One of the biggest problems both the Ag industry and the animal rights’ groups deal with is a lack of trust. They don’t think we have an ounce of compassion, and our side feels they will go to any lengths to make us look bad. Let’s face it, we don’t trust each other to do the right things, and that starts where our core beliefs are based from. But when neither side will give on things like the use of animals for food, what do we do?
Well, for starters, we can take a look at our own industry and critically think about the decisions that we make. Now I’ve discussed some of these before so I won’t go back over all of them, but NO NEEDLESS SUFFERING. Enough said.
But the one that I’d like to address here is our trusting of the anti-ag folks. Unfortunately it isn’t always in our best interest to be all that trusting. They say that when we deny access to facilities we must be hiding something. We, as an industry, have been burned by radicals from the other side who fully feel the ends justify the means. I know we need to start a dialogue with these folks, but to what extent? Do you, like me, feel that you distrust them and while they might love animals, they don’t feel as warm and fuzzy about us in Ag?
I found a bit of an answer to that in an unlikely place, Popular Science, in their August edition, page 58. Within an article called “Science Confirms the Obvious “is a smaller article called”Environmentalists Can Be Smug Jerks”. It asked the question, if going green translates into “more redeeming behavior overall”. Subjects were exposed to green products, and were found to be more charitable, a halo effect. But when someone purchased one of these products, it seemed to be a license for hypocrisy. After a purchase they were more likely to lie or steal. It would seem that buying green gives people a sense of moral capital (aka a superiority complex). Does this kind of attitude sound familiar? I touched a bit on this in the blog “who cares”.
Now admittedly I’m making the stretch to apply this same thinking to animal rights. But it’s a parallel that looks to me, to fit. But why the attitude? In a recent discussion with an animal rescue proponent, I got put down, talked down to and more or less beat up for supporting Ag, even though they had no idea where I stood on any ag issue. I know they say they love animals, but they don’t always treat their fellow man very well. We shouldn’t be making the same mistake. Treat them with the respect that all people deserve, but cover ourselves where the trust issue is concerned.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
What's A Food Chain?
Recent conversations with a group of animal rights folks, has led me to believe that the food pyramid is going to be changed. Or rather, thrown out. As in do over, baby out with the bath water, start from scratch. Why you ask? The American public eats way too much meat, waaayyy too much. ITHO (In Their Humble Opinion). We aren’t the top of the food chain, somehow we are above or separate from it.
Well, we eat more because of demand, availability, convenience etc, but are modern farming methods forcing the food pyramid/ food chain? I personally find that quite a reach. But the argue goes that people have nutritional options and because we are caring, the most caring people among us will decide for the rest of us what that is.
But I digress. The opinion that we are no longer part of the food chain is what really intrigued me. That we have evolved into higher beings. Conversations have been held where we are told that the way modern farming method treats animals, isn’t natural and thus can’t be right. I don’t disagree that it isn’t natural, nature is much more brutal. Death is certain for all of us, but for animals in the wild that moment is very uncertain and they live in a state of constant vigilance and fear. Domestic animals are domesticated for a reason, they’ve been bred to live in conditions that don’t resemble nature in any way. An environment void of predators, weather stress, and ample food is something that animals don’t encounter outside of captivity.
But if we raise animals for food, we are causing them to suffer for no reason other than for our own ends, and we have options. Suffering is a part of life. The two are inexorably linked. I asked Megan, if her own life included any suffering and got a curious, “well yes” response. If we are unable to eliminate suffering in the lives of the people around us, it seems to me to be unreasonable to expect us to rid the production of animals for food from “ALL” suffering. It’s an unrealistic standard that no one can attain.
So does that mean we do nothing? Absolutely not. It is our obligation to care for the animals we raise, and to do it in a way that values their lives. Take only pictures, leave only footprints, is a great motto for national parks, but as we humans leave our mark, time will tell what that means.
