Friday, December 4, 2009
Free trade vs. fair trade
What's your opinion on free trade vs. fair trade, globalization, international trade and how it relates to the beef industry in Washington state. How do social and environmental laws relate to free and fair trade? Should we depend on WTO to be the best arbiter in the international trade arena? When is it wise for us to ask for government oversight of our industry? We see consolidation at all levels from the cow calf operator to the retail sector. What are the pluses and minuses of this consolidation? Your thoughts.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
HACCP
We hear a lot about Hazard Analysis & Critical Control Points (HACCP) and the failure of these plans to always protect us from food born diseases such as E. Coli. HACCP is not only a meat industry issue but it seems that way by the number of ground beef recalls that bring light to how HAACP operates. USDA and FDA both are players in letting companies design their own HACCP plans and the criticism is that they are too lax and the law too lenient in oversight. My question would be: are those valid criticisms? As cow calf producers do we feel the consumer backlash from poor HACCP plans or poor oversight? Beef magazine had an article not too long ago where Bill Hemling (sic) prognosticated that for beef to stay on the average table we as an industry might have to grind more to keep up with lower priced proteins. Ground beef seems to be the target product in lot of recalls. I also read an article today that pointed to E Coli on the hide was more prevalent than in the intestines and we should hone in on that more to prevent contamination. Whatever the reason, failures in HACCP does affect all segments of the industry if we continually get a black eye in the media from large beef recalls. Consumers, and Food Service workers (the 17 year old manning the grill at some fast food restaurant) still don't get it through their head that ground beef needs an internal cooking temperature of 160 degrees. So, who needs to improve? Do we need to keep animals cleaner? Do we find a vaccine so they don't shed the worst bacteria? Does HACCP need more scrutiny? Our Check off dollars continue to hammer at the consumer and food service, do we need more?
Dont be shy
I don't want anyone else to be afraid to start a post on any new subject.Or to comment on any post even if it is somewhat old. This is for ALL of us so don't be shy. Welcome Kaydee, Mark and Mr Sizemore!
Monday, November 16, 2009
2009 convention
Another convention has come and gone and maybe this would be a place to talk about likes/dislikes, ideas etc. I thought for the most part the convention was a good one. I thought the joint committee meetings with the speakers makes for great discussion and knowledge. I was a bit disappointed in the turnout for Friday nights dinner and Saturdays meeting. Maybe people just needed to get home but it seemed like quite a few less people than there was around Thursday and Friday during the day. The ETF auction seemed to go well and I thought it was about the right amount of items, enough without dragging out too long.
One concern I have is the amount of time people are getting with the allied industry booths. I did like the new setup and thought having meals within the booths helped people interact with the vendors. I just wish we could have more time devoted to JUST visiting the trade show. I know that usually the meetings go a bit long so the 15 minutes set aside usually becomes more like 5-10 minutes. I really don't know how to solve this issue, we have to get the business done and I don't think we can add another day, any ideas? These allied members do so much for us I really want them to feel that they are getting the interaction they deserve. The bingo card idea was a good one.
Two things I thought of on the way home I would really like to include next year. A booth with a couple of computers that people could use and ask questions about email, blogs, surfing the net etc. We could have the Young Cattlemen help with this and it would be a great way to get different generations to interact. The other thing is I think maybe we should find some point or maybe put in the program or something a place of memorial each year for those we lost. I got to thinking on the way home about Ron Ladiges, Ben George and Mr Rainwater and I had never been to a convention that they were not there. I am sure there are others that I missed. I don't want to add to sad memories but maybe just a moment for those who move on to the big green meadow each year. Ideas?
Lastly thanks seems like so little for Jack, Lacy , Bev and Ron you people do an amazing job and we do appreciate all your efforts!
