Rural Nebraska polled on animal welfare

Nearly 70% of people in rural Nebraska define animal welfare in terms similar to those promoted by advocacy groups, but most do not think increased regulation of the state's livestock practices is necessary to ensure proper care of animals in the state, according to the "Nebraska Rural Poll," the largest annual poll of rural Nebraskans' perceptions of quality-of-life and policy issues.
 

Nebraska has become one of the latest states targeted by The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the largest animal rights organization that works to ban animal agriculture practices and pushes for increased regulation in various states across the U.S.
 

Read more 

Modern ag critics take 'cheap shots'

Two environmental activist groups have reached conclusions about modern livestock and poultry production but don't have the data to back up the claims. 
 

In recent weeks, two activist groups that are opposed to conventional livestock and poultry production have issued reports that condemn production for perceived environmental damage.
 

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) came up with a conclusion that people should eat less meat, dairy and eggs and that when they do eat animal-derived products, they should understand that certified organic, grass-fed or humane products are generally less damaging to the environment and are more ethical options than conventionally produced products, including grain finished.
 

This conclusion is surprising, according to Dr. Jude Capper, an animal scientist at Washington State University. It "contradicts the body of scientific knowledge to date," and the report on which it's based contains no data on any kind of production system other than conventional systems and no discussion of ethics, she wrote in a blog after EWG released its report.
 

It also defies scientific findings that modern beef and dairy production systems -- involving both confinement and grain-based rations -- produce more beef and milk on less feed, land and water while emitting fewer greenhouse gases than 30-50 years ago.

Read more

In our opinion...  

We need every bushel we can get

By Andy Vance  

Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture made what my friend Dr. Matt Roberts called an "aggressive revision" in its estimate of 2011 corn production, trimming the anticipated yield to 153 bu. per acre.

Roberts, a professor of agricultural economics at The Ohio State University (where I am pursuing a master's degree), talked with me at length about his thoughts on the USDA reports and their effects on the livestock industry.

The bottom line? The market is extremely tight. We need all the bushels we can get.

The supply and demand estimates indicate reductions in all three major demand categories for corn: feed, ethanol and export sales.

"Obviously, with that cut, we have to see demand-side rationing," Roberts said. "(USDA) projects that feed use will be rationed by another 150 million bu., ethanol use by 50 million and exports by 150 million."

Read more
 

 FDA declares it can prevent foodborne diseases

By Dr. Richard Raymond

The path is a little tortuous, but if my readers will allow me a little of your time, I think I can get you from simple and straightforward to tortuous on this subject of preventing foodborne illnesses.
 

What got me upset, again, about what I consider to be escalated numbers of estimated foodborne illness rates was the most recent August 1, 2011 Federal Register Notice issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) titled "Burden of Food and Drug Administration Food Safety Modernization Act Fee Amounts on Small business: Request for Comments" .
 

The Background section for the Notice says "Each year about 48 million people ( 1 in 6 Americans) are sickened, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die from food borne diseases, according to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This is a significant public health burden that is largely preventable."
 

I have already blogged on these numbers released in December, 2010, in a Feedstuffs blog dated December 16, 2010. My thoughts about these numbers being falsely and alarmingly high intentionally are voiced in that blog.
 

What got me worked up today is the FDA statement that this "significant public health burden...is largely preventable."

Read more


 Don't fall under invisible influence

By Mark Klaus 
 

Much of what I write about in this column comes from thoughts I have after reading through comments and conversations via social media and the internet.
 

Sometimes, I am shocked when I read comments from individuals who are quite obviously in support of animal agriculture, yet they repeat misinformation they have heard from our detractors.
 

This realization is what led to my column "Think locally when seeking support for ag" (Feedstuffs, July 18). It seems to me to be a relatively easy task to have a discussion with someone who knows you well but just may need a polite refresher course in livestock production and the systems in use today.
 

More alarming is when I read comments from someone who is defending the particular segment of animal agriculture he or she is involved in but, then, in the same breath, turns around and calls another segment "abusive" or "polluting."

Read more

Selected feedlot managers/owners will be contacted by representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) during August to begin the first phase of "Feedlot 2011," a national study of beef feedlots in the U.S.
 

Conducted by USDA's National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), "Feedlot 2011" will provide the industry with an update of critical information that was last collected 12 years ago during the NAHMS "Feedlot '99" study. Five objectives for the study have been identified:
 

(1) Describe changes in management practices and animal health in feedlots.

(2) Describe the management practices used in feedlots that affect product quality.

(3) Identify factors associated with shedding of potential foodborne pathogens or commensal organisms by feedlot cattle.

(4) Describe antimicrobial usage in feedlots.

(5) Describe biosecurity practices and capabilities in feedlots.

Read more

Antibiotic use in conventional food animal production has created a public health concern, and a new study by the University of Maryland provides data demonstrating that poultry farms that transitioned from conventional to organic practices and ceased using antibiotics have significantly lower levels of drug-resistant enterococci bacteria.
 

The study, led by Dr. Amy R. Sapkota of the University of Maryland School of Public Health, found lower levels of drug-resistant bacteria on newly organic farms in the U.S., suggesting that removing antibiotic use from large-scale U.S. poultry farms can result in "immediate and significant reductions in antibiotic resistance for some bacteria."

Read more