To Graze or Not To Graze

By Jessica Sokolic

Can you imagine losing 157 million acres, covering 16 Western States, of public land used for livestock grazing in the United States? To give you an idea of the size of the amount of land I am talking about, know that the approximate total land mass of the state of Texas is a little over 167 million acres. This possible loss has become a largely debatable topic. A large group of people, led by radical environmentalists, have created the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign. This Campaign is focused on ending grazing on public lands by offering a grazing permit buyout program. The members of this Campaign believe that grazing livestock destroy natural ecosystems, take food away from and spread disease to natural wildlife, trample vegetation, spread invasive weeds and pollute water sources. They have taken these beliefs to Congress in 2005 in the form of the Multiple-Use Conflict Resolution Act (H.R. 3166), which never became law. They haven’t stopped there and are still fighting to end the use of grazing permits on public lands.

            The use of grazing permits found it’s beginnings as far back as the 1930’s. In response to the issue of overgrazing on Western public lands due to the homesteading era, Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. The Taylor Grazing Act established the first regulated grazing districts and eventually led to the creation of the Bureau of Land Management in 1946. Within these grazing districts, grazing management practices, including the use of fences and water projects, were used to increase the production of the land and decrease the erosion of the land. Grazing management practices are continuously studied and upgraded by the Bureau of Land Management, in cooperation with the Forest Service, to ensure the best and safest use of public land grazing.

            The National Cattleman’s Beef Association fears that by losing the use of grazing permits, not only will we lose valuable grazing areas that are essential to the cattle industry; we will lose the wide open spaces that the West has become known for. They worry that by buying out grazing permits and permanently retiring public lands from grazing, ranchers will be forced to downsize, selling land adjoining these public areas, bringing developments into the heart of the West’s wide open spaces. It is then feared that these developments will have a detrimental effect on established natural ecosystems, altering not only vegetation but also animals and their habitats. The National Cattleman’s Beef Association believes that well managed grazing can be very beneficial to the natural ecosystems of the West and evidence of this is shown by the awarding of the National Environmental Stewardship Award.

            The Environmental Stewardship Award Program, ESAP, has been honoring U.S. cattle producers who have shown outstanding efforts in conservation and land management for almost two decades. A recent winner of the 2009 award, Leavitt Lake Ranches of Vina, California, manages 25,000 acres of public land through the Bureau of Land Management grazing permits. Dave Petty, chairman of the Environmental Stewardship Award selection committee and 2001 award winner, made this statement in regards to Leavitt Lake Ranches, “The Leavitt [Lake Ranches] family has taken a leadership role through the cohabitation of endangered species and cattle. They show that cattle ranching supports these species better than non-use of the land” (Angus Journal).

The loss of 157 million acres of public land available for grazing will not only have a detrimental effect on the cattle industry, natural ecosystems and the vast open spaces of the West, according to a study done by the Society for Ranch Management, it will also have a big impact on ranching operations. In this study, interviews were done on 49 people, 33 ranchers and 16 agency personnel, in the Rocky Mountain Region of the Western United States. They were asked questions regarding their potential motivations for participation in a buyout program and potential consequences of the buyout program. Out of these 49 people, only 17% claimed that they would participate in such a program. The possible consequences of this program included substantially large financial, ecological and administrative costs.

If a program to buyout grazing permits and permanently retire public lands from livestock grazing were put into place, the livestock industry will lose a grazing area slightly smaller than the state of Texas. While the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign will fight to make this happen, the National Cattleman’s Beef Association will fight to make sure that it doesn’t. Both sides offer arguments that are definitely worth consideration.

Sources

http://www.angusjournal.com/articlepdf/ncba%20esap%2003.10.pdf

http://www.beefusa.org/govegrazingpermitbuyouts.aspx

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Statefacts/TX.HTM

http://www.publiclandsranching.org/

http://www.srmjournals.org/doi/abs/10.2111/05-132R2.1?journalCode=rama

Antibiotics in Meat

Jerrid Cunningham

I have always wondered about the argument over antibiotics being used in meats. I had always heard that it was just to fatten up the cattle, and that none of the medicines could affect the consumer of the products. After reading an article by Ethan Huff, I found out that the USDA had gone in front of a committee and announced that by using antibiotics in cattle, for treatment of illness, or growing purposes, could lead to antibiotic resistance later down the road with the people that consume the antibiotic injected meat. Why have we all been told for so many years that there was no harm with injecting cattle with antibiotics for growth, if there has been signs that people are building up a resistance to other antibiotics due to the injections in the meat?

