El fósforo, así va a rendir mucho más

El fósforo es uno de los nutrientes más críticos de los suelos argentinos. Se estima que alrededor del 70% de los cultivos agrícolas se siembran en suelos que requieren del aporte de fósforo por fertilización. La alta participación del cultivo de soja y la escasa reposición del nutriente están llevando a un acelerado empobrecimiento de los suelos.
Por eso, la firma Nidera acaba de lanzar al mercado una nueva generación de fertilizantes líquidos fosforados listos para usar: Labrador P (fosforado), Labrador NP (fósforo más nitrógeno) y Labrador NPS (fósforo, nitrógeno y azufre).
El primero fue creado fundamentalmente para soja y pasturas, con el objetivo de brindarle al productor una oferta de fósforo óptima para un buen arranque y enraizamiento. En cambio, Labrador NP conjuga nitrógeno y fósforo en una combinación ideal para cultivos como trigo, maíz y girasol.
Finalmente, Labrador NPS, adiciona el azufre en forma de sulfato para su utilización en cultivos como el maíz o la soja, que manifiestan respuesta al azufre, y para aquellas regiones con suelos con bajo porcentaje de materia orgánica.
Este nuevo tipo de fertilizantes se destaca por sus importantes ventajas al momento de la aplicación, ya que permite realizar dosificaciones exactas y lograr mayor uniformidad en la incorporación al terreno.
Tanto por cobertura o por chorreado, su manejo es totalmente mecanizable, simple y seguro; y posibilita una mayor versatilidad en el manejo, aseguran los técnicos de la empresa.

http://www.clarin.com/rural/fosforo-va-rendir_0_593940713.html

Read More

Facebook Study: It’s a Small(er) World After All

The concept of a tightly knit, interconnected world — one where an individual’s connection with another is within six degrees of separation — has been around for nearly half a century. Social psychologist Stanley Milgram published his findings in 1967, and has been a standby of sociology and pop culture alike ever since.
It comes as little surprise, then, that the rise of social networks over the past decade has brought us even closer together. Facebook released two studies of its social graph on Tuesday, which conclude that we Facebookers are closer to one another than we thought.
In collaboration with academic researchers at the Università degli Studi di Milano, Facebook’s study found that instead of the average of six degrees of separation between each of us, Facebook users are separated by an average of four degrees.
There’s something of a difference between the two test groups. Milgram’s initial sampling put 296 persons to the test of sending a postcard to a given individual, but only by using one’s existing network of connections — and those connected to her connections, and so on — to reach said individual. Facebook studied its entire social network composed of nearly three quarters of a billion members, ostensibly giving a more accurate idea of just how short the distance is between two given people.
“Every new user that joins Facebook is a potential short-circuit that makes the path between others shorter,” said Lars Backstrom, a software engineer on the Facebook Data Team who co-authored the paper, in an interview.
During the study, Backstrom noted, the researchers discovered another interesting corollary. While the number of degrees of separation between users across states, countries and even continents lessened, the majority of our friends are clustered around us locally, with 84 percent of all connections are between users that live within the same country.
“Yes, there’s all of these shorts paths between us,” Backstrom said. “But there’s also this sort of strong community structure as well.”
Backstrom concedes that however fewer degrees of separation there may be, it remains difficult to gauge the “quality” of the connections between users. “All of your friends aren’t created equal,” Backstrom said. A June study conducted by Pew Research found, however, that of the four major social networks surveyed (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and MySpace), Facebook users tend to have closer relationships with one another. Take note, though: Google+ wasn’t around quite yet when the survey took place.
Ultimately, says Backstrom, the research aims to further the understanding of social networks. “We look forward to continuing to illuminate social trends and helping people understand how the world is becoming more connected,” the Facebook Data Team wrote in its blog post.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/11/facebook-social-graph-study/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29

Read More

EVALUATE SUPPLEMENT OPTIONS FOR COST EFFECTIVENESS

by: Stephen B. Blezinger
Ph.D., PAS

Part 3
This is part 3 of a series dedicated to a discussion on supplementation options and methods. In the last part of this series we discussed use of some commodities. We also began a discussion of manufactured supplements that are commonly used for this purpose. In this part we will continue this discussion as well as begin look at tools to perform an economic evaluation so the producer can determine which of the many methods are most cost effective.

