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.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Saturday, December 4, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Thanksgiving Window
I live in rural America. After our Thanksgiving feast it is often my good fortune to get to stand at the sink and wash dishes for a period of time. This holiday was no different in that regard. While I was scrubbing some pot or pan I stared out my window, across the yard, to the barren fields, to the woods on the horizon and had this thought, "You know the first Thanksgiving meal was completely organic and locally grown."
Ok, so I am a little too wired on this issue. I have heard the story of the old farmer sitting at one of the farmer meetings that are held all winter long by this or that seed company or fertilizer dealer and he says something like, "You know, when I was young all our food was "organic". You know what we had then that we don't have now? Labor!!! That was hard work and people found easier ways to live." He is right you know. Did you ever try to grow a garden? It is hard work. We have found easier ways to live.
So back to my window story. I wondered if I were a Pilgrim what would we be eating? Only what we could find out-side our window. Nuts, berries, game, were abundant then. Not so much now. I live in rural America and I would be hard pressed for food that way, much less the 98% of the country that doesn't live in rural America. What is outside their window? At best a yard. It would be a bleak Thanksgiving for everyone if we had only that for our dinner choices.
You see, as man has gone forth as he was commanded by God to do in the early chapters of Genesis, he has learned to subdue the land. He has learned ways to pull a living from the earth that is not as hard as it once was. It is still hard. The curse of sin has guaranteed that will be the case until Christ returns and reorders man's relationship with the world.
Are man's intenventions that ease this burden perfect? Absolutely not. Man is not perfect. Is the world without man's inventions perfect? No. Not as long as the curse of sin endures. Stare deeply at the natural world or just watch the National Geographic channel and you will see a world full of violence, upheaval, and uncertainty where everything is strugelling to survive. Yes, we could eat like the Pilgrim's and many of use would die from hunger. What is outside your window? Or we can accept some of the imperfections of man's inventions that produce abundant and varied food and be thankful for the grace that made it possible.
In the land of the Pilgrim's we hear the story of learning to plant corn on top of a buried fish. This made for better corn. An invention of man that made life easier. Why? Well, the fish is high in protien. Protien is high in nitrogen. Corn needs abundant nitrogen to grow. So the rotting fish was fertilizing the corn by giving off nitrogen.
Today we have invented nitrogen fertilizer as an easier and more accurate way of burying our fish. The plant is still getting its nitrogen. We have learned an easier way. I plant about 30,000 corn seeds per acre on some 600 acres every year. If I am to do it like the Pilgrim's, where do I get the fish? I might suggest we would need to drain the ocean through a screen each year to get enough fish. Man's invention has made it easier. It is still hard. It is not perfect. But there is abundant food while we learn to do better.
There is plenty of room for the critic to put forth his concerns. The work of man in fighting against the curse of sin can get pretty edgy and downright frightening. Every action has a reaction. The reaction is not always known immediately. Steps are taken that need to be reevaluated. But the struggle to invent and to find easier ways to pull a living from the earth must go on or we will surely die.
Thank you for your thoughts.
P.S. If you are unfamiliar with the Genesis story there are "click tab" resources on the right side of this blog that will help.
Ok, so I am a little too wired on this issue. I have heard the story of the old farmer sitting at one of the farmer meetings that are held all winter long by this or that seed company or fertilizer dealer and he says something like, "You know, when I was young all our food was "organic". You know what we had then that we don't have now? Labor!!! That was hard work and people found easier ways to live." He is right you know. Did you ever try to grow a garden? It is hard work. We have found easier ways to live.
So back to my window story. I wondered if I were a Pilgrim what would we be eating? Only what we could find out-side our window. Nuts, berries, game, were abundant then. Not so much now. I live in rural America and I would be hard pressed for food that way, much less the 98% of the country that doesn't live in rural America. What is outside their window? At best a yard. It would be a bleak Thanksgiving for everyone if we had only that for our dinner choices.
You see, as man has gone forth as he was commanded by God to do in the early chapters of Genesis, he has learned to subdue the land. He has learned ways to pull a living from the earth that is not as hard as it once was. It is still hard. The curse of sin has guaranteed that will be the case until Christ returns and reorders man's relationship with the world.
