Oprah's Vegan Week is about Food

So, the news today is, Oprah (and her staff) are going "vegan" for a week. I wonder how deeply she has thought about and researched this lifestyle? What are the thoughts/beliefs that this lifestyle is built upon? Many of the posts on this "blog sight" try to deal with this very issue. I would encourage any reader, especially, Oprah (and her staff) to spend their "vegan week" thinking about some of these posts. The foundations of "veganism" lead to a very disappointing and sad end to the human soul.

I want to discuss a claim that, "In America 1% (+/-) of the people feed everyone else plus a bunch of the rest of the world." The thought first came to me Sunday as I listened to the pastor's sermon. The text was Christ's discussion of the church being a vine and how God maintains that vine (the gospel of John chapter 15). My thought may or may not be related to the text.

John 15 (New International Version, ©2011)

John 15

The Vine and the Branches

 ¹ “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. ² He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes^[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. ³ You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. ⁴ Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.    ⁵ “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. ⁶ If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. ⁷ If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. ⁸ This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.
   ⁹ “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. ¹⁰ If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. ¹¹ I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. ¹² My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. ¹³ Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. ¹⁴ You are my friends if you do what I command. ¹⁵ I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. ¹⁶ You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. ¹⁷ This is my command: Love each other.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

My thought is that the 1% are being a little arrogant and short sighted in their claim. We in agriculture couldn't do what we do without the other 99% doing what they do. We are all dependent on each other as a society for food, fiber, and energy.

Don't we all have one very basic need in common? Food. The most basic question each of us asks, at some level, everyday is, "What is there to eat". Throughout history the strength of a society has always been determined by how well they could answer that question. Society says, "We must have food before we can do anything else." If everyone must spend all day, every day, trying to get food there is no time for education, science, philosophy, art, construction, etc.. Think of the TV show "survivor", or a PBS show about the adventurers (Doner, Greeley, Pilgrims, Jamestown, pioneers, etc.). The first job is "Find Food". The history of war usually pivots on this issue. The medieval siege was about food. Napoleon in Russia was about food. The battle for the Atlantic was about food. The Berlin airlift was about food.

In the U.S. we are blessed with a societal system that has been able to "free" enormous numbers of people from the task of "Find food" to do other things. Some, I would argue, all, of these things contribute to the production and availability of still more food. I can not think of a job field that does not impact agriculture. Manufacturing is absolutely essential for the machines. Petroleum is essential for energy, fertilizer, and chemicals. Electronics power everything. The list is endless and I can't begin to realise the connections.

The point is that we, every American, should be, and can be, involved in the answer to society's most basic question, "What is there to eat?" because we are all part of the same vine.

I am of course overlooking that part of the sermon that deals with those parts of the vine that are not helping. That would be another point for Oprah (and her staff) to ponder.

Thank you for your thought.

The Non-Christian Creed

Can't follow my Christian worldview? Here is a very bright man's attempt to follow a non-christian worldview. Borrowed from a friend:

Here is a satirical poem on modern, humanist/naturalist thinking written by Steve Turner, an English journalist.  This poem called, "Creed" is quoted in it’s entirety in Ravi Zacharais’ book, Can Man Live Without God?  I included the full text of it here.  Enjoy...
Creed
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there's something in
horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man
just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher
although we think His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.
We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.

"Chance" a post-script
If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

For further mental stimulation and spiritual reflection I included three quotes from Ravi Zacharias.  These are listed on the website: Goodreads.com
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/3577.Ravi_Zacharias
"There can be no reproach to pain unless we assume human dignity, there is no reason for restraints on pleasure unless we assume human worth, there is no legitimacy to monotony unless we assume a greater purpose to life, there is no purpose to life unless we assume design, death has no significance unless we seek what is everlasting."
— Ravi Zacharias
"I thank the Lord that, even though things were so wrong in my life here, I finally was brought to the realization of what all those struggles were about. There are some wonderful things from your painful past, things with a beauty you may not have realized at the time."
— Ravi Zacharias (Walking from East to West: God in the Shadows)
"Capturing the beauty of the conversion of the water into wine, the poet Alexander Pope said, "The conscious water saw its Master and blushed." That sublime description could be reworked to explain each one of these miracles. Was it any different in principle for a broken body to mend at the command of its Maker? Was it far-fetched for the Creator of the universe, who fashioned matter out of nothing, to multiply bread for the crowd? Was it not within the power of the One who called all the molecules into existence to interlock them that they might bear His footsteps?"
— Ravi Zacharias (Jesus Among Other Gods The Absolute Claims Of The Christian Message)

Just some more to think about.

