So Much More

              When it comes down to the behind the scenes of agriculture we can’t forget to tell the story that agriculture is more. There is much more than just food on the shelves and another controversy of what the new study says is healthier to feed your child. When it comes down to it, agriculture truly comes down to people. Agriculture as an entity exists as much of the same individuals as trusted by your grandparents and great-grandparents of generations past. Producers and farmers are your neighbors down the road, they are real people and real families working hard towards raising healthy crops and livestock in order to feed tomorrow’s world. At the end of the day there will always be real people with their own lives, their own bills, their own hardships, and their own children to put food on the table for working behind the scenes. These farmers and producers are worried about so much more than mass production, they are worried about their communities and neighbors at large. Farmers and producers are giving back to their communities each day through the creation of jobs, volunteering, offering farm tours, etc. The  U.S. population is fed three times a day, every day by an estimated only 2% of the population (those in which are directly involved in agriculture). It’s time for the 98% of the population to stand up and appreciate the hard working individual’s blood, sweat, and tears that go into every meal you consume rather than questioning their every move. Have you thanked someone in agriculture lately?

Home in the House

In the past several years there has been a dramatic shift in the public’s perception of how their food should be produced. As an agriculture entity we recognize that there is no “one size fits all” when it comes to food preferences, which is why such a vast variety of niche market exist. A particularly interesting trend and niche market to me that is growing quite rapidly in popularity is that of the new cage free and anti-gestation crate movement along with the notion of free roaming, as well as group housing animal production. The consumer lacks the knowledge to understand why animal housing is the way it is and often time uses emotion to come to their conclusions rather than reason. We are going to use sows gestation crates as a specific example. For just a moment reel your personal perceptions about gestation crates and your mental image of the housing unit, and allow me to explain the purpose. Sows have a natural aggression and tend to fight, the individual housing allows for the animals to remain safe from one another and injury to themselves and/or other sows. Another purpose and benefit that comes the use of the crates is that the sows are able to be given individual care due to being seen daily up close and by themselves, allowing for better healthcare. Protection from environmental elements is another big benefit to the gestation crates due to their indoor locations. A large population of the hogs in the United States is located in the Midwest, and more specifically in Iowa. If anyone knows anything about the Midwest it is that the weather is not predictable there and thus making indoor housing much more sensible and feasible when it comes to producing hogs. The same sort of stories and situations are similar in regards to other livestock housing systems as well. Efficiencies as well as individual animal care can be improved through various housing techniques.

                 

Mind in the Medicine

              As a parent you know that there’s always that one kid that goes to school with the sniffles, or even head lice and before you know it your kid is itching their head or sniffling too, which is why when you send your child to daycare or school even you pretty much bank on them getting sick at some point. The exact same things happen every day in midst of livestock production. Livestock undergo the same exposures much like children in day care and/or school settings. Not only are livestock environments as a whole changing, but also a variety of factors within the environment are always changing which means that the animals are consistently exposed to new germs regularly. Immune systems are capable of constant change and evolution in order to protect us from new germs and ever-changing environments, but they can’t protect us from everything. There are certain stressors and exposures to germs that occur regularly in livestock production such as comingling, location changes, diet changes, shared water, etc. In order to cope with and nurse the animals utilized in livestock production back to health, producers utilize various antibiotics just as parents utilize for their children when they come up sick.

                A common gap in the communication between consumer and producer in livestock production is that antibiotics are overused and used without a real purpose. Antibiotics are expensive and thus why the idea of administering antibiotics to livestock without a direct reason/intent is a silly concept. Antibiotics are a way to ensure quality of life for the animals within the production system is achieved and a way to prevent death loss from treatable illnesses as well. Taking away antibiotics for fear of antibiotic resistance in humans due to the belief that there is a residue in their meat products neglects a lot of the facts involved in the process. There exist very strict guidelines set forth by the FDA when it comes to the use of antibiotics in livestock production. Every medication is categorized according to its classification and active ingredient and from there is analyzed and a specific withdrawal period is set for that particular antibiotic. To put this into application, say that a certain antibiotic has a withdrawal period of 45 days and is given to an animal, meaning that before the animal can be harvested for meat production it must be off of the antibiotic for 45 days to flush it from its system. Meaning that there would be a month and a half window in order for the medication to be out of the animal’s system. The withdrawal periods are formed individually in order to ensure and protect against the idea of antibiotic resistance coming from your meat products. A little known fact on the use of livestock antibiotics is that most of the antibiotics used in livestock diets are not frequently used in human medicine. One of the most widely used antibiotic classifications in livestock is Ionophores, which are actually never used in human medicine, leaving no crossover between human medicine and animal production. The use of antibiotics within livestock production is put into place in a safe and regulated manner in order to ensure the safety of all parties. Nobody wants to consume meat products from sick animals, making the use of antibiotics the merger to the production of viable meat. As a consumer it is important to understand the documentation and responsibility placed upon the producer when they utilize antibiotics. One must understand the impacts and responsibility we have to animal health as well as understand the alternatives if they are no longer allowed to use antibiotics due to misconceptions.

