In Fox River Grove Middle School last week, Dave Warwak, 44, was kicked out of class because he was teaching students about his vegan lifestyle. The dispute between Warwak and school officials stemmed from concerns Warwak had with lunchroom posters promoting the health benefits of drinking milk.

Warwak, an art teacher in the northwestern Illinois suburan school, said he distributed copies of the book "The Food Revolution," which promotes the health benefits of veganism, to several eighth-graders and provided excerpts to school officials.

In reaction to the dismissal of Warwak, animal rights groups have come to the defense of Warwak. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has sent school principal Tim Mahaffy a letter Friday criticizing the decision to dismiss Warwak.

"In this case, the school was pushing commercial milk advertising on kids," said Bruce Friedrich, a vice president of outreach efforts for PETA. "The school was stamping its vote of support on a product that promotes cruelty to animals and harms children."

In the letter, Friedrich offers the school district care packages that include a vegetarian starter kit, a book on veganism and a DVD expose on factory farming.

Here are news articles involving this situation:

Vegan teacher dismissed by Fox River Grove school

Vegan teacher finding lots of support

Here’s what I have to say:
Game on. The media sluts have once again found a way to make front page headlines. The real question here is whether we - as milk, meat and egg producers - are going to reach out to the school or sit back and say, there PETA goes again. A wave of opportunity has just come a shore.

A few good men

I don’t say this to pander to anyone. My favorite part of the United States is Western North Dakota, in particular the Badlands in and around Medora. Medora, most likely the best kept secret in the nation, has a population of about 100 people year-round, although for three months during the summer the tourists fill it until it’s bursting at the seams with people walking the streets of the Cowboy town. This is a town that relives the day of Theodore Roosevelt as a rancher. Theodore Roosevelt moved to the Medora in 1893 and took up ranching. A successful rancher he was not but a life long lesson came to him that I feel our nation once again needs to revisit.

The North Dakota Cowboy Hall of Fame is truly setting an example of how we should capture and memorialize where our nation has been. At the heart of Medora, the Hall of Fame holds it’s annual induction ceremonies the first weekend in August. A weekend where people from around the country gather to pay tribute to individuals who have dedicated their lives to improving life on earth through their management of the resources we have been endowed to care for. It is no accident that Medora, in the middle of the Theodore Roosevelt National Park, is the location where all this all takes place.

Teddy Roosevelt, by many accounts, is considered the nation’s first conservationist. Let me reiterate. I said conservationist, not preservationist. There is a huge difference between the two and Roosevelt learned to appreciate the wildlife, the wilderness and the other wonders of nature. In 1901, when then Vice-President Roosevelt took over for William McKinley, who was assassinated, Roosevelt made conservation a central policy issue of his administration. He created five National Parks, four Big Game Refuges, fifty-one National Bird Reservations and the National Forest Service.

I believe what made Roosevelt truly remarkable was that he was an advocate for the sustainable use of the nation's natural resources, the protection and management of wild game, and the preservation of wild spaces. In a speech addressed to a national conference on conservation held at the White House in 1908, Roosevelt stated, "Our position in the world has been attained by the extent and thoroughness of the control we have achieved over nature; but we are more, and not less, dependent upon what she furnishes than at any previous time of history. It is equally clear that these resources are the final basis for national power and perpetuity."

Roosevelt enacted land policies that I am sure some who believe ranchers should not be grazing federal lands today would be appalled at. I completely disagree with them. He did not believe private interest should use federal land without compensation but he certainly did believe in managing and utilizing the natural resources God provided us. What I believe is most relevant in today’s world was this statement by Roosevelt: "The establishment of the National Park Service is justified by considerations of good administration, of the value of natural beauty as a National asset, and of the effectiveness of outdoor life and recreation in the production of good citizenship." Commonly, Roosevelt expressed his concern over an urbanizing nation. He feared that the increasingly urban population, removed from nature, would lose the qualities that led to good citizenship.

At the top of the Roosevelt’s list for good citizenship was manliness. Today, the same individuals who talk about “preserving” our nation’s resources would fall the farthest from Roosevelt’s ideal view of manliness.

