Loos Tales column printed in High Plains Journal Feb 25, 2006
The only true lottery winners
As our nation was honoring Presidents Washington and Lincoln on February 20, 2006, a very ironic meeting was taking place in North Platte, NE. Lincoln, who created the Homestead Act of 1862, was surely rolling over in his grave if he heard some of the obscurities presented at the Open Space Conference, which was hosted by the Nebraska Environmental Trust. As a refresher, let’s do a quick history lesson. The Homestead Act of 1862 gave one quarter of a section (160 acres) of undeveloped land in the American West to any head of a family or person that was at least 21 years of age. In order to claim ownership, he must live on the land for five years and build a house of a least 12 by 14 feet. The family head could also opt to buy the land for $1.25 per acre after six months.
Without question, the Homestead Act paved the way for our forefathers to turn a vast wilderness into the most balanced ecosystem in the world. The Lewis and Clark Journals alone give us great insight into some of the troubles of that day. Their journals indicate that within the first 40 days of their journey, every member of the Corp of Discovery faced bouts of disentary because of silt, filth and ooze that was in each cup of water they drank from the Missouri River. Yet today those with an agenda simply choose to ignore the improvements that humans have made to the ecosystem of what once was a Wilderness.
Without a shred of doubt, the United States of America has led the world in innovations and the development of technologies to improve natural resources and humankind. The land of the free and the home of the brave has proven that American intelligence and preservance can create what is the envy of the world. Private ownership of land and personal property and our pride in the toil and tribulations from one generation to the next since the passage of the Homestead Act has created a place that disconnected Americans like to visit. They often comment that “the sandhills of Nebraska are like a dream come true”. That statement was made possible because of the hard working hands of ranchers who used careful stewardship on their land. In support of that was one of the most logical bits of information presented in North Platte which came from Jim Stubbendick of the University of Nebraska. He presented studies that indicate the sandhills are in less need of protection than they have been in the last 100 years because of the land management of private property owners.
You should know that the Nebraska Environmental Trust is state government agency that is funded in large part by the Nebraska Lottery. Boil down all of the fancy lingo about helping “preserve Nebraska beauty” and you will find that Lottery dollars are finacing one of the largest land grabs in the history of the country. One of their board members, Warren Arganbright, an attorney from Valentine, says, "The areas of concern are how to preserve, protect and repair the land". I would like to ask him what he is protecting the land from? Is it private ownership and good stewardship?
Eric Freyfogle, from the University of Illinois College of Law, was a featured speaker and must be the first human to actually accomplish time travel because his words would indicate that he completely missed of the downfalls of communism. I chose to use that word because he himself referred to land ownership as a “regime.” He actually said in public that private ownership of land was “morally problematic and a lousy idea”.
Don’t lull yourself into believing that Nebraska just happens to be where this meeting took place. Nebraska is the epicenter of the largest land mass owned by an individual in this country. Ted Turner now owns 2% of the United States prairie. There is a reason these individuals with United Nations money behind them are converging on places like Arthur Country, NE with a population of 400 and ½ person per square mile. I don’t think it is because there is a rapidly growing urban sprawl problem. It is because there aren’t too many people to fight back.
When you sum up this movement, the only way these individuals will be successful is if they continue to do their dirty work in the dead of night. Once we shed light on the fact that they are trying to gain control of the land through easements and acquisitions and we engage the same farm and ranch families who helped turn this wilderness into the most productive resource in the country, all the money in the world can’t compete with the grit and determination these families will use to send these lottery winners to another ecosystem to execute their land grabbing ways.
Trent Loos is a 6th generation United States farmer, host of daily radio show Loos Tales and founder of Faces of Agriculture, non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food. Get more information at www.FacesOfAg.com or email Trent at trent@loostales.com.
Subscribe To Loos Tales Daily information
Posts
All Comments
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Sunday, January 15, 2006
From Boston Globe
Animal rights group sues to stop removal of parakeet nests
January 13, 2006
NEW HAVEN, Conn. --An animal rights group said Friday that it filed a lawsuit against United Illuminating Co. seeking to stop any future removal of monk parakeet nests from utility poles.
Friends of Animals argues that the birds are part of Connecticut's ecosystem and should be protected.
The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction against the capture and killing of the birds and wants the court to compel UI to take humane measures that would dissuade the parakeets from building their huge nests on utility poles.
Animal rights group sues to stop removal of parakeet nests
January 13, 2006
NEW HAVEN, Conn. --An animal rights group said Friday that it filed a lawsuit against United Illuminating Co. seeking to stop any future removal of monk parakeet nests from utility poles.
Friends of Animals argues that the birds are part of Connecticut's ecosystem and should be protected.
The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction against the capture and killing of the birds and wants the court to compel UI to take humane measures that would dissuade the parakeets from building their huge nests on utility poles.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Printed in Feedstuffs Magazine Oct 3, 2005
Ignorance leads to ungratefulness
If dairy cows in this country are trying to get attention, they should be happy with their press coverage in the past few weeks. A recent article in the Washington Post may have been as damaging as any one thing I have read in the newspaper. What continues to baffle me is they talk about food production as some profit hungry corporate entity that is willing to sacrifice human health for monetary wealth. The article never once mentions that San Joaquin Valley Dairymen raise their own kids there. The article never once mentions that these farms are producing the necessities for all Americans - food, clothing and life-saving pharmaceuticals.
Dairies have long been accused of causing air pollution in the state of California and cows are considered leading contributors to the smog problem. These accusations were based on a 1938 model of air emissions until Dr. Frank Mitloehner from the University of California - Davis released more recent air quality results.
Forgot about the cow study for a minute and think about the impact of automobiles in California? The state has 36 million people with 24 million registered vehicles that use 47 million gallons of fuel daily. Californians drive 825 million miles and kick 5.4 million pounds of pollutants into the atmosphere every single day, not counting the rubber left in the environment from wear and tear on their tires.
