Browsing Posts published by admin

Governments increasingly will be considering their future food, costs, availability, safety and transport. Although articles like the one below can assess the data, seldom do projections strongly indicate solutions. Data is easy, yet future corrections — not so easy. Lets take a shot at the future.

Breeds of livestock must be introduced that utilize the native forage efficiently. Texas Longhorns are famous around the world for being browsers, eating cactus, cat-tails, toolies, tree leaves, vines and non human consumable fibers. That is a start. Raise livestock who do not compete with human foods for sustenance.

Next encourage and support local vegetable and food production. It will have to be realized that a vegetable field has more value for water use than a golf course. Grow your own vegetables, nuts and fruit, right in your own back yard.

Some ignorant quasi scientists say cattle consume large amounts of water. Water doesn’t consume. Water never goes away. All water volume on earth stays the same, it just moves around. Water is defecated, recycled through earth or air and comes back to assist mankind over and over. When someone says cattle consume water — tell them they are full of ……………………..

Some amateur projectors fear bovine flatulence will destroy the air and cause deadly climate change. Keep in mind whether it be in a cow pasture, congress, or a school prom, when flatulence happens it dissipates into the millions of cubic miles of earth atmosphere and no one will every find it again within a couple minutes.

Any food product grown in the USA, not imported, makes the nation stronger. Be in any food production business that is efficient and adapted to your area, water and soil.

The quasi’s say the earth is over populated. Some idiots even want to kill off millions of people (depopulate) the earth. Dead wrong. Only 2% of the earth is over-populated. These are just people who need to move out of the nasty cities. See — world solutions aren’t that hard?


Countries Most Dependent On Others For Food

WorldAtlas
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-countries-importing-the-most-food-in-the-world.html

Not every country’s climate is well-suited to food production. In fact, even if they are, internal conflict can affect a country’s ability to grow food. The types of livestock, plants and production is changing –prepare.

1 in 6 People in the Word Rely on Imports to Feed Them Today

Continued population and/or income increase have pushed the United States, China, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom up the list of the Countries Who Import the Most Food. According to the Standard International Trade Classification, or SITC, food are the commodities that fall under sections 0, 1 and 4 as well as division 22. Section 0 is comprised of food and live animals, section 1 of beverages and tobacco and section 4 of vegetable and animal fats and oils. Division 22, on the other hand, includes oil kernels, oil nuts and oil seeds.


The United States, being one of the world’s largest economies, imports a total of $133 billion USD worth of food and food products, followed by China at $105.26 billion USD, Germany at $98.90 billion USD, Japan at $68.86 billion USD, the United Kingdom at $66.54 billion USD, the Netherlands at $64.38 billion USD, France at $62.29 billion USD, Italy at $51.34 billion USD, Belgium at $40.87 billion USD, and the Russian Federation at $38.60 billion USD.

However, importing a high amount of food does not necessarily mean that a country is food insecure. In fact, many of the world’s largest food importing countries also happen to be among the world’s wealthiest. It is important to note that majority of the countries importing the most food in the world have the potential to become completely food sufficient if they choose to do so. In theses cases, where food insecurity is not of concern, food is imported to create more variety for the consumer, not to prevent starvation within the population. Importing a large amount of food does not mean that a country is food insecure.

Which Countries in the World Are Food Insecure?

When food is imported out of a necessity for sustenance, countries become dependent on outside sources as a way of feeding their populations. This is when food insecurity occurs. Currently, there are at least 34 countries who are unable to produce their own food due to water and land limitations, which represents a large portion of the global population who must rely on imported food in order to avoid starvation. These countries are listed below.


Are Countries Becoming More Food Insecure?

By year 2050, more than half of the world’s population is expected to rely in food sourced from other countries. A comprehensive study conducted by Marianela Fader of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research shows that population pressures will push many nations to make maximizing their domestic food production capacity a top priority. This conclusion was made after the research team computed the growing capability of each and every country to do so, and differentiated their respective production capacities with their current and future food requirements. The team’s model made use of soil categories, climate information, and patterns of land utilization for each country, which were then translated into yields for numerous kinds of crops. By using the information on hand regarding the respective populations and water and food intakes of each nation, the team was able to closely evaluate what percentage of its food requirement each country could produce on their own in the future.

