Elk in Missouri?

By- Alison Bos

         A wildlife and conservation issue is giving Missouri residents a lot to talk and think about. The issue of reintroducing elk back into Missouri is a very controversial topic that has people, especially wildlife conservationists and farmers, very involved. Recently, this particular issue was brought to my attention in one of my agriculture classes. I had never really heard about this because it has not really been heavily publicized due to other major agricultural issues in the state. To me, the idea of reintroducing elk back into Missouri is an issue that we all need to be aware of and be more educated about.

            Elk are said to have inhibited Missouri before the European settlement (Elk History and Restoration, 2010). I honestly was not aware of elk once living in Missouri, which made me even more interested in the subject. According to the North American Deer Farmers Association, elk were “extirpated in the 19^th century by a combination of unregulated hunting and habitat destruction.” Since elk have once been native to Missouri, the idea of having elk reintroduced in the state was developed.

            There have already been successful elk reintroductions in states such as Arkansas, Kentucky and Pennsylvania (Elk History and Restoration, 2010.) I have personally seen the elk that reside around the Buffalo River area in Arkansas and it was quite a memorable experience. The reason the Buffalo River area was chosen as a place to reintroduce elk was because it was an area associated with high landscape, heavy forest cover, gently sloping ridge tops, valleys, low human population and low road densities (Cartright et al., 2000). Is there similar land in Missouri like there is in the Buffalo River area? Since other states have been successful in reintroducing elk, will Missouri be also?

The current plan calls for elk to be released in southeast Missouri in early 2011. As of right now, 150 cow and bull elk will be released in the Peck Ranch Recreation Area in Shannon, Reynolds, and Carter counties of southeastern Missouri (Elk Restoration, 2010). Missouri Department of Conservation also states that this land is in fact suitable for elk because it contains forests, open woodlands, food plots and old fields. The area also has low human population. The map below shows where the elk will be introduced.

http://mdc.mo.gov/landwater-care/animal-management/elk-restoration

            The restoration of elk in Missouri would bring many benefits. First of all, wild elk in Missouri will increase awareness of the species and would better educate Missouri citizens about the species (Wild Elk Institute of Missouri). Also, the reintroduction of elk in the states I mentioned in the previous paragraph has generated recreational and economic benefits (Missouri Department of Conservation, 2010). More people will more likely be attracted to southeast Missouri because of the elk. It will also add more diversity to Missouri’s current wildlife population. Groups, such as the Missouri Department of Conservation and Appalachian Wildlife Foundation, support reintroducing elk into the state of Missouri.

           

            Even though there are great benefits of reintroducing elk into Missouri, there are also deep concerns. Groups such as Missouri Farm Bureau do not support the idea. One of the biggest fears of Missouri Farm Bureau and similar groups is the potential harm elk could have on Missouri’s livestock and farming sector. The main concern is the transfer of diseases such as chronic wasting disease, brucellosis and tuberculosis (Missouri Farm Bureau, 2010). There is also a threat for property and crop damage. With an elk’s power and strength, fences mean nothing to them. They will do whatever it takes to reach a food they desire. The idea of elk-automobile collisions is another concern. Right now, elk are only designated to reside in three Missouri counties. What is going to keep the elk from staying in their designated counties/areas (Missouri Farm Bureau)?  

            After researching the topic and sharing both perspectives on the issue, I would like to discuss my personal experiences with wild elk. Like I mentioned earlier, I had a few opportunities to visit the Buffalo National River in Arkansas. I seen several elk, which I have to admit was a very memorable experience. They truly are magnificent animals and very interesting to watch. It was very neat to see them in an area so close to my home. Even though it was a neat experience, I personally witnessed some of the destruction that occurred. I noticed right away how elk do not respect fences. They walked right through them as if they were not even there. Another issue that concerned me was the aggressiveness of the animals, especially the bulls. I visited the area during the rut season. As tourists gathered near a herd of about twenty cows and one dominant bull, the bull showed a lot of aggression/concern towards them. Any time one of his cows moved closer to the tourists, he would chase the cow then come back towards the place tourists were standing. Personally, I was very concerned for people’s safety. Everyone was a long distance away from the herd; however the bull still shown aggression.

            I encourage you to formulate your own opinion about the issue of reintroducing elk into Missouri. As with any issue, there are benefits and problems. It definitely would be neat to see elk back in Missouri since it is a part of our state’s history and culture; however it is also a problem knowing the potential danger and harm elk can cause to our livestock, crops, property and vehicles. Given both perspectives on the issue, I believe people should be aware of the issue and learn more about the entire Missouri elk restoration plan. Elk truly are magnificent creatures. Do you think they deserve to call Missouri home?

