Another post from Gene Baur today, outlining general ideas of bliss that makes him sound just like every other political ad right now on the TV. I've given up believing he will ever post my comments or respond to my questions. It's hard to force myself to use correct grammar anymore in my comments since I know they will always go to waste. But just in case, here was one more today...
Gene,
I thought today it would just be good if you outlined what truly happens to those turkeys which you "save". Are they "healthier"? Are they allowed to exhibit normal behaviors such as reproduction and fighting? How do you control overpopulation and disease? Or do you force the turkeys to live as you want them to exist, making you out to be the hypocrite?
Thanks,
-Benjamin
Monday, October 25, 2010
Antibiotic resistance continued
I had briefly discussed antibiotics in feed for animals on production farms and concerns that people had about building up antibiotic resistant strains that will later impact the human population. My take on it was that the misuse of antibiotics in our society among humans is far worse than any damage we might imagine is occurring from the livestock sector. To further emphasize my point, read this article about the US senate committee's trip to Denmark and the take-aways they have about the feed antibiotic ban there. A sharp increase in antibiotic resistant "bugs" without being used on animals anymore should definitely be a warning sign to the doubters out there that we have bigger problems than farmers who a responsibly caring for their livestock.
Milk producers behind the times
I'm currently trying to correct a huge publishing error on Blogger.com which merged 2 of my blogs together into something less than intelligible. Hopefully this works...
I know this is one of the more controversial subjects that I touch on, but the Gateway to Animal Welfare has once again uploaded discussion about tail docking dairy cows and it is time people realized that this is an issue which simply isn't going away.
Tail docking started in New Zealand in the 1960's as a way of limiting urine splash onto milkers' faces and thus preventing the spread of leptospirosis to dairy farmers, presumably passed from bovine to human. As it turns out, further research by Mackintosh in the 1980's found that the incidence of Leptospirosis is much stronger correlated to previous worker health and their exposure to rodents while on the job.
That being said, the question presumably follows, "Why are we still docking cows?". Well, the assumptions began to stack up that docked cows would be cleaner around their udder, healthier (less mastitis), and would be producing a higher quality milk. Research since has proven none of these to be true. In fact, not only is there little discernible improvement in the health of cows or the quality of milk, but the cows are further prevented from avoiding flies since they have lost the ability to swat them with their tails as found by Eicher in 2000-2002.
Folks, this research is nearly 10 years old and yet we have made minimal steps towards ending tail docking as a practice in the US dairy industry. You know that I'm an advocate of the dairy industry and livestock agriculture but this is a concerning subject to me. The debate should not be on whether or not the docking is harming the animals. Since this is not providing any gain to the farmer beyond milker relief from tails (which can also be aided by trimming switches), then why are we going to the effort to remove tails from cows that can put them to good use and will be able to retain their natural appearance. This is far different from the case of sheep which will suffer diseases with an intact tail. Dairy cows need their tail and we aren't getting a thing out of taking it off. It's time that the national dairy industry and organizations supporting them begin serious discussions about voluntarily removing this as an industry practice before someone from the outside comes in and makes it happen like they did in California.
It's up to us to be responsible for caring for our animals. If we don't take charge, someone less knowledgeable will take it away from us.
I know this is one of the more controversial subjects that I touch on, but the Gateway to Animal Welfare has once again uploaded discussion about tail docking dairy cows and it is time people realized that this is an issue which simply isn't going away.
Tail docking started in New Zealand in the 1960's as a way of limiting urine splash onto milkers' faces and thus preventing the spread of leptospirosis to dairy farmers, presumably passed from bovine to human. As it turns out, further research by Mackintosh in the 1980's found that the incidence of Leptospirosis is much stronger correlated to previous worker health and their exposure to rodents while on the job.
That being said, the question presumably follows, "Why are we still docking cows?". Well, the assumptions began to stack up that docked cows would be cleaner around their udder, healthier (less mastitis), and would be producing a higher quality milk. Research since has proven none of these to be true. In fact, not only is there little discernible improvement in the health of cows or the quality of milk, but the cows are further prevented from avoiding flies since they have lost the ability to swat them with their tails as found by Eicher in 2000-2002.
Folks, this research is nearly 10 years old and yet we have made minimal steps towards ending tail docking as a practice in the US dairy industry. You know that I'm an advocate of the dairy industry and livestock agriculture but this is a concerning subject to me. The debate should not be on whether or not the docking is harming the animals. Since this is not providing any gain to the farmer beyond milker relief from tails (which can also be aided by trimming switches), then why are we going to the effort to remove tails from cows that can put them to good use and will be able to retain their natural appearance. This is far different from the case of sheep which will suffer diseases with an intact tail. Dairy cows need their tail and we aren't getting a thing out of taking it off. It's time that the national dairy industry and organizations supporting them begin serious discussions about voluntarily removing this as an industry practice before someone from the outside comes in and makes it happen like they did in California.
It's up to us to be responsible for caring for our animals. If we don't take charge, someone less knowledgeable will take it away from us.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
ODA Civil Penalties for Welfare Violations
The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board met and finished the released draft of their proposed civil penalties for livestock neglect and abuse. I read through the draft and am impressed by the timeliness of this released document as well as the increased stringency of the proposed fines and punishment. Hopefully these proposed penalties will be enough to deter those farmers who potentially would give a bad name to the rest of farmers doing a good job of caring for their animals in Ohio.
ARS updates
I had planned to include some Gateway to Animal Welfare news articles from last week which were very interesting but access to them is currently limited due to a server problem on their end. Look for these in the future, as well as an uploaded powerpoint with a link embedded so that you can view my summer presentation related to the dairy taildocking debate.
In the meantime, please enjoy the bi-weekly ARS e-newsletter updates.
First is an article related to the increase in Canola being planted in the Pacific Northwest. After my spring and summer employment with MSU extension and the work I put into biofuel research lit reviews, I can honestly say that Canola oil does show great potential as an up and coming biodiesel fuel alternative. This is also a really pretty crop as I noticed when we overseas in the Salisbury area of England. The question will be whether it can be more environmentally friendly in the long-run than other energy alternatives. Wind energy certainly hasn't held up to the expectations held for it.
