Farming Propaganda ...

The other day I happened to be making a delivery during 1040 WHO's "Big Show" (that's the agricultural show if you're scoring at home). It was a rare occurrence because usually I'm safe and sound inside the store or eating lunch during that show, but the other day I was able to catch just a tiny tidbit of it while they were broadcasting from the "Commodity Classic" or something like that and using it as an opportunity to share their disagreement and possible dislike of Michael Pollan, Food, Inc., and other things along those lines. I would consider myself a fan of the "Big Show" even though I may disagree with them from time to time. And, I really have no problem with them refuting things from Food Inc. or Mr. Pollan ... I mean that is the beauty of our country right ... opinions ...


What really struck me though is that each side of the "battle" is accusing the other of spreading propaganda. Which lead me to the definition of propaganda ... according to Merriam-Webster ::

• the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
• ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

The crazy thing about that definition is that whether or not something is truth is not a part of propaganda. It is all about using a certain set of facts or information in order to sway people to your way of think. With that definition of propaganda one could say that every issue in the world right now has propaganda on both sides of that issue. That is why the Corn Refiners Association is putting out this commercial and my King Corn friends have made this spoof. It is why Mr. Pollan has written The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals and The Center for Consumer Freedom has published articles like this, this, and this.

Do you know what I think of all that? I think I enjoy reading Mr. Pollan's books and articles. I think I enjoy listening to "The Big Show" even when I disagree with them ... even when I disagree strongly with them. I think that there is probably some problem with High Fructose Corn Syrup and that I probably eat too much of it with out thinking about it. At the same time I think it's funny that the spoof by my "King Corn" friends uses tobacco to prove their point ... some would say that their commercial was also an anti-tobacco spoof (I think that is ironic). I think that we should be paying more for food and I think that those that argue for the need of industrial agriculture because of starvation worldwide should be spending more time overseas helping feed people instead of writing about it or fighting for a system that may or may not be helping those really in need ... (I think a lot as you can see) ...

But, do you really want to know what I think? I think I raise great pork chops, bacon, roasts, burgers, and all sorts of other goodies. I think I raise food that has a taste that you won't find at your local box store. I think I love when I hear former conventional confinement hog farmers lament that the pork chops that they were raising tasted nothing like the beauties they ate when they were a kid ... his honest to goodness description of the pork chops he was raising ... "cardboard" ... that's what he said! Basically I think I raise some great tasting pork and beef (and eventually lamb and poultry) and I think everyone should buy some because they will love the way it tastes and will find out that meat does have taste that makes your mouth water. 

How about that for your daily dose of propaganda. What do You think? Does this farm propaganda frustrate you? Make you think? Or maybe make you tune it out? I know that I just want to continue raising great food in a great way as long as there are people that appreciate it and love it!

New Hog Confinement Video

Here is the headline from FoxNews.com yesterday :: "Undercover Video Shows Pig Farm Employees Allegedly Abusing Pigs". The first lines from the article read, "A disturbing video released exclusively to Fox News by the animal rights group Mercy for Animals (MFA) shows a string of alleged abuses at one of the nation's largest pig farms, including footage of employees picking up baby pigs and tossing them like footballs." And, then there is this video...



My response to the video ... Honestly, my response was just indifference. Not that I thought that everything that was going on at that farm was acceptable, but I have seen these undercover videos before and the response is usually the same. Most people are usually horrified, the company is horrified that the practices are happening and vow to take care of it, media focuses on it for a days news cycle, and then everyone goes out and purchases pork from the supermarket. That is the American response to so many horrific things we see in the media. It impacts us a moment, and then we move on.

No, the animal "mishandling" (that was the word they used) that was going on in this video was not the most upsetting thing for me. In my mind the most upsetting thing was the answer that the folks of Mercy for Animals came up with. Their answer ... cut pork out of your diet. How about this for an answer ... seek out a local farm that raises their pigs as pigs not production units and continue to eat great pork!