Are man's intenventions that ease this burden perfect? Absolutely not. Man is not perfect. Is the world without man's inventions perfect? No. Not as long as the curse of sin endures. Stare deeply at the natural world or just watch the National Geographic channel and you will see a world full of violence, upheaval, and uncertainty where everything is strugelling to survive. Yes, we could eat like the Pilgrim's and many of use would die from hunger. What is outside your window? Or we can accept some of the imperfections of man's inventions that produce abundant and varied food and be thankful for the grace that made it possible.
In the land of the Pilgrim's we hear the story of learning to plant corn on top of a buried fish. This made for better corn. An invention of man that made life easier. Why? Well, the fish is high in protien. Protien is high in nitrogen. Corn needs abundant nitrogen to grow. So the rotting fish was fertilizing the corn by giving off nitrogen.
Today we have invented nitrogen fertilizer as an easier and more accurate way of burying our fish. The plant is still getting its nitrogen. We have learned an easier way. I plant about 30,000 corn seeds per acre on some 600 acres every year. If I am to do it like the Pilgrim's, where do I get the fish? I might suggest we would need to drain the ocean through a screen each year to get enough fish. Man's invention has made it easier. It is still hard. It is not perfect. But there is abundant food while we learn to do better.
There is plenty of room for the critic to put forth his concerns. The work of man in fighting against the curse of sin can get pretty edgy and downright frightening. Every action has a reaction. The reaction is not always known immediately. Steps are taken that need to be reevaluated. But the struggle to invent and to find easier ways to pull a living from the earth must go on or we will surely die.
Thank you for your thoughts.
P.S. If you are unfamiliar with the Genesis story there are "click tab" resources on the right side of this blog that will help.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Commitment to Quality
I enjoy blogging. The idea of expressing myself to the world at large appeals to me. To be quite honest it appeals to my ego. I am a person that always has an opinion and tend to think it should be accepted by others as intelligent and thoughtful. This attitude may make me appear arrogant but it doesn't make me unique. The blogger world is full of people just like me. For this reason I am appreciative that you take the time to read my posts. Thank you.
In an effort to keep the quality of my posts to an acceptable level I am trying to only post when I have something intelligent to say on a subject that others might be interested in. Consequently, I really don't have a big post this week. It is not that I am not thinking, I most certainly am, but rather I don't want to say something that would end up making me look bad. It would hurt my ego and that would make me mad.
Here is a partial lists of topics I am thinking about:
The underlieing shift in worldviews that comes with the change in Ohio politics from a Democratic Governor to a Republican Governor and how does that affect the way goverance is done in the State of Ohio. Of course, my main focus is in the Department of Ag and the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board specifically. There is an earthquake shift happening but I am unsure what to make of it yet.
No matter the worldview of the government officials, how does that play out in the hearts of consumers. What do I make of the large group of consumers I met at the "Fabulous Food Show" in Cleveland last weekend who were absolutely not asking how food is raised. At least that was not what brought them to the show. I was amazed at the number of peole that drove 1-2 hours, to pay $8 parking and a minimum $30 admission to see "Food Network" stars and wonder around the vendors at the show. More amazing was that people with this kind of money would stop, turn around, and come back to get free recipes. Are recipes that hard to find? Is free that important? What is going on here?
How should a Christian respond to the extreme volatility in the economy right now? Does my heart get troubled easily or is my confidence in God's provision? What do my fears say about my faith?
So many questions are out there. I will eventually think of something to say. Until then, thanks for reading, and have a great Thanksgiving.
In an effort to keep the quality of my posts to an acceptable level I am trying to only post when I have something intelligent to say on a subject that others might be interested in. Consequently, I really don't have a big post this week. It is not that I am not thinking, I most certainly am, but rather I don't want to say something that would end up making me look bad. It would hurt my ego and that would make me mad.
Here is a partial lists of topics I am thinking about:
The underlieing shift in worldviews that comes with the change in Ohio politics from a Democratic Governor to a Republican Governor and how does that affect the way goverance is done in the State of Ohio. Of course, my main focus is in the Department of Ag and the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board specifically. There is an earthquake shift happening but I am unsure what to make of it yet.
