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…
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