Daniel Filler1 wrote an essay called:
Theodore Roosevelt; Conservation as the Guardian of Democracy

For Roosevelt, hunting and wilderness recreation best taught man these values. He feared that urbanization was leading to the emasculation of the American male; and Roosevelt considered this threat to masculinity a threat to American democracy. Roosevelt believed that American democracy was sustained by self-reliant men willing to work hard to support themselves, their families, and American industry, upon which democracy rested. Emasculated, men would lose their willingness and ability to work hard to support themselves, their families, or American industry; their commitment to their communities and the nation would be overwhelmed by idleness. Without wilderness and a large stock of game animals upon which men could hunt, to which men from the cities could retreat, the nation would lose the site of its masculinity.

I think this is also the best summary of why I consider Medora my absolute favorite region within our great nation. I still find the values of Roosevelt in the men and women of North Dakota who understand nature and what is has to offer us as human beings. Everyone should experience the beauty, majesty and tradition of Medora, even if it is only for a weekend and one melt-in-your-mouth pitchfork fondue!



1Daniel M. Filler, Senior Associate Dean for Academic and Faculty Affairs and Professor of Law at Drexel University, College of Law Daniel.M.Filler@drexel.edu 215.571.4705

What’s in store for the Land Grant Universities?
by Wayne Vanderwert

Every so often I need to get on my soapbox, this is one of those occasions. What’s happening at your and my alma mater is a subject that we in the cattle business should start to think about.

First, I’ll establish the fact that I spent a fair number of years at three different land grant universities pursuing a bachelor’s, master’s and a doctorate in Animal Science. I also spent over five years in ag extension work; I’m not exactly an uninformed bystander.

Second, I have a lot of friends at land grant schools. People that I respect for their knowledge of livestock production, nutrition, breeding, physiology and meat science. These people have tremendous knowledge and the ability to convey that information to producers. This is not meant to be critical of them; in fact many of them share my concerns. They fight regularly to stay alive in a system that seems to appreciate their contribution less and less. They are the ones whose names you and I recognize and associate with our university. Their ranks are thinning.

The so-called “Land Grant” colleges were established by the Morrill Act of 1862, which gave each state 30,000 acres of land per member of the state’s delegation in Congress. The states in turn sold this land to establish a college focused on agriculture, engineering and military science--the priorities of the day.

What resulted for U.S. agriculture was research, training for young minds and dissemination of new information to agricultural producers in a system that was the envy of the rest of the world. In turn, it created a highly efficient agricultural production structure that was also admired worldwide. Not surprising that many countries send their brightest minds to study here in graduate programs.

But, the land grant system appears to be broken in some states; at the very least the system doesn’t relate to producers as well as it did in the past. There is even talk of doing away with the colleges of agriculture in some major agricultural states.

I can cite many examples where Animal Science departments and staff have lost contact with their state’s producer organizations, pass up recruitment opportunities at youth livestock events, even fail to show up at a state breed sale that is a few hundred feet from their office.

A former college teacher of mine, who is retiring this fall, pointed out that as an incoming freshman, he knew a majority of the Animal Science faculty members through his involvement in 4-H and FFA. Today, I suspect many livestock producers wouldn’t recognize the head of the department, by name or face, and have little contact with staff members.

A portion of the problem is that the system is a victim of its own success. It has fulfilled the government’s cheap food policy desires. As long as we enjoy ample supplies of high quality, safe food in this country, government funding for agriculture research will not be a priority. This has forced universities to be in the “research business”, to seek research money from other sources. That in turn has compromised the land grant’s mission of unbiased research and information. It also has eliminated much of the good applied research that needs to be done.

Additionally, part of the problem is self-inflicted. A misguided tenure system placed teaching and extension well below research several years ago. Ability to bring in research dollars became the focus for advancement. I imagine that counting published research papers is much simpler and less subjective than evaluating a good job of undergraduate teaching or extension outreach education. This has forced the teachers to be good researchers; the extension staff to be good researchers and the system awards good researchers with the administrative jobs (department heads and deans) as promotions. Any surprise that we have spiraled downward to departments overloaded with narrowly focused researchers who can’t relate to producers?

I’ve done a little soul searching in writing this editorial. I’ve challenged myself with the question, “Am I getting old-fashioned?” I don’t think so, I’m not against cutting-edge research, but I think that there is still an opportunity and need to balance research with teaching and extension. In the past extension filled an unofficial role of public relations. Producers were quick to pick up the flag and support their university. Could the recent trend contribute to university’s problems when state legislatures struggle with funding?

