JohnScottsThoughts

One at a Time

2011-04-06T07:58:00.000-07:00

As I have mentioned many times before, when it comes to defending agriculture from the multitude of activist opinions that have flooded public perception I tend to become a little too defensive, throwing up my fists and trying to take on anyone and everyone who speaks out against the industry. This method expends a lot of energy and tends to be fruitless - I become overwhelmed from managing so many fronts and my message is lost. Many agricultural writers offer up a simple piece of advice to eliminate this problem: deal with misperceptions one at a time, not all at once. Finally, after reading these words of wisdom for the hundredth time, I am listening.

In choosing a target, I decided to go for the most bang for my buck; a case where if I succeeded in changing one mind, I could effectively change others connected to it. This challenge presented itself to me in the form of a Presbyterians Today magazine, a writing put together and published by, obviously, the Presbyterian Church. An article featured in said magazine featured none other that the great Michael Pollan (look back through my posts to find my opinion on the individual), spewing out his usual plethora of questionable ideas concerning modern agriculture. I was naturally offended by the horrendous "statistics" he poured forth into the writing, and I decided to contact the individual in charge of the magazine to make her aware of the inaccurate "facts". She responded (much to my surprise) and actually seemed to be willing to hear what I have to say. After a few more brief back-and-forth emails, I sent her this one, which I hope will effectively challenge the Pollan-biased opinion of the magazine and enlighten the Presbyterian team on the greatness of modern agriculture:

Hi -----,

I hope all is well with you and your loved ones. We at Clarion Farms have been
reveling in some much needed sunlight as we prepare for spring planting (our
seed arrived yesterday and is resting in the garage as a daily reminder that in
just a few weeks the tractors will be humming in a full-scale effort to get the
crops in the ground. I love this time of year).

Again I want to thank you for passing my emails along to your associates for
their review and consideration. An unfortunate reality, however, is the month
of March has ground away and the Presbyterian website still features false
information about meat production and the industry that supports it.

As trendy as it is to reference and quote individuals like Michael Pollan, Kathy
Freston, and other activists who have worked their way into the public
spotlight, the simple truth is environmental stewardship, responsible food
production, and global food stability are not moved forward by recognizable
names. Each of these important issues is practiced and accomplished on the
ground floor, out in the dirt with the folks who work with the land and animals
every single day.

What happens when an organization like the Presbyterian Church supports and
distributes information stemming from the above mentioned names and others like
them is actually quite shocking: the path of information followed by the
non-farm public is diverted around farmers, ranchers, and food production
experts and directs them into a tangle of opinions coming from more non-farmers.
Do you see the flaw here? We (farmers) are never given a chance to speak. How
is it that someone seeking information about a topic can receive an accurate
answer if the response is not coming from the source??

So I ask you this: when seeking information about farming, why do turn towards
some media buzz and not towards the farmers? Do you, like many others, not
consider us to be credible? Think for a moment - why would we lie about what we
do? To assume (and promote) that farmers and ranchers regularly take part in
activities leading to daily horrendous abuse of farm animals and unchecked
destruction of the land and the air (remember the livestock statistic) is also
to assume (and promote) the idea that farmers are truly evil people; I do
believe it would take someone with a black heart to participate in such
atrocities. When the activist thought process is stated in this manner - that
farmers are angry, dark, careless people - it loses momentum. One would hope
that any thoughtful person should hesitate at such a claim.

Those involved in agriculture, big and small, production and niche, livestock
and crops, are people just like you and everyone in your office - our business
just happens to be farming. We, too, are passionate about our work, love our
families, enjoy sports, go to college, attend church, and do everything that
non-farmers do. And, believe it or not, we, too, care for animal well being and
want to provide them with healthy, dignified lives. We, too, want to protect
soil quality and leave it better than we found it. We also breath the air and
do not wish to contaminate it. We also eat the food sold in grocery stores and
do not want our families to be sickened by it. We also pay attention to major
agricultural companies and their control of products on the market. We, too,
become frustrated when somebody else dirties our image based on their opinion.
There is, however, one significant difference that sets farmers apart from the
online crowd claiming to be worried about environmental degradation: we are
actually doing something about it.

Our World looking down the barrel of a gun loaded with a population that is
going to increase by 3 billion in the next forty years, a worldwide increase in
per-capita income and a resulting global appetite that is going to double in the
same amount of time (with animal protein demand leading the way), a society that
will continue to congregate in urban areas (it is estimated that by 2050 there
will be as many people living in cities as there are people in the world today)
leaving a comparatively smaller percentage to grow our food, and an
ever-reducing supply of farmland, water, and inputs with which to grow the
sustenance we rely on. These are daunting figures, to say the least. And such
a huge demand for food on such a limited amount of land necessitates perfect
management of our resources in order to sustainably squeeze the maximum
production out of our land, year after year, generation after generation.
Anything less than perfection from our farmers will result in global (and
domestic) hunger issues far worse than those we see today.

As I have mentioned, advancements required for my generation to fulfill our task
do not come from Michael Pollan and his campaign to do in modern agriculture.
Such groundbreaking ideas and technologies pour forth from great minds at
agricultural universities across the nation. These ever-improving production
methods are put into action not by an urban foodblogger, but by national
agricultural companies who have the funding, research, and vast reach required
to build the idea into a reality and make it available to farmers across the
country. Animal handling and care strategies are not developed by a high
profile vegan actress posing naked for an attention-grabbing PETA advertisement,
but by passionate animal experts like Temple Grandin who are willing to work in
the feedlots and packing plants to find and eliminate issues at their source.
Agricultural chemical studies and regulations do not come from the Organic
Growers Association, but from scientists working within the industry who are
actually developing and monitoring the products. Erosion control is in place
because of cover-cropping and reduced tillage techniques adopted by grain
farmers, not because a video producer made a documentary to shock the public.
In fact, virtually all of the environmentally sound advancements that have been
made since my grandfather's generation (when no such efforts existed) have come
from people working within the food production industry, NOT from outsiders
viewing the industry through the cloudy window of an online chat room.

I am not saying agriculture is perfect, and I am not denying that unfortunate
incidents of irresponsible mismanagement do occur, but I am telling you that as
a whole we are very good at what we do. As a member of an organization
dedicated to responsible environmental care and the elimination of World hunger,
you should be well versed in the realities of modern farming before speaking out
against it. In order to truly advance environmental protection and to ensure
there will be food for billions in the coming years, does it not make sense to
support and praise those doing the work? Work with us to protect the
environment rather than cutting us off at the knees by spreading questionable
data to the public; such actions create upheaval among the masses that results
in uninformed third-party decision making. By making yourself known within the
industry you will gain the respect of the farm community (a vast majority of
whom are dedicated church-goers) and launch your Presbyterian team into a
leadership position.

So that is my challenge to you: tell our side of the story. By recognizing the
requirements of food production in the coming years and embracing those who are
stepping up to meet and exceed the challenge, you will find yourself with an
inside line to work with and advance significant efforts to fulfill global food
requirements. Try to familiarize yourself with modern production; I am willing
to act as a source of information, and I will make an effort to connect you with
other producers across the US. Websites like www.americanagriculturist.com,
www.agweb.com, and www.beefmagazine.com are also great places to find
agricultural information. Just poke around a little bit...you will be able to
read about major agricultural issues from our point of view and gain insight
into what we are doing to deal with them. Read some of the blogs from
agricultural writers (Amanda Radke from Beef Magazine and Holly Spangler from
American Agriculturist are two of my favorites, but there are a multitude of
others) and see what is happening in the lives of young farmers in this country.

If you do not wish to take on this challenge, simply respond and tell me that
you have no such desire. You will never hear from me again. I will say,
however, such an oversight will keep you on the activist hamster
wheel...spinning away, pointing fingers, making accusations, 'enlightening' the
public, creating terrifying advertisements to advance an opinion...and never
really gaining any ground. Presbyterians Today will be mired in a sinkhole of
opinions, while farmers, ranchers, and industry employees buckle down to
accomplish the task at hand. I hope you do not get left behind.