No matter the worldview of the government officials, how does that play out in the hearts of consumers. What do I make of the large group of consumers I met at the "Fabulous Food Show" in Cleveland last weekend who were absolutely not asking how food is raised. At least that was not what brought them to the show. I was amazed at the number of peole that drove 1-2 hours, to pay $8 parking and a minimum $30 admission to see "Food Network" stars and wonder around the vendors at the show. More amazing was that people with this kind of money would stop, turn around, and come back to get free recipes. Are recipes that hard to find? Is free that important? What is going on here?
How should a Christian respond to the extreme volatility in the economy right now? Does my heart get troubled easily or is my confidence in God's provision? What do my fears say about my faith?
So many questions are out there. I will eventually think of something to say. Until then, thanks for reading, and have a great Thanksgiving.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Option Three Please
The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board is faced with an interesting challenge in the coming weeks. Let me attempt to describe it simply so that the challenge can be seen clearly. I see all things through the lense of a pork porducer but I think the situation is the same for other species.
The question before the Board is, "What do we do about the "Ohio agreement" with HSUS?". There are, at present, two options to chose from. Neither, appears particularly beneficial when a person stops and thinks about it very hard.
Option 1: The Board upholds the agreement, as written, and thereby ends the use of gestation stalls as a singular housing strategy by 2025 in Ohio. The off shoot of this is that sows will have to spend some part of their time in group housing environments. While there are managers and systems that can do a fine job in this environment, not everyone can do it 100% of the time. It is inevitable that when sows are housed together they will fight to establish a social order and in this fighting some are going to get chewed up pretty good. It is also inevitable that pictures of these sows will find their way into the media. These pictures could be used to discredit the Livestock Care Standards Board. I can hear it now. The voice-over audio accompaning video of two sows in a death match fight says, "This is what the Care Standards Board approves as human treatment of animals ......". This is not a good option from the Care Board's perspective, in my opinion.
Option 2: The Board disapproves/ignors the "Ohio Agreement" and thereby allows the use of gestation stalls as a singular housing method in the state of Ohio. HSUS has made it very clear this option will be met with an all out assault on the states producers through a ballot initiative. This campaign would feature every ugly thing that can be put on display and do tremendous harm to the reputation and stability of the farming community well beyond the borders of Ohio. The board would be painted as a bunch of industry hacks and a sham and be discredited in the eyes of the voters that gave it authority to deal with their concerns. It seems to me, this is not a good option from the Care Board's perspective.
It is obvious a third option is needed. A course of action that brings something new to the table that is a stretch for both the farmer and the critic. A course of action that reaches to the consumer to address his concerns in a credible and obvious way. A course of action that allows the Care Board to address the issue in a way that there is hope for it to be resolved in the future, over time, not just to continue as a point of contention into the future.
What might this option look like? How can the consumer be reached in a new way? What things are out there that stretch the producer and the critic but add value to the consumer? I am aware as a producer of a couple things that could be done. Things I am a little uncomfortable with for various reasons but that might be of interest to the consumer who is wanting more transparency and information on where food comes from and how animals are being cared for.
For example: I give farm tours from time to time. These allow people to see what is happening and to experience it, but I can't completely control the impression that is made. The same for news stories and interviews. Both stretch my comfort zone, much like my wife cleaning the house before the guests arrive. There is nothing to hide but some things don't need to be seen. I can't really control what the guests think when they leave.
I am aware that video monitoring technology is available. http://www.realpigfarm.com/ is one example. American Humane has a more advanced system I am told. Could this technology be used to "open the doors" on my operation to the consumer?
Along the "farm tour" line of thought, could groups of random consumers (a jury pool type deal) be given access to farms to fill out audit questionaires and then that data be compiled to guide and direct the industry and enforcement actions.Questions to the pool might be of the type, "Rate your perception of the condition of the animals at this farm", "Does the farm operator appear to be providing for the needs of the animals", "is the farmer making reasonable tradeoffs to advance the animal's well being?", etc. These audit results would then be used to develop a score card that farms could use for comparison and to make adjustments to increase future scores and to defend themselves from accusations.
Part of the "Ohio Agreement" discusses joint research. Could developing this audit questionaire and the data baseline be part of this research. Maybe this random consumer group would followup on complaints with ODA and provide another set of eyes and ears to the process.
These suggestions are a stretch to my comfort level and are way beyond my ability to design but they would provide the consumer with greater access to his food and it's care. The critic would be tested because the consumer might just conclude that the farmer is generally doing a stellar job and is deserving of continued support and appreciation. This would hurt the business of being a critic but should critics have a full time job?
