The Madness Over Methane
Feb 27, 2009 12:43 PM
BEEF readers know food-animal agriculture is under attack. Animal rights and environmental groups are doing all they can to essentially pressure us out of business. And they aren’t limiting themselves to honesty, either. Forage digestion and methane production are a good case in point. Here are some interesting statements I’ve found recently in the press:
“A cow will eat 150 lbs. of feed/day, plus 20 lbs. of concentrates.” (Holy smoke! Cull her – yesterday!)
“37% percent of global methane emissions come from cattle." (I was able to find figures ranging from 6% to 37%.)
A cow will produce “300-500 liters of methane/day.” (Again, I saw figures ranging from 100-500 liters)
“Methane concentrations have increased by 100% since 1900.” (This is staggering! Even more staggering: When I was 13, my chest hairs increased by 800% in one month!)
“Agricultural livestock is hogging 30% of the earth’s land surface if you count the crops necessary to feed them.” (Uhhh. I don’t know where to begin on this one!) Now, don’t get me wrong. I do believe that we need to take care of our environment. But after spending several nights searching through methane information on the Internet, I’ve come to the following conclusions:
We don’t have a good method for measuring methane production.
I can prove or disprove any point by using Internet information. Here are a couple of points I think are trustworthy: First, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, domesticated livestock are the third-largest producers of methane, behind landfills and the oil and gas industries. Second, the more forage we have in our cattle’s diet, the more methane will be produced. If we’re to believe that methane production is on the increase, then are cattle truly the culprit? In the mid 1970s our beef cattle population peaked at 130 million head. In 1980, it was 111 million head, from which we produced 21 billion lbs. of beef. In 2007, our population was 97 million head, which produced 26 billion lbs. of beef. Thus, in the last 27 years, we’ve reduced these methane producers by 14 million head and increased total beef production by nearly 5 billion lbs.! I think we’re doing our part. What about dairy cows? Their population peaked in 1944, with 25.6 million head; each cow produced 5,300 lbs. of milk/year. Today, there are 9.1 million dairy cattle in the U.S., and they produce 17,000 lbs. of milk/head/year. So, with 16.5 million fewer dairy cattle, we’re producing 19 billion lbs. more milk. Hmmm. So, methane production is increasing, but we have drastically decreased our population of methane producers; all this while increasing production! But cattle are still being blamed for the increased methane production. On top of that, less forage is being fed to cattle today than just 20 years ago, let alone 40 years ago. So, not only do we have fewer methane producers, but each of them is producing less methane! I am confused! In the past couple of years, there have been several news documentaries on global warming; cattle and methane were mentioned in all the programs I saw. But did you know that Earth actually cooled in 2008? Strangely, this did not receive much media attention. Truth is, cattle production is the low-hanging fruit. Activists see us as easy pickings. We’ve made food production so efficient that increasingly fewer people are needed to produce it; the result is the majority of the population has very little idea of the origin of their food. Now those people are being duped into believing livestock producers don’t care about the environment or their livestock. We must mobilize, unify and become our own activist. -- Dave Sjeklocha, DVM, Sublette, KS
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Animal Agriculture Attacks in 2008
Report Quantifies Animal Agriculture Attacks 02/25/2009
The Arlington, Virginia-based Animal Agriculture Alliance reports that during 2008, attacks on the global food chain from animal rights and environmental extremists jumped 42% - from 155 in 2007 to 220 last year. Much of the increase came from the Animal Liberation Front. Those attacks exploded 377 percent. Information compiled by the Alliance indicated there were 640 acts of sabotage, vandalism and arson in 2008, up from 467 the previous year. The overall level of animal rights extremist attacks in the USA on businesses that use animals - including medical research, consumer product safety, pets, circuses, rodeos, fur shops, hunting stores, farmers, ranchers, food retailers - surged nearly 40%. Destruction or defacement of property were the most frequently used techniques in their attempts to intimidate food chain businesses to shut down. Also, extremists claimed responsibility for the "liberation" of thousands of animals during the year, and millions of dollars in damage.
The Arlington, Virginia-based Animal Agriculture Alliance reports that during 2008, attacks on the global food chain from animal rights and environmental extremists jumped 42% - from 155 in 2007 to 220 last year. Much of the increase came from the Animal Liberation Front. Those attacks exploded 377 percent. Information compiled by the Alliance indicated there were 640 acts of sabotage, vandalism and arson in 2008, up from 467 the previous year. The overall level of animal rights extremist attacks in the USA on businesses that use animals - including medical research, consumer product safety, pets, circuses, rodeos, fur shops, hunting stores, farmers, ranchers, food retailers - surged nearly 40%. Destruction or defacement of property were the most frequently used techniques in their attempts to intimidate food chain businesses to shut down. Also, extremists claimed responsibility for the "liberation" of thousands of animals during the year, and millions of dollars in damage.
Tom Buis moves to National Ethanol
Hoosier to Lead National Ethanol Organazatgion 02/25/2009by Gary Truitt
A native Hoosier is the new head of the nation’s newest Ethanol organization. Tom Buis has announced he is stepping down as head of the National Farmers Union to accept a position with Growth Energy, “Ethanol has brought jobs to rural America and has finally allowed farmers to make a profit from the marketplace.” The native of Putnam county said ethanol represents the economic future of agriculture and rural America, “ This is the opportunity for rural American to stem the decline of the past 80 years and provide an economic tax base for rural communities and provide profit for farmers from the crops they grow.”
Buis said the top priority of Growth Energy is to increase the amount of ethanol blended into the US gasoline supply. Currently mandated at 10%, Growth Energy says the ethanol industry can not grow if that percentage is not increased, “This blend wall is actually stifling the growth and development of renewable fuels.”
Growth Energy President, General Wesley Clark, said they are negotiating with auto makers to get their support for the change, “The problem is not with new cars but with some older cars and smaller engines.” He said the evidence indicates that there is not damage caused by increasing the blend higher than 10%. Clark added that the renewable fuels mandate in the recently passed Energy Bill can only be achieved if the blending rate is increased.
Growth Energy also announced that former Iowa Congressmen and OMB director Jim Nussle has joined their board of Directors as they prepare for a intensive lobbying effort in Washington to break down the blend wall. Clark did not indicate what blend percentage they were shooting for but said it would be substantial.Referring to his departure from NFU, Buis said, "Representing America‘s family farmers, ranchers and rural citizens has been a privilege and an honor. I‘ve had the opportunity to meet farmers from all corners of the country and am continually impressed with their optimism, hard work and dedication to feeding, and now fueling, our nation." His successor will be chosen by Farmers Union delegates at the upcoming national convention March 8-10 in Washington, D.C. Buis was elected NFU president in 2006 and again in 2008. He has been with the organization since March 1998, previously serving as vice president of government relations. Before moving to Washington, D.C., he was a full-time grain and livestock farmer in Indiana with brothers Mike and Jeff, who continue to operate the family farm.