Kind regards,

John-Scott Port

I am anxiously awaiting her reply. Although this might not instantly change her mind, I am pleased that she has at least heard a side of the story other than that of Michael. Perhaps, however, the editors will listen and Presbyterians Today will feature an article that praises modern agriculture and those involved with it every day. That, I believe, will change a multitude of minds.

Can Farmers Have A Voice?

2011-03-10T09:27:00.000-08:00

Last year I became a member of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau (PFB) in an effort to learn about the organization and become involved with the state (and country) wide food production discussion. Since jumping into the Farm Bureau head first I have learned more than I imagined was possible, met some great people, enhanced my agricultural knowledge, and had some awesome experiences to tell the story of food production. I am proud to be a part of such an extensive organization and I look to the future with eager anticipation.

A major aspect of Farm Bureau is working with legislatures and various government organizations to ensure that unreasonable laws and regulations are not put in place that will choke Pennsylvania's grain and livestock farmers out of business (one of my primary motivations for joining was to become involved in this segment of the Bureau). The 50,000+ Pa Farm Bureau members provide the voice to guide discussions and the numbers to maintain a fair amount of political clout in Harrisburg and Washington, something vital to avoid being overlooked and overrun. Such an outstanding amount of membership support for the PFB has helped keep the playing field level to ensure that farmers carry a fair share of various regulations and do not end up with a heavier burden than other Pennsylvania industries.

Something that has surprised me, however, is how fiercely opposing organizations attack us, the farmers, for joining and contributing to the organization. The moment any political issue arises that the Farm Bureau is involved with, the media is flooded with comments from outraged environmentalists, animal rights activists, etc, screaming about how awful it is that 'Big Agribusiness' and the associated 'Factory Farms' use their oppressive political power to cover up all of the harm done by the food production industry.

Why is it OK for opposing organizations to rally hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of misinformed people in an attempt to punch their agenda into modern society, but completely outrageous if the farm community comes together in an attempt to counter their attacks? An individual once told me that mainstream society does not like to see the farmer succeed; although I did not want to accept the idea, I have found it to be quite true. If, Heaven forbid, we manage to turn a profit in a year, we are accused of ignoring animal well being and destroying the quality of our land in pursuit of the almighty dollar. If we do not tout ourselves as a trendy organic farm, we are accused of poisoning consumers without giving food safety a second thought. If we combine efforts to counter stringent regulations (that provide third party organizations the right to require overwhelmingly expensive overhauls to existing farms, with a $30,000 per-day penalty for not meeting the requirements), suddenly we become factory farmers who care little for the world around us. Interesting.

Believe it or not, farmers - both big and small, production and niche, livestock and crops - are people just others in mainstream society; our business just happens to be agriculture. We, also, love the land and do not want to destroy it. We, also, appreciate our animals and want to give them healthy, dignified lives. We, also, breath the air and do not want to contaminate it. We, also, feed our families with food from the grocery store and do not wish to be sickened by it. In other words, our goals are the same as those of the organizations rising up to oppose us. We are working towards the same cause, but the farm community needs a fair voice in order to balance out the equation and ensure regulations and associated time lines can be reasonably attained. Certain environmental groups would do well to realize that reality before lashing out against us.

Where Have I Been?

2011-02-11T10:54:00.000-08:00

I went through a pretty good dry spell in regards to updating this blog. Two months, I believe, of nothing. Although I would like to run through a multitude of really good excuses to explain my absence, the reality is I have none. It boils down to one simple reality: I am not a 'sit in front of the computer' kind of person, and writing my thoughts down online requires, believe it or not, sitting at a computer. I just plain have not felt like taking the time to do this.

So what have I been doing while avoiding the torture keyboard? Quite a few things, actually.

I am proud to be a part of our local Young Farmer & Rancher committee. We have been meeting every month and working out various projects that will help us tell the story of agriculture in our community. Our ideas include entering national farm-video competition that portrays various farm operations. Clarion University has agreed to help us with filming and editing...we are in the preliminary stages of working out that deal. Other plans include establishing food donation programs that celebrate the productivity of modern agriculture and visiting high-school juniors and seniors to discuss the awesomeness of modern food production. Good progress has been made on all three, and I am excited to see what the future holds for our group.

A friend I met during a PSU trip to Moldova has put me in touch with a young producer in the country who recently came into possession of a soviet-ear facility consisting of eleven large barns for livestock. He is trying to establish himself as a viable beef producer and has actually contacted ME as a source of advice. We have been talking back and forth for some time, bouncing ideas off each other and attempting to create a clear path for his future. I am really excited to have some involvement in his operation and I hope the connection will at some point provide me with the opportunity to once again visit Moldova.

Speaking of traveling abroad, I am leaving to visit a few farms in Brazil this month. I am looking forward to once again seeing the massive crop production in the state of Bahia and learning how the frontier farms have progressed since my last visit (a little sunny 80 degree weather won't hurt, either). Every now and then it is good to head out of Clarion and stand on a 30,000 acre crop farm to put things in perspective. It takes a lot to feed this world.

As expected, I still get mad when I hear about Michael Pollan and his followers. I still throw a fit about vegetarians who seem hell-bent on forcing their beliefs into the minds of others and eliminating the American livestock industry - I love raising cattle; I enjoy eating beef (and every other kind of meat I can get my hands on); please do not tell me I need to stop doing both based only on your opinion. And I still get bent out of shape about the smoke-and-mirrors agenda of Wayne Pacelle and the Humane Society of the United States. But I am working to arm myself with the truth so when I encounter a concerned individual who has been influenced by the skewed teachings of said organizations I am able to provide a well planned, fact-based response. Want to know a few things I have learned recently? *A three oz serving of lean beef provides ten nutrients for an average of 154 calories. It takes a vegetarian two to three times more calories to get the same protein from a plant based diet. *From 1987 (the year I was born) to 2007 modern farmers grew 40% more corn, 30%more soybeans, and 19% more wheat ON THE SAME AMOUNT OF LAND. During that increase in productivity they reduced farmland erosion by 43%. I doubt Michael Pollan wants you to know that.

Opportunities for our farm and business seem to be springing up like crazy. I love sorting through the possibilities to see how we can maximize our productivity. If I mention any of our current business ideas I am sure they will be jinxed, but it is evident that the future holds great things. We will see where the path leads.

My most recent project involves the Presbyterian Church and one of their Lent projects. Apparently they have made the common mistake of referencing Michael Pollan as an agricultural expert, as well as including Oprah and Kathy Frestone (an outspoken anti-meat vegan) in their panel of farm and health experts. This fine group has convinced the Presbyterians to adopt the idea of Meatless Monday in order to get healthy and save the environment during Lent. I wrote the organization a letter explaining the flaws in their plan and asking them to reconsider using a non-biased group of experts; they have not responded yet. Now I am in the process of rallying agricultural bloggers across the country to spread the word and contact the Presbyterian organization. We will see how well that goes.

Pitiful Pollan

2010-12-10T07:45:00.000-08:00

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.

One of the Sheep

2010-10-25T19:07:00.000-07:00

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.

The Bad Eggs

2010-10-05T12:44:00.000-07:00

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.

Pioneer Woman

2010-09-28T03:32:00.000-07:00

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.

Adult Content

2010-09-20T03:46:00.000-07:00

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.

Marketing Madness

2010-09-20T03:18:00.000-07:00

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.

Written Word to Spoken.

2010-09-08T03:57:00.000-07:00

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…

Unintended Consequences.

