Cancéropôle Lyon Rhône-Alpes

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.

A snapshot of user activity

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.

International visitors

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).

How users get to the DAS site

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.

“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.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

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.

A snapshot of user activity

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.

International visitors

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).

How users get to the DAS site

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.

“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.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

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.

A snapshot of user activity

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.

International visitors

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).

How users get to the DAS site

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.

“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.

Permalink

Comments are closed.