Manufactured Feeds
c. Blocks and Tubs
Sometimes there is a little confusion on the terminology in this group. So let's take a moment to discuss. Blocks and tubs come in a variety of forms. Blocks are generally exactly that, a block of feed material formulated to a given set of nutrient specifications and can range in weight from 30 to 50 lbs. Some versions of blocks are produced in higher weight forms (i.e. 250 lbs). Some forms are molasses based. These are generally designed to be consumed in low quantities and convenience of supplementation is a primary focus. Blocks are generally high in protein (28-36 percent) a portion of which may come from non-protein nitrogen (urea). They can also be formulated to contain a significant amount of energy, minerals and vitamins.
Tubs are different from blocks in that they are commonly molasses or liquid by-product based. They are also poured into a container of some type prior to hardening. Again, this supplementation form is largely focused on convenience. Tubs are typically manufactured at higher weights (~225 to 250 lbs.) and are consumed at lower rates similar to blocks (1/2 to 2 lbs. per head per day). Consumption is typically controlled by the hardness of the supplement. Several manufacturing processes are used:
1) “Chemical” blocks – these blocks include components in the formulation that cause a chemical reaction that hardens the material after it is poured into the container. These blocks are fairly hard and control intake fairly well.
2) “Cooked” blocks – this process includes heating of the material. This is commonly included with a chemical process and produces a comparatively hard block. Again, this is a fairly effective method for controlling intake.
3) Poured blocks – as the name implies, the product is poured into the container and allowed to harden. Again, this form is closely related to chemical blocks.
4) Pressed blocks – the supplement material is put into the container and a certain amount of pressure is applied by a hydraulic press. In many cases this type of block is the softest and intake is higher.
In either case, the blocks ortubs can be formulated to contain a wide variety of nutrient profiles and so can range from being either simply a protein source to a fairly complete supplement including protein, energy, minerals and vitamins. They can also contain a variety of additives for improvement of feed efficiency, fly control, etc. These components have to be factored into the value of the supplement.
As mentioned previously, one of the primary purposes of blocks and tubs are convenience. Since intake is limited it is possible to place one or more of these supplemental “units” in the pasture with a group of cows and it will provide supplement for several days. It is important that if you choose this method that you know what the target intake is for the particular product and calculate the number of blocks needed for a given period of time. The producer also needs to recognize that if the cattle are hungry or if the forage base is low in quality or quantity, cattle will eat more of the supplement, regardless of the hardness of the block or tub.
This form also helps the producer feed without getting into the middle of the group of cows and potentially get knocked down and injured. Tubs or blocks can be dropped out of the back of the truck. Also, since the supplement is not fed daily and is available all the time (theoretically) the cattle will not bunch up around the pickup as readily.
Like all supplements, tubs and blocks are not fool-proof. Consumption is not controlled absolutely and variability will be noted. Secondly, this supplement form tends to be somewhat more expensive. So evaluation of cost is important.