One concern I have is the amount of time people are getting with the allied industry booths. I did like the new setup and thought having meals within the booths helped people interact with the vendors. I just wish we could have more time devoted to JUST visiting the trade show. I know that usually the meetings go a bit long so the 15 minutes set aside usually becomes more like 5-10 minutes. I really don't know how to solve this issue, we have to get the business done and I don't think we can add another day, any ideas? These allied members do so much for us I really want them to feel that they are getting the interaction they deserve. The bingo card idea was a good one.
Two things I thought of on the way home I would really like to include next year. A booth with a couple of computers that people could use and ask questions about email, blogs, surfing the net etc. We could have the Young Cattlemen help with this and it would be a great way to get different generations to interact. The other thing is I think maybe we should find some point or maybe put in the program or something a place of memorial each year for those we lost. I got to thinking on the way home about Ron Ladiges, Ben George and Mr Rainwater and I had never been to a convention that they were not there. I am sure there are others that I missed. I don't want to add to sad memories but maybe just a moment for those who move on to the big green meadow each year. Ideas?
Lastly thanks seems like so little for Jack, Lacy , Bev and Ron you people do an amazing job and we do appreciate all your efforts!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Water continuity
Well, I have not done too well with my twice a week postings but I will do better. Vic mentioned in email a few weeks ago water continuity and if there is water continuity how should we approach it from an industry standpoint.
For myself the short answer would be yes, there is water continuity. I think that is a fairly easy conclusion to come to. We all know water flows through the ground as well as on the surface and is interconnected to some degree.
That being said, if tomorrow I start pumping even a big number like 50,000 gallons of water from my stock well daily will some scientist be able to measure a flow reduction in the Columbia river at Portland at some point because of that withdrawal? Yeah Right!
I am also not totally convinced that there is continuity between separate ground water aquifers. I certainly can be open to that idea but I am not totally convinced at this time.
When it comes to this discussion and really ANY discussion about water there is one point that rarely is mentioned and I think is very important. That is the fact that water can be "used" without being "lost". We hear all the doom and gloom stories about water all the time but we never hear that usage does not mean disappearance!
Lets just for arguments sake take my own home ranch. It is in a low valley with lots of ground water that is a result of the irrigation project. The level of flow across this place as far as surface water varies to some degree depending more on time of year than anything else. I would guess the amount of groundwater movement would vary to some degree as well. I know the groundwater LEVEL (which is very high in this particular area) does vary because I can see the level in one of my shallow stockwater wells. Sometimes at this well the water level is as high as 2 feet below the surface and sometimes it is 4-6 feet below the surface. This not only fluctuates depending on time of year, but also depending on where and when and at what level I am irrigating other parts of the same property. I also know that the amount of water entering my property as ground water varies depending on uses of my closest "upstream" neighbors.For example some of my upstream neighbors have converted rill (furrow) irrigation to sprinkler irrigation. This has lowered the surface water level to some degree, the ground water level has not be noticeably affected.
Now lets just do a simple exercise based on my home place. I am going to throw out some numbers for the sake of argument. I don't know what the REAL numbers are but that is not as important because it is a percentage of use of whatever the real number is. Lets just say on my east border ( upstream) between surface and groundwater 1000 gpm ENTERS the place ( I base this mostly on pump capacities and from knowledge of the flow or lack of flow from past experience. Some of it as groundwater, some as surface water. So in a perfect world of continuity there should be 1000 gpm flowing OUT of the west end of my place if none of the water is used right, less if some of the water is used. However during the summer months two pumps apply around 650 gpm total as irrigation water to the same property. There are also around 130 cow-calf/pairs that drink from the surface water each day for much of the year. At 20gallons per pair per day, that is another 2600 gallons of total water consumed each day roughly. You would add to this surface water evaporation which is some level but would be minuscule in the total discussion. So with this information many would say if there is 1000 gpm entering the place but some is being used, then there would be less than 500 gpm leaving the place. However that is completely WRONG. I can easily see the surface water flow in the ditch at entry to the place and at exit anytime during the year. From a practical standpoint I see very little difference in the "out" flow whether I am irrigating , watering cows or not irrigating and watering cows. If i am not irrigating then yes the ditch runs a bit higher through the entire length of the property. If I am irrigating there are parts of the ditch running lower but at the out end it is about the SAME as any other time of the year. If continuity is real the water I apply as irrigation is to some degree leaving the property as ground water as well.