As Menhaden fish meal becomes in shorter supply and thus higher prices, ARS is also involved in research to feed more plant-based diets to fish on fish farms. Besides the supply aspect and sustainability concerns, when I research fish meal last year and its use as a feedstuff, it was unbelievable to me how expensive it was as a source of protein and specific amino and fatty acids in a diet. It might be a great feedstuff for diet balancing but it is just too expensive to be used in the quantities it was being used in.
Alltech's World Equestrian Games were also deemed highly successful as they came to a close after 16 days with over 0.5 million people in attendance over the span of the games. USA did pretty well with 8 medals in the events as well. I would've loved to have gone. I've heard about it at the Alltech booths for the last couple of years, but there is just so much to do this time of year and driving down to Lexington just couldn't be tacked on to life right now.
With increasing concerns about the E. Coli contamination and subsequent illnesses, the USDA-FSIS is now requiring inspectors and ground beef producers to specify the origin of the beef so that traceback on contaminated supplies will be faster and reduce illness.
In the meantime, please enjoy the bi-weekly ARS e-newsletter updates.
First is an article related to the increase in Canola being planted in the Pacific Northwest. After my spring and summer employment with MSU extension and the work I put into biofuel research lit reviews, I can honestly say that Canola oil does show great potential as an up and coming biodiesel fuel alternative. This is also a really pretty crop as I noticed when we overseas in the Salisbury area of England. The question will be whether it can be more environmentally friendly in the long-run than other energy alternatives. Wind energy certainly hasn't held up to the expectations held for it.
As Menhaden fish meal becomes in shorter supply and thus higher prices, ARS is also involved in research to feed more plant-based diets to fish on fish farms. Besides the supply aspect and sustainability concerns, when I research fish meal last year and its use as a feedstuff, it was unbelievable to me how expensive it was as a source of protein and specific amino and fatty acids in a diet. It might be a great feedstuff for diet balancing but it is just too expensive to be used in the quantities it was being used in.
Alltech's World Equestrian Games were also deemed highly successful as they came to a close after 16 days with over 0.5 million people in attendance over the span of the games. USA did pretty well with 8 medals in the events as well. I would've loved to have gone. I've heard about it at the Alltech booths for the last couple of years, but there is just so much to do this time of year and driving down to Lexington just couldn't be tacked on to life right now.
With increasing concerns about the E. Coli contamination and subsequent illnesses, the USDA-FSIS is now requiring inspectors and ground beef producers to specify the origin of the beef so that traceback on contaminated supplies will be faster and reduce illness.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Humane Watch
As you can see, I've added a 3rd blog to read on the sidebar of my own blog. Humane Watch has consistently come up with revealing, data-backed posts related to the lies propagated by the HSUS. I suggest you read their blog occasionally to catch up on the items they are able to uncover with their increasing scope and budget. This includes their recent post about the relative size of HSUS membership compared with other even more radical and absurd organizations.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Manure production
Gene Baur pushed my limit today with his blog entry. I have a short fuse because Mabel stopped running this morning and I'm liable to not take anti-livestock agriculture sentiments well today.
My apologies, but my blog comment will be a summary instead. Gene, you spend so much time trying to pin livestock agriculture as the proverbial tail on a donkey of fault for the world's problems. You'd probably do better if you weren't distracted by the ass in your own mirror.
It didn't take me long to find some reputable information about the waste produced in the US. 4 lbs. every day x 300.000.000 people in the US adds up to a lot of waste every day. The waste production is a much larger problem than that of manure production in the US, besides the fact that manure is recycled by farmers whereas garbage is just dumped. Per a news article this summer about the mess the Mississippi River is experiencing, and topped by a slight BP spill this summer, I think Gene is out of turn in accusing the Gulf of Mexico's problems as the fault of livestock agriculture. The gulf has a significant problem, but this is the combined fault of many factors not the least of which is the wastefulness of Americans. Spend your time figuring out how to better reduce and reuse your own impact on the earth and please spend less time pointing fingers at environmentally responsible, governmentally regulated and audited farmers. We are doing our part to feed the world and care for the environment, what are you doing?
Do livestock farmers use a lot of water? Sure, but the water is recycled (something the Columbus Dispatch also conveniently neglected to mention in their despicable article on Sunday). Farmers are some of nature's recyclers and they use their water over and over again to help feed America and the world. Is the same true for that ridiculous oasis in the desert, Las Vegas?
For your mild entertainment I have included a video of some farmers who had a unique approach to telling people about their care for the environment.
My apologies, but my blog comment will be a summary instead. Gene, you spend so much time trying to pin livestock agriculture as the proverbial tail on a donkey of fault for the world's problems. You'd probably do better if you weren't distracted by the ass in your own mirror.
It didn't take me long to find some reputable information about the waste produced in the US. 4 lbs. every day x 300.000.000 people in the US adds up to a lot of waste every day. The waste production is a much larger problem than that of manure production in the US, besides the fact that manure is recycled by farmers whereas garbage is just dumped. Per a news article this summer about the mess the Mississippi River is experiencing, and topped by a slight BP spill this summer, I think Gene is out of turn in accusing the Gulf of Mexico's problems as the fault of livestock agriculture. The gulf has a significant problem, but this is the combined fault of many factors not the least of which is the wastefulness of Americans. Spend your time figuring out how to better reduce and reuse your own impact on the earth and please spend less time pointing fingers at environmentally responsible, governmentally regulated and audited farmers. We are doing our part to feed the world and care for the environment, what are you doing?
Do livestock farmers use a lot of water? Sure, but the water is recycled (something the Columbus Dispatch also conveniently neglected to mention in their despicable article on Sunday). Farmers are some of nature's recyclers and they use their water over and over again to help feed America and the world. Is the same true for that ridiculous oasis in the desert, Las Vegas?
For your mild entertainment I have included a video of some farmers who had a unique approach to telling people about their care for the environment.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Duplicate Post (Yeo Valley Farms)
Props to these guys for their unique way of communicating their care for their animals.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Fishy News
My most recent ARS e-newsletter was very fish-based, including both an article on feeding fish to fish, and also the benefits of fish for humans. Now, I love eating fish. But I don't love the smell and taste (yes, I've tasted it) of fish meal. What better population to feed fish byproducts to than the ones who already consume fish byproducts naturally: the fish? In small quantities this represents a great opportunity to utilize byproducts to produce food.
In other news, Stephen Colbert branched into agriculture again this past week when he decided to discuss the government crackdown on raw milk sales.
In other news, Stephen Colbert branched into agriculture again this past week when he decided to discuss the government crackdown on raw milk sales.
