Television personality and media mogul Oprah Winfrey has had a long-standing beef with the cattle industry. In 1996 Oprah fueled unreasonable Mad Cow fears by swearing off beef. Fifteen years and several lawsuits later, beef still seems to be in Oprah’s sights, so it wasn’t a big surprise that many protein companies issued a quick “no, thanks” when they were invited to be part of a show last February that featured Oprah and her staff participating in a “Vegan Challenge.” Also featured on the show were the foodies’ favorite fiction writer Michael Pollan and vegan weight-loss guru Kathy Freston.

The deck was unquestionably stacked, but the Cargill Company, realizing a lot was at “steak,” decided to call Winfrey’s hand and walked away from the table the big winner. Cargill’s Fort Morgan plant manager Nicole Johnson-Hoffman was immediately catapulted from businesswoman to agri-media “rock star” as a result of her performance on the show.

The beef industry can now take some solace in the fact that they are not the only target the Oprah Media Machine is seeking to roll over. I guess it seems a little disingenuous to me for Industrial Entertainment to be throwing stones at so-called factory farming, as they do in the November issue of “O, The Oprah Magazine” which features an article entitled One Woman Takes a Brave Stand Against Factory Farming

As the title implies, it is the one-sided story of one woman campaigning against confined feeding operations in Michigan. I encourage you to read the article, but read it on-line at oprah.com. http://www.oprah.com/world/Health-Risks-That-Large-Factory-Farming-Leaves-Behind Don’t buy the magazine – Oprah doesn’t need your money. As you read the article it becomes apparent that writer Kathy Dobie is clueless when it comes to agriculture. There’s lots of emotion and hyperbole, but no balance. Most sadly, it deliberately pits “small farmers” against their “factory farm” neighbors – who are nearly all family operations, by the way – in yet another effort to claim the ethical and moral high ground. Sound familiar?

The way I see it, calling questionable farming practices to light is not the real issue here. It’s more about vilifying those you don’t agree with to further your own elitist agenda – and maybe sell a few magazines along the way.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I'm really not sure why the regulators and environmentalists are so afraid of this measure, except for their innate and irrational fear and loathing of "big ag," whatever that is.

According to the Library of Congress summary, the measure

Prohibits the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from  proposing, finalizing, implementing, or enforcing any regulation revising the national primary ambient air quality standard or the national secondary ambient air quality standard applicable to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter greater than 2.5 micrometers under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for one year.

Exempts nuisance dust from the CAA and excludes nuisance dust from references in such Act to particulate matter, except with respect to geographic areas where such dust is not regulated under state, tribal, or local law if the Administrator finds that: (1) nuisance dust (or any subcategory of nuisance dust) causes substantial adverse public health and welfare effects at ambient concentrations; and (2) the benefits of applying CAA standards and other requirements to such dust outweigh the costs.

Defines "nuisance dust" as particulate matter: (1) generated from natural sources, unpaved roads, agricultural activities, earth moving, or other activities typically conducted in rural areas; or (2) consisting primarily of soil, other natural or biological materials, windblown dust, or some combination thereof.

So the administration of "nuisance dust" under 1633 would be a local or state matter.  It would also mean that the claims of health hazards presented by dust would need to be substantiated rather than supposed.

Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey's opening statement in the Energy and Commerce Committee where the bill was introduced, stated "There is no plan to regulate farm dust anymore than there is to regulate fairy dust."  If the regulation of farm dust is such a myth, why would you want block this resolution?  All it really does is ensure that the EPA can't go back on the pledge of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to Senate Ag Committee chair Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)  that she would propose keeping the current standard for particulate-matter pollution.

How about if we look at it as sort of a good faith insurance policy?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

A California rancher friend, Jeff Fowle wrote on his blog Common Sense Agriculture that he recently got an email from a friend that he thought was a joke.  Turns out, it’s not all that funny.

The message centered on some changes to the child labor laws being considered by the US Department of Labor.

In essence, it seems the proposed regulations would make it illegal to allow a child under the age of 16 to do all of the following:

1. Herd animals on horseback, Sort animals on horseback, or work with livestock in almost any way
2. Operate any equipment;
3. Operate any vehicle, tractor, feed truck, ATV or motorized conveyance;
4. Operate any tool that is not powered by hand;

As Jeff says, what does our government have against teaching children the value of family, responsibility and a strong work ethic?