Here, There and Everywhere

            The acronym “GMO” is consistently thrown around when you talk about modern agriculture, but genetically modified organisms are probably one of the most misunderstood aspects of agriculture. The communication gap between producer and consumer is larger than it has ever been before, around only 2% of the U.S. population is directly involved in agriculture. Meaning that 98% of the population is uninvolved with the production of their food and all that it entails and thus education and awareness must be raised. Genetic modification within organisms, food production systems and crops has been occurring for 20+ years. GMOs are organisms in which an addition of favorable traits/genetic material is planted within the organism’s make-up in order to produce a more superior product.

                The benefits of genetically modified products are quite numerous. GMO ingredients are designed to allow producers to do more with less and thus increase their efficiencies and while decreasing input costs. GMO products reduce the usage of pesticides because they are deliberately set with insecticide within their genetic make-up, reducing the need to spray herbicides on the field themselves and thus preventing added deterioration of the land. Other benefits of GMOs include drought resistance, allowing for less water usage, decreased weeds, and increased crop yields. Collectively, all these benefits of genetically modified organisms add up to the fact that we are able to feed more people with the same amount of land due to increased yields and efficiencies.    
    
            If there was more time spent trying to understand the mechanics behind the agricultural system I think a lot less people will have a problem with the so called system. In effort to keep up with the ever-changing world we live in, agricultural producers have had to adjust. One of their adjustments has been to better the crop strains and the way in which things are done. The use of GMOs is no different than that of using a tractor instead of a horse-drawn plow, an ordinary upgrade to the more efficient model. The safety of GMO products has been tested time and time again and has revealed no scientific basis in which should indicate the consumer shouldn’t trust these products. The use of GMOs in developing countries has been more of a necessity rather than a luxury. The use of said ingredients has allowed for developing countries to feed more people in rural areas where water is scarce and resources are not plentiful. With so many benefits, and a lack of scientific backing to prove harms the question of GMO versus non GMO seems immaterial. Producers don’t wish to provoke distrust from consumers, they only attempt to better the production process and system, not destroy it, which has become a hard thing to portray to the consumers at large. As an entity, agricultural sets out to feed the population, not to cause harm, illness, or anything of the sort, so trust in the process and investigate the practices to educate yourself on the who, what, where, when, why, and how of where your food comes from.


Sources:
https://factsaboutgmos.org

Ingenious with Intention

         We’ve probably all heard the famous Isaac Newton’s, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,” but I’m a firm believer that this law applies to much more than just motion and physics and can be philosophically applied to life altogether. Nearly every manufacturing process results in waste products, and more than just the typical carbon dioxide emissions that everyone seems to talk about. The ethanol fuel industry produces distillers grains, and corn oil as waste products alongside their CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, the sugar-beet industry produces a beet pulp, as well as a beet molasses as byproducts of its industry. These are all examples of “equal and opposite reactions,” because in order to get the fuel from the ethanol industry and the sugar extracted from the sugar-beets there will never been a 100% retention rate and thus waste is produced in the process. One of the most amazing things, in my opinion, about the production of livestock is the distinctive ability to utilize waste products from other industries. All four of the waste products listed are used in animal diets, and without the livestock feeding industry utilizing these products what would we do with them, how would we dispose of them?

       The use of byproducts in livestock diets has steadily increased over the last ten years especially and has allowed for increased energy efficiencies, more cost effective food sources, and sustainable practices. Distillers grains byproducts off the ethanol industry can be utilized both dried as well as wet throughout the livestock sectors. The inclusion of these waste products is quite beneficial to the diet of the animal because it provides energy and protein. The nutrients within distillers grains are pretty readily available to the animal due to the prior processing the product has previously undergone which means they’re easily digestible and thus usable to the animal for growth and production. According to an ERS report, for every bushel of corn that is processed by an ethanol plant there's 2.8 gallons of fuel and nearly 17.5 pounds of animal feed. That is an incredible statistic to think about when you consider what we actually are attempting to produce is the fuel, and for every 56 pounds (the weight of a bushel), we only receive 2.8 gallons (approximately 23.35 pounds) of the product we are striving for and then 17.5 pounds of waste is produced, in which will ultimately need to be utilized by another industry or disposed of. That is a large amount of waste product which would possibly go unused without the livestock production industry’s intervention. When it comes to the sugar-beet industry, the molasses byproduct is a widely utilized waste. The byproduct sugar-beet molasses provides a high energy product and aids in dust control and overall palatability as well. Nearly 4-5% of the weight of every beet is produced as beet molasses waste, making a large amount of this byproduct when processed in surplus.

