This time of year is a busy one on the farm. People are switching from maintenance odd jobs to field work, and filling in for others during harvest and hunting seasons. Everything needs to be winterized, repaired, and bedded for the cooler weather. The heaters are put on and plugged in again. The corn dryer is serviced, and the bins are cleaned and swept, awaiting the new crop.
Tuesday, we also underwent the changing of our government, with the national, state, and local election. Even though we now have the same president, his role has changed from a new upstart making inroads in world of politics, to a seasoned veteran leader. He is now unafraid of the repercussions of his decisions with regard to the electoral college. Compromise and collaboration now become possible in his eyes, as he ultimately will not have to answer to the voters again. He is looking to move forward. The republican candidate has gone from a high profile politician, back to a business and family man.
In my job, I have transitioned into less of a secretary, and more of a vital decision maker. I have spent one year on the job, and am beginning to have a better grasp of what I am facing. I can see the merits and pitfalls my education has given me. I am in a period of adjustment, gathering my tools and resources; putting them to use in new combinations.
As an industry, agriculture is in the process of changing roles. It is moving towards a period of openness and away from the recent years of perceived deceit. Farmers are vocalizing their beliefs and showing the work they are doing to the public. They are embracing technology, society, and the environment. We are learning to work with what we have and defend our positions. We are realizing that the bottom line is effected by public perception more strongly than it used to be. We too, are moving forward.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Measuring Success
In the past year I have had the opportunity to meet many other pork producers from around the country. It has humbled me to know that there are some really intelligent, forward-thinking people in the Pork Industry that are so well educated and well versed in the industry that work in production. It gives me faith in the pork industry to grow and adapt. Upon meeting these various people, I ask about there operations, like most farmers do on first introduction. After figuring out the size, scope, and type of operation other farmers have, I begin to ask about there company culture; culture is the motivation behind the way companies make money. Without the motivation to do the job, it won't be finished, or done well.
Most of the farming community tends to have a facts and logistics based culture. We thrive on being about to coordinate load times, plan the planting and harvest figures, using the newest proven science to make selection decisions. It has given us the opportunity to select for efficiency in our management and in our products. We value the practical and tangible. We tend to measure how much each part of the process can produce. For example, our Pigs/Sow/Year (PSY) bonus that is fairly standard in the industry. It is a very logical measure of how much we get out of each sow in the herd, but is it really getting us towards our goal of making money? Farmers can see the obvious drawbacks to the system, because it doesn't take into consideration how much product we get to market, or the quality of the piglet produced. A farm with a lower PSY could produce more #1 rated market hogs.
We need to look at our production as a complete system. This entails looking at how we generate revenue; selling pounds of pork. We really don't care how many head we produce, as long as its within our contracted amount, but rather how many pounds we are sending to market. It's about throughput, not about volume in the system. By managing to maximize the quality of our end product, we can also maximize our revenue.
Most of the farming community tends to have a facts and logistics based culture. We thrive on being about to coordinate load times, plan the planting and harvest figures, using the newest proven science to make selection decisions. It has given us the opportunity to select for efficiency in our management and in our products. We value the practical and tangible. We tend to measure how much each part of the process can produce. For example, our Pigs/Sow/Year (PSY) bonus that is fairly standard in the industry. It is a very logical measure of how much we get out of each sow in the herd, but is it really getting us towards our goal of making money? Farmers can see the obvious drawbacks to the system, because it doesn't take into consideration how much product we get to market, or the quality of the piglet produced. A farm with a lower PSY could produce more #1 rated market hogs.
We need to look at our production as a complete system. This entails looking at how we generate revenue; selling pounds of pork. We really don't care how many head we produce, as long as its within our contracted amount, but rather how many pounds we are sending to market. It's about throughput, not about volume in the system. By managing to maximize the quality of our end product, we can also maximize our revenue.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Adaptive Ag
Last night was my local Farm Bureau Annual Meeting. We had the usual delicious food, door prizes, and of course the usual speakers from different levels and committees of the organization. The information they bring to meetings is sometimes reflective, other times forward looking, but generally it gives an idea to the types of problems farmers across the county, state, and country are facing.
Most of the reports focused on what we accomplished in the past year, but one speaker brought up the downfall of a completely grass roots organization: reaction type is fast enough in the current political climate. In Michigan, the executive and legislative branches are run by the same political party. Resolutions involving farm legislation are being passed so quickly and easily, that items which couldn't be issues last year are now being voting upon, and Farm Bureau is not able to change its endorsement or in some cases even place an endorsement in the first place because there is nothing referencing it in the Farm Bureau policy booklet.
This is a real problem, because our organization isn't as flexible or reactive as it should be in order to come to the table for big discussions. However, we are hearing a complaint that tells us our legislature is listening to us, and they want more! The candidates the Farm Bureau and farmers are supporting really want the input of agriculture, and are thinking about our businesses. Our collective voice is important and it is desired. We have an audience; a powerful one at that.
Another speaker referred to looking in unorthodox places for Allies in regulations in agriculture. In California, farmers and union members band together because they both value the freedom to make decisions about their industries. In New York, farmers and self proclaimed environmentalists have worked together against some of the HSUS policies they see as unfair, or misinformed. As a whole, agriculture has to make an effort to listen, ask questions, and find the common ground. It is out there and we can find it, as long as we can put aside our preconceived notions of the other person's views.
Most of the reports focused on what we accomplished in the past year, but one speaker brought up the downfall of a completely grass roots organization: reaction type is fast enough in the current political climate. In Michigan, the executive and legislative branches are run by the same political party. Resolutions involving farm legislation are being passed so quickly and easily, that items which couldn't be issues last year are now being voting upon, and Farm Bureau is not able to change its endorsement or in some cases even place an endorsement in the first place because there is nothing referencing it in the Farm Bureau policy booklet.
This is a real problem, because our organization isn't as flexible or reactive as it should be in order to come to the table for big discussions. However, we are hearing a complaint that tells us our legislature is listening to us, and they want more! The candidates the Farm Bureau and farmers are supporting really want the input of agriculture, and are thinking about our businesses. Our collective voice is important and it is desired. We have an audience; a powerful one at that.
Another speaker referred to looking in unorthodox places for Allies in regulations in agriculture. In California, farmers and union members band together because they both value the freedom to make decisions about their industries. In New York, farmers and self proclaimed environmentalists have worked together against some of the HSUS policies they see as unfair, or misinformed. As a whole, agriculture has to make an effort to listen, ask questions, and find the common ground. It is out there and we can find it, as long as we can put aside our preconceived notions of the other person's views.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Countless Opportunities
Yesterday, I went to my local chapter's FFA Alumni meeting. It was pretty standard fare, sparsely attended, but everyone there is eager to help the kids and really had a passion for the work of the FFA in general. We talked about the kids we are sponsoring to attend National Convention, and the other fall conferences, and we were decidedly disappointed at the lack of participation for National Convention this year. Kids either couldn't come up with the small sum of money they have to pay, didn't fill out the forms, or simply were not old enough to be eligible to attend, due to the Chapter limiting attendance to upper classmen.
It's hard for me to see the program struggle, as it meant so much to me as a student. I spent hours memorizing speeches, learning my officer position duties and stations, perfecting my resume, and filling out award applications. I learned about agriculture, but I also learned practical life skills. Out of everything I did in high school, my time in the FFA helped me the most through college. I knew how to present myself publicly, how to write an engaging speech, and how to plan large projects and events so they would go smoothly. Out of all of my schooling since then, I still feel these skills may be some of the most important.
One thing that can sadly be common in my community is the lack of support from other local businesspeople and farmers who do not support our youth learning through FFA. They believe that because it isn't an "academic" area, it isn't as important as other higher learning programs. Some farmers see it as a waste of time, and don't encourage their kids to get involved. I feel frustrated because it is an easy way for agriculture to connect with the community. In our town, the FFA hosts a pancake brunch, with hundreds of people in attendance. It's a great opportunity to connect with people who don't see agriculture in their daily lives. With more people becoming separated from the farm everyday, this connection time is increasingly valuable. I encourage all farmers to get involved with the youth in their communities, helping them to learn about things that happen on the farm. Whether its through 4-H, FFA, Ag in the Classroom, or any other type of community outreach, it will be worth the time you put in.
