Hogs on the Hill

On The Way Out, Don't Let The Door Hit You In The ...

2012-01-19T11:28:00.002-05:00

J. Dudley Butler, chief architect of the Agriculture Department’s ill-fated “GIPSA rule” reforming livestock marketing, is out as administrator of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. According to the industry publication AgriPulse, his resignation is effective next Thursday.

Word of Butler’s departure comes less than six weeks after USDA issued a stripped-down version of the controversial GIPSA regulation. The final version was minus many of the provisions NPPC and the rest of the livestock industry had protested for 18 months.

In the course of the controversy, Butler himself became an issue. Conflict of interest charges flew over his 30 years as a plaintiff’s attorney suing poultry processors under the Packers and Stockyards Act. (A key provision of the originally proposed GIPSA rule would have all-but-guaranteed plaintiff victories in the types of cases Butler argued.)

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack issued a statement Wednesday praising Butler for his “outstanding service.”

Antibiotics Spinning

2012-01-18T11:20:00.001-05:00

Some critics of modern agriculture made a big deal of a study conducted by Michigan State University and USDA's Agricultural Research Service that found antibiotics in pig feed increased the number of antibiotic-resistant genes in pigs.

Scientists have known for quite some time that use of antimicrobials will select for resistant bacteria. But peer-reviewed risk assessments have shown that the risk to public health from antibiotic use in agriculture is negligible.

The MSU-ARS researchers did not look at the effects of antibiotic use in animals on public health outcomes but on animal health and production. The most interesting findings of the study were some clues on how antibiotics may actually help improve growth. It also showed how complex the connection between antibiotic use and resistance is.

Of course, while they were spinning the MSU-ARS findings, the critics ignored a recent study conducted by Dr. Scott Hurd, an associate professor at Iowa State University's College of Veterinary Medicine and a former USDA deputy undersecretary for food safety, that found greater amounts of salmonella bacteria on the carcasses of pigs that were sick during their lifetimes -- meaning they weren't given antibiotics that could have prevented their illnesses. It also found there was more sickness and salmonella contamination among pigs that came from antibiotic-free hog operations.

Animal Antibiotics Needed To Feed The World

2012-01-16T09:00:00.001-05:00

The head of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) has weighed in on the animal antibiotics debate, saying what U.S. livestock producers have long argued: Using antibiotics in livestock production is vital to feeding a growing world population.

OIE Director Bernard Vallat told a news conference that animal antibiotics are “essential to ensure sufficient animal production to feed the planet. Without antibiotics there would be supply problems of animal protein for the human population.”

Vallet did call for action against abuse of antibiotics in livestock production, arguing for better training of veterinarians and for a fight against the illegal trade in antibiotics. “If you take the 100 poorest countries that take no precaution on this matter, we can see antibiotics passed around just like candies, without prescription,” he said.

His comments came on the heels of actions by both the United States and Germany to tighten restrictions on the use of antibiotics in livestock.

‘Non-Healthy’ Eating Plate

2012-01-13T15:14:00.000-05:00

Even by Harvard standards, nutrition professor Walter Willett is out there. So it wasn’t surprising that the liberal academic came up with his own version of the government’s new nutrition icon, MyPlate. Willet’s remake, called the Healthy Eating Plate, minimizes consumption of red meat and, especially, bacon.

But a couple of studies remind us that red meat is an important source of nutrients—and can be beneficial in the diet. A recent paper in Meat Science, for example, noted that consumers of lean, low-fat beef take in more niacin, phosphorus, magnesium, iron, protein and other nutrients than those who don’t eat beef. Separately, an article in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition argued that a diet containing lean red meat can improve health by decreasing LDL cholesterol.

HOTH prefers MyPlate, which urges consumers to make all protein foods a little less than a quarter of their diet.

Flip Side of Antibiotic Resistance

2012-01-11T12:44:00.000-05:00

For years advocates, with little or no evidence, have blamed antibiotic resistance in humans on use of antibiotics in livestock. But what about the reverse? Could it be that people are transmitting antibiotic resistance to livestock?

Researchers at the University of Glasgow looked at a strain of salmonella found both in humans and animals and determined that, when antibiotic resistance was common to both, it most often appeared in humans first. They stopped short of saying the resistance migrated from people to the animals. But they did conclude animals were unlikely to be the major source of the resistance in humans.

The British Veterinary Association welcomed the research, saying it calls into question policies that restrict the use of animal antibiotics to protect humans. BVA President Carl Padgett called the research “a hugely important step in our understanding of the way resistance occurs.”

The University of Glasgow study was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

2011-12-20T11:17:00.000-05:00

What a difference four months makes.

In September, in a step hailed as revolutionary, Los Angeles schools yanked chocolate milk, chicken nuggets and other foods high in fat, sugar and sodium from their cafeterias. In their place were healthier and more exotic options, like black been burgers. Praise flooded in from the U.S. Agriculture Department and elsewhere.

But that was then.

Today, according to the Los Angeles Times, much of the healthier fare is being rejected by students, food waste is rampant and participation in the school lunch program is plummeting. Some students are skipping lunch altogether and suffering health consequences. Others bring soda and chips to school in their backpacks and say they are eating more junk food than ever.

Acknowledging the problems, school food services director Dennis Barrett announced that cafeteria menus will be revised—again! Out will be some of the more exotic dishes, like vegetable curry and lentil-and-brown-rice cutlets, while hamburgers and pizza—albeit with whole wheat crust and low-fat cheese—will be back in.

Well, at least their intentions were good.

From The ‘What’s Good for the Goose …’ Department

2011-12-19T15:57:00.000-05:00

Here’s a switch. The Humane Society of the United States says it’s being unfairly attacked.

HSUS, notorious for its undercover videos and policy assaults on animal agriculture, is up in arms over a new group that could siphon off some of its charitable contributions. The new group, the Humane Society for Shelter Pets, says it’s dedicated to fostering support for local pet shelters.

HSUS accuses the new group of “hijacking” its name and of being a front group for the food industry.

At the core of the controversy is confusion over what HSUS does. While many think HSUS supports local humane societies, most of its funds are used for other purposes, including extensive attacks on modern livestock farming. Critics, including many in the food industry, accuse HSUS of being a radical vegetarian group, like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

The Humane Society for Shelter Pets concedes that part of its mission, in addition to encouraging support for local shelters, is to “address the misperception that national animal charities work locally.”

Now, THIS Takes Chutzpah!

2011-12-16T13:53:00.000-05:00

In 2006, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which makes it a federal crime to interfere with livestock farms or other “animal enterprises.” The idea was to protect pork producers and others from attacks by members of militant animal rights groups. Federal authorities consider these attacks acts of domestic terrorism.

So along comes a group of animal rights activists, who challenged the law in court on Thursday because, they said, it treats them like … terrorists!

The law can be used to prosecute anyone who “intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property used by an animal enterprise.” The Associated Press quoted one longtime activist saying he no longer does undercover filming of livestock farms because he is concerned about being prosecuted.

HOTH thinks the law is working just as intended.

Modern Farming: The Way Forward

2011-12-14T13:50:00.000-05:00

Need more evidence that modern farming techniques—criticized by some for polluting waterways, scarring the land and mistreating animals—are the way forward for the environment and an exploding world population? A new report from the Agriculture Department’s Economic Research Service offers it up in spades.

Today’s crop and livestock farms, the report found, are much larger and rely more on marketing and production contracts than those 25 years ago. They use 6 percent less land and 30 percent to 40 percent less labor than their predecessors—and are nearly 50 percent more productive. All those factors have combined to keep food prices in check and to limit impacts on the environment, the report said.

And productivity must continue to improve if U.S. agriculture is to meet energy and population demands, the report added. “Future innovations will be necessary to maintain, or boost, productivity gains in order to meet the growing global demands that will be placed upon U.S. agriculture,” it concluded.

The 77-page report is ERS Bulletin No. 88, titled The Changing Organization of U.S. Farming.

‘GIPSA-Lite’ Just Days Away

2011-12-07T12:00:00.000-05:00

Look for a scaled-back version of the Agriculture Department’s controversial GIPSA rule to be issued by Friday. The farm policy newsletter Agri-Pulse said Wednesday that the Office of Management and Budget has signed off on the regulation, clearing the way for publication in the Federal Register “by the end of the week.”

The first draft of the regulation, made public in mid-2010, triggered an avalanche of criticism from livestock groups, including NPPC, and their congressional allies. In reaction, USDA last month jettisoned some of the regulation’s key provisions, including a ban on packer-to-packer livestock sales. A week or two later Congress blocked the department from spending money to implement much of the regulation. The restrictions were included in the House-Senate conference report on an annual spending bill for USDA and other agencies, which has now been signed into law.

The scaled-back regulation is expected to include four of the five mandates that Congress put in the 2008 farm bill. Two of those apply only to poultry production; the other two deal with requiring a capital investment under a contract and determining what constitutes fair use of arbitration. Expected to be left out of the new rule is a provision setting criteria for what constitutes an “undue” preference or advantage for producers.

And The Award Goes To …

2011-12-06T17:31:00.000-05:00

… Lisa Jackson, Energy Policymaker of the Year. Or so an influential inside-the-beltway tabloid decreed on Tuesday.

But the decision by Politico, a publication started by ex-Washington Post reporters but sometimes accused of leaning right, was not without logic. Jackson was singled out largely for simply surviving as Environmental Protection Agency administrator over the last 12 months. That’s a period in which she reportedly contemplated treating spilled milk the same as spilled oil and considered imposing tough new regulations on farm dust.

Politico said Jackson “had her hands full in 2011” between attacks from House Republicans and a White House that didn’t always have her back. When President Obama shelved a major EPA smog rule in September, there was talk she would resign. Still, Jackson managed to hang on.

Any bets on whether Jackson—the regulator farmers love to loathe—will be around to receive the award again next year?

Antibiotics, Revisited

2011-12-01T13:41:00.000-05:00

No matter how often it is corrected or rebuffed, The New York Times simply won’t throw in the towel on animal antibiotics.

On Thursday, The Times published yet another editorial on the subject, urging limits on the use of these drugs despite Congress’ clear lack of interest in passing legislation and continuing regulatory caution from the Food and Drug Administration.

Specifically, The Times editorial lamented FDA’s decision to deny requests from animal welfare groups that it ban the use of medically important antibiotics in feed for purposes other than treating disease.

Of course, FDA’s decision was eminently reasonable, given that there’s no proof that curtailing the use of these drugs will slow the growth of antibiotic resistance in humans. In fact, the best science suggests the risk of human antibiotic resistance problems developing from farm use is negligible.

Still, The Times has never let facts get in the way of opinion on this topic.

Want Salt On Those Fries?

2011-11-28T15:16:00.000-05:00

The government’s updated diet advice—unveiled with great fanfare early this year—urged Americans to limit salt to 2,300 milligrams a day, or 1,500 milligrams if they are in a high-risk group.

That’s a tall order for many of us, given that average salt consumption for Americans is about 3,400 milligrams a day.

Not to worry, though. A new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggests that following the government’s advice could be … wait for it! ... dangerous to your health.

The study, made public last week, found the lowest risk of hospitalization and death from strokes or heart attacks was associated with a daily sodium intake of 4,000 to 6,000 milligrams. Those who consumed more than 7,000 milligrams daily were more likely to suffer a cardiovascular event, but so were those who consumed less than 3,000 milligrams per day.

In a news story, the lead author said he hoped the study would clear up confusion over the role of sodium in the diet.

Need A Solution To 'Global Warming'? Try Intensive Farming

2011-11-23T12:02:00.000-05:00

Researchers at the universities of Minnesota and California have provided fresh evidence that modern farming practices are good for the environment.

