Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

UPDATES AT VIRGINIA TECH

Budget Difficulties Challenge VA Tech's College of Agriculture

Virginia Tech, just like other land-grant universities across the country, is facing some very difficult funding challenges. Many of you have closely followed the developments on the state and Virginia Tech budgets and are aware that the university faces a state reduction in budget, a result of the commonwealth's projected current budget shortfall of more than $1.4 billion. Since last October, the college has seen a budget reduction of nearly $2 million, and we are losing 3.5 percent of the instructional and 5 percent of the research and extension budgets this year or approximately $2.5 million.
These are funds that we are unable to offset through tuition revenue, therefore, we will centrally limit some operational expenses to address the budget shortfalls and not be able to fill certain open staff and faculty positions. The unfortunate truth is, that these reductions will translate into a loss of agent, specialist, teaching, and research faculty positions, as well as technical staff. Although we will do everything possible to fill essential positions to support the land-grant mission, we will not be able to fill all positions.
Nevertheless, we are committed to keeping our current programs intact and are, for now, able to do so because our external grants and contracts have increased thanks to the tireless efforts of our faculty and staff. We are, as a result, able to absorb some operational costs associated with specific programs.
The demands on the land-grant system are greater than ever before. Today, agriculture has expanded far beyond its traditional roots, and our organization is in the midst of addressing current needs. Our programs are about increasing the efficiencies and sustainability of production agriculture, finding cures for devastating and debilitating diseases, sustaining the environment, improving human health and nutrition, and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Our researchers are working across disciplines on addressing these and other societal issues, and through our Extension network, we are uniquely positioned to bring the latest solutions to Virginia producers and citizens. Discoveries and new knowledge gained and shared through our efforts truly help shape the future of our students, Virginians (producers and citizens alike), and world citizens. – Dean Sharron Quisenberry, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

  HOT TOPICS AND DAIRY ISSUES

Cows Supplemented With RbST Reduce Agriculture's Environmental Impact

Cows that receive recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rbST) make more milk, while easing natural resource pressure and substantially reducing environmental impact, according to a Cornell University study.

Producing milk uses large quantities of land, energy and feed, but rbST -- the first biotech product used on American farms -- has been in agricultural use for nearly 15 years. Now it is found to reduce 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, giving rbST to one million cows would enable the same amount of milk to be produced using 157,000 fewer cows. The 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. Producers could reduce cropland use by 219,000 hectares and reduce 2.3 million tons of soil erosion annually.

In 2007, there were 9.2 million cows in the United States . For every one million cows supplemented with rbST, the world would see an environmental saving of 824 million kilograms of carbon dioxide, 41 million kilograms of methane and 96,000 kilograms of nitrous oxide. 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, Cornell post-doctoral researcher.

"Sustainability is important in agricultural production, with an emphasis placed upon meeting human food requirements while mitigating environmental impact," said Dale Bauman, an author of the study. "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."

Journal reference : Judith L. Capper, Dale E. Bauman, Euridice Castaneda-Gutierrez, and Roger A. Cady. The Environmental Impact of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rbST) Use in Dairy Production . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , June 30, 2008.

RbST Labeling Controversy

Using supplements like rBGH in dairy continues to court controversy, as some processors and retailers seek to label their products free from the hormone. This has led to legal disputes between various stakeholders in Ohio over how products that are free of the hormone can be labeled, with current rules requiring the mention that there are no major differences to organically sourced milk.

Ohio state's new regulation, which came into effect on May 22, state that dairy companies can only include the statement "from cows not supplemented with artificial growth hormones" in their product labeling, if it is followed by the disclaimer, "no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-supplemented and non-rBST supplemented cows".

It also states the size, font, color and location of the labeling, and requires that dairy processors alleged to have violated these provisions are subject to a range of penalties, fuelling a debate that has long been raging over the labeling of the hormones.

Organic producers say interfering with established acceptance for labeling products as free from growth hormones prevents consumers from receiving truthful information. On the other side, organizations such as Monsanto have previously claimed rBST-free labels mislead consumers into thinking they are superior to those from cows treated with the hormone.

Different states have different rules regarding the labeling of rBST in dairy products. In February, the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food introduced proposals to prohibit dairy companies declaring their products as free from a growth hormone, again angering industry.

The previous month, a similar bill on organic milk labeling up for consideration in the Indiana House of Representatives came under criticism from organizations and producers claiming it would prevent informed consumer choice if passed. At the same time, coffee retailer Starbucks removed all rBGH from its US network of stores.