Back in 2001, a little known writer from the New York Times Magazine walked on to a South Dakota ranch owned and operated by Troy and Stacy Hadrick and their families. The newly married fifth generation ranchers were told that a story was going to be written for the NY Times focusing on the life of a steer on their ranch - the writer wished to show the public what kind of effort is put in to a steak before it is eaten. Because the intent of the story was sold to them as a positive way to enlighten consumers about ranch activities, the enthusiastic couple agreed to work with the interested journalist for a season in order to tell the story of agriculture to a relatively large audience.
The writer's name happened to be Michael Pollan. And, rather than following through on his promise to write an informative article about modern beef production, Pollan ripped the Hadrick family and their operation to shreds in his article "Power Steer". According to BEEF Magazine (one of my favorites), Mike described the Hadrick operation as "crowded, filthy, and stinking, with open sewers, unpaved roads, and choking air." He went on to credit beef production as the cause of "antibiotic resistance, environmental degradation, heart disease, and E. coli poisoning."
Upon reading the article, Troy and Stacy were (quite understandably) brought to their knees. It seemed impossible that some sly goon could skew the passion for their multi-generational livelihood and their commitment to the ranch animals into a horrendous, negative article, but the evidence of such a tragedy lay right in front of their eyes. For some time, the Hadricks stayed quiet and under the radar as the Pollan's "Power Steer" article circulated throughout the media, gaining undeserved attention and becoming a reference point for health nuts, educators, students, and niche organic growers across the nation.
Fortunately for the Beef industry, Troy and Stacy decided that they were not going to allow the biased and inaccurate writings of some clown to snuff out their way of life. Today, when they are not working their ranch, the couple travels the nation spreading the truth about beef production. The Hadricks are some of the most influential agricultural advocates in our country today, managing an awesome website (www.advocatesforag.com) and teaching other farmers and ranchers how to spread the truth about production agriculture. They are a couple whom I would very much like to meet at some point in my life, and I regularly follow the Advocates for Ag blog as a way of bettering my own agricultural education skills. We (the industry) are lucky to have them.
I did not write this, however, simply to focus on the Hadrick family. This post was written to help reveal the real Michael Pollan.
After writing "The Omnivores Dilemma", Michael gained national attention as a great food visionary dedicated to solving America's health problems (which he blames entirely on our farmers and ranchers) and saving the environment by producing our food in neat little organic gardens spaced appropriately across the nation. College professors, students, hippies, niche farmers, and a multitude of others fell in line with Mr. Pollan, raising him to near celebrity status as a result of his teachings - apparently he was actually considered by President Obama to be a USDA secretary.
But what if Pollan isn't really such a visionary? If you cut all the fat out of his writings, what he really preaches is common sense: don't eat processed junk food, avoid gigantic servings of fatty foods, and eat a variety of stuff; the fresher the better. Not exactly rocket science. So why is he famous?
Michael Pollan is anything but a well informed visionary; he is simply a capitalist. Mike has discovered that by lying, cheating, deceiving and manipulating people, and creating radically inaccurate speeches by completely eliminating one side of an argument, and serving it all up in a warm fuzzy organic gardener blanket, he can capitalize on people's natural desire to stay healthy. He found a topic that everyone has an interest in - food - and infused his own blend of biased information to make people afraid of what is on their dinner table. Most Americans have never been on a working farm or ranch, so when Michael spews out a description of "open sewers and choking air" and ties the negative image to the food people purchase for their families, readers get uncomfortable and Mike's books start flying off the shelf.
I like to think that most of Pollan's readers - those open to reason and not committed to the same agenda that he is - would withdraw their support if it became common knowledge that Michael is nothing more than a snake in the grass, willing to crush and eliminate the lives of young farm and ranch families simply to gain recognition as a writer and enjoy the fortune and fame that comes with being a best selling author. He has little food production experience outside of his own garden, and his fame was built on corrupt information gathering and a steady stream of deception fed to his readers (they are looking to him for real information, but he is instead flooding their minds with "facts" designed to fuel his own agenda).
It is a shame that those working only for themselves seem to be the people who get all the attention. If Michael were truly a visionary he would be promoting modern agriculture and encouraging the public to work with real production farmers to make our food system even better and more productive than it already is. That, however, would take a good bit of media focus away from Michael, yet another reality he is not willing to face. Pitiful.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
One of the Sheep
Every now and then I find myself a little overwhelmed when it occurs to me that my "to do"' list is growing much faster than my "completed" one. As my mind sorts through the tasks ahead (while trying to simultaneously manage my day to day activities) a feeling of pressure often creeps up on me, creating a sense of urgency to do SOMETHING. Much to my dismay, when I reach the point of "gotta do something now!" my brain will just...stop. Shut off. Walk away from its task. Leaving me stranded without the ability to string together anything that resembles an intelligent sentence, let alone a complete thought.
During these bouts of brainlessness I often sift through various magazines and websites to find out what the latest consumer buying trend is, how the (beef) industry is working to accommodate those trends, what our pals at HSUS are up to, and what awesome things are happening on farms across our country.
As a result of some recent perusing (during, as you might guess, a mental void that has been upon me - sorry for the silence if you follow this blog with any regularity) I stumbled across an interesting article discussing America's fastest growing food segment. What would it be, you ask? Organic? Natural? LOCAL?? Nope, nope, and nope. Consumers, believe it or not, are flocking towards any and all food marked KOSHER. This simple label carries some clout these days because buyers (keep in mind that I am speaking NOT about the Jewish community, but the masses who recently started seeking Kosher based on a whim) have decided that brand-associated regulations and a religious blessing before shipping just might make for some good eating. More and more people are associating Kosher products with higher food quality and - pay attention here - humane animal treatment, two phrases that have become prominent when it comes to water cooler conversations.
And here is where we hit a little bit of a hiccup.
Not necessarily with the food quality aspect of the discussion (I am sure Kosher food is just fine), but with the perception that Kosher meat eaters are able to hold their head a little higher than everyone else because "my meat was treated better than yours."
Was it? How many of the recent Kosher converts really know what that label implies? Judging from the "humane treatment" perception, not too many. Anyone with the gumption to RESEARCH the latest trend before falling in line with it would learn that, according to Kosher law, an animal must be conscious when it is slaughtered. Know what that means? At Kosher processing plants, you can forget about stunning the animal before bleeding the carcass...instead, an animal is held in place while an individual cuts its throat, killing the animal by bleeding it to death. Such establishments actually have USDA exemptions that permit them to handle livestock in this way, legally avoiding national humane treatment regulations.
I need to mention here again that I am not in any way trying to turn anyone against the Jewish community or their dietary standards. They treat their food source with respect and in a manner that aligns with specific religious beliefs that I do not fully understand and have no right (or desire) to criticize.
What I am trying to point out by writing this is the absolute disregard for information exhibited by most consumers. Unlike a devout Jewish family who fully understands and appreciates the manner in which Kosher food is produced, this 'new wave' of non-religious Kosher followers is blindly careening into the food segment based on a PERCEPTION of 'more humane treatment.' In reality, there is a stark and shocking difference between established animal slaughter and the Jewish tradition...a difference that would absolutely horrify the average suburbanite who is happily plowing through a Kosher rib roast. But alas, most remain blissfully unaware of this fact, overlooking real information in search of the newest, coolest food term to throw out in front of their friends. "What? You eat ORGANIC? Pfff, that is so yesterday...I feed MY kids all Kosher. It is better for us and the animals!" Yep.
This unwaveringly-ignorant commitment to trendy not-really-fact based perceptions is a current major obstacle for the Beef industry. We are PERCEIVED to produce a product that makes people fat, consumers automatically ASSUME that meat is the cause of numerous diseases, and the masses ACCEPT the ridiculous rumors implying that food production creates untold suffering for millions of animals while simultaneously devastating the environment. Yeah, it sounds pretty darn cool when someone loudly announces that they "don't eat meat because I am trying to get healthy," but is it possible that they are getting it wrong? I mean, how many "veggies" have been on a farm to see what we really do? How many of them actually understand the nutritional benefits of various meats before they publicly condone such a food item? How many people actually know a modern farmer and understand our efficient, safe, sustainable food production system, and how many follow something similar to the Kosher mindset, accepting a false "reality" based on the blind perception of their friends? My guess is zero for the former, 100% for the latter.
So think about this when you hear someone spouting negative garbage about animal protein. Does that person really know anything, or is he just a single sheep wildly following the flock over a cliff? Don't buy into a perception of something simply because the idea is widely accepted - like our Kosher friends, you might be surprised by the reality.
During these bouts of brainlessness I often sift through various magazines and websites to find out what the latest consumer buying trend is, how the (beef) industry is working to accommodate those trends, what our pals at HSUS are up to, and what awesome things are happening on farms across our country.
As a result of some recent perusing (during, as you might guess, a mental void that has been upon me - sorry for the silence if you follow this blog with any regularity) I stumbled across an interesting article discussing America's fastest growing food segment. What would it be, you ask? Organic? Natural? LOCAL?? Nope, nope, and nope. Consumers, believe it or not, are flocking towards any and all food marked KOSHER. This simple label carries some clout these days because buyers (keep in mind that I am speaking NOT about the Jewish community, but the masses who recently started seeking Kosher based on a whim) have decided that brand-associated regulations and a religious blessing before shipping just might make for some good eating. More and more people are associating Kosher products with higher food quality and - pay attention here - humane animal treatment, two phrases that have become prominent when it comes to water cooler conversations.
And here is where we hit a little bit of a hiccup.
Not necessarily with the food quality aspect of the discussion (I am sure Kosher food is just fine), but with the perception that Kosher meat eaters are able to hold their head a little higher than everyone else because "my meat was treated better than yours."
Was it? How many of the recent Kosher converts really know what that label implies? Judging from the "humane treatment" perception, not too many. Anyone with the gumption to RESEARCH the latest trend before falling in line with it would learn that, according to Kosher law, an animal must be conscious when it is slaughtered. Know what that means? At Kosher processing plants, you can forget about stunning the animal before bleeding the carcass...instead, an animal is held in place while an individual cuts its throat, killing the animal by bleeding it to death. Such establishments actually have USDA exemptions that permit them to handle livestock in this way, legally avoiding national humane treatment regulations.
I need to mention here again that I am not in any way trying to turn anyone against the Jewish community or their dietary standards. They treat their food source with respect and in a manner that aligns with specific religious beliefs that I do not fully understand and have no right (or desire) to criticize.
What I am trying to point out by writing this is the absolute disregard for information exhibited by most consumers. Unlike a devout Jewish family who fully understands and appreciates the manner in which Kosher food is produced, this 'new wave' of non-religious Kosher followers is blindly careening into the food segment based on a PERCEPTION of 'more humane treatment.' In reality, there is a stark and shocking difference between established animal slaughter and the Jewish tradition...a difference that would absolutely horrify the average suburbanite who is happily plowing through a Kosher rib roast. But alas, most remain blissfully unaware of this fact, overlooking real information in search of the newest, coolest food term to throw out in front of their friends. "What? You eat ORGANIC? Pfff, that is so yesterday...I feed MY kids all Kosher. It is better for us and the animals!" Yep.
This unwaveringly-ignorant commitment to trendy not-really-fact based perceptions is a current major obstacle for the Beef industry. We are PERCEIVED to produce a product that makes people fat, consumers automatically ASSUME that meat is the cause of numerous diseases, and the masses ACCEPT the ridiculous rumors implying that food production creates untold suffering for millions of animals while simultaneously devastating the environment. Yeah, it sounds pretty darn cool when someone loudly announces that they "don't eat meat because I am trying to get healthy," but is it possible that they are getting it wrong? I mean, how many "veggies" have been on a farm to see what we really do? How many of them actually understand the nutritional benefits of various meats before they publicly condone such a food item? How many people actually know a modern farmer and understand our efficient, safe, sustainable food production system, and how many follow something similar to the Kosher mindset, accepting a false "reality" based on the blind perception of their friends? My guess is zero for the former, 100% for the latter.
So think about this when you hear someone spouting negative garbage about animal protein. Does that person really know anything, or is he just a single sheep wildly following the flock over a cliff? Don't buy into a perception of something simply because the idea is widely accepted - like our Kosher friends, you might be surprised by the reality.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Bad Eggs
I have not tried to hide my distaste for anti-agriculture groups that spew negative farm propaganda to the masses. Their skewed efforts have convinced Americans to live in fear of their food and have forced inaccurate fabricated terms such as "factory farming" into daily conversations around the country. Worse still, the campaign has tainted the image of the hundreds of thousands of farm families across the US who are getting it right and are committed to producing a bountiful supply of the highest quality product for their fellow countrymen while creating the best possible situation for their land and animals. The negative media image that surrounds our agricultural system - the best one in the WORLD - saddens and angers me each time I hear inaccurate information casually tossed around throughout our daily lives.
That being said, I am told on a regular basis to find the good in everything that happens, no matter how horrendous the situation may seem. Finding something good about the attack on our production farmers and our food supply seemed completely ridiculous to me until just recently during a conversation about another topic entirely. A circumstance was mentioned up that parallels the current farm situation, and at that moment I found the good.
As I have mentioned in previous posts, American farmers have for decades been content to hang in the background of society, quietly going about the 365 day-per-year task of producing food for a hungry 310 million mouths (not to mention those who benefit outside this country). Unfortunately, while the industry advanced in the shadows of a rapidly changing nation, a small number of bad eggs (producers who misuse the land, mistreat animals, and ignore food quality and safety) were hitching a free ride in the shadows of the industry. Because agriculture was overlooked by so much of the population, few people took time to address the bad egg situation, allowing them to grow and develop unchecked. After years of their under-the-rug atrocities, these producers can be found with land and animal violations in numerous states - many bad eggs simply move into an area, destroy it, and leave once violations and legal issues make relocation necessary.
You do not need to be told by me that this behavior is irresponsible, disrespectful, and wholly unacceptable. Their lack of respect for agriculture has taken our honest, noble industry and muddied its image in the eyes of the public, effectively masking the awesome sustainability (yes, you read that correctly) and efficiency of modern agriculture and making the industry a whipping boy for health experts, "foodies", animal rights activists, and seemingly every other segment of society. Amongst all this tragedy, however, is the fragment of light I so recently discovered: so much attention is actually eliminating the irresponsible producers. They cannot survive under such strong scrutiny...legitimate farm organizations refuse to support them, consumers despise them, and everywhere they turn people are noticing and rejecting their improper management. Perhaps the attention I have spoken out so strongly against is actually doing something right. Maybe, provided a willing and open mind of the public and a little much needed industry direction, we can fight through the upheaval and come out an even better food production system because of it.
Similar to nearly every public issue, a lot has to change in order to make this happen. American consumers need to stop associating poor management practices, low food quality, environmental degradation, etc, with production agriculture. Such a misguided belief as that lumps the good guys in with the bad guys - each time they speak out against large farms concerned people are opposing both the unfortunate negative situations AND (unknowingly) the majority of producers who are doing a good job. If we manage to separate the false connection between horrific (but isolated) cases of poor farm management and productive (but well maintained) large farms, we will surely have a superior domestic food supply rather than a questionable imported one.
That being said, I am told on a regular basis to find the good in everything that happens, no matter how horrendous the situation may seem. Finding something good about the attack on our production farmers and our food supply seemed completely ridiculous to me until just recently during a conversation about another topic entirely. A circumstance was mentioned up that parallels the current farm situation, and at that moment I found the good.
As I have mentioned in previous posts, American farmers have for decades been content to hang in the background of society, quietly going about the 365 day-per-year task of producing food for a hungry 310 million mouths (not to mention those who benefit outside this country). Unfortunately, while the industry advanced in the shadows of a rapidly changing nation, a small number of bad eggs (producers who misuse the land, mistreat animals, and ignore food quality and safety) were hitching a free ride in the shadows of the industry. Because agriculture was overlooked by so much of the population, few people took time to address the bad egg situation, allowing them to grow and develop unchecked. After years of their under-the-rug atrocities, these producers can be found with land and animal violations in numerous states - many bad eggs simply move into an area, destroy it, and leave once violations and legal issues make relocation necessary.
