US President Mr. George W. Bush - Essay Example

Univ. Cattle Feedlots Audience: US President - Mr. George W. Bush INTRODUCTION Dear Mr. President, please accept my sincere regards on behalf of CatttleMag. I wish to put forth our recent findings on feedlots. Sir, as you know, we have a large cattle population that is of immense importance to our economy. We are also the world's largest consumers of dairy products. The cattle products are vital to our food habits, the diary and meat products are consumed internally as well as exported and cattle are pivotal to our thriving leather business. The above only strengthen the fact that the US internal production of dairy is not enough and if we can utilize our potential, the industry can generate economical prosperity and employment. All these facts underscore the need to encourage setup of modern scientific cattle feedlots in order to achieve a thriving dairy and by-products industry. Unfortunately, these bright lights harbor darkness beneath them. The cattle feedlots that cater to the country are also a major health concern. Improper handling of livestock, poor slaughtering, and waste and carcass management has given rise to obnoxious fumes that not only smell bad but also have adverse respiratory implications. This is amid reports that in the race to have higher production, cattle are allowed to feed on grass for just 6 to 8 months. Their life at the cattle feedlots is spent feeding on grains, with loads of antibiotics, chemicals and hormones to promote unnatural growth over the next 8 to 12 months. This fattening on unnatural grain and supplemental protein diet causes of two serious digestive disorders found in feedlot-bred cattle. These call for immediate legislative actions so that the animals are treated ethically and environmental standards maintained in our culinary and economic quests FOCUS STATEMENT Sir, cattle feedlots are crucial to successful cattle health and associated economy management. Cattle feedlots: 1. Minimize streamline handling of cattle and reduce stress on both cattle and the workers, 2. Environmental balance is maintained, 3. Cattle feed and feeding habits are standardized, 4. Ensures scientific waste management, and 5. Ensures an efficient and profitable operation But the above has to be achieved within scientific standards of the environment and should confirm to ethical standards of treatment to animals. This is even more important after recent revelations that the industry has also failed to implement any type of welfare audit system for cattle operations and no federal laws protect the welfare of beef cattle in the U.S., other than the Humane Method of Slaughter Act. There should be monitoring of the cattle feed in the feedlots to check use of growth promoting medications that not only sicken the cattle but also put human health at risk on consumption of dairy products and meat of these cattle. BACKGROUND / NARRATION Since 1980, US has been the single largest importer of dairy products from New Zealand, valued at over $1000 million in 2004 alone. Till 2003, US has been the largest consumer of cheese and butter and ranked among the highest in overall consumption of dairy products. (U.S. Dairy at a New Crossroads in a Global Setting1). Kansas ranks third in the value of live animals and meat exported to other countries at $343.2 million (CJOnline2). A recent study suggests that in spite of the pivotal role of cattle in the economy, the cattle industry has failed to maintain meaningful standards for the care of beef cattle (Summary of Scientific Evidence Illustrates the Life of Cattle 3). It is indeed unfortunate. And that makes formulation of new policies essential. It must be appreciated by all concerned that an industry takes considerable time to lose its position and relevance. But once that happens, it will take even longer to regain the position. In the backdrop of a global economy, our present position & success and the outlook of our counterparts, it is essential that we look at the reasons for the collective success, find our weaknesses and formulate policies that will help flourish the cattle industry with state-industry partnership. Cattle feedlot is the solution to better cattle management, both livestock and their products. As responsible inhabitants of earth, the largest economy should also set highest environmental standards. This should denounce use of products from companies and countries that do not employ the ethical and medical standards. Use of antibiotics and hormones that are adverse to human health and use of manure, fertilizers and chemicals that promote irrational growth of cattle feed should be totally banned and those found violating should find themselves out of the suppliers' list. REASONS AND EVIDENCE Cattle feedlots need a closer look for all the good reasons of our food-chain and the health concerns and challenges it poses. Successful feedlot management should encompass cattle and human welfare. New regulations and practices for cattle feedlots are required to bring about radical changes in the way they are handled and their impact on humans and the environment. Cattle Welfare Transportation: According to the Farm Sanctuary report, 70% of cattle finished in U.S. are fed in just three states - Texas, Nebraska and Kansas. This in itself starts a chain of problems. With a large nation being catered by just three states, transportation itself is a logistical challenge. Such livestock transportation also poses a health risk to the animals. Feedlots should be allowed in motor able areas, en route major highways and connectors as cattle transportation is associated with related injuries and ill health during and after transportation, without food, water and rest, as 70% of the feedlots are concentrated in just three states of the US. Health: Condition of the feedlots here is also not up to the standards as 15% of the animals suffered from respiratory diseases because of fumes generated from improper waste and carcass management. Recent reports suggest that the fumes from feedlots in some places do not confirm to new environmental regulations. Another concern is Sulfur underscored in 1997 