My point in all this discussion is that there has to be an "Option 3". Somewhere there is knowledge and understanding that can be brought to bare on this challenge for the Care Board that will be beneficial. The Care Board needs to be able to chose an option that is a "good" option. Right now I only see two "bad" options being discussed. In all things the consumer and his needs must be brought front and center since without a happy and comfortable consumer things are going to keep getting worse.
Thank you for your consideration.
The question before the Board is, "What do we do about the "Ohio agreement" with HSUS?". There are, at present, two options to chose from. Neither, appears particularly beneficial when a person stops and thinks about it very hard.
Option 1: The Board upholds the agreement, as written, and thereby ends the use of gestation stalls as a singular housing strategy by 2025 in Ohio. The off shoot of this is that sows will have to spend some part of their time in group housing environments. While there are managers and systems that can do a fine job in this environment, not everyone can do it 100% of the time. It is inevitable that when sows are housed together they will fight to establish a social order and in this fighting some are going to get chewed up pretty good. It is also inevitable that pictures of these sows will find their way into the media. These pictures could be used to discredit the Livestock Care Standards Board. I can hear it now. The voice-over audio accompaning video of two sows in a death match fight says, "This is what the Care Standards Board approves as human treatment of animals ......". This is not a good option from the Care Board's perspective, in my opinion.
Option 2: The Board disapproves/ignors the "Ohio Agreement" and thereby allows the use of gestation stalls as a singular housing method in the state of Ohio. HSUS has made it very clear this option will be met with an all out assault on the states producers through a ballot initiative. This campaign would feature every ugly thing that can be put on display and do tremendous harm to the reputation and stability of the farming community well beyond the borders of Ohio. The board would be painted as a bunch of industry hacks and a sham and be discredited in the eyes of the voters that gave it authority to deal with their concerns. It seems to me, this is not a good option from the Care Board's perspective.
It is obvious a third option is needed. A course of action that brings something new to the table that is a stretch for both the farmer and the critic. A course of action that reaches to the consumer to address his concerns in a credible and obvious way. A course of action that allows the Care Board to address the issue in a way that there is hope for it to be resolved in the future, over time, not just to continue as a point of contention into the future.
What might this option look like? How can the consumer be reached in a new way? What things are out there that stretch the producer and the critic but add value to the consumer? I am aware as a producer of a couple things that could be done. Things I am a little uncomfortable with for various reasons but that might be of interest to the consumer who is wanting more transparency and information on where food comes from and how animals are being cared for.
For example: I give farm tours from time to time. These allow people to see what is happening and to experience it, but I can't completely control the impression that is made. The same for news stories and interviews. Both stretch my comfort zone, much like my wife cleaning the house before the guests arrive. There is nothing to hide but some things don't need to be seen. I can't really control what the guests think when they leave.
I am aware that video monitoring technology is available. http://www.realpigfarm.com/ is one example. American Humane has a more advanced system I am told. Could this technology be used to "open the doors" on my operation to the consumer?
Along the "farm tour" line of thought, could groups of random consumers (a jury pool type deal) be given access to farms to fill out audit questionaires and then that data be compiled to guide and direct the industry and enforcement actions.Questions to the pool might be of the type, "Rate your perception of the condition of the animals at this farm", "Does the farm operator appear to be providing for the needs of the animals", "is the farmer making reasonable tradeoffs to advance the animal's well being?", etc. These audit results would then be used to develop a score card that farms could use for comparison and to make adjustments to increase future scores and to defend themselves from accusations.
Part of the "Ohio Agreement" discusses joint research. Could developing this audit questionaire and the data baseline be part of this research. Maybe this random consumer group would followup on complaints with ODA and provide another set of eyes and ears to the process.
These suggestions are a stretch to my comfort level and are way beyond my ability to design but they would provide the consumer with greater access to his food and it's care. The critic would be tested because the consumer might just conclude that the farmer is generally doing a stellar job and is deserving of continued support and appreciation. This would hurt the business of being a critic but should critics have a full time job?
