King Corn speaks

An ‘agri-intellectual’ talks back 49

tianPhoto illustration by Tom Twigg / Grist

A lot of folks have asked what I think of the essay “The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals,” by Missouri corn/soy farmer Blake Hurst, published in The American, the journal of the right-wing American Enterprise Institute.

My first reaction is that I’m thrilled this debate is taking place. The sustainable-food movement needs to step up and start grappling with big questions. I’ve said for a while that I see three big challenges for the sustainable-food movement as it scales up: 1) soil fertility—in the absence of synthesized nitrogen and mined phosphorous and potassium, how are we to build soil fertility on a larger scale?; 2) labor—sustainable farming requires more hands on the ground; who’s going to work our farm fields, and at what wages?; and 3) access—in an economy built on long-term wage stagnation, how can we make sustainably grown food accessible to everyone?

Hurst’s essay begins to engage these questions—sort of. I don’t have the time or energy right now to take it on point by point. But I will say that the discussion would be much richer if he acknowledged a few serious questions about the industrial-farming model he champions.

For example, he barely acknowledges climate change. The EPA reckons [PDF] that half of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions from agriculture come from fertilizer-related nitrous oxide—a greenhouse gas some 300 times more potent than carbon. The Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist, has concluded [PDF] that the EPA is dramatically underestimating the amount of nitrous oxide produced by industrial farming. Given that reality and the looming climate emergency, how long can U.S. farmers keep churning out titanic corn harvests? Hurst never goes there. Of course, he’s vice president of his state’s branch of the American Farm Bureau Federation, which has both been vigorously fighting climate legislation (on the grounds that climate change is a myth) [PDF] and campaigning to make sure that any bill that gets though Congress has plenty of goodies for agribusiness. So maybe be doesn’t consider nitrous oxide emissions a problem?

Another limiting factor is petroleum scarcity. According to Hurst’s byline at the bottom of the article, “In a few days he will spend the next six weeks on a combine.” A combine is a massive, diesel-sucking machine. How long does Hurst expect to be able to casually spend six weeks burning gallon after gallon of diesel amid limited global petroleum supplies (not to mention climate impacts)? Again, no mention of energy scarcity. (Cue “drill, baby, drill” plea from the Farm Bureau?)

Then there’s the whole problem of ecological blowback. Hurst venerates large-scale confinement livestock operations—but he doesn’t mention that these facilities rely on a prodigious cocktail of antibiotics to keep animals alive and growing. Now we’re getting outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant salmonella and staph (MRSA) directly linked to factory animal farms. There’s the distinct possibility that the latest novel swine flu strain emerged from the fecal mire of a vast hog operation. How long does Hurst think we can control these potentially deadly diseases? Also on the topic of ecological pushback, Hurst champions the practice known as chemical no-till—planting herbicide-tolerant GM seeds and then dousing the field with weed killer. There’s little evidence that this practice sequesters carbon in the soil (see here and here)—but plenty of evidence that it’s generating herbicide-resistant “superweeds.” Again, what’s the plan—just a steady rollout of new poison-tolerant seed combos to clean up the messes of the previous ones?

Finally—and this may be the most egregious omission, given that he’s writing for a Cheneyite rag—Hurst fails to acknowledge that his farming style depends on a steady stream of government aid. I personally believe that our society should support farmers, and that our commodity-subsidy system could be re-jiggered to support sustainable farming. Indeed, for the reasons given above, I believe sustainable farming will remain forever a niche unless that happens. Yet if I were writing for a think tank that’s devoted itself for decades to dismantling state spending (except for on military adventures and hardware), I might feel obliged to defend or at least acknowledge this position. Yet Hurst is silent.

Let’s have a look—shall we not?—at the Environmental Working Group’s commodity-subsidy database. it’s the black book of right-wing Farm Bureau types. According to his bio, Hurst farms in Atchison County, Mo. EWG informs us that farmers in Atchison drew in a cool $131 million in government commodity payments between 1995 and 2006. That’s good enough for 11th place among Missouri’s 50 counties. Drilling down, we find that Hurst himself took home $242,600 in that period; and three close relations took in $400,000, $388,000, and $347,000, respectively. That’s a cool $1.4 million in U.S. treasury cash for the family over 12 years.

Now, hold your howls of outrage. These are corn and soy farmers. They buy tremendous amounts of fertilizers and poisons; they buy pricey GMO seeds from Monsanto; they’re paying huge notes on those combines, which they have to maintain and supply with diesel; and they’re selling their produce into a grain market largely controlled by two companies (Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland) that for most of those years paid them less than the price of production. In other words, your $1.4 million payment to the Hursts didn’t likely stay long in family bank accounts. More likely, it quickly passed into the coffers of Monsanto, John Deere, Mosaic (the fertilizer giant two-thirds owned by Cargill), and other input suppliers. (Of course, in the past couple of years, corn/soy farmers have seen lower subsidies and higher grain prices—borne up by another government program, corn ethanol.)

You see, while their friends at the American Enterprise Institute might mock them as such, it’s not the Hursts who are “welfare queens” here. It’s their agribusiness suppliers and buyers. And we can’t really debate the food system until we acknowledge their massive vested interest in it—and their vast political power, which they’re not shy about using to maintain their income streams.

I look forward to participating in this debate as it plays out.

Grist food editor Tom Philpott farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture nonprofit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. Follow my Twitter feed; contact me at tphilpott[at]grist[dot]org.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. El Dragón's avatar

    El Dragón Posted 1:21 pm
    14 Aug 2009

    Dayyuummn... *grabs popcorn* When's Blake get here???

    Permalink

  2. Ariane Lotti Posted 2:08 pm
    14 Aug 2009

    Excellent points, Tom.
    While there are many flaws with Hurst's arguments (which you've pointed out), I think much of the frustration expressed in Hurst's article is that people are talking about farming without knowing anything about it.  I think that many of the critiques by sust ag and food supporters are made without knowing much about the system they are critiquing. Knowing, for example, that most corn and bean farms in Iowa are owned by families (who have accumulated a lot of wealth over time with government help -- same as in other sectors) can help us engage more with the "conventional" farmers and find common ground from which to work on better policies and systems together.
    That being said, the damning of organic agriculture (like Hurst does) is something that is trendy and that completely ignores how innovative organic and sustainable farmers have had to be in order to even keep their farm businesses alive under such odds (ie, government supporting conventional and undermining organic and sustainable ag for several decades). Also, there are organic farmers in Iowa that achieve that enviable 200-bushel-an-acre corn just as well as the conventional guys -- it just takes a lot more knowledge about farm systems and soil than many conventional farmers have.
    Additionally, organic farming is not the type of farming that Hurst's grandfather did however-many years ago. Those two get equated without much basis apart from the lack of pesticide use. Organic farmers use technology but also rely on knowledge and experience of systems and the environment to manage their farms.The "how do we feed the world" without conventional ag always misses many points that have been discussed here and elsewhere -- issues of food security and infrastructure, conventional ag hasn't fed the world, biotech has failed to yield, if the same amount of money dumped into conventional research were dumped into organic/sust ag research.... etc etc. We have not effectively countered that message, but the writing on the wall is clear that conventional hasn't fed the world.     

