mbox-29: Confinement hog meeting

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BE1662.77A10540
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I was at a meeting Wednesday night in Three Oaks, Michigan that was =
very enlightening. It was a Michigan League of Women Voter's panel on =
confined livestock operations. I was on the panel to present the =
alternatives to confined livestock. Boy, was it an eye opener. I =
thought I would share some of the observations from the meeting.
I never realised how deep the propaganda supporting confinement =
operations was. It "should be obvious" that we have to get bigger =
because of inflation of family living expenses. No sense in considering =
production practices that lower expenses or even considering direct =
marketing to cut out some of the gouging middlemen. And by the way, =
just how big do we have to get to raise pigs for $16/cwt? And we aren't =
increasing demand for meats, so how come they failed to mention that =
every time someone doubles their herd we have to lose a farmer of equal =
size. I guess it's acceptable to not worry about losing our family =
farms that provide a strong rural community. Also, "one of the biggest =
factors in confining hogs is pigs have to be inside to produce lean =
pork". Kind of funny I have no problem raising lean hogs on pasture. =
I got a good laugh out of that argument. They also told that =
confinement animals "hardly received antibiotics and they definitely =
used less than outside operations." I don't use any antibiotics. =
However, our operation is not a bare dirt "outside" operation. Anybody =
know where to get some data to prove or disprove the increase or =
decrease in antibiotic use in hogs? Another argument was "irrigation =
combined with hog manure" (on their very sandy soils) "is very =
environmental friendly because it increases yields which increases =
nutrient removal from the soil." That one was just a little too deep =
for me. Any thoughts on the leaching potential of N comparing low =
rates and low yields without irrigation compared to higher rates and =
higher yields with irrigation? And the final argument that really =
didn't hold much water with me was "that confinement hog barns are very =
environmental responsible because they keep people from moving into an =
area and it's really the people that cause environmental damage." He =
even went as far as to say that a good sized hog barn on every square =
mile in the southern part of the state would be the best thing that =
could happen. Maybe some of the people would go away then. How is that =
for an argument?
Any thoughts on this meeting or these arguments? I'm beginning to =
come to the conclusion that its time I write a book on the corporate hog =
myths. Anybody have any suggestions on book writing?
Best wishes,
Greg
Gunthorp's Pasture-ized Pork
LaGrange, Indiana (a stones throw from Ohio & Michigan)
hey4hogs@kuntrynet.com
visit our farm at www.grassfarmer.com

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BE1662.77A10540
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I never realised how deep the = propaganda=20 supporting confinement operations was. It "should be = obvious"=20 that we have to get bigger because of inflation of family living = expenses. =20 No sense in considering production practices that lower expenses or even = considering direct marketing to cut out some of the gouging = middlemen. And=20 by the way, just how big do we have to get to raise pigs for = $16/cwt? And=20 we aren't increasing demand for meats, so how come they failed to = mention that=20 every time someone doubles their herd we have to lose a farmer of equal=20 size. I guess it's acceptable to not worry about losing our family = farms=20 that provide a strong rural community. Also, "one of the = biggest=20 factors in confining hogs is pigs have to be inside to produce lean=20 pork". Kind of funny I have no problem raising = lean hogs=20 on pasture. I got a good laugh out of that argument. They = also told=20 that confinement animals "hardly received antibiotics and they = definitely=20 used less than outside operations." I don't use any=20 antibiotics. However, our operation is not a bare dirt = "outside"=20 operation. Anybody know where to get some data to prove or = disprove=20 the increase or decrease in antibiotic use in hogs? Another = argument=20 was "irrigation combined with hog manure" (on their very = sandy=20 soils) "is very environmental friendly because it increases yields = which=20 increases nutrient removal from the soil." That one was just = a little=20 too deep for me. Any thoughts on the leaching potential of N = comparing low rates and low yields without irrigation compared to higher = rates=20 and higher yields with irrigation? And the final argument that = really=20 didn't hold much water with me was "that confinement hog barns are = very=20 environmental responsible because they keep people from moving into an = area and=20 it's really the people that cause environmental damage." He = even went=20 as far as to say that a good sized hog barn on every square mile in the = southern=20 part of the state would be the best thing that could happen. Maybe = some of=20 the people would go away then. How is that for an = argument?