Barb Wire

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves? It was interesting to note a recent website launch designed to keep watch on the Humane Society of the United States, a group whose stated purpose is to “seek a humane and sustainable world for all animals.” Its Canadian affiliate is Humane Society International.
What could be wrong with that, and why does HSUS need watching? You might well be inclined to wonder.
The Centre for Consumer Freedom in the United States said it’s because HSUS is on par with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in its approach to food animal production.
“Nearly one million Americans donate money to HSUS every year. And most are completely unaware that they’re bankrolling PETA-style propaganda, far-reaching anti-meat campaigns, a huge staff of lawyers and bloated pension plans for HSUS executives,” said a Centre for Consumer Freedom news release.
Accordingly, it launched HumaneWatch.org, a self-described “watchdog project” to monitor the HSUS. See it for yourself by clicking here.
Complaints from agriculture groups about HSUS activities have become more numerous among the organizations that I monitor. I happened to be in the United States during this year’s super bowl, (though not in Miami) so I watched the game and the accompanying ads on American television.
In at least one of the coveted and expensive super bowl advertising slots was a lengthy commercial from HSUS. It featured the expected content about injured and unwanted dogs and cats, but also unexpected clips of dairy cows and, if memory serves, pigs and chickens in barn environments. It was an evocative ad, one that could easily encourage donations to the HSUS.
However, the CCF group says the HSUS “neither operates nor is legally affiliated with any pet shelters anywhere,” and is using donations for other purposes that benefactors might not fully understand.
The HSUS website encourages an end to “factory farming.” And it has recently criticized some American farm groups for their advocacy work in support of food animal production. It says farm group efforts to forge relationships with SPCAs and similar groups are not a good thing.
How’s that again?
Said HSUS president Wayne Pacelle, in a newsletter: “We urge you not to be deceived by this newly hatched effort by the Farm Bureau to enlist you in opposing legitimate and mainstream animal welfare reforms for animals used in agribusiness.”
Seems odd to me that HSUS doesn’t support agricultural industry efforts to improve conditions for food animals, but that seems to be the case.
It appears the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association has been watching developments, because earlier this week it issued a statement related to donations for animal causes.
“Those interested in animal rights more than animal care often have a stated goal of ending animal agriculture,” said the CCA, adding that it encourages people to understand the nature of groups to which they donate.
The cattlemen’s group suggests that those interested in animal health and care consider the various animal care councils operating in Canada, as well as local shelters and branches of the SPCA.
There is no doubt that farmers and ranchers are interested in animal health and might be interested in donating to animal care causes. But the CCA advice is good: know the specifics of groups you choose to support.

Further on the topic of my last post, the Canadian Journalism Project, at J-Source.ca, tracked the number of media people covering the Olympics in Vancouver.
The estimated grand total: 10,800.
Number of athletes and officials at the games, according to Tourism Vancouver: 5,500
So, that’s almost two news media people for every athlete and official. If you’ve wondered about the extent of Olympic coverage, there’s your answer.
The Canadian English language media presence is an estimated 1,672, but that number, and the estimated grand total noted above, doesn’t include CBC, which hadn’t provided numbers to J-Source at time of writing.
About 1,400 people in the Canadian total are from CTV, which has official Olympic coverage rights.

The Olympics dominate Canadian news these days. Media from all over the world are in Vancouver covering events, games, athletes, ceremonies and protests. As I look enviously upon all the excitement and media frenzy, it seems as though every newspaper except The Western Producer has a reporter on site. If only there was an agricultural angle that would justify our presence….

But of course there is a deep agricultural angle to the games. It’s food — for the athletes, the organizers, the support staff, the volunteers, the visitors and the whole darned city. A good portion of it likely comes from the Prairies.

Various agricultural commodity groups have made it known that they are promoting Canadian food at the Games. The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, Canola Council of Canada, Canadian Beef Export Federation, Canadian Pork Council, Dairy Farmers of Canada and Canadian Horticulture Council all participated in an Olympic-eve promotional event that promoted Canadian food, according to a CCA news release. About 60 journalists were fed and watered with Canadian product and “every journalist had the opportunity to taste,” said the news release. “Many were spotted returning for seconds.”