These new regulations do not just apply to “paid” children, but also makes it “illegal” for children under the age of 16 to do any of these activities if they are done as “work” without pay.

Jeff’s family still works cattle on horseback.  These changes, if seriously considered and passed, could prevent his son from participating in and learning from this time-honored tradition.  This vanishing way of life could vanish all the quicker.

Let’s stop a moment and take a deep breath, and consider what’s going on here.  No one in their right mind would suggest that children be forced to perform dangerous, unsupervised tasks that intentionally put them in harm’s way.  Nor would any reasonable individual endorse making a child to work long hours under extreme conditions for little pay.  Laws to address abuses of children in the workplace have been around for a century or more, they just need to be properly and intelligently enforced in the agriculture industry as well as manufacturing.  New laws that over-reach and overprotect wouldn’t be necessary then.

For some time now, I’ve been trying to get the National FFA and 4-H organizations to use my radio show Food and Farm as their bully pulpit and urge some common sense treatment of this situation.  I understand their reticence and reluctance to become involved in such a highly political and emotionally volatile matter, but it is they who will most likely be impacted the most should cooler heads not be allowed to prevail.  The current recommended changes would essentially shut down youth livestock shows and make it impossible for these two organizations to do what they have always done best – keep youth connected with agriculture.  Without livestock programs that instill stewardship and responsibility, the speeches these youngsters are taught to make would have a hollow ring.

The cascade of unintended consequences  could continue into industrial education and other areas.  What productive adult can look back at his or her youth and say there was never a summer or after-school job that made them sweat and got their hands dirty.  Not everybody gets the corner office with a view.

A 60-Minutes segment on CBS featured young migrant farm workers who came with their father to the U.S. to work.  Some may have seen a deplorable situation, but the teens and their father were glad to have the work that they couldn’t get at home and that would eventually contribute to getting the kids an education and an attitude that honest, hard work isn’t a bad thing.

Jeff concluded his blog with some statistics.  To put this in perspective, in California alone, in 2005, there were more than >100 homicides, >200 attempted homicides, >1500 aggravated assaults, >50 attacks on police officers, >1500 robberies, >150 shots into inhabited dwellings, >25 kidnappings, >20 rapes, >500 criminal threats and >100 carjackings…all by children and gang related.  Young people gravitate to gangs, in part, because they don’t have enough to keep them productively occupied and they have never learned the value of ethics and character that is developed from a sense of responsibility.

Worst of all, we’ve relinquished our responsibility to teach our children, making it the job of our churches, schools and government.  Then we can blame someone else when they don’t turn out the way they should.  Shame on us for being too busy to accept our duty as parents and grandparents.

Through the rest of October, you can read Proposed Rules 29 CFR Parts 570 and 579 on line and comment on them at www.regulations.gov.  You’ll probably have to type Proposed Rules 29 CFR Parts 570 and 579 into the search engine to find it, but it’s worth your time and consideration.

I’d also recommend you read Jeff Fowle’s blog for yourself at http://commonsenseagriculture.com.

(The Department of Labor has announced it will extend the comment period on these rules through December 1.  Additionally, Rusty Rumley of the National Agricultural Law Center at the University of Arkansas has written an analysis of the rules that can be found at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/articles/rrumley_Child_Labor.pdf )

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

As I write, the rain continues to fall and Flat Creek continues to rise, cutting me off from about a third of my farm. But the water will go down, we'll clean up the debris and fix the fences and the grass will continue to grow. Some of my cropland friends should have it that easy.

As I chronicled in last week's Food and Farm radio broadcast, I drove up to Indianapolis recently, past miles of flooded farmland.

In about an hour, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will blow holes in the Bird's Point Levee near New Madrid, MO, releasing the Mississippi River onto roughly 130,000 acres of prime farmland for an estimated one-time loss of $77.6 million dollars. Question is, how long will it take the land to recover after the flood waters recede? A decision had to be made and I admire Gov. Nixon for his dedication to public safety, but know it was not a decision made capriciously without thought of the agricultural consequences.

My late neighbor and mentor Dick Rayborn used to say "Farmin' ain't nothin' but gamblin', and it's high-stakes gamblin' at that." Our friends in Indiana may yet see a reprise from the flooding, but the folks in Missouri have lost their roll of the dice.