when Nebraska department of Environmental Quality revised Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) concentrations under ambient conditions. These thresholds are set at "10.0 parts per million (10.0 PPM) maximum 1 minute average concentration or 0.10 parts per million (0.10 PPM) maximum 30-minute rolling average". Two agricultural regions of Nebraska with significant cattle finishing in open feedlots came under scrutiny for possible rule violations. In one situation, area feedlots were asked to prepare and implement a TRS control plan. (Total Reduced Sulfur Concentration In Beef Cattle Feedlots4). New cattle feedlot rules need to overcome the health issues posed by obnoxious fumes and high TSR concentration in and around cattle feedlots that causes serious respiratory disorders in cattle. Ethical standards: As outlined in the Summary of Scientific Evidence Illustrates the Life of Cattle3, the animals are treated poorly in cattle feedlots. These cause diseases, which can be harmful to humans. Apart from the ones already discussed, the animals are castrated and dehorned without pain relief measures. Poor transportation includes herding using electric shocks and carriage in insufficient space with no food, water and rest. These are ethical issues that not legislations but education and compassion can take of. Ethical issues raised against cattle feedlots, akin to chicken food processors, are deep seated as there are several repots that suggest dehorning and castration without pain relievers and use of electric shock to herd the animals. Human Welfare Pollution: Dust from cattle feedlots is a problem in dry areas, releases micro-organisms and EPA estimates methane released from cattle to contribute 16% of the total methane releases, second only to CO2, contributing to possible global climate change (Feedlot Production of Cattle in the United States and Canada8). Apart from the stink of the cattle feedlots, there is a growing concern of the fallouts of excessive dust in the dry parts of Texas, Nebraska and Kansas, that home majority of the US cattle population, along with fars of growing levels of methane Antibiotic Use: Residues of antibiotics used on cattle find their way into human system through the cattle products. Studies report soil bacteria near cattle feedlots becoming increasingly resistant to important human drugs like oxytetracyclines (Do Livestock Antibiotics Affect Soil Bacteria6). Such resistance will make treatment of livestock and humans difficult and costlier as higher antibiotics will have to be used then. But this study also concludes that mild antibiotic use in cattle does not cause any untoward effects. The use of antibiotics in cattle feedlots needs to be regulated as antibiotic residues in cattle meat and liver can have serious implications on human consumption. Use of Hormones: Hormone treated meat is banned in the European Union. Although this move is opposed by the US in letter and spirit, there are still certain considerations that must be made. We must consider the fact that European Union based it findings on certain facts that though refuted by the US, on scientific grounds, still need consideration, not just from he hardcore scientific facts but also human elements like psychology. Infact, it is the logic of EU that advocates opposed to cattle feedlots use to drive their point home. What do they say CRS Report for Congress7 says that Growth-promoting hormones are used on approximately 63% of all cattle and about 90% of the cattle on feedlots. In large commercial feedlots, their use approaches 100%. The use of hormones is to promote faster and leaner growth of carcass; the former suits the producer and the latter, the consumer. The EU reports of serious consequences on consumption of hormone treated meat, part of which has a section of consumers being concerned about higher levels of fat and cholesterol in their meat. This the US disapproves, infact the hormone treated meat is FDA approved.. The trade bodies in the EU are in full support of EU policies because as long as the US meat is out of EU, they do not have to worry about cheap meat. This makes deciding in favor or against hormone treated meat a little difficult. Hormone therapy is a controversial issue that has literally split the world apart on the issue and the US laws need to reconsider the claims by the EU that growth-promoting hormone therapy can have a genetic impact on humans consuming the hormone treated cattle. Setting up of new cattle feedlots will not only ease the pressure on the existing places but also streamline the entire procedure allowing for healthier environment. According to the Farm Sanctuary report, 70% of cattle finished in U.S. are fed in just three states - Texas, Nebraska and Kansas. This in itself starts a chain of problems. With a large nation being catered by just three states, transportation itself is a logistical challenge. Such livestock transportation also poses a health risk to the animals. The condition of the feedlots here is also not up to the standards as 15% of the animals suffered from respiratory diseases because of fumes generated from improper waste and carcass management. Recent reports suggest that the fumes from feedlots in some places do not confirm to new environmental regulations Setting up of new cattle feedlots will not only ease the pressure on the existing places but also streamline the entire procedure allowing for healthier environment. RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the reasons mentioned above, cattle feedlots, like slaughterhouses have become subjects of fierce debate by animal right activists and advocates of vegetarianism. But it is for all to realize that the importance and relevance of cattle in our food habits that comprises heavily of dairy products and meat, and other cattle by-products. We also must remember that doing so will not reduce their demand, but only increase the dependence on import, the quality of which can be assured only to a certain extent, but never as high as that can be guaranteed in own country. So the solution does not lie in banning or restricting cattle feedlots but to find ways to