Farm Bureau Convention Points to Future of Agriculture
Andy Eubank
December 14, 2013
Andy Eubank
Ted McKinney at IFBThe 95th Indiana Farm Bureau Convention moved to Ft. Wayne this year and highlights during the Friday general session included a brief address from Ted McKinney who takes the reins at the state department of ag next year. With the everyday explosion of the world’s population, he is bullish on agriculture.
“I know where prices are. I do watch the markets,” he said, “but I’m still bullish for the long term and I think this is the time we’ve got to all come together, get our story, and get our work stitched together so that we can go forward as a state. I for one am going to give it my best shot and I know I will not be able to do it without the strength and the talent of the Farm Bureau.”Don Villwock 13 address
Members heard from Purdue’s Maury Williamson who received one of Don Villwock’s president awards.
“I can thank so many people out there. Earl Butz and I figured up over 40 years I’ve given about 1,000 speeches. Now Earl said I gave 1 speech one thousand times.”
Retiring CEO of Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance Jerry Canada was honored with the other president award.
And IFB President Villwock outlined concerns about EPA’s RFS proposal and priorities for the upcoming Indiana legislative short session. One priority is to improve Indiana trespass laws.
“You know it doesn’t matter if you’re a grain farmer, a livestock producer or a specialty crop grower, we have all known and have witnessed an increase in trespassers on our properties in recent years. I imagine very few of you have had a grain field that doesn’t have 4-wheel drive pickup tracks going across part of them or along the side of the road as someone ventures Villwocks and Oscarout in our fields and cuts ruts across our farms. We all spend extra time at night hiding machinery so that vandals or thieves can’t have access to this machinery.”
Farm Bureau wants the same trespass protection homeowners receive. That means they will work toward elimination of the obligation to post trespass signage.
Villwock’s message about securing the future of agriculture was themed around his brand new grandson Oscar.
“In case you choose agriculture, I’m buying your first membership in Indiana Farm Bureau.”
Listen to the complete Villwock address:
Vm
Don Villwock IFB 2013 address
00:00 R P
d
Monday, December 16, 2013
Monday, December 9, 2013
Ted McKinney's vision for the ISDA
A Different Vision of Agriculture
It is common for people to talk about their vision of agriculture. But usually those visions are limited. They are limited by the individuals’ pre-conceived idea of what they want agriculture to be. For example, HSUS would have a vision of agriculture where all the animals ran free and were not consumed for food. Organic groups would have a vision of agriculture where farmers did not use any chemical products or biotechnology. Some environmental groups would have a vision of farmers working the land with hand tools. Such visions fit into these artificially-constructed worldviews of food production but do not fit into the real world of a global population who wants safe, affordable, and plentiful food supply. A more accurate vision of agriculture is one that is much bigger and far more diverse. Such a vision was recently articulated by the new director of the Indiana State Department of Agriculture.
Ted McKinney was appointed last week to take over the ISDA. This was the second time he had been offered this position, and what made him say yes this time is known only to him and the Pence administration. But his willingness to serve may finally provide the young agency with a vision and a purpose it has not had before. Created to fulfill a campaign promise made during the first Daniels administration, Indiana’s Department of Agriculture is unlike most of the state ag departments in the nation. ISDA has only two regulatory functions, those involving soil conservation and grain warehouse licensing. All the other regulatory functions are divided among a handful of other state agencies. So what is the vision and purpose of ISDA? Past directors have struggled with this concept. Some have sees the department as a government-supported advocate for agriculture, while other have seen it as an economic catalyst designed to drive economic development at home as well as on the foreign market. McKinney, in his first public appearance as Director, articulated a vision that was bigger and more cohesive than any of these.
McKinney used the analogy of a puzzle. Agriculture has many different pieces; but, when all brought together, they make a very powerful force. He sees the role of ISDA as the agent that connects and brings together these pieces. Indiana, as well as Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, and other states, all have the resources of a powerful agriculture puzzle which involves commodity products as well as specialty crops, food processing, exports, local food brands, farmers markets, biotech, and organic. All of us, when connected together, can be a major factor in our state, our nation, and our world.