That may say more about the journalists than the food, but that’s a story for another day. Doubtless all dishes were as delicious as reported.

Another news release, from the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers, tells us that all who visit the Saskatchewan pavilion are being encouraged to eat more Saskatchewan-grown lentils. According to the pavilion website, bison burgers, sausages and perogies are also featured, along with other provincial products. Alberta House, that province’s pavilion, is also featuring the diverse food and beverages of Alberta.

You know, if we keep finding all these food and agricultural angles, it might not be too late to dispatch a reporter or two, or maybe even an editor, to check out the Olympics first-hand. If you know of any other connections that would justify the presence of Canada’s largest agricultural newspaper, let me know. Soon. I have my mittens ready.

© VANOC/COVAN

Sampling the local cuisine is one of the most enjoyable aspects of traveling, in my view. And if you don’t happen to have a kitchen or kitchen access on your travels, it’s a necessity.

My blog has been irregularly updated lately because I’m in Palm Springs, California. My travel companions and I were out sampling local cuisine just a few days ago — coincidentally the same day the United States Department of Agriculture announced it is scrapping its National Animal Identification System. It now plans to develop something more palatable to farmers, ranchers and agricultural groups.

Why is that announcement relevant? On the menu at The Falls restaurant, a tony eatery on Highway 111 in the heart of Palm Springs, were two items promising traceability: the 14 ounce New York strip and the 16 ounce grilled double cut Berkshire pork chop. Said the menu: “These cuts of meat are free of hormones and antibiotics, have been fed a 100% vegetarian diet, and are traceable to place of birth.”

Do tell, I said to my companions. One of them, with my gentle encouragement, ordered the New York strip. I was tempted to order the pork chop, purely as an investigative measure, but I’d recently had an encounter with a large pig (see photo) and almost as large a plate of ribs. It will be some time until I can face pork again. So I ordered the petit fillet instead, in the interests of checking on the quality of U.S. beef compared to that on the Prairies. The sacrifices one must make for this newspaper’s research!

Once our steaks had been served, sampled and found to be delicious, I asked the server about the traceability claim. In short order, one of the owners appeared. He told us he had bought that particular restaurant (and possibly others) shortly before BSE was discovered in the U.S., in December 2003. He and his partners were worried (he mentioned something about sweat and bullets) and decided to buy their meat from Newport Meats, a firm in Irvine, California. This particular firm, said the restaurant owner, buys only from certain suppliers who meet its exacting standards. Thus he felt the restaurant could make a traceability claim on some cuts of meat, even though there is no national traceability program in the U.S.

After peppering the man with a few dozen questions, I could tell he was wondering about my unusual interest in the topic. Diners at surrounding tables were staring and my dinner companions were getting restive. So, I let the poor guy get away, with thanks for the information. Later I looked up Newport Meats and found this on its website: “We have selected suppliers that meet our exact standards and that can deliver every time. Newport’s boutique packers are small enough to be attentive to our cattle selection and custom trim requirements, yet big enough to fabricate beef for our largest accounts.”

So, it’s possible that if I had pressed the matter — and if I weren’t on vacation — I might have been able to determine the farm where that New York strip originated. But no similar offer was made regarding my petit fillet which, judging from the excellent flavour and texture, might very well have originated on the Canadian Prairies. Restaurant meat doesn’t have to go through the country-of-origin labeling rules, as all you beef producers know.

Colleagues at a U.S. based agricultural publication recently conducted an on-line, unscientific poll to ask farmers what they liked most about farming.
Independence: 55 percent
Growing things: 21 percent
Machinery and tools: 9 percent
Nature: 5 percent
Other: 4 percent
Livestock: 3 percent
Financial rewards: 3 percent

I was surprised that livestock rated so low, but its relationship to financial rewards probably has a lot to do with it. I wonder if Canadian results to such a poll would be similar? We’ll have to test it out.

You’re never too young to begin to appreciate the printed word. Or the printed photograph. Or the printed advertisement. Two-year-old Callum, grandson of Larry Crooks of LaFleche, Sask., enjoys what the Western Producer has to offer on a recent coffee break.
Thank you for the photo, Larry. Keep on reading, Callum.

