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.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
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.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Small Steps to Huge Leaps
I recently read that an overwhelming majority of Americans are now three generations removed from agriculture. That is a long time-oriented separation from the "down in the dirt" knowledge associated with farm life, and a major opportunity for questionable "facts" to find a secure place in public opinion.
My guess is the first generation off the farm was well aware of their roots and was grateful for the opportunity to pursue a different lifestyle, so they were at least somewhat knowledgeable about food production and did not question it; the second was far enough off the farm that food production was not given a second thought, it was just something that happened to ensure that the grocery store aisles were well stocked; today, farming is something that is completely foreign to the third generation (even their grandparents were not farmers), and they are once again becoming interested in the origin of their next meal. Unfortunately, the new-found curiosity created a void that was filled by the loud voices of (equally uninformed) individuals spouting opinions about animal abuse, food trends, inappropriate production methods, etc. Perhaps even more unfortunately, farmers and ranchers (at first) stuck to their guns and remained behind the scenes, quietly going about their business while the public ate up every crumb of the slander-soaked pie laid out by various forms of extremest media.
It is easy for someone passionate about animal care and crop production to become angry at people who immediately believe the lies they hear about farming, but we need to realize that it is equally easy for non-farmers to latch on to what they hear; after all, nobody wants to support cruelty or wild science-fiction experiments, and if all they know is what they hear from the loudest source, who can blame them for pulling back in shock?
As our way of life began to gain a nationally recognized (but not legitimate) black spot in the eyes of the public, agricultural leaders began to spread the word that rather than becoming angry, farmers need to embrace the public with the real story and push back against our competitors with the same means they used against us. Almost overnight, groups of young (and young at heart) farmers began to spread the truth about farming, largely via the internet. Facebook groups, agricultural magazines, and various websites are now abuzz with success stories and techniques to educate people about farm life. Unlike our competitors, farmers actually have facts and physical proof (rather than opinions) to show people that agriculture has been portrayed in an artificial light, and the public is listening.
I guess there is no real message in this post other than I am excited to see the tides turning against radical organizations whose success is based on empty lies. Farmers turning to the internet is just the beginning; across the country, farms and ranches are being opened to the public so everyone is able to come in and see the full process for themselves. As people become re-educated about food production, fears and questions will disappear as fast as the organizations that created them. Keep listening to the real story, and I bet we will quickly see a bridge built to span the producer-consumer gap.
My guess is the first generation off the farm was well aware of their roots and was grateful for the opportunity to pursue a different lifestyle, so they were at least somewhat knowledgeable about food production and did not question it; the second was far enough off the farm that food production was not given a second thought, it was just something that happened to ensure that the grocery store aisles were well stocked; today, farming is something that is completely foreign to the third generation (even their grandparents were not farmers), and they are once again becoming interested in the origin of their next meal. Unfortunately, the new-found curiosity created a void that was filled by the loud voices of (equally uninformed) individuals spouting opinions about animal abuse, food trends, inappropriate production methods, etc. Perhaps even more unfortunately, farmers and ranchers (at first) stuck to their guns and remained behind the scenes, quietly going about their business while the public ate up every crumb of the slander-soaked pie laid out by various forms of extremest media.
It is easy for someone passionate about animal care and crop production to become angry at people who immediately believe the lies they hear about farming, but we need to realize that it is equally easy for non-farmers to latch on to what they hear; after all, nobody wants to support cruelty or wild science-fiction experiments, and if all they know is what they hear from the loudest source, who can blame them for pulling back in shock?
As our way of life began to gain a nationally recognized (but not legitimate) black spot in the eyes of the public, agricultural leaders began to spread the word that rather than becoming angry, farmers need to embrace the public with the real story and push back against our competitors with the same means they used against us. Almost overnight, groups of young (and young at heart) farmers began to spread the truth about farming, largely via the internet. Facebook groups, agricultural magazines, and various websites are now abuzz with success stories and techniques to educate people about farm life. Unlike our competitors, farmers actually have facts and physical proof (rather than opinions) to show people that agriculture has been portrayed in an artificial light, and the public is listening.