2010-08-30T03:20:00.000-07:00

The issue of banning horse slaughter in the United States tore through the agricultural community several years ago in a fierce whirlwind of opposing views. Those within the industry realize that, although horses are companion animals more often than other livestock, there is a critical need to maintain an outlet for surplus animals (meat packing plants processing the meat for dog food, etc). On the other side of the coin was a large group of non-farm horse owners (and a concerned segment of the general public) backed up by the good old HSUS, all of whom were completely appalled by the thought of using horses for meat. Using their supply of anti-farm propaganda and an array of one-sided emotional advertising, the HSUS fought hard to win over the public and managed to ban the "disturbing and cruel" horse slaughter industry in the States.

One would assume that, thanks to the ban, situations for horses have improved dramatically in this country. That is, after all, what the Humane Society is about - improving the lives of animals. Today, several years after the elimination for horse processing, we will take a look at the effect is has.

I mentioned that horse slaughter maintained a steady outlet for surplus horses. What that means is there was a demand for horses other than simply as companion animals, and that demand supported a substantial dollar value in the horse market. Those who were no longer in a situation to support their horses had the option to send the animals to the auction and receive $500-$1000 - a substantial amount of money - for their animal that would otherwise be almost worthless.

Once the horses were sold they went through a very straightforward process (I am going to describe it in some detail, not to be gruesome, but to offer a comparison to today). Animals were loaded onto trucks to be hauled to the packing plant. Strictly enforced laws (that are in place for all types of livestock and are still enforced today) limited the time a horse could be transported to ensure the well being of the animal. Upon arrival at the plant, animals were given time to rest (by law) and provided with an unlimited water supply (by law). The slaughter process was simple but effective: horses were herded up a narrow shoot specifically designed for ease of movement and stress reduction, passed through a headgate and dispatched with a five inch pneumatic bolt directly through the brain...very fast, painless, stress free.

The HSUS, in their infinite wisdom, overlooked the benefit of managing the horse supply and approached the public with a campaign explaining that big agriculture is killing their their beloved companion and friend, and the killing should stop. Public response was overwhelming and they successfully sealed up the industry.

Today, there is no outlet for surplus horses in the US. Demand is almost entirely gone, and those no longer financially able to support their horses have a great deal of difficulty selling the animals at an auction (the last I heard horses were bringing $20-$50) and a greater difficulty giving them to friends who already have horses of their own. If you cannot support the animal, cannot sell it, and nobody will take it from you, what exactly do you do with it? Some people are simply turning their animals loose out in the woods, hoping they will fend for themselves. A friend of mine who is a member of the Pennsylvania Horse Council reports finding on a regular basis the carcasses of horses that were hauled into state game lands and shot by their owners. In worst case scenarios, people are simply keeping the animals and watching them starve to death, unable to afford the feed required to maintain the animal's health.

As the surplus horse herd continued to grow and get out of control (we actually have wild horses roaming in areas that had never experienced such a thing), a new market developed for the animals in order to manage the herd. Horses are now rounded up at basement prices ($20-$50), loaded onto trucks as they were before, and are hauled to Mexico (we can do nothing with them here). Once the truck crosses the US/Mexico boarder, all US animal care standards become irrelevant. The animals wait an average of three days crowded on livestock trailers in the heat without water before being unloaded and chased into the processing facility, where a completely deregulated crew sticks each horse in the withers (the base of the mane) to paralyze it, strings the still living animal upside down, and saws into the neck to bleed it out. I don't have to point out the striking difference between this slaughter technique and the United States option.

The horse slaughter issue is one of countless great blunders stemming from folks at the Humane Society. Many find it ironic that an organization with such 'good intentions' could create a situation that is so bad for the animals they try to help. It is interesting to note that only AFTER the elimination of horse processing did HSUS members realize the negative effects of banning the practice in this country...they are fully aware of what happens in Mexico and they are trying to sweep that reality under the rug.

Such unfortunate missteps would not occur if agricultural experts were consulted regarding the matter of animal handling rather than a money-hungry organization focused only on furthering their agenda. Examples like the one today are somewhat unpleasant, but absolutely necessary to show what happens when people removed from agriculture take the reins on an agricultural issue. They can tug at your heartstrings and say that animal agriculture is horrendous, but their lack of knowledge and foresight will often create a much more shocking reality in the end.

$$ Dilemma

2010-08-23T03:37:00.000-07:00

Grocery shopping is more of a quest for the freshest, tastiest, highest quality supplies available rather than simply a 'food run.' Examine people cruising the aisles and one will see a lot of poking, sniffing, and squeezing as consumers work to find the most favorable option for their dinner table. What an observer is not able to see is the constant calculation going on in nearly every mind wandering through the store selection. A vast majority of us are also observing the price of the food items we buy, occasionally passing up a luxury item in order to free up funds for a necessity, or avoiding a brand name to shave dollars off our total bill for the day. This math marathon is such a part of the store routine that we often do not think about the importance of pricing at the market.

Pricing matters. For some, disposable funding is available that allows the consumer to move up the pricing scale and shop at the 'top end' of the grocery store food chain - in the realm of local produce/meat, for example. For a majority of consumers, however, the difference between $.89 eggs and $3 Happy-Chicken-Free-Range brown eggs might as well be the grand canyon; it is simply not feasible to spend the extra money on a 'more exclusive' product. Yes, the expensive stuff is often very good, and yes, it is exciting to see that it was sourced from a relatively small farm operation, but we need not forget that the availability of less expensive food can mean the difference between a complete and wholesome meal each night for the family and a much more limited menu for the week.

It is, unfortunately, the silent majority of people who depend on inexpensive food that is the most overlooked. They are not a part of the organic discussion, or the free-range grass fed discussion, or the local food movement, they are simply out there every day purchasing what they need to survive. The folks caught up in one the aforementioned trends receive attention for their outspoken beliefs and work the media into a "eliminate production agriculture" frenzy, literally speaking out against the food supply of those who are not speaking.

We now have a situation in which it is normal to demand more limited food production and much higher prices...representatives from the HSUS in a recent discussion about the effects of eliminating caged-egg production went on the record to say that "price has never been an issue" when it comes to food production/consumption. Well guys, it has. And it always will be to many consumers. The more affluent trend seekers need to shift away from their selfish "I can afford it so everyone else should too" mindset and make an attempt to remember the other side of the spectrum. If they can spend the money on a $27 free range organic local chicken, great, buy it and enjoy it and promote it but DO NOT say that is how every chicken should be priced; such a shift would wipe chicken (and every other meat product, assuming they were following the same trend) off the menu at dinner tables across the US.

Modern, efficient, clean, productive agriculture must remain a viable option in this country to support all financial situations. Does it need to adapt and stay up to date? You bet. Are modern farmers open to suggestions and willing to change? Absolutely. The industry as a whole is currently adjusting and working to educate an uninformed public about what exactly happens on a production farm. Bad apples (producers who simply are not doing it right - repeated environmental, animal welfare, and zoning violations, etc) are being picked out and eliminated to make room for the true Farmers, those whose clean, safe, and efficient production operations continue to make nutritious, wholesome food available to everyone, not just those with deep pockets. Sounds like a cause I can fall in line with.

Tech Crazy!

2010-08-16T03:51:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that everywhere I look I can see advertisements for newer, better technology. We demand the most advanced medical facilities, the newest medication, the best trained doctor, the safest car with cutting edge features, the most app-packed cellphone, the fastest computer, the thinnest TV...the list goes on for miles. Any product or service that falls a year or two out of date is tossed aside and forgotten in the wake of more modern stuff dangling in front of our noses. Traces of our near-universal mindset telling us "new and advanced is the best" can be found just about anywhere...unless you happen to be discussing farming.

For some reason a mere whisper of agriculture and food production sends the average non-farm mind careening back to the good old days. Suddenly technology is the bad guy, a frightening figure that has crept in to pollute our food and ruin our farms. My best guess as to why our technology obsessed mindset re-boots into the stone age when we come across a farm topic is, as usual when discussing farming, a widespread misunderstanding of just exactly what farm technology is being used for.