You do not need to be told by me that this behavior is irresponsible, disrespectful, and wholly unacceptable. Their lack of respect for agriculture has taken our honest, noble industry and muddied its image in the eyes of the public, effectively masking the awesome sustainability (yes, you read that correctly) and efficiency of modern agriculture and making the industry a whipping boy for health experts, "foodies", animal rights activists, and seemingly every other segment of society. Amongst all this tragedy, however, is the fragment of light I so recently discovered: so much attention is actually eliminating the irresponsible producers. They cannot survive under such strong scrutiny...legitimate farm organizations refuse to support them, consumers despise them, and everywhere they turn people are noticing and rejecting their improper management. Perhaps the attention I have spoken out so strongly against is actually doing something right. Maybe, provided a willing and open mind of the public and a little much needed industry direction, we can fight through the upheaval and come out an even better food production system because of it.
Similar to nearly every public issue, a lot has to change in order to make this happen. American consumers need to stop associating poor management practices, low food quality, environmental degradation, etc, with production agriculture. Such a misguided belief as that lumps the good guys in with the bad guys - each time they speak out against large farms concerned people are opposing both the unfortunate negative situations AND (unknowingly) the majority of producers who are doing a good job. If we manage to separate the false connection between horrific (but isolated) cases of poor farm management and productive (but well maintained) large farms, we will surely have a superior domestic food supply rather than a questionable imported one.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Pioneer Woman
Last week I talked about the need to take the shock value out of animal protein and, on the same note, animal agriculture. One option to help create a sense of comfort for the general public when it comes to meat animals is to push through our boundaries and make farm life mainstream; share the love of our lifestyle, commitment to our animals, and - this is a big one - reveal that we are normal people who are devoted to our families and actually have hobbies and social lives off the farm. In general, show everyone the "coolness" of our jobs in order to bring farm life into focus for those who have never experienced it.
The problem with this plan is realized when one starts to ponder the logistics of convincing a very reserved and very small part of the population (farmers/ranchers) to interact with a very outgoing and very large population demographic (everyone else)...and getting the latter to listen. People in agriculture are getting much better at using the internet to spread the real farm story, but even the breadth of the web is not enough to fully change the farm image. What is? I think the answer is yet to be fully realized, but I recently discovered a woman whose work, whether she intends it to be or not, is making major leaps toward that goal - making farm life mainstream.
Her name is Ree Drummond, but she calls herself The Pioneer Woman. She grew up as a typical city girl from a well-to-do family, dreaming of (and living) a big life in a big city enjoying manicures, pedicures and all of the other -cures, nightly take-out food and a trendy vegetarian lifestyle. According to her writing, she was totally unaware of any type of agriculture and did not care to ever learn anything about farming (this is how I assume most Americans feel about the topic) until she unexpectedly met and fell in love with a cowboy. To make a long story short, her city life and city plans were completely derailed (in a good way) by the relationship, and she found herself married and living in the middle of nowhere on a very large working cattle ranch surrounded by the steady day to day activities of farm life.
Ree did not immediately fit in, but, fortunately for all of us, she decided to approach the awkward situation with a positive outlook. She started and continues to maintain a very popular blog that reveals her very humorous integration onto the ranch including a multitude of daily pictures, recipes, and other entertaining bits of information. A cookbook, simply titled "The Pioneer Woman Cooks" is the latest of her efforts that is gaining widespread attention from both farm and non-farm people (I plan to own a copy soon). One can safely say that she is becoming a popular figure across the nation.
The reason I am excited about her writings is because she is able to present information in a way that is appealing to everyone: her style is outgoing, her recipes are delicious, and she is FUNNY. Read her blog - www.thepioneerwoman.com - to see what she is up to, and check out her cookbook (it includes amusing stories, pictures, descriptions, and very clear step-by-step instructions). Ree presents the reality of ranching in an enthusiastic, love-filled manner that has the ability to make anyone want to quit their job and work cattle. She easily overcomes the "ho-hum" perception of farming, and her descriptions of various everyday tasks present the information in an honest manner that is a stark contrast to most ag-targeted media. Because her work is progressive and fun, it will find its way into the hands of people who would ordinarily avoid anything farm related, creating a positive first glimpse of agriculture for those individuals.
It is people like Ree that we need to launch agriculture into modern society. Her universally appealing style and wildly enthusiastic descriptions of agriculture help to shape the image of our industry among the masses, peeling away the undeserved "dumb farmer" stereotype and replacing it with reality: farmers are tough, farmers work hard, farmers are intelligent, and farmers are awesome. Way to go, Ree.
The problem with this plan is realized when one starts to ponder the logistics of convincing a very reserved and very small part of the population (farmers/ranchers) to interact with a very outgoing and very large population demographic (everyone else)...and getting the latter to listen. People in agriculture are getting much better at using the internet to spread the real farm story, but even the breadth of the web is not enough to fully change the farm image. What is? I think the answer is yet to be fully realized, but I recently discovered a woman whose work, whether she intends it to be or not, is making major leaps toward that goal - making farm life mainstream.
Her name is Ree Drummond, but she calls herself The Pioneer Woman. She grew up as a typical city girl from a well-to-do family, dreaming of (and living) a big life in a big city enjoying manicures, pedicures and all of the other -cures, nightly take-out food and a trendy vegetarian lifestyle. According to her writing, she was totally unaware of any type of agriculture and did not care to ever learn anything about farming (this is how I assume most Americans feel about the topic) until she unexpectedly met and fell in love with a cowboy. To make a long story short, her city life and city plans were completely derailed (in a good way) by the relationship, and she found herself married and living in the middle of nowhere on a very large working cattle ranch surrounded by the steady day to day activities of farm life.
Ree did not immediately fit in, but, fortunately for all of us, she decided to approach the awkward situation with a positive outlook. She started and continues to maintain a very popular blog that reveals her very humorous integration onto the ranch including a multitude of daily pictures, recipes, and other entertaining bits of information. A cookbook, simply titled "The Pioneer Woman Cooks" is the latest of her efforts that is gaining widespread attention from both farm and non-farm people (I plan to own a copy soon). One can safely say that she is becoming a popular figure across the nation.
The reason I am excited about her writings is because she is able to present information in a way that is appealing to everyone: her style is outgoing, her recipes are delicious, and she is FUNNY. Read her blog - www.thepioneerwoman.com - to see what she is up to, and check out her cookbook (it includes amusing stories, pictures, descriptions, and very clear step-by-step instructions). Ree presents the reality of ranching in an enthusiastic, love-filled manner that has the ability to make anyone want to quit their job and work cattle. She easily overcomes the "ho-hum" perception of farming, and her descriptions of various everyday tasks present the information in an honest manner that is a stark contrast to most ag-targeted media. Because her work is progressive and fun, it will find its way into the hands of people who would ordinarily avoid anything farm related, creating a positive first glimpse of agriculture for those individuals.
It is people like Ree that we need to launch agriculture into modern society. Her universally appealing style and wildly enthusiastic descriptions of agriculture help to shape the image of our industry among the masses, peeling away the undeserved "dumb farmer" stereotype and replacing it with reality: farmers are tough, farmers work hard, farmers are intelligent, and farmers are awesome. Way to go, Ree.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Adult Content
I FINALLY had the chance to sit down and watch the HBO special about Temple Grandin, a world famous animal handling expert renowned for her research and commitment that rapidly changed the face of the US livestock industry. Her story is inspirational and uplifting, her work is honest and beneficial, her tactics are direct and effective, and her effect on the beef industry is all-encompassing and overwhelmingly positive. It was, without a doubt, one of the greatest movies I have seen featuring one of the greatest people of our time; find it and watch it if you have not already.
As much as a liked the movie, there was an aspect of the HBO special that caught my attention and stuck with me. Oddly enough it has nothing to do with Temple or the portrayal of her life, but with a several second blurb added by the television station before the opening credits start. Those watching the film sit through a several second long warning that states 'This movie contains adult content. Viewer discretion advised.' At first glance the statement seems pretty legitimate; this is, after all, the story of a young autistic woman's life in the 60s...there could be a situation that is somewhat uncomfortable but must be explained as a key piece to the whole story. Alas, that was not the case.
The warning was added because of a scene taking place in a slaughterhouse. Viewers watch a not-so-detailed portrayal of a beef animal being herded into the "knock box", dispatched, and hung on the overhead rail that moves carcasses to be fabricated. No blood, no guts, no gory details, just a brief look at the process for those who have never been behind the scenes.
Now, I understand that the harvest floor of a slaughterhouse is not the most pleasant place in the world, but I have seen fewer warnings on movies showing senseless torture and murder of PEOPLE (yes, they are fictional, but the idea of killing humans for mass entertainment is still there). Our society has reached a point where we are actually offended by the thought of killing animals for food...people, in truth, like to pretend the chunks of meat they are rooting through at the grocery store came from a neat little plastic container. Try to discuss the rest of the process with them and you usually get the hands up, head turned away reply "oh, no, no, no, I don't want to talk about that!" Why? I am not saying you should suddenly be scrambling to tour a packing plant (wouldn't hurt if you did, though...) or that kill floors should become the next major vacation destination, but understand and appreciate the full picture for crying out loud. The shock value needs to be taken out of animal protein, and to do that we need to take the facts straight to consumers: YES, an animal was killed to provide you with this nourishment - NO, the process is not wrong or cruel or horrifying or scary or unnatural. No more beating around the bush when it comes to the animal harvest discussion, just a brief explanation of the facts, cut and dried.
I am a firm believer that basic animal handling AND processing techniques should be taught in schools to students at an early age...complete details can be left out, obviously, but students should be familiar with the fact that meat (and about a million other everyday products) comes from an animal, and that is okay. Expose them to it early on, reinforce the idea throughout their schooling, and we will eventually have a population that does not answer "the grocery store" when asked where their food comes from. What a glorious thought.
As much as a liked the movie, there was an aspect of the HBO special that caught my attention and stuck with me. Oddly enough it has nothing to do with Temple or the portrayal of her life, but with a several second blurb added by the television station before the opening credits start. Those watching the film sit through a several second long warning that states 'This movie contains adult content. Viewer discretion advised.' At first glance the statement seems pretty legitimate; this is, after all, the story of a young autistic woman's life in the 60s...there could be a situation that is somewhat uncomfortable but must be explained as a key piece to the whole story. Alas, that was not the case.
The warning was added because of a scene taking place in a slaughterhouse. Viewers watch a not-so-detailed portrayal of a beef animal being herded into the "knock box", dispatched, and hung on the overhead rail that moves carcasses to be fabricated. No blood, no guts, no gory details, just a brief look at the process for those who have never been behind the scenes.
Now, I understand that the harvest floor of a slaughterhouse is not the most pleasant place in the world, but I have seen fewer warnings on movies showing senseless torture and murder of PEOPLE (yes, they are fictional, but the idea of killing humans for mass entertainment is still there). Our society has reached a point where we are actually offended by the thought of killing animals for food...people, in truth, like to pretend the chunks of meat they are rooting through at the grocery store came from a neat little plastic container. Try to discuss the rest of the process with them and you usually get the hands up, head turned away reply "oh, no, no, no, I don't want to talk about that!" Why? I am not saying you should suddenly be scrambling to tour a packing plant (wouldn't hurt if you did, though...) or that kill floors should become the next major vacation destination, but understand and appreciate the full picture for crying out loud. The shock value needs to be taken out of animal protein, and to do that we need to take the facts straight to consumers: YES, an animal was killed to provide you with this nourishment - NO, the process is not wrong or cruel or horrifying or scary or unnatural. No more beating around the bush when it comes to the animal harvest discussion, just a brief explanation of the facts, cut and dried.
I am a firm believer that basic animal handling AND processing techniques should be taught in schools to students at an early age...complete details can be left out, obviously, but students should be familiar with the fact that meat (and about a million other everyday products) comes from an animal, and that is okay. Expose them to it early on, reinforce the idea throughout their schooling, and we will eventually have a population that does not answer "the grocery store" when asked where their food comes from. What a glorious thought.
Marketing Madness
Last month I found myself flipping through the pages of a "farm" magazine (focusing primarily on family gardening, antiques, and the good old days) as a means of entertainment during a long car ride. It became clear to me that the targeted audience of the monthly writing is an older generation of folks than myself, but I stuck with it and eventually worked my way to the "letters to the editor" section where I found a collection of brief notes from readers telling fond stories from a past life on the farm. Out of the assortment of letters only one stuck in my mind because the topic, unbeknownst to the writer, focused on a marketing trend that is once again relevant today: raw milk.
The raw milk craze, to provide a little background for those who have managed to avoid it, is headlined by a group of people who have decided that the modern act of pasteurization is destroying the quality of our food and, as a result, our health. They suggest quitting the use of grocery store milk and opting for "a more natural, healthier option" when it comes to your cold cereal essentials...milk straight out of the cow to your refrigerator.
The write up I found told a story of a brand new small dairy (the milk bottling and distribution center..not to be confused with the farm and the cows) that was in existence when pasteurization was just becoming mainstream - the late '20s or early '30s. There was a segment of the population making a heated stand against the new pasteurization technology, but the owner of this particular dairy was a believer in the process and opened his business offering only pasteurized milk. To his dismay, he soon discovered that nearly half of the families on his route turned down his product when they realized raw milk was not an option on the order list (it was common at the time for milk bottling plants to offer both a line of raw and a line of pasteurized milk). Pondering his dilemma, the owner came up with a unique solution: print "Raw Milk" bottle caps, add a raw option to the order list, but continue producing only pasteurized milk. Halfway through the day, workers would simply switch the lids from "Pasteurized" to "Raw" on the bottling line, placing the same milk into bottles with both labels. As the mislabeled faux-raw milk made it into circulation, word got out in the community that "raw" milk from this specific dairy did not make ANY of the customers sick...his business quickly doubled and then tripled as raw milk fanatics lined up to get their hands on his non-threatening product (if you read between the lines here it becomes evident that non-pasteurized milk related illnesses were commonplace). According to the article, the owner never told his secret and his business boomed for many years.
I am passing this story along because it is a very good, non-biased look at consumer buying decisions. People, obviously, want the best quality, most nutritious product available for their families. Although they probably do not realize it, customers demanding raw milk (at the time of the story and those today) are not actually seeking a raw product, they simply desire a healthy, high quality product - characteristics that are more often associated with the word 'raw'. Therefore, anything without the word is viewed as inferior and of lower quality even though the perception is not necessarily true. Place a modern product into the hands of concerned consumers, advertise it with the words they are looking for, and they will continue to purchase it despite the fact that it is something they claim to oppose. Why? Because it is, in fact, a healthy, high quality product and consuming it results in a good eating experience. The same goes for trends like 'organic', 'free range', and 'grass fed'...people purchasing those options are doing so because they want a good product that was raised or grown correctly, and marketing tells them a product without those credentials was not.
There is currently a lot of flak wrongfully fired towards conventionally produced food, but eventually the aforementioned marketing terms will become overused and stale (I see this happening to some extent already), falling into the background as oversaturation weakens their attention grabbing effect. As the trend burns out, it (and the conventional food opponent) will be replaced by more of a middle ground: really good food, plain and simple. No presumptuous thoughts as a result of marketing associations, no health improving claims, no trends...just awesome food, production or niche, organic or conventional, raised out back or a thousand miles away. This will require minor adjustments for both those producing the food and those eating it: the industry is always working to meet the demands of consumers, and if the consumers want a little better look into food production, those producing it better make a window; on the flip side, eaters will have to break free from the current term-oriented buying impulse and open their minds to everything available...buy a product for its true quality that you can see and smell and touch and taste, not because you recognize the sticker on the package.
The raw milk craze, to provide a little background for those who have managed to avoid it, is headlined by a group of people who have decided that the modern act of pasteurization is destroying the quality of our food and, as a result, our health. They suggest quitting the use of grocery store milk and opting for "a more natural, healthier option" when it comes to your cold cereal essentials...milk straight out of the cow to your refrigerator.
The write up I found told a story of a brand new small dairy (the milk bottling and distribution center..not to be confused with the farm and the cows) that was in existence when pasteurization was just becoming mainstream - the late '20s or early '30s. There was a segment of the population making a heated stand against the new pasteurization technology, but the owner of this particular dairy was a believer in the process and opened his business offering only pasteurized milk. To his dismay, he soon discovered that nearly half of the families on his route turned down his product when they realized raw milk was not an option on the order list (it was common at the time for milk bottling plants to offer both a line of raw and a line of pasteurized milk). Pondering his dilemma, the owner came up with a unique solution: print "Raw Milk" bottle caps, add a raw option to the order list, but continue producing only pasteurized milk. Halfway through the day, workers would simply switch the lids from "Pasteurized" to "Raw" on the bottling line, placing the same milk into bottles with both labels. As the mislabeled faux-raw milk made it into circulation, word got out in the community that "raw" milk from this specific dairy did not make ANY of the customers sick...his business quickly doubled and then tripled as raw milk fanatics lined up to get their hands on his non-threatening product (if you read between the lines here it becomes evident that non-pasteurized milk related illnesses were commonplace). According to the article, the owner never told his secret and his business boomed for many years.