It's hard for me to see the program struggle, as it meant so much to me as a student. I spent hours memorizing speeches, learning my officer position duties and stations, perfecting my resume, and filling out award applications. I learned about agriculture, but I also learned practical life skills. Out of everything I did in high school, my time in the FFA helped me the most through college. I knew how to present myself publicly, how to write an engaging speech, and how to plan large projects and events so they would go smoothly. Out of all of my schooling since then, I still feel these skills may be some of the most important.
One thing that can sadly be common in my community is the lack of support from other local businesspeople and farmers who do not support our youth learning through FFA. They believe that because it isn't an "academic" area, it isn't as important as other higher learning programs. Some farmers see it as a waste of time, and don't encourage their kids to get involved. I feel frustrated because it is an easy way for agriculture to connect with the community. In our town, the FFA hosts a pancake brunch, with hundreds of people in attendance. It's a great opportunity to connect with people who don't see agriculture in their daily lives. With more people becoming separated from the farm everyday, this connection time is increasingly valuable. I encourage all farmers to get involved with the youth in their communities, helping them to learn about things that happen on the farm. Whether its through 4-H, FFA, Ag in the Classroom, or any other type of community outreach, it will be worth the time you put in.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
The Great Debate
For the past year, I have been taking a class at the University of Illinois on bringing business into pork production. In my last post, I talked about how farmers need to look at their business as a manufacturing process, although consumers may not agree. Many farmers look at the role of uneducated consumers in the market and become terribly frustrated. At my class I talked to two other pork producers who were incensed at the idea of having to convert their gestation stall barns into pen spaced barns. Another farm in the class just put up a new 1,000 sow stalled barn. When I heard these things, I immediately thought, have you guys looked at the newspaper, or turned the TV on in the last year?
McDonald's, Campbell's Soup, Burger King, and countless other businesses have pledged to use pork products that come from group or pen housing, instead of individual pen gestation. The Humane Society is putting pressure on the Wall Street Journal to influence Tyson packing plants to phase out the purchase of animals from farms with stall gestation. Whether or not the science condemns or praises the individual pig housing is irrelevant, people have decided they believe the practice is wrong, and that it is important enough to fight for pen housing. This doesn't mean that farmers should stop fighting to grow their animals the way they see fit, but it does mean that you can't fight it to the point that it clouds business decision making ability.
During dinner, two of my classmates and I were having a discussion about our group project, which will be on the differences in the types of sow housing. The two men both saw the individual sow housing as the only way they were willing to do business. The argument they stood by was that we as an industry can not just lay down and let the consumer walk all over us. I on the other hand, see it entirely differently. We can produce all the pigs we want any way we want to, but that doesn't guarantee someone will buy them. We have to cater our products to the consumer, because in the end that is where we gain our value. As farmers we don't consider that we feed pigs certain diets and embrace certain genetics because that is what the market wants, however, when it comes to housing options we just can't deal with it. Many of the producers in the class talk as if they have worked with the different housing options, labeling one as far superior to the other. Coming from a farm with nontraditional housing practices, I see that you can be profitable in many different systems. Most have not had the opportunity, they just hold a bias.
Any switch in the way we practice agriculture gives us the opportunity to innovate. We shouldn't shy away from challenges, but learn to work through them. Every step we take will have risks, and costs, but that doesn't mean its not worth taking. While we need to fight for the right to choose how we produce the nation's food supply, we also need to look at how to make our production more transparent, so we do not have to keep fighting these types of battles over every operating decision. Winning in the sow housing battle isn't the goal, winning over consumers should be.
McDonald's, Campbell's Soup, Burger King, and countless other businesses have pledged to use pork products that come from group or pen housing, instead of individual pen gestation. The Humane Society is putting pressure on the Wall Street Journal to influence Tyson packing plants to phase out the purchase of animals from farms with stall gestation. Whether or not the science condemns or praises the individual pig housing is irrelevant, people have decided they believe the practice is wrong, and that it is important enough to fight for pen housing. This doesn't mean that farmers should stop fighting to grow their animals the way they see fit, but it does mean that you can't fight it to the point that it clouds business decision making ability.
During dinner, two of my classmates and I were having a discussion about our group project, which will be on the differences in the types of sow housing. The two men both saw the individual sow housing as the only way they were willing to do business. The argument they stood by was that we as an industry can not just lay down and let the consumer walk all over us. I on the other hand, see it entirely differently. We can produce all the pigs we want any way we want to, but that doesn't guarantee someone will buy them. We have to cater our products to the consumer, because in the end that is where we gain our value. As farmers we don't consider that we feed pigs certain diets and embrace certain genetics because that is what the market wants, however, when it comes to housing options we just can't deal with it. Many of the producers in the class talk as if they have worked with the different housing options, labeling one as far superior to the other. Coming from a farm with nontraditional housing practices, I see that you can be profitable in many different systems. Most have not had the opportunity, they just hold a bias.
Any switch in the way we practice agriculture gives us the opportunity to innovate. We shouldn't shy away from challenges, but learn to work through them. Every step we take will have risks, and costs, but that doesn't mean its not worth taking. While we need to fight for the right to choose how we produce the nation's food supply, we also need to look at how to make our production more transparent, so we do not have to keep fighting these types of battles over every operating decision. Winning in the sow housing battle isn't the goal, winning over consumers should be.
Monday, September 10, 2012
True or False
Over the last week, I have had the chance to attend a class on pork production process management. The premise for the class is getting pork producers to think about their business like it is manufacturing, and become more efficient and effective by monitoring throughput. Each farmer in the room understood the connections, and how farming is a form of manufacturing. As a farmer and business person, I realize that animal production is a manufacturing process, and that doesn't scare me. Making your lunch in the morning, can also be looked at from a manufacturing standpoint, and I understand that by looking at it that way, we aren't automatically using robots, and automation to "build" pigs. We are just trying to become better at the processes we do everyday, managing our people and resources to the best of our ability.
Looking at the class, I realize that consumers could be appalled by the concept as agriculture as manufacturing. Many like to believe that farms are quaint little places with 2 ducks, 2 cows, and a goat thrown in for good measure. What they don't realize is that farming is a business. Farmers buy things from suppliers, like feed ingredients, seeds, and animals for reproduction in order to improve the meat quality the animals will provide. People then are willing to buy the meat produced for a price. What happens in between in order to make money for the farmer is business. There is nothing sinister about the process, or unnatural. Every other industry does the same thing, for example, your clothes are not made by an elderly woman working out of her cottage, nor do I think that people want it that way.
At work last week, I was talking to one of my coworkers about the common misconceptions people have about animal agriculture. One is created in part by advertisers, but driven by uninformed consumers. If you ever have looked at chicken sold in the grocery store, it is often labeled as hormone free. What consumers don't realize is that Chickens are never treated with hormones because it doesn't make any type of economical sense. Hormones are very expensive, and a chicken that will mature naturally in about six weeks, it does not add up to give it hormones. However, because of this labeling, people assume that chickens are given hormones at least part of the time.
Another misconception is that animals sent to market are often laden with drugs and so sick they have to be basically carried into the packing plant. What consumers don't realize is that animals going to market have to be rated as #1. This means no antibiotics in the system, no limping, wheezing, or other signs of sickness or distress. If producers were to send these types of animals to market, then they would not be paid for them, and all scheduled contracts with packing plants would be jeopardized because the farmer has delivered a substandard animal. It doesn't pay for anyone involved in the process to have a sick animal in the food supply.
As advocates for agriculture, we must realize what types of misconceptions are out there and work hard to correct them. It takes time and effort, but by being transparent to consumers we can make progress towards coming to a consensus on how food should be produced.