Ask a random selection of people walking down the street what role technology is playing in our food system and you are bound to hear that ag. technology can be credited for weird animal experiments, the creation of mutant crops somehow containing fish and animal residue, dungeon-like barnyard conditions, highly toxic / highly polluting pesticides and herbicides, hormone raging meat animals, widespread disease, and many more including my favorite: headless, featherless chickens cruelly designed and marketed by a popular restaurant chain (Who comes up with this stuff?)

You have probably figured out by now that I will be doing my best to counter the negative imagery surrounding farm tech to my small audience here. This will be the very tip of the iceberg, a fragment of the whole story, a grain of sand on the beach compared to the entire amazing modern farm story, but is is at least a start.

Modern farmers producing food for the masses use incredible technological advancements to produce the food we love in a safe, highly efficient, and environmentally friendly manner. Advanced techniques are not being used to alter the food we eat (as many people believe, unfortunately); rather, farm science is incorporated into agriculture to create substantially better conditions for the environment and farm animals that food stems from. For example, crop farmers enjoy benefits from vigorous seed varieties that are able to protect themselves from insect damage without the use of pesticides and withstand drought conditions without the luxury of irrigation. Lab techs working with the ag industry are constantly finding ways to reduce and eliminate chemical residue from field sprays, keeping the products out of our environment and our waterways. Fertilizer advancements have boosted crop productivity and REDUCED fertilizer application - more crop yield, less risk of nutrient runoff, less fertilizer to be manufactured...amazing. Further reducing fertilizer use is the incorporation of satellite mapping that helps farmers understand what needs to be added where - rather than loading the entire field (or fields) with fertilizer, satellite analysis tells farmers 'add a little nitrogen here, some potassium in this area, nothing in that corner...' Scientists are constantly working with farmers to incorporate strategies that reduce and eliminate field runoff. Reduced tillage methods mean fewer trips across the field and, as a result, less fuel consumption. Highly productive crops allow for the same amount of product to come from significantly less land, providing farmers with the opportunity to take highly erodible land out of production and return it to a stable fallow state.

Switch gears to focus on animal production and we find a very different picture than what activists want us to hear: poultry barns, hog barns, and dairy facilities have extensive systems monitoring air temperature cleanliness, and lighting. The climate control is designed to maintain ideal conditions inside the barn, and air is constantly "scrubbed" to keep airborne dust (or disease) from distressing the birds or swine, depending on the situation. Automatic waste removal systems work around the clock whisking away manure, and large farmers often ship manure to commercial composting companies as a way of keeping animal waste out of the environment (An example of modern production is a family owned egg farm in Ohio - 4 million chickens in the newest, best barns available, 3 million eggs each day, ZERO waste/runoff onto the surrounding land, ZERO offending smells to the neighbors; healthy chickens producing massive amounts of food for many people in ideal conditions, yet the Humane Society has targeted the farm and is currently trying to destroy the business). A perfectly balanced diet complete with clean water is at all times available to animals on large farms. Fully automatic robotic milkers have become the norm on production dairy farms, enabling the cows on the farm to decide when they would like to be milked - Udder uncomfortable? Go milk yourself. The animal friendly list goes on for miles.

It is interesting to note that large production farms that have come under so much public scrutiny (and are nearly all owned by FAMILIES) are in fact the least environmentally destructive farm operations in the country and the most animal friendly; large farms have the capital to incorporate the best animal handling strategies, the perfect waste management systems, the most advanced crop production techniques, the best technology in the World to provide for their livestock and maintain the environment. It is farms like this that are being eliminated by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)...every time they throw up a legal roadblock for farmers, they are erasing the future for more productive, highly advanced, clean, animal friendly farms and instead are creating a situation that pushes food production back to the days when farm technology was almost nonexistent and situations were less than favorable, exactly what the public says it wants to avoid.

Lets get back to our (more destructive) roots!

2010-07-23T09:58:00.000-07:00

Summer is a busy time of year on the farm, and I must admit that I have really slacked off on maintaining my blog. Some recent conversations with individuals holding a very different viewpoint than myself, however, have motivated me to make some time and get in front of the computer.

As a self-appointed agricultural advocate, I find myself in a good number of heated discussions concerning modern production agriculture. The conversation often flips back and fourth between the seemingly mainstream "big agriculture is bad" argument and my pro-modern ag. viewpoint. Many people are open to reason and, after hearing how amazing, productive, and efficient modern farmers are, will begin to see the issues in a different light. There are, of course, those who will always disagree with what I have to say, sticking to a "small farms should feed our population" mindset.

Those holding this point of view frequently tell me that our current food production techniques should be traded for a system consisting of many small farms producing a wide variety of crops using "more traditional" methods. The theory is that large modern farms are destroying our land and using up our resources, so they should be divided up into smaller plots that will not take such an environmental toll. Sounds OK, right? It is easy enough to fall into line with this concept as long as one does not scratch below the surface.

In keeping with my usual "question everything you hear" theme, however, we are going to dig in our fingers and break through the glossy surface of the theory to see how feasible it really is.

The reality of a small farm food system can be understood with a quick glance at the history of farming. During the early 1900s the inefficiency of traditional seeds and production methods required farmers to clear cut and till massive amounts of land (even that which was not suitable for farming) to produce a relatively small amount of crop - average corn yields as late as the 1950s hovered around 39 bushels per acre; yields for other crops were equally as low. Little attention (if any) was paid to erosion, runoff, vegetation preservation, land contour, and water quality, factors amplified by the wide scattering of small farms. Massive losses from weed and insect pests were the norm, reducing even more the output from every individual farmer (in 1940 each American farmer produced food for only 19 people). What little food was not retained on the farm for use by the family needed to be collected from thousands of locations, using fuel and manual energy for an arguably small return. As the US population continued to grow, inefficient crops could not keep up with the food demand forcing more (usually unstable and unsuitable) land into production to fill the void.

What I just described is, in truth, the system we would return to if anti-modern farm activists could get their way. Although it sounds fine in a passing conversation, a look into the inefficient system proves that our population of 307 million people cannot be supported by such a labor intensive, destructive, inefficient method.

Now compare what you just read to modern agriculture:

Today each American farmer is productive enough to provide food for 155 other people. Average corn yields are rising past 155 bushels per acre (vs 39 in 1950), and average cereal yields rose 155% between 1961 and 2005. Between 1987 and 2007 our farmers grew 40% more corn, 30% more soybeans, and 19% more wheat ON THE SAME AMOUNT OF LAND! Modern techniques for sustaining resources improve as productivity improves, leading to a 43% reduction in farmland soil erosion over the past 20 years, water savings of 50-80% (depending on the crop), more efficient fertilizer (each pound of modern fertilizer produces 70% more corn than a pound of fertilizer in 1970), a massive reduction in pesticides and herbicides (modern GM crops are able to protect themselves against insect pests, eliminating the need for chemical sprays), and major leaps in field application techniques (GPS guided equipment ensures field inputs are applied only where needed). All of these techniques provide us with ample supplies of inexpensive food while helping preserve our land and sustain our future. (Take a moment and watch this video, it is where a found most of my information today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joUggaD6Mr0)

Our population as a whole (even the anti-ag fringe) is very positively affected by the efficiencies of our food system. We continue to make huge advances in safety, productivity, and sustainability in agriculture, ensuring a bright future for generations to come. Remember these facts as you go through life and make a point to appreciate what we have in modern farming.

Close to Home.

2010-06-28T13:18:00.000-07:00

Recently a local auction made the news as yet another location of "recurring animal cruelty." Video of a bull being herded to the scales by employees was turned in to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), where it was distributed to local news stations and the internet video-sharing website Youtube. Representatives from the HSUS swarmed the area to "keep an eye on things" and people from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) arrived in an attempt to defend the auction owner and employees. As expected, the uproar has been the talk of farmers and auction patrons since the incident, and we have yet to see exactly what will come of the mess.

