 Ryan Goodman is a generational rancher from Arkansas with a degree in Animal Science from Oklahoma State University in Animal Science, and is currently pursuing a Master’s degree at the University of Tennessee, studying beef cattle management. He is one of many farmers using social media to bridge the gap between farmers and urban customers. Follow his story daily at AgricultureProud.com or on Twitter and Facebook. A few weeks ago, I received a Facebook message out of the blue asking to stop my support of animal abuse. The person behind the message said I may not realize it, but she believes what I do for a living is inherently cruel. She described things she feels are wrong with animal agriculture - how baby calves are used for veal production, how cows are sucked dry of their milk until they can no longer function, and how pigs and chickens are crammed into crates to the point where they cannot move. She believes that livestock farming needs to end in favor of plant-based diets to feed the world's population. This is not the animal agriculture I work in. The stories she had were moving and certainly lead people to take action, but they do not represent the agriculture community. There is nothing more frustrating than being approached by someone who believes I am an evil person for what I do, without ever having a chance to voice an opinion about my experience. This happens time and again in conversations about food and agriculture topics and we are just digging ourselves a deeper hole, but we can find a better avenue to communication. The discussion continued, and I asked, again, where she had witnessed these cruel circumstances. She pasted several statements filled with statistics and graphic descriptions of the animal housing conditions and treatment standards. A quick Google search found these statements easily copied from the above mentioned group websites. I shared links to a few blog posts and videos I have created in the past to describe animal care on my family's farm, guidelines farmers follow for better animal care, and a series of posts to detail work in CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations), or what some call "factory farms". I view these as a snapshot of how I perceive modern cattle farming. No matter the effort or the questions I asked, I continued to receive prepared statements and figures from these organizations. I felt like it was one large brick wall. Then I had to step back and ask myself, is this how messages are received from farmers and ranchers as we try to use science when discussing modern food and farming? The clash of emotion and science and neither is making headway. As a whole, our communities of farmers and customers need to approach these conversations and be more respectful of others’ opinions. Food will always be a difficult subject to discuss. Everyone has different expectations for their food; how it tastes, how it should be grown, and how much it should cost. We definitely have skewed perceptions of how our wants and needs should be accepted by the other side of the table, even though we share a common ground – eating food. When we approach these conversations, I want to encourage us all to take a few steps for better communication and dialogues. First, we have two ears and one mouth. We all need to listen first before we speak. Everyone possesses their own opinions and when we can hear the other viewpoints, we can better respond to the issues at hand. Second, leave your first impressions at the door. Assumptions need to be laid aside. Ask questions. What is the other person really asking? The better you understand and are willing to listen to what the other side of issue has to say, the better you will understand your own beliefs. Finally, understand the world is not out to burn you. Haters will abound, latch on to the most emotional, exciting aspect and blow it out of proportion. These folks will often stand on the most prominent soapbox, seeking the most attention. This by no means qualifies them as right or their stance any more substantial. Many more people mean well and stay much less vocal. Conversations require cooperation from both sides to be productive. I am no communications professional, but I do know that both sides need to evaluate their approach and listen more. So here is my challenge, what questions do you have about modern farming? And are you willing to consider asking them in a way that makes it easier to engage a conversation rather than an accusation? Instead of "Why do you poison our food supply with chemicals and GMOs?” maybe someone not on the farm could ask a farmer, "How does your use of chemicals and technology affect the safety of food and our environment?" I know it takes a mind shift and I am trying to make one on my end too, but if both sides shift toward openness rather than assumption. So think about it: if you could ask a farmer of any crop, almonds to zucchinis, where would you start? I’ll do my best to find farmers to help with the answers in a similar spirit. Leave your questions in the comment section below or submit your question via the Ask A Farmer page at AgricultureProud.com or send me a message on Facebook and Twitter. Previously - Praying for rain in the Arkansas drought and What a farmer wants you to know about how beef gets to your plate and Start a conversation with a farmer and Farmer in the know: 5 easy ways you can help us help animals |
  Recent Posts
 |
 |
|
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
My dream retirement would most likely be a pair many years in different countries, enjoy and absorbing the entire world around me with a loved a single!
Like everyone, there are good and bad farmers.
Good farmers – do NOT use chemicals, they have free-roam in their ranch, they treat animals well, they provide quality of life to the animals, they do not use chemicals nor steroids to over-stimulate cows to produce milks.
They condemn fois gras, they don't abuse chickens nor making them grow abnormally fast.
They go the old fashion ways by not abusing science such as using chemicals, steroids or other stuff that factory farmers or bad farmer uses.
Bad farmers – Dump chemicals in the rivers, Look at some rivers in Quebec are soo badly polluted because of them.
Bad farmers mistreat animals, they put money above all and they pump the cows with steroids w/e to make them produce unnaturally too much milk. Which cause pus in milk, Ewww disgusting.
They produce fois gras which is animal cruelty.
They put stuff in chicken so they grow too fast and it breaks their legs.
They use chemicals.
Mot just bad for animals but increases the risk of cancer to humans.
And other unnatural things.
Also the USDA are bioterrorist and scumbags.
USDA are responsible for using chemicals to make these birds mysteriously die and causing people to panic because they did not know why the birds died etc.
They are worser than the farmers using chemicals.
Nuff said.
Thanks for sharing your opinion and views of good vs bad farmers @ethicalonezax. It's interesting how these views differ based on one's experience.
Thank you for inviting all into your discussion and for the food and thus means for survival that all farmers, etc. provide.
I have a question if you do not mind.
How is iodine replaced in soil in USA?
What will be the effects on the atmosphere by making the soil more iodine rich – vs. – what it is now?
What are major sources of natural iodide in USA today – since USA has more of a land based agriculture and diet?
I read that bromine based fertilizers were used – and wondered when the label says organic – what type soil, pesticides, insecticides does that mean? Are there standards so the consumer can purchase based on their individual health needs with full knowledge of what they are actually purchasing for consumption based not only on the food item – but the actual chemicals used in the diet or soil to create the product? Where is this information located on the labels?
I ask this – and will share this so you understand better – but for someone who is truly negatively affected by the 'poison' you all are sometimes accused of – it is only because the effects are so deadly or traumatic or truly 'ruins' theirs or others they care for lives – that they might get adamant or at least very sensitive to the issue. So, like one poster commented something about a PETA getting killed over a chicken a joke type example – but to someone who has witnessed the actual death and/or similar disability or trauma of people negatively affected by these poisons – they would just think – that's why they are complaining – it has killed the PETA or similar member and/or non-members.
However, a lot of the harm is done by the chemicals that are added for packaging and promotion, and the processed food ... so – of course – everyone appreciates what you bring to the table. Thank you again.
The chemicals make just as much difference to the people who consume the animals – as they do to the animals. Other concerns abound of course, but you probably already know that. Not trying to accuse, and truly, i am stil upset at the chemicals myself – they are hard to get over if they are always there.
Thank you for reading – and perhaps even answering. Thank you again for the healthy food.
Meat & Dairy Waste Millions of Gallons of water- less than 1% of water is drinkable. No wonder the drought is killing off livestock farmers like Ryan Goodman.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39312043?__source=vty|liquidassets|&par=vty
Glass of Milk
Water Cost: 62.5 gallons
It takes an average 1,000 gallons of water to produce a gallon of milk.
A Hamburger
Water cost: 634 gallons just to produce the beef. By comparison, an average hot tub holds between 450 and 500 gallons of water.
Now that they have veggie burgers & soy milk that taste as good as meat and dairy and dont use 1 million gallons of water per cow, are livestock becoming obsolete? Why go bankrupt raise cattle when they all die from permanent drought?
Ryan Goodman = Will say ANYTHING to justify killing 90% animals & using 90% of water for MONEY MONEY MONEY.
Thanks for speeding up human extinction for MONEY MONEY MONEY
We love Agriculture Proud and think it's a great initiative. We have a similar facebook page for Australian Farmers which creates a platform for anyone to come on and ask a question for a response from a real farmer or industry professional. Its an idea grown by real Aussie farmers so you can have your food and fibre questions answered by those who produce it for you. We'd love if you'd come and pay us a visit! http://www.facebook.com/askanaussiefarmer
First off- this is a fantastic article! I had an opportunity to volunteer for an organization that support farmers this summer at a few festivals including the Oakville Ribfest. Oakville is my home town and certainly not a "farm town" so most people only get their information from the media which obviously does not make the agricultural sector look so good. I am currently studying Food and Agricultural Business at the University of Guelph so I am pretty knowledgeable when it comes to farming. There were numerous people who came up to me or the other volunteers and were angry about GMOs, animal cruelty, pesticides etc. As a volunteer I am supposed to make the organization look good but it got really hard sometimes when people were pointing fingers and getting upset at me, while I had to stay civil. Most of these people "facts" came from something they say on tv but nobody understand that these are the extreme cases. As a city girl going into agriculture, I can honestly say that farmers or "Aggies" (as other UofG students call us) are some of the kindest bunch of people I have ever met. It is a real shame most of the general public points fingers and blames them for quite simply being evil. I hope that one day these barriers will be broken and people will see that our farmers do an awesome job at what they do.
Ryan, I realize it's a bit of a risk, but you might want to just freely allow comments on your blog too. I see that comments are moderated there. (If I'm mistaken, I apologize.) The nature of having a blog and comments ability is to encourage the free exchange of ideas (and yes, you will get hostile comments too, of course). I do realize you're probably trying to stem tons of hostile comments, based on what you're receiving in person, but it's just a thought. I'd like to see more comments action on your blog, quite frankly, so I can learn more from both sides!
Thank you for the suggestion. I do have the comment settings on my personal blog so that I must approve comments the 1st time for each user. I do approve most comments and would love to have open settings, but unfortunately due to a number of threatening comments that have been received, I believe it is best for my page settings and will approve most all blog comments if they are sincere and not threatening.
Ryans Truth = Anything that will make him more money. We feed livestock free food, but force billions of poor to starve. In America, Money = Morality.
Ryan, I first would like to give you props for trying to be so open and honest about your production methods. I am passionate about food education and believe that the key for our society is that people realize the effect of what they are eating on the rest of the world. People should be aware of the sources of their food and how it's grown. I truly appreciate what you are doing because unlike the infamous "Jess" I do not have access to a CSA (all the ones in my area currently have a 1-2 year waiting list) and I would like to know more about the producers of my meat and produce.
My questions are simple, why are more farmers not open like you? Are you struggling to find people who want to share their methods? Are larger production companies willing to share? Are any producers willing to give tours of their facilities to an average person like me?
I have read many books, watched a ton of documentaries (let's us FoodInc. as an example here...) and written a thesis as well as several papers on the topic of food production etc. and most of the time it seems the general public runs into a wall when trying to ask a question to producers about their food. Food Inc. interviewed several chicken farmers for example (for either Tysons or Perdue, I can't remember) and I know a few of them lost their contracts with those production companies because they participated in the film. Why shouldn't we know how animals are raised? I mean we are putting this stuff in our bodies, and it is our right to know. This obviously goes for produce too.
I'm not particularly comfortable with a lot of production methods that are currently in existence (not just in our nation–worldwide as well), however most often I do simply purchase my meat/produce from the grocery store due to convenience-just as the majority of Americans. It would be nice to know more about who is feeding us, maybe it would make me more comfortable. Maybe not.
In addition, I just want to make a blanket statement to the crowd. As someone mentioned before, Mr. Goodman specifically asked that the comments section be used to ask questions. He has graciously opened himself up to being a transparent operation, and has also made the commitment to the public to try to find us answers. If you have ever tried to get answers from producers before you would know how difficult that can be. So seriously, if you have this many problems and concerns why not use this opportunity to ask questions? If you want to change the system yelling and writing nonsense and offensive statements (Yes Jess, I'm talking to you) is not always the way to go. It's education. Education for farmers and producers that you don't like what's happening, and education for the public that maybe we have a few misconceptions. I'm willing to put my personal beliefs and opinions to the side for one brief moment to get the opportunity to ask a question or two. Maybe I'm wrong and if I am then I want to know. But if I'm right, then I want to work WITH Mr. Goodman and other producers to change things.
This is a great post! I do think you're right that outfits like Perdue, etc. aren't going to welcome visitors, nor will other types of farming operations. But, I agree, we should know what's going on and their lack of transparency tells you something. But, yes, it's good to try to learn from people like Mr. Goodman and hear his side of things. Maybe we can all help each other, rather than attacking each other. I tend to think of my side (the animal welfare side) as the "good guys," but that's not exactly the most productive way to look at it :). We can get passionate and then we can be sanctimonious too. Anyway, I liked your post and wanted to thank you for it.
Thank you so much and I greatly appreciate the comment. I wish I could fully respond to the great number of questions in this comments section, but work hours just won't allow me to do that immediately. I'm adding your question to a list I am addressing in upcoming posts.
Though, I do want to give a short answer to your question. From my experience and talking with several other farmers, there's a fear in the farming community that stems from previous attacks on what we do. Between groups that push an animal rights agenda no matter the cost and a national media system constantly searching for the latest sensational story, sometimes we're honestly afraid of being personally attacked. It's not so much that we have something to hide, but more that it's no longer clear whether a visitor's intentions are sincere or how things may get turned around with media outlets. There's a certain amount of privacy I like to have at my home. And for families like mine, our farm is our home. So it's not always easy to instantly open the doors to just anyone at any time.
Oops, that is longer than I intended. Here is a blog post that explains a little more about having farm visitors and opening doors to our farms. Be sure to visit the number of blogs listed at the bottom for other farmers' perspectives. http://wp.me/pTIK1-Tr
That's understandable. It's your home and you don't necessarily want hostile strangers traipsing through. But it sounds like your operation should be differentiated from, say, a Perdue operation, where they definitely wouldn't welcome visitors, or they put people on three year waiting lists (yeah, um, that's transparent). I'm hoping you also understand how animal welfare people feel and don't believe they're all necessarily angry and militant. They're not all hating people, but hating certain conditions of certain operations. There's been a bit of hostility toward animal welfare folks too on this board. Please believe me when I tell you that I have done careful research of trusted news sources, not just watched a view PETA videos and there are circumstances where we need to be quite concerned about the animals' welfare. Again, not accusing you or your particular operation in any way and I appreciate your article.
You sound sincere, but I have a question -
How does one know who is who? I would think it would a be rather difficult proposition to "vet" prospective visitors so that one is certain they are 'entertaining' a truly interested member of the public rather than, say, a member of ALF who would be ready to do who knows what.
Mr. Goodman, thank you so much for your response, as I said I'm just glad you're taking the time to even attempt to answer the amazing amount of questions I know you must be receiving. It upsets me that someone would take advantage of coming to a farm such as yours and turn it from an educational opportunity into something that could possibly be frustrating and upsetting for your family. I know it probably has happened, but it makes me so angry, people like that are ruining things for the rest of us that simply want to learn more. I get especially upset by the individuals that take advantage of a tour of a farm and skew what is really going on to make a farmer or producer look evil. I know that there are other individuals like myself that respect the privacy of your home, I just appreciate the transparency you are offering for your farm by answering these questions. (Or at least trying to, I know it must be hard!)
Hopefully you will be able to convince other farmers, large and small, to answer questions about their own farms. And hopefully some of the bigger production companies to allow individuals to see more about what they do.
I think my biggest concern is that while I feel you are honest and open as an individual farmer, you can only speak for yourself and those you know. While this is amazing and admirable, especially because so many people have skewed opinions of farming and production, I think in order to change the view of the general public larger production companies will need to be involved and participate.
I do have another question for you, take your time in responding, but I would love to hear the answers whenever you get a chance.
I just wanted to know more about your farm in general, the article mentions cows but not much more.
How big is the farm? What livestock do you have? Do you have any produce as well? What's your average output each year? Do your animals get to roam around, or are they mostly indoor? If you do have produce, what type and do you rotate your crops?
Ryan: You are to be commended for your ability and desire to promote agriculture through such forums in a civil and educated manner.
Kudos, my friend.
Well, I couldn't resist ... Dr. Hail, I researched Arnold DeVries, the source you quoted about Ghandi. This is from DeVrie's book, Fountain of Youth, paraphrased:
"All available evidence indicates that a low-protein diet composed of plant foods is most conducive to the best health.
Muscles can be built from plant foods, which are relatively low in protein content better.
Meat, eggs, milk and cheese are all unneeded high-protein foods. Their excessive protein acts as a burden to the body and favors the development of disease."
Hmmmm ...
Thanks for this interesting article. What I find a bit puzzling is your reference to animal activist sources - that is, PETA, HSUS, Farm Sanctuary, etc. as the only source whereby people interested in animal welfare get their information. Have you not seen the articles/pieces in The New York Times, ABC News, NPR, the Washington Post, and Forbes magazine about animal cruelty in CAFO situations, the effect of industrial farming on the environment, and the debate over meat-eating versus vegetarianism? These news outlets offer lots of information about these topics. And of course, this is how we get information about our world - by news sources. And while I'm sure smaller farmers would be willing to have visitors, somehow I doubt CAFO's are going to open their doors to anyone who wants to pop in. Mr. Goodman, I'm certainly not suggesting that you're a terrible or evil person. You sound like a great person who cares about the issues facing farmers and consumers. But as a person who's interested in animal welfare, I'm a little dismayed that you suggest I merely listen to single sources for information about this issue.
It doesn't matter who you get your information from, you want something the majority of people do not want and that is an end to eating meat, eggs, and milk. You think its possible for all human beings to survive without eating meat because you might be able to do so for a short period of time. You are attempting to give rights to animals who can give no rights in return. Human rights is a contract between human beings for their mutual benefit. There is no mutual benefit in animal rights. You take away necessary nutrition just by lying about the need for it, but that doesn't stop reality nor the fact that 12 million children die each year from lack of high quality protein. You want to harm other human beings to keep animals alive longer than nature meant them to stay alive. You think its alright for animals to eat other animals, but not for the human being because in in a split mind you say we are no different but to be different we must put on this fake morality regarding the eating of animals because we should not kill or take the life of these so called other sentient beings. But you say we are different but not different. You speak out of both sides of your mouth. You are racists when it comes to animals. They are allowed to eat meat, but the human animal is not allowed to eat meat because according to your demented thinking humans must be more moral than the animal. This is the most irrational of all philosophies because it causes essential harm to the human species. But this type of thinking is because of irrational diets that lack the essential nutrient needed by all human beings and that is ACTIVE VB12 which is only found in meat. Inactive VB12 is found in plants. Lack of ACTIVE VB12 results in irrational thinking because it is required for neural health and without it the brain becomes irrational from the damage to the neurons. MAHATMA GANDHI AND 22 COMPANIONS FAIL AS VEGANS
by Arnold DeVries
CONCLUSION:
Gandhi was unable to live on a vegan diet
he finally declared vegan claims fraudulent
those who insisted that veganism was possible he defined to be "enemies of India"
"The late Mahatma Gandhi devoted much of his life to the advocacy of strict vegetarian diet, and for years he experimented on his own body to find a suitable selection of plant foods on which to sustain health.
But all attempts were failures. In 1929, Gandhi and 22 companions went on a diet consisting of a limited selection of uncooked plant foods. Whereas the diet worked out well for a time and led to marked improvement in consumptive cases, it failed to prove adequate on a long-range sustenance basis. One by one Gandhi's companions were forced to depart from the diet, and Gandhi himself had to add goat milk to his fare in order to regain health.
"For my companions I have been a blind guide leading the blind," declared Gandhi after the experiment was over. Gandhi still felt, however, that "the hidden possibilities of the innumerable seeds, leaves and fruits" of the earth could be explored and found to provide mankind with adequate nourishment. He never stopped trying to experiment along these lines, but he always had to turn back to goat milk to regain his strength.
In the end he had to acknowledge the necessity for animal food. In 1946 he declared: "The crores of India today get neither milk nor ghee nor butter, nor even buttermilk. No wonder that mortality figures are on the increase and there is a lack of energy in the people. It would appear as if man is really unable to sustain life without either meat or milk and milk products. Anyone who deceives people in this regard or countenances the fraud is an enemy of India."
These are strong words from a man who devoted most of his life to the search for a satisfactory vegetarian diet. But Gandhi's experience is not unique in the field of nutrition. Many others have also gone through the experience of believing that man could thrive exclusively upon a limited selection of uncooked plant foods, only to find in the end that animal products were necessary for sustenance. ...."
You wish to force your view into law and to bring death and disease to other human beings. It is as simple as Gandhi says. Things like the media condemning meat by calling it pink slime, putting out false studies that meat kills written and paid for by vegans. Groups that make their money by spinning the the emotions of the public through lies and a philosophy that is intended to end the human race. I truly don't care for this animal activists point of view because it takes away my right to choose what I eat based upon lies about what the human brain needs to survive. Many vegans are abandoning their former all-vegetarian fare because of health problems. Organic has not been proven to be the cure nor has it made anyone more healthy. Eating moderately and keeping your diet varied is the key.
Dr. Hail, you know nothing about me and I'd appreciate you not trying to put words into my mouth. I would also appreciate your not calling me a racist and accusing me of contributing to children starving. You are quoting one source, by the way, Arnold Devries, re Ghandi. It's best to research and learn from multiple and trusted resources. Ghandi was a vegetarian by the way, not a vegan. He refused to eat meat, but was unable to give up butter or milk. Also, B12 was initially found in topsoil not vegetables. Unfortunately our soil has been depleted of B12 and hence vegans may supplement. Again, you know nothing about me and to post these insults and accusations is beyond the pale. Your ilk can't be communicated with, unfortunately, so let's just stop here and now, because I don't have time to respond to the many, many insults and inaccuracies in your post. I don't know what your degree is in, but it sure ain't in manners or good sense.
Thanks for pointing out those news sources. Personally, I don't consider these outlets (television, newspaper) as reliable information sources because they are seeking ratings and viewership/readership. My experience with previous food/farming stories is that information can be stretched, out of context, or misrepresented fairly easily when they are seeking an attention-grabbing headline. So when at all possible with these food/farming stories, I try to seek out the sources of the information for more on the story. That's just my opinion on news/media outlets. I know others have their own.
http://www.indiegogo.com/stredogheleague
We are helping streets dogs in Peru, but we don´t count with much help, so we realize we have to do something by ourselves and then after seen the success and great help that a society can provide we decide to create the "Street Dog Helping League", we know that If we just have a fraction of the success of these campaigns we will be able to help and rescue many more dogs that we ever do before, and this inspire us to go ahead.
Chris McKeown & Ryan Goodman = Will say anything to justify killing 90% animals & using 90% of water for MONEY MONEY MONEY.
Thanks for speeding up human extinction for MONEY MONEY MONEY
I bet Jess's house is made of tress, I don't hear him crying about that. Jess your exactly whats wrong with America today. People if glass houses (wood in your case Jess) shouldn't throw rocks.
Chris McKeown & Ryan Goodman = MONEY MONEY MONEY by killing as many animals & consuming as much water possible till human extinction.
Locusts are the best Capitalists – they consume everything & all die.
Jess = activist who doesn't care about farming or food for that matter, Jess is just here for the propaganda machine, I bet he is getting paid for this, he can't even reply to simple questions without copy and pasting. lol
50%- 75% of rain on land comes from trees & plants:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=do-rainforests-create-rain-09-05-07
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
ATTN RANCHERS PROUD TO FEED FECES TO CATTLE:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/31/business/fi-feed31
FDA urged to ban feeding of chicken feces to cattle
Food and consumer groups say the practice increases the risk of cattle becoming infected with mad cow disease. A beef industry trade group say a ban isn't needed.
October 31, 2009|Jerry Hirsch
Farmers feed 1 million to 2 million tons of poultry litter to their cattle annually, according to FDA estimates.
A fight is brewing over the practice of feeding chicken feces and other poultry farm waste to cattle.
A coalition of food and consumer groups that includes Consumers Union and the Center for Science in the Public Interest has asked the Food and Drug Administration to ban the practice. McDonald's Corp., the nation's largest restaurant user of beef, also wants the FDA to prohibit the feeding of so-called poultry litter to cattle.
Members of the coalition are threatening to file a lawsuit or to push for federal legislation establishing such a ban if the FDA doesn't act to do so in the coming months.
The millions of gallons of water for 1 cow are to grow the food it eats. Half of Americas water use is to grow livestock feed- 14 Trillion gallons of water. 70% of corn is fed to livestock instead of starving people. 7 Trillion gallons are used just to grow Hay & Alfalfa. Less than 1% of earths water is usable. 75% of rain comes from trees in rainforests- no trees no rain.
Someone necessarily lend a hand to make severely posts I would state. This is the very first time I frequented your website page and thus far? I amazed with the analysis you made to make this actual post extraordinary. Magnificent activity!
Jess you are just a activist with a agenda, that is apparent by your copy and paste post. Here is a hint go buy some land and just feed yourself and family from it with no food coming from any other source then come talk to me. A person that can show what he can do trumps those that just spew out air.
As I sit here reading the comments on such a good article I am just awed by those that are doing exactly what this article is saying not to do. I see stats and info being thrown around like a hot potato that are questionable. I see some folks spouting info that just seems unbelievable. Unlike some I own a small family farm, we grow our own food to include meats and we also have dairy cows and goats so I have some clue to both sides of the story. First off let me say that a lot of the problem is to many rules and regulations on the small farmers like myself to help others in my community that are in need. Good example my 4 year old can not drink milk from the grocery store and when he was a infant could not drink formulas due to they made him extremely sick. We have found that A2 milk is what he has to have, in the US all milk in the stores are a mixture of A1 and A2 milk, mostly A1. A2 milk is hard to find and comes from goats and the most older breeds of cows. Problem is you can not find just A2 milk that is pasteurized, also seems groups and the government want to shut down local small dairies. By law here it is against the law for me to give someone milk much less sell it to them that comes from my cows or goats. Same goes for pigs that I raise and kill, can't give a pack of sausage to anyone. For the guy saying they can't sell their free range cows, you must not be talking to the right people, here we can't keep up with people wanting free range cows. Most of our animals are free range and I am seeing water usage for cows being used here in comments, let me tell you my cows come no where close to using the water that is being spouted here, whoever is spouting that nonsense it is a lie. With that being said yes agriculture uses a lot of water, most of it goes to raising crops not animals, I also know this first hand as we grow crops. Well that's my two cents on this. Again this is a great article, well done.
Chris, that's an interesting post, thank you. I get fired up and need to slow down and not get caught up in pointing fingers. Good reminder. I think small farmers are just being squeezed to death and perhaps some of the larger farmers are pushed into practices (by demand) that nobody's comfortable with. There's an interesting story that John Robbins tells about a pig farmer who had many, many pigs stuck in small stalls in a stinking barn (doubly hard on the pigs, who have super sensitive noses). Of course, Robbins mentally condemned this farmer for his cruelty, but then he got to know him and learned that the man felt terrible about how the pigs were treated, but this way of farming was the only way he knew how to support his family. He was as trapped as the pigs were. Good part of the story is he eventually sold the huge farm and went organic with free-range animals :). Sometimes thinking outside the box (or the crate, so to speak) is the way to go. And, yes, listening to one another and learning from one another.
Yes, of course farmer's aren't evil. Thanks for writing this Mr. Goodman. The comments section of any publication is not prone to moderation or reasonableness, so I hope you get more than one or two comments worthy of reply and I hope you consider mine one of them. I guess my question is simply this: most farmers - but certainly not all - have extreme economic pressure applied to them by the large corporations they sell to and, as far as I can tell, this forces them into practices they would not necessarily have participated in 50 years ago. Not willingly. Practices they themselves sometimes feel uneasy about, yet feel they have no other choice. Would you say this characterization is correct? I feel that farmers are often actually bullied by these large corporations and when animal rights people point the finger at farmers, they are just blaming the victim (in some cases). My second question is simply about your thoughts on farm subsidies from the government. Many Thanks, a-small-farm-owner-operator
Question: If some people got what they wanted and ended the animal agriculture in this country, what would we do with all the animals currently housed and taken care of by these "demonic" (according to Jess) farmers? Because keeping a cow as a pet would be problematic, to say the least, and letting them all run wild would be a problem, too.
ATTN RANCHERS: Over 90% of Human water use is for AGRICULTURE! Less than 1% of Earths water is drinkable. Half of USA water use 14 Trillion gallons – is to grow food for livestock! About 5% of USA water use is for our homes!
Just curious, how much of that water used for crops and livestock is "potable" water?
If you don't feed the 'crops' to livestock, what are you going to do with them? Not grow them? Grow something else in their place? How much water will that take?
ATTN: LIVESTOCK RANCHERS: If most farmers vote conservative, & are anti welfare & foodstamps, why do they accept billions in bailouts & subsidies, and why do they give some much free food to freeloading livestock?
ATTN LIVESTOCK RANCHERS: does this LA TIMES article make you proud?
FDA urged to ban feeding of chicken feces to cattle
Farmers feed 1 million to 2 million tons of poultry litter to their cattle annually, according to FDA estimates.
Food and consumer groups say the practice increases the risk of cattle becoming infected with mad cow disease. A beef industry trade group say a ban isn't needed.
October 31, 2009|Jerry Hirsch
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/31/business/fi-feed31
On 2.5 acres, you can feed 1 person on beef and 22 on potatoes. Less than 10% of land is farmable. 33% of land are expanding desert wastelands. Is human extinction due to desert expansion from farming good or evil?
Less than 1% of earths water is drinkable & it takes over 1 million gallons to grow food for 1 cow. 70% of grain is fed to livestock instead of billions of starving people. Is consuming all the worlds drinkable water & speeding up human extinction for a profit good or evil?
Jess,
Out of those one million gallons per cow figure that you post, how much of that is supplied by a tap?
None, that's right NONE you twit.
How much produce do you provide? Enough for yourself? Your family? Your city? If I were to guess, I would say none.
Also, all those plants that you suggest we eat, why don't you look at what the MAIN pollution cause is for all of our fresh water areas? Pesticides and fertilizers!
Now there are people who are actually providing a zero footfrint growing op in places like Costa Rica and Brazil. You know, where plants and animals are symbiotic? The people that you are complaining about are the only ones that are going to make that a reality, unlike you who only complains but never actually DO ANYTHING.
I made it easier for myself. I don't have to hold a dialogue with a farmer. I grow my own produce sans GMO's and chemicals and I can everything I grow. I also purchase my meat, dairy, and eggs from a free-range rancher in my community. I save a lot of money that way. It doesn't cost me any more and I don't make even close a six figure income. Solution found. I came to the conclusion long ago that I can't leave my food decisions in anyone's hands but my own and to rely on large production agriculture and politicians would be a waste of my time. The control was in my own hands. I wish you all luck in finding a mutually beneficial solution.
You indicate that you don't need to have dialogue with a farmer because you raise your own food and get the rest from a free-range rancher. I do believe the rancher is a farmer and you had an initial dialogue to determine his farming method. That is what the author is talking about. Don't judge farmers until you know the facts. (I am from a small beef farm operation 30 head that is about as free range as you can get with 400 acres. So I thank you for supporting local)
I would love it if ALL farmers would be transparent with their practices. I belong to a local CSA and get my produce there weekly for over half of each year. I know where it comes from and how it was grown (without pesticides or GMOs).
