From the Road

 

Categories Around The Ring FOR SALE From the Passenger Seat Industry News Archives September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 January 2009 Create/Edit a Blog Blog RSS Feed

Cupcakes, Cattle Ranchers, & HSUS lies Industry News - Wednesday 8th of September 2010 09:41:39 AM   From the Tri-State Livestock News “Want to find out how you can help animals? The Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) invites our members, supporters and other animal advocates to a grassroots meeting to discuss current issues affecting animals. If you are concerned about local animal issues or just interested in creating a more compassionate South Dakota, you should attend this informative meeting to learn how you can take action for animals. Remember to bring your ideas, concerns, and questions, and don't forget to invite your friends. RSVP today to lend your hand and make a difference for the animals in South Dakota! Please tell all your friends. Hope to see you there!” The above invitation was sent out by HSUS, which currently has a full-time staff member located in South Dakota. The proposed meeting was to be held on Aug. 25, 2010 at Oh My Cupcakes, a locally-owned shop in downtown Sioux Falls, SD. Interestingly enough, when several agriculture groups and producers responded to the invite and sent in their RSVPs, they were surprised to learn that they were quickly uninvited to the event. Darci Adams, the HSUS state director for South Dakota, sent out an e-mail to anyone with ties to the agriculture industry that read, “Perhaps you've been misinformed, but this is not a public event. This is a private gathering for members of HSUS and supporters who want to get involved in our work to alleviate animal cruelty.” Adams offered to meet with the farmers and ranchers at a “separate, more appropriate setting.” The soap opera might have ended then until the owner of Oh My Cupcakes suddenly canceled the meeting entirely after a conversation with South Dakota Pork Producers Council Program and Communications Director Stacy Sorlien, who explained the mission statement of the HSUS to her. “The owner of Oh My Cupcakes thought she wasn't given accurate information about the HSUS, and she was surprised to learn that people were uninvited to come to her shop and attend the meeting,” said Sorlien, who spoke with her the week of the meeting. “She is a very spiritual individual who simply wants to bring joy to her customers through her sweet treats and cupcakes.” Although Oh My Cupcakes didn't intend to fall into a political land-mine, that's certainly where the business ended up. When it was announced that the location would be the site for the HSUS meeting, Sorlien said the state's pork producers were very confused, especially because they had worked with the cupcake store in their recent Taste of Elegance event, a culinary competition designed to inspire innovative and exciting ways to menu pork. “When HSUS set up the meeting, the owner automatically assumed that the group was associated with a local shelter,” explained Sorlien. “Through a quick phone call, I was able to explain to her the difference. She felt duped by the organization, and she is a proud supporter of local agriculture. She buys local eggs and milk to be used to make her cupcakes. That's how HSUS receives so much support. They put on their cute television commercials and they use their name to confuse consumers. There truly is a difference between a local shelter and HSUS.” Sorlien said that several producers called in before the meeting date to share their displeasure with the Oh My Cupcakes store for planning to host the event. She said while some were friendly calls, others were incredibly accusatory and told the owner that HSUS is messing with their livelihood. Though true, Sorlien reminded producers that it's important to educate others; acting cruelly could send the wrong message about farmers and ranchers. “For producers to call in and be angry is totally sending the wrong message,” said Sorlien. “Oh My Cupcakes weren't given all the information, but HSUS isn't going to just come out and say their true agenda. It's up to us to educate others. HSUS has hired on a full-time person in South Dakota. They are on our doorstep, and that has producers all over the state in an uproar because it's messing with their business. It's different when you hear (about) other states than when they are in your own state. Producers are becoming more aware of the issues.” Keeping in mind the ballot initiatives HSUS has pushed through in other states, it will be critical for producers in South Dakota to keep an eye on the battles that lie ahead. Respond to this Entry     Quote of the Week, John Grimes Angus breeder Industry News - Tuesday 3rd of August 2010 03:34:38 PM   By now everyone knows about the HSUS VS Ohio Ag throw down. This week another,  great and thoughtful op-ed from the OCJ's Kyle Sharp. This issue Kyle lent his medium to someone else to voice his views. John F Grimes summarized and stated positive views on the reached agreement but he also added this line, which I love "I have an inherent mistrust for any group that has an expressed pro-vegetarian agenda to provide animal agriculture with sound recommendations that will keep it a viable industry” He continues on to ask the question, if you believe the DNC would solicit political strategy advice from the RUSH? My 2 cents:  As I see it, everyone in Ohio, or at least some farm bureau keep trying to spin this as a good thing, however if look to media outside of ohio this agreement is called out as “Disappointing” Check out the op-ed from the July 24th copy of  Iowa Famer Today by Sarah Hubbart …..Sarah points out that Ag is the states top industry contribution $79 BILLION to Ohio’s economy each year while HSUS is an activist organization that thrives on conflict. HSUS does not contribute to the economy or states tax base and the campaign only served to raise funds and gain momentum for its vegan agenda! Respond to this Entry     Jimmy Dean Dead at 81 Industry News - Monday 14th of June 2010 10:24:00 AM   FROM THE AP   I'm not sure why i had had to post this perhaps of my late mothers fondness for her fellow Tennesseen (he was from Texas but mother thought he was from Tennessee)  or because America grew up eating his brand of  sausage...   Jimmy Dean, a country music legend for his smash hit about a workingman hero, "Big Bad John," and an entrepreneur known for his sausage brand, died on Sunday. He was 81. His wife, Donna Meade Dean, said her husband died at their Henrico County, Va., home. She told The Associated Press that he had some health problems but was still functioning well, so his death came as a shock. She said he was eating in front of the television. She left the room for a time and came back and he was unresponsive. She said he was pronounced dead at 7:54 p.m. "He was amazing," she said. "He had a lot of talents." Born in 1928, Dean was raised in poverty in Plainview, Texas, and dropped out of high school after the ninth grade. He went on to a successful entertainment career in the 1950s and '60s that included the nationally televised "The Jimmy Dean Show." In 1969, Dean went into the sausage business, starting the Jimmy Dean Meat Co. in his hometown. He sold the company to Sara Lee Corp. in 1984. Dean lived in semiretirement with his wife, who is a songwriter and recording artist, on their 200-acre estate just outside Richmond, where he enjoyed investing, boating and watching the sun set over the James River. In 2009 a fire gutted their home, but his Grammy for "Big Bad John," a puppet made by Muppets creator Jim Henson, a clock that had belonged to Prince Charles and Princess Diana and other valuables were saved. Lost were a collection of celebrity-autographed books, posters of Dean with Elvis Presley and other prized possessions. Donna Meade Dean said the couple had just moved back into their reconstructed home. With his drawled wisecracks and quick wit, Dean charmed many fans. But in both entertainment and business circles, he was also known for his tough hide. He fired bandmate Roy Clark, who went onto "Hee Haw" fame, for showing up late for gigs. More recently, a scrap with Sara Lee led to national headlines. The Chicago-based company let him go as spokesman in 2003, inciting Dean's wrath. He issued a statement titled "Somebody doesn't like Sara Lee," claiming he was dumped because he got old. "The company told me that they were trying to attract the younger housewife, and they didn't think I was the one to do that," Dean told The Associated Press in January 2004. "I think it's the dumbest thing. But you know, what do I know?" Sara Lee has said that it chose not to renew Dean's contract because the "brand was going in a new direction" that demanded a shift in marketing. Dean grew up in a musical household. His mother showed him how to play his first chord on the piano. His father, who left the family, was a songwriter and singer. Dean taught himself to play the accordion and the harmonica. His start in the music business came as an accordionist at a tavern near Bolling Air Force Base in Washington, D.C., where he was stationed in the 1940s. After leaving the Air Force in 1948, he fronted his band, the Texas Wildcats, and drew a strong local following through appearances on Washington-area radio. By the early 1950s, Dean's band had its first national hit in "Bummin' Around." "Big Bad John," which is about a coal miner who saves fellow workers when a mine roof collapses, became a big hit in 1961 and won a Grammy. The star wrote it in less than two hours. His fame led him to a string of television shows, including "The Jimmy Dean Show" on CBS. Dean's last big TV stint was ABC's version of "The Jimmy Dean Show" from 1963 to 1966. Dean in February was elected to the Country Music Hall of Fame. He was to be inducted in October and his wife said she thinks he was looking forward to it. Dean became a headliner at venues like Carnegie Hall and the Hollywood Bowl and became the first country star to play on the Las Vegas strip. He was the first guest host on "The Tonight Show," and also was an actor with parts in television and the movies, including the role of James Bond's ally Willard Whyte in the 1971 film "Diamonds Are Forever." Besides his wife, Dean is survived by three children and two grandchildren, Donna Meade Dean said. Arrangements have not be made, but it will be a private service, she said. In the late '60s, Dean entered the hog business — something he knew well. His family had butchered hogs, with the young Dean whacking them over the head with the blunt end of an ax. The Dean brothers — Jimmy and Don — ground the meat and their mother seasoned it. The Jimmy Dean Meat Co. opened with a plant in Plainview. After six months, the company was profitable. His fortune was estimated at $75 million in the early '90s. Having watched other stars fritter away their fortunes, Dean said he learned to be careful with his money. "I've seen so many people in this business that made a fortune," he told the AP. "They get old and broke and can't make any money. ... I tell you something, ... no one's going to play a benefit for Jimmy Dean." Dean said then that he was at peace at his estate and that he had picked a spot near the river where he wanted to be buried. "It's the sweetest piece of property in the world, we think," he told the Richmond Times-Dispatch. "It sure is peaceful here." AP Entertainment Writer Chris Talbott in Nashville contributed to this report. Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. Respond to this Entry     What Yardsticks Should Be Used To Measure Your Farm's Financial Stability? Industry News - Friday 11th of June 2010 05:41:08 PM   What Yardsticks Should Be Used To Measure Your Farm's Financial Stability? FROM AAA Your lender may have made some comments earlier this year that still echo. He or she may have warned that your financial numbers were a concern because of declines in profitability, liquidity, or solvency, or maybe more than one of those. You received financing for another year, but the lender said if the trends did not reverse, there may not be another year. You thanked the lender for extending credit for another season, but since you walked out of that office, you have not been sure how to make the necessary changes. Financial troubleshooting can be a daunting task, says Robert Jolly, an ag economist and farm finance specialist at Iowa State University. His newsletter in the June edition of the Ag Decision Maker says different problems require different strategies, and while some are simple, most are complex, and it is difficult to determine what may have to be done. “Human behavior always complicates the identification and implementation of needed managerial or business changes,” he says. However, he offers an approach to determine what the problem is and how to solve it. While Jolly does not mention it, one place to begin may be with that lender. Most will be able to identify whether your problems are with profitability, liquidity, or solvency. Profitability is the return to management, labor, and equity after costs are covered. Profit can be measured with an income statement and there are many financial ratios that a lender can share with you to measure profitability. Liquidity is your cash flow, and indicates whether you can meet your cash obligations, such as loan payments and family living expenses. It is best measured with a cash flow statement. Solvency is the ability to withstand financial adversity and represents your net worth or owner equity. It can help secure credit and shows the capacity of a business. It is best measured with a balance sheet. You can have a problem in one and not others; however, a continuation will deteriorate the others. If one of those three has a problem, Jolly says it may have been caused by one of several indicators of success, which are efficiency, scale, and debt structure. • Efficiency is measured in physical terms, such as yield per acre, or pigs per litter and reflects the relationship between inputs and outputs. While efficiency reflects a level of skill, it will judge the abilities of the owner, as well as the worker. Low efficiency will result in reduced profitability and when you have low returns and high costs, liquidity declines and eventually destroys solvency. While not simple, good farm management skills will be able to improve profitability. • Scale is the size of your business, and may be too big or too small for your management ability. Measure the scale with the number of jobs on the farm compared to the labor available to do the job. It can be quantified as bushels or head per worker or workers per acre. If there is excess labor, then the funds allocated for family living can hurt the profitability or liquidity. Reduce labor by eliminating employees or increasing the size of the operation. • Debt structure affects profitability by forcing it to fund too much interest. It affects liquidity by giving it too many loan payments to make. And it affects solvency by restricting the value of assets needed to secure the debt. When debt is too much, then assets have to be sold to reduce liabilities. — Release by Stu Ellis, University of Illinois. Respond to this Entry     My View on the Animal Abuse at Conklin Dairy Farm Industry News - Friday 28th of May 2010 12:02:00 PM   Am I the only one who suspects the Conklin video is a set up and was staged? An effort by the Mercy group to draw attention to and generate donations for an organization many had never heard of before this week.   I say this for a number of reasons   1. Neither I or you, nor anyone else in Animal Ag can image the evil actions displayed on this video.   2. Most would agree the employee is simple minded, my guess he must have been prodded and duped into this behavior by the video’s producer, this is my only reasoning for him bragging about his horrid actions to the camera.   3. This is the worst recorded abuse on livestock EVER! In a state that just happens to be a target by HSUS   4. In our social media driven, viral society the video’s producers knew this would generate considerable response.   THE QUESTION THAT NEEDS ASKED.   Do we know if the Sheriffs have questioned the Billy Jo Gregg Jr. to see if he had co-conspirators’ in the Mercy Group?   I just have to share my view and opinion that with over 150,000 YouTube views over 10,000 signatures to a celebrity petition, thousands of TWEETS and FB mentions they have gathered loads of interest and I would wager loads of financial donations. I have a gut feeling this animal abuse was caused by (or at the very least suggested by) Mercy for Animals in an effort to pad their pocket and make end rows for HSUS in Ohio.     