A native Hoosier is the new head of the nation’s newest Ethanol organization. Tom Buis has announced he is stepping down as head of the National Farmers Union to accept a position with Growth Energy, “Ethanol has brought jobs to rural America and has finally allowed farmers to make a profit from the marketplace.” The native of Putnam county said ethanol represents the economic future of agriculture and rural America, “ This is the opportunity for rural American to stem the decline of the past 80 years and provide an economic tax base for rural communities and provide profit for farmers from the crops they grow.”
Buis said the top priority of Growth Energy is to increase the amount of ethanol blended into the US gasoline supply. Currently mandated at 10%, Growth Energy says the ethanol industry can not grow if that percentage is not increased, “This blend wall is actually stifling the growth and development of renewable fuels.”
Growth Energy President, General Wesley Clark, said they are negotiating with auto makers to get their support for the change, “The problem is not with new cars but with some older cars and smaller engines.” He said the evidence indicates that there is not damage caused by increasing the blend higher than 10%. Clark added that the renewable fuels mandate in the recently passed Energy Bill can only be achieved if the blending rate is increased.
Growth Energy also announced that former Iowa Congressmen and OMB director Jim Nussle has joined their board of Directors as they prepare for a intensive lobbying effort in Washington to break down the blend wall. Clark did not indicate what blend percentage they were shooting for but said it would be substantial.Referring to his departure from NFU, Buis said, "Representing America‘s family farmers, ranchers and rural citizens has been a privilege and an honor. I‘ve had the opportunity to meet farmers from all corners of the country and am continually impressed with their optimism, hard work and dedication to feeding, and now fueling, our nation." His successor will be chosen by Farmers Union delegates at the upcoming national convention March 8-10 in Washington, D.C. Buis was elected NFU president in 2006 and again in 2008. He has been with the organization since March 1998, previously serving as vice president of government relations. Before moving to Washington, D.C., he was a full-time grain and livestock farmer in Indiana with brothers Mike and Jeff, who continue to operate the family farm.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Purdue Soy and Corn Competitions
Purdue Soy and Corn Competitions have Record Participation 02/22/2009Andy Eubank
The Indiana Corn and Soybean new uses competition at Purdue University is heating up. On a recent trip to the campus Ryan West, New Uses Director, found thirteen teams of students on track to complete the competition in March. That’s an 8-team improvement over the best year ever, last year. West is excited about this year’s crop of projects made of corn and or soy. He said, “We’ve seen some very interesting ideas and it will be interesting to see if students will be able to pull off some of their ideas. They’re making progress in the lab with everything from a complete car waxing system using corn and soy to ice melt.”The prize money is up quite a bit this year. A team using soy could win $25,000 and the top corn prize in its first year is $10,000. West told HAT they needed to up the ante to compete with other Purdue competitions. “One example of that is the Burton Morgan entrepreneur contest where students write a business plan and come up with a business model for an invention, a product. They don’t actually have to make it and they don’t have to do packaging or any of those types of things. But we do. So we’re excited about the holistic nature and various exposures that these students get. A lot of them are engineering students who don’t think about marketing and packaging, and they may never work in marketing and packaging in their entire life. But it’s good to know that the product they may be working on has to get packaged and marketed somewhere, so we see a lot of benefit there.”
In late March the Indiana Soybean Alliance and Indiana Corn Marketing Council will hold a joint banquet and awards ceremony to honor the winners. All teams will have their projects on display and guests that night will be able to vote for another award, the People’s Choice.Projects will be evaluated and given a tier. For the soybean competition there are three tiers. Multiple teams may be in the same tier. Students on a soybean team that receive a first tier ranking will win $25,000, a second tier teams win $10,000 and third tier teams win $5,000. Students who finish all elements of the soybean competition that did not receive an award will receive a participatory award of $2,000. One winner will be awarded $10,000 as the top ranking team in the corn competition along with a $1,000 second place prize.
The Indiana Corn and Soybean new uses competition at Purdue University is heating up. On a recent trip to the campus Ryan West, New Uses Director, found thirteen teams of students on track to complete the competition in March. That’s an 8-team improvement over the best year ever, last year. West is excited about this year’s crop of projects made of corn and or soy. He said, “We’ve seen some very interesting ideas and it will be interesting to see if students will be able to pull off some of their ideas. They’re making progress in the lab with everything from a complete car waxing system using corn and soy to ice melt.”The prize money is up quite a bit this year. A team using soy could win $25,000 and the top corn prize in its first year is $10,000. West told HAT they needed to up the ante to compete with other Purdue competitions. “One example of that is the Burton Morgan entrepreneur contest where students write a business plan and come up with a business model for an invention, a product. They don’t actually have to make it and they don’t have to do packaging or any of those types of things. But we do. So we’re excited about the holistic nature and various exposures that these students get. A lot of them are engineering students who don’t think about marketing and packaging, and they may never work in marketing and packaging in their entire life. But it’s good to know that the product they may be working on has to get packaged and marketed somewhere, so we see a lot of benefit there.”
In late March the Indiana Soybean Alliance and Indiana Corn Marketing Council will hold a joint banquet and awards ceremony to honor the winners. All teams will have their projects on display and guests that night will be able to vote for another award, the People’s Choice.Projects will be evaluated and given a tier. For the soybean competition there are three tiers. Multiple teams may be in the same tier. Students on a soybean team that receive a first tier ranking will win $25,000, a second tier teams win $10,000 and third tier teams win $5,000. Students who finish all elements of the soybean competition that did not receive an award will receive a participatory award of $2,000. One winner will be awarded $10,000 as the top ranking team in the corn competition along with a $1,000 second place prize.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Legislative Session comments
The Feb. 21st Legislative update session saw all three legislators discuss various bills with over 20 patrons from the community. Farm Bureau President discussed the Ag bills that affects Putnam County noting disfavor with HB1074 and HB1075 which has a more favorable counterpart in the SB221. HB1468 was another bill of note that intends to protect against puppy factories but includes items at the end of the bill that would greatly effect 4-H Livestock exhibitors in the state. Here is that section of the bill.
4) "Neglect" means to:
(A) endanger an animal's health by failing to provide the animal with food or drink, if the animal is dependent upon the person for the provision of food or drink; or
(B) restrain an animal for more than a brief period in a manner that endangers the animal's life or health;
(C) tether an animal by the use of a rope, chain, or tether that:
i) is less than three (3) times the length of the animal;
(ii) is too heavy to permit the animal to move freely;
Other issues discussed were the restructuring of county government, online voter registration, property tax caps, township trustees, and several other important topics.