References

Elk History and Recreation (2010). In Missouri Department of Conservation. Retrieved November 20, 2010, from http://mdc.mo.gov/conmag/2010/09/elk-history-and-restoration

Elk Restoration (2010). In MDC Online. Retrieved November 19, 2010, from http://mdc.mo.gov/landwater-care/animal-management/elk-restoration

Low, J. (2010, October 8). Missouri Plans for Elk Restoration. In North American Deer Farmers Association. Retrieved November 20, 2010, from http://www.nadefa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=203:missouri-plans-for-elk-restoration&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=117

Missouri Farm Bureau Position on Elk Reintroduction (2010, October 13). In Missouri Farm Bureau. Retrieved November 19, 2010, from http://www.mofb.org/NewsMedia/Articles.aspx?articleID=99&searchType=search&searchTerm=elk#article

The Wild Elk Institute of Missouri (2010). Retrieved November 19, 2010, from http://gunbooks.org/weim.html

Telesco, R. L., Van Manen, F. T., Clark, J. D., & Cartwright, M. E. (2007). Identifying Sites for Elk Restoration in Arkansas. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(5), 1393-1403. Retrieved from http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2193/2005-673

Oddds Againest Us

                                                            The Odds Againest Us
                                       Lauren Bills

The majority of farm animals in the United States are now raised on large-scale, industrialized farms. Treated as mere production units, these "food animals" are forced to endure months, even years, of confinement or overcrowding.Confined in small cages or crates, laying hens, veal calves and breeding sows are prevented from even turning around or stretching their limbs.Barely given enough room to move, turkeys and chickens are crammed by the thousands into large, filthy warehouses.During their exhausting lives as milk producers, dairy cows are made to endure confinement, forced births, unnatural feeds, and painful infections.Crowded by the thousands into dusty, manure-laden holding pens, most beef cattle spend the last few months of their lives at feedlots.  Farm animals who survive their time "in production" suffer even more torment during transportation and marketing.During transport, animals are severely overcrowded and endure stress, inadequate ventilation and injuries. Additionally, thousands die every year in transport-related accidents.Farm animals can be legally confined on trucks for up to 36 hours without food or water and are exposed to all weather conditions.
Every year, tens of thousands of animals become so sick or injured that they cannot even walk. Called "downers" by the industry, these animals are dragged to slaughter or abandoned and left to suffer on stockyard "dead piles."At the slaughterhouse, frightened animals are kicked, hit with canes and shocked with electric prods to herd them to the kill floor.Stunning is not legally required for most farm animals. (Poultry, who comprise over 90 percent of "food animals," are not covered under The Humane Slaughter Act.) Even when stunning is required, industry reports indicate an alarming failure rate. Standard slaughter practices, combined with gross negligence, result in immense pain and suffering for millions of animals.Speed, not humane consideration, guides the slaughter process. Thousands of animals are dismembered or dropped into a scalding tank while they are still conscious.Most people are unaware of the enormous suffering farm animals endure to produce meat, milk and eggs. When Americans do learn about the ways in which animals are raised for food, they are often appalled by the cruelty these beings are forced to endure. In fact, public polls on factory farming practices reveal that over 70 percent of Americans are opposed to intensive confinement operations. Every year, more and more people are directly stopping farm animal suffering by choosing a vegetarian diet.
Egg-laying hens are among the most abused of all farm animals.On factory farms, four or more hens are forced to live inside tiny wire enclosures called battery cages. In these confines, the hens are unable to stretch their wings or legs, fulfill social needs or engage in natural behaviors.Constantly rubbing against the wire of battery cages, hens suffer severe feather loss and their bodies become covered with bruises and abrasions.To prevent injuries caused by excessive pecking, a result of unnatural, overcrowded conditions, chickens' beaks are seared off with a hot blade.In order to shock their bodies into another egg-laying cycle when production declines, the hens are denied food, water and light for up to two weeks. This cruel process is known as forced molting.Laying hens are considered "spent" after only one year. No longer useful for egg production, these exhausted animals are commonly slaughtered for soups, potpies, pet food, and other low-grade chicken products.
Every year, approximately 81 million pigs in the United States are forced to spend their lives behind bars, packed into small concrete or metal pens or crowded by the thousands into enormous warehouses.Breeding sows commonly endure three to four years of intensive confinement and live most of their lives in two-foot wide steel "gestation" crates.Immobilized and separated from her babies, a breeding sow's only contact with her young is through the bars of a crate.After two to three weeks, the piglets are taken away from their mothers. Their tails are docked, their ears are notched and they are raised in crowded "finishing" pens until they reach slaughter weight at about six months of age. The sow is then re-impregnated and the cruel and exhausting cycle continues.Born on the open range, many beef cattle are forced to fend for themselves for the first months of their lives. Denied adequate shelter and veterinary care, these young animals are often exposed to inclement weather and extreme temperatures and suffer through injury and illness without medical attention.Like other factory farmed animals, cattle are mutilated several times during their lives. Among the painful procedures they typically endure, usually without anesthesia, are dehorning and castration. For identification purposes, the animals are also routinely branded with hot irons.Eventually moved from pastures to feedlots, most beef cattle spend the rest of their short lives within the confines of filthy and overcrowded holding pens. Forced to breathe noxious fumes and lay in mud and waste, the cattle become susceptible to respiratory disease and lameness.
Fed an unnaturally rich diet supplemented with growth hormones, antibiotics and large amounts of protein, an average, 800-pound steer is often fattened and ready to leave the feedlot six months after his arrival. At this point, he has consumed about 5,000 pounds of feed and gained approximately 600 pounds.Slaughtered at about fourteen to sixteen months of age, beef cattle only live for a small fraction of their natural 18 to 22- year lifespan.Forced to produce ten times more milk than they would in nature, most dairy cows endure an exhausting existence of continuous breeding and milk production. As a result, dairy cows frequently suffer from painful udder infections, lameness and other ailments.In the name of increased milk production and profit, many dairy cows are injected with Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH), a genetically engineered hormone known to cause birth defects in calves. The drug, which was approved by the FDA, was banned in Europe and Canada.Although they can live for more than 20 years in a healthy environment, dairy cows are sent to slaughter when their milk production declines at four or five years of age.Depleted of calcium after years of heavy milk production, worn- out dairy cows often slip and fall en route to slaughter, or are so badly injured, diseased or weak they are unable to walk. Every year, thousands of dairy cows become "downers," animals too sick or injured to even stand.While it is possible that some free-range hens may be given more space than their battery- caged sisters, there are no uniform standards that define how these chickens must be housed. Producers who claim to keep hens in spacious environments may simply crowd the birds in cages slightly larger than those used at typical egg factories.Regardless of how chickens are raised, death is nearly always an inevitable part of egg production. When egg production wanes, the vast majority of layers are slaughter after one to two years. Additionally, at hatcheries from which most layers come, unwanted male chicks, unable to produce eggs or grow fast enough to be raised for meat, are immediately discarded by the most inhumane means.

