Dairy

Terry D. Etherton

The New York Times published an interesting article “A Conversation with Nina Fedoroff - An Advocate for Science Diplomacy” on August 19, 2008. Dr. Fedoroff, formerly at Penn State, is Science Adviser to the Secretary of State and Administrator of the Agency for International Development.

Dr. Fedoroff discusses the reality that science and technology are the drivers of the most successful economies in the 21st century. She also addresses the importance of technological innovation for feeding a growing world, and that organic farming can’t support the earth’s current population.

The article is an interesting read that clearly presents why we need to continue investing in science to develop new technologies to feed a growing world.

Enjoy the article!

A Strategic Plan for Labor:

read more

A Strategic Plan for Labor:

read more

Terry D. Etherton

Genetically engineered (GE) animals provide innovative technologies that can transform public health through biomedical, food and environmental applications, according to a scientific report released by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).

The report, Genetically Engineered Animals and Public Health – Compelling Benefits for Health Care, Nutrition, the Environment and Animal Welfare, discusses how GE animals will enhance human health, food production, environmental protection, animal health and cutting-edge industrial applications. The report was authored by Scott Gottlieb, MD, of the American Enterprise Institute, and Matthew B. Wheeler, PhD, of the Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Gottlieb and Dr. Wheeler are experts in the field of genetic engineering of animals.

Genetic engineering is the deliberate modification of the animal’s genome using the scientific tools of modern biotechnology. By incorporating genes from other organisms in a process called transgenesis, GE animals are being developed to address five broad goals:

1. Advance human health: GE animals will improve human health by producing novel replacement proteins, drugs, vaccines and tissues for the treatment and prevention of human disease.
2. Enhance food production and quality: Animals that are genetically engineered will have improved food production capabilities, enabling them to help meet the global demand for more efficient, higher quality and lower-cost sources of food.
3. Mitigate environmental impact: GE animals will contribute to improving the environment and human health by consuming fewer resources and producing less waste.
4. Optimize animal welfare. Genetic engineering offers tremendous benefits to the animals by enhancing the health, well-being and welfare of the animal itself.
5. Improve industrial products: Genetic engineering can produce high-value industrial products, such as spider silk, for both medical and defense applications.

“There are now dozens of products under development derived from genetically engineered animals that hold promise of benefit to human health,” says Dr. Gottlieb. “But the practical benefits of this technology have not yet reached American patients and consumers primarily because of regulatory and political obstacles rather than the limits of science.”

The authors make a strong case for creating a regulatory pathway for commercialization of these beneficial biotechnologies. The Bio Report illustrates how the production of GE animals promises benefits for both biomedicine and agriculture. But Gottlieb and Wheeler agree that the science requires regulations that bridge the divide between food and biomedical products.

I have written extensively about the importance of biotechnology in the Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology. The BIO Report, Genetically Engineered Animals and Public Health – Compelling Benefits for Health Care, Nutrition, the Environment and Animal Welfare, reinforces the need for and value of biotechnology in society. The numerous benefits of of GE animals only can be realized when policy obstacles are resolved that are limiting investment in this research and holding back product development.

What started out as a way to place a hurdle to imports of meat into this country and thereby protect producers from foreign competition, has been wrapped up in a nice package of consumer information/awareness and now is finally coming to some reduced form realization.

read more

Steven King
Irish Examiner.com
Published July 23, 2008

IN Gulliver’s Travels, the King of Bobdingnag — the land of the giants — claimed that whoever could make two ears of corn grow where only one grew before was a greater patriot than all the politicians put together.

It’s sad to note then that nearly 300 years on from the publication of Swift’s satire, the politicians are still standing in the way of an agricultural technology that has the potential to do just that.

Despite food prices having risen by 50% in two years, the Government appears to have no strategy to reverse things. On the contrary, the direction of policy is all towards supporting the inefficient organic sector. Moreover, it shows no sign of dropping its opposition to new food technologies that offer the prospect, among other things, of higher yields from the same acreage.

It’s not hard to guess from which quarter in the current coalition the opposition to GM (genetically modified) food principally emanates. Earlier this month, Environment Minister John Gormley mused out loud that Ireland must keep open the option of declaring itself a GM-free zone. This despite the fact that the Food Safety Authority — the expert body — has been generally positive about GM-derived foods.

