Today's hot topic: preventative antibiotic use in beef production. The article below, written by an educated person, is purely ANECDOTAL. Notice, that despite having huge amounts of research to access, he only quotes recommendations. He argues that antibiotic use in animals contributes to antibiotic resistance in humans,WITHOUT citing one iota of evidence. He doesn't show trials, or half-lives of compounds (the rate at which they break down), or cite cases where direct links were shown between human antibiotic resistance related to the dietary intake of certain food stuffs. (Similar anecdotal evidence is offered in other places about organic produce being better for you than other produce. In fact, research shows that just eating 9 fruits and vegetables a day is effective, no matter how the plants were treated.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/opinion/18kennedy.html
Mind you, I'm no cattle producer, but I associate with them on a daily basis. We talk production methods, medication, free-range, organic, natural, feed additives, and calving crop percentages. We look at data on mineral intake, protein levels in forages, and water quality. We talk about work loads and moisture, market prices, golf, and, GASP, the preventive use of antibiotics AND other organic compounds that help mediate things that lurk in moist soil such as coccidiosis and salmonella (bugs that wreck the gut and can kill calves, especially if spring weather turns ugly).
I was trained in the scientific method.I expect the same of any college graduate, especially anyone who claims a wide,influential audience. I expect references to white papers, data, and peer-reviewed citations. I do not expect the kind of language that is classified otherwise as "old wives tales" by a simple statement, "that's bad for you."
In yesterday's blog, I passed along research from a peer-reviewed journal, that showed how cattle are helping the atmosphere. Contrary to popular hysteria, the paper said, in effect, "please keep them grazing, we need them to regulate other harmful gases." I'm not pro-cattle per se, but rather, pro-let's-get-it-right.
So, for those of you, like me, who like to see the evidence, I dug up a white paper that talks about the trials and tests that allow preventative levels of antibiotics work SAFELY in cattle feedstuffs.
http://beeftechnologies.com/pdfs/avery_paper.pdf
Remember, we're still fortunate to be citizens of a country that has the largest and safest food supply on the planet. We not only feed ourselves, but the world.
Perhaps advocates of an antibiotic-free world should talk to their doctor about not hyper-dosing children who have ear-infections. Take the stance of being proactive with bacteria: use plain soap, eat more probiotic foods,play in the dirt, get rid of antibacterial soaps, lotions, and cleaning products and let the body build it's own fighting machine.
Showing posts with label Hot Topics at the Round Table. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hot Topics at the Round Table. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Cows Off the Hook--For Now
As it goes in our society today, we can't make heads or tails of research. Do eat chocolate, don't drink coffee. Wait, don't eat TOO much chocolate, do have two cups of java a day. What is a soul to do?
After many years of "down with red meat, it's bad for you and the environment", here is the science to say that the four-leggeds have actually been helping us out all along. No need to tax the emissions from their rear ends. No need to tax their herdsmen. Indeed, perhaps a thank-you note is due. Better than that, share a cup of coffee and a piece of chocolate with a rancher next time you see 'em.
Don't take my word for it, however, check it out here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/full/nature08931.html
After many years of "down with red meat, it's bad for you and the environment", here is the science to say that the four-leggeds have actually been helping us out all along. No need to tax the emissions from their rear ends. No need to tax their herdsmen. Indeed, perhaps a thank-you note is due. Better than that, share a cup of coffee and a piece of chocolate with a rancher next time you see 'em.
Don't take my word for it, however, check it out here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/full/nature08931.html
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
National Monuments, Continued
National memos really put the citizens of the proposed areas, on edge.
The following was a comment from a different part of the country.
"I live within the boundaries of the proposed Siskiyou Crest NM The local
fears are both palatable and hysterical. I received this email yesterday:
'Steve Fisher tells me that there will be a community meeting at the
Community Center this Wednesday at 6:00 p. m. on this subject.
I didn’t speak at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors’ meeting because I
am far from understanding all that is involved in the creation and the
administration of national monuments. At the basic level I don’t
understand how such conduct by government can be tolerated in a democracy.
I could speak about how leaving an area alone diminishes the production
of forest products, water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat, plant and
animal diversity, aesthetics, recreation, and salmon populations, but
everyone in the room was well aware of this.