When it comes to livestock production, my question would be even if you are giving the animals a humane existence before you kill them. why are you involved in a practice that is depleting our water supply (it takes 2000 gallons of water to produce 1 lb of beef), dirtying our waterways, and contributing to 37% of greenhouse gases? How can a beef farmer possibly help or improve the environment? I would really like to know.
At the current rate, there will not be enough water for the world's population by 2050, according to a lecture I recently heard by Mark Bittman. What is your response to that?
Jen, I get that you feel strongly, but did you even read the article?
Did you do the math on your statistics as well? 2000 gallons of water per lb of beef? A modern cow produces around 500 lbs of finished beef. That means it must consume the equivalent of 1 million gallons of water in it's lifetime. Given that it is alive for ~550 days,that over 1800 gallons a day. Since they drink around 6 gallons of water a day, that means their 25 lbs of corn require over 1800 gallons to grow. Given that an acre of farm can produce 9000 lbs of corn a year, it must require 650,000 gallons per acre. divide by 8 gallons per cubic foot and ~40,000 sq feet per acre, and it takes 2 feet or water to grow corn in 4 months, and ALL of it is used for corn, not ends up in lakes, streams, and aquifers?
Thus, I am forced to ask, who gave you that garbage statistic? Also, what do you think happens with that water? Does it disappear? Is it crammed into the corn? Or does it stay in the water cycle?
The millions of gallons of water for 1 cow are to grow the food it eats. Half of Americas water use is to grow livestock feed- 14 Trillion gallons of water. 70% of corn is fed to livestock instead of starving people. 7 Trillion gallons are used just to grow Hay & Alfalfa. Less than 1% of earths water is usable. 75% of rain comes from trees in rainfroests- no trees no rain.
And with sustainable, organic methods, you may recall the water cycle from grade school. Unless you ruin the water with something like fracking, water on soil drains back into the aquifer to replenish it or evaporates and falls as rain. Finishing animals in feed lots, wastes, but not other methods. Animals raised properly provide fertilizer. It means you do not buy oil to convert it to fertilizer. It means all the energy related to grain production because you eliminate animals from your farm is not accounted for in your stats
Your sources, Jess, for these assertions?
"75% (of rain) comes from trees in the rainforest. No trees, no rain." -Jess
You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?
Normally, I really do try to avoid flat-out insulting someone here. But you've posted such a variety of blatant falsehoods that any truth that may exist in your statements has been drowned in your own ignorance.
I mean, really? Trees make rain? Trees may utilize water, but the closest they come to "making rain" is by releasing some of it as water vapor which will return to the water cycle. You return any water you use to the water cycle too, by exhalation or urination. So I guess we all make it rain. Looks like hip-hop was right.
Oddly enough, if anything, a lot of plant life would prevent rain, as all plants are capable of locking moisture inside themselves. But it will still be returned to the water cycle eventually.
Does no one perform the proper research anymore?
50%- 75% of rain on land comes from trees & plants:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=do-rainforests-create-rain-09-05-07
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
NO TREES = NO RAIN
To J O'F – Great response. I believe it would help the discussion proceed more straightforwardly if people would cite their sources and show their work in the calculations. Without a sound and defensible basis, how can a quoted number even be regarded as a reasonable ground for discussion?
Jen, thanks for the comment. And it's great that you have a local CSA offering you that food choice. And that's exactly the thing about agriculture in this country – we have a choice. If you want to support a certain method of farming and food production with your money, then you have the right to do so. Not every country has that opportunity. Why should all farming be the same? What about those who cannot afford food from a CSA? I know I certainly can't afford it on my income.
the 2nd set of questions is an example of what I asked not to do in the article. For more productive conversations, we're all going to have to change our mind set and approach without our assumptions and with a more open mind. However, I will say that of the many farms and feedlots where I have worked, owners stress treating the animals with respect. We understand that we're growing them for our food and must treat them well.
I know many people have been using these large numbers for water consumption in beef. I haven't seen the research that came up with the numbers, but is it accounting for water that returns to the water cycle? That's an extremely high amount. Check out this information from recent work that show's how much beef cattle farmers have improved our efficiency and our environment in the last few decades – http://ow.ly/dJBBe
I love CSA's!
But there are bad stats being thrown around. We visited Las Vegas. Shocked by what the research showed has drained the aquifer dry and now Lake Mead. It's not the Hotel/Casinos/restaurants. It's people watering their lawns in a desert. So do the neighborhood HOA's and homeowners stop? No. Agriculture gets blamed. How about we all think about priorities?
Maybe agriculture should get water????
I understand the hotel industry wasting it. They bring jobs.
But watering lawns????
Over 90% of Human water use is for AGRICULTURE! Half of USA water use 14 Trillion gallons – is to grow food for livestock! About 5% of USA water use is for our homes!
Geography affects the weather. Mountains and bodies of water especially. Areas around bodies of water will get more precipitation, as the body of water will give up more water vapor to the atmosphere to condense into some form of falling water. Mountains (especially big mountain ranges, e.g. The Rocky Mountains) often have a lusher side and a dryer side, as the mountain range will interfere with fronts and cloud formations, forcing them into high atmosphere to pass over. At these heights, the water in the clouds will condense, and fall as precipitation. This leaves less water in the clouds, so when they do pass the mountains, there is no rainfall to be had on the other side.
Places that were once desert were that way for many reasons. Now, I'm not saying humankind has no factor in this, but for a city in the Mojave Desert, it's somewhat expected that weather patterns would not be conducive to keeping a reservoir full.
Ryan, as always a great article!!! You rock my friend!
Kim's post echo's my sentiments and since I dont see a spot to leave my own comment- I am hijacking hers! My family has a beef farm. I am surprised at the total amount of ignorance people display regarding where food comes from (not just meet but crops as well.) Many times it's not hateful-just mis informed. My fiancee is a city boy and dating me has been an eye opening experience. He has learned a lot and enthusastically entered into helping with the garden this year. (I don't have cattle on my property) He is full of questions about planting and growing – and initially couldnt' identify where the fruit of tomatoes or pumpkins came from. With all the education he has a greater appreciation of farming.
Less than 1% of earths water is drinkable & 70% of corn is fed to livestock instead of billions of starving people. 14 Trillion gallons of water are used to grow USA livestock food. Is consuming all the worlds drinkable water & speeding up human extinction for a profit good or evil?
Isnt this the EXACT kind of question this article asked you NOT to ask? You obviously think that you already know an answer to your question, so why even ask it?
To say that only 1% of the world's water is drinkable is a misleading fact. You can make the rest of the water in the world drinkable using technology, its called desalination. Most of the feed crop used to feed animals uses no drinking water, only that which falls from the sky. Most feed crop is corn, most of which is produced in Iowa. I can tell you that almost no corn farmer in Iowa has an irrigation system for their fields. That is why the corn crop is so pathetic this year.
Cows weren't meant to eat corn. It isn't all that great for people; it has low nutritional value and is mostly carbs/sugars. I love me some popcorn, tortillas/taco shells, and corn bread. But the ubiquitous use of corn throughout our processed food, and the animals that become food, and fuel (lame decision) is the result of subsidies and moneygrabbing. Corn is profitable, so they keep expanding it's use thanks to big Ag, and selling farmers on the idea that their way is the way to go. I hope farmers can innovate ways to grow other crops that will nourish our people. I am now following the current Farm Bill, and I hope other citizens will be paying attention as well. Educate yourselves, and be in contact with you representatives and senators.
Cows weren't meant to eat corn yet corn is a grass and cows eat grass. I would love to have you on my ranch any time of year. Cows eat a wide variety of plants. Singe the prickly pear and they eat it, mesquite trees produce what we call a bean pod and the cows love this tasty high protein treat each June. The cows and the horses love the young shoots of the mesquite in the spring. We do not grow any crops but if given the choice both horses and cattle would eat corn at any stage of growth. And if your talking grain then as a producer of All Natural Beef where we only introduce grain is if we are in drought. Grass Fed really true Grass Fed beef is somewhat a misnomer. My cattle just ate the mesquite beans, went to tearing off just the grain portion of the grass on rye grass, buffalo grass, and oats growing wild in my pasture each and every spring. I worry because it's such a treat they don't tear off the lower portion of the plant the first three to four days the grain starts to come on. If I had the opportunity to graze my cattle each fall on corn stalks I would. Their natural diet looks like a smorgasbord of plant material. It is my true hope you understand that when fed corn as in the seed is only an ingredient in a balanced ration. Feeding straight corn to cattle is never done for fear of founder.
By the way if you could visit today I would treat you to some prickly pear fruit, it's a family favorite of ours when it ripe.
Thanks, and to help the veggie crowd out, it would help to explain how energy intensive and unnatural for your area it is to use the land for crops over grazing animals. Could you elaborate what is involved in using this type of range for crops and how inefficient that is?
who says human extinction is evil, won't something else just 'evolve'?
I eat meat because I am human, humans are omnivorous we always were and always will be. You want to be a vegetarian I respect your right to be so, but respect my right not to be or we will have problems.
Jess, your assertions seem quite unsound. USGS estimates about 9 million cubic miles of fresh water on earth, most locked up in icecaps or deep ground water, and around 0.3% (27,000 cu. mi.) of that is available to current wells, rainfall collection, lake & river withdrawals (more if desalination is adopted on a large scale). Using your estimate of 14 T gallons of fresh water for USA livestock production, that's about 12.7 cu.mi., or about 0.047 percent of easily tapped fresh water supplies. Your claim of "consuming all the world's drinkable water" is thus greatly exaggerated. In a word, it doesn't hold water!
Next, let's consider the UN Food & Agri. Org. estimates of 0.92 to 1.1 B people malnourished or at risk of starvation (not "billions" as you claim, but a tragedy nonetheless). The current use of grain and grasses for livestock production is economically viable, but your implied transfer of food grains as a solution would require someone to pay the bill, and others to assume responsibility for the costs and consequences. First, are you ready to pay the bill, because food grains won't be grown if the farmers don't get paid. Second, how do you transport grain in large amounts into failed states in which roads are in disrepair, armed militias abound, gov't troops confiscate shipments, and so forth? (Remember, the starving are mostly in failed states ... North Korea, the Horn of Africa, etc., and the starvation is caused *not* by corporate greed but by failed and corrupt governments, tribal or ethnic warfare, local overfishing or unsustainable use of land. etc.). Third, what is the impact of U.S. grain handouts on the local farmers? Yes, by "dumping" grain you *will* put them out of business – exactly what we're trying to avoid. Fourth, by subsidizing large grain transfers that can be misappropriated, will you be providing material support to dictators or warlords, thus *increasing* human misery as well as breaking U.S. law? You'll note, Jess, that none of these concerns really relate to whether or not the U.S. enjoys meat, but they relate very strongly to economics, lack of infrastructure, failed or corrupt nation-state governments, and unsustainable local practices. I do believe that we should be doing more to help those less fortunate, but our aid needs to be *smart,* not misguided. It would be quite evil, don't you agree, to fail to do what we reasonably could do to help those in need, because we got lost in side issues?
The more serious issue here is do you actually believe the responsibility of "feeding the world" is yours! Talk about an inflated sense of self importance, I'm betting there are a lot of issues closer to home you should be worrying about.
Humans are a demonic species- Killing is man's #1 form of entertainment & pleasure.
And lying, cheating and misinformation is a woman's #1 form of entertainment.
Just look at the Lifetime channel. Most movies revolve around a woman cheating on her husband for whatever reason. Men like to kill, women enjoy lying and cheating to get everything they want. Deal with it.
When Humans go extinct, every animal will celebrate- if there are any animals left.
Let's follow your logic. Since you are a human I presume? Then perhaps your plan / stats are flawed and part of the evil human thinking that ruins the planet.
Less than 1% of earths water is drinkable & it takes over 1 million gallons to grow food for 1 cow. Is consuming all the worlds drinkable water & speeding up human extinction for a profit good or evil?
Most feed crop is corn, which most of it is grown in the US, Iowa specifically. Only the water that falls from the sky is used on the crops. The farmers plant it, fertilize it, then harvest it, that's it. They don't water it. So maybe all that water is needed for each cow, but its water that would have been taken up by other plants, not humans.
Jess, please see my post above.
USGS estimates about 9 million cubic miles of fresh water on earth, most locked up in icecaps or deep ground water, and around 0.3% (27,000 cu. mi.) available to wells, rainfall collection, lake & river withdrawals (more if desalination is adopted on a large scale). Using your estimate of 14 T gallons of fresh water for USA livestock production, that's about 12.7 cu.mi., or about 0.047 percent of easily tapped fresh water supplies. Your claim of "consuming all the world's drinkable water" is thus greatly exaggerated.
Next, let's consider the feasibility of your proposed redirection of resources. Current use of grain and grasses for livestock production is economically viable here, but your implied transfer of U.S. food grains as a solution would require someone to pay the bill, and others to assume responsibility for the costs and consequences. First, are you ready to pay the bill, because food grains won't be grown if the farmers don't get paid. Second, how do you safely and effectively transport grain into failed states in which roads are in disrepair, armed militias abound, gov't troops confiscate shipments, and so forth? (Remember, the starving are mostly in failed states ... North Korea, the Horn of Africa, etc., and the starvation is caused *not* by corporate greed but by failed and corrupt governments, tribal or ethnic warfare, local overfishing or unsustainable use of land. etc.). Third, what is the impact of U.S. grain handouts on the local farmers? Yes, by "dumping" grain you *will* put them out of business – exactly what we're trying to avoid. Fourth, by subsidizing large grain transfers that can be misappropriated, will you actually be providing material support to dictators or warlords, thus *increasing* human misery as well as breaking U.S. law? You'll note, Jess, that none of these concerns really relate to whether or not the U.S. enjoys meat, but they relate very strongly to economics, lack of infrastructure, failed or corrupt nation-state governments, and unsustainable local practices. I do believe that we should be doing more to help those less fortunate, but our aid needs to be *smart,* not misguided. It would be quite evil, don't you agree, to fail to do what we reasonably could do to help those in need, because we got lost in side issues?
This whole thing touches on the fact that most of the "activists" that push their extreme stances on these issues, don't really have any real experience with the "causes" they take up. Nor do they want to listen.
Yeah, animals die when they are processed into meat products. Duh.
But as another poster stated, alot of these "cruel practices" are not cruel to anyone who has actually, you know, BEEN A FARMER.
Yes, chickens largely need to be separately caged or they kill each other. Most cows need to be separately stalled to prevent injury. No one is doing that stuff to be cruel, it is to prevent damage to the animals and the bottom line.
And yes, testing the bacterial content of a live cow gut may appear to be cruel, especially to an outsider ignorant of managing a herd, but it really isn't: the cow feels nothing past the initial incision, and it is done to protect the health of the rest of the herd, and the wound is usually stitched up later. This is also, btw, a process accepted and sanctioned by the USDA.
But all that doesn't matter if you are an ignorant extremist spouting hate.
And an issue just as important as animal treatment is food safety. It is not just that farmers and companies produce a lot of product, but they do so with an extremely high degree of food safety. There has not been a major outbreak of food borne illness from a meat product in YEARS. (The ones recently came largely from organic produce – Ha, PETA). The few times possible contamination did occur in recent years, recalls were done and no one or almost no one got sick. In previous decades, hundreds would get sick from any number of producer sourced, food born illnesses from meat products, now it is almost unheard of. (Did you know the government removed the admonition against eating raw eggs because of increased safety?)
Bottom line is that meat producers do a good job providing a product people want in a safe manner. Are there occasional animal abuses? Yes. Can these be policed and enforced better? Sure. But people that ignorantly spout whatever party line without actually learning the real information of having the experience help nothing.
Tony: Yeah, animals die when they are processed into meat products. Duh.
Response: But do we have to make their lives miserable and their deaths inhumane?
Tony: But as another poster stated, a lot of these "cruel practices" are not cruel to anyone who has actually, you know, BEEN A FARMER.
Response: I've BEEN A FARMER and there are plenty of cruel practices - debeaking, castrating without pain meds, well, you do the research and you'll learn more.
Tony: ...the cow feels nothing past the initial incision, and it is done to protect the health of the rest of the herd, and the wound is usually stitched up later.
Response: How do you know that? If you had a hole in your stomach, would it not HURT?
Tony: But all that doesn't matter if you are an ignorant extremist spouting hate.
Response: Or think you know it all.
Tony: There has not been a major outbreak of food borne illness from a meat product in YEARS. (The ones recently came largely from organic produce – Ha, PETA).
Response: There have been many outbreaks of listeria and e-coli related to meat. A recent produce outbreak concerned a contamination of e-coli - which, um, comes from either animals or humans.
Tony: Did you know the government removed the admonition against eating raw eggs because of increased safety?
Response: It is still considered unsafe to eat raw eggs, due to incidents of salmonella especially found in factory farm situations.
Tony: Chickens need to be caged because they kill each other.
Response: 1) Chickens with space to move don't kill each other. 2) Why does that justify putting them in battery cages with the foot print of a piece of typing paper?
Thanks!
Actually salmonella and e.coli are found in soil, so chickens on the ground have a bigger chance of having salmonella issues than those not on the ground. Also there are many types of both, which we, too, have in our system and need to support life. Those that cause problems are but a few strains. Many organic crop places don't allow wildlife around – too much risk of contamination of the crop if the deer poops while crossing the field. Many small places, also, do not test for these things, so don't know if it's there or not.
That said, our chickens are outdoors, and we enjoy wildlife.
Thanks, SlowMoneyFarm. It sounds like salmonella outbreaks can happen anywhere, including in the industrial-sized farms, which do keep their chickens off the ground. We hear about those outbreaks more, of course, because they affect more people. Chickens can also get it from tainted feed! Re e-coli, any of the cases I've heard about have been from either fecal matter on the soil or run-off. I'll research that, thanks. But it's not naturally found on veggies, if that makes sense, or if it's on the soil, it was "placed" there. I believe it's the same with salmonella, but I'll check into that too. Glad you let your chickens roam. They love to wander and scratch around, don't they?
Salmonella and e.coli are, in fact, everywhere including in our bodies. There is something like (and it's been a while since I've looked at this so forgive the un-exact figures!) 1500 types of salmonella but a few make us sick. Ditto e.coli. We actually couldn't digest food without the 'good' ones. But the few strains that are bad are very bad. Yes, outbreaks *could* happen anywhere, large or small farm, and there are several ways to control it. Some in vaccinations, some in testing, some in elimination of birds that have it.
We have for some types the NPIP program – a national poultry health program required of all hatcheries, large or small, that send chicks or eggs commercially. It is something we did and after the first year we have random birds tested once per year – a blood test for salmonella and a swab for flu. We (and others on it) can only add birds from others who are also NPIP certified, to insure clean birds. Thus, we can't buy birds from the sale barn (unless all are required to be NPIP). We can buy from McMurray or Cackle hatchery, but not from you unless you are NPIP certified. It's not foolproof, but gets an outside person looking and testing our birds once a year.
The larger operations do have other testing much more than we do. Aside from that voluntary program, we don't have our eggs tested once a month, or every six months. So, although we've done several measures to insure clean eggs and healthy conditions, *I* would not *guarantee* our eggs to be free because they're not tested. Many of those large farms are caught by testing, before someone gets sick. And, yes, it affects more people.
There are small places that are dirty, and outdoor hens are apt to be in mud and scratching through manure, which can carry other parasites. I am thankful every day for food choices, which allows us farm choices as well, whether people want inexpensive in volume or heritage or organic or whatever! I greatly appreciate those who entrust us to grow their food.
Our chickens like to scratch. They're coming into their 'Christmas' when the leaves start to fall and they get extra 'digging material' in the hoops! The heritage breeds are bigger and don't adapt as well to the close confinement of the Leghorns and production hens...but many of those would be lost with what our hens do foraging too. :-) They have different characteristics and talents.
Hi interesting. I can agree on face with most comments you made at Tony, but if a farmer yourself why would you attack him on a personal level. Now if you do not like a particular production practice I think you can attack it. I already attack my own choice of production practice of raising beef. The difference is I try very hard to encourage those farmers involved in my choice of production practice to learn more about beef cattle nutrition. I don't attack them for not knowing.
As for chickens not in cages. You bet they kill each other with plenty of room to roam and space. Two criteria makes a huge difference. Disposition of the bird initiating attack and the breed of chicken. I've always allowed my chickens have free range. And I've had to hope I can catch a bird that evening to separate from the flock because it is being picked on. And I've had some die on me because of injuries sustained. But I have had more live because I intervene. I also have made chicken soup from a chicken or rooster who will not quit picking on others.
Nicely put, KW. Thank you.
well said – thanks
Kim Watkins, I was not attacking Tony personally in any way. I was attacking his post, which I found inaccurate and borderline rude. You're right, though, we should always condemn practices, not people. Just because I have farmed doesn't mean I have to be blindly loyal to farming practices and beliefs. I do realize that today farmers are in a bad spot and get pushed into animal practices that are less than desirable, due to pressures from conglomerate farms and the market itself.
Yes, chickens will at times pick on one another, that's true. But to imply that they'll willy nilly attack and kill each other at all times, and that is the excuse for subjecting them to extreme confinement (which he indirectly implied) is a poor argument indeed.
Hope that clears things up :).
The diversity of today's ag. production is such though that producers will not survive in business if they do not use cutting edge technology nor will they be able to compete with other countries who's input cost are minimal to the United States. By using the research that our Universities conduct, a U.S. Farmer is the most efficient, productive, conservationalist that we have seen in Ag. Production. This is the case for a crop farmer or a rancher. Cattle producers are some of the most strict conservationalist in the most part because they want to leave ranches better off than when they aquired them. The ranchers want to have their children carry on the lifestyle, so they are taking care of cattle humanly as well as managing the land and wildlife with utmost care and respect.
Farmers and Ranchers do want to show consumers how they produce your food ... Ask one
Thank you Gibby!
We are blessed our daughter who just graduated from Texas A&M wanted to be on the farm working. Our farm a dream my husband has had since I met him. His father sold off the family farm. Yes as ranchers we take care of the land. When one goes back just in our countries history we only have to look at one of the many reasons our country moved west. Land was used up, worn out. We have to take care of the land or the land will not take care of us.
I am often reminded from two separate ends I am evil by a number of special interest groups. I'm evil because my husband and I built a net worth of over a couple of million dollars so I should be taxed more. How is it evil to put blood and sweat into business to provide jobs. I am evil because I produce beef, I'm even evil because I produce mostly a grass fed beef which we switched to an All Natural label learning that grass fed can not exist in drought conditions of Texas last year. I'm evil because I do not support only naturally raised products. I'm still trying to figure out that definition. I'm evil because I support very farmers choice in production system. I'm evil because I will not buy into environmental and animal rights dogma. I'm so tired of extremism in this country and being labeled as this, that or the other thing.
First, I support all farming practices as something which fits each producers particular situation. Second, being successful at what you do in life is a choice first and a right second in this country. The choice to be successful is the backbone of what our country was founded on. Third we are a giving nation of people, ask us to rise and help and we respond in many ways! Therefore those who call me evil when I subscribe to the above three sentences is individuals who unfortunately do not understand what it is like to be a real person of compassion. This is especially true for me. If someone told a vegan they could no longer be vegan, I would stand by him or her and defend their right to be vegan. But would you stand by me if someone told me I had to sell my cattle because this country was going vegan and I didn't want to? That's the true test! (Gibby definitely not pointed at you!)
Well said, Kim W! Thank you.
Whether one eats meat or not, we all must take responsibility for where we get our food from. Industrial food systems (or anything industrial for that matter) do not have the consumer's best interests in mind. Rather, one should patronize businesses that can garner respect from their customers. Get to know your local farmers- support them by buying their goods. Local is the way to go. Period.
I'm interested in your statement. Would you care to explain exactly how a local farmer has the consumer's best interest in mind?
I can answer that question. Because they are a small time consumer just like you are. They are not part of some multi-million dollar corporation that only cares about their profit margin but just a farmer trying to make a living and feed their family. If a farmer can solely rely on local consumers (in a perfect world) they do not have to sell their livestock off to larger corporations to help make ends meet. Smaller, local farmers are much more likely to follow sustainable practices, have healthier livestock and veggies that haven't been sprayed in preservatives to help keep them fresh until they get to your plate. Plus, you know exactly where the food comes from and hows its grown. Creating these types of relationships make for stronger, healthier communities, socially and financially.
Well, said, Iroberschulte!!
I can answer that question. Because they are a small time consumer just like you are. They are not part of some multi-million dollar corporation that only cares about their profit margin but just a farmer trying to make a living and feed their family. If a farmer can solely rely on local consumers (in a perfect world) they do not have to sell their livestock off to larger corporations to help make ends meet. Smaller, local farmers are much more likely to follow sustainable practices, have healthier livestock and veggies that haven't been sprayed in preservatives to help keep them fresh until they get to your plate. Plus, you know exactly where the food comes from and hows its grown. Creating these types of relationships make for stronger, healthier communities, socially and financially.
Well said! (not sarcastic)
Couple of questions/thoughts:
What is a "small time consumer"?
If a local farmer who needs to make a living and to be able feed his family, why doesnt he worry about profit margin as much as a corporation?
If local farmers don't have to sell off their livestock to large corporations because of local customer support, what happens to the size of the small local farmer?
If corporations are driven by profit, especially profit over a long period of time, then why wouldnt they be even more likely to follow sustainable practices than the small local farmer who supposedly isnt driven by profit?
I agree with most of everything else you said though.
@JoshinYall – I like the way you critically think:) I work in the cattle industry and while I do think small ranchers are the best place to buy meat, their size does not guarantee sustainable practices. Smaller ranchers are more likely to step into the grass-fed/organic beef niche – using sustainable practices to appeal to consumers who are turned off by the chemicals and methods involved with industrial meat. Thus, for the most part smaller ranchers appear to use more sustainable in practices, but this can vary. I also think there are some economics involved with larger productions being able to spend more money on inputs (vaccinces, dewormer, hormones etc) since the more you buy, the less those inputs cost. But I cannot 100% confirm that. – just a theory.
Remember, 98% of all farmers are still family farmers, no matter the size of the operation. And, don't generalize by saying that only small farmers have the consumer's best interest in mind. That is absolutely not true. We are all dedicated to providing safe food (if we don't, we're out of business) and we all need to make a profit farming, or we are just gardeners.
What is a "small time consumer"? Small time consumer is anyone who is trying to feed themselves and their family. When I say that, I'm thinking on an individual basis vs a company like McDonalds that has thousands of outlets worldwide and they care about cheap products that allow for maximum profit.
If a local farmer who needs to make a living and to be able feed his family, why doesnt he worry about profit margin as much as a corporation? Take it from a farmer's daughter, it is all they think about. They make do with what they have but no small farmer has anything remotely close to the resources that a corporation does. So when a farmer has the make the choice between using antibiotics to save a cow that could mean the difference between red and black accounts, they make the choice that is best for them and best for the animal. A large feed lot with 10000 head of cattle isn't going to care when one gets sick and dies. When a farmer with less than 500 head loses a cow and calf, the results can be devastating.
If local farmers don't have to sell off their livestock to large corporations because of local customer support, what happens to the size of the small local farmer? They become sustainable. This doesn't mean large or small but it means continuation. Farmers that are focused on the sustainability of their farm and their herd are farmers that succeed. In the personal cases I've experienced, when farmers start selling off heads to feed lots, its because they are desperate. I can't say there aren't those who become greedy and want to expand to a multi-million dollar cattle empire but for the most part, these family farms want to stay just that. This gives them the ability to continue to support their communities, provide fresh, healthy alternatives to processed meats and ensures the survival of the business.
If corporations are driven by profit, especially profit over a long period of time, then why wouldnt they be even more likely to follow sustainable practices than the small local farmer who supposedly isnt driven by profit? Because sustainability isn't cheap. They care about profit and when you are forced to NOT use the cheap, easy way to keep cows from getting sick or the cheap, easy way to give them a higher fat percentage it can get very expensive. That cuts into their bottom line and that's what they care about. Perfect example: Grass fed versus corn fed beef. Cows that are grass fed usually take longer to reach market weight and can have a lower fat percentage, ergo a lower weight. Since beef sells by the pound, a lower weight cow does not bring as much money. When a cow is stuffed full of corn, it takes less time and is much cheaper than waiting for the grass fed heads to come around.
All in all though this isn't an argument about farmers, its an argument about everyone trying to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throats. Domestication happened, nothing we can do to change that. But ceasing the production of meat for food is unlikely. Not only does it eliminate thousands of jobs, we suddenly have a surplus of livestock that we can do nothing with, since it is cruel to kill them. If someone has the ability to adhere to vegetarianism or vegan-ism, I commend them. That requires incredible self-control and discipline. I may not agree with the principles but I can appreciate the reasoning behind it. I think everyone just needs to be a little bit more understanding. These farmers are individuals, just like the rest of us, just trying to make a living and pursue the American Dream. Telling them what they do is cruel is just plain mean and unfair. Thinking you are righteous and better than someone because they like cheeseburgers and you do not is a little silly. Yes, there are always going to be things in every industry that need to change, and by having AN OPEN RESPECTFUL dialogue, those changes have a chance of succeeding. Trying to force me to see that what I do is wrong is only going to make me dig my heels in like our old mule and not budge an inch.
Thank you for your persepective. It seem like so often the extremes are at the forefront, I hope that the average consumer can find balance. I like food too much to become a vegan or vegetarian, but I view meat and dairy as precious, in the sense that I'm moving towards smaller portions and less servings per day, and pay extra for purchasing them from sustainable producers. I have my guesses as to how our culture came to have our meats and dairy be more more more, and cheap cheap cheap. We truly would be better off if we were incorporating more veggies whole multigrains into our diet.
@Avalon,
I agree with you. Extremism does nothing to help, it only makes people angry. And I feel the same way, I love food way too much to consider being a vegan or vegetarian. But you are right, meat and dairy should be considered luxuries, not staples. As much as I would love to have steak every night, its not financially responsible nor is it healthy. Same for ice cream, I'd love to eat it every day but that's not going to happen. Its all about moderation and understanding.
Thank you for your thougthful and well considered comments
Tell me, how can a corporation, who's livelihood (profits) depend upon living customers buying and continuing to buy their product, kill their customers and still survive? The answer is they cannot. I suggest your projection that corporations willfully kill their customers to make money is more of a projection of how you think wealth is created than how it actually is created.
Ok, I can't resist: If vegitarians like animals so much, how come they keep eating all of their food? XD
The meat/dairy/egg industries spends hundreds of millions of dollars lying to the public about their product. But no amount of false propaganda can sanitize meat. The facts are absolutely clear: Eating meat is bad for human health, catastrophic for the environment, and a living nightmare for animals. There's never been more compelling reasons or a better time to opt for a plant based diet.