Drew Hastings
Andy's blog was worth the read this past week because it included a video I recommend you watch. It seems to be increasingly popular for urbanites to explore the touted "country lifestyle", much like we traversed the "wild west" back in the 1800's. Drew Hastings is one of these, and as a comedian he serves in much the same way as Stephen Colbert to cast a serious light on agriculture in today's world while entertaining the public. Give up 7 minutes to watch this video.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Arsenicized chicken
Thanks to Ann and Dr. Oz for giving me something to talk about today beyond the boring newsletters. I already sent this in a response email so I'm just going to re-post with links. True to my morals on blogging, I have included links to your own enlightenment opportunities. Not that I wouldn't appreciate you taking my word for it, but reading for yourself is always worth the time when you have it.
Please keep in mind, I was unable to watch the Dr. Oz chicken clip because their website isn't loaded up yet from today, but I can take a stab at breaking things down. "Dr." Oz decided to jump on the bandwagon (or his producers did) and talk about food quality and the sticky topic of feed additives for poultry.
Dr. Oz probably spent a lot of time talking about antibiotics in chicken. Poultry association probably confirmed it because it's true. I can't honestly say that I'm really comfortable feeding steady antibiotics to animals because I come from a veterinary medicine standpoint which fears those outbreaks which are unstoppable due to antibiotic resistance. I also recognize that the FDA doesn't have a solid track record in getting things right.
However, they are our governmental food regulation agency for a reason. The best minds are put onto determining what is safe to eat and what isn't. If people are going to complain, then they need to complain to the agency with the authority to change something, and they need to present facts that are worthy of compelling said agency to change its policy. Those facts don't exist right now and no amount of speculation is going to prove that we are getting antibiotic resistance from chickens any more than they can attempt to prove that beef growth hormones or rBST in milk were changing hormones in humans. Hormones aren't delivered in quantities large enough to impact humans at all. It is my opinion that the same is true for antibiotics fed to animals.
Once the antibiotics are processed by the body and put to the uses that they were intended for, biologically speaking, then they are not going to suddenly appear in your dinner plate contents. I think that the abuse of free antibiotics among human doctors and patients is much more concerning and a far greater contribution the antibiotic resistance scheme than that which is absorbed and utilized in the animal while it is still living.
Consumer reports put out this article recently which Dr. Oz probably referenced. I couldn't even make it a paragraph before I was frustrated by the inadequacy of the intelligence applied to this article. I spent 4 years reading everything known to man about "mad cow disease" before it was even a big deal. I predicted the discovery of mad cow disease in the US over a year before it happened due to faults that I saw in our standards. And even I think it is preposterous to attempt to connect the feeding of ruminant MBM to the possibility of "mad chicken" disease. Furthermore, I looked into arsenic just a bit, and it didn't take me long to find an article from Europe about arsenic levels in food. Not surprising, the highest arsenic level by far and the estimated primary cause of arsenic introduced to humans is through rice. Yet how often do we hear consumer reports talk about rice arsenic? Ironically enough, I'm eating rice for lunch as I write this. Notice also that they found no detectable traces of arsenic in the chicken muscle in the first place. This whole article claims that arsenic in chickens is a problem, but they only found arsenic in the liver and it was less than 25% of the legal limit accepted by the FDA. If this lack of finding was blown out of proportion, how much validity do you expect from the antibiotic feed claims?
They also probably claimed mis-labeling of products which I think is something more of the past than now. People are always trying sell product and whatever they can do to make a dime, they will. This includes new labels which can't always be monitored when the label is being started. That being said, I think organic foods are far worse regulated and more unpredictable right now than any standard poultry industry product. The USDA is still sorting through what "organic" will legally even mean yet it's being sold to ignorant consumers every day. We can't throw any part of agriculture under the bus, including organic producers, but the industry concerns about wholesome food and correct labeling and advertising procedures applies to all farmers and producers just like any other industry.
I think that the key is to remember that we started feeding antibiotics to chickens or pigs in order to promote their health. Farmers have both a moral and financial responsibility to provide healthy lives to their animals and wholesome food to their consumers. They are following the regulations set down before them and in most nearly all cases are going above and beyond regulations to ensure a quality product for the public. The antibiotics have not been proven to be bad for the public and since they are helpful to the animals to reduce sickness-related stress and to improve their well-being, why shouldn't we use them?
Please keep in mind, I was unable to watch the Dr. Oz chicken clip because their website isn't loaded up yet from today, but I can take a stab at breaking things down. "Dr." Oz decided to jump on the bandwagon (or his producers did) and talk about food quality and the sticky topic of feed additives for poultry.
Dr. Oz probably spent a lot of time talking about antibiotics in chicken. Poultry association probably confirmed it because it's true. I can't honestly say that I'm really comfortable feeding steady antibiotics to animals because I come from a veterinary medicine standpoint which fears those outbreaks which are unstoppable due to antibiotic resistance. I also recognize that the FDA doesn't have a solid track record in getting things right.
However, they are our governmental food regulation agency for a reason. The best minds are put onto determining what is safe to eat and what isn't. If people are going to complain, then they need to complain to the agency with the authority to change something, and they need to present facts that are worthy of compelling said agency to change its policy. Those facts don't exist right now and no amount of speculation is going to prove that we are getting antibiotic resistance from chickens any more than they can attempt to prove that beef growth hormones or rBST in milk were changing hormones in humans. Hormones aren't delivered in quantities large enough to impact humans at all. It is my opinion that the same is true for antibiotics fed to animals.
Once the antibiotics are processed by the body and put to the uses that they were intended for, biologically speaking, then they are not going to suddenly appear in your dinner plate contents. I think that the abuse of free antibiotics among human doctors and patients is much more concerning and a far greater contribution the antibiotic resistance scheme than that which is absorbed and utilized in the animal while it is still living.
