The sheer increase in the nation’s population and the resulting varied interests has resulted in a high-stakes competition regarding public land use. Changing social values with regard to the protection and conservation of the environment and natural resources have demanded a greater balance between livestock grazing and “other legitimate uses of public lands, such as recreation, wildlife habitat, riparian management, endangered species management, mining, hunting, cultural resource protection, wilderness, and a wide variety of other uses” (History of Grazing). One area that has been under the magnifying glass is the subject of fees charged to ranchers for grazing permits. To non-ranching citizens of the United States, the fees seem exorbitantly low. “In 2007, the grazing fee on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and most Forest Service lands is $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM; a measure of the amount of forage necessary to sustain a cow and calf for one month)” (Federal Grazing Fees). The Government Accountability Office had determined that low grazing fees resulted in a cost to American taxpayers of at least $132.5 million in FY 2004. This seems tantamount to providing welfare to some of the richest ranching corporations in the nation.
However, there are some very logical arguments for keeping grazing fees low and for strengthening restrictions and environmental protections at the same time. When grazing fees are kept at a low level, ranchers are able to keep more capital on hand. This makes grazing permits very valuable and increases the incentive to comply with regulations and stipulations attached to the permits. To make compliance even more motivating to ranchers, strict penalties need to be enacted for those caught grazing illegally or out of compliance. The penalties need to go beyond the revocation of the permit and reach deep into the ranchers’ pockets in order to make cheating a less profitable venture. To enforce restrictions and protections, there needs to be random monitoring across the nation at any given time. This will prevent ranchers from figuring out where the next area to be inspected is located. All of these regulations leading to greater compliance will at the same time result in less degradation of the grazing lands and increased restoration of the environment.
Works Cited
“Federal Grazing Fees”, www.sagebrushsea.org/mn_grazing fees_.htm
“History of Grazing”, Nevada Bureau of Land Management, Rangeland Management, http://www.nv.blm.gov/rangelands/range.htm
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Contributions of Animals to Society
There are some very harsh facts worthy of consideration to help a consumer decide if they want to continue supporting the veal industry:
Veal comes from male calves born to dairy cows. Dairy cows are bred once a year, for the express purpose of keeping their milk supply flowing. Their gestation period is 9 months long, like humans, and they continue being used for human milk production 7 out of those 9 months. After approximately 60 days and shortly after giving birth, the milk cow returns to the production line. "Both male and female offspring of dairy cows are normally removed from cows soon after giving birth. This separation allows dairy cows to return to the herd and produce milk for human consumption" (The Veal Farm). The baby calves are then separated based on gender, with the females being raised to replace older (3-4 years old), less productive milk cows. The male calves are chained in individual crates or stalls that measure only 22 inches by 58 inches to minimize movement and that is where they live for their entire lives. The calves endure physical and psychological stress from their confinement. From a production standpoint, when a calf's movements are restricted to laying down and getting up, very little muscle mass is developed. Weak muscles are tender muscles.
Borderline anemic muscles are very tender, very light pink muscles. The calves are fed a milk based diet with as little iron as possible to reduce the level of myoglobin (iron content) in the muscle. Myoglobin produces the red pigment that colors the meat of an adult cow. The reduced iron content (and subsequent borderline anemia) in a calf's muscle translates into tender, light pink meat.
There has been much outcry by animal rights groups regarding the conditions veal calves endure. In a nod to the animal rights groups, the American Veal Association passed a resolution calling for the veal industry to phase out the use of individual crates and stalls. "The American Veal Association's recommended ten-year phaseout is a long time, especially considering that the nation's largest veal producers have already committed to a two-year phaseout, but it is a step in the right direction that further makes the writing on the wall clear: Veal crates are too cruel and inhumane even for the veal industry to continue defending"(HSUS 2007).
An excellent way for consumers to let the veal industry (and all animal industries) know inhumane practices will not be tolerated is with their dollars. If a consumer cannot give up their veal, a shift towards buying locally instead of supporting huge farming corporations is a good start.
