That said, sometimes I get really frustrated with other reporters.

Case in point this week is a story from CNBC’s Mark Koba, discussing farmland values and the prospects for the U.S. farm economy in the near future. His headline? Trouble on the farm.

Now it is true that many reporters at many media organizations don’t write their own headlines, or, as is the case in our shop, a reporter submits a headline that is reworked to fit the constraints of the physical space in which it has to fit. So, Koba may not have actually written the headline, or the subheading “We face a grim future,” lifted from a quote within the story.

Koba’s piece, in a nutshell, recounts the horrors of the 1980s, in which highly-leveraged farmers were wiped out in huge numbers after the bottom fell out of the grain market (I’ll refrain from commenting on the Carter Administration’s role in the crisis via the Russian Grain Embargo), and suggests that because farmland values have risen consistently and significantly for several consecutive years, a bubble is forming that must eventually bust.

As I said last week, a journalist’s job is to report the facts in an objective way, so I don’t have a problem with the thrust of the article, despite the fact that my reporting would indicate that the current “boom” cycle in agriculture is very, very different from the boom that preceded the 1980s farm crisis. What bothers me about the NBC article is that Koba did a half-ass job of covering the subject.

In the piece, the reporter quoted four sources and cited a white paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. I frequently source the Fed, and specifically FRB Kansas City, so I think this was a great source for Koba’s piece, and was in all likelihood what turned him on to the subject in the first place.

Interviewing four essentially heterogeneous sources, however, is where Koba’s reporting falls apart for me. His sources were all older farmers from Corn Belt states:

1. A 72-year-old grain and livestock farmer from north central Indiana,
2. A 56-year-old grain farmer from Tarkio, Mo.,
3. A 60-year-old grain farmer from Fort Wayne, Ind., and,
4. A 72-year-old grain farmer from central Illinois.

So, you have four gentlemen of an almost identical demographic essentially giving anecdotal “evidence” of an impending farm crisis. The youngest source in the story would have been roughly 23 in 1980, so I’m guessing he remembers the infamous 1980s as well as the rest of the story’s sources, and you can probably safely assume that the pair of septuagenarians cited were actively involved in agriculture in the 80s.

Chances are, if you were alive and farming during the last farm crisis, you’re more likely to be overly cautious about conditions that “feel like” the last time the bottom fell out of the agricultural economy. The trouble is, four anecdotes do not a trend make.

Koba dropped the ball by not interviewing any economists or analysts who might otherwise compare the conditions leading up to the 80s crisis with the conditions we see in the market today. As it turns out, he wouldn’t have had to work very hard to find the data.

Reporting on agriculture is a fairly complex task, especially if you don’t have some background or experience with the industry. But a reporter at a major news organization such as CNBC should have known better than to interview what essentially turned out to be the same source four times and declare that the farm economy was going to hell in a hand basket.

That was one of the key messages I delivered last week to the attendees of the Animal Agriculture Alliance’s annual stakeholder’s summit in Arlington, Va. My point is that words, their meaning and contexts, matter a great deal, and that in the debate over animal welfare issues and when dealing with consumer concerns about food production, agriculturalists need to put far more thought into the words they use.

Perhaps it’s because I write for a living and live with the only person I know who reads more than I do, but words are a valuable commodity in our house. Words are a form of currency that we use to trade valuable ideas and concepts, and upon which fortunes – both literal and figurative – are won and lost.

Joining me on the panel in Arlington last week was a fiery talk-show host named Katy Keifer. While Katy didn’t make any friends with her unabashed rebuke of antibiotic use in food animal production, many of her points were critically important: among them, the reality that agriculture “advocates” aren’t doing themselves any favors by adopting the same rhetorical hyperbole as their opponents.

“Stop calling these people terrorists,” she cautioned, referring to a smear levied against some animal rights groups by some folks involved in animal agriculture. “Terrorists do things like blow up the Boston Marathon.”

Truth is, she has a point. By choosing to engage at the lowest common denominator, otherwise well-meaning farm folks come off looking like the radical lunatics instead of getting across their point about the far fringes of the animal rights movement. By slinging mud, farmers and their supporters virtually guarantee they’ll emerge from the fight covered in dirt.

Let me be the first to say that it’s easier said than done, that whole “turn the other cheek” thing. When the extremists come at you, hell-bent on destroying your lifestyle and livelihood, it hurts, and the natural inclination is to fight back. Giving those fringe elements oxygen, on the other hand, simply adds fuel to their fire, and accomplishes very little in the long run.

Instead, the industry needs to continue looking in the mirror first, to make sure its proverbial house is in order:

Is my farm “YouTube-proof?” Am I comfortable showing what I do for a living to my non-farm friends? Could I comfortably defend what happens on my operation to someone else without resorting to the mindset that people who don’t farm for a living aren’t entitled to have feelings about how food is produced?

If we can answer “YES” to these questions, we’re moving in the right direction. By YouTube-proofing agriculture and adopting a food-centered mindset, we can connect with the >95% of consumers who just want to buy food that is tasty, affordable and convenient.

As I shared with the group during my mid-afternoon talk, the day was an emotional roller coaster for me. Early on, I was – quite honestly – a bit depressed with the tone of the rhetoric coming from the podium. Rose Acre Farms’ general counsel Joe Miller infamously told the audience that consumers did not have a right to know where their food comes from or how it is produced, producing the clear low point for the day.

While Miller, an attorney, was more or less speaking in a legal context, his comment was indicative of a broader feeling within the industry: that consumers should leave well enough alone, and trust food production to the experts. Not exactly a sign of openness and transparency, right?

Miller, to his credit, did say something that was brilliant in its insight and simplicity: “Consumers don’t need to understand us, we need to understand THEM.” This was what I described as an “Amen, brother,” moment in his remarks, because I couldn’t have agreed more.

A panel on reaching “mommy bloggers” brought a dose of reality to the day’s activities, as three professional communicators (and parents) with no ties to agriculture held court on the things they really do – and do not – care about when it comes to food. By and large, they said they wanted food producers to be open and honest, and for the most part they agreed with a 2012 Elanco-commissioned study finding that 95% of consumers buy on taste, cost and convenience.

Similarly, National Pork Producers Council executive Dallas Hockman got a proverbial fist pump from me for his frank talk on how NPPC is evaluating some of the big issues facing the industry today, and attempting to act proactively instead of reactionary. While I think it is hard to say NPPC is thinking proactively regarding gestation stalls, Hockman’s talk indicated a level of awareness among industry leadership that is heartening to say the least.