This makes sense because that water applied through irrigation is USED but it is NOT LOST. So is the water that the cows drink. Yes the cows "use" the water but between urination and manure moisture the volume returned is basically the same as the amount removed or used.
Oh I know I get too long winded but I feel it is an important point. I can buy into water continuity but I also want credit for the water that is used but not LOST in anyway through the system. All up and down any drainage there are water "uses" and yes they affect flow in parts of the system at certain times for different reasons. To say that the total out flow of the Columbia river at the Pacific being different at any perceptible level depending on my irrigation, stockwater uses or non use is RIDICULOUS. Its not like the water was loaded into a truck and shipped to some other drainage in some other country. One way or another that water flows DOWN the drainage in time to later return as rain and snowfall in a constant cycle. There is as much total water today as there will be tomorrow as there was last century on this planet. That is a FACT.
So in summary I can "buy" into water continuity. However with withdrawals from all uses in the Columbia drainage at such a low percentage of the total, and all of that water eventually being returned in some way, shape or form to the system, I really can't buy into the doom and gloom of PERCEIVED problems that continuity would be used as a basis to determine remedies those perceived problems.
Besides, we all know global warming is melting the icecaps and all the people living on the coast are going to die in the coming cataclysmic sea level rise. Shouldn't we be finding a way to reduce the amount of water entering the ocean to try and remedy this coming tragedy? wink wink
For myself the short answer would be yes, there is water continuity. I think that is a fairly easy conclusion to come to. We all know water flows through the ground as well as on the surface and is interconnected to some degree.
That being said, if tomorrow I start pumping even a big number like 50,000 gallons of water from my stock well daily will some scientist be able to measure a flow reduction in the Columbia river at Portland at some point because of that withdrawal? Yeah Right!
I am also not totally convinced that there is continuity between separate ground water aquifers. I certainly can be open to that idea but I am not totally convinced at this time.
When it comes to this discussion and really ANY discussion about water there is one point that rarely is mentioned and I think is very important. That is the fact that water can be "used" without being "lost". We hear all the doom and gloom stories about water all the time but we never hear that usage does not mean disappearance!
Lets just for arguments sake take my own home ranch. It is in a low valley with lots of ground water that is a result of the irrigation project. The level of flow across this place as far as surface water varies to some degree depending more on time of year than anything else. I would guess the amount of groundwater movement would vary to some degree as well. I know the groundwater LEVEL (which is very high in this particular area) does vary because I can see the level in one of my shallow stockwater wells. Sometimes at this well the water level is as high as 2 feet below the surface and sometimes it is 4-6 feet below the surface. This not only fluctuates depending on time of year, but also depending on where and when and at what level I am irrigating other parts of the same property. I also know that the amount of water entering my property as ground water varies depending on uses of my closest "upstream" neighbors.For example some of my upstream neighbors have converted rill (furrow) irrigation to sprinkler irrigation. This has lowered the surface water level to some degree, the ground water level has not be noticeably affected.
