I think we are going to disagree on that point. Regardless what they say in Food Inc. it's can't be criminal. It's a protected first amendment right. You could argue that Monsanto engages in monopolistic practices that in the proper political climate might be criminal.

Scottokla, if you have time, what did you find misleading in Food Inc.?

Anyway, I plan to watch Dirt! tonight. Thanks again for the heads up!

I haven't seen Food, Inc., but I do know that if the American public actually knew how broken the commercial food industry is in America, they would be running screaming toward growing all their own food, saving heirloom seeds and plants, and fighting the big 'food' corporations. The too big to fail banks aren't our only problem. A great place to start the revolution would be in changing government policy.

I spent my career in the commercial food industry and can say it is now the greatest regret of my life.

Marcy

We have the safest, cheapest food supply in the history of the world. The marketplace will fix the problems (as it always has) as long as people stay honest in the debate.

Farmers can choose to grow any seed they want to. If Monsanto has produced products that most farmers want to buy, good for them.

earthy, I only watched part of it and it has been a long time ago. The one part that I remember being so misleading is a part where they imply pork grown outdoors is somehow superior to the modern way, while showing pigs living in their own $#%@! and destroying the ground beneath them for years to come. We have practically eliminated a lot of the diseases in pork by producing them indoors in air conditioning and clean surroundings. Plus it is much cheaper and has allowed people from a lot of other countries to afford to buy it compared to a few decades ago. It has been 25 years since hogs lived on some of the land I have used. Only in the last 10 or so has the ground been useable because of their damage.

Anyway, I don't like debating this stuff and this is not the place for it so I won't bring it up again except to correct statements that I know are incorrect or to respond when people attack farmers and ranchers and their industry. I have little experience with the processing of the food once it leaves the farm.

"I have little experience with the processing of the food once it leaves the farm."

This is one of the biggest problems. How can the marketplace fix the problems whenever the public, which includes farmers and ranchers, refuse to educate themselves about the processes?

The method and manner of raising hogs, cattle, and poultry is of little consequence. We can agree on that point. The feed additives, implants, antibiotic programs and feed concentrations are. Since farmers and ranchers are the initial source of the raw product, I have long wished and, on more than one occasion, begged them to educate themselves about the process and make a difference.

Respectfully,

Marcy

I agree with Marcy. Many of the additives are a problem. Just like milk. I drive 40 miles and pay more so I can buy Braum's milk from cows not fed rBGH. Like I tell others if you feel our food supply is the safest then eat it. I have fed and been in the livestock business all my life. I don't feel by the time it is processed and reaches the table it is as safe as many believe. So pay more to either raise my own or buy from those not fed the additives and implanted. I know of trials being run in Lubbock, TX on hogs. Where they are raising hogs back on soil and the results are promising. As they say many things go around in a circle. Whether hog feeding will or not it is too early to say. In the end I feel about everything I eat the same way. The more I can grow or raise myself the more control I have over it. And what I can raise or buy I will research and try to make the best decisions I can for myself and my health. Jay

I am not a big milk user, but what I do use I am picky about. I buy groceries at the big box store, then I leave there and stop by Braum's for bread, milk, buttermilk, butter, cheese, etc. Very little of our dairy foods come from anywhere other than Braum's. Since Braum's put in their Fresh Markets, I find that about everyting I need in between the 'big' shopping trips can be bought at Braums. Also since WM carries fewer and fewer of the things I like, I am gradually finding them at other places. By trying to force me into a narrow market of their own brands, they have been pushing me out the door to search for them elsewhere, but that's another topic.

Joel Salatin uses intense management when raising his hogs. They actually improve the ground they are raised on rather than destroy it. They are also healthier and happier than the critters raised in confinement.

CAFOs are breeding grounds for super bugs and environmental degradation. Those operations stink and ruin our rivers and lakes and groundwater. Contamination of the meat is high, running at 75% of the poultry produced in them having pathogens by the time they are in the super market.

For this reason, I raise and butcher 80% of my own meat. The rest I buy from farmers I know and trust to raise their animals in healthy and humane environments. If I eat at restaurants, I eat vegetarian because I refuse to support the system that is industrial agriculture.

On Dirt! I watched it twice already. Very inspiring.

Marcy, I was talking about how little I know about what happens after the animal is DEAD!

There is no way to keep diseases out of pork if the animals are exposed to wildlife and wind. There is also no way a hog can be kept comfortable in almost all of the US in both summer and winter without them being indoors at least in one season, and the animals comfort is what causes them to grow fast and stay healthy.

This thread is deteriorating to half fact/half propaganda like they always do. Most of you have good points and facts, but there is so much misinformation mixed in to these discussions that it is a mistake to debate it here. Talk to university people and vets to learn more about research that goes into what becomes allowed and not allowed when growing crops and animals. Nobody on a message board is going to have credentials to show they are objective and educated.

Sooo.. did anybody besides buster watch Dirt! ? Inspiring, indeed. And I still want to know if anyone eats their own dirt.

