Back in 2001, a little known writer from the New York Times Magazine walked on to a South Dakota ranch owned and operated by Troy and Stacy Hadrick and their families. The newly married fifth generation ranchers were told that a story was going to be written for the NY Times focusing on the life of a steer on their ranch - the writer wished to show the public what kind of effort is put in to a steak before it is eaten. Because the intent of the story was sold to them as a positive way to enlighten consumers about ranch activities, the enthusiastic couple agreed to work with the interested journalist for a season in order to tell the story of agriculture to a relatively large audience.
The writer's name happened to be Michael Pollan. And, rather than following through on his promise to write an informative article about modern beef production, Pollan ripped the Hadrick family and their operation to shreds in his article "Power Steer". According to BEEF Magazine (one of my favorites), Mike described the Hadrick operation as "crowded, filthy, and stinking, with open sewers, unpaved roads, and choking air." He went on to credit beef production as the cause of "antibiotic resistance, environmental degradation, heart disease, and E. coli poisoning."
Upon reading the article, Troy and Stacy were (quite understandably) brought to their knees. It seemed impossible that some sly goon could skew the passion for their multi-generational livelihood and their commitment to the ranch animals into a horrendous, negative article, but the evidence of such a tragedy lay right in front of their eyes. For some time, the Hadricks stayed quiet and under the radar as the Pollan's "Power Steer" article circulated throughout the media, gaining undeserved attention and becoming a reference point for health nuts, educators, students, and niche organic growers across the nation.
Fortunately for the Beef industry, Troy and Stacy decided that they were not going to allow the biased and inaccurate writings of some clown to snuff out their way of life. Today, when they are not working their ranch, the couple travels the nation spreading the truth about beef production. The Hadricks are some of the most influential agricultural advocates in our country today, managing an awesome website (www.advocatesforag.com) and teaching other farmers and ranchers how to spread the truth about production agriculture. They are a couple whom I would very much like to meet at some point in my life, and I regularly follow the Advocates for Ag blog as a way of bettering my own agricultural education skills. We (the industry) are lucky to have them.
I did not write this, however, simply to focus on the Hadrick family. This post was written to help reveal the real Michael Pollan.
After writing "The Omnivores Dilemma", Michael gained national attention as a great food visionary dedicated to solving America's health problems (which he blames entirely on our farmers and ranchers) and saving the environment by producing our food in neat little organic gardens spaced appropriately across the nation. College professors, students, hippies, niche farmers, and a multitude of others fell in line with Mr. Pollan, raising him to near celebrity status as a result of his teachings - apparently he was actually considered by President Obama to be a USDA secretary.
But what if Pollan isn't really such a visionary? If you cut all the fat out of his writings, what he really preaches is common sense: don't eat processed junk food, avoid gigantic servings of fatty foods, and eat a variety of stuff; the fresher the better. Not exactly rocket science. So why is he famous?
Michael Pollan is anything but a well informed visionary; he is simply a capitalist. Mike has discovered that by lying, cheating, deceiving and manipulating people, and creating radically inaccurate speeches by completely eliminating one side of an argument, and serving it all up in a warm fuzzy organic gardener blanket, he can capitalize on people's natural desire to stay healthy. He found a topic that everyone has an interest in - food - and infused his own blend of biased information to make people afraid of what is on their dinner table. Most Americans have never been on a working farm or ranch, so when Michael spews out a description of "open sewers and choking air" and ties the negative image to the food people purchase for their families, readers get uncomfortable and Mike's books start flying off the shelf.
I like to think that most of Pollan's readers - those open to reason and not committed to the same agenda that he is - would withdraw their support if it became common knowledge that Michael is nothing more than a snake in the grass, willing to crush and eliminate the lives of young farm and ranch families simply to gain recognition as a writer and enjoy the fortune and fame that comes with being a best selling author. He has little food production experience outside of his own garden, and his fame was built on corrupt information gathering and a steady stream of deception fed to his readers (they are looking to him for real information, but he is instead flooding their minds with "facts" designed to fuel his own agenda).
It is a shame that those working only for themselves seem to be the people who get all the attention. If Michael were truly a visionary he would be promoting modern agriculture and encouraging the public to work with real production farmers to make our food system even better and more productive than it already is. That, however, would take a good bit of media focus away from Michael, yet another reality he is not willing to face. Pitiful.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
One of the Sheep
Every now and then I find myself a little overwhelmed when it occurs to me that my "to do"' list is growing much faster than my "completed" one. As my mind sorts through the tasks ahead (while trying to simultaneously manage my day to day activities) a feeling of pressure often creeps up on me, creating a sense of urgency to do SOMETHING. Much to my dismay, when I reach the point of "gotta do something now!" my brain will just...stop. Shut off. Walk away from its task. Leaving me stranded without the ability to string together anything that resembles an intelligent sentence, let alone a complete thought.
During these bouts of brainlessness I often sift through various magazines and websites to find out what the latest consumer buying trend is, how the (beef) industry is working to accommodate those trends, what our pals at HSUS are up to, and what awesome things are happening on farms across our country.
As a result of some recent perusing (during, as you might guess, a mental void that has been upon me - sorry for the silence if you follow this blog with any regularity) I stumbled across an interesting article discussing America's fastest growing food segment. What would it be, you ask? Organic? Natural? LOCAL?? Nope, nope, and nope. Consumers, believe it or not, are flocking towards any and all food marked KOSHER. This simple label carries some clout these days because buyers (keep in mind that I am speaking NOT about the Jewish community, but the masses who recently started seeking Kosher based on a whim) have decided that brand-associated regulations and a religious blessing before shipping just might make for some good eating. More and more people are associating Kosher products with higher food quality and - pay attention here - humane animal treatment, two phrases that have become prominent when it comes to water cooler conversations.
And here is where we hit a little bit of a hiccup.
Not necessarily with the food quality aspect of the discussion (I am sure Kosher food is just fine), but with the perception that Kosher meat eaters are able to hold their head a little higher than everyone else because "my meat was treated better than yours."