History has proven again and again that an individual holding a video camera has a very powerful influence over what is seen and understood by viewers. Thanks to the narrow scope of the lens, something positive can be portrayed as something horrifying, or something harmless can twist into an act of cruelty on TV. A look behind the scenes is often necessary (and usually unavailable) to determine the legitimacy of many video documentaries.

Today we will peek at the real story that has the future of a family-owned auction barn hanging by a thread (this information comes from first hand witnesses and regular attendees of the auction).

Like I said, the video focuses on several young men herding a bull from the holding pens to the scales and then the sale floor. As the animal charges out of its individual holding pen, the workers begin whooping, hollering and whacking the bull with fiberglass motivating sticks as they follow it down the narrow aisle. The "shocking" and "cruel" aspects of the video, as seen by the individual recording it and subsequently the newscasters and their audience, are the workers' noisy antics and the cracking sound of the motivators when they make contact with the rump of the bull. I know I sound like a broken record because I say this all the time, but the media stir caused by this video is yet another example of non-farm people reacting to something they have never experienced and do not understand.

Put yourself in the shoes of the workers on the floor. You are standing in a narrow aisle preparing to release a 1,500 - 2,000 pound animal that is stressed, unpredictable, and potentially violent. The bull needs to be directed to a certain area, and all you have in your hand is a flimsy fiberglass stick (approved as an anti-cruel animal handling tool) to defend yourself and get the job done. Pretty intimidating situation. And lets face it here, opening the gate and saying "c'mon buddy, shoo, lets walk over this way..." will prove to be entirely ineffective.

So what do you do? Throw open the gate, make a racket, and get the animal moving before it has time to assess the situation and make a wild break for it. I am sure the guys made a little more noise than was necessary (they like to put on a show), but cracking the giant bull on the rear-end with a small stick does not even approach cruel treatment - the sensation from the stick is comparable to a rubber-band snap on the arm from a mischievous first grader. The ordeal looks a little chaotic from an outsider's perspective, but it is necessary for the protection of the workers and ultimately gets the job done with little disruption to the animal(s).

Few understand this reality, and the Humane Society wildly overreacted to the video (as usual). Here is where it gets a little interesting. Several HSUS women have been making a point to attend the auction as a way of letting everyone know that they are watching the animal handling. Because there is a major lawsuit that will determine the future of the family business hanging over their heads, no employee wants to cause even more commotion by whacking animals back into line as the women watch over them like vultures. Just a week after the video made the news, a particularly wild cow entered the sale pen and began to charge around the space. Animal control techniques were limited to a few arm gestures and some mild hollering (rather than an effective snap on the nose) causing the men to lose complete control of the animal. A quick decision was made to get the wild cow out of the sale area and away from audience members as quickly as possible, but when the gate was opened the animal charged and rammed a worker directly in the chest, knocking him to the ground and injuring him severely.

This is proof that the Humane Society of the United States is concerned only with their agenda - they will not listen to reason, they care more about public exposure than the well being of other people, and they use their extensive funding and free time to target and harass any business that deals with animals. My greatest hope is that eventually the public will become aware of HSUS illegitimacy and funding to the organization will trickle down to nothing. Every time they throw up a road block for American agriculture we lose another family business and a little more of our domestic food supply - a reality that is much more unacceptable than motivating an animal with a stick.

Valuable, Viable, Visible.

2010-06-13T06:56:00.001-07:00

In March I had the pleasure of attending the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau Young Farmer & Rancher (YF&R) convention in State College. The weekend was an excellent experience, designed for young people aged 18 - 35 who are directly involved in farming and food production. Everyone at the convention - from the speakers who came to provide us with insight for the future to the DJ that entertained the crowd in the evening - was from a farm, and it was truly a great feeling to be able to interact with a group that shares the same concerns, hardships, passion, and understanding that I have for agriculture. My experience at the convention provided me with some excellent insight into the issues currently looming over the head of food production, and I am excited to share the information with all of you.

My favorite speaker from the event is named Matt Rush, a 30-some year old Farm Bureau member who owns and operates a mid-western cattle ranch with his dad. Matt was the final speaker of the two day event, faced with the task of sending us back to the farm with a new ambition and hope for the future.

He started out by re-enforcing what we as farmers already know: as our population continues to move away from agriculture, farmers are all too content to hang back, quietly going about our business producing food for the 300 million others who do not. While we have been working along behind the scenes, the mainstream population eventually forgot about farms and food production, reducing producers to "just dumb farmers" and actually turning against those on whom they rely. Now activist groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and (you saw this coming, yes?) the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) control far more of the public's opinion concerning animal food production than do the farmers who raise and care for the livestock. Individuals spearheading food trends are suddenly convincing people to cry out against our large farms, demanding a return to the old days of 40 acres and a mule (never mind the fact that the food demand created by our 307,000,000 person population can never be filled by small farmers). In other words, farmers are now in a position requiring them to fight the people they are faithfully feeding (I have said this before, but mainstream America is fiercely biting the hand that is feeding them, and I do not think they realize it is happening).

Producers are in an interesting situation, as I hope you can see, but Matt had some superb advice for his audience to take home. He told us that farmers have to change our quiet ways and survive this surge of negativity and ignorance by remaining Valuable, Viable, and Visible. Here are his examples for each.

Valuable. We have all heard the term "pull your weight," which is something farmers do very well. As I mentioned, our population continues to grow and move away from agriculture; today, less than 2% of American citizens are farmers. That less-than-two-percent, however, is productive enough to provide food for the remaining more-than-ninety-eight-percent. Every one modern farmer today feeds an average of 140 other people who will never have to set foot on a farm to have a nutritious, safe meal. Those 140 people are free to direct their attention towards other advancements because their focus and funding do not revolve around finding food. So, are farmers valuable? You bet.

Viable. In the United States, we tend to think that we do everything best and the rest of the World is relatively insignificant. Matt said he was guilty of this sub-conscious feeling until he traveled to Germany and visited what can best be described as a global grain exchange. He described an ultramodern skyscraper with and ultramodern meeting room where he met a young man who buys and sells grain from around the World based on a half-cent per bushel cost totaling billions of dollars (in other words, enough half-cent bushels are exchanged that the total value reaches billions of dollars). The young man rattled off numbers and statistics that made Matt's head spin, and then the German said "I am going to tell you something that American producers will not like to hear. I do not care whether or not your country grows anything. If you stop entirely tomorrow, Australia will fill the void in the grain market. If Australia does not, South America will; if South America does not, Europe will; if Europe does not, Canada will, and so on." When we give an inch in this country, the rest of the world immediately takes it. American farmers must continually push towards the future to remain competitive in this global market.

Visible. Matt is a really funny guy, and he incorporated stories that helped make his point as he spoke. He described a trip he was taking to speak at a convention. His plane was completely full except for the seat directly beside him, and the flight was delayed at the gate (with everyone on board except the occupant of this one seat) for approximately 45 minutes. Matt was getting irritated and decided to bury his thoughts in a book when, as he put it, the most outlandish, ridiculous looking young woman stepped on board at the front of the plane. Given his luck with seat mates on previous flights, Matt knew immediately that she was the occupant of the empty seat beside him. Sure enough, she plopped down and immediately began talking about the day's events (her late arrival was the cause of the flight delay). Matt tried to ignore her, but the book in front of his face was not going to stop her discussion and they ended up talking about the usual airline topics: destination, occupation, etc. It turned out that the woman was an actress (not wildly famous, but she had been in a good number of movies and was making progress). She almost fell out of her seat when Matt told her he lived on a ranch and raised cattle. Matt said she was thrilled because she had never met "a real farmer," and they ended up having a very enjoyable and intelligent conversation about agriculture. At the end of the flight, the woman promised Matt that if she ever made it big, she would remember him and would be proud to represent farmers in a non-farm public. That is a pretty awesome commitment from a very unexpected source. His lesson from the experience is this: we, as young farmers, need to be proud of who we are and what we do, and should make every attempt to reveal our farm roots to those around us. Matt said his reluctance to speak with the ritzy-looking person on the flight almost eliminated his opportunity to share his agriculture story and educate someone who had never even MET a farmer about food production.

