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.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)