Respond to this Entry     Temple Grandin on Cattle Walfare @ Symposium Industry News - Thursday 20th of May 2010 10:00:49 AM   From RON_ON_RON Animal Well Being Legend Temple Grandlin Headlines Symposium on Beef Cattle Welfare There are a few people that seem larger than life in US Agriculture during the thirty five years I have been covering farming and ranching in the US. Three names that come to mind quickly in that regard are Dr. Earl Butz, Dr. Barry Flinchbaugh and Dr. Temple Grandlin. Dr. Grandlin was the leadoff speaker for the Suymposium for Beef Cattle Welfare being held on the campus of Kansas State University this week- and she spoke of the need to keep pushing the standards of animal care and well being higher and higher to stay ahead of those that are critical of today's livestock producers- as well as others that handle Beef Cattle in the pipeline from the ranch to the folk. Dr. Grandlin spoke of her experience with the general public and the general media as she has gone around the country helping promote the HBO produced movie of her life. She tells us that most people away from the farm or ranch have no idea of how animals are handled or treated- but they are hungry for knowledge. She adds that we have not done a good job of providing that knowledge and need to be proactive in getting more information out about the care given to livestock by almost everyone in the industry. Thu, 20 May 2010 5:04:46 CDT the link below you can here the interview by Ron Hayes http://www.oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/news/2010/05/01515_GrandlinBeefCattleWelfare05202010_050236.php Respond to this Entry     Sexed Semen Is A Good Alternative For Use In Some Cattle Operations Industry News - Tuesday 18th of May 2010 11:53:33 AM   From Angus News Update Semen that has been separated into male and female sperm is now available for the beef and dairy industries, a bovine specialist in Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences told attendees of a recent Pennsylvania Cattleman’s College Purebred Breeders Workshop. The use of artificial insemination (AI) in cattle helps to improve genetic progress and improve access to higher-quality genetics for producers, according to Chad Dechow, associate professor of dairy genetics. “However, the 50/50 ratio of male and female calves that results may not be optimum for some breeders,” he said. “But the cost and conception rate using sexed semen is a compromise that must be addressed.” The workshop was sponsored by the Pennsylvania Center for Beef Excellence and Pfizer Animal Health and was designed to provide current, progressive information to purebred beef breeders. Sexed semen in beef cattle breeding programs can assist breeders in providing high-quality replacement heifers, providing a larger percentage of a calf crop that can be marketed as breeding bulls, or producing male calves that can be marketed as steers for junior steer projects. “The use of sexed semen is much greater in the dairy industry,” Dechow explained. “But most of the leading breeding companies have sexed beef semen available.” The downside is that there is a higher cost for the semen and the success rate will be lower, Dechow noted. “Semen costs generally will be 50% to 100% higher, and studies have shown conception rates will be about 15% lower with sexed semen compared to traditional programs,” he said. “Since the total number of sperm in a dose of sexed semen will be lower, it is not recommended for use in embryo-transfer programs. In addition, there are individual bull differences in the success rate for sexing the semen. Even given these deficiencies, sexing semen can have a huge impact for individual farms that have the ability to gain a premium for cattle of a particular sex.” — Release by Penn State Respond to this Entry     Beef Exports UP & China market REOPEN to accept Pork shipments Industry News - Monday 17th of May 2010 12:04:25 PM   WASHINGTON, D.C., May 14, 2010 – China gave official notice that it is accepting shipments of U.S. pork. 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. In March, the United States and China reached an agreement to reopen the Chinese market to U.S. pork imports, but it took China until now to begin accepting product.  "China is one of our biggest markets, so being able to ship pork there is extremely important to the U.S. pork industry. Also Beef and pork exports of  muscle cuts are up for the first quarter.  Beef muscle cuts are 22% in volume and 24% in value.  Pork muscle cuts are up 1% in volume and 2% in value. Beef exports to Mexico have struggled due to the weakness in Mexico’s economy.  Pork exports to Japan have slowed due too unusually high inventories of domestic pork. Have a great day Respond to this Entry     Ready to Make Hay? Industry News - Thursday 13th of May 2010 01:05:25 PM   It seems plenty early to me to be getting excited about makeing hay--BUT-- Have had two friends GRIPE about the rain and when they will be abile to cut hay.... Seems as long as i can remember here in Ohio if you wanted to make your hay WITHOUT getting it wet.... well you just had better wait till about June 10th or affter sure i can remember one time dad got excited to mow some grass hay off and we were going on May 27th but that was only one time. (Dad is 75 and takes great pride that he can count on one hand the times the in the last 40 years he got his hay wet.....although the Alfalfa sometimes got hit by the weevel, but that another story....) ANYHOW i found this info and thought I would pass it along Kevin Beware of Hot Hay Causing Barn Fires This year’s unusually wet spring and early summer has led many farmers to store hay that’s wetter than normal, increasing the danger of barn fires. Often, farmers have reported that they know the hay they are baling is wetter than they’d like, but with additional rain forecast, they are taking a chance, hoping to save a better-quality product vs. letting the rain cause the crop to deteriorate in the field. Consequently, there has been an increase in barn fires during the past few weeks, at least some of which were caused by hot hay igniting through spontaneous combustion. Most farmers strive to bale hay that is field dried to 20% or less in moisture. At this moisture content, the baled hay can cure properly and maintain quality. Some farmers are reporting having to bale their hay at 25% moisture. With moisture content that high, hay under storage conditions will generate more heat than can safely be dissipated into the atmosphere. As temperatures rise, dangers of spontaneous combustion increase. Farmers need to be diligent in checking their hay, especially if they know they baled hay that was wetter than normal. Smoldering hay gives off a strong, pungent odor. This odor is an indication that a fire is occurring. If even the slightest smell is present, farmers should attempt to take temperature readings of the stack. Reaching inside a hay stack will give a cursory clue. If it feels warm or hot to the touch, that’s a good indication that problems may exist. Taking temperature readings of the stack is most important and the only real way of determining how bad the potential fire problem is before flames ignite. Infrared thermometers and digital thermometers are accurate, and local fire companies may be willing to come out with thermal imaging cameras to evaluate a situation. Most would prefer to come out prior to an actual fire event, as a way to help avoid a catastrophic fire. A number of fire companies and silo-fire experts also have probes available that producers can borrow to help them monitor a stack of hay. Research and experience suggest that farmers and firefighters should be aware of several critical temperatures and action steps involving heated hay. These are: Temperature 125° F — No action needed. Temperature 150° F — Entering the danger zone. Temperatures should be checked twice daily. If possible, stacked hay should be disassembled to allow more air to move around heated bales for cooling. Temperature 160° F — Reaching the danger zone. Temperature should be checked every two hours. If possible, stacked hay should be disassembled to allow more air to move around heated bales for cooling. Temperature 175° F — Hot spots or fire pockets are likely. If possible, stop all air movement around hay. Alert fire service of a possible hay fire incident. Temperature 190° F — Remove hot hay. This should be done with the assistance of the fire service. The fire service should be prepared for hay to burst into flames as it contacts fresh air. Temperature 200° F or higher — Remove hot hay. A fire is almost certain to develop. This should be done with the assistance of the fire service. The fire service should be prepared for hay to burst into flames as it contacts fresh air. Keeping a watchful eye on heating hay can save your barn or storage building. Checking the temperature of suspected or hot hay can help you make critical decisions. If you see the temperature rising toward the 150-degree range, you might consider moving the hay to a remote location, away from any buildings or combustible material. If a hay fire is to happen, it’s better to have it away from your main hay storage area or barn. Use caution when moving heated bales, because they can burst into flames when they are exposed to fresh air. Wetting hot bales down before moving them can help control this hazard. — Release by Penn State Agricultural Emergencies Program Respond to this Entry     National Humane Society no friend to 4-H Industry News - Thursday 22nd of April 2010 09:51:09 AM   From the The Baltimore Sun Farmers and ranchers across the country have long known what many Americans are just now learning. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a political machine masquerading as an umbrella organization for local humane societies. While most local humane societies perform a much-needed service in their local communities, the national organization is run by vegetarians with an extreme anti-meat agenda. The HSUS markets itself as an animal care organization but spends less than 1 percent of its $100 million annual budget in hands-on pet shelters. The watchdog website http://www.humanewatch.org reports that in 2008, HSUS "paid less than one-half of one percent" of the money it raised to "organizations that do hands-on dog and cat sheltering," the functions HSUS says are the organization's focus. HSUS solicits money from well-intentioned but often uninformed animal lovers and uses these donations to lobby Congress for an anti-meat, anti-animal-agriculture agenda. Leaders of this organization have made statements indicating they would like to see animal agriculture end. John "J.P." Goodwin, the manager of Animal Fighting Issues at HSUS, told AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group, that his "goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, told Animal People News his stated goal is to create "a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement." Paul Shapiro, senior director of HSUS' factory farming campaign, told a Colorado audience in 2003 that "eating meat causes animal cruelty." HSUS has given funding to the notorious anti-meat organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. HSUS is a radical, activist group committed to working against livestock production and American farmers. It is this commitment that troubled many in the agriculture industry when HSUS was invited to lead a March 23 session titled "Animal Instincts: Service Learning and Animal Welfare" at the 2010 National 4-H Conference in Chevy Chase. 4-H has a rich history of livestock care and production. 4-H members work hard and long hours raising and training animals for county fairs across the country. Local 4-H programs teach young men and women how to make their own contributions to animal agriculture in our communities and country. To invite an organization committed to the eradication of animal agriculture to its national conference is at best a mistake by 4-H and at worst a troubling concession to anti-meat liberals working for the Obama administration at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. There is no excuse for 4-H allowing an organization actively working against a staple component of 4-H programs and our diets to present at its national conference. Thankfully, many local and state 4-H organizations, including the 4-H program in my state of Iowa, have renounced HSUS' presence at the national 4-H conference. Local and state 4-H groups understand the negative ramifications of inviting HSUS to indoctrinate 4-H youth into an anti-animal-agriculture agenda. National 4-H has yet to apologize for its decision to invite HSUS to present its program at its national conference. The group's attempts to explain the presence of HSUS have led many Americans to reconsider supporting national 4-H programs. Now would be a good time for the young leaders of 4-H to present and pass a resolution through national 4-H that formally refuses to grant a forum to organizations that are anathema to the grand traditions of 4-H. National 4-H needs to fully understand the consequences of partnering with an organization committed to ending the American livestock industry. Congressman Steve King represents western Iowa in Congress and is on the House Agriculture Committee. His e-mail is steve.king@mail.house.gov. From the The Baltimore Sun Respond to this Entry     Response 1 Thursday 22nd of April 2010 09:52:49 AM Submitted by: ADMIN Transparency is everything. I was thinking about that as I stared into the silver-dollar-sized hole in our entryway wall. My 13-year-old daughter saw a house centipede on the wall, grabbed one of my heels and launched into ‘Ninja’ mode. I confess, house centipedes ARE kind of freaky-looking ), but I would’ve preferred she give me the ‘heads up’ about this ‘problem’ before she put a hole that went straight through to the drywall. Because she came clean about her Ninja Bug-Smashing Incident, our family learned two ‘lessons’: 1) If you come clean about a problem, you can prevent a bigger one. 2) It’s always good to have a drywall repairman in your ‘speed dial’, just in case. Okay, I was only partially kidding about that second one, but you see my point; keep it real; if you see a problem, ask for help with the solution. I only wish Wayne Pacelle from the Humane Society of the United States would see it as well. Case in point, a recent ‘News Conference’ in Des Moines, where the HSUS spokesman flew into town to unveil ‘hidden camera video’ of suspect maintenance and animal handling at a big chicken ranch. No one seems to know (and Wayne sure didn’t offer) the true timeline of the blurry images captured by an undercover chicken farm employee. The scenes were edited together to paint a picture that would tug at the heartstrings of all animal lovers (farmers included). The biggest problem I had about it has to do with ‘transparency’. When this faux chicken-factory ‘worker’ noticed problems, why didn’t he or she report it? Why didn’t they help the animals or correct the handler who was too rough with the birds? Why have a ‘hidden’ camera at all? Why not be real about what you’re doing and what you want? I’m wondering how many reporters who actually got into that news conference wondered about the true motivations of the smooth-talking, suit-wearing, professionally-coiffed man at the podium. Are they really trying to improve conditions of food animals or get consumers to stop eating them all together? (I can’t help but notice all the vegan recipes on their website). No matter what side of animal care you sit on, you have to agree; the man is good at what he does. He looks every bit the Yale-graduate that he is—impeccably groomed, soft-spoken, articulate, passionate and unflappable—even when surrounded by industry spokespersons, lobbyists and ag media. But, who says you need a blow-dry hairdo and a three-piece suit to speak about animal welfare? “Dirty Jobs” host Mike Rowe makes a living rolling up his sleeves and showing sofa-surfers around the world how sweat-stained, dirt-under-the-fingernails, blue-collar workers make a living with integrity. One such job took Rowe inside a big chicken farm (one that Pacelle would clearly never set one of his Italian loafers on). What you see is the same thing responsible Iowa livestock farmers believe: size has nothing to do with integrity or the humane treatment of farm animals. If it truly is about ‘having a dialogue with farmers,’ then why did Pacelle ban some ag media at the news conference? Transparency is a good thing, only if it’s sincere. Saying you want to fix things but not being upfront with the farmer who has a problem and helping him fix it is not the spirit of the ‘transparency’ Pacelle preaches. His kind of ‘transparency’ isn’t about preventing a hole in the wall; it’s about taking down the entire house, one “Ninja kick” at a time. Laurie Johns is Public Relations Manager for the Iowa Farm Burea Scott Downing Benefit Auction Starts May 1 Industry News - Thursday 22nd of April 2010 09:15:22 AM   From Angus News updates-- Scott Downing Benefit Auction Starts May 1 Scott Downing was in a serious ranching accident working cows in Oregon March 29. He was hospitalized at Providence Hospital in Medford, Ore., with a traumatic head injury. Scott and his wife, Tracy, live in Butte Falls, Ore., and they have two boys, Lane and Brandt. Katie Colyer, LiveAuctions.tv, and friends of the Downing family are planning an online benefit auction to help offset unexpected family expenses the Downing family is facing during Scott’s hospitalization and recovery. The auction will open May 1 and the closeout will start at 6 p.m. PST May 5. Respond to this Entry     CBS - Animal Antibiotics Threat Industry News - Wednesday 10th of February 2010 09:17:19 AM   Must Watch   http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6191894n&tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.1 Wow not sure where i stand or what i think about this issue but for CBS this was closer to a fair and honest report than they EVER get. After you watch the video, you have to think, do we really need all those drugs? I know in my past life as a feed sales rep for a major player as a mid-west swine feeder. Rx companies sure gave us a lot of money for  promotions, giveaways, salesman incentives, weekend get-a-ways. Any time i wanted or needed some money to thow some were, we ask the makers of Tylan or Paylean for some coin and they were always right there to pony up!  Makes me think with all that "buying of the love" do or did we really need all those drugs in hog feed, and then you think about all the Tylan adds in print... they spent alot of money to promote that product. All of it to prevent Illietis (runny pop) -- Please don't make any mistake that i don't understand how to use Rx, I KNOW first hand the importance of strategic placed dosage-- You know, my fathers theory is folks will never cure Cancer, Aids, the common cold all because buying Rx Drugs  is just big business. I'm sure the money is what drives drug companies to over promote there usage ------While this did not paint America Ag & hog farming in as bad of light as i thought CBS might have, I do love how they edit the tape with what Katie Couric is saying, CLASSIC fear mongering. Did anyone else notice when they said the line  ...there are a lot of concerns over adding antibiotics to feeds that cause MRSA and other issues....      the video showed a guy pouring MOLASSES in a grinder mixing cow feed... even got a close up of this--- really focused on the the thick black texture. Love the close up on dead pigs ... TWICE, at least they did find some clean swine farms to visit It could have turned into a HSUS piece very quickly in the Gestation Crate barn. I bet Katie is still cussing the hog smell on her fancy city slicker boots and in her hair... but she looked cute in her plastic booties LOL  was this Liberal media again scarring the population from eating meat?   