ensure the best practices. Antibiotic Use: Residues of antibiotics used on cattle find their way into human system through the cattle products. Studies report soil bacteria near cattle feedlots becoming increasingly resistant to important human drugs like oxytetracyclines (Do Livestock Antibiotics Affect Soil Bacteria6). Such resistance will make treatment of livestock and humans difficult and costlier as higher antibiotics will have to be used then. But this study also concludes that mild antibiotic use in cattle does not cause any untoward effects. Hormone treatment: Hormone treated meat is banned in the European Union. Although this move is opposed by the US in letter and spirit, there are still certain considerations that must be made. We must consider the fact that European Union based it findings on certain facts that though refuted by the US, on scientific grounds, still need consideration, not just from he hardcore scientific facts but also human elements like psychology. Infact, it is the logic of EU that advocates opposed to cattle feedlots use to drive their point home. What do they say CRS Report for Congress7 says that Growth-promoting hormones are used on approximately 63% of all cattle and about 90% of the cattle on feedlots. In large commercial feedlots, their use approaches 100%. The use of hormones is to promote faster and leaner growth of carcass; the former suits the producer and the latter, the consumer. The EU reports of serious consequences on consumption of hormone treated meat, part of which has a section of consumers being concerned about higher levels of fat and cholesterol in their meat. This the US disapproves, infact the hormone treated meat is FDA approved.. The trade bodies in the EU are in full support of EU policies because as long as the US meat is out of EU, they do not have to worry about cheap meat. This makes deciding in favor or against hormone treated meat a little difficult. Environmental concerns: Dust from cattle feedlots is a problem in dry areas, releases micro-organisms and EPA estimates methane released from cattle to contribute 16% of the total methane releases, second only to CO2, contributing to possible global climate change (Feedlot Production of Cattle in the United States and Canada8). Another concern is Sulfur underscored in 1997 when Nebraska department of Environmental Quality revised Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) concentrations under ambient conditions. These thresholds are set at "10.0 parts per million (10.0 PPM) maximum 1 minute average concentration or 0.10 parts per million (0.10 PPM) maximum 30-minute rolling average". Two agricultural regions of Nebraska with significant cattle finishing in open feedlots came under scrutiny for possible rule violations. In one situation, area feedlots were asked to prepare and implement a TRS control plan. (Total Reduced Sulfur Concentration In Beef Cattle Feedlots4). Ethical concerns: As outlined in the Summary of Scientific Evidence Illustrates the Life of Cattle3, the animals are treated poorly in cattle feedlots. These cause diseases, which can be harmful to humans. Apart from the ones already discussed, the animals are castrated and dehorned without pain relief measures. Poor transportation includes herding using electric shocks and carriage in insufficient space with no food, water and rest. These are ethical issues that not legislations but education and compassion can take of. Solutions: Allowing cattle feedlots in isolation with proper material, waste and carcass management can solve the problems of dust and smell. Planning Cattle Feedlots9, Cattle Feedlot Waste Management Practices For Water Pollution and Wastewater Management10 and Agricultural Alternatives11 are some resources that clearly outline the requirements for cattle feedlots. Strict adherence to these coupled with various enforcement agencies and on top of it, the will of the organizations will solve each of the issues. Confirming to ISO standards on livestocks will take care of the concerns of the US cattle industry and its products on the global platform. Finally, the people's verdict and approach and their abandoning of offenders will relieve the society the burdens of health and ethics CONCLUSION The US is the world's largest consumer of dairy products. The US is also the largest importer of dairy products. A look into the consumption pattern shows a huge domestic demand for cattle products. The lack of cattle feedlots and their improper distribution across the country is a logistical challenge and an environmental hazard. Added to these are reports that suggest improper material management at the cattle feedlots causing serious environmental concerns. The risk to human health cannot be ruled out because of controversial uses of hormones and medicines, especially antibiotics, alongside the environmental factors that also risk health living. We require new regulations and ethical considerations, and strict adherence to them to ensure healthy cattle feedlots and harmonious co-existence of feedlots with humans. This is the only way to promote economy and generate employment and building a better world for our future generations and us. Works Cited 1. U.S. Dairy at a New Crossroads in a Global Setting, Economic Research Service, USDA November, 2005 2. CJOnline.com April, 2006 3. Summary of Scientific Evidence Illustrates the Life of Cattle, Farm Sanctuary April, 2006 4. Total Reduced Sulfur Concentration In Beef Cattle Feedlots, UNL's Livestock Environmental Issues Committee 5. Economic Importance Of Iowa's Cattle Industry, Iowa State University July, 2005 6. Do Livestock Antibiotics Affect Soil Bacteria), CSSF April, 2005 7. CRS Report for Congress, December 2000 8. Feedlot Production of Cattle in the United States and Canada: Some Environmental Implications of NAFTA 9. Planning Cattle Feedlots, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Kansas State University, Joseph P. Harner III & James P. Murphy 10. Cattle Feedlot Waste Management Practices For Water Pollution and Wastewater Management, John M. Sweeten 11. Agricultural Alternatives, The Pennsylvania State University 2001 Read More