In a study published November 21 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers concluded that less-intensive farming in poor countries could combine with rising world food demand to double agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Their solution? Teach those in developing countries to farm more like we do—the high-yield, more intensive way.

The researchers said the problem is land clearing for food production—up to 2.5 billion acres by 2050—combined with inefficient fertilizer use. The result is the release of two harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, carbon dioxide and nitrogen.

Adopting nitrogen-efficient, intensive farming practices, the researchers said, can meet demand for food with much lower environmental impacts.

Now, who’s going to explain that to those bastions of anti-modern agriculture Michael Pollan and Mark Bittman?

Doubletalk

2011-11-22T11:36:00.000-05:00

The Agriculture Department’s Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration spent most of 2011 pushing a controversial draft regulation curtailing livestock producers’ ability to sign long-term contacts with meat packers.

So, HOTH was a bit surprised to see analysts from another USDA agency extol the virtues of those same contracts in a new article.

In the article in the December issue of USDA’s Amber Waves magazine, four researchers from the Economic Research Service conclude that producers enjoy “multiple benefits” from packer contracts. Among them are reduced risk, better access to capital and the ability to increase the size of their farms—all benefits cited by pork producers and others in consistently opposing the draft GIPSA regulation.

But perhaps the article wasn’t that untimely, since it surfaced after the regulation suffered two serious setbacks in as many weeks. First, USDA jettisoned some of the regulation’s key provisions. Then Congress limited the department’s ability to implement the regulation in the annual USDA spending bill.

Rising From The Supercommittee Rubble

2011-11-21T12:10:00.000-05:00

The congressional "Super Committee" appears deadlocked in its effort to find $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions. (In reality, it's only being asked to "cut" from the projected increases in future federal spending.) Nonetheless, draft reductions in farm programs prepared for the committee by the House and Senate agriculture panels include some good news for pork producers.

Under the draft, made public Friday by the Environmental Working Group, the acreage cap on the Conservation Reserve Program would be reduced over time from 32 million to 25 million. Reducing the cap would free land for crop production and ease pressure on feed prices, something livestock producers have long been pushing.

In the energy area, the draft recommends several cutbacks in government subsidies for ethanol, including elimination of subsidies for installing fuel pumps that can dispense a mixture of ethanol and gasoline. Livestock producers have been seeking a level playing field with subsidized ethanol producers as they compete for corn.

With the supercommittee’s work in limbo, the farm program recommendations seem moot in the short run. However, Congress still must write a new farm bill next year. And Friday’s recommendations are a logical place for the agriculture committees to start.

Reacting To A Congressional Circus Act

2011-11-17T13:18:00.000-05:00

Some call Washington the epicenter of inaction. But a scathing indictment last week of the animal rights movement from former Texas congressman and friend-of-agriculture Charlie Stenholm prompted anything but inactivity in the capital.

Stenholm was responding to the Nov. 2 introduction of the Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act by Virginia Rep. Jim Moran, a Democratic darling of the animal welfare folks.

In an op-ed in the Washington Times, Stenholm called Moran’s bill “the latest example of animal rights extremists pushing their radical agenda under the guise of helping animals.” The goal of these groups, he said, is not just an end to animal agriculture but “complete abolishment of animal ownership … they do not even want you to own pets.”

Almost more interesting than the article, however, was the reaction from readers. Over the next three days, the article generated upward of 80 Website comments, the overwhelming majority of them favorable. A typical example: “Thank you Mr. Stenholm for a wonderful accurate depiction of the situation with regard to animal rights activities in the U.S. … ”

Ooops

2011-11-15T11:06:00.000-05:00

Remember those tough new nutrition requirements the Agriculture Department unveiled for school meals in January? They were supposed to keep our kids from getting too fat.

But, apparently, USDA forgot to figure Congress into its planning. First the Senate voted to block the department from putting limits on servings of potatoes—that is, French fries—and other starchy vegetables in school meals. And now a House-Senate conference committee has rolled back three more USDA provisions. The conference reportedly delayed requirements for more whole grains in school meals and tough proposed limits on salt, scheduled to be phased in over time. In addition, the conference report keeps pizza on school lunch menus by continuing to allow tomato paste to be counted as a vegetable.

The conference committee said its actions “prevent overly burdensome and costly regulations and provide greater flexibility for local school districts to improve the nutritional quality of (school) meals.”

No word yet from the Agriculture Department, which was set to give final approval to its version of the nutrition standards before the end of the year.

Dissed at the Supreme Court

2011-11-10T11:19:00.000-05:00

Apparently, the Humane Society of the United States didn’t fare well in its Wednesday showdown with the meat industry at the Supreme Court.

The Washington Post reported that, at oral arguments before the court, “a clear majority of the justices seemed to agree with the National Meat Association” that an HSUS-backed law in California barring meatpackers from slaughtering non-ambulatory livestock violates the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

The law was enacted in the wake of a HSUS hidden video of downer cows being mistreated at slaughter plant. However, the law also affects pigs that arrive at packing plants healthy but temporarily unable to stand. There is nothing wrong with these animals that can’t be corrected by simply letting them rest for a short period. Yet the California law requires these “fatigued” hogs to be euthanized.

The Post said the state official trying to defend the California law “had a much harder time with the justices” than the NMA lawyer. NPPC joined in a brief in support of the NMA, arguing that euthanizing fatigued pigs prevents proper testing of the animals for disease and that the California law would cause serious income losses to the pork industry.

Physicians Committee for Reprehensible Misinformation

2011-11-08T14:45:00.000-05:00

Here’s a classic example of biting off more than you can chew.

The anti-meat group Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine announced Tuesday it will put up a huge billboard in Des Moines warning of colon cancer risks from eating bacon. Timed to correspond with a November meeting of the National Pork Board, the billboard features bacon strips sticking out of a pack of cigarettes.

PCRM—notorious for distorting science and misstating facts—picked the wrong place to take a stand against bacon. Not only is Iowa the largest pork-producing state and home to the largest pork trade show, but it has an officially declared Bacon Day and an annual Blue Ribbon Bacon Festival.

According to the Des Moines Register, the man behind the festival responded to the billboard by inviting the animal right group to next year’s gathering.

New Skepticism On Organics

2011-10-27T10:35:00.000-04:00

Perhaps organic farmers’ free ride on food safety is coming to an end.

An Associated Press story prompted by last week’s organic egg recall noted there have been more than 20 recalls of organic food products in the last two years. It questioned the exemption given to small and local farmers in this year’s Food Safety Modernization Act and even added this dose of reality concerning chickens: “While many people like to buy cage-free eggs, those chickens may be exposed to bacteria on the grounds where they are roaming.”

But not everything in the article was positive. The reporter claimed that smaller farms have “obvious food safety advantages,” including more control over what is produced, reduced shipping distances, inspectors checking a farm’s organic certification and customer oversight of a farm’s operation.

HOTH thinks hog farmers will get a chuckle out of some of those “advantages.”

Mark Your Calendars!

2011-10-26T10:02:00.000-04:00

Here’s your chance to hear the Supreme Court discuss … fatigued pigs.

Two weeks from today—Wednesday, November 9—the high court will hear arguments in the National Meat Association’s challenge to a California law barring meatpackers from slaughtering non-ambulatory animals.

The California law was enacted in the wake of a highly publicized incident involving downer cows, but the law also affects pigs that arrive at packing plants healthy but temporarily unable to stand. There is nothing wrong with these animals that can’t be corrected by simply letting them rest for a short period. Yet the California law requires these so-called fatigued hogs to be euthanized.

The National Meat Association challenged the law on the grounds that it is preempted by federal statutes. NPPC, the American Association of Swine Veterinarians and the National Farmers Union sided with the NMA, arguing that euthanizing fatigued pigs prevents proper testing of the animals for disease and that the California law would cause serious income losses to the pork industry.

According to one estimate, banning fatigued pigs from slaughter nationwide would remove up to 60 million pounds of pork from the food supply.

Occupy This

2011-10-24T11:57:00.000-04:00

For the past month or so, HOTH has watched in amusement the "Occupy Wall Street" ... uh ... movement, bashing corporate America. But now the anarchists, socialists and professional hippies who make up 99 percent of the protesters will turn their ire on farmers.

The same people who think jobs and economic activity magically appear apparently want food to be raised in idyllic community gardens where everything is grown organically and animals roam free, and the lion lies down with the lamb and ... (But we digress.)

How such collectives would feed this country -- ask the old Soviet Union how that system worked! -- not to mention the world hasn't been articulated.

Actually, the OWSers do have one thing correct: They do represent the 99 percent of people who do not produce food in this country. For the hard-working family farmers -- and most farms are run by families -- who do, though, a little appreciation rather than patchouli-scented blather is in order.

Putting Farmers’ Best Face Forward

2011-10-19T12:14:00.000-04:00

Miss America 2011 Teresa Scanlan helped the Animal Agriculture Alliance launch a Website Tuesday, showcasing the work and contributions of American agriculture, including hog farmers.

www.realfarmersrealfood.com corrects misconceptions about modern agriculture and features video tours of beef, poultry, dairy and hog farms. It also includes a pledge visitors can sign to support “the dedicated, hard-working farmers and ranchers of America.”

Scanlan, a Nebraska native who has made support of agriculture a feature of her year as Miss America, has a video on the site, highlighting the role of farms in Americans’ lives and the nation’s economy.

The launch of www.realfarmersrealfood.com comes a few days before Food Day, an event organized by liberal groups that criticize modern agriculture and downplay its importance. The National Pork Producers Council is a sponsor of www.realfarmersrealfood.com.

EPA: We Won’t Crack Down on Farm Dust … Cross Our Hearts!

2011-10-17T15:22:00.000-04:00

Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson swears she has no plans to increase regulation of farm dust. Really!

In a letter to two senators last week, Jackson said she plans “no revisions” in air quality standards for dust on country roads. In a subsequent statement, EPA said it hopes the letter “puts an end to the myth that the agency is planning to expand regulations of farm dust.”

Talk of increasing farm dust regulation has been Exhibit A for those arguing that EPA is “out of control.” One of those most vocal on the issue, Nebraska Republican Senator Mike Johanns, praised EPA’s latest statements, saying it provided “clarity to ambiguous and sometimes conflicting comments previously made by the agency.”

Revenge of the ag nerds: FFA jackets are now hip

2011-10-14T16:45:00.000-04:00

The vintage mecca known as Urban Outfitters is no stranger to controversial products. They have outdone themselves this time, adding a very un-urban clothing item to their arsenal…an FFA jacket. Known for catering to the hipster culture, Urban Outfitters is not one to design clothes for country folk, which leaves me wondering how many of their shoppers “believe in the future of agriculture”.

On its Facebook page, Urban Outfitters claims they are “the biggest small retailer in the world”. How’s that for a contradiction? What’s more, arguably the most rural fashion statement, besides pearl snaps, is an FFA jacket. Am I the only one who sees the irony?

The cost of a new FFA jacket is $52, about a third of the Urban Outfitter price. Check out the Urban Outfitters jacket here. How do you feel about it? Disgusted? Proud? Want to sell yours on eBay?

Time to ‘Eat Real’?

2011-09-01T11:08:00.000-04:00

Have you heard of Food Day? Coming up October 24, it’s the left’s attempt to do for food what Earth Day did for the planet. Which is, exactly … what? The organizers are expecting thousands of observances around the country, including major events in Washington, New York and other cities. The goal is to encourage Americans to “eat real,” whatever that means.

Food Day is supported by a long list of anti-meat advocates, including HSUS President Wayne Pacelle and author Michael Pollan. One of its six guiding principles is to “protect the environment and animals by reforming factory farms,” which it says are “degrading our quality of life.”