Want to create a better world? Eat like you mean it – Go Vegan
Ok, so everyono stops eating meat, now what are you going to bitch about...how about all the shit they spray on our food. Im sure it all is not good for us. Stop hugging trees and stick your head under water and take three deep breaths for humanity. Ill take a double cheese burger please.
PETA, it stands for PEOPLE, EAT THE ANIMALS...dummy
It is unfortunate that you feel the need to bring down the tenor and level of discourse – it is not clear what your words contribute to the ideas being discussed – surely you can do better than name calling a wishing a person dead because you disagree with their words??
Bwahahahaha!
How ridiculous! Eating meat is bad for our health? Are you absolutely nuts? Do you realize that the enzymes in eating fish is often credited with giving humanity the extra 'oomph' to develope into intelligent beings? Or the obvious fact that the life expectancy of people in developed countries is *decades* longer than it used to be? And that's with us eating more & more McDonalds, more & more processed foods, etc.
There is no true fact behind anything you've said, whatsoever.
Life expectancy is longer because of medicine, specifically antibiotics and diagnostic imaging. It would go up even more if people didn't look like cows themselves. Its not the enzymes in fish that are healthy, its the oils. The cholesterol reducing omega-3's.
If you did any reading of how civilization developed, how our teeth are suited for omnivorous eating, you'd know that such a generalization is blatantly false. Sure, too much red meat or fatty meat isn't great for you. How would you explain the benefits of fish oils to our diet? Or lean meat? It's one thing to have a privately held principle. It's another to let poor science color your entire outlook and not weigh everything objectively. You may as well be a Creationist or against vaccines despite the statistics and despite the facts that have come around regarding the "doctors" that first spread "facts" about vaccines while investing heavily in companies that created vaccines based on different fillers. Why am I responding to you on the internet anyway? You're not going to listen...
As the article implied, agenda-based sources are not sources of information, only emotion. While you are welcome to the opinion that killing to eat is wrong, or that the water usage difference makes meat less sustainable, but the health portion of your statement is provably false. The claim of health benefits to vegetarian and vegan diets are based on statistics in groups where individuals chose their diet as part of a health-conscious lifestyle change in comparison to people who have not made health-conscious lifestyle changes. In direct comparison, people who don't regulate their diet are more unhealthy on vegan diets than omnivorous diets, and people who do regulate their diet are roughly equal. The health benefit is in changing ones lifestyle to make health-conscious food choices, NOT in refusing to eat meat.
thank you for your perspective – well put
@Bea Elliiot. I understand where you are coming from with your anti-meat sentiment, but you must understand that this is not always the case! I work in the cattle industry is there is 1 thing the public does not realize about ranches (but they should) it's that ranches are BEAUTIFUL! Our ranch has pastures which are called semi-native, that means that we mow and chop the pastures occassionally (every few years or so) but we do not fertilize or plant forage grasses. The pastures are mostly native grasses and forbs and there is wildlife everywhere!! Deer, hogs, many endangered species of bids, turkeys, fish, turtles you name it! Now, if we were to take this beautiful ranch and convert it to corn or soybean what would happen to all of that WILDLIFE HABITAT??? We also have numerous seasonal wetlands on our property, all of which would need to be cleared for row crops. What would happen to the numerous species, some of them endangered, that require those wetlands to live? The federal government in the US is actually pays ranchers for keeping these areas ranch and NOT converting them to crops or residential areas. Your opinion is understandable, but please understand that by using sweeping generalizations (i.e. meat is bad) you are in danger of misunderstanding the problem entirely.
Thank you for giving the industry a voice. And each rancher and farmer is different and going to do things differently. There is no single way to raise beef, just like anything else. What people need to realize that no matter how much they yell, complain, argue and whine, people will always eat meat. Are there things about the industry that could use some updating? Yes. Are there some things about slaughter practices that could change? Sure. Reaching out to the industry with reasonable, doable fixes is where the conversation needs to start, not having someone cram their ideas about veganism down my throat.
Very well said, Chris. Thank you.
Thanks for your work to sustainably farm and explain how unnatural growing crops on your land is. You are simulating the grazing herds of the past and improving the health of the land. Massive single crop farming would destroy habitat
So, water gets recycled. It goes through the cow as urine and evaporates. Water goes through a plant and, again, evaporates, cleansing it. Water does not get used up. Please thing in terms of systems, not cause and effect. I know it is easy to rely on such a cognitively efficient idea as cause and effect, but it does not take into account the participation of things in larger global systems. Rain. It's what keeps the world going round.
Farmer aren't evil. I would agree, but I would say that many of them never visit their farms. They work in offices, and hire others to do the work. And they may act exactly like most corporate leaders– they make profit the only value for their organizations.
I think of any business that produces something that is necessary, as food is necessary, as being entrusted to serve the public, not just view the public as a source of wealth. If profit is the only motive, then the "farm" consists only of the public that buys the product. The land, the animals, the environment– these things no longer are very important to the farmer. That's the reason that public health is declining. A farmer should care about the health of the land, the health of his animals, and the health of his products. If he doesn't do this, you might not call him evil. But he is something nearly as bad– he is amoral, and has no values at all, other than the desire to enrich himself.
necesSo, do you personally know any farmers, or are you making assumptions? All the farmers I know are small family operations with less than 2000 acres. They would never rape their lively hood, their land, for one good crop one year. They actually think very long term and worry about water, how much pesticide they use( careful not to taint their crop), and some farmers I know care so much about the environment that they would rather hand pull weeds than spray a little bit of roundup. By the way, Iowa's corn crop would have completely failed this year if it weren't for the biologically engineered crops. The US wouldn't be worrying about jobs right now if it had failed. The world would be worried it wouldn't be fed or that food costs and many other human necessities would not be available (medical grade plastics, cleaner than oil ethanol, and even clothing and dishware that is biodegradeable).
Do you really believe this? I know of no farmers personally who pay other people to farm for them and never see there land or do there work for them.
There may be instances where they have a hired hand.
I bet less then 1% never see there farms. Oh and btw your last name is very similar to my family ancestral name that settled in ohio and are farmers including my family farm. Conrod Breidenbach who came from Germany in early 1800 and settled in western ohio.
Do you know any farmers / ranchers personally or did you get all your information desk jockeying on Google? I have met many of them and many have to work second jobs plus a full day on the farm to make ends meet. Which also means their children have to put in a full day of chores, because they can't afford to hire a bunch of people and sit on their butts in an office. Seriously you don't know what your talking about? Have you even been to a family farm?
I live in an area surrounded by what were once family farms that have been bought out by the corporations you speak of. The owners don't operate the machines, but they are in their fields almost daily. I don't know if your view is coming from someone who doesn't know how to run a large scale farming business, or from your personal prejudices, but what you've described isn't the typical case for even the more problematic farm corporations.
Never met a rancher who didnt manage his own land. I know some older ranchers that have hired younger hands to help with the heavy lifting, but thats the extent of it. Maybe ranchers need to start a 'take the public to work day' so people can see what it's really all about:)
Steven: You make a number of problematic assertions; can you back them up or at least explain why you see things that way? How did you come to the belief that "many [farmers] never visit their farms?" In my experience, this would be almost unheard of.
Also, how did you come to the belief (implied) that most farmers only have profit as a motive – or that profit is a necessarily bad thing? Most farmers could make money doing something else; they *choose* to farm, or ranch. But whatever one does, income has to exceed expenses or the business goes under. How, Steven, do you expect an economy to actually work?
Finally, how do you come to the conclusion that farming practices are why public health is declining, and that public health is in fact declining? First, both stroke and coronary disease mortality are declining in this country, for a variety of reasons. Where cigarette smoking is being reduced, lung cancer rates are starting to go down, of course slowly now due to lag time between exposure and malignancy. On the other hand, obesity prevalence is going up, and diabetes prevalence appears to be following. Don't you believe that there's quite a large role for personal responsibility in controlling disease risks these days (e.g., don't smoke, don't overeat, keep your weight down, exercise, then exercise some more, stay committed in church or religious attendance, recognize and treat depression – all of which have been shown to benefit health)? How do you causally link farming practices to the major health problems facing us today?
well said, thanks
PETA is a ridiculous organization. But anyone who says that this country's meat industry does not have some enormous ethical problems has their head firmly planted up a certain rear-facing orifice. The fact is that our farming methods – for both plants and animals – need serious revision if we are to be able to (one) consider ourselves anything but morally bankrupt and (two) survive on our own land for very long.
Well said. These groups should be putting their energy into getting laws changed, not harassing farmers who are often being used by these giant corporations.
@Masha S – I agree with you on PETA, based on experience with their members, and also in a generic sense with your comment that agribusiness could use some reprioritizing. However, your assertion that "The fact is that our farming methods – for both plants and animals – need serious revision if we are to be able to (one) consider ourselves anything but morally bankrupt and (two) survive on our own land for very long." suggests catastrophizing and perception-driven views rather than reality-based balancing of the issues, in my opinion. Please defend your assertions:
1. On what data do you argue that U.S. agriculture is "morally bankrupt," or heading that way? What do you see as the major problems, how would you address them, and have you considered that any system to enforce your proposed solutions might be an even greater moral hazard than the present ways of doing things? (In your answer, please consider the USDA's recommendations on erosion control, the US Army Corps of Engineers flood control projects, and the realities of large-scale repurposement of resources if your answer includes that).
2. Next, please defend your assertion about sustainable survival on our own land. Not knowing exactly what you have in mind, I'd suggest an answer based on: renewability of water supplies, expansion of desalination and pipeline systems, sources of nitrogen-based fertilizers, renewability of estuarine and riverine habitats, reversion of farmland to forest, and so forth. For perspective, please compare your answer(s) to the state of the environment in an extremely impoverished Western-Hemisphere nation such as Haiti – so that I know you really understand what true poverty and massive environmental degradation really is. Also, if your answer includes reference to global climate trends, please provide a 95% confidence interval prediction for a reasonable time period (e.g., 25-50 years), and discuss the ability of U.S. industry and infrastructure to mitigate the impact of changes over time.
I'd really like to know why you consider the U.S. to be on the brink of agricultural catastrophe, as well as considering U.S. agricultural practices to be so morally hazardous. You stated that they were, but I need to see convincing argument.
Having rational discussions with fanatics is obviously a waste of time. They are a small segment of the population. The danger fanatics pose however, is the ability to affect government policy and regulations that would make the necessary levels of food production too expensive for the farmer and consumer.
Agriculture is simple; policies, mandates, and regulations can screw it up for everyone.
@joshinyall
notitlegoodenough.blogspot.com
Josh, I believe that you struck on an idea that clearly influences or underlies many arguments advanced in this discussion as to what farmers or consumers "should" do. When you stated, "The danger fanatics pose however, is the ability to affect government policy and regulations that would make the necessary levels of food production too expensive for the farmer and consumer," I believe that you made a statement applicable to more than just agriculture. As but one example, 31% of the health-care dollar is now (pre-Obamacare) used for administrative costs, when 16-17% would be defensible. Our quality of health, or access thereunto, has not improved as a result. My concern therefore reflects yours: will increased use of State power, for whatever reason that seems expedient at the time, actually help ... or will it drive costs up, and result in unintended consequences for us in our later years, and for our children?
The ASPCA kills dogs that aren't wanted after a certain amount of time... At least Michael Vick let his dogs fight to survive.
Reality,,,, you are un realistic. Educate yourself, dog fighting is not what the farmers are on about. And the dogs are fighting to live in a cruel environment of starvation, hatred and pain. We could not survive without the farmers. Just as with nasty breeders of all kinds of animals looking to make a buck and not thinking of the animal or even these companies that breed animals for testing, there are bad apples everywhere. I am a animal lover, the thought of killing a animal makes me sad. But then again I am a carnivore, I grew up eating meat and I will always eat meat. Farmers do what is needed to live. Supply and demand. Just because you hear a report that one farm is abusing and over crowding animals and treating them as objects – there are others that are the opposite, even though the outcome may be the same. I myself could not work on a farm that raise's animals for consumption, I get too emotionally attached. Even if you are a vegetarian or vegan, they should understand the value of a farmer. Not saying they are all against animal farmers. Humans eat meat. well, most of them. I have focused on companies that breed animals just for testing, like the company in Italy that breeds hundreds of Beagles just for the purpose of testing products and chemicals on.
Reality, Michael Vick killed his dogs by hanging and/or electrocution - the ones that didn't fight satisfactorily. And if you think being a fighting dog is any way to live, I suggest you do some serious research. Humane organizations can't place all the abandoned and abused animals they receive. Your comparison between the two is just plain silly and I'm not sure what it even has to do with this discussion about farming.
As serious queries for those who opt for vegetarian diets because eating animals is seen as unacceptably cruel in one way or another:
Does not plant-based food have its own serious ethical, moral and experiential drawbacks? Among these I'd consider:
1. Land most likely was cleared for plant farming. Did this not kill or displace animals?
2. Does not the high requirement of water for plant farming, even small-scale, not further pressure vulnerable animal populations or even entire ecosystems?
3. As some food animals can be raised in regions unsuitable for growing plants without extensive environmental impact, is it credible to assume that *all* animal production is inherently worse than *all* plant production? Do not these environmental impacts overlap to an extent that abjuring animal consumption based solely on environmental impact rather arbitrary?
4. Is it ethical to kill animal pests to improve plant crop yields (insects, nematodes, rabbits, etc.) by any means? (Including manual pest removal, Bt, co-culture of plants toxic to pests next to food plants if one has reservations about chemical sprays)
5. Most food plants form micro-ecosystems with animals that live in soil, enjoy foliage or flowers, or that take flight, e.g., annelid worms, bees, voles, lepidoptera, birds. Unavoidably, many of these will be killed, displaced, or exposed to predation when the food plants are harvested – how does a "purist" vegetarian handle this dilemma?
6. Finally, there is the assumption that plants have no objection to being ripped out of the soil before their time, their babies (seeds) eaten without even a chance at life, their limbs slashed and pruned to ensure maximal productivity, and so forth. Many might view this last consideration as a bit extreme, but I advance it in order to ask whether the characterization of animal husbandry as "evil" by some more vocal protesters is not also based on similarly arbitrary assumptions that are not generalizable?
As I noted in another post, I have little quarrel about the objections of those who actually worked on a farm or ranch for sufficient time to thoroughly learn the work, and then over time decided that they objected – and I likewise respect those who – a priori – do not consume certain products due to religious proscription. These queries are specifically for those who object to animal consumption while lacking solid agricultural experience, who object without referring to a categorical, faith-based proscription, or who object on the basis that their preferences should be applied to others than themselves.
Would like to hear some well-supported thoughts on this.
Disclosure: I eat meat (so long as it has been humanely raised and slaughtered).
My response to your points in the order you presented them:
1. Land is also cleared for farming animals. A full third of the arable land on this planet is used for farming animals. Would some of that land be better used for farming vegetables? Um, yes. Claiming that meat has a lower environmental impact than plants borders on the absurd.
2. Do you really think that cattle, sheep, goats, horses, etc., do not consume water? Water requirements for livestock, and cattle in particular, are tremendous. Speaking of water, factory farms (or the "confined animal feeding operations" for those with weak stomachs) don't do very good things for water tables.
3. Very few animals meant for human consumption are raised in areas that are "unsuitable" for plant production, though I agree that there are some. But the meats with lower environmental impact (rabbit is one of the lowest) are extremely uncommon, especially in the US. So it's not terribly relevant to the discussion in this country.
4. Almost everyone who considers animal rights to be important is not concerned with bugs. Come on.
5. Many ecosystems have been destroyed in the process of raising cattle in particular. Keystone predatory species have been hunted to extinction in most of the US and will continue to be hunted to extinction so long as cattle ranches think that a wolf might maybe someday perhaps pose a threat (or not) to a calf somewhere someday maybe. Keystone non-predatory species may frequently be shot on sight (prairie dogs, for instance, which are crucial to the diversity of plant life on the prairies but whose burrows might cause a steer to twist and ankle so they're killed en masse) so that their impact on ranchers' profits never goes above a fraction of a percentage. This is not to say that animals are not killed to keep crops safe, but the stationary nature of plants makes them easier to protect and defend. And, once again, "purist" vegetarians rarely think about bugs. You're thinking of vegans. You might want to look up the difference.
6. Are you honestly saying that harvesting something with no nervous system, which can feel neither pain no fear and which is not even remotely self-aware, is the same thing as killing something that *can* feel pain, which *can* feel fear? Are you freaking kidding me?
I'm a farmer who raises and sells beef off our farm. Humanely raised and slaughter is the term you used. I think your response is thoughtful and well put together as is CT232.
1) When considering environmental impact I find most individuals when discussing food production fail to realize that the largest environmental impact in our world is the human species. It's not just farming but every area of our lives we have an environmental impact. Why do we not go back to glass instead of plastic? Certainly food stored in glass tastes a whole lot better then plastic. But the environmental impact of both is a result of humans. I could make comparisons with any sector of our economy were there is an environmental impact.
2) In this area I happen to agree with CT232. We can not look at animal production without also examining plant production. I'll take the Great Plains as an example. Grain farmers use tremendous amounts of water to irrigate crops and as a result has a huge effect on aquifers. I invite you to explore this area of farming. Understand I'm not disagreeing with your statement, I'm just inviting you to explore water usage by agriculture as a whole.
3) Again I invite you to explore your statement. A good friend of ours grows grass fed beef in West Texas in an area totally unsuited to any crop but cotton or alfalfa. All three production systems are drawing water from an aquifer. In other parts of my state cattle are raised where it is totally unsuitable for any type of crop. The vast majority of my state is under some sort of agriculture production. Those places unsuitable for forestry, vegetable, fruit, or grains have cattle. The best Range Management degree in our state is not at Texas A&M, it's at Sul Ross State Univ. in Alpine which is in the middle of no where West Texas north of the Big Bend National Park. It's the same in other Western States where BLM land is leased. Unfortunately extremist environmental groups are leasing the lands which have created areas where there is far more danger to wildlife and human property via wildfires. Cattle, sheep and goats help to minimize wildfire impact. A cool burn is so much more beneficial then a hot burn. I'm only giving examples to lead you in a direction to study more on what you wrote.
4) In my experience with animal rights individuals when one brings up insects the only one they will have a discussion about are bees. They will not even reply when asked how they deal with cockroaches in their homes. I would love if we could move off talking points. But, at the same time I respect their opinions as we do live in a country where we have a right of choice of what to believe and the freedom to express those beliefs. What they do not have a right to is to demand all individuals adhere to their beliefs. I feel the same way about an individuals right to eat the diet they choose from whatever production system they choose. Yet I again feel choice in production systems is the choice of the farmer and what is best for making a living to stay on the farm.
5) Until one comes face to face that we as humans are part of the food chain there is little understanding by most of the population in our country. My ranch in Central Texas is within the range of at least two cougars I have spotted. Both of which were together in January most likely for mating. I've had to come face to face with a coyote going after one of our German Shorthair Pointers. I've lost untold amount of dollars in Fullblood Lowline Cattle to predators. I now carry a handgun with me while checking on cattle. This is for personal protection. We believe in balancing our ecosystem which allowed for return of deer when we purchased our land. At the same time when you come face to face with not one but two cougars you are humbled to realize your a part of the food chain and not always at the top save for your brain capacity. I give credit to both cougars realizing humans are a danger and they disappeared as suddenly as I came upon them. And just what were they doing....eyeing a neighbors goats. Again, do not take me wrong, I"m not a rancher who is out to kill my wildlife. Research put out by Hunt Wildlife Refuge (Texas Parks and Wildlife Facility) in the late eighties found through research that if Ranchers manage for Wildlife first then the environment improves for both wildlife and cattle. Most ranchers I know now promote this type of management. This provides for excellent hunting opportunities and on larger ranches gives additional income. We do not have Prairie Dogs where I live. It is much more likely a horse or human riding a horse would be injured from a Prairie Dog Borrow then a cow. It's amazing how well they know the house (pasture) in which they live. Cattle would not intentionally step in a hole they know about. That qualifies as a Prairie Dog hole. Again I know other breeders of Lowlines who balance their wildlife up through the Plains. There are a host of other things which can cause a cow, bull or calf to injure a leg or other part of the body. A bull trying to service a cow or fighting with another bull is much more prone to leg injury then at any other time. If you had seen my ranch last year during the drought it would have been low water levels in our stock tanks and the mud as an extreme hazard. I felt very fortunate we didn't have a cow go down in the mud or die from doing so. And the extreme cracks in the soil. Once we had rain last fall we now had holes from the water forming small whirlpools during a six inch downpour. We have prickly pear cactus, mesquite, and numerous other thorny plants and trees. I happen to love the Prickly Pear Fruit which is ripening right now. Our cattle on rare occasion get injured. Most of the time we do not know why. Again I go back to see my answer in number one.
6) I truly think CT232 was using metaphors to describe research done showing the protection mechanisms plants have. Much in the same way emotions are used in how animal rights presents their arguments. And I think you fell into that thought process. One of the most interesting things I witnessed last year was the survival techniques of the plants on our ranch. Some lost their battle, others won. I was especially intrigued watching leaves being held by the trees right up until a week before Christmas. I was intrigued by seeing our summer grasses still growing after the first frost and then again still growing after the first hard freeze and finally only going dormant in January. Thank goodness for that college biology course and soil science course to understand the why!
My world is truly an amazing place in which to live!
If your wondering how we raise our beef. We had been grass fed up until last year. Our drought made us rethink grass fed beef. I will not under any circumstances compromise care to hold to a self prescribed notion that humanely raised beef is only organic or grass fed. I was not pointing a finger at you, I was pointing a finger at fellow producers. We have moved to All Natural Pastured Raised Beef. If we need to we will supplement with grain but only in a pasture raised situation. The biggest complaint I have about Grass Fed Beef as a farmer is there are too many Grass Fed farmers who do not understand beef cattle nutrition. Most are city dwellers who retire, move to the country, go to a seminar on grass fed beef and decide to raise grass fed beef. Their idea of cattle nutrition stops when they hear a certain breed can finish on grass. There is a difference in terminology between finish and growth. Because I'm involved with Lowlines, a great grass fed beef breed, I see more malnourished animals then I can even begin to count simply because those breeders will not learn about cattle nutrition needs and/or move beyond their so called ethics in humane production. With that said please look into cattle nutrition before you prescribe to the notion that grass fed or organic is more humanly raised.
Again I will return to choice in any particular production practice. None is less humane then another. If you disapprove of the beef raised for a short time in a CAFO I applaud your decision to choose grass fed beef. Please applaud the rancher for his choices. The average cattle producer has 30 head and works another job. Our ranch is the same, we own two businesses: One oilfield, one ranching. Yet the ranch must turn a profit, too, and we are growing. Yet those who produce calves who will spend time in a CAFO takes far less time and effort then what we do on our ranch. As an ag economist I have crunched numbers until I'm blue in the face. I can make more money if I sold my cattle headed for a CAFO then through the Farmer's Market or direct selling from the farm. So you might ask why. My husband has a real hard time with someone dictating what he sells a product or service for. It takes much more labor and much more land to make the same money a rancher will make selling to a CAFO for the same number of animals sold a year. So consider the increase in price to the consumers pocket if we did away with CAFO's. The hidden cost of moving to humanely raised animals is in your tax dollars spent by the USDA for food stamps because of the increase cost to raise the animal. At what point do we then place value on human life and hunger? That question comes from experience of facing hunger in my life. I am no way asking you to answer that question.
Thank you, Kim, for your responses! You're quite correct that my point #6 was metaphorical, intended to highlight the arbitrary nature of assumptions often not recognized in online debating points. I find it very unclear how one can assign universal moral value to choices that are highly dependent on context-dependent calculation, media or special-interest group portrayal, and change over time. I also find it very unclear how one can – outside of faith-based imperatives or a long-standing consensus of pragmatic experience – frame certain choices as "good" without addressing how acting upon such choices actually leads to such "good." For instance, I question how some so emphatically assume that if they eat less meat, this translates into an increased quality of life for others or into a clear-cut regional or global benefit, when I can easily envision several potential routes by which this might not be true, as well as several potential routes by which this may be true, and many routes by which the action made no discernible difference.
Any thoughts you might have would be welcome, as I really liked the detail and experience that you put into your responses in this blog. Keep up your good work!
You make some good points Masha, but I have to disagree with you on #1. Crops are undeniably a more intensive land use than ranching (this may not include hogs, however) when raised on lands that have evolved to support grazing such as grasslands or prairies. In the mid-west in particular, the grasslands require grazing to survive due to the historical presence of buffalo.
Now – in the Amazon where they are raping rainforest and replacing it with grassland for cattle then I would say yes – this is an example where meat production is devastating the land. However, if you were to have the option of replacing rainforest with ranchland OR crop, the ranchland would be better than row crops. Properly managed ranches can provide wildlife habitat, improve water quality, improve air quality and preserve biodiversity. But, those good points all hinge on how management is applied to the land. I also do not believe that we need all ranches or all crops in order to live in a sustainable world, I think we need a mosaic of both.
You may also want to check out this: http://www.rff.org/rff/News/Features/Florida-Ranchlands-Environmental-Services-Project-Field-Testing-a-Pay-for-Environmental-Services-Program.cfm
American Ranchers being paid for CLEANING water and providing ecosystem services on their ranchlands.
Thanks Chris for the reply! I'm curious and going to look it up!!!
I'm going to respond to this by saying that for every pound of grain or vegetables that a vegetarian consumes, a meat eater will consume five pounds indirectly through the feed that is given to livestock. That statistic comes from the Center from Science in the Public Interest. By recognizing this, you realize that by questioning the process of farming plants, you are basically arguing against yourself. Plant farming is clearly not perfect by any standard, but by reducing meat consumption we can also reduce the environmental and inhumane impact of plant farming.
To Masha S – Thanks for your feedback. I hadn't expected a fervent response from an omnivore, but I do believe that your responses allow room for challenge as to *what* statistics are actually pertinent, and *whether* some of the beliefs out there are solidly based on fact. With respect, here's my response to your replies for #1.
1. I largely agree with your first assertion, but it isn't responsive to the question I asked, which was: is there a serious ethical and moral downside to clearing land for plant farming? The answer is yes, as native animals are displaced, habitat is destroyed, farming methods may aggravate erosion or runoff may carry off nutrients that damage lake, riverine or gulf ecosystems, etc. Most calculations of relative costs and benefits don't take this into account. Secondly, as Kim Watkins and others have pointed out, animal husbandry makes much more sense in some areas than others, so calculations that appear true "on average" may be untrue or inapplicable in specific situations. Third, animals are involved in many nations, especially in Asia, for tilling, irrigation and rice harvests – so for many regions, plant production requires more animals, Fourth, poor farming practices for *plants,* as in Haiti, has denuded the land, increased erosion, and destroyed the ecosystems there. Animals can still survive in areas that are increasingly difficult to farm. Given the very strong arguments that "superiority" calculations are quite dependent on regional realities, that alternative metrics of outcome give differing answers, and that poor practices with plant agriculture may have worse impact that good practices with animal husbandry in some situations, I find it difficult to believe that the risk/benefit ratios are sufficiently well understood or sufficiently universal as to make a credible *moral* argument for choosing animal husbandry over plant crops. In some situations, yes. In others, no. Calculations for one year may not apply to the next.
2. A second problem that I see – and a very serious one – is that the level and human costs of centralized control over an economy that would be required to enforce a mandate for plant agriculture over animal husbandry would be horrific to contemplate. The history of the USSR gives some idea as to the risks, with the Ukrainian Holodomor and the negative imact of Lysenkoism being a good start. The PRC's decisions under Mao to invest in steel production rather than agriculture – while not a literal "Animal vs. Plant" choice, also attests to dangers of centralized control. Today, we see in North Korea's periodic rice harvest failures the continuing failure of centralized planning of agriculture. These risks considered, I believe that any State power that could effectively mandate large-scale transfer of agricultural resources from animal husbandry to food crops could also deprive us of essential civil liberty, magnify the impact of poor top-down decisions, and risk crashing the economy. This brings a second dimension to the moral argument: what degree of State power is safe to exercise to achieve an end for which the value could be argued to many different conclusions by different areas of the country, and for different individuals?
Your thoughts, please: Can your calculations, based on sound and agreed-upon data, lead to a conclusion of universal superiority for a particular way of agriculture? And, if so, can you morally risk the hazards associated with the use of State power to enforce a mandate (or argue convincingly that large-scale repurposement can realistically occur without such draconian means)?
The young woman who cut & pasted all of her "reasons" for being against animal husbandry reminds me of the people who, years ago, were against wearing fur (remember, the ones who threw paint on fur coats?). They were on a radical binge, with many of the same arguments that the "animal rights" activists voice today.
Veal would not be veal if calves were not slaughtered. We would not have sweetbreads, either. If pigs were not slaughtered, we may not have football or the baseball of old. If lambs were not slaughtered, we'd not have, well, lamb. Or shepherds – my kids grew up overseas, and every year a roving shepherd would herd his flock from village to village. The town leaders were happy, as the sheep would trim the undeveloped land, thus eliminating the need to mow the vegetation (I do think that this is being done near Los Angeles). Without young goats, we would not have kid gloves.
And, we would not have natural casings for our sausages, or "natural" condoms (pun only sort of intended).
So, what to do with the rest of the animal, after making our leather sneakers, leather car seats, and dress shoes (please be not so oil dependant to suggest plastic boots)?
No reason to waste a perfectly good animal. I guess that we can eat them.
I recommend Joel Salatin's book "Folks, this ain't right!" for an insight into an honorable farmers life. Yes, he tends to rant a bit, but makes a good argument for clean and sustainable husbandry.
First, your attitude toward the woman's "reasons" shows your unwillingness to listen to others' opinions. Just because you don't like the organizations that provided the statistics and photos does not mean that they are untrue. Are these horrific photos and vdeos staged? Have you even looked at them?
I'm pretty sure we can get along without veal, lamb, kid gloves or natural casings–hey if we didn't make sausage we wouln't need to worry about that, would we. Many Vegans still avoid leather in all products, shoes, belts, etc.
And as for the silly argument about what we would do with the rest of the animal–the point is, Don't raise them!! Get into natural farming of plant foods!
Sure sheep can be used to "mow" grass. Why does that mean we must eat them afterward?
My bggest problem is with the way factory farms overcrowd, and otherwise mistreat animals and use measures which insure that our food supply is polluted with antibiotics, hormones, etc.
Yes there are "honorable farmers" I grew up around a great many of them. Unfortunately, most of them are no longer farming and are being replaced by corporate farms.
Farming of plants is no more natural than farming of animals. 10000 years ago, the plants we see as common crops were wild. They have been domesticated, just as cows, chickens, and pigs were domesticated for food, and dogs and cats were domesticated for companionship and to help hunt. We have encouraged entire subspecies of plants to die out because they were unnacceptable crops or the seeds from their line created an unnacceptable yield.