McKinney, who views agriculture as a global industry, sees how states can come together and play a significant role in the local and world marketplace. Too often we in agriculture are so focused on our puzzle piece, we don’t see how we fit into the larger picture. “We in agriculture are all friends, but perhaps we need to become better friends,” McKinney told me. He believes the many and diverse sectors of agriculture can learn a lot from each other, if we only do a better job of communicating.
McKinney also believes in being an advocate for agriculture; but, here to, his vision may differ from the norm. He sees being an advocate as presenting the facts about agriculture — not only to consumers, but to law makers, lobbyists, and other state agencies. This fact-based approach allows him to present the truth about biotechnology, organic agriculture, exports, and local food sources, all with equal passion. While some has already criticized his big business connection, having come from Elanco where he was Director of Global Corporate Affairs, this background and international perspective has given McKinney a vision that is larger than many of his predecessors.
McKinney also brings to the position a passion for agriculture that is infectious and a passion that is focused by his vision of what agriculture can be. Whether a small specialty crop producer or a large commodity farmer, we should all latch on to the big vision of what agriculture is and can be.
By Gary Truitt
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Remembering Christmas on the Dairy Farm
Christmas on our family Dairy starts out like any other day with the alarm ringing at 5 am telling me its time to head to the barn. Santa’s helpers were busy late that night making sure all the gifts were wrapped and stockings were stuffed so I tiptoed out of the house to the barn as quiet as a mouse. I reached the barn to begin the daily ritual of starting the pipeline rinse, turning on the heater in the parlor and preparing the feed troughs for the cows. Next, I remind the cows what time it is as many have already made their way to the barn for the morning milking. Some of them usually decide to sleep in so it’s off to the pasture to round everybody up. It’s a good chilly walk as far as ½ mile to the back of the pasture in the cold morning air. Counting as I go so I know when I’ve got all the cows heading to the barn I head back to the barn singing Christmas carols on the way with the occasional moo approval of the cows. After the cows are locked in the holding pen its back to the milk house to finish getting ready to milk. Carrying the milkers into the parlor and connecting the pipeline to the bulk tank would complete the preparation along with getting all the teat dips and frost guard to protect the teats after each cow is milked. At 6 a.m. cows enter the parlor 4 on a side and I begin prepping and milking them 4 at a time. Milking all the cows normally take about an hour. Back in the house the kids begin to stir in anticipation of seeing what Santa left. They also begin to shout to their mom asking how long they would have to wait. Back at the barn around 7 a.m. the cows have been all milked and cleaning begins. The barn is washed out, the milkers are cleaned and the pipeline begins its wash cycle. The kids get excited when they hear the silo begin pouring out silage and the conveyer and bunk feeder motors are fired up to distribute the cows forage for the morning. While the cows are being fed I continue to feed the calves and heifers their morning diet. Milk for some, feed for others and water for all of them. Real cold mornings mean taking time to bust some ice. With the silage feeding complete I make one final walk through the milk house and parlor to make sure all the work is done. Usually about 8 a.m. or so I make it back to the house and find a good seat to watch the kids run to the tree and find the one present Santa had left them unwrapped along with a well filled stocking full of goodies. Can we open more shouts the kids but mom says not till we’ve had some cinnamon rolls and milk. After the quick breakfast everyone begins opening the packages under the tree. Play time is short as there are grandparents to visit. By late morning everyone enjoys the company of all the family at grandpa’s house to open more presents and enjoy a great Christmas lunch. About 4 p.m. I head to the barn for another 2-3 hours work in milking and feeding the cows and heifers. This time some of the other family members offer some help and things go a little faster. A nice dinner of leftovers is enjoyed by all and then it’s off to bed as 5 a.m. will come again tomorrow to start another day on the Dairy.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Farm income
Why is it Wrong for Farmers to Make Money?
It is not a new argument; it surfaces every time a Farm Bill comes up for debate in Congress. Farmers get lots of bad press because they take subsidies from the government while making millions from high grain prices which drive up the cost of food. Do a Google news search with the words farm and subsidies, and you will get over 7,000 news stories, none of which are positive toward farmers. In most of these stories, farm subsidies are criticized as being “unnecessary” and farmers are demonized for making a profit off food production.
