I’ve seen a number of articles, blogs, etc. lately in the animal ag press encouraging producers to stand up verbally to attacks on the industry by animal rights groups.  At the extreme, some of these groups are calling for conversion to veganism.   The vast majority of Americans are not going to become vegans or vegetarians.  When the animal ag industry focuses on fighting the extremes, it tends to allow us to avoid the more pertinent and difficult issues relating to the way large-scale animal agriculture has evolved.

In the name of “efficiency”, many sectors of the industry have gone down a slippery slope of incremental changes in animal husbandry.  Like the frog heated slowly to boiling that will die rather than jump out of the pot, our industry has slowly adopted practices that my agricultural ancestors would be horrified with. 

In many cases, a practice is put into place that incrementally improves “animal welfare” over the existing condition, given the current production situation.  An example is de-beaking chickens:  Through a combination of changes in genetics (commercial chicken strains are more agressive than their flock-living ancestors) and living conditions (higher densities of chickens per square foot), chickens will peck at each other.  It is better to remove the chicks beak than to let them peck each other to death.  And so welfare studies will report that chickens are better off with de-beaking than intact.

If the industry’s current mass-production practices are so defensible, why is it that they are not routinely pictured in educational or promotional material from the very industries that use them?  The egg industry uses images of hens on nests.  The chicken industry pictures chickens that still have their beaks, the milk industry uses images of cows out on pasture. 

Temple Grandin makes a statement in her most recent book (Animals Make Us Human) about why she is still in animal ag.  She also states that if her career had started now, as opposed to when it did, she is not sure she could have seen past the current welfare situation present in many large-scale chicken, hog and feedlot operations.

We, as an industry, have lost the middle ground between animal stewardship and ag-business.  Individual producers are, as a whole, conscientious caretakers of the animals in their charge.  Somehow, in the translation to larger and more efficient production, however, we’ve lost our connection to the subjects of our stewardship, and often to the employees who are involved in that production.  IMHO, this is what our industry needs to address more urgently than preventing a mass conversion to veganism.

 N.B. This post was prompted by “The sin of animal agriculture“, a blog post to which I felt compelled to reply.   

One of the top priorities for our direct-market beef customers is that we raise animals without the routine use of antibiotics. That concern is second only to their desire to purchase meat from animals that have not been raised in a feedlot.

We are not an organic operation, even though we use only organic fertilizer and mechanical (no herbicides) weed control. The main reason we are not organic is that I feel it is in our animals’ best interest to be able to treat them in whatever way needed if they get sick or injured.  Sometimes that means antibiotics.  If we were “no antibiotics” or “organic”, any animal we treated would have to be sold at the sale barn into a feedyard.  

In four years of selling beef, I’ve had only one or two customers who have said they specifically wanted beef from totally non-treated animals.  Since we maintain a production history on each animal and know from which animal each package of beef was harvested, we can accomodate these few.

Over the five years we’ve been stewards of our ranch, the need for antibiotics and other “non-organic” treatement has decreased dramatically.  Our soils have gotten healthier and we’ve developed a complex ecosystem of plants for the animals to graze.  We’ve culled (or harvested) animals that don’t do well with fewer interventions. 

But, what about the mainstream beef industry?  A report by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production included recomendations for a ban on non-therapeutic use of antibiotics. This in turn prompted pending legislation that would limit the use of antibiotics of for nontherapeutic purposes.   Nontherapeutic is defined as “any use of the drug as a feed or water additive for an animal in the absence of any clinical sign of disease in the animal for growth promotion, feed efficiency, weight gain, routine disease prevention, or other routine purpose.” 

Antibiotics, when used routinely in intensive production (i.e. confinement) do increase feed efficiency, increase growth rates, and lower the incidence of disease.  We designed our operation with a “no routine antibiotics” pledge not because we were against antibiotics, but because we felt that a situation in which routine antibiotics showed significant benefit was one in which the animals were under stress.  I doubt if our cattle would show any benefit from the addition of any antibiotic feed additive.

One doesn’t have to search far to find written opinions on this issue.  BEEF magazine has had articles and an editorial discussion of the PEW report on the issue.   From a bovine veterinarian’s point of view, banning antibiotic use would increase disease, animal suffering and human health risks. 

My own viewpoint is that this is a whole-systems issue, not one that can be addressed piecemeal.  A ban on routine antibiotic use must coordinate with adjustments in production systems resulting in less stress to the animal, less exposure to disease and an overall healthier environment.  These adjustments will also likely result in an increase in the price of meat.  If the ban is passed, there will be casualties; animal and business.  I think it’s an adjustment worth making, but it must be made intelligently and wholistically.

How can we feed our world healthily, responsibly, ethically and economically?  That question could start many a heated debate.  It’s going to take some creative problem solving and a willingness to take a hard and realistic look at alternatives and the real (including environmental and social) costs of many production systems to create tomorrow’s agriculture.  Russ Parsons of the LA Times voiced many of my thoughts.  I’m going to quote liberally.