There are very, very few examples of any form of agriculture being natural, but domestication and control is always part of it. I am personally sickened by the attitude that eating meat is somehow unnatural when you exist in a day and age that allow you to make that choice and still be "strong" enough to pass on your genes and beliefs, even if you've never created, farmed, or hunted your own food. And this argument applies to anyone who tries to argue the evil of meat processing. Like it or not, these corporations make it possible for billions of people to eat relatively safe food (this includes plants as well, which see exponentially higher yields under corporate influence). So, which is it? Animals or people? Because something will die, regardless. It horrifies me when people care more about the welfare of animals than of their fellow human beings.
Remember, if you buy anything – ANYTHING – edible from a store, you are consuming something you did not create. This means your subsistence relies upon the work of others. Don't tell them how to do their jobs.
Tesla, here's the thing - not everyone is caring about the welfare of animals more than humans. It horrifies me that you seem to think that you can't care about both.
Ok, let's not eat the animals that we have purpose-bred over the past 4000 years to eat. Now, they are a burden that does nothing for us except eat, poop, and reproduce. I suppose we should keep feeding them because it would be cruel to let them starve.
"Well, we can eat them, but let's do it humanely!" Why does it matter? It's dead either way. In fact, a proper slaughterhouse is far more humane than any other way. Pop to the head, the cow is dead. But even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter. These species exist because of demand, and they are slaughtered because of that demand.
I think that you have misread, and/or misinterpreted.
I was not arguing with the "young woman";s opinions, just making an observation. Yes, I've seen pictures of, and have visited, commercial feedlots and slaughterhouses. Pictures can be just as biased against animal husbandry as for.
And the "silly comment" about eating the rest of the animal was humour (somewhat sarcastic, opinions can go both ways).
I'd still like to see someone basket-weave a football that will withstand a tackle.
But I think that most of the arguments on this thread sway from the original intent of the author – that both sides should speak openly with each other, not just be defensive/offensive, and try to be open-minded about the other's opinion. Each side should be able to give concrete reasons and facts as to how they came to their conclusions. Be open enough to be able to change one's mind.
And not be oblivious to humour.
PETA is a totally corrupt organization only out for attention and profit. They kill most of the animals they take in, proof that they don't care about animal's well being. I wouldn't trust any information they put out. There probably are some cases of sever animal cruelty in farming, but a group like PETA can take a few incidents and apply it to the entire industry.
And where have you gotten this information?
"PETA is a totally corrupt organization only out for attention and profit."
How about "Corporate farms are totally corrupt and and uncontrolled and are only out for profit, profit, profit."
I'm more concerned with the fact that they've supported domestic terrorism utilizing public donations than the number of dogs and cats they've killed, but whatever.
I don't think there is any productivity in blaming farmers, nor do I even remotely subscribe to the far wing of animal rights activists. For me, a lot of this is simply a matter of efficiency and a world population that continues to explode. To my understanding, beef is a fairly inefiicient form of food, in the sense that it takes a lot of resources to raise an animal to the age where it can be killed and used for food. Farmers are simply doing the best they can to very efficiently supply the products that we, as a society, demand. My concern is, especially with beef, is that this supply may not be practically sustainable as the population, and by association the demand, continues to expand. Ryan... what are your thoughts on the sustainability of large scale beef production in the face of increasing food demands?
Good question, WN. Several considerations may apply: First, grasses may grow naturally on some lands that don't easily support most plant crops, and animals may be raised on such lands at a sustainable level. Second, demand for animal products are increasing as developing nations modernize, and animal production becomes more economically viable as demand increases. Third, many crop-rotation systems benefit from a phase of growing certain grasses or legumes specifically for soil enrichment, providing grazing for animals as an additional benefit. Practicality and productivity may vary by region, but in at least some agricultural systems this makes sense for sustainable yields. Fourth, nutritional value is highly concentrated in many animal products (e.g., protein, vitamin B12), so while there are plant-based alternatives easily available in Western nations (beans for protein, certain lentil varieties for B12), many times these are less efficient or less available to provide efficiently for nutritional needs in some regions. Fifth, animals can be moved, while plants are rooted in one place; animals can be raised over years to be traded or slaughtered on demand, while most food plant production is seasonal. Especially in many poorer nations, animals are like "bank accounts," to be drawn upon if crops don't do well, are out of season, or if an unexpected hardship strikes.
For these reasons, what may be "inefficient" when analyzed from one perspective may be very efficient when other considerations are applied. No easy way to dichotomize the analyses, in my opinion.
I have read widely on this subject and it is widely agreed that you could feed 7 vegetarions with the resources required to feed one a meat based diet. In addition, poor countries have much greater access to beans, peas, etc. than beef. Most cultures have developed on a diet based on the locally grown starch product, ie in Asia, rice, in South America and the Native americans, corn, and so on around the world. Other cultures only started developing chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes after they converted to animal based diets imported from OUR culture.This argument for raising meat just won't fly.
I've made the teeth argument before, but we might as well do this again. The abridged version this time!
You see those pointy teeth you have about an inch off center on both sides, top and bottom? Those are called bicuspids and cuspids. They are teeth purpose built for the processing of meat for your digestion. You are biologically designed to be able to eat meat.
The reason these people get sick is because their system is not adapted to the external influences of a new diet. Go to India and drink some Coca-Cola, or go to Mexico and drink the water. Same principle. In the big picture, water in Mexico is relatively clean, and is used by citizens for a variety of purposes. It's just not as clean as our water, so it makes us sick. Don't blame meat as a whole for a complex relationship of chemical and biological factors in a person who's not adapted yet.
Tesla, you make the teeth argument until you're blue in the face, but our teeth are nothing compared to that of true carnivores'. Do your research. It's quite useful.
Well put CT. I have seen this argument used before kpotter, and it fails to take into consideration many of the points CT just made. I also wonder how much the QUANTITY of meat consumed in western culture effects disease rates. I don't think it is the meat alone causing the disease as any biologist will tell you that it is nutritionally important to our diets. However, I think it is the excessive rate at which we consume it that can have negative effects.
@Backtoreality, you may be ashamed to admit it, but I'm quite happy with the fact that I qualify in the natural world as an apex predator. Doesn't matter if my teeth are small. My body has been structured by years of evolution to be a long distance, high endurance runner. Superior powers of critical thought make us excellent trackers and trappers. And thousands of years of adaptation created opposable thumbs and an incredibly complex brain which, when combined with millenia of technological development from hunting and warfare, give me the tools and tactics to bring down an elephant if necessary.
I am a proud member of Homo Sapiens, which clawed it's way through ice ages, predators, warfare, and over the bodies of all the other failed hominids to become not just an apex predator, but the dominant species on this planet. We have tamed nature, conquered it. We have broken it down at it's very core. We have built these species for our consumption, and I am quite happy to do so. You can rally against what your species created – FOR YOU, the new generations – or you can figure out the next leap forward for humanity. I choose to step forward.
To kpotter: With all due respect, I have to question most of your assertions, even those that I may favor in a generic sense.
First, one can arrive at a figure favoring vegetarianism over a mixed diet by simplifying the variables upon which the calculation is determined. Although I concur that in many settings, it make sense to grow more plants and raise fewer meat animals, that is far from universally true. As such, there is no "wide agreement" such as you implied. Please cite your sources and defend their accuracy, then we can continue.
Secondly, I disagree in large part with your assertion that "poor countries have much greater access to beans, peas, etc. than beef." My reason for objection is that truly poor countries have little access to *any* good source of protein! My personal experience in truly poor countries such as Haiti in this hemisphere, where millet is the main starch source, locally grown palm oils are vitamin A-deficient, beans and peas are quite difficult to grow except in lowlands subject to frequent flooding, and where ... as a consequence, starvation manifests as kwashiorkor (protein malnutrition with adequate calorie intake) rather than the marasmus seen when starch crops fail. In Haiti, children's lives can depend on whether or not a hen lays eggs (high-quality protein), whether or not a pig or goat can be found for slaughter, whether or not NGOs step in to provide protein and vitamin supplements, or whether a few fish can still be caught in a depleted riverway or offshore. Most years, the land does not – and without large-scale outside intervention, probably cannot – provide enough vegetable protein to supply the children's needs, and animal protein – any animal protein – is all that prevents increased child mortality, as well as growth and intellectual stunting among survivors. All I can convey, KP, is that many Haitians with whom I have spoken would consider your way of thinking grossly immoral, as well as subject to the blindness of foreign wealth.
This brings me to a challenge for you: If you believe that your arguments are up to snuff, why not try them out in Haiti? The costs of intervention are relatively low, and the interventions themselves, *if successful,* will be among the highest priorities outlined by the Copenhagen meetings on worldwide mortality reduction. There will be little or no interference from large corporate endeavors, as Haiti is not considered a good risk for investment, and any "exploitation" of the population will thus be essentially related to the social system itself. Finally, if you succeed in Haiti, you would have compelling evidence that your proposals, such as they may be, are worth trying on a larger scale.
On the other hand, if you don't succeed on a large scale, the situation among the poor in Haiti is such that the people you help directly will likely benefit, one by one.
This steak is very interesting. I disagree with how the vegans taste delicious.
I watched the movie Food,Inc. It was a documentary. So what I saw was real. I saw a pig slaughter house. 12000 pigs or so slaughtered each day. I saw and heard their horrific conditions and cries before being slaughtered. I saw a cow with an open hole in its stomach hooked up to a machine to measure bacteria in its stomach. The cow was alive. I saw the chickens in the chicken houses and how they are grabbed and thrown in cages on their way to the slaughter house. I saw a cow being pushed over by a tractor while the poor thing was obviously not able to get up. What have we done? How did we get here? This is so horrible. I wouldn't have a problem if chickens were free range, having normal lives, cows were grazing in the fields and pigs were allowed to be...well, pigs. Instead by treating these poor and innocent creatures like this I feel we became a lot less human. It hurts
These practices, to my understanding, are directly linked to the fact that farmers have to produce far, far, FAR more food than they used to in order to meet demand. My grandparents had the "traditional" barnyard, but the amount of production they were able to achive was very low compared to what is required of a "modern" farm. It is pretty human to blame someone else for this (not your post, necessarily, but the whole "evil farmer" thing), but the fact is it is our demand, as a society, that has brought us to modern farming practices.
Yes, the ag busiiness has driven a desire for more, more, more. Resulting in these practices. That does not make them acceptable or justifed. It is further reason to stop or reduce your meat consumption.
do farmers actually *have* to meet consumer demand? Wouldn't they be farther ahead to raise what they can, using "traditional" barnyard methods, and price the beef based on actual production costs? Maybe it'd be beyond the amount the average consumer would be willing to spend, but is it accurate to say that farmers *have* to meet demand even if the practices they use are detrimental to the humane care of their livestock? Or would it be more factual to say they use such methods because it lowers production costs and thus increases profit?
The cow with a hole in it's stomach is not in pain. It is actually happier, because it's healthier. The measurement of the stomach bacteria, or "gut flora" is a way to ensure they are recieving the proper nutrition and care they need. These cows also help their herd; if another cow is having digestive issues, they can transfer some of the gut flora of the cow with the hole in it's stomach to the sick cow, which can balance their GI tract out again.
Chickens are thrown into cages on the way to the slaughterhouse because chickens are stupid, vicious animals. They will kill each other in the back of a truck if not kept separated.
12000 pigs? We like pork. And bacon, ham, ribs, etc. As far as the "cries while being slaughtered," 12000 are dying each day. It's gonna get loud, and it's gonna get messy.
I think the cow-tractor thing is probably an outlier, or had a purpose the video did not mention. A cow is expensive. As is a tractor. You don't just shove one around with the other. That's just poor business sense.
If chickens were allowed to roam free, they would be eaten. Not by us, but by other predators. If cows roamed free, I'm sure they would love the pain as their udders swell to a painful state since they kicked their calf in the head when it bit down hard on their teat; they'd be crying out in joy, before they fell over and died of pure ecstasy. And as for pigs being "allowed to be pigs?" Why don't you ask Hawaii or Samoa about the destruction feral pigs as an invasive species can cause. Oh, that's right. You won't have to. They're becoming a problem all over the U.S. And these things aren't cute little Babe piglets. No baa ram ewe here. When they get full size, they will run you down, and trample you to death. Then eat you.
Good heavens, Tesla - "chickens are stupid, vicious creatures"? Hate much? They're not, and even if they were, that doesn't make their mistreatment right. And a cow with a hole in its stomach is "happier"? Perhaps you should try being happy with a hole in your stomach - maybe you'd develop a little empathy too.
If it insured that my GI health was regularly monitored and easily adjusted, and gave me no pain or discomfort (which it doesn't in the cows; do your research properly), why not have a hole in my stomach? Then I could really watch what I eat.
Also, unless you want to give each chicken a limo, they are going to be shipped in the most efficient way. That involves stacked cages. In such a confined space, without the stacked cages, there will be a bloodbath. I have been around chickens enough. I don't think they should be stacked in the egg-laying cages at egg farms, but when they're getting shipped off for slaughter, I really couldn't care less about their personal comfort.
Once again, the side effects of the wonderful time we live in. Pacifism, environmentalism, and animal rights are priveleges afforded to this country by a history full of war, pollution, and meat.
My only real question is why you invested so much of your valuable time trying to have a reasonable discussion with a stupid person. It is impossible to be rational with an irrational person, so why try? Someone who is unwilling to gather all the facts, and instead insists on spewing out someone else's frequently half-baked ideas are not worthy of the time investment.
Barry, I think this is exactly what Ryan is trying to address. You assume that the person who sent the frustrating information to Ryan is "stupid". How is that productive? I mean, assuming you read the same article I did, I could posit that the person was passionate and even possibly misguided, but I see nothing in the article that would indicate that they are "stupid". Words like that are simply meant to insult and enrage, not further any kind of productive dialog on the topic. If I am reading this right, Ryan is looking to engage in productive conversation. To all appearances, you seem to be simply looking for a fight. As a vegetarian that comes from a long line of farmers, I can see both sides of this. But taking one position to the extreme, or calling people names for their beliefs, does nothing to increase understanding.
Sorry Bud, I call it as i see it. This man repeatedly attempted to have a rational discussion based on logic and facts, and what he got back was prepackaged sloganeering. His inquisitor couldn't even be bothered to take the other people's ideas and put them in her own words. Instead, she chose to copy and paste and call it a day. This really has nothing to to with food preferences. It has everything to do with the today's sorry state of reasoned discourse.
I agree completely. What attribute of reasoned discourse is furthered by insulting someone’s intelligence? To put it another way, do you feel that the path toward engaging someone, regardless of their views, is made easier by taking an adversarial tone? The simple fact is that the intelligence of the individual was never part of the conversation until brought up by you in a disparaging way. Picking a fight, or positing your own superiority, the same things that frustrated you about the other individual. Calling someone stupid (especially someone who you don’t know) is never a function of reasoned discourse. It just isn’t.
These comments dont help anyone Barry.
Doesn't look like the author's polite and considerate discussion is going to happen in this forum. And if you read through the comments, you will see from which side the insulting and fact-less posts are coming.
I'm outta here.
For the benefit of those who read extreme views. One will not convince the extremist posted, but one can use the opportunity for those seeking truth to read both sides and evaluate the facts
there is something very wrong in a society when i am planning my families meals with coupons and the limited budget I build around the income I have from working in the education system and having the lady in front of me in line at the grocery store buying enough steak and other meats that would feed for 4 families, not to mention high priced produce and deli items all on food stamps. I often think that maybe i should kick back and go welfare, it would feed and house my family better, although my fathers sacrifice in WWII and my my moms scrubbing hospital floors at night so we had a future, taught me to give back to the generosity our family received from this country, not take from what others have sacrificed for and what is not mine to freeload from.
It is frustrating to see such abuses of the system, but one (or even a few) peoples abuse of the system does not render it useless. I know some very hardworking people who have had to resort to welfare in order to get back on their feet. I try to look at it this way: if that mooch in front of you at the grocery store werent on welfare how would they be living? Would they be working? Well, they are a mooch so probably not. They would probably be scamming, stealing, or abusing another person to get what they want. Perhaps by us paying for them to be on welfare we are actually improving their and our own quality of life. Just a thought.
Also, welfare doesnt last forever. Eventually you get kicked off:)
My favorite bumper sticker is "Don't believe everything you think". In other words, admit that you might be wrong. Be willing to examine your beliefs and adjust them if facts compel you to.
Think for themselves? Oh people could never do that. The next thing under attack would be their religious beliefs, because if everyone truly thought about it logically there wouldn't be any religion.
First off, a simple 'Thank You' to all the farmers who grow the vegetables and fruits and raise the animals we eat. I've never worked on a farm, but understand the hours are long and it's hard work. I also am cognizant of the fact that most of the money we pay for groceries does not end up in your pocket, but the middleman's.
My question to you concerns chickens: at the supermarket, I always buy and pay more for, "Cage-Free' eggs. Do you know if there really is a difference between how 'Cage-Free' chickens are raised as opposed to "regular" chickens?
Cage free from a supermarket standpoint may be different from a direct sale standpoint. They aren't in cages but may be in large barns, with a nestbox area for the laying of eggs. There's advantages and disadvantages of both types of operations. We have heritage breeds, kept outside with shelter, but not the volume to serve a supermarket. Larger operations do that for quantity and a steady market. There's options beyond that if you seek them out.
Cyprustree-
Thank you for recognizing two crucial things that most people ignore about farmers.
1. The middlemen. Out of every dollar that your spend at the grocery store, the farmer that grew the lettuce, the corn or harvested the eggs, maybe sees about 40 cents. Then this is divided up by paying workers, taxes, putting money aside to buy seeds for next year's crop not to mention feeding their own families, trying to save money to retire and pay for their kid's educations.
2. The hours. Many people have trouble realizing that being a farmer is a 30 hour day, 9 day week job forget the traditional 24/7. Sick calves don't care if its 3 am and grasshoppers don't give a damn if its 4th of July. Agriculture waits for no one and Mother Nature does as she pleases. So next time you wake up at 4 am because your neighbor's dog is barking, spare just a second of a thought for the farmer that has already been up for an hour, and is out in the dark feeding his cows, milking them or fighting frost.
There's a place for all God's creatures.......right next to the mashed 'taters and gravy.
I live in an agricultural area and wonder why are the cattle and cows are left in fields of dirt with no sign of grass at all. I have seen cows eating plastic out mounds of dirt and do not know who to ask why.
Thank-you for saying you would take questions and attempt to answer them it is hard for me to approach a farmer and ask 'cause I already know how hard they work.
It's not dirt. They're standing in piles of their own manure and they are being fed corn because corn makes them fatter and gain weight faster than grass does.
Marie, to answer your question accurately, I would have to know more detail, but as you describe it it can be one of 2 things. If they are fenced in a small area (say 100 ft by 100ft) I would call that a feedlot. There are many variations of this type of feedlot, but many southern tier states have open feedlots where the cattle are penned to grow up to a market weight. They moved around a lot and no vegetation grows because of the food traffic. They are feed several times a day and have adequate water. If it was not a smaller confined space, it was most likely a pasture. Due to the severe drought in the US this year (and years past for other areas of the country) there was likely a lack of moisture to grow grass for feeding. Hope this answers your question, or at least gives you an idea. I guarantee that the farmer would take time to answer your question. So just stop once and ask.
Both of the above are correct.ver you see cows in dirt only areas, its bec Wheneause they are being fed corn to be fattened up for slaughter. The last few months of a cows life are spent in these areas being fed only corn with little chance of exercise so they gain fat and good marbling. Now you would never find a grass fed cow in these areas. Grass fed cows are allowed to graze on pastures until they are taken to slaughter. This takes the cow twice as long to get to size though. They are generally a little smaller and quite a bit leaner. The better choice when eating beef is to choose grass fed. The animals are treated better, they don't have to be pumped full of antibiotics, and their meat is healthier. It also has a stronger beef flavor too.
There is not a farmer or a feedlot in this country that feeds even a single cow nothing but corn.
I have been a vegetarian for 39 years. Most (if not all) of my veggie friends don't accuse individual farmers about their practices unless they would see something in person. I am especially against the use of pesticides and packing chickens into one foot spaces. I do think this article opens up avenues for civil discussions so we can all work together. We can't act like Congress to make progress. Many factory type mechanisms will not go away but we can make them safer and more efficient for everyone including the farmer, consumers and the animals. Let's work together.
My granparents where raising organic beef before there was such a word and where surprised when I told them they just felt avoiding growth hormones and allowing the cattle to free range was the correct thing to do. Unfortunately the system is flawed. My Uncle can not keep his ranch running by selling individual animals here and there so he is forced to sell to a large buyer who ships them to the stock yards. While they await slaughter they are kept in an area that is to small and feed high sugar feed that makes them gain a lot of body fat. It isn't a good situation for the cattle and it makes the meat a lower quality product but there isn't really anything that the individual farmer can do to adjust such an entrenched system. I encourage everyone to try and find a small farmer in their area and ask about buying meat directly from him. It will likely be cheaper in the long run for you and it will certainly be better quality.
Sorry to burst your bubble Big Bill, but your response reeks of twisted and misleading information. Please try to use real facts and take your "strong" distaste for feedlots out of the equation.
If you think Bill's post "reeks of twisted and misleading information," please shed some light on it by elaborating. I don't know what parts of his post you are contesting, and what you believe the reality he's skirting is. I thought his post was even-handed and explanatory, while yours was accusatory and vague. I'm willing to hear the other side of the coin, if you'll offer it. Thanks.
How so? The system is tilted toward larger farmers and conglomerates.
Sorry. His post is accurate. Free market reins. I realize you don't consider feed lots an issue but many of us do. Many smart farmers are changing their methods to adapt to the growing demand for " grass" fed. the higher price you get for marbling from grain fed, feedlot cattle is not what all consumers want anymore. So we as consumers exercise our free right to buy directly from farmers at a premium, those who farm consistent with our values
Great article! This open discussion definitely needs to happen. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and shedding more accurate light on American farmers.
I like my steak medium rare with the juices running a lttle on the pink side. Thank you farmers for providing me safe food to eat, like corn, vegitables to go with my salad and steak. Nothing like a nice juicy steak. For those vegans who have never had one, try it, you might be surprised at how good it is. Thank you farmers! Keep up the good work!
A lot, or more probably most, of vegetarians and vegans have tried meat, and love how it tastes. Unfortunately, everyone cannot just go around doing whatever feels good to them regardless of consequence.
Agreed!
Mike, I agree in a generic sense with your last assertion. However, what are the actual "consequences," are they accurately determined and fairly portrayed, and are "preferred alternatives" even more consequential? Or, as is often the case, are the "consequences" quite situational, leading to one preference if there is a drought, price fluctuation, regional disaster, or some other change in demand, and to another preference if conditions were modestly different? Therein lies the difficulty of a "consequential" argument – not that consequences should be ignored or that they shouldn't be measured whenever feasible, but that "consequences" often are quite difficult to determine. How do you approach this dilemma?
If God didn't want us to eat animals he wouldn't have made them out of meat!!!!
LOL
Meat is just muscle. Humans have muscles, but you don't see us eating each other even though we are made of meat.
True
Ryan Goodman For President!
Seriously, what you describe is the problem with the state of politics these days. Everyone believes that they are absolutely right, and that anyone who disagrees is either evil or intellectually deficient.
We've turned our political parties into cults. They control us by filling us with fear of "the other party", and all the worst case scenarios of what they want to have happen and what the results will be. And then we reinforce their control over us by isolating ourselves. We watch only channels and listen only to shows that reinforce our beliefs, we only visit websites that support our views, and we dismiss any challenge to our viewpoint as either misinformed, misguided, or malicious.
It needs to stop. It's one thing to have a belief and to stringently hold to it, but we all have to live together, which means we have to find a way to respect other people's views, even if we don't agree with them, and work together to come to a solution that will work the best for the most people. That is what government was designed to do, not throw tantrums and bring everything to a grinding halt until you get your own way.
Two words. Pink. Slime.
People ask why you poison their food because you poison their food and then lie about it. The FDA is a scam and most farms nowadays work with the FDA to ensure that chemicals are sprayed and injected into our food. Sure, you can find food that isn't saturated in chemicals but you're going to pay triple the amount for it. Nobody wants to ask a question they already know the answer to and get a lie in reply so that's why people send you posts about how you should stop poisoning food. Duh!
haha Jon. Read the story again and this time take notes. You won't win sh*t with that tone/attitude.
Thanks for your clearly stated article. I do believe that you, through your education and experience really care about having a real dialog about these issues, I mean the reality of animal food production, for that great steak this guy Jon probably loves to cook on the grill requires that an animal be killed for that to happen, but after you so very well reasoned article you still have this jerk spewing the same crap that you are trying to put aside in the name of clear thinking.....what a pile of manure he is!
Thanks again, we are nothing without farmers. Do it as safely as possible, you are armed with intelligence and education, Sir. I trust you.
There are hundreds of millions of people that are starving across the world because there isn't enough food. We cannot go to an all plant based diet. Who wants to tell all of these impoverished nations "sorry, no more rice or flour for you because we love animals. Oh, and by the way, not only is there going to be less food for you but the number of starving people is going to increase so you'll have more competition for food. Cheers!" Man, these vegetarians and vegans are inhumane....
So,
I'm thinking in the interest of learning before you speak, you might want to look into how much food is given to a cow to produce x amount of meat, and how many humans those grains/corn could have fed instead? The stats are out there. Meat is a luxury item, and will not solve any hunger issues except that of your own selfish fat american ass.
GOD BLESS ALL AMERICAN FARMERS. During these difficult economic times along with the drought that has been occurring, we should all support local growers and farmers and not purchase imported products of any kind.
Copied your advice on communication to use later. Excellent! I always love the God gave us two ear and one mouth line. :)
I have a friend that raises his own cow, pig, and chickens, he has made a point of letting his kids be a part of the whole cycle of life on his farm. They love their animals, treat them as pets but makes sure they understand that someday....well you get the picture. When that day comes the family goes out, with reverence, and do their thing and live off of bounty knowing that they have done the right thing for the animals.
Even Hollywood doesn't have a problem with that as this theme was prominent in Avatar.
Look to the savages that we eradicated, they had a reverence for the animals they slew to eat and thanked them for their sacrifice to feed the tribe. Modern Americans are no more advanced than the trash who invaded and destroyed the native peoples in their quest for their obscene lifestyles. Ipads, Iphones and filthy bathrooms
Bottom line: we need the food. If the only way to get it is to "factory farm" it, then so be it.
Factory farming is the only way to get it –cheap. There are ways, more expensive ways, to get 'better' meat. Of course, whether the chemicals, antibiotics and chemicals and animal welfare associated with factory farms matter is 100% up to the consumer.
We pay extra for oganic beef and free-range, antibiotic-free eggs, and are pretyy happy with that.
Yeah we need food so even if it has razor blades in it oh well. Gotta eat right? phhhttt....
Dear Brain of a Neanderthal, And the day the food stops flowing help yourself to the weaker humans!
"...is this how messages are received from farmers and ranchers as we try to use science when discussing modern food and farming?"
This is how ALL messages are received in today's sound bite media age. Few people seem interested in actual discussion - instead they see most communication as an opportunity to attack someone who is "bad" in some way... never mind whether they really warrant the accusation or not. It is true in most professions, not just farming.
The problem, Mr. Goodman, is that you were dealing with an easily led, easily manipulated fool. Nothing you do or say can ever change the mind of such a person, because she had already been trained what to say by her "programmers." I ran into people like that regularly when I was in college, and that was a long time ago. I can only imagine it's even worse now. They seemed to be totally disconnected from the idea that you're in college in, large part, to learn to think (if you haven't already). Rather, they seemed to think they were there to be told both how and what to think, instead.
Trying to have a rationale conversation with someone like that is like trying to teach a pig to sing. You know how that works out.
I teach college, and I can attest to the fact that it is still that way. The majority of students are not (yet) brainwashed, but they lack the ability to truly reason critically. Instead they store and remember facts that support what they already believe, discarding the rest as somehow flawed. If they were taught to actually *think* about what they read, skeptically, they could become great thinkers - but from grade one we focus on "testable" outcomes like memorization and ignore the more vital, hard-to-measure things like reasoning.
I do not think it's going to get better anytime soon. Legislation like "No Child Left Behind" sounds great to everyone except those in the profession - but nobody trusts teachers, so nobody listens.
Goes both ways!
As a pastor I run into the same people too. They are called Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons. Oops, sorry Mitt but SO true. You should know since you did your 'missionary' trip programmed as well. I have to say now that I introduced religion I 'fear' the onslaught of the atheists who also are programmed and will ruin this fine man's article. We Christians have been targeted by numerous groups as well as evil. Just the other day right here on CNN they've got militant atheist Richard Dawkins who said "I don't think religion has anything useful to teach us...more than 40% of the world's population think the earth is less that 10,000 yrs old and that's a shocking figure, it shows deep profound ignorance...But who cares about creationists...I became anti-religious..." aint that the truth! (Kinda hard to have a communication with someone whose programming is thinking that wouldn't you say?)
the great thing about science is that it remains true, even if you don't believe it.
Then you do not understand science. Science is not truth. It is the best working theory based on the known facts at the time. Therefore real scientists are willing to discard theories when better explanations come along
The screams of baby cows makes me hungry
Have you ever noticed that the cuter and animal is the better they taste. My favorite is DEER. A young doe is the best. If you can kill her with a neck shot while shes feeding she'll drop right in her tracks and none of the meat gets ruined. Mmmmmm
You keep posting the same comments about how good baby animals taste. You are obviously just here to make people mad which defines you as a TROLL. We all see that you enjoy your meat so can you please go away now and let someone with a real comment have a go?
How is that "not the agriculture (you) work in"? Dairy cows must be impregnated to start a milking cycle. The calves are a byproduct of the needs of the industry. Those are facts. Those calves are removed immediately from their mothers (fact), then either killed outright, grown on for veal, or kept for dairy stock. The mother cows do mourn for, and call for, their babies. The calves do scream for their mothers. Those are facts. The cows are milked until they start to dry up. Then they are bred again. This goes on until the dairy cows' bones and general health break down from so much milk production (fact). They are then trucked to a slaughterhouse (the slaughterhouses that have been on the news lately for abusing downed cows have all been processing dairy cows - the animals often break legs or pelvises in transport). These are facts.
Gestation crates for pigs are real. Battery cages for hens are real. Egg hatcheries that throw male chicks into grinders and dumpsters alive are real. Whether any of this is "evil" is up for debate. I believe it is.
Have you even seen how rough potatoes and apples are treated too. You should stop eating immediately
You are absolutely right Fiona. I wonder how you would taste? It would thin the herd too.
Do you know how long a dairy cow can live for during her vicious "life cycle?" I grew up on a dairy farm. On average, our dairy cows lived to be 10-12 years or older. AND they were the most pampered cattle on our property. They had 2 massive heaping of grain/oats per day, plenty of petting from us and shelter to keep them and their bags protected from the harsh elements. Any idea what its like when those baby cows get teeth and still try to chomp on their mama's tit? The mama's kick their babies in the head! Yes- they kick their own babies. You going to call "Heifer Child Services" on them? Trust me, the mama's don't miss their babies for very long. And we feed the babies far more than some of their mothers could ever produce for them.