Personally I trust the beef that is raised if I know where it is slaughtered and processed. Pork and chicken are a different matter. I not only have helped and worked with vets through the years. I've raised livestock, my Sister and BIL are farmer/ranchers and own part of a livestock auction. I talk with and deal with farmers and ranchers every day. And with vets on a regular basis. Also have several friends who work for the corporate hog farms around here including a vet. So I feel I have a good feel for how livestock is treated and raised here. A member of my family raised chickens for Tyson for around 30 years. Cattle aren't but many of the other livestock are raised on antibiotics. Myself and some friends are being treated right now for a condition that one of the possibilities for it is eating meat that was raised on antibiotics. This came from different doctors. I do eat meat when I eat out but mainly beef. Each of us are entitled to our opinions. I will say I raised hogs years ago and my death rate wasn't any higher than it runs here in the confined houses. Some studies are showing a hog that isn't as confined is happier, more relaxed and thus healthier and does better. Again two sides to every story. Jay

I don't watch TV but maybe once or twice a year so didn't see it. I can tell you that I eat plenty of my dirt but not on purpose. LOL

We raise most of our own meat. Not all of it but the majority of it. One of these days, we'll get to where we raise most of our fruits & veggies, too. With a large family, it's pretty difficult but we're gaining on it a bit more each year.

Diane

We started watching Dirt! and decided to watch it as a family movie and discussion topic this weekend. It's the kind of documentary that deserves to be seen by a wide audience. I am glad PBS aired it.

Jay,
I drive to Braum's for our family's milk. We toured the Braum's family farm in March. You'll be pleased to know they are currently raising a slaughter herd so they can offer their own beef in their Fresh Market stores. Of course it takes a while to raise a herd large enough to sustain ongoing demand, but it's nice to know it's coming. Growing up, my family raised its own beef. While I'm not really a big fan of beef, or any other meat for that matter, I'm going to get my wallet ready so that when we do choose beef, it can be Braum's.

Seedmama

Braum's also has good sausage. I usually buy 3 pounds at a time, cook it all at once, then freeze it. I am not a morning person, but my DH likes breakfast, so he just takes out what he wants and nukes it to have with his eggs.

OK...get over it. I don't like breakfast, and I don't like to cook breakfast. I raise the chickens, gather the eggs, buy and cook the sausage, but he can do the rest. LOL

Jay, I am not disagreeing with you or questioning your expertise. You are much more experienced than I am in most of these areas. I am just saying that most of these issues are studied very well prior to approval of any type of treatment, and the scientific evidence is overwhelming in a lot of these areas when viewed objectively.

I was a clinical and pre-clinical research statistician who worked with the FDA while employed in Texas for some of my years before moving to Oklahoma. Farming is just a hobby for me, but in the areas where I do have expertise I know that a lot of the anti-production agriculture propaganda is nonsense. There is a little bit of good mixed in here and there, though. In the end the science and data will win out as long as there is honesty and objectivity in the debate.

Back to the pork discussion, the entire discussion of confinement vs non-confinement is not the whole story. During summer and winter here hogs cannot be comfortable and grow accordingly on a large scale while also be kept away from the diseases that get in the meat from being exposed to wildlife and airflow from other hogs that can be miles away. The public will have to decide if they want clean pork that has been scientifically grown in the fastest and cheapest way currently known, or more expensive "dirtier" pork that has been grown in a more traditional way that requires more resources but may make the pig "happier" 6 months out of the year. (Actually, 6 months is longer than most of them live.) Farmers will respond to what the public wants and produce it accordingly, but they get tired of being accused of being part of the problem by people who can't even be honest in the discussion.

By the way, humans have already spoken in that we WOULD PROBABLY be "happier" without air conditioning, living mostly outside, not taking almost all medicines, etc., yet the vast majority stay inside in the controlled environment, visit Walgreens regularly so we are as comfortable as possible at all times, and have our food brought to us with no activity on our part. We are a bunch of modern-day pigs.

Scott,

There are a myriad of problems created before the animals are DEAD. A liver condemnation rate of 35-40% in slaughter cattle is one statistic that should give one pause.

I spent 25 years in the commercial part of cattle industry. I have all the data and stats on 80,000 head of slaughter cattle per year for those years. What it taught me is that much of the money spent in the quest for productivity and efficiency is money thrown away. It simply isn't necessary. And guess what, by throwing out much of what simply isn't necessary, we would improve the product and make it safer for the consuming public. But, we haven't. Maybe because of all the scientific data and stats paid for by the $17 billion animal health industry at our universities.

I find it enlightening that those who have spent time within the industry are trying to find ways to consume products that are outside of that industry. How's that for irony?

Cheers, everyone, I'm over and out on this one. I can feel those ulcers I suffered while in the business coming back.
My carbon-neutral vegetable garden awaits.....

Color me an anti-production propagandist, I guess,

Marcy

dang I missed it!! I will have to see if they are going to air it again.

Check your local library. They might have a copy, or might get it if you ask. I am sure you can inter-library loan it too. Also on the website, they seem to allow you to get a copy for a group showing.