Alison Draper, a toxicologist at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut reports that the color of tires comes from a chemical called carbon black, which is basically soot. Soot contains chemical by-products that are known environmental pollutants. Tire rubber contains hazardous sulfur and zinc compounds that are used to speed up the rubber-making process. The main ingredient in tire rubber is a synthetic polymer called styrene-butadiene, which is a big, stable chemical that doesn't degrade very easily. But why would the west coast residents want to take responsibility for their pollution problem when they could easily point at the cows.
Mitloehner is apparently the first scientist since 1938 to study the true impact of a dairy cow on California’s environment. His initial results indicate that the old estimates are significantly wrong. His findings led him to believe that not only is the data old but it may have been interpreted incorrectly. His numbers indicate that the contribution of cattle to air pollution is considerably less than half of what was previously thought and the pollution itself does not come from the manure but from belching.
Although the new data is positive for agriculture, the discouraging notion is that much of the current EPA Consent Agreement came about because of the old dairy cow research in California. Today, dairymen are working with the EPA and research institutions to determine the true impact the 2000 dairies in the state are making on the environment. Regardless of what they find, I doubt that many of the 36 million residents will be volunteering to be monitored for belching, tire wear and transportation pollution and then face being sued for their contribution to the smog problem.
Perception is really our problem. The average car-driving American may or may not feel guilty about putting petroleum products into the atmosphere but they don’t even know that local livestock operations are actually managing nutrients that are essential to life. That is why it is so important to refer to this component of our operation as “Nutrient Management” rather than manure handling. Hopefully the day will come when consumers will realize that nitrogen and phosphorous are essential to plant and animal life and thus to the whole circle of life, rather than considering them just a smelly waste factor of food production.
Trent Loos is a 6th generation United States farmer, host of daily radio show Loos Tales and founder of Faces of Agriculture, non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food. Get more information at www.FacesOfAg.com or email Trent at trent@loostales.com.
Ignorance leads to ungratefulness
If dairy cows in this country are trying to get attention, they should be happy with their press coverage in the past few weeks. A recent article in the Washington Post may have been as damaging as any one thing I have read in the newspaper. What continues to baffle me is they talk about food production as some profit hungry corporate entity that is willing to sacrifice human health for monetary wealth. The article never once mentions that San Joaquin Valley Dairymen raise their own kids there. The article never once mentions that these farms are producing the necessities for all Americans - food, clothing and life-saving pharmaceuticals.
Dairies have long been accused of causing air pollution in the state of California and cows are considered leading contributors to the smog problem. These accusations were based on a 1938 model of air emissions until Dr. Frank Mitloehner from the University of California - Davis released more recent air quality results.
Forgot about the cow study for a minute and think about the impact of automobiles in California? The state has 36 million people with 24 million registered vehicles that use 47 million gallons of fuel daily. Californians drive 825 million miles and kick 5.4 million pounds of pollutants into the atmosphere every single day, not counting the rubber left in the environment from wear and tear on their tires.
Alison Draper, a toxicologist at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut reports that the color of tires comes from a chemical called carbon black, which is basically soot. Soot contains chemical by-products that are known environmental pollutants. Tire rubber contains hazardous sulfur and zinc compounds that are used to speed up the rubber-making process. The main ingredient in tire rubber is a synthetic polymer called styrene-butadiene, which is a big, stable chemical that doesn't degrade very easily. But why would the west coast residents want to take responsibility for their pollution problem when they could easily point at the cows.
Mitloehner is apparently the first scientist since 1938 to study the true impact of a dairy cow on California’s environment. His initial results indicate that the old estimates are significantly wrong. His findings led him to believe that not only is the data old but it may have been interpreted incorrectly. His numbers indicate that the contribution of cattle to air pollution is considerably less than half of what was previously thought and the pollution itself does not come from the manure but from belching.
Although the new data is positive for agriculture, the discouraging notion is that much of the current EPA Consent Agreement came about because of the old dairy cow research in California. Today, dairymen are working with the EPA and research institutions to determine the true impact the 2000 dairies in the state are making on the environment. Regardless of what they find, I doubt that many of the 36 million residents will be volunteering to be monitored for belching, tire wear and transportation pollution and then face being sued for their contribution to the smog problem.
Perception is really our problem. The average car-driving American may or may not feel guilty about putting petroleum products into the atmosphere but they don’t even know that local livestock operations are actually managing nutrients that are essential to life. That is why it is so important to refer to this component of our operation as “Nutrient Management” rather than manure handling. Hopefully the day will come when consumers will realize that nitrogen and phosphorous are essential to plant and animal life and thus to the whole circle of life, rather than considering them just a smelly waste factor of food production.
Trent Loos is a 6th generation United States farmer, host of daily radio show Loos Tales and founder of Faces of Agriculture, non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food. Get more information at www.FacesOfAg.com or email Trent at trent@loostales.com.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Katrina shows us the problem
Where is our government? Why aren’t they helping us? Those questions have resounded through our households in the past week. So many questions have been generated since the destruction of the Gulf Coast and Mother Nature’s cleansing of the earth. We, as humans, don’t understand how our government could let a hurricane happen that would destroy part of the most powerful nation on earth. We don’t think this type of thing happens in the United States of America. I have little doubt that legislative initiatives will be enacted to prevent future hurricanes. You laugh but I contend that many in our nation are that far removed from reality.
As one who has walked to halls of Congress in our nation’s capital, I wonder if it is possible to work inside the insulation of the beltway and maintain an understanding of what is important to your neighbors at home. While many seem desperate to point a finger and find the person to blame for a delayed emergency response to Katrina, I believe this is much more complex than saying, “The President didn’t handle this properly.” We heard the response to the Asian Tsunami was swift and immediate but I believe that what slowed our response in the Gulf Coast was nothing other than the red tape and bureaucracy that exists within our political system.
Politicians and responders had to rationalize what the political fallout would be before they could make a decision about saving human lives. Within hours of the storm making landfall, members of one party were blaming the other for causing the hurricane. Democrats were blaming the Republicans for Global Warming, which, in turn, caused the hurricane. This only proves that their history is as poor as their judgment if they rank establishing blame ahead of saving lives.