Now lets just do a simple exercise based on my home place. I am going to throw out some numbers for the sake of argument. I don't know what the REAL numbers are but that is not as important because it is a percentage of use of whatever the real number is. Lets just say on my east border ( upstream) between surface and groundwater 1000 gpm ENTERS the place ( I base this mostly on pump capacities and from knowledge of the flow or lack of flow from past experience. Some of it as groundwater, some as surface water. So in a perfect world of continuity there should be 1000 gpm flowing OUT of the west end of my place if none of the water is used right, less if some of the water is used. However during the summer months two pumps apply around 650 gpm total as irrigation water to the same property. There are also around 130 cow-calf/pairs that drink from the surface water each day for much of the year. At 20gallons per pair per day, that is another 2600 gallons of total water consumed each day roughly. You would add to this surface water evaporation which is some level but would be minuscule in the total discussion. So with this information many would say if there is 1000 gpm entering the place but some is being used, then there would be less than 500 gpm leaving the place. However that is completely WRONG. I can easily see the surface water flow in the ditch at entry to the place and at exit anytime during the year. From a practical standpoint I see very little difference in the "out" flow whether I am irrigating , watering cows or not irrigating and watering cows. If i am not irrigating then yes the ditch runs a bit higher through the entire length of the property. If I am irrigating there are parts of the ditch running lower but at the out end it is about the SAME as any other time of the year. If continuity is real the water I apply as irrigation is to some degree leaving the property as ground water as well.
This makes sense because that water applied through irrigation is USED but it is NOT LOST. So is the water that the cows drink. Yes the cows "use" the water but between urination and manure moisture the volume returned is basically the same as the amount removed or used.
Oh I know I get too long winded but I feel it is an important point. I can buy into water continuity but I also want credit for the water that is used but not LOST in anyway through the system. All up and down any drainage there are water "uses" and yes they affect flow in parts of the system at certain times for different reasons. To say that the total out flow of the Columbia river at the Pacific being different at any perceptible level depending on my irrigation, stockwater uses or non use is RIDICULOUS. Its not like the water was loaded into a truck and shipped to some other drainage in some other country. One way or another that water flows DOWN the drainage in time to later return as rain and snowfall in a constant cycle. There is as much total water today as there will be tomorrow as there was last century on this planet. That is a FACT.
So in summary I can "buy" into water continuity. However with withdrawals from all uses in the Columbia drainage at such a low percentage of the total, and all of that water eventually being returned in some way, shape or form to the system, I really can't buy into the doom and gloom of PERCEIVED problems that continuity would be used as a basis to determine remedies those perceived problems.
Besides, we all know global warming is melting the icecaps and all the people living on the coast are going to die in the coming cataclysmic sea level rise. Shouldn't we be finding a way to reduce the amount of water entering the ocean to try and remedy this coming tragedy? wink wink
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
I hope you all got the email trying to get this thing back up and running. I thought I would take a few minutes to mention a few things. The link to Jennas blog is http://www.youngwacattle.com/ please check it out if you have not already.
If any of you have people you know who want an invite to this site and have not received one just let me know their email address. I am hoping now that anyone can comment, at least thats the way I have the settings now. I am going to try and post something here at least twice a week. It may be about an issue, it may be a passing thought or it may be just something that is total BS just to try to stimulate some more communication and input here.
One last thing please remember to push some saddle drawing tickets before convention.
If any of you have people you know who want an invite to this site and have not received one just let me know their email address. I am hoping now that anyone can comment, at least thats the way I have the settings now. I am going to try and post something here at least twice a week. It may be about an issue, it may be a passing thought or it may be just something that is total BS just to try to stimulate some more communication and input here.
One last thing please remember to push some saddle drawing tickets before convention.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
NAIS
I am going to comment on Vics email question about NAIS here because I guess if I dont utilize the blog I can't really expect others to. This is one of those issues I really hate debating for the simple fact that I think a mountain has been made out of a molehill.
I personally do not have a USDA premise or a WSDA premise for that matter. Not really because I am afraid of the black helicopters or I don't think it has any importance in disease traceback, more because I have just not been convinced economically to have one. That being said my last set of fall calves and this years spring calves have records and information that would allow them to be sourced, age verified, and individually identified. What will determine if I do any of those things is the economics. To do any of these things I think most programs would at least require a state PIN and possibly a national one, again economics will drive my decision for either.
Dick brings up a good point, would a premise registration without the threat of individual ID be more palatable to most of the people in the country? My thought would be yes but I dont know for sure.
