No BSE status upgrade for U.S. Beef

The United States was denided an upgrade in BSE risk status from the current category of controlled risk to negligible risk by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). Even after years of laws and regulations in place that prohibit any specificied risk materials (bone, brain, spinal cords) from being put into animal feed and during those subsequent years, there were no occurances of BSE in the U.S., but apparently this was not good enough for the OIE. Below is an article from the Prairie Star about the BSE ruling, more after the jump:

http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/2010/06/16/ag_news/livestock/live22.txt

***

Basically what it comes down to, as why the U.S. wasn't able to get the negiligible status, is politics, pure and simple. Countries like Australia which is one of the OIE members who has a negligible BSE risk, has benefited the most from the United States having BSE in the first place. They were able to step in and take up the Japanese and South Korean markets, of which the U.S. had been the number one exporter of beef to, and lost them. Of course they don't want American beef to get a leg up and take back some of the market share that Austraila was able to take away. Who can blame them?

---

Not to be left out of the equation, other countries that are in the same boat BSE wise, as the U.S.,are probably very happy and even contributed to the non-upgrade status for American beef. They all know that U.S. beef is the best in the world as far as quality, its the standard by which all others are measured. Countries like Brazil that have been on the verge of taking more and more market share away from the U.S. for years now, but are hampered by their FMD outbreaks, and are always looking for an edge. This non-ruling only helps their cause that much more for the potential of gaining more market share. And of course you have the EU, which hates that the U.S. use hormones in their beef and has for decades instituted a ban on this type of beef, even though the WTO ruled is was illegal to do so (they still don't care, and continue to fight the WTO's ruling). Im sure the EU and other countries, mainly those they have free trade agreements with, teamed up to make sure that the American beef industry did not get to take a step forward with an improved BSE risk status.

However, it is only a matter of time before the U.S. will have the chance to rectify the BSE status and gain market share back that it once lost. You ask how this will happen? Quality, safe, wholesome, nutritious beef will always be in demand. And when you set the standard, people will come.

New Blog http://www.brahmanjournal.com/blog/

I recently started writing for the Brahman Journal's blog, so I won't be posting blogs on here as much. Please book mark this website to read my blogs on all things cattle: http://www.brahmanjournal.com/blog/ I will from time to time post other blogs on here about Ag in general, but mainly when something gets me going.

Thanks and Gig'em,

Allen Livingston

Great American Meatout

DISCLAIMER: I LOVE MEAT, I AM AN AGVOCATE!





A good friend of mine is a field rep for a livestock magazine, he received the following email from http://www.meatout.org/, click on the picture to read it:

























Groups like these, have no shame. They will try and spread their lies and myths about meat to any and everyone the possibly can. This is the type of attacks that American agriculture is battling day in and day out, and the war is nowhere near over!

A few facts to clear up the misconceptions mentioned in the above email:

• No food has ever been shown to cause cancer, especially red meat.
• Proteins like lean beef, have been shown to help prevent type 2 diabetes
• A Vegetarian/Vegan diet does not provide the necessary amount of minerals and vitamins needed to sustain a healthy lifestyle
• E. coli is found on all types of food because it lives in the ground, it does not just affect meat products
• Claims by scientists that meat production is responsible for more than half of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, is unfounded and thoroughly discredited by major universities and other scientists around the world

It's a shame that a few misguided people can try and sway the American consumer with false rhetoric, that is why farmers and ranchers and those that work in agriculture must share their knowledge with the public, so that the truth will be known.

Blog Action Day 2009 - Climate Change and the Beef Industry

This blog was meant to be published on October 15, 2009 for Blog Action Day, but I got caught up with other business and was not able to finish it.



Climate Change and the Beef Industry:


Talk about a controversial topic, the only discussion more heated than climate change is probably healthcare, and that's mainly here in the U.S.A. But for the last few years, everywhere you turned there was talk about global warming, climate change, and the world coming to an end because of it. And many people around the world were quick to point the finger at agriculture as the main reason for global warming, with or without scientific proof. But I'll get to that in a little bit; first let's discuss global warming in general.


There are countless numbers of studies and predictive models that are projecting the polar ice caps are melting more and more everyday and are causing or will cause sea levels to rise and what not. A large part of the discussion on global warming is due to the 2007 climate summary prepared by the U.N. But according to an article in the Wall Street Journal by Kimberley A. Strassel, there are more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 report. Also, Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history". Another example of how the world's point of view is changing, New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program. Furthermore, data shows that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of CO2 (June 26, 2009). All of this only adds to the fact that global warming is not all it's cracked up to be.



