National Ag Day in Kansas

National Ag Day  - whoo hoo!  Across the U.S., thousands of farmers, ranchers, agriculture students and leaders are celebrating the rich heritage that is American Agriculture. Whether it be wearing a green farming t-shirt, handing out beef samples at the local grocery store or promoting agriculture via social media outlets, everyone in ag is doing their part today.

Which leads me to explaining how I'll be spending part of my National Ag Day. I'm very honored to have been invited to sit on a panel of producers, professionals and leaders for a Dialogue on Kansas Agriculture at the State Capitol in Topeka today - and boy am I nervous!

The other panelists:

Dr. Mike Apley, Kansas State University
Doug Hofbauer, President and CEO of Frontier Farm Credit
Bob Petersen, Executive Director of Kansas Agribusiness Council
Jay Garretson, Farmer
Diana Floyd, RD, LD, Kansas Department of Education Child Nutrition Consultant

I'm overwhelmed at the years of knowledge and industry experience that I will be surrounded by but it will very exciting to share ideas and thoughts with the other panelists as well as the audience.

We'll be answering questions regarding animal welfare (I hope I get one of those - that's my thing), food safety, education and technology, environmental stewardship and many other various ag topics.

You can get involved too! Greg Akagi, farm broadcaster for WIBW, will be the moderator and was fielding questions via Twitter yesterday to ask the panelists. It's probably not too late to get your question in - Greg's handle on Twitter is @GregAkagi.

I hope you'll listen/view the panel - it might hit some nerves, it might stir up emotion but it will definitely be promoting agriculture and be informative for all involved! The event will be live streamed on the Kansas Department of Agriculture website -- agriculture.ks.gov/ksagday

Today and everyday, I extremely thankful that I live in a country with an abundant, affordable and safe food supply produced by the best people I know - America's farmers and ranchers. Thank you!

How are you representing agriculture today? Share below! You can follow along in today's agriculture discussions by following #agday13 and #ksagday!

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

Slaughter Plants and Rendering Facilities - Different but Mutually Beneficial

I'm a huge fan of The Office -- the Ninja and I own all the seasons on DVD and I am fairly adept at whipping out a Michael Scott quote in the middle of a conversation. One of the many reasons I love the show is that on the show Dwight is a beet (yes, beet. not beef) farmer so from time to time they make agricultural references about farming or slaughter. I've posted about it before here.

Last week, Dwight talked about his office co-workers not knowing the difference between a slaughter plant and a rendering plant and I thought that most people are probably unaware so here we go.

Slaughter and Rendering Plant 101

Beef carcasses in a slaughter plant in South Africa 

that I toured during a study abroad experience

A slaughter plant is a facility where animals that are at an appropriate market weight are sent to be processed into retail cuts of meat. There are numerous plants throughout the United States to accommodate the different species of livestock animals. For example, in southwest Kansas there are slaughter plants that receive cattle from the surrounding feedlots and from the panhandle of Oklahoma.

In northwest Missouri the pork slaughter plant is positioned so that it can accept pigs from all different areas of the corn belt. And there are even processing plants for lambs and goats in places such as Colorado, Montana and Michigan. There are currently no horse slaughter plants in the U.S. -- that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Of course, we can't forget about poultry plants. There are a ton of them in the southern U.S. where a large percentage of poultry broiler farms are - Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina etc.
There are even plants that can do more than one specie and did you know there are slaughter plants for bison and elk? I thought that was pretty cool.

So what's the difference between a slaughter plant and a rendering facility? A slaughter plant breaks down the whole carcass into cuts of meat, whereas a rendering facility produces a variety of by-products. There are two types of rendering facilities - independent and integrated. An independent plant is one that picks up grease, blood, feathers and offal (internal organs and entrails) for further processing and development. Integrated facilities are physically connected to the slaughter plant and operate in conjunction with each other. The by-products of slaughter are used to make several essential products that fall into two categories: edible and inedible.
 Below is a list of what types of products fall under each area.
 -- Inedible: tallow and grease for livestock feed, blood meal, soap and fatty-acids.
 -- Edible: these plants process fatty animal tissue into edible fats and proteins. The only material that goes into these products (which are USDA and FSIS inspected) are fats from the animals carcass.
THERE IS NO BONE OR OTHER INEDIBLE MATERAL THAT ENTERS THE EDIBLE FOOD SUPPLY