Respond to this Entry     Response 1 Wednesday 10th of February 2010 09:52:53 AM Submitted by: Kevin from RON Anti Antibiotic Story Hits on CBS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The US Livestock industry had been waiting on this story to hit for more than a week- and part one aired last night on the CBS Evening News, as anchor Katie Couric painted the poultry and pork industries in a very negative light. Using terminology like "factory farming" and trying to tie food safety issue to the use of antibiotics by livestock producers. It was a relatively long piece- more than seven minutes, which is forever in TV news- and will be followed by another segment tonight. It is speculated that Couric is trying to beat the drum for Congresswomen Slaughter of New York who wants a ban on antibiotic use in animal agriculture. CBS interviewed Kim Howland of Lahoma back in January for this two part series- she was seen claiming that hog producers use antibiotics "Constantly, constantly, constantly" and that she fears she brought MRSA infection home to her husband and daughter. CBS also talked about MRSA among those who work with poultry in Batesville, Arkansas at a Pilgrim's Pride processing plant in that community. The claim that antibiotics are used non stop is disputed by Missouri hog producer Chris Chinn, who says on Twitter that "antibiotics are expensive- we do NOT feed them everyday." She adds that she works with her Vet to strategically use antibiotics when it will help protect the health of the animals and the safety of the food supply. It was harder for Couric and her writers to tie chickens or hogs with antibiotics in the meat you see at the grocery store- but they tried. However, livestock industry officials remind us that "All meat is antibiotic free when it arrives at the meatcase. Farmers follow withdrawal times before animals are processed." USDA Gives Up on NAIS- Proposes State and Tribal Decentralized Concept Industry News - Monday 8th of February 2010 10:05:20 AM   From RON_ON_RON After spending millions of dollars trying to assemble a National Animal ID system, the US Department of Agriculture has tossed in the towel on that effort and announced plans on Friday to go what they are calling a bottom up system that will be run by the states and federally supported but not federally led. This system needs to be in place to make sure if we have a disease outbreak in our livestock herd- we can traceback to find where the disease originated in less than 48 hours. After the initial case of Mad Cow disease in the US back in 2003- a national animal ID program has been contemplated and proposed- but small livestock operations called it Big Brother overkill and have fought a mandated program. This new direction is decentralized and will only be required of animals going across state lines in interstate commerce. Lots of details to come- but USDA says it will look a lot like previous ID programs for some previous animal diseases that have been mostly eliminated from the cattle and hog herds in the US- and it will apparently use low cost simple ear tags that will cost pennies per animal instead of the high tech options of electronic ear tags and readers that could cost several dollars per animal. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association responded to the announcement from Friday- new President of the group, Steve Foglesong of Illinois, says "The plan appears to lay the foundation for a flexible approach to animal disease traceability, including greater state-involvement and choices in the use of technology. We encourage USDA to work closely with producers in the development of the framework moving forward. Its important that the system is workable for producers, and accomplishes the goal of increased animal surveillance by enabling state and federal animal health officials to respond rapidly and effectively to animal health emergencies. Respond to this Entry     HSUS Misleading Charity Must Return Haiti Donations Industry News - Wednesday 3rd of February 2010 10:39:00 AM   From news wire http://www.scoop.co.nz yep they are giant liying jerks Consumer Group: HSUS Must Return Donations After Misleading Haiti Fundraising Humane Society of the United States Has a History of Deceptive Pitches Washington, DC â The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is calling on the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to return all the funds it has raised under the pretense of âsavingâ animals in the wake of Haitiâs devastating earthquake. A disaster relief expert working with Humane Society International (HSUSâs global arm) reports that there are no animal issues resulting from the earthquake and that no actions can be taken to help animals there. This follows a thorough assessment of the situation in Haiti. HSUS continues to raise funds for âemergencyâ donations, claiming Tuesday that âHumane Society International's team on the ground in Haiti continues its work of helping animals in distress.â David Martosko, Director of Research at the Center for Consumer Freedom released the following statement on HSUSâs deceptive fundraising: Raising money to help nonexistent animals is the lowest kind of fundraising scam. Sadly, itâs just the latest in a string of phony HSUS fundraising schemes. In 2007 HSUS raised money with the false promise that it would be used to âcare for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case.â The New York Times later reported that HSUS was not caring for the animals at all, and HSUS president Wayne Pacelle said his group was recommending that government officials âput downâ (kill) all the dogs, many of which were later saved by other organizations. HSUS also raised a reported $34 million in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, funds that were supposed to help reunite lost pets with their owners. But an investigation by WSB-TV in Atlanta found that less than $7 million of this money could be publicly accounted for. In the name of transparency, HSUS should cease its Haiti fundraising immediately, or redirect 100 percent of the proceeds to the American Red Cross. The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers, working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices. Respond to this Entry     Response 1 Thursday 4th of February 2010 03:17:43 PM Submitted by: Chris Fleming Thank you for letting people know! Preying on the emotions and good-will of people to "feather your nest" is right up there with ambulance chasing lawyers. Knowledge is Power When It Comes to Genetic Defects Industry News - Tuesday 2nd of February 2010 11:04:22 AM   OSU Beef Cattle Specialist Dr. Glenn Selk has an interesting article that he has written about some educational opportunities coming later this month for cattle producers. Here is update from the latest Cow Calf News that he sends out from OSU. "Those of us that grew up in the 50s and 60s remember snorter dwarfism. Dwarfism was a recessive genetic defect that struck fear in commercial and purebred breeders alike. The only way a bull was tested for dwarfism was to mate him to about 20 of his own daughters. In other words bulls were several years old, before they could be absolutely be determined to be free of the genetic disorder. Over the last decade, numerous genetic defects have been documented in several cattle breeds. Today, there are testing tools available that make managing around these genetic defects quite possible. Learning about these genetic defects and testing tools should reduce the concern of producers. There are opportunities to bring yourself up-to-date on these issues coming very soon to your computer. I urge producers to take advantage of these webinars. The eXtension Beef Cattle Clearinghouse Community of Practice will conduct 2 webinars in February 2010. The dates for the webinars are February 11 and Feb 25; starting at noon Central time for 1 hour each. Speakers will be Dr. Bob Weaber, University of Missouri and Dr. Matt Spangler, University of Nebraska. Respond to this Entry     HSUS Readies Petition Drive to Dictate to New Ohio Animal Standards Board "HSUS Acceptable" Standards They Must Implement Industry News - Tuesday 2nd of February 2010 10:40:44 AM   from RON ON RON Ohioans for Humane Farms submitted a petition—including signatures from Ohio voters in 48 counties, demonstrating broad and regionally diverse support—to Ohio’s Secretary of State in support of placing an anti-cruelty measure on the statewide November ballot. The proposed measure would allow voters to require the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to adopt certain minimum standards that will prevent the cruel and inhumane treatment of farm animals, enhance food safety, protect the environment and strengthen Ohio family farms. Utilizing a large volunteer base, the group will seek to collect more than 600,000 signatures of registered Ohio voters upon approval of the petition forms by the Secretary of State. The ballot measure is backed by The Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, Ohio SPCA, Toledo Area Humane Society, Geauga Humane Society, Ohio League of Humane Voters, Center for Food Safety, United Farm Workers, Consumer Federation of America, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and a growing list of organizations. This measure will allow Ohio voters to provide guidance to the newly enacted Livestock Board and set certain minimum humane standards that will prevent cruel factory farming practices in Ohio, including: ·         Extreme confinement in tiny cages for months on end: Tens of thousands of veal calves, 170,000 breeding pigs, and approximately 27 million egg-laying hens in Ohio are confined in cages and crates so restrictive the animals can barely move an inch for virtually their whole lives. Many don’t even have enough room to stretch their limbs or turn around. ·         Allowing “downer cows” to enter the human food chain: Allowing sick and injured animals into the food supply threatens public health and food safety. Cows too sick or injured to stand or walk on their own to slaughter should be humanely euthanized, not inhumanely dragged or pushed while being shocked and beaten onto the kill floor to be used for human consumption. ·         Inhumane methods of euthanasia for sick and injured animals: In Ohio, a factory farmer was videotaped killing sick pigs by hanging them execution-style from a tractor, leaving them to writhe in the air for minutes on end. He was acquitted of cruelty for the hangings, a verdict Ohio’s agribusiness community hailed as a “huge victory,” because Ohio has no law specifically requiring humane farm animal euthanasia methods. The Board would have six years to implement these minimum standards, allowing producers ample time to transition to more humane systems. If the measure is enacted, Ohioans for Humane Farms hopes that the Livestock Board would immediately adopt minimum standards that address euthanasia and downer animals. “We wouldn’t cram our pets into cages barely larger than their bodies for their entire lives, and we shouldn’t subject farm animals to this inhumane and unacceptable confinement either,” stated Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS. “All animals deserve humane treatment, including animals raised for food.” “Mahatma Gandhi said you can judge a nation by the way it treats its animals. As a veterinarian, I am duty-bound to protect the human-animal bond, and by supporting this measure, we as a state and nation will be improving the lives of animals,” states Cleveland veterinarian Brian Forsgren, DVM. “Ohioans oppose cruelty and believe that all animals, including farm animals, deserve to be protected,” said Gene Baur, president of Farm Sanctuary. “In November, Ohioans will have the opportunity to make their voices heard and phase out some of the worst factory farm abuses.” Michigan recently became the latest state to adopt reforms, providing farm animals with more space to turn around and extend their limbs, passing a measure in its state legislature in 2009 very similar in form to the Ohio proposal. Similar laws also have been enacted in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Maine and Oregon. Respond to this Entry     Ohio Ag Groups React to the HSUS Plan to Tell New Animal Care Standards Board What to Do Industry News - Tuesday 2nd of February 2010 10:39:05 AM   Out-of-state activists have begun their efforts to undo Ohioans’ overwhelming passage of Issue 2. Less than three months after Ohioans approved Issue 2 to create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board (OLCSB), lobbyists from Washington, D.C. have declared they know better than Ohio voters, according to John C. (Jack) Fisher, executive vice president of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation (OFBF). The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a Washington, D.C.–based animal rights lobbying organization, has announced plans to put a measure on the Ohio ballot through which HSUS would dictate OLCSB decisions. Nearly two-thirds of Ohio’s voters this past November supported Issue 2. The board is expected to be operating by this spring, following completion of required legislation and board appointments. “The enabling legislation hasn’t passed; the board hasn’t been appointed and the first discussions on what standards Ohioans find acceptable hasn’t been held. And yet, the Humane Society of the United States is saying, in effect, Ohioans got it wrong,” said Fisher. Respond to this Entry     Cow Size and Efficiency: Solving the Puzzle Industry News - Tuesday 2nd of February 2010 09:56:16 AM   from Angus.org Cow size has become a hot topic of debate among cow-calf producers. One side argues that smaller cows are more efficient, and rising feed costs have only fueled that argument. The other side counters that bigger cows produce the bigger calves that many if not most cattle feeders favor. And the beef packing industry generally rewards the feeder for heavy carcasses from large-framed cattle. Cow size and efficiency were addressed during a 2010 Cattle Industry Convention Cattlemen’s College® session presented by Texas A&M University King Ranch Institute for Ranch Management (KRIRM) students Jennifer Johnson and J.D. Radokovich, along with KRIM Director Barry Dunn. The trio confessed to having no easy answer, no simple rule-of-thumb, and said the best way to frame the efficiency question is to ask which cattle are most efficient for a specific environment and production system. “It’s complicated,” Radokovich said. “We can’t tell you exactly what kind of cattle to run. The best we can do is give you some tools to use in making good decisions for your individual operations.” Johnson explained how overall efficiency is a combination of biological efficiency (feed consumed to beef produced) and economic efficiency (dollars spent to dollars returned). Attempting to achieve both simultaneously requires understanding and managing the genetic potential of cattle, the environment in which the cattle must perform, and decisions about what product a producer is marketing and when that product is marketed. It’s a mistake to equate low cow maintenance requirements with efficiency, she said, noting that low-maintenance cows aren’t always efficient. They can be, but they aren’t necessarily always efficient. Nor are high-maintenance cows always inefficient. Johnson also warned against using the old rule-of-thumb calling for a cow to wean a calf weighing 50% of her own body weight. “Though commonly used, it’s not an accurate measure of efficiency. It doesn’t consider calf age and the cow’s milk production. The ratio of total pounds of calves weaned to the total number of cows exposed to breeding is a better evaluation,” Johnson suggested. The KRIRM team said matching growth and milk production to available feed resources is key to creating efficient cows. The natural availability of feed resources varies greatly across the U.S., and utilizing cattle with different genetic potential for production is a logical response to environmental differences. Cow size must fit the environment and economic guardrails (she rebreeds on time and produces a calf with market acceptability), to be the “right size.” “The most efficient cow is one with the highest milk production potential that can, without reducing the percent of calves weaned, repeatedly produce a calf sired by bulls with the growth and carcass characteristics valued most in the marketplace,” Dunn stated. “It’s management that makes resources productive. We don’t need better cow sizes for our managers. We need better managers for our cow sizes.” Respond to this Entry     Who really likes Oprah? Industry News - Monday 1st of February 2010 01:06:28 PM   Time and time again this lady jabs and jabs and jabs some more at the food and fiber sector. Why, I am all for finding a problem and exposeing it but ONLY when we have a souliton or to open up disscusion on finding a soultion. I agree that finding healthy choices when dining out is a challange, however, consuming humainly rasied meat, well thats all in ones persective on animal agriculture. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/forkintheroad/archives/2010/01/michael_pollan_3.php Respond to this Entry     Cattle Supply Decline to Continue in 2010, According to CattleFax Industry News - Monday 1st of February 2010 11:16:09 AM   Cattle supplies in 2010 should decline another 1 to 1.5 percent in 2010, Randy Blach, Chief Executive Officer for Cattle-Fax, told attendees of the 2010 Cattle Industry Convention in San Antonio, Tex., today. At the same time, beef demand will continue to be impacted by a weak economy and high unemployment. Nevertheless, 2010 overall “should be a better year for the beef industry,” said Blach, with beef exports expected to rise and fed cattle slaughter totals expected to decrease. “Demand remains the biggest challenge for the beef industry in 2010,” said Blach. “Though the supply situation is very bullish, demand must stabilize in order for prices to turn significantly higher.” Respond to this Entry     New York Dairy Farmer Kills 51 Cows, Commits Suicide Industry News - Thursday 28th of January 2010 11:17:54 AM   Very sad but thougt i would pass along  COPAKE, N.Y. (Jan. 22) -- State police in New York say an upstate dairy farmer shot and killed 51 of his milk cows in his barn before turning the rifle on himself. State police found the body of 59-year-old Dean Pierson in his Copake barn on Thursday. A visitor found a note Pierson had left on the barn door that said not to come in and to call police. State police would only say that Pierson was having personal issues. The Columbia County hamlet of Copake is about 115 miles north of New York City. Local farmers buried the cows outside the barn Friday. They would not discuss Pierson or what had happened, but one of the men said these are hard times to be a farmer. Respond to this Entry     Vermont Bill Would Authorize HSUS to Oversee Livestock Commerce in the State Vermont Bill Would Authorize HSUS to Oversee Livestock Commerce in the State Industry News - Wednesday 27th of January 2010 06:47:07 PM   It's almost unbelievable- but a Vermont lawmaker has introduced a bill that would authorize that "An inspector who is a representative of a the humane society of the United States, a Vermont-domiciled humane society, or similar organization approved by rule of the secretary, shall be present to observe a slaughterer, packer, or stockyard operator when engaged in the practice of bleeding or slaughtering livestock." We have reaction from Steve Kopperud who helped found the Animal Agriculture Alliance, who says that " Animal Rights acitivists may be headed toward an unprecedented power grab in Vermont." Kopperud, who is now executive vice president of Policy Directions, has been monitoring the activities of animal rights activists for over 20 years and says what groups like HSUS are trying to do in Vermont represents an important turning point in their crusade to enact animal welfare reforms. Click on the link below to hear a report from our colleague Stewart Doan on this incredible situation unfolding in the "Green Mountain State." We also have a link within our story of the language of the bill introduced in Vermont that would hand over the oversight of animal agriculture to HSUS Respond to this Entry     EXTRA - EXTRA Ohio House Introduces Livestock Care Standards Legislation Industry News - Wednesday 27th of January 2010 06:14:57 PM   Representatives Sayre and Bolon introduced the implementation legislation for State Issue 2’s Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board on Tuesday, Jan. 19. House Bill 414 does the following: Defines “livestock” as equine animals, regardless of the purpose for which the equine are raised; porcine, bovine, caprine and ovine animals; poultry; alpaca and llamas. Requires the appointment of the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board within 45 days of the bill’s effective date and establishes board member provisions such as terms of office, vacancies, meetings and compensation. Reiterates Issue 2’s language regarding the purpose of the board. Directs the board to adopt rules regarding civil penalties for violating care standards. Establishes duties of the director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) for assisting the board and grants authority to the director and his/her representative to enter property for inspection and investigation. Prohibits anyone from providing false information in response to the livestock care standard requirements, or otherwise violating the rules developed by the board. Creates an Ohio livestock care standards fund and authorizes the director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture to use the fund for program administration and enforcement. Increases the commercial feed and seed inspection fee in ORC 923.44 by 15¢ over the next three years, in 5¢ increments per year — to 30¢, 35¢ and 40¢ per ton — and increases the minimum fee from $25 to $50. Allows the director of ODA to request annual transfers of not less than $500,000 from the commercial feed and seed fund to the Ohio livestock care standards fund. States that the law does not affect the authority of county humane societies or officials. Clarifies that the law does not apply to food processing production activities regulated under ORC Chapter 1717. Respond to this Entry     This will make you mad! Oklahoma Based Sonic Bows to HSUS Industry News - Wednesday 27th of January 2010 06:08:13 PM   In an news report from Meatingplace, the Oklahoma City based food chain Sonic Drive Ins have decided to make demands on their suppliers of pork and eggs going forward. "Sonic Corp., the drive-in restaurant chain, said it will begin requiring all suppliers to undergo independent audits of their livestock and poultry handling practices in an effort to promote the humane treatment of farm animals. Sonic said it is asking its suppliers to focus on employee training in humane animal-handling practices and ongoing verification of practices. Companies that continue to fail to meet Sonic's animal welfare guidelines will be excluded from its supply chain, Sonic said. " Specifically, Sonic said it will challenge its poultry suppliers to convert to an animal welfare-friendly controlled atmosphere killing system (CAS). Animal welfare-friendly is defined as no dumping or shackling live birds and using inert gases. Sonic said it will favor suppliers that raise hogs in a gestation crate-free environment. Egg suppliers will be required to meet United Egg Producer (UEP) standards for housing and other poultry practices. Sonic does not support the withdrawal of food or water to facilitate molting or support improperly controlled or managed beak trimming. Meatingplace points out that Sonic is one of a number of fast food chains that HSUS has bought stock in and is demanding policy statements similar to those that Sonic has just announced. These policies as demanded by HSUS are in line with the political goals that HSUS is seeking in states across the country. Going back to last spring, the head of the HSUS admitted that the policies they seek are not science based, but rather are arbitrary standards that their board and staff have developed to fit their opinions of animal well being. Respond to this Entry     Monday Market Sentiment: Industry Leaders Predict A Decrease In Cash Cattle Prices Industry News - Tuesday 26th of January 2010 02:24:28 PM   A survey of cattle-industry leaders suggests the average price for cash cattle will decrease 20 cents to 84.71 this week. The decrease in the average forecast in CatttleNetwork's Monday Market Sentiment survey marks the first week in nearly two months that industry insiders have predicted a decrease in prices. The Monday Market Sentiment is a forecast of the upcoming weekly cash trade (5-Area weighted average price) prices reported by the USDA. This week prices decrease for the first time in five weeks. Last week the USDA announced that cash trade for the week ending January 24th was 84.91, a 5 percent increase from a year earlier. Most industry leaders were expecting to see much lower placements than what was reported in last week's cattle on feed report. Rob Cook, Director of CattleNetwork, expects to see steady trade this week. “Cattle feeders will be looking for steady prices this week.I thought this week would be off to a great start after last week's cattle on feed report. However with corn futures starting the week higher it slowed some of the enthusiasm. Hopefully beef demand can try to remain firm to end out the month.” Each week CattleNetwork awards a $100 gift certificate from Cabela's courtesy of Intervet/Schering Plough to the industry leader whose forecast comes closest to the 5-Area cash trade number reported by the USDA. The most recent winner is Mark Engler of Cactus Feeders. Respond to this Entry     Keifer Sutherland Loses Thousands In Cattle Sales Scandal Industry News - Tuesday 26th of January 2010 02:16:50 PM   STOCKTON - Keifer Sutherland, best known for his role as Jack Bauer on the Fox TV series "24," has been named as one of the victims in a San Joaquin County case involving a Linden cattle salesman who is facing embezzlement charges. According to a news release from the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office, the actor was swindled out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, allegedly by Michael Wayne Carr, a competitive steer roping promoter and cattle manager. Carr's arraignment is scheduled for Feb. 8. It was delayed Monday after Carr's attorney was removed from the case, Deputy District Attorney Stephen Maier said. Carr is expected to be arraigned on 12 felony charges: five counts of grand theft with "great taking enhancements," three counts of forgery, two counts of obtaining money by false pretenses, and one count each of embezzlement and falsifying corporate books. If Carr is found guilty on all charges, he could serve 18 years in a state prison. According to the District Attorney's Office, the Linden resident took $869,000 from Sutherland on an agreement that he would buy steers in Mexico with that money and sell them at a "huge" profit to prearranged buyers in the United States. Some of the films in which Sutherland, 43, portrayed cowboys inspired him to buy a ranch in Montana and pursue rodeo competition. He has won a number of roping contests. Prosecutors have found no evidence that Carr ever bought or sold the steers Sutherland supposedly financed. Carr is accused by county prosecutors of doing the same thing to a couple in New Mexico, who gave him $177,000. Local victims have also come forward. An Escalon man said he loaned Carr 54 steers and has yet to receive them back or receive any payment. The county did find instances where Carr produced sales. However, the District Attorney's Office said, the cattle didn't belong to him. A Colorado cattle mover who leases steers for roping competitions - primarily in California, Nevada and Arizona - accused Carr of selling some of the company's livestock without its permission and keeping the money. The court estimates the value of the missing cattle to be more than $400,000. Contact reporter Jennie Rodriguez at (209) 943-8564 or jrodriguez@recordnet.com. Respond to this Entry     USDA Crop Reports Industry News - Wednesday 11th of November 2009 02:41:07 PM   From OHIO COUNTRY JOURNAL - The USDA reports were out yesterday morning with the corn production expected to be 12.921 billion bushels. It was 13.018 last month. Soybean production is forecast to be 3.319 Billion. That is larger than the 3.269 that the trade was expecting. Ohio numbers came out Tuesday morning and if you normally read my e-mail closely then you would know that the Ohio NASS website has last years report and this years date. The e-mail report from NASS that came out was all wrong as it was the data from last year. Jim Ramey out at NASS field office at Reynoldsburg said the report should have shown no change in the corn at166 bushel average forecast. The soybeans were increased by two bushels to 48 bushels per acre. Both would be a new record yield for Ohio. Here is the report from around Ohio from Ohio’s Country Journal. Respond to this Entry     Cattle Feeders Create Some Gap...But Don't Get Caught Looking Back Industry News - Tuesday 10th of November 2009 01:19:00 PM   Good info from Nevil Speer / cattletradecenter.com   Finally some reprieve. October proved friendly to the fed market which showed signs of life during the month. It’s been six months since prices were this good – a very long six months if you’re a cattle feeder. Halloween finished the month out on an especially positive note. Cattle buyers bid generously; fed trade was solidly $2-2.50 higher than the previous week. The market finished the month at $87-8 - a far cry from just 30 days ago when cattle feeders saw trade encroaching $80. October’s finish and November’s open places the market back at levels not seen since April. Moreover, weekly beef tonnage has exceeded last year’s mark five times in the past six weeks. Cattle feeders have done an excellent job of negotiating and marketing cattle for the past several weeks. Unfortunately, commodity businesses never allow time to celebrate. I noted last month, “Just about the time it appears there might be some promise of better prices, or at least the establishment of firmer footing, the market gets trampled back to lower levels.” Therefore, the real test for the market is ahead of us. Can the market solidify last month’s achievement and tag on some additional upward momentum? Unfortunately, while spot prices have improved in recent weeks the longer-term prospects have diminished: December live cattle peaked near-term at $88 on October 23rd and have since reversed direction back to $85. The 4-week moving average provides some additional perspective where we currently stand. Despite recent gains, the fed steer 4-week moving average was $84 at the end of October – smack in the middle of the 2009’s high ($87) and low ($81), respectively. There are several critical hurdles to overcome before declaring any type of major victory as we transition into the holiday season. First, live prices moved higher separate from any major upside for the wholesale market. As been the case all year, Choice boxed beef prices continue to trade in a relatively narrow range. The market has established fairly firm support at $135. However, cutout values persistently seem to hit resistance around $140 (with $145 being the upward bound in 2009). That reality was readily exhibited in recent weeks and will pressure further upside potential for the fed market. Second, the wholesale market’s virtual ceiling coupled with higher live prices of late has been at the packer’s expense. Processing margins have declined sharply during the past month (see second graph below). While that’s expected seasonally, it establishes a tougher overtone for weekly negotiations - especially in a year like this (more on that later). Switching gears to the production side, October’s cattle-on-feed report provided some valuable insight relative to decision making in the cow/calf sector. The report included the quarterly “number on feed by class” estimates. October’s numbers came in about as expected. Heifers were pegged at 38.3% of the total feedyard inventory - up only slightly from July’s figure (see graph below). But that’s key; it’s suggests no major reversal of the overall trend in recent years. The data reveals that cow/calf operators remain cautious about expansion. If August and September serve as indicators (and there’s no reason to believe they won’t be), there likely won’t be an unusually large number of heifer calves staying at home this fall to be developed as replacements. (January will be our next snapshot of the heifer population in feedyards coupled with the annual total cattle inventory which includes heifers retained for replacement purposes.) On that note, looking ahead to 2010 from a broader perspective, the key to establishing some renewal for the beef complex will hinge on one single factor – revenue. That’s a theme for essentially all industries right now. There’s a limit to cost reduction and productivity gains– at some point top-line growth has to occur for business to prosper. Per that theme, one of the major cutbacks affecting beef spending has been at the restaurant / food-service level: consumers are eating out less and cooking at home more. The fourth illustration below outlines same-store restaurant sales for the most recent reported quarter (as of November 7) across a variety of publicly traded companies. Spending trends have been, and continue to be, away from high-end and mid-scale venues in favor of quick-serve outlets. That’s an important pattern! Domestically-derived premiums for beef sales stem from restaurant traffic; both travel and leisure dining are fundamental to beef expenditures. Meanwhile, the Restaurant Performance Index (which reflects same-store sales, customer traffic, labor utilization and capital expenditures) is now amid a two-month decline and has experienced 23 consecutive months below 100 (indicating contraction). The outlook ahead, according to the National Restaurant Association, remains mixed. The real question becomes where and how will consumers rebound once the economy picks up steam? Will beef sales be proportional to GDP growth? Clearly, that’s going to be largely dependent on company travel budgets, individual vacation plans, and willingness to reinvigorate leisure dining habits. The financial crisis has impacted the beef industry negatively during the past year; the hit has come in several forms. Most significantly, the consumer has gone (and is going) through a period of deleveraging the personal balance sheet. And in the end, consumer spending really hinges on how we feel – it’s an outcome of our perceptions about economic stability. That’s why monitoring indicators such as consumer confidence, household debt and unemployment are critically important. Until we see a major turnaround in those aspects within the economy, expectations within the beef complex need to be somewhat muted. That’s not a fun or necessarily pleasant message, but better to be defensive and pleasantly surprised than the other way around. Stay posted! Source: Nevil C. Speer, PhD, MBA Western Kentucky University Your report has been sent successfully! 0 Comments Add comment Your report has been sent successfully! Name *  Name   Email E-mail    Location Location Comment *  Comment      Verify Type the characters you see in the picture below.     