The actions of our government officials in the past week have sent me back into the archives of our founding fathers. I have often thought that we elect people who are completely disconnected from the real issues affecting Americans. Without a shadow of doubt we have created a government so big that it does not recognize the fundamental needs of its own people. Reports indicate that it now costs more to be elected to a seat in the Senate than the entire annual budget of our country in the early years.
In the era of Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton and Washington, life was conducted with the local pub front and center. Every major issue or principle evolved into a toast. This toast, common in 1776, strikes me as very relevant today: “May stipenders and pensioners never sit in an American senate.” Such words were ominous warnings that showed the Whig fear of unrestrained government growth. "Stipenders" and "pensioners" were 18th century terms for bureaucrats, parasites, lobbyists and anyone else who bilked goods from the public coffers. The political posturing today tells me that the founding fathers’ worst fears have come true.
Thomas Jefferson once said, "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." I have heard the comment several times that the city of New Orleans was nothing but a bunch of people on welfare who don’t know how to provide for themselves. To that I respond, “It is not just New Orleans. It is every city in this country.” Don’t play some race or class trump card on me either. The truth is that we, as a society, have not heeded the words of Jefferson and men and women of all classes and colors have lost the discipline of survival. Abraham Lincoln once said, "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
As our modern media bombards us with the images of Americans helplessly crying for the government to swoop in and save them, the world looks on in shock. NOT IN AMERICA! We didn’t think that something like this could happen in America. As Americans, we have presented ourselves as Super Human heroes to the world and now nature has exposed the fact that we too are vulnerable. Water is a miraculous thing. It enables life but it also takes life away. Water, too, is reflective. Unfortunately, most Americans can’t make their way to New Orleans to get a look at the damage that has been done - not by Katrina but by the person they would see when they look into the water.
Trent Loos is a 6th generation United States farmer, host of daily radio show Loos Tales and founder of Faces of Agriculture, non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food. Get more information at www.FacesOfAg.com or email Trent at trent@loostales.com.
Where is our government? Why aren’t they helping us? Those questions have resounded through our households in the past week. So many questions have been generated since the destruction of the Gulf Coast and Mother Nature’s cleansing of the earth. We, as humans, don’t understand how our government could let a hurricane happen that would destroy part of the most powerful nation on earth. We don’t think this type of thing happens in the United States of America. I have little doubt that legislative initiatives will be enacted to prevent future hurricanes. You laugh but I contend that many in our nation are that far removed from reality.
As one who has walked to halls of Congress in our nation’s capital, I wonder if it is possible to work inside the insulation of the beltway and maintain an understanding of what is important to your neighbors at home. While many seem desperate to point a finger and find the person to blame for a delayed emergency response to Katrina, I believe this is much more complex than saying, “The President didn’t handle this properly.” We heard the response to the Asian Tsunami was swift and immediate but I believe that what slowed our response in the Gulf Coast was nothing other than the red tape and bureaucracy that exists within our political system.
Politicians and responders had to rationalize what the political fallout would be before they could make a decision about saving human lives. Within hours of the storm making landfall, members of one party were blaming the other for causing the hurricane. Democrats were blaming the Republicans for Global Warming, which, in turn, caused the hurricane. This only proves that their history is as poor as their judgment if they rank establishing blame ahead of saving lives.
The actions of our government officials in the past week have sent me back into the archives of our founding fathers. I have often thought that we elect people who are completely disconnected from the real issues affecting Americans. Without a shadow of doubt we have created a government so big that it does not recognize the fundamental needs of its own people. Reports indicate that it now costs more to be elected to a seat in the Senate than the entire annual budget of our country in the early years.
In the era of Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton and Washington, life was conducted with the local pub front and center. Every major issue or principle evolved into a toast. This toast, common in 1776, strikes me as very relevant today: “May stipenders and pensioners never sit in an American senate.” Such words were ominous warnings that showed the Whig fear of unrestrained government growth. "Stipenders" and "pensioners" were 18th century terms for bureaucrats, parasites, lobbyists and anyone else who bilked goods from the public coffers. The political posturing today tells me that the founding fathers’ worst fears have come true.
Thomas Jefferson once said, "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." I have heard the comment several times that the city of New Orleans was nothing but a bunch of people on welfare who don’t know how to provide for themselves. To that I respond, “It is not just New Orleans. It is every city in this country.” Don’t play some race or class trump card on me either. The truth is that we, as a society, have not heeded the words of Jefferson and men and women of all classes and colors have lost the discipline of survival. Abraham Lincoln once said, "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
As our modern media bombards us with the images of Americans helplessly crying for the government to swoop in and save them, the world looks on in shock. NOT IN AMERICA! We didn’t think that something like this could happen in America. As Americans, we have presented ourselves as Super Human heroes to the world and now nature has exposed the fact that we too are vulnerable. Water is a miraculous thing. It enables life but it also takes life away. Water, too, is reflective. Unfortunately, most Americans can’t make their way to New Orleans to get a look at the damage that has been done - not by Katrina but by the person they would see when they look into the water.
Trent Loos is a 6th generation United States farmer, host of daily radio show Loos Tales and founder of Faces of Agriculture, non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food. Get more information at www.FacesOfAg.com or email Trent at trent@loostales.com.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Instead of “Re-Wilding North America”, just de-humanize it
“A lot of farmland would have to be purchased,” says Josh Donlan, an ecologist from Cornell University, who released a plan that envisions the Great Plains as a place where Africa's wildlife could thrive and escape extinction. The plan is called “Re-wilding North America." You may be thinking “these people are nuts and they can’t do that,” but I believe the plan was underway with the first acre of land purchased by Ted Turner.
There are so many directions to go with this topic that I am not even sure where to start. I would like to discuss the fundamental lack of understanding that we have as a society that truly does not understand the predator concept. This not a golf game where we will give the lions a handicap. “Here cute little cheetah. You no longer need to swim the Atlantic Ocean to eat my kid. Just travel across the Great Plains and wait for a vulnerable moment.”
I recently spent time with the one person that truly understands the Animal Rights movement even better than I do. Wes Jamison is a professor at Dordt College in Sioux Center, IA. He has been studying the Animal Rights movement since 1990. Wes summed it up best when he stated this is no longer a movement but it is a societal shift in our thinking. He used stuffed animal as an example.
