your so called “investment.” Add this buy out to the previous careless spending and we as Americans now each have an extra $55,000 per household to pay off in additional debt, added on to the existing $540,000 of debt, based on 2008 numbers.

By the way, how many of your advisors and appointees that are guiding your decisions have ever had a REAL job, managing a company or business in the private sector? Certainly you know the adage about the character and wisdom of an individual is reflected by those he surrounds himself with.

Returning to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as I understand it, their executives will be receiving $210 million in bonuses, and have already been given $51 million. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am not; were not Fannie and Freddie largely to blame for the current economic situation? Has not your administration heavily criticized other companies that are failing for paying their executives bonuses when they managed them into the dirt? It seems to me the pot is calling the kettle black.

Mr. President, with all due respect, LET CAPITALISM WORK! It is the responsibility of the government to ensure equal OPPORTUNITY for individuals to be successful, NOT make everyone equal. Innovation, invention and jobs are created by the PEOPLE, not the government. Will some businesses fail? Of course they will. Will it be painful? Certainly. But bad business must fail. Poor performance and decisions must endure the consequences. NO ONE is TOO BIG to fail! It is essential for balance to return NATURALLY, WITHOUT government interference, in order for our economy and country to heal itself.

In closing, Mr. President, it is high time for you to clean your house of the inept, inadequate, out-of-touch, inexperienced and history deficient advisors, speech writers and appointees. If you do not, rest assured, the PEOPLE of this great country WILL, in the next Presidential election.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey N. Fowle

California Legislation

2009-06-05T18:40:00.000-07:00

Wednesday June 3, was the last day for bills to be passed out of their house of origin in the Legislature. This is an overview of several bills that are important to those involved in California Agriculture That was forwarded to me. For those of you not from California, this is a heads up of what could be coming your way. At the end of each summary is my personal opinion of the effect each bill would have on agriculture and rural California.

AB 64 (Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles and Paul Krekorian, D-Burbank) the Assembly’s omnibus renewable portfolio standard legislation passed out of the Assembly on a 44-31 vote and now moves over to the Senate. It is the most controversial of the 3 legislative vehicles to increase the requirement to procure electricity from renewable resources from the current 20% by 2010 to at least 33% by 2020. A key issue is the establishment of an Energy Planning and Infrastructure Coordinating Committee, which will be tasked with designating and ranking transmission corridors. Currently there is no provision in the bill for providing any notice to landowners about the designation of transmission corridors. (ANTI AG AS WRITTEN)

SB 7 (Patricia Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa), which would extend the length of time customers are able to offset usage of energy against generation under net metering for solar and wind passed out of the Senate on a 29-0 vote and now moves to the Assembly. (PRO AG)

AB 243 (Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara) passed off the Assembly Floor with a vote of 65-12 on Tuesday. This bill would require the courts to prohibit anyone convicted of certain crimes against animals from owning an animal for five or ten years, depending on the severity of the crime. The sponsor of the bill, the Los Angeles County District Attorney, has expressed a willingness to address Agricultural concerns and Farm Bureau is working with the author and sponsor to create amendments that would remove opposition. The bill now moves to the Senate. (ANTI AG AS WRITTEN)

AB 1066 (Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia) passed off the Assembly Floor on a vote of 53-12 on Wednesday. This bill would extend the length of Timber Harvest Plans (THP) from three years to five years, with the possibility of two one-year extensions, so long as listed species have not been found in the plan area. The bill also provides that THPs set to expire in 2009 that have begun work but not completed it are eligible for up to four one-year extensions. Farm Bureau supports AB 1066 because of the improved ability it would provide for timber harvests to better match the market. The bill now moves to the Senate. (PRO AG)

SB 144 (Fran Pavley, D-Santa Monica) passed off of the Senate Floor on Wednesday with a vote of 21-17. This bill would require mitigation and fees for any conversions of forestland in California to address the impacts these conversions have on climate change. This bill would apply not only to timberland, but oak woodlands as well. (ANTI AG AS WRITTEN)

SB 173 (Dean Florez, D-Shafter) passed off the Senate Floor on Wednesday with a vote of 24-12. Originally the bill essentially required Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plans and product testing for growers, food processors, and food facilities. It also provided the Department of Public Health (DPH) with the authority to issue mandatory recalls when it believes foods may contain substances or pathogens injurious to human health. However the bill was amended significantly as it left the Appropriations Committee. In its current version it simply provides DPH the ability to adopt regulations allowing it to voluntarily recall food. It seems likely that the bill will be amended further when it reaches the Assembly, because DPH can already ask food producers to voluntarily recall food items. (NEUTRAL THUS FAR)

After failing passage on Monday and being granted reconsideration, SB 250 (Dean Florez, D-Shafter) ultimately passed off of the Senate floor on Tuesday with a vote of 21-16. Senator Florez once again promised to amend the bill to exempt dogs used by hunters, farmers, and ranchers in return for obtaining the necessary votes to pass his bill. This bill requires all dogs and cats in California to be spayed or neutered, unless the owner obtains an “intact” permit for the dog, or keeps the cat indoors at all times. If the dog owner has been cited for certain pet related violations, they are ineligible to obtain an intact permit. Included in the list of violations, is allowing a dog to run at large. (ANTI AG AS WRITTEN) until an exemption for working dogs used on California’s farms and ranches is included in the bill. SB 250 now moves to the Assembly.