For all the farmers and ranchers around the country dealing with floods and droughts and tornadoes and wildfires, we offer up a prayer for better times and know full well that those who don't understand us will continue to malign us and second guess us. We need to pray for them as well, that they never have to walk a mile in our boots and make the decisions we have to make every day.

Farming and ranching ain't for sissies.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

[A painting by the American Edward Hicks (1780 - 1849), showing the animals boarding Noah's Ark two by two./Wikipedia]

 The theme of man’s obligation of stewardship is perhaps most vividly expressed in the eighth and ninth chapters of Genesis.  The diluvian waters have receded and the ark has come to rest.  God tells Noah to bring everyone and everything out of the ark so that they will “spread over the earth and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.”  Noah builds an alter and performs a sacrifice which God finds pleasing and He vows to “never again curse the ground because of man, even though man’s inclination is evil from his youth.”  He also promises to preserve the flow of nature until He decides to bring the world as we know it to an end.

“While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease." (Genesis 8:22)

God then reaffirms that man will have dominion over every other creature.

“The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.” (Genesis 9:2)

In these passages we see the refutation of the principal tenets of both the adherents to the theory of climate change and the animal rights movement.

God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33.)  His plan establishes order and without it, chaos would reign.  The Creator had no intention of issuing a license for destruction of the environment or wanton abuse and inhumane treatment of animals.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

With the passage of Missouri's Proposition B, the euphemism "puppy mill" seems destined to take its place along side "factory farm" in the animal rights rhetorical arsenal.

For those who might not be familiar with the colloquialism referenced in the title, yes it does relate to the dog fighting culture, but I use it to illustrate a point.  The phrase refers to having little concern with the outcome of an issue, and even though the immediate impact of Prop B will be felt by Show-Me Staters, anyone involved with animals will eventually be affected.  This seemingly benign referendum (at least so in the eyes of the urban electorate) will likely have far-ranging ramifications.

The Missouri Farm Bureau was quick to recognize the potential damage to animal ag in the state and MFB president Charles Kruse released this statement before the voting machines had hardly cooled down...

“The passage of Proposition B is disappointing because it will put licensed, reputable dog breeders out of business, not those that are unlicensed and raise dogs in unsanitary conditions.  With Proposition B passing and practically all the proponents’ funding coming from out-of-state individuals and organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States, Missouri farmers and ranchers are concerned that animal agriculture will be the next target of the radical animal rights agenda.  Farm Bureau will remain vigilant in standing up for Missouri farmers and ranchers who treat their animals humanely and help provide the safe and wholesome food supply we all enjoy.”

As blogger Darin Grimm and others point out, this battle wasn't won on the gravel roads, it was won on the concrete and asphalt.  Rural voters in Missouri universally opposed the measure while their less-connected city cousins saw visions of puppies and kittens and were swept to the polls by a wave of emotion that narrowly claimed victory.

And who really benefits from this win?  Not the puppies and kittens, but the deep-pocketed animal rights carpetbaggers who funded a superficial campaign to suffuse and obfuscate an issue that actually subverts animal care and ownership to promote their well-cloaked radical vegan agenda.  With the sweet smell of success redolent in their flaring nostrils, they'll be emboldened and energized to mount new campaigns.  Animal ag needs to find a way to effectively combat the misinformation machine.  Simply supplying the facts just isn't working.

Mike Smith of Food Chain Communications has an idea, and he pitched it in an article in the November Issue of Missouri Beef Cattleman magazine, reprinted on the Truth In Food website:

"We need a new agricultural apologia. Agriculture needs an apologetics in the classic sense – not of being sorry, but of being morally defensible. Not only must we find our way back to farming’s pure moral heritage, but we must openly embrace it, celebrate it, without fear, and without succumbing to the temptation to couch it in the more comfortable clothing of economics, science, utility and practicality."

Teddy Roosevelt is attributed as saying  "nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care."  We don't need hot-button, emotionally manipulative phrases like "puppy mill" or "factory farm."  We have to start showing we genuinely care, not by shedding crocodile tears but by showing real faces of real people telling real stories.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Let's get something straight, right off the top. I love horses. Currently, there are five of the prettiest, most useless critters in the world having their run of my pastures. They are useless because I allow them to be; I make no demands on them, I merely enjoy their presence. I don't have the time or inclination to ride I once had, but that's certainly not their fault.

