Jolley: Is The Anti-Ag Disease Spreading To K-State?

Let Louche eat his estrogen laden vegetables and be prepared for the consequences--also to miss out on his chromium and B vitamins in meat and vitamin D in lard.

Louche,
I was calling news writers who just copy and paste without doing their homework uneducated and maybe I should have added 'lazy.' I suppose I could say the same, though, about people who misread articles and jump to conclusions unsubstantiated by the content of that article.

I can respect your opinions only if you respect mine.

Who you callin' uneducated? Is it just my impression, or do you really think that anything written by an animal justice activist is inherently "biased" and "opinion" as opposed to the inherently unbiased and factual writings of any and all animal exploiters? And what, dare I ask, is an "animal rights extremist"? That term is thrown about by pro-slaughter folks so much that you'd think animal rights were inherently "extremist." Don't tell me that's unbiased; the very term "extremist" is purely relative. Extreme compared to what? Cruelly manipulating and destroying the lives of animals for the benefit of your taste buds and your wallets are extreme from my perspective. Cruel, but sadly not unusual. So what if animal rights is extreme from your perspective? You're only stating the obvious in an attempt to conjure up some irrational negative connotations of those who oppose you. Furthermore, do you really think yourself unbiased when you for no apparent reason (other than to conjure up good feelings of yourself) qualify your supporters as "good"?

Maybe this article should read "OPINION" at the top.

And, for the record, we're not "anti-ag." We're anti animal ag - or anti exploitation of animals. Eat your veggies; one day you might wake up and realize that agribusiness is just as capable of growing plants as it is gutting pigs and causing epidemics.

The attacks on agribusiness are justified. I don't expect to gain much from negotiating with the very people I'm trying to take down from their thrones, but that's why I post publicly. ;)

It is an absolute travesty that we as animal stewards are being raked over the coals for our “inhumane practices”. I will vehemently argue that the animal agriculture industry has made massive improvements in animal handling and welfare over the last hundred years (not to mention vast improvements in food safety. For proof of this read about slaughter house conditions back in the early 1900’s in the book, “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair.). Just do minimal research into the life of a feral animal. Drought, starvation, predation, lack of resistance to even the most innocuous of pests leading to premature death is a way of life for these animals. We as stewards of the land took these animals in gave them a much more stable and secure life and now we are being made out to be the bad guy. Why not curse Mother Nature for not providing ample forage and water throughout the world so that all of her creatures could have an equal shot at sustainability? So what if we are utilizing some of these animals in what is a definitely natural progression of the food chain? Without human intervention and support, these animals would have an infinitely rougher life than they do now. We protect them from predators, we provide them with quality nourishment, we provide shelter for them when it storms, and we stay out until 2 am in a blizzard trying desperately to save a heifer that is having her first baby. Ask any rancher to tell you a story about times that he or she risked life and limb to try and save (or merely provide comfort) to their animals. I’m damn sure that anyone of them you ask will be able to recount more than one story right off the top of their head. I am a fifth generation rancher. It is a slap in my face and in the face of my ancestors every time someone attempts to paint our industry in a negative light. Our job is not for the faint of heart. We are not in it for substantial profits. We do it because we love the animals and we love the lifestyle. To anybody who wants to tell me that I am doing things wrong, please come walk a mile in my shoes before you judge me or my industry.

I think Joshua is right on the money in explaining WHY the American public is questioning our agricultural process. Far from rudeness, his post was much more incisive than the original article. Animal rights extremists ARE in the minority and it is not "the media's fault" that average consumers are demonizing agriculture.

The ag industry can certainly do a much better job of being proactive in promoting the good about their industry, to be sure. In these times of increased transparency of EVERY industry, I do think that many Americans--who have not been raised on farms--are truly shocked at normal feedlot conditions, dairy conditions, swine production facilities, etc etc etc...even those that are adhering to best practices. If the ag industry wants to reduce this shock value to adults with purchasing power and truly does not believe that any "wrong" (ethical/legal/moral) practices are being followed in areas of intense production, then educating even the youngest American consumers is the way to get people comfortable with production agriculture.

