Dear Mr. Schroeder,

While the University is making key cuts to personnel that are not moving their programs in the right direction, we feel strongly that you need to consider terminating the IANR reign of Vice Chancellor John Owens. Mr. Owens has proven through his faculty cuts, budget restrictions and the removal of key personnel that he is not working toward an agricultural university that is in line with the needs and wishes of the many livestock producers in the state of Nebraska. His reassignment of Animal Science Dept. Head Don Beermann to a position in which he will have little if any opportunity to continue the good work that he started by increasing enrollment and morale in the department should have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Following the publication of an article about the department in Feedstuffs magazine (link here)Trent received MANY e-mails and telephone calls from people stating their support for what he had written about Owens and the IANR. These messages came from alumni, current and past faculty and industry leaders in the state. The only comment that contradicted his article was from interim department head Sheila Sheideler. How ironic?

Owens appears to be trying to force the department away from production agriculture toward companion animals. The tax base of this "great livestock state" (to quote former professor Keith E Gilster) is dependent upon a strong university research, extension and teaching program that is focused on key farm animals - beef, sheep, swine and horses. While expanding the department to include companion animals certainly addresses the growing need for research and training in this area, we can't forget what brought us to where we are today and what puts food on the table for all. There is a long history of faculty that have retired or changed positions and these positions have not been re-advertised or filled again because of the decisions of Mr. Owens. We can ill afford to let even more of our good Nebraska kids go to K-State, Iowa State or any other land grant institution because we lose the faculty needed to make our program a great one.

As an alum of UNL, a graduate of the University of Kentucky and a former employee of the University of Missouri, I can tell you first-hand how our program stacks up to many others across the country when it comes to undergraduate education in animal science. UNL is top-notch and it is thanks in great part to the work of Dr. Beermann and Dr. Aberle before him. I find it interesting that, according to the governor's task force, one in three jobs in this state are tied to agriculture. Yet when we lose a great leader in an agricultural position, the press isn't lined up to drill the Chancellor about his decision like they do when we lose an Athletic Director. The state could go on without sports (although I hope it doesn't have to) but I don't think we will last long without the ability to produce food for the world's ever-growing population.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. We would be glad to visit with you in person and look forward to the opportunity to work together for the future of agriculture in our great state.

Proud Nebraskans in Agriculture,

Kelli R. Loos (UNL 1988)
Trent Loos
PO Box 545
Loup City, NE 68853
E-mail: kelliloos@agristar.net

October 4, 2007

Findlay Dining Commons
Penn State University


Last yesterday afternoon Jenny Rassler (PA Beef Ambassador), Amy Shollenberger (Block and Bridle member), and myself packed up our beef promotional material and set up our table in the Findlay Dining Commons of East Halls, home to 4,000 underclassmen students. The dining commons was all decked out with a 'country western' style theme and the smell of BBQ ribs and chili was amazing.

Jenny, Amy, and I passed out 'BIWFD' stickers, hamburger erasers, and nurtitional information to as many students as we could. We also involved the students in a 'beef trivia' game, asking them fun facts about beef. I would estimate of the 4,000 kids in East, we probably reached about 3,000. The table tent I helped design was on all the tables across campus and a reporter for the Penn State Daily Collegian wrote up a very positive article for us. (one correction to that article: J. Rassler is our PA Beef Ambassador- the article says A. Shollenberger is) www.collegian.psu.edu

But really, I think the reporter did a wonderful job and didn't twist facts around as media reporters tend to do. (the article even made the bottom of the front page!)--Penn State is home to 43,000 students.

Some of the positive impression we made was with the beef trivia game. The one question was "how many cuts of beef are considered lean by the USDA," the two girls we asked the question to answered, "one." So-needless to say, they were shocked to hear the answer was 29. Another boy who got a kick out of the little 'BIWFD' stickers asked if he could have a couple- he had a vegetarian friend he wanted to give them to. We were also able to talk to several students about the production story and how cattle are harvested. All in all, I think the fact that we were just students too, simply promoting beef because we feel it is important and we want to help eductate other kids about why they should eat it made a big impact. Kids thought we did this for a job and got paid, so the fact that we did this on our own free will made them realize that it really is important to us.