The Food Day Website also repeats the liberal line that livestock production represents a “huge carbon footprint.” How huge? For the record, U.S. animal feeding operations account for about 5 percent of greenhouse gases worldwide—much less than livestock production elsewhere. Why the difference? U.S. confinement operations are more efficient, and the worldwide figure includes emissions from deforestation to support grass-fed cattle.

Grass-fed cattle, of course, are something Food Day organizers like. But, as the saying goes, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Call It the Anti-HSUS Amendment

2011-08-22T09:47:00.000-04:00

Here’s a switch: The North Dakota Farm Bureau is pushing a state constitutional amendment that would ban laws restricting the use of modern agriculture practices, including gestation stalls and battery cages.

The amendment is a clear reaction to efforts by the Humane Society of the United States to enact laws banning specific industry practices. For example, two years ago California enacted Assembly Bill 1437, ending the sale of eggs from facilities using battery cages. A year earlier, HSUS was successful in passing California Proposition 2, which makes it a criminal offense to confine hens in cages, pigs in gestation stalls and calves in veal crates.

The North Dakota Farm Bureau’s amendment would add two sentences to the state constitution: “The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.”

Said NDFB President Eric Aasmundstad, “We are looking to prevent damage from being done to the industry to prevent it from thriving … It’s that simple … There are groups that would have it otherwise.” NDFB has been cleared by the state to begin gathering the needed 27,000 signatures to put its amendment on the ballot in 2012.

NPPC agrees with the American Veterinary Medical Association on sow housing. The AVMA supports housing that minimizes aggression between sows, protects them from environmental extremes, reduces exposure to hazards, provides access to food and water and facilitates observation by caretakers. The AVMA notes that gestation stalls meet all these criteria.

Surprise! Larger Farms are ‘Better’

2011-08-03T09:28:00.000-04:00

A University of Wisconsin study has concluded that large dairy farms—that is, CAFOs—produce higher quality milk than smaller ones.

Researcher Steve Ingham said he wanted to test the common belief that smaller farms are “better” than larger ones. So he looked at data from more than 15,000 Wisconsin dairy farms, divided into three categories by size. He used two measurements—standard plate counts and somatic cell counts—to rate milk quality. The first measures bacteria and the second infection in cows.

Milk from the CAFOs, Ingham found, had the lowest scores for both bacteria and infection levels. Large farms came in second and the small farms ranked third, or highest in both bacteria and infections.

“It could be that (CAFOs) have more money to spend on good equipment,” said Ingham, who is now with the state agriculture department. “It could be that they have the ability to cull out cows with mastitis more quickly.” Regardless, he said, “the numbers speak for themselves. They give a good snapshot of the industry right now.”

The study was published in the August issue of the Journal of Dairy Science.

Genetically Inferior Thinking

2011-07-27T15:41:00.001-04:00

With the first genetically engineered (GE) crops planted 15 years ago, and with from 65 to 94 percent of the corn, cotton and soybeans being GE, you’d think safety concerns would have been put to rest.

Not so, of course. Starting Oct. 1 and continuing for 16 days, something called the GMO Right2Know March will snake its way from New York City to Washington, D.C. According to the organizers, GMOs -- genetically modified organisms -- “endanger our health, the environment, and our farmers’ livelihoods.” Their goal? “GMO Labeling Now!”

The march will feature daily events along the route, with a finale at the White House. The anti-GMO Website claims that “80 percent of the packaged foods in America contain Genetically Engineered Ingredients that have not been proven safe …” If these foods are so dangerous, wouldn’t someone somewhere have gotten sick by now? Just asking.

Conventional Farming: The Green Alternative!

2011-07-20T10:46:00.000-04:00

A thoughtful blog post on the Scientific American Website destroys the argument that organic farming is better for the environment than conventional farming. Ecologist and grad student Christie Wilcox first calls organic advocates hypocrites for refusing to endorse GMOs that could reduce the use of synthetic chemicals. Then she turns to what she calls the “real reason” organic farming is less green than conventional: drastically reduced crop yields.

“Right now, roughly 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition …,” writes Wilcox. “If we were to switch to entirely organic farming, the number of people suffering would jump by 1.3 billion, assuming we use the same amount of land that we’re using now. Unfortunately, what’s far more likely is that switches to organic farming will result in the creation of new farms via the destruction of currently untouched habitats, thus plowing over the little wild habitat left for many threatened and endangered species.”

Wilcox adds: “The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional farming, its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides and fertilizers polluting the world’s waterways from conventional agriculture are, it’s a far better ecological situation than destroying those key habitats altogether.”

In her 3,200-word, footnoted post, Wilcox also debunks “myths” that organic farms don’t use pesticides and that organic food is healthier than conventionally produced food.

[Editor's Note: Biochemist and molecular biologist Bruce N. Ames, of the University of California, Berkeley, says, "99.9 percent of the toxic chemicals we're exposed to are completely natural -- you consume about 50 toxic chemicals whenever you eat a plant."]

Modern Ag Needs Love, Too!

2011-07-19T14:10:00.000-04:00

Veteran farm policy observer William Lesher has spent most of a long Washington career dealing with agricultural surpluses and the need to idle farm land. So it was hard, he admits, to convince him the era of oversupply has ended and the future is more likely to be defined by the need to ramp up production.

But now, says the former USDA official under President Ronald Reagan, “The undeniable fact is that we are going to have to double output. You are going to be constrained in bringing in land and water.”

Lesher added that modern farming techniques will produce most of what’s needed to feed a global population expected to hit 9 billion by 2050 -- it's nearly 7 billion now. While some in developing countries favor less scientific methods, Lesher said, “You’ve got to give modern agriculture some love and attention, too.”

An economist, Lesher now addresses the challenge of feeding an expanding world as head of the Global Harvest Initiative. He made his comments in a mid-July speech to the American Soybean Association.

Dubious Distinction

2011-07-18T15:58:00.000-04:00

Last week’s grain supply and demand forecast from the U.S. Department of Agriculture included a dubious distinction: This year, for the first time, more corn will be used for fuel than for livestock feed. That can only mean one thing for pork producers and consumers: even higher feed costs contributing to even greater increases in food costs.

The July 12 World Agricultural Supply Demand Estimates report estimated that 5 billion bushels of corn will used for animal feed in 2010-2011, while 5.05 billion bushels will be devoted to ethanol. In projections for 2011-2012, the gap widens to a full 100 million bushels.

Animal agriculture groups have long argued that, by diverting corn to fuel, government support for ethanol is largely to blame for today’s rising prices for feed and food. And, while Congress finally is talking about repealing ethanol subsidies, there's also talk that the "savings" will be diverted to ethanol infrastructure such as pumps and pipelines. And so far Congress hasn’t even discussed the idea of repealing the all-important Renewable Fuels Standard, which mandates the annual amount of ethanol -- and other biofuels -- that must be produced.

Testifying before Congress earlier this year, NPPC President Doug Wolf said support for renewable fuels is laudable but should not “come at the expense of the U.S. livestock industry.”

This is ‘Help’?

2011-07-13T10:58:00.000-04:00

Outgoing antitrust chief Christine Varney says the Justice Department is helping chart a course forward for the Agriculture Department’s controversial rule for buying and selling livestock and poultry.

Speaking to the liberal Center for American Progress, Varney said Justice will help USDA “think through the next steps of where they want to be” on the regulation, according to media reports.

Known as the GIPSA rule, the embattled draft regulation has been a lightning rod for criticism since it was unveiled last year. Most recently, it took a beating at a late-June hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Rather than listening to Justice Department lawyers, USDA might serve the interests of producers better by focusing on the 60,000 public comments it received on the rule. NPPC has said repeatedly the draft regulation is bad for producers, consumers and rural America and will lead to, among other things, thousands of job losses.

One Fine Day

2011-06-20T14:15:00.001-04:00

After lots of bad news out of Washington, pork producers had several things to cheer about last Thursday.

First, the House voted to keep the Agriculture Department from finishing its costly rewrite of regulations governing how livestock are bought and sold. NPPC has said the draft regulation is bad for producers, consumers and rural America alike and will lead, among other things, to thousands of job losses.

Meanwhile, the Senate was voting overwhelmingly to kill the 45-cent-per gallon ethanol tax credit and a companion 54-cent-per-gallon ethanol import tariff. Together the subsidies drive up corn prices, reduce supplies and threaten livestock feed shortages.

And to top things off, media reports said the Obama administration and congressional leaders are close to a deal on three long-pending free trade agreements that will generate nearly $800 billion in additional pork exports.

Of course, the provisions blocking the livestock regulation and killing the ethanol subsidies face additional hurdles on Capitol Hill. But the ethanol vote suggested that the corn-based fuel’s long stranglehold on Congress has finally been broken. And the action on the livestock regulation sends a clear message that USDA went way too far in drafting the massive and unwelcome rule.

All in all, one good day for pork producers!

Challenging Conventional Wisdom On Ethanol

2011-06-14T12:30:00.001-04:00

Is it suddenly fashionable to be against ethanol?

First, Minnesota Republican Tim Pawlenty defied conventional wisdom by proclaiming his opposition to ethanol subsidies while announcing his candidacy for president—in Iowa.

And now, a trio of prominent Republican senators—Tom Coburn, Okla., John McCain, Ariz., and Jim DeMint, S.C.—is targeting ethanol as well.

Coburn is forcing a Senate vote—perhaps as early as today—on eliminating the 45-cent-per-gallon ethanol tax credit, and DeMint says he will offer a separate amendment to repeal the renewable fuel standard (RFS), which mandates ethanol’s production. Not to be outdone, McCain says he wants to bar the Agriculture Department from making grants to install ethanol pumps at filling stations.

If that sounds like a political sea-change, it is. Until recently, the livestock industry was largely alone in questioning federal subsidies for ethanol production. The subsidies drive up corn prices, and the RFS affects corn supplies, threatening livestock feed shortages, which would be disastrous for pork and cattle producers alike. NPPC repeatedly has said that support for renewable fuels should not come at the expense of the livestock industry.

This is News?

2011-05-16T13:30:00.001-04:00

Here’s a bulletin from Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y.: Most antibiotics given to livestock are administered through feed and water, with only a small fraction administered by injection.

Slaughter revealed these unstartling “facts” in a Friday press release. Incredibly, she jumped from this information to the totally unsupported claim that livestock farmers are “rampantly misusing antibiotics in an attempt to cover up filthy, unsanitary living conditions among animals” and that this leads to antibiotic resistance.

It seems obvious Ms. Slaughter never has been in a modern hog barn, which is biosecure and temperature-controlled. Such housing protects pigs from parasites and disease, which reduces animals' need for antibiotics. Barns are cleaned and disinfected after each lot of hogs is sent to market.

Furthermore, no scientific study ever has linked antibiotic use in food animals with antibiotic resistance in humans, a point that top government scientists conceded to Congress. Slaughter routinely has ignored these kinds of unhelpful facts—along with the reality that antibiotics help keep animals healthy and ensure safe food in the meat case—in her years-long quest to severely curtail antibiotics use in livestock.

So far her effort has been unsuccessful, and with Republicans firmly in control of the House of Representatives it is likely to remain so.

Vilsack Goal: Final GIPSA Rule by Fall

2011-05-13T12:50:00.000-04:00

Poor Tom Vilsack. The Obama administration agriculture secretary just can’t seem to escape his department’s much-criticized rewrite of the rule for buying and selling livestock.

At a Capitol Hill hearing Thursday, California Democrat Jim Costa departed from topic at hand—trade—to tell Vilsack he remains “very concerned” about the massive regulation, known as the GIPSA rule. Costa asked if stakeholders would have another opportunity to comment once an economic analysis of the rule’s impact on farmers and ranchers is completed.

Vilsack answered by noting that the rule already had generated 66,000 comments, 30,000 of them “unique”—that is, not part of an orchestrated postcard or letter-writing campaign. Then he added, “Our hope is we get this (rule) done sometime this fall.”

