Browsing Posts tagged department

Downsize Government

Memo ~~ USDA knows 18% of the beef consumed in the USA was imported
in 2011 because the nation does not produce enough product to feed
it’s people, yet more costly rulemaking is assessed upon producers
by bureaucrats. This document is vague and impossible to determine
the teeth, however, be assured, the devil is in the details. Once
Hammerschmidt gets this approved and mandatory he will personally
add the teath. There will be no more listening sessions or public
comments — the federales will have their way, regardless of the
majoritie’s oppositon.

Yesterday, USDA submitted it Animal Disease Traceability Rule to the
White House Office of Management and Budget for final review. See
Below.
This is one obstinate agency.

 

AGENCY: USDA-APHIS RIN: 0579-AD24TITLE: Animal Disease Traceability
Neil HammerschmidtSTAGE: Final Rule ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT: No
** RECEIVED DATE: 04/25/2012 LEGAL DEADLINE: None
RIN Data
USDA/APHIS RIN: 0579-AD24 Publication ID: Fall 2011
Title: Animal Disease Traceability

Abstract: This rulemaking would establish a new part
in the Code of Federal Regulations containing minimum
national identification and documentation requirements
for livestock moving interstate. The proposed regulations
specify approved forms of official identification for each
species covered under this rulemaking but would allow such
livestock to be moved interstate with another form of
identification, as agreed upon by animal health officials
in the shipping and receiving States or tribes. The purpose
of the new regulations is to improve our ability to
trace livestock in the event that disease is found.

Agency: Department of Agriculture(USDA)
Priority: Other Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage
of Rulemaking: Final Rule Stage
Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 9 CFR 90
Legal Authority: 7 USC 8305
Legal Deadline: None

Statement of Need: Preventing and controlling animal disease is the
cornerstone of protecting American animal agriculture. While ranchers
and farmers work hard to protect their animals and their livelihoods,
there is never a guarantee that their animals will be spared from
disease. To support their efforts, USDA has enacted regulations to
prevent, control, and eradicate disease, and to increase foreign and
domestic confidence in the safety of animals and animal products.
Traceability helps give that reassurance. Traceability does not prevent
disease, but knowing where diseased and at-risk animals are, where they
have been, and when, is indispensable in emergency response and in
ongoing disease programs. The primary objective of these proposed
regulations is to improve our ability to trace livestock in the event
that disease is found in a manner that continues to ensure the smooth
flow of livestock in interstate commerce.

Summary of the Legal Basis: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7
U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or
restrict the interstate movement of any animal to prevent the
introduction or dissemination of any pest or disease of livestock, and
may carry out operations and measures to detect, control, or eradicate
any pest or disease of livestock. The Secretary may promulgate such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the Act.

Alternatives: As part of its ongoing efforts to safeguard animal
health, APHIS initiated implementation of the National Animal
Identification System (NAIS) in 2004. More recently, the Agency launched
an effort to assess the level of acceptance of NAIS through meetings
with the Secretary, listening sessions in 14 cities, and public
comments. Although there was some support for NAIS, the vast majority of
participants were highly critical of the program and of USDA's
implementation efforts. The feedback revealed that NAIS has become a
barrier to achieving meaningful animal disease traceability in the
United States in partnership with America's producers. The option we are
proposing pertains strictly to interstate movement and gives States and
tribes the flexibility to identify and implement the traceability
approaches that work best for them.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: A workable and effective animal
traceability system would enhance animal health programs, leading to
more secure market access and other societal gains. Traceability can
reduce the cost of disease outbreaks, minimizing losses to producers and
industries by enabling current and previous locations of potentially
exposed animals to be readily identified. Trade benefits can include
increased competitiveness in global markets generally, and when
outbreaks do occur, the mitigation of export market losses through
regionalization. Markets benefit through more efficient and timely
epidemiological investigation of animal health issues. Other societal
benefits include improved animal welfare during natural disasters. The
main economic effect of the rule is expected to be on the beef and
cattle industry. For other species such as horses and other equine
species, poultry, sheep and goats, swine, and captive cervids, APHIS
would largely maintain and build on the identification requirements of
existing disease program regulations. Costs of an animal traceability
system would include those for tags and interstate certificates of
veterinary inspection (ICVIs) or other movement documentation, for
animals moved interstate. Incremental costs incurred are expected to
vary depending upon a number of factors, including whether an enterprise
does or does not already use eartags to identify individual cattle. For
many operators, costs of official animal identification and ICVIs would
be similar, respectively, to costs associated with current animal
identification practices and the in-shipment documentation currently
required by individual States. To the extent that official animal
identification and ICVIs would simply replace current requirements, the
incremental costs of the rule for private enterprises would be minimal.