The YF&R convention was awesomely inspiring. I, and hopefully every other young farmer present that weekend, am doing my best to tell agriculture's great story to anyone who will listen. As the word gets out, our opponents will learn that we are committed to our farms, we are small in numbers but strong at heart, and we are ready to carry the torch for agriculture through the hardships of the future in order to light the path for the next generation of proud producers. Oh, how exciting it will be.

Your Opinion.

2010-05-17T08:29:00.000-07:00

It seems as though everyone these days has seen some sort of dramatic "undercover documentary" that shows you just how horrible US food production is, and people seem almost giddy when they get to explain that they will never eat (insert meat product)ever again after what they saw on TV. I honestly cannot count the number of times every day that I have a conversation that starts with the other person saying "Yeah I saw a show about chicken processing (or whatever) last night and, boy, I don't want anything to do with that anymore! Gross!" These sort of statements show that our population has been trained by activists to believe that the food industry has something to hide from consumers and that processors do not want the public looking in to the business because they will be horrified by what they see. Even worse, many times people are actually EXCITED to talk about which food segment they have most recently rejected as a result of the news.

I have been pondering this sort of behavior recently, and unfortunately I don't seem to be able to make sense of America's obsession with the 'big ag. is bad' misconception. Why are we so quick to accept the belief that our food producers are careless fools who ruin the food we eat?

The food industry has nothing to hide; in fact, a majority of their time and effort is devoted to advancing food safety measures in the processing plants. Everything from material and personnel movement to temperature to airflow (air in harvest facilities is "scrubbed" and then forced to flow from areas of zero contamination to areas of higher contamination (rather than flowing freely) to ensure airborne pathogens are unable to compromise cleanliness in packaging areas) is carefully planned and enforced to ensure the product going to the consumer is safe. The result of such strict adherence to safety is very positive and widespread - compared to the hundreds of millions of pounds of food produced and consumed every year, the portion that is recalled on occasion is incredibly small...a pretty good track record for the food guys - yet few consumers realize the discrepancy between their lifetime of eating safe food from the grocery store and the negatively-slanted horror story told by Food, Inc. and other such films.

Why do you think people do not question the story told by anti-food production films? Like I said, I have the "Won't eat this!" conversation a thousand times a week, but I have NEVER heard anyone analyze the credibility of an anti-farming film. Does this happen because people have WAY more access to anti-farming propaganda than to the actual farm? Or is the distrust driven by fear? Or is this all just the latest trend to jump on and talk about? Maybe (most likely) I am entirely wrong and there is a better reason for the 'eliminate our food' discussion.

I don't know. So tell me what you think; respond in the comment section at the bottom of this post and help me out here. Tell me I am totally wrong (anonymous is fine, but I won't take offense either way) or mention that I am on the right track. What do you hear around town, and why are people afraid of what they eat? I am anxious to hear some other perspectives on this topic.

Seeing is Believing.

2010-05-03T08:57:00.000-07:00

I am a notoriously analytical person. Nearly everything I hear from an outside source raises in my mind the question "is this really true?" I resist infomercials because they sound too good to be true, I will question the latest trend and ask myself if it is legitimate or just the result of some good marketing, and I rarely believe rumors that are flying around until I have seen for myself that the statement is in fact reality. On top of all this, I (usually wrongly) assume that everyone else thinks the same way I do about the bombardment of information we are presented with on a daily basis. In other words, I have to assume that at least a few of the people reading this blog are in front of their computer mumbling "I don't know about this, it sounds pretty far fetched..." So, in honor of all of you questioning minds out there, I have decided to show you that what I am saying is true.

When it comes to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and other well known animal support groups like PAWS (yes, they are on my bad list too), I sound a bit like a broken record. Most of my writing to this point has focused on these organizations and their well hidden but very effective anti-animal agriculture agenda as I try to expose their true intent to the public. To this point, however, I have never really shown you what I am talking about. So here we go.

Open up a new tab on your browser, go to Google and type in PAWS. The first link in the resulting list will take you to their homepage; take a second and look it over, I'll wait.

Did you enjoy that experience? It is a nice looking website and everywhere you see pictures of kittens, baby animals, some wildlife, and you find links to major success stories of dog and cat rescues. You can adopt a pet, look at pictures of cats and dogs, donate to the cause, and learn how to deal with that pesky raccoon that devastates your trash can every night. This is exactly what you thought PAWS was about, right? And you feel pretty good about what you are seeing: everyday people helping pets in unfortunate situations. So, at first glance (the only glance many people will take) PAWS is a dog and cat rescue operation that will also help pet owners deal with some types of wildlife, a mission that can be accepted by everyone.

Now lets poke around a little bit. Perhaps you were so moved by the homepage experience that you want to go a step beyond a simple donation. Move your cursor over "Get Involved" and select "Live Humanely," a suggestion from the group that sounds pretty innocent and easy to follow through with. The description says you can have a major effect on animals by simple steps like giving water to birds or adopting a pet - nothing wrong there - but the very first suggestion is "Go Veggie."

Pump the brakes here...what on earth does going vegetarian have to do with pet adoption and care? If PAWS helps out dogs, cats, and other pets (what nearly everyone associates the organization with), shouldn't their humane suggestions involve pets? Click "Go Veggie" and you are hit with a write-up explaining that meat purchases contribute to "the suffering of billions of farm animals every year," you see the all-too-popular "factory farming" phrase thrown around (that is nothing more than a phrase designed to portray farming as a mechanical, frightening, industrial beast), you are exposed to statements indicating that farmers are willing to torture animals simply to make money, and you are told that farms destroy the environment; the portrayal of farming is a vary harsh contradiction to the happy outlook of the PAWS homepage.

And herein lies the problem for agriculture; PAWS is advertised and associated with pet adoptions, raising funding from donations for such caring acts. Behind the scenes, however, they are pouring that money into anti-food-production slander used to frighten citizens away from our food system. If a farmer tries to stand up against the huge organization that is dirtying his (or her!) reputation, the farmer is hounded by the masses for being such a dog-hating, cruel person. Quite a tricky situation for us.

You will find a very similar experience at the HSUS website, with dog, cat, and dolphin (really) pictures on the most visible pages and anti-food propaganda buried somewhere inside. PETA is much more open about their views, but you will find that they use the same bunch of words that invoke a dark, evil feeling as you read them.

What can farmers do about this? We need to be louder than the opposition who has been allowed to speak for us in the past. As we continue to tell our real story to the public, the truth will spread and no longer will agriculture be blamed for the problems of today. So, as Ag. finds its footing in the social media landscape, do your part; listen to what we have to say and question the opposition. Read Amanda Nolz's blog on www.beefmagazine.com or check out the 'I am Agriculture Proud' group on Facebook to start. Activists have frightening buzzwords and some smoke-and-mirrors financial tactics, we have hundreds of years' experience, generations of family dedication to the land and animals, hundreds of millions of benefactors (every person who eats), and unlimited uplifting stories to tell.

Eat Your Way Through Earth Day

2010-04-22T13:12:00.000-07:00

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.

Walk the Line

2010-04-09T06:26:00.000-07:00

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.

Watch Out.

2010-03-23T08:20:00.000-07:00

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?

Newsflash: Food Is Good For You

2010-03-05T17:34:00.000-08:00

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.

Small Steps to Huge Leaps

2010-03-03T12:22:00.000-08:00

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.

Conflicting Demands

2010-02-20T08:56:00.000-08:00

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.

So True.

2010-02-18T07:03:00.000-08:00

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.