In fact (time for a shameless plug) we have bundles of pork available for sale right now. Our pigs were raised outside in the fresh air with access to water, feed (an all vegetarian diet for them so that should make Mercy for Animals happy), and of course dirt/mud. So, instead of cutting pork out of your diet I suggest just changing your purchase point ... (end shameless plug)

More on N1H1 (Swine Flu)

I had a few more thoughts this morning as I was reading this article on the swine flu outbreak and thinking about the comments from yesterdays post. As I said yesterday I thought it was only a matter of time before there was a connection made between confinement hog houses and the flu outbreak, regardless of whether or not the connection was real. And, I am not the least bit surprised to see that there are countries out there that have placed restrictions on American pork because of this outbreak.

High density corporate confinement agriculture is beginning to get a bit of a black eye around the world. All you have to do to realize this is take a look at all of the laws that are being put in place to change the way confinement farming is done. And, all of this is happening despite efforts of conventional agriculture groups to let the public know that their way is the best way for the livestock, the farmers, and the consumers.

But, there is one thing that is missing I believe. Sure the average consumer doesn't appreciate the smell and look of large confinement buildings. They don't like the thought of pigs being raised tightly packed together in pens. And, they are even willing to pass laws by a significant majority (sometimes) to restrict the use of crates and other things in farming.

What is missing though (I think) is the majority of people willing to pay a higher price for humanely or naturally raised pork. Until that happens they can pass all the laws they want and restrict confinement buildings in their areas, but confinement agriculture will not go away. And, each time there is an outbreak like this one (regardless if it is related to confinement buildings) the large confinement corporations will take the blame and pork prices will fall impacting farmers big and small.

At least those are my rambling thoughts this morning...

The Swine Flu

I figured it would just be a matter of time before I found an article looking into the link between the Swine Flu and confinement agriculture on the front page of one of the news websites. And, that time came this morning for FoxNews.com. In an article titled, "Swine Flu's Ground Zero? Residents Point to Farm," from the Associated Press we see the connection being made by a community of people somewhat close to Mexico City. Their contention is that they have been experiencing problems for a few months now because of hog confinement farm located about 5 miles north of their town.

The article is full of the townspeople blaming the farm, the farm saying that they were doing everything up to snuff, health experts saying that it could be the cause, and agricultural people saying that there are no signs of sick pigs in Mexico. Really the article gives no conclusion either way and just throws out the possibility that this is the case.

What really hit me though was this quote from the farm manager, "All of our pigs have been adequately vaccinated and they are all taken care of according to current sanitation rules." I do not know if the swine flu outbreak in Mexico was caused by confinement farms (I wouldn't be surprised if it was and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't), but to me this statement says a lot about our culture.

We have become a culture that wants to do enough to get by and then no more. We no longer love to follow the spirit of the law, but are content to just stick to the letter of the law. Our business models very often factor in quality of life and benefits for the community, they only look at the bottom line.

And, when those ideas are applied to a farm with 15,000 pigs spread out between 18 confinement buildings I think we can have some problems. What happened to the idea that we wanted to do things as best as we could ... provide the best jobs ... the best work environment ... the best pigs ... and the best pork?

What is your take on the Swine Flu outbreak?

The Benefits of Large-Scale Agriculture...

You will notice that this is a fairly late post today. It was a busy morning that included a trip to check out some storm shelters ... something that is important to think about during this season of the year! Since it is so late in the day I can't take too much time blogging today, but I would like to share a link to a recent article from "Feedstuffs", which is "a weekly newspaper for agribusinness". The title of the article is, "Large-Scale Structure has Benefits," and you can read it for yourself by taking the link above.

Here are a few of my favorite (I use that word loosely) quotes from the article:

• "ANIMAL agriculture's structure has changed "dramatically" in the last 20 years as cattle feeding and hog and poultry production have transitioned to fewer but larger operations, but the change has benefited sustainability, producers and consumers, according to Dr. James MacDonald, chief of the U.S. Economic Research Service's (ERS) Agricultural Structure & Productivity Branch."
• "However, he acknowledged that the impact also has included decreased competition and intense concerns related to air and water pollution."
• "As for size, he said the "midpoint" for a typical dairy in 1987 was 80 head, whereas today, it's 550 head; similarly, feedlots went from 17,500 head to 35,000 head per yard, hog operations went from 1,200 head to 30,000 head and chicken complexes went from 300,000 birds to 600,000 birds."
• "MacDonald said the fewer-but-larger trend also applies to packers/processors, with basically four major buyers of fed cattle, two to four major buyers of hogs and a handful of chicken integrators that contract production with local farmers. However, he said the marketplace has remained competitive."