Well, we eat more because of demand, availability, convenience etc, but are modern farming methods forcing the food pyramid/ food chain? I personally find that quite a reach. But the argue goes that people have nutritional options and because we are caring, the most caring people among us will decide for the rest of us what that is.
But I digress. The opinion that we are no longer part of the food chain is what really intrigued me. That we have evolved into higher beings. Conversations have been held where we are told that the way modern farming method treats animals, isn’t natural and thus can’t be right. I don’t disagree that it isn’t natural, nature is much more brutal. Death is certain for all of us, but for animals in the wild that moment is very uncertain and they live in a state of constant vigilance and fear. Domestic animals are domesticated for a reason, they’ve been bred to live in conditions that don’t resemble nature in any way. An environment void of predators, weather stress, and ample food is something that animals don’t encounter outside of captivity.
But if we raise animals for food, we are causing them to suffer for no reason other than for our own ends, and we have options. Suffering is a part of life. The two are inexorably linked. I asked Megan, if her own life included any suffering and got a curious, “well yes” response. If we are unable to eliminate suffering in the lives of the people around us, it seems to me to be unreasonable to expect us to rid the production of animals for food from “ALL” suffering. It’s an unrealistic standard that no one can attain.
So does that mean we do nothing? Absolutely not. It is our obligation to care for the animals we raise, and to do it in a way that values their lives. Take only pictures, leave only footprints, is a great motto for national parks, but as we humans leave our mark, time will tell what that means.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
They're Just Cameras, Right?
So what about this whole issue of cameras and undercover videos being shot? I mean, how do we protect ourselves when hiring people whose agenda might be the demise of animal agriculture? I’ve a couple of ideas along those lines.
Surveillance cameras have been used in maternity barns for a while and have really become less expensive in the last few years. We’ve grown used to seeing them in place for preventing problems there, why not for preventing problems in other areas. Recent thefts in areas of Indiana, and Wisconsin of high dollar semen have given us a hint that increased security would be a wise move on our part, so why shouldn’t we use the same security systems to protect our reputations. They can be set on a continuous loop to keep a month or more of data on file. Knowing that sort of information is around keeps everyone on their toes just a bit. Heck, hang a few signs around that say, “premises under video surveillance”, what with the size of cameras anymore; they won’t be able to find them. A recent article in a dairy magazine talked about a dairy that had 16 cameras in place. One on the bulk tank, time card, working chute, etc. A quick check and I found a 4 camera system installed for $1500.00
Hiring practices. Wow has this one gotten a lot of scrutiny as of late, and is going to get worse. It’s time we in Ag figure out exactly what we can and can’t say to someone’s prospective employer. Nothing ticks me off more than finding out a problem was just passed along because nobody said anything about it. But there are legal limits to what we can say, and if these limits pose an issue in hiring animal caretakers, maybe we need to say something.
And lastly, if you don’t want it on camera, why in the heck are we doing it? Yes I know there are things that look worse for livestock than they are, but what we do needs to pass the test of “can this be justified?” Anyone who has ever handled livestock has become frustrated by livestock. They truly have a sense of making some jobs 10 times more difficult than it needs to be, but proper handling practices and facilities do help. But, all that being said, if you wouldn’t want someone to see it on tape, find a different way to do it. :)
Surveillance cameras have been used in maternity barns for a while and have really become less expensive in the last few years. We’ve grown used to seeing them in place for preventing problems there, why not for preventing problems in other areas. Recent thefts in areas of Indiana, and Wisconsin of high dollar semen have given us a hint that increased security would be a wise move on our part, so why shouldn’t we use the same security systems to protect our reputations. They can be set on a continuous loop to keep a month or more of data on file. Knowing that sort of information is around keeps everyone on their toes just a bit. Heck, hang a few signs around that say, “premises under video surveillance”, what with the size of cameras anymore; they won’t be able to find them. A recent article in a dairy magazine talked about a dairy that had 16 cameras in place. One on the bulk tank, time card, working chute, etc. A quick check and I found a 4 camera system installed for $1500.00
Hiring practices. Wow has this one gotten a lot of scrutiny as of late, and is going to get worse. It’s time we in Ag figure out exactly what we can and can’t say to someone’s prospective employer. Nothing ticks me off more than finding out a problem was just passed along because nobody said anything about it. But there are legal limits to what we can say, and if these limits pose an issue in hiring animal caretakers, maybe we need to say something.
