You are what you eat, or to be fit and healthy you need to eat good food.  That’s the secret to health care reform. Just ask a bunch of rats.

A recent study from the University of Oxford had researchers examined the effects of a very high-fat diet and a very low-fat diet on 32 rats on their ability to remember their way through a maze and on their performance on a treadmill.

The researchers found that after just a few days on the high-fat diet — consisting of a whopping 55 percent of calories from fat — the rats had more trouble recalling how to get through the maze, and they also performed 30 percent worse on the treadmill after just a few days on the high-fat diet, compared to when they were on a diet consisting of only 7.5 percent of calories from fat.

The researchers said they also have performed similar studies on humans, but those results haven’t been published yet. Assuming the human studies show comparable results, what does that mean for your diet?

Well, probably not much, at least if you tend to stick close to official recommendations for fat intake. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines have long suggested that total fat intake for adults be anywhere from 20 percent to 35 percent of total calories. That’s nowhere near the low-fat diet of 7.5 percent of total calories or the high-fat diet of 55 percent of total calories used in the rat study.

Now, if you tend to binge on high-fat foods over the course of a few days, you might find your poor diet has an effect — either on your cognitive ability, your physical ability, or both. But certainly that wouldn’t be the only reason to switch back to healthier eating habits: High-fat diets are associated with higher risks of heart disease and some types of cancer, especially diets high in saturated or trans fats.

In fact, official guidelines recommend keeping saturated fat to 10 percent of calories consumed, and eliminating, if at all possible, trans fat intake. That means, for example, if your recommended calorie intake for the day is 1,600 calories a day (the amount recommended for sedentary women age 51 or older), you should limit saturated fat to 18 grams or less. If you consume 2,400 calories a day (recommended for active women ages 14-30 or most sedentary men ages 16-40), limit saturated fat to 26 to 27 grams.

The other 10 to 25 percent of calories from fat should come from monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. Check Nutrition Facts labels for good sources.

By Robert Pore

Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., and Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., were critical of recent comment by U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack concerning

Addressing the nation’s farm broadcasters earlier this week, Vilsack said that “…for those who want to defend the status quo, if they think the cost of oil is going to remain static and continue to be low they are just not thinking correctly and that as the world economy begins to pick up the price of oil will skyrocket again.”

“This is an opportunity for us to move away from our addiction of foreign oil, to create new energy sources here in America and create new income opportunities for farmers and ranchers,” Vilsack said. “We should be embracing this. We should not be fearful of this. Fear has never ever moved the United States in the right direction. It has always been our willingness to embrace risk, embrace innovation, embrace change and be an international leader. Now is not the time for us to become fearful, now is the time for America to continue its leadership.”

While Vilsack was addressing the need to pass cap and trade legislation, Smith said Vilsack is wrong in claiming the economic benefits of cap and trade legislation to farmers and ranchers will outweigh added energy costs.

What’s in question is House bill H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which was passed in late June. Smith, who voted against the legislation, said the bill will impose new greenhouse gas emissions standards and efficiency standards across the U.S. economy.

“This bill imposes enormous taxes and restrictions on energy use – placing an especially heavy burden on rural America and our nation’s energy producers,” Smith said.

He said that even a small increase in operating costs could devastate farmers and ranchers, “…as Secretary Vilsack well knows.”

“U.S. agriculture producers will also be at a severe economic disadvantage compared to farmers in nations which do not have a cap-and-trade system,” Smith said.

Vilsack is scheduled to hold a “Rural Tour” forum in Scottsbluff in late September to discuss production agriculture.

Smith said agriculture is one of the nation’s most energy intensive industries, and is expected to be impacted heavily by this legislation. Nearly 60 percent of U.S. energy is imported from other countries.

According to a Heritage Foundation economic analysis of H.R. 2454, Smith said farm income would drop $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and more than $50 billion in 2035 – decreases of 28 percent, 60 percent, and 94 percent, respectively.

Smith said U.S. farmers would be at a severe disadvantage compared to farmers in nations which do not have a cap-and-trade system with correspondingly high input costs.

According to Smith, estimates place per household burdens from $1,600 to more than $4,000 annually to comply with the bill. The Heritage Foundation estimates Nebraska will lose more than $1 billion and nearly 10,000 jobs if cap-and-trade becomes law.

To date, more than 100 agriculture groups – including the Nebraska Farm Bureau – have expressed opposition to the legislation, according to Smith.

While cap and trade addresses growing concerns about the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the impact those gases could have on the environment, because agriculture is so energy intense, it’s dependent, like the rest of the nation, on imported fossil fuel energy.

According the Renewable Fuels Association, earlier this month the U.S. State Department approved the construction of a new petroleum pipeline with the sole purpose of importing Canadian tar sands oil to the U.S.

According to the Renewable Fuels Association, the environmental footprint of tar sands (carbon emissions aside) is very damaging.

RFA said the State Department justified its decision by saying, “Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.”

Relying on increasingly environmentally unsustainable imports of petroleum is not a long term solution, according to the RFA.

” Yet, the State Department thinks so. So too does the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency which is in the process of creating roadblocks for the development of America’s biofuels industry, a cleaner alternative to tar sands petroleum that creates jobs in the U.S., not Canada,
according to RFA.

