Anyone see the cover article of Time this week?
 

An excellent write-up about what CAFOs are doing to us, our economy and our planet.

wonder if the auhor is amamber of HSUS, PETA, or one of those AR whacko organizations because the sensational language used in the opening paragraph smells of their stench.

He runs quotes from the Union of concerned scientists which twists stuff almost as bad as the aforementioned groups.

Somewhere in Iowa, a pig is being raised in a confined pen, packed in so tightly with other swine that their curly tails have been chopped off so they won't bite one another. To prevent him from getting sick in such close quarters, he is dosed with antibiotics. The waste produced by the pig and his thousands of pen mates on the factory farm where they live goes into manure lagoons that blanket neighboring communities with air pollution and a stomach-churning stench. He's fed on American corn that was grown with the help of government subsidies and millions of tons of chemical fertilizer.

It might be sensational, but you can't argue that it isn't true.

We might have to agree to disagree on this one. Even if we don't like or care for the author and what they stand for, the message they're sending this time is one we can agree with.

I am not a PETA fan in the least but I do not agree with the practices on Factory farms. Kind of makes me sick and Mother Nature is not pleased.

I can certainly argue that . Pigs will bite tails . They will get sick. All without being closely confined. The waste is used as fertilizer on nearby fields to replace tons of chemical fertilizers.
I would certainly question the accuracy of any story that starts ""He's raised on grass and hay and .........His meat is free......... ""and the picture shows a cow who is obviously pregnant.:cowboy:

There is no accuracy. Lots of bias.
Blaming factory farms for all the ills of the modern world.
Yes it provides cheap meat to the fast food restaraunts, but it also provides cheap meat to the grocery stores and butcher shops. Cafo's do not make you buy big macs. Cafos do not bar your way to the meat or vegetable aisles at the grocery store.
It's all the vitirol of the weenie green, and animal rights, groups (with a little dash or organic hoo hah for flavor) wrapped up in a cover that lends it credence. Trying to lay the blame at someone elses feet. It surely couldn't be peoples own choices that cause problems............

Hogs might bite each other when not in confinement; they might get sick. But when in tight confinement it's pretty much expected. As for the use of the excrement as fertilizer....sure *some* of it does get used. Who knows what happens to the rest. This is from a GAO report mentioned at http://ahungrymob.com/?p=37

While the EPA has been charged with regulating these operations, no government agency has consistent data on the number of CAFOs — or their growth — within the US. A recent Government Accounting Office report (opens .pdf) estimates that in 2002 some 12,000 large-scale feeding sites were operating, feeding and killing an estimated 890 million animals. In 1982, approximately 257 million animals were housed in 3,600 feedlots.

The excrement factor
The overriding issue facing CAFOs is waste. According to the GAO, a “large dairy farm” with 700 cows creates 16,000 tons of excrement and urine annually, about the same amount as Lake Tahoe, California, population 24,000. Taking it one step further: A “very large hog farm raising as many as 800,000 hogs” — which there are at least two in the US — could create more than 1.6 million tons of manure per year, which is more than 150 percent of excrement produced by the 1.5 million residents of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, says the GAO.

Why not use all this waste for fertilizer? The problem is, GAO concludes, that many CAFOs are concentrated in clusters around the US, making it difficult to find available cropland to fertilize. With so much manure concentrated in a single area, residents near CAFOs have long complained about the bad odor and a high concentration of flies. The CDC reports that infectious compounds from swine and poultry waste have migrated into soil and water near some CAFOs. However, the affect on human health is unknown.

Of course we can blame consumers who are too cheap and ignorant to realize what they are buying, but you can't walk into most grocery stores and buy anything but CAFO pork.

Just more twisted one side reporting. It is scary seeing this from a mainstream respected media source.

And just what would you find in most grocery stores if there were no CAFO's??:confused: And what if there were no large megafarms producing vegies, or grain using chemical fertilizer??:confused: Does anyone really believe we can feed the world organically??:confused: I contend you would see a lot of empty shelves in those grocery stores, and lots of empty bellies all around the world, including our own country.

Darn, wrote a long post and it is not here....