Yes Fiona all of that is true. It is also true that some parents beat and abuse their children so applying your logic all parents are evil. Some men molest children so then all men are evil. Correct? Yes some dairy farms raise veal, I choose not to eat veal. I am from a family of cattle ranchers that has for generations raised large herds of cattle in Oregon on open arid grass lands where the lack of water prevent us from growing produce. Trust me if we could raise fruit on the land we would the profit margin is much better. We have the choice of cattle or wheat, and due to the rough terrain we cant get the heavy machinery that wheat requiers into that area. Our cattle range free and are allowed to live with little interference from us. Does that make us responsible because some hog farmer in Iowa doesn't treat his animals with the same level of respect? BTW: those cute new boots are made of leather and the guy that you are sleeping with his car has leather seats..you do know where that comes from right?
Big Bill....
You underestimate people who chose not to consume or wear animal products, they are fairly up on what they are and where they come from, type in "vegan shoes" on Amazon, trust me, their are options. Your farm sounds great, I don't eat meat, but I respect anyone that respects the animals they "use" for their industry. The unfortunate thing is you are not the norm. The MAJORITY of our meat does not come from such a lovely situation, and eventually YOU will go out of business because you have not made the choice to cram your cows in small confined space and fatten them with corn to make more money.
I love the taste of BABY cattle. Mmmmm...they are so good. So easy to chew, The only thing better is a baby seal if you can get one.
Nah, seals are too blubbery and fishy-tasting. Everyone knows the only things tastier than baby cattle are baby pigs.
Just shut-up. U r an idi0t.
You said that already. Loser.
Ryan Goodman might be educated, but he was educated by the same people that do the same practices of animal farming. Ryan take your son out and put a castration band on him and she what he thinks. Just because it has always been done that way and they taught me that in class doesn't make it right or acceptable! Put yourself in the animals shoes! What about dehorning? Yes, I was a Rancher in East Texas but got tired of everything I saw and had to do! They are not telling you all the truth. No, I'm not against meat eating just against the process (put your self in there place).
Who in the world would want to cut themselves in slabs, get roasted on a bbq, be smothered in A1 sauce and get eaten? The only one who belongs in a cow's place is a cow. When it comes down to it, I like steak and until the cow gets coordinated enough to defend itself, I'd say I have the upper hand. And just to ask, which cow asked you to be their advocate? As far as we know it's the greatest honor in cowdom for them to die and be fed to their masters...
When the cows get that coordinated, we'll just use rifles :-)
Great article, well written, but unlikely to change anyone's mind since most already have it made up and are unwilling to change or consider alternate view points... seems to be a common theme among people. Now, I was raised on a farm and I'm still just trying to imagine my 54 year old farmer father who's been farming ever since he could carry a five gallon bucket using the word "haters".... I can't stop giggling.
To those that think not eating meat would lead to the more humane treatment of animals... how many of these animals do you think would be living on the Earth if they were not food? I don't see people keeping cows as pets...so essentially, without cows for food why would anyone want to keep a cow alive? By eating meat I am doing my part to curb the extinction of these spicies... Right?
Nice way to think, but all factory farming force breeds them. If they were on their own nature would take care of the numbers.
Yeah, I like how that's working out for Rhinos... why are there more domestic cattle than bison? We eat them. Why are there more chickens then sandhill cranes? We eat them. Why are there more pigs than pandas? We eat them.
yes because your poodle Mr. Cuddles is going to take down a 1400 pound cow. Truth be told even if we convinced every farmer to release all the cattle, chickens, and pigs the chickens would all be dead in a year and the coyotes, raccoons, and possums would be stuffed. There is no natural predator in North America that would be able to control the cattle herds that would quickly become an environmental nightmare and the hogs...that damage an unchecked hog population would do is mind boggling.
As Woody Allen says "I'm not a vegitarian because I love animals; I'm a vegitarian because I hate plants."
Farmer? You and I both know the romantic idea of the "farmer" is becoming as extinct as non GMO foods. It would be more accurate to use the term "Argriculturist" or something.
And CAFO's are you serious? Unfortuately though, a marketing move like that will allude enough of the ignorant people who are slowly becoming aware that "factory farms" are bad. "The establishment" has tried to do the same thing with MSG and High Fructose Corn Syrup. I don't trust you Mr. Goodman.
I really don't like having to state the obvious, but Mr. Goodman never asked for your trust, he asked that we all try a bit harder to understand each other and that we leave our preconceptions at the door and engage in some open-minded discourse. OBVIOUSLY you missed his entire point. YOU sir exemplify the single-minded attitude that have fanned the flames of polarity in this country, you, in short, ARE the problem.
"he asked that we all try a bit harder to understand each other and that we leave our preconceptions at the door and engage in some open-minded discourse." Then why isn't he?
If you don't want to eat animals.... then don't – but shut the *#$&^ up to the people who do (go choke down up brussel sprouts). I personally have no problem with "humanly" uthanizing, processing, then sittin' down with a bottle of A1 and chowin' down!!!!
Amen! It's pretty obvious that most of the comments are by "non-meat eaters" – lack of protein makes people stupid!
Your pretty stupid if you think meat eaters get more protein! Vegans get a more complete protein combination!
I got a degree in Redundancy from the University of Phonics in Redundnacy. I imagine that almost makes me as smart as one who holds "a degree in Animal Science from Oklahoma State University in Animal Science."
I don't believe you have a degree in anything but stupidity
Suit yourself. I hold two bachelors and am working on my doctorate. I was satiring on the fact that news companies used to have editors. Not sure what happened...
keep collecting those degrees till their pilled higher and your deeper in your own self-righteous BS.
I understand your point and agree there are a lot of degreed idiots out there. Perhaps I was just being a grammar nazi and apparently failed in an attempt at humor.
They've got a Phd (Pilled Higher and Deeper) in... Duh?!
LMAO!
PETA=people eating tasty animals
Vegetarian: Native American word for man who can't ride horse, hunt or catch fish.
NatGeo produces show about animal vet Dr. Pol and his "farm calls" to treat any and all farm animals. Eye opening, to say the least. Every farmer in the episodes are tough people yet care deeply for the welfare of their animals.
I do notice that the author never denies the charges of animal cruelty. Rather, he wishes to use a different semantic approach to the problem. This makes him sound fairly guilty.
Everyone has a right to be stupid: you, however, are abusing the privilege!
I guess you just can't read or are just to brainwashed to care. He states many times about his care for his animals. I eat meat, lots of it. I buy live chickens and ducks and kill them in my kitchen so I get all the blood. I help the family do a hog kill every fall to make sausages. I've been doing this all my life and it is normal and natural to me and certainly not cruel. You folks are the nuts cases. Eat all the tofu and sprouts you want. I never will.
Just because you have always done it, doesn't make it right! Just because you can doesn't mean you should!
Farmers raise and take care of animals on a farm. The slaughterhouses perform these evils. When small dairy farmers had to sell their entire herd (of which they do not sell for slaughter) due to going bankrupt due to the drought killing off their milk cows. (and this due to the drought making the grass the cows were eating toxic). That's okay. Just let the huge dairy industries biggest factory milk farms move in on family land passed down from generation to generation and then you'll be correct in your perspective of how "farmers" treat their herd. Because farming will full on be owned by big business. They'll also milk the prices of our food and raise them whenever they want like the oil companies do, why? Because they can and there won't be small farmers sell cheaper to keep a competitive market. Get it? Do you see?
What part of that made him sound guilty? Perhaps rather than assuming guilt, ask him a question with an open mind, as he requests.
Ryan: What can you tell me about animal care in large-scale CAFOs? I know farmers who do care for the health of their animals, but I dislike the idea of large scale operations with no comfortable lifestyle for the animals. Please help me to understand the standard CAFO process. Thanks.
As someone said above, if people had to butcher their own dinner there would be a lot less waste and finger pointing. I enjoy being a farmer. I wouldn't want to do anything else. To assume that we don't see the animals that we raise as individuals is crazy. The cattle, chickens, and hogs that I raise to butcher or sell have been fed everyday by me. I work in the fields to produce the crops that feed them. There is no greater gamble and labor of love than farming. No other job requires that you buy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of your own equipment on the off chance that the year returns enough money for your family to survive. Yes, I care for the animals that I raise. In the end, it is a business, though. If I didn't care for them and lost one of them it would be money lost for me. It is the ultimate mix of personal and professional choices. This is what I do for a living, and if I want to keep doing it I have to invest everything I have into those animals.
As a farmer as I do think that factory farms have some bad practices in place. It is easy for me to say that when I only answer to myself and my checkbook (a factory farm with owners who aren't workers often removes the empathitic element – something that drives us to be humane). Would I raise things as they do? Probably not. That's why I raise my own meat and know who it was before it was put in the oven. I guarantee that all plates are cleaned at my house. When you know who that was on the plate you see that meal differently. There are many that could not handle a life dealt to them that way. Everyone would be better off if they lived it for a day, though.
I like what you say – its the confinement operations that bother me. All animals and humans experience pain and fear but when its for a lifetime its pretty sad. You must know that healthy humanely raised animals would taste better?
I won't eat veal or lamb anyway.
Regarding eating Pigs: Their intelligence is considered quite higher than a dog's. Additionally, I've read, pigs have self awareness. I won't eat pig in any form.
I love that one. Self-awareness. The cognitive awareness of one's self, as opposed to one's environment or other individuals.
That is all that means. There are a lot of animals out there that are self aware. All it takes is having a high enough brain function to say "I am not that cow over there, and I am not this grassy field."
Jeezuz people are retarded these days.
If the "person on the other side" is an idiot what purpose would any intelligent discussion serve? They don't want to eat meat? Fine, just don't try to shove your misguided philosophy down my throat. I really believe anyone who belongs to PETA probably has an IQ roughly equal to their hat size.
They would have to have HUGE hats for that to be true!
I agree, size 38 would be massive.
Ironically my son is watching Veggie Tales and a monster is trying to eat one.
You are awesome! lol
Hi Mr. Goodman, I live in Northern California where the foodie movement is in full swing. I am absolutely for humane treatment for animals. I have cut back some on my meat consumption and at times find myself missing it, but other times, not. I welcome your posting and hope we can all have a great and honest discussion on this issue. I am skeptical because the other side (Peta, et al...) simply, by their position, just will not see anything short of abolishment of eating meat and poultry. My question to you is: what is, in your opinion, the greatest public misperception about farmers and ranchers?
Many years ago, I worked with a just-graduated-high schooler vegan who firmly and freely insisted that animals deserved to have all rights humans do! She even insisted that animals should be allowed to vote! (She was way ahead of her time in that today's Supreme Court would vote in her favor; after all, Corporations are people....). This person was not alone in her proclamations – she was a member of an organization that lobbied Congress for an animals' bill of rights. Yes, we chuckled about how naive she was and just shook our heads when with her. Yup, somepeople go off the deep end and insist the world conform to their ideals, principles, and rules.
Just a note: treatment of corporate entities as individuals is not a new concept; the precedent goes back at least 600 years, and has been used since to expose corporations to the same legal oversight and punishment as ordinary citizens. The Supreme Court didn't invent anything new here; they simply upheld long-standing precedent.
If so, and I admit I don't know enough as I should about the Ruling, then why all the bruehaha when the ruling was made ealier this year? And, wouldn't the ruling in favor for animal bill of rights mirror the corporation ruling?
Yes but what you are explaining here is referring to corporations being held to the same laws that govern individuals, not corporations donating (buying votes) to different politicians, the point being that corporations with unlimited funds should not be able to create their own agenda by buying the votes of those that create the laws that govern individuals.
As Lenny Bruce once said: "These guys can't even keep their own toilets cleaned."
This rancher is more opened minded , educated, rational than over emotional rabble rousers I've encountered.
People need to understand that people from PETA and other such groups lack the IQ to think clearly. They usually don't have a life of their own and the only thing that gives their pathetic existance any meaning is the BS they adopt as a creed. Ignore them and sooner or later they will grow up and grow up and go away. Pity them but ignore them.
I'd rather mock them than pity them ... it's much more fun!
Well you lack the IQ to spell correctly or even hit spellcheck. Im not one to force beliefs on people, but most vegetarians are smarter than someone who would not even consider where their food comes from. MEATHEAD is not a term used endearingly, after all.
Thank you for this article. 15 years ago I started out as a vegetarian because i didn't like animals suffering and several PETA clips. I have made a 6 month detour into veganism that was waylaid by my love for milk and cheese. About 5 years ago we started growing our own vegetables, selling at a farmer's market raising ducks for eggs and soay sheep for breeding. Actually living and raising animals has changed my mind. Now I want to know that the meat I eat has been raised and slaughtered humanely. I make sure that nothing is wasted. I have butchered chicken and watched them die quietly without a ruckus (when done right). I am with you.... we must listen to each other. Stop judging each other. I now believe that unless you live this life you do not get to make judgments. I have yet to meet a farmer who likes to torture animals or who is not affected by an untimely, brutal unplanned demise of animals. PETA makes money for PETA. I am glad they bring awareness to animal abuse but they paint everyone who eats meat with the same brush.
Well stated. Thank you for your perspective!
Never attempt to get into an intelligent debate about food with a vegan. All they know is bad science and misinformation and they refuse to listen. The anti-GMO people are even worse. They prattle on about how evil it is without realizing that everything that lives is genetically modified, it's called evolution. Doing it in a lab just speeds the process up, not to mention modified crops have saved millions from starvation.
You impress me!
Very good article and a great way to clear the air between both parties of a debate. There are many misconceptions of the details of farming that the common consumer has (myself included, I'm sure) I've talked with people that feel strongly about animal rights in regards to the commercial production of meat in this country. The information that is received by these groups are from large corporate farming practices and unfortunately, when farmers are asking for aid these are the depictions people think of first. But the reality is that the small or local farmer doen't run their farms like that. These are farming communities that need aid due to the drought and the large corporate run farms aren't really needing the help for they make ridiculous profit. If you want to eat healthier foods people, make sure that local farmers and their communities receive the aid they need otherwise the very animal abuses you detest will become the norm when all livestock is raised by the bigger "factory" farms. I support the local farming communities.
I do not eat much beef even though we raise a small number of cattle to feed out and sale every year. What I enjoy is hunting killing and consuming venison. There is just a satisfaction in physicaly stalking, killing and providing the family with healthy meals.
Superbly written article. I have just one question. Is the message in this article focusing on agriculture practices in the U.S., or politics?
Just something to think about...
we're top of the food chain scientifically speaking. we are within our capability to eat other species to our heart's content. they can eat veggies for all i care, no veggie will ever beat BACON XD
i feel sad for those blokes who'll never get to experience the heavenly delight that is... yep you guessed it... BACON! XD
Ryan, I understand where you are coming from. Each side of the argument has to be willing to listen to what the other side has to say. Refusal to understand the person on the other side of the table means a meeting is a waste of time.
The person has shown you the best of the worst as if it was the average. Most people don't live in a slum just because they exist, nor do they live in mansions, just because they exist. I believe that farmers, by and large, are responsible people. They know that their livelihood is dependent on sustainability, not only of their products but of their customers as well.
Please post pictures of how yours and other responsible farms are run and remind people that yours in the norm, not theirs. Their message is getting out, it's time to get yours out.
Thanks for the message Jim. I post about farming practices and issues I encounter at least 3x a week on my personal blog – agricultureproud.com. Feel free to filter through that page and those listed on my blog roll to see the stories and photos that describe current farming practices. And please send me any messages with specific questions.
Less than 1% of earths water is drinkable & it takes over 1 million gallons to grow food for 1 cow. Is consuming all the worlds drinkable water & speeding up human extinction for a profit good or evil?
Flashy statistics. But since the amount of water in the world is finite, as long as the cow eventually dies, the net effect of consumption is static. The problem is human population where the water gets tied up for 70, 80 or 100 years.
And Jess, how much water is imported from one place to another to grow what you want to eat? PLENTY!
Please, if you want to eat item A, go ahead. Those of us who choose to eat item A and items B,C,and D as well, leave us alone.
"Estimates of water use for 2000 indicate that about 408 billion gallons per day"....
"About 52 percent of fresh surface-water withdrawals and about 96 percent of saline-water withdrawals are for thermoelectric-power use."...
"percentage of total irrigation withdrawals from ground water has continued to increase, from 23 percent in 1950 to 42 percent in 2000....then remained constant before increasing nearly 7 percent between 1995 and 2000." – cited from NationalAtlas.gov.
So, we use about the same amount of water cooling electric plants. How much do we use to cool off trains? in our cars? when we take a shower? The bonus of growing crops is that it usually rains and you don't have to constantly irrigate being that rainwater wouldn't be considered "drinkable" water until it's processed. And, we're in the worst drought in around 50 years, worldwide. Your taking a small portion of information and jumping to the extreme conclusion that if we didn't use water for crops that feed cattle we'd be better off.
There's this event called rain. That's where water falls from the sky allowing the grass to grow. The cows eat that.
over a million gallons? are you quite sure of that fact? And where did you find that fact?
I'm very sure that the cow in my neighbor's pasture, which feeds on grass and very limited grain during fall before slaughter, isn't consuming a million gallons of water at all. Since I watch the pasture out my window, buy beef and pork from him at the local market and sometimes at his farm, I have a pretty good feel for what I'm getting. And since I also know and work with the local water master here, I know what my neighbor's water rights are – and his well won't deliver a million gallons in a year.
There may be operations that consume a million gallons a year, but that is over 100 gallons an hour, every hour of every day of the year. That would be more typical of an industrial facility, like a steel mill or paper mill, than a cattle ranch.
A nonsensical argument, given that water is the ultimate recyclable resource. Even if your statistics were correct (they're grossly overstated) you don't take into account that the water in question isn't "consumed"; it goes right back into the ecosystem, mostly as pure water vapor that falls as rain elsewhere.
Imagine the amount of water that is wasted waterbaording cattle for the shear enjoyment of torturing animals. Not only that but it is a proven fact that no useful information has ever been tortured out of the cattle. They mostly just moo a lot. All this waste and torture, just so a corporation can make an extra dollar. It is ridiculous I say. I learned a long time ago that you cannot argue with an idiot, so why bother.
My head hurts after reading that. Listen to the other side as the author claims but don't believe your eyes when you watch these videos from organizations with "agendas". Talk about denial. Central Valley meat just got in trouble after a video surfaced showing abuse. This stuff happens. The fact you dismiss them as being part of agenda vs stating that your industry should do better and take responsibility for what is going on, speaks volumes about YOUR agenda. There are videos showing dogs being abused, evidence from vets who examined them. I guess because we didn't see it first hand, that isn't real either. Here's a thought, instead of targeting people who don't like your industry, concentrate on your industry and help it clean up its image. With better practices like the way it handles downer cows, there won't be anything to videotape.
You make an excellent point.
The farmers who treat their animals humanely will argue that farmers who abuse animals are outliers and do misrepresent animal production. While I understand the farmer-that-doesn't-abuse point of view, your perspective requires further discussion. Another argument that might surface is, "People abuse children, so does that make everyone a child abuser?"
Good job, Lila. More debate is needed on the issue you brought to light.
Just because you see a video of it, doesn't mean that's the norm. Using your analogy, just because you see a video of dog abuse and the vet sees evidence of it, doesn't mean every dog owner abuses their dog or that dog owners need to encourage the all dog owners to do better. These videos about scary farming practices does not even come close to representing the majority of farmers. So just because you see a couple of videos doesn't mean you should make assumptions that everyone operates their farm that way. These videos paint a bad picture about the entire industry when they only represent a small minority. Try thinking for yourself instead of following the bandwagon of sensationalist "reporting" by these extreme groups.
My point about dogs and the vet is that abuse can be independently verified. Obviously that will never happen with these cows. How in the world would you know if these videos represent a small amount of farmers or most? There is no way to independently verify that. This abuse should not be happening at all for two reasons A) It's cruel to the animal B) these animals are going into our food supply, often these videos involve downer cows.
Central Valley Meat is a big business slaughterhouse not a farm. They employ over 500 people. They have clients like McDonalds and In-and-Out burger. Their a meat wholesaler selling and processing meat for the other large corporate companies that run the food industry. These people are NOT farmers. If you wish to stop the animal abuses then take your greivance up with the companies that slaughter livestock for meat processing and make them change the ways that they slaughter the animals. There are more humane ways to do so than what these corporate jokers are doing.
I was talking about videos of abuse from organizations who are described as having an agenda. A few months from now there will be another. The slaughterhouse did not raise these cows, I assume they came from farms so they are part of that industry. In addition there are plenty on animal being abused on farms online so I don't understand your point. Like I said they should focus on making their industry better to change its image rather than dismissing videos from organizations with an "agenda".
Hi Lila,
I have several videos of my cattle farm on my blog site that you could watch. The website is http://feedyardfoodie.com.
Anne
Imagine what our world would be like if we did not eat chicken, turkey, beef.....we would be overcome by livestock, chickens and turkeys, they would be everywhere! It would be out of control.....
got one word for them PETA-freaks...
BACON XD
We should let all these sorry animal activists hunt and gather their own food for a while. See how far they get before dying of starvation. Its pathetic and ridiculous to me. What do you expect is going to happen when you have millions and millions of people demanding to eat? You're going to have to kill millions of cows and chickens fast.
It would be awesome to see the uproar when the supermarket has a sign hanging over the meat section saying "closed, hunt your own food"..
It's funny that you say this because most of those people you are talking about would actually be the survivors because they have learned to adapt to a different way of eating. The only people that would die of starvation are the people that eat meat as if it was the only thing to sustain themselves. Many of us don't even advocate for Vegetarian or Vegan diets. We are just tired of the feed lots, contaminated produce from the e coli from feed lots, hog pond slime and battery caged chickens. You do realize that those animals were once roaming around and people ate them then too, right?
It's nice that you have your own garden and support your local farms. Local farmers is what the writer of this article is talking about. When these local farmers and communities go permantly out of business and lose their land then the larger corporate run farms will take over the land and produce food in the very manner you don't like. You won't have your local farmers anymore and you will have to live soley on the food you grow in your personal garden, that is, if the drought doesn't wipe out your personal crops for the year as well.
Animal rights activists don't believe in farms they shop at whole foods!
The thinking stops at Whole Foods, therefore, it must be good for me.
Actually my food comes from my garden, my community supported agriculture and local farms. I am sorry though... that information does not support your ignorant point of view, does it? Well maybe get some actual facts and try again.
I love it when people rationalize. There is a desperation in their vocabulary that smells worse than a Texas feedlot. I too dislike PETA greatly but I also hate what CAFO's have done to our food supply. No, we really don't need that much meat. We don't. No, we really don't need Monsanto producing MORE. YEs, I have been to various CAFO's. They are disgusting. Many people on here will cheer 'farmers' on that operate this way ONLY because they will never visit a CAFO and/or if they do, they will not put with cellophane package in the store on the same line as the chicken without feathers they just saw in a battery cage. When you kill an animal, you are taking it's life. It is a LIFE not a thing. That should be a big deal. I am not saying to go veg. That is a CHOICE (remember this IS America) but taking a life is a choice as well. Maybe if more thought went into is, this country would not be as fat...nor as arrogant.
I would give anything to see the alternative happen.. People hunting, gathering or raising their own live stock. If its so hard for you to have someone else kill the food you want to eat, then kill it yourself.. Maybe we would have less pathetic people in the world this way.
Mike – I actually agree with you on this point.
SlowMoneyFarm you bring up a really interesting point that all farmers are painted with the same brush. What have you done (outside this op ed) to reach out, communicate, and hopefully distinguish your operation and others from being painted with the Mono-Corporate-MegaFarm culture that a lot of the PETA and HSUS have exposed.
No doubt a video showing piglets being repeatedly slammed head first into a concrete floor does little to improve the overall image. How do you combat that for your own operation?
You mean aside from blogs, videos, articles, trying to engage and interact with people in comment sections and face to face, attending in person hands on events with our animals where possible? All of these are cornerstones. People will believe what they want to – I can't change that, you can't change that. Almost any topic people will believe and trust based not only on what they see but how it compares to other images and what they know to be true or feel themselves. Some will like us, some not. Some will like Ryan's place, some not. Some like Tyson's, some not. That's where consumers (and we're all consumers) drive food choices.
I have never, personally, known anyone who would allow or engage in slamming pigs against concrete to 'euthanize' them. Does that mean it doesn't happen? No. I'm sure almost every action there's someone somewhere doing it. *I* don't have to participate in it. As we expand to where we can include pigs (space prohibits it right now) we will show not only the buildings and pens going up, but pictures and video of the pigs in the pens. We'd like to someday offer a streaming critter cam showing the hog pen, chicken yard or other pen so people can *see* for themselves wherever they are what's happening in the barn. Does that mean everyone should do that? No. From what I hear from our customers it's something they would enjoy, and would like to share with their friends. We'll have room to not have gestation crates – which enables food options for those who want that. If there's not support of it, then it'll dwindle out and other places will fill the void.
The first problem is that animals are being viewed as property and "food" instead of as equal living beings with the same rights, wishes, and feelings as our own. Once that point of view is corrected, all else will fall into place. <3
Animals and livestock in particular, don't have the same wishes and feelings as humans. They are animals. They have limited sensory responses and execute very primitive thinking. Geez! think a little !!!!
There is this think called 'science' that maybe you should check out that completely and totally refutes your comment.
Ryder, the instant you put human feelings, emotions, and thinking into an animal, your statements go right out of the window. Sorry, dude, it's not "Wallace and grommit" in the real world.
Has nothing to do with 'human' properties. That is something that people invented to make people feel less bad about killing another living thing. Animals are lower on the food chain than humans, at the moment. That does not make them less alive. It has been scientifically proven that animals exhibit emotion, feel the same pain like humans do. I am not talking about animal activist studies but actual medical studies.
If the animal is in pain then the farmer is doing something wrong. I have butchered cattle and chickens and they went from free range to carcass in the fastest possible manner. The idea that animal must be in some sort of constant agony is rediculous.
Yes we neuter those males that we don't think should be in the breeding pool, my dog and my cat are meutered and PETA tells me that is good...why is neutering my cats good but my bulls bad?
not every animal thinks and feels like a human. Might I suggest a short stay at a small local farm to see what is actually going on. turn off utube and Peta clips and start talking to actual farmers.
Been there, done that. Where do you think I get my food? It actually makes you appreciate the sacrifice the animals are forced to make on our behalf. Yes they do feel emotion, yes they do feel pain. If you tell yourself otherwise you are just trying to make yourself feel better about eating an animal.
"same rights, wishes, and feelings as our own. " No they don't. 1. animals don't have rights. 2. Livestock IS property. A fact that prevents zealot animal rights nuts from doing what they wish with OTHER people's property. 3. Animals wish for TWO basic things. a) food/water b) surviving long enough to reproduce at least once. That's it. 4. Can animals feel emotions? Of course. does that mean I'm going to stop eating them? No. Why? because it doesn't stop the lion from eating the waterbuffalo so why should it stop me from eating a steak?
I've hunted and prepped my own meat and fish. Still a meat eater. Love animals to death, but still eat meat.
The animals are just like us debate is nonsense because it implies that humans are on the same level. We aren't. If anything motivations for any and all actions – animals have us beat. We kill our on kind for numerous reasons that have nothing to do with survival or protection.
If the lower animals can eat other animals, then no reason we cannot do the same. We can just be more humane about how that meat gets to the table and I have no problem with that.
Ryder, they may not do Algebra but the certianly have feelings. And to call feeling "human" feelings I want you to realize that Humans are animals. We're in the kingdom, hun. I don't personally eat an excessive amount of meat myself, usually a 1lb or 2 as a garnish with a meal with several veggies but I really don't want to cut it out of my diet completely. What I would like to see is a more human method of euthanization when these meat processors/slaughterhouse when they are killing these animals. There is no need for them to die in terror and agony.
Apparently since every animal has feelings and deserves equal rights and protection from death, we need to start building a whole lot of animal prisons. All of the other carnivores out there need to start respecting the feelings of their prey. Maybe we should take them all out the wild and force them to eat veggies. The plus side to this is that zoos will never be wanting of predator exhibits.
I am a carnivore; grew up on a farm and helped slaughter hogs and chickens. I enjoy eating meat and vegetables together. I have seen the modern farm in operation and am impressed. Keep it up.
These so call rights advocates and most of their militant followers are akin to radical islam. Incite, incite and incite. Sooner or later someone is likely to get killed. And it's not going to be a chicken.
That is pretty ignorant of you. I actually don't foist my beliefs on people the way a bible beater does but you are going to compare a person who makes rational choices about their food to a radical religious group? You are way off base there. Just because I CHOOSE to pay my own, well earned money (I work, husband works) for food that I know more about than the 'stuff' they sell at discount stores, it does not make me radical. It makes me thoughtful, logical and rational. Your threat of killing people that would never kill a living creature is just ridiculous.
What you call rational choices are more often than not decisions based on disinformation and propaganda spread by the various militant organizations that oppose killing animals for food. Most of the "informed choosers" have never set foot on a farm, harvested an apple or miked a cow. Ignorance never gives good counsel.
I guess you missed the part where I said I HAD in fact been to CAFO's. Maybe read the whole thing before you comment next time. Have YOU been to a farm, picked your own food, etc? When you say 'militant' what are you referring to exactly? The beekeeper who is helping the ecosystem by raising bees? How about the organic farmer who actually recycles everything not sold into compost for future crops. I hate to tell you but these people, the actual people with knowledge, do not have time for the militant movement you are speaking of. If you are using PETA as a measuring stick, I am here to tell you, most of the people with the real knowledge consider them just as evil as a feedlot owner. It is very easy to condemn people who want to know more about their food because of companies like PETA. If it is your only comparison, it is a weak one.
Since you seem to have a privileged life – take advantage of it.
I think your lack of meat has damaged your IQ by so much that you completely misunderstood the original poster's point.
He never said anything about vegetarians and their right to eat as they see fit, only that the idiots who try to force their beliefs down everyone elses throats by lies and falsehoods are scum ... and he is RIGHT!
... you are the one who is ignorant!
I like it raw when I can get the good stuff.
I certainly agree that not every farmer or rancher is a heartless neanderthal with a cruel homicidal streak. I suppose I take a rather Native American view of the whole thing: treat the animals, plants, and Earth well as they are doing you a necessary service at a great sacrifice. Most of the objections I have aim at big agriculture and the Monsanto-types. I don't like the idea that they can prosecute you for patent infringement if your crops test positive for the Monsanto pollens. How exactly are small farmers supposed to stop the wind from carrying patented pollen into a field that it was not intended? I'm not particularly thrilled with the idea of GMO's. I understand that things like drought and pest resistance are meant to help, but some of the scientific research I have read covering the effects of the modifications don't give me warm and fuzzies. I will say that those types of issues (along with steriod and antibiotic usage in livestock) are my main concern.
They can't stop the wind, and this is exactly the important conversation that gets lost in all the hyperbole. We all eat. These questions effect all of us, so we ought to be listening to each other as best we can.