Looking at the class, I realize that consumers could be appalled by the concept as agriculture as manufacturing. Many like to believe that farms are quaint little places with 2 ducks, 2 cows, and a goat thrown in for good measure. What they don't realize is that farming is a business. Farmers buy things from suppliers, like feed ingredients, seeds, and animals for reproduction in order to improve the meat quality the animals will provide. People then are willing to buy the meat produced for a price. What happens in between in order to make money for the farmer is business. There is nothing sinister about the process, or unnatural. Every other industry does the same thing, for example, your clothes are not made by an elderly woman working out of her cottage, nor do I think that people want it that way.
At work last week, I was talking to one of my coworkers about the common misconceptions people have about animal agriculture. One is created in part by advertisers, but driven by uninformed consumers. If you ever have looked at chicken sold in the grocery store, it is often labeled as hormone free. What consumers don't realize is that Chickens are never treated with hormones because it doesn't make any type of economical sense. Hormones are very expensive, and a chicken that will mature naturally in about six weeks, it does not add up to give it hormones. However, because of this labeling, people assume that chickens are given hormones at least part of the time.
Another misconception is that animals sent to market are often laden with drugs and so sick they have to be basically carried into the packing plant. What consumers don't realize is that animals going to market have to be rated as #1. This means no antibiotics in the system, no limping, wheezing, or other signs of sickness or distress. If producers were to send these types of animals to market, then they would not be paid for them, and all scheduled contracts with packing plants would be jeopardized because the farmer has delivered a substandard animal. It doesn't pay for anyone involved in the process to have a sick animal in the food supply.
As advocates for agriculture, we must realize what types of misconceptions are out there and work hard to correct them. It takes time and effort, but by being transparent to consumers we can make progress towards coming to a consensus on how food should be produced.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Summer Celebration
It's that time of year again! The animals are being groomed, fresh produced being canned, pickled, and pruned, the title of best Michigan cherry pie is on the line yet again. Of course it's fair season.
As I spend my mornings on the farm, I see the fair as a bonding experience between the generations of farmers. Grandfathers teach their granddaughters how to properly clip the hair on their show steer for beef club. Mothers help their sons rehearse talent routines for the Fair King scholarship competition. We all come together to celebrate the fruits of agriculture.
For kids, fair week is one of the most exciting of the summer. They can show how much they have learned and grown, and how far hard work and dedication can go. I remember going to friend's houses and seeing all their ribbons displayed prominently in their bedrooms. A fair ribbon gives a sense of pride and accomplishment. It doesn't come from being lucky, it comes from hard work and time spent on completing a goal. These are the things that American Culture values. With fewer and fewer people getting this type of exposure, are we willing to give up our core value of work ethic?
Now not every child is going to show in the fair, or like the fair. I never did, but I understand that it is an important part of rural life. I used to walk through the exhibits, taking in all the sights and sounds, and I was proud of my community, and the local 4-H. We need to support those organizations around the agriculture community that support us and teach young people the benefits of hard work, leadership, and confidence in the show ring.
As I spend my mornings on the farm, I see the fair as a bonding experience between the generations of farmers. Grandfathers teach their granddaughters how to properly clip the hair on their show steer for beef club. Mothers help their sons rehearse talent routines for the Fair King scholarship competition. We all come together to celebrate the fruits of agriculture.
For kids, fair week is one of the most exciting of the summer. They can show how much they have learned and grown, and how far hard work and dedication can go. I remember going to friend's houses and seeing all their ribbons displayed prominently in their bedrooms. A fair ribbon gives a sense of pride and accomplishment. It doesn't come from being lucky, it comes from hard work and time spent on completing a goal. These are the things that American Culture values. With fewer and fewer people getting this type of exposure, are we willing to give up our core value of work ethic?
Now not every child is going to show in the fair, or like the fair. I never did, but I understand that it is an important part of rural life. I used to walk through the exhibits, taking in all the sights and sounds, and I was proud of my community, and the local 4-H. We need to support those organizations around the agriculture community that support us and teach young people the benefits of hard work, leadership, and confidence in the show ring.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Hog Production How-To?
There is a huge disconnect between consumers and producers. Many consumers are emotional about their food choices, and use lobbyists and legislation to influence the production process. Producers of course resist, because as the "experts" of animal production, they do not want to change to a process that may be more expensive. There are things that we could change on the farm, and things that we will be forced to change. It's not being against gestation stalls, its about limiting the government's ability to regulate our production practices. In a way, the buyers of pork are doing us a favor by not wanting to buy from farms with stalls. If they didn't take a stand against it due to public pressure, the government would, and in some states has. We need to have the self regulation when at all possible.
Even the type of regulation that could be handed down from the government could vary greatly. In an article from the Pork Network titled Commentary: Who's in Charge of Animal Welfare, a recent amendment was made to the Farm Bill that would limit what types of laws states could make in regards to animal production. Instead of enacting laws state-by-state, as HSUS currently lobbies to do, laws with have to be made federally, making universal standards for the whole country. Federal laws are generally less efficient, but they also make the production much more cohesive across the country, all farms having the same restrictions to production.
Another area of concern is that our suppliers do not seem to grapple with the same brute force of public opinion as the swine industry does. Pfizer, Merck, Bayer, Novartis, etc., supply us through our vets with pharmaceuticals and feed supplements, seem to not realize that the food production system is under attack. When they come into meetings and discuss new products, they do not talk about more consumer compliant options, or that antibiotic use could be limited. They talk about products that will alter the biology of the animals in a way that makes the packers uncomfortable. When producers ask questions about products and use with impending regulations, the companies don't seem to think of it as an issue, and quickly go back to promotion. Maybe that is because the real money for them is in companion animal and human health areas, and we are just a segment to diversify the portfolio. I don't blame these companies, as farmers are buying the products, but I wonder if they are only thinking in the short term.
I have a few vegan friends, most of which are not against meat, just the way it is produced. In their vigor to cut out all things animal, they try to have no animal products used in any part of their lives. Yet they drive cars, ride bikes, use make-up, write with pens, and wear screen printed clothing.
People have this moral dilemma about using animals for nutrition; to sustain life. They feel bad when they think about Fido and how nice he is. They feel bad about making other things suffer. It is a hard dilemma to overcome.
I spent a long portion of some summers in Saskatchewan growing up, and that lead me to come to terms with the way we use animals to maintain ourselves. It's the nature of the land, of the cycle, of the ecosystem. We happen to find ourselves at the top of the food chain; we shouldn't feel bad about it. At the same time, we can't allow wasteful usage of our resources to occur. Each animal needs to be killed for a purpose. We become more efficient in this way, and garner more respect from consumers for using all that we have been given.
A big obstacle is educating the consumer about where their food comes from, and some young farmers have been making inroads. After the success of I'm Farming and I Grow It, another young man has taken to the Internet with some pop music with Farm It Maybe. Enjoy!
Even the type of regulation that could be handed down from the government could vary greatly. In an article from the Pork Network titled Commentary: Who's in Charge of Animal Welfare, a recent amendment was made to the Farm Bill that would limit what types of laws states could make in regards to animal production. Instead of enacting laws state-by-state, as HSUS currently lobbies to do, laws with have to be made federally, making universal standards for the whole country. Federal laws are generally less efficient, but they also make the production much more cohesive across the country, all farms having the same restrictions to production.
Another area of concern is that our suppliers do not seem to grapple with the same brute force of public opinion as the swine industry does. Pfizer, Merck, Bayer, Novartis, etc., supply us through our vets with pharmaceuticals and feed supplements, seem to not realize that the food production system is under attack. When they come into meetings and discuss new products, they do not talk about more consumer compliant options, or that antibiotic use could be limited. They talk about products that will alter the biology of the animals in a way that makes the packers uncomfortable. When producers ask questions about products and use with impending regulations, the companies don't seem to think of it as an issue, and quickly go back to promotion. Maybe that is because the real money for them is in companion animal and human health areas, and we are just a segment to diversify the portfolio. I don't blame these companies, as farmers are buying the products, but I wonder if they are only thinking in the short term.