Another issue we need to wrestle with is one of trying to preserve the past versus prepare for the future. In agriculture we’re guilty of this every once in awhile. As the pork and poultry industries consolidated and integrated, the role of the land grant university in providing information to these industries has diminished. It is not a cause and effect issue. Consolidation is driven by the desire to gain business efficiencies and by consumer demand for consistency. Hoping to keep the beef industry from consolidating by preserving the old land grant system is an empty dream.

The solution may be in consolidation of the land grant system itself. Rural public schools and clustered county extension programs provide the model. Does every state need a specialist in every discipline? Does every institution need to fund, equip and update expensive labs to conduct basic research?

From almost every angle that we examine the situation, we in the cattle business are going to increasingly feel the impact of all of this in the coming years. As an example, Cornell University has no intention of replacing the two scientists nearing retirement, who have played a major role in the genetic evaluation system we enjoy in the seedstock business. That will reduce to two, the schools working on national cattle evaluation; a few years ago there were four universities in the so-called Genetic Consortium. Where we get the good information we’ll need to compete in the future is something to think about.

Wayne Vanderwert is Executive Director of the American Gelbvieh Association. More information on the website www.gelbvieh.org

A letter to the editor printed in the Daily Chronicle

Consumers should be criticized, not Cavel | 133 comment(s)

CHARLIE LARSON

Editor:

As a person who has been around horses much of my life (e.g., as a rider and owner, behind farm implements, during “putting down” and burials), I have been following with increasing incredulity the debate about the slaughter of horses at the Cavel International plant in DeKalb.

Let's approach the issues rationally. Here are two basic premises central to the debate on which both sides can agree:

Premise 1: All of these horses will die at some time.

Premise 2: All of them will be consumed in some way (e.g., by humans, animals, maggots or flames).

Now what is the cruelest way for these horses to die (aside from hanging, drowning, torturing, etc., as with fighting dogs)? Probably it is from the various vicissitudes of old age or from intentional starvation. The government regulates the means of killing animals at various kinds of slaughterhouses, and apparently it is quick and about as painless as a veterinary euthanasia. So the ultimate issue seems to be who or what will consume the remains. Unless the horse owners submit their animals to taxidermy, the remains will be eaten by pets (if the carcasses are sent to a rendering plant), eaten by humans (if Cavel sells them), eaten by maggots (if the carcasses are buried) or consumed by flames (if the horses are cremated).

The first two options seem the most resource- and energy-efficient, especially considering the employment generated by these options and the cost and energy entailed in burial or cremation.

So, isn't the bottom line a question of who or what consumes the remains? And if one objects to human consumption, shouldn't that be brought up with the consumers (Japan, Belgium, etc.), not with the processors? It seems to me that society would be best served by working on the dog-fighting issue.

CHARLIE LARSON

Sycamore, IL

Such a waste

As a young 4-Her, I remember lamenting, with my brother and sister, the untimely death of our best club lamb. We had vaccinated for all the relevant sheep diseases, as suggested by our veterinarian, but the lamb was still dead and for no good or apparent reason. An elderly neighbor pointed out the only solution to raising animals and never having to deal with a dead one. It was quite simplistic actually – don’t raise animals. That is the only way you can be guaranteed never to lose one. As much as I hate dead ones, I can’t imagine a spring without baby calves frolicking across the pasture or the gangly legs of a newborn colt trying to stand to nurse.

Our girls have already had a good dose of having to deal with and learn about the cycle of life. But the cycle of life doesn’t always make a complete circle, if you know what I mean. Some animals just go before they really should and all we can do is learn about ways we might have prevented the death, understand possible causes and try not to let it sober us to the many positive things going on in our operations. But that doesn’t always take away the pain of a loss, even for those of us who deal with it on a regular basis. For the city folks who might have to face putting the family pet to sleep, we may seem a little hard hearted. It’s not that we aren’t upset about the deaths that occur, it’s just that we know it is inevitable.

We have encountered several losses during the severe winter cold and into the wet spring that we felt were simply just the waste of a potentially great animal. Like the perfect little filly we rescued from the chilling rain and wind. We warmed her in the bathtub for half a day, reunited her with her mother and two days later they were outside enjoying the sunshine. She was retrieved from the mud around the hay ring by our oldest daughter only to suffer a fatal kick to the head from a jealous mare in the pen. What kind of justice is that?