I guess there is no real message in this post other than I am excited to see the tides turning against radical organizations whose success is based on empty lies. Farmers turning to the internet is just the beginning; across the country, farms and ranches are being opened to the public so everyone is able to come in and see the full process for themselves. As people become re-educated about food production, fears and questions will disappear as fast as the organizations that created them. Keep listening to the real story, and I bet we will quickly see a bridge built to span the producer-consumer gap.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Conflicting Demands
Food in the United States is cheap. So cheap, in fact, that Americans use less of their disposable income on food than people in any other developed country (from Steve Kay, publisher of Cattle Buyers Weekly). As a whole, we are so accustomed to our inexpensive, reliable, and safe food supply that we take it for granted. Slight increases in price create shockwaves throughout the public and ignite a firestorm of criticisms aimed at producers; a single pathogen found in a shipment of beef results in immediate blame placed on large producers, major recalls of the product, and wailing complaints about how awful our food supply is (despite the fact that more people die from pet attacks each year than food borne illnesses). Among all the commotion, the question/statement "Why do farmers place us at risk by raising food in such a terrible way? We need to get back to a more natural food source." always seems to find its way to the surface.
As one of my favorite professors at Penn State would regularly force us to do, lets think about this.
Selling food at the lowest prices in the World places an enormous stress on growers and processors in this country. As I hope we remember from 10th grade economics, operating any business on razor thin margins demands absolute efficiency, something many manufacturers, retailers, and our food growers have adapted to meet. In other words, the result of the public demanding inexpensive food is the concentration of both vegetable and meat production onto very large farms in order to cut the production costs.
When you hear someone getting bent out of shape about the big bad corporate farms and their modern growing techniques (genetically modified crops, animal feedlots, hormone implants, etc.), think what it would be like without them. Hundreds of thousands of acres would be brought back into crop production thanks to significantly reduced yields (imagine tearing down new suburban developments to create ideal farmland...there is an interesting thought), and hundreds of thousands more to be used for livestock grazing. Pollution would immediately rise to unimaginable levels due to renewed use of a wide variety of highly toxic weed control chemicals on crops (modern genetically modified crops are designed to basically take care of themselves - very little spray is used on a field today compared to just twenty years ago). Much of the production would be pushed outside of our borders (to fill the gap created by reduced yields and efficiency) where food production standards and controls are very minimal or completely non-existent...think of human waste fertilizing those vegetables in your salad, and beef being processed in a non-sterile facility...tasty. There are too many other negative consequences to list, but here is a final big one: the major spike in production costs would drive the price of food to life-altering levels - I don't think anyone wants to spend 50 - 75% of their yearly income just to keep the fridge full.
We owe our prosperous way of life in the United States to those in the food production industry. Many of us have never come close to starving to death, few feel genuinely unsafe about biting into something from the grocery store, we don't have to empty the bank account each day to feed our families, and we don't have to worry if there will be enough food for tomorrow. Because of this, we are able to direct our focus towards the advancements that make this such a great country to live in. So, support the little farmers in your community, get excited about an all-organic meal, shop in places you know where the food comes from, and make an effort to understand farming, but do not ever forget that none of it would exist without large farms supporting the backbone of America.
As one of my favorite professors at Penn State would regularly force us to do, lets think about this.
Selling food at the lowest prices in the World places an enormous stress on growers and processors in this country. As I hope we remember from 10th grade economics, operating any business on razor thin margins demands absolute efficiency, something many manufacturers, retailers, and our food growers have adapted to meet. In other words, the result of the public demanding inexpensive food is the concentration of both vegetable and meat production onto very large farms in order to cut the production costs.
When you hear someone getting bent out of shape about the big bad corporate farms and their modern growing techniques (genetically modified crops, animal feedlots, hormone implants, etc.), think what it would be like without them. Hundreds of thousands of acres would be brought back into crop production thanks to significantly reduced yields (imagine tearing down new suburban developments to create ideal farmland...there is an interesting thought), and hundreds of thousands more to be used for livestock grazing. Pollution would immediately rise to unimaginable levels due to renewed use of a wide variety of highly toxic weed control chemicals on crops (modern genetically modified crops are designed to basically take care of themselves - very little spray is used on a field today compared to just twenty years ago). Much of the production would be pushed outside of our borders (to fill the gap created by reduced yields and efficiency) where food production standards and controls are very minimal or completely non-existent...think of human waste fertilizing those vegetables in your salad, and beef being processed in a non-sterile facility...tasty. There are too many other negative consequences to list, but here is a final big one: the major spike in production costs would drive the price of food to life-altering levels - I don't think anyone wants to spend 50 - 75% of their yearly income just to keep the fridge full.