Risks: This rulemaking is being undertaken to address the animal health
risks posed by gaps in the existing regulations concerning
identification of livestock being moved interstate. The current lack of
a comprehensive animal traceability program is impairing our ability to
trace animals that may be infected with disease.

Timetable:
Action Date FR Cite
NPRM 08/11/2011 76 FR 50082
NPRM Comment Period End 11/09/2011
Final Rule 08/00/2012

Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels

Affected: State, Tribal
Small Entities Affected: Businesses Federalism: No
Included in the Regulatory Plan: Yes
RIN Data Printed in the FR: No

Agency Contact: Neil Hammerschmidt
Program Manager, Animal Disease Traceability, VS

Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 46,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
Phone:301 734-5571
______________________________________________________________________

 

R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America

“Fighting for the U.S. Cattle Producer”

For Immediate Release                                                                                                                                                                                      Contact: R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard

December 14, 2011                                                                                                                                                                                             Phone: 406-252-2516; r-calfusa@r-calfusa.com

R-CALF USA’s Opposition to USDA’s Proposed Mandatory Animal Identification Rule:  Part I of VIII-Part Series

Billings, Mont. – As promised, R-CALF USA today launches an 8-day series of news releases to explain in detail many of the reasons our members vehemently oppose the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS’) proposed mandatory animal identification rule titled, Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate (proposed rule).

With this effort, R-CALF USA hopes to bring to light many of the dangerous aspects associated with the proposed rule that R-CALF USA described in its voluminous comments submitted to APHIS on Dec. 9, 2011. Click here to view the entire 41-page comment submitted by R-CALF USA, which includes all of the group’s citations to specific references that are removed from this news release to save space.

Part I:  By Shirking its Responsibility Under the U.S. Animal Health Protection Act to Prevent the Introduction and Spread of Foreign Animal Diseases, APHIS Is now a Leading Cause, if not the Leading Cause, of Livestock Disease Problems Experienced in the United States

  1. APHIS’ Failure and Refusal to Properly Prevent the Introduction and Spread of Foreign Animal Diseases Belies APHIS’ Claim that the Proposed Rule Is Needed to Support Efforts by U.S. Cattle Producers to Protect their Herds from Disease

APHIS’ ongoing policy of willfully and knowingly allowing the perpetual and extensive introduction and reintroduction and subsequent spread of the very diseases APHIS identifies as justification for the proposed rule, e.g., bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), bovine tuberculosis (TB), and bovine brucellosis (brucellosis), is indefensible, unconscionable, and constitutes outright defiance of the agency’s statutory obligation to protect U.S. livestock from the introduction and spread of foreign animal disease.

Further, APHIS’ ongoing policy of willfully and knowingly exposing U.S. livestock to an increased risk of foreign animal disease introduction, e.g., the risk of introduction of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), is equally indefensible, unconscionable, and likewise constitutes outright defiance of the agency’s statutory obligation to protect U.S. livestock from the introduction and spread of foreign animal disease.

Specific examples of APHIS’ failure and refusal to prevent the introduction and spread of foreign animal diseases, along with examples of its actions to expose U.S. livestock to a heightened risk for disease, are enumerated below.  The following list clearly demonstrates that APHIS is a leading cause, if not the leading cause, of livestock disease problems experienced in the United States. Because APHIS is a leading cause, if not the leading cause, for ongoing animal disease outbreaks in the United States, its claimed intent within the proposed rule to protect the safety of U.S. livestock is both baseless and absurd.

Despite having conducted a 2006 quantitative risk evaluation for BSE that predicts the U.S. would import 19 to 105 BSE-infected Canadian cattle, resulting in 2 to 75 infections of U.S.-born cattle over the next 20 years pursuant to USDA’s over-30-month rule (OTM Rule) (EXHIBIT 1, p. 53347); and, despite a July 2008 court-ordered injunction directing APHIS to reopen the OTM Rule and “revise any provision of the OTM Rule it deems necessary (EXHIBIT 2, p. 21); and, despite the detection of 12 BSE infected Canadian cattle that meet the OTM Rule’s age requirement for importation into the United States (including the February 2011 case of BSE detected in a Canadian cow), APHIS continues to ignore the fully expected, continual reintroduction of Canadian BSE into the United States.

