Posts Tagged ‘animal agriculture’

Fighting moral fire with moral fire

By Heather Koehler, April 20, 2011

Dr. Wes Jamison is a professor of agriculture politics. For nearly two decades he has studied the behavioral and communications tactics of animal rights activist groups.  Now, he offers some advice for agriculture.

Dr. Jamison explains the strategy that activists use as “framing a moral issue around a common agricultural practice.”  When the non-farming public does not understand why that practice is employed, the activists’ perceived moral issue can be easy to accept. Most of agriculture understands the tactic, but how is it defending itself? Poorly, says Jamison.

According to Jamison, countering the activists by telling the farm story and backing practices with facts and science is the wrong approach. Instead, agriculture should respond with its own moral issue.

Jamison’s position makes sense, but I propose that the current strategy is not wrong – just incomplete.  Studies show that urban populations do not distrust individual farmers. They see farmers as moral, the salt of the earth. But when city and suburban residents vote on an animal welfare issue, they don’t vote for or against an individual farmer. They see it as voting for or against a system. An industry.

Yes, agriculture needs to share its story: Farmers are individuals ensuring the welfare of animals. The practices used today are responsible, and we will work for continuous improvement.

Don’t stop at telling the farm story

But we also need to move beyond that message. As Dr. Jamison suggests, we need to show the morality of eating meat and raising animals for meat. There’s a tough moral issue that needs to be discussed: It is OK to separate how you feel about your pets from how you feel about livestock. I know, because I’ve lived it.

As farm kids, my brothers and I always had a dog. The dogs had names. My brothers and I played with them. They were our pets. The farm also had cattle. We learned quickly, through experience, that playing with these animals after they grow beyond baby stage is nearly impossible. But of course we still provided for them and ensured their good health.

And when their time came, we worked in a way to minimize any suffering. Most importantly, we understood that the time would come. That’s not inhumane. That’s remembering that these animals are not human or pets. They are the wonderful animals that provide us food.

grazing-cattle_1269_Sm

Do you agree with Dr. Jamison? Is this a moral issue that animal agriculture should take on?

Heather Koehler is a farm girl turned public relations professional. Her family continues a two-century tradition of farming crops, raising steers and growing and selling produce.

Thought-leader Temple Grandin spoke. And we all listened.

By Jessi Hamilton, March 15, 2011

On a Wednesday night in March at the Armacost Museum in Grandview, Mo., Temple Grandin spoke to more than 300 people about the ways animals and humans relate. Grandin is an American doctor of animal science and professor at Colorado State University. As a person with high-functioning autism, she is also widely noted for her work in autism advocacy. The event, co-hosted by AdFarm, was in benefit of Sugar Creek Equinapy

“A decent life… a painless death.”

While her work in the field of autism is well known, in agriculture Grandin is acknowledged as a philosophical leader for animal welfare. Because of her autism, she knows the anxiety of feeling threatened by everything in her surroundings. At the event, she spoke about how human interaction affects animals. Focusing mainly on equine and dogs, she explained why some animals have certain behaviors based on fear.

Grandin’s unique perspective and knowledge have motivated her to promote humane livestock handling processes. Because of that work, many changes have been made to the way livestock is handled.

We all benefit

At the cocktail reception before Ms. Grandin spoke, AdFarm made a donation on behalf of our clients to Sugar Creek Equinapy. Sugar Creek specializes in therapeutic equine-assisted programs and has many autistic clients. Tragically, on February 20, a fire killed six of its therapeutic horses and destroyed the barn, trailer, stalls and equipment.  By supporting this cause, Temple Grandin again helped improve the relationship between animals and humans.

AdFarmer Sheridyn Greenwalt and Intervet Schering-Plough Animal Health’s Mitch Johnson at the event.

AdFarmer Sheridyn Greenwalt and Intervet Schering-Plough Animal Health’s Mitch Johnson at the event.

Comment below to share your opinion on animal advocacy in agriculture. We’re listening.

Jessi Hamilton is a writer at AdFarm. Her favorite things include words, ideas, bacon and new running shoes.

Temple Grandin to speak at AdFarm co-sponsored event

By admin, March 2, 2011

Months ago, AdFarm made arrangements to co-host a speaking engagement featuring Dr. Temple Grandin. While the event is being held today at the Armacost Museum in Grandview, Mo., the focus has changed a bit.

On February 20, a fire at Sugar Creek Equinapy killed six therapeutic horses and destroyed the barn, trailer, stalls and equipment.  Dr. Grandin, who is a renowned autism advocate and animal scientist, graciously agreed to turn the event into a fundraiser for Sugar Creek.

image courtesy of Sugar Creek Equinapy

Image courtesy of Sugar Creek Equinapy.

We are looking forward to hearing Dr Grandin speak and having the opportunity to support all that Sugar Creek Equinapy does with its horse-assisted therapy program.

Although tickets for the event are sold out, donations are greatly appreciated and can be made directly at http://sugarcreekequinapy.com/.

Be part of this great cause. To follow the event on Twitter please use the following hashtag for your tweets: #grandinkc

The Oprah effect on animal agriculture.

By admin, February 2, 2011

Who do consumers really listen to? People like Oprah.