We owe our prosperous way of life in the United States to those in the food production industry. Many of us have never come close to starving to death, few feel genuinely unsafe about biting into something from the grocery store, we don't have to empty the bank account each day to feed our families, and we don't have to worry if there will be enough food for tomorrow. Because of this, we are able to direct our focus towards the advancements that make this such a great country to live in. So, support the little farmers in your community, get excited about an all-organic meal, shop in places you know where the food comes from, and make an effort to understand farming, but do not ever forget that none of it would exist without large farms supporting the backbone of America.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
So True.
I have mentioned Amanda Nolz's blog from www.beefmagazine.com before and encouraged you to check out the website and read her updates. If you have not found the time to do this yet, take a second now and make your way over there. The girl is good at what she does, and, unlike me, she actually updates her blog on a very regular basis.
In her most recent post, Amanda landed on an excellent point that needs to be heard by everyone, especially the creeps in the HSUS and PETA. The reason I am passing along her message is because I (and probably every other farm kid) have experienced the same sense of awe that she is describing, and I am furious that a slew of self proclaimed activists have successfully covered up the greatness of farmers.
Like Amanda, I have looked up to my dad throughout my entire life because of his unwavering strength and commitment to this farm. He spends winters out in sub zero weather wearing frozen Carhartts and ratty gloves with holes worn in them dealing with icicles in his mustache (really) and broken down equipment and snow burying everything just to maintain a cozy situation for our cattle. He has spent countless frozen hours on the old cabless John Deere in howling winds hauling manure away from the barns and moving fresh sawdust into them so the animals can be comfortable. I have watched him chisel ice out of frozen-solid waterers, use his own hands to warm up frozen water pipes, and carry clean water in buckets to provide the herd with something to drink. From sun-up to sun-down (and sometimes well into the night) in all weather conditions he is willing to place himself in uncomfortable situations just to keep the cattle happy and healthy. The only thing I have never seen him do is whine and complain, give up, or throw a fit about how hard he is working. He has chosen to be a steward to these animals, and would not change occupations if the offer arose. It is impossible not to respect him.
This is what I lived and seen my entire life, this kind of self sacrifice is something that happens on every farm across the country every day of every year, and I cannot put into words how absolutely sickening it is to turn on the news and hear some latte-sipping, comfort-craving, PETA supporting clown who can't last a minute without climate control and an imac, someone who is incapable of caring for another living thing (and has never tried, and never will) and is afraid to get their plastic faux-fur dirty, say that farmers are mean and do not care about animals as much as the compassionate individuals in PETA. My blood boils thinking that these idiots are actually ACCEPTED by the public, that their empty, meaningless words are broadcast across the country every time they set up some "trendy" demonstration (remember the Groundhog Day hoopla?) or have some clueless celebrity join their group while the negative image about farmers sets even deeper into the American mindset. I am willing to bet my life that if a group of softies from an animal rights organization were left in charge of a herd of cattle, they would kill the animals within one week because taking care of them is too hard and too big of a drag on their social life. They have no connection to agriculture, no understanding of the effort people like my dad and uncle put into the welfare of animals, and have no idea how much joy it brings to see a young calf grow into a healthy marketable animal, yet they are out there on their soap box telling the world (and SUCCEEDING, for crying out loud) that farmers are horrible, uncaring people who destroy the environment and abuse animals. My skin is crawling right now just thinking about it.
So, here is your mission. The next time you see an anti-agriculture ad, or a "don't be cruel, go vegetarian" sign, or hear someone talking about how abused farm animals are, do not just shrug it off and move on. Tell the person they are wrong. Ask them to seek out the truth from a farmer (not some self-appointed foodie or disconnected radical organization) and get the real story. If people, those involved with agriculture AND everyone who is not, start pushing back against animal rights groups' elitist power grabs they will quickly lose momentum and go away. Only when the public begins to see farming in its true light and accept the fact that American producers are committed to safe food production and are willing to do whatever it takes to provide inexpensive food to the masses will real progress be made for the future.