On the one side, the hard-line aggies seem convinced that a bunch of know-nothing urbanites want to send them back to Stone Age farming techniques. On the other side, there’s a tendency by agricultural reformers to lump together all farms (or at least those that aren’t purely organic, hemp-clad mom-and-pop operations) as thoughtless ravagers of the environment

I operate on both sides of this debate because we raise and sell registered breeding stock and sell pasture-raised beef and veal at local farmer’s markets.  I hear more than my share of biases and accusations. Here’s some things I think we all need to remember:

Agriculture is a business. Farming without a financial motive is gardening. …Not only do farmers have expenses to meet just like any other business, but they also need to be rewarded when they do good work.

…we also have to keep in mind that our first obligation is to make sure that healthful, fresh food remains plentiful and inexpensive enough that anyone can afford it.

The world is changing, and those who can adapt are the ones who will be successful.

What’s political is also personal. If you believe in something, you should be willing to make sacrifices to support it, even if it’s expensive or inconvenient. Wailing about farmers who use pesticides and then balking at paying extra for organic produce is hypocritical because the yields in organic farming are almost always lower.

Don’t assume that those who disagree with you are evil, stupid or greedy.

It is good to hear a voice for tolerance and moderation.  Consumers have legitimate desires and concerns, even when they don’t have all the facts.  Individual producers, as a whole, are producing our food in the best way they know and really do care about their animals and the environment.  Let’s fix the problem, not the blame.

Why does it come as a surprise to the beef industry that consumers are losing faith in products from the big packers?

Through a trade e-newsletter, I came across Tyson’s new Open Prairie Natural Angus branded beef, whose promise “is to produce wholesome beef the natural way”. 

We are obsessed with providing food that is as good as nature intended. We are devoted to our relationships with a passionate generation of farmers and ranchers who raise animals without added hormones or antibiotics while fulfilling an uncompromising commitment to quality and a healthy environment.

We are grateful for the land, and we’re here to pass along the best things it has to offer. We are committed to responsible management of our resources and are hopeful that our practices, from sustainable farming to smart packaging methods, will make a positive difference for years to come.

All this is obviously intended to give the impression of free-roaming cattle, sustainably produced by family farmers.  From the product specifications, however, the only real requirements that make this beef any different than generic are that is is nominally angus (i.e. black-hided) and that it received no antibiotics and apparently no hormone injections.  As far as I can see (and I have e-mailed Tyson for clarification, in case I am mistaken), there are no “sustainable farming” practices required.  In addition, while the cattle may be born and grown for part of their lives on farms and ranches (as are virtually all beef cattle), these cattle are finished in feedlots, just the same as most mainstream beef is.

Given the current structure of costs, subsidies and infrastructure, feedlot production is the cheapest way to produce beef.  My point is not that Tyson shouldn’t be selling feedlot-finished beef, natural or otherwise.  I resent the purposely misleading brand name and promotional material that implies that their feedlot beef is a viable (and lower price) alternative to truly pasture-raised beef produced by ranchers such as ourselves, for whom “respect for all life” and “sustainability” are more than just marketing gambits.

Encouraging news (via the American Farmland Trust):  The USDA-ARS (Ag Research Service) is actively researching and supporting on the feasibility and actuality of eating local on the East Coast.

The idea is to ultimately build a map that shows where, along the nation’s East Coast, people would have the opportunity to buy locally produced food — and where they wouldn’t. After all, between 2002 and 2007, some 911,000 acres of farmland along the Eastern Seaboard was taken out of agricultural production to make way for housing, shops and other development.

The reasons for supporting local are many.  (and I’m probably preaching to the choir here); fresher food, supporting local communities and rural ag development,  less dependence on foreign food supplies, less volatility due to fluctuating fuel (transportation) costs.  Not to mention the more intangible support of quality of life through keeping agriculture more local.  I even heard a historical theory recently that the demise of most great civilizations was precipitated by massive urbanization and loss of the ability to be self sufficient in producing food.

One more encouraging sign out of Obama’s ag administration.

From my very first post, I’ve maintained that local/alternative/progressive or whatever label you want to use is not an either/or choice for American Agriculture. Deputy Secretary of Ag, Kathleen Merrigan, said it very eloquently and completely yesterday as she discussed the KYF2 (Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food) program more in-depth.

Our food production and distribution system has some serious flaws, but it also has some parts that work pretty well.  Not everyone can afford $4-$5/lb chicken.  I sometimes wax evangelical on food-system reform, but I still believe it’s got to work into the system, not wholesale replace it.  We (farmers) can’t see each other as enemies, just because we use different practices.  All farmers ARE rock stars.  Thanks deputy secretary Merrigan

Other posts on the subject:

Living between Sesame Street and the Meatrix

Local Meat, friend or foe to animal agriculture?

What should we eat, and how should it be produced?