In delaying cultivation, the anti-GM lobbies have exacted a heavy price, not least in the Third World. Closer to home, incredibly, the programme for government not only stakes out an anti-GM position but declares itself in favour of biofuels which require land to be given over from food to fuel production.

Is it any wonder supermarket prices are skyrocketing? The politicians believe, of course, that they are reflecting public concerns. If the entire world was well-fed and food prices were static, stay-as-we-are might be an affordable luxury. But when a large proportion of the world’s population is still undernourished, don’t politicians have a responsibility to show leadership, to support the scientific and agricultural sectors as they explore ways to grow more, better food?

In a free society, shouldn’t the ultimate decisions lie with consumers who can make up their own minds? As long as the relevant experts are satisfied that GM food is safe — and they are — shouldn’t we be left to decide whether or not to purchase it?

Isn’t that the correct approach rather than engaging in a spurious, never-ending public debate that will inevitably be hijacked by the tiny number of green fundamentalists? ‘Safe’ is the last word the romantics would use to describe GM. Despite Americans having eaten it for years with no discernible side-effects, these so-called earth-lovers continue to raise claims that eating GM food can cause cancer and liver disease (and heart failure and brain damage and any other unpleasant health complication they can concoct on the basis of some kooky laboratory experiment, one suspects).

All credit to the self-styled defenders of our environment, though: they have managed to scare the life out of most of us. They are working with the grain: in the current zeitgeist anything processed or industrialised is potentially harmful, while anything that appears to be close to nature is pure and uncorrupted.

So, rather than embracing GM as opening up the possibility of greater control over the properties of plants, the environmentalists reject it as dangerous interference in nature with all sorts of unknown potential problems.

Have they forgotten that Mother Nature supplies not only delicious things for us to eat, but also its fair share of toxic fungi, bacteria and viruses?

There is a clear paradox here. While we in the developed world enjoy prosperity and health as never before, when it comes to GM foods superstition, ignorance and fear appear to be triumphing over human reason. One suspects that if matters had been left to the likes of Greenpeace, we would all still be hunter-gatherers.

Superstition, of course, is as old as time. When Charles Darwin provided a mechanism for the origin of species by means of natural selection, he violated the ancient notion that species are immutable and created by God in a hierarchy — with humans near the top, just below angels. The superstition about GM is similar: a sense that we are ‘playing God’ by moving genes around.

The further each generation is from the land and, thereby, a direct knowledge of crop production, the more susceptible to the scaremongering we become.

Many other innovations that are now commonplace in our lives were met with similar scepticism and opposition when first introduced. Some might be able to recall the horror stories about microwave ovens. Before that, pasteurisation and even technologies such as canning and freezing provoked alarm.

For all the frightening talk about ‘Frankenstein foods’, though, GM is simply a new tool for plant breeding, a development of what humans have been doing successfully for centuries: breeding wild grasses into wheat and barley, wolves into dogs and so on. In each case, human choice replaced biological chance. The difference is that now we have the ability to isolate the genes which carry specific traits: the randomness has been taken out of the equation. Throughout history there have been those who embraced this kind of change and those who clung to the old ways because they felt at least the risks were known. And since feeding ourselves was the primary occupation of mankind for most of our history, changes in food production have tended to be accepted only very slowly. Modern intensive agriculture has a bad press. The need to increase food production has resulted in the loss of one-fifth of the world’s topsoil and one-third of its forests.

BUT organic farming is scarcely the answer: it requires even more land to be devoted to agriculture. This is the dirty little secret the disillusioned financiers who give up the rat-race to sell organic jam, the New Age religionists and the middle-class hypochondriacs don’t want you to know. Their response is to turn their fire on new technologies to make agriculture more efficient so more land can be left wild — or to call for us all to eat less and breed less.

This hostility to GM makes no sense. Already, GM crops have been designed which are insect-resistant or have a herbicide resistance so they need less spraying. Another benefit is that agricultural land doesn’t require such extensive tilling, which allows more organic matter to accumulate in the soil.

This is just the beginning. The future holds promise for new GM crop varieties with increased tolerance of drought, heat and cold; with improved disease resistance or nutritional value, or as production systems for pharmaceutical compounds (such as edible vaccines for the developing world) and renewable industrial compounds (such as biodegradable plastics). These ideas might be unfamiliar, but that is no reason to reject them out of hand.

The discussion of food illustrates a broader need to remind ourselves just how much modern society has achieved in changing the lives of people for the better through the application of science, industry and reason. Perhaps then we will all be better able to see the ideas of the anti-GM brigade for the manure they really are.

