Beef Magazine

Getting Real About the High Cost of Food

Amanda Nolz August 25th, 2009

If you haven’t read the corresponding TIME article that goes with today’s headline, Getting Real About the High Cost of Food, then you are in for a real headache. TIME Magazine decided to give its two cents on our nation’s food supply, blaming farmers and ranchers for sins such as: environmental destruction, obesity, antibiotic resistance and animal abuse. The author of said article, Bryan Walsh, did grant that America’s farmers and ranchers can efficiently and affordably feed our growing world; however, he didn’t seem too worried about the millions of people that go hungry every night. Quite frankly, this article is full of outright lies about the agriculture industry, and after you read it, I’m certain you will agree.

The article opens like this: “Somewhere in Iowa, a pig is being raised in a confined pen, packed in so tightly with other swine that their curly tails have been chopped off so they won’t bite one another. To prevent him from getting sick in such close quarters, he is dosed with antibiotics. The waste produced by the pig and his thousands of pen mates on the factory farm where they live goes into manure lagoons that blanket neighboring communities with air pollution and a stomach-churning stench. He’s fed on American corn that was grown with the help of government subsidies and millions of tons of chemical fertilizer. When the pig is slaughtered, at about 5 months of age, he’ll become sausage or bacon that will sell cheap, feeding an American addiction to meat that has contributed to an obesity epidemic currently afflicting more than two-thirds of the population. And when the rains come, the excess fertilizer that coaxed so much corn from the ground will be washed into the Mississippi River and down into the Gulf of Mexico, where it will help kill fish for miles and miles around. That’s the state of your bacon — circa 2009.”

It’s been said that the only people that complain about their food are the ones with full bellies, and I think that is definitely the case of many of our nation’s consumers, including this journalist. I encourage you to read this article and work to correct the false statements presented. To counter this attempt to spread misinformation about the beef industry, cattle producers should urge the public to find information refuting these types of claims at websites such as ExploreBeef.org or BeefIt’sWhat’sForDinner.com. As an industry, we can’t stand by while urban journalists tell our story for us. The Beef Checkoff Program has already worked hard to balance out this article. Check out what they have been up to, here.

BEEF Daily Quick Fact: One cowhide can produce enough leather to make 20 footballs or 18 soccer balls or 18 volleyballs or 12 basketballs.

 Email This Post

Related Topics: News

7 Comments to “Getting Real About the High Cost of Food”

1. Benita Wells Says:
   

   August 25th, 2009 at 8:08 am

   It is indeed a sad state of affairs for our country when a publication such as TIME allows an article like this to be published. We farmers and ranchers will rally and do what we have learned to do well…defend our businesses. It isnt a pretty thought, but people like the author of this article may well be really hungry one day (not to mention a lot of other innocent people) and while we farmers and ranchers may be suffering too, we DO know how to feed our selves. What is it going to take for this country to realize what a disturbed media is doing to us all!

2. Kevin Fulton Says:
   

   August 25th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

   I didn’t get the headache Amanda nor do I see the lies. While I agree there may be some distortions the painful truth couldn’t be more clear. If an article like this puts you in a defense mode then perhaps it’s time to objectively evaluate your practices. I do this continually with our own operation and it has helped us make improvements and become much more profitable and better farmers.

   In the past several days I have read this article as well as viewing Food Inc. in it’s entirety. Many farmers I know have embraced the movie and several friends of mine are mentioned in the Time article. As a full time farmer and rancher from Nebraska, I don’t find either the movie or the article offensive or derogatory towards farmers. It’s obvious that it is time for agricultural reform and for us to embrace the consumer which I emphasized in my statements in the latest (August) issue of BEEF. The agricultural industry needs a reality check. We need to face the facts instead of continuing to divert blame and concentrating on damage control. We will never fool the public and all those “ignorant consumers” as they are called. We need accountability from the farmers and ranchers, the consumer, our universities, and the industry leaders. The consumers are stepping up to the plate. Are you going to get in the game? Or are you going to stay in the comfort zone and be a puppet for the powers of the industry as they self destruct and take you along with them?