    Permalink

    1. Tom Philpott's avatar

      Tom Philpott Posted 2:42 pm
      14 Aug 2009

      Hey Ariane, The technology thing got under my skin, too. Look at Salatin and Will Allen in the documentary Fresh--what those guys are up to simply wasn't happening in the 1930s. And just imagine if chemical-free farming had a whole multi-billion dollar research budget at land grants behind it. the Luddite argument is tired, wrong--and crudely effective. How do we revive the idea of appropriate technology? 

      Permalink

      1. Ariane Lotti Posted 5:47 pm
        14 Aug 2009

        Hi Tom,Interesting question. It seems to be hardwired into our culture that all technology is good and, of particular concern, apolitical. I'd say where we might start with pointing out technology's downsides, like some have tried to do (all of the downsides and failures of biotech). And, of particular concern to ag, as you know and have written about, a lot of the technology has actually created that infamous treadmill that is making it hard for younger conventional farmers to become and succeed as farmers because the costs are so high.Short of a cultural change about the role of technology in society, perhaps we can try to shift the objectives of technological advancement in ag. Technology is currently used to increase production and decrease labor. Perhaps the focus should be on decreasing the impact of the environment, creating more jobs in rural communities, etc.Thoughts?

        Permalink

  3. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 5:24 pm
    14 Aug 2009

    that people are talking about farming without knowing anything about it.  Yes, exactly.   The people who rant the most about what "we" should be doing (eating hand grown vegetables wrapped in hemp, etc etc) are the top of the food chain types...the bloggers, the IPCC "scientists" the people who spend their time in front of computers and wouldn't know if a beet grew on a tree or in the ground?! 

    Permalink

    1. Matt Petryni's avatar

      Matt Petryni Posted 12:02 am
      16 Aug 2009

      Beets grow in the ground. They're of the family chenopodiaceae, which also includes spinach and chard.That being said, I think it's important to remember many environmental scientists like those in the IPCC are required to take basic survey courses in plant life merely to achieve their undergraduate degrees. Not only do they often know where things grow, they often also have a complex understanding of the chemical and climate conditions necessary to allow them to grow there. Many environmentalists additionally operate farms of their own, and some are involved in massive agricultural operations, like those of the Earthbound Farm in Salinas, or of Tom's here.As easy as it is to say environmental scientists don't know much about farming, it's even easier to say some posters on comment boards don't know much about environmentalists. Or at the very least least, that they don't know much about the basic skill requirements in the practice of environmental science.

      Permalink

  4. saticoyroots Posted 6:16 pm
    14 Aug 2009

    At the risk of being attacked from both sides, I would posit that neither is quite right, and yet both are correct. Does that sound like a political BS non-answer? Let me dig my hole deeper… “Conventional” farmers and those on that side of the debate often claim that “organic farming can’t feed the world.” To date that is correct. But that does not mean that it may not be true at some point in the future. But first organic/sustainable food systems will have to overcome some very serious obstacles about scale, efficiency and distribution models.Organic advocates often point out that agriculture as practiced today will be untenable for the next 100 years. This is also correct. But they miss the point that farming is no more likely to remain static in the coming century than it was in the last. The usage of no-till practices, covercrops, and highly efficient means of irrigation are on the rise, and these innovations are coming from the ag community.It is my belief that we are in a period of convergence between the two. In Omnivore’s Dilemma, the book at the center of this particular exchange, Michael Pollan examines one transitional model: the so called “Industrial Organic.” I think that this a good example of the blurring of the line between the two camps. I also believe that there is another possibility… Let’s call it “Artisanal Conventional.” What of a farm that sells produce both into mainstream channels as well as to local consumers and food artisans, yet will still use a little conventional fertilizer when called for? (Disclosure to those who may not know me: this is my model.)There are an awful lot of farms that fall into a gray area between the two poles, and at the further risk of seeming self-serving, I do believe that it is in the middle, and not at the extremes, that we will see the future. And I do believe it is one we will be happy with.A final anecdote: Yesterday I was at a meeting of sustainable food systems types in Los Angeles. It was mentioned in passing that another member of the circle who was not present at the time was going to be attending a $1000 a plate fundraiser. This was accepted as proof that his organic business model must be working. Indeed it seems to be. But from my small semi-conventional farmer perspective it seemed to me that his ability to do this had more to do with an operation that is roughly 50 times my size, than the fact that his produce is organic. I don’t bring this up to complain: I cite it as evidence that the usual big/small, conventional/organic dichotomies that we so quickly embrace in these debates are not always that well reflected in reality.

    Permalink

  5. Spence's avatar

    Spence Posted 8:05 pm
    14 Aug 2009

    Excellent beat-down Tom, and I'm not at all surprised that someone writing for the "free market" AEI would of course be getting huge checks cut from the government. The neo-con con has always been about fat corporate corruption sheathed as principle.But what really bothered me about Hurst's argument, and what really made me wonder if he ever even read Pollan's writing, is that most of all, Michael Pollan writes about health. He writes about the effect of modern agricultural practices on our bodies. After all, the subtitle of The Ominvore's Dilemma is A Natural History of Four Meals. The book is about meals and about eating and about what food does to you. The entire point of farming is to produce healthy food, but CAFOs and pesticide-soaked industrial farms are ruining the health of Americans, no doubt including Blake Hurst. Yet he doesn't even bother to address the issue. Maybe because he has nothing to say.

    Permalink

  6. Bud Dingler's avatar

    Bud Dingler Posted 2:53 pm
    15 Aug 2009

    Tomyou comdem the diesel sucking combine. Ok please please inform me a country boy and producer just how we will feed the country with less diesel.For the sake of keeping this simple, lets assume the crops we are talking about are corn (feed corn or sweet corn) and soybeans. So the question is if not using a combine then just what are you suggesting? and if you can point to some examples of this being done currently that would make this more credible.Other then harvesting by hand I am not familiar with alternative methods of harvesting corn and soybeans that are more efficient then diesel powered machinery.