I am sorry that this is such a hateful post; I do not think it is constructive to angrily bash those with whom I do not agree, but there is no point, I decided, in covering up my distaste for those involved with PETA, the HSUS, and every other anti-agriculture organization. If you read Amanda's story about her dad you will find that it is very similar to mine, right down to the mustache icicles, because everyone who has committed their lives to animal care shares the same devotion to the cause. It is time for farmers to change their ways; no longer will we sit back and let radical extremists touting their "noble cause" manipulate public opinion about farmers. This is the start of a new year, a new decade, a new face for farming, and there is no room in the agenda for misinformed activists.
In her most recent post, Amanda landed on an excellent point that needs to be heard by everyone, especially the creeps in the HSUS and PETA. The reason I am passing along her message is because I (and probably every other farm kid) have experienced the same sense of awe that she is describing, and I am furious that a slew of self proclaimed activists have successfully covered up the greatness of farmers.
Like Amanda, I have looked up to my dad throughout my entire life because of his unwavering strength and commitment to this farm. He spends winters out in sub zero weather wearing frozen Carhartts and ratty gloves with holes worn in them dealing with icicles in his mustache (really) and broken down equipment and snow burying everything just to maintain a cozy situation for our cattle. He has spent countless frozen hours on the old cabless John Deere in howling winds hauling manure away from the barns and moving fresh sawdust into them so the animals can be comfortable. I have watched him chisel ice out of frozen-solid waterers, use his own hands to warm up frozen water pipes, and carry clean water in buckets to provide the herd with something to drink. From sun-up to sun-down (and sometimes well into the night) in all weather conditions he is willing to place himself in uncomfortable situations just to keep the cattle happy and healthy. The only thing I have never seen him do is whine and complain, give up, or throw a fit about how hard he is working. He has chosen to be a steward to these animals, and would not change occupations if the offer arose. It is impossible not to respect him.
This is what I lived and seen my entire life, this kind of self sacrifice is something that happens on every farm across the country every day of every year, and I cannot put into words how absolutely sickening it is to turn on the news and hear some latte-sipping, comfort-craving, PETA supporting clown who can't last a minute without climate control and an imac, someone who is incapable of caring for another living thing (and has never tried, and never will) and is afraid to get their plastic faux-fur dirty, say that farmers are mean and do not care about animals as much as the compassionate individuals in PETA. My blood boils thinking that these idiots are actually ACCEPTED by the public, that their empty, meaningless words are broadcast across the country every time they set up some "trendy" demonstration (remember the Groundhog Day hoopla?) or have some clueless celebrity join their group while the negative image about farmers sets even deeper into the American mindset. I am willing to bet my life that if a group of softies from an animal rights organization were left in charge of a herd of cattle, they would kill the animals within one week because taking care of them is too hard and too big of a drag on their social life. They have no connection to agriculture, no understanding of the effort people like my dad and uncle put into the welfare of animals, and have no idea how much joy it brings to see a young calf grow into a healthy marketable animal, yet they are out there on their soap box telling the world (and SUCCEEDING, for crying out loud) that farmers are horrible, uncaring people who destroy the environment and abuse animals. My skin is crawling right now just thinking about it.
So, here is your mission. The next time you see an anti-agriculture ad, or a "don't be cruel, go vegetarian" sign, or hear someone talking about how abused farm animals are, do not just shrug it off and move on. Tell the person they are wrong. Ask them to seek out the truth from a farmer (not some self-appointed foodie or disconnected radical organization) and get the real story. If people, those involved with agriculture AND everyone who is not, start pushing back against animal rights groups' elitist power grabs they will quickly lose momentum and go away. Only when the public begins to see farming in its true light and accept the fact that American producers are committed to safe food production and are willing to do whatever it takes to provide inexpensive food to the masses will real progress be made for the future.
I am sorry that this is such a hateful post; I do not think it is constructive to angrily bash those with whom I do not agree, but there is no point, I decided, in covering up my distaste for those involved with PETA, the HSUS, and every other anti-agriculture organization. If you read Amanda's story about her dad you will find that it is very similar to mine, right down to the mustache icicles, because everyone who has committed their lives to animal care shares the same devotion to the cause. It is time for farmers to change their ways; no longer will we sit back and let radical extremists touting their "noble cause" manipulate public opinion about farmers. This is the start of a new year, a new decade, a new face for farming, and there is no room in the agenda for misinformed activists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