   I have worked with the urban journalists that you refer to including ones with the New York Times. We have hosted journalists and executives from the South Korean TV network here at our farm just to give a couple of examples. I was also invited to give a presentation to the PEW Commision on Industrial Farm Animal Production that was mentioned in the TIME article. You can download their 100 page report online. Every producer should read this. I can tell you that most of these journalists are more objective than many (certainly not all) within the ag industry because they can actually see a forest where all the trees are! I work hard everyday to connect with the consumer and educate them about the food we produce and have traveled the U.S. doing so. At least we agree on the need to educate the consumer. However I can tell you that articles like The Omnivores Delusion which was posted on this site do nothing to gain credibility with the consumer or even with a growing sector of the ag industry. The author did accomplish one thing–he exposed his own delusions and ignorance. That is a prime example of what “not do do” if you want to build credibility and consumer confidence. It works fine if you want validation from the good ole boy clubs within our industry but that’s about it.

   Lastly, ag reform is not a path to starvation and there is no credible evidence to support this. There is however good evidence to the contrary. Our industrial food system is not sustainable and will not support us long term. Someday there will be a “post oil” system of agriculture. Many of us may not live long enough to see it but it will happen. Unfortunately many people are oblivious to this notion. How well do you think our present model would survive in that environment? The starvation scare tactics get old and thankfully most consumers are not buying into it. The industry really needs to let go of that ridiculous justification along with the obligation to provide “cheap food”. Cheap food is an inferior product and the “real costs” are hidden as pointed out in the movie and article. Consumers are realizing this and they are not happy about what has been “forced down their throats”. This realization of the problems the industrial food system has propogated will continue to rapidly grow and more problems will be exposed. We all have a choice to be part of the problem or part of the solution.

3. Rachel Prickett Says:
   

   August 25th, 2009 at 2:18 pm

   I believe the public is telling us loud and clear what they desire in terms of agricultural reform. As a farmer myself, I find that my customers are becoming more and more vocal about their desire for sustainably-raised meat. From a business standpoint alone, I am dumbfounded at the beef industry’s reluctance to embrace this new wave of ag. Restaurants and consumers are willing to pay a premium for healthy beef and that equates to more dollars in producers’ pockets at the end of the day. Ultimately, I am in the farming business to provide the public with a product they want. The fact that I can do so while maintaining my integrity as a steward of my land, family, and health makes farming a beautiful, worthwhile endeavor.

   Please, correct false statements about agriculture. It is to all of our benefit to educate the public about the healthfulness of meat and the integrity of the American farmer. But, Amanda, you would be wise to not dismiss the voice of the consumer. After all, your livelihood ultimately depends on your ability to move flexibly with changing times. Be very wary of deriding your customer base by calling them complainers.

   You are right, Americans have “full bellies”, and that is because the US beef industry has done an efficient job of providing. But now those same consumers are able to look at the way their meat is being produced and are asking for changes to be made. I do not view this as “biting the hand that feeds you”, but as a sign of a developed nation’s desire for progress. The beef industry must adapt to changing times or it will fail.

4. Clinton Clark Says:
   

   August 25th, 2009 at 10:06 pm

   I must counter what Kevin has written as their are many starving people in this world, The audacity of you even saying that the scare tactics are getting old. Go spend a few years in Africa and see what real poverty and hungry people our like. Go to North Korea or parts of South America, Mexico, China, almost every place in this world people are starving. We the American producers feed a large portion of the world. Not to be condensenting but maybe your contacts or trust fund is full and the reality of making a profit to raise ones own family is very hard in Agriculture and the means to make it profitable aren’t all pretty, but lots of it is wonderful, The hogs I have seen have not had their tails chopped off like you said but I don’t know I have been on only a couple of large operations, Cattle are treated very well eat and eat to you feed a whole bus of folks . Your right our industrial food supply is not sustainable because the well to do come out to the country and live in a rural setting upsetting the balance of the land. Also at the rate we have to sell water rights to growing cities for more and more people is a little frustrating. Prices going up on everything and we have the cheapest food on earth and not to mention variety. We do not see the rewards of this either which our only salvation is efficiency in producing food. So until the rest of the world and if we really want to depend on the rest of the world would produce more of there own cheap food for the people, we can make a profit with more room. Your not Kevin from Boulder Colo our you as I might know you and a few of the other trust fund folks who live in that fine community, which at one time had allot of agriculture until the rich folks came and sprawled onto the lands. Yes give us more incentives as that is how the USA is going for your way of production , I am all for it and follow many others in conservation practices protecting the land and raising livestock very humanely. Good Life to You CC