Veganism: the moral thing to do?

People fascinate me. How they think. How they make decisions. It all intrigues me.

So I read blogs, news articles, and books. Just watching what people say and wondering why they say it.

In the world of "Animal Rights, Veganism, etc." these things can get quite interesting.

I have a Facebook "Friend" that recently was defending veganism by saying, "It is an individual's choice, you can choose what you want, but for me, veganism is the only morally and ethically reasonable choice." That statement seems fine until you think about it.

If veganism is a moral choice then isn't there one answer that would be proper for everyone? Isn't morality about doing what is right in the eyes of God? How could eating meat be morally right for one person and wrong for the next in the eyes of God. Does He play favorites? If my killing and eating one of the beautiful animals He created is morally o.k. then why not for you? The great Philosopher and thinker C.S. Lewis described morality like this.... http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/morality.htm.

The basic problem is that if we get to chose our morality then we each are our own God. If we are all gods then there is no Singular God. How sad is that?

Ethics then is what we should do based on morality. If we cannot come up with a basic morality why even worry about ethics? If we get to choose our own morality we surely get to do whatever we want.

So, as I see it, veganism is not an individual moral ethical choice. When it is pushed forward by statements that link it to morality it now becomes a religious movement that needs to questioned. What is the god that is being worshiped by veganism?

I recently was told by Wayne Pacelle, head of HSUS (the nation's leading animal rights organization), that animal agriculture is a "noble profession". At the same time he stated that his organization was working to "fundementally change people's relationship to animals" and actively promotes veganism. In my humble opinion there is only one person who can "fundamentally change" man's relationship to animals. That would be the God that created both. The God of Christianity. Until He changes that relationship, man has a stewardship responsibility toward the animals. To claim that we can change that relationship ourselves is to lift ourselves up.

 Now how does this idea of a noble profession work?

 If animal agriculture is a noble profession why does it need to be funementally changed. If fundemental change is needed then someone has been seriously mistaken for a very long time. That doesn't sound like a "noble" situation. That sounds like someone saying you have been wrong and I intend to correct you because my morality trumps yours.

That doesn't sound like veganism being a moral choice we each make. That sounds like a new morality stomping on the old. If you want to promote veganism on the strength of your morals then you need to realise you are saying to everyone else that they are immoral. You are not saying they are "noble".

Here is a link to a blog that explains, "Why I am a vegan". http://knowthankyou.wordpress.com/why-im-vegan/ I would ask you to use your high school literature training as you read this article and ask yourself some questions. What is the author's view of non-vegan's? What is the author's view of economics? What is the author's view of people that think differently? What is the author's view of the world? You get the idea.


Just more to think about.

Thanks for reading.

The Power of a Simple Thing

It is interesting to me to see the power of a simple thing.

Consider the proposed rules for the care of swine being considered by the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board. Specifically, 901:12-8-02 C2 which says that in outside housing "wallows are allowed for thermo-regulating". I am on the subcommittee that passed this language on to the full board so I have to take some of the credit/blame for this wording.

Let's think about this for a minute. The Care Board is in effect saying, "O.K. Mr. farmer person, if you house your pigs outside you may allow them to dig a hog wallow to cool themselves in the summer or warm themselves in the winter." Like any farmer person could stop a hog from doing that!

But wait. A farmer person can stop a hog from digging a wallow.

It is called a cement truck and a fence (concrete lot).

Now a whole chain of events has just started. Along with the concrete lot comes a building for shelter and something to provide water. Then some form of bedding will be needed to keep the animal comfortable. With the bedding comes a manure spreader and lice and mange. Bedding and manure spreaders mean only one thing to a farmer, work. So the building gets fancier and and more expensive with the addition of slotted floors, cooling fans, heaters, misters, etc.. Would you be surprised to learn farmers are always looking for an easier way?

