For many of you the harvest season is over, but the process of cleaning and repairing your equipment and prepping fields for spring planting is just beginning. Here’s hoping that in this busiest of seasons you won’t forget to vote in the Nov. 2, 2010 election.
Many local and state races are expected to be very close which means your vote has weight, it has meaning and it is likely worth the drive to town. People are disgruntled as we approach these Mid-Term elections which means two things will happen…many of the dissatisfied will stay at home and say “why bother “ and the zealots on both ends of the spectrum will camp out waiting in line to make sure their votes gets counted.
This means it is more important than ever to vote. This presents an opportunity for the majority of the population of American society who live somewhere in between those extremes. It presents an opportunity for agriculture.
Farmers constitute less than 2 percent of the population but history shows you also have a remarkably high voter turn-out, so let’s keep that record intact. Your vote doesn’t count? I read a blog today that reminded me that the closely contested 2000 Presidential election five states were decided by less than one percentage point.
It may not come as a surprise to many that the Prince of Wales does not appear to understand the common man. But, it may shock Brits to learn that he is now promoting an illogical approach to saving the planet and feeding a growing population that could actually decrease food production and increase greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. While there have always been cases of royal inbreeding, this seems more illogical than determining official leadership through a sword pulling contest.
In a recent Guardian article, Prince Charles criticized modern agricultural practices calling for a movement to organic practices that would save the environment and meet incredible increases in demand. His ideas may be well-intentioned and there is a good and growing market for organic products but, unfortunately, if implemented, these measures would have the opposite effect.
Modern agriculture is good for the environment. A new study from Stanford University says that advances in high-yield agriculture have prevented massive amounts of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere – the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. Hence the greenhouse gas emissions that he rails against would actually increase should Great Britain switch to the system Charles proposes.
Furthermore, the yield intensification biotechnology facilitates actually helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while meeting increasing demand. Yield intensification has lessened the pressure to clear land and reduced emissions by up to 13 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year. So, the exact type of farming the Prince eschews could meet all of his goals.
The science is behind modern production techniques. The 2009 Field to Market Study released by the Keystone Alliance for Agricultural Sustainability clearly demonstrated that modern farming techniques are more environmentally friends showing that between 1987 and 2007:
- Corn’s productivity gains have allowed for a 37 percent reduction in the land needed to produce one bushel.
- When combined with productivity advances, soil loss per bushel of corn produced has decreased by 69 percent.
- Irrigation efficiency per bushel has seen a decrease of 27 percent.
- Factoring in improved yields, the energy used to produce a bushel or unit of corn has decreased by 37 percent.
- Corn has seen a 30 percent decrease in emissions per bushel.
So let Prince Charles go back to gazing upon beautiful vistas of heritage variety sheep and munching lustily on heirloom variety vegetables. The common man will continue the hard work that characterizes successful farming. While the food most people eat may not come with a certified pedigree, farmers take advantage of scientific advancements to continue a proud tradition of stewardship that produces a harvest bountiful enough to meet growing demands.
“It’s a very good ingredient for us,” said Dr. Smith. “We’ve used it successfully and the reason we would use a co-product like that is to save money in the diet. It gives us a good cost value, nutrient value, it flows and handles and the birds perform well on it.” He says it can be use as much as 15 percent of the diet for birds, or even more in breeder diets.
He recommended to international buyers who were at the Export Exchange that they try DDGS and work with it. “If it saves money, there’s that incentive, that risk is worth taking,” he said.
South Dakota State University Extension swine specialist Dr. Robert Thaler talked about the use of DDGS in hogs and how it helps supply phosphorus in the diet. “Phosphorus supplementation to the diet is very expensive,” he said. “The cool thing is that the phosphorus in DDGS is highly available. So, if you’re replacing dical or monocal with phosphorus coming from DDGS, you’re going to have less phosphorus in the manure, it will probably be cheaper and plus, you’re going to have less environmental problems.”
Dr. Thaler says exporters want quality assurances when it comes to DDGS and they are also wondering how high they can go including DDGS in the diet. “A lot of them are at 5-10 percent inclusion rate in swine diets. Here in the United States, on the growth/finish side, we’re probably 20-30,” he explained. “We just have to get them to realize that there’s nothing magical we’re doing to make that 20-30 percent work.”
Building off a successful campaign conducted across Nebraska a year ago, Nebraska Corn Farmers have created a new series of messages that feature several Nebraska farm families sharing facts about how today’s corn farmers are more sustainable than ever.
“We feel it is important to share positive messages about corn farming today to better help people understand just how far farmers have come in caring for the environment while producing a growing abundance of corn,” Curt Friesen, a farmer from Henderson who chairs the Nebraska Corn Board’s market development committee, said in a news release.
Some of the positive messages include the fact that American farmers have reduced the energy used to produce a bushel of corn by 37 percent over the past three decades and that farmers are producing more corn per ounce of fertilizer than just 35 years ago.