Now, to the matter at hand, let’s look at how the beef industry affects the environment (note the following list was originally compiled by Amanda Nolz - BEEF Daily blogger, they were too good not to include in this post):

1. American agriculture is sustainable for the future. In the United States, 98 percent of farms are family farms. Today's American farmer feeds about 144 people worldwide. 2009 versus 1960: 1.8 million less farms are feeding a U.S. population that has increased 61 percent. (Explore Beef)

2. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the entire U.S. agriculture sector accounts for only 6 percent of annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Of this, livestock production is estimated to account for 2.8 percent of total U.S. emissions. (EPA Climate Change Report)

3. If livestock production disappeared tomorrow, wouldn't we just be transporting more tofu around? And wouldn't we just be plowing and fertilizing the land to supply PETA's vegetarian utopia? (Center for Consumer Freedom)



4. Grazing animals on land not suitable for producing crops more than doubles the land area that can be used to produce food. If 1955 technology were used to produce the amount of beef raised today, 165 million acres of land would be needed - that's about the size of Texas! (Explore Beef)



5. Each year, outstanding ranching families are recognized through a prestigious award, the Environmental Stewardship Award Program. The award is presented each year by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and The National Cattlemen's Foundation, and is sponsored by Dow AgroSciences and USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service at the annual Cattle Industry Annual Convention. (Read about the regional winners at BEEF)



6. Cattle do more than just provide us with nutritious beef. They also make significant contributions to our lives... and the planet. Cattle convert inedible cellulose (grass) to nutritious beef. When cattle graze, the "aerate" the soil with their hooves, which allows more oxygen and water to enter. They also press grass seed into the soil, so it can start growing. They provide a natural fertilizer in the form of manure. Cattle also reduce the length of grass and brush when they graze, which is helpful in reducing the spread of wildfires since there is less flammable material. In addition, cattle primarily graze on grass, but they also eat waste products from food processing such as potato skins, distillers grains, fruit pits, almond hulls and sugar beet pulp. (Wow That Cow!)



7. Beef by-products enable us to use 99% of every beef animal, and these products are a part of our daily lives. Beef by-products include leather, candles, toothpaste, deodorants, crayons, textiles, cosmetics, rubber tires, insulin, high glass for magazines, asphalt, fertilizers, cement blocks, hydraulic brake fluid, car polishes and waxes, detergents, shaving cream, soaps, shampoo, paint, chewing gum, marshmallows, and the list goes on, and on, and on. Can you go a day without using a cattle by-product? (When is a Cow More Than a Cow?)



8. There are 29 cuts of beef that meet the government labeling guidelines for lean. Each one contains less than 10 grams of total fat, 4.5 grams or less of saturated fat, and less than 95 milligrams of cholesterol per 3.5 oz. serving. Calorie-for-calorie, beef is the most nutrient-dense food including nine essential nutrients, including a good source of zinc, iron and protein. And did you know, beef has the same heart-healthy fats as olive oil? (Beef, It's What's For Dinner)



9. According to a 1993 article in the Journal of Animal Science by J. Beckett and J. Oltjen, total livestock production accounts for just over 11 percent of all U.S. water use in the United States. This includes the water to grow crops fed to livestock, which accounts for 9.7 percent of all water use, and livestock consumption, at 1.2 percent of all water use. (Journal of Animal Science)



10. Rangelands and pastures provide forage and habitat for numerous wildlife species, including 20 million deer, 500,000 pronghorn antelope, 400,000 elk and 55,000 feral horses and burros. Last year, more than 2,000 ranchers and farmers entered into landowner agreements with the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. About a billion acres, or 55 percent of the total land surface in the United States, is rangeland, pasture and forages. (Beef, From Pasture to Plate)



After reading these 10 facts, it should be clear that Agriculture and the Beef industry are not harming the environment nor are they contributing to climate change of any kind. Farmers are the original environmentalists, they realized from the get go, that they had to treat the land and animals right, so that they could produce safe, healthly and nutritious products that are high in quality, not only to continue to be profitable and make a living, but because it was the right thing to do!

A lot of people criticize the technologies used by modern day agriculture, and say they are unsafe, unhealthy, and unnecessary. They usually base all of this on unfound or bias scientific information that was put together by somebody or a entity that got paid to put the information together (i.e. studies and reports from the Humane Society of the United States and PETA), instead of having accredited universities from all over the world do the unbiased research. They do this to put fear in the minds of the general public so that they can persuade them to follow their mantra of killing animal agricutlure forever, and will use any means necessary (just like methane gas from cows contributes to global warming).