I hate to say it, but 44 million people watch her show religiously each week. If she were to say the sun is green, people would believe that the sun is green. In 1996, when she proclaimed that she’d never eat a hamburger again, a defamation lawsuit was issued by Texas cattlemen. They said the show caused a cattle market plunge that caused them to lose $11 million. Oprah won.

February 1, 2011 – Oprah and 378 Staffers go Vegan.

I didn’t know what her show was going to be about yesterday and honestly I typically don’t care. I’m at the office at 4:00 pm CT everyday working on materials from companies who help farmers be more efficient and more profitable farmers. However, I’m also watching what’s going on via Twitter and other social media sites. Farmers, ranchers and industry people had their guns loaded and were ready to fire back at Oprah. There was an assumption that this vegan episode was going to be primarily anti-meat, anti-animal agriculture, anti-anti-anti. It didn’t help that Michael Pollan was one of her ‘expert’ guests (not a fan of modern agriculture). It turned out that the point of this show wasn’t “meat is evil”, it was to show what’s involved in a vegan lifestyle, and to encourage people to learn where their food comes from.

It pains me to give Oprah credit, but I think this show was an excellent example of how the agriculture and food industry can be transparent and educate consumers – so they’ll actually listen and believe. Cargill, the world’s largest meat processing company, opened its facility in Colorado and let the Oprah show into their processing plant – and they didn’t hide anything. On camera, however, viewers can’t feel the temperature or smell the smell of “raw meat” as Lisa Ling puts it, but viewers can see the expression on Lings face, which was pretty true to the experience – it can be an unpleasant process.

Cargill did an exceptional job describing every step in detail – true transparency with something that seems gross but is truly humane and scientific. Cargill needs to be given credit for doing something so brave, so honest, and so helpful for the entire meat and ag industry.

Watch the entire tour here:  http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Inside-a-Slaughterhouse-Video

Oprah vid image

Three things stood out for me, and I’m probably not quoting them exactly:

1) At the end, Oprah said, “Lisa went into the Cargill plant a meat eater – and after she was there – she’s still a meat eater”.

2) Michael Pollan said, “Animals are treated very well, and live happy lives. They just have 1 bad day”.

3) Veganist Kathy Freston said, “I can’t look into the animal’s eyes and see the pain and suffering” then Oprah said, “But, we watched – they don’t suffer or feel any pain”.

There have been numerous blogs about the episode already and many are positive toward animal ag. Some critics are mad that there was even a positive slant toward meat and meat processing. Farmers and ranchers are capitalizing on these conversations. Already there is a Facebook page: Oprah, Come Visit My Farm encouraging Oprah to learn and interact with true agriculture, and keep that transparency open to 44 million consumers a week – many who are completely disconnected with where their food actually comes from.

Or, they can just take Miss Vegan’s advice and eat Tofu-turkey and other meat substitutes, forever.

For me – Bring on the Meat and Potatoes please!

 

Leah Brakke is an account manager for AdFarm who has a lifetime of experience on the farm and in the agriculture industry. Leah visits with farmers and people in the industry every day.  You can follow her on Twitter at @leahjoy

Is it really about puppy mills?

By Shawna Robinson, November 9, 2010

Remy at 10 weeks 029Last week, Proposition B was passed in Missouri. The margin was a slim 3%, but it was a victory nonetheless for the Humane Society of the US (HSUS). From the point of passionate dog lovers, the news that puppy mills in the state would be banned was very positively received. It looked like a clear victory for the “good guys.”

Then I was fortunate to stumble upon the map in this article.

The urban/rural alignment of Proposition B is shocking.

It’s not that rural Missourians are pro-puppy mill. It’s just that urban Missourians on average, may not be fully aware of where HSUS funding comes from and the extent of HSUS initiatives. But are all those rural “no” counties on the map aware that recent HSUS programs in production animal agriculture have or will have profoundly negative effects on farming practices and on the quality food we’re all lucky enough to eat?

You bet they are.

For farmers, the result is far from a victory for poodles and doodles. Instead, Prop B means money and momentum that HSUS can use to further erode public confidence in our food systems and in the farmers who take great care and have great pride in the work they do. What’s worse, Prop B isn’t much different from puppy mill laws and policies already in place in MO.  And since those laws weren’t enforced, what makes anyone think the new ones will be?

Are we being misinformed?

To the urban audiences, HSUS is a savior that will “keep abandoned animals off the streets.” But in the next breath, they tell us that the average North American producer engages in “wrong” livestock rearing practices.

This is hard to wrap your head around.

With every perceived victory, there are consequences.

In the case of Prop B, almost a week later the aftershocks are being felt  by rural Missourians. The significance of this makes it hard to believe that it was NOT, in a subtle way, a misplaced attack on farmers.

Let’s hope that urban audiences don’t take this vote as an opportunity to see farms the same way the HSUS sees Puppy Mills — evil. Because that certainly isn’t true.

Do you have an opinion one way or the other about Proposition B?

Shawna Robinson is a passionate city-kid who has dedicated her career to making heroes out of farmers and helping people recognize the value of agriculture in day-to-day life. She can be reached directly at Shawna.Robinson@adfarmonline.com