Terry D. Etherton

On July 15, 2008, The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) announced its final scientific opinion that food from cloned cattle and pigs is safe, and there are no implications of animal cloning on the environment.

The findings of the EFSA Report concur with those presented in the Risk Assessment (RA) released on December 28, 2006, by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

As previously discussed in the Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology, the FDA RA (“A Risk-Based Approach to Evaluate Animal Clones and Their Progeny – DRAFT”) concluded that “….the available data has not identified any food consumption risks or subtle hazards in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats. Thus, edible products from healthy clones that meet existing requirements for meat and milk in commerce pose no increased food consumption risk(s) relative to comparable products from sexually-derived animals.”

Key findings of the EFSA Scientific Committee Report are:

- There is no indication that differences exist in terms of food safety for meat and milk of clones and their progeny compared with those from conventionally bred animals.

- Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT (the most common technique used to clone animals) results in the production of healthy cattle and pig clones, and healthy offspring that are similar to their conventional counterparts based on parameters such as physiological characteristics, demeanor and clinical status.

- From the data collected, no environmental impact is foreseen.

In February 2007, EFSA was asked by the European Commission to provide a scientific opinion on the food safety, animal health, animal welfare and environmental implications of animal clones, obtained through the SCNT technique, of their progeny and of the products obtained from those animals. The final opinion also follows public consultation on a draft opinion issued earlier this year.

As I have discussed previously, cloned animals will be of value because of their increased genetic merit to provide healthy and nutritious meat and milk. Cloned animals also will increase food production, improve disease resistance, and enhance reproductive efficiency. An additional benefit is that cloning can be used to protect endangered species.

New York, NY — July 21, 2008. The latest attempt by proponents of organic agriculture to prove that organically grown crops are nutritionally superior to conventional ones has failed, according to Joseph D. Rosen, Ph.D., emeritus professor of Food Toxicology at Rutgers University and a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).

Dr. Rosen analyzed a pro-organic report by Charles Benbrook and colleagues at the Organic Trade Association’s Organic Center and found the data had been selectively chosen and presented to “prove” the desired point. Dr. Rosen’s report, Claims of Organic Food’s Nutritional Superiority: A Critical Review, was published by ACSH.

In the original pro-organic paper, Benbrook and colleagues had stated that organic produce is 25% “more nutritious” than that produced by conventional agricultural practices. But when Dr. Rosen actually recalculated some of their data, correcting several inaccuracies, he concluded that the conventional products were actually 2% more nutritious than the organic varieties:

•The Benbrook paper had claimed that organically grown vegetables had much more quercetrin (a precursor of the antioxidant quercetin) than conventional varieties. But the organic vegetables studied had been sprayed with an organic pesticide that greatly increases plants’ production of quercetrin — so of course they beat the conventional plants on that measure.

•Dr. Rosen also points out that the organic proponents included data of dubious validity in their review. They used data from articles that were not peer-reviewed, and in one case included nutrient content from an analysis of whole kiwi fruits — both the inedible skin and the edible pulp, though this is not what the consumer would eat.

Dr. Rosen’s analysis demonstrates how organic proponents have, once again, used misleading and inappropriately-evaluated data to support their agenda.

For more information please contact Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, President, or Dr. Ruth Kava, Director of Nutrition, at ACSH (212-362-7044).

No Differences Found in the Composition of Conventional, rbST-Free and Organic Milk

Terry D. Etherton

A new scientific study by Vicini et al. published in the July issue of the prestigious Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) reports the results of the first in-depth survey study comparing retail milk for quality, nutritional value and levels of different milk hormones, including bovine somatotropin (bST). The study that we published found that there were “no meaningful differences” in the composition of milk with the three different label claims.

Prompted by the recent trend in misleading food labeling based on dairy cow management, the study looked specifically at three label claims: conventional milk, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)-free milk and organic milk.

While minor differences were observed in milk composition for the three labels, the differences were not “biologically meaningful.” The coauthors of the study concluded that label claims “were not related to any meaningful differences in the milk compositional variables measured.” The only difference among conventional, rbST-free and organic milk is price, according to the study, with milk labeled rbST-free or organic selling for anywhere from $1 to $4 more per gallon than conventional milk.

Because absence-claim labels can imply that the milk labeled rbST-free or organic is safer or better than conventional milk, the published report emphasizes the importance of consumers being mindful about how product labels impact the food they purchase, that purchase decisions should be based on science and not on perceptions created by retail marketing, which can be misleading.