Who, as a parent, hasn’t given their kid a cute, cuddly stuffed bear. Think about all the animals we give them. They play with them, sleep with them and one child expert was even quoted this week as saying if your kindergarten kid has the jitters on the first day of school send a comfort critter with them such as their favorite stuffed animal. This change in attitude is probably why a plan that would have been laughed at a generation ago now has parents across the country telling their kids how wonderful it sounds. “Johnny, soon we will be able to take you to Kansas to see the African animals.”
A shift in mindset may explain how it could be accepted but the bigger question is “Why is it needed?” The creators of this plan suggest that these animals are losing habitat. Of course the real scapegoat in habitat loss is none other than agriculture. A rapidly growing African population and little or no environmental protection has tainted the very resources needed to support the people of the country. The Water and Irrigation minister Martha Karua was quoted as saying "The rapid population growth has led to unsustainable exploitation of resources such as fisheries and chemical poisoning through agriculture activities and industrial effluent."
At one point, United States agriculture did not understand how to produce food without harming the ecosystem and today that is not the case. Today, 25% of our crop production is no-till application, which increases organic matter and prevents soil erosion. Today we graze for the benefit of the vegetative species and preserving water quality. As proof, we now have the same number of beef cows grazing as we did fifty years ago but they yield twice the amount of food to feed the world. Sound science has been applied and we are setting the standards of environmental stewardship for the world.
If I am to interpret this correctly, because we have the best ecosystem on the globe, some in the scientific community believe America is now the ideal location to preserve everything. Are we headed for a new national motto? Come to the United States of America, the world’s largest and most diverse theme park. I can’t help but be reminded about a book manuscript that was presented to me at one of the animal rights conventions in Chicago. The book takes place in 2047, forty years after the killing of animals was banned in the United States. The mission of the book was to develop teaching strategies for lions and other predatory animals in Africa. The goal was to teach them they no longer needed to kill other animals to survive.
When you stop laughing, take an hour or so to catch the latest Disney movie kids are watching, while holding a stuffed lion, about verbally negotiating a peaceful future for the world. Remind me again how many humans are in those movies? Instead of taking away their animals, maybe we need to spend Ted’s money teaching these people how to manage the natural resources they have been given and provide food their families.
“A lot of farmland would have to be purchased,” says Josh Donlan, an ecologist from Cornell University, who released a plan that envisions the Great Plains as a place where Africa's wildlife could thrive and escape extinction. The plan is called “Re-wilding North America." You may be thinking “these people are nuts and they can’t do that,” but I believe the plan was underway with the first acre of land purchased by Ted Turner.
There are so many directions to go with this topic that I am not even sure where to start. I would like to discuss the fundamental lack of understanding that we have as a society that truly does not understand the predator concept. This not a golf game where we will give the lions a handicap. “Here cute little cheetah. You no longer need to swim the Atlantic Ocean to eat my kid. Just travel across the Great Plains and wait for a vulnerable moment.”
I recently spent time with the one person that truly understands the Animal Rights movement even better than I do. Wes Jamison is a professor at Dordt College in Sioux Center, IA. He has been studying the Animal Rights movement since 1990. Wes summed it up best when he stated this is no longer a movement but it is a societal shift in our thinking. He used stuffed animal as an example.
Who, as a parent, hasn’t given their kid a cute, cuddly stuffed bear. Think about all the animals we give them. They play with them, sleep with them and one child expert was even quoted this week as saying if your kindergarten kid has the jitters on the first day of school send a comfort critter with them such as their favorite stuffed animal. This change in attitude is probably why a plan that would have been laughed at a generation ago now has parents across the country telling their kids how wonderful it sounds. “Johnny, soon we will be able to take you to Kansas to see the African animals.”
A shift in mindset may explain how it could be accepted but the bigger question is “Why is it needed?” The creators of this plan suggest that these animals are losing habitat. Of course the real scapegoat in habitat loss is none other than agriculture. A rapidly growing African population and little or no environmental protection has tainted the very resources needed to support the people of the country. The Water and Irrigation minister Martha Karua was quoted as saying "The rapid population growth has led to unsustainable exploitation of resources such as fisheries and chemical poisoning through agriculture activities and industrial effluent."
At one point, United States agriculture did not understand how to produce food without harming the ecosystem and today that is not the case. Today, 25% of our crop production is no-till application, which increases organic matter and prevents soil erosion. Today we graze for the benefit of the vegetative species and preserving water quality. As proof, we now have the same number of beef cows grazing as we did fifty years ago but they yield twice the amount of food to feed the world. Sound science has been applied and we are setting the standards of environmental stewardship for the world.
If I am to interpret this correctly, because we have the best ecosystem on the globe, some in the scientific community believe America is now the ideal location to preserve everything. Are we headed for a new national motto? Come to the United States of America, the world’s largest and most diverse theme park. I can’t help but be reminded about a book manuscript that was presented to me at one of the animal rights conventions in Chicago. The book takes place in 2047, forty years after the killing of animals was banned in the United States. The mission of the book was to develop teaching strategies for lions and other predatory animals in Africa. The goal was to teach them they no longer needed to kill other animals to survive.
When you stop laughing, take an hour or so to catch the latest Disney movie kids are watching, while holding a stuffed lion, about verbally negotiating a peaceful future for the world. Remind me again how many humans are in those movies? Instead of taking away their animals, maybe we need to spend Ted’s money teaching these people how to manage the natural resources they have been given and provide food their families.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
How my mules inspired me
I spend a great deal of time focusing on the special interest groups that are attempting to chase food production from U.S. soil. We all know who most of those groups are and that they have large budgets to implement their plans. However, I believe the true challenge we face in agriculture is ourselves. The oldest war strategy known to man is Divide and Conquer. Special interest groups are undoubtedly marveling as we continue to fragment our industry into smaller and smaller factions.
I typically stay away from issues that could contribute to the division, but no more. You’ll probably even find my source of inspiration to be somewhat humorous. We usually have about seven horses at the house including saddle horses and young horses that I am starting to ride. Earlier this summer I brought home two donkeys and, without giving it a thought, I simply put my two jacks right in with my horses. Unfortunately, the horses had different ideas.
