Wild Loos Chase
Subscribe To Loos Tales Daily information
Posts
All Comments
Friday, October 15, 2004
Today's agriculture in yesterday's rural U.S.
By Jeff Caldwell written for the High Plains Journal
Crop and livestock has long been a staple in the lore of the rural U.S., especially in the Midwest and High Plains.
But, times have changed, and so have the means of crop and livestock producers for getting their job done: Putting food on the plates of millions of Americans. At the same time, many urbanites remain steeped in the action of escaping the city in favor of finding a quieter existence in the countryside. Nothing in a city, however, can prepare urban sprawlers for some of the byproducts of today's food production.
Today's large tractors and field equipment are capable of kicking up a cloud of dust in the field. Today's livestock operations, whether open-air or enclosed, are capable of emitting an odor, and with just the right wind gust, that odor can carry itself directly into the path of your nostrils.
And now, long gone, it seems, are the days of passive acceptance of this dust and odor. In last week's Journal, you read a story about a family hog operation that has been targeted by activist groups because of its size and the alleged negative effects it has on the environment. Regardless to what extent the owners and operators of this farm go to meet and exceed the requirements set forth by law protecting air and groundwater, they still come under fire for the way they operate, even as the food they produce does not come close to meeting the needs of the American consumer.
There's a small sign along I-70, between Manhattan and Topeka, Kan., sponsored by the Kansas Agri-Women and Kansas Farm Bureau, stating that every U.S. farmer produces enough food for 128 consumers. Even in the last decade, the number of those fed by each farmer has climbed. Every time I drive by this sign (this time of year to watch the sometimes frustrating K-State Wildcats football team), I'm reminded of the importance of our industry.
Yet, to many, a disconnect exists today, one that prompts stern speech and action against the very men and women who work each day to produce our nation's food and fiber.
We no longer live in a world where we can subsist without large-scale crop and livestock operations. With fewer producers, skyrocketing urban populations and the corresponding demand for food this continues to create, it is no longer possible for the few remaining farmers and ranchers in this country to provide food for everyone's table by producing at the level of their parents and grandparents. As a result, large operations have become a necessity. The more people who move to areas where subsistence comes from the shelves of a grocery store, the fewer there are producing that subsistence. How else can they make a living themselves without shortening margins and producing on a larger scale in concert with their natural environment?
The next time you see a newspaper ad or hear a radio spot from an environmental group purporting to be in favor of "family farms" and against "corporate farms," think first about the demographic changes that have forced large livestock operations and farms into being. Our society's growth has forced farmers and ranchers to produce more efficiently. In most cases, the primary way to accomplish this efficiency is growth. It's a business decision. Perhaps if more Americans, like a century ago, lived on the farm and raised a handful of hogs and chickens each themselves, we could subsist without large operations. But, as the growing housing subdivisions on the edges of every city across the Midwest and High Plains indicate, farmers and ranchers already have their hands full.
And, the next time you happen to drive by a large feedlot, hog farm or packing plant, don't curse the odor. Instead, thank your lucky stars the men and women who keep those operations open are making it possible for you to have that paunch above your belt.
Jeff Caldwell can be reached by phone at 515-280-5405, or by e-mail at jcaldwell@mchsi.com.Date: 10/5/04
By Jeff Caldwell written for the High Plains Journal
Crop and livestock has long been a staple in the lore of the rural U.S., especially in the Midwest and High Plains.
But, times have changed, and so have the means of crop and livestock producers for getting their job done: Putting food on the plates of millions of Americans. At the same time, many urbanites remain steeped in the action of escaping the city in favor of finding a quieter existence in the countryside. Nothing in a city, however, can prepare urban sprawlers for some of the byproducts of today's food production.
Today's large tractors and field equipment are capable of kicking up a cloud of dust in the field. Today's livestock operations, whether open-air or enclosed, are capable of emitting an odor, and with just the right wind gust, that odor can carry itself directly into the path of your nostrils.
And now, long gone, it seems, are the days of passive acceptance of this dust and odor. In last week's Journal, you read a story about a family hog operation that has been targeted by activist groups because of its size and the alleged negative effects it has on the environment. Regardless to what extent the owners and operators of this farm go to meet and exceed the requirements set forth by law protecting air and groundwater, they still come under fire for the way they operate, even as the food they produce does not come close to meeting the needs of the American consumer.