5. Kevin Fulton Says:
   

   August 26th, 2009 at 9:57 am

   I have been to many other countries and I have seen starving people. That will not likely change anytime soon. It has been that way since the beginning of time. As a farmer, I don’t feel responsible in any way for those starving people. And most farmers I know don’t wake up every morning feeling an urgency to “feed the world”.

   Clinton, I detect some animosity and bitterness regarding the trust fund and urban sprawl issues, although much of your rationale is hard to follow. I can assure you that “trust fund” doesn’t apply to me and I am not “Kevin from Boulder”. I was raised in a coventional farming environment and my grandparents were immigrants who started in this country with nothing more than the clothes on their back. I have farmed “conventionally” myself but as I have found better an much more profitable ways to do things. It may behoove you to consider other options too if you are not satisfied with your situation. However if you continue to wait for someone to come along and “give” you an incentive, you will be waiting a long time. The incentives are already there, consumers willing to pay premiums for products that are superior. It’s a win-win situation. I have never been more optimistic about the future of farming and the profitability that is there for those who are willing to embrace change.

   As for our industrial ag model being efficient—nothing could be further from the truth. It is one of the best examples of inefficiency in this country that I know of. Take away the subsidies and crutches and it would have a fast demise. While many in ag have always latched on to this efficiency argument, every expert I have talked to scoffs at this myth. This will have to change over time as well. Do you think ag subsidies will just continue forever? And these issues have nothing to do with urban folks buying land in the country. In fact many of those people are raising their own food and food for others. And many are doing a better job than most traditional farmers. On the other hand, I have neighbors who farm 40 pivots and don’t produce one ounce of their own food. And they don’t directly feed anyone else for that matter.

6. Albert Knapp Says:
   

   August 27th, 2009 at 5:09 am

   I read with great interest Bryan Walsh’s article “Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food” published August 21, 2009 by Time. While insightful and thought provoking it is simply inaccurate and misleading. Do we want to do business today with a ten key pull handle adding machine, “World Book Encyclopedia” and manual typewriters? I doubt it. This analogy is no different in farming. The farming practices sited in Mr. Walsh’s article as “sustainable” are the farming practices of 50 years ago. As a nation and for the sake of the world’s population we do not have the natural resources to return to those 50 year old farming practices and be able to feed the world.

   Let me start where Mr. Walsh started. I too was raised on a hog farm. Only ours was in eastern Kansas. As a kid we never docked the tails of our pigs. As the pigs grew, their own social pecking order evolved and it was quite common for them to gang up on the weakest pig and start by biting it’s tail. Once they smelled blood it was all over and the gang mentality kicked in and the weaker pig would be killed. We started “docking tails” when agricultural universities determined this was a “best practice”. We haven’t lost a pig in 20 years to this mob rule since we started “docking tails”. Through genetic selection it is common to raise a pig to 250 lbs, harvest age, in 5 months rather than to 8-9 months of 30 years ago.

   Mr. Walsh waxes eloquent when he speaks of “…creeping erosion…” and other evils of modern agriculture. When I was a boy we plowed every square foot of our fields from roadside to roadside from fence to fence. We used a 8N Ford and a John Deere model A tractor. These tractors were in the range of 20 to 30 HP. We could turn over a 32” strip of soil every round. It would take days to cover a 40 acre field. Once the field was plowed it layed open all winter susceptible to rain and wind erosion. In the spring we would once again work the field to prepare a seed bed usually by disking the entire field form road to road and fence to fence, sometimes more than once. Then we would start planting. In the case of corn or other row crops we would start the arduous task of cultivating. This entailed driving up and down every row at a very slow speed to avoid covering any of the young plants. We would cultivate 2 to three times every year until the crop got tall enough that we could no longer drive through without damaging the stalk. As I figure, this is 6 times across the field as a minimum.