I have a few vegan friends, most of which are not against meat, just the way it is produced. In their vigor to cut out all things animal, they try to have no animal products used in any part of their lives. Yet they drive cars, ride bikes, use make-up, write with pens, and wear screen printed clothing.
People have this moral dilemma about using animals for nutrition; to sustain life. They feel bad when they think about Fido and how nice he is. They feel bad about making other things suffer. It is a hard dilemma to overcome.
I spent a long portion of some summers in Saskatchewan growing up, and that lead me to come to terms with the way we use animals to maintain ourselves. It's the nature of the land, of the cycle, of the ecosystem. We happen to find ourselves at the top of the food chain; we shouldn't feel bad about it. At the same time, we can't allow wasteful usage of our resources to occur. Each animal needs to be killed for a purpose. We become more efficient in this way, and garner more respect from consumers for using all that we have been given.
A big obstacle is educating the consumer about where their food comes from, and some young farmers have been making inroads. After the success of I'm Farming and I Grow It, another young man has taken to the Internet with some pop music with Farm It Maybe. Enjoy!
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Excited for Ingenuity
While browsing through some articles of Ag News today I found this amazing story of a resourceful farm in Maine. These types of things really make me proud of what I do, who my peers are, and what we can accomplish.
The article, Exeter farm uses poop to produce energy (very exciting name, I know) goes into how a dairy farm in Maine has these "mixture vessels" where they pump ALL the waste from the farm and then it produces gas, working a generator. The farm only uses about 5% of the energy it produces, selling the rest to the electrical company. Now that is some golden opportunity!
Not everyone can use this kind of system, and there may be something better out there. The initial cost of the tanks is expensive, and I can't imagine its as easy as plugging filling the tanks with waste and letting it go, but it is possible to make improvements.
We should be proud of the efficiency we are able to achieve. By having people out there who are willing to take risks, we figure out how far we can go. As producers, this is the type of thing we are capable of, and it is what we should expect from ourselves.
One theme I have stressed in many posts is representing farming to the consumers. Recently, I have found a contest put on by the United States Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) called Faces of Farming and Ranching, which provides a great opportunity for us to gain access to the consumers, and take a prominent position in the dialogue. The contest requires an entry form and a short video for entry, and allows us to really focus on why we do what we do. Check out the other areas of the Food Dialogues website, as it is very insightful, particularly if you haven't had a chance to check it out before.
The article, Exeter farm uses poop to produce energy (very exciting name, I know) goes into how a dairy farm in Maine has these "mixture vessels" where they pump ALL the waste from the farm and then it produces gas, working a generator. The farm only uses about 5% of the energy it produces, selling the rest to the electrical company. Now that is some golden opportunity!
Not everyone can use this kind of system, and there may be something better out there. The initial cost of the tanks is expensive, and I can't imagine its as easy as plugging filling the tanks with waste and letting it go, but it is possible to make improvements.
We should be proud of the efficiency we are able to achieve. By having people out there who are willing to take risks, we figure out how far we can go. As producers, this is the type of thing we are capable of, and it is what we should expect from ourselves.
One theme I have stressed in many posts is representing farming to the consumers. Recently, I have found a contest put on by the United States Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) called Faces of Farming and Ranching, which provides a great opportunity for us to gain access to the consumers, and take a prominent position in the dialogue. The contest requires an entry form and a short video for entry, and allows us to really focus on why we do what we do. Check out the other areas of the Food Dialogues website, as it is very insightful, particularly if you haven't had a chance to check it out before.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Choices
One of the biggest concerns of government lately is the amount of obesity in the country. Each year we hear more statistics about how the nation is getting fatter, and how children are no longer as active or healthy as they used to be. People often blame it on the food we have available, or the cost of buying better food. While buying my groceries over the past year I have noticed a couple things about my cart. First, when I buy fresh food I feel like I am getting more; second, I spend less when I buy the fresh food.
Urban Lehner, the writer of Why Americans Prefer Burgers to Brussel Sprouts seems to agree. The article goes into the argument that fresh food isn't affordable. When you look at buying food as a cents spent per calorie, fresh food is more expensive. However, when looking at weight of food per pound, it is actually more affordable. As an overweight nation, we should probably look at eating more pounds of the low calorie, and less pounds of the high calorie. In the end your budget will probably look similar, while you waist looks smaller.
If eating habits were to trend this way, the farmer would benefit, too. More specialty crops would be desired, and more diversity in foodstuffs. With less processing and transportation costs for less processed foods, we will have a higher percentage of the food money pie returning to the farmer, and less to the manufacturer. People will also feel more connected to the people and places that produce their food, than they currently do to the brands that manufacture.
While all of this may sound great, or crazy, it can't happen unless consumers make that choice. No amount of forcing by the government can make people be healthy as long as a relatively free market is allowed to exist. It's extremely important for the market to fluctuate based on consumer desires so that the needs and wants of the people are met in order of priority, and that ingenuity can continue to thrive.
Urban Lehner, the writer of Why Americans Prefer Burgers to Brussel Sprouts seems to agree. The article goes into the argument that fresh food isn't affordable. When you look at buying food as a cents spent per calorie, fresh food is more expensive. However, when looking at weight of food per pound, it is actually more affordable. As an overweight nation, we should probably look at eating more pounds of the low calorie, and less pounds of the high calorie. In the end your budget will probably look similar, while you waist looks smaller.
If eating habits were to trend this way, the farmer would benefit, too. More specialty crops would be desired, and more diversity in foodstuffs. With less processing and transportation costs for less processed foods, we will have a higher percentage of the food money pie returning to the farmer, and less to the manufacturer. People will also feel more connected to the people and places that produce their food, than they currently do to the brands that manufacture.
While all of this may sound great, or crazy, it can't happen unless consumers make that choice. No amount of forcing by the government can make people be healthy as long as a relatively free market is allowed to exist. It's extremely important for the market to fluctuate based on consumer desires so that the needs and wants of the people are met in order of priority, and that ingenuity can continue to thrive.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Agbusiness: Are your Employees Managing You?
With July fast approaching, I have begun to look at the evaluation papers that need to be distributed, I have been looking at some ways to improve our evaluation system. In it's current form, the system is pretty basic, with six questions with answer options and then an explanation box where managers can rate their employees on a monthly basis. The system isn't bad, but it could be improved a bit, to be more behaviorally based, and give a more balanced picture.
In order to improve upon what we already have, I have turned to some business standbys, because farms are small businesses, too. In particular, I referred to Patrick Lencioni's Three Signs of a Miserable Job, a "Leadership Fable" that tells how a manager works out a theory to motivate the people around him to care about their work. Farmers care dearly for their businesses, but often run into a struggle because they can't lure the most desirable people with high salaries, flexible schedules, or sparkling benefits packages. Those types of resources aren't very prevalent for our employees. Upon reading Lencioni's book, I realized that while money is important, culture is a main factor in why successful people work in successful organizations.
When I think of farming business culture in general, I think of an older gentleman who tends to be hard working, stoic, and a bit tight lipped. As businesspeople, we are not the best communicators. We don't show appreciation for some of the intangibles that impact the way our businesses operate. We tend to prepare for the worst, and show little faith in the people we surround ourselves with, except maybe a few family and friends.
What we don't realize is that we have the power to make people enjoy their work, feel challenged by it, and raise the standards of our businesses. An article from National Hog Farmer, Engaging Your Employees, agrees that the way you handle employees determines how effective they will be in your business. Many of the things we can do are so simple, and only cost a little extra time on the employer's end.