There's a small sign along I-70, between Manhattan and Topeka, Kan., sponsored by the Kansas Agri-Women and Kansas Farm Bureau, stating that every U.S. farmer produces enough food for 128 consumers. Even in the last decade, the number of those fed by each farmer has climbed. Every time I drive by this sign (this time of year to watch the sometimes frustrating K-State Wildcats football team), I'm reminded of the importance of our industry.
Yet, to many, a disconnect exists today, one that prompts stern speech and action against the very men and women who work each day to produce our nation's food and fiber.
We no longer live in a world where we can subsist without large-scale crop and livestock operations. With fewer producers, skyrocketing urban populations and the corresponding demand for food this continues to create, it is no longer possible for the few remaining farmers and ranchers in this country to provide food for everyone's table by producing at the level of their parents and grandparents. As a result, large operations have become a necessity. The more people who move to areas where subsistence comes from the shelves of a grocery store, the fewer there are producing that subsistence. How else can they make a living themselves without shortening margins and producing on a larger scale in concert with their natural environment?
The next time you see a newspaper ad or hear a radio spot from an environmental group purporting to be in favor of "family farms" and against "corporate farms," think first about the demographic changes that have forced large livestock operations and farms into being. Our society's growth has forced farmers and ranchers to produce more efficiently. In most cases, the primary way to accomplish this efficiency is growth. It's a business decision. Perhaps if more Americans, like a century ago, lived on the farm and raised a handful of hogs and chickens each themselves, we could subsist without large operations. But, as the growing housing subdivisions on the edges of every city across the Midwest and High Plains indicate, farmers and ranchers already have their hands full.
And, the next time you happen to drive by a large feedlot, hog farm or packing plant, don't curse the odor. Instead, thank your lucky stars the men and women who keep those operations open are making it possible for you to have that paunch above your belt.
Jeff Caldwell can be reached by phone at 515-280-5405, or by e-mail at jcaldwell@mchsi.com.Date: 10/5/04
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Christian or not
Frequently I have been encountering the concept that no “Christian minded” person would be involved modern agriculture. Here, once again, Matthew Scully, in promoting his own book, is attempting to tie foi gras (of which consumption was just outlawed in California) to all other types of meat and egg production and suggest that they “are not, in God’s view, proper treatment of the animals.” This is one area where we had better all understand how to address it and start today.
What are you thoughts? Send to me trent@loostales.com
From Dallas News
Matthew Scully: Factory farm meat not on menu for Feast of St. Francis
In the week leading up to today's Feast of St. Francis, it fell to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to decide whether the sale and production of foie gras should be terminated in California on the grounds of cruelty to animals. At first, the governor called the proposal another "silly" example of a legislature with too much time on its hands. But then Wednesday he signed the bill into law, apparently finding that the cruelty questions are not so easily shrugged off.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, leader of the Catholic Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was asked recently to weigh in on these very questions. “Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible."
“Sometimes the most radical thing is to be confronted by one's own standards, and if the cardinal is correct here, then we've got some real problems. Across America and the world, millions of our companions in creation are locked away in industrial "mass-confinement" farms, never feeling soil or sunshine. If they ever see pasture land, it is only from trucks hauling them to industrial abattoirs that kill at a hellish pace of thousands per hour.”
“It was said of St. Francis that "he walked the earth like the pardon of God." What would this man make of our factory farms, and what Christian in his presence would dare defend them?”
Frequently I have been encountering the concept that no “Christian minded” person would be involved modern agriculture. Here, once again, Matthew Scully, in promoting his own book, is attempting to tie foi gras (of which consumption was just outlawed in California) to all other types of meat and egg production and suggest that they “are not, in God’s view, proper treatment of the animals.” This is one area where we had better all understand how to address it and start today.
What are you thoughts? Send to me trent@loostales.com
From Dallas News
Matthew Scully: Factory farm meat not on menu for Feast of St. Francis
In the week leading up to today's Feast of St. Francis, it fell to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to decide whether the sale and production of foie gras should be terminated in California on the grounds of cruelty to animals. At first, the governor called the proposal another "silly" example of a legislature with too much time on its hands. But then Wednesday he signed the bill into law, apparently finding that the cruelty questions are not so easily shrugged off.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, leader of the Catholic Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was asked recently to weigh in on these very questions. “Certainly, a sort of industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds, this degrading of living creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible."