To sum up...."organic" is not the only alternative to "non-CAFO". There are many options in-between these two ends of a contiuum. It may not be possible for many farmers to produce "organic" products, but that does not mean that "CAFO" is the only option. Nor does it mean that "organic" is "good", or "humane".

I think there are many ways to feed this country without CAFO farming; that does not mean every farm has to be 100% sustainable. But saying that we'd starve without CAFO farms is ridiculous. To begin with, we are the fattest nation on the planet, so clearly we have more than we need; sadly we also make very unhealthy choices so we have high health care costs as a result of our food & lifestyle choices. Secondly, we *choose* to spend our money on things other than food -- how many people do you know without cable TV, cell phones, iPods, Wii or Nintendo game systems... -- these are not necessities, but consumers seem to be willing to spend our money on these items rather than food. Which is too bad for farmers, who seem far more valuable to me than an iPod.

I'm most curious why people are saying this article is "biased", "twisted", "inaccurate". What part of the article isn't accurate?

Well for starters the article cites the PEW report that has been refuted by the AVMA as biased and inaccurate. Sedcondly the article also cites a University of Michigan study tha has also been shown to misinterpret data and attibute organic yeields to non-organic production.

Jim

I only have the online version. With regard to the PEW report, I am not sure of what you are referring. The only reference to PEW I can find (unless I'm must missing it) is:

"I don't think CAFOs would be able to function as they do now without the widespread use of antibiotics," says Robert Martin, who was the executive director of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production.

Regarding the University of Michigan Study, I see:

A transition to more sustainable, smaller-scale production methods could even be possible without a loss in overall yield, as one survey from the University of Michigan suggested, but it would require far more farmworkers than we have today.

From what I can see, neither of these two references seem to skew the overall position of this article - neither one even cites any actual data; the U of Michigan reference uses the word *could* (v. *might not* when referring to sustainable yields).

The article also states that hog operations use "open lagoons". Most new farms use under building pits to store manure to store manure. This reduces the amount of water in the manure and reduces the liliehood of waterway contaminations.

The authur also criticizes the Pork Industry yet failed to cite any discussion with anyone from either the National Pork Board, National Pork Producer Association, or a pig farmer.

As usual with this type of article it is slanted against Agriculture without being objective. It fails to use facts on Manure Management plans that all large livestock producers must file and follow.

There are other issues I have with the article, but I don't have time to post them as I am headed out the door to try and save Family Pork Producers from Bankruptcy due to the state of the pork industry. If I fail to help these customers, the Author of this article will have several fewer 'CAFOS' to worry about.

Jim

Our nations obesity has more to do with boxes and wrappers then CAFOS. Every time you open a prepared box of food there is all kinds of added fats, salt, preservatives, in it to fill out the little bit of actual food in it. Then unwrap a candy bar and twist the top off of a pop bottle for a sugar rush full of calories. This nation has an obesity problem but it has more to do with the processed food we consume then the livestock being produced.

What's wrong with PETA? I thought there would be lots of members here. I know I am a proud member of "People Eating Tasty Animals".

No argument there. Cheap ingredients make cheap food, and people tend to eat too much of it when it's cheap, whether it's high fructose corn syrup in the form of soda, or cheap meat at McDonald's or the grocery store. My Price Chopper insert has: Certified Angus Beef London Broil for $1.99/lb...boneless chicken breasts $2.99/lb, and of course 12 pack of Coke (16.9 oz bottles...enough for a family of 6!) for only $2.99.

One could argue that the livestock we produce is a processed food, too...full of added fats (beef tallow) and artificial ingredients (corn, antibiotics & protein supplements).

I thought it was really interesting to look at the "What people around the world" eat piece. Americans tend to spend less on food than other industrialized nations and eat far more crap.

Yep. Pretty much my thoughts as well. Doesn't matter what the language is, the facts remain the same.
And hogs raised in confinement facilities are very different critters than hogs raised on a small-scale family farm.

very true.
And why are prepared foods so cheap? (If you've read the article you already know the answer to this one. ;) )

No it's not.
It's slanted against factory farms.