And lastly, if you don’t want it on camera, why in the heck are we doing it? Yes I know there are things that look worse for livestock than they are, but what we do needs to pass the test of “can this be justified?” Anyone who has ever handled livestock has become frustrated by livestock. They truly have a sense of making some jobs 10 times more difficult than it needs to be, but proper handling practices and facilities do help. But, all that being said, if you wouldn’t want someone to see it on tape, find a different way to do it. :)
Defend What?
So after the recent videos that surfaced showing a herdsman abusing cows, I really had to think long and hard about how those of us in Ag respond to abuse cases.
What is the proper response to wanting to beat some ignorant abusive idiot half to death twice?
I know what you are thinking, this guy is an order of fries short of a happy meal, and he is going be profound? Yep, made me laugh too, but with a little help from some friends, I have this to offer.
Condemn, Defend and Debate.
Condemn the abuse we see unconditionally. While the details might look like they are entirely too convenient for the animal rights crowd, the cold hard fact is that animals got abused. That, in and of itself should be enough to make our blood boil, and for us to want justice too. We need to let the justice system do its job. If there are details that look too neat, it makes us look bad if we are the ones looking for the black helicopters. The details usually come out.
Defend the common practices we use on the farm, and know why we do them. Clipping eye teeth, docking pig tails, debeaking hens, or castrating livestock. And really know why we use them. Be able to produce pictures of a young piglet that has had its’ face ripped up by another piglet who didn’t get his teeth clipped. Maybe a little graphic but, the animal rights folks need to see the consequences of their actions as well. We need to understand that the animal rights folks won’t like many of the practices that we use, and that’s okay, but we need to know the details of our decisions.
Debate. There are things that go on at a farm that we need to talk about. Veal Crates, gestation crates, and battery cages are all things that we presently use, but have we asked all the questions that we need to about animal comfort? The whole realm of what an animal finds important is also important to use, but is really hard to define. Hard scientific facts on happiness? What makes me happy, stresses you out. If we can’t define degrees of happiness, or guarantee the total absence of stress in humans, making that determination in animals is really hard. When we get into debates about this stuff, it is too easy to question the experience that the opposition is using to make their calls. So many of them have never been to a farm, met a farmer, yet instinctively “know” what is important to an animal. And to some extent they may be somewhat right, wrong is wrong, and their feelings can’t be denied. But not knowing animals and animal behavior can make them see one thing and interpret it through human eyes and emotions.
But in my interactions, I’ve found most of the animal rights side will listen to a reasonable discussion. Some won’t, don’t waste your time on them.
What is the proper response to wanting to beat some ignorant abusive idiot half to death twice?
I know what you are thinking, this guy is an order of fries short of a happy meal, and he is going be profound? Yep, made me laugh too, but with a little help from some friends, I have this to offer.
Condemn, Defend and Debate.
Condemn the abuse we see unconditionally. While the details might look like they are entirely too convenient for the animal rights crowd, the cold hard fact is that animals got abused. That, in and of itself should be enough to make our blood boil, and for us to want justice too. We need to let the justice system do its job. If there are details that look too neat, it makes us look bad if we are the ones looking for the black helicopters. The details usually come out.
Defend the common practices we use on the farm, and know why we do them. Clipping eye teeth, docking pig tails, debeaking hens, or castrating livestock. And really know why we use them. Be able to produce pictures of a young piglet that has had its’ face ripped up by another piglet who didn’t get his teeth clipped. Maybe a little graphic but, the animal rights folks need to see the consequences of their actions as well. We need to understand that the animal rights folks won’t like many of the practices that we use, and that’s okay, but we need to know the details of our decisions.