SB 416 (Dean Florez, D-Shafter) failed passage on the Senate Floor with a vote of 15-20 on Wednesday. The bill was granted reconsideration and moved to the inactive file where it can be acted on next January. Originally this bill would have banned the use of antibiotics for “nontherapeutic” or preventative uses in livestock and required schools to try to purchase meat products not treated with antibiotics and to document and report their purchases to the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) if they are not able to obtain those products. However, Senator Florez amended the bill as it came out of the Appropriations Committee to strip it down to only require the SPI to gather information from USDA regarding the use of antibiotics in livestock production and meat products in the school lunch program. (ANTI AG)

AB 854, (Juan Arambula, D-Fresno), would require a Farm Labor Contractor to certify there are no court judgments or Labor Commissioner orders related to unpaid wages against him or her when seeking renewal of his or her state FLC license. AB 854 was passed by the Assembly this week and now goes to the Senate. ( PRO AG )

A measure to override local zoning in order to facilitate the construction of farmworker housing was approved by the Assembly on a vote of 63 to 11. AB 494 (Anna Caballero, D-Salinas) expands the provisions of a 1999 law that allows up to five acres of Williamson Act land to be sold or leased to a non-profit, a city, a county, a housing authority, or a state agency for the development of farmworker housing. This measure would expand those provisions to all agricultural and open space zones prohibiting jurisdictions from enforcing or imposing any local ordinance or regulation or development standard that requires a minimum parcel size on subdivisions, such as percolation standards for septic systems. (POTENTIALLY ANTI AG)

SB 715 (Lois Wolk, D-Davis) relative to the Williamson Act was approved by the Senate on a vote of 34-3. This bill makes modest changes to the Williamson Act by increasing local enforcement authority over contract compliance and conditioning the subdivision of land for development if the land is under contract. The bill was amended on the Senate floor prior to passage to address concerns that California Farm Bureau raised in the Senate Local Government Committee. CFBF is continuing to work with the sponsors of the bill, Yolo County, to insure that landowners are given due process should the county non-renew their contracts “for cause.” (CAUTIOUS)

AB 49 (Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles & Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael) sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council would require a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020 and require agricultural water suppliers to implement, by July 31, 2012 certain best management practices for water use efficiency. The measure narrowly passed off the Assembly Floor this week with a vote of 41-27. Because AB 49 is simply the wrong framework California Farm Bureau and a large, diverse coalition of agricultural organizations and agricultural water interests drafted their own agricultural water use efficiency language and thus oppose AB 49. (ANTI AG)

SB 460 (Lois Wolk, D-Davis) co-sponsored by the Solano Water Agency and the Association of California Water Agencies addresses urban commercial, industrial and institutional water conservation, and agricultural water use efficiency. The measure was held in suspense and is now a two-year bill. California Farm Bureau and a diverse agriculture lobby coalition had been working with the author to address agriculture water use efficiency options in the bill. (CAUTIOUS)

SB 261 (Bob Dutton, R-Inland Empire & Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego) sponsored by the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority is the third measure introduced this session to address urban water conservation. The measure passed off the Senate Floor this week with a vote of 39-0. California Farm Bureau has been working with the authors on amendments to address the implementation of past, current and potential agricultural water use efficiency measures. (CAUTIOUS)

SB 122 (Fran Pavley, D-Santa Monica) would have required additional monitoring wells and authorized the Department of Water Resources to recover costs from the local groundwater users where they perform the monitoring functions. A similar bill (SB 178) failed in 2007. The measure was held in suspense and is now a two-year bill. (ANTI AG)

SB 681 (Pavley) would have required reporting all surface water diversions with substantial penalties for violators. The measure also proposed to create an annual fee for all diversions, including pre-1914 water rights, increase civil liability amounts to $1,000 per day and $1,000 per acre-foot, allows the State Water Resources Control Board to initiate adjudications, and require submittal of information under penalty of perjury, with a $25,000 fine for false reporting. The measure failed to garner the votes necessary to pass off the Senate Floor. (ANTI AG)

Five water bond proposals were introduced early in this Legislative Session, for the purpose of financing water supply reliability and environmental restoration programs, similar to last year’s water bond proposal by Senator Feinstein and Governor Schwarzenegger. Although all five measures failed to get out of their house of origin the Legislature continues to work on a water infrastructure legislative package. The five measures are:

AB 1187 (Jared Huffman, D-Marin & Anna Caballero, D-Salinas) would authorize the issuance of $10.035 billion general obligation bonds and impose a new fee on water users.

SB 301 (Dean Florez, D-Shafter) would authorize the issuance of $15 billion general obligation bonds.

SB 371 (Dave Cogdill, R-Fresno) would authorize the issuance of $9.98 billion general obligation bonds.

SB 456 (Lois Wolk, D-Davis) would authorize the issuance of $9.805 billion general obligation bonds.

SB 735 (Darrel Steinberg, D-Sacramento) would authorize the issuance of $9.785 billion general obligation bonds and impose new fees on residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural water users to finance the debt service on the bonds issued.

Each measure would have funded regional water supply reliability, allocated among a dozen hydrological regions; drought relief projects; conservation and watershed protections from invasive species; habitat restoration and improved fish passage on rivers and streams; prevention or reductions of groundwater contamination, most included but where not limited to disadvantage communities drinking water; levee and water quality improvements, agriculture protection, and fish and wildlife enhancements; provided for the California Natural Resources Agency or a new Delta governing body to consider recommendations from the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan for a comprehensive Delta sustainability program that included both ecosystem and water conveyance improvements; and provided for new surface and groundwater storage and some local or regional storage projects. Additionally, all five proposals would have provided to “counties and watersheds of origin assurances that their priority to water resources would be protected.” California voters would have had to approve any bond measure that passed.

SB 12 (Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto) was introduced to serve as an implementation plan, or the details for a water bond(s). The measure passed off the Senate Floor this week with a vote of 21-16. The initial language in this bill was straight out of the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force recommendations. Three working groups were established in late January, (1) Governance, (2) Conveyance & Storage, and (3) Conservancy & Finance. Each working group has diverse representation of 25 or more interests, including environmental, local government, Delta, urban and agricultural water suppliers, business and agriculture. (ANTI AG AS WRITTEN)

Letter to Parelli's Regarding HSUS

2009-06-04T11:28:00.000-07:00

I encourage you all to write your own letters, to encourage Pat and Linda Parelli to abandon their partnership with HSUS. Feel free to use this letter as a reference.

June 4, 2009

Dear Pat and Linda Parelli,

The work that you do should be commended. Teaching people how to effectively communicate with their horses and be able to listen is extremely important. I’m a 5th generation rancher and started riding when I was 3. My grandfather started teaching me how to start horses with many of the natural techniques that you teach at the age of 6. It was because of our shared philosophy that my wife and I became “Parelli students” 1999, attending a clinic 15 hours south of us, in San Diego, with Neil Pye. Since then, my wife and I have attended courses and clinics in Pagosa, Portland and Cottonwood as well Savvy Conferences and tour events in Pagosa, Eugene, Reno, Sacramento, and San Francisco. It has also been our pleasure to have hosted Parelli clinics at our ranch for the past 6 years. Once again, the positive influence you have had with horse owners is exemplary.

