Bird-flu in the USA

U.S. Bird Flu Outbreak Hits Millions of Iowa Egg-Laying Hens

Many of the 3.8 million egg-laying hens in an Iowa flock probably have bird flu as the biggest single outbreak of the virus reported in the U.S. added to concerns that turkey and egg supplies will be hampered by the disease.

“Despite best efforts, we now confirm many of our birds are testing positive” for avian influenza, closely held Sonstegard Foods Co. said in a statement dated April 20. The company said its Sunrise Farms unit close to Harris, Iowa, in Osceola County has 3.8 million hens.

The U.S. in February 1 had 362.1 million egg-laying hens, and Iowa with about 59.6 million is the state with the most, the latest government data on March 23 showed. Commercial turkey flocks with more than 2 million birds in eight states have been reported with the virus by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
“A lot of poultry meat and eggs won’t make it to market,” John Glisson, a vice president of research at the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, said during a panel discussion Tuesday at a National Chicken Council conference in Cambridge, Maryland. The U.S. and Canada are “implementing plans that have been set up for years” to fight disease, he said.

Hormel Foods Corp., the owner of Jennie-O turkeys, said Monday that annual profit may be eroded because the virus is hampering production. The company’s shares headed for the biggest decline in six weeks.

[...]

Before Monday, avian flu was found primarily in commercial turkey flocks, particularly in Minnesota, the largest U.S. producer.
The virus was first confirmed in a commercial turkey flock in the central U.S. last month after an outbreak began in wild birds and backyard flocks in the western U.S. in late 2014.

The disease has been found in some states that fall along a Mississippi River migratory route for waterfowl. China has halted all U.S. poultry imports since January, and other nations have imposed bans. Birds in flocks detected with the virus don’t enter the food system, according to the USDA.

“It’s not a food safety issue, it’s not a human-health concern, but we certainly are worried for this particular flock owner” in Iowa, Randy Olson, the executive director of the state’s egg council and poultry association, said Tuesday in a telephone interview. “We’re worried about the spread of this disease, and we’re encouraging all flock owners whether they have hundreds of birds or just a few in their backyards to practice very strict biosecurity." [...]

Here is some info about backyard chicken biosecurity:

Avian influenza basics for urban and backyard poultry owners

[...] Biosecurity steps to protect your flock

In order to help flock owners to keep their birds healthy by preventing disease, biosecurity is a must! Introductions of HPAI come from waterfowl (ducks and geese) and gulls that come to Minnesota. Once poultry are infected, they can spread the disease to new flocks. Now is a great time to review your biosecurity. The USDA provides the following tips on preventing AI in your poultry:

Keep your distance (separating your poultry from disease introduction). Some examples are:

Restrict access from wildlife and wild birds to your birds by use of enclosed shelter and fencing of the outdoor areas. Use of smaller mesh hardware cloth which allows exclusion of wild birds while still allowing outdoor exposure.
Caretakers should not have contact with other poultry or birds prior to contact with their own birds. Restrict access to your poultry if your visitors have birds of their own.
Keep different species of poultry and age groups separated due to differences in susceptibility.
Look at your own setting, what can you do to prevent your birds from contact with other birds that could introduce HPAI?

Keep it clean (cleaning and disinfecting). Some examples are:

Keep feeders and waterers clean and out of reach of wild birds. Clean up feed spills.
Change feeding practices if wild birds continue to be present.
Use dedicated or clean clothing and foot wear when working with poultry
Clean and then disinfect equipment that comes in contact with your birds such as shovels and rakes.
Conduct frequent cleaning and disinfecting of housing areas and equipment to limit contact of birds with their waste.
Evaluate your practices. Is it clean or is there room for improvement?

Don't haul disease home. Some examples are:

Introduction of new birds or returning birds to the flock after exhibition. Keep them separated for at least 30 days.
Returning dirty crates or other equipment back to the property without cleaning and disinfecting. This includes the tires on the vehicles and trailers.
Take a look and be critical. Is that site where you have set up a quarantine really separated well enough to keep your flock safe? Where do you clean crates? Can the runoff get to your birds?