As a member of agriculture, I have always agreed with the injections, because I had never been told different about the outcome of the meat.  According to Des Moines Register report, John Clifford, who is the chief veterinarian for the USDA told the committee that the use of antibiotics in animals does lead to some cases of antimicrobial resistance among humans and in the animals. I do not agree with the injection of antibiotics in cattle, for growth purposes. I believe that the animal should grow at a normal rate, not be pumped full of drugs that in the end are hurting the consumer in the end.  I do believe in the use of antibiotics in cattle that are sick. If the animal needs treatment, that’s fine give them the dosage that they need and that is all.

Throughout Mr. Huff’s article he says that most conventional livestock operations are highly unsanitary, and the animals are raised within confined animal feeding operations. I do not agree with this statement. Yes there might be a few operators that run a filthy operation, but not all feedlots are run like the feedlot description in his article. Before you go saying that most of anything is being run bad, you should go around and check multiple operations.  

I found Mr. Huff’s words interesting, when he said that excessive use of antibiotics for both treating illness, and weight building has lead to the emergence of “super” bacteria that are resistant to many of the traditional antibiotics that Americans have been using for years. I could see how this information could be important. I feel that the antibiotics need to be administered correctly, and that the use of weight building antibiotics should be banned.

Resources:

http://www.naturalnews.com/029337_antibiotics_livestock.html

http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/vet-breaking-news/2010/07/15/hearing-examines-use-of-antibiotics-in-animals-and-impact-on-human-health.aspx

Trichomoniasis

Trichomoniasis or Trichs was an uncommon disease a few years ago.  Now it is fairly common.  “Trichomoniasis is a venereal disease of cattle characterized primarily by early fetal death and infertility, resulting in extended calving intervals” (Merck Veterinary Manual).  Trichs is caused by a protozoan and is found in the genital tracks of cattle.  An infected bull spreads the disease from cow to cow. 

“Bulls of all ages can remain infected indefinitely but this is less likely in younger males” (Merck Veterinary Manual).  Bulls older than 3 years tend to chronically have trichs.  Cows immune system will eventually destroy the protozoa but this process can take up to 20 weeks.  The immunity is very short lived so the cow can be reinfected. 

Bulls show no outward symptoms of the disease.  Cows on the other hand may have a white discharge but not in every case.  The most common sign is infertility within the herd.  Cows that should be pregnant are cycling again.  The reason for this is that the protozoa causes an abortion of the fetus a few weeks into the pregnancy.  Cows can have live calves while infected with trichs but it is very rare. 

There is a test to see whether the bulls are positive or negative.  The test involves putting a pipette up the bull’s sheath and scraping the interior.  Modern tests use PCR (polymerase chain reaction).  This method is faster and more effective at determining whether there is a trichs organism.  However there is no effective test for females. 

There is no safe and effective treatment.  The only way to control the spread of the disease is to cull the positive animals.  Trichs does not affect the meat of an animal in any way. 

http://cattletoday.info/trichomoniasis.htm

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-BE_cca/INF-BE_cca97/INF-BE_cca9706.html

http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/depts_waddl/dx/trichomoniasis.aspx

http://farmtalknewspaper.com/editorials/x1941093352/Trichomoniasis-a-disease-to-watch-for

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ansci/animpest/v1342w.htm

The New Beef?

By: Heather Hegel

As population continues to grow rapidly more and more people are becoming concerned with the idea that some day we will not be able to produce enough food to support ourselves. More people are going hungry every day. As the Malthusian catastrophe theory states, human population grows exponentially while agricultural production increases linearly. This is becoming more evident every day. Human beings are not yet at the maximum for agricultural productivity, as shown by the great distance between state record yields and state average yields, but it will come sooner than many of us think. Groups such as the United Nation realize this and are looking for creative ways to find sustenance.

                Recently the United Nations launched a campaign promoting the use of insects as a source of food worldwide.  Insects are actually very nutritious and a great source for cheap protein. In fact, a few small grasshoppers contain almost as much protein as ground beef.  It is also much less intensive and more cost effective to raise insects over cattle or hogs. It can be done on less land as well, making this absurd idea suddenly become more realistic.