            One thing the world cannot claim the livestock feeding industry lacks is the flair to be resourceful. Producers have configured a way in which to use waste from other industries efficiently within their own production, which is truly remarkable. The ability to include and understand the benefits of these products adds to the sustainability of livestock production. There will always be fuel production and I don’t see the production of sugar tanking in the near future, so the waste from this industries allows for increased efficiencies across the various industries and for a relationship in which all involved benefit.

 

 

Sources:

http://southeastfarmpress.com/livestock/feed-value-ethanol-products-long-underestimated

http://www.smbsc.com/OurSugar/CoProducts.aspx

A Rhyme Behind the Reason

          A common misconception surrounding agriculture today that is fed to the general public is that farmers and producers are only concerned with quantity not quality. While we do live in a world where “more” is better, there still exists a fundamental significance when it comes to quality. The story of what we do in agriculture is often told, but how we do it and how well we do it is often untold and overlooked. As a whole we strive for quality in all aspects, quality of life for the animals involved, quality of employment for employees and producers involved in the system of food production, and quality of product for the consumer. When it all boils down, there are essentially three fundamentals of what livestock producers and those in agriculture do in order to provide both a quality product and in the most quantity feasible to stock your local grocery store’s shelves. There must be care for the animals in terms of health and well-being, feeding of the animals, and lastly harvesting of the animals.  The first fundamental principle is that of caring for the animal, foremost concern is for their health and needs, in all aspects in order to provide the best quality of life possible. Things happen that are out of your control and sometimes animals get sick or injured, so yes that involves the use of medications and antibiotics in order to nurse the animals back to health, but contrary to popular belief, animals aren’t unnecessarily given antibiotics. Antibiotics are saved for genuine health related concerns, i.e. pink eye, pneumonia, scours, etc. I mean we all know antibiotics aren’t cheap, so the use of them without rhyme or reason seems a little trivial and like a waste of money. Just as any other business, livestock producers don’t go out of their way to raise their costs pointlessly, they’re still in the business of making money at the end of the day. The second fundamental principle in simplistic terms is feeding the animals. Nutrition is one of the biggest variables in livestock production, an animal’s nutrient requirements are always changing in accordance to their stage of production and thus their diets must be continually adjusted in order to meet their plane of nutrition. Feeding the animals appropriately is critical because all other realms of production will halt if nutritional requirements are not met, hence why we feed animals to the best of our ability, for their well-being as well as in order to promote optimum growth, and usability for human consumption. The final overlying principle of what must be done in animal agriculture and production is the harvesting of the animals. A quality harvest involves limited stress on the animal and pain-free. It is critical to the quality of the end product that everything goes as planned and is absolutely sound when it comes to harvest practices.

                There are many programs available and utilized across the nation that ensure quality production from start to finish and are even species specific; including but not limited to, Beef  

Quality Assurance (BQA), Pork Quality Assurance (PQA), National Dairy FARM program, Safe Feeds Safe Food, and the Human Slaughter Act. A lack of knowledge and understanding of the programs as well as their popularity among producers creates a wall in communication between producers and consumers and deleteriously affects consumer perception. According to Beef Magazine’s Gayle Smith, “With less than 2% of the population directly involved in production agriculture, and less than 1% making a full-time living in the business, 94% of consumers have zero connection to the agricultural industry...” That’s a huge communication gap to fill and I truly believe that has to start with a mutual understanding for what we do and how we do it in order to provide reason and a picture behind everything agriculture encompasses.   

For More Information on these programs as well as others, visit: http://www.animalagalliance.org/educate/

 

Sources:

http://beefmagazine.com/beef-quality/why-bqa-needs-be-mandatory-beef-industry-program?page=2

Power in the Process

          The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations projects that in order to feed the human population in 2050, a mere 34 years away, our world food production will need to increase by 70%. A sensible solution to the anticipated food shortage is through the use of available modern technologies. One of the biggest controversies surrounding modern agriculture today is whether or not it is “sustainable” for years and generations to come. One of my favorite quotes comes from The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s executive director of global sustainability, Kim Stackhouse-Lawson, she states that “sustainability is a word that is often hijacked, it doesn’t mean totally organic. It’s about doing more with less and making continuous improvement…”  While I do believe that there is a place in the market for organic and naturally raised products and that they’re very important to offer to consumers, I want them to know that organic and naturally raised products are no safer nor are they more sustainable than conventionally raised products.

