By Gene Hall

Almost without exception, American cities occupy some of our best farmland. It is an unassailable bit of logic. All cities were originally located where food could be grown or where goods of all kinds could easily be shipped. 

Today, those cities are spreading out, gobbling up farmland at unprecedented rates. Check out this Texas Farm Bureau YouTube video.

Ft. Bend County is still important in agricultural terms but its future seems to be bedroom cities for mammoth Houston. Of course, it is also developing a significant non-agricultural business base of its own. Both trajectories negatively impact available land for farming.

Some estimates put the annual loss of U.S. farmland at about 1.5 million acres. For a nation that has always met its own food production needs, that can become problematic. Not all land is suitable for growing crops, but invariably the best of it is near a city. Most farms near urban areas eventually fall to the construction of suburbs. When people occupy these lands, new problems sprout up along with the crops grown by the surviving farmers. The new occupants sometimes don’t like the dust of plowing, the smells of livestock or the transport of a combine along a suddenly busier road. Even farmers and ranchers devoted to preserving a family operation are tempted to give up.

It is very common in Texas farming for an agricultural producer to rent land—from retired farmers or from heirs. This kind of land is disappearing especially fast as the owners discover that developers will pay much more than could be earned from their farmer renters.

Solutions? There are no easy ones. Owners of land want to be able to sell when they have a willing buyer and resent being zoned out of that opportunity. That’s not at all hard to understand.

Perhaps the only real answer is to continue to develop the technology to squeeze more production out of existing acres. This approach has yielded some remarkable successes. We grow far more food today on essentially the same number of acres we did a quarter century ago. We’ll likely need every tool in the box, because the expansion of our cities, especially in Texas, is forecast to increase. It will come at the expense of fertile lands, covered by concrete, homes and new businesses.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org.
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

By Mike Barnett

I call it the great divide in agriculture.

I'm speaking of the differences in the many methods of farming and ranching and how each method has been pitted against the other.

For example, grass fed versus grain fed beef.  It’s been ugly over the years as the merits have been debated on why one is better than the other.

Or look at the ongoing feud between organic and traditional agriculture, and/or "local" versus "industrial" agriculture. My blogging partner Gene Hall and I have been labeled as organiphobes by various individuals because of some of the posts we've written. We’re by no means anti-organic. Many Texas Farm Bureau members are organic farmers and we applaud their industry. Mostly we're defending attacks against what I fondly and repeatedly call the modern miracle of agriculture.

And the attacks are many. Much of the uproar comes from outside of our industry, by those who have the Michael Pollan view of food. I'm talking of those who maintain traditional agriculture is evil and killing our environment. It's nice to advocate what you believe. I begrudge no one for that. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them or them with me.

What bothers me is when agriculture producers attack each other. It's okay to promote the benefits of your way of farming. It goes too far, however, when one segment of agriculture promotes itself by deriding another. The stones being thrown within agriculture do our industry no good.

Many people are inspired by the food they eat. There are many who get incensed if you don't eat the way they think you should. Many farmers and ranchers are inspired by the methods they use to grow food. Many farmers and ranchers are quick to tell the world their brethren are doing it wrong.

That persnickety insistence that only “my way is right” has to stop. We're in the business of growing food, fiber and fuel. We're in the business of putting seed in the ground to nurture to harvest. We're in the business of animal husbandry for the end result of food on the plate.

There are plenty of people in this world who have a lot of different ideas about how they should eat. That spells opportunity for all of us to meet those needs using the methods that suit us best. And make money doing it. There's enough agitation from outside agriculture to keep us all busy. It’s time for the sniping and backbiting within to end.

Fight the good fight, my farmer and rancher friends. Just not with each other.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org.
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

By Gene Hall

Celebrities don’t seem to like modern agriculture very much. Some speak out strongly, even attack the way we grow our food today. Some are eager to jump on the bandwagon of the week, endorsing the latest trendy food-related topic.