“Sometimes the most radical thing is to be confronted by one's own standards, and if the cardinal is correct here, then we've got some real problems. Across America and the world, millions of our companions in creation are locked away in industrial "mass-confinement" farms, never feeling soil or sunshine. If they ever see pasture land, it is only from trucks hauling them to industrial abattoirs that kill at a hellish pace of thousands per hour.”
“It was said of St. Francis that "he walked the earth like the pardon of God." What would this man make of our factory farms, and what Christian in his presence would dare defend them?”
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Quoted from your last e-mail...
"By comparison, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is a $41 million nonprofit with 740,000 members, People forthe Ethical Treatment of Animals is a $24 million nonprofit with 800,000members, and the Fund for Animals is an $8 million-a-year nonprofit with200,000 members. Among HSUS adversaries, the $1.7 million U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and Foundation has 35,000 members."Altered Quote shoud read...
By comparison, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Humans is a $41 million nonprofit with 740,000 members, People forthe Ethical Treatment of Humans is a $24 million nonprofit with 800,000members, and the Fund for Humans is an $8 million-a-year nonprofit with 200,000 members. Among HSUS adversaries, the $1.7 million U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and Foundation has 35,000 members.
It occures to me that if we spent as much time providing this much attention to health and well being of each other, animals would benefit due to agreater understanding of symbiotic relationships.
The problem with that is...
1. People have greater needs and it takes much more money to take care of them cutting profits.
2. People can speak out against cruelty, animals just duck and run. It seems to me that the lack of attention to "humans in need" is in effect,cruelty to humans in the form of neglect.So let all of those 1,835,000 members each donate $5.50/year each to the Humanity cookie jar. That's over 10 million a year. $10,092,500 to be exact. My families grocery bill is $600/mo. Divided by $10,092,500 = 16820.83 months or 1,401 and 3/4 years.or$600 x 12 = $7200 x 1500 families of 4 (6000 people)= $10,800,000.It is my opinion that focusing on humanity instead of animals is the key to crime reduction and family dysfunction and reduced psychological illness in America.
The money saved from the monitoring and policing of those issueswould easily feed and house a few animals as well.
Robert W. Fasl
"By comparison, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is a $41 million nonprofit with 740,000 members, People forthe Ethical Treatment of Animals is a $24 million nonprofit with 800,000members, and the Fund for Animals is an $8 million-a-year nonprofit with200,000 members. Among HSUS adversaries, the $1.7 million U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and Foundation has 35,000 members."Altered Quote shoud read...
By comparison, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Humans is a $41 million nonprofit with 740,000 members, People forthe Ethical Treatment of Humans is a $24 million nonprofit with 800,000members, and the Fund for Humans is an $8 million-a-year nonprofit with 200,000 members. Among HSUS adversaries, the $1.7 million U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and Foundation has 35,000 members.
It occures to me that if we spent as much time providing this much attention to health and well being of each other, animals would benefit due to agreater understanding of symbiotic relationships.
The problem with that is...
1. People have greater needs and it takes much more money to take care of them cutting profits.
2. People can speak out against cruelty, animals just duck and run. It seems to me that the lack of attention to "humans in need" is in effect,cruelty to humans in the form of neglect.So let all of those 1,835,000 members each donate $5.50/year each to the Humanity cookie jar. That's over 10 million a year. $10,092,500 to be exact. My families grocery bill is $600/mo. Divided by $10,092,500 = 16820.83 months or 1,401 and 3/4 years.or$600 x 12 = $7200 x 1500 families of 4 (6000 people)= $10,800,000.It is my opinion that focusing on humanity instead of animals is the key to crime reduction and family dysfunction and reduced psychological illness in America.
The money saved from the monitoring and policing of those issueswould easily feed and house a few animals as well.
Robert W. Fasl
Friday, August 06, 2004
REMINDER
Your E-Mails are Needed Now
Amendments to New Jersey Humane Standards under Heavy Fire
Activists Campaign for Frivolous Lawsuits and Against Animal Well-Being
In 2003, New Jersey adopted humane standards for farm animals that were supported by the agriculture community. In early 2004, the New Jersey Department of Agriculture proposed amendments to further clarify the standards benefiting animals, farmers and consumers. These amendments, and the original legislation, have come under heavy fire from New York-based Farm Sanctuary and other animal rights activists.
The item is so high on the activist organization’s priority list that it appears as the second clickable item on the former Animal Liberation Front “spokesgroup’s” website. On the page meant to address the standards, Farm Sanctuary rails against veal production, forced molting for layers and using gestation crates for sows, but the fanatical group does not address one specific objection to an amendment.