Somewhere along the way the farmer realises that the pigs are healthier in these buildings. All the nasty recurring diseases that live in hog wallows have disappeared and the medicine bill has gone way down. So the farmer person says to himself, "You know what? I don't miss those hog wallows and all the work and sickness."

Here is a short video to illustrate what the farmer figured out:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DNW5agkwJ53w&h=cb7ab


 Because the buildings are expensive they have to be operated to capacity to generate income to pay for the building. Since the building likely required debt to finance it, the banker wants to know that this income is secure. So the farmer contracts with suppliers and end users to create a stable economic flow. Having created a stable economic flow (reduced risk) the farmer pretty soon figures out that if he wants to make some additional income for the family to have nice things he simply needs to build more barns.

See how this one simple thing, a hog wallow, has the power to turn an industry? If the Care Board were to ban the hog wallow, a fairly straight line exists to where the industry is today. Pigs inside, cared for by farmers, on contract to end users, in ever larger organizational structures.

If you allow hog wallows, will the industry start housing pigs outside again?

Something to think about.

I can't treat a dog like that!

My daughter got a dog this summer. That is nothing terribly important in itself. A farm girl graduates from college, moves into a house with a big fenced-in back yard in the country on a state highway, and gets a dog. No news in this story yet.

The dog is a very friendly, playful, blue tic pointer kind of mix that loves to ride in cars/trucks. The downside has been that the dog can jump out of the fenced in backyard. So Dad (that is me) built a pen with higher fences and the dog jumped out of that. So, to keep the dog and the driving public on the state highway safe we were forced to tie the dog to a chain while my daughter was at work. We didn't like it. The dog didn't like it. And apparently, the dog warden didn't like it.

You see the dog pulled his tie-out stake out of the ground, so we had to tie him to the only thing handy that he couldn't pull, a tree. It all worked pretty well while we searched for an affordable pen solution for the jumpy dog, until it rained. That is when the dog warden leapt into action. Apparently, a tree, even a big tree, isn't proper shelter for a dog in a 1/4" rain shower in the late summer. To be fair to the warden, he just gave my daughter a warning, telling her the dog needed a dog house but the point was made. In the eyes of the State of Ohio a dog can not be left outside in the rain. That would be cruel. So the dog now has a house that it won't go in, sitting next to a large tree that can't be moved. We have since fashioned a pen in the garage that has worked very nicely to keep the dog out of the rain, sun, fresh air, local traffic, and the view of he warden. Everyone is happy, accept maybe the dog.

None of this story has any value until you combine it with this piece of information from the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board recommended standards for swine (901:12-8-02 C) which says that all a pig needs for proper outdoor housing is: a tree, a wallow, and some bedding. You don't see the irony yet?

Animal rights activist argue (and consumer surveys agree) that farm animals should be cared for the same as pets. So why is it wrong to have a dog outside in the fresh air and sunshine and rain, but perfectly fine to turn a pig out with just a tree, a mud hole, and some bedding? Or to say it another way, "If the humane thing to do is bring my dog inside where he can't run and jump and enjoy the fresh air, sunshine, and rain. Then why shouldn't I be required to bring my pigs inside. Even though bringing them in denies them the ability to do what pigs do, lie in the mud, enjoy the fresh air, sunshine and rain?"

As a pig farmer I have done just what the animal rights activists seem to be saying, " I treat my pigs very much like pets." They are inside where they are safe and cared for and not exposed to the harshness of the outdoors. There are certain tradeoffs made to do this but the net result is a very well cared for pig.

The tradeoff that seems to bother people is that, inside, the pig may be housed in an individual pen that prevents it from turning around. The justification for this goes back to the nature of the pig. Just as dogs will establish a "pack" when first mixed together, pigs will fight to establish a social order. These fights can get quite rough and dangerous to the animals and there caretakers. So the solution that developed was to confine the animals individually and stop the possiblity of a fight. This would be the equivilent of not housing two dogs in the same room if you know they will fight. It actually is common sense.

Likewise, the pig is prevented from turning around for the very practical reason that it prevents the pig from filling its eating area with manure. Isn't it reasonable to expect that an animal have a clean place to eat from? I don't feed my dog in a filthy dish. Do you? So the whole arrangement is arrived at by reasonable people making trade offs for the best interest of the pig and the caretakers. I admit it is offensive to our sense of how things ought to be at first but when understood it becomes a necessary trade off. We are not offended by restricting our pets natural abilities for their own good or our convenience. Should farm animals be treated any worse?