d. Liquid Supplements
Liquids are commonly used as protein supplements. Like all supplements, liquids are available in a wide variety of formulations. Of the most common are formulations containing a protein content of 28 to 35 percent. Liquids have used higher levels of urea as a component of the protein. It is not uncommon at all to see a 32 percent protein liquid supplement that includes 28 to 30 percent of this protein provided as protein equivalent from the non-protein nitrogen in urea. Urea is a very useful nutritional tool for providing nitrogen to ruminants for the rumen bacterial population to convert to protein. Since consumption of excessive urea has created problems it is important that the producer feeds liquids properly and as directed. Urea is generally critical for liquids since most ingredients used in liquid supplements are relatively low in natural protein. Urea is also fairly cost effective for providing protein equivalence although urea cost has increased significantly along with other energy industry products and natural protein sources.
Liquids can be a good source of protein, minerals and vitamins. It's more challenging to manufacture liquids that are also good energy and calcium sources. Energy has typically been provided via the sugar content from the molasses or added fat. As molasses has escalated in cost and the sugar is being extracted for use in ethanol production less is available to the feed industry and thus there is a trend for lower levels of sugar to be available as an energy source. To compensate for this, the industry has included higher levels of fat and ingredients such as glycerol or propylene glycol. In general, however, liquid supplements are not considered to be a particularly good energy supplement. Significant amounts of calcium and fat can be included if a suspension agent such as attapulgite clay or xantham gum is used to prevent insoluble ingredients from settling out or fat products from separating/stratifying.
Liquids can also be delivery vehicles for additives such as ionophores, fly control and so on.
Liquid supplements are typically self-fed in open top troughs or lick wheel tanks. Most liquids are formulated to limit intake, generally one to three lbs. per head per day. Like tubs and blocks though, liquid intake is contingent on forage availability or quality. Hungry cattle or cattle fed low quality forages will consume higher amounts of supplement. This can be a problem for liquids which contain higher urea contents. That said it is important that cattle not be hungry when first introduced to liquid supplements to help prevent over consumption.
Liquid supplements are also very convenient to feed since the dealer they must be purchased from can deliver directly to your farm. Some dealers have also made small tote tanks available so producers can pick up the liquid at their convenience and fill their own tanks.
While liquids can be a cost effective form of supplement a couple of problems are common. One is related to intake. A producer decides to use a liquid supplement, and calculates what his cost will be as related to the projected intake. If his forage is not great or cattle are hungry as mentioned above, intake can be higher than expected resulting in more cost than expected. This situation has turned many producers off from using liquids. This is one reason why it is particularly important to understand all the circumstances prior to feeding a liquid.
A second perceived problem is that the producer has to purchase the feed troughs or tanks that hold the liquid for feeding. Many liquid feed dealers have run into significant resistance from potential customers concerning having to purchase these feeders. Unless you are feeding range cubes on the ground you have to have some means of feeding your supplement whether in troughs, self feeders, feed bunks, etc. Producers feeding cubes on the ground pay higher costs in terms of the loss they incur as discussed in Part 2 of this series. Tubs include the cost of the container. Blocks, fed on the ground, like cubes will incur some loss. No matter what supplementation form is used there is some additional cost involved.

Cost Analysis
Each producer has to determine which supplementation method works best for their operation. This means prioritizing the important factors as they apply to their specific operation. If cost is the only factor, this is relatively easy and will be discussed shortly. But for most producers other factors are involved. This might include labor availability or simple time management. Do you have the time to supplement daily by hand? Another is location. Some operations are spread out over miles and the distance does not allow for daily feeding. Yet another factor is safety. As mentioned before, many producers have been injured by trying to feed in a group of cattle. All these issues need to be taken into considerations.
So let's take a look at some cost comparisons for different supplement forms. The costs shown are averages and will differ significantly from area to area.

From this table we can see a range of costs and protein feeding rates. Some discussion:
The feeding rate for the cubes and range meal is very close. As is, the range meal is the cheaper option and since it is self fed allows for less labor and travel to the pasture to feed. A downside is that range meals with the high salt content are also lower in energy. However, if the protein requirements are being met the energy intake difference from the supplement may not be an issue.
At the shown feeding rate the poured block is the least expensive per day. And like the range meal is less labor and transportation intensive. It also allows the producer less contact with the cattle so the risk of injury is less. However, the amount of protein is also significantly lower. In order to feed the same amount of protein the cows would have to increase their consumption rate to 3.3 lbs. per head per day. The cost would then be $.90 per head per day so the cost advantage would be gone. This would be effective only if the hay or forage fed only required minor supplementation.
The liquid supplement at this cost would provide close to the same amount of protein daily as compared to the cubes or range meal and the cost is significantly lower. Plus there is the labor and transportation savings. But also like the range meal, the energy density of the liquid is lower so if energy is required this may be a negative.
As you can see, as has been said before, there are no perfect supplements. But these are certainly better alternatives depending on the situation on the farm. Taking the steps to evaluate priorities and costs are critical to making the best decision possible.