    Permalink

    1. saticoyroots Posted 6:34 pm
      15 Aug 2009

      Bud - you and Tom are working from opposite and mutually exclusive assumptions. You are correct: A combine, while indeed a large diesel sucking machine, is an efficient means of harvesting large acreages of corn. You will not sway Tom with your reasoning though. His assumption is that we are producing more corn and soybeans than we need, so your energy (in both senses of the term) is being wasted. The real question is not what replaces the combine... it is what replaces the corn? To what alternative crop could a farmer like Blake Hurst turn, and how could that transition occur without sending him (and 1000s of similar farmers) into bankruptcy?

      Permalink

      1. Bud Dingler's avatar

        Bud Dingler Posted 9:36 am
        16 Aug 2009

        I understand and condemn the subsidies for corn and bean. However there is nothing wrong with people eating these two foods. I had sweet corn last night and it was tasty. If the subsidizes go away there will be less grown but grown in similar fashion as done today because the technology that has evolved makes sense if you farm large pieces of land. BIg pieces of equipment can produce more food cheaply then hand labor. roto tillers or small tractors. Its not my rule but it just makes sense. I don't follow your thought pattern that Blake is supposed to plant something different?like what hemp? would that satisfy Tom and you? You condemn but you have no answers to a very simple question I posed. It always sounds like a great sound bite to condemn the deisel sucking combines - but really no one can present a realistic alternative - I'm still waiting.....I live in farm country and am a small producer. I don't think we will be feeding my state with small farmers when interstate trade and large farming practices are more energy efficient. I think we can realistically supplement more industrial food with local food from small farms but really that model makes no sense efficiency wise on a large scale.

        Permalink

      2. Matt Petryni's avatar

        Matt Petryni Posted 9:57 am
        16 Aug 2009

        I think, Bud, you're still sort of missing their point. It's not that these ideas would "make sense efficiency wise on a large scale," but that the whole idea of the "large scale" does not make sense efficiency-wise. The big pieces of equipment, technology that makes sense on large pieces of land, and lack of crop diversity all require tremendous energy inputs, subsidies, and externalities to even be possible at all. My point, and probably Tom's point also, is that this formula is simply unsustainable.So what is the answer "we propose"? First thing is that it is important to realize in order to move that direction: there is no food scarcity. We don't need to produce half as much as we a producing to "feed the country," and even moreover, the world produces more than enough food to feed itself several times over. We actually produce more food than we ever will need. And this incurs massive costs for our environment, our economy in the long-run, our ability to continue producing for many generations. This realization makes more feasible the concept of moving away from the "large scale" altogether.(You may be tempted to ask here: but if we produce much, much more than enough to "feed the country," why are so many people starving/on food stamps/undernourished? I encourage anyone interested to look into it try to answer this question. Simply pursuing this answer might be quite, well, interesting.)The second thing is to realize that the human population is very, very large, and its growth is beginning to slow down. In the well-fed countries, the rate of population growth is actually reversing, and the populations are declining, a phenomenon we might observe in the US as well if it weren't for immigration. So number of people who will have to be fed can eventually be expected to decrease if current trends continue.What, then, is the solution? Smaller scale, more diverse, local agricultural economies. You would be right to say this will not work on a "large scale," which, actually, is exactly the point: the large scale will not work in the long run.

        Permalink

    2. Tom Philpott's avatar

      Tom Philpott Posted 10:15 am
      16 Aug 2009

      Wow, Bud. This is the best you can do? Either millions of acres of corn and soy or ... hemp? How about actual food crops? And please on't try to muddy the waters by bringing up sweet corn. Sweet corn is a "specialty" crop, like tomatoes and peas. Bringing ip up in context of vast moncrops of GMO field corn shows either ignorance or a zeal to mislead.

      Permalink

      1. Bud Dingler's avatar

        Bud Dingler Posted 11:10 am
        16 Aug 2009

        Where I live there are vast fields of "canning" sweet corn that are aerial sprayed and planted and harvested just like feed corn. the latest numbers I could find showed 150,000 acres of sweet corn just in 6 counties near me.


        I do appreciate your general message of your writing but I don't seem much practical applications being presented. I also wonder how many chances you get to visit the Heartland of America and talk to the people whose practices you so greatly oppose.

        the reason i suggested hemp is it is under consideratiion as a ag crop here

        Permalink

      2. Matt Petryni's avatar

        Matt Petryni Posted 1:46 pm
        16 Aug 2009

        I tried to offer an idea of practical solution to the challenges of sustainability: a system of more locally-oriented agriculture. I guess that got lost in the shuffle.

        I don't think the discussion is really going to go anywhere valuable if we continue to parrot "you have nothing but complaints but no practical suggestions" and then fail to respond to the actual suggestions that we've presented. But it's not that important that the discussion goes anywhere anyway...

        Permalink

      3. saticoyroots Posted 3:19 pm
        16 Aug 2009

        Tom - I'm not sure that Bud's suggestions of sweet corn or hemp are meant as red herrings. Both are valid alternative crops to field corn. They aren't grown in my area, so I don't know their economics... but if they work in Bud's area... great! Would they not add biological diversity and an opportunity for income diversification for small farmers, while reducing the flow of "industrial input" corn? Isn't that the kind of progress you're looking for? I think Bud hits on the right idea near the end of one of his posts, and you hint at the same idea in one of yours: It's not about a million acres of corn or a million acre monoculture of something else. It's about a balance. Right now, our subsidized crop mix is out of whack, and it is having impacts in many arenas. I don't think any reasonable people think that we should outlaw field corn and combines... certainly I don't. Both fill a need. But could we (should we) change the "industrial"/"local" mix. Yeah, we should. Is the right mix 90/10, 50/50, or 10/90? I wish to hell I knew... Because I'm a small farmer too, working a piece of ground that's been in my family for nearly 140 years.

        Permalink

    3. Avelhingst Posted 8:55 am
      17 Aug 2009

      Mr. Dilinger:In the interests of efficiency, I have some recommendations for the American corn/bean belt:  First, Cargill, ArcherDanielsMidland, Pioneer, Monsanto, et al. should merge into a large agro Trust.  Then the Trust would purchase all the short-and-regional railroads, followed by the barging concerns.  Thereafter, the Trust would work against its best interests (profits extracted from farmers) and purchase by means fair or foul every scrap of farmland twixt the Appalachians and the Western Desert to maximize efficiencies.  The Trust might also be interested in some port properties as well. I am being facetious, of course.  I don't mean to be rude, either; however, I cannot resist pointing out that waving the 'efficiency flag' leads to market monopolization.  Moreover, for the amount of food currently produced, the american farmer is as efficient as it gets - yet still, we are barely able to scrape by.  It's quite painful to realize that the day I spent - from before sunup to after sundown - did not earn me a single penny (in fact, in may have cost me several thousand pennies).  Whee!  What fun!  But I digress: to fuel the modern american farm economically, we should focus away from fossil fuels and turn to other energy sources that are portable, storable, and can be produced anywhere - and battery power is NOT the answer, not for anybody who understands, like you or I, the needs of tractive power on american farms.  I suggest that the first real hydrogen economy revolution should be taking place in rural, humble places on the heavy equipment that farmers use.  I'd be interested to hear what you think on that.

