So we discussed the US food culture and some of the concepts or pressures, or tensions, relative to sustainability. Where do we go from here? Especially from a science-based approach when it comes to policy and technology. To look for an example of that tension between technologies that might enhance food productivity and consumer perceptions or societal policymaking can be seen by simply looking at cartons of ice cream. Ben and Jerry's was one of the first manufacturers of ice cream that decided that they would not accept milk from cows treated with RBST or recombinant bovine somatotropin. Although this product can enhance productivity of cows, that is, make more milk for less feed input. Nonetheless, due to consumer demands, these manufacturers, as well as a growing list, have chosen not to accept milk from cows treated with RBST. Thus, we have a potentially useful technology that probably will not be implemented into our food supply because of societal perceptions. This is not to say that this choice is right or wrong, but just simply to serve as an example of how technology and at times policymaking can be at odds. GMO, or genetically modified organism, is currently a hot topic among consumers as well as food suppliers. You must realize that just through selection based on physical traits, that we are essentially genetically modifying organisms. The modern dairy cow, Holstein cow, looks little like some of her predecessors from several eons ago. And the amount of milk that she has is certainly different both in composition and the total amount compared to wild herbivores. Especially with GMO, in terms of plants or crops, this could be one of the most crucial decisions based on policymaking that human civilization faces in the next 20 - 25 years. Especially considering the trend of climate change. The need to grow crops that may be, for instance, more resistant to drought. Thus, one could still get so many bushels of corn per acre despite a dry season or changes in soil fertility. These will all have to be looked at from a evidence-based and scientific approach, where both the pros and cons of using GMO plants need to be addressed. What will be the consequences if we can't grow as much food per acre. And yet we still have a growing population on this planet. What of new technologies, such as new drugs, immune enhancers or vaccines, will these be accepted as part of animal agriculture? If they keep animals healthier and thus decrease losses from infectious disease. Some of the new products, maybe DNA based vaccines, for instance. Will this be accepted for use by our policymakers? For many reasons, not all of which can't be covered in this slide set, agriculture is changing. Much of it has to do with economic realities. Generally, farms are getting larger, they're getting more sophisticated in terms of both their facilities and the technologies that they use. In many ways, this has been a good thing. This has increased the productivity. That is, the amount of milk per cow or corn per acre or soybeans per acre than we previously were to attain 30 - 40 or even 50 years ago. Some changes in the dairy farm have been related to increasing labor productivity. For instance, the number of cows that can be milked per hour per person. It's certainly much higher, given the facilities and sophistication of equipment than it was even 20 or 25 years ago. This then reduces the amount of resources in terms of energy and equipment needed in order to harvest the milk from cows. For better or worse, automation is increasing in agriculture, just like any other industry. Much of this can lead to greater productivity. Again, more food production for less input. But what will the human cost be, in terms of jobs or job security? This again, will be part of the counterweight that our society and our policymakers will have to wrestle with as we go forward. At the end of the day, given some of the pressures that we talked about in the last slide set relative to sustainability and food security, we will have to find ways to produce more food on fewer resources for more people. In this slide, the amount of milk per cow or dairy animals that are in the US are all relative 2009 to 1944. 1944 depicts or is depicted by the red line. So for instance, when you look at the amount of milk per cow, that is per dairy cow, relative to 1944, a typical cow now produces 450% or 4.5 times per milk. And yet the amount of milk that's being produced is being done with only 33% of the cows that were in the country in 2009, relative to 1944, or put in real numbers, There' s approximately 9 million dairy cows now while back in 1944, There was 27 million. So because we have such fewer animals, less feed was used, less water, the production was done on less land, less manure was produced, and the carbon footprint as well was also reduced. So to summarize, we have 4.5 times as much dairy food. And yet we did this with only 33% of the animals that we had relative to 1944. This is important to realize that these are some of the positive impacts of technology or genetics or through different forms of management that veterinarians are involved with. Another way of looking at this is the carbon footprint. That is the amount of pounds of carbon dioxide that was produced in order to get a unit of food. It is true if comparing between 1944 and 2007, that a modern dairy cow, given the amount of production that she has and the oxidative metabolism, will produce more carbon dioxide per day than a cow from 50 - 60 or 70 years ago. However, when you look at the efficiency of the cows ability to make milk, given the feed inputs, her genetics, the technologies that are available in the facilities, and the management, actually, in terms of per unit of food produced, there is a much smaller carbon footprint in a modern dairy farm than it was seven or eight years ago. That is, we get more food for less carbon dioxide contamination. And this is the case across the board in many other examples of agriculture. So it's important to know when you're comparing or you're having discussions about the impact of agriculture or animal agriculture on the environment, to be very careful to understand your metrics and how to compare them fairly. Where veterinarians fit in, is to try to help dairy farms or swine farms or beef operations, increase production. That is, provide good quality, high protein food. And