I recently discovered my church was lobbying to create policy on agriculture, and not in a positive way. An email was sent from a ranking official in my church chastising farms that use modern technology. The email encouraged recipients to express dislike of modern livestock farms to their local media. Upon doing some research, I discovered my church had policies on agriculture that were not beneficial to the future of agriculture, or our nation’s ability to grow our own food supply.

A meeting was set up between me, our local church leader, the official who sent the email, and a few local members of the church. It was astonishing to hear the church’s agriculture policy, and to learn my donations to the church were being used to put my farm out of business. This church’s policy would force agriculture to go back to methods of farming used by farmers over 50 years ago. However, the church neglected to consider that 50 years ago, we had more acres in production agriculture than we do today, and we fed fewer people on those acres. Today, 1 farmer feeds 143 people. I urged my church to do more research and learn more about the issues they were trying to regulate. I expressed the important role modern technology plays in providing enough food for our growing nation, and others. My encouragement fell on deaf ears unfortunately and I was told their policy wouldn’t be changed.

As a result, my family and I have found a new church to worship in, one that leaves politics outside of the church. I go to church for spiritual guidance and fulfillment. I expect my church to be an expert in the teachings of the Bible, not politics, agriculture, energy, banking, etc. In my search for a new church, I learned my old church was not the only church that had policies on agriculture, the Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran and Episcopalian Churches all have national policies on agriculture. I also found out many of these policies are being driven by activist groups, not the local members of the church.

Yesterday was our County Fair's Livestock show. This was the first year our daughter was eligible to show hogs. It was an exciting day not only for Rachelle, but also for our son Conner (he was her official "gopher"). Adding to the excitement for the kids was their dad taking the entire day away from the farm to be with them at the fair.

Their day started with the hogs getting a bath, I think the kids were probably just as wet as the hogs. When they arrived at the fair, there were 59 hogs to be shown. Rachelle was intimidated to say the least. We got her hogs weighed in and settled in their pen. Rachelle took great pride in keeping her hogs cool, comfortable and well groomed. The kids stayed with the hogs all day, never leaving their side unless absolutely necessary. And if they did leave, they had a friend watch their hogs while they were gone. Of course they re-paid the favor several times by watching other kids' hogs too.

It was inspiring watching these kids help each other out. If one kid was doing something the hard way, it was nothing for a more expierenced kid or parent to step up and show the younger kids an easier way. These kids were working hard and loving every minute of it but they were also looking out for each other.

As I looked around the livestock barn it was encouraging to see so many young kids working together towards a goal. It reminded me once again how important it is to stick together and work as a team in agriculture. It was an important day for our kids, but I think it was also an important reminder for all the adults that we need to always stand UNITED in agriculture.

Has anyone else noticed how we have become a nation of "we can't" as of late.

We can't drill for oil in Alaska because it will destroy the land. We can't drill for oil off our coasts because it will pollute the water. We can't use wind energy because nobody wants to look at those turbines and they harm the birds. We can't use nuclear energy because they will blow up. We can't use coal because it releases plant food (CO2) into the air. We can't build pipelines and refineries to make gasoline because they will leak.

We can't use modern farming techniques because they destroy the soil. We can't use chemicals to protect our crops because it is bad for people. We can't grow enough food to feed our planet because of ethanol. We can't use commercial fertilizers because they are made from fossil fuels. We can't use animal waste to fertilize because it contaminates water sheds.

We can't raise cattle because they release methane into the air. We can't raise any animals too close together because they produce too much waste. We can't use antibiotics to treat our animals because it will produce super bugs. We can't feed cattle corn because people need to eat it. We can't graze cattle on grass because they destroy riparian areas. We can't graze on public lands because of some endangered species. We can't raise poultry in an environementally controlled facility because it is cruel. We can't harvest animals for human consumption because it is inhumane and unethical.

When did "We Can't" become our national motto? I have had people question why Stacy and I spend so much time and energy trying to tell the story of agriculture because we can't stop the likes of HSUS and PETA from destroying animal agriculture in this country. I, however, believe that we can. If we all work together in agriculture, we can stop this movement in it's tracks. All of us need to realize that we are in this together.

Many of us in agriculture have several generations of the land in our blood. This did not happen because our ancestors said "we can't". We are the product of people that said "we can". And that is the one thing that the anti-agriculture groups have failed to take into account.

The full implementation of a National Animal Identification System is not too far in the future. As with any program implemented by the government, it depends on funding.

One way to possibly cut costs is to use one tag for more than one purpose. For example, in Wyoming it is required to vaccinate all females for Brucellosis before 12 months of age. At the time of vaccination, the vet that administers the shot also places an orange metal tag in the right ear of the cow along with a tattoo. One idea that the Wyoming Livestock Board has explored is to replace the metal tag with an electronic ID tag so it can be read with a scanner. Thus, every cow in Wyoming would have an NAIS compatible tag serving more than one purpose.

Retention of these tags in the ear of a cow is sometimes a concern, but this issue is not impossible. Currently the metal tag (brucellosis tag) does provide trace back, however it is time consuming because of the recording process. The electronic tags are now possible and would bring us quicker results in our technology driven society. I think it is great to be able to discuss these issues and how they affect us whether positive or negative. What a great country we live in!

Hope you all have a wonderful and safe 4th of July!

"Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." This is not what a rancher 130 miles north of me wanted to hear two weeks ago. On June 17, two of his cows tested positive for brucellosis. This is a disease that causes abortion in cattle, elk and bison. To keep Wyoming's brucellosis-free status, in addition to the two positive reactors, the ranchers entire cattle herd has to be depopulated. The neighboring ranches to any of his cattle must also be bled and tested to prove their herds are free of brucellosis. Not an easy task considering that in June the cattle were turned out onto summer pastures that are measured in size by the section not just an acre. If Wyoming does lose it's brucellosis-free classification, all cattle that have reached puberty and are reproductively intact, have to be tested and have a negative result for any travel out of state.

State law requires us to vaccinate for this disease, but it still doesn't guarantee 100% resistance to it. Federal and state officials have worked decades to control the spread of this disease within the Greater Yellowstone National Park area.

So when it comes to animal I.D., I am willing to implement it if it will decrease animal disease and trace back to the source. But in this case the source is elk, owned by the state and living in the national forests owned by the government which would not be included in any animal I.D. system. So I advocate that we vaccinate and I.D. the elk and bison owned by the government-probably not a feasible idea, but a great show to watch!

When it comes to implementing a national I.D. system, it is beneficial as a producer, to be involved in the rule-making process so that the final rule works for us and not as a hindrance. The results should be solutions rather than just bureaucratic regulations. This would ensure a product for the consumer that is the safest possible and boosts consumer confidence.