In its testimony at the Thursday hearing, NPPC reiterated its call for USDA to accept comments on the economic analysis before it issues an interim or final version of the GIPSA rule.

Livestock’s Not-So-Long Shadow

2011-05-11T14:40:00.000-04:00

Remember Livestock’s Long Shadow, the much-ballyhooed United Nations report that said livestock account for more greenhouse gases than transportation and that CAFOs are the worst offenders? Animal agriculture has been vilified over those findings for years.

Well, it turns out, five years down the road, the U.N. is saying, sorry, we made a mistake.

Frank Mitloehner of the California-Davis Agricultural Air Quality Center told the Animal Agriculture Alliance last week that the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization is working on a follow-up report that backs away from the earlier estimates. Fittingly, the new report is called Shrinking the Shadow.

The 2006 report claimed that animals produced 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and argued that small, pasture-based farms produce fewer emissions than larger operations. The truth, Mitloehner told the animal agriculture group, is just the opposite: larger, intensified farming is better for the environment.

Mitloehner said his research supports estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency that U.S. agriculture contributes about 7 percent of GHG emissions, with about half of that coming from livestock. Of that total, U.S. pork farmers are responsible for only about one-third of 1 percent. By contrast, transportation accounts for 27 percent of U.S. GHG emissions.

Just Saying

2011-05-04T16:50:00.001-04:00

“Ethanol is the only industry that benefits from a triple crown of government intervention: its use is mandated by law, it is protected by tariffs, and companies are paid by the federal government to use it.” So said Senator Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., as she joined Senator Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in introducing legislation May 3 to eliminate the ethanol tax credit and repeal ethanol’s tariff protections.

The Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act was filed as an amendment to a pending small business bill. The credit earns refiners 45 cents for every gallon of ethanol they blend with gasoline and costs taxpayers about $6 billion a year.

Testifying before a House Agriculture subcommittee May 4, NPPC President Doug Wolf said tight corn supplies, driven in part by subsidized ethanol production, could cause livestock feed shortages this year and be disastrous for pork producers. Support for renewable fuels is laudable, Wolf said, but it should not “come at the expense of the U.S. livestock industry.”

Eric Schlosser’s Unanswered Question

2011-05-02T13:00:00.000-04:00

In a 1,500-word diatribe against large-scale agriculture in the April 29 Washington Post, Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser gets to the point at about word 1,475. “The wealthy,” he proclaims, “will always eat well.”

Yes, the wealthy can always afford the pricey, organic food from boutique farms that Schlosser favors. The problem is feeding the rest of us at a price we can afford. And, while the author-activist never addresses that question directly, pork producers know the answer. All the farming methods Schlosser promotes—organic, free-range, local and more—can flourish in the United States. But modern, large-scale farming is the only realistic way to produce the food the world needs in a safe, affordable and sustainable manner.

So Far, USDA Won't Release Land To Address Tight Feed Grain Supplies

2011-04-22T11:30:00.002-04:00

Requests to free land in the federal Conservation Reserve Program for corn production seem to have fallen on deaf ears in the Obama administration.

Last week 25 House members joined NPPC and others in asking that farmers be allowed to grow crops temporarily on CRP land. The idea is to head off grain shortages that could play havoc with food prices later in the year and even lead to animal well-being issues.

This week Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack declined to endorse that concept, noting that the conservation program is still popular and that farmers are increasing corn acreage by switching land from other crops. (Still, USDA estimates only a 14-day reserve of corn stocks.) Speaking to reporters from Iowa, where he toured farms and agribusinesses, Vilsack also flatly rejected the idea that using corn for ethanol drives up food prices. In 2008, Vilsack said, only 10 percent of the food price increase resulted from ethanol.

Meanwhile, the senior Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee predicted the Conservation Reserve Program will be an issue in Congress next year, since reducing the program saves money. Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson also told the Des Moines Register CRP acres may shrink on their own because USDA has tightened requirements for staying in the program. “If you have land that can be farmed, you’re not going to get back in (CRP),” he said.

A Kinder, Gentler Lisa Jackson?

2011-04-20T09:00:00.001-04:00

Perhaps there’s hope for Lisa Jackson yet. At the conclusion of her Iowa farm tour Tuesday, the embattled Environmental Protection Agency chief repeatedly praised the productivity and conservation efforts of the farmers she met.

Jackson also announced she has no immediate plans to regulate farm runoff in the Upper Mississippi River Basin the way her agency is doing in the Chesapeake Bay region. “I’m ruling out the need for us to move directly to a regulatory mechanism when we have folks stepping up … to do the conservation measures on their own,” she told reporters.

Jackson downplayed a disagreement between her agency and the Agriculture Department over the extent of the runoff problem in the Chesapeake. “We were modeling slightly different things,” she said, adding that in some areas of the Chesapeake municipal and suburban runoff is a bigger issue than farm runoff.

But Jackson—a lightning rod for criticism among agricultural interests—also said Iowa farmers aren’t completely opposed to additional EPA regulation of their industry. “No one person said, ‘Take EPA away,’” she said. “They want regulations to make sense.”

But that's the rub, isn't it?

Trifecta!

2011-04-19T09:45:00.003-04:00

It seemed a long shot a few months ago, but it now appears Congress can simultaneously take up three trade agreements extremely important to America's pork producers.

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk signaled completion of the trifecta Monday, when he announced Panama has satisfied U.S. concerns and that the Obama administration is preparing to send the agreement to Congress. The Panama deal will join already concluded agreements with Colombia and South Korea on the congressional agenda.

Together, the three long-pending agreements will generate more than $770 million in additional U.S. pork exports annually. That will increase hog prices by more than $11 per animal and create more than 10,000 pork industry jobs.

Two weeks ago, NPPC urged the administration to send all three free trade agreements to Congress as soon as possible and asked Congress to approve them before its August recess.

Sometimes You Just Gotta Wonder …

2011-04-15T16:15:00.001-04:00

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson says it’s not true that she’s an urbanite with no sensitivity to farmers. And to prove her point she offered up her past service as -- we’re not making this up -- commissioner of environmental protection in New Jersey!

Now, we know New Jersey calls itself the Garden State. And, yes, they grow fruits and vegetables there and even have some dairy cows. But to suggest that serving in the New Jersey state government gives you credentials as an aggie is like saying you know about hog farming because you occasionally eat a pork chop.

Still, there may be hope for Jackson. In the same speech to farm journalists, the EPA chief said she recently visited Georgia and California and that she’s planning a trip to Iowa soon. Perhaps some Hawkeye State producers will see that she finally gets some fine particulate matter -- that's dust to most of us -- on her Manolo Blahniks -- those would be shoes!

Free That CRP Land – Please!

2011-04-13T15:00:00.001-04:00

Perhaps Congress can succeed where farmers could not.

Twenty-five House members now have sent a letter to President Obama asking that farmers temporarily be allowed to grow feed grains on land in the Conservation Reserve Program. The idea is to head off a looming grain shortage that could play havoc with food prices later in the year.

Despite record production, grain supplies are dwindling as corn is siphoned off for other uses, including production of renewable fuels such as corn based-ethanol. (USDA recently estimated surplus corn supplies of just 14 days -- the lowest "carryover" on record.) Today the U.S. is a net ethanol exporter. Meanwhile, meat prices have risen nearly 7 percent in the last year, more than triple the inflation rate. “At a time when our nation is struggling economically, including high levels of unemployment, soaring prices will have a particularly devastating effect,” the House members said.

There are currently 32 million acres out of production on CRP contracts. A significant amount of those acres is environmentally non-sensitive land that could be used to produce crops if the Agriculture Department would release it. NPPC already made this request twice, once in a letter and once in a meeting with Secretary Tom Vilsack. NPPC also supported the April 8 congressional letter spearheaded by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif.

Mr. Secretary?

Good News On Greenhouse Gas Regulation

2011-04-11T12:19:00.002-04:00

Amid all the news last week about the federal budget, pork producers may have overlooked two significant votes on the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Last Thursday, the House voted, 255-172, to block EPA’s controversial greenhouse gas rule, which would be a disaster for pork producers. Nineteen Democrats joined the Republicans in voting to prevent the agency from issuing any regulation to address climate change through greenhouse gas emissions. A day earlier, the Senate rejected the same language, but it was on a razor-thin 50-50 vote, with three Democrats joining the Republicans in favor.

The House vote was a turnaround from last year, when that chamber approved the Obama administration’s cap-and-trade bill, and the Senate action was hardly a vote of confidence in EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. As one newspaper put it, EPA’s regulatory initiative is safe for now, but its prospects for long-term survival are dim. That’s good news for pork producers, for whom any effort to reduce greenhouse gases will trigger major increases in energy prices and production costs.

Lisa Jackson’s Rough Ride

2011-03-11T12:15:00.001-05:00

The Environmental Protection Agency’s rough ride in Congress continued yesterday. The House Agriculture Committee called in Administrator Lisa Jackson for a grilling on what it called her “aggressive regulatory agenda (pursued) at the expense of the livelihoods of America’s farmers and ranchers.”

In a statement issued after the hearing, Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., went even further. EPA’s agenda, he said, is “at odds with congressional intent, defies common sense and lacks any kind of understanding or consideration for the economic impact it has on the livelihoods of those who feed us.”

Meanwhile, over at the House Energy and Commerce Committee, legislation prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act sailed through the panel's Energy and Power Subcommittee. The "Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011" was approved on a voice vote and is expected to have just as easy a time before the full committee next week.

The bill could pass the House later in the spring and may even pass the Senate, where a companion measure is pending. But then its future gets cloudy, since President Obama has vowed to veto any stand-alone legislation along these lines.

A Surprising Champion For Livestock Farmers

2011-02-25T17:21:00.002-05:00

The livestock industry received some timely support from a surprising source at USDA’s annual Agricultural Outlook Forum Thursday. A month after the Environmental Protection Agency okayed using more ethanol in gasoline, former President Bill Clinton warned that using too much corn for ethanol could raise global food prices and lead to food riots in poor countries.

Clinton, whose foundation works in African countries such as Malawi and Rwanda, said the United States needs to find a way to become energy independent without hurting the world’s poor or fueling instability around the globe. That was a clear reference to the dramatic increases in world food prices that led to social unrest in poor countries and even toppled some governments in 2007 and 2008. One of the causes of that crisis was increasing use of corn for fuel in developed countries.

“There is a way for us to do this and to do it right,” Clinton said. He added that the growth in the U.S. ethanol industry needs to be watched carefully.

Clinton’s comments contrasted with the more pro-ethanol attitude of the man who introduced him, former Iowa Governor and current U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. Speaking at the same conference, Vilsack said there is “no reason to take the foot off the gas” on biofuels.

One knowledgeable observer suggested this wasn’t an accident. “Both Vilsack and President Obama campaigned on ethanol,” the observer said, “and you can’t win a primary or statewide office in Iowa if you don’t support it. So what do you do when you know the country needs to back off on ethanol? You get a successful, popular former Democratic president to deliver the message.”

A video of Clinton’s speech is available at , a video of which is available here.

Opposition To Job-Creating Trade Deals?

2011-02-23T08:30:00.003-05:00

With unemployment still hovering above 9 percent and President Obama desperate to fix our struggling economy, why haven’t the job-creating free trade agreements (FTA) with Colombia, Panama and especially South Korea been approved yet?

The political wrangling over these trade deals has been going on for several years but still there are members of Congress who oppose free trade. In a global economy that becomes more interconnected daily, that's hard to fathom -- and apparently politically suicidal.

Of the 21 congressional lawmakers who just weeks before the crucial mid-term elections sent to the President this letter in opposition to the FTAs , almost a third lost their races.