Works Cited
"Industry Information, Frequently Asked Questions", The Veal Farm,
2004 Cattlemen's Beef Board, www.vealfarm.com
"Say No to Veal", A Farm Sanctuary Campaign, www.noveal.org
"Statement on American Veal Association's Veal Crate Announcement", The Human Society of the United States, August 6, 2007,
www.hsus.com/press_and_publications/press_releases
Veal comes from male calves born to dairy cows. Dairy cows are bred once a year, for the express purpose of keeping their milk supply flowing. Their gestation period is 9 months long, like humans, and they continue being used for human milk production 7 out of those 9 months. After approximately 60 days and shortly after giving birth, the milk cow returns to the production line. "Both male and female offspring of dairy cows are normally removed from cows soon after giving birth. This separation allows dairy cows to return to the herd and produce milk for human consumption" (The Veal Farm). The baby calves are then separated based on gender, with the females being raised to replace older (3-4 years old), less productive milk cows. The male calves are chained in individual crates or stalls that measure only 22 inches by 58 inches to minimize movement and that is where they live for their entire lives. The calves endure physical and psychological stress from their confinement. From a production standpoint, when a calf's movements are restricted to laying down and getting up, very little muscle mass is developed. Weak muscles are tender muscles.
Borderline anemic muscles are very tender, very light pink muscles. The calves are fed a milk based diet with as little iron as possible to reduce the level of myoglobin (iron content) in the muscle. Myoglobin produces the red pigment that colors the meat of an adult cow. The reduced iron content (and subsequent borderline anemia) in a calf's muscle translates into tender, light pink meat.
There has been much outcry by animal rights groups regarding the conditions veal calves endure. In a nod to the animal rights groups, the American Veal Association passed a resolution calling for the veal industry to phase out the use of individual crates and stalls. "The American Veal Association's recommended ten-year phaseout is a long time, especially considering that the nation's largest veal producers have already committed to a two-year phaseout, but it is a step in the right direction that further makes the writing on the wall clear: Veal crates are too cruel and inhumane even for the veal industry to continue defending"(HSUS 2007).
An excellent way for consumers to let the veal industry (and all animal industries) know inhumane practices will not be tolerated is with their dollars. If a consumer cannot give up their veal, a shift towards buying locally instead of supporting huge farming corporations is a good start.
Works Cited
"Industry Information, Frequently Asked Questions", The Veal Farm,
2004 Cattlemen's Beef Board, www.vealfarm.com
"Say No to Veal", A Farm Sanctuary Campaign, www.noveal.org
"Statement on American Veal Association's Veal Crate Announcement", The Human Society of the United States, August 6, 2007,
www.hsus.com/press_and_publications/press_releases
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Farm Subsidies
Farm subsidies are necessary, but they desperately need to be reformed. What worked after the Great Depression of the 1930s has turned into a money-sucking, unmanageable monster that gobbles billions of tax dollars every year.
A revised farm bill is created by the House of Representatives and presented for Congressional vote every five years. Congress has made steps in the right direction in the matter of farm bill reform with their newest version, which was passed with veto-proof margins of 318-106 in the House and 81-15 in the Senate (nytimes.com). This historic vote occurred in May 2008 and is an excellent example of the bipartisan support that farm bills have historically garnered. President Bush promptly vetoed the bill when it was received at the White House, and the House of Representatives and Senate just as promptly voted to override Bush’s veto when the bill returned to Congress. The United States of America is now the proud parent of “The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008”. Farm bills have come a long way since their conception in the 30s.
Although this legislation “is universally known as the farm bill, it actually directs far more money to feeding the poor than it does to helping farmers – about $209 billion for nutrition programs ….. compared with $35 billion for agricultural commodity programs” (nytimes.com). Important improvements contained in this bill that supporters enthusiastically point to are increased food stamp benefits, child care costs deductions, big increases for food banks and other organizations that support communities in times of food emergencies, increased funding for foreign food aid, creation of a healthy-snack program for schools, increased spending on land conservation and rural development, and even a provision that benefits endangered species.
Critics decry the “direct payment” program left intact from the previous bill that pays qualified land owners based on acreage, regardless if the land is farmed. They point fingers at a tax break for racehorse owners that was inserted by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Also, subsidy payments to wealthy farmers or owners of farmland have not been slashed enough, according to opponents of the bill.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi does concede that “while more change is needed, the bill made important improvements to farm policy” (nytimes.com). Of particular interest is “ACRE”, the new Average Crop Revenue Election program. This program is more market oriented, pays farmers only when they face a real loss in revenue, requires farmers to be responsible for the first portion of revenue loss, cuts the Marketing Loan Program rates by 30% (addressing a concern that has triggered WTO trade disputes), and cuts “direct payments” by 20% (farmland.org). These improvements are concrete steps in the reformation of the farm bill and should be applauded because:
Making the farm bill more market oriented is important because it helps the farming industry become more in tune with domestic and/or international consumers’ desires. Consumers will send a message to agricultural producers with their dollars as to what products are the most important to them. As a result, farmers will plant crops based on actual forecasts instead of planting for the greatest benefit from a subsidy. This could result in a greater variety and higher quality of crops planted. At the very least, it will create agricultural production more in tune with the economy.