However, knowing that you are also supporters of ranching and the families that are involved in raising the livestock and crops that feed our great country and the world, it is very disheartening to learn that you are “teaming up” with the HSUS.

HSUS is an extreme animal rights group operating under a guise of credibility, making them a far more formidable foe than PETA or any other animal rights group. They achieved their biggest victory yet with the passage of Prop 2 in California, which has jeopardized the livelihood of farmers across California. HSUS is following this success by promoting similar ballot measures in other states, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois Massachusetts and South Dakota. Their inevitable goal is to eliminate animal agriculture by outlawing commonly used agricultural practices that have been designed to keep livestock safe and healthy. Further legislative victories by HSUS will result in a significantly more expensive and less safe food supply for American consumers.

Not only is HSUS trying to ruin agriculture, it is also misleading the public into donating money to them at the expense of the good people who run our nation's animal shelters. HSUS is in no way affiliated with local animal shelters, including those called "Humane Societies." Thousands of people have donated money to HSUS believing they help stray animals find homes, but they do no such thing. They also create “partnerships” with reputable organizations to expand their fundraising efforts and further cloak their true intentions.

Here are two direct quotes:

"We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."
-Wayne Pacelle, HSUS President & CEO

"My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture."
-J.P. Goodwin, HSUS Grassroots Coordinator

Pat, Linda, please reassess your affiliation with the HSUS. It will only damage your good reputation and cause people to question your wonderful program. You do not need this affiliation, or the negative publicity which it will bring among the agricultural community.

Please abandon your relationship with the HSUS, continue your invaluable work and support American ranchers.

If you would like to discuss this further, please feel to contact me at kkbar@sisqtel.net.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey N. Fowle
Family Rancher

RESPONSE ON JUNE 6, 2009

Hello Jeffrey

Thank you for contacting us
I have forwarded this email to the appropriate person to get this to
Linda and Pat. Thank you for the information

Sincerely
Kathy

Agricultural Acronyms

2009-06-02T21:06:00.000-07:00

After the last #agchat, several people were having difficulty following some of the acronyms that we in ag use on a regular basis, and especially when we are limited to 140 characters. I've decided to start an alphabetical list so those who are not "in the know" will be able to more accurately follow along. These first acronym lists are terms that producers utilize to make management decisions on which sires to use on specific dams in order to improve production.

EPD - Expected Progeny Difference

Beef

BW - Birth Weight
CW - Carcass Weight
D - Docility
DCE - Direct Calving Ease
FT - Fat Thickness
GL - Gestation Length
M - Milk
Marb - Marbling
MCE - Maternal Calving Ease
MH - Mature Height
RE - Rib Eye Area
RF - Rump Fat
S - Stayability
SC - Scrotal Circumference
WW - Weaning Weight
YH - Yearling Height
YW - Yearling Weight
%RP - Percent Retail Product
%IMF - Percent Intermuscular Fat

Dairy

BD - Body Depth
CM - Cheese Merit
DF - Dairy Form
DPR - Daughter Pregnancy Rate
F - Fat in Milk
FA - Foot Angle
FLC - Foot and Leg Composition
FLS - Foot and Leg Score
FTP - Front Teat Placement
FUA - Fore Udder Attachment
M - Milk
NM - Net Merit
P - Protein in Milk
PL - Productive Life
RA - Rump Angle
RLR - Rear Leg Rear View
RLS - Rear Leg Side Set
RTP - Rear Teat Placement
RUH - Rear Udder Height
RUW - Rear Udder Width
S - Stature
SCS - Somatic Cell Score
ST - Strength
T - Type
TL - Teat Length
TW - Thurl With
UC - Udder Composition
UCT - Udder Cleft
UD - Udder Depth

Sheep (Not used as frequently as in beef, dairy and swine.)

CC - Crimp Count
FT - Fat Thickness
FW - Fleece Weight
LEA - Loin Eye Area
MM - Maternal Milk
MMG - Matenal Milk and Growth
TOB - Type of Birth
WW - Weaning Weight

Swine

ADG - Average Daily Gain
BF - Back Fat
F/G - Feed to Gain
D250 - Days To Reach 250 Pounds
LBS - Pounds of Lean
LEA - Loin Eye Area
LWT - 21 Day Litter Weight
MLI - Maternal Line Index
NAT - Number After Transfer
NBA - Number Born Alive
NW - Number Weaned
SPI - Sow Productivity Index
TSI - Terminal Sire Index
WDA - Weight Per Day of Age

Rules To Accept When Living On A Farm Or Ranch

2009-05-27T23:10:00.000-07:00

This is a “living” list that will continue to grow as time marches on. I have personally experienced each of these and have been able to accept the humor in each event (some more than once). Hopefully, after reading them, you will be quicker to find the lighter side as you experience, or have experienced them.

Pertaining To Children:

Rule #1: DO NOT leave keys in 4 wheelers, trucks & tractors. If U have to ask, you don't have kids.

Rule #2: Hide clippers, or dogs WILL get hair cuts.

Rule #3: If they see an animal or bird eat it, they will.

Rule #4: If there is a mud puddle, leak around a riser, ditch, sprinkler or hose, they WILL get wet.

Rule #5: DO NOT leave ladders leaning up against hay stacks.

Rule #6: If you do not secure slides at the bottom of elevated grain tanks, they WILL open them.

Rule #7: Don't leave partial buckets of hydraulic fluid by water faucets, they will get "re-filled."

Pertaining To Self:

Rule #1: Invest in phone contact backup. It's not for IF you loose your phone, but WHEN you loose it.

Rule #2: When the government agent says “Trust me.” DON’T!

Rule #3: When the thermometer reads 87 degrees, the roof that needs fixing is at least 117.

Rule #4: When operating equipment with hydraulics, the line that breaks is always the one closest to the person.

Rule #5: There is NO dry way to fix a drain plug, early in the morning, on a pressurized wheel line.