What, we wonder, do -- or, in some cases, did -- they oppose? The more than 20,000 U.S. agricultural jobs the FTAs would create? The $2.5 billion in new U.S. farm exports?

Regardless, while the U.S. has dithered on passing its FTAs, other countries have been moving forward with their own agreements, including ones with South Korea. That's bad news for the U.S. pork industry as well as many other sectors, which stand to lose market share in that emerging Asian nation.

There is reason for optimism, though. The White House is promising to send the Korea FTA for congressional ratification in a few weeks, and there appears to be bipartisan support for the deal in the House and Senate. There's even talk that the three agreements will be considered as one package.

Here's hoping the protectionist proclivities of petulant politicians are past.

A Recipe For Starvation

2011-02-22T15:30:00.002-05:00

Time magazine’s Bryan Walsh is at it again. In a lengthy essay in the Feb. 15 issue, Walsh suggests that “foodies”—apparently an alliance of vegans and small farm advocates—can re-energize the environmental movement.

Almost comically, Walsh argues that community-supported agriculture, farmers’ markets, green chefs and Michelle Obama’s White House garden are changing the way food is produced in this country. And this, he says, can solve the greenhouse gas problem and lead somehow to an environmental reawakening. (Of course, it also could lead to starvation for third-world populations.)

We guess no one has told Walsh that—because of their comparatively low emissions—modern, concentrated livestock feeding operations are actually part of the solution to greenhouse gases, not the problem. (According to the U.S. EPA, all of American agriculture contributes just 7.2 percent of the greenhouse gases, with livestock-related emissions making up 40 percent of that amount. And by the way, breathing produces a greenhouse gas.)

Walsh’s vision of small-scale, sustainable farming might feed the wealthy residents of New York City, where he lives and works, but not a growing world population. Modern farming techniques are the only way to produce the food we need in a safe, affordable and sustainable manner.

High Court Won't Hear 'Competition' Case

2011-01-27T14:30:00.002-05:00

One of the most contentious provisions of a proposed USDA rule on buying and selling livestock would eliminate for federal Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA) lawsuits the need for a plaintiff to prove that competition in a marketplace was harmed because of a defendant's "unfair" practice or "undue preference."

Congress considered and rejected such a provision during debate on the 2008 Farm Bill, and the provision is contrary to the rulings of eight U.S. appellate courts, including most recently the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

The U.S. Supreme Court this week said it would not consider the decision of the 6th Circuit, which held -- as seven other circuits have -- that to be a violation of the PSA a challenged action must have had an adverse effect on competition.

Supporters of the proposed USDA regulation -- known as the GIPSA rule -- falsely claim that the PSA requires that a plaintiff prove that a practice harmed competition in an entire industry. But it simply requires a showing that competition in a market, which could be as small as a city, county or locality, was adversely affected.

Backers of the competition provision want to be able to bring PSA lawsuits whenever they feel a practices is "unfair." But that would turn simple disputes into federal court cases, leading to massive litigation and creating legal uncertainty for a livestock industry that already is hurting from high feed-grain prices and a worldwide recession and that is trying to feed a growing global population.

There's No Business Like Pig Business

2011-01-26T15:11:00.002-05:00

British filmmaker Tracy Worcester, a self-described “eco-warrior” and “green activist,” released a controversial documentary titled “Pig Business,” which attempts to portray the “dark side” of the global pork industry. In her extremely biased mockumentary, err, documentary, Worcester interviews Sir Paul McCartney, who once fired a roadie for eating meat while on tour and often preaches his vegan/anti-carnivorous gospel. The "film" also includes environmental lawyer turned anti-modern pork production crusader Robert Kennedy Jr., who at a recent congressional hearing likened pork producers to terrorists.

Like others before her, Worcester blames all of society's ills on modern pork production, and the film is dedicated to "putting an end to intensive factory farming." She wants a return to small-scale farming, "sustainable" agriculture and buying locally.

We could pass off this film as just the latest pap from those whose mission it is to push their own personal agenda on all others (telling them what to eat, how to raise it and how to buy it), but it's actually quite dangerous. With food prices on the rise and experts calling for an overhaul of the world food system to feed a global population that is expected to nearly double over the next 40 years, people such as Ms. Worcester, Sir Paul and RFK Jr. are seeking to destroy the systems that now feed more people than ever before. Do they really think backyard pig farms are going to feed a starving world? Seems to HOTH we need more modern livestock and crop production, not less, Ms. Worcester.

Obama to Review, Eliminate Federal Regulations

2011-01-18T14:20:00.002-05:00

President Obama today ordered a review of federal government regulations; ones that stymie economic growth and do not promote job growth.

The USDA’s Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) proposed rule is a good starting point. The President has called for proper balance between not interfering with economic growth and protecting the public.

Should the proposed GIPSA rule take effect, upwards of 22,800 rural jobs will be lost at a time when job loss remains at record levels.

The president noted that his administration won’t shy away from addressing such things as stopping preventable infections in hospitals, but added, “We are also making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb.”

To see why the proposed GIPSA rule is a good starting point for the Obama administration, read the following economic impact summary: An Estimate of the Economic Impact of GIPSA’s Proposed Rules.

You Can Lead A Kid To Broccoli ...

2011-01-14T11:44:00.002-05:00

The U.S. Department of Agriculture yesterday announced a proposal to update the nation's nutrition guidelines, which cover the federal School Breakfast and School Lunch programs. It wants kids to eat more fruits and vegetables. (See a sample of the "before" and "after" for a week's worth of school lunches.)

Good luck with that!

From an administration that wants to control everything from health care to car manufacturing, are you really surprised that it wants to tell you -- and your children -- what to eat?

Crop Harvest, Stocks Estimates Down

2011-01-12T09:30:00.002-05:00

The U.S. Department of Agriculture today revised down its estimate for the 2010/2011corn harvest and carryover stocks.

In its World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates report, USDA projected 12.45 billion bushels of corn likely will be harvested, down 93 million bushels from earlier projections. Forecasts for year-end inventories of corn were expected to fall by 87 million bushels to 745 million bushels, the lowest level in more than a decade, according to analysts.

With fewer crops expected to be harvested and growing global demand for them, commodity prices have been rising -- corn has gone from around $3.50 a bushel in June to more than $6 now -- increasing food production costs. But those higher prices also are expected to prompt farmers to plant more acres with crops. Gerald Bange, chairman of USDA's World Agricultural Outlook Board, speaking at the American Farm Bureau Federation’s annual meeting in Atlanta, said as much as 10 million more acres could move into crop production this year.

Groups Sue EPA Over New Water Rules

2011-01-11T12:30:00.000-05:00

A number of organizations yesterday filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over its new clean water rules for the Chesapeake Bay and waters in Florida.

EPA set stringent pollution rules for the 64,000-square-mile Chesapeake Bay watershed and for Florida rivers, lakes and other bodies of water that could restrict manure use, establishing for nitrogen, phosphorous and other chemicals Total Maximum Daily Limits that can go into those waters.

The American Farm Bureau Federation and the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau Monday filed a lawsuit against EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg. The Florida League of Cities and the Florida Stormwater Association filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Pensacola.

The TMDLs are expected to serve as models for other waterways, including the Mississippi River, and could be used to limit the size of farms and restrict the application of manure to cropland.

'Going To Mexico'

2011-01-07T10:27:00.003-05:00

We soon may see a resolution to a more than 15-year-old trade dispute between the United States and Mexico, one that more recently enveloped the U.S. pork industry.

The Obama administration yesterday announced a "concept document" that includes the details for allowing Mexican trucks to haul freight into the United States. Currently, long-haul trucks from Mexico are barred from entering the country beyond a 25-mile commercial zone at selected border crossings.

Under a provision of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, Mexican trucks were to begin entering the United States in December 1995, but the Clinton administration, bowing to union opposition, postponed implementation of the provision. In March 2009, after continued U.S. recalcitrance on the trucking issue, Mexico imposed retaliatory import tariffs on $2.4 billion of U.S. goods, and in August it added more products to its retaliation list, including pork.

The new concept document, which was denounced by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters -- the truckers' union -- is a "starting point" for negotiations on the trucking issue.

Let The Games Begin

2011-01-05T08:30:00.001-05:00

With the start today of the new (112th) Congress, we apparently also are seeing the beginning of the fight between the Republican-led House and the Obama administration's regulators. (A New York Times story details the coming war.)

We don't know about lawmakers on Capitol Hill, but the National Pork Producers Council already has begun taking on the bureaucrats. In late 2009, it filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over a rule requiring livestock farms to obtain Clean Water Act permits -- oral arguments were held in the fall -- and this year, it sued EPA over the agency's decision to grant a partial waiver of the Clean Air Act to allow gasoline to be blended with 15 percent ethanol, up from 10 percent.

With the White House's expected legislating-by-regulating approach, it's likely that quite a few organizations, including ones representing agriculture, will be spending more time in the federal courts than in the federal legislature.

Mexican Trucking Dispute Hurting U.S. Pork

2010-11-18T13:47:00.002-05:00

U.S. pork exports to Mexico have fallen by a whopping 20 percent since the Mexican government added pork to the list of U.S. products against which it is retaliating for the failure of the United States to live up to a trade obligation, said the National Pork Producers Council in a press release.

In August, Mexico put a 5 percent tariff on most U.S. pork imports, as well as tariffs on other U.S. products, in reprisal for the United States not complying with a provision of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that allows Mexican trucks to haul goods into America. The provision was supposed to become effective in December 1995.

The National Pork Producers Council has been urging the Obama administration to resolve as quickly as possible the trucking dispute, which first erupted in March 2009 when Mexico placed higher tariffs on an estimated $2.4 billion of U.S. goods after the U.S. Congress failed to renew a pilot program that let a limited number of Mexican trucking companies to haul freight beyond a 25-mile U.S. commercial zone.

Mexico in August added products, including pork, dairy and apples, to its initial retaliation list of 89 products after the Obama administration failed to present a proposal for resolving the trucking issue.

According to recent data from the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Canadian government, U.S. pork exports to Mexico dropped by nearly 5,000 metric tons from August to September – a loss of about $9 million – while Canadian pork exports increased by almost 2,000 metric tons.

“The trucking issue needs to be resolved now, before the U.S. pork industry loses even more of its market share in Mexico,” said NPPC President Sam Carney, a pork producer from Adair, Iowa. “We’re talking about the livelihoods of American hog farmers; we’re talking about lost U.S. jobs. And it isn’t just the pork industry; this is happening to the producers of the other 98 products on the retaliation list.”

Mexico is the second largest market for the U.S. pork industry, which shipped $762 million of pork south of the border in 2009. Since 1993 – the year before NAFTA was implemented – U.S. pork exports to Mexico have increased by 580 percent.

NPPC Ethanol Task Force Chairman On EPA’s Decision To Increase The Ethanol Blend Rate To 15 Percent

2010-10-14T11:02:00.003-04:00

“The National Pork Producers Council is very concerned with the effect on America’s pork producers of raising to 15 percent the amount of corn ethanol that can be blended into gasoline, a decision the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today.

“NPPC is withholding comment on raising the blend rate to E15 from its current E10 until we can consult with our economists. But any upward pressure on corn prices will have a negative effect on producers.

“Given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Oct. 8 crop report revised down the expected yield and ending stocks of corn, we’re already seeing corn prices and the cost of raising a hog heading up.

[Corn for December delivery yesterday was up 4.2 percent from the day before, settling at $5.79 a bushel and has risen by 17 percent in the past three days. In trading this morning, prices reached a high of $5.88 a bushel. Corn was under $4 a bushel in August.

[The higher corn prices have dropped projected pork profits for 2011 to just an average of $1.19 per head, down more than $5 per head from a week ago, according to economist Steve Meyer, president of Paragon Economics in Adel, Iowa.]