Conclusion
Making good supplementation decisions is not simple and involves weighing a variety of factors. We've gone through a number of points related to protein supplementation but this is only part of the picture. In part 4 of the series we will expand this discussion to energy and mineral and vitamin supplementation and opportunities and considerations.
Dr. Steve Blezinger is a nutritional and management consultant with an office in Sulphur Springs, TX. He can be reached by phone at (903) 352-3475 or by e-mail at sblez@verizon.net. You can also follow us on Facebook at Reveille Livestock Concepts.

http://cattletoday.com/archive/2011/November/CT2629.php

Read More

Knowledge of weather patterns is crop management tool

By Jim Langcuster, Auburn University
As Brenda Ortiz sees it, successful row-crop farming in the 21st century is all about nuance, namely developing a keener eye for those subtle seasonal and agronomic changes that can offer great promise — or peril — depending how closely producers choose to observe them.
A big part of Ortiz’s career has been helping producers develop a keener eye for these subtle distinctions, though she admits that, in some respects, it hasn’t been easy.
Small wonder why: Farmers, especially row-crop producers, tend to be classic bottom-liners, realists interested only in cold, hard facts — the tangibles.
“It’s difficult to convince farmers to do something that is not tangible,” she says. “Unless something is tied to yields gains or reductions, farmers typically are not going to buy into it.”
Nevertheless, Ortiz is convinced that much of what will define successful farming in the next few decades will be closely bound up with many intangible factor.
Case in point: climate.  Ortiz says it’s often hard getting producers focused on patterns projected to occur months from now, even though she and other scientists from a variety of disciplines already have assembled a strong case demonstrating how these patterns can exert a major influence on their economic bottom line.
This has inspired Ortiz to provide an even more compelling case. Within the last few years, she has invested a big chunk of effort into marshaling facts — tangibles — to underscore why intangibles such as climate are as important to the producer’s bottom line as any other factor.
Ortiz, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System agronomist and Auburn University assistant professor in the Department of Agronomy and Soils, has focused on how the climatic patterns El Niño and La Niña contribute to growing conditions throughout the state.
For starters, research has demonstrated that in any year these climate patterns are not expressed uniformly throughout the state.

Like flipping a coin

“It’s like flipping a coin. During La Niña events, for example, rainfall differences in north Alabama are completely different from those of south Alabama,” she says.
Through a series of studies, Ortiz has developed a nuanced picture not only of how these climate patterns play out throughout the state during critical crop productions periods, but also what growers should do in response.
“What I want to do is help characterize climate patterns in a way that farmers not only understand how these effects are likely to play out but also the best management practices they can follow to optimize their opportunities during El Niño cycles or, in the case of La Niña patterns, to reduce their risks.”
A big focus of Ortiz’s has been on wheat, the crop typically under production during the times of year when these patterns exert the greatest effect in Alabama.
In the course of several studies, Ortiz has helped put together a clear picture not only of how these two patterns are expressed in temperature and rainfall variation throughout north, central and south Alabama but also how they affect winter wheat yields.
She’s complemented these efforts with a series of wheat variety studies through which she’s gained a clearer picture of the best management practices that should be adopted, mainly in terms of planting dates and variety selections.
Her ultimate goal is using all of this data to develop a highly interactive and accessible management tool.
“What we ultimately hope to do with all of this is provide farmers with a clear picture of best management tools based on all these different scenarios,” Ortiz says. “Using data provided by these tools, they will be well equipped to identify the wheat varieties best tailored to their planting times and growing conditions.
“Basically, we want to convey to producers how they can take advantage of optimal weather patterns and, during less desirable periods, what they can do to minimize their losses.”
In those off years when El Niño patterns prevail, producers are often better off planting wheat merely as a cover crop and saving the nitrogen that otherwise would be used with wheat for a more profitable crop, she says.
Ortiz isn’t stopping there.  She also wants to complement these best-management practices with ways to reduce water, carbon and nitrogen footprints. She is also working with scientists from several disciplines to develop a series of best management practices to better equip producers to deal with the enhanced disease and insect damage that often accompanies weather patterns.
All of her efforts are driven with one idea in mind: Using this greatly enhanced picture of climate to enable growers to take maximum advantage of good conditions and to reduce the effects of bad conditions.


http://southeastfarmpress.com/management/knowledge-weather-patterns-crop-management-tool?page=2

Read More

Hacia una revolución azul en Nicaragua

"Tengo más de cuarenta años trabajando en el campo, pero nunca había tenido la oportunidad de usar esta tecnología".