Was it? How many of the recent Kosher converts really know what that label implies? Judging from the "humane treatment" perception, not too many. Anyone with the gumption to RESEARCH the latest trend before falling in line with it would learn that, according to Kosher law, an animal must be conscious when it is slaughtered. Know what that means? At Kosher processing plants, you can forget about stunning the animal before bleeding the carcass...instead, an animal is held in place while an individual cuts its throat, killing the animal by bleeding it to death. Such establishments actually have USDA exemptions that permit them to handle livestock in this way, legally avoiding national humane treatment regulations.
I need to mention here again that I am not in any way trying to turn anyone against the Jewish community or their dietary standards. They treat their food source with respect and in a manner that aligns with specific religious beliefs that I do not fully understand and have no right (or desire) to criticize.
What I am trying to point out by writing this is the absolute disregard for information exhibited by most consumers. Unlike a devout Jewish family who fully understands and appreciates the manner in which Kosher food is produced, this 'new wave' of non-religious Kosher followers is blindly careening into the food segment based on a PERCEPTION of 'more humane treatment.' In reality, there is a stark and shocking difference between established animal slaughter and the Jewish tradition...a difference that would absolutely horrify the average suburbanite who is happily plowing through a Kosher rib roast. But alas, most remain blissfully unaware of this fact, overlooking real information in search of the newest, coolest food term to throw out in front of their friends. "What? You eat ORGANIC? Pfff, that is so yesterday...I feed MY kids all Kosher. It is better for us and the animals!" Yep.
This unwaveringly-ignorant commitment to trendy not-really-fact based perceptions is a current major obstacle for the Beef industry. We are PERCEIVED to produce a product that makes people fat, consumers automatically ASSUME that meat is the cause of numerous diseases, and the masses ACCEPT the ridiculous rumors implying that food production creates untold suffering for millions of animals while simultaneously devastating the environment. Yeah, it sounds pretty darn cool when someone loudly announces that they "don't eat meat because I am trying to get healthy," but is it possible that they are getting it wrong? I mean, how many "veggies" have been on a farm to see what we really do? How many of them actually understand the nutritional benefits of various meats before they publicly condone such a food item? How many people actually know a modern farmer and understand our efficient, safe, sustainable food production system, and how many follow something similar to the Kosher mindset, accepting a false "reality" based on the blind perception of their friends? My guess is zero for the former, 100% for the latter.
So think about this when you hear someone spouting negative garbage about animal protein. Does that person really know anything, or is he just a single sheep wildly following the flock over a cliff? Don't buy into a perception of something simply because the idea is widely accepted - like our Kosher friends, you might be surprised by the reality.
During these bouts of brainlessness I often sift through various magazines and websites to find out what the latest consumer buying trend is, how the (beef) industry is working to accommodate those trends, what our pals at HSUS are up to, and what awesome things are happening on farms across our country.
As a result of some recent perusing (during, as you might guess, a mental void that has been upon me - sorry for the silence if you follow this blog with any regularity) I stumbled across an interesting article discussing America's fastest growing food segment. What would it be, you ask? Organic? Natural? LOCAL?? Nope, nope, and nope. Consumers, believe it or not, are flocking towards any and all food marked KOSHER. This simple label carries some clout these days because buyers (keep in mind that I am speaking NOT about the Jewish community, but the masses who recently started seeking Kosher based on a whim) have decided that brand-associated regulations and a religious blessing before shipping just might make for some good eating. More and more people are associating Kosher products with higher food quality and - pay attention here - humane animal treatment, two phrases that have become prominent when it comes to water cooler conversations.
And here is where we hit a little bit of a hiccup.
Not necessarily with the food quality aspect of the discussion (I am sure Kosher food is just fine), but with the perception that Kosher meat eaters are able to hold their head a little higher than everyone else because "my meat was treated better than yours."
Was it? How many of the recent Kosher converts really know what that label implies? Judging from the "humane treatment" perception, not too many. Anyone with the gumption to RESEARCH the latest trend before falling in line with it would learn that, according to Kosher law, an animal must be conscious when it is slaughtered. Know what that means? At Kosher processing plants, you can forget about stunning the animal before bleeding the carcass...instead, an animal is held in place while an individual cuts its throat, killing the animal by bleeding it to death. Such establishments actually have USDA exemptions that permit them to handle livestock in this way, legally avoiding national humane treatment regulations.
I need to mention here again that I am not in any way trying to turn anyone against the Jewish community or their dietary standards. They treat their food source with respect and in a manner that aligns with specific religious beliefs that I do not fully understand and have no right (or desire) to criticize.
What I am trying to point out by writing this is the absolute disregard for information exhibited by most consumers. Unlike a devout Jewish family who fully understands and appreciates the manner in which Kosher food is produced, this 'new wave' of non-religious Kosher followers is blindly careening into the food segment based on a PERCEPTION of 'more humane treatment.' In reality, there is a stark and shocking difference between established animal slaughter and the Jewish tradition...a difference that would absolutely horrify the average suburbanite who is happily plowing through a Kosher rib roast. But alas, most remain blissfully unaware of this fact, overlooking real information in search of the newest, coolest food term to throw out in front of their friends. "What? You eat ORGANIC? Pfff, that is so yesterday...I feed MY kids all Kosher. It is better for us and the animals!" Yep.
This unwaveringly-ignorant commitment to trendy not-really-fact based perceptions is a current major obstacle for the Beef industry. We are PERCEIVED to produce a product that makes people fat, consumers automatically ASSUME that meat is the cause of numerous diseases, and the masses ACCEPT the ridiculous rumors implying that food production creates untold suffering for millions of animals while simultaneously devastating the environment. Yeah, it sounds pretty darn cool when someone loudly announces that they "don't eat meat because I am trying to get healthy," but is it possible that they are getting it wrong? I mean, how many "veggies" have been on a farm to see what we really do? How many of them actually understand the nutritional benefits of various meats before they publicly condone such a food item? How many people actually know a modern farmer and understand our efficient, safe, sustainable food production system, and how many follow something similar to the Kosher mindset, accepting a false "reality" based on the blind perception of their friends? My guess is zero for the former, 100% for the latter.