4) "Neglect" means to:
(A) endanger an animal's health by failing to provide the animal with food or drink, if the animal is dependent upon the person for the provision of food or drink; or
(B) restrain an animal for more than a brief period in a manner that endangers the animal's life or health;
(C) tether an animal by the use of a rope, chain, or tether that:
i) is less than three (3) times the length of the animal;
(ii) is too heavy to permit the animal to move freely;
Other issues discussed were the restructuring of county government, online voter registration, property tax caps, township trustees, and several other important topics.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Legislative Update Session
The next session is Saturday, Feb. 21 at 8 a.m. in the Putnam County Farm Bureau boardroom. Here is a recent update on what is happening with the Ag Bills.
Farm and Rural Legislation Moving in Indiana Legislature 02/19/2009by Gary Truitt
The Indiana General Assembly took action this week on several pieces of legislation that impact agriculture and rural Indiana. The House Agriculture Committee passed two bills that deal with permitted livestock operations. HB 1074 requires a background check on individuals seeking a IDEM permit for a CAFO. The bill is similar to one moving through the Senate. The Senate bill SB 221 has the support of IDEM, Indiana Farm Bureau, and most Indiana livestock groups. It is expected that this bill, and not the House version, will eventually become law.HB 1075 would place a limit on where livestock facilities could be located. Bob Kraft, with Indiana Farm Bureau, says this bill passed out of the ag committee and is now before the full house, “The bill was amended to require a 2 mile setback from State Parks and Reservoirs.” Originally the legislation would have implemented a 2 mile setback from any body of water in the state. Kraft said while this is an improvement it still blocks livestock locations from many sitesin the state. During the committee hearing on the bill, Michael Platt with the Indiana Pork Producers testified that livestock operations pose no more of a threat than housing, industrial, or business operations that would be located close to these parks and waterways. If it passes the House, it may face a tougher road in the Senate. This week State Senate did pass the resolution that makes property tax caps part of the state constitution, but Kraft says it faces an uncertain future in the Democratically controlled House, “We at Farm Bureau are hopeful it does die in the House. We don’t like the caps, and we don’t think they are fair.” Kraft would like to see the issue put off until next year, allowing for more study of the long term ramifications of the policy change. Another issue that failed this week was a bill that would have required small rural schools to merge with larger school corporations. The Governor’s plan to do away with township government also failed this week. Many rural residents had concerns about both of these measurers.
Farm and Rural Legislation Moving in Indiana Legislature 02/19/2009by Gary Truitt
The Indiana General Assembly took action this week on several pieces of legislation that impact agriculture and rural Indiana. The House Agriculture Committee passed two bills that deal with permitted livestock operations. HB 1074 requires a background check on individuals seeking a IDEM permit for a CAFO. The bill is similar to one moving through the Senate. The Senate bill SB 221 has the support of IDEM, Indiana Farm Bureau, and most Indiana livestock groups. It is expected that this bill, and not the House version, will eventually become law.HB 1075 would place a limit on where livestock facilities could be located. Bob Kraft, with Indiana Farm Bureau, says this bill passed out of the ag committee and is now before the full house, “The bill was amended to require a 2 mile setback from State Parks and Reservoirs.” Originally the legislation would have implemented a 2 mile setback from any body of water in the state. Kraft said while this is an improvement it still blocks livestock locations from many sitesin the state. During the committee hearing on the bill, Michael Platt with the Indiana Pork Producers testified that livestock operations pose no more of a threat than housing, industrial, or business operations that would be located close to these parks and waterways. If it passes the House, it may face a tougher road in the Senate. This week State Senate did pass the resolution that makes property tax caps part of the state constitution, but Kraft says it faces an uncertain future in the Democratically controlled House, “We at Farm Bureau are hopeful it does die in the House. We don’t like the caps, and we don’t think they are fair.” Kraft would like to see the issue put off until next year, allowing for more study of the long term ramifications of the policy change. Another issue that failed this week was a bill that would have required small rural schools to merge with larger school corporations. The Governor’s plan to do away with township government also failed this week. Many rural residents had concerns about both of these measurers.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Meat is good for you !!!
Beef Considered to be 'Good Calories'
Feb 17, 2009 12:26 PM, Source: The Beef Site
Book praises beef in healthy diet.
Red meat is often blamed for heart disease, obesity and a host of other diet-induced conditions.
But scientific journalist Gary Taubes says carbohydrates and low-fat diets may be the real culprit. He shared the results of a “12-year obsession with finding what’s real and what’s not” with cattlemen and industry representatives at last fall’s Feeding Quality Forums.“Beef has gotten a bad rap the last 50 years. Just red meat in general is an integral part of a healthy diet,” he said.His book, Good Calories, Bad Calories, flies in the face of conventional nutritional advice.“I spent years studying how people picked the evidence they like and ignored the evidence they didn’t; what’s sort-of wishful thinking or bad science and what can really be supported by evidence,” he said.Taubes now tours the country lecturing on the information he uncovered in his research.“There is an alternative hypothesis out there and I’ve been doing everything I can to get the researchers to take these ideas seriously,” he said. “The medical schools and the obesity research centers, from their point of view I’m just a journalist – what do I know? I wrote the book so people could judge for themselves.”His work outlines all of the studies relating to diet and heart disease, along with the evolution of the current dietary recommendations.The beef industry became an unintended target in the diet-heart conflict, he said.“We started out with this simplistic hypothesis: fat raises cholesterol raises heart disease. The experts locked themselves into a perspective from the 1970s,” he said.The reality, Mr Taubes said, is “the more carbs, the higher triglycerides and the more carbs, the lower HDL (high-density lipoprotein or the ‘good cholesterol’). Saturated fat doesn’t even fall into that equation.”“As the science evolved, it meant the advice had to change, but if you change the advice you’re saying, ‘Look, we made a mistake when we told you to go on a low-fat diet 30 years ago.’"The real danger is that in a quest for a low-fat diet, people have ditched proteins and elevated the amount of carbohydrates they consume.“When you eat carbohydrates, your body basically dumps glucose into your bloodstream. Glucose is a sugar,” he explained. “Your pancreas responds by hyper-secreting the hormone insulin. Your muscles don’t like all this insulin, so they become resistant.”One the of hormone’s functions is to signal your liver to convert carbohydrates to triglyceride fat. It also causes you to store more fat in fatty tissues, he said.“Everything goes wrong as you elevate insulin. The healthiest possible diet is one that has the lowest insulin,” Mr Taubes said. “The one nutrient that doesn’t stimulate insulin secretion is fat. If you want to keep insulin low, you eat what the Inuit, the Eskimos, ate 100 years ago, which is a diet that’s like 75 per cent fat and 25 per cent meat.”He concluded with a statement that many in the health science community would embrace:“What makes you fat makes you sick,” Mr Taubes said. “Whatever makes you fat increases your risk of heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s and most cancers.”The trick is deciphering what types of food really make you fat.The Feeding Quality Forums, held in North Platte, Neb., and Amarillo, Texas, were sponsored by Pfizer Animal Health, Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB), Feedlot magazine and Land O’ Lakes Purina Feed.
