By Gene Hall

I read in the Victoria (Texas) Advocate the other day about yet another farmer who has run “afowl” of the expectations of the environmental police. The comments following the newspaper story were a curious blend of reasonable discussion and hysteria. The farmer’s  malfeasance? Spreading chicken manure on his pastures. The resulting smell offended some of the folks downwind. Did you know chicken manure smells? How about that?

Okay folks, I gotta ask. Do you want organic agriculture or not? This is what it smells like. No doubt, there were other factors in this farmer’s decision to use chicken waste. There’s the sky high cost of fertilizer. That makes manure very attractive, especially if there is a ready source nearby. I do not know the farmer in question, but I wonder if his decision to use organic fertilizer was made on economic factors. I suspect it was, but what if he was responding to all the public caterwauling that promotes organic agriculture?  On the best days, you can’t please everyone. Some folks, you can’t please at all.

Organic farmers deserve respect. It’s harder to grow a crop that way. That’s one reason the fruits of their labor cost more. But the tools of the organic trade—including manure—come with environmental baggage of their own. Manure can affect phosphorus loads in local water supplies, promoting the growth of algae. This can cause problems in water quality and treatment. Then, of course, there are the smells. That this source of nutrients can be used at all in this regulatory climate is a tribute to the skills of farmers, organic and otherwise.

The fact of the matter is this. Feeding the world is a tough job. In three decades of writing about agriculture, I’ve learned that raising a crop or managing a herd is just going to hack some people off, no matter how hard you try not to. There are difficult decisions to be made regarding our food supply. If you don’t want to bother with learning ALL the facts, you’d be doing the world a favor by staying out of the argument.

By Mike Barnett

A proposal in the U.S. House would take production agriculture standards out of the hands of professionals and turn them over to bureaucrats. That’s what I find worrisome about new animal welfare legislation by two U.S. representatives from the Left Coast.

HR 4733, The Prevention of Farm Cruelty Act, was introduced earlier this month by Reps. Diane Watson and Elton Gallegly, both from California. If passed, the bill would prohibit the government from purchasing animal products that are not “humanely” produced for school lunch and other federal programs.

So who defines "humane?" That’s the problem. My friend and coworker Ken Hodges, who is an associate legislative director for the Texas Farm Bureau, says the bill would mandate arbitrary humane animal production standards. By arbitrary he means standards developed without input from veterinarians or animal producers.

As Ken so aptly says, when we start having somebody who doesn’t understand animals deciding what is or isn’t animal cruelty, we have real problems.

Folks, we have real problems.

The legislation—which resembles doctrine espoused by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups—is based on the presumption that farm animals are not routinely treated humanely.

A few years ago that line of thinking would have been ridiculed. A decade of relentless propaganda, however, has changed public perceptions. A consumer suspicious of the way you care for your livestock is the new reality.

The issue is not intentional cruelty, although those rare cases are highly publicized. Under the microscope are practices that the public has been told are cruel, and now believe—practices such as battery cages, gestation stalls and most other confinement practices.

As a defense, agriculture points to painstaking animal welfare standards—proper veterinary care, fresh water, clean animal feed, etc. from birth to harvest—which have been developed through years of research by scientists and producers for every species of livestock. Those standards by and large have been developed to maintain healthy animals. And we can argue until the cows come home that healthy livestock are happy livestock.

But reactive thinking isn’t cutting it anymore. The industry needs to get out of its defensive posture and get ahead of this animal welfare issue. We are never going to satisfy PETA and HSUS, and shouldn’t even try. But we can throw a barrier between them and the American consumer.

Is an "ethical standard of care" for livestock the answer? Should producers and researchers define animal welfare, and point to those standards when accused of doing wrong? If so, how far do we go and how do we implement it? And would it help?

Let me know what you think.

By Gene Hall

I watched a dog die on the highway near my son’s home in Kyle last week. It didn’t have to happen. That white Chevrolet S-10 had slowed down. Perhaps it lost track of the animal that I took to be a mixed breed with a lot of Basset hound in it. He was running loose with two other dogs on a very busy street. He had a collar, but not an owner who could or would keep him inside the fence. The S-10 rolled right over him and kept going. Roger and I were too far away to note a plate number. We stopped with some other folks, who petted him as he breathed his last painful breaths. It didn’t have to happen.

