I read the article, but I didn't see where they claimed you were 'cruel' or were engaging in some sort of animal cruelty. The article I read explained what they had concluded from the NY Times article about your farm, and presented a differing view on how parasites, disease, etc. could be treated. They might have implied that you were wrong in your thinking, but shouldn't be a grave offense.

Take the opportunity to explain how your treatments are improving the health and productivity of your livestock, how natural treatments are more effective than 'synthetic' treatments, and how you are breeding and improving livestock that are more suited to a grass-based system.

As an example, explain your cattle breeding program, how are you finding and choosing bulls that are suited to grass-finishing and how you are pairing them with cows that are suited to grass-finishing. When you explain and document your results, more and more producers will see the light and start raising their cattle on pasture.

It was pretty obviously insinuated that natural rearing of animals is cruel. The picture of the freezing cow with "natural" written above it said that. The article went on to explain that many common afflictions can be eased by antibiotics and threapeutic medicine that they would seem to be common sense.

I mean, it was an article written by a pharma company that was obviously biased to their system of raising animals. I think Tim and Liz should do less explaining and more production of good, humanely raised foods. Raising cows in a feedlot isn't humane, no matter how it is defended. The diet is not proper for them, the conditions are deplorable. I've been there; I've seen it. It's very obvious.

When a cow is created that can survive in a feedlot for the duration of a normal cow lifespan, then I'll re-evaluate my statements.

"Drovers" has even a smaller readership than the NYT (which ain't much, these days). It wouldn't surprise me if more people read your response than would actually see the original article. :-)

Stay focused. Be strong. Fear not.

Thanks for the post, Tim

I understand your standpoint on being as minimally invasive as possible in the lives of the animals, and on most points I completely agree with y'all. I do have a question about antibiotics in poultry though. We have been doing some research on birds for our own future farm and I was speaking with someone who has a fairly large population of free-range birds, and this person was telling me that if you don't administer antibiotics to "domesticated" birds (even free-range, grass fed) they will eventually become egg bound and will die from this condition. I had never heard of this and was wondering if you've ever encountered this problem in your birds; and what, if anything you're doing in order to keep your birds healthy and producing regularly? Thanks for your consideration - I really admire your commitment to slow farming.

I wish they would ask themselves question WHY are so many anti-biotics etc. necessary for animals that a century ago had pretty good survival rates without them.

Whoever wrote that article (no name provided) makes several meaningless statements like "no sufficient studies prove organic food is better than conventional".
Plus, that bogus reference to a New Mexico State 2003 study comparing two 'industrial' feedlot type farms that includes a non-documented result that proves nothing is a very, very weak argument.
Well, there are plenty of studies. And each of us can choose to accept or ignore whichever ones we like. Obviously he/she does.
Maybe we can suggest to the writer to fly to the African savannah and give antibiotics to the thousands of animals that die each year of heat exhaustion, lack of water or injuries suffered after being attacked by lions. According to the writer, Nature doesn't know what it's doing and we must intervene with FDA approved antibiotics. ALPHARMA, Inc. to the rescue!
These people miss the boat completely, they argue in favor of antibiotics but do not address the reasons of why are we becoming an antibiotic dependent society.
But if we are lucky, maybe just maybe, the African lions may enjoy an Alpharma employee for dessert!

A little unfair to state Drovers and Alpharama as looking at your operation as cruel etc... I actually browsed that article/opinion when I got the monthly and didn't even notice the part about Natures Harmony (guess that shows how much attentioned and credence to that particular piece I paid attention to. I think I would classify that particular piece as more of an editorial by Alpharama; and from reading it an obviously BIASED one. And not much suprice that a pharmacutical company would put a piece like that out. The "Natural" way directly competes with them. Drovers actually has some usefull info and fairly interesting articles in it sometimes. The publication is free Tim. Might want to give it a look see you might find some things in it interesting reading. I try and keep an open mind and when I have time like to read multiple publications for info. I got my2x 2010 Turkey deposit in today. Looking forward to a NH Turkey next Thanskgiving and Christmas are you gona have any geese?

Thanks for your work; I suppose any publicity spreads the word about what you are doing. Debate is good--right? I support you and believe in what you are doing--as do many others.

Tim,
I think the author presents a specious argument in that he compares CAFO cattle on antibiotics with other CAFO cattle without them. He even presents pictures of a diseased liver from an unmedicated CAFO cow. Conclusion, CAFO cattle do better on, and need, medication. This is completely correct. However, he has hit the bullseye of the wrong target and fails to ask the most fundamental question, which is "should we really be raising cattle this way?"

Keep up the good work.

Snobound - I'm not sure if anyone responded to you. My family had chickens when I was growing up and one of my wonderful jobs was gathering eggs :) I never saw an egg bound chicken and in fact never heard of it until recently. We had a small number of chickens just for our family and never used any antibiotics.

I think most people don't understand why farmers/ranchers give antibiotics to their livestock. The common misconception is only to keep them alive. I watch Food, inc. and I didn't think they understand why.

The short answer is money. Walmart says "save money, live better". To me that means spend less on food and necessities and have a better life. McDonald's dollar menu has changed the fast food industry. From what I have read:
Walmart sells more beef than any other grocery store. McD's sells more beef than any other fast food.

There are two main reasons you give antibiotics to livestock.

1. Therapeutic - (short version) to keep them alive.

I believe is the animal is sick we need to do everything within our power (within reason) to get them healthy from both a moral and economic standpoints. The hard truth is these animals cost us farmers money. We must pay our bills, now that being said most of us farmers don't only look at the animals as only money.

2. Sub-therapeutic - (short version) to keep the microorganisms & "flora" alive in their ruminate.

This allows the animal to breakdown more of the feed and subsequently to eat more feed allowing them to grow, faster, cheaper. These antibiotics are really inexpensive to use, and I believe that US farmers have to use sub-therapeutic if they are going to sell to the normal commodity to be profitable. In the last two years, almost everyone in the cattle business in the US has lost money. This is a very very small margin business. Most farmers I know raise animals because they love it.

Feed is the most expensive part of raising livestock whether it is grass or grain.
When we stopped using antibiotics in our feed our yearling weights dropped by 200 lbs. at the same age and same feed. That is a huge difference, about 20%.

OK, I am getting off my soapbox, here is the last thing.

Everyone who eats get to vote 3 times a day about how our food is grown. We farmers are smart enough to grow what you want, period. However we grow it for your family then understand different practices cost. True organic grown is more expensive to produce than industry standard. So vote with your purchases.

Buy Fresh, buy local.