Most of this is harmless. Farmers will grow for whatever markets consumers support—organic, grassfed, local, slow food or whatever’s next. There is nothing wrong with any of that. The problem comes when the anti-agriculture propaganda machine suggests that the world can be fed that way. It can’t, unless legions of people are willing, once again, to personally take up the burden of growing their own food as their great-grandparents did.

Mike Rowe gets it. The creator, host and executive producer of the Discovery Channel’s Emmy-nominated series, Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe, has worked as an apprentice on more than 250 jobs that a lot of people would not like to do. Many of these “dirty jobs” were on farms, working with farmers.

Rowe likes to say that everything we value in our culture comes from agriculture or mining. Think about it. It’s true. Every product sprouted from the root stock of those two industries. Rowe is all for “green,” but also talks about the power of “brown.” The soil is the source of life. The simplicity of his words contains a powerful message.

Rowe spoke to the 2009 convention of the FFA – once known as the Future Farmers of America.  He detailed that experience on his website .

Of the experience, Rowe said, “The FFA has determined that most Americans think of farmers like those actors in Colonial Williamsburg – smiling caricatures from Hee Haw and Green Acres, laboring quaintly in flannel and denim. From what I’ve seen, they’re right. Over and over I hear the same thing from farmers I’ve met on Dirty Jobs. Technical advances in modern agriculture now rival those of Silicon Valley, and today’s farms are more efficient than ever, but no one seems to have gotten the memo. No one seems to care.”

As I said, Mike Rowe gets it. But how did this working man celebrity arrive at different conclusions than those of Pamela Anderson, Gwyneth Paltrow or Alicia Silverstone?

 I have a theory. Rowe has actually worked those jobs, shoulder to shoulder with real farmers and ranchers. His view was not formed on the beaches of Southern California or in a Park Avenue apartment. He's been there and done that. To me, it adds up to credibility. 

Rowe will speak to the American Farm Bureau Federation Annual Convention in Atlanta come January. I’m betting he will take the stage to thunderous applause from grateful farmers and ranchers. In our celebrity culture of today, it takes some courage to buck the trends. I like the show. Clever and original, it stands head and shoulders above the reality drivel that passes for entertainment these days. I like Mike Rowe even more.

By Dakota Fleming

The time is fast approaching of hot days when people crowd in pools and lakes. The best movies come out and teenagers flock to see them first. Family vacations are planned and many pictures are taken and memories are made. For farmers and their families, it is the time of long work hours in the heat, harvesting crops. 

Every year I follow my dad’s convoy of farm equipment to the farm that is next in line to be harvested. Let me tell you about our convoy. Up front and leading the line is our John Deere combine and when going down a Farm-to-Market Road, it almost takes both lanes. Next in line is a tractor pulling an 800 bushel grain cart holding corn, which rides on the yellow stripe of the road. Lastly is myself in the dually pickup. In most cases, I pull the combine’s header trailer—an attachment for the combine which grabs the crops and pulls them into the combine. All of this equipment has hazard lights that flash when on the road accompanied by the orange triangle Slow Moving Vehicle signs.  

But with all of the safety lights and signs, it never fails that someone just ignores us. Too impatient to wait for us to pull over to allow them to pass, they just speed up and go on by, leaving our convoy screeching to a halt at times. Well maybe not screeching to a halt as big equipment can’t really stop that fast, but as close as screeching as you can get. I have even seen cars jump into the bar ditch going 60 miles an hour to get by our convoy and lose total control. 

When people pass us with no respect, my blood gets a boiling and there is nothing more that will get me more stirred up unless it is PETA and HSUS. Farmers and ranchers aren’t trying to make you late to your job or movie when we meet on the road, we promise. We are trying to get to our jobsite just like you. We are just trying to maintain a dying lifestyle that for some is generations long. 