I am passing this story along because it is a very good, non-biased look at consumer buying decisions. People, obviously, want the best quality, most nutritious product available for their families. Although they probably do not realize it, customers demanding raw milk (at the time of the story and those today) are not actually seeking a raw product, they simply desire a healthy, high quality product - characteristics that are more often associated with the word 'raw'. Therefore, anything without the word is viewed as inferior and of lower quality even though the perception is not necessarily true. Place a modern product into the hands of concerned consumers, advertise it with the words they are looking for, and they will continue to purchase it despite the fact that it is something they claim to oppose. Why? Because it is, in fact, a healthy, high quality product and consuming it results in a good eating experience. The same goes for trends like 'organic', 'free range', and 'grass fed'...people purchasing those options are doing so because they want a good product that was raised or grown correctly, and marketing tells them a product without those credentials was not.
There is currently a lot of flak wrongfully fired towards conventionally produced food, but eventually the aforementioned marketing terms will become overused and stale (I see this happening to some extent already), falling into the background as oversaturation weakens their attention grabbing effect. As the trend burns out, it (and the conventional food opponent) will be replaced by more of a middle ground: really good food, plain and simple. No presumptuous thoughts as a result of marketing associations, no health improving claims, no trends...just awesome food, production or niche, organic or conventional, raised out back or a thousand miles away. This will require minor adjustments for both those producing the food and those eating it: the industry is always working to meet the demands of consumers, and if the consumers want a little better look into food production, those producing it better make a window; on the flip side, eaters will have to break free from the current term-oriented buying impulse and open their minds to everything available...buy a product for its true quality that you can see and smell and touch and taste, not because you recognize the sticker on the package.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Written Word to Spoken.
This morning I will be representing the beef industry and speaking to the Pennsylvania legislators about conditions regarding beef production. I am excited to have the opportunity to present my views of market trends, activist opposition (yes, I managed to work the HSUS into my speech), and regulation concerns, among others, to folks at various levels within our state government. Today will be my first major public speaking event, so I am certain the information I provide will be accompanied by tongue-twisters, awkward pauses, and an ever-present cold sweat...nonetheless, I will push through it with the confidence that my facts are relevant and my message is good. Following is a written copy of my speech, exactly as our state legislators will hear it in a few hours. Enjoy (it is a bit lengthy, so settle in).
-
Good morning everyone! My name is John-Scott Port. I am a sixth generation beef farmer from Clarion, a recent graduate of Penn State, and today’s speaking representative for Northwestern Pennsylvania’s beef industry. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss how we can work together and continue to provide our customers and your constituents with quality beef from a thriving agricultural industry.
As you may or may not know, farmers are accustomed to challenges ranging anywhere from weather to commodity prices. The nature of our work makes it necessary to identify dilemmas and work out possible solutions as quickly as possible. The continuing success of our industry proves that cattlemen are able to draw on years of experience and handed-down knowledge from generations past to meet and overcome a vast majority of these challenges. Sometimes, however, it is helpful to have a partner with a different background, a different point of view, and a different area of expertise to listen and help find a clear path through seemingly overwhelming concerns.
That is why we are so happy to have you here with us today. You provide the expertise that that we do not possess and the ability to influence trends threatening our livelihood that we would otherwise be powerless against. We need your help to deflect unwarranted overregulation so we are able to focus on the issues we can directly control.
This morning I will discuss a number of pressing issues including competitive market regulations, food safety standards, animal rights organizations, and agricultural research funding. Part of the discussion will include suggestions for dealing with these issues. It is my hope that you make note of my offered solutions and incorporate them into your political lives.
We will start by discussing packer-stockyard concentration. As giants in the industry push forward and continue to grow, both the livestock herd and packing plants across the state (and nation) continue to consolidate into fewer and fewer hands. The concentration creates an unfavorable situation for livestock sales. Because nearly every packing plant is owned by a single company, there is no bidding competition at the sale barn and cattle change ownership after one bid. This one-bid sale structure results in poor cattle prices for the producers, forcing them either out of business or into a limiting contract farm operation under terms set by the industry giant.
Everyone here wants to help keep the independent beef producer competitive, not captive during this time of consolidation. In order to do this, you must be aware of, support, and enforce the antitrust laws that are in place. Current packer-stockyard regulations have proven to keep the beef industry viable for decades; altering the system could prove to be devastating for producers in this area. Please keep an eye out for legislative maneuvers working to eliminate the laws in place, and voice a negative opinion of such negotiations based on the previously mentioned reasons. Such measures will promote the growth of Pennsylvania’s beef industry and, subsequently, our state economy as job opportunities are retained and expanded across the commonwealth.
As I transition to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point regulations (HACCP) pertaining to food safety, I should mention that a growing number of producers – including my family and many others in this area – have turned to niche marketing their beef directly to the consumer as a means of avoiding industry concentration. This tactic is becoming increasingly popular as consumer buying trends shift towards a more local food source, but the business plan is dependent upon the availability of an up-to-date, USDA inspected, sanitary facility in which to harvest our animals.
Hirsch’s Meats, a family owned multi-generational meat packing plant in Kossuth, is the only facility in this area that maintains USDA slaughter inspection, and, as a result, is the only facility in this area that may slaughter animals to be used for retail sales. Without Hirsch’s inspection levels, purveyors of local beef will be crippled or driven out of business. Unfortunately, as HACCP regulations ratchet upwards in response to new technology and new concerns stemming from commercial packing plants, the cost to keep up with the regulations becomes overwhelming for family-operated packing plants like Hirsch’s. Eventually they will no longer be able to keep up financially, eliminating the services necessary for a multitude of other small meat retail businesses.
A solution to this predicament is to differentiate regulations based on the size of the packing plant. The owners of Hirsch’s have met and surpassed the major parameters required for humane and sanitary slaughter within their facilities; they should not also have to meet and maintain expensive standards required in packing plants that processes 10,000 cattle each week. A new level of HACCP protocol is currently working through the system and will eventually make it to your desk – you are now aware of the situation before it arrives and have the opportunity to speak up to prevent Pennsylvania’s small butchers from being regulated out of business.
My next topic of concern is a tricky one. I could talk about our threat from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) all day and into the night, but for the sake of reason I will only expose the tip of the iceberg and focus on a few main points. Many people are not aware that the HSUS is the biggest, best funded, most devious anti-animal agriculture organization in the country. Humane Society leaders are working around the clock to eliminate meat, milk, and eggs from the American diet, following an extreme agenda to sway the public against America’s livestock farmers. Already they have targeted and overcome agricultural professionals in states including but not limited to Florida, Colorado, California, Michigan, and most recently Ohio. The Humane Society painted a one sided, horrible picture of agriculture and gained the support of the public. Then, by taking advantage of the ballot-initiative in the aforementioned states, they were able to steamroll the livestock industry on voting day.
It is of great fortune to us that our state of Pennsylvania does not permit ballot-initiatives. In other words, the only way for the HSUS to get to us is through all of you. They will indeed come after agriculture in this state. And I am here to urge you to take what they say with a grain of salt. You will be manipulated to believe that a farm animal is exactly the same as your pet at home. HSUS will bring with them footage of isolated cases of horrendous animal abuse and say the behavior is normal on livestock farms everywhere. Farm professionals will be portrayed as money hungry, selfish, evil individuals who are squeezing everything out of their herd with no regard for the welfare of the animals. Humane Society leaders will try their hardest to convince you that their expertise is much better than that of beef producers, despite the fact that they have never set foot on a farm and they have no experience caring for animals and producing food.
Please understand what HSUS leaders are saying is false. Look at the people here today and make note of our dedication to our land and animals. Talk to us now, and CONTINUE talking to us via the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau. Do not take instruction from HSUS leaders and do not allow their non-farm members to make major decisions affecting our farmers (similar situations have often created substantially worse conditions for animals rather than helping them). Work with us rather than against us to help shape the future of agriculture. Following this advice and maintaining open communications will keep you well prepared with an understanding of both sides of the story when activists attack the state.
I have one final but important point that requires little explanation. In a time of budget constraints and financial concerns, it is absolutely vital to maintain research funding to agricultural universities. Abraham Lincoln enacted land grant colleges because he had the foresight to understand how important agricultural research and development is to our future. This logic still applies today and positive advancements regarding water quality, animal health, environmental protection, and a multitude of other concerns are a direct result of agricultural research. Please maintain support for agricultural research funding – there is a huge return on those tax dollars.
In summary, I briefly reviewed concerns regarding competitive market regulations, food safety standards, animal rights organizations, and agricultural research funding. It is important that you are aware of and involved with decisions concerning these topics, and that you consider what was discussed here today. As with nearly every industry and organization, the livestock industry is facing many challenges other that those I touched upon today. Please help us minimize the challenges by working through our Farm Bureau representatives. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to working with you in the future! Any questions will be taken at this time…
-
Good morning everyone! My name is John-Scott Port. I am a sixth generation beef farmer from Clarion, a recent graduate of Penn State, and today’s speaking representative for Northwestern Pennsylvania’s beef industry. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss how we can work together and continue to provide our customers and your constituents with quality beef from a thriving agricultural industry.
As you may or may not know, farmers are accustomed to challenges ranging anywhere from weather to commodity prices. The nature of our work makes it necessary to identify dilemmas and work out possible solutions as quickly as possible. The continuing success of our industry proves that cattlemen are able to draw on years of experience and handed-down knowledge from generations past to meet and overcome a vast majority of these challenges. Sometimes, however, it is helpful to have a partner with a different background, a different point of view, and a different area of expertise to listen and help find a clear path through seemingly overwhelming concerns.
That is why we are so happy to have you here with us today. You provide the expertise that that we do not possess and the ability to influence trends threatening our livelihood that we would otherwise be powerless against. We need your help to deflect unwarranted overregulation so we are able to focus on the issues we can directly control.
This morning I will discuss a number of pressing issues including competitive market regulations, food safety standards, animal rights organizations, and agricultural research funding. Part of the discussion will include suggestions for dealing with these issues. It is my hope that you make note of my offered solutions and incorporate them into your political lives.
We will start by discussing packer-stockyard concentration. As giants in the industry push forward and continue to grow, both the livestock herd and packing plants across the state (and nation) continue to consolidate into fewer and fewer hands. The concentration creates an unfavorable situation for livestock sales. Because nearly every packing plant is owned by a single company, there is no bidding competition at the sale barn and cattle change ownership after one bid. This one-bid sale structure results in poor cattle prices for the producers, forcing them either out of business or into a limiting contract farm operation under terms set by the industry giant.
Everyone here wants to help keep the independent beef producer competitive, not captive during this time of consolidation. In order to do this, you must be aware of, support, and enforce the antitrust laws that are in place. Current packer-stockyard regulations have proven to keep the beef industry viable for decades; altering the system could prove to be devastating for producers in this area. Please keep an eye out for legislative maneuvers working to eliminate the laws in place, and voice a negative opinion of such negotiations based on the previously mentioned reasons. Such measures will promote the growth of Pennsylvania’s beef industry and, subsequently, our state economy as job opportunities are retained and expanded across the commonwealth.
As I transition to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point regulations (HACCP) pertaining to food safety, I should mention that a growing number of producers – including my family and many others in this area – have turned to niche marketing their beef directly to the consumer as a means of avoiding industry concentration. This tactic is becoming increasingly popular as consumer buying trends shift towards a more local food source, but the business plan is dependent upon the availability of an up-to-date, USDA inspected, sanitary facility in which to harvest our animals.
Hirsch’s Meats, a family owned multi-generational meat packing plant in Kossuth, is the only facility in this area that maintains USDA slaughter inspection, and, as a result, is the only facility in this area that may slaughter animals to be used for retail sales. Without Hirsch’s inspection levels, purveyors of local beef will be crippled or driven out of business. Unfortunately, as HACCP regulations ratchet upwards in response to new technology and new concerns stemming from commercial packing plants, the cost to keep up with the regulations becomes overwhelming for family-operated packing plants like Hirsch’s. Eventually they will no longer be able to keep up financially, eliminating the services necessary for a multitude of other small meat retail businesses.
A solution to this predicament is to differentiate regulations based on the size of the packing plant. The owners of Hirsch’s have met and surpassed the major parameters required for humane and sanitary slaughter within their facilities; they should not also have to meet and maintain expensive standards required in packing plants that processes 10,000 cattle each week. A new level of HACCP protocol is currently working through the system and will eventually make it to your desk – you are now aware of the situation before it arrives and have the opportunity to speak up to prevent Pennsylvania’s small butchers from being regulated out of business.
My next topic of concern is a tricky one. I could talk about our threat from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) all day and into the night, but for the sake of reason I will only expose the tip of the iceberg and focus on a few main points. Many people are not aware that the HSUS is the biggest, best funded, most devious anti-animal agriculture organization in the country. Humane Society leaders are working around the clock to eliminate meat, milk, and eggs from the American diet, following an extreme agenda to sway the public against America’s livestock farmers. Already they have targeted and overcome agricultural professionals in states including but not limited to Florida, Colorado, California, Michigan, and most recently Ohio. The Humane Society painted a one sided, horrible picture of agriculture and gained the support of the public. Then, by taking advantage of the ballot-initiative in the aforementioned states, they were able to steamroll the livestock industry on voting day.
It is of great fortune to us that our state of Pennsylvania does not permit ballot-initiatives. In other words, the only way for the HSUS to get to us is through all of you. They will indeed come after agriculture in this state. And I am here to urge you to take what they say with a grain of salt. You will be manipulated to believe that a farm animal is exactly the same as your pet at home. HSUS will bring with them footage of isolated cases of horrendous animal abuse and say the behavior is normal on livestock farms everywhere. Farm professionals will be portrayed as money hungry, selfish, evil individuals who are squeezing everything out of their herd with no regard for the welfare of the animals. Humane Society leaders will try their hardest to convince you that their expertise is much better than that of beef producers, despite the fact that they have never set foot on a farm and they have no experience caring for animals and producing food.
Please understand what HSUS leaders are saying is false. Look at the people here today and make note of our dedication to our land and animals. Talk to us now, and CONTINUE talking to us via the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau. Do not take instruction from HSUS leaders and do not allow their non-farm members to make major decisions affecting our farmers (similar situations have often created substantially worse conditions for animals rather than helping them). Work with us rather than against us to help shape the future of agriculture. Following this advice and maintaining open communications will keep you well prepared with an understanding of both sides of the story when activists attack the state.
I have one final but important point that requires little explanation. In a time of budget constraints and financial concerns, it is absolutely vital to maintain research funding to agricultural universities. Abraham Lincoln enacted land grant colleges because he had the foresight to understand how important agricultural research and development is to our future. This logic still applies today and positive advancements regarding water quality, animal health, environmental protection, and a multitude of other concerns are a direct result of agricultural research. Please maintain support for agricultural research funding – there is a huge return on those tax dollars.
In summary, I briefly reviewed concerns regarding competitive market regulations, food safety standards, animal rights organizations, and agricultural research funding. It is important that you are aware of and involved with decisions concerning these topics, and that you consider what was discussed here today. As with nearly every industry and organization, the livestock industry is facing many challenges other that those I touched upon today. Please help us minimize the challenges by working through our Farm Bureau representatives. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to working with you in the future! Any questions will be taken at this time…
Monday, August 30, 2010
Unintended Consequences.
The issue of banning horse slaughter in the United States tore through the agricultural community several years ago in a fierce whirlwind of opposing views. Those within the industry realize that, although horses are companion animals more often than other livestock, there is a critical need to maintain an outlet for surplus animals (meat packing plants processing the meat for dog food, etc). On the other side of the coin was a large group of non-farm horse owners (and a concerned segment of the general public) backed up by the good old HSUS, all of whom were completely appalled by the thought of using horses for meat. Using their supply of anti-farm propaganda and an array of one-sided emotional advertising, the HSUS fought hard to win over the public and managed to ban the "disturbing and cruel" horse slaughter industry in the States.
One would assume that, thanks to the ban, situations for horses have improved dramatically in this country. That is, after all, what the Humane Society is about - improving the lives of animals. Today, several years after the elimination for horse processing, we will take a look at the effect is has.