Significant issues with food security will continue to trouble the world in coming years if the aforementioned study plays out to be an accurate projection. One way to combat such concern is for each country, rich or poor, to focus its resources on improving their agricultural productivity, which can play an important role in alleviating food shortages. Availability of
economical fuel will the essential to all agriculture production. Another possible solution is diet modifications geared towards the consumption of crops that are already produced locally, although further studies will have to be conducted to determine the viability of this option.


Countries Who Are Unable to Produce Their Own Food

Rank Countries Without Sufficient Food Supply
1 Afghanistan
2 Burkina Faso
3 Burundi
4 Cameroon
5 Central African Republic
6 Chad
7 Democratic Republic of the Congo
8 Djibouti
9 Eritrea
10 Ethiopia
11 Guinea
12 Iraq
13 Kenya
14 Lesotho
15 Liberia
16 Madagascar
17 Malawi
18 Mali
19 Mauritania
20 Mozambique
21 Myanmar
22 Nepal
23 Niger
24 North Korea
25 Republic of the Congo
26 Sierra Leone
27 Somalia
28 South Sudan
29 Sudan
30 Swaziland
31 Syria
32 Uganda
33 Yemen
34 Zimbabwe

The National Association of Farm Animal Welfare (NAFAW) does a number of projections involving livestock production. This is a gallant try with certain unavoidable exceptions. Although I agree with the difficulty of the data, I do disagree with the final numbers, slightly off, but useful to every business person involved in any of these segments. Perhaps the chart itself is a basis for each producer to make their own chart with different business plans.
As commercial cattle prices fluctuate up and down, certain parts of the industry go broke and others flourish. The NAFAW chart draws a picture of where the beef dollar goes. The steak purchased by a consumer averages 8 owners from the cow-calf producer to the family table. Young beef steers travel up to 3000 miles in a life span of under 30 months. They are subjected to an average 5 auction experiences and up to 6 full batteries of vaccinations, many are duplicates within days, as ownerships transfer. Many steps are financed by borrowed money. A wide range of service providers earn a small piece of the big pie as steers stampede through a short-fast life.
This is what the cattle business is in total. Who is profiting? Who is taking the risks? Who pays for death loss? Who has no possibility of death loss? Who’s business is booming? Who is struggling to be solvent?
The cattle business is divided in many parts. Registered seed stock production represents less than 5% of the industry and is minimally affected by the end beef dollar. Registered values are based on genetic superiority, data of excellence, a lot of marketing investment, and support of the breed associations documentations. Commercial livestock is mainly where beef at the local stores is produced and most of the registered procedures can be avoided, yet the $100,000 bull will always come from registered stock.
NAFAW attempts to identify which of hundreds of taxes affect each beef producing segment. Taxes are a major cost to the beef industry, but a clear profit to the government. For instance the retailer, according to USDA, gets 56% of the beef dollar, well over half, but also is subject to the largest (non capital gain) tax amounts, which cuts their part of the pie the most. They make the most and pay feds the most. It is easy to believe the packer/processor income is larger than the NAFAW number due to the average 30% increase in processing fees during the last year; however, they also are paying more tax.
A consistent tax is private property. It takes grass to grow cattle and that is a huge tax. Call this a “cow tax.” If grazing land is taxed at $10 per acre and it takes 10 acres to maintain a cow, that is a $100 annual cow tax. This immediately comes off the price of every calf that sells — the feds have no death loss.
Everyone selects their own business model. Some can never be happy unless they are raising the very elite quality stock, working everything to professional standards. Others tie their trucks together with hay strings and work to be economical in every way.
Regardless of all factors, NAFAW provides a valid, but interesting pie chart with lessons for all. Every area and every owner does it different. Erroneous, due to variations, as it obviously is, it may quite well be within 1% of absolutely correct. D

The 3-year-old mountain lion’s ear tag told Montana biologists it had been born in Nebraska. Courtesy photo

The female mountain lion was wearing a radio collar, and her behavior in northwest Nebraska in 2018 was telling a story.