It's true they can't stop the wind but there is also a time factor involved. If you plant a variety of heirloom corn, and your neighbor plants a GMO variety 2 weeks later, they will mature at different times. Or if you plant on the same day and one is a 70 day corn and another is 90 day, they'll mature differently. If they're not mature at the same time it's very difficult to get fertility especially with a distance between. For many, experts advise 50' in gardens between sweet corn and other types of corn to prevent cross pollination.
I think it's important to remember that most people try to do what they think is right, and it's really about information. It's quite possible for decent people to say and do things that are harmful if they don't have accurate information. My only experience with livestock is sheep (not much experience). Many people I talked (well educated friends, acquaintances) thought that shearing sheep injured them. If you look at videos of sheep shearing, it does look like abuse, if you don't understand what is going on. When I explained that injuring the sheep, would actually reduce the value of the wool, and that good shepherds are very careful not to bruise or cut the (very sensitive) skin, they changed their opinion of what they were seeing. Perhaps some still believed that it is wrong to eat mutton, but at least they understand that sheep farmers aren't just a bunch of heartless thugs. Talking to each other as people, with the assumption that most people want to do what is right will go a long way. Starting with the assumption that all ranchers are heartless capitalists, or all vegans are ignorant and naive gets us nowhere. In fact, it accomplishes precisely the goal of the small portion of the population which isn't interested in doing what is right: those who make it their mission to spread propaganda and misinformation. As soon as you fall into the "us and them" trap, the propagandists win.
People are so silly sometimes. Don't like it, don't buy it. End of story. When the sales drop, the farmers will make the necessary changes (if there is any to be made)
From my experience most "Animal Rights Activists" are just activists, they are sheep in a cult – they have no experience in the things they talk about other than reading some articles or blogs. They are for the most part ignorant, not because they are dumb but because they lack any experience in the real activities of anyone who deals with animals. I feel for the farmer but you will never get rid of cult followers they are a duime a dozen everywhere you go no matter the time in history or the country you are in.
I am sorry that this misleading information is out there...perhaps one of the farmers' associations should sue the sources of misleading information.
The bottom line for me on meat consumption is that, no matter how humanely a farmer/rancher may treat their animals, the animals don't want to die. In a way it's even creepier when self-described humane ranchers treat their animals well all the while knowing in a short matter of time they will be killing them. I can't comprehend having a career/livelihood that is based solely on killing and then wanting people to respect you for it. I find it hilarious that people in this country find ranchers to be heroic because they actually think their morbidly obese families will starve to death without a cheap and plentiful supply of meat.
You mean the way a gardener tends meticulously to their garden; pulling weeds, feeding, watering, etc when the goal is to rip it out of the ground and kill it. In case you missed science class, plants are living organisms too. Get off your high-horse for a while and you might find a job too...if you can leave your garden long enough.
How do you know they don't want to die? Have you spoken with any livestock lately?
We are at the top of the food chain and the fact is that God made us carnivors. Who am I to go against God?
We are omnivores. Your argument lacks credibility because you lack a clue.
So you're saying that the entire process of evolution and natural selection (we have the kind of teeth that we have for a reason - we are genetically inclined to require meat, hence we have the tools necessary to eat meat). While I don't agree with factory farming and GMO's, those who don't eat meat on some moral ground, and then judge those who don't follow those morals, are not only hypocrites for instilling their judgement on others while not expecting the same treatment in return, and are basically stating that they know more than nature does about how the world of Nature should work. Fail.
Do you show such compassion to the thompson's gazelles so mercilessly hunted by wild lion prides in African savannahs? Or have your communicated with the animals and heard their thoughts? Your argument makes no sense.
If you're going to argue, please use the logic of the environmental and health impacts of excess meat consumption; then you might know what you're talking about.
I want you to take a look in your mouth, ok? Really quick. If you think about it, you have an amazing piece of purpose built engineering in there. Your jaw is designed with a wide range of movement to allow a variety of materiels to be processed. Your cheeks act as a containment unit, and your tongue guides food into the teeth and safely down to the esophagus where it is swallowed. The most purposeful thing in there is your teeth.
You'll see that you have three types of teeth. Up in front, you have incisors; these teeth are specially designed to snip. Now, that could be to deal with bits of plant matter, or snipping through tendons; since either could be the original case for developing such teeth, it's up in the air. In the back you have molars, specially designed to grind. All food gets chewed here (or should), but plant matter requires a lot of pre-digestion (chewing) to get the most nutrition out of it. Having relatively flat molars (with a slight edge), human teeth could be used for meat or potatoes. So, once again, we have an inconclusive result of whether or not we evolved to eat meat.
Now, in between the molars and incisors are your cuspids and bicuspids. These are relatively sharp pointed, edged teeth. These are designed explicitly to pierce, rip, and tear. No plant material requires the use of these teeth for digestion; meat, however, is rendered into swallowable chunks with ease through the use of these teeth. You, as a human, are designed to eat meat. Your system is adapted to it, you became the dominant species on the planet because of it, and in a feral situation, your body will remember how to rip open an animal smaller than you and eat it, wriggling, bleeding, and squealing, just as your ancestors did.
You are an animal. Remember that.
@Tesla well said! The first time I wanted save a comment on a news site...
The demand for these animals' meet is the only reason they ever existed in the first place. Would you rather exist for a few years in happy ignorance and then be killed and eaten one day or never exist at all? Animals don't contemplate their existence, they just eat, poop, and procreate.
CLF, you make a very good point that gets right to the heart of the matter, at least regarding the ethics of livestock farming and meat-eating. Your refreshing comment has prompted me to pipe in.
When considering the animal-agricultural industry, there are numerous topics and issues that come up. Some of them have to do with the details of animals' living- or transport-conditions, others relate to humans' nutritional needs or evolutionary adaptations, and still more involve cost, efficiency and countless additional pragmatic concerns. All of those considerations seem to miss the basic point, that the discussion should be about whether it is right or wrong to kill and eat thinking and feeling beings. I happen to think that it is wrong to do so, and I'm willing to say that to whoever asks, though I don't go around shaming people, insulting or berating them, or bringing it up when I wasn't asked.
I understand that the pragmatic issues surrounding this are worth discussing and addressing, but they are not important in their own right, only insofar as they relate to the main point you've made. So arguments about improving conditions, for example, are valuable because they can affect real changes in the lives of all animals, including people. But, in the end, those are compromises made between people with different ethical standards. More important would be real convincing by one side or the other that killing an animal either is, or isn't a transgression. Changing someone's actions to suit pragmatic concerns is a good first step, but more powerful still is changing someone's views, feelings on an issue, or their moral code. Of course, it is much more difficult, too, almost as difficult as the abortion issue, if not more.
We all have our baseline ethical standards, so it's hard to say where to even begin. If we do want to hash it out, on whom lies the burden to start with an argument? I take it as a given that killing an animal is wrong, and would need convincing that it is not. You might take the opposite view as a given, and feel the burden is on me to convince you that it is wrong to kill and eat an animal. On this count, I do have an open mind, and am willing to hear and listen to arguments that there is nothing wrong with killing and eating an animal. I try hard to listen and read all viewpoints on this matter, but unfortunately have not heard many, or any, effective or convincing arguments. I am truly willing to read and listen, though. The best chance to convince me would be to show, cite, or explain that animals are more like inanimate objects or simple machines than thinking, feeling beings, and that they are without emotional or rational intelligence. So far, the evidence I've seen and read (mainstream, not activist) indicates that all of our livestock and food-animals can at least feel and reason to some degree.
To any readers, if you happen to think there is nothing wrong with killing and eating an animal, are you open minded on this count? Is there anything I or anyone else could say, or any evidence you could discover that would change your mind (and behavior) on that very basic ethical principle? If your answer is yes, can you give me a hint as to what might sway you? If your answer is no, then our only way forward is on the compromises we make in practices, regulations, and the pressures we can put on each other to gain a better position in those compromises, while both considering the other as having misguided ethics, or lacking them.
Again, I'm willing to listen, and am always listening, with an open mind.
I'm not trying to boss you and tell you that you can't do something, but am saying that I think you're wrong in doing so, until I'm convinced otherwise. I understand and appreciate that we are free, but being free does not mean that there can be no wrong in exercising freedom.
I also understand that my suggestion that killing an animal is a transgression will cause me to be ridiculed by some, but remember that ridicule alone is neither a valid argument nor a good point.
Thank you Mr. Goodman for working hard to feed my family.
It's an interesting family, both member of PETA; me, People Eating Tasty Animals and her, that other PETA. So, we have many awkward discussions in the kitchen. Like any argument worth having, we usually find a middle ground in the end. She has convinced me that a few veggies on the plate with a cut of steak isn't a bad thing and I've convinced her that the occasional serving of meat can really balance out a dish. In the end, we both share a small victory, although I refuse to eat squash...not even a bite!
With that said, I am also an animal lover. It brings great pain to know an animal had to suffer, when the process could have been handled more humanely. From my perspective anyway, there really isn't a reason for the suffering. Yet, it continues to go on. My question to you Mr. Goodman, is what is the rational for this type of treatment among some within your industry? Is it purely about cost? Is it just the fact that some people enjoy torturing animals? Assuming you are not one who enjoys it, what would you propose to resolve the matter and make those of us who adore a good steak feel better about the way the animal it came from met its end?
Hello all of you idiot's who are on a mission to save me by making me eat plants. Do any of you work? I am thinking not, I think you all are uber rich white women who have nothing to do. Please keep your beliefs to yourselves, we could care less about your efforts. However, if I would appreciate it if you would picket butt nekked in front of my house. Send me an email and I will send you my address!
My question is related to Monsanto and the impact they have had on modern farming... basically I just want to know what the farmer's opinion is of the company and if it feels they are in the right to force farmers to purchase their seeds and to impose their patent lawsuits, or if it has hindered farming operations and cut into their profit margins, and if so, to what extent. Also, has this caused an increase in food costs for the general public?
I know what I've seen in documentaries I've watched and a few reports that only talk to a handful of farmers, but would still like to get the opinion of, what I feel like, is an objective farmer/rancher. I realize as a rancher, it may not impact production directly, but it certainly can have an indirect effect on profit by increasing feeding costs.
Does Chevy make you drive their cars? If you want to choose another type do they stop you? Nor does Monsanto control or force us to plant their seeds. It's chosen, with a signed contract agreeing to several points of production. Those who don't want to do it are free to plant hundreds, if not thousands of other varieties available.
We choose heirloom/heritage – totally different on many fronts and it's the consumers who choose to buy from us that dictate that, not Monsanto. If there is not an interest in buying it, then it doesn't pay to grow it – true for any crop or variety. When people want heirloom then reject it because it doesn't look like the store, or it has a split in it or isn't "pretty" it verifies why those other varieties are grown – because that's what people want to buy. For those who are interested in alternatives, there are many farmers offering them! :-) Appreciate the conversation.
Comparing Monsanto and Chevy is a little off. I see your point, but most consumers have never even heard of Monsanto. Most people know about different cars, and they are labeled very clearly. GMOs on the other hand, are not. It's misleading to say consumers "choose" to buy GMOs, because most people probably don't even know what they are and just throw food into their shopping carts. Most of us know a Dodge from a Chevy from a Ford and can choose. But most of us don't know to look for specific PLUs or how to see if their food is a GMO. You can't choose if you are ignorant to what is going on with your food.
Points taken Amy E. There ARE ways to avoid GMO though. Organic is one. There's a site called the NonGMOproject that lists brands that do not use GMO in their production (not all are necessarily organic). There is the possibility of avoiding GMO by buying from someone who grows non GMO crops. Of course, those who have to have corn flakes and other processed items may or may not have GMO ingredients in their food. But many *can* choose. And it's true many aren't aware of GMO, Monsanto, other companies...but consider this. If their food mattered to them enough wouldn't they tune in? You know? I mean if someone has, for example, a dairy allergy they are pretty motivated to avoid things with dairy in them. They read, they make informed selections based on their own research. It matters! For the majority what matters, by action, is it available, affordable and convenient. We can't make all those folks change their minds and care. :-) I don't think it means giving up OUR food choices though!
Also just to clarify – I was talking about farmers buying seeds – which *are* labeled with variety etc. :-) I use heirloom varieties – and a Black Krimm seed looks pretty much like a Moskvich seed, but the end product is different and the person buying can choose either – or something else. :-)
Thank you for the Non-GMO website, I will check it out! :)
Heirloom! Yes! I must admit that I don't understand how it would be difficult for those against Monsanto (including myself, even unbiased academic research paints the company in a bad light) to find organic or heirloom alternatives. But then again, I live in Oregon. Monsanto is the devil incarnate here, and Oregonians tend to avoid them like the plague, hence organic has a big market here.
I appreciate the response, and I meant to say this in my first post, but I really enjoyed your article.
To your response, of course Chevy doesn't make me buy their cars... I like how you put it in perspective though. However, that wasn't really the argument the documentary was trying to make in my opinion (again, it was a documentary which is inherently going to contain some bias). Nonetheless, the major complaint was the elimination of seed saving through lawsuits, which forced many farmers to have to buy seeds they normally would not need to buy, and also filing patent lawsuits if the Monsanto strand was found in their crop, both of which drive up costs.
Based on what you said, it obviously appears that you have options when purchasing seeds, but the picture painted was that many family farms have survived for decades because of seed saving, and if corporations are going to flex their muscles putting smaller farms out of business through lawsuits (whether it be intentional or not), it's going to give the bigger farms an advantage, which is what I would think corporations like Monsanto ultimately want. I guess I just look at it as more morally wrong and unfair than anything, which I admit is probably what the producers were shooting for.
I just want to be clear that I'm not arguing and am not against corporations or free market, but am trying to understand if the doc I saw has any merit and how big a roll genetically modified seeds have in agriculture. Hell, I don't know a thing about farming/ranching except how to order my steak medium/rare, so I might also completely misunderstand what Monsanto does. If that's the case, I digress.
I appreciate the exchange! There are many, MANY varieties of seed out there from the longstanding Reid's dent corn to the latest GMO varieties. There's also popcorn, sweet corn and field corn, which may appear the same to those driving by at highway speeds.
Another example – there's over 3,000 varieties of sweet peppers. You may see the green bell peppers at the store – variety usually California wonder or something similar. There's varieties like the Beaver Dam or Bull Nose that have been around for decades, but not the shape of the favored bell pepper. There's peppers in white, purple, yellow, orange, green, red and many other colors. Then we enter the hot peppers, with thousands of varieties besides just the jalapeno and habanero.
Tomatoes, carrots....almost any garden vegetable you can think of there's many varieties available. There's a wide range of hybrids, heirlooms but not approved GMO commercial varieties. Obviously I'd hope folks put more thought into their food than the car. :-) What's in the store are varieties that are chosen, typically, for being solid high producing varieties that store, ship and taste well. These are things important to consumers – and we're all consumers! If you get a pepper on the weekend you'd hope it's still good on Thursday for dinner. Some tomatoes are more fragile, apt to split or bruise easily so although they arguably taste better, they don't present a good sale at the commercial environment. These are often options you can get buying direct or growing it yourself.
Appreciate the conversation!
Two weeks ago my 12 year old daughter came to me and declared she wanted to be a vegetarian. When I asked why, she started showing me videosfrom the PETA website of animals being mistreated (to put it mildly). I explained that most companies did not treat animals inhumanely, but that we could try some vegan recipes.
The day before she declared her new diet I'd baked a ham. The day after after declaring the new diet I used the ham bone to make a delicious ham and bean soup. After eating a few bites of the soup with a strange look on her face, I explained that except for the ham this would be a delicious vegan soup. Last night she had cheeseburgers for dinner. Tonight we're have a pot roast that's been in the crock pot all day. I don't think she'll cut it as a vegan.
Ryan; Dont worry to much about those on the fringe. There is nothing you can do for them. A lot of people appreciate what you do and most people that dont know will appreciate it with the work you do. Keep it up and ignore the nuts. (but not the peanuts)
Vegans piss me off..... Go smell your own farts.
Problm wth that is their farts don't smell as bad as their body odor ... these people don't bathe!
So lets see your slaughter videos then....
Here is a video for you that walks through the cattle slaughter process and facilities. The first 2 minutes introduces Dr. Temple Grandin, one of the leading animal handling and welfare experts in academia today. – http://youtu.be/VMqYYXswono – Be sure to listen to Dr. Grandin's narration as she explains the process in a working slaughter plant.
Cant stand all these PETA idiots. I was born and raised in midwest farmland, cornfields and cattle on every corner, and i never once have seen these atrocious conditions animal rights activists claim exist. Didnt mattter what the livestock was, never saw it. The "worst" conditions Ive seen are at state fairs and 4H expos, and even then its still nowhere close to said atrocious conditions. im all for treating animals with respect, but at the end of the day when my stomach is growling, wilbur the pig, clara cow, and foghorn leghorn make for one tasty dinner. and ya know what? there's always more where they came from. my family of three can live off a single pig for roughly a year (when eaten in moderation), chickens lay so many eggs that if they were to ever go hitchcock on us the world would be theirs in weeks, and a single well-fed heifer will feed you for a long while. so go ahead animal rights people, demonstrate how "cruel" we are to animals with your propaganda. mankind has survived on meat since earth came into existance (that goes for both religious and non-religious explanations of earth's creation). face it, you're fighting a losing battle. now if you will excuse me, i think my steaks are done grilling...
@farmer dude, while I do know that many family farms are run well, I have driven thru parts of TX where they have the huge feed lots. Quite frankly, it almost turned me off of beef completely. It's kinda scary to think that food I serve my family comes from that filthy, unhealthy mess. I'd prefer to pay a little more and buy beef that I know was raised healthy and processed humanely. I know that the animal rights groups have an agenda, but I truly hope that the videos they show only show the rare occurance of what's in the videos.
I'm a card carrying carnivore and will always be. Looooove cow!
And I like my steak with a slight pulse still.
When I was a girl, we lived on what we laughingly called a "farm." My step-dad was 62 and retired but had a young wife with 5 kids. One way or other, kids gotta eat! We grew our garden, canned from August through October or November and in our barns were: Black Angus steers (usually 5 at a time), more chickens than anybody could count, rabbits (Dad brought 2 home and viola! bunnies!), geese, in addition to various and sundry dogs and cats. We were a small farm, but everyone where we lived farmed – and we all ATE GOOD year round. Now that I am wa-a-y older, I am a long haul truck driver and have hauled all kinds of produce, meat and everything in between. Three Cheers! for farmers and those who raise animals for consumtion! Not to worry - truck drivers will be the next EVIL in line. You will be in great company.
Well said, MKG, and a great point! If one is so unaware of farm work that what farmers do seems "evil," then what else can be labeled as "evil" by way of culpable ignorance? I respect those who have really worked on a farm or ranch, helped with the accounts and taxes, or in some way learned first-hand about farm work, and then decided to take a stand against what they came to believe was objectionable. I also respect those who, a priori, forego certain products out of deeply held religious convictions. My impression, though, is that a number of highly vocal protesters and their followers do not operate on such grounds, and as many commenters opined, may be radically misinformed. For this reason, I believe that a fear of spreading protests against many occupations, not just against farmers, is legitimate.
I don't know if you're evil. I suppose you have videos and pictures, but I'd have to actually visit your farm to believe you, and actually be allowed to see a good portion of it. These days, politicians in some states push for laws that penalize people for taking pictures of feed lots, slaughterhouses, and other food processing operations. That's in addition to the food libel laws already on the books in several states, which make you wide open for civil litigation if you so much as criticize food producers. Why are you suprised that people don't trust the food industry?
It's not that I think any one farmer, or group of farmers, are evil, I just want to know where my food is coming from, and what happened to it before I eat it. I'm tired of "mystery", "fillers", and fake food in general. I also do not have a problem with eating meat, but that doesn't mean it has to be brutal and grotesque. Yes, I've seen large scale poultry and pig operations, and yes, they were brutal and grotesque. Does that mean all farmers operate that way? Probably not, but the point is, I DON'T KNOW.
Sure we humans are meant to be omnivores (whatever "meant to" means), but are we meant to consume 183 pounds of meat a year? That sort of mass consumption was not possible at any point in our evolution, and would not be possible today if not for the subsidization of the food industry, particularily of corn. Our food supply is so politicized, with so many stakeholders, and shrouded in so much shadow, it's impossible to know who to believe on either side of the debate.
You mentioned the use of pesticides, and I accept that their use is unavoidable to produce the necessary amount of food, and, based on my conversations with the environmental toxicologist that I married, I think that the use of most pesticides are not terribly harmful to humans. They ARE harmful to wildlife, however, in the large amounts that wash out into the waterways. How can such large-scale production continue without the inevitable cost to the environment and wildlife? And of course, this article doesn't even touch on the socio-economic issues created by large-scale agriculture, such as immigration and workers' conditions. See Smithfield.
Why do you believe the pictures and videos against agriculture but not believe the ones farmers take with their own cameras? How about videos that tell you what to think about it rather than just let you see what's happening and ask questions? This is an imperfect medium of communication but I sincerely want to know. I use a lot of pictures on my blog and have done very basic unedited videos. It's a way to show folks what we're doing – but if it isn't believed then how do we get past that?
The idea that we all have something to hide if we don't let anyone tape for any reason (including putting their own explanations into the edited video!) is IMO a little inflammatory. How many would allow filming of their family life then what is shown is 30 seconds of an argument with the kids (one that passed and is over)? If that 30 seconds is what people will remember you for is it an accurate portrayal of your life? I don't think so! :-)
As for pesticides, there shouldn't *be* any runoff to waterways if properly applied. They're too expensive to dump in waterways, and most farmers I know are extremely conscientious about the use of anything. We live in the area and love the wildlife. Harming it via water that our dogs may drink out of or play in doesn't make sense. There are, of course, bad actors that reflect poorly on us all.
Appreciate your comments!
Hmm. I thought my post made it clear that I didn't know WHO to believe on either side. By buying food locally, I can at least see it with my own eyes.
As for the pesticides (and I should have added in fertilizer run-off as well), I think the already observed impact speaks for itself. Maybe only a few farmers are applying the product incorrectly and causing the damage, but that's enough.
I'm sorry – I meant 'you' as in the public in general. I agree about visiting in person if possible – and many do welcome people to their farms.
Not to totally take the blame from irresponsible farmers, but there are online reports showing suburban residents tend to use heavier doses of pesticides, some which directly washes in to waterways. Water runoff is a big focus here – slowing it down, reusing what we can.
Topic aside, that was one of the most intelligent descriptions of how we should carry out discussions that I have heard in a long time. It's what I want my students to learn and how I wish Americans would operate on the internet. We don't, but oh how I wish we would. Many thanks, good sir.
I do not like to kill animals and eat them, but I do not mind eating eggs.
It amazes me that the same people who say they don't kill animals for food support people's legal right to kill an unborn child. It's time for us to step back and see how twisted and hypocritical those priorities are.
Maybe if people would stop getting their food at places like Walmart things might be a little different. It costs a little more to farm the way these people screaming about abuse wants. However people don't want to pay a little more for that kind of food. Support your local farmer's markets, buy at local or regionally owned stores and be more selective of what brands you buy. People help create large corporations that lobby to cut regulations (or block new regulations) that greatly reduce the number of abuse stories published.
There's no benefit to the world for everyone to go vegetarian. I just don't believe the human body started out on a vegetarian diet. And even IF the world suddenly switched to all vegan, you'd most likely end up with fewer food selections just on the logistics of transportation alone.
If you want to stop GMO, you need to lobby companies like Monsanto. Monsanto sells you the seed engineered for their chemicals. You can't take the seed and keep it to replant. It's THEIR seed and THEIR yield. It's like a pharmaceutical company creating a disease, selling you the cure and preventing you from no other real alternative but to catch the disease in the first place. Monsanto is the one responsible for forcing GMO seed upon the world and lobbying and doing a great PR job to get it started.
Either pay a little more for meat from non GMO seed or put up with GMO grain fed meat. It costs more to graze like that. Plus hay is not cheap.
There is a large difference between "don't want to pay more" and "can't afford to pay more."
I just wanted to touch on your Monsanto comment and provide a little bit of clarity. My family has been farming for as long as I can remember, long before Monsanto, or anyone had ever even thought about GMO crops. The technology that Monsanto has made available to the American farmer, as well as farmers around the world is what we consider a blessing.
Let me start with your comment about Monsanto engineering seed for their chemicals. While this is partly true, the seed that you are talking about requires no chemicals made by Monsanto to grow. The three basic things plants need to grow are water, nutrients and sunlight and Monsanto provides none of the above. What I will assume you are referring to is Round-up. What Monsanto did do was make plants with their Round-up Ready trait tolerant to this non-selective herbicide. What I mean by that is if you spray something green with Round-up, it will kill it. This trait allows plants with it to be sprayed by Round-up and survive. This technology has been instrumental in allowing farmers to adopt less invasive tilling methods such as no-till, strip-till and minimum till which in turn reduce soil erosion from wind and water. By no means do seeds produced by Monsanto NEED any of their chemistry to grow. Also, Round-up is off patent so many other manufactures provide this product at cheaper prices and many farmers use this option.
Second, you are correct in that you cannot reuse the seed and that is for two reasons. First, corn seed produced and sold with Monsanto traits is what we call hybridized. This means that a specific seed is produced from a specific male and specific female parent. If you tried to replant the corn you harvest, it would lose all of its vigor and not give you the yield that the hybrid corn seed did. Nowhere even close to it. This is not a new Monsanto invention. Many seed corn companies have been doing this since the 1930's. Other crops that you can use repeatedly are called varieties. Soybeans fall under this category and if they have specific Monsanto traits, you are right that farmers cannot replant these either, but for a different reason. Imagine it like this, if you spent years of your life working on a new gadget, spent tens of thousands of your money developing and perfecting it, and you went through the trouble to get it certified and patented; you wouldn't want people stealing the new gadget you worked so hard on and invested so much time and money on would you? It is the same principal with the traits Monsanto created. Also, even though this seed is more expensive to buy, a farmer would not purchase it unless he sees the financial benefit from it. And trust me, they do.
This technology has provided farmers and the environment many benefits. It has allowed for the use of fewer chemicals and less caustic chemicals in the field. This year should underscore how much they have helped the environment by allowing farmers to adopt practices that reduce soil erosion. This year we are experiencing a drought comparable to the drought that triggered the massive dust bowl in the 1930's. While this Round-up ready trait is not solely responsible for this, it is a tremendous factor that we are not reliving the dirty 30's.
I realize that you didn't ask a question to start, but if you have any, I would be glad to further this discussion.
Well said. Thank you for your input!
You wrote an excellent column. I remember a sermon I gave at my new church (filled with farmers) about stewardship and I quoted a source without verifying it much like the young woman did with you. I received a firm education from my members who took me around their farms firsthand. These people love and respect their animals and processes more than most people even think about it ever. Thank you for your essay.
Ryan, I believe that you make an important point. A good conversation must be based on respect and started with an open mind.
I have spent half of my life in the city and half of it on a farm–good people exist both places. Everything that I do on my farm has a basis in respect: respect for the land, respect for my animals, respect for the food that my land and my animals provide, and respect for all of those people that consume the food that comes off of my farm. I have a cattle feed yard, and I spend my days caring for animals that I will ultimately feed to my children and you might also feed to yours. My husband farms plant crops (alfalfa, wheat, corn, and soybeans)–some of which are fed to our animals and some are sold to others. We both take a tremendous amount of pride in what we do everyday, and want to share that with others who are interested in learning about "how food is grown". Our family has our own blog which shows what happens on a daily basis on our farm-http://feedyardfoodie.com. Please feel free to visit and start a conversation with us!
My grandfather was a cattle rancher for his entire life, and his father before him and so on. His 250 head of cattle were free to roam on 4000+ acres of land. They still needed immunizations and constant care.
What a hard life. And he barely has a retirement. It is not a sustainable life now for anyone in the family. Hunting rights bring in more money than the cattle do, but it still isn't enough to keep up with the equipment costs.
People seem to nostalgic for some kind of time when the TV version of Laura Engles skipped through a medow, and a family raised one pig. The thing is, I am not convinced that animals were treated better "back then". People did eat less meat because it was more expensive. But, at the same time if you did not have the money to eat, you might just die.
I had a great uncle who was a farmer. He said the best day of his life was the day the last horse went to town to be sold. He hated them. He learned to like tractors.
I think that the problem is that people are so far removed from the process of raising and butchering that they have lost the reality of it all. Somehow they think that the whole process should be plasticy like the supermarket. When a normal person is confronted with the reality of making food, they freak. They don't like the stinky reality. They are easily manipulated to think that the entire process should be just like the supermarket.
Oh well. I am rambling a bit. Steaks tonight.
I love farmers and ranchers. I grew up in N. Tx, land of oil, cattle and crops. These people supply delicious food to me, and I know what a hassle it is, having raised my own for many years. A few things I would like to see them do is using toxic products, farm organically (Don't ahve to be certified, just follow the methods), quit monocropping, quit taking government money to grow GMO crops and dirt. The ag industry needs a serious overhaul, come on ag people, get with it, and quit poisoning the very people you depend upon for your livelyhood. Remove yourself from the government teat, and stand or fall on your own, like grown ups, quit running to Daddy Warbucks the U.S. Government.
As a microbiologist, I too find that communication to the lay-person is harder than it should be. However, that should only serve as a challenge to find more effective ways to communicate the hard-science behind things for those who truly want to understand. The main problem is that the "loudest" antagonists use 'bumper sticker" arguments designed to leave out actual discourse.
People want a 30 second Powerpoint type presentation limited to bullet points that are super easy to understand. I hear things like 'I don't understand why this or that is bad. I ate this or that the other day and I didn't get sick.' I don't think people realize the cumulative effects or the biological effects simply because they are not immediate and highly visible. And when symptoms do manifest they're expecting some pill or other quick fix.
Anyone else find it funny that Pam Anderson is a member of PETA and yet she has one of the most abused beavers in Hollywood.
Aaah levity when it is most needed. LMAO.
Evolution put humans at the top of the food chain for a reason, We eat animals because we can.
So, people who are against factory farms are basically against successful farmers. You learn to be efficient, and you grow, and eventually you get big enough to be evil I guess.
Oh please, not another “don’t” hate success argument. Mitt is that you? Look…I’ve got nothing against farming but big farmers (and corporations in general) are going to cut cost anyway they can. Sometimes that means at the expense of its employee or product (in this cases animals). Not all are guilty of this and it shouldn’t be assumed just because one is successful that they commit such acts. Neither should it be assumed they don’t. That is why we have inspectors to enforce regulation. Don’t hate China for it’s child labor…they are just being ‘successful’.
What's their take on Kobe beef? Where the animals are free range and given massages and well cared for? The reality is that they think the killing of an animal for food is wrong. Well, fine, lets start by locking up and starving (killing) all the whales in the ocean, after all, they all eat other living things – same with Dolphins. And cats, which are all all meat eaters; we can start with fluffy and end with King Samba. And once we only have animals on the planet willing to abide by the "don't eat other animals" creedo – then we'll be all set – until the natural populations of all these critters decimate the local fauna because of lack of natural predidatoin.
