• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Michael Pollan speaks at UW-Madison..... 7000 attend event

I think it's a mistake to try to discredit him or ignore him. What I mean is how the "industry" trys to look at him.
 
Michael Pollan's simple rules;

Don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food.

If it has more than five ingredients, it's not food, it's "an edible, food-like substance."

Don't buy any foods you've seen advertised on television.
 
To me all the in-fighting just weakens ALL agriculture! We all need to stand together more. Do I agree with everything other producers do? No, but I support the fact that They are still my cohorts. Why tear down others to make yourself look bigger? If Ya go by Pollan's rule #3 most of the world would simply starve to death. In order to get food shipped, ya gotta make it keep or your just feeding folks rotten food. Is buying local a viable option for some people? Sure! But you can't paint with such a broad brush. When ya do, ya tend to get it scattered everywhere! :roll:
 
I think we make one common mistake when looking at alternative approaches - that of saying "it wouldn't work if everyone did it, the world would starve".

I don't think we should worry about who, or how, many embrace the alternative. If we think it is important to try something different, then it is up to us to go it alone, moving independently against the mainstream.

Certainly, it would be more comfortable if we were moving with the crowd, but that is unlikely to be the case anytime soon.

Alternative approaches will seldom have more than a few aligned thinkers along for company; that is why they are "alternative".
 
If animals are fed antibiotics to keep them from getting sick, are they healthy?

If animals have to be given hormones, is the genetic selection correct?

If we fail to address consumer concerns, are we helping ourselves as an industry?
 
RobertMac said:
If animals are fed antibiotics to keep them from getting sick, are they healthy?

If animals have to be given hormones, is the genetic selection correct?

If we fail to address consumer concerns, are we helping ourselves as an industry?
Click to expand...

No, no, no.

Good points, Robert Mac. "Efficiency" has let a lot of things happen that should not have and rewarded some bad practices that have costs outside of our industry and the natural world.
 
We have the most PRODUCTIVE beef industry in the world, but are we the most PROFITABLE? Yeah, you can call me Kit's mini-me.

Seriously though, I focused on dairy managment at Cornell. The bigger more efficient farms was the model that was focused on. At the same time it was acknowledged that we can't compete on the world market with milk, we have the most PRODUCTIVE cows in the world, but New Zealand can do it far cheaper.

There is a lot to be said about Joel Salatin's model of different holons that intergreat with eachother. It won't work on a massive scale, but many of these kind of farms can feed the population.

Lastly, we've only been farming this way, on this scale, for 50 or so years, give or take. How long will this be sustainable?
 
Ben H said:
We have the most PRODUCTIVE beef industry in the world, but are we the most PROFITABLE? Yeah, you can call me Kit's mini-me.

Seriously though, I focused on dairy managment at Cornell. The bigger more efficient farms was the model that was focused on. At the same time it was acknowledged that we can't compete on the world market with milk, we have the most PRODUCTIVE cows in the world, but New Zealand can do it far cheaper.

There is a lot to be said about Joel Salatin's model of different holons that intergreat with eachother. It won't work on a massive scale, but many of these kind of farms can feed the population.

Lastly, we've only been farming this way, on this scale, for 50 or so years, give or take. How long will this be sustainable?
Click to expand...

Ben you are asking all the wrong questions. Just be a good boy and order your fertilizer, antibiotics, supplements . . . don't rock the boat. :wink: It will be sustainable until the multinationals have sucked the last dollar out of the last big operator who thought he could make it work where all others failed.
 
Ben H said:
Who funds University research that then translates to their recomendations?
Click to expand...


Not just universities, they buy whoever they want:

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Tyson-Foods-NYSE-TSN-926664.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_18_38/ai_n6021800/?tag=content;col1


My question is why are we not taxing these corporations to provide the resources for colleges instead of allowing them to control the purse strings?

Tex
 
Who makes money off farms focusing on good grazing management? Not that many compared to DuPont and Monsanto. With grazing you have what, Gallagher, Dare, Kiwi, Powerflex, Allen Nation...Nothing compared to input intensive ag.
 