Despite having full and complete knowledge of a 2006 report by USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) that states 75 percent of bovine TB cases detected in U.S. slaughtering plants originated in Mexico (EXHIBIT 3, pp. 19, 20); and, despite the OIG’s other findings that, “These infected animals were identified in 12 different States” and “animals of Mexican origin spent up to 14 months at U.S. farms before going to slaughter, with each case potentially spreading the disease” (EXHIBIT 3, pp. iii); and, despite APHIS’ own report that states, “From 2001 through February 2009, 236 out of 329 slaughter cases were traced to Mexico,” which means nearly 72 percent of all TB cases detected at slaughter were caused by APHIS’ inadequate import restrictions for Mexican cattle imports (EXHIBIT 4, p. 62); and, despite APHIS’ own finding that states, “Each year 1-2 infected animals per 100,000 animals imported from Mexico are identified [as bovine TB-infected] through slaughter detection or epidemiologic investigations (EXHIBIT 4, p. 1);” and, despite repeated requests by R-CALF USA for immediate action to address this willful introduction of bovine TB into the U.S. cattle herd, APHIS continues to cause the annual introduction and spread of bovine TB by failing to implement adequate import restrictions for Mexican cattle.

Despite having full and complete knowledge that Canadian cattle imports introduce bovine TB into the U.S. as evidence by three bovine TB-infected cattle imported into the U.S. from Canada in 2008, with a total of five TB-infected Canadian cattle detected in the U.S. during the past seven years (EXHIBIT 4, pp. 61, 62), and, despite R-CALF USA’s request that APHIS address this known disease source, APHIS continues to cause the introduction of bovine TB from Canadian cattle by failing and refusing to adequately strengthen U.S. import restrictions for Canadian cattle.

Despite having full and complete knowledge that the 11 factors used by the agency to determine the potential risk for foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks in both entire countries and regions within a country are wholly incapable of predicting actual FMD risks (as was definitively proven following APHIS’ FMD risk evaluations for Uruguay, Argentina, the Republic of South Africa, and South Korea.), APHIS nevertheless persists in its efforts to apply the same, failed 11 factors to facilitate imports into the United States of beef and cattle from FMD-affected countries, notably from the Patagonia South Region of Argentina and Santa Catarina, Brazil.

Despite having full and complete knowledge that the relocation of the Plum Island, N.Y., research facility to Manhattan, Kansas, will increase the risk of FMD exposure for U.S. livestock, APHIS, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), proposes to transfer live FMD viruses and research on live FMD viruses to the U.S. mainland.  APHIS and DHS propose this relocation despite full knowledge that: 1) there is no support for the contention that FMD research can be done as safely at Manhattan, Kansas, as at Plum Island, N.Y. (EXHIBIT 5, p. 46); 2) Plum Island is the only location determined to be of low risk with respect to the likelihood of FMD infection (EXHIBIT 5, p. 42); 3) “Plum Island’s lack of animals placed it at an advantage with respect to the likelihood that FMD virus would become established after being released and spread from the site (EXHIBIT 5, p. 42);” 4) Manhattan, Kansas, is in an area “where the virus would have ample opportunity to spread rapidly after release because of the presence of susceptible livestock and wildlife (EXHIBIT 5, p. 42); and, 5) “for all sites except Plum Island, the wind could potentially transport viral pathogens significant distances and that this pathway is not limited for them, as it is on Plum Island” (EXHIBIT 5, p. 42).

The foregoing discussion reveals and documents that APHIS is a leading cause, if not the leading cause, for the continual introductions and spread of foreign animal diseases by failing and refusing to comply with its statutory responsibility to prevent the introduction and spread of foreign animal diseases. The diseases APHIS is causing to be introduced and spread in the United States include the very diseases claimed as justification for its proposed rule. APHIS’ proposed rule would burden each and every U.S. cattle producer that moves cattle interstate by mandating the individual identification of their cattle. APHIS could not be more disingenuous in its claim that the proposed rule is intended to support U.S. cattle producers in their effort to protect their cattle herds from disease when APHIS itself is actively facilitating the introduction of dangerous foreign animal diseases

APHIS’ actions are akin to the hideous and unlawful scheme of organized crime to rob business owners of their money and then offer to mitigate the affect of their robberies in exchange for regular payments from the business owners, while making no commitment to prevent others from continually robbing their businesses. Like those victimized business owners, U.S. cattle producers have no moral or ethical obligation to pay the cost of mitigating diseases in the United States that are directly caused by APHIS’ recalcitrance, and they should have no legal obligation either.