   We haven’t plowed a field in 40 years. We haven’t chiseled a field in 30 years. Today we use what is referred to as no till farming. We simply make one pass through the field and plant a new crop in the residue of the previous years crop applying fertilizer as we go. When the crop has emerged and is well established the field is sprayed with a herbicide and insecticide to minimize damage caused by insects and minimize weed population that robs the crop of nutrients and water.

   Now bear with me as we discern the differences. Six times around the field versus two, a significant savings in fossil fuel I would say. Cropland with last years crop residue versus freshly plowed field with no protection from wind and rain erosion. Sounds like a massive improvement in soil conservation.

   There would be those that would site, “What about all the chemicals?” Glad you asked. Consider the quantity of chemicals that a farmer applies to a typical acre of crop ground versus the chemicals a typical suburban dweller applies to his ever green 1/3 acre lawn. You will find that the total application is the same regardless of the 3 times the area. I think it is wrong to blame agriculture for the excess fertilizer in the Gulf of Mexico. Farmers do not have storm drains that dump directly into the nations rivers.

   I am very happy for Mr. Bill Niman sited in Mr. Walsh’s article for “Getting it Right”. I am sure Mr. Walsh will be happy to profit from the consumers that are willing to pay the “premium” for his beef”. Mr. Walsh claims this is sustainable agriculture. It is as long as someone is willing to pay the premium. By Mr. Walsh’s own words, Mr Niman’s cattle will eat only grass for three years. Most beef in the US is corn fed. These animals are finished in 15-18 months. If we consider the difference here we can quickly see that we would have to double the population of beef cows in the US to meet the demand for beef. If the beef industry is responsible for green house gas emissions in any way, Mr Niman’s “Getting it Right” methods would double the quantity of GHG from the beef industry. Hardly sustainable I would say. Furthermore, there is insufficient grassland to feed a doubling of cattle for three years as Mr. Nimon’s practices would require. With urban sprawl and a growing world population farmable acres in the US has shrunk as fast as the number of family farms sited in Mr. Walsh’s article.

   There are those that would prefer we not eat meat, that we become vegetarians. I am sorry these poor souls are misguided. They seem to care more about animal rights than human rights. The liberal media is always showing some starving horse or pet to play on our emotions. While I agree this is inhumane, we live in a world filled with human tragedy. Does no one care about this injustice and inhumane treatment of their fellow man? Isn’t the golden rule “Treat others as you want to be treated”? Let’s focus our attention on the human saga. After all, man was given dominion over the earth and all its animals by the creator. “Big and small the Lord God made them all”. Red meat is the greatest source of digestible protein and iron needed for sustainable human growth and life.

   While we may yearn for the “good ole days” of agriculture and the family farm, we can no longer return, as those practices are not sustainable. The agriculture community, scientists, university research and years of testing have provided America with the safest and cheapest food in the world, this fact is undeniable. We may dislike the thought of industrialized farming, but it is the only way to meet the food demands of a growing world population and maintain low prices in order to feed the less fortunate masses.

   We can plant a million “White House” gardens or plant a garden on every roof top but you can not feed the population of the building let alone the world for an entire year. There is a rule of nature that says there is a time to sow, and a time to reap. These do not coincide with a calendar year.

   Al Knapp
   Christian, Kansas Farmer, Beef Producer, MBA and Steward of God Given Natural Resources

7. Benita Wells Says:
   

   August 31st, 2009 at 9:36 am

   I have NEVER read a better explanation of agriculture in America as Mr. Knapp has written. His comments should be in “Time” and not Mr. Walsh’s.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment:
Register Here or Log in Here.