Faces of Agriculture

The premise of the article was nothing new, which was basically that of how meat consumption is contributing more to global warming than transportation.

When I heard about the article, I was out on the road driving my 2004 one-ton pickup with plans to check the oil at the next fuel-up. Upon seeing all the junk under the hood of a vehicle these days, I determined that a little research was in order.

The first pickup I owned was a 1982 GMC half-ton that I bought new. It got 12 miles to the gallon, about the same as my 2004 pickup does.

I called my dad to ask what the first vehicle he purchased was, and he told me it was a new Chevrolet Malibu in 1964, for which he paid $2,650. He remembers it getting close to 20 mpg.

A recent advertisement said the 2008 Chevy Malibu starts at $19,995, and if you have the midsized motor, you can expect 19 mpg in city driving.

So, tell me, what do all of those wires and computer sensors actually accomplish for us under the hood of these new vehicles? Why, in the past 44 years, have the science and technology invested in the automobile industry not accomplished one darn thing for me or the planet, with the exception of electric windows and more cup holders? More importantly, why does it cost eight times as much to buy a vehicle today than it did 44 years ago?

On the other side of the equation, look at what we have been able to accomplish with the beef cow thanks to science and technology... Click here for the rest of this article

Minnesota dairy producer Bill Rowekamp goes to great lengths to care for the environment and his cows, and as such Rowekamp Farm is a good example of the circle of life that today's farms provide. They raise corn and alfalfa on their land, harvest and feed those crops to their cows and then apply the manure from the cows back to the land to produce more crops the following year. In doing so they take care to follow proper application procedures that benefit their crop acres and protect surrounding land and waterways. Bill houses his cows on beach sand and provides them with the opportunity for a daily back massage. Click here to view our video with Bill Rowekamp.

By TRENT LOOS

Most of us in farm and ranch country like to brag about the cattle, corn or cotton we produce.

Recently, I made my (now fourth) annual journey to the
Florida Cattlemen/Cattlewomen's convention in Marco Island, Fla. Nearly 3,000 people in total spent some part of the week enjoying the atmosphere and the energy generated by beef enthusiasts from around the entire country. For me, though, it was a conversation with Cary Lightsey from Lake Wales, Fla., that was most memorable.

The Lightsey family name is no stranger to the cattle business in Florida, dating back 12 generations. Cary and his brother Layne are the sixth generation on their ranches in central Florida. They truly represent a change in mindset about land ownership that I feel we must all get to a little more quickly than the current path being taken.

They are stewards of the land first and the cattle second. Honestly, that is even tough for me to write because I like being a cattleman. However, the bottom line is that cattle are a very important part of the ecosystem -- yet only a part.

The Lightsey family recognized that fact 20 some years ago, and the pride in their sense of accomplishment in regard to that fact is self-evident.

The University of Florida reports that conserving wildlife is important to Florida both from an ecological and a utilitarian standpoint. Wildlife enriches our lives and is an indicator of the health of the land on which we live.

From a utilitarian standpoint, nature-based tourism, which relies heavily on wildlife viewing, is one of the most rapidly growing industries worldwide and is of increasing importance in Florida. Roughly, 2 million people spend about $2 billion on activities involving observation of wildlife in Florida.

Cattle ranches contain much of Florida's remaining native habitat, particularly in south Florida. Consequently, cattle ranches have an important role in the future of Florida's wildlife.

For example, freshwater wetlands have declined by more than 50% in Florida since European settlement. Yet, they still exist as integral components of many ranches, contributing to the productivity of both wildlife and livestock.

The mix of native habitats found within and among ranches, such as marshes, swamps, woodlands and others, is key to providing food and cover that support a diversity of species, each with its own particular needs. Even improved pasture provides benefits to some species of wildlife, particularly when wetlands and other native habitats are present.

All of that should tell us that as ranchers, our opportunity in providing an improved life for our urban neighbors goes beyond producing a high-quality rib-eye and essential nutrients but also providing peace of mind and entertainment value.

A perfect example of that is Lightsey's Brahma Island. Lightsey told me, "The island is really made up of a lot of terrains. It's got a little bit of every piece of Florida in it: marshland, sawgrass flats, sand dunes around the shorelines, ancient oak hammock, hickory hammocks and prehistoric scrubs.

"The island's got the oldest live oak in peninsular Florida -- more than 380 years old. It's got an Indian development that dates back to 10,000 years ago, as well as palmettos, wiregrass flats, pine tree thickets.

"The neat thing about Brahma Island is the endangered species. There's actually 28 different endangered species on Brahma Island, the most of anywhere in North America, and it's got 14 different eagles' nests on the island. We've counted over 80 eagles at one sitting," he said.