Víctor Beltrán es productor agropecuario en el norte de Nicaragua, una de las zonas más secas del país, donde un proyecto piloto está trayendo cambios radicales y una luz de esperanza a muchos agricultores.
"El proyecto es tan atractivo que han venido a verlo de otras partes del país, del interior, hasta de la costa y muchos están entusiasmados. Ya no tengo que depender de los vaivenes de la lluvia y produzco tres veces más maíz, con un excedente para vender".
El cambio en la vida de Beltrán se debe a un proyecto de construcción de represas que recogen agua de escorrentada de las laderas durante los pocos meses en que las lluvias son abundantes. El agua es usada luego para irrigar cultivos en el período seco.
"El problema en Nicaragua y en la mayoría de las zonas tropicales de América Latina es que tiene un clima bimodal. En el caso de Nicaragua es muy contrastante, sobre todo en el norte, hay cinco o seis meses de mucha lluvia y luego un período en que prácticamente no llueve", dijo a BBC Mundo Gonzalo Zorrilla, director del proyecto y del Fondo Latinoamericano para Arroz de Riego, FLAR.
"En la época seca, el drama del norte de Nicaragua, una zona de mucha pobreza, es la falta de oportunidades. Tienen seis meses de trabajo y seis meses de esperar que vuelva a llover. Ahora pueden hacer riego de alta producción y una de las cosas que más valoran los productores es que pueden trabajar todo el año".

Por gravedad

Debajo de la represa hay un caño con una válvula y el productor sólo debe abrirla para que el agua fluya a la zona cultivada. N.Palmer/CIAT

La idea del proyecto se tomó del sur de Brasil, de Argentina y Uruguay, donde hay más de un millón de hectáreas de arroz sembradas con agua que cosechan los propios agricultores haciendo represas.
"Con la Asociación Nicaragüense de Arroceros, ANAR, planteamos que esto podía ser factible en el trópico con pequeños agricultores y convencimos al Fondo Común para los Productos Básicos, un organismo de la ONU que tiene sede en Amsterdam, que nos dio la financiación para el proyecto piloto". El FLAR es una alianza arrocera regional, basada y apoyada por el Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, CIAT, en Colombia.
Ya hay 14 represas construidas o en proceso de construcción en Nicaragua, y el proyecto también trabaja en Costa Rica y en México, en la zona de Tres Valles y Acayucan, en el estado de Veracruz, y el gobierno expresó interés en llevar el piloto a Chiapas, una de las zonas más pobres del país.

El drama del clima bimodal: a un período de lluvia abundante siguen largos meses de sequía. Foto: N.Palmer/CIAT

Las represas se construyen en pequeñas cuencas dentro de las fincas de los productores. "No puede hacerse en cualquier lado, sino en lugares que combinen cierta topografía para que con un movimiento de tierra mínimo se represe el agua que viene derivando de las laderas", explicó Zorrilla.
Con un muro se cierra el valle entre dos laderas, permitiendo que el agua sea embalsada. Por debajo se instala un caño de pvc reforzado con concreto y se coloca una válvula, de forma que el productor sólo deba abrirla para que el agua fluya por gravedad hacia el área cultivada. Además del riego, también se incorporan otras innovaciones como el uso de nuevas variedades y semillas de calidad.

"Como sacarse la lotería"

Para Gonzalo Zorrilla, cuando el agua es manejada por el propio agricultor, éste se preocupa por sacar el máximo jugo a cada gota.