Rule #6: Never stand above a pressurized riser while opening the valve. At 80 psi a valve will knock you out and you wake up very wet. Ok on a hot day, not on 50 degree morning.

Sustainability, Some More Thoughts

2009-05-26T21:58:00.000-07:00

Over the past couple of weeks I have participated in several discussions regarding sustainability and what it “means” to different people. Definitions of sustainability vary between urban people and rural people, environmental activists and active environmentalists, organic producers and conventional producers, “small” producers and “big” producers, and everyone between.

Urban Pressure
With ever growing metropolitan, urban and suburban areas, productive agricultural land is being forced out due to the “annoyance” of smell, noise, etc., resulting from normal farming and ranching activities, the Colorado State Dairy is a prime example. Others are simply bought out, since the value of the land for development surpassed its agricultural value as demonstrated north of Sacramento, where hundreds of homes and the ARCO Arena were built. Without better county planning and more strategic growth of cities, this trend is going to continue at an alarming rate. Additionally, environmental concerns are also ever increasing. Farmers and ranchers are continually being faced with more restrictions and regulations limiting their use of their land and water rights which both increases production costs and decreases productivity.

Environmental Pressure
Farmers and ranchers have always been active environmentalists, providing habitat for birds, wildlife and fish, the same cannot be said for development. However, since those in agriculture have “shallower” pockets, they have been the target of the masses, not “deep” pocketed developers and growing municipalities. The misconception is that developers can buy and set-aside “open space” as a mitigation for building. Yet, that open space is often producing agricultural ground that then goes out of production and into buffer zones. Too often, agency personnel fail to understand and realize the healthy, symbiotic relationship that exists between agriculture and the environment. When agricultural land is regulated out of profitability, the only option is to sub-divide and sell, further reducing food production capability and increasing degradation of wildlife habitat.

Organic v. Conventional
Once again, I am not against organic production. We live in a country where people are able to choose their product and the method in which it was produced. Having said that, one method of production is not any more, or less, sustainable than the other; both are faced with similar market challenges, rising costs of production and transportation of goods and pressure from the urban and environmental communities. Sustainability for both operations hinges on the ability to earn a net profit for the product produced.

Big v. Small
While it is possible for both to be sustainable, it is often much easier for larger producers to absorb changes in the market, and diversify production in order to deal with cyclical changes in both the market and climate. Often times, small producers are left at the mercy of the market and are unable to survive short term challenges in product value and climatic events.

Sustainable?
Our operation is small for our area, 650+ acres. We run ~150 head of registered Angus and Hereford cattle, ~200 head of sheep (Suffolks, Hampshires and crossbreds), ~40 head of horses (Percherons, Thoroughbreds, Quarter horses and Warm bloods) and farm ~200 acres (Alfalfa, Alfalfa/Grass, and Wheat). We have done bank stabilization along the river, planted riparian habitat, built riparian fencing, installed fish screens on both diversions, have permanent rock weirs in place, eliminating the need for push-up dams, and put in locking head gates that are under the supervision of our water master. Additionally, I just installed a center pivot irrigation system to more efficiently irrigate ~120 acres. We rotationally graze, feed nutritional supplements and utilize straw and corn stover for feeding cattle in the winter. My parents run the east side and my wife and I manage the west side and we share one part time employee during the summer. We are NOT sustainable. Both of my parents had off site employment, as do my wife and I, until last year, when I returned to farming and ranching full time. Taxes, fees, fuel, labor, fertilizer and interest payments combine for nearly 85% of our annual operating expenses and over the past five years have led to a net income of 6% of our gross combined. Granted, we have been doing some major repairs and upgrades, but 6% retained net is hardly sustainable considering off site employment is supplementing. Is the land productive? Yes. Will the land be productive for future generations? Yes. Are we environmentally friendly? Definitely. Do we need subsidies to survive? No. However, they do help ensure affordable prices for consumers. Do we need reliable crop and livestock insurance? Certainly. Do we need less regulation founded on poor science, fewer costly and unnecessary permits and fewer fees to use our property and water rights in a beneficial manner? Absolutely!

Farmers and ranchers by in large, utilize best management practices (BMP’s) and adaptive management practices (AMP’s). They also, whether realizing it or not, are very holistic in their operations. However, unless we can remain economically viable, earn a profit for our product, and catch a breather from socio-economic-environmental regulation and legislation, farms and ranches, organic and conventional, big and small, will never be sustainable. Agriculture is the backbone of America. Without a strong and vibrant agricultural industry, the security and wellbeing of our country is in jeopardy.

Food Safety

2009-05-17T15:34:00.000-07:00

The current administration and Congress want to reform our nation’s food safety regulatory system. Most of the proposals thus far have focused predominately on reforming the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) oversight of produce, with little to no attention on changing the USDA’s oversight of meat, poultry and eggs.

Americans need to have the confidence that their food is safe and that the best available science is being utilized to ensure it is also the most wholesome product. Our farmers and ranchers produce the safest, most wholesome and affordable food in the United States and the world. It is our desire as with our consumers, to have a safe, abundant and affordable food supply. We also understand the importance of food safety as it directly relates to consumer confidence and ultimately demand and product value.

At this point in time there are 15 federal agencies administering 30+ laws related to food safety, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The FDA and Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) within the USDA, oversee most of the food safety regulations. Responsibility for ensuring all domestic and imported food products, except for most meat and poultry, is held by the FDA. This responsibility includes insuring that the products are safe, nutritious and accurately labeled. Egg safety is shared with FSIS. FSIS regulates the safety and proper labeling of most domestic and imported meat and poultry, and the products derived from them for human consumption. The FSIS inspects all cattle, sheep, swine, goats and horses before and after processing. This oversight continues when the meat and poultry is further processed into packaged food products.

Three of the reforms that are being looked at include giving mandatory recall authority to federal agencies. Currently, USDA inspectors have the authority to detain meat at any point in the inspection process, when there is a suspicion that a product may not be safe. Products may also be removed from the market if they are suspected to be unsafe or mis-labeled. However, the USDA does not have the ability to recall meat, and relies on voluntary compliance. In reality, USDA and independent recalls are very effective, since the companies comply immediately and even act before a request is ever made.