“We don’t want a repeat of a couple of years ago when, due mostly to high feed-grain prices, pork producers lost an average of almost $24 a hog from October 2007 through March 2010, and the industry lost nearly $6 billion. Family hog farms went out of business during that time, and many producers reduced the size of their herds.”

[Spronk, who serves on NPPC’s board of directors and is chairman of its Environment Committee, is a hog and crop farmer from Edgerton, Minn.]

House Lawmakers Want GIPSA Rule Economic Analysis

2010-10-05T15:02:00.002-04:00

House lawmakers in a letter sent late yesterday to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack asked that an economic analysis of the agency’s proposed rule on buying and selling livestock and poultry be completed before the regulation becomes final.

The request was applauded by the National Pork Producers Council, which noted when the rule first was issued in mid-June the lack of such an analysis and which in its public comments on the regulation will demand that one be done.

The 2008 Farm Bill authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture to promulgate regulations under the Packers and Stockyards Act related to livestock and poultry contracts and marketing practices. The rule would be administered by USDA’s Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).

Signed by 115 members – 68 Republicans and 47 Democrats – the House letter pointed out that the rule “is sweeping in its scope and would have major consequences in the marketing of livestock and poultry for producers and processors of all sizes. In order for Congress and the public to evaluate this rule and its implications with full transparency, a thorough economic analysis is necessary.”

“It is imperative that producers know how much the GIPSA rule will cost them,” said NPPC President Sam Carney, a pork producer from Adair, Iowa. “Frankly, it’s unfathomable that a major regulation like this doesn’t have an analysis of its impact on the economy and jobs.”

NPPC has pointed out that the proposed rule goes well beyond the Farm Bill mandates and includes some provisions that were considered and dropped or rejected by Congress. The regulation is a “bureaucratic overreach,” the organization has said.

In a July hearing, a number of House Agriculture Committee members said USDA “overstepped its boundaries.” The majority of the panel’s lawmakers signed the Oct. 4 letter to Vilsack, which was championed by Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., Ranking Member Frank Lucas, R-Okla., Livestock Subcommittee Chairman David Scott, D-Ga., and subcommittee Ranking Member Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas. [Click here to read the letter.]

Important Pork Industry Bills Approved

2010-09-15T15:00:00.001-04:00

The U.S. pork industry scored a couple of legislative victories today as the House of Representatives approved legislation reauthorizing a law that requires meat packers to report the prices they pay for animals and a bill that will address a shortage of veterinarians.

The National Pork Producers Council issued a press release on the measures, which the organization supports.

All The 'News' It Fits It Prints

2010-09-09T14:30:00.002-04:00

The New York Times, long regarded as the U.S. paper of record, has had plenty to write about recently. Two Middle East wars, immigration, the slumping economy and the fifth anniversary of Katrina, to name just a few currently hot topics.

So it’s curious that, amid all that weightier news, the Gray Lady found space on its editorial page to support a draft USDA regulation on livestock sales out of the obscure Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. (Read the editorial here if you must.)

True, the regulation gave the Times another opportunity to rail against many of its favorite farm-related evils, including big ag, modern ag, ag-related water pollution and even antibiotics given to livestock to keep them from getting sick. And, yes, the disastrous GIPSA rule is a hot topic in farm states such as Iowa, Nebraska and Colorado.

But still … the New York Times editorializing on the GIPSA rule? On its face, it doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense.

On the other hand, the rule appears to be in serious trouble after the recent hearing in Fort Collins, Colo., where dozens of real pork producers from around the country -- California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Utah -- explained just how it would affect them. Could someone on Independence Avenue have appealed to the Times for help on the besieged regulation?

We’ll never know for sure, of course. But, if true, it would be hard to miss the irony: media colluding with government over a regulation aimed at ending (alledged) collusion in livestock sales!

Asses, Elbows And Eggs

2010-09-03T09:00:00.003-04:00

HOTH's favorite saying these days is: He doesn't know his ass from his elbow! (HOTH could use "she" and "her," but women aren't that dumb.) The quip applies well to N.Y. Times columnist Nicholas Kristof when it comes to his diatribes on animal agriculture.

He proves us right in his latest offering (read it here if you must), which is on the recent salmonella outbreak in eggs. Kristof, as is his wont, blames it all on "industrial" farming and in this case, keeping hens in cages. (He began his column with a boyhood reminiscence of chickens wandering freely on the family farm. HOTH almost cried.) He even touts organic food.

Kristof may want to read this piece that ran (unbelievably) in Time magazine. Besides, it looks as though the culprit in the current case is salmonella in the feed given to the chickens. So even Kristof's free-range birds could have produced tainted eggs.

In his column, the Times writer, of course, blames lots of other ills -- water pollution, antibiotic resistance, cancer -- on "industrial" farming.

Suffice it to say, Kristof doesn't know his ... you know the rest.

Out Of The Mouths Of Babes

2010-09-02T09:53:00.003-04:00

Our teacher asked us what our favorite animal was, and I said, "Fried chicken." She said I wasn't funny, but she couldn't have been right, everyone else in the class laughed.

My parents told me to always be truthful and honest, and I am. Fried chicken is my favorite animal. I told my dad what happened, and he said my teacher was probably a member of PETA. He said they love animals very much. I do, too. Especially chicken, pork and beef.

Anyway, my teacher sent me to the principal's office. I told him what happened, and he laughed too. Then he told me not to do it again.

The next day in class my teacher asked me what my favorite live animal was. I told her it was chicken. She asked me why, just like she'd asked the other children. So I told her it was because you could make them into fried chicken. She sent me back to the principal's office again. He laughed, and told me not to do it again.

I don't understand. My parents taught me to be honest, but my teacher doesn't like it when I am. Today, my teacher asked us to tell her what famous person we admire most.

I told her, "Colonel Sanders."

Guess where I am now ...

GIPSA 'Competition' Rule Bad For Farmers

2010-08-23T09:30:00.000-04:00

Sam Carney, a pork producer from Adair, Iowa, and president of the National Pork Producers Council, has an op-ed critical of the proposed GIPSA livestock "competition" rule in today's Omaha World-Herald.

Carney also spoke with AgWired reporter Cindy Zimmerman about the potential effects on pork producers of the regulation.

We're Better Than You Are

2010-08-20T11:00:00.001-04:00

No doubt you've heard of the locavore movement -- not to be confused with the animal rights movement or a bowel movement -- which preaches buying locally raised fruits, vegetables and food animals and rails against "industrial" farming, claiming it uses massive amounts of energy to grow, fertilize and transport goods across the country.

An op-ed in today's New York Times calls out locavores for peddling, well, pig poop!

Conclude's the op-ed's author, Stephen Budiansky: "The relative pittance of our energy budget that we spend on modern farming is one of the wisest energy investments we can make, when we honestly look at what it returns to our land, our economy, our environment and our well-being."

Animal Rights Groups' Not-So-Hidden Agenda

2010-08-18T13:30:00.001-04:00

There's an interesting commentary on the animal rights movement and its ultimate goal on The Pork Network site.

The author of the commentary, Pork magazine editor Marlys Miller, lays out the not-so-hidden agenda of animal rights groups. Miller notes that at a recent animal rights conference in Washington, D.C., Carrie Packwood Freeman, an assistant professor of communications at Georgia State University, told the audience, "We should distinguish a message from less meat, because we want no meat.”

Packwood's agenda clearly isn't covert. From the abstract of her graduate thesis on press coverage of, what she calls, the "industrialization of animal farming": "Findings show news discourse largely supports the speciesist status quo by representing farmed animals primarily as resources for human use through commodifying them, failing to acknowledge their emotions and perspectives, and failing to describe them as inherently-valuable individuals. ... Social change for animals is more likely if the media begin to construct stories which respect both human and animal interests."

We guess this means that, after they free all the animals, groups such as the Human Society of the United States and the Animal Liberation Front will champion for their right to vote.

U.S. Pork Exports Looking Good

2010-08-17T13:00:00.002-04:00

Data released last week by USDA showed U.S. pork exports on pace to set a new record this year, surpassing 2008's all-time high. Through June, pork exports totaled $2.35 billion, up 10 percent over the same period last year and about $30 million higher than the same six-month period in 2008.

This is great news for the U.S. pork industry, which earlier this year came out of 28 months of losses.

The data showed pork exports to Mexico up 31 percent over the January through June 2009 period. Canada imported 23 percent more U.S. pork, while Japan, the No. 1 market for U.S. pork, took 3 percent more. While exports to China and Russia were down 34 and 32 percent, respectively, the United States recently resolved with the countries issues that were limiting U.S. pork exports to those markets.

If the United States really wants to boost pork -- and other -- exports and create thousands of jobs, it will pass the pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

Groups Opposed To Government Intervention Call On Feds To 'Fix' Things

2010-08-12T11:59:00.001-04:00

Several so-called grassroots farmer groups are holding a series of rallies in support of a proposed rule from the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) on the selling and buying of livestock and poultry.

The groups want the federal government to impose tighter regulations on transactions, contracts and other aspects of the livestock and poultry industries as a way, they say, to bring about "fairness" and "competition." (Actually, the rhetoric from some of the organizations makes it clear they want equal outcomes, not equal opportunities.)

But how ironic. It's these same groups that disdain government involvement in their businesses. They adamantly oppose, for example, a federal animal identification system, which simply would make it easier to locate, control and eradicate diseased animals and keep export markets open to U.S. meat and poultry. They don't want the federal government getting a hold of all that public information about individual farms and ranches. Whatever.

The proposed GIPSA rule would be a disaster for farmers, ranchers, consumers and jobs in rural America. Those supporting this monstrosity clearly don't understand Economics 101.

Coming To A College Campus Near You

2010-08-11T11:50:00.003-04:00

In a few weeks, young people will head to university campuses around the country. While there, they may run into Bruce Friedrich, PETA's v.p. of policy and government affairs, who has been peddling PETA's pap about the indefensibility of "eating animals."

Friedrich will visit Boston College, Cornell, Princeton, the University of Minnesota and six other schools this fall to debate the ethics of eating animals, arguing that "vegetarianism is an ethical imperative for all members of the student body." He's also set to lie to all those impressionable, young minds, claiming that eating meat pollutes the land, air and water and drives up grain prices, which leads to starvation and food riots! But mostly, he'll tell them that eating meat supports animal cruelty.

Friedrich, of course, is a protege of PETA co-founder and President Ingrid Newkirk, who (in)famously once said, "Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."

In a recent Huffington Post piece bragging about his college campus crusades, Friedrich says he tells college kids "there is no ethical difference between eating a dog, cat, chicken, pig or fish." He even cites evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who denounces "speciesist arrogance" -- the idea that we are better than, and can do whatever we want to, other species.

It should be noted that Dawkins is not only an atheist but an anti-theist who has called religion a "primitive superstition." Friedrich, it should be noted, contributed to Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, a book about the animal liberation movement. In it, he argues in support of the activities and tactics of the Animal Liberation Front, which the FBI considers a terrorist group. (The book's forward was written by former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, who essentially said America -- and the "little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers" -- deserved the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.)

Nice.

Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter

2010-08-04T13:45:00.004-04:00

Man smart, woman smarter, crooned the late Robert Palmer. Well it appears our vegetarian ancestors were smart enough to discover protein rich meat, which, as it turns out, made them smarter -- and slimmer.

From National Public Radio:

"Our earliest ancestors ate their food raw — fruit, leaves, maybe some nuts. When they ventured down onto land, they added things like underground tubers, roots and berries. It wasn't a very high-calorie diet, so to get the energy you needed, you had to eat a lot and have a big gut to digest it all. ... 'What we think is that this dietary change [to meat] around 2.3 million years ago was one of the major significant factors in the evolution of our own species,' Aiello says." Read the story here.