Now I said generations long, that means family after family after family have been taking care of the same land and traveling the same roads. As generations develop, the equipment size gets bigger and bulkier but the roads stay the same size. 

As equipment size gets bigger, the amount of impolite car drivers grows, too. This makes it hard for farmers to safely travel to the next field. It is hard enough to stay on the road when you have to move your equipment around like a ballet dancer to miss hitting mailboxes, road signs and telephone poles. Next you add cars to the list and problems really start to occur.  People in too big of a hurry on the road can cause accidents that can not only injure the person driving the vehicle, but can also damage the farm equipment.   

This type of incident happened to my family about three years ago when the convoy was coming back to the shop for fuel and servicing. The convoy was stopped waiting to turn with the blinkers indicating what we were doing. All of the sudden a man in a car came barreling up behind to pass on the left. Unfortunately, we were turning left and he collided into the back end of the grain cart in mid-turn. Thankfully, both the car driver and the tractor driver weren’t hurt but the car and the grain cart had a different story. The car’s hood was crumpled in the man’s face. The grain cart had the PTO shaft, tractor rim, auger, and rear tire damaged beyond repair where the car plowed into it.

To hopefully help prevent any more accidents from occurring, I thought up some safety tips drivers should take when they meet or follow behind any type of farm equipment on the road.

• Slow down as soon as you see farm equipment.  The flashing hazard lights mean slow down.
• Have patience.  We will move over to allow you to pass when it is safe for both car and equipment.
• Mirrors don’t always show everything.  The driver can’t always see you in their mirrors so be cautious.
• Do not stop or pass in tight spaces and expect a safe pass.  Examples of tight spots would be mailboxes, road signs or telephone poles.
• Wait for the equipment to stop and move over to let you pass.  Also, watch for hand signals to indicate for you to wait or pass. Just because they move over some doesn’t mean you can pass. They may be moving over to avoid hitting something on the road.
• Put on your blinker when you pass unexpected. This will allow the driver to stop so you can safely pass.
• When passing don’t crowd the equipment. Move over to allow the equipment adjustment space if necessary.
• Do not speed past the equipment.  Speeding up can create turbulence creating the machinery to become unstable.
• Do not slow down in front of the equipment once passed. The size of the equipment makes it hard for a sudden stop. 
• Watch for hazard lights to turn into a blinker to indicate a turn. When the blinker comes on, be patient as turning takes a lot of space—sometimes even backing up and trying the turn again.

Farmers and ranchers don’t set out to ruin your trip to wherever you are going. It is very stressful driving large equipment down the road—we would much rather be in the field. Agriculture is our livelihood and we love what we do. Please keep it safe when meeting equipment on the road; the driver is special to someone, whether they are a grandpa, a dad, a brother or a sister. 

Who knows? They could even be providing your meal you will eat tonight.

Administrator’s note: Dakota Fleming farms with her family in Bell County. She will be a freshman at Texas A&M University this fall. 

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org.
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

By Gene Hall

In one of my favorite songs, Lee Greenwood sings of his heart “drifting down a dusty Dixie road.”  I’ve been down many of those roads. In fact, dust is an inescapable part of rural life.  I grew up at the end of one of those dusty roads.  When we worked cattle, we raised some dust. Same for when we baled hay. In other agricultural pursuits, of which I don’t have direct experience, dust is part of the deal.

It’s not so much that the EPA is considering regulation of dust in agriculture.  Is anyone surprised at that? We have this great juggernaut of a regulatory apparatus, built to regulate, lavishly funded for that purpose and absolutely itching to get at it. What bothers me is that they might be thinking they can actually make this work!

The eight years of the Bush administration were little more than a speed bump for federal regulators. Now, with an administration much more friendly to the idea, they are unfettered. Make no mistake, EPA intends to regulate, and they will do so with little regard to cost, benefit or consequences. Think of the Cap and Trade bill stalled in Congress.  No problem. The unelected folks at EPA will do it by regulatory fiat. There is a feeling in farm and ranch circles that an aggressive and unchecked EPA has set out to make U.S. agriculture obsolete. This point of view is not without evidence.