It makes me sick at my stomach to see an animal intentionally or stupidly mistreated. I grew up on a livestock farm. Our horses and dogs were implements of the cattle trade, but they were treated almost like royalty. Our pigs, chickens and cattle were always treated well, though they eventually wound up on ours or someone’s dinner table. Mistreating them was just something we never thought about, much less did. It’s counterproductive on a working livestock operation. I believe nearly all people who raise animals for a living feel this way too.

Our society has developed a system to take care of animals, but in these times of economic hardship, that system is under stress. It does not help that some organizations take advantage of people that love animals. The Humane Society of the United States collects millions with images of mistreated dogs and cats. The trouble is, they spend less than one-half of one percent of that to take care of animals like the ones in their commercials and literature. The lion’s share of it goes to raise more money and to lobby against agricultural practices. Singer Carrie Underwood made PSAs for the extremist group. Australian wine maker Yellow Tail had to face a backlash of outrage when they gave $100,000 to HSUS.

Take care of your own pets. Spaying and neutering are important. Secure your pets inside your home or fenced yard. Animals left to roam will meet a painful end on the side of a road. Others will starve to death when an irresponsible owner no longer wants them. No, someone will not pick up the animal and care for it. It will starve or die under a tire. This is lazy and stupid. 

If you want to help animals in your community, look closer to home. In a bad economy, one of the first charities to suffer is your local animal shelter. There are more stray dogs and cats than they can handle. Volunteers and cash are both in short supply. If this is a cause to which you’d like to donate, do it locally. These shelters can use both volunteers and money. They are actually doing the work HSUS and PETA only pretend to do. The local shelters are not lobbying to force their agenda on everyone else. They’re just taking care of animals, one at a time. They deserve your admiration and your support.

 By Mike Barnett

Okay, Texas Farm Bureau’s AGFUND endorsed candidate for governor lost the Republican primary. It was a huge disappointment for those who worked so hard to see Kay Bailey Hutchison heading our state government in Austin.

But as my blog writing partner Gene Hall said, the sun did come up on Wednesday morning. The birds sang. And life goes on. As does Texas Farm Bureau’s efforts to achieve true eminent domain reform.

Senator Hutchison recognized the archaic state of Texas property laws. She promised to right the private property wrongs which have plagued the Lone Star State. She promised to give true eminent domain reform priority in her administration. Although she was unsuccessful in a hard fought battle, Texas Farm Bureau’s fervor for private property rights justice has not cooled.

Nobody knows who will be elected in November. If the political pundits can be believed, it’s going to be a real horse race.

What I do know is although it has been bashed and battered over the last four years, the will to deliver eminent domain reform to Texas property laws has not been diminished. Farm Bureau leaders overachieved in their efforts to get Proposition 11 passed last year, and their efforts were rewarded as the constitutional amendment passed with the highest percentage of any of the proposals on the ballot.

But Proposition 11, which prohibits the government from acquiring land for non-public use, was only the first step. True reform will happen only when additional protections—including offers to landowners that represent fair market value, compensation to landowners for lost access to their property, and the right of landowners to repurchase land not used for condemning purposes—are added to state law.

 Texas Farm Bureau members need to work to finish reform efforts with the same intensity they tackled Proposition 11. We must lay the groundwork now to remind our state representatives and senators of the importance this issue holds for all Texans. New candidates for state government need to know where we stand.

When they go into session next January, state legislators must quickly affirm the language from last session’s SB 18, which unanimously passed the Senate but was tied up by the voter ID wrangling in the House as the session closed.

Any delay could be fatal to our efforts. If whoever is elected governor chooses to veto the reform bill, it would take every remaining day of the session to accomplish an override. There are many who are opposed to this effort to protect private property rights who will be seeking derailment at every opportunity. Those opportunities will abound with a legislative agenda crowded with Sunset bills, redistricting and dealing with an estimated $20 billion budget shortfall.

With the disappointments of the last two sessions, it would seem the deck is stacked against Farm Bureau in our eminent domain efforts. Not so. We are a grassroots organization of true believers. The fire to protect our rights as property owners burns deep within. We’ve come very close to achieving our goals two times.

Texans need eminent domain reform. Farm Bureau members are not timid in standing up for what they believe. We will work hard for success. I know we are up to the task. The third time will be the charm.

Sign up for Texas Agriculture Talks text alerts. Get a notice when we update our blog. Click Here

By Gene Hall

The trouble with regulations is they often lead you in a meaningless circle back to the uncomfortable place where you started. The plague of unintended consequences proliferates under government regulations more than any other way I know. Good intentions can yield bad results.