Importantly, the messages also highlight the fact that 95 percent of all corn farms in the nation are family owned.
“We’re excited to be part of this campaign because we believe family corn farmers have made significant advancements to grow more corn per acre while requiring fewer inputs per bushel to do so,” said Chris Flaming, who is featured in one of the ads with his wife, Korene, and children. The Flamings farm near Elsie, Nebraska.
“People need to understand that it’s real families making their livelihood raising corn and that we’re doing the right things because we want our children to have an opportunity to farm, too,” Chris Flaming said
You can read more information on this remarkable story here.
“You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.” George Bush
If you are a Bill Cosby fan you probably have fond memories of his show “Kids Say the Darndest Things.” I would suggest the networks might want to consider a new program entitled “Leaders and Captains of Industry Say the Darndest Thing.” And let’s start with oil executives who say the most amazing things including bashing any competitive technology that displaces their market share.
The petro industry is so entrenched and powerful they regularly make clarion call comments in public that are equal parts frustrating, comical and transparent. For example at a recent Oil & Gas Conference in Bakersfield, CA an oil industry high-roller complained about “unrealistic and unnecessary policies aimed at gradually weaning the nation of its dependence on oil and natural gas.”
The event’s keynote speaker, John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute, drove this point home by calling on attendees to spread the message that the Obama administration’s push for greater use of renewable energy, as well as its attempts to reduce subsidies to the industry, are disingenuous, delusional and dangerous.
If oil industry execs are making such comments in a public forum it makes me really want to be a mouse in the boardroom to hear the really good stuff. My guess is they would really like the unwashed masses to just send them their paychecks and shut-up.
Felmy not only criticized the push for greater use of biofuels but took issue with claims that electric vehicles represent a viable option to internal combustion engines. “For the lifetimes of everybody in this room, we’re going to be using oil. No doubt about it,” he said.
Now there is a man with an open mind and vision. All told the tax deductions, credits and other public benefits the oil industry receives, U.S. taxpayers support oil to the tune of between $133.2 billion and $280.8 billion annually. Considering the direct and indirect costs of our oil addiction I hope Mr. Felmy is wrong.
Ironically, American oil companies would likely benefit dramatically from President Obama’s clean energy agenda. They have the capital, the manufacturing capacity, and the engineering wherewithal to dominate the clean energy economy
In the mean time here is an Irish proverb for our leaders to contemplate”
“You never miss the water till the well has run dry.”
Years ago I wrote a blog asking what “happy chicken” tastes like. It was in response to a small but growing number of people who preferred free range chicken. The theory being that it was more humane letting them roam and fend for themselves than living in a building or in a cage.
Funny thing is that chickens have a pretty strong menu avoidance mechanism. In much of farm country free range chickens are referred to as coyote hors d’oeuvres. Most are smart enough not to wander to far from people and they head for the chicken house before dark because of the aforementioned coyote and or fox. And truth is we can’t feed a hungry world with these old school methods.
In today’s New York Times William Neuman says, “shoppers in the supermarket today can buy chicken free of nearly everything but adjectives… free-range, cage-free, antibiotic-free, raised on vegetarian feed, organic, even air-chilled….coming soon stress free.”
The stress is eliminated by a new process that puts them to sleep with carbon dioxide prior to slaughter. My immediate reaction was to think of about three inappropriate jokes/references but then I read further to see that Temple Grandin, a renowned professor of animal science at Colorado State University and a prominent livestock expert, helped design the system.
There are other experts who note most of the time people don’t want to think about where their food comes from or how the animal was killed which may in itself be a problem. In fact those opposed to animal agriculture use this as a tool to shackle and inhibit the industry. They show video footage of inhumane examples of animal treatment and slaughter that are not the norm.
The same experts argue to fight back in this image war we should show consumers a real farm, a real high-tech and modern slaughter facility. Research does show that this kind of exposure might make someone stop eating hamburgers or chicken but they get over it in a matter of days. Afterwards they get inoculated to future attempts to shock them by these animal rights groups.
This I do know; with few exceptions livestock from hogs to chickens are cared for well and humanely. Many live in climate controlled environments, they see a doctor/vet more than I do, and humane husbandry is the rule. This too I know; if our trend towards food with lots of adjectives describing it continues you will pay lots more for food.
I love a good success story. Often overwhelmed by our society’s fixation with what’s wrong with the world, I revel and find encouragement in hearing about achievement. So when I heard about Jerry Cox being recognized for his outstanding accomplishments and innovation in corn production by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, it felt good to be in agriculture. It reinforced my feelings regarding the importance of America’s family farmers.
Governor Nixon’s recognition of Jerry Cox and three other Missouri farmers is testament to agriculture’s position as a leading industry in the state. However, for those of you who know Jerry, such an award couldn’t have gone to a nicer guy. In his typical easy going and humble way, he commented more on the graciousness of Governor Nixon and his wife Georganne than the hard work and innovation that brought him recognition. Along with his son Matt, Jerry has placed a total of 23 times in the National Corn Growers Association’s National Corn Yield Contest. But it’s not awards that put an infectious lilt in Jerry’s voice; it’s the deep sense of pride he has for taking part in moving the corn industry forward.