El impacto en los ingresos ha sido notable. "Donde antes se obtenían en la época lluviosa 500 kilos de frijol por hectárea, hoy se obtienen en la época seca 1.500 kg/ha".
En el caso del maíz, poder venderlo en los meses secos, "cuando normalmente no hay, lo hizo valiosísimo, los productores vendieron toda la producción como choclo fresco con un ingreso estimado por hectárea de US$14.000, algo impensable para ellos en otra oportunidad".
Otro de los agricultores beneficiados por el proyecto es Roger Cáceres, concejal del municipio de Somoto.
"La situación en el municipio es grave y el cambio climático está empeorando la distribución de lluvias. Aquí tenemos además el fenómeno de El Niño y La Niña. El año pasado fue exagerada la lluvia y después no cayó ni una gota, pasaron ocho meses sin llover", dijo Cáceres a BBC Mundo.
"Los rendimientos siempre son bajos, pero con este sistema pasamos de entre 5 y 8 quintales de frijol por manzana a 25 quintales (350-550 kg/ha a 1700 kg/ha). Algunos llegaron a 140 quintales (9.500 kg/ha) por manzana de maíz, para los productores es como sacarse la lotería".

Jóvenes

La cosecha de agua no sólo ha mejorado el ingreso sino la dieta de los agricultores, algunos de los cuales incorporaron la producción piscícola de tilapia, en sus represas.

Pulver: "El uso de la tecnología, como GPS y Google Earth, atrae a los jóvenes". Foto: N.Palmer/CIAT

"Cuando recién comenzamos a explicar el proyecto en las comunidades podía verse la depresión de los agricultores. Pero apenas uno mencionaba la posibilidad de riego las miradas se iluminaban al ver que había una forma de escapar la pobreza, ver esto es increíble", dijo a BBC Mundo el ingeniero estadounidense Edward Pulver, experto del FLAR y coordinador del proyecto en el campo.
"Y algo que me entusiasma mucho es el interés de los jóvenes. Ven que utilizamos GPS para elegir las laderas, Google Earth, y la tecnología les atrae. Ningún joven querrá dedicarse a la agricultura si hay que cavar con un palo para sembrar una semilla, pero ahora ven que es posible ganar US$3.000 dólares por hectárea".

De Nicaragua a África

Para Pulver, el problema en América Latina no es la falta agua, sino cómo se aprovecha y distribuye. El experto estadounidense asegura que la cosecha de agua es ideal para las condiciones topográficas de muchos países de la región, como Colombia, Ecuador y Bolivia. "Y es una tecnología que puede aplicarse incluso en los países más pobres. El CFC quiere que llevemos esta idea a África".

Los rendimientos se multiplicaron. En el caso del choclo fresco, las ganancias fueron hasta de US$14.000 por hectárea. Foto N.Palmer/CIAT

El proyecto piloto en Nicaragua finaliza en 2012. "El FLAR seguirá ofreciendo asesoramiento, pero si terminamos con 14 represas construidas nada habrá ocurrido en Nicaragua porque habrán sido muy pocos los beneficiados", señalo Gonzalo Zorrilla.
Desde un comienzo se han venido entrenando técnicos locales y "estamos tratando de involucrar a instituciones locales y al gobierno para que desarrollen programas que permitan hacer cientos, miles de represas, porque si no, no cambiaría nada".
Con una población mundial que ya pasó los 7.000 millones, aprovechar de forma eficiente el recurso agua es esencial. "Globalmente, el agua está tremendamente mal aprovechada y el uso inteligente y sostenible de este recurso podría llevar a una revolución del agua, a una revolución azul".
Un factor fundamental ya parece asegurado para el futuro: la convicción de los propios agricultores.
"Si se logra extrapolar esta tecnología a más agricultores se podrá paliar el problema de la sequía en Nicaragua", dijo Víctor Beltrán a BBC Mundo.
"Imagínese, pueden tener una dieta balanceada, ingresos para producir, para educar a sus hijos. En mi finca ya somos cuatros trabajando, hay cuatro fuentes de trabajo".
"Este proyecto nos ha cambiado totalmente la mentalidad".