However, if you do your part to educate people on these realities and they don't like it--are you still going to blame the media? Or perhaps look internally to discern whether there is some inherent bias in your own minds because this is the way you yourself were raised?

Like Joshua said--people are increasingly questioning everything, especially to do with our national diet. The flow of information--both true and false--is fast and thick. It would behoove the ag industry to address the concerns of the average American consumer and not the animal rights extremists. Joshua has given you some great ideas on where to start, in my opinion.

Joshua,

Read Dave's comments. Be polite with your comments. BTW, you didn't share your areas of expertise or were just exercising your right to free (if untutored) speech?

Perhaps some of these responders should experience a few more places in the world to get a realistic perspective. Having spent 2 yrs in India 40 yrs ago after a major famine with half the population they now have and seeing village after village with reddish tinged hair on all the kids (a sign of protein deficiency and malnutrition) or Denmark this past summer where everything was twice the price it is here, one might appreciate what we have here a bit more. After spending a 45 yr career helping American animal agriculture learn how to efficiently produce higher quality, reasonably priced meat for a growing population, I think we've been superbly successful. Where food is cheaper, generally there are many fewer regulations or taxes on it's production, and the choices are much fewer and many fewer conveniences are built in. Where food is more expensive, the regulations and taxes are even higher than here. Options to choose are good, but are nowhere near what we have here. One question, why is it that those who don't even eat the food seem to think they should have a vote in what others choose to eat? We take an awful lot for granted in this country. We now through science and technologic progress, spurred by research at land grant universities and a healthy profit motive in ag industries, are producing 2 to 4X as much with fewer land resources and people than 50 yrs ago. I've seen it first hand. Perhaps those who have such critical opinions ought to sell their home, or move out of their govt-subsidized housing and move to eastern Wyoming where they can try to scrape out a subsistence living as the early pioneers tried to do. I hear Wyoming's taxes are lower than elsewhere 'cause of all the coal fueling our cheap electricity elsewhere in the country which powers our AC in the summer and many of our other modern conveniences.