On the weekend I had the opportunity to hear a speech by Dr. Temple Grandin, the world’s foremost expert on animal handling facilities. The professor of animal science at Colorado State University is an engaging speaker and she had a lecture hall of veterinary medical students in the palm of her hand. Grandin gets lots of practice. She speaks all over the world about livestock and proper handling and she has written several books about animal behaviour, welfare and facility design. One of the most recent is Animals Make Us Human, which was on the Canadian and the New York Times bestseller lists.
Grandin is autistic and I’ve seen her referred to in other media as one of the most highly functioning autistics in the world. She credits her condition with giving her insight into how animals view the world. In fact, when she designs livestock handling facilities, she goes through them herself, sometimes on hands and knees, to thoroughly understand what animals might see in the same situation.
Grandin is of average height and blocky build. She doesn’t have traditional movie star looks, as you see in the photo accompanying this blog. But her life story of struggle and achievement is certainly a fascinating story line.
HBO thinks so too. The cable network has produced a movie about it, simply titled Temple Grandin. It is due to air on Feb. 6. You can see the trailer by clicking here. Claire Danes plays the title role and does a fair job of copying Grandin’s speech style. The promo makes the movie intriguing, and although I don’t get HBO at home or in the Western Producer newsroom, I plan to find a way to watch this movie.
I came across an interview on meatingplace.com in which HBO Films president Len Amato was interviewed about the Grandin project.
An excerpt:“We loved the challenge of creating a narrative around someone who lives in the world in a unique way. While we wanted to explore Temple’s experiences and challenges with autism, we also wanted to show her unique perspective and celebrate the idea of being different.”
In her speech on Jan. 16, Grandin referred to the movie a few times. She was on the set for some of the filming and assisted with some of the livestock handling.
Another intriguing mention in her lecture referenced her perception of a generation gap that results in fewer people with knowledge about animals. Few people have had contact with farm animals. Many have never had pets.
She told the story of a book signing at a Costco where she talked with many store customers. “I was amazed at the number of people, especially younger people, who had never had anything to do with animals.”
Typical of the talk, Grandin didn’t elaborate on her concern over this. Given the context, however, I think she is worried that less human experience with animals will mean greater risk of improper animal handling.

This morning I watched a YouTube clip about American country-of-origin labelling. It’s a clean and clear explanation of COOL’s advantages to U.S. consumers. The material is well crafted and makes perfect sense at the consumer level, aimed as it is at a grocery buying target audience.
There is reference to COOL labelling on meat from other countries, notably Canada and Mexico. But of course there is no mention of the havoc COOL has caused to the Canadian meat industry. Not that it should, given the purpose of the material, but it still sticks in the craw. You can watch the YouTube clip here.
As you will recall, Canada requested a dispute settlement panel through the World Trade Organization last fall to address the trade reductions that COOL has created. Sure, countries have the right to label their products. Canada does it. Many countries do it.
The issue with COOL, from the Canadian point of view, is that it doesn’t comply with world trade rules. Under COOL, meat can only be labelled as U.S. product if the originating animal is born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S. Given those requirements, it discourages American buyers and packers from buying Canadian animals. Labelling demands require them to keep the animals and resulting meat separate from U.S. product, and label them accordingly. Who needs that extra hassle and expense?
But trade rules say that when imported goods are transformed into another form, they are deemed to originate in the country where the transformation occurred.
A Canadian-born animal slaughtered in the U.S. has inarguably undergone a transformation — from livestock into meat.
Is it hair-splitting? Not when the difference so drastically affects Canadian exports of cattle and hogs, thereby harming the livestock industry.

Speaking of our water issue, referenced in the previous blog instalment, we are finding that paper is not only well read but well travelled. At the absolute height of being appropriate is Bill Bueckert of Eyebrow, Sask., who was seen beside the water, in a place surrounded by water, reading about water.
Katelyn Bueckert took this photo in Cuba during the first week of 2010. Thank you Katelyn and thank you Bill, for taking the WP along on vacation. It’s the closest most of us here at the paper will get this year to a tropical trip.