I mentioned that horse slaughter maintained a steady outlet for surplus horses. What that means is there was a demand for horses other than simply as companion animals, and that demand supported a substantial dollar value in the horse market. Those who were no longer in a situation to support their horses had the option to send the animals to the auction and receive $500-$1000 - a substantial amount of money - for their animal that would otherwise be almost worthless.
Once the horses were sold they went through a very straightforward process (I am going to describe it in some detail, not to be gruesome, but to offer a comparison to today). Animals were loaded onto trucks to be hauled to the packing plant. Strictly enforced laws (that are in place for all types of livestock and are still enforced today) limited the time a horse could be transported to ensure the well being of the animal. Upon arrival at the plant, animals were given time to rest (by law) and provided with an unlimited water supply (by law). The slaughter process was simple but effective: horses were herded up a narrow shoot specifically designed for ease of movement and stress reduction, passed through a headgate and dispatched with a five inch pneumatic bolt directly through the brain...very fast, painless, stress free.
The HSUS, in their infinite wisdom, overlooked the benefit of managing the horse supply and approached the public with a campaign explaining that big agriculture is killing their their beloved companion and friend, and the killing should stop. Public response was overwhelming and they successfully sealed up the industry.
Today, there is no outlet for surplus horses in the US. Demand is almost entirely gone, and those no longer financially able to support their horses have a great deal of difficulty selling the animals at an auction (the last I heard horses were bringing $20-$50) and a greater difficulty giving them to friends who already have horses of their own. If you cannot support the animal, cannot sell it, and nobody will take it from you, what exactly do you do with it? Some people are simply turning their animals loose out in the woods, hoping they will fend for themselves. A friend of mine who is a member of the Pennsylvania Horse Council reports finding on a regular basis the carcasses of horses that were hauled into state game lands and shot by their owners. In worst case scenarios, people are simply keeping the animals and watching them starve to death, unable to afford the feed required to maintain the animal's health.
As the surplus horse herd continued to grow and get out of control (we actually have wild horses roaming in areas that had never experienced such a thing), a new market developed for the animals in order to manage the herd. Horses are now rounded up at basement prices ($20-$50), loaded onto trucks as they were before, and are hauled to Mexico (we can do nothing with them here). Once the truck crosses the US/Mexico boarder, all US animal care standards become irrelevant. The animals wait an average of three days crowded on livestock trailers in the heat without water before being unloaded and chased into the processing facility, where a completely deregulated crew sticks each horse in the withers (the base of the mane) to paralyze it, strings the still living animal upside down, and saws into the neck to bleed it out. I don't have to point out the striking difference between this slaughter technique and the United States option.
The horse slaughter issue is one of countless great blunders stemming from folks at the Humane Society. Many find it ironic that an organization with such 'good intentions' could create a situation that is so bad for the animals they try to help. It is interesting to note that only AFTER the elimination of horse processing did HSUS members realize the negative effects of banning the practice in this country...they are fully aware of what happens in Mexico and they are trying to sweep that reality under the rug.
Such unfortunate missteps would not occur if agricultural experts were consulted regarding the matter of animal handling rather than a money-hungry organization focused only on furthering their agenda. Examples like the one today are somewhat unpleasant, but absolutely necessary to show what happens when people removed from agriculture take the reins on an agricultural issue. They can tug at your heartstrings and say that animal agriculture is horrendous, but their lack of knowledge and foresight will often create a much more shocking reality in the end.
One would assume that, thanks to the ban, situations for horses have improved dramatically in this country. That is, after all, what the Humane Society is about - improving the lives of animals. Today, several years after the elimination for horse processing, we will take a look at the effect is has.
I mentioned that horse slaughter maintained a steady outlet for surplus horses. What that means is there was a demand for horses other than simply as companion animals, and that demand supported a substantial dollar value in the horse market. Those who were no longer in a situation to support their horses had the option to send the animals to the auction and receive $500-$1000 - a substantial amount of money - for their animal that would otherwise be almost worthless.
Once the horses were sold they went through a very straightforward process (I am going to describe it in some detail, not to be gruesome, but to offer a comparison to today). Animals were loaded onto trucks to be hauled to the packing plant. Strictly enforced laws (that are in place for all types of livestock and are still enforced today) limited the time a horse could be transported to ensure the well being of the animal. Upon arrival at the plant, animals were given time to rest (by law) and provided with an unlimited water supply (by law). The slaughter process was simple but effective: horses were herded up a narrow shoot specifically designed for ease of movement and stress reduction, passed through a headgate and dispatched with a five inch pneumatic bolt directly through the brain...very fast, painless, stress free.
The HSUS, in their infinite wisdom, overlooked the benefit of managing the horse supply and approached the public with a campaign explaining that big agriculture is killing their their beloved companion and friend, and the killing should stop. Public response was overwhelming and they successfully sealed up the industry.
Today, there is no outlet for surplus horses in the US. Demand is almost entirely gone, and those no longer financially able to support their horses have a great deal of difficulty selling the animals at an auction (the last I heard horses were bringing $20-$50) and a greater difficulty giving them to friends who already have horses of their own. If you cannot support the animal, cannot sell it, and nobody will take it from you, what exactly do you do with it? Some people are simply turning their animals loose out in the woods, hoping they will fend for themselves. A friend of mine who is a member of the Pennsylvania Horse Council reports finding on a regular basis the carcasses of horses that were hauled into state game lands and shot by their owners. In worst case scenarios, people are simply keeping the animals and watching them starve to death, unable to afford the feed required to maintain the animal's health.
As the surplus horse herd continued to grow and get out of control (we actually have wild horses roaming in areas that had never experienced such a thing), a new market developed for the animals in order to manage the herd. Horses are now rounded up at basement prices ($20-$50), loaded onto trucks as they were before, and are hauled to Mexico (we can do nothing with them here). Once the truck crosses the US/Mexico boarder, all US animal care standards become irrelevant. The animals wait an average of three days crowded on livestock trailers in the heat without water before being unloaded and chased into the processing facility, where a completely deregulated crew sticks each horse in the withers (the base of the mane) to paralyze it, strings the still living animal upside down, and saws into the neck to bleed it out. I don't have to point out the striking difference between this slaughter technique and the United States option.
The horse slaughter issue is one of countless great blunders stemming from folks at the Humane Society. Many find it ironic that an organization with such 'good intentions' could create a situation that is so bad for the animals they try to help. It is interesting to note that only AFTER the elimination of horse processing did HSUS members realize the negative effects of banning the practice in this country...they are fully aware of what happens in Mexico and they are trying to sweep that reality under the rug.
Such unfortunate missteps would not occur if agricultural experts were consulted regarding the matter of animal handling rather than a money-hungry organization focused only on furthering their agenda. Examples like the one today are somewhat unpleasant, but absolutely necessary to show what happens when people removed from agriculture take the reins on an agricultural issue. They can tug at your heartstrings and say that animal agriculture is horrendous, but their lack of knowledge and foresight will often create a much more shocking reality in the end.
Monday, August 23, 2010
$$ Dilemma
Grocery shopping is more of a quest for the freshest, tastiest, highest quality supplies available rather than simply a 'food run.' Examine people cruising the aisles and one will see a lot of poking, sniffing, and squeezing as consumers work to find the most favorable option for their dinner table. What an observer is not able to see is the constant calculation going on in nearly every mind wandering through the store selection. A vast majority of us are also observing the price of the food items we buy, occasionally passing up a luxury item in order to free up funds for a necessity, or avoiding a brand name to shave dollars off our total bill for the day. This math marathon is such a part of the store routine that we often do not think about the importance of pricing at the market.
Pricing matters. For some, disposable funding is available that allows the consumer to move up the pricing scale and shop at the 'top end' of the grocery store food chain - in the realm of local produce/meat, for example. For a majority of consumers, however, the difference between $.89 eggs and $3 Happy-Chicken-Free-Range brown eggs might as well be the grand canyon; it is simply not feasible to spend the extra money on a 'more exclusive' product. Yes, the expensive stuff is often very good, and yes, it is exciting to see that it was sourced from a relatively small farm operation, but we need not forget that the availability of less expensive food can mean the difference between a complete and wholesome meal each night for the family and a much more limited menu for the week.
It is, unfortunately, the silent majority of people who depend on inexpensive food that is the most overlooked. They are not a part of the organic discussion, or the free-range grass fed discussion, or the local food movement, they are simply out there every day purchasing what they need to survive. The folks caught up in one the aforementioned trends receive attention for their outspoken beliefs and work the media into a "eliminate production agriculture" frenzy, literally speaking out against the food supply of those who are not speaking.
We now have a situation in which it is normal to demand more limited food production and much higher prices...representatives from the HSUS in a recent discussion about the effects of eliminating caged-egg production went on the record to say that "price has never been an issue" when it comes to food production/consumption. Well guys, it has. And it always will be to many consumers. The more affluent trend seekers need to shift away from their selfish "I can afford it so everyone else should too" mindset and make an attempt to remember the other side of the spectrum. If they can spend the money on a $27 free range organic local chicken, great, buy it and enjoy it and promote it but DO NOT say that is how every chicken should be priced; such a shift would wipe chicken (and every other meat product, assuming they were following the same trend) off the menu at dinner tables across the US.
Modern, efficient, clean, productive agriculture must remain a viable option in this country to support all financial situations. Does it need to adapt and stay up to date? You bet. Are modern farmers open to suggestions and willing to change? Absolutely. The industry as a whole is currently adjusting and working to educate an uninformed public about what exactly happens on a production farm. Bad apples (producers who simply are not doing it right - repeated environmental, animal welfare, and zoning violations, etc) are being picked out and eliminated to make room for the true Farmers, those whose clean, safe, and efficient production operations continue to make nutritious, wholesome food available to everyone, not just those with deep pockets. Sounds like a cause I can fall in line with.
Pricing matters. For some, disposable funding is available that allows the consumer to move up the pricing scale and shop at the 'top end' of the grocery store food chain - in the realm of local produce/meat, for example. For a majority of consumers, however, the difference between $.89 eggs and $3 Happy-Chicken-Free-Range brown eggs might as well be the grand canyon; it is simply not feasible to spend the extra money on a 'more exclusive' product. Yes, the expensive stuff is often very good, and yes, it is exciting to see that it was sourced from a relatively small farm operation, but we need not forget that the availability of less expensive food can mean the difference between a complete and wholesome meal each night for the family and a much more limited menu for the week.
It is, unfortunately, the silent majority of people who depend on inexpensive food that is the most overlooked. They are not a part of the organic discussion, or the free-range grass fed discussion, or the local food movement, they are simply out there every day purchasing what they need to survive. The folks caught up in one the aforementioned trends receive attention for their outspoken beliefs and work the media into a "eliminate production agriculture" frenzy, literally speaking out against the food supply of those who are not speaking.
We now have a situation in which it is normal to demand more limited food production and much higher prices...representatives from the HSUS in a recent discussion about the effects of eliminating caged-egg production went on the record to say that "price has never been an issue" when it comes to food production/consumption. Well guys, it has. And it always will be to many consumers. The more affluent trend seekers need to shift away from their selfish "I can afford it so everyone else should too" mindset and make an attempt to remember the other side of the spectrum. If they can spend the money on a $27 free range organic local chicken, great, buy it and enjoy it and promote it but DO NOT say that is how every chicken should be priced; such a shift would wipe chicken (and every other meat product, assuming they were following the same trend) off the menu at dinner tables across the US.
Modern, efficient, clean, productive agriculture must remain a viable option in this country to support all financial situations. Does it need to adapt and stay up to date? You bet. Are modern farmers open to suggestions and willing to change? Absolutely. The industry as a whole is currently adjusting and working to educate an uninformed public about what exactly happens on a production farm. Bad apples (producers who simply are not doing it right - repeated environmental, animal welfare, and zoning violations, etc) are being picked out and eliminated to make room for the true Farmers, those whose clean, safe, and efficient production operations continue to make nutritious, wholesome food available to everyone, not just those with deep pockets. Sounds like a cause I can fall in line with.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Tech Crazy!
It seems to me that everywhere I look I can see advertisements for newer, better technology. We demand the most advanced medical facilities, the newest medication, the best trained doctor, the safest car with cutting edge features, the most app-packed cellphone, the fastest computer, the thinnest TV...the list goes on for miles. Any product or service that falls a year or two out of date is tossed aside and forgotten in the wake of more modern stuff dangling in front of our noses. Traces of our near-universal mindset telling us "new and advanced is the best" can be found just about anywhere...unless you happen to be discussing farming.
For some reason a mere whisper of agriculture and food production sends the average non-farm mind careening back to the good old days. Suddenly technology is the bad guy, a frightening figure that has crept in to pollute our food and ruin our farms. My best guess as to why our technology obsessed mindset re-boots into the stone age when we come across a farm topic is, as usual when discussing farming, a widespread misunderstanding of just exactly what farm technology is being used for.
Ask a random selection of people walking down the street what role technology is playing in our food system and you are bound to hear that ag. technology can be credited for weird animal experiments, the creation of mutant crops somehow containing fish and animal residue, dungeon-like barnyard conditions, highly toxic / highly polluting pesticides and herbicides, hormone raging meat animals, widespread disease, and many more including my favorite: headless, featherless chickens cruelly designed and marketed by a popular restaurant chain (Who comes up with this stuff?)
You have probably figured out by now that I will be doing my best to counter the negative imagery surrounding farm tech to my small audience here. This will be the very tip of the iceberg, a fragment of the whole story, a grain of sand on the beach compared to the entire amazing modern farm story, but is is at least a start.
Modern farmers producing food for the masses use incredible technological advancements to produce the food we love in a safe, highly efficient, and environmentally friendly manner. Advanced techniques are not being used to alter the food we eat (as many people believe, unfortunately); rather, farm science is incorporated into agriculture to create substantially better conditions for the environment and farm animals that food stems from. For example, crop farmers enjoy benefits from vigorous seed varieties that are able to protect themselves from insect damage without the use of pesticides and withstand drought conditions without the luxury of irrigation. Lab techs working with the ag industry are constantly finding ways to reduce and eliminate chemical residue from field sprays, keeping the products out of our environment and our waterways. Fertilizer advancements have boosted crop productivity and REDUCED fertilizer application - more crop yield, less risk of nutrient runoff, less fertilizer to be manufactured...amazing. Further reducing fertilizer use is the incorporation of satellite mapping that helps farmers understand what needs to be added where - rather than loading the entire field (or fields) with fertilizer, satellite analysis tells farmers 'add a little nitrogen here, some potassium in this area, nothing in that corner...' Scientists are constantly working with farmers to incorporate strategies that reduce and eliminate field runoff. Reduced tillage methods mean fewer trips across the field and, as a result, less fuel consumption. Highly productive crops allow for the same amount of product to come from significantly less land, providing farmers with the opportunity to take highly erodible land out of production and return it to a stable fallow state.
Switch gears to focus on animal production and we find a very different picture than what activists want us to hear: poultry barns, hog barns, and dairy facilities have extensive systems monitoring air temperature cleanliness, and lighting. The climate control is designed to maintain ideal conditions inside the barn, and air is constantly "scrubbed" to keep airborne dust (or disease) from distressing the birds or swine, depending on the situation. Automatic waste removal systems work around the clock whisking away manure, and large farmers often ship manure to commercial composting companies as a way of keeping animal waste out of the environment (An example of modern production is a family owned egg farm in Ohio - 4 million chickens in the newest, best barns available, 3 million eggs each day, ZERO waste/runoff onto the surrounding land, ZERO offending smells to the neighbors; healthy chickens producing massive amounts of food for many people in ideal conditions, yet the Humane Society has targeted the farm and is currently trying to destroy the business). A perfectly balanced diet complete with clean water is at all times available to animals on large farms. Fully automatic robotic milkers have become the norm on production dairy farms, enabling the cows on the farm to decide when they would like to be milked - Udder uncomfortable? Go milk yourself. The animal friendly list goes on for miles.
It is interesting to note that large production farms that have come under so much public scrutiny (and are nearly all owned by FAMILIES) are in fact the least environmentally destructive farm operations in the country and the most animal friendly; large farms have the capital to incorporate the best animal handling strategies, the perfect waste management systems, the most advanced crop production techniques, the best technology in the World to provide for their livestock and maintain the environment. It is farms like this that are being eliminated by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)...every time they throw up a legal roadblock for farmers, they are erasing the future for more productive, highly advanced, clean, animal friendly farms and instead are creating a situation that pushes food production back to the days when farm technology was almost nonexistent and situations were less than favorable, exactly what the public says it wants to avoid.
