REMINDER
Your E-Mails are Needed Now
Amendments to New Jersey Humane Standards under Heavy Fire
Activists Campaign for Frivolous Lawsuits and Against Animal Well-Being

In 2003, New Jersey adopted humane standards for farm animals that were supported by the agriculture community. In early 2004, the New Jersey Department of Agriculture proposed amendments to further clarify the standards benefiting animals, farmers and consumers. These amendments, and the original legislation, have come under heavy fire from New York-based Farm Sanctuary and other animal rights activists.

The item is so high on the activist organization’s priority list that it appears as the second clickable item on the former Animal Liberation Front “spokesgroup’s” website. On the page meant to address the standards, Farm Sanctuary rails against veal production, forced molting for layers and using gestation crates for sows, but the fanatical group does not address one specific objection to an amendment.

The extremist organization has targeted these amendments because the clarifications made in the amendments would help farmers avoid frivolous lawsuits. Ironically, the amendments the Farm Sanctuary is fighting against would also benefit animals.

The fanatical group’s actions have raised questions. Does the group value lawsuits more than animal well-being? What state will the group target next? Is Farm Sanctuary violating its tax-exempt status by spending an inordinate amount of its contributions on lobbying?
The Farm Sanctuary campaign has resulted in thousands of letters against the amendments coming from all corners of the USA and all over the world. The Animal Agriculture Alliance has sent an e-mail to the New Jersey State Veterinarian supporting the amendments. The Alliance encourages all its members to write e-mails or letters expressing their support for the amendments to thwart dangerous precedents being set.

The commentary period ends August 6, 2004. A copy of the Alliance’s e-mail to the New Jersey State Veterinarian is attached. Please modify it and e-mail your version to state.veterinarian@ag.state.nj.us. A copy of the Alliance’s July 23, 2004 Action Alert and its e-mail is available in the members section of the Alliance website at www.animalagalliance.org. To view the proposed rule amendments visit www.state.nj.us/agriculture/rule28a.htm. If you have any questions, please contact Philip Lobo at jplobo@animalagalliance.org.

Your article struck a nerve.

I farm. I am not totally opposed to DRA. People who have lived in a farm setting for 30 or 40 years, certainly have the right to a vote. When you speak of the dairy farms, you never speak of the numbers of cattle, the environmental impact and if it is corporate farming?

All you have to do is drive through Iowa; three miles out, of a hog unit, you can begin to smell the stinch.

I farm; we had 100 sows, 50 beef cows/calf operation. Small, yes. But, very much "putting the human element back into food"; as you put it. I am not sure what your argument is. People should have a say,what is constructed in their backyard, whether its local people or out of state people, doesn't matter.

With a dairy operation, or hog units, or turkey farms, or whatever, this is an environmental impact. It isn't the same thing, as when someone moves into town, and sets up a grocery store. The "farms" impact the area environmentally; the grocery store is a service, you can either buy there or not buy there. South Dakota is so rural. Every corporate industry would love to use it as a dump site. Nebraska had to fight to retain its land from a proposed dump site. Some years back, a company wanted to move in and mine uranium. We need to have a say in what happens in our neighborhood, it is the land of the free and the brave. South Dakota laws are pretty liberal, compared to some states. Our taxes, no state income tax, no personal property tax, is very inviting, not to mention our low paying labor laws.

There is still plenty of opportunity, with respect to others.

Marilyn Kokesh
SD

Who Produces your Food?

I was severly dismayed at the the action taken by the Brookings County Commision last night were we saw emotion and rhetoric win out oversound science and logic in a special exemption request for a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation.

My question is how can ordinary citizens be more knowledgeable onlivestock emmisions, water quality and manure management than the South Dakota Department of Natural Resources and industry professionals? What good are regualtions and ordinances when decisions are made on a whim foremotional and political reasons? I doubt the Brookings police would stop anindividual for going the speed limit and taking extra precatution in asensitive area such as a school zone. Then why would a county commisiondeny a request when all regulations and ordinances are met or exceeded?

South Dakota is an agricultural state. The largest business in thestate far and wide is agriculture. The production of food and fiber. The reason people have time and energy to worry about property values, traffic issues and how much rain constitutes a 100 year event is because we have the safest most abundant food supply in the world. We spend the least amount onfood per capita than any developed nation in the world. If we think we havea crisis depending on foreign nations for our energy needs, take a moment and think what it would be like to be at the mercy of those same countriesfor 65% of our countries nutritional needs.