The public wants to know that ranchers care about history and wildlife and assist in improving the habitat for these species. The Lightseys are answering that call.

Before this trip, I would have been at the front of the line of those concerned about ranchers that endorse harboring endangered species in conjunction with cattle production, but if we truly change our mindset to be land stewards first, opportunities will come along to invite our customers to our ranch in the name of agro-tourism.

"We're really just landlords of this land, if you really think about it," said Lightsey. "I feel like we have the opportunity to protect this land and leave it as God intended it. I feel like it's our job to protect it for the people of Florida. I feel like I'm probably the luckiest man I know. I get to work with my kids and grandkids every day, and I get to see God's creations out here. It's just an unbelievable lifestyle."

The most important message in there is that the next generations of Lightseys have no concern about their parents' commitment to the future of the ranching business.

I spend a great deal of time identifying ways to inspire the next generation to proudly return to the family operation instead of seeking greener grass on the other side of the fence. In my observation, the Lightsey kids don't even know there is a fence present. It is all open range to them.

It's so 'deer' to my heart

By TRENT LOOS

IN the last five years, while speaking to groups of dairy and beef cattle producers, I have referenced the thousands of dollars land-grant universities spend on research to determine the cows' contribution to global warming. The best response I got was a unified snickering.

Well, today, I can find you a news story almost daily discussing how the number-one culprit of global warming is the cow. The finger-pointing certainly has accelerated since last November, when the U.N. released a report indicating that the cow now provides more greenhouse gases to our environment than fossil fuel combustion through transportation.

A news report from the Miami Herald this past week noted: "Scientists say deforestation, almost always to facilitate planting crops and raising cattle, accounts for about 20% of the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. Environmentalists are pushing to allow countries and companies to offset their emissions by paying to preserve forests elsewhere, such as in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Group of Eight nations, meeting in Germany earlier this month, pledged to help poor countries reduce deforestation to provide 'a significant and cost-effective contribution toward mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.'

"Researchers say forest is being increasingly cleared to make way for big cattle ranches and large soybean farms -- especially in Brazil, which accounts for about 60% of the forest land in Latin America and the Caribbean. The amount of forest lost each year from 2000 to 2005 averaged 11,077,734 acres, the study showed -- about the size of Maryland," the article continued.

Now, let's point out that an assumption is being made that even soybean acres are being planted in order to feed the cow and not just some in Asia.

I don't make that comment in passing. In fact, we can document that the economic growth of China and its demand for soy is contributing greatly to deforestation.

No one can argue that deforestation still occurs in places it shouldn't. I think we all understand that the forest is a vital part of proper planet health, but the real story must be evaluated.

At risk of sounding like a flag-waving patriot, let's take a closer look at what is going on here at home.

The Environmental Protection Agency released a report in April 2006 entitled "U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Sinks," which contains data through 2004. This report indicates that U.S. livestock grazing, feeding and manure management systems are superior to those elsewhere in the world.

EPA data show that production of food animals in the U.S. contributes less than 2.4% of total greenhouse gas emissions (measured in carbon dioxide equivalent). In comparison, fossil fuel combustion contributes approximately 80% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said there are 748 million acres of forest in the continental U.S.

U.S. Forest Service archives show that in 1920, there were 732 million acres of U.S. forestland. Therefore, according to 2003 figures, the U.S. has 16 million more acres of forestland than it did in 1920.

Yes, the truth of the matter is that in the U.S., where we lose nearly 2 million acres of prime farmland to concrete, condos and consumers annually (concrete manufacturers rank higher on the list of greenhouse gas contributors than livestock, by the way), we have managed the natural resources in such a manner that today, our environment is better off than it has ever been.

The problem is that elected officials will not take the time to really break down the U.N. report to uncover the truth -- the truth being that the U.S. is a shining example of how we can utilize resources without negatively affecting the planet.

A perfect example is the fact that we have the same number of beef cows now as in 1955, yet we produce twice as much human consumable beef.

You don't need to have a keen understanding of science to figure out how much better off our natural resources are, either.

Let's use a little cowboy logic: In 1930, the U.S. deer population was 300,000. This compares with recent estimates that put the deer population at around 30 million -- 100 times the 1930 number.

In comparison, the beef cattle population has remained unchanged since 1930, and there are two-thirds fewer dairy cows.

The white-tailed deer population currently far exceeds its carrying capacity, and the animal is considered a nuisance.

Could the deer population grow at that rate in an adverse environment? Absolutely not! Oh, wait. Deer also emit enteric fermentation. Improved environmental conditions in the U.S. have allowed deer to create more greenhouse gases than at any time in the history of the world. Quick, notify the U.N.