What I have recently read of recent of similar takings of public and
private resources for the environmental movement frightens me to the
extreme. In the recent past the Environmental Industry has taken over
millions of acres of the West in a manner that appears to me to be a blatant
violation of the very basic philosophy of democracy. Just the very lack of
logic in using the Antiquities Act for the environmentalists’ acquisition
of all this land is alarming, but I understand that such action has been
upheld numerous times in the federal court system.
Once the National Park Service takes control of the public lands
designated as a national monument their people start acting like criminal
street gangs. There is a concerted effort to remove all the private land in
and around the monument. This is a blatant effort, supported by your tax
money, to drive all human activity from the area. They not only rescind all
the grazing rights, but they remove all the water rights families have had
for generations. Most land management even on the private land is stopped
because it threatens the national monument.
The National Park Service has been able to rescind all contracts held by
private citizens prior to their acquisition of this land. No, I don’t
understand how this is legally possible. Should the Klamath Siskiyou
Wildland Center succeed in getting the president to sign a document creating
the Siskiyou Crest National Monument, I see all the grazing rights
terminated, all mining stopped, all land management and fire control
stopped, and very important in our area, all the co-op roads closed to use.
Can you imagine what will happen to the value of private land within the
monument once access is removed? This allows government to acquire private
land on the cheep!
From what they are saying in their email, the Klamath Siskiyou Wildland
Center feels that they are so righteous that they will tell the Department
of the Interior what to do on their national monument. They speak of
removing all the logging roads. Well, all the presently used roads were
constructed to access timber. Closing roads not only denies access by the
public, it also prevents prompt response by firefighters. This will insure
that there are no small fires. Despite what the Wildland Center says, these
fires do great harm to the environment. In the short term the amount of
surface erosion goes way up putting silt in the creek beds. This render it
impossible for salmon to spawn. Wildlife cover is greatly reduced to their
detriment. In the longer term, brush invades the site and reduces the
diversity that the environmentalists so cherish. The environmentalists say
that the conifer forest will return, but I suggest that they look at the
Haystack Fire of 1955. Water yield goes up after a fire, but water retention
is reduced significantly. All the water leaves during and shortly after the
rain storm. Water quality is obviously reduced by all the suspended silt
created by the erosion. Recreation: I don’t know of any group or
individuals that go partying in a burn.
This is all part of a world-wide program whereby urban cultures take over
rural cultures. In 1962 there were about 1,000 officially ‘protected’
areas worldwide. Today there are 108,000, with more being added daily. The
total area of land now under ‘conservation’ protection has doubled since
1990, when the World Parks Commission set a goal of 10 percent of the
planet’s surface. That goal has been exceeded as over 12 percent of all
land — a total area of 11.75 million square miles — is now under
‘conservation’ protection. That’s more than 7½ billion acres!
Contrary to what the environmentalists say, this is very detrimental to
the land and to the planet. We aren’t going to deter this program with only a resolution by our Board of Supervisors. But what we can do to thwart this deleterious
philosophy is far far beyond me.'"
Let's keep talking, folks!
The following was a comment from a different part of the country.
"I live within the boundaries of the proposed Siskiyou Crest NM The local
fears are both palatable and hysterical. I received this email yesterday:
'Steve Fisher tells me that there will be a community meeting at the
Community Center this Wednesday at 6:00 p. m. on this subject.
I didn’t speak at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors’ meeting because I
am far from understanding all that is involved in the creation and the
administration of national monuments. At the basic level I don’t
understand how such conduct by government can be tolerated in a democracy.
I could speak about how leaving an area alone diminishes the production
of forest products, water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat, plant and
animal diversity, aesthetics, recreation, and salmon populations, but
everyone in the room was well aware of this.
What I have recently read of recent of similar takings of public and
private resources for the environmental movement frightens me to the
extreme. In the recent past the Environmental Industry has taken over
millions of acres of the West in a manner that appears to me to be a blatant
violation of the very basic philosophy of democracy. Just the very lack of
logic in using the Antiquities Act for the environmentalists’ acquisition
of all this land is alarming, but I understand that such action has been
upheld numerous times in the federal court system.