With the many ups and downs of the day, I took the stage alongside a fellow podcaster and radio host named Katy Keifer. Keifer, who hosts a food-centered program on the Heritage Radio Network, really got the crowd fired up, and not necessarily in a good way.

Prone to believing some of the anti- “big ag” hype on issues such as antibiotics and beta-agonists, Keifer delivered a fiery down-dressing that was both conspicuous for not being a “rah rah rah” type of speech and because it took direct aim at some widely-held beliefs about how animal agriculture interests should deal with their “enemies.”

“These people are not terrorists,” she said of animal rights activists reviled by most in attendance. “A terrorist blows up the Boston Marathon. These people just have different ideas about animals than you do.”

While I agreed with only maybe 50% of what Keifer had to say, I was thrilled that Alliance conference planner Emily Meredith had the cojones to put her on the panel at all. And that, in a sense, is what I told the audience during my talk.

Agriculture, as an industry, is not terribly good about seeing different points of view. As I said last week on Feedstuffs Facebook page, the community has developed a strange sort of bi-polar disorder, one of a heightened victim mentality coupled with a weird superiority complex.

On the one hand, “we” think everyone – especially the media – is out to get us. On the other hand, we tend to think of farming as some manner of mission, calling or ministry, and that consumers owe us a debt of gratitude for producing food. I’ve written several times about what I call the “Martyr Complex,” and explained why it’s important to understand that farming is a business, as well as a lifestyle.

And even though many Farm Bureau members and beef-industry spokespersons have trained in the “EASE” method of conversing with consumers on controversial topics (Engage on the topic, Acknowledge the concern, Share your own story, and Earn the other person’s trust), I remain convinced that for many of my friends and colleagues, such tools, techniques and trainings represent another version of the blunt-force weapon known as the “Educate Stick.”

We’ve been beating consumers in one form or another with the “Educate Stick” for decades, presuming that if consumers just understood us (read: weren’t so darn stupid), they’d leave us alone to farm as we see fit. What reality has proven, to the contrary, is that the more consumers learn, the more they want to know, and rightly so.

Hence the big thrust of my talk last week in D.C.: Consumers are not stupid, and messaging is not the central problem facing agriculture. What the industry needs in the worst possible way is what my Dad calls an attitude adjustment.

It starts by adopting what I’ve called a Food-centered Paradigm, one in which we no longer view consumers as the antagonists in the story. As Miller suggested, we need to quit forcing them to understand us on our terms, and try – in earnest, for once – to understand them.

We may not always agree, but for the most part, we aren’t really trying yet.

Thanks to Alltech, you can watch the presentations from last week’s Summit online. I was part of Session 4, and my talk starts about 31 minutes into the segment. Watch, and let me know what you think in the comments below.

I believe in the future of agriculture, with a faith born not of words but of deeds – achievements won by the present and past generations of agriculturists; in the promise of better days through better ways, even as the better things we now enjoy have come to us from the struggles of former years.

I believe that to live and work on a good farm, or to be engaged in other agricultural pursuits, is pleasant as well as challenging; for I know the joys and discomforts of agricultural life and hold an inborn fondness for those associations which, even in hours of discouragement, I cannot deny.

I believe in leadership from ourselves and respect from others. I believe in my own ability to work efficiently and think clearly, with such knowledge and skill as I can secure, and in the ability of progressive agriculturists to serve our own and the public interest in producing and marketing the product of our toil.

I believe in less dependence on begging and more power in bargaining; in the life abundant and enough honest wealth to help make it so–for others as well as myself; in less need for charity and more of it when needed; in being happy myself and playing square with those whose happiness depends upon me.

I believe that American agriculture can and will hold true to the best traditions of our national life and that I can exert an influence in my home and community which will stand solid for my part in that inspiring task.

Your humble author at Ohio FFA Camp Muskingum, many, many years ago...

In 1929, a Kansas farm boy named Erwin Milton “E.M.” Tiffany wrote the poetic verses that would become adopted in 1930 as the de facto vision statement of The Future Farmers of America, a passage that would eventually become known as The FFA Creed. An educated man who grew up to himself become an educator, Tiffany put to paper the ideals and beliefs the young men (and eventually young women, too) of rural America held so dear in their hearts and homes.

Reread Tiffany’s words and catch the key themes:

• Belief – every paragraph is about believing in something bigger than oneself;
• Hard work – three of the five paragraphs specifically reference effort and achievement;
• Self-reliance – the entire recitation is a treatise on the importance of putting the onus of success on oneself;
• Improvement – Tiffany wrote as though always looking forward, that the efforts of today accumulate benefits in the future, for the individual and future generations.

What Tiffany described, and what more than 450,000 FFA members across the country recite in classrooms, is a rural application of the American Dream. I’ve been thinking about both concepts today – the Creed and the Dream – perhaps because it is both President’s Day and National FFA Week, but mostly because I read an article by University of Illinois professor emeritus Kenneth Oldfield that really steamed my clams.

Decrying the “Lincoln Myth” of social mobility in America – namely that you can rise, as did our 16th President, from extremely humble beginnings and, through hard work and perseverance, achieve great things – the professor laid out a case that unless you are born into what many describe as “The 1%,” the deck is inherently stacked against you in this country.

Accordingly, government should engage in wide-spread and far-reaching wealth redistribution efforts as a way of breaking up the “monopoly” of success consolidated in the upper economic echelons of society:

Instead of imagining American society as a land of opportunity, symbolized by the Lincoln mythology, the situation is better understood as a never ending Monopoly game where players, rather than beginning the game with equal amounts of money and no property, inherit and play with the resources, paltry or plentiful, of the last competitor who occupied their seat at the table.  One new entrant might begin with only meager assets, while their opponent inherits most of the prime properties and a large stockpile of cash. Nevertheless, the poorer competitor has no choice but to play regardless of the odds.  Naturally the wealthier opponent will encourage the less fortunate one to remember Lincoln and have faith that with enough hard work, it is possible to parlay these smallholdings into a fortune.

The Monopoly analogy is an easy way to see how unearned advantages – the owner’s property and money in this case – greatly affect the reality of the American Dream.  Such advantages represent what is a more realistic form of trickle-down economics; the trickling down of financial capital from parents to children.