Secondly, there is discussion of restricting or reducing the existing ports of entry for agricultural imports. This concept will not result in safer imports, but will impede the flow of trade. A consolidation would cause an increase in trade volume at the remaining port of entry inspection stations. These points of entry are already lacking sufficient resources and would be overwhelmed with an increase in volume. This reduction would likely cause retaliatory action by our trading partners and result in restrictions on the ports of entry for United States exports, which is an $80 billion contributor to the economy.

Third, is the idea of combining all food safety agencies into one entity. While on the surface, this may seem like a logical approach, it is questionable whether the new agency would be any more effective without a major increase in funding and resources. Further, each currently involved agency already has the knowledge and expertise to perform their respective duties.

There are three primary principles that should be adhered to. First, Congress MUST NOT create a new federal agency. Second, emphasis should be placed on improving the science and risk-based detection methods. Third, indemnification should be available for producers who suffer marketing losses due to inaccurate government-advised recalls and warnings. Existing laws and structure are effective in guarding against food dangers.

Four bills have been introduced so far.

HR 759 (Dingell), the Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act will be the primary vehicle for food safety reform. His bill would require the Secretary to (1) Establish science based minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of at-risk fruits and vegetable; (2) Safety standards for growing, harvesting, packing, sorting and storage; and (3) Standards addressing manure use, water quality, and sanitation.

Much of this bill is redundant and simply increases production costs with little to no increase in food safety.

HR 875 (DeLauro), the Food Safety Modernization Act has six primary components. It would establish new inspection program guidelines; expand the food-borne illness surveillance system for food; establish a national traceability system for food; establish a national public education program on food safety; increase the focus on food safety research; and implement penalties for violations of food safety laws.

Portions of this bill could be beneficial if additional funding is approved for: (1) Educational programs and training for inspectors; (2) Increased research and development of scientifically based rapid testing procedures and protocols; (3) Additional science based inspection, targeted according to risk; and (4) Increased funding for the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank.

HR 1332 (Costa) and S 510 (Durbin), would both create: (1) New mandatory food safety requirements on farms and food companies; (2) Strengthen the relationship between federal and state agencies; and (3) Provide new FDA powers to recall contaminated food.

The first objective in these bills is unnecessary and duplicative. The second objective is highly recommended and encouraged. The third objective could work, as long as there is an indemnification program available to producers who suffer marketing losses due to inaccurate government-advised recalls and warnings.

I encourage all of you to follow the developments on food safety legislation very closely and share your thoughts and opinions with your representatives.

Further Government Pressure On Agriculture

2009-05-16T07:54:00.000-07:00

The following is an email I received from Congressman Wally Herger this morning. "Cap and Trade" is just another example of the government making it more difficult to be sustainable.

"Knowing of your interest in agriculture, I wanted to inform you of the very detrimental impacts that “cap and trade” legislation being proposed by the House Democrat leadership and President Obama would have on our Northern California agriculture industry. Put simply, "cap and trade" is a new tax on energy consumption, which would be extremely harmful to everyone who uses energy -- from families to small businesses to family farms and ranches.

By way of brief background, a cap and trade system would require a government-mandated limit - a "cap" - on the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted by a certain entity -- such as a refinery, electric utility, or manufacturing facility. That entity would then have to either implement expensive emissions control technology, or purchase - "trade" - carbon permits from an offset market for emissions in order to comply with the cap. Proponents of "cap and trade" argue that it offers free market incentives, but in reality it is artificial and government-dictated that in practice would dramatically increase costs to American businesses - any entity that emits greenhouse gases. In turn, they would pass these additional compliance costs on to consumers, thus creating a substantial new national energy tax on American families.

A cap and trade scheme would be especially devastating to agriculture. Fuel, fertilizer, and other chemicals - all or most of which are petroleum based - currently make up two-thirds of the production costs of most farmers. Those costs have already increased some 40% over the past five years. It has been estimated - conservatively - that cap and trade could increase those costs by an additional 20%. In 2008 farmers across America spent $59 billion on fuel, electricity, fertilizer, and chemicals, and a 20% increase would represent an additional $12 billion hit to their bottom line. For many North State farmers, these cost increases could make the difference between staying in business or closing up shop.

As we cope with a third year of drought and ever-increasing regulation, please know I will be working to defeat this "national energy tax." Instead of passing additional regulations that will increase costs for our farmers and ranchers, Congress should instead be working to lessen their tax and regulatory burden, and to enact policies that will increase our domestic energy supplies, so that they may invest in their businesses and continue as a vibrant part of our area's economy."

Sustainable Agriculture...Is It Possible?

2009-05-15T15:57:00.000-07:00

I find it ironic that the federal government is defining the term “sustainable” for agriculture; the same government that is unable to live within its means and is making it more difficult for agriculture to be sustainable.

Agriculture can only be sustainable when the following exists: product can be grown and sold for a profit; profit from sales allows for re-investment and improvement; and agricultural land can be kept in production

First, the profitability of production is dependent upon two critical factors, input costs and value at time of sale. Relative value of agricultural commodities has not increased at the same rate as the value of other goods and services. In 1964, a rancher could sell ten 750 pound calves or 105 tons of wheat and be able to pay for a new pick-up; today it would take 85 calves or 370 tons of wheat. American society is enjoying cheap, safe and healthy food, while the farmer and rancher continue to be paid relatively the same price as they received 50 years ago. Add on top of that, the continued rise in input costs. Equipment, power, labor, fertilizer, transportation, fuel, veterinary services, taxes, and fees, have all increased, while the value of the product has remained stagnant, thus continuing to shrink the profit margin. Farmers and ranchers have to continually upgrade and expand in order to remain profitable, seek off-farm supplemental income or make the heart breaking decision to sell out.

Second, because of the ever shrinking profit margin, it is more and more difficult to invest in the necessary improvements to remain efficient and operate successfully in very competitive global market. Every additional regulation and restriction, implemented by the government, upon the farmers and ranchers, increases the cost of production and reduces the competitiveness of American grown and produced products in the global marketplace, resulting in an even smaller profit margin. Once again, the choice left to the farmers and ranchers is to expand, seek off-farm supplemental income or sell out.