And frankly, having lived my entire life either on, or near factory farms, I'm pretty slanted against them, too!

I can't even guess how many communities in my area have nitrate warnings on the water. Why? Because of fertilizer overuse.
I'm at the top end of the beef production chain, (cow/calf) but I refuse to eat an animal that has been living in a feedlot.

Hog and chicken confinements aren't open to the public. Why? Not because they have something to hide but because they're so worried about germs. Oddly enough, hogs and chickens (not even those grown organically!) on smaller family-scale farms aren't nearly so fragile. Employees can't even walk from one barn to the next without fear of contamination!

It is true that without regular doses of antibiotics, factory farms would not be able to exist as they currently do.

The reason for Biosecurity is to protect both the animals and investment the farmer has in his livestock. The pigs in those barns are not more fragile than the pigs on smaller family farms.

Reaction to the Time fecal material
 

I knew there had to be an agenda in there somewhere. Who would have thought that? HHMMMM:bouncy:

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Jolley-...=VN-HOT_TOPICS

http://corncommentary.com/2009/08/23...g-real-really/

http://www.porkmag.com/directories.a...675&ed_id=8066

I like this one.
 

I Love Google!!!!
 

So funny to see the bias and not just in the article.
Someone posted that there are more ways than organic and factory farming...I disagree.
Even here there is only one "true" way and that is organic.
When corn is labelled as unnatural then the truth is out.
When someone asks about roundup to clear some weeds along a driveway and there are 2 pages of posts about how evil that person must be or how that person must be a factory farmer in cahoots with monsanto then the truth is out.
The organic believers leave no room for anything but organic.

Why should they be? They are private enterprises.
I have less than 100 chickens running around (on average) and I am not open to the public. My neighbor has 5, he's not open to the public. What is your point here?


LOL couldn't be from bad septic systems or improperly placed wells at all huh? Or maybe the folks next door that use Chem Lawn so they have the greenest lushest grass around? There are a lot of other sources for problems than the large farmers.

But hey, let's feed the hate.

I could have sworn my point was clear:
because they're so worried about germs. Oddly enough, hogs and chickens (not even those grown organically!) on smaller family-scale farms aren't nearly so fragile. Employees can't even walk from one barn to the next without fear of contamination!


If you've ever worked in a confinement facility you know what is involved. I'm going to guess you've never done so, though, eh?

You've obviously never even lived near a confinement facility, much less worked at one. Any passerby can read the warning sign that it's a "closed" facility for the health of the animals.
Employees are required to wear disposable suits, or at the very least disposable foot covers, depending upon facility. It's to protect the "security" of the livestock, all right. It's to keep them alive.

And rather than post a bunch of links to editorials, why not share what in particular, what they're saying that you agree with...

I don't think you really understand what you're talking about. In my part of the world, we grow massive amounts of crops. Corn, primarily. The largest "city" in my area is 9,000 people. Most are more in the 200-1000 range. Nitrates in the water is not cause by Chem Lawn. :rolleyes:
It has nothing to do with "feeding the hate."

Erin, you don't want facts. You want to believe the lies and misinformation from the Time article which is nothing more than anti-agriculture, food elitist drivel.

I have worked in and continue to work in confinement operations. It is obvious that YOU have not been inside a barn by your assumptions and comments. It is too bad that someone so anti agriculture lives in a truly agricultural area such as te Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado junction.

I am off to support Family Farms that strive to help feed the USA

I currently live, and work, on a thousand head cow/calf and yearling back-ground operation. We are attached to a large farm which raises thousands of acres of corn annually. Nearly everyone I know either farms or ranches.

We have lived on both beef feedlots, as well as buffalo. My husband has a dear friend who is head cowboy for a 10,000 head feedlot. He and his wife lived at the feedlot itself there until just recently. We visit often.

I grew up near my uncles' hog farms, and a friend of mine now runs a large hog confinement near us in eastern Colorado. I also worked for a summer at one of the largest egg producers (ie, chicken confinement) in the country.

I have spent my entire life on, or near both factory farms as well as family operations.
I assure you, I know of what I speak.