The subject of my blog today is based on a column in Today’s Catholic, written by Father Samuel Heitkamp. I’ve been thinking of writing something along similar lines, but Father Heitkamp brought it all home to me. I want to explore his thesis while giving him full credit for original thinking. No intent to plagiarize here.

Water restrictions are a fact of life in many parts of Texas. So are the symptoms of allergies that can be blamed on the prolific cedar trees that mess with Texas sinuses.

More correctly named a juniper, this plant is not native to Texas. As Father Heitkamp says, Davy Crockett would not have seen them when he came to Texas. It pollinates like crazy—my nose is running this very moment—and it pollinates in winter. It spreads more than 20 times the amount of pollen it needs to procreate. We breathe this and some of us suffer because of it.

From an economic standpoint, it’s probably worse that the cedar is a real water hog. Where control efforts have been implemented, stream flows improved and groundwater tables were maximized. Father Heitkamp points out in his piece that old springs have been know to bubble to life again where cedars have been controlled.

The trouble is, some endangered song birds nest in cedars/junipers. Since the cedar is not native to Texas, you have to assume that these picky birds are not either. But they are here now and they are protected along with their cedar/juniper habitat by the Endangered Species Act. Where cedars thrive, water tables decline. Stream flows into our bays and estuaries decrease. As a result, other endangered species, like the whooping crane, other waterfowl, fish, oysters, clams and many more, suffer too. Chalk much of this up to thirsty, non-native cedars.

So, the circle is complete. We are back in the less than desirable place we started. Preserving an endangered non-native species that depends on a harmful non-native species leads to more problems and unintended consequences. Father Heitkamp says, “Now you have read in my column many times that we need to be good stewards of God’s earth, but it looks like man will need to be endangered to get relief in these problems.”

Couldn’t have said it better myself. *Sniff*

Sign up for Texas Agriculture Talks text alerts. Get a notice when we update our blog. Click Here

By Mike Barnett
I ran across a couple of situations last week that got me thinking. Now a guy with a blog who thinks is a dangerous commodity. But here we go anyway.

The first situation was a news story on local television about a starving herd of cattle in East Texas. The cattle were in pitiful shape—emaciated, hook and pin bones stretching the flesh, ribs showing. The report said 50 cattle in the herd were dead near a creek, ruining the water source for the rest of the herd. The authorities had stepped in and were loading the cattle that remained into trailers to be moved to another location. It was a black eye for the beef industry.

I heard about a second incident in a phone conversation with a Texas Farm Bureau member. He told of a situation involving a neighbor that resulted in that family’s indecision over what to do with the cow herd. In reality, the cows were not being cared for and had nothing to eat. The cattle were in bad shape, he related. It was only a matter of time before they started dying.

Now I don’t know the incidentals in either of these situations, and even if I did, I’m not the one to judge. But I do know that letting cattle get to the point of starvation is simply unacceptable.

First of all, no animal should be treated in that manner, no matter what the circumstances. Second, it’s a public relations nightmare for the entire red meat industry and opens the door for overregulation of the 99 percent of livestock people who do things right. It is situations like these that animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States—who would like nothing more than for the livestock industry to disappear—dream about.

That said, farmers and ranchers are some of the most independent folks you’ll ever find. They tend to mind their own business. They are not their brother’s keeper.

But every farmer and rancher is a gate keeper for their industry. How you handle your operation and respond to events which shape that industry may very well determine your future.

Here’s what I’m getting around to. In the first situation, unless those cattle were out in the middle of nowhere, neighbors saw what was happening. They saw the steady digression of the cattle’s health. Maybe they knew of the cattle’s deaths, maybe not. Yet the emaciated cattle were testament that something was wrong. Yet nobody acted.

Things were different in the second incident. The member I talked to was taking action. He had talked to several industry officials. They were going to pay a visit to the family to see if the situation could be straightened out. He was even willing to help care for the cattle, or help get them shipped to the packer, if it came to that.

So what is the right answer? As in the first case, do you turn a blind eye to these situations and let it become the whole industry’s problem? Or as in the second case, do you act proactively—stand up for the health of the cattle and the industry—and get those livestock the care they need?

I’m very interested in hearing what you have to say.

Sign up for Texas Agriculture Talks text alerts. Get a notice when we update our blog. Click Here

Election Day is next Tuesday and with it, your chance to affect government.  We don’t do politics on this blog, but we do government. We criticize when called for and praise when earned.  Okay, I admit it.  There hasn’t been much to praise recently. 