at the same time, optimizing health. Actually, you can't optimize production without optimizing health. And this is the role that veterinarians are increasingly playing on modern agricultural systems. We talked earlier about the loss of topsoil into the rivers through erosion. And you may be thinking, what does this have to do with indigenous peoples for instance in the Great Plains, who were hunting buffalo. There had been an eons and eons and eons relationship, not just between the humans and the bison, but also between the bison and the rest of the ecosystem. And over all that time, bison being ruminants and grazing, they help increase the fertility of the soil and in general, the soil health and fertility. Thus, this whole system was changed with modern agriculture and tilling practices. Earlier versions of having cattle in the US generally relied on the same overall pastured type system as with the native ruminants such as bison and deer, that is, cattle graze forages, high cellulose forages that for instance, humans cannot utilize. Digested them in the rumen, and then pass them out the back end in manure. This was a constant recycling of not just a nutrient such as nitrogen, but also physical amendment or bulk to the soil. This then led to a increase in fertility or topsoil. However, in order to increase the amount of food produced and to consider labor cost and economics, more and more dairy farms, for instance, as well as other examples and animal agriculture, have relied on confinement housing. The cows are still kept clean, dry, and comfortable. But that cycle, our potential cycle of refertilization of the soil had to be changed from just the direct ingestion and defecation. Like everything else on a farm, handling of solid waste or manure has become more complex over time. Any farmer will tell you that they care for the environment and want to be good environmental stewards. In fact, some herds are certified because of their environmental management plan. On top of this, manure itself is a commodity that has value and farmers are always looking for ways to recycle it for their use. The way that farms handle manure will vary depending on their system and the size of the farm. In this photo, the manure has actually been composted in a digester and then reused as bedding under the cows. The methane from this digestion is then used for energy. Other farms will simply separate out the liquid or the water portion of the manure from the solids. The solids will be put back in the soil as an amendment. And the liquid portion containing the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium is then applied in the fields during the planting season to help reduce the need for fertilizer. If you're a gardener or involved in horticulture, you are probably well aware of the value of composted manure, both as a physical amendment, that is, adding structure to the soil as well as fertilization. In Michigan, there are several large facilities that compost manure from dairy farms and then market it to gardeners, as well as horticulture operations. This is something that animal agriculture can play a key niche in. That is not just the fertilization, tthat is the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium which can be added with chemical fertilizers, but also adding the bulk or the physical structure of the soil. This is a problem with farms that are strictly grain farms, and that they do not have a source of regenerating and adding back to the topsoil. And although they rely on chemical fertilizers for fertility, such as for nitrogen. They are slowly losing and having erosion problems from not having anything replace the physical structure of the soil. Thus, we talked about how animal manure may play a role in helping to mitigate the impact of erosion and maintaining fertility in farmland, something that cannot be done in crop farming alone. What about on the other end, what animals eat? Some people would deem that animals or livestock, compete with humans for available resources for such things as corn and soybeans. Because they are ruminants, cattle can consume and utilize for their nutritional balance, many products, especially plant-based products, but otherwise be deemed waste, are a byproduct of the human food chain. Because of this, cattle can take some of these products and help convert it to high-quality protein for human consumption. Can you list ten products that cows eat that would otherwise end up in a landfill ? Perhaps next to water, maintaining an adequate, safe food supply or a secure food supply, maybe humankind's biggest challenge in the next 25 years, We are dealing with an uneducated public in terms of agriculture. There'll be that interface between technology and yet responsibility to be sustainable relative to our natural resources. What will be the cost in terms of energy waste, handling, water consumption, and yes, worker safety and or employment opportunities. All of these will have to be put into the discussion as far as what will be our policy to sustain a secure food supply that will provide adequate wholesome nutrition for the global population. Veterinarians can play a unique role and have a niche in public education relative to food policy. Not only are veterinarians, part of the small scientifically literate minority, but also have some understanding of agriculture and that interface between technology, policy making, but also how are we going to best meet the demands of food security in the global population? It doesn't really matter whether you become a strong advocate for animal agriculture, nor what foods you choose to eat or don't eat, but the realization that we will need a secure, safe food supply, some of the pressures that are going to have to be addressed. And in the end, if involved into the discussion, at least try to bring in some evidence or a balanced approach to some of the pros and cons into that discussion. The danger is not to be dogmatic, because dogmatic tends to accept opinion as fact. Opinions are wonderful. But at the end of the day, when we're setting policy, especially for something as critical as food production, it should be based more on fact and not opinion. This ends the slides that's relative to fundamentals of agricultural literacy. Please review your assignment, both the reading assignment as well as some of the discussion points for the upcoming class.