So think about this when you hear someone spouting negative garbage about animal protein. Does that person really know anything, or is he just a single sheep wildly following the flock over a cliff? Don't buy into a perception of something simply because the idea is widely accepted - like our Kosher friends, you might be surprised by the reality.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Bad Eggs
I have not tried to hide my distaste for anti-agriculture groups that spew negative farm propaganda to the masses. Their skewed efforts have convinced Americans to live in fear of their food and have forced inaccurate fabricated terms such as "factory farming" into daily conversations around the country. Worse still, the campaign has tainted the image of the hundreds of thousands of farm families across the US who are getting it right and are committed to producing a bountiful supply of the highest quality product for their fellow countrymen while creating the best possible situation for their land and animals. The negative media image that surrounds our agricultural system - the best one in the WORLD - saddens and angers me each time I hear inaccurate information casually tossed around throughout our daily lives.
That being said, I am told on a regular basis to find the good in everything that happens, no matter how horrendous the situation may seem. Finding something good about the attack on our production farmers and our food supply seemed completely ridiculous to me until just recently during a conversation about another topic entirely. A circumstance was mentioned up that parallels the current farm situation, and at that moment I found the good.
As I have mentioned in previous posts, American farmers have for decades been content to hang in the background of society, quietly going about the 365 day-per-year task of producing food for a hungry 310 million mouths (not to mention those who benefit outside this country). Unfortunately, while the industry advanced in the shadows of a rapidly changing nation, a small number of bad eggs (producers who misuse the land, mistreat animals, and ignore food quality and safety) were hitching a free ride in the shadows of the industry. Because agriculture was overlooked by so much of the population, few people took time to address the bad egg situation, allowing them to grow and develop unchecked. After years of their under-the-rug atrocities, these producers can be found with land and animal violations in numerous states - many bad eggs simply move into an area, destroy it, and leave once violations and legal issues make relocation necessary.
You do not need to be told by me that this behavior is irresponsible, disrespectful, and wholly unacceptable. Their lack of respect for agriculture has taken our honest, noble industry and muddied its image in the eyes of the public, effectively masking the awesome sustainability (yes, you read that correctly) and efficiency of modern agriculture and making the industry a whipping boy for health experts, "foodies", animal rights activists, and seemingly every other segment of society. Amongst all this tragedy, however, is the fragment of light I so recently discovered: so much attention is actually eliminating the irresponsible producers. They cannot survive under such strong scrutiny...legitimate farm organizations refuse to support them, consumers despise them, and everywhere they turn people are noticing and rejecting their improper management. Perhaps the attention I have spoken out so strongly against is actually doing something right. Maybe, provided a willing and open mind of the public and a little much needed industry direction, we can fight through the upheaval and come out an even better food production system because of it.
Similar to nearly every public issue, a lot has to change in order to make this happen. American consumers need to stop associating poor management practices, low food quality, environmental degradation, etc, with production agriculture. Such a misguided belief as that lumps the good guys in with the bad guys - each time they speak out against large farms concerned people are opposing both the unfortunate negative situations AND (unknowingly) the majority of producers who are doing a good job. If we manage to separate the false connection between horrific (but isolated) cases of poor farm management and productive (but well maintained) large farms, we will surely have a superior domestic food supply rather than a questionable imported one.
That being said, I am told on a regular basis to find the good in everything that happens, no matter how horrendous the situation may seem. Finding something good about the attack on our production farmers and our food supply seemed completely ridiculous to me until just recently during a conversation about another topic entirely. A circumstance was mentioned up that parallels the current farm situation, and at that moment I found the good.
As I have mentioned in previous posts, American farmers have for decades been content to hang in the background of society, quietly going about the 365 day-per-year task of producing food for a hungry 310 million mouths (not to mention those who benefit outside this country). Unfortunately, while the industry advanced in the shadows of a rapidly changing nation, a small number of bad eggs (producers who misuse the land, mistreat animals, and ignore food quality and safety) were hitching a free ride in the shadows of the industry. Because agriculture was overlooked by so much of the population, few people took time to address the bad egg situation, allowing them to grow and develop unchecked. After years of their under-the-rug atrocities, these producers can be found with land and animal violations in numerous states - many bad eggs simply move into an area, destroy it, and leave once violations and legal issues make relocation necessary.
You do not need to be told by me that this behavior is irresponsible, disrespectful, and wholly unacceptable. Their lack of respect for agriculture has taken our honest, noble industry and muddied its image in the eyes of the public, effectively masking the awesome sustainability (yes, you read that correctly) and efficiency of modern agriculture and making the industry a whipping boy for health experts, "foodies", animal rights activists, and seemingly every other segment of society. Amongst all this tragedy, however, is the fragment of light I so recently discovered: so much attention is actually eliminating the irresponsible producers. They cannot survive under such strong scrutiny...legitimate farm organizations refuse to support them, consumers despise them, and everywhere they turn people are noticing and rejecting their improper management. Perhaps the attention I have spoken out so strongly against is actually doing something right. Maybe, provided a willing and open mind of the public and a little much needed industry direction, we can fight through the upheaval and come out an even better food production system because of it.
Similar to nearly every public issue, a lot has to change in order to make this happen. American consumers need to stop associating poor management practices, low food quality, environmental degradation, etc, with production agriculture. Such a misguided belief as that lumps the good guys in with the bad guys - each time they speak out against large farms concerned people are opposing both the unfortunate negative situations AND (unknowingly) the majority of producers who are doing a good job. If we manage to separate the false connection between horrific (but isolated) cases of poor farm management and productive (but well maintained) large farms, we will surely have a superior domestic food supply rather than a questionable imported one.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Pioneer Woman
Last week I talked about the need to take the shock value out of animal protein and, on the same note, animal agriculture. One option to help create a sense of comfort for the general public when it comes to meat animals is to push through our boundaries and make farm life mainstream; share the love of our lifestyle, commitment to our animals, and - this is a big one - reveal that we are normal people who are devoted to our families and actually have hobbies and social lives off the farm. In general, show everyone the "coolness" of our jobs in order to bring farm life into focus for those who have never experienced it.
The problem with this plan is realized when one starts to ponder the logistics of convincing a very reserved and very small part of the population (farmers/ranchers) to interact with a very outgoing and very large population demographic (everyone else)...and getting the latter to listen. People in agriculture are getting much better at using the internet to spread the real farm story, but even the breadth of the web is not enough to fully change the farm image. What is? I think the answer is yet to be fully realized, but I recently discovered a woman whose work, whether she intends it to be or not, is making major leaps toward that goal - making farm life mainstream.