Food for Thought

2010-02-08T07:37:00.000-08:00

Hop in your time machines, folks, today we are going back to sixth grade and talking about hormones.

Hormone-free beef, to be specific. It is a claim that many small producers use in an attempt to gain an edge over their competition, and a phrase health-conscious consumers are seeking out. Unfortunately, advertising such a thing is incorrect; there is no such thing as hormone-free beef, or chicken, or pork, etc. Animals (I will focus on cattle, but this applies to all of them) produce hormones as they grow and develop. So do you and I. So do plants. A lot of them. Knowing this leads one to assume that when a store is advertising hormone-free anything, what they really mean to say is 'no ADDED growth hormones' (even we are guilty throwing around the hormone-free claim at the store, and we are scrambling to change it to 'no hormones added'). When you think about it, the reality makes you smack yourself on the head and think 'I should have known that,' but it is worth mentioning and it will be the focus of this writing.

What prevents us from becoming crazed steroid-jacked monsters when we eat beef (hormone implanted or not) is the fact that we, at any given time, are producing 35,000 times more hormones than could ever be present in the food we eat (this information is from the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program). Hormones are difficult to digest, so what finally makes it into our system after we enjoy that delicious grilled Porterhouse (with a huge baked potato and a salad containing every vegetable enhanced with mom's oil and vinegar dressing...) is a drop in the bucket compared to what is already coursing through our veins. Remember, this concerns non-implanted AND implanted beef (and chicken, and pork...).

Which brings me to my point. Everyone has heard from one source or another how bad the "extra" hormones in beef from implanted cattle are for people. And, as usual, I am here to say that the rumors have been blown completely out of proportion. The difference in hormone levels in a serving of non-treated beef (certified organic, for instance) and a serving of beef from an animal on the most rigorous hormone treatment differs by .6 nanograms (less than one billionth of a gram). So yes, there is a difference in the hormone levels, but I think one would have a difficult time arguing that this is a significant variation. Keep in mind that we do not digest all of the hormones in anything we eat, indicating that even with slightly higher hormone levels we will still absorb the same amount, and the difference becomes irrelevant.

I am not saying you should run to your nearest major grocery store and scarf down the first mass-produced sirloin that you see once you read this. I am not even saying that you should agree with animal hormone enhancements, or stop seeking out meats with no ADDED (keep that in mind) hormones. All I am saying is that you should not be terrified of food because of what you hear. American producers and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) know what they are doing and are constantly researching, testing, and promoting food that is not dangerous and will not poison their consumers. Stuff in the grocery store aisles is safe for your family, even if Paul McCartney says it is not.

So remember, do not turn on the food production industry when you hear from an outside source that they are terrible. Our agricultural system has provided us with plentiful, inexpensive food whenever we want it. We need to be grateful for what we have and work with FARMERS, not radical organizations, to shape the future of food production for generations to come. I think the results will be much brighter that way.

Case in Point...

2010-02-05T12:07:00.000-08:00

Very shortly after I posted about the HSUS agenda, I stumbled upon a Feedstuffs Magazine article that completely re-enforces the illegitimacy of HSUS shenanigans.

Consider this: In 2008, the Humane Society of the United States generated $86 million dollars. Knowing only this, how much of the total would you assume HSUS spends collecting, protecting, and finding homes for stray and abandoned pets? Possibly $70 million? The remaining $16 million should be more than enough to cover operating costs, right? Apparently not. $50 million? Wrong. ONE million? Still no. So how much, you ask? The few real HSUS shelters in the US got a minuscule $450,000 to care for dogs and cats in need. That is such a pitiful amount compared to $86 million that I had to laugh (not because it is funny, but because it completely contradicts what HSUS tells the public). $20 million of their budget was spent on 'campaigns, legislation, & litigation.' Remember Proposition 2 (the anti-California agriculture regulations they are forcing into place) from my last post? Advertising something like that is more important to the Humane Society than the animals they say are protected by the organization. $25 million was spent on FUNDRAISING (seems to me like nearly $100 million dollars should be enough, but what do I know?). Recall the compassionate celebrity with the scruffy cat from the commercial? She made more money from her fifteen seconds of airtime than was spent on all of the HSUS animals in the country. The fine Wayne Pacelle, president of HSUS, was given a salary of $250,000 - more than half of what was spent on those he claims to protect. I think if you look up hypocrite in the dictionary the definition is (or should be) 'everyone on the Humane Society of the United States payroll'...

What I have just written is public financial information, meaning everyone has access to it. I would hope, after seeing this, you realize the Humane Society of the United States is flat out lying about what it is doing with donated money. Why does CNN not run a headline story spreading the word about these discrepancies? They can find this information easily. If a high profile bank or a nationally known business lied about their financial agenda it would make headlines and front pages for a month, but the HSUS reality is glazed over by the media and they are instead touted as a kind, caring, honest group of good-doers. Understanding why it happens is too much for my 22 year old mind to comprehend. The only way to spread the word is to encourage everyone reading this to remember the facts and tell your friends.

I have been hard on the Humane Society (and rightfully so). My opinion about the organization, however, does not mean that I think it is wrong to collect and save animals from unfortunate situations. Pets are great, and animals should not be abused by people. If you feel the need to donate time or money to help the cause but find yourself wondering where to direct the funding, consider donating directly to your local shelter. Ask friends who are knowledgeable about animal rescue and care where help is needed (there are a number of such individuals who frequent our store), or check the phonebook for organizations in and around your area. By doing this, we will be able to eliminate funding for a false organization and begin to actually spread the benefits of stray collection and care.

The Humane Society Myth...

2010-02-01T07:11:00.000-08:00

Briefly, in a previous poorly written thought of mine, I mentioned that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has a very different agenda than what you see on TV. I realize that saying something like that without any explanation makes it a fairly empty statement, so hear is what I was referring to.

We have all seen the HSUS ads featuring some compassionate celebrity and a bunch of pictures of abused and ragged looking pets asking for your donation of a small monthly fee to help stop the cruelty. Animal abuse is an unnecessary and unacceptable occurrence, so we are emotionally moved and feel the need to help out financially. Unfortunately, what the commercials leave out might be more important than what they include. According to John Dillard, an insightful student at Richmond Law School (I came across his article via a link on beefmagazine.com - check out the website), the HSUS is NOT a nationwide organization of animal shelters like they lead you to believe. They, in fact, do not have any connection to the local shelters we depend on to collect and care for abused and/or stray animals found around our communities. The Humane Society's real agenda (where your donated funding actually ends up) is the complete elimination of animal agriculture in the US. This is not a joke, and this is not some made up fact created in a desperate attempt to win over your approval, it is simply the truth. The organization is completely removed from agriculture (they do not understand it) and well funded - significantly more than $100 million is collected every year that is used to lobby against farmers.

Dont believe me? Think about this: the local animal shelter (that is desperately needed) in Shippenville closed recently due to - get ready - a lack of funding! Why on earth would a collection point that really does help animals (remember how many they cared for before the doors closed?) shut down due to a lack of money if the national organization is pulling down $180 million a year without batting an eye? The answer is simple enough: there is no connection between the HSUS and our small animal shelters. Keep this in mind: if you or someone you know feel the need to help out dilapidated animals, donate your money directly to the shelter in your area where it will actually be used for good, not by credit card in response to a commercial. When your money stays in the area, you will be able to see the benefits instead of watching them disappear.

It frightens me that such a sly organization with a hidden agenda is calling the shots for farmers. HSUS is using their money to place completely unreasonable regulations on agriculture that they have never been a part of and do not understand. Once they have moved enough money around through the right people and succeed with their latest "great" idea, they high-five and move on to the next farm-restricting project while the farmers (like my dad and uncle, our friends who own farms, and every other farm family in the country), the people who provide YOUR food, are left scrambling in the wake trying to comply with new restrictions and stay in business (this is costly and nearly impossible).