I suppose it is an interesting point and I guess I can't really argue with many of the facts that are stated in the article. What can be argued though I believe is the suppositions that the article comes to ... such as the statement that says large-scale agriculture is more sustainable. What do you think about this article?

Crates, Pens, Huts, or Pasture?

As I was sifting through some threads over on Homesteading Today I came across an interesting thread about the very question I posted in the title of this post. The original poster obviously raises on quite a bit bigger scale than I do and it sounds like he had recently tried some pen farrowing after being used to crate farrowing. The conclusion he comes to is that at his farm he is better off with crates and maybe some turnout pens because he doesn't like the loss of pigs.

I think there are some valid points brought up on each side of the argument. Here are some of the interesting comments from the thread (of course you should check out the whole thing):

• "Part of my decision to use pens was that the farrowing crates are so upsetting to people and I have so much business traffic through the farm, I'm over that now.... hate me!!!!! I'm not goin to watch pigs die to be green and PC...."
• "I think there needs to be an open discussion on why crates are inhumane but low weaning averages are acceptable... low weaning numbers = high piglet mortality.... 100% surival should be the goal....... 95% should be a reality."
• "Keeping hogs in a barn has much higher overhead costs than pasturing. You've got the barn cost, upkeep and maintenance, labor, etc. I'm willing to accept up to 20% mortality due to my lowered inputs."
• "These pens are the same pens that have been used in past generations, when litters were just smaller....In the US the number of weaned pigs has gone up by 3 in 10 years..... I just don't think, the modern genetics of sows can keep up their numbers in pens...."
• "Pig mortality is a trait that can be bred away from. If you have an inattentive sow that lays on pigs, cull her. Keep the sows that don't lose pigs, and keep their daughters. One mistake that I think the farming industry as a whole has made for years is being production driven instead of profit driven. Higher weaning numbers or higher finished pounds does not automatically equal higher profits. How much did your inputs have to go up in order to gain the higher production? If you can wean fewer pigs and finish fewer pounds with dramatically lower inputs, profits may very well be higher than with the higher production numbers."

So, what are your thoughts? I just watched an online farm tour of a pasture farrowing farm that runs 15 or 16 sows per acre. They farrow in huts (the huts are moved inside a hoop building in the winter) and he does lose about 2 per litter or so I believe he said. Despite the losses this is the way he has been doing it for a long time and this is the way he wants to continue because it works best for his farm (the pastured pigs are part of his crop rotation). He mentioned that he can make $2,400 per acre with his pasture farrowing operation when he has pigs in the fields.

As I just mentioned, I would love to hear your thoughts on this debate. There were some interesting points made on either side of the issue. I do have some strong opinions, but I just thought I would throw the information out there and see what everyone thinks.

A High Failure Rate

A slightly late post today. We were at my Uncle's last night and my wife convinced me (not that difficult really) that since we were at the farm everyday now with the pigs and the building we should have some chickens. Sooo..... I spent extra time at the farm this morning fixing up our chicken pen and getting them sort of settled. I'll have to do a little more work to get everything in tip-top shape again (since we haven't used it for a while), but we should have eggs pretty soon. Also, we still have five chickens at my Dad's ... we will bring them back up once we are out there during the day and evening so we can let them roam during the day.

Now, back to the Allan Nation column that I began writing about on Monday...

"The start-from-scratch career path now has a failure rate similar to professional sports. Farming's problem with kids today is we don't tell them the truth."

That is what Mr. Nation reports John W. Phipps (of Top Producer Magazine) has to say about today's state of farming in the United States. But, Mr. Phipps doesn't believe that it is totally hopeless for the young farmers of today. He believes there is a place for them in "agrarian agriculture". That is the term he used, and I'm not too sure I like it ... but, oh well ...