It is something to think about.

Care Board Suggestions

As usual, the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board has been on my mind. If you don't care much about this you might want to stop reading now and go surf the web somewhere else. I am thinking this blog could get a little, as they say, "inside baseball". But hey, someone has got to think about this stuff, right?

I sit on the Livestock Care Board's swine subcommittee. In theory ideas related to swine care should start with this committee and move up to the full board. That is a nice theory that works well on paper but not so much in real life. In real life ideas just sort of arrive from wherever, maybe even this humble blog, and some find their way into consideration and some don't. Depending on the size of your, shall we say "personality", your idea may get more or less consideration. So HSUS's ideas recieve ALOT of consideration because their personality is big enough to threaten the entire government structure of the State of Ohio. The governor's office, producer groups, and the Farm Bureau all have pretty sizable personalities in this discussion as well. So you are a little niave to think that the system is going to work according to theory. It isn't. It is going to work according to politics. The great hope of Issue 2, and the consequent Livestock Care Standards Board, is to bring this political process into the public forum and open it up to more voices and ideas. This blog is my humble attempt to bring some new ideas to the conversation and maybe move it in a positive direction.

So what are the politics? Here is the situation as I see it. HSUS threatened Ohio Agriculture with a punitive ballot initiative. Ohio Agriculture, along with their friends at the State House, responded with the creation of the Livestock Care Standards Board. HSUS then threatened Ohio Agriculture with another punitive ballot initiative. The Governor's mansion responded by brokering the so called "Ohio Agreement" to keep the whole arguement off the fall ballot and push it back to the Care Board. The Care Board has been happily doing what government boards do,write regulations to regulate animal care in the state of Ohio and slowly moving toward a discussion of the "Ohio Agreement". Of course, the Care Board is also doing the other thing that government boards do; protect it's authority and declare it's independence. Therefore, the "Ohio Agreement", though it must be dealt with, has had to wait in line until after the election and has not been given front billing. But the election is over and the day is coming. Of course, now there is an entirely new personality at the governor's mansion so all the calculations have to be redone by all the other personalities.

In the middle of and as a result of all this, the swine subcommittee has forwarded to the full board recommended wording for their consideration that would turn the "Ohio Agreement" and its language (practically verbatim) into regulation. The Care Board took one look at this language and sent it back to the subcommittee. I see this as the Board wanting to put its stamp of independence on the wording, that is what Board's do. They want to appear independent. It should not be a surprise to anyone. If the Care Board accepts the "Ohio Agreement" as written, then what is the point of having the board? The Board would look like it was doing what it was told to do by whatever personalities are involved and that it really had no independence. All that sitting around talking, sometimes referred to as "watching paint dry" would be seen as a waste of time. I doubt any government board is going to go charging down that path willingly. At the end of the day, the Board wants to be able to say that they protected the consumer citizens of the state of Ohio. So what is to be done?

Here is my idea, hopefully some bigger personality will bring at least part of it to the discussion.

Instead of using the language of the "Ohio Agreement" practically verbatim why not get to the same end point by a different route? Why not say, "After this or that date no swine in the state of Ohio shall be housed for more than 50% of each productive cycle in such a way that it cannot lie down, standup, turnaround for a major portion of each day." The Board can tinker with the start dates and the time percentage. They should stick in some wording to allow agressive, injured, or compromised animals special exception.

Under this proposal, a producer has the freedom to use housing methods for the benefit of the animal and people as he best chooses within that restriction. An inspector can pretty quickly inspect a facility for compliance. Count the sows. Count the sows in the stalls. Divide. Multiply by 100 if you really follow the math proceedure. And, wahla, in compliance or out.

To address concerns about grandfathering in existing operations perhaps the establishment of a new "premise ID number" with the state of Ohio premise registry could be referred to. If you are going to build or expand in such a way that you should have a new "premise ID" then this or that rule would apply to you. I really don't know the rules on these Premise ID's but it is an idea that could be explored.