Third, never ending environmental regulations and restriction, and pressure from urban sprawl further tightens the choke hold on American farmers and ranchers. Once productive and environmentally beneficial, family farms, ranches and orchards are now housing developments, strip malls and non-productive buffer zones, due to the continued spread of our population and failure by our government to recognize the vital environmental importance of farm and ranch land. Despite historical cohabitation and symbiotic relationship between agriculture and the environment, public policy is systematically destroying the environment, their source of nourishment and threatening our National Security. Public policy does not lend itself to promoting the sustainability of agriculture.

It is important to remember that just because a farm or ranch is “organic” does not mean that is sustainable. More often than not, organic farms and ranches face an even smaller profit margin than their conventional counterparts. While they may see a potential for higher product value in niche markets, they also often have lower comparative yields per acre, and higher labor costs, negating much of the increase in value. Also, in the current economic situation, studies indicate that the average consumer will still purchase the item that costs less, thus the niche item is moving off the shelves slower. Organic and conventional farmers and ranchers are facing the same challenges to remain sustainable.

Unfortunately, there is no “magic bullet” that will fix this downward spiral of agricultural sustainability. Public opinion is against “corporate” agriculture, which while it may be “owned” by a corporation, it is managed by families and has grown to remain profitable. Public opinion is for family farms and ranches, but it continues to pass initiatives, legislation and adopt policies that are forcing families to sell out. Public opinion is for a clean environment and abundant wildlife populations, yet they continue to force family farmers and ranchers off their land, only to create non-productive buffer zones or develop it. Until the importance of agriculture is genuinely recognized by the public, sustainable agriculture that can meet the United States and the world’s demand for food is not attainable.

Agriculture (this includes forestry) naturally provides the largest carbon sink in the world. Agriculture naturally provides and enhances habitat for wildlife. Agriculture provides our food, clothing and shelter. Without agriculture, we would not exist.

It is time to stop biting the hand that feeds you.

Agriculture Is Good For The Environment

2009-05-12T09:27:00.000-07:00

Once again, the mainstream media is putting out mis-leading and inaccurate information about beef cattle and their impact on the environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56ASE1wjQWE

Family ranchers and farmers are responsible stewards of the environment. Our livelihoods depend on preserving a healthy, safe and clean environment for food production and being able to pass on a viable operation to our children and grandchildren. Family ranchers and farmers continuously implement Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that are based on the best available science, to maintain soil, water and air quality.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the entire U.S. agricultural sector accounts for only 6.4 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), and livestock production, according to the U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks accounts for only 2 percent. Meanwhile, fossil fuel combustion contributes over 79 percent of all GHG emissions.

Environmental Protection Agency
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_CR.pdf

U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR6P5M5M/$File/06FastFacts.pdf

Finally, the positive environmental practices implemented by family ranchers and farmers not only conserve and improve natural resources, they enhance the productivity of the land and serve as “carbon sinks” for carbon sequestration. Some of those environmental enhancement projects include: brush and weed control, grazing management, conservation tillage systems, riparian habitat management and water efficiency projects.

Support the environment; help correct the mis-information being spread by the mainstream media and anti-agriculture groups that fail to recognize the environmental importance of family ranches and farmers.

Have you thanked a family rancher or farmer for their efforts lately?

Maine Senate enacts animal welfare plate bill - Fosters

2009-04-29T09:05:00.000-07:00

Maine Senate enacts animal welfare plate bill - Fosters: "Maine Senate enacts animal welfare plate bill

Wednesday, April 29, 2009
AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — A bill to create a new specialty license plate to raise money for animal welfare programs has won unanimous approval in the state Senate and now goes to Gov. John Baldacci for his signature.

Democratic Sen. John Nutting of Leeds, who sponsored the measure, said Tuesday the new plate provides a great opportunity for people who want to support the cause of animal welfare.

Money raised from the special plates are to be divided between the state's animal welfare and sterilization funds.

Nutting said that despite the poor economy, the bill's supporters managed within 78 days to raise the $50,000 needed to guarantee a minimum of 2,000 plates."

Other states are sure to follow this example. As diligent members of society ensure your state keeps the money directed to LOCAL humane society activities. DO NOT allow this to become a contribution to the Humane Societey of the United States. Family farmers and ranchers cannot afford to have States become conduits of revenue for the HSUS's war against agriculture.

Animal Welfare - Part II, Equine Cruelty Act of 2009

2009-04-27T23:37:00.000-07:00

Horses are livestock and should not be classified as “companion animals.”

Ranch horses are valuable tools for gathering and cutting, roping and sorting. Certainly, a good dog is beneficial when working cattle as well. However, I have never seen a cat push cows out of the brush, head a bull, or heal.

Draft horses and mules are valuable tools for farming. Working alone, in teams and hitches they are very effective for plowing, discing, drilling, cutting, baling, hauling hay and grain. When was the last time you saw a team of Dobermans pulling a plow, or a four up of Chihuahuas running a hay rake? Perhaps it was a team of Persians pulling the hay wagon to feed cows in two feet of snow in Eastern Oregon?

Horses are livestock and are raised to perform a job or service. Are they a valued part of the ranch or farm? Definitely. However, they are not, and should not be considered as “companion animals.”

Public policy, being forced upon private property and family farms and ranches is wrong. Without argument, Americans do not commonly consume horse meat as some do in Europe and other parts of the world. Yet, animal rights advocates feel it necessary to get legislation and initiatives passed to abolish all processing of horses and transportation of horses to processing facilities.

All horses are not created equal. Family farmers and ranchers that breed, train and utilize horses responsibly are being negatively impacted by flawed policy and mis-information. Horses that are unsafe or too old to perform should be humanely disposed of. If the Equine Cruelty Act of 2009 passes, these horses will likely injure themselves, other horses, humans or endure unnecessary pain and suffering. That is not humane.

Horses used to have a salvage value. Recently, due to a weak economy, high feed costs and legislation and initiatives, many small horse owners are abandoning their horses at shows, rodeos, and even in the high dessert, home of the wild mustangs. These actions have resulted in overcrowding at shelters, a reduction of the wild mustang’s natural forage and even starvation of the domesticated horses. These are the truly inhumane acts.