This peer-reviewed paper is important because it will help health care professionals respond effectively to consumer questions and perceptions about different milk-label claims.

Specifically, the study revealed the following:

• Quality: Antibiotics were not detectable in any milk samples. This is a not surprising result since milk containing antibiotics is not permitted to enter the food system. Bacterial counts were less for conventionally labeled milk compared with organic or rbST-free milk, but the differences were small and not significant.
• Nutrient Composition: Protein concentration was greater in organic milk compared to either conventional or rbST-free milk, which both had similar protein content. Again, the difference is not significant, and protein in milk accounts for little of the recommended protein intake for humans. There were no differences in milk fat, lactose or solids among the three label types.
• Hormone Levels: There were no differences in concentration of bST in milk regardless of label type. Concentrations of IGF-1(insulin-like growth factor-1) in milk were similar in conventional and rbST-free-milk, both were slightly higher in comparison to organic milk. Concentration of the steroid hormone progesterone was greater in organic milk compared to conventionally labeled milk or milk labeled rbST-free. Conventionally labeled milk had less estradiol compared to organic and rbST-free milk with concentrations of estradiol in samples labeled organic and rbST-free being the same.

Milk samples for the study were obtained from all 48 contiguous states, though some states did not have rbST-free milk, and some did not have organic milk samples pasteurized by the more conventional, lower-temperature methods. Samples were obtained during a three-week period, and states with larger populations and greater milk production were oversampled.

Reference for the study:

Vicini J, T Etherton, P Kris-Etherton, J Ballam, S Denham, R Staub, D Goldstein, R Cady, M McGrath, & M Lucy. Survey of retail milk composition as affected by label claims regarding farm-management practices. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108:1198-1203.

     Not too long ago, a committe in Switzerland was charged with trying to delineate a reasonable ethics of plant use.  The Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Gene Technology wrestled with this sticky question since the approval of experiments in genetics and subsequent funding require that the ethical dimensions of the experiment pass muster.

read more

I thought I would step out of my normal blogging on family, employee and management issues and forward a few observations and notes from conversations with producers across the midwest.  My travels this spring and summer have taken me to most of the parts of the country that have seen weather extremes, so I thought I'd share what I've seen and heard.  These comments are all anecdotal, so use them at your own discretion.....

 --In speaking with a seed sales rep in the central/eastern Iowa area, they cut off re-seeding beans in the flooded areas on July 10.  The reason being that even if they do come up, the same areas that are prone to flooding are the same areas prone to an early frost......

read more

     Externalities is a concept in economics that I have written about here before but is rapidly becoming the lynchpin argument behind efforts to curb capitalism on a global scale.  It is the primary focus of the attack on modern swine production at the present time at almost every level and across almost any dimension of production (from antibiotic use to shipping products across the ocean).  

read more

USAgNet

With world wheat stocks at historic lows, some longtime opponents of transgenic (often called genetically modified organisms) are coming to the realization that, without increased adaptation of transgenics, the world’s farmers cannot produce enough safe, wholesome food to feed its people.

According to a non-profit, farmer-founded interest group called Growers for Biotechnology, recent comments by European governments are an indication that public opinion is turning the corner. A news article posted on the Web site, www.growersforbiotechnology.org, reports that in late June, Great Britain’s Environment Minister, Phil Woolas, addressed the world’s food price crisis with this comment: “There is a growing question of whether GM crops can help the developing world out of the current food price crisis. It is a question that we as a nation need to ask ourselves. The debate is already under way. Many people concerned about poverty in the developing world and the environment are wrestling with this issue.”

Europe’s resistance to transgenic crops has been one of the main obstacles to more rapid adoption of the technology around the world. Developing African nations, even those with mass starvation, have rejected transgenics out of fear that they might lose the opportunity to sell any surplus crops to Europe. Now, with a global food shortage exacerbating hunger around the world, the United Kingdom is beginning to see that Europe’s resistance cannot be sustained.

Meanwhile, the chairman of Great Britain’s Nestle, the world’s biggest food company, has told British lawmakers that transgenic crops are critical to combat poverty and hunger.

You cannot today feed the world without genetically modified organisms,” Nestle’s Peter Brabeck told the London Financial Times. “We have the means to make agriculture sustainable in the long term. What we don’t see for the time being is the political will.”