I wonder how many people went to their FSA sevice agency and signed up for the livestock idemnity or drought relief money in 2002? and gave their location, herd numbers etc and yet are still afraid to get a national ID??? I would guess the great majority! Those that know me very well also know that my trust of the federal level of government and thier ability to really do much besides hinder us as an industry is deeply held. I personally dont think in the case of FMD or other disease the Feds would do much good and certainly wouldnt be any better at helping us if they had every animal ID'ed in the country. That being said I also do think that anyone involved in the federal government could find out ALL they wanted to know about me or my operation with a premise number or without. I mean we have SS numbers or Tax ID pins, connected to an address, farm plans, public sales records, FSA records etc etc, lets face it if the feds want to get down and dirty they have more information than they need at this time about me or other individuals.
So it basically comes down to this in my opinion, don't tell me how NAIS is going to help me in a FMD outbreak, reality is if I am in the 12 mile circle I am virtually finished anyway. Instead, get me an export market open as a result of individual ID or premise ID, and make sure those increased dollars dont just help a tag company, the federal government, a packer or a feeder. I dont mind sharing those dollars at all, but I would think at least a third of those dollars should be mine, I am afterall the entity who can make it work, or can keep it from working.
Thanks for reading the rant, hope it makes some sense.
I personally do not have a USDA premise or a WSDA premise for that matter. Not really because I am afraid of the black helicopters or I don't think it has any importance in disease traceback, more because I have just not been convinced economically to have one. That being said my last set of fall calves and this years spring calves have records and information that would allow them to be sourced, age verified, and individually identified. What will determine if I do any of those things is the economics. To do any of these things I think most programs would at least require a state PIN and possibly a national one, again economics will drive my decision for either.
Dick brings up a good point, would a premise registration without the threat of individual ID be more palatable to most of the people in the country? My thought would be yes but I dont know for sure.
I wonder how many people went to their FSA sevice agency and signed up for the livestock idemnity or drought relief money in 2002? and gave their location, herd numbers etc and yet are still afraid to get a national ID??? I would guess the great majority! Those that know me very well also know that my trust of the federal level of government and thier ability to really do much besides hinder us as an industry is deeply held. I personally dont think in the case of FMD or other disease the Feds would do much good and certainly wouldnt be any better at helping us if they had every animal ID'ed in the country. That being said I also do think that anyone involved in the federal government could find out ALL they wanted to know about me or my operation with a premise number or without. I mean we have SS numbers or Tax ID pins, connected to an address, farm plans, public sales records, FSA records etc etc, lets face it if the feds want to get down and dirty they have more information than they need at this time about me or other individuals.
So it basically comes down to this in my opinion, don't tell me how NAIS is going to help me in a FMD outbreak, reality is if I am in the 12 mile circle I am virtually finished anyway. Instead, get me an export market open as a result of individual ID or premise ID, and make sure those increased dollars dont just help a tag company, the federal government, a packer or a feeder. I dont mind sharing those dollars at all, but I would think at least a third of those dollars should be mine, I am afterall the entity who can make it work, or can keep it from working.
Thanks for reading the rant, hope it makes some sense.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
access to blog
I am sorry I have missed so much good discussion this week in emails, Vic I got your email and I will try and send a WCA list email out to those with specific instructions of how to log in here. Be patient with this folks, I know we can make this work.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Any topic will do!
We don't have to stick to one topic forever. After you've signed in, at the top of the WCA issues blog page you can go to "create a blog", a dialog box will open and you can post a blog. If you want to comment on a blog, go to comments. We can check on each other's comments and add our own. Lot's of topics in the cattle industry, don't be afraid to dive in.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Exempt Wells
Hello guys! Thank you for allowing me to join in on this blog, I am hoping I can learn even more and immerse myself in these environmental issues as much as possible. I have a question that may seem rhetorical, but I would like to ask it anyways.