                This is by no means a new idea, though. Human beings have been eating insects since we evolved. It is not unheard of even today in cultures around the world. In Mexico many rural families enjoy a mixture of roasted crickets and lime juice with other spices. They eat it on tortillas like we would beef.  In many countries in Asia fried grasshoppers are eaten. In Africa insects such as caterpillars, grubs, and termites are eaten to supplement protein. This is actually not that rare of an idea at all. In Canada, Montreal’s Insectarium hosts an insect taste testing event where insect dishes are prepared by top chefs. Many of the people who try insects there enjoy them.

                So are these insects really nutritional enough to replace meats like beef or chicken? 100g of small grasshoppers has 20.6g of protein, 36 mg Calcium, 5mg Iron, 238mg Phosphorus, 3.9g carbohydrates, 6.1g fat and 153 calories. A 100g serving of giant water bugs has 62 calories, 19.8g protein, 2.1g carbohydrates, 8.3g fat, 226mg phosphorus, 44mg calcium, 14mg iron, and 8.3g fat. Cicadas are high in protein, low in fat, and contain no carbohydrates.

                I shook my head in disbelief the first time I heard this idea. Eating bugs on purpose? No way. I had to look further into it. It turns out its actually quite realistic. I’m not saying that I could see myself eating cricket burgers for dinner, but for countries where finding protein is more of an issue, this could be a very beneficial program. It could help a lot of people get better nutrition at little cost to them.

Sources:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/360609/Thomas-Robert-Malthus

http://www.globalgourmet.com/food/special/creepy/#axzz12SL4Umuv

http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2010/08/eat-the-beetles-with-special-bug-recipes.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0715_040715_tvinsectfood.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0503_040503_cicadafeast.html

http://www.suite101.com/content/insects-as-alternative-food-a278697

Low Stress Cattle Corrals

Low Stress Cattle Corrals

By Rance Tanner Clark

            For all those farmers and ranchers out there that are looking into building new or updating their cattle corrals I would recommend watching a very influential movie first.  Last year a new movie came out called Temple Grandin.  Many people in Agriculture know that name, but if you don’t Dr. Temple Grandin is a designer of livestock handling facilities and a Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University (2009,Grandin.com).  Dr. Grandin is a world leader in livestock handling and corral design.  According to the Committee for Sustainable Farm Publishing, over half of the cattle in North America pass through working facilities that she designed.  Dr. Grandin is autistic which allows her to see and think like a cow which in turn has helped her be more influential on livestock handling strategies.

            Thanks to Dr. Grandin we are now better able to understand cattle and therefore are able to develop working facilities that are more productive and less stressful.  Dr. Grandin has a web site called Grandin.com and at this site you can look at many corral designs and even shows their dimensions if you would like to build your own.  When you look at these designs you will notice a lot of curves and fences built on an angle.  Dr. Grandin was the one that discovered that cattle move better in circles, because they think that they are returning to the herd (2009, Grandin.com).  Knowing this, she made several designs that use tubs and curved alleys with various widths.  Doing this keeps the cattle moving forward and not bunching up which in turn makes a lower stressed working environment. 

            When you start planning your next corral system some things that you might keep in mind is start with the basics and then move forward.  If you work in a chronological order then I think that you will find that you’re next working system will work very nicely for you.  Where you will want to start with is where your cattle are coming from and where they are going.  After you have that figured out try to use curves and cattle flight zones to your advantage. Something that you might find helpful is in high traffic, high activity areas to use solid sides on your tubs and alleyways.  This will also be a good time to think about the chute and loading ramp placement.  After you have a good steady cattle flow, go back and put in your man gates and walkways.  If you keep cattle flow a first priority, then you will find that the cattle will work for you instead of you working the cattle.  By doing this it will lower cattle stress, speed up processing time, and make cattle working a much more enjoyable experience.                                                    

  

Work Cited

Grandin, Temple. "Livestock Behaviour, Design of Facilities." Temple Grandin's Web Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2010. <http://www.grandin.com/>.

 "Low-Stress Livestock Handling." Ibiblio.org - Storytelling. Committee for Sustainable Farm Publishing, 1997. Web. 11 Oct. 2010. <http://www.ibiblio.org/farming-connection/grazing/features/lowstress.htm>.

