I don't think it's a matter of lazy vs. hper, that is, personality types.
There's all kind of folks raising animals on pasture and on drugs. I
think it has to do with the paradigm you choose- what I call
Complimentary Agriculture, or Agribusiness.
The first is based on looking at how nature does things and the second on
maximizing profits (that's what they tell us anyway). Pasture raised is
closer to natural processes and seeks to raise healthy animals with
maximum nutritional content while confinement and drugs for growth and
problems inherent in confinement systems seeks to maximize return on
investment- for the farmer and the farm supplier.
This second part of confinement systems is really the key. The drug
companies are always looking for a way to expand markets- this is
inherent in any growth based economic system like ours. They are coming
up with new ways every day to use their products and in turn pay
extension services to act as their sales force.
So, pick a paradigm. One that seeks to prevent problems and the money and
time expense of treating them, or one that is inherently laced with
problems that we're told only buying and using the right product will
solve. I call this the hammer question. You can get up each morning and
hit yourself over the head with a hammer and than spend time and expense
on bandages, blood transfusions, MRIs and pain relievers , or leave the
hammer in the toolbox.
Working with a full toolbox on Walden Ridge
Anita Graf (Staff) wrote:
> >Profit, risk, and convenience. We are a convenience society. Its
> >a lot easier to manage with a bag of tetracycline, penicillin,
> >sulfa, tylan, lynco, etc than to build a whole system that allows
> >naturally healthy animals. Besides, who would support all the drug
> >companies? They've had us brainwashed that it is necessary for a
> >long time.
> >Best wishes,
> >Greg Gunthorp's Pasture-ized Pork(antibiotic >free of course!)
> >LaGrange, Indiana visit our farm at www.grassfarmer.com
> I just can't decide whether people are too lazy or too hyper active.
> Certainly the easiest farm practice for lazy people would be Natural
> Farming (a la Masanoba Fukuoka). Also, lazy people wouldn't have
> deforested most of the planet and filled or drained most of its
> wetlands. Seems to me, lazy people would rather put their animals on
> pasture and let them lead a more natural life that wouldn't make them
> as sick as they can get all cooped up together. Seems to me lazy
> people wouldn't waste so much valuable energy looking for a zillion
> technological solutions to problems half of which didnt' even exist
> before the advent of technology! I'm not saying that technology is
> bad or that it is inherently the opposite of time and labor saving,
> but I think it would have developed much differently in the hands of
> truly lazy people! What I'm suggesting is that maybe we are all
> just too hyper, hands-on, invasive busy-bodies who want to prove that
> we can manage the world better than God and can't stand still long
> enough to even distinguish the baby from the bathwater.
> This is just a bunch of philosophical babble, but there you have it.
> To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: