We’ve diverged so far from the topic at hand, I’m closing comments on this post. I’m sure we will have a chance to further this topic in the future. I appreciate you all stopping by and adding to this lively discussion!

Best,
Paula

I read in an earlier post that you wrote that there is more marbling in feedlots because the cattle do not move. I actually did some research this afternoon by talking to two large animal vets about marbling in cattle. They both said that lack of movement of a cow could have an impact on marbling but it is quite in significant. The three biggest factors of marbling are the actual genetics of the animal, energy intake and growth rates.

There is no way that we can close the gap on food production if we (both sides) are not willing to actually have a discussion. Apart of this discussion must include accurate information and not comments like “consumers who eat organic don’t get toxic sludge and antibiotic-ridden manure used as fertilizer” of which is not really applicable to a discussion amongst reasonable people.

I am not going to re-hash what has been said previously, but I thought if there was one thing everyone (big ag, small ag, organic ag) was in agreement on it’s that the food system we have now is not working. It’s not helping farmers (how many are forced out, retiring en masse, or are killing themselves, etc and aren’t being replaced); it’s not helping consumers (we are still malnourished and/or getting fatter and suffering from diet related illnesses at an alarming rate – diabetes people?); and it certainly isn’t helping the environment (manure ponds leaking, top soil loss, chemicals in water). This is not sustainable, people.

Ms. Crossfield’s piece clearly has touched a nerve and shows how far we are from being able to sit down at a table and talk about new ideas and approaches to reform or rebuild a broken system. Knee jerk defensiveness, couching bias, pointing fingers, and the inability to accept the failings of the current system is not going to get us there. We are facing a crisis and we have to figure out how we can work together to solve it.

For a possible path on how to do that, I can’t recommend enough the piece by Paul Roberts from the March/April 09 issue of Mother Jones.

http://tinyurl.com/b7slm9

CAFOs are producing marbled meat — more fatty because animals don’t get the chance to move around. You can tell this by taste alone. There is a difference in nutritional value with organic food, its been proven. And by the way, consumers who eat organic don’t get toxic sludge and antibiotic-ridden manure used as fertilizer — resulting in the plants taking in antibiotics etc. All information that Big Ag tries to deflect, but which is horrifying to say the least.

If most people saw where there meat was coming from, they would be disgusted. That’s why you and your posse work so hard to prevent us from seeing what really goes on in slaughterhouses and on feedlots, because its not only pathetic and cruel but scary. (think giant cesspools)

Empty calories are serious. Big Ag companies like Monsanto want to lead you to believe they are feeding the world, but take a look where their products end up: HFCS in ever pre-packaged, nutrient-less food item in the center aisles; As grain for feedlots; ethanol; canola oil; and now sugar beets. Wow, these are cheap calories, Andy. Other Big Ag focuses on cotton (not edible, except that rapeseed oil is sometimes put in canola), wheat and rice. And doctors talk so much about vegetables because they are stupid? go figure.

Furthermore, farmers do NOT abandon technology in organic, they use it wisely. They move to this market not just because they can “get more money” — it comes from a deeper understanding of our impact on the Earth because of the choices we make. You have no right to undermine that.

“Sustainable Lobby,” hmm. I don’t know who has been buying our politicians, but it sure ain’t sustainable folks. We are the true grassroots movement. In this country, there is no such thing as free markets, or free choice. This is all being determined for us behind the scenes by marketers and agribusiness lobbyists… but we are going to change all that, just you see.

Conventional ag is so reliant on oil, a finite resource and one that is rising in price as we create wars for it, so like I said Big Ag’s day in the sun is done. Now if you would please respond only to Tom Laskawy and Leslie Hatfield’s questions if you intend to post here again, because I’m tired of clarifying things for today.

Best,
Paula

There is, as always, much to debate here. But namely I do take issue with this:

“In terms of food safety, the high level of regulation and traceability in a modern food production system lends itself perfectly to implementing the highest standards of food science. By controlling the animals’ exposure to disease and pathogen, the farmer limits the opportunity for quality assurance to be compromised.”

