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.
Monday, September 17, 2012
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)