Brabeck said Europe’s opposition to biotechnology had encouraged African policymakers to reject transgenic crops. South Africa is the only country on the African continent to commercialize them, growing transgeneic maize, cotton and soybeans.

What are the benefits to wheat farmers should biotechnology be an option for the world’s wheat geneticists? Herbicide resistance, tolerance to fungal diseases or drought tolerance all are possibilities. In fact, an Australian researcher told Bloomberg News last week that Australia could have transgenic, drought-tolerant wheat available globally in five to 10 years.

GMO wheat under field trials in Australia’s Victoria state contains genes from plants such as corn and moss as well as yeast, Spangenberg said on July 2. Test results show the transgenic grain generated a 20 percent gain in yield compared with non-GMO crops under drought stress, according to German Spangenberg, head of Australia’s Victorian AgriBiosciences Center.

This is a very significant increase. GM wheat for drought tolerance will be important to sustain agricultural production into the future.”

DuPont Co., the world’s second-biggest producer of seeds, plans to engineer wheat and rice to boost yields as rising demand lifts grain prices to records. Growers and buyers have asked Wilmington, Delaware-based DuPont to develop higher-yielding wheat varieties to help keep pace with output of crops such as corn.

Syngenta AG is also developing disease-resistant, transgenic wheat.

Despite this growing momentum, Japan and other Asian countries have vowed to buy non-transgenic wheat and either pay a premium, or rely on their own farmers for wheat production.

According to the farmers of Growers for Biotechnology, the need for more food production will grow exponentially in the next several years, and farmers must have access to new technologies to keep pace with demand. Farmers have known this for decades, but have fought an uphill battle. However, it looks like we may be winning.

Terry D. Etherton

In previous blogs, I have written about the fact that the more consumers know about biotechnology, the more they accept it. Thus, educational programs/strategies are important to accurately inform the public. This is widely recognized…but comes with the reality that large scale programs to educate the public about science and ag biotechnology are challenging and costly.

Animal scientists at the University of California-Davis have just released a wonderful and educational movie on Animal Biotechnology. The documentary is narrated and co-authored by Cooperative Extension Specialist Alison Van Eenennaam and graduate student William Pohlmeier. My encouragement is to clink on the above link, and watch the movie!

It begins with a brief historical description about the development of various animal biotechnologies. Biomedical and agricultural applications of animal biotechnology are discussed. In addition, some of the science-based and ethical issues engendered in the “public discussion” are addressed.

Excerpts from interviews of leading academic and industry scientists in the field are interspersed throughout the movie.

Enjoy watching Animal Biotechnology - The Movie … it is a terrific resource for those who wish to learn more about the wonderful world of animal biotechnology.

Terry D. Etherton

For those who thought the public discussion about recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) might have faded…guess what? It has not!

A superb paper (“The Environmental Impact of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rbST) use in Dairy Production”) published by Capper et al. on June 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports that use of rbST reduces the carbon footprint of milk production. This is an important contribution to the scientific base documenting the benefits of rbST use in the dairy industry.

The study’s authors include Cornell University professor Dale Bauman, post-doctoral research associates Jude Capper and Euridice Castandena-Gutierrez, and Monsanto scientist Roger Cady.

Producing milk uses large quantities of land, energy and feed. The paper published by Bauman et al. reported that rbST use reduces the carbon hoofprint by easing energy, land and nutritional inputs necessary to sustain milk production at levels sufficient to meet demand.

This research found that, compared to a non-supplemented population, supplementing one million cows would rbST would result in the same amount of milk produced using 157,000 fewer cows. This has an obvious huge benefit on the environment!

Nutrient savings would be 491,000 metric tons of corn, 158,000 metric tons of soybeans, and total feedstuffs would be reduced by 2,300,000 metric tons … importantly, producers could reduce cropland use by 219,000 hectares and reduce 2.3 million tons of soil erosion annually.

Other Important Facts about rbST Use

In 2007, there were 9.2 million cows in the United States. For every one million cows supplemented with rbST, the global village would see an environmental saving of 824 million kilograms of carbon dioxide, 41 million kilograms of methane and 96,000 kilograms of nitrous oxide … amazing!

For every one million cows supplemented with rbST, the reduction in the carbon footprint is equivalent to removing approximately 400,000 family cars from the road or planting 300 million trees.