Chuck,
If your objective is to "spread the truth of production agriculture" it might help if you were a little less silly.
I've read your columns with a mixture of sadness and disdain. In brief, I don't think you're helping.
It's preposterous to suggest that agriculture's woes are somehow related to propaganda. It's equally preposterous to suggest that agriculture's woes come at the hands of "animal rights" activists or even vegetarians.
The truth -- as much as you decline to see it -- is that people haven't developed some new belief system that assigns rights to animals. Nor have they developed a sudden interest in changing their eating habits.
Vegetarians are a very small (albeit growing) part of the population. Animal-rights believers are a microscopic percentage of Americans.
So what is going on?
The answer is clear to anyone with the courage to look.
Agriculture is under siege because people have become MORE familiar with how food is produced in America, not less.
The country now knows what a CAFO lot looks like. And people are disturbed. They've seen the videos of hogs, chickens, etc. suffering. Good people -- not just nut jobs and fringe activists -- are asking if it's necessary. Good people -- with traditional values -- are asking if our agriculture system is in violation of God's wishes (see Matthew Scully's "Dominion") Good people -- many of us who have spent our lives in the ag system -- are wondering how did it get so unnatural and so very ugly.
Americans are also looking at their health. And they are asking -- appropriately -- if the traditional American diet has flaws. For God's sake, Chuck, look around you! People are obese and sick. Can it really be just "propaganda" that asks what role modern agriculture and the Western diet might play in that? Is it propaganda when someone suggest a Mediterranean or Asian diet (which use meat, but only in small amounts) might be a good idea? is it so awful to try to weigh the benefits and risks of milk? You do know that a good portion of the world doesn't drink the stuff, right? Most Asians,for example, avoid it. Is it somehow "outlandish" to wonder if there are more or fewer ear infections among Asian children? If a researcher decided to study that, would he be a propagandist?
Seriously, Chuck,this is not the time for whining about "animal rights extremists." There are hundreds of thousands of people who are worried about their health as well as the extent of cruelty involved in production agriculture. Those people aren't extremists. They don't believe in "rights" for animals. The vast majority of them couldn't carry on a conversation about the nature of sentience and the obligations implied by it if you put a gun to their heads. These are normal, everyday people with legitimate concerns.
Do you think the answer is to invite people to our farms? Why? It's not the farms (or not most of them) that people are disturbed by. People are disturbed by our customers!
Do you want to invite some folks over to a CAFO? How about bringing a bunch of people into the poultry processing plant?
Do you think that would help?
Chuck, the time has come for us to face facts. We've focused so much on business that we've lost sight of what we once were. We've allowed a monster to grow in our midst.
And as the country increasingly points at it and says "that is a monster," we need a response that is a little more sophisticated than "no it's not, you are."
And one final note: you end your essay with one of the most unintentionally funny things I've ever seen. You complain that a philosophy student's thoughts on agriculture shouldn't be taken seriously because, well, because he studies philosophy and not agriculture.
But you cannot see that the debate in America isn't about agriculture, it IS about philosophy (and theology and ethics and health and responsibility, etc.) People are asking important questions (what are our obligations to animals? is there a less cruel way to produce beef? can the cost reductions inherent in production ag be used to justify the means? what are the implications for our health of subsidizing commodity crops? what are the implications to poor people in other nations when we subsidize commodity crops? )
This is also a debate about food, not the ag business. Americans are, increasingly, asking important and difficult questions about their food. You do them, and the industry, a disservice by answering these questions by showing disdain for the questioners and offering immaterial responses ("Our animals are not only food but more importantly they’re our livelihood.) Do I really need to spell it out for you? Our livelihood is not their responsibility!
Or, to put it another way, as far as I know you've never studied political science. And yet you seem to feel that your thoughts about politics are worth listening to.
So please, the next time you sit down to write an essay about "animal rights" and "propaganda," do the right thing. Start by saying "I’m not sure what I’m talking about but I’ve heard…”

A few comments brought up several points about subsidies for the meat industry and that we all pay for meat in the store and on April 15. Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news but did you think the farming industry stood on its own two feet to produce your Vegetarian and Vegan diet? NO, subsidies are as big a part of the farming industry as they are in the Ranching industry. So I guess the demand for fruits and vegetables must not be big enough to support itself. The reason a salad cost more than a cheeseburger has nothing to do with meat production being less do to Government but the Greed behind the restaurant selling the salad. Go to the store you can buy an entire bag of salad cheaper than the hamburger from Wendy’s.

Diana,

You seem intelligent and I follow most of your logic (although we do disagree), but there is one gaping hole in your argument that I would like to address. You suggest that the livestock industry fails to "police it's own" and that there should be no markets for products raised or processed through questionable practices. For you to suggest that it is the responsibility of farmers to not provide these products fails the simplest test of economic theory. If you feel that milk from cows that have been docked should not be bought or sold, then you would need to reduce the demand for this milk rather than the supply. And that, Diana, will not happen. Consumers demand cheap food. Period. Therefore you are correct in that it is the responsibility of farmers and ranchers to indeed, "police their own" and still maintain enough profit to continue to operate. This is where the science ends and the value judgements begin. Yes it is in our ecnomic interest to keep those animals healthy and content. But is that the only interest we have in animal-welfare? Absolutely not.

Ironically, this article never calls out vegetarianism. This argument was never about vegetarian vs. meat eater, or natural and organic vs. conventional. It is about consumers not understanding what it takes to put your food on the table be it a spinach salad or a cheeseburger. With current trends in population growith and food productivity, you might want to start thinking about this idea, because someday soon that food might be a little harder to come by.

