Life Without Oil A Noble Goal

Just saw one of best arguments ever made against our continuing dependence on petroleum and better yet, it came from a global oil giant, Occidental Petroleum.

The commercial, now posted on You Tube, shows a gentleman and his dog reacting as many of the products in their home that contain petroleum disappear. Everything from the TV remote, to his easy chair and eventually the shingles on his home mysteriously go “poof” as evidence of how much we depend on petroleum.

I am sure some marketing/ad agency guru persuaded Occidental this cute concept was a good idea. However, in the decade of $4 gasoline not everyone views the commercial that way. For those concerned about our reliance on imported oil for more than 60% of our needs, this looks somewhat like a clarion call. All I could think while watching this is maybe we can still avoid the images portrayed in the spot by taking aggressive steps to reduce this petro dependence.

Maybe they didn’t get the memo that virtually everything we make from petroleum can be made from agricultural products like corn. Carpeting, ethanol, film and plastic resins are being made today. Combine this knowledge with the growing production capacity of corn producers and I think Occidental may have let the genie out of the bottle.

Life Without Oil sounds like a goal to me.

Does Smokey the Bear Have Cure For Global Warming?

I never thought I would say this but, “Where is Smokey the Bear when you need him?” For that matter where is rational thought when you need it, especially when it comes to our current collective and manic pursuit for reducing our carbon footprint?

Most people don’t have a clue what their carbon footprint is, but the majority of the population now knows they have one and it’s probably too big.  I recently had one of those ah ha moments that comes from a moment of clarity, when I started wondering why we are spending massive amounts of dollars and man-hours trying to solve this issue by planting trees, taxing the snot out of industry, and telling farmers how and where to farm in the name of carbon management.

This is where the original thinking came in…maybe our time would be better spent trying to save the thousands of trees that mother nature destroys every year through forest fires. (Research proved the idea wasn’t novel at all). While every environmental organization in America is wringing its collective hands about global warming, the creation of carbon gases, and the deforestation of land by cutting, not a one of them suggests that we should do something about the mitigation or prevention of forest fires through proper management

In fact the same folks spanking us all for being bad little carbon emitters are the same people who oppose  cutting and burning dead timber which helps turn small fires into global chokers like the one currently ravaging Alaska.  Innocent lightning strikes have led to the burning of 100,000’s of acres.

A forest fire involving primarily conifers will produce approximately 13 million metric tons of carbon dioxide for each 2.7 acres burned, and there were more than 9 million acres of forest burned in 2006 alone.  Forest fires in the U.S. and Canada produced more than 80.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

This is where Smokey the Bear comes in. I think our Bear buddy needs a better PR guy. Instead of spending billions of dollars we don’t have on new carbon friendly programs, taxing hapless American consumers and businesses into the Stone Age, and making all of us study to become quasi-scientists so we can debate global warming; let’s spend the money to better manage our forests and detect and stop senseless forest fires.

Researcher Mark Adams, of Sydney University in Australia, provides plenty of ammunition for this approach. He says fires in Melbourne that have burned out 450,000 hectares of trees let off a massive amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  He estimates one week’s blazes released almost as much as the nation’s industries did in the whole of last year.

The fires that swept across Indonesia in 1997 burned relatively thin-trunked tropical trees but the devastated forests were also covered in carbon-rich peat, with deposits measuring up to 20 meters thick. As a result, the Indonesian fires were estimated to have released between 0.81 and 2.57 gigatons of carbon—between 13 percent and 40 percent of the world’s annual emissions at the time.

So the next time a well meaning person tells you to work hard to improve your carbon footprint, tell them to “Get Their Smokey On.”

Animal Agriculture: Warts and All

Corn’s Biggest Customer Gaining Momentum in Response to Critics

 “We must individually and collectively police ourselves and — and I know some of you will recoil in horror when I say this — we must “police” our neighbors to ensure we consistently perform as an industry as best we can,” so says Steve Kopperud , of Brownfield Network.

 “Just as we must constantly strive to improve our operations, we must constantly strive to help others in our industry do so as well. If a bad actor won’t accept the help that’s offered, and law enforcement or the media get a hold of the situation, then after investigation and the weighing of evidence, if the actor truly is “bad,” then we must be the first to stand and tell the consumer, “This is not business as usual for our industry. We do not tolerate such practices,” he says in his column.