	Click here for a collection of the latest news articles on global warming. Truck still has to haul the cows By Trent Loos THERE has been yet another attack on cows, and this time, it was in a front-page article in The New York Times titled, "As more eat meat, a bid to cut emissions." The premise of the article was nothing new, which was basically that of how meat consumption is contributing more to global warming than transportation. When I heard about the article, I was out on the road driving my 2004 one-ton pickup with plans to check the oil at the next fuel-up. Upon seeing all the junk under the hood of a vehicle these days, I determined that a little research was in order. The first pickup I owned was a 1982 GMC half-ton that I bought new. It got 12 miles to the gallon, about the same as my 2004 pickup does. I called my dad to ask what the first vehicle he purchased was, and he told me it was a new Chevrolet Malibu in 1964, for which he paid $2,650. He remembers it getting close to 20 mpg. A recent advertisement said the 2008 Chevy Malibu starts at $19,995, and if you have the midsized motor, you can expect 19 mpg in city driving. So, tell me, what do all of those wires and computer sensors actually accomplish for us under the hood of these new vehicles? Why, in the past 44 years, have the science and technology invested in the automobile industry not accomplished one darn thing for me or the planet, with the exception of electric windows and more cup holders? More importantly, why does it cost eight times as much to buy a vehicle today than it did 44 years ago? On the other side of the equation, look at what we have been able to accomplish with the beef cow thanks to science and technology... Click here for the rest of this article Protecting the environment Minnesota dairy producer Bill Rowekamp goes to great lengths to care for the environment and his cows, and as such Rowekamp Farm is a good example of the circle of life that today's farms provide. They raise corn and alfalfa on their land, harvest and feed those crops to their cows and then apply the manure from the cows back to the land to produce more crops the following year. In doing so they take care to follow proper application procedures that benefit their crop acres and protect surrounding land and waterways. Bill houses his cows on beach sand and provides them with the opportunity for a daily back massage. Click here to view our video with Bill Rowekamp. Feedstuffs, June 25, 2007 Investment in the future By TRENT LOOS Most of us in farm and ranch country like to brag about the cattle, corn or cotton we produce. Recently, I made my (now fourth) annual journey to the Florida Cattlemen/Cattlewomen's convention in Marco Island, Fla. Nearly 3,000 people in total spent some part of the week enjoying the atmosphere and the energy generated by beef enthusiasts from around the entire country. For me, though, it was a conversation with Cary Lightsey from Lake Wales, Fla., that was most memorable. The Lightsey family name is no stranger to the cattle business in Florida, dating back 12 generations. Cary and his brother Layne are the sixth generation on their ranches in central Florida. They truly represent a change in mindset about land ownership that I feel we must all get to a little more quickly than the current path being taken. They are stewards of the land first and the cattle second. Honestly, that is even tough for me to write because I like being a cattleman. However, the bottom line is that cattle are a very important part of the ecosystem -- yet only a part. The Lightsey family recognized that fact 20 some years ago, and the pride in their sense of accomplishment in regard to that fact is self-evident. The University of Florida reports that conserving wildlife is important to Florida both from an ecological and a utilitarian standpoint. Wildlife enriches our lives and is an indicator of the health of the land on which we live. From a utilitarian standpoint, nature-based tourism, which relies heavily on wildlife viewing, is one of the most rapidly growing industries worldwide and is of increasing importance in Florida. Roughly, 2 million people spend about $2 billion on activities involving observation of wildlife in Florida. Cattle ranches contain much of Florida's remaining native habitat, particularly in south Florida. Consequently, cattle ranches have an important role in the future of Florida's wildlife. For example, freshwater wetlands have declined by more than 50% in Florida since European settlement. Yet, they still exist as integral components of many ranches, contributing to the productivity of both wildlife and livestock. The mix of native habitats found within and among ranches, such as marshes, swamps, woodlands and others, is key to providing food and cover that support a diversity of species, each with its own particular needs. Even improved pasture provides benefits to some species of wildlife, particularly when wetlands and other native habitats are present. All of that should tell us that as ranchers, our opportunity in providing an improved life for our urban neighbors goes beyond producing a high-quality rib-eye and essential nutrients but also providing peace of mind and entertainment value. A perfect example of that is Lightsey's Brahma Island. Lightsey told me, "The island is really made up of a lot of terrains. It's got a little bit of every piece of Florida in it: marshland, sawgrass flats, sand dunes around the shorelines, ancient oak hammock, hickory hammocks and prehistoric scrubs. "The island's got the oldest live oak in peninsular Florida -- more than 380 years old. It's got an Indian development that dates back to 10,000 years ago, as well as palmettos, wiregrass flats, pine tree thickets. "The neat thing about Brahma Island is the endangered species. There's actually 28 different endangered species on Brahma Island, the most of anywhere in North America, and it's got 14 different eagles' nests on the island. We've counted over 80 eagles at one sitting," he said. The public wants to know that ranchers care about history and