Consumer reports put out this article recently which Dr. Oz probably referenced. I couldn't even make it a paragraph before I was frustrated by the inadequacy of the intelligence applied to this article. I spent 4 years reading everything known to man about "mad cow disease" before it was even a big deal. I predicted the discovery of mad cow disease in the US over a year before it happened due to faults that I saw in our standards. And even I think it is preposterous to attempt to connect the feeding of ruminant MBM to the possibility of "mad chicken" disease. Furthermore, I looked into arsenic just a bit, and it didn't take me long to find an article from Europe about arsenic levels in food. Not surprising, the highest arsenic level by far and the estimated primary cause of arsenic introduced to humans is through rice. Yet how often do we hear consumer reports talk about rice arsenic? Ironically enough, I'm eating rice for lunch as I write this. Notice also that they found no detectable traces of arsenic in the chicken muscle in the first place. This whole article claims that arsenic in chickens is a problem, but they only found arsenic in the liver and it was less than 25% of the legal limit accepted by the FDA. If this lack of finding was blown out of proportion, how much validity do you expect from the antibiotic feed claims?
They also probably claimed mis-labeling of products which I think is something more of the past than now. People are always trying sell product and whatever they can do to make a dime, they will. This includes new labels which can't always be monitored when the label is being started. That being said, I think organic foods are far worse regulated and more unpredictable right now than any standard poultry industry product. The USDA is still sorting through what "organic" will legally even mean yet it's being sold to ignorant consumers every day. We can't throw any part of agriculture under the bus, including organic producers, but the industry concerns about wholesome food and correct labeling and advertising procedures applies to all farmers and producers just like any other industry.
I think that the key is to remember that we started feeding antibiotics to chickens or pigs in order to promote their health. Farmers have both a moral and financial responsibility to provide healthy lives to their animals and wholesome food to their consumers. They are following the regulations set down before them and in most nearly all cases are going above and beyond regulations to ensure a quality product for the public. The antibiotics have not been proven to be bad for the public and since they are helpful to the animals to reduce sickness-related stress and to improve their well-being, why shouldn't we use them?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Ohio Livestock Euthanasia Standards
Today marks a special day in the history of the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board as they begin to change their first legislative draft into law. That's right, they've finally finished their first public draft. In retrospect it's becoming more a good idea to have made that deal with HSUS to back off of this fall's ballot initiative since it has take this long just to get anything on paper out of the board. I'm even surprised by how long it has taken them to materialize anything but at least it is hopefully a well-thought and debated piece of paper. Well, more like many pieces of paper. You can read their proposed standards for euthanasia online. Of note, there is not a provision for legal strangulation or hanging of livestock as an approved method of euthanasia, so this stands within the agreement with HSUS from this summer.
Personally, I found everything in that document to be acceptable and to show promise of progress towards better regulated animal well-being in the future. However, these are just the accepted euthanasia practices and we have a long way to go from here.
Personally, I found everything in that document to be acceptable and to show promise of progress towards better regulated animal well-being in the future. However, these are just the accepted euthanasia practices and we have a long way to go from here.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Comments
In my opinion, it is commenting on other people's work and ideas that both challenges and strengthens their positions and arguments. Additionally it is through these challenges that other people are led to make up their own minds about critical issues in the world around us. This leads to a two-fold point on commenting on blogs.
Firstly, it is absolutely vital to comment only with true facts. Too many times there are extremists on either side of the issue who let their feelings get the better of them and then they end up just spouting off a bunch of over-exaggerations which serve only to promote greater intellectual chaos among the new faces to a debate. This is not helpful and can often be even worse than the obvious falsities promoted by extremists in their blogs to start with. If you can't make a point with sure facts and strong arguments, then please don't waste my time by moving your mouth or typing a lot.
Secondly, censored comments have a good ideal at their origin. However, if you over-censor comments such as the Making Hay blog does, then it destroys the point of your article in the first place, that is, if you were actually interested in debate. However, both Wayne Pacelle and Gene Baur have proven time and again that they are not truly interested in debate. It seems that they would rather force their opinion down the throats of intelligent people by first mis-educating the masses about the "truths" that they would like to share about animal agriculture. Is there truth to what they say? Sure, there is some truth to what they say, but not enough.
There must always be truth to something that people will believe, but in a radical rights movement such as theirs, misleading information will propagate their position much quicker and easier than debating facts. The facts would lead too many people to be moderates, thus causing too many people to be willing to work things out between groups. Instead, Pacelle, Baur, and their colleagues use their propaganda to trick people into a much faster ideological movement. The thing about movements is that they run out of time and energy. If you can't find something new to lie about, then you will finally run out of steam. What's amazing is how good HSUS and their groupies have been about coming up with misinformation to keep their groups on the move.
This is where I get back to my second point on commenting. If you have to go to the effort to block my IP address from even loading up the comment option on your blog, doesn't that mean you're scared to discuss the issue with me? It was bad enough when you deleted my comments during the censoring phase, but now you've cut straight to the greater efficiency and stopped me from being able to even submit my comments in the first place.
It's a shame that you're scared of people seeing the other side of an issue. People are smart enough to think for themselves; you don't need to be doing that for them. What's even more shameful is your blatant fear of my comments which have been posted here in my blogs for people to see since they would never be published on your blog. There is no foul language or hate for your organization proposed in my comments; I've even bordered on over-conciliation at times. Yet, you continue to dodge the obviously less-experienced and thus poorer equipped debater of the two of us.
If you're too scared to speak up for what you "believe in", then you'd better find a new cause to support.
Firstly, it is absolutely vital to comment only with true facts. Too many times there are extremists on either side of the issue who let their feelings get the better of them and then they end up just spouting off a bunch of over-exaggerations which serve only to promote greater intellectual chaos among the new faces to a debate. This is not helpful and can often be even worse than the obvious falsities promoted by extremists in their blogs to start with. If you can't make a point with sure facts and strong arguments, then please don't waste my time by moving your mouth or typing a lot.
Secondly, censored comments have a good ideal at their origin. However, if you over-censor comments such as the Making Hay blog does, then it destroys the point of your article in the first place, that is, if you were actually interested in debate. However, both Wayne Pacelle and Gene Baur have proven time and again that they are not truly interested in debate. It seems that they would rather force their opinion down the throats of intelligent people by first mis-educating the masses about the "truths" that they would like to share about animal agriculture. Is there truth to what they say? Sure, there is some truth to what they say, but not enough.
There must always be truth to something that people will believe, but in a radical rights movement such as theirs, misleading information will propagate their position much quicker and easier than debating facts. The facts would lead too many people to be moderates, thus causing too many people to be willing to work things out between groups. Instead, Pacelle, Baur, and their colleagues use their propaganda to trick people into a much faster ideological movement. The thing about movements is that they run out of time and energy. If you can't find something new to lie about, then you will finally run out of steam. What's amazing is how good HSUS and their groupies have been about coming up with misinformation to keep their groups on the move.