However, financial bequests are only one way to get a head start on the competition.  Besides financial inheritances, two other major categories of unearned assets profoundly influence our life outcomes.  First, social capital involves having relatives or knowing people outside the family who can help you gain prized benefits: It is Not What You Know It’s Who You Know.  Second, ‘cultural capital’ entails having parents who use proper grammar, growing up in a home where many books and other reading materials are readily available, attending well-resourced – often private/prep – schools and being introduced at a young age to higher status activities such as theater, symphonies, and overseas travel.

Oldfield suggests such gross injustice be righted by “redistributing social, financial, and cultural capital downward instead of upward,” calling on the media to do more reporting on “socioeconomic inequalities,” expanding worker and public ownership of business and industry, government intervention to break up enterprises that are “too big to fail,” highly progressive gift and estate taxes, class-based affirmative action (especially at elite colleges and universities, “which are antidemocratic by definition”), and large increases in need-based educational scholarships.

As I read the professor’s manifesto, my blood began to boil just a bit. I went back to look up what others wrote about the American Dream as I recalled it… According to the gnomes at Wikipedia, James Truslow Adams offered this definition in 1931: “Life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement” regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.

Sounds right to me, and it sounds a lot different from the vision laid out by Professor Oldfield.

People like Professor Oldfield have set out, and are largely succeeding, in convincing Americans that success is wrong, and that the American Dream as I know it is a selfish pursuit. Think I’m wrong? Consider this, for a minute:

• One in three Americans prefers a larger government with more programs and services
• 52% of Americans favor reducing or eliminating tax deductions for Americans making as little as $250,000
• 56% say the economy is not “fair” to the middle class
• Only 39% say they are fiscally conservative, while 20% say they are fiscally liberal

There is a reason the current economic debate has centered on emotional concepts like “fairness” rather than on rational economic principles. Those who have read Saul Alinsky’s infamous Rules for Radicals understand this basic principle: if you want to change something, personalize and attack it. As the uber-activist’s guidebook explained:

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

The target, in this case, is the so-called 1%, the super-wealthy. In reality, it’s anyone making more than $250,000 per year, which is roughly 2% of the population. People like Professor Oldfield continue to describe these people as unfairly overpriviliged, and would prefer a societal apparatus that did not allow one generation’s success to pass to their descendants.

Oldfield contends that you simply can’t make it today on hard work and ingenuity because a broken American Dream doesn’t work today – the financial and cultural resources are too heavily concentrated among the wealthy few. This zero-sum mentality, of course, ignores nearly 250 years of reality: Of the wealthiest men in American history, the self-made men are the rule rather than the exception.

Let’s go old-school for a minute. A couple of years ago, Business Insider did a list of the 13 Richest Americans in history:

1. John D. Rockefeller: his dad was a vagabond and a bigamist. Rockefeller was the quintessential self-made man.
2. Andrew Carnegie: Scottish immigrant who came to America largely penniless.
3. Cornelius Vanderbilt: great-grandson of an indentured servant immigrated from the Netherlands.
4. Bill Gates: Microsoft founder and boy genius, is the son of a successful lawyer and banker.

Gates’ upbringing and backstory would seem to corroborate Oldfield’s theory, that successful people are the product of a privileged upbringing, and certainly Gates had a more gilded childhood than did Rockefeller or Carnegie. That said, Gates is on the “Top 13″ list with the likes of Sam Walton and Warren Buffett.

Walton, patriarch of one of the most successful retail businesses in the history of man, is the picture of the American dream. His Dad was a farmer who moved his family from place to place when he decided he couldn’t make enough money farming… From those humble beginnings Walton got an education, served in the Army, and after the War, started his own business.

Buffet’s father was a small-time stockbroker who, when young Warren was 12, got elected to the first of four terms in Congress, representing part of Omaha, Neb. Buffet, like his father, attended public school and earned his B.S. from the University of Nebraska – his first brush with the Ivy League was attending grad school at Columbia, largely because his favorite economists taught there.

According to Forbes‘ annual list of the richest people in America, the third-richest man was the son of an unwed immigrant mother and a U.S. Air Force pilot, and raised in a two-bedroom apartment in a seedy part of Chicago. The 10th-richest is the son of a real estate agent and served as a parking lot attendant to pay for college.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is the son of a teenage mother who married a Cuban immigrant. Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson is the son of a Lithuanian taxi driver and Ukrainian seamstress. George Soros survived the Holocaust and came to England without a dime to his name, and is now one of the richest investors in the world.

Don’t tell me it can’t be done, and don’t tell me that it doesn’t happen today.

With thousands of people still coming to this country every day in search of a better life for themselves and a better future for their children, it cannot be said that the America that produced Rockefellers, Carnegies and Waltons no longer works for the self-made man. If it didn’t still work, they wouldn’t still come.

What Oldfield and others are selling is crass class warfare, directly from the Alinsky playbook: demonize the rich by convincing the masses that they not only can’t become the 1%, but that they shouldn’t want to be them in the first place. In generations past we lionized success, striving to improve our lot and leave our children better off than our parents left us.

Today we are told not only that we can’t achieve any more than our parents did, but that if we do improve our station in life, the government should force our children to start right back at square one.

I, for one, still believe in the American Dream. My Dad and Mom worked hard to see that I got a good education in our small-town public school, reading to me every night when I was a tot and sending me to Europe when I was of age to travel abroad. They ensured that I went to college, something neither of them were afforded the chance to do, and I owe everything I am to the dream they had for me: a better life through hard work and dedication to cause.

And yes, I believe that, as I prepare to become a father (sometime in the next week or two, actually) myself, my calling in life will also be to see that my daughter has a better opportunity to grow, learn and succeed than I did myself. I’ll take the example my parents set for me and apply it to the resources I’ve earned through my education and hard work. We’re definitely not part of the oft-vilified 1%, and I doubt we will be in my lifetime – but like George and Weezy, we’re movin’ on up, whether Professor Oldfield likes it or not.

Horses? Never.

In fact, I asked Dad once why we didn’t have horses, and his response was something to the effect that since horses no longer pulled plows on our farm, we had no use for the horses. That seemed pretty practical to me, so I didn’t press the issue. My beef cattle raising and showing friends have long contended that “horse people” are crazy, and you’ll hear many a horse-directed epithet hurled: “hay burner” and “pasture ornament” are two of my favorites.