Back to the “dust-up” – also not much of a surprise is the unified opposition among agricultural groups and from farm state members of Congress.  They know something the regulators apparently don’t.  It’s not possible to grow a crop – animal, vegetable, grain or cotton, without kicking up a little dust.  It’s not that farmers and ranchers have not taken steps to minimize dust in their operations.  Many dollars have been spent in the form of minimum till farming practices and dust management systems of various kinds.

A letter signed by 21 U.S. Senators, including John Cornyn of Texas, says in part:

“We respect efforts for a clean and healthy environment, but not at the expense of common sense. These identified levels will be extremely burdensome for farmers and livestock producers to attain. Whether its livestock kicking up dust, soybeans being combined on a dry day in the fall, or driving a car down the gravel road, dust is a naturally occurring event.”

The senators also correctly noted that producers could potentially be fined for not meeting the standards while still implementing good management practices on their soils.  Will farmers soon need a federal permit to plow?

The full text of the senators’ letter can be found here. 

If this effort is “successful,” EPA can move on to regulating hurricanes, tornados, flash floods and tilting at windmills. Draconian regulatory efforts to stifle the dust that’s been part of rural America since colonial times could eventually result in the offshore production of our supply of food and fiber. It will be grown in places where the citizens and their governments have not lost track of common sense.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org.
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

By Mike Barnett

“Water will become our most valuable asset—probably the most precious commodity we’ll have available in the next 50 years.” I heard that statement from a farmer the other night as I sat in on the Texas Farm Bureau District 8 Policy Development meeting. The discussion centered on the topic of Texas water rights with regard to underground water.

That comment is so true. The Texas population is expected to surge to 35 million in the next 30 years. Water will determine where that growth will occur, or if it will occur.

You may think the water beneath your land is yours. Technically, Texas law says it is. However, groundwater districts control it. Municipalities covet it. Entrepreneurs want to sell it. And the Texas legislature and the courts will eventually decide its fate.

With all those mouths trying to drink out of the same pitcher, do you know what your rights are? Neither does anyone else, for sure. Interpretations of private property rights attached to underground water in Texas are as muddy as the Brazos River at flood stage.

The Legislature is likely to clear that stream this legislative session, making significant changes to how groundwater is managed in Texas. Cases are also being heard before the Texas Supreme Court that could define the rights of Texas property owners in regards to groundwater.

Current Texas law recognizes the landowners’ rights to water beneath their property. It also gives groundwater districts the authority to regulate it. There are two schools of thought concerning groundwater as a property right in Texas.

The first is the position generally favored by groundwater conservation districts (GCD)—that groundwater is not property until the owner physically captures it. Many GCDs like this approach because it allows them to protect historic or existing use by denying new groundwater users the right to the water. This position allows GCDs the legal right to deny a property owner the right to drill a well or pump groundwater without that property owner claiming that their groundwater has been “taken” from them. “Takings” claims could include the right of the property owner to be compensated for the loss of rights to the groundwater.

Many landowners favor the second approach because it gives them an ownership in groundwater that is protected from a “taking” by a groundwater conservation district. In fact, Texas Farm Bureau’s policy currently supports this opinion: “We believe the right to capture groundwater in place is a vested property right.” The reasoning is this: Groundwater is part of the surface estate of the property. The owner of the surface estate has a right to the groundwater, just like he has the right to sand, gravel or limestone that is part of the surface estate. Under this argument, a groundwater district cannot deny the right of the property owner to obtain a permit and pump groundwater. Under this argument, a district would have to reduce the pumping of existing users to allow new users to capture groundwater.

So who’s right? Take away the regulatory authority of the GCDs and we could have a groundwater free-for-all in Texas. Take away the protection of a “taking” of groundwater from the landowner and you have potential for abuse by GCDs. And there’s a whole host of issues in-between.