Think about the most recent California fiasco (proposition 2) involving chicken, dairy, and hog farmers. Thanks to some tricky ballot placements and some celebrity endorsements (yes, they give most of their money to celebrities instead of directing it to help find homes for abandoned pets), the Humane Society made voting "yes" for the proposition seem like a kind and necessary gesture. Proposition 2 takes effect in 2015 and requires California farmers to completely redesign animal facilities to comply with the HSUS agenda, costing them millions of dollars that simply are not available. Rather than changing to comply with the laws, farmers are going to stop producing in the state. Production will be moved far away to states with reasonable regulations, concentrating animal production even more and increasing the cost and food miles of products in California grocery stores. Good plan, HSUS, way to think that one through.

Unfortunate situations such as this would not occur if media, politicians, and the public would listen to agricultural experts rather than a group of ignorant outsiders. A reality of the coming years is farmers must make a connection to the public in any way possible and spread the real story. Make some effort to learn about new farming technologies and seek out what farmers are doing to help minimize their effect on the environment (I bet you will be surprised - the media is leaving out a lot). Our nation must open its mind to the truth instead of blindly following whoever has the most money and celebrity endorsements before agriculture is forced outside of our borders...if you think depending on other countries for oil is bad, wait until we rely on them for food...

Truth, Inc.

2010-01-30T07:50:00.000-08:00

Apparently there has been a resurgence in the circulation of the movie Food, Inc. A number of people have been coming into the store having a fit about how awful farms and animal processing facilities are in this country. Although I am a full supporter of small farms and local marketing (that is what we do here, after all), I understand the importance of production agriculture and I am angered by the negative image Food, Inc. is placing in people's minds. Think about the message I mentioned in my last post: who funded this movie, what are their motives, and do they really know anything?

Food, Inc. was produced by an extremely biased organization whose goal is to eliminate animal agriculture in the US. They are only showing you what they want you to see and are using a lack of knowledge about animal production and your gut reaction from the movie to turn public opinion against agriculture. The group spreads their information under the guise of a concerned organization who is looking out for your health, but their focus and funding is actually directed towards a radical farm-elimination plan. What you see on the movie is not an accurate representation of food production, it is an attempt to dupe the public into supporting a ridiculous idea.

A particular scene in the movie that has been causing a stir is a short bit of footage showing a manure-covered hide being removed from an animal at the processing plant. Individuals I have spoken with are concerned that the filth from the hide is touching the bare carcass, and is therefore contaminating the beef that will be purchased by consumers. If this is all you see on the movie, you will probably be at least a little disturbed...but there is more that the crafty cameraman is not showing you. He conveniently fails to show the carcass, immediately after the hide is removed, move into a hot water sterilization chamber to remove any dirt and eliminate harmful bacteria. He fails to show the many, many layers of safety measures each carcass is exposed to in order to provide a safe product for you and your family - in other words, he is trying to trick you into believing only what he wants you to. I have been to large packing plants, I have been on the floor while they are in operation, and I have seen the full process and all of the safety measures with my own eyes (not a camera lens). The precautions are there, and they are real. Remember that every USDA inspected packing plant in the United States is held to a zero tolerance standard - that means if a SINGLE e-coli bacteria is found in the final product, it is condemned and the plant is shut down until the source is eliminated. Knowing this, it does not make much sense to assume that grime from outside is carelessly allowed to spread throughout your product.

There is no shortage of negative media coverage concerning agriculture. It is safe to say, however, that a vast majority of it is from an inaccurate source such as the one mentioned above. Please, the next time you hear something like this, try to evaluate it beyond a gut reaction. Does it seem to be trying to sway your opinion against farms? Is it focusing on very negative rumors about the industry? Could there possibly be more to the story than what you are seeing? There is a 99% chance that yes, this is the case...you should disregard the information. I urge you to investigate websites like beefmagazine.com (check out Amanda Nolz blog, she is very good at discussing these issues) and advocatesforag.com for some legitimate information concerning food production. These sites speak the truth about farming, but are frequented mostly by farmers who already know the story. I believe if the non-farm public looks at real information about farms and hears the concerns of farmers, fears about food safety and concerns about animal care will quickly melt away. Don't write it off as an inconvenience; keep this knowledge in the back of your mind and the next time you find yourself horrified about something you heard, check your emotions, think it through and ask yourself "is this really true?" Probably not.

Where does your information come from?

2010-01-25T13:22:00.000-08:00

One of the reoccurring issues that has been driving me crazy recently (enough to make me start this thing) is the widespread negative media portrayal of agriculture. Thanks to the likes of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS - yes, they have a different agenda than the one they tell you about), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA - they seem to be more concerned with getting attention than actually doing anything they talk about) and the media, people who have no agricultural experience believe that farmers devastate the environment, abuse animals, produce toxic food, are the cause of obesity, etc, etc...you have heard it all. Anyone who is involved with farming and/or food production in any way will realize these "facts" that we read about and see on TV are ridiculous, but the harsh reality is that a vast majority of people in the US are so far removed from agriculture that they believe what they hear. Many people have absolutely no on-farm experience that allows them to draw reasonable conclusions about what they hear. Having been raised on a farm, I - along with every other farmer in the US - am able to think "hmm, my lifetime of experience completely disproves this article about the 'shocking state of agriculture.'" Unfortunately the rest of the country simply concludes that the media is correct. We need to consider where the media is getting their information.

People in agriculture are generally reserved about their occupation. We are taught by our parents to be humble and respectful, not to brag about what is going on with the farm or outspoken about what we are doing. These beliefs have been drilled into farmers so long that it is just an unspoken rule that we do not expose the public to our way of life - we are definitely not mainstream. Despite the reserved attitude, we love what we do. We are the stewards of the land and of our animals. We are the people out there every day (yes, even weekends and holidays - *gasp*) getting covered in filth and dirt, freezing in the winter and sweating it out in the summer, constantly planning ahead and meeting the needs of a hungry nation, all so you can go to the store on a whim and literally get whatever you want, whenever you want. We know what we are doing, even if CNN does not run a headline about it every day.

Our competition, however, has apparently not been brought up this way. Animal rights groups, environmental activists, and all of their friends take a very active role in speaking their mind, using mindless stunts to get attention. An interesting fact about these "intellectuals", however, is that they did not grow up around agriculture and have never even been on a farm. They are outsiders looking in, seeing what they want to see, and spouting their minds about it. They are counting on the widespread ignorance about food production as a loophole to infiltrate the system and destroy it (talk about biting the hand that feeds you). Agriculture's removal from the public allows them to say what they want and everyone hears it, accepts it, and turns it against farmers. Why is anyone listening to them? They use trickery and lies to draw unknowing citizens into their agenda, and funnel money from an acceptable public front to fund their behind the scenes agenda. By simply jerking emotional cords with the public, any anti-agriculture organization is able to pour money into their bank accounts to help their "cause."

This funding has to stop. The next time you see an ad with a scruffy looking dog or a skinny cat asking for a simple donation of only $20 a month, think about where that money is going. If you want to actually help the dog, give the money directly to your local shelter where it will be used for some good. Stop and think for one second the next time you hear about how awful and abusive animal agriculture is...who is telling you? Someone who grew up around it or someone who heard about it on TV? We need to get a handle on these lies and turn the public's view towards the truth before United States agriculture is destroyed by someone who knows nothing about it.

Here Goes Nothing

2010-01-25T08:00:00.000-08:00

I finally decided to go against all of my instincts and put my opinion about current agricultural issues out there. Blogging has never really appealed to me, but I am tired of quietly standing by and allowing outspoken, uninformed activists to destroy America's agriculture from the inside out. Hence, the creation of this little platform for me to spout my frustrations to any poor soul who happens to stumble upon my ramblings. I have a few ideas for my first real post bouncing around in my head; I will get those sorted out and on here by the end of the week. Hold on folks, it is going to be a bumpy ride...