Her name is Ree Drummond, but she calls herself The Pioneer Woman. She grew up as a typical city girl from a well-to-do family, dreaming of (and living) a big life in a big city enjoying manicures, pedicures and all of the other -cures, nightly take-out food and a trendy vegetarian lifestyle. According to her writing, she was totally unaware of any type of agriculture and did not care to ever learn anything about farming (this is how I assume most Americans feel about the topic) until she unexpectedly met and fell in love with a cowboy. To make a long story short, her city life and city plans were completely derailed (in a good way) by the relationship, and she found herself married and living in the middle of nowhere on a very large working cattle ranch surrounded by the steady day to day activities of farm life.
Ree did not immediately fit in, but, fortunately for all of us, she decided to approach the awkward situation with a positive outlook. She started and continues to maintain a very popular blog that reveals her very humorous integration onto the ranch including a multitude of daily pictures, recipes, and other entertaining bits of information. A cookbook, simply titled "The Pioneer Woman Cooks" is the latest of her efforts that is gaining widespread attention from both farm and non-farm people (I plan to own a copy soon). One can safely say that she is becoming a popular figure across the nation.
The reason I am excited about her writings is because she is able to present information in a way that is appealing to everyone: her style is outgoing, her recipes are delicious, and she is FUNNY. Read her blog - www.thepioneerwoman.com - to see what she is up to, and check out her cookbook (it includes amusing stories, pictures, descriptions, and very clear step-by-step instructions). Ree presents the reality of ranching in an enthusiastic, love-filled manner that has the ability to make anyone want to quit their job and work cattle. She easily overcomes the "ho-hum" perception of farming, and her descriptions of various everyday tasks present the information in an honest manner that is a stark contrast to most ag-targeted media. Because her work is progressive and fun, it will find its way into the hands of people who would ordinarily avoid anything farm related, creating a positive first glimpse of agriculture for those individuals.
It is people like Ree that we need to launch agriculture into modern society. Her universally appealing style and wildly enthusiastic descriptions of agriculture help to shape the image of our industry among the masses, peeling away the undeserved "dumb farmer" stereotype and replacing it with reality: farmers are tough, farmers work hard, farmers are intelligent, and farmers are awesome. Way to go, Ree.
The problem with this plan is realized when one starts to ponder the logistics of convincing a very reserved and very small part of the population (farmers/ranchers) to interact with a very outgoing and very large population demographic (everyone else)...and getting the latter to listen. People in agriculture are getting much better at using the internet to spread the real farm story, but even the breadth of the web is not enough to fully change the farm image. What is? I think the answer is yet to be fully realized, but I recently discovered a woman whose work, whether she intends it to be or not, is making major leaps toward that goal - making farm life mainstream.
Her name is Ree Drummond, but she calls herself The Pioneer Woman. She grew up as a typical city girl from a well-to-do family, dreaming of (and living) a big life in a big city enjoying manicures, pedicures and all of the other -cures, nightly take-out food and a trendy vegetarian lifestyle. According to her writing, she was totally unaware of any type of agriculture and did not care to ever learn anything about farming (this is how I assume most Americans feel about the topic) until she unexpectedly met and fell in love with a cowboy. To make a long story short, her city life and city plans were completely derailed (in a good way) by the relationship, and she found herself married and living in the middle of nowhere on a very large working cattle ranch surrounded by the steady day to day activities of farm life.
Ree did not immediately fit in, but, fortunately for all of us, she decided to approach the awkward situation with a positive outlook. She started and continues to maintain a very popular blog that reveals her very humorous integration onto the ranch including a multitude of daily pictures, recipes, and other entertaining bits of information. A cookbook, simply titled "The Pioneer Woman Cooks" is the latest of her efforts that is gaining widespread attention from both farm and non-farm people (I plan to own a copy soon). One can safely say that she is becoming a popular figure across the nation.
The reason I am excited about her writings is because she is able to present information in a way that is appealing to everyone: her style is outgoing, her recipes are delicious, and she is FUNNY. Read her blog - www.thepioneerwoman.com - to see what she is up to, and check out her cookbook (it includes amusing stories, pictures, descriptions, and very clear step-by-step instructions). Ree presents the reality of ranching in an enthusiastic, love-filled manner that has the ability to make anyone want to quit their job and work cattle. She easily overcomes the "ho-hum" perception of farming, and her descriptions of various everyday tasks present the information in an honest manner that is a stark contrast to most ag-targeted media. Because her work is progressive and fun, it will find its way into the hands of people who would ordinarily avoid anything farm related, creating a positive first glimpse of agriculture for those individuals.
It is people like Ree that we need to launch agriculture into modern society. Her universally appealing style and wildly enthusiastic descriptions of agriculture help to shape the image of our industry among the masses, peeling away the undeserved "dumb farmer" stereotype and replacing it with reality: farmers are tough, farmers work hard, farmers are intelligent, and farmers are awesome. Way to go, Ree.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Adult Content
I FINALLY had the chance to sit down and watch the HBO special about Temple Grandin, a world famous animal handling expert renowned for her research and commitment that rapidly changed the face of the US livestock industry. Her story is inspirational and uplifting, her work is honest and beneficial, her tactics are direct and effective, and her effect on the beef industry is all-encompassing and overwhelmingly positive. It was, without a doubt, one of the greatest movies I have seen featuring one of the greatest people of our time; find it and watch it if you have not already.
As much as a liked the movie, there was an aspect of the HBO special that caught my attention and stuck with me. Oddly enough it has nothing to do with Temple or the portrayal of her life, but with a several second blurb added by the television station before the opening credits start. Those watching the film sit through a several second long warning that states 'This movie contains adult content. Viewer discretion advised.' At first glance the statement seems pretty legitimate; this is, after all, the story of a young autistic woman's life in the 60s...there could be a situation that is somewhat uncomfortable but must be explained as a key piece to the whole story. Alas, that was not the case.