Debate. There are things that go on at a farm that we need to talk about. Veal Crates, gestation crates, and battery cages are all things that we presently use, but have we asked all the questions that we need to about animal comfort? The whole realm of what an animal finds important is also important to use, but is really hard to define. Hard scientific facts on happiness? What makes me happy, stresses you out. If we can’t define degrees of happiness, or guarantee the total absence of stress in humans, making that determination in animals is really hard. When we get into debates about this stuff, it is too easy to question the experience that the opposition is using to make their calls. So many of them have never been to a farm, met a farmer, yet instinctively “know” what is important to an animal. And to some extent they may be somewhat right, wrong is wrong, and their feelings can’t be denied. But not knowing animals and animal behavior can make them see one thing and interpret it through human eyes and emotions.
But in my interactions, I’ve found most of the animal rights side will listen to a reasonable discussion. Some won’t, don’t waste your time on them.
Lights, Camera, Action?
Recently video came to light that showed a hired hand in Ohio abusing, well more or less everything on the farm. A certifiable sadist that had no respect for life in any form. Yep, the animal welfare folks went crazy. Everything from we told you so, to factory farming is inherently cruel with no respect for life. Calls went out for mandatory third party verification of surveillance camera footage. I mean if you don’t have anything to hide, why would you object, right?
But an interesting difference in philosophy came to the forefront. Calls from the Ag community for the prosecution of the cameraman started to come out. With the thought process that anyone who cared about animals would have put a stop to the abuse first and foremost, tell the boss and then the boss can fire him. The animal welfare community couldn’t believe the Ag community wanted to shoot the messenger, after all he was risking his life to see justice done, and I mean the owner was seen violently kicking a cow to get her up. The owner can’t be expected to fix this; he’s part of the problem.
It is my feeling that both sides of the argument have their valid points. Animal abuse cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute. There is the general feeling among the animal rights folks that the laws have been watered down by big Ag to prevent anyone from being charged. The Ag community feels that people who don’t understand animals, think everything we do with animals is inherently cruel and that animal rights groups should not be setting the standards of animal care.
No one involved in Ag argued the hired hands abuse, some defended the owner, but we lost the most ground with attacks on the cameraman. I’m pretty sure if the cameraman was involved, law enforcement will find the connection and take the appropriate measures.
We do have some challenges in the area of animal abuse laws. The abuse filmed in Ohio isn’t a felony under Ohio law. Is it abuse in my state? I’m not sure, but it should be. The question that comes out is what constitutes abuse? A swift kick, a swat with a hand, a cattle prod, or a pitchfork? The phrase that comes to mind was a quote on pornography. When asked for a definition of pornography, the speaker said, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.” The routine handling of animals shouldn’t necessarily leave itself open to that question.
But an interesting difference in philosophy came to the forefront. Calls from the Ag community for the prosecution of the cameraman started to come out. With the thought process that anyone who cared about animals would have put a stop to the abuse first and foremost, tell the boss and then the boss can fire him. The animal welfare community couldn’t believe the Ag community wanted to shoot the messenger, after all he was risking his life to see justice done, and I mean the owner was seen violently kicking a cow to get her up. The owner can’t be expected to fix this; he’s part of the problem.
It is my feeling that both sides of the argument have their valid points. Animal abuse cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute. There is the general feeling among the animal rights folks that the laws have been watered down by big Ag to prevent anyone from being charged. The Ag community feels that people who don’t understand animals, think everything we do with animals is inherently cruel and that animal rights groups should not be setting the standards of animal care.
No one involved in Ag argued the hired hands abuse, some defended the owner, but we lost the most ground with attacks on the cameraman. I’m pretty sure if the cameraman was involved, law enforcement will find the connection and take the appropriate measures.