Those who label farm subsidies as unnecessary never look into why they were created in the first place. First of all, government programs that provide payments to producers are many and quite varied, yet get lumped into one big pot called subsidies. The impression that is given to the public is that all you need to qualify for a farm subsidy is some land, a barn, and a mailbox. The public is led to believe that each month the postman fills a famer’s mailbox with thousands of tax payer dollars. Anyone who has been to an FAS office knows the bewildering complexity of most federal farm programs and the mountains of paperwork required o qualify for these programs.
The majority of farm subsidy programs were started because Congress wanted low food prices and wanted to avoid food price spikes, especially around election time. The way to do this was to take the risk out of food production. In the 1960s and 1970s, the government actually managed food production by paying some farmers to grow certain crops while paying others not to grow certain crops. Beginning in 1985, this policy began to change in favor of letting the free market set the price and determine production. Since then farm programs have become more market-oriented, and taxpayer dollars going to direct payments has tumbled. The new Farm Bill being drafted in Congress today would eliminate almost all direct payments to farmers.
The media loves to report of “Billionaire Farmers get Tax Payer Dollars.” While there are likely some abuses as there are in any government program, the majority of government program payments are not going to fat cats lying on tome tropical beach in the Caribbean. Over 90% of US farmers are family-owned farms; and, while that family farm may be incorporated and may be a multimillion dollar operation, they are also the people working the land and taking the risks.
I guess that is what gets me really riled up. Farm families work hard and take enormous risks to produce the food, fuel, and fiber we all take for granted. Why? To make a living — in other words, to make money. The concept of taking a risk and working hard in order to reap a financial reward is the bedrock of the capitalistic free market system. Yet today, those who do this are criticized and despised and expected to share their reward with the rest of the community. The Obama Administration has been advocating this in both public statements and policy incentives. “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, the someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more,” Michelle Obama states.
I am also infuriated by the fact that those who are some of the loudest critics of farm programs are also the biggest champions of subsidies for oil companies, car makers, New York banks, and PBS. Let’s face it, what is it more important to have: a consistent and reliable supply of food on the table or Big Bird on the TV?
Farm programs need to be revised, loopholes closed, and in some cases programs canceled. The same can be said for energy, housing, Medicaid, student loans, and many other government subsidy programs. We also need to get rid of this concept that farmers, even ones with million dollar operations, should not make money.
Farming is a business that produces a valuable product at high risk and high cost. Government programs that provide farmers the incentive to produce our food and the safety net to insure their sustainability, benefits all of us.
By Gary Truitt
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
EQIP sign up begins
Sign Up Begins for EQUIP Projects
Today State Conservationist Jane Hardisty announced the sign up period for the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). EQIP provides farmers with financial and technical assistance to install conservation practices on their land to address specific resource concerns. Hardisty explains that Indiana is accepting applications for the general EQIP which includes practices such as fencing, animal watering systems, pasture planting, wildlife habitat, erosion control structures, manure storage structures, crop and pest management, plus soil health practices such as no-till and cover crops. “We are also taking applications for several special landscape initiatives that target specific habitat or water quality resource concerns,” Hardisty said.
Included in this year’s sign up are the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, National Water Quality Initiative, Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative, and Western Lake Erie Basin Initiative. “Targeting designated areas allows us to address specific natural resource concerns, and provides farmers with a less competitive option. Farmers applying for projects in the designated areas will not have to compete with the statewide EQIP applications, just those applying for each specific initiative,” said Hardisty.
Farmers have until February 21, 2014 to submit an application.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative focuses on wetland and habitat restoration, invasive species control, and nonpoint source pollution that threaten the water quality of the lakes. The targeted watersheds include: St. Joseph, Upper Maumee, Auglaize and St. Mary’s watersheds in the Northeast part of Indiana and include all or parts of Steuben, Noble, DeKalb, Allen, Wells and Adams Counties.
The Western Lake Erie Basin Initiative focuses on reducing nutrient loading to Lake Erie, and eligible watersheds in Indiana include St. Joseph, Upper Maumee, Auglaize and St. Mary’s watersheds in the Northeast, which include portions of Steuben, Noble, DeKalb, Allen, Wells and Adams Counties.