How are the farmers who are draining the aquifers in certain parts of the state able to stay out of this exempt well problem? I understand that because of the Easterday feedlot proposal these farmers have squawked loud enough to get stockwater targeted. However, how are they able to stay out of this exempt well issue or are they in the middle of another fight I just don't know about? I would think that this exempt well situation for stock water would just lead to farmers who are using deep wells to have the same issue facing them. Are they out of this debate solely due to the fact that the DOE is so anti-cattle and will do anything to see cattle out of Washington?
I would just like some more background information. I am frustrated at times by the disconnect between farmers and ranchers and especially the disconnect in natural resource management. It seems that many ranchers have become very progressive and proactive in their grazing practices, and water and natural resource management. However, I do not feel we see the same practices in farming and many farmers are continuing to go gangbusters and mine water reserves and the soil of nutrients. I want to know if my perception is off or if farmers have a different set of rules when it comes to government regulations and environmentalist action? Are the farmers who are using obscene amounts of water facing any of these same regulations?
How are the farmers who are draining the aquifers in certain parts of the state able to stay out of this exempt well problem? I understand that because of the Easterday feedlot proposal these farmers have squawked loud enough to get stockwater targeted. However, how are they able to stay out of this exempt well issue or are they in the middle of another fight I just don't know about? I would think that this exempt well situation for stock water would just lead to farmers who are using deep wells to have the same issue facing them. Are they out of this debate solely due to the fact that the DOE is so anti-cattle and will do anything to see cattle out of Washington?
I would just like some more background information. I am frustrated at times by the disconnect between farmers and ranchers and especially the disconnect in natural resource management. It seems that many ranchers have become very progressive and proactive in their grazing practices, and water and natural resource management. However, I do not feel we see the same practices in farming and many farmers are continuing to go gangbusters and mine water reserves and the soil of nutrients. I want to know if my perception is off or if farmers have a different set of rules when it comes to government regulations and environmentalist action? Are the farmers who are using obscene amounts of water facing any of these same regulations?
Monday, February 9, 2009
exempt wells
Larry, you're a real techy. Dick, this is great, now we need more than the three of us on this thing or it'll getting boring, no offense. On the exempt well situation, I feel there should still be some exemption for livestock and I really get squeamish to talk volume, but it appears likely we'll have one set due to the dairy and feedlot needs. There's a tremendous difference between a few thousand gpd and a few million gpd when you talk of competetion on an aquifer. There is case law that points to the need for DOE to manage groundwater, we can agree, but when they get to looking at every drop from livestock watering it really is quite small. The other day when I said we should define categories of use was to try to find a place where we can protect the smaller withdrawals under exemption with the feedlot and dairy industries still be able to have water available to them. Obviously when we get to talking aquifers we try to come up with a recharge rate vs. a withdrawal rate that can maintain itself. There's plenty of places in the state that know how to battle over surface water but the groundwater issue hasn't been so widespread, so it's something we're asked to trust DOE on. That's probably the crux of the problem: trusting DOE.
exempt wells
I absolutely agree, exempt wells should be our first focus. Glad some of you have made it here and hope this adds to our communication ability.
Quick Work!
Great job, Larry! Hey Vic, is that quick enough for you! I like the idea of topics. Here is a wild idea. How about "exempt wells" for the first one?
New blog
Hello, Larry, this is my first time on a blog. My suggestion is we pick a topic of interest, such as Animal Health, Check off, Marketing and trade, let folks have a say, then move on to another topic, but I'm open to suggestions. Maybe just let it flow where it may. Great work in setting up the blog, good idea to make it somewhat secure or who knows what might float off into the blogosphere. Thanks, Vic
WCA issues blog
Ok all here goes my attempt at a place where we can blog and share information on WCA issues. I will email the site to everyone and hope that maybe this gives us all a place to discuss issues without passing on multiple emails. Hopefully getting here and logging in isn't too much of a hassle, so far setting this up has been pretty easy, any input is greatly appreciated!
Larry
Larry
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)