 This message needs to be shared as broadly as possible. Most of these bad actors are not hiding in the closet. Their neighbors know who they are and should work locally to clean house. The good news is they are a minority that can be managed if the whole industry makes the commitment. They exist on the cropping side too. I don’t think self regulation will completely silence critics who are clearly agenda driven, but it does provide great ammunition for our friends to continue to support the industry.

Meanwhile in Washington, DC “The Hill,” a Capitol Hill newspaper ran a special section on “animal welfare.”  The special issue contained a guest column by Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), who notes, “It is easy to forget that the reason we raise hogs, cattle, and chicken is for human consumption. That fact is often glossed over by animal rights activists. If there were no market for meat, there would be no supply.”

These animals are not the pets we so love but part of our national and global food chain.

“If you choose not to eat meat that is, of course, your right. But we must not allow some well-intentioned activists to play with public misconceptions to treat animals that are grown for slaughter as we would treat our pets. We should instead focus on how we can make our food supply the healthiest, most nutrient-rich food supply in the world,” says Schmidt, ranking member of the Horticulture and Organic Agriculture Committee in the House Agriculture Committee.

And finally, hats off to Ohio Corn Growers Association, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation (OFBF) and all their supporters for the newly created Center for Food and Animal Issues. The education program just got a significant boost thanks to a $100,000 donation approved by the Board of Directors for Farm Credit Services of Mid-America.

The Center was created in May to bring together diverse interests including farmers, consumers, zoos, hunters, researchers and pet owners to make sure all voices are heard as decisions about animals are considered. The Center will develop programs and partnerships that promote dialog among all stakeholders who benefit from animals in their lives.

Ethanol Makes More Sense Today Than Ever

Like a good magician practicing sleight of hand Big Oil and other ethanol critics like the Grocery Manufacturers Association wave one hand around with a flourish to get our attention, while the other lifts our wallet.  Thus the steady drumbeat of ethanol costs more, even though in a normal economy it costs less than gas; ethanol is energy deficient, even though redundant studies have proven a 60% net energy gain; ethanol raises food prices, even though there is little direct correlation and evidence to the contrary. I think you get the idea.

So it is high time for ethanol supporters to stop being defensive and using up all of our valuable energy putting out fires and defending the critic of the moment. Perhaps we should start reminding the public of the reasons we turned to ethanol to begin with: it burns far cleaner than gasoline, it works in today’s cars, it creates U.S. jobs and generates real economic activity, it isn’t imported from unfriendly nations, and of course it comes from corn which is abundant and yields are growing rapidly.

Unlike petroleum which is finite, ethanol has a future. With corn growers producing five times more corn today than they did in the 1930’s – and this before we had mapped the corn genome – so we are just beginning to unwrap the potential of maize. And the beauty of ethanol is many kinds of plant material will make continued production expansion possible in the years ahead.

So, let’s start our own drumbeat which demands higher mileage vehicles, one that demands all vehicles be flex fuel capable, one that calls for higher ethanol blends and rewards further development of alternative fuel engine technology, and one that exposes the real costs of our continued reliance on imported petroleum for 60% of our oil needs.

Let’s all raise our voices and ask for a thorough accounting of all costs related to finding, developing, refining, transporting and defending our access to petroleum. Let’s add on environmental costs and the big one that nobody wants to talk about…health costs. Medical costs related to poor air quality boggle the mind, just ask your local Lung Association.

Here is an example of a hidden cost to get your thought process going. Just this year alone, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will spend $200 million to clean-up leaky underground storage tanks for petroleum. This program has been going on since 1985 and there are approximately 617,000 underground storage tanks (USTs) nationwide that store petroleum or hazardous substances.

With a little transparency from the Big Oil guys and some thorough detective work by the Congressional Research Service, I think we would rapidly see what a bargain ethanol is today.

Should Farmers Turn Their Backs on Companies That Politicize Food?

(Guest Blogger – Natalie) 

I like a good burrito. And Chipotle Mexican Grill has figured out how to make them so good that you come back for more.  But it seems odd that Chipotle is subsidizing viewings of the one-sided documentary Food, Inc. at theaters across the country.

 From its official Web site, Food, Inc. directors claim it exposes America’s industrialized food system and its effect on our environment, health, economy and workers’ rights.

That’s nice that Chipotle is involved in subsidizing the movie showings, considering the Coalition of Immokalee Workers has written Chipotle a letter asking for them not to get tomatoes from a farm that abuses its workers.