Read More

Beef industry under attack

THE beef industry could face a crackdown from the consumer watchdog for using the word “natural” to describe its products in the wake of legal action against the chicken meat industry for using the term “free to roam”.
A former Woolworths executive and now the head of a beef branding company, Phil Morley, has said using the term natural to describe beef could be meaningless.
“My concern is that unless there is a robust description behind what natural means, then I think our industry could find itself in a spot of bother similar to the chicken meat industry,”' Mr Morley said.
He said the beef industry needed a clear definition of what natural meant or faced action from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
He said he expected that consumers would believe “natural” meant that the animals were pasture-raised, grass-fed and free from antibiotics and hormone growth promotants, but the term was often loosely used.
Mr Morley, the chief executive of Certified Australian Angus Beef, which verifies the beef used by companies such as McDonald's, said the Cattle Council of Australia would be the most appropriate body to define standards.
He said there were companies which could legitimately use the term natural but there were others that should not.
The ACCC launched legal action last month in the Federal Court against Baiada Poultry and Bartter Enterprises, which supply chickens under the Steggles brand, alleging barn-raised chickens are not “free to roam”.
It is also taking action against Turi Foods, and the Australian Chicken Meat Federation.

http://www.katherinetimes.com.au/news/local/news/rural/beef-industry-under-attack/2367998.aspx

Read More

Using DNA to Beat Cattle Thieves - And Kashrut Fraud

An Israeli company's database of cattle DNA will help prevent cattle rustling and also ensure that kosher consumers get what they pay for.

Cattle rustling isn't just a story from the Old West; unfortunately, it's alive and well in Israel today, with farmers in the north and south forced to take elaborate precautions in order to protect their herds of cows and flocks of sheep. In recent years farmers have tried all sorts of techniques and schemes to keep thieves, for the most part Bedouin, away from their animals – and now an Israeli company has come up with an idea that could make it easier for the authorities to track down thieves and prosecute them, hopefully discouraging others from following in their footsteps.

The solution to cattle theft is being developed by Bactochem, an Israeli company that works in the field of microbiological and  chemical testing for food, animals, soil, water and plants. Among the projects it has developed is a database of cattle DNA – the largest in the world. Using the database, police can determine from whom a cattle rustler stole an animal, tracking down the owner and building a case against the thief.

And the database has other uses as well – especially for kosher consumers. How do you know if the meat you buy in the store is kosher – really? Of course, a kashrut supervisor – a mashgiach – ensures that the animal used to produce kosher meat is properly prepared (salting and soaking according to the prescribed Jewish law), but it's a long way from the slaughterhouse to the store, and lots of things can happen along the way. There are many cases of false paperwork being filed, phony claims of kashrut, and related problems – but thanks to the Bactochem solution, kashrut falsification could become a thing of the past, too.

Here's how it works: A farmer or cattle processor who buys animals for slaughter sends in samples from each of the animals in its herd, and Bachtochem analyzes the animal's DNA information and puts it into a database. The information is encoded with a lengthy security code, which is then placed on a barcode that gets attached to every package or carton of meat the processor produces from each specific cow. If the meat is cut and repackaged at a supermarket warehouse, the packaging staff is told to attach a copy of the barcode to each particular package.

When a customer wants to get information about the meat they've picked out of the store refrigerator, they open up a smartphone app being developed by Bactochem, using it to upload a photo of the barcode. The system matches the barcode up with the DNA information, and all the data about the particular cow is instantly beamed back to the customer.

“Consumers who buy a particular kind of meat – organically raised, Angus beef, kosher – are interested in ensuring they get what they paid for, and the companies that supply those cuts have an interest in providing assurances to their customers that the products they are getting are authentic,” says Guy Evron, the director of the project.
“Many people try to avoid meat from cattle that have been inoculated with specific vaccines, while others prefer to buy only meat that was aged for a specific period. Our technology provides them with the ability to easily get the answers to those questions.”

The database can also help Israeli farmers to alleviate cattle rustling. Proving a case against thieves is often difficult, because the thieves usually remove any identifying tags or locaters that can aid police in figuring out from where the cows or sheep were stolen.
But you can't fake DNA; and using the Bactochem database, police are able to determine where the stolen cow came from and to whom it really belongs – hopefully, helping to put a stop to cattle rustling.



http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149903#.TvnHkoHNCuK

Read More