During my radio years, I lived on a beautiful farm in Logan County. While the land was much flatter than the rolling hills of my native Southern Ohio upbringing, I loved the landscape nonetheless. Among the most-cherished of the farm’s features was the three Belgian mares living in the front pasture.

Over the five years I spent on that farm, I grew to love those “gentle giants.” They are gorgeous. I am awestruck by the grace and agility exhibited by the modern draft horse: the rippling muscles and massive feet combine with such a gracious temperament that it is easy to believe the creation story as you watch these beasts – literally a ton of horseflesh – gallop across a paddock with the fleetness of eagles.

While Ram Trucks’ “So God Made a Farmer” spot stole the show Sunday night in the Super Bowl advertising derby, I have to say that only one spot genuinely moved me, and it featured those great, glorious Budweiser Clydesdales.

Paul Harvey’s narration of the Dodge spot brought back the memories of my youth, listening to him deliver the news every morning on Grandma’s school bus, and yes, the images illustrating his golden tones stirred the agrarian parts of my soul and rallied my pride in being a part of American Agriculture.

But I will tell you this: Paul Harvey didn’t make my cry… a 2,000-pound draft horse did – twice.

Burt Westbrook walks the Budweiser Clydesdales at Pimlico Race Course in Baltimore in this AP Photo/Mel Evans piece from TampaBay.com.

Budweiser’s world-famous Clydesdales are easily my favorite animal spectacle, which is saying something coming from me (my favorite amusement attraction is going to the zoo to see the elephants and rhinos, I love the circus, and I’ve been to more livestock expositions that 99% of the American population – I love animals). The Super Bowl ads featuring the iconic eight-horse hitch have ranged from the amusing to the heart-wrenching.

This year’s installment was without a doubt my favorite one yet (as an aside, I’m sitting here misty-eyed like a weak-kneed girl just thinking about this ad… Someone take my man card, stat), and apparently I wasn’t the only one who felt that way.

Apparently this was the year when Americans wanted substance over sizzle, preferring  Super Bowl ads with heart according to the USA Today Ad Meter, which celebrated its 25th anniversary by vastly expanded in scope to take the pulse of 7,619 pre-registered panelists.

The Budweiser winner is about a guy who breeds and raises a Clydesdale horse, only to wistfully watch it leave for the big-time. Then, three years later, at a big-city parade, man and horse re-unite in an emotional embrace.

“That was absolutely heart-warming,” says Tyler Stocks, an Ad Meter panelist and journalist from Greenville, N.C. “When I think of Budweiser, I think Clydesdale horses.”

For A-B, whose major-brand beer sales have taken a hit in recent years, it’s a return to marketing glory after slipping out of Ad Meter’s top five last year. Through the years, A-B has won 12 Ad Meters, more than any other advertiser.

Executives were toasting the win at A-B Sunday night. Paul Chibe, vice president of U.S. marketing, says he’s incredibly proud of the Clydesdale ad. It “touches a chord,” in consumer hearts, he says.

Americans were clearly smitten with the story and its stars. The 21-day-old, 200 lb. filly has legions of admirers, and a new name: Hope.

Last week Budweiser asked its Facebook fans and Twitter followers to send along naming suggestions. The iconic brand was awash in ideas with more than 60,000 tweets, Facebook comments, calls and direct messages submitted. “Hope” was one of the more popular female names generated through the social media crowd-sourcing.

“We were overwhelmed with the response we got,” said Lori Shambro, brand director for Budweiser. “Budweiser fans suggested a lot of great names, and it was a tough decision, but we landed on Hope as the perfect name for this friendly, slightly feisty and just perfect Budweiser Clydesdale mare. Many of our fans wanted a name to reflect their optimism and spirit, which the name Hope encapsulates beautifully.”

Other popular names submitted included Landslide (after the Fleetwood Mac song in the commercial), Buddy, Star, Raven, Spirit and Stevie. Fans helped name the first colt of the new year as well, helping tab the foal as “Stan,” in honor of the late great baseball legend Stan Musial.

More than 30 baby Clydesdales are expected to be born this year at the 300-acre Warm Springs Ranch, the state-of-the-art breeding facility for the Budweiser Clydesdales in Boonville, Mo.  So far this year four baby Clydesdales have been born.

The Clydesdales celebrate a major milestone in 2013 – the 80^th anniversary of their association with Anheuser-Busch. The Budweiser Clydesdales have been an integral part of Anheuser-Busch’s heritage since April 7, 1933, and their strength and majesty symbolize Budweiser quality as well as integrity, achievement, success, perfection and team spirit.  They were formally introduced to celebrate the repeal of Prohibition for beer.

Anheuser-Busch has nearly 200 Clydesdales in its herd, with about half of them at Warm Springs Ranch in Cooper County.

Maybe it was my antipathy for Ray Lewis, maybe I was already tired of Har-Bowl, maybe it was just that my team wasn’t in the game… For whatever reason my wife and I weren’t jazzed about the game this year. Last year we hosted a Super Bowl party, but with our first baby due to arrive in 22 days we decided to forgo the headache of hosting and just have a nice night in (we watched the Kirk Douglas classic Spartacus, in case you were wondering).

And then mid-way through the game my phone started buzzing as my social media feeds blew up over one of the commercials. While I’m a sucker for Clydesdales and think Terry Tate is still one of my favorite Super Bowl spots of all time, I was taken aback by the avalanche of immediate response to the spot from Dodge Trucks.

As you know, I grew up on a farm. It wasn’t the biggest farm in the country, but it was home. We raised cows and hay and corn and soybeans, and my Little Brother still farms with Dad’s help today, while I’m a restless suburbanite.

My connection to the farm today, aside from helping Little Brother with his grain marketing strategies, is through the written word. I write about farming, food production and agribusiness for a living, and I think I have the greatest job in the world. Even so, I was surprised Dodge would spend a record $4 million to more or less promote the American farmer.

Apparently, the ad was a hit. If you read the comments from my non-farm football-fan friends at ElevenWarriors.com (here and here), you can see why the Dodge ad was so brilliant. Here’s one example:

I have a ton of respect for farmers.  Spent my fair share of time working around them.  They are among the hardest working people I’ve ever met.