Feb 17, 2009 12:26 PM, Source: The Beef Site
Book praises beef in healthy diet.
Red meat is often blamed for heart disease, obesity and a host of other diet-induced conditions.
But scientific journalist Gary Taubes says carbohydrates and low-fat diets may be the real culprit. He shared the results of a “12-year obsession with finding what’s real and what’s not” with cattlemen and industry representatives at last fall’s Feeding Quality Forums.“Beef has gotten a bad rap the last 50 years. Just red meat in general is an integral part of a healthy diet,” he said.His book, Good Calories, Bad Calories, flies in the face of conventional nutritional advice.“I spent years studying how people picked the evidence they like and ignored the evidence they didn’t; what’s sort-of wishful thinking or bad science and what can really be supported by evidence,” he said.Taubes now tours the country lecturing on the information he uncovered in his research.“There is an alternative hypothesis out there and I’ve been doing everything I can to get the researchers to take these ideas seriously,” he said. “The medical schools and the obesity research centers, from their point of view I’m just a journalist – what do I know? I wrote the book so people could judge for themselves.”His work outlines all of the studies relating to diet and heart disease, along with the evolution of the current dietary recommendations.The beef industry became an unintended target in the diet-heart conflict, he said.“We started out with this simplistic hypothesis: fat raises cholesterol raises heart disease. The experts locked themselves into a perspective from the 1970s,” he said.The reality, Mr Taubes said, is “the more carbs, the higher triglycerides and the more carbs, the lower HDL (high-density lipoprotein or the ‘good cholesterol’). Saturated fat doesn’t even fall into that equation.”“As the science evolved, it meant the advice had to change, but if you change the advice you’re saying, ‘Look, we made a mistake when we told you to go on a low-fat diet 30 years ago.’"The real danger is that in a quest for a low-fat diet, people have ditched proteins and elevated the amount of carbohydrates they consume.“When you eat carbohydrates, your body basically dumps glucose into your bloodstream. Glucose is a sugar,” he explained. “Your pancreas responds by hyper-secreting the hormone insulin. Your muscles don’t like all this insulin, so they become resistant.”One the of hormone’s functions is to signal your liver to convert carbohydrates to triglyceride fat. It also causes you to store more fat in fatty tissues, he said.“Everything goes wrong as you elevate insulin. The healthiest possible diet is one that has the lowest insulin,” Mr Taubes said. “The one nutrient that doesn’t stimulate insulin secretion is fat. If you want to keep insulin low, you eat what the Inuit, the Eskimos, ate 100 years ago, which is a diet that’s like 75 per cent fat and 25 per cent meat.”He concluded with a statement that many in the health science community would embrace:“What makes you fat makes you sick,” Mr Taubes said. “Whatever makes you fat increases your risk of heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s and most cancers.”The trick is deciphering what types of food really make you fat.The Feeding Quality Forums, held in North Platte, Neb., and Amarillo, Texas, were sponsored by Pfizer Animal Health, Certified Angus Beef LLC (CAB), Feedlot magazine and Land O’ Lakes Purina Feed.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Farm Bureau Inc.- Important dates to Remember
Feb. 17 Crop Insurance meeting in the Boardroom 10 a.m.
Feb. 18 Brad Ellsworth at Greencastle City Hall 10 a.m.
Feb. 21 Farm Bureau Legislative Update Session, in the boardroom at 8 a.m.
Feb. 24 Chamber after Hours hosted by Ag Week committee 5-7 pm in the Community Bldg. at the fairgrounds. Not open to the public.
Feb. 18 Brad Ellsworth at Greencastle City Hall 10 a.m.
Feb. 21 Farm Bureau Legislative Update Session, in the boardroom at 8 a.m.
Feb. 24 Chamber after Hours hosted by Ag Week committee 5-7 pm in the Community Bldg. at the fairgrounds. Not open to the public.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Purdue Renewable Energy website
Here is the link to Purdue's Renewable Energy website.
www.extension.purdue.edu/renewable%2Denergy/
www.extension.purdue.edu/renewable%2Denergy/
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Right to Farm wins one!!!
Jury Finds in Favor of Pork Producers
A jury in Illinois has decided against 15 neighbors of Bible Pork, a swine farm located near Louisville, Illinois. The neighbors claimed that the state of the art swine farm was a nuisance under Illinois law due to alleged odor. Phil Borgic, President of the Illinois Pork Producers Association proclaimed, "This ruling is great news for the livestock industry and all of agriculture."The ruling is being called a significant victory for livestock farmers that have operated their farms in good faith under the Illinois Livestock Facilities Management Act. In addition, this ruling also reinforces the clear protections provided under the act for both livestock farmers and their rural neighbors.
A jury in Illinois has decided against 15 neighbors of Bible Pork, a swine farm located near Louisville, Illinois. The neighbors claimed that the state of the art swine farm was a nuisance under Illinois law due to alleged odor. Phil Borgic, President of the Illinois Pork Producers Association proclaimed, "This ruling is great news for the livestock industry and all of agriculture."The ruling is being called a significant victory for livestock farmers that have operated their farms in good faith under the Illinois Livestock Facilities Management Act. In addition, this ruling also reinforces the clear protections provided under the act for both livestock farmers and their rural neighbors.
Monday, February 9, 2009
It does pay to be a member!
How does it pay? Where does the money go? Besides the Indiana and American FB discounts at Sears, Ramada, LensCrafters, Dodge, Grainger, Avis, Budget, Ferrellgas, Optical, Dental Card Advantage, Baymont Inns, Knights Inn, Wyndham Hotels, Sea World, Universal Studios, Busch Gardens, Kings Island, Super 8, Dell, Travelodge, Days Inn, Beltone, Hertze, hhgregg, Pearle Vision, and others, Putnam County Farm Bureau offers Education Scholarships around $300, purchases 4-H Sale animals at the Fair, provides donations to the Fair Queen, Beef Ultrasound Program, Tenure Awards, FFA Grants, Master Gardener award, Pet Parade participants, and Peddle Pull participants. We strive to educate the public with our investment in Ag Week activities, Legislative Update sessions, Meet the Candidate meetings, Crop and Livestock meetings, and other meetings to inform members of local and state issues.