For some reason a mere whisper of agriculture and food production sends the average non-farm mind careening back to the good old days. Suddenly technology is the bad guy, a frightening figure that has crept in to pollute our food and ruin our farms. My best guess as to why our technology obsessed mindset re-boots into the stone age when we come across a farm topic is, as usual when discussing farming, a widespread misunderstanding of just exactly what farm technology is being used for.
Ask a random selection of people walking down the street what role technology is playing in our food system and you are bound to hear that ag. technology can be credited for weird animal experiments, the creation of mutant crops somehow containing fish and animal residue, dungeon-like barnyard conditions, highly toxic / highly polluting pesticides and herbicides, hormone raging meat animals, widespread disease, and many more including my favorite: headless, featherless chickens cruelly designed and marketed by a popular restaurant chain (Who comes up with this stuff?)
You have probably figured out by now that I will be doing my best to counter the negative imagery surrounding farm tech to my small audience here. This will be the very tip of the iceberg, a fragment of the whole story, a grain of sand on the beach compared to the entire amazing modern farm story, but is is at least a start.
Modern farmers producing food for the masses use incredible technological advancements to produce the food we love in a safe, highly efficient, and environmentally friendly manner. Advanced techniques are not being used to alter the food we eat (as many people believe, unfortunately); rather, farm science is incorporated into agriculture to create substantially better conditions for the environment and farm animals that food stems from. For example, crop farmers enjoy benefits from vigorous seed varieties that are able to protect themselves from insect damage without the use of pesticides and withstand drought conditions without the luxury of irrigation. Lab techs working with the ag industry are constantly finding ways to reduce and eliminate chemical residue from field sprays, keeping the products out of our environment and our waterways. Fertilizer advancements have boosted crop productivity and REDUCED fertilizer application - more crop yield, less risk of nutrient runoff, less fertilizer to be manufactured...amazing. Further reducing fertilizer use is the incorporation of satellite mapping that helps farmers understand what needs to be added where - rather than loading the entire field (or fields) with fertilizer, satellite analysis tells farmers 'add a little nitrogen here, some potassium in this area, nothing in that corner...' Scientists are constantly working with farmers to incorporate strategies that reduce and eliminate field runoff. Reduced tillage methods mean fewer trips across the field and, as a result, less fuel consumption. Highly productive crops allow for the same amount of product to come from significantly less land, providing farmers with the opportunity to take highly erodible land out of production and return it to a stable fallow state.
Switch gears to focus on animal production and we find a very different picture than what activists want us to hear: poultry barns, hog barns, and dairy facilities have extensive systems monitoring air temperature cleanliness, and lighting. The climate control is designed to maintain ideal conditions inside the barn, and air is constantly "scrubbed" to keep airborne dust (or disease) from distressing the birds or swine, depending on the situation. Automatic waste removal systems work around the clock whisking away manure, and large farmers often ship manure to commercial composting companies as a way of keeping animal waste out of the environment (An example of modern production is a family owned egg farm in Ohio - 4 million chickens in the newest, best barns available, 3 million eggs each day, ZERO waste/runoff onto the surrounding land, ZERO offending smells to the neighbors; healthy chickens producing massive amounts of food for many people in ideal conditions, yet the Humane Society has targeted the farm and is currently trying to destroy the business). A perfectly balanced diet complete with clean water is at all times available to animals on large farms. Fully automatic robotic milkers have become the norm on production dairy farms, enabling the cows on the farm to decide when they would like to be milked - Udder uncomfortable? Go milk yourself. The animal friendly list goes on for miles.
It is interesting to note that large production farms that have come under so much public scrutiny (and are nearly all owned by FAMILIES) are in fact the least environmentally destructive farm operations in the country and the most animal friendly; large farms have the capital to incorporate the best animal handling strategies, the perfect waste management systems, the most advanced crop production techniques, the best technology in the World to provide for their livestock and maintain the environment. It is farms like this that are being eliminated by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)...every time they throw up a legal roadblock for farmers, they are erasing the future for more productive, highly advanced, clean, animal friendly farms and instead are creating a situation that pushes food production back to the days when farm technology was almost nonexistent and situations were less than favorable, exactly what the public says it wants to avoid.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Lets get back to our (more destructive) roots!
Summer is a busy time of year on the farm, and I must admit that I have really slacked off on maintaining my blog. Some recent conversations with individuals holding a very different viewpoint than myself, however, have motivated me to make some time and get in front of the computer.
As a self-appointed agricultural advocate, I find myself in a good number of heated discussions concerning modern production agriculture. The conversation often flips back and fourth between the seemingly mainstream "big agriculture is bad" argument and my pro-modern ag. viewpoint. Many people are open to reason and, after hearing how amazing, productive, and efficient modern farmers are, will begin to see the issues in a different light. There are, of course, those who will always disagree with what I have to say, sticking to a "small farms should feed our population" mindset.
Those holding this point of view frequently tell me that our current food production techniques should be traded for a system consisting of many small farms producing a wide variety of crops using "more traditional" methods. The theory is that large modern farms are destroying our land and using up our resources, so they should be divided up into smaller plots that will not take such an environmental toll. Sounds OK, right? It is easy enough to fall into line with this concept as long as one does not scratch below the surface.
In keeping with my usual "question everything you hear" theme, however, we are going to dig in our fingers and break through the glossy surface of the theory to see how feasible it really is.
The reality of a small farm food system can be understood with a quick glance at the history of farming. During the early 1900s the inefficiency of traditional seeds and production methods required farmers to clear cut and till massive amounts of land (even that which was not suitable for farming) to produce a relatively small amount of crop - average corn yields as late as the 1950s hovered around 39 bushels per acre; yields for other crops were equally as low. Little attention (if any) was paid to erosion, runoff, vegetation preservation, land contour, and water quality, factors amplified by the wide scattering of small farms. Massive losses from weed and insect pests were the norm, reducing even more the output from every individual farmer (in 1940 each American farmer produced food for only 19 people). What little food was not retained on the farm for use by the family needed to be collected from thousands of locations, using fuel and manual energy for an arguably small return. As the US population continued to grow, inefficient crops could not keep up with the food demand forcing more (usually unstable and unsuitable) land into production to fill the void.
What I just described is, in truth, the system we would return to if anti-modern farm activists could get their way. Although it sounds fine in a passing conversation, a look into the inefficient system proves that our population of 307 million people cannot be supported by such a labor intensive, destructive, inefficient method.
Now compare what you just read to modern agriculture:
Today each American farmer is productive enough to provide food for 155 other people. Average corn yields are rising past 155 bushels per acre (vs 39 in 1950), and average cereal yields rose 155% between 1961 and 2005. Between 1987 and 2007 our farmers grew 40% more corn, 30% more soybeans, and 19% more wheat ON THE SAME AMOUNT OF LAND! Modern techniques for sustaining resources improve as productivity improves, leading to a 43% reduction in farmland soil erosion over the past 20 years, water savings of 50-80% (depending on the crop), more efficient fertilizer (each pound of modern fertilizer produces 70% more corn than a pound of fertilizer in 1970), a massive reduction in pesticides and herbicides (modern GM crops are able to protect themselves against insect pests, eliminating the need for chemical sprays), and major leaps in field application techniques (GPS guided equipment ensures field inputs are applied only where needed). All of these techniques provide us with ample supplies of inexpensive food while helping preserve our land and sustain our future. (Take a moment and watch this video, it is where a found most of my information today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joUggaD6Mr0)
Our population as a whole (even the anti-ag fringe) is very positively affected by the efficiencies of our food system. We continue to make huge advances in safety, productivity, and sustainability in agriculture, ensuring a bright future for generations to come. Remember these facts as you go through life and make a point to appreciate what we have in modern farming.
As a self-appointed agricultural advocate, I find myself in a good number of heated discussions concerning modern production agriculture. The conversation often flips back and fourth between the seemingly mainstream "big agriculture is bad" argument and my pro-modern ag. viewpoint. Many people are open to reason and, after hearing how amazing, productive, and efficient modern farmers are, will begin to see the issues in a different light. There are, of course, those who will always disagree with what I have to say, sticking to a "small farms should feed our population" mindset.
Those holding this point of view frequently tell me that our current food production techniques should be traded for a system consisting of many small farms producing a wide variety of crops using "more traditional" methods. The theory is that large modern farms are destroying our land and using up our resources, so they should be divided up into smaller plots that will not take such an environmental toll. Sounds OK, right? It is easy enough to fall into line with this concept as long as one does not scratch below the surface.
In keeping with my usual "question everything you hear" theme, however, we are going to dig in our fingers and break through the glossy surface of the theory to see how feasible it really is.
The reality of a small farm food system can be understood with a quick glance at the history of farming. During the early 1900s the inefficiency of traditional seeds and production methods required farmers to clear cut and till massive amounts of land (even that which was not suitable for farming) to produce a relatively small amount of crop - average corn yields as late as the 1950s hovered around 39 bushels per acre; yields for other crops were equally as low. Little attention (if any) was paid to erosion, runoff, vegetation preservation, land contour, and water quality, factors amplified by the wide scattering of small farms. Massive losses from weed and insect pests were the norm, reducing even more the output from every individual farmer (in 1940 each American farmer produced food for only 19 people). What little food was not retained on the farm for use by the family needed to be collected from thousands of locations, using fuel and manual energy for an arguably small return. As the US population continued to grow, inefficient crops could not keep up with the food demand forcing more (usually unstable and unsuitable) land into production to fill the void.
What I just described is, in truth, the system we would return to if anti-modern farm activists could get their way. Although it sounds fine in a passing conversation, a look into the inefficient system proves that our population of 307 million people cannot be supported by such a labor intensive, destructive, inefficient method.
Now compare what you just read to modern agriculture:
Today each American farmer is productive enough to provide food for 155 other people. Average corn yields are rising past 155 bushels per acre (vs 39 in 1950), and average cereal yields rose 155% between 1961 and 2005. Between 1987 and 2007 our farmers grew 40% more corn, 30% more soybeans, and 19% more wheat ON THE SAME AMOUNT OF LAND! Modern techniques for sustaining resources improve as productivity improves, leading to a 43% reduction in farmland soil erosion over the past 20 years, water savings of 50-80% (depending on the crop), more efficient fertilizer (each pound of modern fertilizer produces 70% more corn than a pound of fertilizer in 1970), a massive reduction in pesticides and herbicides (modern GM crops are able to protect themselves against insect pests, eliminating the need for chemical sprays), and major leaps in field application techniques (GPS guided equipment ensures field inputs are applied only where needed). All of these techniques provide us with ample supplies of inexpensive food while helping preserve our land and sustain our future. (Take a moment and watch this video, it is where a found most of my information today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joUggaD6Mr0)
Our population as a whole (even the anti-ag fringe) is very positively affected by the efficiencies of our food system. We continue to make huge advances in safety, productivity, and sustainability in agriculture, ensuring a bright future for generations to come. Remember these facts as you go through life and make a point to appreciate what we have in modern farming.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Close to Home.
Recently a local auction made the news as yet another location of "recurring animal cruelty." Video of a bull being herded to the scales by employees was turned in to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), where it was distributed to local news stations and the internet video-sharing website Youtube. Representatives from the HSUS swarmed the area to "keep an eye on things" and people from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) arrived in an attempt to defend the auction owner and employees. As expected, the uproar has been the talk of farmers and auction patrons since the incident, and we have yet to see exactly what will come of the mess.
History has proven again and again that an individual holding a video camera has a very powerful influence over what is seen and understood by viewers. Thanks to the narrow scope of the lens, something positive can be portrayed as something horrifying, or something harmless can twist into an act of cruelty on TV. A look behind the scenes is often necessary (and usually unavailable) to determine the legitimacy of many video documentaries.
Today we will peek at the real story that has the future of a family-owned auction barn hanging by a thread (this information comes from first hand witnesses and regular attendees of the auction).
Like I said, the video focuses on several young men herding a bull from the holding pens to the scales and then the sale floor. As the animal charges out of its individual holding pen, the workers begin whooping, hollering and whacking the bull with fiberglass motivating sticks as they follow it down the narrow aisle. The "shocking" and "cruel" aspects of the video, as seen by the individual recording it and subsequently the newscasters and their audience, are the workers' noisy antics and the cracking sound of the motivators when they make contact with the rump of the bull. I know I sound like a broken record because I say this all the time, but the media stir caused by this video is yet another example of non-farm people reacting to something they have never experienced and do not understand.
Put yourself in the shoes of the workers on the floor. You are standing in a narrow aisle preparing to release a 1,500 - 2,000 pound animal that is stressed, unpredictable, and potentially violent. The bull needs to be directed to a certain area, and all you have in your hand is a flimsy fiberglass stick (approved as an anti-cruel animal handling tool) to defend yourself and get the job done. Pretty intimidating situation. And lets face it here, opening the gate and saying "c'mon buddy, shoo, lets walk over this way..." will prove to be entirely ineffective.
So what do you do? Throw open the gate, make a racket, and get the animal moving before it has time to assess the situation and make a wild break for it. I am sure the guys made a little more noise than was necessary (they like to put on a show), but cracking the giant bull on the rear-end with a small stick does not even approach cruel treatment - the sensation from the stick is comparable to a rubber-band snap on the arm from a mischievous first grader. The ordeal looks a little chaotic from an outsider's perspective, but it is necessary for the protection of the workers and ultimately gets the job done with little disruption to the animal(s).
Few understand this reality, and the Humane Society wildly overreacted to the video (as usual). Here is where it gets a little interesting. Several HSUS women have been making a point to attend the auction as a way of letting everyone know that they are watching the animal handling. Because there is a major lawsuit that will determine the future of the family business hanging over their heads, no employee wants to cause even more commotion by whacking animals back into line as the women watch over them like vultures. Just a week after the video made the news, a particularly wild cow entered the sale pen and began to charge around the space. Animal control techniques were limited to a few arm gestures and some mild hollering (rather than an effective snap on the nose) causing the men to lose complete control of the animal. A quick decision was made to get the wild cow out of the sale area and away from audience members as quickly as possible, but when the gate was opened the animal charged and rammed a worker directly in the chest, knocking him to the ground and injuring him severely.
This is proof that the Humane Society of the United States is concerned only with their agenda - they will not listen to reason, they care more about public exposure than the well being of other people, and they use their extensive funding and free time to target and harass any business that deals with animals. My greatest hope is that eventually the public will become aware of HSUS illegitimacy and funding to the organization will trickle down to nothing. Every time they throw up a road block for American agriculture we lose another family business and a little more of our domestic food supply - a reality that is much more unacceptable than motivating an animal with a stick.
History has proven again and again that an individual holding a video camera has a very powerful influence over what is seen and understood by viewers. Thanks to the narrow scope of the lens, something positive can be portrayed as something horrifying, or something harmless can twist into an act of cruelty on TV. A look behind the scenes is often necessary (and usually unavailable) to determine the legitimacy of many video documentaries.
Today we will peek at the real story that has the future of a family-owned auction barn hanging by a thread (this information comes from first hand witnesses and regular attendees of the auction).
Like I said, the video focuses on several young men herding a bull from the holding pens to the scales and then the sale floor. As the animal charges out of its individual holding pen, the workers begin whooping, hollering and whacking the bull with fiberglass motivating sticks as they follow it down the narrow aisle. The "shocking" and "cruel" aspects of the video, as seen by the individual recording it and subsequently the newscasters and their audience, are the workers' noisy antics and the cracking sound of the motivators when they make contact with the rump of the bull. I know I sound like a broken record because I say this all the time, but the media stir caused by this video is yet another example of non-farm people reacting to something they have never experienced and do not understand.
Put yourself in the shoes of the workers on the floor. You are standing in a narrow aisle preparing to release a 1,500 - 2,000 pound animal that is stressed, unpredictable, and potentially violent. The bull needs to be directed to a certain area, and all you have in your hand is a flimsy fiberglass stick (approved as an anti-cruel animal handling tool) to defend yourself and get the job done. Pretty intimidating situation. And lets face it here, opening the gate and saying "c'mon buddy, shoo, lets walk over this way..." will prove to be entirely ineffective.
So what do you do? Throw open the gate, make a racket, and get the animal moving before it has time to assess the situation and make a wild break for it. I am sure the guys made a little more noise than was necessary (they like to put on a show), but cracking the giant bull on the rear-end with a small stick does not even approach cruel treatment - the sensation from the stick is comparable to a rubber-band snap on the arm from a mischievous first grader. The ordeal looks a little chaotic from an outsider's perspective, but it is necessary for the protection of the workers and ultimately gets the job done with little disruption to the animal(s).