 Here’s the second paragraph of a letter sent to Steve Ellis, CEO of Chipotle Mexican Grill:

Yet for us, naturally raised meat – important as it is – does not trump decently treated human beings. We are outraged by the working and living conditions we have seen in the Immokalee area of Florida, source of some 90 percent of the winter tomatoes consumed in the United States. Many of us have visited Immokalee, and see it as a stark example of the vast power discrepancies in our food system. In the winter-tomato market, a small number of very large buyers dictate terms to the seven or eight entities that control land in tomato country; those growers, in turn, squeeze the workers in brutal fashion.

 Chipotle’s main marketing scheme is the big burrito of your making coming from sustainable and animal-friendly farms. Some of which don’t use antibiotics to treat sick animals. Having said that, though, does our society value animals we slaughter for food every day or people’s rights?

And look who all signed off on that letter to Chipotle. None other than the director of the movie Food, Inc. The letter was signed June of 2009 (http://www.ciw-online.org/letter_to_Chipotle.html): (more…)

All-Star Game attendees encouraged to eat Cured Meats for Healthy Heartbeat

 Baseball, hotdogs and a clear conscience, now that’s a home run. Medical research shows hot dogs and other cured meats offer health benefits so if you are in the St. Louis, MO area for the All Star game or plan on fueling yourself with the mandatory hotdog while viewing from home, this couldn’t come at a better time.

“Those attending this year’s All-Star game should enjoy a hot dog during the game knowing that it takes cured meats for healthy heartbeats,” said Trent Loos, a sixth generation farmer/rancher and founder of the Faces Of Agriculture.

To tell the story of the health benefits associated with cured meats, Loos has hired a mobile media truck to drive around St. Louis on the day of the All-Star game with a billboard that simply reads, “Cured Meats for Healthy Heartbeats”. The mobile billboard will feature a young consumer enjoying a tasty and “healthy” hot dog, he said.

Nothing goes together like baseball and hot dogs, and with a growing body of medical evidence that suggests dietary nitrates – like those commonly found in hot dogs – are vital to the prevention of heart disease, attendees at the 2009 Major League Baseball All Star Game July 14 in St. Louis, MO, are being encouraged to enjoy both.

I was going to eat one anyway Trent, but now maybe I will enjoy two.

Who you Callin’ Yellow?

Apparently my post critiquing the Illinois Times article about food got a rise out of one blogger who called it “yellow journalism.”

What is amazingly ironic about this blogger’s viewpoint is that he accuses us of not getting the facts straight, yet he thinks it’s irrelevant that the Illinois Times article had the production of corn in the United States off by 11 billion bushels! He says, “Whatever the total yield of corn is (and yeah, let’s lump it all together until the bloggers at the National Corn Growers Association can explain to us mere mortals why we shouldn’t – whose your audience, baby?), it is in fact true that only a tiny percentage goes to the fresh market.” Why get the facts straight when they are really not pertinent to your cause? And why try to understand the difference between corn for grain and sweet corn? Who really cares when that is not your point?

The blogger also says, “The wack thing about Corn Commentary’s spit ball is that it’s called “Abundant Food Is Good,” an idea neither Food, Inc. nor it’s reviewer at the Illinois Times contests.” Yet that is exactly what they are doing when they attack American agriculture and food companies. These are the same people who were complaining about food price increases last year and blaming them on ethanol. Yet if the ideas for food production they have were mandated, the increase in food prices would be astronomical in comparison – and much more permanent.

I assume that the blogger was using the term “yellow journalism” as a play on the color of corn, since the definition of yellow journalism is much more in line with the tactics of “Food Inc.” and other activists. Wikipedia gives several characteristics of yellow journalism that more than apply to people like that, including the use of “misleading headlines, pseudo-science, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts.”

Yep, I’m calling you yellow.

We May Be Young, But We Are Not Stupid

“It sounds so simple. You get hungry. You eat. But the reality is that it took a bunch of farmers a lot blood, sweat and tears to feed us.” So starts the intro to a new web site launched by a group of 20 somethings who think farming is critical to our survival and kind of cool.

“As young people we don’t always take the time to consider the importance of our food supply – the importance of the American family farmer.  We love farmers. They feed our soul. Together we are working to help our generation understand the importance of knowing where our food comes from and who produced it. Join us as we celebrate a true American hero, the family farmer.”

In the midst of a barrage of regulatory legislation and public disbelief that family farmers even exist anymore, this new group is kind of refreshing, even if only from the standpoint that is shows the next generation of consumers showing an interest in the quality and origination of the food supply.