Once the National Park Service takes control of the public lands
designated as a national monument their people start acting like criminal
street gangs. There is a concerted effort to remove all the private land in
and around the monument. This is a blatant effort, supported by your tax
money, to drive all human activity from the area. They not only rescind all
the grazing rights, but they remove all the water rights families have had
for generations. Most land management even on the private land is stopped
because it threatens the national monument.
The National Park Service has been able to rescind all contracts held by
private citizens prior to their acquisition of this land. No, I don’t
understand how this is legally possible. Should the Klamath Siskiyou
Wildland Center succeed in getting the president to sign a document creating
the Siskiyou Crest National Monument, I see all the grazing rights
terminated, all mining stopped, all land management and fire control
stopped, and very important in our area, all the co-op roads closed to use.
Can you imagine what will happen to the value of private land within the
monument once access is removed? This allows government to acquire private
land on the cheep!
From what they are saying in their email, the Klamath Siskiyou Wildland
Center feels that they are so righteous that they will tell the Department
of the Interior what to do on their national monument. They speak of
removing all the logging roads. Well, all the presently used roads were
constructed to access timber. Closing roads not only denies access by the
public, it also prevents prompt response by firefighters. This will insure
that there are no small fires. Despite what the Wildland Center says, these
fires do great harm to the environment. In the short term the amount of
surface erosion goes way up putting silt in the creek beds. This render it
impossible for salmon to spawn. Wildlife cover is greatly reduced to their
detriment. In the longer term, brush invades the site and reduces the
diversity that the environmentalists so cherish. The environmentalists say
that the conifer forest will return, but I suggest that they look at the
Haystack Fire of 1955. Water yield goes up after a fire, but water retention
is reduced significantly. All the water leaves during and shortly after the
rain storm. Water quality is obviously reduced by all the suspended silt
created by the erosion. Recreation: I don’t know of any group or
individuals that go partying in a burn.
This is all part of a world-wide program whereby urban cultures take over
rural cultures. In 1962 there were about 1,000 officially ‘protected’
areas worldwide. Today there are 108,000, with more being added daily. The
total area of land now under ‘conservation’ protection has doubled since
1990, when the World Parks Commission set a goal of 10 percent of the
planet’s surface. That goal has been exceeded as over 12 percent of all
land — a total area of 11.75 million square miles — is now under
‘conservation’ protection. That’s more than 7½ billion acres!
Contrary to what the environmentalists say, this is very detrimental to
the land and to the planet. We aren’t going to deter this program with only a resolution by our Board of Supervisors. But what we can do to thwart this deleterious
philosophy is far far beyond me.'"
Let's keep talking, folks!
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Whiskey is for Drinking, Water is for Fighting
They're called water meisters, water masters; judges appointed to watersheds in Montana to adjudicate water rights for all time. They have the tedious job to read through all the historical documentation, interpret photographs, and interview land users; quiz attorneys. Ten years might be too soon for ONE river to be settled, but it all may to be late, in the end, to save my county's economy and way of life.
This morning's "round table" session was all fiery with shouts of exclamation, spittle flying and fists pounding. Apparently down river land owners need greener scenery and have challenged upper river users for the water. Here's the rub: it's not farmer against farmer, it's recreation against production. Here's the precedent: first in time, first in service. Was a claim filed in Indian territory or Montana state? Did the land owner who filed in 1880 ALSO file in 1972? What indicates abandonment versus utilization?
One farmer and rancher has $100,000 set aside for his legal team, another figures he's got half a million already sunk in. You see, once water's gone, it's gone forever and with it the rivers, ponds, hay meadows, grazing pasture (and the good beef it makes), and high quality grain. If no one is making money on the land, there's no one to pay taxes for schools, hospitals, roads, emergency and protective services. No money to plow snow or rescue a lost hiker.
Additionally, there's the lost dollars that a family would have spend on equipment, building materials, fuel and parts, groceries and clothes, movies and ball games; it's the children they'd put in school (Montana pays per head), and the church and civic activities they'd volunteer for. All of this leaves us when land moves out of production. We live in a rain shadow here on the Rocky Mountain Front and depend on annual snow melt to get us beyond our 12" of precipitation.We lose irrigation rights and we'll lose the productivity of the land.