This is the kind of thing I would buy and share with friends. Shame we can't do that over the internet.

Dirt! was a much more positive film than Food Inc., which basically just ticks you off without also instilling a little hope. Dirt! did that. I much prefer that sort of film. "FRESH the movie" is another great film on sustainable ag.

It was great to finally see Alice Waters in something. She is quoted everywhere by everyone, but I had no idea even what she looked like.

Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai was absolutely wonderful. I loved her story...

A fire broke out in the forest. All the big animals, the lion, the hippo, the elephant, giraffe, chimps, everybody, just ran away. Then sat and watched helplessly as the fire burned their forest.

A hummingbird watched for a moment, too, then went to the river and scooped a tiny beak full of water, flew over the fire, and dropped it. She did it again and again and again.

"You silly bird," said the animals. "Do you actually think you can put out that fire with your tiny beak of water??"

She stopped (but only for a moment) and said, "At least I am doing something. I am doing the best I can."

On which kind of hog meat is dirty...

Russ Kremer of Frankenstein MO tells of his transition from conventional farmer to sustainable. He ran his hogs in a CAFO and they constantly needed medication. His vet bills were huge. One day he was injured by a bore and that wound developed an infection that was almost impossible to cure. The nasties were impervious to every antibiotic applied. He thought for a while he was going to die.

Fortunately, a new antibiotic had just come on the market that was more powerful than any known to date. That finally killed the bug.

He decided he had enough. He exterminated his herd and turned to a sustainable style of hog raising, which included raising them (gasp!) outside.

His hogs are healthier, cleaner, and happier. He saved $14,000 in vet bills the first year alone.

Consumer Reports every year does a study on broiler chickens in the supermarket. Last year, 70% came up with either salmonella, campylobacter or both. That's factory farmed and processed in a USDA inspected plant.

Yeah, that's clean.

Joel Salatin's pastured (outside!) birds were once tested by a university that wanted to compare his to factory farmed and organic. The results: zero pathogens. None. Nada.

Joel was so confident in his methods, he suggested they even test the feces from his broiler pens.

Same results. No pathogens even in their poo!

I'll take my meat naturally raised any day over that factory farmed stuff.

buster, you can pick and choose stories and instances that paint things however you want, but instead of a few examples like that in these arguements, I suggest people read univerity and regulatory publications giving scientific evidence of how specific treaments impact measurable outcomes and how studies are done to show safety. I am not an expert in much of these industries, but I am fairly experienced with proving things with data.

With regard to the hog story, though. I have read that story a few times in a few places and it is shocking and extremely irresponsible for anyone to report that stuff without anyone actually giving something of substance. You would think if someone would say this stuff like it was a fact they would at least have someone with expertise look into it or make the comments. It could all be incorrect, all be correct, or somewhere in between. That story and many others like them are similar to people talking about having the flu each winter. The majority of these people never got the flu, but "By Gawd" they are certain of it.

Against my better judgement I will continue to post when someone attacks farmers and the ag industry with misleading or dishonest comments like "farmers not being able to keep their own seed" as was what got me going this time. If that comment was really in Food, Inc. without the accurate information being included, then that pretty much sums up how reliable that film is as a whole. This stuff really doesn't need to be debated on this garden board, but I can't see stuff posted that I know is not true and that paints good people in a bad light without responding.

I missed it, but just looked on my movie download site and they had it. Am downloading the movie now looking forward to seeing it.

Scott like you I try to stick to facts. I have the feeling we must be talking about different types of confinement facilities. All I can comment on is what I've seen and been around in my local area. And many of my thoughts and opinions come from my beloved old vet who has since left us but was here in the 90's when the corporate confined hog feeding operations hit. Their accepted death rate was twice as high as that of local growers who may either grow on the ground or a combination of each. Like a vet said how can you say the hogs are healthier when twice as many per 100 are dieing? Here the finishing facilities I've seen aren't what I call air conditioned. Hogs are confined to very small pens with maybe 4 in each depending on the facility and company. The sides of the building are a tarp that rolls up in hot weather. So they are exposed to anything in the air that is in the blowing wind. Some of my vet friends feel in their opinion that is where one of the problems arise. From pigs till they reach the finishing houses they aren't exposed to the outside air and thus have no immunity. They do have misters that spray water on them to cool them and fans that circulate the air. I will also say I haven't been around or kept up with the changes they've made over the last 4-5 years. I'm not trying to argue. I'm pointing out there is valid arguments on each side. I will say in my opinion and that of several of my friends who have expertise in this area that hogs raise in non and semi confinement can be just as healthy. Again opinions only. If I get time I will try to find some information to the studies being done on the high plains.

After 36 plus years at my job and also my years in the livestock business I can give many examples of accepted scientific evidence that has now been proven to be opposite of what they said10,15, 20,25 years ago. And there are many. But a few that are always at the top of my list is asbestos and fiberglass and oils with PCB's. When I first went to work I either worked around or used these products on a regular basis. All the material we had available on them showed scientific data that each was safe. Now the scientific data shows that each has hazards. There has been a higher than normal amount of lung problems among my older coworkers. Many of us feel that working in the conditions we did contributed to this but we can't prove it either way. All I'm trying to say is scientific fact of today may and probably will change in the future.