There is no such thing as full “control” over an animal’s exposure to pathogens. Obviously, if you need evidence, we’ve done a poor job of preventing diseases like MRSA and possibly Swine Flu from generating in these sorts of operations (some might blame the overuse of antibiotics). There is no such thing as a “closed system.” Thinking that we mere humans have the power to separate things into manageable parts that will not be effected by each other is pure hubris.

And don’t start a thread telling me the Swine Flu has nothing to do with CAFOs. There is a lot of evidence that leaves this still unresolved.

As far as animal care is concerned, you obviously have not been to a feedlot (where most cows are raised for meat), where cows are standing knee-deep in their own shit on concrete all day and are fed an inappropriate diet of grain.

Best,
Paula

There is a dangerous trend towards a concentration in agricultural production. We have gone from 27.5 acres per worker in 1890 to 740 acres per worker in 1990. It’s all about oil replacing labor in the form of mechanization, commercial fertilizers, and pesticides. This has led to crop varieties dwindling, environmental disasters, poor health, lower wages etc etc… As oil runs dry, this model becomes impossible.

As alluded to previously, it’s important to remember that there is no shortage of food in this country. This is a widely promoted myth by the likes of Monsanto. “9 billion people to feed. A changing climate. What now?” Reads the Monsanto ad. As Marion Nestle points out, we produce 3900 calories of food per person per day when we only need 2000+. How exactly is that a shortage?

Finally, who or what someone associates with is not an aside, obvious conflicts of interest are of paramount importance. Most paid advocates are expert in their area or specialty. Being a farmer in no way precludes one from promoting the wrong kind of agriculture. Many of today’s modern industrial farmers don’t practice animal husbandry in any traditional sense.

It is clear that Ms. Payn-Knoper is advocating for gigantic agro-corporations and it is also clear she is paid for here expertise in both conventional farming and new-media. Anyone advocating for sustainable farming practices is obliged to call her out on her views and question her motives as an agri-lobbyist.

I don’t want to go back to driving mules but petro-dependent CAFOs aren’t the answer, either.

This is why the “CAFO’s are bad” meme is a canard: “The best you can say about industrial meat factory farming is that it’s cheap and efficient. You sure can’t say it’s safe.”

YES WE CAN! Safety and food security is one of the greatest stories of today’s family livestock farms, regardless of scale. As Laurie accurately mentions, CAFO’s are subject, particularly in my home state of Ohio, to the most stringent environmental regulations, rules that must be met prior even to constructing the first barn. Our state requires permits to build, and permits to operate, and each permit requires a lengthy and open public comment process so folks have an opportunity to express potential concerns before a facility is allowed to be constructed.

From an animal care standpoint, these facilities are climate and atmosphere controlled to maximize animal comfort. In the case of a modern dairy, for example, we know that cows housed in more comfortable stalls expend more energy producing milk because they have a cool, dry, well-ventilated place to lie and do what cows do.

More importantly than any economic reason for giving these animals the highest level of animal care, we as farmers feel a moral and social responsibility to fulfill our roles as stewards of our environmental and animal resources as best we can. That’s a large part of the reason many farmers respond so passionately when their methods and motivations are impugned in these public forums.

In terms of food safety, the high level of regulation and traceability in a modern food production system lends itself perfectly to implementing the highest standards of food science. By controlling the animals’ exposure to disease and pathogen, the farmer limits the opportunity for quality assurance to be compromised. The food safety concerns of recent news cycles were not traced back to farms of any size, but resulted from minor and temporary lapses in the processing and regulatory schema.

Finally I offer this: agribusiness is not the enemy. Being driven by a profit motive is not a marker of evil. My goal as a cattleman is to be profitable, but doing so within a lifestyle I enjoy and find fulfilling. I could very easily be making widgets or selling tupperware, but my passion happens to be with beef cattle. My goal is to increase the size and scope of my operation so I can devote more of my time and financial resources toward that passion. I don’t know “how big” I need to be to devote all the time I want to my cows, and I don’t have a feeling for what constitutes “too big” for me.

What I do know is that I’d prefer not to have fellow food marketers make that arbitrary determination for me, when I as a free citizen am perfectly capable of doing so myself.

I hope we can agree on that much at least.