This is where I get back to my second point on commenting. If you have to go to the effort to block my IP address from even loading up the comment option on your blog, doesn't that mean you're scared to discuss the issue with me? It was bad enough when you deleted my comments during the censoring phase, but now you've cut straight to the greater efficiency and stopped me from being able to even submit my comments in the first place.
It's a shame that you're scared of people seeing the other side of an issue. People are smart enough to think for themselves; you don't need to be doing that for them. What's even more shameful is your blatant fear of my comments which have been posted here in my blogs for people to see since they would never be published on your blog. There is no foul language or hate for your organization proposed in my comments; I've even bordered on over-conciliation at times. Yet, you continue to dodge the obviously less-experienced and thus poorer equipped debater of the two of us.
If you're too scared to speak up for what you "believe in", then you'd better find a new cause to support.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Update
Brief updates from my inbox as I run off to lunch with Amanda and then class.
Now that the rBST labeling debate is nearly irrelevant, the legal powers that be have declared form Ohio laws to be overruled. Great?
Also, at Humboldt University in Germany, they have declared that agriculture is being neglected, and "the world is running out of time." Listen up, world leaders, we cannot continue to just expect that agriculture will continue to provide. We must support, and we must support beyond trade sanctions or tax breaks. Agriculture needs protection and investment.
Now that the rBST labeling debate is nearly irrelevant, the legal powers that be have declared form Ohio laws to be overruled. Great?
Also, at Humboldt University in Germany, they have declared that agriculture is being neglected, and "the world is running out of time." Listen up, world leaders, we cannot continue to just expect that agriculture will continue to provide. We must support, and we must support beyond trade sanctions or tax breaks. Agriculture needs protection and investment.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Jeremy Bentham
For those of you who don't know who the guy is, his most infamous quote is utilized in this piece of poor journalism. I encourage you to think for yourself and question why animals and the environment won the poll for worst moral actions; this left prisoners and the neglect of the elderly as the least concerning to American readers. America, it's a good thing you don't pay for your parents'/grandparents' paper subscriptions... When this poll gets published they might see how much you don't care about them. And there was nowhere available for comment under the article.
And by the way. Jeremy Bentham is more accurately quoted in this wikipedia article. Kwame does Bentham a severe injustice by quoting him in such a way (or I just inferred it the wrong way), actually implying that Bentham really thought animals could reason. No, Bentham was just a guy who wanted as much happiness in the world as possible, and didn't want the animals to suffer in the way in which he saw them being treated. Hey, by the way, we don't treat them that way anymore anyhow and that was the 1700s, back when Henry the umpteenth could marry and kill whoever he wanted. Just like then, Kwame has drawn attention to the wrong set of "oppressed" life forms.
In my final point for today, interestingly enough, the debate about conscientious beings among animals in some cases is based on whether they feel suffering in an emotional way or just the sensory feedback of pain. While the ability to feel emotions is a highly doubtful ability among livestock, livestock raised under standard and proper conditions today feel neither and I argue would feel more of it were they raised under the suggested conditions in this article. Thanks to John for another interesting post.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Updates from my Inbox
Today I'm going start off with a great article about a pig raising family from Seth at Farm Bureau and the Our Ohio magazine. Farm Bureau has been trying to use the magazine to capture more of the stories of Ohio farmers and share them with the people around us. If the magazine sent to more than just Ohio Farm Bureau members I think that the idea would be even more successful, but that's why you can read them online for free.
Along those same lines, check out this California site where they have videos of different farmers in California.
In other dairy news, Idaho is now the 3rd largest in dairy production, and research in Texas is trying to improve summer cow fertility. Heat has been found to damage follicles and thus negatively impact reproduction on dairy farms. While this is something we already knew, these people are researching to remedy this. I
t's nice to see that the government is finally interested in fixing the decline in veterinary assistance in the rural US. Also, DDGS is now getting classified as a non-hazardous shipment.
Finally, after talking with our new bow-hunter for the property yesterday about how he thought that the cattle in the world were the primary reason for global warming and environmental destruction, I thought this article was rather timely. Even though the quantity of GHG's emitted by the livestock industry is in question, there is no doubt that they are working as hard as anyone to reduce it.
Along those same lines, check out this California site where they have videos of different farmers in California.
In other dairy news, Idaho is now the 3rd largest in dairy production, and research in Texas is trying to improve summer cow fertility. Heat has been found to damage follicles and thus negatively impact reproduction on dairy farms. While this is something we already knew, these people are researching to remedy this. I
t's nice to see that the government is finally interested in fixing the decline in veterinary assistance in the rural US. Also, DDGS is now getting classified as a non-hazardous shipment.
Finally, after talking with our new bow-hunter for the property yesterday about how he thought that the cattle in the world were the primary reason for global warming and environmental destruction, I thought this article was rather timely. Even though the quantity of GHG's emitted by the livestock industry is in question, there is no doubt that they are working as hard as anyone to reduce it.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Newsletter Updates
As I scan through my e-newsletters I am really starting to question why I get the USEF one. I haven't really found anything of interest in any of them and all they do is list different horses and people who I never know and the amount of money they won at a place I've never heard of. Anyhow, that's my update for the USEF. Just in case you're interested in watching the World Equestrian Games, visit this link and it should help you figure things out. I'll admit that it might be worth watching.
I frankly didn't even read this article. I couldn't get past the title which just reminded me of my sailing instructor and his explanation of boat physics.
Good news that as we predict higher levels of CO2, ARS also expects better responses from crops. And bad pickles are key in a possible method of cleaning up after the textile industry.
Courtesy of the Gateway to Animal Welfare, check out this report and especially the number of cattle bruised upon harvest. 33%!? Amazing to me.
I also wonder how much this HSUS offshoot paid for such a celebrity supportive statement. Ridiculous. I mean, seriously guys, the Dalai Lama? And if you're going to cut castrated pigs from your market supply, won't their fate now be similar to that of male chicks? Great job guys, big fail.
That's all for today, I'm gonna beat the traffic home.
I frankly didn't even read this article. I couldn't get past the title which just reminded me of my sailing instructor and his explanation of boat physics.
Good news that as we predict higher levels of CO2, ARS also expects better responses from crops. And bad pickles are key in a possible method of cleaning up after the textile industry.