Or this one:

I loved this ad, especially the photography and Paul Harvey. Grew up in Bowling Green, where your dad was probably a professor or a farmer. Future Farmers of America was a big club at BGHS. Guys proudly wore their FFA jackets. Wood County Fair was a big deal for the 4-Hers. Farm kids went to OSU as Ag majors. And farm kids worked their butts off on the family farm. I am assuming that the same pretty much holds true today.

But my favorite comment of all was this gem:

Agriculture is often thought of within the industry as our nation’s most essential profession. We are, as a country, food self-sufficient, and are the most productive food-producing nation in the world. And yet farmers face unprecedented scrutiny. From animal rights activists to environmental extremists to the simple fact that more Americans have more questions about where their food comes from than ever before, farmers are under a magnifying glass, for better or for worse.

It was refreshing to see not only the recognition from Dodge, but also to see the overwhelmingly positive reaction to a spot that wasn’t clever, funny or overwrought. As an old radio guy and a farm boy at heart, I miss Paul Harvey, and I tip my hat to Dodge for tipping their hat to the American farmer.

And yet, I’m starting to see backlash from my friends and colleagues within agriculture. Here’s a dirty little secret: if you want to drive traffic today, say something controversial. As such, a couple of commentators looking to keep eyes on their own websites and Facebook pages quickly pointed out that Paul Harvey was beloved by farmers and animal rights activists alike. He was even *gasp* celebrated by The Humane Society of the United States!

Various folks within agriculture have complained that Dodge should have tasked a “real farmer” with narrating the spot, or that they should have avoided Paul Harvey because of some of his stances related to animal agriculture.

These folks, both my well-meaning friends and our own agricultural extremists alike, are missing the point entirely.

Paul Harvey is simply the voice to the ad. He is the most beloved personality in radio history, and for anyone older than 10 or 15 years of age, his voice is instantly recognizable. Most of us, in fact, have fond childhood memories of listening to Paul… In my case it was listening to him give the morning news while I was riding to school every morning on my Grandma’s school bus (yes, Grandma was my school bus driver).

What matters is that last night, during a record-setting television broadcast, tens of millions of Americans heard an iconic voice remind them of what it means to be a farmer, helping reconnect them to their own fond memories of our nation’s food producers.

What matters is that last night’s game scored a 48.1 rating and a 71 share in a select measurement of big cities, which would make it the most-watched television event in U.S. history. THE MOST WATCHED TV EVENT IN HISTORY – and farmers were celebrated in what some have suggested was the best advertisement of the night.

This is one of those times where you stop before you cut off your nose to spite your face, you take yes for an answer, and you stand up for what really matters.

Dodge has declared that 2013 is the Year of the Farmer, and I for one am going to say “Thank you very much” and help them raise $1 million for the National FFA Foundation. Feel free to criticize Paul Harvey; he is still one of my radio heroes, but no man is perfect. But while you’re simmering in your own self-righteousness, at least have the courtesy to thank Dodge for putting the biggest spotlight on the planet squarely on the farming men and women of this country.

I’ll admit, I’m a sucker for a capella music, especially when it’s clever…

A 10-member vocal group with its origins at Indiana University in the late ’90s, SNC performed their comedic version of the song in 1998, and when it hit YouTube 8 years later, it was a viral sensation.

In case you haven’t seen it, Merry Christmas

Here’s the original 1998 edition:

Here’s the group performing the hit that put them on the map, 10 years later:

And just for kicks, here’s an amazing a capella version of Toto’s hit Africa performed by Perpetuum Jazzile, a Slovenian choir (yes, I said a Slovenian choir):

Perpetuum Jazzile – Africa (live, HQ) from rokelvisar on Vimeo.

Happy Holidays!

Ohio Director of Agriculture David Daniels

Editor’s note: The following is a guest editorial written by Ohio’s Director of Agriculture David T. Daniels. A fellow native of Highland County, resides on a family farm that recently earned the distinction of being a “Century Farm,” meaning it has been held in his family’s stewardship for more than 100 years. Prior to being appointed to lead the Ohio Department of Agriculture in February, he served two years in the Ohio Senate following four consecutive terms in the Ohio House of Representatives.

As part of a 5^th generation century farm family, I can tell you with certainty that most agricultural producers understand that change is inevitable. As with all successful businesses, as times change, so must production practices in agriculture.

At the Ohio Department of Agriculture, we work with farmers every day. We know that Ohio’s farmers are concerned with keeping up with the times and responsibly providing us with an abundance of food, fiber, fuel, bioproducts – the things we need every day and the engine of Ohio’s economy and job creation. We also know that it is time to rethink the way we have been used to doing things to preserve the quality of our lakes and streams, and safeguard public health.

Balancing the ideals of a thriving economy and feeding a growing population, while preserving public health and environmental integrity, has long been a goal of agriculturalists and environmentalists alike. Although there are skeptics, we have proven these principles can effectively co-exist. In the 1970s, when Lake Erie problems were brought into focus, the state met a goal of reducing 11,000 metric tons of phosphorus from all sources. Agriculture did its part by reducing sediment loss and the loss of the phosphorus attached to it so that, by 1985, the state achieved its goal.

That historic hurdle has now evolved into a new problem that needs to be solved. New research shows that nutrients are leaving our fields in ways we did not know were possible before in the form of dissolved phosphorous. Reducing the amount of dissolved phosphorous that makes it out of our fields and into our waterways is our newest challenge.

There are a variety of factors, here in Ohio as well as in other states and Canada, contributing to algal blooms in our lakes, and dissolved phosphorous is one of the primary culprits. Because there are several non-agricultural sources of dissolved phosphorous entering Lake Erie, it is important to note that Ohio’s agricultural industry should not be singled out as the only source. Nonetheless, land application of commercial fertilizer and livestock manure is a contributing factor.

This is a complex problem and there are still many unanswered questions. What we do know is that how we are currently farming is contributing to the problem. The good news is that Ohio farmers understand the problem and want to be part of the solution. They are stewards of the land. They care about the environment. It is the foundation of their business and their survival.

At Governor Kasich’s direction earlier this year, I, along with Ohio Department of Natural Resources Director Jim Zehringer and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Director Scott Nally, announced the Ohio Clean Lakes Initiative. The Ohio Clean Lakes Initiative is dedicated to improving Ohio’s water quality, specifically in the Western Lake Erie Basin region, while maintaining the integrity of the region’s agricultural industry. It was established earlier this year based on recommendations from agricultural, environmental and academic representatives.