RFA goes on to say, “Not only is tar sands petroleum production environmentally damaging, so too is refining this heavier source of crude oil. According to the Chicago Tribune, ‘researchers have calculated that refining the Canadian petroleum produces 15 percent to 40 percent more carbon dioxide emissions than conventional oil.’”

Johanns, in an opt-ed piece for the Omaha World Herald, he said Vilsack’s “rhetoric falls in line with the Administration’s pattern of nice sounding ideas unsupported by facts.”

“Unfortunately, the costs of cap-and-trade are real, while so far the benefits for farmers and ranchers are theoretical,” he said. “Nebraska producers are realists. And realists sift through rhetoric to focus on facts.”

Like with Smith, uses numbers from the Heritage Foundation, Johanns quotes numbers about the negative impact cap and trade would have on agriculture from the American Farm Bureau Foundation.

Johanns said Farm Bureau estimates that 40 million acres will come out of production and another analysis predicts a loss of 78 million acres to trees.

“That’s nearly 20 percent of our nation’s total cropland,” Johanns said. “The Secretary’s argument appears to hedge on one of two options: America’s farmers have the land, time, and resources to increase their acreage by 20 percent; or they can convert 20 percent of current cropland to trees without a significant loss in output and income. Neither option makes sense.”

Johanns said the bill places additional tax burdens on American businesses during a severe recession for no discernible environmental gain.

“Like the Secretary, I am supremely confident that American agriculture can adapt. But that’s no justification to support a bad bill,” he said. “While Americans will face down any challenge facing them, their lawmakers should not be in the business of creating additional ones.”

 

By Robert Pore

Uncertainty in the general economy continues to drive the agricultural market outlook in a midyear baseline from the University of Missouri Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI).

“For most U.S. crops, market prices have declined from last year’s peaks but remain well above pre-2007 levels,” said Pat Westhoff, senior economist and co-director of FAPRI.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Nebraska statewide average corn prices were down $1.92 per bushel in July compared to July 2008; soybean, down $3 per bushel; sorghum, $4.68 per hundredweight; hogs, $13.50 per hundredweight; and steers and heifers, $16.50 per hundredweight.

“On the livestock side, the baseline shows recovery in 2010 for meat and dairy prices but depends on general economic recovery and continued reduction of supplies,” said Scott Brown, FAPRI livestock economist.

Westhoff said lower petroleum prices have reduced production costs. Those lower lower prices also reduced demand for biofuel., which lowers demand for corn and soybeans, major sources of those fuels.

The mid-August FAPRI baseline is a limited updating of the 10-year baseline released in March 2009. The agricultural commodities outlook changed markedly since the completion of the FAPRI long-term baseline, Westhoff said.

Brown said a worldwide recession led to weak domestic and international demand for many U.S. agricultural products. That weak demand, he said, occurred at the same time the farm sector faced production costs exceeding historical averages.

According to the USDA, the average total farm production expenditures when up from $332,914 to $350,633 from 2007 to 2008.

“Hog farmers and dairy producers are enduring a prolonged price squeeze,” Brown said. “Some have used all of their equity and have tapped all of their credit.” Price recovery for meat and milk requires continued growth in consumer demand. In response to low prices, both sectors are reducing what was record production.

In the updated FAPRI baseline, prices for barrows and gilts average $57.59 per hundredweight in 2011, up from $42.82 projected for 2009.

In dairy, the all-milk price average goes from $12.47 per 100 pounds in 2009 to $16.37 by 2011.

But Brown cautions that as the economy recovers, demand for agricultural products increases, raising prices. At the same time, demand and prices for oil also increase.

Oil prices, which hit $145 per barrel leading into the recession, are projected for 2009-10 to average $61.31 per barrel. By 2015, the end of the baseline, the price rises to $94 for West Texas intermediate crude, according to FAPRI.

For outlook on petroleum prices and macroeconomic assumptions, FAPRI economists rely on IHS Global Insight Inc. a private group.

Based on the oil price rise, ethanol prices at Omaha are projected to increase from $1.65 per gallon this marketing year to $1.76 in 2010-11 and to $2.09 by 2015.

Corn prices for this marketing year are projected at $3.47 per bushel, down from $4.05 last year. By the end of the shortened baseline, prices are back at $3.98.

Corn plantings continue to rise through the baseline from 88.5 million acres next year to 90.4 million acres in 2014. Added acres come largely from cotton and sorghum plantings.

Soybean acres remain stable, going from 77.9 million acres next year to 78 million acres in 2014.

Soybean prices, projected at $9.44 per bushel for this marketing year, decline to $9.12 next year, then rise steadily to $9.74 by 2014.

In the cattle sector, Brown said the outlook depends on where you are in the supply chain. Unlike hogs, where production is often coordinated, the cow-calf, backgrounding and feedlot operations remain separate.

“Feedlots have been bleeding red ink for a long time,” he said.

The baseline projects price recovery for fed cattle based on a declining to steady supply. Fed cattle projected at $85 per hundred this year will rise to $93 in 2010 and $98 in 2011. All are based on Nebraska direct sales.

Feeder steers at Oklahoma City are projected at $103 per hundred this year, followed by $115 in 2010 and $123 in 2011.

The 11-page 2009 baseline update is available at http://www.fapri.missouri.edu.