Refresh         Cancel   Add Respond to this Entry     CPR Industry News - Friday 6th of November 2009 06:49:21 AM   from - Ohio Country Journal The CRP acreage has now dropped to below the 32 million acres legislatively mandated. Of the acreage that was set to expire on Sept 30th 2,729,000 acres exited the program. There is really only one reason to exit the program and that is to return to production. So where will the 2.7 million acres show up in next years planting intentions? Acres exiting the program include 563K in Texas, 409.5K in Colorado, 330.7K in Kansas and 277K in the Dakota’s Respond to this Entry     From CNN Opinion Industry News - Wednesday 28th of October 2009 01:57:29 PM   FROM CNN: Eating animals is making us sick New York (CNN) -- Like most people, I'd given some thought to what meat actually is, but until I became a father and faced the prospect of having to make food choices on someone else's behalf, there was no urgency to get to the bottom of things. I'm a novelist and never had it in mind to write nonfiction. Frankly, I doubt I'll ever do it again. But the subject of animal agriculture, at this moment, is something no one should ignore. As a writer, putting words on the page is how I pay attention. If the way we raise animals for food isn't the most important problem in the world right now, it's arguably the No. 1 cause of global warming: The United Nations reports the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined. It's the No. 1 cause of animal suffering, a decisive factor in the creation of zoonotic diseases like bird and swine flu, and the list goes on. It is the problem with the most deafening silence surrounding it. Even the most political people, the most thoughtful and engaged, tend not to "go there." And for good reason. Going there can be extremely uncomfortable. Food is not just what we put in our mouths to fill up; it is culture and identity. Reason plays some role in our decisions about food, but it's rarely driving the car. We need a better way to talk about eating animals, a way that doesn't ignore or even just shruggingly accept things like habits, cravings, family and history but rather incorporates them into the conversation. The more they are allowed in, the more able we will be to follow our best instincts. And although there are many respectable ways to think about meat, there is not a person on Earth whose best instincts would lead him or her to factory farming. My book, "Eating Animals," addresses factory farming from numerous perspectives: animal welfare, the environment, the price paid by rural communities, the economic costs. In two essays, I will share some of what I've learned about how the way we raise animals for food affects human health. What we eat and what we are Why aren't more people aware of, and angry about, the rates of avoidable food-borne illness? Perhaps it doesn't seem obvious that something is amiss simply because anything that happens all the time -- like meat, especially poultry, becoming infected by pathogens -- tends to fade into the background. Whatever the case, if you know what to look for, the pathogen problem comes into terrifying focus. For example, the next time a friend has a sudden "flu" -- what folks sometimes misdescribe as "the stomach flu" -- ask a few questions. Was your friend's illness one of those "24-hour flus" that come and go quickly: retch or crap, then relief? The diagnosis isn't quite so simple, but if the answer to this question is yes, your friend probably didn't have the flu at all. He or she was probably suffering from one of the 76 million cases of food-borne illness the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated happen in America each year. Your friend didn't "catch a bug" so much as eat a bug. And in all likelihood, that bug was created by factory farming. Beyond the sheer number of illnesses linked to factory farming, we know that factory farms are contributing to the growth of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens simply because these farms consume so many antimicrobials. We have to go to a doctor to obtain antibiotics and other antimicrobials as a public-health measure to limit the number of such drugs being taken by humans. We accept this inconvenience because of its medical importance. Microbes eventually adapt to antimicrobials, and we want to make sure it is the truly sick who benefit from the finite number of uses any antimicrobial will have before the microbes learn how to survive it. On a typical factory farm, drugs are fed to animals with every meal. In poultry factory farms, they almost have to be. It's a perfect storm: The animals have been bred to such extremes that sickness is inevitable, and the living conditions promote illness. Industry saw this problem from the beginning, but rather than accept less-productive animals, it compensated for the animals' compromised immunity with drugs. As a result, farmed animals are fed antibiotics nontherapeutically: that is, before they get sick. In the United States, about 3 million pounds of antibiotics are given to humans each year, but a whopping 17.8 million pounds are fed to livestock -- at least, that is what the industry claims. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimated that the industry underreported its antibiotic use by at least 40 percent. The group calculated that 24.6 million pounds of antibiotics were fed to chickens, pigs and other farmed animals, counting only nontherapeutic uses. And that was in 2001. In other words, for every dose of antibiotics taken by a sick human, eight doses are given to a "healthy" animal. The implications for creating drug-resistant pathogens are quite straightforward. Study after study has shown that antimicrobial resistance follows quickly on the heels of the introduction of new drugs on factory farms. For example, in 1995, when the Food and Drug Administration approved fluoroquinolones -- such as Cipro -- for use in chickens against the protest of the Centers for Disease Control, the percentage of bacteria resistant to this powerful new class of antibiotics rose from almost zero to 18 percent by 2002. A broader study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed an eightfold increase in antimicrobial resistance from 1992 to 1997 and linked this increase to the use of antimicrobials in farmed chickens. As far back as the late 1960s, scientists have warned against the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in farmed-animal feed. Today, institutions as diverse as the American Medical Association; the Centers for Disease Control; the Institute of Medicine, a division of the National Academy of Sciences; and the World Health Organization have linked nontherapeutic antibiotic use on factory farms with increased antimicrobial resistance and called for a ban. Still, the factory farm industry has effectively opposed such a ban in the United States. And, unsurprisingly, the limited bans in other countries are only a limited solution. There is a glaring reason that the necessary total ban on nontherapeutic use of antibiotics hasn't happened: The factory farm industry, allied with the pharmaceutical industry, has more power than public-health professionals. What is the source of the industry's immense power? We give it to them. We have chosen, unwittingly, to fund this industry on a massive scale by eating factory-farmed animal products. And we do so daily. The same conditions that lead at least 76 million Americans to become ill from their food annually and that promote antimicrobial resistance also contribute to the risk of a pandemic. At a remarkable 2004 conference, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) put their tremendous resources together to evaluate the available information on "emerging zoonotic diseases" or those spread by humans-to- animals and animals-to-humans. At the time of the conference, H5N1 and SARS topped the list of feared emerging zoonotic diseases. Today, the H1N1 swine flu would be the pathogen enemy No. 1. The scientists distinguished between "primary risk factors" for zoonotic diseases and mere "amplification risk factors," which affect only the rate at which a disease spreads. Their examples of primary risk factors were "change to an agricultural production system or consumption patterns." What particular agricultural and consumer changes did they have in mind? First in a list of four main risk factors was "increasing demand for animal protein," which is a way of saying that demand for meat, eggs, and dairy is a "primary factor" influencing emerging zoonotic diseases. This demand for animal products, the report continues, leads to "changes in farming practices." Lest we have any confusion about the "changes" that are relevant, poultry factory farms are singled out. Similar conclusions were reached by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, which brought together industry experts and experts from the WHO, OIE and USDA. Their 2005 report argued that a major impact of factory farming is "the rapid selection and amplification of pathogens that arise from a virulent ancestor (frequently by subtle mutation), thus there is increasing risk for disease entrance and/or dissemination." Breeding genetically uniform and sickness-prone birds in the overcrowded, stressful, feces-infested and artificially lit conditions of factory farms promotes the growth and mutation of pathogens. The "cost of increased efficiency," the report concludes, is increased global risk for diseases. Our choice is simple: cheap chicken or our health. Today, the factory farm-pandemic link couldn't be more lucid. The primary ancestor of the recent H1N1 swine flu outbreak originated at a hog factory farm in America's most hog-factory-rich state, North Carolina, and then quickly spread throughout the Americas. It was in these factory farms that scientists saw, for the first time, viruses that combined genetic material from bird, pig and human viruses. Scientists at Columbia and Princeton Universities have actually been able to trace six of the eight genetic segments of the most feared virus in the world directly to U.S. factory farms. Perhaps in the back of our minds we already understand, without all the science, that something terribly wrong is happening. We know that it cannot possibly be healthy to raise such grotesque animals in such grossly unnatural conditions. We know that if someone offers to show us a film on how our meat is produced, it will be a horror film. We perhaps know more than we care to admit, keeping it down in the dark places of our memory -- disavowed. When we eat factory-farmed meat, we live on tortured flesh. Increasingly, those sick animals are making us sick. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jonathan Safran Foer. Editor's note: Jonathan Safran Foer is the author of the critically acclaimed novels "Everything is Illuminated" and "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close." His latest book, the nonfiction "Eating Animals," (Little, Brown and Co.) will be published November 2.  My thoughts; While this guy makes some stabs at animal industry, I have to ask, how hungry is he? are his kids starving and is he dressed in only eco-friendly attire? has he ever played with a leather ball?? Hey we know were not perfect in Animal Industry and we need to make better strides on issues but how bout viable solutions rather than more finger pointing ...... Kevin Mears        Respond to this Entry     Can Your Pet Save You on Your Taxes? / something HSUS supports that I DONT HATE.. Industry News - Thursday 15th of October 2009 09:27:23 AM   From ABC NEWS ... Can't believe i just might be on the same side as HSUS on this lone item! A bill making the rounds on Capitol Hill marries two feel-good propositions -- tax cuts and pet ownership -- to generate a novel idea: A tax break of up to $3,500 per person for pet care expenses. The measure is a legislative long shot. But it's been championed by a veteran Hollywood tough guy and by a conservative Michigan congressman, and has drawn the enthusiastic support of animal rights groups eager to promote pet ownership during economic down times. "We think this is as much a health care bill as any," said Nancy Perry, vice president of government affairs at the Humane Society of the United States. "It's a human health issue to ensure that pets are provided with better care because of the role they play in our families." The measure even has a snappy acronym: the HAPPY Act, as in Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years. "What a pro-active way to be able to help the economy and change the culture in this country around animals," Robert Davi, a veteran actor ("The Goonies," "Die Hard," "License to Kill") who was a main force behind the bill's introduction, told ABCNews.com in a telephone interview. "This money goes back into the economy, and it encourages people to understand the social responsibilities we   Betsy Dribben, vice president of government relations for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, is realistic about the bill's prospects. Her group is supporting the bill but taking a wait-and-see attitude before pressing members of Congress. But with more attention being paid to the fate of pets whose owners lose their homes, she said interest is growing on Capitol Hill and beyond about how the government can respond. "There is a move afoot. There is a general acknowledgement that people really care about their pets," Dribben said. "Taking care of pets does cost money, and during the dramatic decline of people's income and the shaky economy, any possibility of assisting people in meeting those costs should be looked at." Respond to this Entry     Michigan Governor Signs Animal Welfare Law Industry News - Wednesday 14th of October 2009 08:47:00 AM   Story from RON_ON_RON Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm signed a bill into law Monday that, according to the Humane Society of the United States, will extend "modest yet meaningful" protections to farm animals. A result of negotiations between animal welfare and agricultural groups, the law requires that certain farm animals have enough room to stand up and turn around and extend their limbs. It phases out veal crates for calves within three years, and battery cages for laying hens and gestation crates for breeding sows within ten years. Michigan becomes the seventh state to ban gestation crates, the fifth to ban veal crates and the second to ban battery cages. Arizona, California and Florida have passed similar measures through ballot initiatives while Maine, Colorado and Oregon have passed related laws in their state legislatures. HSUS President Wayne Pacelle said all stakeholders realize that we must move in the direction of improved animal welfare standards, and the Michigan law provides a roadmap to move us in that direction. In contrast, Ohio voters will decide this November if that state will establish an Animal Welfare Oversight Commission that will allow people from that state to set standards for animal agriculture- not the HSUS. Pacelle is not very happy with this move in Ohio. This line realy makes me laugh,'Pacelle is not very happy with this move in Ohio" all the mis-information  HSuS and PETA give they're not happy with some states being pro-active? I hope other states follow Ohio's lead on this topic- Respond to this Entry     National Cattlemen Say as Many as 150 Feedlots Will Have to Report GreenHouse Gas Emissions Under New EPA Rules Industry News - Tuesday 29th of September 2009 04:09:08 AM   The National Cattlemen's Beef Association is not thrilled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a final rule on Tuesday to require livestock operations that emit 25,000 tons or more of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) per year from their manure management systems to report those emissions as part of a mandatory greenhouse gas registry. The new rule will affect beef cattle operations that have 29,300 or more head of cattle, about 150- 180 cattle operations nationwide -a much larger number than the 11 operations EPA originally projected to be covered under the proposed rule released in April. NCBA sent comments to EPA in June in opposition to the proposed rule. According to the EPA's Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007 released on April 15, 2009, GHGs from all livestock manure management systems in the U.S. account for less than 1% (.8%) of all U.S. GHG emissions, and manure management systems from the beef sector emit only .12% of total emissions. NCBA contends that as such a minor emitter, this type of reporting by the livestock sector will not provide data that is useful in addressing EPA's long-term goal of reducing major sources of GHG emissions, and it would be a significant financial and administrative burden on cattle operations. Instead of being regulated, agriculture should be considered a solution to the climate change problem by providing important sources of offsets such as soil carbon sequestration and renewable energy. The general cattle organization says in their weekly newsletter from Washington that "The efficiencies found in cattle feeding are critical to providing a nutritious and affordable food supply. Emissions from beef manure management systems are purely natural, and in no way should be compared to emissions from cars or factories. This is not factory farming; this is efficient food production that enables our nation to feed itself and the rest of the world. It is unfortunate that the Federal government has chosen to cause additional financial hardship to America's farmers during these difficult economic times. "NCBA supports efforts by our land grant universities to gather data to accurately measure livestock emissions and develop best management practices to mitigate them." Respond to this Entry     The Threat of TH and PHA Industry News - Thursday 24th of September 2009 09:53:48 AM   From the BEEF BLOG__ By Marty Ropp, ASA Director of Field Operations While the American Simmental Association Board of Trustees wrestles with rules and procedures to identify and guard against the proliferation of two new genetic defects within the Simmental popula- tion, it is important that our members be informed and make good decisions to reduce the impacts of these potentially destructive genes.   The defects I am referring to are Tibial Hemimelia, known simply as TH and Pulmonary Hypoplasia with Anasarca also named for its acronym PHA. By far the most frequent and well known of these two lethal genes is TH which is found primarily in cattle of Shorthorn origin. However Maine Anjou, Chianina and our own Simmental populations have individuals which can pass this gene on to their progeny. This gene is always lethal in the homozygous state and the number of carriers in the host populations is substantial. The gene for PHA also causes death in the homozygous genotype, but is found in far fewer individuals mainly in these same open populations. Currently, there is a gene test avail- able for TH and many individuals have been identified both negative and as carriers. The largest available list of carriers and an in-depth description of the two conditions is available on the American Shorthorn Association web-site www.short- horn.org.  This list will grow substantially as Shorthorn begins to move in the direction of mandatory testing.   What does all of this mean to Simmental breeders? It’s simple, but it’s important.  Know the TH and or PHA status of the bulls you are using. Several very highly used club calf sires, already sampled by some of our membership to make percentage cattle, are known carriers of TH.  Some have progeny, grand progeny and even great grand progeny registered with the Simmental Association. Know which ones they are, resist using them in the future and test indi- viduals that are potential carriers to clarify their status.   Remember, one half of the individuals sired by these bulls or out of carrier cows are absolutely carriers and the other half are free from the gene. It is as simple as that!  Progeny that test free out of carrier parents, however, are of no threat to pass on the defect.   It is, however, difficult to believe that individuals who consider themselves “breeders” would knowingly propagate genes that generate the potential gruesome deformities and mortality associated with these conditions. Most of the carrier bulls are unknowingly used by folks just trying to produce cattle for a specific market. If that is your goal, please take the time to research the bulls you choose to use this spring and use only those free from these genes.   