Few understand this reality, and the Humane Society wildly overreacted to the video (as usual). Here is where it gets a little interesting. Several HSUS women have been making a point to attend the auction as a way of letting everyone know that they are watching the animal handling. Because there is a major lawsuit that will determine the future of the family business hanging over their heads, no employee wants to cause even more commotion by whacking animals back into line as the women watch over them like vultures. Just a week after the video made the news, a particularly wild cow entered the sale pen and began to charge around the space. Animal control techniques were limited to a few arm gestures and some mild hollering (rather than an effective snap on the nose) causing the men to lose complete control of the animal. A quick decision was made to get the wild cow out of the sale area and away from audience members as quickly as possible, but when the gate was opened the animal charged and rammed a worker directly in the chest, knocking him to the ground and injuring him severely.
This is proof that the Humane Society of the United States is concerned only with their agenda - they will not listen to reason, they care more about public exposure than the well being of other people, and they use their extensive funding and free time to target and harass any business that deals with animals. My greatest hope is that eventually the public will become aware of HSUS illegitimacy and funding to the organization will trickle down to nothing. Every time they throw up a road block for American agriculture we lose another family business and a little more of our domestic food supply - a reality that is much more unacceptable than motivating an animal with a stick.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Valuable, Viable, Visible.
In March I had the pleasure of attending the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau Young Farmer & Rancher (YF&R) convention in State College. The weekend was an excellent experience, designed for young people aged 18 - 35 who are directly involved in farming and food production. Everyone at the convention - from the speakers who came to provide us with insight for the future to the DJ that entertained the crowd in the evening - was from a farm, and it was truly a great feeling to be able to interact with a group that shares the same concerns, hardships, passion, and understanding that I have for agriculture. My experience at the convention provided me with some excellent insight into the issues currently looming over the head of food production, and I am excited to share the information with all of you.
My favorite speaker from the event is named Matt Rush, a 30-some year old Farm Bureau member who owns and operates a mid-western cattle ranch with his dad. Matt was the final speaker of the two day event, faced with the task of sending us back to the farm with a new ambition and hope for the future.
He started out by re-enforcing what we as farmers already know: as our population continues to move away from agriculture, farmers are all too content to hang back, quietly going about our business producing food for the 300 million others who do not. While we have been working along behind the scenes, the mainstream population eventually forgot about farms and food production, reducing producers to "just dumb farmers" and actually turning against those on whom they rely. Now activist groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and (you saw this coming, yes?) the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) control far more of the public's opinion concerning animal food production than do the farmers who raise and care for the livestock. Individuals spearheading food trends are suddenly convincing people to cry out against our large farms, demanding a return to the old days of 40 acres and a mule (never mind the fact that the food demand created by our 307,000,000 person population can never be filled by small farmers). In other words, farmers are now in a position requiring them to fight the people they are faithfully feeding (I have said this before, but mainstream America is fiercely biting the hand that is feeding them, and I do not think they realize it is happening).
Producers are in an interesting situation, as I hope you can see, but Matt had some superb advice for his audience to take home. He told us that farmers have to change our quiet ways and survive this surge of negativity and ignorance by remaining Valuable, Viable, and Visible. Here are his examples for each.
Valuable. We have all heard the term "pull your weight," which is something farmers do very well. As I mentioned, our population continues to grow and move away from agriculture; today, less than 2% of American citizens are farmers. That less-than-two-percent, however, is productive enough to provide food for the remaining more-than-ninety-eight-percent. Every one modern farmer today feeds an average of 140 other people who will never have to set foot on a farm to have a nutritious, safe meal. Those 140 people are free to direct their attention towards other advancements because their focus and funding do not revolve around finding food. So, are farmers valuable? You bet.
Viable. In the United States, we tend to think that we do everything best and the rest of the World is relatively insignificant. Matt said he was guilty of this sub-conscious feeling until he traveled to Germany and visited what can best be described as a global grain exchange. He described an ultramodern skyscraper with and ultramodern meeting room where he met a young man who buys and sells grain from around the World based on a half-cent per bushel cost totaling billions of dollars (in other words, enough half-cent bushels are exchanged that the total value reaches billions of dollars). The young man rattled off numbers and statistics that made Matt's head spin, and then the German said "I am going to tell you something that American producers will not like to hear. I do not care whether or not your country grows anything. If you stop entirely tomorrow, Australia will fill the void in the grain market. If Australia does not, South America will; if South America does not, Europe will; if Europe does not, Canada will, and so on." When we give an inch in this country, the rest of the world immediately takes it. American farmers must continually push towards the future to remain competitive in this global market.
Visible. Matt is a really funny guy, and he incorporated stories that helped make his point as he spoke. He described a trip he was taking to speak at a convention. His plane was completely full except for the seat directly beside him, and the flight was delayed at the gate (with everyone on board except the occupant of this one seat) for approximately 45 minutes. Matt was getting irritated and decided to bury his thoughts in a book when, as he put it, the most outlandish, ridiculous looking young woman stepped on board at the front of the plane. Given his luck with seat mates on previous flights, Matt knew immediately that she was the occupant of the empty seat beside him. Sure enough, she plopped down and immediately began talking about the day's events (her late arrival was the cause of the flight delay). Matt tried to ignore her, but the book in front of his face was not going to stop her discussion and they ended up talking about the usual airline topics: destination, occupation, etc. It turned out that the woman was an actress (not wildly famous, but she had been in a good number of movies and was making progress). She almost fell out of her seat when Matt told her he lived on a ranch and raised cattle. Matt said she was thrilled because she had never met "a real farmer," and they ended up having a very enjoyable and intelligent conversation about agriculture. At the end of the flight, the woman promised Matt that if she ever made it big, she would remember him and would be proud to represent farmers in a non-farm public. That is a pretty awesome commitment from a very unexpected source. His lesson from the experience is this: we, as young farmers, need to be proud of who we are and what we do, and should make every attempt to reveal our farm roots to those around us. Matt said his reluctance to speak with the ritzy-looking person on the flight almost eliminated his opportunity to share his agriculture story and educate someone who had never even MET a farmer about food production.
The YF&R convention was awesomely inspiring. I, and hopefully every other young farmer present that weekend, am doing my best to tell agriculture's great story to anyone who will listen. As the word gets out, our opponents will learn that we are committed to our farms, we are small in numbers but strong at heart, and we are ready to carry the torch for agriculture through the hardships of the future in order to light the path for the next generation of proud producers. Oh, how exciting it will be.
My favorite speaker from the event is named Matt Rush, a 30-some year old Farm Bureau member who owns and operates a mid-western cattle ranch with his dad. Matt was the final speaker of the two day event, faced with the task of sending us back to the farm with a new ambition and hope for the future.
He started out by re-enforcing what we as farmers already know: as our population continues to move away from agriculture, farmers are all too content to hang back, quietly going about our business producing food for the 300 million others who do not. While we have been working along behind the scenes, the mainstream population eventually forgot about farms and food production, reducing producers to "just dumb farmers" and actually turning against those on whom they rely. Now activist groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and (you saw this coming, yes?) the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) control far more of the public's opinion concerning animal food production than do the farmers who raise and care for the livestock. Individuals spearheading food trends are suddenly convincing people to cry out against our large farms, demanding a return to the old days of 40 acres and a mule (never mind the fact that the food demand created by our 307,000,000 person population can never be filled by small farmers). In other words, farmers are now in a position requiring them to fight the people they are faithfully feeding (I have said this before, but mainstream America is fiercely biting the hand that is feeding them, and I do not think they realize it is happening).
Producers are in an interesting situation, as I hope you can see, but Matt had some superb advice for his audience to take home. He told us that farmers have to change our quiet ways and survive this surge of negativity and ignorance by remaining Valuable, Viable, and Visible. Here are his examples for each.
Valuable. We have all heard the term "pull your weight," which is something farmers do very well. As I mentioned, our population continues to grow and move away from agriculture; today, less than 2% of American citizens are farmers. That less-than-two-percent, however, is productive enough to provide food for the remaining more-than-ninety-eight-percent. Every one modern farmer today feeds an average of 140 other people who will never have to set foot on a farm to have a nutritious, safe meal. Those 140 people are free to direct their attention towards other advancements because their focus and funding do not revolve around finding food. So, are farmers valuable? You bet.
Viable. In the United States, we tend to think that we do everything best and the rest of the World is relatively insignificant. Matt said he was guilty of this sub-conscious feeling until he traveled to Germany and visited what can best be described as a global grain exchange. He described an ultramodern skyscraper with and ultramodern meeting room where he met a young man who buys and sells grain from around the World based on a half-cent per bushel cost totaling billions of dollars (in other words, enough half-cent bushels are exchanged that the total value reaches billions of dollars). The young man rattled off numbers and statistics that made Matt's head spin, and then the German said "I am going to tell you something that American producers will not like to hear. I do not care whether or not your country grows anything. If you stop entirely tomorrow, Australia will fill the void in the grain market. If Australia does not, South America will; if South America does not, Europe will; if Europe does not, Canada will, and so on." When we give an inch in this country, the rest of the world immediately takes it. American farmers must continually push towards the future to remain competitive in this global market.
Visible. Matt is a really funny guy, and he incorporated stories that helped make his point as he spoke. He described a trip he was taking to speak at a convention. His plane was completely full except for the seat directly beside him, and the flight was delayed at the gate (with everyone on board except the occupant of this one seat) for approximately 45 minutes. Matt was getting irritated and decided to bury his thoughts in a book when, as he put it, the most outlandish, ridiculous looking young woman stepped on board at the front of the plane. Given his luck with seat mates on previous flights, Matt knew immediately that she was the occupant of the empty seat beside him. Sure enough, she plopped down and immediately began talking about the day's events (her late arrival was the cause of the flight delay). Matt tried to ignore her, but the book in front of his face was not going to stop her discussion and they ended up talking about the usual airline topics: destination, occupation, etc. It turned out that the woman was an actress (not wildly famous, but she had been in a good number of movies and was making progress). She almost fell out of her seat when Matt told her he lived on a ranch and raised cattle. Matt said she was thrilled because she had never met "a real farmer," and they ended up having a very enjoyable and intelligent conversation about agriculture. At the end of the flight, the woman promised Matt that if she ever made it big, she would remember him and would be proud to represent farmers in a non-farm public. That is a pretty awesome commitment from a very unexpected source. His lesson from the experience is this: we, as young farmers, need to be proud of who we are and what we do, and should make every attempt to reveal our farm roots to those around us. Matt said his reluctance to speak with the ritzy-looking person on the flight almost eliminated his opportunity to share his agriculture story and educate someone who had never even MET a farmer about food production.
The YF&R convention was awesomely inspiring. I, and hopefully every other young farmer present that weekend, am doing my best to tell agriculture's great story to anyone who will listen. As the word gets out, our opponents will learn that we are committed to our farms, we are small in numbers but strong at heart, and we are ready to carry the torch for agriculture through the hardships of the future in order to light the path for the next generation of proud producers. Oh, how exciting it will be.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Your Opinion.
It seems as though everyone these days has seen some sort of dramatic "undercover documentary" that shows you just how horrible US food production is, and people seem almost giddy when they get to explain that they will never eat (insert meat product)ever again after what they saw on TV. I honestly cannot count the number of times every day that I have a conversation that starts with the other person saying "Yeah I saw a show about chicken processing (or whatever) last night and, boy, I don't want anything to do with that anymore! Gross!" These sort of statements show that our population has been trained by activists to believe that the food industry has something to hide from consumers and that processors do not want the public looking in to the business because they will be horrified by what they see. Even worse, many times people are actually EXCITED to talk about which food segment they have most recently rejected as a result of the news.
I have been pondering this sort of behavior recently, and unfortunately I don't seem to be able to make sense of America's obsession with the 'big ag. is bad' misconception. Why are we so quick to accept the belief that our food producers are careless fools who ruin the food we eat?
The food industry has nothing to hide; in fact, a majority of their time and effort is devoted to advancing food safety measures in the processing plants. Everything from material and personnel movement to temperature to airflow (air in harvest facilities is "scrubbed" and then forced to flow from areas of zero contamination to areas of higher contamination (rather than flowing freely) to ensure airborne pathogens are unable to compromise cleanliness in packaging areas) is carefully planned and enforced to ensure the product going to the consumer is safe. The result of such strict adherence to safety is very positive and widespread - compared to the hundreds of millions of pounds of food produced and consumed every year, the portion that is recalled on occasion is incredibly small...a pretty good track record for the food guys - yet few consumers realize the discrepancy between their lifetime of eating safe food from the grocery store and the negatively-slanted horror story told by Food, Inc. and other such films.
Why do you think people do not question the story told by anti-food production films? Like I said, I have the "Won't eat this!" conversation a thousand times a week, but I have NEVER heard anyone analyze the credibility of an anti-farming film. Does this happen because people have WAY more access to anti-farming propaganda than to the actual farm? Or is the distrust driven by fear? Or is this all just the latest trend to jump on and talk about? Maybe (most likely) I am entirely wrong and there is a better reason for the 'eliminate our food' discussion.
I don't know. So tell me what you think; respond in the comment section at the bottom of this post and help me out here. Tell me I am totally wrong (anonymous is fine, but I won't take offense either way) or mention that I am on the right track. What do you hear around town, and why are people afraid of what they eat? I am anxious to hear some other perspectives on this topic.
I have been pondering this sort of behavior recently, and unfortunately I don't seem to be able to make sense of America's obsession with the 'big ag. is bad' misconception. Why are we so quick to accept the belief that our food producers are careless fools who ruin the food we eat?
The food industry has nothing to hide; in fact, a majority of their time and effort is devoted to advancing food safety measures in the processing plants. Everything from material and personnel movement to temperature to airflow (air in harvest facilities is "scrubbed" and then forced to flow from areas of zero contamination to areas of higher contamination (rather than flowing freely) to ensure airborne pathogens are unable to compromise cleanliness in packaging areas) is carefully planned and enforced to ensure the product going to the consumer is safe. The result of such strict adherence to safety is very positive and widespread - compared to the hundreds of millions of pounds of food produced and consumed every year, the portion that is recalled on occasion is incredibly small...a pretty good track record for the food guys - yet few consumers realize the discrepancy between their lifetime of eating safe food from the grocery store and the negatively-slanted horror story told by Food, Inc. and other such films.
Why do you think people do not question the story told by anti-food production films? Like I said, I have the "Won't eat this!" conversation a thousand times a week, but I have NEVER heard anyone analyze the credibility of an anti-farming film. Does this happen because people have WAY more access to anti-farming propaganda than to the actual farm? Or is the distrust driven by fear? Or is this all just the latest trend to jump on and talk about? Maybe (most likely) I am entirely wrong and there is a better reason for the 'eliminate our food' discussion.
I don't know. So tell me what you think; respond in the comment section at the bottom of this post and help me out here. Tell me I am totally wrong (anonymous is fine, but I won't take offense either way) or mention that I am on the right track. What do you hear around town, and why are people afraid of what they eat? I am anxious to hear some other perspectives on this topic.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Seeing is Believing.
I am a notoriously analytical person. Nearly everything I hear from an outside source raises in my mind the question "is this really true?" I resist infomercials because they sound too good to be true, I will question the latest trend and ask myself if it is legitimate or just the result of some good marketing, and I rarely believe rumors that are flying around until I have seen for myself that the statement is in fact reality. On top of all this, I (usually wrongly) assume that everyone else thinks the same way I do about the bombardment of information we are presented with on a daily basis. In other words, I have to assume that at least a few of the people reading this blog are in front of their computer mumbling "I don't know about this, it sounds pretty far fetched..." So, in honor of all of you questioning minds out there, I have decided to show you that what I am saying is true.
When it comes to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and other well known animal support groups like PAWS (yes, they are on my bad list too), I sound a bit like a broken record. Most of my writing to this point has focused on these organizations and their well hidden but very effective anti-animal agriculture agenda as I try to expose their true intent to the public. To this point, however, I have never really shown you what I am talking about. So here we go.
Open up a new tab on your browser, go to Google and type in PAWS. The first link in the resulting list will take you to their homepage; take a second and look it over, I'll wait.
Did you enjoy that experience? It is a nice looking website and everywhere you see pictures of kittens, baby animals, some wildlife, and you find links to major success stories of dog and cat rescues. You can adopt a pet, look at pictures of cats and dogs, donate to the cause, and learn how to deal with that pesky raccoon that devastates your trash can every night. This is exactly what you thought PAWS was about, right? And you feel pretty good about what you are seeing: everyday people helping pets in unfortunate situations. So, at first glance (the only glance many people will take) PAWS is a dog and cat rescue operation that will also help pet owners deal with some types of wildlife, a mission that can be accepted by everyone.