Work to ensure safe and humane transportation of horses, but allow horses to be processed again in the United States. Help save the family farmers and ranchers and join in defeating the Equine Cruelty Act of 2009 and supporting safe transportation and the construction of domestic horse processing facilities.

Animal Welfare - Part 1

2009-04-20T02:25:00.000-07:00

Discussion on the topic of animal welfare and animal rights has again reached high intensity. Stories in the news are highlighting the efforts of various organizations ranging from violent and destructive actions taken against businesses, to protesting eateries, to writing and supporting legislation at the state and federal levels. Since the majority of our country's population is at least three generations removed from production agriculture, it is important to first understand the difference between animal welfare and animal rights and be able to recognize the motives behind organizations actions.

Animal welfare is based on the principles of caring for and utilizing animals in a humane manner. Organizations that honestly promote animal welfare are seeking to improve how animals are treated and their general well-being. An individual or organization that supports the animal welfare premise believes that humans have the right to eat and use animals. However, exercising that right encompasses the responsibility of humans to raise those animals in a humane manner and with proper care and treatment.

Those involved in production agriculture are continually modifying their operations and changing their management routine to be better stewards through university and industry specific research. Changes in management, which have been made over the past 100 years, have NOT been effectively communicated with the public and thus, have resulted in stereotype assumptions being made based on media coverage of an organizations “hot story.” Therefore, reactions and actions by the public are based on emotion and not fact.

Animal rights are based upon the philosophy that animals have rights equal to those bestowed upon humans. Organizations that follow and promote this philosophy are determined stop all use and even the ownership of animals through the passage of legislation and initiatives that will stop the raising of animals for food, clothing, entertainment, breeding, hunting and entertainment purposes. Two of the better known organizations in this category are the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). A third, and lesser realized, is the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). While the HSUS may share the words “Humane” and “Society” it is NOT the same as your local city and county Humane Societies that are involved in many positive endeavors.

The HSUS was once considered an animal welfare organization that has long since shifted its policy and resources from directly serving the welfare of animals to distributing information and actively pursuing legislation against farming, fishing, hunting and animals in entertainment. President and CEO of HSUS states his organizations position fairly clearly in the two following statements.

“The HSUS works hard to enact laws that protect farm animals from the abuses they all too commonly suffer throughout their lives…. Whether through ballot initiatives, state, or federal legislation, The HSUS is a leader when it comes to making humane public policy changes.”
“Animals raised for food are not just objects or commodities—they are fellow individuals….”
It is the promotion and passage of legislation and ballot initiatives by these types of organizations that places bans and restrictions on production agriculture that is most perilous; resulting in a very real threat to food supply and safety. This has been most recently observed in Arizona, California, Colorado Florida and Oregon with additional measures pending in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and a multitude of others.

These actions, while believed by the public to impact only a few “bad apples” and progressive in nature have and will negatively impact all of production agriculture. Passed legislation and initiatives have resulted in: an increase in predation of livestock and pets by dogs, coyotes, wolves and mountain lions; an increase in abandoned horses that become malnourished and suffer from the lack of proper health care; a negative environmental impact on wild horses due to domestic abandonment; and the likely reduction in swine, poultry and egg production in California and Arizona through the passage of Propositions 2 and 204 respectively. While portions of some legislation may be reasonable and beneficial changes, the destruction occurs in the “details” and “language” of bills that are written by individuals with little to no background in production agriculture and plenty of assumptions.

Producers must continue to implement humane strategies and modify management techniques as new scientifically supported information becomes available. They must also communicate more effectively with the public and provide a face and their positive story to the consumer.
Consumers must take the responsibility to gather their information from qualified sources and reach educated decisions based on fact, not emotion and rhetoric.

Agricultural commodities grown and produced in the United States of America are the safest in the world. Further, American producers are the most regulated and restricted stewards on the planet. Should the current trend of “anti-production agriculture” legislation continue, the United States risks becoming a net importer of agricultural commodities and importing food and fiber from countries that do operate under the same regulations and guidelines as we do here at home. Becoming dependant upon foreign nations for our food supply is an issue of National Security.

“And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” Genesis 9:1-3

Beef In A Diet

2009-04-18T14:08:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine emailed the following response to me from Atkins Diet Reviews and a response to the question: "How much weight can I lose on a low carb diet?"

http://www.atkinsdietnutrition.com/how-much-weight-can-i-lose-on-a-low-carb-diet.html

The section of the response that sounded the "Common Sense Alert" is as follows:

"NOTE: BEEF, Oh my god -it is very bad for you and does not leave your intestine for months and months (look it up on Internet…it’s the worse food for you-unless used in moderation and VERY VERY small portions)"

So, let's evaluate this.

I am a regular beef consumer, partaking of the delicious and nutritious delicacy at least once per day, every day of the week, in the quantity of approximately one pound per serving (closer to two pounds when ingesting a homegrown steak) for the past 21 years. On average this equates to roughly 7 pounds of beef consumed per week, and 28 pounds per month. If we take the stated "months", conservatively, to represent just two months, this would indicate that I have 56 pounds of beef residing in my intestines. That is the equivalent of a 50 pound block of salt or minerals.

Certainly, a block of salt is much denser than digested food, but for comparison sake we'll use the average size block of salt as 10"x10"x12" or 1200 cubic inches of space (approximately 3 basketballs). In my personal situation, I estimate my intestinal cavity to be approximately 7"x7"x14" or 686 cubic inches (this is based on a 32" waist), which is basically 57% of the space that would be required to contain the block of salt, which is at least twice the density of digested meat. Therefore, we should take the area of the salt block and multiply it by 2 which would give us an area of 2400 cubic inches (approximately 5.5 basketballs) or 72% more area than is physically available. Remember, this does account for the space occupied by the intestines themselves, nor the other vital organs housed below the heart, lungs and stomach. If this were the case, I highly doubt that I would still be the same waist size now, that I was in 1986, a 32".

While the individual indicated that the information was on the "Internet", an actual source was not given and I was unable to confirm her data personally. However, the point is, information on responsible websites should be factual and at least pass the "Common Sense Test." If you are a person who gives advise and responds to questions, do yourself and others a favor, be factual, honest and forthright.