Upon sight of these long eared critters, all seven horses, as if in choreographed unison, cleared a five-foot panel and bolted to freedom. Two of them didn’t slow down until they were a quarter of a mile down the road. Two months passed and I still couldn’t get them in the same pen. They would tolerate fence line contact but they simply would not be together. All that changed when I brought home two black mules.
When I got home it dawned on me that I might need a third pen. I decided instead to introduce the mules to the horses. They all acted like they were old buddies. One day the mules were exploring and accidentally got in with the donkeys. I had no idea what to expect but the mules seemed to get along with the donkeys just as well. Obviously the next step would be to open all the gates and see what would happen.
If I hadn’t witnessed it myself, I probably wouldn’t believe it. The donkeys and the horses taunted each other and the mules ran in between trying to break it up. The mules actually acted as negotiators for the common good. Today I am happy to report that all of my equine are in one pen and get along fabulously. In the interest of attempting the repair the damage that has been done in the beef industry, I am taking it upon myself to be the mule.
We are constantly struggling with the fact that we in agriculture have such a small number of people that it is tough to get our message out. In the same breath we attempt to dismantle one segment of the industry into even smaller factions. Would you be surprised to learn that the issues we, as an industry, are divided on such as the border closing, country of origin labeling and the check-off are always on the agenda at the animal rights meetings I have attended? These people recognize that the easiest way to destroy American agriculture is to let us do it ourselves.
The irony of the current situation is that we, in the beef industry, have accused the animal rights groups of using emotion instead of logic and facts. If you honestly evaluate what is creating the division that exists in today’s beef industry, it is emotions and not facts.
As the self-appointed industry mule, I feel compelled to share one more thing. I have witnessed two national groups who use issues like COOL as divisionary tactic rather than really debating the merits or downfalls of the labeling. How many times when COOL comes up will the justification be anti-R-Calf or anti-NCBA reasoning? I don’t really care about the groups that represent the individuals involved in food production. I care about the families and the people who are involved. I care that each one of those families is doing everything possible to ensure a better opportunity for our kids in the greatest endeavor man has ever been a part of - FEEDING THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD.
There is one statistic that seems to say it all. USDA reports indicate that 800,000 individuals own cattle. The two organizations that claim to represent cattle owners report memberships between 40,000 and 50,000. Where is everybody else? The worst thing that can happen is that the majority of the beef producers will sit around drinking coffee in town, complaining about what this group or that group is doing or not doing, and they won’t show up at the proper venue to voice their concerns where they can have an impact on the future of the industry. The only path that I see to regain unity in the beef industry is for all beef producers to join both organizations. That way we may have an impact on what is left for the next generation.
In conclusion, this may be far from original and old and cliché but undoubtedly it is still appropriate: United we stand or divided we shall fall.
I spend a great deal of time focusing on the special interest groups that are attempting to chase food production from U.S. soil. We all know who most of those groups are and that they have large budgets to implement their plans. However, I believe the true challenge we face in agriculture is ourselves. The oldest war strategy known to man is Divide and Conquer. Special interest groups are undoubtedly marveling as we continue to fragment our industry into smaller and smaller factions.
I typically stay away from issues that could contribute to the division, but no more. You’ll probably even find my source of inspiration to be somewhat humorous. We usually have about seven horses at the house including saddle horses and young horses that I am starting to ride. Earlier this summer I brought home two donkeys and, without giving it a thought, I simply put my two jacks right in with my horses. Unfortunately, the horses had different ideas.
Upon sight of these long eared critters, all seven horses, as if in choreographed unison, cleared a five-foot panel and bolted to freedom. Two of them didn’t slow down until they were a quarter of a mile down the road. Two months passed and I still couldn’t get them in the same pen. They would tolerate fence line contact but they simply would not be together. All that changed when I brought home two black mules.
When I got home it dawned on me that I might need a third pen. I decided instead to introduce the mules to the horses. They all acted like they were old buddies. One day the mules were exploring and accidentally got in with the donkeys. I had no idea what to expect but the mules seemed to get along with the donkeys just as well. Obviously the next step would be to open all the gates and see what would happen.
If I hadn’t witnessed it myself, I probably wouldn’t believe it. The donkeys and the horses taunted each other and the mules ran in between trying to break it up. The mules actually acted as negotiators for the common good. Today I am happy to report that all of my equine are in one pen and get along fabulously. In the interest of attempting the repair the damage that has been done in the beef industry, I am taking it upon myself to be the mule.
We are constantly struggling with the fact that we in agriculture have such a small number of people that it is tough to get our message out. In the same breath we attempt to dismantle one segment of the industry into even smaller factions. Would you be surprised to learn that the issues we, as an industry, are divided on such as the border closing, country of origin labeling and the check-off are always on the agenda at the animal rights meetings I have attended? These people recognize that the easiest way to destroy American agriculture is to let us do it ourselves.
The irony of the current situation is that we, in the beef industry, have accused the animal rights groups of using emotion instead of logic and facts. If you honestly evaluate what is creating the division that exists in today’s beef industry, it is emotions and not facts.
As the self-appointed industry mule, I feel compelled to share one more thing. I have witnessed two national groups who use issues like COOL as divisionary tactic rather than really debating the merits or downfalls of the labeling. How many times when COOL comes up will the justification be anti-R-Calf or anti-NCBA reasoning? I don’t really care about the groups that represent the individuals involved in food production. I care about the families and the people who are involved. I care that each one of those families is doing everything possible to ensure a better opportunity for our kids in the greatest endeavor man has ever been a part of - FEEDING THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD.
There is one statistic that seems to say it all. USDA reports indicate that 800,000 individuals own cattle. The two organizations that claim to represent cattle owners report memberships between 40,000 and 50,000. Where is everybody else? The worst thing that can happen is that the majority of the beef producers will sit around drinking coffee in town, complaining about what this group or that group is doing or not doing, and they won’t show up at the proper venue to voice their concerns where they can have an impact on the future of the industry. The only path that I see to regain unity in the beef industry is for all beef producers to join both organizations. That way we may have an impact on what is left for the next generation.