Whether they are factory farmed or raised according to organic or free-range agricultural practices, nearly all "food animals" are subjected to same exceedingly stressful and cruel transportation and handling practices when sent to slaughter. No matter from where the animals come, the same horrors await them on kill floors throughout the nation.

Work Cited
www.lemondrop.com
http://www.vegetariantimes.com/resources/why_go_veg/
http://thehumanechoice.com/index.htm
http://www.vegandognutritionassociation.com/vegansfoods.html

HSUS, Are They Who You Think They Are.

Wayd Jansen

HSUS, Are They Who You Think They Are

The Humane Society of the United States prides its self on being, “The largest and most effective animal protection organization.” The HSUS’s mission statement is to, “Celebrate Animals, Confront Cruelty.” Wow, I got to say my own wallet is starting to open up for such a caring and loving organization. Yet, like any cautious person I want to do a little research on what my money will be going to. 

            Research done by The Center for Consumer Freedom shows that in 2008 HSUS boasted over 86million dollars in contributions. With that kind of money it’s worth it to know how much of that could possibly be going to a humane society closer to you. Well again thanks to The Center for Consumer Freedom, they found that only 4.7 million of HSUS spending went to grants. Half of that spending was sent to a political campaign in California. When the numbers were crunched it turns out that HSUS only actually granted 450 thousand dollars to organizations which provide hands on care to dogs and cats. People would think that an organization that sets aside a day in honor of spading and neutering pets would put more money where their mouth is.

            This is not saying a whole lot for HSUS spending. HSUS’s “form 990” a tax form; which people can find a link to on activistcash.com, shows that HSUS paid 41 employees at least 100 thousand dollar salaries. Total in 2008 there was 28.4 million dollars paid in salaries with another 4.7 million in employee benefits and compensation. The HSUS president that year received a gracious salary of 250 thousand dollars, almost half of what they spent on hands on care.

            So what are some of biggest items on HSUS’s agenda and, where’s the money going? Just visit their web page. Here people can find all they want to know or, maybe what they didn’t. Hunting/fishing, rodeos, circuses, dog breeding, zoos, lab research done on animals, and let’s not fail to mention dairy farms, chicken/egg productions, hog farms, and the list is virtually endless. To no surprise people will also find a strong push to change their eating habits. Wayne Pacelle, HSUS’s former president, is a strict vegan and is quoted saying, “Reducing meat consumption can be a tremendous benefit to animals,” and, “HSUS is making a guide to vegetarian eating, to really make the case for it.”

            Let’s get back to money. In 2008, 27.5 million dollars were spent on just fundraising. So, major portions of donations every year are spent on the heart tugging commercials of “abused” animals just to get back into your wallet. 27.5 million dollars, how many animals could be saved with that? From 2004 to 2008, 8.5 million has been put into the executive pension fund. Nearly 5 million dollars every year is spent on traveling fees alone.  If people wish to see where the rest of the HSUS donations are going they should fill free to go to the websites of, The Center for Consumer Freedom,” or “Activist cash.” Here people can find the HSUS Tax Form 990 for the years of 2008 and 2009.

            Do to great deception on the part of HSUS’s heart wrenching commercials and propaganda over 11 million people have pledged support to this group. Unknowing the money they thought they had pledged to a truly worthy cause is actually going to help dismantle all forms agriculture and some outdoor recreations. Theses pet loving Americans are being falsely influence to believe that HSUS might have ties with their local humane society which is false. With a little help from the people who are not fooled by HSUS and, so research done by each individual I believe we can show people the truth behind the HSUS’s façade. It’s time that outdoorsmen and agriculturalist put their foot down and, start educating the public before our way of life is simply tilled over.

Work Cited

activistcash.com. N.p., 2010. www.google.com. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/136-humane-society-of-the-united-states>.

The Humane Society of the United States. N.p., 2010. www.google.com. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://www.humanesociety.org/>.

Unpacking the HSUS Gravy Train. The Center for Consumer Freedom, 30 Dec. 2009. www.google.com. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. <http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4062-unpacking-the-hsus-gravy-train>.