If we continue to stiffle animal agriculture in the fashion witnessed last night, the 'backyard' where the new dairy is placed will not be yours and will very possibly be outside the United States borders.

Sincerely,
Tim Bickett
Winfred SD

Trent.

I have been receiving your emails since Iowa Pork Congress this winter and enjoy many of your comments.

I feel I must let you know about the sorry state of our own pig industry, following legislation changes some time ago the sow stall and sow tether were banned as methods of holding sows.
Since 1996 I have been involved in US pig production where the sow stall is the most common form of sow accommodation, I have not seen one case a vice known as vulva biting which as a male I would imagine has to be painful.

During the last few weeks I have worked in a couple of UK farms where the sows are housed in "welfare approved" straw based, group housing [six per group] not confined in any way and allowed to interact with their pen mates. In a study using pure percentages 60% of vulvas were bitten or torn a common method for sows to bully others. In group of six all feed together it is not uncommon to find 4 equal sized, one monster and one poor small bullied sow [I wonder who gets all the cake]

On the same farm fattening pigs are reared in straw based finishing pens, cleaned religiously daily and fresh straw bedding given, compared to most fully slatted US finishing systems the pigs are filthy, the rat a disease ridden species at best loves the atmosphere especially during winter, its warm, food is plentiful how long before the next Black Plague.

Please do not let your own industry go down this welfare friendly, low profit [oh yes and disgusting to work in] route.

Regards
John J. Williams

 
Your letter is needed 

While I certainly don’t view this any different than you, unbelievably we now have states defining, by law, proper animal husbandry techniques. If each of us doesn’t take 5 minutes to write a letter in support of reasonable guidelines, we will wake up one day and wonder, “Why are the law enforcement officials charging me with unreasonable animal neglect charges?” Sound extreme? It is happening.
 
So I applaud the New Jersey Dept of Agriculture for proactively setting the standard now. But this is where you come in. PLEASE take 5 minutes today to write a short statement in support of the proposed Amendments.
 
Proposed Rule Amendment: N.J.A.C. 2:8-1.2, 2.2, 2.6, 5.5, 7.2, 7.6, 8.1 and 8.6
Here is quick look at some of the components…
 
As originally written, all of these definitions were overly restrictive and, therefore, are proposed for amendment to more properly address the holistic well-being of the animal.
 
"Routine husbandry practices" is being amended to recognize those “techniques commonly taught by veterinary schools, land grant colleges, and agricultural extension agents for the benefit of animals, the livestock industry, animal handlers and the public health and which are employed to raise, keep, care, treat, market and transport livestock, including, but not limited to, techniques involved with physical restraint; animal handling; animal identification; animal training; manure management; restricted feeding; restricted watering; restricted exercising; animal housing techniques; reproductive techniques; implantation; vaccination; and use of fencing materials, as long as all other State and Federal laws governing these practices are followed.” This definition is proposed for amendment to more accurately reflect the Department’s intent with respect to these practices.
 
Link here to read entire thing if you wish.
http://www.state.nj.us/agriculture/rule28a.htm
 
Submit comments by August 6, 2004 to:
Dr. Nancy E. Halpern, Director, Division of Animal HealthNew Jersey Department of AgriculturePO Box 330Trenton, NJ 08625-0330
email: state.veterinarian@ag.state.nj.us
 
Dear Dr. Halpern,
 
As a 6th generation farmer, every single day of my life has involved farm animals. I want to write you in support of the proposed amendments for animal handling.
 
Since 1862 and the creation of the Land Grant college program, we have spent millions of dollars on research by experts in animal husbandry to determine the best management practices for the well-being of these animals. It very encouraging to see a state government recognize and endorse the guidelines that the true experts have determined should be followed.
 