We need your membership (insurance business not required) to continue to offer these programs and serve as the "Voice of Agriculture" in Putnam County.
We also need your help in selecting a speaker for this years Annual meeting in June. If you have any suggestions on a speaker or an activity that the board needs to consider please respond in the comment section below. If you don't wish to sign up on google just click on anonymous.
Also, if you have a suggestion for a Door Prize that will encourage attendance at our Annual Meeting please comment on that as well. Our goal is to gain at least 10 new members by the end of February. If you would rather email do so at spcash@tds.net.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Senate Vote coming soon on Property Tax
PROPERTY TAX CAPS MOVE IN SENATE On Thursday afternoon, the Indiana Senate approved Senate Joint Resolution 1 (Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville) on second reading, setting it up for final passage sometime next week. Second reading is that step in the legislative process where any member, not just a committee member, may offer an amendment to a bill or resolution. The adoption of SJR 1 is the next step in the effort to amend the Indiana Constitution to legitimize the 1-2-3 property tax caps that the General Assembly approved last year. If the resolution passes both Houses, the constitutional amendment would be placed before the state’s voters in the 2010 general election. Farm Bureau policy opposes the 1-2-3 caps and the constitutional amendment.
ASK YOUR STATE SENATOR TO VOTE NO ON SJR 1 Please contact your state senator this weekend and ask him or her to vote NO on SJR 1. Senators know that Farm Bureau opposes SJR 1. But they need to hear it from their constituents. Here are the reasons Farm Bureau is opposed to the 1-2-3 property tax caps; these help you explain Farm Bureau’s position to your senator.
· They are deceptive. Despite what you may have heard, they won’t freeze your property taxes. Your tax bill will increase as your assessment increases.
· They are unjust. Why should the taxes on a farmer’s $250,000 combine or the equipment worth $250,000 that is owned by a small business be three times as much as the tax on a house worth the same thing? People use services, not land and not equipment.
· They are unconstitutional. Why should we change the state's constitution to justify unequal treatment of taxpayers?
· They are hard on businesses. At any time, but particularly during a recession, does Indiana really need to penalize companies that create jobs?
· They are untested. Rather than rushing to make permanent an unknown and untried concept that could have serious implications for citizens, state governments, county governments and schools, why not wait a year so that the consequences of the caps are more fully understood?
ASK YOUR STATE SENATOR TO VOTE NO ON SJR 1 Please contact your state senator this weekend and ask him or her to vote NO on SJR 1. Senators know that Farm Bureau opposes SJR 1. But they need to hear it from their constituents. Here are the reasons Farm Bureau is opposed to the 1-2-3 property tax caps; these help you explain Farm Bureau’s position to your senator.
· They are deceptive. Despite what you may have heard, they won’t freeze your property taxes. Your tax bill will increase as your assessment increases.
· They are unjust. Why should the taxes on a farmer’s $250,000 combine or the equipment worth $250,000 that is owned by a small business be three times as much as the tax on a house worth the same thing? People use services, not land and not equipment.
· They are unconstitutional. Why should we change the state's constitution to justify unequal treatment of taxpayers?
· They are hard on businesses. At any time, but particularly during a recession, does Indiana really need to penalize companies that create jobs?
· They are untested. Rather than rushing to make permanent an unknown and untried concept that could have serious implications for citizens, state governments, county governments and schools, why not wait a year so that the consequences of the caps are more fully understood?
Crop Insurance meeting
Putnam County Farm Bureau Insurance will be holding a Crop Insurance meeting at 10 am in the board room at 1001 N. Jackson St. Greencastle for all area farmers interested in learning more. Call 653-9797 for any additional details.
Soybean Facts
Indiana Soybean Industry Facts:
60,000 soybean farms produced 287 million bushels of soybeans.
98% of the soybean & livestock farms in the country are still family farms.
98% of the soybean meal produced in the U.S. is consumed by livestock & poultry.
In Indiana, pigs eat 53% of the soybean meal produced and chickens eat 33%.
Livestock and poultry operations also create jobs: 42,000 in Indiana.
Commodity agriculture alone is 5% of the state’s Gross State Product.
Grain & livestock farms and support industries drive much of Indiana’s rural economy with 35-60% of tax revenue generated from agriculture.
Livestock has a large impact on the economy with direct investment and a 3-4x wage multiplier.
Our beef, dairy and pork farms have been in decline. Doubling pork production means trying to regain our pork inventory to what it was in the 1980’s.
60,000 soybean farms produced 287 million bushels of soybeans.
98% of the soybean & livestock farms in the country are still family farms.
98% of the soybean meal produced in the U.S. is consumed by livestock & poultry.
In Indiana, pigs eat 53% of the soybean meal produced and chickens eat 33%.
Livestock and poultry operations also create jobs: 42,000 in Indiana.
Commodity agriculture alone is 5% of the state’s Gross State Product.
Grain & livestock farms and support industries drive much of Indiana’s rural economy with 35-60% of tax revenue generated from agriculture.
Livestock has a large impact on the economy with direct investment and a 3-4x wage multiplier.
Our beef, dairy and pork farms have been in decline. Doubling pork production means trying to regain our pork inventory to what it was in the 1980’s.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
"7 Things You Didn't Know About HSUS"
It’s no secret that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) isn’t the organization it pretends to be. Instead of using its money to save pets and care for animals, HSUS utilizes their monetary gifts in their work as a lobbying giant. Their main goal is to eliminate animal agriculture in this country, and they are finding success by passing legislation that makes food production more costly than ever before. I was sent this Center for Consumer Freedom article titled, “7 Things You Didn’t Know About HSUS,” and I thought I would share it with all of you. Undoubtedly, it will be some good coffee talk at the local elevator or cafe this weekend.“7 Things You Didn’t Know About HSUS”
1) The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a “humane society” in name only, since it doesn’t operate a single pet shelter or pet adoption facility anywhere in the United States. During 2006, HSUS contributed only 4.2 percent of its budget to organizations that operate hands-on dog and cat shelters. In reality, HSUS is a wealthy animal-rights lobbying organization (the largest and richest on earth) that agitates for the same goals as PETA and other radical groups.
2) Beginning on the day of NFL quarterback Michael Vick’s 2007 dogfighting indictment, HSUS raised money online with the false promise that it would “care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case.” The New York Times later reported that HSUS wasn’t caring for Vick’s dogs at all. And HSUS president Wayne Pacelle told the Times that his group recommended that government officials “put down” (that is, kill) the dogs rather than adopt them out to suitable homes. HSUS later quietly altered its Internet fundraising pitch.