I would agree with Diana that "You would have more credibility if you all didn't have an economic interest in people eating meat." It's very difficult (if not impossible) to believe that one could "care and treat animals well" when it's their slaughter and wholesale profit of their flesh that makes them (animals) of value. The industry "cares" for animals as a product... but not as sentient beings. No doubt slave owners also took very good "care" of their property, as a self interest... But not in regards to the slaves needs or "rights" which were always denied in favor of their owners.

I'd argue too, that the billions of dollars that go to animal agriculture rather than the production of healthy plant based foods is a negative stain on the industry... If people desire your product so much - why all the subsidies? Why all the special favors from the EPA? Why all the lobbies to get meat and dairy into schools? It's an absurd world when it costs 3 times as much for a salad as a burger... It would be wonderful if the USDA food pyramid reflected monies spent towards what it advocates as a "healthy diet". I am certain then that my plant based food would cost a fraction of what it currently does now... That would be a step in the right direction for a positive image - But can the meat industry survive the reality?

People choose vegetarianism for many reasons, including religious, economic, cultural, and moral reasons. Claiming that a vegetarian diet is somehow anti-agriculture is ridiculous. Plants are raised through agriculture. You are railing against anti-livestock interests not anti-agriculture interests. Your choice to eat meat is not more legitimate than my choice of vegetarianism. I was raised on meat and do not like the taste or texture of meat, so I no longer eat it. I should not have to defend my decision to carnivores because vegetarianism is out of the mainstream. I do not want to buy your products and should not be accused of being anti-agriculture. Don't worry, most people in this country eat meat and will continue to eat meat, most likely because they do NOT fully understand where meat comes from. Be careful what you wish for.
You would have more credibility if you all didn't have an economic interest in people eating meat. Of course you extol how great the livestock industry is, and how great meat is for a person, the same as the lentil council and the blueberry council extols the virtues of their products. Animal rights activists have gained purchase because the livestock industry cannot seem to police its own. I do believe the livestock industry is its own worst enemy. The state of California should not have had to pass a law banning tail docking in dairy cattle. You all could have handled that yourselves within the industry. (No market for milk from farms that dock tails.) Instead the industry appears insensitive (at best) to the welfare of animals and cries foul that the government is interfering with agriculture when it steps in to curb egregious practices. Then I hear my tax dollars are once again going to subsidise the dairy industry. Or the pork industry. Consumers not only support the livestock industry at the grocery store but pay every April 15.

Tell Mr. Student...
It's hard to convince Americans that they shouldn't eat beef. That's why the vegetarians have a hard time converting most people. On the other hand, I was shocked by a video of the supposedly kosher slaughter in Iowa(the Rubashkin plant), where some of the animals, rendered treff by the hesitation of the knife of the rabbi then had their tracheas cut out while they were still conscious and alive. That's more cruelty then I think any animal should be subjected to. So, it's not bad to have some people, highly motivated, out there watching and complaining, to keep egregarious cruelty from continuing.

As a K-State ag student in the mid-'90s, I often tried to respond to anti-agriculture and vegetarian propaganda on the opinion page in the Collegian. Slamming the state's foundational industry is just a way for those otherwise-uninteresting columnists to get some attention. Kudos to Ms. Buzzard and all the others who work to explain the benefits of a progressive, efficient, modern ag industry to their classmates.

Thank you, Chuck Jolley and Brandi Buzzard! When the media stops printing one-sided, personal opinion articles and leading the ignornant public to believe their words as fact, I will be totally and completely speechless. As a farm family (husband is the fifth generation born here), we continually try to educate the public whenever we have the opportunity. We try to encourage people to understand where their food comes from, including the activist vegan to slams the farmer and their farm practices. We need to promote the ag industry with as much vigor as the
naysayers do. Write op-ed letters, publish factual articles in newspapers and magazines that AREN'T ag-related. We cannot reach the public with ag-industry publications if that is not what they are reading. We need to reach them where they are. Thanks again for all of your hard work. It is greatly appreciated.

Take a look under the opinion section and look under guest columnists. I have written two rebuttals and one original piece in response to Miss Mendenhall's pieces. And I will continue to write them on various agriculture subjects.