I agree with you about farmers growing grains. Many still save their own wheat and other seeds. My BIL either saves his or buys it from a local farmer who has storage capacity and saves his. And I agree there is many misconceptions out there. Farmers grow GMO crops because of profitability. They have to pay the bills and satisfy the banker. You hear the stories about GMO crops that will infect so to speak all non GMO crops through pollination ect. This type of information is one concern I've had in the past with one seed saving organization. Seemed that every issue they published had horror stories. What I do know is there is a man not far from here who grows organic and non GMO corn and makes his own corn chips to sell. He grows his corn in the same area with all the other types of corn. As I understand it is he works with his neighbors and plants at a different time. And has his crop tested every year and it is fine. The cost of his chips are higher because of the extra expense ect. And although most really like his product some complain of cost. Many of us are spoiled. We want the best for the cheapest price. Scott again I agree that there is a lot of information out there that may not be proven. And it comes from both sides. All I can do is encourage everyone to become as informed as they can about not only their food but what they come in contact with on a regular basis. The more you know the better decisions you can make. Read both sides of the issues. And then make decisions that you feel comfortable with. I feel the individual farmers and ranchers do a great job of producing a safe food supply. I do have some issues with some of the practices of the huge corporations and huge super farms. Like the huge dairies. In which case I'm willing to pay more to buy milk I feel safe with. All my child hood I drank milk from our milk cows. Was never pasteurized and we never had any problems with it. So I'm not convinced all old ways were necessarily bad. Personally I would trust it more than the milk from the cows fed the additives for higher production. I will try to watch the movie. And then will be more qualified to judge. Jay

I will post more later, but I find it wonderfully ironic that the poster who said "Against my better judgement I will continue to post when someone attacks farmers" is the only person in the thread who has attacked a farmer.

In the very same post, in fact. :-)

I don't attack farmers, at least most of them. I think they have been handed a very raw deal and are being taken advantage of.

Attacking Big Agribusiness, on the other hand...

Well, guilty as charged.

On GMO...

Between 80 to 90% of all corn and soy grown in the US is GM. It is GM so it can withstand herbicides. Would consumers eat it if they new it was GM or that it was inundated with Roundup?

Nobody knows, because the food industry is not required to tell them if a product contains GMO corn or soy.

Are GMO products harmful? The jury is still out, but many countries around the world believe there is not enough evidence to show it is safe and so have banned all GMOs and products made from GMOs.

But the big problem comes from Monsanto and its team of intimmidators I mean investigators who go around trying to see if people are saving their GMO seeds. If they are, then they are infringing on Monsanto's patent.

Now, if a farmer's crop has been contaminated with Monsanto's modified genes, he is also infringing on Monstanto's patent and can be sued, even if he never bought any of their seeds.

Which in fact has happened. You can look it up.

The Monsanto's of the world could likely engineer their plants to not cross pollinate with non GMO plants. But why would they. They have the perfect model to grow their business regardless who it hurts.

Back to Dirt!...

Oklahoma folks will definitely be able to order it interlibrary loan, as my library has decided to add it to the collection and participates in the ILL program.

It is definitely worth seeing.

Buster, that's great news. We are going to talk our library into getting a copy also. As for Food Inc. being mostly depressing, they do seem to talk with someone who is trying a more sustainable method with each segment. But yes, in all I do feel more inspired with Dirt!'s message.

We watched Dirt! tonight. I think everyone can benefit from seeing it. It's the kind of information we should all be exposed to often so it sticks.

Thanks you SeedMama for bringing it to our attention!

Buster I haven't researched the % of GMO grown corn in this area the last few years. I also haven't really discussed it much with local farmers in the last year. I know just a few years ago many were still growing non GMO corn. But the benefit of growing Round up ready corn and soybeans was gradually making many go that route. I have read the claims that Monsanto has sued farmers because their seed got contaminated by cross pollination. I have never heard of Monsanto or anyone else in this area suing or even checking anyone. And feel I would if it had happened. I do know of a few growing organic and at least one who grows a open pollinated non hybrid variety for specialized use. They all stagger their plantings so they don't mature and tassel the same time as the other corn in the area. But I can't say if there has ever been any cross pollination. I will ask the next time I get a chance. Let me state I'm not saying that Monsanto hasn't done it elsewhere. Just not around here as far as I know. I am more leery of the big corporations. Whether seed producers or livestock producers. I know all the promises the big corporate hog producers made when they came to this area. They forgot what they promised and stretched every law to the limit till enough laws were made to control them. They didn't line lagoons, they built as close to houses ect as they possibly could. My BIL and myself built an practice arena at his place where we practiced and I trained horses for years. They built hog houses so close and everything is so concentrated that it bothered my allergies to the point I quit going out and using the arena. They have gradually improved their treatment methods, ect to where it isn't as bad. And one does a better job than the others. An independent farmer has more concern for his neighbors and the environment than a corporations does. A corporations goals is too make money. And they will play politics in order to bypass laws that would make doing their business more costly. With no concern at what damage it may cause in the future. Jay