The Only Thing 'Bizzare' Is Grist

2010-07-22T11:59:00.003-04:00

Leave it to Grist, a rather left-leaning online environmental/"sustainable" agriculture magazine, to describe as "bizarre" the near-unanimous opposition from members of the House Agriculture livestock subcommittee to the USDA proposed rule on the buying and selling of livestock and poultry. (See yesterday's post about that opposition.)

Article author Tom Laskawy, who like other Grist writers opposes anything big, says the USDA rule is "simple" and would be effective. He says it "mostly consists of requirements to use standard definitions in contracts."

In fact, the proposed rule would dictate the terms of contracts, restrict the pricing of animals and limit producers’ marketing options. No wonder livestock subcommittee Democrats and Republicans admonished USDA for writing a rule that goes well beyond what Congress asked it to do. But in Grist's world, congressional oversight apparently is "bizarre."

By the way -- and for us conspiracy theorists -- Grist's founder has ties to the Tides Foundation, which has given funds to, among other organizations, Earthjustice, PETA, Union of Concerned Scientists, Waterkeeper Alliance and the Ruckus Society, described as a group of environmental anarchists.

The pork industry and modern agriculture production are favorite targets of Grist, which seems to play a little loose with the truth. The publication continues to maintain, for example, that the H1N1 flu, which it insists on calling swine flu, came from a hog farm in Mexico even though U.S. and international health experts ruled that out.

USDA 'Overstepped Its Boundaries'

2010-07-21T11:30:00.003-04:00

USDA Undersecretary Edward Avalos and USDA GIPSA Administrator J. Dudley Butler must have been squirming in their seats at yesterday's House Agriculture Committee hearing. That's because almost to a man members of the committee's Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee castigated them for overstepping their boundaries in writing regulations on the buying and selling of livestock and poultry.

Subcommittee Chairman David Scott, D-Ga., pointed out to the bureaucrats that several of the provisions included in the proposed rule "were soundly rejected in the legislative process in the House and the Senate" during debate on the 2008 Farm Bill. (A Des Moines Register blog captured some of the panel members' pique about the rule.)

Nearly all of the subcommittee members, including full committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., who attended the hearing, requested that USDA at "least" extend the current 60-day public comment period by 60 to 120 days.

USDA Rule Falls Short Of Goals

2010-07-19T16:30:00.003-04:00

Please excuse HOTH's recent absence from the blogosphere. We've been waiting for an analysis of a USDA rule that purportedly will promote competition and fairness in the livestock and poultry industries. An initial review of the regulation finds it falls well short of that mark.

The rule would dictate how hogs -- and other livestock and poultry -- are bought and sold in this country and would prompt nearly all livestock and poultry contract disputes to be resolved through litigation in federal court.

NPPC will be weighing in on the rule before the comment period ends -- now scheduled for Aug. 23. (That is just four days before a scheduled USDA-Department of Justice "workshop" on competition in the livestock industry to be held in Ft. Collins, Colo.) The organization has asked for an extension of the comment period, citing the weak economic and business impact analyses conducted by USDA.

Over the coming weeks, HOTH will provide details on the effects on pork producers of various provisions of the proposed GIPSA rule. Stay tuned.

So Much For The First Amendment … Sort Of

2010-07-07T17:37:00.003-04:00

It looks like the folks at Youtube have removed the “18+” requirement to view the video “Truth About Modern Hog Production” on their Website after the Pork Network wrote a column bringing the issue to light.

The video, labeled as “inappropriate” for viewers under the age of 18, gives a virtual tour of a Missouri hog farm, showing an inside look at modern hog production. While Chris and Kevin Chinn (the owners of the farm and producers of the video) never received an explanation from Youtube for why their video was labeled inappropriate for minors, they speculate that anti-agriculture activists organized the stunt. (Shocking!)

Let's share the Chinns' story and the story of thousands of other hog farmers by sending their Youtube to friends, family, neighbors and organizations to better tell the story of modern hog production.

Bigger Really Is Better

2010-07-06T12:06:00.005-04:00

The anti-meat, anti-farming crowd like to say that large-scale livestock production hurts the quality of life of rural communities. Of course, no evidence is offered. Well, we have proof that crowd is full of ... pig poop.

A study conducted by Iowa State University of Iowa towns situated near large livestock operations found that residents' quality of life improved over a 10-year period, with incomes rising and poverty rates, infant mortality, crime rates and unemployment all declining.

In looking specifically at hog operations, the ISU researchers concluded that the greater the scale of hog production in [a] county, the higher quality of life ratings from the community.

O, Canada; Oh, U.S. Pork Producers

2010-06-24T12:01:00.001-04:00

Many U.S. products, including pork, imported by Colombia will cost that country's citizens more than similar Canadian imports now that Canada and Colombia have finalized a free trade agreement. The FTA lowers tariffs on Canadian goods.

In a press release issued today, the National Pork Producers Council cautioned that the U.S. pork industry, because of the new Canada-Colombia trade pact, could be completely out of the Colombian market in 10 years unless the United States approves its FTA with the South American nation.

The U.S.-Colombia FTA, which the Colombian Congress already has approved, and trade deals with Panama and South Korea are pending passage by the U.S. Congress.

NPPC is urging action now on all three FTAs, which combined would add more than $11 to the price producers receive for each hog marketed.

Proof That Idiots Exist

2010-06-24T08:00:00.001-04:00

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) -- a misnamed organization if there ever were one -- has threatened to sue McDonald's for making kids fat by enticing them with toys. The organization on Tuesday sent a letter to the fast-food firm expressing its intent to sue if toys are not removed from "Happy Meals."

In a shocking display of sanity and reason, McDonald's urged parents to take responsibility for what their children eat.

The CSPI action came less than two months after Santa Clara County, Calif., (where else?!) supervisors approved an ordinance that bans restaurants in unincoporated parts of the county from offering toys or other incentive items with certain foods.

Some Are More Equal Than Others

2010-06-23T14:45:00.002-04:00

The House of Representatives is set to take up H.R. 5175, the "Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections, or DISCLOSE, Act." Its main goal is to ensure that individuals and groups spending more than $10,000 to campaign for or against a candidate for federal elective office report all such expenditures in a timely and accurate manner.

That's all well and good, but the measure would exempt groups that have more than 500,000 members, raise no more than 15 percent of their funds from corporations and have existed for more than 10 years. It just so happens that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) falls under that exemption.

While HSUS is a 501(c)(3) charity and can't legally make political expenditures related to federal elections, it's Humane Society Legislative Fund can, and under the DISCLOSE Act, it won't have to report those expenditures.

NPPC and other animal agriculture groups, which have been targeted by HSUS, sent to lawmakers a letter urging opposition to the legislation.

Trouble Down Under

2010-06-17T11:30:00.001-04:00

Australia is considering a ban on sow stalls, with that country's pork industry conducting a review of the potential costs to producers.

Australian Pork Limited says, without stalls, pork production would decrease but labor needs would increase, meaning production costs would go up. Still, APL would consider phasing out stalls if the government and retailers support such action.

Last week, the Australian state of Tasmania decided to phase out stalls over a three-year period, beginning in 2014.

The U.S. pork industry believes -- as does the American Veterinary Medical Association -- that the husbandry skills of caregivers, not the type of housing, is the most important factor in ensuring the well-being of pigs.

Bigger Is Better

2010-06-16T11:30:00.001-04:00

When it comes to regulating greenhouse gases, EPA should keep its hands off of agriculture, which is doing the job on its own, according to a new study out of Stanford University.

Crop yield improvements have reduced the need to convert forests to farmland, a process that typically involves burning of trees and other plants, which generates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, say two Stanford Earth scientists.

"Our results dispel the notion that modern intensive agriculture is inherently worse for the environment than a more 'old-fashioned' way of doing things," said Jennifer Burney, lead author of a paper describing the study that will be published online by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

EPA Has 'Green' Light To Regulate Your Gas

2010-06-15T16:00:00.003-04:00

An effort to prevent the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases failed yesterday when Senate supporters of a resolution of disapproval couldn't muster the necessary votes.

EPA last December issued an "endangerment finding" on greenhouse gases, determining that they are a threat to public health. Such gases purportedly are causing global warming. (The most abundant greenhouse gas: water vapor.)

It was a clever move because if the agency decides to issue draconian regulations on businesses, including pork operations, it cannot consider the costs on the public of implementing them. Generally, agencies must weigh the costs against the benefits of their proposed rules.

The problem is, EPA based its finding, in part, on information on the effects of greenhouse gases taken from a report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC has been accused of using less-than-credible data to prove the theory of global warming.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, offered a resolution -- supported by the National Pork Producers Council -- that would have prevented EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. It was defeated when only 47 senators voted in favor of it.

Of Hermaphrodites And Sausage Kings

2010-06-14T16:15:00.004-04:00

"Corporate" farming is causing an outbreak of hermaphrodites! That's what a self-described "fearless branding rebel" and essayist says in a post in the Dedham, Mass., Daily News Transcript.

Julie Nardone claims that "pharmaceuticals, herbicides, pesticides and hormones pumped into the animals and food we eat" have lead to a rise in animals and fish that are both male and female. (Wouldn't this make reproduction easier? Just asking.)

She also apparently supports starving much of the world population, believing that small, local farms are going to feed the globe's 6.7 billion people, and she's quite ignorant of U.S. food production. Nardone repeats many of the lies spewed out by groups opposed to modern food production, including this one: "over 50 percent of antibiotics sold in the United States end up in the feed of factory-farmed animals to bulk them up and to treat sickness brought on by that feed." (You can comment on her screed by clicking on the link above.)

She urges "food-conscious citizens" to "stop patronizing supermarkets that sell food containing harmful substances" and to "ask legislators to ban chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides on corporate farms."

The facts are that modern technologies and science have allowed the U.S. to produce the safest food in the world. They have allowed farmers to precisely use animal health products, fertilizers and pesticides -- all of which are strictly regulated and many of which are safer than the naturally occuring varieties.

On a sad note for the pork industry, sausage king Jimmy Dean died yesterday.

Dean, who also was a country singer, founded the Jimmy Dean Meat Co. in 1969. Chicago-based Sara Lee Corp. bought the company in 1984.

Celebrate American Agriculture

2010-06-09T15:00:00.000-04:00

From the World Pork Expo at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines, today HOTH read in the Des Moines Register an op-ed by Iowa pork producer Sam Carney, president of the National Pork Producers Council, on promoting U.S. agriculture and not attacking it.

Carney decries the attacks on American farmers and ranchers that seem be coming from all quarters and argues for policies and programs that will promote and protect U.S. agriculture, encourage people to get into farming and ensure that our food is produced in the good ol' U.S. of A., where we know it's the safest and best in the world.

World Pork Expo

2010-06-07T11:00:00.001-04:00

Beginning tomorrow and for the rest of the week, HOTH will be blogging from the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines at the 22nd World Pork Expo -- out with the real people, where pork is food not funds for bridges to nowhere, fish management or peanut research.

World Pork Expo is the largest pork industry trade show and exhibition in the world.

WHO Says It's Not Credible?

2010-06-04T17:30:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, HOTH reported on a U.N. agency report that calls for less meat consumption as a way to protect the environment, pointing out that the same agency established a global warming panel that used falsified data to "prove" the earth is getting warmer. Now comes word that the World Health Organization -- another U.N. body -- exaggerated the threat posed by H1N1.

Two recent reports on the WHO's handling of the H1N1 pandemic, which last May sent U.S. pork prices plummeting and caused some U.S. trading partners to ban pork imports because the media misnamed the virus "swine flu," say the agency was influenced by drug companies that make antiviral drugs and vaccines. One report says WHO's response caused widespread, unnecessary fear and prompted countries around the world to waste millions of dollars.