The warning was added because of a scene taking place in a slaughterhouse. Viewers watch a not-so-detailed portrayal of a beef animal being herded into the "knock box", dispatched, and hung on the overhead rail that moves carcasses to be fabricated. No blood, no guts, no gory details, just a brief look at the process for those who have never been behind the scenes.
Now, I understand that the harvest floor of a slaughterhouse is not the most pleasant place in the world, but I have seen fewer warnings on movies showing senseless torture and murder of PEOPLE (yes, they are fictional, but the idea of killing humans for mass entertainment is still there). Our society has reached a point where we are actually offended by the thought of killing animals for food...people, in truth, like to pretend the chunks of meat they are rooting through at the grocery store came from a neat little plastic container. Try to discuss the rest of the process with them and you usually get the hands up, head turned away reply "oh, no, no, no, I don't want to talk about that!" Why? I am not saying you should suddenly be scrambling to tour a packing plant (wouldn't hurt if you did, though...) or that kill floors should become the next major vacation destination, but understand and appreciate the full picture for crying out loud. The shock value needs to be taken out of animal protein, and to do that we need to take the facts straight to consumers: YES, an animal was killed to provide you with this nourishment - NO, the process is not wrong or cruel or horrifying or scary or unnatural. No more beating around the bush when it comes to the animal harvest discussion, just a brief explanation of the facts, cut and dried.
I am a firm believer that basic animal handling AND processing techniques should be taught in schools to students at an early age...complete details can be left out, obviously, but students should be familiar with the fact that meat (and about a million other everyday products) comes from an animal, and that is okay. Expose them to it early on, reinforce the idea throughout their schooling, and we will eventually have a population that does not answer "the grocery store" when asked where their food comes from. What a glorious thought.
As much as a liked the movie, there was an aspect of the HBO special that caught my attention and stuck with me. Oddly enough it has nothing to do with Temple or the portrayal of her life, but with a several second blurb added by the television station before the opening credits start. Those watching the film sit through a several second long warning that states 'This movie contains adult content. Viewer discretion advised.' At first glance the statement seems pretty legitimate; this is, after all, the story of a young autistic woman's life in the 60s...there could be a situation that is somewhat uncomfortable but must be explained as a key piece to the whole story. Alas, that was not the case.
The warning was added because of a scene taking place in a slaughterhouse. Viewers watch a not-so-detailed portrayal of a beef animal being herded into the "knock box", dispatched, and hung on the overhead rail that moves carcasses to be fabricated. No blood, no guts, no gory details, just a brief look at the process for those who have never been behind the scenes.
Now, I understand that the harvest floor of a slaughterhouse is not the most pleasant place in the world, but I have seen fewer warnings on movies showing senseless torture and murder of PEOPLE (yes, they are fictional, but the idea of killing humans for mass entertainment is still there). Our society has reached a point where we are actually offended by the thought of killing animals for food...people, in truth, like to pretend the chunks of meat they are rooting through at the grocery store came from a neat little plastic container. Try to discuss the rest of the process with them and you usually get the hands up, head turned away reply "oh, no, no, no, I don't want to talk about that!" Why? I am not saying you should suddenly be scrambling to tour a packing plant (wouldn't hurt if you did, though...) or that kill floors should become the next major vacation destination, but understand and appreciate the full picture for crying out loud. The shock value needs to be taken out of animal protein, and to do that we need to take the facts straight to consumers: YES, an animal was killed to provide you with this nourishment - NO, the process is not wrong or cruel or horrifying or scary or unnatural. No more beating around the bush when it comes to the animal harvest discussion, just a brief explanation of the facts, cut and dried.
I am a firm believer that basic animal handling AND processing techniques should be taught in schools to students at an early age...complete details can be left out, obviously, but students should be familiar with the fact that meat (and about a million other everyday products) comes from an animal, and that is okay. Expose them to it early on, reinforce the idea throughout their schooling, and we will eventually have a population that does not answer "the grocery store" when asked where their food comes from. What a glorious thought.
Marketing Madness
Last month I found myself flipping through the pages of a "farm" magazine (focusing primarily on family gardening, antiques, and the good old days) as a means of entertainment during a long car ride. It became clear to me that the targeted audience of the monthly writing is an older generation of folks than myself, but I stuck with it and eventually worked my way to the "letters to the editor" section where I found a collection of brief notes from readers telling fond stories from a past life on the farm. Out of the assortment of letters only one stuck in my mind because the topic, unbeknownst to the writer, focused on a marketing trend that is once again relevant today: raw milk.
The raw milk craze, to provide a little background for those who have managed to avoid it, is headlined by a group of people who have decided that the modern act of pasteurization is destroying the quality of our food and, as a result, our health. They suggest quitting the use of grocery store milk and opting for "a more natural, healthier option" when it comes to your cold cereal essentials...milk straight out of the cow to your refrigerator.
The write up I found told a story of a brand new small dairy (the milk bottling and distribution center..not to be confused with the farm and the cows) that was in existence when pasteurization was just becoming mainstream - the late '20s or early '30s. There was a segment of the population making a heated stand against the new pasteurization technology, but the owner of this particular dairy was a believer in the process and opened his business offering only pasteurized milk. To his dismay, he soon discovered that nearly half of the families on his route turned down his product when they realized raw milk was not an option on the order list (it was common at the time for milk bottling plants to offer both a line of raw and a line of pasteurized milk). Pondering his dilemma, the owner came up with a unique solution: print "Raw Milk" bottle caps, add a raw option to the order list, but continue producing only pasteurized milk. Halfway through the day, workers would simply switch the lids from "Pasteurized" to "Raw" on the bottling line, placing the same milk into bottles with both labels. As the mislabeled faux-raw milk made it into circulation, word got out in the community that "raw" milk from this specific dairy did not make ANY of the customers sick...his business quickly doubled and then tripled as raw milk fanatics lined up to get their hands on his non-threatening product (if you read between the lines here it becomes evident that non-pasteurized milk related illnesses were commonplace). According to the article, the owner never told his secret and his business boomed for many years.