There’s an old saying that you don’t miss the water until the well runs dry. Folks, the level is getting low.

There are no easy solutions when it comes to determining Texas water rights…just lots of questions. How do you feel?

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org.
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

By Matt Felder

It’s been 19 months since I came to Texas Farm Bureau (TFB) and I have to say there’s never been a dull moment. Two years ago I would have never thought it possible to be traveling to the far reaches of the state or standing in the middle of Moscow’s Red Square covering stories.

It’s no doubt a bustling pace of excitement—this coming from a guy who crossed over from television news.

Let’s be clear. I wouldn’t change that decision for the world because it’s the world I now get to see: Russia, Estonia, Canada, Taiwan, Japan and counting.

Each year, the TFB Board of Directors makes it a point to create and maintain relationships, face to face, with their counterparts and trade officials in various countries around the world. Armed with cameras, recorders and notepads, I tagged along.

From the city streets of Japan to the fields of Canada, it’s clear that agriculture is the driving force of our planet. It’s the one necessity which ties every country on Earth to its ultimate goal—survival.

As we travel the globe, it’s occurred to me the popularity of political decisions in the U.S. waver, depending upon your location. What remains steady is the popularity of U.S. foods in countries that lack the resources to support themselves.

Don’t believe me? Try walking into a Tokyo grocery store that sells beef raised in the Lone Star State with a group of Texas cowboys. The only other person I know to cause that kind of stir in the Far East was a zipper-laden, red leather jacket toting singer—Michael Jackson—whose music was playing throughout the store.

Yes, I’ll admit Thriller is one of my all-time favorites, but back to my point.

While our relationship with many of our top foreign agriculture trade partners is harmonious today, that wasn’t always the case.

Japan. December 7, 1941 comes to my mind almost instantly. What transpired was a knock-down, drag-out battle which resulted in war—at a cost of the lives of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers—with a country that barely measures up to the size of one of our biggest states.

Today, the story is much different. The relationship is a thriving partnership and one of the most profitable for U.S. agriculture. Japan is the third-largest foreign market for U.S. agricultural products with total agricultural exports valued at $11.2 billion in 2009.

Same goes for Mother Russia. Our two countries didn’t always play nice.

Then there is the 800-pound gorilla in the room—China, the world’s most populous country, 1 billion strong. Just recently, China became the top U.S. ag export market, importing over $10 billion in agricultural goods for us in the first half of 2010.

I’ll throw it out there just in case it’s slipped your mind. China is a communist country.

Which brings me to the question of how do we, as a country, rationalize the trading with mega-China when some of our Washington decision-makers can’t stomach the thought of opening up trade and travel with tiny communist Cuba?

In my recent visit to our nation’s capital this past March, Central Texas Congressman Chet Edwards summed up that argument best: “We’re trading with the Chinese every day. We’re not afraid to trade with the Chinese but we’re afraid to trade with Cuba?”

Yes, I know about the history with Castro, strained relationships and tense moments over the years. But who’s to say our two countries can’t mend fences. It’s been done before. Japan and Germany come to mind.

The rewards for the U.S. and Texas agriculture would be huge.

The 50-year Cuba embargo “experiment” has failed. The legislation to reverse it is printed and waiting for support.

It’s time for the double standard to end. Relationships can change. I’m not an expert but I’ve seen it firsthand.

Don’t believe me? I encourage a trip across the pond.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org.
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

By Robert Fleming

Riding from town to the farms and ranches as a child, I heard many stories told by my grandfather—who was born and raised in what now is the heavily urbanized I-35 corridor—of the changes of the era from 1915 to the 1970s. Small communities such as Oenaville, Bellfals, Durango, Cego and Blevins were described in great detail. Some of these small towns had gins, drug stores, blacksmith shops and barber shops. Today, there are only memories. 