Finally, farmers and ranchers deeply care about the environment and their animals. And with that, I will leave you with this:

"No greater purpose has any man than to tend the herd and till the sod, and leave behind him greater still, those acres leased to him by God" ~ Unkown

Texas Constitutional Propositions for Nov 3rd ballot

I received an email the other day, talking about how prop's 1, 2, and 3 would raise your taxes if your a homeowner in Texas. This is not the case, below are some explanations of what the props are and how they will work. Take a look and decide for yourself, most state Ag organizations are in favor of 1, 2, 5, and all are in favor of prop 11!

Prop 1 - Allows towns and counties to issue bonds to build infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of a military installation through buffer areas. By acquiring buffer areas or open spaces adjacent to a military installation, this would prevent encroachment from urban sprawl and would facilitate the construction of infrastructure to protect or promote the mission of the military installation.

Basically, it would help to keep Military bases from getting squeezed by urban sprawl, and/or economic development, thereby keeping them from moving to another state. Yes, the city/town or county could issue bonds to pay for this and that means that taxes would more than likely have to be increased to pay for those bonds, but, in order for bonds to be issued, they must be voted on by the people of that community/county. And if you don't live next to a military base, then you should worry about it.

Vote Yes on Prop 1

Prop 2 - legislature authorized to provide for the ad valor em taxation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of the property's value as a residence homestead.

In previous years, the appraisal value of residence homesteads increased by 200 to 400 percent in a single year when arrived at by application of the highest and best use standard. This amendment would allow the legislature to provide for valuation of a residence homestead solely on the basis of its value as a homestead, eliminating the influence of consideration of the highest and best use.

This is pretty close to what existing property tax practices are now, but resembles the restrictions that already apply to agricultural and open-space land. Texas protects those types of properties from large appraisal increases resulting from consideration of the highest and best use. If does not similarly protect residence homesteads. This prop would extend such protection to homeowners whose neighborhoods are in transition from residential uses to commercial development. This would only apply to primary homes, and not second homes or investment properties.

In other words, your home would be appraised based on residential values and would not be based on commercial valuations, strictly residential appraisal and would not cause your taxes to rise.

Vote Yes on Prop 2

Prop 3 - Since appraisal districts/counties all over the state appraise similar properties in different ways, (i.e. mineral rights in West Texas might be worth more than mineral rights in East Texas), and this would allow the legislature to strengthen state oversight of appraisal district practices and procedures.

The only thing is, if this is passed, then the legislature would have to come up with more legislation on how to implement state enforcement authorized by the amendment, because they did not provide for this in this amendment.

Vote - NO - there is too much legislative gray area here.

Prop 5 - Would allow authorizing the legislature to authorize a single board of equalization for two or more adjoining appraisal entities that elect to provide for consolidated equalizations.

Basically it would allow rural areas/counties to put together a more qualified appraisal review board made up of members with more expertise to serve, where there are sometimes fewer qualified persons within one county.

Vote Yes on Prop 5

PROP 11 - Prohibits the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity.

In a nutshell, this is the first step to stronger eminent domain REFORM in Texas. Texas has the most lacking eminent domain laws in the country. This is the reason why TxDot was and is still working on the Trans Texas Corridor (I-69, I-10, etc...), it’s not dead yet. Another example is the city of Austin has been or was condemning property for economic development in the last few years, which is currently legal, but this amendment would stop that from happening and keep it from happening again in the rest of the state.

We still need more eminent domain reform laws in the future, and should get them in the next legislative session in 2011, but until then, Prop 11 will go a long way in protecting the private property rights in Texas.

VOTE YES ON PROP 11 !!!!!!


The rest of the props aren't really that important to the rights of most Texans, they mainly deal with red tape. So vote on them based on your views.

Prop 6 - authorizing the Veterans' Land Board to issue general obligation bonds in amounts equal to or less than amounts previously authorized. This would cut through more red tape.

Prop 7 - Allow an officer or enlisted member of the Texas State Guard or other state militia or military force to hold other civil offices.

Prop 8 - Allow state to contribute money, property, and other resources for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of veteran’s hospitals in the state.

Prop 9 - Protect the right of the public to access and use public beaches on the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico.