I am passing this story along because it is a very good, non-biased look at consumer buying decisions. People, obviously, want the best quality, most nutritious product available for their families. Although they probably do not realize it, customers demanding raw milk (at the time of the story and those today) are not actually seeking a raw product, they simply desire a healthy, high quality product - characteristics that are more often associated with the word 'raw'. Therefore, anything without the word is viewed as inferior and of lower quality even though the perception is not necessarily true. Place a modern product into the hands of concerned consumers, advertise it with the words they are looking for, and they will continue to purchase it despite the fact that it is something they claim to oppose. Why? Because it is, in fact, a healthy, high quality product and consuming it results in a good eating experience. The same goes for trends like 'organic', 'free range', and 'grass fed'...people purchasing those options are doing so because they want a good product that was raised or grown correctly, and marketing tells them a product without those credentials was not.
There is currently a lot of flak wrongfully fired towards conventionally produced food, but eventually the aforementioned marketing terms will become overused and stale (I see this happening to some extent already), falling into the background as oversaturation weakens their attention grabbing effect. As the trend burns out, it (and the conventional food opponent) will be replaced by more of a middle ground: really good food, plain and simple. No presumptuous thoughts as a result of marketing associations, no health improving claims, no trends...just awesome food, production or niche, organic or conventional, raised out back or a thousand miles away. This will require minor adjustments for both those producing the food and those eating it: the industry is always working to meet the demands of consumers, and if the consumers want a little better look into food production, those producing it better make a window; on the flip side, eaters will have to break free from the current term-oriented buying impulse and open their minds to everything available...buy a product for its true quality that you can see and smell and touch and taste, not because you recognize the sticker on the package.
The raw milk craze, to provide a little background for those who have managed to avoid it, is headlined by a group of people who have decided that the modern act of pasteurization is destroying the quality of our food and, as a result, our health. They suggest quitting the use of grocery store milk and opting for "a more natural, healthier option" when it comes to your cold cereal essentials...milk straight out of the cow to your refrigerator.
The write up I found told a story of a brand new small dairy (the milk bottling and distribution center..not to be confused with the farm and the cows) that was in existence when pasteurization was just becoming mainstream - the late '20s or early '30s. There was a segment of the population making a heated stand against the new pasteurization technology, but the owner of this particular dairy was a believer in the process and opened his business offering only pasteurized milk. To his dismay, he soon discovered that nearly half of the families on his route turned down his product when they realized raw milk was not an option on the order list (it was common at the time for milk bottling plants to offer both a line of raw and a line of pasteurized milk). Pondering his dilemma, the owner came up with a unique solution: print "Raw Milk" bottle caps, add a raw option to the order list, but continue producing only pasteurized milk. Halfway through the day, workers would simply switch the lids from "Pasteurized" to "Raw" on the bottling line, placing the same milk into bottles with both labels. As the mislabeled faux-raw milk made it into circulation, word got out in the community that "raw" milk from this specific dairy did not make ANY of the customers sick...his business quickly doubled and then tripled as raw milk fanatics lined up to get their hands on his non-threatening product (if you read between the lines here it becomes evident that non-pasteurized milk related illnesses were commonplace). According to the article, the owner never told his secret and his business boomed for many years.
I am passing this story along because it is a very good, non-biased look at consumer buying decisions. People, obviously, want the best quality, most nutritious product available for their families. Although they probably do not realize it, customers demanding raw milk (at the time of the story and those today) are not actually seeking a raw product, they simply desire a healthy, high quality product - characteristics that are more often associated with the word 'raw'. Therefore, anything without the word is viewed as inferior and of lower quality even though the perception is not necessarily true. Place a modern product into the hands of concerned consumers, advertise it with the words they are looking for, and they will continue to purchase it despite the fact that it is something they claim to oppose. Why? Because it is, in fact, a healthy, high quality product and consuming it results in a good eating experience. The same goes for trends like 'organic', 'free range', and 'grass fed'...people purchasing those options are doing so because they want a good product that was raised or grown correctly, and marketing tells them a product without those credentials was not.
There is currently a lot of flak wrongfully fired towards conventionally produced food, but eventually the aforementioned marketing terms will become overused and stale (I see this happening to some extent already), falling into the background as oversaturation weakens their attention grabbing effect. As the trend burns out, it (and the conventional food opponent) will be replaced by more of a middle ground: really good food, plain and simple. No presumptuous thoughts as a result of marketing associations, no health improving claims, no trends...just awesome food, production or niche, organic or conventional, raised out back or a thousand miles away. This will require minor adjustments for both those producing the food and those eating it: the industry is always working to meet the demands of consumers, and if the consumers want a little better look into food production, those producing it better make a window; on the flip side, eaters will have to break free from the current term-oriented buying impulse and open their minds to everything available...buy a product for its true quality that you can see and smell and touch and taste, not because you recognize the sticker on the package.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Written Word to Spoken.
This morning I will be representing the beef industry and speaking to the Pennsylvania legislators about conditions regarding beef production. I am excited to have the opportunity to present my views of market trends, activist opposition (yes, I managed to work the HSUS into my speech), and regulation concerns, among others, to folks at various levels within our state government. Today will be my first major public speaking event, so I am certain the information I provide will be accompanied by tongue-twisters, awkward pauses, and an ever-present cold sweat...nonetheless, I will push through it with the confidence that my facts are relevant and my message is good. Following is a written copy of my speech, exactly as our state legislators will hear it in a few hours. Enjoy (it is a bit lengthy, so settle in).
-
Good morning everyone! My name is John-Scott Port. I am a sixth generation beef farmer from Clarion, a recent graduate of Penn State, and today’s speaking representative for Northwestern Pennsylvania’s beef industry. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss how we can work together and continue to provide our customers and your constituents with quality beef from a thriving agricultural industry.
As you may or may not know, farmers are accustomed to challenges ranging anywhere from weather to commodity prices. The nature of our work makes it necessary to identify dilemmas and work out possible solutions as quickly as possible. The continuing success of our industry proves that cattlemen are able to draw on years of experience and handed-down knowledge from generations past to meet and overcome a vast majority of these challenges. Sometimes, however, it is helpful to have a partner with a different background, a different point of view, and a different area of expertise to listen and help find a clear path through seemingly overwhelming concerns.