If APHIS proceeds in any way other than to immediately withdraw it proposed rule, it must thoroughly and comprehensively explain to U.S. livestock producers why it is planning to burden them with the cost of a mandatory animal identification system to control diseases that APHIS is willfully and knowingly allowing into the United States each year in direct defiance of its statutory responsibility under the AHPA.

R-CALF USA encourages readers to share this information with their neighbors, state animal health officials, and their members of Congress.

# # #

R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) is a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.

Seattle PI

Western Rangers fight push to give up brands

Craig and Mary K. Vejraska pose at their cattle ranch June 17, 2011, in Omak, Wash. They support the use of cattle brands in a new animal identification program. Photo: Shannon Dininny / AP

Craig and Mary K. Vejraska pose at their cattle ranch June 17, 2011, in Omak, Wash. They support the use of cattle brands in a new animal identification program. Photo: Shannon Dininny / AP

OMAK, Wash. (AP) — Ranchers have long used brands to keep track of their cattle and deter rustlers, but many now fear branding will become just another relic of the Old West as federal regulators look for new ways to track meat from hoof to plate.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been trying for years to develop a program that would allow regulators to pinpoint animals’ location with 48 hours of a disease possibility. The political pressure has become greater as other nations demand the U.S. adapt a costly electronic system to trace exported meat back to the farm. Other countries are attempting to enforce a government numbering system, such as Canada and Australia, hoping for a competitive advantage which is not yet proven.

After seeing little success with a voluntary tracking program, the USDA has said it will require farmers and ranchers to be able to trace all livestock and meat shipped or sold across state lines. The USDA’s final proposal is due out this summer, and while it’s leaving it up to states and tribes to decide what kind of tracking to implement, it’s pushing for high-cost ear tags.

Whether states also want to recognize brands is up to them, said Abby Yigzaw, spokeswoman for the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

That’s not enough for some cattle ranchers, who are angered by what they see as big-footing by the federal government. Ranchers note that brands are permanent, while ear tags can fall out. But more than anything, support for brands is about holding on to a piece of the past that is proven to work economically.

“It’s just one of the things that keeps the honest people honest,” said Craig Vejraska, whose cattle sport the letter V, surrounded by a circle, on their left flank as they roam across 300,000 acres of tribal and national forest in Washington state. “It’s a tradition.”

Bill Bullard of R-Calf USA, an advocacy group for ranchers, said brands provide a permanent means of identification that has proven instrumental in helping track cases of brucellosis and eradicate it from the domestic herd.

“We find this decision outrageous that the USDA would level a direct attack on what is an iconic symbol of our industry and what has been a tried, proven and effective means of conducting disease trace backs,” Bullard said.

One reason federal officials haven’t embraced brands is that they aren’t used nationwide, said Bill Donald, a Melville, Mont., rancher and current president of the National Cattlemen‘s Beef Association, which represents both ranchers and meatpackers. Fewer than 20 states enforce brand laws to keep tabs on cattle, and nearly all are in the West or Midwest. However, the Department of Agriculture does record a registered brand in every state and charges a fee.

Brands are used in the East, even though ranches are smaller and herds don’t graze on public lands. They still help prevent theft.

Brands haven’t been needed in the East, where farms are smaller and herds don’t graze on public lands.

“Being from a brand state in Montana, I have learned firsthand that our animal trace back should include brand laws,” Donald said. “But they should all be used to complement a national system of identification.”

In Texas, the nation’s No. 1 beef producer, brands are registered at the county level, which means there could be duplicates within the state. For that reason, members of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association understand the USDA’s position, said Eldon White, the group’s executive vice president. But, they also don’t want brands eliminated.

Cattle rancher Craig Vejraska shows off one of his brands at his ranch in Omak, Wash. on June 17, 2011. Vejraska supports the use of cattle brands in a new animal identification program. Photo: Shannon Dininny / AP

Cattle rancher Craig Vejraska shows off one of his brands at his
ranch in Omak, Wash. on June 17, 2011. Vejraska supports the use of
cattle brands in a new animal identification program.
Photo: Shannon Dininny
/ AP

“Brands are a very important method of owner identification in Texas and will continue to be so,” White said. “We would be very concerned and would fight against a movement to eliminate the use of brands altogether.”

But the prospect of pairing brands with some other means of identification hasn’t mollified Western ranchers like Vejraska.

As his pickup bounced along a rutted, dirt road in the Okanogan National Forest, Vejraska pointed out cattle that bear his brand grazing in a meadow. Ear tags that dangle can easily get lost when animals graze in brush, next to fence lines or in harsh weather out on the range, he said.

