File this under the heading, “Who would have ever thunk it?”
What I’m referring to is the fact that today’s farmer needs a prescription and a degree in chemistry to apply herbicides, insecticides and fertilizers to their land in order to grow and produce the food we eat every day.
About this time, you’re probably chuckling to yourself, smiling and thinking, “Ah, that can’t be happening. What’s he writing about now?”
Read on. Some environmentalists remain mighty concerned about the plant, food, bug and weed control methods our farmers use today on their wheat, corn, beans, vegetables and other crops. They’re also concerned about chemical residue, they’re concerned about how application exposure affects them and more importantly, their fellow man/woman.
As technology continues to improve, these tools producers require to grow food falls under closer scrutiny. Some clamber louder for stricter control or elimination altogether. Others already believe pesticide use should be by prescription only.
Here’s an example. Say a farmer has a corn borer problem. if these environmentalists succeed, the producer might have to call in a specialist to look over the problem. Once the situation is diagnosed, the government specialist would write the farmer a prescription for chemicals, just like a doctor would for a sick patient.
The farmer’s next step would be to call a chemical applicator who would come to the farm and apply the designated herbicide or insecticide. This additional help would subtract from the farmer’s bottom line.
If you’re thinking this may be a bit extreme — could be, but it’s a safe bet we’ll see farmers using the use of more and more tools. It happens every year.
Today, some chemicals are being lumped into the restricted-use category. This removes them from the hands of the general farming public. Some will never be used again.
Farmers must plan ahead and participate in the development of the rules and regs that will govern this arena. There’s no question it will strongly impact the way food is grown in the future.
Tagged as:
family farming,
food
With the state legislature back in session, those of us who serve on local school boards will be anxiously watching the debate over school funding.
There have been several proposals floated this session, but much work remains to be done. Meanwhile, boards are beginning their budget planning for next year. It’s kind of like planning your family budget without knowing what your income will be.
The Senate passed a bill that would provide schools with $74 more per student than last year. This seems reasonable. All the bean counters say the state will have a healthy ending balance for the first time in several years. Surely lawmakers can see their way clear to giving a little bit back to schools, which have made their fair share of sacrifices in difficult budget times.
It’s not up to me to say which bill should pass; my main concern is that we get some kind of increase. Education is a key economic development tool and deserves some help from the state. It’s only fair.
Most of the school board members I know across Kansas would like to see us retain the “three-legged stool” of K-12 funding sources: sales, income and property tax. An equitable mix of these revenues avoids shifting the tax burden too heavily in one direction or another.
School boards in general are particularly sensitive about raising property taxes. Unless you serve in a wealthy school district, raising property taxes to pay for K-12 schools quickly taps out the tax base and doesn’t net long-term budget relief. Not to mention, voters have the right to protest if a school board tries to raise property taxes above a certain level.
That’s as it should be in a democracy.
In Manhattan, one mill of property tax raises roughly $500,000 for public schools. If the state provides the aforementioned $74 per pupil increase, we’d receive $600,000 in new revenue. You don’t need a PhD. in math to realize if the state’s really interested in providing tax relief, it needs to do its duty and fund public schools.
Tagged as:
democracy,
Kansas school finance,
landowners
Well, even though it’s settled down some, there is a huge ‘dent’ of damage left over the so-called ‘pink slime’ debate held recently. People lost their jobs. Consumers were scared. And all for nothing.
But one of the biggest parts is the irony of the entire issue of finely textured beef. Opponents, just as it is many times when people knee-jerk react before they look at the facts or think about consequences, actually hurt their own cause.
Now I know you should never assume, but just for grins, let’s say these finely textured beef opponents also claim to care about the environment and food safety.
What are they fighting against? Finely textured beef is perfectly safe. When steaks and roasts are cut, it creates the “trim” that becomes ground beef. The companies supplying lean, finely textured beef use a process to remove a lot of the fat from the lean beef in the trim, which is then added to ground beef as a concentrated, lean source of protein. It may also be SAFELY treated, just as many other foods are today, to eliminate possible bacteria contamination. In short, the beef is safe, so says the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service.
Here’s more. Finely textured beef eliminates waste because it uses all the true beef available. If it’s not used, the extra lean beef is thrown away. Is that good for the earth, or for hungry people?
According to the amount gained, if finely textured beef isn’t used, beef demand would require another 1.5 million cattle. Let’s see, 1.5 million times all the extra feed, water, extra space, etc. etc. etc. Does that make sense?
None of this yet deals with the bottom line. Without finely textured beef, the price of your hamburger goes up, for no reason.
Then there is the issue of labeling. Finely textured beef is just that… beef. I guess the label could say “beef, with added beef.” Would that be better?
Finely textured beef has been around for more than two decades, when the technology and idea became available to not waste this valuable lean protein. So all of these folks who jumped on the bandwagon so fast, without looking at facts or consequences should know this. Lean finely textured beef is not necessarily ‘pink,’ it’s actually very environmentally ‘green.’ Next time, they should stop and think before their actions damage an industry, hurt other people, and hurt the environment they claim to care so much about.
Tagged as:
food,
food safety,
lean finely textured beef,
livestock,
pink slime,
sustainable