Requiring farmers to substantiate a financial loss before receiving government commodity payments will result in savings to the government and restores the true meaning of a “safety net” for producers.
Requiring producers to be responsible for the first 10% of any revenue loss will result in increased governmental savings. It will also create more of a ”partnership” between government and producers, replacing the welfare-like status of previous bills.
Reducing the Marketing Loan Program rates will go a long way in improving international relations. As a result of this benefit being reduced for America’s producers, other countries will have a more level playing field in the area of agricultural exporting.
Reducing direct payments creates revenue to pay for the new programs included in the 2008 farm bill.
It is of particular importance that the United States acts with moral and ethical responsibility regarding farm subsidies. The more US production of agriculture is subsidized, the deeper in poverty poorer countries become mired. And like it or not, their well-being is tied to ours. It is a proven economic fact that suppressing imports ultimately suppresses exports for any country (Economics Today). Exorbitant subsidies create a very difficult environment for foreign producers by creating a glut that lowers world prices for commodities, thereby creating a very difficult environment for foreign producers to compete and ultimately reducing imports.
The plight of West African cotton farmers is a good example of the damaging effects of US commodity subsidies. The majority of the farming families live on less than $1 a day. Any reduction in the world market cotton prices “directly [affects] the prices that farmers in poor countries receive for their crops” (Oxfam). They have no “cushion” to absorb the blow of reduced prices, and millions of families can be reduced to starvation by a slight reduction of income. On the flip side, any increase of world market prices, even the most modest gains, eventually translates into an improved standard of living for these families.
In conclusion, well thought-out farm subsidies are important as a safety net for US producers, but need continuing reformation to reverse long-standing negative effects on the international economy and the US deficit.
Works Cited
American Farmland Trust: News – Press Releases, “Setting the Record Straight on ACRE: A Statement of American Farmland Trust and the National Corn Growers Association”, Jimmy Daukas and Jennifer Morrill, May 20, 2008, www.farmland.org
Economics Today – the Macro View, Roger LeRoy Miller, 14th Edition, pg 842
New York Times, “House Passes Farm Bill Veto by a Veto-Proof Margin”, David M. Herszenhorn, May 15, 2008, www.nytimes.com
New York Times, “Reaching Well Beyond the Farm”, David M. Herszenhorn, May 20, 2008, www.nytimes.com
Oxfam America, “Paying the Price”, key findings from Julian M Alston, Daniel A Sumner and Henrich Brunke, 2007, www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications
A revised farm bill is created by the House of Representatives and presented for Congressional vote every five years. Congress has made steps in the right direction in the matter of farm bill reform with their newest version, which was passed with veto-proof margins of 318-106 in the House and 81-15 in the Senate (nytimes.com). This historic vote occurred in May 2008 and is an excellent example of the bipartisan support that farm bills have historically garnered. President Bush promptly vetoed the bill when it was received at the White House, and the House of Representatives and Senate just as promptly voted to override Bush’s veto when the bill returned to Congress. The United States of America is now the proud parent of “The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008”. Farm bills have come a long way since their conception in the 30s.
Although this legislation “is universally known as the farm bill, it actually directs far more money to feeding the poor than it does to helping farmers – about $209 billion for nutrition programs ….. compared with $35 billion for agricultural commodity programs” (nytimes.com). Important improvements contained in this bill that supporters enthusiastically point to are increased food stamp benefits, child care costs deductions, big increases for food banks and other organizations that support communities in times of food emergencies, increased funding for foreign food aid, creation of a healthy-snack program for schools, increased spending on land conservation and rural development, and even a provision that benefits endangered species.