Get to know your employees. Those that have a connection to the people they work with are more likely to show commitment to the business. Know about their hobbies, kids, and family situation. Let them know their work is relevant. It may sound silly, but telling someone their work has made an impact on you, coworkers, customers, etc., shows that you notice and care. It adds an extra connection to the business. Human capital is a defining factor of business success. Finally, give your employees tools to get feedback. It's not just feedback on the balance sheet, or feedback from their boss, but things they can use as measures for success on a daily or weekly basis. This gives employees control over their own performance, and increases the likelihood of retention. On the farm we need to remember that creating these types of conversations will pay off, even though they are not on the balance sheet.
In order to improve upon what we already have, I have turned to some business standbys, because farms are small businesses, too. In particular, I referred to Patrick Lencioni's Three Signs of a Miserable Job, a "Leadership Fable" that tells how a manager works out a theory to motivate the people around him to care about their work. Farmers care dearly for their businesses, but often run into a struggle because they can't lure the most desirable people with high salaries, flexible schedules, or sparkling benefits packages. Those types of resources aren't very prevalent for our employees. Upon reading Lencioni's book, I realized that while money is important, culture is a main factor in why successful people work in successful organizations.
When I think of farming business culture in general, I think of an older gentleman who tends to be hard working, stoic, and a bit tight lipped. As businesspeople, we are not the best communicators. We don't show appreciation for some of the intangibles that impact the way our businesses operate. We tend to prepare for the worst, and show little faith in the people we surround ourselves with, except maybe a few family and friends.
What we don't realize is that we have the power to make people enjoy their work, feel challenged by it, and raise the standards of our businesses. An article from National Hog Farmer, Engaging Your Employees, agrees that the way you handle employees determines how effective they will be in your business. Many of the things we can do are so simple, and only cost a little extra time on the employer's end.
Get to know your employees. Those that have a connection to the people they work with are more likely to show commitment to the business. Know about their hobbies, kids, and family situation. Let them know their work is relevant. It may sound silly, but telling someone their work has made an impact on you, coworkers, customers, etc., shows that you notice and care. It adds an extra connection to the business. Human capital is a defining factor of business success. Finally, give your employees tools to get feedback. It's not just feedback on the balance sheet, or feedback from their boss, but things they can use as measures for success on a daily or weekly basis. This gives employees control over their own performance, and increases the likelihood of retention. On the farm we need to remember that creating these types of conversations will pay off, even though they are not on the balance sheet.
Monday, June 25, 2012
The New Farmer
I've been reading a lot lately about the new generation coming into the world of agriculture. We tend to be more tech savvy, educated, highly motivated, and low in resources. Some new farmers have little or no farm background, but want to make a difference in the way we produce food. We are more open to change, and are optimistic about the adversity we will face. We realize that we have to work with the older generation and with our opponents, bridging the gap to create a system that we all can live with.
Many of the older generation see the recent public interest in food production as a nuisance, a sort of snooping. People want to have an input on things they don't really understand or know about. They are influencing policy, but are not spending the time to do the research. There are some farmers who just want to turn their heads the other way and keep working the land, raising the animals the same way they have done for a number of years.
We don't have that option any more, and we don't need it. As an industry, we are lucky to have direct consumer feedback. We provide a product, and people are looking for service. They want to have input towards the process. Any business manager wants to know that their product is satisfying the consumer needs, finding the areas where they could make improvement. We need to take the feedback and run with it. Even though many are resistant, we can produce food however people want us to, but they have to realize that their is a cost. That's why most farmers are afraid to make the jump to meet consumer demands. For any young farmers willing to make changes, it will take small steps and steady work the ultimate goals of supporting family, while meeting consumer expectations.
Many of the older generation see the recent public interest in food production as a nuisance, a sort of snooping. People want to have an input on things they don't really understand or know about. They are influencing policy, but are not spending the time to do the research. There are some farmers who just want to turn their heads the other way and keep working the land, raising the animals the same way they have done for a number of years.
We don't have that option any more, and we don't need it. As an industry, we are lucky to have direct consumer feedback. We provide a product, and people are looking for service. They want to have input towards the process. Any business manager wants to know that their product is satisfying the consumer needs, finding the areas where they could make improvement. We need to take the feedback and run with it. Even though many are resistant, we can produce food however people want us to, but they have to realize that their is a cost. That's why most farmers are afraid to make the jump to meet consumer demands. For any young farmers willing to make changes, it will take small steps and steady work the ultimate goals of supporting family, while meeting consumer expectations.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
It's What's on TV
A few days ago one of my high school classmates commented on her Facebook that she had watch a health documentary, and as a result will no longer be eating beef or pork. All of my chicken and fish friends are probably happy to have gained some sales, but all joking aside this type of thinking is very alarming for us farmers. It's the reason why we have been trying to convince people with a grassroots movement of open barn doors and open dialogue to trust American Agriculture.
These sorts of comments really resonate with me, as for the past year I have only had pork and beef in my freezer. I raise the pork myself, and one of the guys that works on the farm sells me a quarter steer each fall. Not that I don't like the other meats, but my the time I empty my freezer, it is being filled again with more beef and pork. I don't eat meat everyday, and I do balance in lots of veggies. I try to eat whole grain and generally avoid carbonated beverages, alcohol, and other processed foods. It's not that I believe I am eating better than others, or that my way is right, but it works for me. I feel good, have great energy and enjoy my food along the way.
The irony in all this to me, is that people see what's on TV and take it as absolute truth. Even knowing the stories have a slant to them, people are influenced enormously. Maybe I have been reading too many Dystopian novels lately, but it sounds a little bit like 1984 to me. We spend hours a day in front of the TV, believing whatever propoganda is put out in front of us. Do we consider the source?
As a blogger and a farmer, I know that I have an angle. I am trying to sell my product to support myself. At the same time, I believe in what I produce. I put my name on it. I told my friend to come down to the farm any time she likes and see how we do it. To ask questions and form her own opinion. I won't be hurt if she decides not to eat pork or beef after that, because at least I have given her all I can to make a decision with both sides of the story presented. Honestly, I know that there are things on the farm that could be better. Things we are changing and will be changing in the future. The industry will look different in ten years. That's ok. Farms are now looking at sustainablity as a piece of the business, along with responsibility. We need to embrace the changes that are coming and be ready to innovate along with them, instead of wishing for the "good old days."
These sorts of comments really resonate with me, as for the past year I have only had pork and beef in my freezer. I raise the pork myself, and one of the guys that works on the farm sells me a quarter steer each fall. Not that I don't like the other meats, but my the time I empty my freezer, it is being filled again with more beef and pork. I don't eat meat everyday, and I do balance in lots of veggies. I try to eat whole grain and generally avoid carbonated beverages, alcohol, and other processed foods. It's not that I believe I am eating better than others, or that my way is right, but it works for me. I feel good, have great energy and enjoy my food along the way.
The irony in all this to me, is that people see what's on TV and take it as absolute truth. Even knowing the stories have a slant to them, people are influenced enormously. Maybe I have been reading too many Dystopian novels lately, but it sounds a little bit like 1984 to me. We spend hours a day in front of the TV, believing whatever propoganda is put out in front of us. Do we consider the source?
As a blogger and a farmer, I know that I have an angle. I am trying to sell my product to support myself. At the same time, I believe in what I produce. I put my name on it. I told my friend to come down to the farm any time she likes and see how we do it. To ask questions and form her own opinion. I won't be hurt if she decides not to eat pork or beef after that, because at least I have given her all I can to make a decision with both sides of the story presented. Honestly, I know that there are things on the farm that could be better. Things we are changing and will be changing in the future. The industry will look different in ten years. That's ok. Farms are now looking at sustainablity as a piece of the business, along with responsibility. We need to embrace the changes that are coming and be ready to innovate along with them, instead of wishing for the "good old days."
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Farm Women
Yesterday, I spent part of the day reading about the Centennial Development Project brief put out by the American Farm Bureau Federation. I was lucky to participate in giving input at the Young Farmers & Ranchers conference in December, and I was eager to see what common themes came out of the conference, and what other people thought about where the Farm Bureau should be heading.