Find out the truth behind animal production by watching this four minute video – http://www.10billionlives.org/
If you are going to keep posting the same thing then I'm going to reply with my same thing ...
P.E.T.A.
P eople
E ating
T asty
A nimals
There's room for all of God's creatures... right next to my mashed potatoes.
Mr. Goodman
The underlying problem is that in many parts of the US people are taught that everyone's opinion is "valid" no matter how uninformed or provably false that opinion is.
You tried to fight emotion with facts, while the person you were trying to communicate with couldn't get around the fact that cattle and sheep have big brown eyes. That person is probably convinced that (s)he is doing the "Right Thing " (Registered Trademark) and all of the facts in the world is not going to have any effect in the least.
Better luck with the next one. Hopefully it will be someone interested in learning.
Well said. But I suggest ignoring emails from ignorant armchair do-gooders.
I hunt deer and moose and raise my own free-range heritage chickens and turkeys, so my question is not driven by a meat-free ideology. However, I wonder how much of your knowledge comes from the corporations that make the genetically-modified seed and chemical fertilizers and pesticides you use. When my brother studied agricultural science at the University of Guelph, most of the textbooks and handouts were developed by the corporations that made the products that are causing this public outcry against "factory farming". Monsanto, whose Round-Up claims of non-toxicity and short-term breakdown, have been proven false and actually harmful, was the biggest contributor of material to my husband's courses. That's the same corporation that lobbied your government into allowing the continued use of Bovine Growth Hormone even though virtually every other developed nation has banned its use based upon independent scientific analysis of its perpetuation in human breast milk and pre-adolescent fat deposits.
Why should we trust what you say if you are only parroting what those corporations have told you?
I would love to see a response to this post from the author of the article. If one is written please reply with a link.
Dawn, where did your brother get the idea that college ag textbooks are written by Monsanto and other agricultural corporations? I know the land-grant university where I work as a faculty member has none of those. I know a few faculty at Guelph and I'll ask them, but I seriously doubt they would do that. Most of the charges you are leveling are based on "parroting" what someone has told you.
Dawn you hit the nail on the head. Many of the PETA types are overzealous animal lovers but this guy is clueless if he thinks what passes as "farming" these days is good for our health, the animals health, or our environment. I live near a major university and they have a food sciences department. Recently it was renamed "the inserthugecorporation'snamehere food sciences building". Corporate Greed 1, Objectivity 0.
No war for nazi war criminal oil corporate greed blargh!
Meanwhile, the only reason we're able to have the population we have and the lifestyles you're used to (you know, not having to grow your own food at all) is because these corporations have reached the size to be able to feed the world. And no, that's not an exaggeration. You enjoy your bleeding heart, I'll enjoy my rare steak.
Far from a bleeding heart you moron.I just prefer fresh, free range meat to that garbage you buy in a grocery store. I know where it came from because I harvested it with my .308. And yes, my family grows a lot of it's own veggies and fruits so don't talk to me about lifestyles when you know nothing of mine. I didn't even bring up the logistics of feeding the population. You obviously missed the point of my post, learn how to read idiot.
Dawn
I, too, question your argument on this topic – not because I'm an expert in the field, but because of a glaring confict in your post. You say your brother took courses in this field, but your husband received the course material. If you're not sure if you're related to the receiver by birth or marriage, how can you be sure where the offending material came from?
If you don't eat meat, that's your choice. If you don't eat meat and consider me 'evil' because I do, I forgive you. Sometimes I even defend you; I eat a bacon cheeseburger to remind the animals lower on the food chain who is still in charge. Today, I will probably put a fried egg in there too.
I dated a vegan girl once, but she didn't have a problem with having meat in her mouth.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
That's funny!!!
What's her number?
Find out the truth behind animal production by watching this four minute video – http://www.10billionlives.com/
The problem is that I just don't care where the meat comes from or how it is treated before it gets to my plate as long as it is not infected when it gets to said plate!
It is completely understandable Ryan why you would be put off by this.
But what is not understandable is how many farmers and farm organizations categorically denied the reality of the videos.
Or blamed the videographer.
Or continue to claim that the acres of animals languishing in steel cages is 'farming'.
Ot supported AgGag legislation.
Forgive me Ryan but why the hissy-fit over a few proselytizing vegan fundamentalists?
Alas, this is yet another episode of the reality program "Bickering With Vegans'.
The only reality show where every new episode is exactly like the last one.
I have proudly supported animal rights for years.
And I can promise you that I get whacked by the proselytizing vegans far more often than you do.
Ninety-nine percent of the population consumes your products.
Possibly you can tell me of ONE other industry that can show..or ever expect... these sorts of numbers...
Other than the undertaker.
Maybe everyone should put the big-boy pants on and ignore the fringe.
Hitler was a vegetarian... enough said
It's amazing that people who dont eat meat are always preaching to everyone else not to eat it. Meat eaters on the other hand don't run around forcing vegetarians to eat meat or preach that you should. Mind your own business and let others eat what they want. When I want a burger, bacon, chicken, or any other meat product I don't care what images you flash in front of me it's not going to stop me from eating it. Please stop pushing your views on others because you won't want others pushing theirs on you.
Right on target.. Great opinion to the article..
Vegetarians and Vegans are the dietary ideological equivalent of theists.
I do, EVERYONE should eat meat!!! Vegetarian/vegan diets are unhealthy. Most of the veggies I know are pale and get sick a lot. I haven't been sick in years.
I like farmers. Especially their livers, raw, with a side of fava beans and a nice chianti.
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!! And delicious!
Rule 1) Never purchase a house from one of the PETA type people, because their house is probably overrun by ants, cockroaches, bedbugs.... since they don't believe in killing anytype of creature.
Rule 2) Never have relations with one of the PETA type people because if they get some sort of STD like crabs they I guess they just live with it forever because killing them would be wrong.
So, how do you tell if someone is a "PETA" type?
Just smell ... they don't shower regularly either!
Alright..I laughed at this one. But this isn’t true for the average PETA type. They are just as hypocritical as most human beings…give them some credit.
"I know it takes a mind shift and I am trying to make one on my end too, but if both sides shift toward openness rather than assumption."
Please complete this sentence...it's annoying to have an "if" statment with no "then"
Misrepresentation abounds-you ned to change your screen name to Doofy. Stick to the subject unless your an english teacher.
Fail......
I am not a big fan of CAFO's because the animals and their waste are kept in unhealthy conditions. Cattle standing in dusty lots by the thousands, though fenced off to smaller herds, munching at antibiotic laden corn mixed with processed animal fats from dead cattle is not my idea of good food. The cattle industry is the single largest user of antibiotics in the US. The cattle get acid buildup from eating corn, which evolution has not designed them to handle, and are treated with antibiotics to treat it. They are sick from eating all this corn, but they plump up faster. Much of their meat is fattier and less healthy as a result. I prefer grass feed beef. I know there is a better way of producing beef that is healthier all around, but I also understand there is a need to feed large populations quickly.
We subsidize corn very heavily to make corn syrup and a whole host of other items that are in nearly every item at the grocery store, especially the least healthy of items, including our beef, chickens, and pigs. All of these subsidies hide the true cost of those bags of chips, or Mc D's hamburger. We have subsidized an unhealthy lifestyle, and, unfortunately, our government leaders answers will increasingly be to tax these items creating the strangest feed-back loop. Taxing unhealthy soda and subsidizing the corn producers that grow the corn specifically for the corn syrup. huh?
We have to change our system to create healthier lifestyles, but simply vilifying farmers is not the answer and will not make us, or the animals, any better off. The change must come from us and our food choices.
Can we all agree that gov't needs to stop subsidizing everything that moves? Farmer's lobby gov't to subsidize corn for ethanol which creates a fasle market so the gov't requires fuel producers to use that junk in our gas. Farmers also lobby gov't for general food subsidies/expansion of food stamp programs to absorb their surpluses.
Gov't is the primary problem; your and my representatives are more than willing to give out the goodies to ensure their (rep's) futures. The country's future is way down their list of priorities.
These radical animal rights group are an interesting lot. I've been a few places where they have demonstrated and basically walked away with a chuckle. All you have to do is look at their feet, their handbags, wallets, belts, and the carseat covers of some of the cars they drive. Gee I wander where leather comes from??????
But you can tell by the quality and suppleness of the leather that they died of natural causes. (from the movie Low Down Dirty Shame)
Maybe some of you self proclaimed animal cruelty specialists should step out of your penthouses and work on a farm for awhile.
Yes… because there is nothing in-between. You’re as bad as them.
On October 16, 2014 the world decided to stop eating animal products.
On December 18, 2014 the following animals were listed on the endangered species list: Chickens (all varieties), cattle, domestic pigs, sheep, and domestic goats.
If you love these animals, then you want them legal, because if they were not allowed to be eatten, there would be no reason to keep or raise them. Look at the number of horses now that they are no longer a product. Even with recreational riding to sustain them their are a fraction of their former numbers.
Good point ... too bad Buffalo meat isn't more popular. If it were then I guarantee that there would be more around!!!!
Bison (also known as buffalo) meat is a great alternative to beef. Grass-fed, no hormones, few if any antibiotics, and it's leaner than beef, pork and even chicken! And very tasty! Check out the National Bison Association for more information. Plus, keeping bison on America's dinner plates has kept the species from going completely extinct.
I'm a carnivore and I support the farmer in this article but I do not support your argument. It's the quality of life that matters rather than the quantity. Imagine if super smart aliens came tomorrow and enslaved humankind making farms out of them. They'd multiply our numbers to 100s of times via extensive breeding, but we'd be living in cramped farms destined to be eaten. We'd fight tooth and nail to get out and be free wouldn't we? Similar thing applies to cows and chickens. Is it better to be raised in a cramped farm somewhere eating crap and not being able to walk around to be butchered eventually or run around free on fields having a chance to survive against the elements?
Ask yourself who benefits if a smaller amount of food can be produced, transported, and sold for a higher price. Who will be the loser in this situation? The winner will be the corporations that the anti-everything people hate. The loser will be the poor people that the anti-everything people think that they love. Seriously, before you become anti-food-industry, try to step back and figure out what migh happen if you actually got what you are wishing for.
You missed the part about not biased. Name calling really does not lead to clear and open conversations.
I read more comments. You are in good company. So I take it back. You all enjoy your pointless pokes and prods at one another.
Mr. Goodman, do you consider feed-lots to be "farms"?
Do the cattle you raise live in confined quarters, forced to walk in their own crap 24/7?
Isn't it a fact that because of the filthy, confined, quarters given to many farm animals, large doses of antibiotic drugs are needed just to keep them alive?
Did you even read the article? He's against factory farming. Or are you just so blind to your own opinions that you don't care what anyone else has to say; you're always and automatically correct?
Where did you get that line of crap?
I was raised on a cattle farm. We raised over 1500 head of cattle a year.
We had cattle on feed lots and in confinement sheds. Our lots were cleaned weekly and the confinement shed had slats that were above a pit that stored manure. Our feedlot cattle had barns that were bedded down with straw, clean straw. We didn't ever have to shoot our animals full of antibiotics.
Have you ever been to a cattle farm? Ever seen one in person?
Do you know WTH your talking about?
P.E.T.A:
P eople
E ating
T asty
A nimals
I hope you get eaten by a bear.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ... Bear meat is delicious a little gamey but tasty if prepared some time!
Bears are pretty tastey too...
I bet he tastes like S.H.I.T
Everyone, please thank The Flamingo Kid for demonstrating thy hypocrisy of the animal rights crowd.
Sven –
Only in the woods.
You ARE evil. You mass produce animals for murder when there is absolutely NO REASON anyone needs to be eating meat nowadays.
Sure there is a reason ...
I love a nice rare steak that "moo's" one last time before I put it in my mouth! Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ... my mouth is watering just thinking about it.
To deny that your a a caivor is to deny your humanity thus being a vegetarian make you inhuman!
You realize that vegetable fat only allows you to grow 50% of your normal brain cells so if stopped eating meat generation after generation then we will devolve to stupidity unless evolution and science are wrong.
Well, that explains why members of PETA are so stupid!!!!
I hate PETA. They are a bunch of hipocrytical morons.
We have canine teeth and were created to be omnivores. Where is your proof. If a pelican can devour baby ducklings then I should be able to enjoy a nice steak.
Fredducky I was going to say the same thing. We have canine teeth because we are meant to eat plants and animals and it really is as simple as that.
Why do we have toe nails?
I've never met a vegan who wasn't frail and sickly.
Arian Foster
are Arian Foster & Simeon Rice's moms friends?
Nobility survives by providence. Starve a little, then starve often..... and prepare yourselves for a new perspective on food resources. There are no small number of people out there that believe plants have spirits and by eating or destroying them, the righteous amongst you are killers too.
By the way (Mr. Farmer) I could take your argument and your perspectives and unilaterally apply them to every point of contention in todays' arguments. Your voice is one of reason. You are indeed a wise and fair man if your viewpoints are yours and hold true.
Ootsik
Did you even read the article? He is only asking for your openmindedness, but you are too closed minded to even see it apparently! All that he is doing is trying to meet in the middle all you are doing is breeding hate and resentment. No matter what side of the debate you are on, curtisy should always win out over hate. And that does appear to be the only thing that you are interested in. So the way I see it, you are alot closer to evil than he is!
Try a major iron deficiency. Yes, there are reasons why people do need to eat meat. The fats in appropraite quantities are healthy and necessary for proper development. Yes, some of these things can be gotten other ways, with a lot of "supplements" and such, but they are still healthiest in the natural form of meat for those individuals whose bodies need them. Ever been pregnant and had a ravenous craving for raw hamburger – Need Iron. Craving for oranges – Need Vitamin C. It's called "Your body needs it, so you crave it." Yes people can sustain without meat, but they can also sustain on nothing but water and gruel too. They do not THRIVE on these kinds of diets though.
Someone needs a dictionary.
mur•der
noun
1.
Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
No, I am evil.
Evil in this argument is creating a book of the most sinfully delicious recipes in the world, most of which involve copious amounts of meat, then binding it in the tanned flesh of a variety of animals, and carving the title in with a butcher's knife. GENTLEMEN! I GIVE YOU, THE OMNOMNOMICON!
Enjoy your tofu. I have small, innocent, helpless animals to devour mercilessly.
Farmers and cattlemen have my utmost respect for all their hard work and battling the elements to keep this country, and others, fed. I shudder to think where we would be without them!
Do what you want, i'm all for healthy foods but you'll have to pry my steak from my cold dead hands. what we should be focusing in on is genetically engineering healthy bacon.
nice :)
It is no secret that animals on some farms are treated terribly and the living conditions are horrendous. I also know there are farms where the animals are treated humanely. What the consumer who cares about this should do is educate themselves on these matters and only buy from the businesses that support humane treatment of their animals. Making a blanket statement that all Farms treat their animals badly is irresponsible.
I agree with you. It is also irresponsible to say that all animals are treated humanely.
Nice article. However, asking for the anti-everything crowd to be reasonable and respect the opinions of others who might actually know what they are talking about is probably a waste of time. But kudos to you for trying. I can find no fault in someone less jaded than me making an effort.
As a side note, it seems to me like happy, comfortable, healthy animals put on weight and go to market cheaper and faster. Stressed, sick animals do not put on weight and go to market faster. There has been a lot of work, research, and centuries of experience that has led up to the current way things are done. Perhaps people should look at things logically instead of seeing livestock as though it were talking cartoon characters.
PETA and all the other people that supprt them have no concept of what food is or where it comes from. How about all the celebrities and famous poeple that champion PETA. The make-up they wear and brest implants they tote as well as the medicine they take and medical procedures they have gone through were all tested on animals. So what the He## is wrong with me wanting to eat a hamburger!!!!!!!!
I have dealt with animal rights zealots before and they are just as stupid as the fake moon landing folks. This whole thing is summed up by the State Farm commercial...
man: "Where'd you read that ?"
woman "On the internet...and they would never put anything that wasn't true on the internet"
man: "Where'd you read that ?"
woman: "On the internet"
It is no secret that animals on some farms are treated terribly and the living conditions are horrendous. I also know there are farms where the animals are treated humanely. What the consumer who cares about this should do is educate themselves on these matters and only buy from the businesses that support humane treatment of their animals. Making a blanket statement that all Farms treat their animals badly is irresponsible.
I love animals. I believe they are God's children, as are we. Jesus ate fish. I eat pork, (with some degree of guilt). The sad thing is, in order for us to live, something must die, whether it be plant or animal. Where does Peta draw the line, and who appointed Peta as the architect of the lines? Does a housefly have less right to live than I do? Says who?
I salute this country's farmers, (though not necessarily the factory farms), for feeding all of us whatever we choose to eat.
To you, what is a factory farm? The reality, it is just a large successful farm. You cannot feed the people by raising one cow out back anymore.
My wife and I are vegetarians, but we make no effort to force our lifestyle on others. We even prepare and serve meat to my wife's family when they are over for holiday meals, etc. Most people are perfectly nice about it and adhere to a "live and let live" position toward our vegetarianism.
There are a few people who try to evangelize to us and try to hint (or outright tell us) we are wrong. Those people are not showing the same respect toward us that we are showing toward those who do eat meat. Mostly I just dismiss them as being highly insecure about their own lifestyle such that they have convinced themselves that our lifestyle is for some reason a threat toward their own. Their insecurity is their problem to deal with, not mine.
We recently completed a tour of England, Wales, and Scotland. In the UK they have farms that raise pigs in “family units”. Each mother has a little tin shack and a certain plot of surrounding land in which to raise her little family of piglets. What you see is a hillside covered by all these little tin shacks and family groupings.
As vegetarians, we openly recognized that this was an effort by farmers to raise the pigs under the best circumstances reasonably possible. The farmers were to be complimented for their efforts to make the lives of the pigs better even if ultimately the pigs were going to be slaughtered. Blindly attacking all farmers is irresponsible and high counter-productive.
If people were to attack these pig farmers regardless of their efforts to provide their pigs with better lives, then why should those farmers bother to make the effort in the future? If you don’t express appreciation for the efforts made by others, then what incentive is there for others to make the effort?
My only issue with GMO is the labeling. Farmers should be free to raise GMO crops (although the cross-pollination and ultimate polluting of natural crops should be prevented). However the consumer also has the right, in a free market system, to make their own decision about whether they wish to purchase GMO food. In a free market system, the supplier does not have the right to force the consumer to purchase an unknown product.
A free market system is fundamentally based on the concept of the consumer making an INFORMED DECISION about what the consumer is purchasing from the supplier. Free market says that the industry should be permitted to offer GMO food for sale, but honest free market ALSO says that the consumer must be told that’s what they’re buying.
Hey there! I truly appreciate your opinions, views and treatment of family members that do not share the same lifestyle as you. I also appreciate you learning from you experiences traveling. It is true that the "family unit" environment reduces the issues of female swine aggression and it is something that is being practiced more and more in the US. One thing i am curious about is the savaging that occurs when pigs are raised in the field as you describe. Were you able to speak with any of the farmers, or mainly observe? I am interested in learning what the rate is for savaging and also what the rate is for the gilts and sows crushing piglets. To be honest, and just in case you didn't know, pigs aren't very graceful and these are factors taken into consideration when raising swine. I look forward to your response and thanks for the intellectual input! :D
kurgoyne...for someone who is very different than I am, I would like to commend you for a very thoughtful post. I will disagree with you slightly regarding people's opinions toward vegetarians, from my personal experience. I have had far more vegetarians/vegans tell me that my family is evil for raising cattle and then try to explain to me why their chosen lifestyle is better and why I will die young. There is no reason to argue with stupid.
The 2 points in your post I would like to hit on is hog production in the UK and GMOs. The UK has a very interesting production method. However, that system would have a hard time working in the United States because of the scale. What you saw was very small scale. Furthermore, that system, as I understand it and is the system I am thinking of, is mainly an outdoor system. The weather in the UK is more stable than in the US and one of the big reasons that farmers switched to confinement barns for gestation, farrowing and finishing is because of weather swings. Heat above 90 degrees and cold below 30 degrees is very tough on hogs. We see these swings alot in the US. In a bar the temp is approx 72 degrees.
The 2nd point is regarding GMO and labeling. For those people who wish not to purchase a GMO product or a product that potentially has been made from GMO's, just look for the USDA certified organic label. If a product is certified USDA organic then it cannot have anything GMO in it.
All I can say is THANK YOU! Finally, an articulate, educated individual who can speak out without screaming, calling names, and acting just as idiotic as the people out there that rely solely on the information fed to them by such groups as PETA and HSUS – groups who are as corrupt & terrible as the "horrific" situations they seek to show the world. My entire life I have been around & involved in farming (cows mostly, with a friend or two raising pigs) and rodeo (a totally different subject) and have NEVER seen the kind of treatment these people describe. Sometimes, I think they're shooting their own videos. In my experience farmers treat their animals as well as the 24 hour work day allows – people tend to forget that these animals are a farmer's livelihood and if they aren't treated well, they die or become what we refer to as "culls," which is to say they aren't good enough to be sold. THAT is a loss of money, and where I'm from, most farmers can't afford to lose money; this means they treat their animals as best they can. They HAVE to. So again, THANK YOU for speaking out for farmers!!
My only issues with meat deal with how gluttonous we are about how much we consume or discard. I try to avoid factory farmed meat, but let's be honest: That's pretty much impossible to completely avoid. The good news is that now there are starting to be other options available for chicken and pork in a large percentage of supermarkets. The Kroger where I shop has recently started offering locally sourced pork and chicken as well as the beef and seafood, turkey, etc. they had been offering. So I have been buying that. But no matter what those idiots with PETA say or the other militant animal cruelty organizations say, I will never stop eating meat. There is a difference between us and other animals: They are other animals. We have hunted and consumed other animals for 100s of millions of years to supplement our diets, and that's not going to change.
I meant for 100s of millions of years of evolutionary history. Primates for far less, but we all started somewhere. Hah.
What is the difference between "factory farmed meat" and "locally sourced" meat. Have you ever been to a local producer and "factory" producer. I guess not. Sorry but you are wrong. Check before you make these silly assumptions.
I have been to both. There can be an enormous difference between a large commercial operation and a family or even co-op farm. I used to work on a factory farm, this isn't an emotional statement. It is a statement based from experience.
in reply to the reply
I have been to both. There can be an enormous difference between a large commercial operation and a family or even co-op farm. I used to work on a factory farm, this isn't an emotional statement. It is a statement based from experience.
Thank you for taking time to understand where your food comes from, RedskinsFan. It is important to support your local farmers, as well as every farmer throughout the United States. My husband and I raise grain and livestock in southwest Iowa. We were both born and raised on family farms and can't think of anything more rewarding than raising safe, wholesome, nutritions food to help feed the world. We get great joy our of selling to our local markets, whether it be friends and family looking to fill their freezer with "home grown" pork and beef, or the local locker who wants to fill their meatcase for their customers. We also sell our cattle and hogs to meat packing/processing plants, like Hormel, Tyson and Swift, who process the meat and retail it through grocers – in this case, it carries the packing company's brand. The packers are supporting the local, family farmer – however the pork loin that came from a pig on my Iowa farm may be sold through a grocery store on the west coast or even over seas.
My question to you is what do you mean by factory farm? I'd like your thoughts on it so I, and my fellow farmers, can better understand or possibly better educate our customers (meat-eating consumers, like yourself). Can you help us understand what your definition of a factory farm is? Thanks!!
I am a marine biologist as the name says. I have had to put up with outrageous claims that I have abused animals in my studies. Idiots such as these in PETA and other groups have less education than most in the sciences. I doubt that few have even taken science courses. But if they think the animals a getting a bad deal in life, look to the way humans are being treated in many parts of the world. Face it, people just get emotionally wound up and think their was is best. I love a good BBQ, my brother has a personal farm and the beef he has raised and the pigs that he has caught for food are great. Wild pigs have become a major problem. They need to be harvested. The damage they cause is in the billions. Yet PETA and other groups think this is bad. Wait till they have their yard torn up and see what they say. Talk is real cheap especially from a crazed zealot from PETA.
Imagine that awkward moment when we all realize that plants and trees communicate and think as well..........it will be the first time that PETA will have nothing to say...............just standing there, staring at their lawnmowers and crying.
You gave me a good laugh, but at the same time, this is very true. Since I have a background in agronomy, I can attest that there are plants that have a way of communicating or adjusting to the environment around them. There are plants that react to the touch of a finger. So at some point, you have to just realize that wether you eat meat or plants, you are killing a living organism.
After being born and raised on a farm, I can understand why people do not understand how animals are treated or anything else is handled. I have since moved to another state and you mention the midwest drought to people and they look at you like "what planet are your from." People are so busy in their own little worlds and their own little lives that they do not realize what is going on in the world around them. The things the farmers do for their crops or for their animals to flourish is necessary. While I do agree some farmers may to it to whole other extreme, the biggest majority do not. Do you honestly think farmers are out to hurt anybody? No, it's their job.
Growing up on the family farm is ALOT different that the big commercial farms. We cared for our animals to be sure we could eat and have something to sell. Most that complain have never spent time on a family farm. They need to spend sometime in the farmers shoes to see how much care goes into every thing they do. They try and protect their land because this is where they live every day. Our cows were in a pasture to graze and they were fed and watered. Chickens were in large pens free to roam and pick around, fed and watered. Hogs were in large pens and pastures free to roam, root around, fed and watered. We took our job very serious as their care takers. The farmers are not evil.
I thank your family and other farming families like yours. These are the practices that I support. Cousins of mine tried operating a poultry farm in the Philippines. An american based company gave them the chickens and feed and all they had to do was take care of the chickens until they were big enough to eat. What my cousins didn't realize was that the feed contained hormones and other stuff that made the chickens grow at a much faster rate than nature intended. Many were flopping around on the ground because normally it takes about 4 months for a chicken to grow to adult size but the feed was jam packed with "stuff" to make the chickens grow in 40 days – just over a month. Their legs would break under the weight and everyday, my cousins had to remove dead birds because of the living conditions of so many in a small space. I think it took less than a year for them to give up the practice. They said that it was too cruel to the chickens.
Again, as I can no longer see my post.
I was an Animal Science major in college and commercially raised hogs for 3 years after that. Commercial, or factory farming, exists. Animals are locked in crates, where they cannot turn around. That being said, there can be a big difference between Family Farms and Commercial Farms. I think the nation should stop trying to eradicate all farming, and start applying decency back into the organizations that treat animals as byproducts to their profit. Family Farmers tend to view animals as animals, deserving a humane life. Not all Commercial/Corporate farms do this. I agree with the author, a conversation should be started. I also have the same question to the author as he posed to the detractor, "what evidence do you have that these factory farms don't exist"? I have worked at two, they exist. But, so do humane farms. All farming should not be lumped into one bucket.
So silly me, thinks I'm going to read an article about a farmer telling the truth about what he does and why I should not consider him evil. But what it turns into is him basically complaining that people are mean to him, then him talking down to his readers about how to have a conversation like adults. Why couldn't the author just prove why he isn't evil, and leave it at that? Because like most overpaid people who suck money for the government, we should feel bad for him because people are mean. Boohoo :(
No, he is saying we should use science and facts in discourse, not anecdotes, hearsay and nonsense. Of course that would mean not using entrenched emotional arguments and making decision with actual facts; something one side is incapable of.
Mr. Goodman, I agree with much of what you have to say. The two sides do need to talk to each other, and as you say, assumptions need to be laid aside. However, you make an assumption I consider to be unjustified when you include the Humane Society in a list of groups you describe as "groups that have a focused agenda to stop animal agriculture with little to no consideration for the farmer." Actually, the HSUS does not embrace a vegan agenda, and although several of its top officers are personally vegan, they have worked with, for example, Whole Foods to develop a certification program for humanely-raised meat. I myself eat meat but think the industry has a lot to answer for, and I support what I think is a balanced approach at http://fromanimaltomeat.com/. Would love to hear your thoughts.
@Angelique...if it is true that HSUS is not a vegan organization then why are there no recipes on the HSUS website that call for animal protein? http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/eating/recipes/recipes.html
Furthermore, why doesn't HSUS want to develop their own certification program? I mean HSUS seems to want to connect farmers and ranchers to local food consumers..."What does the HSUS have to do with local food? The HSUS is concerned that soon, consumers will have only one industrialized food option. As a result, the Humane Society is aligning its support with small and independent farmers and ranchers who employ sustainable practices. The Humane Society and its 11 million members think that small producers are better stewards of an animal’s welfare than big producers where large numbers of poultry, swine, cattle or other animal types are confined within a much smaller area than traditional pasture operations." http://www.steamboattoday.com/news/2012/apr/26/community-agriculture-alliance-local-food-deep-roo/
So why not develop an HSUS certified program for farmers and ranchers in your program?
I truly hope the practices large corporations are pushing on society won't starve billions a few short years from now if they prove unsustainable. Perhaps if they do, humanity will learn something. Considering it's all for profit, a very costly lesson.
"Corporate" farming is what is keeping people from starving NOW. "Local" farming has much lower yeilds.
We are far away from starving in this country. We have opposite problem – overeating and throwing more than 50% of our food in the garbage.
"If kids today are less healthy than their parents, it has nothing to do with where their food was grown,..."
Please, don't tell me that pesticide loaded veggies and fruits and hormones in milk and meat are having no impact on kid's health. Ever heard of antibiotic resistant bacteria?
Antibiotic resistance bacteria doesn't necessarily result from livestock or crops. It is also the result of humans taking prescriptions and not following the recommended treatment parameters. There are many factors that are to 'blame', but there is no need to say that farmers are the sole cause for so many bad things in this world.
Sonja, what does antibiotics and pesticides have to do with whether food was produced locally or across the country? Are you telling me that local farmers never use antibiotics or pesticides? I think you are confuing two completely different issues.
And no, it has been scientifically proven that milk from cows given hormones and milk from cows not given hormones is chemically indistinguishable. Also, birds and pigs are never given hormones.
Local farming does not necessarily have "lower yields". Regardless of the type or size of farm, it is local to someone. You are exemplifying the same idealistic dogma attitude that the author is trying to get passed. A pragmatic approach would do the world some good and would be a breath of fresh air.
Sorry. That was in reply to BS.
Amy,
Local farming means buying from smaller-scale farmers. It also means giving up economies of scale. So yes, it does mean it is generally going to be less efficient and have lower yields.
as a product of the farm and ranch country of south central Texas I have no problems with civility to animals. Ranching is not pretty at times(look at the drought cattle)and you gotta do what ya gotta do to feed the masses, the masses of witch know absolutly nothing about it.
Belief in animal cruelty is a first world problem. What about the rest of the world that is just happy to get any sort of meat in their diet? The welfare of food animals are primarily an American and Western European ideal. It is only an issue because we can afford to make it one.
I am curious about GMOs and pesticides. I feel like I am bombarded with information like "GMO crops have an internal pesticide that makes a rat's belly explode!" and "your children will be infertile if you don't buy organic!" from one side. The other side has the standard answer that none of these things are proven by science. Where can I find balanced information about GMOs and pesticides?