Sincerely,
Trent Loos
P.O. Box 545
Loup City, NE 68853

New Mexico Sportspersons Take Notice

New Mexico Game and Fish Public Input

The New Mexico Game and Fish are accepting comments on trapping regulations from the general public as they consider changes to there current laws. Unfortunately an organization called the Animal Protection Institute has been mass mailing and posting incorrect inflammatory accusations against traps in an effort to inundate the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish with letters to restrict trapping. The accusations include words such as body crushing traps, and also speak about damage inflicted on animals attempting to free themselves. Claims are made that a "study", to which they do not give further reference, stated that for every animal caught ten nontarget animals are also captured. Organizations like this need to be stopped and their message corrected to reveal the true aspects of trapping. It only takes a 4-3 vote for the Game and Fish to pass amendments to the current trapping regulations. We need to help the New Mexico trappers fight the Animal Protection Institute and the message they are sending. I spoke with Jeff Lehmer the President of the New Mexico trappers to see what can be done to help them and he felt that at this point it is a political and numbers game. He felt that the more people we could get to show up at the July 21 meeting in Albuquerque, and the more people that wrote to the Department of Game and Fish expressing the true nature of trapping the better their chances were to defeat any anti-trapping legislation. They could also use information from studies that will refute the information presented by the API group. Below is a list of the Fish and Game commissioners as well as an email to the Division Chief. Please help New Mexico in their fight.

Paula Hamilton , Chair Person , FTA Pro-Active Committee



Mr. Kirkpatrick, Division Chief
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish
P.O. Box 25112
Santa Fe, NM 87504
ATTN: Wildlife Management Division
RJKirkpatrick@state.nm.us



Guy Riordan, Chairman
9514 Kandace Drive NW
Albuquerque, NM 87114

Alfredo Montoya, Vice-Chairman
P.O. Box 856
San Juan Pueblo, NM 87566

David Henderson
P.O. Box 9314
Santa Fe, NM 87504

Jennifer Atchley Montoya
4010 Oleta Drive Apt. A
Las Cruces, NM 88001

Peter Pino
026 Chamisa Drive
Zia Pueblo, NM 87053-6035

Tom Arvas
7905 Spain Northeast
Albuquerque, NM 87109

Leo Sims
P.O. Box 2630
Hobbs, NM 88241-2630

Column written by Rachel Buzzetti, Executive Director Nevada Cattlemen

NEVADA CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION
JULY 2004

This past month I was honored and privileged to represent Nevada on the 25th
Annual Young Cattlemen's Conference Tour hosted by NCBA. Prior to the trip
I asked many who had gone before me, what to expect and what I would learn?
I had high expectations and I must admit my expectations were met, plus
some. It was a phenomenal experience for a native Nevadan who had grown up
in the cow/calf business.

During the trip we were exposed to all segments of the industry, from a pure
bred operation, feedlot, and packing plant; to a hide tannery, purveyor,
foodservice operation and retailer. Young Cattlemen were able to observe and
ask questions during each visit. I have to admit that the 120,000 head
feedlot in Kansas was pretty impressive.

Lastly, we toured the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) and later flew to
Washington, D.C. to lobby our Congressional leaders and governmental
agencies. After speaking with the traders that work at CME, I learned they
all have backgrounds in agriculture or are still active in a particular part
of the beef industry. In my travels for NCA I always hear the complaint,
"Those traders shouldn't be trading cattle or playing in the futures because
they don't know anything about our business." Well, I am here to say, each
of them had experience in agriculture or the beef industry.

I appreciated each operations candidacy and sincerity in answering
questions posed by the group because there were some tough questions asked.
I recognized early on in the trip that this industry is huge and it doesn't
stop when we sell our calves in the fall. I also noticed a lack of trust
between the different segments. This is not news but I had never
experienced it first hand. However, I do feel strongly that this industry
functions somewhat like a wheel and without all of the spokes we are unable
to function efficiently.


Words cannot explain the enthusiasm and excitement I share for being part of
the cattle industry. After traveling on just about every form of
transportation imaginable and sleeping in a different hotel each night I
became well acquainted with cattlemen from different segments of the
industry as well as different parts of the country. These young men and
women come from vast backgrounds and I learned a lot from each of them.

>From my perspective this tour is paramount to many of the things we do in
the cattle industry to educate. While on the tour, I was asked some
questions by a curious woman at an airport. After briefly explaining the
tour she said, "Shouldn't you be putting on one of those tours for people
like me?" I said yes, "However it is important to educate young leaders
within our industry so that they will possess the tools to educate people
like yourself."

I can't stress enough the importance of young people being involved because
as the spokes of the wheel turn and generations evolve the younger
generation must step up to the plate. It will be their turn to prove their
leadership both within their segment of the industry but also on a larger
scale. The beef industry needs young leaders and I think this tour
presented a magnificent opportunity for young people to go back home and
become leaders in their state. I am very proud to be one of them.