Now that I hope you understand my relationship with equines - we keep donkeys as well - I hope you'll be better able to relate to my pro-horse slaughter sentiments and realize that their is absolutely no conflict between the two.

Bottom line: We have way more horses than we need. Some of them are not easy keepers, as my horses are. They require a great deal of care that is expensive and yields little or no benefit, save a misplaced benevolent feeling on the part of the caregiver. Some horses are of a difficult and dangerous temperament. Some are just old and ill and, as my son-in-law once said of my favorite saddle horse, "just need a friend." That friend, putting emotion aside and addressing a realistic need, may decide, as I did, to euthanize the animal, literally putting it out of its misery.

Attorney Paula Mays is a trademark attorney, formerly with the US Patent and Trademark Office. In an entry on the popular Huffington Post blog, she talks of attending high school in the suburbs of Baltimore, MD, watching her classmates "preparing for horse shows, braiding their beautiful horses and donning their riding outfits in hopes of a victory."  That doesn't sound like someone who has been involved, even casually, in caring for a horse.  So, why is she considered an expert on horse slaughter?  For whatever reason, she's writing a blog spreading much of the same emotionally-fueled misinformation as so many others who anthropomorphize horses, demonizing anyone with a more balanced, albeit less romantic view.

At some point, we need to get realistic about these animals.  They're beautiful, yes even magnificent and iconic for the most part, but they're not mystical or magical - they're animals.

The recently-released Disney movie Secretariat opens with a voice over of Diane Lane reading a wonderfully poetic passage, Job 39:18-25;

Do you give the horse his might?
Do you clothe his neck with a mane?
Do you make him leap like the locust?
His majestic snorting is terrifying.
He paws in the valley and exults in his strength;
he goes out to meet the weapons.
He laughs at fear and is not dismayed;
he does not turn back from the sword.
Upon him rattle the quiver,
the flashing spear, and the javelin.
With fierceness and rage he swallows the ground;
he cannot stand still at the sound of the trumpet.
When the trumpet sounds, he says 'Aha!'
He smells the battle from afar,
the thunder of the captains, and the shouting.

Look at the other passages surrounding that.  God, questioning Job's knowledge, also asks about the mountain goat, the ostrich, the wild ox, the wild donkey and the hawk.  The point being, God doesn't want Job to acknowledge the greatness of the creations, but rather of the Creator.  We can't help but reflect back to Genesis 1:28, where God says of man;

Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

Horses are to be useful, productive creatures in service to man.  Conversely, man is to care for them and see to their well-being.  Sometimes their usefulness, as with many other animals, is in the products they yield rather than the life they live.  That's the weighty decision left to man, and while it must be made with care and kindness, it must be made.  Humane treatment, transport and slaughter should be of paramount concern, yet selected harvest is necessary to maintain balance.

As I mentioned, I love horses.  I also love sheep, goats, cattle and yes, even pigs and chickens, but my compassion is tempered with pragmatism.  We cannot restrict our options in an increasingly hungry world.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." Genesis 1:26

This passage doesn't give man the right to abuse animals. Rather, in this context, the concept of dominion carries with it a responsibility to be good stewards and caretakers of the provisions of God. Man is unique among God's creations in that he was made "in our image, after our likeness," not in a sense of physical resemblance but rather with a capacity for intelligent thought (not that we always use it) and the ability to make calculated decisions (not that we're always particularly good at that, either!)

So, should we not consider animals as a source of food?

And he [Jesus] said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him.  For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."  Mark 7:18-23

Even the Jews, who had a stricter dietary code than the later Christians, were permitted meat.

"When the LORD your God enlarges your territory, as he has promised you, and you say, 'I will eat meat,' because you crave meat, you may eat meat whenever you desire. If the place that the LORD your God will choose to put his name there is too far from you, then you may kill any of your herd or your flock, which the LORD has given you, as I have commanded you, and you may eat within your towns whenever you desire. Deuteronomy 12:19-21

So what about Jesus?  Did he eat meat?  Jesus had lamb as a part of the passover feast (Luke 22:8-15) and fed fish to the multitudes (Luke 24:42-43.)  In John 21:9 we see a resurrected Jesus cooking fish over charcoals on the shore.