Rendering and its subsequent products play a vital role in agriculture - rendered products account for approximately 35% of the fats and oils used worldwide. More than 1/2 of the world's animal fat is produced in North America. Furthermore, rendering is a very efficient way to control environmental pollution. For example, with today's technology it is possible to recycle nearly 100% of inedible poultry raw material. Rendering products also creates competition in the market for animal feeds, preventing producers from being forced to choose between few options that are expensive.

Getting geared up for a slaughter plant tour - I've been fortunate enough to tour plants 

in 5 countries on 4 continents!

If you want more information about the whole process of rendering, check out these links. There is a lot of science and technology behind the whole process - steam, boilers, throughput etc - this is a great resource to find out more about the technicalities if you're interested.

Hope you've learned a lot - I know I did while researching this topic. If you've got questions or comments, shout 'em out!

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

P.S. - interested in the difference between harvest and slaughter? Check this out.

The Importance of GMO's and Writing Letters to the Editor

image from here

Usually, I jam out to 106.9 Country Legends on the radio in my truck but in the mornings, on my way to work, I listen to the highly syndicated Kidd Kraddick in the Morning Show. Every week or so they have a segment titled "Consumer Watch" and they talk about a few topics that consumers should be interested in - previous topics include cigarettes, a cell-phone in the car law etc. One morning the topic was GMO's (genetically modified organisms) -- this was around the time of Prop 37 in California -- and I developed a stomach ache listening to the false information they were saying. They were basically giving their opinions but not backing them up with any fact and it was so frustrating.

So I did what any active advocate would do and I wrote them a letter.  I have never heard back from them and if they addressed my concern during another Consumer Watch segment, I missed it. But here is my letter, because I believe that everyone should fully understand the capabilities that GMO provides us with in terms of food production and also the importance they play in the world's hunger problems.

-----

I have been listening to the Kidd Kraddick show for some time now and I am always laughing and truly enjoy the show. I donate to Kidd’s Kids and have signed up for Friends with Benefits – in short, I’m a big fan.

However, every time you guys have a consumer watch I get so frustrated with your analysis of anything to do with food that I have to change the station. The latest incident happened just this morning when you were discussing Prop 37 in California and how, if passed, all genetically modified food (GM) would need to be labeled. You are right, this would be a huge hindrance to food production companies, would increase every family’s grocery bill and would put negative connotation on most food products at the grocery store.

What you failed to do was provide actual facts regarding GMO food.  Genetically modified organisms revolutionized food production and agriculture in the 60’s and 70’s. Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his contributions to the “green revolution” which had a tremendous impact on food production in underdeveloped countries in Asia and Latin America. The green revolution (and Mr. Borlaug’s work) was focused on the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains like wheat and aiding farmers in better management and use of technological advancements. Without the work of Mr. Borlaug and other scientists of the green revolution, over a billion people would have starved. 

Genetically modified doesn’t necessarily mean that the product was radiated or anything like that, it could be as simple as cross breeding or using a gene mutation in a strain of corn to make the plant more productive. For example, some variations of papayas have been genetically modified to resist the ringspot virus – this was done by developing a breed that is resistant to them. Hawaii, a big producer of papaya, almost had their industry devastated by the virus however, since the new genetics were discovered, their industry is successful. It’s important to point out that there is still no method of production other than the genetically engineered papayas that is resistant to the virus. Organic papayas (which are ridiculously expensive, like every other kind of organic food), are not resistant to the virus. Other GM foods are soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets and squash. GMO versions of tomatoes, potatoes and rice have been created and approved by the government but aren’t commercially available yet. 

Modifying plants allows farmers to be more productive which is essential with a population that is growing exponentially. If we don’t accept and employ technology like GMO’s, it’s going to be pretty dang impossible to feed 9 billion people in 2050.