Let A Horse Be A Horse

By: Laura Correnti

Horse slaughter has been a hot topic in the United States for many years. There were three horse slaughter houses in the US that were closed in December of 2007; two in Texas and one in Illinois (American Veterinary Medical Association) . With the ban on horse slaughter in the US, more horses are being shipped to countries like Mexico and Canada for slaughter. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), since the closing of these plants in 2007, 45,000 horses were shipped to Mexico for slaughter which is a 312% increase over 11,000 horses shipped in 2006. With the ban on horse slaughter in the US and the risky travel to other countries for slaughter, many horses are finding themselves as “unwanted horses”. However, before owners consider shipping horses off for slaughter, they should look into other forms of euthanasia and other places to send them.

According to the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP), an “unwanted horse” can be defined as “those no longer wanted by their current owners because they are injured, old, sick, unmanageable, or fail to meet the owner’s expectations.” The horses that fell into the unwanted category in 2007, were processed for slaughter in the US, shipped to Mexico or Canada for slaughter or were adopted (AAEP). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), funds long-tem sanctuaries for horses that are too old for adoption, feral, or neglected.  This is a good solution to keep horses out of slaughter houses but it comes at the cost of $38.8 million dollars a year to fund (BLM).

In the past when a horse was lame, old or generally unwanted the owner would send the horse off for slaughter. However, that is no longer the case because most owners are looking into different forms of euthanasia and disposal of their horses. Euthanasia can be termed as when a good death occurs with minimal pain and at the appropriate time in the horse’s life to prevent unnecessary suffering and pain (Lenz).  However, the request from the owner to end their horse’s life because they do not want it or cannot afford to take care of it anymore may not be an option in the future. Bans on putting a horse down because they are old and lame are in the talks because there is not a medical purpose to kill the horse, such as disease or infection (Lenz). This might shift the owners back to sending their unwanted horses to a slaughter house for money or just to get rid of them.

According to the AVMA, there are three ways to euthanize a horse; one is an overdose of barbiturates, two a gunshot between the eyes, and third a penetrating captive gun bolt (Lenz). For euthanasia described in method one, sodium pentobarbital is the most commonly used drug because it is fast acting and causes minimal discomfort to the horse. The drug is administered intravenously, depresses the central nervous system and causes unconsciousness which then progresses to respiratory and cardiac arrest (Lenz). The disadvantages of administering the drug are; the horse must be restrained, there are muscle spasms, gasping and vocalization that occur before death, and with the high level of barbiturates in the horses system disposal of the body is limited (Lenz). This also means that the horse cannot be sold as meat with the levels of barbiturates in its system making this method of death unacceptable in slaughter houses.

The physical methods of euthanasia are a gunshot and penetrating captive bolt, that both cause trauma to the cerebral hemisphere and the brainstem, resulting in immediate unconsciousness and a painless, humane death (Lenz). When using gunshot, the best site for penetration of the horse’s skull right between the eyes. The impact should be made perpendicular, where the gun is held horizontal in proportion to the horse’s vertical face, 2 to 6 inches away with a .22 caliber long rifle (Lenz). The penetrating captive bolt gun is either powered by gunpowder or compressed air that provides enough energy to penetrate the horse’s skull and cause trauma to the brain resulting in instantaneous brain death (Lenz). Both of these methods are used in slaughter houses and when they are preformed correctly there is no pain to the animal and it results in a humane death.

With the slaughter plants closed in the US, horses are being shipped to Mexico and Canada for slaughter. The meat from these plants is then shipped to Europe and Asia for human consumption. The horse slaughter plants in the US were subject to the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 which required the USDA to inspect all equines slaughtered and processed into products for human food (Congressional Research Service). The meat inspectors were also required to enforce the Humane Method of Slaughter Act that required livestock be rendered unconscious prior to slaughter (Congressional Research Service). With the slaughter houses following these rules to the letter, the horses were killed humanely and the meat was sold overseas. However, some of the slaughter houses in Mexico and Canada do not have the same rules and regulations the US does so who knows how the horses are treated there.

The best solution over euthanasia and slaughter is a retirement home for horses that are funded by private companies. Horses that are government property (seized by law enforcement and rescued by Humane Societies), old or were used in other programs can go to a retirement home for horses and live out their lives being a horse (Mill Creek Farm). The horses at these farms are put up for adoption and adopted by people that have a need for them. These farms are across the country and the adoption fees vary based on the horse. This is the best way to keep a horse alive and let them die from having too much fun with other horses.

References

Lenz, Tom R. DVM. The Unwanted Horse in the United States: An Overview of the Issue. May 2009. The Journal of Equine Science: Volume 29, Issue 5: pgs 253-258.

http://avma.org/

http://www.dcboa.com/

http://habitatforhorses.org/

http://millcreekfarm.org/

All Its Cracked Up To B?