Don't borrow disease from your neighbors

Don't share equipment or reuse materials like egg cartons from neighbors and bird owners, you could be borrowing disease.
Do you have what you need to separate yourself from your friends and neighbors? Now is the time to get the equipment and supplies you need to make that possible. [...]

Basically, no free range chickens. And what is a back-yard chicken, if not free-range?


More Bird-Flu headlines HERE.
     

Hydroponics + Fish Tanks = Aquaponics?

An interesting idea:

Your One-Stop Shop for everything Aquaponic:

[...] Aquaponics is a hybrid food growing technology combining the best of aqua-culture (growing fish) and hydroponics (growing veggies without soil), and it’s completely organic because the fish waste is your natural fertilizer and that means no pesticides. Aquaponics USA is dedicated to sharing information, developing products and bringing awareness of this life sustaining technology to every American home and School because it’s time Americans become Food Independent. [...]

I found this interesting, because for some time we have been breeding Guppies at home. One member of our household has often opined that, too bad we aren't growing something more practical, that could be used as food.

The Aquaponics system seems to be using large tanks of fish (Tilapia!) as a food source, but also using hydroponic plant bins as filter systems for the fish tanks, thus using the fishes waste products as nutrients for the plants, and using the plants (and beneficial bacteria with them) to keep the fishes environment clean and balanced.


What I'm not sure of though, is the greenhouse they are housed in. How is it to be heated in the Winter? They are in the high desert of California, where it even snows sometimes. And would the cost of heating the greenhouse, void the benefits of the food production? What I mean is, how could it be cost-effective? A quick look around the site did not reveal the answer. I will be looking around the site more, it has lots of links.

Also, I've seen seen Tilapia at the Supermarket. Damned UGLY fish. Don't know what it tastes like though. I suppose we'll have to try some soon.
     

Are we are moving beyond peak oil and into "peak everything."?

Exactly one year ago, I posted about peak oil. But can that concept be applied to ALL the worlds resources? Someone thinks so:

The Earth is full

(CNN) -- For 50 years the environmental movement has unsuccessfully argued that we should save the planet for moral reasons, that there were more important things than money. Ironically, it now seems it will be money -- through the economic impact of climate change and resource constraint -- that will motivate the sweeping changes necessary to avert catastrophe.

The reason is we have now reached a moment where four words -- the earth is full -- will define our times. This is not a philosophical statement; this is just science based in physics, chemistry and biology. There are many science-based analyses of this, but they all draw the same conclusion -- that we're living beyond our means.

The eminent scientists of the Global Footprint Network, for example, calculate that we need about 1.5 Earths to sustain this economy. In other words, to keep operating at our current level, we need 50% more Earth than we've got.

[...]

Even the previous heresy, that economic growth has limits, is on the table. Belief in infinite growth on a finite planet was always irrational, but it is the nature of denial to ignore hard evidence. Now denial is evaporating, even in the financial markets. As influential fund manager Jeremy Grantham of GMO says: "The fact is that no compound growth is sustainable. If we maintain our desperate focus on growth, we will run out of everything and crash." Or as peak oil expert Richard Heinberg argues, we are moving beyond peak oil and into "peak everything."

Despite this emerging understanding, the growth concept is so deeply ingrained in our thinking that we will keep pushing economic growth as hard as we can, at whatever cost is required.

As a result, the crisis will be big, it will be soon, and it will be economic, not environmental. The fact is the planet will take further bludgeoning, further depleting its capital, but the economy cannot -- so we'll respond not because the environment is under great threat, but because the science and economics shows that something far more important to us is jeopardized -- economic growth.

[...]

So when this crisis hits, will we respond or will we simply slide into collapse? Crisis elicits a powerful human response, whether it be personal health, natural disaster, corporate crisis or national threat. Previously immovable barriers to change quickly disappear.

In this case, the crisis will be global and will manifest as the end of economic growth, thereby striking at the very heart of our model of human progress. While that will make the task of ending denial harder, it also means what's at risk is, quite simply, everything we hold to be important. The last time this happened was World War II, and our response to that is illustrative of both the denial and delay process and the likely form our response to this crisis will take. [...]

It's not all grim. The author seems to think we may get through it somehow, if we adapt.