A Dying Breed

By Jessica Sokolic

            According to the EPA’s Ag Center, in 2009, there were over 285,000,000 people living in the United States, less than 1% of this population claimed farming as their occupation. Of this 1% of the population, only 960,000 people claimed farming as their principal occupation (EPA Ag Center, 2009). For most, this is a frightening statistic that’s hitting hard in the heart of our homes. As the population continues to grow not only here in the United States, but also worldwide, the demand for food continues to grow with it. If the demand for food continues to grow, shouldn’t the farming population grow too?

            This doesn’t seem to be the case. In the United States, the average age of our farmers is on the increase while the average size of their farms is on the decrease. American farmers are facing financial struggles, old age and the fact that there is only a very small group of younger generations to take their place. These factors have been shown in the results of the US Census as far back as the 70’s. It is being feared that our nation’s current farmers may be the last of a dying breed.

            For the purpose of the US Census, the EPA Ag Center defines a farm as, “any establishment which produced and sold, or normally would have produced and sold, $1,000 or more of agricultural products during the year” (EPA Ag Center, 2009). By following this definition, there are just over 2.1 million farms in the United States. It is estimated that the average cost of living expenses alone for these farms exceeds $47,000 per year. With less than 1 out of every 4 farms making gross revenues in excess of $50,000, it proves that the American farmer is struggling (EPA Ag Center, 2009).

            The average age of America’s principal farm operators has been documented as above 50 years old as far back as the 1974 Census of Agriculture. In contrast, the percentage of principal farm operators below the age of 35 has been decreasing since 1982, when it was 15.9%. In 2002, this percentage dropped as low as 5.8%. These statistics show that our nation’s farmers are dwindling in numbers (USDA).

The Missouri farmer is no different. The average age of the Missouri farmer has increased from 54 years old in 1997 to 57 years old in 2007, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. The average Missouri farm size is 269 acres with average farm production expenses running around $56,900. The average net cash farm income of operation is only $18,176 (USDA).

Our nation maybe in danger of losing one of it’s key building blocks and yet it gets overlooked everyday. The American farmer has been and will be continued to be taken for granted, until they are gone. It is our responsibility as a nation to bring this crisis to the forefront and give our farmers the support they have long deserved. It is our responsibility to make sure that today’s American farmer is not the last of a dying breed.

Sources

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Other_Analysis/index.asp

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/demographics.html

http://www.ers.usda.gov/statefacts/mo.htm

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Ag_Overview/AgOverview_MO.pdf

IPM in Aquaculture

by: Heather Hegel

Aquaculture was developed as a more sustainable way to raise fish for food. Since its development several issues concerning aquaculture have come about. One main problem is the bioaccumulation of compounds and elements such as magnesium, ammonia, and iron in these fish farms.

IPM is a program that has swept all of agriculture, including aquaculture. One IPM method in aquaculture is that of aquaponics. Aquaponics is the practice of hydroponically growing plants and rearing fish together in recirculating systems (Harmon). This cuts down on the fertilizer necessary for plants because the fish waste, when broken down, provides nutrients for the plants. The plants help by removing substances such as ammonia, phosphorous, and nitrate-nitrogen from the water, which can be harmful to the water quality for the fish. On top of the nutrition and cleaning benefits, this greatly reduces the space used, since it is acceptable to grow plants for human consumption on this system.

The plant, however, doesn’t always have to be to human consumption. It some cases, after the plants absorb nutrients they become food for the fish. This is apparent in integrated systems with tilapia and duckweed. Duck weed is a very small, fast growing aquatic plant with no leaf or stem structure that grows in thick mats on the water surface in ponds or streams with high organic matter (AquaSol).

Duckweed is introduced into the recirculating tilapia systems where it very efficiently absorbs excess nutrients, such as ammonia, zinc, and chlorine. If the system is designed properly, duckweed can absorb as much as 99% of these nutrients and dissolved solids (Aquasol). As the duckweed absorbs nutrients and gains in size, it is consumed by the tilapia. This is a very sustainable system and can even be considered natural.

In Walt Disney World in Florida tilapia are grown beneath leafy greens such as lettuce. This nutrient recycling reduces the need for fertilizer for the plants and filters the water for the fish.

There are many examples of integrated aquaculture out there, and more and more are being developed every day. IPM in other areas of agriculture has been being studied for some time now. It seems the use of IPM in fish farming is a relatively new idea. I believe we have a lot more IPM advances to look forward to in the field of aquaculture.

Sources:

http://www.fishfarming.com/duckweed.html

https://www.was.org/meetings/AbstractData.asp?AbstractId=7933

http://www.aquaponics.com/

http://www.growingedge.com/tag/aquaponics

http://inhabitat.com/2007/07/26/mickey-mouse-sustainable-farming/

Thanksgiving Turkey

By: Weston Paulik

      Thanksgiving is right around the corner and many people are getting ready for a great meal that will include foods like yams, corn, mashed potatoes and gravy, and of course a turkey. Often times many people have no idea where that turkey came from or who raised the turkey they are eating. During the summer of 2009 I had the opportunity to work on a turkey farm and to help raise turkeys just like the one you are going to eat for Thanksgiving. Confinement turkey farming is a misunderstood industry and turkey farmers are often depicted as bad people who do not care about their animals at all. I am here to tell you that is not an accurate perception of turkey farmers. Turkey farming also has some areas that it could work on to make conditions better for animals and workers.