These are just a few examples of how the Bible does not promote veganism or vegetarianism as some claim, but it doesn't condemn it, either.  In fact, the apostle Paul wrote;

"One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.”  Romans 14:2-3

Just a little food for thought...

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

You see, that bastion of anti-agricultural sentiment that calls itself the Environmental Protection Agency wants to clamp down on one of rural life’s constant companions – the dust clouds that farm machinery kick up in fields and along unpaved roads. The Associated Press writes that “farming groups have urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to retain its current standards for dust, soot and other microscopic particles, arguing that tighter restrictions would be unworkable and that dust isn’t a real pollutant.”

I never thought I’d find myself opposing the American Lung Association, but it’s hard to go along with a group that wants to see oppressively stringent regulations enforced on an industry they – like so many other urbanites – refuse to understand. The ALA is pushing the EPA to tighten up the regs.

Janice Nolen, the group’s assistant vice president for national policy and advocacy, thinks that officials could reduce dust by paving gravel roads and encouraging farmers to grow more of their crops using no-till approaches that reduce the need for tractor work. I doubt Ms. Nolen’s ever been on a farm during a grain harvest, even one where the crop was seeded no-till. You’re still going to have dust. Paving roads is not a bad thing, but does she realize that, if it was left up to us, those roads would already have been paved? And as for on-farm roads, who’s going to step up with the funding to take care of that?

AP says the EPA is expected to release a final document next month spelling out its options for revising the standards. They plan to announce any proposed changes in February, and will likely approve a final updated rule by October 2011. The agency would then determine which areas of the nation don’t meet those new standards.

Unless I miss my guess, there will have to be public hearings regarding this. Farmers, ranchers and their duly elected representatives need to continue to carefully follow this foolishness and use everything within their power to turn this mess around. In other words, it looks like we need to kick up a little dust.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/09/20/2085226/farmers-fear-dust-rules-wont-refl...

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

 While reading comments to a recent NY Times blog on antibiotic usage in agriculture, I was struck by one response:

Plain and simple, the industrial food chain is unsustainable. Fast Food Nation and The Omnivore’s Dilemma are two books that can tell you all you will ever need to know about the US industrial food system.

Really?  Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser have all the answers?  I’ve read Pollan’s books and repeatedly noted my admiration for his skill as a scribe by hailing him as one of America’s premier fiction writers.  Schlosser, on the other hand, is just another hack with an agenda.

If you base your opinions entirely on the writings of one collective viewpoint, your vision is seriously limited.  Having little more basis for your opinion than two very slanted books is far more dangerous than some of the questions raised in the article about intensive housing and antibiotic use.  A proclamation such as this one – which, by the way, is but one of many similar statements – connotes the intellectual stricture placed upon an issue when one refuses to consider anything but their own preconceived notions.

Blogger Eric Ekholm makes a very profound statement about half-way into the article that summarizes the problem very well:

The debate over animal confinement, it seems to me, is fundamentally one of values, and comes at a time when public notions about animal welfare are shifting.

That shift is an extreme one.  One that requires balance and moderation, lest we pass that tipping point and effectively handcuff our food production system.

Please have a look at the videos on my YouTube channel and hear from the farmers themselves.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

"Faces of Farming" is a 30-minute video produced for the Kentucky Soybean Board by Destiny Productions with me acting as executive producer and host.  The program was divided into six segments so that they might be uploaded to YouTube.  All 6 segments, plus associated Public Service Announcements are available through my YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/TheFarmerFeedsUsAll  please pay it a visit!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

By the time I finished mowing the pasture by the creek, the sun was already dropping behind the ridge.  The shadows from the trees were lengthening and the damp, cool air collecting in the low places at times almost took my breath.  Barn swallows and dragon flies, seemingly hundreds of them, dipped and dived in an aerial ballet as they preyed on the smaller insects coming up around the tractor.  As the evening wears on, bats will take their place, coming from the high-wall caves above the creek.  Rabbits and small deer intermittently flee the tall grass for the shelter of the riparian.

On the still sun-bathed hillside across the road,I can see the sheep grazing back and forth under the watchful eyes of their donkey sentinels.  Soon the sheep, the donkeys and the horses will be making their way to the barns as the light continues to fade and the deer creep in to begin their browsing.

This is why I choose to be here...

Permalink | Leave a comment  »