Have a Happy Fourth of July!

Rachel Buzzetti
Executive Director

Nevada Beef Council
P.O. Box 310
Elko NV 89803
775-738-5776
nca@nevadabeef.org

LOOS LIPS from June 14, 2004

Drop Paul Harvey

For years Paul Harvey has been subtly telling the animal rights story. On April 28, 2003, he praised PETA and Ingred Newkirk for her work. Last week, on June 9, 2004, he went overboard. Click here to link to Loos Tales with the whole story. ADM continues to sponsor this closet animal rights zealot and I am officially calling for that to come to a screeching halt this week with your help.

Send email to info@admworld.com and put "Drop Paul Harvey" in the subject line.

Click on date to listen.

June 14, 2004 - Paul Harvey, Laurie Bauston, Harold Brown, Jim Mason & Howard Lyman. "The Rest Of The Story"? DON'T BET ON IT!

If you don't have time to listen to Loos Tales, here is what he highly recommended schools to present.

Peaceable Kingdom link here.

Don't just say, "that is terrible!" ACT TODAY. Forward this to everyone.

June 4, 2004

PETA Launches Attacks on FFA

Last month, FFA and local agricultural education programs were
publicly denounced by a representative of People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) in connection with several instances of alleged animal
abuse reported recently in the media. By attempting to associate
responsibility for the abuse with FFA, PETA has called for eliminating
the use of animals in schools and in school-sponsored programs.

The attacks were made in an op-ed letter from PETA's education
manager, Jacqueline Domac, printed in the May 23, 2004, edition of The Sun News
of Myrtle Beach, S.C., and posted on the newspaper's website,
MyrtleBeachOnline.com. (A copy of the article is attached.) It was
also posted for a time on PETA's website as an "action alert," but that
appears to have been withdrawn. Excerpts from the article may begin to
appear in other publications.

Ms. Domac also sent correspondence on behalf of PETA to National FFA
Advisor Larry Case, calling for a halt to the use of animals in
agricultural education programs in local schools. Dr. Case has
responded to Ms. Domac, taking issue with PETA's contentions and
characterizations.

PETA's article demonstrates significant misunderstanding of FFA and
agricultural education. Recognizing that these allegations and
misrepresentations may cause concern for state and local programs, we
are providing this alert along with some points to consider in
response.

We suggest this information be forwarded to teachers, state FFA
officers, members, alumni, sponsors and others as appropriate. The
most effective voices to respond in print and online will be drawn from the
local community. We hope this information will help inform those
responses.

Please forward any print articles or electronic postings regarding
this issue to Bill Stagg, National FFA Organization, P.O. Box 68960,
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960, fax: 317-802-6061, e-mail: bstagg@ffa.org

I. Points in Response to the PETA Article

1. PETA and the FFA have a fundamental
disagreement about the role of animals as a source of food, fiber and nutrition.
PETA opposes this role outright, and that bias is reflected in its
distorted view of agricultural education programs and the experiences FFA
members receive studying animal science in local schools. While FFA respects
the right of PETA to express its opinions, it should do so without
demeaning or misrepresenting the outstanding work done by 11,000 agricultural
education teachers and FFA advisors in providing leadership, personal
growth and career development opportunities to nearly a million
students in 8,000 schools throughout the nation.

2. The National FFA Organization's position on the mistreatment of animals is clear-it does not condone or tolerate abuse or mistreatment of animals in any form in our activities, programs or competitions. The organization actively supports the training and education of FFA members and advisors in the proper ethical behavior
for livestock competitions and in the application of sound and humane
principles of animal husbandry.

3. Contrary to PETA's assertions, FFA believes that providing students with hands-on opportunities to study and work with livestock animals creates greater sensitivity to their health and well-being, not less. PETA offers no evidence to suggest the millions
of students who have participated in agricultural education are more inclined to harm animals. Quite the opposite, we believe our students are less likely to mistreat animals because they have first-hand knowledge and have acquired skills regarding their care.

4. The use of livestock in local schools is neither dictated nor mandated by national FFA programs. School farms and livestock facilities are managed by local agricultural education teachers responsible to the local school system and administration.