Um, on this one I think common sense would be your guide. If you have kids, did GMO's make you infertile? Would company that sold such food even survive, or would it be sued into bankrupcy? Aside from poor eating habits (which have nothing to do with this discussion), people are as healthy as they have ever been.
You grew up eating "non-organic" food. Did it hurt you?
That's was probably the most egregiously fallacious reasoning I've read in a few weeks.
If you can post evidence that GMO's have caused the type of harms described above, I'll make a $1,000 donation to PETA.
Rebecca, you bring up a great point and this is that we live in a society in which the person yelling the loudest is the one who wins. Sadly, there is not a single source of information that i can think of that has all the details. My advice would be to go to google scholar and start looking at published, peer reviewed science that is published in bona fide scientific journals and make up your own mind regarding GMOs.
Fabulous article. Kudos to the farmers in this country, they make us one of the richest countries on earth!
Ryan is absolutely correct in saying that minds need to be open on both sides. It is very easy for us farmer to get defensive in trying to preserve our way of life. I, myself, am trying to have a more open mind when it comes to these discussions. Something that many people don't seem to realize is that in many cases, especially in hog farming, the line between "commercial farm" and "family farm" is very grey.
Many, many of the hog barn operations that are run in this country are either contracted to families through businesses such as Cargill, or are family owned. Just because someone works at or owns a larger scale farm it does not mean they are a cooperation. My husband and father-in-law own and operate a 3000-head hog barn, yet we are very much a family farm. Working with larger cooperations provides security for the family farmer. Even a large farm with many employees can still be family owned and operated. These families get discounted for injured/sick animals. It is much more beneficial to farmers to raise healthy, strong animals than it is to abuse their animals. Big farms/cooperations can also be family farms, and also deserve/need support.
"Man with open mind let brain fall out onto floor" – Confusesus, 6th Century Philosopher
sad that people think that because someone 1200 years ago said ignorance was ok that it is still ok, johhny your're a moron
Sad that you think that's an actual quote form Confucious.
Issues that require intelligent discussion, i.e. our Food, the Economy, and the Direction of Government means in America, are all fraught with preconceptions and prior-emotional attitudes.
Some of this has developed as a direct response to the relationship of the individual to media, information, to some extent the Viet Nam War ( or our relation to information from our own Government ) and the emergence of the Multi-National-Corporate entity.
Because of outright falsehoods, and misinformation promoted by such organizations and entities, the public in the industrialized world often is inured to information from “…official sources…”.
Any honest representative of any large Government, Industry, or Organization is faced with this already pre-existing doubt regarding “…Any…” message they communicate.
In the old Soviet Union, if one read something in the paper, it was understood that the opposite was the actual Truth ( smile ).
For Profit entities that are not structured to have the interests of the individual at their core principal, instead they are governed by short term shareholder profits, and the demands of the corporate structure that sustains them, as a result it is understood that their communications are inherently skewed to their own advantage, regardless of what is being said.
So in this vein is the understanding that the vast amount of food production in this country is generated by Agri-Corps, and even what has been called Family Farms are often Million dollar operations because the demands of economy of scale requires this.
Small family farms that are not involved directly in some speciality process or crop have been dying in this country since the end of World War ll.
In this environment is it any wonder that both the Farmer Industry and those who oppose them, talk past each other.
While it is true that if a non-animal diet was the norm in this country the amount of water used would decrease, the amount of edible grains would increase, and the price of those grains would go down, ….but this is not going to happen.
If those of us as consumers who have issues with specific types of foods, or the manner in which they are produced, our best and most simple, and effective tool is to not consume them.
Forget the extreme comments. There are millions to be fed with good agricultural process and Monsanto and DuPont provide many beneficial products that contribute to this.
"... with little to no consideration for the farmer."
As the writer's job is ultimately to murder animals, he may as well have written "with little to no consideration for the firing squad." There is a serious difference, though. A firing squad doesn't kill as cruelly as most farm animals are murdered.
You are preaching in a way that author clearly defines. Get off your soapbox. It's not 'murder'. It's providing a meal to someone that is hungry.
OMG! How are they being murdered? No really, i want to know how exactly this is happening! Step by step, if you will please?
I think it is time to start making soylent green.
Dear Ryan and CNN,
Thanks for such a great article. This sentiment is very appropriate and similar sentiments could be expressed about many other "hot button" topics of the day. These days, the "truth" is whateve happens to be posted on a website that happens to agree with a person's preconceived notions.
A big part of the problem is that people tend to react very strongly when someone questions something they've believed their whole life. It's easy to dismiss facts, if you can dismiss the messenger of the facts as "radical" or "emotional" when they say something you don't want to hear. For example, we can take a very basic point I often try to make. Milk is for baby cows, not people. Mammals produce milk for their young, not for adults of other species to consume. This is very simple biology, but say that to someone who's been socialized to drink milk their entire life and suddenly you've become a fringe nutjob. We have good reason to believe that drinking milk is harmful to adult humans, but dare bring that up in conversation, and watch what happens to people's attitude. Animal agriculture (factory or not) has a range of problems associated with it that include environmental, ethical, and health concerns. Just as you challenge critics of farming to be pragmatic and unemotional, so must you be willing to challenge your own beliefs, without dismissing the criticism out of hand, by characterizing it as emotional or radical.
Re Milk: By your definition meat isnt designed to be eaten but rather as muscles used to move an animals body through the use of tendons....but we all know meat is also capable as doubling as a superb meal. Eggs are designed to pass along life...yet adults also manage to make a fine omlette out of them too. See how that correlates to milk?
Maybe you have a better science based argument but you didnt mention it.
Gonna go have a milkshake and burger now.
By your same 'facts only' criteria, your muscles could also be used to make a meal.
..Annnnd suspicious clown panty's reply is exactly the kind of knee-jerk put-down both the artice's author and this commenter are decrying. He/she accuses them of not using science, then uses none of their own, just some wildly false equivalence and sarcasm.
The people who feed us deserve our support. If the government ever backs away and lets the free market take over, we'll all suddenly realize the true value of what we eat.
A family farm can be a wonderful place, or a hell hole. It's up to the variety of people who run that farm. Just look around your neighborhood, and see the variety in lawn and home repair: same thing at the farm.
And one thing I know like gravity – corporations are a business, not people. If you think your corporation "feels" , then come over and talk to my cat.
If farmers are not evil, then why is Monsanto and DuPont making so much money off GMO farming?
Why is my skin blistered from living NEAR farms which spray with pesticides?
Why does my town have the highest rate of cancer in Canada, while at the sametime being the province of Nova Scotia's agricultural belt?
Farmers are evil, they sell us poisoned food and put poison in the town water supply.
They have a gun to their heads and "monsanto" is written on the side. Their situation is this: "Either I work with them, or they ruin me, someone else with weaker morals buys me out at a fraction of the value of my farm and they work with them."
If the farmers don't do what they're told, they starve. If your neighbors don't buy GMO foods, chances are they'll starve. Follow the money. You're directing your frustration at the wrong people.
Stephen, I am sorry about your experience. Does everyone round you have blistered skin? I have lived on or near farms all of my life and have not experienced that. I would suggest you have an allergy that may or may not be related to chemicals. Chemicals are used because they have so greatly increased the amount of food grown on a given parcel. It is the reason we have an abundance of inexpensive food. I personally an entirely organic; we have never ever used chemicals on the things we grow. We don't even use weed killer or bug spray in our flower beds. But most farmers are caught in an ugly cycle. They are dependent on the chemicals they use, fertilizer to increase production and pesticides to limit crop damage. Farmers used to fallow their fields, use manure from animals they raised and used to work their land. They also made a decent living selling their products to folks around them. With mechanization, they lost their source of fertilizer. When the 'miracle' pesticides became available, they lost the predator insects along with the crop pests. Every farmer in America would abandon chemicals today if he could make a living without them, but he can't.You can't return the draft horses, chicken flocks, family milk cow overnight. He is no more prepared for that than you are. He would go bankrupt on crops he couldn't sell while waiting 'good' bug populations to return. You will gladly pay $5.00 for a cup of coffee with a fancy name and bubbles on top, but you would never pay that for a luscious ripe tomato. And you would turn away in disgust at the worm damage on the end of your sweet corn. If that weren't the case, every farmer around you would gladly convert his farm to an organic vegetable farm and you would pay three times the super market price to buy healthy chemical free food. But you wouldn't. You like the idea in theory only. After two or three trips to the farm to pick up your expensive foodstuffs you would be back to your low cost supermarket buying over processed, over milled food packed in plastic and cans that contain cancer causing materials, handled by farm laborers who defecate in the fields and have no access to water to wash their hands and you don't even want to know how many insect and mouse/rat parts are allowed per ton of processed food! The farm neighbor you see is a much easier target than to solve the issue by buying direct from the farm.
Thanks for your view Ryan, I am an animal advocate and am against factory farming. However, I am also a meat eater and buy my meat & dairy from my local FAMILY farmer and I live in a city just outside of Detroit. What has to happen is that people have to do their own research just like with everything else. It's easy to take someone's else's view and copy and paste, its much more difficult to find your own answers. I'm sick of people who complain without merit, and take up causes they honestly know nothing about. I support my local agriculture because I want to know where my food is coming from, what they put on it and I want to support a local family in my state. There are options but people are so lazy it's just easier to go to the big box store or McDonalds than pay attention to your own health and local economy....
Local farms cannot possibly produce a significant portion of the food consumed in this country, let alone the huge quantities of food we export (without which, poor people in developing countries would be the first to starve). How many millions of people do you want to starve so that we can go back to this 1800s-style farming?
Buying food should never be seen as a hobby. Since the beginning of time, food has been the central hub of every community. Taking time and getting to know what you're eating and who is growing it does make for a healthier diet. This is the only way you can ensure that you're food is being grown to the standards in which every grower should abide by. With the growth of urban agriculture, independent farms, and CSA's, the need for your factory farms has dropped. People are taking the initiative to learn how to grow their own food. The world can be fed without factory farms, and those who disagree, I believe are afraid to do the work for themselves. Like a baby being weened off the bottle, people don't want the change. They don't want the responsibility. They want people to do it for them. Make the decisions for them. It's time to grow up, BS. Take responsibility for your actions. Take responsibility for the welfare of your community. If you thing the factory farms care about you, you're dead wrong. As far as the health standards, you are 33% more likely to contract an antibiotic and immune system bacteria through factory farmed food than locally grown organic. So, for your claim that there is no science, you're wrong. This is what I do for a living. I can argue this all day.
First off, I have a 60'x25' vegetable garden in my backyard that is "mostly" organic. I love growing my own food, and from that standpoint, I love "local" food. However, it is totally impractical for each family to do the work to ensure it's own food is safe. In fact, it's impossible, because the average family doesn't even know what it takes to ensure food safety. That is why we entrust a small group of experts to monitor and ensure food safety.
Also, with respect to your statistics about contracting "an antibiotic and immune system bacteria", please post the data. The term "antibiotic and immune system bacteria" doesn't even mean anything. Second, if the meat is cooked properly, the likelyhood of contracting any bacterial illness at all is basically zero.
The data came from the Stanford study last week that's been all over the news. Apparently you haven't read it? Oh, the meats in which you're talking about, the same study shows that organic meats are higher in Omega3 fatty acids.
You haven't even explained what an "antibiotic and immune system bacteria" is. You say you do this for a living, but there is no such thing as an "antibiotic and immune system bacteria".
I meant antibiotic and immune system resistant bacteria. You very well know what I meant. If you don't you might as well empty a couple rounds into your mouth, because you're genuinely stupid and weakening the gene pool.
I recently had someone screaming at me that I should never be allowed to volunteer at any of the animal rescue groups I am active with because I raise and slaughter my own poultry. All my birds are very humanely raised and spend a good long time free ranging and eating good quality feed. I butcher as humanely as possible and am very comfortable that they do not suffer. This makes me a horrible person in their eyes, but if I bought my meat from a store in plastic they wouldn't have ever said anythign against me.
You are lucky to have access to raise your own food! Don't worry what other people say. You are doing a service to the community and yourself by raising your own food.
Christie, I actually was told I was a horrible human being not too long ago because I went to a friend's farm and participated in slaughtering an animal and butchering it for that day's get together (less than 12hrs from slaughter to grill makes for some awesome food). My friend raises his animals organically, they are all free range, and it was done humanely. However, this person told me, and this is a direct quote, "You should go buy your food at a store like normal people do so that no animal ever has to suffer for that meat. Why must you kill an animal for meat? Stores have lots of meat they don't have to kill animals for it!"
I just shook my head and walked away.
Now you know why Ryan is writing this article. Because there are actually people out there that have NO IDEA where there food comes from. Have you ever seen a TRIX plant, or a Chicken Nugget bird? So much of agricultures issues are because most people are 2-3 generations removed from the farm, and things have changed dramatically since that time. Farmers need to better educate the general population.
Why would you have even engaged this ridiculous extremist? They represent NO ONE, they are a very small, militant, hate filled and typically deceitful portion of the population who have decided what they believe should be forced down all of our throats – by force if necessary and have proven it over and over again.
Groups like peta are their own worst enemies – the ignorance of the things they say, their moronic tactics – that they believe justified, only turn more people away from their cause and prove exactly why they have an extremely limited following. Common sense is not a trait they share with most of us.
Farmers are not evil, this ridiculous pseudo terrorists are!
My feeling is that the large corporations are more interested in the almighty dollar than how their cows or chickens feel during processing whereas the average farmer would take more of a vested interest. At the end of the day, I am still a carnivore, and the cows and chickens will be slaughtered in order for that to happen. Personally, when I hit the grocery store, I purchase the cage-free organic eggs, the organic chicken and beef broths, and the organic chicken because I don't want antibiotics and the like in my food. If it was as easy to buy organic beef where I live, I'd do that too. I also have a small garden to grow my own veggies, as well as my own herbs. Don't get me wrong, I still buy some items that come in boxes and cans, but there are things we can do with our dollar, as Our Tiny Earth said. There just needs to be more of us doing it. It's too easy to give in because it's right there at the grocery store. It's out of the way to go to the local farmer's market. But it's healthier, and it lasts longer.
Meat cannot legally be sold with anti-biotics in it. Your organic chicken and cheaper "non-organic" chicken have the same amount of antibiotics/residue in the meat. Zero. Chickens don't even get antibiotic injections. The take it through the food and the antibiotics are only in the digestive tract.
Also, hormones cannot be legally given to pigs or poultry, so your non-organic chicken also has ZERO un-naturally produced hormones.
I agree – but keep in mind that it takes two to tango. I am very interested in our food, from farm to table, and I follow many agricultural blogs and twitter accounts. I want to learn about farming from farmers, and I do agree that there is a lot of misinformation about agricultural science. I also agree that farmers are often blamed for things they have no control over.
However, I have encountered exactly the same brick wall when I try to engage farmers in a discussion of my own concerns about our food system. For instance, I am opposed to the requirement for milk in school lunch (currently, schools are not allowed to serve lunch without serving milk as the beverage.) As a minority who is lactose intolerant and whose son is lactose intolerant, I am more aware than many how difficult it is to pay attention in school with a stomachache. I would like to see alternatives made available to the children who need them, and I don't see any reason why any given food should get more consideration than any other food.
When I posted this statement on a farming website, the response from a dairy farmer was "do you have any proof that milk produces stomachaches and that stomachaches affect a child's ability to learn?" I provided information (from the US Library of Medicine, not from a biased site) about lactose intolerance and its prevalence in communities that depend on free lunch. I was told that my information was baseless, and directed to several sites run by dairy companies.
For the record, again, I wasn't asking for the elimination of animal products from lunch, but for an alternative to dairy for the kids who need it.
Michele, my concern with your story is that the government is telling us what we have to eat and drink. I'm not a radical or anything close to it, but it's scary that the school systems are under orders to serve milk. What if I had a child that was allergic to dairy products? I understand your situation since my nephews, who are school age, are lactose intolerant. Not that I agree with it at all, but how having Lactaid for those students with lactose intolerance? Wouldn't that make sense?
Michele, unfortunately the dairy farmer that you spoke with seems to be a bit uneducated on his/her own product. Either that, or they were quick to anger. Ryan's post speaks to both consumers and farmers as we are all human and are usually better at using our one mouth, than our two ears! I am sorry that you had to have that encounter with a farmer that was not willing to listen to you.
My family owns a calf ranch where we raise the baby calves for dairies in our community. I LOVE milk, but am also lactose-intolerant and I fully understand how lactose-intolerance could prevent your son from learned, as well as give him a major stomach ache!
Unfortunately the government controls what our kids can and cannot eat or drink in schools, and that is a shame. Especially when we live in a country where we have such an abundance of healthy foods & beverages that we can choose from.
I don't want to sound rude or mean, but just drink something else. Usually OJ is another option, or bring a water bottle for water. You or your child is not REQUIRED to drink milk. The government mandates that milk be available because it has shown overwhelming positive results in the growth of children. Keep in mind, more children mean more adults which means we still have a country.
As for the schools serving milk to lactose intolerant kids – so send your child to school with a little bottle of water or juice. Just because they serve it doesn't mean your child has to eat or drink anything you don't want them to. You can also send them to school with a sandwich and an apple instead.
my son IS allergic to milk. the school is very careful he doesn't eat it as he is only 6 and doens't always know.
The biggest point about food choices is folks being willing to make them! Food allergies exist, and I'm sorry there are those who still do not get that. Sometimes the hardest thing is communicating to find answers – and those answers may be a little different for each of us. I'm thankful every day that I don't have to deal with food allergies or sensitivities. The choices of milk or no milk seem to be easy enough but easy isn't always best. Seems like milk or water would be a choice most kids could make...and still wouldn't involve sodas and "junk food". I appreciate your views – thank you for sharing them.
While there are certainly some morally reprehensible farmers out there, I would like to think that the large majority of them are running their businesses in an ethical way. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for PETA. While I'm sure there are some supporters of that organization that are not extremists, the people that choose to represent themselves as PETA activists generally are. It's also worth pointing out that PETA and its animal shelters have some of the highest euthanasia rates in the country.
If people truly care about their food, and they should, just try to buy from local farmers whenever possible. The food is more likely to be fresh and free of chemicals, hormones, and antibiotics.
I agree with you. It is a shame that the best known advocate for animals is PETA. They are so extremist that the value of their message such as it is gets lost, and animals are then NOT helped.
I was an Animal Science major in college and commercially raised hogs for 3 years after that. Commercial, or factory farming, exists. Animals are locked in crates, where they cannot turn around. That being said, there can be a big difference between Family Farms and Commercial Farms. I think the nation should stop trying to eradicate all farming, and start applying decency back into the organizations that treat animals as byproducts to their profit. Family Farmers tend to view animals as animals, deserving a humane life. Not all Commercial/Corporate farms do this. I agree with the author, a conversation should be started. I also have the same question to the author as he posed to the detractor, "what evidence do you have that these factory farms don't exist"? I have worked at two, they exist. But, so do humane farms. All farming should not be lumped into one bucket.
The answer to these questions and more in the USA is to vote with your dollars. Pay attention, verify rumors and clarify rumors when your favorite friend sends up a chain e-mail that claims X,Y, and Z. There are many brands that I avoid whenever possible b/c i don't like the way they run their businesses or in some cases their politics. This doesn't require circus behavior or picketing at the local retail outlet, it can be accomplished in silence or via polite conversation with your friends and family. Lead by example first. Avoid excessive hand wringing or acting like one's hair is on fire. That gets the attention of the media but then I avoid media outlets that relies on gimmicks and half truths to fill their stream. And yes, every outlet has days like this but some do it day after day after day.
I agree. I do make my point with my pocket book. I just think it is important that the author not lump all farms together. By doing so, he is engaging in the same acts as PETA is. You can't say all farmers are not evil, anymore than you can say all farmers are evil. His argument would have been better received if it acknowledged the shortcomings of factory farms as opposed to making it sound like all animals are raised on family farms. These generalizations do not help the cause. Especially when "Factory Farms" is put in quotes as if it isn't a real scenario.
Elisabeth, I certainly don't believe that all farms should be lumped together, but then again the consuming public is sometimes unable to define the difference. I've worked in large cattle feedlots and understand they exist. The image that comes to mind for most people when "factory farm" is used, does not match reality, and that is why I will not refer to them as factory farms.
If a group really wants to change the industry, going after independent farmers is pointless. For one thing, unprocessed food is a commodity, and in most cases we cannot trace an item back to the farm where it originated. Threatening a mom and pop farm with boycotts is therefore completely ineffective. For another, independent farmers aren't typically abusive to animals, that's more attributed to megafarms, where policies are driven by profits and profits only. If you're trying to make the argument that killing animals for food is inherently cruel, good luck convincing a farmer of that.
The reality is, the only effective way to instigate change when it comes to food is either legislature or public opinion. If you want farmers to slaughter less animals, convince people to eat less meat. Don't cold call them and tell them they're bad people.
Is this the same PETA that executes approximately 95% of the dogs it "rescues", according to its own figures, and whose president uses medical products that were tested on live animals, because "the world needs a person like her to spread the message about medical testing on live animals". If these idiots have a problem with the treatment of animals by ranchers and hunters, which by the way is generally very humane, they should watch how animals die in the wild, slowly by disease, injury or starvation, or being torn apart, alive, by predators. The real problem we have in society is people shooting their mouths off without understanding what they are talking about.
The suggestions in this article could be applied to just about any political, economic and etc. discussion being held nowadays, regardless of the ideological or worldview of the participants.
Either they provide the meat or I will hunt it. Either way, I'm not going on a Vegan diet.
Meat is Murder! Tasty, tasty murder!
Spot on, and in my experience, far better articulated than the vast majority of the anti-meat movement could ever come up with.
There is no point arguing with fanatics of any agenda, whether it be pro or anti religious, anti-meat, or what not. If they can only find organizations well biased in their favor to back their claims, there is no argument that will get across. There is no compromise, only their desire to have you controlled to their standards. Best to just let them steam and vent, and then prepare your own articulate public stance.
Thanks for the encouragement and compliment Jeff. I wanted to use this example as what can go wrong and hope to work for more progressive conversations with the majority.
I always enjoy reading an article about people that think that all cattle ranching should be done away with everyone should become a vegan..no meat, no cheese, no milk,no eggs, no fish, no..... Now just where would we get leather for shoes? Human treatment of animals..yes. Stop raising cattle or chickens or pigs or fish or shrimp...NO.
What a novel idea. In a nutshell: Can't we all just get along. It's a shame that the answer is no.
I would the tell the author of this article not to worry about these zealots. Radical organizations like PETA want to force their "opinions" on everyone. In their perverted world view, if you don't march in lockstep with everything they espouse, you are a murderer of defenseless animals. The truth of the matter is, anyone with a IQ higher than a houseplant respects farmers for what they do. They work long hours, and for many of them they barely earn a living. I salute them, it's a difficult life, and something not many of us would do.
Norm, I wish we as farmers and those direcrtly associated with farming could say that we could forget about the "Zealots". However, these people are very well organized and have deep pockets. They have an agenda. They have the means to get their point across. Farmers don't. Heck we can't even get our major commodity groups together to agree on anything. So we farmers are starting to take a stand and voice our position (and trying to do it as rationally as we can).
Ryan, thanks for your article. I'm interested in animal welfare, but there definitely seems to be confusion about what constitutes a CAFO/factory farm situation versus an operation like yours. Is it the number of animals? The size of the place, or simply the methodology? It sounds also like it might be the difference between a family-owned farm versus one owned by a corporation (thus, a more intensive operation). Also, where are your animals processed (slaughtered)? I think if you could answer these questions, and also, explain to doubters how your farming is different from a CAFO type operation, you would go a long way to educate others. Thanks so much!
Thanks for the question, and it will definitely be added to my list of topics for more lengthy responses. The difference between the farm I grew up on and CAFOs where I have worked is not the number of animals. My family took care of more than 12,000 different cattle over the course of a year when I was a kid. But our animals weren't confined. By numbers alone, my family's farm could definitely be called a CAFO. But our cattle were not confined and received a large amount of their food from grazing pastures. I've worked in feedlots too, classic example of a CAFO for cattle. Cattle there are housed in pens where their food is fed by people working there, and receive a completely balanced diet from the feed trough. But those animals only remain in the feedlot for a few months out of their life span.
I come from a family of cattle farmers... with all due respect, and coming form that perspective, I sincerely believe that the production of animal based food and food products needs to come to an end. The toll that mass producing the enormous quantities required to meet an overwhelming demand takes on the environment, human health, and animal welfare is well documented. While I understand the plight of the modern-day farmer completely, I can't agree with keeping them around solely based on their individual needs when the welfare of the collective is being compromised so unabashedly. Basically, I see both sides. My heart wants to keep the tradition of animal farming alive for those who's lives it sustains, but my logically thinking brain realizes that with over 9 billion people on Earth, mass producing meat products to meet the ever increasing and astronomical demand is an unsustainable model and must be replaced.
The solution to the problem is simple. We can continue eating animal protein. We can continue enjoying the lives our parents did. The earth can be sustained. All that is required is to reduce our population to something more rational. We are breeding ourselves into extinction, clearly. Nothing could be more obvious. All of the measures we are taking will do nothing but delay the inevitable.
Notice I do not add "delay the inevitable if we do not...". I did not add it because I do not believe there will be an "if". I believe we as a species are going to become extinct.
I have enjoyed my life on this planet. I regret that so many will not be able to, but we are all foolish beasts. Our epitaph will be a dead planet.
Sad, but typical PR spin by someone from the Ag industry. They put these things out, almost drenched in the tears dripping from their eyes, to try and repair the imagine the majority of the farming community has fostered. It is filled with abuse, often excused as part of the process. Instead of playing the martyr maybe this farmer should admit there are problems (crates, mutilations, confinement, forced molting etc...) work to ban them and then clean up the rest of the industry. You can't just cry and spin your way out of documented abuse.
Sad, typical spin by the militant extremists who are incapable of engaging in a rational discussion.
You're post just further proves why people like you are ignored by the overwhelming majority of the population as deceitful, hate filled intellectual cowards.
DJH you are a hoot. Talk about hate. Wow, you are full of it and I mean that on many levels. Peace out old dude.
SueW, I would like to know your stance of the inhumane treatment of children, the elderly, of the starving in the 3rd world countries? I really find it hilarious, that we have so much dedication to the destruction of modern agriculture, but we turn a blind eye to the injustice of our own species. Might I suggest that you focus your venomous thoughts of agriculture into helping feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and care for the sick.
Thanks for the comment Sue, though I am not supported by any industry organizations. These are my thoughts after reading and experiencing so many attempts at conversation within the food community. If you want to know my feelings about animal abuse and those who commit it, visit my personal blog linked above.
As I heard one hog farmer say, many farmers have lost their sense of "pigmenship". Some people have been brainwashed or taught in a university that animal cruelty is the best means to making a profit. I know...it is difficult at times to think for yourself or evaluate your own blind spots...let alone extend an ounce of empathy to an animal.
I have not lost my sense of "pigmenship" and I am a University student being taught modern pig production practices. I can assure you, my professors and instructors number one stress is this: with out animals, you have no business. Further yet, the condition and well being of your animals is directly proportional to the monetary success you will gain. You could have 10,000 beaten up, bruised, and inadequately cared for pigs and you will not make near the profit as you would having 50 healthy, content, well cared for animals. It IS possible to combine passion for animals and well being with production in profit. The two go hand in hand. Modern technologies have their pros and cons, but you don't raise pigs if you don't love them.
Please read my comment above. Both conditions do exist. Regardless to what your teachers may say.
Elisabeth, i am sorry you had a bad experience with your "factory farms". I am guessing though, the cruelty you witnessed was probably done by a hired worker, and not by the actual owner himself (though I know how mad I can get when a pig doesn't go where I want it to). We like to pigeon hole factory farms as evil, and as a small farmer, I would like them to disappear so that I can farm more, but like it or not, the young college boy has it right. They are in business to make money, and though there maybe a few pigs harmed, the majority (like 99%) are well cared for because without healthy pigs, they don't get bought by the packers, and they don't stay in business long.
I understand how someone may have hard feelings toward University programs. Many do teach modern technologies and the latest advancements, but more importantly they give us the basic skills for students to be able to make their own decisions.
I've had several folks in the cattle community talk about the need for stronger "herdsmanship" and have taken several opportunities to learn from folks practicing "low-stress" and "holistic" herdsmanship. There are learning opportunities available for those willing and wanting to learn for every style of farming.
There are always two sides to every story. I do not believe farmers are evil. I do believe that there are corporations who incorporate unethical methods in their factory farming, thus giving the average farmer a reputation which is often far from reality. I believe in voting with your dollar. If you don't believe your food is produced ethically, don't buy it. If you want to be certain, buy local from farmers who you know and trust. Most are willing to work with you, and most are good people with strong ethical standards.
Buy from a farmer I know and trust? Are you kidding me? Buying food is not a hobby or a deeply emotional experience. Unless you're just bored with nothing to do, who has time for that?
Sure, there are the rare examples of animal mistreatment in "corporate" farms, but that is rare. The organizations listed in this article take the rare mistakes and act like they are the norm.
Personally, I think this article is spot on. For the most part, animal cruelty issues are overblown. And those that truly are issues are being addressed, even at the "corporate" farms, where "evil" corporations hear the demands of their customers and make changes for the sake of providing customers with the product they want.
Actually buying food is a deeply emotional experience if you care about what you put in your and your families mouths. It's in your best interest to find out where your food comes from and who is making money off of it. In fact it's imperative for the next generation who frankly will be the first one not to outlive their parents. Its not that hard to find a local farmer and buy meat, dairy and vegetables right from them, I live in Detroit and do it every week. I buy very little from grocery stores and big box markets...
There is zero scientific evidence to support this notion that "eating local" will keep my kid from dying younger than me or even have a negative impact on his health. Quite the contrary, life expectancy and health has improved greatly as agriculture has moved from the "old way" to the "new way". Not only that, but yields have gone up (while chemical use has gone down). Without the newer ways of farming, we would not be able to feed the 7 billion people on this planet.
The problem with making this so emotional, is that you have fooled yourself into not paying attention to the facts. If kids today are less healthy than their parents, it has nothing to do with where their food was grown, but rather their choices to eat unhealthy foods. I grew up eating "factory farmed" food, yet you claim that I'll live long, but my kid will die young? Give me a break.
Why is it wrong for folks to know their farmer and buy direct? Isn't that the point the author has made pretty consistently – ALL have food choices and YES it should be balanced emotion and facts. To say it isn't emotional just isn't totally accurate either. Does a meal taste good or does it taste efficient? People take time to shop for cars, computers etc – why *not* food? If it matters to people they *should* make those choices! If it matters they'll find a way to buy direct. And for many it's not that big of a deal so the store is fine. Please don't demean choices – and farms providing them! – not all base decisions just on quantified figures.
Actually, I do want to apologize for my comment. Although I stand by what I said, I think I over-reacted to your statement. As I re-read it, I see nothing wrong with what you said. Please accept my apology.