My point in all this discussion is that there has to be an "Option 3". Somewhere there is knowledge and understanding that can be brought to bare on this challenge for the Care Board that will be beneficial. The Care Board needs to be able to chose an option that is a "good" option. Right now I only see two "bad" options being discussed. In all things the consumer and his needs must be brought front and center since without a happy and comfortable consumer things are going to keep getting worse.
Thank you for your consideration.
Monday, November 1, 2010
You can vote often!
On election eve, I thought I would share how you can vote early and vote often and be perfectly legal. I, the American farmer, earn your vote everyday when you shop. Your dollars "votes" will determine the course of Agriculture into the future. So how you decide where to spend your dollars "votes" is of great interest to me and my peers everyday. So vote early and vote often!
I enjoy watching how people "vote". I have heard for years that people are becoming more and more cynical, less willing to trust anyone or thing. This seems true in my own life. I don't really trust much of anyone. The doctor? No, I internet research any major opinion he has. The government? No, this is a proven puddle of muddle. The court system? No, you are a fool not to settle before the trial, who knows what a jury will decide. The academic? No, he is doing research for his sponsor. The producer of almost anything? No, he is biased trying to protect his money. The media? No, they filter everything to fit their need. The list goes on and on.
If there is any source that seems credible it is my neighbor's and peer's. Their experiences would seem to represent an unbiased source of information, be trustworthy. The internet has given this strategy new power. With "Facebook" and "Twitter" and other social media I can get instant information from nieghbors and peers on almost any subject. "Emily's List" and others have made a business out of this very thing. If one person gives a poor comment on a product or service I will shy away, if two or three are negative I probably have serious reservations. Am I unique in this behavior? I doubt it.
The real issue is trust. Who are you going trust? (see my previous blog "worldview part 1). Without trust, our society breaks apart pretty quickly. If you don't trust anyone, you are going to live your life rushing from one thing to another. You will be constantly worried about every decision. If you can't trust those in a position to KNOW the answer, how will you ever gain security in any decision? Who will you follow? How will you feel safe? It really is a scary world to think about.
Enjoy your voting!
Thanks for your thoughts.
I enjoy watching how people "vote". I have heard for years that people are becoming more and more cynical, less willing to trust anyone or thing. This seems true in my own life. I don't really trust much of anyone. The doctor? No, I internet research any major opinion he has. The government? No, this is a proven puddle of muddle. The court system? No, you are a fool not to settle before the trial, who knows what a jury will decide. The academic? No, he is doing research for his sponsor. The producer of almost anything? No, he is biased trying to protect his money. The media? No, they filter everything to fit their need. The list goes on and on.
If there is any source that seems credible it is my neighbor's and peer's. Their experiences would seem to represent an unbiased source of information, be trustworthy. The internet has given this strategy new power. With "Facebook" and "Twitter" and other social media I can get instant information from nieghbors and peers on almost any subject. "Emily's List" and others have made a business out of this very thing. If one person gives a poor comment on a product or service I will shy away, if two or three are negative I probably have serious reservations. Am I unique in this behavior? I doubt it.
The real issue is trust. Who are you going trust? (see my previous blog "worldview part 1). Without trust, our society breaks apart pretty quickly. If you don't trust anyone, you are going to live your life rushing from one thing to another. You will be constantly worried about every decision. If you can't trust those in a position to KNOW the answer, how will you ever gain security in any decision? Who will you follow? How will you feel safe? It really is a scary world to think about.
Enjoy your voting!
Thanks for your thoughts.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Why?
Note to the reader: These comments are posted as I reflect on the tragic lose of a distant cousin in a traffic accident.
I am not young anymore, but I am not old either. I guess I am in "mid-life" by default. I have seen enough of life to know that terrible things happen without warning and that much of life "doesn't make sense". I suppose it is this lose of idealism, knowing that it may not "all work out" that causes men of my station in life to enjoy going home at night to the wife and kids. Being safe and secure out wieghs the thrill of many adventures that could be had.
Age has not dulled the inevitable question of, "Why?"
I have turned that question over countless times for this and other accidents and have come up with two answers. The long answer is, "Only God knows, and He is not telling." The short answer is, "Well, heck." Both are equally comforting and useless.
Today, I looked at the "why?" question from around the corner, so to speak. If I can't find an answer, what does it say about me that I still ask the question? That turn of thought, I believe, sheds some new light on the situation and brings forth some comfort. Let me explain.