Courtesy of the Gateway to Animal Welfare, check out this report and especially the number of cattle bruised upon harvest. 33%!? Amazing to me.
I also wonder how much this HSUS offshoot paid for such a celebrity supportive statement. Ridiculous. I mean, seriously guys, the Dalai Lama? And if you're going to cut castrated pigs from your market supply, won't their fate now be similar to that of male chicks? Great job guys, big fail.
That's all for today, I'm gonna beat the traffic home.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
My response to "Anonymous"
I was struggling with what to blog about, between ADSA news and new ARS research, but "Anonymous" has provided me with a far more exciting topic. Thank him/her later, but for now please read his/her comments under my September 8th blog and then read my response. As always, I accept comments and am willing to entertain discussion, but fellow readers please don't make me do all the work. You too can talk about what you think and how you want to respond to comments such as these. You'll also probably want to excuse a few typos, I'll try to edit them out as I find them.
"Anonymous, per your comments on Sept. 8th (this didn't fit into the box and you didn't provide me an email address or identity to respond to)
"It is not the actual ideas listed in this bill which are repulsive. Rather, it is the fact that this kind of legislated welfare hasn't been shown to benefit either farmers or animals yet. The wording in this bill is shockingly similar to that of some wordings in Prop 2 of California. No surprise, really, since the sponsoring Rep. is from California, but the true surprise comes in the fact that what happens when legislation similar to this is passed is that there is no true progress made on behalf of animal welfare. Of course, this doesn't matter when the agents behind this bill are only interested in the elimination of global animal product consumption and not in the well-being of actual animals. However, for the rest of us who are interested in consuming the wholesome, nutritious protein products offered by livestock, the bill represents many other problems.
"Bills that merely state the limitations on confinements operations as subjective measurements such as "free to turn around" or "able to stretch limbs" eventually accomplish just what they specify. Nothing. The same few "bad producers" out there who taint the reputation of thousands of other good farmers every day are the ones who will push to the limits such pathetic laws as ones suggesting that an animal be able to turn around. Compared to other legitimate documents being considered among Congressmen and Congresswomen, well, who're we kidding? Why would we compare them in the first place. Sure, these animals can be allowed to turn around, but wouldn't you rather create a situation in which the animal was more COMFORTABLE? Research shows, for example, that pigs actually prefer the seclusion of tight pens in some instances because they don't want to be bothered by other pigs in their pen or group. Will forcing the ability to turn around solve the problem of hormonal gestating sows and gilts (female pigs) that exhibit more cruelty to each other than humans have ever shown them? Will the use of larger cages (or even no cages) protect the hens from the truth about "pecking orders" which proponents of cage-free systems continue to ignore and conveniently forget to mention at their pep rallies? The answer is rhetorical, but for anyone who missed it, NO.
"I'm not saying that the current conditions are perfect. Otherwise, I wouldn't be involved in research from which we hope to gain a better understanding of how to raise livestock in a manner which better suits their needs as well as ours. Nothing is perfect, otherwise there would eventually be no purpose for research, and we would not make progress in the world. Yet I do like to consume protein products and they are a healthy addition to my diet because I consume them in correct serving proportions. So this puts me into a position where I must justify my feelings about caring for animals with my need for consumption.
"If you look at the past compared with the present, you can see that we have made leaps and bounds of progress in the way of animal health and husbandry. These cages and confinement were not spurned into existence by a greedy desire for profit as you suggest, but rather a desire for reduced death and morbidity loss. I challenge you to name me one farmer who likes to lose animals to injury and disease. It's not pretty, nor fun, nor is it specific to any type of livestock system. Through greater control on the growing environments of the animals in a system, we have gained production and profit through doing what farmers have always done best - caring for animals and helping them to grow and produce, which leads to more people being fed around the globe. This is the same goal that farmers across America share today. Every day, people go hungry and the increased production offers a way of providing protein products to many under-privileged households that would otherwise not be able to afford the nutrition they are provided. Because animals consume feeds not edible to humans, they are a great way to continue producing protein products for future generations as we reach increased food consumption needs.
"With this in mind, I think it is imperative to consider what this bill will practically accomplish and what better goals might be set instead. With a bill expanding the size of cages to allow for freer movement, the uneducated individual would naturally assume that the animals would be happier, healthier and thus the individual would feel less guilt in consuming an animal that has led a better life. Despite this imagery which has been distributed in mass mailings and pamphlets worldwide, this is not necessarily the case. Chickens in larger cages are certainly not happier nor healthier after being pecked to death by their neighbors. Nor are calves' stress levels going to be reduced after being removed from the safety from weather and disease transmission within their individual hutches or tie-outs during a critical stage of their life (Interestingly enough, per your comment about veal calves, they're going to all be group-housed by 2017 anyhow, because we're going to make that work). What seems like cruelty, tight quarters or seclusion was almost always begun originally for the benefit of the animals. Now with new ideas about how to best care for animals, research on this issue is inconclusive and highly conditional still.
"Are there a few bad egg producers in the clutch that require legislation to force them to properly care for their animals? No, because those bad eggs still won't do anything differently after the legislation except clean up their act for a few audits. It's just like animal rights protesters. Is every single one of them a nude maniac that does their best to force their opinions down peoples' throats between jail terms? Of course not, but they sure do give people a bad name, don't they?
"Therefore, the legislation you touted in your comments will not actually accomplish in all cases the reform that you appear to desire. Instead, this is a perfect example of radical rights group-backed legislation aimed at the eventual removal of a critical source of nutrients from our food system. They come forth with cheap articles praising the new cage-free systems or the larger cage for group-caged layers, but without an actual interest in benefiting animals and despite proof of any success from past legislative initiatives, are you still willing to believe them? I am not, and I am saying that this is a childish way to go about trying to enact change in this country. Further, I am reiterating that national legislation has not proven beneficial to animals in the past (reference the plight of horses now that HSUS got their way with the Horse Slaughter legislation - big names such as Temple Grandin and PETA publicly disagree with this law). Lastly, I am saying that we need to hold off on these mass-legislative movements until we can really honestly say that we have found what's best for the animals, because isn't that what both of us are after in the end? If the animal-rights groups were truly after helping the animals, then they would agree. There are lots of people out researching how to improve the lives of animals on farms, they just need the chance to find the answers before someone goes and ruins the lives of millions of animals by pushing for laws which don't end up helping improve anything. Give research a chance to find the answers before you force failure upon everyone."