Critics decry the “direct payment” program left intact from the previous bill that pays qualified land owners based on acreage, regardless if the land is farmed. They point fingers at a tax break for racehorse owners that was inserted by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Also, subsidy payments to wealthy farmers or owners of farmland have not been slashed enough, according to opponents of the bill.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi does concede that “while more change is needed, the bill made important improvements to farm policy” (nytimes.com). Of particular interest is “ACRE”, the new Average Crop Revenue Election program. This program is more market oriented, pays farmers only when they face a real loss in revenue, requires farmers to be responsible for the first portion of revenue loss, cuts the Marketing Loan Program rates by 30% (addressing a concern that has triggered WTO trade disputes), and cuts “direct payments” by 20% (farmland.org). These improvements are concrete steps in the reformation of the farm bill and should be applauded because:
Making the farm bill more market oriented is important because it helps the farming industry become more in tune with domestic and/or international consumers’ desires. Consumers will send a message to agricultural producers with their dollars as to what products are the most important to them. As a result, farmers will plant crops based on actual forecasts instead of planting for the greatest benefit from a subsidy. This could result in a greater variety and higher quality of crops planted. At the very least, it will create agricultural production more in tune with the economy.
Requiring farmers to substantiate a financial loss before receiving government commodity payments will result in savings to the government and restores the true meaning of a “safety net” for producers.
Requiring producers to be responsible for the first 10% of any revenue loss will result in increased governmental savings. It will also create more of a ”partnership” between government and producers, replacing the welfare-like status of previous bills.
Reducing the Marketing Loan Program rates will go a long way in improving international relations. As a result of this benefit being reduced for America’s producers, other countries will have a more level playing field in the area of agricultural exporting.
Reducing direct payments creates revenue to pay for the new programs included in the 2008 farm bill.
It is of particular importance that the United States acts with moral and ethical responsibility regarding farm subsidies. The more US production of agriculture is subsidized, the deeper in poverty poorer countries become mired. And like it or not, their well-being is tied to ours. It is a proven economic fact that suppressing imports ultimately suppresses exports for any country (Economics Today). Exorbitant subsidies create a very difficult environment for foreign producers by creating a glut that lowers world prices for commodities, thereby creating a very difficult environment for foreign producers to compete and ultimately reducing imports.
The plight of West African cotton farmers is a good example of the damaging effects of US commodity subsidies. The majority of the farming families live on less than $1 a day. Any reduction in the world market cotton prices “directly [affects] the prices that farmers in poor countries receive for their crops” (Oxfam). They have no “cushion” to absorb the blow of reduced prices, and millions of families can be reduced to starvation by a slight reduction of income. On the flip side, any increase of world market prices, even the most modest gains, eventually translates into an improved standard of living for these families.
In conclusion, well thought-out farm subsidies are important as a safety net for US producers, but need continuing reformation to reverse long-standing negative effects on the international economy and the US deficit.
Works Cited
American Farmland Trust: News – Press Releases, “Setting the Record Straight on ACRE: A Statement of American Farmland Trust and the National Corn Growers Association”, Jimmy Daukas and Jennifer Morrill, May 20, 2008, www.farmland.org
Economics Today – the Macro View, Roger LeRoy Miller, 14th Edition, pg 842
New York Times, “House Passes Farm Bill Veto by a Veto-Proof Margin”, David M. Herszenhorn, May 15, 2008, www.nytimes.com
New York Times, “Reaching Well Beyond the Farm”, David M. Herszenhorn, May 20, 2008, www.nytimes.com
Oxfam America, “Paying the Price”, key findings from Julian M Alston, Daniel A Sumner and Henrich Brunke, 2007, www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The Diversity of Food
There are many alternatives to the top three main crops that provide half of the calories people consume. Wheat, rice, and corn can move over and make room for millet, amaranth, montina, tapioca (manioc), yucca, sorghum, quinoa, buckwheat, arrowroot, and teff. Quinoa is the powerhouse of the group, with an almost-perfectly balanced amino acid composition for humans. It has a high content of calcium, phosphorus, and iron and is low in sodium. Significant vitamins include B6, niacin, riboflavin, and thiamin. Other minerals include copper, magnesium, manganese, potassium, and zinc. Wheat is the only cereal grain that comes close to matching quinoa's protein content. Like soybeans, quinoa is high in lysine, an amino acid often lacking in vegetable products. On a side note, despite its name, buckwheat isn’t a wheat or grain — it’s a fruit from the same plant family that includes rhubarb and sorrel. Millet, montina, tapioca, yucca, sorghum, quinoa, buckwheat, arrowroot, and teff have the distinction of being perennials. Perennials are hardy plants, requiring little more than watering and a new layer of compost yearly. Perennials are good for the soil. Generally speaking, less tillage means less upset of the soil food web that recycles and mobilizes soil nutrients. Because perennial roots and plant crowns remain in place even throughout the winter, they help protect the soil from wind and water erosion. The relatively permanent roots also provide a nearly continuous supply of carbon-rich nutrition to the soil food web in the form of compounds that their roots secrete.