We do have some challenges in the area of animal abuse laws. The abuse filmed in Ohio isn’t a felony under Ohio law. Is it abuse in my state? I’m not sure, but it should be. The question that comes out is what constitutes abuse? A swift kick, a swat with a hand, a cattle prod, or a pitchfork? The phrase that comes to mind was a quote on pornography. When asked for a definition of pornography, the speaker said, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.” The routine handling of animals shouldn’t necessarily leave itself open to that question.
Say What? Ok, That Ain't Right.
So in these conversations with the animal welfare crowd, how do we go about getting our story out? One of the things I’ve been trying to do is to get to know the people who perceive that they are on the other side of Ag. PETA supporters and the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS), both have a fairly popular following, and all involved have different ideas about their agendas. Some will argue that HSUS doesn’t have a vegan agenda, while someone else will point out that their leadership is vegetarian. These groups as I’ve pointed out before, are pretty good at getting their meatless message out, and do have Ag as an industry in a bit of a defensive position. They are trying to tell our story for us, and sometimes they are using information that’s just wrong.
An example of that played itself out recently for me. An anti- “factory”- farm poster listed off all of the hidden horrors of a modern factory dairy. Only problem is, they got them wrong. Not just a little bit wrong, WOW wrong. One of the details shared was the claim that rBST chemically induced cows give 10X the amount of milk that they would naturally. Now I got to admit 10x would be something to see. I can’t believe it would be in any way sustainable, but think of it, 800 lbs a day……………..
I try to stay on the edge of the fray. I’m only a member of this site by invite, as one of two token farm folks. I try to mind my words and lay kind of low, but at some point it gets hard to keep your mouth shut. So I opened my big mouth and challenged the information. I gave the right info, but for lack of time, didn’t list sources. Someone asked for them, and the original poster gave goveg.com,”the secret lives of cows”.
I try to stay pretty level headed in these spots, but I sort of lost it. My response went a bit like this.
“You gotta be kidding, I’ve got to refute that as a source? Wow. Fine, I’ll get to it, it’s really busy around here right now, it could take a day or two”.
And an interesting thing happened. About a half a dozen additional posts showed up, one even from the original poster, which refuted enough of the original claims that they lost their credibility. One post actually credited Monsanto’s site mentioning a 10% increase in production, which was my stance. But after I did a little digging, I found the same discredited facts on at least two other sites. So how do they come up with their numbers? I’m not sure, but I’ll throw this out. A stock cow is as close to a natural cow as anyone in animal welfare will admit to, and she gives about 10-15 lbs of milk per day. A dairy cow that is cruising along can give anywhere from 100- 150 lbs/ day. So obviously the rBST enabled this cow to give 10X her “natural” amount of milk, right?
Kind of brings to mind the old adage, “Figures do not lie, but liars figure.”
An example of that played itself out recently for me. An anti- “factory”- farm poster listed off all of the hidden horrors of a modern factory dairy. Only problem is, they got them wrong. Not just a little bit wrong, WOW wrong. One of the details shared was the claim that rBST chemically induced cows give 10X the amount of milk that they would naturally. Now I got to admit 10x would be something to see. I can’t believe it would be in any way sustainable, but think of it, 800 lbs a day……………..
I try to stay on the edge of the fray. I’m only a member of this site by invite, as one of two token farm folks. I try to mind my words and lay kind of low, but at some point it gets hard to keep your mouth shut. So I opened my big mouth and challenged the information. I gave the right info, but for lack of time, didn’t list sources. Someone asked for them, and the original poster gave goveg.com,”the secret lives of cows”.
I try to stay pretty level headed in these spots, but I sort of lost it. My response went a bit like this.
“You gotta be kidding, I’ve got to refute that as a source? Wow. Fine, I’ll get to it, it’s really busy around here right now, it could take a day or two”.