3) HSUS’s senior management includes a former spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a criminal group designated as “terrorists” by the FBI. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle hired John “J.P.” Goodwin in 1997, the same year Goodwin described himself as “spokesperson for the ALF” while he fielded media calls in the wake of an ALF arson attack at a California veal processing plant. In 1997, when asked by reporters for a reaction to an ALF arson fire at a farmer’s feed co-op in Utah (which nearly killed a family sleeping on the premises), Goodwin replied, “We’re ecstatic.” That same year, Goodwin was arrested at a UC Davis protest celebrating the 10-year anniversary of an ALF arson at the university that caused $5 million in damage. And in 1998, Goodwin described himself publicly as a “former member of ALF.”
4) According to a 2008 Los Angeles Times investigation, less than 12 percent of money raised for HSUS by California telemarketers actually ends up in HSUS’s bank account. The rest is kept by professional fundraisers. And if you exclude two campaigns run for HSUS by the “Build-a-Bear Workshop” retail chain, which consisted of the sale of surplus stuffed animals (not really “fundraising”), HSUS’s yield number shrinks to just 3 percent. Sadly, this appears typical. In 2004, HSUS ran a telemarketing campaign in Connecticut with fundraisers who promised to return a minimum of zero percent of the proceeds. The campaign raised over $1.4 million. Not only did absolutely none of that money go to HSUS, but the group paid $175,000 for the telemarketing work.
5) Research shows that HSUS’s heavily promoted U.S. “boycott” of Canadian seafood—announced in 2005 as a protest against Canada’s annual seal hunt—is a phony exercise in media manipulation. A 2006 investigation found that 78 percent of the restaurants and seafood distributors described by HSUS as “boycotters” weren’t participating at all. Nearly two-thirds of them told surveyors they were completely unaware HSUS was using their names in connection with an international boycott campaign. Canada’s federal government is on record about this deception, saying: “Some animal rights groups have been misleading the public for years … it’s no surprise at all that the richest of them would mislead the public with a phony seafood boycott.”
6) HSUS raised a reported $34 million in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, supposedly to help reunite lost pets with their owners. But comparatively little of that money was spent for its intended purpose. Louisiana’s Attorney General shuttered his 18-month-long investigation into where most of these millions went, shortly after HSUS announced its plan to contribute $600,000 toward the construction of an animal shelter on the grounds of a state prison. Public disclosures of the disposition of the $34 million in Katrina-related donations add up to less than $7 million.
7) After gathering undercover video footage of improper animal handling at a Chino, CA slaughterhouse during November of 2007, HSUS sat on its video evidence for three months, even refusing to share it with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. HSUS’s Dr. Michael Greger testified before Congress that the San Bernardino County (CA) District Attorney’s office asked the group “to hold on to the information while they completed their investigation.” But the District Attorney’s office quickly denied that account, even declaring that HSUS refused to make its undercover spy available to investigators if the USDA were present at those meetings. Ultimately, HSUS chose to release its video footage at a more politically opportune time, as it prepared to launch a livestock-related ballot campaign in California. Meanwhile, meat from the slaughterhouse continued to flow into the U.S. food supply for months.
1) The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a “humane society” in name only, since it doesn’t operate a single pet shelter or pet adoption facility anywhere in the United States. During 2006, HSUS contributed only 4.2 percent of its budget to organizations that operate hands-on dog and cat shelters. In reality, HSUS is a wealthy animal-rights lobbying organization (the largest and richest on earth) that agitates for the same goals as PETA and other radical groups.
2) Beginning on the day of NFL quarterback Michael Vick’s 2007 dogfighting indictment, HSUS raised money online with the false promise that it would “care for the dogs seized in the Michael Vick case.” The New York Times later reported that HSUS wasn’t caring for Vick’s dogs at all. And HSUS president Wayne Pacelle told the Times that his group recommended that government officials “put down” (that is, kill) the dogs rather than adopt them out to suitable homes. HSUS later quietly altered its Internet fundraising pitch.
3) HSUS’s senior management includes a former spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a criminal group designated as “terrorists” by the FBI. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle hired John “J.P.” Goodwin in 1997, the same year Goodwin described himself as “spokesperson for the ALF” while he fielded media calls in the wake of an ALF arson attack at a California veal processing plant. In 1997, when asked by reporters for a reaction to an ALF arson fire at a farmer’s feed co-op in Utah (which nearly killed a family sleeping on the premises), Goodwin replied, “We’re ecstatic.” That same year, Goodwin was arrested at a UC Davis protest celebrating the 10-year anniversary of an ALF arson at the university that caused $5 million in damage. And in 1998, Goodwin described himself publicly as a “former member of ALF.”
4) According to a 2008 Los Angeles Times investigation, less than 12 percent of money raised for HSUS by California telemarketers actually ends up in HSUS’s bank account. The rest is kept by professional fundraisers. And if you exclude two campaigns run for HSUS by the “Build-a-Bear Workshop” retail chain, which consisted of the sale of surplus stuffed animals (not really “fundraising”), HSUS’s yield number shrinks to just 3 percent. Sadly, this appears typical. In 2004, HSUS ran a telemarketing campaign in Connecticut with fundraisers who promised to return a minimum of zero percent of the proceeds. The campaign raised over $1.4 million. Not only did absolutely none of that money go to HSUS, but the group paid $175,000 for the telemarketing work.
5) Research shows that HSUS’s heavily promoted U.S. “boycott” of Canadian seafood—announced in 2005 as a protest against Canada’s annual seal hunt—is a phony exercise in media manipulation. A 2006 investigation found that 78 percent of the restaurants and seafood distributors described by HSUS as “boycotters” weren’t participating at all. Nearly two-thirds of them told surveyors they were completely unaware HSUS was using their names in connection with an international boycott campaign. Canada’s federal government is on record about this deception, saying: “Some animal rights groups have been misleading the public for years … it’s no surprise at all that the richest of them would mislead the public with a phony seafood boycott.”
6) HSUS raised a reported $34 million in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, supposedly to help reunite lost pets with their owners. But comparatively little of that money was spent for its intended purpose. Louisiana’s Attorney General shuttered his 18-month-long investigation into where most of these millions went, shortly after HSUS announced its plan to contribute $600,000 toward the construction of an animal shelter on the grounds of a state prison. Public disclosures of the disposition of the $34 million in Katrina-related donations add up to less than $7 million.
7) After gathering undercover video footage of improper animal handling at a Chino, CA slaughterhouse during November of 2007, HSUS sat on its video evidence for three months, even refusing to share it with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. HSUS’s Dr. Michael Greger testified before Congress that the San Bernardino County (CA) District Attorney’s office asked the group “to hold on to the information while they completed their investigation.” But the District Attorney’s office quickly denied that account, even declaring that HSUS refused to make its undercover spy available to investigators if the USDA were present at those meetings. Ultimately, HSUS chose to release its video footage at a more politically opportune time, as it prepared to launch a livestock-related ballot campaign in California. Meanwhile, meat from the slaughterhouse continued to flow into the U.S. food supply for months.