It's food for thought. But consider, what if the "peak oil" theory is completely wrong:

Fossil Fuels: They've only just begun

Is the financial crisis really being caused by growth, or is growth just going to be the official scapegoat?
     

Saudi Financial Woes?

But aren't they greedy SOBs, who are just soaking us for all they can? That's what many people believe, but when you look at the details, it's not that simple. They may have cheap gas for themselves, but not much else:

Amid oil boom, inflation makes Saudis feel poorer

By DONNA ABU-NASR, Associated Press Writer Tue Jul 8, 2:25 PM ET

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Sultan al-Mazeen recently stopped at a gas station to fill up his SUV, paying 45 cents a gallon — about one-tenth what Americans pay these days.

But the Saudi technician says Americans shouldn't be jealous. Inflation that has hit 30-year highs on everything else in the kingdom is making Saudis feel poorer despite the flush of oil money.

"I tell the Americans, don't feel envious because gas is cheaper here," said al-Mazeen, 36. "We're worse off than before."

While Saudis don't feel the pain at the pump, they feel it everywhere else, paying more at grocery stores and restaurants and for rent and construction material. While the country is getting richer selling oil at prices that climbed to a record $145 per barrel last week, inflation has reached almost 11 percent, breaking double-digits for the first time since the late 1970s.

[...]

Moreover, Saudis are grappling with unemployment — estimated at 30 percent among young people aged 16 to 26 — and a stock market that is down 10 percent since the beginning of the year.

Many Saudis are realizing that this oil boom will not have the same impact as the one in the 1970s, which raised Saudis from rags to riches. This time, the wealth isn't trickling down as fast or in the same quantities.

One reason is the kingdom's growing population, says John Sfakianakis, chief economist at the Saudi British Bank. In the 1970s, the population of Saudi Arabia was 9.5 million. Today, it's 27.6 million, including 22 million Saudi citizens. [...]

There's more. Read the whole thing for the many details. Food prices are rising world-wide, and it's affecting everyone, and the cost of everything.

As we debate the state of the US economy in this election year, with both the Republicans and the Democrats blaming each other for rising prices, we need to remember that what is happening isn't unique to OUR economy; there are global economic realities that affect us as well. We need to understand and be mindful of them, if we are to act wisely.
     

A Tax on Cow Farts to fight Global Warming

Just when you think you've seen it all. From Nealz Nuze:

THE LATEST GLOBAL WARMING TAX

When you want to save the planet from a non-existent crisis ... taxes and wealth redistribution seems like the way to go. In Estonia, farmers will now be taxed for the methane emissions produced by their cattle. Cattle produce the largest amounts of methane gas through belching and flatulence ... this accounts for 15-25% of overall gas emissions. One cow has the ability to produce an average of about 350 liters of methane and 1,500 liters of carbon dioxide each and every single day.

Apparently this isn't the first country to propose taxes along these lines. New Zealand also proposed a flatulence tax because New Zealand cattle are responsible for 90% of the country's methane emissions.

This "flatulence tax" is yet another way to creatively drive up food prices. Instead of taxing cow farts, which is methane, why not instead extract the methane from the manure of all farm animals and turn it into fuel, instead of using corn? Feed the corn to the animals to make manure, and turn the manure into fuel. The technologies involved in converting methane from manure into fuel have greatly improved since the idea was first explored in the 1970's. Recycling a waste product into something useful makes more sense than inefficiently wasting a food product that's needed elsewhere.
     

The Truth isn't always nice to hear

I really hated the title of the following article, yet I find it hard to argue too much with the contents. Is it a case of "Sad, but true?" You decide:

Glenn Beck: U.S. is a suicidal superpower

[...] Food and gas prices have been all over the news lately, and even a big dumb rodeo clown like me can see that it's all connected. Our policies, which try to cater to everyone from oil company executives to environmentalists, end up benefiting no one -- and now we're all paying the price.

I know that real economists probably will say that the causes of these skyrocketing prices are extremely complicated to understand, but the truth is that it's actually pretty simple: We've done this to ourselves.