Nearly all of the farms had at least one family living on them in the 1930s. They were housed in a small wood framed house, raised cotton and grew grain for their farm animals and mules. Most living conditions were somewhat harsh and families lived without electricity until it was available. Drinking water was furnished from cisterns that collected the rain water off of rusty tin roofs or from shallow stock tanks with a windmill and high tank tower to provide pressurized water to the house. Treatment of the water was unknown at the time. It was often told that mules pulled wagons filled with cotton, in lines over five miles long waiting to be unloaded at the area gins. 

The roads were all dirt, not gravel and the ruts became very deep in the rainy months. My granddad often mentioned he saw as many as 13 Model Ts stuck and abandoned in a five mile stretch between Oenaville and Temple.

If people traveled to Temple once a month, they were lucky. Nowadays they travel to town numerous times a day. If you traveled in a Model A, you better remember your license plate number when parking because all the cars were identical.

The kids didn’t go with their parents to town to get new shoes. Trace patterns of their feet were put onto paste board and carried to town to purchase shoes. To get to the small schools, kids walked or rode horses several miles. 

The depression of the 1930s and the drought of the 1950s, poor living conditions and higher wages in town forced nearly everyone to town for a better life. 

By the early 1970s, country roads were being improved, trash pickup service was created and community water systems were developed by buying water from lakes far away which would  pipe treated water directly to the housing. After these improvement to the country, the heirs of the landowners started slowly returning to their roots. 

Flashing forward to today, urbanization has started to take effect on these small country communities. Things such as stressful town life, crowded highways, and custom homes built on the farms have helped bring a huge migration of city people. 

When some landowners died off, some heirs had no ties to the land. High, escalating land prices of the new decade made it a quick and easy decision to sell. Some pieces of land were divided by the advice of the realtor into smaller, more valuable tracts, because of the higher demand of ranchettes. It’s interesting to watch a realtor pull up in a BMW—dressed in a skirt and high heels—wade out into the Johnson grass and try to put a for sale sign. Dividing the land into small sections caused more people, more houses, and more traffic for the producer to deal with. More people brought the demand of more roads, which meant more trash and more easements to try to cultivate around. 

These extra people are causing a problem for the producer on the roads. Farmers choose to travel the gravel and the Farm-to-Market Roads between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. when most people are at work in town to avoid a collision with the equipment. When traveling, farmers have to be more careful because our new neighbors may not yield to equipment on their commute to and from work. 
More people in the country has also forced producers to form a better relationship with the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) inspector. The urbanites often call with complaints about spray machines or airplanes. 

Finally, precious farm and ranch land capable of producing abundant and safe food and fiber without irrigation is being taken up by ranchettes, leaving a farm family with fewer acres, causing a higher demand for agriculture land. 

In a few hundred years, when population outgrows food and fiber production, will concrete housing ever be completely removed for the land to be put back in production?

Business-wise, I had a call from the sheriff’s office recently at 11p.m. that a cow was hit on a Farm-to-Market Road. I arrived at the scene in record time, finding a small car completely destroyed, just knowing that the people inside couldn’t survive. Luckily, I was wrong. It was obvious the cow was mine with my personal information in her ear. My risk management plan was in place and my farm and ranch liability policy handled the claim. 

I’ve also had a truck plow into the back of a grain cart, with all the flashers operating properly, and a fresh Slow Moving Vehicle or (SMV) emblem just installed caused.

Both incidents caused me to rethink urbanized farming and ranching risk. 

Taking the advice of numerous articles, Extension specialists, and my attorney, we formed a Limited Liability Company(LLC) and Family Limited Partnership(FLP) for legal protection. Hopefully, this is another step to deal with an unpredictable future.  I certainly feel that future generations will have a tremendous challenge.

Robert Fleming is a farmer and rancher in Bell County.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org.
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

By Gene Hall

It was my pleasure to work with reporter June Torbati of the New York Times last week on her fine story about the efforts of the Texas Farm Bureau to open up Cuba for both trade and travel. 