In conclusion, this may be far from original and old and cliché but undoubtedly it is still appropriate: United we stand or divided we shall fall.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Dear Trent,
I have just returned from on a 5 day vacation in some of the most beautiful lake and farmland in the USA, Pierz, Minnesota. As I drove around checking out the scenery I noticed something peculiar. The land was green, rich and beautiful. The rolling hills were surrounded by swamps and lakes and dominated the countryside. Tree's and wildlife flourished due to excellent farming practices. It was calm, quiet, and serene. However, this land was galacial and boulders that virtually blanketed the land had to be cleared. It was amazing!
However, while the land was breath taking, the conditions of many ( too many) of the barns and farm houses were in desperate need of repair. Paint was pealing, wood was rotting, gutters ( if they had them) were falling off. This was a common theme in the area. It occured to me that these farmers and dairymen understood that their life was connected to the cow, the corn and the land and it's ability to produce. They cared more about the land than their possessions. That made me feel good. I felt that somewhere in the world there was someone looking out for me.
Then questions ran through my mind as I drove...
If they were'nt looking out for others, why would they grow more than they need to sustain themselves?
Why try to make the extra buck when you forced to undersell in the first place?
If they are growing and selling this much food, how come they can't fix the farm? That bothered me.
Why do they do it?
I think it's because they care enough to take on the responsibility to feed everyone they can with the land they own. They receive little in return. However, they continue. I believe that makes farming the one of the most honorable professions in America. It ranks up there with protecting our nation from tyranny. The farmer rarely receives a word of thanks.
I just want to say to the farmer, rancher, cattlemen, dairymen etc, "Thank you for keeping me and my family fed and for the many hard hours of labor you put into providing food for my table."
In Pierz, a story was told of a single father who was trying to hold onto a farm. He was struggling with finances due to his wifes illness. Also because of that his farm fell into dis-repair because his children want nothing to do with farming. You hear about that all to often. However, you don't hear about the one young man who volenteered to help. The young man has a family of his own but cared enough to step up and try to help this man save his farm. It's a noble and honorable act rarely seen anymore. My hat is off to him.
Robert W Fasl
Single father of 2, head chef of the household, a man who likes to eat!
I have just returned from on a 5 day vacation in some of the most beautiful lake and farmland in the USA, Pierz, Minnesota. As I drove around checking out the scenery I noticed something peculiar. The land was green, rich and beautiful. The rolling hills were surrounded by swamps and lakes and dominated the countryside. Tree's and wildlife flourished due to excellent farming practices. It was calm, quiet, and serene. However, this land was galacial and boulders that virtually blanketed the land had to be cleared. It was amazing!
However, while the land was breath taking, the conditions of many ( too many) of the barns and farm houses were in desperate need of repair. Paint was pealing, wood was rotting, gutters ( if they had them) were falling off. This was a common theme in the area. It occured to me that these farmers and dairymen understood that their life was connected to the cow, the corn and the land and it's ability to produce. They cared more about the land than their possessions. That made me feel good. I felt that somewhere in the world there was someone looking out for me.
Then questions ran through my mind as I drove...
If they were'nt looking out for others, why would they grow more than they need to sustain themselves?
Why try to make the extra buck when you forced to undersell in the first place?
If they are growing and selling this much food, how come they can't fix the farm? That bothered me.
Why do they do it?
I think it's because they care enough to take on the responsibility to feed everyone they can with the land they own. They receive little in return. However, they continue. I believe that makes farming the one of the most honorable professions in America. It ranks up there with protecting our nation from tyranny. The farmer rarely receives a word of thanks.
I just want to say to the farmer, rancher, cattlemen, dairymen etc, "Thank you for keeping me and my family fed and for the many hard hours of labor you put into providing food for my table."
In Pierz, a story was told of a single father who was trying to hold onto a farm. He was struggling with finances due to his wifes illness. Also because of that his farm fell into dis-repair because his children want nothing to do with farming. You hear about that all to often. However, you don't hear about the one young man who volenteered to help. The young man has a family of his own but cared enough to step up and try to help this man save his farm. It's a noble and honorable act rarely seen anymore. My hat is off to him.
Robert W Fasl
Single father of 2, head chef of the household, a man who likes to eat!
Monday, March 28, 2005
See the trees through the smoke
I was recently asked if I had read Robert F. Kennedy’s Crimes Against Nature because I was included in Kennedy’s ramblings. While I wouldn’t give him the satisfaction of another sale, I did check it out from the library. Chapter 5 is called Science Fiction and that would have been an appropriate title for the entire diatribe.
I first heard Kennedy speak in December 2001 at
Following his presentation, I informed him that if continued to lie about my industry, I would be there to hold him accountable. In
By the third week he started introducing me as his shadow. He would add, “
Ironically, during this same time period, I was in a legal battle for having hauled one cow from the state of
Crimes against nature is Kennedy’s attempt to prove that George W. Bush is the worst environmental president in history. I have not finished reading this collection of lies yet but there is no doubt that what troubles Bobby most about Bush is his determined effort to rid our country of frivolous lawsuits, of which Bobby could be the king. One of Bobby’s worst days may have been
A
Kennedy used the same tactics on fishermen before he decided to fight hog farmers. He promoted filing lawsuits to “benefit the small fishermen” of
Kennedy’s book implies that power plants are contaminating the environment with excess mercury. Imagine my surprise when an EPA official reported only 3% of mercury comes from power plants. The two primary sources of mercury in the environment are volcanoes and forest fires - the very forest fires fueled by the environmental policies of people like Kennedy.
In the book, page 71, Kennedy wrote, “The National Pork Producers Council and an industry goon named Trent Loos launched a smear campaign against me.” My dictionary says a goon is “a simpleton hired to eliminate opponents.” All livestock producers should understand from this statement that Bobby is afraid to deal with anyone who really knows the industry. I have experienced every level of pork production giving birthing assistance to the two sows in my 4-H project to marketing 2 million market hogs a year for producers in an alliance. I guess you can call me a simpleton too because I believe you should either tell the truth about American Agriculture or be held you accountable, even if you are President of the “Lucky Sperm Club”.