I don't know if it's because of our arrogance, our stupidity or maybe both, but I believe that history may one day judge America as the most suicidal superpower of all time. After all, what country that cares about its future would do what America has done to its supply of food and fuel, two of the most critical things that any civilization needs to survive?

For example, look at the way we treat our food supply. We've spent decades giving billions of dollars in government subsidies with incentives for the wrong things, we've mandated that huge areas of farmland stay open for "conservation" and we're using grains that could feed tens of millions of people to make a crappy biofuel that you can't even buy anywhere. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) Beck's got plenty more to say about it too. I don't like reading it, because it's harsh, yet it reminds me of the adage "the truth hurts".
We naturally hate pain, but the pain of hurt is always a warning, and one that you are meant to heed. Will we?

I've just found it incredible that our nation would be so careless with things as basic as Food and Fuel. Yet it's not as if nobody has tried to foresee and deal with some of this. If we had begun environmentally-conscious safe drilling in ANWAR 10 years ago, we would have more fuel now. It would not have solved all our fuel problems, but it would have helped considerably. If we had built more gas refineries it would have helped lower gas prices now. Nuclear power is more viable than ever, with 80% of nuclear waste being recyclable, and the potential to recycle or render safe the remaining 20% with future technology.

President Bush has pushed for these and other solutions, but has been blocked at every turn by radical environmentalists, who instead have pushed for inefficient disasters like turning our food into fuel. The Republicans will take a beating for going along with this Al-Gore Democrat lunacy, and so they should. Yet the blame should be spread around; there are representatives on both sides of the aisle that have gotten too far out of touch with reality, that they could participate in helping this to happen. They all need a wake up call.

Not all of Beck's article is doom and gloom, there are some bright spots:

[...] Fortunately, there is some good news in all of this: Oil prices this high mean that a lot of formerly dismissed alternatives will finally make good economic sense.

For example, back in 1980, Congress passed the Energy Security Act, which led to the creation of something called the Synthetic Fuels Corp. (SFC). Lawmakers provided SFC with up to $88 billion in loans and incentives to get started (the equivalent of about $230 billion in today's dollars) with the goal of creating two million barrels a day of synthetic oil within seven years.

So why aren't you putting SFC oil into your SUV right now? Well, it turns out that members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries didn't appreciate the competition so they started bringing down the price of oil. From 1980, when SFC launched, to 1986, when it was shut down, oil went from more than $39 a barrel to less than $8 a barrel. Suddenly, synthetic oil didn't seem so important anymore.

In announcing the SFC's closure, then-Energy Secretary John Herrington said that oil prices had simply dropped too low to make it a viable business.

But the good news is that those economics don't work anymore. The state of Montana, which is leading the synthetic fuel charge, says we can now make it for somewhere around $55 a barrel. That's more than a 50 percent discount from what it costs to buy the real stuff.

It's the opportunity of a lifetime, a chance to use OPEC's price gouging and monopoly against it. [...]

It's time to abandon the policies of political correctness and emotional hysteria. We need to start actually supporting policies that are going to work, and insisting that our politicians support an implement them, and stop playing politically-correct games with the basics of our survival.
     

Ethanol and high food prices: the warnings were there years ago, but very few listened

Global warming hysteria lead politicians to "do something", regardless of the facts and warnings about what ethanol production would do to food prices. From Neal Boortz at Nealz Nuze:

CONCEDING THE BIOFUEL ARGUMENT ... NOT ME, THE POLITICIANS

But not now ... then.

Finally, somebody in DC is addressing the fact that ethanol production may have something to do with the increase in world food prices. Gee, ya think? I wonder what their first clue was.

Just yesterday Condi Rice said, "There has been apparently some effect, unintended consequence from the alternative fuels effort." Unintended consequences? Food costs rising 8% since 2005 ... People, even members of Congress, have been warned for years about the consequences of mandated ethanol production. Then there's this article from CNN Money dated back to 2006, or this one from almost one year ago warning us about ethanol's affect on food costs. Still not convinced? Go back to the 2004 election where ethanol was a really nice talking point for politicians. The New York Times even pointed out the problem of rising food prices due to mandatory ethanol production in January of 2006.