      Permalink

  7. Matt Petryni's avatar

    Matt Petryni Posted 12:05 am
    16 Aug 2009

     

    Permalink

  8. amazingdrx's avatar

    amazingdrx Posted 11:14 pm
    16 Aug 2009

    This is the best way to move the discussion along:I see three big challenges for the sustainable-food movement as it scales up: 1) soil fertility—in the absence of synthesized nitrogen and mined phosphorous and potassium, how are we to build soil fertility on a larger scale?; 2) labor—sustainable farming requires more hands on the ground; who’s going to work our farm fields, and at what wages?; and 3) access—Namely, solve these issues with orgaic ag.  The nitrous oxide, methane, and fuel related GHG emissions account for over 50% of human caused GHG, this is well known to us, but will never be accepted by the AEI crowd.First, we build soil fertility by recycling the waste stream using biodigestion and extraction of fertilizer from urine.  Instead of bare ground between crop rows we grow nitrogen fixing green manure crops like alfalfa that are then added to the fertilizer biodigestor, before or affter being fed to animals.  This cover cropping also helps suppress weeds and protects soil from erosion.Second, the labor issue.  We mechanize organic farming with renewable electric powered robotics.Third, access-cost.  We lower cost through mass production of organic food, with robotics.Technology is really the solution.  Not the chemical ag biotechnology, just plain old silicon chip, photo electric eye, wireless internet, human programmed farming technology.  The robotic farmer knows where it planted each seed, it knows what plants and insects are supposed to be growing in the farm plot and which aren't.  It knows how dry the soil is and how much liquid organic fertilizer, or mulch, or extra water each plant needs.  And it does all the watering, weeding, mulching, fertilizing, and harvesting.  Under the direction of actual farmers.As the robotic equipment is perfected and mass produced, the cost goes ever downward, it runs on unlimited solar/wind power.  The cost of chemical ag, dependent on fossil fuel and mined inputs goes ever upward.

    Permalink

    1. memer Posted 9:07 am
      18 Aug 2009

      Interesting dreamscape, perhaps it would be advisable to wake up?

      Permalink

  9. Avelhingst Posted 8:58 am
    17 Aug 2009

    I've read Mr. Hurst's little tirade; unfortunately, he deviates not at all from the standard bloviations of the Farm Bureau-y set - extraordinarily reactionary bloviations that really don't help hisself nor anyone likehisself, but rather the folks that have been bleeding the poor bugger dry all these years, courtesy of the government subsidies. 

    Permalink

  10. VeganBurnout Posted 8:59 am
    17 Aug 2009

    Hi! I came over here from Crunchy Chicken, and your analysis is spot-on. I tackled Hurst's piece on my blog (veganburnout.blogspot.com), but I'm so glad to have your "agri-intellectual" perspective. Keep it up!

    Permalink

  11. gplot Posted 2:16 pm
    17 Aug 2009

    Nice response, as always, Tom.I'm trying to tackle these issues (although from a slightly different angle) as well over on Change.org.

    Permalink

  12. Bud Dingler's avatar

    Bud Dingler Posted 4:55 pm
    17 Aug 2009

    i understand the rationale behind the claim too much corn is grown - much of it as animal feed and HFCS.  BUT soybeans its hards to see the evil in soy products.  Someone please explain why growing all those soybeans is a poor choice for farmers. A cursory look at wikipedia - nothing really jumps out - soy products appear to be a healthy product ingredient over some others. although i would like farm subsidies to end for corn and beans and given to other small farmers or eliminated completely. but big deisel combines also harvest yer quaker oats and yer whole wheat. like what some how we're all going to be eating less wheat and oats. or bring back the sythe like the Amish? something is missing in the point the author is trying to make. it is illogical Spock! just pick wheat and oats - good wholesome products. if we are not advocating a decrease in consumption then just how are you going to keep the price affordable and produce the same tonnage without big deisel sucking equipment? i heard a lot of philisophical meandering to my questions but few if any answers.   

    Permalink

    1. jeanmarietodd Posted 2:54 pm
      19 Aug 2009

      As to what's wrong with soy: as grown in the U.S., it's largely GMO, with mostly Monsanto seeds, so it helps to keep that empire strong.Feeding it to cattle is not wise as legumes are not a natural diet for herbivores, which would be mixed grasses and hay (dried grass). Eliot Coleman, Joel Salatin, Michael Pollan, AcresUSA authors and others have written about the havoc that feeding grains and legumes wreaks on bovine health, necessitating the use of antibiotics to keep the animals standing (that's the minimum standard of health for beef cattle), leading to antibiotic overuse and the creation of superbugs.Feeding it to people is equally problematic. Soy is the most indigestible bean and maybe the most indigestible food that humans consume, containing many anti-nutrients, unless it undergoes long fermentation, as inmiso, traditional soy sauce, natto in Japan and tempeh from Indonesia.The Asian cultures that traditionally ate it (before modern food marketing that took tofu to the world) don't consume it in anywhere near the quantities a typical U.S. vegetarian or vegan might, and certainly not in shakes, meat analogs and the like. Soy is goitrogenic. In cultures like Japan where unfermented soy products like tofu are also eaten, they are consumed in the context of a thyroid-supportive diet (lots of seafood including sea vegetables).There are many studies showing the much-vaunted soy isoflavones are actually problematic, acting as endocrine disruptors. Soy is high in phytic acid, which reduces assimilation of minerals and is not remedied merely by soaking, sprouting, cooking or processing. Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion. Soy increases the need for Vitamin D, and unless you've been under a rock you've probably seen lots of reports lately about the epidemic of severe Vitamin D deficiency in this country. There's much more. See The Whole Soy Story, by Kaayla Daniel, the Weston A. Price Foundation's extensive research on soy athttp://www.westonaprice.org/soy/index.html. A New Zealand site, soy online service, also reports on soy research.

