Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
n the agriculture industry, I believe we absolutely do not question ourselves often enough.
Many of you know that I spent eight weeks of my life in 2002 shadowing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his trips around the nation. Each time he spoke, he would introduce me as "the individual wearing the black hat, because he represents the evils of modern-day agriculture." Each time, a large number of people would approach me after his presentation and begin railing on me for everything they believed to be wrong with agriculture, like concentrated animal feeding operations, gestation crates, feedlots, cages, hormone use and antibiotics.
Going in, I simply endorsed these "technologies" as progress in the industry without actually thinking about why we use them, yet the experience got me questioning why we do what we do.
This past week, Joel Salatin of PolyFace Farms Inc. in Swoope, Va., joined me on my "Rural Route" program for a tremendous big-picture philosophical discussion about sustainable food production. Salatin was upfront about his concern that the government is leading us down a path of chemical dependency when it comes to food and fiber production.
When I pushed him on this, I got the answer that seems to be a growing notion among a number of folks in the farming community, not to mention the Michael Pollans of the world. Their belief is that our agriculture system is controlled by corporate agribusiness interests. In a sense, they are right, especially when it comes to scientific advancements and research.
Salatin's point is that with more intensive management and labor, what we have will give us more than what we will produce simply by relying on genetic modification. Is it practical to increase the amount of organic food production if it sacrifices yield? Is there an increased health benefit for the consumer if the laying hen eats grass every day? Is there a large enough labor pool that is willing to put in the long, hard hours needed to sustain these production systems?
Like many of you, I've been on the front lines touting the benefits of science and technology in food production because they lead to our ability to use fewer resources to feed more people. We need to continue that effort but also start addressing the basic questions generated from consumers about why we are trying to further improve what we already do so well.
Likewise, we need to let consumers know that the real reason agribusiness has stepped up to the plate to fund the research necessary in agriculture today is quite simply because the government has lost sight of the importance of investing in the future domestic production of the essentials of life. Above all, we must remember that the future of U.S. agriculture is dependent upon our ability to sell high-quality, sustainable food and not just farm-raised products.
Always together for American agriculture,
Trent Loos
[email protected]
Many of you know that I spent eight weeks of my life in 2002 shadowing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his trips around the nation. Each time he spoke, he would introduce me as "the individual wearing the black hat, because he represents the evils of modern-day agriculture." Each time, a large number of people would approach me after his presentation and begin railing on me for everything they believed to be wrong with agriculture, like concentrated animal feeding operations, gestation crates, feedlots, cages, hormone use and antibiotics.
Going in, I simply endorsed these "technologies" as progress in the industry without actually thinking about why we use them, yet the experience got me questioning why we do what we do.
This past week, Joel Salatin of PolyFace Farms Inc. in Swoope, Va., joined me on my "Rural Route" program for a tremendous big-picture philosophical discussion about sustainable food production. Salatin was upfront about his concern that the government is leading us down a path of chemical dependency when it comes to food and fiber production.
When I pushed him on this, I got the answer that seems to be a growing notion among a number of folks in the farming community, not to mention the Michael Pollans of the world. Their belief is that our agriculture system is controlled by corporate agribusiness interests. In a sense, they are right, especially when it comes to scientific advancements and research.
Salatin's point is that with more intensive management and labor, what we have will give us more than what we will produce simply by relying on genetic modification. Is it practical to increase the amount of organic food production if it sacrifices yield? Is there an increased health benefit for the consumer if the laying hen eats grass every day? Is there a large enough labor pool that is willing to put in the long, hard hours needed to sustain these production systems?
Like many of you, I've been on the front lines touting the benefits of science and technology in food production because they lead to our ability to use fewer resources to feed more people. We need to continue that effort but also start addressing the basic questions generated from consumers about why we are trying to further improve what we already do so well.
Likewise, we need to let consumers know that the real reason agribusiness has stepped up to the plate to fund the research necessary in agriculture today is quite simply because the government has lost sight of the importance of investing in the future domestic production of the essentials of life. Above all, we must remember that the future of U.S. agriculture is dependent upon our ability to sell high-quality, sustainable food and not just farm-raised products.
Always together for American agriculture,
Trent Loos
[email protected]