Depending on three main crops to supply half of all the calories consumed is a train wreck waiting to happen. The loss of crop diversity translates into increased susceptibility to devastation brought on by pests and blight. This is because crops that share a common genetic heritage are susceptible to the same types of pests and fungi. With increased plant diversity, and its resulting varied genetic heritage, the pests and fungi that might wipe out one strain of crop will leave another virtually unscathed. Also, crops with a varied genetic heritage provide different amounts and sometimes varying vitamins and minerals. This results in better all around nutrition for the world's population. Farmers can choose which plant strain grows best on what land, reducing the need to fertilize so heavily, and thereby reducing toxic fertilizer runoff into the watershed.
Corporate agribusiness is behind the push to decrease diversity. By selecting crop strains that can withstand being transported, they make a bigger profit because they can ship to locations further and further away with little loss of product. Flavor and nutrition are distant concerns compared to transportability.
Also, in their short-sighted, profit-oriented vision, they can streamline business operations and boost profit by growing the same genetic strain of crop year after year. All that is required is to fertilize more and more heavily each year as the soil becomes more and more depleted. The downside to this is that the danger of the world's food supply being wiped out is increasing as more crops are derived from the same strain, and therefore susceptible to the same pests and blight.
As far as the argument that being able to transport crops further and further away to be sold creates increased choice for the consumer, consider this: what kind of choices are being made available when a shopper in England has the same choice of three or four varieties of apples as the shopper in America?Stephen Fayon, who directs an international seed bank in Auroville, India, makes several important and poignant points regarding the importance of plant diversity in the following clip........
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Worst Mistake
The decision to increase food production over limiting population did have many negative connotations for the physical well-being of humans. When considering human nature, it also seems inevitable.
The shift to farming was inevitable because humans as a whole covet power and possessions. With farming, land ownership came to a chosen few, and with land ownership came wealth and power. Large families provided a greater source of personal economic power – the more bodies in a family, the more work that can be done. It is also in human nature to want to see the “family tree” continued into the future, and farming gave early families a better chance to fulfill that desire.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
5/19-Inequities food dist/avail; assoc issues
Politics interfere with food distribution - the situation is Myanmar is an excellent example. Even when a government does allow food to be brought in from outside agencies, there is good cause to wonder how much of the product reaches those who need it the most. Many times, there have been reports of the military stealing food meant for those who are suffering, and selling it on the black market.
Children born into poverty stricken environments are the hardest hit among starving populations. Through no fault of their own, they are born into lives of hardship and oftentimes misery.
On the other side of the equation are those citizens of wealthy countries whose health woes are self-inflicted. Because of a lack of personal responsibility for one's health, certain types of illness and disease are prevalent in countries where processed food is abundant. These health woes are not found in countries where a more natural diet is the norm.
Education provides an excellent service to all citizens of all countries. In the poorer nations, charitable groups teaching the value of soil enrichment, irrigation, livestock care, and use of solar ovens are helping citizens overcome malnutrition. These groups supply seed stock, tools and animals that serve as the foundation of building herds and flocks, and providing a seed supply for the following year. In the richer nations, where there are still a portion of citizens who are malnourished, education provides links to social services and information on nutritious food choices.
Children born into poverty stricken environments are the hardest hit among starving populations. Through no fault of their own, they are born into lives of hardship and oftentimes misery.
On the other side of the equation are those citizens of wealthy countries whose health woes are self-inflicted. Because of a lack of personal responsibility for one's health, certain types of illness and disease are prevalent in countries where processed food is abundant. These health woes are not found in countries where a more natural diet is the norm.
Education provides an excellent service to all citizens of all countries. In the poorer nations, charitable groups teaching the value of soil enrichment, irrigation, livestock care, and use of solar ovens are helping citizens overcome malnutrition. These groups supply seed stock, tools and animals that serve as the foundation of building herds and flocks, and providing a seed supply for the following year. In the richer nations, where there are still a portion of citizens who are malnourished, education provides links to social services and information on nutritious food choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