      Permalink

      1. Vines_&_Cattle's avatar

        Vines_&_Cattle Posted 3:12 pm
        19 Aug 2009

        Um, legumes aren't a natural diet for herbivores?  You might want to pick up a copy of Stockman Grass Farmer, because anyone who is trying to establish a perrenial pasture system is desperatly looking for nitrogen fixating legumes!  That means alfalfa, beans, peas and clovers.  Joel Salatin talks repeatedly about grazing legumes in his book, Salad Bar Beef.The whole point of rotating pastures is to allow the legumes to take hold, you can't have a sustainable, animal finishing pasture without them! 

        Permalink

  13. Jim Goodman Posted 7:56 pm
    17 Aug 2009

    I have farmed both conventionally and organically, so I can see both sides of the argument, I have been there. Farmers need to make a living.  I don't know as the world has ever asked us to feed them. I think they would prefer to feed themselves, and it would not be corn and soy that they would be eating. We need to help out in crisis situations but as weare net importers of food we should also be trying to feed ourselves. Corn and soy feed animals, and make Monsanto, Pioneer , Cargill, ect rich. As a conventional farmer it was difficult to admit that I was working for corporate agriculture, but it was true. So Tom's point about farmers just getting subsidies as a pass through is spot on. While all farmers cannot sell directly as I do, it is much more rewarding  (and most of the time more profitable) to know my customers. I wouldn't trade that for six weeks in a combine.

    Permalink

  14. memer Posted 9:03 am
    18 Aug 2009

    Let's talk about something beside agriculture. Agriculture in any form is indefinately unsustainable and suicidal. Tom, I recommend directing this discussion towards agrofroesty as a model of sustainable food production. It's the only realistic conversation we have, for our grandchildrens sake at the very least. And to the so-called "Farmer" driving his combine he bought on credit for six weeks. I feel for you. You've got to be hungry out there, no food in sight. Poor guy.

    Permalink

  15. Vines_&_Cattle's avatar

    Vines_&_Cattle Posted 10:14 am
    18 Aug 2009

    Great points.  As a conventional farmer myself, I found a lot of good points in Hurst's piece.  But as a farmer transitioning to more susta... er profitable practices, I found a lot of it disingenous.  My biggest problem was his failure to mention subsidies, as a corn farmer of all things!  It is the irony of agriculture that the "capitalists" are the wards of the state, while the "hippies" are the real capitalists.  I have a recent blog post relating my recent experiences with that dynamic.I disagree with you that subsidies are neceassary to change agriculture for the better.  Subsidies will always have unintended consequences, no matter how well intentioned.    

    Permalink

  16. jeanmarietodd Posted 11:49 am
    19 Aug 2009

    To Mr. Bud and other conventional farmers who might be wondering how to get off the treadmill, I sympathize with your position and hope you will educate yourself about the damage our conventional system is doing and the viable alternatives that exist. To echo another commenter, the point is that large-scale agribusiness is not sustainable in the long-run, and in the short run it is making life very hard on our farmers that are just trying to do as they're advised, like you.You can find lots of information and inspiration in the pages of AcresUSA magazine, a voice for eco-agriculture. http://www.acresusa.com. You can read articles from the current issue and also get a free issue from the site. You can learn about the scientific advancements that have been made in organic/no-till/biodynamic/eco-agriculture in the past few decades. Your choices are not doing it as your grandfather did (though he probably had at least part of the picture right) or doing it as Monsanto advises. AcresUSA also publishes books with this accumulated wisdom. Every issue is packed with research as well as real farmers telling how they are doing it.Best wishes 

    Permalink

    1. Bud Dingler's avatar

      Bud Dingler Posted 2:49 pm
      19 Aug 2009

      Its Dingler first name Bud.I am NOT a conventional farmer, I just live in a large community of conventional farmers and must get along with everyone who is related to me or friends etc and the county government.I use a IPM regime that allows me minimal use of chemicals for my fruit. Its all about the timing, like sex. Anyhow your comments about viable alternatives is offensive if you are NOT a farmer. What would you know beyond some stuff you read on the internet or a sustainable ag degree if a method is viable or not? Suggesting Acres USA is laughable.While they have some legitimate titles and authors on farming they also hawk twilight zone materials like homo-pathy and biodynamic and other voodoo science that would guarantee to drive a profitable business into the ground.
      I'm sure you mean well as do many commentors but seriously spend some time in rural America and come to your senses before expounding on how someone else should run their life.I'm still waiting to here from Tom or a commentor on what alternatives we have to combines for harvesting wheat or oats and beans in the future. Regardless of the amount of acrage nationwide we are suggesting as optimal it comes down to large pieces of equipment can get the job done more efficiently then hand labor. BTW I know what hand labor is all about in the fruit business. Most white folks will not do hard labor 60-80 hours a week. Many Latino and other immigrants do this work and are very hard workers and I admire them for that......they do not have the luxury of a fancy wifi computer and sit around all day telling other people how to grow food and expoiund on topics they no very little about. I do support small farms like my own and feel we need more of them around urban areas. That in itself will not feed most people and Industriual like farming will continue. My  big point is Agriculture is a continuum and there are many shades of grey that work for many different growing zones and climates. One size does not fit all and organic will never replace conventional large farming. The sooner the so called sustainable or green movement figures out that we are not going from one extreme to another - but rather find some more common ground - the sooner we will create more progress.Grist is one example of extremes - some of us farmers find great humor here as we see the silly and unrealistic ideas that are floated here. But day dreaming has its place - thats were creativity and new ideas are borne.  

      Permalink

      1. jeanmarietodd Posted 3:37 pm
        19 Aug 2009

        Mr. Dingler, I am not telling you how to run your life, I just offered up some sources of information in case you weren't aware of them.I'm thrilled to learn you employ IPM.I am a farmer, actually, though small-scale. I didn't mean to offend you, but I learned a great deal from AcresUSA. I don't endorse everything I read there either. I'm on the fence on homeopathy (not "homo-pathy") but some people have great success with it.As to biodynamic farming, I visited the Napa lavender farm and vineyard of a woman who came up through conventional farming and turned to biodynamic after pesticide-related health problems had stricken most of her family. It sounds like woo-woo to me, too, but you can't argue with her results. That was her position. She now supplies organicbouquet.com with its lavender, and grows grapes for Napa winemakers. I doubt there are any farmers more sophisticated about modern farming techniques and high technology than vintners, and more and more of them are going biodynamic. I also buy what produce I don't grow myself from a biodynamic farm/CSA in my area, and it's beautiful produce. Until you've visited some biodynamic farms and seen their results, maybe you should withhold judgment.