The first area in confinement turkey operations that many people do not like is the fact that the birds are confined to a building. According to PETA “Before ending up as holiday centerpieces, these gentle, intelligent birds spend five to six months on factory farms, where thousands of them are packed into dark sheds with no more than 3.5 square feet of space per bird.” PETA does make a valid point that each bird is only allowed about 3.5 square feet. According to my math a 750 foot long by 50 foot wide grow out barn is 37,500 square feet. Assuming there are 10,000 birds in the barn that equals out to 3.75 square feet per bird. That does not sound like a lot of room to most people, but one thing to remember is that turkeys prefer to live in a flock. I remember the first time I walked into a barn I thought “man these turkeys really are just crammed in here”, then when I got to the other side of the barn there was a maximum of five turkeys in the last fifty or sixty feet of the building. I found this odd that the turkeys would choose to literally be on top of each other when there was plenty of room at the end of the barn. It was exactly the same temperature from one side of the building to the other, the feed line ran the entire length of the building and there was plenty of access to water at that end of the building. After talking to several turkey farmers about why the birds cram in together, they explained to me that it is probably due to the fact that turkeys are an animal that tends to flock together. According to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology “several hens and their broods may join up into bands of more than 30 birds. Winter groups have been seen to exceed 200.” This is actually describing wild turkeys, but couldn’t domestic birds have the same flocking behavior. It actually makes sense that the turkeys would flock together, as there is safety in numbers. Another point that PETA makes is that “Turkeys won't have the opportunity to breathe fresh air or feel the sun on their backs until they're shoved onto trucks bound for slaughter.” While they may not get to feel the sun on their backs they do have the opportunity to breathe fresh air. The barns have large curtains on the side and once the turkeys are old enough that they can handle cooler temperatures the farmer lowers the curtains to allow fresh air in the building. In fact on hot days I preferred to be inside the grow out barns working, they are designed to allow air to flow through them and even if there was not a breeze the fans kept the air moving.

According to animal rights organizations confinement turkey operations do not allow turkeys to be turkeys. What I mean by that is that the turkeys cannot run, or fly or do things that they normally would if they were outside. From my personal experiences I can tell you that domestic turkeys can and do run. When I would walk through the barns the hens would chase after me; I have also seen turkeys chase each other around the barn. I have actually been chased out of a barn by a territorial tom (a male turkey), so believe me when I say they can run. Turkeys on confinement operations can also “dust”, which is when the turkeys get down and basically roll around in the dirt. According to the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department “dusting” may be a way for turkeys to deal with parasites. This is a natural behavior and I have seen wild turkeys “dusting” on several occasions. Confinement raised birds may have limited opportunities to roost; it depends on who is raising them. Roosting is when turkeys fly up into a tree or other high area to sleep. While there are no trees in turkey barns, I have seen turkeys climb on top of the feed lines or even onto ladders and vehicles left in the barn. Some farmers run a strand of electric fence on the feed line to keep birds from roosting on it. Using electric fence to keep birds off the feed line sounds cruel, but they are expensive to fix and the weight of several turkeys can cause the feed line to collapse. In my opinion some kind of provision should be made to allow the turkeys to roost and get up off the ground if they choose to do so. Turkeys also have plenty of opportunity to eat insects like they would in the wild. It goes without saying that there are lots of insects in turkey barns so the birds have plenty of opportunity to look for and eat insects. It can actually be quite comical watching turkeys chase after flies, especially when five or ten of them decide to chase one fly across the barn.

Turkey farming does not come without some problems and there are practices that I do not agree with. One of these is how “cull birds” (birds that are sick, injured, or that will be rejected for some reason) are dispatched. There are two methods that are considered acceptable in the confinement poultry industry. One method is breaking the animal’s neck. In order to do this you grasp the head with one hand and the body with the other, then twist its head until your hear a the neck break. If done properly the animal dies in seconds and will not feel anything. This method is primarily used on small birds while they are in the brooder house. The second method is using either a piece of wood or plastic and hitting the bird in the head. This method is not always effective, and in my opinion it can be cruel. Cargill Turkey Products puts a poster up in the barn that shows how to dispatch the birds and it also has written instructions on how to do it. The poster also says the method of dispatching the bird cannot draw any blood.  If this is going to be the industry standard, they should train the producers and their employees on the best and quickest methods of dispatching the birds instead of just giving them a poster.

While confinement turkey farming does have its problems, it is a viable and ethical form of agriculture. Turkeys raised at confinement operations are safe to eat and they are treated very good. Hopefully the industry will continue to come up with ways of raising turkeys and keeping the things safe for the birds and employees at the farm.

Sources Cited

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Wild Turkey Life History. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds. Cornell University, 2009. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Wild_Turkey/lifehistory>.

PETA "Turkeys Used for Food." Web. 14 Nov. 2010. <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/turkeys.aspx>.

"Eastern Wild Turkey Fact Sheet." Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. Vermont Fish and Wildlife, 2004. Web. 15 Nov. 2010. <http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/turkey_facts.cfm>.