Anyways, this agrarian agriculture that he is talking about is exactly what this blog and so many that read this blog are all about. Mr. Phipps defines agrarian agriculture as, "Producing for a market that values how a commodity is created (organic, local, free-range, etc.), is labor intensive and sensitive to public perception." Of course that is something that many who read this blog already know, but it is always great to hear this type of thinking from a "top producer".

Maybe the tide is turning? What are your thoughts?

Young Farmers Need Not Apply

This little snippet from Allan Nation's latest editorial (the one I referenced yesterday) really got my mind churning,

"The net result, he said [the 'he' in this case is John W. Phipps], will always be an ever-smaller need for replacement farmers. This huge implication for young people who would like to farm but aren't in line to inherit a large farm.

'Put bluntly, agriculture's problem with young people is we don't need them,' he said."

Here is what I think ... that statement is true ... that statement is scary ... that statement reiterates how difficult I think this farming thing can be ... and to top it all off it makes really feel for the students that I work with that have a desire to farm. Just a couple weekends ago I was chatting with a recently graduated high school student from my church who has a HUGE desire to come back and work on the family farm, but with only a few hundred acres does he even have much of a fighting chance (if he continues with what he knows).

Mr. Nation also relates this statement from Mr. Phipps,

"He said throughout his whole farming career he had heard that X percentage of farmers were 65 years old and would soon need replacing. And yet, due to the constant increase in scale there has never been a shortage of farmers."

Now, don't get me wrong I'm not advocating keeping farms small just because they are pretty and romantic. Or that we need to make sure there is a farm for everyone that wants to farm. As with all things I think there needs to be a high level of quality, but I believe there is something dangerous behind these "titan farms". As Mr. Phipps said, there is a problem when you have "ever-increasing productivity in an industry with a fixed land base."

So, do you think we can turn back the clock on this trend on a large scale? I think that those looking to grab a niche (maybe more on that tomorrow) can find a place, but will we just continue to have farms that are ever increasing in size or will the bubble burst? I would love to hear your thoughts!

Titan Farmers

As I read "Allan's Observations", the editorial column by Allan Nation in The Stockman Grassfarmer I was introduced to a term that I had never heard before, "Titan Farmer". The entire column was actually great and full of tons of little nuggets, but I think I'll tackle them one at a time over the next few days ... for now I just want to discuss this interesting term, "Titan Farmer".

So, what is a "Titan Farmer"? Well a "Titan Farmer" is a farmer who farms between 20,000 and 40,000 acres of land, and are even planning on getting bigger. Mr. Nation writes, "...thanks to super-sized machinery and resulting low labor costs per acre these farmers can afford to bid cash-lease land away from farmers in the thousand acre category..." And to tell you how serious these guys are there is even mention of a cash-lease on 2,700 acres right here in my home state of Iowa that went for $400 an acre ... UP FRONT!

There is the future of farming. One of these "Titan Farmers" even told Top Producer Magazine that he has two full-time marketing people that have the sole purpose of finding land to rent and keeping the land owners happy. They use these two marketers to find full-time farmers that are farming farms in the 1,000 acre range or so and then buy them out and hire them to work for the Ultra-Mega-Super-Duper Farm (maybe I just coined a new farming term).

With all of that in mind I believe one of the most interesting quotes from Mr. Nation's column, and subsequently from a column by 1,700 acre farmer John W. Phipps, is this:

"Phipps said in his spring column in Top Producer that there has been little discussion about the long-term impact of an ever-increasing productivity in an industry with a fixed land base."

There is a lot to think about there, and to tell you the truth there is a lot there that causes me to pause... As I said this months column was full of little nuggets, so the story does not stop here.

Hog Farmers Feeling the Pinch

It is beginning to feel like wherever I turn I am reminded of the importance of diversified farming and the problems associated with the current specialization the industrial farm model. My latest affirmation came from an article titled, "Hog price pain is different this time around," from the "Iowa Farm Bureau Spokesman." My father-in-law dropped off quite a few issues when he stopped by this week and I found a lot of interesting articles. But, this one caught my eye right away.

As you may know, if you read this blog regularly or semi-regularly, we are planning on getting some hogs this summer. Maybe not the breeding stock that I would like to eventually get, but at least some feeder pigs that we can finish for ourselves and a customer or two. We just want to get a feel for pastured pigs and finishing them. But, whenever I talk to local farmers about getting pigs (or farming in general) I get the same response ... "There is no money in pigs (or farming for that matter)."