        Permalink

      2. Matt Petryni's avatar

        Matt Petryni Posted 6:02 pm
        19 Aug 2009

        Yeah, Bud, I am really not trying to be rude, but I think you need to get over yourself. Frankly, many of the people here are in fact farmers, do in fact know farmers themselves, may in fact "live in the Heartland," and seem to, in fact, know more about the complex elements of the issue, such as its long-term sustainability, than you seem to. I could be wrong, but much of your argument is not so much addressing the actual problems with the ideas proposed here (and where it does, it's rather ineffective) as much as it is trying to paint the writers and followers of Grist as out-of-touch urban liberal elitists.While this is all very rhetorically popular these days, and certainly sounds very convincing, it fails to actually advance the discussion. Instead of injecting what is, in your own view, a badly needed "Heartland farmer perspective" into the conversation, you seem mainly interested in avoiding a discussion about potential solutions while uselessly demeaning the experience, expertise, and input of the people with which you're having it.I kindly suggest that your argument would be much more persuasive to us "lazy liberal elitists" or whatever if you spent the majority of your time pointing things out as you begin to in your first paragraph: offering your perspective on the issue itself, rather bashing on than the people discussing it. I feel that firsthand perspective would be incredibly valuable, especially when compared to paragraphs laced with downhome arrogance regarding how you clearly feel about Gristers' more general naivete.

        Permalink

      3. Truly Scrumptious Posted 8:33 am
        20 Aug 2009

        " twilight zone materials like homo-pathy"I sure hope that typo is simply your ignorance about the correct spelling of word homeopathy, and not a intentional slur against homosexuals.

        Permalink

      4. Truly Scrumptious Posted 9:00 am
        20 Aug 2009

        Bud,You have asked the question many times (and complained,
        many times, that no one has answered): what will replace a combine? 
        Let me answer: it's true, we don't yet know.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take a critical eye to a hugely polluting piece of the agricultural puzzle, and it doesn't mean we're ignoring other problems in the ag system. 
        If we never look critically at combines, will we never come up with the
        alternative you keep asking us to propose. But if we point out that the
        diesel-guzzling combine is one of a few big environmental problems in
        agriculture, then we can begin to figure out a way around it, or a way to improve it, or
        a way to mitigate it.Technology is far, far away from
        solar-powered or electric combines, and the future combines may be
        entirely different from diesel, solar or electric. It's still
        true that some day, oil will run out, and it's true that the climate is
        changing at the hands of humankind.  Maybe if we point out that diesel combines are a problem, the companies who make them will start working with engineers towards a replacement.And maybe
        instead of demanding that we tell you what replaces a combine, you should
        tell us what will run the combine when oil runs out.  Come on, tell
        us!  Now!!  Don't ignore my question, or I'm going to keep asking it
        until you propose a solution!! Now can you stop
        hyperfocussing on the blasted combine that was only mentioned as an
        aside, and start seeing the bigger discussion that Tom's trying to
        foster?

        Permalink

      5. Bud Dingler's avatar

        Bud Dingler Posted 12:16 pm
        20 Aug 2009

        Thank you for admitting that we're no where close to having even a concept of how to harvest crops on a large scale more efficiently then a combine.In my business being pragmatic is a requirement as hopes and dreams don't grow well in soil.I am probably more in tune with Tom than my cranky old messages imply and consider Tom's voice important to get the word out.I'm here to keep things honest and ask the hard questions. Organic and some sustainable practices just don't always make sense in a particular situation given climate, crops, skill, finances and most importantly markets. IF you live 200 miles from a metro you're not going to get the premium you need to make it go with a more costly sustainably or organically grown crop or product.biodynamic is great for vinters who are swimming in cash on the west or pacific NW coast as they can afford to play around with a concept that has little if any scientific proof as it adds to their label story and makes some people all warm and fuzzy,that kind of nonsense adds nothing to the bottom line in many markets in the heartland.Some folks in the city think for instance going organic is as easy as saying for example I'm going organic and have no clue what that means to mitigate pests, fungi and related crop growing problems. Successful organic farming is a skill and I admire those who can make it work and get certified and be profitable. Organic apples for instance are almost impossible during wet years in the northern regions of the USA unless of course you can make a living on a 35% packout.Many of these Ag systems we want to change evolved since WWII and any level of progress will also take 60 years to get in place in my view.

        Permalink

  17. Vines_&_Cattle's avatar

    Vines_&_Cattle Posted 1:10 pm
    19 Aug 2009

    To the comment about "getting off of the treadmill" I think organic/sustainable/alternative ag folk have a problem in how they sell new methods and markets.  Hippie talk of "sustainability" irks the capitalist DNA of most farmers.  I know, it doesn't make sense, it's just the way it is.  It's not that we hate flowers and bunnies, in fact it's part of the reason we choose the lifestyle.  Farmers, especially older farmers, hear such talk and think of backbreaking labor, and the "good old days" that weren't so good.Instead replace the word "sustainable" with "profitable" and it will get you a lot farther.  I still remember the page in O's D where Pollan laid out that Salatin was pulling down $300,000 with hardly any inputs.  Now of course Joel is in the seven figure range.  THESE ARE THE THINGS FARMERS NEED TO HEAR!  I can easily gross six figures, the problem is that my inputs for a wheat crop will eat that right back up.  (Thanks ethanol mandate) That's what has pushed me in alternative directions, it can bring others as well.  Oh, and don't talk down to conventional farmers, they probably have a broader range of knowledge than most of their critics.We (farmers) have been bred to believe that we are in some noble under taking.  And it is used, by fellow farmers no less, to justify our low prices as well as our government dependence.  Well in my eyes "FEED THE WORLD" is an extortion racket meant to keep prices low, and farmers cranking out cheap inputs for corporations.  Corporations mind you that use their influence to pass laws making it harder for farmers to direct market, and keep retail dollars for themselves.  All in the name of "food safety".If I'm going to feed the world, then the world can start compensating me for the effort, via higher prices.  Meanwhile count me out of the commodity game, I'd be a lot happier, and financially solvent, feeding a small city.
    My humble blog.     