Under the Ohio Clean Lakes Initiative, the state will educate and encourage farmers across the state to adopt the 4R Nutrient Stewardship model, which promotes using the right fertilizer source, at the right rate, at the right time, in the right places. Good nutrient stewardship not only benefits the environment, it benefits the farmer by saving the money and time that could otherwise be invested in applying unnecessary or excessive fertilizer to the soil.

The state will also work with farmers through the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts to expand the use of on-the-ground practices to help control the displacement of agricultural nutrients. A total of 33,500 acres of farmland will incorporate the new nutrient management programs over the next 12 to 18 months. Target areas include the Maumee River Watershed, along with counties of Defiance, Henry, Putnam, Hancock and Wood.

We will partner with the agri-business industry to expand the frequency and type of soil testing being used and work with the legislature to develop nutrient management plans that can be developed and approved by the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts.

The initiative will also provide a means to collaborate with Ohio’s colleges and universities, research institutions and private businesses to create a monitoring network to implement and assess the effectiveness of management practices.

Change may be inevitable, but agriculture is well-versed in adapting to change.  With around 74,000 farming operations and some of the best soils in the nation, it is imperative that the agricultural productivity of Ohio is maintained. Food and agriculture adds $105 billion to the state’s economy and employs one in seven people with jobs. As harvest season wraps up this year and plans for the new growing season commence, the state is working with farmers to implement as many of these changes as possible into the new growing season.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack

Editor’s note: This column was written by The Honorable Tom Vilsack, who was named the 30th Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture by President Barack Obama, and confirmed by the United States Senate on Jan. 20, 2009. Prior to leading USDA, Vilsack was elected Iowa’s 40th governor, serving consecutive terms from 1998-2006. A native of Pittsburgh, Penn., he practiced law before entering elected service in Iowa.

Every day I am reminded of the many ways in which the work of rural America impacts all of us. Rural America provides us with a clean environment, opportunities to get outdoors, greater energy security, and a safe and abundant food supply that’s the envy of the world. From our smallest towns to our biggest cities, work ongoing today in rural America has a tremendously positive effect for the United States.

Perhaps most important, rural America is driving job growth across our nation.

Last year, the agriculture sector and its related industries directly provided more than 16 million American jobs, the highest number since 2008. Many of these jobs are in rural America – while other agriculture-related jobs, from food manufacturing to textile work, are supporting millions of families in our cities.

The productivity of our agriculture industry also allows America to remain food secure, while exporting more goods around the world and supporting jobs here at home. The latest agricultural trade forecast released this week continues an astonishing trend for American farm exports that began in 2009. Since that year, we’ve seen U.S. agricultural exports climb more than 50 percent in value – and agricultural exports continue to support more than a million jobs.

All told, one in 12 U.S. jobs today are supported by American agriculture.

Meanwhile, renewable energy continues to take hold across our nation. Today, renewable energy efforts support more than one million American jobs. More than 400,000 of these jobs are in the biofuels industry, which is based in rural America and holds great potential to create even more opportunity.

Outdoor recreation brought more than $145 billion in economic benefits to the U.S. last year and supported hundreds of thousands of jobs. Visitors to America’s National Forests alone support more than 200,000 jobs annually in nearby communities.

At USDA, we will also continue our record efforts to support rural communities and businesses in creating jobs. For example, since 2009, USDA has made nearly 60,000 loans and grants to help rural businesses grow. The economic benefits from these efforts have saved or created an estimated 300,000 jobs. Meanwhile, by helping nearly 600,000 American families buy or refinance a home since 2009, USDA has generated economic benefits that support an estimated 250,000 jobs. We are always working to do more.

Rural America does so much for all of us, every day. Our small towns and rural communities continue to drive America’s economy forward, supporting industries that are responsible for a high proportion of U.S. jobs. I know that in the months to come, we can continue supporting good jobs for Americans while further strengthening the rural economy.

One example of an anti-dog breeder graphic shared on Facebook.

In yet another example of an emotionally-charged solution completely missing the mark on the actual cause of an important problem, hating dog breeders has become the hottest social trend.

Let’s start with the legitimate problem: each year, somewhere between 6 and 8 million unwanted, stray or otherwise neglected animals are taken in by local animal shelters, and sadly, nearly half of them must be euthanized for lack of an appropriate home. As an animal lover in general and as a guy who lives with two amazing dogs, these shocking stats break my heart.

Since most of us can agree that euthanizing some 3.7 million companion animals each year is morally unacceptable, the question naturally becomes “what do we do about it.” To answer that question, of course, we have to understand the root causes of pet “overpopulation.” (For reference, unless otherwise cited, my stats are probably provided by the American Humane Association, though the more controversial animal rights group The Humane Society of the United States offers essentially the same sobering stats.)

For the purposes of our discussion, we’ll focus on dogs for two reasons: one, because I’m a dog guy; and two, because I don’t actually know a single cat breeder, nor do I know of anyone who has a pet cat – not a stray or barn-dweller, that is – that they’ve decided to breed recreationally. In other words, dog breeders (put another way, those who have dogs that get bred) are much more prevalent in my social strata.

The obvious answer to an overpopulation of dogs is that breeders breed too many dogs, right? And if so, then dog breeders are obviously the problem, and should be shunned by a responsible society.

Quoting Lee Corso: “Not so fast, pet lovers!” The above answer, though it apparently has become the rallying cry for the anti-puppy mill movement, misses the point on many levels.

Most issues of an imbalance in supply can be evaluated most completely by going back to basic economic principles… sometimes the most elegant solution is indeed the simplest. In this case, we have an imbalance in the supply/demand equation for dogs – too many dogs supplied, apparently, relative to the quantity demanded.

So where do these “extra” dogs come from? If you listen to the “I hate dog breeders” crowd, the oversupply problem is a simple factor of people wanting to buy dogs from breeders rather than simply adopting dogs from shelters.

“For every bred and sold puppy another one will suffer and die at the shelter,” the Facebook page of the breeder-hate crowd proclaims. “We have to stop breeding more and more puppies until all homeless dogs have found a home.”

Blogger Karen Friesecke takes apart the logic behind this sentiment in a fairly well-thought out post here. Her comments, in fact, got me thinking about the topic at all (oh, the wonders of Facebook – I have no idea which of my friends shared or posted Karen’s article, but were it not for social media I’m guessing I’d never have heard of Karen or read her work).