Jay,

I know there are areas where improvements should and could be made, but I also know there are just as many (probably more) instances where the arguments against production agriculture are nonsense. Right now we are in a situation where only the attacks are presented in most mainstream media and the result is a large percentage of the public who are outraged but do not have an accurate image about what really goes on. On the other side there is a small percentage of people who ARE bending the truth and doing things that are shameful if not criminal, and in the middle is the large percentage of farmers and food industry people who are the best this country has and who are finding themselves backed into a corner every day by people who don't have a clue or don't want to.

The problem with the people who produce the things like Food, Inc. is that they are just like the people they are attacking. They will hide things, tell only the half of the story, and mislead people in order to personally benefit or because they think they are right so it is OK if they go beyond factual information. So the other side defends themselves by attacking the bad information (like I am doing, LOL) and the real problems don't get resolved.

I totally believe everything you are saying about the hog producers in your area, by the way. That is not like most of the hog production I am familiar with, perhaps due to your location with low humidity in the summer and a feeling of being away from public eye because of the remote location. Unfortunately, the backlash will end up going so far the other way that it will end up like California eventually.

buster,

Feel free to respond to me directly without the backhanded stuff. With respect to you saying I was attacking a farmer, the farmer is only responsible for giving his background, his experience, and his opinion. It is the person publishing the story that is responsible for providing the whole story and having someone with expertise in the area provide actual data driven information. Even though I think you are being misleading in a few areas, I also think you are probably a pretty good guy and very informed. If you dropped some of the non-fact based stuff, you would find people like me agreeing with you on the parts where the are legitimate issues.

I hate to say it, but I think the bigger issue is a decline in the general character of Americans from politicians on down to the minimum-wage guy that prefers to keep his job instead of do what is right. I think the country may be falling apart right before our eyes (except for farmers, LOL) and God was just being kind enough to let the World War II generation pass before letting us destroy ourselves. Another topic that shouldn't be on this board!

Have a good night, everyone. I hope I haven't made any enemies on this thread. Good debates are only helpful in the long run.

For years we are told things are safe...but they aren't. We are told the world is warming up...stats show otherwise. We are sold treated seeds..because they are better. We could go on and on. The only thing you can do is to study the ones that bother you, and decide what you want to do about it. You can ignore it, you can select where you buy, you can fight to make changes, you can make or grow it yourself. If you decide to study an issue you will most likely find plenty of literature on both sides who have lots of figures and stats to support their theories.

My husband said it best when he told me that:

"Figures don't lie, but liars figure". I have come to believe that.

Another quick response, then back out working with the the animals and to church...

I have a friend who gets free pigs from a hog confinement operation. Seems the when they bring in the younguns from the farrowing operation, they have to go directly from the truck to the confinement house without touching the ground. If they do, they are no good and must be destroyed. So, my buddy gave them his number to call any time it happens and he will take it off their hands.

The reason? The confinement operation is so tightly packed and immune systems of the animals so low that if a pig touches the dirt before entry, it might bring in a bug that could wipe out the whole lot.

Read that carefully... a pig can't touch the dirt or it becomes a health hazard.

That is one messed up system.

I'm not surprised I am reading here that merely pointing up the faults of the current food system is characterized as an attack on farmers. That is the tactic Big Food has decided is the best approach to the growing consumer awareness and alternative agriculture movement. It isn't that there are flaws in the system that need to be fixed. It is that these people don't like farmers. Seems some of the good folks in this thread have been duped into believing that.

We attended an Oklahma beef conference last fall. There was a program titled "Dispelling the Myths and Sharing the Truth" [about beef production], given by one Darren Williams, a big time Washington DC lobbyist for the beef industry flown in for the conference by the industry.

Being the sort of person who wants to know all sides of an issue, we sat in on the program.

Alas, "dispelling myths" would be more accurately titled as "how to spin and deny". The entire talk was filled with dishonest half-truths and outright lies about alternative agriculture, not about how great and wonderful conventional ag is, as the title might imply. He throws Michael Pollan's (author of The Omnivore's Dilemma) name out there, then tells his audience of beef farmers that he wants Americans to stop eating meat. That is a straight out lie (which Mr. Williams no doubt knows, since he has read Polan's books). He then jumps to a PETA ad, and implies Pollan is somehow connected to it. Pollan politely raled about PETA in his book.

The entire point of the presentation was just to tick people off and get them to join the MBA, the Master in Beef Advocacy program, which tries to encourage grassroots tactics of lobbying their congresspersons to effect the changes they want or stopping unwanted changes.

The aim is also to stop people from getting too curious about alternative ag. Beef farmers aren't really threatened by it. Industrial beef producers are which amounts to just the three companies that produce 86% of America's beef. Farmers can actually make considerably more if they adopt sustainable practices, since the bulk of the profits would then go directly to the farmer instead of middlemen and giant corporations.

These good folks had just sat through an afternoon of seminars telling them how bleak the outlook is for them, yet they left feeling beholden to the guys who are keeping them broke and angry at the system that could be their salvation.

I have noticed lately this is not at all unique to the beef industry. Big Food is out in full force attacking alternative agriculture. Like Mr. Williams in his talk, the tactic is turn the facts on their head. It is sustainable farmers like Joel Salatin who are cruel to their animals, not CAFO systems.

Salatin, who likens it to a war, tells a recent story of a sawdust vendor who refused to deliver his product to his farm because Salatin is cruel to his animals based on the film Food, Inc. The nature of said cruelty? He doesn't pre-medicate them.

We should have known Big Food wouldn't roll over and change their ways. As long as eco-agriculture was a niche market and the local food movement was a harmless fad, they just ignored us. Now that it is the fastest growing segment of the agricultural market, the industry has started to stand up and pay attention.

Rather than change their ways or defend indefensible practices, they instead go on the attack against alternative ag and its supporters.

And some people actually believe them.

I had promised myself two posts ago I was finished. I did try to find the article I had recently read about trials being done at Texas Tech. I couldn't access the most recent info I wanted too without joining a site. Did find some older studies. Basically they say what Buster was saying. And most houses here are the same as Buster stated. If they get out and touch the ground or anything outside not disinfected they can't be returned to the house. Back to the trials. They have found hogs raised in either outdoor or semi outdoors environment have as good or better immune system and do equally as well as those in confinement. Without some of the other problems. There are pros and cons to both practices. Look at the European countries and some of the bans against keeping sows in cages ect. My intent was too show that hogs can be raised as efficiently in an outdoor environment with good management practices as inside. That is here. And TT has a very similar climate to ours. Like I posted earlier in this thread that in the summer when they have to roll up the curtains on the buildings to keep them cool I've been told by friends who work at and manage these houses that the disease and death rates rise. It is because of the very low immune systems. I know some of the corporations are like some chicken corps and feed antibiotics on a daily basis through the feed. Again I'm saying it is an individual decision. Just like using salt. I love salt. I'm willing to take my chances. Others wonder how my blood even flows. LOl. Buster big corps are willing to pay big time to taint the enemy as they see it if it will increase their profits. Jay

FYI, Food Inc' can be viewed online at the PBS website until April 29th.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/foodinc/photo_gallery_watch.php

And here is the other side offering historical perspective and maybe some explanations to why producers will not let their hogs touch the ground outside and then be exposed to the indoor ones (I won't defend any single producer's operations or methods, but I want people to understand how the industry standard has evolved over the past 50 years to make the product a lot healthier and safer than it was 50 years ago.):

Study shows moving pigs inside has huge benefit - 2009-11-25
A study by University of Missouri Extension swine experts shows that moving pigs indoors led to improved health for pigs and higher-quality product for consumers.

Since the shift to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), veterinarians have seen a significant decline in parasites, said Beth Young, swine veterinarian with the University of Missouri Commercial Agriculture Program. Young spoke at the 2009 Swine Institute in Columbia, Nov. 10.

The Commercial Agriculture Swine Focus Team looked at changes in the swine industry since 1945.

In the 1940s, 55-70 percent of pigs were infected with lungworms. By the 1970s lungworm outbreaks only affected about 11 percent of farms. "In the past decade, lungworms are rarely seen," Young said.

"Likewise, 78-94 percent of pigs were infected with kidney worms in the 1940s, and now infestations are rarely seen," she said.

Trichinella and toxoplasma also have seen dramatic drops in recent decades. Scientists believe this is because pigs are not feeding on garbage and have no access to wildlife in CAFO facilities.

Trichinella infection in humans from eating undercooked pork was once fairly common in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Today, the only real danger of contracting trichinella through food consumption is from eating game meat.

Toxoplasma was noted in 42 percent of sows in the 1970s and is now down to 6 percent. Because pigs are confined, they are not exposed to cats, the carriers of the parasite.

Young said that many other swine diseases have seen significant decreases or eradication since the move to confined operations. The list includes swine dysentery, atrophic rhinitis, actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae, brucellosis, classical swine fever (hog cholera) and pseudorabies.

Here is a link that might be useful: Impact of moving hogs indoors

And of course the other method of discounting the effectiveness of organic and alternative farming is to imply it is just old technology that has been standing still the last 50 years while industrial agriculture is the only innovative type of farming. Neither of which of course, is the case. One system has continued to progress while at the same time treating animals as animals, taking full advantage of their natural attributes, while the other has become stuck and refuses to consider that perhaps mistakes have been made by treating animals as if they are just so much meat. Every single system of concentrated animal confinement is starting to break down.

It will just suffice to repeat...

A pig can't touch dirt, or it must be destroyed.

That is one fragile system.

And we haven't even touched on the environmental impact of such operations, which is horrendous.