    Permalink

    1. saticoyroots Posted 2:07 pm
      19 Aug 2009

      V&C - Thanks for posting. I have enjoyed reading through your blog. I agree, some of the problem is the way this is presented to conventional farmers. What they hear is this: "You are not a bad person, but you are part of a bad system, populated by bad people where you make very little money. We are good people, and you can join us. We have a "vision" for a good system, and in our "vision" you will make a lot of money." Assuming for a second that they don't take offense, what farmers hear is that the system is imaginary. (I know, food system people never say "imaginary, but that is what "vision" translates to in farmerspeak.) They want to see proof. Sure, Joel Salatin and a few others are making a killing. But will that still be true when the other 99.99% of farmers do the same thing? If everyone did things just like him, would Joel still be special, or would he be the commodity?More of my thoughts on when local food will work: http://saticoyroots.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/when-local-food-will-work/

      Permalink

      1. Vines_&_Cattle's avatar

        Vines_&_Cattle Posted 5:36 am
        20 Aug 2009

        Considering the billions in retail dollars that are out there, I think there is plenty of room for expansion of direct marketing and diversification.  The problem is telling the stories of the successful farmers.  Washington has done a good job of shackling farmers to certain mindsets.  It's sort of like the relationship with an abusive spouse, the abused is convinced that there is no better choice, plus somehow it's our own fault.  Get the government out of agriculture, and we'll see all sorts of diversified flowers blossom.  Like the OP said, these subsidies just exist to be passed on to the input suppliers.  Does anyone really think that that dynamic won't exist if we just change subsidies towards more "sustainable" practices?

        Permalink

    2. Farm Bill Girl Posted 8:08 am
      21 Aug 2009

      Right On!I work with both commodity crop farmers and those doing direct marketing and CSAs. I am very tired and irritated by all these foodie activists who continually bash "Iowa corn farmers" as some kind of epithet and especially Ken Cook and his diabolical database for making out the real enemies of the food system to be "millionaire" farmers on welfare when it's really corporate AGRIBUSINESS who gets the real profits off our cheap grain policy. Corn farmers are just a cog in the larger machine to fuel the profits of Monsanto and John Deere and ADM/Cargill. Farm Bureau somehow brainwashes farmers to believe that agribusinesses' interests align with farmers.
      Here at the National Family Farm Coalition, we have always advocated getting rid of subsidies and replacing them with a price floor (akin to min wage) to force agribusiness to pay a fair price to farmers. THis is what we had during the New Deal. Then you need a grain reserve to store excess production to release onto the market if prices spike too high. The AEI right wingers thought this was too Communistic, so eventually, we got the 1996 Freedom to Farm Bill, which was supposed to eliminate all price supports and subsidies and let the "free market" rule. Then commodity prices collapsed, Farm  BUreau realized it needed to do something to pretend it cared about farmers and thus why we have the current system of countercyclical payments and direct payments, but alas, no price floor to force Smithfield and ADM to pay fairly the farmer.
      Here is ag economist's Darryl Ray's landmark report advocating for such a policy, instead of the current cheap grain agribusiness policy that allows us to dump commodities as well into third world markets. I suggest all you folks who simply advocate for "getting rid of subsidies" and complete deregulation of commodity prices read this to get a more accurate view of how farm economics really works.http://www.agpolicy.org/blueprint/APACReport8-20-03WITHCOVER.pdfSeveral food activists (like Barbara Kingsolver) were misled by some of the Ron Kind-Richard Lugar alternative Farm Bills that wanted to take money from commodity subsidies to give to good "organic" farmers or nutrition programs. Frankly, it was a bill only Monsanto/Cargill could love. Farmers would still be producing corn/soybeans because the market is there, and the ones who would have benefitted the most from the coming collapse in corn prices would be ADM/Smithfield who get cheap HFCS and cheap feed for CAFOs.I can tell you how Farm Bureau justifies the commodity subsidies since I read their propaganda everyday. Americans have the "safest, cheapest most abundant food supply in the world." farm programs are meant to be only a safety net for when commodity prices collapse (yeah, funny they don't care about safety nets for anyone else of course...). free trade will help save farmers by getting them an export market so commodity prices may someday rise (never mind it's Cargill who does the trading, not farmers!). Farm programs take up less than 1% of the federal budget and help ensure we are never reliant on foreigners for our food (never mind that our relentless promotion of FTAs has already made us dependent on imported food..)

      Permalink

  18. Jim Goodman Posted 8:20 pm
    19 Aug 2009

    Joel Salatin has done great things, but we all can't have the luxury of living so close to such a huge metroplitan market. Like real estate, in direct marketing it's location, location, location. The product has to be good, but --location.

    Permalink

    1. Vines_&_Cattle's avatar

      Vines_&_Cattle Posted 5:38 am
      20 Aug 2009

      Not if we use our imaginations, and the internet, internet, internet. ;)

      Permalink

  19. justlou Posted 5:29 am
    20 Aug 2009

    Good post Tom, and good discussion overall.  Tom's basic point -- our industrial mode of production is extremely unsustainable from the standpoint of finite inputs and open waste streams -- is entirely credible. But, we limit our vision if we do not look at agriculture as part of our entire system of living on earth.  Simply, we suck at it.  If we can avoid the myopic economic worldview of technocratic cornucopians we should be alarmed and frightened by the outlook.   Any attempt to make agriculture sustainable must be accompanied by a vision that encompasses the entire gamet of production, processing, transportation, consumption and "waste".  Ratcheting up the technology to attempt the impossible mission of sustaining our way of living will only bury us under the mountain we think we need to ascend.  We are at the peak.  We have reached the limit but we have no vision of a lower and sustainable plateau. Our rural and urban communities are both disaster zones.  People, in both rural and urban areas, suffer soulfully from a lack of intimate and direct contact with primary nature and our addiction with seductive technological substitutions that take us even further apart into alien landscapes.  We need a vision that transforms our lives by integrating producers with consumers and the production environment with an ecologically restored earth.  We could with appropriate and labor saving technologies smartly employ billions of people on this earth, respecting and reinforcing diversity of nature and culture and achieving health for the planet and people if we only have the right vision.  All of our worldviews need to be closely and truthfully examined for we are all tainted by living in this screwed up mental prison.  Outside the box may just not be out there enough.

    Permalink

  20. Sean Casten's avatar

    Sean Casten Posted 3:07 pm
    20 Aug 2009

    Well said, Tom.If you've not already read it, I'd highly recommend Dan O'Brien's book Buffalo for a Broken Heart, especially as it relates to all large scale agriculture depending on some form of subsidy.  The book is about much more than farming, but of particular relevance to your post are O'Brien's observations about the American Dream being built on a contradiction - on the one hand, the independent-minded Go-West-Young-Man who wants nothing but to be left to his own devices to succeed and fail on his merits.  And on the other, the reality that the west was not livable absent massive federal investments in railroads, roads, damns, irrigation, electrification and ag subsidies (not to mention the Homestead Act).His riff isn't a polemical one, but just the observation that - per your theme - any honest discussion of agricultural policy has to start by acknowledging that conflict, even as most insist that it can be simplified to the libertarians vs. the socialists.