One of the five major points drawn from the brief was getting rid of the Women's committee, or at least drastically changing its purpose. I don't know how many of you have been to a Farm Bureau event, but I say it is about time! Having attending 6 or 7 events in the last few years, the way older farmers, farm organizations, and even young farmers look at the place of women in agriculture truly disappoints me. Women make up half of the Young Farmers in the Farm Bureau, but hold almost no leadership positions at the national level. Many of the women want the positions, but can't find a way into the leadership. Even the sessions at the Farm Bureau events are catered towards either men or women. One of the recent conferences had a session about women and farm bookkeeping. Talking to many of the farm women, I know we see ourselves having a much more active role in the business.
I'm not usually a big proponent of women's lib, but I began to notice how far our industry was behind the times when I was working in the mill. Many of our raw ingredient suppliers would ask me if I had any brothers to run the farm, or if I was going to marry another local farmer in order to keep the business going. I quickly informed them that I am capable of meeting the challenge of running the farm. I couldn't believe that someone could see me as so incapable just because of my gender.
The worst insult I received as a woman farmer was when I took my boyfriend to a county Farm Bureau event, exactly one week after he started to work on the farm. We sat at a table with people I had seen at events my whole life, who knew my family, and knew about our farm. When they started to ask questions about harvest, they ignored my responses, and quickly began quizzing my boyfriend. He was at a complete loss and tried to defer to me, but the other farmers had absolutely no interest in what I had to say.
I'm not saying that everything has to be equal for women, or that equality equals fairness. I just want to be able to take part in the conversation, and have a place at the table. If people within our industry won't take women seriously, how will the people in the greater community view us? Human capital is one of the most valuable assets a company can have, so why are farmers throwing half of their resources out the window?
One of the five major points drawn from the brief was getting rid of the Women's committee, or at least drastically changing its purpose. I don't know how many of you have been to a Farm Bureau event, but I say it is about time! Having attending 6 or 7 events in the last few years, the way older farmers, farm organizations, and even young farmers look at the place of women in agriculture truly disappoints me. Women make up half of the Young Farmers in the Farm Bureau, but hold almost no leadership positions at the national level. Many of the women want the positions, but can't find a way into the leadership. Even the sessions at the Farm Bureau events are catered towards either men or women. One of the recent conferences had a session about women and farm bookkeeping. Talking to many of the farm women, I know we see ourselves having a much more active role in the business.
I'm not usually a big proponent of women's lib, but I began to notice how far our industry was behind the times when I was working in the mill. Many of our raw ingredient suppliers would ask me if I had any brothers to run the farm, or if I was going to marry another local farmer in order to keep the business going. I quickly informed them that I am capable of meeting the challenge of running the farm. I couldn't believe that someone could see me as so incapable just because of my gender.
The worst insult I received as a woman farmer was when I took my boyfriend to a county Farm Bureau event, exactly one week after he started to work on the farm. We sat at a table with people I had seen at events my whole life, who knew my family, and knew about our farm. When they started to ask questions about harvest, they ignored my responses, and quickly began quizzing my boyfriend. He was at a complete loss and tried to defer to me, but the other farmers had absolutely no interest in what I had to say.
I'm not saying that everything has to be equal for women, or that equality equals fairness. I just want to be able to take part in the conversation, and have a place at the table. If people within our industry won't take women seriously, how will the people in the greater community view us? Human capital is one of the most valuable assets a company can have, so why are farmers throwing half of their resources out the window?
Friday, June 1, 2012
Government- What does it mean?
I'm back to writing again, after taking a short hiatus to run our feed mill for the month. For my first day back I have actually accomplished quite a bit- between cleaning my desk, printing handbooks, visiting different farms, and the main accomplishment- setting the chore schedule for the next six months! This may sound like a small task, but my Dad has been waiting for a month to hand it off to me since after two hours it gave him a headache.
With my first day back I haven't spent much time browsing food issues, checking out Ag websites, doing research, or scouting the river, but I did stumble upon an article from CNN titled "Big Gulp? Meet Big Government." It chronicles how the mayor of New York City wishes to put a ban on restaurants selling soft drinks over 16 oz, in order to combat obesity. I immediately wonder, is this what we want our government to do?
During my junior year of high school I had an American History class where the final exam only contained one question; what is the meaning of government? Each class we talked about how government changed over the years, and what those changes meant to the people. When government makes a decision, it changes how people look at the things around them, and how people interact with their surroundings. Some new rules make us more aware of things that may not have been an issue before. I personally stay away from soft drinks, just out of preference, but I do believe it is a choice.
Where Americans buy their food, and what they buy is also a choice. We, as producers shouldn't feel like we can force people to eat what we want to sell them. Consumers have the right to choose. Just like the with the soft drinks. We can't force people to stay away from the foods they enjoy, or to buy conventional over organic, all natural, cage free, etc. We only have the power to inform about our products and industry, build trust within our communities, and work to provide food that is better for our consumer. If we don't make the conscious decision to come to the table and talk about what we do, government will decide the fate of agriculture.
With my first day back I haven't spent much time browsing food issues, checking out Ag websites, doing research, or scouting the river, but I did stumble upon an article from CNN titled "Big Gulp? Meet Big Government." It chronicles how the mayor of New York City wishes to put a ban on restaurants selling soft drinks over 16 oz, in order to combat obesity. I immediately wonder, is this what we want our government to do?
During my junior year of high school I had an American History class where the final exam only contained one question; what is the meaning of government? Each class we talked about how government changed over the years, and what those changes meant to the people. When government makes a decision, it changes how people look at the things around them, and how people interact with their surroundings. Some new rules make us more aware of things that may not have been an issue before. I personally stay away from soft drinks, just out of preference, but I do believe it is a choice.
Where Americans buy their food, and what they buy is also a choice. We, as producers shouldn't feel like we can force people to eat what we want to sell them. Consumers have the right to choose. Just like the with the soft drinks. We can't force people to stay away from the foods they enjoy, or to buy conventional over organic, all natural, cage free, etc. We only have the power to inform about our products and industry, build trust within our communities, and work to provide food that is better for our consumer. If we don't make the conscious decision to come to the table and talk about what we do, government will decide the fate of agriculture.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Is Eating Meat Ethical?
Many of you have probably seen the New York Times essay contest about whether or not eating meat is ethical. I clicked on the link, expecting most the essays to be written by people who were very far from agriculture, with strict anti-ag agendas and completely sworn off meat. Instead, I found six well crafted essays from people who really care about their food.
As I read through the essays, I found the common theme to be eating meat is ethical, but the way we produce it is not. Many people fear what we are doing to the land, more than what will happen to their bodies. Most think that some of our technology is good and that advancement is important. They fear the "factory farm." Even the those essays written by farmers showed resistance against them. I know that my farm would be considered sinister to these people, but it is and always will be family owned and operated. Each decision we make is not only towards the bottom line, but also towards the welfare of the land, animals, and consumer.
When I think about sustainable agriculture, I think it should be a way to produce that saves our resources. We should work to preserve the soil, water, and integrity of our crops. At the same time, we have to make sure we are utilizing the resources in the best ways possible. Is it better to use a type of roundup ready corn that needs no irrigation and little spraying, than to use a corn variety that is much less hardy, taking more seeds to get a smaller yield, with the use of irrigation, plus additional energy with gasoline powered equipment? Is that really more sustainable with a population expected to reach 9 billion in the next two decades? Some people contest the use of animal waste as fertilizer. I see it as a way to use all of our resources to maximize efficiency and productivity, while lessening dependence on other forms of fertilizer.
I want to see the quality of our food increase. Our food is currently clean and safe, but people have come to expect that from their food supply, and now want the accountability of growers, processors, and producers. We should be happy that our consumers do take such an interest in what we do, although it is daunting at times. I believe that American farmers can rise to meet the challenge.
As I read through the essays, I found the common theme to be eating meat is ethical, but the way we produce it is not. Many people fear what we are doing to the land, more than what will happen to their bodies. Most think that some of our technology is good and that advancement is important. They fear the "factory farm." Even the those essays written by farmers showed resistance against them. I know that my farm would be considered sinister to these people, but it is and always will be family owned and operated. Each decision we make is not only towards the bottom line, but also towards the welfare of the land, animals, and consumer.
When I think about sustainable agriculture, I think it should be a way to produce that saves our resources. We should work to preserve the soil, water, and integrity of our crops. At the same time, we have to make sure we are utilizing the resources in the best ways possible. Is it better to use a type of roundup ready corn that needs no irrigation and little spraying, than to use a corn variety that is much less hardy, taking more seeds to get a smaller yield, with the use of irrigation, plus additional energy with gasoline powered equipment? Is that really more sustainable with a population expected to reach 9 billion in the next two decades? Some people contest the use of animal waste as fertilizer. I see it as a way to use all of our resources to maximize efficiency and productivity, while lessening dependence on other forms of fertilizer.
I want to see the quality of our food increase. Our food is currently clean and safe, but people have come to expect that from their food supply, and now want the accountability of growers, processors, and producers. We should be happy that our consumers do take such an interest in what we do, although it is daunting at times. I believe that American farmers can rise to meet the challenge.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Wasting our Water
I was out this weekend on the River, per usual. I love getting out and just being on the water, and enjoying my surroundings, but usually I am paddling my canoe as fast as I can trying to beat as many people as possible in the weekend races of the summer months. I was out this weekend, going along by a few friends (all of us dripping in sweat and puffing along) and I saw some pop bottle floating down the river. This happens all the time, but it makes me so sad.
After spending countless hours on the water, I have a great respect for its beauty and usefulness. Water touches every part of our life; it is vital to our existence. I have also spent many hours cleaning the river. Last summer, my family and friends took out our canoes and loaded up truckloads full of garbage three weeks in a row. Someone had decided to move from their trailer, and not wanting to hire a garbage service decided the river was the best place for unwanted items. Bags of clothes, hair products, diapers, strollers, dog houses, and even a swimming pool liner were thrown in the river. We called the police department when we found the person's address on an envelope, but still nothing happened. I just can't imagine being so thoughtless about the river to do something like that.
I know that farmers do contribute to water pollution with phosphates and nitrates. As we have learned more about it we need to make decisions that are more conscious of the effect on our resources. On an individual level, each person needs to take responsibility for keeping trash out of our water. Even in my races, I make sure I don't leave anything in the water. I want to be active in keeping the water and land clean, and figure out better ways to treat the soil. I know that over time our ideas on what is right will change, but we have to do the best we can with what we know now.
After spending countless hours on the water, I have a great respect for its beauty and usefulness. Water touches every part of our life; it is vital to our existence. I have also spent many hours cleaning the river. Last summer, my family and friends took out our canoes and loaded up truckloads full of garbage three weeks in a row. Someone had decided to move from their trailer, and not wanting to hire a garbage service decided the river was the best place for unwanted items. Bags of clothes, hair products, diapers, strollers, dog houses, and even a swimming pool liner were thrown in the river. We called the police department when we found the person's address on an envelope, but still nothing happened. I just can't imagine being so thoughtless about the river to do something like that.
I know that farmers do contribute to water pollution with phosphates and nitrates. As we have learned more about it we need to make decisions that are more conscious of the effect on our resources. On an individual level, each person needs to take responsibility for keeping trash out of our water. Even in my races, I make sure I don't leave anything in the water. I want to be active in keeping the water and land clean, and figure out better ways to treat the soil. I know that over time our ideas on what is right will change, but we have to do the best we can with what we know now.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Crop Insurance On The Chopping Block?
Being new to the ways of farming, I have been doing some research on Crop Insurance, another issue that has been tied up with the Farm Bill and the House of Representatives plan that cuts $33 billion from food stamps. Farm subsidies and insurance are used by nearly all farmers. Its a way to protect against the bad years, ones that could wipe out some farms entirely. It's a form of managing risk.
In business school, I learned the best way to manage risk is to diversify. We do it with our financial portfolios, why not on the farm? This could be planting more different types of crops or varieties. Maybe branching off into a related area, or adding business by doing more of the supply chain. That's how responsible businesses with long term growth goals compete. They don't look at what can make the most year to year, but what is sustainable in business. I think typically, farmers try to stay with what they know will work, tending to avoid new things. Diversification can occur on a small scale at first, and become larger as people become more comfortable with their new endeavor.
On my farm, we have pigs, corn, soybeans, red wheat, and a little alfalfa. We also grind our own feed, have our own boar stud, fix our own machinery, and do all our own electrical work. We also work with a sister company when times get though. It's the way we manage to keep going even when things are hard. I think in the future we may want to look at doing more work with organic farming, or instead of expanding, working to make our operations more efficient.
Each business needs to be aware of how outside factors effect the farm commodity markets. Just because corn prices are very high today, it doesn't mean they will stay there. Everyone should keep a little in reserve to handle fluctuations in prices. That in itself is an insurance policy.
Of course, not all risk can be diversified away, and insurance may be necessary. While the government does provide insurance, it doesn't do anything to help with the deficit problems the United States is facing. I know farmers often want to be independent, and see themselves as truly patriotic, contributing a lot of resources for the benefit of everyone else. Having this mindset, how can we push to have a program where we become very dependent on the government? Everyone is being forced to make cuts in programs, and shouldn't we look at some of ours, too? The reason I would like to see crop insurance out of government, is that the government is very inefficient with money. Sixteen cents of each dollar paid in goes right off the top for financing government actions, and another 13 cents goes towards debt interest. It seems me me, that there must be a more mutually beneficial way to utilize an insurance program.
Back to the Food Stamps cuts, I do not think that Crop Insurance can possibly stay the same with so many cuts hitting the government budgets. Even if we just clean up the Agriculture programs in order to make them function more smoothly and quickly, we are making improvements for everyone involved.
In business school, I learned the best way to manage risk is to diversify. We do it with our financial portfolios, why not on the farm? This could be planting more different types of crops or varieties. Maybe branching off into a related area, or adding business by doing more of the supply chain. That's how responsible businesses with long term growth goals compete. They don't look at what can make the most year to year, but what is sustainable in business. I think typically, farmers try to stay with what they know will work, tending to avoid new things. Diversification can occur on a small scale at first, and become larger as people become more comfortable with their new endeavor.
On my farm, we have pigs, corn, soybeans, red wheat, and a little alfalfa. We also grind our own feed, have our own boar stud, fix our own machinery, and do all our own electrical work. We also work with a sister company when times get though. It's the way we manage to keep going even when things are hard. I think in the future we may want to look at doing more work with organic farming, or instead of expanding, working to make our operations more efficient.
Each business needs to be aware of how outside factors effect the farm commodity markets. Just because corn prices are very high today, it doesn't mean they will stay there. Everyone should keep a little in reserve to handle fluctuations in prices. That in itself is an insurance policy.
Of course, not all risk can be diversified away, and insurance may be necessary. While the government does provide insurance, it doesn't do anything to help with the deficit problems the United States is facing. I know farmers often want to be independent, and see themselves as truly patriotic, contributing a lot of resources for the benefit of everyone else. Having this mindset, how can we push to have a program where we become very dependent on the government? Everyone is being forced to make cuts in programs, and shouldn't we look at some of ours, too? The reason I would like to see crop insurance out of government, is that the government is very inefficient with money. Sixteen cents of each dollar paid in goes right off the top for financing government actions, and another 13 cents goes towards debt interest. It seems me me, that there must be a more mutually beneficial way to utilize an insurance program.
Back to the Food Stamps cuts, I do not think that Crop Insurance can possibly stay the same with so many cuts hitting the government budgets. Even if we just clean up the Agriculture programs in order to make them function more smoothly and quickly, we are making improvements for everyone involved.
Fit to Farm
After my first two posts, I realize I haven't put out there why I am here and what I want to do. What is my angle? Do I have a purpose for writing? Who am I to my audience?
I'll start to answer these questions by looking at the name I have chosen. Fit to Farm. With my educational and cultural backgrounds, I find myself fit and ready to be part of the new generation in agriculture. I am more open to change, more open to differing opinions, and less entrenched in traditional agriculture. Not to knock farming practices, but everyone needs to update now and then.
I don't just care about the farm now, but the impact I am making on our future. I had a professor who once said that great leaders take time to develop a plan for the next generation and prepare the people to replace them to lead. This is one of the goals I have for each endeavor I undertake. I need to make things not only easy for me, but easier for the people around me. I need to teach, not instruct.
Agriculture is changing very quickly. It is an exciting time for me to be a part of the industry, as I may get a hand in shaping the direction we are going. Being able to talk to other people who are figuring out better and more sustainable, profitable ways of business is inspiring. It is possible for us to be so innovative when faced with problems.
I believe that a farmer's life is a fit one. I love to be active. I run marathons, canoe race cross country ski, and take kettlebell and yoga classes once a week. I try to be healthy by being safe in my physical work on the farm, and by eating well when I get to the table. Through the course of this blog, you will probably hear about all of these endeavors from time to time. As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I see things as cyclical, thus no one part of my life goes on without affecting another facet. Each thing I do shapes the person that I am.
I'll start to answer these questions by looking at the name I have chosen. Fit to Farm. With my educational and cultural backgrounds, I find myself fit and ready to be part of the new generation in agriculture. I am more open to change, more open to differing opinions, and less entrenched in traditional agriculture. Not to knock farming practices, but everyone needs to update now and then.
I don't just care about the farm now, but the impact I am making on our future. I had a professor who once said that great leaders take time to develop a plan for the next generation and prepare the people to replace them to lead. This is one of the goals I have for each endeavor I undertake. I need to make things not only easy for me, but easier for the people around me. I need to teach, not instruct.
Agriculture is changing very quickly. It is an exciting time for me to be a part of the industry, as I may get a hand in shaping the direction we are going. Being able to talk to other people who are figuring out better and more sustainable, profitable ways of business is inspiring. It is possible for us to be so innovative when faced with problems.
I believe that a farmer's life is a fit one. I love to be active. I run marathons, canoe race cross country ski, and take kettlebell and yoga classes once a week. I try to be healthy by being safe in my physical work on the farm, and by eating well when I get to the table. Through the course of this blog, you will probably hear about all of these endeavors from time to time. As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I see things as cyclical, thus no one part of my life goes on without affecting another facet. Each thing I do shapes the person that I am.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Should we be Anti Antibiotic?
Today while at work I read a lot of information about the FDA encouraging drug companies to relabel feed used animal antibiotics so they can not be used as a growth enhancer for animals. To be honest, I really don't think that is the best use of our antibiotics anyway, even though my farm does feed one antibiotic this way. We are looking to discontinue use regardless of the advice of the FDA because it doesn't seem to do much for us. Honestly, each animal we sell eats less than a few pounds of the stuff over their lifetime, and I wonder how much that really adds up to for people, but I really don't know.
The second part of this issue is banning the antibiotics fed to animals as disease prevention if they are similar to ones used in humans. Would this really lead to the use of less antibiotics while raising happier and healthier animals? The treatments that vets and farmers come up with for common problems are meant to keep the animals healthy and stress free until they reach market age. They are not intended to put an unnecessary amount of drug residue into the food supply.
Places that butcher animals also have withdrawal tests for all antibiotics that animals are treated with before they are brought in. For example, if an animal is given a shot of penicillin, it may not be able to go to market for 20 days, allowing the drug to exit the system. After so many days withdrawal, the drug can not be traced in the animals. If a drug trace is found, the farmer doesn't receive his full pay, or the meat is rejected completely. Neither one of these options pays for the farmer.
What if this mandate goes into full effect? I believe there are other options we could use that we may want to look into anyway. What about probiotics in feed? What about other more natural supplements that we could use? If there is a better way out there for us to make our product, we need to find it and take advantage of it. Fighting changes just because they take us out of our comfort zone isn't a good way to go. We need to be open to innovation, even if it makes us come at an issue from a different angle. People can do great things when given a challenge.
If science and the consumer dictate that a change in the way we produce our food is necessary, we can't call for this change to occur in one day, one week, or maybe even in one year. A transition period is needed for producers to regroup, and new methods to be field researched on how to handle the problems at hand.
It is the responsibility of all people involved in agriculture to produce the best food that they can. Each farmer I know believes in full faith that they are sending the best product to the consumer. They are proud of the time and effort put in two raise the animals and crops. Each farmer eats the crop he produces and the animal he grows. We are all in this together.
The second part of this issue is banning the antibiotics fed to animals as disease prevention if they are similar to ones used in humans. Would this really lead to the use of less antibiotics while raising happier and healthier animals? The treatments that vets and farmers come up with for common problems are meant to keep the animals healthy and stress free until they reach market age. They are not intended to put an unnecessary amount of drug residue into the food supply.
Places that butcher animals also have withdrawal tests for all antibiotics that animals are treated with before they are brought in. For example, if an animal is given a shot of penicillin, it may not be able to go to market for 20 days, allowing the drug to exit the system. After so many days withdrawal, the drug can not be traced in the animals. If a drug trace is found, the farmer doesn't receive his full pay, or the meat is rejected completely. Neither one of these options pays for the farmer.
What if this mandate goes into full effect? I believe there are other options we could use that we may want to look into anyway. What about probiotics in feed? What about other more natural supplements that we could use? If there is a better way out there for us to make our product, we need to find it and take advantage of it. Fighting changes just because they take us out of our comfort zone isn't a good way to go. We need to be open to innovation, even if it makes us come at an issue from a different angle. People can do great things when given a challenge.
If science and the consumer dictate that a change in the way we produce our food is necessary, we can't call for this change to occur in one day, one week, or maybe even in one year. A transition period is needed for producers to regroup, and new methods to be field researched on how to handle the problems at hand.
It is the responsibility of all people involved in agriculture to produce the best food that they can. Each farmer I know believes in full faith that they are sending the best product to the consumer. They are proud of the time and effort put in two raise the animals and crops. Each farmer eats the crop he produces and the animal he grows. We are all in this together.
Monday, April 16, 2012
The Beginning
Hello all, to kick off this new blogging adventure, I want
to let you know a little bit about who I am.
I am a woman born and raised on a farm who went to school in the big
city and got a business degree in order to come back home. Many people ask me, why business school when
you knew all along that you wanted to farm?
I say, why not?
During my time at school, I met many people, none who had
similar experiences to my childhood, or who ever planned to set foot on a farm
during their professional careers. I
befriended future bank managers, marketers, accountants, vegans, bacon lovers,
and a fair amount of people who hardly knew English. These experiences lead me to see that there
is a huge disconnect between the farm community and the rest of the world. In my mind, I don’t see this as an “us
against them” situation, but a time where we need to decide what kind of
tradeoffs we can make so everyone gets the most value. It’s more the art of negotiation than being
right or wrong about food production.
What if the leading scientists in the field told you that
you could make your product better, more features, easier use, etc. with less materials and waste. Would you stop to and reject the technology? Probably not.
Then why are we so afraid of technology that comes to our food? Upon talking to my sister about this issue,
she referred to a conversation she had with one of her professors. He talks about trade-offs and the general apprehension
people have about science. He says we
have to do research into some of these areas, like food production, just to know
what we can do, and what the potential benefits and drawbacks are. We can do a whole lot of good for so many
people by understanding what we can do with our resources. At the same time, we need to make sure we don’t
get too far ahead of ourselves, so the consequences blindside us.
It is naïve to think that agriculture will be the same today as it was 100 years ago. So many things have changed with technology, customer expectations, the number of people who are willing to farm, and the number of people in the world. We need to use our resources as efficiently and effectively as possible in order to provide the best food we can. As a reader, try to realize that this issue isn’t as black and white as it seems, but rather a place where we need to find consensus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)