Citing a study published in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, the blogger points out that one of the biggest problems with eschewing “bred” dogs entirely is the very issue of where shelter dogs come from in the first place. Remember what I said earlier, that the “oversupply” issue goes back to basic economics, as you read this next part (edited for clarity):

The study determined that 3.9% of surrendered [dogs] came from a pet shop; 10.6% of surrendered animals came from a breeder; 2.9% of surrendered animals were received as a gift; 9.3% of surrendered animals were found by the owner as a stray; 6.0% of surrendered animals were offspring of another pet in possession of the owner; 22.5% of surrendered animals were originally acquired from another shelter; and, 30.8% of surrendered animals were acquired from a friend.

In other words, in a survey of a dozen animal shelters in six states across four different regions of the country, only 2.9% of dogs surrendered to animal shelters came from pet shops and only 10.6% came from breeders… The vast majority came from much more logical sources, if you think about it (again, edited for clarity):

These are the statistics that cause more concern: 6% of dogs surrendered were from offspring of another pet in possession of the relinquisher, otherwise know as I-didn’t-know-that-animals-can-have-babies-before-their-first-birthday-itis.

Some 30.8% of dogs surrendered were obtained from a friend, otherwise know as my-female-dog-got-knocked-up-by-the-male-dog-that-lives-next-door-and-can-you-take-a-puppy disease, but sometimes known as the I’m-moving/have-a new-baby/just-got-a-new-job-and-I-need-to-get-rid-of my-pet-can-you-take-it syndrome.

Another 22.5% of dogs were obtained from another shelter, also known as I-knew-this-pet-had-behavioral-problems-when-I-adopted-it-thought-I-could-handle-it-but now-I-can’t disorder.

Dogs most at risk for relinquishment were of mixed breed heritage, intact, young, owned for less than a year and purchased for less than $100.

Apparently it's my fault these dogs will die because I bought a dog from a breder instead of adopting from a shelter...

Now back to Econ 101: producers respond to incentives. If you think of puppies as livestock or widgets for a minute, it is easy to understand why some animal lovers get riled up about puppy mills and pet stores who sell cute little doggies to turn a profit. I’ve been to these pet stores – we often visit the puppies in these stores to give them some much-needed socialization… The last time we did so, I was stunned to see what I can only assume was an average- to poorly-bred Siberian Husky pup retailing for nearly $1,500.

The problem here, however, is not a question of supply, but rather of demand. Because the store in question obviously believes it can sell said pup at said price, there is, in theory, a demand out there for that pup. In other words, because some number of consumers has acquired a pup for a similar price, there is a demand that must be met.

Again, we seem to come back to the animal rights argument against pet shop puppies and the infamous puppy mill. People should just stop buying dogs from these outlets, and there will cease to be a demand for those pups, and the pet overpopulation problem will be miraculously solved (we’ll get back to more about how I feel about pet store puppies in a minute).

So what did the data tell us? Less than 14% of dogs surrendered come from dog breeders and pet stores! By even the high end of that estimate, magically wiping away those dogs from the marketplace, we still see nearly 7 million unwanted pets surrendered at shelters, and still see nearly 3 million shelter animals euthanized each year.

The far bigger problem, even bigger than Bob Barker’s rallying cry of everyone having their pets summarily spayed or neutered (a really good idea for a very high percentage of the companion animal population, I’ll submit), is the basic reality that more than 85% of dogs surrendered to shelters find themselves up for adoption through what can largely – and bluntly – be described as the basic irresponsibility of their owners.

Let me admit up front that I have been one of these irresponsible owners. When I first moved to rural Logan County after college, I wanted a dog, badly. The problem was that I had given very little thought to why I wanted a dog, and how a dog really fit my lifestyle. For one thing, and this is a mistake I’ll never make again, my ex and I had no interest in an “inside” dog. I was raised on the farm, and dogs lived outside, plain and simple. Further, the ex had a cat, and while it was a lovely creature, there was no question of kitty cohabitation with a canine.

So I did what all too many people do: I bought a puppy from the kid down the road. Yep, you guessed it: neighbor kid had a bitch that he probably got from somebody else’s neighbor, and knew a guy who had a “stud” dog and… well, magically he had puppies for sale one day. Oh and boy were they cute! Hard to say no.

Our Labrador Tucker was (and is) a wonderful dog, and she lives happily on the farm out in Logan County to this day. I miss her, because she really was a good dog, although I had very little to do with that. Looking back on it now, though, I was compounding one dog owner’s irresponsibility by providing an economic incentive to engage in bad behavior – by buying a puppy from someone who had ZERO clue what it means to be a “responsible breeder,” I was saying to him “Hey, it’s okay that you breed your bitch to whichever dog tickles your fancy, whenever you like, and idiots like me will gladly pay you $300 for the badly-bred offspring.”

Then I added to that irresponsibility by not getting my puppy spayed right away, and that magical occurrence of nature happened: the other neighbor’s intact male came a-callin’ and did his thing… And then we were the irresponsible types trying to place puppies in good homes. Our one saving grace, I think, is that we really did put the effort into placing those puppies in homes where they were well-cared for, and to a one I can tell you where they are today, and they’re all in good shape.

Sadly, you and I both know that’s the exception rather than the rule.

More than 8 years have passed since my first adult dog ownership folly, and because I’ve been there myself, I can completely understand why people do dumb things with dogs, and why so many dogs end up in shelters. Furthermore, it is intuitively obvious why the overwhelming majority of dogs in shelters aren’t “puppy mill” puppies or pet store dandies, but cast-offs from idiots like me or the neighbor kid who have no business in the world breeding doggies.

How much is that doggy in the window...?

Educating both buyers and “breeders” is going to take quite an effort. Now that we’ve identified the problems – economic incentives and irresponsible owners – I want you to meet Amy. My wife Miranda is a helluva dog trainer. She and our Norwegian Elkhound Dash have competed very respectably in AKC Obedience Trials across the country, and they’ve earned both his CDX (Companion Dog Excellent) and RAE (Rally Advanced Excellent) titles.

Dash is an amazing dog, and it is precisely because when Miranda adopted him 8 years ago (long before we met), she did everything I didn’t do when I was looking for a dog. She researched what breed fit her lifestyle, a process that she spent two years working through. Because she had a very specific set of needs, desires and circumstances, she read, she talked to breeders of many different breeds, she attended dog shows and above all she had a realistic expectation of what a dog meant to her life.