Now lets poke around a little bit. Perhaps you were so moved by the homepage experience that you want to go a step beyond a simple donation. Move your cursor over "Get Involved" and select "Live Humanely," a suggestion from the group that sounds pretty innocent and easy to follow through with. The description says you can have a major effect on animals by simple steps like giving water to birds or adopting a pet - nothing wrong there - but the very first suggestion is "Go Veggie."
Pump the brakes here...what on earth does going vegetarian have to do with pet adoption and care? If PAWS helps out dogs, cats, and other pets (what nearly everyone associates the organization with), shouldn't their humane suggestions involve pets? Click "Go Veggie" and you are hit with a write-up explaining that meat purchases contribute to "the suffering of billions of farm animals every year," you see the all-too-popular "factory farming" phrase thrown around (that is nothing more than a phrase designed to portray farming as a mechanical, frightening, industrial beast), you are exposed to statements indicating that farmers are willing to torture animals simply to make money, and you are told that farms destroy the environment; the portrayal of farming is a vary harsh contradiction to the happy outlook of the PAWS homepage.
And herein lies the problem for agriculture; PAWS is advertised and associated with pet adoptions, raising funding from donations for such caring acts. Behind the scenes, however, they are pouring that money into anti-food-production slander used to frighten citizens away from our food system. If a farmer tries to stand up against the huge organization that is dirtying his (or her!) reputation, the farmer is hounded by the masses for being such a dog-hating, cruel person. Quite a tricky situation for us.
You will find a very similar experience at the HSUS website, with dog, cat, and dolphin (really) pictures on the most visible pages and anti-food propaganda buried somewhere inside. PETA is much more open about their views, but you will find that they use the same bunch of words that invoke a dark, evil feeling as you read them.
What can farmers do about this? We need to be louder than the opposition who has been allowed to speak for us in the past. As we continue to tell our real story to the public, the truth will spread and no longer will agriculture be blamed for the problems of today. So, as Ag. finds its footing in the social media landscape, do your part; listen to what we have to say and question the opposition. Read Amanda Nolz's blog on www.beefmagazine.com or check out the 'I am Agriculture Proud' group on Facebook to start. Activists have frightening buzzwords and some smoke-and-mirrors financial tactics, we have hundreds of years' experience, generations of family dedication to the land and animals, hundreds of millions of benefactors (every person who eats), and unlimited uplifting stories to tell.
When it comes to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and other well known animal support groups like PAWS (yes, they are on my bad list too), I sound a bit like a broken record. Most of my writing to this point has focused on these organizations and their well hidden but very effective anti-animal agriculture agenda as I try to expose their true intent to the public. To this point, however, I have never really shown you what I am talking about. So here we go.
Open up a new tab on your browser, go to Google and type in PAWS. The first link in the resulting list will take you to their homepage; take a second and look it over, I'll wait.
Did you enjoy that experience? It is a nice looking website and everywhere you see pictures of kittens, baby animals, some wildlife, and you find links to major success stories of dog and cat rescues. You can adopt a pet, look at pictures of cats and dogs, donate to the cause, and learn how to deal with that pesky raccoon that devastates your trash can every night. This is exactly what you thought PAWS was about, right? And you feel pretty good about what you are seeing: everyday people helping pets in unfortunate situations. So, at first glance (the only glance many people will take) PAWS is a dog and cat rescue operation that will also help pet owners deal with some types of wildlife, a mission that can be accepted by everyone.
Now lets poke around a little bit. Perhaps you were so moved by the homepage experience that you want to go a step beyond a simple donation. Move your cursor over "Get Involved" and select "Live Humanely," a suggestion from the group that sounds pretty innocent and easy to follow through with. The description says you can have a major effect on animals by simple steps like giving water to birds or adopting a pet - nothing wrong there - but the very first suggestion is "Go Veggie."
Pump the brakes here...what on earth does going vegetarian have to do with pet adoption and care? If PAWS helps out dogs, cats, and other pets (what nearly everyone associates the organization with), shouldn't their humane suggestions involve pets? Click "Go Veggie" and you are hit with a write-up explaining that meat purchases contribute to "the suffering of billions of farm animals every year," you see the all-too-popular "factory farming" phrase thrown around (that is nothing more than a phrase designed to portray farming as a mechanical, frightening, industrial beast), you are exposed to statements indicating that farmers are willing to torture animals simply to make money, and you are told that farms destroy the environment; the portrayal of farming is a vary harsh contradiction to the happy outlook of the PAWS homepage.
And herein lies the problem for agriculture; PAWS is advertised and associated with pet adoptions, raising funding from donations for such caring acts. Behind the scenes, however, they are pouring that money into anti-food-production slander used to frighten citizens away from our food system. If a farmer tries to stand up against the huge organization that is dirtying his (or her!) reputation, the farmer is hounded by the masses for being such a dog-hating, cruel person. Quite a tricky situation for us.
You will find a very similar experience at the HSUS website, with dog, cat, and dolphin (really) pictures on the most visible pages and anti-food propaganda buried somewhere inside. PETA is much more open about their views, but you will find that they use the same bunch of words that invoke a dark, evil feeling as you read them.
What can farmers do about this? We need to be louder than the opposition who has been allowed to speak for us in the past. As we continue to tell our real story to the public, the truth will spread and no longer will agriculture be blamed for the problems of today. So, as Ag. finds its footing in the social media landscape, do your part; listen to what we have to say and question the opposition. Read Amanda Nolz's blog on www.beefmagazine.com or check out the 'I am Agriculture Proud' group on Facebook to start. Activists have frightening buzzwords and some smoke-and-mirrors financial tactics, we have hundreds of years' experience, generations of family dedication to the land and animals, hundreds of millions of benefactors (every person who eats), and unlimited uplifting stories to tell.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Eat Your Way Through Earth Day
I love food. Not generic, out-of-the-box-designed-only-to-be-convenient food, but diverse, right-from-the-person-who-produced-it type of selections. My passion for a meal with a story stems, I believe, from my upbringing on a farm that provides me with insight into how everything on my plate came to be there, a view that is restricted to a very small percentage of the population today. Something tells me that when the average citizen sits down to a meal, the last thing on their mind is a farm and a family and the labor and passion that got the juicy chunk of beef (or pork, or chicken, or lamb, or turkey, or veal) to the plate in front of them. To me, a meal should blow your mind with flavor and at the same time act as a tribute to the people who have devoted their lives to the production of said entree. When I take a bite of excellent chicken, I am in the barn with the caretakers watching proudly as the birds grow and mature into healthy marketable fowl. Take a bite of a hot-off-the-grill steak (medium rare with butter and mushrooms and a little coarse salt, some fried asparagus on the side) and I am not simply tasting beef, I am reveling in the familiar smell of a barn, the subtle but ever present commotion from the cattle, the excited between-chores talk of things to come, and the pride associated with producing something that will make people very happy. Some tasty pork represents a pen of healthy hogs rooting around, lips smacking, while the grower looks over them with quiet satisfaction after another busy day. While blissfully enjoying anything from meats to vegetables, I am grateful to those in the field working with their land and animals to ensure my next feeding frenzy is a success.
These emotions that should come with our meals have been largely erased from the eating experience thanks to cookie-cutter restaurant chains trying only to maintain food consistency (forget quality and originality) across their 3,200 dining centers, diet plans yelling that the only way to a flat belly is to eliminate carbs or starch or meat or eggs or sugar or everything from your daily intake, "doctors" on biased infomercials saying studies indicate eating this food rather than that food will enhance your life with ".000003 micrograms more omega-3-fatty acids"...you know what I am talking about. Add to the confusion an environmental group that portrays farmers as earth-destroyers and animal activists that portray producers as "factory farmers" who cause "untold suffering to farm animals" and the bombardment will make even the strongest individuals actually WANT to sit inside and eat freeze-dried bean sprouts for the rest of their lives. Does anyone else see the tragedy here?
So, on this Earth Day while everyone else is screaming at the top of their lungs that you need to avoid meat to save the World, I will sit here and quietly suggest that you do the opposite. Make yourself and your family a special meal that supports any one of our dedicated cattle ranchers, hog producers, poultry producers, specialty meat guys, and vegetable growers big or small, production or niche. Connect in this way to the people behind the scenes constantly working with the Earth to safely keep it productive and our taste buds content rather than falling in behind someone who advertises "I am saving the World!" as they fly to the next environmental convention that, when said and done, is about as environmental as a toxic waste dump. Enjoy the bounty of the land by way of your food and get real with your efforts to help out the Earth by supporting farmers who work with the environment each and every day; if we all do this, the results will be much more dramatic than "going green" by purchasing the latest electric pushmower advertised in Mother Earth News.
These emotions that should come with our meals have been largely erased from the eating experience thanks to cookie-cutter restaurant chains trying only to maintain food consistency (forget quality and originality) across their 3,200 dining centers, diet plans yelling that the only way to a flat belly is to eliminate carbs or starch or meat or eggs or sugar or everything from your daily intake, "doctors" on biased infomercials saying studies indicate eating this food rather than that food will enhance your life with ".000003 micrograms more omega-3-fatty acids"...you know what I am talking about. Add to the confusion an environmental group that portrays farmers as earth-destroyers and animal activists that portray producers as "factory farmers" who cause "untold suffering to farm animals" and the bombardment will make even the strongest individuals actually WANT to sit inside and eat freeze-dried bean sprouts for the rest of their lives. Does anyone else see the tragedy here?
So, on this Earth Day while everyone else is screaming at the top of their lungs that you need to avoid meat to save the World, I will sit here and quietly suggest that you do the opposite. Make yourself and your family a special meal that supports any one of our dedicated cattle ranchers, hog producers, poultry producers, specialty meat guys, and vegetable growers big or small, production or niche. Connect in this way to the people behind the scenes constantly working with the Earth to safely keep it productive and our taste buds content rather than falling in behind someone who advertises "I am saving the World!" as they fly to the next environmental convention that, when said and done, is about as environmental as a toxic waste dump. Enjoy the bounty of the land by way of your food and get real with your efforts to help out the Earth by supporting farmers who work with the environment each and every day; if we all do this, the results will be much more dramatic than "going green" by purchasing the latest electric pushmower advertised in Mother Earth News.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Walk the Line
Last night I had the opportunity to speak with an individual about my post titled Truth, Inc. The person did not agree with my negative opinion about the film 'Food, Inc,' a movie currently in circulation that portrays production agriculture and the United States food system as an unsafe, unhealthy, uncontrolled corporate animal. From the individual's point of view, 'Food, Inc' is not an anti-agriculture documentary, but a positive get back to the small farm and stick it to the corporations type of film. I can see why 'Food, Inc' is viewed in this light, and I very much enjoy this type of constructive criticism because it forces me to look at what I have said and back it up. Keep in mind as you read this that I am in no way saying the pro-Food Inc opinion is wrong, I am just attempting to provide a stronger counter-argument.
I walk a fine line with my agricultural views and beliefs. On one hand, I am completely about the little guy. I love to see the creativity that stems from small niche producers, I love getting awesomely fresh, unmolested food straight from the source, I love knowing that money spent on a small farm actually makes a difference instead of pouring into a pool of millions of other dollars, and most of all I love my life here on my family's small local-oriented farm. It is incredible that people are trying to seek out local food and that consumers are making the extra effort to go to the farm instead of the grocery store. My life is committed to small farmers, and the feeling I get sharing our farm products with others is something I will never be able to describe.
On the other hand, I am fully appreciative of America's large scale production agriculture and our food system. Unlike many small farmers, I will never accuse production Ag. of being unsafe, unnecessary, unhealthy, and/or destructive. I am grateful for our science-based, zero tolerance food safety system that is in place, I understand that the large family farms (yes, they exist - over 90% of production farms are owned and operated by a multi-generational family) provide very inexpensive food to everyone, and I am sure that our big farms pick up the slack of the little producers (in other words, if your local market is sold out for the week, you will not starve, you will get supplies from the grocery store, i.e. large farms). I believe that my experience growing up on a farm has helped me understand and appreciate production agriculture on a level that many will never be exposed to.
Here is where it gets tricky. Documentaries like 'Food, Inc' play right in to the little guy's hand. Consumers watch the film and are taken aback by what they see and hear (they have no experience to tell them it is false), driving people right to their local farm market, a positive effect of the movie for the niche farmers across the country. The negative effect, however, is that in order to promote the small producer, filmmakers turn the public against the big one, a tragedy that should never happen. Everyone seems to think this is a harmless, even good result, but consider this: there are over three hundred and seven million people in the United States, ALL of whom need to eat. As activists continue to play on widespread agricultural ignorance, the masses begin to actively oppose large scale food production and make attempts to eliminate it. Common sense tells us there is absolutely no chance small farms are able to meet the demand of 300 million+ people (if everyone in Clarion started shopping at the Beef Barn we would be sold out in five minutes, and Clarion is only a few thousand people), and we know that after big agriculture is gone everyone will still have to eat, so the demand will still be there...if the little guys are not able to meet the demand and we have driven away our large producers, where is our food going to come from? Simple: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and everywhere else in the World. If we continue to oppose US large agriculture, our meat supply will switch from a domestically-produced USDA inspected product to an outsourced, USDA APPROVED (NOT inspected, they had no control over what happened to the meat before it got to this country or the facilities it was processed in), questionable one. Has anyone outside of agriculture ever thought about this? I know that 92% of the population is "highly concerned" about food imported from another country, but that same 92% is buying in to smear-campaigns like "Food, Inc" (and garbage produced by the Humane Society) that drive production out of this country! I hope you can see the inconsistency here.
I hope I managed to get the point across to you in this post. The little guys are great; nowhere else will you be able to come face-to-face with the passionate people who are working hard to make a living and provide you with pure food delight. You, too, need to walk the line, however; support the little guy with everything you have, but always remember to avoid getting caught up in the fear-and-ignorance driven wave that tells you our large scale food production is bad. We can eliminate the farms but we will never eliminate the demand, and producers in Brazil, Mexico, and Australia are more than willing to fill that void.
I walk a fine line with my agricultural views and beliefs. On one hand, I am completely about the little guy. I love to see the creativity that stems from small niche producers, I love getting awesomely fresh, unmolested food straight from the source, I love knowing that money spent on a small farm actually makes a difference instead of pouring into a pool of millions of other dollars, and most of all I love my life here on my family's small local-oriented farm. It is incredible that people are trying to seek out local food and that consumers are making the extra effort to go to the farm instead of the grocery store. My life is committed to small farmers, and the feeling I get sharing our farm products with others is something I will never be able to describe.
On the other hand, I am fully appreciative of America's large scale production agriculture and our food system. Unlike many small farmers, I will never accuse production Ag. of being unsafe, unnecessary, unhealthy, and/or destructive. I am grateful for our science-based, zero tolerance food safety system that is in place, I understand that the large family farms (yes, they exist - over 90% of production farms are owned and operated by a multi-generational family) provide very inexpensive food to everyone, and I am sure that our big farms pick up the slack of the little producers (in other words, if your local market is sold out for the week, you will not starve, you will get supplies from the grocery store, i.e. large farms). I believe that my experience growing up on a farm has helped me understand and appreciate production agriculture on a level that many will never be exposed to.
Here is where it gets tricky. Documentaries like 'Food, Inc' play right in to the little guy's hand. Consumers watch the film and are taken aback by what they see and hear (they have no experience to tell them it is false), driving people right to their local farm market, a positive effect of the movie for the niche farmers across the country. The negative effect, however, is that in order to promote the small producer, filmmakers turn the public against the big one, a tragedy that should never happen. Everyone seems to think this is a harmless, even good result, but consider this: there are over three hundred and seven million people in the United States, ALL of whom need to eat. As activists continue to play on widespread agricultural ignorance, the masses begin to actively oppose large scale food production and make attempts to eliminate it. Common sense tells us there is absolutely no chance small farms are able to meet the demand of 300 million+ people (if everyone in Clarion started shopping at the Beef Barn we would be sold out in five minutes, and Clarion is only a few thousand people), and we know that after big agriculture is gone everyone will still have to eat, so the demand will still be there...if the little guys are not able to meet the demand and we have driven away our large producers, where is our food going to come from? Simple: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and everywhere else in the World. If we continue to oppose US large agriculture, our meat supply will switch from a domestically-produced USDA inspected product to an outsourced, USDA APPROVED (NOT inspected, they had no control over what happened to the meat before it got to this country or the facilities it was processed in), questionable one. Has anyone outside of agriculture ever thought about this? I know that 92% of the population is "highly concerned" about food imported from another country, but that same 92% is buying in to smear-campaigns like "Food, Inc" (and garbage produced by the Humane Society) that drive production out of this country! I hope you can see the inconsistency here.