Regarding obesity – I can’t believe that you guys just blamed the obesity epidemic on genetically modified food. Americans are overwhelmingly overweight because we have become increasingly lazy and restaurants have increased their portion sizes dramatically. The fast food industry is booming – it’s easier (and often, cheaper) to buy a meal off the dollar menu than it is to buy fresh food or whole grains. America is one of the few countries in the world where it is more expensive to buy fresh food than it is to buy processed food. Add into the mix that low-income families can buy more food if they buy Cheetos and Pepsi than they can if they buy juice and apples and you can see why so many Americans are overweight. 

Hundreds of thousands of folks listen to your show every day – you have the opportunity to set the record straight on controversial issues like this and hopefully you will be more responsible with the facts you are representing. It would be nice if as much research went into Consumer Watch and food issues as does the Showbiz Top 5.

Thank you for reading and please keep up the hilarious antics.

Respectfully,

Brandi

---

So that's my letter. Again, I've never gotten a reply but hopefully they are aware of the influence they have and will take steps to make sure that future broadcasts are more fact filled rather than flashy and entertaining. Fear sells but isn't always the truth.

Have any of you ever written a similar letter to the editor? Did you get a reply? My only other experience has been this and it's been a rollercoaster ride since then.

Until next time,

~ Buzzard ~

I Don't Want to Live Without Meat in 2050

I just read an article on Yahoo! that said the world may be forced into vegetarianism by the year 2050, according to some scientists at the Stockholm International Water Institute in Sweden. Here is a link to the article -- http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/vegetarian-2050-190426669.html.

Hell no. I refuse to live in a society where there is no meat. I would starve. Literally. If I didn't die of energy depletion first. 

There's a few things I want to point out on this...

- Cattle spend about 75% of their life eating grass in pastures. In the Flint Hills, where I live, if there were no cattle grazing this land it wouldn't be used. Rolling hills with lots of rock aren't viable for crop production. So putting those acres into crop production isn't realistic.

- Another point that the author makes, who does a very poor job of presenting an unbiased story, is that we can't really produce more food. Wrong! We can produce more food - farmers and ranchers are becoming more productive every year and if legislators in D.C. would listen to producers who have real experience instead of listening to lobbyists, they would know that we can continue to improve our efficiency with science, technology and gasp! the help of GMO's.

- I'd really like to see the study that cites 70% of all water is for agriculture - I want to see how this data is presented. Notice that doesn't say 'animal agriculture' just agriculture in general. Furthermore, I don't know of a cause that is more important than food production that we should be funneling water towards - aside from drinking water. Maybe we should start reusing water from purification plants for water in our toilets, yard spouts, washing machines and dishwashers.

These are just my opinions - but I'd love to hear yours.

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

Real quick addendum: Cutting meat completely out of production is NOT going to feed the people who are starving in other countries. The infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa needs to improve, for example. There could be 4 tons of food arrive to major societal hubs in food deprived countries but if there is no way for the food to be moved to rural, impoverished areas or if the local government uses food provisions as a way to control people, then all the food aid in the world won't help. There is more than just food production at the center of those issues - it's a web of underlying causes that need to be addressed to stop world hunger.

Antibiotics Safe for Livestock Use

Just like we've been sayin' all along...
The Government Accountability Office released a report that stated there isn't sufficient evidence  to warrant a study into a link between antibiotic use in food animals and antibiotic resistance in humans. Did you get that? Here, I'll say it again.

GAO said "these data [collected by USDA] lack crucial details necessary to examine trends and understand the relationship between use and resistance."

Haven't pork producers been saying this for quite some time? In a www.meatingplace.com release, NPPC has noted that pork producers have long been in compliance with responsible antibiotic use with veterinary supervision in order to keep their animals health and pork safe.

Need some more info? Read the whole piece here.

image from here

And if you're new to the antibiotic use scene, here are some crucial facts to help you better understand antibiotic use.

Antibiotics are given strategically – administered when pigs are sick, susceptible or exposed to illness.

Using antibiotics strategically ensures that the safest meat in the world ends up on America's dinner tables.

Only antibiotics approved by the FDA are used to treat pigs.

Human safety is a key component when considering animal antibiotic approval.