“Supplementing cows with rbST on an industry-wide scale would improve sustainability and reduce the dairy industry’s contribution to water acidification, algal growth, and global warming,” says Judith L. Capper, the lead author on the paper.

“Sustainability is important in agricultural production, with an emphasis placed upon meeting human food requirements while mitigating environmental impact,” said Bauman. “This study demonstrates that use of rbST markedly improves the efficiency of milk production, mitigates environmental impact including greenhouse gas emissions and reduces natural resource requirements such as fossil fuel, water and land use.”

Other Perspectives

I have written extensively about the benefits of biotechnology, and the importance of adopting products of biotechnology that enhance productive efficiency of animal agriculture, and that have positive environmental benefits. The paper by Capper et al. adds an important new element to the impressive database that demonstrates the many benefits of rbST for consumers, dairy farmers and the environment!

Managing People in Tough Times:

read more

Managing People in Tough Times:

read more

“Sweet Bonus” or Survival? Get the Facts and Then Decide!
by Sherry Bunting
Introduction by Terry Etherton

On June 22, 2008, the Star Tribune newspaper (Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota) published an article, “Is Labeling Milk as Free of Hormones a Bad Idea“, written by Lou Gelfand. The story is great example of the lousy and slanted journalism being practiced that focuses on agricultural biotechnology … in this case, rbST and milk labeling.

I have written about bad science journalism before. It continues to mystify me why some journalists fail to practice accurate and informative journalism. Must be easier to present a bias, distort the truth and mislead readers.

Enjoy the response that Ms. Bunting sent to the Star Tribune.

# # # #

As a 28-year veteran journalist, I find several inaccuracies in your article about milk labeling.

First, record high milk prices do not mean good income for dairy farmers. They are facing record high prices for all inputs — particularly feed, fuel, and fertilizer — surging farther and faster than milk prices (up 35-75% over year ago). The U.S. Department of Agriculture figures that dairy farms are profitable when the milk-feed ratio is 3.0 or above. Currently, it is 1.7!

Second, the dairy price support program does not “buoy” milk prices. This very low “floor” on the price of milk has not been triggered in years and it has not been adjusted for inflation. It is a non-factor.

Third, I am from Pennsylvania and our Sec of Agriculture did not “retreat.” A compromise was reached. Bottlers are prohibited from making “absence claims.” They are allowed to make production-related claims only, such as “produced from cows not treated with rbST.” They may not say “hormone free.” In addition, the FDA disclaimer stating no distinguishable difference in the milk must also appear on the label in a font size at least half the size of the claim.

Fourth, the countries mentioned do not ban products from cows treated with rbST (Posilac), they ban their farmers from using it because they market milk in a supply management or quota system. In Canada, for example, dairy farmers buy the right to sell a certain “quota” of milk. This keeps the supply tight and the price high to farmers. A production efficiency tool like rbST is certainly not going to be allowed by a nation that uses supply management.

Fifth, technologies that safely boost production efficiency are conserving our natural resources by producing more with less. In case you have not noticed, the U.S. and World population is expanding and our land base for producing food is shrinking. What could be more “green” than producing more milk with fewer cows, requiring less feed, less land to grow the feed, less manure waste nutrient to manage, etc. You get my drift.

Sixth, the only “sweet bonus” here is the one the retailers are collecting from consumers for “hormone-free” milk when actually all milk contains protein hormones as does nearly every food on the planet — plant or animal. There is no distinguishable difference between naturally occurring bovine somatotropin in the cow and the synthetic hormone used to supplement the cow. These cows actually benefit with greater longevity as they are producing milk at a profitable level for a longer period of time, so a farmer can afford to keep feeding and caring for a cow that does not breed back when she should for her next lactation. In those cases, if the milk production falls to a certain level and she is not with calf for another lactation, she would be sold for beef.

You see, rbST is not the “evil demon” activists and lately, journalists, seem to want to make it out to be. But of course, there are simply not enough journalists today with a solid background in science to discern the truth, and even fewer who truly understand agriculture and razor thin margins farmers operate on.

by Rose Pruyne
Web Administrator,
Department of Dairy and Animal Science

“Great Web sites share everything they learn and hear
(that’s relevant of course) with their users.”
- Andrew B. King

What does it take to be successful on the Web? The answer to that is simple and yet not so simple: Provide relevant information. Make it easy to discover.

How do we make sure that we provide relevant information on the DAS Web Site? We let go of the content.