The debate on all the cable news shows is over whether or not government, at the federal level is “broken.” Well, Duh.  Of course it’s broken.  It’s never been more broken and frankly we’re seeing a lot of that in Texas government as well.

The extremes of the political spectrum, left and right, are throwing a blue faced tantrum.  There is no pretense of compromise, no give and take.  In every human relationship, we negotiate, we compromise and we decide what we are willing to give up in order to get something else we want.  Why should politics be any different?  It’s not, and the inability to accept this simple concept is the reason government is broken.

My message to the far left is, “No, we are not going to accept pushing the U.S. toward a status akin to the socialist democracies of Western Europe.”  The current majority in Washington misread their mandate in trying to achieve this.  Having said that, we know that there are certain things that only government can do.  Left unchecked, markets and capitalism sometimes go off the rails.  Reasonable amounts of adult supervision and regulations are prudent.  Too much of it can be a disaster.  Just check out what’s going on at EPA.  Park the steamroller and seek out common ground.

My message to the far right is, “There has got to be more to your plan than ‘no new taxes or reduce taxes.”  Government has obligations.  I am closer to your position than to the left, but come on.  Stonewalling is a poor tactic.  Compromise is possible and desirable without sacrificing principle.  Failing to understand this is why you’re now in the minority.  Americans are with you on smaller government, but you really haven’t delivered on that.  We can’t spend like we’ve been spending under both Democrats and Republicans without the bill coming due.  I’m not comfortable in sticking my five month old granddaughter with the check.

What I’m getting at here is that both sides have their feet set in stone, claiming that it has to be all white or all black.  There are shades of gray in governing.  There are tough decisions that must be made.  People live in the big middle. Ideologues like to lurk on the edges.  If the left and right can move to the middle, I think they’ll find most people there waiting for them.  Governing is choices.  Governing is compromise.  It has been thus since the beginning of our republic.

If you think your elected officials need a nudge to get there, Tuesday is your chance.

Sign up for Texas Agriculture Talks text alerts. Get a notice when we update our blog. Click Here

By Mike Barnett

Guess what? Fighting pests on the farm might become a lot harder.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to change the way you spray pesticides. Changing the rules to correct a wrong is right. Changing the rules just to change the rules, or to satisfy the agenda of an unrelated group, is wrong. The unintended consequences can be a killer.

In the current Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN), the Worker Protection Standard for agricultural products directs the applicator to not apply the product in a way “that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift.” The proposed change from the EPA to the PRN adds the following statement: “In addition, do not apply this product in a manner that results in spray drift that could cause an adverse effect to people or other non-target organism or site.”

In other words, don’t apply the pesticide if there’s any chance of drift that might cause a problem with people, pets, property, aquatic life, wildlife or the environment. Under a strict interpretation, be safe and don’t spray anything.

Looks to me EPA would rather you not use pesticides, which is fine, I guess if the aim is to wreck a system of checks and balances used to safely produce our nation’s abundant food supply. You have to wonder about the intent of their proposals and/or who is pushing EPA in this direction.

There is so much wrong with this action that it’s hard to know where to begin. EPA and state pesticide policies have acknowledged for years that some small level of pesticide drift is unavoidable and does not pose “unreasonable adverse effect.”

The new proposal basically sets a zero drift standard, which any farmer or rancher will tell you cannot be achieved. Wind and temperature can change in a moment’s notice, many times during an application. Even following application guidelines to the letter will result in some drift.

The real kick in the butt, however, is the “could cause harm” proposal, which is a senseless shift from the “unreasonable adverse effect” doctrine and would be a legal tinderbox for agriculture. A simple headache—even non-related allergies—could subject a farmer to a lawsuit, just because someone claimed it was caused by the farmer’s use of a pesticide. For all intents, the “could cause harm” proposal might as well read “might cause harm,” there is a “remote possibility of harm” or “there’s a billion to one chance it may result in harm.” “The language is that vague, and changes the function of an enforcer to a risk assessor. The safety of a pesticide application will be subject to the interpretation of an untrained farm cop. The legal and regulatory ramifications will make farming even riskier.

Current standards for protecting human health and the environment belong with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) approved and enforced labels for pesticide products. This pesticide labeling—developed from years of testing to determine the adverse effects the pesticide might hold for humans, wildlife and the environment—include directions for use which are based upon risk assessment and which incorporate mitigation and application techniques that are specifically designed to minimize drift.