"Anonymous, per your comments on Sept. 8th (this didn't fit into the box and you didn't provide me an email address or identity to respond to)
"It is not the actual ideas listed in this bill which are repulsive. Rather, it is the fact that this kind of legislated welfare hasn't been shown to benefit either farmers or animals yet. The wording in this bill is shockingly similar to that of some wordings in Prop 2 of California. No surprise, really, since the sponsoring Rep. is from California, but the true surprise comes in the fact that what happens when legislation similar to this is passed is that there is no true progress made on behalf of animal welfare. Of course, this doesn't matter when the agents behind this bill are only interested in the elimination of global animal product consumption and not in the well-being of actual animals. However, for the rest of us who are interested in consuming the wholesome, nutritious protein products offered by livestock, the bill represents many other problems.
"Bills that merely state the limitations on confinements operations as subjective measurements such as "free to turn around" or "able to stretch limbs" eventually accomplish just what they specify. Nothing. The same few "bad producers" out there who taint the reputation of thousands of other good farmers every day are the ones who will push to the limits such pathetic laws as ones suggesting that an animal be able to turn around. Compared to other legitimate documents being considered among Congressmen and Congresswomen, well, who're we kidding? Why would we compare them in the first place. Sure, these animals can be allowed to turn around, but wouldn't you rather create a situation in which the animal was more COMFORTABLE? Research shows, for example, that pigs actually prefer the seclusion of tight pens in some instances because they don't want to be bothered by other pigs in their pen or group. Will forcing the ability to turn around solve the problem of hormonal gestating sows and gilts (female pigs) that exhibit more cruelty to each other than humans have ever shown them? Will the use of larger cages (or even no cages) protect the hens from the truth about "pecking orders" which proponents of cage-free systems continue to ignore and conveniently forget to mention at their pep rallies? The answer is rhetorical, but for anyone who missed it, NO.
"I'm not saying that the current conditions are perfect. Otherwise, I wouldn't be involved in research from which we hope to gain a better understanding of how to raise livestock in a manner which better suits their needs as well as ours. Nothing is perfect, otherwise there would eventually be no purpose for research, and we would not make progress in the world. Yet I do like to consume protein products and they are a healthy addition to my diet because I consume them in correct serving proportions. So this puts me into a position where I must justify my feelings about caring for animals with my need for consumption.
"If you look at the past compared with the present, you can see that we have made leaps and bounds of progress in the way of animal health and husbandry. These cages and confinement were not spurned into existence by a greedy desire for profit as you suggest, but rather a desire for reduced death and morbidity loss. I challenge you to name me one farmer who likes to lose animals to injury and disease. It's not pretty, nor fun, nor is it specific to any type of livestock system. Through greater control on the growing environments of the animals in a system, we have gained production and profit through doing what farmers have always done best - caring for animals and helping them to grow and produce, which leads to more people being fed around the globe. This is the same goal that farmers across America share today. Every day, people go hungry and the increased production offers a way of providing protein products to many under-privileged households that would otherwise not be able to afford the nutrition they are provided. Because animals consume feeds not edible to humans, they are a great way to continue producing protein products for future generations as we reach increased food consumption needs.
"With this in mind, I think it is imperative to consider what this bill will practically accomplish and what better goals might be set instead. With a bill expanding the size of cages to allow for freer movement, the uneducated individual would naturally assume that the animals would be happier, healthier and thus the individual would feel less guilt in consuming an animal that has led a better life. Despite this imagery which has been distributed in mass mailings and pamphlets worldwide, this is not necessarily the case. Chickens in larger cages are certainly not happier nor healthier after being pecked to death by their neighbors. Nor are calves' stress levels going to be reduced after being removed from the safety from weather and disease transmission within their individual hutches or tie-outs during a critical stage of their life (Interestingly enough, per your comment about veal calves, they're going to all be group-housed by 2017 anyhow, because we're going to make that work). What seems like cruelty, tight quarters or seclusion was almost always begun originally for the benefit of the animals. Now with new ideas about how to best care for animals, research on this issue is inconclusive and highly conditional still.
"Are there a few bad egg producers in the clutch that require legislation to force them to properly care for their animals? No, because those bad eggs still won't do anything differently after the legislation except clean up their act for a few audits. It's just like animal rights protesters. Is every single one of them a nude maniac that does their best to force their opinions down peoples' throats between jail terms? Of course not, but they sure do give people a bad name, don't they?
"Therefore, the legislation you touted in your comments will not actually accomplish in all cases the reform that you appear to desire. Instead, this is a perfect example of radical rights group-backed legislation aimed at the eventual removal of a critical source of nutrients from our food system. They come forth with cheap articles praising the new cage-free systems or the larger cage for group-caged layers, but without an actual interest in benefiting animals and despite proof of any success from past legislative initiatives, are you still willing to believe them? I am not, and I am saying that this is a childish way to go about trying to enact change in this country. Further, I am reiterating that national legislation has not proven beneficial to animals in the past (reference the plight of horses now that HSUS got their way with the Horse Slaughter legislation - big names such as Temple Grandin and PETA publicly disagree with this law). Lastly, I am saying that we need to hold off on these mass-legislative movements until we can really honestly say that we have found what's best for the animals, because isn't that what both of us are after in the end? If the animal-rights groups were truly after helping the animals, then they would agree. There are lots of people out researching how to improve the lives of animals on farms, they just need the chance to find the answers before someone goes and ruins the lives of millions of animals by pushing for laws which don't end up helping improve anything. Give research a chance to find the answers before you force failure upon everyone."
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
HR 4733
I would like to specially thank Gene Baur for promoting HR 4733 in his blog. As a result, I have sent this letter to my representative. And Baur still hasn't posted my response to his blog the other week.
Dear Pat Tiberi,
Thank you for your continued support of agriculture and the farmers in the Delaware County area. Your presence at local fairs and your representation of our interests are greatly appreciated.
I was recently made aware of a radical legislative effort by animal protection groups to require the US government to "lead by example" in the purchase of only those animals which are certified to be raised humane. After reading HR 4733, it is apparent that this legislation is the same type of non-scientific, emotional and irresponsible legislation pushed on US farmers to control the method in which livestock is produced to feed the world.