•    Withdrawal times, or the number of days an animal must be removed from antibiotics before entering the food supply, ensure that antibiotics are not present in the animal’s system at the time of slaughter.

Do you have comments about this issue? Are you excited about this news (as I am) or does your opinion differ? Let's converse! Leave me a comment below!

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

Earth Day is NOT Every Day!

It’s that time of the year again when we all resolve to recycle more, consume fewer non-renewables and to ride our bikes to work. Yes, it’s Earth Day and the media storm leading up to now has been full of “Every day is Earth Day for farmers and ranchers” messages on Twitter, Facebook and blogs. So why aren’t I writing a similar post? Because in fact, every day is NOT Earth Day. Tomorrow won’t be Earth Day, tomorrow is Saturday and I’m going to the zoo to see a koala and Sunday is Easter. Easter and Earth Day don’t share the same date, duh.

The fact of the matter is that every day isn’t Earth Day so why do we pretend that anything is different today? Farmers and ranchers practice environmental conservation every single day of the year so, ipso facto, today is nothing special (except for that it’s Good Friday, that’s very important). Just another day on the ranch (you see where this is going).

Take for example Tom Price, a 6^th generation hog farmer in Ohio. Ninety-nine percent of the manure from his farm is combined with yard trimmings, composted and then used for flower beds in neighboring communities. Located near a river, Price says, “We do everything in our power to keep it as clean as possible because that river is drinking water for people south of us. We have a great deal of responsibility to put clean water into that river so that those people drinking water get the cleanest water possible.” Price says that filter strips play a vital role in managing runoff by slowing down the water and filtering out contaminants. Click here to learn more about Price’s hog farm and compost facilities.

Cattle ranchers are working hard to maintain a steady supply of safe, wholesome beef for a growing world while preserving and reducing their impact on the environment. For example, according to research by Washington State University, from 1977 to 2007 beef producers have lowered the carbon footprint generated from producing 1 lb. of beef by 14%. And they’ve done it using 15% less water and 11% fewer fossil fuels. Two words: efficiency and technology. For more facts about beef and sustainability, you can check out BEEF Magazine's resource page.

Finally, EPA studies show that U.S. livestock production accounts for less than 2.4% of total GHG emissions. In fact, EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, on a recent farm tour in Iowa stated that “What I learned is that there is a lot of innovation going on. This innovation is aimed at making their business more efficient and has a benefit for air quality and water quality.” Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture also stated, “The farmers and ranchers we visited with today - and hundreds of thousands like them around the country - are our nation’s first and finest conservationists. They understand better than anyone that you cannot continually take from the land without giving back, and they have taken incredible strides to protect the land they rely on.” The nation’s leaders are sitting up and taking notice of the agriculture industry’s efforts at environmental sustainability.

So while you’re driving around this weekend to visit family during Easter (which makes me extremely jealous of you, btw) remember that Earth Day 2011 was nothing special or extraordinary – it was just another day on the farm for the hundreds of thousands of American farmers and ranchers.

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

Do You Have a Ph.B. in Baconology?

Are you a bacon lover? I sure am and boy, do I miss American bacon. It's just not the same over here in the land down under but, I digress.

This evening, I was catching up on some reading and saw a post on www.meatingplace.com about the Android phone market coming out with a new application...... FOR BACON!

In the new app, Baconnection, (which has already been launched and can be downloaded for a mere $0.99 - can you say 'bargain'?) users will be able to peruse bacon facts, play a bacon game (where they will earn “bacon badges”) and download recipes.
Reader's Digest Association, the company responsible for the amazing new app, noted that "players will aim to connect ordinary ingredients to bacon recipes in 6 steps or less, earning Bacon Badges along the way, such as Super Swine, Porker, Swinestein, Piglette and Boss Hog. With Bacon Bits Trivia, players can become Baconnoisseurs or earn a Ph.B. in Baconology."

Holy crap. I can't wait to get back to the states and get a Droid. Please, if you download this, message me and let me know how utterly epic it is.

Oh, iPhone users, it will be available to you soon. But not soon enough.