Finally- A BIG Thanks to the PA Beef Council for providing us with the materials and to the dining commons for being so willing to work with us on this promotion.

-Chris Molinaro
Current PA Beef Ambassador

False McDonald’s rumor re-circulating

October 5, 2007

A false rumor about McDonald’s continues to circulate around via e-mail claiming that McDonald’s is refusing to buy U.S. beef, is importing beef from South America that may be unsafe, and asking recipients of the e-mail to boycott McDonald’s. NCBA recently has received a number of inquiries about this e-mail.

This rumor has been circulating in various forms for at least five years and makes the claim that the Texas Cattle Feeders Association (TCFA) originated the e-mail. This is not true and TCFA has issued the following statement in regard to the rumor:

“Texas Cattle Feeders Association is not connected in any way with the email you received. The email, which has been in wide circulation in various forms for several years now, makes a false claim when it identifies Texas Cattle Feeders Association as the original source of the message. No such message has ever been put out by our organization. Unfortunately, we do not know the identity or motive of the person or persons making this improper use of our name.”

The e-mail also represents Dr. David Forrest at Texas A&M University as the email originator. This also is untrue. Dr. Forrest does not know how his name got associated with the rumor and, in regard to the e-mail, Dr. Forrest has said:

“I had nothing to do with composing this e-mail, the information it contains is false, and I do not support any of the actions called for in the e-mail.”

The phone number listed for Dr. Forrest in the e-mail is, indeed, the number for the TAMU animal science department but please do not call the number. The animal science department reports it has received a large number of calls as a result of the currently circulating rumor.

More information about the e-rumor can be found at the following links:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mcdbeef.asp

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/foreignbeef.htm

The genesis of the e-rumor may have been an announcement by McDonald’s in 2002 that, due to competitive issues, it was going to pilot test imported lean trim product from Australia and New Zealand in about 400 of its U.S. stores. The major quick-service chains use imported lean trim because, while there is a surplus of 50% lean trim in the U.S., there is a shortage of 80% - 90% lean trim. Imported lean beef is blended with trimmings from U.S. fed cattle to make beef patties for the quick service restaurant chains.

McDonald’s says it is the largest purchaser of U.S. beef, buying about 1 billion pounds annually. In regard to beef from South America, only Uruguay can export fresh beef to the United States; all other South American beef must be in cooked or canned form due to Foot and Mouth Disease concerns.

The United States is the largest customer for beef from Australia, New Zealand, Central America and Uruguay and almost all of those imports are in the form of lean trim that is used in either quick service hamburgers or case-ready frozen hamburger. All plants that export beef to the United States are approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and must maintain the same (equivalent) Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) standards as U.S. packing plants. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service regularly audits these facilities.

Funded by The Beef Checkoff

The crime of beating a dead horse

There is nothing like continuing to beat a dead horse, but of course, we all know that horses live forever. That is certainly how it seems when it comes to explaining the necessity of horse slaughter in this country. To bring you up to speed on this scenario, last fall the House of Representatives passed a bill that would permanently ban horse slaughter in the United States. The bill did not pass the Senate prior to the new Senate taking office but the bill was re-introduced on Jan 17, 2007. Remember, there are currently only three horse slaughter facilities in the country, two in Texas and one in Illinois.