The future also holds new rules and eventual expense for those registering potential carriers in our Simmental herd book. But, because of the available gene test for TH, we do have options regarding the registration of suspect and known carriers that would not exist if no accurate test was available. Further financial burdens on the membership are not something to look forward to, but the threat to our gene A realistic explanation of new and potentially ugly dangers to the genetic health and welfare of the Simmental breed. pool and customer base is such that we can ill afford to neglect this or any serious genetic defect for that matter. We are fortunate in that the majority of the offending individual animals in our herd book originate from a relatively few sires almost all of which are being used to produce club calves and not mainstream commercial progeny. If, however we are not diligent about identifying and reducing the frequency of these genes in our members’ herds, all Simmental breeders will eventually suffer. ASA Policy for Monitoring Tibial Hemimelia (TH) Effective April 1, 2006 1. ASA will pay to test, at least, the top 50 sires based on the number of progeny reported in the previous calendar year and thereafter any new sire entering the top 50 sires list. 2. Progenyout of registered suspect parents, will not receive registration until the suspect parent is DNA tested for both TH and parental validation (fees are responsibility of owner). 3. A suspect parentis an animal who: a) is out of a TH carrier and has not been tested free, or b) is registered with ASA, not been TH tested, and has 1/8 or more Shorthorn, Maine Anjou or Chianina blood. The American Simmental Association has made testing arrangements with AgriGenomics, Inc., the only lab offering DNA evaluation for the presence of TH.  The following out- lines ASA members’ options for testing: •Contact either ASA or AgriGenomics and make arrange- ments to send samples for TH testing ($27 per sample).   •Unless the AgriGenomics order includes sending the DNA sample on to Igentiy (ASA’s official lab for parental valida- tion, $45 per sample), the results of the AgriGenomics sample will not satisfy ASA’s policy to clear progeny of suspect parents for registration.   •If you order the sample to go on to Igenity for parental validation, all progeny of this parent (sire or cow) can receive a registration certificate.   •Progeny will receive registration certificates regardless of the TH status of the parent (THC = carrier, and THF = free). •Progeny of THF parents require no further testing.   •Progeny of THC parents will be required to complete the above process when their progeny are registered.   •ASA will denote TH status on official documents. AgriGenomics, Inc. 2399 N. 1000 East Rd Mansfield, IL 61854 217.841.0813 Respond to this Entry     Embryonic Test For Bovine Genetics Industry News - Monday 21st of September 2009 09:44:50 AM   Embryonic Test For Bovine Genetics Looking at the genetic makeup of cattle to determine their value is nothing new. An examination of a small sample of hair or blood can reveal if a calf has any genetic diseases that will lower the market price. Now, a team of clinicians and diagnosticians and genetic researchers at Iowa State University's College of Veterinary Medicine are looking to test those calves earlier...before they are born...even before their mother is pregnant. Dr. Jim West and Dr. Paul Plummer are researching a method to determine if a bovine is genetically sound when it is still an embryo prior to being implanted in its mother. This process, if successful, would allow producers to select which embryos are valuable before spending the time, effort and expense of producing a calf only to find out that it has genetic defects that render it of little value. Until now, the problem has been biopsy samples of embryos are so small -- only a few cells - that it was impossible to accurately read the genetic information. "There were limitations to the process," said West, director of Food Supply Veterinary Medicine. "You can't take very many cells when you do the biopsy. You have to leave enough cells to get a pregnancy." GA_googleFillSlotWithSize("ca-pub-5440138744487553", "News_Main_300x250", 300, 250); New technology may allow West and Plummer to get accurate genetic information from samples as small as two to three cells and still keep the embryo viable, even if it is frozen for long-term storage. "Our research is looking at the ability to biopsy the embryo, freeze it and then do a variety of tests on the sample after only seven days from when it was conceived," said West. The study is being funded by a Grow Iowa Values Fund Grant. The goal of the grant program is to support development of technologies with commercial potential and to support the growth of companies using those technologies. The researchers are working with Ames Center for Genetic Technologies, Inc. as their corporate partner. Testing for traits can be very simple or more complex. Checking the sex of a calf intended for dairy production is very important. Males have little value for dairy producers. More complex testing can also screen embryos for genes that will indicate whether calves will carry traits for beef tenderness, feed efficiency, nutrition and more than a dozen others. "Testing is going to happen," said West. "Right now the testing happens on animals that are already born. This test will allow us to go back a generation and only select those that have the desirable traits." The new process will offer producers many advantages, according to Plummer, a clinician in Food Supply Veterinary Medicine. "First, the new test allows very small samples," he said. "Also, it is affordable for the producer. It is also modular, so we can test for different traits. Finally, it is adaptable. When new diseases are identified we can change it." West and Plummer see many possibilities in this new technology. Overseas markets have specific preferences for how their beef and dairy taste. This new technology will allow producers to market embryos with specific traits to the markets they best fit, according to Plummer. Another benefit is that embryos already in storage can be thawed and tested for diseases that may have not previously been detectable. These types of tests may allow many diseased cattle to be avoided. Other members of the research team include Dr. Patrick Halbur, chair of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine; Dr. Rodger Main, director of operations at the Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory; and Marianna Jahnke, Embryo Transfer Unit. --- On the Net: Iowa State University Respond to this Entry     Cattle Producers Have a Good Story to Tell- They Just Need to Learn to Push Back With That Story Against Those Who Hate Animal Agriculture Industry News - Tuesday 15th of September 2009 10:23:00 AM   FROM RON_ON_RON Cattle Producers Have a Good Story to Tell- They Just Need to Learn to Push Back With That Story Against Those Who Hate Animal Agriculture ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ben Wileman is a beef cattle clinician in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Kansas State University- and he believes that cattle producers have "credibility" with consumers that we have failed to take full advantage of in answering critics of animal agriculture. We talk with Wileman about how to be proactive in telling our story to today's consumers about how we care for our animals. He says that we have nothing to fear- and we need to understand that critics of animal agriculture are not going to leave our business alone- and that we must learn to answer them aggressively. Wileman adds that we are doing the "right" things in taking care of our animals- how we feed them, care for them when they are sick and watch carefully when our mama cows are giving birth to their calves. It's a matter of letting consumers have a glimpse of the fact we do these things and more in raising beef. link below to hear the whole interview http://oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/beefbuzz/00000_Buzz09152009_182757.php Respond to this Entry     Beef Buzz with Dr Glenn Selk of Oklahoma State Industry News - Monday 14th of September 2009 11:16:13 AM   from RON_ON_RON We visit with him about being able to transition bulls ranchers are buying during the fall purebred sales from the buyer to the new environment that young bull faces on your home ranch when your truck pulls across the cattle guard and you are ready to unload him. Dr. Selk says most bulls have received a ration that includes a good bit of grain to help him have that sale day "bloom" which helps generate bids in the sale ring. The reality is that when you load them up and haul them home, all you are thinking about in most cases is which set of cows are you going to turn him out with as soon as you unload him. Selk says that's not a good idea- but rather, you need to give him four or five weeks to get acclimated in his new home- as well as to give you a chance to jump him over from a grain based diet to one that is mostly or all forage based. http://oklahomafarmreport.com/wire/beefbuzz/5279988_Buzz09142009_213459.php Respond to this Entry     Time.com Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food Industry News - Monday 31st of August 2009 09:16:00 AM   Yes pleae read- http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458-1,00.html -copy and paste in broswer  Warning ---This will make you blood boil!  Kevin -  Respond to this Entry     Producers Can Cut Costs With Wise Bull Selections Industry News - Wednesday 26th of August 2009 12:28:58 PM   Producers Can Cut Costs With Wise Bull Selections Like the rest of the economy, producers in the agricultural sector are feeling the crunch with cattle prices down and operating costs up. “In these times of economic difficulty, we’re all looking for ways to help improve our bottom line,” said Darrh Bullock, University of Kentucky Extension beef cattle specialist. “I’m not an economist, but it’s pretty clear to me that if you want to improve the bottom line, you have to reduce costs or increase income — or both.” Bullock said a lot of times when cattle producers experience difficult economic times, one of the first areas they look to reduce costs is bull purchases. “I’m all for commercial beef producers buying a bull that fits their budget,” he said. “But, you need to be careful that buying a cheap bull now won’t cost you dearly in the future.” Bullock said producers can avoid costly decisions if they go through the proper steps to purchase a bull that fits both their budgets and their management and production needs. One of the first things a producer should consider when purchasing a bull is calving difficulty. Bullock emphasized the importance of finding a bull that meets calving ease needs to save on veterinarian bills and other associated costs. He said producers can also affect their future feed costs by selecting the right genetic match for the environment and management flow of their operations. “If you have minimal forage quality and/or quantity, the bull’s genetics for growth and milk should reflect that if you plan to keep replacement heifers,” Bullock said. “If you keep heifers that have high genetic potential for growth and milk, they will demand more feed to remain reproductive. If producers can’t meet that demand through forages, they may have to supplement with a large volume of costly purchased feeds to get them bred.” Bullock said that often producers will first try to increase income by increasing the weight of their calves. Weight is important; however, it’s the total weight of calves coming off the farm that’s the main focus, not individual calf weights, he said. “That could lead to an imbalanced situation of highly productive cows in a lowly productive environment and that will drive up costs, possibly more than the increased income,” he said. “The best way to increase total pounds produced is through improved reproductive efficiency, and the best way to improve reproductive efficiency is to properly match your bull’s productivity to the production levels of your operation.” “The moral to this story is that the best way to contain costs and to generate more income when selecting a bull is to find the right bull for your situation, and that might not be the same as your neighbors’,” he said. An operation with high production levels will benefit from a high-producing bull, but the same bull on a less-productive operation may cost the operator more money and income in the future. Respond to this Entry     If I were a purebred breeder Industry News - Friday 7th of August 2009 12:18:19 PM   FROM DROVERS.COM If I were a purebred breeder By Max Thornsberry  |  Monday, June 15, 2009 Purebred-cattle breeders should be concerned with their industry’s direction. Southern Missouri supported many swine producers when I graduated from the University of Missouri in 1977. Unbeknownst to me, the swine industry would soon be destroyed by vertical integration. One purebred-Duroc breeder said, “Doc, don’t worry, those corporate guys won’t come out here in the middle of the night to farrow a sow, and they don’t want to straw-bed, castrate or vaccinate hogs. There will always be a place for us purebred breeders, and you will always have a job servicing this segment of the hog industry.” He was wrong. By 1985 he exited the purebred Duroc business, I exited the swine veterinary business, my swine clients ceased business, and the once numerous feeder-pig auctions were gone from my part of the state. What destroyed our swine industry in eight years? Simple. The government allowed corporations to capture the hog industry. Executives did not want to castrate, vaccinate or farrow sows, but they found willing sharecroppers to do their labor. Some producers contracted with these corporations; built state-of-the-art confinement facilities; accepted the corporations’ pigs, feed, medicine and vaccines; and fed the pigs — not for themselves but for the corporation. The corporations developed their own lines of breeding stock and demanded that producers feed only hogs with their corporate genetics, thus developing another corporate profit center — composite breeds. Specific genetic traits like back fat, loin eye, yield and cutability were licensed to specific composite breeds. Purebred breeders were left with no customers. Corporations further captured the hog market by limiting access to their packing plants, making it difficult to market hogs independently. When the producers’ facilities became outdated, they were offered new contracts only if their facilities were retrofitted with new equipment. This required new loans and another seven to eight years of connection to the corporation. If efficiencies declined, the contract could be canceled.  With no independent market, hog market reports ceased, and the concept of supply and demand ended. Corporations were uninterested in the price-per-pound of market-ready hogs. They marketed the end product — pork — directly to supermarkets. Could this happen to registered purebred-cattle breeders? You bet.  Corporations do not want to own land, put up hay, castrate, breed, calve-out heifers or feed cattle at 0° F. They want control over the end product and the market. In 2007, USDA’s Market Reporting Service announced that meatpackers acquired more fed cattle under captive supply arrangements than were purchased by bid or negotiation. This trend continues and fewer fed cattle are sold in a competitive market, which gives corporations control over the cattle market, just as they achieved in the hog market. As this trend continues, purebred-cattle breeders will be the first to go out of business. Cattle genetics are being decoded. Just as with the hog industry, corporations will demand specific genetic cattle traits. Genetic diversity is not the goal. Genetic predisposition for tenderness, loin eye, back fat, yield and quality will be required. Composite breeds with these genetics will be developed. Corporations will start by enticing top producers to use their composite breeds. Corporations will coerce the cattle industry into this genetic trap by discounting prices for cattle that do not conform. Animal identification and source, age and process verification will be required to access export markets. Export markets will be promoted as the salvation for this newly consolidated industry. Cattle producers will have no choice but to comply.  The market will be about yield and tenderness, not quality. Recently, prices for Choice and Select carcasses were identical. Although it costs more to achieve Choice, producer efforts to improve the percentage of Choice carcasses will be for naught. Corporations will force restaurants to offer “Select beef only” menus and retailers to promote Select beef as superior in nutrition and tenderness.  Less fat, more protein, fewer calories and better health will be promoted. All of these ideals can be achieved through the corporations’ composite genetics. The trend has started. If I were a purebred-cattle breeder I would be afraid, very afraid.  