Agriculture Future of America Leaders Conference

Claire Dohmen

Agriculture Future of America Leaders Conference (AFA) is a four day conference dedicated to the education of agricultural majors throughout the country.  I was lucky enough to have the opportunity to go.  We spend four days discussing the issues and problems facing the agricultural industry will.  Not only do we talk about the issues but we also discuss how to handle them.  Every situation is different and agriculture is the underdog, so we need know and understand the facts.  Like all conferences there were some fascinating times and some boring times.  I wanted to highlight two of the speakers who I think are most prevalent to this blog. 

Charlie Arnot from the Center for Food Integrity spoke on what agriculture needs to do to improve our image. 

Agriculture needs to be ethically grounded, scientifically verified, and economically viable.  Producers and farmers need to tell the public they care by reinforcing what is important to the consumers.  We, as agriculture, also have to depend on the practical side of people as well.  Producers and farmers take care of the land and animals because that is when we get the best return on our investment. We have to remind the public that we comply with all the environmental regulations and laws.  The agricultural industry has made strives with technology: producers and farmers have tractors with low emissions, we use no till practices to lower erosion, we minimize waste runoff, and that’s just a few examples.  We also have an ethical obligation to consumers, employees, and the environment.  The public forgets that people farm and produce cattle.  We, as agriculture, are one of you. 

~ My personal observation of Charlie Arnot

with the Center for Food Integrity

The second speaker was Daren Williams from the National Cattlemen’s Association.  He spoke on the distance between consumers and producers. 

Agriculture in general needs to own up to what we have done.  Our consumers have been distanced from the farm which means they don’t understand why we do the things we do.  We have to be able to explain what we do and why.   There is a disconnect between the consumer and producer that needs to be rectified.  Agriculture has stopped listening to the consumer and we need to start again.

Producers don’t let anyone in anymore.  We have lost our transparency so it looks like we are being secretive even when we aren’t.  Agriculture has become very suspicious of everyone because of everything that has happened.    We don’t trust the people and the people don’t trust us.  We need to start from scratch, and find common ground again. 

Change in agriculture comes in the form of regulations. We don’t implement change because agriculture is a conservative industry.  But we need to learn to respond to the change and explain our standpoint.  We need to learn to stick together and work together.  We are a individualized industry and we need to form a community. 

Our enemies have grown clever, they twist truths and don’t tell the whole story.  Agriculture is left to finish telling the story so that everyone knows the truth. 

 ~ My personal observation of Daren Williams 

with the National Cattlemen’s Association

Williams and Arnot make good suggestions but we, as agriculture, have to start implementing them.  We need to go on the offense and get the information out there so that the truth is accessible to the general public.  We have started a movement throughout agriculture and everyone is joining in and taking the initiative.   At the AFA conference 500 college students from around the nation came together to learn about the issues facing agriculture and what we need to do to solve them.  At Missouri State in the Agriculture department students are doing this everyday.  We have started and that is half the battle, now we just have to keep going. 

Management of America’s Wild Horse population

By Derek Hedges

The wild horse, what vision of America’s frontier past is more symbolic.  Who amongst us can not remember watching classic western of the American cowboy in or childhood.  The wild horse herd is one of the few remaining direct living links with the western frontier and all its history.  Unfortunately, the maintaining of these herds and their management has become an issue between horse lovers and the Bureau of land Management, the government agency directed by a law in 1971 to manage the wild horse herd.

                Wild horse herds are found on scattered public lands throughout the western United States.  Wild horse activist believe that they should be allowed to roam and breed at will and that any capture for adoption should be returned to their range if not adopted within a given time frame.  They also think that grazing permits for other livestock on public lands held by ranchers should be reduced to allow for all wild horses.  Under no circumstances do they feel wild horses should be killed.

                The Bureau of Land Management was designated by a 1971 law to oversee the management of the nation’s wild horse herd and its 20 million acres of habitat.  They are also required to keep herd under certain population to protect the habitat of public lands and to keep the horses healthy.  The 108th congress authorized the Bureau of Land Management to sell any wild horses caught and not adopted to be sold without restrictions.

                The area of conflict is the Bureau of Land Management will remove excess horses to achieve a herd with the desired management level for an area.  The wild horse herd grows at an annual rate of 20% therefore many horses must be removed and sent to holding pens for adoption, unfortunately many horses are not adopted and a General Accounting Office Report in 2008 found that the Bureau of Land Management had a budget of $64 million and spent $37 million of this to hold captured animals.  This is not sustainable.  It is also not possible to just reduce the number of other livestock grazing on a permit because they are not on the land year round and horses are which allows them to due greater harm to the habitat.

                One can see that this is an issue that has no answer that will completely satisfy both sides.  The wild horse activist has a vision of keeping most of these wild herds virtually untouched by outside forces.  The Bureau of Land Management however, must face the reality of a limited amount of financial and physical resources.

                I believe that the Bureau of Land Managements actions on this matter are the more realistic.  Virtually no wild animal in the United Sates on public lands is allowed a population increase that damages its habitat.  Horses running on land will do more damage then permitted grazing animals that are not there all through the season so decreasing these permits is not a long term solution.  The wild horse activist needs to work with not against the Bureau of Land Management to ensure that Americas wild horse herds are sustained at a manageable level.  Other options to control the herd need to be found.  These wild horses are truly a link to Americas past and it’s really important to find a solution to manage them in a sustainable way.

work Sited

http://www.awionline.org/ht/d/sp/1/11223/pid/11223/accessed11-10-10

http://www.katu.com/news/106886403.htmlaccessed11-10-10

http://www.blm.gov.nv/st/en/fo/wfo/blmprograms/wild_horses_and%20_burros/calico_moutains_complex.htmlaccessed11-10-10

Pet Therapy, Does it actually work?