Farming is not for the faint of heart. Farmers face challenges with weather, markets and keeping costs down in order to make a profit. There are a whole lot easier ways to make a living than tending and harvesting crops, so you have to love it to stay in it. Jerry became a member of Missouri Corn Growers because of what membership in a group that organizes around corn production issues can do for corn farmers. Just as manufacturing industries and unions lobby for their interests, state corn grower and checkoff organizations champion and defend corn markets.
As a consumer, I appreciate these scrappy and enthusiastic professionals that provide food for our tables. And for Jerry the feeling is mutual. He loves that his work feeds the world, and he is especially proud of making innovation a way of life.
Thanks again Jerry, and I’m sure we haven’t heard the last of record corn yields from the Cox farm.
Anti-biotechnology advocates are at it again. Today, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran a quiz about biotechnology-enhanced salmon in the nutrition section of its website. While initially frightening, it makes thoughtful readers scratch their heads and ask, “Why?”
Clearly, the quiz designer fervidly believes that biotechnology is a terrible thing. From the use of the term “Frankenfish” in the headline to images that make the fish appear more frightening than those in Piranha 3D, the slides roll through asking simple questions while creating panic and dread through artfully selected language and menacing images.
The quiz fails to explain, even once, how biotechnology harms humans. Instead, it relies on readers to become worked-up to a point that they throw reason aside and buy into agenda-driven propaganda. In explaining that 75 percent of our food includes a biotech ingredient of some sort, it aims to shock the reader through the use of a large number. What it does not do is explain why anyone should feel a moment of anxiety over this statistic. Without any data, it manufactures unnecessary stress using smoky words and distorted mirrors.
Moreover, as it is placed in the nutrition section, it promotes the idea that biotech foods are detrimental to human health. Insinuating that the fish might cause an allergic reaction in those with a here unnamed allergy according to unidentified “experts,” the quiz deviates from citing sources to take its only near stab at using data to demonstrate a negative impact people may experience from the fish. Unfortunately, it does not take into account that many people already suffer from salmon allergies and cannot eat salmon ever, even wild.
So, stop trying to fill in the blanks for them. Ask for hard, scientific evidence proving that biotechnology is somehow detrimental to human health. Until the anti’s can produce credible data, consider that this carefully researched, scientific ability allows us to feed a growing population in an affordable manner with safe food. Instead of falling prey to the propaganda, thank the scientists working tirelessly to ensure the safety of our planet and security of our food.
Food prices did not go up much in 2010 and anticipated increases for the remainder of the year and next should also be about 1 percent, according to the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service.
Ephraim Leibtag, of ERS, says food prices should remain weak and fairly stable across the board even into 2011 when a food price increase of 2 to 3 percent is anticipated through next spring. This is on a par with historical norms, he says, noting that modest inflation is actually a positive indicator of an improving economy.
The irony of the release of the USDA data and video was not missed by those in agriculture who were troubled by comments yesterday coming from what was billed as a global leadership conference. Speaking in Naples, Florida Ian Goldin of Oxford University blamed corn prices and increased ethanol usage specifically for higher food prices.
Goldin, a former vice president of the World Bank, proved to be the loosest cannon on the conference’s energy panel at what was billed as a global leadership conference. “Former” is the key word in his title here because it was a bogus World Bank report that set off the food vs. fuel media hysteria in 2008 that tried to finger corn and ethanol for higher consumer prices.
World Bank later recanted saying that the report was mistaken and not properly fact-checked, and it was soaring petroleum prices and wild speculation in the markets topping the list of food price drivers. Apparently Mr. Goldin missed the memo.
Given the rational and thorough debunking of the original World Bank report and their own weak but transparent apology it is bad form for this so called global leader” to continue to disseminate this drivel. It is unthinkable that he did so in such an irresponsible and incendiary manner blaming corn ethanol for causing “people to die of starvation.”
For many of you the harvest season is over, but the process of cleaning and repairing your equipment and prepping fields for spring planting is just beginning. Here’s hoping that in this busiest of seasons you won’t forget to vote in the Nov. 2, 2010 election.
Dr. Phillip Smith, a nutritionist with Tyson Foods, spoke at the recent 
South Dakota State University Extension swine specialist Dr. Robert Thaler talked about the use of DDGS in hogs and how it helps supply phosphorus in the diet. “Phosphorus supplementation to the diet is very expensive,” he said. “The cool thing is that the phosphorus in DDGS is highly available. So, if you’re replacing dical or monocal with phosphorus coming from DDGS, you’re going to have less phosphorus in the manure, it will probably be cheaper and plus, you’re going to have less environmental problems.”