wildlife and assist in improving the habitat for these species. The Lightseys are answering that call. Before this trip, I would have been at the front of the line of those concerned about ranchers that endorse harboring endangered species in conjunction with cattle production, but if we truly change our mindset to be land stewards first, opportunities will come along to invite our customers to our ranch in the name of agro-tourism. "We're really just landlords of this land, if you really think about it," said Lightsey. "I feel like we have the opportunity to protect this land and leave it as God intended it. I feel like it's our job to protect it for the people of Florida. I feel like I'm probably the luckiest man I know. I get to work with my kids and grandkids every day, and I get to see God's creations out here. It's just an unbelievable lifestyle." The most important message in there is that the next generations of Lightseys have no concern about their parents' commitment to the future of the ranching business. I spend a great deal of time identifying ways to inspire the next generation to proudly return to the family operation instead of seeking greener grass on the other side of the fence. In my observation, the Lightsey kids don't even know there is a fence present. It is all open range to them. Feedstuffs, July 2, 2007 It's so 'deer' to my heart By TRENT LOOS IN the last five years, while speaking to groups of dairy and beef cattle producers, I have referenced the thousands of dollars land-grant universities spend on research to determine the cows' contribution to global warming. The best response I got was a unified snickering. Well, today, I can find you a news story almost daily discussing how the number-one culprit of global warming is the cow. The finger-pointing certainly has accelerated since last November, when the U.N. released a report indicating that the cow now provides more greenhouse gases to our environment than fossil fuel combustion through transportation. A news report from the Miami Herald this past week noted: "Scientists say deforestation, almost always to facilitate planting crops and raising cattle, accounts for about 20% of the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. Environmentalists are pushing to allow countries and companies to offset their emissions by paying to preserve forests elsewhere, such as in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Group of Eight nations, meeting in Germany earlier this month, pledged to help poor countries reduce deforestation to provide 'a significant and cost-effective contribution toward mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.' "Researchers say forest is being increasingly cleared to make way for big cattle ranches and large soybean farms -- especially in Brazil, which accounts for about 60% of the forest land in Latin America and the Caribbean. The amount of forest lost each year from 2000 to 2005 averaged 11,077,734 acres, the study showed -- about the size of Maryland," the article continued. Now, let's point out that an assumption is being made that even soybean acres are being planted in order to feed the cow and not just some in Asia. I don't make that comment in passing. In fact, we can document that the economic growth of China and its demand for soy is contributing greatly to deforestation. No one can argue that deforestation still occurs in places it shouldn't. I think we all understand that the forest is a vital part of proper planet health, but the real story must be evaluated. At risk of sounding like a flag-waving patriot, let's take a closer look at what is going on here at home. The Environmental Protection Agency released a report in April 2006 entitled "U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Sinks," which contains data through 2004. This report indicates that U.S. livestock grazing, feeding and manure management systems are superior to those elsewhere in the world. EPA data show that production of food animals in the U.S. contributes less than 2.4% of total greenhouse gas emissions (measured in carbon dioxide equivalent). In comparison, fossil fuel combustion contributes approximately 80% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said there are 748 million acres of forest in the continental U.S. U.S. Forest Service archives show that in 1920, there were 732 million acres of U.S. forestland. Therefore, according to 2003 figures, the U.S. has 16 million more acres of forestland than it did in 1920. Yes, the truth of the matter is that in the U.S., where we lose nearly 2 million acres of prime farmland to concrete, condos and consumers annually (concrete manufacturers rank higher on the list of greenhouse gas contributors than livestock, by the way), we have managed the natural resources in such a manner that today, our environment is better off than it has ever been. The problem is that elected officials will not take the time to really break down the U.N. report to uncover the truth -- the truth being that the U.S. is a shining example of how we can utilize resources without negatively affecting the planet. A perfect example is the fact that we have the same number of beef cows now as in 1955, yet we produce twice as much human consumable beef. You don't need to have a keen understanding of science to figure out how much better off our natural resources are, either. Let's use a little cowboy logic: In 1930, the U.S. deer population was 300,000. This compares with recent estimates that put the deer population at around 30 million -- 100 times the 1930 number. In comparison, the beef cattle population has remained unchanged since 1930, and there are two-thirds fewer dairy cows. The white-tailed deer population currently far exceeds its carrying capacity, and the animal is considered a nuisance. Could the deer population grow at that rate in an adverse environment? Absolutely not! Oh, wait. Deer also emit enteric fermentation. Improved environmental conditions in the U.S. have allowed deer to create more greenhouse gases than at any time in the history of the world. Quick, notify the U.N.