    Permalink

  21. KSukalac Posted 11:19 am
    21 Aug 2009

    I'd like to align myself with Saticoyroots. The problem with the usual debate is that the two alternatives presented are caricactures and ideologies. And the reality is far more more complex than many people who engage in the debate realize or admit (I'm not sure which). You will never resolve a polarized debate between ideologues.However, I believe that there are many people out there who are pragmatic and who share the vision of making agriculture more sustainable. And that will require employing a mosaic of site-specific solutions that are suited to local conditions. Sometimes the best choice might be "pure" organic, but there will also be times when the so-called "conventional" technologies will be needed.With regard to the complexity of the challenge, let me put a few facts on the table:1) For most of the past decade, world food stocks have been shrinking, despite bumper harvests in several years. They are now below what is considered a comfortable buffer, which is the context in which factors converged to create the 2008 food crisis. (It estimated that at least 100 million people globally who had emerged from grinding poverty slipped back into it as a result of the crisis.)2) With regard to climate change, there are several indicators to look at: emissions per hectare/animal and emissions per unit of output.  At the end of the day, farmers need to satisfy a growing demand for food, but also fibre and even substitutes for industrial goods (biofuels are just one example in a broadening portfolio that includes everything from pharmaceutical to building applications). If you consider the necessary land conversion that a purely organic solution would require, the greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale would be greater than by producing the same output through well-managed intensive production.3) Our species now lives mostly in urban centres, and that trend is going to continue. That means fewer people to work in rural areas, but it also implies that cities will increasingly encroach on farmland.4) As the incomes of the poorest of the global poor rise (and anyone who has ever been to a developing country could not in good conscious deny them that right), agricultural demand will rise faster than the population.5) The imperative to use water resources efficiently will only increase.These are daunting challenges. I agree that there are problems with how agricultural policy is currently framed, and that there are social, environmental and economic issues that need to be addressed. But I am confident that if you inversed the ratio and organic farming represented 99% of global production, there would also be unintended consequences that would need to be addressed. So let's stop arging whose church is holier and start focusing on the central challenge: producing adequate, high-quality produce with the least possible unwanted side effects. 

    Permalink

  22. Surfing Nutritionist Posted 4:23 pm
    22 Aug 2009

    On the issue of nitrogen, a study was published recently in the Journal of Alzheimers Disease by de la Monte SM and others that highlights the link between increased exposure to nitrates, nitrites and nitrosamines in processed foods and the increase in mortality from diabetes, alzheimers and neurodegeneration (i.e. Parkinson's). The authors put forth three potential solutions for altering this trend, the second of which is "reducing nitrate levels in fertilizer and water used to irrigate crops."

    If this is true, and on top of that we know that our current industrial food system has strong links to the biggest chronic diseases we're burdened with today, how does Blake Hurst feel about this? And what is he willing to do about it to create a food system that both feeds and nourishes the masses (Mother Earth included)?

    Permalink

  23. jonnyappleseed's avatar

    jonnyappleseed Posted 2:11 pm
    26 Aug 2009

    Too many posts here to comment on each one, but certainly Tom's original post requires some response. As a minor point: while Mr Hurst will spend 6 weeks in a combine burning diesel, it won't be "casually" - as anybody who has combined crops will tell you. Unnecessary tone, I'd say. As for the 'distinct possibility' that H1N1 originated on a (Mexican) hog farm, I believe that has been debunked. Even if it were to remain a 'possibility', the linkage between animals (domestic or wild), feces and disease is hardly novel, and pre-existed commercial hog farms. As for the subsidies - two points: given my basic math skills I may be wrong but collecting $1.4 million over 12 years is $116,666 per year, pretax I'd guess. That might cover the diesel bill. Point two: I'll believe y'all are serious about changing our food system if I see you in the checkout lines saying: whoa, that's too cheap! Here take some more money for this food!" We have the cheapest and safest food in the world, and until we starting paying independent farmers/growers of all sorts more to do this essential task, we'll not make much progress. Joel S. is an exception at this point; it'd be nice if how he farms would work economically for all consumers, let alone producers. But, he's serving a high-disposable income segment, and that's not what I mean by changing the economics of farming and consumption.

    Permalink

  24. josebrwn Posted 9:09 am
    27 Aug 2009

    I want to add a couple points about farmer Hurst's article.  There's something fishy about the whole thing.  There's an untruthfulness to what he had to say about ranching that leads me to believe that either he's not who he portrays himself as, or the article was ghostwritten.It's pretty clear that farmer Hurst is no rancher, yet he spends a considerable amount of ink talking about turkey and hog ranching, and displays an abysmal lack of knowledge about the either.  To start, turkeys do not drown themselves in the rain.  Not even domestic turkeys.  This is a 30 year old "urban myth" that we all heard as children, at least we did where I grew up in the rural outskirts of Virginia.  It's a crafty argument he puts together, obliquely defending the CAFO barns operated by Purdue and Tyson that we all saw in Food, Inc.  The barns where poultry live their lives in the dark and where big chicken owns everything but the pollution.  Poultry confinement is simply an exegency of operating on a large scale.  The same goes for hog confinement.  A typical farrowing house on a family farm has enough room for the sows to turn around, get food, plus an area for the piglets to sun themselves under a lamp.  The sows are only in there while they're nursing and the rest of their lives they get to loll in the sun and be pigs.  The lifelong confinement in concrete and steel cages that is banned in the EU doesn't begin to resemble the level of treatment you'll find on any small farm, because it's just too expensive to let the hogs see the sun, move about, poop in the dirt, or live and eat together.  It has nothing to do, nothing at all, with saving a piglet or two, and his rhetorical flourish that confining hogs is necessary because being crushed is a terrible way to go for a piglet, is so farsical it strains the imagination.
    I'll say it again.  Either this man is very clever and disingenuous, or that article was ghostwritten.  Nobody who knows anything about ranching would have tried to go there.   

    Permalink

    1. jonnyappleseed's avatar

      jonnyappleseed Posted 1:08 pm
      28 Aug 2009

      Turkeys are not very bright. What happens to poults that are outside - or even inside - if they get completely scared is that they huddle. They may all dash against a fence or shed wall in a panic, and some will suffocate. Young ones out in the rain will lose body temperature quickly, and press together, and some will die, maybe many. Maybe even all if they all get completely chilled. As for sows and baby pigs - sows, in any housing system, will crush some babies. Its a fact. They crush fewer of their young when they're crated. That's not a justification, just the way the numbers work. Is raising hogs differently  'more expensive..' as you said? Yep. So, continue to demand higher prices for pork, spend more of your disposable income on food, pass more rules forcing pigs outdoors and then we can contend with the those environmental issues....

      Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement