|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Grass-fed beef producer disagrees with Gary Truitt column |
|
|
|
Dear Editor,
Your columnist Gary Truitt has done it again. He has jogged me out of my apathy and “forced” me to write you. I’ve never run into anyone who I seem to disagree with more than Gary.
He did write one column a couple of weeks ago though, that I really liked. The main point was that you should put more trust in someone who has practical experience in agriculture than someone who has just read about it. I wish Gary would have taken his own advice before he wrote his latest column.
I have been involved in cattle production in one way or another for more than 50 years - first in dairy, then in beef. I think I qualify as someone who “has dirt under his nails.”
In his column of June 24 (A difficult week for nutcases, wackos and the self-righteous, page 4), he made the mistake of attacking grass-fed beef proponents as having a “morally superior attitude.”
He also lumped them in with PETA and those who are worried about “fast food.”
When he uses tactics like this, I think he is showing his true colors as a mouthpiece for big “agri-business” interests. Why attack a small but growing segment of animal production?
Grass-fed beef and dairy producers are using their land resources in a very environmentally friendly and efficient way.
As a cow-calf beef operator in southeast Indiana, I have rolling ground. It has been used for grain production in the past to it’s great detriment. I have put it back into hay and pasture. I know there are many such farms around the country whose best use is grass-based agriculture. If we can get a fair return for our products, more marginal land will return to that kind of production.
Don’t despair Gary, we still buy a few tractors and equipment, fuel, fertilizer, seed and a limited amount of chemicals so your buddies will get their cut. Many of us are not “organic,” as such, but still don’t seek to divide farmers into different opposing camps as Gary alleges by acting “morally superior.”
Some of us are trying to provide specialty products that meet the demands of a growing number of consumers for natural foods (not necessarily “organic”) produced without adding hormones, sub-therapeutic antibiotics or growth-promoting chemicals. What could be more environmentally responsible or efficient than providing a “natural” product like beef, milk or lamb produced on marginal land not suited for grain production?
Most so-called “studies” comparing efficiency are flawed in their design because they can’t compensate for the land-use issues.
If you are blessed with well-drained, flat ground, you can do about anything with it. You can raise livestock, grain or trees, but currently the biggest returns are in grain farming.
Not so with marginal rolling ground or small broken-up tracts. They are best used for livestock grazing or trees to prevent stream pollution. That is just a responsible thing to do, not acting “morally superior.”
Gary, why is it OK for agri-business to spend millions to promote their products and methods even before they have been proven over time (remember DDT), and wrong for grass-based farmers to promote their products which use safe methods employed for generations?
You claim to be a friend to farmers, but I guess you have to be big and use the latest technology from Monsanto or Dow Chemical to get on your “friends” list.
There are some in agriculture who see this movement (grass-based production, organic farming, sustainable agriculture, etc.) as a threat. Why? What do they have to fear from fellow farmers who are producing a wholesome food that people want?
Dave Moeller
Glenwood, Ind. |
| 7/8/2009 |
|
|
|
|