EPA is dreaming the impossible dream with their new no drift and “could cause harm” proposals, which could produce vivid nightmares for agriculture producers. If adopted, the potential for heavy-handed regulation and frivolous lawsuits is all too real.

EPA will accept public comments until March 5. Folks, this is one issue you should probably talk to them about.

You can submit comments directly to this website:  http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a66c8d

Sign up for Texas Agriculture Talks text alerts. Get a notice when we update our blog. Click Here

By Gene Hall

Mike Barnett and I have been blogging for half a year now. I think we’ve pleased a few folks and angered some others. Hopefully, we’ve presented a side of many controversial issues that hasn’t gotten enough attention—the side of Texas’ family farmers and ranchers. In the process, I hope we’ve made a positive contribution to the debate over the future of American agriculture.

I’ve learned that some people absolutely refuse to be confused by facts. I’ve learned that many on the “other side” are thoughtful and compassionate, but they are being presented with ideas they’ve not thought about before. I have been exposed to their arguments. They and I are both somewhat uncomfortable coming to terms with the opposition. I have relearned what I already knew. All actions have consequences. Some want utopia and mean to have it. Others know we’ll have to compromise short of that.

I learned that opponents of agriculture, who are fond of such phrases as “factory farm”—are not amused when I try to explain the positive similarities between actual factories and farms. No one posted such on our site, but I was equated to a mass murderer on some other blogs. Ouch! It was tongue-in-cheek, but I remain a devoted supporter of farmers and ranchers. Blogging requires a thick hide. I am an Aggie and fan of A&M football. I can take it.

I have also been introduced to “spam bots.” These insidious little software creatures bore out through the Internet and look for blogs to respond to with the sole mission of getting their website posted on as many blogs as possible. I frequently get responses, like “Great blog!” or “I will look forward to your next post!” Flattering, until you realize there is no person on the other end. I win though. Mike and I approve every post because we don’t want profanity or overt rudeness on this blog. There’s no way these parasites get on. Still, it’s annoying to get “Payday Loans” email notices from every state, Alabama through Wyoming. I have dark thoughts about the people behind this. As we trudge down the Information Super Highway, this is what we scrape off our boots.

Mike and I welcome your responses, and please, suggest topics we might tackle. Blogging is fun, challenging and I hope—helpful—as we try to understand each other in this age of controversy.

Sign up for Texas Agriculture Talks text alerts. Get a notice when we update our blog. Click Here

By Mike Barnett

They failed to see beyond abused puppies and kittens.

That's what I think happened to Yellow Tail Wine, the brand from Australia that managed to unite most of agriculture against them for supporting the Humane Society of the United State (HSUS) with a $100,000 donation. Yellow Tail followed the same tune as Rush Limbaugh, who raised agriculture's ire last spring when he recorded a public service announcement for the animal rights group.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't drink Yellow Tail wine, never have. I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh but the ultra-conservative talk show host lost me a long time ago with his bombastic self adoration. I'm not making excuses for either one of them. They should have known better. They should have conducted some basic research before they bit. Apparently, they didn't.

Both succumbed to the HSUS Siren song, a call so pure and simple that it hooks people--just like the thousands who unwittingly send in their hard earned money to support a cause that just isn't so. Underneath the irresistible lullaby of helping neglected dogs and cats is a cold blooded intent to eliminate modern livestock production practices.

The actions of Yellow Tail and Rush Limbaugh are symptoms that the HSUS disease is spreading. Like cancer which slowly consumes an otherwise healthy body, HSUS painstakingly raises funds through false pretenses and steadily attacks the livestock industry, using stealth to overwhelm its defenses.

Yellow Tail's and Rush Limbaugh's actions on behalf of HSUS have resulted in outrage from the agriculture community. Rightly so. The image of a young rancher  pouring out a bottle of Yellow Tail in the pasture—with cows and a camera as his witnesses—is vividly etched in my mind. Yellow Tail Wine has heard the displeasure of thousands of farmers and ranchers. My hope, however, is that agriculture doesn't lose sight of the big picture.

As I said in Texas Agriculture Talks Feb. 1 update, HSUS and other activist groups are doomed to eventual failure. Before their demise, however, those groups can do irreparable harm.

That is why agriculture must get its act together, now. Yellow Tail proves the agricultural outrage is there. We've treated the symptoms. It's time to redirect that outrage and cure the disease.