After a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Jan 19, 2007, the two plants in Texas must shut down. Ruling on appeal of a lower court ruling, the 5th Circuit Court ruled unanimously that a 1949 Texas law banning the harvesting of horses for the sale of meat made horse slaughter illegal in the state of Texas. A lower court had previously ruled that Federal Law pre-empted the 1949 Texas law. For 27 years, horses have been harvested in Texas. Why, all of a sudden, does the court system decide that is it illegal? Because today, everyday citizens, law makers and evidently judges as well, fail to understand our system of natural resources and the cycle of life.
The most troubling thing to me about the whole ruling lies in what one of the judges said when making the ruling. ``The lone cowboy riding his horse on a Texas trail is a cinematic icon.'' ``Not once in memory did the cowboy eat his horse, but film is an imperfect mirror.''
Now I want to share a couple of observation about this. Only one news source is printing the last line, “but film is an imperfect mirror”. Most stop with “Not once in memory did the cowboy eat his horse”. I believe that goes a long way toward reflecting the bias that most all news sources displayed in reporting the story. But even more troubling is the fact that the content of movies should in no way, shape or form play a role in a judges ruling.
History tells us that most American Indian tribes, pre-1900, had a taste for roasted horsemeat. We know that Lewis and Clark would have never completed their journey as the Corps of Discovery without the consumption of horsemeat. Members of the Donner Party, stranded in the Sierra Nevada mountains in the winter of 1846-47, ate their horses to survive, as did citizens of Vicksburg, Mississippi during the Union army's siege of the city during the Civil War. And it was horsemeat that American soldiers consumed for nourishment in the European trenches during World War I. I suppose for the court system to know any of that, Disney will need to make a movie where people eat horsemeat.

Only a society so disconnected from the purpose of life would begin to make laws against the consumption of natural resources at the same time as people are living with hunger on a daily basis. Last fall the USDA indicated the highest number of food insecure households in the history of our country but well-fed attorneys and judges could care less about that, because they have access to all the food they want. In fact, I guarantee you that the food wasted by these socially elite at their fancy dinner parties could feed a hungry family of five for a year.

It might seem like a strange example but I think it clearly illustrates how skewed our thinking is. Your dog, “man’s best friend” is the first one to meet you in the driveway every time you come home, tail wagging and happy. A whopping 84% of all Americans now consider their dog to be their kid, which I think is totally wrong, but it shows just how close we are as humans to worshipping animals. Yet there are reports every year of pet owners who have died and go unnoticed for a couple days only to be found consumed by their own pet. Yes, a dog has better understanding of the proper use of natural resources than so many with higher IQs in our population today. The sad fact is with the current path we are on of banning horse slaughter for any purpose, soon it will easier to beat a dead horse than ever before. About 100,000 extra will be available each year. Then we will see what the real crime can be and it is certainly not converting an animal that is of no use in its current state to a useful, beneficial product that could help continue the cycle of life for pets, zoo animals and even humans around the world.

The National Institute of Health reports that only 10% of girls and 25% of boys get the calcium they need to develop strong bones and teeth and stave off osteoporosis in their later years. Ninety percent of a person’s peak bone mass for adulthood is established by the late teen years. The strength and health of an adult’s bones depend on calcium intake during the formative years. The calcium and Vitamin D in milk and dairy products are essential to the long-term bone health of people. If we allow our schools and our children to be influenced by the vegan beliefs of PETA, HSUS and other radicals, we are setting our children up for a lifetime of broken bones, false teeth, osteoporosis and other health problems.

Listen to the science. Kids need milk in their diets and they need teachers that are good role models to provide them with the actual facts so they can make wise choices for themselves. It is time people start being held accountable for the choices they make and this would be a good place to start! If you want to jeopardize your own health, that is your choice but don’t ask the taxpayers to foot the bill for your health problems and don’t insist that our children follow your misguided, ill-informed example of leadership.

Mr. Warwak has NOT taken the children’s best interest into account in his actions and therefore he should move on from the Fox River Middle School. The school board should have the backbone to do what is right for the students of this school. Our future does depend upon the decisions we make today - I urge you to make them wisely.

Kelli R. Loos, rancher and mother of 3 milk drinkers
Loup City, NE 68853

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?