Or perhaps I should mention the first-calf heifer that prolapsed giving birth. The girls fell asleep in the pickup as the veterinarian, two fellow ranchers and I spent half of the night putting her back together. We spent several hours searching for the calf we knew she had given birth to but were unable to find until the sun came up the following day. It was then too that we discovered that our surgery was too little, too late. So now we have a bottle calf to feed twice a day.

We haven’t even considered the baby goats that were born in sub-zero temperatures this February. Even though they were in the barn, if there were more than one born to a nanny she couldn’t get them cleaned off and warmed up in time to keep them alive. So we carted them to the house, warmed them up, tried to pair them back up with nannies that could feed multiples. We still ended up with two bottle goats to feed and a few dead ones piled by the door of the barn until we could haul them off.

So, as farmers and ranchers, we do accept that death is a part of our business but that doesn’t make it a pleasant experience. In general, farmers and ranchers are a conservative lot. We don’t like to waste much of anything so these unwarranted deaths are a little harder for us to deal with. If an animal is harvested and goes on to provide food and by-products for humans or pets, it is a more reasonable and logical conclusion to their life. But when they die and have to be trucked off to nearest rendering plant, it is simply just a waste.

In that same vein, we have a problem with the notion that animals should be wasted rather than have a purposeful end to their life. Whether you are wasting an animal that could provide nutrients for another living being or you are wasting the resources necessary to keep this animal alive, either way you are harboring something that could be put to a better use. And what happens when we save all of the unwanted horses? Who will feed them? Taxpayers will not want to foot the bill for long and the activists against horse slaughter have saved all the horses their refuges can hold. Where will feed come from for these horses? Hay prices are at near record highs and pasture is in short supply due to the drought. And finally, when these horses do die a “natural death”, what will we do with all of the carcasses? Renderers are reluctant to accept them. Will landfills in New York City let us pile them there? Perhaps the Hollywood starlets who campaign to stop the harvest of horses will allow us to bury them on their rambling estates. Or not? Have they smelled many dead piles in the heat of the summer sun?

Death is death. If you don’t want to deal with it, get out of the business but by the same token it is not for someone else to demand that we make better use of our nation’s natural resources and then dictate policy that forces us to waste both feed and the potential products that could be generated by harvesting undesirable horses in this country. The double-edged sword is being used against us and it is just now slashing through the curtain that shields the world of agriculture. If we let it sweep forward, our entire industry is in jeopardy. And that would truly be a waste!

Animal Husbandry from Uncle Sam

I spent the past weekend in Big Sky, MT at the Young Agricultural Leadership Conference. Once again I felt the tremendous energy present when I am fortunate enough to accompany any group of young agriculturists. That energy is what fuels my desire to continue traveling the country. Many issues were addressed and potential solutions generated. However, I feel there is one that needs more attention in order to keep the momentum rolling in the right direction and that is the “eradication of Brucellosis” in Yellowstone Park.

Information was presented suggesting that the presence of Brucellosis in wildlife is not a problem but there is a chronic disease problem in the bison herd. Widely recognized by many as a true success story, the once nearly extinct bison are now plentiful and the largest herd of free roaming bison does indeed reside in Yellowstone Park. With that said, positive news recently came from Wyoming as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service amended the state’s Brucellosis designation to Class Free from Class A. The Class Free status is based on a state finding not Brucellosis in cattle for one full year.

As hard as it might be to believe there are individuals among us that believe the bison would be best off if man didn’t attempt to interfere. This misguided thought needs to be eradicated as well. Every American citizen stands to benefit if the great bison herd of the Yellowstone were free of this population crippling disease. Mary A. Bomar, President Bush's nominee to head the National Park Service, recently said "Systematic vaccination of elk and bison will, over the long term, reduce disease prevalence in elk and bison populations, especially if vaccine technology and methods for remote vaccine delivery to free-ranging wildlife are improved." I agree completely but would add that sooner is better than later.

Obviously cattlemen adjacent to Yellowstone stand to benefit from the complete eradication of Brucellosis but I think the urgency should be felt by every family that enjoys visiting Yellowstone Park as a vacation destination. The healthier the bison population is, the more animals there are to view and enjoy. It is reported there are more and more bison interacting with park goers on the roads. In fact Al Nash, Yellowstone's director of public affairs was quoted as saying "There are the occasional parents out there who want to photograph their child with or on a bison.” I’m fairly sure those parents aren’t aware of the fact that there have been cases of Brucellosis transmission from animals to humans.