Organic gardening and old practices of production are great. I do it mostly that way myself. It cannot support today's populations, however. Plus it is extremely expensive. That is not what we are debating, though.

What we are debating is the reason why you and the anti-production agriculture push cannot tell the other side of the story honestly and let the people decide for themselves based on the facts. For every legitimate concern like over-antibiotics use, there is a dishonest concern expressed that is misleading to the public.

Why can't you just simply say that you think there is sufficient evidence that change is needed in some practices and then acknowledge that it will mean losing some benefits that we have had over time such as those historically proven that I linked above, but you think it is worth doing. Why can't you be honest? If you would be honest (since I don't think it is just ignorance on your part), you would have almost overwhelming support from the general public.

Your pig example is the perfect example of you dishonesty. You say the animal has to be destroyed if it touches the ground, and that it is an example of fragile system that needs to be done away with. Yet you then say your friend gets these animals sometimes from them, so the truth must be something more along the lines that the animal cannot touch the ground outside of the controlled area and then be allowed into the operations. The animal obviously doens't have to be destroyed. However, the producers know that the cost to their operations if a disease is brought into the operation will exceed the cost of this one pig, so it is not allowed in. In what twisted world is that a bad thing for the public who later buys this pork to eat. It is not, and it is an example of a procedure that has evolved through years of improvement in the industry to improve the health of the animals and lower the cost of production. I will link another example that I just read in one of the weekly publications that I get that is a similar area of research into improving hig health.

Just be honest with people and stick to facts. There is nothing wrong with saying that we have gone too far in confining some animals in your opinion, or treating them in ways that might later be dangerous (antibiotics for prevention or growth) to people and let those arguements stand on their own without misleading people about other things to try to booster your arguments.

One other thing concerning the producer who you referenced who had problems with an infection: here is a lot more information that was in one my journals. It is not very balanced, but there is a lot more background in this AP article and there are facts that cannot be ignored. It is worth reading. http://www.hpj.com/archives/2010/jan10/jan4/1223pressureantibioticskoPR.cfm

The attached link talks about preventing PRRSV in hogs. It is just one example of how research has improved the heatlth of hogs and reduced costs in so many ways. I'm sure there is a way this also could be turned into propaganda to hurt modern agriculture also, LOL.

Here is a link that might be useful: Ongoing research to improve hog health

I just put this movie in my NetFlix queue. Thought I'd mention it for any other NetFlixers who weren't able to watch it.

Diane

For every research article showing one side there is an rebuttal article on the other side. I still haven't had the time to find the recent article I've mentioned before. But will attach link to one and copy a comment from a grower on his experience of growing outside and the cost saving compared to growing inside.

The new life cycle worked.After receiving a
producer grant from USDAs Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education (SARE) program to document
the economics of farrowing hogs on pasture,Frantzen
found he could halve his feed costs compared to his
former indoor/outdoor system.The SARE grant "showed
we can produce a 30-pound feeder pig for half the
price that you can indoors,"he said.

In the previous link of Scott's about worms ect. The article in my opinion didn't tell the whole story. I mentioned good management practices in my earlier posts. Cattle, horse, hogs, sheep and even chickens had more parasites in the past. Much of the decline is due to modern medicine advances and not where an animal is raised. On the ranches in the 50's, 60's and 70's most ranches dipped every head of cattle twice a year and sprayed them 3-6 times a year to control lice, ticks, flies, ect. Now days many never dip or spray. With the medicines and preventatives available you can virtually eliminate them with good management practices. And this applies to all animal species. Yes there has been a huge reduction in liver flukes, and other parasites but most of that in my opinion and the opinion of my vet friends is due to modern medicine. And not where they are raised.

The reason that a hog can't be returned to a building if it touches the ground is that the immune system of confined raised hogs is so low like Scott said you could have a costly epidemic. I feel both can be healthy if managed and fed right. Like I've said my concern is the high volumes of antibiotics ect that many corporations feed their animals. Again my personal decision. Many farmers don't feed at the same high levels. That is why I buy from local farmers and the local 4-H and FFA members. I know how that animal has been fed and handled. I'm willing to pay more to know what I'm eating.

Yes a confined hog can be returned to the outdoors and survive. I knew a local farmer here who for several years would take those that didn't gain as well as others and were culled and finish them out for one of the local swine corporations. I understood there was some initial death loss but they would gradually build up their immune system and be fine if they survived that long. As this thread shows there is no end to this argument. It is punch and counter punch. It is what a person desires and what he is willing to pay for it. I just like to see factual debates and not those influenced by money and big corporations. I still remember in the early 80's when an horticulturilist for our state extension service wrote and article saying how everyone should use commercial fertilizer in their gardens. How using manures ect would cause diseases and wasn't good for the soil or the food harvested produced from plants on that soil. A few years ago just before this same person retired he wrote an article promoting the use of composts, manure ect. I had coworkers tell me I was producing unsafe food. And two even refused to eat the tomoatoes I would take to work to share. I will always feel this information was influenced by the large fertilizer corporation who funded research at a state university. I would never be able to prove it. Likewise I feel both sides of each issue tends to exaggerate the facts at times to try to help their cause. Another instance is where the big dairy farms and corporations tried to get a bill passed in KS that would keep a producer from stating his milk was rBGH free. As one producer told me his milk from cows being fed rBGH is just as healthy and allowing other producers to state theirs was free of it was hurting his business. Like I told him. He has the option to not feed it just as I should have the option to buy a product without it if I desire. Again these are my personal views and I'm not going to try to convince anyone which side they should align with. Jay

Okay, I'll be completely honest.