All It’s Cracked Up To B?

Scott Mackey

Signage, letters to the editor, and television commercials abound; even on this blog, a solid article, all attempting to bring to light the many sided issues of Proposition B. The topic is so controversial because it’s both drastically good and devastatingly bad. No one likes the idea of mistreated animals, and few people like for the government to have much say in their business efforts.  Proposition B, also known as the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act,” sounds great on paper and on the commercials; but how is it going to work, and who might it hurt the worst?

            The first order of business in a topic such as this would be to read the legislation! So often in situations like this voters and contributors are lead to the slaughter because they listen to the hearsay information spewed by biased parties from both sides. Propaganda works because it moves people without them being fully aware of where they’re being herded. Propaganda, as it is so defined by animal wellness advocates, is passion without science. So, is there passion behind Proposition B? You had better believe it; but is there science? Well, kind of.

             Proposition B intends to regulate the fair treatment of animals; meaning that they will have the basic rights which animals deserve: food, water, shelter and room to play. These are all well and good but the argument doesn’t end there. Proposition B would also relegate the number of dogs a breeder could own and house to fifty animals. A secondary measure of the bill provides specific measurements for the size of kennels and pens for specific sizes of dogs. Also, the bill adds that the exercise area of each dog must be twice the area of their pens. (Missouri)

On the basis that this is a piece of state legislation, it is therefore an extension of the regulations proposed by our federal government, in this case the United States Department of Agriculture. Even more specifically, the legislation which defines the best general treatment for animals is the Animal Wellness Act (AWA), which is enforced by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.  The Animal Welfare Act clearly defines and regulates such animal husbandry processes as grouping, primary enclosures, outdoor housing, feeding, watering, exercise, cleaning of pens and even employee standards.(Department) Finding these standards to be quite strict and with the backing of the USDA, a department whose business is specifically related to the topic of Proposition B, a person can’t help to wonder why an animal would need states’ rights which are already guaranteed by the federal government.

The science necessary to alter the opinions of those farmers, ranchers and breeders who ask for a “no” vote on Proposition B has yet to be presented, or even really hinted at. There has been plenty of publicity however; and this publicity is very limited in information, but chalked full of pity. So, the people pushing for the “yes” vote on Proposition B ask us to go farther than what’s deemed adequate by the Federal government, for no reason backed by science. A person might very well conclude that people who support Proposition B wish to make it more difficult for the breeders, rather than making it easier for the animals. Also it might be pointed out, that in no way will Proposition B sincerely affect those people who don’t already operate within the law.

Who will enforce the legislation? Will the law breakers stand up and identify themselves; of course not, it will be those breeders who operate within the bounds of current laws who are impeded and who will have the size of their businesses and profits cut. More important for some is the question who will pay for this new enforcement? Will it be deemed the duty of the overworked police departments, or will it perhaps create new jobs in an already stressed state budget?

A few alternatives to Proposition B might be mentioned which are already in practice in several other states. First it should be mentioned that, just as with Proposition B, these all go beyond the bounds of what the AWA states is necessary. However, these other laws seem to be comprehensive to the scale of breeders rather than impedimentary. In Indiana, a regulation allows for several different divisions of breeder classification based on number of dogs. Colorado on the other hand has inspections based on risk related to the operation. So kennels with a higher number of dogs have a significantly higher rate of inspection. With these two alternatives in place of the ones suggested in Proposition B, it would be possible for breeders within the law to raise and sell as many dogs as they wish, as long as they are efficiently kept and proper licensing fees are maintained. (State) This change in legislation would accommodate large scale breeders and make a non-licensed operation open to state criminal charges.

A bit of propaganda to consider, if both sides of the Proposition B table would’ve committed the resources and man hours spent on campaigning for and against useless legislation, how many noncompliant breeders and “puppy mills” could’ve actually been found and shut down.

Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Animal and Animal Products. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awr/awr.pdf

Missouri Secretary of State (SOS). (2010). 2010 Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation in Missouri-Statutory Amendment to Chapter 273, Relating to Dog Breeders , 1. Retrieved October 4, 2010, from Missouri Secretary of State (SOS): www.sos.mo.gov

"State Puppy Mill Laws." Humanesociety.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2010. <http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/legislation/state_puppy_mill_laws.pdf>.