The National Water Quality Initiative makes funds available to farmers and forest landowners in selected watersheds for conservation practices that address specific water quality issues. Funding will be available in these three watersheds: Silver Creek (Kosciusko and Wabash Counties); Eagle Creek (Hendricks and Marion Counties); and Ell Creek (Dubois County).
Under the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative, the NRCS enters into partnership agreements with eligible entities that want to enhance conservation outcomes on agricultural and nonindustrial private forest lands. Indiana has one CCPI project underway—a partnership in Sullivan, Greene and Knox Counties focused on irrigation improvement and water quality.
For more information on any of these EQIP opportunities, contact your local NRCS District Conservationist. To locate the office near you, visithttp://www.in.nrcs.usda.gov/contact/directory/dclist.html. Information on the EQIP program is also available on the Indiana NRCS webpage athttp://www.in.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip.html
Monday, November 4, 2013
Gary Truitt on HSUS
The Hidden Agenda Behind The Animal Care Movement
A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to participate in a panel discussion hosted by FarmWorld. The topic was legislation that prevents the videotaping and photographing of farming operations without the farmer’s knowledge or permission. Also on the panel were representatives of the print media, Indiana Farm Bureau, and Kim E. Ferraro, Staff Attorney and Director of Agricultural and Water Policy with the Hoosier Environmental Council. While the discussion was spirited, for the most part it traversed some well-traveled ground on this issue, much of which I have written about in previous columns. There were, however, some interesting insights gleaned from the statements made by HEC that provide a glimpse into the agenda behind its animal care facade.
Ironically, just a few days after this panel discussion, another undercover video alleging animal mistreatment made the news. It is getting to be so commonplace that that national news media hardly covers it anymore. The video purported to show mistreatment of hogs on a Minnesota farm. While local media coverage was significant and over-dramatic, very little national coverage occurred. Only the Huffington Post — and I only marginally consider them a news source — picked up the story. There was also something different about this case, the farmer fought back.
Following a allegations by Mercy for Animals, a front group for HSUS, an independent veterinarian, who was taken by law enforcement to the Pipestone Farm facility shown in the video, determined that there were no signs of inhumane treatment or violations of good production standards. Therefore, no charges were filed. The farm did not stop there. They brought in a third party to investigate. The farm’s investigation determined that the employee involved had not been following animal care protocols, and he was immediately fired.
While the farm had done nothing wrong, its image and reputation have been damaged. But this is perfectly acceptable to groups like HSUS and HEC. During the panel discussion, the HEC attorney said that, even if farmers were not doing anything illegally, they still should be subject to unauthorized public inspection and exposure. Ms. Ferraro stated that, if legal and industry acceptable practices of a farm offended the sensibilities of the public, they should be exposed with undercover investigations.
This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to uncovering the agenda behind the animal activist movement. Later in the panel discussion, HEC attacked Farm Bureau on their support of laws that protect farmers from frivolous lawsuits. The National Pork Producers Council asserts that the Pipestone case came in response to HSUS losing a court battle with NPPC over the pork logo, ” HSUS has spent significant amounts of its donors’ money on futile legislative efforts and on a lawsuit that had nothing to do with animal welfare which was dismissed by a U.S. District Court judge.”
The real agenda behind the animal activist movement is the total domination and, in some cases, elimination of animal agriculture. These groups are also prepared to fight farmers who try and defend themselves and their industry from these attacks. The anti-videotaping legislation being proposed across the country is an example of this. Farmers are tired of being victims and are not just reacting but being proactive in the fight against those who are committed more to an anti-meat agenda than animal care. This agenda is not limited to the livestock sector, row crop farmers are beginning to face the same battle from biotech and environmental activists.