State biologists tracking her movements — and watching her repeatedly returning to the same area — could tell she was building a den, that she was expecting.

And that August, in the Pine Ridge area near Chadron, they found her two kittens. They collected DNA samples and — because the animals were too small to be collared — they attached yellow ear tags.

The kitten wearing tag NE 78 grew up and, like most young males, set off, searching for a mate and his own territory.

Mountain lions leaving northwest Nebraska and the Niobrara River Valley often make the news when they head south and east, and are tracked in Norfolk, hit by cars near Fullerton and Arlington, or captured by trail cams and shot by poachers on the edges of Lincoln — all of which happened in the past six months.

But not all of them go south and east.

“They can go in any direction,” said Sam Wilson, furbearer and carnivore manager for the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. “They all don’t go in the same direction.”

Barbed-wire fences don’t stop Nebraska cats from crossing the borders into South Dakota and Wyoming, and lions from those states visit Nebraska, Wilson said.

“It’s likely always been the case that males born in Nebraska travel hundreds of miles and that might take them out of state. We get lots of back and forth.”

NE 78 headed north at some point, and he kept going. He crossed Interstate 90 and put the Black Hills behind him. He walked more than 250 miles, ending up near Ekalaka, Montana, in that state’s southeast corner.

Wilson knows this because his office was contacted last month by a biologist at the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. NE 78 had been killed during Montana’s hunting season, and officials there could tell by its ear tag that it was a Nebraska native.

That was a first for Nebraska — its mountain lions have been killed in neighboring states, but never in one more than a state away, Wilson said.

Still, its life and death don’t add much to what his office knows about mountain lions. Without a radio collar, it has no idea how the 3-year-old ended up near Ekalaka, no path of its travels.

“We have one piece of data, where the kitten was tagged, and they have one piece of data, where it was harvested. And that’s the only thing we can learn from it.”

It was also a first for Montana. Officials there have long suspected lions from other states — particularly the nearby Dakotas — have moved into the area. But the tagged lion confirmed that, said Emily Mitchell, a Montana wildlife biologist.

And that’s important, she said, because it maintains biodiversity in the population.

“It’s good to see that lions are coming in.”

Reach the writer at 402-473-7254 or psalter@journalstar.com.

Connecting the dots from those who would destroy us and our businesses.

Governments are moving rapidly to remove your right to raise animals completely. The UK has confirmed via FOIA the gassing of people’s backyard chickens around a poultry facility in Kent. Colorado’s PAUSE act will destroy their meat industry. And livestock registration is rolling out around the world. There is a war on Animal Agriculture. Yes, factory farms are abhorrent, and we must rapidly move to a decentralized, regenerative food system–but rather than support this, governments are pointing at disgusting CAFOs and saying, “We must END ALL ANIMAL AGRICULTURE.” They are precluding the solution, so that they take total control of food production. Christian breaks it down AND explains why we cannot allow this to happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvq-yAakQpQ

January 25, 2021
United States President Joe Biden
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
On behalf of America’s independent cattle farmers and ranchers we applaud your “Made in America” Executive Order signed today that strengthens buy American provisions and ensures the future of America is made in America by all of America’s workers.
Please know, however, the single largest segment of American agriculture comprised of three-quarters of a million family farmers and ranchers – the U.S. live cattle industry – can neither assist you in carrying out your Order nor benefit at all from your Order. That is because the product produced from their cattle – U.S.-born, -raised, and -harvested beef – is no longer distinguishable from imported beef or beef from imported cattle following Congress’ repeal of the U.S. mandatory country of origin labeling law (m-COOL) for beef in 2015.
Therefore, until your Administration and/or Congress reinstates m-COOL for beef, your Order as it may apply to directing U.S.-sourced beef for federal procurement programs, including school lunches, will remain untenable; and recipients of such programs will as likely as not be receiving beef sourced exclusively from foreign cattle. Even when beef is affixed with a voluntary “Product of U.S.A.” label, that label denotes only that the product has received minimal processing in the U.S., such as being unwrapped from its original package and re-wrapped in a new package.
America’s hard-working family cattle farmers and ranchers deserve the opportunity for both their government and America’s consumers to choose to purchase beef from cattle exclusively born, raised and harvested in the United States. We have drafted proposed legislation to accomplish this important goal and would be pleased to share it with you at your request.
R-CALF USA is the largest producer-only cattle trade association in the United States and we wish to work with you to ensure that America’s family-owned cattle farms and ranches can participate in building a future for America where Americans can choose to purchase American beef, an action that will strengthen America’s domestic food supply chain.
Sincerely,
Bill Bullard, CEO (406-670-8157) billbullard@r-calfusa.com