That is, we entrust its care to nearly 30 content managers - researchers, educators, extension professionals, students - our experts around the state and in neighboring states. Along with regularly contributing their knowledge and expertise to das.psu.edu, these individuals continually seek and apply feedback from you, our clientele.

And to guarantee that this content is accessible to every one of our users, regardless of individual needs or technologies, we continually test and readjust how the site delivers that information.

So, is it working? The message from you, our users, is yes.

From January 1 of this year to the present, the Dairy and Animal Science Web Site was visited 146,288 times - an average of about 841 site visits each day. Compare this with benchmarked sites containing similar content, which received an average of 17,056 visits during the same time period.

Visits to das.psu.edu averaged a handful of page views each and added up to a total of 488,322 page views. This is compared to an average of 55,172 page views in the same time period on similar sites.

Our visitors spent, on average, about 3 minutes reading the Web page(s) that that interested them - approximately the time it takes to give a Web page a fairly thorough perusal. Considering that the tendency of users on the Web is to skim rather than read, this is an impressive amount of time to linger over Web content.

But perhaps the most telling is this: A total of 15,520 users repeatedly visited the pages they consider the most valuable to them - an average of more than 200 times each.

Our statistics show that a large number of our users are viewing das.psu.edu outside the United States - 185 different countries and territories, including Canada, The United Kingdom, India, Australia, Mexico, the Philippines, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Costa Rica, South Africa, and so on…

Aside from the United States, countries with the most visitors are Canada, with 4,074 visits; the UK, with 3,420 visits; India, with 2,276 visits; and Australia, with 1,814 visits. In addition, we receive a significant number of visitors from Spanish-speaking regions of the globe, which has lead us to translate much of our key information into Spanish (the DAS Web site is one of a very few sites at Penn State to offer Spanish content).

So far this year, more than 1,300 Web pages in education and industry linking to our site have generated 30,631 visits. By far, however, most users arrive at das.psu.edu using search engines - about 60 percent. (Of those, most are Google searches, with Yahoo coming in a distant second.)

Search engine statistics can be a gold mine of information. By studying the most commonly used words or phrases entered into Web searches, we can better understand what our users are looking for - and if possible bring them to us sooner and make information even easier to find.

• Undergraduate and Graduate Programs
• 4-H
• Información en Español
• News and Events
• Beef

Some commonly used search terms leading to the DAS Web Site

• operational planning
• dairy cattle
• dairy nutrition
• goat health / reproduction / diseases / nutrition
• cow pictures
• ag spanish
• penn state dairy
• meat quality assurance
• block and bridle
• nutrición
• animal science
• equine science

Dairy
Year in and year out, the most popular content on the DAS Web site revolves around the main Dairy Science pages, Dairy Nutrition - including information specific to Calves and Heifers, dairy reproduction, Dairy 4-H, Dairy Digest, the Capital Region Dairy Team, and Penn State Dairy Alliance. Visits to all dairy-related pages total 99,788 since January 1.

Equine
Equine ranks second only to Dairy. Since January 1, equine-related pages have collected 57,226 visits. This includes the main Equine Science pages, the Penn State Horse Newsletter, and the 4-H Horse Program.

Goats
Pages addressing Goat Health, Nutrition, and Reproduction and the 4-H Goat Program received the third most visits - 28,126 since January 1.

Publications
The Publications Catalog is one of the most valued resources on the DAS site, getting 19,096 visits so far this year. The catalog contains articles, fact sheets, presentations, videos, podcasts, and other multimedia.

Faculty-Staff Directory
Users frequently seek contact information (in addition to other material) when visiting a site. So not surprisingly, our Faculty-Staff Directory averages about 2,000 visits each month. So far this year, it has received 15,563 visits. Along with contact information, visitors are interested in vitae, publications, and individuals’ Web sites, such as the Dairy and Animal Science Blogs.

These days, most of our site visitors have high-speed connections and current-generation Web browsers. A significant number, however, still use dialup (nearly 7,000 site visits so far this year) and have older Web browsers. However, this does not pose a problem because the Web Standards-compliancy of das.psu.edu means that its content is accessible regardless of connection speed or browser generation.

We appreciate how our users have let us know that the DAS Web site is providing informative, usable content. You have made this clear not just through usage statistics, but through your comments and feedback.

We want to continue to improve your experience at das.psu.edu. Please let us know what you need.

Say hello to inflation. There is no doubt that a wave of inflation is setting up to wash over the U.S.

read more