I hope I managed to get the point across to you in this post. The little guys are great; nowhere else will you be able to come face-to-face with the passionate people who are working hard to make a living and provide you with pure food delight. You, too, need to walk the line, however; support the little guy with everything you have, but always remember to avoid getting caught up in the fear-and-ignorance driven wave that tells you our large scale food production is bad. We can eliminate the farms but we will never eliminate the demand, and producers in Brazil, Mexico, and Australia are more than willing to fill that void.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Watch Out.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has been up to no good for some time, sneaking around in the shadows of their lies and tearing our domestic food supply out from under our feet without anyone even noticing. To this date, they have targeted and successfully passed legislation in four states: Florida, Arizona, Colorado, and California. Production animal agriculture - the domestic source of our inexpensive, plentiful, safe food - in these states is now (or soon to be) a thing of the past, and the radical organization is plowing ahead with their plan to eliminate meat, milk, and eggs/poultry from the American diet.
HSUS is successful primarily because 98% of Americans are completely food illiterate; in other words, an overwhelming majority of people do not have the slightest idea what kind of a farm their food comes from or how it gets to the grocery store. This, combined with the Humane Society technique of using emotion to raise money to achieve goals creates an unfortunate situation for farmers because unknowing minds can be easily manipulated to despise food production.
When the Humane Society enters a state, they flood the media with photos and videos featuring isolated cases of disturbing animal mistreatment and make it seem like such treatment is the norm on farms. When consumers see said videos, the circumstances portrayed become reality on farms everywhere in the public's eye; i.e. dairy farming is tail docking and de-horning, hog production is gestation crates, poultry production is cramped cages, beef production is downer cows and e-coli. The public, naturally, repels against the food industry in response to the (biased and inaccurate) representation of agriculture, and just like that the HSUS has majority backing.
Once the public is on their side, HSUS promotes their desire to bring "humane treatment" to the poor animals on production farms in the state. Once again, one-sided arguments and narrow definitions come into play; HSUS simply defines humane treatment by animal housing, not herd health, herd mortality rates, herd nutrition management, etc, all of which are favorable to the animals and contradict the mistreatment HSUS is trying to portray. Wayne Pacelle, president of the HSUS, shows up in his three thousand dollar suit and tells people "See, all we want to do is give this chicken room to spread its wings, and this sow the ability to move around with her piglets," and the votes in their favor come pouring in.
The HSUS mission sounds harmless from the outside, but consider this: every kind of animal housing has developed from years and generations of studies on domestic animal morbidity and mortality rates, and the crates, tethers, and pens are the best way to minimize death rates. Believe it or not, laying hens are bloodthirsty and will gang up and kill each other if any blood is present during the egg laying process, hence small laying crates in which the bird is safe to eat, drink, and lay eggs; sows do not hesitate to crush and eat newborn piglets, hence farrowing crates that provide food and water to the sow and safe access to their mother's milk for the piglets; dairy cattle, if not de-horned, will gore each other, reducing productivity, increasing the risk of disease, and diminishing overall herd health. Remove these animal safety measures, farm animal mortality rates skyrocket, and the producer is no longer able to stay competitive thanks to the resulting huge losses. As a result, animal production in that state ceases...exactly what the HSUS wants it to do, yet they never said a word to the voting public about eliminating farm operations. Tricky, isn't it?
It is worth mentioning at this time one of my new favorite quotes: "The future of agriculture is guaranteed because the people in this world like to eat. It is the future of AMERICAN agriculture that we must fight to protect." As radical, uninformed organizations such as the HSUS continue to spread their misinformation to the citizens of this country, they are forcing our food production out of the United States to countries with far fewer food safety regulations (non-domestic food sources are a concern to 92% of the population). They will work to gain a foothold one state at a time until one day we will wake up and realize that although our demand for food has increased, our production of food has been eliminated and we are at the mercy of someone else to feed this country.
I am telling you this because in the near future, the Humane Society is coming after agriculture in our great state of Pennsylvania. They will show you pictures that seem shocking and spout statistics that make you want to cringe. They will use words like 'compassionate' and 'caring' in support of themselves and 'inhumane' and 'cruel' to downplay our producers. But, unlike in Florida, Arizona, Colorado, and California, farmers in PA are ready with the truth, and we can beat them. Ohio recently held off the HSUS by simply reminding the public that farmers and food are everywhere, and farmers are doing what is best for their animals and for their customers; the reminder worked and an overwhelming majority of the population voted against the Humane Society regulations. You, too, need to spread the word to family and friends about the importance of farming and the lies of the Humane Society. With education and support Pennsylvanians will also prevent the loss of an industry.
This is getting long winded, but I will leave you one last thought: the Clarion glass plant was recently selected to be closed down, eliminating good jobs and removing $250,000 per week in salaries from our local economy - a devastating blow that trickles down to every other business in the area. Animal agriculture in Pennsylvania provides $46.4 billion dollars to the state economy...are we going to fight to keep that money in our hands, or will we allow the smooth talking, well dressed, wealthy Wayne Pacelle to coax it out from under our noses?
HSUS is successful primarily because 98% of Americans are completely food illiterate; in other words, an overwhelming majority of people do not have the slightest idea what kind of a farm their food comes from or how it gets to the grocery store. This, combined with the Humane Society technique of using emotion to raise money to achieve goals creates an unfortunate situation for farmers because unknowing minds can be easily manipulated to despise food production.
When the Humane Society enters a state, they flood the media with photos and videos featuring isolated cases of disturbing animal mistreatment and make it seem like such treatment is the norm on farms. When consumers see said videos, the circumstances portrayed become reality on farms everywhere in the public's eye; i.e. dairy farming is tail docking and de-horning, hog production is gestation crates, poultry production is cramped cages, beef production is downer cows and e-coli. The public, naturally, repels against the food industry in response to the (biased and inaccurate) representation of agriculture, and just like that the HSUS has majority backing.
Once the public is on their side, HSUS promotes their desire to bring "humane treatment" to the poor animals on production farms in the state. Once again, one-sided arguments and narrow definitions come into play; HSUS simply defines humane treatment by animal housing, not herd health, herd mortality rates, herd nutrition management, etc, all of which are favorable to the animals and contradict the mistreatment HSUS is trying to portray. Wayne Pacelle, president of the HSUS, shows up in his three thousand dollar suit and tells people "See, all we want to do is give this chicken room to spread its wings, and this sow the ability to move around with her piglets," and the votes in their favor come pouring in.
The HSUS mission sounds harmless from the outside, but consider this: every kind of animal housing has developed from years and generations of studies on domestic animal morbidity and mortality rates, and the crates, tethers, and pens are the best way to minimize death rates. Believe it or not, laying hens are bloodthirsty and will gang up and kill each other if any blood is present during the egg laying process, hence small laying crates in which the bird is safe to eat, drink, and lay eggs; sows do not hesitate to crush and eat newborn piglets, hence farrowing crates that provide food and water to the sow and safe access to their mother's milk for the piglets; dairy cattle, if not de-horned, will gore each other, reducing productivity, increasing the risk of disease, and diminishing overall herd health. Remove these animal safety measures, farm animal mortality rates skyrocket, and the producer is no longer able to stay competitive thanks to the resulting huge losses. As a result, animal production in that state ceases...exactly what the HSUS wants it to do, yet they never said a word to the voting public about eliminating farm operations. Tricky, isn't it?
It is worth mentioning at this time one of my new favorite quotes: "The future of agriculture is guaranteed because the people in this world like to eat. It is the future of AMERICAN agriculture that we must fight to protect." As radical, uninformed organizations such as the HSUS continue to spread their misinformation to the citizens of this country, they are forcing our food production out of the United States to countries with far fewer food safety regulations (non-domestic food sources are a concern to 92% of the population). They will work to gain a foothold one state at a time until one day we will wake up and realize that although our demand for food has increased, our production of food has been eliminated and we are at the mercy of someone else to feed this country.
I am telling you this because in the near future, the Humane Society is coming after agriculture in our great state of Pennsylvania. They will show you pictures that seem shocking and spout statistics that make you want to cringe. They will use words like 'compassionate' and 'caring' in support of themselves and 'inhumane' and 'cruel' to downplay our producers. But, unlike in Florida, Arizona, Colorado, and California, farmers in PA are ready with the truth, and we can beat them. Ohio recently held off the HSUS by simply reminding the public that farmers and food are everywhere, and farmers are doing what is best for their animals and for their customers; the reminder worked and an overwhelming majority of the population voted against the Humane Society regulations. You, too, need to spread the word to family and friends about the importance of farming and the lies of the Humane Society. With education and support Pennsylvanians will also prevent the loss of an industry.
This is getting long winded, but I will leave you one last thought: the Clarion glass plant was recently selected to be closed down, eliminating good jobs and removing $250,000 per week in salaries from our local economy - a devastating blow that trickles down to every other business in the area. Animal agriculture in Pennsylvania provides $46.4 billion dollars to the state economy...are we going to fight to keep that money in our hands, or will we allow the smooth talking, well dressed, wealthy Wayne Pacelle to coax it out from under our noses?
Friday, March 5, 2010
Newsflash: Food Is Good For You
I have been itching to construct this post for months now, but I did not quite have all my ducks in a row and was not sure I could convey my point in a manner that would make the impact it is worthy of. Until today, that is. Dad found the information I knew was out there and could not find, and I am ready to go. What I am going to attempt to do is bring into light what happens when non-agricultural people begin to influence food trends.
It is safe to say that soybeans have become a major celebrity in the food world. We associate soy products with a modern, healthy, trendy, stay-away-from-that-bad-meat-milk-and-eggs sort of diet that is widely adopted by health conscious people. Everyone seems to want a piece of the nifty soybean marketing pie; one does not have to try very hard to find soy milk, soy cheese, soy meat substitutes, soy egg substitutes, the list goes on and on. These bean-based foods are marketed as better for everyone because they do not have any of that scary cholesterol or those terrifying preservatives and hormones that farmers wildly pack into their meat products. In other words, soybeans are accepted as a wonderfood that can solve all the dietary problems of today.
Or can they?
Remember my post about the hormone levels in untreated and hormone-treated beef? I mentioned that the meat hormone scare is fairly irrelevant because hormone concentrations in a serving of non-treated and treated beef differs by only several billionths of a gram. This is what I was referring to: a serving of meat from an untreated steer contains 1.1 nanograms of estrogen (one nanogram is a billionth of a gram; estrogen is what the animals are implanted with and is the hormone everyone is afraid of ingesting). On the flip side, a serving of beef from a steer on a rigorous hormone treatment schedule contains 1.4 nanograms of estrogen. Neither concentration is large enough to even be considered a threat by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA - the people dedicated to making sure your food is safe), and the difference between the two is small to the point of irrelevance. Estrogen levels in a serving of milk are slightly higher at 13.6 nanograms, still a level that does not cause a stir. Despite these manageable (even healthy, if you will) hormone levels, meat and milk have gotten a black eye when it comes to the health conversation.
Now consider this: our cure-all soybeans also produce and contain estrogen. Quite a lot of it, actually. In fact, a serving of soybean oil contains 189,133 nanograms of the hormone. Yes, you read that correctly: a serving of soy oil (that is touted as healthy and harmless) contains 189,133 times MORE estrogen than a serving of beef from a rigorously-enhanced steer (that is ridiculed as unhealthy and dangerous). So when someone drinks a glass of soy milk because they heard from Oprah that real milk is unhealthy, they are introducing significantly higher levels of life-changing estrogen into their system than if they had enjoyed the real thing. That tofu burger selected by the college student who went vegetarian because she "found out from PETA that cattle are abused, hormone-raging science projects" is pouring thousands of times more estrogen into her body than if she had eaten a real beef patty. Worst of all, the trendy mother who gives her young boy soy milk every day for breakfast is blasting the little guy with estrogen - over a period of time, he is going to develop some very feminine features. Ironic, isn't it? The people pushing away from farmers in an attempt to become more healthy are actually walking right in to the problems they think are being avoided, and they have no idea it is happening.
It is interesting to me that people are more willing to listen to "food experts" who have never even set foot on a farm (where ALL of our food comes from!) than a farmer or agricultural expert who grew up producing the real thing. I read somewhere that we have gotten to the point of viewing what is on our plate as calories, cholesterol, vitamins, and all of the other health terms we can't get away from rather than vegetables, meats, and grains. This is devastating because food is so GOOD - it has awesome colors, textures, flavors, smells...eat a little of everything in moderation and forget all the scientific garbage. Look at what you are eating - if there is a nice variety of stuff and you can identify all of it as something that was grown, not processed, EAT IT! It is time we once again view and trust our farmers as the food experts, otherwise we will end up choking down "Jimmy's super low calorie ultra fat burning totally vitamin packed omega-3 enhanced eco-friendly awesome SOY protein bar!!!" Blah.
It is safe to say that soybeans have become a major celebrity in the food world. We associate soy products with a modern, healthy, trendy, stay-away-from-that-bad-meat-milk-and-eggs sort of diet that is widely adopted by health conscious people. Everyone seems to want a piece of the nifty soybean marketing pie; one does not have to try very hard to find soy milk, soy cheese, soy meat substitutes, soy egg substitutes, the list goes on and on. These bean-based foods are marketed as better for everyone because they do not have any of that scary cholesterol or those terrifying preservatives and hormones that farmers wildly pack into their meat products. In other words, soybeans are accepted as a wonderfood that can solve all the dietary problems of today.
Or can they?
Remember my post about the hormone levels in untreated and hormone-treated beef? I mentioned that the meat hormone scare is fairly irrelevant because hormone concentrations in a serving of non-treated and treated beef differs by only several billionths of a gram. This is what I was referring to: a serving of meat from an untreated steer contains 1.1 nanograms of estrogen (one nanogram is a billionth of a gram; estrogen is what the animals are implanted with and is the hormone everyone is afraid of ingesting). On the flip side, a serving of beef from a steer on a rigorous hormone treatment schedule contains 1.4 nanograms of estrogen. Neither concentration is large enough to even be considered a threat by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA - the people dedicated to making sure your food is safe), and the difference between the two is small to the point of irrelevance. Estrogen levels in a serving of milk are slightly higher at 13.6 nanograms, still a level that does not cause a stir. Despite these manageable (even healthy, if you will) hormone levels, meat and milk have gotten a black eye when it comes to the health conversation.
Now consider this: our cure-all soybeans also produce and contain estrogen. Quite a lot of it, actually. In fact, a serving of soybean oil contains 189,133 nanograms of the hormone. Yes, you read that correctly: a serving of soy oil (that is touted as healthy and harmless) contains 189,133 times MORE estrogen than a serving of beef from a rigorously-enhanced steer (that is ridiculed as unhealthy and dangerous). So when someone drinks a glass of soy milk because they heard from Oprah that real milk is unhealthy, they are introducing significantly higher levels of life-changing estrogen into their system than if they had enjoyed the real thing. That tofu burger selected by the college student who went vegetarian because she "found out from PETA that cattle are abused, hormone-raging science projects" is pouring thousands of times more estrogen into her body than if she had eaten a real beef patty. Worst of all, the trendy mother who gives her young boy soy milk every day for breakfast is blasting the little guy with estrogen - over a period of time, he is going to develop some very feminine features. Ironic, isn't it? The people pushing away from farmers in an attempt to become more healthy are actually walking right in to the problems they think are being avoided, and they have no idea it is happening.
It is interesting to me that people are more willing to listen to "food experts" who have never even set foot on a farm (where ALL of our food comes from!) than a farmer or agricultural expert who grew up producing the real thing. I read somewhere that we have gotten to the point of viewing what is on our plate as calories, cholesterol, vitamins, and all of the other health terms we can't get away from rather than vegetables, meats, and grains. This is devastating because food is so GOOD - it has awesome colors, textures, flavors, smells...eat a little of everything in moderation and forget all the scientific garbage. Look at what you are eating - if there is a nice variety of stuff and you can identify all of it as something that was grown, not processed, EAT IT! It is time we once again view and trust our farmers as the food experts, otherwise we will end up choking down "Jimmy's super low calorie ultra fat burning totally vitamin packed omega-3 enhanced eco-friendly awesome SOY protein bar!!!" Blah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