Trent Loos is a 6th generation United States farmer, host of daily radio show Loos Tales and founder of Faces of Agriculture, non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food. Get more information at www.FacesOfAg.com or email
Friday, December 17, 2004
For Immediate Release December 16, 2004
For more information contact
Amy Winters, President
Capitol Strategies, LLC
(608) 235-8443
Madison and Dane County Phosphorus Bans Spur Lawsuit
Group says bans ignore science and the law
Madison….Local retailers and trade associations filed a lawsuit in federal court yesterday against the City of Madison and Dane County seeking to overturn ordinances passed earlier this year that ban the display, sale or use of most lawn fertilizers containing phosphorus.
The group representing local hardware stores and lawn care businesses, farm supply retailers, and the specialty fertilizer industry said the bans, which are scheduled to take effect next month, put area retailers at an unfair disadvantage, are illegal and will do little to clean up area lakes.
Ann Smith, an attorney with Michael Best and Friedrich LLP, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the group, said that the ordinances are preempted by state and federal laws, and violate several provisions of the State and U.S. Constitutions, including the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment free speech guarantee. “These ordinances deliberately ignore constitutional law and state and federal law,” said Smith. “We are confident the Court will agree.”
Ed Knapton, owner of America’s Best Flowers Garden Center in Cottage Grove said the ordinances makes him and other retailers the fertilizer police because they are required to find out where people live, how they plan to use the fertilizer or make them show test results to prove they need it. “Our competitors across the county line don’t have this burden or restriction,” said Knapton adding that he is also unable to display legal products in his store.
According to Amy Winters, President of Capitol Strategies, LLC a government relations firm representing the chemical and specialty fertilizer industry, “state and federal laws prohibit local regulation of weed and feed products in order to avoid confusing, conflicting and unnecessary rules for those who manufacture, sell and use those products. The burden that these ordinances place on local retailers, lawn care providers and homeowners is unacceptable.”
In addition to violating state and federal laws, the group also asserts that the ordinances ignore science. “Fertilized turf is actually better at stopping phosphorus runoff than grass without fertilizer,” Winters said referring to Research at the UW Turfgrass Research Center that shows healthy, dense grass fertilized with phosphorus limits runoff to almost nothing. “The issue is about sound policy and utilizing sound science to achieve it; the Madison and Dane County ordinances do neither and add further insult by blatantly violating state and federal laws.”
For more information contact
Amy Winters, President
Capitol Strategies, LLC
(608) 235-8443
Madison and Dane County Phosphorus Bans Spur Lawsuit
Group says bans ignore science and the law
Madison….Local retailers and trade associations filed a lawsuit in federal court yesterday against the City of Madison and Dane County seeking to overturn ordinances passed earlier this year that ban the display, sale or use of most lawn fertilizers containing phosphorus.
The group representing local hardware stores and lawn care businesses, farm supply retailers, and the specialty fertilizer industry said the bans, which are scheduled to take effect next month, put area retailers at an unfair disadvantage, are illegal and will do little to clean up area lakes.
Ann Smith, an attorney with Michael Best and Friedrich LLP, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the group, said that the ordinances are preempted by state and federal laws, and violate several provisions of the State and U.S. Constitutions, including the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment free speech guarantee. “These ordinances deliberately ignore constitutional law and state and federal law,” said Smith. “We are confident the Court will agree.”
Ed Knapton, owner of America’s Best Flowers Garden Center in Cottage Grove said the ordinances makes him and other retailers the fertilizer police because they are required to find out where people live, how they plan to use the fertilizer or make them show test results to prove they need it. “Our competitors across the county line don’t have this burden or restriction,” said Knapton adding that he is also unable to display legal products in his store.
According to Amy Winters, President of Capitol Strategies, LLC a government relations firm representing the chemical and specialty fertilizer industry, “state and federal laws prohibit local regulation of weed and feed products in order to avoid confusing, conflicting and unnecessary rules for those who manufacture, sell and use those products. The burden that these ordinances place on local retailers, lawn care providers and homeowners is unacceptable.”
In addition to violating state and federal laws, the group also asserts that the ordinances ignore science. “Fertilized turf is actually better at stopping phosphorus runoff than grass without fertilizer,” Winters said referring to Research at the UW Turfgrass Research Center that shows healthy, dense grass fertilized with phosphorus limits runoff to almost nothing. “The issue is about sound policy and utilizing sound science to achieve it; the Madison and Dane County ordinances do neither and add further insult by blatantly violating state and federal laws.”
Below is a letter to the editor written on behalf of NCA by President Preston Wright in response to the wild horse supporters, who oppose sale authority given to the BLM in the 2005 Omnibus Bill.
Letter to the Editor:
Wild horses are in conflict with healthy rangelands, rather than with ranchers and their livestock. In this time when current range management theory dictates that public land ranchers need to have some grazing system, some method for rotating the areas his or her livestock use in order to provide periods of rest for the range, it is simply no longer acceptable that large herds of horses graze the same range all year, every year.
No one is proposing that all the wild horses be removed from the ranges; the sale of older horses is simply the most practical way to allow for the reduction of horse numbers to levels which approach a balance with the health of their ranges. The numbers of livestock are controlled by permits and seasons of use. Numbers of wildlife are controlled by hunting quotas and predators and migration. Wild horse numbers are set by the Wild Horse and Burro Act and the regulations which implement it. Wild horse numbers are uncontrolled when the BLM’s hands, as they are now, are tied by legal appeals and budgetary limits; wild horse numbers are controlled in that case only by drought and starvation, and that method is particularly cruel to both the ravaged country and the ravenous creature.
That ranchers have complained about unrestricted wild horse for decades is undeniable. That the BLM has been granted the authority to sell older horses outright, after nearly forty years of the Wild Horse and Burro Act, is a testament to the fact that many proponents of wild horses have seen the reality of excess wild horses and have quietly stepped aside. It’s not that the ranchers have finally won. It simply that the same range science which has greatly restricted the way livestock are grazed in the West has finally come to face the reality of uncontrolled grazing by the people’s horses in Nevada.