R-CALF USA v. United States Department of Agriculture, et al.CASE SUMMARY

Federal agencies have exponentially expanded their authority by engaging in the common-place tactic of issuing informal interpretations, fact sheets, and other forms of “guidance,” the practical outcome of which is to surreptitiously force the regulated community to comply with a variety of “policy positions” that are not legally mandatory. The agencies, in other words, use these guidance documents to make law.The United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA” or “Department”) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”) have taken this “guidance-is-law” ploy to an entirely new level earlier this year, attempting to replace a properly-adopted regulation related to animal identification with an entirely new and costly approach, all of which was done under the auspices of a two-page “Factsheet.”The USDA and APHIS, however, cannot enforce animal identification requirements without formal rulemaking. They in fact undertook that process throughout 2011 and 2012, and in 2013 issued the “Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate” regulation (78 Fed. Reg. 2040). That rule confirmed that cattle and bison producers could use a variety of identification techniques for their livestock, including brands, tattoos, eartags, group identification numbers, and backtags. That rule actually prohibited States and Tribes from requiring livestock producers to use what is known in the industry as “radio frequency identification” or “RFID.” Earlier this year, however, the USDA and APHIS reversed course, and issued a “Factsheet” entitled “Advancing Animal Disease Traceability: A Plan to Achieve Electronic Identification in Cattle and Bison.” That so-called Factsheet now mandates that those producers who seek to sell across state lines are required to tag their livestock with RFID eartags.Under the 2013 rule, our livestock producers have the right to market and sell their cattle and bison so long as they use one of the approved forms of identification – an identification program, by the way, that has worked extremely well for over 100 years. Under the new RFID-only program, our livestock producers will be prohibited from selling their cattle and bison interstate unless they adopt and implement an entirely new form of identification. In short, these agencies have gone from a rule that prohibits an RFID-only approach, to one that mandates RFID use. The RFID pronouncement actually nullifies the 2013 final rule, while imposing additional costs of $ 1-2 billion dollars on the industry.NCLA represents R-CALF USA (the country’s largest producer-only membership-based organization representing cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues), as well as cattle producers from Wyoming (Tracy and Donna Hunt) and South Dakota (Kenny and Roxy Fox), challenging the Agencies’ use of guidance to repeal the protections and certainty provided for in the 2013 final rule.This case is not about identification and traceability of livestock in order to protect our food supply. We already have that. It is about Agencies who believe that they are above the law.

https://nclalegal.org/r-calf-usa-v-united-states-department-of-agriculture/

Memo: Are you concerned with the shift away from cash or does it seem like no big deal?  I don’t think enough people realize the pitfalls of this. I hope you will read Dave Ramsey’s comments. It’s a two minute read and he does a nice job of explaining this:
Dave Ramsey repost

 HERE’S WHAT NO CASH ACTUALLY MEANS:

 A cashless society means no cash. Zero. It doesn’t mean mostly cashless and you can still use a ‘wee bit of cash here & there’. Cashless means fully digital, fully traceable, fully controlled. I think those who support a cashless society aren’t fully aware of what they are asking for. A cashless society means:

 
  • If you are struggling with your mortgage on a particular month, you can’t do an odd job to get you through.
  • Your child can’t go & help the local farmer to earn a bit of summer cash.
  • No more cash slipped into the hands of a child as a good luck charm or from their grandparent when going on holidays.
  • No more money in birthday cards.
  • No more piggy banks for your child to collect pocket money & to learn about the value of earning.
  • No more cash for a rainy day fund or for that something special you have been putting $20 a week away for.
  • No more little jobs on the side because your wages barely cover the bills or put food on the table.
  • No more charity collections.
  • No more selling bits & pieces from your home that you no longer want/need for a bit of cash in return.
  • No more cash gifts from relatives or loved ones.