Indeed, during the height of the flu outbreak last summer, one WHO director claimed that H1N1 could be contracted from eating pork if it had blood in it even though the virus isn't systemic in pigs or humans. (WHO had to issue a retraction of that statement in early May 2009, saying pork is safe to eat.) Turns out, that same WHO official has been lobbying Congress, with groups opposed to modern livestock production, to ban animal health products from use in swine production because he says antibiotic use in food animals is causing antibiotic resistance in people.

As HOTH noted in an earlier post, the top scientists with NIH and CDC recently testified before a congressional committee that there is no study linking antibiotic use in animals with resistance.

U.N. Report Says Eat Less Meat; HOTH Says Throw Another Chop On The Barbie!

2010-06-03T15:30:00.002-04:00

The United Nations' Environment Programme (UNEP), which established the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the group whose 2007 report on "global warming" used falsified data -- wants us to eat less meat to help stop the earth's temperature from rising.

In a new report to be released soon, the UNEP says that animals are fed more than half of all the world's crops and that food production overall accounts for 19 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, 70 percent of global freshwater consumption and 38 percent of total land use.

The U.N.'s percentage of greenhouse gas emissions from animals has been challenged by a number of scientists, including UC Davis Associate Professor and Air Quality Specialist Frank Mitloehner.

A UNEP press release, with this subheadline: Fossil fuel use and feeding world cause greatest environmental impacts (Yes, let's stop feeding people. That will solve that pesky global warming problem!), says the report "calls for a significant shift in diets away from animal-based proteins toward more vegetable-based foods in order to dramatically reduce pressures on the environment."

Cynics -- and HOTH certainly is one -- would say the UNEP is trying to hold back developing countries from, well, developing. (The UNEP report also criticizes fossil fuel users.) Nations such as China and India have growing middle classes that, with more disposable income, are turning more and more to meat-based diets from grain-based ones.

HOTH thinks the UNEP report is a lot of hot air. It will ignore the UNEP's suggestion and keep grilling those efficiently produced chops.

Green Ways Of 'Eco-Consumers' Damaging Our Environment

2010-06-02T12:30:00.002-04:00

The Green Lantern, a weekly environmental column of the online publication Slate, grudgingly reported yesterday that conventionally raised laying hens produce eggs more efficiently -- and, therefore, environmentally friendlier -- than cage-free or "organic" chickens.

(HOTH supposes this means all those who streadfastly profess to be at the forefront of the "eco-consumer" movement -- locavores driving their electric cars to the local farmer's market to purchase "green" eggs -- actually are harming our environment.)

The column noted that, compared with conventionally raised chickens, free-range chickens need 18 percent more feed, and organic ones require 20 percent more; mortality rates are higher among chickens running all over God's green earth; and it's harder to regulate ammonia emissions from their poop.

The column also compared the land needed to conventionally produce eggs with the land required to produce chicken meat, pork and milk. What it didn't compare was the space needed to produce eggs conventionally with that needed for cage-free and organic eggs. That's because it takes a lot more land for the latter two.

But, alas, The Green Lantern justified buying those more expensive -- and apparently more environmentally damaging -- cage-free and organic eggs, saying "uncaged" hens have "the freedom to exercise and engage in natural behaviors such as nesting and dust-bathing."

Ah, yes, there's nothing like a good dust bath.

Cost of Raising Hogs Keeping Expansion In Check

2010-06-01T10:45:00.001-04:00

Hog producers have been enjoying some decent profits the past couple of months, with margins in the $40 per head range. While that's great news after more than two years of losses, it's costing those producers a lot of money to raise a hog, and that's keeping expansion in check. Market hogs once could be produced for around $100 but now require $130-$140, and about 70 percent of that is feed.

Today's CME Group Daily Livestock Report looks at information in USDA's Agricultural Prices report -- released Friday -- on the ratios for food animals of output prices to feed costs. It notes that May's hog:corn ratio of 18.3:1 (live weight price of $62.40 per 100 pounds to $3.41 for a bushel of corn) is still below the level that usually drives expansion. Generally, a ratio of 20:1 prompts expansion of the breeding herd and, within a year, an increase in hog production.

Response To North Korean Attack: Pass U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement

2010-05-28T11:00:00.001-04:00

Richard Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, has a suggestion in today's Wall Street Journal for a U.S. response to North Korea's unprovoked attack in late March on a South Korean navy ship: pass the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement.

He says the trade pact, which has been languishing in Congress for three years, not only would create jobs but would "send a much-needed signal of solidarity with an ally at a time of true need."

The U.S. pork industry doesn't play in geopolitics but, nevertheless, couldn't agree more. South Korea is a top export destination for American pork products, and an FTA with that country could make it our No. 1 market, surpassing Japan and adding more than $10 to the price U.S. producers receive for each hog sold.

EPA Settlement On Issue Still Subject To Litigation

2010-05-27T11:47:00.008-04:00

There's a little more to EPA's guidance on CAFO discharge permits on which HOTH (Hogs on the Hill) commented Tuesday. The guidance is part of a lawsuit settlement that not only was negotiated "quietly" between EPA and environmental groups and without input from farmers but also done while the agency is still involved in litigation over the discharge permit issue.

Livestock groups, including NPPC, have an ongoing lawsuit in federal court, challenging a 2008 CAFO Rule provision that would require large livestock operations that are presumed to be discharging to obtain Clean Water Act permits. That's contrary to a 2005 federal court ruling that such permits are required only for operations that actually discharge. (The environmental groups also were part of the ongoing suit but dropped out once they got the settlement.)

In the settlement, EPA agreed to:

• Issue guidance by May 28, 2010, for what constitutes a “proposal to discharge” by a CAFO. Operations presumed to be discharging would need to get permits.
• Issue regulations requiring all CAFOs – even if there is no evidence they are not properly managing their manure – to submit the kind of detailed information that would normally be included in a Clean Water Act CAFO permit.
• Make available to the public all the information that CAFOs are required to submit.

NPPC issued a press release on the matter.

PETA Attempts To Buy Its Influence

2010-05-26T10:00:00.000-04:00

The people who brought you lettuce leaf-wearing models serving tofu hot dogs in front of the U.S. Capitol are becoming shareholders in the companies they are trying to put out of business. For years now People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been purchasing shares in, and now owns a piece of, at least 80 mostly food companies, including McDonald’s and Kraft, according to an Associated Press story.

Despite its foray into the corporate world, PETA isn't giving up its outrageous attacks against the companies in which it owns stock, even going as far as making mock Web sites of some of them.

While PETA's aim is to influence companies' animal welfare policies -- possibly through proposing shareholder resolutions -- its ultimate goal remains unchanged: stop the production of meat.

New Rules Could Restrict Manure Use

2010-05-25T16:10:00.004-04:00

The U.S. EPA has developed guidance for when livestock and poultry farmers have a "duty" to obtain discharge permits under the year-old Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Rule, which sets a zero-discharge standard for manure getting into waterways. The problem is a federal court ruled in 2005 that only operations that actually discharge must get permits.

The guidance, which is expected to be approved by the White House this week, was developed "quietly," accordig to Inside EPA, between EPA and environmental groups and without input from the agriculture community. In fact, when asked, EPA claimed it couldn't discuss the guidance with those to whom it will apply! (The U.S. pork industry is understandably disappointed since it worked with EPA for more than 10 years to craft a workable CAFO Rule.)

In a related matter, after reaching a settlement May 11, EPA will set stringent pollution rules for the Chesapeake Bay that could restrict manure use in the 64,000-square-mile watershed, which covers parts of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. The agency will establish for nitrogen, phosphorous and other chemicals Total Maximum Daily Limits that can go into waters that end up in the 200-mile-long bay. The rules and TMDLs are expected to serve as models for other waterways, including the Mississippi River.

The new TMDLs, coupled with the CAFO Rule guidance, could be used to limit the size of farms and restrict the application of manure to cropland.

'Tell Me Why I Don't Like Mondays'

2010-05-20T11:19:00.009-04:00

Add one more reason to the Boomtown Rats' list for not liking Mondays. Now famous, pork-loving chef Mario Batali supports "Meatless Mondays." (By the way, the Boomtown Rats were an Irish rock band lead by "Live Aid" promoter Bob Geldof. The group had a No. 1 hit in 1979 with the song "I Don't Like Mondays.")

We don't believe consumers need to go as far as giving up meat for a day. Remember, lots of pork cuts are lean sources of needed protein, vitamins and minerals.

We hope Chef Batali will reconsider and maybe think of adding a pork smorgasbord to his Monday menus.

An Open Letter to the President & Congress

2010-05-19T13:39:00.006-04:00

As Mexican President Felipe Calderon visits the White House today, it is important to note that Mexico is the No. 2 value market for U.S. pork (it was also the U.S. pork industry’s top volume market in 2009).

On page 5 of Capitol Hill newspaper Politico today there is an open letter to the U.S. Congress and President Obama, urging them to strengthen ties – including trade - with Mexico.

The letter, signed by NPPC along with 78 organizations and businesses, stresses the importance of integrating U.S. and Mexican potential as a way to create a more efficient production chain that will enhance our competitiveness in the global marketplace.

I'll Have Ham, And Hold The Mayo

2010-05-18T09:30:00.001-04:00

Following the lead of the Johns Hopkins University Center for a Livable Future's "Meatless Mondays," the Mayo Clinic is promoting meatless diets.

The famous clinic put out a press release on the issue, suggesting that as an alternative to meat women can eat beans and legumes, tofu, tempeh, textured vegetable protein, seitan, quinoa and nuts and seeds. (We're still trying to find out what "tempeh, textured vegetable protein, seitan and quinoa" are.) This is Mayo's prescription for lowering cholesterol and blood pressure and dealing with obesity and diabetes.

We easily found one critic of the clinic's cure for diabetes. And we previously pointed out that meat is a valuable source of vitamins and minerals that are essential to healthful diets.

As for the Center for a Livable Future, it's director is Prof. Robert Lawrence, a "co-principal investigator" for the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production's report on antibiotic resistance, which essentially blames animal agriculture for the rise in antibiotic-resistant illnesses in humans.

That's contrary to top scientists at the CDC and NIH, who recently told a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee that there is no definitive study linking the use of antibiotics in animals to changes in resistance in humans.

How About Equal Time -- Or Any Time?

2010-05-17T17:15:00.001-04:00

Ellen DeGeneres twice has given a forum -- her television show -- to one of the uninformed critics of modern livestock production, Jonathan Safran Foer. (He was hawking his anti-meat book, Eating Animals.) Foer claims, among other things, that livestock farming is the No. 1 cause of global warming and air and water pollution.

Despite two requests to set the record straight, Ellen has refused to give the U.S. livestock industry a chance to respond to Foer's fomenting. In fact, after the first show on which Foer appeared, Ellen expressed surprise about the lack of pushback from the livestock indusry about his claims. A letter to her from the NPPC president apparently didn't count.

So now we're urging readers to comment on Ellen's unfair treatment of America's farmers and ranchers.

It's Official: China Accepting U.S. Pork

2010-05-14T15:00:00.003-04:00

China today gave official notice that it is accepting shipments of U.S. pork, a move that should prove a boon to the U.S. pork industry. Pork produced on or after May 1 now can be exported to China.

The Asian nation closed its market to U.S. pork in late April 2009 in the wake of an outbreak in humans of novel H1N1 influenza, which the media misnamed “swine” flu. While in March it agreed to reopen its market to U.S. pork imports, China took until now to begin accepting product.

The U.S. pork industry exported nearly 400,000 metric tons of pork worth nearly $690 million to China/Hong Kong in 2008, making it the No. 3 destination for U.S. pork. Last year, U.S. pork exports to China/Hong Kong were down by 38 percent, falling to just under $427 million.