2007 Ag Census information
Putnam, Indiana
2007
Number of Farms 843
Land in Farms 168,446 acres
Average Size of Farm 200 acres
Market Value of Production $69,252,000
Crop Sales $51,372,000 (74 percent)
Livestock Sales $17,880,000 (26 percent)
Average Per Farm $82,149
2007
Number of Farms 843
Land in Farms 168,446 acres
Average Size of Farm 200 acres
Market Value of Production $69,252,000
Crop Sales $51,372,000 (74 percent)
Livestock Sales $17,880,000 (26 percent)
Average Per Farm $82,149
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Farm Bureau member Tour
Putnam County Farm Bureau Board of Directors and any other member is invited to attend a tour of the Apache Sprayer Factory in Mooresville on Friday February 20. The tour starts at 9:30 am. Anyone interested in going can contact Chris Mann by e-mail clmann@ccrtc.com or by phone at 765-795-5345.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Discussing Animal Care "website"
http://www.conversationsoncare.com/ this website is a great place to learn the
facts concerning the care and well being of all types of livestock.
facts concerning the care and well being of all types of livestock.
Keeping the farm in the Family
You Can Buy the Family Farm, But Remember I Still Own It
Feb 2, 2009 3:29 PM, Source: Hoosier Ag Today; By: Gary Truitt
Transferring power in multi-generational farming operations.
The banquet hall was filled with about 500 young farmers, most ranging in age from late 20s to mid 40s. The speaker asked how many were the third generation living on the family farm. The majority of the hands in the room went up. Fourth generation, he asked; and still the majority of the hands were in the air. Fifth generation, and still more than a few hands were raised. Sixth generation, and still a few hardy souls held their hands high. Seventh generation, and there were 2 hands in the air. Eighth generation, and one very proud couple still had their hands up. This is a testament to the enduring power and legacy of American agriculture. It is also a testament to how successful the transfer of those family farms has been from one generation to another. No other industry can make this claim, but it is a process that is getting harder and harder with each generation.
It is an economic reality that the only way to get into farming today is to inherit it. While there are a few notable exceptions, the vast majority of farmers today were either born or married into it. Yet, the changes that are impacting rural America are making that farm transfer process much more difficult. Dr. Ron Hanson, a professor at the University of Nebraska, has made it his specialty to help farm families navigate this process, “If it is the dream of parents to see that family farm pass on to the next generation, to have their children have the same opportunity they did, then they have to make it happen.” Dr. Hanson said the key to keeping the farm in the family is keeping the family together.
In a presentation to the Indiana Young Farmers Leadership Conference, Dr. Hanson told heartbreaking true stories of families that were destroyed and farms that were lost when the fighting began over what would happen to the farm. He stated that the families that make a smooth transition are those that communicate openly, set goals, and share visions. He said family issues are the most important issues, “Farms can be replaced, but families cannot.”
The pressures on farm families are greater today than perhaps they have ever been and they are certainly different than they have been in the past. The increasing rate of divorce means there is a great likelihood of stepchildren being part of the mix. Fewer and fewer children of farmers want to return to the farm and work in agriculture. Urban sprawl and rural housing developments are inflating land values and presenting families with the opportunity to reap considerable profits from the sale of the farm.
Dr. Hanson said it is the current generation of farmers who hold the key to passing the farm on to the next generation, “It is mom and dad’s farm, and they have to decide what will happen to it. They have to initiate the process, make sure the process is carried out; they have to make sure the process is accomplished.” Dr. Hanson does not believe in “sweat equity.” He suggests, from the first day a son or daughter comes into the business, they need to begin to acquire assets and build net worth, “No banker ever made a loan to a young farmer on sweat equity.”
Ultimately, it comes down to control. At some point in the transfer process, the control of the farm must move from one generation to another. This is an area in which some families really struggle according to Hanson. Even if the farm is transferred successfully, the control of the operation can still be an issue. “Not doing it dad’s way can still be an issue,” said Hanson.
What to do with the family farm is one of the most emotionally charged issues for a family. Yet, successfully moving American agriculture to the next generation is vital for the future of our economy and our society.
Find this article at:
http://www.beefmagazine.com/sectors/cow-calf/0203-family-farm/index.html
Feb 2, 2009 3:29 PM, Source: Hoosier Ag Today; By: Gary Truitt
Transferring power in multi-generational farming operations.
The banquet hall was filled with about 500 young farmers, most ranging in age from late 20s to mid 40s. The speaker asked how many were the third generation living on the family farm. The majority of the hands in the room went up. Fourth generation, he asked; and still the majority of the hands were in the air. Fifth generation, and still more than a few hands were raised. Sixth generation, and still a few hardy souls held their hands high. Seventh generation, and there were 2 hands in the air. Eighth generation, and one very proud couple still had their hands up. This is a testament to the enduring power and legacy of American agriculture. It is also a testament to how successful the transfer of those family farms has been from one generation to another. No other industry can make this claim, but it is a process that is getting harder and harder with each generation.
It is an economic reality that the only way to get into farming today is to inherit it. While there are a few notable exceptions, the vast majority of farmers today were either born or married into it. Yet, the changes that are impacting rural America are making that farm transfer process much more difficult. Dr. Ron Hanson, a professor at the University of Nebraska, has made it his specialty to help farm families navigate this process, “If it is the dream of parents to see that family farm pass on to the next generation, to have their children have the same opportunity they did, then they have to make it happen.” Dr. Hanson said the key to keeping the farm in the family is keeping the family together.
In a presentation to the Indiana Young Farmers Leadership Conference, Dr. Hanson told heartbreaking true stories of families that were destroyed and farms that were lost when the fighting began over what would happen to the farm. He stated that the families that make a smooth transition are those that communicate openly, set goals, and share visions. He said family issues are the most important issues, “Farms can be replaced, but families cannot.”
The pressures on farm families are greater today than perhaps they have ever been and they are certainly different than they have been in the past. The increasing rate of divorce means there is a great likelihood of stepchildren being part of the mix. Fewer and fewer children of farmers want to return to the farm and work in agriculture. Urban sprawl and rural housing developments are inflating land values and presenting families with the opportunity to reap considerable profits from the sale of the farm.
Dr. Hanson said it is the current generation of farmers who hold the key to passing the farm on to the next generation, “It is mom and dad’s farm, and they have to decide what will happen to it. They have to initiate the process, make sure the process is carried out; they have to make sure the process is accomplished.” Dr. Hanson does not believe in “sweat equity.” He suggests, from the first day a son or daughter comes into the business, they need to begin to acquire assets and build net worth, “No banker ever made a loan to a young farmer on sweat equity.”