“Our brand is 50 years old. It’s an essential identifier up here when you’re on the range,” he said. “I see my circle-V, and I know it’s mine.”

Go

Go

SAN ANGELO, Texas — Since a new framework for animal disease traceability was introduced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture last year, cattle raisers have been up in arms for fear that the centuries-old hot-iron branding methods may be on the way out.

Instead, the USDA wants every cow to have a unique numerical ID, stamped on an inexpensive ear tag, to make it easier to track animals from the ranch to feedlots and the slaughterhouse.

Even as the USDA says it never set out to undermine the traditional brand, cattlemen feel that when the government steps in it will make things more complex. They also fear the withdrawal of federal support for branding might embolden animal-rights activists who call the practice barbaric.

The new rules set to replace the National Animal Identification System were strongly opposed by numerous livestock industries and associations, including Fort Worth-based Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association.

Although Western movies showing cowboys branding cattle with a hot iron have created the image that the practice started in the Old West, documented history gives verification the practice goes back thousands of years to the days of the ancient Greeks, Arabians, Romans and Egyptians.

Branding was actually introduced to the New World in 1541 by Spanish explorer Hernando Cortez. Branding of cattle became common in the United States after the Civil War. It was said that brands of every shape and design were on Longhorns coming out of Texas during the great trail drives of the 1800s.

Brands are registered in Texas by the county clerk of the county in which a rancher runs livestock. The brand must be registered by the county clerk for the brand to be considered a legal means of ownership. Texas brands have to be re-registered every 10 years.

When I worked for The Cattleman magazine in Fort Worth during the mid-1960s, a favorite assignment was visiting the brand department to research histories of cattle brands. The brands allow TSCRA special rangers quick identification of stolen cattle.

The cattle raisers association has 29 special rangers stationed strategically throughout Texas and Oklahoma who have in-depth knowledge of the cattle industry and are trained in facets of law enforcement. All are commissioned as special rangers by the Texas Department of Public Safety and Oklahoma’s law enforcement agency.

TSCRA market inspectors aid the special rangers by collecting brands and other identifying marks on 4 million to 5 million cattle sold at 115 livestock markets each year. The market inspectors report their findings to TSCRA’s Fort Worth headquarters, where the information is entered in a database retrieval system. It is that database a special ranger checks when receiving a theft call.

“Branding’s the simplest, most efficient way to do it. Why change?” Wil Bledsoe, a Hugo, Colo., rancher, recently told the Wall Street Journal.

“It is a great deal easier in court when stolen animals are fire branded. Prosecutors prefer to try cases where the animals have been branded,” said Scott Williamson of Seymour, a TSCRA special ranger.

Modern cattle rustlers would delight in the current highly promoted electronic ID. Any cattle rustler could easily remove, replace, change and/or cut off ear tags and electronic pins.

The goal of the new USDA framework should be to enable the cattle industry, state and federal animal health officials to respond rapidly and effectively to animal health emergencies, say TSCRA officials.

Cattle raisers remain engaged with state and federal animal health officials to ensure that any animal disease traceability program is solely for the purpose of responding rapidly and effectively to animal health emergencies and does not affect ranchers’ ability to market cattle, officials said.

Jerry Lackey writes about agriculture. Contact him at jlackey@wcc.net or 325-949-2291.

WHY FARM PUBLICATIONS AND FARM BROADCASTERS WON’T TELL THE TRUTH
By Derry Brownfield
November 2, 2010

NewsWithViews.com

As Ben Roberts so eloquently stated in his book, Past, Present, and How We Can Survive For The Future in the Beef Cattle Business, “Five generations of cattlemen have lived through repeated successions of boom and bust. The ups and downs were serious problems in the past. Today, they cause even greater hardships, and cattlemen are squarely against the need to smooth out the problems we have in the beef cattle industry.” As far back as the 1860’s, four families, Swift, Armour, Hammond and Morris, launched the meat packing business and soon found that by working together they could control the meat market to their mutual advantage. The meat packing industry and the way packers secure their livestock has changed very little in almost 150 years. Today only four companies control the beef business: Tyson – Cargill – JBS Swift – National Beef. Today’s system of marketing slaughter-ready cattle is rigged and the cattle producers are abused.

In 1921 Congress realized that livestock farmers didn’t have a FAIR marketplace and passed the Packers & Stockyards Act. This 89 year old law has never been fully enforced. Recently the United States Department of Agriculture, along with the Department of Justice, decided to level the playing field between the meat industry and the livestock and poultry producers, to allow farmers and ranchers to receive a fair price for their production.