That is why we are so happy to have you here with us today. You provide the expertise that that we do not possess and the ability to influence trends threatening our livelihood that we would otherwise be powerless against. We need your help to deflect unwarranted overregulation so we are able to focus on the issues we can directly control.
This morning I will discuss a number of pressing issues including competitive market regulations, food safety standards, animal rights organizations, and agricultural research funding. Part of the discussion will include suggestions for dealing with these issues. It is my hope that you make note of my offered solutions and incorporate them into your political lives.
We will start by discussing packer-stockyard concentration. As giants in the industry push forward and continue to grow, both the livestock herd and packing plants across the state (and nation) continue to consolidate into fewer and fewer hands. The concentration creates an unfavorable situation for livestock sales. Because nearly every packing plant is owned by a single company, there is no bidding competition at the sale barn and cattle change ownership after one bid. This one-bid sale structure results in poor cattle prices for the producers, forcing them either out of business or into a limiting contract farm operation under terms set by the industry giant.
Everyone here wants to help keep the independent beef producer competitive, not captive during this time of consolidation. In order to do this, you must be aware of, support, and enforce the antitrust laws that are in place. Current packer-stockyard regulations have proven to keep the beef industry viable for decades; altering the system could prove to be devastating for producers in this area. Please keep an eye out for legislative maneuvers working to eliminate the laws in place, and voice a negative opinion of such negotiations based on the previously mentioned reasons. Such measures will promote the growth of Pennsylvania’s beef industry and, subsequently, our state economy as job opportunities are retained and expanded across the commonwealth.
As I transition to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point regulations (HACCP) pertaining to food safety, I should mention that a growing number of producers – including my family and many others in this area – have turned to niche marketing their beef directly to the consumer as a means of avoiding industry concentration. This tactic is becoming increasingly popular as consumer buying trends shift towards a more local food source, but the business plan is dependent upon the availability of an up-to-date, USDA inspected, sanitary facility in which to harvest our animals.
Hirsch’s Meats, a family owned multi-generational meat packing plant in Kossuth, is the only facility in this area that maintains USDA slaughter inspection, and, as a result, is the only facility in this area that may slaughter animals to be used for retail sales. Without Hirsch’s inspection levels, purveyors of local beef will be crippled or driven out of business. Unfortunately, as HACCP regulations ratchet upwards in response to new technology and new concerns stemming from commercial packing plants, the cost to keep up with the regulations becomes overwhelming for family-operated packing plants like Hirsch’s. Eventually they will no longer be able to keep up financially, eliminating the services necessary for a multitude of other small meat retail businesses.
A solution to this predicament is to differentiate regulations based on the size of the packing plant. The owners of Hirsch’s have met and surpassed the major parameters required for humane and sanitary slaughter within their facilities; they should not also have to meet and maintain expensive standards required in packing plants that processes 10,000 cattle each week. A new level of HACCP protocol is currently working through the system and will eventually make it to your desk – you are now aware of the situation before it arrives and have the opportunity to speak up to prevent Pennsylvania’s small butchers from being regulated out of business.
My next topic of concern is a tricky one. I could talk about our threat from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) all day and into the night, but for the sake of reason I will only expose the tip of the iceberg and focus on a few main points. Many people are not aware that the HSUS is the biggest, best funded, most devious anti-animal agriculture organization in the country. Humane Society leaders are working around the clock to eliminate meat, milk, and eggs from the American diet, following an extreme agenda to sway the public against America’s livestock farmers. Already they have targeted and overcome agricultural professionals in states including but not limited to Florida, Colorado, California, Michigan, and most recently Ohio. The Humane Society painted a one sided, horrible picture of agriculture and gained the support of the public. Then, by taking advantage of the ballot-initiative in the aforementioned states, they were able to steamroll the livestock industry on voting day.
It is of great fortune to us that our state of Pennsylvania does not permit ballot-initiatives. In other words, the only way for the HSUS to get to us is through all of you. They will indeed come after agriculture in this state. And I am here to urge you to take what they say with a grain of salt. You will be manipulated to believe that a farm animal is exactly the same as your pet at home. HSUS will bring with them footage of isolated cases of horrendous animal abuse and say the behavior is normal on livestock farms everywhere. Farm professionals will be portrayed as money hungry, selfish, evil individuals who are squeezing everything out of their herd with no regard for the welfare of the animals. Humane Society leaders will try their hardest to convince you that their expertise is much better than that of beef producers, despite the fact that they have never set foot on a farm and they have no experience caring for animals and producing food.
Please understand what HSUS leaders are saying is false. Look at the people here today and make note of our dedication to our land and animals. Talk to us now, and CONTINUE talking to us via the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau. Do not take instruction from HSUS leaders and do not allow their non-farm members to make major decisions affecting our farmers (similar situations have often created substantially worse conditions for animals rather than helping them). Work with us rather than against us to help shape the future of agriculture. Following this advice and maintaining open communications will keep you well prepared with an understanding of both sides of the story when activists attack the state.
I have one final but important point that requires little explanation. In a time of budget constraints and financial concerns, it is absolutely vital to maintain research funding to agricultural universities. Abraham Lincoln enacted land grant colleges because he had the foresight to understand how important agricultural research and development is to our future. This logic still applies today and positive advancements regarding water quality, animal health, environmental protection, and a multitude of other concerns are a direct result of agricultural research. Please maintain support for agricultural research funding – there is a huge return on those tax dollars.
In summary, I briefly reviewed concerns regarding competitive market regulations, food safety standards, animal rights organizations, and agricultural research funding. It is important that you are aware of and involved with decisions concerning these topics, and that you consider what was discussed here today. As with nearly every industry and organization, the livestock industry is facing many challenges other that those I touched upon today. Please help us minimize the challenges by working through our Farm Bureau representatives. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to working with you in the future! Any questions will be taken at this time…
-
Good morning everyone! My name is John-Scott Port. I am a sixth generation beef farmer from Clarion, a recent graduate of Penn State, and today’s speaking representative for Northwestern Pennsylvania’s beef industry. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss how we can work together and continue to provide our customers and your constituents with quality beef from a thriving agricultural industry.