By Gary Truitt
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Putnam County Farm Bureau Safety Signs
Having received a grant from Indiana Farm bureau, the Putnam County FB have designed and produced 5 Farm Safety signs that are going up throughout Putnam County. The signs will be used seasonally putting them up in the fall and in the spring during the high points of the farming season. The local FFA chapters have been asked to assist in the process of putting them up and down during the year. Additional signs will be added as additional funds become available. We hope that the motorists will recognize the need to slow down and understand the need for farmers to use the roads too. Special thanks to Phyllis Legan and the other FB members who helped make this possible.
Monday, September 30, 2013
HSUS in the news again.....
HSUS Tells Shelters It’s Okay To Kill Animals
Some are fighting for shelters to adopt “No Kill” policies, but is HSUS standing in the way?
Nathan J. Winograd, director for the No Kill Advocacy Center, recently penned an opinion piece featured on theHuffington Post. The op-ed, “HSUS Tells Animal Shelters: Go Ahead And Kill Animals If You Want,” brings to light what many of us already know about animal rights activists: the health and safety of the animals aren’t their top priority.
You might recall that the Center For Consumer Freedom reported that “PETA killed a staggering 89.4% (29,398) of the adoptable pets in its care during 2012. Despite years of public outrage over its euthanasia program, the notorious animal rights group has continued killing adoptable dogs and cats at an average of over 30 pets/week.”
The Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) is often characterized as “PETA in a business suit,” and although it appears to be less radical in its tactics than PETA, HSUS’s multi-million-dollar annual budget isn’t saving many dogs or cats either.
Winograd is an advocate for the “No Kill Equation” model for animal shelters, which seeks to offer care to animals that can potentially be adopted. According to Winograd, “Through the No Kill Equation, every healthy and treatable animal entering a shelter can have a new beginning instead of the end of the line they face, if those shelters commit themselves wholeheartedly to building the infrastructure necessary to create and sustain a No Kill nation.”
He says that today many shelters can save 90-99% of the animals in their care, while other shelters are killing up to 99% of the animals they house in their facilities. How can this be? And why?
Winograd writes, “Can anyone with even a hint of compassion actually say it is better to kill baby kittens than bottle-feed them? Kill animals rather than promote adoptions? Kill animals rather than work with rescue groups? Of course not, especially since implementing alternatives to killing is more cost-effective, and in many cases, cheaper than killing animals. Tragically, however, many shelter directors have decided that it is better to kill baby kittens, to kill animals despite rescue groups ready, willing and able to save them, and to kill animals rather than keeping them alive long enough to find homes. In fact, some shelters have no adoption hours, are not open to the public for adoptions, and refuse to do any adoptions, choosing to kill the animals instead.”
Winograd says there’s a proven alternative that isn’t difficult, expensive or impractical to employ, and that should be promoted by the nation’s large national animal protection groups.
“But they are not. Instead, after admitting that these programs are crucial to save lives, they tell shelters that not only do they ‘remain at the discretion of each community to choose whether and how to implement,’ but that they should not be criticized for refusing to do so, while millions of animals continue to lose their lives in shelters every year precisely because those shelters have chosen not to. Worse, they tell activists that they should not try to force shelters to implement those programs, even though doing so would save the lives of the animals they are currently killing. In other words, HSUS is telling shelters these programs are necessary to save lives, but they do not have to do them and can choose to kill the animals instead.”
Winograd says such policy changes in places like California have resulted in a 370% increase in shelter-animal adoptions, at no cost to taxpayers. Yet, HSUS opposed these laws and endorsed a rollback of the rule in California when it was proposed. Why? How does that make sense? It just shows to me that HSUS isn’t even bothering to hide its true colors anymore. This wolf in sheep’s clothing has dropped its camouflage and exposed its claws and fangs. Plain and simple, they are after your dollar and not much else.
At face value, this article about animal shelters doesn’t appear to have anything to do with livestock producers. However, I urge you to think critically about how this can impact your livelihoods. If HSUS and PETA are no longer even trying to pretend to care about dogs and cats, what do you think they are busy doing instead? Animal agriculture has had a target on its back for many years now, and it’s no secret that HSUS would love to abolish animal agriculture and promote a vegan society, if given the chance.
Are you outraged at the level of euthanasia in pet shelters? Why do you think so many people willingly send money to support HSUS and PETA? Do you think these groups are direct threats to animal agriculture?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)