On August 27th, the USDA and the DOJ held a workshop type meeting in Ft. Collins, Colorado where the public could be heard. Approximately 2000 farmers, ranchers and consumers packed the meeting place. During the all day session many voices were heard and the meat industry was there in full force to discourage the USDA and the DOJ from doing their job. The agricultural (farm) news media, just like ABC – NBC – CNN and the other secular news companies, is controlled by their advertisers. The big spenders – the multinational corporations – control what goes out over the air, what is printed and who receives the information.

R-CALF President, Dr. Max Thornsberry, pointed out how the farm publications tried to “down play” the Ft. Collins meeting and discourage farmers and ranchers from attending. Dr. Thornsberry quoted: Beef Magazine, “The meeting in Ft. Collins will inevitably be looked back on as a colossal waste of time and energy; it will do nothing to affect real opportunities like building beef demand. The meeting will be a sideshow, but the rules and their effects are anything but.”

Beef Today reported, “They seem to be shooting into the wind. I bet there’s some of that very kind of shooting at Ft. Collins next week.” Drover’s Journal stated, “The parade of cowboys from both sides to Ft. Collins is wasted effort and wasted resources.” Dr. Max stated, “These editorials attempted to discourage attendance or draw attention away from the joint hearing on competition in animal agriculture, before the meeting even took place.”

For over 40 years I was a member of the National Association of Farm Broadcasters and the multinational corporations were many of my accounts. Up until the last decade I considered most of those farm supply companies to be honest, reputable and fair minded businesses. I’m sure there are still a few honest corporations out there who really want to help their customers, but a majority of the CEOs of those multinationals look only at the bottom line of the balance sheet.

It’s one thing that so many of these large corporations mistreat the people they rely on for their profits, but the fact that the agriculture media promotes them is pathetic. Just as the farm publications won’t “write” the truth about these companies, the farm broadcasters won’t “tell” the truth. Many of the writers and talkers don’t know any better, but the majority are afraid to speak out for fear of losing the “advertising dollars.” Since I receive no advertising dollars from Tyson, Cargill, Monsanto or any of the biggies, gaining enough income to stay on the air becomes a problem, even so, I will continue to inform my listeners as to what is taking place.

These corporations send audio messages, news releases and interviews to broadcasters and publishers who use them exactly as the public relations firms have them written. My conscience will not allow me to be a spokesperson for an organization that is destroying American farm life, which made this nation great.

Dr. Max has an excellent idea. He says: “I think to be an editor of one of these magazines it should be a requirement to have to feed two pens of fat cattle a year, and to independently market them.” This should hold true for farm broadcasters as well. I’ve been farming since I was 16 years old and in 62 years of buying, selling and being taken advantage of, I have learned a lot. It’s sad that the bulk of the farm media have become nothing more than choir members that sing the lyrics written by their advertisers.

(c) 2010 Derry Brownfield – All Rights Reserved

Derry Brownfield was born in 1932 and grew up during the depression. He is a farmer and a broadcaster. Derry attended the College of Agriculture at the University of Missouri where he received his B.S. and M.S. degrees. He taught Vocational Agriculture several years before going to work as a Marketing Specialist with the Missouri Department of Agriculture. Derry served as Director of the Kansas City Livestock Market Foundation at the Kansas City Stockyard prior to establishing himself in farm broadcasting.

Derry started farming when he was 16 years old and received the Future Farmers of America State Farmer degree in 1949. Since that time the Brownfield Farm has grown to over 1000 acres maintaining a herd of 200 registered Charolias cows.

In 1972, Derry and his partner established the Brownfield Network which now serves 250 radio stations throughout the Midwest with news and market information. In 1994, Derry started his own syndicated radio talk show and he is one of the most popular radio talk show hosts in America. The Derry Brownfield Show can be heard on approximately 80 radio stations in 23 states. With his entertaining sense of humor and witty commentary he has captured audiences for over 30 years. His ability to present an informative talk show while being light and colorful is why he has a large loyal listening audience.

Derry Brownfield is a practical farmer, a practical business man and a very entertaining speaker. He travels extensively throughout the country speaking about his common-sense point of view.

Web Site: www.derrybrownfield.com

E-Mail: derrybrownfield@learfield.com

Powered by WordPress Web Design by SRS Solutions © 2017 National Association of Farm Animal Welfare Design by SRS Solutions