To give you one more piece of information, take a look at this article printed in the Science Daily back in Aug. 8, 2001. Here is what scientists have known since years:

The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: "In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace."

Back in 1994 when Al Gore cast the tie breaking vote in the Senate that led to a methanol mandate from the EPA we were told that "the price of corn flakes isn't going to go up by one penny." Hind sight truly is 20-20.

This is what happens when politicians decide to value hysteria, emotional thinking and feel-goodism over science, reason and basic math.

It was the Democrats who lead this irrational charge into nonsense that is now raising food prices world wide. Yes, they had bi-partisan support from many Republicans who they suckered into the Ethanol boondoggle. But it was none other than enviro-wacko Al Gore who cast the tie breaking vote that pushed through the ethanol program. There's an Inconvenient Truth.

Now that we have rising food prices, will Gore take the credit? I doubt it. Because the price rises are occurring during a Republican administration, I bet he and the Democrats will try to put the blame on the Republicans. This is what the Republicans get for supporting pie-in-the-sky legislation from Democrats.

John McCain had spoken out against Ethanol production for many years, but more recently he also caved into the pressure to support it. He shouldn't have, because he was right all along.

The question now is, who's going to fix this government-created mess? Will anyone have the nerve to say we should scrap the Ethanol subsidies?


Related Links:

Undoing America's Ethanol Mistake

Mark Steyn: Feed your Prius, starve a peasant

Rising food costs are due to Ethanol Boondoggle
     

Food Prices & Climate Change Hysteria

What Happens When You Put Food Into Cars

Rising food costs due to Ethanol Boondoggle

When Ronald Reagan said "The government isn't the solution, it's the problem", he wasn't kidding. Ethanol is a prime example.

The Democrats are especially good at creating "solutions" that create even more problems, that in turn, require even more government. But this ethanol scam went through with the help of Republicans, who "felt" the need to "do something" in response to the global warming hysteria, instead of sticking with good science, reason and the known facts. This foolishness is the result of responding to hysterical hype.

Now the Democrats will use rising food prices as yet another reason to turn Republicans out of office, when in reality it was the Democrats who pushed hardest for the ethanol program. Yet it will be the Republicans that the MSM will blame.

The best thing the Republicans could do now is reverse this bad decision, but will any of them have the guts to do it, lest they offend the adherents of the Global Warming Religion?

UPDATE 04-09-08. This link from the "Government Is Not Your Daddy" blog:

Alternative Energy and the Law of Unintended Consequences

[...] Our national “investment” in subsidizing bio-fuel production has been so overwhelmingly successful that it’s had the effect of repurposing the majority of our corn crops to ethanol production. It has also motivated farmers to divert production from other crops to crops that can be used for biofuels.

Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of this noble effort have been to raise food prices, not only here in the U.S., but around the world. Rising food prices hit the poor the hardest, and accelerate the spread of poverty. In an article in Foreign Affairs, titled How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor, authors Runge and Senauer said ”Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires more than 450 pounds of corn - which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year.” Even as food shortages increase in countries where people are already starving, the U.S. is being forced to reduce its international food aid due to rising food costs at home, largely due to the diversion of crops to biofuel production.

The high demand for biofuels is also having an unintended impact on some of the environmentalists’ own pet causes. [...]

This article also goes into detail about the harmful effects of diluting gasoline with 10% ethanol, and the many other unintended harmful side effects of the Ethanol Boondoggle. Read the whole thing... and weep! Then demand that our politicians not only stop this nonsense, but reverse course before the damage spreads further.
     

Rising food costs due to Ethanol Boondoggle

I warned about this in a previous post in May of last year. Now it's happening, and it's not only a waste of taxpayer's money, it's damaging our economy and causing food prices to rise world-wide. Walter Williams at Townhall.com gives us the details:

Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax

[...] Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities.

[...]

Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.

[...]

Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.

It's easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money.

[...]

The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them -- higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. [...]

I've only excerpted a few things wrong with ethanol from the article, there's more. Read the whole thing. I can't believe our government, both parties, is actually doing this to us. We can thank the global warming hoax and it's attendant hysteria too, for helping it along.




Related Link:

Bakers lobby govt to help ease wheat crunch