I continue to ponder how the Care Board could facilitate an open audit process of facilities so that the industry and consumers might better get to know each other and develop a greater connection. My blog posting entitled "option three please" touches on this subject. I won't repeat it here. These things would put the Care Board's stamp of independence on the discussion.

In all these suggestions I am striving to minimize regulation and thereby increase the freedoms available to the people that feed each of us and have to develop compassionate ways to get that job done. I am trying to allow the Care Board to act independently but get the parties to the "Ohio Agreement" to a similar end point. And in all things to do those things that will increase the consumer's confidence in the quality of the food that is presented to them for nourishment.

Thank you for your thought.

Can"t Sell it at Barnes and Noble

I recently attended an Animal Welfare Symposium at the Ohio State University along with several hundred other people. The Keynote speaker was Dr. Temple Grandin. For those who are unfamiliar, Dr. Grandin is a world recognized specialist in the matters of animal behavior, particularly, cattle (she is from Colorado) but also poultry and swine. She has built her reputation and expertise over a lifetime of dedicated work in the livestock industry. She has been a leader in developing affective methods of livestock handling that reduce stress and injury to people and animals. She has accomplished all this while overcoming the personal challenge of autism. She is a successful writer and has had a movie made documenting her life's work and struggles. She is a person deserving of admiration and respect.

During her keynote address and the question and answer time afterward she repeatedly proclaimed that sow gestation stalls need to be gotten rid of. Her primary defense of that statement was that, "You can't sell them to the public at Barnes and Noble in New York and come out alive."

While I can't argue with the truthfulness of the statement, I would like to unpack it just a little bit.

Earlier in the conference Charlie Arnot, from the Center For Food Integrity, had displayed a pie chart of the Roger's rules of adoption. In this chart we see that a very small percentage of people (2%) are innovators. They are free thinkers that make up their own mind and see things others don't. They are followed by a larger but still small group (16%) called early adopters. This is the group that sorts through the ideas of the innovators and choses the best ones. They are hard to move from their opinion once they settle on an idea. From there we proceed on to everyone else who adopt things at different rates. With this idea of in our mind lets go back to the statement of Dr. Grandin. "You can't sell them to the public at Barnes and Noble in New York and come out alive."

I would propose that Dr. Grandin is a classic "innovator". She realised animal handling needed to change long before anyone else. She determined what that change should look like and set her mind to it like the faces on Mt. Rushmore. If she will change her position now that it is set, I will be very amazed.

The people in line at Barnes and Noble, I would suggest, are more of the early adopter group. At least those that will see to it that you don't come out alive. There are, of course, all manner of people there in line. Controversy and hardship is what sells books and movies and Dr. Grandin can delivery the goods for both of these. So the line at Barnes and Noble represents 2% innovators + 16% early adopters = 18% of the population as far as those who are going to take action is concerned. Given this combustible mix of highly opinionated people I can see why you wouldn't sell gestation stalls and come out alive at Barnes and Noble in New York!

I am not trying to argue with Dr. Grandin's opinion of the needed demise of gestation stalls as a singular housing method. I am trying to point out that her statement about Barnes and Noble needs to be tempered with the idea that the other 82% of the population is trying to sort through these ideas and see which ones to adopt for themselves. If the housing method is banded by government or constitutional action, the 82% have just lost their right to chose. This seems terribly heavy handed and arrogant of the innovator and early adopters among us.

There is a fairly large part of the population, Mr. Arnot's chart suggests +50%, that don't know and don't care. They want safe healthy food that they can afford (period). Why should a few people feel they can take this choice away from the many? I just don't think that is reasonable.

On another note, why does this discussion of animal care come down to death threats so often? The Barnes and Noble comment is not entirely serious......I think? But there you have it. I am not sure. I know that death threats are very real to some of my friends who are attempting to stand up and push back on some of these issues. What is it in this very small group of activist people that makes them think the situation is so dire that they need to threaten people's lives. At some point they must lose their sense of proportion, and go from being innovators and early adopters to being zealots. To me this should inform the 82% that this idea doesn't need their full acceptance and support.

Thank you for your interest and thought.

recordings of the symposium are supposedly available at http://vet.osu.edu/preventive-medicine/animalwelfaresymposium

I have not yet been able to get this link to download the chart or Dr. Grandin's presentation but I am not the most gifted techy either. I raise pigs for a living.