Dear Mr. Limbaugh

2009-04-17T09:38:00.001-07:00

Mr. Limbaugh,

I'm a 39 year old, 3rd generation Christian, Conservative Agriculturist. I’ve been listening to you since the beginning at KFBK and appreciate all of your efforts for the conservative movement. However, you really need to do some further research into the HSUS. HSUS is NOT the organization at the local level that does all of the good work for cats and dogs and other companion animals.

The Humane Society of the United States is playing solely off of the emotions of Americans. They back their plots with little science. They sway big name celebrities to push their agenda and they focus on portions of our society that know very little about where their food comes from.

The HSUS is a serious threat to family farms and animal agriculture in the United States. While our "leaders" (I use the word lightly) in Washington can bail out banks and businesses by printing more money, food cannot simply be printed! Agriculture has always based its production methods on sound science and research. I am simply asking you to do the same, especially when it comes to supporting an organization that threatens the bread and butter of our country.

There is a very good, unbiased, article at http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/184 that gives an accurate depiction of the HSUS. In all honesty, the HSUS is on the same level as PETA, ALF, and the Gore Greenies, and we all know your position on those groups.

As I have great respect for you and your efforts, I felt responsible to let you know of this situation before it tarnishes your good character.

Thank you again,

Jeff Fowle

Mr. Limbaugh can be reached at the following:
email - webmaster@rushlimbaugh.com
phone - 800-282-2882

Is Grass Really Greener?

2009-04-17T01:38:00.000-07:00

I've begun hearing an argument among "green" activists and some Grass Fed niche marketers that grass fed cattle are "greener" and produce less methane (CH4) than their grain fed counterparts.

Folks, go back and review your feeds and feeding class, nutrition class and biochemistry class.

First, grain has a higher TDN (total digestible nutrient) than forages. Due to higher TDN, in most comparisons, grain digestion results in an average of four times less methane (CH4) production. In addition, due to the higher digestibility of grains, it requires less energy to breakdown, thus results in a higher net comparable energy gain than forage digestion.

For example, think back to that steer you fed in 4-H or FFA. When you started them on feed your ration was probably around 80:20 (roughage:concentrate or hay:grain) and over the course of feeding, as you neared the end point, that ratio changed to around 35:65. A lower energy, higher protein diet was utilized to maximize growth at the beginning of the animals growth curve and transitioned into a higher energy, lower protein diet to encourage inter muscular and subcutaneous fat deposition. Now, remember how that steers phenotype changed over the course of feeding him? At the beginning, he walked around the pen with a what? "Hay Belly?" Correct! and as time went on, that belly gradually diminished as the ration increased in the percentage concentrate being fed. That "Hay Belly" is methane gas (CH4). OK, enough for the feeds and feeding lesson.

Those in the beef industry need to make sure that the information they present to the consumer is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I fully support niche marketing, however, utilizing mis-information to gain a market share, mislead the public and potentially hurt others within the industry is not the Christian thing to do. Utilize the true scientific merit or consumer preferance to support your endeavors.

For those in the general public, before you believe what you read or hear on the news or from a friend, or organization, always check the science.

The grass is not always greener.

Adjudicated Water Users Face Difficult Questions

2009-04-15T22:54:00.000-07:00

Adjudicated water users in Siskiyou County are facing difficult questions in trying to decide whether or not to participate in the Scott and Shasta Valley ITP Programs.

After the state listed the Coho Salmon, the CDFG convened the Shasta-Scott Recovery Team (SSRT) in late 2002. The SSRT advised the CDFG that it needed to work "with" the communities of the Scott and and Shasta watersheds to develop a programatic permitting process that would allow agricutural diverters to continue routine ranching and farming activities and "be in compliance with the Fish and Game Code and the CESA. The primary objective was to provide agicultural water users a simple and cost effective means to obtain "necessary" permits and continue viable agricultural operations.

CDFG knew that they would not be able to handle the program on an individual basis and so an agreement was reached with the respective Resource Conservation Districts. Beginning in 2005, "outreach" was done to notify diverters that they could participate in the Program after they were established, by signing a "letter of intent." These letters "allowed" for agricultural activities to continue while the Program was developed.

In the fall of 2008, the draft Program was presented for public comment. However, the document introduced a new layer of regulations, guidlines, restrictions and responsibilities that threaten the viability of the very agricultural operations it was designed to protect. Yes, an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) is designed to protect the landowner from take. Additionally, the CDFG introduced a new interpretation in the application of the 1602 permit, by requiring a permit in order to operate an agricultural diversion. Traditionally, 1602 permits were required for any disruption of the bed, bank or channel of a waterway and/or "substantial " diversion of flow. The word subsantial is crucial in understanding the "new" interpretation by CDFG. CDFG has publicly stated that one diversion is not likely to cause "substantial" change in flow, however, cummulatively, all the diversions in the system could. Therefore, they needed a Program that enrolled all diverters in order to try and gain control over adjuducated water rights that are currently managed by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) through court decree.

Many of the diverters in both watersheds have installed fish screens, measured headgates, fish by-pass structures and rock weirs, all measures to minimize and/or alleviate the potential of take. Many of these structures were installed by the CDFG for the purpose of protecting the salmon and eliminating take. So, now the questions begin.....

First, are diverters that have been proactive and installed fish friendly structures willing to sign up for a program of unknown cost that presents real threats to private property rights and adjudicated water rights?

Second, can the CDFG legally require a landowner to get a permit when that landowner has already implemented the necessary mitigation measures to avoid take. Especially when those mitigation measures were approved and installed by the CDFG.

Third, can the CDFG legally require a landowner to get a permit for an activity that is legal and decreed by a court.

Fourth, how many landowers are going to be tempted to call it quits?

The agricultural producers in both the Scott and Shasta Valleys have endured compromise after compromise and at some point, a line is drawn. We've seen an increase in water fees, the implementaion of two TMDL's, the Klamath TMDL is soon to follow. The California Air Resources Board is implementing detrimental diesel regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency is developing new regulations for spraying. The Williamson Act is continually on the chopping block. Production costs have long since passed reasonableness compared to product market value. At what point does the agricultural community say enough is enough?