The extremist organization has targeted these amendments because the clarifications made in the amendments would help farmers avoid frivolous lawsuits. Ironically, the amendments the Farm Sanctuary is fighting against would also benefit animals.
The fanatical group’s actions have raised questions. Does the group value lawsuits more than animal well-being? What state will the group target next? Is Farm Sanctuary violating its tax-exempt status by spending an inordinate amount of its contributions on lobbying?
The Farm Sanctuary campaign has resulted in thousands of letters against the amendments coming from all corners of the USA and all over the world. The Animal Agriculture Alliance has sent an e-mail to the New Jersey State Veterinarian supporting the amendments. The Alliance encourages all its members to write e-mails or letters expressing their support for the amendments to thwart dangerous precedents being set.
The commentary period ends August 6, 2004. A copy of the Alliance’s e-mail to the New Jersey State Veterinarian is attached. Please modify it and e-mail your version to state.veterinarian@ag.state.nj.us. A copy of the Alliance’s July 23, 2004 Action Alert and its e-mail is available in the members section of the Alliance website at www.animalagalliance.org. To view the proposed rule amendments visit www.state.nj.us/agriculture/rule28a.htm. If you have any questions, please contact Philip Lobo at jplobo@animalagalliance.org.
Your E-Mails are Needed Now
Amendments to New Jersey Humane Standards under Heavy Fire
Activists Campaign for Frivolous Lawsuits and Against Animal Well-Being
In 2003, New Jersey adopted humane standards for farm animals that were supported by the agriculture community. In early 2004, the New Jersey Department of Agriculture proposed amendments to further clarify the standards benefiting animals, farmers and consumers. These amendments, and the original legislation, have come under heavy fire from New York-based Farm Sanctuary and other animal rights activists.
The item is so high on the activist organization’s priority list that it appears as the second clickable item on the former Animal Liberation Front “spokesgroup’s” website. On the page meant to address the standards, Farm Sanctuary rails against veal production, forced molting for layers and using gestation crates for sows, but the fanatical group does not address one specific objection to an amendment.
The extremist organization has targeted these amendments because the clarifications made in the amendments would help farmers avoid frivolous lawsuits. Ironically, the amendments the Farm Sanctuary is fighting against would also benefit animals.
The fanatical group’s actions have raised questions. Does the group value lawsuits more than animal well-being? What state will the group target next? Is Farm Sanctuary violating its tax-exempt status by spending an inordinate amount of its contributions on lobbying?
The Farm Sanctuary campaign has resulted in thousands of letters against the amendments coming from all corners of the USA and all over the world. The Animal Agriculture Alliance has sent an e-mail to the New Jersey State Veterinarian supporting the amendments. The Alliance encourages all its members to write e-mails or letters expressing their support for the amendments to thwart dangerous precedents being set.
The commentary period ends August 6, 2004. A copy of the Alliance’s e-mail to the New Jersey State Veterinarian is attached. Please modify it and e-mail your version to state.veterinarian@ag.state.nj.us. A copy of the Alliance’s July 23, 2004 Action Alert and its e-mail is available in the members section of the Alliance website at www.animalagalliance.org. To view the proposed rule amendments visit www.state.nj.us/agriculture/rule28a.htm. If you have any questions, please contact Philip Lobo at jplobo@animalagalliance.org.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Your article struck a nerve.
I farm. I am not totally opposed to DRA. People who have lived in a farm setting for 30 or 40 years, certainly have the right to a vote. When you speak of the dairy farms, you never speak of the numbers of cattle, the environmental impact and if it is corporate farming?
All you have to do is drive through Iowa; three miles out, of a hog unit, you can begin to smell the stinch.
I farm; we had 100 sows, 50 beef cows/calf operation. Small, yes. But, very much "putting the human element back into food"; as you put it. I am not sure what your argument is. People should have a say,what is constructed in their backyard, whether its local people or out of state people, doesn't matter.
With a dairy operation, or hog units, or turkey farms, or whatever, this is an environmental impact. It isn't the same thing, as when someone moves into town, and sets up a grocery store. The "farms" impact the area environmentally; the grocery store is a service, you can either buy there or not buy there. South Dakota is so rural. Every corporate industry would love to use it as a dump site. Nebraska had to fight to retain its land from a proposed dump site. Some years back, a company wanted to move in and mine uranium. We need to have a say in what happens in our neighborhood, it is the land of the free and the brave. South Dakota laws are pretty liberal, compared to some states. Our taxes, no state income tax, no personal property tax, is very inviting, not to mention our low paying labor laws.