If you are truly supporting the "Family Farmer," then you shouldn't be an apologist for factory farms. :shrug:

This country's exodus from rural areas to suburbs over the past 70-80 odd years has caused a reduction in the agrarian lifestyle and has led to the creation of and increase in the number of CAFOs. Since fewer people are providing their own food they need it supplied by someone else. CAFO's exist because the market demands they exist.

While I prefer to have an intimate knowledge of where the majority of my food comes from and the methods and resources used to produce it, I recognize other peoples choice to get their food from a supermarket and would not deign to criticize it. I grew up on a small family dairy farm. The only way for that farm to survive, especially in times of dirt cheap milk prices, was to produce absolutely as much milk as possible. That meant the use of pesticides and herbicides on our crops, feeding commercially produced grain, using antibiotics in herd health practices, as well as the use of BST. At just over 100 total head of Holsteins, no one could accuse us of being a factory farm even though we incorporated some of the same practices of larger operations in order to survive. While I lament that large scale operations have forced small family operations such as the one I grew up on out of business, I realize that this is a market driven phenomenon. I do raise livestock and vegetables for my family's table. I try to do that in as healthy, sustainable and evironmentally friendly way as possible. Is it truly organic? No, but it involves pratices that I and my family are comfortable with. These practices differ from those of many other people but, as they say, variety is the spice of life.

Time magazine's goal is to sell as many copies as possible. I have no doubt that they are not above hyperbole, innuendo, and possibly outright deception in the pursuit of that goal. I also believe that some of those on the other side of the issue presented in this article engage in a little bit of these behaviors themselves. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle and a little moderation on both sides would bring us all a little closer to that truth.

:clap::goodjob: Very Good.

No, your point wasn't clear at all.
Why should a private farm of any size be open to the public? I don't care about spreading disease, that has nothing to do with the original statement of large farms not being open to the public. I don't believe anyone has the right to demand that any farm be open to the public and I would hope that even the small ones would practice some sort of bio security to help prevent the spread of disease if they allow the public to look around.
If you have as much experiece as you say you do, you would know that disease doesn't care what size the herd or flock is.

but keep on feeding the hate. Funny that you would live and work on a place that you despise so much. Are you some sort of plant for HSUS or peta?

But you are suggesting that the consumer drives the market, when in fact, the food industry itself drives the market. Sadly, for the benefit of neither farmer nor consumer. The parties that profit most in this setup are the large food processing companies.

The food industry lobbies the government and the government establishes policies that make it very difficult for farmers to make a living. Or for consumers to buy good (non-CAFO food).

It's too bad that farmers seem to believe that this type of article is an "anti-agriculture" piece because it's actually quite the opposite. Personally I'd like to see changes in USDA policies that make it easier for small farmers to make a decent living without producing "as much milk as they can" or as much corn or soybeans as possible, for rock bottom prices....which only drives the market further in the wrong direction.

"Does anyone really believe we can feed the world organically??"

How did the world get fed before ww2? This is short-sighted thinking. For the vast majority of our world's history it's food was raised as mother nature intended.
It would take a shift towards more family farms, but it can be done.
Your job involves dealing with cafo's every day. When that's all you know I guess you're not the most objective observer.

Said much better than I could have said it. The mantra was "get big, or get out" and it worked to the demise of the family farm. I might also add that the chemical companies are reaping large profits from this type of industry as well. Follow the money. The farmers are at the bottom of this "food chain".

My apologies. I should have worded it differently. I didn't realize we were going to get so hung up on semantics, rather than the actual issue.
How about, "you can't go visit a friend who works at a hog confinement."
True.
But the stress of confinement, as well as the tight quarters, makes animals more vulnerable. Any population, (of any specie, for that matter) when overcrowded, is more susceptible to disease.

I don't work on a place that I despise. My days of working at factory farms are gone. However, the very fact that I live where I do, and my friends, family and neighbors are all in this business too, means they will never be far from my figurative window...

it doesn't even have to be "organic." Just more responsible.
And really, feedlots, for one, are an American thing. How is it that other big beef countries, Australia or Argentina for example, managed for so long without them?

Sort of.

