Sustainable Ag and Food Myths Busted

Sustainability

This is a powerful word that is creating buzz all across the ag world and among consumers, corporations, farmers, families, everyone, everywhere. I watched a video--just today, in fact--that claims to have all the answers but do they really?

Food MythBusters, which is a "campaign to provide videos and resources debunking the yarns Big Ag players spin about our food system," created a video that, in my book, invokes more questions than answers. The video states that the story of "Big Ag" (I'd love a definition on what "Big Ag" really is because I think we fall into that category but we aren't that big in comparison, we are also family owned but we contract too--define please) is "full of holes" but I found a few "holes" of my own. 

So, lets break it down piece by piece:

1. "[Farmers] Stop practices that keep soil healthy" -- If we don't keep the soil healthy then we would not be able to continue to produce year after year. This statement implies that farmers are irresponsible and uncaring, which is illogical. Comparable to a mechanic that refuses to service vehicles. He won't be in business for very long! Crop rotation is mentioned in the video and is a great way to keep soil healthy. Every farmer in this area, including us, rotates our crops. Usually between corn, soybeans, wheat, and sometimes a cover crop like cereal rice or rye. So, are we really stopping the practices that keep soil healthy or are consumers just confused about farming because they've been removed from it for so long?
2. "Livestock, that use to be raised on the farm, get crammed into polluting factories"-- Our livestock are still raised on the farm. We use barns and modern technology to raise them but they are
   
   still on the farm. We live down the road from one of our barns and my sis-in-law and parents-in-law live next door to our other barns. How is this not on the farm? Furthermore, if we were polluting then we would only hurt ourselves. Not only would we be violating our government issued permits (hefty fees for doing so) but it is our water and our land that would be polluted. Would you pollute your own water? Additionally, if we were a factory then we would have better pay and more benefits. I've seen what the factory workers in town make, heck of a lot more than my husband and they don't even do a fraction of the hard labor. Maybe we should all just work in a factory...Nah!
3. "These farmers now buy expensive inputs" -- Hate to state the obvious but inputs have always been expensive and farmers have purchased them for decades. Inputs, expensive or otherwise, are nothing new. However, the good news is that while farmers still use chemical inputs we use a lot less. Like, 223 million pounds less! Wait! It gets better. Despite using hundreds of millions of pounds less in chemicals we are producing more in yields. Maybe Obama and Congress should take a few hints from farmers on how to use less while getting more to get our economy back on track. Farmer for President! So, are we buying more inputs?
4. "Got to use more drugs [on livestock]" -- Again, antibiotics are not new to the world of farming and the use of antibiotics is not even related to the size of a farm. Farmers that have 10 animals or 10,000 animals all use antibiotics to keep their animals healthy. Unless they are certified organic, then the animals just get chicken soup and wait to die. I'm joking, dark but still a joke! I know some organic farmers and they are wonderful people. Seriously, another interesting fact is that in an IFT report a panel of experts estimate that 96% of antibiotic resistance is actually from human use, not animal use. So, is the "more drugs" an issue of one singular group or do we need to look at the bigger picture and discuss the use of drugs across the board, primarily with human use?
5. "Got to use more chemical fertilizer [on crops]" -- I will again state what I said in #3: Like,223million pounds less! Not only are we using less chemicals of every kind but our farm, our neighbors (plural, all of them with pigs), along with friends and family that all raise pigs in barns use less chemicals than ever before because we have the power of poop. I know for a fact that hog farmers use all that poo in their lagoons and, more commonly, their deep pits to fertilize their crops the way grandpappy use to. Pardon me, do you have any Grey Poop-on? Why, yes. Yes we do.
6. "Corporate ag is good for some folks...not the typical farm family" -- Who is the "typical" farm family? We could be considered under the label "corporate ag"because we contract our pigs through a larger company, as many do. Our family's farm began with less than 100 acres and a husband and wife with three kids attempting to fulfill their dream. Since then, it has grown over the last couple decades to several hundred acres, several thousand hogs, and employs all three children plus spouses and then some. The same is true for several other pig farmers we know. So, how are we not the "typical" farm family? And, if we aren't then who the heck is?

 The bottom line is that I want you to watch the video. I want you to make your own judgment call. But more than anything, I want everyone to understand that farming is just like skinning cats--not the gross, bloody, scratches up and down your arms kind of way, more like there's more than one way to do it kind of way. It is an idiom. I'm not really skinning cats. You people are gross.

Watch the video and let me know what you think. Unlike Food MythBusters, comments are always open and welcome.

 

Sustainable Farming...We do that!

I got this email with a website link on it and a simple message:

Thought you might find this interesting.

Les

 Well, I was interested...very interested. So interested, in fact, that I think it needs to be shared with anyone and everyone that cares about both pig farming and a healthy environment. The PorkCheckoff funded some research to evaluate whether or not pig farming has improved over the years and to see what areas needed further improvment.