There is still plenty of opportunity, with respect to others.
Marilyn Kokesh
SD
I farm. I am not totally opposed to DRA. People who have lived in a farm setting for 30 or 40 years, certainly have the right to a vote. When you speak of the dairy farms, you never speak of the numbers of cattle, the environmental impact and if it is corporate farming?
All you have to do is drive through Iowa; three miles out, of a hog unit, you can begin to smell the stinch.
I farm; we had 100 sows, 50 beef cows/calf operation. Small, yes. But, very much "putting the human element back into food"; as you put it. I am not sure what your argument is. People should have a say,what is constructed in their backyard, whether its local people or out of state people, doesn't matter.
With a dairy operation, or hog units, or turkey farms, or whatever, this is an environmental impact. It isn't the same thing, as when someone moves into town, and sets up a grocery store. The "farms" impact the area environmentally; the grocery store is a service, you can either buy there or not buy there. South Dakota is so rural. Every corporate industry would love to use it as a dump site. Nebraska had to fight to retain its land from a proposed dump site. Some years back, a company wanted to move in and mine uranium. We need to have a say in what happens in our neighborhood, it is the land of the free and the brave. South Dakota laws are pretty liberal, compared to some states. Our taxes, no state income tax, no personal property tax, is very inviting, not to mention our low paying labor laws.
There is still plenty of opportunity, with respect to others.
Marilyn Kokesh
SD
Who Produces your Food?
I was severly dismayed at the the action taken by the Brookings County Commision last night were we saw emotion and rhetoric win out oversound science and logic in a special exemption request for a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation.
My question is how can ordinary citizens be more knowledgeable onlivestock emmisions, water quality and manure management than the South Dakota Department of Natural Resources and industry professionals? What good are regualtions and ordinances when decisions are made on a whim foremotional and political reasons? I doubt the Brookings police would stop anindividual for going the speed limit and taking extra precatution in asensitive area such as a school zone. Then why would a county commisiondeny a request when all regulations and ordinances are met or exceeded?
South Dakota is an agricultural state. The largest business in thestate far and wide is agriculture. The production of food and fiber. The reason people have time and energy to worry about property values, traffic issues and how much rain constitutes a 100 year event is because we have the safest most abundant food supply in the world. We spend the least amount onfood per capita than any developed nation in the world. If we think we havea crisis depending on foreign nations for our energy needs, take a moment and think what it would be like to be at the mercy of those same countriesfor 65% of our countries nutritional needs.
If we continue to stiffle animal agriculture in the fashion witnessed last night, the 'backyard' where the new dairy is placed will not be yours and will very possibly be outside the United States borders.
Sincerely,
Tim Bickett
Winfred SD
I was severly dismayed at the the action taken by the Brookings County Commision last night were we saw emotion and rhetoric win out oversound science and logic in a special exemption request for a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation.
My question is how can ordinary citizens be more knowledgeable onlivestock emmisions, water quality and manure management than the South Dakota Department of Natural Resources and industry professionals? What good are regualtions and ordinances when decisions are made on a whim foremotional and political reasons? I doubt the Brookings police would stop anindividual for going the speed limit and taking extra precatution in asensitive area such as a school zone. Then why would a county commisiondeny a request when all regulations and ordinances are met or exceeded?
South Dakota is an agricultural state. The largest business in thestate far and wide is agriculture. The production of food and fiber. The reason people have time and energy to worry about property values, traffic issues and how much rain constitutes a 100 year event is because we have the safest most abundant food supply in the world. We spend the least amount onfood per capita than any developed nation in the world. If we think we havea crisis depending on foreign nations for our energy needs, take a moment and think what it would be like to be at the mercy of those same countriesfor 65% of our countries nutritional needs.
If we continue to stiffle animal agriculture in the fashion witnessed last night, the 'backyard' where the new dairy is placed will not be yours and will very possibly be outside the United States borders.
Sincerely,
Tim Bickett
Winfred SD
Sunday, July 25, 2004
Trent.
I have been receiving your emails since Iowa Pork Congress this winter and enjoy many of your comments.
I feel I must let you know about the sorry state of our own pig industry, following legislation changes some time ago the sow stall and sow tether were banned as methods of holding sows.
Since 1996 I have been involved in US pig production where the sow stall is the most common form of sow accommodation, I have not seen one case a vice known as vulva biting which as a male I would imagine has to be painful.