Make no mistake, however, these kids obviously have a more detailed message that promotes high quality, sustainably produced food grown and raised in the U.S.  Now that is kind of cool.

A Round of Applause for Urban Lehner of DTN

In ancient times messengers were treated with great respect because they were a vital lifeline regarding world events that could make or break your business or even your nation. Apparently times have changed.

Recently, DTN interviewed the increasingly infamous Michael Pollan, author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” who is also featured in the new documentary Food Inc., and the resulting article drew a considerable amount of attention and criticism from the Ag community.

So much so that Urban Lehner, Editor and Chief of DTN, felt compelled to write a column explaining why the Ag-Centered media outlet would provide a forum for such a food heretic.

In his own words, “When DTN writes about such people as Michael Pollan whose views are contrary to those of the majority of our readers, it isn’t because we think all their views are correct. It’s because we think such people have the power to shape the political environment in which agriculture will operate in the future.” Lehner said. “Pollan’s views certainly aren’t those of most Midwestern commercial farmers. Among other things, he sees corn as an agent of evil, responsible for much of what’s wrong with the modern American diet. But when those farmers call him an idiot they make the classic mistake of underestimating a formidable opponent.”

Lehner likened the running of Pollan’s comments to the same reason DTN weathermen predict stormy weather…forewarned is fore-armed. Having been exposed to Mr. Pollan’s message as well as its’ effect on consumers and more importantly on decision leaders in Washington, D.C., I can guarantee you the threat of his growing influence is real.

“The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” the New York Times best seller written by Pollan, is swallowed by many well-reasoned consumers as foodie gospel. DTN and Urban Lehner deserve the industry’s gratitude for alerting us to the hurricane on the horizon. His advice that farmers all should read his book is solid. If you don’t want to contribute to Mr. Pollan’s personal wealth buy a copy and share it with friends…lots of friends.

Banner Week For HSUS: High Finance and Higher Education Spell High Anxiety For Real Animal Advocates

Is it just me or have the folks at the Humane Society of the United States launched a full blown assault for the hearts, minds and bank accounts of gullible Americans? Like a bad case of fleas, the animal rights crackers seem to be showing up at every turn.

So it appears to be time to point out a significant distinction: there is a difference between animal rights and animal welfare…a big difference. HSUS spends in excess of $100 million a year trying to discredit people who actually raise and care for animals from domestic livestock , to pets to exotic animals.
Animal welfare is the title that should be reserved for those who actually care for animals and break a sweat tending to the daily needs and comfort of critters from abandoned companion animals (your local animal shelter), to those that provide us with eggs, milk and protein, to those who work to sustain exotic species for educational purposes or to protect them from extinction.
So what is really behind the ever-present puppy eyes and cute kitties used as a front for HSUS? A group that is kindred to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) in its’ goals…No meat. No dairy. No animal agriculture, and apparently no conscience. Period.

The massive donations given each year with the intent of easing the suffering or improving the lot of these creatures, instead goes toward lobbying to pass laws that most Americans would run away from screaming if their intent wasn’t disguised so well. Instead of helping shelters and animals directly, they works hard on eventually removing pets from our homes, meat from our tables, leather goods from our closets and animals from zoos.

Their latest affront is a very public move to expand beyond straight contributions from uninformed consumers to try to get into your wallet on a daily basis. It seems HSUS has partnered with Bank of America on a new World Points Platinum visa/check card and for every $100 you charge, 25 cents goes to perpetuate the HSUS fraud. HSUS is not affiliated with your local shelter so if you want to contribute, do so directly to your local shelter. If you want to let Bank of America know they have been suckered by a slimy corporate con, you can reach them at:

Bank of America Corporate Center

100 North Tryon Street

Charlotte, North Carolina 28255

Heard enough? – Well there is more. The world of Higher Education may never be the same. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) now has plans to educate the next generation of professional animal rights activists. HSUS has received a license as a higher education degree-granting institution by the District of Columbia Education Licensure Commission to offer a Bachelor’s Degree in Humane Leadership and a Master’s in “Community Leadership.” (Yes, tax dollars will likely be providing them funding soon, just like a real institution of learning).

The curriculum includes advocacy management courses which will help assure the next generation of “minority animal activists” will be even more professional in manipulating and misleading the public. Upon the announcement of the new college animal rights course work one observer asked: “If someone takes the HSUS advocacy management class and advocates against them do they flunk?”