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

Higher yielding alfalfa - thanks to technology

Here are the facts:
 The current world population is 6.8 billion.  By 2050, the population will have skyrocketed to 9 billion. Over the past 50 years, farmers and ranchers have been able to meet the ever growing demand for food by utilizing new technology. Technology will feed the world, if we let it.

Enter GMO's - I have already touched on GMO's in my Frankenfish post.  But GMO's are also used in crop production.  Most recently, they've been approved for unrestricted use in the form of alfalfa. Alfalfa is primarily used to feed cattle and proponents of the new strain say that crop yields are increased which in turn decreases prices handed down to producers. Another positive aspect of the GMO alfalfa is its resistance to Roundup, thereby enabling Roundup to be used to fight weeds in alfalfa fields. This is obviously a great development- more yields, herbicide resistance and lower prices. That all equates to feeding more people economically and efficiently. Eveyone's happy right?

Not necessarily - organic producers are in outcry because they're afraid that the unrestricted use of GMO alfalfa will allow inadvertent pollinatination of their organic crops thereby rendering their crop conventional and causing them to lose their premium for the niche market.

Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack, claimed that the USDA has not politicized the issue and is simply trying to allow both markets, modern and organic, to coexist peacefully.  Vilsack also stated that soon to come on the GMO table are sugar beets and corn amylase, which is made to produce ethanol fuel.

Be that as it may, U.S. consumers need to think hard about their priorities -- do you want safe food produced on a small scale that will be more expensive?  Or would you rather have safe food that is efficiently produced with the most modern technology that is also cheaper?  Think about it.

Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~

Click here to read more about GMO alfalfa

It's Not Nice to Call Them Frankenfish.....

In the front, traditional farm raised salmon.  The rear fish is GMO salmon from AquaBounty.

Photo courtesy of http://eatocracy.cnn.com/ 

I'm sure that everyone, at some point, has heard about GMO's (genetically modified organisms).  Whether it be in the coffee shop, at school or in the news GMO's have been, and will continue to be, a hot topic.  Especially since the FDA is considering approving the sale of GMO salmon for consumption.  If accepted, the salmon, produced by AquaBounty, would be the first genetically modified animal in the food supply. Obviously, this is a hot topic for both foodies, producers, policymakers and consumers (which includes all of the aformentioned).

You may have your own opinion on this matter but do you truly know what GMO's are, let alone GMO salmon? Let's delve further into the topic.

What is a GMO?  A GMO is an organism in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally.  The process of making GMO's is often called 'modern biotechnology' or gene technology'.

Why are GMO's produced? Simple - they present a significant advantage over conventional products to the producer, consumer or often times, both parties. Some common GMO's are soy, corn, cotton and canola. 

What are those advantages? In the crop industry, GMO's are more insect resistant, herbicide tolerant and have increased virus resistance.  They stay healthier which in turn, increases yields.

Are GMO's safe? All GMO's currently used in the food supply are safe. Specific systems have been set up for the rigorous evaluation of GM organisms and GM foods relative to both human health and the environment. Similar evaluations are generally not performed for traditional foods. Hence there is a significant difference in the evaluation process prior to marketing for these two groups of food.  GM foods are tested more rigorously than traditional foods.

As with all technological advances in the food industry there are risks such as, allerginicity and nutritional effects.  However, scientists perform extensive testing to ensure that the effects of those risks stay in the lab in order to be altered and bred out of the organism.  Again, GMO's are tested more rigorously than traditional food.

So, back to the GMO salmon.  These "AquAdvantage® Salmon" grow into full-sized fish in half the time that it would take a regular salmon.  Let me elaborate, simply.  Faster growing fish = more fish = more meat for a hungry world.

However, the FDA didn't use my economic knowledge to make their decision and concluded that there presently isn't sufficient evidence to accept or deny the fish into the food supply.  Many consumers don't want GMO food forced upon them.  However, I feel that the answer to this dilemma would be a label for GMO salmon (voluntary not mandated) thus allowing the producer to be aware of what he/she is purchasing and providing yet another option at the grocery store.  But that's just my opinion - and you know what they say about opinions.....

To learn more about GMO's click HERE! (World Health Organization - where I got my facts)

Until next time,
~Buzzard~