During the last few weeks I have worked in a couple of UK farms where the sows are housed in "welfare approved" straw based, group housing [six per group] not confined in any way and allowed to interact with their pen mates. In a study using pure percentages 60% of vulvas were bitten or torn a common method for sows to bully others. In group of six all feed together it is not uncommon to find 4 equal sized, one monster and one poor small bullied sow [I wonder who gets all the cake]
On the same farm fattening pigs are reared in straw based finishing pens, cleaned religiously daily and fresh straw bedding given, compared to most fully slatted US finishing systems the pigs are filthy, the rat a disease ridden species at best loves the atmosphere especially during winter, its warm, food is plentiful how long before the next Black Plague.
Please do not let your own industry go down this welfare friendly, low profit [oh yes and disgusting to work in] route.
Regards
John J. Williams
I have been receiving your emails since Iowa Pork Congress this winter and enjoy many of your comments.
I feel I must let you know about the sorry state of our own pig industry, following legislation changes some time ago the sow stall and sow tether were banned as methods of holding sows.
Since 1996 I have been involved in US pig production where the sow stall is the most common form of sow accommodation, I have not seen one case a vice known as vulva biting which as a male I would imagine has to be painful.
During the last few weeks I have worked in a couple of UK farms where the sows are housed in "welfare approved" straw based, group housing [six per group] not confined in any way and allowed to interact with their pen mates. In a study using pure percentages 60% of vulvas were bitten or torn a common method for sows to bully others. In group of six all feed together it is not uncommon to find 4 equal sized, one monster and one poor small bullied sow [I wonder who gets all the cake]
On the same farm fattening pigs are reared in straw based finishing pens, cleaned religiously daily and fresh straw bedding given, compared to most fully slatted US finishing systems the pigs are filthy, the rat a disease ridden species at best loves the atmosphere especially during winter, its warm, food is plentiful how long before the next Black Plague.
Please do not let your own industry go down this welfare friendly, low profit [oh yes and disgusting to work in] route.
Regards
John J. Williams
Monday, July 19, 2004
Your letter is needed
While I certainly don’t view this any different than you, unbelievably we now have states defining, by law, proper animal husbandry techniques. If each of us doesn’t take 5 minutes to write a letter in support of reasonable guidelines, we will wake up one day and wonder, “Why are the law enforcement officials charging me with unreasonable animal neglect charges?” Sound extreme? It is happening.
So I applaud the New Jersey Dept of Agriculture for proactively setting the standard now. But this is where you come in. PLEASE take 5 minutes today to write a short statement in support of the proposed Amendments.
Proposed Rule Amendment: N.J.A.C. 2:8-1.2, 2.2, 2.6, 5.5, 7.2, 7.6, 8.1 and 8.6
Here is quick look at some of the components…
As originally written, all of these definitions were overly restrictive and, therefore, are proposed for amendment to more properly address the holistic well-being of the animal.
"Routine husbandry practices" is being amended to recognize those “techniques commonly taught by veterinary schools, land grant colleges, and agricultural extension agents for the benefit of animals, the livestock industry, animal handlers and the public health and which are employed to raise, keep, care, treat, market and transport livestock, including, but not limited to, techniques involved with physical restraint; animal handling; animal identification; animal training; manure management; restricted feeding; restricted watering; restricted exercising; animal housing techniques; reproductive techniques; implantation; vaccination; and use of fencing materials, as long as all other State and Federal laws governing these practices are followed.” This definition is proposed for amendment to more accurately reflect the Department’s intent with respect to these practices.
Link here to read entire thing if you wish.
http://www.state.nj.us/agriculture/rule28a.htm
Submit comments by August 6, 2004 to:
Dr. Nancy E. Halpern, Director, Division of Animal HealthNew Jersey Department of AgriculturePO Box 330Trenton, NJ 08625-0330
email: state.veterinarian@ag.state.nj.us
Dear Dr. Halpern,
As a 6th generation farmer, every single day of my life has involved farm animals. I want to write you in support of the proposed amendments for animal handling.
Since 1862 and the creation of the Land Grant college program, we have spent millions of dollars on research by experts in animal husbandry to determine the best management practices for the well-being of these animals. It very encouraging to see a state government recognize and endorse the guidelines that the true experts have determined should be followed.
Sincerely,
Trent Loos
P.O. Box 545
Loup City, NE 68853
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...