My recent trip to Big Sky country confirmed that most people enjoy traveling with their family dog. Dogs are also susceptible to Brucellosis and it would not be difficult to for Rover to come in contact with bison mucus. Since more and more Americans treat Rover like a kid, it would be easy for the disease to be transferred from canine to human. Is all of this likely? Probably not but it is more likely than some park visitor getting mad cow disease from consuming beef and look at all the new regulations beef producers are footing the bill for thanks to unscientific scare tactics leveled against the industry.

I am no way, shape or form attempting to create unnecessary fear for park vacationers but I am trying to emphasize that everyone has a vested interest in accelerating the eradication of Brucellosis in the herds of livestock owned by the U.S. Government. Every reputable livestock owner in the country would implement any reasonable measure possible to improve the health of his or her own herd. Should Uncle Sam be any different?

With all that said, I find this New York Times article to be an even greater threat to the future of American agriculture:

Ethanol is feeding hot market for farmland

While much of the nation worries about a slumping real estate market, people in Midwestern farm country are experiencing exactly the opposite. Take, for instance, the farm here - nearly 80 acres of corn and soybeans off a gravel road in a universe of corn and soybeans - that sold for $10,000 an acre at auction this spring, a price that astonished even the auctioneer.

In central Illinois, prime farmland is selling for about $5,000 an acre on average, up from just over $3,000 an acre five years ago, a study showed. In Nebraska, meanwhile, land values rose 17% in the first quarter of this year over the same time last year, the swiftest such gain in more than a quarter century, said Jason R. Henderson, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think that the number of young people engaged in farming is the challenge. While this article lays the blame on hands of ethanol mandates, I see the problem much bigger and more complex. Investors were seeking farmland ownership long before the ethanol rage, causing land values to increase beyond what farming could return. Here is one such example from my home state of Nebraska.

Turner's land holdings keep increasing
The 100-year tenure of the McMurtrey Family at a pioneer ranch in Cherry County ended June 26 with a public referee auction at Valentine.

The real issue is the mindset of our young people believing there is no opportunity for them. I stated on Rural Route this week that the opportunities are greater than ever for young people who WANT to farm. The average age of the U.S. farmer, combined with their kids leaving the farm, creates the opportunity for sweat equity positions and purchase after a number of years working in the said operation.

I have not asked for permission to reprint so I will withhold the author's name, but here is one response I received as a result of that comment. I strongly disagree with his sentiments. What is your opinion?

Once again Trent has completely missed the mark. I have heard him espouse this before. He thinks there are legions of aging farmers who are looking for a young person to take over their farm. The fact is 99% of these farmers are only interested in selling their farm to the highest bidder and even if they want someone in particular to take over their place, it is at full market value plus a little more if they can get it.The only real issue they have is how to beat the IRS out of the tax bill. If they could figure this out, they would quit in droves. I am sure every older farmer you approach would be happy to hear that you are willing to take over the labor aspects of their farm, but when you get to the part that we then are going to split up the profits and you are going to let me buy you out at a reasonable price and reasonable terms, the deal is off. Greed is rampant is every aspect of our society and farmers are no different.

As to the question of who will take these operations over. We have seen in the past that existing operators just get larger and I believe this trend will continue and accelerate.

Trent needs to take off the rose-colored glasses.

Trent
I have to wonder who wrote that letter to you about the greed of farmers...was it Kyle? :)
Anyway, I wrote Kyle on Monday about this when I heard it on RR...While I'd like to think that young men and women who say they want to farm are willing to put in the sweat and debt to get there, I am now wondering if they will do just about anything to farm, like they claim. Or are they donning rose colored glasses thinking of farming as a romantic lifestlyle. This lasts until they see how much debt they have to go into, how much sweat they have to produce for a pittance. AND if they have to relocate, are their spouses willing to follow them?

From inside the factory, farming looks grand as they watch the local crop farmer meet his buddies at the coffee shop every other morning or drive around in brand new pick up trucks, or head to the local tractor show with his newly restored John Deere B. Or when they see how much equipment they own without seeing the payment book. Or when they look at the century old farmhouse all decorated up with a spouse inside cooking a hearty meal with a smile on her face. No, they don't see what's behind the pastoral scene: the sleepless nights, the broken fingers, the dead animals, the broken tractors, the overdue notes and the aged face that is 20 years older than it should be.