Prop 10 - Elected members of the governing boards of emergency services districts may serve terms not to exceed four years.

Packers and Animal Ag - strange yet necessary bed fellows

The recent news of JBS planning to take stake in Pilgrim's Pride got me to thinking about the state of animal agriculture in the United States. For the longest time, there has been a constant battle between the three main sources of protein in the U.S.: beef, pork, and chicken. During the 1980's the poultry industry was indirectly responsible for labeling red meat, especially beef as being high in cholesterol, and being bad for everyone. This has since been proven wrong, and red meat, especially beef should be a part of a balanced diet. However, this notion changed the way proteins were perceived and still do for the most part. As a result, pork still uses the very successful catch phrase "Pork...the other white meat", to differentiate itself from poultry.

So, there is always animosity between the big three proteins, and probably always will be, or will it?

In 2001, Tyson, one of the largest poultry producers in the U.S. (2nd behind the now bankrupt Pilgrim's Pride) bought out IBP (Iowa Beef Packers) then the #1 beef processor and #2 pork processor in the US. Since that time, revenue from beef has accounted for 44% of the company's sales in 2008, while poultry accounted for 33% of total sales. And now with JBS (a huge beef packer based out of Brazil) buying out Pilgrim's, you have to wonder if the lines of animal protein are beginning to get blurry, from a purely agriculture view point.

Basically, who do the packers side with on important trade, health, and political issues when it comes down between beef and chicken? For instance, the U.S. government is planning on levying tariffs on Chinese tires currently, and China is willing to stop importing U.S. poultry, if the U.S. does goes through. Now, wither or not American beef would be able to capture anymore of the Chinese market due to the absence of American poultry, I doubt it. However, this probably won't happen, because China LOVES chicken feet, yes I said chicken feet! It’s a delicacy over there, and they have to have it. The threat of banning the importation of American poultry is more of a grandstanding move by the Chinese government than an actual promise. But with this being the case, where do the packers stand on this? Do they not care, and hope that the beef revenues make up enough to cover the potential losses from poultry? Maybe so.

Secondly, what happens if, God forbid, we have another BSE or perhaps a foot and mouth disease outbreak in the U.S. and it terrifies the American public and causes them to quit eating beef or significantly cut back on it? The same question from above can be asked again. I used to work for Sanderson Farms, a large poultry processor, and back in 2003 when the first case of BSE was found, it seemed like the whole damn company was happy as hell, because people were scared of eating beef, and turned to chicken. This is one of the many reasons why I don't really care for the poultry industry and the way they do things, mind you I still eat chicken, just not that much.

One final example, national animal identification has been proposed for the last several years as a means of tracking animal diseases more easily. This proposed program would mainly affect beef and pork because each individual animal would have to have an ID number, but chickens could possibly be allowed to be identified by pen/house number, basically be numbered in groups. This would increase production costs for beef and pork, but not chicken. So, once again who do the packers side with? The most likely answer is nobody. As I mentioned before, as long as one protein can make up for the other, they won't care. All that matters is that they reach their target revenues and stock prices, so that the stock holders will remain happy.

Now, if there comes up a rare situation where beef, pork, and chicken all have to work together, then, that's when you will see the packers jump in and do something. For instance, animal rights groups are constantly attaching animal ag, and hopefully packers have been and will continue to work with the representative livestock associations to stop these groups from doing more harm than good to animal agriculture.

However, in the mean time, livestock associations and their members will have no choice but to continue to raise their animals the best way they know how to, while maximizing profits to stay in business. This includes marketing their respective products to try and gain more market share from competing proteins or at least hold onto their current share.

One thing's for sure, there's fewer and fewer packers/processors to sell animals to, so farmers and ranchers will continue to have their hands tied behind their backs when it comes harvest time. There’s not much that the agriculture community can do when it comes to packer consolidation, because they have to sell their products to someone.

The only thing they can hope for is that the Justice department continues to uphold antitrust laws and protect both consumers and producers. Earlier this year the Justice department blocked a merger between JBS and National Beef Packing Co. that would have given an unfair advantage for the company and hurt the competiveness of beef producers in the U.S. But that's another blog for another time...

Cass Sunstein to be the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Cass Sunstein is or was a law professor at the University of Chicago and Harvard University. Mr. Sunstein is a radical animal rights supporter. While I do not know if he is a member/supporter of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS, and no this is not your local animal shelter) or PETA, he obviously agrees with most of their ideals.