5. Ms. Domac's attempts to associate responsibility for instances of animal abuse with the FFA organization and its student members, and to suggest that these events are somehow a direct result of school-based agricultural education programs, are erroneous and dismaying. Her comments portraying FFA as "inherently discriminatory" and her references to "violent FFA programs" are inaccurate, misleading and inflammatory. The attacks on FFA reveal she has little understanding of how local, state and national FFA entities are funded, or how agricultural education teachers and FFA programs are directly accountable to local school systems.

6. The youths involved in the Yakima, Wash., incident of animal abuse were not FFA members or agricultural education students, and no involvement by FFA or agriculture students has been demonstrated or suggested by authorities. Nor are FFA members
responsible for the events in Florida. PETA's article seeks to create
an impression that FFA and agriculture students were involved in attacks
on the animals.

7. PETA's characterization of FFA as "inherently discriminatory since its inception" is inaccurate. FFA was formed in 1928 to meet the needs of what was, at that time, a male, rural farming student population. African-Americans were not barred from membership by the national organization; however, reflecting the discrimination
present in public education at the time, 17 states, primarily in the south, excluded African-Americans from FFA membership. The New Farmers of America (NFA) organization was created to provide agricultural education opportunities to these students. FFA and NFA were merged in 1965, incorporating two outstanding legacies of quality and
contribution to education.

As agricultural education and FFA programs were broadened to address more careers in agriculture, women were formally admitted to national membership in 1969. Despite PETA's suggestions of sinister overtones, FFA is proud of its heritage and the way it has evolved to address the educational needs of all students interested in careers in agriculture, regardless of gender, race, creed or geographic location.

8. Funding for FFA on local, state and national levels comes primarily from members' dues, sales of supplies and merchandise to members, and program fees paid by students and chapters.

FFA and agricultural education are fortunate to receive donations from individuals and from companies, both large and small, through the National FFA Foundation, state FFA foundations and local community sponsors. Funding support comes from companies engaged in a host of industries-automotive, farm equipment, crop protection, food processing,
apparel, banking, retail, recreational, association, educational, philanthropic, pet care, grocery, landscaping, horticultural and advertising, to name a few. These collective funds make available important educational opportunities and award programs-at no cost to taxpayers-that provide incentives for FFA members to further their education and career development. Not surprisingly, FFA receives no funding or support from PETA.

9. As an integral part of agricultural education, FFA programs and activities are administered by teachers hired by, and accountable to, local school boards and administrators. They are not accountable to state FFA associations or the National FFA
Organization. In addition, FFA is not limited to rural education. Some of the
largest FFA chapters and memberships are in suburban and urban schools.

10. PETA's assertions that FFA members who work with animals in schools are "desensitized" and more prone to commit acts of violence against animals are unsupported and contradicted by experience.FFA members and agriculture students are taught to care properly for animals by understanding their biology, health and nutritional needs. There is every reason to believe that familiarizing students with the care and feeding of animals, whether livestock or pets, develops
skills and promotes greater sensitivity to an animal's well-being.

11. FFA agrees that agriculture programs in local schools must provide adequately for the security and health of animals in their care. These responsibilities rest with teachers and administrators in those schools, and if health threats or acts of
violence against animals increase, so, too, must the security and oversight of the facilities.

12. For 75 years, agricultural education and FFA have helped millions of young people become sound stewards of the land and our natural resources. Providing a safe and abundant food supply is one of our highest national priorities, and teaching FFA members how to lead and manage the industry of agriculture has been a vital and
proper role for public education. Having hands-on access to plants and animals in the school setting has proven highly effective in the education of students.

Congratulations for Illinois effort:

From the Illinois Pork Producers Association.

Governor Announces Sales Tax Proposal 'No Longer Under Consideration'

The agricultural community is very pleased to see that the proposal to eliminate the agricultural sales tax exemption for feed, seed, fertilizer and chemicals is no longer under consideration. The Governor announced today that he was no longer pursuing the proposal to eliminate the exemption that was announced during the Governor’s Budget Address. The administration has received considerable information from the agricultural community and support from members of both sides of the aisle in the General Assembly to maintain the current ag input sales tax exemptions. There is a clear recognition by all involved parties that this proposal would have had massive implications on farmers and Illinois agri-business.

We are waiting to see the final budget package and are very thankful that the proposal to eliminate the agricultural sales tax exemption for feed, seed, fertilizer and chemicals is not a part of the final budget. We appreciate the commitments made by the Senate Republican Caucus, the Senate Democrat Caucus, numerous members of the House of Representatives, coupled with the Governor’s announcement, that the sales tax will not be a part of the final budget plan.