According to the article the pain that hog producers are feeling in this most recent price down swing is worse than they have felt in other down times (early 90's and late 90's). This is because there has been a huge shift in the hog farm structure even in just the last 10 years. In 1998 when prices dropped to the bottom it was tough on farmers, but they liquidated herds, tightened their belts, and made it through the short-lived down turn. The difference is that 10 years ago many of the hog farmers were at least slightly diversified and were growing their own corn for feed.

Now hog farmers are facing a double whammy even though they are again liquidating their herds. Most hog farmers have specialized to the point that they no longer grow their own feed and must buy in everything. This puts them in the position that they feel the pinch from low prices and from the high input costs (feed, fuel, and equipment).

I think the most interesting thing about this article article is the conclusion that it comes to. John Lawrence, who is a livestock economist at Iowa State University, concludes that there will be better times for hog farmers by the summer of 2009. Basically he notes that herds have been reduced and demand is seeing a slight up-tick, so things should get better eventually.

To me that shows a MAJOR flaw in the current agricultural mindset from the farm economists all the way to the farmers. If we look back throughout history and see that these price down-swings were not as tough on farmers when they were diversified as opposed to when they are specialized shouldn't we learn something? Maybe we should learn that farm diversification is the key?

Well, we should probably learn that, but then it wouldn't fit the "great" industrialized model we have now in agriculture! (That is my very sarcastic statement for the day)

Young Iowans Don't Like the Stink...

"Livestock pollution turns off young Iowans" is the title of an article by Brian Depew from the Jan. 13th edition of the Des Moines Register. I was turned on to this article by Kelli of Sugar Creek Farm. Lately she has be doing some "Ag Speedlinking" with links to lots of interesting articles. In fact if you haven't been over to her blog I encourage you to check it out just so you can keep up on some of the current issues in farming. But, back to this article...

Mr. Depew grew up in Laurens, IA and currently lives in Nebraska where he works for The Center For Rural Affairs. But, in this article he is writing about a recent trip back to the family farm in Iowa. His family farm will soon be within three miles 13 "industrial livestock" buildings and he points to that as one of the reasons that young Iowans are not staying in the state. He recounts some of the recent efforts by the state to keep young Iowans in Iowa (basically people like me) and offers that one of the reasons people around my age and younger are leaving is because they are looking for "places with vibrant natural resources, thriving communities and healthy economies". He contends that they can't find those things in Iowa because our state government has sat by as the Big-Agri Business has entrenched itself in the state. Also, this embracing of the big business agriculture has squeezed out the small farm families.

While I do agree with that last sentence to a point (I'm not sure I want to blame just the government, because I know a lot of people that have benefited from those big farms), I'm not sure if I fully appreciate or agree with his main idea ... that young Iowas have left because confinement agriculture has ruined our natural resources, killed our small towns, and ruined our economy. I have lived my entire life in Iowa and have no desire to live anywhere else, but all my friends that have left have gone to larger cities or suburbs that offered a completely different lifestyle than Iowa. Not a better lifestyle, just different. I will admit that confinement agriculture does do its damage when it gets out of control and never will I support it as the right choice, but I'm also not going to legislate how people farm ... if I want to change the opinions of people I will do it by providing a great alternative (I think I can).

As I mentioned I agree with much of the ideas behind this article, but I'm not sure if I can take the entire message. Besides, since when did Nebraska become so great :) (really just kidding!!!). I do believe that the changing agricultural world has changed the life and economics of our small towns, but it will take more than legislative reform to change this. It will take people opting out of the "big systems" and beginning to buy locally. It will take farmers willing to do things differently and invite the cities out to their farms to experience, shop, and eat. It will take a cultural shift ... and those always take time and effort, not government.

I appreciate what Mr. Depew wrote and I encourage you to click on the link to the article. It is a nice article with a lot to think about and the responses from readers at the bottom of the article bring out a lot of back and forth discussion. I will say that I hope Mr. Depew buys local food and supports the small farmers in his area ... I do believe he has a genuine concern for rural America because of his job so he just might already be buying local.