By Dana Willis

What is pet therapy? Does it actually work? Why is it necessary?

These are all great questions but some are hard to answer and many will have different opinions about this subject. Pet therapy is a wonderful thing and it helps provide security and comfort to people in many ways.

Pet ownership, has shown to reduce stress, requires less medical care, adds years to your life, and people just enjoy life more. Pets make individuals take care of them, its gives them something to live for when they have suffered through so much, like cancer, a death, a divorce, and many other things. 

Research has shown that heart attack victims that have pets live longer, and even just watching a tank of fish swim around may help lower blood pressure. Pets let us be ourselves around them, animals don’t care what we look like or make fun of us, and they just love and accept us for who we are. Animals bring out the nurturing instinct in our bodies.

These animals that are trained and put into pet therapy are wonderful animals. They are very well behaved and are trained by certified companies or individuals. There are so many amazing stories about pet therapy animals, helping different people and patients. They bring so much joy to so many individuals. There are so many great results, and they are increasing everyday! Improving ones social, emotional, physical, and cognitive well being are just a few things pet therapy animals due.  

Pets truly help heal all different kinds of patients, especially elderly people suffering from loneliness. Pets take peoples mind of what they are truly sad or lonely about, and cause laughter and a sense of security at times. Animals are very loving creatures they can take someone’s focus off what they are suffering from and put it on them.

For more information;

http://www.holisticonline.com/stress/stress_pet-therapy.htm

http://www.sniksnak.com/therapy.html

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/helps-119059-pet-spectrum.html

Yummy Antibiotics

By: Laura Correnti

There has been a lot of talk about antibiotic use in meats these days and how humans are becoming resistant to certain types of bacteria because of the use of antibiotics in meat. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are strongly urging meat producers to cut back on how much antibiotics they give to their animals (CBS News). However, does it matter if there are antibiotics in meat or not? Now a days, it seems if a person goes to the doctor with a sore throat and a runny nose, the doctor will prescribe antibiotics to clear it up when simple vitamin C and rest will work. So who is really responsible for the antibiotic resistance in the humans?

The FDA says that antibiotics are “posing a serious threat to human health”, so farmers should cut back on their antibiotic use in animals only giving them when they are sick and under the supervision of a veterinarian (CBS News). That could be a good idea, but what farmer can afford to pay the veterinarian bill every time one of his cows went down. According to the Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, the average income of a farmer is 27, 375 and with a eight dollar veterinarian house call bill plus medicines for every time a animal goes down is far too much for a farmer with a limited income (Sanford and Luther).

There are programs that allow the use of antibiotics for both subtherapeutic and therapeutic treatment purposes in pork that requires producers to follow label directions and withdrawal use of antibiotics before slaughter (Iowa State). No subtherapeutic after the pigs are 40-100 lbs allows the use of antibiotics in young pigs solely to enhance production and to treat disease (Iowa State). With this program the levels of antibiotics in feed decreases and allows for a 60-days withdrawal and the half-life of the antibiotics results in meat that is completely free of antibiotics at slaughter (Iowa State). The program is very vigorous and requires the producer to pay attention to outside diseases and managing stress. Without the introduction of new pathogens into the farm from visitors and keeping the pigs comfortable and free of stress then the program works great and there is no antibiotics in the meat to be passed to humans.

Antibiotics and antimicrobials are an important and necessary tool that when used correctly can protect the well being and health of an animal. For cattle, keeping the cows healthy is a must since many feedlots and pastures share a common water hole and feed troughs. If one cow is sick all the cows can become sick. National Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) programs support the use of antibiotics and antimicrobials if they are used so that the animal is treated properly and the antibiotics are not being over used (Peck). The BQA says that antibiotics are okay to use if they aren’t important in human science and to use a narrow spectrum of antimicrobials whenever possible (Peck). Also, antibiotics should be limited to prevent or control disease and should not be used to improve performance.

The repercussions of not using antibiotics in livestock are too great. There are too many diseases that affect livestock not using antibiotics when necessary could kill off a whole herd. Some diseases include contagious bovine pleuropnemonia, foot-and-mouth disease, and black leg (Phillips et al). Diseases like these can be treated with antibiotics and if they are not treated right away then they can spread and infect other members in the herd. Using antibiotics is the best route when protecting a herd from spreading disease. Antibiotics can be given shortly after birth and then given as boosters to prevent infection (Phillips et al). 

Antibiotics are useful drugs. They prevent infection and can keep animals healthy when they are used properly. If antibiotics are used properly they are out of an animal’s system before slaughter and are at little risk to humans. Antibiotics are used to keep animals healthy, they may enhance the size of the animal but that is the last thing on a farmers mind. A farmer would want five healthy moderate cows than one super beefy cow.

Citations

Peck, Clint. Prudent Use of Antibiotics in Beef Production. Montana State Univeristy. 29 Sept 2009. http://beef.unl.edu. 