Max Thornsberry, DVM, MBA, is R-CALF USA president/Region VI director. Respond to this Entry     OHIO CATTLEMEN SUMMER MEETING Industry News - Friday 7th of August 2009 09:32:00 AM   Ohio Cattlemen Invite Indiana and Kentucky Livestock Producers to Summer Meeting You might find a few poultry, dairy, or pork producers at the Cattlemen’s Roundup planned for Aug. 29. With the growing threat from radical animal rights groups, the Ohio Cattlemen’s Association (OCA) is inviting all of the livestock industry to their summer meeting near Oxford, Ohio. With the location just a few miles from Indiana and Kentucky, they are also inviting out-of-state farmers to the event. The event will feature two speakers who know the hidden agendas of the many animal rights groups: Wes Jamison from the University of Florida (UF) and David Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). Jamison has studied the animal welfare movement for nearly 20 years. The reason the animal welfare movement is having success is because society has changed. More and more people believe farm animals should be treated as well as their own pets, Jamison says. Livestock transportation could be targeted by using the interstate commerce clause to raise the cost of transportation across state lines. Activists will want animals to lie down with access to food and water. Jamison says that message will play well to an urban audience — and to the new President and Congress. David Martosko of the CCF says, “The Humane Society of the United States is the single biggest threat to animal agriculture that Americans have ever seen.” Join Martosko for a frank discussion about the need for an aggressive, take-no-prisoners approach to dealing with this wealthy and dishonest organization. Martosko is the principal expert on animal rights for the Center for Consumer Freedom, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit watchdog group. He led CCF’s launch of groundbreaking Internet web sites like PetaKillsAnimals.com, ActivistCash.com, and MercuryFacts.org. Martosko has testified before Congress about the threat of animal rights violence and the hidden agendas of deceptive groups like the Humane Society of the United States. He has also lectured about the threat of animal-rights and eco-radicals in Europe. The early registration deadline has been extended to Aug. 19. The special package price for anyone who is a member of a commodity group is $30 for the tours, lunch, steak dinner and entertainment. Non-members and at the door rate is only $40. For information call: 614-873-6736 or e-mail Beef@ohiobeef.org. Make checks to: Ohio Cattlemen’s Ass’n., 10600 U.S. Hwy. 42, Marysivlle, OH 43040. See the Roundup program and registration details on the web site: http://cattlemencare.net/default.aspx or www.OhioCattle.org. Respond to this Entry     A.J.'S Service Industry News - Friday 31st of July 2009 11:15:00 AM   From Ron Hays - AG-BROADCASTER Til Next Time- the Life of AJ Smith Celebrated ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It was a great day to honor A J Smith, Editor of the Oklahoma Cowman out at Express Ranches in Yukon. Their Sale and Show Barn was filled to the rafters with well wishers and friends and colleagues of Smith, who died this past Saturday as the 2009 Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association Convention was ending in Midwest City. There was a lot of emotion and some great things said about this man's life. I happen to agree with Scott Dewald, AJ's boss at the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association in recent years that the most important thing that can be said is that he knew his Creator, had accepted His Son and that we all have the choice and the chance to join AJ at the end of our life in Heaven. Kenneth Holloway was one of those who saluted AJ- and he offered up a bit of Cowboy poetry about his friend. Here's a portion of what he wrote: He always enjoyed the smell of a fresh morning rain And Needed nothing more to expand the brain Was always excited at the arrival of a newborn calf Was quick of wit and always enjoyed a good laugh Believed in 4-H and FFA as an educational sport And was quick and willing to give his full support Traveling and helping sell cattle was his usual game Being quick and witty, a bit redneck and daring, that was his fame He worked by day and traveled into the night And would bust his butt to do a man right" Respond to this Entry     Note on A.J. Smith Industry News - Wednesday 29th of July 2009 09:36:09 AM   Dr. Bob Kropp of Oklahoma State offered high praise for the Editor of the Cowman. "There are few people that truly influence an industry in the manner that AJ influenced the beef cattle industry of Oklahoma. His personal relationship with the thousands of beef cattle producers in this state speaks volumes in terms of the respect and trust that the clientele had in AJ. His friendly smile, his welcome handshake and his optimistic approach to life benefitted everyone that came in contact with him. His knowledge of the cattle market structure of the animals being sold as well as his knowledge and relationships with the clientele in the seats enabled him to be one of the most effective bid spotters in cattle auction history. No one would consider having a beef cattle auction in Oklahoma without the assistance and professionalism of AJ Smith." Respond to this Entry     Loss of A.J. Smith Industry News - Monday 27th of July 2009 11:40:12 AM   From RON HAYS AG-BROADCASTER, OK. Rest In Peace- A.J. Smith, Editor of the Oklahoma Cowman ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It was a tragic way to end the 57th Annual Convention of the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association. As the cattle organization wrapped up their general business session, their longtime editor of the Oklahoma Cowman, A J Smith, who was fighting a valiant battle against cancer collapsed and was rushed to the Midwest City Hospital where he was pronounced dead on Saturday morning, July 25, 2009. "AJ spent the past three days with his OCA friends and we are deeply saddened by his passing," said Terry Forst, OCA President. "We express our deepest condolences to his wife Debra, his son Aaron, his daughters Christel and Jessi, and the entire Smith family," added Forst. During Smith's tenure he developed the Cowman into a nationally recognized cattle producer magazine. He wrote 294 editorials and countless feature stories, took thousands of pictures, planned numerous ranch tours, and traveled the state providing ring service at purebred and commercial cattle sales. "Anyone in the cattle business knew and admired AJ," said Scott Dewald, OCA Executive Vice President. "He worked tirelessly for our members and our industry. He was deeply dedicated to his family, and he set an example for how we should live our lives. We are going to miss him," added Dewald. Smith was recognized with numerous honors and awards for his efforts and contributions to the nation's cattle industry. He received the Animal Science Recognition Award, the Beef Master Appreciation Award, the OSU, Animal Science Graduate of Distinction Award, The Oklahoma Hereford Association Heritage Award, the Oklahoma Youth Expo Show Honoree Award and the Honorary Cattlewoman of the Year Award. He was also inducted into the Oklahoma Angus Hall of Fame and served as President of the Southwest American Livestock Foundation. A Memorial Service honoring the life and legacy of AJ Smith is currently being planned. In lieu of flowers a fund is being established to provide scholarships for his grandchildren. The details of both the service and the scholarship fund should be firmed up early this week- the OCA's Scott Dewald expects the public memorial will be held Thursday or Friday of this week. details as they are made available on the website for the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association. Respond to this Entry     Response 1 Tuesday 28th of July 2009 12:03:44 AM Submitted by: Kevin Mears Memorial Service for AJ Smith will be held on Thurs at 2 pm at Express Ranch Sale Barn in Yukon. Smith was Editor of Ok Cowman Peta and HBO Industry News - Friday 24th of July 2009 01:45:56 PM   Archved From a past E-Newsletter Craig Steck, cattlemen and employee with the Cargill Swine Management Team, and I happened to be sharing a motel room at a Bull Sale in Oklahoma when we first saw HBO's disgusting documentary  "Death on a Family Farm." We both watched horrified as, i am sure all producers did. We discussed our desired outcome for the farmer featured on the show, and I was embarrassed to be from the same state! Real world, is not all producers are as caring as they should be, Parents are not as loving as they should be, Politicians are not as honest as they should be. However we should not generalize all because of one! Below is a article that everyone of us in the animal Industry can relate to. Please read, and asks where was PETA and HBO on that day. Picked up from Ron Hays, Oklahoma Farm Broadcaster written by, Cindy Young-Puyear, Farm Director, Brownfield Ag News. Calving season is wrapping up at Rocking P Ranch. Although breeding season has begun (through artificial insemination) we have two cows that for one reason or another were scheduled to calve later than the others. One of the cows was due to calve Monday, so my husband vigilantly watched for signs that the cow was nearing parturition. As her time drew near Sunday morning, Jim knew by the cow's behavior that something wasn't quite right. He called our veterinarian with a "head's up" that we might need his help if there were indeed complications with the birth. A friend who is also a cattleman came by to see if he could be of assistance. By 9:30am, it was time to stick an arm in to determine the position of the calf. When a tail was felt instead of front legs, it was obvious the calf was breech and we would need more help. Doc got the message on his cell phone as he left church. He arrived at our place minutes later with wife and kids along. Leaving a basketball game to make a farm call or making a farm call on the way home from church is not an unusual occurrence for this dedicated animal doctor and his family. Three hours later when all was said and done, two stillborn calves lie in the walking alley of the barn and a cow with a torn uterus lie in the stall, barely hanging on to life. Despite valiant effort by three grown men, the calves were lost and the cow drew her final breath Monday night. I am certain that any of you who raise or have raised livestock have similar experiences in your life story. You know that it makes no difference how closely you watch and tightly you manage, the man or woman responsible for the care and well-being of the livestock cannot control every situation. Replaying the Sunday afternoon scene in my mind, I have some mixed emotions. While animal agriculture in the country is under attack and vigilante vegetarians with video cameras slither into livestock farms, hoping to expose abuse and mistreatment of animals, there are so many of us out here doing the right thing. Where was the video camera when those three men fought to save the lives of the calves and the cow for three hours Sunday? No video camera captured the obvious disappointment in the eyes of all three men as they walked out of the barn, heads hanging in defeat, physically and emotionally exhausted. No video cameras were rolling when Jim carried buckets of water to the cow, talking to her in the soothing voice of a man who truly cares for his livestock. There were no pictures taken as he stroked the cow's rump and thanked her for all she had done for us, doing what he could to make her comfortable in her final hours. While we mourn the loss of a good cow, we also take a sizeable economic hit. It adds up quickly when you figure in the cost of keeping the bred cow for a year, the cost of the drugs, the vet's farm call and the loss of the cow and her future productivity. As a man of husbandry, Jim did not once consider just letting the cow die or ending its life when it was confirmed the calf was breech and big enough that it's birth would probably take the cow's life as well. My husband is trained and experienced in animal husbandry, but he also has this innate knowledge and connection with livestock that simply amazes me. He can diagnose a cow's condition from across the pasture and sense their needs as though they are talking to him. It is an awesome thing to see. As HSUS and PETA spend millions of dollars to convince the unknowing public that those of us who raise livestock are irresponsible and barbaric, I ask again, where are the video cameras when we're checking cows in ten below zero temperatures in the middle of the night? How do you want the world to see animal agriculture in this country? If you want them to know the truth - to know your story - you're going to have to tell it. Write a letter. Make a call. Take some pictures and shoot some of your own video. We can't let them win. Respond to this Entry     Genetic Testing Industry News - Friday 24th of July 2009 01:30:20 PM   Archived from a past E-Newsletter Below is a Email and letters that have been sent and forwarded to me from Parker Friedrich, I feel should past them on. Angus Breeders,   Now is the time to voice our opinions! With the release of Hydrocephalus Genetic defect bulls by the A.I. Studs today and the way that the Angus Board of Directors has handled Arthrogryposis Multiplex, we need to voice our opinions on this matter so we don't devalue any more current Angus individuals and furthermore spend any more excess expense on testing animals. Remember, this is a simple recessive trait controlled by not mating two carrier animals together. Why should we devalue as well as test every potential carrier individual out there. All we need to do is test the sires we use and simply breed out of the situation like reasonable cattlemen and women.             I have enclosed a letter I sent to the Angus Board of directors a few months ago as well as a letter that Dudley Land has sent today to the Board of Directors. I urge each and every one of you to do the same and help our Board of Directors make a correct decision that protects the Angus Breed as well as its Breeders.   Here are the e-mail addresses for the Angus Board of Directors:   Jarold Callahan(callahan@expressranches.com); Phil Trowbridge (phil@trowbridgefarms.com); 'svrealty@cin.net'; 'bschumann@angus.org'; 'rolnrok@hughes.net'; 'joe@backcreekangus.com'; 'eafherd@centurytel.net'; 'joe@backcreekangus.com'; 'sg_olson@live.com'; 'rob.thomas@thomasangusranch.com'; 'beaver-ridge@att.net'; 'ngar2@yahoo.com'; 'angus21@mchsi.com'; 'James.Rentz@Yahoo.com'; 'abcattle@huntel.net'; 'schroederangus@msn.com'; 'jimsitz1@gmail.com'; 'silveirabros@msn.com'; 'gordon@stuckyranch.com'   Thank You for your help,   Parker Friedrich 566 Hillcrest Dr Stephenville, TX  76401 254-413-2420 parkerfriedrich@earthlink.net Letter 2 April 13, 2009 Open Letter to the American Angus Association  Board of Directors and Members In reference to the report posted today on the American Angus Association website regarding the Hydrocephalus Genetic defect, I am compelled to communicate some of my concerns.   To date, I suspect that millions of dollars have been spent by all of us in the Angus Association testing for AM.  I cannot help but fear we are about to embark upon another genetic defect testing regimen and I for one am standing up to say hold on!  We all followed like lemmings on the AM testing without the following: ·    No research or funding support from the Angus Foundation ·    No effort that I am aware of, to own the rights to the genetic testing ·    No statistical analysis related to the genetic defect, (i.e. Occurrences per 100,000 births).  Furthermore, how does this occurrence frequency compare with other natural occurring events, such as still born births, breach births, etc? This breeder is not going along on the next genetic defect "witch hunt" without first having my voice heard. Does the Board of Directors expect us to blood test our animals again for this new genetic defect?  If so, can you not see how this provides fuel to those who stand to gain from discovering the next genetic defect?  Until we own the testing of these genetic defects why wouldn't those who do own the rights not seek to discover yet another genetic defect and another and another?  All this, and we still have yet to be presented with any statistical sampling on the occurrences! Let it be known that this breeder wants answers to the questions posted here before he will go merrily along. W. Dudley Land Suzi Q Cattle Company Letter 3                Parker Friedrich                                    cell:     254-413-2420               566 Hillcrest                                        home: 903-521-7907               Stephenville, TX                                            Fax:     254-968-8162                               76401                                     Dear Members of the Angus Board,               I hope you, as well as our Association and Board, have learned something from our recent clash with Arthrogryposis Multiplex as we face the challenges of future genetic abnormalities such as Fawn Calf & Hydrophlis syndrome that is heading towards us in a big way. The most important thing to do is to first protect the integrity of the American Angus Association! We need to preserve our cattle and the breeders of our cattle and not make hasty, irrational decisions because we are scared of threats or litigeny.  We must make decisions that are best for all members of our Association - small or large, rich or poor, popular or unpopular.               I realize the decisions you have made were with good intention, and I appreciate and applaud the time and dedication each of you give to American Angus Association. We absolutely cannot devalue our cattle for presence or absence of simple recessive traits.  No matter how our association chooses to deal with disorders, we still must breed around these!  The best way to handle a recessive trait is to control it through sire selection. We should not allow any bulls to reproduce if they are a carrier of any recessive trait in commercial or registered programs. However, in no way should we discount our females in any way as they are the true foundation of our herds and great breed!  We will control any recessive trait through using clean sires in registered and commercial operations and many awesome carrier females will remain the seedstock foundation they have been selected to be.                 It takes true dominance in contemporary groups to be a great cow. Many foundation donors have been thrown by the wayside along with pathfinders as well for a single recessive trait.  This is quite appalling and for both herd building and financial suicide to breeders. The AM gene is not dominant, nor have we proven its overall penetrance. No matter what you decide, as breeders we will simply breed out this recessive gene like others before.  We never need to weaken our breed through negative media, which has happened through the Arthrogryposis Multiplex incident. It is not right to implicate one single sire and then have every commercial cattleman you meet across the country tell you he doesn't want a Precision son or grandson, no matter if he is clean or "dirty" now in their eyes.  Negative media is hard to overcome, and it has allowed and even empowered our competitors to creep closer towards the dominance Angus has had over all cattle breeds. We as a breed have earned that over time.  To give it away so quickly, I find it not only irrational but irresponsible! To have many historic Angus bull buyers tell me they are planning to use another breed for this calf crop at least is truly catastrophic!  