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."
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."
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."