Our area also captures visitor dollars with our large game varieties, water fowl and upland game. Much of the stewardship of the wildlife has come from farmers and ranchers who winter the animals. Without stewards, will our game population be interesting enough to attract anyone?
What amount of money is too much to spend on a legal team? The way things are going, it looks as if some will go broke doing it, but they'd rather go broke in a manner of their choosing than watch their grass dry up and their cattle head down the road to market. "Dead or broke," says the rancher, "that's how I'll be when it's all said and done."
This morning's "round table" session was all fiery with shouts of exclamation, spittle flying and fists pounding. Apparently down river land owners need greener scenery and have challenged upper river users for the water. Here's the rub: it's not farmer against farmer, it's recreation against production. Here's the precedent: first in time, first in service. Was a claim filed in Indian territory or Montana state? Did the land owner who filed in 1880 ALSO file in 1972? What indicates abandonment versus utilization?
One farmer and rancher has $100,000 set aside for his legal team, another figures he's got half a million already sunk in. You see, once water's gone, it's gone forever and with it the rivers, ponds, hay meadows, grazing pasture (and the good beef it makes), and high quality grain. If no one is making money on the land, there's no one to pay taxes for schools, hospitals, roads, emergency and protective services. No money to plow snow or rescue a lost hiker.
Additionally, there's the lost dollars that a family would have spend on equipment, building materials, fuel and parts, groceries and clothes, movies and ball games; it's the children they'd put in school (Montana pays per head), and the church and civic activities they'd volunteer for. All of this leaves us when land moves out of production. We live in a rain shadow here on the Rocky Mountain Front and depend on annual snow melt to get us beyond our 12" of precipitation.We lose irrigation rights and we'll lose the productivity of the land.
Our area also captures visitor dollars with our large game varieties, water fowl and upland game. Much of the stewardship of the wildlife has come from farmers and ranchers who winter the animals. Without stewards, will our game population be interesting enough to attract anyone?
What amount of money is too much to spend on a legal team? The way things are going, it looks as if some will go broke doing it, but they'd rather go broke in a manner of their choosing than watch their grass dry up and their cattle head down the road to market. "Dead or broke," says the rancher, "that's how I'll be when it's all said and done."
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Conserve Your Own Backyard, Please
The round table discussion started off rough today. News of the President's proposal to establish new national monuments had everyone bristled up. I had to admit, this unsettled me as well.
It seems that urban folk or those who do not make a living off the land have little compassion, understanding, or desire to keep economies thriving in rural America. They seem (and mind you, I've lived in Boston and Moscow, Russia, so I know the urban life) to think that developing their opportunities are fine, but "whoa" to the the west if they try to make a living, a life, and a future of their own choosing.
After reading through the nationwide proposals, I felt that I could not remain silent on this matter. Conserving land directly affects me: my job, my neighbors and my community. It affects our tax base, our schools, health care, and viability of even being in existence as a beautiful community on the Rocky Mountain Front.
I posted the following on a proponent's blog because I feel that rural America is either too often silent or too small to be heard. It can be found on the New West blog:
"Speaking as a native Montanan, I have to express that this idea is a poor one for Montanans. Our number one tax base is agricultural lands and products.
When land is taken out of production, as it has been for programs like the Conservation Reserve Program, (CRP) it compromises our economies by eliminating the tax base that we so desperately need to run all of our public services: schools, health and family services, higher education, protective services, natural resource management and the like.
Some may argue that we take land out of production for the "future". What this has done to communities such as the one I returned to, is provide a shaky and uncertain future. For example, before CRP programs went into effect, we had 4 grocery stores, 3 implement dealers, 2 car dealerships, 7 restaurants, and 5 bars.
Today, we have 1 grocery store, 1 implement dealer, 1 car dealership, 4 restaurants, and 3 bars. Our county-wide working young have been leaving at a rate of 6% a year. We have lost a large part of our economy due to land being out of production. Railroad companies now pick up grain at better prices elsewhere. And, contrary to urban predictions that tourism or eco-tourism would make up the balance, that the rest of America would thank us for our sacrifice, it makes up a mere 2% of our tax receipts.
Others argue, it's for the long-haul, the soil bank. Well, CRP contracts come out every 10 years, so really, in less than 30 years, a generation, the program is coming to a slow close. We saved soil, but we grew abundant noxious and invasive weeds that threaten the native species ranchers worked so hard to manage. We didn't cure saline seeps (only better water management did that on PRODUCTIVE land, with PRECISION agricultural equipment and management practices.)