It is not too late to change your decision and correctly allow females of recessive traits to register their female progeny. Otherwise, you as the board may be responsible for the demise of many progressive Angus breeders. Don't go down a long and difficult road of progress just to throw it off a cliff.  This can and must be fixed.  AM  is not caused by a dominant gene!              This is a very difficult problem, but the time to fix this AM travesty is now. I know that I as a breeder and marketer can trust you and the members of the American Angus Board to act quickly and decisively to correct this unprecedented decision to disallow future female registration for carriers of a certain recessive genetic trait.  Please fix this ruling and protect our interests in future matters.                If there is ever anything I can do to help, please feel free to contact me.  I promise to give an honest opinion on my views of the situation and relay those of my contacts. These views may not be yours, but maybe they can be blended to help you the Board reach the proper decisions that all breeders can live with.  Thank you for your time and consideration in advance. Please don't take this letter out of text, I only wish to give my views for the future of our great breed!                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Sincerely,                                                                               Parker Friedrich  Letter 4 and my favorite.               4/13/09                                   Dear Members of the Angus Board,      It is with dedication and concern for fellow Angus breeders that I write this letter.  I hope all Association and Board members have learned valuable experience from our handling of the genetic defect, Arthrogryposis Multiplex.  We most definitely will face challenges of future genetic abnormalities and are now dealing with our newest concern, Hydrocephalus syndrome. The most important ideal for the elected Board is to protect the integrity and stability of the American Angus Association! We must preserve not only our cattle but also our registered breeders and not make further hasty or irrational decisions due to pressure, anxiety, threats or litigeny.  Fair and unbiased judgments that are best for all members of our Association must be made.     I appreciate and applaud the time and dedication each of you give the American Angus Association and realize the decisions concerning AM were conceived with good intention.  However, those rulings have absolutely devalued our cattle simply for the presence of a simple recessive trait of unknown penetrance.  No matter how our association chooses to deal with these and future disorders, as progressive cattleman we still and must breed around these!       The best way to handle and eliminate any recessive trait concern is to control it through selection. We should not allow any bulls to reproduce if they are a carrier of any recessive trait in our registered or highly Angus influenced commercial programs. However, in no way should we discount our females as they are the true foundation of our herds and great breed!  Cattle like 2536 and 4206 among countless others have risen to the top of stringent data collection, and these matriarchs are responsible for improving cattle operations and act as foundations for building herds across the country and around the world.  It takes continued dominance in contemporary groups to become a great cow.  Many foundation donors and pathfinders have been thrown by the wayside for presence of a single recessive trait.  All animals carry recessive genes, often for good reason.  For instance in humans, the presence of sickle cell trait prevents millions across Africa from getting malaria as the sickled red blood cells cannot be infected nearly as easily as normal red blood cells.  We have no idea of the true penetrance of AM or Hydrocephalus expression or why those genes have survived and existed for years.  These diseases are found in humans too, and genetic testing is utilized for the good of these families, not to wipe them from existence.  Much of the fun in breeding cattle is to balance all the genetic and phenotypic testing available and to continue moving forward, each in our own way.  We must control any recessive trait through using clean sires in registered and commercial operations and many awesome carrier females will remain the seedstock foundation for which they have been selected through years of intensive breeding.  They are like us - all carriers of something.  Let's start trying to be sensible and keep these females inside the breed and appropriately registered where we can follow our progress.  Trying to kill them out may be as foolish as selecting an Aryan race.       This Board's decisions concerning the treatment of carrier registered females has been historically inconsistent, if not truly both herd progress killing and provoking financial suicide.  The AM and Hydrocephalus Syndrome genes are not dominant, and we have not even started to prove their overall penetrance and historical importance. If all carrier calves died or were amazingly sick, many of us could understand your logic.  Still, no matter what we decide to do with present and future carrier females, as breeders we will simply breed out this recessive gene like others before.  We must never assist in weakening our breed through further negative media, which has happened with how we have handled Arthrogryposis Multiplex thus far. It is not right to initially implicate a single sire, especially one of the most dominant of our time like 1680, and then have  commercial cattleman across the country tell you they don't want any Precision son or grandson, no matter if he is clean.  They are all "dirty" now in their eyes.  If these cattle didn't do lots of things right, ranches like Gardiner's may have never become prominent with and sought out by feedlots across the country.  We need to get back to balancing our cattle for contemporary group performance through personal breeding decisions, using clean bulls to control our future as our fathers have taught us.  In the media, commercial cattlemen see our breed as guilty until proven innocent, and we have some major clean up to do from our poor handling of AM.  Just because we can test for the presence or absence of a certain gene, misuse of this technology and new information makes decisions based off limited knowledge quite dangerous.  Negative media is hard to overcome, and it has allowed and even empowered our competitors to creep closer towards Angus dominance in commercial industry. We as a breed, including many of our fathers and grandfathers have worked hard to earn that status over time.  To give it away so quickly is both irrational and irresponsible.  To be a consistently progressive Angus breeder with multiple cow families and have many historic Angus bull buyers tell me they are planning to use another breed for this calf crop at least is truly catastrophic!  It's not too late to change your decisions on both of these as our Board and correctly allow females of recessive traits to remain registered as we always have.  Otherwise, our generation may be responsible for the demise of the Angus breed as we know it along with many carcass - oriented Angus breeders.  Let's not go down a long and difficult road of progress just to jump off a cliff.  The AM nightmare can and must be fixed by allowing carrier females of all recessive traits or diseases to remain registered.  Diseases of significance found to be secondary to genetic defects found to be dominant can and should be dealt with similar to how you have thus far chosen to deal with AM.    This is a very difficult problem as it presently stands, but the time to fix this AM and Hydrocephalus problem for registered females and our Association's reputation problem is now.  The registered carrier bulls that breeders now have should make feedlots quite a premium given the progressive genetics affected thus far.  We as an organization should be making every effort to find consistent markets for these and future animals found to be positive by our new testing efforts.  Should the Angus Foundation use our donated resources for a portion of the testing costs and development, then I might not feel as if further rapid disease genetic mapping were simply to ensure a profit.  DNA is so vast that thousands of recessive traits exist in us and our cattle.  We are put on this earth to be good stewards, not to change all of God's selection process anyway. If we had studies to see why less than 25% of the calves died from the crossing of 2 carriers to find out the real penetrance of why "some bulls seem to be hotter than others" as well I might feel more at ease.  I hope several universities are chasing this because we are missing a golden opportunity to watch this be bred away and prove to commercial cattlemen that we truly are the dominant breed not only for our cattle and marketing ability, but also from the resolve of Angus breeders to make our animals fit for any crossbreeding program.  Appropriate teaching and advertising to commercial cattleman should be started at once to limit the damages accrued from how we have dealt with AM and even  Hydrocephalus syndrome thus far.  For us to not allow any known recessive carrier to be registered encourages us to make them commercial where they can be lost to appropriate follow-up.  My commercial cattlemen don't plan to test all of their bulls and trust me to get them cattle that will work.  Failure to monitor these animals appropriately by allowing them into the commercial market, I find completely irresponsible and a source of potential litigeny of class action proportion.  We most certainly would not only lose that case, but also the respect of all commercial cattlemen.  I know that I as a breeder have a responsibility to test, report, and progressively breed out these recessive genetic disorders.  For the sanctity of this great breed and as breeders of registered Angus cattle, I hold you to that same standard.  As a marketer as well, I trust you and the members of the American Angus Board to act quickly and decisively to correct these historically unprecedented decisions to disallow future female registration for carriers of a certain recessive genetic trait.  (Why wasn't E161 banned for the dwarfism gene?  Let's not even go back to "mule foot." Are we really that much smarter than our ancestors with our newfound testing methods?)  Please fix these rulings and the arbitrary AM date selected as many of us have eggs in the tank from our best donors that were not able to be implanted and can't feasibly be born by January 1, 2010.  Please protect our interests in similar future matters if we truly want to remain the predominant breed.  Otherwise, I fear this dominant organization is destined to splinter, with other breeds set to take its place until another Angus organization with more progressive thinking can be instituted.        Many others feel the same and have voiced their immediate and future concerns.  Can I trust my Board to support my continuing to be a progressive breeder or could my embryo transplantation program simply be adding to potential future financial compromise.  I truly apologize for the inflammatory nature of this letter, and only wish you to act quickly.  It takes character and courage to change a course already set.  I fear we won't have to wait long to watch the consequences of our present recessive genetic defect rulings such as AM as they slice away many pathfinder matriarchs, contemporary group winners, and fellow breeders from our great Angus family.  If there is anything I can do, don't hesitate to call.  A formal Board response is requested and would be appreciated.  Thank you for your time and urgent consideration in advance.                                                       Sincerely,                                                William Evans, M.D.                                                Evans Farms   Respond to this Entry     Cattle Fax -- State of the industry Industry News - Tuesday 21st of July 2009 03:42:00 PM   The U.S. economy remains on extremely shaky ground which has dramatically impacted the beef industry. Forecasts suggest that GDP will fall by an estimated 2.8% in 2009 and will grow by less than 1% in 2010. Unemployment is nearly 10% and will most certainly exceed that level by late 2009. As a result of the continued uncertainty, consumers have tightened their belts and spending levels have declined. Economic news is not expected to improve until at least late 2009 and it could well be 2010 before there is any significant improvement. Developed economies globally are forecast to decline by 4% in 2009, holding steady in 2010. Inflation will not likely be a potential issue until credit loosens and demand improves. Overall, expect flat to slightly negative economic growth for the foreseeable future. The loss of beef demand has been the “story” for 2009. Beef demand at the wholesale level has averaged 8-9 percent lower for the past 9 months. This loss in demand has been equivalent to nearly $90/head lost value on fed cattle. The poor economy has impacted the value of cattle in other ways as well. Hide and offal values have only recovered about $15 per head of the $80 per head loss from the summer of 2008 to early 2009. This decline lowers the value of all cattle in the supply pipeline. The beef cow herd continues to contract and is forecast to be smaller on Jan 1, 2010 for the fourth consecutive year. Even though beef cow slaughter has slowed, it remains at an elevated level. Assuming the economy begins to recover in 2010 and 2011, the beef cow herd is expected to reach more stable levels in 2011 and 2012. The dairy industry continues to liquidate cows and should be in a better position to see profitability return in 2010 and 2011.   Cattle Price Outlook Fed Cattle — Prices for the first half of 2009 have averaged $83.80, as compared to the first half average of 2008 at $91.85. Softer beef demand along with sharply lower hide and offal prices have accounted for the lower values. Although it is a bit of a rarity, expectations are for fed cattle prices to average higher in the second half of the year than the first half of the year. This will be primarily a function of much tighter supplies as compared to a year ago, especially in the fourth quarter. Look for prices to spend July and August in the low to mid $80s, September in the mid $80s and October and November in the upper $80s, possibly reaching into the low $90s for a top late fall. This would result in an average fed cattle price of $84.25 for 2009. Fed cattle supplies and beef production will tighten again next year. Exports and imports are anticipated to increase moderately. These factors should result in a net beef supply decline near 2 percent. Demand is still expected to decline but at a slower rate than experienced in 2009. The result would be an average fed cattle price of $88.   Calves — The recent break in the corn market will be supportive to calf prices going forward. Forward contracted calves sold on the videos or private treaty are expected to garner more dollars than calves sold in the spot market this fall. One other factor that should be supportive to calf price is supply. The U.S. calf crop has declined 1.2 million head during the past two years. Calf backgrounders have been able to carve out a respectable profit over the past several years by selling them as feeder cattle. Overall feed prices are expected to moderate significantly compared to the past couple of years. There are currently a lot of positives pertaining to the calf market; however, the upside potential will continue to be limited by the lack of profitability in the feed yard and the limitations of premiums in the deferred live cattle contracts. 550 pound steer prices in the Central Plains are expected to trade in a wide range, but quality genetics with performance history and quality management should garner prices in a range of $108 to $115, with the lower end of the range during the fall calf run.   Feeder Cattle Outlook — The U.S. average price for 750 pound feeder steer in 2009 was originally forecast to average near $100/cwt. The first half of 2009 they have averaged $96.16. Historically, the average increase of feeder values from the first half of the year to the second half of the year is a 3 percent increase. With an increase of 3 percent feeder cattle would average roughly $97.50 for 2009. Feeder cattle values will be well supported in the mid-$90’s the remainder of the year and find resistance in a $104-$105 range, with an average near $100 for the second half of 2009. Looking into the first quarter of 2010, the odds are 75 percent that feeder prices will be par or lower during Q1 of 2010 than the average of the third quarter of 2009. At this time, expect a seasonal market for 2010. The steer to heifer spreads are likely to stay wide near the 3-year average.    Risk Management Opportunities For most of the past two years, deferred live cattle futures contracts have carried premiums compared to the nearby contracts. In other words, if the December live cattle futures contract is trading $10/cwt above the current cash market, then in order for these premiums to be justified, the cash market has to prove itself by rising towards these premium levels. As a result, cattle feeders have spent more time “betting on the come” and margins have remained negative. On a “cash to cash” basis, the cattle feeding industry has lost 7 billion dollars since November 2007. However, the premium structured futures market has also given cattle feeders the opportunity to protect a large portion of their equity using hedges and/or options. The premiums in the deferred contracts are still historically large. Until the spot futures are premium to the deferred contracts, equity protection will be necessary. When the spot futures contract becomes the highest price relative to all deferred contracts, cattle feeding margins will start to improve. During this transition, cattle feeders will need to utilize more options strategies to keep from capping the topside of the market. Corn risk management must be assessed continuously, and end users must recognize that the current supply and demand forecasts from the USDA do not support corn values moving back into the old trading range of $2.00 to $3.00 per bushel for a sustained period of time. Thus, end users should evaluate strategies to assist in taking ownership of corn for late 2009 and into 2010.   Respond to this Entry