The degradation and harm to the soil from tilling, pesticides and intensification from

year to year has been brought to light within recent years. There are several solutions in order to combat the deleterious effects on soil integrity in which are growing in popularity. No-till farming and the use of cover crops has been increasingly popular and proven to be beneficial to the land when implemented properly over time. No-till farming is just as it sounds, it simply involves a lack of plowing, which allows the soil composition to remain intact and can actually lead to higher crop yields over time in comparison with conventionally raised tilled crops. Another popular movement is that of cover crops. Cover cropping involves growing an alternative harvest in between the growing season of the major crop produced on the land. Examples of popular cover crops include kale, rape, and wheat, these cover crops suppresses soil diseases and pests as well as weeds, promote active organic matter to the soil and improve soil stability. The sustainable nature of livestock production has been debated along with crop production sustainability, and as a result, the growth of all-naturally raised, grass-fed, and organic has been highly sought after by consumers. One thing many don’t consider is the time disadvantage it takes to produce niche market livestock, and thus an overall loss in efficiency. For example, the average age at harvest of a conventionally raised beef steer is around 16 months of age versus an average age of 21+ months of age for a grass-fed beef steer. The several months of difference between the two differing production systems is critical in terms of efficiency and all that surrounds it. The longer livestock take to reach market weights, the more cost you have into production with the same amount of product in the end, which in theory results in more carbon footprint per animal as well as not maximizing your potentials or in Kim Stackhouse-Lawson’s words, lacking to do more with less and thus not making continuous improvements.

All in all, the argument that modern agriculture lacks in sustainability is too casually thrown around without consideration to the bold changes that are happening every day in order to better the food production system. In order to account for the exponentially growing human population, we need modern production practices to be understood and accepted by consumers. Food production has the ability to reach the gigantic leap necessary to feed the world in 2050, but it will require the use of more modern agriculture and less niche markets due to the lag in niche market production in comparison with conventionally raised products.
      

Sources:

 https://www.populationinstitute.org/resources/populationonline/issue/1/8/
http://www.agweb.com/article/wanted-sustainable-beef-suppliers-naa-greg-henderson/
http://covercrops.cals.cornell.edu/soil-health.php
 https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/489-no-till-movement-in-us-continues-to-grow

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farm To Table Affair

The process of getting food from farm to table has grown in concern substantially over the last ten years. Increasing consumer distress over the quality, safety and overall animal well-being in which their food originates from has continued to fill the newspapers, magazines, headlines, and good ‘ol social media taglines. It is nearly impossible to log onto your Facebook today and scroll through your newsfeed without coming across some video, article, or picture suggesting that livestock producers and farmers today “shouldn’t be trusted.” The distrust in food production presently is unlike anything we have ever seen before in the United States… or is it?

Upton Sinclair’s 1905 book, “The Jungle” acted as the vehicle that put motion into getting consumers to think about where their food comes from, how it is processed and raised, as well as the safety of the overall product. The book created an uproar and filled headlines of newspapers, consumed radio broadcast conversations, and soon led to an overall policy change a mere year later. The Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 became a law much credited to the heightened awareness surrounding food safety and sanitary conditions throughout harvest facilities within the United States. ”The Jungle” in a lot of ways can be compared to that of social media today. Social media has driven a heightened concern for consumers, driving them to ask and seek to understand the “who, what, when, where, why, and how” of their food’s production. We have all seen the gruesome and disheartening animal activists videos in which expose and depict the mistreatment of animals, inadequate housing conditions, etc. Social media is a powerful tool and has proven to be highly influential when it comes to getting people to think, but the sad thing about social media is that those viral videos that swarm our newsfeeds don’t tell the whole story. There are always going to be things that go wrong in any sort of system and there is no excuse for mistreatment of animals or inadequate quality of life, but the world never wants to read about what we in the agricultural community do right. Do you ever read about the livestock producer that was up at three in the morning pulling a calf because the first calf heifer couldn’t do it alone and without his assistance the cow and calf would have died? No. The world is so obsessed with the things that occasionally go wrong and lacks to see the behind the scenes, everyday activities in which farmers and livestock producers alike do in order to care for the animals that will eventually end up on your table. Stay tuned for explanations, opinions, and some not so headlined stories from the perspective of a proud modern agriculture enthusiast.