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.