In the introduction of "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions", a volume edited by Sunstein and his then-partner Martha Nussbaum. On page 11 of the introduction, during a philosophical discussion about the source of animal rights under the law, Sunstein notes that person hood need not be conferred upon an animal in order to grant it legal standingfor suit. Instead, Sunstein hypothesizes, animals could be granted "the right to bring suit" while represented by an attorney. For example, under current law, if someone say their neighbor beating a dog, they currently cannot bring suit for animal cruelty because they do not have legal standing to do so. Sunstein suggests that granting standing to animals, actionable by other parties, could decrease animal cruelty by increasing the likelihood that animal abuse will be punished.

In this introduction he does not propose doing so, but please, if he had these philosophical discussions/hypothesis and then wrote them in the introduction, then he believes this is how things should be!

Basically, his appointment as Admin of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs means he is now the regulation Czar, which allows him to have the final say in the consideration of alternatives to the rule making and analysis of the rule's effects on society, both its benefits and costs (from whitehouse.org). So the OIRA has a considerable amount of power, and can influence many different items to fit what he/she wants. Hence the apprehension of having an Animal Rights activist/supporter in this position, when you are involved in animal agriculture. It is very possible that his personal feelings against animal agriculture could lead him to try and shape federal regulations that will ultimately harm the agriculture industry.

For the record, myself and all of animal agriculture, believes in animal welfare, which is the proper care and handling of all animals throughout their lives. Farmers and ranchers know that if they don't treat their animals with the utmost care (proper handling, good nutrition, etc...) they would not be able to stay in business, but at the same time, they do it because it is the right thing to do (taking care of their animals) and they love what they do! Animal Rights groups believe that all animals should be able to roam free, no zoos, no hunting, no furs, no meat, milk, or cheese should be eaten, etc... These people are radical in their thinking.

Back to the matter at hand, here is a breakdown of the vote:

Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay

Alaska: Begich (D-AK), Nay Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Not Voting Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Yea Udall (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Yea Kaufman (D-DE), Yea
Florida: LeMieux (R-FL), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Nay Risch (R-ID), Nay
Illinois: Burris (D-IL), Yea Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Nay Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota: Franken (D-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Nay McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Johanns (R-NE), Nay Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Nay Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Udall (D-NM), Yea
New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Nay Hagan (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea Specter (D-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Nay Graham (R-SC), Nay
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Nay Corker (R-TN), Nay
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (D-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Enzi (R-WY), Nay

Final Vote: 57 Yeas - 40 Nays - 2 Not voting - 1 (absence of Sen. Kennedy)

Democrats:
Yeas - 50
Nays - 5

Republicans:
Yeas - 6
Nays - 34

Independents:
Yeas - 1
Nays - 1

To break it down some more, out of the 58 democrats in the Senate, all but five voted for Sunstein. Those not voting for his nomination were from Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Virginia, which are all major animal Ag states with the exception of Alaska (they do have animal Ag, just not as much as the others mentioned here).

Out of the 40 republicans in the Senate, all but six voted against Sunstein. Those that voted for his nomination were from Indiana, Maine, Ohio, and Utah. Indiana and Ohio have large animal Ag operations, especially hogs, why those republican senators voted for the nomination is beyond me. Maine and Utah don't really factor in, but why did those Senators decide to go against the party, since it seems that both parties are sticking together? Not sure, but if I were Senator Lugar from Indiana or Senator Voinovich from Ohio, I would try to put out any fires I could with my agriculture constituents back home as soon as possible!

However, the thing I don't understand is all of the democrats from farming/animal Ag states that voted for Mr. Sunstein. States like Colorado, Florida, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota all of which have substantial beef cattle operations; Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, which are big hog states, and also those states that are big in poultry like Maryland and dairy states like Wisconsin and Minnesota all had senators that ignored their constituents in the Ag sector and voted for Mr. Sunstein.

I can't really talk bad about party politics, because most of the republicans did follow suit and vote against Mr. Sunstein, if for no other reason to try and deal a blow to President Obama. However I hope that most of the republicans that voted no, were doing it because they believed Mr. Sunstein would be bad for their voters back home, who work in and depend on animal agriculture.

But when it comes right down to it, does it really matter what we say anymore? No it doesn't. Sadly, politicians are only worried about getting re-elected and who has the power.

I may be an idealist, and still believe in doing the right thing, unlike our elected officials all over the country, but if those that dared to believe gave up every time they faced a hurdle, we would still be living in the dark ages.