"We would like to thank all the members of the General Assembly who supported agriculture on this and thank the Governor and his staff for their willingness to discuss the potential impact of the original proposal," said leaders of the agricultural community.

Coalition to Support Iowa’s Farmers“Growing Communities…One Farmer at a Time”
Contact: Aaron Putze, APR
515-225-5414 - cell 515-975-4168
aputze@supportiowasfarmers.org
www.supportiowasfarmers.org

EIP REPORT IGNORES THE FACTS AND DOES A DISSERVICE TO IOWA FARM FAMILIES THAT RAISE LIVESTOCK

WEST DES MOINES, IA – May 20, 2004 – Information released May 19 by the Washington D.C.-based Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) critical of Iowa’s livestock farmers ignores the facts and twists reality. It also does a disservice to the vast majority of farm families that care for their families, neighbors, communities and environment, according to the Coalition to Support Iowa’s Farmers (CSIF).

CSIF is a not-for-profit group formed to help families stay viable on the farm and in their communities by assisting them in managing the rules and regulations covering animal agriculture.

In EIP’s own report titled “Threatening Iowa’s Future,” the group alleged that livestock farmers put profit ahead of environmental stewardship and blamed state officials for allowing it to happen. Members of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement – including a beekeeper from southwest Iowa– joined the EIP in making claims that farm families raising livestock were not sufficiently regulated and used production practices that threatened air and water quality.

“The carelessness of EIP’s assertions makes it obvious that they are not from Iowa because they do not know how farm families live, work and raise livestock,” said Kendra Gilbert, a sixth-generation farmer from Nashua. “As a livestock producer, I do everything I can to protect the health of my family and neighbors, comply with some of the nation’s most stringent regulations and take great pride in creating jobs and economic benefits for my community.”

Gilbert said the EIP report ignored multiple rounds of regulations passed by the Iowa Legislature since 1995 covering everything from the siting and construction of animal facilities to the storage and application of animal nutrients.

For example, manure management plans filed and paid for by livestock farmers detail where and how much animal nutrients can be used and must be updated annually. Those that apply manure to cropland must be certified to operate state-of-the-art equipment that injects manure six inches underground, reducing odor and protecting water quality.

Using animal nutrients is beneficial to both the environment and the nation’s economy. Nearly 2,400 head of hogs can provide sufficient nutrients to eliminate the need for applying conventional nitrogen on 250 acres of cropland. “Livestock provides farmers with a natural fertilizer that degrades naturally and reduces our dependence on foreign sources of energy,” Gilbert said. “That’s good for farmers, good for the environment and good for Iowa.”

In their report, EIP says that pollution from livestock facilities is generating high nitrate levels in water sources.

Not true, according to Randy Pleima. As general manager of Mahaska Rural Water Systems Inc., Pleima monitors the quality of the water he distributes. Since 1996, nitrate levels have dropped from 1.5 parts per million to .2 (EPA suggests 10 ppm or lower) as overall water quality has improved. Asked why, Pleima doesn’t hesitate. “I think better farming practices being used by farmers is the biggest reason,” including the construction of state-of-the-art livestock facilities and knifing animal nutrients into the ground.

The CSIF questioned the EIP’s motives. One of EIP’s most critical sources of funding is the Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF). According to the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), the RFF has assets of more than $56 million and funds dozens of organizations including those critical of specific kinds of farms and farming practices.

Recipients of RFF funding, according to the CCF, include ICCI ($30,000 in 2001) and the Environmental Working Group (nearly $400,000 in 2000-2001). And, from 1998-2000, the EIP contributed $130,000 to Waterkeeper Alliance, a group headed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that has rallied against livestock farmers around the nation, including Iowa, and threatened to sue farmers out of business. “We have the attorneys now who have money and they know what they’re doing,” says Kennedy. “They are the best in the country and we are going to put an end to this (pork) industry.”
“Research conducted last year found that nearly 80 percent of Iowans not directly involved in agriculture hold a positive view of animal production in the state,” said Tim Niess, CSIF Executive Director. “Farm families look forward to continuing to build upon this strong consumer support while protecting the environment and providing jobs for nearly 140,000 Iowans.”