It's also artificially created by things like crop subsidies and CRP.
(Why would someone sell cropland when they can put it idle in CRP and get payments for years to come? )
It also keeps land prices higher because people can buy CRP (as one example) as an investment even if the new owner has nothing whatsoever to do with ag. (But that's a topic for another thread. lol)



Like I said, anyone who truly supports the family farmer does not support CAFOs.
The two are at odds.

I'm really kind of stunned at the idiocy of this post. Are you serious?

We're feeding a lot more people than we were before WW2. With a lot fewer farmers. No one made the farmers leave the farm. Many of them went off to war and war-time jobs. When they came back, they found other ways of making a living that were more lucerative and easier. Farming is hard work.

Define "family farm." I know a hog farm in Nebraska that's been in the family for four generations, going on five. They have expanded to probably five times their original size, taking in other "family farms" as younger members of those farm families opted to be doctors, lawyers, factory workers instead of farmers. But it's a farm, run by generations of the same family.

Do you suggest forcing people to farm? And perhaps draw a paycheck from Uncle Sam instead of actually earning a living for themselves? If so, you're living in a dream world. I won't support it and don't know many cattle producers who would.

In light of how many people would like to get into farming, but can't, I think that should be the road explored before we need to "force" anyone. lol
So far as "family farmer", generally the term refers to scale. Not ownership.

The reference to WW2 has nothing to do with farmers going off to fight the war, but the post-war retooling of munitions plants to make synthetic fertilizers. It was chemical technology that also developed poison gases (like Zyklon B) that helped scientists develop synthetic nitrogen, which has changed the way America has farmed since the 1940s.

Careful throwing around the word "idiot."

Yes, we're feeding more people than prior to WW2. But that is not the same argument. Could we feed our entire population without synthetic fertilizers....not sure....but it's not really the right question. The big industries that make a living by selling petroleum based fertilizers surely don't want us to find out.

I guess I should have said small local farms?
All I know is the industrialized food industry is not working. People are getting sicker and fatter. I'm a CCU nurse and see the health results of this trend every day at work. There have been studies showing the cardiac benefits of naturally produced beef, milk and eggs - how can I ignore that when I watch people die from cardiac disease on a regular basis?

Oh and as for your doctors and lawyers, some of them even are finding that the life they're living is not working for them. I personally know a couple of doctors who have reduced their patient loads and have started gardening or having a few animals for stress relief. I know others who are dying to find a way to do the same thing. Our lives are too hectic and stressful. Hard work with a simpler life doesn't sound bad when you're totally stressed out and can't keep up. There are a lot of people out there who would love to have a small farm if they could make a living from it. How many of the people on this board do you think would love to have a small farm instead of a homestead and be able to stay home and farm full time?

Things are starting to drift slowly towards a more natural way of life despite you naysayers :) I just hope I live to see big changes.

And since you bring up Uncle Sam, how many of the huge monoculture farms do you think would collapse without government subsidies?

You do your cause no good when you're rude and call names btw :p
And if you don't know what "before ww2" means in terms of farming, not sure you should be so vehemently responding.

You don't get to pick and choose what facts to use. YOU are the one who brought up WW2. I'll point out again that we've feeding more people, with fewer farms. And I'll add that we're probably doing it on fewer acres than before WW2.

I didn't use that word.

It (ww2) is the argument that you started. Now you want to change the subject? I doubt we could feed our population without out the use of synthetic fertilizers....but I don't want to find out that I'm right. The United States is one of the few countries in the world that still produces enough feed for it's citizens. Yes, we import stuff, but, if necessary, we could do without imported beef and kiwis.

I didn't bring up WW2, just thought I'd help clarify what changed significantly in farming at that time.

Idiocy. Idiot.

I never started this argument. I'm just pointing out that farming practices changed significantly because of the use of synthetic fertilizers, and in particular, synthetic nitrogen. For example, Hybrid and genetically engineered corn has been developed that produces more corn than ever before, which is why it can be produced so cheaply (meaning corn buyers pay farmers less for corn than ever before).

Interesting that you use the word "feed" and not "food". Either way...your data to support this claim is....?