 What a cashless society does guarantee:

 
  • Banks have full control of every single penny you own.
  • Every transaction you make is recorded.
  • All your movements & actions are traceable.
  • Access to your money can be blocked at the click of a button when/if banks need ‘clarification’ from you which will take about 3 weeks, a thousand questions answered & five thousand passwords.
  • You will have no choice but to declare & be taxed on every dollar in your possession.
  • The government WILL decide what you can & cannot purchase.
  • If your transactions are deemed in any way questionable, by those who create the questions, your money will be frozen, ‘for your own good’.

 Forget about cash being dirty. Stop being so easily led. Cash has been around for a very, very, very long time & it gives you control over how you trade with the world. It gives you independence. I heard a story where a man supposedly contracted Covid because of a $20 bill he had handled. There is the same chance of Covid being on a card as being on cash. If you cannot see how utterly ridiculous this assumption is then there is little hope.

 If you are a customer, pay with cash. If you are a shop owner, remove those ridiculous signs that ask people to pay by card. Cash is a legal tender, it is our right to pay with cash. Banks are making it increasingly difficult to lodge cash & that has nothing to do with a virus, nor has this ‘dirty money’ trend.

 Please open your eyes. Please stop believing everything you are being told. Almost every single topic in today’s world is tainted with corruption & hidden agendas. Please stop telling me & others like me that we are what’s wrong with the world when you hail the most corrupt members of society as your heroes. Politics & greed is what is wrong with the world; not those who are trying to alert you to the reality in which you are blindly floating along whilst being immobilised by irrational fear. Fear created to keep you doing & believing in exactly what you are complacently doing.

 Pay with cash & please say no to a cashless society while you still have the choice.

Memo: THE USDA BEATS THIS DEAD MULE OVER AND OVER. They just won’t quit! All government programs are about expanding government and increasing tax-trampling of the citizens. This proposal has been soundly trounced by cattle producers every few years since the early 2000s. It is glossed-over and repackaged at NAIS, ADT, and new names of this old dastardly enforcement.

Unnecessary: The USA has the most cautious livestock producers, with less disease than any country on earth. No livestock producer is asking the government for help in identifying their own cattle. They already know how to ID their cattle. Not needed at all.

Cost: The added cost to large livestock producers is from $6 to $15 per animal. The cost to small producers for pins, applicators, computer entry, etc., will be $25 to $75 per calf. In an industry fighting for their lives, $15 more cost per critter is asinine. Multiply the uselessness considering all cattle are identified by their owners already — no extra cost is wanted or needed.

Follow The Money: Large ear pin/tag companies are “buying” USDA. If USDA makes electronic pins the law, billions will be made by the major companies. It is not about disease — not about identification — it is not that livestock owners want it — it is about the government jobs and ear tag company’s profits.

Who Wants What: In every comment or listening process USDA and APHIS has conducted (every 2 years) the huge majority of livestock producers soundly reject the increased cost involved, with no value return. Livestock producers are getting so tired of USDA shoving this down our throats over and over…. tired…. tired…….tired.

Call to Action: One more time, tell USDA in their public comments, on line, that we don’t want this. We don’t need this again, and again. DD

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is seeking public comment on a proposal where APHIS would only approve Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) as the official eartag for use in interstate movement of cattle that are required to be identified by the traceability regulations.

An official eartag is defined as an identification tag approved by APHIS that bears an official identification number for individual animals. Regulations allow APHIS to approve tags that can be used as official identification, and both metal and RFID tags are current options.

A transition to RFID tags would support APHIS’ ongoing efforts to increase animal disease traceability by more accurately and rapidly allowing animal health officials to know where affected and at-risk animals are located. While this would not prevent disease outbreaks, it would allow animal health officials to more quickly contain outbreaks early before they can do substantial damage to the U.S. cattle industry.