I have written about Cuba before in this space. I’ve been there twice, in 1999 and in 2000. Others in Texas Farm Bureau have traveled there on trade missions in 2006 and 2008. That first trip in 1999 included a late night dinner meeting with Fidel Castro. Along with five rice farmers and a Texas Congressmen, we spent five hours with the man known as Maximum Leader.

The eight years of the Bush Administration were a lost cause for removing the trade and travel restrictions on Cuba. A lot of that had to do with Florida election politics and the large Cuban American community there. I was asked by reporters in 1999 if ending the embargo would signal support for Castro. My answer then is the same as now—absolutely not. We do not endorse human rights violations in trading with China or Saudi Arabia. We even trade with Viet Nam.

Justification for any embargo must be based on a political objective. Clearly, the objective in the case of Cuba is regime change. In that, it has been a colossal failure. Castro has outlasted nine U.S. presidents and he was well enough to appear on Cuban television this week.

Let’s allow Americans to travel to Cuba. Give them the chance to eat American rice and other products while they are there. America is alone among all the nations of the world in this failed policy. Almost half a century of bashing our collective head against the wall is long enough. It will feel so much better when we stop.

A bill easing those travel and trade restrictions finally has a chance to get to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. It came out of the House Agriculture Committee. Sadly, only one of three Texans on the committee, Representative Henry Cuellar, voted for it.

We have probably hurt the Cuban people with our embargo. We have not and will not impact the Castro regime. American’s would love going to Cuba. It’s a beautiful place. You can take my word for that. Texas and American farmers would love to ship commodities there. If this sounds fair to you, let your Congressman know. It’s time—no, way past time—to end this miserable failure of foreign policy.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org.
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

By Mike Barnett

Am I going nuts?

Okay, don’t answer that.

But the food crazies are driving me insane. Seems that every production practice modern agriculture uses is condemned by some group out there who thinks the world would be rosy if we would only go back to the good old days.

I heard Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples the other night say that modern agriculture is as technically advanced as the Silicon Valley. And he’s right.

Yet many food crazies long for the days of 40 acres and a mule and human cotton-picking machines. What’s this world coming to?

Today’s farmer has to be part computer geek, half techno freak with a good dash of policy wonk just to make it through the work day. Astounding gains in farm productivity have been made with the advance of machinery and tools. Computers and microchips help farmers get the most out of every input. Satellites soaring 12,000 miles over Mother Earth guide the farmer working the field with precise application of pesticides and fertilizers via Global Positioning Systems (GPS).

A chip in a calf’s ear can help a rancher monitor that animal’s growth and productivity. A chip in a dairy cow’s ear can help the dairyman monitor feed intake and milk production.

Through biotechnology, crops are becoming more drought resistant. Fruits and veggies are receiving improved tolerance to frost. Insect-resistant crops will reduce the need for pesticides. Genetic research could lead the way to higher growth rates, better milk yield and quality, tenderness, disease resistance, heat and cold tolerance, and hundreds of other traits important to livestock producers.

Yet all of this is bad. Why? Because someone with no connection to the food they eat—other than sticking it in their mouth—says so.

They watch their anti-agriculture documentaries on their 50 inch flat screens in their air conditioned homes, hop in their gas-guzzling SUVs to take a trip to Whole Foods where they’re faced with astounding array of food and come home, fire up their Netbook or Notebook or I-Phone and label modern food production practices as evil industrial agriculture. Technology drives their lives yet they attempt to create firewalls between farmers and science.

Do these people really long for a simpler way of life? There’s a way for them to achieve it. A hoe, rake, seeds and some backbreaking work could help them reach their goals.

It’s enough to drive me crazy.

Technology is not an option for agriculture or consumers. It is the key for safe, affordable food in this country and to feed an ever-growing world population.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org.
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.