Ultimately, it comes down to control. At some point in the transfer process, the control of the farm must move from one generation to another. This is an area in which some families really struggle according to Hanson. Even if the farm is transferred successfully, the control of the operation can still be an issue. “Not doing it dad’s way can still be an issue,” said Hanson.
What to do with the family farm is one of the most emotionally charged issues for a family. Yet, successfully moving American agriculture to the next generation is vital for the future of our economy and our society.
Find this article at:
http://www.beefmagazine.com/sectors/cow-calf/0203-family-farm/index.html
Who is Dating Your Cows?
Before you get to the article I must explain that to post this is difficult as I am the Artificial Insemination Technician for ABS in this area and encourage cattlemen to look to AI for their breeding program and avoid some of the concerns listed below in finding the right herd bull. With todays technologies cattle breeding can be done successfully in a reasonably short amount of time and allow the use of a variety of bulls that fit your needs along with protecting you from diseases and the other problems listed below with the purchase of a herd bull.
Who is Dating Your Cows?
Feb 2, 2009 3:38 PM, Source: The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation; By: David Annis
What are you looking for in your next herd bull?
As we head towards spring, we are thinking about bulls. Purchasing a bull for your herd is just like hiring a new employee. Ever wondered about the bull you've hired? What do you really know about him? If he isn't suited to the job or can't do the job, why did you hire him in the first place? You've hired him to help with calf production, but can he do it? It's much easier not to hire a marginal employee than it is to fire one. So what do we need to do to find out if this bull is the employee we need in our herd?
You can start by examining his expected progeny differences (EPD). An EPD is a prediction of the difference between the average performance of an individual animal's progeny and the average progeny performance of another. This can give you insight on how his genetics may complement your cow herd relative to other "applicants" in the pool. Let's move on to the next item.
Has the bull had a breeding soundness exam (BSE)? This is a very important test. Failing this test can make you or break you financially if your bull cannot perform, especially if you only have one bull. An entire calf crop could be missed if the bull is a sub-par performer. If the bull hasn't been tested before you've purchased him, or if it is 30 to 60 days before breeding, he will need a breeding soundness exam. BSEs establish a positive identification of the bull, conduct a physical examination, examine the reproductive organs and collect semen for evaluation. However, the BSE does not show if one bull is better than another and if some venereal diseases are present.
Has the bull been tested for venereal diseases? Venereal disease in cattle can be caused by bacteria, protozoan and viral organisms. So who has this bull been around in the past? One herd? Several herds? A "virgin bull" (one that has not been placed in a cow herd) is your best bet to help avoid these diseases. Trichomoniasis and Vibriosis are only spread by venereal contact. The resulting infections usually result in the death of the embryonic calf. (Keep in mind that Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis (IBR), Johne's disease and Bovine Viral Diarrhea (BVD) can be shed by the bull through body excretions. Test for these as well!)
But if I am renting or borrowing a bull, how can I protect my herd from diseases? Either be the first one to use him (and have a BSE performed on him) or have him tested before you let him anywhere near your cows. Your cows represent a significant investment of your time, management and money. Always consider your herd. It only takes one management mistake to haunt your herd for years.
The last question that I am concerned about is the bull's temperament. Am I going to have to worry about getting in the pasture with this new employee? If there is doubt in your mind about his temperament, don't bother with the bull. Go to the next bull on your list. Don't buy a problem!
This may sound like a lot of work; however, it will pay off in the long run. If you aren't able to wean a calf crop or you've introduced diseases into your herd, you have caused yourself considerable long-term grief - both financially and in your management. Perhaps you'll decide that with all this at stake, you'll have to get to know that bull a lot better before you'll allow him in with your cows!
Find this article at:
http://www.beefmagazine.com/genetics/0203-bull-genetics-in-cowherd/index.html
Who is Dating Your Cows?
Feb 2, 2009 3:38 PM, Source: The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation; By: David Annis
What are you looking for in your next herd bull?
As we head towards spring, we are thinking about bulls. Purchasing a bull for your herd is just like hiring a new employee. Ever wondered about the bull you've hired? What do you really know about him? If he isn't suited to the job or can't do the job, why did you hire him in the first place? You've hired him to help with calf production, but can he do it? It's much easier not to hire a marginal employee than it is to fire one. So what do we need to do to find out if this bull is the employee we need in our herd?
You can start by examining his expected progeny differences (EPD). An EPD is a prediction of the difference between the average performance of an individual animal's progeny and the average progeny performance of another. This can give you insight on how his genetics may complement your cow herd relative to other "applicants" in the pool. Let's move on to the next item.
Has the bull had a breeding soundness exam (BSE)? This is a very important test. Failing this test can make you or break you financially if your bull cannot perform, especially if you only have one bull. An entire calf crop could be missed if the bull is a sub-par performer. If the bull hasn't been tested before you've purchased him, or if it is 30 to 60 days before breeding, he will need a breeding soundness exam. BSEs establish a positive identification of the bull, conduct a physical examination, examine the reproductive organs and collect semen for evaluation. However, the BSE does not show if one bull is better than another and if some venereal diseases are present.
Has the bull been tested for venereal diseases? Venereal disease in cattle can be caused by bacteria, protozoan and viral organisms. So who has this bull been around in the past? One herd? Several herds? A "virgin bull" (one that has not been placed in a cow herd) is your best bet to help avoid these diseases. Trichomoniasis and Vibriosis are only spread by venereal contact. The resulting infections usually result in the death of the embryonic calf. (Keep in mind that Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis (IBR), Johne's disease and Bovine Viral Diarrhea (BVD) can be shed by the bull through body excretions. Test for these as well!)
But if I am renting or borrowing a bull, how can I protect my herd from diseases? Either be the first one to use him (and have a BSE performed on him) or have him tested before you let him anywhere near your cows. Your cows represent a significant investment of your time, management and money. Always consider your herd. It only takes one management mistake to haunt your herd for years.
The last question that I am concerned about is the bull's temperament. Am I going to have to worry about getting in the pasture with this new employee? If there is doubt in your mind about his temperament, don't bother with the bull. Go to the next bull on your list. Don't buy a problem!
This may sound like a lot of work; however, it will pay off in the long run. If you aren't able to wean a calf crop or you've introduced diseases into your herd, you have caused yourself considerable long-term grief - both financially and in your management. Perhaps you'll decide that with all this at stake, you'll have to get to know that bull a lot better before you'll allow him in with your cows!
Find this article at:
http://www.beefmagazine.com/genetics/0203-bull-genetics-in-cowherd/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)