Phillips, Ian, Mark Casewell, Tony Cox, Brad DeGroot, Christian Friis, Ron Jones, Charles Nightingale, Rodney Preston and John Waddell. Does the use of antibiotics in food animals pose a risk to human health? A critical review of published data. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. Issue 53; 28-52. 4 Dec 2003. http://jac.oxfordjornals.org.

Sanford, Scott and Luther Tweeten. Farm Income Enhancement Potential For Small, Part-Time Farming Operations In East Central Oklahoma. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics. Dec 1988. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu.

http://www.cbsnews.com

http://www.ipic.iastate.edu

The Branding Iron

The Branding Iron

            The branding iron is the permanent cowboy trademark.   Cattle branding has been around for thousands of years and it is a tool that ranchers use to show ownership of an animal.  Using a branding iron to mark ownership has been around for at least 4,000 years.  There have been inscriptions in Egyptian tombs found that showed branded cattle as early as 2,000 B.C.  Branding is one of the oldest and most permanent ways to identify cattle.  The International Livestock Identification Association considers livestock brands to be as important as the return address on an envelope (Missouri Department of Agriculture).

            Branding in America was adopted from Mexico where Mexican ranchers would mark their cattle with a brand that was their family coat-of-arms.  Today brands can mean several different things.  They might be a part of a name or maybe just a unique design. According to a website called kids cowboy by John R. Craighead Company, Inc., the following is a good rule of thumb on how to identify and read a brand today:

Brands are read from left to right, from the top down, or from outside inside. A definite method of identifying characters has been established. If a letter or symbol is made backwards from its normal position, it's read as a “reverse F” or whatever other letter it might be.  A letter partially over on its face or back is said to be “tumbling.”  If a letter lies horizontally on its face or back, it is called “lazy.”  Letters with a curving flare at the top and rounded angles are called “running."  Adding a dash to the left and one to the right at the top, you have a "flying" letter.  Add legs and it becomes a “walking” letter.  A letter placed so that the bottom touches the inside of a curve is said to be “rocking.”  Curves not attached to letters are known as “quarter circles” or “half circles,” depending on the arc. Letters or symbols formed together are called “connected,” except when one is below the other, then the lower symbol is said to be “swinging.” In registering brands, owners sometimes omit the “connected” or “swinging”.  Besides the traditional letter and figure brands, there are some marks known as “character brands.”  Common picture brands are the pitchfork and the key. The reading of picture brands depends upon the owner’s interpretation, and it takes an expert to identify some of the more complex brands.

            Today there are thousands of cattle brands registered in the United States.  After you have a brand registered under your name it is your responsibility to make sure the brand is applied properly and is readable.  A Brand is applied to the skin when it is hot, about the color of the fire ashes that you might use to heat your iron.  Red hot irons are to hot and will over burn the animal and make a poor brand.  A good iron’s letters will be around one-quarter inch thick and about four inches tall, so it can retain the heat as you are using it and make a legible brand.  For about the last 20 years or so they have started to make electric branding irons that do a great job of retaining the proper heat and work well for fast multiple brandings where electric is accessible.

            Branding practices have recently been questioned concerning hide damage.  Branding cattle damages the quality of the hide that may be later used for leather goods.  A study done by the National Animal Health Monitoring System in 1992-93 and determined that there is a deduction in price on hides that have been branded, how much depends on brand location.  Cattle branded on the rib cage lost on average $13 per hide.  Cattle branded on the hip or shoulder on lost $9 on average.

            In all states brands must be recorded in the state that they are going to be used in so no others can us that same brand.  Once that brand is recorded it provides ownership and is considered legal evidence in a court of law.  In the state of Missouri and most other states a individual can apply for a new brand or a brand that has not been in use for at least five years.  The state will reject any brand that is the same as a brand that is already registered within the state.   The brand will be assigned one of three spots the hip, rib, or shoulder of the right or left side; If the brand is not in the correct spot than it cannot be enforced.  In the state of Missouri it is a felony to brand someone else’s animal or to deface or obliterate any livestock brand.  It is also illegal to brand any livestock with a brand that has not been properly registered within the state.  Livestock can also be branded and many times are branded with numbers for identification purposes within the herd.  Brands that are used for identification with in the heard are not registered and therefore cannot be considered proof of ownership and will not hold up in the court of law.

            Once the brands are recorded by the Missouri Department of Agriculture they are considered personal property of the owner.  Brands can be sold or transferred but must be registered under the new ownership of the brand.  Within the state of Missouri brand registration fee is $35 and transfer fee is $10.  Once you own your brand it is good for five years before it needs to be renewed.  Currently in the state of Missouri there are around 5,000 brands recorded.

                                                 Work Cited

Agriculture, M. D. (2010). Livestock Branding. Retrieved November 28, 2010, from http://mda.mo.gov/animals/livestockbranding.php

Branding Practices in Beef Cow/Calf Heards. (1993). Retrieved November 8, 2010, from www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/beefcowcalf/downloads/CHAPA_is_Branding_pdf

Craighead, J. R. (n.d.). The History of Cattle Brands and How to Read Them. Retrieved November 8, 2010, from http://www.kidscowboy.com/cattle-brands.html