I honestly have a very difficult time finding any redeeming value to industrial agriculture. Every time I find something, there is always something that more than counteracts it.

For instance, I suppose that it is a good thing that layer chickens in a northern Iowa egg factory aren't freezing to death in their climate controlled environment.

I would think they hardly find it comfortable, however, as they live in tiny cages each with six other hens so crowded they can't even stretch their legs or extend their wings, cages stacked 8 feet high in rows 800 yards long, over a million birds per house. And live that way for their entire short lives.

And I guess the same can be said for the controlled environment of a hog farrowing house.

Until I think of the fact that a sow is so tightly penned that she can't turn around, and must live that way for her entire productive life.

Oh, wait. There is the low cost of food.

Until I think of how artificial that low cost is, as costs to the environment are externalized and left for future generations to clean up, with groundwater adulterated and fisheries destroyed all around the country. Not to mention it is built on crops subsidized with my tax dollars and grown almost entirely on oil, from fertilizer to pesticides to packaging to transport, every chicken or steak or pork chop figuratively coated in oil.

And what about those crops themselves? Oil is a finite resource, and emerging economies like China and India are increasingly competing for their share of it. What happens when we have a long term shortage or demand outpaces supply? What happens to that cheap food then?

It is a completely unsustainable system.

Compare that to organic and sustainable agriculture (and I'm sorry but that is in fact what we are debating here). It has been the claim for a long time that it can't feed the world, when that is absolutely untrue. Fat cats just can't get rich off of it, that's all. Think of all the renewable inputs you use in a natural form of agriculture. Rather than depleting and killing the topsoil the way chemical agriculture does, the soil is nurtured and built upt, and left better than when you started.

Small and medium size organic can feed the world, and there are multiple studies that prove it. In the long term, it is the only thing that can.

I'll let that be the last word.

I do respect you guys and there are no hard feelings from this end.

Scott,
No hard feelings on my part. I like a good discussion of facts about this issue, gardening ,ect. I respect those farmers that do grow in confinement. They know what works for them and is the most profitable. If I don't feel safe with a practice I just don't buy that product. I just don't want someone taking my right to know what is in my food away. I believe in full disclosure. Jay

No hard feelings here, neither. Heck, I enjoy talking about this stuff. Why would I be angry for someone giving me the opportunity? I'm thankful! :-)

You know, just last week I was telling another member how I got a kick out of the collective "personality" of each of the different forums. I was commenting how the Oklahoma Garden Forum, at the end of the day, was a lot like Chip and Dale.

For contrast, check out the Growing Tomatoes forum, which reads like an episode of Jerry Springer.

Seedmama,
Too many of the tomato forums are like that. In fact most. Not sure why. They is why I finally lost interest in them. Too many little cliques that can't get along. That is why another new tomato forum sprung up. I have 3 general gardening sites I go too. And when I have a special tomato problem I have a chat site I go too. Otherwise I let them have their petty little fights. I enjoy the OK site more than any. But again it isn't a tomato forum. I enjoy a good discussion but don't appreciate the name calling many resort too on other sites. Jay

Jay, I had someone tell me yesterday she doesn't grow tomatoes because she is the only one in the family who eats them. Why? Because here husband calls tomatoes the fruit of the devil, and the kids have been listening. I've never heard them called that before, and figure it's just his own little pet name for something he doesn't like. He's never eaten a homegrown, which pretty much explains everything. But when my friend was telling me the story, I couldn't help but think of your comment about the tomato forums, and the ugly behavior that takes place. Maybe her husband know something we don't....

Seedmama,
Another case of others being influenced by personal opinions and agendas. I try not to do that. Sure at times I come across different than I intend too. I'm not sure why the behavior is so much worse on the tomato forums than others. I garden and grow tomatoes for the enjoyment. And all the bickering and fighting takes the enjoyment out of it. Too many egos and self appointed kings and queens. It is sad the children have been influenced to the point of not being able to make their own decision about something that not only tastes great but would be good for their health. Jay

It's probably that 'nightshade' thing that seems to rear it's ugly head against tomatoes every now and then. We knew a man in Ardmore that wouldn't eat ANY nightshade, tomato, potato, peppers, etc., etc. I just discount that one tho because he was weird in lots of other ways too. LOL

Yeah, well if my DW and DC's decide they don't want any then it's just more for me, mwuhahahaha!

OK, wake up dude. That'll never happen. :(

Judson