I ask "why?" because I want life to have meaning, order, and purpose. Think of the young child who asks the same question to the point of distraction. The child is trying to find the organization, purpose, and meaning in the world he/she is getting to know. We as adults do our best to answer based on our knowledge and understanding.
The point here is that I asked, "Why?" as opposed to shrugging my shoulder or even not caring.
By asking, "Why?" I am saying, "Life should have meaning." By this simple reflex question I am rejecting the idea of a world that is created by random chance. (see my blog on creation/evolution) If we are here as the result of random chance imposed on enormous lengths of time, spread across incredible amounts of events, then what meaning could there be to life?
When I ask "Why?" I am declaring from my inmost being that life has meaning, therefore it was created with a purpose. If it was created with a purpose there must be a creator. If there is a creator, He surely has left a trail of signs in His creation that describe him. For example: A piece of pottery tells us something of the potter. Was he skilled? Did he understand form and function? Did he invest in beauty though it added nothing to function? Did He sign his name to show his pride? Theologians would yammer for hours about this under the title, "General Revelation" as opposed to "Specific Revelation" if you are interested.
Do you start to see what I saw as I "looked around the corner" at this question, "Why?"
My distant cousin's life and death had meaning because it drew me closer to the Creator (God). What greater use is there for a life than to draw yourself and others closer to God? It is the reason I write this blog. I want to help others move toward God. If I can do that, the life that has past will have meaning and many others will too. And so a tragic accident starts a ripple in the sea of humanity that will reach out to many more for years to come.
Do I know where these ripples will go? No. Do I have any control of these ripples? No. Will the ripples affect positive things in the world? Yes!
What is the purpose of man? To love, honor, and glorify God, his creator.
May you have found some encouragement in these words.
Thank you for thinking.
I am not young anymore, but I am not old either. I guess I am in "mid-life" by default. I have seen enough of life to know that terrible things happen without warning and that much of life "doesn't make sense". I suppose it is this lose of idealism, knowing that it may not "all work out" that causes men of my station in life to enjoy going home at night to the wife and kids. Being safe and secure out wieghs the thrill of many adventures that could be had.
Age has not dulled the inevitable question of, "Why?"
I have turned that question over countless times for this and other accidents and have come up with two answers. The long answer is, "Only God knows, and He is not telling." The short answer is, "Well, heck." Both are equally comforting and useless.
Today, I looked at the "why?" question from around the corner, so to speak. If I can't find an answer, what does it say about me that I still ask the question? That turn of thought, I believe, sheds some new light on the situation and brings forth some comfort. Let me explain.
I ask "why?" because I want life to have meaning, order, and purpose. Think of the young child who asks the same question to the point of distraction. The child is trying to find the organization, purpose, and meaning in the world he/she is getting to know. We as adults do our best to answer based on our knowledge and understanding.
The point here is that I asked, "Why?" as opposed to shrugging my shoulder or even not caring.
By asking, "Why?" I am saying, "Life should have meaning." By this simple reflex question I am rejecting the idea of a world that is created by random chance. (see my blog on creation/evolution) If we are here as the result of random chance imposed on enormous lengths of time, spread across incredible amounts of events, then what meaning could there be to life?
When I ask "Why?" I am declaring from my inmost being that life has meaning, therefore it was created with a purpose. If it was created with a purpose there must be a creator. If there is a creator, He surely has left a trail of signs in His creation that describe him. For example: A piece of pottery tells us something of the potter. Was he skilled? Did he understand form and function? Did he invest in beauty though it added nothing to function? Did He sign his name to show his pride? Theologians would yammer for hours about this under the title, "General Revelation" as opposed to "Specific Revelation" if you are interested.
Do you start to see what I saw as I "looked around the corner" at this question, "Why?"
My distant cousin's life and death had meaning because it drew me closer to the Creator (God). What greater use is there for a life than to draw yourself and others closer to God? It is the reason I write this blog. I want to help others move toward God. If I can do that, the life that has past will have meaning and many others will too. And so a tragic accident starts a ripple in the sea of humanity that will reach out to many more for years to come.
Do I know where these ripples will go? No. Do I have any control of these ripples? No. Will the ripples affect positive things in the world? Yes!
What is the purpose of man? To love, honor, and glorify God, his creator.
May you have found some encouragement in these words.
Thank you for thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)