As you may or may not know, farmers are accustomed to challenges ranging anywhere from weather to commodity prices. The nature of our work makes it necessary to identify dilemmas and work out possible solutions as quickly as possible. The continuing success of our industry proves that cattlemen are able to draw on years of experience and handed-down knowledge from generations past to meet and overcome a vast majority of these challenges. Sometimes, however, it is helpful to have a partner with a different background, a different point of view, and a different area of expertise to listen and help find a clear path through seemingly overwhelming concerns.
That is why we are so happy to have you here with us today. You provide the expertise that that we do not possess and the ability to influence trends threatening our livelihood that we would otherwise be powerless against. We need your help to deflect unwarranted overregulation so we are able to focus on the issues we can directly control.
This morning I will discuss a number of pressing issues including competitive market regulations, food safety standards, animal rights organizations, and agricultural research funding. Part of the discussion will include suggestions for dealing with these issues. It is my hope that you make note of my offered solutions and incorporate them into your political lives.
We will start by discussing packer-stockyard concentration. As giants in the industry push forward and continue to grow, both the livestock herd and packing plants across the state (and nation) continue to consolidate into fewer and fewer hands. The concentration creates an unfavorable situation for livestock sales. Because nearly every packing plant is owned by a single company, there is no bidding competition at the sale barn and cattle change ownership after one bid. This one-bid sale structure results in poor cattle prices for the producers, forcing them either out of business or into a limiting contract farm operation under terms set by the industry giant.
Everyone here wants to help keep the independent beef producer competitive, not captive during this time of consolidation. In order to do this, you must be aware of, support, and enforce the antitrust laws that are in place. Current packer-stockyard regulations have proven to keep the beef industry viable for decades; altering the system could prove to be devastating for producers in this area. Please keep an eye out for legislative maneuvers working to eliminate the laws in place, and voice a negative opinion of such negotiations based on the previously mentioned reasons. Such measures will promote the growth of Pennsylvania’s beef industry and, subsequently, our state economy as job opportunities are retained and expanded across the commonwealth.
As I transition to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point regulations (HACCP) pertaining to food safety, I should mention that a growing number of producers – including my family and many others in this area – have turned to niche marketing their beef directly to the consumer as a means of avoiding industry concentration. This tactic is becoming increasingly popular as consumer buying trends shift towards a more local food source, but the business plan is dependent upon the availability of an up-to-date, USDA inspected, sanitary facility in which to harvest our animals.
Hirsch’s Meats, a family owned multi-generational meat packing plant in Kossuth, is the only facility in this area that maintains USDA slaughter inspection, and, as a result, is the only facility in this area that may slaughter animals to be used for retail sales. Without Hirsch’s inspection levels, purveyors of local beef will be crippled or driven out of business. Unfortunately, as HACCP regulations ratchet upwards in response to new technology and new concerns stemming from commercial packing plants, the cost to keep up with the regulations becomes overwhelming for family-operated packing plants like Hirsch’s. Eventually they will no longer be able to keep up financially, eliminating the services necessary for a multitude of other small meat retail businesses.
A solution to this predicament is to differentiate regulations based on the size of the packing plant. The owners of Hirsch’s have met and surpassed the major parameters required for humane and sanitary slaughter within their facilities; they should not also have to meet and maintain expensive standards required in packing plants that processes 10,000 cattle each week. A new level of HACCP protocol is currently working through the system and will eventually make it to your desk – you are now aware of the situation before it arrives and have the opportunity to speak up to prevent Pennsylvania’s small butchers from being regulated out of business.
My next topic of concern is a tricky one. I could talk about our threat from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) all day and into the night, but for the sake of reason I will only expose the tip of the iceberg and focus on a few main points. Many people are not aware that the HSUS is the biggest, best funded, most devious anti-animal agriculture organization in the country. Humane Society leaders are working around the clock to eliminate meat, milk, and eggs from the American diet, following an extreme agenda to sway the public against America’s livestock farmers. Already they have targeted and overcome agricultural professionals in states including but not limited to Florida, Colorado, California, Michigan, and most recently Ohio. The Humane Society painted a one sided, horrible picture of agriculture and gained the support of the public. Then, by taking advantage of the ballot-initiative in the aforementioned states, they were able to steamroll the livestock industry on voting day.
It is of great fortune to us that our state of Pennsylvania does not permit ballot-initiatives. In other words, the only way for the HSUS to get to us is through all of you. They will indeed come after agriculture in this state. And I am here to urge you to take what they say with a grain of salt. You will be manipulated to believe that a farm animal is exactly the same as your pet at home. HSUS will bring with them footage of isolated cases of horrendous animal abuse and say the behavior is normal on livestock farms everywhere. Farm professionals will be portrayed as money hungry, selfish, evil individuals who are squeezing everything out of their herd with no regard for the welfare of the animals. Humane Society leaders will try their hardest to convince you that their expertise is much better than that of beef producers, despite the fact that they have never set foot on a farm and they have no experience caring for animals and producing food.
Please understand what HSUS leaders are saying is false. Look at the people here today and make note of our dedication to our land and animals. Talk to us now, and CONTINUE talking to us via the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau. Do not take instruction from HSUS leaders and do not allow their non-farm members to make major decisions affecting our farmers (similar situations have often created substantially worse conditions for animals rather than helping them). Work with us rather than against us to help shape the future of agriculture. Following this advice and maintaining open communications will keep you well prepared with an understanding of both sides of the story when activists attack the state.
I have one final but important point that requires little explanation. In a time of budget constraints and financial concerns, it is absolutely vital to maintain research funding to agricultural universities. Abraham Lincoln enacted land grant colleges because he had the foresight to understand how important agricultural research and development is to our future. This logic still applies today and positive advancements regarding water quality, animal health, environmental protection, and a multitude of other concerns are a direct result of agricultural research. Please maintain support for agricultural research funding – there is a huge return on those tax dollars.
In summary, I briefly reviewed concerns regarding competitive market regulations, food safety standards, animal rights organizations, and agricultural research funding. It is important that you are aware of and involved with decisions concerning these topics, and that you consider what was discussed here today. As with nearly every industry and organization, the livestock industry is facing many challenges other that those I touched upon today. Please help us minimize the challenges by working through our Farm Bureau representatives. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to working with you in the future! Any questions will be taken at this time…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