-30-

The CSIF was launched May 11, 2004. Its mission is to grow Iowa communities one farmer at a time. Six prominent farm groups founded the organization: Iowa Cattlemen’s Association, Iowa Corn Growers Association; Iowa Farm Bureau, Iowa Pork Producers Association, Iowa Poultry Association and Iowa Soybean Association. For more information about the CSIF, the importance of livestock production and the truth behind activist groups operating in Iowa, log on to www.supportiowasfarmers.org.

May, 2004

Animal Agriculture: At Home in Iowa


1. Iowa’s livestock farmers contribute more than $5 billion to Iowa’s
$91 billion economy (measured in Gross State Product). That means animal agriculture is responsible for nearly 5 percent of the state’s economy.
"Economic Importance of Iowa's Cattle Industry", Dr. John Lawrence, ISU Professor, Dr. Daniel Otto, ISU Professor, 2000,
"The Economic Importance of the Iowa Pork Industry", Dr. Daniel Otto, ISU Professor, Dr. James Kliebenstein, ISU Professor, 2000.


2. Nearly 140,000 Iowans are directly and indirectly employed because of livestock production. This is equal to nearly 7 percent of the state’s workforce (1.93 million workers) and nearly the populations of Ft. Dodge, Ottumwa, Iowa City and Cedar Falls…combined!
"Economic Importance of Iowa's Cattle Industry", Dr. John Lawrence, ISU Professor, Dr. Daniel Otto, ISU Professor, 2000,
"The Economic Importance of the Iowa Pork Industry", Dr. Daniel Otto, ISU Professor, Dr. James Kliebenstein, ISU Professor, 2000.


3. The cattle and pork industry collectively provide over $3 billion in personal income to working Iowans.
"Economic Importance of Iowa's Cattle Industry", Dr. John Lawrence, ISU Professor, Dr. Daniel Otto, ISU Professor, 2000,
"The Economic Importance of the Iowa Pork Industry", Dr. Daniel Otto, ISU Professor, Dr. James Kliebenstein, ISU Professor, 2000.


4. Livestock production provides more than $77 million in county/local government revenues and more than $400 million in state government revenue resources.
"Economic Importance of Iowa's Cattle Industry", Dr. John Lawrence, ISU Professor, Dr. Daniel Otto, ISU Professor, 2000;
"The Economic Importance of the Iowa Pork Industry", Dr. Daniel Otto, ISU Professor, Dr. James Kliebenstein, ISU Professor, 2000;
Regional Economic Models, Incorporated (REMI), Version 5.2, 2003.


5. Livestock and poultry consume 33 percent of Iowa’s annual corn crop (650 million of
2 billion bushels).
1997 Census of Agriculture, USDA; Analysis conducted by Dr. John Lawrence, ISU Professor, 2003;
Analysis conducted by Dave Miller, IFBF Director of Commodities, 2003.


6. Livestock and poultry consume 26 percent of Iowa’s annual soybean crop (130 million of 500 million bushels).
1997 Census of Agriculture, USDA; Analysis conducted by Dr. John Lawrence, ISU Professor, 2003;
Analysis conducted by Dave Miller, IFBF Director of Commodities, 2003.


- continued on next page -






7. Iowa’s pork industry supports 87,000 jobs while Iowa’s cattle industry supports 49,900 jobs.
"Economic Importance of Iowa's Cattle Industry", Dr. John Lawrence, ISU Professor, Dr. Daniel Otto, ISU Professor, 2000,
"The Economic Importance of the Iowa Pork Industry", Dr. Daniel Otto, ISU Professor, Dr. James Kliebenstein, ISU Professor, 2000.


8. There is a significant correlation between the 54 percent decline in Iowa’s cattle inventory in the last 30 years and the decline in rural k-12 school enrollment in the last 20 years.
National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS), http://www.usda.gov/nass/; "Iowa's Counties: Selected Population Trends,
Vital Statistics and Socioeconomic Data", 1990 – 2001; Microsoft Excel, Office 2000.


9. Simply doubling Iowa’s January 1 cattle on feed (from 955,000 to 1.9 million) would add $33 million to Iowa’s annual corn crop and create over 3,200 new jobs in Iowa!
National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS), http://www.usda.gov/nass/;
Regional Economic Models, Incorporated (REMI), Version 5.2, 2003





For more information, log on to www.supportiowasfarmers.org


















Coalition to Support Iowa’s Farmers
Growing Communities… One Farmer at a Time