US farmers are conscientious and caring about their livestock both out of ethical obligation and good will, but also out of interest for their own source of income. Care standards among farmers are scientifically based and should not be forced upon farmers by outside special-interest groups which have no interest in feeding America with animal products in the first place. This is a piece of legislation that does not belong in the US Congress and when I was requested to contact you in order to support the bill, I did the exact opposite because I believe that this issue should be both industry and consumer regulated while scientifically based. Please make sure that this bill is not passed.
Thank you,
Benjamin Wenner
Dear Pat Tiberi,
Thank you for your continued support of agriculture and the farmers in the Delaware County area. Your presence at local fairs and your representation of our interests are greatly appreciated.
I was recently made aware of a radical legislative effort by animal protection groups to require the US government to "lead by example" in the purchase of only those animals which are certified to be raised humane. After reading HR 4733, it is apparent that this legislation is the same type of non-scientific, emotional and irresponsible legislation pushed on US farmers to control the method in which livestock is produced to feed the world.
US farmers are conscientious and caring about their livestock both out of ethical obligation and good will, but also out of interest for their own source of income. Care standards among farmers are scientifically based and should not be forced upon farmers by outside special-interest groups which have no interest in feeding America with animal products in the first place. This is a piece of legislation that does not belong in the US Congress and when I was requested to contact you in order to support the bill, I did the exact opposite because I believe that this issue should be both industry and consumer regulated while scientifically based. Please make sure that this bill is not passed.
Thank you,
Benjamin Wenner
Newsletter Updates and Bad Storms
From my ARS newsletter comes word that they are now using space images to help with Chesapeake Bay cleanup, the National Arboretum is now including edibles in their plant display, there is ongoing research to improve the heat tolerance of corn-based plastics (which is good because they're highly sensitive right now), and finally research is proceeding into the improvement of toxin resistance in corn.
Courtesy of Feedstuffs with the ADSA comes a couple of good conversations about national animal ID programs and the pros/cons of disease tracing in relation to recent Salmonella outbreaks. These are both worth your time to read. National ID programs have seemed like such a great idea to improve livestock biosecurity and disease tracking, but they've been slow to come into being, especially due to the scope of such a project. The disease tracing discussion is a very interesting read with well-represented viewpoints.
I was recently discussing the methods of poultry euthanasia and so this article is pretty interesting to me. It seems like basically the chickens are being taken to "high altitudes" as the air is thinned and they reach "instantaneous death".
Also, the USDA has published the first handbook giving national guidelines for organic products. Hopefully this is just what is needed to provide more consistent control over the hyped organic market.
I like the take Feedstuffs took on the veal video released by Mercy for Animals about tethered calf housing for veal calves in Ohio. Frankly, when I heard about the video, my first response was just "why on earth do I care?". It's not that I don't care about calf housing, but this is something that we've already acted on in Ohio and the US veal industry has acted on it as well. This video is too late and served no purpose at all.
On a different note, fall is coming very quickly and there are so many things I love about fall. My birthday, bonfires, harvest, the landscape colors, the cooler weather, thunderstorms, football and livestock shows. With the Delaware County Fair (not my favorite website in the world) and the Farm Science Review just around the corner, I am busier than ever as I try to prepare for school starting. I apologize in advance if I can't get on here often.
However, before I go I want to comment on a storm yesterday that was pretty fantastic. I was on a farm north of Mt. Vernon when the lights started flickering and the fans kicked off. Almost immediately there was sharp lightning and it got to flashing a lot. This was about 5.30 pm. We sat there in the barn as the rain started to pour, wind blowing the rain all the way through the windows to the center of the building. The power failed permanently and it's no wonder why. When we emerged we found that this farmer had lost 3 of his 4 barns (fortunately we were in the one still standing) and there were trees and powerlines down everywhere. It took 45 minutes just to get out of the area as many people volunteered to clean up the roads. The area was hit very hard, and the corn was absolutely flattened in some places, while the crests of hills were missing most of their treelines where you could see that the wind had topped the hill in powerful fashion. Just another day in my life, but I am thankful to have gotten out as easy as we did. The picture I added shows the lightning strikes that evening and you can see a highlighted red area where I was that day.
Courtesy of Feedstuffs with the ADSA comes a couple of good conversations about national animal ID programs and the pros/cons of disease tracing in relation to recent Salmonella outbreaks. These are both worth your time to read. National ID programs have seemed like such a great idea to improve livestock biosecurity and disease tracking, but they've been slow to come into being, especially due to the scope of such a project. The disease tracing discussion is a very interesting read with well-represented viewpoints.
I was recently discussing the methods of poultry euthanasia and so this article is pretty interesting to me. It seems like basically the chickens are being taken to "high altitudes" as the air is thinned and they reach "instantaneous death".
Also, the USDA has published the first handbook giving national guidelines for organic products. Hopefully this is just what is needed to provide more consistent control over the hyped organic market.
I like the take Feedstuffs took on the veal video released by Mercy for Animals about tethered calf housing for veal calves in Ohio. Frankly, when I heard about the video, my first response was just "why on earth do I care?". It's not that I don't care about calf housing, but this is something that we've already acted on in Ohio and the US veal industry has acted on it as well. This video is too late and served no purpose at all.
On a different note, fall is coming very quickly and there are so many things I love about fall. My birthday, bonfires, harvest, the landscape colors, the cooler weather, thunderstorms, football and livestock shows. With the Delaware County Fair (not my favorite website in the world) and the Farm Science Review just around the corner, I am busier than ever as I try to prepare for school starting. I apologize in advance if I can't get on here often.
However, before I go I want to comment on a storm yesterday that was pretty fantastic. I was on a farm north of Mt. Vernon when the lights started flickering and the fans kicked off. Almost immediately there was sharp lightning and it got to flashing a lot. This was about 5.30 pm. We sat there in the barn as the rain started to pour, wind blowing the rain all the way through the windows to the center of the building. The power failed permanently and it's no wonder why. When we emerged we found that this farmer had lost 3 of his 4 barns (fortunately we were in the one still standing) and there were trees and powerlines down everywhere. It took 45 minutes just to get out of the area as many people volunteered to clean up the roads. The area was hit very hard, and the corn was absolutely flattened in some places, while the crests of hills were missing most of their treelines where you could see that the wind had topped the hill in powerful fashion. Just another day in my life, but I am thankful to have gotten out as easy as we did. The picture I added shows the lightning strikes that evening and you can see a highlighted red area where I was that day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)