Ben H said:
We have the most PRODUCTIVE beef industry in the world, but are we the most PROFITABLE? Yeah, you can call me Kit's mini-me.

Yes, but where is the profitability located...turning a live animal into a retail product.

Seriously though, I focused on dairy managment at Cornell. The bigger more efficient farms was the model that was focused on. At the same time it was acknowledged that we can't compete on the world market with milk, we have the most PRODUCTIVE cows in the world, but New Zealand can do it far cheaper.

Government programs/subsidies to ag, like dairy, are to buy votes with cheap food. Politicians get the votes...tax payers still pay the price...producers just get bypassed the $$$s.

There is a lot to be said about Joel Salatin's model of different holons that intergreat with eachother. It won't work on a massive scale, but many of these kind of farms can feed the population.

Massive scale can be viewed in different ways...think Glen Beck's pictures on his TV show.

Lastly, we've only been farming this way, on this scale, for 50 or so years, give or take. How long will this be sustainable?

For 50 years technology/yields blurred the profitability picture...lately, technology has been losing ground to inflation. Think about profitability if farm commodity prices had kept pace with inflation!

Who funds University research that then translates to their recomendations?

I've had first hand knowledge of this.
Click to expand...
 
Ben H said:
Who makes money off farms focusing on good grazing management? Not that many compared to DuPont and Monsanto. With grazing you have what, Gallagher, Dare, Kiwi, Powerflex, Allen Nation...Nothing compared to input intensive ag.
Click to expand...

And for the most part, when you buy product form those companies, you get more than one season's usage out of it. Like maybe 10 -15 years like my oldest Parmak fencer which is still ticking away for about $135!!!

Makes it look cheap at twice the price compared to annually applied fertilizer or herbicide which may or may not work. "It was too wet to work - it all washed away", or "It was too dry and the chemical didn't activate . . . here's a $2/ acre refund toward next year's purchase, sorry about your other $25/ACRE . . ."

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
 
Fertilizer and 'inputs' woulen't help much in an 8 year drought......and aren't needed on pastures in western SD when it rains...but the 'drought' grass sure puts the pounds on cattle, just can't have as many cattle as the usual 'good year' ratio of one cow per 25 acres.

Ben H., here I though you were trying to get a good conversation going instead of trying to provoke an argument.

leanin' H, are you saying we all have to agree and "stand together"?

Or can we each do our own thing and stop bad-mouthing they guy who is doing things differently? EVEN if he gets rewarded better??? EVEN if he is on the 'corporate' or 'factory' farm scale?????

That would be my choice, obviously.

mrj
 
Ben H., here I though you were trying to get a good conversation going instead of trying to provoke an argument.
Click to expand...

I admit, I have a habit of doing both. I tend to believe that there are good things that come out of a good conversation blended with a good argument. To have simply a "good conversation" about this is simply preaching to the choir, a so called "argument" brings in both sides and exposes the middle ground. I prefer to be challenged, it is how I get better at what I do.
 
Ben H said:
Ben H., here I though you were trying to get a good conversation going instead of trying to provoke an argument.
Click to expand...

I admit, I have a habit of doing both. I tend to believe that there are good things that come out of a good conversation blended with a good argument. To have simply a "good conversation" about this is simply preaching to the choir, a so called "argument" brings in both sides and exposes the middle ground. I prefer to be challenged, it is how I get better at what I do.
Click to expand...

A debate is to have a "good conversation" about a question by considering opposed arguments.

You can't spit in the devil's face until you look him in the eye.
 
Ben H., that is fine and reasonable. What I have a problem with is people who like to argue as a form of bullying and won't listen to any other opinion, nor will they consider the possibility of people with opposing opinions having any points of value. Not accusing you of that, just explaining myself better.

mrj
 
mrj said:
. . . . . Or can we each do our own thing and stop bad-mouthing they guy who is doing things differently? EVEN if he gets rewarded better??? EVEN if he is on the 'corporate' or 'factory' farm scale?????

That would be my choice, obviously. . . . .

mrj
Click to expand...

When the corporate interest makes it difficult or near impossible for the smaller producer to survive, then indeed our enterprises have experienced an interaction that begs attention.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top