As I look at what I just wrote, I wonder to myself why every morning and every night I head out to a hot barn full of hot cows to sweat like construction worker for not enough money to pay my bills at the end of the month. Why do I do it? I think it's simply what's in you...just like Hank Vogler says, that wonderful mutant gene that we have and can't amputate. It's in your blood that no blood transfusion can take care of. Part of it is that you just have it or you don't....the other part is the support you receive from you parents and peers and then consequently from your spouse.


The sky is the limit for a man with a good mom, OR wife behind him...supporting him, respecting him and loving him.

Melissa Hart
North Adams, MI

Trent,
I just figured out how to keep Loos Tales from being blocked by our server......
Whomever it was that said you were off the mark, is in a sad state of mind. Pessimistic and a "glass that's 1/2 empty" mentality.. As someone that has been experiencing just such an opportunity (sweat equity) for well over a decade, they couldn't be further from the truth.
I and now my family are very fortunate in our partnership. As you know, we are in an area marked for development. But, we have an aging partner (81 years) that wants this farm to remain as such, just because she cherishes the rural/farm lifestyle. She turns away Realtors every couple weeks. Her property has an extremely high value, but she is from a different time period, and not greedy.
We are very lucky to have an opportunity to work our way into an "Agricultural Nestegg" while beginning from zilch, zero, nothing. All because this kind lady saw something in us she liked and knew she could count on. Integrity, character, diligence, work ethic, caretaking, compassion, kindness, stewardship, love and parenting are terms in which we inherently believe.
I am sorry that people like this miss the trees while viewing the forest......
Keep up the good work,

Chuck Miller
Columbia, MO

Trent,
I read Loos Lipps this a.m. and seen what the comment by a listener about "old guys dont care and want $ and no taxes". I assume he was a younger guy like myself. I do see his point though. Recently a dairy sold here for 15k+/ac to a "berry farm"(and ..other "cash" crops). The dairyman spent the last 6 years grooming his son-in-law to take over. Then when the boy went into the banker to start the process of purchase the banker said "...the farm sold last month were you been?". My cousin (the son-in-law) was devastated. Years of 60hr weeks and 40hr pay wasted. Hours of picking the right genetic now all slaughterd on the buy out. Now this is rare that the old fellow was sucha s.o.b. but it is his farm he built from nothing 30 years ago. He told me that he could nevr pencil the kid makig payments to him b/c of his debt load and retireing like he wanted. Your reader is right about 20% of the time I would think. The older generation worked harder and dirtier than my generation and wants the rewards for their dilligence. Who does not want full price? Few farmers would rather have big money than a strong legacy. Now if the family I wrote of would of started a buyout plan 6 years ago they all probly could of got what they wanted. $ to retire and a lift to get started. The # one reason we see dairies fail in familis around here if flat out lack of famiy communcation and planning. I know most farmers would rather see their next of kin farm but I think most think "why do I want them to go though this crap?". Most of us would rather see hay/corn fields than houses on our property's horizons.

See You
Troy Lenssen
Wa.

This is my response to the comment recently received by Trent Loos on the future of youth in agriculture:

I’m a cattle rancher studying Animal Sciences/Ag Communications at South Dakota State University. Although my parents farm isn’t large enough for me to return to, I hope to one day be able to have a farm of my own. There is simply no better way to raise a family, and providing food and fiber for the world is one of the most rewarding careers any kid could ever dream of doing.

Unfortunately, getting into farming and ranching is a greater challenge than ever before as small farms are sucked up by corporate operations making it seemingly impossible to get started in the business. Land prices have outrageously skyrocketed, operating costs have accelerated, and there are careers outside of this industry with greater earning power.

As a young person, I realize the challenges of getting into the agriculture industry; however, this is my passion. It is quite disheartening to hear from another farmer that greed outweighs the desire to help young people continue the American farming tradition. Trent Loos doesn’t need to use rose-colored glasses to recognize that there are young people out there with the desire to own a farm and there are aging farmers with the heart to create opportunities for us.

Regardless of the challenges facing young people with an interest in agriculture, we are the future of food security and we will take a role in its success. God Bless any veteran farmer willing to help.

Amanda Nolz
Mitchell, SD