And an interesting thing happened. About a half a dozen additional posts showed up, one even from the original poster, which refuted enough of the original claims that they lost their credibility. One post actually credited Monsanto’s site mentioning a 10% increase in production, which was my stance. But after I did a little digging, I found the same discredited facts on at least two other sites. So how do they come up with their numbers? I’m not sure, but I’ll throw this out. A stock cow is as close to a natural cow as anyone in animal welfare will admit to, and she gives about 10-15 lbs of milk per day. A dairy cow that is cruising along can give anywhere from 100- 150 lbs/ day. So obviously the rBST enabled this cow to give 10X her “natural” amount of milk, right?
Kind of brings to mind the old adage, “Figures do not lie, but liars figure.”
So Why Would Anyone In Their Right Mind Do This?
Anyone who knows me can answer that question for you pretty easily. I’m just not quite right in the head. And you have to be a little bit different, to put up with a lot of the junk that is out there concerning animal welfare. If there’s a differing option out there, my guess is it will get fired at you at lightning speed.
But back to the question of the day. Why put yourself out there as a focal point for the crazies and nut cases?
Because it is really important to our industry. Less than 1% of our population is involved in feeding our nation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics list farm jobs at just over eight hundred thousand. Double that number to cover the people involved in support businesses (like us), and let’s call the number 1.5 million.
1,500,000 feeding 300,000,000 people.
This puts way too many people too far away from the source of their food. Too many people who have no idea what goes into feeding them, no idea about what is involved in caring for their food, and no idea that those of us in the Ag industry really care about the food that gets produced for them.
Some education needs to happen and we need to decide whether or not we in Ag will be involved in the discussion. Have you even noticed that it is a lot easier to point a finger at a nameless mass, but when you know an individual, and he gets to call you on things you get wrong, it gets harder to embellish the story? Megan and I’ve talked about a lot of things farm and she’s learned a few things and so have I concerning vegetarians. I’ll think twice about lumping them all into the nut case category.
Hopefully that is the effect that these conversations have on some of this group. Maybe they will question seeing a cow in a barn as not abusive, a calf getting dehorned, or piglet getting its eye teeth clipped as being an okay procedure. Or at least they will ask the question.
But can it make a difference? Yes, it can. Recently I got a message from a new friend, who after watching a video on animal abuse, commented that because of conversations had recently with a group of farmers, understood the differences in what constituted abuse.
I don’t expect this topic to go away anytime soon, and people with cameras will continue to show up. But let’s give as many people as we can an opportunity to know a farmer and see a farm. They don’t have to agree with every practice, but if they know the people involved, it would give them a place to start asking the questions.
But back to the question of the day. Why put yourself out there as a focal point for the crazies and nut cases?
Because it is really important to our industry. Less than 1% of our population is involved in feeding our nation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics list farm jobs at just over eight hundred thousand. Double that number to cover the people involved in support businesses (like us), and let’s call the number 1.5 million.
1,500,000 feeding 300,000,000 people.
This puts way too many people too far away from the source of their food. Too many people who have no idea what goes into feeding them, no idea about what is involved in caring for their food, and no idea that those of us in the Ag industry really care about the food that gets produced for them.
Some education needs to happen and we need to decide whether or not we in Ag will be involved in the discussion. Have you even noticed that it is a lot easier to point a finger at a nameless mass, but when you know an individual, and he gets to call you on things you get wrong, it gets harder to embellish the story? Megan and I’ve talked about a lot of things farm and she’s learned a few things and so have I concerning vegetarians. I’ll think twice about lumping them all into the nut case category.
Hopefully that is the effect that these conversations have on some of this group. Maybe they will question seeing a cow in a barn as not abusive, a calf getting dehorned, or piglet getting its eye teeth clipped as being an okay procedure. Or at least they will ask the question.
But can it make a difference? Yes, it can. Recently I got a message from a new friend, who after watching a video on animal abuse, commented that because of conversations had recently with a group of farmers, understood the differences in what constituted abuse.
I don’t expect this topic to go away anytime soon, and people with cameras will continue to show up. But let’s give as many people as we can an opportunity to know a farmer and see a farm. They don’t have to agree with every practice, but if they know the people involved, it would give them a place to start asking the questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)