The research shows that pork production is more sustainable now than ever before. The first sentence of this article was fantastic and it sums up what we've been trying to tell everyone from the beginning:

"A new study finds that while pig farms of the 1950s may be remembered as idyllic, they were not as sustainable as those of today."

The study found that today's hog farms have decreased their carbon footprint by 35 percent since 1959. Additionally, we (hog farmers) use 41 percent less water and 78 percent less land per pound of pork produced. That is a huge accomplishment in farming! We are able to produce more while using less and protecting our envirnment.

We are still looking for ways to improve farming across the board but I think it is also important to celebrate our current accomplishments. This study shows just one of those accomplishments.

What do you think? 

8 Reasons Why CAFOs Are Not The Work Of Pure Evil

This should get a rise out of some people but that is not why I'm posting it. I truly believe that Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) have a place in agriculture. By no means am I saying there is no room for pasture pigs anymore. I'm saying there is a place for us both. Of course it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that these facilities must be treated with the utmost care and responsibility. CAFOs are not for those who simply wish to make a quick buck or for those who suffer from heavy haunches, i.e., those who would rather sit on their ass than actually work. CAFOs and farming in general is not a lazy man's work! Despite the rumors you can not just set up a camera and watch the pigs from the comfort of your home nor can you just visit the site a few hours a week and expect to have a smooth running operation. Raising hogs requires 24 hours a day, seven days a week commitment, anything less just won't do.

For these reasons I am posting 8 reasons why CAFOs are not the work of pure evil.

1. Contracting hogs has allowed our family to not only remain on the farm but expand it as well.
Because of our hog barns the farm has grown from 80 acres to nearly 600 and the farm can finally afford to employ the whole family. That means four separate households are being supported by one farm. This would not have been possible if we opted out of contract hogs.

2. CAFOs provide an "in" for new farmers.

Because the hogs are contracted new farmers no longer have to rely on the market which means a guaranteed paycheck and minimized financial risks. One big complaint I've heard is these big operations push farmers off the land. Not true. Not all but many companies do not buy the land from the farmer; instead, they contract with the farmer, i.e. the land, buildings, and profit are the property of the farmer, only the pigs belong to the company.

3. Provides organic, renewable, and sustainable fertilizer.

Our barns supply our farm, along with neighboring farms, with an organic (definition: characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms), renewable fertilizer--unlike anhydrous ammonia, a petroleum based product. Our fertilizer is rich in organic materials and nutrients that is actually rebuilding the topsoil and producing high yields year after year. Anhydrous only adds nitrogen to the soil, it does not work to rebuild. 

4. Greater control over the health of the hog. 

Because the animals are confined it allows greater control and less threat of diseases, especially air borne diseases. Confinement has also eliminated the need to worm hogs and the use of nose rings. Despite the big H1N1 scare CAFOs do not create new diseases. We can actually monitor the health of the pigs much closer and treat them faster by having them in the barns. In addition, because the hogs are contracted we have access to supplies, veterinarians, and specialists that we other wise couldn't afford.

5. CAFOs create jobs.

Other, larger, CAFO operations employ thousands of people. For example, we run approximately 26,000 head a year and employ six family members; whereas, Smithfield/PSF in north MO run millions a year and employ over 1,000 people in just one location. These facilities create jobs for Missourians, not illegal Mexicans.

6. Stimulate the local and federal economy.
Pork is the most widely eaten meat across the globe and the United States is the third largest swine producer in the world. Missouri provides about five percent of the U.S. hogs. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars worth of pork being raised here in good  'ol USA. We're also talking about hundreds of millions of taxable dollars which go towards schools, roads, parks, etc. Just our farm alone pays thousands a year in local taxes. That's a big hunk-o-change that I'm sure our county would hate to lose.

7. Allows for "green" experimentation and new technologies.

Farmers and agribusinesses strive to improve agriculture, it's what we do. Lately, a greater emphasis has also been put on ecological impact. Because of this, corporations are working harder than ever to create innovative "green" technology and CAFOs have been a breeding ground for innovation. Most recently, St. Louis paved a stretch of highway using asphalt made out of hog manure. Another innovative concept sweeping across the market is the potential in methane gas as an energy source.

8. The ability to raise more on smaller land mass.

Many may argue that this is a bad thing but let's put it in perspective. The world already holds over 6 billion hungry people and that number is only going to go up. People need a place to live and to have a home you must have land but the world isn't growing, just the people in it. Therefore, it is safe to assume more people equals less land but it also equals more mouths to feed. By confining hogs we can raise 4,800 head in 29,700 square feet or a little over one acre. Raising pasture hogs, using traditional methods you would need around 200 acres. It's a big difference.

As always I am open to comments.