In the unending effort to balance natural resource access and management conflicts upon the West’s rangelands, nearly every group has been willing to come to the table and put their “money where their mouth is”. Ranchers, sportsmen, and environmental groups, all have accepted the need for, and have made, mitigating contributions. The wild horse advocates howling now have never done anything but ask for more, probably because it has all been free—they’ve not even had to stand the emotional price of seeing animals mummified alive due to starvation and drought.
Limited sale authority of excess wild horses will give the BLM the tool for which they have always expressed a need, in order to return the wild horse herds to levels which will allow for a balance between healthy native plant communities and forage and water in amounts proper for a horse.
Preston Wright, Deeth, NV.
Letter to the Editor:
Wild horses are in conflict with healthy rangelands, rather than with ranchers and their livestock. In this time when current range management theory dictates that public land ranchers need to have some grazing system, some method for rotating the areas his or her livestock use in order to provide periods of rest for the range, it is simply no longer acceptable that large herds of horses graze the same range all year, every year.
No one is proposing that all the wild horses be removed from the ranges; the sale of older horses is simply the most practical way to allow for the reduction of horse numbers to levels which approach a balance with the health of their ranges. The numbers of livestock are controlled by permits and seasons of use. Numbers of wildlife are controlled by hunting quotas and predators and migration. Wild horse numbers are set by the Wild Horse and Burro Act and the regulations which implement it. Wild horse numbers are uncontrolled when the BLM’s hands, as they are now, are tied by legal appeals and budgetary limits; wild horse numbers are controlled in that case only by drought and starvation, and that method is particularly cruel to both the ravaged country and the ravenous creature.
That ranchers have complained about unrestricted wild horse for decades is undeniable. That the BLM has been granted the authority to sell older horses outright, after nearly forty years of the Wild Horse and Burro Act, is a testament to the fact that many proponents of wild horses have seen the reality of excess wild horses and have quietly stepped aside. It’s not that the ranchers have finally won. It simply that the same range science which has greatly restricted the way livestock are grazed in the West has finally come to face the reality of uncontrolled grazing by the people’s horses in Nevada.
In the unending effort to balance natural resource access and management conflicts upon the West’s rangelands, nearly every group has been willing to come to the table and put their “money where their mouth is”. Ranchers, sportsmen, and environmental groups, all have accepted the need for, and have made, mitigating contributions. The wild horse advocates howling now have never done anything but ask for more, probably because it has all been free—they’ve not even had to stand the emotional price of seeing animals mummified alive due to starvation and drought.
Limited sale authority of excess wild horses will give the BLM the tool for which they have always expressed a need, in order to return the wild horse herds to levels which will allow for a balance between healthy native plant communities and forage and water in amounts proper for a horse.
Preston Wright, Deeth, NV.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Hi Trent,
I think people need to read their Bibles like they were meant to be read. Literally, completely and in context.
Romans 14:20, is not the profound eco-ecumenical doctrine. If these people would read the entire portion of Paul's letter to the, then, new church in Rome, they would realize that Paul was teaching the Jewish converts not to condemn the gentile converts for not following the Mosaic law (circumcision, kosher meat, worshipping on Saturday), and teaching the gentile converts not to condemn the Jewish converts for not eating unclean meat, etc.etc. (Romans 14:17,20)
The point Paul was trying to express was that God loved them so much, (not that any of us have ever deserved it), He, in our form, became the only acceptable restitution for our disobedience. He taught that we should reciprocate God's compassion to all of mankind instead of bickering over petty details. Go figure...
My advice to these people is to get right with Jehovah and stop taking scripture out of context to promote ignorant, selfish agendas. I resent people misrepresenting my faith, as much we resent vego-yuppies slandering our agricultural livelihood.
They would do good to pay special attention to 14:4, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth..."
Now, in my brief existence, I have only met two people that disrespect and neglect the land and critters. Two out of hundreds. It's a dirty shame that people like those two give us such a bad wrap. I hope they get it together, because there is so much good they could accomplish.
As for me, I'm just gonna take care of what God has given me, and do what He says.
("Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." Romans 12:17,18)
I don't want to sound too sanctimonious, because I'm just as human as anybody else. I just know that God loved me enough to die for me, and while I'm not in any way perfect, He unquestionably is.
Thanks Trent, for representing us earthy folks accurately.
Sincerely,
Jared Lloyd
Livestock Producer
Molina, Colorado
I think people need to read their Bibles like they were meant to be read. Literally, completely and in context.
Romans 14:20, is not the profound eco-ecumenical doctrine. If these people would read the entire portion of Paul's letter to the, then, new church in Rome, they would realize that Paul was teaching the Jewish converts not to condemn the gentile converts for not following the Mosaic law (circumcision, kosher meat, worshipping on Saturday), and teaching the gentile converts not to condemn the Jewish converts for not eating unclean meat, etc.etc. (Romans 14:17,20)
The point Paul was trying to express was that God loved them so much, (not that any of us have ever deserved it), He, in our form, became the only acceptable restitution for our disobedience. He taught that we should reciprocate God's compassion to all of mankind instead of bickering over petty details. Go figure...
My advice to these people is to get right with Jehovah and stop taking scripture out of context to promote ignorant, selfish agendas. I resent people misrepresenting my faith, as much we resent vego-yuppies slandering our agricultural livelihood.
They would do good to pay special attention to 14:4, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth..."
Now, in my brief existence, I have only met two people that disrespect and neglect the land and critters. Two out of hundreds. It's a dirty shame that people like those two give us such a bad wrap. I hope they get it together, because there is so much good they could accomplish.
As for me, I'm just gonna take care of what God has given me, and do what He says.
("Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." Romans 12:17,18)
I don't want to sound too sanctimonious, because I'm just as human as anybody else. I just know that God loved me enough to die for me, and while I'm not in any way perfect, He unquestionably is.
Thanks Trent, for representing us earthy folks accurately.
Sincerely,
Jared Lloyd
Livestock Producer
Molina, Colorado
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
As we charge into 2015, there will be nothing more important than stopping the self-destruction from within. The fox is in the hen house and...