People most often overlook this last piece of the puzzle. One example is the holidays; for each of us, Columbus isn’t “home,” so we have to travel 2 hours in either direction to visit our families. What this means for Thanksgiving, for example, is that we either have to plan to take the dogs with us, including their crates, food, treats, toys, bedding, etc.; we have to board them; or, we have to be gone only as long as they can reasonably stay in the crate.

We never leave Dash, our 8-year-old, in the crate for longer than 10 hours; 8 hours is usually the max (because I work from home, he gets to spend most of his days in my office near my desk, which we both love). For Thanksgiving at my Dad’s, that means we can spend no more than 6 hours with the family, allowing for 2 hours of transit coming and going. This year that wouldn’t work, because a couple of weeks ago we adopted Roadie, who is now 12 weeks old. Roadie can’t stay in the crate more than a few hours at a time, so the dogs went with us to Thanksgiving (which was perfect, because it was a great chance for socializing Roadie with lots of new people, including kids, which are in short supply in our neighborhood).

This is a pretty basic example, but most people who don’t already have a dog simply don’t do a good enough job of taking the lifestyle changes inherent to dog companionship seriously.

Back to Amy. Because my wife did such a great job researching, learning, socializing and training Dash 8 years ago, we live with – in my opinion – the perfect dog. He is truly amazing. So when we decided we were ready to double-up our doggie family, we went through a similar process: we discussed at length if we wanted to stay within the breed or look at other breeds, were we sure we wanted a puppy at all, especially since we were considering having a child (which is due in February, btw), what breeders would we talk to about getting on a waiting list, etc.

Meet Roadie - an amazing puppy we adopted from an amazing breeder.

Ultimately we decided that the Norwegian Elkhound is the perfect dog for us, and AKC Breeder of Merit Amy was the perfect breeder. Miranda had gotten to know Amy through various online communities and email groups dedicated to the breed, and Amy’s success in breeding and showing some of the best representatives of the breed speaks for itself (she’s just been invited to show her amazing dog Sully at Westminster in early 2013 – WOW!).

Amy is an extremely brave soul – she speaks very openly and honestly about the misdeeds of extreme activists in the animal rights movement, and that obviously has risks. In spite of this, she speaks and writes from the heart because of her passion for her breed, for responsible breeding of dogs, and most importantly for helping would-be dog owners understand what it means to adopt a dog into one’s family, and the commitment involved.

This week she wrote about the very issue we’re discussing: where the “unwanted and neglected” puppies come from:

Earlier today, I was presented with a question about what to do about “marginal” breeders – those who breed without a thought nor care about the end result – the puppies.  These are not “puppy mills.”  These are the breeders with a bitch, or 2, or 3, that don’t do health testing (and sometimes don’t even know what that is), who don’t study pedigrees, who use “breeding pairs” (yikes) and produce litter after litter of puppies for whom they have no history, and who sometimes barely look like the breed.

…

Education is the key here and most breed clubs have a horrible track record!  Parent club members tend to hide behind our show facades and that is not a good thing.  IMO, every parent club member who has puppies SHOULD be advertising on the free puppy sites.  If we do not, then how do people know we exist?  We need to be outreaching more, to the general public, in “general” dog magazines like Dog Fancy – the magazines that the public is likely to pick up at the store.    The general public isn’t going to browse the dog show rags!  Every breed club, AND THE AKC, needs to develop a Breeder Outreach program. Develop an electronic package that could be sent to these marginal breeders – not as a baseball bat over the head, but as an educational tool.  What could it hurt?  They could read it and maybe learn, or delete it. I think we also need to be self-policing…and not looking the other way.

As she is about many, many things, my friend is exactly right. There are plenty of good, reputable breeders out there, and most people have no clue in the world how to find them. Because these breeders likely only have one, or maybe two litters each year, you’ll likely have to wait to get a puppy – Miranda and I waited almost 18 months, in fact, from the time we approached Amy with interest in adopting a puppy and the time we actually brought Roadie home. In today’s “I want it now!” society, how many people are willing to wait 18 months for a dog?

My experience working with and getting to know Amy has been fascinating, enlightening and encouraging. The process was very involved, and we’ve talked, emailed and Facebook chatted dozens upon dozens of times throughout. We knew exactly what we were getting when we welcomed one of her puppies into our family, and likewise she knew exactly what type of situation she was sending one of her pups into when it left her pack. If anything ever changes in our situation and we couldn’t continue caring for Roadie, I am contractually obligated to contact Amy and she’ll see that the dog gets the right home – our dog will never find its way to a shelter.

Shelter dogs, by the way, are great – I have no qualms about adopting a dog from a shelter at all. The challenge for shelters, of course, is the same challenge I’ve outlined relative to dog breeders – with a very low financial barrier to entry ($117 for a shelter dog versus $800+ from a reputable breeder in many situations), shelter dogs are a low-cost alternative for those looking for the family pet.

The Franklin County Animal Shelter in Columbus, Ohio is a great example of a really top-notch animal shelter.

Fortunately, I’ve been very, very impressed with the improvements made to many shelters in recent years, not only in terms of physical facilities but also in terms of the adoption process (the animal shelter in our county has gone through an amazing change in recent years). Shelters are doing a much better job of letting potential owners know as much as they can about their new dogs, and trying to ensure they’re placing dogs in good situations so they don’t end up with an adopted dog turning back up at the shelter a few months later.

To me, there are only two responsible places to get a dog: from a shelter, provided you do your due diligence and know fully what you’re getting into when you adopt; or from a reputable breeder like Amy. The most important thing when deciding to add a dog to your family is to know what you’re getting! READ, ASK QUESTIONS, and BE PATIENT. I can’t stress this enough: a dog is not a possession, it is a member of the family. You don’t adopt a child by going to the local shopping center and swiping your credit card; adopting a dog should be no less of a decision.

Three books I’d recommend for anyone considering adopting a doggie:

1. Animals Make Us Human, Temple Grandin
2. How To Be Your Dog’s Best Friend, The Monks of New Skete
3. The Art of Raising a Puppy, The Monks of New Skete

Each of these is wonderful in its own right, and the three in conjunction will help you develop a much better understanding of what it means to have a dog in your life.