APHIS is also seeking comment on a proposed timeline for implementation, which the agency would use if this transition occurs. The timeline would make RFID tags the only option for use in cattle and bison requiring official identification on January 1, 2023. APHIS would “grandfather in” animals that have metal tags already in place on that date – their metal tags would serve as official identification for the remainder of their lifespan.

This transition timeline would not alter the existing regulations. The cattle and bison that must be identified will not change, nor will the option for animal health officials in shipping and receiving states to agree to accept alternate forms of identification, including brands and tattoos, in lieu of official identification.

Public comments will be accepted through October 5, 2020 at the following site: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-14463. After reviewing all comments, APHIS will publish a follow up Federal Register notice. This notice will respond to any such comments, announce our decision whether to only approve RFID tags as the only official identification devices for cattle, and, if so, provide the timeline for such a transition.

Memo — never eat any food or use any drugs coming from countries that eat rats, dogs, cats, snakes and bats. The USA should produce all their own food, not trusting imports from any nasty country. We are learning a drastic lesson right now.  The government assumes no blame. This may not be the last pandemic due to the food “easy import” policies of USDA.

Keep in mind the costly part may not be the pandemic, but always the expensive corrective measures our own government uses to deal with it. DD

Here is this week’s recording in mp3 format.  This week’s segment is titled “It Took A Crisis” and explains how the current pandemic relates to America’s food security and food safety.  

Thank you. 

Bill Bullard, CEO, R-CALF USA

Trump wants to end rule-making by memo. Here’s a test for USDA.

The Wall Street Journal – Editorial March 5, 2020 7:12 PM ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cowboy-regulators-need-to-be-lassoedcowboy-regulators-need-to-be-lassoed-11583432077

President Trump promised as part of his deregulation campaign to end bureaucratic “guidance” that dodges normal rule-making. Someone should tell the U.S. Department of Agriculture as it tries to impose burdensome new cattle-identification requirements.

To prevent the spread of diseases like bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis, the USDA needs to identify and track livestock. In 2013 the agency finalized a rule requiring identification for all cattle grazed, sold, bought or slaughtered across state lines. The regs allowed livestock producers to choose from a range of ID options, including brands, tattoos, metal ear tags or radio-frequency identification.

An owner watches as cows eat hay at his farm near Clearwater, Minn., Jan. 7.
PHOTO: DAVE SCHWARZ/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Then last spring the USDA announced a “big change” to the ID requirements in a two-page fact sheet. Beginning in 2023, the agency would accept only radio-frequency ID. Ranchers feared that in addition to electronic tags they’d have to buy sensors, retool ranching infrastructure, and stress their cattle as they recorded data. The mandate would be especially hard on cattlemen in states without a commercial packing plant since it applies only to livestock bound for the interstate market.

Ranchers from Wyoming and South Dakota sued in October, as did R-CALF USA, which represents more than 5,000 livestock producers. They said the USDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to herd this mandate through a formal rule-making.

Less than a week later, Mr. Trump issued two executive orders restricting regulation by memo. The USDA responded with a statement claiming its April 2019 fact sheet was “no longer representative of current agency policy” and that the executive orders had “highlighted the need for transparency and communication” before imposing “any new requirements on American farmers and ranchers.” A federal court declared the case moot.

But hold your yee-haw because USDA’s cowboy regulators are back in the saddle. In the February and March issues of the trade publication Nebraska Cattleman, an ad bearing the USDA logo-and a striking resemblance to the original fact sheet-described a government-led transition to radio-frequency ID for cattle headed across state lines. The publication says the Nebraska Department of Agriculture placed the notice, and the ad’s text says it was funded “through a cooperative agreement” between the state agency and USDA.

The ranchers’ lawyer, Harriet Hageman, contacted the U.S. attorney representing the USDA. He said Nebraska didn’t have USDA approval for the ad, and by the time the feds tried to pull it the magazine had gone to print. The USDA says its October retreat still stands but wouldn’t respond to questions about the ad or if new ID requirements are in the works.

Ranchers are now urging the federal judge to reopen their case. They want a formal retraction of the policy and a more robust USDA effort to notify state and tribal officials about what the current requirements actually are. A judge may have to restore some regulatory clarity.