If you lived on this land, if you had to make your living from this land and the tax dollars it provides, you would not wish it to be locked up for future generations. Rather, you would continue to work, improving its value and place so that your grandchildren actually HAD a place to return to."
It seems that urban folk or those who do not make a living off the land have little compassion, understanding, or desire to keep economies thriving in rural America. They seem (and mind you, I've lived in Boston and Moscow, Russia, so I know the urban life) to think that developing their opportunities are fine, but "whoa" to the the west if they try to make a living, a life, and a future of their own choosing.
After reading through the nationwide proposals, I felt that I could not remain silent on this matter. Conserving land directly affects me: my job, my neighbors and my community. It affects our tax base, our schools, health care, and viability of even being in existence as a beautiful community on the Rocky Mountain Front.
I posted the following on a proponent's blog because I feel that rural America is either too often silent or too small to be heard. It can be found on the New West blog:
"Speaking as a native Montanan, I have to express that this idea is a poor one for Montanans. Our number one tax base is agricultural lands and products.
When land is taken out of production, as it has been for programs like the Conservation Reserve Program, (CRP) it compromises our economies by eliminating the tax base that we so desperately need to run all of our public services: schools, health and family services, higher education, protective services, natural resource management and the like.
Some may argue that we take land out of production for the "future". What this has done to communities such as the one I returned to, is provide a shaky and uncertain future. For example, before CRP programs went into effect, we had 4 grocery stores, 3 implement dealers, 2 car dealerships, 7 restaurants, and 5 bars.
Today, we have 1 grocery store, 1 implement dealer, 1 car dealership, 4 restaurants, and 3 bars. Our county-wide working young have been leaving at a rate of 6% a year. We have lost a large part of our economy due to land being out of production. Railroad companies now pick up grain at better prices elsewhere. And, contrary to urban predictions that tourism or eco-tourism would make up the balance, that the rest of America would thank us for our sacrifice, it makes up a mere 2% of our tax receipts.
Others argue, it's for the long-haul, the soil bank. Well, CRP contracts come out every 10 years, so really, in less than 30 years, a generation, the program is coming to a slow close. We saved soil, but we grew abundant noxious and invasive weeds that threaten the native species ranchers worked so hard to manage. We didn't cure saline seeps (only better water management did that on PRODUCTIVE land, with PRECISION agricultural equipment and management practices.)
If you lived on this land, if you had to make your living from this land and the tax dollars it provides, you would not wish it to be locked up for future generations. Rather, you would continue to work, improving its value and place so that your grandchildren actually HAD a place to return to."
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
A Lesson in Oilfield Math: The Real Cost of Cash for Clunkers
Everyone is looking for cost-saving methods these days, so imagine my dismay when someone ran the numbers on the "Cash for Clunkers" program.
The numbers may not be exact, but the idea is worth pondering:
"A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15mpg uses 800 gallons of gas per year. A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25mpg uses 480 gallons of gas per year. So, the average 'Cash for Clunkers' transaction reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. Sounds good so far, but wait, there's more.
The CFC program claims that 700,000 vehicles saved 224 million gallons of oil. This roughly equates to a little over 5 million barrels of oil.
The US consumes 5 million barrels of oil in 5 hours. This costs $350 million at $70 per barrel.
Conclusion: The government spent $3 BILLION in tax dollars (citizen's money) to save $350 MILLION. We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved."
In the business world, we call this a NET LOSS.
The numbers may not be exact, but the idea is worth pondering:
"A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15mpg uses 800 gallons of gas per year. A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25mpg uses 480 gallons of gas per year. So, the average 'Cash for Clunkers' transaction reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. Sounds good so far, but wait, there's more.
The CFC program claims that 700,000 vehicles saved 224 million gallons of oil. This roughly equates to a little over 5 million barrels of oil.
The US consumes 5 million barrels of oil in 5 hours. This costs $350 million at $70 per barrel.
Conclusion: The government spent $3 BILLION in tax dollars (citizen's money) to save $350 MILLION. We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved."
In the business world, we call this a NET LOSS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
